I’m compiling the arguments and creating a study pages for the Rossi Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and came across this gem:
61. As early as October 2013, Defendants did not have any intention of making their requisite $89 million payment to Plaintiffs. See, e.g., Composite Ex. 9 at 117-121.
That is the Darden deposition. It struck me as odd, and so even though I hadn’t arrived to that point in the analysis (I need to do this systematically or it will take far too long), I looked it up. Rossi has contradicted his own basic argument about estoppel on the Guaranteed Performance Test, by citing this deposition this way. Continue reading “Lying liars redux”
By definition, in fact. Pseudoskeptics have their heads wedged in the opposite end, a dark place. Now, if we unwedge our heads, from whatever end, what can we see? That is what I find interesting. Continue reading “Believers have their heads wedged”
Ampenergo is often neglected in recent Planet Rossi ideation. Ampenergo was the original U.S. Licensee for Rossi technology; these people had worked with Rossi before, and I have recent information that they still “like” Rossi. After all, they invested in him, that investment was respected, and they may even have made a profit, because of IH payments to them pursuant to the License Agreement and side-agreements.
They are also investors in Industrial Heat, holding shares issued in lieu of cash payments (but they were also paid mostly in cash). All IH share holdings were converted to equity in IHHI (or repurchased). Continue reading “Amped up on Ampenergo”
I intend to go to Miami for the trial in Rossi v. Darden — if it happens, which is seeming likely, though the scope of the trial remains unclear at this point. Getting there is relatively cheap (I’ll probably take the bus), but a hotel would be expensive, I expect, unless I share a room — which is how I managed to afford ICCF-18.
This blog isn’t expensive, though it is beginning to push resource limits and I may need to start paying more for hosting.
Pacermonitor.com appears to be dysfunctional. While the Rossi v. Darden docket page claims to have been updated, it hasn’t. It ends at this point with DE 281 (May 3), while Eric Walker and I have documents up to 289 (May 6). Pacermonitor ordinarily updates at midnight, but it looks like their PACER login might be failing, and their automated access may treat a login failure as if there were no new documents.
(I contacted pacermonitor and they fixed the problem. At least for now!)
LENR-Forum.com is being spammed with a new troll: Ahlfors. “Female, Member since May 6th 2017”
Googling Ahlfors comes up with many references to Lars Ahlfors. There are other Ahlfors, but none appeared, as far as I looked, to be interested in LENR or Rossi, The probability that Ahlfors is female is very low — though not zero.
The posts are in Rossi v. Darden Developments, but are mostly off-topic there, having the most peripheral significance possible without being entirely irrelevant. One post led me to notice a filing in the supplement to the joint stipulation, a piece of evidence that Rossi has listed. That is itself entirely off-topic for the lawsuit, it would be like a criminal case that notes the alleged offender was once cited for jaywalking. Obviously, if someone could jaywalk, he could rob a bank. I’ll cover this elsewhere.
The posts are typically images, very little text if any. The images are copies of documents with supposed Great Significance, I’d guess. All posts but appear to have been made within a three-hour period. In time order, latest first, as of this writing:
Position notice for ‘startup technology company,” Chemistry lab manager. Involves hydrogen storage materials. However, the listing then is about a “Graduate Research Assistant,” Solid State Materials, North Carolina State University, Professor Paul Maggard’s lab. This is the lab. Connection with Rossi v. Darden practically invisible. However, the lab is in Raleigh, at North Carolina State University there. Maggard has published in the field of solar electric energy conversion, which would then make connections with the people behind Industrial Heat quite plausible. However, I found no evidence so far. People who spend more time and are more diligent may find something.
This appears to be a LinkedIn page for someone working at HMRI, since August 2016. This led me to the profile for Nicholas A. Renck, who worked at HMRI R&D, Inc., from December, 2015, to June, 2016.
Responsible for investigation of chemistry related aspects in development of a proprietary energy source as well as the preparation of a chemistry lab and related processes at a small start-up.
Successfully calibrated the spectral profiles of metals of interest for a SEM/EDS system without training from Brüker.
The imaged information is from this page: Josh Dickerson. The only information of interest (for any possible relationship to RvD) is the name of the employer: HMRI, Inc. The work was “characterization of materials.”
From these sources, HMRI, Inc. is involved with a “proprietary energy source.” That’s about it.
The arXiv paper is the paper by Carl-Oscar Gullström and Andrea Rossi. The significance to Rossi v. Darden is? It is common on Planet Rossi to think that anything that might be successful by Rossi would be killer evidence in the trial, which is a gross delusion. Not that Quark-X is successful. We have no reliable information about it.
a listing of the noncompetition agreement between IH and Murray (taken from joint stipulation supplement Rossi exhibits line 191) (I have not yet cross referenced these, I do not know if we have a copy of that document).
a list of LLCs that Joseph A. Murray is registered agent for. Ahlfors missed one.
A microgrid patent. Darden has been known to have an interest in microgrids. The filing is shown here.
This is all meaningless with respect to Rossi v. Darden. People in business do business. People who live in basements or under bridges think this is sinister.
There is a mental state or syndrome where the mind makes connections where normal people would see nothing related. Such people often think that if they simply show the “evidences,” others will immediately recognize the connections — or they are blind, or, worse, hostile conspirators.
Another Linked-In profile image with no member information. I could not find the original profile. If this is a real profile, job with HMRI R&D in Cary, NC, terminated because “proprietary process being moved overseas.”
This may be inconsistent with other profiles already seen. People sometimes make false statements (knowingly or unknowingly) in LinkedIn profiles. Profiles may easily be out-of-date, as well.
Two images: line 111 of the Rossi exhibits in the joint pretrial stipulation, referring to an SEC document, a little of which is shown in the next image. This is quite old news, it was discussed extensively last year. It’s meaningless. A $2.2 billion, very active, corporation, when regulations change, can make mistakes. Cherokee made an accounting error. The SEC dinged them. Cherokee made a settlement offer, which the SEC accepted, November 15, 2015. Should klaxons be sounding? As agreed, they paid a civil penalty of $100,000. That is about 0.0005% of the assets under management. That would be like me paying a nickel.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Rossi v. Darden. Apparently, though, Rossi asked Dewey Weaver a question about it, this being listed in the joint stipulation as Exhibit 8 in the Weaver deposition. That page is not included in the Rossi submission of this deposition. If this has any meaning, it is certainly obscure.
This is three images. The first is the known photo of Rossi with a wig in front of a whiteboard. The second is what could be a blurry photo of Rossi’s sleeve and a bottle of water. The third is a clear photo of the same brand of bottled water, Zephyrhills.
The point is obvious: Rossi drinks water, proving he is not a demon.
Of course, we don’t actually see him drinking. Inquiring minds want to know.
This is a Google cache of a staff page for Fabio Fabiani at Upsalla University. Fabiani is called a “researcher,” and this is in the Department of Chemistry. There is no evidence that this is the same Fabio Fabiani as was Rossi’s helper, though it would be somewhat remarkable as a coincidence if he is not. Rossi has friends at Upsalla.
The Google cache comments are in Italian, and the page was captured 20 March, 2017. The cache copy calls him a “visiting researcher.”
This has nothing to do with Rossi v. Darden Developments.
This user is wasting the time of many readers. There was a complaint.
Ahlfors,
Personally, I’d like to see you make some coherent points or arguments rather than just spamming the forum with disconnected screenshots and pictures.
Ignored.
I notice the people who upvote things like this….
IH Fanboy wrote:
Looks like Ahlfors has been digging. You might recall that AlainCo discovered that JT Vaughn might be behind HRMI R&D, Inc.
This is where I came in. Looking at this thread brought it all back. The breathless gossip, basically rumor. Dead sources. But, wait, Vessela Nikolova! never mind!
It was there that David Nygren valued IHHI at over $1 billion, by multiplying 23 million shares by $45. Nobody corrected Nygren’s error until I posted about three months later. The ordinary stock is penny stock, worth $0.01 per share par value. $45 was the approximate price per share of preferred stock, issued to the two Woodford trusts. The total value of that preferred stock was $50 million, quite precisely.
Since I started writing this, there are a few more posts:
[two images: line 210 of the Rossi evidences re “Proprietary Information Agreement – PIA No. 2011-2011 between The Boeing Company and Leonardo Corporation”, dated 4/13/2011 (before the IH/Rossi agreement, but this has IH Bates document numbers? Perhaps Boeing gave these documents to IH?), and then an excerpt of a handwritten note provided by Ampenergo, saying “Device sent to Boeing, Rossi does not know.” Which we already knew. Rossi was upset about this, as I recall, expressing it on JONP. How could anyone possibly test the device without authentic Rossi Grease?
(Well, if the IP has been transferred, they could! If not, then, of course, failure would be expected. The magic incantations would be missing.)
At least now Ahlfors gives URLs as sources, not just screenshots. Andrea Rossi was convicted, and served time in prison; what later happened is unclear to me and I’ve never seen a thorough examination of it. Mats Lewan is unclear, etc. This thread is supposedly about Rossi v. Darden developments, but Darden doesn’t make that “convicted fraudster” claim and it is irrelevant. What is this stuff doing here?
60 page paper about RU-486. No page number or clue of relevance. The image, however, shows a page, but the page number is obscured. So, searching for a name visible in the image, I find that it is page 37. Unfortunately, I cannot directly link to that because of how this paper is hosted, and it’s not worth uploading the whole thing here.
This is about Joseph Pike. See our page examining this and connecting it with present concerns.
68 page Articles of Association of IHHI. No page number or clue of relevance. However, the image shows a list of investors, and JPIH Holdings LLC is an investor in IHHI.
And this shows the Florida registration of JPIH Holdings LLC as a foreign corporation, from Delaware. The Delaware incorporation was in May, 2013, about the time IH was raising their initial cash, that allowed them to make the $10 million payment, and to begin working seriously with LENR.
The purpose here is to smear Pike and thus IH, by claiming that if Rossi might have been a criminal, so was Pike. But Pike’s offense was thirty years ago, was relatively minor, apparently, and he is not a principal in IH, not an officer, and, for the most part, an investor. His involvement with the RU-486 affair was shady, but it appears to have been fully resolved, nobody was left screaming “Fraud!”
Ahlfors’ agenda is now clear. Slimy.
Update
Ahlfors left in a huff after Allan pointed out he’d been warned and one post was deleted. (As is SOP with him, — and some other newcomers — he doesn’t link to what he is responding to.) Then, encouraged by some support, he put up a new mish-mosh:
Link to profile but not the post. It was probably this. The lack of understanding or caring about general intelligibility is quite noticeable here.
Complex systems must be shattered a bit to collect REAL data on corresponding phase spaces.
This is extremely unlikely to be Andrea Rossi. It is quite possible someone has recognized Ahlfors. So then he puts up three images, again with no sources. Hmmphh. I wrote one of them, and there is no credit. Maybe I should create a license page. It’s rude to quote people without credit. It also can be a violation of copyright law, that depends on details.
The first is from Dewey Weaver. There are links in it, but as an image, they cannot be followed, and certainly the sources can be found, but it’s tedious. Given that he could have added links in a few seconds, again, this shows his lack of care for other people, characteristic of the probably-involved developmental disorder. He is not stupid and could learn if he recognized what is missing.
The source is the member activity display for Dewey, but that may change. So the original posts are at here (May 9, 2017), and here (March 27, 2017). Ahlfors habit of posting edited screenshots conceals context, and this then makes it easier to promote some interpretation of the “data.” It’s data, all right, but cherry-picked and filtered for some appearance or other.
The second image is some text that might be an LF private message, but it could also be from many other sources. It says “8 hours ago,” then the message is:
Hej Ahlfors. Jag undrar om du skulle vilja ta kontakt direkt med mig på [blacked out].
This, then, appears to be a message to Ahlfors — at the LF account — from someone who speaks Swedish, likely, and expects if from him, maybe. It gives no clue as to Ahlfors actual identity or nationalilty or language. There is another indication, from a Google cache display, that his preferred language is Italian. Of course, perhaps Ahlfors got that image from someone like that. None of this, in isolation, is strong evidence.
And then there is a shot from here. This page, in fact, above, near the top.
LENR-Forum.com is being spammed with a new troll: Ahlfors. “Female, Member since May 6th 2017”
Googling Ahlfors comes up with many references to Lars Ahlfors. There are other Ahlfors, but none appeared, as far as I looked, to be interested in LENR or Rossi, The probability that Ahlfors is female is very low — though not zero.
The posts are in Rossi v. Darden Developments, but are mostly off-topic there, having the most peripheral significance possible without being entirely irrelevant. One post led me to notice a filing in the supplement to the joint stipulation, a piece of evidence that Rossi has listed. That is itself entirely off-topic for the lawsuit, it would be like a criminal case that notes the alleged offender was once cited for jaywalking. Obviously, if someone could jaywalk, he could rob a bank. I’ll cover this elsewhere.
What is the connection between the three images? What is the point, or is this pointless? My guess. Dewey claims Ahlfors is ele. That is a kind of critique. Ahlfors quotes someone addressing him, though this could merely be a copy of an LF PM, which would, of course, use his LF username. He might imagine that this somehow establishes his independence from ele, maybe that it’s in Swedish is imagined to amplify that. And then I have noticed Ahfors (actually, from timing, before Dewey posted that comment, his first in a long time). Aha!
Isn’t it obvious?!?!
This is how Sifferkoll thought and worked. Whatever connection could be found was taken as proof of … of … what? Large companies sometimes hire the largest law firm in the U.S. Therefore they are all controlled by a single interest! (If Cherokee were not a defendant, would IH have hired Jones Day? Maybe. They have those habits.)
Meanwhile, the flood of flabber continues. In this case, it might seem to be from the “other side.” or from the side of Haven’t a Clue. From my point of view, there are no sides and one can be terminally obtuse in favor of any position.
I don’t think there’s enough information to be forced into a negative interpretation yet. One possibility: Perlman Bajandas are just cleaning up loose ends after Annesser left, and “withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client”.
Well somebody at LENR-forum apparently doesn’t agree with you. Here is the (spam) e-mail I received:
Hello {username},
today new court documents were released, where especially document 292 “Motion to withdraw” seems to indicate significant negative developments in Rossi’s camp.
In document 292 most of Rossi’s lawyers ask the court for permission to “withdraw from this case and from further representation of Plaintiffs, Andrea Rossi”.
I got the same email. Including “{username}”. There was a little more:
For more information see the forum discussion thread:
Spamming a premature, tendentious, and likely inaccurate interpretation of this Motion just confirms that LENR-forum is biased against Rossi in favor of IH. There have been plenty of motions that could be viewed as a setback for IH, yet I was never spammed about that.
And yes, it is spam, since LENR-forum does not provide users with a way to opt-out of receiving such unsolicited notifications.
LENR-Forum is run by amateurs without wide experience in such activity. I think of the interpretation as merely clueless. LF process is quite unclear. My suspicion is that while this is signed “Your LENR Forum Team,” it is really a message from a single moderator or administrator, struck by his own imagination that the Motion to Withdraw is some sort of major “sign.”
First of all, this was obviously happening. The first sign I saw was Bernstein appearing with Annesser at a hearing, April 21. I wrote about it here. Bernstein was an associate at Silver Law Group. Annesser had moved to PBY&A, Rossi gained all those attorneys (August 16, 2016), and then Annesser, for Rossi, requested Silver Law Group be relieved (September 21). I think Ms. Silver died in October.
April 27, Annesser and Chaiken issue a notice of new address. They have clearly formed a new firm, Annesser and Chaiken. There was no mention of PBY&A in that notice, and that firm’s lawyers were not on the service list.
May 9, Bernstein appeared for Rossi, and later that day, Turner and Evans, of PBY&A, requested to be relieved. There are Forum moderators who are legally naive, and who interpreted the motion to allow withdrawal as having some accusatory edge. That is extremely unlikely. The move itself may raise eyebrows, but attorneys would never accuse former associated attorneys of misbehavior during an action, absent extremely unusual situations. I think the mod was confused by this:
2. Pursuant to Rule 4-1.16(b), Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, grounds exist for this Court to allow Undersigned Counsel’s withdraw from representing Plaintiffs.
“Grounds exist.” So a reader goes to Rule 4-1.16(b) and finds this:
(b) When Withdrawal Is Allowed.
Except as stated in subdivision (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client, or if:
(1) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer’s services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent;
(2) the client has used the lawyer’s services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;
(3) a client insists upon pursuing an objective that the lawyer considers repugnant or imprudent;
(4) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer’s services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled;
(5) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or
(6) other good cause for withdrawal exists.
To understand this, one must notice that the list of causes comes after a general permission to withdraw if it “can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client, or if:” — and then the list follows. The additional causes as listed would never be announced like this, because it could harm the client. If it were necessary to assert them, this would be done privately with the Judge.
Rather, Turner and Evans then give cause:
3. Lead counsel for the Plaintiffs have resigned from the office for Undersigned Counsel and Plaintiffs have moved with them. 4. Plaintiffs’ counsel is John Annesser, Esq., Annesser & Chaiken, PLLC, located at 2525 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 625, Coral Gables, Florida 33134.
§ 3 gives cause (which might satisfy Rule 4-1.16(a), that they must withdraw if discharged). § 4 assures the Court that Rossi will continue to have representation.
While this is food for flabber, DE 292 was one of the least significant documents to come out recently.
What this reveals is that LF allows moderators to email all members. I’m a bit uncomfortable calling this spam, but this is one example of unprofessional conduct — not surprising for a group of amateurs. Moderators are not given special privileges to give them special access to eyeballs, except with the performance of duties. The importance of this document was a moderator opinion, and it was offensive to joshg, never mind that he lives mostly on Planet Rossi. There are other examples. On the home page for the Forum, we have a banner:
LENR Forum
The Independent Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Community
Is LENR forum a community project? It displays advertising. Who decides to do that? There is a LENR community, but the vast majority of those involved with LENR do not read or participate in LENR Forum. The Forum users are a kind of community, but the Staff may include or exclude people without showing any cause, and Staff discussions are private, not disclosed, though occasionally they are mentioned.
And then at the bottom of the screen, there is a pair of buttons. [What is LENR?] and [Forum]. The “What is LENR” button goes to an article. When Barty upgraded the site in January, my guess is he decided the site needed an introductory article, so he wrote it, and featured it. Without going into details, it is a poor article, he simply isn’t well grounded in the relevant subjects. I suspect that Barty is also the one who can “spam” the members. But it might be any admin or any moderator.
That “spam” wasn’t signed, but was represented as coming from all staff.
Moderation decisions on LF are ad hoc. It is not clear that there are any restraining rules. There do not appear to be logs showing deletions or other moderator actions. (That’s also a problem with WordPress). If it’s like WordPress, there are deletions that merely hide, and there are deletions that erase the material so it is not recoverable unless there is some off-site backup. (Actually, I just checked. I could install WP Security Audit Log. What this would do is to allow monitoring administrative activity. The WMF wikis would be practically impossible without that.
Update2
All but the latest of Ahlfors’ posts have been deleted on LF. See his profile. It shows 12 posts, but only 3 remain. He has 15 likes, but only 5 show.
One user suggested an Ahlfors thread, so he could continue to compile his “evidence.” (evidence of what? Stuff happens?). Ahlfors is clearly supporting Planet Rossi, perhaps trolling (I called him a troll above, and a troll may want to create exactly what LF admin then cooperated with), but channeling this so that it does not derail more constructive conversations would be what skilled moderation would do. Skilled moderation was offered to LF, it was rejected (with no reasons given, a blank wall was presented, with the suggesting staff member somewhat in despair). It only takes one skilled moderator and some sane discussion process to infect the whole staff with sanity. And that is exactly why someone might want to stop it. The fact that a moderator who abused the privilege could be immediately suspended by any admin with rights assignment privileges is ignored. People will protest!
Yes, they will. And if everything runs on preventing squeaky wheels, the best way to prevent them is to stop moving.
Ahlfors is not banned, but deleting the content of an author is stronger — more offensive — than a ban. Moving it to the Playground, say, was the older, less dysfunctional response. There is no supervisory process visible for LF. I suspect the “rule” that (Alan?) had in mind was flooding, but response to that should be totally predictable and should cause no harm. Alan, however, follows the Absolute Truth principle. If Alan thinks it, it is Absolute Truth and everything else is stupid or vicious. Full stop.
Gaseous emissions continue on LF, as usual, but then comes something completely different, an informative description, generally neutral. I’ll add some links and then blog comments, reserving the right to be crazy-as-hell (meshu) myself. After all, posts here are a blog (translate: fun!) and may be quite opinionated. Overall, CFC is intended to be neutral, but neutral-by-inclusion (like Wikiversity) not neutral-by-exclusion (like Wikipedia).
When I can’t make up new words any more, shovel dirt in my face. This one is easy, though, a rather obvious back-formation.
The occasion is the reaction on LENR Forum to new filings related to the Motions in Limine. For those who need a program, these are motions seeking to exclude evidence as improper,perhaps likely to emotionally (and irrelevantly or deceptively) bias a jury, or as spoliated, i.e., damaged through deliberate action or carelessness when care was due.
I’ll start with a post just before the docs hit the fan, IH Fanboy wrote:
@Shane, Yeah, I agree that JMP/Rossi are for most purposes (although not technically) one and the same.
What is interesting to me is sig mentioned a lease agreement, and that he had seen it. That is new information, at least to me. And how did he gain access to it? Inquiring minds want to know, and all that.
IHFB is more or less unique on Planet Rossi in that he does acknowledge the “customer fraud.” In a new document that IHFB has not seen yet, evidence is emphasized that countersinks the screws. (None of it is particularly new, we just see a little more of the JM/JMC/JMP negotiation) that makes the “Johnson Matthey” fraud totally clear, and Rossi’s later claims about it as probable perjury. IH does not here assert all the evidence that has been shown. For example, Bass saying to Rossi that he’s not clear how to answer questions about Johnson Matthey. Where did he get the idea that Johnson Matthey was involved? He clearly has the idea that the Doral operation is a Johnson Matthey operation.
However, I don’t think IHFB is familiar with the case documents. Frankly, that’s quite understandable. I’m spending many hours a week sorting and organizing document access, and I don’t consider myself thoroughly familiar, merely more than the average bear. Continue reading “Planet Rossi Flabbergas”
@AN: You just forget, that all useful reactors were built by IH…
Rossi claimed that he built some. He claimed they worked. I.H. tested the ones he made and the ones they made. None of them worked. But, anyway, if Rossi has one that works, he can have it tested independently. If it works, I.H. will pay up. Or, if they don’t pay up, he can easily win the lawsuit by citing the independent replication. Either way it is in his interests to have the claim confirmed independently.
As is common, Wyttenbach “reminds” us of useless and possibly misleading information. I have myself stated that IH made the reactors used at Doral, but I do not recall where that information came from, it may simply be something based on RossiSays that got picked up and treated as true. There were large reactor assemblies that might be “Big Frankies” that were transported from Italy to North Carolina. Perhaps someone will point to, like, actual evidence?
However, what Jed wrote simply is not so. Evidence of independent testing, if it existed, would still be irrelevant to Rossi’s basic $89 million claim against IH. That is based on nonpayment claimed to be a breach of contract, and to that claim requires that the contract require the payment, whereas there is ample evidence that the opportunity for a GPT was missed, through deliberate refusal to approve of the Second Amendment, on the part of Ampenergo (as well as other problems). That some Rossi device, somewhere else, “worked,” perhaps, even, a truly reliable test, simply doesn’t trigger that payment unless the Agreement conditions were met, and they clearly were not.
What is being confused here is an IH statement of intention to pay if Rossi satisfies them — voluntarily –, with an idea that they must pay.
In the counterclaim, which is distinct and different, whether or not Rossi devices work could be relevant, and evidence of independent testing could be introduced, in defense of Rossi. The original Rossi claim, though, is dead in the water — and, my opinion, very likely to be thoroughly burnt toast shortly, the evidence and facts sufficient to dismiss it being clear, and not at all vague or requiring jury assessment.
What remains and what may possibly require jury review are the counterclaims, against Rossi, and including the claims against Johnson, Bass, and Fabiani. Maybe. I have not completed my review of the MSJs.
However, it does appear that some Rossi claims, signed under penalty of perjury, have been egregiously false; so a risk for him has arisen of criminal prosecution. The “Johnson Matthey” issue is the clearest. He led IH to believe that JM was the real customer behind JMC/JMP, there can be no reasonable doubt of this from Rossi’s emails, plus, of course, there is the testimony of Darden and Vaughn, plus the emails of Johnson and Bass, and then he set up conditions to discourage IH from checking through direct communication with JM. All this makes no sense unless Rossi originally brought up JM — and wanted IH to continue their (mis)understanding.
I had noticed an oddity: in the Discover hearing April 20, there was an appearance by Robert Bernstein, who is shown as a Silver Law Group attorney, and who is not listed as counsel for Rossi. Ruth Silver, the principal at SLG, has withdrawn from the case, so what was Bernstein doing there? I suspected Annesser needed some help, asked Bernstein to appear, but without Bernstein making a formal appearance in the case, as counsel for a party, (which I haven’t seen), I’m not at all sure about how that works. (Annesser is still listed as part of the SLG team. But his Linked-in profile shows this association as having ended in 2016. — and it still shows him at PBY&A. The SLG web site is obsolete.)
Actually, I just looked at Bernstein’s Linked-in page. He has been quicker to update. He is now listing himself as an associate attorney with Annesser and Chaiken PLLC. That is why he appeared at that hearing (which was after ACLaw was created as an email domain.)
So Rossi’s lawsuit has taken half the attorneys away from Silver Law Group (the least experienced ones, to be sure). Aw, Ruth, if you read this, to steal a phrase from Lenny Bruce, you betta off.
Some more comments on LF discussion:
IH Fanboy (with his misleading and perhaps trolling username) repeats himself, over and over, on certain points. Generally, he does not actually cite evidence, but sometimes we can recognize the source. It’s typically misleading.
Assuming this fascinating business comes to trial, I do hope that counsel for IH ensure that the idea that Rossi could could at any time have openly demonstrated a working eCat . . .
I’m going to break the rest of the IHFB comment into numbered sections.
[1] He did.
Not. NA means a an independently verifiable test, not merely some “demonstration” with Rossi in full control. Planet Rossi generally justifies Rossi secrecy based on his need to protect his IP from being stolen, but it is quite possible to do a black box test. It does require certain additional precautions, that’s all. (Such as running for substantially longer to rule out energy storage.)
[2.] Not only that, IH (i.e., specifically Dameron) built reactors themselves.
They did. They claim that they didn’t “work.” This must be understood, see below.
[3.] Darden (yes, the VC guy) apparently fueled them himself.
He did, and that makes complete sense.
[4.] They produced COPs upwards of 9.
Here IHFB simply assumes that Darden et al are lying. He has lost track of something — or willfully ignores it. Reactors do not “produce” COPs. COP is the result of a measurement analysis, and sane measurement includes the use of controls, etc. It is quite easy to calculate COPs that are wildly off, if measurements or analyses of them are in error. IH did “reproduce” Rossi claims, but then identified artifact; that is far more convincing as a negative replication than merely obtaining different results. It appears that when they used Rossi measurement protocols, they also got these elevated COPs.
Or Darden et al are lying, under oath. There isn’t much more room for middle ground here.
[5.] Dameron was still running them as late as January 2016 in the same building where Murray was just getting set up with his modified version of the reactor.
This is irrelevant. It is not clear what IHFB’s point is. I would expect IH to continue to test well beyond the ordinary “give-up” point. The essential point for IH is that what Rossi taught them to do doesn’t work. Whether the set of reactors under test in Doral “worked” or not is actually irrelevant to the suit: Rossi did not successfully transfer working IP with commercial value. Perhaps he waved his magic wand in Doral, applied liberal amounts of Rossi Grease. It doesn’t matter. The set-up to consider that a “GPT” was radically defective, on many grounds.
[6.] That is, until IH boxed everything up and closed shop, according to Murray, in response to the filing of the lawsuit.
Did Murray say “in response to the filing …”? This probably is based on something from the Murray deposition. You can find it on this page, which lists all deposition exhibits. As it happens, we have the entire deposition. It is 423 pages. Which one?
What appears to me is that IH finally gave up spending more money trying to validate the Rossi IP.
However, what did Murray actually say? Starting on deposition p. 102, he is talking about the Dameron tests (apparently IH wanted some independent testing internally, which makes sense.)
20· · · · A.· · Yeah, I remember he had a thermal imager, and 21· ·he kind of described it to us a little bit.· I recall 22· ·asking him to set up a test plan and test procedure and, 23· ·so we could document what was going on, and that just 24· ·fell by the wayside. 25· · · · Q.· · Did you set up a test plan and test procedure ·1· ·for your test? ·2· · · · A.· · Yes, we did. ·3· · · · Q.· · Do you know if that was produced in ·4· ·discovery? ·5· · · · A.· · I’m pretty sure it was.· We took the entire ·6· ·body of all the data and shared it.· So I would imagine ·7· ·it’s somewhere in there, test plans and test procedures. ·8· · · · Q.· · Okay.· And where is the device that you ·9· ·tested now, if you know? 10· · · · A.· · I can’t say today, but I know before we 11· ·closed up shop we took everything related to the 12· ·litigation under the direction of Jones Day and we put 13· ·it all together, and we boxed it up and we put it into 14· ·the locked facility in the back of the building.· So I’m 15· ·sure it’s all in there.
This does not state that the “closing up shop” was “in response to the lawsuit.” Rather, they simply are not like Rossi, who destroyed possible evidence (much more relevant to the lawsuit than what IH was doing privately). They followed legal advice, and it is unlikely that Rossi spoliated the evidence upon legal advice. If so, there might be an attorney in very hot water.
IHFB makes many claims without evidence, and is unreliable.
@THH. What was the claimed input power in Lugano? A figure of 800Watts comes to mind, but that’s from memory. I can get a better insulated (and smaller) reactor to 1500C on 160W. So I would thin that 800W (if I am correct) would not need to be any kind of fiddled input measurement.
Smith is being lazy (and my memory was a power increase from 800 early on to 900 W later). It’s easy to look at the Lugano report. Claimed input power was around 810 W., then increased to 904 – 923 W. Claimed temperature from their defective camera analysis was about 1260 C at the lower power input to 1410 C at the higher power input.
Smith is likely correct in that input power measurement error is unlikely in the Lugano test. COP estimated was 3.13 – 3.74, which appears well within range of the blatant calorimetry error.
It’s been claimed that using a thermal camera for calorimetry was wildly inappropriate. I’ll disagree (as did Jed Rothwell). The problem was that they misused the camera, and botched the analysis, compounded by a failure to calibrate under operating conditions (i.e., using a dummy cell at full input power). It appears that one of the shouting matches with Rossi occurred when IH pointed out to Rossi that the cell he was measuring high COP with was a dummy cell. No fuel. Oops! At that point, I suspect, Rossi concluded they were snakes. Only a snake would steal the fuel!
(I have read this dummy cell story but have not confirmed it. Perhaps someone will point to a source. We really do have a mountain of evidence, see this page where I have collected it. I have started to prepare a timeline. If anyone wants to help, please contact me!)
Sorry, but you’re wrong. Rossi can do anything he likes with the IP, so long as he doesn’t SELL items made using it in the territories already ceded to IH.
While I agree with you on this point, IH is (humorously) claiming otherwise in the suit. They think their territorial license somehow blocks Rossi globally.
Well, what Nigel wrote is substantially true, but not completely true. He cannot do “anything he likes.” In offering licenses, in other territories, IH has, from the Agreement, a right of first refusal. Hydrofusion and certain other pre-existing licensees are explicitly exempted from this.
As usual, IHFB is making things up when describing what IH “thinks.” He should get his mind-reading crystal ball fixed. They do not think what he wrote; but, hey, if they do, perhaps IHFB could quote the source, or at least give us calibration data on that crystal ball.
The bottom line here is that, no matter what IH “thinks,” Rossi could have continued to market his invention, IH could not stop that, except by matching any new offers, and could not stop him from agreeing with Hydrofusion, for one, and providing them IP, if they are still willing to talk to him.
Yes, I think the APCO inspired unable-to-substantiate-all-without-success is BS. And I think Darden and Vaughn did their best to stick to that story line in their depositions. Dewey suggested awhile back that he suspected Rossi’s team is gearing up to impeach witnesses. And it probably has something to do with deposition testimony compared to disclosed test report data.
The connection between “unable to substantiate” and APCO is a Planet Rossi trope based on the fact that an APCO consultant (later in business for himself, and who also visited the Doral Plant — or tried to, he may have been rejected, the Rossi email mentioning him and the list of visitors from IH imply that he was not allowed to visit, which would have been the first known clear violation of the Term Sheet) was on cc from the March 2016 announcement, which proves almost nothing. Darden and Vaughn would not care much about publicity, certainly not enough to perjure themselves. Darden and Vaughn are personally at very low risk here, the Rossi attempt to pierce the corporate veil is doomed, it is clearly contrary to law and precedent. However, Sigmoidal replied:
Well, not suprisingly I think your thinking is absurd, as I have implied over and over again.
But even with the extremely remotely possibilty that you are not simply seriously deceiving yourself and Rossi actually has something, there is nothing stopping him from demonstrating his high COP system, right now, this instant.
Well, if he has a high-reliability Quark-X system, nothing would actually be stopping him — other than, perhaps, his health. As to an E-Cat system, it is not at all clear that he has any devices ready to test.
This would have the effect of demolishing IH, winning the court case, awarding him over a quarter of a billion (with a ‘b’) dollars, completely destroying Darden’s reputation, opening up vast amounts of VC capital in Europe and other regions not covered by the license, result in fabulously increased quality of life for all, be the greatest discovery since fire (and that is no exaggeration), result in a virtual lock for the Nobel Prize Rossi so covets, and more.
No, it would not have that effect. First of all, the primary case is about $89 million. The “triple damages” thing is entirely separate, and a demonstration of a real device would have no effect on it, this is about a claim that Darden and Vaughn never intended to pay, and deceived Rossi about Cherokee, etc., all of which is terminally weak, with no substantial evidence having appeared other than Rossi hysteria.
Rossi already ran “demonstrations.” But let’s assume that Sigmoidal actually means rigorous independent testing by reliable experts.
“Greatest discovery since fire” is an exaggeration. Rossi did not discover LENR, nor did he discover NiH. He may have discovered a particular engineering approach, if he hasn’t been entirely a con …. but that latter possibility is looking very, very likely at this point.
No, he would not get the Nobel Prize. There is no Nobel for inventions.
However, Rossi has moved on to even better inventions. The mind boggles trying to imagine how awesome that will be!
Yes, Sigmoidal is being sarcastic, but is feeding certain tropes in doing so. Sarcasm in posts like this doesn’t come across cleanly.
But if there were any doubt, we know that a dummy reactor was measuring high COP.
Yep, according to Darden’s story, he must have known as early as January of 2014 that it was all a big scam, because a dummy reactor gave the same COP as the other reactors.
This is based on a deposition, and testimony in a deposition, unless controverted, is legally “fact.” However, what IHFB says here is a conclusion from Darden’s testimony, not the testimony. This confusion between fact and conclusions is common for IHFB — and others as well. What that testimony indicates is the possibility or probability of error in measuring COP, which has already been widely suspected. This does not prove it was “all a big scam,” though it certainly raises questions of major error.
The problem is that we have these little things called facts.
IHFB should have his mouth washed out with soap for presenting implications and imaginations as “fact.”
Such as, Darden then proceeded to secure tens of millions of outside investment over the course of the next year and a half,
If Darden had done that and then threw the money at Rossi, it would have been a major problem. Rather, Darden et al continued to investigate, and the major funding raised was used for other projects, not Rossi. IHFB has pointed again and again to the quick reaction of Woodford to the draft IH press release in March, 2016 as if it proved that Woodford was really investing in Rossi and had been deceived. It doesn’t show that at all. There was a hope, obviously, that Rossi technology would pan out and the various failures would have been fixed.
and also required everyone to leave the lab in Dec/January 2016 so that he could carefully and secretively load the scam fuel into Murray’s modified reactor. Wouldn’t want the secrets of the scam fuel to get out.
IHFB is implying that this is inconsistent, but, in fact, it is fully consistent with what we know. That fuel mixture is not “scam fuel,” it would be what Rossi disclosed in 2013, and the failed test (control showing the same apparent heat as the experimental device) does not prove “scam.” It could just as easily show that Rossi had decided to torpedo the IH effort, perhaps feeling that he had not been paid or promised enough. IH simply continued with their plan (to “crush the tests”), and the fuel details divulged by Rossi (real or scam) were kept as a closely-guarded secret. IHFB is sarcastically implying that the appearance of contradiction (in his mind) proves that Darden was lying. This is how IHFB thinks, apparently. It’s not uncommon on Planet Rossi.
Rossi’s reported reaction to that no-fuel finding demonstrates that he is definitely not a scientist. A scientist would be very interested, not angry. However, if that was a no-fuel test without telling Rossi, it would have been (1) brilliant, and (2) very likely to set him off. Rossi clearly cannot stand independent testing, and a test that might show him up, proof that they are snakes.
IHFB went on and on with preposterous claims, as the LF thread on Rossi v. Darden wanders far from the nominal topic with the full collaboration of at least one LF moderator, now over 7000 posts.
Unluckily the burden of proof is on the IH side. They signed a foolish contract…
No, in the U.S. court system the burden of proof is on Rossi. The defendant is assumed innocent. You have to show strong evidence that the test worked, I.H. knows it, and it tried to cheat Rossi. I.H. cannot be found guilty if they have a legitimate difference of opinion regarding the test results.
Jed is confusing civil with criminal liability. “Guilt” is not an issue in civil cases. A clue is that mens rea (guilty intention) is not required to find civil fraud. The basic Rossi case was a claim of breach of contract, so for a court to find liability under the contract, the elements would have to be shown. The test “working” was not actually part of the contract, this was first noticed by Planet Rossi, which thought that the case was ironclad.
Basically, test results were up to the “ERV.” That is how it was written, Wyttenback is correct about that. However, there are some problems for the Rossi claim. First of all, the Agreement was not followed in setting up the faux GPT. To allow a postponed GPT, the Second Amendment was attempted, but that failed because of Ampenergo refusal to sign, a fact that Rossi left out of his complaint. IH only claimed, in their MTD, a technical failure, missing signatures (and then the “6 cylinder unit” issue, which simply shows that the Second Amendment, never having been completely executed, was ignored (until it came time for Rossi to make his $89 million claim). Easily, IH and Rossi could have made a side-agreement, but Rossi did not attempt that, apparently. Instead, he set up a faux customer to encourage IH to give him possession of the reactors, and arranged for Penon to measure heat — all of this without mentioning “GPT.” Far from getting the signatures of “all parties” to the start of a GPT, as the Second Amendment required, had it been valid.
If Rossi and IH had clearly agreed on Doral as a GPT, and Penon as the ERV for it, Rossi’s case would have been far stronger. Yes, IH could possibly defend on various bases, and a claim of fraud would be one of these. But the initial presumption would be as the Agreement had it: the ERV report was binding. I think IH felt safe with that because the originally contemplated GPT would have been in their facility where they could observe it very closely.
There is no presumption as Jed describes in civil cases. Rather, the judge or a jury is looking for equity, and a jury decision must be unanimous — in Federal Court — and there is no presumption at law as to which party is right. A requirement for absolute proof (“beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases) could be quite unfair. The standard is merely the preponderance of the evidence, for the trier of fact (i.e., the judge or the jury in a jury trial).
(That is why O.J. Simpson could be found “not guilty” in a criminal trial for murder, but responsible for damages in a civil case.)
By the way, there is a list of all deposition exhibits, with a Table of Contents at the top, so that any deposition can be quickly found, and I’m going over it to list what pages are included in each copy. I may then create composites with all the pages we have.
On LENR Forum, Wyttenbach wrote one of his typical posts. Wyttenbach has a PhD in math, so he is likely to understand the Murray testimony — about the simulations — better than an ordinary bear. But he focuses on something that he is not highly experienced with, the human interactions, making unwarranted inferences and drawing conclusions that he’s pulling out of the air, or perhaps out of a confined, smelly, and dark space.
Hearing transcripts are available to the public 90 days after the hearings, and I just downloaded two. These give a glimpse of the attorneys in action, and also the judges.
Here is all of them that we have so far, with the judge presiding:
There are some quite interesting discussions, you get to watch attorneys make mistakes, and we find that Rossi was wearing a wig — a “piece on his head,” — December 28. Continue reading “Hearing transcripts!”
I want to add some facts concerning the questions if IH is somehow related to Cherokeefund or not, which is denied by Darden et.al.
There is no “question” about the connection of IH and Cherokee, and this was known even before Rossi v. Darden was filed, naming Cherokee as a defendant, based on a claim that Darden and Vaughn had misled Rossi, claiming that he was really dealing with Cherokee and that Industrial Heat was just a front or the like.
IH and Cherokee have not denied the “connection,” as Rends claims with no evidence, but only the claim of Cherokee ownership of and responsibility for Industrial Heat. So what happened? Continue reading “Rendsing a dead horse”
It’s been said many times on LENR Forum, and is even stated in the infamous Exhibit 5, wherein an E-cat-supplied steam pressure of 0.0 barg (by definition, atmospheric pressure) is considered impossible, because, it is claimed, the reservoir at the E-cat, into which the water returns, is open to the air, so it is also at 0.0 barg, so steam would not flow.
The contrary claim, then, is that the pressure at the condenser is below atmospheric, which would allegedly create backflow from the return, the water would not return. Something is being overlooked. Continue reading “About vacuum and steam/water circulation”
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi: In a blog has been published that the firm USQL, of Engineer Fulvio Fabiani, belongs to the same trust that owns Leonardo Corporation (Florida Energy Trust): is it true?
Andrea Rossi
April 15, 2017 at 2:05 PM
Alberto: It is totally false that the company USQL belongs, directly or indirectly, to any trust that owns any quote of Leonardo Corporation. If any blog has published this information, it must be clear that: 1- this information is false , therefore who published it is a fraudolent bloggist, probably paid to make a so blatant falsification. Should he, or she, be a journalist, for such a falsification this fraudster would have been fired. 2- this information gives the measure of the low level of the puppets 3- the ownership of USQL has been published in the deposition sworn by Eng. Fabiani, that has been disclosed in the pacemaker of the Court. The ownership of USQL is also very easy to verify in the published documents and in the public register of the USA companies:also such document has been published in Court. Clearly our foes, not having true arguments to make their case better, are now recurring to false statements. Warm Regards, A.R
In many court documents, I’ve seen recently, Rossi makes statements that other statements are false (“disputed”) when the reality is that the statements are true, as stated, but Rossi restates them to make them arguably false. There is — or was — a relationship between Florida Energy Trust and both USQL and Leonardo Corporation (Florida). In a deposition, Rossi is unclear about who owns Florida Energy Trust, but he thinks he is the sole beneficiary. The owner of Leonardo Corporation (Florida) is Florida Energy Trust, to be sure.
That is, the ownership of LC (FL) is different from LC (NH) which was owned entirely by Rossi. This then creates some problems, because LC NH was party to the Agreement, the First Amendment, and then the proposed and failed Second Amendment, and Leonardo FL, which existed from 2010 on, i.e., at the same time as LC NH was signing with Industrial Heat, has separate ownership (even if Rossi is the beneficiary). Rossi claims that NH merged into FL, but … when is unclear.
Rossi’s response to the IH Motion for Summary Judgment is completely inadequate on this. No evidence is shown of the merger. There is other evidence to review, to be sure, but …. what do I immediately find now?
First of all, Florida Energy Trust (FET) was reported as 100% owner of Leonardo Corporation for 2012. What Leonardo Corporation? The EIN is 90- 0780933. The address of the corporation is c/o Andrea Rossi, 1331 Lincoln Road, Unit 601, Miami Beach FL 33139. We know there was a $1.5 million payment to LC (NH, from the Agreement) in 2012. This is greater than the entire income of the Leonardo reporting. The return is signed by Travis, the New Hampshire accountant.
The 2013 LC return shows the same EIN, address, and FET ownership. We know there was a payment of $10 million to LC (NH?) in 2013. This is, again, much more than the entire income reported for this Leonardo. (The original return apparently claimed about $3 million in income. The amendment reduces this to less than $1 million.) There is also a deduction for “Florida taxes.” This is not conclusive but indicates a Florida corporation.
I conclude that this return is for Leonardo Florida, in spite of the accountant being in New Hampshire, and that the IH payments went into Leonardo NH. Rossi simply continued to use the same accountant for 2012. These returns do not cover the IH payments, but Rossi claims a merger, which would merge all the income and expenses as well. If so, the merger happened after 2013. It is possible there is evidence re the merger somewhere in the mountain of documents recently filed.
Then, from that 2013 return, LC Florida loaned $35,000 to USQL. It also shows an “investment” in a MW Plant of $1,248,617. Given that Rossi sold a 1 MW plant to IH in 2013, and was not known to have another, this is very odd. In any case, the $11.5 million paid as directed by Rossi did not go to LC FL, but likely to LC NH.
Now, USQL. This is their 2013 incorporation document. It shows the Registered Agent as Johnson. Yes, the same Johnson. Two Managing Members are shown: Fabio Fabiani and Florida Energy Trust. I understand that his is unusual for a managing member of an LLC to be an organization.
The office of USQL is the Rossi address above (including Unit 601)
This is a 2014 reinstatement for USQL. It still shows FET as a managing member. 2015, the same. The same Unit 601 address. The 2015 return was filed March 3, 2015. The Doral plant was in operation.
2016, however, FET is dropped, same in 2017. The 2016 report was filed February 23, 2016, and the address was changed to Unit 401. The 2017 report was filed about a week ago, still with the same address, Unit 401, though Fabiani is known to now be living in Russia. Johnson is still the registered agent.
Now, what Rossi wrote. It’s more or less correct, as to the present state, perhaps, but it is the “less correct” that is something so common with Rossi. From his vehement denial one would think that there was no connection between FET and USQL. However, there was a connection. It was dropped at about the time of the end of the GPT.
What happened to the $35,000 that LC (FL) loaned to USQL? The Leonardo tax returns we have — which may not be all the “Leonardo” returns — contain numerous red flags that I’d expect an IRS auditor to be interested in, and this question about USQL is of some small interest.
Not a large interest. Why Rossi didn’t just say the truth could remain a mystery, except that deceptive claims that are in some way true seem to be SOP for him. A simple response would have been “At one time, FET was a manager of USQL, along with Fabio. That was dropped in March, 2016.”
However, around this time, Fabiani’s equipment — his computer and electronics — was thrown outside at the Plant, Fabiani retrieved it from the trash. He writes to Murray, shortly, that Rossi thinks he is a spy. He’s lost his job. When Rossi filed the lawsuit, I think he saw the train coming down the track, and got out of town, even though he is still using the condo as address (apparently, it’s owned by Rossi). He is more or less screwed, but I hope that he saved enough to see him through.
Fabiani was a friend of Rossi’s wife. That’s how he got involved. He seems to have remained loyal to Rossi, and it is not clear whether or not he knew about the frauds. I think his Lewan interview that I previously reported on was sincere.
Rossi is paranoid, hair-trigger reactive. Someone on a blog mentions an obsolete fact — I had seen this and may even have repeated it, though I was not the source — and he starts frothing at the mouth.
The December 2015 letter from Annesser, Andrea Rossi’s attorney, to IH counsel Jones Day, I find of high interest. Instead of attempting to negotiate a settlement of a rapidly-escalating dispute, Annesser fanned the flames.
He was, it’s true, advocating Rossi’s positions, but including Rossi’s gross misunderstandings and errors, and apparently not doing his own due diligence.
It appears that Annesser either did not understand the issues or was unwilling to distinguish between fact and interpretation. He treats the Rossi opinions and claims as established fact, and the IH opinions and claims as “disengenuous.” He pretends that matters are completely clear but, when it comes time to establish fact with sworn testimony and documentary evidence, are thin to non-existent.
It was always a puzzle, as soon as we saw the Complaint, why there was no allegation of the Second Amendment required written acceptance of the start date of the GPT, but only vague and indirect evidence, such as participation of Darden in reviewing the test plans of Penon. We did not learn until recently that Ampenergo never signed the undated Second Amendment, something that was obvious from the document included with the Annesser letter.
I had wondered if Annesser had noticed the problem. I also wondered if Annesser had accidentally included the Johnson OFAC document with the License Agreement, which revealed the customer identity. The lawsuit, and Annesser responses to the IH Motion to Dismiss, showed me that this was not a sophisticated attorney; rather, he was more like a hired thug, whose job was to attempt to intimidate the opposition.
So, anyway, here is a paragraph by paragraph analysis of that letter.
Page 1, paragraph 1, terms the IH claims “misstatements.” The difference is one of interpretation, and the fact here is that IH’s interpretation of facts differed from Rossi’s. Calling them misstatements rather than variant intepretations was slighly pugnacious; I personally wonder if Annesser understood the issues, or if he was merely proceeding based on Rossi’s rants. (We get to see Rossi Rant in some of his depositions.)
Paragraph 2 “There is no merit whatsoever” simply denies the IH position, ostensibly about the ERV and the GPT, confusing the use of Penon as an Engineer Responsible for Validation, who could be engaged for such entirely distinct from a “Guaranteed Performance Test.” A case may be made, it’s reasonable, that IH either directly supported or allowed Penon to be “engaged.” The legal question, what we used to call ages ago the $64,000 Question — it is now more than $64 million — is whether or not the power installation is a GPT. In all the documents asserted by Annesser, now, there is no evidence that Darden or IH ever accepted Doral as a “GPT,” and certainly they did not do so as a written consent. The strongest comment I have seen so far, dug up from an email to a Texas Instruments engineer, was a reference to the upcoming plant move as being a long-term test, required of Rossi. Required for what, though, was unclear. There are reasons for an agreement to specific written agreement, it is precisely to avoid controversies like this.
Page 2, Paragraph 3. Contrary to Annesser’s assertion, there is no assumption that the ERV is the same for both tests. The way the Agreement was written, there is the possibility of a continuation, it seems to be a default; however, the Second Amendment, allowing postponing the GPT, covered this with the requirement for written agreement on the start date. Any party could decline to sign, thus requiring further negotiation — and that withholding of agreement could potentially be for any reason. Because of this, many on Planet Rossi have claimed that the Agreement was unfair to Rossi; however, if IH, as an example, had unfairly defeated the purpose of the Agreement by unreasonably withholding consent, the matter could have been arbitrated or adjudicated before starting a “GPT” without a clear agreement.
It is common for business agreements to be unclear in ways that can lead to difficulties later, if the parties cease cooperation. What is apparent is that Rossi, before the December letter, had ceased cooperation, and Annesser apparently does not recognize this; at the same time, Annesser was supporting the refusal of access to the Doral Plant by IH as specifically requested, as allowed per the Term Sheet that Rossi and Johnson had signed. By refusing access, Rossi was effectively guaranteeing that IH would not accept the “ERV Report.”
It appears from documents that, while IH considered that the time had passed for the agreed GPT, they were still willing to pay for performance, but this would clearly mean “performance satisfactory to them.” Rossi did not seem to understand the importance of that, but was attempting to force IH to pay even if the conditions created by Rossi behavior made it impossible for them to raise the funds to pay. A good attorney would have explained this to Rossi and would have negotiated with Jones Day, especially in determining the basis for the Jones Day positions.
Paragraph 4. Annesser quotes the “agreed to in writing between the parties” clause, but, remarkably, does not point to or claim any written agreement on the start date. And he refers to the attached Second Amendment, which is not “agreed to in writing between the parties.” Did he notice what was missing?
Paragraph 5 has it that agreement was “unambiguous and clear that the current testing is, and always has been, being conducted as the Guaranteed Performance validation. Any claim to the contrary by your clients is disengenuous.”
For something allegedly unambiguous and clear, hard evidence has been elusive. By taking a pugnacious stance, with this mail, Annesser was sealing the rupture between Industrial Heat and Rossi. It may have been inevitable, if Rossi has been a fraud from the beginning, but if Rossi was not a fraud, the Annesser intervention probably guaranteed that Rossi would never again be able to raise substantial funding. No sane investor would risk it. And if Rossi really had something, a good attorney would have encouraged and facilitated finding ways to show that, to enable IH to raise the funding needed to pay Rossi and continue development. It’s obvious: if Rossi could not or would not show IH how to actually make devices that pass fully-independent testing (no compromises with Rossi’s paranoia), Rossi was doomed to business failure.
Paragraph 6 was Annesser’s joining Rossi in his patent paranoia. The position taken was completely incorrect. That patent was filed, I’ve understood, because the Lugano report was about to come out, and would have taken the IP into the public domain. Rossi did not write the patent, it was filed by IH, as something the Agreement allowed them to do, to protect the IP. The Dameron co-inventor issue was a choice made by IH, as IH made the Lugano reactor and Dameron may have made some contribution, even if very small, and that was merely a necessary legal precaution. Nothing was taken away from Rossi’s property; but it injured his fantasies. As a result, Rossi refused to assign the patent as required, thus violating the Licence Agreement. Way to go, Annesser, encouraging your client to violate an agreement, creating one more prior breach.
(Rossi has often claimed that IH only objected when it was time to pay. That was just another lie by Rossi, one of a stream of them. IH, in fact, objected many times, in many ways. By December, 2015, still two months before the end of the test, and over three months before the alleged “time to pay,” IH was formally objecting, and clearly because the Rossi claim to “GPT” had also become explicit. When that happened, exactly, is not yet clear to me. But the first action by Rossi that began the clear rupture was the refusal to admit Murray to the Plant in July, 2015. At that point, I imagine that IH was scratching its collective head, wondering how to deal with this bridge too far.)
Page 3, paragraph 7 continues to call “clear” what is not. The aspects of the lawsuit that covered this “Dameron co-inventor” issue were dismissed as part of the IH MTD (dismissing four out of eight counts in an MTD prior to discovery was a remarkable success rate), so we have not seen evidence on that. However, just as that patent was precautionary, so too the co-inventor issue was precautionary. Annesser, however, goes further to deny any right to “underlying IP” or “further developments,” which appears directly contradictory to the License Agreement.
Paragraph 8 goes into the issue of patent applications outside of the “territory.” This was, again, legally incorrect. Patent applications are never patent infringement, and all those applications, if I am correct, listed Rossi as inventor. Again, IH whacked that claim with their MTD. This was all fueling the fire, helping convince Rossi that he was right, that IH was attempting to screw him over.
Paragraph 9 deals with an alleged restriction, based on the language of the License Agreement, section 1, but … Annesser has missed the next words in that section, providing for the right to grant sublicenses, and also, the Right of First Offer, providing contingent rights in other territories, thus giving IH an interest in proper patenting outside of the licensed territory, and, as well, the Agreement granted rights with respect to any future developments.
Paragraph 10 is an argument over language. What is clear is that the License was granted upon the payment of $1.5 million and then $10 million. The GPT set up a conditional additional payment, but because it was possible that the GPT would not occur, that cannot be said to be truly the “price.” Rather, it was one of the considerations of the Agreement. Yes, the IH communication could be considered an “anticipatory breach,” so the legal concern is obvious. However, it would be rare, in good-faith business dealings, that a letter like Annesser’s would be appropriate. Rather, what would be crucial would be to open up communications, to seek common ground and mutual benefit. Annesser did the opposite.
Page 4. Annesser proposes a meeting with between his clients and Jones Day and their client. That would likely have been a waste of time. However, Annesser and Jones Day meeting could have been a great idea. On the other hand, by encouraging Rossi to authorize him to file the lawsuit, he created a huge pile of billable hours. It may have seemed like a great career move. Even if his client ends up being totally effed.
Who made the decision to include as defendants Cherokee, and Darden and Vaughn personally? That almost fell to the MTD, but Altonaga took as fact the Rossi claim that Cherokee was owner of IH. That decision guaranteed that Cherokee funding would be available for defense, and it also probably guaranteed that even if Rossi somehow won the suit, no corporate money (or money from those involved with major corporations) would ever again touch him. Maybe he could crowd-fund his future projects.
Appeal to consequences is a well-known logical fallacy, amply present in the Rossi objections to the IH SOMF (statement of material facts). I have begun to compare the IH SOMF, a crucial part of the Motion for Summary Judgment, on this page. I have looked through Paragraph 25, so far. While Rossi disputes many of the claimed facts, these are not actually disputes over the facts, which are, as expected for a MSJ, simple and clear. Rossi doesn’t like the consequences, so quibbles over inconsequential details of wording, with many irrelevancies. The most devastating effective admission, so far, is a showing that Leonardo NH and Leonardo FL were separate corporations, and, so far, no evidence of the claimed merger has appeared; rather, the opposite. They were, and apparently remain, distinct corporations with distinct ownership and state identities.
This is a formula for setting up the judge to reject all arguments. A good judge might be able to avoid that inertia, but judges are, indeed, human. Give them a series of spurious arguments, a real argument might be lost in the noise.
Well, that headline is perhaps a bit dramatic. But, I’ll confess, I was shocked by seeing the following from someone whom I had treated as a friend, long into the past (back in my Wikipedia days), and with whom I had positive correspondence.
I had been considering writing a post about a Lewan blog entry that was mentioned in a comment here.
After an interesting interview, which reveals that Fabiani clearly believes that Rossi’s work is real — and that he has seen amazing things — Lewan gives this:
Since mid-February 2015, Rossi and his US industrial partner Industrial Heat are running a one-year commercial trial on a customer’s site with a heat plant producing 1 MW. The plant is made up of four 250kW modules, each based on E-Cat technology. Unless something unexpected happens, the trial, which is controlled by a major independent third party certification institute, should be concluded by February or March 2016, and the results should then be presented.
In the comments, Lewan explains a bit:
November 25, 2015 at 11:25 @Slad Everyone I have talked to confirm that a major independent third party certification institute is involved in the control of the 1-year test and that this institute will also be able to confirm the results when they are presented. I have no further proof though.
Mats does not tell us — at all — who “everyone I have talked to” is, but we know he talked with Fabiani, who would know of the involvement of a “major independent third party certification institute,” and we know he talked to Levi, who might have known of such. And did he talk with Rossi?
Since there was no such institute involved, only Penon, we know that Lewan relied on unreliable sources. He does acknowledge having no “further proof,” but that’s weak. It implies that the evidence for what he wrote was strong. That’s not the only problem.
IH allowed the installation, but as a sale of power, and only secondarily as a trial, with the idea that if Rossi clearly demonstrated to IH that there was substantial power generated, they might voluntarily pay him $89 million on that basis. The Doral demonstration was not the “Guaranteed Performance Test” of the IH-Rossi-Ampenergo Agreement, because Ampenergo explicitly refused to sign the Second Amendment allowing the GPT to be postponed. Rossi covered up this fact in his Complaint, though it was obvious from the start that the Ampenergo signature was missing. The Rossi attempts, in his pleadings, to convert some kind of vague consent to a test into the specifics of a GPT, even though there were obvious elements of a GPT missing; and not only signatures, but matters of substance, such as the ability of IH to actually observe the “test” in detail. Rossi excluded IH experts, twice (in July and in December).
The whole thing stunk, from lies about the customer at the start, to what appears now to be a hastily-invented “heat exchanger” that nobody saw, and that would have been very visible. Yet Mats is still stuck in his glorious past, where he was the world’s foremost confidant of Andrea Rossi. He wonders about conflict of interest, but has a huge one, a subtle one. When people criticize Rossi, or threaten his interests and plan in some way, he cuts them off, and he had done this over and over, and Mats knows this behavior. If any of the Lugano team had questioned what Levi and Rossi were doing (and Rossi was apparently there the whole time, and the Swedish team, not, not what the Lugano Report implied), they’d have been history.
Mats has never cleaned up that mess. Believe me, if I find a major error here, even years later, I will at least annotate it. That is what a responsible journalist will do, if he or she can.
That is here. It was actually a list of potential places for investment, and then included a list of advisors. None of this was a description of actual payments. Jed Rothwell is on the list of advisors, and has continually maintained that he has received no payments from IH, but this was used to, once again, accuse him of being paid by IH. He is known to have visited them in North Carolina, and that was then misinterpreted to indicate that he had visited the Plant in Florida (which he has always denied, and which would then make a certain IH response to interrogatories into perjury — unless Rossi arranged the visit, which seems a tad unlikely, given that Rossi excluded Rothwell from visiting him in Italy years before — and in spite of that, behind the scenes, Rothwell was a supporter of Rossi, arguing that people he trusted had seen the technology and it was real). Rothwell later reassessed that opinion, apparently after seeing data from Penon, which had all the obvious defects that have become public now, with the court filings.
Lewan is clearly not using the Rossi v. Darden resources here. They may be searched. The core page is the Docket page. Yes, it’s a huge amount of information. So resources are being created for analysis. That takes time. We just had a huge amount of data dumped on us. Much of it is redundant, but then, much is not.
The best organization is probably found in the Motions for Summary Judgment, where each party puts its best and strongest case forward. I was going to start with an analysis of the Rossi MSJ, but the exhibit references were such a mess (almost all incorrect), and it depended so strongly on a legal claim that has failed, the attempt to exclude all IPH claims based on an allegedly defective corporate deposition, that my opinion became that making it the core of a study would be a waste of time, so I started with RvD: Study of 203:IH Motion for Summary Judgment
This document also includes all the support paragraphs from DE 207. This is the case as it appears from the IH Motion. Anyone who actually wants to understand Rossi v. Darden would do well to study this. But it’s huge, still. I will be going through it, point by point and the first analysis will be looking for what is clearly established as fact, and what is not, what might remain legitimately controversial. At first impression, some of the IH claims are that, not as clear as required for Summary Judgment, they might require determination of fact by a fact-finder, i.e., a jury. However, there are many layers to this IH strategy, and the strongest aspects are likely to blow the Rossi case out of the water, leaving only the counterclaims active. At that point, settlement becomes far more likely.
Now, to come to what astounded me, though I’d certainly seen signs a year ago, that Mats was falling for a conspiracy theory, in spite of his warning to Sifferkoll.
Once upon a time, Mats was a reporter and would have asked me that question directly. Now he asks with a “we” that is a narrow group of people. IH would obviously know if I work for them, and so would I, so, for starters, I’d be excluded from “we” or the question would be meaningless. This question was brought up many times, and Rossi himself accused me of being a paid puppet.
At one time, Mats was officially staff at LENR Forum. That disappeared. This blog is open for anyone to comment, and author privileges will be granted to real people, and Mats is real. Even if a bit deluded. This went on.
Josh G Mats Lewan • a day ago
Not sure but I don’t think we’ve seen any evidence to support it other than his quixotic behavior on IH’s behalf. But I stopped following things for quite awhile until the mid-March filings. So not sure.
SG Mats Lewan • 19 hours ago
I think he claimed that he has been paid to blog by somebody, but not IH.
I am attempting to respond there, the editor keeps locking up. But this would be it:
I suppose I should correct this. I have not been “paid to blog” by anybody. I was collecting documents and putting them in the filespace for the newvortex list, and an attorney, not connected with IH at all, offered to pay my PACER expenses. I have received a total of $50 so far, I may ask for more, and another person, also not connected with IH other than being long-term interested in LENR, has offered additional support, enough that I will probably be able to go to Miami to cover the trial if it happens. Enough to cover my travel, I may still need more to cover details like hotel.
I later started the blog when I was temporarily banned on LENR Forum, and then got serious about it when the newvortex archive became unusable (a yahoogroup problem) and LF banned me “permanently.” (Fun question: for what?)
One of the functions of the blog is to build analytical resources, as distinct from endless debate that goes nowhere, i.e., Blog Normal. This is intended long-term for general cold fusion issues, but is currently being used for Rossi v. Darden.
Mats would be most welcome as a participant, but he lost his status as a neutral analyst some time ago. He could recover, if he chooses to. It would take some work, and his excuse has been that he is too busy. It would be fun to guide him through the maze of documents in the case. One step at a time, which is rarely done. Mostly people start with conclusions (on more than one side — I hope that readers realize there are more than two “sides” here).
As to Mats’ question, others have answered reasonably, but not necessarily addressing the point clearly, and Mats himself summarizes it incorrectly:
In fact, I don’t interpret it as a blanket ban. Rather that most of the evidence is presented during discovery. But it doesn’t exclude some evidence to be presented in court, as long as it doesn’t contradict earlier depositions or testimonials, I guess.
It’s somewhat shocking that Mats will guess, but he declared previously that he did not have time to do actual research, the kind expected for a journalist.
The reality is that witnesses will be on the stand, and either side may ask them questions, and they may answer outside of what they said before. However, if what they say is new, an attorney may object. To introduce new evidence will require the permission of the Judge. It is not exactly a “blanket ban,” but failure to disclose evidence to the other parties can result in sanctions, all the way up to total dismissal of a party’s case.
“Contradiction” is not a characteristic of evidence, but of the assessment of evidence. Evidence could not be excluded based on contradiction. Rather, if there is contradiction in admissible evidence, there can be a question for a jury to resolve.
However, what may not be realized here is that the Motions for Summary Judgment do not necessarily disclose all the evidence. Rather, there is a huge volume of evidence — truly enormous — that was disclosed in discovery. As long as it was disclosed, it may be introduced at trial. What is disclosed in discovery is generally attested under penalty of perjury.
IH has adduced enough evidence, my present opinion — remember, I am in process of studying the materials — to obtain summary judgment on the core claim of Rossi, breach of contract re the $89 million, and if that claim is gone, so is the rest of his lawsuit. Because, then, there would be no trial on that claim, we can expect Rossi to go all-out in his Reply. We do have that Reply at this point, but I have not studied it. I will, comparing each point with the evidence we have.
Drama ensued. See the comments below. Someone apparently spoofed Mats Lewan, using his name and, most importantly, his real email address, so that the avatar displayed would be picked up from Gravatar, which we have enabled. The second post of this user started out more or less innocuously, but then the user edited it to add a gross sexual reference. Mats complained on LENR Forum, which is a bit odd, since I’m banned there and don’t necessarily see everything. However, THHuxleynew pointed out that post here. There are some aspects of possible interest in what ensued.
ALERT: Abd ulRahman Lomax yesterday posted a blog post at http://coldfusioncommunity.net…ndo-in-cloud-cuckoo-land/ commenting some of my actions and reports. Under the blogpost there are comments made by Mats Lewan.
These comments are NOT made by me. They are false and fraudulent, made up in short, and if Abd ulRahman Lomax reads this, I expect him to delete those comments immediately.
Apparently I read the second remark before it was edited to add the truly offensive remark. The rest of the material in those posts matched, at least to a degree, what Mats had posted elsewhere. Impersonation is still a major public offense, not to be tolerated. I might have some view that I might express in one context, but may not want to express it in other contexts, and that should be my right. But trolls may disagree.
Mats – perhaps you could post this on Abd’s site. It will immediately let you do this – I think. Then he would certainly get it, and also he could check IP etc… Furthermore the correction gets seen faster than if you wait for Abd.
THH was completely correct. Mats’ response was relatively unskillful. The basic harm — someone thinking that was him — could be most quickly addressed by Mats himself posting a comment exposing the impersonation, and confirming this by email from his known email address. Because Mats has not posted, his first comment would need to be approved, though it might be approved simply by using that same email address. (It was on his personal domain, and he obviously uses it wherever the gravatar shows up.)
Posting on LENR forum then drew more attention, exactly what trolls often want, and the obscene comment was then repeated there, and obviously was read by moderators who didn’t care.
Alan Smith wrote:
THHuxleynew wrote:
Mats – perhaps you could post this on Abd’s site.
I don’t expect that to happen in a hurry.
Classic Alan Smith, useless snark. Why not? I used to have direct email communication with Mats. Has Mats fallen into a Krivit hole? I will agree in one way, it is odd that Mats did not communicate directly with me. Maybe the fumes on Planet Rossi finally created too much mind-rot. It would also have been somewhat effective if Mats had responded to my comment on E-Cat World, in reply to his question there, since I get notification of responses.
Yes, Alan would be. Why? For the same reason that Alan Smith banned me from LF: he can’t stand my presence, he knows I can see what he does. So all this does come up:
If there is disagreement with Abd, I estimate it is more about Doxxing/Transparency/Shaming vs Privacy than about tolerance to fraud.
Thanks, Alain. Zero tolerance here for fraudulent posting (which is not about disagreements, nor would it be about ordinary socking. Socking that impersonates another is generally illegal, and Mats had good reason to expect me to correct the situation. He wanted me to delete it. Because there were responses, I elected to not delete, but changed the user name to “(spoofed) Mats Lewan,” and used strike-out for the text, only actually deleting the obscenity. I think it is of interest that someone would spoof Lewan, and I think that it could be useful to find out who that would be.
And that is why I revealed the IP. I also have more data, obtained from the server logs. True administration at LENR Forum would very likely be able to identify the fraudster, at least with other accounts. However, what I found was that not only do moderators there not have access to IP information, neither do administrators; someone has server access, and that is probably Barty and the Owner. So if Barty wants to address this, he could. I’d happily correspond with him. I have also provided the information directly to Mats.
This is all standard stuff for WikiMedia Foundation administrators, and I was one. Privacy is respected, but the right to privacy is lost when one commits certain offenses. (Access to normally private IP information is confined to Checkusers and others with that level of privilege on WMF wikis, but any stand-alone blog owner, running on their own domain, has access to that information, it is in the raw server logs.)
I’ve done it for him. Though why he should not be able to do it himself is beyond me.
Abd wouldn’t be able to tell which user is the real one. Mats here has been verified.
Oh, I was able to tell. I already had been suspicious about the IP, but Lewan accessing the internet from student housing wasn’t impossible, so I didn’t reject the post on that basis. Yes. The LF Lewan account is long-standing, thus verified, which I immediately knew; however, at the first plausible allegation of spoofing, I’d have quarantined that post so that it could do no harm, pending resolution. I also have had direct email communication with Lewan, and verification would be trivial.
There is no rush, but perhaps, out of this, Lewan will start to help clean up the mess that he helped to create. I’d be happy to assist. One easy step at a time.
Rules against doxxing prevent me from being explicit, but DT (from Russia with love) has signed off at least once with another pair of initials familiar to us.
Doxxing as an internet offense arose as a protection of anonymity, but not as an encouragement of sock puppetry, which is also normally considered an offense. Forum administrators have access to post information information that would normally reveal sock puppetry. As well, doxxing of “public figures,” i.e., internet identities revealed elsewhere, where the alleged “puppet masters” are public figures, has always been, on sophisticated fora, allowed and is even considered necessary. Consider Wikipedia articles about government officials “anonymously” edited from the office of the official.
LENR Forum has never acknowledged banning a user for “sock puppetry.” It has warned and sanctioned users for exposing sock puppetry (rightly or wrongly). “Doxxing” has no been clearly defined. Claiming sock puppetry is not, in ordinary internet-speak, doxxing. In this case, P. points to what I recall (but could not readily find) as an example where a poster on JONP apparently accidentally signed the post as “A.R.”
The poster in question has commonly posted under what may be a real name, DTravchenko, but the content has been pure Planet Rossi, using common Rossi tropes. Because this is all (AFAIK) on Rossi’s blog, JONP, only Rossi knows for sure, but … pointing out a clear fact, publically accessible, where, if the fact is true, does not reveal the true identity of an actual and unique person, not the known public figure, is not “doxxing.” It is attempting to understand the public record. If DT is Rossi, there is no person harmed by the revelation, i.e., becoming subject to harassment, as might have happened, say, with the doxxing of “Thomas Clarke.” However, even the Thomas Clarke case is bizarre. Thomas Clarke is a real name, so all that “doxxing” did was to identify the specific person with that name. Then the allegation can be made that Thomas Clarke continued to post using a pseudonym. Is pointing this out “doxxing”?
Because we think of “doxxing” as Bad, we want to fit the actions into a category, so we can know if it is Good or Bad. This is common — and defective — ontology. Revealing the pseudonyms of Thomas Clarke is a trivial exercise, anyone who cares can find out. Because Pseudonym is so trivially identified with the real identity — when that identity could have easily been hidden, it is not as offensive as some deeper doxxing with more possible real-life harm would be. For example, there is an English fellow who pretended to be a Muslim and who went on the pilgrimage, and who wrote about it. He used a pseudonym. Revealing his real-life identity could expose him to harassment or worse. That would be serious, and highly offensive doxxing.
If a professional supports Rossi, at this point, it could indeed harm their professional reputation. There is a lesser possibility of harm from any professional’s support of LENR. So I’m sympathetic to desires for anonymity; however, this is a double-edged sword. Anonymous testimony is only useful for creating avenues for confirmation, it cannot be accepted as truth (i.e., with probity depending on the character of the witness).
Some writers, anonymous, develop a reputation for reliability. There are a few anonymous writers whose analyses can — my opinion — generally be trusted, and a few real-name authors who are quite untrustworthy. So the whole issue is complex, not simple.
I was unable to find D. Travchenko in internet searches connected with LENR and Rossi, except as comments on JONP, and then quoted elsewhere. It would be odd for someone with such an intense and frequently-expressed interest in Rossi to not comment or show up anywhere else. That, together with the obvious Planet Rossi points of view, which are quite idiosyncratic (aspects may show up with any Rossi supporter, but there are particular modes of language that are common only with Rossi and certain possible sock puppets), indicates a likelihood that DTravchenko or DT (“From Russia with love”) is Andrea Rossi, setting up questions he wants to stand or to answer, but maintaining deniability.
If DT were to post on LENR Forum, for example, that would create administrative knowledge there indicating identity. The same with E-Cat World. Rossi may trust Frank Acland more, but ultimately, Rossi trusts nobody. How he treated Fabiani is appalling. One can see in the Fabiani correspondence how torn he is between his loyalty to Rossi and his professional responsibility (to provide information to IH, all set up by Rossi — the actual contract was between IH and USQL and a half-owner of USQL was Florida Energy Trust, which Rossi has claimed — or hinted, he’s not completely explicit, he left room for “plausible deniability” — is essentially him.)
And, of course, E-Cat World picks up on it. So far, nobody seems to notice that there is no specified source for the factual claim, i.e., that Smith has claimed such and such. But first, an actual direct comment on case issues:
Dr Andrea Rossi: 1- was JMC directed by you? 2- did IH- Darden know who was the director of JMP? 3- was the owner of JMC directly or indirectly a relative of yours? 4- did IH- Darden ever complain about the owner or the director of JMP before or during the performance test? 5- did you ever say or write that JMP was owned by Johnson Matthey? 6- did ever Darden-IH ask you who was the owner of JMP during the validation test? 7- did Darden use JMP for his promotion, knowing who was the director of it? 8- why Darden-IH have not been able to enter in the JMP area where the plant of JMP was installed? Since these issues have been already disclosed in the documents published by the Court, can you answer? Regards, Mark
Mark: Evidence in documents speaks for itself and says: 1- yes 2- yes, since 2014 3- no 4- never 5- never 6- never 7- yes, he demanded Jim Bass to give good reference to his investors 8- because the agreement between JMP and IH vetoed to IH to enter the area of JMP and vice versa Warm Regards, A.R.
Control the questions, you can control the answers to create desired impressions. The above is a direct comment on case issues, contrary to Rossi’s repeated intention not to comment. The questions are designed to allow him to answer with “truthiness,” but are highly misleading.
1- was JMC directed by you?
He now answers Yes, but I will be reviewing all his answers and comments on this. That JMC (-> JMP) was created and managed as Rossi’s idea, with Rossi being in full charge, with there being no independence other than purely formal — and that very weak –, is entirely contrary to the representations made in negotiations leading up to the Term Sheet and the later transfer, as well as many, many comments Rossi made on JONP, and his comments in emails where he had, for example, a talk with the Director of JMP, as if this were someone else, all of which is evidenced with documents from Rossi, as well as others entered as sworn testimony, in support for the IH Motion for Summary Judgment.
2- did IH- Darden know who was the director of JMP?
The real question would be when Darden knew. Rossi says much and the meaning can be vague. Rossi may be, here, assuming that because he said X, Darden therefore knew X. However, very much that Rossi said was in contradiction to X. Here, he acknowledges himself as Director. However, he has also claimed that Bass was the Director. But Bass was hired by, worked for, and was responsible to Rossi.
The customer was not at all “independent,” as repeated claimed by Rossi.
3- was the owner of JMC directly or indirectly a relative of yours?
On paper, no. In practice, it was Johnson, entirely following Rossi’s instructions. On paper, it was a trust created by a friend of Rossi, and who put in no money and took no part in JMC/JMP activities. Rossi created “plausible deniability.” But he also created impressions in the minds of others, quite the contrary of his later denials. Creating those impressions can be civil fraud. (Civil fraud does not require mens rea (evil intention), it could be inadvertent. If the false impressions were reasonable, i.e., they could be reasonably formed, civil fraud may exist.)
4 – did IH- Darden ever complain about the owner or the director of JMP before or during the performance test?
He did express concern. However, the question here would be intended to ask if Darden ever complained to Rossi about it. Until Darden knew the facts about JMC/JMP, fully, he’d have been unlikely to complain, but this depends on when he knew these facts. He apparently figured out that Johnson was Rossi’s lawyer, before the Plant was moved, and Darden concluded that a lawyer was unlikely to be lying, so he went ahead. That did not establish Rossi as the Director of JMP, because it continued to be represented, apparently, that there was a real customer, not Rossi, as owner. The identity of the owner was not disclosed, except that we see clear evidence that it was implied that it was Johnson Matthey, and Johnson participated in maintaining that impression.
5- did you ever say or write that JMP was owned by Johnson Matthey?
At the time in question, JMP was known as JMC, and there is clear evidence that the Johnson Matthey connection, very obviously implied in some way (and then Rossi said something like “I should not have mentioned them” — clearly implying that he had mentioned them. Where else did they get the idea?)
Rossi is lying here, and it is possible that this will be his most direct and deepest downfall.
6- did ever Darden-IH ask you who was the owner of JMP during the validation test?
JMP did not exist during the “Validation Test.” He must mean the alleged “Guaranteed Performance Test.” Darden already had information on the owner, from the OMC certification, and it was false, not true when Johnson signed that. The owner was not a “U.K. entity,” it was a U.S. trust, with Johnson fully in legal control of it.
7- did Darden use JMP for his promotion, knowing who was the director of it?
This is not established in the case, this is all Rossi Says. Rossi thinks that IH “promotion” is important. It is not. IH was deceived, willfully, by Rossi, and made comments on occasion reflecting that deception. Darden also expressed reservations, a concern about the alleged customer. Rossi never points to the contrary evidence, just to his own justifications and rationalizations.
8- why Darden-IH have not been able to enter in the JMP area where the plant of JMP was installed?
Because Rossi refused it. Rossi was in complete control of JMP. His answer here was:
8- because the agreement between JMP and IH vetoed to IH to enter the area of JMP and vice versa
Liar. The Term Sheet does not “veto” that. It does not mention the “area of JMP,” nor any restriction on IH access, even though later Rossi rejected IH access to the Plant, and Johnson supported this when access was formally requested in December. It also contains representations that were false when written and agreed to.
Since these issues have been already disclosed in the documents published by the Court, can you answer?
This comment shows a common Rossi trope. The court does not publish the documents, the parties file them and then PACER makes them available to the public. The parties derive “issues” from the documents, and Rossi is here presenting his defense. The defense can be false or misleading, but “documents” are, at this stage, sworn testimony. For the first time in the case, beginning with his depositions, Rossi could go to prison for making false or misleading statements.
Peter Gluck posts links to his blog in many places, and I saw this yesterday. I’m mentioned (the day before). Speak of the Master of Hot Places…. EGO OUT, April 6, 2017
A year of litigation- the scales of Justitia have great loads of stuff- facts and assumptions. Facts have weight the assumption not- just now a selection/separation process takes place. 4-5 months and we will have the Verdict.
Indeed. However, we might have some verdicts, at least, within roughly a month, how long I expect it will take to handle the three pending Motions for Summary Judgment.
For the time given, the IH party is making huge efforts to kill the Penon ERV Report.
While it can be fun to express opinions, simple or complex, without study, just because we can (especially if we admin the blog) it is much more fun, long-term, to Know WTF one is talking about. Capiche?
Hence, when the Parties went wild March 22 with Motions, I realized that to study these motions would be haphazard at best, unless tools were created …
I have compiled a neutral study tool, one of a number to be put together:
This has anchors at each paragraph that can be used to quickly reference it. (The IH MSJ references these paragraphs.) It also has links to specific pages of evidence, which then can facilitate putting together all the evidence (at least from the IH side) for a particular point. Continue reading “Studying Rossi v. Darden Motions for Summary Judgment”
