I’m waiting for the results of today’s Rossi v. Darden hearing, and was struck by events on LENR Forum. So how to introduce this, and the line came to me, Everybody knows … that’s how it goes.
Is that a depressing song? Well, no, because this is where the future begins: where we are. What “everybody knows” is not the future, it is the past, and Cohen mentions this. So here we go, the immediate past on LENR Forum.
After much mishegas, mixed with cogent commentary, I’m skipping over,
The latest salvo of Court evidence is unusually revelatory and perhaps explaims why the anti-IH camp here is posting false statements with renewed vigor. They just don’t have anything other than false statements to post!
To see why their interpretation of Court documents is so false have a look at Abd’s thoughtful summary (with links to relevant sources). The source material, particularly the TD e-mail, needs to be read!
Thanks, THH, and especially thanks for the suggestion that sources be read. All too often, both “believers” and pseudoskeptics just reject what they don’t like without study and caution. Study and caution are necessary for both deepening faith — distinct from “belief,” — and for genuine and useful scientific skepticism. The knee-jerk responses come out of fear or maybe laziness, or best construction, simply a lack of time, but this becomes offensive when it is used to attack and disregard others. Don’t have be time to be careful, fine, don’t send a check, but … don’t criticize what you don’t understand.
Deeper faith and scientific skepticism meet in a common territory, rooted in trust in reality, which includes trusting that reality will ultimately reveal itself, when approached with love and/or detachment.
Monty wrote: (and with his next post)
THH. I am not interpreting the court docs. They clearly state:
1. The pleadings of Defendants Thomas Darden, Industrial Heat, LLC, and IPH International B.V. are hereby stricken, with prejudice, for engaging in bad faith litigation, including the attempted bribery and coercion of witnesses.
2. Monetary sanctions fail to address the severity of Defendants’ acts of witness tampering, which threaten the public’s trust in our system of justice and disparage the core values for which it stands.
This is hilarious. “I am not interpreting.” But he is. This was indeed a “court document,” but it was not issued by the court, except as the court clerk publishes what the parties submit. It is immediately obvious as such on our Docket page.
They also order that:
All communications between Thomas Darden, Industrial Heat, LLC, and/or IPH International B.V. and Zalli Jaffe and Uzi Sha shall be produced by Defendants, and any privilege that may have attached to such documents shall hereby be deemed waived as a result of the parties’ illegal behavior.
So there is more – perhaps even juicier – stuff to come
No illegal behavior has actually been alleged with any evidence that would suffice to establish illegality. Hence the likelihood of this Order being issued is nil. It is possible that production will be ordered, but that is a matter for the Magistrate, not the Judge, and with an attorney-client privilege issue, likely that the disclosure would be in camera, to the judge, before materials would be provided to Rossi.
Today, the Magistrate ruled in favor of privilege as requested in DE 138, with respect to Mazzarino (of Cherokee), and against it as requested in DE 148, as to Deep River Ventures, and that IH may decide to appeal this denial to the Judge and inform the Plaintiffs of this, no later than 5 PM March 17, and then must actually appeal no later than 5 PM, March 20.
The Magistrate also ruled that the two Leonardo corporations (New Hampshire and Floride) must provide tax returns to IH no later than 5 PM, March 15 (the next day after the hearing).
However, none of this means we will see anything. I just downloaded the transcript of the hearing held October 14, and among other things, there was some sense that this whole thing will end up in Summary Judgment. There were many other details in that, including discussion of Penon not having been served. Rossi was also unable to contact Penon to subpoena him, and this was recognized to be a problem for Rossi, not just for IH. So the recent deposition in the Dominican Republic was something that both sides wanted. As more or less expected, Penon was dismissed without prejudice as a defendant, but IH could file against him at any time. Back to LF.
To see why their interpretation of Court documents is so false have a look at Abd’s thoughtful summary
An important notice for everybody. ABD is a member of a large think-tank with focus on opinion making. His vita is well constructed: Building up ties to important people in the field, acting like a LENR supporter, but working for…
Something interrupted him before telling us who or what I’m working for. I’d really like to know, maybe I could invoice them or at least ask for support.
I am indeed a long term member of a think tank, it could be called, with focus and training on creating not only opinion, but the actual future, both personally and collectively. Not only do I not get money from this, I have, in the past, spent out of my own limited funds.
However, what does this have to do with my summary? It was that, a summary, as a comment on a post that was second in a series that are heavily referenced, and if anything is said there that is not referenced and not clear, I’d appreciate questions. Anyone can comment on CFC posts. First comment must be approved as not spam or otherwise useless trolling — one impersonating comment was deleted –; after that, comments are automatically approved.
THHuxleynew responded with sanity. Thanks, THH. As well, he also covered the misunderstanding about the Proposed Order and again commended my work. So Thanks Again! I put many hours in creating accessible materials from and about the case and making it easier to follow. Some of the pages are deliberately and rigorously neutral, and blog posts are a mixture of information and opinion.
One thing that may have escaped notice is that as hearing transcripts become available, months later, I download them in insert them on the Docket page. So far this is DE 48 and DE 84. The Orders coming from these hearings were published relatively quickly, but the Transcripts show the attorneys and the Judge at work. Reading this stuff is part of how I learn about the case, even if some of it is legal minutia. Checking, I see that DE 88 is also ready. I’ll download it…. Ug! 84 and 88 appear to be duplicates, the same hearing, two identical transcripts? I’ll look at this tomorrow. (Update: confirmed. Identical pdfs except for the page header added by the court clerk.)