How to handle a shitstorm

From Maryanne Macy, in 2016, on the filing of Rossi v. Darden:

The situation of an $89 million dollar lawsuit between the field’s highest profile, highest paid inventor and his environmentally-inclined investors wasn’t akin to the adage of having an elephant in the room. It was like having an elephant with projectile diarrhea who had snorted a kilo of cocaine after mating with Donald Trump in the room. This was a worst case scenario, a four star sriracha-saturated shit storm that could distinctly prove unhelpful to the LENR world’s public profile at the time of its greatest collective acceleration.

For myself, the perpetual struggle for objective reporting was competing with shock. I’d hoped for the success of Rossi’s technology for so long and been so glad that someone like Darden had come along to support it.

The storm continues on LENR Forum, where personal attack has become so common, with even some moderators, or at least one, engaging in it — or tolerating it — that the normal and sane defense against the flood of flabbergas is to stop reading (and some realize that danger).

The basic problem is that users are allowed to derail topic discussions by introducing inflammatory comments, or, at best, irrelevancies to the topic. To handle this well would require multiple moderators, ideally in different time zones and with defined duty periods, to swiftly move irrelevant posts to the Playground or other appropriate threads, or, sometimes, to delete them if they are utterly beyond the pale, and to ban (permanently or temporarily) uncooperative users.

However, LF has never developed clear policy and procedure, and all we see are sporadic and often ineffectual interventions, then bursts of more drastic enforcement. There is no TOS (Terms of Service), and no developed policy, just Whatever a Mod thinks. And some Mods don’t think much, they just react.

Eric Walker started moving off-topic posts to the Playground.

However, this from Alan Fletcher still stands in its pristine shit-storm glory. Literally throwing shit, or “doo,” “faeces.” No relevance to Rossi v. Darden. Check. Pure and grossly offensive ad-hominem attack and insult to a real person, the most informed and open insider, still occasionally participating, Dewey Weaver. Check.

Violation of topic integrity is routine, it is certainly not just Planet Rossi. In a sane system, arguing with trolls is an offense; in fact, I was banned from vortex-l for steadfastly correcting the false claims of a troll (and for disturbing the slumber of the owner of that list by pointing out the problem. The squeaky wheel gets removed and tossed in the junkyard (and he literally subscribed me to an “off-topic” list that I had no interest in following.) The internet has long been afflicted with incompetent amateurs who manage to set up shop at a crossroads. The most successful example — and in some ways the most dangerous — is Wikipedia.

The moderators use a topic where a user has posted to warn, thus creating more off-topic traffic. At one point, the mods, using a generic account, created a topic to discuss how to handle some kinds of discussion. There was some discussion giving various opinions. Then the same anonymous moderator created a sort-of-policy, and then Staff proceeded to ignore it. Essentially, no structure was set up, and Staff does not restrain individual moderators, who basically do whatever they please whenever they please.

Alan Fletcher’s comment was a follow-up to what Alan Smith wrote:

Go for it Dewey, a Pulitzer is surely within your reach.

Alan commonly expands threads with snarky comments that are, effectively, trolling. As a moderator, this is appalling, and I pointed out and protested Alan’s gross errors (like deleting new threads as spam that clearly were not spam, or mass deletion without warning of comments he didn’t like, as off-topic, while himself posting off-topic), and that was the occasion of my ban.) Just sayin’, I’m glad I was banned, because it pushed me to ramp up this blog, which is much more fun than slogging through the shit on LENR Forum, and if anyone likes what I write, they can link it on LENR Forum. So far, nobody has been slapped for citing this blog. LF admin did attempt to block incoming referrals from this blog, which worked for about a day, and did nothing but make them look ridiculous.

(That took deliberate action by a site admin with maximum privilege, i.e., raw domain access. — I doubt the Forum software allows this. It was probably Barty, but LF has never revealed who did it. Otherwise it would be David Nygren, who is ultimately responsible in any case, because he owns the Forum and assigns privileges.)

Rionrlty wrote:

Alan Smith wrote:

Go for it Dewey, a Pulitzer is surely within your reach.

Or not.

This was about three hours after Eric commented about moving posts to the Playground. This is all off-topic, trolling, and this shows how delay in moderation creates more and more disruption. The Forum software is likely not designed for broad participation. It is all posts, all equal. Side-comments would be fine if the primary thread clearly stood out. That is, if posts were required to be on-topic and then a subthread would exist for comments on individual posts, and these could be hidden under a demand button. Right now, there are likes and dislikes that are like this. Without Forum software changes, though, much could be done by moderators, if they were coherent and cooperating. Instead, moderators themselves contribute to the disruption of on-topic discussion.

Some legitimate questions and issues came up:

oldguy wrote:

I haven’t found the email’s from June that Rossi alluded to. Perhaps someone here can direct me to where they are in the docket. I just don’t remember Rossi saying he was to be the director to the JM plant. I just remember him saying he was going to be director of the Doral plan which I though just means the “test site”. But hay, they don’t call me an old guy for nothing,….. I don’t have the memory I once had. We have so many documents these days. Wish they were searchable.

oldguy does not allow on-Forum messaging, which I consider … disempowering, preventing others from directly communicating. There is no spamming, and offensive messages could be the subject of a complaint to Staff. I’d have answered his questions directly if able to do so.

Here on CFC, which is searchable, there is a list of evidences (and I’m working on a database of documents by date, which will make finding the particular emails much easier). Some pdfs are actually image, not text-searchable. OCR scans do exist for some and I intend to host those. These would be searchable. For now, from the list:

== 236-28 – Exhibit 28 Rossi – Darden 2014 emails

This shows a Rossi mail of June 23, quoting mail of June 20.

June 20 has this text:

d- the direction of the plant will be made by Andrea Rossi/ for free, for the first 350 days of operation of the plant

June 23 has similar language.

You can read that in context. The June 20 email refers many times to “the plant,” and the reference is clearly to the 1 MW Plant. The customer has a “factory.”

A June 10 Rossi mail refers to “I will direct the operation of the Plant,” and explains that this is for free, for one year, renewable to three. And that is a reference to the rental of the Plant — the 1 MW Plant — to JMC for those terms.

This is so clear that if Rossi attempts to present this to the jury as a reference to his management of JMP, his case is dead meat, it would become totally hopeless, since they would immediately conclude he’s lying, and this impression would rub off on everything else he says. This is not weak or vague.

This mail preceded it:

== 238-16 – Exhibit 58 June 2014 email Rossi to IH and Joe Pike

See also later emails:

Rossi to Darden July 30, 2o14 and Rossi to Darden July 5, 2014

There is no clue, that would be read by a reasonable person, that Rossi was going to have total control of the customer, and was, de facto, the customer. Rossi, on JONP, ridicules the claim that Johnson Matthey was represented as the “owner of JMP.” He is technically correct. JMP, nee JMC, was a Florida corporation formed by Johnson, and the owner was concealed (from the public and from IH), until revealed in the lawsuit by legal necessity. The owner was not a “U.K. entity” as claimed by Johnson (and as claimed by many allusions by Rossi.) Johnson Matthey is, of course, a “U.K. entity.” It is quite clear that Rossi wanted IH to believe that Johnson Matthey was the “real customer,” which would reveal itself after a few months of successful operation. Rossi rejected IH proposals to install the plant in a genuine customer in Raleigh, calling this “dramatically less convincing.” Less convincing to whom? Rossi was grandstanding, lying to create a deceptive impression, ultimately, to induce IH to allow him to set up the next stage of his “scam.”

(I find it possible that Rossi believed his own deceptions, and may then be not guilty of perjury by reason of insanity. That can be a tricky defense, though. The legal issue would be whether or not he knew what he was doing was wrong. Rossi has for many years presented thin possibilities as existing fact. However, what about Johnson, signing the OFAC declaration, supporting the Rossi story. As a lawyer, we would assume that Johnson knows the difference between possibility and reality. JMC was *really* a Florida corporation, not in the U.K, and Johnson knew that the beneficiary of the trust he had created to own JMC was not in the U.K., even if a U.K. trust were created. Johnson is a lawyer who probably got away, too many times, with shoving words around to create an impression of one thing, when the reality was different. He obviously, in the meeting in North Carolina, allowed Rossi to use his reputation as a lawyer in support of the scheme, and then seems to think that his silence means “too bad, you should have asked me explicitly, fools!”)

The sham worked, in that IH decided to move the Plant to Florida and allow Rossi to do what he wanted. Did they suspect a fraud? It looks like they did suspect it, but, ab initio, they were willing to give Rossi every opportunity to show his stuff. He showed his stuff. It was snakes and snails. No puppy dog tails, those got lost somewhere along the road, if the puppy ever had a tail.

Frederic wrote:

BobHiggins wrote:

So the Rossi-positive outcome would be Rossi gets the $89M and everything he has developed and all of its derivatives are licensed to IH

If IH loses the case it will go bankrupt because probably unable to pay this amount plus fees.

What happens to its IP in such an event ?

It remains an asset of IPH, wholly owned by Industrial Heat. IH, bankrupt, would file for protection, and the bankruptcy judge would probably order IPH auctioned off (and related disclosed IP). Rossi could, of course, bid on it. I’d bid $20, just for fun! And IH investors would get a bottomless tax deduction.

This does not cover the scenario of triple damages for fraud and confirmed liability of Cherokee Investment Partners, Darden, and Vaughn. If that happens, look for the matter to be tied up in courts for years. That scenario is very, very unlikely, for reasons I have explained many times. The probability of Rossi simply winning $89 million is very small. What gets more doubtful is the collection of counterclaims. It is possible at this point that the primary Rossi complaints are dismissed. It is possible that some counterclaims succeed at summary judgment, but this can be quite difficult. So if there is a trial, I predict that it is over the counterclaims.

Rionrlty wrote:

JedRothwell wrote:

1. He just commented. He said “I cannot comment” and then he commented.

2. In his messages to I.H. he repeatedly described the management of JM in the third person; “they” did this or said that. He was talking about himself. Either he was being deceptive or he is stark staring bonkers. Who has conversations with himself?!?

Do you think Darden (IH) might ever refer to Cherokee investments as they, or some of the other shell companies he’s responsible for?

This is about Rossi’s “I cannot comment” comment, which I think I have already covered here somewhere. “Shell company” refers to a wholly-owned company. Darden might refer to Cherokee as “they,” though, as a principal, much more likely as “we.” Investors in Cherokee might use either “they” or “we.” If using “they” the implication would be that the object of reference was larger than the user of the term.

Darden would not use “they” to imply independence, as Rossi clearly did, many times. However, suppose Darden was referring to IPH (the only arguable shell involved). He is not personally IPH, rather he is merely a major shareholder in the owner, IH. However, I think he’s an officer of IPH, but others are involved. Fogleman, for example, handled IPH finances, if I’m correct. But I’m not looking this up at this point. Bottom line, how Darden might refer to something in some unspecified context has no bearing on whether or not Rossi was lying, creating deceptive impressions.

Rossi was using language that any reasonable person would recognize as having one meaning, while, later, he is asserting another meaning, quite stretched, that if revealed at the time as his intended meaning would have very likely torpedoed his plan. He had to maintain the impression of an independent customer, and he continued to argue that as a reason for not using the customer that IH had found.

Rionrlty then also wrote:

LENR Calender wrote:

Paraphrasing Rossi’s emails to IH:

“[…] something about the 1MW plant […] I will direct the plant”

Then in his deposition he says that he meant he would direct the JMP plant.

Seemed pretty clear to me that he meant JM’s plant.

What is established here is that Rionrlty is not a reasonable participant in these discussions, or he is terminally careless, simply dumping what he thinks. Mike Rion is a real person, not anonymous. As such, in my book, he deserves more polite respect than anonymous trolls. However, real people can be really disruptive!  As we age, we also become less and less flexible, more and more nailed to what we already believe. Mike would not be the only example of this! At my age, the possibility is something I must face, in myself, and factor for.

I do not doubt Mike’s sincerity. I do doubt his competence, and the above comments show why (though it’s been noticed before). However, because LENR Forum has no procedures for finding consensus, no facilitation for determining what is to be considered fact for moving forward, little can be done. At some point, beating a dead horse should not be allowed. It splatters blood on everyone close. In fact, beating live horses is even worse. Ick!

There have been references to depositions here. Eventually, RvD: Depositions may get to the point where there is a single file for each deposition. With some depositions I have given the page numbers for the file so that one may be able to look at the files with the most pages first.

I create these analysis pages for my own use, as part of my learning process (I look at stuff when organizing it, and “looking” is the largest factor in learning), and to make it easier for others who come along later. When I mention that there are opportunities for others to contribute, that’s one possibility!

However, in this case, because there are so many copies of Rossi depositions, I decide to just look back for Rossi-provided copies, since Rossi — or JMP — would be more likely to include the claim. Sure enough:

Did Rossi fully inform IH as claimed?

== 256-01 – Exhibit 1 deposition for JMP by Rossi 15.2 MB file

has the claim on dep page 34.

l Q. And those activities you, Andrea Rossi,
2 had complete control over?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. All right. When did you inform
5 Industrial Heat that you had complete control over
6 the activities of J.M. Products?
7 A. From the beginning.
8 Q. From the beginning?
9 A. From the beginning . In Jtme there is —
10 I am aware of an e-mail that I sent to Tom Darden and
11 J .T. Vaughn in June 2014. so– when did not yet
12 exist the factory of Doral because the factory of
13 Doral has been rented, if I will recall, in Setember
14 for 2014.
15 So in June 2014 I sent an e-mail where I
16 clearly stated to J.T. Vaughn and Tom Darden that I
17 was going to direct the plant of J.M. I informed
18 them perfectly that it was an experimental plant. I
19 informed them — they knew perfectly everything from
20 the beginning.

He’s either lying or his memory is so defective that it is utterly unreliable. He may have such a habit of deception that it makes no impression on him, but he then supplies his modified memory as if it were fact. “They knew perfectly everything from the beginning” does not match the evidentiary record at all.

In the Rossi Reply to IH Opposition to the Rossi MSJ,  ¶¶ 123-125, we have these remarkable — diversionary — claims. I have added links.

123. Disputed. Dr. Rossi made clear to Defendants that J.M. Products was a newly formed company. See Supp. Ex. 56.

There is no contention that “J.M. Products” was anything other than a “newly formed company.” But what was the “customer” that wanted power, and that wanted their identity kept confidential, that JMC was formed to represent in Florida? Rossi is relying on the confusion of language.

Dr. Rossi made clear to Defendants that J.M. Products would use Johnson Matthey as a supplier. See Defs.’ Ex. 41.

Exhibit 41 shows Rossi creating a cover story that could be given to visitors. He first of all talks about the Customer and their concern about “disclosure,” but a “solid hope” that after three or four months of good operation, they will “make an official outing.” And then “our customer is JMC Chemicals [sic], a new company.” That is, there is a “real customer,” but, legally, the agreement will be with the new company. The mail does not say that Johnson Matthey will be a supplier. It says that IH will be “allowed to say to” their “investors that Johnson Matthey is the main supplier of JMC and that the same buys from JMC all production not bought from other Customers.”

This, of course, continues to call Johnson Matthey a “Customer.” And it goes on to hope for the “outing of the owner.” I.e., that Johnson Matthey would admit to owning JMC if they are satisfied that everything is working well.

Rossi expects IH to make careless declarations to their investors, that they don’t know, based on RossiSays. Rossi actually bought a few grams of palladium, apparently, from a JM subsidiary. To process a few grams is not a task for a megawatt power plant, that’s like using a sledgehammer when a toothpick will do. $1000 a day vs a few cents worth of electricity..

 J.M. Products did use steam generated by the 1MW Plant to create platinum-sponge and/or graphene based catalyzers for sale to Leonardo.

What might have been a very small experimental operation, not “production,” is presented, and all that is in drastic contrast to what Rossi represented in multiple emails. Cooking a few grams of material could be accomplished to any temperature up to melting (which would destroy “sponge”) with a few kilowatts at most. If steam is being used — as is claimed, not more than a few hundred watts, and being generous, a kilowatt. So for a day, 24 kWh. $2.40 at $0.10 per kW.

See Supp. Ex. 59 [the Leonardo deposition by Rossi] at 214:23-215:3, 220:16-19, 225:5-10; Supp. Ex. 58 [the Rossi email of ; Supp. Ex. 45 [deposition of Rossi] at 185:23-186:20. IPH has no proof to contradict this representation. See Ex. 17 [the Fogleman deposition for IPH] at 149:19-150:8. [pp. 149-150 are missing from that exhibit]

I reviewed all the copies of the Fogelman deposition for IPH. None of the copies have page 149 or 150. The “no proof” comment is based on the Rossi theory that because Fogelman, corporate representative — and expert on IPH finances — referred to Vaughn’s knowledge instead of testifying to it personally (and the Vaughn deposition was the next day), IPH, the counter-claimant, “had no proof,” but that was not what Fogelman actually said, my suspicion from my recollection (which can be mistaken) and “proof” is not necessary in a civil suit, if there is evidence, enough for a preponderance of the evidence conclusion.

The Rossi claims here are not false, but highly misleading. The possible production of a few grams of product is irrelevant to what was represented as a customer buying a megawatt of steam power, engaged in production, for actual sale of product to other actual customers. This continues to tell the story, as if this all makes Rossi look innocent, when this evidence clearly shows his fraudulent representations, over and over.

Exhibit 58, a Rossi email of June 10, 2014, also claims “I will direct the operation of the plant,” but context is clear that this was about the 1 MW Plant, and that is what was provided in the Term Sheet, ¶ 8.

In exchange and consideration for J.M. Products’ sale to Leonardo Corporation of the catalysts that J.M. Products produced using the 1MW Plant steam, Leonardo Corporation paid J.M. Products’ expenses and employee/contractor income. See Defs.’ Ex. 17  [deposition for Leonardo by Rossi] at 208:3-209:21.

This was all a legal fiction, moving bookkeeping entries around. The risk was entirely Rossi’s. (As to straightforward economic loss. Rossi’s friends here are in trouble.) There was no independent customer selling product from steam-based production, where the reduction in power costs would make economic sense. The motive for setting all this up was clear: to create a faux GPT. Given that $89 million consideration, committing to pay $1000 per day for a megawatt of power for a year was cheap. But for production? It was completely unnecessary, and there was literally power to burn, even at the input electrical power — enough that it might make the warehouse uncomfortable. The JMP operating expenses, including Bass, were spent to create appearances, not to process product at the levels of production involved: at best, a few grams.

Dr. Rossi controlled J.M. Products’ technical and product development activities, as well as the company’s day-today activities.

Indeed he did. JMP was a legal device created to pretend there was an independent customer — which Rossi advertised on JONP during the “test.”

See Defs.’ Ex. 36 [Deposition for JMP by Rossi] at 17:11-16, 22:23-23:1. At all relevant times, Defendants knew that Dr. Rossi would direct the operations of the J.M. Products. See Defs.’ Ex. 36 at 34:15-20.

I have quoted Ex. 36, page 34, the JMP deposition, above. I am not a lawyer, but I think that this may have been perjury, it is so deviant from the Rossi emails.

125. Disputed. J.M. Products was a real customer with its own operations to use steam produced by the 1MW Plant to treat platinum sponge to create catalyzers for sale. See Supp. Exs. 58, 45 at 185:23-186:20. IPH has no proof to contradict this representation. See Ex. 17 at 149:19-150:8. In fact, J.M. Products did use steam generated by the 1MW Plant to create platinum-sponge and/or grapheme [sic] based catalyzers for sale to Leonardo. See Supp. Ex. 59 at 214:23-215:3, 220:16-19, 225:5-10. Regardless, Defendants did not care what J.M. Products was using steam for or what the company was producing. See Supp. Ex. 48 at 196:8-196:11. At all times, Dr. Rossi distinguished J.M. Products from Rossi and Leonardo: (a) to respect corporate formalities; and (b) because the entities and individuals were separate and distinct. See Supp. Ex. 46 ¶ 17. J.M. Products was in fact satisfied with the power that it was receiving from the 1MW Plant. See Defs.’ Ex. 47 at Leonardo Corp. Dep. Ex. 20.

I’m not taking the time to link the evidences, because this is all misdirection, presenting trivialities and accidental appearances as if they were substantial. “Satisfied with the power”? How would we know? Well, Bass said so. And how did Bass know that? He was told what to say by Rossi. It was entirely Rossi, Rossi all the way down. While there was, apparently — I don’t really trust anything Johnson says — a “beneficiary” of the trust that owned JMP, Rossi apparently — I think this is in the depositions — guaranteed that person no loss, please sign here. This was not a pre-existing chemical company as represented, and in spite of Rossi claims, he obviously represented that the real customer desiring power (Soon! Act quickly, don’t wait or the opportunity will be lost!). It was a classic Rossifiction, a fantasy created out of thin air with the cooperation of Johnson. How much Bass and Fabiani knew, I can’t tell. Bass seems to me like a dupe, paid well for a little work, not realizing that a fraud was involved, though …. he may be civilly liable. Fabiani seems to me to have been freaked out and foolish, but may also have been acting under instructions from Rossi, who might give some very bad legal advice. “If the evidence disappears, they can’t prove anything, he, he, he.”

Once it was shown that the Fulvio Fabiani now on staff (in some way) at Upsalla, is in close connection with Roland Pettersson, of the Lugano team, we can be reasonably confident that this is the same Fabiani as is a defendant in Rossi v. Darden. The level of coincidence if this is another person is just too high.

(Just because Ahflors is clueless in some ways doesn’t mean he is always wrong, though he presents evidence without explanations). This starts to resemble a possible quid pro quo, Rossi acting to find Fabiani a job. But that’s speculation at this point, merely plausible.

(Another connection: Fabiani apparently funded a project connected with Levi, with 35,000 euros. At maybe about the same time — someone could research the details to see if this is plausible — Leonardo Florida loaned USQL, Fabiani’s company — formed by Johnson –, $35,000.  Perks. Nothing overtly illegal. But … very possible conflicts of interest.)

Rionrlty wrote:

sigmoidal wrote: [a long and solid exposition of this mess]

It seems clear to me, at least without your added explanation in bold print, that he is referring to the JM plant. Why would he have to inform them that he would operate the 1MW plant for free. Obviously they already knew this and I think anyone with an open mind would interpret it this way.

Cool. This is Rossi’s argument, exactly. But when someone uses a word to refer to one thing, over and over, and then uses the same word to refer to something else, but doesn’t specify this, “anyone with an open mind” would interpret that usage as not having changed. We also know how the sentence was taken by IH. The circumstantial argument is a kind that is common among some of my least favorite people. I don’t mind ignorance, it is the natural state. However opinionated ignorance, certain of its own conclusions, I’ll admit, does bother me at times.

They will ask “why” when what is actually happening is that they are clueless, but their cluelessness is then used as an element of proof.


IH would not know that Rossi would operate the plant for free. The contract for support had expired. Rossi, in the relevant mails, was assuring IH that they would not have to pay for his services in operating the Plant, and this was then, as mentioned above, incorporated in the Term Sheet. If it was so obvious, why would it need to be mentioned there?

My own question back would be, “Why was the ‘for free,’ if in regard to the Customer “plant” — it was actually called a “factory” in that mail –, any  business of IH? Suppose the “real customer” had agreed to pay Rossi, to manage their factory, would that have been any of IH’s business? If it were an independent customer, none. It would only be the other way around, if Rossi were paying the “customer,” that this could be a problem.

And that is what was actually happening. Rossi was — admittedly — paying all the expenses of JMP. Why? It’s totally obvious, isn’t it?

THHuxleynew wrote a sane post. Yay!

Some Rossi blogviation related to the above:

May 12, 2017 at 6:51 AM

Dear Dr Rossi:
Did IH know that you were the technical director of JM?

Andrea Rossi
May 12, 2017 at 7:19 AM

Ruth Yellock:
I cannot comment on issues to be discussed in Court, but a careful reading of the papers deposited in Court will allow you to read that IH had been notified in written from me on June 2014 that I was going to be the director of the plant of JM ( please read carefully the deposition of Andrea Rossi as the representative of JM: you will find there the reference to the written communication to IH that I was going to be the director of the JM plant; this fact gives evidence that IH knew months before the beginning of the Guarantee Performance test that I was the director of the JM’s plant. Read also all the rest of the deposition to get the real context related to this issue. Note: I am not commenting, just referring to papers published in Court ).
Warm Regards,
Your comment is the N. 37 000 of this blog.

Above, readers can find links to the relevant documents and can check the accuracy of what Rossi claims. I have only very rarely seen sources cited on JONP. It is RossiSays, or, where it is an anonymous possible Rossi sock, WTFSays. Basically, Rossi’s claims can be derived from the sources only if one squints and ignores the context. Yes, Rossi is making this claim that “IH knew.” But the documents don’t show that.

Referring to papers “published in court,” with an interpretation, is “commenting.” Rossi is truly a sad case. He actually has a degree in philosophy? Apparently so, and that was genuine, not a diploma mill.

May 12, 2017 at 6:51 AM

Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Did you ever say that JM is owned by Johnson Matthey? The puppets of the ventriloquist of Raleigh are making a fuss about this issue.

Andrea Rossi
May 12, 2017 at 7:14 AM

I cannot comment on issues to be discussed in Court, but a reading of the papers deposited in Court will allow to anybody to check the fact that
I NEVER SAID OR WROTE ANYTIME THAT JM WAS OWNED OR DIRECTED BY JOHNSON MATTHEY. Please read the deposition deposited in Court of Andrea Rossi as the representative of JM Products: I suggest to read carefully all of it to understand well the issue. This is not a comment, it is just an invitation to read the related papers published already in Court.
Warm Regards,

This is classic Rossi. First of all, in the documents, it appears that “JM” is Johnson Matthey. As to the name of “JMC” — the original incorporation — it appears that this came from Rossi, and was probably intended to imply an association with Johnson Matthey, i.e., “Johnson Matthey Chemical Products,” but abbreviated to create deniability and lack of explicit connection. Later, this became JM Products, Inc., “Advanced Derivatives of Johnson Matthew Platinum Sponge.” Perhaps a few hundred dollars worth! No, Rossi never claimed that “JM” — if this means JMP, nee JMC — was owned by Johnson Matthey, which completely ignores the clear evidence. The original “customer” was not JMC, it was initially negotiated as Johnson Matthey, and Rossi never correct the impression thus created, but continued to claim a kind of dual ownership: the customer was now to be JMC, Inc., but JM, it was hoped, would “come out” in a few months and acknowledge it was their project.

We now know the facts, and what is obvious above is that Rossi is not actually contradicting the facts. Unless by contradiction we mean strongly implying what isn’t so. Rossi is leading his followers astray, setting them up for high disappointment or a continued and deepened conspiracy theory.

Rossi definitely implied that Johnson Matthey was the owner of JMP, hidden under the corporate form. That’s what “U.K. Entity” was about, when the actual legal owner was a Florida trust managed by Johnson, beneficiary Rossi’s old friend, and the de facto operating owner was Rossi himself, i.e., he directed JMP entirely, and for his own benefit. He was the sole customer of JMP, apparently, so he was paying all of JMP’s expenses (which could have been much higher if IH had billed JMP based on the Johnson invoice requests), taking all the risk, doing all the work (or paying someone to do it), and then buying the product, a few grams of something or other, RossiSays. For something north of a quarter million dollars in liabilities, if not cash out of pocket.

It makes no business sense, except of the goal was to force IH to pay him $89 million. What could get really interesting would be if Rossi turns on Annesser, who was fairly deeply involved in this, earlier than the so-far-visible lawyer actions. Did Annesser give him poor legal advice? I find that quite possible, even though it is speculative.

Alan Smith also wrote something sensible and on-topic. Aw, shucks. He was replying to a comment and we have to guess if it’s the comment above, but it probably was. One never knows, posting, if there is another comment, which might come down while one is writing. But there wasn’t a lot of risk of that with such brevity, to be sure.

Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax


2 thoughts on “How to handle a shitstorm”

  1. Well, I agree > 95% with your analysis of Rossi vs IH here (the cautionary 5% for things I have not checked).

    I agree with the comments on LF, but not the overall conclusion.

    There are on the LF thread a few people making detailed content-led posts informed by a significant reading of the documents. That would be sigmoidal (me, at times 🙂 ) oldguy, a few others. There are those making selective detailed content-led posts that however do not integrate content (IHFB). IHFB makes interpretive points that are individually factual but taken out of context and therefore wrong. I use the word Rossiesque to describe this since it is exactly what Rossi does. There is also a lot of noise.

    The moderation is imperfect, and not able or intending to exclude all noise. Rather, it tries to exclude personally boundary-breaking content and the most egregious and clearly identifiable noise-makers. Given inevitably limited resources and varying opinions there is a trade-off between excluding noise and enabling all points of view.

    LF does an OK job of this, in spite of the infelicities you notice. Anyone following the thread can see arguments on both sides tested, and note the which arguments are integrative, acknowledging context, and which Rossiesque. It actually helps to have able but Rossiesque posters like IHFB around to present the opposite side. Just as wehn reading the MSJs, you get a much better picture reading the DJ efforts together with the Annesser ones, and comparing detailed arguments.

    There is also a place for more reflective, lower-noise, content. Personally I enjoy the rough-and-tumble at LF. It is maybe a self-indulgence. But, a better world would require gatekeepers. Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?

    I know, Abd, you have a good answer to that question. I’m not denying it. Just asserting that LF’s answer, imperfect though it is, also works.

    1. Thanks, THH. Yes. LF “works.” For what purpose? And compared to what? If there were no alternative, LF would be fantastic! I don’t recall exactly when it was that I saw that LF needed more moderators, and it needed moderation policy. Alan Smith more or less wrote “put up or shut up.” I put up, I volunteered to serve as a moderator (at the lowest privilege level, I wasn’t looking for control, but to serve). That was pocket-vetoed. The Staff member who forwarded the offer did not know why, but expressed a level of despair.

      I eventually found moderator behavior intolerable as a writer. Deleting content without notice or policy violation, with not even notice that it happened, is intolerable. So I announced that I was boycotting LENR-Forum unless this was addressed. I was banned with other or apparent cause. It seems that what I have written here also led to an idea that I could never return. Supposedly I “outed” someone here. By their rules, yes. (Though normally communities do not sanction outside behavior.) By sanity, no. (And if someone objects to something here, removing it will be considered. Nobody has complained here, nor, in fact, there.) Right now, I am the only one with admin privileges on this blog, but that is not intended to remain. All these issues are ones that I faced before, developing high experience.

      And I’m glad I was banned because of what came out of it, this blog. Without that, I might have been struggling to build good or fun content (ideally both!) on LENR Forum, with inadequate tools and inadequate owner support. But … the whole affair demonstrated administrative incompetence. The incompetence includes despair on the part of staff who could actually make a difference. My friends, I’d say.

      You have raised the “who watches the watchers” issue, an ancient one, and I’ve been working on that issue for maybe three decades. There are answers to the questions, and they involve structures known to work when used. It is rarely used, a situation I have been staring at — and addressing — for a long time as well.

Leave a Reply