Planet Rossi or just plain Planet Confusion?

The Rossi v. Darden developments thread on Lenr-forum.com has moved into more general discussion of the case. Randombit0, I call Zero, showed up with Planet Rossi arguments. He actually provides, as he has in the past, a hint that he is Rossi, not that it matters much. I’ll come to that.

The usual mishegas is studied and compared with case evidence and, ah, expert opinion.

Alan Smith wrote:

There is btw, a UK registered company called JMC INC. Incorporated in May 2016, one female Chinese Director.
beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10172981

Totally useless and irrelevant. JMC is the abbreviation used for the original Johnson incorporation in 2014. The name was J.M. Chemical Products.

Zero wrote:

THHuxley wrote:

IH have never boasted in an e-mail that they have lied to a prospective business partner and faked a test to get out of it, calling this behaviour “a magnificence”.

You really can say that IH is honest in accordance with this assertion?

No, THH is pointing out that another post that more or less equated IH as “he says, she says” — i.e., that there is no basis to believe one of them over another, was not considering prior behavior, that Rossi has been deceptive, and admitted it, in an email. Rossi’s deception does not prove IH’s honesty — how could it? — but Rossi’s deception will not fail to impress a jury, and, in these on-line discussions, we notice it.

Did you ever read IH’s emails??? Maybe Rossi has his own evidences about the IH deceptive attitude but he decided to show them just to the jury, instead of submit them during this phase.

This is remarkable! Zero is implying that there have been deceptive IH emails, and then he invents a reason why we have not seen them, a legal strategy. As will be pointed out by others, this is not legally possible. One cannot hold back evidence until trial, all evidence in the possession of a party must be disclosed to the other party. Who would have seen IH emails? Rossi, obviously. So … this is a piece of circumstantial evidence that this is Rossi. We have seen others in the past. Further, we know that Rossi is paranoid, that’s long been accepted by his friends. Seeing a deceptive attitude is easy for someone who is paranoid! It’s easy to see this in the Complaint. Facts that have no legal significance are asserted as evidence of fraud, and, in particular, nonpayment is never evidence of fraudulent intention in entering into an agreement, other evidence would be required. Otherwise any time someone defaulted on some contract, for whatever reason, they could be accused of fraud in the original agreement.

Rossi seems to believe that because IH didn’t have $89 million on hand in 2012, that they were deceptive. Now, Darden could have laid his hands on $89 million, probably, if it were in service of Cherokee Partners, but Cherokee, quite explicitly, was not a party to the Agreement and didn’t owe Rossi anything, Rossi will fail on those claims, they were only allowed on a thin basis, that maybe Rossi could prove something, but it would take strong evidence, that appears to be missing.

Darden may have said things in dealing with Rossi initially and there could have been an element of “bait and switch,” but the switch (for obvious legal reasons, as any attorney would have told Rossi) was made and signed by Rossi, who took the money, and confirmed later with the Amendments. He had a year to reconsider, and did not. That argument is dead. Darden was not substantially deceptive if he implied Cherokee involvement. If Rossi had taught IH how to make devices, it’s not impossible that Cherokee might have invested or loaned money to IH, but IH, in fact, had many means of raising money if needed, particularly for an obviously profitable endeavor. They are expert at that.

It is a long way till the end…..By the way……the word “magnificence” is not present in the email you are talking about.

This is hilarious. First of all, Rossi has just been accused of deception. Then the magnificance thing is about him bragging about it, which is sure to impress a jury with … with what? Basically, shameless deception. This is not going to look good, does Rossi realize that? Are his attorneys being honest with him, or, is he listening to them? The email in which the deception was explained. However, it was preceded, apparently, by this email, where Rossi calls it a “masterpiece,” not a “magnificence.”

In other words, Zero’s objection is a distinction without a difference. Deceptive, in fact, unless one is familiar with the case.

You can find this word in the message that Rossi left in his own blog the 8th of July (a message that IH didn’t deny in any way):
“……for the first time, an E-Cat module, entirely produced by our USA Partner in the new factory ( a magnificence), charged with the charge made by the Partner’s CEO, using the materials we teached to buy, prepare, manipulate, treat, to make the charges, assembled , insulated, has started its operation, and the results are the same of the E-Cats built by us.”

I don’t doubt that Rossi was proud. And, in fact, it even appears, the results were the same, Zero. — Perhaps even the same defective measurement techniques as well. At least that is what IH is claiming, and Rossi has not produced evidence otherwise, other than a series of arguably defective reports.

THHuxley wrote:

There is no doubt that Rossi wanted the test to be considered the GPT – though in the written evidence to get it started he certainly made clear that it was something quite different (a PR stunt with a “real” customer). I’m sure IH were well aware that Rossi would represent this test as a GPT to try to get his money. That does not mean they thought it was the GPT and they seem to have been quite careful to ensure that it was not.

If IH knew from the beginning that this test was the GPT from Rossi’s point of view (whereas they considered it just a test for which they would not pay a cent), why they accepted this situation?

It is not clear that Rossi is capable of looking at situations from the other side. First of all, this was THH’s speculation. However, arguendo, let’s accept it. They suspected it. However, what if Rossi had actually produced a megawatt with that Plant? What if he had simply not transferred the technology to them? Wouldn’t they want to see it in action? I would. By this time they reasonably had high suspicion that the Rossi technology didn’t work. But they wanted to “crush the tests.” Did they know that JMP was a sham? Maybe, maybe not. If the Plant had actually worked, they could issue those invoices! That’s pushing 350,000 or so reasons to wait and see. Rossi set up a situation where they would not confront him with suspicions, and they knew from the past that if they did, Rossi would essentially withdraw — or worse, like suing them.

What we know is that (1) they played along with Rossi, who is now complaining about it, and (2) they did object, probably formally, probably with a lawyer letter — or one approved by a lawyer — at the beginning of December, 2015, making Rossi’s claims that they waited until it was time to pay to object. And Rossi deceived the public over all this, claiming at the beginning of March, when Krivit speculated about a rift, that Krivit was lying and that everything was fine with IH. When, in fact, he was preparing to sue them, he must have been, because he knew full well, and had known since no later than the beginning of December, that they were not going to pay.

Why they did not put the record straight instead of carry investors around the plant? I can’t believe how you can consider this behavior as a fair attitude!

Zero imagines that the court and the world is going to care about attitude. “You have a bad attitude, therefore pay Rossi $89 million.” It doesn’t work like that.

Why not “put the record straight” and why “carry investors around the plant”? Because they had investors interested in investing in LENR — not in Rossi, who deliberately made himself appear to be a con artist, and had done so for years, and they wanted to see the Plant, to see for themselves. The only investor that really matters here is Woodford, and Woodford had been researching LENR for some years. It was not safe to invest in other approaches, if Rossi was on the table and might have a “magnificence.” I do not know of the expertise of the two that visited on behalf of Woodford, but if they had any engineering knowledge at all, or had been briefed on what a 1 MW plant would be like — Jed Rothwell has written a lot about this — they would walk in there, be told that, yes, this is running a megawatt of heat output, and would immediately know that it was bogus. And so they would trust IH, which was telling him that they could not get the technology to work for them, but Rossi was running this demonstration….

To Rossi and Company, that business people, corporate types — which Rossi never trusted, to his tremendous loss before — might deal straightly and openly with investors, it might as well be another Planet.

THHuxley wrote:

Whatever else you think, it is clear that the calorimetry (all under Rossi’s control) would not be proper for any test of performance with $89M riding on the result. Regardless of what any contract said. There are rules about fairness etc and obeying the spirit of the agreement, which in this case was clearly meant to be a safe way to establish that Rossi’s stuff worked, and equally clearly was not safe.

What do you really know about the calorimetry? Have you ever read one of the four Penon’s reports?
You are jumping to hasty conclusion, following IH’s words, which are not confirmed by any evidences.

Evidences indicate, and IH has not just presented “words,” but actual evidence, evidence that Rossi cannot deny, though he can deny the implications. Rossi has not presented or even argued, for the most part, contrary evidence. Now, has Zero read “one of the four Penon’s [sic] reports?” If he is going to place them in opposition to what THH wrote, we might think he has read one, or he is merely blowing smoke. From many evidences, Zero is either Rossi or a Rossi insider.

At this point, the public has only some descriptions of the content of the preliminary reports, and Jed Rothwell claimed to have seen one, and when that description appeared, Jed said that everything he knew was there (except he had more data, just that the data he had showed the same thing — and Jed claimed that this came from Rossi himself, through an anonymous informant — who may have thought that Rothwell would think the data convincing.) So this is what we have, Exhibit 5.

We also have a proposed Penon protocol, at the end of an IH response that Rossi presented in a discovery appeal to the Magistrate, it starts on page 26.

Zero is arguing that THH is “jumping to hasty conclusions,” but … THH’s conclusions are fairly obvious. Sure, maybe evidence will appear that shifts how matters appear. However, THH — and everyone in the public who comments on this — is commenting from what has already appeared to them, except for a very few who may have inside knowledge (such as Dewey Weaver and, I suspect, Zero.)

Zero wrote:

Shane D. wrote:

With the admission in Document 93 by JMP that they have no parent company in the UK, thereby no product and no need for the steam, I would say this all but over.

“Thereby”?? Why these things should exclude each other? We already knew that JMC was owned by “an individual or entity formed in the United Kingdom”, not necessarily a corporation. Much ado about nothing…..

Shane;’s argument was not strongly stated. Zero is correct that the UK company thing does not exclude product nor need for steam. However, what was being claimed was that “Johnson Matthey, or, later, an implied association with “Johnson Matthew,” and platinum sponge, and Johnson Mattey does make platinum sponge, was deceptive, and the evidence shows that JMP, nee JMC, was set up just to create the agreement with IH, see The owner of JM Products

The owner, evidence is now reasonably strong, was Johnson or a trust set up by Johnson for a named person. Zero, by the way, quotes the disclosure by Johnson correctly, many have not done that. It was very odd language. Johnson knew if it was a “person” or another “entity.” An entity could be a corporation or trust or partnership, etc. However, he had set it up, and I doubt that he travelled to the U.K. to do it. There is a thin possibility that there is some truth behind all this. I have described scenarios that allow Johnson to be other than a willing participant in a fraud, but it’s thin indeed. What seems almost unassailable at this point is that the Doral plant sale of power plan was a scheme to create a possible GPT under Rossi’s full control, something that would be entirely contrary to the intention of the GPT when the Agreement was originally drafted. As well, Rossi’s arguments in the email proposing this show much that Rossi does not want to admit, such as the bogisity of his argument that IH “failed” to set up a GPT opportunity. No, Rossi postponed or refused, until he could control it, a “masterpiece,” and, yes, he called it that.

Alan Smith wrote:

randombit0 wrote:

“We already knew that JMC was owned by “an individual or entity formed in the United Kingdom

Probably/Possibly this one. beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10172981
One female director. Males you think.

Since nobody picked up on this irrelevance when he first wrote it, he simply repeated it.

J.M. Chemical Products, Inc., was the first name. The name was later changed to J.M. Products. I have covered all this on lenr-forum, but Alan always that that was totally silly useless garbage, of no importance since the entire lawsuit is just a bitchfest. So his knowledge remained shallow and primitive. The company was never “JMC” or “JMP” but these were used as abbreviations in documents. That UK company has no connection at all. The name JMC and JMP have been used, often, you can find lists of these company names.

oldguy wrote:

I am confused. JMC couldn’t (shouldn’t ?) be owned by Rossi and Johnson.
The initial suit documents have:
“JMC is owned by an entity formed in the United Kingdom and none of Leonardo,; Dr. Andres
Rossi, Henry W Johnson nor any cf their respective subsidiaries, directors, officers, agents. employees,
Affiliates, significant others, or relatives by blood or marriage, has any ownership
Interest in JMC “
And it was signed by Johnson.

We actually don’t know when that was signed. However, it is likely that the ownership was technically a trust,  set up by Henry W. Johnson, as Trustee, the Platinum American Trust dated effective as of July 14, 2014. this is from the JMP interested parties disclosure. The beneficiary of the Trust is given as Francesco Di Giovanni. So who is the “owner” ? That could be a tricky legal question. Johnson’s declaration may have been misleading, but … it’s not clear that this is anything more than “the ownership was concealed and misrepresented,” and the point, that de facto control was entirely in Johnson’s hands, as trustee of the trust (trustees manage an asset), and as the incorporator of JMC — before the trust existed. This was not an arms’ length deal as implied in the representations of Rossi and Johnson.

(See The Owner of JM Products. )

Nigel Appelton wrote:

JMC =/= JM Products

Nigel is new and says what he might think is obvious. However, JMC was shorthand for J.M. Chemical Products, Inc., which legally changed its name to J.M. Products. So they are the same.

oldguy wrote:

Nigel Appleton wrote:

JMC =/= JM Products

The court documents quoted have JMC Chemical marked out and above it have JM Chemical Products, Inc written in and initialed by Johnson.

Nitpicking details, but sometimes Details matter. One document has what is described. This is an undated piece of paper that was not part of the 2012 Agreement, being created on the order of two years later, because before that JMC did not exist.  I assume it was in Rossi’s file and was accidentally included, with Annesser not checking things over carefully. The changes are also initialed by Vaughn. The name change was a not official with Florida until September, but I’d assume the document was signed earlier, when Johnson and Vaughn (and Rossi) were together at the IH facility in North Carolina, so Johnson may have simply used the name he was planning on changing it to, whereas IH had prepared the document with the old name.

People should realize that pleadings are not attested, sworn under oath. Planet Rossi asserted that Johnson must have been telling the truth, because these were “filed with the court.” Not necessary. Johnson did not file this with the court, nor did Rossi attest to everything filed being true copies. The Agreement is apparently incomplete (and this is obvious from examining it.) It doesn’t really matter. When evidence is introduced in court, someone will need to attest to it as true or as a true copy of a document. Pieces of paper don’t mysteriously show up in the record. Pleadings are simply to set the context, to warn the other side of their claims or denials, etc.

IH Fanboy wrote:

Dewey Weaver wrote:

Another burst of propaganda…

And why should your pronouncements here be characterized any differently?

Because they are different in some significant ways. Dewey Weaver is a real person, acknowledge to be an investor in Industrial Heat and closely associated with them. He is an insider. He can be expected to have some bias or favoritism toward IH, it would be normal. Zero is anonymous, using a photo not of him, and is almost certainly a man from language, and has given — let slip — indications that he either is Rossi or someone close or a meat puppet of Rossi. The language is definitely of a Rossi insider. But he pretends not, and present arguments, over and over, that have been thoroughly trounced. That’s propaganda, more fairly, than in the case of Dewey, who is rendering his personal opinions as a real person, not some fake or sock puppet. Rossi presents bogus arguments that convince some people, he has been quite good at this, he knows how to play into people’s assumptions and what they will ignore.

If we take moral judgment out of “propaganda,” both are propaganda. What I write could be called propaganda, where I have polemic purpose, and increasingly, I write with purpose. I.e., I am seeking political effect, not just personal self-expression. Part of this, however, requires cogency and fairness. It requires sincerity. As was famously said, if you can fake that, you’ve got it made!

(it is far easier to be actually sincere! But people in show business need to know how to smile when they are actually hurting. And then there is the skill of creating “actual sincerity,” that is powerful in communication. Out of nothing.)

Dewey Weaver wrote:

IHFB – I have the privilege and honor of dealing with facts and in truth. You, on the other hand, need to acquire some clues.
Cheers.

Planet Rossi is generally clueless about real people. Dewey is a real person, and more than that, the kind of person that it is a relatively rare opportunity to be able to communicate with. He is here offering IHFB a gift, if IHFB could recognize it. Dewey actually has met Rossi, actually has dealt with IH, probably from the beginning, is actually involved in IH operations. How many other people here could say that?

I have claimed that Zero may be Rossi. For that reason, I would never want to see him excluded from discussions, I simply would prefer that he participate openly, though I can also understand, right now, why that might not be possible. In short, his lawyers. He is, in fact, taking some risk, if he is Rossi, because sites can be subpoenaed for access records that will show the source computer, if someone really is determined to find out and has some legal basis, they can get the information. But it’s unlikely to actually be harmful to him. He’s got bigger problems to worry about right now.

IHFB wrote:

@Dewey,
I have no horse in this race either way. So I think the probability of you promulgating propaganda is probably a couple of orders of magnitude higher than me doing such a thing.

These totally off-topic interpersonal conversations are part of what make a Forum like lenr-forum not terribly useful for creating content. The argument IHFB gives here is terminally naive. I have not recently looked over IHFB contributions, perhaps I will. My impression is that he repeats Planet Rossi tropes, whcih are often propaganda, typically created by Rossi. It doesn’t matter if he is biased or not, he’s naive and that can make him a tool of propaganda.

There is no clear definition of propaganda here, but my impression is that it must be considered to be Bad. Whether propaganda is good or bad is rather subjective, but if we are going to assign these qualities, the purpose must be considered. What would Dewey’s purpose be here? He is not going to scare Rossi off. However, it’s not impossible that the 3rd party defendants could, to use a common expression, save their asses by telling the truth. Dewey has rather openly been encouraging them, at least Fabiani and Bass, to do that. And that could be a reasonable and fair purpose. Johnson, maybe, may be given pause if he reads all the commentary and gets a clue as to what has happened and what is coming down the pike.

Or it is all meaningless and this is just bar talk.

Wyttenbach wrote:

Shane D. wrote:

Even if Rossi/Johnson can argue their way out of what they told IH orally in NC

.. Any court will believe this ..

Wyttenbach shows, as usual, that, while he has a PhD in Mathematics, he is clueless about U.S. common law and practice, and probably about the same where he lives. First of all, Shane acknowledged the possibility that Rossi and Johnson could “argue their way out” of what they allegedly told IH. However, this is what Wytte misses: basic legal principle: testimony is presumed true unless controverted. Then there is the requirement that testimony must be under oath, and deliberately lying is perjury, a criminal offense, you can go to jail for it, even if you did nothing else criminal. There are famous people who realized this the hard way, wealthy people who ended up serving time in prison. Lying about relatively minor stuff.

So we can expect that Darden and Vaughn, who were at that meeting, will testify to what they heard. Will Rossi and Johnson deny it under oath? Consider this: the point is relatively minor to the case, it’s one of many elements in the IH defense and counterclaim. Who will risk a perjury charge? What commonly happens is that a person thinks “they will never know, or they couldn’t prove it.” And then, say, it turns out that, OMG, IH had surveillance cameras with sound, and it happened that this conversation was recorded (in some places that can be a legal problem, but not in others, and what if there was a sign on the wall that said, all conversations here are recorded for security purposes, and they didn’t notice? Or the secretary was listening from the next room and testifies, and all the people one one side seem calm and honest to the jury. And the others …. this is one reason why hearsay evidence is not allowed, because the jury must actually see the witnesses to assess their probity! Rossi may expect that he will do well. I would not be so confident! He is up against skilled lawyers who know how to show what they want to show to a jury, Pace has criminal prosecutor experience, he has seen it all, I’m sure.

Basically, oral statements are established in court by testimony, and, if there is conflict of testimony, the jury will decide what to accept and what to reject. The JMP letterhead with “Johson Matthew” on it tends to confirm the IH claim.  But the core of the fraudulent representation claim is the documents, and then there will be other testimony about traffic, many people saw the Plant and the warehouse. What did they see?

Shane D. wrote:

Just one lie to a partner discovered after a contract is agreed upon, will invalidate that contract.

.. that’s the reason why all marriages break after one day..

Shane’s statement was not true. Only if there was detrimental reliance on the deception will the lie invalidate the contract. What is being confused here is invalidation of contract, and evidence showing a pattern of deception, which is what IH has been alleging.

oldguy wrote:

That is the ERV was not measuring the heated fluid out of Rossi’s system but only the material supplied from the “customer”. They do not have to be the same things.

.. Nobody has seen a signed report of the ERV, but some very much believe they have …
Somebody has to collect all this fuss, and write a comedy… but I’ll wait for the sentence…

oldguy was probably basing what he wrote on the protocol proposed by Penon, which is at the end of D.E. 70.1, I’ve linked to it above, I think. There isn’t really any controversy on this point, it is a potential flaw, and very unlikely that Penon mentioned anything relevant to it. It’s also not true that nobody has seen the singed report of the ERV. We can be sure that Rossi has seen it, Penon has seen it, of course, and there may be any number of people at IH who have seen it, and maybe even Dewey Weaver has seen it. There was also, apparently, a leaked preliminary report, and we know that Murray saw those, and that’s what he talks about in Exhibit 5.

oldguy wrote:

Wyttenbach

Yes there is a question about a signed EV report. But without Penon we may never know. It sounds like the last report was never given (at least Joe repeatedly asked for it so he could pay as late as mid April) I am beginning to wonder if the final report with a signature ever existed.

But at any rate, the customer’s actions are important since they claimed to get the returned water from there. Was it water, was it pressurized, was there any steam delivered from the system,…… The customer was not needed but hiding part of the claimed “loop” is important.

oldguy has confused the Fabiani situation with the ERV report. It was delivered, that is acknowledged by IH. If it weren’t getting late, I’d link to the Merged Answer showing the admission. Ah, WTF! IH Answer Merge with Rossi Claims . See paragraph 72.

The secret customer area is a major problem for a GPT, it is obvious undesirable, making it impossible to have a redundant measure of power. There are many possible artifacts or deliberate fraud set-ups. One might not think that possible with a megawatt plant! However, there wasn’t a megawatt being dissipated in that secret area, or it would have gotten very hot in the warehouse, unless there were major ventilation, which was absent. The argument about endothermic process is preposterous, unless they were bringing in a lot of ice and melting it down the drain, and that all would have been quite visible. Etc.

Eric Walker wrote:

Not exactly sure how to describe the newest document (doc. 95), but the plaintiffs have filed a motion for leave to file their Answer and Affirmative Defenses, over the objections of IH’s counsel. I gather (1) that there was some confusion about submission deadlines when IH submitted their third amended answer and counterclaims; (2) that the plaintiffs were late in filing their answer; (3) that in such a case it looks like it might be necessary to obtain the consent of the opposing counsel for a late filing; and that (4) IH’s counsel objected to this. Not sure if this is correct, or if it is, what the implications might be.

Heh! You can go to that googledrive page and try to find 95 on it, or you can go to 0095.0_Rossi_Motion_to_file_late and get it immediately, and I wrote about this document, this morning, blogging: Better late than never, or better let sleeping dogs lie?

In case it’s not clear, the Answer and Affirmative Defenses were already filed, merely two days late. The IH counsel could jump up and down and say “Bad! Bad!” and it would affect nothing, only if they filed a motion to reject a filed Answer could it possibly make any difference, and then they would be asking the Judge to reject that motion, not what they filed. They also did not need the permission of the judge to file late. (that is, if a document is overdue, the normal process would be, if you have it, file it! and if you don’t and need time, ask for time.)

Rather, this is apparently confused with requesting permission to file late, before it’s late! In that case, one may be sure that there would be no motion for a default judgment, because extra time would have been given.

I had missed the last claim in the motion, I’ll remedy that, but first:

15. Undersigned counsel has communicated with counsel for Defendants, who object to the requested relief.

I’d object to it also, because it appears to me to be freaking unnecessary. The Answer is filed, and was not rejected, and IH has not moved that it be rejected, so this whole exercise is moot. And I expect they would tell him that. If IH moves for rejection of the Answer, then they could make this argument. Rossi counsel is attempting to head off something that is unlikely to happen, and if it did, would easily be handled then, with the same arguments. My opinion of Chaiken just fell through the floor. Hey, maybe I’m wrong. Not A Lawyer. But …. someone who is one will probably set me straight if I’m off-the-wall here.

Something very weird is going on.

My understanding is that a late Answer has no effect at all unless a motion for a default judgment has already been filed, and it wasn’t, and even if it were, a two-day delay would be so unlikely to be considered a problem by a judge that Forgeddaboudit. The default judgment would be rejected. (an exception would be if the judge considered the defendant was being dilatory, and two days just isn’t enough for that, not even close.

In addition, if a party wants the judge to issue an order, the normal procedure is to provide it for the judge to sign. I can imagine the judge when she sees this.”These freakin’ idiots!” Okay, she probably sees this bad or worse commonly. It’s hard to find good help.

I have never heard of any idea that a defendant (and IH is the plaintiff in the counterclaim) needs permission of the plaintiff to Answer a complaint, even if it were a year late. There is an actual case I reviewed, as I recall, where the Answer came a year late. It may have been after a default judgment was requested, but not issued. I think the appeals court decided that the complaint was Answered, so go ahead with discovery…. I provided a link to some legal opinion on this on my blog post on D.E. 95, linked above.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax

See http://coldfusioncommunity.net/biography-abd-ul-rahman-lomax/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

WordPress Anti Spam by WP-SpamShield