About the judge in Rossi v. Darden denying the requested page limits in Motions for Judgment.
Dewey Weaver, I don’t suppose the font can be made smaller to fit more onto the limited page space…
Devious bastards think alike, we do. The same idea occurred to me, however, I know too much. I could not find the rule immediately, but pleadings must be in a certain form. That covers font size. I did find the federal appellate pleading rules, 14 point minimum for proportional spacing. Or 10.5 characters per inch maximum of a monospaced font. Pica typewriter, basically, 10 cps, for those who remember such ancient contraptions, if I’m correct (“elite” was 12 cps).
Footnotes might be smaller type, do I remember seeing that? I’ll come back and annotate this based on the record. I would want to look at the actual court rules. Do not violate the intention of the rules.
However, there is no limitation on type size for exhibits, and one could present exhibits in forms even more clearly than what has already been done, with various devices to compress and collapse. Look at the existing exhibits, they are highly wasteful. This would require care. Sometimes a rewritten copy might be submitted with a certification of “true copy” and a reference for verification. For example, deposition transcripts could be vastly condensed. More than one document could be presented in a single exhibit, easily.
I don’t think there is a limitation on the number of exhibits, however, or pages in exhibits. So for the Motion for Judgment and statement of facts, brevity will be the soul of wit.
It would take time, unfortunately, so the attorneys will be working late today, I expect. I think the filing deadline is midnight, on-line. If these include motions to seal, as seems likely, we won’t see them immediately and if the motion is denied, the clerk will delete them.
However, this is what I expect: the ruling of the Judge may lead the attorneys to focus on the strongest and simplest points. IH, for example, may bet the farm on failure to meet GPT conditions, which can be established with a few words, “There is no evidence for ….” and the exhibit is the Second Amendment, clearly requiring the signature of all parties to the starting date, and with no agreed-upon starting date for the GPT — not some preliminary setup or provisional test — there is no GPT, case closed, Rossi suit dismissed. IH may support this with some other facts, such as the “6 cylinder unit” flap that the Judge almost went for in their Motion to Dismiss.
There are other points that may seem telling to us, such as the problem of a megawatt in a confined warehouse space, but that may be difficult to establish as fact. This would, I think, depend on expert testimony, and not knowing what is in the discovery record, I can’t say. Maybe.
A trial will be needed to establish damages, other than clearly required payments, so forget about MSJs for that, is my rough non-lawyer opinion. I rather doubt that fraudulent inducement could be decided without a jury to rule on factual complexities.
Unless Rossi found or produced a Wabbit in discovery, his MSJ may produce little more than laughter. If he did, though, my guess is that trial would still be needed. MSJs are tough, like Motions to Dismiss. The requirements are similar, and most fail. My opinion has been, for almost a year, that IH had a dismissal case based on the lack of signed approval, but for reasons I don’t understand — or for no reason — they did not plead clearly based on that simple fact, if it is a fact, if there is no such document. Pleading estoppel on that, being so completely clear and agreed upon, as such an obvious necessity, could be difficult. Rossi, remember, did not plead estoppel in the complaint. He simply assumed it was all done properly.
The latest profound thought on E-Cat World is that this was all a deliberate plot by Rossi to distract IH, while he developed the Quark-X, a radically new technology, now promoted by a radically new depth in obtusion (just made that up, I like it better than “obtuseness”) for an arXiv paper. However, this is not in the least relevant to Rossi v. Darden, it would only generate a Nobel Prize, far short of $89 million.
Generate that Prize eventually, that is, not in the near term, because this is still Super Sekrit, and Nobel Prizes are not awarded for secret technology, requiring Sekrit Sauce and a bevy of Wabbits.
Carl-Oscar Gullström is presented by some as a “professor” at Upsalla, but his page there presents him as a doctoral student, who wrote a paper in 2014 giving a LENR theory, Rossi previously praised it, and with that sterling recommendation, he should qualify as full professor in no time, so why quibble?
The stonewalling of the Swedish Lugano team is producing real-world damage. Shame on them. If that test was valid, stand up for it, don’t hide! If mistakes were made, admit them. This is the straight path and the fast route to the future.