A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

I’m working on study documents. Doing work like this is how I learn, it’s how I become familiar with the documents. I’ve been watching LENR Forum and E-Cat World, and I see plenty of people commenting who obviously know a little, not a lot. They’ve seen some document that confirms what they believe, they take some accidental implication and run with it. And Sifferkoll is up to his old tricks. Ah, later.

I had started to work with RvD: Study of 214:Rossi Motion for Summary Judgment because I wanted to study the Rossi side first. However, 214 is so full of errors — almost all exhibit numbers are incorrect, for example, and the Motion is heavily based on something that didn’t happen: the exclusion of all IPH claims. Or at least it hasn’t yet happened. Since it is days of work to prepare one of these study documents, I put it off and started working on the IH side, with RvD: Study of 203:IH Motion for Summary Judgment

And then I realized that this document heavily depends on RvD: Study of 207:IH Statement of material fact supporting MSJ. So I decided to compile and link this first. You can see more or less what it will look like, I just need to complete it.

The statement of material fact is a boiled-down summary, filtered for significance, and some of it, so far, has blown my mind.

For example I thought that the IH claim that Leonardo Florida was not the same corporation as IH had the agreement with was a bit silly. However, I think I was wrong. Basically, I had assumed that this was just a move to Florida. Okay, the New Hampshire corporation still exists, so the claim of merger may be shaky, but … it’s still Rossi, really, right?

Actually, no. Rossi does not own Leonardo Florida. It is owned by a trust. Trustee is Johnson. IH may have a point, even a strong point.

That Ampenergo deliberately refused to sign the Second Amendment that allowed a later GPT is telling. All this, I will review in detail, studying the documents. Rossi, then, knew the ropes, before the Doral “test” began.

This is just one of many points that come up in the documents. For example, Penon explains why he did not respond to the Murray questions. It was because, he claimed, these were the same questions Murray had asked in February. Of course, the Murray document was deliberately a memorialization of those questions. Penon’s English is pretty bad, apparently. Let’s give his response the best construction. He believed he had answered the questions, but perhaps Murray did not understand. By this time there were lawyers involved on both sides, and it would be suggested to Murray that he ask the questions formally, in writing. So he did. And Penon, hired jointly by Rossi and IH to make or validate measurements, consciously refused to answer. His reason is irrelevant. IH apparently, then, refused to pay him his final payment, and Rossi paid it.

IH excerpts from the Penon deposition.

This was terminally sloppy. Penon depended heavily on data provided by Rossi and Fabiani. While data was stored on his computer at the Plant (possibly still there), Fabiani obviously had access to it. This was not an independent review.

As with the Lugano text and Levi, Penon reports as fact what he was told by Rossi. (Lugano, the reason for not calibrating at full input power, and Ferrara, the reason for only testing 18 reactors.)

So why did IH put up with this? Darden does explain, but the general reason is obvious. In order to continue to deal with Rossi, it was necessary to be maximally compliant and not argue with him, or show any need to confirm independently. If they did, it would be End of Test. Go eff yourself. Rossi had done this many times.

To complete their goal (which was twofold: to obtain and commercialize the technology, or, in the alternative, to determine that there was no technology at the levels claimed or even close), they needed to extend the relationship with Rossi, though not outside of “reason.” I.e., they were not about to agree with Rossi that Doral was the GPT and Penon the ERV, but they also were not going to start screaming that Rossi is Wrong.

They decided to watch, and then, when possible, to verify. And the beginning of that process — sending Murray — was where Rossi drew his own line. Murray was refused, and Rossi says why. Spy.

Annesser was quickly involved, and it appears that Annesser may have encouraged the breakdown, instead of calming it. Annesser apparently advised Rossi and Johnson to reject the December request for access, that is, to violate the Term Sheet, this time clearly. At that point, IH may have believed that the Doral warehouse was rented by JMP, controlled by Johnson, and may have had no idea that Rossi himself had rented the warehouse.

Annesser is in this up to his eyeballs, but that will not be relevant to the present case, unless a motion for sanctions is entered after the basic case is resolved. I no longer have any wonder that Annesser left Silver Law Group. This would be very unlikely to be something that Ruth Silver would approve.

(But she would never say that, and I’ve dealt with a law firm that had represented a plaintiff suing me. One partner started to say to me that maybe they were on the “wrong side,” and the other said to him — quite correctly — not to say that. It was obvious anyway, and these attorneys had advised the client, obviously, to settle with me, and that was quickly done. It looks like Annesser did not advise Rossi to settle differences, but to fight, not let these big guys push him around, and probably they will settle. Besides, this was his chance to sue a $2.2 billion corporation. These don’t come around every day. Even if he did need to stretch the law a bit.)

Trying out hypothes.is with LENR Forum

I’ve been seeing spots of interest — and bubbles of mishe-gas — on LENR Forum and missing the hot format of immediate comment, even though, long-term, what I’m settling into here is much more useful.

I started using hypothes.is for commentary because Steve Krivit filed a copyright violation notice on a copy of a page of his here. It’s an interesting tool.

I will create tools here to link to my hypothes.is comments (or others if contributors take it up), and here are some to start. (If you don’t see annotations after following a link, look for a small “>>” link at the top right. That should open up annotations.)

Look down the page as linked through hypothesis.is. The page should show highlights on text on which there is public comment. With a hypothes.is account one may create comments or reply to existing ones. It’s a browser extension allowing one-click setup of annotation of any web page.

The links below are actually all the same, they point, through hypothes.is to the same LF page.

response to Zeus46.
response to joshg
response to IH Fanboy
comment on Paradigmnoia just giving a link

And more.

and then  The next Rossi v Darden page.

Comments may be made here, or, with a hypothes.is account, comment replies can be entered with the annotations.

More annotation:

Playground 58
Playground 59
Playground 60

More Rossi v Darden threads on LENR Forum

Rossi vs. Darden developments 143
Rossi vs. Darden developments 144
Rossi vs. Darden developments 145
Rossi vs. Darden developments 146
Rossi vs. Darden developments 147

Still not caught up. When I do, I may add information to the above, if I find some annotation worth calling attention to. Anyone may also do that in comments below. Or, hey, you could annotate our pages.

My annotations may also be edited or deleted, comments here, or as replies to annotations, may include suggestions. Be nice, and you will be respected.


Looking at the above links today, there are problems. There are now “orphan” annotations. In at least one case, it appears that LF admin may have deleted a post, which then causes all subsequent paginations to be off. The post number appears to shift, but I’m not sure of that yet. LF is a moving target. So hypothes.is may not work reliably. There are also, it appears, hypothesis.is bugs. A URL with “no follow” in it was generated for an LF page, and the URL was badly formed, with an extra quote mark. I’ll be looking at this.

I attempted to annotate this post by THH.   I can load this in my browser, which has the hypothes.is extension enabled, and I can see my annotations. However, hypothes.is generates this URL for the page:


This, as would be expected, loads the root page for that thread, and then my annotations are shown as orphans, with no reference.

If I, instead, generate the link for a specific annotation, say the first on that post, I get


I get the annotation, all right, but orphaned, and the original page is not displayed, rather the root.

If I go to the original page,


I get a message that “there are no annotations in this group.” However, if I follow the link to the post, I can then see them. There are two annotations shown as orphaned. I recognizer the original post for one. It was not on that page, it was on one of the pages listed above. I think. This was the annotated text: “This notion that opinions are somehow magically equal or that any notion you dream up is somehow valid because it is your opinion is new-age nonsense”

This page has records from the hypothes.is feed, for me:


This was the post:

Abd 3/27/2017 8:49:04 PM #

This notion that opinions are somehow magically equal or that any notion you dream up is somehow valid because it is your opinion is new-age nonsense

Hey, I’m the New Age, my first teacher actually wrote a book, “This is the New Age, In Person,” and Jed Rothwell is sometimes a beknighted curmudgeon. However, he is also an expert on all things LENR, world-class, even though he is “only” a writer and LENR librarian. Librarians learn a lot.

The real New Age isn’t each and every stupid idea. It’s humanity waking up.

The quoted material at the top is from Jed Rothwell.  With some effort — google doesn’t find it, so I manually went through Jed’s contributions, I found the post: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?postID=53407#post53407

With that URL loaded, the comment shows. But the comment actually is on a quotation of Jed: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?postID=53413#post53413

The way that LF handles paging and links apparently breaks hypothes.is. I’m sure LF staff will be crushed, absolutely crushed, to realize this. The annotation returns a direct link of https://hyp.is/V8qVJBNQEeeNLe9YiXMQdw/www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/

which returns the annotation, with text in strike-out, since it isn’t on the loaded page, which is page 1 of that thread. I’m going to see if there is a workaround here. Meanwhile, back to the drawing board and some real work. Darn. I thought I could just add snarky comments to my heart’s content. Maybe my heart doesn’t like snark. Wouldn’t surprise me.


This is related to what is happening, perhaps. My guess is that the pages changed enough to break the annotation links for some annotations. Something else is going on with the inability to properly link to annotations that are still connected with the necessary page load. The problem is difficult, and there is apparently a current effort to support previous page versions, where orphans are caused by page changes.

An obvious cause of page change on LF could be post deletions, which would be enough to break some remaining annotations because the page number would change and also the post number (which is calculated at display time, it is not fixed) — the site-wide post number is constant, but the number of a post within a thread is recalculated based on all undeleted posts.

Some user or mod edits might also affect some annotation anchors.

Posts deleted by the author remain in the LF thread with a small-text note. Ordinary moderator deletions also remain, but some mods elect to totally delete, which then changes pagination and post thread number, and I previously saw that LF staff didn’t care about breaking incoming links (and took steps to break them, deliberately, which effort was abandoned when a workaround was created here).


We see what we want to see

Too often. If we have a firm position, and we are faced with a massive body of data, and the data dumped into Rossi v. Darden was massive, we will scan over it looking for “facts of interest.” If we are not careful, and some are not at all careful, we will pick facts that appear to confirm our prior views. It’s called “confirmation bias.”

I’ve pointed out an example in How Planet Rossi reads fact. Here is another from the same user, same deposition.

IH Fanboy wrote:

Remember the mis-matched water meter serial number FUD that was pushed on all of us here? As if this was proof of fraud?

All just one big mistake by Murray. 215-03, pages 263-264.

This was classic. I’ve called it trolling, based on the actual meaning of “trolling.” Even though I do think IHFB is “sincere.” Nevertheless, he makes statements that are evidence free, or that don’t actually match the evidence, if it is cited. Naturally, IHFB doesn’t link to the document and this is a huge PDF file, but at least it is there. However, IHFB is actually comparing two alleged facts. One is what is in the deposition and the other is what was “pushed on all of us here”? That is largely meaningless without any actual citation or quotation, but trolls are not interested in evidenced and sober discussion, and IHFB expects to be attacked.

What happened? Continue reading “We see what we want to see”

How to find Rossi v. Darden documents

On LENR Forum, Zeus46 wrote:

Is there a Barry West or Dewey deposition somewhere amongst this document avalanche?

Someone might point out to this fellow that the docket reference here is annotated. On that page, a browser search for Barry West immediately pops up the deposition. It’s about 92 pages out of 235.

Dewey Weaver is mentioned in a number of annotations; the third is the deposition. Unfortunately, it’s just six pages out of what must be more than 250.

I plan to extend and expand the annotations.

I’d go crazy if not for that index. Okay, okay, I’m crazy anyway, spending days creating study documents from the Motions for Summary Judgment. But this is how I learn stuff, by often-boring exposure, I become familiar with it. (Those documents should be ready by the end of this week. The core of the Rossi study is published as a draft, but when I realized there is a good chance that whole thing will need to be rewritten, I stopped work on it and started on the IH Motion.

Rossi summary flim-flam

I am starting study of the Motions for Summary Judgment. I decided to start with the Rossi motion first, so as to avoid some level of bias coming from getting fired up by the IH Motion. At this point I am compiling a study document, a page copied from the motion, in blog format, and intended to create both internal and external links for references. And what I immediately have discovered is that every Rossi exhibit reference I have looked at is incorrect. The motion is a mess. However, what about the intentions? They may not be much better. Continue reading “Rossi summary flim-flam”

How Planet Rossi reads fact

This example poked me in the eye today. On LENR Forum, IH Fanboy, a strong supporter of Andrea Rossi and a critic of Industrial Heat, wrote this:

Murray testified that Jed visited the Doral location with either you or JT Vaughn. (215-3, pages 122-123.) Do you agree with Murray? Was it with you?

Below this was the standard note:

anotherTroll likes this.

anotherTroll is a new user, appropriately named. LENR Forum is still figuring out how to handle trolls. They like free speech, but ….

Jed had said, many times as I recall, that he had visited the IH facility in North Carolina, but not the Doral plant in Florida. I was fascinated to see that Jed was even mentioned. So, of course, having the files, still working on annotating them, I looked this up. Continue reading “How Planet Rossi reads fact”

Slogging through the muck

Yesterday, prepping and uploading files for the Docket page, I was concerned I’d develop RSI. I am still annotating the docket and it will probably not be finished today. I need to stop periodically to wash the slime off my face. The deposition of Henry Johnson is particularly fascinating for a glimpse into this side of Planet Rossi. Put that together with the corporate deposition of JMP represented by Andrea Rossi, and everything else: there was only Rossi and Rossi Says, there was no independent customer, JMP was a corporate sock puppet, and …

lying liars lie. Continue reading “Slogging through the muck”

Wabbit! A hidden heat exchanger! That explains everything!

Yesterday, a blizzard of paper hit the docket, the last one (203) at 11:59 PM. We can now see more of the IH case, but my first impression of the IH Motion for Summary Judgment: I’m disappointed. Far too much of it is focused on weaker points, and … I see no reference to the lack of signed agreement to the GPT, as required clearly by the Second Amendment to the Agreement. This was the strongest point available, as far as I can tell. Rather, they focus more on the signature difficulties with the Second Agreement itself, a point which can be defeated by estoppel far more easily.

On the other hand, now we know what Rossi is claiming happened with the heat. Naturally, he lied about it on JONP, but Planet Rossi will easily forgive that. Think of the children with cancer! Nobody’s perfect!

We know it now because of the IH Motion to exclude the testimony of the Rossi expert. This expert explained that a heat exchanger in the second story of the “JMP warehouse” could have dissipated the heat, and that heat was conducted there by piping. How does he know? Rossi told him.

There is also an IH motion to sanction Rossi and third-party defendants Fabiani and Johnson for spoliation of evidence. That heat exchanger? Completely removed by Rossi et al, along with the piping for the reactor connections with the customer area. When the experts visited the Plant, nothing was there but some small pellets, Wabbit droppings, apparently, glowing with a mysterious blue light.

As well, according to IH, Fabiani destroyed all his evidentiary records and emails, and so did Rossi. Who needs this old trash? Besides, hard drive space is expensive.

I have not yet obtained the exhibits supporting the IH claims.

While IH apparently filed a motion to seal, they then filed a redacted version without waiting. The table of contents shows it as 30 pages, perhaps, but the PDF is 39 pages. Altonaga didn’t say anything about the cover, roman numerals, i through vi, and then there were two pages for the signature and statement of service. It’s squeaking, but seems to have stayed within the limit.


Johnson, Fabiani, and Bass filed a motion to seal  THE COMBINED MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT which does not appear to have an attached proposed order…. details, details, so many details. Altonaga might just deny it anyway, from past practice.

There is also a hearing today with IH claims about discovery problems. The notice was amended with additional issues.



What if we provide a magnifying glass?

About the judge in Rossi v. Darden denying the requested page limits in Motions for Judgment.

Paradigmnoia wrote:

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. Continue reading “What if we provide a magnifying glass?”

And here come the motions for summary judgment

All the parties but one set (Fabiani and USQL) have filed a joint motion to file motions for summary judgment and exhibits under seal, temporarily, for two weeks.

The Parties have been under very tight deadlines in this matter to complete discovery, and are still in the process of resolving some discovery disputes. At the same time, they are working on filing their motions due this week. As such, it would be extremely difficult for the Parties also to meet and confer adequately about the specific items accompanying their motions for summary judgment that should be sealed for the long term. Temporarily sealing the motions and their exhibits for fourteen (14) days would allow the Parties sufficient time (a) to meet and confer in a meaningful manner about the specific items that should remain sealed versus those that would be made publicly available after the expiration of the temporary seal and (b) to prepare and file sealing motions as to the specific items they believe should remain sealed.

While counsel for Third-Party Defendants United States Quantum Leap, LLC and Fulvio Fabiani agreed to a prior version of this motion, counsel for Defendants was unable to obtain their approval prior to filing the current version.

So we may not see these motions and exhibits for two weeks, and some exhibits, possibly, we may not see at all. However, this may move the case forward.

Update and discussion

Summary Judgement. and see also Dispositive motion. For Rossi v. Darden, deadlines were set July 1, 2016, by the Order setting schedule.

February 27, 2017. All discovery, including expert discovery, is completed.
March 21, 2017. All pre-trial motions and Daubert motions (which include motions to strike experts) are filed. Each party is limited to filing one Daubert motion. If all evidentiary issues cannot be addressed in a 20-page memorandum, leave to exceed the page limit will be granted. The parties are reminded that Daubert motions must contain the Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) certification.

Daubert motion.

IH has filed a motion, and a second motion to exceed the page limit. Rossi has also filed a motion for an extra day and to exceed the page limit. I expect these to be granted.

There was a joint motion to temporarily seal motions for summary judgment, to facilitate filing. This would be because confidential material may be necessary for the motions, and resolving confidentiality issues may take time, whereas the deadline is today (March 21). As a joint motion that serves to expedite the process, while still ultimately publishing what can be published, with other items remaining sealed by court order, I expect this to be granted, so we will see motions filed by tomorrow. I would interpret that the Rossi request would give everyone an extra day, but I’d also advise a party not to count on that. Always file a request, don’t just assume!

So when Dewey Weaver said this would be a busy week, he wasn’t kidding. Motions for Summary Judgment will lay out the strongest aspects of a case, from a party’s point of view. What has been, until now, only known to the parties because it was disclosed in Discovery, but was not revealed due to disputes, will become public; the joint motion will only delay that two weeks. OMG! I can’t stand it! I wanna know NOW! What do you mean two weeks? That sounds like forever!

Ah, well, it’s not forever.

LENR Forum conversation has become a series of sound bites, where some users fully display their … let’s call it “position.” A place where they sit.

So the peanut gallery here has some comments. (I watched, as a kid, Howdy Doody, it may even have been the first television program I saw.)

Rionrlty wrote:

sigmoidal wrote:

This was in response to ele’s post, which I covered the other day, saying much the same:

Methinks you overestimate yourself. Your post belies any semblance of you being a ‘realist’.

1) There is no evidence that ‘they collected about $100 Million’. You made that up – no reality there. Then you say there was ‘no problem with the test’ despite the reality of abundant evidence and testimony that a) there was no agreement to a test, b) there was nothing close to 1MW being produced

2) There is no evidence that ‘$100 Million has disappeared’. That is your fantasy. No reality there.

3) There is no evidence that ‘These other technologies … have almost no commercial value but IH investors have been told they are a gold mine.” You have no evidence that IH told any investors anything about other technologies. That is your fantasy. No reality there.

4) There is no evidence that “The new technology inventors (Piantelli et. al.) have been paid … with shares of IH or other ’empty boxes'”. That is your fantasy. No reality there.

5) There is no evidence that “Darden is paying real money to actors…”. That is your fantasy. No reality there.

The realists here know one thing for sure: Your posts here have little to nothing to do with reality.

There is a saying: ‘a dog would rather be kicked than ignored’. I just kicked you with reality. Perhaps that’s what you were hoping for. You can expect to be ignored in the future.

ele’s fantasies are no less real than any other of the speculations going on here. None of us have enough hard evidence to be jumping the conclusions that most express here. Also I believe whole heartedly that forum posters are being paid, perhaps by both sides, to distribute fud and misdirection hoping to influence the public, and therefore possibly jurors, to there way of thinking. It’s a new world with the proliferation of the internet and sentiments like that are nearly impossible to repress.

On behalf of all those who are getting older, I am profoundly embarrassed. Please, my friends, someone, if you see me losing it like this, tell me; ask me to find someone I trust, and consult with them, and to listen to him or her without attachment.

Sigmoidal was frank and direct and to the point. It’s not whether he is right or wrong, but he wrote about specifics, and they were all points that could be backed with evidence or with a challenge to produce evidence. Rionrlty replies with, first of all, a firm conclusion (“none of us have enough hard evidence”), asserted without evidence or specificity (what conclusions?), followed by a reassertion of a “whole-hearted belief” in a paranoid fantasy, showing the development of such a belief without evidence (or in my experience, even contrary to evidence, and, in this case, evidence that the alleged agenda would be a major waste of money).

(At least it would be a waste of money for the IH side. Rossi, on the other hand, may believe that his future depends on his fans; however, that he might possibly have a motive does not establish that he actually paid anyone, and I’ve seen no evidence that he has. The only evidence, mostly circumstantial, is that he uses sock puppets. We might learn about that from the case. There was a claim from Dewey Weaver that there had been linguistic analysis proving it. Maybe, certainly linguistic markers can be seen in some cases.)

Dewey Weaver wrote:

RiRi – It looks like you’ve earned honorary citizenship on Planet Rossi in record time – comes with a passport and everything! This also comes with an honorary PhD in the discipline of your choice so let R know if you want to move into the sciences overnight as well. Everyday is a new day on Planet Rossi and I can tell that you’re going to be very happy there. Congrats!!

Keep the cluelessness coming – you’re making fast friends in the best of places.

Dewey Weaver continued:

I forgot to mention that an honorary JD is also available as part of the P.R. citizenship package – you’re already demonstrating Planet Rossi acumen, intellect and character – they need some fresh legal brains on top of that. I think that is the way you should go. You can instantly add value to the Planet.

I very much doubt that Dewey Weaver is “paid” to comment on blogs or in fora. That’s not his contract — which we have seen. However, he often is purely sarcastic, without providing new information. There would not be anything here to ask about, if interested in facts. Nobody is going to change their opinions in favor of IH or against Rossi based on these comments, so if he was paid to “influence” public opinion, this is not how he would do it.

This is classic Dewey Weaver banter. I do recommend understanding who Dewey Weaver is, and what he does. He is a gateway to millions of dollars in funding for LENR research, possibly. Or, from the Planet Rossi point of view, he represents the largest danger to the Energy Future of Humanity, the vast conspiracy to suppress Rossi’s Nobel-Prize-Worthy work. This is a real person, using his real name, and it’s possible to talk to him on the phone, and it’s possible to meet him. He is not an internet fantasy. He has actual experience and real knowledge, there is no doubt about that. Set aside the sarcastic banter, I haven’t seen him lie, though he, like all of us, had made some mistakes, created some imprecision in expression. What he wrote here is obviously not “fact,” but opinion or impression.

Rigel wrote:

Hi Dewey, You promised a big week, you should be sharpening your big stick.

It’s shaping up to be a big week in the lawsuit. Monday brought a flurry of paper. The big news is coming: Motions for Judgment. These have the potential to

(1) reveal a much fuller picture of the evidentiary landscape, whereas until now we have largely been extrapolating and inferring. We will get to see some much clearer, I expect.

(2) Possibly resolve aspects of the case, leaving increased possibilities for settlement.

IH Fanboy wrote:

@Dewey, Were you not warned away from here? Told to cool it? You might get your bosses upset, careful.

Concern Trolling. I can predict some of the answer, but first Dewey was not “warned away.” What he wrote, less than two weeks ago:

Dewey Weaver wrote:

I’ve been asked to tone it down on the blogs for a little while …

In response to IHFB’s concern trolling, Dewey wrote, yes, what I expected:

IHFB – I am my own boss – super busy these days. I’ll post when the ridiculousness of Planet Rossi earns some much needed love.

There was no court order, the Motion for Sanctions that referred to Dewey Weaver’s comments is still pending, last I looked. Dewey is independent, and not an agent for Industrial Heat, as such. Obviously, he shares interests with IH. They might request that he “tone it down,” but they could not actually enforce this, except by terminating the contract, and what he has done, so far, seems far from adequate to justify that. Besides, some of the other IH people might enjoy Dewey saying what they might think. They would not be responsible for it unless they authorize it.

Dewey sometimes reveals fact. IHFB obviously doesn’t want fact unless it promotes his position. He is not as fanatic as ele or rionrlty, to be sure.

SSC wrote:

Jack Cole wrote:

Given that AR tends to point the finger at others for what he is doing, one might speculate that he has been engaged in harassment, intimidation, and bribery during the course of the suit.

This is a truly absurd reasoning and totally lacking in objectivity. Too often the documents about the process have been interpreted by IH supporters according to their cheer, without any kind of detachment and lucidity. In this way they just throw mud on the protagonists …. a questionable pastime.

I did not go back to read Jack Cole in context, but what was quoted was not “reasoning.” It was a comment on human psychology, and Cole stated it accurately. If a person accuses others of X, one may speculate that the person has done or would do X, given the conditions. Cole did not claim that Rossi had bribed anyone. However, some of his legal behavior looks like harassment. So, as to SSC, clearly identifiable from contribution record as Planet Rossi, pot, kettle, black.

SSC went on:

Apparently the Ecat was an interesting object for Darden as long as he had not to pay for it ….

Following Rossi closely (this is almost verbatim from Rossi), Planet Rossi neglects that IH not only paid $11.5 million to Rossi but also much more, in claimed attempts to make devices according to Rossi’s guidance (and Rossi was quite proud that IH made the Lugano device); total investment was likely $20 million (the original stock offering) or more.

Explosions and mergers are a clear sign of the veracity of the effect, so IH’s problems were those related to control and reproducibility of the phenomenon, but its existence was not questionable.

That is nonsense. A researcher was killed by the explosion of a cold fusion device at SRI, early on, about 1990 or so. That proved? The report was that a recombiner failure was followed by sudden recombination, leading to an explosion. Chemical in nature. When I first saw Rossi demonstrations in 2011 (not in person), I thought, that could make a nice pipe bomb, heating water in a confined space. There is no question that explosions could indicate something unusual. Or not. Scientifically, one would then look more deeply, study the conditions. Explosions happen from sudden reactions that cascade rapidly. A containment failure can look like an explosion, as with some MFMP experiments. If there is substantial pressure, as in any Parkhomov replication, failure may be abrupt and catastrophic. An explosion from LENR would almost certainly be preceded by an easily-observable build-up of heat. Too much heat will destroy the reaction environment. Very difficult to get a nuclear explosion this way. The issue would be energy release, is it more than chemistry and ordinary physics could explain? Just a little chemistry, if triggered rapidly, can create a spectacular explosion!

What is being demonstrated is a lack of understanding of the field and of ordinary conditions encountered in LENR work.

The Darden email showed Darden as “encouraged.” However, Darden also clearly saw the work as preliminary. There was no analysis of failure modes, only a seat-of-the-pants description of appearance. Definitely, the explosions were interesting. But not proof, not yet, not with more work.

Yet when Darden has found advantageous to deny the effect, he has not hesitate to say that it was all a hoax.

This is, again, classic Planet Rossi. Darden has not said that. One might notice that these (trolls?) don’t cite sources. Where did Darden say that? Yet this has been repeated over and over, and supporters believe what they read from other supporters. Where is the beef?

This is what IH has claimed in the lawsuit:

9. During the same time period, Counter-Plaintiffs continued their own efforts to replicate Rossi’s purported results using the E-Cat IP that Leonardo and Rossi had provided them when they received the $10 million payment. Using the E-Cat technology Leonardo and Rossi directly provided them, Counter-Plaintiffs were unable to replicate any of Leonardo and Rossi’s claimed results or otherwise generate measurable excess energy. This led Counter-Plaintiffs to realize that there were only three possible conclusions: 1) Leonardo and Rossi’s claimed results, including the purported results from the Validation, were fabricated; 2) Leonardo and Rossi did not provide all of the E-Cat IP to Counter-Plaintiffs as was required under the License Agreement in exchange for the $10 million payment; or 3) both.

Rossi’s response to this was to point out the logical error. There are more than three possible conclusions! Of course there are, but it would be crazy for IH to list all of them. For example, IH did not list the possibility that they are lying SOBs, or that they were incompetent boobs who couldn’t boil water with a working stove and clear instructions. And none of the possibilities listed included the idea that the entire technology was a hoax, just the claimed results for a 1 MW plant, and what Rossi had purportedly showed them.

“Measurable excess energy” obviously does not include some level of heat results, but must mean “significant energy” not later found to be artifact or error.

I do not understand how so many people here continue to treat these people as if they were true gentlemen!

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

Now, given all this, I list two possibilities:

SSC is a lying troll.

SSC is an incompetent boob.

SSC wrote:

IH Fanboy wrote:

I think Darden felt like he needed to discredit those earlier tests, and the professors involved, to place IH in a stronger position before a jury with respect to the Doral test. And so it looks like he went about using his means and influence to do that.

I agree with you. IH has created the reactor used in Lugano and then has declared that any reactor made from them never worked. IH now has an interest in discrediting the test in order to continue to prove their point.

Of course he agrees. Great minds think alike, birds of a feather flock together.

However, where is evidence that Darden attempted to discredit Lugano? Where did he attempt to discredit the professors? Standard on Planet Rossi: unsubstantiated claims, passed back and forth to create an impression of obvious agreement on fact. Yet there is no fact here. IH never “declared that any reactor from them never worked.” The Lugano test is mentioned in the AACT. It is not claimed there that it did not work, but that the COP was lower than Rossi claims for other devices. And then “later criticism” is mentioned, which is just a fact. That report has been extensively criticized, and has not been defended by the scientists, other than, very poorly, Levi.

“Prove their point?” The possibility of evidence on Lugano being introduced at trial is very, very low. Only if a smoking gun were found in discovery, clear evidence of improper influence by Rossi on the Lugano test, might it, then, come up. I don’t expect that.

SSC wrote:

Shane D. wrote:

He also wrote in the report that Rossi was only there to start it up at the beginning, and came back at the end to assist draw the fuel sample, but we now know Rossi/Fabiani, were there maybe the whole time.

Being present does not mean to intervene. The Ecat belongs to Rossi and he tried to protect it from strangers (they were guests of a company where could have been spies or thieves). In fact, in the Lugano report has been written that: “Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred; moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration.” (Lugano Report, page 7). As you can read, in this report the authors say that Rossi didn’t interfer, they did not say that he wasn’t there.

The authors of the Lugano report did not lie. Rather, they wrote things that were readily misinterpreted, in favor of creating an impression that the test was more unshakably independent than it actually was. I’d read the Lugano report many times. I assumed, from it, that Rossi was only there at the beginning and at the end. As well, I assume that the Lugano team was there for the whole time. Based on the Darden email, neither of these was the case. Rossi operates in many ways like a magician, through the direction of attention. He distracts. Something led the Lugano team to make some gross errors, some of which were quite visible, even to Darden, with minimal information, but writing after the test had started. They were immediately visible to McKubre, who wrote a very early review in which he pointed out what was missing, and also considered the heavy reliance on IR thermometry without high expertise and full calibrations to be risky. And yet McKubre’s reaction was to trust the Lugano team and to consider the results interesting. And they were interesting, but apparently it cannot be determined from the if there was excess heat, or not, but if there was heat, it was far less than they had estimated.

The Darden email makes it clearer how those mistakes might have been made; the test was basically run by close friends of Rossi, with Rossi there the whole time. Rossi had been expressing nervousness about the test, publically. He didn’t reveal that he was there. He emphasized “independent professors,” as he had done with Levi and the Ferrara test. Many eyebrows went up when the lead author, an allegedly independent professor, was Levi.

And then the Doral test …. the Agreement contemplated a truly independent test for the GPT. Not one with Rossi there constantly, supervising everything in fact, hiding the steam output, in complete control except in name. If the technology was real, Rossi was nevertheless, and repeatedly, clouding the tests, creating more and more opportunity for suspicion. Mats Lewan said it in his book, Rossi wants to look like a fraud. He actually would have a relatively sane business purpose for that.

Some on Planet Rossi have opined that Rossi was doing this to get out of the contract with IH, which would, in fact, match his prior claimed behavior with Hydro Fusion. The basis for that would be that IH was allegedly paying too little, it was worth billions when they had only promised $100 million. Those proposing this approved of it as smart business.

SSC wrote:

sigmoidal wrote:

And this thought occurred to me regarding Uzi Sha. Apparently, from googling, he either has some significant finances or knows people with significant finances in Eastern Europe and Russia. So suppose he see’s what IH is doing, and hopes that he (or his contacts) can get a piece of the action in Europe or other places that don’t fall under the IH’s territory or compete directly with IH. He might reasonably want to find ways to get resources to move LENR implementation forward (ultimately for profit). And if so, he might reasonably be in contact with Darden regarding IH’s progress.

This speculation by sigmoidal, while reasonable, is unnecessarily complicated. From the Levi Declaration, Uzi Sha represented himself and another as representing investors in Eastern Europe and Russia who were investigating energy sources for Israel. So Uzi Sha is looking into LENR, and specifically into the Rossi claims. The first contact between Levi and the two was in May, 2016, about a month after the lawsuit was filed, which was the first time that the terms of the Agreement became available. That Industrial Heat was working with Rossi was, however, widely known. So they want to find out more, so they contacted Zalli, an Israeli lawyer who may have been working with IH, that I do not  find clear, and wrote to Darden, asking for information. Darden gave them contact information for Rossi, Johnson, Fabiani, and Penon — which may be what they had requested. None of this seems unusual or odd to me. It is possible that Darden gave them more information in another email, but if it was purely in an email to Zalli, and if there was an attorney-client relationship, that would be privileged. Sha was on cc, and if so, that may not qualify for privilege. But SSC doesn’t get it:

The territories not covered by IH are covered by Rossi, then what sense would have for Uzi to contact IH?

Both IH and Rossi would sell licenses. There are three reasons to contact IH. First of all, anyone interested in serious investment in LENR would do well to at least talk with IH, it would be crazy not to. Secondly, we don’t know how much Uzi knew, he was looking into possibilities. From what Darden told Zalli and Sha, which was not merely contact information for Rossi, but also for Johnson and Penon and Fabiani, he may have wanted to know more about the test, and Darden referred him to those who were there, for the whole time. However, there is a reference to other emails, and this mail was marked confidential, and Zalli is an attorney. Naturally, Rossi is attempting strenuously to get those mails, and IH resisted, and so far seems to have been successful (but this may still be open).

This was all raised as evidence presented by Rossi that Darden was attempting to harass and threaten and bribe Levi, though Sha, and this is what is obvious: the evidence presented doesn’t show that, at all, it is paranoid, and the Levi Declaration speaks volumes about Levi. It is absolutely not a major coincidence, not surprising, that someone interested in LENR might contact IH. I would, for sure. I think Rothwell has actually visited them. I’m likely to, in the not-distant future.

Dewey Weaver wrote:

Careful SSC – you’ll want to manage your energy with all the inbound stress heading Planet Rossi’s way. Be sure to empty your spittoon frequently – that pattern is figured out as well.

I see you noticed that Jack is prescient!


Aw, [expletive deleted], loose lips sink ships. At least this looks like loose lips. Quoted above:

Jack Cole wrote:

Given that AR tends to point the finger at others for what he is doing, one might speculate that he has been engaged in harassment, intimidation, and bribery during the course of the suit.

I read this is a claim that there is evidence for what Jack merely speculated about. Rossi filed his Motion for Sanctions based on the thinnest of evidence. That Motion is still pending. ‘Nuff said. I didn’t say anything. Did anyone say anything?

SSC barged ahead:

zorud wrote:

Peter Gluck – what is your explanation why Rossi refuses to share his “invention” publicly or in a way that the mainstream science can follow up and replicate, and AR finally deserves what he is claimin to be awarded for (Nobel prize)?

Would you personally behave exactly like him if you would have found out or “invented” what he claims to have????

Why he should give away the discovery of the century? You would share a winning lottery ticket?

SSC follows the same black and white thinking as Rossi. First of all, Zorud didn’t really state it clearly. There are two aspects to the Rossi claims. First of all, Rossi does apparently believe that he should be considered for the Nobel Prize and that this is realistic, but the Nobel Prize is for science, which means public knowledge, not some secret. Secondly, the lottery ticket will not win if it is not open for inspection. The holder of the ticket can swear up and down that it’s the winning combination, but it will require an independent examination to actually win. Don’t wait too long! Rossi is not going to be able to bring his technology to market without major investment, and he is not going to gain that investment without truly independent testing, fully trusted by the investor, is allowed.

Rossi actually did win the lottery, that IH agreed to invest in his technology was very much abnormal. With the Hydro Fusion letter, IH knew that Rossi could not be trusted, but they decided to invest anyway. And the result? Rossi took their money and spat in their face, suing them and accusing them of fraud. When we are paranoid, it will often lead us to treat others very badly. Whether we have a real technology or not.

SSC wrote:

Bob wrote:

Everyone was led to believe, even the final report was worded as such, that Rossi was not involved in the tests except at the very beginning and end. It turns out the he conducted the entire test!

Seriously? And where is it written that he conducted the entire test? Just because Darden said that Rossi was present it does not mean that he intervened. This seems the classic “word of mouth”, where at each step the story is magnified ….

I’m not getting that SSC is familiar with the Lugano Report. There were five basic phases:

  1. Setup and running the dummy
  2. Setup and fuel the test reactor and start it up.
  3. Watch paint dry.
  4. Shut down the test reactor.
  5. Remove fuel for analysis.

From the Lugano report, Rossi was there for 1, 2, 4, and 5. What was there to do in phase 3? Effectively, Rossi ran the entire test, took every critical action. (There was a point where someone (who?) decided to increase the input power in the middle. I had assumed that they contacted Rossi and asked him if it was acceptable. But he was actually there, and might even have suggested it. Rossi’s presence could assert itself in many ways. This was not how to run an independent test, it was already pretty clear and got clearer with that Darden mail.

(Watching paint dry is McKubre’s term for the excitement of watching LENR, normally.)

SSC went on and on with evidence-free potshots, it becomes tedious.

ele wrote:

Dewey Weaver wrote:

I am my own boss – super busy these days.

Oh Ho ! Darden has fired you and you are looking for a new Job ?

I suspect, though I am not entirely convinced, that ele is Rossi, and this is a comment that Rossi might make, with his poor English and business comprehension. Dewey was never an employee of IH or Darden. He is a contractor, independent, not some flunky. And my guess is that he’s quite busy creating value for IH, finding worthwhile projects to fund. But I don’t know, and he does have other businesses.

ele wrote:

sigmoidal wrote:

Your posts here have little to nothing to do with reality.

Why are you so angry ? Maybe I have touched a nerve ?

Trolls exist to make people angry. And they often will accuse those, who show disgust for what they do, of emotional over-reaction. It’s SOP.

If you really are not connected with IH why to react so bitterly ?

On Planet Rossi, anyone who does not fawn over Rossi must be in cahoots with IH.

Mine are fantasies ? Not really.

ele does not begin with what a sober participant in discussions would do, establish what he’s talking about. What alleged fantasy? I think there were many, but this would probably be what he is now going to show evidence for.

ele wrote:

1) First of all they collected about 100 M$ saying to their investors that they bought the IP of Rossi and showing them the 1MW plant during the one year test. No problem with the test was risen about the test and even about Lugano or any other test in this phase.

2) Seems that 100 M$ has disappeared (no trace in documents) and so IH decided not to pay Rossi (losing the IP) and IH told the investors thet it has substituted the Rossi technology with others.

What’s true here? They did say to potential investors and investors that they had bought the Rossi IP. That is simple fact. They showed a few investors and possible investors the Doral plant. That’s documented. However, what did they tell these investors? By Doral, their narrative is that they knew that their own reactors did not work. When ele writes that “they collected,” he’s not precise. Who collected? He is claiming that $100 million disappeared, but where did it appear in the first place? ele’s narration is that Darden collected plenty of money, enough to pay Rossi, but hid it somewhere, or lost it (what, gambling on the emdrive? What?) and that is why he’s not paying Rossi. Wouldn’t that piss off his investors, if they invested because of Rossi?

So, back to ele’s response to sigmoidal:

For example the fact that Darden collected money (even in China) is quite notorious:

“Darden collected money” loses the fact that money was invested in companies, not handed to Darden. Darden did collect money, in 2013. In 2012, apparently Darden and Mazzarino paid $1.5 million of their own money either directly to Rossi or into Industrial Heat to secure the Agreement, and then, to pay the $10 million, they created a stock offering, this is public record, and initially raised $11.5 million. Darden and Mazzarino and Vaughn own more than a controlling interest … in what? Not in IH! In IHHI! There are many investors involved, they are all listed on the IHHI company page run by the British government. All the IH investors were bought out by IHHI, in return for stock, apparently. But then more money went, promptly, into IHHI.

There is no sign of Chinese investment in IH or IHHI. If Darden operates with China as he does with Cherokee Partners, a Chinese company would be started. Evidence of this would have been disclosed in Discovery, so we may see some of it.

e.g. http://www.e-catworld.com/2014…-center-in-tianjin-china/

The 2014 news report on which that E-Cat World story was based is dead; however it can be read on the Wayback Machine. There is nothing in that story about investment in IH or money being given to Darden. If anything, it might be the other way around. The story, in Chinese, can be read with Google Translate. There are few details, this was typical ECW spin-out.

I suspect that Chinese money tends to be smart money. If they wanted to put a lot of money into LENR — and they might — it would go into a company they can control, and that would be right up Darden’s alley, it’s what he does. This story does not at all establish what ele is claiming.

And also from financial times…… https://ftalphaville.ft.com/20…in-a-cold-fusion-company/

ROTFL!!! Here on this blog: Financial Times slapdash knee-jerk reaction passes for journalism

The Financial Times article requires registration. ele quotes:

……in May 2015, Neil Woodford invested £32m of his clients’ money in a company working on cold fusion. ……

Interesting isen’t it ?

Woodford invested $50 million (denominated in U.S. dollars) in “a company.” What company? IH? No. IHHI, which was formed in England. IHHI bought all the stock in IH, apparently for stock in IHHI. IHHI issued $50 million in preferred stock which went to Woodford. Preferred stock was about $45 per share, whereas ordinary stock was cheap. However, preferred stock has no more voting rights than ordinary, if I’m correct. So Darden et al have control of IHHI, but Woodford would not take it kindly if they tried to cheat him, I’d suspect. Pissing off people who have the kind of financial clout that Woodford had would not be a formula for living a happy life.

The initial stock offering was $20 million total. While I’ve seen no documentation showing that it was fully subscribed, I suspect that it was. And that money was spent. It did not “disappear.” People who run companies like that where money disappears can easily end up in jail, why ruin a good day with garbage like that? Darden seems to be doing quite well, before LENR came along.

IHHI has financial reports. Much of the $50 million is left, but they intend to spend it all and to need more, and they believe it is available. What came out in the discovery process that we got a glimpse of is that Woodford had committed an additional $150 million if needed.

But this was not in IH and was out of the reach of Rossi. IH probably has few assets other than the Rossi license, which is worth what?

ele is a lying troll, we can see it here.

People who are merely mistaken don’t behave like this.

This is really funny: ele wrote:

sigmoidal wrote:

This is proof positive that Darden is morally ghastly, a coward and deceiver. (But only on Planet Rossi)

Oh “Planet Rossi” Who is the guy that invented it ? NO….. It can’t be YOU….. he he he he……

On the one hand, Dewey Weaver coined the term. However it caught on and many use it. On the other hand, who writes “he he he he” commonly?

Here, ele completely ignores the actual issue, the claims that Darden avoided deposition, when, apparently, he was deposed immediately after the depositions of Fogelman, claimed by Rossi and Planet Rossi to be proof that Darden was avoiding deposition.

IH Fanboy wrote: (responding to the sigmoidal comment)

While we are all speculating, I’ll speculate that Darden ducked and dodged in his personal deposition as he was not “speaking” for any of the entities.

Actually, sigmoidal was not speculating. However, one who is speaking for the entities would not be guilty of perjury if the company had misled him or her, because the representative is not necessarily speaking for themselves, but as informed. If such actually knew and said that they did not know, that would be perjury. However, if Darden were to say “I don’t know,” and actually knew — and this can often be shown — that would be perjury and he could go to jail. It is much easier to “duck and dodge” as a 30(b)(6) deponent, but it can harm the company at trial. Darden is a personal defendant as well as being an officer of the companies. He is definitely in the hot seat in a deposition in this case. He would, I’m sure, be very careful. Sitting in a deposition, facing lawyers who are not your friends, is no time to get chatty.

sigmoidal answered brilliantly.

About the IH appeal from the Magistrate’s decision about the DRV (Dewey Weaver) privilege issue, (which has now been scheduled for hearing)

IH Fanboy wrote,

Dewey says he is his own boss, so not sure how IH’s argument that he is an agent holds up. Which means his emails ought not to be privileged. Maybe Dewey should have heeded IH’s advice and stayed clear of here.

A breath of fresh air compared with ele. However, still clueless. Perhaps IHFB should read the argument IH has presented and the exhibits. The Magistrate was apparently confused by this “agent” issue, because, as pointed out, there was a conflict in the evidence on that. However, this was actually moot, because the evidence is that Dewey had his own agreements with the attorneys in question. This, then, did not depend on agency.

After it was revealed that the Judge had denied the motion to seal,

Dewey Weaver wrote:

This Judge is tough! Going to be some good stuff in the exhibits tomorrow night.

Maybe. Actually, the Judge’s Order was procedural, and I’m not sure I agree with it. The Seal requested was temporary, to get the process moving. She will now, if the procedure she reminded them of is used, need to review, in short order, many motions to seal. Maybe her way is better, I don’t know. She is the judge, which means she gets to decide, and I doubt that anyone will appeal this.

So if I read this and the parties’ intentions correctly, we will see a pile of motions to seal tomorrow, not the Motions for Summary Judgment, but they will exist as clerk-sealed until she rules on each one. However, a party might decide to file without requesting seal.

Fair and balanced jury? Yeah, right!

That’s a Planet Rossi trope. Recent Planet Rossi comments have explained that internet discussions are being warped by attacks against Rossi by “paid” advocates for IH. When it is pointed out that a for-profit venture capital company, operating mostly with high privacy, would not pay for this, because they gain nothing from Rossi looking like he always apparently wanted to look (like a con artist or fake), it is then asserted that the purpose of this is to influence the jury in Rossi v. Darden.

Mostly this is being advocated by people with no deep knowledge of the jury system and how it works. A surprising possible exception is rionrlty, an American, using his real name, with apparent experience as a real estate broker, now retired. With an assumed long career, one might think he’d have more experience than to assert what he’s asserting. I will here examine what is being said about the jury selection process and rules, and provide sourced information about this.

Bottom line, not only is it unlawful to attempt to influence the jury selection process or to present “information” to the jurors outside of the court process, but it is also unlawful for the jurors, who are under oath, to lie about their experience and knowledge of the case or case issues, and they will be asked. It is also unlawful for them to violate the rules, which include any attempt to obtain outside information about the parties or issues, that they don’t already have and admitted having. It is not automatic that a juror would be excused if they knew something about the case and the parties; but it is a factor that the judge and attorneys would consider.

In the end, the goal of the Judge will be that the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) agree that the jury, as selected and having been questioned, under oath, about all this, have been fairly selected and will be fair and impartial. Continue reading “Fair and balanced jury? Yeah, right!”

What happened with the video depositions?

Rule 30(b)(6) depositions rest on a legal fiction, taken to a ridiculous extreme, the personhood of a corporation. They are an invitation to create hearsay evidence, and an opportunity to make mistakes that cannot be corrected. Essentially the 30(b)(6) deponent is making official statements for the corporation, whereas most official corporate statements in law and practice are made by corporate officers, generally in writing, to make it clear that this is a corporate statement, not an individual one.

It’s been pointed out in legal advice sources that it may be advisable to designate a 30(b)(6) representative without direct knowledge, because the opposing attorney may fish with questions not on the list of issues, or seeking unspecified detail that might not be included in a briefing. I really can’t see why these depositions are even allowed, compared to interrogatories, which also create legally binding testimony. Corporations act through board approval or authorization, which is, in theory, deliberated. It is in that process that a corporation becomes a person.

The reason for depositions rather than interrogatories is so that a jury could, if necessary, view the witness to judge probity, (affect matters), but this is very strange in a 30(b)(6) deposition, where it could be very common that a witness will decline to answer, which, then, to some, may look evasive, or “slimy,” as as IH Fanboy called some answers — which seem proper to me in context — on LENR Forum.

It appears that the Rossi questions and conduct in the depositions was designed to solicit that kind of response, then to attack the corporation based on lack of response to questions that have already been answered by someone with much more direct knowledge, on the basis of failure to prepare. We discuss. Continue reading “What happened with the video depositions?”

Who’s on first?

Reading LENR Forum, categories of participants become apparent. As could be expected, categorization may vary with the experience and understanding or belief of the categorizer. Some of this is really and routinely obvious, though. This is explicitly my categorization, what occurs to me, and objections may be made to these in comments below.

Planet Rossi

Continue reading “Who’s on first?”

Everybody knows

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.

For the full lyrics.

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. Continue reading “Everybody knows”

Demonstration of pseudo science and skepticism

This is a cautionary tale demonstrating pseudoscience and pseudoskepticism, a particular kind of pseudoscience that appears to be or is believed to be “scientific.” It is about the “Egely wheel” and human behavior. The application to LENR is that these responses are possible in this field. It is clearly possible to fake demonstrations and videos, to look totally convincing and to be, in fact, fraud, or, generally with a less convincing demonstration, mistaken, but it is also true that any clear fraud does not prove that all claims are fraud or error.

Rather, what can be derived from these is “possibility,” but translating that to “scientific reality” is a painstaking and endless process. As humans, we may need to make decisions by a certain date, but for humanity as a whole, there is no near-term and clear end date. We may sanely postpone decisions until they are necessary, considering all the risks and costs. To the case in point:

Continue reading “Demonstration of pseudo science and skepticism”

Discussion of how crazy can it get

How crazy can it get? (Claims of witness tampering)

One consequence of this filing is that Dewey Weaver has been silenced — or at least inhibited for a time. It was always a wonder that he disclosed so much.

There is discussion on LENR forum that I review below. Continue reading “Discussion of how crazy can it get”

How crazy can it get? (Claims of witness tampering)

Pretty crazy, apparently.

Today, Rossi filed a Motion for Sanctions, claiming witness tampering.

(For the complete list of Motion documents, see Rossi v. Darden docket and case files entries for 3/9/2017)

Defendants, through their agents, are tampering with witnesses and/or otherwise harassing individuals in abuse of the judicial process. Plaintiff, Dr. Andrea Rossi, may currently be under consideration by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for a Nobel Prize related to his E-Cat technology – the same technology that is the subject matter of the present lawsuit. Defendants in this case have known this fact for some time, even sharing this information with their investors/potential investors (See Ex. 1). Continue reading “How crazy can it get? (Claims of witness tampering)”

Rossi v. Darden case activity

Coverage of case activity including filing of motion for seal for a motion for sanctions filed by Rossi, the motion was rejected and the motion for sanctions was struck, by the Judge, but was then refiled, see How crazy can it get? This page covers what is below and more, before the refiling.

03/08/2017 0159.0_Rossi_Disc_hearing_notice March 9, re 02/23/2017 ruling and IH objections
03/08/2017 0160.0_Rossi_Motion_to_seal Motion for Sanctions (DE 108? or new Motion?)
== 0160.1_Proposed_order  Continue reading “Rossi v. Darden case activity”

Quack rentals?

In discussion of Rent-an-Expert Penon (Actually Rossi v. Darden developments), it was mentioned by Dewey Weaver, the only actual IH informant in LENR Forum discussions, that “Penon has proven that he doesn’t know beans about much of anything,”

So Alan Smith wrote: (my emphasis)

Which is why he graduated from University with the highest possible honours. ‘Summer comes Laundry’ as they say.

I won’t go into how inane that “factoid” is, in context. No sirree. I will not mention the word “idiot” once. Stealing a line from the RvD documents, the post speaks for itself.

However, what is this “summer comes laundry” thing? And AlainCo picked it up and made it huge: Summer comes Laundry

So, WTF? I googled it and the top hit was to this:


’nuff said.


What does it mean to sell one’s soul to the Devil?

In the matter of Rossi v. Darden, and Peter Gluck, it’s becoming clear. On LENR Forum, yesterday, Peter Gluck wrote:

It ius better to have Rossi Diabolicus with a working technology than perfect man with no technology.

Here 80% goes about Rossi’s character and 20% about the issues of real interest, Y/N?

To me, and to most, people are far more important than technology. After all, what’s it for? If we have a perfect man, he will generate technology or not, it doesn’t matter, because such a man can and will transform society toward what is possible for humanity. If we have a major technology controlled by a “Diabolicus,” — a devil — we could have cheap energy and all die from a nuclear war, because that is exactly what devils do: cause people to fight, and they use lies or whatever means available.

Peter is promoting, though he probably does not realize it, the end justifies the means.

See Consequentialism.
Continue reading “What does it mean to sell one’s soul to the Devil?”