Appeal to consequences

Appeal to consequences is a well-known logical fallacy, amply present in the Rossi objections to the IH SOMF (statement of material facts). I have begun to compare the IH SOMF, a crucial part of the Motion for Summary Judgment, on this page.  I have looked through Paragraph 25, so far. While Rossi disputes many of the claimed facts, these are not actually disputes over the facts, which are, as expected for a MSJ, simple and clear. Rossi doesn’t like the consequences, so quibbles over inconsequential details of wording, with many irrelevancies. The most devastating effective admission, so far, is a showing that Leonardo NH and Leonardo FL were separate corporations, and, so far, no evidence of the claimed merger has appeared; rather, the opposite. They were, and apparently remain, distinct corporations with distinct ownership and state identities.

This is a formula for setting up the judge to reject all arguments. A good judge might be able to avoid that inertia, but judges are, indeed, human. Give them a series of spurious arguments, a real argument might be lost in the noise.

Mats Lewan buys condo in Cloud Cuckoo Land

Well, that headline is perhaps a bit dramatic. But, I’ll confess, I was shocked by seeing the following from someone whom I had treated as a friend, long into the past (back in my Wikipedia days), and with whom I had positive correspondence.

I had been considering writing a post about a Lewan blog entry that was mentioned in a comment here.

Rossi’s engineer: ‘I have seen things you people wouldn’t believe’ (November 25, 2015)

After an interesting interview, which reveals that Fabiani clearly believes that Rossi’s work is real — and that he has seen amazing things — Lewan gives this:

Since mid-February 2015, Rossi and his US industrial partner Industrial Heat are running a one-year commercial trial on a customer’s site with a heat plant producing 1 MW. The plant is made up of four 250kW modules, each based on E-Cat technology. Unless something unexpected happens, the trial, which is controlled by a major independent third party certification institute, should be concluded by February or March 2016, and the results should then be presented.

In the comments, Lewan explains a bit:

November 25, 2015 at 11:25
Everyone I have talked to confirm that a major independent third party certification institute is involved in the control of the 1-year test and that this institute will also be able to confirm the results when they are presented. I have no further proof though.

Mats does not tell us — at all — who “everyone I have talked to” is, but we know he talked with Fabiani, who would know of the involvement of a “major independent third party certification institute,” and we know he talked to Levi, who might have known of such. And did he talk with Rossi?

Since there was no such institute involved, only Penon, we know that Lewan relied on unreliable sources. He does acknowledge having no “further proof,” but that’s weak. It implies that the evidence for what he wrote was strong. That’s not the only problem.

IH allowed the installation, but as a sale of power, and only secondarily as a trial, with the idea that if Rossi clearly demonstrated to IH that there was substantial power generated, they might voluntarily pay him $89 million on that basis. The Doral demonstration was not the “Guaranteed Performance Test” of the IH-Rossi-Ampenergo Agreement, because Ampenergo explicitly refused to sign the Second Amendment allowing the GPT to be postponed. Rossi covered up this fact in his Complaint, though it was obvious from the start that the Ampenergo signature was missing. The Rossi attempts, in his pleadings, to convert some kind of vague consent to a test into the specifics of a GPT, even though there were obvious elements of a GPT missing; and not only signatures, but matters of substance, such as the ability of IH to actually observe the “test” in detail. Rossi excluded IH experts, twice (in July and in December).

The whole thing stunk, from lies about the customer at the start, to what appears now to be a hastily-invented “heat exchanger” that nobody saw, and that would have been very visible. Yet Mats is still stuck in his glorious past, where he was the world’s foremost confidant of Andrea Rossi. He wonders about conflict of interest, but has a huge one, a subtle one. When people criticize Rossi, or threaten his interests and plan in some way, he cuts them off, and he had done this over and over, and Mats knows this behavior. If any of the Lugano team had questioned what Levi and Rossi were doing (and Rossi was apparently there the whole time, and the Swedish team, not, not what the Lugano Report implied), they’d have been history.

Mats has never cleaned up that mess. Believe me, if I find a major error here, even years later, I will at least annotate it. That is what a responsible journalist will do, if he or she can.

So then we have this sequence on E-Cat World:

Critique of the Smith Report from the JONP

Mats LewanSunday, April 9, 2017 9:54 AM [post time extracted from HTML]

I think there’s a list of advisors to IH somewhere. Anyone remember where it is?

Andreas Moraitis Mats Lewan • a day ago

214-23, p. 7.

That is here. It was actually a list of potential places for investment, and then included a list of advisors. None of this was a description of actual payments. Jed Rothwell is on the list of advisors, and has continually maintained that he has received no payments from IH, but this was used to, once again, accuse him of being paid by IH. He is known to have visited them in North Carolina, and that was then misinterpreted to indicate that he had visited the Plant in Florida (which he has always denied, and which would then make a certain IH response to interrogatories into perjury — unless Rossi arranged the visit, which seems a tad unlikely, given that Rossi excluded Rothwell from visiting him in Italy years before — and in spite of that, behind the scenes, Rothwell was a supporter of Rossi, arguing that people he trusted had seen the technology and it was real). Rothwell later reassessed that opinion, apparently after seeing data from Penon, which had all the obvious defects that have become public now, with the court filings.

Lewan is clearly not using the Rossi v. Darden resources here. They may be searched. The core page is the Docket page. Yes, it’s a huge amount of information. So resources are being created for analysis. That takes time. We just had a huge amount of data dumped on us. Much of it is redundant, but then, much is not.

The best organization is probably found in the Motions for Summary Judgment, where each party puts its best and strongest case forward. I was going to start with an analysis of the Rossi MSJ, but the exhibit references were such a mess (almost all incorrect), and it depended so strongly on a legal claim that has failed, the attempt to exclude all IPH claims based on an allegedly defective corporate deposition, that my opinion became that making it the core of a study would be a waste of time, so I started with RvD: Study of 203:IH Motion for Summary Judgment

This document also includes all the support paragraphs from DE 207. This is the case as it appears from the IH Motion. Anyone who actually wants to understand Rossi v. Darden would do well to study this. But it’s huge, still. I will be going through it, point by point and the first analysis will be looking for what is clearly established as fact, and what is not, what might remain legitimately controversial. At first impression, some of the IH claims are that, not as clear as required for Summary Judgment, they might require determination of fact by a fact-finder, i.e., a jury. However, there are many layers to this IH strategy, and the strongest aspects are likely to blow the Rossi case out of the water, leaving only the counterclaims active. At that point, settlement becomes far more likely.

Now, to come to what astounded me, though I’d certainly seen signs a year ago, that Mats was falling for a conspiracy theory, in spite of his warning to Sifferkoll.

Mats Lewana day ago

Anyone knows what the rules are for presenting evidence that hasn’t been brought up earlier, when the case goes up in court in June?

Josh G Mats Lewan • a day ago

Go ask Abd. Double dare you. (-;

Mats Lewan Josh G • a day ago

BTW do we know if Abd works for IH or not?

Once upon a time, Mats was a reporter and would have asked me that question directly. Now he asks with a “we” that is a narrow group of people. IH would obviously know if I work for them, and so would I, so, for starters, I’d be excluded from “we” or the question would be meaningless. This question was brought up many times, and Rossi himself accused me of being a paid puppet.

At one time, Mats was officially staff at LENR Forum. That disappeared. This blog is open for anyone to comment, and author privileges will be granted to real people, and Mats is real. Even if a bit deluded. This went on.

Josh G Mats Lewan • a day ago

Not sure but I don’t think we’ve seen any evidence to support it other than his quixotic behavior on IH’s behalf. But I stopped following things for quite awhile until the mid-March filings. So not sure.

SG Mats Lewan • 19 hours ago

I think he claimed that he has been paid to blog by somebody, but not IH.

I am attempting to respond there, the editor keeps locking up. But this would be it:

I suppose I should correct this. I have not been “paid to blog” by anybody. I was collecting documents and putting them in the filespace for the newvortex list, and an attorney, not connected with IH at all, offered to pay my PACER expenses. I have received a total of $50 so far, I may ask for more, and another person, also not connected with IH other than being long-term interested in LENR, has offered additional support, enough that I will probably be able to go to Miami to cover the trial if it happens. Enough to cover my travel, I may still need more to cover details like hotel.

I later started the blog when I was temporarily banned on LENR Forum, and then got serious about it when the newvortex archive became unusable (a yahoogroup problem) and LF banned me “permanently.” (Fun question: for what?)

One of the functions of the blog is to build analytical resources, as distinct from endless debate that goes nowhere, i.e., Blog Normal. This is intended long-term for general cold fusion issues, but is currently being used for Rossi v. Darden.

Mats would be most welcome as a participant, but he lost his status as a neutral analyst some time ago. He could recover, if he chooses to. It would take some work, and his excuse has been that he is too busy. It would be fun to guide him through the maze of documents in the case. One step at a time, which is rarely done. Mostly people start with conclusions (on more than one side — I hope that readers realize there are more than two “sides” here).

As to Mats’ question, others have answered reasonably, but not necessarily addressing the point clearly, and Mats himself summarizes it incorrectly:

Mats Lewan GiveADogABone • a day ago

In fact, I don’t interpret it as a blanket ban. Rather that most of the evidence is presented during discovery. But it doesn’t exclude some evidence to be presented in court, as long as it doesn’t contradict earlier depositions or testimonials, I guess.

It’s somewhat shocking that Mats will guess, but he declared previously that he did not have time to do actual research, the kind expected for a journalist.

The reality is that witnesses will be on the stand, and either side may ask them questions, and they may answer outside of what they said before. However, if what they say is new, an attorney may object. To introduce new evidence will require the permission of the Judge. It is not exactly a “blanket ban,” but failure to disclose evidence to the other parties can result in sanctions, all the way up to total dismissal of a party’s case.

“Contradiction” is not a characteristic of evidence, but of the assessment of evidence. Evidence could not be excluded based on contradiction. Rather, if there is contradiction in admissible evidence, there can be a question for a jury to resolve.

However, what may not be realized here is that the Motions for Summary Judgment do not necessarily disclose all the evidence. Rather, there is a huge volume of evidence — truly enormous — that was disclosed in discovery. As long as it was disclosed, it may be introduced at trial. What is disclosed in discovery is generally attested under penalty of perjury.

IH has adduced enough evidence, my present opinion — remember, I am in process of studying the materials — to obtain summary judgment on the core claim of Rossi, breach of contract re the $89 million, and if that claim is gone, so is the rest of his lawsuit. Because, then, there would be no trial on that claim, we can expect Rossi to go all-out in his Reply. We do have that Reply at this point, but I have not studied it. I will, comparing each point with the evidence we have.

Drama ensued. See the comments below. Someone apparently spoofed Mats Lewan, using his name and, most importantly, his real email address, so that the avatar displayed would be picked up from Gravatar, which we have enabled. The second post of this user started out more or less innocuously, but then the user edited it to add a gross sexual reference. Mats complained on LENR Forum, which is a bit odd, since I’m banned there and don’t necessarily see everything. However, THHuxleynew pointed out that post here. There are some aspects of possible interest in what ensued.

On LENR Forum, Mats Lewan wrote (creating a new topic)

Abd ulRahman Lomax yesterday posted a blog post at…ndo-in-cloud-cuckoo-land/ commenting some of my actions and reports.
Under the blogpost there are comments made by Mats Lewan.

These comments are NOT made by me.
They are false and fraudulent, made up in short, and if Abd ulRahman Lomax reads this, I expect him to delete those comments immediately.

Apparently I read the second remark before it was edited to add the truly offensive remark. The rest of the material in those posts matched, at least to a degree, what Mats had posted elsewhere. Impersonation is still a major public offense, not to be tolerated. I might have some view that I might express in one context, but may not want to express it in other contexts, and that should be my right. But trolls may disagree.

THHuxleynew wrote:

Mats – perhaps you could post this on Abd’s site. It will immediately let you do this – I think. Then he would certainly get it, and also he could check IP etc… Furthermore the correction gets seen faster than if you wait for Abd.

THH was completely correct. Mats’ response was relatively unskillful. The basic harm — someone thinking that was him — could be most quickly addressed by Mats himself posting a comment exposing the impersonation, and confirming this by email from his known email address. Because Mats has not posted, his first comment would need to be approved, though it might be approved simply by using that same email address. (It was on his personal domain, and he obviously uses it wherever the gravatar shows up.)

Posting on LENR forum then drew more attention, exactly what trolls often want, and the obscene comment was then repeated there, and obviously was read by moderators who didn’t care.

Alan Smith wrote:

THHuxleynew wrote:

Mats – perhaps you could post this on Abd’s site.

I don’t expect that to happen in a hurry.

Classic Alan Smith, useless snark. Why not? I used to have direct email communication with Mats. Has Mats fallen into a Krivit hole? I will agree in one way, it is odd that Mats did not communicate directly with me. Maybe the fumes on Planet Rossi finally created too much mind-rot. It would also have been somewhat effective if Mats had responded to my comment on E-Cat World, in reply to his question there, since I get notification of responses.

THHuxleynew wrote:

Alan Smith wrote:

I don’t expect that to happen in a hurry.

I’ve done it for him. Though why he should not be able to do it himself is beyond me.

And indeed THH did post here, something actually useful. Alan Smith continues to emit smoke:

Able but unwilling I expect. I would be too.

Yes, Alan would be. Why? For the same reason that Alan Smith banned me from LF: he can’t stand my presence, he knows I can see what he does. So all this does come up:

AlainCo wrote:

Abd answered and leaked the IP of the fraudster…cuckoo-land/#comment-2382

[This link is a bit better, juicier. –Abd]

If there is disagreement with Abd, I estimate it is more about Doxxing/Transparency/Shaming vs Privacy than about tolerance to fraud.

Thanks, Alain. Zero tolerance here for fraudulent posting (which is not about disagreements, nor would it be about ordinary socking. Socking that impersonates another is generally illegal, and Mats had good reason to expect me to correct the situation. He wanted me to delete it. Because there were responses, I elected to not delete, but changed the user name to “(spoofed) Mats Lewan,” and used strike-out for the text, only actually deleting the obscenity. I think it is of interest that someone would spoof Lewan, and I think that it could be useful to find out who that would be.

And that is why I revealed the IP. I also have more data, obtained from the server logs. True administration at LENR Forum would very likely be able to identify the fraudster, at least with other accounts. However, what I found was that not only do moderators there not have access to IP information, neither do administrators; someone has server access, and that is probably Barty and the Owner. So if Barty wants to address this, he could. I’d happily correspond with him. I have also provided the information directly to Mats.

This is all standard stuff for WikiMedia Foundation administrators, and I was one. Privacy is respected, but the right to privacy is lost when one commits certain offenses. (Access to normally private IP information is confined to Checkusers and others with that level of privilege on WMF wikis, but any stand-alone blog owner, running on their own domain, has access to that information, it is in the raw server logs.)

LENR Calendar wrote:

THHuxleynew wrote:

I’ve done it for him. Though why he should not be able to do it himself is beyond me.

Abd wouldn’t be able to tell which user is the real one. Mats here has been verified.

Oh, I was able to tell. I already had been suspicious about the IP, but Lewan accessing the internet from student housing wasn’t impossible, so I didn’t reject the post on that basis. Yes. The LF Lewan account is long-standing, thus verified, which I immediately knew; however, at the first plausible allegation of spoofing, I’d have quarantined that post so that it could do no harm, pending resolution. I also have had direct email communication with Lewan, and verification would be trivial.

There is no rush, but perhaps, out of this, Lewan will start to help clean up the mess that he helped to create. I’d be happy to assist. One easy step at a time.

From Russia, with love

October 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM
Dear Andrea Rossi:

What do you think of the sceptics that continue to say the E-Cat will not work?
From Russia, with love,

Andrea Rossi
October 30, 2015 at 12:40 PM

D. Travchenko:
Maybe they are right: at this stage I cannot exclude they are. Time is gentleman, we’ll listen from him the truth.
Warm Regards,

On LENR-Forum, Paradigmnoia wrote:

Rules against doxxing prevent me from being explicit, but DT (from Russia with love) has signed off at least once with another pair of initials familiar to us.

Doxxing as an internet offense arose as a protection of anonymity, but not as an encouragement of sock puppetry, which is also normally considered an offense. Forum administrators have access to post information information that would normally reveal sock puppetry. As well, doxxing of “public figures,” i.e., internet identities revealed elsewhere, where the alleged “puppet masters” are public figures, has always been, on sophisticated fora, allowed and is even considered necessary. Consider Wikipedia articles about government officials “anonymously” edited from the office of the official.

LENR Forum has never acknowledged banning a user for “sock puppetry.” It has warned and sanctioned users for exposing sock puppetry (rightly or wrongly). “Doxxing” has no been clearly defined. Claiming sock puppetry is not, in ordinary internet-speak, doxxing. In this case, P. points to what I recall (but could not readily find) as an example where a poster on JONP apparently accidentally signed the post as “A.R.”

The poster in question has commonly posted under what may be a real name, DTravchenko, but the content has been pure Planet Rossi, using common Rossi tropes. Because this is all (AFAIK) on Rossi’s blog, JONP, only Rossi knows for sure, but … pointing out a clear fact, publically accessible, where, if the fact is true, does not reveal the true identity of an actual and unique person, not the known public figure, is not “doxxing.” It is attempting to understand the public record. If DT is Rossi, there is no person harmed by the revelation, i.e., becoming subject to harassment, as might have happened, say, with the doxxing of “Thomas Clarke.” However, even the Thomas Clarke case is bizarre. Thomas Clarke is a real name, so all that “doxxing” did was to identify the specific person with that name. Then the allegation can be made that Thomas Clarke continued to post using a pseudonym. Is pointing this out “doxxing”?

Because we think of “doxxing” as Bad, we want to fit the actions into a category, so we can know if it is Good or Bad. This is common — and defective — ontology. Revealing the pseudonyms of Thomas Clarke is a trivial exercise, anyone who cares can find out. Because Pseudonym is so trivially identified with the real identity — when that identity could have easily been hidden, it is not as offensive as some deeper doxxing with more possible real-life harm would be. For example, there is an English fellow who pretended to be a Muslim and who went on the pilgrimage, and who wrote about it. He used a pseudonym. Revealing his real-life identity could expose him to harassment or worse. That would be serious, and highly offensive doxxing.

If a professional supports Rossi, at this point, it could indeed harm their professional reputation. There is a lesser possibility of harm from any professional’s support of LENR. So I’m sympathetic to desires for anonymity; however, this is a double-edged sword. Anonymous testimony is only useful for creating avenues for confirmation, it cannot be accepted as truth (i.e., with probity depending on the character of the witness).

Some writers, anonymous, develop a reputation for reliability. There are a few anonymous writers whose analyses can — my opinion — generally be trusted, and a few real-name authors who are quite untrustworthy. So the whole issue is complex, not simple.

I was unable to find D. Travchenko in internet searches connected with LENR and Rossi, except as comments on JONP, and then quoted elsewhere. It would be odd for someone with such an intense and frequently-expressed interest in Rossi to not comment or show up anywhere else. That, together with the obvious Planet Rossi points of view, which are quite idiosyncratic (aspects may show up with any Rossi supporter, but there are particular modes of language that are common only with Rossi and certain possible sock puppets), indicates a likelihood that DTravchenko or DT (“From Russia with love”) is Andrea Rossi, setting up questions he wants to stand or to answer, but maintaining deniability.

If DT were to post on LENR Forum, for example, that would create administrative knowledge there indicating identity. The same with E-Cat World. Rossi may trust Frank Acland more, but ultimately, Rossi trusts nobody. How he treated Fabiani is appalling. One can see in the Fabiani correspondence how torn he is between his loyalty to Rossi and his professional responsibility (to provide information to IH, all set up by Rossi — the actual contract was between IH and USQL and a half-owner of USQL was Florida Energy Trust, which Rossi has claimed — or hinted, he’s not completely explicit, he left room for “plausible deniability” — is essentially him.)


Rossi refuses to comment on RvD. Yeah, right.

And, of course, E-Cat World picks up on it. So far, nobody seems to notice that there is no specified source for the factual claim, i.e., that Smith has claimed such and such. But first, an actual direct comment on case issues:

April 4, 2017 at 10:36 AM

Dr Andrea Rossi:
1- was JMC directed by you?
2- did IH- Darden know who was the director of JMP?
3- was the owner of JMC directly or indirectly a relative of yours?
4- did IH- Darden ever complain about the owner or the director of JMP before or during the performance test?
5- did you ever say or write that JMP was owned by Johnson Matthey?
6- did ever Darden-IH ask you who was the owner of JMP during the validation test?
7- did Darden use JMP for his promotion, knowing who was the director of it?
8- why Darden-IH have not been able to enter in the JMP area where the plant of JMP was installed?
Since these issues have been already disclosed in the documents published by the Court, can you answer?

Andrea Rossi
April 4, 2017 at 1:37 PM

Evidence in documents speaks for itself and says:
1- yes
2- yes, since 2014
3- no
4- never
5- never
6- never
7- yes, he demanded Jim Bass to give good reference to his investors
8- because the agreement between JMP and IH vetoed to IH to enter the area of JMP and vice versa
Warm Regards,

Control the questions, you can control the answers to create desired impressions. The above is a direct comment on case issues, contrary to Rossi’s repeated intention not to comment. The questions are designed to allow him to answer with “truthiness,” but are highly misleading.

1- was JMC directed by you?

He now answers Yes, but I will be reviewing all his answers and comments on this. That JMC (-> JMP) was created and managed as Rossi’s idea, with Rossi being in full charge, with there being no independence other than purely formal — and that very weak –, is entirely contrary to the representations made in negotiations leading up to the Term Sheet and the later transfer, as well as many, many comments Rossi made on JONP, and his comments in emails where he had, for example, a talk with the Director of JMP, as if this were someone else, all of which is evidenced with documents from Rossi, as well as others entered as sworn testimony, in support for the IH Motion for Summary Judgment.

2- did IH- Darden know who was the director of JMP?

The real question would be when Darden knew. Rossi says much and the meaning can be vague. Rossi may be, here, assuming that because he said X, Darden therefore knew X. However, very much that Rossi said was in contradiction to X. Here, he acknowledges himself as Director. However, he has also claimed that Bass was the Director. But Bass was hired by, worked for, and was responsible to Rossi.

The customer was not at all “independent,” as repeated claimed by Rossi.

3- was the owner of JMC directly or indirectly a relative of yours?

On paper, no. In practice, it was Johnson, entirely following Rossi’s instructions. On paper, it was a trust created by a friend of Rossi, and who put in no money and took no part in JMC/JMP activities. Rossi created “plausible deniability.” But he also created impressions in the minds of others, quite the contrary of his later denials. Creating those impressions can be civil fraud. (Civil fraud does not require mens rea (evil intention), it could be inadvertent. If the false impressions were reasonable, i.e., they could be reasonably formed, civil fraud may exist.)

4 – did IH- Darden ever complain about the owner or the director of JMP before or during the performance test?

He did express concern. However, the question here would be intended to ask if Darden ever complained to Rossi about it. Until Darden knew the facts about JMC/JMP, fully, he’d have been unlikely to complain, but this depends on when he knew these facts. He apparently figured out that Johnson was Rossi’s lawyer, before the Plant was moved, and Darden concluded that a lawyer was unlikely to be lying, so he went ahead. That did not establish Rossi as the Director of JMP, because it continued to be represented, apparently, that there was a real customer, not Rossi, as owner. The identity of the owner was not disclosed, except that we see clear evidence that it was implied that it was Johnson Matthey, and Johnson participated in maintaining that impression.

5- did you ever say or write that JMP was owned by Johnson Matthey?

At the time in question, JMP was known as JMC, and there is clear evidence that the Johnson Matthey connection, very obviously implied in some way (and then Rossi said something like “I should not have mentioned them” — clearly implying that he had mentioned them. Where else did they get the idea?)

Rossi is lying here, and it is possible that this will be his most direct and deepest downfall.

6- did ever Darden-IH ask you who was the owner of JMP during the validation test?

JMP did not exist during the “Validation Test.” He must mean the alleged “Guaranteed Performance Test.” Darden already had information on the owner, from the OMC certification, and it was false, not true when Johnson signed that. The owner was not a “U.K. entity,” it was a U.S. trust, with Johnson fully in legal control of it.

7- did Darden use JMP for his promotion, knowing who was the director of it?

This is not established in the case, this is all Rossi Says. Rossi thinks that IH “promotion” is important. It is not. IH was deceived, willfully, by Rossi, and made comments on occasion reflecting that deception. Darden also expressed reservations, a concern about the alleged customer. Rossi never points to the contrary evidence, just to his own justifications and rationalizations.

8- why Darden-IH have not been able to enter in the JMP area where the plant of JMP was installed?

Because Rossi refused it. Rossi was in complete control of JMP. His answer here was:

8- because the agreement between JMP and IH vetoed to IH to enter the area of JMP and vice versa

Liar. The Term Sheet does not “veto” that. It does not mention the “area of JMP,” nor any restriction on IH access, even though later Rossi rejected IH access to the Plant, and Johnson supported this when access was formally requested in December. It also contains representations that were false when written and agreed to.

Since these issues have been already disclosed in the documents published by the Court, can you answer?

This comment shows a common Rossi trope. The court does not publish the documents, the parties file them and then PACER makes them available to the public. The parties derive “issues” from the documents, and Rossi is here presenting his defense. The defense can be false or misleading, but “documents” are, at this stage, sworn testimony. For the first time in the case, beginning with his depositions, Rossi could go to prison for making false or misleading statements.

More will be added later.

How is the weather on Planet Rossi?


Peter Gluck posts links to his blog in many places, and I saw this yesterday. I’m mentioned (the day before). Speak of the Master of Hot Places….
EGO OUT, April 6, 2017

A year of litigation- the scales of Justitia have  great loads of stuff- facts and assumptions. Facts have weight the assumption not- just now a selection/separation process takes place. 4-5 months and we will have the Verdict.

Indeed. However, we might have some verdicts, at least, within roughly a month, how long I expect it will take to handle the three pending Motions for Summary Judgment.

For the time given, the IH party is making huge efforts to kill the Penon ERV Report.

Actually, this is Peter’s myopic version of what is happening. Continue reading “How is the weather on Planet Rossi?”

Studying Rossi v. Darden Motions for Summary Judgment

Motions for Summary Judgment are handled by Federal Rule 56.

While it can be fun to express opinions, simple or complex, without study, just because we can (especially if we admin the blog) it is much more fun, long-term, to Know WTF one is talking about. Capiche?

Hence, when the Parties went wild March 22 with Motions, I realized that to study these motions would be haphazard at best, unless tools were created …

I have compiled a neutral study tool, one of a number to be put together:

RvD: Study of 207:IH Statement of material fact supporting MSJ

This has anchors at each paragraph that can be used to quickly reference it. (The IH MSJ references these paragraphs.) It also has links to specific pages of evidence, which then can facilitate putting together all the evidence (at least from the IH side) for a particular point. Continue reading “Studying Rossi v. Darden Motions for Summary Judgment”

If Rossi doesn’t know it, it is Bad

On LENR forum, Alan Fletcher wrote:

I read a lot of today’s responses and a lot of the exhibits. Didn’t notice anything really new, except for 236-7, Darden’s (I think) hand-written notes, including sending a unit to Boeing without Rossi’s knowledge.

This is the entry in our docket index (at this moment):

236-07 – Exhibit 7 Notes, Cassarino (Ampenergo) (? not confirmed, from memory)

I wrote “not confirmed” because I remember this being Cassarino but have not confirmed it. How would this be confirmed? Look in the main page:

04/04/2017 0236.0_IH_Opp_to_SOMF_214_Rossi MSJ – search for “Ex. 7” … this finds

Paragraph 27 refers to this as “AEG Dep. Ex. 20”.

The AEG Deposition is Exhibit 4 in this set. In the index to exhibits, we find that Exhibit 20 is used on p. 145. This is not one of the pages shown; it may have been the first reference. However, searching Exhibit 4 for “Exhibit 20,” I find reference to it:

Page 207. These are clearly Cassarino’s notes of his conversation(s). So I am removing the question from our docket index.

Now, Boeing. IH apparently arranged with Boeing to test a reactor, and the results were negative. Did Rossi know? I think I recall Rossi complaining that he wasn’t allowed to be there to make sure the test went well, but this may have been after the fact, I don’t know at this point if he knew about the test before it was done.

I think Alan Fletcher doesn’t realize the implications of what he wrote. Ampenergo was Rossi’s long-term supporter, those people went back before the E-Cat. I can see that Rossi’s attorneys are trying to imply that the refusal of Ampenergo to sign on to the Second Amendment still left it valid as between IH and Rossi, but breaking up the “parties” to the agreement like that was certainly not contemplated. And the Second Amendment then required the signature of all parties to the starting date.

If it could be shown that IH explicitly accepted to be bound by the GPT terms, it is possible that Rossi could claim estoppel. But it looks like they never did that, and Rossi never, as far as I’ve seen, claimed the Doral installation as being a GPT until very late in the game, not before it started, which is what would have been necessary as a substitute agreement.

Rather, IH expressed a willingness, apparently a number of times, to pay Rossi anyway if they could make devices themselves that would pass independent testing, even if it wasn’t fully “GPT compliant.” If they could do that, raising $89 million would have been easy for them. They had the commitment from Woodford.

If Rossi has something real, he completely shot himself in the foot by setting up a phony customer to allow him to personally control a “test,” lying about this repeatedly, refusing to allow Murray to visit in July, 2015, and by leading or following Annesser in refusing entry in December, 2015. But the most likely reality here is that the Rossi Effect was a collection of artifacts, at best, and, at worst, deliberate fraud.

And some of the Rossi declarations under oath look like perjury to me. For perjury, there is an insanity defense.





Camel legs splayed

I bring in files on the back of a camel, and the files posted on PACER for Rossi v. Darden did not break the back of the camel, but his legs are splayed out and he’s refusing to move until he’s given a break. Downloading all the files posted yesterday would be $104.10. I downloaded the main files, so people can start reading them, and the files are presumably described in the main documents. So that was $9 of the total. Eric may possibly download the rest (and it is also substantial work, not just paying PACER) but this is getting ridiculous.

So I am starting a GoFundMe campaign to raise money for purposes of covering expenses, and, as well, will be accepting direct donations to Infusion Institute, Inc., and this will serve as a kick in the butt to get that nonprofit tax-deductible status application going. I’ve been running on a few donations from 2013 and 2014, money is still left, but … it’s time to get this show truly on the road.

I also suggest that anyone who has PACER files that are not yet hosted yet could email them to me (or other transfer can be arranged). Parties certainly have the files, their attorneys are emailed them immediately and they don’t have to pay. For the files, that is, the attorneys are a mere $350 per hour or so.

I am planning to go to the trial, if it happens. I intend to take the bus, because it will not only be cheaper than flying, it will allow me to make some stops along the way, such as in Washington DC, where there are some major LENR personalities. Once I consider how easy it is for me to get to the bus terminal, compared to the airport, it is not all that much extra time.

So I will also be looking for hosting, if possible, to save on hotels. Let me know if interested in supporting me this way with a comment here. The email addresses of those who leave comments are visible to me (or any admin here), so I would write back.

GoFundMe donations may be anonymous if the donor desires. I will be given the identity of any donor, but that will be kept private. Donations with conditions attached other than those given in the campaign may not be accepted. Money can’t buy me love.

And then, when the camel is getting to his feet, a new pleading dropped with a collection of enormous files, my WordPress blog is chugging away at uploading them. One of the 42 exhibit files is 34 MB. 19 of them are more than 2 MB.