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.
6 thoughts on “Appeal to consequences”
My opinion is that Rossi asked for a jury trial because of the technicality involved in this case.
A lawyer can probably get most jurors to understand that “legally, contract not signed = contract not valid”.
However, I find many people not educated in math or science, find statistics and such as error bars, if not hard to understand, often counter intuitive. Also, I believe in a trial decided by a judge, he can ask as many questions as he wants for clarification, while a jury, normally does not have the opportunity to ask questions. (I may be incorrect on this). Rossi probably realizes this and since misdirection seems to be one of his major talents, he may be counting on it!
It seems Rossi’s entire basis for summary judgment (ruled by the judge) has almost entirely been based on legal argument, possibly because he has no real technical foundation to provide. Or is it because summary judgments are normally based upon legal arguments only?
In any case, I cannot imagine that the case will go much past April 20th. The spoliation issue seems to be a black and white case. If legal arguments do not provide summary judgment, how can Rossi sue for payment of “a successful GPT” when the equipment for that GPT has been disassembled and “spoiled”. My understanding is that if that is ruled, all of Penon’s data is thus automatically invalidated and cannot be used as “fact” in the case. If there is no “ERV” data / report, then there would be no meeting of the “GPT” and thus no payment due? Is this correct?
Rossi’s action should be knocked out.
IH’s counter-action – some parts or even all – will remain. It is much more debatable. Maybe they will settle though I’d guess there is some appetite to show the world what Rossi is (and is not) made of. I hope we get closure, so Rossi can’t just walk away and do an Orbo.
With the parties all posting MSJs and rebuttals and replies to rebuttals I’m in a summarising mood and think the following very slight summary does a good job of representing my position:
IH hold a number of aces in the case as revealed so far: both legal and technical.
1. Legally – it is complex but basically the test does not correspond to the GPT in the license agreement – in many ways. Rossi’s case is therefore that because IH let him do it, and did not in writing tell him it was not the GPT, it must therefore be taken to be the GPT. That IMHO is very weak. The other issues raised by Rossi do not directly affect the legal question, so are even weaker.
2. Legally – Rossi intentionally deceived them about the customer’s identity
3. Legally – Rossi did not follow the required test plan
4, Legally – Rossi removed much evidence that would allow technical matters to be clarified (Spoliation hearing due 20th April – only an ace if IH wins).
5. Legally – Rossi did not deliver to IH the information required to manufacture working e-cats, as promised. Either they do not work as is still claimed by Rossi, or Rossi never delivered the required IP. Both alternatives are a win for IH.
6. Technically – the test could never have generated more than a few 100kW, because of the heat dissipation arguments which are irrefutable. Given that Penon’s data requires 1MW to be dissipated, and has low error bars, it must be very wrong. In that case we have no evidence from the test that Rossi’s device works.
7. Technically – the quality of data delivered by Penon is far from what would be expected in such a test with various known inconsistencies and lack of independent data collection
From Court documents Rossi’s only technical point comes from Wong. It is an estimate, which is inaccurate by a factor of 20, and therefore does not prove what Rossi claims. Working here:
You noticed. I will be going over the documents and evidence in far greater detail, that’s all.
It took some reflection to get things into that form. Glad you agree!
I’m still slogging through this, now up to paragraph 25.