Rends, of the LENR Forum staff cabal, has amazing news for us:
I want to add some facts concerning the questions if IH is somehow related to Cherokeefund or not, which is denied by Darden et.al.
There is no “question” about the connection of IH and Cherokee, and this was known even before Rossi v. Darden was filed, naming Cherokee as a defendant, based on a claim that Darden and Vaughn had misled Rossi, claiming that he was really dealing with Cherokee and that Industrial Heat was just a front or the like.
IH and Cherokee have not denied the “connection,” as Rends claims with no evidence, but only the claim of Cherokee ownership of and responsibility for Industrial Heat. So what happened?
Darden and Vaughn were officers and/or employees of Cherokee. Darden used his identity as a Cherokee principal to gain access to Rossi, who had kicked him out of his office in Italy, until he figured out what Cherokee was, i.e., a $2.5 billion dollar investment fund. Not some random bozo.
Rossi believed, then, that he was dealing with Cherokee; however, when it came time to sign a formal agreement, Industrial Heat had been formed, and the agreement was specifically with IH, not with Cherokee. Stories diverge at that point, but it is reasonable that Darden assured Rossi that IH would be able to pay, and may have mentioned Cherokee; but it is also unlikely, given Darden’s position and high experience, that he actually claimed direct payment or or ownership of IH by Cherokee, rather the reality was that IH principals were also principals at Cherokee.
IH was legally distinct from Cherokee; Cherokee provided certain services to IH at cost, according to at least one document I read in the last few days. There are multiple “connections,” abundant, long known, and totally irrelevant to the lawsuit. If Cherokee were the owner of IH, as claimed by Rossi, Cherokee could have been a proper defendant in the lawsuit. However, it appears that no Cherokee funds went into IH; the money was raised by the IH investors, personally or from other funds they managed, and this was all clear and standard practice.
IH does not deny the connection, for denying it would be silly, because it is a well-established fact; Rends made that up. Rends has a paid-up subscription to the Sifferkoll conspiracy theory (which Mats Lewan seems to enjoy as well). That theory is constructed on an idea that if there are connections, there is a conspiracy. It’s more or less true, but the “conspiracy” is human. We do communicate with each other, and even cooperate and sometimes coordinate.
If, say, Murray was at one time in the military (maybe, I’m not sure, but this would be true of many), is it therefore reasonable to speculate that he is a spy (for somebody!) and then assert that there is some governmental conspiracy to suppress this disruptive technology.
If IH hires the largest legal firm in the US for consultation and representation (Jones Day), is therefore therea connection between them and a host of other companies, who also retain Jones Day, as shown on Rends’ web site in a graphic he often links to as PROOF, PROOF, I TELL YOU!
If IH consults with a former staff member at APCO Worldwide, why, then, the material on the internet critical of Rossi must be a campaign of paid FUD! — since APCO was involved in astroturfing over two decades ago.
There is no resemblance to what we see on the internet to the tactics used in the campaigns that are used as examples of astroturfing. There is no sign of anyone being paid to criticize Rossi, beyond the known IH investor and consultant, Dewey Weaver, of Deep River Ventures, who has another role that involves communication with researchers, and all this is, from court documents, quite open and clear and not resembling an astroturfing campaign.
(The expert witnesses Murray and Smith are being paid, as is Wong, Rossi’s expert, this is normal and routine.)
Astroturfing was designed to influence legislators, not courts, through letter-writing campaigns, and courts are generally insulated from such influence. Judges will not read such correspondence; if someone wants to influence a court proceeding, they can file a Friend of the Court brief. There are rules, for these to be admitted, such as disclosing all funding sources. (At least that is a rule for US Supreme Court amicus curiae briefs.)