Industrial Heat Asks for Extra Time to File Counterclaims against Rossi (perhaps others)

Thanks to Engineer48 for posting this document from the court case in which Industrial Heat asks for three more days to file its response in the Rossi v. IH et al lawsuit.

IH explains in the document that they want a few extra days to file its answer to Rossi’s complaints (due August 2), because they also want to file counterclaims against Plaintiff (Rossi), and they are also considering about filing claims against “third parties”.

IH filing

  • LilyLover

    Maximum time buying tactics. At least we get substantial confirmation of IH and Cheerrokee being just another company run by bureaukleptocretinsome.

    • Don’t forget though that the legal dance is being conducted by lawyers Jones Day, rather than Cherokee and its shell companies. The problem for JD is that they are running on fumes; their case is so weak that their only hope is to attempt a counter-attack. The best form of defense …..

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        That IH is a “Cherokee shell company” Is a Rossi trope. The officers are the same, that’s about it. It appears that no Cherokee money went into IH, and IH was funded entirely by Darden and Vaughn and some other investors, like Dewey Weaver. Then, when Woodford put in $50 million, that went into a company formed for the purpose, which is listed now as the parent company for IH. Capitalization in excess of $50 million, incorporated in the United Kingdom, convenient to Woodford. So far, what is visible of Jones Day and the planned defense is almost nothing. The legal arguments I saw in the Motion to Dismiss were generally sound as an attempt to accomplish what is famous for being very difficult. Given the difficulty, they did very well. People here were cheering, that four counts survived, but did not carefully read the Order. That order was based on alleged fact that was not fact, but error.

        IH doesn’t give a fig about the blogsophere, participation on lenr-forum.com was purely personal by Dewey Weaver. And Jones Day is not about to cringe in shame because someone calls the case ‘weak.” The case is *difficult*, because of how the Agreement was drafted, but … I also know how such appearances can be quite misleading.

        What most do not seem to realize there is that if Rossi wins, he still loses. He is extremely unlikely, given the conditions, to be able to pierce the corporate veil. Going after Cherokee simply insured that he would face the best possible opposing counsel.

        If Rossi creates a product that hits the market, that anyone can test, he could still win, because that will trump the rest. However, if he doesn’t, and soon, he may entirely lose his momentum. He looked pretty good when he had this “partner.” And terrible when he sued them, and unless he can prove fraud — extremely difficult with what he alleged — nobody will want to deal with him again unless he has real product that meets *actually and fully independent testing.* Which Rossi has never allowed.

        • ‘Industrial Heat’ shares an address with Cherokee – hardly an indication of an independent entity. ‘IPH International’ (and their sole shareholder, IPH Management LLC) is just another zero-employee vehicle created by Darden et al. in 2013 for internal processes such as tax minimisation. The latter has been discussed here at http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/09/iph-international-bv-listed-as-applicant-in-e-cat-patent-filing/ .

          The interesting thing about the reaction to Rossi’s legal action is the involvement of Jones Day and APCO, neither of which would normally be expected to represent the interests of a middle ranking venture capital company. It would seem that either Darden is going for broke on this one, or Cherokee was simply acting as a front for bigger fish involved in the acquisition of CF IP and control of the technology.

          Regarding Rossi’s reason for taking the legal action, I don’t for a minute suppose that he believes that if he wins, then IH will pay out the promised sum of money. I suspect that the view sometimes expressed on this blog – that the purpose is to kill any claim that IH may have on his IP – is the correct one. However, one of the side effects is likely to be to expose at least some the corporate shenanigans conducted by Darden and apparently intended to defraud Rossi of the fruits of his labour.

          I agree that the court case may be damaging to Rossi’s ability to form new partnerships, but presumably the termination of the agreement with IH would make this a price worth paying.

          BTW, where is ‘here’ – as in ‘People here were cheering…’?

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Shared address is less of an indication of connection than is shared officers, and shared officers is not sufficient — at all — to establish the legal issue here, “wholly owned subsidiary.”

            A moment for how Cherokee operates. They identify environmental remediation projects and create a limited partnership for each. They put in, typically, $25 million of their own money. The project needs far more than that. So they identify other investors, who invest in that specific project. This includes people local to the project. They also solicit governmental support. If a project fails, they lose $25 million, but were the project a “wholly-owned subsidiary,” their loss could be much greater. So none of their projects are such.

            IH was not a Cherokee project, it was a project identified by Darden and Vaughn as worthy of support, which they did with their own money, and they attracted other investors. Not only was Cherokee not the sole owner of IH, as Rossi claimed, or as the judge interpreted his claim, but it was not an owner at all. But yes, Darden and Vaughn work out of the Cherokee office, so that’s a mail drop for them.

            The conspiracy theory expressed here is only seen on Planet Rossi and places like the Sifferkoll blog. That’s “here” because E-Cat world has the highest density of Rossi fans of any site. It is not exclusive and there are some balanced people writing here.

            Again, a common trope: that APCO is highly involved. In fact, there is the slimmest piece of evidence for this, but it’s been repeated over and over and appears to be taken as a fact. The evidence is that the IH press release of early March was cc’d to an email address at APCO.

            That simply does not show APCO involvement. So perhaps an APCO staffer gave some personal advice to Darden, we might guess. And so Darden cc’d him. That would not make IH a client of APCO. However, that IH might consult with APCO, formally, would not be impossible, but it would also be meaningless. IH is not engaged in a public relations project. They are mostly secretive.

            However, the same blogger who has ranted extensively on the APCO connection claims that criticism of Rossi, as on lenr-form.com, is part of a “campaign to spread FUD,” through paid “FUD-spreaders, coordinated by APCO. I am very connected with the LENR community and have been for years. There is no organized campaign to discredit Rossi, I’d have heard about it. There are a few individuals pissed about what Rossi has done, who comment here and there. The LENR research community was originally mildly supportive of Rossi, mostly “wait and see.” It has mostly shifted to an idea of “fraud.” What has accomplished this is not a campaign by Rossi enemies, but his own actions, most recently including the lawsuit.

        • My reply to the comment has apparently disappeared into the aether, so here it is again:

          ‘Industrial Heat’ has shared their Raleigh address with Cherokee since its inception in 2012 – hardly an indication of an independent entity. The similar letterbox entity, ‘IPH International’ (and their ‘sole shareholder’, IPH Management LLC) are just more zero-employee vehicles created by Darden et al. in 2013 for internal purposes, possibly including tax minimisation. The latter has been discussed here at http://www.e-catworld.com/2014… .

          The interesting thing about the reaction to Rossi’s legal action is the involvement of Jones Day and APCO, neither of which would normally be affordable to a middle ranking venture capital company. It would seem that either Darden is going for broke on this one by splashing investor money around rather freely, or that Cherokee was simply acting as a front for bigger fish involved in the secretive acquisition of CF IP and control of the technology.

          Regarding Rossi’s reason for taking the legal action, I don’t for a moment suppose that he believes that if he wins, then IH will pay out the promised sum of money. I suspect that the view sometimes expressed on this blog – that the purpose is to kill any claim that IH may have on his IP – is the correct one. However, one of the side effects is likely to be to expose at least some the corporate shenanigans conducted by Darden and apparently intended to defraud Rossi of the fruits of his labour.

          I agree that the court case may be damaging to Rossi’s ability to form new partnerships, but presumably the termination of the agreement with IH would make this a price worth paying.

          BTW, where is ‘here’ – as in ‘People here were cheering…’?

        • My reply to the comment above has apparently disappeared into the aether, so here it is again:

          ‘Industrial Heat’ has shared their Raleigh address with Cherokee since its inception in 2012 – hardly an indication of an independent entity. The similar letterbox entity, ‘IPH International’ (and their ‘sole shareholder’, IPH Management LLC) are just more zero-employee vehicles created by Darden et al. in 2013 for internal purposes, possibly including tax minimisation. The latter has been discussed on this blog at http://www.e-catworld.com/2014… .

          The interesting thing about the reaction to Rossi’s legal action is the involvement of Jones Day and APCO, neither of which would normally be considered affordable by a middle ranking venture capital company. It would seem that either Cherokee is going for broke on this one by splashing investor money around rather freely, or that Cherokee’s shell companies were simply acting as a front for bigger fish involved in the secretive acquisition of CF IP and control of the technology.

          Regarding Rossi’s reason for taking the legal action, I don’t for a moment suppose that he believes that if he wins, then Cherokee/IH will pay out the promised sum of money. I suspect that the view sometimes expressed on this blog – that the purpose is to end any claim that IH may have on his IP – is the correct one. However, one of the side effects is likely to be to expose at least some the corporate shenanigans conducted by Cherokee and apparently intended to defraud Rossi of the fruits of his labour.

          I agree that the court case may be damaging to Rossi’s ability to form new partnerships, but presumably the termination of the agreement with IH would make this a price worth paying.

          BTW, I wonder where is ‘here’ – as in ‘People here were cheering…’?

    • Gunnar Lindberg

      Are you serious? IH asked for three more days, not years.

  • LilyLover

    Maximum time buying tactics. At least we get substantial confirmation of IH and Cheerrokee being just another company run by bureaukleptocretinsome.

    • Don’t forget though that the legal dance is being conducted by lawyers Jones Day, rather than Cherokee and its shell companies. The problem for JD is that they are running on fumes; their case is so weak that their only hope is to attempt a counter-attack. The best form of defense …..

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        That IH is a “Cherokee shell company” Is a Rossi trope. The officers are the same, that’s about it. It appears that no Cherokee money went into IH, and IH was funded entirely by Darden and Vaughn and some other investors, like Dewey Weaver. Then, when Woodford put in $50 million, that went into a company formed for the purpose, which is listed now as the parent company for IH. Capitalization in excess of $50 million, incorporated in the United Kingdom, convenient to Woodford. So far, what is visible of Jones Day and the planned defense is almost nothing. The legal arguments I saw in the Motion to Dismiss were generally sound as an attempt to accomplish what is famous for being very difficult. Given the difficulty, they did very well. People here were cheering, that four counts survived, but did not carefully read the Order. That order was based on alleged fact that was not fact, but error.

        IH doesn’t give a fig about the blogsophere, participation on lenr-forum.com was purely personal by Dewey Weaver. And Jones Day is not about to cringe in shame because someone calls the case “weak.” The case is *difficult*, because of how the Agreement was drafted, but … I also know how such appearances can be quite misleading.

        What most do not seem to realize there is that if Rossi wins, he still loses. He is extremely unlikely, given the conditions, to be able to pierce the corporate veil. Going after Cherokee simply insured that he would face the best possible opposing counsel.

        If Rossi creates a product that hits the market, that anyone can test, he could still win, because that will trump the rest. However, if he doesn’t, and soon, he may entirely lose his momentum. He looked pretty good when he had this “partner.” And terrible when he sued them, and unless he can prove fraud — extremely difficult with what he alleged — nobody will want to deal with him again unless he has real product that meets *actually and fully independent testing.* Which Rossi has never allowed.

        • Deleted by author (duplicate comment)

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Shared address is less of an indication of connection than is shared officers, and shared officers is not sufficient — at all — to establish the legal issue here, “wholly owned subsidiary.”

            A moment for how Cherokee operates. They identify environmental remediation projects and create a limited partnership for each. They put in, typically, $25 million of their own money. The project needs far more than that. So they identify other investors, who invest in that specific project. This includes people local to the project. They also solicit governmental support. If a project fails, they lose $25 million, but were the project a “wholly-owned subsidiary,” their loss could be much greater. So none of their projects are such.

            IH was not a Cherokee project, it was a project identified by Darden and Vaughn as worthy of support, which they did with their own money, and they attracted other investors. Not only was Cherokee not the sole owner of IH, as Rossi claimed, or as the judge interpreted his claim, but it was not an owner at all. But yes, Darden and Vaughn work out of the Cherokee office, so that’s a mail drop for them.

            The conspiracy theory expressed here is only seen on Planet Rossi and places like the Sifferkoll blog. That’s “here” because E-Cat world has the highest density of Rossi fans of any site. It is not exclusive and there are some balanced people writing here.

            Again, a common trope: that APCO is highly involved. In fact, there is the slimmest piece of evidence for this, but it’s been repeated over and over and appears to be taken as a fact. The evidence is that the IH press release of early March was cc’d to an email address at APCO.

            That simply does not show APCO involvement. So perhaps an APCO staffer gave some personal advice to Darden, we might guess. And so Darden cc’d him. That would not make IH a client of APCO. However, that IH might consult with APCO, formally, would not be impossible, but it would also be meaningless. IH is not engaged in a public relations project. They are mostly secretive.

            However, the same blogger who has ranted extensively on the APCO connection claims that criticism of Rossi, as on lenr-forum.com, is part of a “campaign to spread FUD,” through paid “FUD-spreaders, coordinated by APCO. I am very connected with the LENR community and have been for years. There is no organized campaign to discredit Rossi, I’d have heard about it. There are a few individuals pissed about what Rossi has done, who comment here and there. The LENR research community was originally mildly supportive of Rossi, mostly “wait and see.” It has mostly shifted to an idea of “fraud.” What has accomplished this is not a campaign by Rossi enemies, but his own actions, most recently including the lawsuit.

        • Deleted by author (duplicate comment)

        • AFAIK, Rossi has never referred to Cherokee’s various shell companies as such, and the usage is mine, to refer to ‘virtual’ commercial entities that have no premises of their own, and no employees. ‘Industrial Heat’ has shared their Raleigh address with Cherokee since its inception in 2012 – hardly an indication of an independent entity. The similar letterbox entity, ‘IPH International’ (and their ‘sole shareholder’, IPH Management LLC) are just more zero-employee vehicles created by Darden et al. in 2013 for internal purposes, possibly including tax minimisation or separation of liability. The latter has been discussed on this blog at http://www.e-catworld.com/2014… .

          The interesting thing about the reaction to Rossi’s legal action is the involvement of Jones Day and APCO, neither of which would normally be engaged by a middle ranking venture capital company. It would seem that either Cherokee is going for broke on this one by splashing investor money around rather freely, or that Cherokee and it’s shell companies were simply acting as a front for bigger fish involved in the secretive acquisition of CF IP and control of the technology.

          Regarding Rossi’s reason for taking the legal action, I don’t for a moment suppose that he believes that if he wins, then Cherokee/IH will pay out the promised sum of money. I suspect that the view sometimes expressed on this blog – that the purpose is to end any claim that IH may have on his IP – is the correct one. However, one of the side effects is likely to be to expose at least some the corporate shenanigans conducted by Cherokee and apparently intended to defraud Rossi of the fruits of his labour.

          I agree that the court case may be damaging to Rossi’s ability to form new partnerships, but presumably the termination of the agreement with IH would make this a price worth paying.

          BTW, I wonder where is ‘here’ – as in ‘People here were cheering…’?

    • Gunnar Lindberg

      Are you serious? IH asked for three more days, not years.

  • Rene

    Suit -> motion to dismiss
    Dismissal mostly denied, so Suit -> Countersuit
    SOP

  • Gerard McEk

    I would reject this. But who am I?

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      Definitely not a Federal Judge, and not a lawyer for Rossi, either.

  • Gerard McEk

    I would reject this. But who am I?

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      Definitely not a Federal Judge, and not a lawyer for Rossi, either.

      • Michael W Wolf

        Mean spirited, back slap, says a lot about your character. Something an education can’t teach.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          Basically, Gerard would reject what is totally and routinely accepted by professionals, including the Federal Judge in this case and Rossi’s lawyer. And then there are conclusions about my character. Ah, well, what can I expect if I visit Plant Rossi? Gratitude for pointing out the law and actual procedure? Let’s see what happens.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Maybe the first part of your comment is what you should have said to Gerard. BTW, No judge would reject this? Ever? If so, then there is nothing wrong with Gerard’s opinion. Maybe I am wrong that it was a back slap, and maybe I jumped to conclusions about your character, sorry man.

  • Barbierir

    We’ll soon see how much Dewey and Jed’s statements are reiterated in IH counterclaims

    • Barbierir

      maybe this time they will be backed by actual data

      • Ged

        That would be fantastic!

  • Barbierir

    We’ll soon see how much Dewey and Jed’s statements are reiterated in IH counterclaims

    • Barbierir

      maybe this time they will be backed by actual data

      • Ged

        That would be fantastic!

      • JedRothwell

        It would be nice if Rossi would back one of his claims with real data, but I guess that is asking too much.

        In his case, many people here are content with “Rossi says” as proof of anything, no matter how implausible. Rossi says there is 1 MW of heat going into the customer site. So, even though no one detected that heat coming out of the building anywhere, there are no employees and no sound coming from the room, and Rossi refused to let anyone in, it is taken as gospel truth because Rossi Says So.

        • wpj

          “….. there are no employees….”

          Then who was the person giving the presentation to the IH people and their visitors claiming that everything was rosy and for which significant investment was received? An actor?

          I know your viewpoint and don’t want to argue this, but it does not correlate with what you state. This, by the way, comes from Mats L’s contacts and is not “Rossi says” (though he does, indeed, embellish it further with his “Stellar” comments which he says is on video).

          • JedRothwell

            You asked: “Then who was the person giving the presentation to the IH people and their visitors claiming that everything was rosy . . . An actor?”

            Either an actor or Rossi’s lawyer. There was no one there normally. No one answered the phone. There was no noise or activity, and no heat measured from the roof vents. It is not possible to operate industrial equipment that uses 1 MW of process heat without people, noise, and waste heat. It was all fake, which is why Rossi did not allow people in.

          • Ged

            Provide the data from the roof vent measurements, before or after plant operation, and during. Provide the accustic measurement data showing no noise compared to the noise level you would expect for whatever they could be doing that makes the least noise. Come on, Jed, prove your claim by providing the data.

            Provide the evidence no one was there normally. Prove your accusations with real data, not “Jed says”.

          • JedRothwell

            “Provide the data from the roof vent measurements, before or after plant operation, and during.”

            Ask Rossi for data. You will not believe it even if I give it to you. I have given you data, and you don’t believe it. Explain how I can prove anything given that you already accuse me of faking the pressure and flow data.

          • Michael W Wolf

            People don’t accuse you. They say you could be faking or you might be lying for all we know. Rossi is now under oath claiming the same things he’s claimed in public. Until you or IH can say that, Rossi’s word is more valid by leaps and bounds. You on the other hand libel Rossi and others with unsubstantiated accusations. You know that is a crime if you have no proof?

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Mr. Wolf is showing no knowledge of law. Libel of public figures is a very difficult claim to make. Here, Mr. Wolf seems to give higher credence to Rossi than to Rothwell or IH, and he gives as a basis for that, statements allegedly made “under oath.” What oath? Where?

            What is most likely is that Mr. Wolf believes that what is in a Complaint in Federal Court is presented under oath. No. That is not so at all.

            http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3192&context=mulr

            Statements made in pleadings are generally exempt from libel and perjury claims. There could be exceptions, but I saw nothing in the Rossi pleadings that made me think of libel or perjury. Rossi may believe what he wrote. And he was not under oath. And the complaint was not even signed by Rossi. So what is Wolf talking about?

          • Michael W Wolf

            Who presented Rossi’s case? His lawyer. If his lawyer believes Rossi has a case, he is bound by oath. Rossi has taken several oaths along the way. So by proxy, Rossi has taken an oath. The only oath IH has taken, defends what Rossi has said. So if neither has taken an oath in this particular case, makes no difference in my mind. But oaths have been taken by both, and those oaths are in agreement, then IH is contradicting what they have stated under oath. “They built and tested an 11 cop reactor”. So were they lying then or now? Who knows, maybe they are just incompetent. We will see. Until then Rossi is the only one anyone should trust. You don’t have to be a lawyer to see the contradictions IH has made.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Total and repeated misunderstanding of legal process.

            What “oath” has IH taken? Pleadings are not generally entered under oath. They may have exhibits attached that are. Further, one person cannot execute an oath on behalf of another, they can only witness it. So Rossi’s attorney could not do it for him.

            Go ahead! Find one statement Rossi has made as a legal oath under penalty of perjury! Nothing in the trial so far is that, that I’ve seen.

            This “under oath” meme has been repeated quite a number of times as a reason to give special credence to what is in the Rossi Complaint.

            That’s part of how “sectarian” information cascades arise. People tend to believe what their friends, those on the “same side” say. If misinformation tends to support the “truth,” then it is readily accepted and not fact-checked.

          • Michael W Wolf

            IH has a patent where an oath is taken. They claim under oath, that they built and tested a reactor with 11 COP. Contradicts what IH is implying now. Rossi also has patents that support what he is claiming in court, whether he took an oath there or not. I don’t pretend to be a lawyer. I have been corrected, just like many others have been. But speaking without a complete understanding isn’t very professional, but are we professionals here? I just give my opinion, not always right or wrong. But you would never know as the other side when found wrong seems to just go away and not admit anything. As for credence, Isn’t Rossi’s lawyer bound by oath? Well he is putting his career on the line isn’t he? IH has given us nothing but ambiguous statements and hearsay. So yes, Rossi still has more credence. But I doubt the folks that know Rossi is a fraud would ever admit it.

          • Michael W Wolf

            An oath has more weight than hearsay. and the summons and complaint Rossi filed is normally a sworn statement.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Under New York law a civil lawsuit is started by the filing of a SUMMONS
            and COMPLAINT. These two documents give the DEFENDANT notice that he is
            being sued and what the lawsuit is about. Normally, the Complaint is
            verified, that is, sworn to by the PLAINTIFF.You need to prove he didn’t take an oath.

          • JedRothwell

            Rossi is libeling I.H. You should trust them more than you trust Rossi. They have more credibility by far.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Not so. Rossi has taken an oath. IH has not. You should trust Rossi at this time. Let us see what IH will say under oath. Until then, rossi is more valid. Besides, aren’t you an investor? Anything they say to you is not backed by any guarantee of truth. Therefore they have a motive to lie. If Rossi was as you say, IH would have already sued him. This case will be about only Rossi being able to keep the ecat running. Mark my words.

          • JedRothwell

            As Abd pointed out, Rossi has not taken any oath. But if you are still convinced that he has, let me point out that would mean I.H. has also taken an oath in their Motion to Dismiss, where they said the machine does not work. Why are you inclined to believe Rossi but not I.H.? You have no basis for this. I.H. is far more credible and honest.

            (Neither party has taken an oath, but if you insist they have, it works both ways. One of them is lying.)

          • another point is that if one of the player is sure to have a bad file and no chance to exit by fair way,
            – there is no risk in attacking first
            – there is no risk in lying more

            I’ve read article by a French Lawyers about how client-next-door behave in lower criminal courts.

            first they lie to their attorney, testing their lie on him first… it is stupid but they do it.
            second is that the bandit-next-door, white or blue collar criminal, do his crime because of those points :
            1- he feels he cannot be caught, often supported by high number of past uncaught crimes, by insufficient law enforcement…
            2- he claims the victim deserve it : big evil company, rich guy, stupid greedy man, immoral girl, incompetent.

            it is very improbable for a criminal to take a perceived risk to be caught, or to attack a victim he respects.

            not sure it helps, as, especially with usual anti-corp cliché, it can apply to both parties.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Yes one is lying. IH has a patent that contradicts their claims in court. Rossi has never claimed his reactor didn’t work. Oaths are taken in all these situations. So you believe the ones that keep changing their story, with no proof of the contrary? So now you are claiming hearsay more reliable than oaths? Because other than the oaths, all we have is hearsay. Right Jed?

          • Michael W Wolf

            And ABD is wrong Jed.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            People with no information but rumor (almost entirely through Rossi, with Lewan repeating what Rossi says and not actually investigating, as he used to, and based on rumor from others) are arguing with others with no direct information, but leaked information, which, of course, depends on the probity of informants. However, there is an IH insider who has personally testified to things that appear to contradict Rossi information. The idea that the IH story is complicated is fluff. We don’t have the IH story, for the most part, just rumors and a bit of leakage through Weaver.

            There are people with almost no information, holding ideas that contradict public record, who assert their errors continually. And then there are some with some information. Yet even Engineer48, who has claimed to be in direct communication with Rossi, has published a 1 MW ECat design that is open, i.e., the return water goes into an open tank, thus allowing lower internal system pressure, which then runs into other issues about claims and reports, whereas Rossi clearly stated that the 1 MW plant was a closed system, i.e,. sealed.

            In the end, contradictions often are found to be resolved by unexpected conditions or meanings. (Like maybe Rossi changed the system.) However, badgering Jed, who does have inside information that he trusts, to “prove” what he is saying is just plain rude. Nobody is required to believe him. But I’ve known him for years and he doesn’t lie. He can be mistaken, like the rest of us. If he has seen GPT data and he interprets it a certain way, that’s his privilege. I do not know when we will see the ERV report, but eventually, I predict, we will, and then we will know if what Jed was saying was right on … or fluff or error or something.

          • Ged

            I disagree. Claiming Rossi is a lair and fake is rude to slanderous, and making all these claims about contradictory data but providing no such data is disingenuous to dishonest. We have a right to demand proof of such accusations. Do you have proof Jed has actual inside data, or do you just take him at his word?

            No one is required to believe him, which is why I demand he supports his claims as they are materially important. In addition, if he cannot, then he needs to leave and not come back till he can.

            It doesn’t matter if he is right or wrong, and I hope he is vindicated, but making baseless statement to stir the pot is unacceptable.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “Claiming Rossi is a lair and fake is rude to slanderous . . .”

            Claiming that I.H. is lying is also rude and slanderous. Why do you believe Rossi instead of I.H.?

          • Michael W Wolf

            Rossi claims this under oath. IH has done nothing but contradict themselves. That is why.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Where has Rossi made a claim under oath? What I see again and again here is writers who don’t understand what is going on, but jump to conclusions about it and present those conclusions as fact.

          • Michael W Wolf

            When he sued IH, Rossi took an oath. Which makes him subject to perjury. Rossi’s word has more weight at this time and that is a fact.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            No. There is no oath. Show it if you think there is. Here is a guide to writing and filing a pro se compaint in Federal Court http://www.publiccounsel.org/tools/materials/files/GUIDE-How-to-Write-a-Complaint.pdf

            Michael, you made this up about “Rossi took an oath.” This is not a part of the filing process. There are parts of the process where testimony will be given under oath.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Well this is New York law I found about filing a summons and complaint to start a civil lawsuit. “Under New York law a civil lawsuit is started by the filing of a SUMMONS
            and COMPLAINT. These two documents give the DEFENDANT notice that he is
            being sued and what the lawsuit is about. Normally, the Complaint is
            verified, that is, sworn to by the PLAINTIFF.I would think Florida is similar. You’ll have to prove Rossi didn’t take that oath since it is “Normally” taken.

          • wpj

            From Mats’ blog
            April 23. I have been talking to people having visited the 1MW plant and meeting with the customer during first half of 2015,

            In another post he also says that the people saw production going on.

            He also says that they were told that “Sponge Metal Catalysts” were being made.

            Now, I have been a practicing chemist for a long time and the first time I ever heard of “Sponge Metal Catalysts” was about 5 years ago when an ex-Johnson Matthey person came to work with me. He corrected me when I said “Raney” catalyst. Seems that all the JM employees had to call them SMC as this is their trade mark (as is Raney for Grace). I would have thought, if trying to fake the production, the person would just have said “metal catalysts” which is why I have always suspected Johnson Matthey as being involved. Maybe this is a load of hogwash, but we will see in court.

          • Michael W Wolf

            And you can rest assure that customer will testify in court for Rossi.

          • JedRothwell

            The customer is Rossi’s lawyer, so he might be barred from testifying. See:

            http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_7_lawyer_as_witness/comment_on_rule_3_7.html

            Maybe it would be okay, since he is not representing Rossi in this case. I wouldn’t know.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Unsubstantiated accusations. That is called libel.

        • Ged

          It would be nice if you would back up one of your claims with real data. Are you finally man enough to do so, or is that asking too much?

          • JedRothwell

            Everything I say is backed up with real data from Rossi. If you want to see it, you will have to ask him for it. Even if I give it to you, you will say I made it up. For example, I reported that all of pressure readings were erased and replaced with 0.0 bar, which is obviously fake data. But Rossi’s acolytes do not believe me. You will only believe Rossi, so you must ask him for sample data.

            He will not give you anything. He never has given you anything. You should realize that means he is a liar and a fake. You should also realize that there is not the slightest chance 1 MW was being released in the pretend customer site, and if it had been, I.H. and others could easily have detected it, even from outside.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Jed says. It holds less water than Rossi says.

          • JedRothwell

            Let me reiterate that I already showed the people here some data, but they don’t believe me. I said that the pressure data has been erased and replaced with 0.0 bar, and the flow rate is exactly 36,000 kg/day for several days.

            As a practical matter, there is no way I can prove this data actually came from Rossi. If I were to upload a letter or a page of data, people would say I faked it. Or they would say I could have faked it, which is true. Digital media is flexible, and I am a programmer. I can easily fake any type of document.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Now you know how Rossi feels.

          • Mats002

            Hi Jed,
            You can always question chain-of-custody with any data, bits or atoms. The problem is not to question, the problem is how to proof beyond doubt. Who have the benefit if the doubt in this case?

          • JedRothwell

            I.H. has more credibility that Rossi. Rossi has a long history of dissembling, making up nonsense about production lines, angering his investors and customers, and doing such sloppy experiments he came close to injuring people in one case.

          • Michael W Wolf

            IH has contradicted themselves. You should sue IH to get your money back. That ecat worked. And there are witnesses, including the contradictory IH.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Get his money back? Jed, have you invested in IH? I’d be surprised, not because there is anything wrong with investing in IH, but simply because you haven’t mentioned it. It would increase credibility, because IH investors must have, I’m sure, disclosures that are not available to the public.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Could be my mistake. Maybe I was thinking of Weaver. But Jed seems to take weaver’s word for it. So he may have the same bad information.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            “Proof beyond doubt” is a standard in criminal cases. Rossi v. Darden is civil, where the standard is the preponderance of the evidence. Most of what passes for evidence around here is so weak that it could not be admitted in court. There is an exception: in a Complaint, a plaintiff can basically say anything. (There are exceptions, but they are not relevant here.) However, in routine conversation, there are “implications.” Further, there is a common-law standard that testimony is presumed true unless controverted. “Prove it!” is not controversion. The testimony stands as what it is. Jed says that he received data from a confidential source. So I assume that is exactly what happened, unless I find reasons to think Jed is lying, and I’ve known him for years. I often disagree with this conclusions, but I’ve never seen him lie. Jed also says that others received the same data and it matches what we have from Rossi, i.e,. in the Mats Lewan interview.

            Jed trusts his sources. However, beware: “testimony is presumed true” does not extend to conclusions. For that, legally, experts may testify. And many trials end up with conflicting testimony from experts. And who decides what to believe?

            In fact, nobody. Rather, this is a jury trial. A jury will rule on questions of fact, and they rule based on preponderance of the evidence, and the evidence they see will be filtered. It will not be what some blogger has said. It will be documents with affirmations, it will be personal testimoney, and the jury will see the witnesses and personally assess, from behavioral cues, and much more, what the preponderance of the evidence shows.

            This is what I see, here: Even though Jed Rothwell, who knows a great deal about calorimetry, was not allowed by Rossi to witness a test because Jed said he’d bring his own instruments — and this fits with many other stories, including before 2011 — Jed was mostly positive on Rossi’s work, until quite recently. Jed is in a position to receive information from many sources.

            Let me put it this way: Jed’s reports do not inspire confidence in Rossi and the 1 MW test. Some of what Jed refers to is public record, such as the exclusion of the IH expert from the Customer area.

            Now, as to “benefit of the doubt,” in a civil case, doubt may remain. There is no benefit of the doubt. All evidence — as legally defined, with centuries of experience — is on the table, “proof” is not required. There is an exception: fraud. To prove fraud requires a higher standard of evidence than to merely determine “fact.” There is some idea here that the judge is going to decide fact. No. Not at all. That’s the job of the jury. The judge will see that what the jury receives is legally-qualified evidence, and that they know relevant law and legal precedent.

            What Jed has been talking about (alleged Rossi data) is not evidence in the lawsuit. It’s rumor, and sane people will distinguish it as such. “Rumor” does not mean “bad or wrong.”

            Then the claim is that Jed is being unethical by sharing with us what he knows. Yet a great deal is brought to this blog based on rumor. “Rossi says.”

            And people, including Jed, are being accused of being “paid agents of APCO,” based on ridiculously thin evidence. By someone who himself has conflicts of interest that he sure doesn’t emphasize. Does Jed have a conflict of interest?

            His friends are being attacked, charged with fraud, sued for $300 million, and these are the people who have become the most active funding agency in a field that Jed has worked for, for over two decades. Is that a conflict of interest? Of course it is! One would not make Jed an arbitrator in Rossi v. Darden. So what? Harassing people with constantly repeated claims of “Prove it” is part of what creates increasingly less informed discussions, as those who know go away.

          • JedRothwell

            “Who have the benefit if the doubt in this case?”

            I.H. has the benefit of the doubt, by a large margin. I.H. is supporting other researchers. None of them have complained. Rossi has worked with other supporters. ALL of them have complained! Rossi has a long history of lying about factories under construction and reactors being sold.

        • Ophelia Rump

          The entire problem with you position is that you have no more proof than anyone you disagree with. The judge on the other hand is not handicapped in that way.

          We shall see what we shall see. Or perhaps more to the point we shall see what the judge sees. Of course that will not prove the technology, only the credibility of the parties involved.

          Or will it?

          Would a decision which upholds the claim of COP 50 be a proof of the technology?

          I would love to see a discussion of legal and technical experts render a decision on that before the verdict. It is better form to interpret the possible results of the experiment before it is performed, so that you do not introduce an interpretation bias after the fact.

          • JedRothwell

            No, I have lots of proof. I have a sample of Rossi’s data. He won’t give it to you because it proves he is wrong. Why else? That’s also why Rossi didn’t let people into his lawyer’s pretend customer site. If it were real, and he showed it, he would have gotten $89 million. Do you think he would “honor” a pretend agreement with his own lawyer and forgo that kind of money? That’s ridiculous.

            I can point to the absurd assertions about the pretend customer site that Rossi made in his interview with Lewan. I can point to the statements in I.H.’s Motion to Dismiss.

            You, on the other hand have NOTHING. Bupkis. Zip. Zero. Everything you believe is based on statements made by Rossi. If you look at his record you will see that he often lies extravagantly, claiming he is he is building factories he never built, and he sold systems he never sold.

          • roseland67

            Jed,

            Forget it amigo,
            You can’t argue faith with the faithful.

            Time will tell, what’s another 5 years
            If Rossi actually has what he says he has,

            I continue to visit this site for updates but have little hope Rossi ever delivers.
            hope I’m wrong, but from what I have seen in The last 5 years is any indication,
            Probably not.

          • Ged

            “No, I have lots of proof.”

            Then provide it, and stop “flaunting” this mythical proof you supposedly have and to which we have no proof you do. Or leave behind your claims about it until you can do so. Ophelia is a staunch critic, and is also completely correct–until you provide evidence you have this proof you claim, you have nothing in anyone rational’s eyes. If this makes Rossi look bad, then publish it, or why has not IH published it?

            So come on, caugh up that proof. Cough up that supposed bit of Rossi data. Cough up that supposed 10 page report you said showed it “looked like it worked”. Prove you are more than make believe statements; that would do everyone a service, wouldn’t it?

          • JedRothwell

            Why do you demand proof from me when Rossi has given you no proof at all? You should ask him for proof.

            I have given you numbers. I have no way to prove they are actually from him, so what you are asking for is impossible. Even if I uploaded the entire data set, you would only claim that I faked it. You don’t believe the two numbers I gave you, so why would you believe a whole table full of numbers?

            You tell me: how can I prove I actually got this information from Rossi? Suggest a method and I will consider it.

          • Ged

            “Why do you demand proof from me when Rossi has given you no proof at all? You should ask him for proof.”

            You make a fatal mistake: Rossi’s not here making allegations against other people and attacking reputations, you are. IH is completely inaccessible, Rossi is only in his own domain, but you are here making actionable claims against someone, attempting to protect yourself behind a shield of saying its based on mysterious data only you have, yet you won’t show anything to prove you are not simply making it up for self importance or to be malicious. I do not take you for your word, I only take you for whatever data you provide, and so far you are simply accusing with no substance. Your behavior is far worst than either IH or Rossi’s.

            Anyone can make up numbers and claims (not that you provided any numbers at all so don’t try to make up that narrative as it undermines all your limited credibility–you provide no context to evaluate or problem with saying 0 bar despite you trying to present it as such), that does not change anything as it is no different than what you’ve been doing all along. I demand the -actual- data, the actual report pdfs or excel sheets or word documents or other actual computer data files with both results and context that came from the source, to show you actually have these supposed reports from other entities and are not creating it all in your own head. That only can prove you are not simply making it all up, as right now you could be lying your face off and how could anyone know? Lying while making serious accusations about several people?

            It is unethical and inappropriate behavior you engage in. Prove your words and provide the data, prove you are not making it all up to prey on the gullible. Where is that 10 page report? Where is this “snippet of Rossi’s data”? Where are they, Jed?

          • JedRothwell

            “You make a fatal mistake: Rossi’s not here making allegations against other people and attacking reputations, you are.”

            Rossi is making allegations and attacking I.H. in court! That is way more consequential than doing that here. Furthermore, YOU are making allegations and attacking I.H. and me!

            “It is unethical and inappropriate behavior you engage in.”

            No, it isn’t. I have Rossi’s data proving that I am right. Sooner or later it will be published, and you will see that I was right, and Rossi is lying.

            It is unethical and inappropriate for you to take sides in this dispute between Rossi and I.H. because you have not seen any data, and you have no knowledge of the test.

            “Anyone can make up numbers and claims . . .”

            Yes. Rossi made up numbers and claims. He claims there is 1 MW of waste heat coming out of the room next door, which is obviously impossible.

            “. . . (not that you provided any numbers at all . . .”

            Oh yes I did! Repeated right below.

            “Where is this ‘snippet of Rossi’s data’? Where are they, Jed?”

            Right here: the pressure is 0.0 bar for all days; the flow rate is exactly 36,000 kg per day for all days. That’s impossible. I told you that already, several times. You don’t believe it, but that is what Rossi’s data shows. It is obviously fraud.

          • Ged

            “Rossi is making allegations and attacking I.H. in court!”

            Yes. Rossi has had to supply details to a court of law, to which he is legally required to prove against a defense mounted by IH. This is not what you are doing here. You have no accountability, no court examining your evidence as unlike Rossi you have submitted none.

            “Furthermore, YOU are making allegations and attacking I.H. and me!”

            Name them. Show me the allegations against IH. I can show you all the evidence backing up my statements that you could be defrauding everyone with the things you say: you refuse to provide any evidence to prove you have what you say and we are left with no way to fact check or verify your statements. Simple as that, and an inescapable fact created by your own behavior.

            Well, it’s time to say enough to that nonsense and hold to a high standard of conduct.

            “No, it isn’t. I have Rossi’s data proving that I am right. Sooner or
            later it will be published, and you will see that I was right, and Rossi
            is lying.”

            We have -no- evidence you have any of that data. Saying it doesn’t make it true. Show it! Show that data, prove you have it, even just a picture of a report sitting on your desk that allows verification you are not making it up. You keep mistakenly believing that you saying something makes it valid–it doesn’t. I demand the evidence you have Rossi’s data. I demand the evidence you have that 10 page report showing it “looked like it worked”. Show it, or do not make unsupportable claims from it until you can.

            Maybe it will be published later, and maybe it will support you. But for the moment, you could be lying and there is no way we could know, now is there? And why? Because you have not yet provided evidence to back yourself up, that is the central problem you refuse to acknowledge.

            “It is unethical and inappropriate for you to take sides in this dispute
            between Rossi and I.H. because you have not seen any data, and you have no knowledge of the test.”

            How disingenuous of you! I have taken no sides. I have only demanded you prove you are not making up all these statements, that you do have this supposed data, and to support your claims with actual facts. How hard is that?

            “Right here: the pressure is 0.0 bar for all days; the flow rate is exactly 36,000 kg per day for all days.”

            Show me the data from which you derive these statements–the statements themselves are -not data-. I ask you again and again, show me the data so you can be fact checked and your statements verify. You still refuse? As others have pointed out, there is no problem with what you list above within the proper contexts, but none of that matters as we have no way of corroborating that you are telling the truth and not making it up to be inflammatory or self important. We have no way of discounting you being a bad actor unless you back up your statements with actual data.

          • JedRothwell

            “You have no accountability, no court examining your evidence as unlike Rossi you have submitted none.”

            YOU have no accountability either! You are attacking I.H. and me here, just as much as I am attacking Rossi. Not only that, but you are making anonymous attacks. “Ged” is not your name. My name is Jed Rothwell. You can find me at LENR-CANR.org and in the phone book.

            “Show me the data from which you derive these statements–the statements themselves are -not data-. I ask you again and again, show me the data so you can be fact checked and your statements verify.”

            I did show it to you! The tables show the same pressure and flow rate all the way through: 0.0 bar and 36,000 kg/day. If you want to see a table, make one yourself and fill in all of the pressure and flow readings with those numbers. Here, just copy this as many times as you like:

            0.0 bar, 0.0 bar, 0.0 bar, 0.0 bar, 0.0 bar, 0.0 bar, 0.0 bar, 0.0 bar, 0.0 bar, 0.0 bar, 0.0 bar, 0.0 bar, 0.0 bar, 0.0 bar . . .

            There is no more data than that.

            How can I “show” you the data more clearly? You tell me: How can I prove to you that it came from Rossi? You will not believe me no matter what I say. How could you “fact check” it? By asking Rossi? He will not tell you anything. If I were to upload a document you would accuse me of faking it.

            Why don’t you ask Rossi to prove his assertions? Why do you demand that I.H. and I prove what we say, when you make no such demands of Rossi? You are grossly biased in his favor.

            You are making impossible demands. You irrationally demand I do something which you yourself would reject. If you don’t believe me, that’s okay with me, but stop making contradictory demands for the impossible.

          • Ged

            “YOU have no accountability either!”

            And I am not making claims, -you- are, so you are to be held accountable for them. I am demanding you prove you aren’t making it up, that you provide evidence for your claims, such a simple thing to do!

            “You are attacking I.H. and me here”

            Oh Jed, now you would make up things about me too? This pattern of behavior is revealing! Show me where I have stated accusations against IH as fact and claimed to have data backing me up. Show me! You are unable. Just because you claim it does not make it true, so is it any wonder why I demand proof from you, a person who now makes baseless statement about me with no proof?

            All I do to you is demand the evidence and rightly call you out for not delivering it. You make the claim, you back it up. So where are the reports, Jed? Where is that supposed 10 page report showing the plant “looks like it worked”, where is that data from Rossi that you supposedly use to make your allegations? Show us the actual source data, if you really have it at all.

            “If you want to see a table, make one yourself and fill in all of the pressure and flow readings with those numbers.”

            So is this what you did Jed? Did you just create data in post and claim it as real, decided you could claim this the source of your accusations?

            I am beside myself! You could not possibly be serious! You are far too intellegent to be playing this card, yet here it is. This is, quite frankly, an insult to yourself and any rational mind.

            I demand proof of the source documents, of the actual data, not make believe data you create here and now and try to pass off as real! Who are you trying to fool? Fabricating data is what I fear you have done, making up all your claims about having data and what it shows, and yet here in this post you do that very thing for all to see.

            Do not have an ounce of integrity and self respect? I know you do, so how could you do this thing? Show me the actual, real data and prove you have it and have represented it accurately! Where is the metadata about location and what the sensor was, if it is relative or absolute, if it is even on, if there are other ones, etc etc? Prove you have what you claim!

            “You tell me: How can I prove to you that it came from Rossi?”

            By providing the source document and not making up crud on the spot. How hard is this to understand?

            “You are making impossible demands. You irrationally demand I do something which you yourself would reject. If you don’t believe me, that’s okay with me, but stop making contradictory demands for the impossible.”

            Impossible demands only if you have nothing and are lying, yes. I would not reject published data and you know that. You also know the real data will have meta tags that prove it, so you have nothing to worry about.

            It is utterly dishonest of you to claim “you won’t believe it” as an excuse to avoid providing proof of the allegations you make. That only proves you have -nothing-, it only leads to the conclusion rounder lying and making it all up. This entire time the simple request and simple solution is to provide the source material or other proof you have that material, from which you make your accusations of fact.

            Prove you have these documents and that they say what you claim they say–provide the data. I will not stop demanding this of you at every turn until you are proven to not be fabricating the whole thing, unlike the fabricating you did above in your post!

          • JedRothwell

            “And I am not making claims, -you- are . . .”

            Don’t be silly. You just now claimed that I am lying, which means that I.H. is lying. That’s a claim. You also claim that Rossi is telling the truth.

            Why do you believe Rossi rather than I.H.? Since you have no technical information, you have no business taking sides in this dispute. You have no reason to think that Rossi is right. If you consider how improbable his story is, with a gigantic 1 MW equipment in room where no one goes and no heat emerges, you will see that he has no credibility.

            Furthermore, you demand that I give you “proof” which you have already rejected. I have no means of giving you better proof. No matter what documents I provide, you will only say I faked them.

            “I will not stop demanding this of you at every turn until you are proven to not be fabricating the whole thing . . .”

            Explain how I or anyone else could do this. Tell us what irrefutable proof Rossi has given you. I promise to give you as much proof as he has.

          • Ged

            “Don’t be silly. You just now claimed that I am lying, which means that I.H. is lying. That’s a claim. You also claim that Rossi is telling the truth.”

            So wait, you now believe -you- are synonymous with IH? I challenge you to provide proof IH gave you anything (though if they did, you -would be- lying to claim you have Rossi’s data when really it would be something given by IH), and that you, Jed Rothwell, of your own accord are not making things up out of your own head for whatever personal reasons.

            You stand alone, Jed. IH will not corroborate you. And so far, you make claims as fact that you then further claim is from data that you refuse to prove you have ever had. Put another way: You make direct statements about data, and yet continually refuse to show that data to verify those statements are not fiction. What conclusion can we reach since we cannot fact check or verify your data claims? That likely you are making it up, correct; you leave me with no other alternative.

            Where is the supposed 10 page report showing it “looks like it worked” that was supposedly on your desk? Prove it was ever real! Where is this Rossi data (that is IH’s data if they supplied it) that supposedly you use to base your claims? Prove it was ever real!

            You make the material claims, you are accountable to support them with evidence. I don’t have any reason to believe IH gave you anything, and more likely that this is all just a power trip in your own mind, and so I will continue to call you out and demand evidence to prove you have anything at all to support the defamation you level. Instead, you fabricate data inside a post and try to pass that off as proof. What would any critically thinking person make of that behavior?

            “Why do you believe Rossi rather than I.H.?”

            Who says I believe Rossi over IH? Once again you create fiction and peddle it as fact. Do not use delusional sounding arguments like conflating yourself with IH to try to hide from your personal responsibility for the accusations you say. I challenge you, Jed, not IH (as the court challenges IH and Rossi) to prove your allegations even if just to prove you have any data at all.

            It seems to me IH didn’t give you anything, but you want to pretend they did and feel important. So far you have provided no evidence to the contrary, but have felt content to make whatever outlandish charges you want and pretend as if some mythical data it seems you don’t actually have supports you. Such certainly seems like reprehensible behavior, and so far we have nothing contrary to it to say it isn’t true–but a repeated pattern of behavior that fits that determination. I truly do hope you can support yourself (or that someone else’s release will name you in support), and it would be easy to do: provide the proof.

            “Explain how I or anyone else could do this.”

            Provide the source documents. Provide verification for yourself. Heck, just a picture of the report on your desk would at least be supporting evidence. As it is, we have -zero- evidence you have anything but make believe words. And your constantly disingenuous excuses to avoid providing and showing the facts, your making up things about my views, and your fabrication of data in a post which would be just an amusing joke if just for itself but which you then pass off as -proof-, all greatly erode your credibility. IH and Rossi have nothing to do with this, this is all -you-.

            Where is the supposed 10 page report, Jed? Where is this supposed Rossi (or IH) data? Provide proof you have anything at all. Or don’t make material statements till you can.

          • JedRothwell

            I challenge you get any proof out of Rossi for anything he has said, ever.

            “I challenge you to provide proof IH gave you anything . . .”

            I am saying the same thing as their motion to dismiss says. For that matter, I gave you the same numbers from Rossi’s data that he quoted to Lewan. You have no reason to doubt me, and no reason to believe Rossi. You are engaged in wishful thinking.

          • Ged

            “I challenge you get any proof out of Rossi for anything he has said, ever.”

            How weak. We have a whole court docket of evidence so far which proves a lot of what Rossi had said in the years since 2012, and we haven’t even gotten to discovery which will force out a whole lot more–and soon we will hopefully have actual data and evidence from IH, as generic footnotes provide nothing data substantial to judge with (and was bad form in that instance), so even they will soon be held accountable to provide support for what they claim, so what about you? We also have had plenty of data from tests with which to analyze and make fact checks and judgements ourselves; that is actual data for all to see, instead of claims of supposed data and defamatory statements based on those claims yet no actual proof of the data existing–which is what you do.

            Where is that 10 page report? Where is that supposed Rossi (or is it IH) data? You claim these things, so prove it.

            Trying to distract with others does not change your accountability for your behavior. If you were an athlete and tried to dope because Russian athletes do so, you would be no less guilty just because others also violate the law or rules.

            “For that matter, I gave you the same numbers from Rossi’s data that he quoted to Lewan.”

            Provide the quote then so we may look at all your past statements and judge the accuracy of what you say here–that should be quite telling, don’t you agree?

            You claim so much more than that, stated all as a matter of fact not opinion, and then claim data that you are unable to supply or prove in any way to support your bold faced accusations. Pointing at unrelated things from Lewans as distraction does not change all the rest you have done. Calling people “liar” and “fake” and saying data was false or manipulated or any one of the numerous other allegations you make was not part of that quote to Lewans, yet you make those claims while saying you have the data that shows it, without a shred of proof for any actual facts or that you actually do have that data. If only you stuck to opinion on what is known, obviously that would have been good and well.

            Where is that supposed 10 page report? Where is that supposed Rossi (or is it IH) data? All things you claim you have behind your pronouncements. Prove yourself, as so far it looks like you are making it all up, or stop making claims on such until you can.

        • Barbierir

          I know you’re under nda and I was referring to IH, it’s a good thing that IH is soon going to show its cards and explain what is wrong with the report (according to them) and probably release it among the documents, so we have actual data to see. The question of why Rossi hasn’t released data could be asked to IH too… and according to mr Dewey it was IH that legally blocked the release.
          As a simple reader I have no reason to trust them more than the actions by Fabiani, West, Penon, Johnson and other info reported by Mats Lewan (sorry but it’s far from being only “Rossi says”). I have a long list of unanswered questions but two facts are apparent:
          1) The info leaked from IH and Rossi’s sides are diametrically opposed and incompatible.
          2) If Rossi is right there are many things to explain but if IH is right the number of things to explain is at least an order of magnitude greater.

          • JedRothwell

            “The question of why Rossi hasn’t released data could be asked to IH too… and according to mr Dewey it was IH that legally blocked the release.”

            I don’t recall Dewey said that, but I am sure Rossi could provide a sample of data, if not the whole report. Lots of samples were floating around before the lawsuit was filed. I heard from other people outside of I.H. that they had the same data I have.

          • Ged

            “I heard from other people outside of I.H. that they had the same data I have.”

            Then bring them in here to support your claims and prove you aren’t making it up, and/or release these samples of data that were floating around so much. These games do nothing helpful for anyone.

          • Obvious

            Ged, I suggest respectfully that in this instance the “who says, so show me” shoe fits all feet.
            We have no I MW report, no Jed data, no comment from the ERV, two contradicting news releases, a lot of secrecy and NDA’s, a happy Customer and an unhappy customer, and a lot of talk. And basically that’s it.

            It is an intractable discussion. If we start shooting the messengers, we will know less than what we don’t know already. We won’t even know what the known unknowns are…

          • Ged

            Exactly. This game is obnoxious and wrong. Messengers bring proof, not more unsubstantiated claims that just muck up the already conflicted and data poor landscape. Messengers are also not exempt from the rules that making serious allegations with no proof is unacceptable. And Jed is no messenger.

            No, there is a time to take a stand and say enough of this is enough. If Jed has what he claims, then he should share it or pipe down, as it is not helping anyone to make unsupported accusations. As you say, “no Jed data”, which means everything he says is worst than nothing.

          • Obvious

            I think you missed my point. We have messages, from several parties, none of whom have brought proof.

            Not Jed, not IH, not Dewey, and not Rossi.

            What Jed says is not “worst than nothing”. It is a message. Take from it what you will. Maybe if we are lucky we will get acceptable proof of at least one of the messages’ reality. So far we have no acceptable proof of any of it.

            At least science has not yet returned to Aristotelian ideal, where we can argue the best argument and the strongest argument is proof enough for the next 2000 years. But society seems to be heading that way, to my great dismay.

          • Ged

            A message comes on behalf of another party, so the analogy is completely flawed on the outset. For which party is Jed working on the behest to bring us messages from?

            All Jed is adding is more accusations, and no proof. But his are straight up slander as he has levied the unqualified charge of “lair” and “fake” at others with no support to his words. Neither IH nor Rossi has done so.

            You are also wrong in that both IH and Rossi have given us actual proof of at least some of there claims, or what they see as proof supporting them, in the court documents. All meaningful arguments have been based on the actual information provided in those. Neither Jed or Dewey has produced anything whatsoever, yet continue to make wilder and wilder claims.

            We cannot allow this sort of savage behavior to continue. You say you are dismayed, and yet here you are defending unethical actions. If Jed has proof, let him provide it, if not, let him be silent about it until he can.

            As the other problem with the argument presented is that we -will- get all the evidence from both IH and Rossi as part of the court case, but what about Jed? Who is holding him to an accountable standard? IH and Rossi are under oath, they have consequences for lying, what consequences keep Jed honest? Nothing. Taking his word just because he says it, isn’t that the definition of gullibility? It is time to take a stand against this flagrantly inappropriate behavior–if you want the situation to change, we need to stop enabling people from making allegations of whatever they want and claiming it comes from data sources which they in turn won’t provide to prove even in the smallest way that they aren’t making it up according to some other agenda.

            It’s time we demanded the evidence people acting like Jed claim they have, for everyone’s benefit, and put a stop to this constant slinging of irresponsible, unverifiable charges until they are averments.

            The inescapable problem is anyone can make anything up, particularly on the internet and particularly for agendas, and we need to have at least some ensemble of intellectual standards to mitigate that.

          • Obvious

            Respectfully, that is nonsense.

            If Jed should be silent, then so should Rossi, and probably at least half of this whole website should be blanked out.

            If we ever get to see the ERV report, and what Jed claims is in there, then he will be validated. If it is not, then he won’t.

            Dewey reported that there was padlocks on the reactor, which was verified by Rossi. So we can see there is some degree of special access to information that Dewey has. He has made other specific comments which may be corroborated by the ERV report. Or not.

            Rossi has made a lot of claims, which have not been corroborated, but may be in the ERV report. Or not.

            Do you remember how good the Lugano report looked when it first came out?
            Data, photos, measurements, equations, 6 Professors!
            A masterpiece! Now, you could walk an elephant through the holes in it. Why are we expecting the ERV report to be any better?

            People can make stuff up, or they can make a mess of something real, or they can do a great job on reporting what they saw and did. Usually it is a bit of all of those. Some people have histories that show a certain predilection to excess in one of those modes.

          • Ged

            Respectfully, you do not counter anything I say.

            People take whatever Rossi says with a grain of salt until it is verified, but he is the main topic and source of actions–and Rossi has provided materials for all to see under oath to a court of law. This is nothing compared to what Jed is doing. Rossi does not claim data that he cannot show, he says “positive or negative” until he can–that is a fundamentally qualified statement, and he has not made damaging statements against others that could not be fact checked (at least in this current saga).

            Nothing Jed has said is something you or anyone can verify or corroborate, and what he has said is directly attacking other people’s professional careers and reputations. That is not acceptable in any civil domain.

            “If we ever get to see the ERV report, and what Jed claims is in there, then he will be validated. If it is not, then he won’t.”

            Yes, and I hope Jed is vindicated, but until then we cannot verify anything he says, we cannot prove nor disprove any inflammatory claims as we have no data with which to do so–and the only reason we don’t is he refuses to provide his sources for scrutiny and instead continues to level unsubstantiated allegations. Surely you do not intend to defend such unbecoming conduct? It provides no help or utility to anyone, but simply increases the mess of the situation. You cannot support anything he says because you cannot prove he is being honest in any way.

            “Dewey reported that there was padlocks on the reactor, which was
            verified by Rossi. So we can see there is some degree of special access to information that Dewey has. He has made other specific comments which may be corroborated by the ERV report. Or not.”

            And Dewey has said other things we know are straight up false. But Dewey is not here making claims any more based on data that is not available. But Dewey, like Rossi, and Penon, and IH, is in a position to have such data, but Jed is not. There is no reason for you or anyone to believe Jed has seen anything, or has any of the things he claims, or has represented anything accurately; and you have no way to verify any of it to find out if he has. It is time to put the foot down and stop the course of these behaviors, or do you wish to continue in a world like that where nothing can be proven or disproven and it’s all just whatever anyone says becomes fact simply because he’s been said?

            Everything Rossi and IH have claimed is being evaluated in a court of law. It is a strawman argument to try to use their claims to support Jed making unverifiable statements and refusing scrutiny. The court is scrutinizing IH and Rossi. I know you realize this, so it is flabbergasting why you would strawman.

            “Do you remember how good the Lugano report looked when it first came out?
            Data, photos, measurements, equations, 6 Professors!
            A masterpiece! Now, you could walk an elephant through the holes in it. Why are we expecting the ERV report to be any better?”

            Obvious, do you not realize you have just made my central argument for me? We can poke holes in the report -because we have a report we can fact check and verify-. We can evaluate it because we have the data! We are not being given claims and no way to evaluate them as Jed does. Lugano, no matter how right or wrong the report is, is the exact example of what should be done, and Jed’s actions are the polar opposite and not acceptable, particularly given the galvanizing and slanderous nature of them. There is a point where a burden of proof is necessary, and we are way past that. Surely you see this.

            There is a call to a higher standard of conduct, and I will continue pressing that point until we are provided with evidence to substantiate Jed, either by him or by others. Until then, aggressive claims that cannot be verified yet are stated -as fact- will be challenged for the data to support them. And it would do everyone a service to provide that data, so there is a moral imperative in addition to an ethical standard.

          • JedRothwell

            “Rossi has provided materials for all to see under oath to a court of law.”

            No, he has not. A lawsuit is not filed under oath of law. If it were, the losers would always be guilty of perjury.

            Furthermore, if you insist that this was under oath, then so was I.H.’s response in their Motion to Dismiss, so it carries equal weight. It also has more technical detail.

          • Ged

            Yes, a lawsuit and all its evidence is under oath. And if that evidence is materially false, such as fabricated, that is perjury and serious trouble. Read here for a good break down of what happens in that case http://www.law360.com/articles/546640/client-fabricates-evidence-perjures-testimony-now-what . Plaintiffs and defendents don’t lose because their facts were materially false, but as they are on the wrong side of the law -given the facts-. If they are materially false, they will be criminally charged. Here is the legal definition of first degree perjury in US law:

            “RCW 9A.72.020 – Perjury in the first degree.

            (1) A person is guilty of perjury in the first degree if in any official proceeding he or she makes a materially false statement which he or she knows to be false under an oath required or authorized by law.

            (2) Knowledge of the materiality of the statement is not an element of this crime, and the actor’s mistaken belief that his or her statement was not material is not a defense to a prosecution under this section.

            (3) Perjury in the first degree is a class B felony.”

            IH’s little footnote blurb has no technical details, no numbers or data, so it can’t be more technical than anything we have seen so far. The court will force out such technical details during discovery, and like deposition, such is under oath.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Completely false. “Under oath.” And what is an “oath”? Believe me, if you are taking an oath, it’s very obvious. In writing, it’s explicit, it’s not vague. “I affirm under penalty of perjury that….” I just filed a document the other day that had that on it, as I recall, asking for filing fees to be waived because my income met standards for that.

          • Ged

            Sorry, but you cannot submit knowingly false materials to a court of law, to do so is indeed perjury and will result in prosecution. I see you did not read my link, I suggest you do so as it will help you greatly in understanding what happens if you try to give false materials in a civil lawsuit.

          • Ged

            Just so you see this here too and don’t miss it: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-repercussions-for-the-plaintiff-in-a-lawsuit-who-lies-in-their-complaint-What-relief-is-there-for-the-defendant

            You cannot lie in a Complaint. So please, I implore you, do not think it is ever possible to do so and get yourself in deep trouble with the legal system.

          • Ged

            And here is a link to additional federal statutes as were also discussed in my previous link, so that there are no uncertain terms here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1623

            “Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

          • JedRothwell

            Okay, so why do you believe the statements made in court by Rossi but not the statements made by I.H. in their Motion to Dismiss? They will make more statements on Friday which will contradict Rossi. If both are sworn to tell the truth (as you claim) one must be lying. Why are you so sure it is Rossi who is telling the truth, and not I.H.? You have no inside information. You have no reason to take his side.

          • Ged

            Who said I don’t believe IH’s statement could be true? You are making that up out of nowhere, again. I don’t believe one over the other; I point out the current logic based on current data and where it leads, and wait to see what the court brings to light–and have repeatedly said we need to see IH’s defense as it could turn everything around that we currently know.

            Calling you out for what appear is you making things up has nothing to do with what I think of IH or Rossi, but only what I think of your behavior. And once again, here we see you actually making up assumptions and presenting them as if they were fact without any supporting data. It is turning into a disturbing trend of behavior.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Jed, you are trying to use logic to convince people that have no practice with it.

          • bachcole

            Kiss my ass.

          • Pretty clear. Thanks.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            “under oath.” Complaints and pleadings are not generally made under oath. Read the Complaint. Look for an attestation under oath. It’s not there. The information all came from Rossi, but Rossi didn’t sign it, and the attorney sure isn’t warranting that it’s true. This is really obvious, if people have paid attention to law and news and stuff, but most people haven’t.

          • Ged

            I am sorry, but you are mistaken. If you submit materially false evidence, not only will your suit be thrown out, but you will face prosecution by the court. Please do not try this. Instead, read the legal links I provide that will educate you rather than just what you imagine.

          • Ged

            To make things more easy for you:

            Since you asked about the Complaint body itself, rather than just the evidence submitted along with the complaint, here is another good breakdown of what happens if you lie in the Complaint body rather than just materially false evidence: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-repercussions-for-the-plaintiff-in-a-lawsuit-who-lies-in-their-complaint-What-relief-is-there-for-the-defendant

            As you can see, it is a serious offense even to lie in the Complaint body. In addition to Sanctions, the defense can get the complaint rewritten directly to remove false statements, before there is ever a trial (as a trial is about judging the rule of law -given the facts-, so the facts must be true as submitted, which is why it is perjury to submit materially false evidence).

            Since this did not happen, the facts as presented in the Complaint by Rossi are not false (neither the lawyers nor the defendent have challenged any facts through such motions as Rule 11). IH may use a defense that the facts are incomplete and thus misintrepreted, however; and that is the most common defense.

            But, again, -you cannot material kg lie even in a complaint- or you will suffer direct legal repurcussions.

          • Obvious

            There is the usual standard of conduct, not extraordinary standards of conduct, for extraordinary claims. Not that the claims of Jed are actually extraordinary. What is extraordinary are claims that his comments are worth less than the claims of others that have no connection whatsoever with any data from the Plant. Maybe it would be prudent to ask IH if Jed has seen any data. They might answer that question, if asked politely, and without a bunch of innuendo and other questions that they might consider as possibly interfering with their case, (or just plain rude). I wouldn’t expect anything more than a yes or no.

          • Ged

            That is a good idea. A third party verifying he isn’t making up his statements (accusing fraud of anyone is an extraordinary claim that demands evidence as you would rightly demand of some accused you of a crime, particularly since he presents his statements as fact not opinion, which is fundamentally different) would indeed be proof, and I have asked for us much with no reply nor return.

          • “If Rossi is right there are many things to explain but if IH is right the number of things to explain is at least an order of magnitude greater.”

            That’s for SURE!!

        • Michael W Wolf

          Why would IH tell their investors any truth that would incriminate them? IH says is skeptical, since this is what they are telling their investors. IH has a motive to lie to their investors. Let’s finally see what IH says under oath. We know what Rossi said under oath. What do you think has more weight at this time?

    • Michael W Wolf

      You think IH would tell their investors anything that would incriminate themselves?

  • Bruce__H

    What needs the extra time? You would have thought that IH’s answer and counter claims would have been all worked out for a while now.. Now, suddenly, after more than 3 months they need 3 extra days. Why?

    Did something change? The most recent change was scheduling the mediation. Was that it? Or maybe some development behind the scenes?

    • Ged

      Yeah, it is rather odd. Particularly three days. Maybe that is the most they thought they could delay by? They have had since April, so it isn’t like they haven’t had time to do things, and we have seen how fast Rossi’s lawyer has made good and long documents in short spans of time when responding to the MTD.

      Well, at least they are keeping with the twists! And Tuesday isn’t that far away. Finally, at least hopefully, we’ll get some interesting data from their side and spice things up.

      • wpj

        3 more days worth of fees…………..

        • Ged

          Oh yeah, that is true… and that law firm can’t be cheap.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      It is not “three months.” It is still less than two weeks from Order on the Motion to Dismiss, the standard rule if the Order is not appealed. (They could have delayed by appealing that Motion.) While there is a pending Motion, which could take out any or all of the Counts, they should spend lawyer time on preparing an Answer? On what planet?

      So they have asked for an extra three days, next Friday instead of next Tuesday. There was no “change” with the mediation order. Mediation was court-ordered this was, again, completely routine, except that Annesser failed to make it happen, so the judge rapped his knuckles, pointing out the suit could be dismissed, though only a little. It was neutrally worded, but the court rules are clear that it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to make mediation scheduling happen — or ask the Clerk to do it. Annesser apparently got it together with Jones Day and it was scheduled.

      It is possible there is new evidence, leading to consideration of additional defendants in a counterclaim. It is fairly easy to imagine possibilities.

      Contrary to some claims here, mediation will not delay the trial, unless it makes it moot by finding a settlement. Mediation was scheduled well before the trial, before Discovery is done.

      • MorganMck

        Good layering dictates that you prepare to answer all counts until and unless some are dismissed. You don’t wish and hope for an outcome and then beg for more time if you don’t get it. I have not been impressed by much the IH legal team has either done or written so far and I’m sure the court has taken note as well.

      • Ged

        I agree with MorganMck. They have had since April to prepare their response, and any responsible lawyer would have done so. One does not risk default and summary judgment!

        IH delayed with the waivers at the start, then the MTD, then the counter to the counters for the MTD, and now asked for three more days which they may get since it is a short time. It is how the game is played, but the three more days is odd and does not inspire confidence in their defense. Thankfully, we shall know for sure in at most a week.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          The three days doubled the number of working days they had. Adding counterclaim defendants could be very complex. This all seems to me like completely normal legal practice. Is it being said that “any responsible lawyer” would invest the major time necessary to prepare a response that might not be necessary? Sure, perhaps, if they don’t care about padding the bill to their clients.

          They knew perfectly well they could get a few additional days. I have never seen a judge deny a reasonable request like that. They asked for what they needed. They probably could have gotten more if they had needed it. I’m also sure that if they asked for too much, Annesser would have objected.

          • Ged

            I don’t see your argument, nor does it address how it is odd they needed this time given all the time they had before. They bill by the hour, and making a basic response to the core litigation is common practice, not waiting till the last minute and then hoping for an extension. Maybe that is what happened, but it is bad practice if so.

      • Michael W Wolf

        “consideration” means they got nothing on the ERV. The only defendants here are IH. They have no proof, or else they would have sued.

    • roseland67

      Bruce,

      Remember this, lawyers charge by the hour

  • Stanny Demesmaker

    IH knows they can’t win the lawsuit, the only thing left for them is delay, delay & delay

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      This has no effect on the trial date. The new delay is trivial, three days. The major delay was from the Motion to Dismiss, but that, again, is SOP for such a poorly drafted complaint. Really! Four out of eight counts shut down immediately, and some of the ones left were left because the judge was obligated to accept as fact what is certainly not fact, such as IH being — she derived from Rossi claims — a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cherokee Partners. I expect to see more or more counts dismissed by summary judgment at a point where there is more fact in the record. (I had predicted that Count I would stand, and what caused major delay was complex arguments presented by IH and Rossi. The judge had to research and consider all those. If the Agreement had been focused on the core issue, and clearly alleged estoppel, IH might not have Moved to Dismiss at all.

      If delay were their goal, they could have appealed the failure to dismiss the other four counts. That would have continued to toll the time for an Answer.

      • Ged

        Appealing the decision on the MTD would not delay the process any more, as the trial, discovery, and mediation dates have already been set.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          That’s correct.

      • Omega Z

        Some of the counts were dismissed because they were redundant.
        If I accuse you of fraud, there’s no need to accuse you of fraud a second time.
        They were also dismissed without prejudice so they could be refiled with different wording etc…

  • Stanny Demesmaker

    IH knows they can’t win the lawsuit, the only thing left for them is delay, delay & delay

    • LookMoo

      Exactly.. and then they change lawyer and he is asking for more time – Continuance, to look into the matter, then he become sick.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      This has no effect on the trial date. The new delay is trivial, three days. The major delay was from the Motion to Dismiss, but that, again, is SOP for such a poorly drafted complaint. Really! Four out of eight counts shut down immediately, and some of the ones left were left because the judge was obligated to accept as fact what is certainly not fact, such as IH being — she derived from Rossi claims — a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cherokee Partners. I expect to see more or more counts dismissed by summary judgment at a point where there is more fact in the record. (I had predicted that Count I would stand, and what caused major delay was complex arguments presented by IH and Rossi. The judge had to research and consider all those. If the Agreement had been focused on the core issue, and clearly alleged estoppel, IH might not have Moved to Dismiss at all.

      If delay were their goal, they could have appealed the failure to dismiss the other four counts. That would have continued to toll the time for an Answer.

      • Ged

        Appealing the decision on the MTD would not delay the process any more, as the trial, discovery, and mediation dates have already been set.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          That’s correct.

      • Omega Z

        Some of the counts were dismissed because they were redundant.
        If I accuse you of fraud, there’s no need to accuse you of fraud a second time.
        They were also dismissed without prejudice so they could be refiled with different wording etc…

  • wpj

    “third parties”…… Maybe the suggestion of Mats L’s contact that the only way to dispute the claim of COP ~50 was to claim fraud by the ERV might be brought into play.

    Maybe Rossi’s lawyer as well plus the actors that they paid to play the parts of the “client” while IH was pulling in the $50m.

    • Barbierir

      The third party is almost certainly Penon

      • Mats002

        Mission Impossible VI: Hotter than heat.

  • wpj

    “third parties”…… Maybe the suggestion of Mats L’s contact that the only way to dispute the claim of COP ~50 was to claim fraud by the ERV might be brought into play.

    Maybe Rossi’s lawyer as well plus the actors that they paid to play the parts of the “client” while IH was pulling in the $50m.

    • Barbierir

      The third party is almost certainly Penon

      • Mats002

        Mission Impossible VI: Hotter than heat.

  • Ged

    Yeah, it is rather odd. Particularly three days. Maybe that is the most they thought they could delay by? They have had since April, so it isn’t like they haven’t had time to do things, and we have seen how fast Rossi’s lawyer has made good and long documents in short spans of time when responding to the MTD.

    Well, at least they are keeping with the twists! And Tuesday isn’t that far away. Finally, at least hopefully, we’ll get some interesting data from their side and spice things up.

    • wpj

      3 more days worth of fees…………..

      • Ged

        Oh yeah, that is true… and that law firm can’t be cheap.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          It is not “three months.” It is still less than two weeks from Order on the Motion to Dismiss, the standard rule if the Order is not appealed. (They could have delayed by appealing that Motion.) While there is a pending Motion, which could take out any or all of the Counts, they should spend lawyer time on preparing an Answer? On what planet?

          So they have asked for an extra three days, next Friday instead of next Tuesday. There was no “change” with the mediation order. Mediation was court-ordered this was, again, completely routine, except that Annesser failed to make it happen, so the judge rapped his knuckles, pointing out the suit could be dismissed, though only a little. It was neutrally worded, but the court rules are clear that it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to make mediation scheduling happen — or ask the Clerk to do it. Annesser apparently got it together with Jones Day and it was scheduled.

          It is possible there is new evidence, leading to consideration of additional defendants in a counterclaim. It is fairly easy to imagine possibilities.

          Contrary to some claims here, mediation will not delay the trial, unless it makes it moot by finding a settlement. Mediation was scheduled well before the trial, before Discovery is done.

          • MorganMck

            Good layering dictates that you prepare to answer all counts until and unless some are dismissed. You don’t wish and hope for an outcome and then beg for more time if you don’t get it. I have not been impressed by much the IH legal team has either done or written so far and I’m sure the court has taken note as well.

          • Ged

            I agree with MorganMck. They have had since April to make their response, and any responsible lawyer would have done so. One does not risk default and summary judgment!

            IH delayed with the waivers at the start, then the MTD, then the counter to the counters for the MTD, and now asked for three more days which they may get since it is a short time. It is how the game is played, but the three more days is odd and dies not inspire confidence in their defense. Thankfully, we shall know for sure in at most a week.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            The three days doubled the number of working days they had. Adding counterclaim defendants could be very complex. This all seems to me like completely normal legal practice. Is it being said that “any responsible lawyer” would invest the major time necessary to prepare a response that might not be necessary? Sure, perhaps, if they don’t care about padding the bill to their clients.

            They knew perfectly well they could get a few additional days. I have never seen a judge deny a reasonable request like that. They asked for what they needed. They probably could have gotten more if they had needed it. I’m also sure that if they asked for too much, Annesser would have objected.

          • Ged

            I don’t see your argument, not does it address how it is odd they needed this time given all the time they had before. They bill by the hour, and making a basic response to the core litigation is common practice, not waiting till the last minute and then hoping for an extension. Maybe that is what happened, but it is bad practice if so.

  • Donald Chandler

    Counterclaim lets IH have discovery against Rossi

    • Ged

      Intetestingly, like the time extension waivers back in April, this document starts out early with “hereby file this unopposed motion for extension…” It then goes on to specificly state the Plaintiff’s counsel was conferred with and did not oppose this motion.

      So, once again like with the waivers, Rossi and his counsel are allowing IH to have more time to do what they want and prepare a defense.

      So fascinating.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        This is completely normal process, and attorneys routinely allow each other these courtesies. If they didn’t, the judge might frown, and we do not want to see the judge frown, do we? Now, be nice!

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      More like possible counterclaim against others lets them have discovery against them. Discovery against Rossi was already SOP.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    I picked this up directly from PACER and put it up on newvortex, in the filespace where all the Rossi v. Darden files can be found, and I intend to maintain that. Subscribers to newvortex get email notification of all uploaded files, normally. To see the filespace requires a yahoo account and a subscription to newvortex, which is automatic on request and free.

    In this case I had the file before pacermonitor showed it, and immediately created a thread on lenr-forum.com, https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3536-IH-considering-counterclaims. As well, Engineer48 would have gotten an immediate email with the file upload notice.

    The newvortex filespace: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/newvortex/files/Rossi_v_Darden/

    If one does not want to receive routine list mail, membership can be set to Special Notices. We have never sent one…. you could use “no mail,” but that’s rude….

  • roseland67

    Bruce,

    Remember this, lawyers charge by the hour

  • LuFong

    David French’s take on the Judge Altonaga’s response to IH’s MTD: http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue129/Industrial-Heat-Motion-to-Dismiss-Rossi-Complaint.html

  • wpj

    “….. there are no employees….”

    Then who was the person giving the presentation to the IH people and their visitors claiming that everything was rosy and for which significant investment was received? An actor?

    I know your viewpoint and don’t want to argue this, but it does not correlate with what you state. This, by the way, comes from Mats L’s contacts and is not “Rossi says” (though he does, indeed, embellish it further with his “Stellar” comments which he says is on video).

    • JedRothwell

      You asked: “Then who was the person giving the presentation to the IH people and their visitors claiming that everything was rosy . . . An actor?”

      Either an actor or Rossi’s lawyer. There was no one there normally. No one answered the phone. There was no noise or activity, and no heat measured from the roof vents. It is not possible to operate industrial equipment that uses 1 MW of process heat without people, noise, and waste heat. It was all fake, which is why Rossi did not allow people in.

      • Ged

        Provide the data from the roof vent measurements, before or after plant operation, and during. Provide the accustic measurement data showing no noise compared to the noise level you would expect for whatever they could be doing that makes the least noise. Come on, Jed, prove your claim by providing the data.

        Provide the evidence no one was there normally. Prove your accusations with real data, not “Jed says”.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          People with no information but rumor (almost entirely through Rossi, with Lewan repeating what Rossi says and not actually investigating, as he used to, and based on rumor from others) are arguing with others with no direct information, but leaked information, which, of course, depends on the probity of informants. However, there is an IH insider who has personally testified to things that appear to contradict Rossi information. The idea that the IH story is complicated is fluff. We don’t have the IH story, for the most part, just rumors and a bit of leakage through Weaver.

          There are people with almost no information, holding ideas that contradict public record, who assert their errors continually. And then there are some with some information. Yet even Engineer48, who has claimed to be in direct communication with Rossi, has published a 1 MW ECat design that is open, i.e., the return water goes into an open tank, thus allowing lower internal system pressure, which then runs into other issues about claims and reports, whereas Rossi clearly stated that the 1 MW plant was a closed system, i.e,. sealed.

          In the end, contradictions often are found to be resolved by unexpected conditions or meanings. (Like maybe Rossi changed the system.) However, badgering Jed, who does have inside information that he trusts, to “prove” what he is saying is just plain rude. Nobody is required to believe him. But I’ve known him for years and he doesn’t lie. He can be mistaken, like the rest of us. If he has seen GPT data and he interprets it a certain way, that’s his privilege. I do not know when we will see the ERV report, but eventually, I predict, we will, and then we will know if what Jed was saying was right on … or fluff or error or something.

          • Ged

            I disagree. Claiming Rossi is a lair and fake is rude to slanderous, and making all these claims about contradictory data but providing no such data is disingenuous to dishonest. We have a right to demand proof of such accusations. Do you have proof Jed has actual inside data, or do you just take him at his word?

            No one is required to believe him, which is why I demand he supports his claims as they are materially important. In addition, if he cannot, then he needs to leave and not come back till he can.

            It doesn’t matter if he is right or wrong, and I hope he is vindicated, but making baseless statement to stir the pot is unacceptable.

      • wpj

        From Mats’ blog
        April 23. I have been talking to people having visited the 1MW plant and meeting with the customer during first half of 2015,

        In another post he also says that the people saw production going on.

        He also says that they were told that “Sponge Metal Catalysts” were being made.

        Now, I have been a practicing chemist for a long time and the first time I ever heard of “Sponge Metal Catalysts” was about 5 years ago when an ex-Johnson Matthey person came to work with me. He corrected me when I said “Raney” catalyst. Seems that all the JM employees had to call them SMC as this is their trade mark (as is Raney for Grace). I would have thought, if trying to fake the production, the person would just have said “metal catalysts” which is why I have always suspected Johnson Matthey as being involved. Maybe this is a load of hogwash, but we will see in court.

  • Ged

    It would be nice if you would back up one of your claims with real data. Are you finally man enough to do so, or is that asking too much?

    • JedRothwell

      Everything I say is backed up with real data from Rossi. If you want to see it, you will have to ask him for it. Even if I give it to you, you will say I made it up. For example, I reported that all of pressure readings were erased and replaced with 0.0 bar, which is obviously fake data. But Rossi’s acolytes do not believe me. You will only believe Rossi, so you must ask him for sample data.

      He will not give you anything. He never has given you anything. You should realize that means he is a liar and a fake. You should also realize that there is not the slightest chance 1 MW was being released in the pretend customer site, and if it had been, I.H. and others could easily have detected it, even from outside.

      • Ged

        Then where is the data, Jed? If it is backed up by data, where is it? Show us, Jed. Rossi is not the one here making accusations against other people, you are, so you darn well better be able to support yourself with more than circumspect, delusional sounding prattle.

        Where is your evidence? Where is that 10 page report only you supposedly have that supposedly shows the plant worked while Rossi was gone? Where is that supposed document that is either a fragment of the ERV or some other source depending on what inconsistant flavor of the day Jed wishes to use? Where are they, Jed? If you supposedly have them, then use them and other actual data to back up your claims; I demand proof not your baseless words.

        “[Jed] will not give you anything. [Jed] never has given you anything. You should realize that means [Jed] is a liar and a fake.”

        You talk and talk, but all I can say is it is fabrication and lies, unless you can prove it. Prove what you say with actual data, Jed.

  • Ophelia Rump

    The entire problem with you position is that you have no more proof than anyone you disagree with. The judge on the other hand is not handicapped in that way.

    We shall see what we shall see. Or perhaps more to the point we shall see what the judge sees. Of course that will not prove the technology, only the credibility of the parties involved.

  • Barbierir

    I know you’re under nda and I was referring to IH, it’s a good thing that IH is soon going to show its cards and explain what is wrong with the report (according to them) and probably release it among the documents, so we have actual data to see. The question of why Rossi hasn’t released data could be asked to IH too… and according to mr Dewey it was IH that legally blocked the release.
    As a simple reader I have no reason to trust them more than the actions by Fabiani, West, Penon, Johnson and other info reported by Mats Lewan (sorry but it’s far from being only “Rossi says”). I have a long list of unanswered questions but two facts are apparent:
    1) The info leaked from IH and Rossi’s sides are diametrically opposed and incompatible.
    2) If Rossi is right there are many things to explain but if IH is right the number of things to explain is at least an order of magnitude larger.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    More like possible counterclaim against others lets them have discovery against them. Discovery against Rossi was already SOP.

    • Ged

      “No, I have lots of proof.”

      Then provide it, and stop “flaunting” this mythical proof you supposedly have and to which we have no proof you do. Or leave behind your claims about it until you can do so. Ophelia is a staunch critic, and is also completely correct–until you provide evidence you have this proof you claim, you have nothing in anyone rational’s eyes. If this makes Rossi look bad, then publish it, or why has not IH published it?

      So come on, caught up that proof. Cough up that supposed bit of Rossi data. Cough up that supposed 10 page report you said showed it “looked like it worked”. Prove you are more than make believe statements; that would do everyone a service, wouldn’t it?

      • Ged

        “I challenge you get any proof out of Rossi for anything he has said, ever.”

        How weak. We have a whole court docket of evidence so far which proves a lot of what Rossi had said in the years since 2012, and we haven’t even gotten to discovery which will force out a whole lot more. We also have had plenty of data from tests with which to analyze and make fact checks and judgements ourselves; that is actual data for all to see, instead of claims of supposed data and defamatory statements based on those claims yet no actual proof of the data existing–which is what you do.

        Where is that 10 page report? Where is that supposed Rossi (or is it IH) data? You claim these things, so prove it.

        Trying to distract with others does not change your accountability for your behavior. If you were an athlete and tried to dope because Russian athletes do so, you would be no less guilty just because others also violate the law or rules.

        “For that matter, I gave you the same numbers from Rossi’s data that he quoted to Lewan.”

        Provide the quote then so we may look at all your past statements and judge the accuracy of what you say here–that should be quite telling, don’t you agree?

        You claim so much more than that, stated all as a matter of fact not opinion, and then claim data that you are unable to supply or prove in any way tonsupport your bold faced accusations. Pointing at unrelated things from Lewans as distraction does not change all the rest you have done. Calling people “liar” and “fake” and saying data was false or manipulated or any one of the numerous other allegations you make was not part of that quote to Lewans, yet you make those claims and so many more as a matter if fact, without a shred of proof for any actual facts. If only you stuck to opinion on what is known, obviously that would have been good and well.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    I think most interesting here is the intent by IH to file additional counter claims. It will be most interesting which parties IH files additional claims against.

    One would have to assume the additional parties are those that supplied IH information that supported verification of the ecat. So likely the ERV will be named here.

    If the ERV is not mentioned then it rather hard to think that IH can make a claim that the ERV data is invalid
    without making some claim of damages against the ERV.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Gerard McEk

      If they would do that and in the meanwhile AR proves it works in a commercial plant, the IH will have a hart time to prove the ERV and AR were wrong. At the same time it will give AR handles to suit them for damages.
      I believe time is pressing for IH. If a plant goes commercial opposing AR becomes useless. Maybe their counter claim will be vast, with the aim to put AR behind bars and to stop him showing he is right. I hope AR has a counter attack for that scenario.

      • Roland

        Rossi was schooled by the Italian Mafia when he introduced a successful technology to produce fuel from garbage to Italians.

        Rule #1. Don’t go head to head with the mob over garbage unless you’re ready spill blood cause otherwise you might get railroaded into jail by a bent legal system.

        You think he’s forgotten?

    • GreenWin

      They could start with the treasonous behavior of US Dept. Energy Secretary Ernie – head in the sand – Moniz. The single most ignorant graduate of MIT – Massachusetts Ignorant of Technology Inst. http://www.progressivestoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Energy-Sec.jpg

  • Albert D. Kallal

    I think most interesting here is the intent by IH to file additional counter claims. It will be most interesting which parties IH files additional claims against.

    One would have to assume the additional parties are those that supplied IH information that supported verification of the ecat. So likely the ERV will be named here.

    If the ERV is not mentioned then it rather hard to think that IH can make a claim that the ERV data is invalid
    without making some claim of damages against the ERV.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Michael W Wolf

      They were considering claims against 3rd parties. In IH speak, that means they won’t I bet.

    • Gerard McEk

      If they would do that and in the meanwhile AR proves it works in a commercial plant, the IH will have a hart time to prove the ERV and AR were wrong. At the same time it will give AR handles to suit them for damages.
      I believe time is pressing for IH. If a plant goes commercial opposing AR becomes useless. Maybe their counter claim will be vast, with the aim to put AR behind bars and to stop him showing he is right. I hope AR has a counter attack for that scenario.

      • Roland

        Rossi was schooled by the Italian Mafia when he introduced a successful technology to produce fuel from garbage to Italians.

        Rule #1. Don’t go head to head with the mob over garbage unless you’re ready spill blood cause otherwise you might get railroaded into jail by a bent legal system.

        You think he’s forgotten?

    • GreenWin

      They could start with the treasonous behavior of US Dept. Energy Secretary Ernie – head in the sand – Moniz. The single most ignorant graduate of MIT – Massachusetts Ignorant of Technology Inst. http://www.progressivestoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Energy-Sec.jpg

  • bachcole

    Of course, anything to stall for time.

    • JedRothwell

      The trial date has not changed. There has been no stalling for time.

      • Guest

        “There has been no stalling for time.”

        Rossi moved from Italy to Florida to help with the tests, they could have been concluded years ago.

    • roseland67

      Rossi for commercializing the Ecat? or
      IH for dragging out the lawsuit?

  • Luca Meli

    IH didn’t put the same energy to get the goal of certification. It seems this is their natural ground, not energy production or LENR. I think it’s a shame.

    • 12546

      IH’s Goal is to F##K up LENR and mess it up and slow it down

      • Ophelia Rump

        Goal of IH appears to be to keep LENR behind a wall meter so the source is different but we keep paying the same. Industrial/Utility Vs home production.

        The name shows the intent IH, Industrial Heat. They wanted Dottore Rossi’s knowledge, but wanted to kill any hopes of small scale LENR.

        • blanco69

          Decentralisation may turn out to be the single greatest risk to the established players in the energy industry. Even in the UK where there’s supposed to be a private energy market, transmission and distribution is still effectively state controlled. On the surface, this gives the general population some assurance that they can be connected to the grid. But this provides a state sponsored gravy train to the select few licence holders who won’t be very interested in Joe Public buying into e-cat fuelled, decentralised combined heat and power. I’d expect some form of campaign against this.

        • GreenWin

          Nail-head… BANG! Ms Rump.

        • roseland67

          OR,

          I think IH goal is about their $$$, nothing more.

    • mailin

      The problem is that Rossi and his team have never demonstrated their research to the community in a fully transparent way. We still cannot know for sure if the technology is actually working.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    As expected, the judge granted the request for an extension of time to file an answer, and any counterclaims, to August 5.
    ​https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/newvortex/files/Rossi_v_Darden/0028.0_Order_extending_time_to_Answer.pdf

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    As expected, the judge granted the request for an extension of time to file an answer, and any counterclaims, to August 5.
    ​https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/newvortex/files/Rossi_v_Darden/0028.0_Order_extending_time_to_Answer.pdf

  • Michael W Wolf

    People don’t accuse you. They say you could be faking or you might be lying for all we know. Rossi is now under oath claiming the same things he’s claimed in public. Until you or IH can say that, Rossi’s word is more valid by leaps and bounds. You on the other hand libel Rossi and others with unsubstantiated accusations. You know that is a crime if you have no proof?

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      Mr. Wolf is showing no knowledge of law. Libel of public figures is a very difficult claim to make. Here, Mr. Wolf seems to give higher credence to Rossi than to Rothwell or IH, and he gives as a basis for that, statements allegedly made “under oath.” What oath? Where?

      What is most likely is that Mr. Wolf believes that what is in a Complaint in Federal Court is presented under oath. No. That is not so at all.

      http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3192&context=mulr

      Statements made in pleadings are generally exempt from libel and perjury claims. There could be exceptions, but I saw nothing in the Rossi pleadings that made me think of libel or perjury. Rossi may believe what he wrote. And he was not under oath. And the complaint was not even signed by Rossi. So what is Wolf talking about?

    • JedRothwell

      Rossi is libeling I.H. You should trust them more than you trust Rossi. They have more credibility by far.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Goal of IH appears to be to keep LENR behind a wall meter so the source is different but we keep paying the same. Industrial/Utility Vs home production.

    The name shows the intent IH, Industrial Heat. They wanted Dottore Rossi’s knowledge, but wanted to kill any hopes of small scale LENR.

    • blanco69

      Decentralisation may turn out to be the single greatest risk to the established players in the energy industry. Even in the UK where there’s supposed to be a private energy market, transmission and distribution is still effectively state controlled. On the surface, this gives the general population some assurance that they can be connected to the grid. But this provides a state sponsored gravy train to the select few licence holders who won’t be very interested in Joe Public buying into e-cat fuelled, decentralised combined heat and power. I’d expect some form of campaign against this.

    • GreenWin

      Nail-head… BANG! Ms Rump.

    • roseland67

      OR,

      I think IH goal is about their $$$, nothing more.

  • Mats002

    Hi Jed,
    You can always question chain-of-custody with any data, bits or atoms. The problem is not to question, the problem is how to proof beyond doubt. Who have the benefit if the doubt in this case?

    • JedRothwell

      I.H. has more credibility that Rossi. Rossi has a long history of dissembling, making up nonsense about production lines, angering his investors and customers, and doing such sloppy experiments he came close to injuring people in one case.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      “Proof beyond doubt” is a standard in criminal cases. Rossi v. Darden is civil, where the standard is the preponderance of the evidence. Most of what passes for evidence around here is so weak that it could not be admitted in court. There is an exception: in a Complaint, a plaintiff can basically say anything. (There are exceptions, but they are not relevant here.) However, in routine conversation, there are “implications.” Further, there is a common-law standard that testimony is presumed true unless controverted. “Prove it!” is not controversion. The testimony stands as what it is. Jed says that he received data from a confidential source. So I assume that is exactly what happened, unless I find reasons to think Jed is lying, and I’ve known him for years. I often disagree with this conclusions, but I’ve never seen him lie. Jed also says that others received the same data and it matches what we have from Rossi, i.e,. in the Mats Lewan interview.

      Jed trusts his sources. However, beware: “testimony is presumed true” does not extend to conclusions. For that, legally, experts may testify. And many trials end up with conflicting testimony from experts. And who decides what to believe?

      In fact, nobody. Rather, this is a jury trial. A jury will rule on questions of fact, and they rule based on preponderance of the evidence, and the evidence they see will be filtered. It will not be what some blogger has said. It will be documents with affirmations, it will be personal testimoney, and the jury will see the witnesses and personally assess, from behavioral cues, and much more, what the preponderance of the evidence shows.

      This is what I see, here: Even though Jed Rothwell, who knows a great deal about calorimetry, was not allowed by Rossi to witness a test because Jed said he’d bring his own instruments — and this fits with many other stories, including before 2011 — Jed was mostly positive on Rossi’s work, until quite recently. Jed is in a position to receive information from many sources.

      Let me put it this way: Jed’s reports do not inspire confidence in Rossi and the 1 MW test. Some of what Jed refers to is public record, such as the exclusion of the IH expert from the Customer area.

      Now, as to “benefit of the doubt,” in a civil case, doubt may remain. There is no benefit of the doubt. All evidence — as legally defined, with centuries of experience — is on the table, “proof” is not required. There is an exception: fraud. To prove fraud requires a higher standard of evidence than to merely determine “fact.” There is some idea here that the judge is going to decide fact. No. Not at all. That’s the job of the jury. The judge will see that what the jury receives is legally-qualified evidence, and that they know relevant law and legal precedent.

      What Jed has been talking about (alleged Rossi data) is not evidence in the lawsuit. It’s rumor, and sane people will distinguish it as such. “Rumor” does not mean “bad or wrong.”

      Then the claim is that Jed is being unethical by sharing with us what he knows. Yet a great deal is brought to this blog based on rumor. “Rossi says.”

      And people, including Jed, are being accused of being “paid agents of APCO,” based on ridiculously thin evidence. By someone who himself has conflicts of interest that he sure doesn’t emphasize. Does Jed have a conflict of interest?

      His friends are being attacked, charged with fraud, sued for $300 million, and these are the people who have become the most active funding agency in a field that Jed has worked for, for over two decades. Is that a conflict of interest? Of course it is! One would not make Jed an arbitrator in Rossi v. Darden. So what? Harassing people with constantly repeated claims of “Prove it” is part of what creates increasingly less informed discussions, as those who know go away.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Where has Rossi made a claim under oath? What I see again and again here is writers who don’t understand what is going on, but jump to conclusions about it and present those conclusions as fact.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    No. There is no oath. Show it if you think there is. Here is a guide to writing and filing a pro se compaint in Federal Court http://www.publiccounsel.org/tools/materials/files/GUIDE-How-to-Write-a-Complaint.pdf

    Michael, you made this up about “Rossi took an oath.” This is not a part of the filing process. There are parts of the process where testimony will be given under oath.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Total and repeated misunderstanding of legal process.

    What “oath” has IH taken? Pleadings are not generally entered under oath. They may have exhibits attached that are. Further, one person cannot execute an oath on behalf of another, they can only witness it. So Rossi’s attorney could not do it for him.

    Go ahead! Find one statement Rossi has made as a legal oath under penalty of perjury! Nothing in the trial so far is that, that I’ve seen.

    This “under oath” meme has been repeated quite a number of times as a reason to give special credence to what is in the Rossi Complaint.

    That’s part of how “sectarian” information cascades arise. People tend to believe what their friends, those on the “same side” say. If misinformation tends to support the “truth,” then it is readily accepted and not fact-checked.

  • another point is that if one of the player is sure to have a bad file and no chance to exit by fair way,
    – there is no risk in attacking first
    – there is no risk in lying more

    I’ve read article by a French Lawyers about how client-next-door behave in lower criminal courts.

    first they lie to their attorney, testing their lie on him first… it is stupid but they do it.
    second is that the bandit-next-door, white or blue collar criminal, do his crime because of those points :
    1- he feels he cannot be caught, often supported by high number of past uncaught crimes, by insufficient law enforcement…
    2- he claims the victim deserve it : big evil company, rich guy, stupid greedy man, immoral girl, incompetent.

    it is very improbable for a criminal to take a perceived risk to be caught, or to attack a victim he respects.

    not sure it helps, as, especially with usual anti-corp cliché, it can apply to both parties.

  • Ged

    “Why do you demand proof from me when Rossi has given you no proof at all? You should ask him for proof.”

    You make a fatal mistake: Rossi’s not here making allegations against other people and attacking reputations, you are. IH is completely inaccessible, Rossi is only in his own domain, but you are here making actionable claims against someone, attempting to protect yourself behind a shield of saying its based on mysterious data only you have, yet you won’t show anything to prove you are not simply making it up for self importance or to be malicious. I do not take you for your word, I only take you for whatever data you provide, and so far you are simply accusing with no substance. Your behavior is far worst than either IH or Rossi’s.

    Anyone can make up numbers and claims (not that you provided any numbers at all so don’t try to make up that narrative as it undermines all your limited credibility–you provide no context to evaluate or problem with saying 0 bar despite you trying to present it as such), that does not change anything as it is no different than what you’ve been doing all along. I demand -actual- data, actual report pdfs or excel sheets or word documents or other actual computer data files with both results and context. That only can prove you are not simply making it all up, as right now you could be lying your face off and how could anyone know? Lying while making serious accusations about several people?

    It is unethical and inappropriate behavior you engage in. Prove your words and provide the data, prove you are not making it all up to prey on the gullible. Where is that 10 page report? Where is this “snippet of Rossi’s data”? Where are they, Jed?

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Get his money back? Jed, have you invested in IH? I’d be surprised, not because there is anything wrong with investing in IH, but simply because you haven’t mentioned it. It would increase credibility, because IH investors must have, I’m sure, disclosures that are not available to the public.

  • HypnoCat

    Y’all listen to to me now!
    No significant information will be released by IH 05 August.

    —– You should all watch the Olympic Games ——

    • GreenWin

      The last Olympic games hosted by a “developing country” unhappily. As Brazil has failed to clean up the massive pollution in its Olympic aquatic venues – leaving athletes to swim, row and sail in feces-strewn waters. 🙁 http://www.cbc.ca/sports/rio-olympics-venue-contaminated-with-human-feces-1.3173754

      • bachcole

        I used to be a nationally ranked swimmer, just barely. I am now a health freakazoid. Perhaps that sort of past biases my thinking: I wouldn’t go to the Olympics in Brazil, even if the USOC invited me.

        • GreenWin

          Brazil’s failures pollute the entire Olympic Games ethos. The IOC will NOT be awarding the games to any future “third world” nation for good reason IMO> 🙁

          • Obvious

            I’m sure the water in Greece during the original Olympics was no treat. Brazil has just gone for an authentic experience…

  • sam

    July 31, 2016 at 6:55 PM
    Dear Andrea:
    Can you explain the situation and the next moves in the litigation on course between you and IH ?
    In the blogs there are many contradictory assumptions, can you make the situation more understandable ?
    Thank you if you can answer,

    Andrea Rossi
    August 1, 2016 at 6:44 AM
    A.:
    My Attorney has ordered me mandatority not to talk on the blogs or anywhere else about issues that have to be properly discussed in Court.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • sam

    July 31, 2016 at 6:55 PM
    Dear Andrea:
    Can you explain the situation and the next moves in the litigation on course between you and IH ?
    In the blogs there are many contradictory assumptions, can you make the situation more understandable ?
    Thank you if you can answer,

    Andrea Rossi
    August 1, 2016 at 6:44 AM
    A.:
    My Attorney has ordered me mandatority not to talk on the blogs or anywhere else about issues that have to be properly discussed in Court.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Ged

    “YOU have no accountability either!”

    And I am not making claims, -you- are, so you are to be held accountable for them. I am demanding you prove you aren’t making it up, that you provide evidence for your claims, such a simple thing to do!

    “You are attacking I.H. and me here”

    Oh Jed, now you would make up things about me too? This pattern of behavior is revealing! Show me where I have stated accusations against IH as fact and claimed to have data backing me up. Show me! You are unable. Just because you claim it does not make it true, so is it any wonder why I demand proof from you, a person who now makes baseless statement about me with no proof?

    All I do to you is demand the evidence and rightly call you out for not delivering it. You make the claim, you back it up. So where are the reports, Jed? Where is that supposed 10 page report showing the plant “looks like it worked”, where is that data from Rossi that you supposedly use to make your allegations? Show us the actual source data, if you really have it at all.

    “If you want to see a table, make one yourself and fill in all of the pressure and flow readings with those numbers.”

    So is this what you did Jed? Did you just create data in post and claim it as real, decided you could claim this the source of your accusations?

    I am beside myself! You could not possibly be serious! You are far too intellegent to be playing this card, yet here it is. This is, quite frankly, an insult to yourself and any rational mind.

    I demand proof of the source documents, of the actual data, not make believe data you create here and now and try to pass off as real! Who are you trying to fool? Fabricating data is what I fear you have done, making up all your claims about having data and what it shows, and yet here in this post you do that very thing for all to see.

    Do not have an ounce of integrity and self respect? I know you do, so how could you do this thing? Show me the actual, real data and prove you have it and have represented it accurately! Where is the metadata about location and what the sensor was, if it is relative or absolute, if it is even on, if there are other ones, etc etc? Prove you have what you claim!

    “You tell me: How can I prove to you that it came from Rossi?”

    By providing the source document and not making up crud on the spot. How hard is this to understand?

    “You are making impossible demands. You irrationally demand I do something which you yourself would reject. If you don’t believe me, that’s okay with me, but stop making contradictory demands for the impossible.”

    Impossible demands only if you have nothing and are lying, yes. I would not reject published data and you know that. You also know the real data will have meta tags that prove it, so you have nothing to worry about.

    It is utterly dishonest of you to claim “you won’t believe it” as an excuse to avoid providing proof of the allegations you make. That only proves you have -nothing-, it only leads to the conclusion rounder lying and making it all up. This entire time the simple request and simple solution is to provide the source material or other proof you have that material, from which you make your accusations of fact.

    Prove you have these documents and that they say what you claim they say–provide the data. I will not stop demanding this of you at every turn until you are proven to not be fabricating the whole thing, unlike the fabricating you did above in your post!

  • Ged

    Yes, a lawsuit and all its evidence is under oath. And if that evidence is materially false, such as fabricated, that is perjury and serious trouble. Read here for a good break down of what happens in that case http://www.law360.com/articles/546640/client-fabricates-evidence-perjures-testimony-now-what . Plaintiffs and defendents don’t lose because their facts were materially false, but as they are on the wrong side of the law -given the facts-. If they are materially false, they will be criminally charged. Here is the legal definition of first degree perjury in US law:

    “RCW 9A.72.020 – Perjury in the first degree.

    (1) A person is guilty of perjury in the first degree if in any official proceeding he or she makes a materially false statement which he or she knows to be false under an oath required or authorized by law.

    (2) Knowledge of the materiality of the statement is not an element of this crime, and the actor’s mistaken belief that his or her statement was not material is not a defense to a prosecution under this section.

    (3) Perjury in the first degree is a class B felony.”

    IH’s little footnote blurb has no technical details, no numbers or data, so it can’t be more technical than anything we have seen so far. The court will force out such technical details during discovery, and like deposition, such is under oath.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      Completely false. “Under oath.” And what is an “oath”? Believe me, if you are taking an oath, it’s very obvious. In writing, it’s explicit, it’s not vague. “I affirm under penalty of perjury that….” I just filed a document the other day that had that on it, as I recall, asking for filing fees to be waived because my income met standards for that.

  • Ged

    And here is a link to additional federal statutes as we’re discussed in my previous link, so that there are no uncertain terms here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1623

    “Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      “under oath.” Complaints and pleadings are not generally made under oath. Read the Complaint. Look for an attestation under oath. It’s not there. The information all came from Rossi, but Rossi didn’t sign it, and the attorney sure isn’t warranting that it’s true. This is really obvious, if people have paid attention to law and news and stuff, but most people haven’t.

      • Ged

        I am sorry, but you are mistaken. If you submit materially false evidence, not only will your suit be thrown out, but you will face prosecution by the court. Please do not try this. Instead, read the legal links I provide that will educate you rather than just what you imagine.

      • Ged

        To make things more easy for you:

        Since you asked about the Complaint body itself, rather than just the evidence submitted along with the complaint, here is another good breakdown of what happens if you lie in the Complaint body rather than just materially false evidence: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-repercussions-for-the-plaintiff-in-a-lawsuit-who-lies-in-their-complaint-What-relief-is-there-for-the-defendant

        As you can see, it is a serious offense even to lie in the Complaint body. In addition to Sanctions, the defense can get the complaint rewritten directly to remove false statements, before there is ever a trial (as a trial is about judging the rule of law -given the facts-, so the facts must be true as submitted, which is why it is perjury to submit materially false evidence).

        Since this did not happen, the facts as presented in the Complaint by Rossi are not false (neither the lawyers nor the defendent have challenged any facts through such motions as Rule 11). IH may use a defense that the facts are incomplete and thus misintrepreted, however; and that is the most common defense.

        But, again, -you cannot material kg lie even in a complaint- or you will suffer direct legal repurcussions.

  • roseland67

    Rossi for commercializing the Ecat? or
    IH for dragging out the lawsuit?

  • Ged

    “Don’t be silly. You just now claimed that I am lying, which means that I.H. is lying. That’s a claim. You also claim that Rossi is telling the truth.”

    So wait, you now believe -you- are synonymous with IH? I challenge you to provide proof IH gave you anything (though if they did, you -would be- lying to claim you have Rossi’s data when really it would be something given by IH), and that you, Jed Rothwell, of your own accord are not making things up out of your own head for whatever personal reasons.

    You stand alone, Jed. IH will not corroborate you. And so far, you make claims as fact that you then further claim is from data that you refuse to prove you have ever had. What conclusion can we reach? That likely you are making it up, correct.

    Where is the supposed 10 page report showing it “looks like it worked” that was supposedly on your desk? Prove it was ever real! Where is this Rossi data (that is IH’s data if they supplied it) that supposedly you use to base your claims? Prove it was ever real!

    You make the material claims, you are accountable to support them with evidence. I don’t have any reason to believe IH gave you anything, and more likely that this is all just a power trip in your own mind, and so I will continue to call you out and demand evidence to prove you have anything at all to support the defamation you level. Instead, you fabricate data inside a post and try to pass that off as proof. What would any critically thinking person make of that behavior?

    “Why do you believe Rossi rather than I.H.?”

    Who says I believe Rossi over IH? Once again you crest fiction and peddle it as fact. Do not use delusional sounding arguments like con flaring yourself with IH to try to hide from your personal responsibility for the thing you say. I challenge you, Jed, not IH (as the court challenges IH and Rossi) to prove your claims even if just to prove you have any data at all.

    It seems to me IH didn’t give you anything, but you want to pretend they did and feel important. So far you have provided non evidence to the contrary, but have felt content to make whatever outlandish claims you want and pretend as if some mythical data it seems you don’t actually have supports you.Such certainly seems like reprehensible behavior, and so far we have nothing contrary to it to say it isn’t true–but a repeated pattern of behavior that fits that determination.

    “Explain how I or anyone else could do this.”

    Provide the source documents. Provide video notation for yourself. Heck, just a picture of the report on your desk would at least be supporting evidence. As it is, we have -zero- evidence you have anything but make believe words. And your constantly disingenuous excuses to avoid providing and showing the facts, your making up things about my views, and your fabrication of data in a post which would be just an amusing joke if just for itself but which you then pass off as -proof-, all greatly erode your credibility. IH and Rossi have nothing to do with this, this is all -you-.

    Where is the supposed 10 page report, Jed? Where is this supposed Rossi (or IH) data? Provide proof you have anything at all!

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Jed, you are trying to use logic to convince people that have no practice with it.

  • GreenWin

    The last Olympic games hosted by a “developing country” unhappily. As Brazil has failed to clean up the massive pollution in its Olympic aquatic venues – leaving athletes to swim, row and sail in feces-strewn waters. 🙁 http://www.cbc.ca/sports/rio-olympics-venue-contaminated-with-human-feces-1.3173754

  • GreenWin

    Brazil’s failures pollute the entire Olympic Games ethos. The IOC will NOT be awarding the games to any future “third world” nation for good reason IMO> 🙁

    • Obvious

      I’m sure the water in Greece during the original Olympics was no treat. Brazil has just gone for an authentic experience…

  • Observer

    Do we expect IH’s filing to be made public today?

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      Yes. At least it is due today. However, it could be filed on-line after the clerk goes home. It appears that filings do occur after business hours, looking at the docket. They are dated as of filing, probably electronic filing. But filed documents do not necessarily appear immediately in PACER, which is where I get them. Pacermonitor also gets them, with a delay. I just checked again, no document at 7:50 PM Eastern Time.

      What happens if they file late? Basically, if it’s only a few days, nothing. I don’t expect them to file late, but … it could happen. Suppose, at the last minute, their client wants to consider something new. Unless a judge thinks they are delaying for the sake of delay, a sanction is unlikely. I researched precedents. Given that it is not there now, good chance the Answer will not be available until Monday morning, even if technically filed today.

      • Michael W Wolf

        There is another reason why it hasn’t appeared, IH didn’t file and will settle out of court because they have no proof to unbind themselves from the ERV report.

      • m

        Someone could ask Rossi. His lawyers would have it now.

  • Michael W Wolf

    I claimed Rossi took an oath when he filed the lawsuit. Jed and his
    cohorts claim that in civil suits there are no oaths. But I have read
    that when filing a civil suit you have to swear by your allegations. I
    assume that is an oath.

    The point is, I continually hear “it is
    just Rossi said”. But if Rossi has sworn by the suit he filed, that
    bares more weight. And since all the statements we hear from Weaver and
    the like are in fact hearsay, They are wrong for insulting people for
    supporting Rossi blindly. Until we hear what IH’s response was Friday.
    It is the perfectly fine to think Rossi is more credible.

    I don’t see many people defending Rossi about the oath issue. These skeptics
    chide others for not knowing the law, but they are wrong many times
    in their corrections. Like I was told there is no oath taken when
    filing a patent. But that is not true. They told me Rossi didn’t take an
    oath when he filed the lawsuit. When in fact he may very well have
    taken an oath. Everything coming from IH is hearsay, except for the oath
    IH took when filing the patent for the ecat claiming they built and
    tested a reactor with 11 COP. Until IH squares their contradiction with
    proof, isn’t it fair to take Rossi’s word for it?

    I mean, they seemed to avoid saying the fact that rossi has taken an oath makes no difference to them, or else why would they change the subject by attacking the accuracy of the claim, when the accuracy of the claim may in fact be true? I think because when you talk about contradictions and oaths, IH looks as guilty as hell.