Rossi vs IH: (Update: Sep. 9 20– James A. Bass now a Third Party in IH's Counter Complaint)

UPDATE: Sep 20, 2016,

Thanks to Barbierir for noticing that IH et al have updated their Answer again, and this time have included James A. Bass as one of the third parties against whom they have listed a counter complaint. This must mean that James A. Bass is now considered a real person by them, not a “John Doe” (fake person) that they had alleged previously.

Second Amended ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint , Amended THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT against Fulvio Fabiani, United States Quantum Leap, LLC, J.M. Products, Inc., Fabio Penon, Henry Johnson, James A. Bass, Amended COUNTERCLAIM against Leonardo Corporation, Andrea Rossi by Cherokee Investment Partners, LLC, IPH International B.V., Thomas Darden, John T. Vaughn, Industrial Heat, LLC.(Pace, Christopher) (https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11135976/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al)

UPDATE: Sep 11, 2016,

A new document was posted in the Rossi v. Darden court docket yesterday: “Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings”

http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Rossi_response_to_MfJ.pdf

——————-

There are two new entries in the court docket for the Rossi vs. IH case. There is an entry about a hearing held yesterday between lawyers from the different teams. Ross and Leonardo had three attorneys, IH had two, and ‘third parties’ were also represented. I assume the third parties are Johnson, Fabiani and ‘John Doe’ (aka James Bass)

There is also a motion listed:

MOTION to Strike Affirmative Defenses , MOTION for More Definite Statement by Leonardo Corporation, Andrea Rossi. Responses due by 9/16/2016 (Annesser, John)

https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11135976/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al

  • Barbierir

    So do they contain anything new?

    • Ged

      Hopefully someone with access will post the motion document itself that was in the latest update. I am also curious to see the third party waiver from a few updates back.

      There likely won’t be new data or info included probably, just legal arguing.

  • This part seems most interesting but also most disappointing:

    http://i.imgur.com/zxzsgMp.jpg

    • Gerald

      So if I translate.
      The cop claimed (50) is higher then lugano test so it is not independent tested.
      The product isn’t commercial viable. No offcourse not, the client paid 1000 dollar a day and there was 24/7 men at work. Not even counting other costs.
      IH and IPH were unable to produce extra heat with the provided technology. This van mean many things.

      So again the same in somewhat other words not proving or disproving anything.

      It almost tragic, the first that benefit from the e-cat technology are the lawyers even if it doesn’t work. Incredible.

    • Ged

      That is from IH’s answer, which has already been covered in depth. They are complaining about the currently claimed levels (“levels Plaintiffs -now- claim” emphasis mine), and they go on to talk about how they don’t think the COP was more than 10 (or maybe 4, depending on their vague language later; but they never directly claim the a lowest COP).

      But, like how they made the false statement denying Vaughn was and is a “manager” at Cherokee, the last part of that highlighted passage is contradicted by their COP 11 patent that Rossi didn’t sign off on and instead has their own guy putting it forward (still less than the COP 50 though, so their carefully worded passage may not be directly contradicted).

      We’ll see, as the court will figure this out for us and who is right or wrong. But this thread is about the motion to strike IH’s defense or get a more definitive answer, so no point in trying to distract the topic with old topics thoroughly discussed.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        “Manager” has a technical meaning for an LLC under the law of the state of organization. The amended Answer makes it clear that when they deny he is a “manager,” that this is about that definition. It is not just a minor point, because one might need to be legally a manager to commit the company.

        Patents do not validate results. That Patent was actually a necessary filing in 2014 to prevent loss of the IP, as the device was used at Lugano ,and so a patent needed to be filed ASAP, before the test. Rossi was listed as inventor, but IH built that device and if “their guy” made any inventive contributions, patent law requires that he be listed or the patent could be invalid. Rossi was not required to sign. It’s clear he does not understand patent law.

        As is common, the Answer argues various theories. IH is very explicit, however, that they have never confirmed any excess heat from a Rossi device, and that would be COP of 1, within measurement noise.

        • Ged

          “Manager” is in his title, and Rossi’s original complaint makes no definition statement, just “manager”. But he also has a director position with Cherokee, which is managerial. So, however you slice it, the denial is wrong, and the original point Rossi made there at least is correct.

          You missed the point. IH filed a patent with a COP and data not seen elsewhere and did so on their own gumption. That shows that contrary to what they say in the answer, they make the claim in the patent application that they do see excess heat. The wiggle room is what is “significant”? Is 11 not significant in light of 50?

          Finally, IH is -not- explicit. Explicit means you say it directly on no uncertain terms, but IH never does so. They never say the COP is 1 or less. In fact, the lowest they -insinuate- is 4, and that is with completely speculative language. So, explicit is entirely the wrong word to use here, unless they amend again.

          • Omega Z

            Ged, ->”they have not retracted that patent app to my knowledge.”

            I may be wrong or have it confused with another patent,

            But, I thought I saw where that patent recieved a non-final rejection(Jan 16th 2016 I believe). I don’t know if it needs said, but I’ll say it anyway. “NON-FINAL”, That usually means FINAL. I think very shortly after that, I heard IH dropped or abandoned that application.

            About the very same time IH/Darden -vs – Leonardo/Rossi problems/issues comes into play. Mid to end of January 2016.

            Is this when everything went south. Patent not granted therefore non payment of $89 million due to patent rejection. And according to Mats L. Rossi offered Darden his $11.5 million back conditioned on IH/Darden relinquishing all IP license claims, but Darden refused to relinquish the said IP claims.

            Just some Interesting food for thought…

          • Ged

            Indeed, seems you are right. Here is the COP 11 Patent: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220140326711%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20140326711&RS=DN/20140326711 and full doc here http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com/Pat_IH.pdf

            If you go to http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair you can check its status. It does say Non Final Action Mailed. Though, the latest transaction history goes to May of this year, so there is still some activity going on with it.

            And then of course there is the latest IH app published February 25, 2016, and is still out there: https://www.google.com/patents/US20160051957 “Status:
            Docketed New Case – Ready for Examination”

            And international version: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015127263A3

            But those are based more on Lugano (though they have images and material not from Lugano), so less interesting than the COP 11 multi-reactor patent at top.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Their statement was not false. It turns on the definition of “manager,” and, as amended, makes that explicit. It matters for the reason I stated. A denial in an Answer need not be denying each and every meaning of every word of a claim. They saw the ambiguity and amended, apparently.

            The IH patent data was just the Lugano report, and the Lugano device was fabricated by them, and “their own guy” must have made contributions. There is no requirement to withdraw a patent app if one comes to suspect the accuracy of the measurements. It remains a patent, that the device did not work at Lugano is legally meaningless. At this point, I’d assume they don’t think it is worth putting the time of a patent attorney on it. That’s expensive.

            As to explicit, “no excess heat” is quite specific enough. It would reasonably be interpreted as “no significant excess heat.” The exact boundary is of interest to scientists, but not legally. And if they use the wrong word, unless it is a serious error causing harm, they would not clutter the docket with more documents. The trial would sort it all out.

            They use speculative language because the fact is obscure, and obscurity is a long-term characteristic of Rossi behavior, as Mats Lewan points out in An Impossible Invention.

            The actual COP might be meaningful only as a last resort in the trial. They imply an upper bound from the cooling problem. The various actions of Rossi and Penon made it impossible to verify Penon’s report. An attorney pointed out to me that the removal of the instrumentation was spoliation. I had to look it up. The removal of all the fuel on the last day of the “test,” the cleaning of the reactor lines, all contributed to making verification impossible. If a megawatt had been generated for a year from the fuel, the isotopic shifts would have been unmistakable, dramatic. So what happened with that fuel? This all belonged to IH, not Rossi.

          • Ged

            The patents based on Lugano are not what I’m referencing, rather, the one that is here http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220140326711%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20140326711&RS=DN/20140326711 . Though, the patents that involve data from Lugano (like the isotopes which were straight up copied over) still have a lot of additional data and materials and different device photos than was in Lugano, and are beyond the scope of Lugano alone, such as see here: https://www.google.com/patents/US20160051957

            A patent shows they are making the straight up claim of excess heat and quantifying it, detailing the methods and measurement etc. That provides direct evidence contradicting their statements in the answer. And while it is of interest scientifically, since the COP is an important part of the contract, then it is also material to the case at hand and can’t be so easily dismissed. Of course, it is true that them saying what they saw in their own hands is not directly related to the case in question, and is vague to the point of being useless due to no data or context–except that their patents do provide data produced by them, in contradiction to the answer. So, that is just one big mess. If they were serious about saying they never saw excess heat, then leaving the patents up undermines that claim and they need to remove them.

            Speculative language is not needed when talking about matters directly in their own experience though. Or put another way, they have their own data, so they can be definitive if they want (or, say, -provide that data-). Speculative language just leaves room for being wrong without being wrong.

            This is not a crime scene, there is no spoilage. All the instrumentation was visible for -an entire year-. In place, model numbers, data from them, calibrations, etc. The plant is also still where it was and locked up to prevent tampering, and can still be directly investigated. So that argument is unfounded. We have no idea if the fuel was removed and if so where it went or who has it. The only hearsay I’ve heard was that IH took a sample; but who knows, there is no proof or solid evidence at all. The fuel could all be there and in place for all we know.

          • Guest

            Well 1.001 produced by a Hot Fusion test reactor over a longer period of time certainly would be earth-shattering. It would gobble up billions easy as 1-2-3.

            See:

            * “The test was not signed for so it was not valid, also if it would have been valid, wrong reactor was used. ”

            * “Cold Fusion does not exist, but if it does, it’s not useful. ”

            Then you go on to say that a megawatt at COP 2 would be earth shattering, when in fact we all had to read your constant spam saying that the test was stupid, and a smaller device should have been run for a shorter timespan.

            What else is new Abd?

            Does Hillary still have Trump allergy? Care to comment?
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_LSPLguAtM

        • Omega Z

          ->”Rossi was not required to sign.”

          That is a loophole inadvertently created in the last patent revisions that is intended to be closed in the next patent law revisions. Said loophole could allow Big money to steal control over you IP. Even requiring you to pay to use your own IP.

          Rossi’s option’s would have been getting IH patents voided because it seriously infringes on his granted patent or fight it out in other legal battles. Reeks of the Microsoft days when they would intentionally steal or infringe and bankrupt the little guy in court. Thus forcing the little guy to sellout cheap. Another change that’s planned. Loser may be required to pay all legal costs if it’s determined they knowingly made a fraudulent IP infringement claim.

          People should currently be paying very close attention to the patent law wars. People such as Bill Gates are pushing for patent extensions comparable to Copyrights that can extend up to 100 years. I’m an ardent supporter of Patents. I understand their purpose or at least their intent. That said, 20 years IP protection is plenty. I also believe Copyright terms should be shortened. Possibly to 25 years.

          Bill Gates argument for extended patent terms. It will encourage big corporations to invest in more R&D as they will have much more time to obtain their ROI.

          To the Contrary, I believe it would reduce R&D. My patent isn’t running out. Why should I spend more money on R&D. I can milk my current patent for a hundred years.

  • Frank Acland

    IH responds to this motion:

    “PAPERLESS NOTICE of Hearing on39 MOTION to Strike Affirmative Defenses MOTION for More Definite Statement: Motion Hearing set for 9/27/2016 10:30 AM in Miami Division before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. (ps1)”

    https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11135976/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al

    • Ged

      Interesting. I did not expect it to go straight to a hearing with the Judge like that so fast, before IH even gave a (posted) reply. Something unusual. Even the MTD didn’t go into a hearing.

      • Andre Blum

        just curious: is that a public hearing? can people go and listen?

        • Ged

          Sadly, it doesn’t say :(. Maybe the courthouse has a schedule that’ll show what hearings are going and if they are viewable.

  • Ged

    I wonder if the document 38 is the minutes from the mediation hearing. That would very likely be confidential and out of our reach.

    • Barbierir

      Alas! That was the juicy part

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        the result of the hearing was put up. It was an “informal discovery hearing,” apparently regarding “third party subpoenas.” “Third party” in this case, probably means not a party to the case or the counterclaim. There may have been other subpoenas issued and challenged, but if not quashed, there was no order, I might guess. The three quashed were to two banks and an accountant. My guess: accountant working for Rossi or for Johnson. I don’t wonder that they were quashed, at this point. If Rossi or Johnson stonewall, long-term, that might change.

        The one not quashed, but suspended, was to a telecom company and the Magistrate, in the decision, revealed the purpose, which was to discover the identity and location of James Bass. So they can subpoena him, I assume. It was suspended to give JMP (i.e., Johnson) time to provide that information. Johnson’s attorney may have been claiming they don’t know. If they stick with that, the subpoena will go through.

        • wpj

          As Eng48 has pointed out, the tiger/slabs each have 6 units in there and so, is technically a 4 x 6 test. Maybe not the ones first developed, but an advanced version.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      It was.

  • Ged

    I dunno. I have seen previous discussions by judges saying the 21 days is not nearly enough time, and that being a primary reason behind making them rule very heavily in favor of the defendents when considering this particular motion. But IH went from 21 days to 4 months to research their defense, so the Judge may completely drop the time aspect when considering how to rule. I agree and also don’t think any of IH’s defense was too vague for discovery, but it’ll be very interesting and educational to see the Judge’s discussion and how this goes.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      I have not done a thorough study of the entire Motion yet. I only looked at the Introduction, so far. The Introduction is very odd, far more factually argumentative (and unnecessarily accusatory) than the IH Introduction to their MTD. There are two Motions now, a Motion to Strike, confined to Affirmative Defenses (a short list that is only a summary of what is covered elsewhere, which is then attacked as “vague and unsupported” — which is true if we look only at that section of the Answer and not at the whole Answer — and a Motion to Dismiss the counterclaims, based on various technical arguments that, when raised by IH similarly, were considered reprehensible around here…. Apparently ganders require different sauce than geese. That first analysis: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3722-Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants%E2%80%99-Motion-to-Dismiss-Defendants-Amended-Counterclaim/?postID=35253#post35253

      • Ged

        Oh no, make no mistake, I have no love for this MTD. However, unlike with IH, this MTD does not delay an answer. The waver was given that provides 60 days before the Third Parties must respond. With IH, the main criticism was that instead of giving their answer when the time was up, they pulled out the MTD to avoid doing so. That is still feel highly critical of.

        So no, it is not the same situation; but I at least do not celebrate it in any event, as it means the possibility of less data and facts being investigated and revealed. But we’ll see. Seeing a two pronged attack in this method just shows how serious the Leonardo side is (it isn’t just Rossi any more, so we can’t keep using that moniker, honestly), and I didn’t think they would even have enough to pull out both a Strike and a MTD. That alone is surprising and interesting; and it was enough to get the Judge to do a hearing on the Strike, which is even more surprising.

        I have no clue how this will turn out, Abd, but this whole case keeps twisting and turning violently and unrelentlessly, more so than many cases I’ve seen. It’s remarkable.

      • Ged

        You were quite right, Chapman. Annesser evicerated the motion with this response using very similar points as what you brought up. Seems very clear cut now that the motion is simply vexatious litigation with no basis for having been made. To Wit: The pleadings are not closed, material facts are still indispute, and the LA waiver mechanism was clearly invoked by the Defendent’s continual participation in the test.

        Be interesting to see how the court responds and if it agrees with Annasser’s view that the motion was just to run up litigation costs, and then invokes its duty to curtail such acts.

        • Chapman

          All other issues aside – Annesser kicks ass… His submissions are a joy to read!

          His response is exactly what I expected (not a testament to my legal knowledge, but just simple common law and logic), but he adds the additional fact that IH contradicts their own position as presented to the court!

          They base their entire defense, in their answer to the initial claim filed against them, on the adamant declaration that the second amendment is null and void, and was never signed and put into effect as evidenced by the lack of required signatures. They then make a motion to dismiss based upon the six-cylinder requirement, which is itself a stipulation of the second amendment!

          Annesser took them apart, piece by piece. But the significant thing here is that it was predictable, and straightforward LAW.

          Do you notice the evolution???

          When the case was first filed, we heard the leaks from the so-called insider guys saying “the science was bad and the device does not work and they will prove it in court”. Well, the answer comes out and IH stays away from the science issue entirely, which is an admission that the ERV Report is actually valid and incontestable on the basis of its material conclusions.

          So they shift to arguing ONLY the technicalities of the contract and legal obligation. Too bad noone HERE foresaw that the case was going to be focused solely on Contract Law!!! (oh, wait…).

          Now, when the LAW becomes clearly against them they have now devolved to focusing on finding a “Gotcha” in the form of some misstep on Rossi’s part in order to negate the claim by procedural rules. They have now even abandoned and contradicted their own defense arguments! They have crossed themselves up hopelessly, and their only out now is to shut the action down via some loophole or filing error.

          Folks, we should take heart at this turn of events. It means the E-Cat is everything Rossi says it is. The ERV numbers were real. IH either cannot, or just does not want, to pay the 89 million – nothing more.

          • Andy Kumar

            // All other issues aside – Annesser kicks ass… His submissions are a joy to read! //
            .
            Good works of *fiction* can also be a joy to read. His lawyer’s verbal gymnastics won’t save the inventor from proving that the device actually works. Forget COP of 6, even a 1.001 will be earth shattering and worth the adulation of the whole world that he so obviously craves.

          • psi2u2

            Very nice analysis.

          • That’s my assessment too. The only thing I’m not sure of is the conspiracy aspect—whether there is some pressure from the top on IH or not. Wonder if we’ll ever get to know…
            BTW, it’s normally a pleasure to defend yourself when you know that you’re right and don’t have to invent things (which also means that you have to remember exactly what you invented and stick to it—very complicated).

          • Chapman, could you comment on the idea that lawyers will exhaust all avenues available to them and that this might be a more likely explanation for recent events?

            I’m having trouble reaching the same conclusions you have about the ERV report from the machinations of lawyers alone. It seems to me that the legitimacy of the information in the ERV report must be handled during the trial and evaluated by a jury and cannot be ripped apart at this preliminary stage even if the defendants wanted to do so.

  • Rossi has made a MTD on the counter (FUD) claims as well. I like this comment;

    … Court could also infer that Defendants failure to replicate the results achieved by the independent expert could be attributable to (a) Defendants’ failure to follow the instructions and formula contained in the E-Cat IP; (b) Defendants’ intentional sabotage in an effort to avoid having to pay Plaintiffs Eighty-Nine Million Dollars; (c) Defendants’ mere scientific incompetence; (d) Defendants’ use of substandard quality components; (e) Defendants’ failure to properly measure the energy input and output; and/or a litany of other equally likely possibilities. …

    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/rossi-mtd-on-counterfud-reveals-the-stupidity-of-darden-vauhn-and-their-jones-day-lawyer-drones/

    • Ged

      Dang, hitting their defense answer with rule 12 and then also a MTD against their counterclaims. Pulling no punches. No wonder he needed some extra lawyer muscle.

      • wpj

        “Rule 12” – give us a clue!

        Reading the document, I assume that it is complete dismissal of the counter claims.

        • Ged

          Pretty much! Rule 12 is for dismissing the defendent’s answer to the claims in the plaintiff’s complaint. While this new MTD is for dismissing the offensive counter claims IH launched in addition to their answer to the complaint. So, between them both, the Leonardo side is arguing to dismiss everything from IH (and get more “definitive statements” for their answer per Rule 12, so that discovery can properly proceed).

          • wpj

            Thanks.

            Reading it, it seems to imply that IH has no rights to be involved in the legal dealings anyway as IHH has all the rights and IH has nothing as it transferred everything (but maybe I’m wrong).

            Count III is a fraud aspect (which they ask to dismiss in the text, but not in the final summary).

          • Ged

            Thanks for the reminder! Should be covered if in the text, but it’ll be very interesting to see the IH response and how this plays out before the Judge. Never a dull moment, still.

        • Chapman

          Oddly enough, no.

          Count I, III, and IV are covered entirely, but note the following:

          “Count II of Defendants’ Amended Counterclaim asserts that Plaintiffs have breached the License Agreement by

          (a) breaching the confidentiality provisions therein;

          (b) failing to assign licensed patents to IPH;

          (c) failing to consult with IH or IPH regarding all Patent Applications;

          (d) violating the alleged covenant not to compete, and

          (e) failing to pay taxes. See (DE:30, ¶¶100-133).

          Despite the fact that Count II of the Amended Counterclaim is replete with misstatements and factual inaccuracies, Plaintiffs only seek dismissal of claims (d) and (e) above for the reasons
          set forth below…”

          So you see, they go out of their way to specifically NOT ask to dismiss A, B, and C of Claim II.

          Now I wonder Why they did that??? (Maybe the refutation of those claims leads directly – via discovery – to the support and proof of the primary claims by Leonardo??? Is It a case of maneuvering IH into providing the rope for their own noose???))

      • wpj

        Hmmm, mistake at the end as they don’t ask to dismiss Claim III.

        • Ged

          I haven’t had a chance to see this new MTD, so I don’t recall what claim III is.

        • Ged

          Generally, the submissions by Annesser have been very high quality and run rings around the legal docs made for IH to date. I continue to be impressed by his thorough work and writing.

    • Omega Z

      Possibly the tests performed by IH was over seen by former Secretary of Energy- Steven Chu or maybe the current Secretary of Energy- Ernest Moniz.

      Actually, Neither would even conduct a test. They would merely Issue a paper stating it does not work. Period… Because obviously anything that appeared to work is a measurement error.

  • sam

    Terrence
    August 28, 2016 at 8:14 PM
    Mr Andrea Rossi,
    How much is the time you have to spend for the litigation:
    A 10%
    B 20%
    C 30%
    D 40%
    E 50%
    Cheers,
    T.S.

    Andrea Rossi
    August 29, 2016 at 7:28 AM
    Terrence:
    D
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    Does anyone have an opinion on
    what A.R. will be doing that he needs
    to spend 40 percent of his day on
    litigation.

    • Ged

      Coordinating with lawyers and the court. Filling out forms and notarized, getting discovery documents/evidence in order, sitting in legal meetings, preparing reaponses, researching legal procedures, stuff like that. Legal things are painfully time consuming. But, 40% would just be three days out of the week (2 days out of the work week), which is not surprising.

    • Omega Z

      Speeding ticket and you contest it.

      Goto court for 10 oclock appointment. Actually go before the Judge at about 2 oclock. There is a continuance ordered either due to your lawyers request or the court. Entire day shot…

      Rinse, Repeat the above 2 or 3 more times. Finally go to court on a specific date and time. No waiting you go immediately before the Judge.

      Judge says where’s the officer who issued the ticket. He’s Not here
      Judge says- Ticket dismissed. The entire episode over in 10 minutes

      Courts can waste a huge amount of time over something that can be resolved in short order. The bigger the issue, the more time they can waste. Oh. In the above scenario, the defendant can lose out on a weeks pay attending court appearances to avoid a $100 ticket. People fight them on the principle of being right. Not to avoid paying the fine.

      NOTE: In Rossi’s situation, One wants a jury trial. I guarantee that cases between Lawyers and Judges can often be settled in the courthouse hallway, a tennis court, a golf course, a dinner party and many other venues. Money can change hands, favors granted or become owed and right and wrong get ignored.

      I’ve personally witnessed the above legal dealings. Did I take any actions to report it? Do you know what happens to snitches, informers and whistle blowers. I may 1 day have to go to court. It wouldn’t be pretty.

      Your Honor, This man was caught speeding. He was doing 35 mph in a 30 mph zone. Judge says life without parole. Next case. 🙁

    • Chapman

      I have to admit I agree with you.

      There must be more going on in the background than we are aware of, because IH is obviously not giving this court case the attention it would seem to demand! With 89 million dollars on the line I would have expected a major legal defense. What is a few million in legal fees when you are facing a judgement for 89 million? Where are IH’s Legal Eagles and their A-Team???

      This is being handled SO incompetently that we MUST assume they are only playing around, wasting time, dragging things out – while waiting on some OTHER event to eliminate the threat.

      Either that, or they have an exit strategy already planned out. They could already BE planning a bankruptcy and liquidation, and are only taking this time to shift assets and reassign corporate holdings to their other entities. Keep in mind that Darden is a Scurge. His entire method of operation is to establish a company, engage in contracts for public services relating to environmental cleanup projects, bilk the citizens out of million in bond moneys, then declare bankruptcy and vanish leaving behind devastated communities strapped with a huge debt and no way to clean up the mess Darden left behind. He has been doing this for a long time. He is very good at playing Three-Card-Monty with corporate assets in order to eventually file bankruptcy, while abandoning the fewest resources possible.

      Darden has been through SO MANY lawsuits, and subsequent bankruptcies, that it is inconceivable that this issue is being handled so deplorably without it being by deliberate design. And as much as I have come to like and respect Cashmemorz, I can not attribute it to merely playing out a process to demonstrate due diligence. They have defaulted on the contract and caused the cancellation of their license, so they stand to gain nothing by the action – because they will have no rights to the technology that they would have thus helped validate. So Cashmemorz may be right in his intuitive insight that IH is just “playing the part”, but I do not think it is due to the motives he kindly attributes it to. I suspect something more conniving and nefarious…

      No, in the end I think you are right… We are correct in our analysis of the court case and the relative facts involved with it directly – but there is something ELSE in the background going on that we can not even guess at.

      Stupid is as Stupid does, yes, and every con artist trips up eventually, but this is just TOO stupid to be real. Darden is either up to something, or privy to insider information that we, and Rossi, are unaware of.

      • Michael W Wolf

        Right? What else are we to think? I had hoped cashmemorz is right. But now I am not so sure.

      • Thank you for another crystalline analysis. I completely agree with the idea that dragging out the litigation likely serves some ‘higher purpose’, and that IH will probably be terminated through bankruptcy when that purpose has been served. However I can’t agree that it isn’t possible to guess at what is going on in the background. Assuming the sanity of all those involved, then any seemingly illogical actions will be revealed to be completely logical when the picture is seen in its entirety. We obviously can’t do that, but we can make certain assumptions based on likely scenarios, that may cast some additional light.

        One of these is (as you suggest) that there are unseen players in this game, whose participation and purposes might explain otherwise apparently irrational behaviours. Given the nature and potential of controllable high-yield LENR, we can also take a stab at guessing the identity of the parties who may be involved behind the scenes, and the nature of their involvement. My suggestion for the latter would simply be those who would be directly affected by the introduction of LENR, vis. existing energy cartels and military interests – broadly Eisenhower’s ‘military-industrial complex’.

        In this case, the purpose of IH would have been simply to hoover up promising LENR developers and as such it is ultimately a disposable vehicle that can be allowed to go bankrupt when convenient, presumably with no harm to Darden or Cherokee. The various ‘spin-off’ CF-related paper companies created by Cherokee indicate that Darden may have some continuing role in the story after this has taken place. Given his history, IMHO Darden probably didn’t initiate the process but was (as someone of rather relaxed scruples) ‘commissioned’ by the real principals, who needed to hide behind such an entity and who are for the time being prepared to fund it’s defence if this serves to provide a necessary hindrance to Rossi’s activities and also depletes his finances.

        Which ‘component’ of the M-I complex is principally involved in the ‘commissioning’ is at the moment anyone’s guess, but the motivation would be much the same (a common interest) in either case – to ‘acquire’ control of all successful CF reactor systems in secrecy, and to simultanously hold back public awareness of such a possibility. The critical difference (military vs. industrial) would be that the military would most likely intend to expoit the technology for military superiority and would therefore seek to keep the whole thing out of general awareness, while an energy cartel would only seek to delay such awareness until ‘they’ are ready to introduce it under their own terms.

        The mere fact that the clamps appear to be slowing being released seems to favour the latter possibility, i.e., that some large energy corporation or alliance of corporations is the party pulling the strings, and that this party is seeking delay until all their ducks are in a row. Their purposes would be simple (as I used to bang on about continually on this blog), i.e., to acquire all viable CF systems and to suppress as required any developers outside their control, and to create circumstances that both publicly reveal the existence of viable LENR reactors, and also propel the introduction worldwide of legislation in order to create a state-enforced monopoly on CF. Use of the controlled medaia to create a perception of great danger would of course be essential to this, but this would probably be mitigated by widespread promotion of the benefits of introduction (obvious) in the ‘right’ hands.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        What I see is that Jones Day is handling this step by step, not all-at-once.

        The License has not been cancelled. The Agreement had no clause allowing that.

        Rossi has not learned an important lesson: the world does not play by his rules.

  • LuFong

    Looks like IH is still trying to track down the mysterious James Bass. From the Doc 42 ruling on IH requests for subpoenas:

    “The Subpoena served upon T-Mobile is hereby ABATED until September 13, 2016. If the Third Party Defendant J.M. Products, Inc. provides counsel for Defendants with the current address and telephone number for its engineer James Bass, on or before September 6, 2016, the Subpoena shall be deemed QUASHED. In the event Defendant J.M. Products, Inc. fails to provide the requisite information within the time allotted, Defendants may enforce the subject Subpoena upon T-Mobile.”

    • Ged

      What’s interesting is the Court eased down and is giving JM Products a chance to provide the contact info, rather than bypassing them for T-Mobile from the getgo. I don’t think IH has anything to do with this action beyond the summons they originally made, and this is all the Court doing what it needs to deliver those summons.

      • LuFong

        I don’t really follow you. It looks like to me that IH is having trouble finding James Bass possibly for questions related to Discovery. All they have is an old phone number (T-Mobile the carrier) and an address (the Doral factory). They have given up trying to find him (asking J.M. Products, Inc; cold calling pubs frequented by rugby players?) and want to subpoena T-mobile to get contact information from them.

        I imagine subpoena’s are a nuisance for companies like T-mobile (and may not actually lead to anything) so they are asking the lawyer for J.M. Products, Inc to provide this information. I’m sure if they ever get his contact information he will be represented by a lawyer anyway.

        But to me this is very strange. Why is it taking so long? Is Rossi just trying to make things difficult for IH or is Rossi trying to hide something? I think the Judge felt that IH has good reason to try to contact James Bass and is giving J.M Products a chance to provide this information after J.M. Products denied their request for contact.

        A simple phone call from James Bass’s employer (probably unknown to IH as well) warranting information James Bass gave IH at their meeting should be sufficient and take all of 5 minutes. If I were IH I would want more information about James Bass then what was alleged at the meeting. What if they never find him?

        • Ged

          But that’s not what the update itself says though. It says the subpoena was abated, that is an intervention in favor of JM. Large companies like T-Mobile have no problems with subpoenas, as they get them quite often and have well worked out mechanisms for it as they are legally obligated to. So that line of logic is just not correct.

          T-Mobile would have his billing information, which of course means his billing address and legal info. No hiding from that.

          So, why not just let the subpoena go through to T-Mobile? Why delay it and give JM a chance? Why did the Court step in in a way that is favorable to JM?

          • LuFong

            I think a subpoena is more burdensome and probably will take more time than a phone call from the lawyer. It will happen though within a week if the information is not there.

            The issue for me is why is it taking so long for IH to find James Bass. This should be trivial matter.

          • Ged

            From the sound of it, they didn’t even try, at least not beyond that business card if that–and instead just went straight to subpoenaing T-Mobile (which will get them all they need), and then the Court abated that for JM to have a chance to answer instead (which implies IH did not approach JM and then show the Court JM could not provide the info, but rather that they never tried and just jumped to T-Mobile and the Court didn’t like that run around). But who knows. Maybe we’ll find out, maybe not–but the Court is giving JM a chance and if they can’t then T-Mobile will provide that information.

            Subpoenas are not as big a deal for a carrier as you may be thinking based on your posts; law enforcement routinely requests such whenever they need phone or text info. In fact, here is how you do it:

            “Subpoenas for T-Mobile:

            Custodian of Records
            T-Mobile Subpoena Compliance
            4 Sylvan Way
            Parsippany NJ 07054
            (f) 973.292.8697
            973.292.8911”

          • LuFong

            I understand that about subpoenas. I find it hard to believe your conjecture that IH did not ask the J.M. Products Inc lawyers for James Bass’s contact information. It probably came up in the discovery meeting as well.

          • Ged

            Same, it is hard to believe. But why else would the subpoena to T-Mobile, which is a trivial and routine thing, be abated to give JM a chance to provide the info? If they couldn’t provide it previously, there would be no point for the abation at all. The only way it makes sense is if they did not actually contact JM and just tried to bypass them and the Court said “nope, this step first”. Just doesn’t make any sense at all otherwise, from what we see at the moment.

          • LuFong

            The subpoena is not a trival thing. It has to be OK’ed by the judge and requires a legal response by T-Mobile. It is a request for private information, and while routinely done, should only be used as a last resort. First resort–call the number on the fake card. Second resort, ask the attorney for the fake company J.M. Products, Inc., which wasn’t even assigned until IH countersued. I think the prosecution is just delaying.

          • Ged

            Prosecution delaying makes even less sense, nor could they here, they have no hand in this. T-Mobile has a whole division and people whose entire jobs are for dealing with subpoenas, and if you read their privacy notice (or any corporation’s) you’ll see that privacy matters do not extend to subpoenas or legal matters–there is no privacy issue to consider. Also, it was already OK’d, or there would be nothing to abate. That logic just doesn’t make any sense at all based on what we see.

            If JM could not provide, then no abation could be given as it would be pointless, and Courts don’t like that. If JM was never actually approached reasonably, then an abation makes sense as an order of operation since JM is an actual party to this case and needs to be communicated with before outside information is sought. That’s the only conclusion that makes sense with what we are given, which implies IH didn’t ask them and now the Court is.

          • LuFong

            What makes sense depends on your point of view and your knowledge of how legal matters work.

          • Ged

            Ok. But as for me, what makes “sense” is what the facts support, and the logical reasoning based there from, more than subjective “point of view”.

          • LuFong

            I question even your “facts” and your interpretation of them.

            Please note that the prosecution objected to the subpoena and is why it was abated by the judge (but will be granted soon if the lawyers don’t provide the requested information). Why would the prosecution object to the subpoena? Are they slighted that they weren’t asked first?

          • Ged

            And why would the Court grant such a request, if it could be shown JM was approached and could not or would not provide the information? If that was actually the case, then just go straight to T-Mobile and be done.

            But if it was not the case, then abate and give JM a chance to answer first before involving outside parties (as has already been OK’d, so that is not the issue).

            Where is the fault in that reasoning given the facts we currently know?

          • LuFong

            I think the judge is giving the prosecution a chance to play nice. I think that the prosecution does not want this information to be disclosed which is why they ignored the request and why the defense had to request a subpoena.

            Discovery should not required subpoenas because contrary to your legal notions, it is a burden and slows down the process. Secondly the information provided by T-Moble may not be correct.

            This makes much more sense especially in the context that it’s been over 6 months now and IH still does not have the contact information for James Bass and probably does not have the name of the company he works for as well (or they would have contacted that company and gotten his contact information).

            The best explanation to me is that prosecution is purposely withholding the information because it is in their best interest to do so.

          • Ged

            That explanation doesn’t hold water though, since T-Mobile will still be subpoenaed if they don’t deliver, and no delay will change that. And why not subpoena JM for the information? They are the party in question. Apparently the Defense went after T-Mobile and the Court abated that and give JM a chance first. And contrary to what you might think about subpoenas, I haven’t seen a legal case where they weren’t used at some point. Of course, the legal system would be more efficient if they were never needed, but sometimes they must be used such as to get otherwise private information, like from T-Mobile in this case (or medical records, client records, anything protected by privacy mechanisms of any sort). Subpoenas are sadly a matter of course, normalized so not a burden, but a necessary mechanism for some processes (hence T-Mobile’s division for them).

            Anyways, there is no major deadline that could be slowed down at the moment for Leonardo’s side (though there is for IH’s, but not impacted here), and it’s no burden to the Court (or T-Mobile), and T-Mobile will have billing information which is more “correct” on the face of it than old information JM would have if the mysterious Mr. Bass no longer works for them. And you can trace it all right back to the bank if necessary, following the money.

          • LuFong

            Thanks for clarifying who was subpoenaed and who objected.

            The Defense for J.M. Products, Inc may have special privileges with regard to subpoenas and some leeway in providing information about their clients. Subpoena’s are used to get evidence from third parties not involved in the suit which explains why the subpoena was against T-Mobile.

            This is something I found about subpoenas: “Before subpoenaing a witness, counsel for the requesting party
            should investigate whether the witness will voluntarily provide the
            sought-after evidence. The requesting party may be able to save
            a significant amount of time and money if the witness is willing to
            voluntarily comply with an informal request for evidence. However,
            even if the witness agrees to voluntarily provide the requested
            evidence, a party may still want to use a subpoena (backed by the
            threat of contempt sanctions for disobedience) to ensure the witness’
            continued cooperation.” [Emphasis mine.]

            It may be that T-Mobile only responds to private information requests via subpoena’s (as you said).

            But the fact remains J.M. Products objected to the subpoena which solicited the ruling by the judge. The judge ruled in IH’s favor by not quashing the subpoena. It was only after the ruling by the Judge overuling the objection to the subpoena which makes this whole thing irrelevant, other than why is the Defense for J.M. Products, Inc. objecting and why hasn’t the Defense for J.M. Products Inc provided this information already?

            I think that there is a good chance that the information on the T-Mobile account is false. I kind of doubt that the head of new products (or whatever his position was) fell off the face of the earth. If James Bass is real and the company behind J.M. Products is real then they can squash the whole issue of the validity of the report very simply.

            But at this time for Count 1, IH is disputing that it was even the contractually defined GPT. I think they may win this one and the identity of James Bass and company he works for may never be known (which is why Rossi is stalling).

          • Ged

            A subpoena is not just for third parties (though that is their most often use), actually, and can be used by one party to the other party, in addition to all the other Discovery methods. See: http://www.weil.com/~/media/files/pdfs/subpoenas-using-subpoenas-to-obtain-evidence.pdf

            For more on Subpoenas, see the Federal Statutes: https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-vi-trials/rule-45-subpoena/

            A bit of analysis on it: http://www.law360.com/articles/494875/amended-rule-45-significantly-alters-subpoena-practice

            And from the view of someone getting a subpoena: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/responding-subpoenas

            In my place of work, a subpoena is the Only way to have the privacy information we store be given to another party other than the person to whom it belongs via written consent. That isn’t a matter of our policy, but required by privacy law which we must obey. A court can’t ask us, they must subpoena us. It is an important, and often used tool (probably always used, but you never know, could find some case that got this far that was an exception).

            JM has 4 days to provide the information, or the subpoena goes out to T-Mobile, so once again, they are delaying nothing and the abation only helps them if they do indeed have the info and simply weren’t asked. A subpoena can only go out after all parties are informed about it, so it is quite reasonable they would object upon learning this was occurring after not having been asked. Either way, the Court gave the abation. Of course they will not Quash the subpoena without the information having been provided somehow–it is necessary information, so the Judge did not overrule an objection, but granted it via the abation.

            Personally, I think this will end up going to T-Mobile. But, you do realize that T-Mobile has call records, actual texts, geographical location records of where the phone was, and of course the holy grail of billing information. Money comes from somewhere, and any person can be found by following the bank trail. That will unequivocally tell us who James Bass is. Don’t underestimate what T-Mobile and any cell carrier knows about the people who use their services–it’s a lot more than you may realize.

            It really doesn’t seem like IH is going to win. But neither does it seem like they are going to lose. There are much too many matters to sort out first, and an objective mind will see that. Besides, the Judge has already pointed out how the GPT did occur per the contract so that Count 1 was already answered, unless they find a new way to spin it than currently presented (the Judge did leave a very specific way open, but I haven’t seen IH take it).

          • LuFong

            We’ll I think we’ve beaten subpoenas to death and what it means for IH/Rossi with neither side apparently budging but at least for me, I can claim I am a little more knowledgeable about things.

            With regard to Count 1, you are aware that IH has requested a motion for judgement (Document 43). It is not true that the Judge has ruled that the GPT has occurred, only denying the motion to dismiss Count 1 based on evidence so far at the time of the Motion To Dismiss. IH has requested that Count 1 be thrown out because the GPT as contractually defined did not occur (based on the 6 cylinder specification in Amendment 2). If the Judge rules in IH’s favor then Count 1 is thrown out. Otherwise the Count moves on based on other issues.

            Bear in mind this is my layman’s interpretation of what’s going on.

          • Ged

            Actually, you are a bit ahead of me for the Count 1 thing. I am just now seeing the update for 43, though I don’t have that document yet, so you have the knowledge advantage there!

            Back when the Judge ruled on the MTD, the Judge left open the specific way to re-challenge her decision on Count 1: the definition of the 6 cylinder plant and if it was fundamentally different enough from the current plant from the view of the contract. That is what I alluded to at the end of my post above, so it is quite amusing timing to learn that is the angle they are now pursuing. It is their best counter attack for Count 1.

            Honestly, I have no idea how the Court will rule on this, so it’ll be very interesting to see how it turns out. You are very right there, it could break this case for Leonardo here and now, and then we’ll probably never know all the stuff Discovery would have forced to light, such as who James Bass was…

          • LuFong

            It’s out their now. I got it through lenr-forum and as far as I know it’s as I described.

            My view is that it would be based on a technicality but if the technicality of what E-Cat was used for the test was important enough to write a second amendment then a third amendment should have been written up.

            This civil suit stuff so far is all about shutting the doors that you can using a relatively inexpensive legal arguments before a judge before having to go through the expensive trial process.

          • Ged

            That’s the problem with technicalities, it’s really hard to guess how the Judge will view it. I can’t speculate at all beyond that the Judge originally left this path open, so it’s likely she will view it favorably for IH. I’ll have to read the document when I have more time to get a sense of exactly what they are going for.

            And there is still a whole ton of time before the trial to do plenty more of this jockying for shutting the most doors.

          • Ged

            “Contract conditions are subject to change by mutual agreement, and
            should always be recorded simply to prevent this type of dispute, but
            the failure to record an agreed change does not invalidate the change,
            especially when such change in the agreement is evidenced by the willful
            actions of all parties, demonstrating that mutual acceptance of the
            change to that contract.

            Verbal contracts are still honored in Court. Verbal amendments to written contracts are also valid – just messy.”

            That is all entirely true. It is something that was hammered into me way back when in class by our professor who was also a practicing lawyer (a professional is so much more fun than a professor usually is). The Judge brought it up too.

            Thank you for your “by the numbers” analysis and thoughts on the Six Cylinder angle. I stand corrected.

          • Chapman

            OH, I had no intention or desire of correcting you in any way. Your observations are spot on! I was merely supporting your conclusions by clarifying the underlying legal principles that prove your point.

            Your thoughts are ALWAYS on target.

          • wpj

            And don’t forget, it was their people who built it- for what purpose???

          • TomR

            I made my donation 10 minutes ago. I had made one before but the reminder made me remember my other donation was quite a while ago. I thank you, Frank, as do all of us here.

          • Omega Z

            If I were a judge, I would look at this as a bate a switch tactic by IH/Darden and company. The original contract was for the Low temp E-cats. Made up of 100-10KW units or 4-250KW units, it’s still low temp E-cat technology.

            The “Six cylinder unit” is based on Hot cat technology. As anyone who has followed closely would know, the Hot cat is still very much in R&D. In my opinion, you may get a COP=0.97 or COP>10, but nothing you can be certain of on average. This would be in IH/Dardens favor to test the six cylinder unit which could possibly allow them to pay Rossi much less then the $89M. Thus they would be legally stealing Rossi’s IP due to this switching tech tactic….

            Lets just cut to the chase. This has nothing to do with Rossi’s E-cats producing excess heat or not. This is an out right Patent War. Everything else is smoke, mirrors and noise to distract everyone from this fact.

            Statement from Mitchell Jones “Woofford fund”- The company is indeed engaged in a legal dispute regarding the “ownership” of some of its intellectual property but it is not uncommon for early-stage businesses to be caught up in such disputes.

            Darden and friends should keep 1 thing in mind. At Rossi’s age, he doesn’t have that much to lose. He could hand his R&D over to a Country that has very little respect for IP rights. Thus, If Darden and friends should win the right to keep Rossi’s IP, they may find it has little value. Investors will shy away from something they can’t protect their investments in.

            I’m certain China would be happy to increase their trade imbalance in their favor by an additional Trillion$ plus per year at the expense of rest of the World.

            Note:Did Darden consent. Industrial heat personnel built the 1MW plant and Darden and pal’s were quit happy to bring potential investors to witness it in action. Sounds like a GPT setup to me.

          • Obvious

            How is the signed contract change a bait and switch (note “Six Cylinder Unit” appears 6 times in the second amendment, section 5. Guaranteed Performance, plus one “Six Cylinder Hot Cat”), while the Customer demonstration change into a GPT, without any mention of a GPT beforehand, or by Rossi on JoNP until September 2015 (8 months into the test, when he suddenly mention “ERV” 7 times in one post), is not a bait and switch?

          • Omega Z

            The original agreement was for the Low temp E-cat.

            Any who have followed knows the Hot cat was not & is not ready for such a GPT test. This has obviously been pushed by Darden who controlled the purse strings(Forced to switch). Having been in business and partnerships, I have been pressured to change agreements. I always pushed back. Even if it should cost me my business, I was of the view I started with nothing. I could do it again. People push less when they find you’re willing to stand on principle.

            As to Rossi’s timing of mentioning the ERV, Doesn’t matter when Rossi brought it up. The ERV was there from the beginning. The 1MW was built by IH/Darden people. The ERV was signed off by Darden with shared payment 50/50 for services. This was the GPT.

            If Darden wanted a test performed with the “Six Cylinder Unit”, fine, but it should be separate from the original GPT agreement. R&D does not bend to time.

          • Obvious

            The deal for the GPT was explicit. If Rossi did not like the amendment, he should not have signed it. Or negotiated to change to it to a “cold cat” 6 pack, if the Hot cats were not ready for 12 months of operation.

            Darden/IH did control the purse strings. That is the real Customer to be satisfied. Mercatus Veritas and all that.

          • Frank Acland
          • John Littlemist

            “Whoops! Page not found”

          • Omega Z

            LuFong,

            Here’s where you go off track. It’s not IH doing this. IH turns over pertinent info to their Lawyers.

            Lawyers try to contact Bass. No Joy.
            Lawyer to IH, Do you have additional contact info for Bass?
            IH- No, We’ll see what we can find.
            Lawyer- Don’t bother. That’s what you pay US for.

            Phone call to IH. 1 hour. No joy
            Paper work to issue a subpoena. 2 hours.

            Billable Hours–___3
            Billable Rate–$1000
            —————————
            Receivable— $3000

            Welcome to America…

          • LuFong

            I’m sure it’s expensive. But $3K compared to $300M is nothing. The identity of James Bass and the company he works for could be worth $300M (or enough to recover damages and costs).

          • Gerard McEk

            I guess IH misjudged the situation when they decided not to pay AR. They didn’t thought AR would go to court and demand payment. They thought that just by claiming that LENR is scientifically impossible this trial was easy to settle. But for the law the commonly assigned ERV is all that’s important. Only if both IH and AR would say that the ERV didn’t do a proper job then the situation would be different, but AR agrees with the ERV.
            I would be very disappointed if the case would be dismissed on technicalities, so let’s hope AR arranged everything properly.

          • wpj

            Maybe the mobile phone is registered to a company, rather than an individual, and that Leonardo wants this connection to be revealed.

        • Omega Z

          “rugby players”

          Something didn’t seem to square up about that at the time of discussion. It’s hard to be a major player/officer in business and be on a sports team going to school or whatever.

          I had this thought. The rugby player in the right community is more likely the son of the James Bass that works for JM Products. I find that much more plausible.

          As to JM products and cooperation. I have no doubt they prefer to remain as anonymous as possible. If you were them, would you want drug into the public eye. 10’s of 1000’s of web hits, nuisance phone calls from a variety of entities, crucified on the internet for having any involvment at all with such technology. A Total Nightmare. Until officially on the market, this is not a good technology to be associated with. Very bad for ones business reputation…

          • LuFong

            I said the part about “rugby players” as a bit of a joke. I don’t really buy that connection either but it did make some people giddy that there may indeed be a James Bass.

            I also don’t buy the privacy argument. Large corporations are set up to handle publicity. This would be very good publicity. Look at IH or Cherokee. They’ve managed to maintain their privacy and avoid the problems you speak of and they are a relatively small company. And that is because the number of people following this saga would be pretty small even with this positive publicity.

          • Omega Z

            Wrong about the privacy issue.

            Having connections with LENR/Cold Fusion is like being associated with a child molester. No one wants to know or do business with you. Associating with LENR/Cold Fusion is an academic career ender if you don’t have tenure. It’s why most of those involved with it are old or retired.

            If you’re involved with this technology, then maybe I should buy my product elsewhere, because frankly, I’m not sure I can trust your business integrity.

        • Chapman

          Friend, I am not disagreeing with you. In general, the entire status quo sucks. It is the worst possible way of handling things, and leads to all kinds of justified doubt and speculation. I absolutely agree with you about that.

          But THIS legal action, as a stand alone issue, is about day-to-day contract issues. It simply is not the forum where the secrets of LENR or the E-Cat are going to be revealed.

          That being said, I am as eager as you are for the real answers. I get just as pissed and exasperated with the NDA’s, the Outrageous claims without ANY proofs, and the tendency of these folks to stick to close circles of friends and associates. There is nothing so annoying as seeing a new name appear as an outside party, only to discover that person is just another one of the same extended family. I really do get your point! I am simply separating my frustration over the overall situation from my analysis of the legal facts relating to this court case.

          Would YOU personally be satisfied with the results if a truly independent test was performed by a team at MIT, or Uppsala, or MFMP? I mean without a theory being peer-reviewed or even published, but just a physical test of an E-Cat performed on the west coast while Rossi stayed 2000 miles away – would THAT quell your doubt and convert you to a true believer?

          • georgehants

            Chapman, enjoy your clear well thought out comments with that human touch, that I think, hits the nail squarely on the head most of the time

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            I’m focused on Rossi v. Darden. The reality of the “Rossi Effect” is actually unlikely to ever go to trial in that case. If somehow Rossi has kept evidence of acceptance of Doral as a GPT hidden, then maybe it could move into the next phase. Otherwise, it’s totally dead before trial, the Complaint will ultimately be dismissed, once the failure is clearly established; Annesser is just postponing the day, if he succeeds. He has to try. However, I do not see that he is trying with high skill, he is arguing in ways that I’d imagine would alienate the Judge, with profuse and outraged verbosity. If he’s like that in person, Jones Day will make mincemeat out of him. Hence Rossi needs Chaiken et al.

  • sam

    A comment from LENR forum.
    IH Fanboy
    User Avatar
    Professional
    6 hours ago+1
    The factual issues, such as the propriety of the customer, will not be dealt with in a motion to dismiss, as noted in the first footnote:

    Footnote:
    1 Defendants’ factual inaccuracies are not properly considered in a Motion to Dismiss therefore will not be discussed
    herein.

    As for the GPT:

    Main argument is that IH complained that the test of the plant did not “perform up to the standards set forth in the License Agreement” but at the same time pretends like the test is not the GPT as set forth in the License Agreement. So it is as if IH implicitly admits that the test was the GPT, but explicitly denies it (my interpretation of Leonardo/Rossi’s argument).

    Count I:
    Standing: Rossi’s argument is that IH transferred its rights to IPH, and therefore, lacks standing to assert a breach claim.
    Unable to replicate claim: … “notwithstanding Defendants’ allegation they have been unable to ‘generate measureable excess energy’, they freely acknowledge that numerous third parties have been successful in generating an energy multiplier (COP) ranging from COP 2.6 to COP 10.85. (DE:30, ¶57, 58, 68).” So, basically, Rossi is saying that the claim that they were unable to replicate the tech is “self-serving conjecture” in light of the other acknowledgements. And I suppose that if it gets you out of having to pay $89 for something, then yes, might be self-serving.

    Count II:
    Standing: no standing for reason mentioned in Count I.
    Alleged “non-compete”: Rossi’s argument that the express language of the agreement is not a “non-compete” (and true enough, it isn’t). Section 13.3 of the license agreement prohibits Leonardo from owning another competitor-company, not licensing technology to it. Rossi points to Exhibit D “List of Exclusive Commercial Licensees” as evidence that IH understood this well (the list covers licenses to other entities covering Norther Europe, Australasia, Africa, India, France, Benelux, Slovenia, Italia, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Malta, Greece, the Balkans and Cyprus). Rossi refutes IH’s position that they are entitled to prevent Rossi/Leonardo from continuing their work globally. IH’s license was limited geographically.
    Failure to pay taxes: Rossi states that the taxes have been paid, and then pretty much smacks down the allegation that tax liens might attach (they wouldn’t regardless).

    Count III:
    Fraud claim: main argument is that IH failed to meet the heightened pleading requirements for a fraud claim. Although the facts are disputed, these are not to be addressed in a motion to dismiss (see footnote above).
    Standing: no standing for previously stated reasons.

    Count IV:
    Unconscionable/unfair/deceptive acts and practices: Rossi is arguing that IH recast a breach of contract claim as a tort, which is not permitted under Florida law. Maybe not the strongest argument, but neither was the allegation.
    Backup argument: IH failed to meet heightened pleading requirement for a tort claim.

    There is my concise analysis. You will get the book version from Abd. 😉

    All in all, the arguments seem sound, but I’m sure there will be plenty of twists and turns. The fun really begins once we get into factual inquiries and analysis.

    • Omega Z

      This pretty much reads as IH wants complete and total control of Rossi’s technology. To distribute or withhold the technology at there leisure.

      Given Tom Dardens connections, this reeks of big money(TPTB) trying to totally control everything. Statements such as “A new energy becoming available in about 15 years” by individuals such as Al Gore and Bill Gates.

      Why would they want to delay. These people have Big Green investments in process. It will take years(Maybe a decade or more) for these investments to play out to a point they can dump them on other unsuspecting investors.

      Most here think they(TPTB) could make a fortune off LENR now.They (TPTB) think we can make a fortune off of our Green projects now and another fortune off of LENR later.

      SEE That is why they are Rich and you are Not.

      • cashmemorz

        Another, maybe more realistic view, is that IH is just very careful in trying to “substantiate ” the action of the E-CAT for investor confidence. Taking the slow and long route in order o get this done as part of their ongoing due diligence and IH’s judgement that so far the E-CAT ERV is unsubstantiated, again for the purpose of taking the required time to gain or building up investor confidence. NOT trying to get more IP for themselves. This viewpoint seems more in line with good business practices. Enough with the cloak and daggers.

        • Guru Khalsa

          Maybe it’s good business practice or maybe it is business as usual, either way when the best interests of IH is in conflict with the inventor of the Ecat isn’t IH making the judgement it doesn’t need the Ecat and has something better we don’t know about.

          Maybe IH is playing a delay game until this new technology that Woodford has done due diligence on is ready and Rossi who is perceived as difficult to work with is edged out. Did investors pressure IH because of Rossi’s past? A lot of speculation I know but it would seem to fit the facts.

          But the question is in this scenario did the Rossi law suit force IH’s hand, and did it miscalculate with the emergence of the quarkX. More cloak and less dagger I am sure.

          • timycelyn

            Nope, read what he has said many, many times before putting in reject words in his mouth.

            He has said his defensive strategy is twofold:

            1. Erecting as much of an IP barrier as he can
            2.Make the product so cheap and at such a scale (I am guessing that a lot of the IP is aimed at protecting this) that reverse-engineering will never cut the ground out from under him

            So your argument is based on a false premise….

    • cashmemorz

      Why and how Rossi acts in response to IH statements, starting with the “unsubstantiated ERV report”, shows that AR is not much of a business man. If he was then he would not have done the knee jerk reaction to that statement by IH and gone straight to court. Rossi should have asked questions of IH why they were taking a negative view of the one year test, the nonpayment of the $89million being a major addendum to IH’s claim. In other words communicate in a business like fashion to progress inside the business rather than outside of their business relation by way of legal action. Rossi gets easily p..sed off by actions he does not fully understand. That is his major drawback. He probably has developed a thick skin from his earlier energy enterprise mishaps. And on the other hand is oversensitive when someone may only seem to get on his bad side.

      • Mats002

        Well, I think any inventor/entrepeneur having spent a great deal of lifetime in a ‘baby’ – I have that experience myself – has personal strong feelings about it’s value. Investors and partners cannot see it that way. For them it is strictly business.

      • sam

        I think along the same line as you.Also making business decisions while working 16 to 18 hours a day 7 days a week was not wise.
        Thanks for a good job of putting it into words.

  • sam

    From Lenr forum.
    woodfordfunds.com/insight/wpct…esults-2016/#comment-8932
    MITCHELL FRASER-JONES wrote:

    Hi Mark,

    Thanks for your comment.

    As we have stated previously, the investment in Industrial Heat was the product of 2 years of due diligence. The company is indeed engaged in a legal dispute regarding the ownership of some of its intellectual property but it is not uncommon for early-stage businesses to be caught up in such disputes. More importantly, the claims relate to just one part of Industrial Heat’s technology suite. The company has built up a very interesting portfolio of promising cold fusion technologies that are currently undergoing in-house testing, followed by external validation.

    We are very confident about the investment in Industrial Heat and excited about its considerable long-term potential. Clearly, however, we cannot guarantee that it will be successful. As Neil mentions in the report, not all businesses will fulfil the potential that we saw in them when we first invested. We employ a rigorous due diligence process for all investments, large or small. What follows this due diligence process is a valuation judgement. This judgement draws on all the intelligence gathered through the due diligence phase, supplemented by judgements that Neil makes about the returns that success would deliver, the risks that potentially stand in the way of that success, as well as a range of other judgements about the broader market environment and investment opportunity set.

    In this instance, the result of that work is a positive judgement on Industrial Heat. It is by no means a risk-free investment, but then again, nothing ever is. In our view, however, the potential long-term rewards justify those risks.

    Kind regards
    Mitch

    • Ged

      It would be very interesting to see what else IH is doing then, as Woodford speaks on. It’s also really cool finally having their view on this, and especially curious that they are seeing it as an IP ownership dispute. I guess the folks who have been saying that’s what this is really about are probably correct then, or at least, are supported by Woodford in that vein.

      • cashmemorz

        Again and again I have stated my view which upholds exactly what Woodford Funds just stated. That being that the whole legal thing is about due diligence on the part of IH. Since IH and Woodford have reasonably high confidence in LENR, which includes the E-CAT, then the legal activity on the part of IH is just more due diligence and further action consisting of judgements. This judgement first was shown by IH when they stated that the one year E-CAT test was unsubstantiated. That is their judgement, not an outright claim of the E-CAT not working. And the legal proceeding are also “normal” where there may be still some doubt about how the IP is carved up between the major parties. So IH is not trying to take over the IP of the E-CAT, but more of straightening out the details of the business relationship in terms of the IP

  • Barbierir

    So what happened to Penon, Johnson and Fabiani? I thought they were to provide some answers by last week. The docket on pacermonitor continues saying the are new updates but no new documents are actually visible.

    • Ged

      They were given a waiver for 60 days, same as what Rossi gave IH in the beginning.

  • Michael W Wolf

    Hmm, where are the super skeptics? Have they been ordered not to respond? I am thinking Sifferkoll’s FUD team angle may be correct.

    • wpj

      They arrived 3h ago!

    • Ged

      Considering I am getting error filled replies to comments I made -10 days ago- as part of the attempt to alter the narrative in view of this update (and since their previous talking points were thoroughly dismantled by the community), the “being paid to do this” angle is looking hilariously possible. At the very least, they are getting unwarranted and biased zeal from somewhere.

  • Andrew

    /popcorn

  • nietsnie

    I think you are right, Chapman. The issue has come down to contract law – and that would seem to favor Rossi. Still – it’s hard to understand why IH would let it get this far and not have something more up their sleeve than what they’ve shown. It would have been cheaper for them to just hand over the dough. If even we in the peanut gallery could see this coming – why couldn’t they?

    • Obvious

      There are plenty of things waiting to come out. We haven’t heard about the Florida Health inspection yet, for one.

      • Steve Swatman

        That would be IH’s problem.

        • Obvious

          How so?

          • Steve Swatman

            The test was done under IH control, and under contract with IH, their lawyers should have been aware of any and all inspection and possible health hazards, local laws and local regulations.

            They had people on site and those people should have made IH aware of any issues, and IH should have stopped the test if it knew of any irregularities or health hazards… they did not, they did not lodge any complaints and they received quarterly reports as well as their daily staff reports, so either they were complicit or negligent.

          • Obvious

            Leonardo was the operator of part of the operation, but JMP is the responsible party for actions taking place within their business premises. IH has little to do with it, since they are in NC, and this is Florida jurisdiction. Leonardo warranted to IH that they would get Florida Health approval, which makes them responsible (as well as JMP), especially since they are a Florida registered company, doing business in Florida.

            Anyways, it is not necessarily safety violations (that would be an extra problem, if there were such issues) that are the potential problem with the Florida Health inspection. It is the rumored lack of employees and a radiator that they found on the JMP side of the wall. I would like to see if that is true, wouldn’t you? Florida Health reports quarterly on inspections and results, but they come out delayed from the end of the quarter. There should be the period in question available soon, since I saw no reports on JMP for the first half of the demonstration, so far.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      Contract law: an explicit requirement for written agreement of all parties to a thing sets up a strong presumption. It can be overcome, but not merely by vague impressions. Rossi implies agreement without ever actually alleging it. He set this up, to create conditions where IH would cooperate with maintaining and observing the Doral power installation and thus appear to be accepting a GPT. Notice the pattern: no caution on Rossi’s part. He never signed the Second Amendment for Leonardo, nor did he get his old friend, Cassarino, of Ampenergo to sign. At least not that copy, nor did he, then, obtain a copy of the fully signed Amendment.

      Then he did not get a written agreement to the Doral installation as beginning the GPT. Not even close. Yet he has all this sympathy for having worked so hard for a year. Why did he miss that “detail”?

      The fraud story is that he missed it because he could not obtain that agreement, except by stealth and deception as an “apparent agreement.” He avoided the question until the “test” was already under way. “Hey, I’d like that excellent nuclear engineer to monitor the Plant for us, you know, Penon. Will you share the cost?”

      I doubt there was, at that point, any mention of GPT.

  • Steve Swatman

    Did you ever think why all the investors in all the LENR stories seem to have this “incestuous” relationship between the law firms and patent trolls. FTFY

    • Ged

      Can’t delay what is two months away (Third party answers) when a reply to this MTS/MTD is needed within this month. Sorry, but you are mistaken. Only IH pulled the MTD-as-a-delay-not-to-answer card.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    They cut checks and *maybe* received them from JMP, but that was about a sale of power, that is how it was sold. The evidence is clear: Doral was sold by Rossi to IH as a sale of power and demonstration. There was no mention of “test.” The Second Amendment clearly required the written consent of all parties to the setting of the GPT start date (which would presumably include all conditions). While it is possible to show estoppel on a requirement like that, the acceptance must be more than a faux acceptance created by set-up resemblances. They consented to what they consented to, not to a label pasted on it later by Rossi.

    If the Rossi Effect is real, Rossi screwed up big-time by not getting signatures to an explicit agreement. Any lawyer would have told him to do that. So, to believe his story, he invested a year of hard work without getting a clear contractual assurance that it would pay off. He set up a faux “GPT” that IH would never sensibly have agreed to as a GPT. (Secret customer area? No access for the IH engineer? You have to be kidding!) And he did this to avoid a GPT as IH apparently suggested, in their facility in North Carolina, or some reasonable substitute there (such as reliability and sustainability testing of individual units, much easier and actually more informative).

    With what IH knew before the end of 2014, they would not have agreed to Penon as “ERV,” nor could Rossi have forced it from the Second Agreement. If Rossi believed that IH was being dilatory, and they refused to negotiate, he could have gone to court to force a GPT, but it would have been on fair terms as worked out in court or in a settlement.

  • cashmemorz

    Or they are invested via money or jobs in fossil fuel, renewable energy. Lenr would or will threaten their investment. Anything to put negative spin on LENR to keep investment going. So, yes, not working for free, but income in some way other than LENR.

  • cashmemorz

    Appreciate the kind words. Whether I have noble spirit or not, (I know I am average kind of mindset as far as that goes), is beside the point. Point being there may be more than one possible reason for IH acting as they are. Since we do not have all the facts to support either ID or AR for good or for bad, then another side to balance the rhetoric was needed. So I got into the rhetoric with something I found missing. And I could be totally wrong, and the negative points about IH could be wrong so much that IH may be even a worse bunch than any of us imagined. That is why I gave my 2 cents. Messiah complex aside.

    • cashmemorz

      I too have been jaded several times. This is why some investors will not part with some good funds they have ready for investing in LENR. For this reason I can understand why IH is not willing to pay out any more than absolutely necessary to anybody including AR for his IP. To earn the $89 million, AR will have to walk thru some tough ground such as the court case and maybe more. This tactic may continue, as some here have noticed to be a delaying tactic, but as I see it, not to give the powers that be time to get their ducks in a row, but rather until there are sufficient numbers in terms of investment dollars to make it all worthwhile for IH to pay Rossi. It will not necessarily mean that AR has proven that the E-Cat works. It may all be a complex scam somehow on the part of ROSSI. All IH probably wants, in my scenario, is to get enough investment money to be able to continue with LENR sector of investments with a healthy balance for the foreseeable future. If they pay Rossi, it will mean that the investment conditions have improved to the point that investors have put sufficient money towards LENR to make IH able, on their part to continue paying for IP. This will indicate that IH has done sufficient due diligence to convince some hard to convince investors. After this IH will have to do even more convincing to convince even harder to convince investors. Or the convincing will come from others, like Brillouin, Bright Light or anyone else who has the ability to convince IH of their IP.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    mmm… Cal Tech. I was there for two years (61-63) plus one term after a year absence. By an amazing stroke of (luck, was it?) I was in the Feynman Lectures on Physics.

    The work for a LENR breakthrough is under way. When I proposed it, there was much opinion that it wasn’t necessary, since Rossi would have power plants in Home Depot by next year. I could not know that this was wrong, exactly, but I saw that we could not let the energy future of humanity depend on one particular business.

    So I called the Home Depot idea — or available commercial device — Plan A and developed Plan B, and the first step in Plan B was to confirm, with increased precision, the heat/helium ratio in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect. This is direct evidence of LENR, it is reproducible and has already been widely reproduced, but there were issues with precision (Storms estimates the ratio as experimentally measured at 25 +/- 5 MEeV/4He, whereas the deuterium fusion theoretical value is 23.8 MeV/4He, if there is full helium capture and no radiation energy leakage.)

    The proposal was accepted. For part of it, at least, I’m told I will be credited. (I actually did notice something that had been overlooked. You can do that if you study a field for a few years, eyes open.)

    As this would be new work, done by reputable labs with expert management, it will be publishable in a major journal. More than one lab is involved (two definitely, Texas Tech and ENEA), they want more. They apparently just got $5 million from Texas Tech, and may have more money from other sources.

    LENR is coming, make no bones about it.

    Rossi was a burp, a hiccup, or maybe a bad night after drinking too much, but life moves on. And Plan A is still in place. Unless Rossi ends up in jail — or even if! — a real device, if he has one, is worth billions.

    IH is even ready for it, they have a License and, no, sorry, Rossi cannot unilaterally cancel the License. He seems to believe that “Rossi says” creates a universal reality.

  • Ged

    Pacermonitor updates every day for me, but I keep an eye with multiple systems to avoid caching problems.

    Again, I am just kindly telling you that you may cease advertising when you reply to me. If you want to in replies to others, go ahead. But you have done so enough times in reply to me, that I respectfully ask that you refrain as I am not interested, and not in need. But thank you anyways for the repeated posts.

    • Eyedoc

      OK, here’s my 2 cents……….IH knows the cat works….and will end up paying the $89M in the end, in settlement & therefore want to KEEP the rights (that’s where the attorneys will actually EARN their money)…all this BS/(obvious nonsense) in the meantime, is just IH being paid BIG $$$/(and or coerced) to delay, delay, delay LENR………..sooo, question is how long can they play the court out? ……..I know it sounds ‘conspiracy’ , but this whole thing is too wacky to be just incompetence from the largest Law & PR firms in the US.
      Fortunately AR is just forging ahead in Europe! (what can possibly roadblock him there ???) We will soon find out

      • Obvious

        The more likely explanation is that there is no conspiracy to hide the technology, because IH have tested it thoroughly, in many iterations, (even when helped by Rossi himself), and it does not work, and IH means what they say.

        • Timar

          “because IH have tested it thoroughly, in many iterations… and it does not work…”

          …and happily paid $10 million thereafter.

          Sorry, but that sounds more ridiculous than most conspiracy theories one could conceive.

          • Obvious

            When a magician pulls a dove from a hat, was it in the hat all along?
            (Rabbits bite, so they rarely take rabbits from hats except in cartoons)

          • Stanny Demesmaker

            Lugano proves that the hot cat works, IH answer didn’t contain any specific critiques and we know that Dewey was double checking that report for errors. If you “think” it doesn’t proof anything, find me an expert who disagrees.

            For some people science doesn’t exist, everything is fluid, facts don’t matter.

          • Obvious

            I tested the alumina emissivity problem myself. Empirically and mathematically. Both show the reported COP based on their assumptions is wrong to the point of zero provable excess heat.

            You can heat up a slice of alumina and test it yourself with some sort of IR device and see what the emissivity is. I strongly suggest you do.

          • cashmemorz

            So you say. If that were true then the Lugano team would have owned up to that to protect their reputation just in case of the scenario you state.

          • Obvious

            One would hope so. But apparently that is not the case.

            With about $70 to $100 worth of equipment, the IR camera spectral emissivity function for alumina between 7.5 and 13 microns, which is the IR band that the camera “sees” in (typical cheap IR laser pointer guns are often using 8 to 14 microns; close enough), one can easily determine that the IR camera (or IR gun) emissivity function should be set to between 0.85 and 1.0 . Or just watch the MFMP Glowiness Test video, where this is incredibly obvious.

          • Stanny Demesmaker

            “An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

            Brian Ahern just called me to say that he spoke with expert in thermal imaging. The expert went over the paper and said this was exactly the right kind of camera for these materials and this range of temperatures. The guy said surface roughness and various other factors come into play. He knows something about alumina and he said these are the instruments and wavelengths he would select.

            Brian said his own doubts have been resolved.

            Normally I would have jotted down more details, such as the expert’s name, but I didn’t because Brian promised to send me a note with the particulars. It occurs to me he is not a good correspondent. He is a busy bee. If he does not send me the info I’ll call him back and get it.

            This expert does things like measure the temperature of rocket plumes. I told Brian I have heard of people using IR cameras for volcanoes. They are good for uncontrolled, high temperature phenomena.”

            I doubt you have any practical or professional experience with the type of calorimetry used in the Lugano report. Because then you have to actually own what you say and can’t make up false statements. That’s also the reason why till this day no expert has dismissed the report.

          • Obvious

            Ask Brian Ahern his opinion now…

            Anyways, IR calorimetry can be used, if used properly. Alumina is a selective emitter, which throws a wrench in the IR method if the selective emittance is ignored. Simple calibration to the temperatures used would have highlighted the issue. Even just roasting one of the Rods with a torch would work enough to get an idea that something wasn’t quite right, if they were worried about damaging the reactor. Or how about one of the two spares?

          • Stanny Demesmaker

            To make a case against the work of 6 professors of 3 universities you have to have actual qualifications. Which you don’t have, I also doubt that the professors (and +++ peer reviewers) will make the silly mistakes that you described. I think as long as you don’t have the qualifications and don’t have an expert review to back up your claims, you will just have to accept the results.

          • Obvious

            To make a case against the work of 6 professors, it is as easy as demonstrating the error. Anyone can do it. You can do it.

            In this case, just heat up some alumina with a thermocouple attached, and examine the reported temperature with an IR device. Adjust the IR emissivity function to get close agreement between the thermocouple temperature reading and the IR temperature reading. Or use specific melting points of some material for temperature reference points. (Attaching a thermocouple to alumina effectively is a bit tricky, but perfection isn’t required to get the general proof.) Try several temperatures.

            My qualifications are better than yours, because I have done the experiment. And I do not claim to own the proof. I have repeatedly given simple instructions on how to obtain the proof. Anyone who has done the experiment has come up with similar answers. There are many papers about it, by experts in IR effects in alumina, that have nothing to do with Lugano (so they are not prejudiced to the Lugano work in one way or another). Look up “Manara + alumina” in Google for some examples. Watch the MFMP “Glowiness Test” video.

          • Obvious

            Here; perhaps a picture can save me 1000 words.

          • Obvious

            Here you can see the effect on T that different ε have, with the same spectral radiance (“glowiness”).

          • wpj

            What I could not understand in these arguments is that they paid 50% for the ERV while saying there was no “V” in this year long run and it was simply the sale of energy.

            Let’s see.

          • Obvious

            There may have been no sale of energy.

            lH denies paragraph 22.

            There seems to be no evidence that IH actually invoiced JMP, or that JMP actually made any payments for the energy that they claimed they recieved.

          • Guru Khalsa

            Not sure who the rabbit is and who is the dove, nor the magician.

            I thought there was ‘intensive IH testing,’ but IH is denying this and says they were only selling power and there was no GPT.

            It is true Leonardo was suppose to transfer ALL IP, but only in so far as it was agreed upon, and what was agreed upon was that:

            Leonardo and/or Rossi is the sole owner of the…E-Cat IP and… WHEREAS Leonardo, Rossi and AEG desire to grant to the Company an exclusive license to utilize the E-Cat IP and to manufacture and sell the E-Cat Products in the Territory as set forth herein…

            This is all from the first page of the License Agreement. The word License is repeated several times in that document, the title of the document is LICENSE AGREEMENT.

            The key word here is License. When you get a license to drive a car it does not mean you own the road even if you get all the documentation. If you think you own the road you are susceptible to road rage and may end up in court which is where we are now.

            I don’t see where it says Rossi will transfer ownership of the E-Cat IP. If that was the case the document wouldn’t be call License Agreement but would be called something like Sales Agreement.

            I agree there is a disconnect though.

          • Obvious

            I agree with some of what you say, but I don’t really have an opinion on the license issue. The intensive IH testing I was referring to was in Raleigh, NC. One would assume they need the IP do do anything in regards to manufacturing the devices. IH built much of the Plant, and the Lugano device. So they do know how to make working tech, or some bad testing methodology made it seem like the stuff they made worked. Seems like even the IH stuff only works when Rossi is running it, or has something to do with it. But not when he is not there (unless he organizes it to be done some sort of way). And reportedly not even when Rossi and the IH engineers are both there (in NC).That is another weird disconnect. Rossi has a general distrust of computer logging of data, preferring handwritten data. That is fine for some things, but not messy input power, for example. One needs to record that stuff at least three times the frequency of change to get usable information. Impossible for a human.

            Some people claim that IH had their people in the Doral Plant to monitor everything. Fabiani and Penon can hardly be called IH people in this case, even if partly paid by IH. Perhaps White was the IH guy. I notice that he is not being subpoenaed by IH, or otherwise mentioned in the case. Rossi does not mention him either. He may be a very interesting witness, if called in to testify.

          • Guru Khalsa

            Sorry but I can’t help but ask can you explain the rabbit/magician remark?

          • Obvious

            Something can be made to look real or like it is doing something, even if it is not.

            Lugano is a great example. The report looked great at first and even second glances. But taking it apart, piece by piece, things start showing up that were not obvious and yet have a huge impact on the original conclusions.

            Maybe if the Professors calibrated the IR properly to a very high alumina temperature, they might have noticed that there was a temperature measurement problem, and they could have corrected it, and then made the reactor actually go over 1000 °C, and it might actually have worked with a reasonably high COP. But maybe is pointless in retrospect.

          • Guru Khalsa

            Maybe this is what they did.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK_04Mz0Bp0

          • Obvious

            I learned how to levitate maybe 10 cm (like Chris Angel) from the web.
            (But not from him).

          • Stanny Demesmaker

            Obvious, can you just stop telling the lie that Lugano is debunked? You don’t have any qualification to make that call, show me a review by an expert in Infrared thermographic calorimetry that confirms your statements. The only expert we know of, confirms that it is perfectly done. It’s easy to just make up things if you don’t have to own up to it. That’s why your comments are totally meaningless, there is no price to pay if you’re wrong.

          • Obvious

            Show my review below to a Qualified Expert for review. Go ahead. Report your findings to us. Perhaps Jed would be so kind as to send my review below to his rocket nozzle thermo measurement expert for examination. I would welcome it.

            Meanwhile you complain that my analyses are wrong, without substantively offering a real objection, other than your opinion that in essence says you don’t like it, therefore it must be wrong, or that Professors are immune to making mistakes.

            I came to my conclusions trying to prove the Lugano report was correct. Unfortunately, I was unsuccessful for the very reasons that I have reported below.

            The price to pay for your misinformed opinion is you making bad decisions. The price I have to pay for knowing the truth is listening to baloney based on bad information from people that refuse to test my reports with experiments and/or properly examine the arguments. Simple experiments that might take a few minutes. The arguments (not simply arguing) I have made are more complex, but I have laid them out before everyone for discussion. But all arguments fail in the face of empirical testing. Do some!

            Who else has tried an alumina ε test? What were your results?

            The review: (editing…)

          • Obvious

            Sorry, named the MFMP test wrong earlier. It is the Lugano Thermal Veriication.
            Here is the link, hopefully starting at the most useful point (if all goes well)

            https://youtu.be/uxTos11fcs8?t=7384

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            I agree this is a “License Agreement” NOT a Sales Agreement, there are legal definitions for both.

          • Obvious

            Actually, it is both. The Plant was sold to IH as part of the first $1.5 million.

            “Upon execution of this Agreement, the Company will pay to Leonardo One Million
            Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1.500.000), which amount shall be deemed to include payment in full for the Plant”.

            “Concurrently with delivery of the Plant, Leonardo will execute and deliver a
            customary bill of sale providing for a lien free sale and transfer of the Plant to the
            Company.”

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Pretty clear: The Title to the contract is “License Agreement”

        • Omega Z

          I find it very plausible that there is an effort to delay this technology. But not a conspiracy.

          Mills(BLP) has many issues to overcome even if he has all he claims. The biggest is of which, Harvesting the energy to be used. Solar collection drops off quickly with distance from the source. He can not get enough cells close enough to harvest a signicant amount of energy. Of this he is aware as he has talked of using mirrors.

          Mill’s only realistic alternative is MHD generator technology R&D which is a minimum 20 years away. MHD technology also falls under National Security scrutiny. Without a new technology breakthrough, Mill’s is contained for at least 15/20 years.

          Robert Godes: Brillouin Energy. 3rd party tested with partial funding of said test provided by DARPA at SRI. COP>4 with stable temps up to 600`C. Not yet ready for prime time. What should happen if Next year Godes has a breakthrough. COP>10 with stabile temps of 1000`C plus. Nothing.

          Early on, Robert Godes was hoodwinked by VC’s. The argument goes, Do you want 100% of the IP rights to an unfinished technology(No ROI) or 5% of the IP rights for a marketable product. Funding has a price and that price was ultimately 95% VC ownership of Brillouin Energy IP… Robert Godes having only 5% ownership is contained. He is merely along for the ride at the VC’s pace. He is bought and owned.

          Presently, it would appear they are trying to corral Rossi and his E-cats. It’s all about controlling a disruptive technology. Disruptive- as in changing who TPTB will be. Those with the money and power.

          Sooo, In Essence. No conspiracy. Just the status quote. The Rich and Powerful do not want to be displaced by the New Rich and Powerful. They merely see this as a fight for their survival.

          • tlp

            Mills/BrLP has 100-200 COP thermal/light generator ready to be integrated to 1000x CPV panels. 1 m2 panels can handle 1 MW light and produce 300-400 kW electricity, input electricity is only about 10-20 kW.

      • wpj

        It is not $89m but 3 x $89m which is claimed in the proceedings.

        • Omega Z

          3X is whats asked for. In the U.S., the jury decides.

          They may decide to give the asking amount. They may decide to give you nothing. They may decide to give you 10X the amount requested.

          Eyedoc’s scenario could playout as a last minute out of court settlement. Such deals can play out right up to the moment the Jury gives it’s official verdict. To clarify this point. The JURY can reach a verdict and such a deal can still take place until the Judge orders the foreman of the jury to stand up and read the verdict.

          Imagine, You think the jury may find you guilty of a crime and you’ll receive a 20 year sentence. At the last minute you make a plea deal for 5 years. Afterwards the judge says. Bad deal son. The jury found you innocent. Now go serve your 5 years. Worse yet is even if you’re innocent. When making plea deal’s, you forfeit the right to appeals.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        The idea that the goal of IH is to delay LENR is wacky. The only thing that could delay Rossi in Europe is this lawsuit, Rossi v. Darden. And Rossi created that. He could have sued IH later, what was the rush? As matters stand, he could lose everything from filing this. It would surely be ironic that for lack of a single piece of paper, a written agreement setting the start date for a GP Test, Rossi, with a real reactor, could lose that $89 million payment. But if he goes to Europe and gets devices into production, and turns business over to a real and sane business manager, that manager could negotiate with IH for a real GPT, pass it with true independent experts monitoring it, and move ahead. With $89 million and a lot of money available for moving into major production in the U.S.

        If he has a real technology that can be manufactured and sold.

  • Andy Kumar

    Chapman writes:
    // I am NOT trying to corner you here, or call you out! I think you probably represent the typical level of skepticism, and I think your viewpoint provides good insight for “True Believers” to understand the gulf that exists between the two groups. I have not seen you openly declare LENR to be impossible, only asking why no simple proofs are demonstrated when such demonstration could be provided so easily! So don’t get defensive on me and shy away thinking I am setting you up – I ask because I think your input is instructive. 🙂 //
    .
    Chapman, you summed it up very nicely. You don’t need fancy labs like MIT to confirm Rossi’s claims. If the energy gain is at least 10%, any decent high school physics student can do it. All this BS about protecting IP is exactly that. A BLACK BOX test on a small reactor will do. “BLACK” means nobody can look inside for any of the inventor’s secrets. Rossi provides the reactor, *all the measurement setup is provided by the tester*. So why does Rossi keep beating around the bush and his fans keep lapping it up? I think there is some deep need to believe in miracles at work here.

    • Omega Z

      ->”All this BS about protecting IP is exactly that.”

      Really.
      So Rossi is a little paranoid that people want to steal his technology.
      And the World has Spoken: Rossi has every right to be paranoid.
      The World has proven without doubt that it would steal Rossi’s IP in a heart beat.

      Thing is. Rossi could arrange an independent test providing details on all equipment necessary to do the test. Rossi could then walk in, hand them a reactor and they could test it. Then hand the reactor back to Rossi and he leaves.

      This test if positive will not accepted. Why?
      Obviously, Rossi had previous contact with the testers, their objectivity is tainted.
      Rossi built it. Not a true 3rd party test.
      Rossi was on the same Continent.

      Rossi has only 1 path. Build a product and let the market decide.
      Many will take issue with this as such a path takes time and no one wants to wait. To bad. Get over it.

      • cashmemorz

        One more option missing from your list: the testers take black box, test it, validate it, it works as claimed by Rossi, validation gives validaters greed option to substitute Rossi’s black box with a exact looking black box of their own which they give Rossi. Rossi says the black box looks feels a little different from what he brought in. Testers say the test was very hot and caused the changes. If Rossi walks out with the box without opening it, which he most likely wants to do to protect his IP, then if he later finds it is a different box then he can be accused of falsely accusing the tester of fraud, since he could have opened the box while still at the test sight in full view of many witnesses. He lose out no matter what he does to satisfy critics.

    • Observer

      Because anyone who validates LENR is not a reliable source (as defined by the current “gate keepers”).

      • Observer

        Here is a bumble-bee. Make me a duplicate.

        • cashmemorz

          Very true analogy. Probably not as complex as a bug, but there was a comment in an older thread which detail the kind of nano-analysis that would be needed to copy the core of the E-Cat. It would be extremely difficult and time consuming. Many be years, by which time a similar unit , if it appeared in a black market or elsewhere still could not compete with the purposely low price that Rossi has intentionally put on his units.

          • TVulgaris

            There’s that- and if ROI on the R & D money is entirely moot (in absolute terms, it probably is), and the object is to ACTUALLY put an energy technology firmly into the commons, regardless of its relative purchase price, beyond the ability of proven antagonists to contain and completely control, Rossi’s business model might actually work. I can think of many scenarios it could still fail (quite a few involve drone strikes, unfortunately, which is now available to any petty street criminal)…

          • TVulgaris

            My best wishes for his success, though, not to call down evil events for what could rescue us all, even the worst skeptic.

  • cashmemorz

    Of topic in terms of LENR. But I can’t help myself in rebutting astrology. It is based on alignment of heavenly bodies. That is the apparent 2-D angles and distances between that makes up the pictures of persons and animals the constellations are meant to represent. Since the times, thousands of years ago, when Astrology was put together, those same heavenly bodies, especially some of the ones outside our solar system, have moved in relation to each other to the point that some of those constellations do not resemble the figure that was seen originally. This undermines the figures by way of alignment. Since that alignment no longer exists then there is no longer the same all important alignment that was originally used as the underpinning of astrology. Since the alignment has changed then any effect, if it ever existed, would have changed in an unclear or undefined or unpredictable way that makes their astrological effects similarly different then they were at first and cannot be used as the same underpinning for arguments for what causes astrological effects.

  • Stanny Demesmaker

    Jed, stop making things up, it’s not essential!

    If we follow your logic then Infrared thermographic calorimetry doesn’t work.

  • Ged

    IH is requesting another time extension before answering Leonardo’s MTD/MTS duo, as well as a chance to amend their Answer for a second time (Leonardo is not opposing either request).

    -“Thursday, September 15, 2016
    46 motion Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer Thu 8:28 PM
    Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to39 MOTION to Strike Affirmative Defenses MOTION for More Definite Statement ,41 MOTION to Dismiss30 Answer to Complaint,,,, Third Party Complaint,,,, Counterclaim,,, and Memorandum of Law by Cherokee Investment Partners, LLC, Thomas Darden, IPH International B.V., Industrial Heat, LLC, John T. Vaughn.(Pace, Christopher)
    Att: 1 Text of Proposed Order

    45 motion Leave to File Document Thu 8:14 PM
    Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Answer, Additional Defenses, Counterclaims and Third Party Claims by Cherokee Investment Partners, LLC, Thomas Darden, IPH International B.V., Industrial Heat, LLC, John T. Vaughn.(Pace, Christopher)”-

    Seems the MTD/MTS combo did indeed hit them hard and exposed something IH must fix/add in their defense, or they may be having trouble doing so, hence “yet another time extension”(tm).

    But we’ll see. Maybe they will add some new, interesting data. Or maybe they are purposefully dragging things out for litigation costs, and intentionally not putting up a full defense but iterating it for cost increasing purposes. Who knows at this point.

    • Obvious

      I was trying to work that out.
      Is Document 46 not the Second Ammended Answer they were asking for more time for?

      • Ged

        Maybe? But if they have it, they don’t need a time extension, anyways. But still, they are due to provide a response to the MTD/MTS this coming Monday, and that does not depend on the Answer (MTS related mostly) in so far as as they must provide what they need in the response to the MTS as it is, and not by changing the Answer ahead of time. That is, changing the Answer out from under the MTS doesn’t change the requirement to respond to the MTS as it is. Can’t do a “see, we changed it so it no longer says what you are pointing at so your argument no longer counts or matters as the point is different now ;D”. But who knows.

  • LuFong

    The latest Pacer dump has a second amended Answer. It’s hard to compare the two but the new Answer is longer. Looks to me (possibly) that IH is now claiming that the 2nd Amendment (6-cylinder) is not valid because it was not signed by all parties (could be wrong). Additional descriptive information is also provided. There’s probably more stuff but it’s hard to compare two lengthy PDF files.

    The other noteworthy thing is that the document now consistently states that they have “found” James A. Bass and he’s right there in Florida. Whether they have actually found him (contacted him) and or if his position reflects the Answer is TBD but the defendants think they know who he is. This should help clarify what is going on but may help lead to a quicker settlement before the trial.

    • Obvious

      Are you referring to Document 45-1, or is there a new document (47)?
      I did notice that Bass is no longer mentioned as a John Doe.

      • Ged

        Hmm, I haven’t had a chance yet to look at the docs myself. I bet you have the same files, though I don’t see a 47 yet I could well be delayed.

        It may be possible to use pdf comparison software to highlight the differences to make analysis alot easier (e.g. https://www.qtrac.eu/diffpdf.html ). Be very interesting to see what the updates bring to light.

        • Obvious

          I went through the Exhibit A, which is the new Amended Answer. (I seem to have all the same documents from 45 and 46, but they stuck together with -1 units which are the extra files elsewhere).

          I thought previously that the 6 Pack was indicated to be the planned GPT, but now it seems to be irrelevant, since it was not fully endorsed. This seems to be a new angle, unless the earlier Answer was simply very unclear on this. I’ll have to go back to the earlier Answer and see what was actually said…

          It seemed to me that the new Penon report was mentioned more times than previous, which might indicate that this will appear as an Exhibit soon. Maybe.

          • Ged

            Very interesting. I thought the Judge had stated in her first MTD decision that she sees the signiture issue as moot, but maybe not if they use a new tact? Also curious they are not hammering the six cylinder angle, which I thought was one of their best avenues. Kinda feels like that would make this a regression to the first MTD, but we’ll see with closer inspection.

            We sure as well can dream that one side or another will finally release it…

          • Obvious

            Maybe the idea is that if the 6 Pack was not fully signed off, and therefore could not be the GPT, than neither can the Doral Plant be the GPT, since it also wasn’t fully signed off. But who knows.

        • LuFong

          I did this. Downloaded the DiffPDF v 5.6.4 as a 20 day trial. You have to set the Text Mode/Pairs to something other than one (set to 78) to get it to compare across pages.

          I summarized what I found above but didn’t dwell on what the additions other than the 2nd Amendment and James A Bass changes.

      • LuFong

        Yes. Here’s a link (Document 45-1) complements of Eric Walker over at Lenr-forum: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BzKtdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk

        Regarding Bass as I said, it looks like they know who he is.

    • Ged

      Wow, look at that latest PACER blast. If I am parsing it correctly…

      49: IH has withdrawn its “MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Count I”, so that is now dead and over.

      48: In a surprise twist, we actually do get to see the transcript from the hearing with O’Sullivan. In several other court cases with similar events that I looked over, the transcript was not made available, so that is interesting but probably still “normal”.

      47: IH’s ploy worked, and the Judge allowed the MTS/MTD to be dismissed as MOOT by having the Answer be amended–changing the Answer out from under the MTS/MTD. I honestly didn’t think the Court would allow that, especially having it be done at the 11th hour, the day before the MTS response was due. But wow, so it is! Learning all sorts of things about the legal system here.

      Leonardo will have to refile the MTS/MTD in light of the new Answer. But, could IH just amend it again right before the buzzer and re-mootify it all? That just seems… not how the system should work? Well, Leonardo allowed it, so they likely are planning to just re-submit with the proper changes in lieu of the new Answer, and they could always challenge if IH tried the same tactic again.

      Dang, never a dull moment.

      • LuFong

        I don’t think the “MOTION for Judgement on the Pleadings as to Count 1” is necessarily dead and over, just withdrawn.

        I don’t understand why some of these things have been rendered moot but it may be more procedural then anything.

        I’m getting the feeling the IH is using their advantage of $ to hit Rossi etc with lots of legal action.

        For me I wondering which will come first–resolution of this dispute or an actual verification of the E-Cat.

        • Ged

          Regarding your edit, that is really interesting. The fact they dropped it means it is very likely untrue (or an untenable position at the least), or they would have kept it and pushed on it (obviously). Discovery is occurring right now after all. But, given how many twists we’ve had already (mostly revolving around IH changing or backing away from stuff at the last minute), you never really know what will happen next. And sometimes, tactically you want to look weak to draw your opponent in before striking in a way they don’t expect.

          Mostly though, I think your analysis is right in that the IH side is trying to drag things out as expensively and time consumingly as absolutely possible. Hence the constant last minute delays or changes that could have been done any time before the day prior to deadline…

          • LuFong

            IH is backing off on any claiming damages at the moment but they are keeping the possibility open against future tax liens. In the meantime they are retaining the possibility that Rossi broke the contract by not paying all his taxes. Discovery would verify that (if it hasn’t already) but I’m not sure if you can just request someones taxes without due cause so who knows.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            But taxes for and by who?

            If my next door neighbour fails to pay their taxes, someone can inform the tax folks that something gone wrong, but you not had any damages as a result!

            I mean, if the next door neighbour steals a car, and that car has nothing to do with you, then you can’t claim damages!

            Even if your neighbour attempts to steal your car, but fails, you can’t claim damages from that event unless some damage to your car occurred or you suffered some loss.

            So while Rossi failing to pay some taxes might be something to “rattle” Rossi, how can IH claim damages from that act (or lack of) action in this case?

            I mean, I hire someone to fix my dishwasher. I pay them, and then that person does not pay taxes and I am somehow going to claim damages? You mean the tax department now comes after me because some smuck did not pay some taxes after fixing my dishwasher?
            Geesh, of course they going to toss out the issue of damages. In fact EVEN IF Rossi failed to pay taxes on that money, it certainly would not constitute damages against IH – unless I am missing something here?

            You can’t claim damages on an event that does not cause you damage! The fact that 5 blocks down the left in your neighbourhood someone fails to pay their taxes does not out of the blue give you some right to claim damages for that act that has nothing to do
            with you. And even in a business transaction that goes bad, without any damages you usually can’t claim damages unless some clause exists that spells out damages for lack of delivery etc.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • LuFong

            I agree, but re-read my post regarding damages. Evidently there is a possibility of tax liens against IH. There is also contractual obligations (not related to damages).

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Rossi has denied that they were actually damaged. Before, they alleged “possible damage,” as Lufong points out below. Tax liens against IH? Depends on what that means. If IH owes Rossi money, yes, a tax lien could hit that. Contractually, they wanted no complications, that’s all. Rossi violated the agreement, apparently, but claims to have paid the taxes now. This was never a big part of the IH complaint, but often one tosses in whatever, large or small. I do see a tactical purpose.

          • Frank Acland

            The reason I included the words “fake person” was because this is what the original answer said about James A. Bass:
            “– James A. Bass, Director of Engineering for JMP. Despite diligent search, Counter-Plaintiffs have not been able to identify or locate this individual, for the simple reason that he does not exist. Rather, Leonardo, Rossi, JMP, Johnson and Fabiani created this fictional person as a means of making JMP appear to be a real manufacturing company that would need a Director of Engineering and to create a person with whom they would allegedly interact on technical issues involving JMP’s non-existent operations and operational needs. ” http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/IH-Answer.pdf (p.45)

            In the revised Answer, they no longer say that Bass does not exist, or was a fictional person.

          • I suspect you may be proven right.

            But at least one side must have strong motivation to release the report. I’m surprised it has not leaked through back channels somehow, especially because some of the more important summary line data has already become public in the court docs.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Lawyers have no obligation to protect the opposing party from increased costs. They can be sanctioned for frivolous filings, but … the MfJ had a chance of success. It could be strengthened, that was obvious to me. I consider it a shot across the bow. It was withdrawn “without prejudice.” They could refile it at any time, but improved. They drew out response, as pointed out correctly. I think they are getting a very clear understanding of what they are facing, and how to efficiently complete the case.

            So far, Annesser has totally avoided the central problem Rossi faces, the possible lack of consent to the Doral Plant as a GPT — with Penon as ERV. All that exists so far is Rossi Words. No actual evidence, or allegation of specific evidence, that IH consented to a “test,” even, much less a GPT. Rossi mentioned no “test” in proposing that. In his complaint, however, he presents the big problem as the need for a GPT, and his claims are contradicted by his own email to IH about it. There was no refusal to install the plant in North Carolina, it was Rossi who avoided it.

            Read the IH narrative in the IH counter-complaint. Is it a plausible scenario? It does appear that the “customer” was a Rossi puppet, and that, in fact, was reasonably obvious before the IH answer was filed, from simply figuring out who Johnson was and his relationship to Rossi, and when we saw stuff like “Advanced Derivatives of Johnson Matthew Platinum Sponges”, Rossi’s pitch selling the Doral plant, and then his later behavior, it was all very, very obvious. How did they imagine that they could get away with this? I’ve developed a hypothesis that Johnson did not know about the $89 million. He was just helping his friend out, with a little harmless charade. The $30,000 per month would go from Rossi to him to IH. What could possibly be wrong? For that matter, did Penon know what was at stake? Not necessarily!

            There remain many mysteries. Why did Fabiani become uncooperative? Yes, Rossi was his old friend. (I notice how the fact that Fabiani was being paid by IH is used to claim that IH had high control and information, but Fabiani was with Rossi, before he was with IH, and was certainly hired because Rossi wanted it. Same with Penon. IH claims that they wanted an independent testing company at the Ferrara test. They don’t show the email but I’d bet they have it. Rossi said that would make “big problems” for him. I bet! Rossi never wanted truly independent experts around, the “professors” were not experts, in fact. Just professors of this or that.

            It’s not over until that nice lady sings, or brings that gavel down, but … pouring over these documents for months now. what happened is fairly obvious …. and Rossi has done nothing, so far, to mitigate this or reverse the appearance. It is claimed that IH is dragging things out, but is Rossi going to file any response to the IH Second Amended Answer? They essentially gave him more time.

            I imagine that the new attorneys are getting up to speed on the case, and I imagine some, ah, interesting conversations. Starting with WTF?

          • Ged

            IH is indeed dragging things out, with last minute changes, and even Annesser has now brought that up to the Court of Law. The MTS/MTD combo have to be redone because of that 11th hour change by amending the answer to avoid dealing with them. No one said it isn’t tactically brilliant, but it is not honorable. Neither the Judge nor I hold your view about IH “not consenting”, and Chapman did a good job laying out the legal aspects of contract that contradict your view too. The entirety of your post, further colored by prejudice towards only favorable view of IH no matter what, hangs on that central assumption of yours about IH not consenting to the GPT despite being involved at several levels. So, the rest you wrote is frivolous, as it is easy to show that assumption is not currently supported (including in the Judge’s previous rulings, and IH changing its tactics once again).

          • Ged

            And the MTS is back, as expected; now in twice amended answer flavor:

            Friday, September 23, 2016
            54 motion Strike More Definite Statement Fri 3:30 PM
            MOTION to Strike50 Answer to Complaint, Third Party Complaint, Counterclaim,,,,,,,,, in Part Second Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaims, and Third Party Claims, or in the Alternative, , MOTION for More Definite Statement by Leonardo Corporation, Andrea Rossi. Responses due by 10/11/2016 (Annesser, John)

      • Obvious

        Bass is now just moved into the Leonardo group, (but Bass seems to be known now). The entire group is still being alleged to have committed “unconscionable, unfair, and deceptive acts and practices”

        78. JMP’s role further intensified when it, along with Leonardo, Rossi, Johnson and
        Fabiani went so far as to have Bass pose as Director of Engineering for JMP. Leonardo, Rossi,
        JMP, Johnson and Fabiani enlisted Bass to pretend to be a JMP employee serving as its Director
        of Engineering to make JMP appear to be a real manufacturing company that would need a
        Director of Engineering and to create a person with whom they would allegedly interact on
        technical issues involving JMP’s non-existent operations and operational needs.

        79. They even had Bass meet with Industrial Heat at JMP’s Doral facility and express
        JMP’s satisfaction with the steam power JMP was receiving from the Plant and using to run its
        manufacturing operations. Attached as Exhibit 20 is a copy of the business card provided by
        Bass representing himself to be JMP’s “Director of Engineering.” Bass also met with others,
        falsely claiming JMP was using steam from the Plant in a secretive manufacturing process. All
        the while, JMP, Leonardo, Rossi, Johnson, Fabiani and Bass knew that there was no secretive
        manufacturing process taking place and JMP had no real use for the steam power. JMP,
        Leonardo, Rossi, Johnson, Fabiani and Bass’ unconscionable and deceptive practices are further evidence that the testing in Miami was nothing but a sham designed to create the illusions that the Plant performed at levels that could satisfy Guaranteed Performance and that the prior Validation testing was valid.

        83. Leonardo, Rossi, JMP, Johnson, USQL, Fabiani, and Bass also restricted access
        to the JMP area at the Doral location, claiming that there was a secretive manufacturing process
        being conducted there, when in fact it was simply recycling steam from the Plant and sending it
        back to the Plant as water.

        Count IV FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT
        (Industrial Heat and IPH against all Counter-Defendants and Third-Party Defendants)

        141. As described in greater detail above, Rossi, Leonardo, Johnson, JMP, Penon,
        Fabiani, USQL, and Bass (the “FDUTPA Defendants”) were all engaged in a common scheme
        against Counter-Plaintiffs.

        146. In furtherance of this scheme, the FDUTPA Defendants engaged in the
        unconscionable, unfair, and deceptive acts and practices described above, including:
        a. Deceiving Counter-Plaintiffs about JMP, the operations of JMP, the supposed
        role of Bass, and the reasons for JMP wanting to use the steam power that
        could be generated by the Plant.

        • Ged

          One giant conspiracy theory. It always amuses me when I see internet people using “conspiracy theory” as some sort of put down, ignorant to the fact it’s one of the most common law arguments. So much so, there are even special, extra powerful acts for targeting conspiracies depending on flavor, such as RICO.

  • Obvious

    I haven’t been able to find an official document anywhere that states what Penon’s role was to be in Doral.

    We can see the USQL (Fabiani) contract, (Exhibit 11), but the Penon contract has not yet been entered as evidence yet.

    What needs to be seen is the January 28, 2015 Test Protocol document asserted by Leonardo et al in section 65 and 66 of the original lawsuit.

    • Ged

      Hm, it is kinda odd that so much involving Penon has simply not been shown by either side. The report, the protocol, the contract… basically everything revolving around Penon is not being shared by either IH or Leonardo, yet. But, both have no problem referencing him. I’m assuming it’ll all be forced into evidence by the Court eventually.

      • Obvious

        I guess the icing on the cake goes on last…

      • Obvious

        Another interesting thing I saw when digging into the original lawsuit was that Penon was only mentioned once, as ERV for the Validation (56). Thereafter, an ERV was mentioned many times, although Penon was not noted to be the ERV in any case other than the original instance for the Validation.

        • Ged

          Maybe he is like Candle Jack or Rumpelstiltskin, and if someone says his name too much they mysteriously may disappear.

  • Barbierir

    It seems that IH has found Bass, do the amended documents contain informations to identify him and who he works for?

    • Ged

      There is now an exhibit 27. Will have to see if that is a new thing and what it contains.

      • Exhibit 27 is the assignment of the license agreement from Industrial Heat to IPH.

        (They paid — er, transferred — $460k for it!)

        • Ged

          Oh man, money pushing! And that is a remarkably less interesting exhibit than I’d hoped for.

          • Some day we will see the ERV report.

            Right?

            Right?

        • wpj

          And they are accusing AR of tax fraud……….

    • Industrial Heat and company have upped their conspiracy theory, which must now include Bass.

      So Rossi, Penon, Fabiani, Johnson and Bass are now all directly accused of fraudulent activities. FIVE.

      Levi and Fioravanti have also been accused by others previously. SEVEN.

      West remains strangely under the radar, but would have to be in on it too, most likely, right? EIGHT.

      Then there’s the completely duped, to include most notably, the late Prof. Focardi but also all the European testers, intrepid journalist Mats Lewan, Darden and Vaughn themselves, Hydrofusion, Aldo Proia, and I suppose you could lump in Defkalion (though they may belong in several bins). Etc.

      So, at least FIVE and possibly up to EIGHT or more co-conspirators who have utterly duped just as many scientists, engineers and businessmen out of their hard earned credibility and money. FIVE to EIGHT co-conspirators who thought it was a good idea to ship their fake reactors off to another continent for scientists to test unobstructed for a month. FIVE to EIGHT co-conspirators who have felt the need to press on and raise the stakes, haphazardly rushing into court to get more money despite having thread the needle and pocketed more than $11.5M and despite the expectation that they could be — and should expect to be — easily exposed by legal proceedings.

      People, this is RIDICULOUS.

      Of course the alternative is ridiculous and conspiratorial too, so the circus continues.

      • Remember the IH people testing the Ecat before it was shipped from Italy? Maybe IH will accuse them of fraud as well.

        • Yeah that just kills me. Darden and Vaughn were there in June 2012 testing and observing. Just at that time the first HotCats came online with their black body radiation paint exteriors and were being tested vigorously. There was ample opportunity to sniff out fraud. Whatever they did and saw they went home convinced.

        • Obvious

          What IH people were those?
          Dewey was sent out of the building for bringing his own IR gun.

          • Ged

            Are we certain Dewey was there? He is a friend of Darden’s but he isn’t actually part of Cherokee or IH or any of that (as far as I am aware), so I don’t know why he would leave his business and be part of that event, or be allowed to be part. Wouldn’t that breach all NDAs as he is an outside party? Who knows though, maybe he is an “investor”.

          • Obvious

            Dewey is a known investor. He was walking a thin line around disclosure it seems.

          • Ged

            Awesome, thank you. It is sometimes hard to keep track and recall everyone’s roles from way back then.

          • Obvious

            I’m still trying to find a photo he took of Rossi in Doral, but I think he removed it.

          • Ged

            That is an interesting reminder. Should be easy enough to use that to frag one side or the other’s narrative on that end, which could help unravel everything. Here’s hoping someone pulls it out and fact checks Leonardo and IH.

          • Obvious

            The security camera footage would be a very sensitive source of evidence. I wonder who has control of it now. If it was Rossi’s I would expect that a subpoena would be required for IH to get it. A year’s worth of footage might be a rather large pile of data.

          • Ged

            Good questions. I know there are firms that act as third parties to handle and analyze those sorts of large footage archives for the Court. There is a great deal such footage could show, so it is way too important to be missed in discovery, meaning a subpeona shouldn’t be necessary though it could be used if some party was bucking discovery (like how e-mails get dragged out of reluctant servers). Sadly it seems we don’t get any updates/insight into how discovery is going except when someone throws an objection.

          • Obvious

            I wonder if there is sound, or just video.

          • sam
      • Obvious

        West is conspicuously absent from the the IH accusations. He must be cooperative, or otherwise fulfilled his contract without any issues.

        • SG

          I think West under oath will be one of the more interesting developments. He seems to be in IH’s camp, or maybe neutral, but he must know much.

          • Ged

            It’s interesting that neither side brings up West or any data from him at all, though he is IH’s employee ostensibly. I am with you in looking forward to his testimony.

        • wpj

          Seems that DW thinks that he is a nice guy…. (said that West is spending his time fishing, so they have probably paid him to take a vacation in some remote, non-contactable location)

          • Obvious

            A remote cottage on the edge of a lake is a nice place to write a book.

          • wpj

            Novel or factual?

          • Obvious

            Factual seems to a slippery concept for some reason.

            Perhaps a tragicomic book?

        • Ged

          On the flip side, nothing from West has been used by either side. You would think if he had something useful for IH, it would have been center place in their defense since he is a first hand witness who helped build the thing. So why not?

          • Barbierir

            Just a reminder: when Fabiani posted on facebook his photo inside the plant, his friend West wrote a proud comment “I was there too!” that sounded very supportive.

          • Ged

            It is, as is the fact they are friends. Yet, West remains untouchable and the ERV report/all things Penon and data related remain locked away. As Woodford put it, it makes sense if this is really a veiled licensing dispute, as they believe. Just a lot of weirdness; but still plenty of court time to go.

          • dickyaesta

            Has anybody mentioned James A. Bad*ss yet? for James A. Bass!

          • Ged

            Wasn’t he off training in some remote deadly jungle with Chuck Norris?

          • dickyaesta

            So sorry chuck Norris has always been banned from my TV menu, although when very tired he might slip in.

          • Frost*

            More changes: 51

            STIPULATED MOTION for Substitution of Counsel. Substituting Brian W.
            Chaiken, Esq. for Michael J. Healy, Esq. by Leonardo Corporation, Andrea
            Rossi. Responses due by 10/7/2016(Annesser, John)

          • Ged

            Huh, wonder why they have to make a motion of it, and why it needs responses.

          • Omega Z

            This is to let everyone involved know of the change.

            If anyone claims to be unaware, they have no legal excuse. They were informed.

            Besides, What if I should try and bribe a lawyer only to find he was no longer involved. How embarrassing. Especially should he except the bribe. Sorry boss. I made payment to the wrong lawyer…

          • Barbierir

            Document 52, not yet visible on pacermonitor:

            ORDER

            THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Substitution of Counsel

            (“Motion”) [ECF No. 51]. Being fully advised, it is

            ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion is GRANTED. The Silver Law

            Group, P.A. is relieved of further responsibility for Plaintiff, and John W. Annesser, Brian W.

            Chaiken, D. Porpoise Evans, and Paul D. Turner, are substituted as counsel of record.

            DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida this 20th day of September, 2016.

            Rossi is changing all lawyers?

          • sam

            Comment from Lenr forum
            Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax
            User Avatar
            Verified User
            Silver Law Group removed from representation of Rossi and Leonardo
            30 minutes ago
            Document 52:
            ORDER
            THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Substitution of Counsel
            (“Motion”) [ECF No. 51]. Being fully advised, it is
            ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion is GRANTED. The Silver Law
            Group, P.A. is relieved of further responsibility for Plaintiff, and John W. Annesser, Brian W.
            Chaiken, D. Porpoise Evans, and Paul D. Turner, are substituted as counsel of record.
            DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida this 20th day of September, 2016.

            I had expected this would appear and wondered why it had not.

            Annesser was working for Silver Law Group, silverlawgroup.com/john-annesser/ when Rossi v. Darden was filed.
            Patricia Silver was the mainstay of the firm, with high experience. silverlawgroup.com/patricia-silver/

            She would never, ever, say anything about the case, but my guess is that when she finally looked at it, her reaction was “get me out of here!” If she advised Rossi, it may have been advice he didn’t like.

            Her name was on the initial filing, but that work was shoddy. Annesser may or may not still be associated with Silver Law Group, or is continuing the association only for open cases.

            This is all speculation, of course. How involved the new lawyers are is unclear, Chaiken and Evans did appear at the discovery hearing before the Magistrate. Annesser has still written almost everything. We may never know what actually happened, unless, say, Rossi sues his lawyers.

          • Yeah. In general, lawyers won’t say “get me out of here” as long as they are being paid, even if the case is a stinker. They will execute the case to the best of their ability. This is not a we’ll-only-take-revenue-if-we-win class action type of lawsuit.

            More likely Leonardo decided to switch to a law firm that had expertise in issues which the lawsuit evolved into. Annesser (ethically) may even have suggested such a course.

            I hope somebody asks Rossi and that he feels free to answer.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Rght! Go to a reliable source!

            The issues in the lawsuit as I see it are quite simple, and so far, Rossi has completely avoided the core issue, the core weakness in his case. Spending more money on lawyers is not going to resolve that. They cannot fabricate a consent that almost certainly did not exist. Estoppel worked on the 2nd amendment signature issue, largely because it really was a technical failure (probabluy). But that cannot work on the explicit requirement for written consent. That was actually fundamental. Sure. If everyone knew it was a GPT and talked about it like that, if the communications and emails setting it up called it that, maybe. But it appears that none of that existed. Rossi vs. Darden is doomed, and any sane and ethical attorney who actually spent enough time to study the documents and understand the case, and especially to try to negotiate a settlement with the other side, would have advised this client not to file, that it would cause far more harm than good. Sure, the client decides. But …. there was no time for such a negotiation. Rossi actually filed the day before the payment was past due. This was slapped together, obviously (there were at least two major errors that had an impact).

          • Rossi would actually be the only reliable source on the question of why he switched law firms.

            The lawsuit may or may not be doomed; we’ll have to see how it plays out. However, if the reason it fails is because the test was not considered to legally be the test, then that just sucks. That’s a victory for sucktitude. And sliminess.

          • Ged

            More bad analysis and fiction writing from that guy due to his overwhelming bias, sadly.

          • sam

            I thought the Bias War between Jed Rothwell
            and Peter Gluck had subsided.
            But looking at Jeds comment today on Ego Out
            blog it has not.

          • Ged

            I like that term for it. Makes it sound epic. Now we just need some gritty war narration and we’ll be set.

          • sam

            According to MY comment on LENR forum it looks like
            the anti Rossi crowd play dirty.
            Mary Yugo – 3 hours ago
            Replied to the thread Rossi v. Darden developments.
            It is my understanding that more than one person (who told me by email) has written the Silver Law firm and has apprised them fully about Rossi’s past criminal record. The emails also included concise explanations about why Rossi could not possibly be…

          • sam

            Makes me wonder how many Emails I.H. Received
            from these people when the one year test was in progress.

          • Ged

            Probably all spammed in the “mind your own business” catagory.

          • sam

            You are probably right Ged.
            But they might be curious if
            they got a Email from someone with credentials.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            If I was at a law firm and I got a mail like that, as soon as I recognized what it was saying, I would get it out of my sight immediately. Just as would a judge. (with a judge, it may be illegal to send such a mail).

            The job of the attorney is to represent the client, not to judge him or her. Period. Mary Yugo has no particular credibility, My own speculations are based on the case documents, and Rossi’s attorneys would discuss these with him, and could be, if appropriate, advising withdrawal or settling, very possibly, unless they believe the case is strong. That decision, though, still remains with the client. And some clients will get pissed if an attorney contradicts their beliefs.

            Right now, with no response filed by Rossi to the Amended Answer — Rossi still has time on the counter-complaint, I think, it being tolled by the Motion to Dismiss, now moot, other than tolling that time, the case is teetering on the edge of Summary Judgment. What has fascinated me is that Jones Day asserted the matter, all right, in their withdrawn Motion, but mostly by implication, not quite directly. Unless Rossi has direct and clear evidence that Darden accepted the Doral installation as a “Guaranteed Performance Test,” the entire Rossi complaint falls on its face. He has not actually alleged that such evidence exists, and my guess, it does not, because Rossi probably avoided the topic until he had his “masterpiece” in place and running. Even if the evidence exists, making the Doral Plant a GPT still requires estoppel, setting aside the explicit and clear requirement for a written confirmation of test starting date.

            One has to wonder, if Darden did approve of Doral as a GPT, why Rossi did not get the signed paper!!! The closest Darden gets is in the matter of a supposed test protocol agreement with Penon, but the problem there is that it is entirely possible that what Darden was agreeing to was procedure for Penon to monitor the power installation, and we can be sure that Rossi strongly advocated this.I would say that if the magic words “Guaranteed Performance Test” were not used, it won’t fly for estoppel.

          • wpj

            He does go on with himself, as we Brits would say.

          • LuFong

            With regard to Bass, I believe they think they know who he is (the one discussed on lenr-forum) but it’s based on circumstantial information and eyewitness descriptions. To get a solid ID they need something like phone billing information tying the phone number on the card to the Bass they think they have identified or payroll information tying the SSID on the JM Products payroll paperwork to the SSID of the Bass they think they have identified. Henry Johnson in the face of the subpoena may have just told them as well.

            I think IH has Rossi by the neutrons and are tightening their grip. Bass will lead them to the “customer.”

          • LuFong

            Looks more like Rossi’s lawyers (Annesser, Chaiken) changed law firms from The Silver Law Group to PERLMAN, BAJANDAS, YEVOLI & ALBRIGHT, P.L. but maybe this is also a change in law firms as well.

          • The wording does make it seem as though Annesser has jumped to PBY&A.

            Plaintiffs, ANDREA ROSSI and LEONARDO CORPORATION (“PLAINTIFFS”),
            move the Court for an Order substituting John W. Annesser, Esq., Brian W. Chaiken, Esq., D. Porpoise Evans, Esq. and Paul D. Turner, Esq. of PERLMAN, BAJANDAS, YEVOLI & ALBRIGHT, P.L., in place and stead of THE SILVER LAW GROUP, P.A.

          • Ged

            What an odd procedural hoop to have to make a motion for this. I guess Chaiken’s crew liked what they saw of Annesser and pulled him over? Doesn’t seem the roster of any of the players actually changed, and never had heard of this Michael J. Healy before now.

          • Ged

            Seems you hit it smack dab in the nose https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-annesser-esq-8b13b013 Annesser changed groups in August according to his profile (looks like a jump up in his career too). Neither firm has updated their websites yet though.

          • Barbierir

            So the attorney changed the firm he works for, nothing as dramatic as in Abd post. You have also to read Mary Yugo post to see how some people go to any length to show what low-life they are:

            It is my understanding that more than one person (who told me by email) has written the Silver Law firm and has apprised them fully about Rossi’s past criminal record. The emails also included concise explanations about why Rossi could not possibly be telling the truth about the ecat and that all ecats almost certainly did not work. Maybe they did some additional checking on their own and realized the whole case was a giant turkey that was going to turn around and bite them.

          • Use ‘blockquote’ tags like HTML around text you want to attribute to others.

          • Barbierir

            I did but I had to make some changes until it worked. If you can’t see it properly try to reload page

          • Good deal. Just didn’t want anyone thinking you were saying that.

          • Barbierir

            Rodolfo Nunez is the attorney for Fabiani
            http://www.martindale.com/Rodolfo-Nunez/37520980-lawyer.htm

          • Ged

            First of all, from the record directly or reasonable inference: Annesser left Silver Law Group and went to PBYA. That was noticed in August. So far, everything in the case on the Rossi side has been written by Annesser.

            Exactly. That is the fact of this instance. Annesser changed firms and now the Silver Law Firm has no employee on this case. Hence they are removed from being responsible for rendering legal service to a case they are no longer being paid for or having an employee on. As is typical, Annesser took the case with him to the new firm which now is responsible for providing legal service as they are paid to do.

            Everything you said in the post Sam put up is complete fiction and story writing. You have no idea what anyone thought or felt. You have no evidence, not even a shred or inkling. You are ascribing motives and events for which the evidence stands in contradiction and for which you have no support. You wrote a fictional novel and dramatisation, but you did so with a particular bias and purpose purpose: to make the case look as bad as possible.

            That is utterly subjective with no objective hint of truth or honest analysis. You then take your opinions about Annesser and try to pawn them off as fact rather than your personal opinion, to use as a base for worrying your story. Sadly, your opinion is not shared among any other legally proficient people we’ve talked to, nor do I share it. His work has been very good, with far more reference use and optical support than what has been churned out for IH, and he also does so in a very timely fashion which is a mark of a good lawyer.

            People are, here, thinking that this was a step up for Annesser. Maybe. Or Maybe not.

            Compare the two lawfirms: http://silverlawgroup.com a legal firm of four people including Annesser in which Annesser is listed an Associate (a lower rank than Counsel as Counsel usually oversee and manage Associates); and http://pbyalaw.com an AV Preeminent rated lawfirm which means they are objectively rated higher than Silver Law Group, among other honors, and they have 19 people not including Annesser, making them a larger firm. Annesser’s position as listed on his LinkedIn is above his tank in Silver Law Group. By any objective standard we can currently apply, this was an upgrade for Annesser, and you are contradicted in your straw grasping by the facts.

            The rest of your post’s opinions are more fiction writing stretched without any actual support other than vague opinions from you, so there is no point in replying.

          • Ged

            Just want to test this myself since it is so useful:

            (lame)test

          • I have earned 0.25 Karma Points

          • Ged

            It’s funny watching such people hoist themselves by their own petards through ignorance of how lawyers work, mind numbing levels of bias, and an inability to check facts. Such actions as detailed in that quote are more befitting vicious, reactionary animals, than thinking human beings.

          • Bruce__H

            What is the distinction between litigation counsel and litigation attorney? I don’t understand.

            How do you know that this new law firm “came in around June and saw his [Annesser’s] work first hand”

          • Ged

            Bruce, see: http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/10/26/always-open-e-cat-world-thread/#comment-2841331827 and http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/10/26/always-open-e-cat-world-thread/#comment-2853792737 I guess that was actually more around July ;). This has been talked here before and is no secret. Do you not recall?

            And as for the distinction, that you could just look up too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counsel It is like the difference between Assistant and Associate in certain fields like research. They aren’t all that different necessarily, but one (associate) is generally higher responsibility, rank, privilage, and pay.

          • Omega Z

            J.R. and Abd have both made very idiotic statements. They have both lost all credibility.
            ———————————————————————
            An idiocy ->”and that all ecats almost certainly did not work.”
            So is Abd admitting that some E-cats worked???
            ———————————————————————
            Rossi’s only criminal background is the tax evasion charge. When they shut down your business and take all your money, obviously some taxes will not get paid. We have laws in the U.S. to protect you against that as well as ex post facto law that protect you for when they change a law making what was legal now illegal.

            Things to consider:
            The lawyer change up is about having the right legal team for the job. If it’s about taxes, you want a lawyer who specializes in taxes and so on.

            IPH International B.V. is a foreign registered entity thus the addition of legal expertise in foreign legalese.

            The Silver Law Group, P.A. appears to be a small family law firm. They have other clients and can’t commit all their resources to a single lawsuit if they intend to be in business after this case. However, Rossi’s primary lawyer, Annesser is continuing to be involved and, joining another law firm may be only for this lawsuit. I’ve witnessed this.

            Darden and company have complaints on additional parties and appears to treat them as unfriendly. This in itself requires Rossi to have a larger legal team just to coordinate with the other parties.

            An Abd view. ->”and realized the whole case was a giant turkey that was going to turn around and bite them.”

            This is idiotic. It doesn’t work that way. Imagine: I took my client to defend against a murder charge. Fortunately for me, I heard on the street that this guy has a bad reputation. I dumped his case because this could hurt my reputation… ROFLMAO…

            Note this is pretty much what a Woodford representative said.

            Bottom Line. This has nothing to do with working E-cats. This is all about IP ownership and Darden not wanting to pay.

            The Woodford representative also said this is normal in these circumstances.(It’s All About The Money”

          • Steve Savage

            Why would anyone ever read anything Mary Yugo wrote?

          • psi2u2

            What a ridiculous person Mary Yugo is.

          • Josh G

            Yes, and it looks like a big step up from Silver Law Group, as far as I can tell…

          • LuFong

            Isn’t this pretty much what I said? Also remember this is all alleged. I’m not sure how they would know whether Rossi paid his taxes unless they get a hold of his tax returns.

          • The missing link, IMO, is when Rossi was going on and on about having Darden build a reactor completely from scratch only from his instructions and having it work just like the ones that he built. It was all Rossi-says, but clearly something along these lines happened.

            Are we supposed to believe that Darden built a reactor, fired it up and then failed to measure it properly by a factor of 6+?

            I’d like to know more details about the events surrounding this proclamation:

            AND HERE IS AN UPDATE OF TODAY, JULY 8TH 2013:

            The past three days have been holidays for most, but for us have been a tremendous period of work during which we made a historic page for what concerns our tech:
            for the first time, an E-Cat module, entirely produced by our USA Partner in the new factory (a magnificence), charged with the charge made by the Partner’s CEO, using the materials we teached to buy, prepare, manipulate, treat, to make the charges, assembled, insulated, has started its operation, and the results are the same of the E-Cats built by us.

            This event means that for the first time an E-Cat not built by me, not controlled by me and not charged by me, not tested in my factory, but manufactured from third parties upon our instructions and know how has worked properly.

            This is the first unit of the plant that will give to the factory of our USA Partner all its necessary thermal energy, and is also the school ship for the employees.

            It is very important that it has been completely made by the Customer, not by me: it is the first of millions, but the first is always special.

            We celebrated with Coca Cola (alcohol is forbidden in that factory).

            All the former plants, even if built in the USA, had been supplied with reactors cores made by me, so this is a very important step.

          • Obvious

            Factory is a funny way of putting it. More like small warehouse.
            Have you seen the old 1MW plant (stripped down) at the “factory”? It is on Google Earth, out in the yard. At least I am fairly certain that it can be seen. On two different dates.

          • What difference does that make? The issue is whether Darden built one himself in July 2013 and if he did, how did he test it.

            I don’t care if he did it in the restroom of a Denny’s.

          • Obvious

            Rossi said the “results are the same of the E-Cats built by us”, which is not as strong an endorsement as it used to be.
            Rossi also he said it “has worked properly”, which is better.

            But, if they used flawed measurements to test it, then the results could be meaningless. It may have appeared to have worked, but didn’t. Why, after more testing, could IH not make one that works? And yet they partially built the Plant.
            Maybe it did work. Maybe the whole story is a fabrication. There is nothing one way or the other to substantiate the story.

            Note that Rossi refused to say who built the Plant on JoNP, since this issue is to be discussed in court. Which is interesting.
            April 8, 2016 at 9:26 AM
            http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=89#comment-1169971

            Happy now?.

          • But, if they used flawed measurements to test it, then the results could be meaningless. It may have appeared to have worked, but didn’t. Why, after more testing, could IH not make one that works? And yet they partially built the Plant.

            That’s why I want more details. I think it would be illuminating, one way or the other.

          • Stanny Demesmaker

            It’s like everybody is incompetent, nobody can measure correctly a COP of 6 of a low temperature reactor. 6 professors from 3 universities can’t measure heat. And then 2 years later WF can’t do their due diligence when they invest 50 million dollar in IH.
            And when IH doesn’t want to pay for a 1MW reactor with a COP of 50, they don’t try to give sound technical reasons. Being a factor of 50 wrong would be the most easiest thing to proof.

            Penon did the measurements for the first test for the first payment of 10 million, and that guy was so incompetent that they made him the ERV for the final payment of 89 milions. See the logic if it didn’t work for 2 years?

          • Obvious

            There is no proof that Penon was ERV for Doral.
            Why doesn’t Rossi just put up the contract for the Doral GPT and ERV with IH and be done with the speculation?

        • Ged

          So which is it, do I have special knowledge, or

          The T-mobile issue was resolved, as Ged knows.

          Recall the subpoena was abated till September 13th at the earliest if the defendents motioned for it again if JMP failed to provide. But IH submitted the doubly ammended Answer on September 15th. There is no time in there for T-mobile to have been served, chosen to reapond, provided IH with the details, and IH to have made the new answer. You then even say “From JMP, I assume.” which is in agreement with me, and contrary to your own “special knowledge” rhetorical.

  • Obvious

    I am in the lighthouse. Just many refuse to see the light.

  • TVulgaris

    I need more popcorn. As a matter of fact, I need to switch off peanuts to exclusively popcorn, as I’m getting way too fat from eating so many of them watching this loosely-scripted reality show.
    Whether or not it’s legally-definable conspiracy or one assembled simply by circumstances of common interest and focus, it seems obviously contrived to draw out the introduction of disruptive alternative energy in US and possibly Chinese markets. Some have observed that is moot in light of European manufacture, and aside the millions of us in the US teetering on bankruptcy and/or homelessness without some such disruptive change, that is true- provided “the Russians”, “North Koreans”, or “the Chinese” don’t cripple or eliminate Rossi and his new manufacturing partner. I’m lacking a sarcasm font, so just visualize the air quotes where I’ve used typed characters…

    • Obvious

      Should start the crazy quotes at the word obviously

      • TVulgaris

        I said “seems obviously” (not air quotes this time). I’ll always accept the probability of my own fallibility in interpretation of events, since my sensorium is very limited in bandwidth, accuracy, and precision.

        • Mats002

          Popcorn is a healthy snack, it will be good for you. Mmmm.

          • Omega Z

            Abd, Quit embarrassing yourself.

            Ever take note of Apple versus Samsung. Each has dozens of lawyers involved in their IP wars. Silver Law Group is a small legal firm. They do not have the capacity for a protracted lawsuit without neglecting current clientele. This is in fact becoming a protracted lawsuit. Additional lawyers with various fields of expertise are needed. As to “Annesser”. Step up, Step down. OMG-Lets call it what it is. Continuity.

            A Woodford fund representative has spilled the beans. This is an IP War. Darden had an opportunity to have his investment returned with the caveat of relinquishing any and all rights claims to Rossi’s IP. One may ask why he declined the offer and is now willing to foot the legal costs for unsubstantiated E-cat claims. Could it be that the E-cat has been substantiated. Quite probable.

            The questions then are, Is there engineering issues? Using Rossi’s own words the answer is Yes. What is the COP. Rossi’s claims have been consistant. COP>6. No more no less. I personally doubt average COP of 50. Once you surpass COP=20, any little factor has serious impact on those numbers.

            I would also say that Anyone that makes a COP claim based on selected data(Like a COP=0.5) is full of B.S. By being selective about my data I could could claim infinite COP. So unless you have 100% of the original data, all claims are meaningless as I would have no way of determining how you interpreted the data.

            As to You and J.R. always trying to explain things, You’re like a bad televison legal commentator. Bomb Shell Tonight. The plaintiff wore a blue suit to court. What does this all mean, Bomb Shell Tonight. The Defendant wore a gray suit to court. What does this all mean, All I see is 2 opponents sizing each other up.

            There is 1 thing certain. This Is an IP War.Everything else is Smoke and Mirrors.

  • sam

    Comment from Lenr forum
    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax
    User Avatar
    Verified User
    24 minutes ago
    From the E-Cat World post:
    Thanks to Barbierir for noticing that IH et al have updated their Answer again, and this time have included James A. Bass as one of the third parties against whom they have listed a counter complaint. This must mean that James A. Bass is now considered a real person by them, not a “John Doe” (fake person) that they had alleged previously.

    It has become routine that the e-catworld community misreads Rossi v. Darden. “John Doe” does not mean “fake person.” It means a person with unknown identity. There has been communication between Jones Day and the other lawyers, Probably the Rossi side is asserting that James A. Bass was really a person by that name, and, my guess, they add “but we don’t know where he is.” So Jones Day has decided to name James A. Bass as a counterclaim defendant instead of what they had, as I recall, John Doe (“James A. Bass”).

    It is now just “James A. Bass “”Bass”) and that later in the countercomplaint, “Bass” is used, instead of the full name, is taken to mean something important. It’s just an abbreviation.

    This is a quite minor thing. It is not an admission that James A. Bass is not a fake identity. It does not necessarily meant that they found him. If they found him, I assume they served him with a notice he is being sued, and then the clock is ticking for him to appear or we may see a motion for default judgment. If he is not found, this increases the appearance of fraud, just a little. It would be one more suspicious fact that can be alleged. We will not know at this point unless James A. Bass “appears” in the case. So far, Penon has not appeared but all the other counterclaim defendants have, through waiver of process, which gives them 60 days to respond instead of 21.

    And that is only the tip of the iceberg of defective e-cat world reading of the pleadings and motions, and toss in Peter Gluck, who is totally confused.

    Peter thinks his favorite “errors” on the IH side are really, really important, and proves they are Something Bad, when he has not understood his target (Exhibit 5), and that the Exhibit playing a supportive role and was not intended to “prove” that there was no excess heat, nor that heat was not 1 megawatt. It is intended to show the lack of cooperation of Penon, and to support the idea that Penon was a co-conspirator in a fraud. Murray questioned the data, as would any sane engineer. That a question is asked does not prove that the data is wrong or bad. But Exhibit 5 was given to Penon on March 25, when the alleged ERV Report was provided on March 29. Therefore Exhibit 5 does not, as often claimed, reveal the Report data; rather Murray was responding to preliminary reports, including one last year, part of which apparently found its way to Jed Rothwell.

    Again contrary to claims, Jed Rothwell was not wrong in his comments about ERV data, he was merely commenting on something like a month of data — provided to someone by Rossi, he was told, he could not say by whom, because of confidentiality agreements.

    • wpj

      I was amazed to see that he has no legal background and yet is making all these assertions; I have given up on anything he writes (and beside, I do not have the time!).

      • Because he is intelligent he assumes the rest of us can’t think as clearly as him, ascribing to us the stupidest ideas, like we don’t know what John Doe means.

        • Ged

          Or that we don’t know what it means when a party is forced to change its defense as new info comes to light. Such horrid acts of revisionist history in his comment there, or just forgetting basic facts and events. JMP asked for a chance to provide IH with Bass’ info, now IH changes its defense to include the guy and no subpoena to T-mobile has gone out. So they found him, and no longer can claim (or do claim) they can’t–and T-mobile is now irrelevant.

          Seriously and sadly though, Abd’s comments are just sounding ludicrous lately. Certainly not even a hint of impartial or accurate evaluation of the facts at hand. The bias is utterly painful to read.

          • MikeP

            You have to understand that Abd wrote a 2.5 page LENR paper once – which might have included an original graph. This makes him an expert. He also states that he studied law somewhere.

          • Guru Khalsa

            Well that explains everything. OK is he now running for president?

        • Barbierir

          New motions to dismiss, one by the attorney of Fabiani and the second one by the attorney of Jonhson and Bass.

    • “John Doe” does not mean “fake person.” It means a person with unknown identity.

      Abd misses the android angle entirely. Life-like fake people explains so much of this tragicomedy that it must be true.

    • Michael W Wolf

      Hey Sam, the ship is sinking, jump!

  • Buck

    I show my ignorance in asking the question: Who is James A. Bass? Who is he employed by and/or associated with?

    • Supposed JMP employee who vouched for customer use of heat to IH and others on site.

      Note that the card uses a stock photo of a fictional “chemical plant.”

      • Buck

        Thank you . . . yup, this would make him a central figure in the ancillary and potential red herring question of how the heat would used, rather than the central question of the validity/veracity of the third-party report.

        • Michael W Wolf

          I disagree. Bass is irrelevant unless IH brings some proof to discredit Penon. As far as IH goes, Penon is God. They can’t just say he is wrong, they have to show some evidence.

      • Ged

        The photo is actually a real chemical plant in Japan, but doubtlessly unrelated to here. I traced it to the company and location it was from at one point (found it through people who were protesting it), but it was too irrelevant to care about and was obviously just a picture used off the web. One can always use TinEye to do so again, though.

        • Thanks. Corrected.

          • Ged

            By the way, how did you do that awesome hide-y bar for the text? I must know this magical text formatting fu!

          • spoiler in tags as if it were HTML around the text you want to hide

          • Ged

            Oh man, you have opened a whole new world for me. I promise to maybe possibly use it wisely.

          • When we finally figure this ridiculous gigantic mystery out I’m going to post it in a giant spoiler block.

          • artefact

            I look forward to the day I see a huge grey block here 🙂

        • Also note the nautical star.

          Somebody just grabbed some clip art to make a business card he thought he’d never need or a conscious decision and connection?

          • Ged

            I actually didn’t pay attention to the nautical star (that plant is on the shore line though). I’ll go look again at it and dig a bit deeper. Back then I didn’t know about JM Davis either.

            I am almost one hundred percent confident he just grabbed a picture he liked, though it is not the first or most common picture to find, which also makes it less likely someone would notice it elsewhere. It would definitely not be the first time I saw a business card with a random stock photo someone thought was cool. However, if it is a place he once worked, that would be potentially traceable too, so worth a little bit of a look.

          • Ged

            Really? You honestly saw what he wrote there, then looked at the actual event, and compared the two yet then wrote what you have above? Bruce, you are way better than that… I don’t see anyone here making up crazy stories about this update, but rather looking into the material to come to a properly supported conclusion. Making up a whole story that was not related to what happened is indeed the definition of fiction. His bias also destroys his ability to analyze facts and that has become a pattern of behavuor, just as yours do to you above on this matter, unfortunately.

            “Energetic guy”? Since when did that have anything to do with someone’s knowledge or abilities or understanding of a topic? Many have looked into this all, so don’t be doe eyed if he did more than you and take his word has divinely inspired–others have done much more than him, and others and even I have had to correct him a number of times.

            Think and analyze for yourself, and you’ll see how ridiculous and out of touch his post put up by Sam above is. If others jump off a bridge, that wouldn’t make it any less absurd for him or you or I to do so too, nor is others bad behavior an excuse for one’s own. These criticisms apply to anyone who acts the same, Abd is just even more out there than others around here in his leaps lately.

            Come on man, read his post again and then read the actual court update and Annesser’s profile change–was Abd anywhere near reality in his rush for confirmation of his bias? Nevermind that lawyers work though cases right or wrong constantly as that is how the system works…

          • Omega Z

            Abd’s knowledge of legalities is showing. We are now aware that Abd has no legal knowledge or understanding of the situation.

            The “TELL” that tells us Abd has no understanding of the issue is the fact he doesn’t understand that everything that has happened to date is standard procedure in such cases.

            (Laughing because) -Lawyers do not drop cases because of someone elses perceived opinion of their client. They merely provide the best legal expertise they can. If that requires other lawyers with expertise in certain areas, then they bring them in. Lawyers with experience in international laws should it involve parties outside the country the lawsuit is in.(IPH International B.V. is registered outside the U.S.)

            Also as the lawsuit involves additional parties, you’ll need more lawyers to deal with the multiple layers of issues. There are now multiple parties involved.

      • Samec

        About picture: Chandra Asri and Michelin’s JV rubber plant to start construction in November 2013

        http://www.alaksir.net/news/2013/10/chandra-asri-and-michelins-jv-rubber-plant-to-start-construction-in-november/

      • Omega Z

        When I looked into the JM Chemical products website- The one supposedly NOT involved, It contained the same photo.

        So these chemical plants all look pretty much the same or they all use stock photos for their websites and business cards.

        • That would be an interesting link, if you can dig it up.

          The photo gets reused quite a bit by all sorts of different organizations and people.

        • Ged

          You have good analytical skills, so why are you not applying then to this situation? Or to what Abd writes?

          Let me dissect this for you like teacher to student. To understand why Abd’s speculation has “less currency” than others, we should first address the facts from which speculation are built. On the docket, and on Annesser’s profile, we see he has made a career move and changed lawfirms. The Silver Law Group now has no attorneys working this case, and are no longer being paid for a service. Should they still be held responsible for providing legal service to the case for which they have no employees involved with? In this instance, we see that the new lawfirm Annesser is working for now takes up the responsibility to advocate and service this case, as their employee Annesser is the core attorney and they are now being paid to render this service. These are the facts from which all speculation must be built.

          For Abd’s speculation, he wants to make a narrative where The Silver Law Group, through fear of a case, caused the change in lawfirms. Now, let us look at the evidence; if you had read your homework assignment which I linked you above, you would see that for an attorney (and lawfirm by extension) to leave a case is a very serious matter that can usually only occur under certain (criminal) or non payment circunstanses. This leaving a case also requires a Motion for Withdrawl. This is in direct contradiction of multiple sources of evidence. From here, Abd continues speculating about the quality of the case by taking his narrative assumptions as facts to build on instead of as the assumptions they are, despite the underlying assumptions being directly refuted by the actual evidence at hand. Do you see any supporting evidence provided by Abd, the docket, or legal proceedure, to support Abd’s speculations? Do you see any evidence provided by him that could trump the evidence already presented? Please provide a thorough explanation for your decision, with supporting evidence.

          Now, how do you know he has a greater knowledge base than I or others? How do you know what training in the matter I have? Can you support your statement? I too present you with references and precedent. I even presented you with a supporting knowledge link in the very post above to which you reply. Do you see any links, references, precedent, or other knowledge base used by Abd in the quote put up by Sam above?

          • Bruce__H

            Sorry. In my opinion Mr Lomax’s ongoing consideration of the events in this lawsuit, and his efforts to educate himself on the nature of the legal matters that have cropped up, are simply much more organized and thorough than yours or mine or anyone else’s I see here. He has just put more effort into it … and effort matters.

            Does that mean he is right in his speculation about Annessers’s departure from the Silver law firm? No. It’s just a speculation, as he himself points out, in an area where we don’t have full information. I see that there is a counter-narrative that you support in which Mr Annesser has been promoted. That is also a guess in the absence of full information. And I would like to point out that both narratives (Abd’s and yours) could be simultaneously true.

            What I don’t understand here is why Abd’s analysis is automatically dismissed because it is not compatible with the Rossi-as-beleaguered-hero mythology.

          • Ged

            It is dismissed because it does not fit the facts in any way. You did not provide evidence or support like I asked, as you do not have any to provide. Compare the two law firms and compare the two positions then use objective reasoning. The two narratives are mutually exclusive by the way Abd wrote his.

            Annesser made a personal career move (The Silver Law Firm did -not- motion withdraw). He wasn’t promoted, which happens intetnally, but moved from a 3 person team to an award winning 19 person team (both not counting him). From an associate to a counsel (a position that in most firms oversees associates and manages them). This is as far as we currently know, but you can not also be serious that you can create speculation on how people felt or thought when there is absolutely zero evidence presented from the Silver Law Group.

            How do you know he puts in more effort than I? How can you presume to speak for me, or to presume that is a valid metric for your argument? I have seen very little from him more than wordy speculation, and even in another comment here he says he doesn’t know what Rule 12 says… Anyone could just look that up, but is that too much effort?

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Curbina

      I think the idea that radioactive decay might not be constant is in itself another “heresy” that has taken a lot of time To begin To even be discussed about.

      • Omega Z

        Years ago I read a scientific study about constants. Man created constants because of necessity. Imagine the scientific quagmire if the speed of light was not constant.

        Well, according to the scientific study, all the constants tend to fluctuate. Furthermore, those who designated these constants and those around them were well aware of this fluctuation at the time. These constants are merely highly refined averages with give or take infinitesimally small variations.

        Why would they knowingly do this. So Science can move forward. Without some constants, many questions have no answer. So what if the speed of light has small fluctuations. Whats a few meters or even a few miles in a trip from earth to the Alpha Centauri system. It’s close enough.

        The study pointed out that these minor fluctuations are not an issue for those aware of them, But, that after several generations, most scientists take these constants to be gospel written in stone facts. As science advances, these fluctuations could become a serious issue with faulty conclusions.

        It could be if/when we develop transporter technology, one may find his feet permanently embedded/infused in 2 inches of concrete flooring.

    • Stephen

      Everything is getting more and more interesting.

      • kenko1

        You said ‘Everything is getting more and more interesting.’

        Yawn…It’s boring and an absolute waste of AR’s time. A win or a loss will not help bring LENR to the masses, so it’s useless also. Yawn…..snort……belllllllllch.

        • Stephen

          Well it’s definately better than it was a few weeks ago 😉

          But seriously don’t you find seasonal variation in beta decay rates at least a bit interesting?

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    There is no evidence that they found Bass, and some implication that they have not. They assert that he is a Florida resident “on information and belief.” They don’t say that about Johnson or Fabiani. It means that someone told them that or they have some clue, like a phone account that he had. It does not show that they know his real name. They simply felt they had enough to go ahead with James A. Bass as a named defendant, and that’s all. Bass is not a simple witness. He is a defendant. We will know of he appears, otherwise, we may not know more until the trial, when we might learn what IH has learned. If Bass cannot be found, this slightly strengthens the IH case that this whole thing was a charade. “Director of Engineering” — who disappears? A “chemical plant” allegedly processing materials worth way more than $1000 per day, with no ready path from the alleged chemical processing to the warehouse loading dock and no known traffic? (There will be testimony on that from Barry West, I assume, and others.)

    • Ged

      Yep, if Bass and/or Penon do not show up for trial or response then that will seriously damage Leonardo’s case. It may not necessarily be a mortal blow, but will be dang close, and strongly sway a jury.

      But you choose to forget that IH had to recant their earlier claims about Bass being fake, and they already had a phone number for him back then too, so that is not the reason they were forced to change. It is not because they feel they can go ahead. You can not “feel” that you can name someone a defendent, you have to show you have the right person to the Court. So, they now have the information needed to do so, and have done so, and must and have recanted their original claims against the Complaint that he was “fake”. As you say, he isn’t a witness, he is a defendent being brought and charged before a court of law.

      We’ll see what shows up, but for Leonardo’s sake he better.

  • You’re being too literal, Abd. Everybody understands what “fake person” is shorthand for.

  • Omega Z

    No doubt we will hear more about Cherokee and their work in 30 or 40 years. When chemicals leech up through the ground.