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

  • Ged

    Just a small correction to the thread title: The motion for more definitive statement or to strike affirmative defenses is against IH (the defense; IH is required to respond by 9/16) and was put forth by Leonardo (the Motion was by Leonardo). This is invoking Rule 12, and is done by the plaintiff to the defense.

    Edit: Here is another Florida Judge’s ruling and discussion in regards to these same two motions https://casetext.com/case/desilva-v-suntrust-bank

    • Frank Acland

      Thanks Ged. I think I misunderstood. I will change the title.

      • Ged

        Totally understandably. It took me a few double takes to realize what they meant by “by”.

        • Robert Munson

          What does this mean? I am legally (and mentally) challenged. 😀

          • Ged

            Basically, it is like the Motion to Dismiss in some ways, except this time turned on the defendent’s defense claims. Specifically, rule 12 says the “court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Rossi’s motion is making the argument that some or more parts of IH’s defense falls into those criteria.

            Usually, this weeds out defense statements which are just so vague and meaningless (insufficient defense) that discovery will not be possible unless a “more definitive statement” is made. And that is likely the point of this motion and the farthest extent to which the court will take it when deciding if it is granted or denied.

            Like in the MTD, the party having the motion filed against is given all the benefit of doubt. Often for the striking of an affirmative defense, the motion fails because the court views that the defendent does not have enough time to do proper investigations or mount a full defense within the 21 day period they have to respond by after being summoned. It is just too short a time to get all the facts ready for presentation, and the court understands this, and generally just simply views the defendent’s answer to be a statement of what points its defense will focus on so discovery can occur. However, that time aspect is Not the case here and will not help IH, as IH was given three time extensions–first when they got the waiver for the 21 day rule and a whole extra month and a half to work with, next when they filed the MTD causing quite a bit of time for back and forth about that, and finally when they asked the court for yet more time (another 10 days), and still filed their defense a day late. All told, instead of 21 days, IH has had more than 4 months of time, so the court may not be as lenient towards them as usual. Though, can’t say exactly how that will affect the court’s view given the other aspects, if at all.

            Still, the motion has a very high bar it has to meet to have a chance of success, and this is done point by point for each part of IH’s defense claims; and IH has a chance for rebuttle just like Rossi did with the MTD.

            So, we’ll see how it goes.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Those prior waivers of time are irrelevant. They will not be considered by the judge, I’m sure of that. Discovery has apparently begun (the magistrate hearing was about “third-party subpoenas,” which could be to anyone.). I have not yet reviewed the motion to strike specifically. IH successfully argued for the dismissal of four out of the eight counts in the original complaint (which is high). It will be fun to see how many of Rossi’s motions to strike succeed. At this point, having only quickly reviewed the Motion itself and with no comparison with the actual Darden defenses, I have no opinion. But in general, I would not expect Jones Day to file useless Affirmative Defenses. I do remember thinking some were a tad vague. In that case, they may be amended. None of them seemed truly unfounded, so … we will see

            I did study the Motion, it’s here:
            https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/newvortex/conversations/messages/846

          • 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 IH’s defense was really too vague for discovery. With the MTD, the Judge struck the redundant subclaims, the patent claim which needs a different venue, and then the conspiracy claim since all the defendents belong to the same people so no conspiracy could be claimed; so maybe the Judge will do the same here and go after any redundancies, and then just ask definitive clarification for anything too vague–nothing major.

            It’s going to 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 waiver was given just recently that provides 60 days before the Third Parties must respond. With IH, the main criticism was that instead of giving their answer when their waiver time was up in June, they pulled out the MTD to avoid doing so. That delay tactic I 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 of this manner 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.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            “It’s remarkable.” On that we can agree. This case is of historical importance, either way. It has gotten little mainstream coverage yet. I have a suspicion that reporters take one look and think “W T F is going on here? I think I’ll go do something else today.”

          • Dave

            Abd, the case isn’t important if Industrial Heat’s claim that the E-Cat doesn’t work is true.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            I disagree. It is historic, either way. Some have a very narrow focus, that assigns importance to what is important to them, but imagine that this assignment is a quality of the thing itself. Our common language allows that interpretive error. However, when one person says a thing is important, another says it is remarkable, and another says it is not (under a contingency), they are likely all correct, once the statements are expanded to ontological accuracy. What I’m really doing is predicting how the future will look back at this case.

  • 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.

  • 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.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        It’s up on newvortex. I would have had it up yesterday, but there is a document 38 preceding it which is apparently not available to the public (there may be confidential information in it), and so my request for document 38 came back with an error message which always before meant that the document didn’t exist. So I didn’t check for document 39!

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

        Anyone can access these files, but yahoogroups requires a yahoo account and subscription to newvortex, which is quick and easy if you have a yahoo account, which can be obtained in a few minutes. Subscription to new vortex can be “no mail,:” though I tend to change that to “special notices” because maybe some day we will need to notify all subscribers of something. We have never sent a special notice. Or if you allow mail, you will be notified of any new uploads of these files.

        • Ged

          I wonder if the document 38 is the minutes from the O’Sullivan 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.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            It was.

  • 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.

  • 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.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        Rossi set this up. Act consistently in your own interest instead of your partner’s interest, ignore and obstruct the partner’s necessary requests, then sue them for $89 million and triple damages for fraud, what do you expect will happen? Flowers and a party?

        The hearing quashed subpoenas to two banks. It’s been speculated that the purpose of this was to track down “James Bass,” but it also could have been a request to discover where the payments to IH came from. They were not based on measurement, that’s obvious from the numbers. The subpoenas to the banks were quashed, my opinion, because this is not a criminal inquiry and counter-claimants can compel disclosure from the primary parties for whatever they would get from the banks. They are obligated to answer truthfully under penalty of perjury. Notice that the subpoena that was not quashed was to a telecom company to discover the identity of James Bass, and JM Products was given four days to provide current information or the subpoena would be allowed.

    • 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 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 news 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 in regards to the statement in the complaint, and the original point Rossi made there at least is correct.

          Respectfully, you missed the point. IH filed a patent with a COP and data not seen elsewhere and did so on their own gumption, from their work and thus putting their own guy in it. That shows that contrary to what they say in the answer, they make the claim (and demonstrate) in the patent application that they do indeed see excess heat in their hands–and they have not retracted that patent app to my knowledge. 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

            many make unwarranted assumptions about the License issue. Back in 2012, IH knew that Rossi claims were questionable, they would have had to be idiots not to see that. (And that is just what the pseudoskeptics are claiming: they were idiots to trust Rossl.) But they did not trust Rossi; not in the ordinary emotional meaning of the word. They made a choice to test his claims.

            Consider: if there was one chance in a thousand that he has a real effect, with real commercial potential, it would be worth a trillion dollars. So the opportunity is worth $1 billion. These are venture capitalists. They play long shots.

            Rossi is paranoid, that was also known. He might have decided to keep his Secret, thus violating the Agreement. He has been known to create an impression of failure in order to get out of one agreement into another he thinks better (i.e., Hydro Fusion in 2012). So, I still think that there is at least one chance in a thousand that the Rossi Effect is real and Rossi will hit the market within a few years. So the Licence is still worth a billion dollars. As well, they have put much more into this than $11.5 million. It’s not clear how much, but I suspect at least $20 million.

            The claim that IH refused a refund is used to imply that they must “believe” that the Rossi technology worked. This is all ordinary thinking, not the thinking of a skilled venture capitalist, who will think much more like a professional gambler, who does not “believe” that the cards will come out a certain way, but who plays the odds, and who stays in the game, even if it looks bad, knee-jerk, emotionally, if the expected payoff remains positive — even if a long shot.

            Darden manages Cherokee and they make many long-shot investments. Many of them lose money. The LLCs formed sometimes go bankrupt. They lose their entire investment, typically $25 million. SOP, routine, so what? Overall, the game pays off, apparently very well.

          • 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.

        • 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.

  • georgehants

    Wonderful day

  • 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.

  • 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 :(; though it also does not say “Attorney only” like the meeting with O’Sullivan, so it might be public. 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.

  • 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 (hard enough that the Judge is throwing a hearing rather than just a document back and forth), 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, on the grounds the answer is too vague or spurious or otherwise insufficient to allow discovery of the facts in question. 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.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Not “IHH.” IPH. There is no evidence that the license transfer transferred all rights to IPH. This is a crazy objection, because Rossi sued IH. If IH has no rights, IH is not responsible! Over and over, Rossi alleges IH did this and IH did that, after that transfer. IPH is just an IP holding company, not an operating company, operations remained with IH, and still do, at least locally in the U.S. IH is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of IHHI, but that isn’t relevant.

            This is parallel to the IH claim that the Florida corporation has no standing. But in that case, the transfer from the New Hampshire corporation was not approved, so there is a stronger basis for it, because approval is required by the Agreement, and IH got Rossi approval for the license transfer to IPH. So IH was then operating in the U.S. under the license held by IPH, and was actually paying expenses, etc.

        • 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???))

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            A possible reason is fairly clear. Those are relatively harmless. What is not so clear is why they took 2.5 pages going after (e), which was also relatively harmless. It would have been enough to say “the taxes were paid, and if paid late, it did no harm to IH.” End of story. It does appear likely that Rossi violated the Agreement on this, though relatively harmlessly, as far as we know, so far. IH would not have made this claim if they did not have “information and belief.”

            All this will go before the judge, which will build impressions, and what I’m seeing is an impression being built that Rossi was not careful about details of his agreements. He went on, not mentioned in the case so far, to declare the License cancelled, unilaterally, without a court decision that IH had not paid as required. That is a gross violation, in fact. But has it harmed IH?

      • 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.

          • Chapman

            Claim III was all about the Fraud claims.

            The MTD is based upon the fact that Law requires a Fraud claim to be spelled out with the “five W’s” – Who, What, When, Where, and Why. You cannot say “Rossi claimed it would levitate, but it doesn’t. so we should not have to pay”. For fraud claims you must provide the text of the fraudulent statement, who said it, when, where, and in what context the statement was made. You also have to prove exactly WHAT DAMAGE you incurred from the act, and an exact VALUE of compensation or relief you are seeking.

            IH did none of the above. The only exhibit provided was the email about the hydrofusion issue, which has no bearing to their claims. Everything else they presented was just “Rossi said” with no evidence, no citation of when or why or to who, or even what differance the statement made to their decision making.

            In such a fraud claim, the CLAIM is THE CASE. Everything is submitted IN the claim itself, and if it qualifies, the court case is to argue out the events, and the validity of what was submitted. You can not claim fraud ambiguously with the intent to clarify the exact details and times and instances once you get to court. Your Claim is basically an indictment, and includes all facts upon which the case will be judged. The IH claim was just a whining tirade of accusations with no evidentiary support or specific details. Case closed on count III.

        • Chapman

          No, the end is specific to Claim IV. Claim III is refuted, and requested to be dismissed, ending on page 14.

          ———–
          Edit –
          OK, I see the final line you reference. It is a summation, and he meant to say 1, 3, and 4 – as claim two was only a partial refutal. But it is only a typo and not a legal issue. The dismissal requests per claim stand as individual statements and will be considered accordingly.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        Jones Day does hearings. “Please, Brer Fox, don’t throw me in the briar patch.”

        I don’t see signs of the “extra lawyer muscle” in the filings. I see desperation, to a degree. The other lawyers will show at the hearing, so they may be useful there.

        The Hearing is about the Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses. The likely outcome of the hearing is either no action (motion dismissed) or a requirement on Jones Day to clarify. In other words, to make the section stronger, if a bit longer. It also invites Jones Day to present more evidence.

        No, the probable desired effect of this motion would be to allow delayed response to the Amended Answer. Jones Day does not appear to have bought that effect, and went ahead as if Rossi was in default (as to reply).

        • 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.

    • Chapman

      Holy Crap!

      Have you guys read this MTD? It is not legal mumbo-jumbo! While it provides every legal reference and footnote required for a proper submission, it reads like a well written news broadcast. It is smooth and easy to follow. There is no confusion, no abstract references to legal principles without context or understanding.

      This thing reads like a nice USA Today article. It is devastating to IH.

      One thing I can promise – regardless of the ruling required by the facts, the Judge will LOVE this thing, and it’s submission will win much favor from the Judge for its professionalism. Judges HATE BS that wastes time, and LOVE submissions that make decisions quick, easy and fully justifiable.

      • 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.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        By the way, the Department of Energy never did what is described here. The two panels both agreed not to set up a major research program, but both recommended further research, not “does not work.” In 1989, there was a strong majority of the panel that pretty clearly believed that the reports were “impossible.” However, the Nobel-Prize-Winner co-chair insisted on a neutral report, and so it was. In 2004, the situation had shifted considerably. Half the panel considered the evidence for anomalous heat to be conclusive. A third thought the nuclear evidence “conclusive or somewhat conclusive.” And that was with a shallow review, only one day, no real back-and-forth, there were blatant errors that confused the issue.

        My opinion is that a review today would simply nail it. It’s real. But might still not recommend a major program, because of practical considerations. They still recommended research, and this time that was a unanimous recommendation.

        The DoE reports have been presented by pseudoskeptics as proof of bogosity. That is just what pseudoskeptics do, and is why pseudoskepticism is pseudoscientific.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      This boils down to incomplete logic. Penalty: nothing. IH asserts what they consider the most likely possibilities, stated as “only.” So Ontological Violation. I’ve seen far worse from certain other commentators. Notice that one of the possibilities is commonly asserted around here with approval: Rossi did not disclose the Secret to them, i.e., he was too smart for them. And they proved they could not be trusted because they refused to pay the $89 million when it fell due fair and square, because the ERV reported ….

  • 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.

  • 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. 🙁

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        This is a narrow understanding of the process. I just contested a speeding ticket in Massachusetts. In this state, contested tickets go before a magistrate, for an informal hearing, not a judge in a real court. There is a $25 fee which must be paid to appear. I could have gotten that waived, but didn’t. The magistrate found me responsible. So I appealed. $50 fee I got waived by filing an “affidavit of indigency.” I am not indigent by ordinary definitions, but legally, below a certain income level, I am. The magistrate hearing was a few minutes late. For the slowest case, it might have involved an hour of waiting.

        In the real court, there were maybe eight cases. The court started about 10 minutes late. Each defendant’s name was called, and they stood up, saying nothing. The judge said “Not responsible.” That was it. My case was the only one where the judge said anything else. it was the last case, the whole process had taken a few minutes. He said, faux stern, “Now as to you, this is entirely different!” He was joking, going on with “Not responsible.” and, yes, it was fun, this was personal “engagement,” he knew I would get the joke.

        In Massachusetts, a “responsible” finding can cost you over $1000 over a few years in increased insurance costs. In this case, the fine would have been $105. By going to court, I spent less than two hours and saved, immediately, $80. Long-term, a lot more than that. In the real court, the officer must appear and testify. They don’t appear, normally. Never piss off the officer! However, I was ready with evidence that the speed limit sign was unenforceable, and prepared to appeal if found responsible. (Legal issue, appealable! No precedents that I have ever seen!) That would have been fun, I was slightly disappointed!

  • cashmemorz

    In the end this seems to me to uphold my continuing theory that IH is simply throwing anything that might stick into the court proceedings. The main goal being to show their investors that they are complying with due diligence, extra diligence, in this case. The way IH is doing their accusations and rebuttals indicates they are not really serious about their accusation. If they were, more of their statements would be based on firmer ground.

  • My2c

    Interessting Order(3)
    https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/0BzKtdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk
    Shouldn’t be a big deal for JM Products to forward the current phone number and address of James Bass to the judge, right?

    • Ged

      We will know by this Tuesday! Finally something that doesn’t require much waiting.

      • Brent Buckner

        As ever, seems to take *more* waiting (even if it won’t ultimately take *much* waiting)!

        • Ged

          Yeah, I am surprised there has been no update in either direction (that I see as of yet on PACER monitor, but could be lagging). So much for my optimistic prediction!

  • 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

    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.

        • Michael W Wolf

          This is the scenario that makes sense and keeps IH from being the dirty rotten scoundrels they seem like at times.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      “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).”

      No, that gets the main argument backwards. The main argument is that the Doral plant was not a “GPT” and Rossi has not presented any evidence that it was, only conclusory statements. A GPT required a number of preconditions, and IH has pointed out that several were missing. To me, the most significant was that a GPT required written agreement of all parties to the starting date. Rossi has not alleged that agreement. It probably does not exist. IH has not yet asserted this argument except indirectly.

      Then, IH argues that even if this was a GPT, it did not follow the “standards set forth.” This arguing along multiple lines is common in a lawsuit and is only a problem if one puts on the mind of “ordinary logic,” which is not actually logical; rather it’s easy to understand if it is not necessary to have one single story about events.

      At present, IH has moved for summary judgement on Count 1, based on one of the defects, that the Florida test was not of a “six cylinder unit” as required by the Second Amendment. While they still claim the lack of signature problem, they know that they will not gain summary judgment on that, so they have now gone to the second layer: the identity of the device to be tested. Can Rossi claim estoppel on that? Maybe. Not actually, my opinion, but maybe enough of a claim to survive an MSJ. But they will then, I predict, go to the third layer, and move based on lack of written consent, and that is going to be much more difficult to overcome.

      (The MSJ just filed may have been filed because Rossi did not reply to the Answer, but only to the Affirmative Defenses and the Countercomplaint, thus leaving the field open for a motion on the pleadings.)

      This is all at the law motion stage. All of these claims remain possible to be resolved through discovery and then, trial if needed.

      Meanwhile discovery is proceeding, the hearing on motions to quash shows a small glimpse of it.

      • 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

          Language has application in context. When the Second Amendment was written, what did “Six Cylinder Unit” refer to? Not the slabs, we can be sure. The GPT could have been of anything that the parties agreed upon, in writing. The name issue points out that Rossi did not bother to obtain consent for a GPT, only for the sale of power to the “customer.” The GPT was a very specific process, for a very specific time.. When postponed, it was postponed to a time to be agreed upon in writing. That is quite basic, not difficult to understand, and sensible. Rossi attempted to force a GPT, deceptively. If Rossi can show consent, the matter turns around. If not in writing, it should be clear, not merely “they let me do it,” when there were other reasons to allow Rossi to babysit the Plant.

          Through the history we have, Rossi shows, at best, astonishing business naivete. He had the money to get good advice. Did he?

          At this point, IH claims about the “Six Cylinder Unit” stand uncontradicted in the pleadings, and the time for Rossi response to this lapsed. In studying Motions to Dismiss and whether they toll the time to answer on uncontradicted claims, I found mixed opinion. But this was worse. There were three parts to the Amended Answer: the Answer proper, the Affirmative Defenses, and the Counterclaim. Rossi challenged the Affirmative Defenses and the Counterclaim, but was silent on the Answer itself. That’s very risky at best. He could have asked for more time if needed.

          IH filed their motion for judgment on Count I the day that the time expired for reply. They were waiting for this.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Bull crap. Everything does not have to be in the contract. If the device Rossi used produced a COP of 50, it doesn’t matter if it wasn’t exactly like the 6 cylinder reactor. As long as the parties agreed to it, it is fine. And IH cutting checks and receiving checks, is evidence of their concurrence. Anything else is evil semantics. Because isn’t it about getting this to market? Or is it about IH playing word games trying to screw Rossi? That is what it sounds like to me.

            And the GPT was not very specific, in that it can be changed verbally as long as parties agreed with it. If IH would have complained from day one, they would have a case. But they didn’t, They went along with it, they cut the checks, they cashed the checks, they bragged to their investors, and they waited for Rossi to file the suit. Sounds to me like IH is playing games and don’t give two turds about bringing this miracle to the people. They want to play semantics, screw Rossi out of his money and keep his IP. Bottom line. The tech works and IH is slowing it down because they won’t be able to cash in on it right away because it isn’t ready for market. That is what a lot of us are beginning to see, why a smart guy like yourself doesn’t is beyond me.

          • wpj

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

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            To test the Rossi technology, of course. Those units did not work in their testing, apparently. And then Rossi asked them to ship them to Florida, for a sale of power. They didn’t really believe him, but he made it an offer that they could not sanely refuse: up to $30,000 per month. A magnificence, eh?

            And so, “Why not? Maybe he will make it work there. a third of a million dollars is better than the nothing we have, staring at this pile of junk. That will give us at least the money to pay Fabiani and something for Penon and Barry West, and we can focus on Other Stuff.”

            They were still playing the odds: if there was one chance in a thousand of Rossi actually demonstrating real power there, with a trillion dollar payoff, it was still worth a billion dollars, the opportunity. Otherwise it was a sunk cost, their $11.5 million. They deal with this kind of thing all the time.

          • Vinney

            You sound like you have an agenda here. We already gone through this.
            It didn’t matter if Penon was ‘hit by a proverbial bus’ and his ERV report will still stand. You say Rossi was legally incompetent. But so was IH as the above parameters, they signed to. Anyway they knew plenty of time ahead that $89 million was going to be due. And we have been given ‘no evidence’ they requested the test stopped as they suspected ‘fraud’ and commence legal action.
            Instead the test finished and the ERV report submitted with ‘positive results’. The ‘contract’ was completed on Rossi’s part.
            He knew he was in the right, and ‘sued’ for payment immediately.
            It might have been a ‘scrappy’ contract but he managed to do his bit. IH on the other hand are looking like ‘sore lovers’.
            You keep insisting they have evidence, but they look to me clutching at straws. Their claim that the model was ‘changed’ warranted a censure of operation at the time.
            They allowed to continue, they gave it ‘implicit’ approval, and $89 million was coming due.
            Remember, Rossi sued first, got past the mark in the contract as well.
            Now who is inept.

          • 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

      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

  • 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

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    On Friday, IH filed a Motion for Judgment on Count 1, based on the plant tested not being the plant (“Six Cylinder Unit”) described in the Second Amendment, which IH’s first MTD had led Rossi to vigorously affirm was valid. The file is 43.0 on the newvortex in the Rossi v. Darden filespace. See a discussion at https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3738-Rossi-v-Darden-Darden-Motion-for-Judgment-on-the-Pleadings-as-to-Count-I-of-the-/

    This is a Motion founded on the lack of contrary evidence to the claims about “Six cylinder unit” in the Answer. Rossi did not file a Reply to the Answer within the deadline (that was Friday). IH was ready with this Motion in case that happened. The judge, in the Order about the original Motion to Dismiss — which raised the same issue — hinted that if the “Six Cylinder Unit” was not just another name for “E-Cat Unit” then she might have dismissed Count 1.

    It is not just another name, we know that. There were actually three plants. There was the original E-cat Unit, sold and delivered to IH in August, 2013. There was a “Six Cylinder Unit” being worked on at the time that the Second Amendment was signed by IH and Rossi, and there was a plant called by various names, the “slabs” and “Tigers,” 250 kW each. The actual “test” was not of the original E-Cat, though it was installed in Florida as a backup. It was of four Tigers. So what is the implication of this? It is going to boil down to this: Was the General Performance Test started with the approval of Industrial Heat as to the starting date? The Second Amendment required that be in writing — which is totally sensible and normal. Was it or wasn’t it? Did Darden otherwise consent to a GPT start, as distinct from a sale of power and the operation of a demonstration plant, with monitoring by Penon?

    Rossi, busy with objections to the Affirmative Defenses and to the Counter-complaint, seems to have left the Complaint itself defenseless against a Motion for Judgment, by not replying before the deadline (Sept. 2). Those objections were not relevant to the Answer itself, which then stands unopposed.

    • 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. Mercato Veritas and all that.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            The true core is that the GPT required an agreement signed by all parties to the start date. What Rossi did was to set up elements that could *look like* a GPT.

            A 1 MW plant? Check. Actually, *two of them*. (The original and the Tigers).

            A measurement protocol? Check.

            The same man, used as ERV before, validating the measurements? Check.

            An explicit agreement to a start date? Well, that’s a minor detail. What really matters is if my technology works!

            However, the original GPT was to be in the IH facility. Presumably power dissipation would have been arranged, and would have been visible, not in some secret area. IH engineers would have had full access at all times. Everything Rossi did would have been completely visible, and IH could easily have insisted on their own equipment being involved. Without any doubt on the “customer side.”

            Doral was sold as a sale of power and demonstration for visitors and investors, and access for IH personnel was guaranteed. But that was under the control of the “customer,” in fact, and the customer control was firmly in the hands of Rossi. Those terms would never have been agreed to for a GPT. This was, indeed, a bait and switch and a clear one, easy to establish from evidence.

            The Second Amendment was safe for IH because of that requirement for a written agreement, which really covered everything. Rossi has not actually shown consent to a GPT, only to a measurement protocol, and I’d bet that was not presented as a GPT protocol. If it had been, Rossi would have presented it as evidence.

  • Chapman

    The GPT was conducted with the consent and assistance of IH.

    It was carried out in accordance with IH established testing protocols.

    It was staffed by labor provided by IH.

    It was conducted on the test plant shipped BY IH for the purpose.

    Any complaint that IH now makes concerning the Six-Cylinder unit issue is contradicted by the fact that THEY provided the test plant of their choosing for the test, therefore they agreed to alter the terms of the second amendment and acted accordingly. The argument is shallow and unimaginative, and demonstrates a total lack of legal education.

    IH made a motion for summary judgement – and the Judge will respond with a judgement. Wanna make a little wager? Put your money where your mouth is? I am game – how about you?

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      A Doral installation was sold by Rossi as a sale of power to an “independent customer,” with revenue to IH of up to $30,000 per month. Rossi offered his services free to manage that. IH agreed to pay Fabiani, and probably agreed to pay part of Penon’s fees. For what? To monitor plant performance, of course, as requested by Rossi. The plant was not shipped as a “test.” Rossi wanted the plant there, giving the story that it was for sale of power and as a demonstration for IH customers, guests, and investors.

      A power plant was staffed. By this time, IH knew that the devices they had made did not work. But maybe Rossi could work some magic. Since the money paid by the “cuistomer” would cover all the expenses, what’s the problem? Let him do it! I would have.

      The second amendment required an agreement in writing, not merely a collection of circumstances. It appears that the customer and the Doral plant situation was deliberately created so that Rossi could pretend there was a “GPT,” because there was no customer. IH is attempting to follow the money; subpoenas to do that were quashed, but … almost certainly to allow Rossi (and Johnson, perhaps) to directly respond under oath.

      The Six Cylinder Unit issue is only the most obvious positive evidence. What is screaming is negative: the lack of written agreement as explicitly required.

      The claim that they “acted accordingly” is based on an idea that it was agreed that this was actually a Guaranteed Performance Test, which is a very specific process, not just “it worked.”

      It is not at all clear how the Judge will decide. Motions to Dismiss are very difficult. However, this one has a good chance, and to shoot it down, Rossi is going to have to do more than repeat the word “estoppel.” If the Judge dismisses, it is very likely to be without prejudice, because maybe a rabbit will jump out of a hat. Only if it is impossible — beyond a reasonable doubt — for this to happen would there be dismissal with prejudice. Or, more likely, the Judge will require Rossi to present specific evidence establishing consent, not merely the words “Guaranteed Performance Test” repeated over and over in a context where other interpretations are not only possible, but likely.

      (The challenge here had no declared person invited to bet, nor does it assert a specific outcome that could be neutrally assessed.)

      (IH clearly agreed to the terms of the Second Amendment and is, in fact, *insisting on them.* There is still a legal issue due to the missing signatures, but it is probably resolvable and my opinion is that estoppel does apply there. Jones Day was just poking Annesser, who was more or less an idiot to put up that Amendment without signatures that could have been supplied at any time without fraud.)

    • LookMoo

      “lack of legal education”.. no its not. It is the art of delaying the introduction of LENR. As long as there is a ongoing legal process,.. big investors will keep their hands off.

  • 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.

  • 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 allowed for IH in the beginning.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        Those waivers are automatic, not “given,” for filing waiver of service. Penon has no waiver. Waiver requires “appearance,” and there has been no appearance for Penon. The time to respond, to my understanding, tolls from service. I think waiver tolls from the filing,

        (An attorney filed a special appearance for JMP, Johnson, Fabiani, and Fabiani’s LLC. Another attorney represented JMP, apparently, in the matter of a motion to quash service of a subpoena of evidence to a telecom company, apparently looking for information about James. A. Bass.)

        Pacermonitor is often a day or more late. They don’t seem to update over the weekend. I put up the Rossi response in opposition Friday night. Those who are subscribed to newvortex would have received an email notifying them of the upload.

        • Michael W Wolf

          Why would Penon need to respond? IH can’t just accuse him and drag him into court without any evidence to support their claims, can they? All the judge will see is IH manipulating the system to extend and complicate the case while they offer no real counter to Rossi’s accusations.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            The “ERV report” cannot be established in court without the testimony of Penon, and if that testimony is not available, there is another hurdle Rossi faces. Some people here have very weird ideas of what Judges do. They do not “judge” fact, except under narrow circumstances. They judge law, which governs process. A Motion to Dismiss is one of the exceptions, but the Judge is narrowly constrained there. I have seen nothing in Jones Day Motions, so far, that would be viewed as dilatory. Annesser’s Response is more likely to be seen so, in my opinion. The Judge, however, in spite of Annesser’s complaints, is going to look at the pleadings and the law. At this point, my opinion, the complaints make him look unskilled and reactive, lacking gravitas. If I were a lawyer on this case, I’d be studying the rulings of the Judge, looking at what she favors and what she disallows. Whether or not Jones Day thinks Rossi has a chance may be a factor in that. Legal research is expensive. From what I’ve seen, the Rossi case has no chance, unless Rossi has been withholding evidence. It could happen, and Rossi could recover.

            More likely, though, he does not have the necessary evidence. So the case is doomed. Considering Rossi’s long term goals, he would want the case dismissed on technical grounds. He would then be free to continue to claim that this was unfair, Doral was actually a real test, etc., and then continue to solicit other investment. There is the matter of the counterclaim, but that is all postponed for a about a year.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            They have already asserted enough evidence to claim fraud. Whether it is enough to prove it or not is a separate issue. The claim is enough to allow a case to be filed, if any evidence is asserted, and it has been.

            However, if Penon is a no-show, the “ERV report,” authored by him, cannot readily be established as having been properly issued. It can be entered as a document received, but from whom? “Believed to be Penon.”

            You have no clue what the Judge will see, you do not understand the legal issues.

            They cannot actually “drag him into court.” This is not a criminal proceeding. If they — or more accurately, a process server — can find him, they can notify him legally of the claim against him. If he does not then respond, within a certain period, a default judgment can then be entered. If he never wants to come to the U.S. again, and as long as there is no treaty between the U.S. and Italy allowing international enforcement of court orders, he could stay in Italy. He might still have a criminal indictment to worry about, but … that’s not clear.

            The other third-party defendants (except Penon and “John Doe” — i.e., Bass) “appeared” though a lawyer filing the appearance, apparently for the sole purpose of gaining time to respond by waiving service. Annesser could have appeared for him, I expect, if he had consented. He apparently did not, or Rossi does not know how to get in touch with him. He might be completely pissed. “Andrea, what is this mess you got me into?”

            There has been a response to “Rossi’s allegations,” clear enough that if all we have is the evidence currently before the Court, Rossi v. Darden goes down in flames. It would not even reach trial. The basic problem for the “Rossi side” is that Rossi has not responded to the Amended Answer. He is not obligated to, unless the Judge orders it. She might. That lack of response left the weight of the evidence standing clearly on the side of “No GPT,” because critical specified conditions were not fulfilled. Rossi’s use of the word may allow Count I to survive a Motion to Dismiss, but it’s teetering on the edge. Without clear evidence establishing consent, it’s toast.

            If you think IH is delaying, I suggest looking at the other side, it is delaying and stonewalling and probably maintaining an untenable position, because of the obvious lack of a critical requirement, in context, an explicit contractual requirement for an agreement to the GPT before it starts, signed by all the parties. Neglecting that requirement is face-palm foolish. You can lose a billion dollars by such neglect. In this case, perhaps $89 million. Even if the Plant actually generated a megawatt.

            If the Plant actually generated a megawatt, a sane Rossi would withdraw the Complaint, and settle as to the countercomplaint, possibly for a purchase of both Plants from IH, which he could then ship to Sweden, sell power there for local heating, and make money hand over fist with. Instead, he’s tied himself up indefinitely with a lawsuit he cannot win. Again, unless he has evidence he has not actually asserted yet.

        • Ged

          I see it just fine on Pacermonitor. No need to keep plugging your website, though I am sure it is great.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            I’m providing information. Pacermonitor, still, at this point, does not show the Rossi response, filed Friday. Just seen on Pacermonitor is “Docket last updated: 09/08/2016 11:59 PM EDT.” So at this point, it is well over three days late.

            It is not my “website,” it is an alternative to the vortex mailing list, established years ago when vortex was down for a while, that provided a few other facilities — such as a filespace. I am not the only moderator. The filespace there has all significant Rossi v. Darden case files, with annotations so that you can tell what is what. “Exhibit B” doesn’t say much! I created that space because the available copies of the case files were scattered, and I obtained a PACER account.

            That filespace is neutral. The newvortex filespace is open to uploads by all newvortex subscribers, and so is the mailing list. My opinions expressed on the mailing list are not neutral. My moderation of the list is, and I am responsible to the subscribers.

          • Ged

            Errr, maybe you didn’t refresh your browser cache. The response, 44, has been there since Friday night for me:

            “Friday, September 09, 2016
            44 respm Response in Opposition to Motion Fri 4:43 PM
            RESPONSE in Opposition re43 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Count I of the Complaint filed by Leonardo Corporation, Andrea Rossi. Replies due by 9/19/2016. (Annesser, John)”

            I don’t have the problem you currently do with the site it seems, and bet it is just cache issues for your end.

            Anyways, you have plugged the newvortex site many times in comments to me, so I am just letting you know kindly that I am not interested and you may stop, but thank you. That site is not even remotely the only nor best game in town, though I am sure it is helpful to some folks and a useful resource to them.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Well, neglecting to refresh the browser, Yes. That’s clear. A delay till the next day is routine, they tend to check at midnight. However, I have seen delay over the weekend before… and I cannot now verify that this wasn’t a failure on my part to refresh the browser.

            As to mentioning newvortex, Ged, I do not just write for you, I write for all who might read here, now and in the future. As I mentioned, that is the only place I know of with all the files organized (by document number) and labelled. If there is another one, feel free to point it out.

            Ah, one more point. Pacermonitor tends to check just before midnight.

            For example, the current display is “Docket last updated: 09/11/2016 11:59 PM “EDT. If something is filed on Friday, it would not ordinarily show up until Saturday. Of course, if you are in a time zone to the west, it might still be Friday for you. I have not seen before that pacermonitor checks at midnight Friday. I will be looking for that.

          • 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.

  • Chapman

    Frank, any discussion yet regarding Rossi’s submitted response to the motion for summary judgement?

    Friday afternoon:
    “RESPONSE in Opposition re43 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Count I of the Complaint filed by Leonardo Corporation, Andrea Rossi. Replies due by 9/19/2016. (Annesser, John)”

    • Frank Acland
      • John Littlemist

        “Whoops! Page not found”

    • 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.

      • Michael W Wolf

        Wow. How can IH be so incompetent? If this keeps up, Rossi won’t have to prove a thing. IH must prove Penon’s report is invalid, and they must prove Fabiani fraudulently received the moneys IH paid him to do the job. They must also show evidence and prove James a bass was an imposture. There is something really fishy about all IH’s actions. It just doesn’t make sense how their lawyers are handling this. The ecat must work or else IH wouldn’t take this delaying tactics route. There is something else going on here. I hope we find out the reasons for IH’s completely inept actions.

        • 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.

          • Chapman

            Cashmemorz is a really nice guy, and he is trying to find an answer that satisfies all we are seeing in a manner that actually demonstrates all parties behaving in a logical manner, and with overall good intentions. I will not fault him for it. It is a sign of a man with a noble spirit, and the world is sorely lacking of his type and mindset. I will go so far as to say that the world would be a better place if MORE people had his basic outlook… but in this case I just think his goodwill is underserved.

            But God Bless Cashmemorz anyway – I freely admit that he is a BETTER man than I am. Perhaps I am jaded, but my outlook on life is tainted by bitter experience, and that has led me to understand, for better or worse, that when it looks like someone is screwing you over it usually means someone IS screwing you over…

          • 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 IH 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.

          • Edit: Apologies to any readers for what has turned out to be a very long post.

            Thank you Chapman 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, or further delay has become impossible. 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 hidden participation and purposes might explain otherwise apparently irrational behaviours or apparent carelessness. Given the disruptive nature and potential of controllable high-yield LENR, we can also take a stab at guessing the identity of parties that may be involved behind the scenes, and the nature of their involvement.

            Those whose interests would be adversely affected by the introduction of LENR and have the money to do something about it would seem to be the most plausible candidates for a ‘bigger fish’ role, viz. existing energy cartels and military interests – or broadly, Eisenhower’s US ‘military-industrial complex’. Sifferkoll’s unearthing of the involvement of top level ‘perception management’ and law teams, together with systematic trolling activities, seem to confirm the involvement of at least one player at that level.

            In this case, the purpose of IH would have been simply to quietly hoover up promising cold fusion developers and their IP, and as such it is ultimately a disposable vehicle that can be allowed to collapse when convenient. Presumably, arrangements will be in place to ensure that the ‘acquisitions’ pass to another holding company, and that no consequential harm befalls Darden or Cherokee.

            The various ‘spin-off’ CF-related paper companies created by Cherokee indicate that Darden will have some continuing role in the story after this has taken place, and it would be unsurprising if it turns out that the IH portfolio of CF IP has already been transferred to some such entity, along with Woodford’s investment and any other significant funds (probably illegal, but who is going to do anything about it if they are made aware of the real players involved).

            Given his history of relatively modest scale rip-off operations prior to this episode, IMO Darden probably didn’t initiate the process but was (as someone of rather relaxed scruples who may know the ‘right’ people) ‘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 helps deplete 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, while holding back public awareness of the technology. The critical difference (military vs. industrial) would be that the military would most likely intend to exploit the technology for military superiority (they are almost certainly already doing so, based on their own research) 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 the technology on their own terms.

            The fact that the clamps appear to be slowly 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., (1) to acquire all viable CF systems and to suppress as required any developers outside their control, and (2) to create circumstances that both publicly reveal the existence of viable LENR reactors, and simultaneously propel the introduction as widely as possible of legislation designed to create a state-enforced monopoly on CF similar to the ring fencing of nuclear fission.

            Use of the controlled media to create a perception of great danger would of course be essential to this, but this would probably be offset by widespread promotion of the obvious benefits of introduction – in the ‘right’ hands. Whatever the chosen path the end result would be the same: cold fusion would replace all other centralised energy generation operated by the energy cartels at a pace that suits their interests, and local/private development or deployment would be prevented by the monopoly legislation enforced by State power. As a further insult it is even possible that consumers will actually end up underwriting the cost of the corporate transition process through heavy ‘green taxes’ of some kind, part-forwarded to the producers.

            In short, this is probably a case of the present energy producers manoevering for monopoly control of this new form of energy. If as seems likely, this court case was forced on them unexpectedly, and they were unprepared, then other means will be found to maintain the status quo ante that may depend on levers that are outside the law.

          • Chapman

            Agaricus, I am torn!

            I really enjoyed reading that! Well done, Well said…

            On one hand I feel compelled to show respect for your thoughtful essay by responding with some lengthy analysis and conversation, but you have written so well that there is nothing for me to say!

            On the other hand, not responding would fail to acknowledge the quality of your post.. So I will just have to say, “Yeah, What He Said!” and hope that is enough.

            (I am a cranky, opinionated Old Bastard, and there is seldom a time when I have nothing to say or add – so my LACK of a rebuttal IS my highest form of praise)

          • 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.

        • 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.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            He hasn’t. That’s clear. His case is hanging by a thread. It was nearly dismissed from the original MtD. And this is about contract law. It has nothing to do with the reality of the effect, and an inventor can have a real invention and try to obtain money by fraud. Puffery is legal, generally. But deceptive schemes may not be.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          The failure of Rossi to obtain written agreement to the start of a GPT is central to the case. Absent that, Rossi must establish clear acts creating estoppel, not just vague insinuations with obvious alternate interpretations. Unless something exists that we have not seen, I consider the matter practically open-and-shut, the only way that Rossi’s case can continue to stand is through implying that it is possible to establish, at trial, an agreement by estoppel, when all the evidence we have indicates the contrary. Annesser is relying on an acceptance of Rossi’s claim of “Guaranteed Performance Test” — repeated many times — as evidentiary, when it is apparently only conclusory, and is either contradicted by the exhibits, or they do not establish it, nor is any other evidence showing that the power installation was accepted as a GPT asserted to exist.

          That written agreement was required was acknowledged by Rossi in the Complaint, which then proceeded to ignore it. As matters stand, the Complaint is inadequate, Rossi’s best hope, if he wants to continue to spend money to prosecute this, is to amend the Complaint or do the equivalent in a reply to the Amended Answer.

      • 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.

          • Chapman

            I do hope you realize that IH expressly chose not to contest the ERV and went so far as to accept the ERV Report as a fact at face value within their answer to the claims. They are contesting the obligation to pay solely on the chronological events involving authorization and compliance.

            Your joy is premature and sadly unjustified. There will be NO examination of the plant performance in court. “The Inventor” only has to prove that the test took place according to the agreement, and that the ERV Report concluded that the test parameters were achieved. IH acknowledges this, and is only seeking to disprove the validity of the test AS the GPT outlined in the agreement. The legal scope of the claims and counterclaims have narrowed beyond the plant performance issue.

            I agree that the world is waiting to be shown proof that the E-Cat produces a COP above 1.001, but the court is NOT. The court has established that a COP has been acknowledged by all parties, as reported in the ERV Report. The case is now an issue of whether or not that incredible COP was actually achieved during a qualified GPT, or merely a fantastic level of performance that was displayed during a routine product demonstration – for which IH owes Rossi NOTHING.

            IH went “ALL IN” on the fact that it was not the GPT.

            Try to keep up!

            As it stands now, if IH proves it was just a demo then Rossi loses. If the court rules the test WAS the GPT as outlined in the contract, then Rossi wins – because IH has already conceded every other issue.

            EDIT————-

            I should add that they STILL have the Fraud issue they presented as a counterclaim, but that has pretty much fallen apart, and hangs only on the result of the “Where’s Waldo” search for Mr. Bass…

            But the answer to the initial CLAIM by Rossi is now down to the GPT validity itself.

            I have not seen any progress on the Mr. Bass front. Has anyone else? Are we still just waiting to see if Mr. Johnson will submit the contact info voluntarily? And if so, why should he? Why not just LET IH spin their wheels with a subpoena to T-Mobile? Why help the defense at all? I admit I am being passive-aggressive, but why do ANYTHING to help IH build their case?

          • Andy Kumar

            Chapman,
            I know all this verbosity can be intoxicating, fogging the mind, blocking clear thinking. Why hide behind the ERV? My sense is that a truly indipendent test strikes fear in the heart of believers that the house of cards will come crumbling down.
            .
            Did you ever think why all the players in all the LENR stories seem to have this “incestuous” relationship between the inventors and testers? Why not bring in somebody from outside the gene pool? Danish academics are available.

          • 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?

          • Andy Kumar

            // Would YOU personally be satisfied with the results if a truly independent test was performed by a team at MIT, or Uppsala, or MFMP? //
            .
            MFMP have confirmation bias. I am not sure about Uppsala, and as a Caltech guy, I don’t have high opinion of MIT! We are back to square one!

            Seriously, you make a little bit sense now. MIT will be ok, Stanford, UCLA will do too.

          • Chapman

            What if we cut out the middleman and go straight to Underwriters Laboratory? Submit a set of working units for operational safety certification, and have the performance validated at the same time. Would that be acceptable?

            I am also partial to Caltech, and there is no where on earth I enjoy wasting a sunny summer afternoon more than just cruising around Colorado Blvd., but I am trying to determine what your “belief threshold” requires.

            You specified only Academic Laboratories, but would you accept testing done by commercial labs or corporate entities? And even within academic circles, would you demand the testing be done in a PUBLIC institution, or would you accept testing at a Private University? If you will only accept testing being done through a lab that has your personal approval, can you clarify what is the exact criteria that would meet with your approval?

            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. 🙂

          • 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.

          • 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

          • Chapman

            George,

            I know this is a public posting, but I have no means of communicating with you privately, so I must air my thoughts here for all to see…

            I am an Ass. That is no secret. I focus on facts, and logic, and often mingle the results with undue sarcasm and insult. This is a personal fault I am working on.

            You, on the other hand, continually express a sense of “Humanity” on every topic, and I often dismiss or even ridicule it at the time. BUT, if you review the postings you will see that even when I have ( maybe a little unfairly ) rebuked your statements at the time, you will see that my stance has subsequently softened, and later posts are softer and more compassionate.

            So I wanted to say two things here:

            First – I apologize. It means nothing in the big picture, but deserves to be said.

            Second – Take some comfort in knowing that your thoughts and input DO have an effect in the world, even if they are initially met with hostility and denial. I do not agree with all your political and social views, but your sense of HUMANITY is universally appropriate.

          • 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.

          • 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

          • 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?

          • Chapman

            And THAT is the proverbial “64,000 Dollar Question”!

            I think Mr. Wolf is onto something…

          • 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.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Bass is a detail, not necessary to the IH case. Motions to Dismiss are difficult, but this one possibly has a better chance than usual. I do not know why IH has not emphasized it — yet — but the GPT required two conditions, not just one. “Six Cylinder Unit” is a technical failure, but there was a substantial one, not so easily set aside with an estoppel claim: the requirement that the test date be established by written agreement of all the parties. There were strong reasons for that. It made no sense for IH to allow a GPT under Doral conditions, instead of in their plant, and Rossi’s story that they failed to set up the test in North Carolina, is weakened by what he wrote to them, proposing Doral.

            Rossi’s complaint acknowledged the “written agreement” condition, but never alleged that it happened, nor did it allege evidence that there was clear agreement by estoppel. Rossi set up a sale of power and a demonstration, and only later called this a “test.” In describing the history, he calls the Doral operation a “Guaranteed Performance Test, ” and Penon the “ERV,” which is conclusory, even though it looked so much like a simple fact that many accepted it. The key document is probably the correspondence — or meeting, it is not completely clear — between Penon and Darden. If written consent to at GPT exists, it is very odd that it was not presented as an Exhibit, so central is this.

            I suspect that the Judge may require Rossi to present or specifically allege evidence of acceptance, much more than what amounts to IH allowing what Rossi had claimed Doral was: a sale of power and a demonstration opportunity for “guests, customers, investors.” Which he then shut down, excluding the IH engineer in July — and possibly a guest earlier — which would never have been allowed with a GPT, but which was annoying but not fatal for a sale of power. After all, as long as they were paying….

            So, as to delay, Annesser might prevail on the Motion for Judgment, but could not win at trial on this unless there is far better evidence than he has alleged. So who is increasing costs?

            Annesser doesn’t explicitly acknowledge this: Rossi is essentially claiming that the time for response to the Amended Answer is tolled by the filing of the Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses, and perhaps the Motion to Dismiss the counterclaim. That’s an issue that I do not find clear. Bottom line, though, the IH motion was made possible by an absence of response, plus the effective invitation of the judge in the Order on the original Motion to Dismiss.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            No, 1.001 is not earth-shattering. Significant power sustained for longer than energy storage possibility has already been achieved, years ago and the earth did not shatter. It hardly reacted at all. A megawatt at COP 2 would be, if it was cheap enough to run, there is a market.

          • 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

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Apparently there is some unclarity here about what “COP” means for a heat-producing reactor (which is nearly all, including hot fusion test reactors). Accurate COP, for no net energy production, is always less than 1.0, because no heat measurement system can capture all the heat. Very good calorimeters do about 99%. Calibration is then used to estimate the lost heat, which may be added in. But there are countless artifacts that can create errors.

            Some hot fusion reactors run with a TW of power in. That is a million MW. So they are heating with electricity (through all sorts of fancy equipment, perhaps very high power lasers, etc., And if they run the thing continuously, and measure all the heat, they will get 1.0 within measurement error, which will be more than 0.1 percent. And they could do this tomorrow. This would not be world-shattering, it would be *stupid*.

            The question is not whether the Doral measurements were accurate or punk or fraud, not for the legal case. The question is whether or not they satisfied contractual conditions, and it appears not.

            Let’s assume that the Doral reactor actually generated a megawatt. Because of how Rossi set that up, only claiming “test” later, not first gaining permission in writing, he does not get $89 million. However, don’t weep for him. If he has an attack of sanity, he settles with IH to buy the reactors (both, probably, maybe even the Six Cylinder Unit), and ships them to Sweden, sells power like he pretended to do with IH — or actually did — and makes money hand over fist. He had the money already, from the License sale. While IH made the reactors (all except the first), surely Rossi knows how to do it, and could have just gone to Sweden and made reactors there and thumbed his nose at IH. Of course, they would have a license, but, after all, they paid him for it. And if he wants to claim that a GPT is in order — he could have easily done that — then a proper GPT could be set up and, one more condition — he teaches them how to make reactors work — he gets another $89 million. If he doesn’t want to teach them, they just might sue him for specific performance or, ah, fraud.

            The purpose of the Doral “test” was what? Read the Rossi proposal and the agreement (the “Terms sheet). “Test” is not mentioned.

            Cold fusion exists. I have a paper published under peer review that shows it. Is it useful? Okay, how? Can I buy a reactor that works reliably with significant and useful power when independently tested, and no Rossi Grease needed? Where? More to the point where? For a time, we thought the Lugano report showed a possibility, but people are still saying that Hot Cats are not ready for market. IH made that reactor and could not find any excess heat in their tests. Besides the inidependent analyses that showed the Lugano errors, MFMP build a moder and showed that Lugano could not have had the power claimed.

            It was error, it’s that simple. There are people working with nickel hydride for a long time. It was not surprising to see a new claim, it’s possible someone will find a way. But Rossi’s claims were far outside the envelope. And he was refusing almost all independent testing, consistently, always interfering in some way. Scientifically, this doesn’t prove he is wrong or worse, but it does mean that the results cannot be accepted until confirmed, and with such extraordinary results, one test might just be some error. It takes many.

            As to the stupid political question, not here.

        • 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

            Agaricus posted an impressively insightful and comprehensive short essay on the topic below that sums up the facts far better than I can, and makes the point that multiple entities can act in an apparently coordinated fashion while driven totally independently by a set of common needs and intentions.

            It is not a classic conspiracy if there is no overt collusion between those opposing you, but the result for Rossi is the same.

        • 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.

          • Chapman

            You are absolutely correct that lawyers will exploit every avenue, but they do so under a strict set of rules and procedures.

            Parties do not get to show up in court and pull new arguments and angles out of their briefs ( see what I did there? ). The process of Claim, Answer, Response, Rebuttal, Motion and Discovery lay out the nature, and scope, of each party’s argument and defense before jury selection ever takes place. The court would never be able to close out a case if each side had an endless window to keep bringing up new ideas and arguments during the trial.

            That is the REASON for the filing process – it defines WHAT will be argued once a jury is seated. Otherwise, it would be impossible for any Judge to Schedule ANYTHING! IH will only be allowed to introduce a NEW and NOVEL argument in court if ROSSI presents some new and novel information to which IH must respond. Rossi’s case is so straight forward ( other than Mr. Bass ) that it is unlikely any new avenues will be opened up before the jury.

            IH passed on challenging the ERV Report. They already conceded that avenue. They will not be ALLOWED to change direction and abandon their submitted answer to the claim and just suddenly decide to attack the ERV Report instead. This is just a function of the legal process itself.

            Now, Lawyers will run as many parallel defensive arguments as they can, but they must all be mutually compatible and not contradict each other. You cannot, for instance, say “I was never there, and you have no witness to prove I was” and also argue “I had permission to be there”. One defensive declaration can not contradict another. All your defensive arguments must represent one consistent representation of all the facts.

            I am not saying that the Judge was precluded from allowing an investigation into the performance questions – I am saying FACTUALLY that IH actively chose not to pursue the issue and actually CONCEDED the ERV Report, and its conclusions, as an undisputed fact. They only cast doubt on the ERV as a person being part of a conspiracy to defraud, which would be pursued via financial records and by the submission into evidence of communications between Rossi, Penon, Fabio, Bass, Johnson – all working together and coordinating a criminal fraud. Their position is that the ERV was part of that fraud. They concede that the report does beautifully, and seemingly professionally, evaluate the recorded plant performance data and comes to a logical conclusion that the publicized COP was achieved, but that such performance is moot before the court, and of no consequence.

            In short, IH removed the plant performance from the scope of the legal case deliberately and explicitly. It is not a question of interpretation or opinion! It is written in the TEXT of their Answer. It is simply what IH chose to do.

            The CONTENTS and CONCLUSIONS of the ERV Report will NOT be examined. It is the ERV himself who will be ripped apart and discredited, not what he put in the report. Again, this is not my opinion – it is the actual argument they have presented to the court.

            Now, having said all that – consider this… As you saw in #44, Annesser refers to a written GPT protocol being SIGNED OFF by Darden and being part of the ERV REPORT! If this is the case, then Rossi, in responding to IH’s claim that the GPT was NOT a GPT, could be forced to submit the ERV REPORT as evidence that Darden had agreed to the test itself. If this happens, IH will then be able to attack the “validity” of the ERV Report as an issue of discrediting a newly submitted piece of evidence, and this would pretty much give them carte-blanche to initiate any attack they wanted on the report.

            Rossi should secure a separate notarized copy of that signed GPT protocol from the ERV as an independant document ahead of time. This will short circuit such a maneuver by IH. As it stands now, with the actual science not being part of the argument, Rossi has a really clear path to victory – but opening the door to examining the science itself would lead to IH bringing in a troop of PHDs and Engineers who would then testify that the device is impossible, and contrary to known Laws of Physics. Regardless of the validity of those testimonies, they would be devastating to Rossi as far as the Jury goes. What would YOU think when Bill Nye “The Science Guy” is on the stand telling YOU, the Juror, that all that E-Cat stuff is hokum?

            So you can see why Rossi will do nothing to expand the scope of the case – he wins easily as it currently stands. IH narrowed that scope with their submissions, and are betting EVERYTHING on Mr. Bass and the claim that the test in question was not a GPT. That’s all. Now, as those tactics fail they will WANT to manipulate the situation and find a new argument they can get in, but Rossi must be smarter and not allow it.

            If Annesser can control the situation from here on out, he WILL easily win.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    • Chapman

      You will not hear from them until the checks are in hand and IH has issued the assigned talking points. What, you think they work for FREE??? They may be shills, but they ain’t STUPID!

      • 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.

        • Chapman

          A very fair clarification…

    • 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

  • 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.

  • Chapman

    OFF TOPIC:

    FRANK – I wanted to applaud you for taking the step of incorporating a means by which we grateful readers can help subsidize the costs of maintaining this forum.

    I think we all would agree that we would have been dumbfounded if we had come to log in one day only to find the site going away because the expense, and EFFORT, of maintaining this forum had become too much of a burden and you had decided to move on with your life, without ever having given us the opportunity to show our appreciation and pitch in.

    I take it for granted you will be there each day, and I know I take unfair advantage of you as my personal censor and copy editor!

    So, in an effort at self-improvement, and at doing my fair share here at the same time, I vow to start using your “donate” link as my personal “Swear Jar”! Each time I go off on a tantrum and you have to take the time to kindly block my offensive posts and patiently point out to me where I have violated the acceptable limits of decency you maintain here, I will post a $5 donation! This negative reinforcement behavioral modification scheme will either quickly help me evolve personally, or buy you that fishing boat you have been dreaming of… 🙂

    • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

      • roseland67

        Omega,

        Think about that!

        If Rossi is truly concerned about people “stealing” his IP, he can never release the Ecat.
        How long do you think his IP will stay private once it is sold to anyone?
        A month, week, day, an hour?

        He MUST know this, once he sells it
        The first customer will open it up and discover what, (if anything), makes it work.
        If the Ecat works as stated, and no one save Rossi knows this, there will be no protecting it, so the IP argument is moot.

        • 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.

          • roseland67

            A bumble bee is NOT a cold fusion device that can generate more energy than it consumes.
            Again,
            “IF” the Ecat works as stated,
            What Rossi says or what he wants is simply not realistic or even possible.
            The first Working Ecat sold will be disassembled and reverse engineered, repackaged and resold
            As a “new and improved Ecat”.
            Rossi must know this.

          • clovis ray

            Roseland,
            That’s ridiculous, who else has a perpetual motion device, if reproduced,
            It’s,still belongs to Dr. Rossi, He is the only man in history, to have produced such a thing, now you are coming along and saying hey, look what i invented.
            It looks different but when looked at closely reveals it does the same things, Well no one will believe you.
            i know i wouldn’t.

        • 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….

          • roseland67

            Tim,
            “He has said”, yadda, yadda, yadda,
            Do you believe what he said is possible?
            “IF”, Rossi has what he “says” he has,
            The first one he sells, will be reverse engineered in a day, and then countries or companies with $$ $trillions in spending capacity will bury Rossi, regardless of what Rossi says he wants to to do or what his plan is.
            An invention of this magnitude, if it works as stated, could never be kept secret or even remotely protected by anyone, anywhere.

            What Rossi says or what he wants is simply not realistic or even possible.

      • Andy Kumar

        Omega,
        You win the argument, I have no answer to your argument. The last time I lost an argument was to my roommate when we were graduate students.
        .
        I made fun of him that for such a smart person, he believed in astrology. I asked him how the alignment of stars/planets could affect human affairs. His answer was that the light from stars millions of light year away does affect the retina in our eyes. I had to admit he had identified a probable causal pathway for stars to affect human affairs!

        • 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.

      • 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”).

  • 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)

          Anyways, the intensive IH testing was after the Validation, which was the prerequisite for the $10 million, in addition to transferring ALL IP. Some sort of disconnect has happened there, hasn’t there?

          • 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 for alumina. Or just watch the MFMP Glowiness Test Lugano Thermal Verification video, where this is incredibly obvious.

            The emissivity value entered into the IR camera for Lugano is an integrated function for emissivity spanning about 0.01 to about 25 microns (effectively the entire IR bandwidth), which is correct for calculating the heat output of alumina (using the correct temperature), but is not correct for determining temperature based on the spectral view of the IR camera, which only sees from 7.5 to 13 microns in this case, not the entire IR spectral bandwidth.

          • 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

            Your quote is from Jed Rothwell, BTW.
            http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98594.html

            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?

          • JedRothwell

            Calibration is essential, and it was not done. Not in the range of temperatures the device reportedly produced. That was a terrible mistake. In retrospect, after consideration, I think most people agree that invalidated the whole test. What a shame!

            No matter how sure you may be that this is the right instrument being used the right way, you still have to calibrate.

          • Stanny Demesmaker

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

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

          • JedRothwell

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

            Calibration is essential in all experiments, as Martin Fleischmann often said.

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

            When it is done wrong, it does not work. If the cell had been at the temperature claimed, 1200 to 1400 deg C, it would have been bright incandescent white. Too bright to look at directly. It was orange instead, indicating it was ~800 deg C, which means it was not producing any excess heat.

            The method of measuring temperature by incandescent color is more reliable than an IR camera. It has been used for thousands of years, by people working with ceramics, metal and so on.

          • 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” Lugano Thermal Verification video.

            The MFMP currently use a 0.945 emissivity setting for their Optris on Glowstick experiments. The same model of Optris as used in Lugano.

          • Obvious

            Here; perhaps a picture can save me 1000 words.
            (The IR bandwidth actually runs off the plot on either side to get the total ε)

            One can calculate the correct temperature from:
            a) one IR wavelength using only the Christiansen wavelength
            b) a spectral slice of IR, after integrating the ε over that slice (the Optris integrates the spectral radiance automatically) [this is the spectral ε, or Optris user function ε]
            c) using the entire broadband IR spectrum, after integrating the ε over the entire IR spectrum [total ε]

            Unless the surface has high reflectivity (ie: shiny metals) or polarizes or distributes light unequally around the circumference (ie: prismatic, lensoid), then the total normal ε and total hemispherical ε are effectively the same.

            To calculate total emissive (radiant) power, the total integrated ε is required, and the correct temperature (which can be determined as above). The Optris cannot see the total IR spectrum, so the total ε value cannot always be used for the Optris user ε function to determine temperature correctly.

            In many materials (ie: oxidized inconel), the broadband emittance “curve” is a straight line across the IR band (more or less). The spectral and total ε values will be essentially the same. These are called greybody emitters. In this case the total ε value can fairly safely be used as the user function ε for the Optris, as they are effectively the same. Alumina, as seen below, is a selective emitter, meaning that the ε is different at different IR wavelengths. This is important when using a spectrally limited window to view the IR radiation, and can strongly affect the spectral ε within that window necessary to determine the correct temperature. It means that the ε for total broadband IR radiation is not the same as the spectral ε.

          • Obvious

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

          • 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).

            Edit: Chris Angel actually made a big deal of teaching the breathing, concentration and technique in order to really levitate on one episode of his show. One was to practice, and if you could do it, to call him on a hotline. I wonder if his phone rang or not.

          • 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: http://disq.us/p/1bw7bam

            http://disq.us/p/1bw9wt3

          • Obvious

            Sorry, named the MFMP test wrong earlier. It is the Lugano Thermal Verification.
            Here is the link, hopefully starting at the most useful point (if all goes well).
            Try also 2:14:50 for a summary.

            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.

  • 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.

  • 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 like the MTD/MTS combo may have 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 expense increasing purposes. Who knows at this point.

    • Obvious

      I was trying to work that out.
      Is Document 45-1 not the Second Amended Answer they were asking for more time for with 46?

      • 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 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” [Edit: Seems this is -exactly- what they are trying to do as they explicitly state in the “motion for extension of time” that they are trying to make the MTS/MTD moot by amending the Answer; gees], before the response, though of course one can after or from within the response–so needing to change the Answer a second time should not need or cause a delay in the response. But who knows. The court will decide if it is allowable or not.
        [Edit2: As of update 47, changing the Answer actually did work to mootify the MTS/MTD, and now they must be refiled. Honestly didn’t think they could slip that by at the last minute like that, but I was mistaken!]

        • Michael W Wolf

          This is insanity. All IH had to do is file the suit first, then Rossi would have to prove everything. The way it has gone, the onus is on IH, they have to prove the Penon report is erroneous because they sanctioned him to be the final arbiter of the test. If IH had sued first, Rossi would have to prove Penon’s Results true. Which would essentially mean kicking up that old reactor and having what the court would deem as experts, measure what Penon measured. Unless IH provides some real proof, those allegations will be dismissed. But as you all have seen with the email scandal, the judge may have ulterior motives and the truth of this saga will remain open to speculation. I hate it, but this is now my new concern. Think about it. A judge can keep cold fusion from being a reality.

          One thing is for sure. IH has provided nothing for their case yet. And now, all of a sudden James A. Bass is not an imposture? Or is he….

          I really feel bad for Rossi, assuming he has what he says he has. Imagine having the discovery of the millennium and having to put up with this crap. People bashing him, threatening him about going to prison, going to local authorities and trying to shut down the thing they say doesn’t work. If Rossi’s ecat really works IH should burn in hell for what they have done.

          And if ecat doesn’t work, it makes Rossi’s crime way less severe, in that he conned a few people, the world didn’t get harmed because it never worked, the world wasn’t really affected. Rossi would spend the rest of his life in jail. But IH, if found the ecat works and they defrauded, they’ll get a slap on the wrist at best in comparison. It makes me sick just thinking about the ramifications of IH’s actions if the ecat works.

          • Chapman

            Just to ease your distress, keep in mind that none of this inhibits the rollout of the E-Cat in any way. Rossi is still moving forward with his European deployment, and IH is only a single marketing partner. This issue does effect the American and Chinese markets, but that simply allows Rossi to secure market dominance in Europe prior to the dispute over American market rights is resolved.

            Basically, it just means that Europe will be the ones to work the kinks out of the initial publically released versions. America will then be introduced to the second, or even third, generation devices.

            This act here in the center ring that we are watching is not the whole circus…

          • 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.

            Edit: Note that IPH et al deny the allegations in paragraph 65 in all versions of their Answer.

          • 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.

  • 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.

  • Chapman

    And just like that, IH just dropped the motion for Summary Judgement.

    Not to say “I told you so”, but, well – you know…

    And here just a few days ago a certain poster was going on and on about how IH had predicted, and planned for, this major mistake by Rossi – and how he is just SO outclassed and ALL THAT CRAP!

    Well, they have dropped the motion regarding the six-cylinder claim BECAUSE it concedes the implementation of the second amendment, which contradicted the initial answer. All of this is so bloody basic that it is a wonder how they screwed up so badly.

    They are now trying to back up and retract all the self-contradictory BS they filed.

    They have asked for extra time to get their s%^t together, and Rossi was gracious enough not to oppose. He is THAT confidant of his legal position.

    They are scrambling to try and come up with ANY reasonable arguments. Their entire case is falling apart. All of their claims are proving to be hollow and specious.

    Mr. Bass has now been found, so the “Actor” allegations just went “”POOF””, along with the entire fraud claim. They must now consolidate their defense and claims behind the simple declaration that the written contract was never amended, and therefore the agreed window for a GPT passed without ever having been fulfilled. This argument will not hold up under scrutiny, but it really is all they have left. All the rest of their noise has been so much hot air and FUD. This simple issue will be the only remaining legal issue to be debated by an eventual jury, but at this rate it will never go before a jury, as their defeat will become clearly inevitable before the conclusion of discovery and they will be forced to seek a merciful settlement in order to avoid the punitive multipliers that a jury would tag on to the successful award.

    What a bunch of boobs! IH could have done better enlisting the services of a bunch of interns from Legal Aid.

    You guys just do not appreciate how ROYALLY these folks have screwed the pooch…

    • 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.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          Yeah, that’s correct, Obvious. However, I consider it likely they did invoice, and if they did, it was smart, because then it is possible to track the money, and I think they already went for that in the denied subpoenas to two banks and an accountant. Why were these quashed? Because legally the same result would be found by ordinary discovery.

    • Obvious

      Bass is now just moved into the Leonardo et al 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.

      • Michael W Wolf

        Obvious, the ship is sinking. Jump!

        • Obvious

          I am in the lighthouse. Many just refuse to see the light.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Yea, the fog makes seeing the light, difficult though.

  • 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.

  • 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!)

        https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BzKtdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk
        Use incognito mode in your browser to get around a Drive glitch and see all the docs.

        • Ged

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

          Edit: thank you again for the link, LENR G!

          • Some day we will see the ERV report.

            Right?

            Right?

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Very possibly not! That will necessarily become a part of the record — unless there is an order to seal it — if Rossi v. Darden goes to trial. I consider that quite unlikely at this point. It occurs to me to say 90% no trial. I may adjust that if there is another Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or maybe a bit later a Motion for Summary Judgment (which would be after substantial discovery, I think.)

          • 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.

        • wpj

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

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            No. Not true at all. They claimed that he had failed to pay some taxes on time. It is apparent that this is true, but that is not tax fraud and it happens all the time. The normal consequence is a relatively small penalty. Tax fraud requires filing fraudulent returns, and there is no claim that Rossi did that in this case. At least not yet!

    • 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.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Mind reading. Darden and Vaughn may be far more sophisticated than “right/wrong.” When Darden said they wanted to ‘crush the tests,” in 2015, I read that as they wanted to be absolutely sure, and that requires actually finding out by testing the situation thoroughly. They spent up to $20 million to do this. With that, they found out that Rossi cannot be trusted, and that if he has a real effect, they have a license as a hedge. They found that the information he gave them, and the devices that they made under his guidance, did not create working devices when they tested them.

            Yet the same devices supposedly worked perfectly in Doral, and they quite reasonably conclude from that one of two things was true.

            He did not have any workable invention, or he was withholding it.

            Annesser ridicules that as logically incomplete. Of course it’s incomplete. There are many other possibilities, there always are. When we say “there are only two possibilities,” what we mean is that all other possibilities are quite unlikely. And if they are wrong, “logical error” is not a reason to dismiss an argument like that. Each of those possibilities remains on the table, and others may be added.

          • 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?

        • Obvious

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

          I haven’t tracked down the model AR was using, but there is a photo with a readable display screen, with AR pointing it at a Hot Cat.

          • 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.

            In looking for it again, I came across some comments regarding the security cameras in Doral. Besides the reported etoilles dance, there should be an argument-scuffle over obtaining and photographing the water meter, and a heated “you are not an engineer” discussion.

          • 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.

      • 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? So many mysteries yet…

          • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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!

  • 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?

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            No, the graph was ripped from 2004 Hagelstein review paper. They wanted eye candy, and I did not have time to create what would have been really interesting, a compilation of all heat/helium results. That paper has made a difference in the real world, by the way. Watch. Meanwhile, yes, I read up on common law years ago and handled a few cases of my own or a partner’s. I successfully filed a motion to quash service of a summons. But mostly I have read court cases for years. Obviously, I am not an attorney and can make many mistakes.

            However, real attorneys have often found value in what I have written, as distinct from trolls. As to others, YMMV. Suit yourself. Don’t read it if you don’t like it. The case files, all except for some early boilerplate, are all in the newvortex yahoogroup file space, organized and labelled. Study them yourself if you like. .

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            If Ged has some special source of information, perhaps he could share it. What he has written above is speculation and likely quite incorrect. I expect no notice in the docket of a subpoena going out to T-mobile, whether it does or not. I assume that either JMP provided the information or the subpoena went out. They have not found him, that is reasonably clear. They allege he is a resident of Florida “on information and belief.” From JMP, I assume. That is distinct from actual knowledge. (If I am correct, the attorneys may request the court issue a subpoena and we only see it in the docket if a party objects. I don’t think any court action is required to serve Bass notice of the suit. The T-mobile issue was resolved, as Ged knows. If IH finds Bass, he will be notified of the suit. In don’t know the details of Rule 12. If he appears, we’ll know that he knows about it. If they serve him, we won’t know, necessarily, until they request a default judgment. But I could be wrong on that, there might be some notice filed that a notice of suit has been served. There haven’t been any so far, because the only defendants who have appeared did so quickly to gain time by waiving service. Penon is the other “hanging defendant.” The attorney acting for Johnson and Fabiani did not cover Penon. (And now Johnson and Fabiani have separate attorneys.)

          • 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. And if JMP provided the information, then as you recall that would render any subpoena to T-Mobile as QUASHED per O’Sullivan’s ruling, and it will not be sent out. You then even say “From JMP, I assume.” which is in agreement with me, and contrary to your own “special knowledge” rhetorical.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          Frank’s explanation was incorrect, that’s all. You may know what “John Doe” means, and so might Frank, but what he wrote, above, was incorrect, it is that simple. I corrected it. Frank, however, still has the explanatory “(fake person)”

          I make no assumptions about how others think. I do comment on what they say and write.

          Okay, I lied. I make assumptions about how people think all the time. However, I’m coachable. I know that mind-reading is a risky business.

          • 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. See page 47 here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BzKtdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk

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

    • “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!

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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 image of a what I thought was 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 was 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.

      • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

      I’m not sure about low energy neutrinos travelling at less than the speed of light but if they do well wow. The evidence he suggests does seem to point that way though.

      I can imagine a sensor made up of a large surface of beta sources with a large array of beta detectors on the back. And if the neutrinos can be focused as suggested well thats a new window on the universe. And a new device for testing nuclear decays and what ever spin offs that developes into maybe even to enhance or understand LENR.

      • 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?

  • 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.

      Edit: Here is the guy http://silverlawgroup.com/michael-healy/

      While Chaiken was focused on mediation and resolving cases by settlement, this guy is back to the contract dispute and litigation side of things. I guess mediation just didn’t work out.

      Edit2: looks like it was the other way around and I misread it. Seems according to LuFong above it was really a change in law firms as Annesser moved to a new one? It is an odd little jump-through-the-hoop since Chaiken was already on the roster for months.

      Edit3: yep https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-annesser-esq-8b13b013

      • 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…

  • Seeing as there is a single mention of this on this site I think it pertinent to mention http://www.leurenmoret.info/ in light of the possible interests involved in all this. Looking again myself revitalised the importance of LENR/E-Cat for me.

  • 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.

    Does it mean that Rossi is changing attorney?

    • 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
            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.

          • 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.

        • Bruce__H

          Abd’s guesses are at least as good as anyone else’s here and his knowledge base on legal procedures and the whole Rossi v Darden affair is much better because he is an energetic guy who has taken the trouble to delve into the material in detail.

          So I think all of this stuff about “bad analysis” and “fiction writing”, when applied to Abd but not others who post here, is really just wishful thinking rather than good judgement.

          • 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; guesses aren’t needed when the details are infront of our faces. His bias also destroys his ability to analyze facts and that has become a pattern of behavior, just as yours did to you above on this matter, unfortunately it seems. We ultimately want sound reasoning based on fact, not only wild “guesses”; and his knowledge base is not better when he fails to even look at or evaluate the facts (true for everyone).

            “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 or no matter how crazy constantly as that is how the system works… (http://resources.lawinfo.com/litigation-and-appeals/ notice this was not a withdrawal of anyone, and a law firm is just where an attorney resides, but generally attorneys are independent in the clients and cases they take. Annesser upgraded law firms so the law firm responsible for him -changed-, obviously)

          • Bruce__H

            I really don’t understand why Mr. Lomax’s speculations (which he carefully labelled as such) have any less currency than the guesses and speculations of others here. And Lomax does have a greater knowledge base that you or me, or any others here with no formal legal training, because he has taken to trouble to track down and understand the legal terms and proceeding and even read up on legal precedents (which he then cites for anyone else to read if they so wish).

          • 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 (crafted to be as darkly against the case as he could imagine even if it goes against all professional conduct or actual events we know, with no alternatives considered by him).

            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?

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            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.

            I saw his work, from the beginning, as both reactive and shoddy. Patricia Silver is an attorney of high experience. I did not think this was her work, so the level of supervision of Annesser, who is a relatively new attorney, may have been low. When I saw the move, I suspected that Silver had looked at the case and booted him out.

            But she did not formally withdraw. I expected to see a motion substituting the new firm, and that’s what happened. It is obviously speculation as to cause; it merely fits my impressions, but certainly did not prove them.

            People are, here, thinking that this was a step up for Annesser. Maybe. Or Maybe not. Maybe Silver communicated with PBYA and suggested they work with him, letting them know he’d need supervision. So far, though, I see no sign of that. His two now-moot motions did not demonstrate high skill to me.

            His response on the issue of failure to pay taxes was heavily over-reactive, probably reflecting Rossi’s personal response. Annesser spent 2.5 pages for the judge to read, on a matter handled with as little as one sentence. “Plaintiff admits that some taxes were not paid on time [if that is true], but all taxes have now been paid and defendants suffered no damages.” Done. [That is not necessarily precisely correct, it’s just an idea. I’d have to look at the motion itself to come up with something more appropriate, but that is the substance.] The legal claims made by Annesser on that point were not necessarily enough to lead to dismissal of the complaint. That a particular kind of damage might be unusual or unlikely does not rule out all forms of damage, and Rossi — if he did not pay taxes on time — was, in fact, in violation of the Agreement. But then the legal shortcut is “So what? No harm done, and no, that defendant might have been worried — which was not alleged — was not enough to exercise a Federal Court. No harm, no foul.”

            Because the new attorneys are active (two appeared at the Magistrate hearing), we can be fairly sure that Rossi’s legal expenses just went up. That does not mean that Annesser is getting more money. We do not know if Annesser will continue with PBYA, they are not advertising him as a lawyer there. The bottom line is that the legal profession does not generally straight-out abandon clients. Silver would have made sure Rossi continued to have representation, but my speculation is that Rossi wanted her out, if she was honest with him about the case.

            If all she knew about the case came from Rossi’s narration to Annesser, she might have thought it quite interesting at first, if she was paying attention. Once the first Answer was filed, that might have shifted. She may have strongly urged Rossi to withdraw. He really did shoot himself in the foot by filing the case

            Obviously, I do not just report fact. I analyze and assess, and make predictions. I don’t mind being wrong; I learn from mistakes. However, a real attorney is telling me that my analyses are sound. Obviously, what I have written about Silver’s opinions is speculation, and such can be far off. What I can say with reasonable confidence, though, is that the idea that Annesser made a big step up in his career is not a sure thing at all. There are other possibilities.

            Lawyers do not have to have law firms to represent a client. But it’s highly advisable. Rossi is, indeed, going to need the best advice, and he’s going to need to trust it, which may be difficult for him.

          • 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 very particular bias and purpose: to make the case look as bad as possible with no room for alternative.

            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 spinning 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 good, with far more reference use and logical/precedence support than what has been churned out for IH in most cases, 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 that means they are objectively rated higher than Silver Law Group, among other honors, with 19 people not including Annesser, making them a larger firm. Annesser’s position as listed on his LinkedIn is above his rank 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.

          • 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.

          • 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.

        • wpj

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

    • Josh G

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

  • Barbierir

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

  • sam
  • 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.

  • 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)

  • Chapman

    Well friends, team Rossi just filed a motion to strike pretty much ALL of IH’s amended Answer, as being pretty much a mass of excrement. (I believe that reference should be acceptable, and is a factual representation!)

    Out of the original 10 defenses sited, all but numbers 5 and 8 are challenged for strike.

    Number 5 is IH asserting that Rossi was in breach because not all the IP was divulged and transferred.

    Number 8 is IH asserting that there was no unlawful distribution OF the transferred IP because the contract did not impose any such restriction on them.

    If successful, this motion would reduce IH’s defense to the initial claim to just those issues, which can be summed up as:

    “We owe Rossi nothing, because he never fulfilled HIS part of the bargain and did not give us ALL the IP when we gave him the first 10 million – and we had every right, according to the contract, to do as we pleased with that portion of his IP that he DID deliver”.

    In addition, the motion also reasserts Rossi’s demand for the court to STRIKE IH’s inflammatory and libelous claims regarding Rossi’s taxes from the counterclaim.

    As always, Annesser’s submission was well written and precise. Contrary to other nonsense being spread around by the usual sources, Annesser continues kicking IH’s ass at every exchange.

    ADDITION:

    I would also invite everyone to review submission 50, the amended Answer and Counterclaim, and just go to the end and really READ the counterclaim narrative.

    In the process of dismissing the GPT, they first assert that the window for the test was missed, as they assert that no extension was agreed to in writing, but they then continue on to explain (in the FRAUD part of their assertion beginning Paragraph 7) that IH began to suspect that Rossi was possibly falsifying the results of the ongoing test early on in the process that did eventually take place. This is significant! In this narrative, they clearly concede that IH was fully aware that the “TEST” being conducted was intended as the GPT, NOT a demonstration for marketing purposes OR a simple sale of power. Once again, IH has undermined and contradicted their own claims!

    Regardless of the second amendment validity issue, or the question as to whether the GPT qualified under the time restrictions, which was the issue they were attempting to address, they openly admit in this narrative that they were fully aware that Rossi thought it was the GPT, and that they funded and participated with the clear intention and purpose of the Florida test as being the GPT. This is in direct contradiction to their other claims that they had no idea Rossi thought it was the GPT, and that they just shipped the plant to Florida for the sale of power and for the marketing value.

    They outed themselves, and freely confessed their own lie! If this was not SO FRUSTRATING it would be downright hilarious…

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      The Rossi MTS is, first of all, not to most of the Amended Answer, it is only to most of the Affirmative Defenses. I am working on an analysis of this at https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3816-Rossi-v-Darden-developments/?postID=37462#post37462. I start with an introduction, then go into, so far, a separate post for each Affirmative Defense subject to the Motion. A brief summary: these motions are doomed. There is enough in the case to keep them, and motions to strike are like motions to dismiss. There is a strong bias against them. From her history in this case, the judge will, at most, request amendement, but I consider that unlikely. The motions appear dilatory to me. The kicker, so far, is about AD 7. https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3816-Rossi-v-Darden-developments/?postID=38064#post38064

      Annesser admits one of the allegations, and that one alone is enough to keep the affirmative defense. So the core of the Annesser complaint: there were allegedly irrelevant paragraphs cited.

      Remember, this is just an outline of the defense plan. Keeping a defense is not validating it, merely considering that there is some possibility of the defense being successful at trial. Rossi gains almost nothing even if he succeeds here. (Even if the judge grants the motions, if IH later establishes the facts with evidence, that grant could be reversed or appealed.)

      And the only part of the counterclaim that is subject to a Rossi motion to strike is the matter of taxes. I haven’t written a formal study of that yet, only some response elsewhere. Here Rossi is charged with fraud with major consequences and damages, and his worry is that it might be revealed at trial that he had old tax problems? A jury would yawn if a big deal were made out of it by Darden. But if it is mentioned, and the Rossi attorney goes ballistic, the jury will perk up!

      He did have old tax problems, just as he had problems with some thermoelectric generators. But the latter are irrelevant and introducing that history would indeed be prejudicial. But here, it appears that IH has information that Rossi violated the Agreement to pay his taxes on time, so why they had that provision in the Agreement (it’s unusual) becomes relevant. Unless Rossi can establish that at no time in the Agreement period was he delinquent, it becomes an example of Agreement violation, even if it is without ultimate consequence, i.e,. the taxes were paid later. That’s my opinion; I don’t think that motion to strike will succeed, but if I’m wrong, it does very little harm to the IH case.

  • Chapman

    Hearing on Rossi’s “Motion To Strike” set for October 14, 2016.

  • Chapman

    Rossi has struck again, now following up his “motion to strike” with a full “Motion to Dismiss”…

    Annesser keeps finding more errors in IH’s disjointed narrative and incompetent filings, and he is ruthlessly exploiting their self-contradictory stupidity.

    Let’s watch and see what hilariously ignorant commentary he pays his goons to post here following this motion. No doubt we will see a “learned commentary” from the FUD crew as to how this is an admission by Rossi that it was all a fraud, and how Darden’s apparent incompetence is really a cleverly laid trap to “lure Rossi to his own destruction!”

    Annesser is such a bully!
    Don’t you feel sorry for Darden? Getting picked on just for being an unscrupulous moron who can’t keep a simple lie straight?
    It just doesn’t seem fair!!!

  • Barbierir

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