Third Parties in Rossi v. IH Court Case File Joint Motion to Dismiss Counter Claims Against Them

The third parties in the Rossi v. Industrial Heat case have filed a joint Motion to Dismiss counterclaims III, IV and Vthat Industrial Heat have filed against them. These parties are J.M. Products, Inc., Henry Johnson, James A. Bass, United States Quantum Leap, LLC, and Fulvio Fabiani. These third parties have been accused by IH as participating with Andrea Rossi in fraudulent activites, deceptive and unfair trade practices, and, in the case of Fabiani, breach of a consulting agreement.

The document can be read here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BzKtdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk

There’s not much new in the way of evidence presented, but arguments against IH’s allegations are presented. The main thrust is that Industrial Has failed to provide factual support for their allegations against the various third parties. Here are some examples:

IH fails to allege any facts that support its conclusion that JMP was not a manufacturing company, had no commercial use for the steam power generated by the Plant, and was created solely for as a ruse to induce IH to ship the Plant to Florida. (See ECF No. 50, ¶136.) Furthermore, the Term Sheet expressly contradicts IH’s claim, as it specifically states that JMP “operates a production facility in Miami, FL, which requires low temperature steam . . .

Counter-Plaintiffs allege that JMP’s role in the scheme magnified when JMP began sending “falsified invoices” to IH stating the amount of energy or steam JMP was purportedly receiving and using from the Plant during a given month. (ECF No. 50, ¶77.) CounterPlaintiffs’
allegations are belied by the Term Sheet and the face of the documents themselves. Pursuant to the Term Sheet, JMP was required to pay rent based upon the amount of energy it received from the Plant. Accordingly, JMP provided monthly reports with a breakdown of the energy received during a given month. Despite their burden to plead with specificity, CounterPlaintiffs offer no factual basis to support the allegation that JMP’s reports were falsified. . .

Counter-Plaintiffs allege that Leonardo, Rossi, JMP, Johnson, and Fabiani enlisted Bass to pretend to be the Director of Engineering of JMP and that Bass gave his business card representing himself as such. (ECF No. 50, ¶¶78-79.) Once again, the Counterclaims and Third Party Claims are devoid of any factual support for the allegation that Bass was not an employee of JMP and was not the Director of Engineering.

The IH countercomplaints surround their contention that there was no production taking place in the building adjacent to the 1 MW E-Cat plant, and there was no legitimate customer using excess energy produced by the plant — because there was no excess energy being produced by the plant, as Rossi contends. The two sides couldn’t be much further apart.

Fabio Penon, the ERV, is not included here as one of the third parties. From previous documents in the case it states that he has not yet been served notice that he is a defendant.

  • They have a point. IH accused Fabiani, Johnson and JMP of fraud without anything to back it up but their own suspicions. I don’t know how much they have to back those up at this point in the proceedings, but if they must provide a factual basis for those accusations then they should get tossed, because they didn’t.

    • Obvious

      IH actually hasn’t yet submitted their updated Response, with the clarification required in the last Order (document 67). So probably this Combined Motion will have to be submitted again once the clarification has been made.

      “d. Affirmative Defense 7 is STRICKEN in part. Defendants shall clarify
      Affirmative Defense 7 to specify the corporate entity alleged responsible
      for particular acts of fraudulent misrepresentation.”

      • Anything that gets the two sides to finally show their cards is most welcome.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          At this point, IH has shown a pile of cards, Rossi a very few in the original complaint and nothing more, and Johnson, Bass, and Fabiani none. I cannot draw conclusions from this, because the case is following what seems to be fairly normal procedure, and waiting to Answer until it is absolutely necessary is normal. After all, more time taken probably increases the cogency of what is filed. The only reason for a fast filing would be about public image, which would only matter, perhaps, for Rossi, except he also doesn’t seem to be in any rush. Nor should he be, unless he sees an advantage. I personally think his rush to file in the first place was an error, and has damaged him badly.

          • Michael W Wolf

            The only think IH has “shown” is incompetence. And the only fact that has been proven made IH look like smacked asses. Bass does exist, doesn’t he? IH is accused of breach of contract, IH has accused people of fraud. Those people should be given the benefit of the doubt, not IH. You got it bass ackwards. Pun intended.

          • f sedei

            I respectfully disagree. Rossi’s quick filing action is seen as the response of a rightfully slighted, indignant victim. The mistake many victims make is waiting too long to complain. This is made clear in cases of assault and sex related crimes that become more difficult to prove after lengthy periods of time have passed. Rossi is calm and cool because he is right.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      Factual basis is certainly shown in the IH pleading for Johnson. Fabiani is weaker, but they make at least one specific allegation that, if it can be shown, involves Fabiani in the fraud. I could make up a lot more based on what is public. The clear allegation is that Fabiani participated in the Bass game. In general, I would assert that he must have known what was going on, and he had an obligation to disclose what he knew. How specific IH must be at this point, I’m not sure, but Jones Day is expert at this and if something more must be supplied, there is more they could supply and I assume they will. Basically, from a review of the Second Amended Answer and a familiarity with the case, there is evidence for enough suspicion of fraud to make the claim and then require response in discovery, that is how I would see it.

      The point of requiring specific claims is so that defendants can respond. The claim is collusion or conspiracy in setting up a fraudulent sale of power, for obvious purpose. Johnson can defend by showing, in discovery, under penalty of perjury, testimony or evidence for a real chemical plant, actually connected with Johnson Matthey as he allegedly claimed. If the “Johnson Matthey” claim was fake, a joke, say, but the chemical plant was real, again, he could establish this. As to Bass, he could show evidence of employment and could testify as to his duties. The issue of secrecy has been resolved with the Protective Order.

      The case of Fabiani is a bit different. IH has alleged collusion in the matter of presenting Bass. Consider: Fabiani practically lived in that warehouse for a year, like Rossi. He would know about JMP activity, shipments, and he’d know about Bass. Rossi has often presented Fabiani as the “IH representative” there. Was he? Or was he a friend of Rossi really working for his friend? If JMP was fake — not a real chemical plant — and Bass was fake — not actually a Director of Engineering because nothing to engineer — , Fabiani must have known it, that’s my sense.

      So how would IH know? Ahem. Barry West comes to mind. As well, Fabiani participated in the meeting(s?) with Bass. Was he deceptive there?

      As I point out on lenr-forum.com, if JMP was real, i.e,. actually processing chemicals, using a megawatt of power or so, the IH position on this falls apart completely and the countersuit against Johnson, Bass, and Fabiani will fail. And that should be simple to show, if it’s true.

  • They have a point. IH accused Fabiani, Johnson and JMP of fraud without anything to back it up but their own suspicions. I don’t know how much they have to back those up at this point in the proceedings, but if they must provide a factual basis for those accusations then they should get tossed, because they didn’t.

    • Obvious

      IH actually hasn’t yet submitted their updated Response, with the clarification required in the last Order (document 67). So probably this Combined Motion will have to be submitted again once the clarification has been made.

      “d. Affirmative Defense 7 is STRICKEN in part. Defendants shall clarify
      Affirmative Defense 7 to specify the corporate entity alleged responsible
      for particular acts of fraudulent misrepresentation.”

      • Anything that gets the two sides to finally show their cards is most welcome.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          At this point, IH has shown a pile of cards, Rossi a very few in the original complaint and nothing more, and Johnson, Bass, and Fabiani none. I cannot draw conclusions from this, because the case is following what seems to be fairly normal procedure, and waiting to Answer until it is absolutely necessary is normal. After all, more time taken probably increases the cogency of what is filed. The only reason for a fast filing would be about public image, which would only matter, perhaps, for Rossi, except he also doesn’t seem to be in any rush. Nor should he be, unless he sees an advantage. I personally think his rush to file in the first place was an error, and has damaged him badly.

          • Michael W Wolf

            The only think IH has “shown” is incompetence. And the only fact that has been proven made IH look like smacked asses. Bass does exist, doesn’t he? IH is accused of breach of contract, IH has accused people of fraud. Those people should be given the benefit of the doubt, not IH. You got it bass ackwards. Pun intended.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            We already knew that “Bass” existed and that was never in doubt. The question would be — and could remain — his legal name and identity and role, and there was discovery controversy over identifying him. We do not know anything more at this point than that there is an attorney who has appeared on behalf of Bass, to file the Motion to Dismiss. That is not evidence that the real name is Bass, but that the so-named defendant has appeared. One can be sued under a fictitious name, and can respond using that name, as I understand the matter.

            But it is entirely possible that James A. Bass is the real name of the person. That is, in fact, basically irrelevant now. Bass can now be subject to discovery, which is what really mattered.

            This is a civil case. Both sides have claimed fraudulent representation, but there is far more specific evidence of fraud — as matters now stand — on the part of Rossi and friends.

            As to incompetence, what is the standard? Who is the judge?

          • Michael W Wolf

            Making contradictory statements under oath is at least incompetence. Bass is irrelevant without evidence. And until they can show Penon is not to be trusted with some kind of evidence, Bass will be irrelevant. Penon had the final word and is God as far as IH is concerned. You can libel Rossi all you want, it doesn’t take away that Penon has final say according to the contract. What evidence does IH have on Penon? Ziltch, zero, nada, nothing. How do I know? Because if there was anything, IH would have sued first and long ago. As Clinton once said, “it’s the Penon stupid”. It is just a cliche, I am in no way calling you stupid as I know better of you. Bias as hell, but not stupid. Yea, I could be wrong, time will tell. And all the legalese means nothing. You of all people ought to know, it means nothing when a jury gives a verdict. OJ anyone?

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            What “contradictory statements under oath”? There are none in the case so far, on either side. Claims in a filing are not “statements under oath.” Statements in discovery may be. According to the Agreement, payment is due if the ERV makes certain statements. That is not — ever — the “final word.” It establishes routine process, but it can *always* be challenged. I’m seeing a total misunderstanding of legal process and law here. Start off with who the ERV is. How did it come to be that Penon was the ERV for this alleged GPT? The Second Amendment to the Agreement provided that the GPT would begin upon agreement of all the parties. The parties would not agree to a GPT if they did not agree on an ERV, or if they changed the conditions, and that apparently did not happen. The precondition for a GPT was not satisified. Without being explicit, Rossi is alleging estoppel, that there was an implied consent, but the basis for that is terminally weak.

            Perhaps Rossi would have been well-advised to get legal advice *before* spending a year with that container.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Their patent and their statements to the court. Whether they were under oath or not, they are contradictory. And we’ll see about Penon, who did the first validation and IH had no problem with it, it can be assumed they were ok with Penon for the GPT as there was no complaint by IH. So by their silence, they concurred. A jury could rule just that, and I think it is more likely they would since IH are the ones with deep pockets and you know how juries tend to not like companies taking advantage of people lesser than themselves lately. Like I said, I may be wrong, but you are just as bias and won’t admit it I think. Sure I a bias against IH at this point. Because in my mind it is they who have been inconsistent at best. Not only that I am sick of seeing scientists get bested by slimy companies and lawyers. And that is what this looks like to me and many others I might add.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Ah. This is a misunderstanding both of statements to a court and statements in patents. It appears that the patent in question was applied for in a hurry, because the Lugano report was about to come out, and if IP was revealed in that report, it would become unpatentable unless the patent were first applied for. So they made the application, to protect the IP (for Rossi and themselves). They were not certifying any results, that is not a part of a patent, even though patent applicants sometimes toss it in and the kitchen sink.

            As to the first Penon report, IH definitely had a problem, but elected to go ahead. (As you can see in the Rossi email, IH wanted independent experts to be present, Rossi refused.)

            There is a double standard being applied here. Rossi did not complain about “Cherokee” not being a party to the agreement for years, was silence consent to what he later claims was fraud? IH allowed the $10 million payment to go through. If there was fraud in the Penon findings — which they have now implied — was silence consent to the fraud?

            The jury could easily find estoppel in the matter of delay of the alleged GPT, IH behavior could reasonably be construed as consent. However, the “Six cylinder unit” issue gets dicier, and the lack of a formal agreement, which was required for strong contractual reasons, easy to establish, is probably fatal to the Rossi claim. To overcome this would require something stronger than “they did not object.” Object to what? When was this alleged test called a “GPT”? if it was after it started, forget about it. Did IH object at that time? We don’t know, but we do know that the issue was in question before the ERV report was issued, and Rossi completely ignored the problem in his filing and so far.

            You see inconsistency because you do not understand what they were doing, why they would do it, nor do you understand the clear contractual requirements that the Agreement established.

            “Slimy” exists in your own mind. You might consider cleaning it up.

            Regardless, your judgment has not been adopted by the scientists in the field, who appear to have decided, most of them, to trust Industrial Heat, vide the management of ICCF-21.

          • Michael W Wolf

            You sound like you are working for IH. Yes, I already thought about IH getting in a patent to keep it valid before public release would invalidate patent attempts. Fact is it was an oath, if it is found that they could not get the 11 cop they said they did, that is a crime. Like the mail fraud people can get sent to prison for doing something accidentally and very minor.

            You think IH can say “your honor we had to lie to get the patent in before it became public”? All that you claim can be popped by a jury not caring a darn about what you think.

            If this farce gets very in depth, they may force Rossi to prove to them his tech works for all we know. And if Rossi’s tech works and IH couldn’t get it to work, that could be IH’s incompetence, couldn’t it?

            Like bringing in that establishment hack well into the game? You know, the one engineer 48 blew away.

            And Rossi’s lawyers seem to disagree with you. Why don’t you take it up with them instead of getting your high playing in the kiddy pen with people less qualified than yourself?

            And as far as I am concerned IH involved in ICCF-21 could be just a public relations ploy. To clean up their image they damaged by the way they handled the events concerning Rossi.

            Also IH setting up shell companies in the 24th hour is shady as hell. IH should have been honest about their dissatisfaction with Rossi. Why were they so afraid to say anything publicly? Why did they so carefully word their statements so ambiguously when they finally made public statements? That is what liars do. Remember? “It depends on what the word is, is”. Bill Clinton when he was lying through his teeth.

          • f sedei

            I respectfully disagree. Rossi’s quick filing action is seen as the response of a rightfully slighted, indignant victim. The mistake many victims make is waiting too long to complain. This is made clear in cases of assault and sex related crimes that become more difficult to prove after lengthy periods of time have passed. Rossi is calm and cool because he is right.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Any sane lawyer would attempt to restrain the client. Act in haste, regret at leisure. Rossi actually filed the day before the payment allegedly became past due. I have personally seen cases where the plaintiff was eager to file, (because he was “right” in his own mind) and instructed his attorney not to attempt negotiation, and it was extremely expensive for the plaintiff, who ended up with precisely what he could have gotten with no lawyers involved, if he’d been willing to restrain his outrage at someone else not doing his bidding, but meanwhile the delay cost him $30,000. Plus whatever legal fees he spent.

            Rossi is not calm and cool. I think that Annesser piled on so many words about the alleged tax issue because Rossi was fuming.

            Right now, the evidence of Rossi fraud, of some kind, is practically overwhelming. However, we have not heard any reply from Rossi on the substance of the IH claims, only technical maneuvering. Even without fraud, the problem of lack of clear consent to a “GPT” is devastating. Again, perhaps Rossi can produce evidence of consent better than his mere conclusory statements in the complaint.

          • f sedei

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong you may be. But, I do not wish to engage in your Devil’s Advocate game. Wish you the best.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            It’s great that you will not engage in a game that I am not engaged in. That should greatly simplify your life. Thanks.

          • Vinney

            Andrea Rossi essentially wants a ‘divorce’ from IH (and Cherokee).
            They turned out to be an unsuitable partner for commercialisation of this technology, and Rossi discovered this when they created ‘Shell’ companies for all the dealings. When they started sharing his IP with other LENR companies they also invested in.
            When Darden created IPH (Netherlands) and sold IP he didn’t own to himself it must have been the final straw. The contract was written the way it was but the ‘spirit’ of the contract was the IP was licensed for use in commercialisation in the nominated countries (upon payment of the full US$100 million). Mr. Lomax keeps bringing us back to the start.
            But then I suppose this is how legal people work (and rake up those legal fees).

          • Gittyup

            Vinney,
            I think you nailed it on the head. Ive been saying the same thing from the start. this isnt about anything but the IP. It all started with the horribly written contract that essentially was so one sided in favor of IH ( especially in regards to the IP). When Rossi realized they bought the IP (or IH acted like they bought it) for $10M he freaked out, clammed up, and tried to get out of the contract. But unfortunately I think it was too late. Im sure there is a myriad of text messages and emails that probably clarify the “spirit” of the contract but the black and white literal words don’t do Rossi any justice.

            To summarize the IP of the contract – All IP will immediately handed over to IH. no restrictions on who and when IH can share the IP. Rossi cannot share the IP or any future IP with anyone without IH permission.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      Factual basis is certainly shown in the IH pleading for Johnson. Fabiani is weaker, but they make at least one specific allegation that, if it can be shown, involves Fabiani in the fraud. I could make up a lot more based on what is public. The clear allegation is that Fabiani participated in the Bass game. In general, I would assert that he must have known what was going on, and he had an obligation to disclose what he knew. How specific IH must be at this point, I’m not sure, but Jones Day is expert at this and if something more must be supplied, there is more they could supply and I assume they will. Basically, from a review of the Second Amended Answer and a familiarity with the case, there is evidence for enough suspicion of fraud to make the claim and then require response in discovery, that is how I would see it.

      The point of requiring specific claims is so that defendants can respond. The claim is collusion or conspiracy in setting up a fraudulent sale of power, for obvious purpose. Johnson can defend by showing, in discovery, under penalty of perjury, testimony or evidence for a real chemical plant, actually connected with Johnson Matthey as he allegedly claimed. If the “Johnson Matthey” claim was fake, a joke, say, but the chemical plant was real, again, he could establish this. As to Bass, he could show evidence of employment and could testify as to his duties. The issue of secrecy has been resolved with the Protective Order.

      The case of Fabiani is a bit different. IH has alleged collusion in the matter of presenting Bass. Consider: Fabiani practically lived in that warehouse for a year, like Rossi. He would know about JMP activity, shipments, and he’d know about Bass. Rossi has often presented Fabiani as the “IH representative” there. Was he? Or was he a friend of Rossi really working for his friend? If JMP was fake — not a real chemical plant — and Bass was fake — not actually a Director of Engineering because nothing to engineer — , Fabiani must have known it, that’s my sense.

      So how would IH know? Ahem. Barry West comes to mind. As well, Fabiani participated in the meeting(s?) with Bass. Was he deceptive there?

      As I point out on lenr-forum.com, if JMP was real, i.e,. actually processing chemicals, using a megawatt of power or so, the IH position on this falls apart completely and the countersuit against Johnson, Bass, and Fabiani will fail. And that should be simple to show, if it’s true.

  • Okay, so now IH has to put some more info into it to support their claims.

    What about the ERV report… 😉

    • Ged

      I fear the ERV report will be trapped behind the protective order :(. I don’t see how it could be considered confidential, but at this rate…

  • Okay, so now IH has to put some more info into the case to support their claims.

    Dewey said that they (IH) have data and documents which undoubtedly show the fraud easily. So: Where is it??

    What about the ERV report…? 😉

    • Ged

      I fear the ERV report will be trapped behind the protective order :(. I don’t see how it could be considered confidential, but at this rate…

  • blanco69

    They’re all in it. Here’s where Old Fulvio sends a shipping container from Italy to Miami. Has it got an ecat
    in it? Err no it’s an invalid carriage. Maybe the invalid carriage is powered by an ecat. yep.

    https://panjiva.com/United-States-Quantum-Leap-Llc/29691548

    • psi2u2

      That remains to be proved to any legal standard.

  • blanco69

    They’re all in it. Here’s where Old Fulvio sends a shipping container from Italy to Miami. Has it got an ecat
    in it? Err no it’s an invalid carriage. Maybe the invalid carriage is powered by an ecat. yep.

    https://panjiva.com/United-States-Quantum-Leap-Llc/29691548

    • psi2u2

      That remains to be proved to any legal standard.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    I discuss this motion in https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3816-Rossi-v-Darden-developments/?postID=39727#post39727

    As pointed out below by Obvious, there is a clarification due from IH re the “corporate entity.” In fact, the three corporations involved are not clearly distinguishable as to actions from their principals, i.e,. Rossi/Leonardo, Johnson/JMP, and Fabiani/USQL. The requirement from the judge is purely formal, I’m surprised she would waste time with it, but … she did. I don’t see that this would affect the Motion to Dismiss. I certainly hope that IH is not required to upload the entire set of umpteen documents in a new Amended Answer and Counter-Complaint! Perhaps an Addendum will suffice, given that this will not remove anything, I don’t know.

    • Ged

      The requirement from the judge is purely formal, I’m surprised she would waste time with it, but … she did.

      Because the Court requires specifics for the case to be argued upon, and those specifics were lacking there. But now we shall get them. Hopefully indeed this doesn’t require an entire re-upload, though that could possibly be intentionally used as a tactic to stall once again and cause the Third Party MTD to have to be resubmitted too to reset the timer–based on how we saw that done by IH last time. Whoooo knnooowwwws, until it happens, or not.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    I discuss this motion in https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3816-Rossi-v-Darden-developments/?postID=39727#post39727

    As pointed out below by Obvious, there is a clarification due from IH re the “corporate entity.” In fact, the three corporations involved are not clearly distinguishable as to actions from their principals, i.e,. Rossi/Leonardo, Johnson/JMP, and Fabiani/USQL. The requirement from the judge is purely formal, I’m surprised she would waste time with it, but … she did. I don’t see that this would affect the Motion to Dismiss. I certainly hope that IH is not required to upload the entire set of umpteen documents in a new Amended Answer and Counter-Complaint! Perhaps an Addendum will suffice, given that this will not remove anything, I don’t know.

    • Ged

      The requirement from the judge is purely formal, I’m surprised she would waste time with it, but … she did.

      Because the Court requires specifics for the case to be argued upon, and those specifics were lacking there. But now we shall get them. Hopefully indeed this doesn’t require an entire re-upload, though that could possibly be intentionally used as a tactic to stall once again and cause the Third Party MTD to have to be resubmitted too to reset the timer–based on how we saw that done by IH last time. Whoooo knnooowwwws, until it happens, or not.

  • f sedei

    You are certainly entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong you may be. But, I do not wish to engage in your Devil’s Advocate game. Wish you the best.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      It’s great that you will not engage in a game that I am not engaged in. That should greatly simplify your life. Thanks.

  • pg

    following this for almost 6 years. starting to get disillusioned.

    • cashmemorz

      The court case just has to be put up with as a temporary but necessary evil. The real problem may be the muons. If that can’t be mitigated or gotten around then the regulatory agencies will slow it down until it is mitigated or controlled. That may allow it’s use only by big players like national and regional grid power producers, military, big industry who can be expected to shield against the muons or work with them. No household and small business will be able to risk the side effects of electronics disruption or biological harm. I am hoping that a version of LENR is developed that does not have Muons or other negative activity to get in the way of home use.

  • pg

    following this for almost 6 years. starting to get disillusioned.

    • cashmemorz

      The court case just has to be put up with as a temporary but necessary evil. The real problem may be the muons. If that can’t be mitigated or gotten around then the regulatory agencies will slow it down until it is mitigated or controlled. That may allow it’s use only by big players like national and regional grid power producers, military, big industry who can be expected to shield against the muons or work with them. No household and small business will be able to risk the side effects of electronics disruption or biological harm. I am hoping that a version of LENR is developed that does not have Muons or other negative activity to get in the way of home use.

  • sam
  • sam
  • sam

    Is this another reason to think this was a bad deal or am I missing something?

    Patrick
    October 28, 2016 at 12:20 AM
    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
    If you win the litigation against Cherokee and IH, how much will be the quote in percentage you will have to pay in federal taxes to the USA and in State taxes to the Florida State?
    Can you tell this?
    Thanks
    Patrick

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    October 28, 2016 at 11:42 AM
    Patrick:
    In total the percentage is about the 40% of the net income.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • sam

    Is this another reason to think this was a bad deal or am I missing something?

    Patrick
    October 28, 2016 at 12:20 AM
    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
    If you win the litigation against Cherokee and IH, how much will be the quote in percentage you will have to pay in federal taxes to the USA and in State taxes to the Florida State?
    Can you tell this?
    Thanks
    Patrick

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    October 28, 2016 at 11:42 AM
    Patrick:
    In total the percentage is about the 40% of the net income.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.