New documents published in the Court docket of the Rossi v. IH case have shown some correspondence between Andrea Rossi and James A. Bass, who is associated with JM Products, the company formed by attorney Henry Johnson of Boca Raton which was formed to be a customer for the E-Cat plant Andrea Rossi ran in Florida.
In a document filed (document 118 here)by Industrial Heat’s legal team, they state that James Bass and Henry Johnson has so far provided 842 pages of documents and state:
Even though this is not a sizable production, the documents in the production have already clearly established important allegations in this case to the benefit of Defendants, including among other things that (a) Third Party Defendant J.M. Products (“JMP”) was not a “real Customer” (to use Rossi’s phrase) using power from Plaintiffs in a manufacturing process, (b) JMP was not associated with the wellknown British company of Johnson Matthey, and (c) Rossi was in control of JMP and paying for all JMP’s expenses, but in a manner to conceal this from others, including Defendants.
They provide some samples of emails in Exhibit A, which is Document 118-01 here.
In some of the email correspondence between Rossi and Bass, Rossi informs Bass of visitors that will be coming the plant, and that he needs to be there to meet them. In an email of Feb 15, 2016, Bass writes to Rossi:
“When we met with some people last year (I do not remember who it was), one of them asked me how does Johnson-Matthey heat their sponge in other plants. At the time I did not know you were cooking platinum, and I didn’t know what process they were using in other US operations, so I was very uncomfortable answering.
“My question is, will the people I meet tomorrow want to know anything technical?”
He also asks:
“Are they interested in the JM side only, or the Leonardo side (which I know nothing about!)?
“What do you want me to say about what we are doing on the JM side? For example will they ask me anything at all about the platinum?”
“Absolutely not, he will just ask you if you are satisfied with the plant. No thecnical [sic] questions will be put.”
Other emails included in the exhibit are from Andrea Rossi. In one, he makes requests of JM Products to make an invoice to Leonardo for $1050 for 4,000 grams of nickel powder 99.6 per cent purity. In another he notifies an assistant to Henry W. Johnson that he will transfer $500 from Leonardo Corporation to the JM products account.
In another email, Rossi states that name of the company should officially be “JM Products-Advanced derivatives of Johnson Matthey Platinum Sponge.”
So from what we read here, which is only a very small portion of the 842 pages that have been provided in the case, it sounds like Andrea Rossi was closely involved with the operations of JM Products, which was operating out of the Henry W. Johnson law office. This is apparently why IH does not consider them to be an independent company.
So what can we learn about what JM Products might have been doing at the plant? When we read about cooking platinum, ordering nickel, and advanced derivatives of Johnson Matthey Platinum, it makes me wonder whether the plant was actually involved in producing materials, perhaps fuel, use in E-Cats — and maybe this is why Rossi has been so secretive about what was going on there.
We know that Rossi uses nickel powder in his reactors, so having JM Products ordering 4 kg of it, so could have been processing it, using Rossi’s E-Cat plant as the power source?
There is still so much secrecy and mystery surrounding this whole story, and maybe this case will continue to shed more light.
UPDATE (January 14, 2015)
Andrea Rossi posted this comment related to the above on the Journal of Nuclear Physics:
January 14, 2017 at 1:27 PM
1- the publication of the emails or the diffusion or of their content is in violation of the confidentiality put from the Court. The matter of the pre-trial research is strictly confidential and I cannot make any comment, while our Attorneys will take care of the matter.
2- in general, the publication of pieces of evidence abstract from the specific context is misleading and nonsensical: I cannot speak of the specifics of this case, because they have to be brought first in Court
3- I am more that convinced that we have all the necessary evidence to sustain our case and our evidence does not belong to the blogs, but to the due place
4- our Counterpart has asked for a delay of the term to present evidence against us, we do not need any delay because we have all the necessary evidence already.