Rossi v. IH — Joint Pretrial Stipulation Published

A “Pretrial Stipulation” document has been jointly published by the attorneys from all parties in the Ross v. IH case which seems to be a summary of all the issues at stake in the trial. It includes statements that all parties agree on (“Statement of Uncontested Facts”; p. 8-23, and Issues of Law on Which There is Agreement; p. 53-57), as well as the disputed points that need to be decided by the court (“Statement of Issues of Fact Which Remain to be Litigated”; p.23-53, and “Issues of Law Which Remain to be Determined by the Court”; p. 57-59).

There is also a listed of all the witness that may be called upon by the parties during the trial. (p. 60-64).

For people who don’t want to sift through all the documents deposited in the court docket, this might be a handy reference, although while it is a summary document, it still runs 69 pages. The document states that the parties expect the trial to run for 2 weeks, which seems to me to be a pretty short time to decide such a complex case.

http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/280-Joint-pretrial-stipulation.pdf

280 – Joint pretrial stipulation
  • Eyedoc

    2 weeks sounds about right…..people are sent to death row in shorter trials then that. I just hope AR’s team is prepared. Is the trial start date absolutely set ?

  • Patrick Ellul

    thanks for the concise summary.

    • Dr. Mike

      Concise, but incorrect. Take the time to read the document for yourself!

      • radvar

        I recommend, as does FC, reading the statements of the case, and then at least skimming the various lists, to get a since of their content.

        I’m having a hard time imagining how the “items to be litigated” could be covered in two weeks, without some sort of prioritization, as in A = critical (sub-priorities A1, A2, A3 in descending priority), B = supplementary, C = barely relevant.

        That might be an interesting exercise for this group.

        I will start by nominating items to be litigated numbers 6, 7 and 8 as A1’s.

        • cashmemorz

          2 weeks in theory or what should happen if there is no foot dragging or appeals to negative decision.

  • Dr. Mike

    The operation and performance of the 1MW plant will actually be a major topic at the trail. About 10% of the contested issues involve the question of the 1MW plant’s operation, including whether there is any evidence that the facility had a heat exchanger. If a jury sees no evidence that a heat exchanger existed, they will have to conclude there really wasn’t much heat produced by the plant because there will be a lot of evidence to show that JM Products did not use any heat.

    • Curbina

      Indeed! Most of IH’s witnesses are there To sustain their assertion that the ERV report is completely wrong.

      • BillH

        There are several omissions and some factual inaccuracies and further explanation is certainly required from Penon before it could be considered a reliable document. Does the Test Plan, the interim reports or the final report ever say “GPT” or “Guaranteed Performance Test” or link it to the requirements of the License Agreement?

        Page 1 of the Final Test Report, number of reactor cores to be tested 115, Penon knew from his personal experience that not all the cores were under test and yet he refused to change the Final Report or provide an explanation. That’s either pure laziness or an attempt at deception.

        There is also no explanation in the report as to how he secured his measuring devices and his laptop from possible tampering. This indicates that he was far too trusting about the information Rossi and Fabiani were
        supplying him and did not take appropriate steps to verify what was being recorded.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Unfortunately, even Plaintiffs’ attorney says that they have no photos of the mysterious heat exchanger (see 283-03, p. 27). And the contractor who purportedly built it does not appear in the witness list. However, the question if there was a heat exchanger or not gets irrelevant if one acknowledges that the contract does not demand 1 MW of power, but a COP of 4 to 6. That would mean 40 to 60 kW output at the given input. I think such an amount could have been managed without major problems.

      • Dr. Mike

        I certainly agree that it would have been easy for Rossi to demonstrate a COP of 4-6. However, I believe IH will argue to the jury that all of Rossi’s data can’t be trusted based on the evidence, therefore, the COP can not be determined. I believe that IH will also try to convince the jury that they never did receive enough information to build working reactors after the initial payment of the $10M, and they want this money back (among other monies claimed as damages).

        • LilyLover

          Teacher Teaches Grammar
          Stupid child fails; rest of the class gets an A.
          Teacher’s fault?

          Hence the Parkhomov-like’s success matters.
          With similar dissimination of knowledge, can others build the E-Cat?
          Rossi could prove the answer is yes; hence, IH will avoid that question from being raised!
          🙂

          • BillH

            As far as I never really understand anything you say let’s have a look at your analogy. What has actually happened is that this teacher has been at many schools across Europe and the US, he’s never had a single student pass an exam, he often walks away claiming students are trying to steal his knowledge, and most crucially no student has been able to gain any financial benefit from his studies. At some point suspicion must fall on the competence of the teacher. Time for the teacher to demonstrate the skills that he actually claims he has?

          • Vinney

            So this is Cherokee Investment’s ‘modus operandi’, and Rossi was unlucky to be engaged with this entity.
            The Court should find similar and bring an end to their corporate chicanery.
            Let them cease now with all their heathen investments.

        • Vinney

          They want their money back, plus they want to keep the IP, it’s an ‘in-congrues’ pursuit.
          On the matter of IP transfer, according to Ampenergo, IH made no effort to ‘learn’ or master the technical know-how involved.
          They had very little expertise in place, and AR could have made them sign for completely ‘Bogus’ IP and IH would not have known better. It was their duty to ensure they had the IP they bargained for at that stage, but instead we moved onto the GPT stage.
          The actions of IH are puzzling, hasn’t it dawned on them that Rossi wants them completely out of the E-cat business.
          Furthermore, Rossi can easily create new companies and file new IP that makes whatever they win useless.

          • Dr. Mike

            I agree that any IP that IH now has in its possession is worthless. If they can’t make working E-cats they have nothing.

      • BillH

        In order to get a clear picture of what the requirements where you have to review the License Agreement, the Test Plan and and the Term sheet, including all the updates and revision to see exactly what was required, and from which party.

    • Ged

      10% is not “major”, a word rooted with “majority”. It is a part of IH’s strategy, but is not the “major” part of the case, obviously from your own number–itis only us here who focus on it so much, but the court case won’t. The major issue is the GPT, as that is the legal matter of the -legal contract- under dispute.

      • Dr. Mike

        Agree that “major” was not the best word. Rossi’s major issue in the case will be the GPT; however, I think IH’s major emphasis will be that they did not really get Rossi’s IP after the payment of the $10M as per contract and that Rossi was not honest with respect to the validation test, having a customer (JM Products), and the 1MW test.

        • clovis ray

          Again not so.Rossi did not do the ERV work Pinon did.and they had a year too say that the test was fraud. But did not what was they hoping to gain here.

    • Chapman

      With all due respect, you are focusing on chatter and arguments that are floating around the internet, while ignoring the actual evolution of the legal proceedings.

      IH has abandoned/avoided directly questioning what the E-Cat CAN do, and instead has focused on what Rossi actually DID.

      In so far as the readers of this site have been waiting patiently and hoping that this jury will authoritatively prove or disprove the E-Cat’s potential, it will be a disappointment. Because the case is focused on the actions, and intentions, of the individuals. Indeed, IH is effectively claiming no test was conducted at all, authorized or otherwise, and that the whole thing was a staged fraud by Rossi trying to get around the fact that he missed the “window” to initiate the required GPT and qualify for the final payment.

      IH is challenging Rossi himself, not the E-Cat. It is ROSSI who will be reviewed, considered, and ruled upon in regards to their defense and counter-claim.

      Rossi, on the other hand, has no need to attempt to PROVE the E-Cat in court, because even proving that it COULD perform does not prove it DID perform, or that the test itself was done in accordance with the terms of the contract. The science is not on trial here. History is. They are not determining what COULD happen, but rather what DID happen between the time IH and ROSSI signed an agreement, and the day the ERV submitted his report.

      I know that the distinction between the two concepts seems minor to us out here arguing about the technology, but it defines the very scope and direction of the legal proceedings, and the arguments presented to the jury.

      • Dr. Mike

        With all due respect, I have not really followed much of the chatter and arguments on the internet. All that I have read are many of the actual posted documents that will be presented in court as testimony. I have followed the chatter on this website and have mostly concluded that few people have taken the time to read the depositions and other exhibits that will be entered as evidence in the trail.
        It is actually fairly easy to predict what each side (plus the 3rd parties) will argue in court based on the questions asked in depositions and the motions to the court (with accompanying exhibits) that they have already made. IH will be arguing that Rossi failed to deliver his IP after the payment of $10M as required by the contract. IH will also focus on the many things that Rossi did which the jury might consider dishonest to convince the jury that they (IH) deserve to recover all money given to Rossi. The jury does not have to consider whether the E-cat technology works, but may conclude that the technology is a total fraud based on the presented evidence, even though it will eventually be shown to be a usable technology.

        • clovis ray

          Again not happening, Dr Rossi offered their money back.
          They declined so nothing there.their fraudligent attempt to steal his IP is proof enough to for me.

  • BillH

    If this now comes to court, which now seems likely, the initial investigation will center around the License Agreement, it may never get ant further than that. Who broke the terms of the agreement? what are the consequences of that? and will the agreement remain in force?
    is the failure to perform a GPT within the stipulated time period a deal breaker? Who was supposed to organise the test, and where? Did IH actually suggest a customer in NC? Was that hampered by Health and Safety issues? Is Leonardo, NH the same as Leonardo, FL and can the link be proven? Was any test carried out on the correct equipment? and was this materially effected by Ampenergro’s failure to sign the 2nd amendment to the license agreement?

    Only then can we get to whether a proper test was carried out, if the results were valid and if the final test report is sufficient. There are also the considerations of possible fraud or collusion, on both sides!

    It will be interesting to see which witnesses actually show up in court.

    • The only contract related to a test called “GPT” was not signed by all necessary parties (ampenargo missing).

      So this test, what ever it was, was obviously and legally not the GPT.

      And therefore Rossi must lose this case.

      • wizkid

        Perhaps the case is as simple as this: We all contract for electricity with a provider to make the lights work in our houses.

        Question #1: How do we know if we should pay the bill this month?
        Answer: Did the lights turn on? (see “Guaranteed Performance Test”)

        Result: “CHEROKEE INVESTMENT PARTNERS” will need to pay the bill or declare bankrupcy again and again and again and again.

        (btw, Cherokee bankrupcy might be worth more to Rossi than the $89mil. Burns all the bridges)

        Not complicated for a Jury.

      • BillH

        A devious mind might also consider that IH actually bought AEG out, they certainly paid them large sums of money. Instructing AEG not to sign the agreement. That’s why this is one of the things still to be decided by a judge and jury, If it could be shown that IH had control over AEG’s actions( in a similar way that AR had total control over JMP) then the testimony of AEG’s representatives might become important. So far I have not seen a valid reason why AEG refused to sign.

      • clovis ray

        Not” quit trying to confuse the issues .

  • Guest

    Do you people think that politicians/economic ruling class are unaware of lenr potential? If they know about it how come they still seem to go after long term geopolitical arrangements for the exploitation of oil and gas?

    • radvar

      I think many people are aware of LENR. However, LENR is not proven in prototype, theory or commercial viability. In the meantime, people want to continue to drive cars, heat houses and power electronics, and probably will for the foreseeable future. What are leaders supposed to do, migrate to solar with battery backup?

      • LilyLover

        The Real Accomplishment Of The Non-Payment Of The 89M
        ***
        See Image
        https://anonimage.net/view/keMHmJxDF8
        ***
        A. Fast-flowing information would have caused energy-prices/OilCo-value to crash a lot sooner.

        B. Slow information or unwilling acceptance or wilful ignorance of LENR/E-Cat would have delayed the crash.

        C. Proactive dis-information would lend the longest lease on life to the energy sector.

        Orange areas ABC or DEF, representing the value of energy sector, resulting from A or B respectively are much smaller than the green area GHIJ, for which to offload energy assets.

        Trading profits, red blood area, riding along the curves, are disproportionately enormous in C.

        Lesson: Disinformation and slowness helps profit the status quo controlled by the already rich.
        Generated or feigned ignorance helps glamorous Wall Street with huge and volatility, trades, and skimming.

        Traditionally, skinning an apple and carving it were much different. W St has become super efficient in going from a few percent shavings to quarter-carving or half-stealth. (Remember cat-fight butterball story?)

        ^^^Reason Number 9^^^

      • cashmemorz

        In a sane world we would all be helping the likes of The Martin Flieshman Memorial Fund to prove that LENR works. But we all have our doubts or have the existing system too engrained into our psyche to do the right thing.

        • Brent Buckner

          Perhaps you could soften your second use of the word “all” there – “almost all” might be better. I think Bob Greenyer is pretty much all in on MFMP!

          • cashmemorz

            Almost all… I quess…

    • cashmemorz

      Short answer: vested interest. More so on the side of the producers of fossil fuels. Longer answer: Chief among these is: don’t have to change what I am doing> the easy route. This is the thin edge of the wedge that leads to corrupted view of our environment. As in “What I don’t know, won’t hurt, me or anyone else.” This then leads to trols on the internet claiming there is no such thing as Anthropological Greenhouse Warming(AGW) and so on.

      • LilyLover

        For Fun:
        Can God heat up the Earth if he wanted?
        Is man made in the image of God?
        Then, if a magnificent God can heat-up the Earth by million degree Celsius, can a tinyficent man not warm-up the Earth by a few degree Celsius?

        • cashmemorz

          THat is good for a joke if you know how to think in a serious manner and are also able to get that joke. HA- ha.

    • Guest

      Even if Rossi could make 10M 1Mw plants a year, it would still take 10,000+ years for total conversion from all other sources of energy. So even a 50 year long term bet on oil is good.

  • Curbina

    Some new docs in the legal repository, and one of them is really telling: most Rossi’s lawyers are asking permission To withdraw from the case, leaving Anesser And Chaiken alone. Anyway you slice it, does not look good at all.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Plaintiffs’ leading attorneys gave up their job and founded their own company:

      https://visulate.com/rental/visulate_search.php?CORP_ID=L17000074872

      Nothing to worry about.

      • Curbina

        I guess one can try to take this i positive light, but is the lawyers who are asking permission To withdraw from the case, not Rossi firing them. The reasons that the legal bar allow a lawyer To withdraw from a case are anything but positive.

    • GiveADogABone

      I read this and did not take a negative view. There is no point in paying lawyers if the workload has dropped. The background to this is the end of discovery, evidence processing and document production. It seems that the court is moving into sifting all the evidence and collecting only that which will be presented to the trier of fact as relevant to the claims that survive. Does the trial itself need more than two lawyers with perhaps different, additional lawyers in support?

  • wizkid

    That’s just BS. Who pays you to blog?

  • GiveADogABone

    I reckon a lot of evidence on unanswered questions is in the late deluge of items in the plaintiffs’ exhibit list.

    295 :
    On the morning of May 5, 2017, the court-ordered deadline for filing exhibit lists, …
    … As the day progressed, Plaintiffs’ list doubled in size to a staggering 731 documents,

    298 :
    ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion [ECF No. 295] is DENIED.