Industrial Heat Files Motion to Dismiss Rossi Lawsuit

What about Etiam Oy? They're finns, i.e. they're wired so they basically cannot lie, also they despise bullshit -rednecks of the northern lands, as the swedes call them-

Were I a bit wealthier I'd buy some shares of theirs, this country and its people are great

Rossi, stop lying. I know you're Rossi. How do I know? well, I'm Rossi also!

Quote from Shane D.

It was claimed to be a successful DD acceptance test...was it? If it was not, why did IH take delivery and make the $10 million payment?

And just in case Rossi was not being forthright, and there was no DD acceptance test in April 2013, did IH ever do their own independent DD before committing any money?

First of all, at the time the Agreement was being negotiated, there was substantial "expert" review of Rossi's demonstrations. It looked like he might have something. Then there was the Validation Rossi writes about. That was a contractual requirement, I assume it happened. However, this is what is clear to those who have followed this mess since 2011. There is an expert report. It looks good. Then people start to notice issues with it. It can take months. The Agreement provided for practically instant response. ERV approves, done. Payment due, and it was due, then, IH had already agreed to it.

So what would Due Diligence mean? I'd say they were adequately covered. They took the word of an expert. This, again, was a major issue with the second text. An expert gives an opinion, and the $89 million immediately becomes payable with no further process, no back and forth, no objections and answers, just done, Pay Up. Get $89 million together in five days and wire it to Rossi.

I think I know why they signed, and why they continued, and it means that Rossi is not entirely wrong. They knew that there could be problems, but there was a back door. Of they were not satisfied -- on behalf of their investors! -- they would simply not pay until the considered it a safe further investment. They would walk away if needed.

As Rossi was instransigent, I suspect, they told him. "We have no intention of paying if we are not satisfied." He then translated that to "they never had any intention of paying, the snakes!" In normal business, with a sane inventor, the inventor would ask, "What do you need to be satisfied?" And would provide it if possible. To someone who was paranoid, this would be Proof that they were untrustworthy, people who would not keep their agreements.

Rossi thinks that the behavior means that they had no intention of paying from the beginning. No, they knew this was a safety hatch.

I'm sorry. If I agree to something and later it turns out that to keep the agreement would cause major harm, I will not keep the agreement. I would notify anyone expecting me to keep it of my change in intention. I would honor the agreement by not lying about it. But I wouldn't pay. And if I did this unfairly, I'd lose in a collection action. Except if I don't have the money, it still is not paid, and more money was wasted on the suit.

This is why Rossi is attempting to sue the officers of IH individually. He believes that they will cave, facing personal liability. It won't fly. Rossi has not alleged the kind of evidence that would allow this. Will someone talk some sense into Rossi? Popcorn, anyone?

Quote from Dewey Weaver

How do you sit down for a reasonable conversation with someone who sues without warning? Rossi was planning this litigation for a long time and was apparently counting the days for when he could file the litigation.

Start with assuming it's possible. Then discover how. Was this without warning?

Dewey, back up. Correct me if I'm wrong -- if you can, I fully understand that there are things you cannot disclose. You are an investor (in Cherokee Partners?) -- something like that. As such you may have some access to inside information. But you are not an officer of IH or of Cherokee and do not represent them, and may not know every detail.

This is what I expect of IH, assuming they are ethical, and I will assume that by default. Rossi was expecting them to not pay, because they told him they would not, or would not unless X happened. So, yes, he was counting the days and even got it slightly wrong. If IH actually intended to pay, at that point, and they saw the action, they would pay immediately if they had not already. They did not object to the timing of the suit because it was moot. They were not going to pay, so the technical defect was harmless. Not even worth paying the lawyers to mention it.

To know how to proceed, it would be necessary to know how the breakdown happened. This is my guess. IH learned that if they objected to Rossi's plans, it was useless. It was the Rossi way or the highway, and they were not done yet. Maybe Rossi doing things his way would generate what they needed. They wouldn't know until the GPT was over. By that time, there was a major problem, if it's true they could not independently confirm the Rossi Effect, even with supposed full disclosure of IP. (And a successful GPT would not remedy this problem, fatal to the purposes of the agreement). However, this would remain possible: Rossi had not fully disclosed the IP, for one of two reasons: the most obvious would be that he didn't trust them. He expected they would try to rip him off, and now look! Proof! They have said they had no obligation to protect his secrets! And the rats won't even pay what they agreed to pay!

Try putting on the Rossi mindset for a few minutes. Don't worry. This is reversible, you will not die and you will not become Andrea Rossi, the mind doesn't work like that. The world will simply look very different for a bit. Be careful, though, about believing what you think in this state. In fact, be careful about believing anything in any state. It fries the brain. You do not have to believe any specific thing to do well in life. Trust is what is needed, which is something else, something that Rossi was short of. Sorry if this seems like a lecture, but this is stuff that I've studied and been trained in.

So the essence of the breakdown is that Rossi did not trust them. (The other reason would be that Rossi himself doesn't know, a different problem, but possible, and addressable. I'll set it aside. This possibility has been raised on the CMNS list, that Rossi made real devices that worked, but kept changing the protocol and lost it. To those who know cold fusion, this is not nearly as weird as it seems.)

To deal with lack of trust, special measures are needed. It would start with getting it out on the table. It could start with recognizing the source of the mistrust and acknowledging the things one has done to amplify the impression. This would be taking responsibility, taking the bull by the horns. "You don't trust me. I understand." Coming from authenticity, other things start to happen.

Rossi needs a really good attorney, one that he trusts.

The Agreement belabored irrelevancies, but was full of holes. For the Agreement to work required trust. Most agreements are like that, because if someone is really out to screw you over, they can find a way, even with the best Agreement. In normal business, insane care is not applied, because it is assumed that if there is a problem, the parties can and will work it out, so that both are reasonably satisfied. Normal business runs on trust.

From reading the Motion they wrote, I have high confidence that the IH attorneys know exactly what they are doing. There are a few things I''ve seen about the Complaint and Exhibits that I'd have mentioned. They may not be important, I don't know enough about procedure to be sure. Nobody's perfect, not even the best ... and for sure, not me.

The judge may knock some heads together, I think is the term. The judge at this point has a basis for dismissing the suit. I'm told she will not want to create any appealable action. Judges hate to face appeals. Sucks. It can make them look bad.

So she will be careful. I have about a 40% probability estimate that she will dismiss the case without prejudice. That gets it out of her hair, immediately, without actually harming the plaintiff more than $400. The other possibility, I'd give 60%, is that she will allow the plaintiff to amend the complaint to eliminate all claims expect the first "count." My friend thought that she might allow one more. I don't think so, but ... he's an attorney and I'm not. Still I'm at least as accurate as a stopped clock.

In any case, the judge may demand that the parties negotiate with each other, attempting to settle this. Were I IH counsel, I'd be all ears, the soul of conciliation. In some jurisdictions, the judge might insist that the parties engage in mediation, and really the parties, not just counsel. I predict that this case will be reduced to IH as defendant. The IH Motion is very, very clear on this, and I don't see how the judge can reject it. The motion regarding Count I is shakier. It's legally sound (I.e., the complaint is quite defective) but the defect may be remediable.

Quote from frankwtu

I used to look for Thomas Clarkes posts and always read them, why? Well those I could understand I would invariably disagree with but I would find he was a focal point for many on this forum and attacked often with very scientific and well thought out objective challenges; but he gave as good as he got without being unpleasant. How things have changed!

So what now! well, I see STDM is ferociously attacked by DW as a liar, but I cannot see that and need to learn more about what he says. I will certainly be looking up STDM every time I'm here. I look up DW but cannot abide his rhetoric and his ad homs so his points are wasted on me, I'm sure some are well founded. Now ADB is a different kettle of fish, he knows the law, or that's the way it seems but alas, his knowledge appears to be applied to paint as very adversarial picture, maybe he is right to do this. If he is then those with the biggest sticks will win. But then what does that say about our law, society, and our principles. saving the planet seems way down the list of priorities in ADB's view of the world, although I wouldn't say this about ADB himself.

So who do I believe, well no one I'm afraid. So I will just sit back and wait for the court case and science to do its thing; providing this process can survive special interest advocacy influence which I am sure is working feverishly just out of sight under a cloak of 'plausible deniability'.

So a bit disillusioned really, sorry.

Display More

I wrote a long post, got a phone call, and came back and the Reply window was open, my text was gone. Then, starting to write more, I got web errors, connection problems. The software is buggy, does not handle connection problems, and I've many times seen posts disappear while being written.

So ... last first: reality is always better than our illusions. Trust that, and life opens up.

Thomas Clarke is a skeptic, and did his homework. People who do their homework and talk about it are often unwelcome in social media. If Thomas Clarke writes to me, I can connect him with the cold fusion community, the real research community. I tried to message him here, he did not respond. And he might be paranoid about identity stuff, though we think Thomas Clarke is his real name, and he is actually a professor of electrical engineering, and would be expert in certain areas.

Dewey Weaver is his real name, and he is apparently a significant investor, probably in Cherokee Partners, the company behind IH, though he might have invested in IH. As such he was very hopeful about the Rossi possibility, and, then, has a strong reaction, including anger, out of this disappointment. That should be understood. He is not a scientist and he does not write from the point of view of science, but more from a business and personal perspective. He has some inside information but is not a spokesperson for IH. He is expressing his own feelings and opinions.

And I'm Abd, not Adb. For some reason, that's a fair common error. Abd means "Servant, worshipper, lover," and the full name is Abd ul-Rahman, "servant of the Merciful." I'm glad it is recognized I'm not just a single fish, not a flounder, perhaps. I have studied this field with intensity and depth since 2009, having had a background in science, so that I could understand the issues. I do my homework (like Thomas), but I've been doing it for much longer and have a grasp of the whole field, whereas Thomas has mostly studied one particular aspect, the Lugano test, where flaws abounded. Popular reaction has judgments of "good" and "bad" in mind, and tends to see all contests as political and about the good people and the bad people. I have studied common law, many years ago, have a little experience in court, but much more, I simply read, in the Rossi suit, the documents. Carefully. Many times. And then I consider how life works.

David prevailed against Goliath because David trusted reality and Goliath trusted his own invincibility. Yes, often the big guy wins, which is why little guys don't walk up to big guys and punch them in the nose. Or if they do that, they don't last long. Rossi is pissed at a $2.2 billion company, so he punched them in the nose. He might think, "They were Bad first." That doesn't change the situation. If you are going to challenge the Big Guy, you'd better have a clear understanding of what you are doing, you'd better get the best advice, and thinking that "being right" is enough isn't going to fly, because .... that's his idea, not necessarily the truth. (And in my ontology, "right" and "wrong" are human inventions, they do not exist in reality.)

David had one shot with his sling. "If you are going to shoot the King, don't miss." Rossi was sloppy and careless, and his attorney did not check for it. We do not know many details. Were there attempts to negotiate a settlement? Were these ever reduced to a written offer? I don't know what the rules are in Florida, but in California, if a party makes a written offer, and at trial gets that or better, then they can collect all legal expenses. I can't say that the legal system is always fair, it isn't, but it is reality-based, and common fuzzy thinking doesn't fly in that realm. If any reader wants to gain an understanding of the legal issues, study that IH Motion. That's not the end of it, because that is from the IH attorneys, and is not presenting the other side, because that is not their job in a Motion like this. Look for some answer from the plaintiff this week or so. The judge will not care how much money IH has, but will be impressed by clear legal arguments. The judge will also normally care about justice, so with a mismatch, i.e., little guy with punk attorney, vs. large corporation with the best attorneys, may bend over backwards to find a way to protect the little guy. But not at the expense of the law and equity.

What I saw with the complaint was that it made Rossi look, ah, imbalanced. And the attorney incompetent. That was my impression. Like the judge will, in developing that impression, I assumed all facts alleged as true, but dismissed conclusory opinions. The case will turn on the facts.

Reality is always better that what we imagine.