The argument is also circular. Who is claiming that it is doable to raise funds for paying for a non-working device?
Are IH and Cherokee on the verge of Bankruptcy?
-
-
I responded in another post about all these stories. For background, Cherokee is a $2.2 billion dollar corporation, which does invest in risky operations. IH is a Cherokee investment, but IH has received substantial funding beyond Cherokee. There is no clue that I've seen that they have come close to exhausting it. To raise the $89 million would have been possible for them, on one condition: that they had IP usable for manufacturing a product that works, and not just with Rossi in the room 24/7 working his Rossi Magic, or, charitably, "hard work." If the problem were money, they would have negotiated payment. Perhaps they attempted to do so, but Rossi, then, might have filed a very different Complaint. If any. More likely, a partial payment. As I recall, there was a partial payment provision in the Agreement, but I'm not completely sure about that.
Hi all
As has been noted elsewhere Cherokee have had a recent string of failed businesses as has been reported in various sources.
nytimes.com/2005/10/30/nyregio…eal-new-jersey-style.html
Fluff, not really about Cherokee, though they are mentioned. I covered this case already.
Quotenytimes.com/2005/10/30/nyregio…eal-new-jersey-style.html
Duplicate of above.
Quotenj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/…bpoenas_are_issued_f.html
Ditto, about a corruption probe. The project failed, this was about 2005.
Quotepostandcourier.com/article/20160208/PC05/160209426
Covered this one also. It is unclear what the Cherokee losses will be, it depends on how much was separately invested in that project.
Quotenj.com/news/ledger/topstories/…kruptcy_filing_risks.html
Yes, I also covered this. This has all been addressed on lenr-forum in the last few days. Encap. 2008.
QuoteAre Cherokee and IH living hand to mouth?
Is this the reason IH cannot afford to make the $89 Million payment?
No. Only one of these stories was recent. Cherokee makes a typical investment of $25 million in a project, according to one story. The projects attract separate investment. Cherokee is a $2.2 billion corporation. Now, such can go bankrupt, but these stories, given the business they are in, indicate almost nothing. $25 million is 1% of their net worth. They will win a few and lose a few. It's what they do. Here, we know of a $50 million investment by Woodford, is that the name? No, I don't think they are hurting for money. The story is that Rossi was their largest LENR investment. There is money going into other projects. These are small, but the money is important to the field.
-
Abd - Nice work but we need to clear up one big misconception. Cherokee has not invested any $$ into IH.
The purpose of Cherokee is brown field to green field remediation for profit, a sector they pioneered much to the delight of almost everyone involved. -
Now censorship from "Sam" over at "Looking for Heat".
What was the perceived threat Sam?
-
@Dewey. I am unable to contact Sam at the moment, and have no idea what was deleted, so I can only make a general comment on policy re comments as co-owner of 'Lookingforheat'. LFH is a private company dedicated to providing otherwise hard to find materials and equipment to independent LENR researchers. We are very happy to publish critical comments about our methods and products - you can see them on the site and on our YT channel.
What we will not allow -ever- is a reprise of the Rossi/IH battle on our site. If you posted something about that, it will be removed. I strive for a fair balance here, but LFH is another place which has no overlap with legal dramas at all.
-
Alan - thank you for the response and noted. Best of luck with "Looking for Heat".
I don't even know what "Sam" deleted and would really appreciate some feedback. -
Does anyone know where Sifferkoll is getting his "Fred Voepfl" material from? There is no one associated within the IH network by that name and I have spotted some useful information that will allow me to tie Rossi and Sifferkoll together in a much more interesting way. I need to locate these postings that Sifferkoll continues to reference from "Fred Voepfl". Can anyone help there? If yes, please send me an email at [email protected]
BTW - During this little walkabout, I spotted an interesting copyright violation over on Siffer's site as well - it is owned by a Darden funded entity called Cradle-to-Cradle. Siffer a total hack.
-
Hi all
In reply Dewey Weaver
You still have not provided us with any evidense to support your claim as a claimed IH representative that:
Walker - if the 1MW unit would have worked for 1 day on a certified basis then $89M could have been paid within days. Do they bark down the trees where you're from?
Would you care to put up some actual proof of your statement, you have on numerous occasions claimed to have access to the reports through your claimed position as an IH representative to such reports, yet you have not posted a single report.
When you claimed I was not who I said I was, I immediately provided proof of my identity. You never despite your claims reciprocated and provided any proof of who you are or your claimed links to IH.
You claim a lot but provide no proof.
I am merely holding you to your word.
Kind Regards Ian Walker
-
Walker - You're so tiresome with your proof demands. Your bunch would not be in such a jam if you demanded at least a modicum of accountability from your fearless leader. I actually do know what you're up to and say bring it on. BTW - anyone with information about Sifferkoll and Fred V can also email me at [email protected].
-
Walker. I think we are pretty satisfied about Deweys ID and the relationship between DRV and IH/Cherokee. He is also 34" inside leg.
-
BTW - During this little walkabout, I spotted an interesting copyright violation over on Siffer's site as well - it is owned by a Darden funded entity called Cradle-to-Cradle. Siffer a total hack.
What a ridiculous and ignorant assertion!Cradle to Cradle is a term and concept developed by German chemist Michael Braungart and American architect William McDonnough in their eponymous book from 2002, a seminal work in the theory of circular economy. Since then, is has become a common term employed for a variety of endevours founded or inspired by Braungart and McDonnough. There have been thousands of concept and research papers published on it, there even have been Cradle to Cradle chairs and fellowships founded at several European universities (Leiden, Munich). There is a Cradle to Cradle nonprofit organization registered in Germany. EPEA Worldwide Ltd. (in which Darden may hold an investment) holds the trademark on the term for the purpose of certification of products and production processes but that doesn't limit its widespread public use for educational and non-profit purposes, which is certainly encouraged by Braungart and McDonough. They are out to create a global ecologic and economic movement, not to heinously sue people supporting their concepts for copyright violation.
-
Alan - Since you appear to be curious, I'm 188cm tall - how about you?
-
-
Timar - what do you know about Fred Voepfl (love those Planet Rossi naming conventions - they have such a nice ring to them)?
-
Dewey: Sorry to disappoint you but I don't know anything about that guy and I haven't followed "my boy" sifferkoll's blog for a while either.
-
Display More
Hi all
The question of potential bankruptcy is normal when a debtor can not make a due payment to the creditor.
If IH used its position with Cherokee as an inducement for Rossi to deal then it to becomes a subject of creditors pursuing debt.
Kind…
I think it FAR more likely that a licensee is not paying a licensor because the contract was not fulfilled.
-
Timar - thank you for your reply - any comments on this?:
c2cproducts.com/Copyright.aspx
-
Yes, it shows exactly what I have written above:
QuoteEPEA Worldwide Ltd. (in which Darden may hold an investment) [or MDBC - I may have confused those entities] holds the trademark on the term for the purpose of certification of products and production processes but that doesn't limit its widespread public use for educational and non-profit purposes, which is certainly encouraged by Braungart and McDonough. They are out to create a global ecologic and economic movement, not to heinously sue people supporting their concepts for copyright violation.
If you (indirectly) threaten sifferkoll with legal measures for using this term on his blog, do you also plan to sue the thousands of other blogs and websites using it as well? Do you also plan to sue thousands of students and scientists using it in their thesis and research papers, or the German "Cradle to Cradle" nonprofit organization? If so, do Dr. Braungart and Mr. McDonough know about your plans? -
Abd - Nice work but we need to clear up one big misconception. Cherokee has not invested any $$ into IH.
The purpose of Cherokee is brown field to green field remediation for profit, a sector they pioneered much to the delight of almost everyone involved.Almost everyone.
Thanks, Dewey. I made an assumption probably because many others had made the same assumption.So all these stories about Cherokee really have nothing to do with IH. I would say that, then, it just happens that IH was founded by a person or people associated with Cherokee. The persistent story then attempts to toss mud at IH by describing business events relating to Cherokee.
And Rossi included Cherokee in the Complaint.
(Famous bank robber was asked why he robbed banks. "That's where the money is.")
However, the plot thickens. The Complaint alleges representations about Cherokee made to Rossi. He presents those as actions of Cherokee, that the original representations were that Cherokee wanted to invest. Of course, "Cherokee" is a legal fiction, not a person with wants. Rossi was dealing with Darden and Vaugn, officers of Cherokee, but they set up Industrial Heat to make the agreement with Rossi, and gathered investment to be able to pay the $11.5 million. If Rossi believed that Cherokee was legally on the line to guarantee IH payments, he was unbelievably naive and did not consult an attorney over a matter involving in excess of $100 million. But that is his claim in the complaint, that he was misled. This gets tricker legally.
I think of the Statute of Frauds. But, again, I'm not a lawyer. IH, Darden, Vaughn, and Cherokee are legally distinct. Just as Rossi and Leonardo and Ampenergo are legally distinct. Whoever drafted the Agreement knew that, by how the signature pages were set up. And this is why the missing signatures are important. Ampenergo signed the Agreement by a different officer. As I understand it, Ampenergo was the U.S. licensee, which is why they needed to sign off on the Agreement.
So the inclusion of Cherokee in the lawsuit may depend on memories of conversations held in 2012. That is why there is the Statute of Frauds. These memories will shift with time, it's the way the brain works. We remember what was important to us. To Rossi, the wealth of Cherokee was very important. Didn't he realize that a company like Cherokee would never sign off on a $100 million liability? There is no sign they have ever done anything like that. They always form or work with another company. In New Jersey, there could be something like $100 million in claims (If I stretch it). This is, in fact, ordinary business. Cherokee would be there if IH needed to raise money, but only voluntarily. If IH was ready to pay the $89 million and needed to raise it, Cherokee was not irrelevant. But ... no way would Cherokee toss that money at a mistake. Good money after bad, and, as you are telling us, Dewey, Cherokee didn't have investment in IH. Some Cherokee officers did, and additional funding was raised.
Was Rossi misled? Perhaps. But was he deliberately and fraudulently misled by Darden and Vaughn? That's a different question, one extremely difficult to prove in court.
One thing I notice that I'll mention. Rossi wrote all over the Agreement, underscoring passages. I would never touch an Agreement like that, it is not "information." If I wanted to mark it up, I'd make a copy. Marking an Agreement like that is a way to tell oneself what is important, it's a study tool. But the problem is that when that is done, the rest of the Agreement might be ignored. For example, the Agreement provides that Rossi will protect the IP. It does not provide that IH will protect it. Protecting his IP was a major concern of Rossi, all along. His desire to protect his IP in re Petroldragon was behind his failure to trust corporate investors, which was then a factor in his failure and prosecution.
So my attorney friend said that two counts in the complaint might stand. .... Maybe. That, by the way, was not an opinion that Rossi would prevail. That same friend considered the inclusion of fraud claims to be very, very iffy. But here we are dealing only with a Motion to Dismiss. (Not Summary Judgment, which would come later after opportunity to present evidence. A motion for Summary Judgment would come later and can be presented by either side.)
