IH preventing Rossi from publishing ERV, according to Dewey Weaver

Looking back, I noticed this.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Calling all Rossi-ites, calling all Rossi-ites...... Penon didn't mark the "ERV" as confidential. Rossi is free and clear to publish. Read all about it. The "ERV" is not a confidential document. Rossi can publish at will. (but he won't because it is yet another millstone around his neck).

I think this is a spurious argument. The s-called "ERV" report -- I notice that Dewey put this in scare quotes, which makes a lot of sense in my hindsight -- was the work product of Penon, hired as a consultant by Rossi and IH, collectively, under the Agreement, if this was under the agreement. It wasn't, but it was still what I would consider confidential data. It was IH's plant. Rossi was just operating it for them. I would consider this to be under non-disclosure the same as any other aspect of the Agreement.

Why Rossi revealed other details that also violated the Agreement, I don't know. IH points out that he could have taken steps to make aspects of his complaint confidential. I actually was reading over this thread because I have another theory. But first things first.

Quote

In other news, IH will release the "ERV" when the timing works best for IH.

This is actually something that might be negotiated. Who wants the "ERV report" released? In the debate here, there seems to be an idea that if IH doesn't want it released, it must be because it would injure them. This kind of logic is part of what runs Planet Rossi. Dewey was pointing out here that, in his belief, Rossi could release it but wasn't because his attorney told him not to. Dewey did imply that Rossi was not releasing because of the confidentiality provision of the Agreement. Maybe. But there is another reason: if it released, then everybody and their brother and physics professor are all over it, finding flaws. Legally, it was not necessary to include it in the Exhibits. It was enough to assert it.

Now, this is the meat here:

Quote

In fact, let's count the millstones:
1. Fake customer

Check. That's huge. It is more or less the cornerstone of the fraud or deception claim.

Quote

2. The baked Rossi / heat dissipation matter.

Check. No visible signs of what would be necessary to disspate a megawatt.

Quote

3. Failure to follow the GPT and Test Validation terms.

Check. The most blatant aspect of this was not obtaining written consent to the start of the alleged GPT. However, there are other aspects, covered in the Counter-Complaint.

4. A botched (kindest term I could find) "ERV"
Check. He might have meant that if there was no GPT, there was no ERV. Penon does not become an ERV because he has been retained to make some measurements.

5. Documented measurement deception
This hasn't shown up in the documents yet.

6. Numerous violations of the confidentiality terms from the Rossi drafted and signed contract.
Check. However, this might not be controlling. It would be a separate tort, it would not invalidate the Agreement, I'd think.

7. Failure to deliver on a paid-up $10m IP license.
Check. This is huge, undermining the fundamental purpose of the Agreement. Rossi could have addressed this, if he'd taken it seriously, instead of attempting an end-run around the GPT issue. And, of course, assuming he had an actual effect to show them how to create, other than "dramatic effect."

Quote

8. What did I miss?

1. Rossi's past behavior with Hydro Fusion, demonstrating a willingness to create a fake test -- or to lie about a failure. That supports a claim of deception.
2. The rationalization for moving the Plant to Doral, when it is obvious that the purpose was to set up conditions where Rossi could set up a faux GPT and have full control of the Plant.
3. The exclusion of the IH engineer, Murray, in July, 2015, violating the Terms Sheet and really making clear that Rossi was in full control, whereas in the contemplated GPT, in their facility in North Carolina, IH would have had major control.
4. Details indicating collusion of Penon with Rossi, not acting as an independent consultant would act, profesionally.
5. Details indicating that Fabiani was not faithfully reporting Plant function to IH.
6. Not clearly stated enough: there was no "GPT," because the fundamental and explictly required prerequisite was not satisfied: the written consent of all parties to the Agreement. Because IH has asserted a preciding defect, this is one place where I think they have underemphasized what is basic> Even if the Second Amendment was fully valid, and that might indeed be established by estoppel, (And Rossi and Cassarino could still sign that thing!), the Second Amendment required explicit written consent, before the test would start. While estoppel could conceivably and effectively waive that requirement, there appears to be no action taken by IH allowing that. Simply allowing the plant to be run for a year would not do it. And this is crucial: simply allowing Penon to measure function would not do it. It would need to be an agreement that "the GPT is beginning." This could not be done with something vague or fuzzy.

This is one issue where I question Jones Day strategy. The objection about the 2nd Amendment signature looks picky and pedantic, and, as I mentioned, Rossi and Cassarino could still sign! It doesn't seem fair, and that can count for something. I would think it's a bad idea to set up a protest that seems unfair, when there is a much better argument (based on the explicit requirement for all to consent before starting the GPT.) After all, if the latter exists, it would prove estoppel on the former.

But if it doesn't exist, then the entire Rossi case collapses. Nothing is left. The alleged deception about Cherokee, moot, because no losses to Rossi. (It's moot anyway, but for other reasons). Yet the countersuit still stands.

If his case makes it thru MTD, Rossi has win most if not all of these to succeed in his case against IH - he doesn't have any chance whatsever of succeeding.[/quote]
I agree. My attorney friend says not to be so sure. Surprises happen. Okay, but I don't care. I'm not really sure that tomorrow will exist, I'm not afraid to make predictions. How often am I wrong? And what happens if I am? Does the sky fall?

However, I'm not actually wrong that often.

Dewey was reasonable accurate about what would be in the IH answer. It's fun to look at him telling people the truth and being downvoted for it. By the usual suspects, some of whom seem to have, ah, retired. Or maybe they are out doing something actually useful! Hope springs eternal!

Quote from Shane D.

According to IH, he has already established a reckless disregard for the confidentiality conditions, so what would another violation matter now?

Bolded: explains why Rossi doesn't release the ERV

The judge might judge that IH's according to is irrelevant, as Rossi might have not breached confidentiality in a legal sense

However, should Rossi release the ERV before their case is settled in court, this will probably be considered as a breach of confidentiality

Hence why Cherokee's and other unsavory interests' mouthpieces have been nagging Planet Rossi for an ERV release, and why Rossi doesn't release it.
Also, because he knows lowlife social engineers will drown facts in an endless yellow stream of filibustering. There's really no point for him to try and prove the E-Cat by text. It works, and the proof will be in the commercial pudding.

Quote from Keieueue

Shane D. wrote:

Bolded: explains why Rossi doesn't release the ERV

The judge might judge that IH's according to is irrelevant, as Rossi might have not breached confidentiality in a legal sense

However, should Rossi release the ERV before their case is settled in court, this will probably be considered as a breach of confidentiality.

Display More

Well, that's not really accurate, but it has a plausible aspect. It is one thing if a person violates confidentiality, it's a tort, but might be excused or considered not to have a major impact. If, however, the propriety of disclosure has been challenged, the offense takes on a deliberate character, and might be sanctioned more severely. We do not know what negotiations took place in February - March 2016, beyond the communication from Murray with Penon, and, of course, the demand for payment from Rossi. The lawyers, though, were already communicating by February, the same lawyers. We don't know what was said, but we can imagine things being said that would lead to an Annesser recommendation. Rossi does not necessarily lie about everything!

Keuweyuwey however, as usual, does not seem understand that the judge is not going to decide if confidentiality was breached, unless there is a Motion for Summary Judgment, in which case that judgment would be based on there being no legal issue remaining from the evidence on file. Planet Rossi keeps repeating "the judge this" and "the judge that," when judges do not decide fact, ordinarily, in a jury trial. Juries do, based on evidence and arguments presented by the lawyers (and vetted by the judge as admissible if a party complains).

Quote

Hence why Cherokee's and other unsavory interests' mouthpieces have been nagging Planet Rossi for an ERV release, and why Rossi doesn't release it.
Also, because he knows lowlife social engineers will drown facts in an endless yellow stream of filibustering. There's really no point for him to try and prove the E-Cat by text. It works, and the proof will be in the commercial pudding.

This is weird. Who are these interests? Where have they "nagged" Rossi for release? The nagging I have seen is from Planet Rossi, blaming IH (not Cherokee, Cherokee <> IH) for preventing release, and claiming that IH not releasing it is some kind of proof of "unsavory interest." And then critics point out that Rossi could arrange the release.

Rossi could ask the court to permit the release. IH could release the report at will. Neither one is likely to do so unless they see benefit. Rossi could publicly announce that he will release the report if IH permits. That would put the shoe on the other foot. Has he done that? But IH is not obligated to permit release, at all. This would simply make it clear where the blockage is. Faced with such an announcement, it is not clear to me that IH would do anything. But they might release the report with a cover explanation and a republication condition. I don't know, though, that they would bother to ask the attorneys about it. Attorney time is expensive.

I developed an idea of why IH might have told Rossi not to release the report; it's obvious. They consider it to be misleading in several ways, starting with not being an "ERV report" but being a "Penon report." They also consider it misleading, or likely so, as to the alleged fact of megawatt power generation, and may not wish to see that report used to stir up fraudulent claims by Rossi to other investors. This would probably have been prohibited before Rossi filed the suit. Rossi could have disregarded this and included the report in his Exhibits, it would certainly have been relevant, even crucial, but his attorney probably did advise him not to do that.

That was proprietary IH information! IH would have an obvious ordinary interest in preventing competitors from using the information. Imagine a confidential report prepared by a company, at their expense, pr partially so under an agreement of confidentiality, with an inventor. Should the inventor then, without permission, be able to take that report to competitors so that he can bypass his Agreement with the company?

Dewey wrote that the report was not labelled "confidential." I must say that this is the weakest argument I've seen from Dewey. So what? There was a general expectation of confidentiality, in the Agreement, as to Rossi's "reveals." He violated that on occasion. Did IH protest? Probably not, or not strenuously. As I understand it, IH took great care to avoid alienating Rossi until matters went beyond limits.

Quote from Shane D.

That said, in reality, both sides could easily have a surrogate post the report with no repercussions. It is already out there. Even Penon himself could do so surreptitiously without anyone being the wiser. Dewey also, and no one would ever trace it to him. I just do not know why no one has yet. Maybe we could even round up some payment to entice someone?

Crowd funding? Problem is, that would be illegal. Maybe Axil will do it, he's carefully protected his identity. Meanwhile, it looks like Axil has fallen for the APCO trope. Axil has known me for years. Does he think I'm working for APCO?

Kind of, I wish, my bank account could use some support. No, I have not been hired for any promotional or attack purpose. Ever. I have been paid as an expert on Wikipedia, for consultation or once just in gratitude. That's it.

I write for the fun and joy of it, and for the future of humanity. I do, after all, have seven children, that is kind of a vested interest.

Quote from THHuxley

Good summary Abd.

Thanks.

Quote

I'd just add: Given Rossi does not win the $89M (which I take as read and have for a long time), we still have interesting potential Court action on the topic of how much Rossi should pay back to IH. They can claim up to about $12M I reckon. Maybe more with indirect damage.

Well, quite a bit more than that. The openly and directly described $11.5 million is just the beginning. They paid "millions" to Ampernergo, being payments due from Rossi that they took on. Their contract with Fabiani was for $10,500 per month, for how long? Exhibit 11. That was effective September 1, 2013. In addition, Fabiani expenses were paid, including an apartment in Raleigh, while he was there. They paid for Barry West in Doral.

They also paid Penon, both for the Validation Test and for the Doral measurements. There were many other expenses directly related to the Agreement. Some of their engineering costs would be directly related to the Agreement. They made that fancy-looking assembly of reactors. You can see the difference between professional engineering in the later Plant and Rossi steampunk in the earliest, easily. By the way, I like steampunk, but professional appearance is expensive.

IH had an initial capitalization limit of $20 million. Some authors have written that they raised $11.5 million, but they obviously raised much more than that. That was just the initial sale upon offering. Whatever they spent after May 2015 might have come from IH Holdings International, Ltd, which appears to have bought all the stock in IH, my guess.

Quote

So they have all to play for and will if sensible do exactly what their expensive lawyers tell them to.

With very little regard to whether this makes one or two internet posters (you know who you are) indignant.

I have an idea of how these people work and move. It's how I've always treated lawyers. I would do the research myself, I would come up with my own ideas.

Then I'd consult the lawyers. But I was always working on a shoestring. They might talk with lawyers much sooner than I would. Nevertheless, they would be in the lead, with lawyers advising and supporting.

Basically, ask a lawyer if you should do something risky, the answer is predictable! NO!!!!

Ask a lawyer how to do it, ask a lawyer how much of a risk there is (i.e, probabilities) and the cost of a realized risk, and how to reduce risk while still making bold moves, then you start to get powerful advice that does not shut down innovative thinking.

Quote from Shane D.

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Have to remember to add the funny face. Not your fault...mine. Bad habit. And yes, of course it would be illegal.

The idea of crowd funding for supporting Rossi, as an example, is not crazy and large sums can be raised that way. If there is an inspiring cause. Or his supporters could crowd-fund legal expenses. Perfectly legal, assuming it is done properly.

Yes, it was just the idea of raising money to pay someone to reveal confidential data that could be criminal.

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

*endless yellow stream of filibustering*

Eh