Since IH signed away their motion to dismiss grounds, what now for IH?

1st Official Post

    Hi all


    My thanks to Engineer48 for bringing to my attention the following
    Section 5 of the contract see image states it only requires the signature of IH to grant an extension of time to the Validation period. Since IH signed said extension Rossi and Leonardo completed the contract in the stipulated time. The argument that other signatures are required is invalid.


    As always to verify the image text here is the original source via the court docket is here:
    https://www.pacermonitor.com/p…ossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al
    So that you can peruse the originals ;)




    Kind Regards walker

    Hi all


    The contract part 5 clearly states the following:


    "...Guaranteed Performance will not be deemed achieved unless such written confirmation is received or waived by the Company. In the event Guaranteed Performance is not achieved within the time period set forth in this section (as such time period may be extended by the Company in its sole discretion)..."


    My use of bold in quoted text


    IH via Darden as the company signed. Did not even need Rossi's Signature.


    Kind Regards walker

    A comment of Matt Lewan :


    "Ok, so this is what I heard from sources having visited the plant and talked to the customer (who could of course be an actor, playing his part in a scam...) – that JMC set up a production unit of the same kind that they already have in UK, although smaller. Given the experience from their units in the UK they knew perfectly well how much energy should be consumed and how much energy was needed to run the unit. At least one engineer was sceptical in the beginning, but soon found out that the consumed electric energy was much less than expected, using the E-Cat plant as energy source for the hot steam. And the customer was happy as a lark with this.
    I don't know which the UK based company is, but I understood it's not Johnson Matthey (which would have been a nice coincidence, since Johnson Matthey apparently once provided the working palladium samples to F&P), and as far as I know it has absolutely nothing to do with Hydrofusion."


    So it seems that the customer is alive and well, and also very happy about the performance of the 1MW e-cat :)

    Hyperman

    With origins similar to Superman, he was rocketed from his dying homeworld of Zoron to the planet Oceania where he is found and adopted by loving parents, the Kings. As with Superman, he would become the greatest hero in his new home.


    Naaa, no resemblance whatsoever!! Its not the same planet!


    Best regards
    Frank

    Hi all


    In reply to Tom Paulsen:


    IH's own Motion to Dismiss characterise the extension as such, and their argument against it was that it needed other parties to sign, when in fact clause 5 makes clear that only IH needed to sign, as it was a right and benefit of the contract to IH not Rossi. IH chose to exercise that right and so signed away the grounds of their motion to dismiss.


    Kind Regards walker

    A question for planet D'eaver



    How could IH very expensive lawyers miss this?


    Best regards
    Frank

    • Official Post

    @barty
    This is probably the effect or sincerity, because any professional community manager would avoid that :D


    Sadly this thread frighten me. Dewey is behaving like an unhappy enthusiastic investor, owning insider data laughing nervously at people proposing alternative positions because they don't have the same level of information.
    And yes, Mats have talk to a happy client, who if Dewey is sincere, is thus an actor.


    I don't know what is the most frightening...
    That Dewey, that I've seen at RNBE2015 as an enthusiastic VC, making some communication "maladresse" with even more enthusiastic players, is just an actor paid by oil conspiracy through APCO agency...
    or that Rossi, known for his permanent sincerity, his precision in communication, his flawless demo, have hired an actor to play the client...


    I prepare the rope to hand someone by his B***s
    have to find who to hang. In theory we have to wait for the judge.

    Quote from barty

    I find it very interesting/funny to see how childish <a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/1580-Dewey-Weaver/">@Dewey Weaver</a>'s reactions become if someone is challenging his claims.


    It feels like he has a lot on stake to loose.


    I'm still waiting for that flying egg he so boldly announced as a "response" to my question why IH won't give up Rossi's worthless and fraudulent IP. His reactions are so psychologically telling that it is almost cute. I just wonder why IH still allows him to post here. Or maybe they don't even know about it?

    • Official Post


    Read the first sentence. The GPTs (1 year test) success, was predicated on matching, or exceeding the prior "validation tests" performance. If the validation test failed, the deal was dead. That was IH's DD. It was executed by Penon, as he was the ERV. It took place in Italy, and after "successful" completion, to be shipped to IH...at Leonardo expense. It was shipped, as IH claimed taking delivery.


    The validation is described as it had already happened..."GPT contingent upon plant operating at (or better) at which validation WAS achieved".


    So what I am saying is that it appears the validation was successful. The "30 unit plant" worked >6 COP. Yes, sometimes afterwards, as Abd and others surmise, IH had second thoughts obviously as they state they have been unable to substantiate Rossi's technology. But initially it was considered successful and allowed the agreement to go on to the GPT. Here is all you need to know about the validation:


    https://animpossibleinvention.…sdce-16-21199__0001-3.pdf


    Does not change a thing, but interesting to know.

    Quote from Walker

    IH's own Motion to Dismiss characterise the extension as such, and their argument against it was that it needed other parties to sign, when in fact clause 5 makes clear that only IH needed to sign, as it was a right and benefit of the contract to IH not Rossi. IH chose to exercise that right and so signed away the grounds of their motion to dismiss.


    From §5 original LA:

    Quote

    as such time period may be extended by the Company in its sole discretion


    A time period may be extended ...

    From the MTD:

    Quote

    Compl. ¶ 59. Plaintiffs’ purported “Guaranteed
    Performance Test,” however, was not commenced until “on or about February 19, 2015”


    I hope, that you agree that the extension of the time period for an already running test (that's also very clear by using "time period" not "point in time") is not the same as a delay of the start date for the test.


    Therefore, your argumentation is pointless.

    Quote from Tom Paulsen

    Is it really possible that someone cannot differentiate between the extension of a test period and the commencement of a test?

    This is obvious and is not unsurprising for human beings. We believe what we want to believe, then we look for proof of it. It actually takes high training to move out of this. The scientific method is designed to step out of this deep habit. And scientists still fail to practice it, all the time, and become caught in belief.


    The Agreement in the section cited is about extending the test, not about commencing it. The circumstances invovled would be obvious. Something goes awry. A hurricane hits. IH can give more time to get the device up and running again. One of the flaws in the Agreement was rigidity, by the way, it bristled with opportunities for breakdown. Who wrote this beast?


    There is a reason why we don't hire Walker as a lawyer and why Walker can't get published in a peer-reviewed journal or any reasonable edited publication. Notice that the title is not a question asking about this. ROA assumes his sweaty conclusion and asks how this will impact IH> Answer: Not in the least. It's irrelevant.

    Hi all


    In reply to Tom Paulsen


    Start date is moot, that is what the clause of extension is for, only that the date from required test commencement to finish of test is within the extended period is relevant.


    Kind Regards walker


    You often require evidence from Dawey. Do you have any evidence that you interpretation of the agreements are the correct one? Or is this just your personal opinion? And if so do you have any relevant education or experience to back it up.


    Everyone is entitled to express their opinion but you seems so certain both above and in the title of the thread that I have to ask.

    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    This is getting downright hilarious and is confirmation that better schools are needed on Planet Rossi.


    Quote from barty

    I find it very interesting/funny to see how childish @Dewey Weaver's reactions become if someone is challenging his claims.


    It feels like he has a lot on stake to loose.

    "It" doesn't have feelings, people do. This is what Dewey wrote:


    Quote

    This is getting downright hilarious and is confirmation that better schools are needed on Planet Rossi.

    This is an expression of Dewey's own response, in turn. It's utterly unsurprising, given his clear and acknowledged position. Underneath this is amazement at the shallow understanding shown in the thread topic here. Lack of depth and clarity is very, very common, and he's pointing it out. It's not all on one side, but most skeptics don't show up here. Joshua Cude is right about one thing, the mainstream mostly ignores LENR. People interested in LENR who are not actually involved in the research often form quick and shallow opinions. To truly understand the LENR field can take months of study. Who has time for it?


    Studying the Agreement and the Complaint and the Motion to Dismiss also takes time. Why take the time if one can just shoot one's mouth off with a few minutes of "study"?


    Dewey's response was not "childish." It's more about, possibly, adolescent in-your-face defiance, perhaps. Most adults drop this, most of the time, but something about internet debate brings it out.


    So if the response is thought "childish," this says more about the writer than about Dewey. Dewey has more information about this case than probably everyone else here, put together. He has an actual investment at stake, in a private fund, an LLC. He is not a principle in the LLC, AFAIK. (Nor is he an authorized representative). But he is far closer to the case than anyone else writing here, unless RB0 is Rossi. That I decided to treat RB0 as Rossi was just an assessment of probabilities and effects. I kind of hope RB0 is Rossi. I could probably investigate and come up with something more objective, but, frankly, it's not worth the time, and nobody is paying me to do this.


    We could say that for Dewey to participate here at all is "childish." One could say that about me, as well. Except that at my age, to do something "childish" is a positive value. Yippee! I live with a self-expressed teenage girl, who doesn't take shit from anyone.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    http://www.directlyrics.com/bi…fuck-with-you-lyrics.html


    I asked her about this song when she played it in the car. "I like the tune."


    Times have changed.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.