Rossi Responds to IH’s Motion to Dismiss in Court Case

Quote from "DeweyDodge"

Abd is consistently drilling Team Rossi between the eyes.

At least we can't deny he is trying; using some new innovative combination of chinese water turture and waterboarding with useless floods of words...

Quote from AlainCo

Some commentators claims there is was an escrow system nogociated about the 10Mn$, so payment would be done only when IP transferred.No such system is discussed in Dewey Weaver "testimonies", nor in IH or LC exchanges.

Can someone comment about that?

There was an escrow system. See the Agreement, https://animpossibleinvention.…sdce-16-21199__0001-2.pdf section 3.2(b) (pdf page 3) and also Schedule 3.2(b) (pdf page 24). This was all completed in May 2013.

I find this remarkable: In the Schedule, there is reference to the Engineer, who is to be selected by Leonardo (i.e., Rossi). The Engineer is to be a "nuclear engineer." A nuclear engineer would have some knowledge of steam handling, but would not necessarily be expert in calorimetry....

The Complaint has:

Quote

56. In accordance with the License Agreement, and the First Amendment thereto, the parties selected Eng. Fabio Penon as the Expert Responsible for Validation ("ERV") engaged to perform the Validation Test of the E-Cat Unit in Ferrara, Italy.

This implies mutual agreement, but the only mutual agreement was the Agreement itself, which allowed Rossi to specify the ERV. The fact provides a very different color than what Rossi asserts in the Complaint. The First Amendment does not relate to the choice of Penon.

Quote from Jack Cole

To me, Abd is not overly wordy. Yes, he writes a lot of words, but I don't find myself thinking "get to the point already." He puts a lot of thought into what he writes and it is a process to explain those thoughts. Even though he's not a lawyer, I think his line-by-line analysis is still interesting. To each his or her own I guess.

Thanks, Jack. These posts are studies, they are not polemic, so they don't necessarily have a point, other than being relevant here. After all, this thread is supposedly about Rossi's response, but most commentators here ignore his response and write about fluff and complain about fluff, but what is remarkable is complaint about what is most on-topic, study of the Memorandum itself. I provide links to relevant documents, so anyone can see if I have erred or can present differing interpretations.

But that is too much work for most people. It takes me hours to write one of these posts, studying the documents. Where necessary, I look up the case law.

I have also ventured some predictions. Because what I am predicting can depend on many things I don't know, i.e., the history of the judge, common legal practice, etc., those predictions are only based on my own understanding of common law, and equity, and with a Motion to Dismiss, the bar is high. I pointed to a document on Motions to Dismiss and the legal considerations. I wonder how many read these things.

Much easier, probably, to just excrete opinions without any foundation other than What I Don't Like. This is, perhaps, easiest for anonymous trolls, but ... real people also do it. I like being real, because it makes me responsible, and I like responsibility, because it creates power.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

I agree with Jack - Abd is consistently drilling Team Rossi between the eyes. They live in a fact-free world and Abd carefully and deliberately builds-in reasonably accurate conclusion upon conclusion based on his gifted ability to interpret and assemble a deduced / fact-based analysis. Team Rossi cannot even read a contract accurately - they have no opportunity to credibly counter without a good starting point for their myriad of imaginary and fabricated positions. Reality is going to come down hard on Rossi and his followers. I can't explain it but I keep getting this vision of Dorothy's house landing on her nemesis.

Thanks, Dewey.

I am not, however, "drilling Team Rossi between the eyes," or at least not with the analytical posts covering the Counts and the Motion and the Memorandum. I'm just looking at the documents and facts and considerations, and reporting what I find. If they are being "drilled between the eyes" this would be their own interaction with reality (including the reality of my impressions). "Team Rossi" generally overstates the situation. I like "Planet Rossi" much better, because it is simply a place where one might live, a "world-view," one might call it, rather than a "team" implying a level of coordination that may well be absent. Very absent!

On Planet Rossi, those who are outside that world-view and who speak up about it are presumed to be on Team IH. Sifferkoll goes very far with this, but Rossi himself appears to buy into it. Team IH here would include Jed Rothwell, you, and I finally was awarded the coveted "mentioned on Sifferkoll" award. If one looks at actual comments, Jed and I certainly don't act like a team, though I greatly appreciate all that he has done for LENR over the years. I suggest that you tone down the contemptuous remarks, because they have a negative effect. They are understandable as the reactions of someone highly offended by behavior encountered, that's all.

You are the only one with inside information posting here. So you give us a glimpse of what is inside the real Team IH, which is, after all, a company. And on Planet Rossi, the reality of Team IH is too horrible to contemplate!

On Planet Rossi, they are traitors, out to injure the whole of humanity, responsible for the death of babies from starvation, unlike the good people of Planet Rossi. However, you do not represent IH, you are merely an involved party with substantial personal experience. I appreciate whatever you can tell us that is factual, and I know that much of this may come out as formal evidence if the Rossi suit goes to trial. Most of what you have said to us would be legally verifiable.

Quote from "Abd"

These posts are studies, they are not polemic, so they don't necessarily have a point

True it is. But, please do not try tell us more about it. We know all we need to know ... promise ...

Quote from "Abd"

On Planet Rossi, they are traitors, out to injure the whole of humanity, responsible for the death of babies from starvation, unlike the good people of Planet Rossi.

I didn't know that. Is this the way we should think about it? I guess it makes some sense, but in reality I only believe Weaver, Zoepfl et al to deeply unethical business persons, somewhat stupid, very angry and generally what we in Sweden call "skitstövlar" (=dirty boots, but translates better into a**holes)

Quote from nobody

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Above doesn't pass the laugh test. Failure to pay invalidates contracts all the time. Try not paying your employees, but then insisting you keep their pension funds and they continue with their regular duties because the contract was not invalidated by your failure to carry out crucial, central contractual obligations.

Ah, if I were sued, I would love it if the plaintiff had Nobody for a lawyer. This particular Nobody would be worse than nobody. I.e., better, from my point of view.

What I write is true, simple, and verifiable. It also matches what a real lawyer told me as immediately obvious about the lawsuit.

I did not say that the contract could not be invalidated for failure to pay. It is possible that it could, but it would require process.

The example given is far, far off, for reasons too obvious to bother with. The issue here is whether or not the $89 million payment is a "crucial, central contractual obligation." It is obviously not central. Based on the $10 million payment, the licenses were transferred with immediate effect. The alleged default did not arise until three years later. The agreement was not "terminated" for failure to pay, except on Planet Rossi, where Rossi may create whatever he wants by saying so.

The Agreement remains in force in spite of claims by parties that the other side has breached it. Then, if a breach leads to inequity, and even without a termination clause, a party may sue for specific performance, or for cancellation of the contract. Either option raises possible legal complications. So far, formally, IH has not raised clear objections to the Rossi's performance under the Agreement. However, it is clear that they will. Rossi has a prima-facie case for an $89 million debt, given the probably positive Penon report. However, IH raises the issue of delay and the lack of signatures on the agreement that postponed performance of the test. They have not mentioned yet the lack of a written document agreeing to the new test date, but that is even stronger. From this, it is possible that Count I will be dismissed and with it, almost certainly, the rest of the suit. However, that problem is remediable if the Plaintiff formally claims estoppel by amending the Complaint, which is otherwise obviously incomplete.

The underlying problem has been hinted at. Rossi did not successfully deliver and train IH in the manufacture of devices that worked when independently tested. That was core to Rossi's duties under the Agreement, and running the 1 MW test was a way for him to be paid, later, for what was assumed, by then, to be something clearly established and working. To avoid responsibility for this failure, Rossi must then claim that this was willful, that he showed them everything they needed to know, but they did not want to succeed because [fill in mysterious goal of conspiracy that would give up trillions to maybe protect billions]. I notice that the Complaint does not allege IP transfer.

This is remarkable. Rossi is not coming to court with clean hands (the legal term), having fulfilled (or alleging that he fulfilled) the obvious core purpose of the Agreement for the defendants. If he has real IP to deliver, he could remedy this. However, instead, he sued them, apparently a day before the $89 million payment was actually due. In a normal contract breach, one will notify the other party that they are in breach and will give them time to remedy it. Rossi did not do that. One would normally have attorneys negotiate some settlement. It appears that Rossi did not do that.

Quote from "FUD by Abd"

This implies mutual agreement, but the only mutual agreement was the Agreement itself, which allowed Rossi to specify the ERV. The fact provides a very different color than what Rossi asserts in the Complaint. The First Amendment does not relate to the choice of Penon.

What are you trying spin here Adb ? Is there ANY F***ING DOUBT that IH and Leonardo agreed on Penon as ERV for the validation test and the GP test? I don't think so, so why are you trying to diffuse obvious facts with you manic rantings?

Quote from JedRothwell

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I would think that telling a judge that the other side was attempting to mislead the Court, when they make a patently sound claim, would be a serious mistake, creating an impression of exactly that, only reversed. I.e., the allegation would fall back on the accuser . . .

Yikes! What tedious stuff this is. I am glad I am no lawyer or judge. I would rather spend all day looking for a bug in assembly language code than ten minutes trying to sort out this stuff.

I hated doing legal research, in cases where I was involved. It literally gave me headaches. What i just wrote would be about legal strategy, how one presents arguments. If, say, a witness gives testimony that is probably true or possibly true, but which has some negative implication that the plaintiff doesn't like, to claim that the witness is lying is a losing strategy. If the fact is true, acknowledge it. If one is going to impeach a witness, calling them a "liar" had better have very strong evidence, or it falls back on the one alleging that.

Lawyers are here arguing before a judge as to the law. The plaintiff lawyer, without any necessity, alleges that the defendant counsel is trying to mislead the Court. And that then will cause the Court to look very carefully at what the Plaintiff lawyer is saying, and in at least one case, that lawyer was using a cited case against what the cited case actually implied. Were I the judge, I would see the lawyer as not collegial. Not "one of us." It would be enough to impeach the arguments, it is generally not necessary to impeach the lawyer. If that is necessary, it better not only be clear, but necessary!

Consider the situation here: there are people claiming that others are trying to mislead the public or the community here. There may be a few cases, but for the most part, I don't see it. People may be deluded, but are not trying to mislead, they think they are arguing for or fighting for The Truth. Rossi himself, we have to consider possible, could be a fraud, i.e., deliberately misleading. I don't consider that proven, merely possible. Given how much evidence there is, however, a non-fraud scenario pretty much requires insanity.

Quote

Sure would be nice to see that ERV report. The whole thing...not just the bits and pieces reported to us by those whom themselves were given very limited access. Without it, we are like the blind being asked to judge a beauty contest.

*
Might be nice to see it but it will be worthless for deciding Rossi's case. The customer is Rossi's lawyer and the "ERV" (nobody uses that except Rossi) is Rossi's buddy. A one year test was not necessary and the methodology, inasmuch as we know it, is flawed. Any reasonable court will ask for "indipendent" testing by a competent and impartial team. Rossi's ecat never worked, doesn't work and can't work. Every test Rossi ever did or allowed was defective. Hopefully, those facts will be presented by IH experts and Rossi's goose will be roundly cooked. So yeah, the "ERV" report might be fun to read. But you will be just as blind about the ecat's validity after reading it as you were before.

@Siffer:

Quote

What are you trying spin here Adb ? Is there ANY F***ING DOUBT that IH and Leonardo agreed on Penon as ERV for the validation test and the GP test? I don't think so, so why are you trying to diffuse obvious facts with you manic rantings?

agreements are void if they were obtained by fraud. Uhho... there is that word again.