Judge Orders Jury Trial in Rossi et al v. Darden et al Starting June 26, 2017

Quote from axil

On page 25 of the licence agreement, the customer was recognized by IH as a company out of the UK. If they are a fraud, then IH was a party to that action.

Again you fail to understand what "fraud" means! When Rossi defrauds I.H. by making false statements about his fake customer, I.H. is not a "party" to that. It is the victim. When someone sticks you up with a gun and robs you, you are not a "party" to armed robbery. You are the victim. The police arrest the criminal. They do not arrest you.

I am astounded that you do not understand this distinction.

Quote from JedRothwell

Again you fail to understand what "fraud" means! When Rossi defrauds I.H. by making false statements about his fake customer, I.H. is not a "party" to that. It is the victim. When someone sticks you up with a gun and robs you, you are not a "party" to armed robbery. You are the victim. The police arrest the criminal. They do not arrest you.

I am astounded that you do not understand this distinction.

When the customer shows up in court and tells the jury that they got all the steam that they needed and that they have ordered 3 more systems then where does that leave you and IH? You have been blowing BS for a number of years and that two weeks in court is your time of reckoning. So gird your loins and get ready.

If the mysterious customer does not exist, where does that leave Leonardo et al?
I expect this issue to be resolved sooner than later. If I were IH, I would try and get this sorted long before the trial.

I would think that IH would want to take a deposition from the customer before the trial. That should answer a lot of questions for them so they will not get surprised at the trial one way or the other.

Quote from axil

When the customer shows up in court and tells the jury that they got all the steam that they needed and that they have ordered 3 more systems then where does that leave you and IH?

Well, I suppose the I.H. lawyer will ask that customer (Rossi's lawyer) how he managed to use the process heat without releasing it into the environment and without making any noise. That's what I would ask. That is physically impossible, you see. Even a naive jury will understand that.

I would ask a few questions about the alleged industrial process, such as: What process is it? What is spongy nickel? How did you manage to vent all that heat? How many employees do you have? (None) Why are you running 1 MW equipment in a building not zoned for that? Why hasn't your equipment been inspected or certified safe by the state of Florida?

I expect Rossi's lawyer may want to stop lying and perjuring himself long before they reach that point. Since he is a lawyer, he will understand that if he keeps it up, he will be disbarred or jailed.

Quote from JedRothwell

Other developing countries probably will not have the high-tech infrastructure or know-how to make cold fusion devices. Every indication is that cold fusion devices will be about as difficult to manufacture as Nicad batteries or fuel cells, which they resemble somewhat. Most third world countries cannot make these things, or if they do make them, they use fabrication equipment from China, Japan, the E.U. or the U.S. So these countries will not be able to manufacture anything until the first world industrial companies make the fabrication equipment, and this equipment and its output must meet all industrial standards. You cannot make dangerous machines in the U.S. or Japan and then sell them to the Third World. That's against the laws of all first world countries, as it should be.

All it takes is a small capable team to move to a developing country for a year or so to get production underway. If a LENR+ device is commercially viable, and can save others money, it will likely happen, and quickly.

Quote from JedRothwell

Well, I suppose the I.H. lawyer will ask that customer (Rossi's lawyer) how he managed to use the process heat without releasing it into the environment and without making any noise. That's what I would ask. That is physically impossible, you see. Even a naive jury will understand that.

I would ask a few questions about the alleged industrial process, such as: What process is it? What is spongy nickel? How did you manage to vent all that heat? How many employees do you have? (None) Why are you running 1 MW equipment in a building not zoned for that? Why hasn't your equipment been inspected or certified safe by the state of Florida?

I expect Rossi's lawyer may want to stop lying and perjuring himself long before they reach that point. Since he is a lawyer, he will understand that if he keeps it up, he will be disbarred or jailed.

While your conjecture is humorous, I think it kind of misses the point. If IH had any sense (which I believe they do), they will depose a representative of the real party in interest, i.e., the parent company.

So, If I get this right:

Jed Rothwell have read the ERV report through some oral or written NDA....
Or may be has not ? I'm confused..

Jed - "That's based on a sample of Rossi's data alone -- which is all I have."

Jed have evaluated the 1MW reactor and found obvious important errors done by the ERV? Like flowmeter type/ placement, = "faultymeter"

As Jed has stated
- " This is a technical question. It is about flow rates, temperatures, steam quality and so on."
-"I say it produces no heat because the instruments were unsuitable and the measurements were flawed...."
-"For example, it is obvious the flowmeter has to be giving the wrong answer. Knowing only the type of flowmeter and configuration, I am sure it is wrong. But I can only make a very rough estimate of how wrong it might be"
-"The methods Rossi & Penon used to measure the heat balance do not meet code. No HVAC engineer will testify they work. The choice of instruments and configuration were preposterous, and the data is meaningless. "
"...any licensed HVAC engineer can measure the input and output of a boiler, with high confidence" - so... An HVAC engineer can, but a nuclear engineer is incompetent in the same area?

Jed Rothwell have a Bachelor of Arts (BA) from Cornell U. 1976 in Japanese language and literature. And He questions the measurements and conclusions made by a Nuclear engineer with claimed long experience in steam and energy measurements....

And Jed, the librarian, thinks everyone Obviously should accept his asessments...

Something funny with this picture, or am I missing something?

I am tired of scrolling down you guys don't have to put every quote on your reply just follow the thread.

Quote from IH Fanboy

While your conjecture is humorous, I think it kind of misses the point. If IH had any sense (which I believe they do), they will depose a representative of the real party in interest, i.e., the parent company.

Yes, I expect they will. But you can commit perjury during a deposition. It is sworn testimony.

The only real party in interest is Rossi's lawyer. There is no parent company.

Quote from JedRothwell

The only real party in interest is Rossi's lawyer. There is no parent company.

You might be right. Can you provide some evidence? From what I've seen in the court filings, there likely is a parent company.

Quote from IH Fanboy

You might be right. Can you provide some evidence? From what I've seen in the court filings, there likely is a parent company.

Can you quote the court documents that suggested this for you?

Quote from Eric Walker

Quote from IH Fanboy: “You might be right. Can you provide some evidence? From what I've seen in the court filings, there likely is a parent company.”
Can you quote the court documents that suggested this for you?

See last page (page 25). Jed has previously suggested that Rossi prevented an IH representative from entering the customer area, and that this provides evidence of there being a "fake" customer. Yet, it has also been suggested that IH agreed to such arrangement (no access to customer area) in writing. I don't think IH would have entered such an agreement without the "customer" having a legitimate reason. At the end of the day, the existence or non-existence of the customer as a legitimate going concern is central to this dispute. Jed seems to think it is all illusory. I tend to think otherwise. Time will certainly bring the truth out.

Quote from IH Fanboy

See last page (page 25).

That page is from a different document. The contract is 24 pages long and was signed in 2012. The corporation referred to on that page was formed in 2014, two years after the contract was signed. I do not know what that page is doing in this document, but it has nothing to do with it.

Quote from JedRothwell

Quote from IH Fanboy: “See last page (page 25).”
That page is from a different document. The contract is 24 pages long and was signed in 2012. The corporation referred to on that page was formed in 2014, two years after the contract was signed. I do not know what that page is doing in this document, but it has nothing to do with it.

Whether it is a different document or not is a little beside the point. It was submitted to the court together with the other supporting documentation.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Whether it is a different document or not is a little beside the point. It was submitted to the court together with the other supporting documentation.

Maybe it was attached to this document by accident? It should have been in a different category? It is not signed by I.H. and it does not seem relevant to the contract with them.

No big deal. I only point out that it does not mean I.H. acquiesced in the choice of the pretend customer.

Quote from sifferkoll

We know that IH made at least 5x as much when they pocketed the $50M from Woodford.

They did not "make" that money. They have it now, but they have to use it for R&D or Woodford will sue them. They do not get to keep it.

Every indication is that they got that money despite Rossi, not because of him. I am pretty sure they must have told Woodford about their problems because they told me and many other people, and Woodford would have found out eventually and sued them if they had lied to him.

Quote from sifferkoll

As Jed said, probably well hidden in a (Panama?) bank account right now...

I did not say that. Perhaps someone else did. Money that must be used for R&D is not income.

Quote from sifferkoll

Nope. We know that IH made at least 5x as much when they pocketed the $50M from Woodford. As Jed said, probably well hidden in a (Panama?) bank account right now... Because that is what lawyer people like Darden and Weaver do for a living. Not to mention the Jones Day folks.

Complete fabrication from top to bottom there Sufferkill. No matter how many times you repeat this, it will not make it true. You obviously do not understand anything about VC... If you have proof that IH "pocketed" $50 million rather than it being rolled into R&D, please present such proof. We both know it does not exist because you are making things up. You get an F for facts, but a B+ for effort there!!

EDIT: And please show me where Jed said IH has hidden money in Panama...this is one of your largest blatant lies of late.