Hi all
With respect to all and sorry about the crudity of language. As a Canadian colleague of mine put it.
There are many things worse than using crude language. One of them would be a fake apology for using crude language when there is absolutely no necessity for it. This boils down to "my friend used crude language."
Quote
It is all about the price at which you [crude expression] essentially once enough money is on the table all will deal if for no other reason than to have enough money to prevent others from falling into such circumstances.
That's a bit incoherent. The crude expression means to fawn or engage in a humiliating behavior in order to gain some advantage. The core of this is an idea everyone has their price, that if enough money is involved, ah, exactly where do you want this done?
I don't agree, but I will agree that when large sums are involved, "normal ethical behavior" might disappear for some. People may rationalize it, inventing new reasons when the real reason is the money or other personal benefit. Some people can and will betray their profession, their friends, and the normal expectation that people don't lie can easily disappear. And that is why we want to know about "conflicts of interest." They can influence how we think.
QuoteIf as Dewey and various others claiming to speak on behalf of IH are being truthful [...]
Nobody has, here, claimed to "speak on behalf of IH." Nobody. This is a complete straw man argument. What has happened is that one person (Dewey Weaver) is a known insider, with high access to at least some otherwise confidential information. However, Dewey's comments are clearly his and do not represent any official IH position. While he certainly knows Darden -- and has also met Rossi -- his opinions are, I am sure he will agree, his own. If one chooses to trust his testimony of his experience, that's a personal decision. If one looks carefully at other statements here about what IH has done, some may be based on personal information and belief, perhaps a private conversation. To my recollection, in my case, none of these have been specifically attributed. My own comments are based on public record and public commentary. I have mentioned private communication only in a very general sense. Obviously, whatever I attribute to private conversation -- which is extremely little -- is not "speaking for" others.
There is an exception: I sometimes use "we" to refer to the CMNS community, and I am informed by extensive communication with the community in two ways: through the invitation-only CMNS mailing list, and through private conversations with researchers, increasingly by phone and I'm moving to personal, face-to-face meetings. I use "we" when I expect that what I am saying will have general approval. It is not exclusive, and the community is diverse and has varied opinions. Still, it is possible to express a consensus and when I do so, it is informal. At this point, there is no official representative of the CMNS community. That might change. If so, there will be election or similar process.
Quotethen IH can either pay enough to make Rossi go away or fight the case.
Indeed. They could also counterclaim for fraud, if they believe they have enough evidence. I suspect that they might.
QuoteNote Well! IH said do not trust any information about IHs position unless it is directly from them, Dewey, Jed, Lomax, all fall into this category of people IH themselves told everyone not to trust, people seem to forget this.
As usual, on Planet Rossi, clear statements are interpreted into murkiness. This would be a reference to the IH press release at the beginning of March, before the lawsuit was known, and while Rossi was still claiming that there was no "divorce," everything was fine.
https://animpossibleinvention.…-heat-makes-announcement/ has the announcement.
QuoteWe value credibility through sound LENR research. That’s why any claims made about technologies in our portfolio should only be relied upon if affirmed by Industrial Heat and backed by reputable third parties who have verified our results in repeated experiments.
This was a normal statement, highly conservative, and not about what Dewey, Jed, or I have written. It does not state what Dewey claims, but is more likely to be what he remembered about it. It ought to be obvious that IH is not responsible for what any of us write here, unless the author is formally approved by them. "Rely" on would mean to make an investment or take some position that, if in error, could be costly.
QuoteIf as Rossi and the ERV contends the reactors work, then IH's options are diminishing.
We know that Rossi contends this, Almost everything we know about what happened with IH has come from Rossi. So, here, Walker states it as a fact that the eRV "contend ... the reactors work." But we have not seen the report, and we have only rumors as to what is in it, and details matter. Further, the fundamental issue in Rossi v. Darden is not the payment failure -- if the ERV certified guaranteed performance, and if this was all proper contractually -- that has been contested -- then IH formally owed $89 million. However, that was not the whole contract, it was, essentially, a payment detail. The essence of the contract from what it required of Rossi was not only delivery of a 1 MW E-cat unit, but also delivery of all technology necessary to build working devices, plus, of course, a License for half the planet.
QuoteIf Rossi feels he can make more money than the $89 million from going along with a partner with a more lucrative deal the only option IH have is to pay up the $89 million plus some additional money to get things back to the original contract and start manufacturing E-Cats.
they certainly have another major option, which I will express using language I hear all the time, since I have a self-expressed teenager living with me.
They can tell him to fuck off.
However, the IH people are from North Carolina. They would never say something like that. And it should be completely clear that this was not an authorized statement from IH, it is a speculation as to a possible action they could take, which could include and show up as going after every penny Rossi has. Several basic rules of business Rossi violated:
1. Keep your customer happy. Do not depend on them paying you if they are not happy, no matter what the paper you hold says.
2. Do not piss off the people who run a $2.2 billion investment fund, unless it is totally necessary for your critical agenda. And be aware that if you pick the wrong company, you might disappear never to be seen again. It's a really bad idea absent total necessity, i.e, the cause is something that you are quite willing to die for. And, again, this is not a threat. IH people seem entirely too nice. But read the beginning of this comment. Put enough money on the table, "nice" can go out the window. Ah, the stories I know from some of my friends.
3. The time to consult a lawyer begins before signing a $100 million contract. I don't care how good it looks.
4. Never sue first and ask questions later. Find a good attorney you can trust and allow them to negotiate. It will be worth every penny it costs, because it could save you far, far more.
QuoteOf course I still think the October Surprise is a possibility.
People wonder why IH did not demand their money back in return for cancellation of the License. I don't wonder. It is a hedge against an October Surprise.
Rossi cannot unilaterally cancel the License, so the License is still in place, and it covers new developments. To negate that, he would have to prove fraud or the like, and really, all he has even alleged as "fraud" is that they had no intention to pay, and that is mind-reading, unless he has clear evidence we don't know about.
He has alleged that they misled him about Cherokee, when contract law would completely negate his position.
The judge did not remove Cherokee as a party to the suit because she was under a legal obligation to take every Rossi assertion as truth, and Rossi asserted that IH was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cherokee, when it never was, and apparently no Cherokee money went into IH, nor was anything alleged that would be any adequate sign that Cherokee was a party to the Agreement.
Planet Rossi rejoiced at the "victory" of the ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. In fact, Motions to Dismiss are very difficult, precisely because every allegation in the Complaint is presumed true, and that four out of eight counts were dismissed was high success, not a big loss, as pretended.