New Lawyer Added to Leonardo Team — Brian Chaiken

Quote from Shane D.

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

I don't know about that Abd. That may (although a stretch) explain why the lawyer Johnson, Fabiani, and this mysterious James Bass are sharing a lawyer, but I find it hard to believe that a legitimate corporation would join with the them. Just the logistics alone to reach out and coordinate with the other defendants in this short a time, wold be prohibitive. Then there is the liability of guilt by association if the others are complicit and they are not. Just don't buy it.

Shane, I think you don't know what a special appearance is. The lawyer, Aran, filed a paper for them. That's all. He is not otherwise representing them. I would guess that Johnson, a laywer, arranged this. What this would mean to me is that Johnson was going to file this, and asked Fabiani if he wanted to be included. James A. Bass is the wild card. J.M. Products is not, because Johnson is already the President of J.M. Products and we would expect Johnson and JM Products, then, to share counsel.

But this isn't counsel. The real counsel for the cross-claim defendants has not appeared yet. The letter from Aran says that he was contacted by Jones Day. I just read this again, and realized that he is also intending to serve by objecting to "certain notices of suboenas served and to which objection is due forthwith." This is likely connected to what Annesser filed about a hearing before the Magistrate today. Anyone have any news about what happened? Nothing has appeared in the docket.

Quote

Besides, most companies have their own lawyer on retainer, and if large enough they have their own in-house legal staff to deal with this stuff.

I have a simpler theory, and that is: Johnson, and Fabiani ARE JM Products. One and the same. And that they enlisted this Bass guy. Hence, all have the same lawyer.

Johnson is J.M. Products. The claim is that there is another "entity" that owns J.M. Products. IH claims this is false, that the owners of J.M. Products are involved people, like Rossi or Johnson, so the disclaimer written by Johnson could be false.

But if there is a real -- different -- company behind J.M. Products, they are not a defendant in the lawsuit and their attorney would most definitely not appear. Unless they decided to intervene (not impossible, but they obviously have not done that yet).

Keep it simple. What appears to be actually happening is that discovery subpoenas are being issued and someone doesn't want to respond to them. For example, Johnson being asked about the "customer." He may be claiming attorney-client privilege. However, he actually presented himself to IH as representing a company, not as their counsel. He may have a devil of a time claiming attorney-client privilege.

On the other hand, Rossi is, in fact, a client of his, but he stuck his neck in deep. He is in big trouble, as an alleged co-conspirator with Rossi.

Quote from Rends

To meet the requirements of the license agreement, it is irrelevant who the customer is, that could also be Mickey Mouse. The only important thing is that there was a customer and Industrial Heat LLC has sold energy to this customer, energy which was produced by the 1MW ECAT reactor, monitored, documented and authenticated by an appraiser. And what the customer has done with the purchased energy is in principle no matter, the power belongs to the customer and not to Industrial Heat LLC and in the license agreement in this respect nothing is defined.

... and

...the only conspiration I can see is this:
https://thenewfire.wordpress.c…merican-energy-companies/

I believe the issue is that many are "not connecting the dots" correctly.

IH is not suing Rossi about a false customer. Rossi is suing IH because he is stating that the 1 year test was the "GPT" that was to trigger an $89 million dollar payout. Rossi is suing IH because he is stating that the test was positive, proven by a "customer " using all the energy and was so "very happy" with it that they bought (3) more plants! (Not all stated in the lawsuit but this is meant to give an overall picture)

IH countered that the test was NOT the "GPT" and could not have been AND to "add to the evidence", the customer was not even real. This is presented as evidence that their is fraudulent dealings going on. Not that a customer was required by the GPT, but that this was NOT the GPT and there was no customer either. All evidence of shady dealings. So IH is not making a claim that the customer was important, they are making the claim that Rossi stated the customer was important and in reality the customer WAS Rossi.

So your point is correct that if a GPT was conducted as the contract stated, the customer or what they did with the heat does not matter. What would matter is that the test be conducted in an approved facility, with approved personnel and with approved equipment. IH is stating that was not done. IH is stating the "fake customer" is just further evidence of a "fake test". I.E. Why would Rossi not allow them into the "customer site"? So they could not see that 1MW was not being actually delivered.

So we need to keep this in mind.... Rossi is suing....He is wanting $89 million dollars plus triple damages....The $89 million was to be paid, triggered by a successful GPT, thus Rossi is stating the 1 year test was the GPT.
IH is stating... no it was not.. That it did not even come close to meeting the contract stipulations.... AND .. Rossi presented it as "sale of heat to a customer" .... that the customer was making production ... that the customer was happy... even to the extent Rossi paid IH $30,000 per month for the "sold heat". IH is stating that if ALL that is fake... then that is evidence that the lawsuit is based upon false accusations.

I am sure this is not "proper legal" terms, but the gist is that we have to keep the entire picture in mind.

Quote from Shane D.

Rends,

Thanks for answering. Maybe we have different philosophies on life, but under mine if someone lies to you then they should not be trusted in other areas.

If Rossi/Johnson lied about this customer as it appears likely they did, then everything else should be suspect -at the least. That includes the ERV report. And if the customer is fake, that alone will probably invalidate the contract under the "unclean hands" clause of the law IH has already petitioned under.

Take care.

Display More

We need to remember, as Mr. Lomax has stated... Rossi is suing for the $89 million (plus damages). The only contract that we know of where there was an $89 million payout was for the "GPT" - General Performance Test. The contract regarding the GPT seems to have been clear. IH is stating that Rossi cannot sue for $89 million because the GPT was never performed. IH is stating that the 1 year test was presented to them by Rossi as strictly a venture to sell heat (profit center) to a customer. That it was never, ever presented as the GPT nor did they ever sign off or agree that it was.

Therefore, there is NO ERV report in regards to the contractual GPT test as it was never performed according to IH. The report, is from a paid consultant (50-50 IH and Rossi) to monitor the reactor while IH "sold heat" to a subsidiary of a UK company. So they are stating that the so called "Penon ERV report" is actually meaningless as to whether the $89 million is paid or not. They are stating that to also show that shady dealings were taking place, there was not even a real customer for the 1 year test and that it was all a setup Rossi put in place to try to force the payment. I.E. Rossi tells IH the move to Florida is to sell heat while planning to spring the GPT test claim afterwards. All this is IH's response. Whether it hold true in court, we will see.

So, if IH is correct about the GPT, as Mr. Lomax has stated, it does not matter what the ERV report states. The test was not agreed to or signed off on. For $89 million, one cannot "by pass" the formalities! In IH's view, the GPT was never performed therefore they are not paying. Then they have introduced evidence that fraud has taken place as a defense against Rossi's lawsuit against them and that Rossi has always known the device did not work.
I am not a lawyer, but Rossi's lawsuit and the IH answer is fairly clear :

Rossi wants the $89 million that is triggered ONLY by the successful GPT. Therefore the 1 year test is the GPT in Rossi's eyes.

IH states that the 1 year test is NOT the GPT and was presented to them ONLY as a profit center to sell heat and to which they could also gather more operational data from the plant.
That the GPT was to be performed in NC and Rossi refused, that Rossi setup a fake customer in Florida to attempt to perform the GPT in deception.

Who is telling the truth? Well, I believe the facts are certainly looking positive for one party but the court will decide if it goes that far. My guess is Rossi will drop the suit long before that. Will IH continue the counter suit?

Edit - I meant to reply to Rends.... my mistake

Okay, here is why I missed that filing. I was looking for Document 38 to show. It appears that Document 38 is not available to the public, and in that case, I get a message that I am not authorized to view the document or it does not exist. Not helpful, why can't they tell me which is the case???? I'm actually paying for PACER, but, ah, the government! Gr....

Now having dumped that irritation. I have now uploaded the motion to strike. This is analogous to a motion to dismiss, only aimed at affirmative defenses.

Document 38 is apparently minutes of the magistrate hearing yesterday. I actually checked just before midnight to see if something had been put up..... There comes that irritation again!

Viewing the docket in PACER means downloading pages of stuff, over and over, paying for each page each time. I figure I can wait a day if I need to. If someone wants to cover my costs for the docket downloads, I'll check it every day!

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Eric Walker,
Thanks for the link to the new document.

If I understand the gist of the Motion, IH will now be compelled to reply with a massive volley of evidence to further support their prior claims, or drop the allegations that cannot be supported by sufficient "clarification". (Or suffer the striking by the Court of the poorly supported allegations from their counter suit).

Actually, the evidence is in the Answer already. The Motion may be misleading. I provide a more detailed response in the relevant thread here: Rossi vs IH: Leonardo Required to Provide More Definitive Defense Statement

(The "affirmative defenses" are not part of the countersuit. However, some of them are supported by evidence given in the countersuit.)