Who is James A. Bass? (CONFIRMED ACCORDING TO IH?)

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Did IH actually get paid by JMP for power?

We have seen strange-looking requests from JMP in discrete, large increments to be invoiced for power, but so far we have not seen evidence for an invoice sent from IH, or any other indication of IH having been paid for the power reported to have been received by the Customer.

From the complaint:

Quote

22. Upon information and belief, Defendants IH and IPH have derived substantial revenue from the operations conducted in Miami, Florida, involving the leasing of the very technology and intellectual property that is at the heart of this Complaint to customer(s) within this District.

However, from the Amended Answer:

Quote

22. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 22

Also:

Quote

77. JMP’s role in the scheme magnified when JMP started sending falsified invoices to Industrial Heat stating the amount of energy or steam JMP was purportedly receiving and using from the Plant during a given month. A selection of the invoices is attached hereto as Exhibit 18.

I find nothing in the documents that actually states those "invoices" -- which were not invoices, they were invoice requests or reports of power to be invoiced --were paid. Were I IH, I would have invoiced them as requested. IH here terms the "invoices" as "falsified." I would disagree. They were issued based on information and belief, based on reports from Rossi, I'm sure, as to how many 250 kW "Tigers" were operating. If the statements were false, this would be an issue between Rossi and JMP. If the Rossi numbers were found to be false, JMP could request a refund if they had paid.

JMP had elected to trust Rossi's reports of power delivered. This wasn't fraudulent on the part of JMP, unless JMP knew that this was part of a fraudulent scheme. What I suspect is that JMP knew there was no chemical plant, but Rossi said, "I'm willing to cover the cost of the power, so no problem."

However, we don't know that IH actually invoiced and was paid. Paragraph 22 of the Complaint implies that they were paid. IH has denied that paragraph, but this doesn't necessarily tell us the truth behind it. For example, "derived substantial revenue." Those payments may have been mostly covering IH expenses, we know of $10,500 per month for Fabiani. There would be Barry West and Penon and expenses. Paragraph 22 was part of an argument asserting Florida jurisdiction. IH did not challenge the lawsuit based on lack of jurisdiction. If they had not received payments, that would have been a possibility, though there were other possible ways that jurisdiction would still exist.

There are two independent issues here that have some connection but are not exclusively linked.

First, the reality of the Rossi Effect, defined as the production of kilowatt levels of excess heat from grams of fuel composed of Ni, Li, and H.

Secondly, the reality of Andrea Rossi's claimed results of the one year long test (COP of 50 on average and usually 750kW to 1000kW output).

When it comes to the first issue, I'm convinced that the Rossi Effect is indeed real for a number of reasons. I have zero doubt about this whatsoever. The effect is not yet easy to reproduce and seems to be difficult to control. There is a LOT we need to learn about it. We also don't know for certain just how well Rossi can control the effect.

When it comes to the second issue, I'm undecided about the reality of what Andrea Rossi has reported. Simply put, there are too many unknowns at this time to try and come up with a COP number or a total output number. Although I think it is highly likely there was some excess heat, I do find it plausible Andrea Rossi *may* have exaggerated or even been far less than totally honest about specific issues. But the truth is we don't know. I'm not about to accuse Andrea Rossi of deceit or fraud until more information is available. Doing so would be unethical -- although I'll openly say that the alleged email from Rossi to Hydrofusion makes me very suspicious. The one person that could tell us the most about this second issue is James A. Bass. I believe his testimony will tell us if Rossi's numbers were even roughly accurate (even if the COP wasn't 50) or if the numbers and other claims were massive exaggerations or even lies.

We simply need James A. Bass to be questioned under oath, ASAP.

A believe I've ready every single one of Cures posts of Cobraf. The last time I checked -- over a year ago -- many seemed to have been removed.

From what I remember reading, after performing hundreds of tests on hot cats for Andrea Rossi and witnessing countless meltdowns, Andrea Rossi's associates became distrustful of Cures because he refused to sign an NDA with Leonardo Corporation. Everything he was doing was free of charge and without signing any sort of contract, agreement, or NDA. Eventually, Andrea Rossi broke the news to him that he'd have to stop participating in the testing, so he quit helping. Cures didn't seem happy or bitter about what took place. If anything, he found the experience very interesting due to the anomalous events he witnessed which sound very similar to what others have reported: reactors hitting "critical temperatures" and heating up to white hot in several seconds.

Although James A. Bass could plausibly be Cures, I urge Mary Yugo and others to search for additional evidence.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Abd keeps suggesting settlement. I say NO. NEVER. Let this thing go all the way to the jury, PLEASE. In other words, let's cut to the truth, be done with the stupid PR statements by either side, and let the chips fall where they may.

1. I am not exactly advocating settling. I am suggesting that the parties may settle. Or some of them may settle and not others.

2. We do not necessarily need a jury trial to know what happened. If the pleadings (and discovery) reveal sufficient fact to know what happened, as to the issues in the trial, a jury is redundant. It is simply a legal way of expressing a decision. Juries decide by the preponderance of the evidence, which can be subjective. If the matter actually is controversial, i.e., informed and neutral people can still disagree, that a jury makes a decision does not establish it as "truth," but simply as how society will enforce rules.

3. From what I have seen, there is sufficient evidence -- and lack of evidence, so far -- to know that IH is accurate in saying that there was no Guaranteed Performance Test. If that is established -- and we may know this within a few weeks -- Rossi's case falls apart. No jury trial on those issues. However, there may be a jury trial on the issues of fraud and deception by Rossi, Johnson, Fabiani, and maybe Penon. My prediction, though, is that Penon never shows up.

Abd:

Quote

We do not necessarily need a jury trial to know what happened.

Of course we don't. It's obvious from IH's statements. Rossi gave them non working junk and did not teach them how to make any device which generates energy. It's really that simple. Rossi is a consistent liar and a chronic failure. His modus operandi is also consistent and transparent. His "ERV" is either a dunce or a crook or both.

IH has no motivation whatever to lie. If Rossi had revealed and licensed the secret of high power LENR to them, they would have made billions and would have been more than delighted to pay Rossi his silly $100M. Anyone would be happy for such a deal and there would be absolutely no reason to cheat on it.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Could have fooled me, but okay.

And how are you going to know what is revealed in discovery? We need at least a trial and a corresponding record. At least a transcription of that can be ordered (first person requesting it gets to pay for it).

I added discovery because we may become aware of some facts, and, as noted, some may come out later. Further, if our goal is to come to our own conclusions, we can use other fact known to us, that is not a part of the court record. The judgment of history will do this, after all.

There is caution necessary as to "what is known to us." Always, the question I deal with is "how do we know this?"