Did Team Rossi Provide IH with James A. Bass's contact information?

There was a deadline for team Rossi to provide IH with James A. Bass's contact information. Does anyone know if they did so? Has the docket been updated?

I must say that if team Rossi fails to disclose the information to IH, then I'm very irritated with them regardless if the plant worked wonderfully. The time for games is over -- of course there never should have been any games at all -- and the truth needs to be disclosed. I see very little reason for them not to provide his contact information at this point even if they had signed a strict NDA with him. My understanding is that court orders supersede NDAs in most cases.

You have no way of knowing if James A. Bass exists or not. We simply do not know at this point. I think it is likely that IH has looked for him, but that doesn't mean neccesarily they will find him. I doubt they have sent detectives to investigate every James A. Bass in the world. Also, if he was an engineer using a pseudonym, it could be difficult for anyone to ever find him unless someone on team Rossi reveals his identity.

Regardless who he was, he needs to be located and questioned under oath, ASAP.

To be blunt, I don't see why you consider every word from I.H. to be unquestionable, divinely inspired gospel from God. They are imperfect just like Rossi.

Quote from MrSelfSustain

There was a deadline for team Rossi to provide IH with James A. Bass's contact information. Does anyone know if they did so? Has the docket been updated?

I must say that if team Rossi fails to disclose the information to IH, then I'm very irritated with them regardless if the plant worked wonderfully. The time for games is over -- of course there never should have been any games at all -- and the truth needs to be disclosed. I see very little reason for them not to provide his contact information at this point even if they had signed a strict NDA with him. My understanding is that court orders supersede NDAs in most cases.

I see no new documents on PACER. However, we will not see anything, probably. The order was to JMP to provide the contact information by yesterday. If they did, we would not know. If they don't, I found the order a bit unclear.

Quote

(3) The Subpoena served upon T-Mobile is hereby ABATED until September 13, 2016. If the Third Party Defendant J.M. Products, Inc. provides counsel for Defendants with the current address and telephone number for its engineer James Bass, on or before September 6, 2016, the Subpoena shall be deemed QUASHED. In the event Defendant J.M. Products, Inc. fails to provide the requisite information within the time allotted, Defendants may enforce the subject Subpoena upon T-Mobile.

If Jones Day was not given the information within the time allowed, it says that they may "enforce the subject Subpoena." However it also says that the subpoena is abated until September 13. That looks like two different deadlines to me. I don't know specific process. The court must issue the subpoena, but I do not know if this will appear on the docket.

This does not seem to have been widely noticed. Rossi did not reply to the Amended Answer within the 21 days allowed. He did file a motion to strike the Amended Answer, and to dismiss the Counter-Complaint -- or most of it. IH filed a motion for Judgment on the crucial Count I, September 2, which was the deadline for the Rossi reply. That left all the allegations in the Answer uncontradicted, opening the door to a summary dismissal. The Motion for Judgment depends on the "Sox Cylinder Unit" issue which is not trivial. The Second Amendment, which Rossi strenuously affirmed was in effect even though not signed by all parties (and estoppel was reasonable there), required that the GPT be of a Six Cylinder Unit. There had been a Motion to Dismiss based on this issue, and the Judge noted in her ruling:

Quote

Regarding Defendants’ “six-cylinder” argument, there is insufficient information in the record to determine whether the six-cylinder unit is simply another name for the E-Cat Unit. Accordingly, the Court will allow discovery to proceed on this matter before ruling. Thus, the Court declines to dismiss Count I.

There is now information in the record on this point, part of the IH Amended Answer.

Quote

62. Defendants admit that Industrial Heat and Rossi executed the proposed Second Amendment to the License Agreement (the “Proposed Second Amendment”), which is dated “October __, 2013.” However, the Proposed Second Amendment was not executed by Leonardo, IPH, or AEG. Defendants state that the Proposed Second Amendment speaks for itself, and therefore deny any allegations in Paragraph 62 inconsistent therewith. Defendants admit that a copy of the Proposed Second Amendment is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit D. Defendants deny that the Proposed Second Amendment was valid to amend the License Agreement. In any event, the Proposed Second Amendment addressed the testing of “a six cylinder Hot Cat unit” (the “Six Cylinder Unit”), not the E-Cat Unit that was the subject of the License Agreement and the First Amendment. The Six Cylinder Unit in the Proposed Second Amendment is separate and distinct from the E-Cat Unit or Plant as referenced in the License Agreement, the First Amendment, and the Complaint. Photographs accurately depicting the Six Cylinder Unit are attached hereto as Exhibit 3. The Six Cylinder Unit remains in North Carolina.

Rossi was asked about this on JONP, and apparently not understanding the issue, disregarded his attorney's advice to not comment on what is related to the case.

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=158#comment-1230434
[quote]Uwe Doms
September 3, 2016 at 1:30 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi,

I am aware that you have orders from your attorneys not to comment anything related to the litigation, so please feel free not to publish my question and delete it, even if it is only a technical one.

https://thenewfire.wordpress.c…nd-leonardo-corp-lawsuit/

Are the Six-Cylinder-ECAT-Unit, the One-MW-ECAT-Plant and the Lugano-Test-ECAT-Reactor, even if they look different, in their cores and with regards to technical principals the same devices?

All the best
Uwe Doms

Andrea Rossi
September 3, 2016 at 3:19 PM
Uwe Doms:
Independently from the case of the litigation, in general the various E-Cats are different applications of the same principle, with different results depending from variables due to the specific situations.
Warm Regards
A.R.[quote]
Rossi just confirmed that these were not the same Unit. The 1 MW plant C-Cat plant is the plant delivered to IH in August, 2013. While it might be subject to repair, the original test was to be of that specific plant. Not some other plant designed and made according to the "same principle." However, it's clear that Rossi did not want the test to proceed based on the original plant, and when the Second Amendment was signed, "Six Cylinder Unit" was substituted. That either existed or was under construction at the time. However, later, another Plant was built, and it is this third plant that was actually operated for the "test" in Doral. No Amendment was executed to reflect this change. It is also quite likely that there was never a written agreement to start the GPT, as required.

The way that Rossi presented the information, he made it appear that IH had consented, but it was, so far as we have seen, all conclusory, not actually evidenced.

The Judge may schedule a hearing on this, as was done with Rossi's Motion to Strike and the Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims.

Quote from JedRothwell

James A. Bass does not exist. I.H. looked for him, and found there is no such person. It should be clear to you by now that the whole JM company is a ridiculous fraud. There is no way you consume 1 MW of process heat in that space, and if you did, you will kill everyone in the room.

Well, Jed, SelfSustain is correct in that we actually cannot know that about Bass, nor could IH know it. The real question is not whether or not there was a James A. Bass -- someone was there and spoke with people from IH, and provided that card -- but rather who he is. The name is not the person. People have and use aliases.

IH does say "there is no such person," but they meant by this that they believe the name was fictitious. They are actually suing the person, as " “JOHN DOE” a/k/a James A. Bass (“Bass”)" You don't sue a non-existent person!

The name could have been real (i.e, actually how the person is normally known) and the role fictitious, as one among many possibilities.

Quote from Peter Metz

IH may not have any idea who James A Bass is and is trying to find him using subpoena's, two of them which were quashed. I would love to know why the Judge quashed these two -- perhaps to avoid a general witch hunt with the subpoenas.

We do not know that the quashed subpoenas had anything to do with Bass. Those, for example, may have been aimed at Johnson and/or Rossi. If IH did invoice JM Products, and JM Products paid, and the checks were negotiated, then that would have given them a bank and bank account number. Where did that money come from?

If so, the subpoenas to the banks and accountant were quashed, I believe, because this is really asking for information from Johnson or Rossi, and they are already parties in the case and known, and under an obligation to provide information as requested under discovery.

I assume they have asked Johnson for bank records, or at least for the information they are seeking. The same with Rossi.

Quote from JedRothwell

Plus, I do not understand the legal jargon in the documents and I have not read them carefully, except for Exhibit 5.

I do generally understand it and when I don't, I look the words up. However, the Exhibits are not legal jargon at all. They are things like emails from Rossi, photographs, etc. You can see how IH is referring to them by searching the Amended Answer for, say, "Exhibit 5" or "Ex. 5" they sometimes use.

There is a secret to learning new fields: Read the material even if you don't understand it. Just let your eyes see the words and follow whatever you *can* understand. Relax. There is no "test on Friday." (Honestly, for many people, school ruined their natural ability to learn.) Children learn language this way. They do not sit there and think "I don't understand what the big people are saying." They just keep playing.

This -- exposure -- is generally the fastest way to learn. And if one does decide to "study" a topic, if there is substantial exposure first, it goes much more easily.

Early on, I tried to read Arabic grammars. None of it stuck. It was a pile of arbitrary rules that made no sense to me. Arabic is famous for having college students take two years of an Arabic course, and they still can't read a newspaper.

However, once I memorized a substantial chunk of the Qur'an, it was then easy to understand the grammars! Before this, I was contemptuous of memorization. I always wanted to understand principles! Memorizing formulae was for wimps! Derive them as needed!

Quote from Peter Metz

Abd: You are right that the two quashed subpoenas may not have anything to do with James A Bass. But they could very well be related to the James A Bass identity, we don't know. It's my conjecture that they probably are given that the 3rd (and weakest) subpoena is about James A Bass. I could be wrong.

Three quashed subpoenas. They would not know the bank accounts or accountant for Bass.

The bank accounts of Rossi and Johnson would be of high interest to IH, of course. If this goes to criminal process, those will be sought with search warrants.

The phone number on the Bass card is the number for JM Products. My guess now is that they don't have a "cell phone number" for Bass, but that it might show up on the phone records for that number.

Certainly if James A. Bass is the Engineer for JM Products, they would have information on him. While it is not impossible that IH went straight to a subpoena, I find it more likely that Johnson was stonewalling. My guess is that he or his attorney got a bit of a lecture from the Magistrate.

In the end, Bass doesn't really matter much (unless he is a real engineer for a real chemical company that was really using that megawatt). What matters is that this was a fraudulent scheme to induce IH to allow their plant to be installed in Florida, so that Rossi could run his faux "Guaranteed Performance Test," under his complete control.

Planet Rossi does not yet seem to have noticed that Rossi v. Darden could go up in smoke in as little as a few weeks, from the Motion for Judgment filed last Friday.

Quote from Peter Metz

Abd:

Three? Two quashed, one abated (either now quashed or pending).

No. Four total. See document 42 (my bold italics)

Quote

(1) The Subpoenas served upon T.D. Bank and BankUnited are hereby QUASHED for the reasons set forth by the Court during the hearing on this matter;
(2) The Subpoena served upon James Travis is hereby QUASHED for the reasons set forth by the Court during the hearing on this matter;
(3) The Subpoena served upon T-Mobile is hereby ABATED until September 13, 2016.

I'm careful. While I still make mistakes, of course, I would not have corrected you unless I was sure. I've been paying close attention to all this.
If James A Bass is a contrived name/position then that would support IH's claim of a fraudulent scheme. Agreed.

If James A Bass is real and is associated with a legitimate UK chemical processing company, that may induce IH to settle out of court since there is a much stronger likelihood that this company can refute IH's claims of fraud and incorrect ERV performance. I don't think they know yet who this company is.

James A Bass importance is mostly to try to get who he works for, either a legitimate concern or to Rossi.

I agree that things do not look good for Rossi but when money is involved who knows (they may settle out of court at the expense of full disclosure of what really happened).[/quote]
Rossi is better off at the moment letting the lawsuit fall, as it will if he doesn't supply more evidence -- or at least allege more -- to convince the Judge about the "Six Cylinder Unit." Why? Because he can still claim to his other investors that the whole thing was bullshit, and a mere technicality, so he had failed to get a written approval, so what? It, of course, has nothing to do with the spectacular power peformance of his magnificent device.

(manufactured by Industrial Heat, we think, which has presumably tested the individual devices and they don't work. But that gets complicated, and Rossi thrives in a certain simplilcity rooted, probably, in his personal presence.)

As to settling, that is possible with the counterclaims. "Without admitting fault," blah blah. It's complicated to anticipate. I don't know what IH would be willing to accept. They are largely out substantially more than $11.5 million, but, skepticism aside, the Licence has a certain value. If they can keep it, a reduced price, in effect, might be attractive. They gain nothing by nailing Rossi to the wall.

If the customer really exists, and really was using a megawatt or a major portion of it, -- which I think quite unlikely -- there remains the issue that IH clearly doesn't know how to make the devices work, which makes the License worthless to them.

---

Funny how stuff can be missed. Age. From document 42, at the beginning and, again, my bold italics:

Quote

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on August 30, 2016, upon Plaintiffs’ Objections to
Defendants’ Third Party Subpoenas to T.D. Bank, BankUnited and Accountant James Travis and
upon Third Party Defendant J.M. Products, Inc.’s Objection to Defendants’ Third Party
Subpoena to T-Mobile, and having heard argument of counsel, and otherwise being duly advised
in the matter, it is therefore:

It is Leonardo/Rossi objecting to the subpoenas to the two banks and the accountant, and JMP objecting to the T-Mobile subpoena. So I assume now that the first three were about where money went (such as payments from Rossi, say, to JMP to cover the power payments, if IH did invoice for it. If Rossi was paying that money, that is evidence of fraud.)

And then it was JMP trying to avoid the T-mobile subpoena, which was obviously targeted at finding out about Bass, because it was abated to allow JMP time to provide that information.

The Magistrate's decision seems sensible to me, given the legalities involved.