Rossi vs IH: (Update: Sep. 9 20– James A. Bass now a Third Party in IH’s Counter Complaint)

From the E-Cat World post:

Quote

Thanks to Barbierir for noticing that IH et al have updated their Answer again, and this time have included James A. Bass as one of the third parties against whom they have listed a counter complaint. This must mean that James A. Bass is now considered a real person by them, not a “John Doe” (fake person) that they had alleged previously.

It has become routine that the e-catworld community misreads Rossi v. Darden. "John Doe" does not mean "fake person." It means a person with unknown identity. There has been communication between Jones Day and the other lawyers, Probably the Rossi side is asserting that James A. Bass was really a person by that name, and, my guess, they add "but we don't know where he is." So Jones Day has decided to name James A. Bass as a counterclaim defendant instead of what they had, as I recall, John Doe ("James A. Bass").

It is now just "James A. Bass ""Bass") and that later in the countercomplaint, "Bass" is used, instead of the full name, is taken to mean something important. It's just an abbreviation.

This is a quite minor thing. It is not an admission that James A. Bass is not a fake identity. It does not necessarily mean that they found him. If they found him, I assume they served him with a notice he is being sued, and then the clock is ticking for him to appear or we may eventually see a motion for default judgment. If he is not found, this increases the appearance of fraud, just a little. It would be one more suspicious fact that can be alleged. We will not know at this point unless James A. Bass "appears" in the case. So far, Penon has not appeared but all the other counterclaim defendants have, through waiver of process, which gives them 60 days to respond instead of 21.

And that is only the tip of the iceberg of defective e-cat world reading of the pleadings and motions, and toss in Peter Gluck, who is totally confused.

Peter thinks his favorite "errors" on the IH side are really, really important, and proves they are Something Bad, when he has not understood his target (Exhibit 5), and that the Exhibit playing a supportive role and was not intended to "prove" that there was no excess heat, nor that heat was not 1 megawatt. It is intended to show the lack of cooperation of Penon, and to support the idea that Penon was a co-conspirator in a fraud. Murray questioned the data, as would any sane engineer. That a question is asked does not prove that the data is wrong or bad. But Exhibit 5 was given to Penon on March 25, when the alleged ERV Report was provided on March 29. Therefore Exhibit 5 does not, as often claimed, reveal the Report data; rather Murray was responding to preliminary reports, including one last year, part of which apparently found its way to Jed Rothwell.

Again contrary to claims, Jed Rothwell was not wrong in his comments about ERV data, he was merely commenting on something like a month of data -- provided to someone by Rossi, he was told, he could not say by whom, because of confidentiality agreements.

Quote from Rigel

Adb...

Abd. It matters.

Quote

I would recommend that you read todays ego out.

Okay, I will.

Quote

He is engaging Simon Derricutt (from R-G website). It would seem Simon has been reading the LENR-forum and surely E-Cat-land) I would imagine you know of him also. He (to me) is a poly-math, he directly observes nature. Anytime he writes anything it is worth the trouble to read it until his meaning is understood. He addresses the “where did the heat go” issue. But his salient point is that dry steam should leave purified water not dirty water is spot on.

I haven't read that yet. But I agree with the general assessment of Simon.

Quote

Separately I must disagree with your characterization of Peter as “totally confused”. His words may be confusing, and his blog is confusing at times but he seems a humble and kind man.

I have been interacting with Peter for years. I would have called him "humble and kind," but over the last year his behavior became arrogant and quite unkind (as he accused others of that), and he was highly resistant to it being pointed out, as it was by many.

Peter is confused, and I can and have documented that extensively. As to Rossi v. Darden, he does not know what is going on, he misunderstands the case documents, and he more or less believes the conspiracy theories about the enemies of LENR trying to "kill the Rossi Effect." While I was travelling, I read his comments on vortex-l. https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg112119.html

His impulse was decent. However

• https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg112139.html shows a total lack of understanding of the legal process presented as a confrontation.
• https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg112141.html does not understand that the Rossi case is basically toast, already, and it has nothing to do with "half-full pipes." He has mistaken some questions from Murray to Penon as if they were intended to be proof of anything other than Penon's lack of cooperation with his supposed co-customer.
• https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg112146.html is just plain incoherent. The photos uploaded include photos of the "customer area," part of the Plant, and the roof of the Doral warehouse showing the lack of major roof-based ventilation equipment. They include the "Six Cylinder Unit," which is certainly relevant legally. Gluck has no understanding of the layered Darden defense -- and he doesn't recognize it as a defense, he seems to forget that Rossi sued Darden -- for fraud! --, inviting a vigorous defense and counterclaims.
• https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg112144.html is ignorant. The case is not actually about the reality of the Rossi effect. It's about contractual obligations ... and possible fraud. Rossi's claim of fraud was actually a nonstarter, for anyone who knew the history. It only survived the Motion to Dismiss because the Judge took certain very incorrect Rossi assertions as truth (which she was obligated to do at that point). However, the Darden claims of fraud have some serious evidence behind them, and what we notice is that Rossi has not responded to these. He simply did not reply! That left him open for the Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings. That has now been withdrawn, but this simply allows it to be presented again at a moment when the basis for it is even more clear.

(What I find interesting as to the drama of this is that Darden still did not make, explicitly, the most powerful argument. We don't know what is happening with discovery. At some point, though, it appears, the fundamental, first-line basis for dismissal of the Rossi claim will become obvious, and whatever flopping about Rossi does is just postponing that day ... and increasing his costs. Rossi's goal here, I'd suspect, is to lose this case, but be able to make it appear UNFAIR! ... to make it appear to be based on a mere technicality. The counter-suit, though .... that's hard to predict, and he may not have anticipated that.)

Abd,

Do you know when the transcript of the discovery hearing will be made available for purchase?

In regards to the court case, I'm eager for IH or Rossi to reveal something that will give us more incontrovertible facts and not simply continued allegations. I'm not saying that no factual information has been shared, but there has been nothing provided that I would say provides slam dunk evidence in support of or against either party. A few made up hypothetical examples would be the identification of James A. Bass (including employment history indicating he was only a machinist OR that he was indeed an engineer with experience related to chemical manufacturing lines), the identification of JM Product's parent company (a tiny company registered in the UK that only exists on paper OR an actual company that actively manufactures, processes, or sells chemical products), etc.

By now, I would suspect that both sides have accumulated a good bit of defensive and offensive evidence, unless the truth is (which I find unlikely) that one side is totally free of any wrong doing whatsoever and the other side is as guilty as satan himself.

I want to give you credit for something. You have the patience to try and parse through the legal gobbledygook that only gives me a headache.

Quote from THHuxley

Rigel - I can't find the post your reference above, so cannot comment more. Though if I could, probably I would...

This would be it: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.r…6-lenr-bit-about-its.html

It occurs to me to comment on this. It will take a few posts, I think.

Peter had written

Quote

[third "motto"]
The willingness to change one’s mind in the light of new evidence is a sign of rationality not weakness. (Stuart Sutherland)
...
It causes me an almost physical pain see in people who claim being normal insisting with pathological stubbornness that in the closed circuit of the Plant the water pipes were only half full. Now I have found an identical logic at the Flat Earth Society...is this only a coincidence? I think it is not possible to communicate with Joseph Murray who created this hypothesis and his epigons are just epigons.

Peter repeats his framing of Murray's questions to Penon as if they were a "hypothesis" being supposedly proven, but Murray actually pointed out observations and asked about them. It was not an attack.

The one obsessed about a "half-full" pipe is Gluck. It is unclear if any of this will have relevance to Rossi. v. Darden, and I have pointed out the purpose of Exhibit 5, which seems to pass Gluck by entirely. In Gluck's world, it is apparently forbidden for the chief engineer for Industrial Heat to ask questions of Penon. Some or all of these questions may have answers, but the point of Exhibit 5 is that serious questions, asked in February, 2016, and memorialized March 25, four days before the "ERV report," went unanswered.

so Simon wrote:

Quote

Simon Derricutt September 19, 2016 at 4:34 PM
Peter - your third quote is apt. You are still ignoring the evidence of the missing ~1MW in the Doral test. If it was produced, then where did it go? Is there any evidence that there was a process being performed that would use that amount of heat, or that there was any attempt to dissipate the waste heat from the process?

Rossi won't tell you how that heat was removed. It's not his problem, after all, it's up to JM Products to tell you how it was removed, and it's unlikely that they will tell you. Rossi has no control over them - they are a customer after all, and the fact that Rossi's lawyer is running it and that there seem to be no other employees is not a material fact.

Unless you can think of a physical process that would totally remove around 980kW of heat at around 100°C for around 350 days and leave no trace behind it, the only explanation for the missing heat is that it wasn't produced.

This single bit of evidence enabled me to change my opinion of Rossi from "not sure" to "it's certain it didn't work". That is why your quote is apt. I don't see how you can maintain your position that Rossi produced 1MW and it worked as he stated. Rossi will not be able to explain away the lack of the audit trail for 1MW or so of heat energy from that building. He won't even try, since any such explanation will be obviously false to anyone with some high-school physics.

It's time you address the problem and change your mind.

Display More

Gluck replied:

Quote

Peter Gluck September 20, 2016 at 2:35 AM
Dear Simon,

Because you do not insist with total absurdities as half full pipes and bewitched flowmeters I will answer you with empathy.

There are some serious questions about the flowmeter used. None of this is "bewitched." This is gross distortion of what people have been writing, including Rothwell and it's in Exhibit 5. I have pointed out that flowmeters can, under some conditions, give radically incorrect readings, Peter has responded to that -- which is just a known fact -- as if it were an insult against chemical process engineers everywhere. Peter is not responding rationally at all. He continued:

Quote

I do not ask you to change your opinion but I ask mutuality.
First question is what do you wish from this affair? It seeems you wish Rossi should lose the Trial and IH should win because they are right.

Peter is attempting to set up reasoning by outcome, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences. Peter is imagining the wish of Simon, but not disclosing his own. The question raised by Simon is one that has been raised by many people. That question is probably fatal to the claim of 1 MW generation, but Peter does not actually analyze the issue, but, instead, misrepresents what Simon wrote:

Quote

Ok, if what you say- consume of the heat from 1500 kg steam of 102-104 C is an INSOLUBLE PROBLEM inthe given circumstances than your wish wuill become a reality- then why do you insist so much? Wait a while and then be happy.

Nobody has said that disposing of a megawatt is an insoluble problem. Rather, the problem is that the methods known of disposal don't match the available evidence. It would actually be easy, just set up strong ventilation cooling a radiator or set of radiators, blowing the heated air out roof vents. I think I have seen some indications that the vents would require enlarging, I'm not sure about that, but definitely relatively large blowers would be needed, and visitors to the plant saw nothing like that, and it would have been noisy, and there was no such noise. That could be reduced with an endothermic process, but a useful process -- as distinct from an obvious one, melting a lot of ice -- would require massive movement of material, and the arrangement of the warehouse made that difficult, and the activity would have been seen, it would have needed to be continuous, 24/7, if the power plant was the same, or else an alternate heat dissipation system would need to be in place anyway.

None of this has anything to do with my "desired outcome" for Rossi v. Darden. As it happens, I think that the filing of this lawsuit was a vicious and greedy action by Rossi, but if I were on Rossi's legal team, and I looked at the evidence, I'd be asking Rossi some hard questions! If I believed in Rossi, I'd be having difficulty now. In fact, many long-term "believers" have been bailing, because the situation has become so obvious, and response by Rossi so obscure. Rossi did not reply to the Answer, so far, and his motions that so many thought were signs of a vigorous prosecution were purely technical -- and reactive.

Quote

What do you actually know for sure about the JM building, warehouse? Can you please repeat me length, widh , height, position of the building? Connection to utilities, ventillation, everything else.

The size of the warehouse is well known. Ventilation is visible, and not strong. Gluck does not seem to be aware of the extensive discussion of this. There is no doubt about the possibility of dissipating 1 MW, but doing it in a way that is not obviously visible would be much more difficult and/or quite expensive (for example, heating city water and running it under pressure into the drain) -- and why would Rossi try to hide the power, at great expense? (that water/sewer bill would be enormous.) This is Gluck attempting to impugn Simon's question while not displaying knowledge himself. There are numerous analyses of this situation, both here and on e-catworld, Gluck does not refer to them.

(continued)

(continued)

Quote

Then for a year Rossi's men but IH's too have seen what it is in the ERV report water going to the ECats becoming steam going to JM's building nd coming back as 60C water. Has somebody said it was something suspicius?
Then there will be anaalyses of samples if the plant has woirked there will be isotopic shifts.

This is an argument from ignorance. I.e., Gluck assumes that nobody said anything until the lawsuit was filed, but actually has no knowledge of what was said and not said, all we can know is what was said publically, and we do know that there were IH protests, there is evidence for that (largely indirect). When Rossi disallowed the visit of the IH engineer, Murray, this was an obviously hostile action, and that was back in July, 2015. IH elected not to pursue legal remedies at that time, that's all, but it is obvious that by February, 2016, Rossi and Darden were communicating through their lawyers, Annesser and Jones Day.

If Darden did not believe that the Plant operation was the Guaranteed Performance Test, what did he care as long as IH was being paid for "power"? I'm pretty sure that he suspected that the money was coming from Rossi, but, again, that would merely represent the recovery of a small fraction of what had been paid to Rossi. Because IH had agreed to provide support for the "power plant operation," however, it really meant that this was a break-even operation, or not greatly different from that.

Quote

It is difficult but put yourself in Rossi's position, he has worked hard an entire year, had a valid contract and IH has not paid, Rossi started the trial, supposing he swindled and there was no energy produced no energy consumed, what are his chances?
The Trial is not cheap.

Rossi set up a sale of power under fraudulent claims, almost certainly. It was relatively obvious as soon as we saw the document at the end of the Agreement attached to the Rossi Complaint, with Johnson as the President of the "customer," when Johnson was also President of Leonardo Corporation. Not an arms-length relationship at all, not an "independent customer," as claimed. Notice, again, that Rossi has not denied the fraud, particularly Rossi has presented nor alleged any specific evidence to the contrary, as far as we know. (That document was apparently accidentally included with the scan of the Agreement, accidentally revealing more about the identity of the "customer." Ooops!)

Apparently Gluck thinks that Rossi worked so hard he deserves the $89 million. How hard did he work? Do we actually know? This is all "Rossi says." As well, some con artists work very hard! However, I find it very difficult to understand Rossi's motives, and have generally concluded he is literally insane. It seems likely that he believed IH would simply cave and negotiate some settlement, to avoid the "bad publicity," perhaps. If so, that appears to have been a serious miscalculation. But I do have an alternate hypothesis, that he wanted to fail in this suit, and that is more complicated to explain, but possible.

Quote

You are lacking information, you consider consume of heat impossible, OK...this is your opinion. My opinion is different and I wil change it when I consider it is the case. Or not.
Be happy with yours, OK? ...

Gluck has not actually given any opinion other than a diffuse "you are wrong." "Consuming" 1 MW is easy, but the problem is that how it could be done would be stupid and expensive and not a genuine commercial application for power. Gluck essentially treats this substantive observation as if it were a mere unsupported opinion. And elsewhere he does treat those, who have simply reported observations and their own conclusions, with high hostility and derision, and demonstrates ignorance of the actual situation, as represented by documents and what is very likely to become sworn testimony.

Quote from MrSelfSustain

Abd,

Do you know when the transcript of the discovery hearing will be made available for purchase?

This is what PACER says about it when one tries to download Document 48:

Quote

You do not have access to this transcript.

TRANSCRIPT of Discovery Hearing held on 8/30/16 before Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan, 1-44 pages, Court Reporter: Carl Schanzleh, 305-523-5635. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased by contacting the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/11/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/20/2016. Release of Transcript Restri ction set for 12/19/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Designation Access Form)(hh)

There was a link with the attachment, but it simply returned the same notice.

As I read this, one can access the document at the Court Public Terminal, so anyone in Florida could see it but not necessarily obtain a copy. Unless the Magistrate Hearing was closed, anyone could have witnessed it. Right now, a copy can be purchased from the Court Reporter Transcriber (A phone number is given). I'm tempted to call to find out how much it costs, but anyone could. Maybe I'll let someone else do that. We know the result of that hearing, but we do not know what it covered. There may have been more subpoenas approved, we only know, I suspect, what was quashed or delayed.

It will be on PACER, as I read that, 12/19/2016. There might be legal restrictions on publishing it before then, I don't know. So I might be able to get the transcript from the Reporter, but then not be able to share it. But we will eventually see that hearing transcript; it might be redacted to remove any private information. I.e., the juicy stuff! -- perhaps.

Quote

In regards to the court case, I'm eager for IH or Rossi to reveal something that will give us more incontrovertible facts and not simply continued allegations. I'm not saying that no factual information has been shared, but there has been nothing provided that I would say provides slam dunk evidence in support of or against either party. A few made up hypothetical examples would be the identification of James A. Bass (including employment history indicating he was only a machinist OR that he was indeed an engineer with experience related to chemical manufacturing lines), the identification of JM Product's parent company (a tiny company registered in the UK that only exists on paper OR an actual company that actively manufactures, processes, or sells chemical products), etc.

Sure. IH has provided far more fact than Rossi. IH responded to all of the Rossi allegations, Rossi has not responded -- yet -- to the Counterclaims. He's late, but that could be moot. That lateness allowed the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Now withdrawn, but I predict a stronger version will come back in time.) Right now, Rossi's case is toast, and he's not eager to answer. He may have bought some time with the Motion to Strike and Motion to Dismiss, as I've written, precedent is a tad unclear on this.

Quote

By now, I would suspect that both sides have accumulated a good bit of defensive and offensive evidence, unless the truth is (which I find unlikely) that one side is totally free of any wrong doing whatsoever and the other side is as guilty as satan himself.

That isn't the issue in a lawsuit, I hope you know that. So far, though, none of the Rossi claims of IH wrongdoing appear to have any legal basis, other than the possible breach of contract, and that turns out to be so weakly established, I expect Summary Judgment before trial, unless Rossi pulls a rabbit out of a hat.

I thought at first that maybe IH refused to pay at the last minute (which would have been, at the very least, rude). I suspect now, however, that Rossi knew long before the payment was due that he was not going to get paid, as we saw more evidence. I think Rossi knew IH wasn't buying his "test" as far back as July 2015, when he denied Murray access. He'd have had to be crazy to think they would pay after that. But ... they allowed him to continue (and the "Terms Sheet" did not provide for IH cancellation before two years) ... so, since Rossi had cleverly set it up so that IH was paid for their trouble, almost $30,000 per month ... they made no public protest, and they may have continued to hope that Rossi had merely withheld the "secret" and would decide to show them.

Quote

I want to give you credit for something. You have the patience to try and parse through the legal gobbledygook that only gives me a headache.

Thanks.

When I did some legal work, I hated it because reading law literally gave me headaches. I probably had too much investment in "getting it right." Stress does not help understanding.

The stuff in this case is not that difficult. So there will be a word I don't know. For example, I did not know what "sua sponte" meant. Instead of concluding that I can't understand this stuff ... I looked it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sua_sponte

When the motions cite cases, I often glance over them, sometimes. It's a matter of patience. And the more case law I read, the more I understand. It's like ...

Hey, it's like cold fusion.

Quote from Shane D.

Mixed feelings Abd. You make a lot of good points, but I greatly respect Dr. Gluck for what he has done for LENR. Such a dedicated, and honest person. Kind of reminds me of the great movie classic: "Bridge Over the River Kwai". Hopefully, Peter does not suffer the same fate as the English General.

I tried to reach Gluck for a long time. When Rossi v. Darden was filed, and the LENR community began to realize what had happened -- initially hearing only Rossi's side of the story, combined with a laconic IH press release that they had been unable to confirm Rossi claims, he went off the edge, originally attacking Jed Rothwell, vehemently, with bizarre arguments and accusations. I confronted this privately at first, and then on the private CMNS list. Gluck has largely trashed his reputation in the CMNS community, but it still tolerates him -- as it has tolerated other aging scientists who sometimes become less cogent. (Gluck is only a little older than I am. I hope that if I go off the rails like that, someone will have the courage to tell me. It's not "polite." But I need to know, and I'm trained to listen. It's not a death sentence, if one accepts reality and then adjusts to conditions.)

So today, Sept. 20, he had

Quote

Obviously the Rossi vs, Darden Trial is not a desirable or happy long-time action
and it could have been simply avoided by the early interruption of the 1MW-1year Test- if the case..

The problem is that it was not set up as a "1 MW-1 year Test." It was not set up as a test at all, which Gluck might realize if he actually studies those documents that have been provided, Rossi's email (Exhibit 16) and the "Term Sheet" (Exhibit 17) which represents the agreement between IH, Rossi, and JMP, Inc. It was a sale of power and an opportunity to allow IH guests to see the Reactor in (alleged) operation. Rossi also gave clues as to the situation in 2014, when that was proposed. It was not as he claimed in his Complaint. There was no IH failure to find a test site.

Given that, why should IH have "interrupted" it? By this time, IH knew that the Rossi technology transfer was not working. So maybe Rossi would make it work, and maybe Fabiani and West would report on how. At that point, it was more or less the best they could do, and they provided both plants to Rossi, the original 1 MW Plant and the new slabs (four "250 KW" Tigers).

In his comments the day before, Peter mentioned fuel from the reactors showing transmutation. Rossi "refueled" on the last day of the "Test," and apparently took the original fuel. Penon removed the instruments. Legally, this was possibly "spoliation of the evidence." Always with some excuse though, this was classic Rossi. To think that IH would pay him after this behavior, he really did have to be crazy. Possibly IH had allowed him so much leeway, he assumed it would continue. Or he had another purpose.

Quote

But now it is here, and the LENR people see it differently - the polarization is extreme
My opinion s well known- it has and will confirm the validity of the Rossi Technology.

Maybe Peter better study those documents. Rossi v. Darden is extremely unlikely to generate any result either way on that. It may establish fraud, but .... fraud, even if proven, would not disconfirm the Rossi Effect, it would merely pull the rug out from under a reason to think the effect was real: the willingness of IH to invest. Actually, it has already done that, rather thoroughly, and that was insured the day Rossi filed the lawsuit, whether the Rossi effect is real or not.

IH dod not "kill the Rossi Effect," Rossi did. Can he recover? If the Effect is real, he could. But most of us no longer hold out much hope for that. We are back to plain old ordinary LENR, which Peter so much attacked for some years, with his "LENR+" being irrelevant propaganda. We will have to find a way to create reliability -- which then trivially allows scale-up -- the old-fashioned way, by patient and careful research.

Quote

Other people think it will show the technology is invalid, nada excess heat and it is a scam. The unpleasant thing is that some people are very intolerant toward those with opposite opinions and succeed to hate them. I am peaceful actually but I answer to insults, as creatively I can.

The people of hatred always blame others, "they did it first." Actual "peaceful people" look at themselves first and clean up their own behavior before expecting others to do it.

Peter treats the reporting of fact as "opinion." Yes, there are opinions expressed, but opinion is not where we can meet, it is in fact, in what is actually happening, as distinct from judgments of good and bad, pleasant and unpleasant.

Quote

Just now I read on LENR Forum "Peter Gluck who is totally confused-

Yes, I wrote that. Is he confused? Someone who is not confused will have a different response to a statement like that, than Gluck has. Gluck does not understand the basis for the statement, I have shown confusion again and again with examples. While "total" is hyperbole, it is a colloquial way of expressing the depth of the confusion I have documented.

Quote

this because I wrote that the Exhibits of IH in the Trial are
catastrophically weak and unconvincing and I have not told my opinion about their deplorable taxonomy- order, lack of it, but I will)

No, it is not from that. It is from his confusion. It's clear that he doesn't yet understand the case, and I documented that many times. He has claimed, for example, that the withdrawal of the Darden Motion for Judgment indicates weakness, when that is not a reasonable conclusion about the action. We don't know what is going on behind the scenes, but the lawyers are talking, and my guess is that Rossi's new lawyers may be getting more involved.

That Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings was withdrawn without prejudice, which will allow re-filing later with a stronger and clearer basis. Meanwhile, much has been revealed about the weakness of the Rossi case and ... not to be discounted, it is a legal tactic to increase costs for the other side, which is permissible if the actions themselves are not frivolous and with that as the sole purpose. Jones Day was probing Rossi's defenses, and a great deal was revealed that will be useful to them.

Mostly, they will want to get the case over as quickly as possible. Going to trial will be very expensive, and contrary to common opinion on Planet Rossi, good lawyers will always seek to reduce costs for their clients. And, yes, they expect to be paid for what they do. That Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings was fairly simple to file ....

Quote

Ok, but back to the main idea. Early morning I have received Item 50 at Pacermonitor of the Miami Court from Uwe Doms. (paper 1a) very long now with 27 Exhibits not less than 271 pages...

Does Gluck realize that Item 50 is a strengthened Answer, though with only a few changes, and that the Exhibits are apparently the same as the previous 26, with only one new one, 27. Which is interesting, it reveals what IPH paid IH for the License in 2012, but I have not yet read the Second Amended Answer -- which this is -- to see how they use this.

Quote

But suddenly I had a revelation- this trial is part of LENR, is determinant for the future of LENR. It is TRIAL a great one...and suddenly I renumbered good unforgettable movies about Trials Movies memorable for giant actors-i will tell only about three:
12 Angry Men (Henry Fonda), Inherit the Wind (the monkey trial) (Spencer Tracy, Fredrick March) and To kill a Mockingbird (Gregory Peck). Couldn't be the Miami Trial now evolving toward the phase of interrogatories, huge paperwork, presentations, witnesses, then in June 2017 the decisive phase of the Court with he Jury will start and the verdict will be due in some 6 months- a historic trial?.

I thought so at first. However, this is really a breach of contract action, and depends most heavily on contractual details other than the actual performance of the Plant. The net effect of this is to kill Rossi's reputation, his ability to attract investment, and that damage was done from the filing itself, not from the IH reaction. This is how Rossi treats investors! He set it up so that the "Test" would not be -- could not be -- acceptable to IH, clearly, then blamed them for not paying.

Some on Planet Rossi have suspected that Rossi wanted out of the Agreement, wanted the License back, because it was worth more than $100 million. Peter should look at Exhibit 12, what Rossi claimed to do with Hydro Fusion (fake a failure in order to get out of a contract with Hydro Fusion).

No, this trial is extremely unlikely to resolve the "reality" issue. It is essentially moot for the case of the Guaranteed Performance Test was not properly set up, and I see no clue that Rossi set it up properly. Instead, he created an appearance, which is the kind of thing that Rossi always did.

Quote

The movie, due to the 2030-ies could be entitled: "To Kill a Technology"- the actors are at the kindergarten now.
I decided to to take this Trial seriously, to think and speak in legalese- the trial is reality and it will be interesting.

Peter has a way to go. If he really wants to do that work, I'm open for questions.

However, myself, I'm wondering if all this is a distraction from the real work to be done, working with the science of LENR.

Quote

... involving the leasing of the very technology and intellectual property that is at the heart of this Complaint to customer(s) within this District.

yeah. Rossi leasing to Rossi's lawyer (the only customer) and paying small payments to IH out of the millions IH gave them. This is a defense? Really?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Mary, it's an accusation, not a defense.

IHP et al straight up deny the Leonardo et al paragraph 22. This presumably includes deriving "substantial revenue".

In fact, so far, there is zero evidence that IHP et al invoiced JMP for energy. Or that JMP paid for energy.
Interesting, no?

I'd say that IH providing the "invoices" from JMP as signed by Johnson implies that they did invoice based on them, and in spite of some noise about that, this would have been completely legal and ethical. However, while that looks, on the face, like "substantial revenue," they were, in fact, also paying Fabiani $10,500 per month (plus, perhaps, expenses, that contract originally included an apartment for Fabiani in North Carolina) and half the cost of Penon, apparently, we don't know how much that was. They were paying for Barry West to assist Rossi. And, of course, they had invested much in making the reactor, Rossi claims $200,000.

Considering the expenses and the level of investment (probably around $20 million), the revenue remaining after immediate expenses was negligible and may already have been annihilated by legal expenses. Overall, for sure, there was no net revenue to IH; rather, IH (and now IHHI) will be providing losses to its investors, directly deductible from income, if I'm correct, better than charitable donations.

On the plus side, though, Rossi v. Darden is establishing Industrial Heat as a true and increasingly visible source of LENR support for research, willing to lose their investment if it is likely to advance knowledge. I.e., something very close to "grants." The knowledge generated is their product, for now. This will pay off, long-term, because when genuine commercial opportunities arise, they will quickly recognize and support them, if support is needed. I do not necessarily "agree with" all their investments, but all of them, so far, I must consider likely to advance the field. The investment in Rossi, in my view, has clearly benefited the field; in this case by removing or hedging risk, opening the door for other investment, including from other sources.

Rossi and Planet Rossi attempt to label additional related investment as "revenue," but it is not. In particular, the Woodford $50 million did not go to IH, but to IHHI, the English limited company. And that is not revenue, but investment, i.e., increase in capital. I expect IHHI will probably "lose" all that investment in costs, I don't know how long it will last. IHHI will need to raise more, much more. The field could easily absorb a billion dollars before generating any actual revenue. If then. The key for investors now is to generate investment expertise, to determine how to allocate research investments or grants most efficiently. If one wants to "get rich quick," forget it, this is highly unlikely with any of the available opportunities, and if a "secret opportunity" arises, get help before investing. Due diligence, it's called. "Demonstrations" can easily be fake or misleading.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I don't think that submitting for evidence requests to be invoiced implies that IH invoiced JMP.

I get crap like that in my email all the time. Millions of dollars just waiting for me, if only I act right away.

Aw, Paradigmnoia, this is radically different, as you know. The reports from JMP were part of the agreement between the parties.

IH presented those requests and actually called them "invoices." Invoicing JMP, then, might have been as simple as replying with "so pay it to us." I'm just saying that the presentation by IH without any comment on actual payment, or not, implies that they not only requested payments, but actually received it, because had they not received payment, after invoicing, then they would have another claim for violation of agreements.

Yes, they might not have invoiced, this is not proof. Just an implication. In any judgement against Rossi and/or JMP for damages from fraud, this would need to be considered, I would assume. Rossi and JMP could claim payments as an offset.

Not invoicing, by the way, would have been highly suspicious, and IH was not attempting, at that time, to increase Rossi's paranoia, beyond what was necessary. From the IH side, invoicing would later give them the opportunity to follow the money, and I'm sure that is happening. No invoices, no funding of JMP by Rossi. I rather doubt that the money would have come out of Johnson's pocket!