IH sounds pissed in Document 68. Pointing out they have provided plenty of documentation backing their claims, and that Rossi is distorting that very documentation to muddy the waters. IH turning up the heat?
Who ever said science was boring! 
P.S. Thx Eric.
IH sounds pissed in Document 68. Pointing out they have provided plenty of documentation backing their claims, and that Rossi is distorting that very documentation to muddy the waters. IH turning up the heat?
Who ever said science was boring!
Well, as I read it, they are simply being clear. There is little fluff in this response. Some aspects of it have clarified for me issues that I had not noticed before.
QuoteIndustrial Heat’s property and ownership rights in the Plant are implicated by Count I because, among other things, that Count seeks return of the initial $1.5 million payment to Leonardo (as well as the subsequent $10 million payment and other payments), see 2nd Amended AACT at pp. 26-27, 52
Count 1 alleges that the harm suffered by IH included the $1.5 and $10 million payments (and the "multi-million dollar" Ampenergo payments!). It does not state that they are seeking return, though that might be implied and might be one possible amelioration of the damage.
QuotepP.S. Thx Eric.
Yes, thanks.
My predictions and the result as shown in Rossi v. Darden developments
Difference between prediction and result shown in bold.
Rossi Motion to Strike, re AD 1 Leonardo Florida not Leonardo New Hampshire. Assignment vs. Merger. Reject or modify. Rejected.
Rossi Motion to Strike, re AD 2 failure to state a claim Reject. AD2 Struck.
Rossi Motion to Strike, re AD 3 estoppel, waiver, laches, and other applicable equitable doctrines. Reject or modify. Vague phrase struck, basic defense intact.
Rossi Motion to Strike, re AD 4 unclean hands. Reject. Rejected.
Rossi Motion to Strike, re AD 6 plaintiff's unlawful actions. Reject. Rejected.
Rossi Motion to Strike, re AD 7 fraudulent misrepresentations. Reject. Modify.
Rossi Motion to Strike, re AD 9 "entire agreement" issue. Reject. Rejected.
Rossi Motion to Strike, re AD 10 damages speculative. Reject. Struck.
Rossi Motion to Strike, Counter-complaint tax issue. Reject. Rejected.
AD 5 and AD 9 were not criticized by Rossi.
So of 9 motions to strike, four received some positive response from the Judge. The modifications were not a granting of the motion to strike, but the alternative, to clarify. Essentially two motions to strike were successful, out of nine. In addition, a vague phrase, not of high utility, was struck.
Rossi put a lot of effort into attacking the tax issue -- he did not want the jury to see that -- and lost on this. AD 2 was about other Rossi claims (not the failure to pay $89 million), and the Judge did not think a specific claim was necessary, my thinking. Arguments would be in the hearing transcript. AD 10 was about a similar issue, speculative damages for claims other than the non-payment.
There is an open motion to dismiss the counterclaims from Rossi, and there were two motions to dismiss from the counterclaim defendants; the Rossi MTD is open, the counterclaim defendant motions were dismissed without prejudice with an order to combine them to avoid duplicated argument.
We are nearing the end of this phase of the case. Rossi has not yet replied to the extensive evidence and argument supplied by Darden in the Answer and Counterclaim. When the pleadings are complete, we may see another Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, depending on what is presented by Rossi; or, alternatively, Darden will await completion of discovery.
yes IH should have ownership of the system
see term sheet
15. IH will continue to own the 1 MW Plant and JMC will not have any right to buy or retain
the plant. Upon expiration of the rental period, or earlier termination if there is a
default under the rental agreement provided for above, IH may pick up the 1 MW Plant
and/or exercise any other· rights under this Term Sheet or available by taw.
So why is IH not diasassembling some of the reactors and control systems, and refuel some of them to restart them to test and reverse engineer them themself?
So why is IH not diasassembling some of the reactors and control systems, and refuel some of them to restart them to test and reverse engineer them themself?
Barty,
When Rossi filed suit, lawyers for both sides agreed to padlock the 1MW. So it is still sitting there in Doral with two locks...one of Rossi's, and one of IH's. Plus, if Rossi was not lying, he took the fuel charges out when Murray started getting too nosy and asking too many engineering questions.
Why has the unit being padlocked (agreed by both sides?) if it was clear, that Rossi removed all of the "fuel" cylinders, which obviously were part of the IP he was contracted to transfer to IH?
Would be interesting to see what would have happened if the burned fuel would have gone through a thorough analysis by an independent party...
So why is IH not diasassembling some of the reactors and control systems, and refuel some of them to restart them to test and reverse engineer them themself?
My guess is that they already did this years ago. However, at this point, there are two reactors at Doral, apparently mutually padlocked (the original 1 MW E-cat assembly, and the four Tigers actually used in the "test"). They do not have access to them. Rossi reported, on his blog, that he "refueled" on the last day of the "test."
Indications are that IH did not know about this until it was revealed here. Apparently they did not read the blog. With regard to that and the removal of the instruments by Penon, my attorney friend had one word: "spoliation."
From all their prior investigation, though, they have no reason to expect that the Doral reactor actually worked. The issue of heat dissipation indicates that if there was heat, it was far less than a megawatt. I think they gave up on Rossi by 2015, but allowed him to run the Doral sale of power, and paid Fabiani to monitor it (and Penon to measure power), all as a hedge. Maybe Rossi would pull a rabbit out of the hat. Maybe he would decide to trust them with the "real secret." Or ... maybe he would provide enough rope to hang him with. If so, they might get their investment back, or some of it
Rossi has claimed that he offered them their money back. However, what the record shows is that what Rossi says is unreliable. We don't really know, unless the information is confirmed.
just a guess but I would think 1) still waiting for the suit to work its way through the courts, and 2) they don't believe it ever worked so why try? and 3) the system is not suitable for testing - totally bad design for getting info.
I wonder if they own the fuel as well. I hope the Rossi was not foolish enough to steal some of the system. That would could be a really big law suit.
Barty,
When Rossi filed suit, lawyers for both sides agreed to padlock the 1MW. So it is still sitting there in Doral with two locks...one of Rossi's, and one of IH's. Plus, if Rossi was not lying, he took the fuel charges out when Murray started getting too nosy and asking too many engineering questions.
Well, this is not how I recall what we have. I think information about this came from Dewey Weaver. Perhaps someone will go back and find it. Rossi had said that no access would be granted until the "test was over." Rossi pulled the fuel on the last day of the "test." That would be before Murray arrived. Murray arrived and asked many questions of Penon, later memorialized as Exhibit 5 of the IH Answer. At this point, according the account, IH decided to shut the unit down (or not to allow it to be started up). Rossi said he would check with JM Products, went into the office, came back, and said that it was okay with them. Access to JM Products was controlled by Rossi. IH visitors did not enter through the office, but from the back door.
IH padlocked the container to prevent alteration, I suspect. Rossi padlocked it for "I can do that too!" IH, however, has the right to repossess that plant, if they choose. There is no sign, so far, that they have taken legal action to do this.
The fuel charges were removed, then, before Murray arrived. Apparently the steam lines were also cleaned overnight, Murray mentions that. The suit wasn't filed until over a month later, but it is obvious that the lawyers were already involved, there is a document from February showing communication between Jones Day and Annesser over a patent issue. From the lines being cleaned, my guess is that the IH padlock was applied that second day.
Whatever happened to the do-it-now need for power by J.M. Products as laid out in the Rossi email flogging the installation?
Below, Paradigmnoia gives a sequence that may be more accurate: Rossi v. Darden developments
Best would be if someone finds the sources. Memory can be plastic. I think there are comments here from Dewey Weaver that are the source for most of the information.
Do you think it was legal for Rossi to remove part of the system (i.e. "fuel). It seems destruction of evidence and also just plan criminal theft. The "fuel" was an integral part of the system. To steal that seems a criminal offense to me. Did he sell the entire system to IH or was the fuel excluded somewhere in the agreement. I sure don't see any hint of such an exclusion.
Would be interesting to see what would have happened if the burned fuel would have gone through a thorough analysis by an independent party...
Because that would bring far too much clarity to the situation. Things need to be kept as vague and as secret as possible.
I agree with you for once. Yes Rossi wants to keep it vague and secret and that is why he removed (refueled) the system before he left. He does not seem to want the truth to come out soon.
I agree with you for once. Yes Rossi wants to keep it vague and secret and that is why he removed (refueled) the system before he left. He does not seem to want the truth to come out soon.
Are you claiming that IH have no ash from the 1MW test, or from the Lugano test for that matter? That is quite a remarkable claim. Curious given that we were told that IH built in special protections into the reactor fuel containment of the 1MW unit to prevent others from extracting it.
The fuel charges were removed, then, before Murray arrived.
The timeline shows that there were two visits, on consecutive days, at the (or causing) the end of the "test". (see Exhibit 5)
The timeline seems to go like this:
Murray and others show up with government inspectors. The plant was shut down. Rossi is informed that the Plant will be padlocked the next day, after an inspection. Rossi informs the Customer of the shut down. Penon does some of the final tests and measurements. Murray briefly examines the Plant. Rossi (and others?) stay up all night pulling charges, cleaning water lines, removing gauges and electrical supplies. (Rossi reports that replacing the charges is ongoing on JoNP that night). Murray and others show up 3 hours early the next day with lawyers. Fabiani is instructed to release the box that Rossi instructs him to not give to Murray et al, which contains a water meter. The box is opened and contents examined, serial numbers recorded, and is photographed. Penon still has some measurements to make, but the Plant conditions have been modified over night. The Plant is padlocked by IH et al and Leonardo et al, in the presence of lawyers. The government inspectors at some point examine the Customer area, and photograph something resembling a radiator.
The government inspectors at some point examine the Customer area, and photograph something resembling a radiator.
That is the first I recall hearing that the government has photographs of the customer's equipment. Interesting if true. Time to press the government to be open with what it knows about this affair?
Do you think it was legal for Rossi to remove part of the system (i.e. "fuel). It seems destruction of evidence and also just plan criminal theft. The "fuel" was an integral part of the system. To steal that seems a criminal offense to me. Did he sell the entire system to IH or was the fuel excluded somewhere in the agreement. I sure don't see any hint of such an exclusion.
The sale of the system did not specifically include the fuel. However, the License transfer included full disclosure of IP, with the fuel formula being, supposedly, disclosed.
The Terms Sheet (Document 50.17) governed the Doral installation. IH was to provide "all maintenance of the system." That would clearly include fuel. However, management of the system was to be by Rossi, with "responsibility for operation." On the face of it, then, Rossi could, in fact, remove fuel, but only under color of serving Industrial Heat. It would be difficult to sustain a criminal charge here. Maybe some civil claim.
In May, Rossi provided a "fuel sample" to Bo Hoistad in Sweden. It was not stated where that sample was from, but the implication was that it was from the Plant. This would be a violation of the Agreement. IH has not asserted that, so far. It would be a misappropriation of IH property and violation of the nondisclosure agreement. On the other hand, some suspect that this "fuel sample" was not actually from the Plant, but may have been an isotopically salted sample the same as what may have been provided in the Lugano test in 2014. If so, no foul! Not against IH, anyway. (Yes, it is not a crime for Rossi to mislead the public. Magicians do it all the time. Taking money under false pretenses, though, a different animal.)
The removal of evidence creates suspicion of fraud, that's the main effect. It is not proof of some crime. What did Rossi do with that fuel?
Rossi consistently, over the years, took actions that would increase suspicion. Mats (with Jed Rothwell), in An Impossible Invention, opines that Rossi wants people to think he is a fraud.
Dangerous. If evidence goes before the jury about his "suspicious" actions, it can help sway them to look with a more jaundiced eye at other evidence. IH does *not* have to prove something to present it to the jury. It must present admissible evidence, such as Rossi's own words on JONP, his emails, his statements to witnesses who testify to it, and other such.
One more consideration at this time. When Rossi v. Darden was filed, my sense was that the immediate effect would be to suppress possible other investment in Rossi, even based solely on the Rossi Complaint. However, there are people out there, and some with money, who might buy the idea that IH's goal was to suppress the technology. Notice that Mats Lewan maintained this as a possibility. However, when IH Answered, with that pile of evidence, the appearance got much stronger. Rossi was a fraud, willing to cheat and deceive, *even if he has a real effect.* And quite possibly there is no real effect, so extensive has been his evasiveness and manipulation. At this point, I can't see how anyone sane could invest without a while lot more caution. On the other hand, insane people are welcome to send money to Andrea Rossi, Miami, FL, USA. I assume he could use the money.
If the only issue were the lawsuit, Rossi delaying answering the IH allegations might be sensible. He can take his time, if he has answers. He is not obligated to provide more evidence now, unless faced with a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and he might still be able to supply evidence then (I'm, not sure, there might be a point at which it would be too late.). However, until and unless he rebuts the IH claims with more than bluster, I think his prospects for recovering through investment elsewhere are toast. Had he not filed the suit, he'd have had an open road for investment elsewhere. IH wasn't rushing to discredit him. No, he brought down the thunder, himself. Hence my basic model: he is insane, this makes no sense.
In May, Rossi provided a "fuel sample" to Bo Hoistad in Sweden. It was not stated where that sample was from, but the implication was that it was from the Plant. This would be a violation of the Agreement. IH has not asserted that, so far. It would be a misappropriation of IH property and violation of the nondisclosure agreement.
IH actually has asserted indirectly this event as a violation of the NDA. "as recently as May" or something to that effect, is in reference to the sample and subsequent release of the data, IMO.
