Rossi v. Darden developments - Part 1

  • The lawyers on both sides are laughing themselves silly on the way to the bank.


    Lawyers are a common and easy target. However, I've known many, and no good lawyer laughs when their client is faced with increased expense. They are professionals, dealing with what most people would prefer to stay far away from. I look at the latest MTD, the one just mooted, and see a waste of time, running up legal bills for no particular gain, but the choice of whether or not to do this rests with the client, not the lawyer (except in certain extreme situations). Perhaps the client wants the delay and is willing to pay for the lawyer to do it. Perhaps the client sees value in running up the legal bills for his opponent. Something done solely for that purpose would be unethical, but it's hard to prove, so sanctions are not common.


    Nobody is forced to hire a lawyer. It's merely highly advisable in certain situations. Such as when negotiating a $100 million contract. Anyone with a knowledge of law reading the Agreement and the Complaint is immediately impressed with how totally naive Rossi was, if he believed what he asserts in the Complaint. Can anyone here imagine that they would spend a year of "hard work" without making sure that the paperwork was done to assure payment? Would you rely on vague promises and assumptions? Rossi is aiming, I think, to play the victim game for a jury. "They fooled me!" Did they also fool your lawyers, Andrea? Those who would actually read the Agreement and understand it?


    Lawyers are typically paid by the hour, though they may also work on contingency. The talent and training and effort involved in becoming a lawyer is considerable. Most lawyers expect to do well, financially, just as do professionals in many other professions. As lawyers, though, they only become modestly wealthy, perhaps. "professionally" wealthy. Millionaires, perhaps, not ordinarily billionaires. Lawyers who make fortunes do so by using their skills in other ways, as business-people, typically. Darden has a law degree from Yale.


    Rossi made the choice to enter this arena, no lawyer forced him to do it. In dealing with Darden (and Vaughn), he was dealing with professionals, highly skilled. I have no doubt that if Rossi had delivered on the IP, had actually taught them to make devices that passed independent testing, they could easily have raised the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to either bring products to market themselves, or to arrange licensing to others who would have done that. If Rossi is a con, he picked the wrong marks. They gave him every opportunity to make good, but instead he tried to trick them out of more money, and possibly to attempt to coerce them to pay with the lawsuit, imagining that they would be strongly averse to the publicity. He did not understand, then, whom he was dealing with.


    (Rossi might still disappear, I wouldn't be surprised if he fled. He is not under any criminal indictment. He is not legally obligated to stick around and to keep his assets in Florida. Or his wife's assets.)


    The miracle here is that the experience with Rossi did not sour them on LENR. It looks to me like the risky stand they took with Rossi actually increased their credibility with Woodford. I am assuming, of course, that they fully disclosed the situation to Woodford. As the professionals they are, they would not deceive an investor through material misrepresentations. That's a fast track to civil and sometimes criminal prosecution, whereas ordinary mistakes merely involve losing money.


    IH, it now appears, is digging in for the long haul. They don't expect any quick profits, they expect to spend the entire Woodford investment and need to raise more money before they are done. Maybe a lot more money. the project they have undertaken could require billions. My general advice is to be very careful, to fund fundamentals, to establish the most solid basis for the field. It will all, then, become more obvious where to invest.


    While lawyers are expensive and Jones Day, being the largest firm in the U.S., with high expertise to bring to a case, is probably particularly expensive -- though, of course, we don't know what they are paying, IH might inspire some pro bono work (I suspect APCO's association with them is pro bono, i.e., personal with McLaughlin) -- these people will also pay, and well, for services. Look at what they were paying Fabiani!

    Industrial Heat is now dealing with many inventors and scientists in the field. Nobody is complaining but Rossi. It's obvious.

  • Very minor new document today, 85, rescheduling magistrate hearing for later today, 2:30 PM.


    And then document 86 filed by the IH attorney cancelled the hearing. This was about Rossi's response to an IH request for production. Aside from some boilerplate likely of little importance, this was the core of the objection, together with the Request:



    So what happened? I have some guesses. The Rossi response was delivered to IH by email October 15. The Hearing request was dated November 16.


    While it is possible that Rossi did not comply with the 15 day deadline, more likely they did, but did refuse to show any materials from after the Guaranteed Performance Test in February. I see no other reason to file a request for Hearing. However, to me, the possible utility of later video is obvious, because it could show what was inside the "customer area." Hearing a plausible argument from IH in the hearing, I think it fairly obvious that the Magistrate would order compliance. So maybe Rossi caved on this and simply supplied the videos. Much easier, and probably cheaper.


    Otherwise, it is possible that IH, reviewing what Rossi provided, decided they didn't need the later material, so cancelled the Hearing, again possibly saving time.


    I covered the issue in this post; this was an example where IH looked at a post-filing Rossi blog post and derived information from it, on which to then base their request. Rossi just didn't know when or how to shut up.

  • There was supposed to have been a discovery session(?) last Monday, Dec. 6th.


    Also, I believe Rossi had a dead line of today to provide a response (answer) to the counter suit.


    Is there any news on either of these? ?(

  • There was supposed to have been a discovery session(?) last Monday, Dec. 6th.


    Also, I believe Rossi had a dead line of today to provide a response (answer) to the counter suit.


    Is there any news on either of these? <img src="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/wcf/images/smilies/confused.png" alt="?(" />


    From the latest filing posted at Abd's site, Rossi requested a hearing regarding IH discovery requests, and that hearing, scheduled by the court, is at 3pm Dec. 20.


    I'm not an expert, but I believe that this effectively buys time for Rossi, as he will not be required to respond to IH's discovery requests until the judge hears his questions and/or objections, and rules on them. Then the court will probably give him some additional time (like a week or two) to produce based on the court's decision. And then he could probably ask for more time ( e.g. 1 or 2 more weeks) after that. However, if he continues to try to keep delaying in mid-January, the court will likely loose patience and start reigning him in.


    This assumes that he is trying to delay, which is merely my speculation. There are a lot of other legitimate reasons for the hearing, and we won't know the content of the hearing itself until months afterward (if at all), unless someone wants to show up in FL for it and post here (hint, hint).


    What we will be able to see on that date or shortly after is the court's ruling on the hearing. These tend to be terse, however, so it's not clear how much we will learn from the court's ruling.


    The really interesting thing we are waiting for is Rossi's written response to IH's counterclaim suit. In other words, we'll get to read Rossi's story (in general terms) describing his defense in response to IH's suit (AKA counter-claims). We already have some hints about his response from his Motions To Dismiss. For example, Rossi has asserted that both IH and IPH (IH holding company) lack standing to counter-sue. We can expect that he will re-assert this as part of his defense, but this is not particularly interesting or enlightening. What is more interesting is how he plans to defend himself against the accusations of fraud, the evidence he has that JMP is a 'real' company, and most importantly, his narrative regarding the GPT. Will he assert that IH fully embraced the one-year test as the GPT? If so, he'll have to describe the evidence supporting that assertion in general terms (at least). That should be interesting. If he fails to defend the test as a GPT, I don't see how he can proceed with his case, but more importantly, he would be exposed to damages in the IH counter-suit.


    I suppose Rossi could base his entire defense on IPH/IH lacking standing to counter-sue. That would seem to me to be a very risky strategy that would likely fail. But it would allow him to not take a position on the GPT, or respond to the fraud claims, which may then give him some slight leverage to settle without him having to expose himself. But I don't think IH is up for that - I think that because Rossi sued them, they are highly motivated to 'crush the test', as Abd speculates, with little else to gain from this debacle, and nothing to loose but attorney expenses. If that's true, I wouldn't be surprised if Rossi 'goes missing' to some 'super secret' location in 2017, so he can carry on his beloved conversations with himself and his sock puppets.


    From my (admittedly biased) perspective, I think he's really in a tight corner at this point. But until we actually read Rossi's response, it's mere speculation.


    We should know a lot more by the end of the year, or mid-January at the latest.

  • [quote='Bob','https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3816-Rossi-v-Darden-developments/?postID=43533#post43533'] ....


    We should know a lot more by the end of the year, or mid-January at the latest.


    Thank you for the response.
    I must assume that nothing of note came from the Dec. 6th session. I do not know how long it takes for Pacer to post information after a session has taken place.


    So with the slight delay, hopefully we will see something meaningful next week. However, again, it may take a while for any information to be posted.


    If I could, I would really like to attend that session, it should be quite interesting. Although, I suppose at this point, it would just be the lawyers and Rossi would not put in an appearance.


    I saw a post on eCat World where Rossi is touting another "expert engineer" with military ties that confirmed everything he has said. Of course, no name, no report... nothing other than "Rossi says". The next carrot to keep the faithful salivating is a public demo of the QuarkX. Although no details but it will be "the next milestone for sure"! ?(


    I made a post on eCat World asking what happened to the (3) 1mw plants that were purchased by the satisfied customer of the 1 year test. I stated that Rossi had posted back in May that the units were targeted for delivery in 6 months. He also stated that a plant was being purchased for the robot line. I included in my post that perhaps Frank could ask Rossi as Rossi seems to reply to Frank's questions. It should not be "adversarial" as these statements were all from Rossi himself.


    My post did not make it through moderation. :(


    If I ask in February what happened to this public demo being touted now, do you think anyone will care?

  • I read the doc. There isn't much new information. I have very little to say.


    I'm still waiting for either I.H. or Rossi to throw the first real punch instead of jabs.


    I think this is quite a hard punch against THOMAS DARDEN, et al., because John W. Annesser goes for ANDREA ROSSI, et al. so to speak over to massive attack, for example demanding for seven main allegations strict proofs, means they have counter evidence (because otherwise the call would make no sense). The signal is very clear, Rossi et.al will not hide, they will not retreat and they show themselves more than convinced to be right and to have the evidence and I do not think this is just sebel rattling.


    Greets
    Felix

  • I am not a lawyer, but I am very surprised that Rossi provided no evidence of any kind to support his claims.
    No letters, no contracts, no bills, nothing.


    There were (4) statements that I found very interesting, however there was no supporting evidence.


    1. He stated that IH specifically agreed to the Doral test as the GPT. They of course are denying this.
    I cannot imagine that he would not have provided the letter, etc. in the answer. He needs to realize
    that "Rossi says" will not sway the judge! He does not state that IH made the commitment in writing,
    verbally or by what means. Only that they did. I would think he would have at least stated something
    like "in memo dated xx/xx/2014 from T. Darden, IH confirmed that the test was the GPT". He gives no
    indication other than "they specifically agreed".


    2. The answer stated that they "lacked sufficient knowledge" about the J.M. Products and the Doral plant!
    How could this be? Johnson (Rossi's attorney friend) was president of J.M. Products. As far as we know,
    Rossi setup J.M. Products.


    3. Rossi admitted to denying Murray access to the plant, but gave the reason being that Murray was there
    to gather information to provide to a competitor! What competitor? What information? I cannot believe
    this will sit well with the judge. I would not think paranoia is a defense.


    4. Rossi stated that Apco was hired and provided "Mantras" for him to use to answer his own questions
    on JONP! This is quite astounding! Do you think it would take Apco to make up a couple of alias's to
    post on JONP under? Again, no documents, just Rossi says.


    I am not a lawyer, but comparing the IH answer, who submitted evidence such as memos, test data etc.,
    Rossi's answer contained nothing and seemed extremely weak. The vast majority of answer was one of two
    statements. (Paraphrased)

    1. We deny
    2. We lack sufficient knowledge to answer and demand proof.


    As with everything connected to Rossi, I have come to expect to be disappointed. I was hoping for some
    real news / evidence with his answer. I was disappointed. Will the judge be disappointed as well? We continue to wait..... :huh:


    P.S. Thanks Eric Walker for posting the documents!

  • I too want to say that I am not a lawyer.



    I think this answer fits in with the strategy to not reveal anything more than they are absolutely forced to until the trial. By doing so, they might be hoping to force I.H. to show their hand. So far, I.H. is refusing to do so.

  • I too want to say that I am not a lawyer.



    I think this answer fits in with the strategy to not reveal anything more than they are absolutely forced to until the trial. By doing so, they might be hoping to force I.H. to show their hand. So far, I.H. is…


    I guess it is from what perspective one views the events. You state that IH has not revealed their hand, but I think they have.


    They deny the test was a GPT. They provided evidence that it was presented to them as a sale of heat.

    They claim fraud was involved and provide evidence that J.M. Products is controlled by Rossi or his associates. They claim there was no customer or production and this adds to the case of fraud.


    They claim the data was invalid. They provide evidence of the flow consumption being the same day in and out. The billing was for the same amount, even on days the plant was shut down. The test data in the exhibit is provided to show bad data and Rossi is the one who recorded all the data.


    They have provided answers on all questions about ownership, individuals roles in IH and IHH and so forth.


    Whether we like it or not, I do believe Abd is correct.... it boils down to "was this the GPT". It seems clear that the $89 million was based solely on a successful GPT. There were certain requirements that were set forth for the GPT to meet. If the one year test did not meet those requirements and was therefore legally not the GPT, the $89 million lawsuit by Rossi is void.


    IH has counter sued with fraud allegations to :
    1) support their claim that the test was not an agreed upon GPT and that Rossi was trying to subvert it into appearing as one.
    2) to show that Rossi has acted fraudulently in other dealings, providing circumstantial evidence that he is trying to defraud them now.
    3) Show that they were damaged by fraud and will try to collect some of the paid $11 million back.


    It seems very clear to me what IH is doing.


    It is not clear to me what Rossi's defense on these counter claims are. You are stating he is not wanting to "show his hand". However, you must consider the fact that there is a real possibility that the judge will throw his suit out on grounds of lacking evidence if he does not provide reasonable evidence. IH has shown evidence, not all nor complete, but documented evidence supporting their case. So far Rossi has shown none to support his lawsuit nor his motion to dismiss the counter suit by IH. I believe he is very much in danger of having his case thrown out and the counter suit continued against him! This may not be the time to be "holding back"!


    But then again, what do I know about law suits! I am not a lawyer. ?(

  • to not reveal anything more than they are absolutely forced to


    The big question here is, if there is something to reveal at all? Why does Rossi need to wait until the judge forces him to do so? Should he not be lucky to show and demonstrate he has what he claims to have (and what IH is about to steel from him, based on his paranoia?), so the world outside JONP finally sees and accepts the ECAT? The earlier the better, but it seems he has other plans for a big reveal...?


    I would love to see what he has. Why nobody is unlocking the door in the Doral place and take a look? The Ecat is still sitting there, ready to be refueled and restarted again within days. Why this does not happen? Probably because IH is not able to do so despite they spent 11 Mio$ for this machine and the secret sauce behind....

  • Bob,


    That is what I read also. In addition, in response to the incriminating "exhibits" IH provided, he simply blew them off as they "speak for themselves". I particularly loved the part about the "Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences" doing the Lugano test. Sounds more official then Levi, and some professors from Sweden I guess. Then he asks for more information as to IH's assertion that Lugano was later called into doubt by "other publications", demanding proof...Guess TC may be needed. :)


    Hard to read until the end, but that is where it does get real interesting. That is where Rossi responds to IH's "affirmative defenses". He relies heavily on a general theme of IH being fully aware of, and participants in every level of planning along the way.


    The bombshell (to me at least) comes when Rossi throws the "unclean hands" back at IH, because they induced him into the agreement when they had no "financial means to make payments" in the first place! I guess the old saying about "a good defense is a good offense" applies here.


    Overall though, I would agree that Rossi showed little, if anything new. I do not know if he can make it past the judge with so little to add, other than these counter accusations, and get this into a courtroom this way. If he does, then I can see how his introducing APCO as he does here, the possibility IH "induced him" and never intended to pay, gave his IP to his competitors, etc. may appeal to a jury and get him off the hook for the counter-charges. But nonetheless, it will be hard to overcome what is increasingly apparent about JMP, products, Bass, etc. when Rossi asks a jury for his $89 million.


    Still no ERV report provided by either side yet though. That seems strange.

  • Still no ERV report provided by either side yet though. That seems strange.


    It might not be so strange... IH is strongly stating that there was no GPT. So why would they provide the ERV report? They state that the 1 year run was for selling heat and to make additional measurements. I.E. the 1 year run had nothing to do with the GPT. So they would not want to "muddy" the waters by "There was no GPT and then publish the ERV report that Rossi is claiming IS the GPT". Rossi probably does not want to publish it because it shows the data is faked or bad, thus damaging his case that even it the 1 year run was the GPT, that it did not met the conditions.


    Abd has said often that the case has nothing to do with whether the eCat works, but if this was the GPT. I believe he is correct. IH may use evidence that the eCat does not work as supporting evidence that Rossi acted fraudulently in the past and is now defrauding by trying to pass the 1 year sale of heat as the GPT. I think IH is hoping to get Rossi's case thrown out due to lack of evidence strictly on the GPT issue and that fraud was involved.


    Then once the $89 million case is thrown out, they will pursue the fraud case to reclaim the $11 million and then all the data about the eCat not working may come to light, including the "ERV report". "But who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!" =O

  • So they would not want to "muddy" the waters by "There was no GPT and then publish the ERV report that Rossi is claiming IS the GPT". Rossi probably does not want to publish it because it shows the data is faked or bad, thus damaging his case that even it the 1 year run was the GPT, that it did not met the conditions.


    Bob,


    Good point about IH. Why muddy the waters as you say. Hey who needs Abd! :)


    As to Rossi not wanting to submit the ERV report as evidence; yeah, most of us know that is why he won't do it. It did not work, and he rigged it to look as if it did, with Penon either tuning a blind eye, or being fully complicit, so no mystery there. But I put that out there more for the few remaining Rossi believers who still take Rossi on his word.

  • I am not a lawyer, but I am very surprised that
    4. Rossi stated that Apco was hired and provided "Mantras" for him to use to answer his own questions
    on JONP! This is quite astounding! Do you think it would take Apco to make up a couple of alias's to
    post on JONP under? Again, no documents, just Rossi says.


    I disagree with your interpretation. The quote from the document is:




    My interepretation is that this is not about Rossi answering to himself on the blog.


    This is about APCO crafting catchphrases for his blog.


    There is likely a mistake in there, should be "questions posed [to] him".

  • Affirmative Defense 2


    Quote

    Finally, Counter-Defendants at all times had the opportunity to, and did if fact participate in, the establishment of test protocols, the selection of independent third party evaluators, as well as the selection of the location for the Guaranteed Performance Test. Counter-Defendants at all times knew that the Guaranteed Performance Test would take approximately one year to perform at a substantial commitment of time, expense and effort on the part of many persons, including Plaintiff Rossi. Further, despite having their own subject matter expert, engineer T. Barker Dameron, review the testing protocols, measurements and results during the course of the yearlong test, Mr. Dameron was instructed by Defendant Darden not to discuss any perceived problems or deficiencies with Dr. Rossi.


    This implies Darden wanted the test to fail ... they would complain only at the end of the test, when it was too late to correct anything.

  • My interepretation is that this is not about Rossi answering to himself on the blog.


    This is about APCO crafting catchphrases for his blog.


    There is likely a mistake in there, should be "questions posed [to] him".



    You are correct that this could be taken different ways. The English language is often vague.
    However, it would be sloppy of them to have made the mistake, but certainly possible. However,
    several people have noticed and discussed that Rossi has been using Sock Puppets frequently on JONP,
    so this kind of "fit the bill". But again, who knows? But again, I believe it highly unlikely that anyone
    would hire "expensive" APCO to craft a few phrases. What would be the need or payback? Probably
    very unlikely.

  • Rossi admitted to denying Murray access to the plant, but gave the reason being that Murray was there
    to gather information to provide to a competitor! What competitor? What information? I cannot believe
    this will sit well with the judge. I would not think paranoia is a defense.


    My take on this is different. Here we have Rossi claiming that there was secret information that Murray was not to see. As Rossi accepted payment to transfer ALL the IP to IH, this implies he did not comply with that agreement. What a revelation! Furthermore, how can he claim that there was a GPT if it included undisclosed secrets?

  • My take on this is different. Here we have Rossi claiming that there was secret information that Murray was not to see. As Rossi accepted payment to transfer ALL the IP to IH, this implies he did not comply with that agreement. What a revelation! Furthermore, how can he claim that there was a GPT if it included undisclosed secrets?


    IH was not in any sense of the word a competitor, since as you say, they were due 'full disclosure' and allegedly working together with Rossi. Even Anesser would not make that mistake. I think the implication is (perhaps) that Murray was intent on selling information to a third party and therefore a spy.

  • You are correct that this could be taken different ways. The English language is often vague.
    However, it would be sloppy of them to have made the mistake, but certainly possible. However,
    several people have noticed and discussed that Rossi has been using Sock Puppets frequently on JONP,
    so this kind of "fit the bill". But again, who knows? But again, I believe it highly unlikely that anyone
    would hire "expensive" APCO to craft a few phrases. What would be the need or payback? Probably
    very unlikely.



    I think it's unlikely that Rossi's lawyer would be writing about sock puppets, at best it could be a subconscious slip of the tongue. If there hadn't been duscussions about sock puppets on this forum, your interpretation might have been different.


    Rossi is bringing up the APCO story to demonstrate that IH was consenting to Rossi's communication. Saying that Rossi is answering his own questions would be out of context.


    To answer your question about why APCO is being hired to craft a few phrases: we already know that APCO was working for IH (months ago, they were cc'd in an email from IH to LENR bloggers). It's not unreasonable for APCO to have been working on Rossi's communication if they were already doing other stuff. So they were not hired just to craft a few phrases.

  • even if it true that APCO helped Rossi, I don't see that gives Rossi "card blanche" to say anything he wishes and things that were restricted by contract.



    That's not what is being implied here. The APCO stuff is supporting this:


    Quote

    such disclosures were made with the knowledge and consent of the Defendants

  • Quote from oldguy: “even if it true that APCO helped Rossi, I don't see that gives Rossi &quot;card blanche&quot; to say anything he wishes and things that were restricted by contract.”



    That's not what is being implied here. The APCO stuff is supporting…


    I do not argue that you could be correct. Your point is not unreasonable. However, keep in mind the real test will be.... will Rossi provide the goods!?! Will he provide the hard evidence to back these claims? So far, all he has done is make accusations and claims in his documents. No evidence. IH on the other hand has provided some documented evidence to support their claims. "Rossi says" will eventually not cut it in court. He will have to provide evidence.


    I think there is a reasonable chance that the judge will throw out the case, because so far, all that has been presented is "Rossi says". No evidence. And the story that IH is painting really does seem to be of the "realistic" type while Rossi looks a little like a Picaso!


    With this said, I guess we do not know if evidence was presented to the judge that has not been put on the PACER portal, but it would seem that many of these claims would not be under NDA, such as the agreement of the GPT if Rossi had one.


    After perusing through the published court documents, I have seen quite a bit of evidence presented by IH, but have seen none by Rossi. It does not look to good at this point for him in my layman's view. We have to remember, the court is not JONP or eCat World where he can make statements with impunity. He is making claims that he will have to prove! A "blurry blue photo" that is presented as the signed copy of the GPT will not suffice in court, they will think he is "Quarked er.. I mean Quaked" up! :P (Pardon my feeble attempt at humor today!)

  • I don't see why Mr. Dameron being instructed to discuss any perceived problems or deficiencies with Dr. Rossi (if that was the case) would be even be expected to point out problems if IH did not even consider the work in FL as the GPT. There action would be consistent with them not thinking it was the GPT. Also even if it was, they were under do obligation to correct Rossi.

  • IH alleges:


    68. In late 2013 and early 2014, Leonardo and Rossi made arrangements with the
    team of scientists who had published the Ferrara Report to conduct another test of a single E-Cat reactor (not an entire Plant or an entire Six Cylinder Unit) over a roughly one month time period in February and March 2014 in Lugano, Switzerland. At the conclusion of the experiment, the scientists concluded in their report (the “Lugano Report”) that the E-Cat reactor produced a COP of 3.2 and 3.6 across two different “runs” of the reactor (which is still less than the lowest COP number reflected in the License Agreement). See Ex. 14. This conclusion was subsequently criticized in a series of publications identifying flaws in the methodology the scientists employed which led to overstatement of their COP calculations. These publications, however, did not surface until 2015.


    Rossi responds:


    68. Plaintiffs admit that the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences performed tests on a
    single E-Cat reactor constructed by Defendants at their North Carolina facility and that such
    scientists concluded that the reactor produced a positive COP
    . Plaintiffs further state that the
    “Lugano Report” speak for itself. Plaintiffs deny the remaining allegations contained in
    Paragraph 68 of the Counterclaim to the extent they are inconsistent with the Lugano Report.
    Plaintiffs lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 68 of the report pertaining to other “publications” and therefore deny the same and demand strict proof thereof


    This is the title on the Lugano report:


    Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device
    and of isotopic changes in the fue
    l


    Giuseppe Levi
    Bologna University, Bologna, Italy


    Evelyn Foschi
    Bologna, Italy


    Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér
    Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden


    Hanno Essén
    Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
    October 6, 2014


    http://www.elforsk.se/Global/O…er/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf


    No mention anywhere in the report about the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences which we all know:
    "Every year the Academy awards the Nobel Prizes in Physics and Chemistry, the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, the Crafoord Prize and a number of other prizes."


    I just thought this was funny. Typical Rossi trying to twist things around...in this case to elevate the significance of Lugano, and give it some prestige above what it deserves. Ties in real nice with his charge that IH is a bunch of bumbling, incompetent fools, unable to make his IP work like the smart guys at the Nobel Academy.


    Even the Lugano team might have to break their silence, and correct this one for the record.