I must disagree. The proper form of that citation is "RossiSays" with no spaces and a capital S in says.
As a lawyer, given the licensing involved, shouldn't it actually be RossiSays™ or would it be RossiSays®?
® ™ All rights reserved, J M Products, Limited Reliability Corporation (LRC)
I suspect that the identity of the "real paying customer" will have to be kept confidential, lest the ravening hordes of babblers attack them in an effort to prevent Rossi from saving the world. After all, we babblers, we few babblers, care more about maliciously attacking Rossi (and his supporters) than we do about the future of the planet. I know this for a fact because it was in the handbook I received when I joined the "Anti-Rossi Babbler Collective". The video of the demonstration will also not show enough about Rossi's device to make any sort of judgment, because doing so would allow people to steal Rossi's IP. However, my sources say that the demonstration will be like no demonstration we have ever seen before. I'm sorry, but I can't reveal my sources, so don't ask.
And we really need a "sarcasm" smilie.
Actually, the quotes on the docket are not merely opinions, they are factual
Two sides saying different things about the same event and you call them factual? Really? You appear to have no managerial experience and so don't know what companies get up to. This makes you sound naive.
Unlike you , who is certain nothing Rossi did has worked. I am not saying the QX and SK work. I say wait and see if they do, as we don't have enough evidence to judge it yet. I think there is a fair chance that they might.
ps. In the news, the technology oPetrolDragon is being resurrected, despite what you said. The top official who put Rossi out of business has been fined and sent to prison for taking over the entire waste business. (I think with the mfia.) (pff topic.)
Two sides saying different things about the same event and you call them factual? Really? You appear to have no managerial experience and so don't know what companies get up to. This makes you sound naive.
Unlike you , who is certain nothing Rossi did has worked. I am not saying the QX and SK work. I say wait and see if they do, as we don't have enough evidence to judge it yet. I think there is a fair chance that they might.
Yes. I call those quotes _factual_. That's because they are legal facts, the contents of which are not subject to alteration or objection by either party once the trial starts (which it did). They were made by Rossi. They are not in dispute - Rossi did not deny them. In fact, Rossi was required to disclose them and/or challenge Darden's version of them as part of discovery. We can be highly confident that they are accurate because if Rossi (or Darden) was shown to have altered them, he could be charged with falsifying evidence (and the same applies to Darden of course). And since they are rather unflattering to Rossi's credibility, we can assume that he sent accurate emails (even if reluctantly) because Darden (or Rossi) could easily dispute them if they were not accurate, since as recipients, they each knew the exact wording. If either party was found to be providing falsified evidence (and both parties had the same emails since they were corresponding with each other) it would almost certainly result in some manner of court ordered sanctions against the offending party, up to and including sanctions that could result in Rossi's case being thrown out on a motion to dismiss, and IH winning their countersuit (or vice versa) due to adverse inference. You can be sure that neither side's lawyers would pass up the opportunity to charge the other with falsifying information, if they could demonstrate this, since they would be winning sanctions against their opponent before the trial even started.
Perhaps you are not able to discern the difference between this evidence which is legally considered fact, vs interpretation of evidence (which may be in dispute), because of your legal naivety? The primary purpose of a jury trial is for the jury to make decisions about disputed evidence and its implications. Pre trial discovery is the process that, in part, sorts out what is not in dispute and what is in dispute and needs to be decided by a jury. The exact wording of the emails submitted was not in dispute, and that wording would not have been subject to a jury's decision (had the trial lasted more than the actual few hours). If there was any question about this, the Judge would have instructed the jury to accept the exact wording as fact. On the other hand, weighing the implications of the email regarding the various allegations of fraud, etc. on either side would be something the jury could address, since this was central to the dispute.
We know that these emails were considered fact by the court because the case actually went to trial (briefly), meaning that the pre-trial discovery phase was completed (because it has to complete before the jury trial can start). So towards the end of the docket, you will see what was considered to be in dispute and what wasn't. This has to be done beforehand for a number of reasons not least of which is to not waste the jury's time making these determinations during trial. Once discovery has been completed, neither party can object to undisputed evidence (except under extraordinary circumstances). But don't take my word for it, you can let our resident lawyer, woodworker confirm this (or consult with any other lawyers you know).
And it's funny that you presume to guess my management experience (which exceeds 19 years) by making ignorant and unsupportable claims about undisputed evidence submitted by Rossi as required under the rules of discovery.
But your response helps me understand why you are unable to accurately interpret the Rossi vs Darden evidence. I suggest you stop asserting your incorrect understanding of evidence that was submitted as required in pre-trial discovery. In fact, given your confusion on this, I think it would be helpful for you to re-read the information on the docket with this better understanding of how discovery works. But that would assume you are interested in learning and gaining insight regarding the facts of the case. And unfortunately, you have shown little to no interest to learn anything from that evidence, electing instead to hand wave it all off as merely "he said she said", sadly, to your own self-deception.
The quotes involved are not "two sides saying different things about the same event" as you assert. They are emails by Rossi to Darden that were submitted as required under the rules of discovery. And if you understood this about the information on the docket generally, you would realize that there is a large number of undisputed facts that were revealed in Rossi vs Darden, including dozens (at least) of significant lies made by Rossi.
You are merely revealing your legal ignorance.
Display MoreActually, the quotes on the docket are not merely opinions, they are factual evidence that Rossi intentionally deceives. We know this is true because Rossi himself brags that he intentionally deceives. This is not merely my opinion (or yours), this is Rossi himself declaring such.
I understand that this puts you in an uncomfortable position. You should feel uncomfortable. It's not easy to defend the indefensible. For seven years, in newspapers and on blogs, you have been promoting the exciting news that cheap energy is just around the corner because Rossi's magnificent invention is in production, just about to be released. You scornfully criticize those who challenge Rossi's extraordinary claims.
Even now, despite the overwhelming evidence that Rossi is intentionally deceiving the hopeful, you defend him.
If you really wanted to help society, you would face the facts, apologize to those who trusted your recklessly optimistic and unrealistic assessments, and help provide expert guidance (as an engineer with experience) to those with less expertise on how to accurately interpret Rossi's unverifiable "reports", "demonstrations", and comments.
Instead, you continue to carry water for this self-proclaimed deceiver. For 7 years.
When presented with the evidence of Rossi's gross deception you refuse to respond, address, or even consider it. In fact you just keep "babbling" the same unwarranted scorn for anyone who questions Rossi and support for Rossi's extraordinary, unverfiable claims. You don't even try to qualify your support in light of the extraordinary claims, Rossi's known deception, and 7 year history of failure to deliver products he claimed were in production, just awaiting [insert lame excuse: "certifications" (unspecified) | "5 sigma" (of undefined) | license agreements | non-disclosure | etc.].
When are you going to give it up?
(Hint, it's not helping your credibility or "cause", whatever that is.)
Siggy, may I call you Siggy, your suggestions that AA might admit that he was wrong and apologize. I have to thank you for making me laugh so hard it hurt. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
As a lawyer, given the licensing involved, shouldn't it actually be RossiSays™ or would it be RossiSays®?
® ™ All rights reserved, J M Products, Limited Reliability Corporation (LRC)
Stop it, you are making me laugh too hard. As to the trademark/copyright, I actually considered that but I suspect that there would be issues using someone else's name -- after all, Rossi might claim an interest in the mark. also, too, LRC (a limited reliability company) -- I have never seen that before and I am going to steal it.
I must disagree. The proper form of that citation is "RossiSays" with no spaces and a capital S in says.
Stop it, you are making me laugh too hard. As to the trademark/copyright, I actually considered that but I suspect that there would be issues using someone else's name -- after all, Rossi might claim an interest in the mark. also, too, LRC (a limited reliability company) -- I have never seen that before and I am going to steal it.
sig,
Please forgive your humble writer,
I’m just a lowly underpaid overworked engineer, don’t know squat about all the
“Legally” thingys you’re discussing.
But I know “Rossi says” will hold up in
any court in the land.
ps. In the news, the technology oPetrolDragon is being resurrected, despite what you said. The top official who put Rossi out of business has been fined and sent to prison for taking over the entire waste business. (I think with the mfia.)
Oh, really? I'd be very interested in learning how Rossi's Petroldragon technology is being 'resurrected'. Especially given the 60+ million dollar cost of attempting to clean up the toxic waste dump he left. Please point me to your source(s). I am sincerely interested in learning more about this. (I attempted to find this news but was unable to find anything, yet.)
Thanks in advance.
Ah. I suppose that when Rossi said the 1 MW plant worked and IH said it didn't in their depositions, both statements are factual.?
Almost as good as the babbler who suggested Rossi was going sue himself.
I've gad enough of this babble that I'm not going to add more to it.
Ah. I suppose that when Rossi said the 1 MW plant worked and IH said it didn't in their depositions, both statements are factual.?
You make so many mistakes here, and so many false statements, you could not have read the depositions. Rossi never said it worked. He filed the Penon report, which is obviously a lie. You don't think so, so I guess you believe the pressure was zero and the reactor was run in a vacuum.
Also, Rossi is the only one who said that Rossi himself lied. He bragged about how he lied to his customer in Europe! Then later he admitted his Florida customer was himself -- fake, in other words. There were not two side to this, as you claim. It was Rossi against himself.
Ok, Adrian. You have decided to ignore every previous Rossi scam because they are “ancient history” and absurdly expect the next one to be real. Anyone who points out Rossi’s perfect record of fraud is a babbler whom you feel obligated to insult . Meanwhile, you are universally considerered to be irrational and dishonest except by those who share those traits. Every other day you threaten to take your ball and go home but back you come for more of the same. Why bother? If you believe you are somehow helping Rossi’s cause, that is even more delusional than your faith in him. You should find a more valuable use of your time, although it would greatly reduce the entertainment value of this site.
In my opinion, Frank at ECW. closely guards the henhouse against skeptical foxes for a specific reason. That site is to make money for Frank and he has chosen to make it a positive Rossi site and to nurture that environment to facilitate the most hits. He even has been promoting paid subscriptions (or donations) for the site.
Although ethically questionable, it is understandable that some people, because of own financial interests, keep spinning the e-cat tale.
But I feel really sorry for those people who after so many years of BS still sincerely believe in this farce.
Unlike you , who is certain nothing Rossi did has worked. I am not saying the QX and SK work. I say wait and see if they do, as we don't have enough evidence to judge it yet. I think there is a fair chance that they might.
I say the QX works and Rossi will likely be
succesful with the SK.
Rossi never said it worked.
That's absurd. He tool IH to court on the basis that it did.
You accuse me of making false statements: coming from you that's rich.
JR: "Rossi never said iy worked"
That's absurd. He tool IH to court on the basis that it did.
You accuse me of making false statements: coming from you that's rich.
AA: you seem here unable to distinguish interpretation from fact.
Rossi took IH to Court on the basis that they owed him money from a contract. The contract does not include any concept of "e-cat worked". Rather it has a specific test made under specific conditions with results required. The whole contract was masterfully bad - both in its front-loaded $100M payoff to Rossi, making his interests and the commercialisation of his invention non-aligned - and in its poorly drafted performance test.
The hands of Rossi are all over this: adding evidence to the statements from some that he was hawking a similar contract around all investors but IH were the only ones prepared to bite:
$100M payoff in advance
Test for payoff to be based on report from single person (who we know was chosen by Rossi)
1 year test (tells nothing, delays reckoning and muddies the waters)
60 or so units in parallel (muddies the waters and prevents robust measurement of one unit - all that is needed to know the stuff works).
Be that as it may, Rossi sued over a contract breach - IH's non-payment subject to contract terms when Rossi claimed he had fulfilled all his terms. Of course Rossi had egregiously not fulfilled his terms: he was able to get away with this because IH did not make waves calling him out on this as clearly as they should have done.
The court case, had it proceeded, would have focussed on that, not whether the device actually worked.
Rossi himself tends not to say his devices work, he merely makes many claims that imply this, and keep his fans energised. Technically, Rossi could never know whether his devices work since he has never tested them in a way that would give proper results.
[Rossi never said it worked.]
That's absurd. He tool IH to court on the basis that it did.
Yes, it is absurd. Even though he took them to court, in the court documents he never said it worked. (As I recall he never said this in the technical testimony, although I might have overlooked a statement.) You would think he would say so, wouldn't you? Toward the end he filed the Penon report, which is supposedly written by someone else, and which sort-of, kind-of, maybe says it works if you squint hard and pretend it was run in a vacuum on the moon, and that it produced heat on days when it was turned off and disassembled according to Rossi, and if you pretend it would not have cooked everyone in the building. I am sure you, AA, can pretend all of this, so you will find it convincing, but most people would not call that "proof." It proves only that Penon and Rossi think they can get away with any lie, no matter how absurd.
He boldly lied about many things, such as his pretend customer and the non-existent heat exchanger. He bragged that he lied to his European customer. But he just managed to avoid lying about the performance of the machine, by not saying things, evasion, and confusing the issue. You also try to do these things, but you are not good at them. You should try reading the report and the testimony -- something I am now sure you have not done, despite what you say. You should learn the art of bullshit from Rossi himself.
Rossi himself tends not to say his devices work, he merely makes many claims that imply this, and keep his fans energised. Technically, Rossi could never know whether his devices work since he has never tested them in a way that would give proper results.
Exactly! It resembles some Chinese and Japanese ink paintings, which are as expressive in what they leave out as in what they include. The mountains are shrouded in mist. Only the stylized outline of the frog, bird, or plum is shown. The viewer's imagination fills in the empty spaces.
Ah. I suppose that when Rossi said the 1 MW plant worked and IH said it didn't in their depositions, both statements are factual.?
Almost as good as the babbler who suggested Rossi was going sue himself.
I've gad enough of this babble that I'm not going to add more to it.
Well at least you finally admit (intentionally or not) that your contributions on this topic are babble.
If you read my post, you would see that I specifically pointed out that the role of the jury is to make decisions regarding contested issues. There obviously were contested issues - it was a lawsuit with claims and counter-claims, after all.
But based on your "drive by comments" you can't even accurately describe what claims and counter-claims were made by the various parties, nor discern contested vs. uncontested evidence.
It's obvious you haven't read the documents on the docket. At least you haven't read them with any comprehension. If you had, you could answer basic questions, like:
1) How many claims did Rossi claim against IH initially?
2) How many of those were dismissed in Summary Judgement?
3) How many counter-claims did IH file initially against Rossi?
4) How many claims were filed initially by third parties against IH?
5) Who are the third parties?
6) How many counter-claims were filed by IH against third parties?
7) How many counter-claims filed by IH were dismissed in Summary Judgement?
8 ) What documents describe the content of the specific surviving claims by Rossi, IH and third parties?
9) What role does the magistrate play vs. the role of the judge?
10) What documents describe pre-trial sanctions made by the magistrate, and to which party were they made, and why?
11) What documents describe pre-trial sanctions made by the judge, to which party were they made, and why?
12) What documents on the docket indicate what evidence provided in discovery was contested by either party?
13) What documents on the docket indicate what evidence was agreed upon by both parties or ruled by the court to be uncontestable?
There were other aspects that characterized this case. For example, there were several amendments. How many would you say there were? Why is it important, when reading the documents on the docket, to know how many amendments there were, and how does that affect which documents should be used when referencing the evidence?
See, if you had actually taken the time to go through the docket and understand the legal processes, rather than ignorantly and flippantly dismissing it all as "he said/she said", you could learn a lot. But I warn you, the uncontested evidence does not put Rossi's veracity in a good light, especially when placed on a timeline and in context. And especially when compared to what Rossi was writing on his blog at the same time.
You would also realize that uncontested evidence provided in pre-trial discovery is almost certainly accurate (because both sides had huge incentives to contest any adverse evidence that they could if in fact it was contestable).
And you would understand the significance of the fact that the discovery phase was completed so that the trial could start, which meant that the deadline for both parties to agree to the uncontested evidence occurred.
Several people here took the time to go through the documents on the docket. The reason we did so is because unlike the "he said/she said" arguments that have characterized the past, the federal court case imposed rules that forced both parties to provide evidence that if false, could significantly harm their ability to win their claims. Also, if lawyers from either side were shown to knowingly provide false evidence, they would be at risk for career-ending disbarment. This significantly upped the quality of the available information. And in fact, by looking at the evidence on the docket provided by Rossi, including his own testimony under oath, you will see that he provided a lot of damning evidence harmful to his case and his character - because he knew that in instances where others could prove him wrong if he lied, he would risk losing his claims and having the counter-claims prevail.
So, when you speak of "babblers", perhaps you can consider if that term applies to your own obviously uninformed opinions regarding Rossi vs Darden, and if so, try to restrain yourself.
@Adrian Ashfield
Quoteps. In the news, the technology oPetrolDragon is being resurrected,
Oh sure. Have a link please? There should be great interest in resurrecting a technology which makes no oil and dumps intensely toxic industrial waste into irrigation channels. (see long list of references by Krivit on this issue)
QuoteI say the QX works and Rossi will likely be
succesful with the SK.
Exactly. And in the same vein, I say flying pigs work and I will likely be successful with flying pigs. Hey, the depth of your evidence and mine are the same.
I think Rossi must be Sam12’s imaginary friend.
