BTW, if the court does not grant Rossi's motion to allow the late response he's at serious risk of being successfully sued, potentially for the 11.5 million, IH legal fees, and possibly even triple damages. IH may find it owns more Florida condos then it ever wanted. I wonder if Rossi has purchased his ticket to bolt the US, and where his bolt hole might to be?
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
Here is one list of countries without an extradition treaty with the USA. I haven't checked it for accuracy.
-
And if Rossi were to prevail completely, since he has asked for triple damages, IH would be on the hook for over a quarter billion dollars. Such drama!
-
Will Rossi ask for triple or treble damage?
Will IH tremble or trample?
Depends on the Planet you live on.
-
Andorra would be my choice
-
The Maldives might be nice. For awhile at least.
-
And if Rossi were to prevail completely, since he has asked for triple damages, IH would be on the hook for over a quarter billion dollars. Such drama!
Yes, but he would never get it. IH would just declare bankruptcy. I doubt they have many assets and likely are just being funded as need for their lawyers so there would be little in the bank. He would just get the old shipping container back and a bunch of pumps. I see little chance of there being any access to "real money".
He would be best advised to stop paying his lawyers and take the money he has and leave the country.
-
Now, Johnson did warrant that JMC is owned by an entity in the UK. People who are saying that this could have changed with time have to note that Johnson did agree that he has to immediately notify IH. Anyway, I think the story that JMC used to be owned by a UK entity and not anymore is a little far fetched.
LC,
Johnson and Rossi described in writing this UK "entity" in a way that only a company could be described. Call it what you will, but they said it was in the chemical industry, made a product. and needed the steam to do so. I never heard of an "entity" that could do all that. If I am wrong, then how does one go about setting up, or incorporating, an entity? File taxes, pay employees, advertise, insurance etc? Can they ever give themselves a name without being designated a company?
Yes, I agree, that angle is a bit far-fetched. So when Johnson recently, in his 3rd Party defense, admitted that "JMP has no parent company", I think it safe to conclude Rossi/Johnson lied to IH.
As to another of your points; Johnson was Rossi's lawyer. He could not, or would not, have set-up JMP, written that letter to IH, without Rossi's consent to do so. So I don't think there is a valid argument to be made that Johnson's lying to IH about JMP does not reflect on Rossi. It does. If Johnson lied to IH about JMP in writing, as appears to be the case, Rossi lied too.
-
This is my issue with AR at this point. You can't help but ask if he is truly trying to win this case or not. He wants the rest of the money right? Isn't that how this case started? And yet he is providing nothing in the discovery process to support his claims. People are left with wild theories like the UK entity has since been dissolved. Ok, but if it has, state that now with some clear evidence to back up who it was and what was dissolved. or forever hold your peace. No reason to wait, because things look fishy for AR and Johnson right now. Just answer the question; who was the customer? If they can't clearly answer that then AR and his attorney may want to consider dropping this and hope that life just goes on as is.
-
LC,
Johnson and Rossi described in writing this UK "entity" in a way that only a company could be described. Call it what you will, but they said it was in the chemical industry, made a product. and needed the steam to do so. I never heard of an "entity" that could do all that. If I am wrong, then how does one go about setting up, or incorporating, an entity? File taxes, pay employees, advertise, insurance etc? Can they ever give themselves a name without being designated a company?
My main point is that a company is not necessarily a corporation. For example, the entity could be a limited liability partnership which would not have to be reported in the corporate disclosure.
Companies are not always corporations.
I do think that a real manufacturing company would probably be a corporation. Possibly the entity is not owned by the supposed client but they could both be owned by common people, just like Cherokee and IH.
-
t. You can't help but ask if he is truly trying to win this case or not.
I wish I were a fly on the wall to find out. On the outside looking in though, he seems surprisingly blase about the whole thing. Of course, that is by what I gather reading his JONP. And as anyone knows, JONP is a tool for him to use, whether that be to attract customers/marks, rally his troops, or demoralize IH in this legal battle. This whole QuarkX thing seems directed towards that (IH), if you ask me.
It (QX) sure is not about science, as after another long 18 months of Rossisays, no one can piece together a coherent engineering picture of it. Only thing for sure, is that it is small...real small. And that there may, or may not be a demo, and if so it may, or may not take place, this Feb.
-
I do think that a real manufacturing company would probably be a corporation.
Not in the UK. I have managed or owned several manufacturing companies in the UK with anything between 20 and 150 staff. They were all ordinary limited liability companies. (Ltd.) Corporations in the UK are 'PLC's', the 'PL' syanding for 'Public Liability'.
-
My main point is that a company is not necessarily a corporation. For example, the entity could be a limited liability partnership which would not have to be reported in the corporate disclosure.
Companies are not always corporations.
So I guess we won't know for sure until Johnson admits to the court that "JMP has no parent company, corporation, entity, LLC, but it was in the Chemical Industry, and needed steam to make it's product"?
-
Alan, Are you sure Limited Companies in the UK are not corporations? They do pay corporation tax: https://www.gov.uk/business-legal-structures/limited-company
Quote
So I guess we won't know for sure until Johnson admits to the court that "JMP has no parent company, corporation, entity, LLC, but it was in the Chemical Industry, and needed steam to make it's product"?I guess so! But you won't see that in the corporate disclosure, which is a formality that has nothing to do with making steam.
-
businesses... I remember Bass's business card (exhib 20) where Bass represented himself to be JMP’s “Director of Engineering
and the image was of a large glass manufacturing complex in Japan. -
In a brief order (doc. 100), Judge Altonaga has allowed the motion for leave to file to go through. However she notes the defendants' objections in doc. 98, and specifically refers to section 3, in which they write (DE 98):
Quote3. On November 29, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response to the Counterclaim, and ordered that the “Plaintiffs Andrea Rossi and Leonardo Corporation, have seven (7) days from the Court’ order on Third-Party Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss file their answers and affirmative defenses.” (D.E. 82).
-
Alan, Are you sure Limited Companies in the UK are not corporations?
Hi. They are corporations in the sense that the act of creating them is called 'incorporation' and, as you say they pay corporation tax on profits....But never ever in everyday English usage have I heard a limited liability company registered in the UK as a 'corporation' or 'corporate'. People talk about 'the company. or 'our company' etc. Corporation and the legal suffix 'Inc' are mostly only used outside the UK.
-
In her shoes, I would do anything to keep this going too. Court cases like this only come once in a career. I bet she is as curious as us to see how it all ends.
-
Things seems to advance well, whatever you think of the affair.
As I understand it is a discovery of facts affair, where each camp have to carve a pile of evidence and of complaints, trying to cancel others evidence and complaints as incoherent (not yet as false).For those who follows, when can it be solved, judged about the facts ?
for me the settlement is improbable as whatever could be settled mean a definitive end to the loser, so it will be judged... when?
there was a calendar established by the judge? -
"all could be solved by a good sincere test" There is no such thing, critics will always find faults in "test". The only "test" is a customer making money using LENR.
