Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • Note: The following is primarily about the LEGAL aspects of Rossi vs. Darden. However, there is also information relevant to the ROSSI EFFECT at the conclusion of the post.


    (From 226-3 pages 9-11)

    After some interlude regarding a privileged document, Rossi's lawyers continue with their questioning of Darden:


    Q. (BY MR. CHAIKEN)· ·So my question now is as of January -- and I guess your position isn't going to change.· But as of January 2014 it was your opinion that the guaranteed performance test pursuant to the contract could not be performed, correct?


    A.· ·Yes, that test.


    Q.· ·Right.· And your -- and you believe that you communicated that position to Dr. Rossi orally, but you don't know if you communicated it to him in writing; is that correct?


    A.· ·I don't remember whether we did it in writing, but I distinctly remember it orally more than once and, particularly, the issue of he had not transferred the technology.· Therefore, he had breached the agreement.· We were not able to replicate.· The measurements were not accurate.· And we had some very contentious meetings around that including one in Miami that -- where I went down there to meet to talk about that specific subject.


    Q.· ·So let me step back a second.· So my understanding was that the guaranteed performance test could not have happened due to timing issues as of October 2013.· The issues relating to being able to replicate and the other issues, were those all -- were hose all issues at that time October 2013 as well?


    A.· ·I'm sorry.· Can you say that part again.


    Q.· ·Yeah.· And I'm a little confused by your prior response because we had been talking about the guaranteed performance tests in terms of timing.


    A.· ·Um-hm.


    Q.· ·And you just mentioned a whole bunch of other issues that I wasn't sure was the issue as of that time October 2013.


    A.· ·Okay.· So those conversations were around, "We're out of contract or, you know, the deal is over or the -- you know, the time has passed.· We're no longer talking about that particular contract. However, we want technology that works.· If we have technology that works that we can replicate then we're willing to discuss with you paying you a lot of money even though we shouldn't have to do that."


    Analysis: So Darden is claiming under oath that he told Rossi multiple times that the GPT was off, and that Rossi, prior to Doral (in fact, according to testimony, around October 2013), had 'breached the agreement'. He is also claiming that he was clear that any additional money is not regarding 'that particular contract' (regarding the $89 Million). Instead, he is offering to pay Rossi money if he can get something to work, 'even though we [IH] shouldn't have to do that'.


    From a LEGAL perspective, this is Darden's sworn testimony. If Rossi can produce some written document that contradicts this sworn testimony, Darden has a serious problem. ON the other hand, If Rossi cannot produce anything written, in my opinion, he loses the case. Because he has no written agreement of any GPT. The 'Term Sheet' is a rental agreement regarding power to a customer, and (in my opinion) has no chance of being considered a GPT by the court or by a jury.


    Also, before all these documents were posted, the earliest that we (in the peanut gallery) could point to clear evidence that IH informed Rossi that Doral was not the GPT was December 2015. According to Darden, Rossi knew that IH said the $89 Million GPT was 'gone' as of Oct 2013!


    From the ROSSI EFFECT perspective, Darden states that the 'measurements were not accurate', implying that this is the reason why they at first had some indication of excess heat. According to Darden's testimony, as many have previously speculated, the reason for initially positive results was the most obvious and likely one: inaccurate measurement.

  • @THH. From my point of view, it gives a bad impression of both parties. Who is to say that he was not working in a climate that encouraged him to write that? Where is the 'you can't do that' response from IH?


    Well we all have points of view. Personally, I would not deal with a slimeball duplicitous scoundrel like Rossi even if I thought it would just possibly save the world. It seems IH were more in the take a risk and save the world category. Braver than me. Look where it got them!


    You seriously think you can't do that works with Rossi?

  • @THH. From my point of view, it gives a bad impression of both parties. Who is to say that he was not working in a climate that encouraged him to write that? Where is the 'you can't do that' response from IH?


    This is an good point. If a contractor does anything unlawful you should not be able to hide behind a business in-direction, at least the bribery laws in civil countries is clear on that you cannot do this hiding without

    a good paper trail that you work in good faith. So if we stretch this logic to ethical behavior your comment is spot but technically is this really unlawful or something that have a bearing in the case?

  • Peter,


    Nobody "hates" Rossi, why do you say that?


    It seems like you are suggesting that all skeptics hate Rossi, what is closer to the truth is that skeptics simply don't believe him.


    Just to be clear. I don't hate him. But I do think he has shown himself to be a duplicitous scoundrel who I would not touch with a barge pole.


    That is just my personal opinion based on facts so far. I guess I might be completely mistaken... Can't see it, though.


    Peter it seems from his reply previously possesses private information that exculpates Rossi from at least one nasty bit of behaviour. I'm wondering myself whether it is based on RossiSays, in which case, based on track record so far, I'd recommend Siffer not to believe it. And I'm pretty sure the Court will not.


    PS - since Dewey is banned for two weeks (I'll have to get his info from the other place) I'm thinking maybe others should counter the we love Rossi who is persecuted by bad IH and has done no evil crowd.

  • Doc. 228 and its exhibits now on the docket.


    228 - Notice of Filing by IH

    228-01 Excerpt of transcript by Darden, stating that Zali Jaffe was an Israeli attorney retained for questions regarding 'international fraud'.

    228-02 Evidence from Uzi Sha stating that Levi asked him to meet, (not the other way around) to refute Levi's assertion that Levi felt "harrased, threatened, or coerced"

    228-03 Zali Jaffe's Resume

  • I am exaggerating here so this is conjecture ok? I think Dardens disposition has the flavor of the old saying that you "can't have your cake and eat it too". It seems that they were quite aware that Rossi was not in terms with the agreement. ("But... you ..know... stammer... huh... stammer we do not mind if you carry on "have some cake" but "lawyer talk" stammer. We will be glad to pay you some money, cough... some..huh money... but you are not in the terms of the contract subsection 5 para 2 sentence 3 in word 4.")


    I also think that "gotcha" stuff will not work before a jury, but may before a Judge. If you get one juror that can smell dishonesty this case will be going on for quite a while. Some people like to sleep at night.

  • You seriously think you can't do that works with Rossi?


    Well, it obviously didn't work with Dewey, so may not with Rossi. My point was, it needed to be said, and AFAIK nobody did it. It is suggested that IH's people were soft on Rossi's lies because they were afraid he would run away. Now it seems that even before Doral that was what they wanted. I'm puzzled, but suspect that there were too many people around this project who couldn't organise a tree-frog in the rain forest.

  • oldguy : This is Trump-logic: Levi is a prof, what can a "business mafiosi" propose him?? A job in heaven?


    If any body else -- not a jew -- would have asked Levi, then he would have kicked they guy in the ass!


    Sorry, it was easy to misread your comment as racist. I put it back. Eric

    Why in the world do you want to inject religion into this? I made no comment about a race or religion. I think that calling my comment racist is totally against the rules here.


    Notice it was not I that called the statements threats. Read the transcripts.

    How many professors in Sweden where given offers? You are totally out of line with your comments and I hope you are banned.

  • oldguy : This is Trump-logic: Levi is a prof, what can a "business mafiosi" propose him?? A job in heaven?


    If any body else -- not a jew -- would have asked Levi, then he would have kicked they guy in the ass!


    Sorry, it was easy to misread your comment as racist. I put it back. Eric


    You should first read the transcripts. You are totally trying to stir up trouble by injecting politics (Trump smearing),. and race., and religion (heaven comment).


    If you read 228-02 Exh. B you will find where Uzi stated (#4) that he offered Levi work "that he was willing and wanted to perform".

    You are entirely off base and hostile.


    I am insulted by your attack.

  • Wyttenbach: chill out with the conspiracy theory stuff or you are gone (permanently).


    ETA: On further reflection, I've banned Wyttenbach for two weeks. The warning above still applies. We do not condone any kind of anti-semitism whatsoever (or any other religious or ethnic prejudice), and we want a forum that is inviting to people from all backgrounds and walks of life. It was hard for me in the heat of the moment to know where to draw the line. My suggestion to Wyttenbach is that he not go anywhere near this topic in the future. Also good to avoid politics, to be on the safe side.

  • Edit :The following quote (truncated on display) is Darden's testimony that in October 2013 they told Rossi the GPT was off



    Well, Vaughn to Darden Sept 23, 2013 (ie DAYS before October) 214-22


    (my transcript)


    [ They built 3 reactors themselves ... one self-destructed due to an electrical fault] ...

    Quote

    We operated for three days, again showing good results based on our (caveated) measurements. The calculated COP ratio was between 5 and 9 [I would wait at least a week before providing hard numbers like this.


    AND :


    Quote

    The shipping container also had the BV certified six reactor boiler. We will spend the coming week getting it ready to operate, and we intend to use it for the 365 day test, required by our agreement with Dr Rossi.


    Note that Vaughn (and everyone else) refers to it as the "365 day test" or the "400 day test" ... omitting the word "Guaranteed".


    Then in 214-25 Vaughn provides a timeline


    Quote

    September-December 2013


    Rossi conducts numerous tests on various new reactor designs, often to destruction. In the process the IH team learns how to construct the reactors, and begins improving some aspects of the reactor's heating components.


    NO mention of telling Rossi they didn't work ... or that the Guaranteed test was off. Early 2014 is spent preparing the Lugano reactors

    Quote

    May-September 2014


    Rossi begins working on the 1MW unit to prepare it to operate it on a continuing basis for 365 days, per the terms of the agreement with IH.


    Again, the word "guaranteed" is omitted, but it sure quacks like the GPT.

  • Wyttenbach ,


    I too am puzzled by your comments. They do not reflect the logic that you have shown in the past. None of this makes sense. This for me has been the weirdest day on this site. Do you have kids? I have a simple rule that I follow, and I have asked my kids to follow also.

    "I am not the mind police, I am the mouth police". When I offend someone here, I offer a simple yet sincere apology. It costs nothing but means more than anything. Your hurting the dialog, and driving people away. There is no logic in this. Get to it man.

  • Note that Vaughn (and everyone else) refers to it as the "365 day test" or the "400 day test" ... omitting the word "Guaranteed".


    Then in 214-25 Vaughn provides a timeline


    Yes, you have demonstrated that Vaughn was talking about a 365 day test of the 6 cylinder reactor. That was the reactor in the 2nd amendment. The one that IH signed. We agree on that.


    However, Ampenergo didn't sign. Darden stated that AFTER Ampenergo didn't sign, he told Rossi that the agreement was off (and Darden testified that this was due to Ampenergo) and that the time for performance for the $89 Million had expired.


    NO mention of telling Rossi they didn't work ... or that the Guaranteed test was off. Early 2014 is spent preparing the Lugano reactors


    Darden specifically disputes that. He said in the testimony I posted that he told Rossi several times by October 2013. Under oath. So he either just perjured himself, or your statement is untrue. Can we agree on that?


  • I have been critical of the moderators in the past, but think they have been more than fair since my last criticism.


    So what do we do without Dewey for 2 weeks? :)


    Edit: and Wyttenbach also! I Is there a full moon? As science has shown, full moons affect the brain, and the bigger the brain...