Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from THHuxleynew

Don't think anyone can argue with that? And the polite confidence trickster, or less polite scammer, seem decent summaries for such behaviour.

I am not arguing with that at all. Nor am I agreeing with it. It just seemed to me that somehow the idea caught on that "scammer" was the euphemism that Dewey was talking about. I don't think that's correct. I think he was saying that "confidence trickster" is a euphemism for scammer. I am not trying to defend or attack either position or criticize or support the use of one over the other. I am simply pointing out what seemed to me to be a misunderstanding that started to catch on. Could it possibly matter one way or another? No. But that can be said about most if not all of the chatter here.

Quote from BobHiggins

So, after all of this debate about the trial, I am still left with a question of Rossi's motive in filing the suit.

Let's say you are Rossi, you believe your technology works and is valuable, but you realize your supporting company/licensee has lost faith. Would you sue to complete the payment terms of the contract, or would you sue to get your license rights back? Let's say Rossi wins, the $89M is due, and it gets paid by IH. IH would pretty much own rights to everything Rossi had created and will create (derivatives) in most of the world. There would be very little Rossi could make and sell that would not have to go through IH. Does that sound like a desirable situation for Rossi as the positive outcome of the the suit he filed? Would an inventor that believed in what he had created just take the money and wash his hands of his creation, leaving it to a company who claims it cannot be brought to product?

Personally, I think there is 0 chance a jury would award the $89M to Rossi AND give him back his license. So the Rossi-positive outcome would be Rossi gets the $89M and everything he has developed and all of its derivatives are licensed to IH; OR, Rossi loses the bid to get the $89M (the primary purpose of the suit) and also doesn't get his license back; OR, Rossi loses, has to pay back the $11.5M to IH, and gets his license back. If Rossi really believed in what he had invented, and knowing that IH has lost complete faith in that invention, it seems Rossi would be happier if he lost his lawsuit. If Rossi were to win his lawsuit and get the $89M, it would seem that the only way he would be happy is if he knew the eCat didn't work.

Or Rossi crushed it on the GPT and IH knows it, but still doesn't want to pay the money. So rather than settle with him they make a roll of the dice.

Quote from JedRothwell

1. He just commented. He said "I cannot comment" and then he commented.

2. In his messages to I.H. he repeatedly described the management of JM in the third person; "they" did this or said that. He was talking about himself. Either he was being deceptive or he is stark staring bonkers. Who has conversations with himself?!?

Do you think Darden (IH) might ever refer to Cherokee investments as they, or some of the other shell companies he's responsible for?

Quote from LENR Calender

Paraphrasing Rossi's emails to IH:

"[...] something about the 1MW plant [...] I will direct the plant"

Then in his deposition he says that he meant he would direct the JMP plant.

Seemed pretty clear to me that he meant JM's plant.

Quote from sigmoidal

Well, let's take a look at Rossi's emails in June 2014 on the Docket, to see exactly what he said (Document 236-28):

On June 3rd, 1pm (excerpt):

[unrelated]

...

p.s.

I have found a Customer that will use the 1MW plant in his factory in Florida, paying Industrial Heat and also I am in contact with the health Care office for the authorization. I think in short time we can have the 1MW plant in operation. We must stay extremely focused on this now.

• Rossi has found a Customer, and 'he' is none other than Rossi himself. (BTW, Isn't this the highest level of Masow's hierarchy of needs, 'self discovery'? Rossi has found himself!)
  
• Rossi states that he is also in contact with the 'health Care office' for the authorization. (Does anyone believe he actually was in contact with such an agency?)

On June 3, 3:39pm (excerpt):

... it is necessary to have:

1- A Customer that uses the energy of the plant

2 - The necessary authorizations

If you have found the solutions, welcome. If not, I have and it is necessary we talk about these issues to establish a roadmap.

Warm Regards to all,

Andrea

• Rossi has 'found the solution', and he points out IH has not. Rossi's solution is to pose himself as the 'real customer' to IH.

Leonardo Corporation [controlled by Rossi] has found this solution:

On June 20th (excerpt):

...

a- a Customer has been found who will rent the 1MW plant to use it as a dryer for his chemical additives and catalyzers.

b- the Customer will install the plant in a factory of his in Florida.

c- the Customer will pay 1,000 $/day of rental fee starting from when the plant will be declared from me ready to operate. [Rossi is clearly talking about the 1MW plant here]

d- the director of the plant will be made by Andrea Rossi, for free, for the first 350 days of operation of the plant. [Again, Rossi is clearly talking about the 1MW plant here - any other meaning would be absurd - like he's going to operate the "real Customer's" plant for free?' that would certainly raise suspicion by IH]

e-Andrea Rossi will be assisted by Fulvio Fabiani who is a consultant of Industrial Heat. [Note that Fabiani has said he was not allowed on the JMP side. So this further supports the context that Rossi is describing how he will be supported in running the 1MW plant (not the JMP 'plant' - which was really just a crude serpentine pipe radiator - not any kind of 'plant').]

f- the Customer will have no access to the technology [of the 1MW e-cat], but his workers will be instructed to use the plant [again, this can only be construed to mean the 1MW plant] Maintenance and recharge will be made by Industrial Heat with the direction of Andrea Rossi. Since I have already started the operation regarding this plan please let me know if you agree upon all. [Rossi states that he 'had already started', but actually didn't have a warehouse, factory, real customer, or any reason for a 1 MW dryer (or dryer of any size energy)]

On June 10th and 23rd, Rossi sent emails that I already dissected in my previous post. The only statements describing 'direction' (excerpts):

June 10:

...

I confirm all I already said: we have a Customer who pays 1,000 $/day to rent the 1MW plant, put it in his factory in Miami, produce catalyzers that he sells; I will direct the operation of the plant for the first year, the contract will be for 3 years, renewable. The customer will not have access to the reactors.

...

• The Customer is Rossi - he had no factory, produced no catalyzers to sell.
• The only mention of the word 'plant' in this email is the 1MW plant, which of course someone had to 'direct' - so obviously, Rossi is stating that he will direct the 1MW plant, not "the Customer's".
• It's easy, however, to see how Rossi could confuse himself about these issues, given that he is talking about himself in the second and third person all the time.

June 23:

... He needs to prepare the factory in Florida with a dryer to be coupled with our plant, under my direction, and this work has to be started as soon as possible...

• Rossi is clearly stating that the 1MW plant will be under his direction, not the "Customer's" dryer. (Of course, we now know that he was directing everything, since this was all part of his scam.)
• Rossi cannot reasonably argue that this sentence, in context, is stating that he 'informed IH that he would be directing the plant in JM' for (at least) two reasons:
• 1) 'JM' has not even been mentioned yet, and is not stated in the email. Rossi didn't 'reveal' Johnson Mathey or JM until July.
• 2) At most, the sentence could be meaning that 'under my direction' would apply to the 'coupling' of the 1MW plant to the customers dryer, not to directing the customer's dryer (which Rossi does not call a plant). Rossi only uses the word 'plant' to refer to the 1MW plant. He makes this clear when he references it as 'our plant'.

Based on the evidence on the docket, Rossi's statements on JONP that he informed IH that he would be directing 'JM' are untrue. There are no emails in June (or any other time) where Rossi informs IH that he is the director of JM. Of course, we now know that he directed everything. And it is clear from the emails, that this was his pre-conceived plan to deceive and scam IH.

Display More

It seems clear to me, at least without your added explanation in bold print, that he is referring to the JM plant. Why would he have to inform them that he would operate the 1MW plant for free. Obviously they already knew this and I think anyone with an open mind would interpret it this way.

Quote from Rionrlty

It seems clear to me, at least without your added explanation in bold print, that he is referring to the JM plant. Why would he have to inform them that he would operate the 1MW plant for free. Obviously they already knew this and I think anyone with an open mind would interpret it this way.

Rionrlty,

I guess it is clear to you, now, because you have the idea in your head that this is so.

a- a Customer has been found who will rent the 1MW plant to use it as a dryer for his chemical additives and catalyzers.

b- the Customer will install the plant in a factory of his in Florida.

c- the Customer will pay 1,000 $/day of rental fee starting from when the plant will be declared from me ready to operate.

d- the director of the plant will be made by Andrea Rossi, for free, for the first 350 days of operation of the plant.

Those points cannot in a million years be interpreted as you say. There is no ambiguity: the plant always refers to Rossi's 1MW plant. The customer's equipment is referred to as a dryer. The directing here must be direction of self-same 1MW plant. Given that the customer here is renting some complex new equipment it is expected that Rossi will state who runs it (himself) and how much that will cost the customer (nothing for the first year).

In any case the context of these comments is that Rossi has found some distinct-from-himself customer, whom he repeatedly talks about in the third person and implies said customer has wishes, demands, etc separate from Rossi. It is a Rossi-esque twisting of the truth to claim given such misdirection that IH should or could have known Rossi was referring to himself. If, for example, you in your professional life twisted words like this, and could be proved to have done so, don't you think you would be found guilty of deceit? I can't believe you would ever do this.

So why is it somehow different when Rossi does it?

This thread continues to generate interesting takes on the phrase open mind.

Quote from Rionrlty

Or Rossi crushed it on the GPT and IH knows it, but still doesn't want to pay the money. So rather than settle with him they make a roll of the dice.

How could IH possibly know that the GPT was 100% valid? They had no ability to inspect it, missing data, missing piping, weird reported measurements, themselves reported in a weird non-independent fashion, no final report delivered as promised, etc, etc...

You can argue whether enough evidence is left for them post hoc to know it shows non-performance, I agree. In fact they argue that in their response to the third party defence against spoliation. But know it is valid? How?

Document 299 (IH response to 3rd party defence against accusation of spoliation) is interesting.

I had thought one weak area here was whether 3rd parties knew that the data they admit to destroying was important and relevant to legal action. IH refer to sworn evidence from Vaughn as attached exhibit to 299 (not contradicted, I assume, by sworn evidence from anyone else) that 3rd parties were informed that any destruction of data, or refusal to hand it over, on their part would result in legal action.

If the timing here fits: e.g. they cannot claim to have destroyed data before this meeting, this looks quite strong evidence, though I'm not sure taking a step back whether it will be enough for a judge to agree and so destroy completely Rossi's case through adverse inference.

Quote from Italianlawyer

A misrepresentation is not a fraud. A misrepresentation is a misrepresentation. In order to have fraud - in all civilized countries - the misrepresentation should be linked with an illicit gain.

I mean, the real ownership of Jp is irrilevant. Maybe the owner of Jp was me (I'm joking). Who cares? The only relevant thing is if the Rossi's report was "real" or fake.

I think it is clear from the documents that Rossi used (that e-mail where he described his plan with the real customer as wonderful PR that IH would want to use) the argument of a real (serious, independent, respected company) customer as a way to induce IH to allow this one year test, from which he hopes (still) to gain $89M. IH have stated (sorry no link cos can't remember, somone's sworn testimony) that a real customer would provide valuable validation. And it is pretty obvious that is the case.

So if the information he gave IH about this is a misrepresentation, then it has a very good chance of being fraud. The defence would be that IH were going to let Rossi run the test anyway, so this ruse by Rossi did not result in any gain to Rossi. But, then, it also allowed Rossi to claim that IH were not allowed to inspect the system as it was being tested. I think Rossi might be in trouble on this one.

I understand your point of view and respect it. But the possibility to inspec the plant is irrilevant, if we assume the test was "real". The core fact is: was the test a real test? If measures were rights (substantial excess of heat) and the erv did a good job, IH should pay.

Because IH acted as that was the gpt.

I would say that Rossi used "dolus bonus" instead of "dolus malus". I mean he used an innocent deception about his control over the client. According to me, it's not enough to say he is a fraudster.

The situation could change in respect to the test itself. Someone states that the Doral test was totally fake. This would mean the report has been deliberately manipulated. That the Plant was not able to produce excess of heat. Well, I think the trial will show the truth, let's say in the next 2-3 months. If the test was manipulated, Rossi will lost. If the test was duly conducted, he will win.

It's clear Rossi didn't trust IH. He didn't comunicate data and details about the physic principle which allows his plant to work. You can interpret his conduct as a scammer conduct. Or, maybe, as the desire to not comunicate info that would had allowed IH to replicate "Rossi effect".

Again, sorry for my English.

Italianlawyer

Your english is fine.

I agree that if you start from the assumption that Rossi's tested device truly did what Rossi claims, you might morally think Rossi is in the right. Legally is a different matter, since contracts are contracts and Rossi's argument that IH pay has quite a number of problems quite different from whether the device actually worked, including the test, if IH was fraudulently induced to run it.

I can't see the trial proving this assumption. It could knock it on the head completely, through additional evidence. For example, that Rossi's claimed heat exchanger could not possibly dissipate 1MW, which would directly contradict the Penon Report. That argument is clear to anyone here able to do a few wind flow calculations and use a web calculator, since Wong has done most of the necessary work!

Otherwise, how can you distinguish between poor science that leads to erroneous data, and deliberate manipulation, when the raw results and associated e-mails have all been deleted?

We have balance of probabilities. Given Rossi's deceit and lack of transparency over the testing IH look to win that. That would be true even if what Rossi was selling was a better electric toaster and not a claimed disruptive scientific development which has never been independently tested and is considered highly unlikely by most scientists.

Quote from Italianlawyer

I understand your point of view and respect it. But the possibility to inspec the plant is irrilevant, if we assume the test was "real". The core fact is: was the test a real test? If measures were rights (substantial excess of heat) and the erv did a good job, IH should pay.

Because IH acted as that was the gpt.

I would say that Rossi used "dolus bonus" instead of "dolus malus". I mean he used an innocent deception about his control over the client. According to me, it's not enough to say he is a fraudster.

The situation could change in respect to the test itself. Someone states that the Doral test was totally fake. This would mean the report has been deliberately manipulated. That the Plant was not able to produce excess of heat. Well, I think the trial will show the truth, let's say in the next 2-3 months. If the test was manipulated, Rossi will lost. If the test was duly conducted, he will win.

It's clear Rossi didn't trust IH. He didn't comunicate data and details about the physic principle which allows his plant to work. You can interpret his conduct as a scammer conduct. Or, maybe, as the desire to not comunicate info that would had allowed IH to replicate "Rossi effect".

Again, sorry for my English.

Display More

Your English is good.

The first hurtle that Rossi must jump is that if the test fulfilled the requirements of the contract. That required that there was a signed approval for the start by all THREE parties. for the start of the Guaranteed Performance Test (GPT) and that the work at Doral was not just another general test or as Rossi originally claimed a two year sell of heat to a "customer". He might be able to get around that IF it is found that some other approval was given.

The technical matters of what was done at Doral are secondary to the case. If the argument for the GPT fails, then the technical issues only matter for the counter suit against Rossi et al.

The issue of him not giving information about the working of the plant seems to be a requirement of his transfer of the intellectual property he sold to IH. If he did not give the full intellectual property required of the technology to IH then he would be in valuation of his previous agreements which specified technology transfer to IH.

Quote from IH Fanboy

@oldguy,

I believe the "misrepresentation" began in good faith with initial contacts with Johnson Matthey, and to persuade IH to get the test underway. Even Vaughn says in an email that Rossi persuaded IH to have the plant moved to Miami so that the "test" (i.e., Vaughn's word) could be performed. What began in good faith then seems to have taken on a life of its own when the relationship with Johnson Matthey faltered. But the initial impetus was not to defraud, but to get IH-drag-our-feet moving.

I see nothing in evidence yet that collaborates Rossi's claim that he negotiated with Johnson Matthey. All I see is Rossi says and perhaps an email from Rossi warning IH not to contact Johnson Matthey to check on his claim of negotiation,

I would think that IF he really did negotiate with Johnson Matthey, he would at the least produced emails or even a contact name of those negotiation to collaborate his story. So far I have seen none.

It sound to me that it is just a wild Rossi claim with no independent verification.

Quote from Rionrlty

Or Rossi crushed it on the GPT and IH knows it,

Did you read Penon's report? How can you claim he might have "crushed" the test? Anyone can see it was a failure, and the report itself was a joke. Rossi tacitly admitted that by coming up with the imaginary, invisible mezzanine heat exchanger long after the fact.

Quote from Rionrlty

Do you think Darden (IH) might ever refer to Cherokee investments as they, or some of the other shell companies he's responsible for?

Do you think Darden would have a conversation with himself, and refer to the person he is talking to (himself) as "he"? Would you do that? Would you interview yourself and pretend you are someone else, like this:

"I do not know the details of this lawsuit, but I asked Rionrlty -- who has inside information -- and he assures me I.H. is guilty, guilty, guilty!"

You don't find that weird? Of course, Rossi did not actually say that he himself was the person he was talking to. So he wasn't crazy, but fraudulent.

Fabiani's data doesn't match the ERV data (huge discrepancies), Rossi's data doesn't match the ERV data (huge discrepancies), the ERV input data doesn't match the FPL data (huge discrepancies), the Plant worked for hours and hours after it was shut off and partially disassembled (several times), etc....

Guaranteed Performance, my ass.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Rionrlty,

I guess it is clear to you, now, because you have the idea in your head that this is so.

a- a Customer has been found who will rent the 1MW plant to use it as a dryer for his chemical additives and catalyzers.

b- the Customer will install the plant in a factory of his in Florida.

c- the Customer will pay 1,000 $/day of rental fee starting from when the plant will be declared from me ready to operate.

d- the director of the plant will be made by Andrea Rossi, for free, for the first 350 days of operation of the plant.

Those points cannot in a million years be interpreted as you say. There is no ambiguity: the plant always refers to Rossi's 1MW plant.

Display More

I think there is ambiguity. It could be interpreted either way. In fact, I think the best interpretation is that "the plant" referred to the whole setup, including the equipment on the JMP side. Otherwise, why would the email say that the "Customer will install the plant"?

Quote from JedRothwell

Do you think Darden would have a conversation with himself, and refer to the person he is talking to (himself) as "he"? Would you do that? Would you interview yourself and pretend you are someone else, like this:

"I do not know the details of this lawsuit, but I asked Rionrlty -- who has inside information -- and he assures me I.H. is guilty, guilty, guilty!"

You don't find that weird? Of course, Rossi did not actually say that he himself was the person he was talking to. So he wasn't crazy, but fraudulent.

In fact that is what IH essentially did when the various IH shell companies were deposed. Companies are persons: legal fictions. And people who own different companies often refer to them as such, as if they were separate persons. And that is okay.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Fabiani's data doesn't match the ERV data (huge discrepancies),

Murray's primary criticism was that Fabiani's data matched the ERV data. Seems Rossi can't win either way with you folks.

Quote

Rossi's data doesn't match the ERV data (huge discrepancies),

Citation please.

Quote

the ERV input data doesn't match the FPL data (huge discrepancies), ...

For a period toward the latter half of November, yes. And several possible explanations have been put forth, first and foremost being the reliability of the smart meter (which are notoriously unreliable).