Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    • Official Post
    Quote from randombit0

    "Thereby"?? Why these things should exclude each other? We already knew that JMC was owned by “an individual or entity formed in the United Kingdom”, not necessarily a corporation. Much ado about nothing....



    RBO,


    Here is the whole comment from the court documents:


    "Rossi (Leonardo), and Johnson, both in his individual capacity and as the
    representative of JMP, traveled to North Carolina in August 2014 to meet with individuals from Industrial Heat. During this meeting, Rossi and Johnson made a number of false representations to Industrial Heat, most notably that JMP (at the time called J.M. Chemical Products, Inc.) was a confidential subsidiary of Johnson Matthey p.l.c. (“Johnson Matthey”), and that Johnson Matthey was interested in using the E-Cat technology in connection with a confidential manufacturing process it wanted to operate in Florida. In fact, in August 2014 Johnson on behalf of JMP even warranted in writing that JMP “[was] owned by an entity formed in the United Kingdom, and none of Leonardo, Dr. Andrea Rossi, Henry W. Johnson nor any of their respective subsidiaries, directors, officers, agents, employees, affiliates, significant others, or relatives by blood or marriage [had] any ownership interest” in JMP. See Compl. Ex. B. (lastpage of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit). JMP, however, has never been a subsidiary of Johnson Matthey, was not operating or planning to operate any manufacturing process in Florida, and was in fact owned by persons whom Johnson represented in writing did not have any ownership interest in JMP."


    From this we can see that Rossi/Johnson told IH, albeit orally, in a meeting that this "entity" was a "subsidiary of Johnson Matthey p.l.c.". Rossi already admitted on his JONP that Johnson Matthey had nothing to do with this, although he claims to have bought some things from them. If this were not enough to have the case tossed....


    Rossi claimed in his "pitch"/appeal to IH to transfer the 1MW to Doral -instead of "your (IH) proposal to put the plant in a factory owned by yourself...is dramatically less convincing", that the customer was of the "chemical industry", a "real customer", and they would use the steam to "process their chemical products".


    Even if Rossi/Johnson can argue their way out of what they told IH orally in NC, they then have to prove what they put in writing, that some "entity...formed in the UK", actually exists, that is a real chemical company, with a legitimate product, and used the steam for production, or they lied. If they cannot prove so, then the case will be tossed.


    Also, Rossi said he would use Doral to "get the authorizations for the next plants". If he did not, and we know he did not, he lied and the case will be tossed.

    Rossi is also on the record saying he would get "the authorization from the Florida State Control Office" (interesting he would offer this, but that is another story) before starting the 2 year operation. If he did not get that, which he almost definitely did not, he lied, yet again.


    Just one lie to a partner discovered after a contract is agreed upon, will invalidate that contract. How many do we have so far? So does anyone still think Rossi/Johnson has a hand to play, and if yes, can his showing it prove all he is on record as saying?

    randombit0: your questions have all been answered before, but I'll give direct answers below, in case this helps.


    Quote from randombit0

    If IH knew from the beginning that this test was the GPT from Rossi's point of view (whereas they considered it just a test for which they would not pay a cent), why they accepted this situation?


    They could not "know" this. Rossi had told then clearly that it was something different, which they could not properly object to, and in fact which might just possibly provide useful information if Rossi were telling the truth. I said that IH suspected Rossi would play dirty (they might have been so naive they did not but I doubt it).


    Quote

    Why they did not put the record straight instead of carry investors around the plant? I can't believe how you can consider this behavior as a fair attitude!


    What record is not straight? How can you possibly know what they told investors? You should ask Dewey, who was one of them, he has explained in detail what IH told people... (Rossi is probably a flake, they had not managed to get his stuff to work, etc, etc).


    Quote

    What do you really know about the calorimetry?


    Based on documented analysis of Lugano on threads here, provably more than you...

    Quote


    Have you ever read one of the four Penon's reports?

    Yes. I've read the very embarrasing one that Rossi published which contravened standard test report protocols glaringly. I'm sure, since you have read them, you don't need me to remind you which but if needed I'll do this?


    Quote

    You are jumping to hasty conclusion, following IH's words, which are not confirmed by any evidences.


    Not true. I'm paying attention to what Jed has said, and (separately) IH. They would not lie because that would be most unwise. And Rossi has given nothing in answer. That is unwise, if he has any answer, because there is a decent chance this case will never reach Court.


    I am also wondering why you think Rossi (Johnson) seemingly lied about the JMP parent company, ownership, etc, etc?

    quote="Why they did not put the record straight instead of carry investors around the plant? …"


    of course they would show the investors around Rossi's plant. They had visited the other sites where IH had invested in other research. How could they deny their primary investors a visit to their biggest expenditure even if they had grave doubt by that time.


    In all likelihood, they advised them that they had failed to make Rossi's system work.

    Quote from ele

    Quote from Deleo: “It really is a puzzle to me why Johnson got himself involved in this mess. Of course AR promised him a huge chunk of money if he could get his hands on the $89MM.”


    Maybe because he knew that there was nothing wrong about that? He…


    Let's assume that AR goes on and wins this court case and IH has to cough up $89MM. What would need to happen to support that?


    1. Proof would be shown that a real customer existed that paid for and used the heat supplied by the e-cat There was a real customer and it worked.


    2. Johnson setup the papers on behalf of this customer. He created the legal entity and necessary documentation for the customer. But the customer is a legitimate entity that needed the heat for their business.


    Where is any evidence of this in the discovery so far? Either AR and Johnson are flat out lying, or they are holding some key facts with supporting evidence out of the discovery process. If AR is trying to collect $89MM, why do this? What rationale could there possibly be?

    Quote

    Let's assume that AR goes on and wins this court case and IH has to cough up $89MM. What would need to happen to support that?1. Proof would be shown that a real customer existed that paid for and used the heat supplied by the e-cat There was a real customer and it worked. 2. Johnson setup the papers on behalf of this customer. He created the legal entity and necessary documentation for the customer.


    The 89M contract, if found valid, says nothing about presence or absence of customers, so this is not quite right.


    IH's counter-suit for fraud depends in part of the non-existence of a customer, but the 89M depends only on the validity of the contract and that the test is legally a GPT, and has (legally) a positive outcome. That would require that the calorimetry was competent and proper, but says nothing about the customer.

    [quote='THHuxley',The 89M contract, if found valid, says nothing about presence or absence of customers, so this is not quite right.
    …[/quote]


    Yes but the actions of the customer on the other side of the wall is important. It seems that the ERV did not measure the flow of heated fluid out of the device but only the returned chilled water.


    That is the ERV was not measuring the heated fluid out of Rossi's system but only the material supplied from the "customer". They do not have to be the same things.


    so the actions of the other side of the wall come into question. There needs to be some proof that the ERV assumptions that the system was a closed loop and steam flowed on the other side the wall and not just hot water.

    Quote from Shane D.

    Even if Rossi/Johnson can argue their way out of what they told IH orally in NC


    .. Any court will believe this ..


    Quote from Shane D.

    Just one lie to a partner discovered after a contract is agreed upon, will invalidate that contract.


    .. that's the reason why all marriages break after one day..


    Quote from oldguy

    That is the ERV was not measuring the heated fluid out of Rossi's system but only the material supplied from the "customer". They do not have to be the same things.


    .. Nobody has seen a signed report of the ERV, but some very much believe they have ...


    Somebody has to collect all this fuss, and write a comedy... but I'll wait for the sentence...

    Wyttenbach


    Yes there is a question about a signed EV report. But without Penon we may never know. It sounds like the last report was never given (at least Joe repeatedly asked for it so he could pay as late as mid April) I am beginning to wonder if the final report with a signature ever existed.


    But at any rate, the customer's actions are important since they claimed to get the returned water from there. Was it water, was it pressurized, was there any steam delivered from the system,...... The customer was not needed but hiding part of the claimed "loop" is important.

    Quote from oldguy

    Was it water, was it pressurized, was there any steam delivered from the system,......


    The returning fluid was water, unpressurized. As I recall it was at 80 deg C. I do not know what went into the customer site, but I doubt it was pure steam. I suspect it was hot water slightly pressurized to allow a temperature just over 100 deg C. That does not take much pressure. See:


    https://durathermfluids.com/pd…ressure-boiling-point.pdf

    Quote from THHuxley

    That would require that the calorimetry was competent and proper, but says nothing about the customer.


    Technically that is right. But I.H. introduced some evidence showing the customer was fake. I do not understand the legal language but I gather a fake customer would mean the whole operation was fake which means the contract is void as a matter of law, even if that has no direct technical effect on the data.


    As a practical matter, I sure wouldn't pay $89 million for something as dodgy as this.


    Plus, as noted by Oldguy, it was important to know what happened in the customer site. With all the problems in the calorimetry described in Exhibit 5, the only way you could possibly verify it would be to examine whatever is in the customer site.

    Alainco - If anything worked in the slightest then R would not have gone to such an extensive effort to try and pull off this high dollar parlor trick.
    You can never tell a lie the same way twice and those chickens (not a small number) have thankfully come home to roost, just in time for Christmas.
    Stunning developments........

    • Official Post
    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    If anything worked in the slightest then R would not have gone to such an extensive effort to try and pull off this high dollar parlor trick



    Dewey,


    If you don't mind, we would like to keep believing Rossi has a little something. At the least, the part about melting reactors. Not enough COP, or reliability, to make you pay the $89 million, but just enough so we can keep the story alive. Life without him would be so boring. Thank you.

    Not exactly sure how to describe the newest document (doc. 95), but the plaintiffs have filed a motion for leave to file their Answer and Affirmative Defenses, over the objections of IH's counsel. I gather (1) that there was some confusion about submission deadlines when IH submitted their third amended answer and counterclaims; (2) that the plaintiffs were late in filing their answer; (3) that in such a case it looks like it might be necessary to obtain the consent of the opposing counsel for a late filing; and that (4) IH's counsel objected to this. Not sure if this is correct, or if it is, what the implications might be.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.