Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

AR seems very quiet on his blog today.....

Quote from IH Fanboy

I don't get the idea that somehow a sale of heat takes it outside of the domain of a GPT. The ERV was making quarterly reports. IH was making visits and approving of it along the way. A final report was generated by the ERV. I kind of doubt that the judge/jury will go along with this notion that it wasn't the GPT. But it definitely isn't a slam dunk--for either side.

Rossi and IH (and possibly AEG) did need to agree on a start date as stipulated in the second amendment to the licence.

In Rossi's complaint, #65 says:

Quote

65. Accordingly, on January 28,2015, the ERV prepared and submitted to the parties

a proposed test protocol for the Guaranteed Performance Test. After suggesting minor changes to

the test protocol, and clarifying other points, DARDEN on behalf of IH andlor IPH agreed to the

test protocol prior to the commencement of the Guaranteed Performance Test.

Display More

IH denied #65.

I haven't seen a Rossi response to that denial.

MrSelfSustain, even if what you said is true, I would still argue that AR is getting into dangerous territory here. The common defense line so far has been that AR is holding key details back, or he is keeping certain things a secret. If I were his attorney (and I'm glad I'm not) I would suggest that he provide some real evidence right now to show that this was not all set up as a way to defraud Darden for millions of dollars.

AR may not see it this way, his followers may not see it that way, and IH may have no interest in pursuing criminal charges against AR. But with a complete lack of evidence provided by AR so far to support any of his claims, well that could get the attention of someone in the Florida State Attorney's office who is looking to pursue a nice criminal case like this to bolster their resume. The people in that office have access to all of the same documents that we do here.

While this is not a high profile case, there was real money involved and "cold fusion fraud trial" may get in the newspapers. If anyone is wondering what constitutes criminal fraud in the state of FL, just read below and you can decide how much fire AR is playing with right now:

http://law.justia.com/codes/fl…005/TitleXLVI/ch0817.html

The supposed bombshell in 93 falls flat when I read it. I can think of a number of explanations that square with what we already knew. The parent company might have divested of JMP prior to the disclosure. Rossi might have been told by someone from JMP that it had a parent company, when it really never did. The parent company conjecture might have been a figment of the community's imagination. Rossi might have exaggerated. MrSelfSustain pointed out some of these above.

Dewey once again calls the whole thing over and done with based on this one disclosure. When there are real bombshells, there won't be any question in anyone's mind that it is a bombshell. And no doubt, they are coming.

They are bombshells alright and you don't even know the half if it (yet). Bagdad Bob could do a better job for Planet Rossi than these clowns.
Rossi better produce some supporting discovery soon - his idea of holding out until he can get in front of the jury has clocked out - a strategy that has rotted from the head down.

So, JMP, not some foreign entity, is buying the three Plants sold to the pleased Customer?

Alainco - first we have to clean up a big stain.

Quote from MrSelfSustain

Basically, I'm all but convinced JM Products Inc. was never a subsidiary of Johnson Matthey.

I never thought it was. The header on the request for invoice never stated that. Rossi always denied that it was. My guess is that JMC had a parent company from the UK at the time of entering into the license agreement, and things have since changed.

Quote from THHuxley

Whatever else you think, it is clear that the calorimetry (all under Rossi's control) would not be proper for any test of performance with $89M riding on the result. Regardless of what any contract said. There are rules about fairness etc and obeying the spirit of the agreement . . .

Of course that is the moral case. The legal case is simpler - this was not the GPT.

The quality of the test would also be a legal case. It is never good enough to satisfy a narrow definition of a contract on paper only, without actually performing the work correctly. I have enough experience in business to know that is not how contracts work. There are implicit guarantees in any contract, product or service. For example, if you hire a licensed plumber to install a new sink, and the plumbing leaks or the sink is installed incorrectly, you can demand your money back or demand the work be done over. Even if you paid and signed a receipt that includes your agreement that the job was done, if you find out it was not done right, you have an automatic recourse to demand it be fixed. The trade laws override any agreement. All regulators and agencies enforce that. It has happened to me and to companies I work for many times. The plumber cannot point to the receipt and say "I don't have fix anything."

In the other direction, a customer who pays and signs off on a contract cannot come back later and demand the work be done over for no reason. Just being dissatisfied or deciding you don't want it after all doesn't count.

In this case, we are talking about a heater. As I have pointed out, methods of measuring heat are defined by the regulations in Florida, which are based on ASME standards. It is abundantly clear that Rossi's work did not meet these regulations. Any qualified engineer will testify to that. Any engineer who testifies otherwise would be committing perjury, and would run the risk of losing his license. There is no way Rossi can charge for services rendered when the regulations prove he did not render any services.

Let me add that you are not allowed to use cute legal tricks or dodges to circumvent trade laws. You cannot say: "We agreed beforehand that Mr. Penon would adjudicate the results and decide whether the contract is fulfilled. He says it is fulfilled, so you have to pay $89 million." It never works that way. If, by conventional engineering standards and regulatory standards, it is clear the work was not done correctly, and it does not meet code, then you don't have to pay. It makes no difference what the contract says or what Mr. Penon comes up with.

If this were a complex scientific experiment, or something like a project in artificial intelligence where standards have not yet been developed, the results might be debatable. In that hypothetical situation Rossi might argue that the test was done correctly. However, this is a very simple claim which can be tested by methods that go back to 1880, when the ASME was founded for the very purposes this test is supposed to meet -- to codify and regulate boiler testing and safety standards. This is no more complicated that a test to prove that an automobile prototype can go at 60 mph for 1 hour. There is no doubt that Rossi's test was a farce that did not meet code, his data was crudely faked, the instruments could not possibly show what he claimed, and if the claims were true the observers would be dead.

Quote from Mary Yugo

Defkalion vanished altogether and no suits.

There may be lawsuits. In his Final Report, Gamberale implied that lawsuits were coming. I have heard rumors that other companies are suing Defkalion. It is probably like trying to squeeze blood from a turnip.

It is also true that if you find that the ERV was paid "on the side", you might be able to show that they were part of a conspiracy to overthrow the agreement.

For example it is still very unsettling about the apparent previous independent testing where Univ. records show Fulvio Fabiani paid Levi $75k for "pinball consulting work" from 2013 to 2015. Things like that may be enough to rise grave questions about the independence and objectivity of someone doing the testing, especially when the ERV goes into hiding to avoid questioning.

If it is found that Penon received more money from Rossi than that from IH then he violated the agreement which held that IH and Rossi would pay him 50/50.

@oldguy

Any evidence to back up your speculation?