Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    JedRothwell gave a one word response “Nonsense” to my comment, “the only “test” is a customer making money using LENR”


    If we are using one word retorts on this site my one word for this topic is “Extraneous”.
    The basic question of the law suit is, does the Rossi reactor work? If Rossi proves to the judge or jury that it works, he wins. If Rossi, or anyone else for that matter, simply shows an economic benefit for LENR, they win. If that is done all the tests, demonstrations, presentations are meaningless. Testing for safety and development as with many other utility or economically beneficial inventions, would be made after an economic demand for the invention, (i.e. the airplane).

    Quote from LENR Calender

    What does Rossi win exactly if he proves his device works? The judge and jury will still have to figure out who owes what to whom given the licence agreement.


    I doubt he will win, but if he does my guess is that IH will declare bankruptcy and Rossi will get very little - just whatever hardware IH may have like the Rossi's shipping container and the 6 cylinder unit. It is not like they are an ongoing business with a large bank account, buildings, or a revenue stream. The investors just transfer money to IH as it needs it.

    Reading this I still wonder why Jonnson got himself involved in this. Maybe he rolled the dice to see if he could set this all up and collect the $89MM. Who knows how much of that was promised to him by AR? But still, it looks like he has a decent legal practice. I wonder how much time he took to calculate the risk of it going this way. Based on these accusations being disbarred and criminal fraud charges are not out of the realm of possibility for him.

    One portion of the newly filed document I find quite interesting...


    "Third-Party Defendants also erroneously contend that Counter-Plaintiffs are required to
    allege independent corroboration for certain facts which they have alleged in support of their
    FDUTPA claim. See Motion at 12 (“Counter-Plaintiffs fail to set forth any facts to support the
    conclusion that Bass was not the Director of Engineering or that JMP was not satisfied with the
    steam energy or that it was not using the steam energy.”). Because the 3rd Amended AACT’s
    allegations must be accepted as true, the Court must reject Third-Party Defendants’ efforts to
    dispute the allegations. See Guarisma, 2016 WL 4017196, at *2; Watts, 2015 WL 7736532, at
    *8. In any event, if there are any allegations in the 3rd Amended AACT that the Court concludes
    require independent corroboration, Counter-Plaintiffs can and will provide such corroboration in
    a subsequent amendment."


    In the above, IH had contended that JMP was not a "real" company, they did not have any "real" use for the heat, that they did not have any production and that Bass's job was phony.
    Rossi's camp responded in their motion for dismissal that they did not deny the accusations, but that IH did not provide any evidence that the accusations were fact. Any interesting defense, in that they did not implicitly deny the accusations.


    Then IH's answer was some legal verbage followed by this :


    "In any event, if there are any allegations in the 3rd Amended AACT that the Court concludes
    require independent corroboration, Counter-Plaintiffs can and will provide such corroboration in
    a subsequent amendment." (emphasis mine)


    They are stating that if the court requests it, they CAN provide the evidence that JMP was a lie, that there was no production, that the heat was not used and that Bass had no actual duties!
    I hope that the court asks for this evidence and it is posted on the docket. It would be very interesting and assuming it backs IH's assertions, this would do quite a bit of damage to Rossi's defense against the fraud counter suit. Many here already lean towards the notion that there was no production and that the 1MW heat dissipation was clear evidence that the eCat did not work, but this is all on hearsay or assumption. It will be good to see definitive evidence revealed to put the question to rest!.

    Consistent with their previous responses to Motions To Dismiss (MTD) submitted by Rossi, IH's legal team has done their homework in their response to the third parties' MTD. A detailed analysis is not needed nor particularly informative, in my mind.


    In general, IH correctly 'reminds' the court that the evidence and facts IH has presented and asserted must be accepted as true when the court evaluates the third parties (Johnson, JMP, Fabiani, Penon, Bass) MTD. This is to refute the third parties' rather lame claim that IH's case was not made with sufficient specificity. It's pretty obvious that none of the Motions requested by the third parties will be granted by the court.


    The main information we have from this filing is that IH continues to press forward with what looks like a 'burn the whole thing down' strategy. They explicitly re-state that they are not merely suing for the 11.5 million, but they also want their payments to Fabiani and Penon back. And they are essentially reinforcing their claims of fraud against all of them (including Bass and of course Johnson).


    This doesn't necessarily mean that IH will win all of the arguments and requested payments in a jury trial, but it's a virtual lock that all of their claims against the third parties will be actionable in court, just as all of their counter claims against Rossi will be actionable in court.


    At a minimum, this gives them more leverage for a more favorable settlement. But my sense is that they are focused on both getting as much money back as possible AND doing as much damage as possible to the reputations of this crew, because they sincerely believe that they are fraudulent liars and an impediment to LENR progress. The best way to trash the 'Rossi ships' reputation is to have a trial and let the whole stinking mess come out to the public.


    I also think that they believe that pursuing this strategy will probably result in the best PR outcome they can hope for coming out of this whole debacle.


    Quote

    "In any event, if there are any allegations in the 3rd Amended AACT that the Court concludes require independent corroboration, Counter-Plaintiffs can and will provide such corroboration ina subsequent amendment." (emphasis mine)


    I doubt we'll see any new evidence from IH before trial, unfortunately. The MTD by the third parties will be rejected by the court, without any additional evidence submitted by IH. I think the 'Counter-Plaintiffs can and will provide...' statement is just there to emphasize the point that their existing claims are adequate, while providing a back-up in the extremely remote situation that the court thinks IH has not been specific enough in their claims.

    • Official Post

    JD pretty much mopped the floor with the defense arguments of Johnson/Fabiani/Bass. Not surprising as they are playing a very weak hand. Hopefully, when the judge denies their MTD, they will throw in the towel and turn on Rossi as he deserves. Get this thing over with, and let IH get on with their business. It would be a travesty of justice to me if this is allowed much further, and especially so if given to a jury to decide.


    Hopefully too, this opens the eyes of the remaining followers, so they can see this QuarkX for what it is...another con by the master. Well, maybe not such a master, as this Doral thing was amateurish and had almost no chance of succeeding against professional investors. I just can't believe he got the 4 others to go along with it.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    And guess what? One of these fools still sits, with all it's fortune, in Florida and conducts "research".


    Why doesn't he feel the danger? Can any body tell us, when he personally saw/met Rossi? ..


    I would not doubt that they will brake ranks in the near future. I also would not be surprised if on of those files sue against Rossi.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Why doesn't he feel the danger? Can any body tell us, when he personally saw/met Rossi? ..



    Wyttenbach,


    You must be talking about Fabiani. We really do not know what is going through his mind right now. Nor does his staying in Miami tell us anything about his guilt or innocence. He could be in a panic for all we know, or maybe not as you suggest. He is though looking at losing money, and has already lost much of his reputation. Even were he innocent...which he probably is not, he will take a hit just for "guilt by association"...so I am guessing he is more worried than you think.

    I'm guessing this is why Jones Day is going after the fees that IH paid to Penon and Fabiani. It probably wasn't a ton of money, but if one of them can cut a deal to not have to return their money if they admit their wrongdoing then IH would jump on that to get AR and Johnson. It would then come down to Penon and Fabiani's loyalty to AR to keep quiet.


    Also, they will have to make sure they are protected against any future criminal charges. IH could make that happen too. The Florida statutes for criminal fraud are pretty broad. Essentially any effort to obtain financial reward through deception can constitute fraud.


    In this case we are talking potentially major deception where several people conspired to lie about a fake company needing power for its business as part of an attempt to claim an $89MM payday. Yes, the agreement primarily rested on heat production and not the customer, but if I were AR and the rest of this group I would not want anyone from the Florida State Attorney's office to be reading the same things we have been.

    • Official Post

    Deleo,


    I think you are right about Fabiani. Not sure about Penon cutting a deal though, as his part of the deception goes back years, to when he first helped Rossi get the Ecats "Safety Certificate" back in 2012 (13). Penon was the third party doing the "successful test" that the certificator observed, and then signed off on. That followed with Penon being the first to authenticate the Hotcat, and later on he was the ERV for the Validation Test (VT) IH based their decision to invest on. Even were he to be able to cut a deal by turning against Rossi, he is professionally ruined. All that great education down the tubes for Rossi and the chance for a few dollars...amazing.


    If there is one person, who without his help, Rossi never could have made it this far, Penon would be the guy. Even with Penon helping, Rossi still would not have gained the traction he did, without the Ferrara/Lugano reports giving him credibility.

    Quote

    If there is one person, who without his help, Rossi never could have made it this far, Penon would be the guy. Even with Penon helping, Rossi still would not have gained the traction he did, without the Ferrara/Lugano reports giving him credibility.


    And Penon has not responded to this suit against him, has no legal representation with regard to this suit, and is (conveniently) purported to be in Italy. Hmmm, why would that be. Think, think, think...

    Quote from sigmoidal

    And Penon has not responded to this suit against him, has no legal representation with regard to this suit, and is (conveniently) purported to be in Italy. Hmmm, why would that be. Think, think, think...


    it does make you wonder.


    But assuming that Rossi gets over the - was it the GPT, was it signed, was the date of start accepted, and so on.


    I don't see how he can have much of a case if Penon is there (or at least a deposition) to substantiate the ERV report and take questions as to what equipment was used, how it was used, verify the protocol was followed as he initially set up and other such relevant questions..

    • Official Post
    Quote from Eric Walker

    Doc. 102, a notice of hearing, now on the docket together with its attachments, docs. 102-01 and 102-02.



    Eric,


    Again thanks. BTW, in your spare time do you throw raw meat to starving lions? Just wondering. :)


    Quick read convinces me that a defense lawyers job is so much easier than counsel for the accuser...argue the law, throw up a smokescreen, and avoid the facts. Yes, I know the roles are somewhat confused as IH started out as the defense, but turned accuser. Nonetheless, a good reading of the issue will show my reasoning. Hopefully.


    Anyways, looks like there is a serious hearing tomorrow.

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.