Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • Regarding IH's request to file Amendment 4 and exhibits


    I didn't see any records from Florida Power and Light, and there is no explicit reference in their motion (124), so I'm not sure how they are arguing this. Perhaps IH is not required to include this evidence in the filing? I find that strange, though.


    Regarding Fabiani's contract, it's in 124-29. It has a glaring typo! On page 6, you can see that the "Duration of the Agreement" is from "September 1, 2015 and shall continue in effect for an initial term through and including March 31, 2015"


    Oops! Perhaps the E-Cat also doubles as a Time Machine inverter!


    IH essentially argues estoppel and provides evidence that both parties understood it to meant March 31, 2016 by providing the email from Fabiani in document 124-30, where Fabiani states:

    Quote

    In according to the agreements made with Mr. Tom [Darden], my contract to monitor E-Cat plant in Miami is set to expire on 31 March 2,016.[sic]

  • Wyttenbach had to work hard to come up with this and his posting well represents the degree of desperation that has broken out among the remaining Rossi supporters / sockpuppets. His toehold of hope is down to a tiny isthmus that sits several feet below the high tide mark no matter how one spins things. IH has not used even 1% of its ammo yet as they work toward getting the pleadings settled for the main event. Telling that Planet Rossi tries to ignore the full Murray letter to Penon in the 124 exhibits.

  • 1 IH now claims that the original 24h validation test for the 10 mio. Payment has been done incorrectly.


    IH has made NO CHANGES to their claims regarding Rossi. IH does NOT claim that the payment 'has been done incorrectly'.

    Why are you making stuff up?

    (Your reference to 124-27 is a picture of the Doral warehouse.)


    You CANNOT show where they made any such claim.


    2 Tax evasion: IH confirms that they shifted all patents in a Netherlands company...


    This has nothing to do with 'Tax evasion'. You give no reference. There are NO changes to IH's claims agains Rossi. Nobody has claimed any tax evasion on IH's part.


    Stop spreading FUD. Your responses and conclusions are incorrect, non-sensical and incoherent.

  • Wyttenbach had to work hard to come up with this and his posting well represents the degree of desperation that has broken out among the remaining Rossi supporters / sockpuppets. His toehold of hope is down to a tiny isthmus that sits several feet below the high tide mark no matter how one spins things. IH has not used even 1% of its ammo yet as they work toward getting the pleadings settled for the main event. Telling that Planet Rossi tries to ignore the full Murray letter to Penon in the 124 exhibits.

    You are absolutely right. IH has patented Rossi's technology and can prove to all the world that Quark belongs to them.

  • Wyttenbach had to work hard to come up with this and his posting well represents the degree of desperation that has broken out among the remaining Rossi


    Dewey Weaver : My interest in AR is as high as in BB, J.F.K or Trump to name some other shills...


    I'm basically interested in physics and bringing this distracting AR-IH plague to an end. If you ever interpreted some AR support into my posts, then I recommend you to carefully read the full post history. My tactics is to bring in some momentum. As we know from physics, thats the only way to bring a story/findings forward. I guess, my posts, were in the end, far more damaging for AR than for IH.


    Finally you have to live with the facts that NiH LENR works very well, but the cash-in receipt is not on the table yet.

    You also have to accept, that 10 mio and the expenses have gone down the gully, not only because layers are more clever than investors...


    My only advise is: Stop the money drain to law consulting and start to enjoy the AR muppet show...(and may be ask some 'real' experts for advise..)

  • Here's what I believe is an accurate short summary of the latest documents (122 through 124-31):


    1) Rossi has been ordered by the court to produce discovery through August 5, 2016 instead of February 15, despite Rossi's objections.


    2) IH wants to file a 4th amendment in order to:

    1. Get the judge to reapply their claims against Johnson and Fabiani under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act FDUTPA (Count IV)
    2. Get the judge to reapply their claim against Fabiani for breach of contract. (Count V)

    It appears that Bass is no longer being sued by IH.

  • I am not surprised that Bass was let off the hook. He was, in comparison to the others, a minor player in the drama. Perhaps he will still be available as a witness?


    I was surprised that there was a shortage of IH documents showing that Fabiani was under a contract with IH (leading to his dismissal from the case). That seems to have been rectified, although I still see IH really isn't providing more than the bare minimum to demonstrate a continuing contract and performance by Fabiani.

    I personally wonder how much Fabiani is involved in the story. Obviously he was almost always around, but was he fooled about things, or was he far more active and complicit than it seems at first glance?

  • I still see IH really isn't providing more than the bare minimum to demonstrate a continuing contract and performance by Fabiani.

    Yes, I agree that it seems minimal.


    I suppose that IH is relying on the principle that in order for the judge to dismiss their counts, the judge must dismiss even assuming IH's evidence and allegations are true. Presumably, their amendment, assuming it is allowed, would stop the judge from dismissing these counts since the judge would have to accept IH's evidence and allegations.


    I agree that it is curious that they didn't make a stronger case.

  • I agree that it is curious that they didn't make a stronger case.


    IH also doesn't really show total contract continuance with Fabiani (the USQL contract from Sept 2014 to Aug 2015 isn't included), but about half of the main Doral period is covered now (ignoring the year error for March)


    That contract gap might come back to bite them, unless they have the contract but aren't interested in including it as an exhibit for some reason.

  • Curious whether someone familiar with litigation in US federal courts knows something about the amount of evidence that is typically filed during this phase of a trial. Is there a strategy to use the minimum amount of evidence necessary to sustain a set of claims?


  • This interpretation is close to clear prejudice. IH can reasonably now claim the 24h validation test report was unsafe, given that they would trust Penon and his judgement less now. There is a wealth of difference between the position now - when they claim (with reason) that they know Rossi/Penon is fraudulent, and then, when they did not know this. And they might well have accepted the Validation test (10M$) on spec to get the IP and validate for themselves even not trusting it. That however in no way requires the trust Rossi wants to put in it - claiming that it proved the device worked.


    This is a common refrain from planet Rossi. They assume that IH knowledge of events must remain constant over some period, and deduce from that an (incorrect) contradiction in IH behaviour. Or they assume that lack of rejection (of some flakey test) by IH must mean acceptance (by IH) that the test proves its claims.


    I think it is an inability to process uncertainty. I find this surprising in Wyttenbach (though not others) since his posts otherwise show an ability to argue in a sophisticated way.

  • Stop spreading FUD. Your responses and conclusions are incorrect, non-sensical and incoherent.


    May be you didn't notice the wrong numbers on the document header and the title inside...


    Here the citation of IH's claims of doc. 124.01




    57. Defendants admit that from April 30 to May 1, 2013, Penon conducted measurements in connection with the Validation test of certain E-Cat reactors operated by Plaintiffs. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 57. The Validation test did not follow the Validation protocol as set forth in the License Agreement and the First Amendment (the “Validation Protocol”). For example, the Validation Protocol required 30 E- Cat reactors to be operated as a unit (“Unit A”) for twenty-four consecutive hours. However, only 18 E-Cat reactors were operated as Unit A during the testing period. In addition, the Validation Protocol required the flow of heated fluid from the E-Cat reactors to be measured during the Validation test. However, these measurements were not taken during the Validation test. Furthermore, the Validation Protocol required that twenty-four consecutive hours of testing be done on Unit A. However, less than twenty-four consecutive hours of testing was done on Unit A. There are various other examples of the Validation Protocol not being followed during the Validation test.


    The rest can be read in the following (..58..) paragraphs where IH confesses that they have been fooled...


    I guess, that after reading this, you understand something more about business and how it should not be done... Paying for an invalid test...

  • From the proposed 4th Amended Answer, this seems to be new (latter half of 142.)


    "This part of the scheme also included manipulation of the

    power input data by Fabiani and USQL to give the impression that the Plant was working as

    Counter-Defendants claimed it was working. Fabiani and USQL provided electrical input data to

    Counter-Plaintiffs while the Plant was operating at the Doral Location. The data matched up

    with the power input data reported by Penon. In connection with the instant litigation – and after

    the Plant ceased operating – Counter-Plaintiffs obtained electrical power data from Florida

    Power and Light (“FPL”) for the Doral Location where the Plant was operated. The FPL records

    show that often more power was being used at the Doral Location than being reported by USQL

    for the Plant, but sometimes less power was being used at the entire Doral Location than being

    reported by Fabiani and USQL just for the Plant."


    This is also new:

    "146. To further elaborate on paragraph 145(a) above, the Plant as represented in the

    License Agreement was suppose to be able to deliver one megawatt (“1 MW”) of thermal output

    power using roughly 167 kilowatts of electrical input power, which would lead to a COP of

    approximately 6.0. See License Agreement Ex. C. False statements by JMP, Johnson and Bass

    that JMP was receiving and using 1MW of power from the Plant created, and were intended to

    create, the false impression that the Plant was operating as proposed by Rossi and Leonardo (in

    fact, even better, based on the electrical input data Fabiani and USQL were providing), which in

    turn would justify the continued operation of the Plant in Florida, with Counter-Plaintiffs bearing

    the cost of such operation and being mislead as to its performance."


    So maybe Bass is also back in the suit, if the court agrees that he did have an important part (if the Court allows the FDUTPA claim to be reinstated).


  • No, what I am coming to understand is that your habit of doubling down on your ignorance still is not helping your cause.


    The paragraph 57 you site in IH's proposed 4th amendment is exactly the same as in IH's first answer filed 8/11/2016 (see paragraph 57, document 30, page 11), and in their second amendment filed 9/19/2016 (see paragraph 57, document 50, page 11), and in their third amendment filed 11/23/2016 (see paragraph 57, document 78, page 11).


    As IH states in their filing (124), and I clearly repeated in response to you, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE in IH's proposed Amendment 4 on the issues you cited. The only difference is the new (rather brief) evidence and allegations against THIRD PARTIES.


    Yet you claimed that this was new information:

    1 IH now claims that the original 24h validation test for the 10 mio. Payment has been done incorrectly.


    Furthermore, you state that this is somehow significant because it seems to show that IH willingly purchased something they knew was represented fraudulently. I think your assessment is ridiculous, but any case, it's what they have been claiming since August. Try to pay attention.


    Then you claim, without support, that somehow their transfer of patents to IPH was some sort of "Tax evasion"

    2 Tax evasion: IH confirms that they shifted all patents in a Netherlands company...


    Again, I think your assessment is ridiculous, and it demonstrates to me that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. No one has alleged that IH is involved in tax evasion, and transferring these patents does not in any way support your 'Tax evasion' notion.


    Then, in your point 3 above, you try to make some point regarding the fact that the International Patent Application was rejected because of Randall Mills prior art. I don't know why you think that is somehow important to this filing, since that information is also in previous filings, but at least your interpretation was not ridiculous, just irrelevant.


    But we're not done, you keep on with your ignorance:

    4 IH did never pay (missing consulting contract) for the final report and thus all E-cat data (if it existed ever..) is now in the hand of IH, - was never handed over to Fabiani/Penon.


    There is no 'missing consulting contract', in fact, this is one of the few things that this proposed 4th amendment added: the contract with Fabiani.


    It's hard for me to believe that you really are this ignorant, vs. just trying to spread FUD.


    But maybe, since English is obviously not your first language, you really are having a hard time keeping up.


    In that case, I would suggest you refrain from making declarative statements regarding things you have demonstrated repeatedly you have no ability to comprehend.