Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • Number 138 on the Docket, Motion for Protective Order by IH et al, with two exhibits.


    138.0 - IH motion for a protective order on communications due to attorney-client privilege

    138.1 - Affidavit of John Mazzarino, long-term business partner of Thomas Darden. (Summary: they share an interest in IH and legal advice)

    138.2 - Transcript of 2017-02-07 hearing. (This is included because it shows that Plaintiff Rossi concedes some communication is privileged)


    Not much to see here, except that it is interesting to see that the court was not happy with how Rossi's attorney Chaiken initially handled a laundry list of communications he felt should not be protected.


    For those interested in legal minutia:


    The gist of this argument is that Darden's partner Mazzarino was included on many email communications, and Rossi's lawyers are claiming that this voids attorney-client privilege, because Mazzarino apparently testified that he had no ongoing role in IH's decisions even though he was a major investor, and therefore (according to Rossi's lawyers) those communications should not be privileged.


    IH's response is that Darden and Mazzarino are long-term business partners, they share legal counsel, and so they are privileged.


    IH therefore filed the motion in 138.0 for protection, even though currently there is no motion by Rossi's lawyers to have the court waive privilege on these communications and demand that they be produced. IH filed the motion in anticipation of a motion by Rossi for production over-riding privilege. This issue about attorney-client privilege is one of the agenda items for the hearing scheduled 2017-02-23.


    I'm pretty sure the court will rule that the communications with Mazzarino and other Cherokee staff are, in fact, privileged. (But I also think IH is supposed to file a proposed ruling by the judge granting them their Motion to Protect (138.0) - maybe they're waiting to see what happens at the hearing first)

  • Sorry about the formatting and that this is late. I have very limited time to post and I have not been following the string. I tried to post this about a week ago and kept getting cryptc system errors from the forum software.



    Quote

    MrSelfSustain wrote:



    Quote

    What do you think about the 18 hour test that Dr. Levi conducted back in 2011.



    Jed wrote:

    Quote

    I do not know about it. Was it described in this paper, which is in Portuguese for some reason?



    This is the test described by Lewan here: http://www.nyteknik.se/energi/…cludes-combustion-6421304
    It would have been an excellent test, and all, by the way, needed to get a patent and make Rossi billions and billions of dollars had it been properly and independently replicated. It never was and Levi refused to discuss it, even when directly asked to by email by Dr. Brian Josephson. (see his Youtube channel).



    Best guess as to why it was not valid is that Rossi knowingly and calculatedly placed the output temperature thermocouple close to the huge electrical heaters the device had. That would mean that it was measuring a hot spot in the device and not the mixed mean output temperature, as Levi assumed in the calculations. This could have easily been avoided by using a blank run with known amounts of electrical heat output and seeing if the system properly measured this known heat input but Levi never agreed to repeat the test, much less incorporate this obvious and required refinement.


    I have explained this COUNTLESS times on the internet but it does not seem to be remembered or appreciated by the Rossi enthusiasts, including, probably Darden and the duped people at IH. I only repeat it again because it has obviously been forgotten again.



    As to how long Rossi fooled people, he didn't fool me at all. I was suspicious from the start as soon as I read Krivit's summary of Rossi's background and some of the revelations on the Vortex email list, for example about Rossi's purchased and fraudulent diploma from "Kensington University," a diploma mill. But I gave him the benefit of the doubt until he exhibited every major criterion for a high tech/energy fraud towards the end of 2011.


    I will only repeat these criteria if someone asks but Rossi matches each and every classic one of them. This was evident by late Spring 2011. The non-demo and phony "NATO colonel" in the October 2011 fiasco which Rossi called a demo, complete with the huge Diesel generator he derived power from, cinched the deal. By then EVERYONE should have been convinced Rossi was a fraud.


  • Old guy,


    It is possible for "smart meters" to be correct one day and incorrect another.

    IF, the operator sets up/configures the smart meter voltage and current transformer inputs correctly for readings

    for week 1, THEN purposefully changes these configurations, the meters will read differently.

    This is usually a very simple change & accessible from the meter display.


    However, this would take a calculated and conspired effort

  • I think either Henry Johnson (or his assistant) or Jim Bass might be able to help if you're local to S. Florida but if you're on Planet Rossi, word has it the Fulvio has opened a store that can help with any and all pinball source code issues, extremely high voltage, low amperage transformers and circuits, water pump management code, aux heater code, "customer" side metering and fluid input, off spec flowmetery of any kind, big time heat management (especially on weekends when nobody's home), extreme noise dampening and strip clubs.

  • You have waffled over time between "I have a secret" and "you now know everything I know." So

    No, I have not waffled. That is bullshit. You are conflating two different things. You are doing this to confuse the issue and make me look bad. I have made myself clear, many times:


    1. I know some things which I agreed not to reveal until Rossi or I.H. first reveal them. For example, as I said dozens of times, I have the schematic. If you want see it, ask Rossi for a copy.


    2. I described the data in some detail. Now that you have seen the data yourself, you can confirm that my description was accurate and left out nothing of importance. After I described the data and after Exhibit 5 was published, I said "you now know everything I know." Everything about the data, that is. Not every aspect of Rossi's test.

    • Official Post

    Soooo.....

    I suppose the JoNP mW Plant comments vs kWh and water meter timeline can begin to see if there is any excitement to be had there...


    Para,


    To be honest, I have been waiting for this power data to be presented so that it is obvious to all. It does not yet appear to be ready for that...or am I wrong? I have looked at the exhibits myself as you would expect, and could not piece anything together that even remotely looked like a "smoking gun". And I have also followed you and the few others parsing of the evidence IH presented, and to be honest, I did not think you were ready for prime time yet. Even others better suited to understand, seem to be awaiting the finale...so far.


    Pretend we here are the typical jury, and you are IH's lawyer, and try to convince us that the FPL/FP/FF data proves the 1MW was rigged.

  • Shane D. ,

    It doesn't seems suspicious to you that for about two weeks straight, the Plant used more power than was actually supplied to the building warehouse unit by FPL? (the green line goes below the red line).

    If you consider that the FPL power includes lights, A/C (or heat), computers, bathroom fans, coffee pots, refrigerators and whatever else is plugged in, when the Plant uses more power than was sent by the utility, even by a little bit (according to the line), it is using far more than possible. That means that the ERV Plant input energy data is flawed. Unreliable.

    • Official Post

    Para,


    Yes, I know that, but others have argued that FPL's figures are for the whole building, while Penon/Fabiani's power data are separate and *only* what into the 1MW plant. Plus, I am talking mainly about your graphs. They do not show clear proof, or at least, not without better commentary. You guys went to great lengths to make a very good comparison, but even the best chart is only as good as it is explained. I know you are right, but all I am saying is that you have to make it simple enough for even the most ardent Rossi supporters, including ECW, and Peter to admit it.


    Take care.

  • Yes, I know that, but others have argued that FPL's figures are for the whole building

    It would be for this tenant's section of the building. Each suite has to be separately metered.


    I doubt that bill covers heating and cooling (HVAC). Heating is probably with natural gas, and air conditioning is probably a single large unit that the landlord pays for. That is the arrangement in the office space I have rented. I don't think the suites have individual air conditioners. That would be inefficient. See the Google photo of the roof:


    https://www.google.com/maps/@2…,204m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

  • Date __________ERV kWh in _______FPL kWh in to whole warehouse unit (approximate)

    Nov 14 2015 .......... 272 ............................. 303.2
    Nov 15 .................... 272 ............................. 218.7
    Nov 16 .................... 273 ............................. 280.5
    Nov 17 .................... 266 ............................. 274.0
    Nov 18 .................... 273.7 .......................... 265.0
    Nov 19 .................... 272.6 .......................... 274.0
    Nov 20 .................... 270.4 .......................... 205.7
    Nov 21 .................... 270.3 .......................... 205.7
    Nov 22 .................... 272 ............................. 248.0
    Nov 23 .................... 271 ............................. 264.3

    Nov 24 .................... 271 ............................. 254.5
    Nov 25 .................... 268 ............................. 264.3
    Nov 26 .................... 266 ............................. 251.3
    Nov 27 .................... 267 ............................. 257.8
    Nov 28 .................... 266 ............................. 205.8
    Nov 29 .................... 266 ............................. 205.8
    Nov 30 2015 .......... 268 .............................. 332.6

  • In addition to doc. 138 and attachments, mentioned above, now on the docket are docs. 139 and 140:


    139 - The Court denies IH's motion (138).


    Analysis: I don't think this means much, because Rossi has not filed a motion to produce the communications that IH has not produced due to Attorney-Client privilege. IH's motion was pre-emptive, and this judge seems to want none of that. However, this does not necessarily mean that IH has to produce additional communications. The court ordered that they must produce all documents 'according to the rules on discovery.' Which allows for NOT producing communications with Attorney-Client privilege. IH might review to make sure that it has produced all documents that are not privileged, but this decision does not force them to produce documents they consider privileged. Rossi would have to file some kind of motion to force IH to produce communications they consider privileged, and he has not done that (though a hearing is scheduled 2/23 to discuss this).


    140 - Rossi's Answers to Counterclaims filed by IH in the fourth amendment.


    Analysis: these answers are almost identical to Rossi's previous Answers in doc. 89 on the docket (which is not surprising, because the only changes made in IH's 4th Ammendment were to address claims against the Third Parties Johnson, Fabiani and Bass).


    I did find two changes in Rossi's Affirmative Defenses: 1) Aff. Def. No. 5 has an additional paragraph stating that Rossi IP was transferred to IPH without Rossi's consent (which is similar to Aff. Def. No. 9); and 2) there is a new Aff. Def. No. 15 which alleges that IH acted in bad faith by not alerting Rossi that IH believed the 'GPT' would not meet their terms, and that IH did not communicate to Rossi that they did not accept Fabiani Fabio Penon to be the ERV. This seems redundant to Rossi's Aff. Def. No. 11, alleging IH's "Failure to mitigate their damages".


    As I opined in a previous analysis of 89, these defenses by Rossi regarding a 'GPT', of necessity assume there was a GPT. But there is no GPT agreement on the docket, and Rossi only cites the Term Sheet!


    Unless Rossi has some evidence that IH agreed to the Term Sheet as GPT, all IH has to do is state they accepted the Term Sheet (which is explicitly an E-Cat Rental Agreement). and Fabiani Fabio Penon as a monitor of perfomance for the Term Sheet, and argue that they never considered the Term Sheet to be anything other than the Term Sheet, and certainly not a 'GPT' nor Fabiani Penon an 'ERV'.


    In summary:

    Rossi's Aff. Def 1-3 and 7 are all based on the notion that IH never had the means to pay the $89 million. It appears that IH has evidence to the contrary.

    Rossi's Aff. Def. 5, 6, and 9 are all based on the idea that IH is different than IPH. But since IPH wholly owns IH, I'm not sure how effective this will be.


    Rossi's Aff. Def. #4, 11, 13, 14, and (new) 15 are based on the idea that IH considered the Term Sheet to be a 'GPT' agreement. Unless Rossi has some additional evidence that IH accepted the Term Sheet to be a 'GPT', these affirmative defenses fail.


    Rossi's Aff. Def. #8 says that IH asserts Leonardo Corp. lacks standing, but is suing it anyway which is inconsistent. But IH is also suing Rossi. If for some reason the Court rules that Leonardo does have standing (e.g., due to estoppel or if Rossi can somehow fix Leonardo's defects) then Leonardo becomes a target of IH's counter-claims. Not much of a defense.


    Rossi's Aff. Def. #12 is a 'defensive' defense, put forth to attempt to limit the monetary damages Rossi might pay should IH's countersuit prevail.


    Thanks Paradigmnoia for correction noting that 'Fabiani' should be 'Fabio Penon'

    Edited 6 times, last by sigmoidal: Paradigmnoia correctly points out that Fabio Penon (not Fabiani) was the alleged 'ERV'. I've corrected this error with strikeout and underline. ().

  • When IH loses the case it certainly won't be because of Dewey's lack of FUD. He's full of it.