Doc. 144, a notice of hearing, now on the docket.
144 - This amended hearing is at the same time (Thursday, February 23, 2017, at 3:00 p.m) but has dropped from the agenda the issue of information regarding liability insurance (presumably because IH provided that information to Rossi) and it expands the range of documents upon which IH is withholding, citing attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine.
Perhaps you meant, "I resent that remark" (not sure).
Which complex theories of fraud are you referring to? My point was only that IH have not been attacking anyone.
No, you read it right. I was conceding your point.
Display MoreI've certainly thought a lot about it. Here's something for you to ponder.
Since the initial lawsuit, IH has told a consistent story. You know the context regarding their initially positive relationship and signed contract, so I'll skip that and paraphrase their assertions:
1) Rossi's 24 hour test did not last 24 hours (albeit by a small margin) and did not meet the power output agreed to.
2) Rossi fabricated a non-existent Italian regulation as an excuse for why it could not run for the full time and full power for that test.
3) When in NC, IH could not get the E-Cat to produce excess heat, even when Rossi was there to help.
4) Long after the agreed to 1 year GPT time had ended, Rossi, Johnson, et. al. came up with a 'scheme' to move the plant to Florida to produce heat for a 'real customer'.
5) Rossi, Johnson, et. al. stated to IH that the real customer was independent from Rossi and Leonardo.
6) Rossi, Johnson, et. al. stated to IH that the real customer was connected in some manner to Johnson Mathey,
7) Rossi, Johnson, et. al. hired James Bass to pose as a Director of Engineering of the real customer.
8 ) Rossi refused to let IH's engineer in to see the E-Cat.
9) Once Rossi finally did let in IH's engineer, he determined that the E-Cat could not be producing 1 MW
See how specific these are? See how easy it is to refute them if they are untrue?
1) If the test really did run for the full 24 hours and at full power, Rossi should be able to show that with instrument records.
2) If there was6 an Italian regulation, Rossi can just cite it.
3) If the E-Cat did produce power in NC, Rossi should be able to describe this in detail and provide supporting evidence.
4) If there was a real customer, it is easy to show evidence from tax records, employee records, invoices, shipping records, etc.
5) If JMP was independent from Rossi and Johnson, they can provide the filed Florida (or wherever) records showing that.
6) If JMP was connected to Johnson Mathey, they can just get them to testify to such.
7) If James bass was the Director of Engineering of a real customer, he should be able to testify and provide evidence of that.
8 ) If Rossi did not prevent IH's engineer from coming in, he could testify to that.
9) If Rossi's E-Cat did produce 1MW, he would be able to cite evidence that contradicted IH's engineer.
If these allegations by IH are untrue, IH is a sitting duck!! They really must be a bunch of fools there.
What do we know so far from Rossi?
1) Rossi concedes this.
2) ?
3) ?
4) ?
5) We have FL incorporation records showing that Johnson is the President of both JMP and Leonardo.
6) We have an email (provided by IH) showing Rossi telling Johnson to name JMP 'Advanced Derivatives of Johnson Mathey', while subsequently we have Rossi claiming on JONP that there is no relation of the customer JMP to Johnson Mathey.
7) We have an email where Rossi (not JMP) is telling Bass what to say when visitors come to see the E-Cat. We don't have Bass's testimony however.
8 ) Rossi concedes he prevented IH's engineer from coming in, asserting that he thought he might be there to steal IP.
9) ?
What is Rossi's assertion?
- IH didn't have the money to pay the 89 Mil and never intended to. (IH has 50 Mill in holding, and has evidence it had access to 150 M more).
- IH lacks standing, and violated the contract by transferring the IP to IPH (which wholly owns IH).
- "I deny [essentially everything], and demand strict proof"
(Not very specific)
Penon is in Italy and not talking, Fabiani is in Russia and hasn't responded to the court on time (but he still has a few days before sanctions kick in).
Think about it.
It seems as if you have it all tied up with a ribbon, all neat like. The thing is you've made a lot of assumptions that I personally disagree with and that are not forgone conclusions. I still think Rossi will prevail in this, and even if he fails in court it doesn't mean that he can't still prevail with a practical application of his invention.
Peter - you have confirmed everything that I thought was going on with, around and through you. Expect to be treated accordingly.
Display MorePeter - you have confirmed everything that I thought was going on with, around and through you. Expect to be treated accordingly.
MY ANSWER
Is this a promise or a threat? Your collaborator Abd has wished me nicely "Burn in Hell Peter Gluck" I will also treat you well even after the verdict, obviously if I m not converted in fuel till then.
A nice place this DeJAvu Enclave- good people there.
so no "niceDewey" anymore for Peter?
No threat Peter but you should not have published a confidential email and will be treated accordingly.
No threat Peter but you should not have published a confidential email and will be treated accordingly.
It was from comments on my blog, nothing confidential.
Do you know who wrote it?
Do you agree with what he wrote?
Is its content justifying confidentiality- is something wrong in it, something to retract?
If it is then let's delete it- should I ask one administrator?
But anyway I accept both responsibilty and TREATMENT for it.\
Peter
Why was this email confidential Dewey?
It seems as if you have it all tied up with a ribbon, all neat like. The thing is you've made a lot of assumptions that I personally disagree with and that are not forgone conclusions. I still think Rossi will prevail in this, and even if he fails in court it doesn't mean that he can't still prevail with a practical application of his invention.
Sigmoidal, whom you quote, is summarising what is known: not tying things up with a ribbon. Perhaps what you meant to say is that the evidence, stated in this summary form, looks pretty damning for Rossi.
Sigmoidal's summaries do not seem much to do with assumptions to me. I respect your right to disagree and articulate that. However, without a detailed list of why you disagree (Sigmoidal has given enough details himself) I do not respect an argument which is essentially "this is what I think - no reasons".
As far as foregone conclusions: I don't think Sigmoidal is talking about conclusions, merely stating that the existing facts look strongly tilted against Rossi. That is obvious to most here, so what interests me is why you do not find this obvious. But, to communicate this, you'd need to give some hint of the reasons behind your statements.
Time to understand the problem:
Display MoreThe intuition for what I shall term the "Mutually Assured Delusion" (MAD) principle is simple. If others' blindness to bad news leads them to act in a way that is better for an agent than if they were well informed ; it makes those news not as bad, thus reducing his own incentive to engage in denial. But if their avoidance of reality makes things worse than if they reacted appropriately to the true state of affairs ; future prospects become even more ominous, increasing the incentive to look the other way and take refuge in wishful thinking. In the first case, individual's ways of thinking are strategic substitutes, in the latter they are strategic complements. It is worth emphasizing that this "psychological multiplier", less than 1 in the first case and greater in the second, arises even though agents' payoffs are separable and there is no scope for social learning.
...
The types of enterprises most prone to collective delusions are thus:
(a) Those involving new and complex technologies or products that combine a generally profitable upside with a lower-probability but potentially disastrous downside - a "black swan" event. High-powered incentives, such as performance bonuses affected by common market uncertainty, have similar effects, as do highly leveraged investments that put the
firm at risk of bankruptcy.
(b) Those in which participants have only limited exit options and, consequently, a lot riding on the soundness or folly of other's judgements. Such dependence typically arises from irreversible or illiquid sunk investments: specific human capital, company pension plan, professional reputation, etc. Alternatively, it could reflect the large-scale public good
nature of the problem: state of the economy, quality of the government or other society-wide institutions which a single individual has little power to affect, global warming, etc.
Not very clear or definitive...
Anyway you can explain much more by hearing the client.
sigmoidal thread item #2100
very nice concise review. It is hard to see why people think that Rossi will prevail.
They seem to try to refocus the case on the reality of the LENR and not the legal issues.
Some things like the length of the test may seem minor to some but the judge has shown herself
to be keen on the letter of the contract.
Not sure if IH's counter suit will do as well but likely some parts of it will also be a win for IH and
I possibly attach some of Rossi's assets.
Oh yes, the judge brought up the question of if the testing was done on the 6 cylinder version. That may also come
into play. (linked to your # 3.
There is now two clear camp, and seldom lukewarmers.
It seems the opinion are established, and others argument don't convince.
So maybe is it time to sit an wait for the judge.
It seems as if you have it all tied up with a ribbon, all neat like. The thing is you've made a lot of assumptions that I personally disagree with and that are not forgone conclusions. I still think Rossi will prevail in this, and even if he fails in court it doesn't mean that he can't still prevail with a practical application of his invention.
Well you stated that 'massive fraud' is 'too outlandish for consideration', and asked me to 'think about it'. I just summarized my understanding of the evidence and my thinking for you.
I presented the evidence as I see it. My only 'interpretation' statements were that I felt IH's assertions are specific and that there should be boatloads of evidence if their assertions are untrue. And also that IH's legal strategy was foolish and very risky if their assertions are untrue.
That's the result of my 'thinking about it'.
How about you?
That is the genius of Rossi,
No doubt, he is a genius in his field, but you can't keep explaining all what happened in the Ecat saga by means of his geniality.
I have already reminded you the story of the meeting in a PR office at Grand Central Station (*). I did also put a question to you. May I know your answer? Consider that at that time his score was two unsuccessful inventions, plus two great PR coups, over the two major scientific initiatives he took in his life.
And, again, could you explain me, please, how his geniality could have induced some "credentialled academics" who teach Physics in a prestigious University to unintentionally write in the calorimetric report that the steam was "checked to be completely dry" by using a "HP474AC probe", an instrument which is not suited at that scope, and, above all, which didn't appear in any of the many photos or video frames available after the January 14, 2011 demo?
If you are bound and determined to fit the evidence into option C, when the evidence fits quite easily into B, a tortured argument can always prevail in cramming the explanation into C.
The (B) scenario is much more bound and determined of the (C) one. The only requirement for this last is: not(A)+not(B). It remains a lot of space. You have just to free your imagination.
It's much more difficult, for example, to fit into the (B) scenario the apparently bold and risky decision to sue your presumed victim in order to get more money.
Ascoli65, are you implying that this whole affair is a dramatic show to introduce a technology that has been used for decades in secrecy?
It's much more difficult, for example, to fit into the (B) scenario the apparently bold and risky decision to sue your presumed victim in order to get more money.
Well, I actually agree with you on this point.
My explanation is that Rossi is both delusional and a con man. I see a long trail of evidence that Rossi is a con man: jailed for tax evasion and illegal (improperly documented/authorized) precious metal exchange, Petroldragon failure, heat-to-electric military contract failed with mysterious fire in 'factory' as an excuse, master's degree in engineering from a CA degree mill which has since been shut down due to fraud, tango with Defkalion, and of course IH. So I believe there is plenty of evidence out there to conclude that he is a con man.
The delusional part is perhaps the most speculative. But there is evidence that Rossi is at least imbalanced: obsessive posting on JONP, grandiose claims of robotic factories, claims of donating 50% of profits to kids with cancer, 13 E-Cats produced so far (then recants), claims that IH's requests for communications are designed to prevent Rossi from consideration of the Nobel Prize, a seeming craving for attention, etc.
But I understand if you find this to be the weakest conclusion based on evidence, and that this may be the most 'circular' of conclusions I've come to.
(It reminds me a bit of the novel Catch 22: you have to be crazy to fly a military mission, but successfully applying to be released because you are crazy proves that you are sane.)
A 'mentally balanced' con man (if there is such a person) would have taken the 11.5 million and run. So only a delusional con man would preemptivley sue for 89 Mil more.
That being said, after following Rossi for 9 years, I am convinced that he is a delusional con-man, and that this is consistent with his track record.
On the other hand, Darden has a law degree from Yale. And he oversee's an investment company with over a Billion dollars in equity. I find it extremely unlikely to believe that he is either foolish or prone to highly risky legal strategies.
So why on earth would IH foolishly make specific, false claims against Rossi, easily refuted if they really are false?
Although the delusional characterization might be the most 'difficult' to ascertain with evidence, it still is FAR LESS difficult than either (A) or (C). Your (B) looks to me to be the most likely explanation. By far.
YMMV
This thread is Rossi vs Darden - remember that it is Rossi that brought the case against IH. It is up to Rossi to supply evidence of this accusations. IH is just defending themselves.
It is likely that IH only has to prove one or two of the items Sigmodial listed.
To me it seems the argument that the agreement was for the six cylinder unit to be delivered and tried within a year with a signed agreement start date is very compelling.
to wit:
"Payment of the amount set fourth in Section 3(c) above is contingent upon a six Hot Cat unit reasonably acceptable to the Company (the Six cylinder Unit) operating at the same level (or better) at which Validation was achieved for a period of 360 days..... commencing on the day agreed to in writing ... "
So it sure sounds like what was done in NC not what was done in Fl and the test in NC failed.
The only "rabbit" Rossi could pull from the hat would seem some documented evidence that he officially notified IH that the Fl test was actually to be a GPT. Then he might have a chance at esstopel arguments, but even then the thing in FL doesn't seem like it was the Six Cylinder device that was in the agreement.
Now the IH vs Rossi, et al counter suit is a different situation.
A 'mentally balanced' con man (if there is such a person) would have taken the 11.5 million and run. So only a delusional con man would preemptivley sue for 89 Mil more.
One may also speculate that Rossi expected that IH rather agrees to an out of court settlement, than to lay open during the discovery process all their e-cat related business communication.
In case that Rossi suspects that IH has something to hide (e.g. that IH was dishonest with investors; made promises against better knowledge ), then it would not be too far fetched for Rossi to believe that IH rather might want to pay another couple of millions instead of beeing exposed to public.
As an investment adviser and CEO of a multi billion investment firm, Darden would have a lot to lose if someone could prove him wrongdoings.
