Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from sigmoidal

187 - All parties (except that they can't seem to contact Fabiani) want more time to discuss what portions of discovery should be sealed, so they are jointly requesting an extra two weeks to sort that out.

What discovery are we talking about? there is no E-Cat as there is no way Rossi has found an energy in < energy out perpetual motion machine. 1MW of generated heat can cook a warehouse. Where's the cooked warehouse?

The only possible interpretation of this request to seal information, is that IH doesn't want people to discover how gullible they were, building free energy hoaxkum reactors that were never tested by outside scientists, and that Rossi wants to keep an aura of secret around his long scam, so he can find more gullible victims.

Quote from Roger

The only possible interpretation of this request to seal information, is that IH doesn't want people to discover how gullible they were

I do not think that is the only possible interpretation. Anyone can see how gullible they were, so that does not seem like an interpretation at all.

The China-Israel-USA LENR connection

For all who are able to read german I can recommend the the following LENR page

http://coldreaction.net/lenr-d…-frueher-als-gedacht.html

There you will find a chinese (in english)! reference to a research agreement between China-Israel-USA to develop a high temperature NiH LENR reactor...

May be that explains everything!

IHFB - the privilege argument is over communications with attorneys which should be protected.

It doesn't seem that your hole is deep enough - you need to dig faster as well as there is some serious heat coming down the pipe so to speak.

Here is an Google machine language translation, which includes a section that does seem to suggest a Chinese/Israeli/American collaboration:

https://translate.google.com/t…t.html&edit-text=&act=url

Edit: On further inspection, I think the connection to Israel is tenuous. Clearly something going on though between China and the US.

Quote from Roger

What discovery are we talking about?

Hi Roger, 'discovery' is a legal term with specific meaning to lawyers that is different from it's general English Language use. It refers to the legal process before a trial where both parties are expected to ask all of the questions and get all of the information from the other parties and other witnesses before the actual trial. And the information that they are supplied with is required by law to be truthful, or those testifying/providing could be guilty of perjury - a serious crime. The whole 'discovery' process involves written questions, sworn statements and interviews, and in this case in Federal court, this process of discovery is 'overseen' by a US Disctrict Court 'Magistrate'. So the single word 'discovery' applies to all the evidence (from both parties) that is obtained this way.

This specific trial (Rossi vs. Darden and Third Parties) has just completed the 'discovery' phase.

Not surprisingly, some of the information that both parties uncovered is 'sensitive'. For example, there might be personal information about a person providing information that is not critical to the case, but would invade that person's privacy. So there is a process where both parties try to agree on what information should be blocked (or 'redacted') to respect the privacy of others. And there are other potential areas (like 'trade secrets' that have legal protection and as a matter of law, should not be released to the public). The Magistrate reviews the requests to seal (from both parties) and approves or denies them.

This process of 'sealing' occurs in every trial. So this is not some unusual situation. And you are mistaken that 'The only possible interpretation of this request to seal information is that IH doesn't want people to discover how gullible they were..."

The specific request to seal everything for 2 weeks (187) is just to give all parties in this legal case more time to sort through all the information and request that they seal a very limited portion of the information that is sensitive. They can't just seal something because it's embarrassing, however. They have to meet specific legal requirements, and those rules for what can and cannot be sealed are well established by the Court (over centuries of jurisprudence experience).

So, to the contrary, the most likely interpretation is that they are simply going through a standard process to seal information that all trials like this go through.

I hope you find this explanation helpful.

Quote from AlainCo

Landing like an alien in a bar...

Is there anything about whether Doral test was involving a real client with a real production ? of whether sure there was no independent client ?

If no real client, what is the theory allowing not to be furious about Rossi and his colleagues?

If the question is solved, maybe we should stop arguing and wait for the execution, ooops the conclusion.

[Edit: Sorry Alain, I think I misunderstood your question in my response below. I realize now that you were talking about the discussion on this site, making the point that it's reasonable to be 'furious' with Rossi because there is abundant evidence that there was no real customer. So rather than arguing about that, let's just wait for the more or less inevitable conclusion. I had misread your comment to be about the details of the court proceedings. Apologies for that.]

Alain, they're not quite to that point yet. They've completed 'discovery' (see above explanation to Roger). There are a few outstanding issues on that. For example, the 'privileged' status of IH/Dewey's emails, and the depositions of IPH and Cherokee as corporations. So even though the general time for completing discovery has expired (on February 28th), they're not completely wrapped up certain issues that arose during the discovery phase. Once all that has been resolved, each party will file a "Motion for Summary Judgement'. Summary Judgement essentially says: 'Look, Judge, see all this evidence that we got in discovery? This other party has essentially 'zero' chance of winning at trial, and we're a lock to win, so it's a waste of time to go to trial. You should just rule in our favor'. (This is a radically simplified explanation).

Not surprisingly, there is a high bar for these Motions to succeed.

But often the judge will award 'partial summary judgement' and narrow the trial to specific unresolved issues in the case.

So we're just starting into this phase. If there are still portions (or all) of the case that need to be resolved by a jury, that will happen later this Summer.

Peter,

Do you still believe it?

Dear Roseland 67,

are you asking me or an other Peter?

If it is me, what should i believe or not, know or not?

thanks,

peter

@Roseland67

Do you believe anything material has recently altered the question of whether the e-Cat works or not? I'd say at this point the odds look about the same to me as they did at the time the suit was filed.

For the sake of argument, assume the odds that the E-Cats work look about the same now as they did at the start of the lawsuit. That itself would be quite an admission if Rossi really had a 1MW reactor producing useful heat for a customer making a product, all over the course of a full year.

Quote from Eric Walker

For the sake of argument, assume the odds that the E-Cats work look about the same now as they did at the start of the lawsuit. That itself would be quite an admission if Rossi really had a 1MW reactor producing useful heat for a customer making a product, all over the course of a full year.

Yes, especially since Rossi had made all the claims of producing "Quark X's that were to be even better than the E cats, robotic assembly plants, .....

What happened to those 3 foreign sales of his devices?

If he really had a "real customer", why didn't they jump all over having such savings - even if they had to locate "off shore"?

All talk and no substantial systems anywhere.

Quote from IH Fanboy

I'd say at this point the odds look about the same to me as they did at the time the suit was filed.

Are you saying that Penon's data does not affect your judgement at all?

Doc. 192, an order, now on the docket.

The most important part of 192, in my opinion, is the following:

The Joint Motion for Leave to File Under Temporary Seal [ECF No. 187] is

DENIED.

As the Court explained:

“It is the Court’s general policy that all documents filed with the Court are public absent extraordinary circumstances.” Butler v. Oak St. Mortg., LLC, No. 06-80604-CIV, 2006 WL5519070, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 22, 2006); see also Schojan v. Papa John’s Int’l, Inc., No. 8:14-cv-1218-T-33MAP, 2014 WL 4674340, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2014) (citing Brown v.Advantage Eng’g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013 (11th Cir. 1992))). The parties in this case are particularly aware of this policy, having observed the Court deny two previous motions to seal. (See [ECF Nos. 163, 176]).

My musings:

Let it be opened to the public record. Respect to the honorable judge ALTONAGA.

Quote from JedRothwell

Are you saying that Penon's data does not affect your judgement at all?

I believe that you interpret Penon's data through IH rose-colored glasses.

This Judge is tough!

Going to be some good stuff in the exhibits tomorrow night.

New paper on arxiv.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2017…ent-calculated-cop-22000/

COP 22,000. Looks like the Quark X. Maybe enough detail to replicate.

Quote from Eric Walker

Doc. 192, an order, now on the docket.

This Judge is tough. Here's a summary of how she ruled:

186 - Rossi's team wants more time (an extra day): Granted - all parties get an extra day (until tomorrow, 2017-03-22)

187 - Two weeks extra time for all parties to sort out Sealing. Denied

188 - Rossi wants 35 pages. Got 30

189 - IH wants 50 pages. Got 30

Dewey believes that we here in the peanut gallery will have a boatload of stuff to see tomorrow. Cool!