Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from JedRothwell

    I hope they win this appeal.


    It will be interesting to see how she rules, but based on the little bits and pieces I've observed of her past behavior, I don't think it's likely that she will grant their appeal (just my gut opinion though, which has not been that reliable so far).


    Given her curt, no-nonsense manner, however, I think it's more likely that she'd dismiss the bulk of Rossi's suit based on the Motion for Summary Judgement. She seems to be a 'letter of the law' type, so that make me think that Rossi's attempts at estoppel are likely to fail. And in that case, the only signed license agreement does not allow for the 1MW plant to meet the 1 year performance clause (or the late date).


    So a straight forward reading of the only contract (license agreement) in force plainly establishes that IH did not breach the license agreement.


    And presumably, a judge with a track record of straight forward rulings could reasonably be predicted to dismiss Rossi's claims regarding the $89 Million performance clause (which is essentially all that Rossi can hope to possibly sue for).


    In any case, in order for anything of substance to go to trial that would award Rossi damages, Rossi has to prevail by having Altonaga deny both the appeal for Motion of Sanctions (IMO likely) and IH's Motion for Summary Judgement (IMO less likely).


    We should know whether there will be a trial (of any consequence regarding IH jeopardy) by the end of the month. (Regardless, I think a trial regarding IH's counterclaims is quite likely to proceed, assuming they persist in pursuing that).

    Also, regarding Rossi's appeal regarding Zalli Jaffe attorney-client privilege of correspondence with IH, I'd be completely shocked if Judge Altonaga over-ruled Magistrate Sullivan's ruling that they are privileged. Rossi (his lawyers) are trying to get this overturned by the thinnest of circumstantial evidence, claiming 'witness tampering' of a non-witness, perjury (by Darden) based on thin (per their own characterization) and inadmissible (per Sullivan's ruling) evidence. Over-ruling attorney-client privilege with scant evidence would be precedent setting in a Federal Court, so Federal Judges are highly unlikely to do that unless there is clearly a strong precedent-setting reason for it, knowing it would effect cases long into the future.


    Altonaga already DID over-rule Sullivan, but that was regarding Dewey Weaver correspondence, where she insisted that Sullivan rule that there WAS attorney-client privilege. So based on her past, it's far more likely that she will rule to preserve Attorney-Client privilege. In any case, this issue seems like lots of effort on Rossi's part for very little gain. The most they can hope for is that Jaffe's emails get revealed, which according to Rossi's lawyers include information that IH indicated to Jaffe that IH had not told Rossi that they did not consider Doral to be a GPT (which Darden, presumably, could simply argue was because they had already made that clear in previous conversations).


    I actually think the main reason Rossi lawyers even appealed this was in order to get the court transcript on the docket where they hint at what the email they want to use as evidence said, in order to 'score publicity points' against Darden. In that, they succeeded, I suppose. Not that this should have any legal consequence at trial or otherwise.


    And regarding the possibility that Altonaga could grant Rossi's Motion for Summary Judgement, that is also extremely unlikely in my mind, because so much of IH's counter-suit revolves around contested facts, and Motions of Summary Judgement are supposed to only be granted based on uncontested facts.


    And this is why I think IH's MSJ is the most likely MSJ to prevail - IH is not in breach of contract of the only valid, signed license agreement, and this IS uncontested fact - or at least could be reasonably decided to be uncontested by the Judge.


    sigmoidal,


    I also feel that both camps appeal for the sake of it. The judge now has two appeals in front of her and i believe the thought is that it is more likely that the judge denies / grants both of them.


    Cheers,


    JB

    Quote from guest111

    You malign all inventors (you should at least add quotation marks) buy labeling Rossi as such.


    Well, I see where you are coming from on this one. But Rossi is inventive - some of the fascination here stems from his brand of obvious but also somehow effective charlatanry. The Rossi fan club are right that although his is in some ways a common or garden scam, the way he does it is very unusual, and remarkably effective.

    A thought-provoking and detailed comment from Abd on some of the legal issues that raises wider questions on the hows and whys here. I guess ones that we will never have resolved, but still fascinating.


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…y-different/#comment-3181


    You need to attune yourself to Abd'd prolix style, more so than me by a factor of 5, and stick with it for the eventual reward. Abd's commentary here on the legal machinations seems to me to show the best of his abilities as we see them.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    You need to attune yourself to Abd'd prolix style, more so than me by a factor of 5, and stick with it for the eventual reward. Abd's commentary here on the legal machinations seems to me to show the best of his abilities as we see them.


    @THH: ABD committed that he was payed by APCO for earlier work. So we can without doubt say, that he is an APCO guy. Why do you regularly try to attract people to an APCO/IH payed forum?


    ABD has no clue about legal stuff: He predicted 8 out of 8 Rossi suits will be dismissed the first month... Such statements can only be made by a payed FUD'er or by an ignorant.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    @THH: ABD committed that he was payed by APCO for earlier work. So we can without doubt say, that he is an APCO guy. Why do you regularly try to attract people to an APCO/IH payed forum?


    ABD has no clue about legal stuff: He predicted 8 out of 8 Rossi suits will be dismissed the first month... Such statements can only be made by a payed FUD'er or by an ignorant.


    Wyttenbach


    Such generalisations are maybe why your judgment on Rossi vs IH is flawed?


    I recommend that page on Abd's forum because it has good detailed analysis, not from consideration of the forum or Abd. I am uninterested in your unsubstantiated and speculative information about APCO because I judge content not conspiracy theories. Nor do I notice anyone else making this APCO link with Abd, though I do remember him saying that he has been paid at some time in the past to blog on LENR (from IH? Not sure but could be).


    I can see why you say this. You have to ask yourself what is the point of this system, except to increase lawyer's fees, when, for example, both sides submit arguments claiming they win every one of these points without Trial because the other side has no evidence? How can that be?


    If you read the documents the difference is one of factual interpretation. Overall, Annesser's (Rossi) interpretation stretches things a lot more than IH's interpretation, but I notice that the IH arguments stretch things a lot on a few of the MTD points. I can't myself be certain of outcome because I'm not entirely sure what interpretation is put on legal documents and niceties by US Courts. So what seems common sense to me may not follow. If you go on discovered facts IH has many more of them than Rossi, so I think they are well ahead even with a maximally adverse resolution of these interpretation issues.


    For the moral case there are two parts. The easy one is whether Rossi's devices work. This has not much relationship to the legal dispute - but it is clear from Rossi's own behaviour that he thinks they do not, and this is consistent with IH saying that they can't get them to work. The more complex one is whether, even with perhaps non-working devices, Rossi and IH were playing a sort of game where IH use Rossi to obtain investment and are therefore morally obliged to hold to the letter of the contract.


    The problem here is that the letter of the contract appears to have been broken on two grounds (Rossi has put forward no contrary evidence). That is 6-cylinder device, and unsigned second amendment. Rossi knew this when starting the test, and never asserted to IH that this was in fact the GPT. Oh, you can be 100% sure that if Rossi had any documentation of this from email etc it would be submitted since it is crucial to combating some strong arguments on which IH might win at this point, before a Jury sees anything.


    If OTOH we look to the spirit of the contract that must surely include not just what the ERV report says but whether that was a fair test, which it surely was not.


    So, morally, even though it is more complex, I don't see Rossi being in the right here even ignoring all of his clear deceit that IH claim amounts to fraud (and if this is found it invalidates the contract anyway). The Rossi deceit is so obvious to external observers that I think it will be difficult for him to overcome it even if it is found to be legally not to the point. No-one of any sense would view anything Rossi said as reliable. The customer deceit is so flagrantly conducted and to the point in the contested test that whatever the legal issues I can't see Rossi winning.


    The moral complexity could be summarised (with poetic license and some exaggeration) like this. IH have consorted with the Devil, hoping to use his power (if possible) for good, ignoring the age-old wisdom that the Devil's contracts are never straight and his words will always have obscure adverse interpretations. They are now in trouble from this, and hope the US legal system will see the Devil as fraudulent and his contract as void. Morally, does this make IH bad, because they dealt with the Devil, or brave, because they did the same for a good cause? And, can we be sure IH's motives were good in all this?


    I take my answer from context. The principals of IH were successful VCs. They had no need for high-risk gambles to make their fortune. They might very well have a mid-life crisis and wish to give something back to the world with scientific philanthropy of a kind that might (high risk) give them back high returns. That makes them on the side of the angels here.

    Quote from LDM

    Alan, Thank's for this lesson about [...] the English language.[...]



    LDM may I ask where are you from? it intrigues me that you have this insider information about the Lugano authors.


    And did you take a look at the spreadsheet and resulting COP when increasing the power input by lowering the triac delay. if you do believe as you say that a clamp may have been misplaced you may want to verify your statement about COP underestimation. It is underestimated at low drives as in the plots but largely overestimated when driving at AC Power representative of the test phase.


    You sound honest and competent and I suppose you would admit it if your judgement were mistaken.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    If OTOH we look to the spirit of the contract that must surely include not just what the ERV report says but whether that was a fair test, which it surely was not.

    This isn't just the "spirit" of the contract. It is about laws that govern contracts. The text of the contract itself is never the whole story. A contract is not a stand-alone document, immune from laws, standards, reasonable expectation, common sense and so on. Just conforming to the "letter of the contract" does not guarantee you will be paid. Any contract is subject to being revoked by a civil court judgment. (Plus, obviously no contract can violate criminal law. Even if the violation is inadvertent, the contract is void.)


    I know little about the law, but I do know this, from experience.


    Suppose I.H. had clearly agreed this was the GPT, and Penon was the judge, and Ampenergo had signed off. Every i is dotted and every t is crossed. Even in that case, if it could clearly be shown that there was no heat exchanger in the mezzanine and therefore everyone should be dead, or that Rossi never transferred the IP, then I.H. does not have pay. No matter what, they are off the hook. You cannot look only at a narrow interpretation of the literal text in a contract and demand payment. You cannot, for example, include tricky wording in a contract in a way that forces the customer to pay even if the delivered product does not meet minimum industry standards. Such as a new house with a leaking roof, or software that loses customer data nearly every day.


    Some people on Planet Rossi think the contract must be enforced according to Rossi's interpretation. They remind me of the fanatical people who believe they do not have to pay income tax because, for example, their name on tax form is in capital letters: JED ROTHWELL, and they don't write their name that way, so it isn't them. Or they say the court procedures take place in a room with a flag with a fringe on it, so it doesn't count. See:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…ster_conspiracy_arguments


    These people imagine they are exempt from the laws because they found a trivial thing not explicitly covered by the laws -- something that might be construed as a loophole, at least by them. The law does not work that way. Granted, on rare occasions, people find something like a misplaced comma in a law and they win a contract dispute for that reason. See:


    http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/15/…ma-maine-court-case-trnd/

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    @THH: ABD committed that he was payed by APCO for earlier work. So we can without doubt say, that he is an APCO guy. Why do you regularly try to attract people to an APCO/IH payed forum?


    I consider this kind of unsubstantiated claim to be unabashed trolling. We know that Abd's Infusion Institute has received very modest help, and I'm unclear on the specifics. But this is no different than funding being received by any nonprofit. Unless you can document a link to APCO (and not via one of Sifferkoll's conspiracy theories), this is pure speculation on your part, delivered as fact. This kind of behavior is one of several things that make your presence here wearisome.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Eric Walker : I'm citing ABD! Just read his older posts. He confirmed this (taking APCO money) for a different opinion making story (not LENR).


    Please read my post carefully as you do with other posts too. I have written for former work! .. not the current AR story.


    May be you know it better?


    One thing any educated observer in this saga now understands is the necessity to read sources carefully and not accept some summarisers comment, which (in the case of Annesser for example) is often quite different from the original fact.


    If this matter is important to Wyttenbach no doubt he will be able to provide a precise reference (URL and position on page). We can then all evaluate for ourselves whether the facts substantiate Wyttenbach's view that Abd is not worth reading.

    @Jed:


    Suppose I.H. had clearly agreed this was the GPT, and Penon was the judge, and Ampenergo had signed off. Every i is dotted and every t is crossed. Even in that case, if it could clearly be shown that there was no heat exchanger in the mezzanine and therefore everyone should be dead,


    The argument here is quite nuanced. First, without a heat exchanger, or with the heat exchanger described by Rossi that Wong used in his report, 1MW dissipation is not possible. That is definite, although not from facts yet established in Discovery. From Discovery you could reckon it also very likely that the heat exchanger is imaginary, and so Rossi perjured himself.


    Given 1MW dissipation is impossible, the Penon figures are wrong, and wrong for some unknown reason.


    Although that does not itself prove that Rossi's device did not meet the benchmark set in the contract, it is almost as good as. For the test to remain good enough Rossi's side would need to find the error that led to this COP overestimate, correct it precisely without additional experiment, and show that the COP was still greater than 4 or whetever is required here. Practically that could never happen.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    I'm citing ABD! Just read his older posts. He confirmed this (taking APCO money) for a different opinion making story (not LENR).


    Please read my post carefully as you do with other posts too. I have written for former work! .. not the current AR story.

    May be you know it better?


    Please directly quote the earlier posts from Abd where he purportedly confirms receiving money from APCO.

    IH should bring into the courtroom approx 100, 1500 watt space-heaters (scale relative to the "factory" and courtroom size) to impress on the judge/jury (they'd be run out of the room in short order) the heat output that had to be dissipated by the invisible heat-exchanger along with the quick-change industrial glazing (are invisible heat-exchangers and quick-change glazing new patent applications of Rossi?)--of course they'd need a generator (even more to the point) also since the normal circuits wouldn't handle the power.

    The full quote from Abd:


    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    It is 'somewhat interesting" to notice who upvotes this crap. I received $4.25 million dollars from APCO to promote advanced voting systems. I wish. In fact, I have received nothing to promote anything.


    Wyttenbach banned for two days for trolling (or behavior indistinguishable from trolling). The next time will probably be for two weeks. We don't have electrons or pixels here for this kind of nonsense. It's a waste of everyone's time to be detained with it.

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.