Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • Did you read Penon's report? How can you claim he might have "crushed" the test? Anyone can see it was a failure, and the report itself was a joke.

    Your usual generic tone..."Anyone"..... Come on !

    IH people was there continously, Darden and others were at the site many times. So ? Anyone has noticed nothing when there was money to collect from investors.


  • IH does not 'admit they have always known that JM had noting to do with Johnson Matthey'. From the very beginning they accused Rossi of defrauding them into believing that JM (notice that that's the initials of Johnson Matthey) WAS the customer, either directly or indirectly through a subsidiary. The early drafts of the Term Sheet named Johnson Matthey explicitly.


    For you to state that Document 290 shows that IH has 'always known JM had nothing to do with Johnson Matthey' shows that you either have no knowledge of the case, since this is central to their initial objection, or that you lack basic reading or critical thinking skills.


    IH has clearly stated under oath that they only came to realize that JM had nothing to do with Johnson Matthey some time after they signed the Term Sheet, and that they would not have signed it if they had known. Your statement that they always knew (based on Document 290) is untrue.


    When Rossi states in the quote you include, '...they will make an official outing', he's talking about JMP which he created and controls himself! We know this from Document 290.


    He then goes on to say "they will put another CEO if the plant will go well'. Again, the 'they' he is talking about is JMP, which he created and controls himself!


    And again, "they will disclose themselves", he is talking about JMP, which he created and controls himself! (Like, maybe if things go well, I might disclose myself???)


    I'm sorry, SSC, if after all the evidence including what you just put in this post, that somehow you really believe that Rossi was not intentionally deceiving IH into thinking that the customer was owned or controlled by Johnson Matthey, then I am truly sorry for you. If you sincerely can't come to that conclusion, I don't have any sense that information in this case can be reasonably interpreted by you.


    In that case, we'll just have to agree to disagree.


  • SSC - I'd like you to pay attention: you need to understand how Rossiesque your argument here is.


    You are twisting time. We all now can be clear that JM was not (a shell company for) Johnson Matthey. But at the time the contract was signed IH could not know that. Rossi had got his lawyer to back this story - stating falsely that a UK entity controlled the shell, and Rossi had previosuly strongly misdirected IH with the idea that this entity was Johnson Matthey.


    That Rossi does not say the client is Johnson Matthey is not the point. He is deceiving IH. The early drafts of the Term Sheet actually used the name Johnsson Mathey. Rossi gets this chnaged with the excuse (much used) that Johnson Matthey want plausible deniability in case things do not work out.


    Rossi is clever: he misleads continually while just on the border of telling direct lies. When this happens he has an excuse. Put the bits together and you get clear concerted deception. Select little bits, as you do above, it seems OK.


    As for the Jury Trial: bring it on!


  • That is untrue ele. Many people with vapourware (let us not get into the matter of deliberate fraud or not, irrelevant to your point here, and to be settled in Court this Summer) have patents. Take, for example, EEStor with a patent for a magic capacitor with energy density higher than a lithium battery that never existed. It is one way that they convince people they have something. In any case Rossi has no granted patents for E-cats. He has a patent for a novel water-heater power source unspecified.

  • By the way did you ever find any evidence that Rossi actually negotiated with Johnson Matthey and it was not a "never seen by another" thing (like the heat exchanger) or the claiming of being a director of Johnson Matthey (JM) when it was really just JMP.


    Since you seem to like having things over and over again (as you did to Jed with the temps) I thought you like me to ask again for your evidence of that it is not must Rossi says with JM negotiations.


    Yes, there are emails between Rossi and Johnson Matthey. An order for 10kg of platinum sponge was apparently placed, or at least negotiated. You can check the record as it is open to everyone now. I'm sure we have only seen the tip of the iceberg so far as evidence goes. We'll see more at trial.


  • Ele. You do seem to be quite extraordinarily ignorant of USPTO. I guess you must have no professional connection with scientific work or basic knowledge would not have passed you by. USPTO does not prove technical claims correct! Ridiculous idea. If that were required the cost of getting a patent would skyrocket. USPTO does basic checks to make sure the patent looks OK, relying on the sworn statements of the inventor that it works. It is expected that vapourware patents don't matter - since there is in that case nothing to protect, and they would fall apart if ever challenged.


    But - in any case - I don't even know of a granted US Rossi patent for LENR. Just a water-heater with unspecified fuel.


  • He then goes on to say "they will put another CEO if the plant will go well'. Again, the 'they' he is talking about JMP, which he created and controls himself!


    And again, "they will disclose themselves", he is talking about JMP, which he created and controls himself! (Like, maybe if things go well, I might disclose myself???)


    I've seen this critique repeated many times, by many individuals here, in many different ways. But the fact of the matter is that legal entities are persons in the eyes of the law, and those familiar with business in general understand this and refer to legal entities as if they were separate persons, even if they have some role in its operation. This is totally and completely within the realm of normalcy.

  • I've seen this critique repeated many times, by many individuals here, in many different ways. But the fact of the matter is that legal entities are persons in the eyes of the law, and those familiar with business in general understand this and refer to legal entities as if they were separate persons, even if they have some role in its operation. This is totally and completely within the realm of normalcy.


    This is a 'IH Fanboy says'. How Rossiesque of you. You are learning from your master, the Dottore himself. If you continue in this path you too can achieve deception heights and the possiblity of unimaginable wealth (maybe even a quarter billion dollars)!


    Intentional deception to defraud does not relieve individuals from deceptive communication merely because they are speaking about fictional persons, even if those persons are registered corporations.


    But regardless of whether Rossi is ever prosecuted for fraud, or the outcome of the civil suit (even if he wins 'millyuns and millyuns' of dollars), Rossi scammed IH regarding JMP.


    That is well established by anyone capable of evaluating evidence, no matter if their bias is for or against Rossi. Because the evidence demonstrating this is now on the docket.

  • @sig,


    Please don't misunderstand. One must have the ability to separate the JMP ruse itself from the reference to a legal entity as a separate person. The former is at least distasteful and the latter is completely normal and does not imply the former.


    The JMP situation started out, in my opinion, as a way to kick IH into gear with the GPT. IH didn't necessarily want the GPT ever to be carried out, because to them it simply meant a bill for $89 MM. They already had what they needed and there was no further inducement left to move quickly on the GPT, or even at all. The JMP situation eventually took on a life of its own. I'm quite certain we'll get to see and hear more during the trial. I think it was a big mistake and miscalculation by Rossi, and probably will prove fatal before the jury.

    • Official Post

    At one time or another, most familiar with this case have asked the same rhetorical question: "why did Rossi sue?". The implication being that those who initiate a law suit, are generally the victim, not the perpetrator...and not the other way around! It is so crazy that it takes you aback, and there is the natural tendency to then place the burden of proof on the defendant (IH), and give the benefit of the doubt to the accuser (Rossi).


    I would not be surprised in the least if the two judges are wondering about, and asking themselves this same question also. As a result, maybe accounting for their lenient handling of the case? That would explain why they have allowed the suit to continue on with so much damning evidence piling up against Rossi and team. And if this goes to trial, and it probably will, IMO the jury will be wondering, and asking, the same thing. We are all human afterall, Rossi a master exploiter of that, and this is a very perplexing question...why did Rossi sue, if he is the scammer? Then like us, hopefully, as the facts are revealed to them in court, they reconcile their initial tendency to side with Rossi as the accuser, accept the facts as presented, and let themselves come to see instead Rossi the guilty.


    Come to think of it, Rossi filing suit first, may be the only strength he has going for him into trial....unless one considers Rossisays, Penonsays, Fabianisays as strengths. :) All that said, I have grappled with this question myself, along with others here. I still have no answer. All I can do is follow the facts, and let them lead me to the truth. And there are more than enough facts available for me to easily conclude that Rossi is guilty of fraud.

  • You don't know what you are taking about if you say "proven correct by the USPTO"


    The issue of a patent is not a verification that a device works.

    there are even procedures for revoking patents

    http://www.lexology.com/librar…b5-4148-b3f6-b2a89a447492


    Here is an example"Monsanto's fraudulent tomato patent revoked by patent office

    http://www.naturalnews.com/048…atents_tomato_plants.html

  • Rossisays, IHsays....

    Who cares?

    Rossi demonstrated Nobel-worthy antigravity water in Bologna!

    This invention alone frees humans to travel to distant worlds, bringing all the life-giving and radiation shielding water we want!

  • I would not be surprised in the least if the two judges are wondering about, and asking themselves this same question also. As a result, maybe accounting for their lenient handling of the case? That would explain why they have allowed the suit to continue on with so much damning evidence piling up against Rossi and team.


    I like your thought, but have to take issue with one thing: while there has been damning evidence against Rossi, I believe there has been an equally amount of damning evidence against IH. Take for example, Darden's claim that he knew it didn't work in January of 2014 because the dummy reactor allegedly gave the same performance as a fueled reactor, but then would go on to raise tens of millions of outside investment based on Rossi's technology. Darden isn't playing straight. Something is amiss.

  • @Shane,


    What is so wrong about leaving some wiggle room? Seems like the most common unsolicited advice I get from the IH camp is to hedge more. I think I hedge my words nearly all the time.


    In any case, there is an email, and it looks to me like an order was placed, and it is on the list of evidence to be presented at trial, so not sure why you are nitpicking this one.

  • Yes, there are emails between Rossi and Johnson Matthey. An order for 10kg of platinum sponge was apparently placed, or at least negotiated. You can check the record as it is open to everyone now. I'm sure we have only seen the tip of the iceberg so far as evidence goes. We'll see more at trial.

    By that "logic" I must be in negotiation with General Electric, Ford, IBM, Microsoft....to support my work and build factories and they will buy anything I invent since I bought something from each of them. I have bought Pt, Pd, and Ni from Johnson Matthey but I am in no ways in negotiation to build a factory or supply they industrial factory with their required power. You are not playing with a full deck if you think it is.


    And I do not believe that a order for 10kG was actually placed. Perhaps a quote but not an order for that much. You are grasping at straws. I think you will find there was never an order placed for more than a few grams. Show your reference that an order for 10Kg was actually placed.

  • ele " Rossi technical claims have been proved correct by the USPTO"


    You really need to read more before you says such things. Just imagine all the patents for rockets, subs, space stations....

    do you think the USPTO "proves" them before a patent is granted. Do you think they have the ability to prove nuclear bombs, new virus drugs, .....


    You are falling into a deep deep Rossi hole of twisted illogic.

    • Official Post

    Take for example, Darden's claim that he knew it didn't work in January of 2014 because the dummy reactor allegedly gave the same performance as a fueled reactor, but then would go on to raise tens of millions of outside investment based on Rossi's technology. Darden isn't playing straight. Something is amiss.


    Good point. Obviously Rossi feels, along with his remaining 7 supporters, :) that this is significant in some way, as he has said that repeatedly in his filings to the court, and on JONP. I have never really understood how that will help him win $89 million...do you?


    It is a curiosity no doubt, but I only see it as a distraction at this point, that we can set aside to discuss after Rossi is in jail, ;) Unless, of course, the investors themselves file suit against IH tomorrow, or file a friend of the court appeal on Rossi;s behalf. Not going to happen I suspect.

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.