Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • The issue is symmetrical IH and Rossi.

    • If IH is sincere, Rossi is deceitful.
    • If Rossi is sincere, IH is deceitful.

    So it is difficult to see how anyone can consistently argue IH honesty without impugning Rossi's character. Does that make such people biased?

    Of course both might be deceitful.

    • Also worth noting that Rossi is known, in some respects that those who support him agree but view as reasonable, to be deceitful. Either faking tests or treating Hydrofusion in an appalling way, and faking the customer, with instructions to his workers to behave so as to perpetuate the deceit.
    • IH is known at most to have unwisely not clarified in writing the precise nature of this test. That is more being tactful than deceitful - since Rossi would be expected to get very annoyed and not fulfill his part of the contract by helping with IP transfer if told clearly that the test was not the GPT.
    • IH is also known to have signed a contract so worded that the GPT would be difficult for Rossi to do, given for some reason he did not get on and do this quickly. But the whole GPT $89M payment thing appears to be Rossi wording, he has stated he was desperate to do the GPT and I'm sure $89M up front can lend a deal of motivation. Also it is a bad contract no VC in their right minds would want, so it is difficult for us to know quite whom should be morally blamed for such a contract. My guess is that when it was signed both sides had very different expectations for how it would work. IH reckoned that until they had working reactors Rossi would not be allowed to do it. Rossi reckoned he would do it anyway because what he cared about was $89M.
    • Finally - IH show no obvious sign of being deluded, other than possible technical naivetee. Whereas Rossi has on a number of documented occasions made strong claims contrary to the physics and engineering in a manner that looks like delusion.
  • the new evidence "falls into the category of legislative facts. ... these are, in essence, facts that are not directly related to the specific events in a particular case."

    "Legislative facts" may have to do with arguments that lawyers make about legislative intent: what was the intent of the legislature when they passed the law around which the trial or some ruling hinges. Legislative intent is something that judges are supposed to take into consideration when weighing judgement. It is basically a way for the lawyer to argue to the appellant judge that the trial judge made in incorrect ruling on a point of law. But more often they will cite case law. Though since I'm not a lawyer, jailhouse or otherwise, I could be totally wrong.

  • THH

    I don't see that not being sincere equates to being deceitful.

    Perhaps some equate people being sincere with honesty but I prefer the definition of as "who communicates and acts in accordance with their feelings, beliefs".

    I can see IH's actions as in line with their saying that they wanted the technology to work so they could commercialize it and spent their money in alignment with those hopes. I do not see Rossi's actions of how he spent his money (condos) in alignment of his claims of helping the children with cancer or developing the technology.

    I do not wish to comment on Rossi's "honesty" or conjecture the possible "motives" IH's (other than what they said). Those are personal valuations.


    Your GPT timing point is important and often overlooked. There was an agreed upon early timing for the GPT. Having technology that is claimed ready (recall Rossi's claimed factory) in Italy using the technology) for testing and commercialization is important for funding and development. Cold fusion/LENR has been around a long time and many startup companies have had marginal early results that did not materialize into a workable commercial product with sufficient energy/COP levels. There are time window restraints on funding and marketing. It seems that Rossi did not meet the timing requirement as voiced in the depositions stating that the GPT timing was past before his move to Florida.

  • The appellate trial is basically a determination if a mistake was made, and if so, was it big enough to need fixing by the appellate court. The only facts decided by the appellate court are those necessary to make this determination. The appellate court can determine:

    1) no error in the trial

    2) there was an error but it does not change the outcome

    3) there was an error but it can be fixed by the original judge

    4) there was an error and the only way to fix it is to have a whole new trial

    Most of the time the appellate court finds either 1 or 2 above. The timeline of 5 years for appeals to finish posted by someone else is reasonable. You can expect a minimum of 2 years after this case for resolution because one side will be appealing no matter what.

    Also, in my opinion, I do not think that IH will settle. I think if they were going to it would have already happened because I do not believe Rossi will except anything less that a NDA and return of his IP. I think that IH is determined to crush Rossi after being sued.

    Edited once, last by WMartin: Spelling ().

  • It seems that Rossi did not meet the timing requirement as voiced in the depositions

    It was not even a matter of timing to my understanding, but refusal.

    According to the depositions that I read, IH had it all set to perform the GPT at their facility in North Carolina by reputable entities. Rossi refused stating that a test there would not be as "convincing" as a test by a "real customer" at the customer site. The GPT did not call out for any customer at all. According to what has been stated in the deposition, Rossi would not test at IH and then later presented the Doral facility and "JM customer" as being a real entity, with real production and that they would be more convincing than a test at IH facilities in NC. More convincing indeed:?::/

    As has been stated many times here... the GPT was not meant for public awareness or a customer impression, but for IH to confirm that the eCat worked and was ready for commercialization. Rossi insisted the Florida location at the "real customer" plant, using "real production". This of course all turned out to be a fraud, JMP being Rossi, at a Rossi rented facility, with no production. Total deceit. The Rossi supporters must remember this was all AFTER IH had a test site available that Rossi rejected. Rossi kept stating that IH did not find a suitable customer. This is not true. There was no stipulation in the GPT terms that a customer was needed. The GPT test could have started in the time allotted, but Rossi was the reason it was not performed or started. IH was not to blame for this, Rossi simply knew he could not let the test be conducted outside his control to put on the "magic show".

    Yet many Rossi supporters still point the finger at IH? Really incredible! This was way before the documented falling out between the two! The "falling out" was not until after the Doral event started. Of course some die hard believers will justify Rossi in his deceit by stating he could not trust IH. Yet this was before any falling out and not long after the signing of the $10 million IP transfer agreement, which he had 30 days(?) to change his mind.

    Rossi supporters have to demonize IH as there is no other excuse for Rossi.

    He did not agree to the GPT in time.

    He did not allow the test to start in NC.

    He setup a fake customer, at a fake factory, fake chief engineer. fake heat exchanger, no production

    He has dumped the eCat for the QuarkX, even though he is suing for $89 million dollars stating the eCat ran for 350 days out of 400 with COP >50! He is not pursuing the eCat in Europe

    where there is no dispute from the lawsuit. He could be making many millions more selling the eCat in Europe than he will ever get from the lawsuit. But he does NOT do this! His supporters

    then make up reasons as Rossi himself does not defend himself in this area.

    He does not have a truly independent and reputable entity confirm the eCat works to nail the lawsuit shut. He could make the lawsuit a slam dunk, but he does not pursue having

    the eCat confirmed. So his supporters make up excuses because Rossi himself does not defend himself in this area.

    Rossi would not allow the GPT at the IH facility by proper entity or testing protocols.

    Rossi will not allow confirmation of the eCat by a proper entity or testing protocols at any location.

    Rossi will not allow confirmation of the QuarkX by a proper entity or testing protocols.

    Rossi will not allow....... yet the supporters continue to bash IH and support Rossi ???? :rolleyes:

  • Or maybe the E-Cat is already obsolete, and is much harder to control and/or make safe than small QuarkX units.

    QuarkX which is of course a scam, Rossi has successfully hypnotized yet other easily gullible poor scientists =O

  • Maybe the rebuttal evidence would be presented outside the court in such a way it could be hard to ignore? At least, FWIW I would expect things to play out that way.

    Both sides will have been advised by their lawyers that expert evidence needs to be put forward in Discovery (with certain limited possibility to introduce later).

    Were, for example, Rossi to put forward evidence of working devices he would have been told it should be done during discovery. Similarly expert opinion - though Rossi can maybe use himself as an expert - or hope to do this. I'm not entirely sure how Rossi statements as an expert will play now?

    I'm a bit concerned that IH has not put forward better expert evidence - but i guess they felt they had enough and this is probably correct.

    Rossi however has no expert evidence, except Wong on the mysterious vanishing heat exchanger. I find this a bit surprising, but my guess is that he expects to be doing it all himself? i guess he could not find experts to say what he wants...

    Anyway, this basically means:

    (1) Rossi thinks he has no working devices


    (2) Rossi does not care enough about $89M to introduce proper evidence that his devices actually work (the Lugano profs would be slaughtered for all the known reasons)


    (3) he has been advised that winning with a Jury is not helped by convincing them that his devices work

    can anyone find any holes in this?

  • QuarkX which is of course a scam, Rossi has successfully hypnotized yet other easily gullible poor scientists

    Gullible graduate student (singular) in this case, I'm afraid, who seems to have taken data given to him on faith. There are no public attestations of the QuarkX by any scientists I know of, including the Uppsala group.

  • THH

    I don't see that not being sincere equates to being deceitful.

    Perhaps some equate people being sincere with honesty but I prefer the definition of as "who communicates and acts in accordance with their feelings, beliefs".

    fair enough. I guess i don't think anyone except God can properly judge sincerity as defined here - so I was using it in the different sense of "not deceitful".

  • Maybe the rebuttal evidence would be presented outside the court in such a way it could be hard to ignore? At least, FWIW I would expect things to play out that way.

    Possibly, of course, but if it's outside the Courts, than any Jury could not base their decisions on that evidence (as instructed by the Court). And if IH could show that the jury did base their decision on evidence outside of the Court, this would be grounds for dismissal of any claims against IH that were based on accepted evidence 'outside the Court'.

    Of course, practically, if Rossi did provide convincing evidence that the E-Cat worked, then IH (who paid for Rossi's IP) would then presumably be able to replicate the effect, make a bunch of money through commercialization, and in that case would probably be more amenable to some sort of settlement with Rossi (good PR). It should not affect any Court decision, however. (And that's a big 'if', in my opinion.)

    But I suppose that Rossi, given his extraordinary PR skills, will continue to attempt to 'rebut' in the 'court of public opinion' through a fake journal, sock puppets, and 'fan-only' sites, regardless. So if that's the kind of 'rebuttal' that you are referring to, I certainly grant you that.

    But given the quality of such presented evidence by Rossi, I anticipate that it will continue to be easy, not 'hard' to ignore that evidence.

  • Or maybe the E-Cat is already obsolete, and is much harder to control and/or make safe than small QuarkX units.

    QuarkX which is of course a scam, Rossi has successfully hypnotized yet other easily gullible poor scientists =O

    This is kind of what I am talking about, where people make defenses for Rossi because he does not do so himself.

    The QuarkX, per Rossi, is a 20 watt device. It is no where near commercialization and possibly cannot even be scaled up, if it is even real. (very unlikely) We have no information what so ever on

    it's existence, other than "Rossi says" it exists and is on it's way to 5 sigma, whatever that will prove! Side note, WHO is doing the 5 sigma certification! 8|

    Rossi is suing for $89 million dollars, please read that number 89 million dollars, because he is stating that the 1MW plant put out between .75 and 1MW of heat for 350 out of 400 days.

    We cannot state the eCat is obsolete when it's replacement (QuarkX) cannot even produce enough to run a hair dryer! To claim the eCat is obsolete based upon this logic is remarkable!

    Really? A year from now, when the QuarkX is no further along in it's public confirmation, will you still be holding this stance? That the eCat, which an 89 million dollar lawsuit is said to be ready

    for commercialization, is obsolete by a 20 watt device that no one has tested nor confirmed? What will the excuse be then?

    As far as gullible scientists, Rossi has always stretched the limits on his announcement's meaning. I have written before and my stance is still unanswered, that Gullstrom has never been to Florida nor

    has he seen the QuarkX. My opinion based upon Rossi's history, is that he crunched some numbers provided by Rossi and does not have any first hand knowledge of the test at all. The paper written

    which states Rossi and Gullstrom as participants in the test means in Rossi's eyes "he participated by doing the analysis of numbers". Remember, Rossi stated the Lugano test was completely independent from him and that the professors ran the complete event. What was the truth about that? Hmmmmmm.... In any case, the Gullstrom paper has been commented as being pretty much meaningless, even by many

    Rossi supporters.

    So what does Rossi say about not pursuing the eCat in Europe? Nothing.... so his supporters make excuses.

    What does Rossi say about why did he drop the eCat for the QuarkX? He simply does not say anything about the eCat anymore! This leaves him wiggle room when he might later need it. He simply states

    nothing! So his supporters make excuses.

    So, Rossi does not defend himself but leaves his supporters to make excuses. Later, he can then say.... "I never said that!" :/

  • [ Not a lawyer, though I have followed other civil federal cases through the whole process. ]

    Tomorrow : 05/05/2017 0287.0 PAPERLESS NOTICE of Hearing on 283 Plaintiff’s APPEAL of Magistrate Judge to District Court Order – ECF No. 266, 285 Defendant’s APPEAL of Magistrate Judge 266 Order to District Court Denying Motion for Sanctions Based on Spoliation: Motion Hearing set for 5/23/2017 10:00 AM in Miami Division before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. The Court has reserved the rest of the day for this hearinig.

    I expect all of these to be denied. Rossi's isn't critical to the case.

    But if the spoilation is denied, I expect I..H.. to appeal the decision.
    If allowed, I expect Rossi to appeal.…decision-or-judgment.html

    This would be to United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit…_for_the_Eleventh_Circuit

    This is on questions of law only, not on fact -- though the whole kit and kaboodle could be referred back to the lower court.

  • Who did you expect to answer your guess?

    Well, the subject was brought up by Roger about the "poor gullible scientist". With that thought in mind, I stated my opinion that Gullstrom was most likely not physically at the test and that this had been brought up before. Many Rossi supporters go to great length, providing possible "explanations" about what I would call odd behavior of Rossi. I made the suggestion about Gullstrom's lack of physical involvement back on 4/17 in comment #6175. There have been no post on the Gullstrom thread since 4/7. So the subject is either of not much interest or the supporters have little to back the story up? I do not know which. ?(

    But the QuarkX has hit a milestone and I would like to make a repost of a comment made sometime ago. We are now well past the ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY of the QuarkX announcement by Rossi. The post below shows several claims by Rossi about the QuarkX. Sometimes our memory is quite short! None of these have came to pass, some proven fake and yet some posters are still discussing the QuarkX as a real, viable technology!

    Earlier post............

    avatar-default.svg IH Fanboy wrote: do you have evidence that this has not been done

    Evidence of what has not been done? Dig that hole! :)

    Here is what has not been done...

    QuarkX to be installed at customer by April 2016…ustomer-factory-by-april/

    uh.... no. Did not happen.

    QuarkX to be tested by "important new customer" by May 2016…potential-cutomerpartner/

    uh... no. Did not happened. Another fake customer perhaps?

    QuarkX report to be published in June 2016…ch-thread/comment-page-1/

    uh... speaks for itself.

    QuarkX second "Very important customer" in june…ant-new-customer-in-june/

    .... amazing how many customers over the past 6 years seem to disappear with memory!!!! Also no test either, probably no customer either.

    Quarkx factory to be in Sweden in May 2016…ry-for-quarkx-production/

    uh... no factory. The factory was stated by Rossi to be a magnificence several years ago! What happened to that one? :/

    I guess the Doral facility is must be quite the magnificence! :rolleyes:

    and I could go on with many more......

    Your answer will most likely be.... "but he has been developing and changing the QuarkX. None of the above counts because it was his intentions only and not a given fact!" and other excuses. We have heard the same excuses for 6 years now and nothing has come from it but smoke and mirrors.

    Rossi "spends time" in his "Doral Factory Laboratory" with his "team" to write a completely nonsense paper. He could settle this argument easily once and for all if he really had something. Yet he refuses to do so.

    Rossi supporters need to wake up to his repetitive past history and start to realize what Rossi is doing.

    No one stays with him. Gullstrom is now his new "Expert". What happened to Norman Cook?! What happened to that paper and relationship?

    What happened to all the past relationships with Rossi? Even the Lugano people do not come to his defense.

    The list of known false statements and deceptions is long and wide spread from him. The list of actual confirmed and proven truths is almost non-existent!

    People can continue to place their trust and hope in Rossi......

    but that is only digging a hole you cannot get out of!

    .................. end of earlier post

    A year has now passed and QuarkX is no more realized than a year ago. Nothing more is known other than Rossi spends time and money on a lawsuit instead of proving his "product".

    I really do not understand how anyone can place any credibility with Rossi at this time! Yet some are still making excuses for him! A year from now, will I post this again and some will still state

    "But the reason is........" or "He is justified in doing......." or ...

    "perhaps the eCat is now obsolete and the QuarkX is the best thing since sliced bread! Besides... he cannot have fooled another undergrad scientist!"

    So who am I asking? Anyone who still gives Rossi any credibility and the question is why? :)

  • This is kind of what I am talking about, where people make defenses for Rossi because he does not do so himself.

    Right. I call it crowd-sourced excuse making. He can sit back and cherry pick the best excuses, theories, rationalizations, and so forth. It has served him well in maintenance of his scams occurring during the Internet era.

  • There have been complaints about the technical competence of Rossi's attorneys.

    However, I..H..'s megabuck lawyers came up with :

    The production of this single degree of energy is at the heart of Rossi’s allegedly “revolutionary” invention.

    On evidence for the trial : We're still waiting on Murray's expert report, due 5/31, which may include additional photos and technical information.

    Edit: I..H.. have not made an issue of the flowmeter or it's stain. Maybe Murray will oblige.

    All of the depositions are part of the evidence list, including numerous photos referred to, but not included in, various filings.

    They can be presented to the jury in the "tabbed file" ... but I'm not sure WE will ever see them.

    No new witnesses or evidence can be produced. The whole purpose of the modern "discovery" process is to avoid Perry Mason surprises.

  • Curiously, one of the civil cases I followed (Birfer stuff, c 2015) involved a spoliation issue in this very court!

    This is the magistrate judge discussing the issue. I'll dig up the results of the hearing.…aring-re-Sanctions-Motion

    This magistrate judge (Jonathan Goodman) has a great sense of humor :

  • Well, in terms of predictions since my 'bold predictions' challenge, you're likely to be declared winner!

    You predicted all MSJ from both parties would be tossed, while I predicted Count I against IH would be granted from their MSJ's, which was wrong. (I did predict all of Rossi's MSJ's would be tossed, but that was 'not all that bold'). Also, Old Guy thought IH's MSJ's would be granted. He and I can still holding out for the unlikely possibility that the Judge will grant Spoliation to IH and then amend her ruling on MSJ's based on granting 'adverse interpretation' as a remedy. But even then, I think you win, because I also predicted that Altonaga would not grant Spoliation, yet it appears that this is the only hope for my prediction of granting MSJ Count I. (And you also mentioned this as a possibility, so you kind of covered that base).

    But the chances of Altonaga granting Spoliation and amending her MSJ ruling, in my opinion, are almost nill, now that she has ruled. However, since the hearing is tomorrow, I'll wait for her ruling rather than concede the virtually inevitable.

    It's my understanding that while IH can appeal a denial of Spoliation, and probably will if denied, that any ruling on that by the Appeals Court would occur only after the current trial is over. Their appeal would go on the books so that they could justifiably include this in their Appeal, or response to Rossi's Appeal, depending on which losing party ends up appealing a decision regarding their claims.

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.