Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from [email protected]

As far as I can tell, it is public record that IH continued to seek investors for this technology well after receiving the ERV report.

But seeking investors does not imply that they "accepted" the ERV report. It is very likely that they were seeking support for their other LENR research programs.

I , like DNI, don't see any indication of "acceptance" of any of the ERV interim reports and certainly a rejection of the final report. Do not equate non acceptance of a report's conclusions with a rejection of a report. I also do not see any documented evidence that Penon signed the final report or the interim reports. It may be that Rossi wrote it like the daily reports and assumed the Penon would sign it. If Penon is a no show at the trial the reports or until there is a report with his signature they might be treated as hearsay.

Quote from [email protected]

As far as I can tell, it is public record that IH continued to seek investors for this technology well after receiving the ERV report.

"for this technology" You may want to review some of Dewey's claims where he mentions some of IH's results and work coming from other researchers.

It amazes me that people keep implying that Rossi is IH's only project they are supporting when Darden and Dewey have consistently said they have others.

Quote from Eric Walker

Great having you join this thread, Howard. Thank you for chiming in.

Can you give us a preview of what will happen during the trial from our perspective as remote observers? What of interest will be added to the docket during or after the trial?

If you are asking about how the trial proceeds, my prediction would be in a fairly normal and even, to a large degree, boring process.

Rossi wants an additional 89 million dollars. In order to get that, he needs to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he satisfied the conditions precedent under the Rossi/IH agreement (the “Agreement”) to IH’s obligations to pay those monies. To do that he will need to establish what those conditions precedent were, e.g., a satisfactory performance over a certain number of days, that he satisfied those conditions precedent and that, despite such satisfaction of the conditions precedent, IH failed to pay (this last step, that IH didn’t pay is not disputed).

So Rossi will put on witnesses to testify to (1) the terms of the Agreement and (2) that Rossi satisfied the requisite conditions precedent. After each Rossi witness testifies on direct (examination by the party calling that witness), JD will cross-examine those witnesses in an attempt to cast doubt on their credibility and to destroy their testimony.

As to what are the terms of the Agreement, I expect some fighting over whether or not the Florida test itself is the test required by the Agreement, but at the end of the day I don't think it will matter, i.e., that whatever the terms and conditions precedent were, Rossi didn't satisfy them. I haven’t reviewed the documents in enough detail to predict how that issue will play out other than to say that the Florida test, if not completely bogus, might have been considered to be the test required by the Agreement. However, as the Florida test was bogus, e.g., fake customer, fake invoices, sketchy “performance” reports, I don’t think the Florida test will be found to have satisfied the test requirements set forth in the Agreement.

If the test requirements / conditions precedent in the Agreement were not satisfied, then Rossi is not entitled to the additional monies.

It must be noted who has the burden of proof on this issue. Rossi has the burden of proof on this issue not IH. Rossi has to prove, by a preponderance of evidence admitted at trial (not the "evidence" we all independently know somehow), that the Florida test satisfied the conditions precedent to IH’s obligation to pay (or that his non-performance was excused because IH stopped him from performing, which I won’t discuss here because it wasn’t).

It is important to realize that IH, on the issue of whether they owe the additional 89 million dollars, doesn’t have to prove fraud, they don’t have to prove anything. All they have to do on this particular issue is to cast enough doubt on Rossi’s claims that he has satisfied the conditions precedent to IH’s obligations to pay money. Again, Rossi has the burden of proof on this issue not IH. Given the evidence that the Florida test was bogus, IMHO I don’t think Rossi has a prayer in hell of winning on this issue.

What evidence is Rossi going to submit to establish that he satisfied the conditions precedent? The parties have not submitted their witness lists so we don’t know who Rossi is going to call, but let’s think about that.

Rossi will want to submit the ERV, but Penon, the person who prepared that report, is “unavailable” by his own decision. I am not sure that the report even gets admitted. And if admitted and then shown to be total bs and unreliable, there goes Rossi's proof of satisfaction of the conditions precedent.

Johnson? Does Rossi put Johnson on the stand to testify as to the terms of the Agreement and/or whether or not the conditions precedent were satisfied? Just image the cross-examination by JD: Mr. Johnson, isn’t it true that you stated in a letter to IH that neither you, Rossi or anyone else involved in the project had any interest or involvement in the fake customer? Mr. Johnson, isn’t it true that you were responsible for the formation of the fake customer, that Rossi controlled the fake customer and that you (IIRC) secretary and accountant were involved the perpetuation of the fraud about the fake customer? Mr. Johnson, were you lying then or are you lying now? Putting Johnson on the stand as a witness poses YUUGE risks.

Fabiani? Is he available or also absent?

Rossi? I think that Rossi will attempt to add some razz matazz to his arguments, i.e., to establish that if only people would believe in him and not question his brilliance, he would have solved all the world's energy problems with a wave of his hands.

Rossi testifying himself will be interesting. I predict that he will go off on lots of detours and tangents and it will be interesting to see how JD responds. Rossi may bring up lots of stuff that may not be directly relevant or admissible, e.g., his "sales" of the ecat to other parties as evidence of his brilliance and that they work. JD could object that this is not relevant and therefore not admissible or not object or JD could allow that testimony and then question him on cross about these other "sales" and whether or not they really exist. Such questions/topics might not have been permitted on cross if Rossi hadn't brought them up on direct, but once he brings it up on direct, they are fair game on cross. As such, this could give JD more scope to go after Rossi's credibility on cross.

I have more thoughts, but need to feed myself, so this is all for now. Rocky Road ice cream awaits me.

Quote from oldguy

But seeking investors does not imply that they "accepted" the ERV report. It is very likely that they were seeking support for their other LENR research programs.

I agree with your first sentence. I disagree with your second: there is sufficient evidence on the docket to disprove the theory that the fundraising was primarily for other LENR projects. Rossi was at the core. Woodford admitted it in an email. The valuation document of IH underscores it.

Quote from IH Fanboy

I agree with your first sentence. I disagree with your second: there is sufficient evidence on the docket to disprove the theory that the fundraising was primarily for other LENR projects. Rossi was at the core. Woodford admitted it in an email. The valuation document of IH underscores it.

I would like to see that documentation.

What I saw was the Woodford's initial investment (and it was initial investment that may or may not be Woodford's) might have been connected with Rossi but I have not seen documentation that seeking investors later (say after the "visit" by Peter L. and Henry) was based on Rossi as opposed to other researchers that the visited on the same US visit.

oldguy,

Well, I'm glad we can agree that Woodford's initial investment was connected with Rossi... I mean they admitted that it was core to their investment. I think we've all seen the evidence for that at this point.

As for any follow-on fundraising efforts, we have less certain evidence that Rossi was at the core. But there is some. We have an Industrial Heat power point slide listed on the official website of the Baishishan national Sino-US Science and Technology International Innovation Park.

http://chinauspark.com/appUpda…5/20140925152226_9375.pdf

Industrial Heat states:

"We believe our initial technology (“the Reactor”) has several advantages:

该镍反应有如下优点：

–

Generates energy more consistently, on a larger scale and with lower

input costs and higher energy density than other technologies

大量生产

稳定能源，并保持低成本和高密度

–

Creates excess energy between 3 and 20 times the energy required to

operate the device depending on the model of reactor and operating

temperatures at temperatures between 120 and 500 degrees Celsius

需要温度为摄氏120至500度，能产生所需消耗能源3至20倍的能量"

Somehow I don't think they were referring to Brillouin. As an amusing side note, these statements were being made to the Chinese almost a year after the alleged "dummy reactor" had supposedly disproved Rossi's e-Cat in Darden's mind.

Quote from [email protected]

My impression is that they suddenly had objectins to the ERV report several months after receiving it and when they couldn't get the device to work. Basically, Rossi pulled a Fred Flinstone on them, they were unable to get their Dinosaur rockmover to work, and they worked backwards towards where they perceived the problem. Rossi delivered the demo, the device, and the independent ERV report which is what the contract called for. What IH thought they were getting was a toehold into a $trillion business for pennies on the dollar, thinking that with all those 3 things in hand they could easily get the device working -- after all, someone as pedestrian as Rossi did it. But the contract they wrote up was for an $89M demo.

Dear Sir,

Do not talk shaite about Fred Flintstone capisci?

Quote from [email protected]

My source is my own faulty memory from reading at Vortex and EcatWorld. What is your source that IH rejected the ERV report?

Kevin.

I can see how you get your weird views. Ecat-world is not a reliable legal information source - nor vortex. Try reading the Court documents for sworn testimony from the principals.

The question is not whether IH rejected it. It is whether they ever accepted it - your onus to find this acceptance which you can be certain, if it existed, Rossi will reply upon in Court. Therefore it will be in the mountains of Discovery evidence and also highlighted in the Rossi MSJ (to make your job searching a lot easier - reading the entire MSJ is quite possible to those interested).

The not-so-subtle conflation of accepted and never rejected, which you make in your post above, is typical of Rossi's lawyers who continually try to deny matters of fact by stating counterfactuals which are apparently in contradiction but actually not so. Abd's site has some insightful and very detailed, with references, examples of this. Abd is disliked by many as a pompous self-important windbag (a bit like me) - but his patience at following up this stuff is unequalled - and he provides exact quotes and references to source material (that is Court documents, not vortex or ecat-world) so you can check as you read. I recommend that to you.

Quote from woodworker

fake customer, fake invoices, sketchy “performance”

Woodworker, is there any validity to the argument that because the 'fake' companies which Rossi set up are separate legal entities, these technically did satisfy the needs of the agreement?

To clarify, say I'm the sole director of two companies, and the companies sometimes contract/invoice and communicate with each other, despite the fact it's really all just 'me' writing letters to 'myself'. Assuming I'm not doing this for tax avoidance purposes, everything is legal/standard practice?

I hadn't read this bit yet:

Quote from woodworker

Mr. Johnson, isn’t it true that you stated in a letter to IH that neither you, Rossi or anyone else involved in the project had any interest or involvement in the fake customer?

Is that true? If so I guess it makes the above a moot point.

Quote from woodworker

I predict that Rossi will go off on lots of detours and tangents and it will be interesting to see how JD responds. Rossi may bring up lots of stuff that may not be directly relevant or admissible

Fo' sure

Quote from Zeus46

Woodworker, is there any validity to the argument that because the 'fake' companies which Rossi set up are separate legal entities, these technically did satisfy the needs of the agreement?

To clarify, say I'm the sole director of two companies, and the companies sometimes contract/invoice and communicate with each other, despite the fact it's really all just 'me' writing letters to 'myself'. Assuming I'm not doing this for tax avoidance purposes, everything is legal/standard practice?

you may want tor read the agreement. It specifies (as signed by Johnson) that neither he nor Rossi had any ownership or where agents of any kind to the UK formed company.

I think that some of the fraud charges are based on that misrepresentation by Johnson and Rossi.

Interesting...

Quote from oldguy

you may want to read the agreement

With respect, I have much better things to be doing (in my opinion).

Quote from DNI

How do you know IH didn't object to the first reports? I think it is incorrect to claim that IH have accepted the Penon report. That fact that IH didn't complain in public doesn't automatically mean they accepted.

The fact that there is a report number 2 means that Penon has not received any complaints about the number one report, otherwise I think the relationship would have stopped earlier. Moreover, as far as I know, Penon has been paid regularly for his work.

Quote from Roger

How lucky this forum is to have real verified lawyers with no interest in the affair, coming out of the woodwork (eh) to state that Rossi is a doomed liar and hack.

Case closed I guess better tell the swedes, they might be unaware of whom they're dealing with!

The timing is a bit suspicious indeed.... but it is said that thinking badly is a sin!

Quote from Bob

"The Swedes" probably already know quite fully who they dealt with. That is why we have not heard a single word from any of them in three years.

They have not defended their report.

The Swedes probably know exactly who they are dealing with, it is really so! For this reason, they are experimenting with an E-Cat-like reactor (source: Mats Lewan) with the likely support of Fulvio (source: Ahlfors document). If they did not believe in Rossi, they would now devote themselves to something else. And if we do not hear anything about their activity, it is because they are serious scientists, who express themselves through publications and publish only after several successful replies.

Quote from woodworker

I don't recall what led me here. I may have run across a link on Quatloos or on one of the too numerous blogs I visit. My interest in CF is probably limited to the desire to see clean cheap energy, but I have no familiarity with any of the specific proposals to achieve that.

Well, it is right to have hope for new sources of clean and cheap energy ..... which is why I was interested in E-Cat. As a lawyer (you, not me), though, I wonder why you have already made such a verdict. Do not you think Rossi can still have a lot to say about the whole affair? Do not you think that some evidence that you find obvious may turn out to be different when Rossi will explain it to the jury? I thought your class of workers was usually more cautious about these issues.

Quote from oldguy

But seeking investors does not imply that they "accepted" the ERV report. It is very likely that they were seeking support for their other LENR research programs.

It does not make much sense to show the Doral plant to investors and then ask them to pay money for other projects. Darden used the Doral test as a showcase to raise funds, and it is useless to deny that Rossi and his E-Cat have long been more famous and promising than the competition reactors. It's Rossi that has attracted Woodford's attention, not the rest of the portfolio.

Quote from oldguy

I also do not see any documented evidence that Penon signed the final report or the interim reports. It may be that Rossi wrote it like the daily reports and assumed the Penon would sign it.

Penon is a serious professional, with years of experience behind him and a solid reputation. Do you think he would not have intervened if a report was brought up bearing his name and he did not have anything to do with it? Be serious ...... the report is his.

Quote from SSC

The fact that there is a report number 2 means that Penon has not received any complaints about the number one report, otherwise I think the relationship would have stopped earlier. Moreover, as far as I know, Penon has been paid regularly for his work.

SSC. Are you by any chance one of Rossi's lawyers?

accepted is not identical to not complained.

Nor does your assumption here - that the relationship would have stopped, or Penon not paid had IH compained - seem obvious to me.

You are definitely close in thinking to the Rossi legal team.