Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • Bob ,


    Well, maybe you ought to quote my actual language "has been" rather than switch it to "being in" and then arguing against your own strawman construction. ;)

    Typical response...

    You have in the past accused others of dodging your questions, but often do so yourself, as in this example.

    Then you start the "Grammar war" by attempting to divert attention from the real issue to "has been" versus "being in" as if it really made any difference!


    Let's face it... your posts only intend to paint a bad picture of IH, using extremely unlikely or even unfounded views while letting Rossi's proven antics slide by without any repudiation.

    Only when called out, do you occasionally make a statement such as "Rossi is no saint either". But even then you attempt to make comparative allegations by adding the word "either" there.

    So much for the grammar wars! So much for not being biased and only "seeking truth".


    I do not reply to such as SSC and ele as they make it quite clear. They are totally on Rossi's side and will support him to the end. That is fine, it is their choice and right. They are up front about it.

    However, your "only seeking for truth" BS rubs me quite irritated as it is quite evident by your posts being filled only with anti-IH rhetoric. Not holding Rossi anywhere near to the same level of

    accountability (if at all) while always defaming IH is not "seeking for truth", you simply will not admit it!:thumbdown:


    I once read a quote, but do not know the author :


    "Keep your distance from people who will never admit

    they are wrong and always try to make you feel like

    it's all your fault"

    It is interesting how the majority of Rossi supporters try to make this entire drama "IH's fault" or at least divert the attention from Rossi to IH.

    They cannot defend Rossi on his merits, so they try to tear down IH. Sad.


    I have not posted for some time and will most likely refrain from much in the future. There is no point in arguing with a mind set like above.

    Good day everyone:thumbup:

  • woodworker,

    You can't know. It was possibly bait and switch.


    We DO know: It could not possibly be 'bait and switch', because the signed agreement (you know, the one on the Docket that Rossi has his signature on), was with IH (not Cherokee).


    Or are you arguing that Rossi (and his lawyer(s)) didn't read the $100.5M contract when he signed it and that's how IH 'tricked' him into signing it, because they imagined that it was actually Cherokee?

  • Speaking of marquetry, check out this guy's website/work. Absolutely amazing.


    ctfinefurniture.com


    I love his Automoton. Simply fantastic. I don't know how much, but I would have to believe high five figures, if not six figures.

  • We DO know: It could not possibly be 'bait and switch', because the signed agreement (you know, the one on the Docket that Rossi has his signature on), was with IH (not Cherokee).


    Or are you arguing that Rossi (and his lawyer(s)) didn't read the $100.5M contract when he signed it and that's how IH 'tricked' him into signing it, because they imagined that it was actually Cherokee?



    Rossi did a classic bait and switch with the Johnson Matthey/JMP "client". Are you going to apply that same reasoning to him and say that IH should have read the final version of the term sheet and not imagine that they were working with Johnson Matthey?

  • Rossi originally dealt with Cherokee: I wonder if he was told the deal would be spun off to IH, who had limited funds.


    I remember reading about this somewhere .... Rossi was not happy about the initial contract because when it came to signature time, Cherokee suddenly morphed into Industrial Heat. I do suspect that in the event (however unlikely) of Rossi winning his case, IH will simple follow the Cherokee routine and file a Chapter 11.

  • Rossi did a classic bait and switch with the Johnson Matthey/JMP "client". Are you going to apply that same reasoning to him and say that IH should have read the final version of the term sheet and not imagine that they were working with Johnson Matthey?



    Except, of course, we know from uncontested evidence on the docket that Rossi was intentionally deceiving (defrauding?) IH with JM Products, whereas there is no evidence that IH intentionally deceived Rossi into thinking that IH was actually Cherokee. (I didn't really have to point that out, though, did I?)


    Rossi's allegation is that IH couldn't and never intended to pay. Which is a different allegation. And there is clear evidence on the docket (even if contested) that IH could easily raise the money needed to pay if Rossi delivered on the 1 year 'test'.

  • You're almost certainly far more familiar with the facts and the docket than I am. I just got roped into this recently, after getting into a mild spat with abd regarding the importance of understanding the underlying substantive law if one wants to credibly comment on rulings in the case, and I'm still getting slowly up to speed on the facts of the case in my very limited free time.


    That said -

    1: If an average jury has to sit through a monthlong trial where the court case involves non-mainstream science combined with what look to be somewhat strange business practices on all sides, I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect that there might be some baby splitting.


    2: As far as Rossi's prior bad acts goes, they're probably not relevant to the contract claims, but the fraudulent inducement might be another matter. But they're also potentially a double-edged sword (IMO). If IH was aware of Rossi's reputation, a jury can be induced to wonder why IH first went ahead with the deal and then was so lax in allowing the modifications to the 23.5 hour test. And if IH was not aware, why weren't they.


    But that's based on speculation without having carefully reviewed the counterclaim. I'll try to find time to do that in more detail tomorrow.

  • We DO know: It could not possibly be 'bait and switch', because the signed agreement (you know, the one on the Docket that Rossi has his signature on), was with IH (not Cherokee).


    Or are you arguing that Rossi (and his lawyer(s)) didn't read the $100.5M contract when he signed it and that's how IH 'tricked' him into signing it, because they imagined that it was actually Cherokee?

    Rossi's allegation is essentially that the defendants fraudulently induced him to enter the contract by representing that IH was for all purposes Cherokee. There is apparently some evidence to support that count, since IH did not receive summary judgment on this claim. I currently have no view on the strength of that evidence or the likelihood that Rossi will win on the count at trial.

  • Rossi's allegation is essentially that the defendants fraudulently induced him to enter the contract by representing that IH was for all purposes Cherokee. There is apparently some evidence to support that count, since IH did not receive summary judgment on this claim. I currently have no view on the strength of that evidence or the likelihood that Rossi will win on the count at trial.


    Thanks for your comment on this, and in response to othercomments, it's great having a real lawyer weighing in.


    I agree, Rossi's complaint does allege that he was fraudulently induced to sign based on IH's assurances that IH was essentially Cherokee, and since this is contested, it will be up to a Jury to reconcile the contested facts. But even in this most recent Statement of the Case (just posted on the Docket) Rossi focuses on the inability to pay, not that it was mostly about IH claiming to be Cherokee. (I admit that the original complaint made a big deal about IH saying that Cherokee owned IH and guaranteed payment, etc.)


    From my look of the evidence on the docket, Rossi is basing his claims on his own testimony (from deposition) and he didn't support the strong initial claims in the suit. Which I think is is because they don't have much evidence to back that up (regarding IH being essentially Cherokee) , and so they've shifted more to another weak argument that IH didn't have the money to pay and never intended to. But given the counter-evidence submitted by IH showing that they could have easily raised the money if Rossi actually had anything that worked, I think this is also weak (and of course they paid the $11.5M for the E-Cat device and license for IP, which isn't exactly chump change).


    But it won't be too long before we get an actual verdict, so I'm content to wait for that.

  • 1: If an average jury has to sit through a monthlong trial

    This trial is scheduled to last two weeks.

    Telling the truth is not "ad hominems".

    Incorrect. The definition of ad hominem is "(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining." The argument against the person may be true, or it may be false, but it is still ad hominem.


    An ad hominem may be valid and called for, when the person being criticized is at fault. However, when you criticize the person instead of the argument he makes, that is a logical fallacy.

  • You're correct about the definition of "ad hominem" Jed. In Rossi's case, I think it is equally correct to call him a con man, a swindler, a convicted felon and a lying crook and also to point out that objectively and scientifically, every test he has run or which has been run for him which have been made public were complete crap. Covers all bases that way.


    ETA: actually, one or more tests, including one done by a major Swedish organization, which showed no excess heat, were probably done correctly so not all tests done for him were wrong. Just the ones that showed positive results. I looked up my link to the best example of such a test and it was done for Hydrofusion by the Swedish Research Institute and is documented by NyTeknik here: (this is the short link for the Google translate version, if I did it right): https://tinyurl.com/c5k6du3

  • Alan - you're perpetuating Rossi fabrications and you should stop. You should also stop drinking the RoSSC kool-aid and do your best to keep yourself and your position as moderator as far away from libelous activity as possible.


    Hitman Weaver making "hidden" threats again? BTW! We've been missing your weapon analogies. Please show us more nukes Dewey...

  • Dewey W.

    It appears ECW has been hacked and is shut down for a bit. The timing is interesting since it is the only mainstream forum with significant pro-Rossi content. Suspicious that it would happen right about the time that jurors would probably be disobeying their jury instructions to google Cold Fusion or LENR to find out more. Just saying.

  •  

    This trial is scheduled to last two weeks.

     

    According to the voir dire questions submitted by plaintiffs, it's going to last 5 weeks; according to the questions submitted by the defendants, it's going to last 3-4 weeks. The only place where I've seen 2 weeks listed was in some scheduling documents that stated that the trial is scheduled to commence during a 2-week trial calendar - but that's a scheduling unit that courts use, not a time estimate for a specific case.


    But let's assume 2 weeks. That might reduce the chance of baby-splitting versus a 3 to 4-week case, but not by much.


    Seriously, don't underestimate the possibility of something like that happening. From my inexpert perspective, it basically looks like everyone in the case is claiming that everyone else in the case was lying to them. Add in testimony about cold fusion (the plaintiffs use that term in their proposed voir dire questionnaire, so it will probably come up somewhere). Add to that the demands that a long jury trial makes on the lives of the jurors, and the disruption that it can cause to their lives.


    Picture this: you're sitting at your living room table at home, surrounded by paperwork, trying to prep for an IRS audit. And your pre-pubescent children come in with a squabble that involves - you're not totally sure, really, even after the explanations, but there's a lot of who is the bigger poopy-head and who called who a poopy-head first involved. If all the lawyers aren't careful, that's easily how the jury could wind up feeling by the end of the trial.

  •  

    Mike: FYI, for many of the rossi supporters, I am not a real lawyer.


    "Thanks for your comment on this, and in response to other comments, it's great having a real lawyer weighing in."

     


    Which mildly amuses me -


    I didn't do an intro, and don't have time now. But it should be taken as a given that woodworker is more experienced as a lawyer than I ever will be. Literally - I went to law school recently, and mid-life. I'm licensed, but I'm not in active practice and have no current plans of entering practice. I'm a researcher, and (hopefully) an early-career legal academic. In other words, pretty good with the book learning, not so much with the real-world experience.

  •  

    From my look of the evidence on the docket, Rossi is basing his claims on his own testimony (from deposition) and he didn't support the strong initial claims in the suit. Which I think is is because they don't have much evidence to back that up (regarding IH being essentially Cherokee) , and so they've shifted more to another weak argument that IH didn't have the money to pay and never intended to. But given the counter-evidence submitted by IH showing that they could have easily raised the money if Rossi actually had anything that worked, I think this is also weak (and of course they paid the $11.5M for the E-Cat device and license for IP, which isn't exactly chump change).


    But it won't be too long before we get an actual verdict, so I'm content to wait for that.

     

    It's a jury trial, and juries don't (or at least aren't supposed to) just look at who has quantitatively more evidence. They also decide who to believe when stories conflict, and how much weight to give different pieces of evidence when they decide what really happened. And they come into the case (or at least are supposed to) as a blank slate, with no knowledge of the events or people involved.


    And while I'm still getting up to speed on the case and don't have a great deal of knowledge about the people involved, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I'd expect Rossi to be a pretty believable-sounding guy. He managed to persuade IH to invest, managed to persuade them to allow the change to the initial test, apparently managed to persuade them to allow the longer test to take place at a very different location from the original plan, and so on. And IH had a hundred million reasons to be skeptical about Rossi's claims.


    I don't know. Maybe he'll be a terrible witness. Maybe the defendants will be able to impeach him. (Lord knows there's enough material to do it with.) But it may turn out that the jury believes him more than they believe the IH crowd.

  • If IH had IP that really worked they would :

    1) Gladly pay Rossi so they could start selling BILLIONS in cold fusion reactors!

    2) They would start selling cold fusion reactors or lease the IP to manufacturers to build them for them and make billions.

    3) Become larger than Apple.

    BOB,

    IH had never had any real industrial plan in order to develop Rossi's technology.

    If we look back to Cherokee history seems that we have a long trail of possibly criminal behaviors see e.g. The Playground

    As I suspected in the past if that case is equal to the others there was no intention to make any business but just to steal money.

  • I can see that Planet Rossi has geared up to try and influence things at trial time and predict that is not going to turn out so well for those folks. The regurgitated

    hack play is particularly hilarious - I think that best filter may be something like - if Planet Rossi claims it, the opposite points to the truth.

  • BOB,

    IH had never had any real industrial plan in order to develop Rossi's technology.

    If we look back to Cherokee history seems that we have a long trail of possibly criminal behaviors see e.g. The Playground

    As I suspected in the past if that case is equal to the others there was no intention to make any business but just to steal money.

    I do not see how you come to that conclusion, the depositions paint a completely different story in my view. However, that is only my view and you certainly have the right to have yours.

    It would be interesting if you could post a few quotes/links to depositions that seem to support your claim?


    But more importantly, please answer the rest of my posted question...

    Why is Rossi not selling the eCat and making billions in Europe? He stated the unit ran for 350 days out of 400 with a COP of > 80! The invention of the century!


    Why is Rossi completely dropping the 1MW eCat for the QuarkX? A device he is suing for $89 million dollars and yet he himself does not think it is worth pursuing? He claims it ran 350 days out of 400

    with COP > 80! Yet he is dropping it for a 20watt device that there is no evidence that it even exists, much less runs for 350 days? Come now?


    Rossi cannot have it both ways... suing for $89 million for a device that he himself does not think worth pursuing? Your thoughts please? :/

    Again, tearing down IH to try to defend Rossi because his own actions do not merit is a very flimsy defense. Why is Rossi's own actions casting doubt on the 1MW eCat?

    He could sell ONE unit to a REAL customer (unlike the fake JMP) and they could settle the whole drama with an independent report of use. This does not happen!


    Do you wonder why after all these years? :?:

  • Alan - you're perpetuating Rossi fabrications and you should stop. You should also stop drinking the RoSSC kool-aid and do your best to keep yourself and your position as moderator as far away from libelous activity as possible.


    Dewey Weaver -back to threatening members on this board, I really think that actions such as these should not be tolerated during the trial.

  • There has been a complaint that the E-Cat World hacking accusation was planted here in the hopes that it would influence members of the jury who might ignore the instruction not go research this story on the Internet. LENR Forum have no way of verifying whether the accusation is true or not, but knowing a little about Rionrlty, I have no reason to doubt his sincerity in passing it along. If the ECW hacking suggestion feels like something planted to you, you'll need to be content to address the obvious weakness of it: namely that it's a Sifferkoll-like connecting of the dots that has little in the way of fact to support it at this point.