Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from Eric Walker

    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.


    Hacking a forum in the hopes of influencing jurors strikes me as something that is a lot of work for very little likely gain. In order to be influenced, a juror would (1) have to care enough about cold fusion and LNER to be tempted to disregard the court's instructions; (2) actually disregard the court's instructions and conduct research; (3) find the relevant sites; (4) learn about the (alleged) hacking while reading the sites; and (5) be influenced in some direction as a result of that reading.


    The odds that kind of strategy working strike me as, to put it mildly, low.

    Quote from Roseland67

    Bob,


    I asked the Europe sales question months/years ago.

    Crickets

    Interesting indeed! Yet this major quandary is never addressed by the hard core supporters.


    Again, my main point is that the invention and inventor of the century should be able to undergo scrutiny based upon their own merits and actions.

    The Wright brothers received a lot of criticism, so they simply flew their plane! They proved it worked! And not by fake customers, fake production and

    false pretenses. They proved by their own actions that their invention was as they claimed. Yet Rossi never allows this! Using "IP protection" as an excuse,

    he never allows a test to be conducted that is not actually himself making the test. Yes even Lugano was conducted by Rossi as it is now known that he and Fabianni

    conducted the tests and the professors only "dropped in" and clearly not often.


    Yet the only defense so far from Rossi supporters is trying to tear IH down, put them in some bad light. And using vague, unsupported or blatantly untrue accusations at that.

    When will the Rossi supporters start to defend Rossi based upon his own merit? Yes, it is quite hard to paint a positive picture of fraudulent company, fake engineer, fake heat exchanger,

    fake invoices, intentional sabotaged test (Hydrofusion), continued claimed customers that are not real, continued claims of robotized factories that do not exist and so on......!


    Oh well, one uses what they have to work with. No defense of Rossi from his own merit, so they simply try to tarnish IH hoping it makes Rossi look less the intentional fraudster!

    It is the same as with today's politics.... one does not run a campaign based upon their own qualifications and merit. It has become "who can sling the most mud at the other candidate and

    make them look bad". Detract others from looking at me by trying to paint a horrible picture of my opponent! Vote for the lesser of two evils! A poor, poor defense indeed!


    What about IH? They indeed put their money on the line.

    1) They PAID Rossi $1,500,000 for the 1MW eCat Plant. Yes, that is One Million, five hundred thousand dollars.

    2) They PAID Rossi $10,000,000 for the IP of the eCat. Yes, that is Ten Million Dollars they actually paid. Not promised, not fake, not future, but in the bank and received by Rossi.

    3) They ran many tests trying to get the eCat to work. They even hired Boeing to test it. (The reactor did not work) They put unknown hundreds if not millions of dollars into trying to get a working reactor.

    (All the while, Rossi refused to help, even though he was PAID $11.5 MILLION dollars)

    4) Even though the 2nd agreement contract had expired and was void, IH testified under oath they would be willing to pay him more if he provided a working reactor.


    So IH put their money behind their actions. What did Rossi do? Fake customer, fake production, fake engineer, fake invoices...... and filed a lawsuit! He filed a lawsuit for $89 MILLION dollars

    for a device that he himself now does not think worth pursuing because he has dropped it for the QuarkX! He could have simply allowed a real and proper test, but he did not!

    IH had a test setup in North Carolina but Rossi refused.....wonder why?.....


    And yet the only defense of Rossi that the loyal supporters give, is trying to paint how "evil" IH is!

    (This is a religion in it's basic form! Unwavering faith in the leader, even in the face of hard negative facts....The Church of Rossi!)


    Unfortunately, this tactic often works.......?(

    • Official Post
    Quote from MikeDunford

    Hacking a forum[...]

    As I understood, there was no hack or attack.


    ECW was/is (?) simply using a dubious advertisement network which displayed sometimes a picture or animation of a "microsoft windows style" system-dialog, warning the user that his computer was infected by a computer virus/malware (and of course how to fix that by buying the super duper anti-virus...).


    Nothing else. It was this post here: The Playground

    • Official Post

    @Thetruemonty

    Yes, it looks like a typical advert from such said "dubious" advert networks.


    In my view Frank has it totally exaggerated by placing adverts on each free space of his site. I'm visiting it only with an adblocker.

    At least he could stick with serious advert networks like google adsense. But that's another topic.

    Quote from MikeDunford

    The odds that kind of strategy working strike me as, to put it mildly, low.


    Your point about the ROI on attempts at influencing a jury by posting stuff on the Internet is very well taken. But just to quibble with the premise, that the parties in this case can be expected to behave rationally. In matter of fact, I have come to expect Rossi not to behave rationally. That said, I myself have no reason to suspect that this was a planted suggestion.

    Quote from Eric Walker
     

    Your point about the ROI on attempts at influencing a jury by posting stuff on the Internet is very well taken. But just to quibble with the premise, that the parties in this case can be expected to behave rationally. In matter of fact, I have come to expect Rossi not to behave rationally. That said, I myself have no reason to suspect that this was a planted suggestion.

     


    Fair point. If we could power the world with human stupidity, there'd be no need for LENR.

    Quote from MikeDunford

    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.


    Just to be clear, when woodworker started posting, I immediately said the same thing:I'm really glad to have woodworker's commentary as a real lawyer and am confident others here are as well. So I didn't risk repeating myself when echoing that sentiment to you, but probably should have. Woodworker, thanks for all your posts here, I've really appreciated your comments as a Real LawyerTM. ;)

    • Official Post

    note that attacking a website is useless, since it can be repaired in few days...

    moreover jury will not look at ECW, and there are many other sources, of various bias that were free...


    Goodluck for the trial, shall the crook be jailed, whoever it is, and with evidences so those who trusted the crook will quietly surrender to evidences.


    Real scientific behavior is to accept to have been wrong, to value evidence, but accept new evidences, to accept to suspend one's belief, to believe even against your own interest, and admit even despite your beliefs.


    not doubt this is as painful as realizing you were cheated, by a good friend you trusted, yourself.

    Quote from AlainCo

    moreover jury will not look at ECW, and there are many other sources, of various bias that were free...



    Hi AlianCo,


    While I agree with your comments in general, I have to point out that jurors, unless sequestered, can and do look up things on the Internet or discuss the case with others. Jurors are also liars when it comes to their claims of experience or bias. As a US citizen for longer than I care to admit, this has been my experience. It's more human nature than anything else. Let's hope for open-minded and responsible jurors, competent legal teams, an experienced and wise judge, and justice.

    If I were to start looking at cold fusion for the first time now, I would be very skeptical indeed. If you Google the subject, the first thing that comes up is an authoritative looking article in Wikipedia. It paints a very negative picture and ignores the fact that Pons & Fleischmann have since been replicated. Also, the traditional scientific consensus is very negative. I recall a scientist in DOE, when handed a peer reviewed paper on LENR, let it drop to the floor rather than touch it. So the jury will get a one sided story should they try to look it up.


    Over the years I have been persuaded that LENR is real. There is simply too much evidence to doubt it anymore. Unlike many here I’m not surprised by the time it has taken for a commercial unit to arrive. . Rossi’s demonstrations have left a lot to be desired but I doubt any experiment would convince the pathological skeptics. Many years ago Rossi himself stated that no experiment would persuade the doubters, that it would take the sale of working commercial units to do so.


    For me, the bottom line is that it was Rossi who took the matter to court, where he must think the truth will emerge. I don’t think the E-Cat has ever been stable enough to make it commercial and we don’t know if he has solved the problem with the QuarkX until that information is presented.

    I’m only looking at this thread now in the hope of seeing information from the court case.

    Quote from MikeDunford

    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.


    Yes, Mike but you have been lei'd more recently and much more frequently than I (inside pun, Mike used to post a picture from his law school graduation showing leis around his neck). Also, Mike is much more knowledgeable about international law than I ever will be.

    Quote from Adrian Ashfield

    I recall a scientist in DOE, when handed a peer reviewed paper on LENR, let it drop to the floor rather than touch it.

    You may be referring to the time I tried to give Robert Park a paper by McKubre. He refused to touch it, letting it fall to the floor. He was with the APS, not the DoE. He wanted "plausible deniability."

    Quote from Adrian Ashfield

    Rossi’s demonstrations have left a lot to be desired but I doubt any experiment would convince the pathological skeptics.

    Rossi's demonstrations have not "left a lot to be desired." That's an extreme understatement. His 1-year test was an outrageous farce and criminal fraud. Anyone who understands the science who reads the Penon report will see that. That is why, for example, Axil refuses to read the Penon report. He also wants "plausible deniability."

    Quote from Adrian Ashfield

    Many years ago Rossi himself stated that no experiment would persuade the doubters, that it would take the sale of working commercial units to do so.

    That is nonsense. In March 1989, every scientist on earth other than P&F was an extreme doubter. Thousands were convinced by experiments. If Rossi's device was real, and it was demonstrated correctly, it would instantly convince millions of people, and trigger a world-wide effort that would quickly bring billions of dollars to Rossi. I and many others have offered to test his device in a way that would convince millions of people. Rossi refused us. The only people who have tested his machines carefully are the people at I.H. and the people at Boeing who assisted them. They are experts. If the machine worked, they would have proved that beyond doubt. They found instead that it does not work. Not at all. It does not produce 1 W of excess heat. They are certain of that result, and so am I.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    The only people who have tested his machines carefully are the people at I.H. and the people at Boeing who assisted them. They are experts. If the machine worked, they would have proved that beyond doubt. They found instead that it does not work. Not at all. It does not produce 1 W of excess heat. They are certain of that result, and so am I.


    That belies the evidence that we now have on the record. The only reactor that apparently did not work was Murrays' modified reactor. And he was only given a few months to test it before IH pulled the rug out and boxed it up.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    That belies the evidence that we now have on the record. The only reactor that apparently did not work was Murrays' modified reactor.

    You are mistaken. You do not understand the record. You do not know anything about the tests performed by I.H. and Boeing. I do know about them, and I know for a fact they failed.


    You have speculated endlessly and make all kinds of unfounded assertions based on your mistaken readings of the "record." This record you refer to is mainly confused blather by ignorant lawyers who do not understand the difference between power and energy. You should ignore this record and read the Penon report. If you are capable of middle-school level science, you will see that the test was blatant fraud and the data is bullshit.

    MikeDunford

    Quote

    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.

    Well, no. A couple of things. Rossi bamboozled many people including IH/Darden/Vaughn but they WANTED to believe him. He chooses his marks cleverly. That is his strength. Voi dire aside, he doesn't get to use his con man skills much here. Why? Because he may make a convincing presentation (if anyone on the jury actually penetrates his Englitalian speech and accent and understands what he is trying to explain) 0 *but* he will get his head handed to him on cross examination. He has done too much outright lying and unconscionable manipulation to get these contracts with IH and it will come back to bite him.


    Having said that, I am aware that the legal system in general and juries in particular are unpredictable. So maybe Rossi won't lose in part or in while. That, of course, would be a travesty of justice.


    Quote

    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.


    Indeed. My personal opinion based on watching Rossi-isms fo six+ years is that IH and Woodford acted grossly negligently and incompetently in their vetting of Rossi. To bend over backwards to be fair, however, IH could have learned much of the unsavory stuff about Rossi too late or they might have read both sides of the argument on the internet. Many followers of LENR believed Rossi and thought that he had gotten a raw deal in Italy. There were lots of conspiracy theories about the Mafia and corrupt Italian government officials that wanted to do Rossi in. Those who believed that did not realize that most of this sort of smoke screen originated with Rossi and was cited, quoted and parroted by many other people. It was so prevalent, those of us following Rossi's story on the Moletrap forum had a name for it: Rossifiction. Anyway, IH could possibly justify to the jury why they believed Rossi, including their own testing before the contract. Nevermind that they relied on the "usual suspects" (another Moletrapism for this situation). Too bad Darden and Vaughn didn't read and believe the Moletrap. They would have been treated to such gems as these 2011 Rossi satire photos (Rosicaptions): http://www.moletrap.co.uk/wiki/index.php/Rossicaptions

    Jed,


    The paper refusal was more recent, from a friend of mine about a year ago, in the Dept of Science DOE. So the thinking has not changed.


    Rossi does not care what you think. He does demos to get funding and has been successful in that. He says the only proof that matters is selling working units.

    I didn't see people rushing to replicate Lugano before the flaws were visible.


    AA

    Quote from Alan Smith

    FWIW Sifferkoll has just blogged a long list of Cherokee's land less successful (but still mostly profitable) land remediation deals

    It does not seem to me that way ..... It seems to me that there is a sort of repeating scheme. Cherokee creates an affiliate with limited liability, this company buy a low-priced brownfield, collects funding to realize the clean up and then does not do it and, when possible, builds houses or commercial buildings. Then if it is discovered and accused, declares bankruptcy. And the money of the taxpayers where are gone?

    Quote from woodworker

    As to forming a new subsidiary to limit a parent company's liability: you may not like it, but that is standard practice for almost all substantial businesses. The parent will form a subsidiary to hold title to property, to operate a specific business, etc. If you look at the property holdings and business operations of a company like GE, I think you would find that almost of their real property ownership / leases are through single-purpose entities formed solely for the purpose of holding that property or operating that business. If a company owns 20 strip malls, you can be sure that each of those 20 properties are owned by a single-purpose entity, which entity is a subsidiary of the ultimate holding company.

    The episodes quoted by Sifferkol relate not only to the creation of a new subsidiary to limit the parent company's liability. In the above mentioned facts, it is often said of Orders received by Cherokee for not having carried out the planned remediation. In many cases Cherokee (or rather, his "daughters") were forced to pay for the job not done properly (or not done at all). Moreover, too many times the trouble for these companies end with a Chapter 11 ..... a bit too convenient, in my humble opinion.

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.