Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from [email protected]

If Rossi loses, the press will claim that it WAS about LENR and that this case "proves"LENR doesn't work.

Does it?

Work?

Quote from maryyugo

Bull! Whatever their qualifications, which I think you significantly inflated, these people earned their Moletrap nickname of the "three blind mice."

That Nickname was given by people like you Mary and the guys of the self proclaimed (no connection with no institution !) GSVIT group you are citing ! You think I have inflated the qualifications...... BAAAAAH ! Just check !

Just one of them ...... https://www.mech.kth.se/~hanno/MyScientificBiography.pdf

Quote from maryyugo

The Rossi case may be complex legally but it is piss simple scientifically.

Wow what a professional language ! No Mary.

If we look at your history in Internet as a blogger we see that your comments were always of that kind of level and tone.

So your long blah blah contains no surprise or useful new information.

Ele, you should know better than attempt to doxx someone. Eric

Quote from ele

Ha ha ha ha ha........ So you can have prejudice against Italian (or why not Americans, Israelis or whatever) freely ?

I call Racism any prejudice against any group of people (Afro Americans, Jews, Italians.....)

Also is well known that on a scientific basis humane races do not exist. We are all humans....... except Racist of course.

Of course people can have prejudice against a nationality or religion. But you should not call it racism.

Quote from ele

Really interesting ? Why don't you invite him in Court to testify under Oath ? So we will know if he is really certified :).

Wow! Really reaching with the trolling there. I have previously posted my general work history already to you in a previous post. The specific certification is NCCER certification. For new people, I worked for twenty years as an industrial pipefitter with most of it working for a company called Austin Industrial. I quit pipefitting in 2008 because of an industrial accident and became a teacher. Since it is summer and I am off work, I would be happy to be a paid consultant for IH or Rossi. However, I don't think they would waste money flying me to Miami when you could hire someone locally. I believe my posts themselves have shown my expertise in the practical side of pipefitting. If you want to challenge my credibility, do so with facts instead of innuendoes. If you don't want to debate facts return to your bridge.

Quote from WMartin

Wow! Really reaching with the trolling there. I have previously posted my general work history already to you in a previous post. The specific certification is NCCER certification. For new people, I worked for twenty years as an industrial pipefitter with most of it working for a company called Austin Industrial. I quit pipefitting in 2008 because of an industrial accident and became a teacher. Since it is summer and I am off work, I would be happy to be a paid consultant for IH or Rossi. However, I don't think they would waste money flying me to Miami when you could hire someone locally. I believe my posts themselves have shown my expertise in the practical side of pipefitting. If you want to challenge my credibility, do so with facts instead of innuendoes. If you don't want to debate facts return to your bridge.

Don't worry too much with Ele. He/she will start complaining and saying others don't have credentials, or accuse them of being paid by IH and try to dox them if it is against his/her blind support of Rossi. Of course all the time never giving any info about self.

Quote from SSC

This exchange of views made few days ago made me curious. I did not know anything about Cherokee's past problems with the SEC and I was wondering if Bob's trust in Cherokee's current situation was correct. So I did some control, and I have to say that Bob is wrong: Cherokee is not at all in good standing with the SEC!

Cherokee Investment Partners LL C is registered as an investment adviser with the SEC under the Investment Adviser Act of 1940. Cherokee, as investment adviser, must file the Form ADV. In the last one that Cherokee filed we can see that they made false declarations and omissions that may constitute a federal criminal violation!

First of all I think it's better to explain some of the words used.

An investment adviser is a person or firm that is engaged in the business of providing investment advice to others or issuing reports or analyses regarding securities, for compensation. Investment advisers may include money managers, investment consultants, financial planners, general partners of hedge funds, and others who are compensated for providing advice about securities.

Investment advisers generally must register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or state securities authorities.

The following is an extract from this website: https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answersformadvhtm.html

"Form ADV is the uniform form used by investment advisers to register with both the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and state securities authorities. The form consists of two parts. Part 1 requires information about the investment adviser’s business, ownership, clients, employees, business practices, affiliations, and any disciplinary events of the adviser or its employees. Part 1 is organized in a check-the-box, fill-in-the-blank format. The SEC reviews the information from this part of the form to process registrations and manage its regulatory and examination programs. Although designed for a regulatory purpose, investment adviser filings of Part 1 are available to the public on the SEC’s Investment Adviser Public Disclosure (IAPD) website at www.adviserinfo.sec.gov.

Beginning in 2011, Part 2 requires investment advisers to prepare narrative brochures written in plain English that contain information such as the types of advisory services offered, the adviser’s fee schedule, disciplinary information, conflicts of interest, and the educational and business background of management and key advisory personnel of the adviser. The brochure is the primary disclosure document that investment advisers provide to their clients. When filed, the brochures are available to the public on the IAPD website. [...]"

So the aim of this Form is to give information to the potential customers and to the officials of the SEC so that they not only acquire a check list for future investigation visits but also can evaluate potential conflicts of interest regarding the adviser and its related persons (including companies and/or persons affiliate to the adviser). Sections 203 and 204 of the Advisers Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-3 and 80b-4) authorize the SEC to collect the information required by Form ADV for regulatory purposes and then it maintains the information submitted on this Form and makes it publicly available.Intentional misstatements or omissions constitute federal criminal violation under 18 U.S.C. §1001 and 15 U.S.C.§ 80b-17.

Form ADV contains four parts : 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B. The Form ADV Part 1A is the most important since the information given are the bases of the evaluation made by the SEC for the registration or for the suspension and/or revocation of the registration. The Part 1A consists of 12 Items, which must be check all together because the requested information constitute an unique and entire system.

Now we can return to the Cherokee's case.

Cherokee filed the last Form ADV Part 1A on 03/29/2017 and the last Form ADV Part 2A on 03/31/2017. Anyone can read them by following these links:

https://adviserinfo.sec.gov/IA…am_pdf.aspx?ORG_PK=161886

https://adviserinfo.sec.gov/IA…aspx?BRCHR_VRSN_ID=436256

In the Form ADV Part 1A they give these information:

"Cherokee is an investment adviser registered with the SEC : SEC file number 801-74482,and with FINRA’s CRD System : CRD number 161886. Principal office. 111East Hargett Street Suite 300 – Raleigh North Carolina 27601.

Another name declared by Cherokee as business name : Cherokee Advisers LLC (relying Advisor)"

In the premise of Item 6, the Form ADV asserts : "In this Item, we request information about your firm’s other business activities. "

Item 6 A Question : "You are actively engaged in business as a (check all that apply) "

In order to answer you must check a list of activities, among them there is this one: "(5) real estate broker, dealer, or agent."

Cherokee's answer : “ none “ – despite all the related companies engaged in real estate activity! The brownfields are by definition a real estate activity in so far they are not just remediation but also revitalization by building and selling housing, commercial centers etc. Moreover the Form ADV points out: "If you engage in other business using a name different from the names reported in Items 1.A or 1.B (in this case Cherokee Investment Partners LLC and Cherokee Advisers LLC), complete Section 6.A of Schedule D." Since Cherokee does not declare any activity except for the institutional activity, consequently does not declare any name of their related companies.

Item 6 B (1) Question : "Are you actively engaged in any other business not listed in Item 6.A (that is other than giving investment advice)?"

Cherokee’s answer: “no”. This answer is an omission, because Cherokee had to declare that it is actively engaged in another business with, for example, Industrial Heat LLC et al.

The office address of Cherokee Investment Partners LLC and the office address of Industrial Heat LLC are the same, Thomas Darden and John Mazzarino are consistent shareholder both of Cherokee Investment Partners LLC and Industrial Heat LLC, therefore Cherokee Investment Partners LLC and their officers Thomas Darden and John Mazzarino are directly engaged in the activity of IH LLC. As requested by Form ADV they engaged in this business with another name. Cherokee-Industrial Heat acting as a licensee of an energy renewable device and acting as a sponsor of research and development in the LENR field , is engaged in a business activity different both from the activities listed in Item 6 A and from an investment advice activity.

Both the omission in not declaring its real estate activity as a dealer (with another name , but it doesn’t matter for the SEC) and the omission in not declaring the activity of Industrial Heat could be very important in order to hide a problem of potential conflicts of interest between the investment advice activity and such others activities. The SEC is very focused on this matter and every omission may constitute a federal criminal violation.

And now Item 11, Disclosure Information.

In the premise the Form ADV asserts: "In this Item, we ask for information about your disciplinary history and the disciplinary history of all your advisory affiliates. We use this information to determine whether to grant your application for registration, to decide whether to revoke your registration or to place limitations on your activities as an investment adviser, and to identify potential problem areas to focus on during our on-site examinations. One event may result in “yes” answers to more than one of the questions below. Your advisory affiliates are : (1) all of your current employees (other than employees performing clerical, administrative , support or similar functions),(2) all of your officers, partners, or directors (or any person performing similar functions), and (3) all persons directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by you. If you are a "separately identifiable department or division" (SID) of a bank , see the Glossary of Terms to determine who your advisory affiliates are. If you are registered or registering with the SEC or if you are an exempt reporting adviser, you may limit your disclosure of any event listed in Item 11 to ten years following the date of the event. [...]"

Item 11 H (1) (a) Question : "Has any domestic or foreign court in the past ten years, enjoined you or any advisory affiliate in connection with any investment-related activity?"

Cherokee’s answer : “ No”.

Let's analyze every term of the question according to the” Glossary of Terms” attached to the Form ADV Instructions published in the SEC website :

- Advisory Affiliate : Your advisory affiliates are (1) all of your officers, partners, or directors (or any person performing similar functions);(2) all persons directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by you; and (3) all of your current employees( other than employees performing only clerical, administrative, support or similar functions).

Enjoined: This term includes being subject to a mandatory injunction, prohibitory injunction, preliminary injunction, or temporary restraining order.

Investment-Related: Activities that pertain to securities, commodities, banking, insurance, or real estate ( including, but not limited to, acting as or being associated with an investment adviser, broker-dealer, municipal securities dealer, government securities broker or dealer, issuer, investment company, futures sponsor, bank, or savings association).

Cherokee made an omission because they did not declare the story of Ashley II of Charleston LLC. One can read about it at this link:

http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…d-the-tax-payer-investor/

Summarizing: Ashley II of Charleston LLC is a company controlled by Cherokee (therefore it is an advisory affiliate), operative in the field of real estate. Ashley II of Charleston LLC (together with Ashley I LLC, both companies controlled by Cherokee) bought a brownfield in order to clean up it and build on the site. Then something went wrong..... The following is taken from this link:

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/111662.P.pdf

"These appeals arise from disputes as to liability for cleanup of hazardous substances at a former fertilizer manufacturing site in Charleston, South Carolina. After incurring response costs, Ashley II of Charleston, Inc., the current owner of a portion of the site, brought a cost recovery action against PCS Nitrogen, Inc., under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675 (2006). PCS counterclaimed and also brought third-party contribution actions against parties with past and current connections to the site. The district court bifurcated the case for trial. At the conclusion of the first bench trial, it found PCS a potentially responsible party jointly and severally liable for response costs at the site. At the conclusion of the second bench trial, the court found some of the other parties, including Ashley, potentially responsible parties, each liable for an allocated portion of the site’s response costs. PCS, Ashley, and many of the other parties now appeal. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the district court in all respects."

The Court’s verdict is a mandatory injunction in so far it ordered to the parties to remediate the site at their expenses. Moreover on April 4, 2013 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit confirming the judgement of the District Court decided that Ashley II of Charleston LLC was a liable part under CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response , Compensation, and Liability Act) for the costs of the clean up and remediation of the site (see link above).

All the information that I have given here have been found in the internet and are public. It seems clear to me that Cherokee could still have some trouble with the SEC.......

Display More

SSC,

Well done. It seems that Thomas Darden has been very sloppy (negligent?) with his SEC paperwork as well. Mmmm..it must be a pain for Thomas Darden that his reputation is further tarnished by this court case. Once one has the SEC on its back it is hard to focus on anything else..

Cheers,

JB

Quote from maryyugo

I know this is repetitive to the regulars but new people brought in by the trial activity may not know.

Don't worry New People, you too will find Mary's posts become stupefyingly repetitive pretty quickly..

Quote from ele

What I think is that all the observations against Lugano and the Swedes are strongly biased by "the voice of IH" that is trying to disseminate FUD.

I arrived at the conclusion that the Lugano IR protocol is terribly wrong using math (by two different methods) and confirmed the math by actual experimentation.

Work by Higgins and Clarke were very helpful (I even argued with Clarke until I understood what he was saying properly).

That was trying to prove the thing worked as reported.

However, I discovered that the device can work as reported without any fuel whatsoever using the Lugano IR protocol.

That was before I even knew anything about International Heat.

I have no explanation for the water flowing up hill perhaps a metre (either at 0 PSI or maybe even against a vacuum) from the condenser return hoses on the ground without filling the condensers with water to the same level as the reservoir, in Bologna, October 2011 (leaving only the top 20 to 30 cm of the condensers for condensing steam, and maybe even filling the lower steam pipe with water).

That seems to defy math and experiment.

And I have no affiliation with IH, and that event has nothing to do with the Professors (OK, maybe one Professor).

Quote from we_cat_global

SSC,

Well done. It seems that Thomas Darden has been very sloppy (negligent?) with his SEC paperwork as well. Mmmm..it must be a pain for Thomas Darden that his reputation is further tarnished by this court case. Once one has the SEC on its back it is hard to focus on anything else..

Cheers,

JB

Display More

Spoken as a true peanut-gallery worker, who has never run a business, or created a single job or product; if so, you would know that every business deals with these hoards of bureaucrats and paperwork that police every aspect of one's business, waiting to find some technical violation of paperwork or whatever, to fine the business and justify their existence--they are, in fact impossible to avoid at one time or another. In fact, I would wager that in addition to never running a business, or ever creating a job or product, you all are probably one of these public dole bureaucrats (or similar). But, everyone knows that you are simply grasping at straws to somehow draw some moral-equivalence to all of Rossi's dubious behavior and claims--keep jousting at them ecats, quarkxxxx's and invisible heat-exchangers.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I arrived at the conclusion that the Lugano IR protocol is terribly wrong using math (by two different methods) and confirmed the math by actual experimentation.

Work by Higgins and Clarke were very helpful (I even argued with Clarke until I understood what he was saying properly).

That was trying to prove the thing worked as reported.

However, I discovered that the device can work as reported without any fuel whatsoever using the Lugano IR protocol.

That was before I even knew anything about International Heat.

My opinion is that the "protocol" mentioned in the Lugano report is possibly incomplete and that additional steps needed to understand what they really did where left out.
I tried to fill these steps in and can state that even without calibration at high temperatures you can arrive at the correct temperatures using another protocol of which the "protocol" in the Lugano report is only a sub part and not even correctly written down.
Using a part of the derived protocol I did a test adjusting some Optris temperature values as reported by the MFMP and after correction they had exactly the same values as the Williams pyrometer. The differences between the two had disappeared ! For me that proves that indeed it is possible to use the Optris to obtain correct temperatures without calibration (The calibration is basically part of the literature data used in the protocol).
Does that mean the Lugano testers made no error ? Sure they made errors as you and I would also have made. Did they use the wrong emissivities ? Maybe, but in my opinion too much weight is given to the possible emissivity errors by people who do not know if the methods in the Lugano report where reported correctly or where even reported complete.

Quote from ele

Interesting. You are speaking about a Professor Emeritus with a brilliant Curriculum, a Professor in Chemistry that is also a valued Police consultant, a Professor or Theoretical Physics and also another group (including a former faculty Dean).

Which is your curriculum to write in this way. You should at least a Nobel Prize.

What I think is that all the observations against Lugano and the Swedes are strongly biased by "the voice of IH" that is trying to disseminate FUD.

Perhaps this is the time for you to consider how you decide what to believe? if, as you imply, you rely on credentials in irrelevant areas (none of the above constitutes expertise in IR calorimetry) you are vulnerable to being misled. for example, by Rossi.

Would you trust a brain surgeon to mend your gas boiler?

Rossi has, from his CV, some expertise in the history and philosophy of science combined with (he has demonstrated this) a facility with DIY electricity and plumbing (I don't say expertise because of the known gaps - like not understanding RMS voltage and current, thinking polarity does not matter in 3 phase AC measurements, etc). I'd guess he has a wide and superficially impressive but non-expert largely self-taught grasp of a wide area of science.

I'm going to be very generous to him and suppose his two recorded bad mistakes in the area of electrical power measurement, both of which directly lead to false positives in exactly the measurements setups he has used, are just down to his lack of understanding and a character that puts his ideas first before contrary facts. By this reading he would be honest (as far as physics) but narcissistic and without the insight that would lead him ever to question his own idee fixe. That questioning, seeing an observation a bit off and worrying at it till you understand more fully what it is, is a prerequisite for a good experimental scientist. Rossi's lack of curiosity, and his inability to accept correction from others, is therefore what dooms his work in technology to disaster, even though his engagement and work rate are admirable.

If you think the previous paragraph speculative - well then it is. But it would show a very likable person (unless you see him going mad and attacking friendly critics as snakes). Perhaps, for people like Ele, who are blinded by apparent expertise, a very impressive person. and somone whose only lies were business ones (those are on the documentary record) and the rest was just deep stupidity of the type that clever people in love with their own ideas often have.

Ele might extrapolate from this, together with an engaging character, quick wit, and disposition to engage in deep conversations on topics you don't know much about, that Rossi was expert on any topic he claimed expertise.

Big mistake.

In the Lugano case you do not need to rely upon experts. You can read the Lugano report, and TC's paper. Wikipedia, High School physics, the internet and a bit of tenacity are then enough for you to work it out, as many here have done. And if you want experimental validation you could ask Paradigmnoia here, or MFMP (specifically Bob Higgins). Given MFMP have been from the start of this matter inclined to be pro-Rossi you can hardly paint them as IH stooges.

PS - how do i do the acute accent on idee fixe? I tried inline code &eacute - it did not work...

Quote from [email protected]

I think Rossi's bloviating blog entries could be admissible as evidence. It just takes one witness to say that that's what Rossi said on his blog. Then all of his blog stuff would be admissible. I'm surprised IH's lawyers haven't already angled in that direction.

My guess about IH lawyers (and what they do is not to my taste, but they are experts and probably right).

In a Jury Trial, when you know very well you have the right of it, but there are so very very many details, and mountains of evidence, the problem is getting lost in the detail.

So here, the more stuff you introduce that can be argued (however wrong), the more the Jury gets the idea that everything is argued and neither side is right. That is in Rossi's favour, since the plain bones of the case go so strongly against him.

So I'd expect Annesser to try to derail every argument into trivial detail, and IH to try to stick to the plain and important facts. That means often they must just leave out arguments (especially technical ones) that they in theory win but in practice would cause the Jury's eyes to glaze over.

If Abd has enough money to stay with his excellent Court reports the whole way, we will know whether this guess is correct within 3 or 4 weeks!

Quote from guest111

Spoken as a true peanut-gallery worker, who has never run a business, or created a single job or product; if so, you would know that every business deals with these hoards of bureaucrats and paperwork that police every aspect of one's business, waiting to find some technical violation of paperwork or whatever, to fine the business and justify their existence--they are, in fact impossible to avoid at one time or another. In fact, I would wager that in addition to never running a business, or ever creating a job or product, you all are probably one of these public dole bureaucrats (or similar). But, everyone knows that you are simply grasping at straws to somehow draw some moral-equivalence to all of Rossi's dubious behavior and claims--keep jousting at them ecats, quarkxxxx's and invisible heat-exchangers.

Whoah there!

In my many years owning business and creating jobs, I have generally found that a) many of the regulations are necessary to protect the public, the consumer, and the workers from predatory and negligent practices; and b) that the vast majority of the bureaucrats responsible for administering those regulations are helpful and constructive when you are trying to keep up with the paperwork. The LAST thing they want to do is to sit on your shoulder waiting for you to make a mistake - that would mean more work for them.

Time for a ban, I guess...