Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • Italianlawyer: You still don't get it. There is nothing that can happen in the courtroom that "means that the e-cat produces excess heat." The jury might conclude that it does and, for the purposes of the legal outcome, Rossi might collect on that basis. But do not confuse that with reality (assuming you care about reality, which is a rash assumption about any Rossi believer.) If you don't understand the distinction between what a jury might decide and what is factually true, you are not an Italian lawyer or anyone else capable of critical thinking.

    Yes, @IL is way out of line here.

    It is a contract dispute and the Jury could find for Rossi & reckon the test did not actually work, or vice versa. They might decide the letter of the contract applied, however bad the test. They might decide that even though the test worked, Rossi's previous fraudulent behaviour to IH invalidated the contract.

    What the Trial will do is give us more insight into the overall plausibility of Rossi + arguments, and IH + arguments. I'm not sure how good a forum it will be for that. On the plus side the witnesses can be cross-examined and held to account for statements. On the negative it will be a performance for a Jury, and technical matters will be sidelined - and if not sidelined there is really no way for them to be properly assessed.

    So I think we get at best real new insight into the credibility and character of the principals.

  • I think the test befoet al., was better. They calibrated coy and used a thermocouple to confirm the IR readings. As far as I can tell that was a positive result. I cannot explain it, but it looked positive to me.

    They never explained the reversed phase in the appendix plots. Without a good explanation those waveforms are a fairly solid proof of a reversed clamp, that well explains the apparent COP.


    The only thing the judge will say is "call your first witness."


    In fairness, I wouldn't at all be surprised if at least the clerks and possibly the judge have had - in the privacy of chambers - more than a few choice things to say about this case, particularly when it became clear that a trial would be required.

    This thing is a nobody-wins contract dispute, which exists in part because the investment fund people were willing to sign an abysmally drafted contract which they then apparently permitted to be modified. They also apparently made at least one substantial payment without objecting to variations from the contracted requirements, making it substantially easier to argue around the integration clause. There aren't a lot of interesting legal issues involved in the case, but it's going to take weeks to get the record firmly established on the factual disputes.

    Meanwhile, it looks like SD Fl is averaging about 1 new civil case per judge per day. Which means, when criminal cases are factored in, that chambers staff are going to need to make the time during the trial (as in mornings, evenings, and weekends) to clear about 20-30 cases from their docket just to keep up with the inflow. And that's not considering whatever discovery motions etc get filed in other pending cases during this time. Which undoubtedly means that the law clerks probably didn't spend nearly as much time as they wanted to at the beach this weekend.

    I don't think either Rossi or IH is gonna be on the Altonaga Chambers Christmas Card list this year.

    1 Cranch 137, 177

  • Hahahahahahaha!

    Is impressive how everything you said here again and again comes true Dewey...

  • Confidential settlement. I don't know the details. Its over.

    Thank goodness. I wish Rossi had gotten his comeuppance publicly, but more than that I dreaded the possibility that he might win.

    I wish they had settled long ago. What a terrible waste of money spend on the lawyers.

    The whole business is depressing beyond description.

  • Thetruetroll - there is plenty of truth out there as a result of this cluster and most everyone has decided for themselves who to believe.

    I'm pretty sure that settlement details are to remain confidential.

    Back to the mission.

  • I know that Rossi followers will not agree, but to me it means that Rossi decided that he could not prove in court his case. After all it would have been $89M in his pocket. And I view the counter suit as just a tactical procedure by IH to pressure Rossi and third parties and its loss was not critical to IH.

    I only hope that IH's continues to support other researchers who have creditable results and those who have support from the LENR community.

  • I would be interested in knowing the status of the IP. Do the IP rights return to Rossi? Does IH get a cut of future earnings derived from the IP? It seems to me that this would not be confidential only the details.

    But I'm glad it's over. I'm sure there was some more 'dirt' to fly but I've seen enough. If Rossi has the goods we should see evidence of that very soon (don't hold your breath). For me, I am no longer interested in what Rossi does. I hope IH continues with their investments and support of LENR research and has learned their lessons.

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.