Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Like this:

2-22 482.9
2-23 372.4
2-24 401.6
2-25 427.7
2-26 528.5

Ohh... I see what is going on...

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Number 138 on the Docket, Motion for Protective Order by IH et al, with two exhibits.

138.0 - IH motion for a protective order on communications due to attorney-client privilege

138.1 - Affidavit of John Mazzarino, long-term business partner of Thomas Darden. (Summary: they share an interest in IH and legal advice)

138.2 - Transcript of 2017-02-07 hearing. (This is included because it shows that Plaintiff Rossi concedes some communication is privileged)

Not much to see here, except that it is interesting to see that the court was not happy with how Rossi's attorney Chaiken initially handled a laundry list of communications he felt should not be protected.

For those interested in legal minutia:

The gist of this argument is that Darden's partner Mazzarino was included on many email communications, and Rossi's lawyers are claiming that this voids attorney-client privilege, because Mazzarino apparently testified that he had no ongoing role in IH's decisions even though he was a major investor, and therefore (according to Rossi's lawyers) those communications should not be privileged.

IH's response is that Darden and Mazzarino are long-term business partners, they share legal counsel, and so they are privileged.

IH therefore filed the motion in 138.0 for protection, even though currently there is no motion by Rossi's lawyers to have the court waive privilege on these communications and demand that they be produced. IH filed the motion in anticipation of a motion by Rossi for production over-riding privilege. This issue about attorney-client privilege is one of the agenda items for the hearing scheduled 2017-02-23.

I'm pretty sure the court will rule that the communications with Mazzarino and other Cherokee staff are, in fact, privileged. (But I also think IH is supposed to file a proposed ruling by the judge granting them their Motion to Protect (138.0) - maybe they're waiting to see what happens at the hearing first)

OK, found my error. I started using the first column of dates to pick the weekday, rather than the second.

So now I have mostly Sunday drops, in agreement with Peter.

The plot, (with another day added to the start just to get Sunday working on the X axis) is like this:

Old guy,

It is possible for "smart meters" to be correct one day and incorrect another.

IF, the operator sets up/configures the smart meter voltage and current transformer inputs correctly for readings

for week 1, THEN purposefully changes these configurations, the meters will read differently.

This is usually a very simple change & accessible from the meter display.

However, this would take a calculated and conspired effort

RL67 - does the same logic apply to RossiMeters?

Dewey,

Unfamiliar with "Rossi meters", where would I purchase one or find specs?

I think either Henry Johnson (or his assistant) or Jim Bass might be able to help if you're local to S. Florida but if you're on Planet Rossi, word has it the Fulvio has opened a store that can help with any and all pinball source code issues, extremely high voltage, low amperage transformers and circuits, water pump management code, aux heater code, "customer" side metering and fluid input, off spec flowmetery of any kind, big time heat management (especially on weekends when nobody's home), extreme noise dampening and strip clubs.

Soooo.....

I suppose the JoNP mW Plant comments vs kWh and water meter timeline can begin to see if there is any excitement to be had there...

Quote from IH Fanboy

You have waffled over time between "I have a secret" and "you now know everything I know." So

No, I have not waffled. That is bullshit. You are conflating two different things. You are doing this to confuse the issue and make me look bad. I have made myself clear, many times:

1. I know some things which I agreed not to reveal until Rossi or I.H. first reveal them. For example, as I said dozens of times, I have the schematic. If you want see it, ask Rossi for a copy.

2. I described the data in some detail. Now that you have seen the data yourself, you can confirm that my description was accurate and left out nothing of importance. After I described the data and after Exhibit 5 was published, I said "you now know everything I know." Everything about the data, that is. Not every aspect of Rossi's test.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

word has it the Fulvio has opened a store that can help with any and all pinball source code issues . . . extreme noise dampening and strip clubs.

For those last two, will there be a training seminar?? Sign me up!

Those two go together, like winter and foul weather.

In addition to doc. 138 and attachments, mentioned above, now on the docket are docs. 139 and 140:

Shane D. ,

It doesn't seems suspicious to you that for about two weeks straight, the Plant used more power than was actually supplied to the building warehouse unit by FPL? (the green line goes below the red line).

If you consider that the FPL power includes lights, A/C (or heat), computers, bathroom fans, coffee pots, refrigerators and whatever else is plugged in, when the Plant uses more power than was sent by the utility, even by a little bit (according to the line), it is using far more than possible. That means that the ERV Plant input energy data is flawed. Unreliable.

Quote from Shane D.

Yes, I know that, but others have argued that FPL's figures are for the whole building

It would be for this tenant's section of the building. Each suite has to be separately metered.

I doubt that bill covers heating and cooling (HVAC). Heating is probably with natural gas, and air conditioning is probably a single large unit that the landlord pays for. That is the arrangement in the office space I have rented. I don't think the suites have individual air conditioners. That would be inefficient. See the Google photo of the roof:

https://www.google.com/maps/@2…,204m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

Date __________ERV kWh in _______FPL kWh in to whole warehouse unit (approximate)

Nov 14 2015 .......... 272 ............................. 303.2
Nov 15 .................... 272 ............................. 218.7
Nov 16 .................... 273 ............................. 280.5
Nov 17 .................... 266 ............................. 274.0
Nov 18 .................... 273.7 .......................... 265.0
Nov 19 .................... 272.6 .......................... 274.0
Nov 20 .................... 270.4 .......................... 205.7
Nov 21 .................... 270.3 .......................... 205.7
Nov 22 .................... 272 ............................. 248.0
Nov 23 .................... 271 ............................. 264.3

Nov 24 .................... 271 ............................. 254.5
Nov 25 .................... 268 ............................. 264.3
Nov 26 .................... 266 ............................. 251.3
Nov 27 .................... 267 ............................. 257.8
Nov 28 .................... 266 ............................. 205.8
Nov 29 .................... 266 ............................. 205.8
Nov 30 2015 .......... 268 .............................. 332.6

Quote from Eric Walker

In addition to doc. 138 and attachments, mentioned above, now on the docket are docs. 139 and 140:

139 - The Court denies IH's motion (138).

Analysis: I don't think this means much, because Rossi has not filed a motion to produce the communications that IH has not produced due to Attorney-Client privilege. IH's motion was pre-emptive, and this judge seems to want none of that. However, this does not necessarily mean that IH has to produce additional communications. The court ordered that they must produce all documents 'according to the rules on discovery.' Which allows for NOT producing communications with Attorney-Client privilege. IH might review to make sure that it has produced all documents that are not privileged, but this decision does not force them to produce documents they consider privileged. Rossi would have to file some kind of motion to force IH to produce communications they consider privileged, and he has not done that (though a hearing is scheduled 2/23 to discuss this).

140 - Rossi's Answers to Counterclaims filed by IH in the fourth amendment.

Analysis: these answers are almost identical to Rossi's previous Answers in doc. 89 on the docket (which is not surprising, because the only changes made in IH's 4th Ammendment were to address claims against the Third Parties Johnson, Fabiani and Bass).

I did find two changes in Rossi's Affirmative Defenses: 1) Aff. Def. No. 5 has an additional paragraph stating that Rossi IP was transferred to IPH without Rossi's consent (which is similar to Aff. Def. No. 9); and 2) there is a new Aff. Def. No. 15 which alleges that IH acted in bad faith by not alerting Rossi that IH believed the 'GPT' would not meet their terms, and that IH did not communicate to Rossi that they did not accept Fabiani Fabio Penon to be the ERV. This seems redundant to Rossi's Aff. Def. No. 11, alleging IH's "Failure to mitigate their damages".

As I opined in a previous analysis of 89, these defenses by Rossi regarding a 'GPT', of necessity assume there was a GPT. But there is no GPT agreement on the docket, and Rossi only cites the Term Sheet!

Unless Rossi has some evidence that IH agreed to the Term Sheet as GPT, all IH has to do is state they accepted the Term Sheet (which is explicitly an E-Cat Rental Agreement). and Fabiani Fabio Penon as a monitor of perfomance for the Term Sheet, and argue that they never considered the Term Sheet to be anything other than the Term Sheet, and certainly not a 'GPT' nor Fabiani Penon an 'ERV'.

In summary:

Rossi's Aff. Def 1-3 and 7 are all based on the notion that IH never had the means to pay the $89 million. It appears that IH has evidence to the contrary.

Rossi's Aff. Def. 5, 6, and 9 are all based on the idea that IH is different than IPH. But since IPH wholly owns IH, I'm not sure how effective this will be.

Rossi's Aff. Def. #4, 11, 13, 14, and (new) 15 are based on the idea that IH considered the Term Sheet to be a 'GPT' agreement. Unless Rossi has some additional evidence that IH accepted the Term Sheet to be a 'GPT', these affirmative defenses fail.

Rossi's Aff. Def. #8 says that IH asserts Leonardo Corp. lacks standing, but is suing it anyway which is inconsistent. But IH is also suing Rossi. If for some reason the Court rules that Leonardo does have standing (e.g., due to estoppel or if Rossi can somehow fix Leonardo's defects) then Leonardo becomes a target of IH's counter-claims. Not much of a defense.

Rossi's Aff. Def. #12 is a 'defensive' defense, put forth to attempt to limit the monetary damages Rossi might pay should IH's countersuit prevail.

Thanks Paradigmnoia for correction noting that 'Fabiani' should be 'Fabio Penon'

sigmoidal ,

You have Fabiani where Penon should be in a couple of places.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Peter - We're getting to the bottom of a pretty substantial fraud case and the terms you use do not quite seem to fit. You are providing a very nice service to Planet Rossi though - just as others have been used in the past. Think about how well that has worked out for Mats if you need a recent example.

Speaking of early years, did you know that Rossi broke an 80 year record by more than 20km in a 1970 twenty four hour foot race? Absolutely heroic and stunning - he must have been exhausted.

But then again, we don't seem to know much about the early years of Jesus Christ either.

There might just happen to be a thermometer surprise as well. See you in the funny pages.

Display More

When IH loses the case it certainly won't be because of Dewey's lack of FUD. He's full of it.