Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from Forty-Two

One may also speculate that Rossi expected that IH rather agrees to an out of court settlement, than to lay open during the discovery process all their e-cat related business communication.

Quote from Bob

Two words - "preemptive strike".

...

We must also consider the evidence that has shown the relationship between Rossi and IH broke down fairly early. Possibly as early as fall of 2015 and certainly by December of 2015. I find it very logical that Rossi understood that IH had found out about the fraud and also that the 10.5 million payment was likely based on fraudulent activity as well. He assumed IH was going to sue him for recovery of that 10.5 million.

I agree that these are both very good, reasonable and compelling alternative explanations to Rossi being fully 'delusional'.

And that these are additional reasons why Ascoli65's option (B) Rossi is a fraud and E-Cat doesn't work is by far the most likely explanation of the evidence we have, in my opinion.

The comments at ECW on this matter seem weird in the extreme to me. There are people there who also read here, but it seems the measured and (it seems to me) obvious points made here just do not register at ECW. I guess it is now a very selected group able to post. A few contrary posts, from people also here, get drowned in a sea of illogical and partial argument.

Quote

That being said, after following Rossi for 9 years, I am convinced that he is a delusional con-man, and that this is consistent with his track record.

I agree, and there is some circumstantial support. Rossi, as someone who comes across as honest and likable to academics, works if he is delusional. In fact there is a long tradition of eccentric inventors convinced they have a miracle.

What does not quite fit is the transparent dishonesty. But people are not all cut from a single cloth (as a think George Eliott said in Middlemarch). Rossi is on record as not seeing the need for checks that any scientist would think vital. He ignored basic electrical engineering when testing input power, and many many times has refused to make cross-checks or modify setups for greater safety. That goes with his motivation being that devices should appear to work, and he get the the adulation of his supporters - we have some evidence for this from his technically illiterate but crowd-pleasing comments on JONP. His attitude can be seen by supporters as selfless in the right situation, especially when the promissed miracle will transform the world for the better. It is of course highly selfish at best, and fraudulent at worst.

@All

None of what you think matters. Nor does what I think matter. It either works or it doesn't. We don't have enough evidence upon which to base a solid conclusion. The evidentiary phase of the trial should bring to light much information. We can then all re-assess our positions and perhaps even change them. Until then and for now, I'm going into scarce-comment-mode.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

No threat Peter but you should not have published a confidential email and will be treated accordingly.

Sounds like Dewey Weaver has been burned. I was only suspicious that the message came from Dewey until this statement. True colors are marvelous to behold.

Quote from AlainCo

Time to understand the problem:

Not very clear or definitive...

Anyway you can explain much more by hearing the client.

Display More

This explanation sounds as if it could be applied to both sides of the equation, both for or against AR. In fact it could easily account for the very existence of this forum.

Quote from AlainCo

There is now two clear camp, and seldom lukewarmers.

It seems the opinion are established, and others argument don't convince.

So maybe is it time to sit an wait for the judge.

My point exactly. I agree whole heartedly, but the court decision isn't likely to give closure to either camp in the end because it won't decide whether AR was successful in the year long test, but instead will translate the terms of the contract and whether they were met or not. The only thing that will be judged or validated will be the attorney's proficiency in contract law. Verification of LENR and its viability will only come whenever a successful product is brought to market and confirmed by its users.

Quote from IH Fanboy

@All

None of what you think matters. Nor does what I think matter. It either works or it doesn't. We don't have enough evidence upon which to base a solid conclusion. The evidentiary phase of the trial should bring to light much information. We can then all re-assess our positions and perhaps even change them. Until then and for now, I'm going into scarce-comment-mode.

Agreed, see my comment 2,130 3rd comment down from here.

Rionrlty "it won't decide whether AR was successful in the year long test, but instead will translate the terms of the contract"

exactly,

Get real- that is what this thread is about= the court case of Rossi vs. Darden. Its about Rossi bringing accusations against IH and him proving to the court that IH should be held guilty based on the agreement. Since he brought suit against IH, it is up to him to prove with the "preponderance of evidence" that IH did not uphold the agreement. (So far it seems , IMHO, that Rossi has brought little evidence and not exactly a "preponderance". But we will have to wait on the court for that verdict.) It has never been about if LENR is real or not. Besides proving XP, Rossi has to show that the events in FL fulfilled the requirements of the legal agreement. XP is just a small part of that.

Quote from oldguy

. . . XP is just a small part of that.

But it's the only part that matters. Darnit oldguy, I couldn't resist, you brought me out of hybernation.

But Rossi could have XP as he claimed but he could lose the case due to things like failure to get a signed start date for the test of the Six Cylinder GPT or failure of the ERV to be formally agreed upon by IH, or failure of the ERV to measure the flow of the heated fluid out of the device and so on. It was Ross that brought suit. Remember Rossi must show that IH is guilty by a preponderance of the evidence and IH only has to show that any single critical part of the agreement was not met.

It sure looks like Rossi will have a hard time to prove IH was guilty and IH as a defendant has a much easier time. The US legal system is weighted that way. It "defaults" in favor of the defendant.

XP may be important to "us" but it not the only thing needed to prove the case that Rossi has brought against IH.

As they said- if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit - Here if the facts don't follow the agreement, they must acquit

But I would not doubt that we will get a better idea after the hearing tomorrow.

Shane D. a typical electric room heater is about 1kW. So imagine about 1000 of those walmart room heaters going 24/7 in your house.

@oldguy

You may have missed my point. If Rossi has XP as claimed and loses the case, we all win. If Rossi has XP as claimed and wins the case, we all win. If Rossi has no XP and loses the case, we all lose. If Rossi has no XP and wins the case, we all lose.

The only thing that matters is whether it works. The rest will be footnotes in the history books.

IHF. I don't agree. If Rossi has no XP and loses, then he will likely have to sell his condos to make payment back to IH (example fake or hour short on the first $10M deal).

I would expect that IH would just shift that money to those other half a dozen researchers they are now supporting.

After all some of those have promising results (see Dewey's post, if you believe him)

A few million in the right hands could get us well down the LENR research path. I would call that a win. Realize there are more horses in the LENR race other than Rossi. And many of them "have better breeding" for a long race.

Several new documents now on the docket:

Just a reminder that anything that sounds vaguely like a threat of litigation against one of the forum members, or that might reasonably be understood as such, should be taken to another venue and handled through other channels.

@Eric

Did Dewey suggest that Hank Mills should lawyer up again?

Zaaaaam. Just when I tell myself to cool it.