But it does look like IH will have to reveal some salary like info.
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
I didn't understand the "March 14, 2017" deadline, which predates the date next to the signature by two days.
-
I didn't understand the "March 14, 2017" deadline, which predates the date next to the signature by two days.
The Magistrate-Judge (O'Sullivan) simply signed off on IH's proposed order. The text appears to be identical to that in the previous document in your list.
-
I didn't understand the "March 14, 2017" deadline, which predates the date next to the signature by two days.
perhaps it was ordered from the bench during a hearing or something but the signature was delayed. ??????
-
Yeah. So the playbook now is even if Rossi has it, he deserves none of the credit for his world-changing device.
If his devices do not work, and never did work, and other people did the same experiment before he did it, in what sense would he deserve credit?
-
@Jed,
Whatever. Read what I wrote. If Rossi has it.
-
Re Doc. 173, looks like IH was pretending that the original order for the tax returns referred to Rossi's personal tax returns. Court slapped IH down for that in the footnote of the 173 order.
-
If Rossi has it.
If Rossi has it, and if he ever lets it out of the bag and commercializes it, then Rossi will deserve a trillion dollars. The problem is, every indication so far is that he does not have it. His own data indicates he does not have it. Furthermore, even if he has it, he still violated his contract with I.H., so he does not deserve $89 million from them at this time. He will not deserve any money from anyone until he reveals what he has in a way that will allow production of commercial devices eventually.
-
@Jed,
I take that as a concession. He will deserve the credit, if he has it.
-
Doc. 173, an order, now on the docket.
There are three decisions in this order:
1) Rossi's motion to reconsider the ruling that email communication between Zali and Darden are privileged is denied (those conversations remain privileged and cannot be used by Rossi).
2) Darden must provide his salary information from IH, IPH and Cherokee to Rossi
3) Rossi must provide tax returns from both Leonardo New Hampshire and Leonardo Florida to IH
These last two documents (172-1 and 173) are essentially house-keeping from a recent hearing on 2017-03-09 (note that this is not from the most recent hearing on the 14th). The [proposed] order (172-1) submitted by IH was no doubt already decided by the judge at that hearing. IH was instructed by the judge to write up his decision and post it as a [proposed] order, which they did yesterday. The judge reviewed it and signed off on it today.
In general, I'm learning that it seems that the judges/magistrates are not in the habit of actually writing the bulk of the orders. They instruct either party to write it up as a [proposed] order and then they review it, tweak it if necessary, and then sign it.
So there's not a lot of information or significance to these two most recent documents. We won't learn anything about Zalli's communications with Darden,
we'll probably eventually find outor how much Darden pays himself,and we'll probably eventually learnor how much Rossi pays himself (since these will be marked "Attorney's eyes only" [edit]).The back-dating to a March 14 production date merely indicates that there was some delay in the magistrate officially signing off on the order that was already decided verbally at the 3/9 hearing. This seems to happen regularly.
-
Re Doc. 173, looks like IH was pretending that the original order for the tax returns referred to Rossi's personal tax returns. Court slapped IH down for that in the footnote of the 173 order.
No, there is no evidence of IH "pretending" anything. Read the note. It says that it was IH's understanding that this included Rossi's personal tax filings, and that on 3/14 the magistrate clarified that this understanding was incorrect, it only applied to the two Leonardos. Nor is there any evidence that the court somehow 'slapped' IH.
Now, we will eventually have access to the transcripts. So if someone decides to pay for those, we could 'listen' to the hearing and see if there was any 'slapping' going on.
Currently, there is no information on the docket to support your speculation, however.
-
I take that as a concession. He will deserve the credit, if he has it.
It is not a concession. I have said that all along. Of course he will deserve the credit. However, he does not deserve $89 million from I.H. at this time because he reneged, and he violated the contract by not demonstrating heat and showing them how to replicate it.
If he has forgotten how to produce heat, or he lost the ability, that is not his fault. That is understandable. It is regrettable. But he still does not deserve the $89 million. And he still should not have stuffed fake data into the spreadsheets, nor should he file a lawsuit.
If he "has it," he is a lunatic for not patenting it, demonstrating it, and collecting billions of dollars.
-
@sig,
"It is Defendants’ position that this Court ordered production of Andrea Rossi’s individual tax returns . . . this Court only required production of tax returns of Leonardo Corporation of Florida and Leonardo Corporation of New Hampshire.
It is a slap, albeit a gentle one.
-
It is not a concession.
Oh that's right. You never concede, even if you are proved wrong.
-
If he "has it," he is a lunatic for not patenting it [check], demonstrating it [check], and collecting billions of dollars [pretty tough if your licensee turns on you].
-
It is a slap, albeit a gentle one.
It's a clarification that the magistrate made on March 14 (which was a scheduled hearing not pertaining to this issue). This we know for sure, because that's what it says and the magistrate signed off on it.
The order was decided on March 9.
IH wrote the proposed order (including the footnote clarification), so it's likely that they (IH/Jones Day) asked the magistrate for clarification, which they received on the 14th. Notice how detailed and verbose it is. That's Jones Day's lawyers style. You might also be aware, if you've read previous hearing transcripts that the magistrate personally knows IH's lawyer ( with Jones Day) Chris Pace because Pace used to work in that very court for the Fed before he joined Jones Day.
You have no idea whether this is a slap or not. To know that you need the transcript for the 3/14 hearing (which is not yet available).
-
IH wrote the proposed order (including the footnote clarification), ...
Ah yes, I hadn't noticed that. In that case, I'd agree not a slap. Just a clarification.
-
Fanboy,
Most certainly Rossi deserves credit IF he has what he says he has. Not 1 single person Has suggested otherwise, ever, never, once.
-
If TC is still reading the posts here, my guess is that the bolometer sensitivity correction he used can be removed from his Python script, since the camera does that itself (and thereby becomes duplicated when used in external calculations). When I did the calculations (ages ago) I assumed that the bolometer sensitivity correction was incorporated into the camera internal calculations and was done perfectly. I think that is the source of the temperature difference between our methods. (779 C vs 820 C for the 1410 C reported value.)
Maybe someone that uses Python can try that out with the code in the Clarke report and see if my interpretation is correct.
(Within 40 degrees or so of what the Optris software actually says is still pretty good.)
Note that a 46 C difference at 0.95 on the RH (IOW, the real T side) made nearly a 90 C difference on the LH set at 0.45 emissivity in the earlier screen shots.
-
Display More
It's a clarification that the magistrate made on March 14 (which was a scheduled hearing not pertaining to this issue). This we know for sure, because that's what it says and the magistrate signed off on it.
The order was decided on March 9.
IH wrote the proposed order (including the footnote clarification), so it's likely that they (IH/Jones Day) asked the magistrate for clarification, which they received on the 14th. Notice how detailed and verbose it is. That's Jones Day's lawyers style. You might also be aware, if you've read previous hearing transcripts that the magistrate personally knows IH's lawyer ( with Jones Day) Chris Pace because Pace used to work in that very court for the Fed before he joined Jones Day.
You have no idea whether this is a slap or not. To know that you need the transcript for the 3/14 hearing (which is not yet available).
Bad news about the magistrate and IH's attorney. Turns out the Judge in Hawaii, who stayed Trump's latest travel ban is an old school mate and close friend. Seems our legal system is about as impartial as big corporations are highly principled.
