Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from Bob

    This group either must be completely ignorant of the legal proceedings and are not following the court case at all, or their judgment is severely questionable! By hiring someone who may very well be found guilty of fraud, they may be placing their careers at Uppsala in jeopardy! This is quite intriguing!

    a) Fabiani is no more involved in the trial

    b) this is a civil case

    c) maybe that Fabiani is not been hired by Uppsala University now and that the web contains only old information

    d( or is possible that this important University with a high reputation and long history knows things and facts that you and me don't know.


    Your starting point : Rossi is a scammer, Fabiani is guilty is just the position of IH. Quite a biased POV.

    Hi to everybody and sorry for my English full of errors. You know, Italians are not famous for they fluent English... 😂😂😂


    I'm not a scientist or an engineer, but an Italian lawyer (not involved in this case nor in contact with any of the parties: I'm just exited for the trial and his outcome).


    As reader of this thread, I respect people who think Rossi is a scammer, but respectfully disagree.


    A scammer has a different "modus operandi". A scammer ask for money, doesn't sue big LLC, exposing himself to the risk of loosing his face...


    I believe he really has discovered something and I believe in prof. Focardi, who was not a stupid...


    By the way, the trial will force Rossi to prove his plant works. And we will have all answers we need.


    I see most of people here are against Rossi. While some are in good faith, I'm not sure about the others... If a person has worked for IH, maybe he or she isn't an example of impartial observer. Some people seem to be to much interested in this story...

    Quote from JedRothwell

    We have seen it. It is right there in the Penon report, uploaded by Rossi himself. The data is fake. The instruments shown in the report could not detect any excess heat. That report plus the testimony from Rossi, Murray and Smith show that the real COP is 1.


    @JED: Yes I can read it too! On every page Penon writes DN40 and flow meter empty and Florida power meter defect. - Smith does not even assume LENR happend, thus nobody will use such crap in front of a Jury...


    The problem is, that even if no steam was produced, the COP is still above 12 and in fact for this DN40 is more than OK...


    If you don't get it. There are two flow meters. 1) The protocol with the running reactors (max number 64) * water pumped/h and 2) the rusty old meter from the scrapyard. All thermocouples were doubled too. And yes in the water case we even don't need the manometer!

    We just have to wait for the Jury trial and whether Fabiani will confirm the data or refute it.


    I understand your frustration very well. We all share this feeling because all core issues are hidden - by both sides. I'm looking forward to the ECCO/me356 test(s), which, if positive (COP>5), certainly will completely change the picture.


    If AR could produce 70kWh (just hot water with a grain of steam) out of 5kWh input (July) I would, be happy with the Doral test.


    But your big Daddy is obviously not liking this idea...

    I am confused by the Rossis (apostrophe left out intentionally :) ) claim that in June 2014 he told IH that he would direct the JM plant. After all wasn't it JMP that was the "customer" for that 2 years of steam? Was JM even in existence in June 2014? But I get confused by the Matthew xxxx Matthey changes, and the JM/ JMP changes.


    Even if Rossi directed a JM plant, did JM merge with JMP between June 2014 and Feb 2015?

    Sure seems like fraud to me. Remember that is misrepresenting facts or fraudulent pretenses for monetary gain in Florida law.


    I would think that representing that he could not do such and such or that he spoke with the director as a pretense.



    Well, let's take a look at Rossi's emails in June 2014 on the Docket, to see exactly what he said (Document 236-28):


    On June 3rd, 1pm (excerpt):

    [unrelated]

    ...

    p.s.

    I have found a Customer that will use the 1MW plant in his factory in Florida, paying Industrial Heat and also I am in contact with the health Care office for the authorization. I think in short time we can have the 1MW plant in operation. We must stay extremely focused on this now.


    • Rossi has found a Customer, and 'he' is none other than Rossi himself. (BTW, Isn't this the highest level of Masow's hierarchy of needs, 'self discovery'? Rossi has found himself!)
    • Rossi states that he is also in contact with the 'health Care office' for the authorization. (Does anyone believe he actually was in contact with such an agency?)

    On June 3, 3:39pm (excerpt):

    ... it is necessary to have:

    1- A Customer that uses the energy of the plant

    2 - The necessary authorizations

    If you have found the solutions, welcome. If not, I have and it is necessary we talk about these issues to establish a roadmap.

    Warm Regards to all,

    Andrea

    • Rossi has 'found the solution', and he points out IH has not. Rossi's solution is to pose himself as the 'real customer' to IH.



    Leonardo Corporation [controlled by Rossi] has found this solution:

    On June 20th (excerpt):

    ...

    a- a Customer has been found who will rent the 1MW plant to use it as a dryer for his chemical additives and catalyzers.

    b- the Customer will install the plant in a factory of his in Florida.

    c- the Customer will pay 1,000 $/day of rental fee starting from when the plant will be declared from me ready to operate. [Rossi is clearly talking about the 1MW plant here]

    d- the director of the plant will be made by Andrea Rossi, for free, for the first 350 days of operation of the plant. [Again, Rossi is clearly talking about the 1MW plant here - any other meaning would be absurd - like he's going to operate the "real Customer's" plant for free?' that would certainly raise suspicion by IH]

    e-Andrea Rossi will be assisted by Fulvio Fabiani who is a consultant of Industrial Heat. [Note that Fabiani has said he was not allowed on the JMP side. So this further supports the context that Rossi is describing how he will be supported in running the 1MW plant (not the JMP 'plant' - which was really just a crude serpentine pipe radiator - not any kind of 'plant').]

    f- the Customer will have no access to the technology [of the 1MW e-cat], but his workers will be instructed to use the plant [again, this can only be construed to mean the 1MW plant] Maintenance and recharge will be made by Industrial Heat with the direction of Andrea Rossi. Since I have already started the operation regarding this plan please let me know if you agree upon all. [Rossi states that he 'had already started', but actually didn't have a warehouse, factory, real customer, or any reason for a 1 MW dryer (or dryer of any size energy)]


    On June 10th and 23rd, Rossi sent emails that I already dissected in my previous post. The only statements describing 'direction' (excerpts):


    June 10:

    ...

    I confirm all I already said: we have a Customer who pays 1,000 $/day to rent the 1MW plant, put it in his factory in Miami, produce catalyzers that he sells; I will direct the operation of the plant for the first year, the contract will be for 3 years, renewable. The customer will not have access to the reactors.

    ...

    • The Customer is Rossi - he had no factory, produced no catalyzers to sell.
    • The only mention of the word 'plant' in this email is the 1MW plant, which of course someone had to 'direct' - so obviously, Rossi is stating that he will direct the 1MW plant, not "the Customer's".
    • It's easy, however, to see how Rossi could confuse himself about these issues, given that he is talking about himself in the second and third person all the time.


    June 23:

    ... He needs to prepare the factory in Florida with a dryer to be coupled with our plant, under my direction, and this work has to be started as soon as possible...


    • Rossi is clearly stating that the 1MW plant will be under his direction, not the "Customer's" dryer. (Of course, we now know that he was directing everything, since this was all part of his scam.)
    • Rossi cannot reasonably argue that this sentence, in context, is stating that he 'informed IH that he would be directing the plant in JM' for (at least) two reasons:
    • 1) 'JM' has not even been mentioned yet, and is not stated in the email. Rossi didn't 'reveal' Johnson Mathey or JM until July.
    • 2) At most, the sentence could be meaning that 'under my direction' would apply to the 'coupling' of the 1MW plant to the customers dryer, not to directing the customer's dryer (which Rossi does not call a plant). Rossi only uses the word 'plant' to refer to the 1MW plant. He makes this clear when he references it as 'our plant'.

    Based on the evidence on the docket, Rossi's statements on JONP that he informed IH that he would be directing 'JM' are untrue. There are no emails in June (or any other time) where Rossi informs IH that he is the director of JM. Of course, we now know that he directed everything. And it is clear from the emails, that this was his pre-conceived plan to deceive and scam IH.

    In the USA, a scammer is anyone who uses fraud in hopes of personal gain. (note Rossi did ask for money as in your definition) Here in the US, I doubt that the court will" force Rossi" to prove it works. That is not normally done and notice that Rossi has already destroyed parts of it. The case is- if the agreement1) to have a starting date signed or otherwise agreed to by all three parties 2)nd if the all the requirements of the agreement were fulfilled in the time window agreed to, and 3) and in a manner agreed to -were accomplished. The production of steam of the proper quality and duration and restrains on the input power are secondary to the legal case.

    Quote from IHSupporter

    Even if Rossi directed a JM plant, did JM merge with JMP between June 2014 and Feb 2015?

    Sure seems like fraud to me. Remember that is misrepresenting facts or fraudulent pretenses for monetary gain in Florida law.

    Telling to IH that the owner of JM was Santa Claus, would have not changed the situation. Trust and "beneficial ownership" are common law inventions and I don't se that they are "per se" syntom of fraud...


    I don't see any fraud in using them. If you want to find a fraud (not only in Florida laws, but in general...) you have to prove that the "lie" (the fact that Rossi was the owner of the firm) has been used in order to obtain an illicit earning...

    The real point is:

    1) did the plant produce excess of heat as stated by Rossi? If the answer is no, Rossi should be persecuted for fraud. If the answer is yes, Rossi should be considered like the new Guglielmo Marconi...

    @sigmoidal 


    Thank you that is just like what I recalled. No direct mention of ROssi being the "director of JP" just like he never mention directly that what was going on in Doral he would later call the GPT.


    I think that the Florida law (at least what I looked up) is clear that fraud included misrepresentation of future claims. That you cannot set up something now to confuse and misrepresent for future activates of gain.

    A misrepresentation is not a fraud. A misrepresentation is a misrepresentation. In order to have fraud - in all civilized countries - the misrepresentation should be linked with an illicit gain.


    I mean, the real ownership of Jp is irrilevant. Maybe the owner of Jp was me (I'm joking). Who cares? The only relevant thing is if the Rossi's report was "real" or fake.

    Quote from Frederic

    BobHiggins wrote:

    So the Rossi-positive outcome would be Rossi gets the $89M and everything he has developed and all of its derivatives are licensed to IH


    If IH loses the case it will go bankrupt because probably unable to pay this amount plus fees.

    What happens to its IP in such an event ?

    IH declares bankruptcy- That is what I have been saying all along. It is clear that IH does not have the money now and would not get it if it lost. I am not sure about the personal liabilities of Darden and Vaugh. It would likely take another suit to de-convolve the liabilities of the companies and the people. But I don't think that Darden ever promised any personal money directly to Rossi and only risked any personal money only that of IH (I would bet and apostrophe and a biscuit on that).


    As the song says= all the gold in California is in a bank in some else's name.


    The only good outcome I can see (but it would never happen and doubt if the iMW is real) is that Rossi drops the suit, uses his money not to pay lawyers but to build a good plant of a few 10's of kW but with clearly visable/traceable parts/wire, uses multiply redundant measures, has several engineers/scientists run it and he stands back and let others run it and verify it and never touches it while under test. I do no doubt that IH would or deep pocket person would do that.

    Quote from Italianlawyer

    A misrepresentation is not a fraud. A misrepresentation is a misrepresentation. In order to have fraud - in all civilized countries - the misrepresentation should be linked with an illicit gain.


    I mean, the real ownership of Jp is irrilevant. Maybe the owner of Jp was me (I'm joking). Who cares? The only relevant thing is if the Rossi's report was "real" or fake.

    don't you believe that Rossi would have any gain? The seems to have misrepresented the customer for the purpose of setting up something that he could later claim to be the GPT for the purpose of a gain of $89M - sounds like gain to me. In the US you do not have to obtain the gain only have a purpose to get gain from the misrepresentation.

    @oldguy,


    I believe the "misrepresentation" began in good faith with initial contacts with Johnson Matthey, and to persuade IH to get the test underway. Even Vaughn says in an email that Rossi persuaded IH to have the plant moved to Miami so that the "test" (i.e., Vaughn's word) could be performed. What began in good faith then seems to have taken on a life of its own when the relationship with Johnson Matthey faltered. But the initial impetus was not to defraud, but to get IH-drag-our-feet moving.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    @oldguy,


    I believe the "misrepresentation" began in good faith with initial contacts with Johnson Matthey, and to persuade IH to get the test underway. Even Vaughn says in an email that Rossi persuaded IH to have the plant moved to Miami so that the "test" (i.e., Vaughn's word) could be performed. What began in good faith then seems to have taken on a life of its own when the relationship with Johnson Matthey faltered. But the initial impetus was not to defraud, but to get IH-drag-our-feet moving.

    That is hard for me to believe, since Rossi and Johnson continued to identify the fake JPM company as UK owned and that Rossi continued to refer to the director in the third person, and Johnson signed that he was not related to anyone in JMP while being its "president". Sure seem like a lot of turns and twist to not represent JPM as a simple company set up by Rossi, operated by Rossi and not producing any real commercial product that we know of (what product was sold to whom). Sure "smells" like misrepresentation of ownership to me.

    Quote from sigmoidal

    Based on the evidence on the docket, Rossi's statements on JONP that he informed IH that he would be directing 'JM' are untrue. There are no emails in June (or any other time) where Rossi informs IH that he is the director of JM. Of course, we now know that he directed everything. And it is clear from the emails, that this was his pre-conceived plan to deceive and scam IH.




    Rossi made similar statements in his JMP deposition; that in his emails he meant he would direct the JMP plant.


    Rossi probably just has bad reading comprehension of his own emails. He was under oath, so he obviously wouldn't be lying.

    Quote from Italianlawyer

    By the way, the trial will force Rossi to prove his plant works. And we will have all answers we need.


    I agree that this would be very nice if it were to happen, Italianlawyer. But I don't know if it will in this case. It seems highly likely that the US justice system will focus on contractual details and will not detain itself in proving that Rossi's technical claims are correct.

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.