Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from IH Fanboy

oldguy,

I suggest that you follow the conversation a bit closer. Jed was referring to the smart meter, as was I.

And I was referring to your general approach to being questioned.

You seem to just avoid answering when asked direct questions and do not give direct links or references and never clearify things for others but make vague comments like I already covered that or that was decided (yea right) before.

Do you Care to explain the Johnson Matthew claim of Rossi that you put forth in 7774. I sure would like to see some collaboration instead of just Fanboy says Rossi says.

Quote from JedRothwell

Did you read Penon's report? How can you claim he might have "crushed" the test? Anyone can see it was a failure, and the report itself was a joke. Rossi tacitly admitted that by coming up with the imaginary, invisible mezzanine heat exchanger long after the fact.

JedRothwell I'm not a scientist or a mathematician, only a lay person like probably most of the Jurors will be. As a result I must take analysis from folks like you and Engineer48 over on ECW. Since you cannot agree on much that poses a problem for me. The fact that you have financial and loyalty ties to IH doesn't make it any easier for me to determine the truth of the matter.

The ultimate fact is a number of folks much like me will listen to a number of folks much like you and Eng48 and decide the situation. That must make you more than a little nervous about the outcome. While I may not be a Scientist I do know a great deal about business, mostly that it is down and dirty and anything but honest and above board. Any who aren't willing to play that game should not join in.

Sorry Wyttenbach, we will not be closing this thread.

Quote from Rionrlty

JedRothwell I'm not a scientist or a mathematician, only a lay person like probably most of the Jurors will be. As a result I must take analysis from folks like you and Engineer48 over on ECW. Since you cannot agree on much that poses a problem for me. The fact that you have financial and loyalty ties to IH doesn't make it any easier for me to determine the truth of the matter.

The ultimate fact is a number of folks much like me will listen to a number of folks much like you and Eng48 and decide the situation. That must make you more than a little nervous about the outcome. While I may not be a Scientist I do know a great deal about business, mostly that it is down and dirty and anything but honest and above board. Any who aren't willing to play that game should not join in.

RR

Your argument has some merit: asking lay people to judge science issues is difficult. All you need is two experts apparently saying opposite things and they go on who has the best haircut / says their bit in the most assured way.

It is difficult for any engineer to lie in Court, or to sound honest supporting something they know is wrong. So, for example, when Wong is challenged on his air speed and tube diameter independent "heat transfer coefficient" which he references from many sources, and asked whether in the light of more accurate calculations it could possibly be correct, he will crumble. The matter at issue is clear: single one-size-fits-all coefficient versus more accurate calculator and a lay Jury can follow it well enough. I'm less sure about the rest of the technical evidence where as we see here it could get sticky. OTOH Rossi has no other experts on his side! Why do you think that is?

Putting the technical evidence to one side, I think IH has a very strong case, for the reasons you carefully avoid which will however convince a lay Jury.

Rossi misdirects, and has misdirected this charade from the start lying about the failure of his previous Hydrofusion test (compare Mats' account with Rossi's e-mail to IH) and then again, repeatedly with a web of subterfuge, about the identity of the customer. That makes the worth of a RossiSays about zero, and Rossi's case depends on Rossi Says:

• Vanishing heat exchanger (Wong) - all RossiSays
• Excuses about customer - RossiSays
• Penon Data - hopelessly contaminated with RossiMakesTheEquipment and RossiSendsTheResults
• Rossi thought this was the GPT and is a hard-working inventor deceived by IH - RossiSays
• ECat works - RossiSays (there is no supporting evidence from a cross-examinable person on this - the Lugano authors don't seem to want to be expert witnesses)

Then there is the missing evidence. Read 299 from the Court Docket:

• Penon - not a third party - key figure - vanished to a country where he cannot even be subpoenaed
• Fabiani - selectively destroys raw data and e-mails after being told it would lead to legal action if he did

None of this stuff is technical, and while you can take select points in a Rossiesque style that appear positive for Rossi, the whole thing examined carefully is damning. Have you done this? I get the impression from your posts that you are believing the Rossiesque explanations without joining the dots. Individual jurors may, like you, not do this, but a whole Jury in deliberations almost certainly will.

Both sides make their points in the MSJs and the Spoliation in limine documents. See here and search summary or limine - Abd's site lets you locate individual documents by title easily. Remember that for each document there may be 3 or 6 versions from the various sides. The difference is that Annesser's points in service of Rossi nearly all rely on bizaare and often Rossieque interpretation with no hard evidence.

The points above (to take a sample that we can see) all rely on hard evidence.

I'd like to understand how you process this. I don't expect you to agree with me on the technical stuff - which we both agree may not be relevant to a Jury anyway - but a close reading of the documents shows the above to me. Which documents, read in context, do you think support an alternate view? For example, read the Annesser MSJ, or the 3rd Party in limine arguments. They sound very convincing, but when compared with the other side's counter-arguments they largely crumble because their validity depends on unsupported interpretation - and often on Rossiesque misinterpretation contradicted by context. They make sense only if you ignore other evidence. A good example of this is Rossi's: "I told IH I was the customer" as examined above, or the false claims of secrecy preventing IH from inspecting the non-existing customer-side equipment.

PS - you note Jed's financial and personal links with IH - such as they are - Jed may wish to correct you. Do you also acknowledge E48's stronger financial and personal links with Rossi?

I'm not sure, but do not expect factual errors from the IH in limine counter-response, whence I derived my comment (while dubious interpretive leaps will be found always on both sides). I accept what you say here, but see little distinction in meaning, so my point stands.

On Abd's site Abd has combined his normal detailed and able reading of the documents with his (also normal) venting against the evils of LF's light and imperfect moderation. I commented. You and other LF mods might wish to do so, or not.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I'm not sure, but do not expect factual errors from the IH in limine counter-response, whence I derived my comment (while dubious interpretive leaps will be found always on both sides). I accept what you say here, but see little distinction in meaning, so my point stands.

On Abd's site Abd has combined his normal detailed and able reading of the documents with his (also normal) venting against the evils of LF's light and imperfect moderation. I commented. You and other LF mods might wish to do so, or not.

Well you can't please everyone.

Abd seems to be less about moderating and more about dictatorship.

Certainly glad Abd is not a moderator on this site.

Quote from Alan Smith

Well, your point doesn't really stand. If someone chooses to ignore a subpoena and are not in the jurisdiction that served it, then extradition would be the only way of enforcing it AFAIK. Good luck with that. So even if Ing. Penon chose to ignore a subpoena while back home in Italy it would have the same limited effect. You are just trying to make it sound more sinister, as if he was hiding out in Afghanistan.

Though come to think of it, IH could probably get him rendered from there.

Private international law is a serious affair in Italy. And Italian judge respect it.

According to Italian law - that must me applied to Italian citizens despite the fact they live in Italy or in other countries - a foreign country (USA) has the right to ask Italian judicial system for recognition of a subpoena. But only if they order is not against Italian law (Italian law, in this case, means "fundamental rights" and - in general I think USA and other western countries, respect them...).

I don't think an USA Tribunal could "force" an Italian citizen to go to USA to appear in a civil trial with a "sub poena ad testificandum" (in a criminal trial the situation could be different) but an USA Tribunal could for sure force an Italian citizen (who live abroad) to come back to Italy and be questioned by USA authority about the fact contained in the sub poena.

The refuse of the Italian citizen who live in a foreign country, to come back in Italy and be questioned, could be solved with the help of Italian policemen and extradition (in Italy we call it "accompagnamento coatto", it mens that policemen will bring with the force in front of the judge).

For people who speak Italian, I would suggest to read article

Art. 69 of Italian law no. 218 of 1995

http://www.esteri.it/mae/doc/l218_1995.pdf

Cross examination - an instrument that Italian law use only in criminal law case (according to Italian law Rossi case should be considered as a civil case) - can be used in Italy, as well as the video recording of the testimony (see Court of Appel Of Brescia, order 28 November 1991, in Riv. dir. int. priv. proc., 1992, 397 ss.: in the order is also explained that pre-trial testimony can't be enforced in Italy).

See also this convention (entered in force, for Italy, in 1982): https://www.hcch.net/en/instru…entions/full-text/?cid=82

Quote from Italianlawyer

the Italian citizen who live in a foreign country

Am I right in concluding that Italian law discriminates against Italian citizens? What about non-Italian citizens?

Quote from THHuxleynew

RR

Your argument has some merit: asking lay people to judge science issues is difficult. All you need is two experts apparently saying opposite things and they go on who has the best haircut / says their bit in the most assured way.

It is difficult for any engineer to lie in Court, or to sound honest supporting something they know is wrong. So, for example, when Wong is challenged on his air speed and tube diameter independent "heat transfer coefficient" which he references from many sources, and asked whether in the light of more accurate calculations it could possibly be correct, he will crumble. The matter at issue is clear: single one-size-fits-all coefficient versus more accurate calculator and a lay Jury can follow it well enough. I'm less sure about the rest of the technical evidence where as we see here it could get sticky. OTOH Rossi has no other experts on his side! Why do you think that is?

Putting the technical evidence to one side, I think IH has a very strong case, for the reasons you carefully avoid which will however convince a lay Jury.

Rossi misdirects, and has misdirected this charade from the start lying about the failure of his previous Hydrofusion test (compare Mats' account with Rossi's e-mail to IH) and then again, repeatedly with a web of subterfuge, about the identity of the customer. That makes the worth of a RossiSays about zero, and Rossi's case depends on Rossi Says:

• Vanishing heat exchanger (Wong) - all RossiSays
• Excuses about customer - RossiSays
• Penon Data - hopelessly contaminated with RossiMakesTheEquipment and RossiSendsTheResults
• Rossi thought this was the GPT and is a hard-working inventor deceived by IH - RossiSays
• ECat works - RossiSays (there is no supporting evidence from a cross-examinable person on this - the Lugano authors don't seem to want to be expert witnesses)

Then there is the missing evidence. Read 299 from the Court Docket:

• Penon - not a third party - key figure - vanished to a country where he cannot even be subpoenaed
• Fabiani - selectively destroys raw data and e-mails after being told it would lead to legal action if he did

None of this stuff is technical, and while you can take select points in a Rossiesque style that appear positive for Rossi, the whole thing examined carefully is damning. Have you done this? I get the impression from your posts that you are believing the Rossiesque explanations without joining the dots. Individual jurors may, like you, not do this, but a whole Jury in deliberations almost certainly will.

Both sides make their points in the MSJs and the Spoliation in limine documents. See here and search summary or limine - Abd's site lets you locate individual documents by title easily. Remember that for each document there may be 3 or 6 versions from the various sides. The difference is that Annesser's points in service of Rossi nearly all rely on bizaare and often Rossieque interpretation with no hard evidence.

The points above (to take a sample that we can see) all rely on hard evidence.

I'd like to understand how you process this. I don't expect you to agree with me on the technical stuff - which we both agree may not be relevant to a Jury anyway - but a close reading of the documents shows the above to me. Which documents, read in context, do you think support an alternate view? For example, read the Annesser MSJ, or the 3rd Party in limine arguments. They sound very convincing, but when compared with the other side's counter-arguments they largely crumble because their validity depends on unsupported interpretation - and often on Rossiesque misinterpretation contradicted by context. They make sense only if you ignore other evidence. A good example of this is Rossi's: "I told IH I was the customer" as examined above, or the false claims of secrecy preventing IH from inspecting the non-existing customer-side equipment.

PS - you note Jed's financial and personal links with IH - such as they are - Jed may wish to correct you. Do you also acknowledge E48's stronger financial and personal links with Rossi?

Display More

I think that the technical stuff will mainly only be useful in the counter suit against Rossi et al and not as much in the Rossi against Darden was it a legal fulfillment of the written agreement part.

But then I am not a lawyer.

It may be a civil suit now, but my understand (as faulty as it is) is that IH could file a criminal fraud case later if they win the counter suit - based on fraud or even theft or destruction of materials. But I think that would be under the state system not the feds.

Quote from Hermes

Am I right in concluding that Italian law discriminates against Italian citizens? What about non-Italian citizens?

I don't see the point (maybe my post was not clear). Italian law about the recognition of foreign judicial acts can be applied a) to Italian citizen or b) to people who have a territorial link with Italy (they play

live or stay in Italy). Off course, the power of Italian law is stronger o

on Italian citizens, who have to comply with Italian law, even if they live in Afghanistan...

If Penon were a Chinese citizen and lived in Italy, Italian judge can ask him to comply with an USA sub poena...

The Aja convention I've posted is clear about that...

oldguy,

Private entities can't file a criminal case against another private entity. IH could "press" for charges, but it would be a justice department that would need to file any such criminal charges. And in a business dispute such as this one, the chances of that happening are next to nil.

Quote from Rionrlty

The fact that you have financial and loyalty ties to IH doesn't make it any easier for me to determine the truth of the matter.

I have no such ties, but in any case, this is a logical fallacy:

http://www.nizkor.org/features…mstantial-ad-hominem.html

Quote from IH Fanboy

oldguy,

Private entities can't file a criminal case against another private entity. IH could "press" for charges, but it would be a justice department that would need to file any such criminal charges. And in a business dispute such as this one, the chances of that happening are next to nil.

Excuse my terms. As I say I am not a lawyer and gave such notice in the post. They can file a report for things such as theft of instruments and devices or file a robbery report or distraction of property that could result in a legal criminal case. Perhaps that is a better way to say it.

By the way did you ever find any evidence that Rossi actually negotiated with Johnson Matthey and it was not a "never seen by another" thing (like the heat exchanger) or the claiming of being a director of Johnson Matthey (JM) when it was really just JMP.

Since you seem to like having things over and over again (as you did to Jed with the temps) I thought you like me to ask again for your evidence of that it is not must Rossi says with JM negotiations.

Quote from sigmoidal

These are facts that all parties (Rossi, IH and Third Parties) agree to - in other words, these are undisputed facts regarding this case:

Quote from sigmoidal

94. J.M. Products has never been owned by Johnson Matthey or controlled by a trust formed in the United Kingdom; it has always been owned by the Platinum American Trust.

95. J.M. Products has never been a subsidiary of Johnson Matthey.

96. Johnson Matthey has never had an ownership interest in J.M. Products.

Quote from sigmoidal

Conclusion: The uncontested evidence now recorded in a US Federal Court clearly shows that Dottore Andrea Rossi is accurately defined as a 'scammer'.

Sig, you yourself have said that the three points mentioned are accepted by both sides, so they are true!

IH admits they have always known that JM had nothing to do with Johnson Matthey.

In Rossi's email to Darden that you can find in document 207-41 it is clear how Rossi talks about a client who wants initially to remain secret but does not say that this customer is Johnson Matthey. Here you all are convinced that the hidden client does not exist, but the fact that Rossi or JM represent him does not mean this at all. There are cases where an entity or group does not want to be discovered until it can show that has invested in something that really works .... there are so many cases that are not contemplated here and which maybe are described in the secretive pages in the process.

From 207-41:

"Today I got the solid hope that after 3-4 months of good operation they will make an official outing. As a matter of fact I was not supposed to give you their name. [...] I am sure after 3-4 month they will put another CEO if the plant will go well, and that they will disclose themselves. Now NOT. There have been no way to obtain this. It is necessary we send them by the next week the agreement signed, otherwise they will go on without our plant: as a matter of fact, they do not need us."

Quote from Shane D.

That is a mixed bag. Yes, some like Levi, the Annessers, Penon, Fabiani, his handy man, have remained loyal. Swedes?...well we do not know, because they are pretty tight lipped.

Swedes are still working on their replication of the E-Cat, as Mats told few times ago. If they believed E-cat was a hoax, they would not waste time trying to replicate it. And the fact that they make it silently is a sign of seriousness and professionalism.

Quote from we_cat_global

Thomas Darden and Co. show such ambivalent behaviour that i am personally sure there is more going on than what we see. A lot more. Actually IH, by all their accusations, threats and preparing actions, prove to me that there is great value in Rossi's IP.

One day we will be able to conclude the above question. It will take a few more years perhaps, but IH's post-trial actions, the LENR field dying of slowly but surely or a replicator will answer the question for us.

I agree with you. And I think it would be a shame if a replicator would enrich himself (and Darden) by selling his E-copy Cat based on technology stolen by Rossi. I hope this never happens.

Quote from Italianlawyer

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...

A scammer also don't have granted patents.

Quote from Italianlawyer

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...

I totally agree with you. Here The Voice of IH is quite loud and quite well organized.

Quote from Eric Walker

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

Rossi technical claims have been proved correct by the USPTO . I see that you don't trust US Justice and probably you don't trust USPTO also.