Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Wyttenbach


    Oh good.


    Now we can do an IHFB job on this.


    1. Is this a genuine document? I asked a 5 year old child and they thought it was probably a forgery.


    2. When they say "Rossi does not know" that is not the same as saying "I admit I lied to Rossi". Maybe they meant "We keep it a secret" and obviously a secret is not the same as a lie. I personally take it to imply "Rossi does not know ... so we must be sure to tell him", ;)

    I wonder why they have not gone down to Doral, and opened one of those E cats to see what exactly is in them. Rossi did claim to sale them a working device and so what ever is in there is assumed to be required to make it work and thus owned by IH...... right????

    Quote from JedRothwell

    You are convinced of this based on absolutely no evidence whatever, with no personal experience visiting them, looking at the tests, or reviewing the data. You are convinced of this despite the fact that if they had replicated, they would have been happy to pay and they would presently be spending hundreds of millions of dollars developing the technology.


    IH was unhappy because they knew if the fuel could be made by a dilletante like Darden, then the receipt is fake. Here the complaint:









    247-01


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    OK - so I am inventor. I claim a novel device which converts rossinos into energy.



    Glad to see you start reasearch!


    Quote from oldguy

    Not telling is not the same a lie. Why would anyone think that IH had any responsibility to tell Rossi that the device was sent to Boeing or that people in another state were trying to get Ni powders to work,. or.....


    @OG: ... They signed a contract with a non competition clause ... Thus you are right: It's only a breach of contract!


    oldguy,


    Wrong.


    Rossi does not care either way. He is exactly in the legal soft spot he wants to be. I find it more and more plausible that the below is along the lines of his thinking;


    1. Rossi knows his technology works and along the way found out that IH are a bunch of unreliable guys that wanted to ditch him sooner or later;
    2. He sued them to make sure all their future LENR plans were put on hold;
    3. Because of Rossi's big claim IH cannot sell any assets (fraudulent conveyance) and partners are not very excited to finance other IH entities before this court case is behind them;
    4. Rossi kept on working and improved the technology that will, in whatever shape or form, pursue the route of commercialization;
    5. If IH wins, Rossi will appeal immediately and IH will be stuck in the same situation, while Rossi continues to work on his Quark X ventures;
    6. If Rossi wins and IH files for bankruptcy, Rossi will be there to take possession of all assets that are present in IH;
    7. If Rossi wins and IH pays him he will pocket the money and continue his Quark X ventures, leaving behind a badly wounded competitor.


    One can label Rossi as crazy, but strategically he is smarter than IH. He is not shooting himself in the foot. IH can only win by making sure he somehow runs out of money and hope that his Quark X development will somehow be delayed.


    Cheers,


    JB


    Edit: I am for example wondering if Woodford can get their money back at this point. Thomas Darden does not want to be convicted of fraudulent conveyance and since Rossi is officially claiming a quarter of a billion i can imagine all payments that are not part of IH's "ordinary course of business" are out of the question with the court case going on. No cash bonuses for JT Vaughn and colleagues and therefore some shares in a worthless entity?

    • Official Post
    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Alan, whilst I often respect your knowledgeable contributions they do sometimes seem biased and this is particularly zany.


    Sweet of you to say so- the respect is entirely mutual. As for zany, maybe it's because this is the one topic in the world that I know a little more than you about in the broader sense of 'there is more to LENR than bickering about Rossi.'


    But biased, how so? I was merely picking up on what I thought was a general (ie. anot entirely Rossi-focused) point that for something to be real there needs to be a scientific consensus that it is so. There are real things in the list I posted (excluding Gwyneth Paltrow who is entirely fictional) but there is no consensus on any of them. That's just how it is.

    Wyttenbach,


    In case that you had yesterday a date with your girlfriend, but didn't tell your wife - that's not a lie.


    In case that your wife asks you why you did come home late yesterday, and your answer is: "Because I had to work overtime", whereas in reality you had a date with girfriend - that's a plain lie.


    In case you answer: "Because I thought it's time again to invite my coworkers for a round of beer" - letting your wife believe that you were out drinking with friends, although in reality you had a date with your girlfriend - that's a Rossi-style deception (I would call this a lie also - even if you thought for a moment that it's time to invite your colleagues once again)


    So, as we are prognosticating, and we approach the May 23 hearing with Judge Altonaga, and wait for her ruling on Motions for Summary Judgement, and Motions in Limine, I'm ready to make BOLD Predictions!


    The debate regarding the evidence has gotten quite repetitive and rather tiresome and boring, and as an alternative, it might be fun to go on record with predictions prior to the ruling and see how we did. It seems that viewpoints here aren't changing much, and there's not a lot of new perspectives or information. So I'm a lot less interested and motivated to debate or 're-support' my stated conclusions moving forward.


    So, without further adieu, I'm ready to start making BOLD predictions, and invite others to make theirs prior to the May 23rd hearing.


    BOLD prediction #1: Altonaga will grant in part and deny in part IH's Motion for Summary Judgement.

    She will grant that based on uncontested evidence (provided in Document 280), Rossi's Count I against IH is dismissed. She will argue that IH did not breach the contract clause of the amended contract for the $89M payment either because Leonardo does not have standing, or because the 2nd amended contract was not signed by all parties, or because the signed Term Sheet does not fulfill the requirements for a GPT, since it is based on the 1MW plant, not the '6 cylinder hotcat' specified in the contract. (This argument by IH is in Document 203 Item I. A and D on pp. 10, 14-17).


    Granting this will effectively end any chance that Dott. Rossi will get any substantial amount of money from IH, since this will nullify his primary claim, and it will be devastating to his case against IH.


    She will also grant summary judgement on at least one other of the remaining counts of Rossi against IH, most likely count IV (misappropriation) and possibly III (unjust enrichment) and IV (fraudulent inducement).


    She will deny summary judgement on some of the other counts, most likley some or all of IH's counterclaims against Rossi, since there are disputed facts involved which preclude her from ruling on these. A jury trial will be required in order for there to be a ruling on the remaining counts.


    So a jury trial will proceed.


    BOLD prediction #2: Altonaga will deny all parties' Motions for Sanctions and Motions in Limine.

    Although I think IH has a strong case for spoliation sanctions, I think that Altonaga will be reluctant to rule in favor of spoliation, because this can be more successfully appealed.

    Rossi's request for sanctions regarding Zalli Jaffe and alleged 'witness tampering' have no chance of being granted, in my opinion, as they are too far removed from the case.


    I predict that she will allow all parties' expert witnesses to testify at trial.


    OK, these are my two BOLD predictions, and I may have more. Regarding the first, I certainly allow that there is a significant likelihood of being wrong on this. My own subjective assessment is that Altonoaga has about a 60 to 70 percent chance of dismissing Rossi's Count I against IH (breach of the $89 Million payment) based on non-disuputed evidence. So that leaves a 30 to 40 percent chance that she'll not do that (assuming my subjective assessment is right). As a reminder, if I'm wrong and she does deny Motions, this just means that these counts will be decided by jury, not by judge.


    And regarding prediction #2 that she'll deny all sanctions and Motions in Limine, this is more based on her past performance, which is also a dicey basis.


    Finally, for the 'Not So BOLD' category, I have:

    Not So BOLD Prediction #3: Somewhere along the way, I'll have a posting with a misplaced or missing apostrophe.


    Now, it has been said that 'Fools rush in where angels fear to tread', but since this is a blog, and I'm anonymous, these are my predictions. :)


    Any other takers?

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    247-01




    OK - so IH sent a Rossi device to Boeing for validation without telling Rossi. So what! That is not lying to him. Nor is it contrary to the license agreement.


    Umm - so why did they not tell him then?


    I'll let you work that one out, informed by what you know Rossi does any time anyone dares to try and check for themselves (independently) whether his stuff is working...


    Suppose you tell me what you, as IH, would do in this situation that is better than what IH did. Other than wash your hands of Rossi completely not knowing for sure whether he had working industry-scale LENR or not?

    WB "They signed a contract with a non competition clause ... Thus you are right: It's only a breach of contract!"


    What? You mean Rossi signed a non compete and IH had gained all the rights to use and develop the Tech within this hemisphere when they paid him. How is there deliver of a device to Boeing in the US a breach of contract???

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Sweet of you to say so- the respect is entirely mutual. As for zany, maybe it's because this is the one topic in the world that I know a little more than you about in the broader sense of 'there is more to LENR than bickering about Rossi.'


    But biased, how so? I was merely picking up on what I thought was a general (ie. anot entirely Rossi-focused) point that for something to be real there needs to be a scientific consensus that it is so. There are real things in the list I posted (excluding Gwyneth Paltrow who is entirely fictional) but there is no consensus on any of them. That's just how it is.


    Alan - your contributions here are generally biassed, as this one, because you do not respect context. Dare I say it, somewhat rossiesque of you.


    In this case whether LENR is real is not relevant. Whether the Jury believes LENR is real is (mildly) relevant. IH's guys will say look this is something people have been looking for for 30 years and no-one has yet found it. Also, they will say, Rossi has no theoretical grounds for thinking his stuff will work. However neither of those statements is nearly as important as the fact that Rossi cannot point to anyone who has a working device, nor who is willing to stand up to cross-examination and say it works.


    If he had a better PV s]cell, which everyone agrees is quite possible, but it just did not work, that would be less damning than this case, where any observer would think if he can't show it working he must be a vapourware merchant. Though a better PV cell which could not be demonstrated working independently would be pretty bad.

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.