Rossi vs. Darden developments - Part 2

  • 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???

  • 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.


  • sigmoidal ,


    For the sake of it..Bet is on. I state that if there is no new info brought forward in the hearings all motions will be denied. In my opinion it is a coin flip. If the portrait of Rossi turns up it will be the continuation of IH's path downhill from that moment on.


    Successful spoliation, a conviction for fraud and or draining Rossi of resources are IH's only options. Anything else will keep Rossi in the driver seat;


    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.


    Cheers,


    JB



  • OK, thanks for playing. But I think it would be helpful to be a bit more specific. Rossi has 4 counts remaining against IH (the other 4 'missing' counts - there were 8 originally - have already been dismissed by the court).


    I. IH Breach of contract (for failure to pay $89 Million after successful 350-day GPT).

    III. Unjust Enrichment (IH got money unjustly from investors based on successful working E-Cat)

    IV. Misappropriation (IH used Rossi's licensed IP inappropriately)

    VI. Fraudulent Inducement (IH fraudulently got Rossi to agree to license his IP when they never intended to pay him the $100.5 Million total.)


    IH has 5 counterclaims against Rossi (and none of them were dismissed by the Court), but I'm assuming you don't think any of those will prevail. For the record, these are:

    I, II, V - Breach of Contract (you can look these up for what part of the Contract is alleged by IH to be breached)

    III - Fraudulent Inducement (the Doral 'test')

    IV - Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Policies Act (FDUTPA)


    On May 23rd, Judge Altonaga is having a hearing to address all parties' Motions for Summary Judgement (which can only be granted if the Court believes it can rule on undisputed facts, as listed in Document 290), IH and Rossi's Motions for Sanctions against each other, and all parties Motions in Limine regarding admitting or denying Expert Witness testimony and evidence. Essentially, both parties' Motions for Summary Judgement ask the Judge to dismiss all counts charged by the opponent, and grant all charges against the opponent (Rossi's motion is a bit less ambitious, but for simplicity's sake, you can think of them that way). And again, the Judge is only supposed to grant motions for summary judgement based on uncontested facts. Her rulings on sanctions and Motions in Limine are supposed to be based on accepted case law regarding rules for evidence.


    So, can you clarify your predictions regarding how the Judge will rule regarding the issues she will be addressing at that May 23rd hearing?

  • What kind of Visa does Rossi have.

    I would think that his work visa is expired.

    And is it true that there are still warrants from him in Italy?


    And why don't we hear him calling a witness from that factory in Italy that he claimed in 2011 to have be heating the factory for 2 years? (according to his blog)

  • sigmoidal ,


    You are right. Will get back to you.


    Cheers,


    JB

  • Woodford are risk-takers : 51% of their portfolio is in "early stage" and 34% in "early growth".

    May 23 : right now not enough "undisputed facts" for MSJ's.

    Rossi's -- unfair! unfair! : not a chance
    IH -- spoilation. High chance of over-ruling magistrate judge O'Sullivan. If allowed, their MSJ becomes likely (at least in part).
    3rd Party -- minor players, only real issue is spoilation.

    General comment : IH is splitting legal hairs in a couple of areas.

    1. Validation Test : half-hour short (with their engineer and managers present) .. and location of flow meter. Not a chance.
    18-reactors. Marginal ... but they can't prove the matter of Italian law, so Rossi prevails. He keeps the $11.5M

    2. Guaranteed Performance Test. Contractually, sure quacks like one, Darden & Vaughn writing "according to our contract" many times.


    But I read the contract as saying "There is a GPT" and "ERV is the sole arbiter of success".

    They now say there's a logical AND between two separate events.


    a) The GPT itself (disputed)

    AND

    b) ERV sign off (fraudulently signed).

  • I'll play, a little. Count 1 summary judgment will be allowed on some legal technical issure. Not sure which one but: standing of Leonardo, failure to get signatures to start GPT, failure to get all 3 parties to agree, failure to get a agreement by all 3 that the 1MW in Fl could be used instead of the 6 cylinder, failure to give access to IH as agreed to, ... something like that.


    summary about II will be granted for lack of proof that investors gave IH money solely on the merits (?) of Rossi's work and not on other items or lack of proof that IH did not full disclose conditions to the investors.


    MSJ for IV will be approved for lack of evidence that IH used any of the technology much less used it inappropriately.

    not sure about the last one but would not doubt it will be dismissed since IH showed they could acquire the money if a valid GPT was conducted.


    In short, I think that Rossi has little chance of getting any $$ out of this. (even if it goes to jury. I seriously doubt that all 6 jurors will agree that IH is guilty.


    Most of the counter suit will still be in play and go to jury unless there is an out of court settlement by Rossi to drop things.

  • IH can only win by making sure he somehow runs out of money and hope that his Quark X development will somehow be delayed.


    The language of the license agreement is quite broad with regard to what future improvements to the E-Cat IP are included within its scope; I would not be surprised at all if the QuarkX technology, if it turns out to be a thing, is considered sufficiently derivative to be included. In that case if IH hold onto their license of Rossi's IP, the QuarkX IP would presumably be IH's to make use of as well.

  • Any other takers?

    I don't make a prediction about the outcome of the court case.


    However, I make the prediction (and I believe that this isn't a bold prediction at all) that we won't see any e-cats, fat-cats, hot-cats, gas-cats, mouse-cats, e-tigers, phantastic-cats, QuarkX or any other one of Rossi's miracles in the shelfs of home-depot for the next 100 years, simply because all e-cats are just scrap, like the scrap Rossi left to the Italian tax payer for clean up after the PetrolDragon fiasco.


    Quote

    I seriously doubt that all 6 jurors will agree that IH is guilty.

    I doubt this as well - since it is quite unlikely that the jury will consist of two Rionrlties, one IHFanboy, one Wyttenbach, one Ele and on we-cat-global.;)


  • OK, one more:


    BOLD Prediction #3: All of Rossi and 3rd Parties' Motions for Summary Judgement will be denied.

    I believe that there are important contested facts for all of the MSJ rulings requested by Rossi and 3rd parties, so that Altonaga will deny them all.


    (Note: I acknowledge that this bold prediction is not as bold as my #1 and #2, but it is more bold than the 'not so bold #3 prediction' regarding apostrophe's. Oops. That prediction just came true) ;)

  • just looking at  the deposition for Ampenergo by Cassarino (see Abd) and noticing where it says:

    Q. And on June 26, did Mr. Vaughan tell you that


    20 Industrial Heat never agreed that Penon could do


    21 the audit?


    22 A. That’s what it says in the notes.


    23 Q. If you turn the page, did Mr. Vaughan tell you


    1 that a “real” — underscore — “real” audit must


    2 be done?


    3 A. I guess he did.


    My question is : does estoppel work both ways? If they were told that Penon was not agreed on, couldn't IH continue to assume that until Rossi stopped them from assuming that? They never signed anything saying that they and AEG approved Penon. My understanding is that all 3 parties had to approve the ERV.



    Seems fair to me.


    The requirement of all 3 needing to approve the GPT will likely become very important. If you assume estoppel, then you need to show it by all 3.

  • like the scrap Rossi left to the Italian tax payer for clean up after the PetrolDragon fiasco.

    Again FUD and disinformation from another IH voice.


    Some facts to remember:

    Rossi was innocent. He has been cleared by all charges.

    Petroldragon failed and was closed because he was unjustly jailed for about four years . Rossi was redounded by Italy.

    Petroldragon process know as Pyrolysis is now used worldwide. http://pyrolysisplant.com/what-is-pyrolysis/


    I guess also you never see and EcatX and write your judgments just repeating IH voice.

  • Italianlawyer


    Some commenters here claim that Dott. Rossi was fully acquitted and exhonerated of all charges related to PetrolDragon, despite being convicted in Italian court and serving jail time there.


    I have never seen any evidence to support the notion that Dott. Rossi was 'cleared' of all charges, and it contradicts Mats Lewan's account.


    Do you have any knowledge about this case, or do you have any suggestions regarding how to find evidence that supports or refutes this?


    Thanks in advance for any information you can provide...

  • Some commenters here claim that Dott. Rossi was fully acquitted and exhonerated of all charges related to PetrolDragon, despite being convicted in Italian court and serving jail time there.

    In fact that is fully true. He was cleared and refunded .

    I have never seen any evidence to support the notion that Dott. Rossi was 'cleared' of all charges,

    Just ask the Italian Lawyer (another day another troll.... probably) to ask all the documents of the trials from Rossi's lawyers .

    The Version of Rossi can be found here:http://ingandrearossi.net/


    Insults are not welcome. Alan.

  • The language of the license agreement is quite broad with regard to what future improvements to the E-Cat IP are included within its scope; I would not be surprised at all if the QuarkX technology, if it turns out to be a thing, is considered sufficiently derivative to be included. In that case if IH hold onto their license of Rossi's IP, the QuarkX IP would presumably be IH's to make use of as well.


    Eric Walker ,


    Indeed. For now this scenario is still very far fetched, but can you imagine how weird it would be for IH to claim Quark X rights? Remember this one?




    This was an IH only effort to kickstart the commercialisation of the Quark X (or a similar device). There is stuff we do not know yet.


    Cheers,


    JB