Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
Next instalment of the saga?
Next installment, IH appeal the spoliation decision, and sometime before or after the case has gone into appeal, Rossi runs out of money as a result of litigation costs. IH retain the license for Rossi's IP for half the world as a mitigation against future lawsuits from Rossi in case another one of the people they are collaborating with produces something commercializable.
-
Except IH paid for the Plant in full ($1.5 million), and they paid a lot to refurbish it. So I would imagine that the Plant remains IH's.
Perhaps they will allow Rossi to purchase it back for cost of the Plant plus refurbishment costs.
It's not clear to me that either would want the plant (although some of the parts might be useful) since IH claims that it doesn't work and Rossi has apparently moved on to the QuarkX. Also, it was my understanding that some of the units in the plant were built by IH, but these were not used since they didn't work, while another set of units (which were used) were built by Leonardo. Perhaps someone could clarify this?
-
Any comment about recents Altonaga's orders? Don't say "cat" if you haven't it in the sack.
-
For members information - Optris related posts made over the last few days have been moved to a dedicated thread. no more in here please.
-
Ritalianlawyer - do you know specifics?
BTW - how do you feel about Rossi essentially not having an expert to support his "story" for the trial?
-
BTW - how do you feel about Rossi essentially not having an expert to support his "story" for the trial?
Losing Wong for the COP is very minor ... as the judge pointed out in 303-0 it's a simple division output/input.
Wong's expert testimony on the heat exchanger is in. -
As said...off to trial we go! I would venture to guess that had we known when Rossi first filed suit, that JMP was a ruse...there was no customer, no product, no need for steam, that Rossi dismantled enough of the set-up to make it guess work at best as to whether it worked, that Rossi/Penon/Fabiani all destroyed and/or deleted vital data, Fabiani would flee to Russia, while Penon would play hard to get...only agreeing to deposition after a plea from Rossi, and then only in a neutral country (DR), that most here -even the Rossi fans, would opine that this case would never make it to a jury.
But it is, and that is kind of spooky when you think about it. If it could happen to savvy investors like IH, than anyone could be lured into such a trap by someone like Rossi, finding themselves caught between the devils choice of a jury trial (gulp), or settlement. No doubt, IH's experience will not be lost on others who dare venture into similar ventures. Maybe for the good, as there never should be a substitute for a real, honest to goodness, DD. Had IH stood their ground on "getting one of the big boys" in for the VT, they would not be where they are now. They backed down though, then gave Rossi a lot of rope for the next 3 years so as "not to piss him off", and Rossi took that rope and wrapped it around their neck.
So what will IH's court strategy be? I think it will be layered, and as Sig points out, start with the contractual arguments that this was not a GPT. Not signed, 6 syclinder etc. The deceit surrounding JMP alone is rich and deep, so will no doubt be hammered on. Even the Rossi supporters seem aghast at that, and if they are, a jury will react even stronger.
Then, in no particular order, go on to spoliation, as it will elicit a strong response against Rossi...especially if the judge "granted in part" the portion of 264 where the jury is instructed: "that spoliation of evidence raises a presumption against spoliator". The heat exchanger issue will be about spoliation, and perhaps provide the key to destroying Rossi's case, if the jury is convinced it did not exist, or if it did, could not have worked. Destroy the HE upstairs, and even his own expert Wong will admit that there could not be 1MW. Case over.
Perhaps the biggest challenge for IH, is how they approach the performance of the 1MW. Will they claim it did not work, impossible to know because Rossi/Penon/Fabiani destroyed the data, set-up, and Penon took his instruments to who knows where, or make their case that both are possible? That may confuse the jury though. Risky if you ask me, so I would stick to the spoliation.
Whatever the outcome though, this case will not show the "plant" produced 1MW. Why?...because it did not. That simple. That will leave us to speculate for the coming years (oh boy), as to whether Rossi has, or had a little something no one else has. But under no circumstances will I ever speculate on that damn QX!
-
Losing Wong for the COP is very minor ... as the judge pointed out in 303-0 it's a simple division output/input.
Wong's expert testimony on the heat exchanger is in.
Alan,
How would you like to be in Wong's shoes having to defend the HE?
-
Alan,
How would you like to be in Wong's shoes having to defend the HE?
Wong never saw the heat exchanger, so any "expert opinion" will have to be based on conjecture and descriptions from Rossi says that there was one and what it properties were. I can imagine it would be like: yes a 50 ton cooling system would keep the warehouse from over heating but where is it, where was it..... Of course it he could also say that 600 nameless day laborers with hand fans could also keep it from overheating but would it be useful?
I also think that new evidence can't normally be introduced at trial after discovery but can be entered to impeach an expert witness or to exonerate a defendant. So bringing Wong to the stand may be a real risk for AR. So things like satellite IR pictures could be entered to rebut the expert.
-
Alan,
How would you like to be in Wong's shoes having to defend the HE?
I don't think IH will challenge his calculations, as he pretty much hedged all his bets. Wong will say "IF it existed ..." IH will just ask questions about whether he saw it. Yes/No answers. Not like a glove fitting/not fitting.
On the COP issue ... a good trial lawyer could get the same answers from any of IH's witnesses. The formula's in the contract. -
SSC
By the way, I don't think it matter legally who caused a delay it is a matter of fact that it was delayed and past the required time window. If Rossi wanted to continue, he should have gotten a revision of the agreement signed by all three signatories to extend the time.
IH accused Rossi of being the cause of the test delay and this delay is one of the excuses they use for not having paid for it. Moreover IH often says that Rossi wanted to test at Doral to be far from their eyes, while he found an alternative seat just to start the test, since IH took time.
-
Would a friendly competition from other funders be desirable? I think so. But let's start with what funders are available here and now and then hope that more appear. Should LENR researchers consider carefully the pros and cons before accepting funding from IH and entering into an NDA, and possibly instead consider other avenues of assistance? For sure.
I find it unlikely that the competition between various scientists funded by IH can be friendly. I guess the funds will not be distributed fairly but will go according to the results. I also think that Darden has been a bit hypocritical during ICCF19 when he talked about "open sharing" among scientists. I wonder whether Darden has distributed his knowledge about the E-Cat to all or if has reserved it only for a few of them ....
-
I also think that new evidence can't normally be introduced at trial after discovery but can be entered to impeach an expert witness or to exonerate a defendant. So bringing Wong to the stand may be a real risk for AR. So things like satellite IR pictures could be entered to rebut the expert.
Rossi can do the same thing to discredit IH experts. I think we can expect some plot twist ...
-
Perhaps the biggest challenge for IH, is how they approach the performance of the 1MW. Will they claim it did not work, impossible to know because Rossi/Penon/Fabiani destroyed the data, set-up, and Penon took his instruments to who knows where, or make their case that both are possible?
The jury will have available Penon's report and his direct testimony. There will therefore be a proof of the Plant's performance. It will be IH that will have to prove that it has never worked, if that's what they believe.
-
I doubt that the jury will have Penon's testimony - likely only his deposition. My guess is that Penon will not testify at the trial.
-
The jury will have available Penon's report and his direct testimony. There will therefore be a proof of the Plant's performance.
I doubt that Penon will be available to testify.
Penon's report is proof that the reactor did not work, and could not possibly have worked. Even Rossi admitted that when he made up the fantasy of the heat exchanger in the mezzanine with invisible pipes. I hope that Rossi's lawyers are not able to bamboozle the jury into thinking that report is positive.
SSC and others here who are fooled by the Penon report do not understand calorimetry, instruments, or tests of this nature. All debate about Rossi's 1-year test should have ended when this report was revealed. The fact that the debate goes on proves that Rossi's supporters are incompetent and incapable of understanding elementary-school level science. For example, they think that any temperature over 100 deg C means there must be steam, and any steam leaking out of the pipe means there must be steam inside the pipe. They never learned that water can be pressurized to prevent boiling. This is taught in third grade. Rossi's lawyers never learned this either.
-
BTW - how do you feel about Rossi essentially not having an expert to support his "story" for the trial?
Losing Wong for the COP is very minor ... as the judge pointed out in 303-0 it's a simple division output/input.
Wong's expert testimony on the heat exchanger is in.
Deway as usual, in pure IH style, you are posting misleading information.
Rossi has experts. Penon has been accepted for hist part and Wong also for hist part.
Seem to me that is IH not having real experts.
IH does not have experts now and had not had experts in the past, because it was not interested in making any real business but just to rise money from investors.
-
It is a signature trait of Rossi believers that they think that the burden of proof is on those who don't think Rossi's device works. Sorry, but something that makes no technical sense, violates known laws of science, has been the subject of endless lies, flip-flops, and forgotten promises, and is the brainchild of someone with a long history of non-working, dubious things is not considered to be real until proven false by anyone with even a modicum of sense. Of course anything can happen in a court of law, but if there there is to be any justice, IH certainly doesn't have to prove that the e-cat never worked. In fact, that is impossible to do. Once again, Rossi believers are unique on planet earth in thinking that it is possible to prove a negative at all. By all rights, Rossi should have to prove that his gizmo works. But of course, his loyal sycophantic fans don't require this. His word is enough for them. Unbelievable!
-
I doubt that Penon will be available to testify.
Penon's report is proof that the reactor did not work, and could not possibly have worked.I hope that Rossi's lawyers are not able to bamboozle the jury into thinking that report is positive.
SSC and others here who are fooled by the Penon report do not understand calorimetry, instruments, or tests of this nature.
Really ? I think that you probably have not red the report or at least have not understood it.
I presume that if needed Penon will testify. Now days is possible to do that even with a remote connection (skype or a better conferencing method) so I don't see any reason why he has not to testify.
So you are also insulting the Jury (even if it has not been nominated yet) . I don't think that they can be "bamboozled" by IH or Rossi lawyers.
Also because lawyers of each side (you ware insulting also IH lawyers) will be present to stop any such attempt.
Also as usual (IH style) you are insulting anyone that does not think as IH.
Tell me Jed did you really think you understand calorimetry better then anyone else ? What if you ware wrong ?
