Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from [email protected]

Objection: Non responsive. I repeat the first question which you did not answer.

Let's say that you've got such a fancy-dancy lawnmower that you both hire an agreed third party person to write the report on whether the lawn was mowed. The 3rd party writes a favorable ERV report saying he thinks the lawn was mowed. How is the jury going to process that fact?

Does the 3rd party show up to authenticate and to support the report. A commenter above said that sometimes court will allow video testimony rather than requiring a witness to travel across the country. This is not the case with Penon - he has made himself unavailable, not just inconvenient to reach. Secondly, the report itself can be attacked. We agree to hire someone to evaluate if the lawn was mowed, but if I impeach the credibility of the 3rd party and I show that important aspects of his report re the lawn are false/faked, the report is doo-doo (a legal term for shit). For example, if I can prove that not only did the 3rd party not inspect the lawn, but that he was out of town or in a coma the entire time and that no one else took pictures of the lawn, his report is problematic.

Quote from [email protected]

None of those things have direct bearing on a breach of contract case. If they do, then one side or the other can bring it up in court.

they go to his credibility and could possibly be introduced to show that he is a fabulist. Not saying that they would be admissible. Generally, the test the court will apply, regardless of how it is characterized, is whether the proposed testimony's probative value outweighs its prejudicial value. If the court thinks so, it could let it in. If not, not admissible. This is in the court's discretion.

Someone asked me somewhere my thoughts on IH's fraud counter-claim for the $10.5 million. I haven't really paid that much attention to the counter-claim and certainly have not read, in detail, either the counter-claim or any of the supporting documents. Having said that, a few thoughts:

(1) Just as Rossi has the burden of proof on the main complaint (the $89 million), IH has the burden of proof to prove that Rossi defrauded them on the first payment.

(2) As I haven't paid that much attention to the initial test, and don't intend to read all the documents relating thereto, help me out here on some factual background.

(a) Are any of the experts/professors who observed/approved/wrote the report on the first test signed up to testify at trial on Rossi's behalf?

(b) Has that report been withdrawn, is it still being supported by the authors or is it on life support?

(c) Is there a consensus in the scientific community (yes, I know, a silly question) on the initial report?

(3) Juries have been known to split the baby. Assuming that they say no to Rossi on his complaint, they may say that IH hasn't satisfied its burden of proof on the counter-claim, say a pox on everyone and say no to IH on the counter-claim.

(4) If the initial report experts have withdrawn or qualified their opinions or the report, that obviously helps IH. Ditto if none of them are willing to testify on Rossi's behalf or if they decide not to honor a subpoena from IH.

(5) Having said that, I think, and this is a little bit of a stretch, that IH's best hope may be the fake company, fake invoices, etc. relating to the principal complaint. Those things go primarily to his credibility and, although absent a TARDIS or other time machine, generally later occurring events such as these would not be relevant to whether or not Rossi defrauded IH on the initial test. However, Jones Day could make the argument that the fraud relating to the $89 million claim was part and parcel of a larger fraud that commenced before IH made the initial payment and continued thereafter. The jury doesn't have to explain the factual basis on which they decide whether or not Rossi acted fraudulently, and based on the fake company, etc. the jury may decide that Rossi is irredeemably dirty and find against Rossi on the IH counter-claim. No predictions here as I have said I have not paid that much attention to that issue (although personally I think Rossi acted fraudulently there and rigged the tests).

Numerous people have asked about settlement? I can see why Rossi would want to settle, but why would IH. There are really only two possible reasons I see for IH to settle: First, Rossi gives them back their money along with more money for their legal fees or second, Rossi somehow comes up with proof, real proof verified by IH's experts, that his machines work.

Rossi would probably agree to the first scenario, but does he have the cash? In the second scenario, he really really proves his machines work, they settle, do the happy dance and save the world. I would be happy with that result but I just don't see it happening with the current facts.

Quote from maryyugo

Rossi has NEVER allowed a proper test, by capable independent people, using their test equipment and methods, and completely independent of Rossi.

This is absolutely not true.

All test done by the Swedish group have been done with their own measuring apparatus. And you of course forget the test done by IH before signing the contract (2012).

Quote from woodworker

and don't intend to read all the documents relating thereto

Hmm that another clue that suggest that you are not a real Lawyer.

Quote from woodworker

(a) Are any of the experts/professors who observed/approved/wrote the report on the first test signed up to testify at trial on Rossi's behalf?

(b) Has that report been withdrawn, is it still being supported by the authors or is it on life support?

(c) Is there a consensus in the scientific community (yes, I know, a silly question) on the initial report?

The report of the Professors has nothing to do with the contract. In fact the contract was signed much before the reports. So no one of the Professors will testify. They are Irrelevant to the trial.

Seems that IH (via an obscure Israel agent called Uzi Sha) has tried to bribe Levi promising him "Big Money" if he would have withdrawn the Lugano report.

No one of the Authors have ever withdrawn the reports.

Of course the topic is controversial as all LENR field, but the report is still available e.g. from the University of Bologna site and no action has been taken by Uppsala and Bologna Universities against the Authors. Interesting to say, the Swedish group is still doing research on the topic.

Quote from woodworker

If the initial report experts have withdrawn or qualified their opinions or the report, that obviously helps IH. Ditto if none of them are willing to testify on Rossi's behalf or if they decide not to honor a subpoena from IH.

Again they are irrelevant to the trial. I think is quite difficult that they could be called to testify.

But what you write explain very well why IH has made such a war against the Lugano test on the forums.

Quote from ele

Again they are irrelevant to the trial. I think is quite difficult that they could be called to testify.

But what you write explain very well why IH has made such a war against the Lugano test on the forums.

IH on the forums?????? I have not seen a word from IH on any forums. Where do you find that?

Now you might say Dewey said something but he was an individual consultant.

Do you find anything from IH itself????

Quote from ele

This is absolutely not true.

All test done by the Swedish group have been done with their own measuring apparatus. And you of course forget the test done by IH before signing the contract (2012).

Ele - distorting the truth here will do you no good.

Rossi's demos - even the "independent" ones have been controlled by Rossi - he always determines the method of calorimetry. True - others have eventually pushed him not to use single phase V & A measurements with average meters. And maybe in the Lugano test they were alert to the possibility of reversed clamps - though Rossi claims this makes no difference because AC is not polarised. I wonder - do you, Ele, also claim that reversing one clamp on a 3 phase measurement does not matter?

But rossi has other ways to spoof tests. And whether he does this deliberately, or somehow convinces himself he is correct, i don't care, the end result of a false positive is the same. Rossi has controlled, in tests, the flawed no-phase-change calorimetry - the flawed wrong-TC-sited calorimetry - and last but certainly not least for the Swedes the flawed IR measurement calorimetry. Rossi took the extraordinary decision to switch off the control Lugano test at low temperatures, so it could not be a control. This is consistent - Rossi has always said that controls are not necessary. A blatent falsehood showing either extreme experimental incompetence or deliberate deceit. Rossi was present for all the tests making recommendations, finding reasons (e.g. his spurious idea about breaking the reactor to pull the plug on the control) and pushing things the way he wants them to go even while the Swedes think they are in charge of things. Rossi was laos present when the Swedes are not there and if you think they had enough CCTV cameras to detect surreptitious switching of reactors (for example fuel samples can be palmed in full view of camera and audience) you are quite wrong. In fact although the test was filmed i bet nothing else was, Rossi when away from the reactor could easily swap a sample in his hand.

All that is documented. Your comment above is a typical misleading half-truth RossiSays:

True: the Swedish group used their own equipment

False; it was independent of Rossi.

I don't mind people here who know no better picking up Rossi lies and half-truths, and being difficult to convince. Anyone can make mistakes when fed propaganda and there is a lot of that. Ele, in your case you present yourself as somone with an independent and sophisticated understanding of these issues. You might even be somone close to Rossi. Your repeating falsehoods, either deliberately or without bothering to check the contrary facts that can easily be found, is obnoxious and contrary to the spirit of open enquiry and honest debate.

Quote from [email protected]

I don't remember there being a mediation attempt. I agree with you that this would have been the time to bring it up. In mediations, judges have less authority than in trials, so it might be one of those things IH or Rossi is holding in their back pocket.

yes, and at one time we had a thread on just that:

Court-Ordered Mediation Scheduled For Jan 2017 in Rossi v. Industrial Heat Case

Quote from [email protected]

I'm not claiming the offer actually happened. That would mean having to believe Rossi. I'm saying that Rossi SAID the offer happened. That much has been accepted. So Rossi is in a position to take advantage of that fact, and so is IH. All IH has to do is say that according to Rossi's offer, they'd get refunded and they want to accept the offer. The judge can make life hard on whoever doesn't accept the offer.

So now that it is determined that Rossi did SAY he put forth the offer, please stop asking me to leverage on that fact.

I'm happy to accept that Rossi said something about this (I remember it vaguely).

But, you need education in Rossi-speak. Under oath a whole load of things that Rossi said turned out just not to be true. For example about the customer. So if Rossi did make some offer it would be at a time or with conditions attached so that IH would never accept it.

Specifically, Having worked out that Rossi has lied so much to everyone, and that his stuff does not work, I think IH want their pound of flesh. Hence the counter-suit. And I can't see anyone settling anything while that is still in play.

Quote from [email protected]

Speaking of credibility, yours is in question on this forum. Further to that, it was posted upthread to you that what you claim about Penon is untrue and there was a link posted. You have not responded to that, but you respond here.

kev

Why is WWs credibility in question?

He is who he says he is, behaves just as you'd expect and experienced retiring lawyer to behave.

That does not mean he is a saint, or known unbiased, or always correct, but we have zero evidence he is biased, and unlike most here he is looking at stuff from a more distant viewpoint. That means he is highly credible.

Unlike, for example, SSC and Ele who repeat easily contradicted Rossi propaganda the whole time. Yet you don't say they are not credible?