Rossi E-Cat SK Demo Discussion

  • Those are insults??? Hardly. Now, if I said that IMO you were a imbecilic a**hole who constantly evades answering questions because you are too scared, that would be an insult. It might be factually accurate, but it would still be an insult so I won't say those things.

    Oh, then I guess it wouldn't count if I simply called you straightforward an asshole who finds it necessary to stand in where his cohort has bowed out after noticing that the target is defending himself. No, it wouldn't count IF i said that, would it? Nor would it count if I pointed out how stupid you have been on this thread, and how your integrity is called into question. What if I said that your only interest seems to be in furthering the insults that came from upthread, rather than furthering any substantial discussion? Would that be an insult to a skeptopath as dumb as you?

  • Thanks for your insight. I'm sure Dewey is very proud.

    I wouldn't know and I don't care. I have never met, talked or communicated with Dewey, or anyone else connected with IH, except for posting here. I have no economic interest in any of this and I don't personally know any of the players. What I stated was a legal fact, IH had no duty to any of us. Now, IF they had actually built, produced and/or operated a new form of energy generation, they would have a duty of care to the general public that they operate, etc. their new widget in a reasonably safe manner and that they comply with all applicable laws relating thereto. That is the same duty of care that Rossi would have to comply with if he were not just a con-man.

  • No, I will not let you. The discussion took place inside a hypothetical. YOUR hypothetical. I predicted that folks would want to just brush aside that hypothetical, and that's exactly what you are doing, right here and right now.


    You want me to address YOUR hypotheticals then you address MINE. I already addressed this hypothetical. Now it's YOUR turn, and you answer with insults.

    You should really preview your posts for accuracy before you submit them. The person posing the hypothetical questions was not me. But, as expected and predicted, you manufactured an excuse to avoid answering the question.

  • ***Ahh, but the original lawsuit from them demanded the IP, and the settlement was bogged down over that point. It wasn't until they realized that they had signed a demo agreement with a further agreement to pay in exchange for the transference that they were screwed. Because that transference was based upon a positive Report from a Third party, and all of a sudden they were unhappy with the deal because they wanted the technology but they didn't want Rossi.


    They started to criticize the third party report, after it was written and submitted. But any judge looks at the context of a relationship. For instance, let's say you have a written agreement to pay $3k/month rent with your landlord. You pay it for a year, and continue to pay $3k/month for the next year. The landlord claims that he changed the agreement to $5k/month, so you owe him $24k difference. Any judge would look at the interaction between the landlord and you and say that the fact the landlord did nothing to mitigate his 'losses' but chose to sit on his ass until a year later, well the context of the relationship is such that he was accepting $3k/month and that's that. Industrial Heat was looking at a situation very similar to that, where there was no criticism of the 3rd party report until it came time to pay.


    Rossi set things up so that the devices would only work when he was the one working it, what I called the Fred Flinstone approach. And the agreement IH had signed did not help them in that situation. So they settled.

    I see now that as AA has temporarily disappeared that we now have a new person skilled in all areas and professions. Please let us all know from what law school you graduated, when you graduated and your practice areas.

  • You were definitely not the only one predicting the possibility of a settlement. IIRC, I not only discussed the possibility but also discussed possible terms, e.g., mutual walk-aways, which were the terms of the settlement. And as to IH being forced to settle, again IIRC, it was Rossi/his attorneys who indicated that they wanted to settle after opening arguments. I suspect that hearing the litany of lies that Rossi had already admitted to may have made them apprehensive about the outcome of a trial.


    As to the possibility of evidence being introduced at trial proving that IH was attempting to screw Rossi over by wrongfully sharing the IP, there is absolutely no evidence of that is any of the discovery made public, especially not in Rossi's deposition. IIRC, he admitted that he had no concrete evidence of such behavior (my memory could be wrong on this point, but I am too tired to double check). And despite what you see on TV or in the movies, there is almost no chance of something coming up in the trial that wasn't disclosed in discovery. That is known as trial by ambush, judges don't like it and if you try to hide something in order to surprise the other side at trial, the judge may very well rule it inadmissible. But I am sure you learned that in Evidence or Trial Advocacy or Civil Procedure.

  • It's interesting that you consider that a channel for discussion. You have one post from two years ago with no comments. Is that because you moderated all the comments that didn't meet your moderation standards, or is it merely that nobody found your post worth responding to?


    Personally, I find your comments to be caustic, obnoxious, foolish, intellectually vacuous, and a waste of time. But maybe that's due to some personality deficit I have. Fortunately this site provides the ability for individuals to block other individuals. Although I rarely do this, I've made an exception in your case.

    It's just a side project. My other discussion site has >200k followers, so it keeps me busy. There's not that much interest in Science on DISQUS ,... until some big breakthrough happens. Then everyone jumps on the bandwagon.


    EcatWorld is on DISQUS, so if Rossi's device takes off, so will ECW. LENR Forum seems to be where the skeptics that inhabited EcatNews seem to have migrated. So there's 2 opposing camps.


    I think my little discussion site will site between the 2 camps. Maybe something like Vortex-L but no need to reinvent the wheel. The intention will be very pro-LENR, but twice-shy about Rossi.


    This site doesn't seem to realize that it's inhabited by skeptical know-nothings, as Jed repeatedly points out. Example thread:

    How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?


    With the new rules in place on this site, there's even less need for such a discussion site other than it's easy for DISQUS users to get to it, yet skeptical know-nothings might find it less comfortable

  • I see now that as AA has temporarily disappeared that we now have a new person skilled in all areas and professions. Please let us all know from what law school you graduated, when you graduated and your practice areas.

    Oh, now I remember you. On that IH vs Rossi thread... You were that newbie dipshit who claimed to be a retired lawyer but when I ran a couple of simple legalisms past you, you didn't know the first thing about law. Thanks for the reminder.

  • Oy vey. I unleashed a monster. This thread is a free for all zone...up to a point. So how about we eliminate outright cursing like the F bomb for sure, and anything that ends, with "hole", starts with an "sh", or for that matter, anything the over active, sinister side of your brain, can think of?


    Kevmo IMO, has introduced some sorely needed defense to the pro-Rossi side of this discussion. He says some good things, yet it is being lost in KevMo's verbiage.


    Corrected for you.


    If he could just calm down and stop the ad homs - I'd address his contrafactual interpretation of Rossi's attempt to sue IH. Rossi, about to be given $100M if he could get his e-cats to work, decided to sue IH.


    • The Trial started
    • Then, after heavy pre-Trial legal expenses, and just before Rossi had to give evidence himself under oath to support his lies, Rossi stopped his action in return for - wait for it - the (Doral) e-cat IP.
    • Not the $100M (or was it $300M) he was asking for.
    • But wait - KevMo - that IP. So valuable...
    • Umm... No, Rossi has decided to ditch the old-style e-cats and work on a completely different system with nothing in common, which, he declared, is better.
    • But that old IP, so valuable Rossi gave up his chance of $100M after spending all that early money on legal fees, surely that has value and could be sold to somone even if Rossi did not want it?
    • Nope.


    KevMo - judge Rossi by his actions, not his words, and you will gradually be drawn towards the light like a moth to a candle.

  • Corrected for you.

    ***Nonsense. It's easy enough to go upthread and see that I refrained from direct insults until the mods allowed insult-for-insult. Until then, it was the idiot skeptopaths pouring on insult after insult with impunity because I thought any of my insults would get swept away while theirs survived, which is what happened last go-round.




    If he could just calm down and stop the ad homs -

    ***I did, but I didn't start them and I wasn't issuing them for a considerable length of time while the skeptobrigade was piling on. Maybe you should send some of your attention in their direction.



    I'd address his contrafactual interpretation of Rossi's attempt to sue IH. Rossi, about to be given $100M if he could get his e-cats to work, decided to sue IH.

    ***Bullsh***, er, I mean nonsense. He had an independent 3rd party report in hand that said the devices work, as per the agreement.

    IH needed to settle because the judge would have treated that independent third party report as a... wait for it.... third party report.



    The Trial started

    Then, after heavy pre-Trial legal expenses, and just before Rossi had to give evidence himself under oath to support his lies,

    ***Industrial Heat settled just before Rossi was going to --wait for it--go after their partners and show they had received his IP. Not only that, but the judge called him "dr. Rossi" right in front of the jurors and people started showing up ready to testify that it was speculated wouldn't show up.


    Rossi stopped his action in return for - wait for it - the (Doral) e-cat IP.

    Not the $100M (or was it $300M) he was asking for.

    ***You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. IH would go bankrupt before they paid out $300M. And they knew that they couldn't separate Rossi from his IP, that in order to get the boxes to work he would have to go with them... the Fred Flinstone strategy.



    But wait - KevMo - that IP. So valuable...

    ***If Rossi's IP was worthless then he would have gone after the money. And if his IP was worthless then IH wouldn't have asked for it in their original countersuit, even though they weren't willing to PAY for it. If his IP were worthless the independent report would have said so. The whole trial HINGED on his IP, which -- wait for it -- you call worthless.


    Umm... No, Rossi has decided to ditch the old-style e-cats and work on a completely different system with nothing in common, which, he declared, is better.

    ***And had little bearing on the proceedings of the trial at the time, other than to show that Rossi had a backup plan.



    But that old IP, so valuable Rossi gave up his chance of $100M

    ***I doubt IH would have paid, especially in light of the Fred Flinstone strategy. They would simply have gone bankrupt and Rossi woulda got nothing.


    after spending all that early money on legal fees,

    ***Industrial Heat spent a ton on legal fees themselves, and got... a yearlong demo and a 3rd party report saying it worked, which is what their contract stipulated.



    surely that has value and could be sold to somone even if Rossi did not want it?

    Nope.

    ***Not necessarily having any weight whatsoever on the legal proceedings, does it? But it doesn't stop you from criticizing him every chance you get.



    KevMo - judge Rossi by his actions, not his words,

    ***Do the same for IH. Realize that Rossi is a tough bird, a bass turd, an Adam Henry , a "mercurial " personality, and that IH basically got tired of dealing with him and tried to separate him from his technology and start dancing with prettier dates. Once they were in the position where the judge was going to treat the 3rd party report as a... uhhh... third party report, their goose was cooked.



    and you will gradually be drawn towards the light like a moth to a candle.

    ***Maybe if you figure out how to stop being triggered by Rossi you can see what has been going on. At the very least, if he's a con man, he ain't a stupid "inept" con man, he's a feisty and wily con man.

  • To me it seems you never read any of the telling court documents (if so you deny what’s in there, incl. Rossi admitting under oath that he did lie) nor did you judge the famous 3rd party report (from his independent buddy Penon, who acted as independent “ERV”) from a technical plausibility (day by day the same measurement for water and electricity for the production of invisible platinum sponges by his customer (Andrea Rossi himself) even on days where Rossi confirmed the Ecat was shut down and under maintenance...just a few things that are not being discussed at Planet Rossi...

  • A grand total of 40 posts from this thread have now been moved to 'Clearance.' Apologies for the lack of continuity this has created, but when people on both sides of this discussion get overexcited it is I'm afraid inevitable.

  • Those are insults??? Hardly. Now, if I said that IMO you were a imbecilic a**hole who constantly evades answering questions because you are too scared, that would be an insult. It might be factually accurate, but it would still be an insult so I won't say those things.

    You'll find my response shunted over to the Clearance Items thread.


    When moderators shunt the response but leave the original contention, it looks like the one side had no response.

  • A grand total of 40 posts from this thread have now been moved to 'Clearance.' Apologies for the lack of continuity this has created, but when people on both sides of this discussion get overexcited it is I'm afraid inevitable.

    I posted a bunch of answers. There are a ton of them that are addressed to me and left unanswered as a result of you moving my responses over to the Clearance Items Thread.


    The "loss of continuity" is exactly what happened last time around. This one-sided approach to moderating leaves much to be desired.


    Here's what I wrote.

    You'll find my response shunted over to the Clearance Items thread.


    When moderators shunt the response but leave the original contention, it looks like the one side had no response.

  • To me it seems you never read any of the telling court documents (if so you deny what’s in there, incl. Rossi admitting under oath that he did lie) nor did you judge the famous 3rd party report (from his independent buddy Penon, who acted as independent “ERV”) from a technical plausibility (day by day the same measurement for water and electricity for the production of invisible platinum sponges by his customer (Andrea Rossi himself) even on days where Rossi confirmed the Ecat was shut down and under maintenance...just a few things that are not being discussed at Planet Rossi...


    Here, go and look at this old thread to see how much "reading" I did of the court documents. And while you're at it, see how badly a certain person claiming to be a lawyer was flopping around.


    Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    [email protected]

    Jun 20th 2017


    THHuxleynew wrote:

    I can't see from where you get the idea Rossi's stuff works then. Now IH no longer validates he has what he had before - nothing. except Rossi-Says and good write-ups from fans like Mats.


    The typical legal approach is to take things on face value. Rossi has 3 independent reports attesting to his technology, a bunch of swedish scientists who black box tested it, a book written about the technological development, thousands of hours of LENR anomalies to parallel his technology, a few highly regarded scientists who attest that there's something there.




    On the negative side, Rossi is his own worst enemy and you can't trust what he says.




    A am pro-LENR. I have not yet decided if Rossi is forwarding LENR or just an amazing con artist, the best con artist I have ever seen operate. If he really does have a LENR box then I hope he wins this case. If he's a con artist I hope he loses big time. My exposure to the legal system lends me to believe that we will not know further one way or the other (edit: about Rossi's motives) when this trial is over.

  • To me it seems you never read any of the telling court documents (if so you deny what’s in there, incl. Rossi admitting under oath that he did lie) nor did you judge the famous 3rd party report (from his independent buddy Penon, who acted as independent “ERV”) from a technical plausibility (day by day the same measurement for water and electricity for the production of invisible platinum sponges by his customer (Andrea Rossi himself) even on days where Rossi confirmed the Ecat was shut down and under maintenance...just a few things that are not being discussed at Planet Rossi...

    Here's another couple of examples.



    Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    [email protected]

    Jul 3rd 2017


    Dewey Weaver wrote:

    Kevmo - Thanks for proving my point. Planet Rossi circular logic only works on Planet Rossi. I'll say it again - it is a lie that Rossi offered to buyout his IP from IH. Your repeat it to make it true attempts do not work in the real world.




    Ah Siffer - so nice of you to come back under your real name. I've got large plans for you my little pretty! Keep it coming.


    Dewey: Rossi posted this claim on his blog. I want this supposed lie to be considered by the judge. Do you? Or are you going to continue to repeat the same thing over and over again?




    Why are your insults allowed to go unaddressed by the moderators on this forum? They make a big deal about some insults but not others. It should be obvious to everyone that the first person to insult should be the one the mods key up on. But that is not the operating principle here.



    Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    [email protected]

    Jul 3rd 2017


    Shane D. wrote:

    MD,




    IH has submitted a couple JONP Rossisays into evidence. Forget which exhibit, but they are in there, and they are relevant. Not sure if one of them was Rossi claiming JMP's product (FTR, there was no product)) absorbed 100% of the supplied thermal, but if not in the docket now, it will probably be presented at trial. JONP is a rich source for Rossi contradictions (Rossisays), and no doubt JD has gone over it with a fine tooth comb.


    Good. If they have been allowed as evidence then other JONP Rossisays items should be allowed as well. If I were the judge I'd be focusing on the Rossisays "I would refund IH if I got my IP back" and this whole trial could get wrapped up in 20 minutes rather than 5 weeks.



    Clearance Items

    [email protected]

    Jul 3rd 2017


    Dewey Weaver wrote:

    Kevmo - thanks for the Planet Rossi logic lesson this AM and cut the crap. I have direct and first hand knowledge that Rossi has never offered to buy back


    his IP from IH. You have nothing but Rossisays which is good enough for you but sadly, remains a lie.


    Rossi claimed it on his blog, which we have seen other blog items have already been entered into the record for consideration. So it is time for YOU to cut the crap. Rossi claimed it, so now it's time for him to prove that he did put forth the offer (which, even if it is a lie, would be a legitimate offer that the court could order to be considered). I really wish you would just figure it out. This is the 2nd time through this exercise. And this is no Planet Rossi logic session as you so menacingly put it. It is a way to hold Rossi's feet to the fire.




    Why is it that you so consistently get away with mischaracterizing my comments? Your posts should be quickly shunted to the sidethread.




    Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric



    Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    [email protected]

    Jul 3rd 2017


    woodworker wrote:

    A quick note to everyone: opening statements are not evidence.


    But they are intended to be considered by the jury.



    Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    [email protected]

    Jul 3rd 2017


    MikeDunford wrote:

    There are a few reasons the demo offer wouldn't be allowed to happen. Unfortunately, I don't have time to go into them now, but will try later, if woodworker doesn't beat me to it.


    You mean Rossi couldn't even OFFER to do the demo? I think he could offer, and then the pissed off judge could "instruct" the jury to disregard such remarks. That is sometimes how court cases are won. It is also how you will never have the same lawyers again because those lawyers have to practice law before that same judge again, whereas there is not much chance a defendant will meet up with the same lawyer and pull the same shenanigans.



    Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    [email protected]

    Jul 3rd 2017


    MikeDunford wrote:

    The skeptics and fans still might not get what they want. There are reasons (potentially, many reasons) why attorneys might not seek to admit relevant evidence.




    The biggest reason is that not all relevant evidence is created equal. Legally speaking, relevance is like pregnancy. It's a yes/no question; while even lawyers might use phrases like 'marginally relevant' in casual conversation, there's no such thing as 'a little bit relevant' as far as the Frederal Rules of Evidence are concerned. And it's a low threshold. If the evidence has any tendency to make any material fact more likely, it's relevant.




    In other words, just because a fact is relevant doesn't mean it's likely to be persuasive. And the lawyers will be dealing with a need to make sure that the jury (and judge) remain responsive to their witnesses and evidence. Overloading the jury with unnecessary evidence is to be avoided as much as possible.




    To the extent that the bloviations are directly relevant to events at issue, they'll probably come in. Beyond that, there's a good chance that some of the bloviating will be used to attempt to establish that Rossi is an unreliable bloviating bloviator with a history of making unsubstantiated claims. But that will likely be done using the minimum amount of bloviation evidence that the attorneys feel will make the point, and the specific examples will be selected more with than in mind than any intent to survey the full range and depth of his bloviations.


    Display More

    Wouldn't that be a kick if Rossi claimed that he could PROVE his bloviations with a demo to the jury? It would just take a couple of million dollars to set up, blah blah blah, but why bother because the ERV report verifies his bloviating claim... Most of the time I see that Rossi has very little chance of prevailing, but there are some bloviating rabbits he could pull out of his hat.



    Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    [email protected]

    Jul 3rd 2017


    Dewey Weaver wrote:

    Kevmo - not going to let you get away with the Rossi IP license buyout offer mention - that is yet another lie and it did not happen.




    Regarding your other non-stop creative Planet Rossi inference pattern- do you think that your "Rossi realization" scenario included getting caught claiming that an empty reactor was generating as much excess heat output as a "loaded reactor"?


    Dewey: It has been shown upthread that Rossi claimed to offer the IP buyout. It may be a Rossi lie but it IS a claim on his blog, along with other bloviating claims that many of us would like to see addressed. So quit calling it a lie unless you can prove that Rossi did not claim it.




    The moderators of this forum preclude me from responding to your "loaded insults" so I would suggest you quit posting them.

  • Excellent insight into how KevMo's brain works and a likely explanation into his passion for Planet Rossi "truth". If the known criminal liar said it anywhere then it is true in KevMo's world. Like the IP buyout myth from Rossi's spin factory. Didn't happen.

  • What legalisms? Please enlighten all of us. And I notice you didn't answer the questions either.

    A place to start


    Clearance Items

    [email protected]

    Jun 20th 2017


    woodworker wrote:

    I must say that I truly admire your grasp of legal concepts, legal procedure, legal transactional issues, etc. In case it is not clear, that was sarcasm.


    And allow me to say that you show the level bul**** and meanspiritedness that I have come to expect from lawyers, affirming once again that y'all have such a lousy reputation.




    edit:


    And you completely missed that Penon gave his deposition, which a was significant oversight in your introduction to this group. How's that for grasping legal issues, lawyer man? By all means, publish again the Law Firm you represent so we can all know who to avoid if we need legal assistance.




    Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clearance Items

    [email protected]

    Jun 21st 2017


    woodworker wrote:

    I don't understand why so many people find it difficult to believe that Rossi could have conned so many for so long.




    Enron:


    business con


    Bernie Madoff:


    business con


    snip

    Not worth looking into




    Dr. Shockley: Nobel prize winner yet was convinced that mega-doses of Vitamin C would cure cancer.


    Only representative science "con"


    Display More

    Since you like taking up lawyers on their bull***, you should take up your own bull****. Only one of your examples was science, and it's not like Shockley conned many people over vitamin C. In fact I would suggest you made yet another mistake there and intended to say Linus Pauling. Way to go, lawyer boy.




    By bringing in invalid analogies, especially by your ridiculous political stance, you are attempting to obfuscate. Typical lawyer move. Please, by all means, tell us your former law firm so that we can all go out of our way to avoid it.




    Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric

    -------------------------------------------------------

    Clearance Items

    [email protected]

    Jun 21st 2017


    woodworker wrote:

    That more than explains your legal acumen. As to the nickel check, with the ability to deposit it by scanning it with my cell phone, why not.


    Your responses, on the other hand, do not explain anything about your legal acumen other than you were a crappy lawyer.




    Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric

    ------------------------------------------------------


    Posts by [email protected]


    Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    [email protected]

    Jul 3rd 2017


    woodworker wrote:

    Kev: how many trials, jury or otherwise, have you litigated as lead counsel or associate counsel?


    WW:


    None. Why is it that you, as a lawyer, miss some obvious blinking red lights on the legal dashboard? I'm not even a lawyer and I can see them.


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    [email protected]

    Jul 2nd 2017


    woodworker wrote:

    If during trial, unless it related to the issues on trial, it wouldn't be admitted as evidence. So QuarkX would not be admitted as it has nothing to do with whether or not Rossi satisfied the conditions precedent to IH's obligations in the time period required. Having said that, if he demonstrated and PROVED a working device, I would bet that Rossi and IH would come to a mutually beneficial settlement agreement and the trial would be mooted. I wouldn't hold my breath.


    I think Rossi's bloviating blog entries could be admissible as evidence.

    Edit:

    Shane pointed out upthread that Rossi's blog entries WERE admitted as evidence.



    It just takes one witness to say that that's what Rossi said on his blog. Then all of his blog stuff would be admissible. I'm surprised IH's lawyers haven't already angled in that direction.

  • A grand total of 40 posts from this thread have now been moved to 'Clearance.' Apologies for the lack of continuity this has created, but when people on both sides of this discussion get overexcited it is I'm afraid inevitable

    Alan, Shane,


    This thread has deteriorated into a mud slinging contest between the believers and the skeptics.

    Absolutely nothing fresh or revealing has been contributed to the blog for many days.


    Probably time to start thinking about locking it permanently.

  • Excellent insight into how KevMo's brain works and a likely explanation into his passion for Planet Rossi "truth". If the known criminal liar said it anywhere then it is true in KevMo's world. Like the IP buyout myth from Rossi's spin factory. Didn't happen.

    We covered that in the Rossi vs. Darden thread. JONP entries were admitted into the court docket.


    But that doesn't stop you from spreadingdisinformation.




    Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    [email protected]

    Jul 3rd 2017


    woodworker wrote:

    Settlement discussions are often not admissible at trial. But let's say Rossi gets in, what then when IH says fine - bring a cashier's check for the $11.5 million. Does Rossi have the cash or will that be another instance of Rossi coming up with an excuse?




    It is a side note for purposes of my discussion on this matter. Rossi kept saying "in mercato veritas" but there has been zero mercato so there is zero veritas, by his own words. It would be time to put up or shut up. No expensive trial, just a bunch of financial back & forth with some court reporters and a judge.




    .... And given that such a settlement gives IH everything they want originally, I suspect they would have accepted a genuine offer.




    That is why I want to see this particular piece of information addressed by the court. It would save the court time and money, it could conceivably wipe the slate clean. Someone is preventing such an obvious outcome that benefits no one and everyone at the same time. It does not make sense.


    Remember, if they win on the counter-claim, they will likely be deemed to have rescinded any claims they have to the IP (once they are fully paid). Based on the above, I don't find the alleged settlement offer credible. To plagiarize, "show me the money."


    Display More

    Whether or not the alleged settlement offer is credible is immaterial. By allowing it into the docket as evidence, the judge can use his authority to make it a credible offer.






    As far as the sidenote case that if Rossi doesn't pay, he ends up in trouble with the court, which is nothing new to Rossi. But if he does not pay he would not end up with his IP.




    This is a battle over what Industrial Heat calls worthless IP. Rossi wants it and claims he is willing to pay for it (at least on his blog). His claim is admissible in evidence because other claims on JONP have been admissible as evidence.

  • Another insightful nugget - KevMo says that if a JNOP post was entered into the docket then it had to be true.

    ***No I did not say that AT ALL. That seems to be the only thing you EVER have to say, a straw argument. I was posting to our resident lawyer that JONP posts had already been entered into the docket so therefore the one post we had been discussing would be admissible as well. That should make sense EVEN TO YOU, but in your haste to stir things up you generate a straw argument that is just only a hair's width shy of a lie.


    Only on Planet Rossi is that the case. One has to wonder what education system he is a product of?

    ***And one has to wonder the same exact thing of you, Dewey, because it has been pointed to you time and again that you use misrepresentation and straw arguments.

  • KevMo- I purchased a front row seat and lived out every minute of the Rossi debacle. I know what happened. I saw every document Every communication. I know the facts and deal in truth. You are either a paid trouble maker or a two bit bystander hack who wouldn't recognize a fact even after it hit you between the eyes. You are defending / promoting a very successful multi-decade criminal con liar and you're not going to get away with obfuscating the truth or your attempts to retell the story with lies. A fix for that is on the way.