Posts by woodworker

    Just remove the "fucking" and you are in the temperate zone. I see nothing intemperate about the rest.

    (I do not like that word, and I wish people would stop using it. I especially don't like it in the original sense of "sexual intercourse," because it derives from the German meaning "hit." I don't like that nuance. The word has a harsh Teutonic metallic crashing sound, a bit like "Hitler.")

    will do going forward. My bad.

    And every one of those statements about what was there and what was done was a absolute fing lie. There was never a JM customer; there was never a process where anything used the alleged heat; there was never a process to produce anything.

    "Yes, I made all the technology, I invented their production plant, and I made the plant." How the hell do IHFB, Axil, Kevmo, steppenwolf, Samwise or any other Rossi suck up defend these statements, What fing production technology did Rossi invent, what production plant did he invent and make? What happened to all the "product" made from this new technology at this new plant -- oh wait there was never any fing product. How do the acolytes defend any of this and still believe that they, or Rossi, retain even the smallest iota of credibility, or integrity?

    The rickety stairs were dealt with by using the new Rossi designed and constructed RossiAntiGravityMagnificence (patent filing pending). There are no pictures or any evidence of this new powerful invention because Rossi has already abandoned it, and the trillions he would make from it, because he has a newer, smaller, more powerful model in development (the new one has multi-colored racing stripes). AA, IHFB, Axil and Samwise have all predicted great new things coming in connection with the new magnificence and, despite having never seen, have developed many serious theories about how the new widgets work.

    It is far more likely that with the 40-odd visitor-day events and no one of them can corroborate fans blowing 250000 cfm (or whatever it was) out the front window barely 15 feet from the front door because the fans were not there than the said fans went blowing unnoticed.

    Wong claimed the fans were directly in the place of the bottom two holes (panes). All four window panes were missing when Wong was there.

    Correction, IIRC Wong said that Rossi claimed where the fans were. Again, IIRC, Wong never saw the fans.

    If we ever need a new "Baghdad Bob," we know where to look.

    So, you are saying it isn't like Perry Mason or "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo." I am disenchanted.

    Well, not at all like Perry Mason, Law and Order, etc. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (at least the novell and the original film) are not set in the US (I forget which Scandinavian country) and I suspect that country is a civil code system and not a system such as ours. All I really know about those legal systems are that they are vastly different than ours.

    I have a couple of questions for IHFB -- what is the evidence that the heat exchanger existed? As I recall, there were comments that there were no holes in the floor or walls that would show that a heat exchanger was installed. Please point out evidence to the contrary if I am wrong. I don't mean to rehash the issue, but is there any evidence, other than RossiSays, to support the existence of the heat exchanger? I know Wong's opinion is based solely on what RossiSays and that there were no pictures, drawings, schematics, etc. of the alleged heat exchanger, no invoices relating to the equipment to build one (neither material nor labor) and from what I recall there was no mention by anyone at any point about a heat exchanger until after the "test" was concluded. Buehler, any evidence at all to the


    Second, someone above posted that Rossi had allegedly claimed that he had invented another product for which he was filing a patent. Was any such patent filed?

    Third, you opined that possibly the 36,000 number was just copied over and thus was not an accurate reflection of what was happening. In other words (my words) that means the number was made up, even if it was just assumed. Given that we conclusively know that the widgets seemed to working even when there was no power to them, and we know that the numbers/log was inaccurate on one/multiple occasions when the fourth widget was not in service, how can you give any credibility to the numbers / data provided? Garbage in garbage out is an often abused cliche, but it certainly seems to accurately (all irony intended) to describe this situation.

    And this highly probable explanation of it being a scam approaches virtual certainty when viewed in the context of Rossi's long history of promoting elaborate scams:

    • Petroldragon elaborate scam: tens of millions of dollars of cleanup and persistent toxic waste site to this day in Italy
    • Thermoelectric device elaborate scam: DoD contract with millions of dollars squandered by the US government with no working product
    • Fake engineering degree scam: Purchased a fraudulent engineering masters degree from now non-existent fraudulent Kensington University in California
    • 10K E-Cat elaborate scam: wet steam dribbling out of a rubber hose in the wall as Rossi manually fiddles with relay switches to "demo" his "reactor" with lead shielding
    • 10K E-Cat elaborate scam: pure nickel 62 salted "ash", followed by salted copper "ash" to intrigue and bamboozle unassuming Swedish scientists, Cook, and others
    • 1MW E-Cat elaborate scam: dummy reactors performing the same as active reactors, fake customer, electric heating strips, imaginary silent heat exchanger with large imaginary fans venting out the mezzanine fixed glass side window "disappears" the day after the 350 day "test" completes, etc., etc., etc.
    • Plasma QX elaborate scam: plastic sprinkler parts presented in Stockholm with tricky plan to manually switch on the unit caught on video.
    • Plasma SK elaborate scam: 7 "camera angles" complete with "ballerina" and satisfying conclusion via musical puppet show conducted from Rossi's home condo "headquarters" (as verified by Frank Acland) where he purportedly will remotely control over the internet "reactors" that he says caused him illness due to radiation exposure in testing, but will provide heat to industrial "satisfied customers".

    None of the above have resulted in anything useful, most have resulted in sizable financial loss to others, except the last two, which to date have at least resulted in a sizable waste of time.

    I must object to the introduction as evidence of all of the foregoing -- According to AA's First Law of Analyzing Rossi, "any historical evidence that cast's Rossi or his creations in a negative light shall be disregarded as irrelevant." NB, the Second Law is "anything that Rossi says shall be taken as gospel and the absolute truth unless contradicted simultaneously on three separate continents by ten Vestal Virgins on each continent" (the Vestal Virgins are a nod to Rossi's Roman roots).

    Ah. So I guess you mean the gist of the case must be presented during discovery, but additional supporting evidence can be introduced during the trial.

    If you want to admit it at trial, absent extreme extenuating circumstances, you had better have disclosed it during discovery. Extenuating circumstances, e.g., you discover a new witness that either was unavailable or which you could not reasonably have known about prior to trial. If you could have found that witness through reasonable due diligence or if you knew about the witness and didn't disclose their existence as part of discovery to try to surprise the other side -- surprise is yours because the judge is likely to rule not admissible. And as part of the pre-trial exchanges, you have to disclose the name of every witness you intend to call (with a few exceptions) and the gist of what they are going to testify about. Judges reallllllly don't like ambush tactics, and they can issue a whole litany of sanctions against you when you try, ranging from not letting a witness testify to ruling that you lose on a particular issue, regardless of the evidence presented, to ruling that you lose the entire case regardless of the evidence, all the while assessing monetary sanctions against client and lawyer. If a lawyer files a motion and doesn't include in the motion case law that is negative to what they are arguing, they can be sanctioned. Courts, especially federal courts, take this type of stuff very seriously and you don't want to piss off a federal judge -- if you do, make sure you bring a toothbrush, slip on shoes, pants that don't need a belt and your checkbook.

    It is worth noting that reading them is much cheaper than employing a personal trainer.

    I am doing physical therapy at Stanford Medical for my left knee total replacement and I made sure a picked a very attractive therapist. If I have to be tortured, I want an attractive torturer. I have asked to have her for the pt for my right knee, which is going under the knife in 17 days (and then we do my back).

    Always remember that the R'ster claimed 450C off his system controls / TC when a temp gun showed 275C and when caught, he immediately claimed runaway reaction / cleared the room. I checked it after getting close enough to the reactor to realize that there is no way he was putting out 450C.

    Then there is the empty reactor that performed equally as well as a fueled reactor episode. This was actually a sting operation very brilliantly set-up by using the old upside down 6 is a 9 numbering method. The R'ster has been caught cheating so many times that it doesn't matter anymore.

    I am ashamed of you DW -- citing facts is not allowed.

    "* As far as I know, judges seldom allow evidence that has not already been filed in the docket before the trial."

    You are indeed wrong on this point. In fact, most, if not all, of the evidence need not be filed with the court prior to trial. Discovery rules require that, if properly requested, the requested material (note that the material to be produced is usually much broader than what will be actually introduced as evidence at trial) must be produced to the requesting party prior to the trial. But the materials produced in response to discovery requests is not generally filed prior to trial.

    I stress properly requested -- let's say that IH had secretly planted cameras to monitor all the activity at Doral. If Rossi doesn't include videos in his discovery requests (and videos are not otherwise requested), then IH doesn't have to turn them over as part of discovery and would still be free (subject to compliance with other requirements, e.g., authentication) to introduce them at trial. If Rossi had requested and IH denied the existence of such videos, the court could easily bar them from being admitted at trial. Discovery is the key because courts generally don't like trial by ambush. And as the parties settled after opening arguments, there was no evidence admitted at trial.

    Someone above suggested that Rossi could not have committed fraud because he didn't end up in jail. This is a nonsensical argument made either in bad faith or someone who has absolutely not understanding of the American criminal justice system. There are a myriad number of practical, well proven and established reasons why many, many criminals never face a criminal investigation, much less criminal charges, a criminal trial and jail. But I am very confident that if Rossi had to undergo a criminal trial, he would be convicted (unless he cut a deal and plead guilty to a lesser charge). And if someone wants me to explain that to them, my billing rate is $450 an hour and I would require a non-refundable retainer of $5,000. (I am highly confident that Kev, either using that name or one of his sock puppets, will again attack my legal credentials and reasoning, but hey, I blocked him. Mainly because his posts are incredibly boring in that he never actually makes an argument (using that term in the Logic sense), instead relying on ad hominem attacks, much like AA).

    The reason we have so much information in this trial is that evidence adduced as part of the discovery process was then filed with the court in connection with pre-trial motions made by the parties. For example, if IH filed a motion for summary judgment, or partial summary judgment (the standard for a summary, or partial summary, the moving party has to establish that there is no dispute about the relevant facts) on the issue of whether or not there was a real customer.

    IH's motion would attach as exhibits the relevant portion from Rossi's deposition (as well as from other depositions), the fake invoices and other supporting documentation. Or suppose that Rossi filed a motion in limine to preclude IH from bringing up the subject of Rossi's involvement with PetroDragon (IIRC the name and spelling), IH's opposition would argue that Rossi's credibility and propensity for fraudulent behavior are central issues in the case and would attach as exhibits to their opposition all of the materials relating to Rossi's involvement therein, as well as any other materials relating to Rossi's credibility and propensity for fraud.

    That is why we have so much material for our review and amusement.

    As a non-engineer/scientist, let me see if I understand correctly what you are saying: There were four widgets, one, representing 25% of the total capacity of the widgets, was removed/deactivated, and the output from the three was essentially the same as the output from the four? Wow, what a marvelous, in fact I should say magnificent, demonstration of the widgets - take one away with no reduction in output. What would happen if we took away another one, and then another one, and then, in the ultimate test, the last one --- according the Penon report, there would likely be no reduction in output. That would truly be a magnificence, producing something from absolutely nothing -- I thought only bond traders did that (that is not a political comment).

    Jed: “There is evidence that Levi and the others are competent scientists. See the first Levi report:”

    I said absolutely nothing about whether Levi and the others are competent scientists. All I said is that they have negligible visibility apart from their involvement with Rossi. I did not challenge their results so don’t ask me what is wrong with those results.

    It seems to me that people here are really itching for specific fights and if nobody tries to have that fight with them, they pretend otherwise. How about presenting counter-arguments only when somebody makes an argument in the first place?

    "How about presenting counter-arguments only when somebody makes an argument in the first place?" Wait, that would destroy Kev's, JThomas, and Sifferkoll's raison d'etre. Next you will be asking for evidence to support their, and Rossi's, claims -- you are so unreasonable.

    If a big corporation gets access to a new technology that could have a significant impact on their profitability, wouldn't they legally have to disclose this to shareholders and/or the stock market, in general terms at least?

    Only if public company, private company need not disclose. Also, only need to disclose if material. If not, probably no need to disclose. And for a multi-billion dollar company, material is a lot.