Posts by woodworker

    Will it be pepperoni pizza, with fresh garlic and tomatoes on top? And will it come with antipasto and then gelato for dessert?

    So, if someone else has not yet secured the Golden Fleece, that excuses the Dottore's failures to accomplish something. In that case, despite having never attempted to create a working LENR device, I have accomplished just as much as the Dottore has, and I haven't conned anyone. I guess I should be expecting my Nobel Prize any time now.

    I'm glad that the Dottore is satisfied. But I don't understand why you think that is evidence of progress.

    In the market is truth. If so, then Rossi is a complete fraud. Have any of the "five different E-Cat models" ever made it to the market -- of course not because they were and are all frauds.

    The good news is that it doesn't matter that Rossi will never commercialize any of his technologies - we know how they all worked.

    Correct -- we all know they didn't work. As to your earlier comments that the reason Rossi hasn't commercialized is that he has "inventor's disease," I disagree. To paraphrase one variant of Ockham's Razor, the simplest explanation is often the correct one.


    You ask us to ignore Rossi's documented history of lies, of faking results, creating fake customers, etc. and to believe, despite no third party replication of Rossi's claims, despite Rossi's own admission that he doesn't completely understand the theory behind his own claims, etc., that Rossi widgets actually work and the only reason that he hasn't published/commercialized is that he has inventor's disease.


    We ask you to look at Rossi's history and to acknowledge that there are no third party replications, etc. and accept that the more logical explanation of why Rossi hasn't commercialized is because there is nothing to commercialize, that Rossi is a fraud.


    One of the above explanations is supported by all of the evidence, the other is supported only by your speculation about Rossi's motivations. Rossi is a fraud.

    Apropos readings and downloads -- thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people believe that the earth is flat and/or that the sun revolves around the earth. They download and read lots of articles supporting those beliefs, but that doesn't make those beliefs any more accurate.

    Time to ask @Adrian if it is yet a generally accepted fact that Rossi has started the production of commercial E-cats. - Or is Rossi just another ”babbler”? 8o

    RossiSays (tm) that he has installed a commercial unit and that the customer is happy. I believe, in AA's view, that would constitute generally accepted satisfaction of his conditions to winning the bet. Strange however that AA never actually responded to any of the bets offered to him. Hummmm.

    But does it make perfect scrambled eggs and bacon just so crisp? If so, please send me two, one for me and one for my unicorns (they love scrambled eggs).

    hunter . As I have said before, if you want to attack Rossi you can and you do. However, do not start dragging unsubstantiated stories about other members of the circle into the argument or you will be sanctioned. The person who wrote that (now deleted) post is a well-known troll btw.

    And Kevmo is an honorable man.

    I have never seen any evidence of any employee, even though recently he claimed to have 22. Someone said private companies do not leave a paper trail, but I find that hard to believe. You just do not hide that many employees, and many have looked for signs of them over the years. More elusive than Bigfoot!


    He did have the handy man in Italy who did much of his fabrication (not the lying kind :) ). The one who took one of the Ecats without Rossi knowing, and gave it to some UOB scientists to play with it...supposedly successfully. Then he opted not to follow Rossi to the US when he partnered with IH. Not sure he was officially employed though...maybe one of those off the books things, like the day laborers who built that big, fancy mezzanine heat exchanger with the revolutionary steam circulator (should be submitting a patent for it soon) at Doral.


    Yeah, like you said...kind of funny we never see anyone. I remember in about 2012 he claimed Leonardo was run by a group of investors, which years later we came to find out was his wife. If anyone would know about all this, it would would be his most loyal, and mysterious business partner Hydrofusion. But they are as tight lipped as the maestro himself. Just a positive word, some verification, from them would give a huge morale boost to the Rossi supporters, yet their representative prefers instead to attack IH.

    I believe it was IHFB who commented, essentially, that privately owned businesses don't have the same reporting requirements that publicly owned companies do. He is absolutely correct. There are many, many businesses out there, some with revenues in the billions, that are not obligated to say how many employees they have, what there revenues are, who their shareholders are, where they have facilities, etc. IMO, most privately held companies keep that sort of information confidential and generally only disclose it for PR purposes.


    For example, building permits are public generally, but if Rossi's company has a subsidiary, let's call it 12345, LLC, the subsidiary can pull the permit, the parent company, being privately held, has no obligation to list it's subsidiaries and 12345 has no obligation to list it's parent. Some permits, etc. may require identification of any parent or any other company under common control, but I suspect that is rarely required. Ditto for employees -- you either form a single purpose subsidiary to hire the employees, who then work for you pursuant to a loan-out agreement, or you hire a company whose sole purpose in existence is to hire people to work for someone else. This is very common today -- 12345 hires Manpower or someone like that who acts as the employer of record.


    And although practically every US State requires any company doing business in that state or any company formed in that state to file an annual or biannual statement of officers and directors, that is easy to comply with without actually identifying a particular person. You simply form an LLC, for example, identify it as manager managed, identify the manager as the attorney who formed the LLC for you and then craft the LLC Operating Agreement so that the manager cannot take any action without the consent of the members. The attorney is the "Manager," the members are never identified and anything that might actually reveal anything is going to be contained in what you file with the taxing authorities and that is confidential.


    Now, having said all that, doing those types of maneuvers requires competent counsel, competent accountants, and competent execution, initially and on-going. Nothing I have seen from Rossi leads me to believe that he is capable of doing what would be required to keep his alleged factories, employees, etc. hidden from scrutiny.

    If you read my post, you should have noted that I did call out Jed for his legal mistakes. And I suggested that the non-lawyers stop opining on things about which they know very little. If a person's legal education is watching Law & Order (or any other TV or movie involving the legal system) or your legal education is a class in Business & Law, that person is generally not going to have the background or skill set to intelligently opine on what is/isn't an offer, an acceptance, consideration, a sufficient writing, etc.


    The reason that I specifically identified Kevmo, et al, is because their default position whenever one disagrees with them is to (1) accuse that person of being stupid, (2) assert that they, e.g., Kevmo, knows more about the subject matter than the other person, regardless of the subject or their actual knowledge, (3) engage in ad hominem attacks, (4) refer to something that they said in the past that proves their superiority, even if it doesn't, and (5) never actually address the point that was originally argued. That is one of the reasons I blocked Kevmo -- he rarely actually makes a reasoned logical argument, rather he plays the part of the excrement throwing monkey. To me, his posts are just a waste of time. Just to confirm that, I opened his posts/comments after my long post. After engaging in his usual ad hominem attacks and other asinine behavior, his most telling comment, at least to me, about my post was "tldr." In that I suspect that is his general approach to most things, I would suggest a new acronym in Kevmo's honor -- "drdt" (didn't read didn't think).


    And before I return you to your regular programming, I would strongly reiterate what I posted earlier today -- everyone, on both sides, should dial back the rhetoric, especially allegations that someone has threatened acts of violence against others or that someone is corrupt/has been paid off. Calling someone stupid or a moron is okay under the First Amendment, suggesting that you have evidence that someone has threatened children is likely actionable unless you have real proof.

    Of course. Since they were threatened by Dewey et al, they needed to make an official statement to avoid whatever consequences they were facing in those threats. Fact is though, they knew prior to the event exactly who and what was going to take place. Hey - we all knew that ... They were however not expecting the wrath of Darden/Cherokee/IH/Dewey et al. They were not expecting the personal threats Dewey are famous for. They were not expecting any involved embassies, etc. Since both the involved individuals and IVA as an organization are vulnerable to these kind of threats, they chose the easy institutional way and distanced themselves from the subject in an official statement, but at the same time keeping good contacts (probably even better than before) with those that needed to take the blow.


    Some content deleted. Alan,

    Both defamatory unless you have proof (and I don't mean I heard someone say they heard from their brother in law -- admissible in court evidence).

    Yeah, this could very well be the next Cherokee chapter 11, and the investors will certainly not be that pleased with Dewey performance here. What kind of investment fund wants advocates that are making violent threats against all who disagree. Not good PR at all. You're toast Dewey.

    And that just crossed the line into defamation, unless of course you can prove that he has made threats of actual violence against specific individuals or institutions. And, at least in the US, you would have the burden of proof on that issue.

    Please elaborate. This could easily be interpreted as making direct and violent threats towards people who disagree with your view of the matters discussed here. Is this the way you handled IVA? Did you threaten them? Did you maybe send them pictures of their children at school? You obviously symphathise with the Italian mob regarding other issues, so I'm not that surprised if this is the case here which makes me feel sick. Despicable it is.

    IMHO, you are close to making, if not already have made, actionable defamatory comments. I would suggest that everyone think very carefully before making allegations that someone has threatened people, or their children. And yes, that would be a tort, not a contract.

    This may have already been addressed, but just in case. Also, I apologize for being so behind, but I had my right knee replacement surgery two weeks ago (left knee was four 1/2 months ago) and I have been busy dealing with other stuff.


    Now, I really wish all of the non-lawyers would stop opining on what the law is, what the law requires, etc. By and large, you are all wrong on what the law requires. So here goes:


    FIRST, settlement discussions are generally NOT admissible in court, as proof of anything, until finalized.


    SECOND, contracts generally don't need to be in writing or have a writing to be enforceable. There are certain exceptions, the most notable probably being those dealing with transactions involving real property and transactions that, by their terms, require more than a year to complete (this is the "Statute of Frauds" category -- it has nothing to do with fraud per se). If I hire you to design and construct a brand new design for a very complicated project, unless the terms provide expressly that it is contemplated to take more than a year, the Statute of Frauds will generally not require that agreement be in writing (some other provision may require it, but oral contracts are entered into and enforced all the time). Why, because theoretically if you throw enough bodies and resources at the problem, it could be accomplished in less than a year. A writing would be very helpful to establish the terms and conditions of the agreement and to prove that there was a meeting of the minds as to the terms of the agreement, but a writing is not required.


    THIRD, generally, unless an agreement relates to real property, certain transactions involving intellectual property and certain other types of agreements, there is NO requirement for a notarization. NONE. A party may require a notarization as a condition precedent to closing a transaction, but generally there is no legal requirement for having documents notarized. And even when documents are required to to be notarized, there are often work-arounds. For example, many documents filed with the SEC purport to be required to be notarized. However, there is a section of the US Code providing that, in lieu of a notarization, many documents may be signed under penalty of perjury (IIRC, it is 28 USC 1746).


    FOURTH, putting aside the issue of whether or not settlement discussions are admissible and just focusing on the contract formation issues, making the offer publicly through a blog or at a Waffle House could (although unlikely for other reasons) be deemed a legitimate offer. One question would be was whether or not there was sufficient specificity in the proposal so that all the parties knew and understand what the fundamental terms and conditions were. In this instance, just saying Rossi would pay x millions of dollars to IH for the IP would probably not suffice to settle the entire case. Because left undiscussed were a lot of important and fundamental terms, most prominently was what happens to the rest of the case -- is it subject to mutual walk-aways, etc.


    FIFTH, the infamous MickeyD's coffee case. This is a case I am intimately familiar with because, amongst other things, prior to going back to undergrad and then law school, I managed McDonald's for a a number of years. Facts: first, the coffee served was very very very hot -- in the neighborhood of 180-185 degrees; second, that was McDonald's policy (written) to serve it that hot; third, there had been many many complaints over the years about the coffee being served too hot; fourth, the coffee spilled onto the woman's genitalia, causing extensive third degree burns and necessitating extensive surgeries; and fifth, the woman originally just asked McDonald's to cover her medical expenses and the company told her to fuck off (interesting question, to which I don't know the answer, is whether or not the company's refusal to settle early was admissible as evidence of the company's willful behavior in connection with the punitive damages presentation to the jury). The jury verdict was played up by corporate apologists/conservatives/etc. as evidence of the failures of the tort system -- IMHO the jury was absolutely fucking correct,


    SIXTH, Jed, I love you in many ways, but you are absolutely correct when you say that you don't know contract law. Having a signed writing does not necessarily create an enforceable contract. In summary, you need at a minimum, an offer, an acceptance and consideration. Implicit in that is that there was a "meeting of the minds" as to the required terms of the agreement, that there was enough specificity / detail to allow such a meeting of the minds, that the contract was not for an improper purpose and that the consideration was adequate. In gross summary, as follows:


    Meeting of the minds: all the parties understood and agreed to the specific terms of the agreement -- for example, I hire you to mow my lawn for which I agree to pay you $100. It turns out I have a front lawn of 500 square feet and a back lawn of 5,000 square feet. I would argue the 5,000 square foot lawn and you would argue the 500 square foot lawn and absent some evidence of which lawn we both agreed to, the agreement is void due to a failure to have a meeting of the minds.


    Proper / improper purpose: engaging you to mow my lawn is a legal / proper purpose, engaging you to commit a criminal act is not. So if I hire you to blackmail someone, I pay you $250,000 up front, and then you don't blackmail them -- not only is the contract unenforceable, but if I sue you to get my money back, the court will toss my lawsuit. Putting aside the obvious issues about blackmail (lt's assume that the statute of limitations had run on the blackmail and any associated crimes), I will lose because the contract was for an improper purpose. Similarly, if I said I would give you a total of $500,000, you can't sue me for the additional $250,000 if you did blackmail the person. The contract was for an improper purpose and it is void and unenforceable. There is also the concept of "to receive equity, you must do equity" which is sometimes referred to as the doctrine of "unclean hands." Basically the idea is that for me to recover my money, for me to receive equity (not in the financial sense but in the moral sense), I must do equity -- I must come to the court with clean hands. I hired you to commit a heinous act, to blackmail someone -- so I am coming to the court with unclean hands, I get no equity and I don't get the money back. Similarly, if I said I would give you a total of $500,000, you can't sue me for the additional $250,000 if you did blackmail the person because you come to the court with unclean hands.


    Consideration: there is an old legal adage that "a mere peppercorn of consideration" is adequate. And like most adages, there is some truth in it. But I am going to stop here, mainly because I could continue to write many hundreds of pages about contract formation, performance, breach, enforceability, remedies, etc. Everything I have said above is a gross simplification and I have omitted numerous other issues and areas that relate to the enforceability of a contract.


    My point is that I wish all of the non-lawyers would stop rendering legal opinions (except of course, AA, Kev and Steppenwolf (is he/she/it the same as Siffercoll?), because they know more about everything than anybody who disagrees with them).



    There is no record that indicates that Rossi's fraudulent bankruptcy, precious metals trafficking and money-laundering convictions were overturned. He several years in jail for those crimes.

    I understand that the authorities in FL are hunting for him now and that he has advised them directly that he is out of the country.

    I certainly hope that is the case (the authorities looking for him), but I believe, IMHO, inappropriate to claim without citing authority (no pun intended) for the claim.

    OOH, that is such a sweet story. Do the prince and princess live happily ever after, or do they have to actually wait for Rossi to have real customers?