Posts by woodworker

    I am thinking about getting t-shirts made. Here is one example logo, but this is for a company so we will need to design our own, with the LENR Forum prominently displayed. Can any of the mods get permission and are their any graphic artists that can help design the logo?

    Image result for babblers logo


    I don't think we should question the points made by Mr. De Caluwe. After all, he is a member of the JONP Board of Advisers and I am sure that he is completely impartial re: Rossi.


    Also, re the shirts, one for me, dark blue if possible, 2XL. Thanks.


    I am thinking about getting t-shirts made. Here is one example logo, but this is for a company so we will need to design our own, with the LENR Forum prominently displayed. Can any of the mods get permission and are their any graphic artists that can help design the logo?

    Image result for babblers logo


    Put me down for one, 2XL. Dark blue if possible.


    Rossi claims!


    Have you personally seen it?


    Have you been told by anyone who has personally seen it, other than Rossi?


    Is your statement that "This is a most important development for several reasons" supported by any verifiable evidence or is it based on giving Rossi the benefit of the doubt?


    If it is based on verifiable evidence, have you personally seen the evidence or is it "you heard from someone" or something analogous?


    If it is based on verifiable evidence, please describe, without of course violating any NDA or promises to keep confidential.


    If the source/verifiable evidence cannot be detailed, please tell us if the source, unnamed I assume, has previously acted as a source for prior Rossi revelations and, if so, which ones. That way we all can assess the reliability of the source. If you cannot do that, it would seem reasonable to doubt the reliability and veracity of the source. If the source is not reliable or truthful, then the evidence of a working turbine, unless personally seen by you in action, is worthless.


    As to giving Rossi the benefit of the doubt, I remind you that, as I am sure you already know and must acknowledge, Rossi has, on many occasions in the past, touted that he has a working widget, which working widget somehow never seems to see the light of day. I suspect it will be the same story this time.

    In this kind of controversy the standard approach based only on two side experts reports means that nobody wins, a sure stalemate as happened.

    US laws (like in other countries) shall have a solution to solve these cases, throwing light on the truth.


    From Wiki about "expert witness, in England, Wales and the United States":

    "The tribunal itself, or the judge, can in some systems call upon experts to technically evaluate a certain fact or action, in order to provide the court with a complete knowledge on the fact/action it is judging. The expertise has the legal value of an acquisition of data. The results of these experts are then compared to those by the experts of the parties."


    Not in the US (with some extremely rare exceptions, e.g., determining if someone is mentally sound, or able to represent themselves in a trial). England and Wales, I don't know. But I do know that England and Wales don't have the same laws we do, or the same procedures.



    Courts don't do that. You are expected to make your own case, the court doesn't make your case for you. Also, the cross-complaint was sufficient for the needs.


    Aw, cut AR some slack and give him the benefit of the doubt (but don't give him any money -- that would be an unwise choice).

    From what I've read, TD knew that the Johnson Matthey deal had not materialized. Further, he stated he didn't care if the generated heat was simply dumped. The main interest was whether the plant actually performed.


    It seems that IH were enthusiastic about the 1 MW plant when woodford visited and as they got ~$49 million as a result it is not clear they lost money on the whole deal.


    For someone who claims to be as financially sophisticated as you do, your last comment surprises me. If IH received any moneys from Woodford, those almost certainly would have been either capital infusions, e.g., stock or membership purchases, or loans, e.g., traditional loans or some other form of debt instrument, e.g., convertible preferred notes, where the notes were convertible into stock. In any case, the alleged $49 million would not be revenue. A company does not lose or make money as a result of a capital infusion or a loan. A company makes or loses money, generally, from operations. Any such $49 million would not show up on an Income/Expense statement (although interest thereon would), but would show up on a Balance Sheet. Just surprised.

    I for one am looking forward to seeing what Rossi has up his sleeve. He seldom disappoints. I suspect his friend (Giovanni?) from the old country, who helped him set up JMP, is helping him set up a *customer* scenario. Probably scheming right now to make it look legitimate. I do not think it will be nearly the scale of deceit as Doral though. But I suspect it will be more complicated than the Stockholm QX DPS, since there is a customer involved.


    His arm, which I am sure is a manly man arm, well tanned and rested.


    Sorry, couldn't resist being silly.

    Dewey Weawer just a question...


    can you explain me in simply words why TD accepted to close the lawsuit in that way (leaving to him a lot of money) instead of put this man in front of US justice for all those falsehood and deceptions you quoted, having already in hand all necessary evidences?


    Immediately after I would have sued him in court for fraud, damages...


    Dewey, I am sure you have already answered this, but, if not, let me jump in. Hunter, settlement on the terms proposed was a good deal for IH and avoided the possibility, however remote it may have been, that AR could have won at trial. Let me explain my reasoning:


    1. Per the settlement, IH and AR executed mutual walk-aways, neither owing the other anything (I am ignoring, just as AR seems to be, the worthless IP returned to AR).


    2. That meant that IH was out the original $11.5 million or so, plus their legal fees and expenses, let us say another $6.0 million (lawyers like to distinguish between fees, which is what you pay me to do legal stuff, and expenses, which is what you reimburse me for faxes, copier charges, over-night delivery, auto rentals, plane fare, hotel rentals, expert fees, court reporter fees, etc). I would estimate IH's expenses at not less than $.5 million.


    3. If IH prevailed at trial on the main suit, the one filed by AR, but not on the cross-complaint, the one IH filed to recoup their initial $11.5 million, then IH would not be on the hook for the additional approximately $300 million that AR was seeking. So far, this result is no better than the settlement. I don't recall if the original agreement between AR and IH had an attorneys' fees clause, but if it didn't, then IH, even if winning on the main suit, would not be entitled to attempt to force AR to pay IH's attorneys' fees and expenses. I will discuss below if the agreement had an attorneys' fee clause.


    4. If IH prevailed on both the main suit and on the cross-complaint, then IH would be able to attempt to force AR to pay back the initial $11.5 million. And if the agreement had an attorneys' fees clause, then IH would be entitled to attempt to force AR to pay IH's attorneys' fees and expenses.


    5. So best case, IH wins on everything and then attempts to collect. You will notice that I use the word "attempt" repeatedly. I am not a Florida bankruptcy lawyer, but I am somewhat familiar with some of its basic provisions, which tend to be very debtor friendly. For example, if prior to the end of the trial, Rossi borrows as much as he can on all of those condos, maybe up to 90 percent of the equity, and then takes all that cash and buys himself a really nice home, say worth approximately $11 million. Under Florida bankruptcy law, if he makes that nice new expensive home his primary residence, that home, and all that it represents and cost, is immune from his creditors once he files bankruptcy. Sure, his creditors might get the condos, which have not got a lot of equity as he stripped it all, but his primary asset, the one worth all the money he scammed from IH, is immune to attachment, foreclosure, etc.


    6. He gets to keep it all. So, really, the best case if IH wins at trial is that they are in the same place as they ended up in the settlement. Balance that against the risk that the jury goes whacko (a legal term) and AR wins, resulting in IH owing him a shit-ton (another legal term) of money, and settling, especially on these terms, is a no-brainer.


    Now, just for the hell of it, and because I know the "benefit of the doubters" will ask, let's talk about why AR settled.


    1. He gets to keep his $11.5 million.


    2. If he goes to trial, all of the bad stuff about him gets put on the record, Jones, Day, Reavis, Pogue & Satan get to cross-examine him, and if his lawyers manage to restrict the scope of cross, Jones Day can call him as a hostile witness in their case in chief, and believe me, they will crucify him and make him cry. They are very, very, very good and he has left a paper, audio and video trail of lies, betrayal, fraud, etc. with which they would have confronted him. I would have paid to fly out there just to watch.


    3. The trial record would be available to everyone, not just the parties. And no, it would not have been sealed (although there might be some minor proprietary information sealed).


    4. Although I consider it highly unlikely, a jury might find for him, at which point Jones Day would ask the court to ignore the jury's verdict, overrule the jury and decide in favor of IH. This very, very rarely succeeds, but, if the Judge determines that AR is a lying sack of excrement, he could overrule the jury. This would be one of the very few cases I can see that happening. Additionally, even if the jury decides that they like AR and give him victory, they still get to decide the damages. They may not totally believe AR deserving of $300 million, especially as AR has yet to deliver the goods. But let us assume they award AR the whole nine yards, then IH appeals. I don't know under Florida law whether you have to post a bond, in the amount of the awar, for the appeal. That differs state by state. But let us assume that IH appeals. The standard for appeal is, grossly simplified, generally either that the judge made a mistake of law that affected the verdict or the jury was so loony tunes (another legal term) that the evidence admitted did not support their verdict. Based on the depositions and other materials publicly filed, I could see an appeals court reversing a jury verdict in favor of AR.


    5. So, AR has to consider that, even if he wins at trial, it could be a long time before he sees any money, if he ever does. What if AR loses on the cross-complaint? Well, as I discussed above, Florida bankruptcy law is very favorable. But, a bankruptcy court could, and IMHO in this case would, determine that the transactions whereby AR looted the condos to finance a new expensive, hopefully attachment free primary residence, was a FRAUDULENT TRANSACTION, with the court then saying, please Mr. IH guy, take the house. My pleasure.


    6. So AR balances the risk of losing his money, having all of his lies, frauds, etc. publicly exposed and generally get spanked against the $11.5 million in the bank. Slam dunk decision for AR.


    If you have any questions or comments, post here or send me an email -- [email protected].

    I for one am looking forward to seeing what Rossi has up his sleeve. He seldom disappoints. I suspect his friend (Giovanni?) from the old country, who helped him set up JMP, is helping him set up a *customer* scenario. Probably scheming right now to make it look legitimate. I do not think it will be nearly the scale of deceit as Doral though. But I suspect it will be more complicated than the Stockholm QX DPS, since there is a customer involved.


    Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.


    And just because when I was a lowly summer associate at O'Melveny & Myers and a senior partner severely beat me up about this, "since" and "while" are temporal, "because" or "as" is causative. I have never forgotten that very painful lesson, although I still don't understand split infinitives.

    Can I add the "pathological believer” definition?

    Something like... someone that after 10 years of unfulfilled promises still believes and support any Rossi's says.


    Any news about "robotized factories" already built or under construction, an empty promise I find (every year) from 2012 ?


    We should not exaggerate. A "pathological believer" does not believe regardless of contrary evidence, they just always believe in giving AR, and only AR, the benefit of the doubt.


    "The best approach is to wait for more evidence and not jump to conclusions." REMEMBERING THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS TO GIVE AR THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT, REGARDLESS OF THE EXISTENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT IS CONTRARY.


    Just wanted to complete that phrase for you AA. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that somehow got accidentally dropped.

    No. Obviously not as there hasn't been a "commercial" version yet. The 1 MW unit was found wanting after the one year test.

    To save you the trouble of now writing "Why not?" I point out that the time for development of a new technology is not unusual. Think ITER.l


    Your comment has me very confused. Just above you said, and I quote: "There is a good chance he will demonstrate the QX live as he now has a commercial unit." (emphasis added) Yet you now say in response to my question whether or not you had seen, personally, said commercial unit, "No. Obviously not as there hasn't been a "commercial" version yet."


    So, a few simple questions, all yes/no:


    1. Is there a commercial unit of the QX?

    2. Is there a commercial unit of the SK?

    3. Have you personally seen a commercial unit of the QX? If yes, have you personally seen it in operation?

    4. Have you personally seen a commercial unit of the SK? If yes, have you personally seen it in operation?

    5. Have you personally seen a factory that is ostensibly being used to produce either the QX or the SK? If yes, have you personally seen it in operation. If yes, have you personally seen it produce either the QX or the SK?

    6. Do "commercial unit" and "commercial version" mean the same thing.


    Edited to add:


    7. Are you personally involved in the accounting/financing/equity processes of AR or his companies?

    8. Do you have any personal/first hand knowledge of any sales by AR of either a QX or an SK? If yes, was that first hand knowledge obtained from a purchaser? Please note that I am NOT asking for the identity of any such purchaser or any information that could possibly lead to their identity.

    9. Did you read/review the materials in the Doral litigation relating to the identity of the alleged independent purchaser of heat supposed to be produced by the Doral Ecat?


    Please note that I am only asking about things of which you may have personal knowledge and which should be incredibly easy to answer. I am NOT asking you to disclose trade secrets or anything confidential -- after all, AR keeps saying that these things are happening. I am merely asking for your personal knowledge. I am NOT asking for explanations or why, how, where or when type questions.

    It doesn't matter what Rossi shows in January, the babblers will not believe it until commercial units are in operation.

    There is a good chance he will demonstrate the QX live as he now has a commercial unit.


    Have you personally seen the commercial unit in operation? Simple question yes/no.

    :)


    Fair enough. Fortunately I’ve had little need to spend money on lawyers in my life.


    (I’m not sure if things work the same in the US, but in the UK there are certain advantages to going it alone in court - eg. One gets a lot of leeway with disclosure rules as it’s assumed (in the lower courts) that your layperson-esque ‘mistakes’ were unintentional...)


    Judges in the US will cut "pro se", "in propria persona" and other self-represented parties some slack, but not a lot. Judges may, and I emphasize may, extend times for filing or responding to something, once or maybe twice, but if you want to represent yourself in high stakes litigation, you are a fool. Additionally, if a corporation, limited liability company or limited partnership is involved, they must be represented by licensed counsel -- they cannot be represented by an officer, director, shareholder, member, general partner, etc. unless that person is a licensed counsel. I have never heard of any judge allowing a non-attorney to represent such an entity. And even season litigators usually know better than to represent themselves.


    However, I am confident that AA will explain how everything I said is wrong, so just disregard.

    Complete guess, but $1mil should (more than) cover it? 6 lawyers, 6 months full time ? $1000 a day?


     

    Complete guess, but $1mil should (more than) cover it? 6 lawyers, 6 months full time ? $1000 a day?


    I don't know if they staffed 6 attorneys on it, but for $1,000 a day maybe you get Michael Cohen, you don't get Jones Day. Mid-level partners probably bill at around $700 an hour and the weeks before trial are not 8 hour days, think closer to 15 or 16, 7 days a week. Throw in expert witnesses, who get paid for their report, whether or not they testify, hotel accommodations near the court house, meals, travel to depose people, the cost of the depositions (your attorneys and the court reporter and, if not done at your own office, the cost of renting a conference room for the day), the cost of prepping witnesses, a jury consultant, maybe even a mock trial to look for weak points -- if they had 6 attorneys full time for six months, think 5-6 million.

    I didn't start following until a short while before trial, after the discovery had been largely completed. I didn't focus on the pre-trial motion activity or any disputes relating to compliance with discovery. Having covered my rear end, Jones Day is a very well regarded, extremely qualified mega-firm and their fees are commensurate. I would imagine that the partners involved, if not giving a blended rate, were billing north of $700 an hour, with senior associates in the $500 range. I don't know and won't try to guess how much the total bill was but I would not be surprised to see it in the $2-4 million range.

    Glad to hear that Allan. I haven't seen Walker around here for a while.


    I fear it may be too late though. Soon you will be reduced to just Sam. From where I sit the forum should be renamed the lenr fraud forum. The only "skill" most members appear to have is making up stories to show Rossi n a bad light. For example, the post above by Zoroud, implies that I should have known about Johnson, so can't be taken seriously. The question I was asked was did I know what other companies he was director of. I never said I hadn't heard of him. They just get things wrong so often it is had to imagine it is just ignorance and not made up on purpose.


    A forum on LENR should be discussing that, nit just going on about how results could have been faked and Rossi is a fraud. Should Rossi come up with a working reactor it seems few will have anything useful to add and the forum may well die. Those interested in the subject have been driven away.

    AA, you are engaging in some selective recollection to make your case. The question was not just what company was Johnson President of.


    Question: "Just out of curiosity Adrian; do you know who Henry Johnson is, and what other company he was President of?"


    Answer by AA: "No I don't."


    As to the forum dying because Rossi succeeds, I wouldn't hold my breath.


    As to your threats to leave, you keep on threatening, have previously announced you were leaving and yet . . .


    And as to making up stories to put Rossi in a bad light, no need to make up stories, just tell the truth.


    Bob, it is not fair to bring in actual facts or reality. How can Rossi scam people if you do that?


    As all of the "critical and important" parts of his "factories" can fit into a cigarette case, I image he will take his scam somewhere new.


    Great catch Zeus. But I must disagree with anyone who would conclude, based on reading that item, that AA is supportive of Rossi's claims. That item goes way beyond supportive and trespasses on Fandom. Not a pretty sight. And an amazing collection of claims that sound as if they were based on facts, yet no real facts provided.


    Also, AA, a few months ago you said, essentially, that as you were not being properly appreciated here you were leaving. But yet you came back, solely I am sure to claim the plaudits you feel you are due. I see you are doing the unappreciated bit again. Rinse, repeat!


    Please educate us on exactly what was on the table and how do you know. Oh, wait, I got ahead of myself. I am sure that it is all confidential and/or proprietary and that the only information you are ever able to release is such information as puffs up Rossi and his genius.


    You have commented on several occasions asking why Rossi would be pursuing this if it wasn't real (or to that effect). IMHO, it is simple. This is how Rossi makes a living -- scamming and conning people.


    IMHO, the cost of the factory and financing the reactors will be less than the cost of a Snickers Bar, and a lot less filling and worse tasting. I am not including in that any costs associated with building or preparing a Potemkin factory.


    I don't need to invent a way for Rossi to fraudulently make money -- he is doing just fine on that point by himself.

    I am not a lawyer, but (in part due to fogbow, plus a lot of corporate contract stuff) I think that a blog COULD serve a useful legal purpose.


    My understanding is that if you have contemporaneous notes on some subject, when you are being questioned, that you can refer to and read from these notes during a trial ... and that having them gives greater credibility than just recalling from memory.

    So information in the blog, as a set of contemporaneous notes, could be used in a trial. They themselves would not become part of the record, but what the witness said about or read from, would.


    Possibly, but there are a lot of extra hoops to jump through to get it introduced. Let me give you a real life example of when contemporaneous notes/statements might be admissible. Lady says man sexually assaulted her ten years. Man denies and alleges that lady is making up the claim now and never said anything before. Statements, e.g., verbal statements, emails, text messages, etc. that lady sent to friends ten years telling of assault may (I stress may) be admissible, not to prove that the assault happened but to establish that lady's account of assault is not a recent creation. The judge might admit that prior statement for that reason, but might also exclude it on the basis that allowing it in would be unduly prejudicial to the man.


    Almost 30 years, I was talking to a classmate of mine, fifteen minutes before my evidence final (I rarely went to my evidence class - it interfered with my skiing at Tahoe), and I said to her "teach me everything I need to know about evidence in the next fifteen minutes." Jesse Choper, then the Dean of Boalt Hall Law School, was passing by, heard me and said "I can teach you everything you need to know about evidence in 15 seconds." I told him he was on and he said "if its prejudicial value outweighs its probative value, the evidence is inadmissible. If its probative value outweighs its prejudicial value, the court will find a way to let the evidence in." I got High Honors in Evidence.


    The downside, from Rossi's perspective, is that if the court allows him to rely on his blog, notes, etc. to "refresh his recollection", the court would also allow the other side to conduct discovery on all of Rossi's communications, confidential notes, etc. and would allow the other side to introduce all that material at trial and cross examine him on it. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I doubt that any competent counsel would seek to have Rossi's statements on the blog, etc. introduced to support him.


    I find it interesting that you seem very willing to craft an image and an opinion of Jed, his credibility, his positions, etc., but on the other hand you seem curiously unwilling to apply the same scrutiny and the same tests to Rossi. Note that I am not disagreeing or agreeing with you re: Jed and I know, based on his posts, that Jed will be the first to tell you that he has definitely been wrong and made mistakes at time. But the only time I am aware of Rossi admitting that he is less than perfect is when he admitted to defrauding his former partners in order to get out of an agreement, and that was less an admission and more of a boast. You attack Jed based on his old statements, but you always seem to give Rossi the benefit of the doubt. Why is that?


    And as to your puzzle. One of the few fundamentals of scientific experimentation I remember is that you don't pick and choose the evidence to satisfy your hypothesis, you adapt your hypothesis to fit the evidence. However, you seem to pick your image of what you want to achieve and throw away or ignore the pieces that don't fit. Interesting approach.


    If I had been running things at IH either I would have walked a LOT earlier or there would be a working reactor now. If they had done proper due diligence and it didn't work, then walk. If it worked, develop a decent relationship with Rossi and help him.


    Cherokee started out on the wrong foot by springing IH on Rossi the day before he signed the contract. Going from a multi-billion dollar company to one with very limited funds. I don't blame Rossi for being skeptical if he knew Cherokee's track record. Then expecting to manage the project without a single experienced engineer on board was asking for trouble.

    I don't care if you believe me or not.


    I completely agree with you argument that people should do proper due diligence before investing. Investing to me means not only money, but time, effort and granting favorable reviews.


    So, AA, what due diligence have you done to support your "good chance."


    I find it interesting that you seem very willing to craft an image and an opinion of Jed, his credibility, his positions, etc., but on the other hand you seem curiously unwilling to apply the same scrutiny and the same tests to Rossi. Note that I am not disagreeing or agreeing with you re: Jed and I know, based on his posts, that Jed will be the first to tell you that he has definitely been wrong and made mistakes at time. But the only time I am aware of Rossi admitting that he is less than perfect is when he admitted to defrauding his former partners in order to get out of an agreement, and that was less an admission and more of a boast. You attack Jed based on his old statements, but you always seem to give Rossi the benefit of the doubt. Why is that?


    And as to your puzzle. One of the few fundamentals of scientific experimentation I remember is that you don't pick and choose the evidence to satisfy your hypothesis, you adapt your hypothesis to fit the evidence. However, you seem to pick your image of what you want to achieve and throw away or ignore the pieces that don't fit. Interesting approach.

    If I were a investor thinking of investing $millions, I certainly would not invest in he QX without doing due diligence. Fools and their money are soon parted.


    I think there is a good chance you are wrong, that Rossi did allow an investor to do due diligence and is indeed in the process of building a factory to mass produce reactors.

    Just relying on projecting the botched efforts of IH is not proof, although popular with some like Bob, who was quite unable to answer my comment in a logical way.


    Other than "Rossi says" do you have any independent evidence to support your claim that you "think there is a good chance you are wrong, that Rossi did allow an investor to do due diligence and is indeed in the process of building a factory to mass produce reactors." Have you personally met, talked with, or otherwise communicated with any such possible investors or is this something you "heard" in the ether? Have you personally seen the factory, talked with any of the engineers or construction folks building the factory, seen any of the building permits, etc.? Have you seen any of the offering materials or subscription materials that Rossi would have had to give to any such investor, e.g., an offering memorandum, prospectus, subscription agreement, share/stock/llc membership interest purchase agreement, joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, etc.? Have you seen any filings with the SEC related to Rossi or to Leonardo Corporation?


    Let's assume for the moment that you had to state, under oath, on what do you base this "good chance." Is there anything you can provide other than "Rossi says" or "I heard about it from sources"? Because if it is primarily Rossi says, then is credibility is definitely relevant and material.