RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Jones Beene]

Rossi’s past legal problems in Italy are probably not admissible in this case, 
that is true… although otherwise inadmissible evidence which shows a “pattern 
of conduct” can be admissible for that purpose… but that is not what I am 
talking about.

Let’s focus on a dismissal of the complaint. The judge in this case will have 
access to historical and background material which is all over the internet – 
and to letters and complaints from interested parties. If he believes that 
negative information is valid, he can dismiss the case on a technicality which 
he otherwise might let slide. Part of his action may be completely off the 
record. This kind of trial could take weeks and cost the taxpayer tens of 
thousands,

A judge might never admit to doing his own research on the personalities 
involved, or having his clerk do it, but he is human and his time is valuable. 

If the judge becomes convinced that Rossi is dishonest, or even if he doesn’t - 
he is fully empowered to dismiss the complaint on a valid technicality, such as 
lack of signatures – yet part of his complete rationale for the dismissal may 
not ever be disclosed. 

From: Jed Rothwell 

I know little about the law, but based on a jury I once sat on, I do not think 
that would be admissible. It is not relevant to the case. Rossi is not the 
defendant. 

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

> It should not surprise anyone who has followed the Rossi saga over the
> years to learn that Gary Wright or Mary Yugo, etc. etc. could have fully
> informed the Court of the Petrodragon details and the failed Army
> contracts, etc. It is almost a certainty that this information will be known
> but now formally acknowledged.
>
I know little about the law, but based on a jury I once sat on, I do not
think that would be admissible. It is not relevant to the case. Rossi is
not the defendant. Even if he were, his history would be off limits, I
think. You have to stick to the facts about the present case. You also have
to stick what the lawsuit says. You can't suddenly bring up other things,
the way they do on TV.

Penon is presumably an Italian citizen on a work visa and probably cannot
> be ruled an expert in a technical field where US licensing is required,
> since he has none here. Big problem.
>
That's my guess. Rossi will have a hard time finding a licensed engineer
who will testify that the calorimetry is valid. As far as I can tell, it
violates every code from A to Z. An engineer who testifies in court that it
is valid may lose his license, as I pointed out earlier.


> Rossi’s other huge problem is this: if sworn depositions show that there
> was no bona fide customer using the steam, as Rossi has claimed over and
> over on his blog, but instead that all of the testing was built on the
> fiction of a make-believe customer . . .
>
I do not think that would come up. It is not mentioned in the lawsuit. That
would be raised if I.H. were suing Rossi, or if the state or Feds were
prosecuting him for fraud, which is a criminal trial, not civil.

I guess if it reaches the point where I.H. has to prove the gadget does not
work, then the fake customer site may come in.


> Before anyone says it – yes – IH is not faultless here, and probably has
> dirty hands as well on some points … especially in selling investment
> packages which included a technology which they were pretty sure did not
> work – but … with one massive difference: they did not file a lawsuit.
>
That would be another lawsuit, as you say. That's not related to this
trial. That would be a civil suit by I.H. investors against I.H.

I do not think they told their investors Rossi's gadget works.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:IH USES MEMES IN THE WAR WITH LEONARDO CORP.

[Daniel Rocha]

Lol, wut?!? Do you mean, he shouldn't do anything? After all, it's not like
Peter can hire or motivate a bunch of guys to go after Rossi.

2016-06-28 15:50 GMT-03:00 Che :

>
>
> Why are you appealing to the morality of the parties involved, when
> clearly only the material interests of those concerned *will* be decided,
> one way or another, in this 'Cold War over Cold Fusion'..?
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Jones Beene]

From: Jed Rothwell 

*   Whether the gadget works or not is a matter of fact that must be 
established by expert testimony. 

Perhaps, but will it get that far? Rossi’s claim could be dismissed on the 
issue of lack of signatures for the second amendment, or actually any of the 3 
arguments in this document. They are far from knee-jerk or canned arguments.

Some may disparage the lack of signatures as a “technicality” but this looks 
like just the kind of detail that a judge will use to clear the docket quickly 
– technicality or not … and do not think for a second that Rossi’s past conduct 
will go unappreciated in any decision in Florida, even though it is never 
admitted into the formal record. 

It should not surprise anyone who has followed the Rossi saga over the years to 
learn that Gary Wright or Mary Yugo, etc. etc. could have fully informed the 
Court of the Petrodragon details and the failed Army contracts, etc. It is 
almost a certainty that this information will be known but now formally 
acknowledged.

Has David French or Randy Wuller weighed in on this? To me, there is not much 
chance of the “big pay day” for AR, but it would be curious to hear a valid 
legal argument (I am not a member of the Bar, but both of them practice Law and 
have followed this soap opera … yet understandably, may not wish to comment). 

But, the next show-and-tell, if Rossi’s complaint is not dismissed immediately, 
will be sworn depositions. Penon is presumably an Italian citizen on a work 
visa and probably cannot be ruled an expert in a technical field where US 
licensing is required, since he has none here. Big problem. Plus he is probably 
back home in Italy anyway -- but his sworn testimony is so important to the 
case that IH can probably demand his physical presence. 

Rossi’s other huge problem is this: if sworn depositions show that there was no 
bona fide customer using the steam, as Rossi has claimed over and over on his 
blog, but instead that all of the testing was built on the fiction of a 
make-believe customer, then that dishonesty alone will invoke the “clean hands 
doctrine,” and the complaint could be tossed on that account whether the ERV 
report is positive or not.

The clean hands doctrine is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues 
that the plaintiff is not entitled to remedy due to ethical lapse, dishonesty 
or bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint. Clearly, if there 
was no real customer, and the testing was staged to make it look like there was 
one, then Rossi’s game is over. Why else was IH forbidden to see where the 
steam went?

Before anyone says it – yes – IH is not faultless here, and probably has dirty 
hands as well on some points … especially in selling investment packages which 
included a technology which they were pretty sure did not work – but … with one 
massive difference: they did not file a lawsuit. 

Moreover, IH could face the same clean hands doctrine if their own shareholders 
sue them; but they were smart enough to fund others in the field - and we can 
only hope that one those others being funded can produce results which Rossi 
could not produce.

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


>- not enough signatures, so a working MW reactor doesn’t matter. It
>came too late.
>
> I.H. claims it does not work. If it worked, they would pay $89 million.
Regardless of whether it actually works or not, Sifforkoll should not
misrepresent I.H.'s position. I.H. did *not* say "a working MW reactor
doesn't matter." They said, "the reactor is inoperative."


>- IH can distribute IP as they wish … [because of malicious wording in
>the license]
>- IH can file patents as they wish … [because of malicious wording in
>the license]
>
> Malicious or not, if that is what the license says, Rossi cannot sue for
it now. It is too late. And do not say, "it is too late for I.H. because
Penon says it works." Whether the gadget works or not is a matter of fact
that must be established by expert testimony. If the experts convince the
judge or jury that Penon is wrong, Penon is overruled. Whereas what the
license says is cut and dry, and cannot be overruled.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ukrainian Paper on the active particle of LENR

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Mon, 27 Jun 2016 15:14:57 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>-Original Message-
>
>>Since bosons can occupy the same place
>
>RVS: No they can't. They can occupy the same quantum state, that is not the
>same thing as the same physical location.
>
>Robin,
>
>We have been through this before. Some bosons, for instance photons, can and
>do occupy the same space since they do not repel each other outside of
>Bose-Einstein statistics ... google "squeezed coherent state"... Massive
>bosons such as helium would not occupy the same space, but that is for
>another reason (interatomic forces, such that gains from the B-E statistics
>cannot overcome a prohibitive electrostatic potential) ... and thus bosonic
>condensed helium will remain about the same density as in the liquid
>non-bosonic state.
>
>However, dense hydrogen, if it becomes bosonic in the inverted Rydberg sense
>(as Miley suggests) is far denser than liquid hydrogen or liquid helium -
>and thus many atoms can appear to occupy the space which a single atom of
>normal density would occupy. Technically, that increased density is not due
>to Bose-Einstein statistics, but objectively the result is the same.

:)
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[a.ashfield]

It seems this is a second effort by IH/Cherokee to dismiss Rossi's charges.
Sifferkoll comments as follows.

Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0019.0 



It seems that in the US lawyer bot docs has been made into an art form … 
but with some interesting nuggets though.


Fast executive summary;

 * not enough signatures, so a working MW reactor doesn’t matter. It
   came too late.
 * also they argue that they knew from already when the 2nd amendment
   was (not) signed that the MW test did not matter … [is that
   malicious or what?]
 * IH can distribute IP as they wish … [because of malicious wording in
   the license]
 * IH can file patents as they wish … [because of malicious wording in
   the license]
 * IH can raise money as they wish since raising money on claims of
   owning IP (ie. lying) is not the same as selling products …
   [something for Woodford to think about]
 * and a lot of text aimed at keeping Darden, Vaughn and Cherokee out
   of the lawsuit (this seems REALLY important)

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[H LV]

Argument Clinic - Monty Python's The Flying Circus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

​Harry​


On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> Is this not the old response of IH to Rossi's charge?  Rossi has already
>> replied to it.
>> See
>> http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/06/28/rossi-responds-to-ihs-motion-to-dismiss-in-court-case/
>>
>>
> I do not think so. This document was entered yesterday, 6/27/2016, so
> Rossi has not had time to respond to it. The date is shown at the top. I
> think the most recent document entered by Rossi was on 6/17/2016:
>
> "Plaintiff's memorandum of law in opposition to defendant's motion to
> dismiss"
>
>
> http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0018.0.pdf
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

Is this not the old response of IH to Rossi's charge?  Rossi has already
> replied to it.
> See
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/06/28/rossi-responds-to-ihs-motion-to-dismiss-in-court-case/
>
>
I do not think so. This document was entered yesterday, 6/27/2016, so Rossi
has not had time to respond to it. The date is shown at the top. I think
the most recent document entered by Rossi was on 6/17/2016:

"Plaintiff's memorandum of law in opposition to defendant's motion to
dismiss"

http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0018.0.pdf

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[a.ashfield]

Is this not the old response of IH to Rossi's charge?  Rossi has already 
replied to it.
See 
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/06/28/rossi-responds-to-ihs-motion-to-dismiss-in-court-case/

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Chris Zell]

Sounds like the E-cat patent may be rejected ( see end of document) – 
independent of this.

I am just reporting this. Don't ask me what it means. I have no clue.

"Defendants' reply in support of motion to dismiss"

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/678-D-E-19-Reply-In-Support-of-Motion-to-Dismiss-pdf/

[Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Jed Rothwell]

I am just reporting this. Don't ask me what it means. I have no clue.

"Defendants' reply in support of motion to dismiss"

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/678-D-E-19-Reply-In-Support-of-Motion-to-Dismiss-pdf/

Re: [Vo]:IH USES MEMES IN THE WAR WITH LEONARDO CORP.

[Che]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

>
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/06/june-28-2016-war-of-memes-in-lenr-land.html
>
> Not all memes succeed, not all survive, or prosper.
> Think about "Cold Fusion" it is meme but not happy. Is LENR a meme? That
> war of memes is an obstacle to its memefication-technologization
> Better stop the war and let's justice BE!
> Peter
>


Why are you appealing to the morality of the parties involved, when clearly
only the material interests of those concerned *will* be decided, one way
or another, in this 'Cold War over Cold Fusion'..?

[Vo]:IH USES MEMES IN THE WAR WITH LEONARDO CORP.

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/06/june-28-2016-war-of-memes-in-lenr-land.html

Not all memes succeed, not all survive, or prosper.
Think about "Cold Fusion" it is meme but not happy. Is LENR a meme? That
war of memes is an obstacle to its memefication-technologization
Better stop the war and let's justice BE!
Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]:Ukrainian Paper on the active particle of LENR

[Roarty, Francis X]

If Naudts is right then relativistic hydrogen could occupy the same spatial 
coordinates while offset on time axis.
Fran

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 6:15 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Ukrainian Paper on the active particle of LENR

-Original Message-

>Since bosons can occupy the same place

RVS: No they can't. They can occupy the same quantum state, that is not the
same thing as the same physical location.

Robin,

We have been through this before. Some bosons, for instance photons, can and
do occupy the same space since they do not repel each other outside of
Bose-Einstein statistics ... google "squeezed coherent state"... Massive
bosons such as helium would not occupy the same space, but that is for
another reason (interatomic forces, such that gains from the B-E statistics
cannot overcome a prohibitive electrostatic potential) ... and thus bosonic
condensed helium will remain about the same density as in the liquid
non-bosonic state.

However, dense hydrogen, if it becomes bosonic in the inverted Rydberg sense
(as Miley suggests) is far denser than liquid hydrogen or liquid helium -
and thus many atoms can appear to occupy the space which a single atom of
normal density would occupy. Technically, that increased density is not due
to Bose-Einstein statistics, but objectively the result is the same.