Industrial Heat Asks for Extra Time to File Counterclaims against Rossi (perhaps others)

Thanks to Engineer48 for posting this document from the court case in which Industrial Heat asks for three more days to file its response in the Rossi v. IH et al lawsuit.

IH explains in the document that they want a few extra days to file its answer to Rossi’s complaints (due August 2), because they also want to file counterclaims against Plaintiff (Rossi), and they are also considering about filing claims against “third parties”.

IH filing

  • Observer

    Do we expect IH’s filing to be made public today?

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      Yes. At least it is due today. However, it could be filed on-line after the clerk goes home. It appears that filings do occur after business hours, looking at the docket. They are dated as of filing, probably electronic filing. But filed documents do not necessarily appear immediately in PACER, which is where I get them. Pacermonitor also gets them, with a delay. I just checked again, no document at 7:50 PM Eastern Time.

      What happens if they file late? Basically, if it’s only a few days, nothing. I don’t expect them to file late, but … it could happen. Suppose, at the last minute, their client wants to consider something new. Unless a judge thinks they are delaying for the sake of delay, a sanction is unlikely. I researched precedents. Given that it is not there now, good chance the Answer will not be available until Monday morning, even if technically filed today.

  • GreenWin

    Brazil’s failures pollute the entire Olympic Games ethos. The IOC will NOT be awarding the games to any future “third world” nation for good reason IMO> 🙁

    • Obvious

      I’m sure the water in Greece during the original Olympics was no treat. Brazil has just gone for an authentic experience…

  • GreenWin

    The last Olympic games hosted by a “developing country” unhappily. As Brazil has failed to clean up the massive pollution in its Olympic aquatic venues – leaving athletes to swim, row and sail in feces-strewn waters. 🙁

  • Ged

    “I challenge you get any proof out of Rossi for anything he has said, ever.”

    How weak. We have a whole court docket of evidence so far which proves a lot of what Rossi had said in the years since 2012, and we haven’t even gotten to discovery which will force out a whole lot more. We also have had plenty of data from tests with which to analyze and make fact checks and judgements ourselves; that is actual data for all to see, instead of claims of supposed data and defamatory statements based on those claims yet no actual proof of the data existing–which is what you do.

    Where is that 10 page report? Where is that supposed Rossi (or is it IH) data? You claim these things, so prove it.

    Trying to distract with others does not change your accountability for your behavior. If you were an athlete and tried to dope because Russian athletes do so, you would be no less guilty just because others also violate the law or rules.

    “For that matter, I gave you the same numbers from Rossi’s data that he quoted to Lewan.”

    Provide the quote then so we may look at all your past statements and judge the accuracy of what you say here–that should be quite telling, don’t you agree?

    You claim so much more than that, stated all as a matter of fact not opinion, and then claim data that you are unable to supply or prove in any way tonsupport your bold faced accusations. Pointing at unrelated things from Lewans as distraction does not change all the rest you have done. Calling people “liar” and “fake” and saying data was false or manipulated or any one of the numerous other allegations you make was not part of that quote to Lewans, yet you make those claims and so many more as a matter if fact, without a shred of proof for any actual facts. If only you stuck to opinion on what is known, obviously that would have been good and well.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Jed, you are trying to use logic to convince people that have no practice with it.

  • Ged

    “Don’t be silly. You just now claimed that I am lying, which means that I.H. is lying. That’s a claim. You also claim that Rossi is telling the truth.”

    So wait, you now believe -you- are synonymous with IH? I challenge you to provide proof IH gave you anything (though if they did, you -would be- lying to claim you have Rossi’s data when really it would be something given by IH), and that you, Jed Rothwell, of your own accord are not making things up out of your own head for whatever personal reasons.

    You stand alone, Jed. IH will not corroborate you. And so far, you make claims as fact that you then further claim is from data that you refuse to prove you have ever had. What conclusion can we reach? That likely you are making it up, correct.

    Where is the supposed 10 page report showing it “looks like it worked” that was supposedly on your desk? Prove it was ever real! Where is this Rossi data (that is IH’s data if they supplied it) that supposedly you use to base your claims? Prove it was ever real!

    You make the material claims, you are accountable to support them with evidence. I don’t have any reason to believe IH gave you anything, and more likely that this is all just a power trip in your own mind, and so I will continue to call you out and demand evidence to prove you have anything at all to support the defamation you level. Instead, you fabricate data inside a post and try to pass that off as proof. What would any critically thinking person make of that behavior?

    “Why do you believe Rossi rather than I.H.?”

    Who says I believe Rossi over IH? Once again you crest fiction and peddle it as fact. Do not use delusional sounding arguments like con flaring yourself with IH to try to hide from your personal responsibility for the thing you say. I challenge you, Jed, not IH (as the court challenges IH and Rossi) to prove your claims even if just to prove you have any data at all.

    It seems to me IH didn’t give you anything, but you want to pretend they did and feel important. So far you have provided non evidence to the contrary, but have felt content to make whatever outlandish claims you want and pretend as if some mythical data it seems you don’t actually have supports you.Such certainly seems like reprehensible behavior, and so far we have nothing contrary to it to say it isn’t true–but a repeated pattern of behavior that fits that determination.

    “Explain how I or anyone else could do this.”

    Provide the source documents. Provide video notation for yourself. Heck, just a picture of the report on your desk would at least be supporting evidence. As it is, we have -zero- evidence you have anything but make believe words. And your constantly disingenuous excuses to avoid providing and showing the facts, your making up things about my views, and your fabrication of data in a post which would be just an amusing joke if just for itself but which you then pass off as -proof-, all greatly erode your credibility. IH and Rossi have nothing to do with this, this is all -you-.

    Where is the supposed 10 page report, Jed? Where is this supposed Rossi (or IH) data? Provide proof you have anything at all!

  • Ged

    Who said I don’t believe IH’s statement could be true? You are making that up out of nowhere, again. I don’t believe one over the other; I point out the current logic based on current data and where it leads, and wait to see what the court brings to light–and have repeatedly said we need to see IH’s defense as it could turn everything around that we currently know.

    Calling you out for what appear is you making things up has nothing to do with what I think of IH or Rossi, but only what I think of your behavior. And once again, here we see you actually making up assumptions and presenting them as if they were fact without any supporting data. It is turning into a disturbing trend of behavior.

  • roseland67

    Rossi for commercializing the Ecat? or
    IH for dragging out the lawsuit?

  • Ged

    And here is a link to additional federal statutes as we’re discussed in my previous link, so that there are no uncertain terms here:

    “Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      “under oath.” Complaints and pleadings are not generally made under oath. Read the Complaint. Look for an attestation under oath. It’s not there. The information all came from Rossi, but Rossi didn’t sign it, and the attorney sure isn’t warranting that it’s true. This is really obvious, if people have paid attention to law and news and stuff, but most people haven’t.

      • Ged

        I am sorry, but you are mistaken. If you submit materially false evidence, not only will your suit be thrown out, but you will face prosecution by the court. Please do not try this. Instead, read the legal links I provide that will educate you rather than just what you imagine.

      • Ged

        To make things more easy for you:

        Since you asked about the Complaint body itself, rather than just the evidence submitted along with the complaint, here is another good breakdown of what happens if you lie in the Complaint body rather than just materially false evidence:

        As you can see, it is a serious offense even to lie in the Complaint body. In addition to Sanctions, the defense can get the complaint rewritten directly to remove false statements, before there is ever a trial (as a trial is about judging the rule of law -given the facts-, so the facts must be true as submitted, which is why it is perjury to submit materially false evidence).

        Since this did not happen, the facts as presented in the Complaint by Rossi are not false (neither the lawyers nor the defendent have challenged any facts through such motions as Rule 11). IH may use a defense that the facts are incomplete and thus misintrepreted, however; and that is the most common defense.

        But, again, -you cannot material kg lie even in a complaint- or you will suffer direct legal repurcussions.

  • Ged

    Yes, a lawsuit and all its evidence is under oath. And if that evidence is materially false, such as fabricated, that is perjury and serious trouble. Read here for a good break down of what happens in that case . Plaintiffs and defendents don’t lose because their facts were materially false, but as they are on the wrong side of the law -given the facts-. If they are materially false, they will be criminally charged. Here is the legal definition of first degree perjury in US law:

    “RCW 9A.72.020 – Perjury in the first degree.

    (1) A person is guilty of perjury in the first degree if in any official proceeding he or she makes a materially false statement which he or she knows to be false under an oath required or authorized by law.

    (2) Knowledge of the materiality of the statement is not an element of this crime, and the actor’s mistaken belief that his or her statement was not material is not a defense to a prosecution under this section.

    (3) Perjury in the first degree is a class B felony.”

    IH’s little footnote blurb has no technical details, no numbers or data, so it can’t be more technical than anything we have seen so far. The court will force out such technical details during discovery, and like deposition, such is under oath.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      Completely false. “Under oath.” And what is an “oath”? Believe me, if you are taking an oath, it’s very obvious. In writing, it’s explicit, it’s not vague. “I affirm under penalty of perjury that….” I just filed a document the other day that had that on it, as I recall, asking for filing fees to be waived because my income met standards for that.