Rossi vs IH: (Update: Sep. 9 20– James A. Bass now a Third Party in IH’s Counter Complaint)

UPDATE: Sep 20, 2016,

Thanks to Barbierir for noticing that IH et al have updated their Answer again, and this time have included James A. Bass as one of the third parties against whom they have listed a counter complaint. This must mean that James A. Bass is now considered a real person by them, not a “John Doe” (fake person) that they had alleged previously.

Second Amended ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint , Amended THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT against Fulvio Fabiani, United States Quantum Leap, LLC, J.M. Products, Inc., Fabio Penon, Henry Johnson, James A. Bass, Amended COUNTERCLAIM against Leonardo Corporation, Andrea Rossi by Cherokee Investment Partners, LLC, IPH International B.V., Thomas Darden, John T. Vaughn, Industrial Heat, LLC.(Pace, Christopher) (

UPDATE: Sep 11, 2016,

A new document was posted in the Rossi v. Darden court docket yesterday: “Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings”


There are two new entries in the court docket for the Rossi vs. IH case. There is an entry about a hearing held yesterday between lawyers from the different teams. Ross and Leonardo had three attorneys, IH had two, and ‘third parties’ were also represented. I assume the third parties are Johnson, Fabiani and ‘John Doe’ (aka James Bass)

There is also a motion listed:

MOTION to Strike Affirmative Defenses , MOTION for More Definite Statement by Leonardo Corporation, Andrea Rossi. Responses due by 9/16/2016 (Annesser, John)

  • Barbierir

    New motions to dismiss, one by the attorney of Fabiani and the second one by the attorney of Jonhson and Bass.

  • Ged

    And the MTS is back, as expected; now in twice amended answer flavor:

    Friday, September 23, 2016
    54 motion Strike More Definite Statement Fri 3:30 PM
    MOTION to Strike50 Answer to Complaint, Third Party Complaint, Counterclaim,,,,,,,,, in Part Second Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaims, and Third Party Claims, or in the Alternative, , MOTION for More Definite Statement by Leonardo Corporation, Andrea Rossi. Responses due by 10/11/2016 (Annesser, John)

  • Omega Z

    Abd, Quit embarrassing yourself.

    Ever take note of Apple versus Samsung. Each has dozens of lawyers involved in their IP wars. Silver Law Group is a small legal firm. They do not have the capacity for a protracted lawsuit without neglecting current clientele. This is in fact becoming a protracted lawsuit. Additional lawyers with various fields of expertise are needed. As to “Annesser”. Step up, Step down. OMG-Lets call it what it is. Continuity.

    A Woodford fund representative has spilled the beans. This is an IP War. Darden had an opportunity to have his investment returned with the caveat of relinquishing any and all rights claims to Rossi’s IP. One may ask why he declined the offer and is now willing to foot the legal costs for unsubstantiated E-cat claims. Could it be that the E-cat has been substantiated. Quite probable.

    The questions then are, Is there engineering issues? Using Rossi’s own words the answer is Yes. What is the COP. Rossi’s claims have been consistant. COP>6. No more no less. I personally doubt average COP of 50. Once you surpass COP=20, any little factor has serious impact on those numbers.

    I would also say that Anyone that makes a COP claim based on selected data(Like a COP=0.5) is full of B.S. By being selective about my data I could could claim infinite COP. So unless you have 100% of the original data, all claims are meaningless as I would have no way of determining how you interpreted the data.

    As to You and J.R. always trying to explain things, You’re like a bad televison legal commentator. Bomb Shell Tonight. The plaintiff wore a blue suit to court. What does this all mean, Bomb Shell Tonight. The Defendant wore a gray suit to court. What does this all mean, All I see is 2 opponents sizing each other up.

    There is 1 thing certain. This Is an IP War.Everything else is Smoke and Mirrors.

  • Ged

    So which is it, do I have special knowledge, or

    The T-mobile issue was resolved, as Ged knows.

    Recall the subpoena was abated till September 13th at the earliest if the defendents motioned for it again if JMP failed to provide. But IH submitted the doubly ammended Answer on September 15th. There is no time in there for T-mobile to have been served, chosen to reapond, provided IH with the details, and IH to have made the new answer. You then even say “From JMP, I assume.” which is in agreement with me, and contrary to your own “special knowledge” rhetorical.

  • Ged

    First of all, from the record directly or reasonable inference: Annesser left Silver Law Group and went to PBYA. That was noticed in August. So far, everything in the case on the Rossi side has been written by Annesser.

    Exactly. That is the fact of this instance. Annesser changed firms and now the Silver Law Firm has no employee on this case. Hence they are removed from being responsible for rendering legal service to a case they are no longer being paid for or having an employee on. As is typical, Annesser took the case with him to the new firm which now is responsible for providing legal service as they are paid to do.

    Everything you said in the post Sam put up is complete fiction and story writing. You have no idea what anyone thought or felt. You have no evidence, not even a shred or inkling. You are ascribing motives and events for which the evidence stands in contradiction and for which you have no support. You wrote a fictional novel and dramatisation, but you did so with a particular bias and purpose purpose: to make the case look as bad as possible.

    That is utterly subjective with no objective hint of truth or honest analysis. You then take your opinions about Annesser and try to pawn them off as fact rather than your personal opinion, to use as a base for worrying your story. Sadly, your opinion is not shared among any other legally proficient people we’ve talked to, nor do I share it. His work has been very good, with far more reference use and optical support than what has been churned out for IH, and he also does so in a very timely fashion which is a mark of a good lawyer.

    People are, here, thinking that this was a step up for Annesser. Maybe. Or Maybe not.

    Compare the two lawfirms: a legal firm of four people including Annesser in which Annesser is listed an Associate (a lower rank than Counsel as Counsel usually oversee and manage Associates); and an AV Preeminent rated lawfirm which means they are objectively rated higher than Silver Law Group, among other honors, and they have 19 people not including Annesser, making them a larger firm. Annesser’s position as listed on his LinkedIn is above his tank in Silver Law Group. By any objective standard we can currently apply, this was an upgrade for Annesser, and you are contradicted in your straw grasping by the facts.

    The rest of your post’s opinions are more fiction writing stretched without any actual support other than vague opinions from you, so there is no point in replying.

  • Ged

    You have good analytical skills, so why are you not applying then to this situation? Or to what Abd writes?

    Let me dissect this for you like teacher to student. To understand why Abd’s speculation has “less currency” than others, we should first address the facts from which speculation are built. On the docket, and on Annesser’s profile, we see he has made a career move and changed lawfirms. The Silver Law Group now has no attorneys working this case, and are no longer being paid for a service. Should they still be held responsible for providing legal service to the case for which they have no employees involved with? In this instance, we see that the new lawfirm Annesser is working for now takes up the responsibility to advocate and service this case, as their employee Annesser is the core attorney and they are now being paid to render this service. These are the facts from which all speculation must be built.

    For Abd’s speculation, he wants to make a narrative where The Silver Law Group, through fear of a case, caused the change in lawfirms. Now, let us look at the evidence; if you had read your homework assignment which I linked you above, you would see that for an attorney (and lawfirm by extension) to leave a case is a very serious matter that can usually only occur under certain (criminal) or non payment circunstanses. This leaving a case also requires a Motion for Withdrawl. This is in direct contradiction of multiple sources of evidence. From here, Abd continues speculating about the quality of the case by taking his narrative assumptions as facts to build on instead of as the assumptions they are, despite the underlying assumptions being directly refuted by the actual evidence at hand. Do you see any supporting evidence provided by Abd, the docket, or legal proceedure, to support Abd’s speculations? Do you see any evidence provided by him that could trump the evidence already presented? Please provide a thorough explanation for your decision, with supporting evidence.

    Now, how do you know he has a greater knowledge base than I or others? How do you know what training in the matter I have? Can you support your statement? I too present you with references and precedent. I even presented you with a supporting knowledge link in the very post above to which you reply. Do you see any links, references, precedent, or other knowledge base used by Abd in the quote put up by Sam above?

    • Bruce__H

      Sorry. In my opinion Mr Lomax’s ongoing consideration of the events in this lawsuit, and his efforts to educate himself on the nature of the legal matters that have cropped up, are simply much more organized and thorough than yours or mine or anyone else’s I see here. He has just put more effort into it … and effort matters.

      Does that mean he is right in his speculation about Annessers’s departure from the Silver law firm? No. It’s just a speculation, as he himself points out, in an area where we don’t have full information. I see that there is a counter-narrative that you support in which Mr Annesser has been promoted. That is also a guess in the absence of full information. And I would like to point out that both narratives (Abd’s and yours) could be simultaneously true.

      What I don’t understand here is why Abd’s analysis is automatically dismissed because it is not compatible with the Rossi-as-beleaguered-hero mythology.

      • Ged

        It is dismissed because it does not fit the facts in any way. You did not provide evidence or support like I asked, as you do not have any to provide. Compare the two law firms and compare the two positions then use objective reasoning. The two narratives are mutually exclusive by the way Abd wrote his.

        Annesser made a personal career move (The Silver Law Firm did -not- motion withdraw). He wasn’t promoted, which happens intetnally, but moved from a 3 person team to an award winning 19 person team (both not counting him). From an associate to a counsel (a position that in most firms oversees associates and manages them). This is as far as we currently know, but you can not also be serious that you can create speculation on how people felt or thought when there is absolutely zero evidence presented from the Silver Law Group.

        How do you know he puts in more effort than I? How can you presume to speak for me, or to presume that is a valid metric for your argument? I have seen very little from him more than wordy speculation, and even in another comment here he says he doesn’t know what Rule 12 says… Anyone could just look that up, but is that too much effort?

  • Omega Z

    No doubt we will hear more about Cherokee and their work in 30 or 40 years. When chemicals leech up through the ground.