Trial By Jury: Rossi v. IH Trial to Begin June 26

There have been some questions about when the start date of the Rossi v. IH trial, and Tom Conover asked Rossi about this directly on the Journal of Nuclear Physics Today.

Tom Conover
June 11, 2017 at 9:37 PM
Dear Andrea,

Greetings to you and your team!

Things are heating up. It has been said that just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down. After all, if bumble bees were meant to fly, they would have to have wings, wouldn’t they?
http://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.asp

A simple question, “In order to fund your manufacturing project with $100 million, could the QuarkX stable enough to endure private viewing during the dates from 06/26/17 through 07/10/17 with a 99.9% of operating in stable format for this entire period?” Naturally, a 24/7 guard would be kept, and it would probably be more comfortable than a shipping container …

This is a theoretical question, a simple thought experiment like Einstein used to do.

Could the QuarkX show up? (Y/N)

Warm Regards,

Tom

Andrea Rossi
June 11, 2017 at 10:12 PM
Tom Conover:
On 7-26-17 will start the trial with the Jury and it will last until end of July…during this period I will be totally focused on the trial.
I still believe that the QuarkX will show up within this year and a test like the one you cite is normal in a case like that.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
P.S.
The article about birds’ flight is interesting.

So there is not too much time left before the trial gets underway; however, it may not be terribly easy to follow closely since I doubt there will be reported in much detail by the media. There are ways to get transcripts sent from the court but it is quite expensive to get live transcripts (e.g. $6.05 per page for a daily transcript).

In regards to the other point that Rossi brings up, from little snippetss of information posted here and there that there have been visitors to Rossi’s labs who have had demonstrations of the QuarkX — certainly under NDA.

The fact that Rossi has requested a jury trial suggests that he is expecting to get a sympathetic ear from the jury. According to the legal reference site Findlaw.com:

“However, there are other occasions when jury trials are better suited to your case than a judge trial would be. This is especially true when you think that you can present your case in a very sympathetic light. Juries are often more swayed by emotions like sympathy than by hard evidence that is presented by attorneys.”

And, while we wait for the serious business of the trial to begin, if anyone is in the mood for a little comic relief, here’s an example of how a trial by jury can sometimes go!

https://youtu.be/xmKV0migjYI

  • clovis ray

    Hello everyone,
    So i guess tomorrow will start the beginning of the trial, last i checked.
    any thing in particular we should know will they launch straight in.

  • Recieved some docs and made some comments about previous Cherokee adventures in the “environmental” domain … Smells a little bit …
    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/are-tomas-darden-cherokee-simply-fake-environmentalists-in-business-only-to-defraud-the-tax-payer-investor/

    • gdaigle

      So in summary, Cherokee’s business acumen in creating successful projects appears low, while their ability to get financing appears high.
      Not the kind of people I would want to do business with.

      CALIFORNIA – RICHMOND
      PROJECT : ZENECA SITE REDEVELOPMENT – CAMPUS BAY
      Result: Bankruptcy

      TEXAS – SUGAR LAND
      PROJECT : IMPERIAL SUGAR LAND
      Result: Bankruptcy

      SOUTH CAROLINA – CHARLESTON
      PROJECT : MAGNOLIA DEVELOPMENT
      Result: Bankruptcy

      NEW JERSEY
      MAIN PROJECTS :

      1. MEADOWLANDS
      Result: Bankruptcy

      2. CAMDEN – CRAMER HILL
      Result: Project failed

      3.PENNSAUKEN AND PETTY’S ISLAND
      Result: Project failed

      4.ASBURY PARK
      Result: had to pay out for unfair pricin

      COLORADO – DENVER
      PROJECT : GATES REDEVELOPMENT – METROPOLITAN GARDEN
      Result: Project failed

  • sam

    Gerard McEk
    June 24, 2017 at 6:50 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    I wish you a lot of strength, intelligence and most of all good luck for the coming weeks.
    1. I assume your team will continue testing the Quarkx’s?
    2. How important is the outcome of the litigation for the development/industrialization of the QuarkX?
    Kind regards, Gerard

    Andrea Rossi
    June 24, 2017 at 12:08 PM
    Gerard McEk:
    1- yes
    2- if we win, the industrialization will run faster, for obvious financial reasons.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steve Swatman

    That would be the personal friend of Mr Rossi who vetted and accepted by IH and their legal team at the time of the test starting, I think You are wrong that a live demo will be the only thing that sways the jury. The Quark-x is not relevant to the e-cat test.

  • Veblin

    New York Law Journal June 19, 2017
    On the Move
    Rimon welcomes Dr. Letao Qin as a partner. She comes to the firm from Industrial Heat, a start-up company engaged in nuclear energy research and development, where she served as in-house counsel.
    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjHi-bts8vUAhUo7IMKHe3QBIQQqQIIJSgAMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newyorklawjournal.com%2Fid%3D1202790565416%2FOn-the-Move&usg=AFQjCNHD0GwpNjDNqO0unUXehMZV-bvHtw&sig2=a9WNu0CphGgj-POlBBtKMQ

  • Navdrew

    I asked AR a while back if the planned Quark Demo would still go on even if he lost the lawsuit. My question was never posted on the Journal of Nuclear Physics website and I never received a reply. Not sure what this means.

    • You asked him to consider what would happen if he lost. That’s what it means.

      • cashmemorz

        Yes. That would be like asking AR for his plan “B” in case his plan “A”, which would be his attempt to get justice for himself via the court case against IH, did work in his favor. No one lets anyone know their plan “B”. That plan tends to be a last resort way of winning and therefore is something AR would not let anybody know except maybe his lawyers and other closest to his heart, maybe Penon.

  • Steve D

    Both parties clearly have a strong belief in their position and have placed big money on the table to prove it. So strap yourself in, it promises to be a rough ride as the Rossi rocket prepares for re-entry to earths atmosphere. There will be a brief communications black out during this phase, but once safely on the ground all systems will return to normal. Shake hands and come out fighting. May the best scam man win.

    • cashmemorz

      Now that is a down to earth scenario. But we won`t know who the scammer(s) are until either Rossi or IH produce a long term working device, open for scrutiny or supported by testimonials by long term usage of several high profile customers. That part brings it down to earth even more. Patience and close look at what said devices are actually doing, producing.

  • Steve D

    The “customer” was so pleased that they ordered another (was it?) six new plants. What ever happened to this story? it’s all become a bit pie in the sky.

  • It was in the contract that IH would be diligent about monitoring the results. They accepted the ERV report. Then, several months later, that’s when they started hemming and hawwing about paying because the reactor no longer worked. And that’s when they started criticizing the ERV report. This is a straightforward contractual dispute. If it was in the contract that Rossi had to keep the device working for x number of months, then they’ll bring it up. I didn’t see that in the contract. Rossi pulled a Fred Flintstone, making sure his dinosaur earthmover only worked right when he was at the controls. Nothing in the contract against that.

    • Brent Buckner

      I can not find the word “diligent” in the License Agreement. Please point me to the section that you’re paraphrasing about monitoring the results.

      • It is part of every contract. Just like the phrase “time is of the essence”. When you agree to a contract you are agreeing to be diligent about monitoring the aspects of the contract.

        And, quit playing dumb. Those kinds of games wouldn’t play well with a jury.

        • Brent Buckner

          OK, so I shouldn’t expect to see it in the written contract. Thanks for your responsiveness.