A recent transcript of a discovery hearing in the Rossi et al. V. Darden et al. case from March 9, 2017 proved to be very informative. The magistrate is clearly rankled with the attorney’s bickering and in a revealing comment, Mr. Pace, for the defendants answered “probably not” when the magistrate asked if they were never going to settle the case. Mr. Pace also predicted a 2-3 week trial this summer. IH and Darden seem very committed to proving Rossi defrauded them and/or breached the agreement they had.
THE COURT: All right. Good.
You guys are never going to settle this case, huh?
MR. PACE: Probably not.
THE COURT: How long is this case going to take to try?
MR. PACE: A couple of weeks.
THE COURT: Really?
MR. PACE: Yes. Two, three weeks.
Rossi and Leonardo lost a tactical battle to disclose to the defendant’s attorneys two deposit transactions into Leonardo Corporation that the plaintiff’s are maintaining are irrelevant to the case. The magistrate upheld an agreement among the parties that will allow these transactions to be revealed for attorney’s eyes only. We may never know who this mystery financier is, but Rossi’s attorney tried very hard to conceal it.
THE COURT: And why is this so sensitive that he
cannot — I mean, why are we spending twenty minutes on this
thing? Why don’t you just show it to them and they will say,
okay, it’s not relevant.
MR. ANNESSER: Your Honor, our company works with
certain parties that has nothing to do with this license
agreement and nothing to do with anything at issue in this
Rossi also lost in a bid to keep his tax records concealed. There is a lot of Internet discussion about Rossi’s purported tax issues in Italy and his agreement with IH made this a condition of their agreement – that Rossi must pay his taxes – so this may come to bearing on this case as well.
THE COURT: All right. I am going to require that tax
returns be provided for attorney’s eyes. It’s alleged in the
complaint. Not even a defense really saying there was a prior
breach. So because of the prior breach serves as a defense to
Plaintiff’s breach because the contract was already breached.
The Rossi v. Industrial Heat, et al. case in federal court in Florida has resulted in the release of numerous exhibits. In fact, over the past week there has been almost too much to speculate on as both sides can be inferred as making compelling arguments for and against their claims. This is very typical of the U.S. adversarial judicial system where the truth unfortunately matters less than mounting a vigorous legal attack and defense.
Among the documents is the final report of one Fabio Penon, who was the mostly absentee professional chosen as the Expert Responsible for Validation (ERV) by both sides. The report claims the “energy multiple was always higher than 6” and the temperature of the steam produced was in excess of 100 degrees for the 350 days. In fact, on most days the reported COP was in excess of 60, which is a shocking number for many reasons.
You can decide for yourself the veracity of this report by reading it here and all the other court documents.
Rossi et al. v. Darden et al. (1:16-cv-21199), Florida Southern District Court.
The ongoing federal litigation between Andrea Rossi and the principals of Industrial Heat LLC has revealed some troubling documents and correspondence regarding the testing of the E-cat system. All of the filings and motions may be found here.
Exhibit 5 – Is a list of questions IH’s engineer, Joe Murray, sent to Fabio Penon, the Expert Responsible for Validation (ERV), questioning some of the data from the preliminary reports issued by Penon. These questions include some troubling observations about the equipment and measuring techniques used. Apparently these questions were never answered and Penon has yet to respond to this lawsuit.
Document 118-01 – Is a compilation of email communications between Andrea Rossi and the agents of J.M. Products, Inc. (JMP), the purported customer making use of the E-Cat’s excess heat. Rossi seems to exert an unsettling amount of control over JMP’s operation. In emails with James A. Bass, the Director of Engineering for JMP, Rossi appears to be “coaching” Bass on what to say to observers, with Bass asking Rossi, “My question is, will the people I meet tomorrow want to know anything technical?” In another email, Rossi tells an assistant to Henry W. Johnson, Rossi’s attorney and organizer of JMP, that he will transfer $500 from Leonardo Corporation to the JMP account, which had apparently been overdrawn.