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

[Bob Cook]

Adrian—

I would say you are correct about the license not being established, since the 
payment was not made.  I would suspect that Rossi wanted the extra $89M  after 
the 1 week test and only agreed to delay payment of the entire amount based on 
a proposal from Darden to do the 1 year test.  Notes from the negotiations are 
probably very important to add to full understanding of the agreement.  This 
would be especially important if, IH did not intend to pay the full amount and 
still signed the agreement knowing that Rossi expected the full $99M.

Bob Cook


Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: a.ashfield
Sent: Friday, July 1, 2016 4:14 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

Bob,
So you say, but it is not that simple.
The contract and the license are only valid if both parties follow the
agreement.  Right now Rossi has done so as reported by the ERV. IH have
not as they have not paid up.  It is not IH taking Rossi to court for
failure to comply and IH don't own rights to the IP until they have paid
for it.   The price was $100 million and IH reasonably said they would
not pay it all until the concept was proven.  The ERV says it has been
proven to work.  The court will decide but before payment IH do not own
the license


On 7/1/2016 6:31 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
> Of course, Rossi may have a case.  Also, he may not have a case.  This
> would be for the courts to decide.  No matter what, Rossi cannot
> unilaterally nullify the license.  He would have to sue in civil
> courts to have the license contract dissolved for cause.  Until the
> court says otherwise, the license is as valid as it was the day it was
> signed and money changed hands.  We do not know whether the court will
> side with IH or Rossi.  If, in the mean time, Rossi sold another
> license for the same region, there would be no question that he would
> be getting fitted for a striped suit immediately.
>
> Basically this means that Rossi cannot sell licenses for anything that
> could even potentially fall under the original license agreement with
> IH in any of the regions licensed to IH until a court rules the
> license contract is dissolved.  This probably puts licensing of his
> "quarkX" technology in limbo in all of those regions as well.  Rossi
> seems happy with the 400+ days to trial, which I cannot understand.
> Unless he gets some kind of motion to have the license dissolved in
> the mean time, he could go to jail for selling licenses to regions
> already licensed to IH, and anyone who bought such a license from him
> would stand to lose all of their money.
>
> Of course, it is important for his case for Rossi to keep up
> appearances of being in the high ground.  However, this will not keep
> him out of jail if he commits fraud.
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:42 PM, a.ashfield  > wrote:
>
> Bob,
> He has a case if IH have not fulfilled their side of the contract
> and paid him for a successful trial of the 1 MW plant.
>
> On 7/1/2016 5:12 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>> I am not a lawyer.  However, I believe at this moment Rossi has a
>> duly executed license agreement with IH.  He cannot unilaterally
>> cancel that after money has changed hands. Pragmatically he could
>> not even give the $11.5M back and take back his license unless IH
>> accepted that deal with other signed documents. The courts will
>> decide (eventually) to whom the license belongs.  In the mean
>> time, Rossi could be inviting himself back to jail by offering
>> the license to anyone else.
>>
>> It seems to me that selling something you don't own is the very
>> definition of fraud.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Craig Haynie
>> > wrote:
>>
>> No way Rossi's actions are fraud, from reselling the
>> licensing, (unless he has a known faulty product). The best
>> IH can hope for is a null contract; not the rights to the IP.
>>
>> On 07/01/2016 03:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>>
>> It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears
>> to have unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH
>> is null and void.  Having accepted money for that
>> license, he is in a legally binding contract.  Yet Rossi
>> seems intent to market that license to others as though
>> he had no other contract.  This is clearly fraud, and a
>> fraud that will quickly put Rossi back in jail for a good
>> long contemplative period.  He should be collecting his
>> reading material on antigravity.
>>
>> I couldn't help myself.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

[Bob Higgins]

I created a list of questions for Dr. Parkhomov regarding the experiment he
reported in his latest presentation.  Bob Greenyer communicated with him
and we got the answers that are included in the file in my Google drive
folder for this presentation:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2YnpFakRobUE1clE

If more answers are obtained, then I will put them in this same folder.

Bob

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

[a.ashfield]

Another explanation is that this will give him to get one of more 
commercial reactors operating before the trial.
Rossi says he is having at least one 1MW plant being built in America at 
present.



On 7/1/2016 7:47 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Bob Higgins > wrote:


Rossi seems happy with the 400+ days to trial, which I cannot
understand.


One possible explanation: Rossi is acting on a self-destructive impulse.

Eric

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

[a.ashfield]

Bob,
So you say, but it is not that simple.
The contract and the license are only valid if both parties follow the 
agreement.  Right now Rossi has done so as reported by the ERV. IH have 
not as they have not paid up.  It is not IH taking Rossi to court for 
failure to comply and IH don't own rights to the IP until they have paid 
for it.   The price was $100 million and IH reasonably said they would 
not pay it all until the concept was proven.  The ERV says it has been 
proven to work.  The court will decide but before payment IH do not own 
the license



On 7/1/2016 6:31 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
Of course, Rossi may have a case.  Also, he may not have a case.  This 
would be for the courts to decide.  No matter what, Rossi cannot 
unilaterally nullify the license.  He would have to sue in civil 
courts to have the license contract dissolved for cause.  Until the 
court says otherwise, the license is as valid as it was the day it was 
signed and money changed hands.  We do not know whether the court will 
side with IH or Rossi.  If, in the mean time, Rossi sold another 
license for the same region, there would be no question that he would 
be getting fitted for a striped suit immediately.


Basically this means that Rossi cannot sell licenses for anything that 
could even potentially fall under the original license agreement with 
IH in any of the regions licensed to IH until a court rules the 
license contract is dissolved.  This probably puts licensing of his 
"quarkX" technology in limbo in all of those regions as well.  Rossi 
seems happy with the 400+ days to trial, which I cannot understand.  
Unless he gets some kind of motion to have the license dissolved in 
the mean time, he could go to jail for selling licenses to regions 
already licensed to IH, and anyone who bought such a license from him 
would stand to lose all of their money.


Of course, it is important for his case for Rossi to keep up 
appearances of being in the high ground.  However, this will not keep 
him out of jail if he commits fraud.


On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:42 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Bob,
He has a case if IH have not fulfilled their side of the contract
and paid him for a successful trial of the 1 MW plant.

On 7/1/2016 5:12 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:

I am not a lawyer.  However, I believe at this moment Rossi has a
duly executed license agreement with IH.  He cannot unilaterally
cancel that after money has changed hands. Pragmatically he could
not even give the $11.5M back and take back his license unless IH
accepted that deal with other signed documents. The courts will
decide (eventually) to whom the license belongs.  In the mean
time, Rossi could be inviting himself back to jail by offering
the license to anyone else.

It seems to me that selling something you don't own is the very
definition of fraud.

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Craig Haynie
> wrote:

No way Rossi's actions are fraud, from reselling the
licensing, (unless he has a known faulty product). The best
IH can hope for is a null contract; not the rights to the IP.

On 07/01/2016 03:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:

It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears
to have unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH
is null and void.  Having accepted money for that
license, he is in a legally binding contract.  Yet Rossi
seems intent to market that license to others as though
he had no other contract.  This is clearly fraud, and a
fraud that will quickly put Rossi back in jail for a good
long contemplative period.  He should be collecting his
reading material on antigravity.

I couldn't help myself.

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

[Jack Cole]

Bob Higgens wrote:
"I am not a lawyer.  However, I believe at this moment Rossi has a duly
executed license agreement with IH.  He cannot unilaterally cancel that
after money has changed hands.  Pragmatically he could not even give the
$11.5M back and take back his license unless IH accepted that deal with
other signed documents.  The courts will decide (eventually) to whom the
license belongs.  In the mean time, Rossi could be inviting himself back to
jail by offering the license to anyone else."

I agree Bob.  Also, what does he suppose the $267,000,000 (triple damages)
that he demands from IH in the lawsuit will be payment for?  Not the
license since he supposedly canceled it through a press release.

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 5:31 PM Bob Higgins  wrote:

> Of course, Rossi may have a case.  Also, he may not have a case.  This
> would be for the courts to decide.  No matter what, Rossi cannot
> unilaterally nullify the license.  He would have to sue in civil courts to
> have the license contract dissolved for cause.  Until the court says
> otherwise, the license is as valid as it was the day it was signed and
> money changed hands.  We do not know whether the court will side with IH or
> Rossi.  If, in the mean time, Rossi sold another license for the same
> region, there would be no question that he would be getting fitted for a
> striped suit immediately.
>
> Basically this means that Rossi cannot sell licenses for anything that
> could even potentially fall under the original license agreement with IH in
> any of the regions licensed to IH until a court rules the license contract
> is dissolved.  This probably puts licensing of his "quarkX" technology in
> limbo in all of those regions as well.  Rossi seems happy with the 400+
> days to trial, which I cannot understand.  Unless he gets some kind of
> motion to have the license dissolved in the mean time, he could go to jail
> for selling licenses to regions already licensed to IH, and anyone who
> bought such a license from him would stand to lose all of their money.
>
> Of course, it is important for his case for Rossi to keep up appearances
> of being in the high ground.  However, this will not keep him out of jail
> if he commits fraud.
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:42 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>> Bob,
>> He has a case if IH have not fulfilled their side of the contract and
>> paid him for a successful trial of the 1 MW plant.
>>
>> On 7/1/2016 5:12 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>>
>> I am not a lawyer.  However, I believe at this moment Rossi has a duly
>> executed license agreement with IH.  He cannot unilaterally cancel that
>> after money has changed hands.  Pragmatically he could not even give the
>> $11.5M back and take back his license unless IH accepted that deal with
>> other signed documents.  The courts will decide (eventually) to whom the
>> license belongs.  In the mean time, Rossi could be inviting himself back to
>> jail by offering the license to anyone else.
>>
>> It seems to me that selling something you don't own is the very
>> definition of fraud.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Craig Haynie < 
>> cchayniepub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No way Rossi's actions are fraud, from reselling the licensing, (unless
>>> he has a known faulty product). The best IH can hope for is a null
>>> contract; not the rights to the IP.
>>>
>>> On 07/01/2016 03:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>>>
 It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have
 unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH is null and void.  Having
 accepted money for that license, he is in a legally binding contract.  Yet
 Rossi seems intent to market that license to others as though he had no
 other contract.  This is clearly fraud, and a fraud that will quickly put
 Rossi back in jail for a good long contemplative period.  He should be
 collecting his reading material on antigravity.

 I couldn't help myself.


>>>
>>
>>
>

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

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

Rossi seems happy with the 400+ days to trial, which I cannot understand.
>

One possible explanation: Rossi is acting on a self-destructive impulse.

Eric

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

[Bob Higgins]

Of course, Rossi may have a case.  Also, he may not have a case.  This
would be for the courts to decide.  No matter what, Rossi cannot
unilaterally nullify the license.  He would have to sue in civil courts to
have the license contract dissolved for cause.  Until the court says
otherwise, the license is as valid as it was the day it was signed and
money changed hands.  We do not know whether the court will side with IH or
Rossi.  If, in the mean time, Rossi sold another license for the same
region, there would be no question that he would be getting fitted for a
striped suit immediately.

Basically this means that Rossi cannot sell licenses for anything that
could even potentially fall under the original license agreement with IH in
any of the regions licensed to IH until a court rules the license contract
is dissolved.  This probably puts licensing of his "quarkX" technology in
limbo in all of those regions as well.  Rossi seems happy with the 400+
days to trial, which I cannot understand.  Unless he gets some kind of
motion to have the license dissolved in the mean time, he could go to jail
for selling licenses to regions already licensed to IH, and anyone who
bought such a license from him would stand to lose all of their money.

Of course, it is important for his case for Rossi to keep up appearances of
being in the high ground.  However, this will not keep him out of jail if
he commits fraud.

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:42 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Bob,
> He has a case if IH have not fulfilled their side of the contract and paid
> him for a successful trial of the 1 MW plant.
>
> On 7/1/2016 5:12 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>
> I am not a lawyer.  However, I believe at this moment Rossi has a duly
> executed license agreement with IH.  He cannot unilaterally cancel that
> after money has changed hands.  Pragmatically he could not even give the
> $11.5M back and take back his license unless IH accepted that deal with
> other signed documents.  The courts will decide (eventually) to whom the
> license belongs.  In the mean time, Rossi could be inviting himself back to
> jail by offering the license to anyone else.
>
> It seems to me that selling something you don't own is the very definition
> of fraud.
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Craig Haynie < 
> cchayniepub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No way Rossi's actions are fraud, from reselling the licensing, (unless
>> he has a known faulty product). The best IH can hope for is a null
>> contract; not the rights to the IP.
>>
>> On 07/01/2016 03:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>>
>>> It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have
>>> unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH is null and void.  Having
>>> accepted money for that license, he is in a legally binding contract.  Yet
>>> Rossi seems intent to market that license to others as though he had no
>>> other contract.  This is clearly fraud, and a fraud that will quickly put
>>> Rossi back in jail for a good long contemplative period.  He should be
>>> collecting his reading material on antigravity.
>>>
>>> I couldn't help myself.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

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

[a.ashfield]

Bob,
He has a case if IH have not fulfilled their side of the contract and 
paid him for a successful trial of the 1 MW plant.


On 7/1/2016 5:12 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
I am not a lawyer.  However, I believe at this moment Rossi has a duly 
executed license agreement with IH.  He cannot unilaterally cancel 
that after money has changed hands. Pragmatically he could not even 
give the $11.5M back and take back his license unless IH accepted that 
deal with other signed documents.  The courts will decide (eventually) 
to whom the license belongs.  In the mean time, Rossi could be 
inviting himself back to jail by offering the license to anyone else.


It seems to me that selling something you don't own is the very 
definition of fraud.


On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Craig Haynie > wrote:


No way Rossi's actions are fraud, from reselling the licensing,
(unless he has a known faulty product). The best IH can hope for
is a null contract; not the rights to the IP.

On 07/01/2016 03:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:

It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to
have unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH is null
and void.  Having accepted money for that license, he is in a
legally binding contract.  Yet Rossi seems intent to market
that license to others as though he had no other contract. 
This is clearly fraud, and a fraud that will quickly put Rossi

back in jail for a good long contemplative period.  He should
be collecting his reading material on antigravity.

I couldn't help myself.

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

[a.ashfield]

Bob,
The other side of the argument is this.  Rossi would not agree to the 
deal for just ~$11 million and was counting on the $89 million. The 
terms were set out for the trial in two agreements (that Ampernergo  
didn't sign was a red herring).
The terms were the success of the trial would be judged by the ARV 
Pennon.  Apparently his report was favorable.  Legally it is not clear 
if it matters whether Pennon was right, rather like a referee in a 
sporting event, unless it can be shown Pennon altered the results 
deliberately..


Rossi was the one to take this to court and if his E-Cats didn't work 
why on earth would do that?  He could have walked with what was left of 
the $11 million.  It looks to me that IH may be missing something in how 
to operate them and in these circumstances it gets dodgy for them to 
claim the rights for the next generation QuarkX that Rossi developed 
independently.


On 7/1/2016 3:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have 
unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH is null and void.  
Having accepted money for that license, he is in a legally binding 
contract.  Yet Rossi seems intent to market that license to others as 
though he had no other contract.  This is clearly fraud, and a fraud 
that will quickly put Rossi back in jail for a good long contemplative 
period.  He should be collecting his reading material on antigravity.


I couldn't help myself.

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

[Bob Higgins]

I am not a lawyer.  However, I believe at this moment Rossi has a duly
executed license agreement with IH.  He cannot unilaterally cancel that
after money has changed hands.  Pragmatically he could not even give the
$11.5M back and take back his license unless IH accepted that deal with
other signed documents.  The courts will decide (eventually) to whom the
license belongs.  In the mean time, Rossi could be inviting himself back to
jail by offering the license to anyone else.

It seems to me that selling something you don't own is the very definition
of fraud.

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Craig Haynie 
wrote:

> No way Rossi's actions are fraud, from reselling the licensing, (unless he
> has a known faulty product). The best IH can hope for is a null contract;
> not the rights to the IP.
>
> On 07/01/2016 03:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>
>> It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have
>> unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH is null and void.  Having
>> accepted money for that license, he is in a legally binding contract.  Yet
>> Rossi seems intent to market that license to others as though he had no
>> other contract.  This is clearly fraud, and a fraud that will quickly put
>> Rossi back in jail for a good long contemplative period.  He should be
>> collecting his reading material on antigravity.
>>
>> I couldn't help myself.
>>
>>
>

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

[Craig Haynie]

No way Rossi's actions are fraud, from reselling the licensing, (unless 
he has a known faulty product). The best IH can hope for is a null 
contract; not the rights to the IP.


On 07/01/2016 03:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have 
unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH is null and void.  
Having accepted money for that license, he is in a legally binding 
contract.  Yet Rossi seems intent to market that license to others as 
though he had no other contract.  This is clearly fraud, and a fraud 
that will quickly put Rossi back in jail for a good long contemplative 
period.  He should be collecting his reading material on antigravity.


I couldn't help myself.

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

[Lennart Thornros]

Bob,
You could be right. However, the situation is far from that simple.
There is no way IH can claim right to licence if they do not prevail in
getting out of Rossi's lawsuit.
Just now they are in a very bad situation with the license. That is my
believe that is why they do not come right out proclaiming the IP is
useless.
That follows the old rule of eating the cake and still have it :) Does not
work.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have
> unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH is null and void.  Having
> accepted money for that license, he is in a legally binding contract.  Yet
> Rossi seems intent to market that license to others as though he had no
> other contract.  This is clearly fraud, and a fraud that will quickly put
> Rossi back in jail for a good long contemplative period.  He should be
> collecting his reading material on antigravity.
>
> I couldn't help myself.
>
>

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

[Bob Higgins]

It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have
unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH is null and void.  Having
accepted money for that license, he is in a legally binding contract.  Yet
Rossi seems intent to market that license to others as though he had no
other contract.  This is clearly fraud, and a fraud that will quickly put
Rossi back in jail for a good long contemplative period.  He should be
collecting his reading material on antigravity.

I couldn't help myself.

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

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

Jed,
> IH have two problems.
> 1. They did not display good faith and keep their side of the agreement
> when they failed to pay Rossi $89 million.
>

Good faith?!? Are you joking? Rossi's reactor does not work. It does not
produce any excess heat. They tested multiple reactors and none of them
worked. Do you seriously think any company would pay $89 million for a
machine that does not work? Why?

No one would pay even one dollar for a cold fusion reactor that does not
produce any excess heat. There is no point.

It makes no difference what the contract says, or what Penon said. No sane
person will pay money for a machine that does not do what it is supposed to
do. If Rossi built an airplane that does not fly, they would not pay. If he
built a computer that never computes the right answer, they would not pay.
This is how the real world works. Contract or no contract; agreement or no
agreement; when a product fails to do the primary thing it is supposed to
do, NO ONE EVER PAYS FOR IT.

You may have the notion that it did work, but the data from Rossi proves it
did not, as does an additional data collected by IH experts.



> 2. It is not clear if the agreement with Rossi covered the later
> development of the QuarkX.
>

I wouldn't know about that. Lawyers tell me the QuarkX is covered. Anyway,
that is not relevant to the lawsuit, and it is not relevant to whether the
one year test worked or not.

I think it is unlikely the QuarkX exists.

- Jed

[Vo]:Rossi's R independent from the 442 days wait for the Trial

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/07/jul-01-2016-andrea-rossis-lenr-r-plans.html

I hope the intensity of the dispute will now decrease a bit.

But I am an incurable optimist.

Peter

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

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

[Chris Zell]

In reading the legal document,  I could not find any clear discussion as to if 
the device worked or was claimed to have worked.  The document began by saying 
that the court needed to take note of other exhibits – so perhaps they dealt 
with that question.

From: a.ashfield [mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 9:12 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

Jed,
IH have two problems.
1. They did not display good faith and keep their side of the agreement when 
they failed to pay Rossi $89 million.
2. It is not clear if the agreement with Rossi covered the later development of 
the QuarkX.
On 6/30/2016 9:22 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield > wrote:

Contrary to Jed's comments, I expect there will be commercial plants running by 
the time this reaches court.

If that happens, Rossi will lose. He will have to provide I.H. with the IP as 
originally agreed.

- Jed

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

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
IH have two problems.
1. They did not display good faith and keep their side of the agreement 
when they failed to pay Rossi $89 million.
2. It is not clear if the agreement with Rossi covered the later 
development of the QuarkX.


On 6/30/2016 9:22 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Contrary to Jed's comments, I expect there will be commercial
plants running by the time this reaches court.


If that happens, Rossi will lose. He will have to provide I.H. with 
the IP as originally agreed.


- Jed