Axil--
See the Civil complaint that Rossi filed in the Federal Court:
Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 1, Entered on FLSD Document 04/05/2016 Page 1.
I specifies: “CIVIL COMPLAINT & DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL”
Bob Cook
From: Axil Axil
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 2:50 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat
How do you know that this trial will be a jury trial? Reference?
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Axil--
Rossi has asked for a jury trial. The judge only listens to the arguments on
either side and decides if they are appropriate. The Jury will decide whether
or not the intent of the agreement was met. I would agree the wording will be
important to the decision of the Jury. I am not sure what constitutes a
favorable Jury decision in the Fed. Court regarding contractual agreements.
Frequently the understanding of the person that did not write the contract is
more important than the wording of the contract as presented and interpreted by
the party that wrote the contract.
Any of the documents entered into the record can be review by the members of
the Jury as each chooses I think. Who authored the Agreement should be able
to be determined by the Jury, if one side or the other wants that information
to be presented. It may be that the Jury can even ask the Judge to require
that information to be incorporated into the court record.
It was my impression that the contract was written by IH and edited by Rossi.
I do not know. In case of an edited version of a contract, there would be no
deference as to the author I would guess, since both parties would have had a
hand in the wording. What the intent was in agreeing with certain wording is
all important. Vague contracts typically do not “old much water.”
Bob Cook
From: Axil Axil
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 2:22 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat
The Judge is going to ask IH if they gave the ERV absolute authority as the
agent of arbitration to determine if the terms of the licence agreement were
met. Then the Judge will ask the ERV if he has determined if the terms of the
Licence agreement were met. The ERV will say that in his expert judgement, the
terms of the licence agreement were met. The Judge will then rule that the
terms of the licence agreement were met and that 89 million must be paid to
Rossi.
What Rossi thinks or does, if the e-cat works or not, if a teapot is used to
make hot water, what IH thinks or does are all immaterial to this arbitration.
The key to the legal case is the judgement of the ERV since he is the absolute
agent of arbitration. All the other noise is immaterial to the legal case at
hand.
After the favorable ruling by the judge in favor of Rossi, if I were Rossi's
lawyer, I would request an injunction to prohibit IH from selling any LENR
based product until it is proved in court, that all these IH products contain
no Rossi IP.
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
IH cannot use Rossi's IP for anything as its stands now.
IH (and I) think that Rossi's gadget does not work, so he does not have any
IP, so this does not matter. No one can use pretend IP for anything, as it
stands now, and as it will always stand.
If Rossi's IP is used in other products from other OEMs, does IH need to
pay Rossi the 89 million?
Does IH need to pay Rossi 5% of the value of the selling price of the
produces from other vendors that include Rossi's IP in their products?
As I said, I know nothing about business arrangements or contracts, so I
cannot address these questions. Except, as I pointed out, you might as well be
discussing a contract to sell unicorn manure.
It is possible Rossi had a working reactor in the past, but his 1 MW
reactor does not work.
- Jed
