Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > It should not surprise anyone who has followed the Rossi saga over the > years to learn that Gary Wright or Mary Yugo, etc. etc. could have fully > informed the Court of the Petrodragon details and the failed Army > contracts, etc. It is almost a certainty that this information will be known > but now formally acknowledged. > I know little about the law, but based on a jury I once sat on, I do not think that would be admissible. It is not relevant to the case. Rossi is not the defendant. Even if he were, his history would be off limits, I think. You have to stick to the facts about the present case. You also have to stick what the lawsuit says. You can't suddenly bring up other things, the way they do on TV.
Penon is presumably an Italian citizen on a work visa and probably cannot > be ruled an expert in a technical field where US licensing is required, > since he has none here. Big problem. > That's my guess. Rossi will have a hard time finding a licensed engineer who will testify that the calorimetry is valid. As far as I can tell, it violates every code from A to Z. An engineer who testifies in court that it is valid may lose his license, as I pointed out earlier. > Rossi’s other huge problem is this: if sworn depositions show that there > was no bona fide customer using the steam, as Rossi has claimed over and > over on his blog, but instead that all of the testing was built on the > fiction of a make-believe customer . . . > I do not think that would come up. It is not mentioned in the lawsuit. That would be raised if I.H. were suing Rossi, or if the state or Feds were prosecuting him for fraud, which is a criminal trial, not civil. I guess if it reaches the point where I.H. has to prove the gadget does not work, then the fake customer site may come in. > Before anyone says it – yes – IH is not faultless here, and probably has > dirty hands as well on some points … especially in selling investment > packages which included a technology which they were pretty sure did not > work – but … with one massive difference: they did not file a lawsuit. > That would be another lawsuit, as you say. That's not related to this trial. That would be a civil suit by I.H. investors against I.H. I do not think they told their investors Rossi's gadget works. - Jed
