Eric,
"Their position, that Rossi went outside of the terms of the Guaranteed
Performance Test, "
Why didn't IH/Cherokee come up with a customer for a whole year? They
forced Rossi to do something himself. It looks to me that they never
wanted the test where they might have to pay Rossi $89 million but
wanted to profit from the IP thy had obtained for $11 million.
You say I always take a negative view of IH. This is because what I
read here is always a negative view of Rossi. I don't know who is
right The negative folk like you always phrase it that you KNOW the
answer, that Rossi is a fraud and the outcome is certain. I don't think
it is.
On 8/13/2016 12:02 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 10:33 AM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
My reading is that IH had very little in-house expertise
Yes. They're venture capitalists. They don't maintain in-house
expertise. I suppose they have a nice office with coffee machines and
other venture capitalists, and maybe a massage room.
so hired gunman Murray.
Ok, so your reading is that Murray is a hired gunman. You go to great
lengths to read IH's actions in as negative a light as possible. Have
you been effective in persuading people here or elsewhere to your
position?
Murray apparently felt the need to justify his existence and as an
IT guy does not seem to have expertise in the areas he is
criticizing. He was probably pissed that he had not been allowed
in the plant before.
IH were probably irritated as well that one of the people they hired
to introduce some technical rigor into their relationship with Rossi
was not permitted, acting as an agent of IH, to have access to a
facility that was, by Rossi's claims, the location of the Guaranteed
Performance Test. This story is too strange to turn into a movie.
People would roll their eyes and not take it seriously. Perhaps it
would work as a B movie on the USA Network.
By sometime in 2014, I would not be surprised if IH did not take any
action without first consulting their lawyers and thinking carefully
through each next step. They surely saw that Rossi was a loose canon
and that he was capable of doing all kind of things.
I don't buy your argument that the plant didn't work without
seeing Penon's report.
I don't hope to persuade you of anything, and I doubt that you can be
persuaded. For the benefit of anyone here who has not had time to
really look into the details, I'm addressing points you attempt to
make for their sake.
Rossi maintains it was IH who were keen to stop the test, offering
x millions. Rossi's counter offer was to return the $11 million
to buy back the license/IP, but IH refused.
It is true that the Complaint and the Answer presented strikingly
different pictures. I was taken aback about how many allegations IH
denied; I would have imagined that there would be more that they could
have agreed upon with the plaintiffs. One of the parties to this case
is presenting a very distorted picture of things. I suppose the judge
is going to become quite irritated with one of them once enough
information comes to light.
The arguments that IH have come up with have all been weak. I
expect we will know just how weak after Rossi files his reply.
Before that it is silly to leap to conclusions that the plant
didn't work.
The arguments that IH have come up are very strong. Their position,
that Rossi went outside of the terms of the Guaranteed Performance
Test, left for Florida on the pretext of selling power to a fake
customer, and then went through the motions of the Guaranteed
Performance Test over IH's objections and without renegotiating the
terms of the test, looks compelling. Until that position is tested,
it would be premature to conclude that IH will win this case. But that
does not mean that one cannot step back and get a general impression
of things.
Eric
