From: Jed Rothwell
http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Leonardosuit01-main.pdf
As a general rule in Lawsuits, when the answer to a particular complaint
arrives, the reader will be shocked that the two parties are talking about the
same set of facts. The next round of this tragi-comedy is partially predictable
– since there is presently no valid scientific proof that Rossi has ever seen
thermal gain from LENR. None, zero, nada. Plus, he is no stranger to the Legal
system, and the attorneys of IH will want to have all of his sordid background
introduced as evidence.
One wonders if Rossi’s attorney is even aware of all of these details --- like
the botched TEG research, Petrodragon, the convenient Lab fires, the criminal
convictions? None of that may be relevant to this year-long test, agreed, but
ALL of it could come out in court – to show a pattern of bad conduct over the
years.
Some further points to consider…
1) Rossi has hired a reputable high powered-firm and he may not have told
them much about his past, and they may not have suspected a pattern of bad
conduct (which IH will allege).
2) There will be a proactive response from IH and it will likely be
abundantly clear that they feel like Rossi has cheated and they may countersue
for damages and to recover the past payment.
3) There will probably be lack of real day-to-day data in the year long
testing - which will shock any scientist. If Rossi has good data for gain, he
will prevail. It is that simple and IH knows this.
4) If the “customer” is an invention, this will greatly compromise Rossi’s
credibility.
5) It is reasonable to expect that there will be allegations of faked
data, if data exits at all.
6) Rossi will have a very difficult time finding an expert witness who is
admissible as such, since few experts believe in LENR and all of them want to
see real data.
7) Penon is obviously no expert. His lack of qualifications and even legal
status could become an issue.
8) There are certain rare situations when an attorney may withdraw from a
case which include receiving false information from the client. For example, if
the attorney has uncovered knowledge that the client is in the process of
furthering criminal or fraudulent activity. That scenario cannot be ruled out
here, even if rare.
9) If there is real data of COP=50 for a significant period, then of
course… the $100,000,000 is an absolute bargain ! and IH should have no trouble
paying that, as the value of the invention would be much more.
10) If there is solid data over thousands of hours which backs Rossi’s and
Penon’s claim and the COP is much less – say 1.5 then it will be a tough call
but Rossi could win.
Obviously, this all gets down to the data, in the end. Are there 2000 hours of
reliable data for power out vs. power in ? If so, then this will probably never
go to trial – the Court will appoint an expert and the verdict will be directed
based on his finding.
Only one thing is certain, the attorneys on both sides will have many billable
hours at a rate that is shocking to experts in other fields.
