From: Jed Rothwell * Whether the gadget works or not is a matter of fact that must be established by expert testimony.
Perhaps, but will it get that far? Rossi’s claim could be dismissed on the issue of lack of signatures for the second amendment, or actually any of the 3 arguments in this document. They are far from knee-jerk or canned arguments. Some may disparage the lack of signatures as a “technicality” but this looks like just the kind of detail that a judge will use to clear the docket quickly – technicality or not … and do not think for a second that Rossi’s past conduct will go unappreciated in any decision in Florida, even though it is never admitted into the formal record. 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. Has David French or Randy Wuller weighed in on this? To me, there is not much chance of the “big pay day” for AR, but it would be curious to hear a valid legal argument (I am not a member of the Bar, but both of them practice Law and have followed this soap opera … yet understandably, may not wish to comment). But, the next show-and-tell, if Rossi’s complaint is not dismissed immediately, will be sworn depositions. 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. Plus he is probably back home in Italy anyway -- but his sworn testimony is so important to the case that IH can probably demand his physical presence. 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, then that dishonesty alone will invoke the “clean hands doctrine,” and the complaint could be tossed on that account whether the ERV report is positive or not. The clean hands doctrine is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to remedy due to ethical lapse, dishonesty or bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint. Clearly, if there was no real customer, and the testing was staged to make it look like there was one, then Rossi’s game is over. Why else was IH forbidden to see where the steam went? 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. Moreover, IH could face the same clean hands doctrine if their own shareholders sue them; but they were smart enough to fund others in the field - and we can only hope that one those others being funded can produce results which Rossi could not produce.
