Jed,
Exhibit 5 has errors as I've pointed out. It is useless as proof.
You are relying on the word of an electronics guy, without even a photo,
about the "stains". The pipe could have been stained before it was
assembled. What is key is a drawing of the pipe layout - that so far
you decline to provide. Without that you CANNOT be certain of what you
are claiming.
You claim no no said Vaughn was not a manager at Cherokee. Perhaps you
should read what Day Jones wrote - in their official submission to the
court. With lies like that why would you believe them? Maybe some
electronics guy can redefine what manager means.
https://twitter.com/The_New_Fire/status/763002369219100672/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
On 8/9/2016 5:52 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
As others have iout, IH has failed to supply simple proof that the
plant didn't work.
IH has provided simple proof the plant did not work! Look at Exhibit
5. Rossi inadvertently provided simple proof that the plant does not
work. His data shows that, as described in Exhibit 5.
Just suppositions of how Rossi could have cheated.
These are not "suppositions." This is ironclad proof, such as rust
showing that the pipe was half full for extended periods. Anyone
seeing the pipe would know it was half full. And, such as showing
there was no heat coming from the pretend customer site.
IH apparently lied about Vaughn not being a manager at Cherokee so
they must be worried.
No one said he is not a manager at Cherokee. They say the two
organizations are separate. A person can work at two different
organizations simultaneously.
- Jed
