Jones— I agree with you that the crux of the trial is about fulfilling a contract, not about validity of technical data taking, recording and interpretation. Darden, Vaughan etal. all agreed with the year long testing and the ERV. The technical issues do not matter and could only get in the way of raising venture capital—Darden’s apparent objective. The test and the ERV worked nicely to bring in $150M. That’s what he is using to engage the old-timers in the LENR community.
If you listen to Brillouin, the Rossi technology works like a charm. And even if Darden has to pay $89M, he still has $60M to play with to gain control of IP and LENR in the United States. This tactic is intended to assure his backers of established alternate and fossil fuel energy can ride out the “disruptive” political and financial situation that LENR poses and the Establishment rightly fears. Darden’s biggest mistake IMHO was trying to screw Rossi and prevent his continued R&D and commercialization of his inventions by holding back on the $89M of VC raised. Bob Cook . Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 From: Jones Beene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:10 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beene wrote: This should be an epic trial, but it appears that people are expecting that it will end with the general public knowing whether the Rossi technology works or not. Anyone can see it does not work. The Penon report is proof of that. Whoa. The ERV report is not really self-evident proof of anything to a jury - other than that it supposedly provides a basis for Penon's conclusion. These are average citizens who don't do data, so to speak. A top scientist could believe what you state, and I suspect that 95 out of 100 scientists might agree with you. But there are no scientists on the jury and this trial is not about science at its core. It is about a contract which may be one-sided, and it may not matter what is actually in the report, as far as the actual data - only its conclusion. If the mystery man Penon were to state under oath that this report validated the terms of the contract in favor of Rossi, it is possible that the judge could rule that it does not matter what is actually in the report and it does not matter that the report is even faked, or that most other experts say it does not support the Penon conclusion (of a successful demonstration). In short, it was a huge mistake for Darden to sign such an agreement, since it does not include the usual safeguards but perhaps TD did not interpret it that way when it was signed, or did not read it carefully, or had bad legal advice. But ... the big issue is this: can an ill-conceived contract be interpreted by a jury to overlook the actual results (to imply that only the ERV's conclusion matters, not the substance of the report) ? I think it could be interpreted that way, even if goes against science. That may be the crux of this trial. However, from Rossi's perspective, Penon will probably not be there to make this assertion. This adds another wrinkle. Penon is even mysteriously absent from Rossi's witness list. It will be much harder to maintain an anti-science stance if Penon fails to show and stand up as the ERV but apparently that will be what Rossi will attempt to do in some way. Another possibility could be that Rossi's lawyer is laying a trap here and will spring the Penon positive conclusion of the ERV report at the appropriate time such as to have a recorded deposition admitted without his presence. This would look suspicious, but stranger things have happened in trials like this. Despite Darden's legal team having a good name <g> their performance to date has not been stellar. They seem to following the tactic that they will win on appeal no matter what, so lay a proper basis for appeal. This tactic could backfire.
