Mary Yugo <[email protected]> wrote: Ah yes. But maybe the Sniffex case (fake explosive detector) gives a clue > as to how some judges proceed. At the preliminary hearing of the case in > which Sniffex sued Randi for libel when he called the device a fraud . . .
You have a talent for non sequiturs. You are talking about a COMPLETELY UNRELATED topic. To review: Topic 1. The use of Bushnell's statement in this brochure, and how that might be treated in a court case. Topic 2. A hypothetical court case relating to whether the Rossi device is real or not, and whether Rossi or Hydrofusion is committing fraud. If Hydrofusion (or Rossi) are committing fraud, the fact that they quote Bushnell does not make that more of crime, or less of a crime. This quote from Bushnell would have no bearing on charges of fraud. They might quote any number of scientists praising cold fusion. As long as they do not invent fake quotes or fake endorsements, that would be irrelevant. The relevant evidence in a court case about fraud would be contracts, cancelled checks, statements from Rossi or Hydrofusion to the customer, and so on. > Perhaps in order for the brochure maker to prevail, they'd have to produce > a working E-cat and have it tested independently by experts . . . No one can stop Hydrofusion from quoting Bushnell, fraud or no fraud. If the brochure has lies (false advertising) or it is used to commit fraud, that is an entirely unrelated matter, as I said. The worst that can happen if Bushnell objects to this would be that he publishes a statement condemning the brochure, and that makes Hydrofusion look stupid. - Jed
