text:
In any case, if I wrote about everything I see, I’d be spending all day and never get through it. Since I do suspect that there is useful work to do before I kick the bucket, spilling the milk, I’m slowing down and will attempt to make shorter comments here, including answering questions some ask that haven’t encountered answers. Basic rule: there is no such thing as a stupid question, unless it is not actually a question but an attempt to prove that one is right by asking a question believed unanswerable. Not really a question, but a claim. And claims can be really dumb.
I find it highly useful to watch what, say, Judge Judy does. She’s fast, and generally cuts to the core. She might occasionally make mistakes, but even then, a party willing to listen to her would learn something about how they present themselves and how they look to others, including the audience. Even though the audience is fake, when they laugh, it’s real.
Industrial Heat, a technology company backed by Neil Woodford, hit by $89 million lawsuit from scientist in dispute over claimed invention.
On LENR Forum, a thread was started May 18, 2016, about the Citywire story. Citywire UK covers Woodford hitting fraud case.
This post in that thread then brought up the exact links oft-quoted, including very recently, by Planet Rossi, on JONP, on E-Cat World, and on LENR Forum, also very old material, highly misleading, and extensively discussed. So the same material is regurgitated over and over. It appears that not everyone who eats it is Rossi himself.
That post was put up by ultrasure, who is still active, liking posts, which, with very few exceptions, are along certain lines, for example, ele bringing up the warmed-over vomit about the 2015 SEC wrist-slap for a Cherokee accounting error, taking place over about four years, gratuitous and unrelated to discussion context, coat-racking an attempted smear.
Compared to value and investments at stake, that was less than a parking ticket.
Dewey you are in a complete mental coldfusion ( 🙂 ) state. Rossi have been never to Russia and probably has no interest to go there, Rossi has nothing to do with Pinball, Fabiani is the founder and CEO of the company that do that and if you look at FB you will see that Fabiani’s company is developing also an Arcade emulator.
Rossi is not founding Uppsala University other companies do and is not a mystery which…….
Are you trying to spread the usual disinformation ?
Ele was writing about this post by Dewey Weaver. Dewey also ranges off-topic. However, there is a huge difference between ele and Dewey Weaver: Dewey is a real person, openly an actual person-of-interest in Rossi v. Darden (and who has been deposed), apparently one of the original investors in Industrial Heat, a contractor to them, so, in some ways, his casual opinions on the case and the figures involved are primary source, at least. Ele is?
Weaver refers to “Rossele.” It’s plausible that ele is Rossi, though Weaver sometimes accuses others of being Rossi who may not be. I have also suspected that ele is not Rossi, but someone who takes material from Rossi and edits it. That is, sometimes the language is better — but sometimes not. Ele may be more than one person, and without access to what a site administrator with access to raw logs would know, my comments on identity remain speculation … but ele is still, and obviously, not on a level of probity with Weaver as a source (i.e., as to personal responsibility). Ele can just disappear. Weaver can’t and won’t. Weaver is an actual witness, responsible for what he writes, right or wrong.
In this case, sure, the investment in pinball research was made by USQL, Fabiani’s company. However, that company was set up by Johnson, Rossi’s lawyer, and the owner of Leonardo Corporation (Florida), a certain trust with Rossi as beneficiary — he wasn’t sure when asked, but “probably,” as I recall, was a co-owner of USQL until more recently. Leonardo Florida loaned $35,000 to USQL at roughly the time, as I recall, as USQL gave 35,000 Euros to Bologna University for a Levi-associated project. “No connection,” then, as is common on Planet Rossi, takes on a very special meaning.
Not only that, Rossi was apparently funded by Ampenergo, and IH took on the obligations, paying Ampenergo millions of dollars, relieving Rossi of that obligation. However, setting that aside, yes, Rossi received $11.5 million straight-out from IH. The story is that he bought condos in Florida, it’s oft-repeated and I’ve never seen any contrary claims. Notice that ele doesn’t object to that.
Perhaps. I cannot confirm this yet. One Cadillac or more than one? Dewey is telling a story, making implications and exaggeration is common when people do that. “Cadillacs” sounds more extravagant than “a Cadillac,” and both sound more extravagant than “Cars.” How many?
The purpose of the alleged heat exchanger, which was only asserted to exist this year, as to anything I’ve seen, long after Rossi claims to have dismantled it after the Plant shut-down, was to dissipate the unused megawatt. However, far easier would have been to reduce the power generation; JMP never needed more than a few kilowatts. Remember, this was allegedly steam at 100 C, and only a few grams of “product” were involved. An electric teakettle at a kilowatt, perhaps, could have kept all the product at “process temperature.” As to the alleged “test,” it depended on COP, not only absolute power. If even one of the older E-cats had been operational, it could have been the whole test. No specific number of units was required.
Rossi, er, ele, does address this in some way, but it’s not coherent. He meant “founding” and the issue was not “funding Upsalla University,” but just, perhaps, a donation for a “visiting researcher,” or even a direct payment to Fabiani, so that Fabiani being a researcher there would not cost them anything. Again, “possible,” so this is speculation. Reasonable but without available evidence, so far.
Dewey has real information that is not public, but is not here writing as if he does. It’s speculation, given his general experience with Rossi and his thinking about it.
Again, there is a plausible connection. The existence of that loan to USQL — what happened with that loan? Was it paid back? However, the extension of credit can be a consideration.
and $2 to $3M worth of litigation with the money.
That’s clear. I doubt that Annesser and Chaiken are working for free, and PBY&A before them.
He uses the balance for development of the be- all / end-all breakthroughs of the next century all without monetizing the breakthrough of this century. Huh???
It is so crazy that this is used as an argument in support of Rossi. He’d have to be crazy to do this. So, therefore, he is not a con artist, because any con artist would have run with the money, would not have gone into federal court chasing ghosts. However, con artists are routinely crazy, in one way or another. Some are sociopaths, know they are lying, but there are those who are delusional.
Dewey Weaver raised a series of facts or speculations that would lead to a conclusion, and ele did not actually negate any of them, but made irrelevant comments or self-serving denials. Very much like, in fact, Rossi in Rossi v. Darden in his responses to allegedly “uncontested facts.” IH would state a fact that was obvious from the evidence, and Rossi commonly “disputed” it without pointing to any contrary evidence, but adding other alleged facts that did not negate the IH claim.
Dewey’s overall point is actually obvious: if Rossi technology is real, he has the invention of the century. He was claiming that he’d do a public demonstration of the Quark-X. Eventually, he postponed that because of the pressure of the lawsuit, all of which was predictable. Every year of delay in introducing the Quark-X, if it is what he claims, is costing much more than a billion dollars (lost opportunity cost).
Alan Smith put up LENR pdf. files – Long Alphabetical list by Author.
A colleague has sent me this large cache of pdf. links to papers on LENR, helpfully in alphabetical order of author. Many are obviously culled from Jed Rothwell’s magnificent library, but some may have other origins, overall I think it might be useful.
NOTE: I cannot certify that all these links are virus free or even lead where one might hope- click at your own risk. For convenience sake this list is also attached as a pdf. file.
Actually the same list (or even more complete one) can be accessed directly from Jed Rothwell’s site.
Anyone who has done serious research into LENR would know this. Without the library, the list is useless. Reproducing that library elsewhere would largely be copyright violation, because lenr-canr.org has permission from authors, and that permission does not extend to hosting elsewhere (though I suppose Jed could set up a mirror). There are many papers on LENR that are not in the lenr-canr.org library, this list is only the library files. The library bibliography is much more complete.
A list of filenames is almost useless, then, but if one wants it, Zephir_AWT has pointed to where it is readily obtainable, and if we look at the end of the list, we can see a missing file in this Smith copy. It’s also not in alphabetical order, it is in ASCII order, because the lower-case v in van… comes after Z.
And there are utilities that will download all linked files from a given URL, in case one did want to create an archive. It’s big.
I looked at the HTML code, and all files appeared to be from lenr-canr.org, so the comments about viruses, etc., were mind-fog. Basically, Alan didn’t bother to check. If I wanted to be more thorough, I’d copy the code into a spreadsheet and sort it by URL, to see if there were any other domains than lenr-can.org, but it is not worth it. A quick review found nothing else. I access lenr-canr.org through the library interface, I never use the raw directory listing because it is much easier to use the library search.
There is an archive hosted here, the Britz archive. That is all identified peer-reviewed articles (in “mainstream journals,” which can be a little fuzzy). The pdfs themselves are not hosted, for copyright reasons. Serious researchers, even without academic access, can obtain copies of these files. Ask! Lenr-canr.org has many of the articles, often as preprints, which can be almost as useful.
Jed Rothwell also points to the same. He also points to a table that is sortable by Year of publication or Description (which always starts with the author), but which also shows co-authors and the publication. Far more useful.
My biggest complaint about lenr-canr.org lenr-forum.com was clueless administration and moderation, so clueless as to be dangerous for a writer. I don’t expect it to change, because the owner has set it up the way it is, and is impervious to public comment.
I also find it amusing that several brave souls on LF want to wave the due diligence flag again. That was a complex analysis and risk assessment and the go decision was from a high risk $$ pool that was assembled for inventions that might change the world for the better. Do any of you teardown artist, naysayers and haters put your resources to work for change when loss is more likely than gain?
No, I think no one would put resources to work for change when loss is more likely than gain: we are not saint, we don’t sacrifice ourselves for the welfare of humanity. Would you like us to believe that IH did it? I do not think you can say anything more ridiculous….ROTFL!!!
This is worse than Planet Rossi, it’s Planet Stupid. First of all, human beings rather often put resources at risk when loss is more likely than gain. Examples: lottery tickets, insurance policies. Do I need to explain?
However, SSC is looking at absolute risk, as he states it. “Loss is more likely than gain.” And with LENR investments, the record is clear, so far: loss is far more likely than gain. Yet venture capitalists, in a high risk pool, which is what Weaver was talking about, don’t look simply at absolute risk and a simplistic assessement of what is more likely, but rather will quantify the probabilities. They will look at each possible outcome, assign it a probability, based on whatever evidence they have — or even “hunch,” knowing that hunches can be wrong — and then multiply the probability by the gain or loss, and that’s what they compare to decide courses of action. Game theory.
With a lottery ticket, overall loss is about 50% of total ticket sales, i.e., prizes are only half of all the funds collected. The rest is expenses and the beneficiary of the lottery. So if you could buy all the tickets, you would certainly (not probably) lose 50% of your investment. However, sometimes in cumulative lotteries, the prize has become large, so … maybe. However, overall, a lot of tickets returned nothing, so overall, loss is routine, much more likely than gain.
With LENR, it was obvious that Rossi was a risky investment, for lots of reasons. People bought stock in HydroFusion, which lost most of the money raised, if I’m correct. High risk investment. How high a gain if the investment “wins”? A lot. This is all obvious with IH. They were gearing up, we know from the documents we have now seen, to raise hundreds of millions of dollars more, enough to pay Rossi his $89 million and then take the technology to the next stage, toward production — by someone else, willing to invest billions, but, at that point, the investment would no longer be such a high risk because of the test results IH would have been able to show.
That’s what venture capitalists do, and Dewey is one, it’s been much of his career, and that is what IH was about. High risk, but even higher gain, i.e., from their assessment of risk, probability of gain, easily enough to justify the likely loss.
If they were to shut down now, they would be sealing it with loss. Would continued investment be good money after bad? Not necessarily. All signs point to them being in this for the long haul, with Woodford behind them, having much more to invest if needed. The big danger would be to outspend the available capital on will-o’-the-wisps, instead of gradually deepening knowledge in the field. I think they know and understand that risk.
Rossi looked crazy as a loon, at best, and the knowledgeable knew that. From the Cassarino notes and deposition — we have nothing contradicting this except Rossi’s claim they were dancing with joy — Woodford saw him as a crazy inventor, “cagey.” Not confidence-inspiring!
However, clearing away the weeds, nailing the fact, rather than merely relying on a naive and unproven assessment, was essential to moving forward with LENR.
From my point of view, they had two alternate goals. One was to make billions of dollars in profits from being firstest with the mostest. The other was to find out if Rossi could be trusted. They found out. That’s what they paid all that money for.
They will likely get a little of that back, from Rossi and Johnson. For Cherokee Investment Partners, which shows how Darden operates on a large scale, it’s win a few, lose fewer, but Cherokee did not invest in Industrial Heat, this was, rather, a private risk pool, higher risk than Cherokee (which usually wins a profit), where the investors know especially clearly that all their money could be spent with no return, with more investment needed. Read the Annual Report of IH Holdings International, Ltd.!
It’s been said that it is not what we know that gets us in trouble, but what we think we know but don’t.
SSC is repeating an old story, told by Rossi. It is not what Mats Lewan tells, and it is not what Rossi himself tells on his Italian blog, it is only what we have seen Rossi surrogates repeating. Like much Planet Rossi bloviation, it’s a half-truth, the words need special meanings, not specified, to make the statement true. As stated, it is just plain wrong.
Rossi was not acquitted of all charges. Some prosecutions were dropped, perhaps for lapse of time, or perhaps for some consideration that the prison time he served from convictions was enough. “Acquitted” implies a trial with an outcome of not guilty. He did have that, in perhaps one important case. We could go over and over all that old crap without coming up with anything completely clear. However, the fact is that, regardless of whose fault it was, an environmental mess was left behind. Rossi fans will blame others for that, the Mafia, corrupt officials, etc, and he blames the IH mess on others as well. It’s what he does. He may die believing that it was all the fault of others, never looking at what he, himself, obviously did.
Or he knows and is a pure sociopath. I kind of doubt it, I find “delusional” more likely. We might think that he “should” know, but sometimes people don’t think like we imagine they “should.” Still, people get tossed in jail, commonly, for appearances.
It seems that Rossi did not meet the timing requirement as voiced in the depositions stating that the GPT timing was past before his move to Florida.
Are you sure the delay in starting the test is to be attributed to Rossi? It seems that IH people have voluntarily lost some time saying that to get started an authorization was necessary but that one was late to arrive …..
It is this which SSC quoted. The original ¶ 24 is simple fact, it is not actually disputed, except Rossi says “disputed.” All through his Opposition, he disputes simple fact, and this led the Judge to claim that there were hardly any undisputed facts. That was an error, my opinion, based on what I’ve seen so far, because a party saying a fact is disputed is not enough to establish a need for a jury to resolve the dispute, if it is merely a bald conclusion, devoid of admissible evidence. Read the study document on ¶ 24. Links have been place to all the evidences and sworn testimony, and they should be, for anything long, a specific page link so a reader can see them quickly.
SSC follows the Rossi intention in setting up a series of irrelevant facts or speculations. He’s distracted from fact, into vague implications. The original claimed fact is not controversial at all. Rossi may claim that some later agreement altered how the court should view the history, but instead he disputes bald fact, thus creating an appearance of debate and intransigent claim. As a result, issues that are not in dispute remain as matters to be resolved, silliness such as “255.Whether Leonardo NH still exists in good standing as a New Hampshire corporation.” Look at the SOMF study at ¶ 2, but also at ¶ 106.
Why is this in dispute? Rossi does not actually deny it, but asserts something else, a merger between Leonardo New Hampshire and Leonardo Florida. No evidence of the merger has been shown, it is, so far, it is purely RossiSays. No merger date has been shown or alleged. IH has shown quite enough to establish their claimed fact: Exhibit 75, showing that Leonardo NH still exists in good standing. Disputing this, Rossi claims merger (the legal meaning of a merger is questionable if the original corporation continues in legal existence, but that’s a legal issue, not a factual one) but asserts as evidence, as if it showed merger, the 2010 incorporation of Leonardo Florida. Rossi’s claims, commonly, present an appearance of having evidence for the claim, but when examined, there is no there there. This is a lawyer attempting to mislead the Court.
As near as I can tell, Leonardo NH was suspended in 2015, probably for not filing the 2014 and 2015 Annual Reports. It was reinstated 3/16/2016, shortly before filing Rossi v. Darden.
In practice, there may have been a merger, but there is no evidence that IH was legally notified of this.
By the way, I don’t think it matter legally who caused a delay it is a matter of fact that it was delayed and past the required time window. If Rossi wanted to continue, he should have gotten a revision of the agreement signed by all three signatories to extend the time.
He noticed. While Rossi is insisting that IH didn’t notify him that the time had expired, in fact, the time expired and he knew it, and then there was an attempt to do something about it. The Second Amendment. That failed, but there never was — and still is not — a time when a Guaranteed Performance Test (GPT) — or equivalent — became impossible. They could still agree, as they could have then, at any time. All three, or IH and Rossi by an explicit agreement that did not require the Ampernergo signature.
That remained possible as long as the relationship was straightforward and the parties trusted each other or were willing to act as if they trusted. It is probably difficult now that Rossi ran a faux test and sued. But it remains possible. Ampernergo could actually have signed that Second Amendment at any time and still could! There was no time limit for the signature. However, that signature would obviously have to precede the GPT. Rossi jumped the gun, badly.
Why should I ask them to deliver measurement reports etc? They have, they say, been trying to get Rossi’s stuff to work for more than a year with every motivation (those $billion notes Cassarini took from a meeting of plans, if all panned out) to get it to work and no success beyond some initial illusory positives based on what was obviously Rossi-inspired measurement setups.
… It is completely un-scientific to compare a dilettantes write-up included in court-doc and a scientific report like “Lugano”.
Wytte (I call him that because he’s not) has a PhD in Mathematics. It is possible that he has a clue within his field, but he is almost always writing outside it. Here, he uses “unscientific” in a radically unscientific way. THH was writing about social fact, and he correctly attributes it. I.e., THH’s claim, while incorrect in some details, is just that: Cassarino notes, but it is also attested, which creates admissible evidence, whereas the Lugano Report is not attested (though it could be); it is simply a report, which then allows others to make statements “on information and belief,” but not attested fact, on personal knowledge, because it would be hearsay — if it is not an author.
Now, “dilletante’s write-up.” Does Wytte know who Cassarino is? Cassarino was deposed as the corporate representative for Ampenergo. He is not a dilletante. He and other AEG principals were major investors in Rossi technology, and parties to the License Agreement in 2012. They apparently had good communication with Industrial Heat, and apparently trusted them (and may continue to trust them, there is no sign of any withdrawal from that). Cassarino is not a “dilletante,” but Wytte can legitimately be called one, an armchair analyst without any demonstrated expertise or knowledge. Normally, I extend real-name users special courtesy, but Wytte has abused that. To be sure, he doesn’t claim expertise directly, but only impugns the intellectual integrity of others.
THH is actually a professor in a far more related field, to the issues being discussed, but the topic here was actually the lawsuit and business and social issues. Not “science,” per se.
Law, however, is a kind of science, often more formally developed than what is routinely called “science.” The Lugano Report was never published under peer review, and has not been defended with any depth by the authors. It contains blatant errors, as pointed out by many with serious expertise, starting with McKubre in his early review — even though McKubre was still impressed, as were others — but then the LENR community started noticing glaring details, never addressed by the Lugano Team, and now we know that, among other things, the Report was misleading about Rossi’s participation. Not “wrong,” it didn’t lie, but from the language of the Report, assumptions were readily made — I certainly made them! — that were not true, and these were never corrected by the principals (including Rossi and Levi).
Any reasoning/comparing of “IH-told stories ” with other experiments is below any allowed level. You/we! simply have not the slightest proof, that IH ever did something reasonable, including correctly documenting their work.
“IH” is a legal fiction, a corporation. “Reasonable” is a human judgment (never a fact). We have not seen “documentation” on IH’s work, but we have seen sworn testimony about the ultimate results. They did see, on occasion, apparent XP, but then concluded, presumably from further testing (as well as the famous inadvertent control experiment, the best kind, blind) that this was measurement artifact.
Did they know what they were doing? That’s another issue. However, they paid quite a lot of money for that opportunity to test the Rossi technology, they would make billions in profits if they could demonstrate it independently, they consulted with experts and arranged at least one independent test (Boeing), yet Wytte, apparently along with Planet Rossi, must assume that they are greedy investors, often assuming that they are protecting their investments in fossil fuel, I’ve seen recently, which makes utterly no sense. If the Rossi Effect is real, that is worth far more than any possible investment in fossil fuels, and if they were heavily invested in fossil fuels, tossing $11.5 million at Rossi would be colossally dumb, speeding up the end. To Wytte, however, if it could make him right, the dumbest possible arguments are allowed.
As is common with people like Wytte, we see the “you have no proof” argument, even though the proposition to be supposedly proven would be routinely true and assumed, for human beings, absent contrary evidence. Wytte is arguing from an emotionally attached position, though he would probably deny that, for he, of course, thinks that his expression is “logical,” failing to notice and distinguish his pile of assumptions about life and law and business and reality.
I do wish that, even on this thread, when trying to comment on my posts, you would do so using correct argument.
As said above: Your arguments are based on an unqualified (IH) writeup – on unproven/guessed “facts”. You should not complain, because you are the source of unqualified reasoning.
Wytte is maintaining a long-term argument, never conceding any point, even if that point is obvious. This is the behavior of obsessed parties on the court programs discussed in the introduction to this post. You can see other parties who are not obsessed; when an opposing party says something true, they nod their heads, yes, or even sometimes say “Yes, that’s true,” without then jumping immediately into denial of implications. This is normal, functional, human behavior, demonstrating listening. It seems to be unusual for Wytte, hence I suspect a social disorder — and, of course, that was less than popular on LF.
However, the Cold Fusion Problem is a social problem, not really a scientific one; it only appears to be a scientific problem due to an information cascade, which will ultimately collapse as the underpinnings become known. Social problems are relevant, for the Community.
We all know that AR makes mistakes, but we also know that they not lead to a COP of 1. May be you should first find ground for reasonable arguments, before supporting IH’s COP 1 claims.
It is not clear to me that Rossi behavior is a “mistake.” However, it is clear that Rossi has, many times, for many years, prevented fully independent testing of his technology, such that any particular COP can be verified; further, an obsession with COP is a Planet Rossi trope. It’s obvious that Rossi wrote, with only a little modification asserted by IH, the License Agreement and it’s terminally obtuse Guaranteed Performance Test, practically guaranteed to fail — and Ampenergo knew that, I suspect, that is why they did not want to sign the Second Amendment.
At that point, the GPT would have been managed on IH premises, with them having full access. There was no thought, apparently, at that point, of it being done somewhere else, and especially not with a fake customer who was only Rossi wearing a different corporate hat, having attempted to mislead IH about this, and setting up conditions where IH could not confront Rossi without basically terminating the relationship.
There is no excess heat in Rossi demonstrations.
There is such heat, by Rossi did not disclose his secrets.
Annesser ridicules this, pointing out the “logical error.” I.e., there could be other possibilities, the main ones being the first two below.
Their replication attempts were incompetent.
This was an example for me of how the Rossi counsel is arguing from conclusions. Of course there are other logical possibilities, but … IH is not required to assert a possibility that makes them into perjurers.
THH is accused, commonly, of pursuing support of IH, but I don’t see that as his position. He’s studied the Lugano test, in particular, and, with others who have also studied this, concludes that they made major errors. That does not “prove” COP = 1. However, we have this situation: Lugano was a major reason for those with some doubt to go ahead and trust Rossi enough to encourage further study. IH decided that they needed to find out about Rossi (before Lugano, but continued with Lugano being important to them).
Lugano appeared to be a conclusion of independent scientists. That is now a problematic assumption. The most obvious errors remain unaddressed by the Lugano team, and THH points that out.
When Rossi filed the lawsuit, his claims pulled the rug out from the idea that there might be something to the Rossi Effect, because serious investors were involved. There is now no evidence adequate to establish the Rossi Effect, which was radically outside the state of the art for LENR. Rossi’s claims were “extraordinary,” and “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” certainly for wide acceptance in the face of high and reasonable skepticism.
That, again, does not prove COP = 1. However, a match has COP much higher than 1. And measurement error is quite possible, as the history of LENR has shown many times. It is even possible, if there is no clear independent and free observation by experts, to fake a megawatt, or, quite a stretch but still possible, to believe that a megawatt is being generated, based on instrument readings, when there is only input power. COP 1.
At Lugano, to know that the infrared camera measurements of temperature, on which the estimates of power were based, were incorrect, one had only to look at the device. At 1400 C., not only would there have been internal problems (a theoretical argument), the object would have been brightly glowing, probably painful to look at, if emissivity were as assumed. Those “scientists” — who were working outside of their specific expertise — relied on theory instead of looking at what was in front of them. They relied on a probable Rossi claim that they could not test the “dummy” device at full input power, because the heating coils could burn out, even though that was actually preposterous, based — as common with Rossi claims — on a half-truth, an incomplete consideration.
The lack of calibration at full input power, then, was compounded by the ignorance of what was visibly obvious. This thing wasn’t at 1400 C.
Lugano was useless. MFMP may or may not be able to recover some estimate of actual Lugano power, from their own dummy data, but this will always remain somewhat speculative. The fuel and ash analyses were useless as to any independent confirmation, because the samples were handled by Rossi, who could trivially have substituted a salted sample (with Ni-62). The later analysis, in 2016, was from a sample provided to Bo Hoistad by Rossi, perhaps stolen from the Florida reactor, if genuine, but there is no clear evidence that the sample was genuine at all.
Stupidity is not confined to Planet Rossi. When we are certain that someone else is wrong, or lying, I suggest high caution. The density of error, under those conditions, can be high.
I think the relevant info for this post should be quotes of your previous statements.
The first quoted comment, above, is not a comment as a lawyer, but simply as a person with opinions. Such a comment, as it is, would be poor evidence for an alleged lack of legal training. We see lawyers making dumb comments in Rossi v. Darden. IL’s English is poor, which also is not evidence. IL is not showing negotiation skills, which can correlate with being a skilled lawyer, but he did not claim particular skill. Annesser has terrible negotiation skills, but I would not claim he is not a lawyer.
What PIH is doing is confusing possible error in casual discussion on LENR Forum, with his ideas of what a genuine lawyer might say. Which are inaccurate, just as some of what IL has written is inaccurate, on a review of the evidence we have. I am, here, looking at both IL and PIH. I am guessing on what PIH is quoting, because PIH is not a skilled writer who would be careful to distinguish who wrote what, either using the LF quotation facility — which, properly used, will also attribute and link — or, as a noob, ordinary text devices like specific attribution and quotation marks.
Maybe Quarkx is just an evolution of Ecat as you think, maybe it’s a totally different things… but that’s no the point.
The soundness of that statement depends on context, like that of most statements. PIH has left out the context. But assuming this is about IH rights to Quark-X technology, and neglecting the possibility that IL was actually writing about something else, IL was wrong, in my non-lawyer opinion. I suggest reading the relevant paragraphs in the License Agreement. If it competes with the E-Cat, it is covered. Further, Rossi acknowledged publically that Quark-X was an evolution of the E-Cat technology. If Rossi abandoned a trillion dollar technology to work on something completely different, it would be rather odd, I’d think. (He would at least turn it over to someone, and probably occasionally suggest and supervise.) Being wrong would show lack of familiarity with the specifics of the case, not necessarily fraudulent representation.
Well according to every Legal document in this case, That IS the point.
PIH is definitely not a lawyer, making a stupid comment like that.
This IP may or may not include future evos so you (as a joke lawyer) cannot dismiss it.
Lawyers do not ignore what is written. Hence, you are not a lawyer.
Non sequitur. I read the pleadings in Rossi v. Darden, and have probably more become familiar with aspects of the case, than any of the lawyers. It is not uncommon (on both sides) that they misstate matters. Ideally, every statement is backed with evidence, but it occasionally happens that they misread the evidence. This is normal. With a good lawyer, the errors can be corrected. It would be a serious error to imagine that a good lawyer never makes mistakes!
If I were to bill for the time I have put in, studying this case, at the $350 per hour that lawyers may charge, I’d have about $1 million to bill. It takes time to become familiar with a pile of documents such as we have in Rossi v. Darden.
We have no idea how much time IL has put in, but I’d venture it’s not a lot. That’s all. If it mattered for IL to prove he is an “Italian lawyer,” it could be done — without creating a public problem. All it takes is someone trusted by him, and with a public reputation to protect, willing to testify to identity verification. But it probably does not matter.
Since when do REAL lawyers have a “from my point of view”.
All the time. Does PIH know any real lawyers? IL has simply given an opinion here about Rossi motivation. This is not a “legal opinion.” Rossi is clearly reactive over “his IP,” went ballistic when IH, perhaps harmlessly, claimed to “own” the IP. The idea of a “co-inventor” was horrifying to him, even if it were legally required, i.e., if T. Barker Dameron had contributed the slightest improvement to the reactors that, after all, IH built (the Lugano reactor being one).
If I were moderating LF, PIH would be warned, the posts would be deprecated (though this was already in the Playground — I’m not sure it started there) and PIH has no history of positive contribution such that a ban would cause harm. There are two basic kinds of LF readers: those who are there to learn or share what they know, and those who like bar-room conflict. How to moderate LF depends on which of these goals is to be served. The structure, as it is, favors the latter. Some mods engage in the latter. That could be fixed if there were a will to fix it.
Added And now for something completely different about an attack on Italianlawyer.
Added Surprise! Pot Calls Kettle Black! — about a Wyttenbach comment on LF.
That’s not true. I have made many changes to meet specific requests and suggestions from researchers including Storms, Hagelstein, McKubre, Mizuno, Kitamura, and Biberian and several others involved in the JCMNS. I haven’t had any complaints. If you have suggestions, go ahead and make them.
There is no moderation at all. I upload whatever the authors send. It is entirely up to them. Several of them do not want me to upload anything. Some of the publishers have asked me not to upload anything.
The index lists nearly every paper I know of, including ones that are not uploaded. It was compiled by Britz and Storms, with additions by me. It is maintained in EndNote format, and converted to the MySQL database program that comes free with all web servers these days.
Most people use the site-specific “Custom” Google search at the top of each page, instead of the indexes.
Oh, that’s so embarrassing. I meant lenr-forum.com, not lenr-canr.org. I’ll fix it. Sorry, Jed.
Still, if there is something about LENR-CANR.org that bugs you, by all means let me know.
I am thinking of offering the EndNote files in native format for people who want to do their own searches off-line. The problem is, the files have many informal notes by Ed Storms and by me in some of the memo fields. Stuff like: “we already have this one” or “lousy paper.” I do not want to hand these out, so I have to find a way to delete the memo fields.
Jed, even when we have disagreed on this or that, you have always acted consistently with the public interest as to lenr-canr.org. I have found errors, you promptly fixed them. I was concerned about alleged “censorship.” You acted showing willingness to handle your part of the affair, making it very clear that the sustained problem was elsewhere.
You have earned my trust, over and over. Even when you are wrong, your stands are worthy of respect.
Years ago, I’d simply write a program to do that EndNote change. I did that all the time. Now … I haven’t written a program for too many decades, it’s scary to think about it. It ought to be easy to go through a regular file format and delete all the memo fields, and not terribly difficult to do it manually. But many tasks are fairly easy and we don’t ever get a Round Tuit. Anyone you trusted could do that editing for you. Thus, for community projects, engaging others is crucial, especially if the projects are to outlive us. If CFC depends only on me, it’s going to die, it is only a matter of time.
EndNote has pretty good internal programming capabilities. Or I can write a program easily enough. The problem is, there are 2805 records that need to be manually checked, and I don’t feel like doing it. Some of them have notes & comments in the Abstract field, or someplace else they should not be. There are 1580 files uploaded. All of the EndNote records for them are correct.
The records for the 2805 papers not on file are listed in the on-line index, but I programmed the transfer to blank out abstracts and other fields, leaving just a few fields. I did that so I wouldn’t have to check them all.
Look, it’s obvious. If we have to do everything ourselves, there are many useful things that won’t get done. I want to create a database, for example, of all the documents in Rossi v. Darden, that can be sorted by original document date, author, addressee, etc. At this point, time sequence is difficult to study. I can do this, and I even started. It’s a lot of work (like some of what I’ve already done). I could create a wiki and let people who care make the work. Of course, I did this with LENR years ago on Wikiversity. How many people showed up? A handful, and without any persistence. So … my stand is that it can be done, and if we are willing to do the work, it will be done. So who is willing?
I know that for this or that you have been willing, and for this or that I have been willing. Who else will work to create useful content (which is a bit different from herding cats). Ah. Krivit did, at least for a while, but lost his compass.
My general suggestion would be to quickly delete that extraneous commentary, and make the rest of the data available with caveats that it hasn’t been checked, and actively solicit corrections. That’s crowdsourcing. And if nobody corrects the errors, the crowd gets what it collectively deserves. Part of the skill of this would be making correction easy, if possible. A few errors here have been corrected. Mostly, though, I eventually notice and fix them, if it is material I see again.
It convinces many otherwise apparently sane people. But most sane people I think are not so interested in this story, we are left with mild obsessives and cult-like believers. It is not always easy to distinguish the two, though anyone with the capacity and time to follow through the evidence can do this.
Some of those apparently convinced by Rossi were relatively sane, and remained so. Ampenergo stands out. And they made millions of dollars from their investment, they may even have made a profit. They didn’t sign the Second Amendment. Why not? Rossi’s argument over this completely falls on its face. They didn’t want to pay, he says over and over and his surrogates repeat it. But IH signed. They supposedly they “influenced” Ampenergo not to sign. The correspondence, though, shows Cassarino simply asking Vaughn what to say to Rossi, and they suggest telling him the truth, it was their choice. Rossi knows, then, that the Agreement GPT was dead, “cancelled.” So when did it change to “Whoopee! It’s going! With an independent customer. Well, not independent, but who cares! A Magnificence.
What is fascinating to me is those that keep clinging to Rossi Real. Against all evidence. Most of the appearances created, that might have allowed this, within some level of reason, have been demolished. But still they cling. Watch Judge Judy. This is how people are, maybe even most people.
Next Next post: They don’t get it or don’t care?

matches:
v.
v.
v.
v.
in casu
v.
v.
v.


The state's first independent commission, convened in the spring of 2011, conducted public hearings through early September. The commission reached agreement on September 23, but not by its September 6 deadline; the late agreement became guidance for a new commission, created by order of the Secretary of State on September 13.
Congress: On October 17, the new commission issued a congressional plan.
State leg.: On October 14, the new commission issued a state legislative plan; on January 18, the plan was struck down by the state Supreme Court. The Sept. 13 commission was reconvened to redraw lines; though partisan officials brought litigation to force the removal of two commissioners, on January 25, the state Supreme Court affirmed the Secretary of State's refusal to replace those sitting commissioners. On January 27, the commission unanimously approved a new state legislative plan.
Idaho's congressional and state legislative lines are drawn by a six-member independent commission, created in 1994.
Each of the four legislative leaders (majority and minority leader in each legislative house) each select one commissioner, and the chairs of the two largest political parties each select one commissioner, with an eye to geographic diversity. The state constitution provides that no commissioner may be an elected or appointed official in Idaho when appointed to the commission. [Idaho Const. art. III, § 2(2)] State law further prohibits those who have been registered lobbyists within the last year -- or elected officials or district, county, or state party officers within the last two years -- from serving as a commissioner. [Idaho Code § 72-1502] These latter limitations may be altered by the state legislature.
Members of the first commission of 2011 are listed here; members of the second commission are listed here.
Census data were delivered to Idaho on March 10, 2011.
The schedule of hearings -- along with links for streaming video of live hearings -- is here. Archived materials and video from past hearings are also available here.
The commission's website links to an online version of Maptitude for Redistricting, which allows members of the public to draw and submit plans to the Commission.
Like all states, Idaho must comply with constitutional equal population requirements and section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Denney v. Ysursa, No. 39570-2012 (Idaho Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the Secretary of State's refusal to replace commissioners nominated by the Speaker of the Idaho House and the chairman of the Idaho Republicans, at the request of those two officials.
- Attorney General's interpretation of authority to remove commissioners (Jan. 20, 2012).
- Petition for writ of mandamus (Jan. 24) and supplement (Jan. 25).
- Order dismissing petition (Jan. 25).
The latest: On January 25, the Idaho Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioners had not established a clear right under state law to the relief they were seeking -- an order requiring the Secretary of State to replace the two identified commissioners.
In re Constitutionality of Idaho Legislative Reapportionment Plan of 2002, No. 39127-2011 (Idaho Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the constitutionality of the existing districts, given the first independent commission's failure to submit proposed districts before the relevant deadline.
- Complaint (Sept. 7, 2011).
- Order denying request for writ of mandate to reconvene commission (Sept. 9).
- Brief in support of petition (Sept. 23).
- Order declaring 2002 districts unconstitutional (Oct. 6).
The latest: On September 9, the Idaho Supreme Court determined that it had no power to require the independent commission to reconvene to draw districts for the current cycle, but noted that the Secretary of State could issue an order convening a new commission. Separately, on October 6, the court determined that 2002 districts were unconstitutionally malapportioned based on the most recent Census.
Frasure v. Idaho Redistricting Commission, No. 39128-2011 (Idaho Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court requesting declaratory relief concerning the interpretation of state redistricting law, and requesting that the court adopt congressional and legislative districts.
- Order dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.
The latest: On September 9, the Idaho Supreme Court determined that it had no original jurisdiction to clarify state law (such a case would have to proceed first in trial court), and dismissed the case.
Twin Falls County v. Idaho Comm'n on Redistricting, No. 39373-2011 (Idaho Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state legislative plan, based on allegedly insufficient attention to county boundaries.
- Petition (Nov. 16, 2011), response (Dec. 21).
- Petitioners' brief (Dec. 27).
- Amicus curiae brief (Dec. 21).
- Decision striking down state plan (Jan. 18).
The latest: On January 18, over a strong dissent, the state Supreme Court struck down the state redistricting plan, finding that it unlawfully split more counties than necessary. The state's independent commission was directed to reconvene in order to draw a substitute plan.
Benewah County v. Idaho Comm'n on Redistricting, No. 39432-2011 (Idaho Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state legislative plan, based on multiple provisions of state law, including unnecessary division of counties.
- Petition (Dec. 7, 2011) and brief in support (Dec. 28).
- State's brief (Jan. 6).
The latest: Upon the decision in Twin Falls County, above, this case was apparently dismissed as moot.


Section 413.65. Requirements for a determination that a facility or an organization has provider-based status.
42 CFR § 413.65 - Requirements for a determination that a facility or an organization has provider-based status.
§ 413.65 Requirements for a determination that a facility or an organization has provider-based status.
(i) This section applies to all facilities for which provider-based status is sought, including remote locations of hospitals, as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and satellite facilities as defined in §§ 412.22(h)(1) and 412.25(e)(1) of this chapter, other than facilities described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section.
(A) Ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs).
(B) Comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facilities (CORFs).
(D)Skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) (determinations for SNFs are made in accordance with the criteria set forth in § 483.5 of this chapter).
(F)Inpatient rehabilitation units that are excluded from the inpatient PPS for acute hospital services.
(G) Independent diagnostic testing facilities furnishing only services paid under a fee schedule, such as facilities that furnish only screening mammography services (as defined in section 1861(jj) of the Act), facilities that furnish only clinical diagnostic laboratory tests, other than those clinical diagnostic laboratories operating as parts of CAHs on or after October 1, 2010, or facilities that furnish only some combination of these services.
(H) Facilities, other than those operating as parts of CAHs, furnishing only physical, occupational, or speech therapy to ambulatory patients, throughout any period during which the annual financial cap amount on payment for coverage of physical, occupational, or speech therapy, as described in section 1833(g)(2) of the Act, is suspended by legislation.
(I)ESRD facilities (determinations for ESRD facilities are made under § 413.174 of this chapter).
(J)Departments of providers that perform functions necessary for the successful operation of the providers but do not furnish services of a type for which separate payment could be claimed under Medicare or Medicaid (for example, laundry or medical records departments).
(L) Rural health clinics (RHCs) affiliated with hospitals having 50 or more beds.
Campus means the physical area immediately adjacent to the provider's main buildings, other areas and structures that are not strictly contiguous to the main buildings but are located within 250 yards of the main buildings, and any other areas determined on an individual case basis, by the CMS regional office, to be part of the provider's campus.
Department of a provider means a facility or organization that is either created by, or acquired by, a main provider for the purpose of furnishing health care services of the same type as those furnished by the main provider under the name, ownership, and financial and administrative control of the main provider, in accordance with the provisions of this section. A department of a provider comprises both the specific physical facility that serves as the site of services of a type for which payment could be claimed under the Medicare or Medicaid program, and the personnel and equipment needed to deliver the services at that facility. A department of a provider may not by itself be qualified to participate in Medicare as a provider under § 489.2 of this chapter, and the Medicareconditions of participation do not apply to a department as an independent entity. For purposes of this part, the term “department of a provider” does not include an RHC or, except as specified in paragraph (n) of this section, an FQHC.
Free-standing facility means an entity that furnishes health care services to Medicare beneficiaries and that is not integrated with any other entity as a main provider, a department of a provider, remote location of a hospital, satellite facility, or a provider-based entity.
Main provider means a provider that either creates, or acquires ownership of, another entity to deliver additional health care services under its name, ownership, and financial and administrative control.
Provider-based entity means a provider of health care services, or an RHC as defined in § 405.2401(b) of this chapter, that is either created by, or acquired by, a main provider for the purpose of furnishing health care services of a different type from those of the main provider under the ownership and administrative and financial control of the main provider, in accordance with the provisions of this section. A provider-based entity comprises both the specific physical facility that serves as the site of services of a type for which payment could be claimed under the Medicare or Medicaid program, and the personnel and equipment needed to deliver the services at that facility. A provider-based entity may, by itself, be qualified to participate in Medicare as a provider under § 489.2 of this chapter, and the Medicareconditions of participation do apply to a provider-based entity as an independent entity.
Provider-based status means the relationship between a main provider and a provider-based entity or a department of a provider, remote location of a hospital, or satellite facility, that complies with the provisions of this section.
Remote location of a hospital means a facility or an organization that is either created by, or acquired by, a hospital that is a main provider for the purpose of furnishing inpatient hospital services under the name, ownership, and financial and administrative control of the main provider, in accordance with the provisions of this section. A remote location of a hospital comprises both the specific physical facility that serves as the site of services for which separate payment could be claimed under the Medicare or Medicaid program, and the personnel and equipment needed to deliver the services at that facility. The Medicareconditions of participation do not apply to a remote location of a hospital as an independent entity. For purposes of this part, the term “remote location of a hospital” does not include a satellite facility as defined in §§ 412.22(h)(1) and 412.25(e)(1) of this chapter.
(1) A facility or organization is not entitled to be treated as provider-based simply because it or the main provider believe it is provider-based.
(2) If a facility was treated as provider-based in relation to a hospital or CAH on October 1, 2000, it will continue to be considered provider-based in relation to that hospital or CAH until the start of the hospital's first cost reporting period beginning on or after July 1, 2003. The requirements, limitations, and exclusions specified in paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (h), and (i) of this section will not apply to that hospital or CAH until the start of the hospital's first cost reporting period beginning on or after July 1, 2003. For purposes of this paragraph (b)(2), a facility is considered as provider-based on October 1, 2000 if, on that date, it either had a written determination from CMS that it was provider-based, or was billing and being paid as a provider-based department or entity of the hospital.
(i) Except as specified in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(5) of this section, if a potential main provider seeks a determination of provider-based status for a facility that is located on the campus of the potential main provider, the provider would be required to submit an attestation stating that the facility meets the criteria in paragraph (d) of this section and, if it is a hospital, also attest that it will fulfill the obligations of hospital outpatient departments and hospital-based entities described in paragraph (g) of this section. The provider seeking such a determination would also be required to maintain documentation of the basis for its attestations and to make that documentation available to CMS and to CMS contractors upon request. If the facility is operated as a joint venture, the provider would also have to attest that it will comply with the requirements of paragraph (f) of this section.
(ii) If the facility is not located on the campus of the potential main provider, the provider seeking a determination would be required to submit an attestation stating that the facility meets the criteria in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, and if the facility is operated under a management contract, the requirements of paragraph (h) of this section. If the potential main provider is a hospital, the hospital also would be required to attest that it will fulfill the obligations of hospital outpatient departments and hospital-based entities described in paragraph (g) of this section. The provider would be required to supply documentation of the basis for its attestations to CMS at the time it submits its attestations.
(iii) Whenever a provider submits an attestation of provider-based status for an on-campus facility or organization, as described in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section, CMS will send the provider written acknowledgment of receipt of the attestation, review the attestation for completeness, consistency with the criteria in this section, and consistency with information in the possession of CMS at the time the attestation is received, and make a determination as to whether the facility or organization is provider-based.
(iv) Whenever a provider submits an attestation of provider-based status for an off-campus facility or organization, as described in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section, CMS will send the provider written acknowledgment of receipt of the attestation, review the attestation for completeness, consistency with the criteria in this section, consistency with the documentation submitted with the attestation and consistency with information in the possession of CMS at the time the attestation is received, and make a determination as to whether the facility or organization is provider-based.
(4) A facility that is not located on the campus of a hospital and that is used as a site where physician services of the kind ordinarily furnished in physician offices are furnished is presumed as a free-standing facility, unless CMS determines the facility has provider-based status.
(5) A facility that has requested provider-based status in relation to a hospital or CAH on or after October 1, 2000 and before October 1, 2002 will be treated as provider-based in relation to the hospital or CAH from the first date on or after October 1, 2000 on which the facility was licensed (to the extent required by the State), staffed and equipped to treat patients until the date on which CMS determines that the facility does not qualify for provider-based status.
(c)Reporting of material changes in relationships. A main provider that has had one or more facilities or organizations considered provider-based also may report to CMS any material change in the relationship between it and any provider-based facility or organization, such as a change in ownership of the facility or organization or entry into a new or different management contract that would affect the provider-based status of the facility or organization.
(1)Licensure. The department of the provider, the remote location of a hospital, or the satellite facility and the main provider are operated under the same license, except in areas where the State requires a separate license for the department of the provider, the remote location of a hospital, or the satellite facility, or in States where State law does not permit licensure of the provider and the prospective department of the provider, the remote location of a hospital, or the satellite facility under a single license. If a State health facilities' cost review commission or other agency that has authority to regulate the rates charged by hospitals or other providers in a State finds that a particular facility or organization is not part of a provider, CMS will determine that the facility or organization does not have provider-based status.
(i) Professional staff of the facility or organization have clinical privileges at the main provider.
(ii) The main provider maintains the same monitoring and oversight of the facility or organization as it does for any other department of the provider.
(iii) The medical director of the facility or organization seeking provider-based status maintains a reporting relationship with the chief medical officer or other similar official of the main provider that has the same frequency, intensity, and level of accountability that exists in the relationship between the medical director of a department of the main provider and the chief medical officer or other similar official of the main provider, and is under the same type of supervision and accountability as any other director, medical or otherwise, of the main provider.
(iv) Medical staff committees or other professional committees at the main provider are responsible for medical activities in the facility or organization, including quality assurance, utilization review, and the coordination and integration of services, to the extent practicable, between the facility or organization seeking provider-based status and the main provider.
(v) Medical records for patients treated in the facility or organization are integrated into a unified retrieval system (or cross reference) of the main provider.
(vi)Inpatient and outpatient services of the facility or organization and the main provider are integrated, and patients treated at the facility or organization who require further care have full access to all services of the main provider and are referred where appropriate to the corresponding inpatient or outpatient department or service of the main provider.
(3)Financial integration. The financial operations of the facility or organization are fully integrated within the financial system of the main provider, as evidenced by shared income and expenses between the main provider and the facility or organization. The costs of a facility or organization that is a hospital department are reported in a cost center of the provider, costs of a provider-based facility or organization other than a hospital department are reported in the appropriate cost center or cost centers of the main provider, and the financial status of any provider-based facility or organization is incorporated and readily identified in the main provider's trial balance.
(4)Public awareness. The facility or organization seeking status as a department of a provider, a remote location of a hospital, or a satellite facility is held out to the public and other payers as part of the main provider. When patients enter the provider-based facility or organization, they are aware that they are entering the main provider and are billed accordingly.
(5)Obligations of hospital outpatient departments and hospital-based entities. In the case of a hospital outpatient department or a hospital-based entity, the facility or organization must fulfill the obligations of hospital outpatient departments and hospital-based entities described in paragraph (g) of this section.
(e)Additional requirements applicable to off-campus facilities or organizations. Except as described in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(5) of this section, any facility or organization for which provider-based status is sought that is not located on the campus of a potential main provider must meet both the requirements in paragraph (d) of this section and all of the following additional requirements, in order to be determined by CMS to have provider-based status.
(i) The business enterprise that constitutes the facility or organization is 100 percent owned by the main provider.
(ii) The main provider and the facility or organization seeking status as a department of the main provider, a remote location of a hospital, or a satellite facility have the same governing body.
(iii) The facility or organization is operated under the same organizational documents as the main provider. For example, the facility or organization seeking provider-based status must be subject to common bylaws and operating decisions of the governing body of the main provider where it is based.
(iv) The main provider has final responsibility for administrative decisions, final approval for contracts with outside parties, final approval for personnel actions, final responsibility for personnel policies (such as fringe benefits or code of conduct), and final approval for medical staff appointments in the facility or organization.
(i) The facility or organization is under the direct supervision of the main provider.
(B) Is accountable to the governing body of the main provider, in the same manner as any department head of the provider.
(B) Handled under different contract agreements, with the contract of the facility or organization being managed by the main provider.
(3)Location. The facility or organization meets the requirements in paragraph (e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(ii), (e)(3)(iii), (e)(3)(iv), (e)(3)(v), or, in the case of an RHC, paragraph (e)(3)(vi) of this section, and the requirements in paragraph (e)(3)(vii) of this section.
(i) The facility or organization is located within a 35-mile radius of the campus of the hospital or CAH that is the potential main provider.
(C) A private hospital that has a contract with a State or local government that includes the operation of clinics located off the main campus of the hospital to assure access in a well-defined service area to health care services for low-income individuals who are not entitled to benefits under Medicare (or medical assistance under a Medicaid State plan).
(B) At least 75 percent of the patients served by the facility or organization who required the type of care furnished by the main provider received that care from that provider (for example, at least 75 percent of the patients of an RHC seeking provider-based status received inpatient hospital services from the hospital that is the main provider).
(iv) If the facility or organization is unable to meet the criteria in paragraph (e)(3)(iii)(A) or paragraph (e)(3)(iii)(B) of this section because it was not in operation during all of the 12-month period described in paragraph (e)(3)(iii) of this section, the facility or organization is located in a zip code area included among those that, during all of the 12-month period described in paragraph (e)(3)(iii) of this section, accounted for at least 75 percent of the patients served by the main provider.
(B) The facility or organization meets the criteria for identifying intensive care type units set forth in the Medicarereasonable cost reimbursement regulations under § 413.53(d).
(C) The facility or organization accepts only patients who are newborn infants who require intensive care on an inpatient basis.
(D) The hospital in which the facility or organization is physically located is in a rural area as defined in § 412.64(b)(1)(ii)(C) of this chapter.
(E) The facility or organization is located within a 100-mile radius of the children's hospital that is the potential main provider.
(F) The facility or organization is located at least 35 miles from the nearest other neonatal intensive care unit.
(G) The facility or organization meets all other requirements for provider-based status under this section.
(B) The hospital with which the facility or organization has a provider-based relationship is located in a rural area, as defined in § 412.64(b)(1)(ii)(C) of this subchapter.
(vii) A facility or organization may qualify for provider-based status under this section only if the facility or organization and the main provider are located in the same State or, when consistent with the laws of both States, in adjacent States.
(4) Also meet all the requirements applicable to all provider-based facilities and organizations in paragraph (d) of this section. For example, where a provider has jointly purchased or jointly created a facility under joint venture arrangements with one or more other providers, and the facility is not located on the campus of the provider or the campus of any other provider engaged in the joint venture arrangement, no party to the joint venture arrangement can claim the facility as provider-based.
(ii) Any facility or organization that is located off the main hospital campus that is treated by Medicare under this section as a department of the hospital and is a dedicated emergency department, as defined in § 489.24(b) of this chapter.
(2) Physician services furnished in hospital outpatient departments or hospital-based entities (other than RHCs) must be billed with the correct site-of-service so that appropriate physician and practitioner payment amounts can be determined under the rules of Part 414 of this chapter.
(3)Hospital outpatient departments must comply with all the terms of the hospital's provider agreement.
(4) Physicians who work in hospital outpatient departments or hospital-based entities are obligated to comply with the non-discrimination provisions in § 489.10(b) of this chapter.
(5)Hospital outpatient departments (other than RHCs) must treat all Medicare patients, for billing purposes, as hospital outpatients. The department must not treat some Medicarepatients as hospital outpatients and others as physician office patients.
(6) In the case of a patient admitted to the hospital as an inpatient after receiving treatment in the hospital outpatient department or hospital-based entity, payments for services in the hospital outpatient department or hospital-based entity are subject to the payment window provisions applicable to PPS hospitals and to hospitals and units excluded from PPS set forth at § 412.2(c)(5) of this chapter and at § 413.40(c)(2), respectively.
(B) If the exact type and extent of care needed are not known, an explanation that the beneficiary will incur a coinsurance liability to the hospital that he or she would not incur if the facility were not provider-based, an estimate based on typical or average charges for visits to the facility, and a statement that the patient's actual liability will depend upon the actual services furnished by the hospital.
(ii) The notice must be one that the beneficiary can read and understand.
(iii) If the beneficiary is unconscious, under great duress, or for any other reason unable to read a written notice and understand and act on his or her own rights, the notice must be provided, before the delivery of services, to the beneficiary's authorized representative.
(iv) In cases where a hospital outpatient department provides examination or treatment that is required to be provided by the antidumping rules of § 489.24 of this chapter, notice, as described in this paragraph (g)(7), must be given as soon as possible after the existence of an emergency has been ruled out or the emergency condition has been stabilized.
(8)Hospital outpatient departments must meet applicable hospital health and safety rules for Medicare-participating hospitals in part 482 of this chapter.
(1) The main provider (or an organization that also employs the staff of the main provider and that is not the management company) employs the staff of the facility or organization who are directly involved in the delivery of patient care, except for management staff and staff who furnish patient care services of a type that would be paid for by Medicare under a fee schedule established by regulations at part 414 of this chapter. Other than staff that may be paid under such a Medicare fee schedule, the main provider may not utilize the services of “leased” employees (that is, personnel who are actually employed by the management company but provide services for the provider under a staff leasing or similar agreement) that are directly involved in the delivery of patient care.
(2) The administrative functions of the facility or organization are integrated with those of the main provider, as determined under criteria in paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this section.
(3) The main provider has significant control over the operations of the facility or organization as determined under criteria in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section.
(4) The management contract is held by the main provider itself, not by a parent organization that has control over both the main provider and the facility or organization.
(i)Furnishing all services under arrangement. A facility or organization may not qualify for provider-based status if all patient care services furnished at the facility or organization are furnished under arrangements.
(ii) Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(5), or (j)(2) of this section, recover the difference between the amount of payments that actually was made and the amount of payments that CMS estimates should have been made, in the absence of compliance with the provider-based requirements, to that provider for services at the facility or organization for all cost reporting periods subject to reopening in accordance with §§ 405.1885 and 405.1889 of this chapter.
(iii) All professional services of physicians and other practitioners were billed with the correct site-of-service indicator, as described in paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
(3)Notice to provider. If CMS determines that a facility or organization was inappropriately treated as provider-based, CMS will issue written notice to the provider that payments for past cost reporting periods may be reviewed and recovered as described in paragraph (j)(1)(ii) of this section, and that future payments for services in or of the facility or organization will be adjusted as described in paragraph (j)(4) of this section.
(4)Adjustment of payments. If CMS determines that a facility or organization was inappropriately treated as provider-based, CMS will adjust future payments to the provider or the facility or organization, or both, to estimate the amounts that would be paid for the same services furnished by a freestanding facility.
(i) The notice of denial of provider-based status sent to the provider will ask the provider to notify CMS in writing, within 30 days of the date the notice is issued, of whether the provider intends to seek a determination of provider-based status for the facility or organization under this section or whether the facility or organization (or, where applicable, the practitioners who staff the facility or organization) will be seeking to enroll and meet other requirements to bill for services in a freestanding facility.
(ii) If the provider indicates that it will not be seeking a determination for the facility or organization under this section or that the facility or organization or its practitioners will not be seeking to enroll, or if CMS does not receive a response within 30 days of the date the notice was issued, all payment under this paragraph (j)(5) will end as of the 30th day after the date of notice.
(B) Furnishes all other information needed by CMS to make a determination regarding provider-based status or process the enrollment application, as applicable, and verifies that other billing requirements are met.
(v) If the necessary applications or information are not provided, CMS will terminate all payment to the provider, facility, or organization as of the date CMS issues notice that necessary applications or information have not been submitted.
(k)Temporary treatment as provider-based. If a provider submits a complete attestation of compliance with the requirements for provider-based status for a facility or organization that has not previously been found by CMS to have been inappropriately treated as provider-based under paragraph (j) of this section, the provider may bill and be paid for services of the facility or organization as provider-based from the date it submits the attestation and any required supporting documentation until the date that CMS determines that the facility or organization does not meet the provider-based rules. If CMS subsequently determines that the requirements for provider-based status are not met, CMS will recover the difference between the amount of payments that actually was made since the date the complete attestation of compliance with provider-based requirements was submitted and the amount of payments that CMS estimates should have been made in the absence of compliance with the provider-based requirements. For purposes of this paragraph (k), a complete attestation of compliance with provider-based requirements is one that includes all information needed to permit CMS to make a determination under paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(1) If CMS determines that a facility or organization that had previously been determined to be provider-based under this section no longer qualifies for provider-based status, and the failure to qualify for provider-based status resulted from a material change in the relationship between the provider and the facility or organization that the provider did report to CMS under paragraph (c) of this section, treatment of the facility or organization as provider-based ceases with the date that CMS determines that the facility or organization no longer qualifies for provider-based status.
(2) If CMS determines that a facility or organization that had previously been determined to be provider-based under this section no longer qualifies for provider-based status, and if the failure to qualify for provider-based status resulted from a material change in the relationship between the provider and the facility or organization that the provider did not report to CMS under paragraph (c) of this section, CMS will take the actions with respect to notice to the provider, adjustment of payments, and continuation of payment described in paragraphs (j)(3), (j)(4), and (j)(5) of this section, and will recover past payments to the provider to the extent described in paragraph (j)(1)(ii) of this section.
(3) Owned by the Indian Health Service but leased and operated by the Tribe under the Indian Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 93-638) in accordance with applicable regulations and policies of the Indian Health Service in consultation with Tribes.
(2) Based on the recommendation of the Public Health Service, was determined by CMS on or before April 7, 2000 to meet the requirements for receiving a grant under section 330 of the Public Health Service Act, and continues to meet such requirements.
(1)General rule.Provider-based status for a facility or organization is effective on the earliest date all of the requirements of this part have been met.


Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 342 › Carson v. Roane-Anderson Co.
1. The Tennessee Retailers' Sales Tax Act imposes a sales tax on the sale of goods within the State and a use tax on the use within the goods purchased elsewhere. Respondents are private companies who are contractors for the Atomic Energy Commission and vendors of those contractors who paid under protest sales taxes and use taxes imposed under the Act on articles used in the performance of contracts with the Commission.
Held: the challenged taxes are prohibited by § 9(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. Pp. 342 U. S. 233-236.
2. The contracts which the respondents have with the United States, and the performance thereunder, are Commission "activities" which § 9(b) exempts from state taxation. Pp. 342 U. S. 233-236.
192 Tenn. 150, 239 S.W.2d 27, affirmed.
In suits brought by respondents to recover amounts paid as state sales and use taxes and to enjoin future collections, the State Supreme Court held that the challenged taxes were prohibited by § 9(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. 192 Tenn. 150, 239 S.W.2d 27. This Court granted certiorari. 342 U.S. 847. Affirmed, p. 342 U. S. 236.
The Retailers' Sales Tax Act of Tennessee, Tenn. Acts 1947, c. 3, imposes a sales tax on the sale of goods in Tennessee and a use tax on the use within the state of goods purchased elsewhere. Tennessee collected these taxes from respondents, who paid them under protest and then brought these suits to recover them and to enjoin future collections. Two of the respondents are private companies who are contractors for the Atomic Energy Commission and who paid use taxes; two are merchants who paid sales taxes on sales to those contractors and who passed the taxes on to them. The use taxes and the sales taxes were on articles used by the contractors in the performance of their contracts with the Commission.
The Tennessee Supreme Court held, by a divided vote, Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp. v. Carson, 192 Tenn. 150, 239 S.W.2d 27, that the challenged taxes, though not forbidden by the Constitution, were prohibited by § 9(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, 60 Stat. 765, 42 U.S.C. § 1809(b). The cases are here on certiorari. 342 U.S. 847.
"The Commission, and the property, activities, and income of the Commission, are hereby expressly exempted from taxation in any manner or form by any State, county, municipality, or any subdivision thereof."
Congress to protect any of its agencies from state taxation, Pittman v. Home Owners' Corporation, 308 U. S. 21; Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U. S. 95, has long been recognized as applying to those with whom it has made authorized contracts. See Thomson v. Pacific R. Co., 9 Wall. 579, 76 U. S. 588-589; James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134, 302 U. S. 160-161. Certainly the policy behind the power of Congress to create tax immunities does not turn on the nature of the agency doing the work of the government. The power stems from the power to preserve and protect functions validly authorized, Pittman v. Home Owners' Corp., supra, at 308 U. S. 33 -- the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested in the Congress. U.S.Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 18. Hence, if the present contracts which the respondent contractors have with the United States, and the performance thereunder, are "activities" within the meaning of § 9(b) of the Act, the immunity is clear. Our view is that they are, and that the judgments below must be affirmed.
"management contracts for the operation of Government-owned plants so as to gain the full advantage of the skill and experience of American industry. [Footnote 4]"
"to make, or to continue in effect, contracts with persons obligating them to produce fissionable material in facilities owned by the Commission."
And § 9(a) authorizes the transfer to the Commission of all contracts concerning the production of fissionable material. The use of private contractors is therefore one of the ways in which the Commission is authorized to manage its affairs. Its activities may, in other words, be performed by it directly or through the agencies of private enterprise.
Congress uses the word "activities" in various sections of the Act, and seems each time to give it a broad sweep. The Congressional or Joint Committee constituted under § 15 is directed to study "the activities" of the Commission. The reports which the Commission is directed to submit to Congress pursuant to § 17 concern its "activities."
Section 9(b) authorizes the Commission to make payments to state and local governments in lieu of property taxes in those areas "in which the activities of the Commission are carried on and in which the Commission has acquired property" previously subject to local taxation. In none of these sections do we find any suggestion that "activities" is used in a narrow sense to describe less than all of the functions of the Commission. The meaning of "activities" as applied either to an individual or to a government agency may be broad enough to include what is done through independent contractors as well as through agents. Certainly where the pattern of conduct visualized by the Act is the use of independent contractors or agents from the field of private enterprise, the inference is strong that "activities" means all authorized methods of performing the government function. We find no contrary evidence from the legislative history.
In view of this conclusion, we find it unnecessary to reach the problems of implied constitutional immunity involved in James v. Dravo Contracting Co., supra, and Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U. S. 1.
Executive Order No. 9816, Dec. 31, 1946, 12 Fed.Reg. 37.
See H.R.Rep.No.1186, 79th Cong., 1st Sess.
See S.1717 reprinted in Hearings before the Senate Special Committee on Atomic Energy, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 1-9.
S.Rep.No.1211, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 15.


text:
Common fixed point thermos in 2- Metric spaces with sub compatible and sub sequentially continuous six self mappings MSIRJ VOL 2(2)2013), 530 – 537.
“Translation for Interactive Learning” in International Journal of English: Literature, Language & Skills. Volume 3, Issue 3, October 2014, ISSN: 2278-0742. Pages 170-173.
“Systematic approach on the fabrication of Co doped ZnO semiconducting nanoparticles by mixture of fuel approach for Antibacterial applications”, V. Rajendar, T. Dayakar, K. Shobhan, I. Srikanth and K. Venkateswara Rao, Superlattices and Microstructures 2014, 75, 551-563.
"Novel Ammonium Acetate Fuel Based Auto combustion Method for the Preparation of Zn1-xAgxO Nanoparticles for antibacterial activity”, V. Rajendar, T. Dayakar and K. Venkateswara Rao, Nanomedicine and nanobiology, American Scientific Publishers, Vol. 1, 1–7, 2014.
"Comprehensive study on the production of single phase Nickel doped Zinc Oxide nanoparticles by mixture of fuel approach for DMS applications”, V. Rajendar, N. Prudhvi Raju, K. Shobhan, I. Srikanth and K. Venkateswara Rao, International Journal of Chemical and Analytical Science 2014, 5(2), 64-72).
"Novel Ammonium Acetate fuel based autocombustion method for the preparation of Nickel doped zinc Oxide nanoparticles”, V. Rajendar, N. Prudhvi Raju and K. Venkateswara Rao, Advance Science Engineering and Medicine, vol.6, 1-5, 2014.
"Nanocrystalline Zn1−xCoxO (0.05≤x≤0.2) Powders Produced by Novel Auto-Combustion Method and Their Characterization”, V. Rajendar, K. Venkateswara Rao, Mohsen Ahmadipour, K. Shoban, Advanced Science Engineering and Medicine Vol. 5, pp. 1–5, 2013.
"Effect of Co Doping on Structural and Magnetic Properties of ZnO Nanoparticles Synthesized by Novel Combustion Synthesis”, V. Rajendar, K. Venkateswara Rao, K. Shobhan, C.H. Shilpa, Journal of nano- and electronic physics, Vol. 5 No 1, 01022(3pp) (2012).
"Structural and optical properties of ZnO nano particles synthesised by Mixture of fuel approach in solution chemical combustion”, Rameswara Rao, V.Rajendar, K. Venkateswara Rao, Advanced Materials Research Vol. 629 (2013) pp 273-278.
Synthesis and Characterization of α–Al2O3 Platelet Nanoparticle as a Direct Product of Solution Combustion Method, Hamed Sadabadi, Adeleh Aftabtalab, Shirzad Zafarian, K.Venkateswara. Rao, V.Rajendar, International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT) ISSN: 2249 – 8958, Volume-2, Issue-3, February 2013. PP 54-56.
Graphene Oxide Thin Films: A Simple Profilometer for Film Thickness Measurement Satish bykkam, K.Venkateswara Rao, Ch. Shilpa Chakra, V.Rajendar, Rotte Naresh kumar,J.Ananthaiah, International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT) ISSN: 2249 – 8958, Volume-2, Issue-3, February 2013 .PP 341-344.
Formation of Nanoscale Mg(x)Fe(1-x)O (x = 0.1, 0.2, 0.4) Structure by Solution Combustion: Effect of Fuel to Oxidizer Ratio, Mohsen Ahmadipour, K. Venkateswara Rao, and V. Rajendar, Hindawi Publishing Corporation Journal of Nanomaterials, Volume 2012, Article ID 163909, 8 pages.
Formation Nano Size Ag–TiO2 Composite by Sol–Gel Method and Investigation of Band Gap Decline, Mozhgan Hatami, K. Venkateswara Rao, Mohsen Ahmadipour, and V. Rajendar, Advanced Science, Engineering and Medicine, Vol. 5, pp. 1–5, 2013.
Fabrication and characterization of Cds thin film for the solar cell applications, CH.Ashok, K. Venkateswara Rao, CH. Shilpa Chakra and V. Rajendar, R. Laxmi Narayana, International Journal of Chem Tech Research Coden (USA): Vol.6, No 6, PP 3367-3370. (ISSN:0974-4290).
Structural Properties of CdS Nanoparticles for Solar Cell Applications, CH.Ashok, K. Venkateswara Rao, CH. Shilpa Chakra and V. Rajendar, Int. J. Pure Appl. Sci. Technol., 23(1) (2014), pp. 8-12.
Microwave-Assisted Method for ZnO Nanoparticles Synthesis using Ionic Liquids, CH.Ashok, V. Rajendar, K. Venkateswara Rao, CH. Shilpa Chakra and K. Ganapathi Rao, International Journal of Advanced Research in Physical Science (IJARPS), Vol. 2, Issue 1A,January 2015, PP 104-109.
"Common Limit Range property (CLR) and existence of fixed points in Menger Spaces"- in International Journal of Mathematics Trends and Technology (IJMTT) – Volume 33 Number 1- May 2016.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.