Talk:Energy Catalyzer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Lawsuit Settled[edit]

On the 4th day of the trial (incuding a mistrial due to Jury problems) the parties settled. The trial was not reported by ANY media other than specialized LENR sites. But I think a simple statement closing out the section would be OK.

The order is docket #333 Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 333 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2017 Page 1 of 1 Order (copy on non-RS site)


THIS CAUSE came before the Court on July 5, 2017 for trial, and upon the parties’ ore tenus notice of settlement and stipulation for dismissal. Being fully advised, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this matter is dismissed with prejudice. All parties shall bear their own fees and costs. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case forthwith, and all pending motions are DENIED as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida this 6th day of July, 2017.

I propose adding a single sentence :

The case was settled on July 6, 2017. with a REF to the docket. Alanf777 (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

We generally do not cite primary sources for court cases, and we certainly can't cite anything posted by an anonymous person on Google drive. 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:45A7:96A6:A033:5B8F (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Alanf777: seems fine if a reliable primary source can be found. VQuakr (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, leaving the case hanging for ever in suspended animation is worse than a (possibly non-RS) reference to the docket, where there is a clear-cut order -- no opinions attached -- simply stating that the case was settled and closed. Alanf777 (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
From what I have read, Rossi has stated that a joint statement about the settlement (approved by both parties) should be released "soon". I suspect that this press release will likely be covered by reliable sources and I think we should wait for it. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
If the only source for the lawsuit being settled is going to be a recycled press release from the involved parties, one has to wonder whether it ever merited coverage in the first place. 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:84BA:3652:536A:2419 (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
We don't have the press release yet, but I suspect there are several news sources with articles already half written waiting for said press release. We can cite those easily enough. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 19:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah, and Rossi's claims about what will happen in the future have always been reliable and trustworthy. Ahem. If a joint release really is in the cards, it will be free of meaningful content, contain phrases like "does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing" and "pleased to put this matter behind us", and likely allude to confidential settlements and nondisclosure agreements.
Should one or more press releases appear, I expect that the closest thing to a "reliable source" will be Triangle Business News offering an uncritical regurgitation of the contents (in line with their previous approach to reporting). There will also be breathless commentary from the fringe, full of the usual sound and fury, and signifying the same nothing. Someday a real journalist may actually put together a proper investigative piece, but I'm not holding my breath. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Triangle has a story on it ... but it's behind a paywall. Dispute between inventor and Raleigh investor over nuclear reaction device ends. I'll try and get the text. Alanf777 (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I contacted the editor, who can't give me that permission. She gave me numbers for the subscription / managing editor. I'll try that tomorrow (Fri 4th) Alanf777 (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

So, was my prediction above correct? Is the Triangle piece as useless as always, simply parroting Darden and whatever press releases are available (if any, I imagine that despite Rossi's promises there won't be any)? I haven't been able to review the article text, but I'm guessing that the local newspaper still hasn't done any actual investigative reporting, and the "reporter" in question didn't bother to consult any competent, independent experts—am I right? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, I initially only received the FIRST page of the TBJ article. There are 7 paragraphs directly quoting or paraphrasing an interview with Darden. 3 relate to Rossi and 4 to their ongoing efforts elsewhere. Go buy the 1-day subscription and read it for yourself. Alanf777 (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@Alanf777. We also have a source called Law360 that has reported on the lawsuit repeatedly. @TenOfAllTrades. stop being WP:POINTY about your 'predictions', nobody cares, what matters is the sources themselves. The triangle business journal is, as far as I can tell, a reliable source. When they decide to host a press release, it has been clearly marked as such in the past and quite rightly is not treated as an independent source regardless of who hosts it. Their interviews with Darden and prior reporting on this subject are as you would expect from a business journal covering investment in a new technology. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
And do any of these (paywalled) sources tell us anything beyond the fact the case has been settled out of court? Because we seem to lack any substantive third-party sources telling us much at all about the whole saga. There was an undisclosed agreement about 'rights' to something-or-other. The parties disagreed about whether terms of the agreement had been met. It went to court. And was then settled out of court. Not much encyclopaedic content there... (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I've seen the text of Triangle Business JOURNAL -- which has only one relevant Darden quote (yes, not just from a press release) ... but I think I'll just note the fact it was settled and point to the official docket # and date. Alanf777 (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I added the TBJ link ... working on the docket.Alanf777 (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I object to deleting my full sentence .. the fact that it was WITH PREJUDICE is important, because it means that neither party can re-open it. Alanf777 (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, I have restored that bit. The user who removed it did not seem to object (given the edit summary) but was simply going for conciseness I think. However, the 'with prejudice' bit is relevant. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Any settlement results in the underlying case being dismissed with prejudice. Stating it explicitly places undue emphasis on the technicality. VQuakr (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
That is a fair point I suppose. I'll let others weigh in. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 23:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
A quick google indicates that settling WITH prejudice is NOT automatic. General readers without knowledge of the law may not know the significance. The TBJ article includes it. I fail to see why VQuakr feels entitled to DELETE it, of his/her own volition, while I have to seek consensus to put it BACK. I propose putting it back as a wiki link to dismissed with prejudice Alanf777 (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
UN-collapsed general advice which applies to ANY party. Left the second one collapsed which used an individual party as an example. Alanf777 (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
eg [1] "The question of whether to agree to a dismissal with prejudice or one without prejudice is something that each party to a lawsuit needs to consider carefully." Non-legal inquiring minds might want to know if the case can be re-opened by either party. The wiki says: A civil matter which is "dismissed with prejudice" is over forever. This is a final judgement, not subject to further action, which bars the plaintiff from bringing any other lawsuit based on the claim. Alanf777 (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Irrelevant sources written to provide legal advice for individuals
eg [2] also discusses voluntary dismissal with OR without prejudice. Alanf777 (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
The WP:ONUS is on those favoring inclusion of content to establish consensus. In your OP in this section you proposed a simple statement of fact, [3], so short that I didn't have any concerns about WP:WEIGHT. In your article space edit you added more words to what is already a very trifling section; I disagree that the extra weight is warranted. Why do you feel so strongly that it is worth including? VQuakr (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I explained my reasons fully. In case you missed it, anyone reading about the settlement might want to know if it can be re-opened. Alanf777 (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Regarding 'with prejudice'/'without prejudice' phraseology, can I remind people that this is an encyclopaedia intended for a general readership, and not a legal textbook. 'Prejudice' as a legal term not only differs from normal usage, but has differing connotations depending on the particular jurisdiction and context. If the sources clarify what exactly is meant by the term, so should we, and if they don't, we shouldn't attempt to, but should instead omit the phrase entirely. It is better to omit technical details than to be potentially misleading. (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I still regard it as important to inform our general readers that the case can NEVER be re-opened. (I have already seen this postulated in the wild). We could say "The parties settled and the case was dismissed 'with prejudice' (meaning it can never be re-opened)." Alanf777 (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Whether you regard it important is rather beside the point. Do the sources cited think it merits explanation? And if so, what do they actually say? Because it isn't our job to give legal interpretations of court case settlements. Which seems to be what you are doing... (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to rewrite that paragraph with a quote from TBJ. Alanf777 (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Totally unnecessary verbiage. (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that most of the verbiage is unnecessary ... but other editors here have disputed my ability to paraphrase the statement. Instead of reverting it you could have edited it to leave only the essentials : case settled, can't be re-opened, details not revealed. I suggest YOU undo your edit and quote only enough to include those three points in whatever language you choose. Removing "with prejudice" is super-imposing YOUR (that's ALL of you) view over RS TBJ's. Anyway, as they say in the USA : "See you in court". Alanf777 (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


Can you explain why your personal opinion should override 'all of you'? Because so far you haven't given any explanation as to why it is necessary to go into the level of detail you seem determined to insist on. The case has been settled, by agreement. That is what we have told the readers. 'With prejudice' is legal jargon that (since it is unexplained by the sources cited, and since we aren't qualified to explain ourselves) adds nothing to the article beyond leaving readers wondering what such jargon means. Pointless... (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Dedenting on a different subject. 21:25, 4 August 2017‎ Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk | contribs)‎ . . (36,739 bytes) (-248)‎ . . (→‎Lawsuit: removed link that the general public is legally forbidden to access) (undo | thank) -- The link was to the PACER docket entry for the order. PACER is open to the public (and is free for a small number of pages). The reason for removing the link is invalid, so I propose restoring the link (reverting if nothing else has changed, re-inserting it otherwise). Alanf777 (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC) The "not legal" warning is for ENTERING (or modifying) information. For READING, it says : Instructions for viewing filed documents and case information: If you do not need filing capabilities, enter your PACER login and password. If you do not have a PACER login, you may register online at Alanf777 (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if we determined that the weblink wasn't appropriate, the rest of the citation was fine. VQuakr (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. When I clicked the link it said "Notice - This is a Restricted Web Site for Official Court Business only. Unauthorized entry is prohibited and subject to prosecution under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. All activities and access attempts are logged." I interpreted "entry" as entering the site, not entering information, and couldn't see how curiosity by the general public qualified as "Official Court Business." If you're familiar with the PACER system and can guarantee that our readers will not face criminal charges for accessing the material I'll gladly take your word for it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
FYI at it says "PACER is available to anyone who registers for an account." As far as I can see no one is refused. Registration requires Name, Address, Date of Birth etc etc. So they can add to your dossier I guess. Status of using a nom-de-internet, I don't know... GangofOne (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Of course the weblog at records my ip addresses, correlating that with weblog ip address, allows them to add to my dosier anyway. GangofOne (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
The PACER site goes on to say "PACER is available to anyone who registers for an account. The more than one million PACER users include attorneys, pro se filers, government agencies, trustees, data collectors, researchers, educational and financial institutions, commercial enterprises, the media, and the general public." Alanf777 (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please point me to the dispute resolution page? Alanf777 (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC) Alanf777 (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI: Court transcript final day of trial: I looks like it came from pacer, based on the article it's in. Here's an article with link to the settlement (says nothing) from "undisclosed source". I believe the output on is government produced and not eligible for copyright, although possibly other restrictions, but since it's available to the general public, I conclude there are no such other restrictions. GangofOne (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The words "with prejudice" as part of a direct quote are completely appropriate. No explanation need be offered.GangofOne (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Would you care to explain why you think it is necessary to quote the source, rather than paraphrase it, as is the norm for almost all the other content of the article? (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Not that it's "necessary"... I just thought the objection by Alanf777 of a deletion was to a quotation. Anyway if it is paraphrased, then it has to be understood, which could be unreliable , since it is legal terminology. If we just quote the court docket, there is no danger of nonfactuality. GangofOne (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I *did* paraphrase it, in several different wordings (initially in the article, revised in the article, and in talk). Since other editors objected to ALL of my attempts, I posted the entire quote. In any case, this discussion has now moved to mediation. Alanf777 (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I had only three options : 1) drop it b) edit-war-ing c) mediation Alanf777 (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
DRN is not mediation, and editors are encouraged to continue discussion on the talk page while the DRN section is open. The lawsuit has barely been acknowledged by independent sources, so extensive quotes or focus on minutiae are not in line with WP:WEIGHT. VQuakr (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Given the failure of the DRN thread to resolve anything, I have removed the remaining legal jargon from the article. I have also corrected the erroneous assertion that 'charges' were dismissed by the judge. This was a civil case, and nobody was charged with anything... (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Energy Catalyzer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

'This article needs to be updated'[edit]

I have no idea why this tag has been added to the article. [4] There is nothing new reported in any reliable source that I have seen. I suggest that if anyone thinks an update is required, they either add it themselves, or at least provide a link on the talk page. Suggesting to readers that the article is out of date while failing to explain why is entirely unhelpful. (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yup, not a helpful tag. I think any update for ever will be "Still doesn't work". Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Discuss recent proposed addition.[edit]

this addition seems unessessary and confusing, doesn't seem to add anything concrete and is essentially unverifiable if it is trying to imply some sort of outcome of the settlement. Have reverted for now per BRD. Please discuss (mobile edit or I would write more and ping user who made the edit). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

got to agree with this: I couldn't figure out what the heck it was supposed to mean. 'Somebody says something hopelessly vague about someone else' doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)