LAWSUIT FILED ON JULY 16, 1999, AT THE U. S. FEDERAL COURT, TAMPA, FLORIDA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 99-1675-CIUT-25-A

RUGGERO MARIA SANTILLI
Plaintiff

ELIO CONTE, MARIA PIERALICE,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE
LIBERO ISTITUTO UNIVERSITARIO
INTERNAZIONALE, EUGENE E. MALLOVE,
BARBARA A.F. DELLO RUSSO, THOMAS E. PHIPPS, JR,
COLD FUSION TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
ENRICO PANARELLA, K. CHARBONNEAU,
B. R. ROBINSON, and ALFT, INC.

PLAINTIFFÕS OPPOSITION AND ANSWER TO ATTORNEY RAGURAÕS ÒDEFENDANTSÕ EUGENE E. MALLOVE, BARBARA A. F. DELLO RUSSO, THOMAS E. PHIPPS, JR., and COLD FUSION TECHNOLOGY, INC., MOTION TO DISMISS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW.Ó

1. Plaintiff Ruggero Maria Santilli opposes the above quoted Motion to Dismiss the Original Complaint because of various reasons and argumentations presented and documented in this Opposition and Answer.

2. Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court to abstain from judgment or decision on the Complaint until this Honorable Court receives a number of opinions on the merit of the Complaint by qualified scientists belonging to qualified universities or research institutions, which opinions have been solicited by Plaintiff, and are expected on or before January 30, 2000.

3. Plaintiff would like to praise Attorney Mark J. Ragusa, legal representative of the above quoted Defendants, for volunteering to Plaintiff copies of various rules in support of his motions, as well as for his impeccable knowledge of laws. However, Plaintiff expresses serious reservations on Attorney Ragusa venturing judgment on the highly technical issues of the Complaint which require an in depth knowledge of post Ph. D. theoretical physics and mathematics. Therefore, Attorney Ragusa cannot base his Motion to Dismiss on the lack technical understanding of this particular Complaint, the latter having implied a number of misunderstandings that are manifest in his Motion to Dismiss, as more particularly identified below.

3. Not without uneasiness, the Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court for continued lenience due to the fact that this Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss is again presented pro se and without representation by an attorney, thus having predictable legal shortcomings. Yet, Plaintiff has provided due diligence is soliciting and seeking legal representation, which has been prevented until now by the very peculiar nature of the Complaint.

4. Following the filing of PlaintiffÕs Unopposed Motion to Enlarge the Time to Answer to the Defendants Motion to Dismiss, copy of which is enclosed in Exhibit A, and as stated in said Unopposed Motion, Plaintiff has contacted various legal representatives, including Attorneys F. R. Jakes, D. McDonald, J. Humann, S. Coleman, E. D. Carlson, and others, under the sole request that they had experience, specifically, in cases of copyright infringments. After sending to each of said attorneys copies of the Complaint, NONE of them accepted to represent the Plaintiff, as documented in the representative letters enclosed in copy in Exhibit B. One Attorney had almost agreed to represent the Plaintiff following the payment of a rather large retainer, but subsequently withdrew because of his transparent inability to understand the really substantive issues of this particular Complaint, with the consequential relegation of his function to peripheral legal profiles.

5. In view and consideration of the above, Plaintiff pledges to continue the search of a legal representative, although Plaintiff cannot make any promise of actually securing such a legal representation prior to judgment.

6. In view of the inability by Attorney Ragusa to understand the technical issues pertaining to the blatant and documented copyright infringements by Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, and Cold Fusion Technology, Inc., the Plaintiff takes the liberty of reviewing below the essential aspects of the Complaint.

7. In support of this Opposition against Defendants Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff includes Exhibits A through L as individually identified in the below Opposition and Answer.

ORIGIN OF THE LAWSUIT AGAINST DEFENDANTS MALLOVE, DELLO RUSSO, PHIPPS, AND COLD FUSION TECHNOLOGY, INC.

8. Contrary to deceptive editorials published by Defendant Mallove in his magazine Infinite Energy and distributed world wide (reproduced in Exhibit H), which editorials are the subject of a separate Motion, the origin of the Lawsuit according to incontrovertible documentation and multiple eyewitnesses is the following.

9. The case initiated in the Summer of 1998 when Mr. Leon Toups (President of Toups Technology Licensing - TTL -, a public company in Largo Florida of which the Plaintiff is a scientific advisor) invited Defendant Mallove to visit his company with all costs paid by TTL. Mr. Toups had a personal friendship with Defendant Mallove dating back to the times when they were both graduate students at MIT.

10. During Defendant MalloveÕs visit, TTL President Toups proposed to Defendant Mallove the publication of five articles authored by the Plaintiff under the title PHYSICAL LAWS OF NEW ENERGIES AS PREDICTED BY HADRONIC MECHANICS. The series consisted of PAPERS I, II, III, IV, and V on comprehensive studies the Plaintiff had been conducted since he was at Harvard University in the late 1970Õs under DOE support, all dealing with basic issues on new clean, over-unity energies and fuels under development at TTL. Defendant Mallove accepted the publication of said five articles, in view of his personal knowledge of both TTL President Toups, as well as PlaintiffÕs research.

11. As a compensation for the publication of said five articles, Toups Technology Licensing had issued to Defendant Mallove, or his representatives-agents-nominees, ten thousand (10,000) shares of TTL common stock, which was worthed at that time about $ 22,000 (twenty two thousand dollars).

12. Immediately following Defendant MalloveÕs visit to TTL, the Plaintiff initiated the writing of the five papers, the first three of which were rushed to Defendant Mallove under the titles: PAPER I: INSUFFICIENCIES OF QUANTUM MECHANICS; PAPER II: THE NEW MECHANICS; and PAPER III: THE STRUCTURE OF THE NEUTRON AND THE NEW ENERGIES OF CLASS I.

13. As soon as the editorial review was initiated, Plaintiff Santilli was shocked by a number of unexpected behavior by Defendant Mallove, such as:

# A. The inability by Defendant Mallove, in his capacity as editor in chief of what is supposed to be a technical journal in the extremely complex and advanced field of new energies, to understand technical issues even after they were explained to him, inability confirmed in writing several times by Defendant Mallove himself.

# B. The dictatorial conduction of the editorship of Infinite Energy by Defendant Mallove, by completely ignoring the interests and needs of his authors, as well as the advice of fellow scientists, authors, and editors, such as the Plaintiff, who has fifteen years more editorial experience in highly technical journals than that by Defendant Mallove;

# C. The rather incredible lack of interest by Defendant Mallove in fulfilling the financial obligations he had acquired by accepting the payment from TTL of corporate stock in the equivalent of $ 22,000, as documented below, which obligation required the most expeditious possible publication of said five papers, any un-necessary delay being manifestly damaging to the interests of TTL and its stockholders.

14. PAPER I: INSUFFICIENCIES OF QUANTUM MECHANICS, was indeed published expeditiously by Defendant Mallove in the magazine Infinite Energy, Issue No. 22, October-November 1998, pages 33-49.

15. erious problems with Defendant Mallove began with the publication of PAPER II: THE NEW MECHANICS. In fact, Plaintiff insisted that each paper should be published in its totality for various reasons, including: the financial obligation acquired by Defendant Mallove toward TTL for a speedy publication of the series; the essential need of the integral publication of each article as a necessary condition for the understanding of their content; the notorious difficulties by readers to locate old issues when a topic is published in different issues; and other reasons. Despite all requests, verbal and in writing, moved by the Plaintiff and his own editorial staff to Defendants Mallove and Dello Russo, in a way transparently arrogant, dictatorial, and oblivious to their financial obligation, Defendants Mallove and Dello Russo published in Infinite Energy, issue no. 23, January-February 1999, only a small chunk of Paper II, that from pages 69 to 71. Rather than publishing the rest of Paper II which was under generous financial support, dealt with the only known consistent and invariant generalization of quantum mechanics initiated at Harvard University under various DOE grants, and continued by numerous scientists the world over, Defendants Mallove and Dello Russo elected to publish instead other articles without financial support, and without credible or otherwise visible comparative value or equivalent importance for new energies, as evident in inspecting the Table of Content of Issue # 23 reproduced in Exhibit C.

16. The true origin of the Lawsuit rests in the publication of Infinite Energy, issue no. 24, March-April 1999, as the 10-th anniversary issue of the research on low energy stimulated nuclear transmutations, popularly known as Òcold fusionÓ. TTL President Toups, the Plaintiff, and PlaintiffÕs own editorial staff, repetitiously petitioned Defendant Mallove and, independently, Defendant Dello Russo in a variety of respectful ways to publish in that particular 10-th anniversary issue the rest of Paper II, dealing with a review of hadronic mechanics, and Paper III, dealing with the new structure model of the neutron as a bound state of one protons and one electron as permitted by hadronic mechanics, and the related new, clean energies of particles origin. The petition was based on the fact that the entire effort to construct hadronic mechanics over 22 years of research by numerous qualified scientists the world over dealt precisely and squarely with low energy stimulated nuclear reactions, to such an extent that hadronic mechanics is the ONLY known consistent and invariant, generalized theory permitting the scientific study of said reactions, which are notoriously precluded by quantum mechanics. To the extreme surprise by the Plaintiff, his editorial staff, the officers of Toups Technology Licensing, other originators of hadronic mechanics, and observers, in a way showing pre-meditated, intentional dishonesty for equivocal personal gains, Defendants Mallove and Dello Russo elected to avoid completely any publication whatever by the Plaintiff in that particular 10-th anniversary issue, and elected instead to publish Ref. [17] of the Complaint by Defendant Conte exactly on the main content of Paper III by the Plaintiff, that is, on the structure of the neutron as a bound state of a proton and an electron, as documented the the copy of the Table of Content of issue 24 of Infinite Energy appended in Exhibit D.

17. To understand this crucial point, according to clear and incontrovertible evidence which cannot be denied without passing all boundaries of human dignity, at the time of the editorial selection of the articles to be published in the special 10-th anniversary issue of Infinite Energy, its editors, Defendants Mallove and Dello Russo, had in their desk two articles, Paper III by the Plaintiff and Ref. [17] by Defendant Conte, both dealing exactly on the same topic, the structure of the neutron as a bound state of a proton and an electron.

18. In particular, the same evidence which cannot be denied without exiting the boundary of human decency, establishes that, at the time of preferring the publication of Ref. [17] by Defendant Conte over Paper III by the Plaintiff, Defendants Mallove and Dello Russo had received Paper III by the Plaintiff several months earlier, had reviewed the same, and had requested to the Plaintiff various editorial corrections. Therefore, clear documentary evidence and multiple eyewitnesses establish that, at the time of the publication of Ref. [17] of the Complaint by Defendant Conte, Defendants Mallove and Dello russo where completely aware from the editing of Paper III by the Plaintiff that, Refs. [3,4,5] in the Complaint by the Plaintiff dating from 1990, 1992, and 1995, respectively, had achieved the first consistent representation of all characteristics of the neutron at both the nonrelativistic and relativistic levels.

19. Yet, Defendants Mallove and Dello Russo elected to publish Ref. [17] by Defendant Conte which consisted of a verbatim plagiarism, word-by-word, equation-by-equation, law-by-law, and principle-by-principle of PlaintiffÕs copyrighted Refs. [3,4,5] WITHOUT THEIR PROPER QUOTATION, AND WITHOUT ANY QUOTATION OF THE ORIGINAL DERIVATIONS OF ANY SCIENTIFICALLY MEANINGFUL VALUE. PLAINTIFF VOCIFEROUSLY, AND VEHEMENTLY DENOUNCES THIS BEHAVIOR BY DEFENDANTS MALLOVE AND DELLO RUSSO AS THE MOST DISHONEST, PRE-MEDITATED AND INTENTIONAL INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT LAWS, SCIENTIFIC FRAUD AND DECEPTION HE HAD THE DISGRACE OF SUFFERING DURING THE 32 YEARS OF HIS RESEARCH ACTIVITY. INDEPENDENTLY FROM THE CLEAR VIOLATION OF BASIC RULES OF SCIENTIFIC ETHICS, DEFENDANT MALLOVE AND DELLO RUSSO VIOLATED ELEMENTARY RULES OF HUMAN AND CIVIC ETHICS, BECAUSE THEY ELECTED TO PUBLISH REF. [17] BY CONTE WHICH HAD NO FINANCIAL SUPPORT, RATHER THAN PAPER III BY THE PLAINTIFF FOR WHICH PUBLICATION THEY HAD RECEIVED A PAYMENT IN THE EQUIVALENT OF $ 22,000. MOREOVER, THEY PREFERRED THE PUBLICATION OF REF. [17] BY DEFENDANT CONTE UNDER NUMEROUS VERY QUESTIONABLE OCCURRENCES, SUCH AS: REF. [17] PLAGIARIZED ONLY PART OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE NEUTRON STRUCTURE, WHILE PAPER III REVIEWED THE REPRESENTATION OF ÒALLÓ CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEUTRON; REF. [17] WAS NOT FORMULATED IN AN INVARIANT WAY, THUS HAVING NO KNOWN PHYSICAL VALUE, WHILE PAPER III WAS INDEED FORMULATED IN AN INVARIANT WAY; PAPER III REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS DATING BACK TO 1990 WITH CONSEQUENTIAL EVIDENT SCIENTIFIC PRIORITY, WHILE REF. [17] WAS WRITTEN IN 1999. FINALLY, DESPITE ALL THAT, DEFENDANTS MALLOVE AND DELLO RUSSO INTENTIONALLY AND CONSPIRATORIALLY AVOIDED THE PROPER QUOTATION OF PRIOR REFS. [3.4.5] IN Ref. [17]. HONORABLE COURT, IF THIS IS NOT PROFOUND DISHONESTY, BESIDES BLATANT ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR, WHAT ELSE CAN IT BE ?

20. The remaining incomprehensible chunk of Paper II and a first, per se incomprehensible chunk of Paper III, that WITHOUT the review of the structure of the neutron, were eventually published in the subsequent Infinite Energy, issue 25, May-June 1999, pages 60 to 85.

21. The remaining chunk of Paper III, that on the structure of the neutron, which had been dusting of the desks of Defendants Mallove and Dello Russo since early 1999, was eventually scheduled for publication in Infinite Energy, issue 26, July-August 1999.

22. In late May, 1999, at the time of release for publication by the Plaintiff of the all important remaining part of Paper III, the Plaintiff and his editorial staff began to receive alarming notices by Institute members or independent scientists of a plagiarism of the PlaintiffÕs work that had occurred at the 10-th anniversary special issue of Infinite Energy, that in Ref. [17] of the Compliant by defendant Conte. At the time of reception of the 10-th anniversary issue at the end of April, Plaintiff had not inspected Ref. [17] by Conte, since the latter has a very poor reputation in scientific circles. After receiving said alarming complaints, in early June 1999 Plaintiff did inspect Ref. [17] by Defendant Conte, and, to his horror, found in it a word-by-word, equation-by-equation, law-by-law, principle-by-principle plagiarism of his copyrighted Refs. [3,4,5] WITHOUT their proper quotation, in full documented and eyewitnessed evidence that said copyrighted Refs. [3,4,5] were known to Defendant Conte, by his own written admission in Ref. [15] of the Complaint, and fully known to Defendants Mallove and Dello Russo, because of their studying, reviewing, correcting and editing PlaintiffÕs Paper III which was based precisely and exactly on said Refs. [3,4,5] of the Complaint.

23. At the discovery of such a horrendous, intentional, dishonest, fraudulent, and manifestly illegal plagiarism by Defendants Conte, Mallove and Dello Russo of copyrighted works, the Plaintiff immediately approach Defendants Mallove and Dello Russo, this time no longer in a respectful way due to their loss of pre-requisites to deserve respect, by firmly requesting immediate corrective measures consisting in the publication in the immediate next issue of Infinite Energy, that number 26 of July-August 1999, of a corrective statement either by an independent scientist or by the Plaintiff denouncing the plagiarism by Defendant Conte and establishing the correct paternity of the theory.

24. To his true astonishment, Plaintiff Santilli discovered that Defendants Mallove and Dello Russo had no intention whatever of correcting immediately their violation of copyright laws, on grounds that they were not physicists capable to understand the issues, and that they had to submit the case to Òtheir ÒexpertsÓ for advice, by explicitly indicating the name of Defendant Phipps for the review task, after which ÒindependentÓ review\, corrections of unspecified content could be published at some unspecified future time.

24. In the meantime the immense scientific damage, injury and tort suffered by the Plaintiff began to emerge in all their gravity. In fact, based on the illegal and fraudulent information available at Infinite Energy, scientists in good faith from various countries began to dub the resolution of the historical problem on RutherfordÕs conception of the neutron as ÒConteÕs modelÓ, as illustrated in Exhibit E.

25. Despite this evidence of serious injury, ddamage, and tort suffered by the Plaintiff, Defendants Mallove and Dello Russo continued in their dictatorial posture of denying the immediate publication of a corrective statement. This behavior was simply astonishing for the Plaintiff, because the IMMEDIATE correction of UNINTENTIONAL plagiarisms is one of the most elementary rules for any serious editorship, whether scientific or not, if nothing else, to avoid a violation of Civil Code. The IMMEDIATE correction of INTENTIONAL plagiarisms, as it was documentedly the case at hand here, was then mandatory, if not for personal dignity and human value, to avoid a violation of the Criminal Code. THE STUBBORN REFUSAL BY DEFENDANTS MALLOVE AND DELLO RUSSO TO PUBLISH IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE MEASURES WAS THEREFORE ASTONISHING FOR THE PLAINTIFF BECAUSE DENOTING A MIND OBLITERATING ILLUSION OF SUPERIORITY OVER OTHER HUMANS AND ABOVE THE LAW.

26. As documented in Exhibit E, in view of the suffering of serious, unjust and immoral injuries, damages, and torts, and in view of the insistent, pernicious, stubborn, continuous, repetitious , mind obliterating rejection by Defendants Mallove and Dello Russo to publish immediate corrective measures, on June 22, 1999, Plaintiff Santilli had no other choice than that of initiating formal legal proceedings, by serving Defendant Mallove and Dello Russo a formal Notification of plagiarism and consequential copyright inbfringment with request for immediate corrective measure, and request for answer within seven days (see Exhibit F). In a continuation of their mind obliterating posture to firmly stand by their immoral, dishonest, and illegal behavior, Defendants Mallove and Dello Russo ignored the Formal Notification of June 22, 1999. At the expiration of the stated seven days without response, to avoid possible misunderstandings and misrepresentations, Plaintiff Santilli served one June 29, 1999 Defendants Mallove and Dello Russo with the final ÒFollow Up to the Formal NotificationÓ, with a new deadline for accepting the publication of corrective measures set at July 7, 1999 (see also Exhibit F). No response whatever was received. The Lawsuit was then filed at the US Federal Court on July 16, 1999.

27. After the filing on June 22, 1999, of the Formal Notification for plagiarism and consequential copyright infringment, the Plaintiff still continued to seek friendly solutions of the case, and attempted anything possible to avoid the filing of a Federal Lawsuit, UNDER THE UNCOMPROMISABLE CONDITION THAT HIS DAMAGE, INJURY, AND TORT WAS HALTED VIA THE IMMEDIATE PUBLICATION AT INFINITE ENERGY OF A STATEMENT IDENTIFYING THE TRUE PLAINTIFFÕS PATERNITY OF THE THEORY ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE NEUTRON SO FRAUDOLENTLY AND ILLEGALLY PRESENTED AT INFINITE ENERGY.

28. Along the latter lines, before initiating the preparation of the Complaint, Plaintiff contacted the Honorary Editor Emeritus of Infinite Energy, Hal Fox, requesting the courtesy of contacting all other editors of that magazine for intervention (see also Exhibit F). Honorary Editor Emeritus Hal Fox did, indeed, exactly that, and, in view of the evident persistence of the scientifically fraudulent behavior, as well as for other reasons, he resigned from the editorial board of that particular magazine.

29. In continuation of his efforts to prevent the filing of a Federal Lawsuit, on June 23, 1999, the day after serving the formal notification of plagiarism and copyright infringment to Defendants Mallove and Dello Russo, Plaintiff Santilli contacted Defendant Phipps, then a physicist who had been honored by the Plaintiff with a honorary professorship at his Institute,as well as in his capacity as special friend and advisor of Defendant Mallove. Plaintiff Santilli contact ted Defendant Phipps to request his personal intervention with Defendant Mallove for the expeditious publication of a corrective statement with the quotation of the original papers on the structure of the neutrons, Refs. [3.4.5] of the Complaint, which were well known to Defendant Phipps because of prior mailings of the same papers to him under eyewitnesses.

30. To his extreme astonishment, as a response to the Plaintiff plea for constructive intervention, Defendant Phipps mailed a letter to Plaintiff Santilli dated June 24, 1999, as reproduced in Exhibit G, in which:

A) Defendant Phipps resigns from the honorary professorship he had so generously received by Plaintiff Santilli;

B) Defendant Phipps emphatically supported and pompously praised the glory of his special friend Defendant Mallove, which praise, under so equivocal circumstances, can only establish a sectarian allegiance beyond what is considered a ÒsocietyÓ in the U. S. A. and throughout the world;

C) Defendant Phipps emphatically and unconditionally supported the publication by his close friend Defendant Mallove of the manifestly plagiarizing Ref. [17] by Defendant Conte WITHOUT the quotation of the original scientific work that had been copied ad litteram, thus proving that his sectarian allegiance to Defendant Mallove was of such a mind obliterating character, perhaps due to eexcessively protracted impunity due to improper tolerance by society, to have the illusion of being above the Law;

D) Defendant Phipps emphatically and unconditionally supported the delay of a publication on the case of unknown content at an unknown future time in full evident awareness that this would cause additional, unjust and immoral, damages, injuries and torts to the Plaintiff, thus reaffirming his sectarian allegiance to Defendant Mallove to such mind obliterating degree of being completely insensitive to the serious injuries caused to outsiders;

E) Defendant Phipps emphatically and unconditionally supported the scientific deception perpetrated by Defendant Conte in Ref. [17] of the Complaint due to the lack of quotation of the catastrophic inconsistencies of his treatment, despite the full awareness of said inconsistencies by Defendant Conte, by reaching such extreme to argue that deception now exists in all walks of life, thus perpetrating the most disgraceful, dishonest, and immoral misbehavior a self-dubbed scientist could possible perpetrate, by dishonoring the very meaning of the word ÒScienceÓ, for the sole purpose of serving his mind obliterating allegiance to his special friend Defendant Mallove.

31. Plaintiff Santilli still carries in his body wounds from Nazi shrapnel he suffered when he was a little boy in Italy during WWII, one of which wounds is still visible in his left hand. Since that time he reached an iron strong resolve never to suffer again abuses from others without appropriate response. For these reasons, Plaintiff Santilli included Defendant Phipps among the Defendants in the Complaint. For the same reason Plaintiff Ruggero Maria Santilli intends to prosecute Defendant Phipps in any possible way permitted by Law at whatever personal cost. There is a limit beyond which individuals cannot tolerate dishonesty, without becoming accomplices.

32. In summary, Defendant Phipps has acquired a multiple, documented and eyewitnessed liability in these proceedings, including:

A. Violation of the U. S. Copyright Act, U.S. Code, Title 17, Section 101 et seq.; violation of the adherence in 1989 by the United States of America to the Berne Convention, for which all scientific publications in the U.S.A. after 1989 are protected even if no copyright notice has appeared in them; and violation of other Civil Laws as may result to be applicable during the legal proceedings pertaining to this Complaint, for having been the official reviewer of Ref. [17] for Infinite Energy, and for having recommended the publication of the same WITHOUT the quotation of PlaintiffÕs original Refs. [3,4,5] of the Complaint;

B. Violation of the U. S. Criminal Code, for having caused the publication by Infinite Energy of Defendant ConteÕs Ref. [17] of the Complaint without quotation of Refs. [3,4,5] by the Plaintiff , IN FULL DOCUMENTED AND EYEWITNESSED AWARENESS OF THEIR EXISTENCE, THUS PERPETRATING A FRAUD; and

C. An additional violation of the U. S. Criminal Code for DOCUMENTEDLY INTENTIONAL AND PREMEDITATED CONSPIRACY WITH DEFENDANTS MALLOVE AND DELLO RUSSO TO DEFRAUD PLAINTIFF OF THE PATERNITY OF THE THEORIES DEPICTED IN REF. [17] BY DEFENDANT CONTE.

33. Contrary to manifestly deceptive statements by Defendant Mallove in his editorials at Infinite Energy, reproduced in Exhibit H, Plaintiff Santilli was forced to withdraw the publication of the rest of the series at Infinite energy because: 1) The rest of Paper III dealing with the structure of the neutron was identical in all its technical content with the already published Ref. [17] by Defendant Conte; 2) Defendants Mallove and Dello Russo had perniciously, insistently, repetitiously refused the publication of a statement of true paternity of the theory; and, last but not least, 3) Defendant Dello Russo had communicated in writing to the Plaintiff that no change whatever was admitted on the edited version of Paper III.

34. WE REACH IN THIS WAY THE ADDITIONAL, ASTONISHING, MIND OBLITERATING ILLUSION OF DOMINANCE BY DEFENDANTS MALLOVE AND DELLO RUSSO OVER THE LIFE, AND RIGHTS OF THEIR AUTHORS OF IMPOSING THE PLAINTIFF THE PUBLICATION OF PAPER III WITHOUT ANY CLARIFICATION WHATEVER, NOT EVEN IN HIS OWN PAPER, OF THE TRUE PATERNITY OF THE THEORY. UNDER THESE SO EQUIVOCAL AND INCREDIBLE CONDUCTION OF SCIENTIFIC EDITORSHIP, PLAINTIFF HAD NO OTHER CHOICE THAN WITHDRAW ALL FUTURE PUBLICATIONS, AND ONLY HAVE CONTACT WITH THESE INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF A COURT AT LAW.

35. To illustrate the difference in editorial behavior, following their withdrawal from Infinite Energy, rather than being published in un-understandable chunks, the five papers on hadronic mechanics were published ALL TOGETHER, ONE AFTER THE OTHER, in the special issue no. 1 of the reputable scientific JOURNAL OF NEW ENERGY, Vol. 4, pages 4 to 314, 1999, as per table of content and summary presented in Exhibit I.

36. A copy of this special issue of the Journal of New Energy was mailed to Attorneys Ragusa and Carmichael, and an additional copy is appended to this Opposition and Answer, because it establishes the clear value of hadronic mechanics for cold fusion in general, and, in particular, for the special 10-th anniversary issue of Infinite Energy. This confirms the intentional, malicious, fraudolent intent by Defendants Mallove and Dello Russo to perpetrated an illegal and immoral act by suppressing the publication of Paper III in the 10-th anniversary issue in favor of a plagiarized paper by Defendant Conte.

37. Far from ending their misbehavior, and far from admitting their clear wrong-doing, and initiating self-corrective measures, Defendant Mallove has continued his bold, mind obliterating illusion of having total dictatorial dominance over the lives and rights of others, and being above the law, by publishing the two editorials reproduced in Exhibit H, which, per se, are an illegal act irrespective of their content, since they throw judgements on issues pertaining to a formal Lawsuit underway at the U. S. Federal Court.

38. When the content of these editorials is examined, and compared to the incontrovertible evidence and multiple eyewitnesses outlined above, the intentional deceptive, fraudulent, and illegal posture by Defendant Mallove is confirmed and reaffirmed beyond any possible or otherwise credible doubt.

39. The misbehavior be Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, their editorial associates and their publishing conduit has further reached its climax with the fact that, recently, Toups Technology Licensing has announced the achievement of the first industrially viable reactor with an Over-unity (see Exhibit J), whose treatment is the universally known primary purpose of Infinite Energy. Rather than outlining this so important an achievement in the issue 27 of September 1999, Defendant Mallove presents instead the defamating and intentionally deceptive editorial against the Plaintiff reproduced in Exhibit H.

40. Defendant Mallove reached in this last episode the true climax of his equivocal qualifications because he suppressed the publication of the achievement of such an important result squarely in the field of his magazine, IN TOTAL OBLIVION TO THE FACT THAT HE HAD ACCEPTED THE PAYMENT BY SAID PUBLIC COMPANY OF THE EQUIVALENT OF TWENTY TWO THOUSAND ($ 22,000) !!!

41. This chain of horrendous human, scientific and legal misbehavior beg for justice. Plaintiff Ruggero Maria Santilli begs this Honorable Court to implement justice, to compel Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, Phipps and Cold Energy TechnologY, Inc. to publish in their magazine Infinite Energy a statement on the true paternity of the theory on the structure of the neutron with a quotation of the crucial Refs. [3,4,5] of the Complaint which they so stubbornly refused to publish, and to grant appropriate financial and other compensations to the Plaintiff for the severe damage, injuries, and torts he suffered due to their ,misbehavior.

INFRINGEMENTS OF COPYRIGHTS OWNED BY PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANTS MALLOVE, DELLO RUSSO, AND COLD FUSION TECHNOLOGY, INC. IN THE PUBLICATION IN THEIR MAGAZINE INFINITE ENERGY OF DEFENDANT CONTE REF. [17] OF THE COMPLAINT

42. Plaintiff Santilli reasserts and reiterate to own the copyrights of Refs. [3.4.5] of the Complaint containing the first achievement of the representation of all characteristics of the neutron as a bound state of one proton and one electron, achievement successfully permitted for the first time in scientific history by hadronic mechanics at both the nonrelativistic and relativistic level, while being strictly prohibited by quantum mechanics.

43. Plaintiff Santilli reaffirms and reiterates that Defendant Conte had full prior knowledge of these copyrighted scientific papers by Plaintiff Santilli since early 1990, as admitted by the same Defendant Conte in Ref. [15] of the Complaint.

44. Plaintiff Santilli finally reaffirms and reasserts that Defendant Mallove and Dello Russo were fully aware of the existence of these copyrighted Refs. [3.4.5] of 1990, 1992, and 1995, respectively MONTHS BEFORE the publication of the fraudulent Ref. [17] of the Complaint, because Defendants Mallove and Dello Russo inspected, reviewed, corrected and edited PlaintiffÕs SantilliÕs Paper III exactly on the same field, and which consisted precisely of a review of the copyrighted Refs. [3.4.5] of the Complaint. To avoid any remote possibility of dishonestly denying the knowledge of these fundamental papers, Plaintiff Santilli mailed them to Defendants Mallove and Dello Russo under eyewitnesses months before the appearance of the fraudulent Ref. [17] by Defendant Conte..

45. With the clear understanding of the legal implications of the above premises, any physicist can see via a simple inspection that;

A. The nonrelativistic treatment of the neutron of Ref. [17] of 1999 of the Complaint by Defendant Conte is a verbatim [lagiaristic copy, word-by-word, equation-by-equation, law-by-law, and principle-by principle of the copyrighted Ref. [3] of 1990 by the Plaintiff;

B. The relativistic treatment of the neutron of Ref. [17] of 1999 of the Complaint by Defendant Conte is an additional, verbatim plagiaristuic copy, word-by-word, equation-by-equation, law-by-law, and principle-by principle of the copyrighted Ref. [4] of 1992 by the Plaintiff (subsequently published in Ref. [5] of the Complaint);

C. The plagiarized crucial Refs. [3,4,5] by the Plaintiff are NOT quoted in Ref. [17] by Defendant Conte, as inspected, reviewed, corrected, edited and published by the Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, Phipps, and Cold Fusion Technology, Inc.

46. It should be repeated for clarity that, as stated in the Complaint, the above plagiarisms of copyrighted works DO NOT refer to marginal aspects, but to the Òvery heartÓ of the theory known as hadronic mechanics and its application to the structure of the neutron as a bound state of a proton and an electron.

47. What Defendant Conte might claim under the best circumstance is a new derivation of known, copyrighted equations, laws and principles, which is notoriously no ground for claims of paternity, as established by U.S. and International Laws, as well as protracted scientific practice.

48. The most serious occurrence of the case is the intentional, premeditated, and orchestrated suppression by Defendants Conte, Mallove, Dello Russo and Phipps of at least indicating in Ref. [17] of the Complaint the catastrophic inconsistencies suffered by the presentation of said Ref. [17], with a quotation of the related literature. As elaborated in details in the Complaint, these catastrophic inconsistencies are due to the lack of elaboration in said Ref. [17] of the plagiarized equations, laws, and principles with the new isomathematics, thus resulting in the lack of invariance in time of the numbers predicted by the theory [which is easily provable by any physicist due to the nonunitary character of the time evolution], and the consequential total lack of physical value.

49. The prior knowledge by these catastrophic inconsistencies by Defendant Conte is beyond credible doubt, because they were brought to Defendant ConteÕs attention by the Plaintiff since the early 1990Õs as per documentary and eyewitnessed evidence. Similarly, the knowledge of these catastrophic inconsistencies by Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo and Phipps is also beyond credible doubt, because said inconsistencies were outlined and repetitiously treated in the very papers by the Plaintiff said Defendants received, reviewed, edited, and corrected, such as Section 4 of Paper II published in Infinite Energy Issue no. 25, page 61 on entitledÓCATASTROPHIC INCONSISTENCIES OF BROADER THEORIES BASED ON CONVENTIONAL MATHEMATICS.Ó Therefore, under no condition whatever can Defendants Conte, Mallove, Dello Russo, and Phipps claim lack of knowledge of these catastrophic inconsistencies. Yet, they avoided their mention in Ref. [17] of the complaint in a manifestly conspiratorial way.

50. Since the magazine Infinite Energy is sold to the U. S. public as well as all over the world, the intentional, premeditated, and organized suppression of said catastrophic inconsistencies of Ref. [17] of the Complaint by Defendants Conte, Mallove, Dello Russo, and Phipps constitutes conspiratorial fraud to deceive the public for personal gain, which is a very serious violation of the Criminal Code the Plaintiff has a moral obligation, and otherwise reserves the right to prosecute at the appropriate future time with any mean permitted by Law .

51. While Defendants Conte, Mallove, Dello Russo , and Phipps, are fully aware of the implications, their legal representative Attorney Ragusa should be made aware that this conspiratorial fraud to deceive the public has very serious financial implications, because the theories underlying the Complaint, thus including the plagiarized Ref. [17], are now the subject of large financial investment by various corporations and governments the world over, due to the need by our society of, and consequential widespread search for new, clean energies and fuels.

52. As a result of this extremely grave situation, Plaintiff feels obliged to suggest Attorney Ragusa in his own interest to exercise extreme caution before supporting the indicated conspiratorial fraud to deceive the public perpetrated by his clients, so as to avoid the risk that he, himself, could be implicated in Criminal, let alone Civil Proceedings, since the Plaintiff is acting pro se. The clear understanding remains that all Defendants have the right to legal representations, while the issue here raised deals specifically with the transition from legal representation to open support and participation in the Clients acts. As a specific illustrative example, Attorney Ragusa could be made co-responsible for the publication by his client Defendant Mallove of the defamatory editorials reproduced in Exhibit H during an ongoing Federal Lawsuit, thus potentially becoming himself a Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff hereby formally requests Attorney Ragusa to exercises a better control of his clients actions during these legal proceedings, or that at least he provides the Plaintiff with a written disclaimer of his participation in uncontrollable actions by his clients. In particular, Plaintiff Santilli hereby formally requests Attorney Ragusa to provide him a WRITTEN disclaimer of his participation and authorization in the defamatory editorials of Exhibit H independently published during the course of formal Federal Proceedings.

53. The above incontrovertible evidence establishes the violation of the Civil Code by Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, Phipps, and Cold Fusion Technology, Inc., because of: violation of the U. S. Copyright Act, U.S. Code, Title 17, Section 101 et seq.; violation of the adherence in 1989 by the United States of America to the Berne Convention, for which all scientific publications in the U.S.A. after 1989 are protected even if no copyright notice has appeared in them; and violation of other Civil Laws as may result to be applicable during the legal proceedings pertaining to this Complaint, all said violations being clearly stated in the Complaint beginning from page 2 on..

54. The above incontrovertible evidence additionally establishes that Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, and Phipps have violated the Criminal Code, both individually and in a conspiratorial collegial way, because the plagiarism was incontrovertibly intentional, pre-meditated, orchestrated, desired, coldly implemented and coldly sustained in an insistent, repetitious, pernicious, and protracted way, by rejecting all requests for immediate corrective measures, which, as clearly stated in the Formal Notification of plagiarism (Exhibit F) would have prevented or otherwise voided the filing of the Complaint.

FORTHCOMING TECHNICAL JUDGMENT ON PLAGIARISMS BY EXPERTS.

55. Plaintiff Santilli has solicited a technical verification of the above indicated plagiarisms for the benefit of this Honorable Court, authored by qualified scientists in the U.S.A. and abroad of unimpeachable ethical standards and scientific record. Said formal statement are expected to be available in at least three months, and not sooner than the end of January 2000.

ITEMIZED OPPOSITION TO THE INDIVIDUALLY NUMBERED STATEMENTS BY ATTORNEY RAGUSA IN HIS MOTION TO DISMISS THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

56. Plaintiff Ruggero Maria Santilli vociferously and vehemently opposes the Motion to Dismiss prepared and filed by Attorney Ragusa on behalf of Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, Phipps, and Cold Fusion Technology, Inc., because:

A) The Motion to Dismiss is based on a lack of technical understanding by Attorney Ragusa of the substantive issues of the Complaint which can only be expressed in terms of differential equations and other post Ph.D. theoretical and mathematical formulations;

B) The Motion to Dismiss is based on additional nonscientific arguments lacking the necessary substance, credibility and pertinence; and

C. The Motion to Dismiss is damaging to this Honorable Court, because suggesting a repetitious re-conduction of essentially the same legal iterim and procedures without a substantive motivation. Moreover, Attorney RagusaÕs Motion to Dismiss is as unjustly damaging to the Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, Phipps, and Cold Fusion technology Inc. represented by said Attorney Ragusa, because the suggested procedure would cause said Defendants the un-necessary doubling of the legal costs, as well as forcing the filing by the Plaintiff of Criminal Proceedings which are not contemplated at this preliminary stage of the Civil proceedings.

57. More particularly, Plaintiff opposes Attorney RagusaÕs Statement 1 because complex, post Ph. D. issues in theoretical physics and mathematics cannot possibly be expressed in a concise way. Therefore, Attorney Ragusa request of dismissal of the original Complaint because it is not concise is, under these clear circumstances, deprived of any value, other than the intent of favoring his clients via the suppression to this Honorable Court of basic information on the case. The additional contention by Attorney Ragusa that the Complaint lacks direct character is false. The Complaint directly address, identified, elaborate, and document all individual charges of infringement of copyrights and other violations of the law.

58. Plaintiff opposes the additional comments in Attorney RagusaÕs Statement 1 to the effect that the claims against Cold Fusion Technology, Inc. are unclear in the Complaint. Attorney Ragusa knows well that, according to U. S. Laws, all magazines sold to the public must have a clearly identified publisher responsible with the editorial board of all publications. As Attorney Ragusa also knows well, in case of copyright infringments in magazines sold to the public, all Judicial Injunctions most be issued jointly to the editors and to the publishing conduit. Finally, Attorney Ragusa also knows well that, in all financial and other compensations granted by U. S. Courts for copyright infringements in magazines sold to the public, the pro-rated allocation of said compensation between the editors and the publisher belongs to the Court, and certainly not to the Plaintiff. In any rate, the lack of such pro-rated allocation in the Complaint cannot possibly be reason for its dismissal.

59. Plaintiff strongly and vehemently opposes Attorney RagusaÕ Statement 2 on the alleged lack of clear jurisdiction. Attorney Ragusa knows well that the U. S. Federal Court is the SOLE jurisdiction applicable to copyright infringements for magazines sold all over the United State of America as well as abroad. Moreover, as documented in Exhibit K by the voting certificates, the Plaintiff is a resident of Pinellas County since 1990. Therefore, the claim of lack of jurisdiction by Attorney Ragusa has no credibility, meaning, or value, and, in any case, it is certainly not reason for dismissal of the Complaint, since the U. SA. Federal Court, Middle District of Florida in Tampa is, and remain the only unquestionable jurisdiction.

60. Plaintiff opposes Attorney RagusaÕs Statement 3 because documentedly incorrect. Plaintiff took the care of sending ONE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT SIGNED PAGE-BY-PAGE to the Sheriffs serving the Defendants he represents, and said Sheriffs took personal care in verifying that the copies sent to the Defendants were indeed true copies. As a matter of fact, this detailed and professional verification by the Sheriffs was the very reason why the serving of the Complaint to Attorney Ragusa Defendants required the unusual times of several weeks. Plaintiff is ready to sign on request the originally mailed copies, or supply additional signed copies of the Complaint. In any case, such a detail cannot possibly constitute credible or sufficient motivation to dismiss the Complaint, because, first of all, it is incorrect as it can be documented by the Sheriffs, and, second, because additional signed copies are available at any time.

61. Plaintiff opposes Attorney RagusaÕs Statement 4 regarding the conspiracy to commit a fraud by the Defendants he represents. As Attorney Ragusa knows well, the Complaint solely deals with CIVIL procedures, while the documented conspiracy for fraud is a separate CRIMINAL profile. These criminal profiles were included in the Civil Complaint to illustrate to this Honorable Court the gravity of the misbehavior by the Defendants, and such an inclusion is certainly useful as corroborative evidence. Therefore, argument dealing with Criminal profiles cannot possibly constitute grounds for the dismissal of Civil proceedings. The entire argument of Statement 4 dealing with these criminal profiles, the longest in the Motion to Dismiss because encompassing some three and one-half pages, have no bearing on the Civil proceedings at hand, therefore, cannot be used as a substantive reason for their dismissal.

62. More specifically, Plaintiff Santilli opposes Attorney RagusaÕs Statement 4 on grounds that its consideration would force Plaintiff the filing of additional Criminal Proceedings at the U. S. Attorney of the appropriate jurisdiction, which Criminal Proceedings are not contemplated to be filed by the Plaintiff at this preliminary stage of the ongoing Civil Proceedings.

63. Plaintiff opposes Attorney RagusaÕs Statement 5 on the same grounds as those for Statement 4, that conspiracy to defraud the Plaintiff belong to Criminal Proceedings. In any case, the final allegation in Statement 5 that the publication of an article from a Òhighly respected scientistÓ such as Defendant Conte [no ÒscientistÓ who has caused a U., S. Federtal Lawsuits for fraud and deception can credibly be dubbed Òhighly respectedÓ] does not constitute conspiracy, is disproved by a rather massive and incontrovertible documentary evidence and eyewitnesses accounts.

64. Plaintiff strongly, vociferously and vehemently opposes Attorney RagusaÕs Statement 6 claiming that Òthe plaintiff [sic] has no right to Òphysics equationsÓ and Òphysical theoriesÓ as set out in his complaint. Thus, it [the Complaint] fails to state a cause of action.Ó Such a statement is shocking to the Plaintiff because it constitutes a negation of the very essence of the U. S. Copyright Act, U.S. Code, Title 17, Section 101 et seq.; the adherence in 1989 by the United States of America to the Berne Convention, for which all scientific publications in the U.S.A. after 1989 are protected even if no copyright notice has appeared in them; and other Laws which protects the paternity of all printed material.

65. Besides such a blatant dismissal of U. S. and International Laws, Statement 6 shows lack of understanding by Attorney Ragusa of this particular Complaint. In fact, according to the above quoted U.S,. and International Laws, as well as by universal scientific practice, everybody anywhere in the world can reproduce at litteram all wanted equations, all wanted theories, and all wanted physical laws without any need to ever consult the copyright owner, PROVIDED THAT: A) THE ORIGINAL COPYRIGHTED PAPERS DERIVING SAID EQUATIONS, THEORIES AND PRINCIPLE ARE CLEARLY QUOTED;

B) THE QUOTED PAPERS ARE REVIEWED AS AN EVIDENT NECESSARY PRE-REQUISITE FOR ALLEGATIONS OF NOVELTY OVER SAID QUOTED PAPERS; and, ABOVE ALL

C) ALL PATERNITY ARE CLEARLY STATED WITHOUT MALICIOUS, FRAUDULENT OR DECEPTIVE DISTORTIONS.

ATTORNEY RAGUSA COMPLETELY FAILS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THESE LEGAL AND ETHICAL REQYUIREMENTS FOR CORRECT SCIENTIFIC PRACTICES, THUS DAMAGING HIS CREDIBILITY, RATHER THAHN HELPING HIS CLIENTS. THEREFORE, HIS ARGUMENT 6 CANNOT POSSIBLY CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIVE REASON FOR DISMISSAL.

PLAINTIFFÕS AVAILABILITY TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT FOR ANY REAL AND SUBSTANTIVE NEEDS.

66. Attorney Ragusa Motion to Dismiss essentially recommends to this Honorable Court to Dismiss the Complaint without prejudice, after which the Plaintiff will file an amended complaint essentially identical to the existing one, repeat again the serving of exactly the same defendants with essentially the same Complaint as existing today, implement against essentially the same iterim of the numerous motions and counter-motions as they have accumulated in the case as of now.

67. Plaintiff Santilli opposes such a proposal because: 1) it is damaging to this Honorable Court already so heavily charged by so numerous Compliants; 2) It is manifestly damaging the pursuit of Justice; and 3) It is manifestly damaging to the FINANCIAL interest of Attorney Ragusa Defendants, evidently because they have to pay the legal costs for the double repetition of exactly the same legal iterim.

68. On the contrary, Plaintiff Santilli suggests to Attorney Ragusa, as well as any other Defendant and his/her representative that he/she is free to submit or otherwise suggest a MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, provided that the request has clear, substantive, and important reasons to suspect insufficiencies in the Complaint, in which case Plaintiff will cooperate in full.

69. Wherefore, because of all the reasons indicated above, and documented in the various exhibits, Plaintiff Santilli prays this Honorable Court to dismiss Attorney RagusaÕs Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.

In faith

Ruggero Maria Santilli
Plaintiff acting pro se
without any connection, direct or implied, with any institution or corporation to which he may be affiliated.
Address elected for these proceedings
35246 US 19 No, PMB 115
Palm Harbor, FL 346834

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document and all its exhibits has been furnished by regular U.S. mail to: MARK J. RAGUSA, Esq., Shear, Newman, et al., 201 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1000, P.O.Box 2378, Tampa Florida, 33601, who represents the indicated Defendants,; and to TAMARA F. CARMICHAEL, Esq, Fax 1-305-373 9443, Broad and Cassel, 201 So. Biscaine Blvd, Suite 3000, Miami, FL, 33131, who, to my knowledge, represents Defendants E. Panarella and ALFT, Inc., in this 18-th day of October 1999.

Ruggero Maria Santilli

************************************************

PART 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 99-1675-CIUT-25-A

RUGGERO MARIA SANTILLI
Plaintiff

PLAINTIFFÕS OPPOSITION AND RESPONSE TO AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT EMILIO PANARELLA IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS AND_OR FOR SUMMARY FINAL JUDGMENT FILED OCTOBER 8, 1999

1. Plaintiff Ruggero Maria Santilli opposes the motion for dismissal and_or for summary final judgment because of a variety of arguments and documentation presented in this Answer.

2. Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court to abstain from any judgment or decision on the Complaint until this Honorable Court receives a number of opinions on the merit of the Complaint by qualified scientists belonging to prestigious universities or research institutions, which opinions have been solicited by Plaintiff, and are expected on or before January 30, 2000.

3. Finally, Plaintiff would like to praise Attorney Tamara Carmichael, legal representative of Defendant Panarella and ALFT, INC., for a professional and ethical conduction of the case, and, more specifically, for abstaining in venturing legal judgments on this particular Complaint dealing with post Ph. D. topics in theoretical physics and mathematics, and by properly submitting a ÙÙNotice of FilingÙÙ of technical judgments expressed by Defendant Panarella.

4. In support of the argument against said motion to dismiss and_or for summary final judgment, Plaintiff encloses:

5. EXHIBIT A: documentation that Plaintiff duly requested several times corrective measures by Defendants Panarella and ALFT, INC. consisting in the publication at their magazine Physics Essay of an editorial stating the correct paternity of the theories treated by plagiarized papers published in the same magazine, all requests having remained without answer.

EXHIBIT B: voters registration by the Plaintiff in Pinellas County of Florida, the first dating to 1992, which establishes the correct jurisdiction for the case by the U. S. federal Court, Middle District of Florida, as elaborated below.

EXHIBIT C: PlaintiffÕs curriculum vitae et studiorum, including a partial documentation of the honors received on the plagiarized theories, such as my Nomination by the Estonia Academy of Science among the most illustrious applied mathematicians of all times; the Nomination in my name of a Lecture Hall at a Research Institute in Australia; copies of my formal Nomination for the Nobel Prince in Physics; and other honors.

THE ORIGIN OF THE LAWSUIT AGAINST DEFENDANTS PANARELLA AND ALFT, INC.

6. Plaintiff Santilli filed the complaint because, by publishing various papers by Defendant Conte in his capacity as editor in chief of the magazine Physics Essays, Defendant Panarella, his editorial associates and his publishing conduit have violated fundamental rules on scientific ethics and accountability, as well as perpetrated numerous violations of U. S. Statutes on Copyrights, Tort, and other laws, as originally presented in the Complaint, and further documented below.

7. More particularly, Plaintiff Santilli filed the Complaint because, following the discovery of the publication of said plagiarized and fraudulent scientific work by Defendant Conte, Plaintiff Santilli contacted Defendant Panarella in a very respectful way as per Exhibit A, by requesting due corrective measures, which consisted in the publication in Physics Essays of an editorial statement identifying the full paternity by Plaintiff Santilli of the theories grossly plagiarized by Defendant Conte.

8. As clearly stated in the requests presented in said Exhibit A, and, in any case, as internationally known and accepted in scientific circles, the publication of the indicated simple corrective statement would have completely resolved the issue. Specifically, the publication in Physics Essays of a timely and expeditious editorial correction on the paternity of the theories, would have prohibited any Lawsuit against Defendant Panarella and his associates. Alternatively and equivalently, the current Law on Copyrights states that, for the case here at hand, the expeditious and timely publication of corrections on paternities constitutes full remedy.

9. The Lawsuit was filed because, by acting in an arrogant way which is simply unacceptable in any scientific circle, let alone for the responsible conduction of scientific editorship, Defendant Panarella and his associates completely ignored PlaintiffÙs petitions for corrective measures, thus leaving no other recourse than that at Law.

10. The complaint has been filed for the primary purpose of seeking at the appropriate future time a Judicial injunction against Defendant Panarella, his editorial associates, and his publishing conduit, compelling them to publish in their magazine Physics Essays precisely the corrective statement they arrogantly ignored regarding the paternity of theories erroneously and fraudulently presented in said magazine by Defendant Conte as his own.

11. Therefore, this Lawsuit is of primary scientific character, in which financial considerations have a purely secondary role.

CONFIRMATION OF JURISDICTION

12. The biggest market for the sale of the magazine Physics Essays has been and remains the U.S.A. Therefore, Defendant Panarella, the publisher of the magazine, and their affiliates have derived a financial income from the sale of their magazine in the U. S. A. to the U. S. public as well as to U. S. technical libraries, to U. S. colleges, and to U. S. corporations. As a result, the U.S. FEDERAL COURT is the correct U. S. Jurisdiction for the Lawsuit.

13. Moreover, as documented in Exhibit B, Plaintiff is a resident of Pinellas County, Central Florida since 1990. Therefore, the correct jurisdiction is the U.S. FEDERAL COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA IN TAMPA. In fact, Plaintiff could not possibly file the Lawsuit, say, in the U S. Federal Court, District of New York, or Chicago, or Los Angeles. Similarly, Plaintiff could not properly file the Lawsuit in any U. S. Court other than the U. S. Federal Court, Middle District of Florida in Tampa.

14. The jurisdiction of the Lawsuit by the U. S. Federal Court, Middle District of Florida in Tampa is therefore re-affirmed and re-established in its entirety.

REAFFIRMATION OF SCIENTIFIC PLAGIARISM, FRAUD AND DECEPTION BY DEFENDANTS PANARELLA AND ALFT, INC. AT THE MAGAZINE PHYSICS ESSAYS.

15. The first fundamental ethical rule in physics is the acknowledgment of the paternity of original equations, physical laws, and principles which are basic for a new theory.

16. New new derivations of previously discovered important equations, laws, and principles are well known not to constitute grounds for paternity, the claim of paternity under these premises being unethical and in violation of US and International Laws on Copyrights.

17. As an illustrative example, after achieving a new derivation of the equation E = mc2 by Albert Einstein, it would be profoundly unethical to claim the paternity of the same equation, and state that E = mc2 is ÙÙConteÙs equationÙÙ. Exactly the same situation occurs for all other basic equations, laws and principles.

18. Equally unethical and in violation of the Law on Copyrights is to claim the paternity of trivially modified laws which are transparently equivalent to the original one. For instance, it would be profoundly unethical and illegal to claim that E = 2mc2_2 is ÙÙConteÙs equationÙÙ, because the latter is equivalent to EinsteinÕs equation E = mc2, since 2_2 = 1. Exactly the same situation occurs for totally trivial modifications of basic equations, laws and principles.

19. As it is evident to any honest physicist, and as it will be documented for this Honorable Court by experts scientists of unimpeachable ethical standards and affiliations, in his publications at Physics Essays Defendant Conte can only claim, under the most generous circumstances, a new derivation of PlaintiffÙs well known basic equations, laws and principles, which, as such, absolutely does not constitute ground for paternity. Yet, under the full approval by Defendant Panarella as Editor in Chief, and his editorial associates, said identical re-derivation were presented under Defendant ConteÙs paternity, and subsequently quoted as ÙÙour equation...ÙÙ, or ÙÙwe have obtained ....ÙÙ, and plagiarisms of that type.

20. Above all, in his Affidavit hereon considered, Defendant Panarella fails to address the central issue of the Complaint stated in the ÙÙConcluding RemarksÙÙ following Paragraph 251, which requests, as a necessary condition for credibility, that the Defendants provide ÙÙA REAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF AT LEAST ONE NOVELTY REACHED BY DEFENDANT CONTEÙÙ in the plagiarized papers with respect to PlaintiffÙs scientific works. Defendant Panarella fails to provide in his Affidavit the proof that the papers by Defendant Conte published in his magazine Physics Essays have reached at least ONE novel basic equation, law or principle. The entire said Affidavit by Defendant Conte is, therefore, dismissed as being deprived or legal or technical value.

21. It can be easily established on scientific grounds beyond grounds that, not only Defendant Conte in his papers published at Physics Essays has reached no new equation, no new physical principle, and no new physical law of any the, but that its very expectation is unethical and illegal. This is due to the fact, extremely well established in the physics of this century, that quaternions have never permitted the achievement of new equations, laws and principle, because they merely permit new derivations of pre-established results. This is the very reason why the Plaintiff did not use quaternions for the original derivation of the basic results.

22. Under these so clear and unequivocal occurrences, all numerous claims of paternity by Defendant Conte published under the full support by Defendant Panarella and his associates, are profoundly unethical, immoral, and illegal, thus requiring the most vigorous possible prosecution permitted by Law.

23. Plaintiff has 23 years of editorial experience which he initiated at Harvard University with the foundation of the technical journal Hadronic Journal jointly with famous scientists, including Nobel laureates. Plaintiff is, therefore, fully aware that the primary ethical, scientific, and legal responsibility for plagiarisms rests with the editors and their publishers, more than with the authors.

24. Since perfection is not a human feature, plagiarisms may occur in a completely involuntary way. Therefore, both U.S. and International Laws on plagiarisms as well as international scientific practices, accept as a complete resolution the immediate and solicit publication of corrective statements in which the true paternity is identified for subsequent correct records.

25. Defendant Panarella, his editors and his publishing conduit have violated all the above uncompromisable rules of scientific ethics and accountability. The Plaintiff provides below a preliminary nontechnical outline. Plaintiff has solicited the written opinion by a panel of experts to permit this Honorable Court to have independent technical opinions in the case.

26. The most fraudulent and deceptive aspect of Defendant ConteÙs papers published by Defendant Panarella and his associates at Physics Essays is the way in which the PlaintiffÙs work is occasionally quoted. In fact, such quotations are not done according to well established scientific standards, which require the quotation of the original specific papers in each specific basic equation, as done in all, reputable scientific journals. Instead, the quotations of PlaintiffÙs work is intentionally generic, and it is done by carefully avoiding the quotation of the actual original papers at hand. Since , the latter were known by Defendants Conte and Panarella by their own admission, since the true paternity of the basic equations, laws, and principle is not identified in the papers, and since the quoted references are not the original derivation and are not directly pertinent to the work at hand, thus preventing readers from identifying the real paternity from the quoted works, the occurrence establishes beyond credible doubt the intentional, premeditated intent to perpetrate a scientific fraud and deception by Defendants Conte, Panarella and their associates at Physics Essays.

27. This Honorable Court should be aware that, by no means, the plagiarisms, frauds, and deceptions denounced in the Complaint are the only ones perpetrated by Defendants Panarella, his editorial associates, and his publishing conduit, because of the existence of additional plagiarisms, frauds, and deceptions perpetrated against other scientists, most of whom do not have the financial and other resources to defend themselves, as the Plaintiff did in the Complaint.

28. Here, I would like to bring to the attention of this Honorable Court the plagiarism, fraud, and deception perpetrated by Defendant Panarella and his associates against the memory of W. R. Hamilton, who is one of the major Founders of our contemporary knowledge, by permitting the publication in the magazine Physics Essays of words such as ÙÙConteÙs biquaternionsÙÙ, when referring to exactly the same quaternions as originally and historically discovered by Hamilton, those with complex elements. This is an extremely disgraceful scientific plagiarism, fraud, and deception perpetrated against such a colossal memory as that of Hamilton, which must be denounced in the most vigorous way permitted by law, particularly in view of the fact that, unlike the Plaintiff, W. R. Hamilton cannot defend his historical paternity.

29. Even though not directly related to the Complaint, the extremely disgraceful plagiarism, fraud, and deception perpetrated by Defendants Conte, Panarella, and their associates against HamiltonÙs historical quaternionic numbers, established the existence of an immoral and illegal scientific pattern at Physics Essays that must be terminated with any mean permitted by Law, particularly in view of the arrogant resiliency by Defendant Panarella and his associates for corrective measures established in Exhibit A.

PLAGIARISM IN EXHIBIT F OF DEFENDANT PANARELLA MOTION - DEFENDANT CONTEÙS PAPER ÙÙGENERALIZATION OF SCHROEDINGER`S EQUATION BY USING BIQUATERNION: THE POSSIBILITY OF FUSION FOR PARTICLESÙÙ , PUBLISHED IN PHYSICS ESSAY, VOL. 8, NUMBER 1, PAGE 52 ON, 1995,

30. The plagiarism in this paper begins with the title, because the ÙÙgeneralized SchroedingerÙs equation referred to should have been quoted, beginning with the title which should have read ÙÙNew derivation of Mignani-Myung-SantilliÙs generalized SchroedingerÙs equationÚÙÙÚ [see below]. The additional words in the title ÙÙfusion of particlesÙÙ constitute an additional plagiarism, because the correct additional statement in the title should have been ÙÙand a new derivation of SantilliÙs fusion of particlesÙÙ [see also below].

31. PlanckÙs constant î is a fundamental quantity of quantum mechanics. A fundamental quantity of the covering hadronic mechanics is the generalization of PlankÙs constant î Š îI[t, r,...], where I[t, r, ...] is the generalized unit, which was discovered by Plaintiff since his papers at Harvard University in 1978, Refs. {1,2,3} of the Complaint. As also established in the Complaint, said discovery was fully known to both Defendant Conte and Defendant Panarella. Yet, in Equation [49], page 56, Exhibit F of the Affidavit, reproduces SantilliÙs fundamental generalization of hadronic mechanics î Š îI[r, t] without any identification of its paternity, and actually claiming in later statement as being discovered by Defendant Conte. This is documented scientific plagiarism, fraud and deception is due to the identity of the two basic equations, the equation î Š îI[t, r, ...] in PlaintiffÙs work, and the equation î Š îI[r, t] in DefendantÕs ConteÙs work, the only trivial difference being the inversion of the functional dependence from the form [t, r, ...] in PlaintiffÕs work to the form [r, t] used in DefendantÙs work, which is transparently, absolutely, unequivocally trivial and totally insufficient for any claim of paternity. Note that the occurrence also constitutes intentional, pre-meditated scientific fraud and deception because the indicated paternity was fully known to both Defendant Conte as well as Defendant Panarella et al.

32. The next fundamental equation of hadronic mechanics is the generalization of SchroedingerÙs equation, from the conventional form H´ = E´, to the generalized form H?ß´ =HT´ = E´, where T is the inverse of the new unit I = 1_T, under which I?ß´ = IT´ = [1_T]T´ = ´, since T_T = 1. The latter generalized equation was jointly discovered in 1979-1980 by the physicist R. Mignani of the first university in Rome, Italy, the mathematician H. C. Myung of the University of Iowa at Cedar Falls,and by Plaintiff Santilli then at Harvard University. Therefore, the new basic equation is universally called in all ethical scientific circles the Mignani-Myung-Santilli iso-SchroedingerÙs equation.

33. In Eq. [56], p. 56, Exhibit F, of the Affidavit, Defendant Conte copies the Mignani-Myung-santilli fundamenmtal equation ad litteram, by even using exactly the same symbols and writes E´ = HT´; yet the publication is done without any quotation of the original paternity. On the contrary, the Mignani-Myung-Santilli equation is called ÙÙourÙÙ by Defendant Conte later on in the same exhibit, evidently following full editorial approval by Defendant Panarella and his associates.

34. The following Equations [57] to [64] constitute additional truly incredible and verbatim copy of the copyrighted work by Plaintiff Santilli and his associate quoted in the Complaint, yet without any specific identification of the true paternity.

35. The subsequent Equation [72] which is at the foundation of the fusion of particles, is identically plagiarized ad litteram in 1995 by Defendant Conte from PlaintiffÙs Ref. {2,3,4,5} of 1978-1993 identified in the Complaint. The ÙÙfusion of particlesÙÙ is copied ad litteram, even in the words, from PlaintiffÙs Ref. {4} of the complaint when the Plaintiff was at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, in Dubna, Russia, which publication has been admitted to be known by the same Defendants Conte and Panarella as the very first fusion of the type. Yet the true paternity is completely ignored and omitted under the evident approval by the editors, and this illustrates why the scientific plagiarism, fraud, and deception initiated even in the title.

36. There is no point in entering into additional plagiarisms of concepts, notions, physical laws, principles, etc. all identically copied and plagiarized ad litteram from scientific papers by the Plaintiff and his associates fully known to Defendants Conte and Panarella.

DEFENDANT PANARELLAÙS EXHIBIT G: DEFENDANT CONTEÙS PAPER ÙÙNEW PAULIÙS MATRICES IN BIQUATERNION QUANTUM MECHANICS: A CASE OF EXPLICIT AND CONCRETE REALIZATION OF A HIDDEN VARIABLEÙÙ, PUBLISHED IN PHYSICS ESSAY, Vol. 8, NUMBER 4, page 605 on, 1995.

T37. his paper constitutes an additional case of truly incredible scientific plagiarisms, fraud and deception, which also begins in the title. In fact, rather than stating ÙÙnew PauliÙs matricesÙÙ the correct title should have been ÙÙA newt derivation of SantilliÙs iso-PauliÙs matricesÙÙ. Additionally, the claim of a novel realization of hidden variables should have been identified as belong to hadronic mechanics, also in the title.

38. PauliÙs matrices are additional true pillars of quantum mechanics recalled in Equation [7], page 606], of Exhibit G, of the Affidavit, since they characterize the spin of electrons and protons, and have numerous other fundamental applications. The generalization of quantum into hadronic mechanics implies a consequential generalization of PauliÙs matrices of absolutely fundamental character, with vast implications in mathematics and physics, including the prediction of new clean energies which cannot possibly be predicted via PauliÙs matrices. The new PauliÙs matrices were first discovered by Plaintiff Santilli in Ref, {8} when the Plaintiff was also at the JINR in Russia, and are today called in all ethically sound scientific circles ÙÙSantilliÙs iso-Pauli matricesÙÙ.

39. Under the evident editorial approval and complicity by Defendant Panarella, Defendant Conte has copied in Equations [28], page 607, Exhibit G, of the Affidavit, SantilliÙs iso-PauliÙs matrices ad litteram, by even sing exactly the same symbols, yet without any identification whatever of the real paternity.

40. To reach truly incredible levels of ethical and legal misbehavior, under the full editorial approval by Defendant Panarella, Defendant Conte copied ad litteram in the subsequent Equitations [44] to [49] all other additional new matrices discovered by PlaintiffÙs Santilli, in their documented knowledge of the true paternity.

41. Plaintiff Santilli spares this Honorable Court the itemization of the additional scientific plagiarisms, frauds, and deceptions perpetrated by Defendants Conte, Panarella and their associates in regard to the ÙÙconcrete and explicit realization of hidden variableÙÙ was was first achieved by hadronic mechanics, as established by the PlaintiffÙs references quoted in the Complaints.

DEFENDANT PANARELLAÙS EXHIBIT H: DEFENDANT CONTEÙS PAPER ÙÙON THE GENERALIZATION OF THE PHYSICAL LAWS BY BIQUATERNIONS:AN APPLICATION TO THE GENERALIZATION OF MINKOWSKI SPACETIMEÙÙ, PHYSICS ESSAYS, VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3, PAGE 437 ON, 1997.

42. This publication constitutes an additional, transparent,truly incredible, scientific and ethical misbehavior by Defendant Panarella in his capacity as editor in chief of Physics Essays, and Defendant Conte in his capacity as author, which misbehavior begins again with the title. In fact, the scientifically and ethically correct title should have been ÙÙReformulation of SantilliÙs isospecial relativity via HamiltonÙs complex quaternionsÙÙ, since the identification of the real paternities should begin with the title, as standard in all ethically sound journals and papers.

43. As well known to this Honorable Court, EinsteinÙs special relativity is a pillar of contemporary science, as well as of relativistic quantum mechanics. Plaintiff Santilli has dedicated his research life to a structural generalization of all main aspects of special relativity, including a generalization of the underlying spaces and geometry now known as SantilliÙs iso-Minkowskian spaces or geometryÙÙ, a generalization of the underlying symmetry, today known as ÙÙSantilliÙs iso-Poincare~ symmetryÙÙ, and the related physical laws, today known as ÙÙSantilli isospecial relativityÙÙ.

44. The main structural element from which EinsteinÙs special relativity can be uniquely derived is the so-called spacetime invariant on Minkowski space x1x1 + x2x2 + x3x3 - tc2t = invariant. The fundamental invariant of SantilliÙs isospecial relativity is the expression x1b12x1 + x2b22x2 + x3b32x3 - tc2b42t = x1x1_n12 + x2x2_n22+ x3x3_n32 - t[c_n4]2t = invariant. Einstein special relativity is exactly valid in empty space only, as recently well well established. SantilliÙs isospecial relativity is exactly valid within physical media where the speed of light is no longer c, but it is given instead by the familiar expression c_n, where n is the index of refraction. This is the case, e.g., for the apparent bending of a straight stick immersed in water, which is due to the dramatic reduction of the speed of light in the transition from air to water, and which is represented precisely via the new expression c_n. When n = 1, we recover behavior in empty space, and SantilliÙs isospecial relativity recovers special relativity identically.

45. This Honorable Court should be aware that the capability for a quantitative, axiomatically consistent and invariant representation of local speeds of light c_n has very important industrial and financial implications. In fact, as established in contemporary technical papers, the admission of speeds of light within physical media which are different than the speed of light in vacuum, directly implies the prediction and industrial realization of new clean forms of energies and fuels, whose prediction is absolutely impossible with the conventional theory for which the speed of light is assumed for political-nonscientific reasons to have everywhere the value c as that in vacuum. A readable outline of these important industrial and financial implications of SantilliÙs isospecial relativity can be found in the web site http:__home1.gte.net_ibr, page 20.

46. Therefore, this Honorable Court should be aware that the plagiarisms, frauds, and deceptions perpetrated against the Plaintiff by Defendants Conte, Panarella, and their associates, have large financial and industrial implications which constitute an additional reason that has mandated the filing of the Complaint.

47. Under the evident support by Defendant Panarella and his editorial associates, Defendant Conte has plagiarized in Exhibit H of the Affidavit, the very heart of PlaintiffÙs generalization of the special relativity, the basic spacetime invariant, by writing it in the form of Equation [23], page 439, of Exhibit H of the Affidavit, xobo2xo -x1b12x1 - x2b22x2 - x3b32x3, which is absolutely equivalent to SantilliÙs isoinvariant because it coincides EVEN IN THE SYMBOLS, except for the trivial change of the sign and the trivial replacement of ct with xo. These trivial replacements and changes of signs are absolutely, positively, incontrovertibly insufficient to claim paternity. Yet, Defendant Conte does indeed claim the paternity of the new theory under the full backing by Defendant Panarella and his associates.

48. Plaintiff spares this Honorable Court the litany of additional, truly incredible scientific plagiarisms, frauds and deceptions perpetrated in Exhibit H, without the proper identification of the true origin.

49. In a rather incredible gesture, Defendant Panarella includes in his Affidavit Exhibit E, namely a copy of the paper by R. Mignani entitled ÙÙQuasars redshift in iso-Minkowskian spacesÙÙ, Physics Essay, Volume 5, issue no. 4, page 531 on, 1992 [whose here should be noted], which constitutes clear, direct, and incontrovertible evidence on the full awareness by Defendant Panarella of the true paternity by Plaintiff Santilli of the theory plagiarized in Defendant ConteÙs papers.

50. In fact, in said paper by Mignani, all paternities by Plaintiff Santilli are fully and completely identified, with correct statements, such as ÙÙSantilliÙÚs Lie-isotopic lifting of special relativityÙÙ, which is a formal admission of the paternity of the new relativity with the indicated basic spacetime invariant, or ÙÙSantilliÙs isominkowskian spacesÙÙ, which is a formal admission of paternity of the generalized Minkowski spaces, and other correct admission of PlaintiffÙs paternity.

51. Because of exhibit E, as well as other papers published in Physics Essay, defendant Panarella is not in any position to claim lack of knowledge of the true paternity of the plagiarized theories. Therefore, by authorizing the publication of Defendant ConteÙs Exhibit H of his Affidavit, without the correct identification of the documentedly known true paternity, Defendant Panarella and his associates perpetrated clear, intentional, pre-meditated scientific fraud which constitutes a violation of the Criminal, let alone the Civil Code.

FORTHCOMING TECHNICAL JUDGMENT ON PLAGIARISMS BY EXPERTS.

52. Plaintiff Santilli has solicited a technical verification of the above indicated plagiarisms for the benefit of this Honorable Court, authored by qualified scientists in the U.S.A. and abroad of unimpeachable ethical standards and scientific record. Said formal statement are expected to be available in at least three months, and not sooner than the end of January 2000.

ITEMIZED OPPOSITION TO THE INDIVIDUAL NUMBERED STATEMENTS IN DEFENDANT PANARELLAÙS AFFIDAVIT

53. Plaintiff moves no objection against Statements 1 to 7.

Plaintiff opposes and object Statement 8 to the effect that Defendant ALFT, INC. has been the publisher of Physics Essays whose primary Country of business is precisely the U.S.A.

54. Plaintiff has no objection against Statements 9 and 10.

55. Plaintiff objects and opposes Statement 11, because, as this Honorable Court can verify, Physics Essays has acquired a very poor reputation in the physics establishment, to such an extent that, publication in that magazine now implies instant disqualification by physicists at Harvard University, MIT, Princeton University, and the like. In fact, not one single author belonging to any of these prestigious universities has recently published one single paper in Physics Essays. This poor reputation is due precisely to the very poor editorship by Defendant Panarella, and his editorial associates, such as that of permitting the publication of ÙÙConteÙs biquaternionsÙÙ for numbers notoriously due to Hamilton. The Plaintiff spares this Honorable Court a litany of additional truly incredible scientific misrepresentations in numerous fields which have occurred in Defendant PanarellaÙs magazine, and which have constituted an important decisional element for filing the Lawsuit. In fact, unless somebody somehow stops Defendant Panarella from scientific misrepresentations, the latter will continue indefinitely, to the evident damage of science and society.

56. Plaintiff has no objection against Statement 12, and 13, except for the comment that these statements establish the full responsibility of all members of the editorial board.

57. Plaintiff opposes Statement 14, because it intentionally and deceptively confuses ÙÙscientific debatesÙÙ with ÙÙscientific plagiarisms and fraudÙÙ. In fact, no scientist can possibly object against criticisms and discussions on his_her own work, PROVIDED THAT THE REAL PATERNITIES ARE IDENTIFIED WITH CLARIFY, AND THE QUOTED WORKS ARE OUTLINED AS A NECESSARY PRE-REQUISITE FOR ALLEGATIONS OF NOVELTY. These crucial differences between scientifically valid debates and sheer plagiarism or fraud, are not stated by Defendant Panarella.

58. Plaintiff has no objection against Statements 15 and 16, except the indication that said Statements confirm again the responsibility by all editors of Physics Essays in the perpetrated plagiarisms, frauds and deceptions.

59. Plaintiff has no objection against Statement 17.

60. Plaintiff opposes Statements 18, 19, 20, and 21 because deceptive. All scientific journals must have a Publisher which is fully identified in the cover. Whether explicitly or implicitly, ALFT, INC> has been identified in the cover as THE Publisher of Physics Essays. In the event this is not the case, as stated by Defendant Panarella, we then have a clear case of additional deception in announcements and advertisements for the U.S.A. which would require a separate prosecution under U. S. Laws.

61. Plaintiff vehemently opposes Statement 22 because blatantly false. It is universally known that journals and magazines are sold via agents, booksellers, and library representatives. It is therefore, impossible for the magazine Physics Essays to have been sold for several years in the U.S.A. without any agent, as stated by Defendant Panarella.

Plaintiff has no objection regarding Statements 23, and 24.

62. Plaintiff objects and opposes Statement 25, because the claimed lack of income from Florida is in blatant contradiction with the subsequent Statement 29 in which a clear income from Florida is admitted.

63. Plaintiff objects and opposes Statement 25 because the agents of all journals and magazines agents,in the U.S.A. market said products all over the U.S.A., with the physical impossibility of excluding Florida, as stated by Defendant Panarella.

64. Plaintiff does not object against Statement 27.

65. Plaintiff has no objection against Statement 28, 29.

66. Plaintiff objects against Statement 30.a because the statement ÙÙPlaintiff complains about the article written by the third party R. Mignani....ÙÙ [Exhibit E of the Affidavit] is documentedly wrong. In fact, Plaintiff quoted MignaniÙs article in the Complaint, NOT for a complain, but rather as evidence of the full awareness by Defendant Panarella of the paternity of the generalized relativity plagiarized by Defendant Conte.

67. Plaintiff has no objection against Statements 30b, 30c and 30d.

68. Plaintiff strongly, vociferously, and vehemently objects against and opposes Statement 31, because excessively deceptive. Again, for the THIRD TIME IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, Plaintiffs states, reasserts and reaffirms that THERE IS NO PLAGIARISM IN THE ARTICLE BY MAGNANI. On the contrary, said article by Mignani is quoted as evidence of the full awareness by Defendant Panarella of the true paternity of ÙÙSantilli isospecial relativityÙÙ so vulgarly plagiarized by Defendant Conte under Defendant Panarella evident approval. Plaintiff Santilli, therefore, strongly, repetitiously, and vehemently objects against the abuse of the acknowledgment to the Plaintiff by Prof. Mignani, which is quoted by Defendant Panarella at the end of Statement 31 to claim lack of plagiarisms in completely different papers, those by Defendant Conte, which are the real and only reason for the Lawsuit against Defendant Panarella et al. If this is not intentional deception, what else can it be ’

69. Plaintiff strongly and vehemently ejects against Statement 32. Again, ÙÙthe free exchange of comment, criticism, ideas, and theoriesÙÙ are legitimate scientific activities, PROVIDED THAT THE PATERNITIES ARE IDENTIFIED WITH FULL CLARITY AND THE CONTENT OF THE ORIGINAL WORK IS REVIEWED AS A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE FOR ANY ALLEGATION OF NOVELTY. Defendant Panarella is completely silent on these elementary rules of scientific ethics, thus disqualifying himself for a correct editorship in compliance with International Laws.

70. Plaintiff strongly, vociferously, and vehemently object against Statement 33. Under the evident full support by Defendant Panarella as editor in chief, Defendant Conte has plagiarized in this papers at Physics Essays the very foundations of a new clean energy known as ÙÙhadronic energyÙÙ [Patent Pending], by, therefore, creating very serious financial implications much beyond those of scientific plagiarism, fraud, and deception. Lack of acknowledgment of this reality by Defendant Panarella can only damage himself. Statement 33 is moreover false in content because Plaintiff has widely propagated the information on the new hadronic energy in numerous technical articles, books and conference proceedings. Moreover, ÙÙSantilliÙs hadronic energyÙÙ has been treated in a scientifically ethical form by numerous independent scientists the world over. The claim implied by Defendant Panarella that this new clean energy is not kept available to the public is, therefore, utterly false according overwhelming evidence.

71. Plaintiff strongly, vociferously, and vehemently objects against Statement 34 because intentionally false, and intentionally deceptive. The Plaintiff is internationally known for soliciting, supporting, and inviting independent studies on his own theories, PROVIDED, AGAIN, THAT THE PATERNITIES ARE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED AND THE CONTENT OF THE QUOTED PAPERS REVIEWED AS A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE FOR ALLEGATION OF NOVELTY. The claim by Defendant Panarella in this Statement 34 are simply false. Yes, the Plaintiff does indeed claim ÙÙownershipÙÙ [that is, scientific paternity] on the theories treated in the Complaint, and only requires the full identification of such paternity, not in marginal and misleading partial references intentionally selected without the original works, as typically done in Physics Essays, but paternities specifically and concretely identified in the primary equations, in the primary laws, and in the primary principles. Anybody all over the world can review, treat, criticize, analyse and comment on PlaintiffÙs theories, PROVIDED AGAIN THAT THE REAL PATERNITIES ARE REALLY IDENTIFIED WITHOUT THE AMBIGUITIES TYPICAL OF PHYSICS ESSAYS, which ambiguities have first caused the loss of credibility by that magazine in the physics establishment, which ambiguities and deceptions have subsequently forced the Plaintiff to file a U. S. Federal Lawsuit, and the same ambiguities can likely mandate additional Lawsuits by other injured authors.

72. Plaintiff finally objects and opposes Statement 35. According to the very spirit of the U.S. Constitution, all Lawsuits are and must be public documents, that is, documents available for anybody to inspect and comment upon. Therefore, Plaintiff had a legal right to copy ad litteram [and without comments] the Complaint in the special web site http:__home1.gte.net_science2 by the Committee on Scientific Ethics of which the Plaintiff hereby states of being the Chairman and sole responsible individual. Moreover, the Complaint was put in the web because we are living during times of rather incredible decay of scientific ethics, which is unknown to, and actually unsuspected by outsiders. In fact, the Plaintiff has been the victim of numerous plagiarisms in addition to those identified in the Complaint, among which: the plagiarisms in thousands of paper on the so-called q-deformation which were introduced by the Plaintiff in his Ph.D. studies and published in 1967, yet never quoted despite countless solicitations; additional countless plagiarisms of PlaintiffÙs generalization of LieÙs algebras; numerous additional plagiarisms of the Plaintiff new numbers; and others. All these plagiarisms were perpetrated in full awareness and with the full approval by the various editors and their editorial boards of the journals in which the plagiarisms were perpetrated, despite documented complaints and requests of corrective measures. Due to such an incredible decay of scientific ethics, the Plaintiff had no other choice than that of uploading the Complaint in the Web in the hope of containing additional plagiarisms of his work, and, in this way, avoid the filing of additional Federal Lawsuits.

In Faith

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document and all its exhibits has been furnished by regular U.S. mail to: TAMARA F. CARMICHAEL, Esq, Fax 1-305-373 9443, Broad and Cassel, 201 So. Biscaine Blvd, Suite 3000, Miami, FL, 33131, who, to my knowledge, represents Defendants E. Panarella and ALFT, Inc., and a second complete copy has been furnished via regular mail to MARK J. RAGUSA, Esq., Shear, Newman, et al., 201 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1000, P.O.Box 2378, Tampa Florida, 33601, who represents the indicated Defendants, this 18-th day of October 1999. In faith

Ruggero Maria Santilli

**************************************************

PART 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 99-1675-CIUT-25-A

RUGGERO MARIA SANTILLI
Plaintiff

PLAINTIFFÕS MOTION TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTIVE ORDER
AGAINST
DEFENDANTS EUGENE E. MALLOVE, BARBARA A. F. DELLO RUSSO, THOMAS E. PHIPPS, JR., and COLD FUSION TECHNOLOGY, INC.
PROHIBITING
THE PUBLICATION IN THEIR MAGAZINE INFINITE ENERGY OF ANY FURTHER DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AND ANY FURTHER COPYRIGHTS INFRINGEMENTS, IN ADDITION TO THE PUBLICATIONS WHICH HAVE ALREADY OCCURRED FOLLOWING THE FILING OF THE FEDERAL LAWSUIT.

1. WHEREAS, on July 16, 1999, Plaintiff Ruggero Maria Santilli filed the Federal Lawsuit Civil Case no. 99-1675-CIUT-25-A against Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, Phipps, and Cold Fusion Technology, Inc., and other Defendants, for copyright infringements and other violations of Civil and Criminal Codes.

2. WHEREAS, Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, Phipps, and Cold Fusion Technology, Inc., were informed of the filing of the lawsuit by the Plaintiff via ab electronic message dated Monday, July 18, 1999;

3. WHEREAS, Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, Phipps, and Cold Fusion Technology, Inc., were duly served copies of the Complaints by their local Sheriffs following verification by said Sheriffs of the authenticity of said copies;

4. WHEREAS, subsequent to the filing of said Federal Lawsuit, said Defendants published, sold, and released to the public the defamatory statement in the July-August issue of their magazine Infinite Energy, page 8, reproduced in Exhibit A;

5. WHEREAS, also subsequent to the filing of said lawsuit, said Defendants published, sold, and released to the public an additional defamatory statement appeared in the September-October issue of their magazine Infinite Energy, pages 75-76, reproduced in Exhibit B;

6. WHEREAS, in addition to the above quoted and documented injury, damage, and tort, and also following the filing of the Complaint, said Defendants published in the July-August issue of their magazine Infinite Energy, pages 58-67, a plagiarizing article authored by Defendant Phipps on the synthesis of the neutron from protons and electrons, with ample and prioritarian quotations of Defendant Conte fraudulent work in the field, and WITHOUT the direct quotation of PlaintiffÕs specific PRECEDING work in the field, that is, Refs. [3,4,5] of the complaint, as herein reproduced:

QUOTE FROM THE COMPLAINT: << 54. ÒRef. [3]Ó: R. M. Santilli, then at The Institute for Basic Research, Palm Harbor, Florida, article entitled ÒApparent consistency of RutherfordÕs hypothesis on the neutron as a compressed hydrogen atomÓ, published in ÒHadronic JournalÓ Volume 13, pages 513-531, 1990. In this article the Plaintiff achieves for the first time in scientific history the representation of all characteristics of the neutron as a bound state of one proton and one electron via the use of nonrelativistic hadronic mechanics holding. the study was nonrelativistic, that is, restricted to speeds which are small when compared to that of light. The Copyright for this article was filed by the Plaintiff SANTILLI, who is the sole owner of said Copyright as well as of the scientific priority for the content. As per available sworn affidavits and eyewitnesses, this article was mailed in its entirety in the early 1990Õs by Plaintiff SANTILLI to Defendant CONTE in its entirely, jointly with a letter outlining the main aspects and their implications.

<<55. ÒRef. [4]Ó: R. M. Santilli, then at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), Dubna, Russia, article entitled ÒRecent theoretical and experimental evidence on the cold fusion of elementary particlesÓ, Publication of the JINR, Dubna, Russia, number E4-93-352, of 1993, subsequently reprinted in the ÒChinese Journal of Systems Designs and ElectronicsÓ, Vol. 6, pages 177-199, 1995. In this article the Plaintiff achieves for the first time in scientific history the representation of all characteristics of the neutron as a bound state of one proton and one electron, although this time via the use of relativistic hadronic mechanics holding at speeds close to that of light. We recall for this Honorable Court that the JINR is the most important nuclear physics laboratory of the former USSR, where all Russian nuclear weapons were built, and which was declassified only after the collapse of the communism. Plaintiff had a visiting position at the JINR for a number of years following the collapse of communism. The Copyright of this article was filed by the the Plaintiff , who is the same owner of the same as well as of the scientific priority of the theory therein presented. As per available sworn affidavits and eyewitnesses, this article was mailed in its entirety in the early 1990Õs by Plaintiff SANTILLI to Defendant CONTE, first in a Copyrighted draft form preceding the official publication of the JINR in Russia, and subsequently in its published form, jointly with a letter outlining the main aspects and their implications.

<< 56. ÒRef. [5]Ó: R. M. Santilli, then at the Institute for Basic Research, article entitled ÒRecent theoretical and experimental evidence on the apparent synthesis of the neutron from protons and electronsÓ, published in the ÒChinese Journal of System Engineering and ElectronicsÓ Vol.6, pages 177-199, 1995. The Copyright of this article was filed by the Plaintiff, who is the sole owner of the same. The article presents a revised and updated version of the relativistic treatment of RutherfordÕs conception of the neutron as in Ref. [4]. As per available sworn affidavits and eyewitnesses, first a draft of this article, and then a copy of the published articles were mailed in the early 1990Õs by Plaintiff SANTILLI to Defendant CONTE, jointly with a letter outlining the main aspects and their implications. >>END OF QUOTE FROM THE COMPLAINT.

7. WHEREAS, the author Defendant Phipps was made personally aware of the above Refs. [3,4,5] from a multiple variety of documented and eyewitnessed accounts;

8. WHEREAS, Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, and the publisher of their magazine, Cold Fusion Technology, Inc., were also fully aware of the existence of said basic Refs. [3,4,5] because of numerous, independent, documented and eyewitnessed accounts, including: vast correspondence; the editorial processing of a series of papers, specifically , in said field which papers quoted and reviewed, specifically, Refs. [3,4,5]; the lawsuit, specifically, for the lack of quotation of said Refs. [3,4,5] by the Defandants; and otehr conduits;

9. WHEREAS, the lack of quotation of said Refs. [3,4,5] in said Defendant PhippsÕs article constitutes an additional case of blatant plagiarism, copyright infringement, injury, damage, and tort unjustly inflicted to the Plaintiff, individually, and collegially, by Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, Phipps, and Cold Fusion Technology, Inc., said lack of quotation of Refs. [3,4,5] being an additional blatantly dishonest, fraudulent, and deceptive act, intentionally perpetrated in a premeditated conspiratorial way in a magazine sold and distributed to the public;

10. WHEREAS, also following the filing of said lawsuit, Defendants Mallove,. Dello Russo, Phipps, and Cold Fusion Technology, Inc. additionally published in their magazine Infinite Energy, the issue of September-October 1999, pages 77-87, an additional article by Defendant Conte reproduced in Exhibit D, also dealing, amonmg otehr topics, with the structure of the neutron as a bound state of a proton and an electron, yet AGAIN WITHOUT the proper quotation of the original Refs. [3,4,5] exactly in that field;

11. WHEREAS, the above lack of proper identification, specifically, of said Refs. [3.4.5], in said additional paper by Defendant Conte at the magazine Infinite Energy constitutes additional blatant violation of copyright works;

12. WHEREAS, said additional publications by Defendants Phipps and Conte at Infinite Energy under the evident support and assistance by Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, and Cold Fusion Technology, Inc., constitute an additional VIOLATION of the U. S. Copyright Act, U.S. Code, Title 17, Section 101 et seq.; an additional violation of the adherence in 1989 by the United States of America to the Berne Convention, for which all scientific publications in the U.S.A. after 1989 are protected even if no copyright notice has appeared in them; and a violation of other Civil and Criminal Statutes; all these additional violations having occurred in a callous way FOLLOWING the filing of the lawsuit;

13. WHEREAS, after so many actions regarding, specifically, the lack of proper quotation, specifically, of said PlaintiffÕs Refs. [3,4,5], specifically, by works appearing at the magazine Infinite Energy on the structure of the neutron as a bound state of a proton and an electron, Defendants Mallove,. Dello Russo, Phipps, and Cold Fusion Technology, Inc., continue in a totally unperturbed way in their stubborn, pernicious, dishonest, fraudulent, and deceptive suppression of said clear quotations of said Refs. [3,4,5] in their magazine Infinite Energy;

14. WHEREAS, Attorney Ragusa, representing Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, Phipps, and Cold Fusion Technology, Inc., has been unable to prevent said pernicious, stubborn, insistent, protracted, dishonest, fraudulent, and deceptive publications FOLLOWING the filing of the Complaint in Federal Court in a magazine sold and sitributed to the public;

15. WHEREAS, to defend his rights, Plaintiff Santilli has no other choice under these circumstances than that of prosecuring Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, Phipps, and Cold Fusion Technology, Inc., in each and every means permitted by law at whatever personal costs for for whatever length until said Defendants are compelled to act in a honest and legal way, by quoting said Refs. [3,4,5], specifically, in ALL their publications in the structure of the neutron as a bound state of a proton and an electron;

NOW, IN VIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE ABOVE, THE PLAINTIFF RUGGERO MARIA SANTILLI BEGS THIS HONORABLE COURT FROM HIS VERY HEART TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTIVE ORDER AGAINST DEFENDANTS MALLOVE, DELLO RUSSO, PHIPPS, AND COLD FUSION TECHNOLOGY, INC. PROHIBITING THEM FROM ANY ADDITIONAL PUBLICATIONS REGARDING ALL TOPICS OF THE LAWSUIT DURING THE LEGAL ITERIM OF THE SAME, AND PRIOR TO THE AVAILABILITY OF A FORMAL JUDGMENT ON THE CASE. MORE PARTICULARLY, PLAINTIFF BEGS THIS HONORABLE COURT TO ISSUE AN INJUCTIVE ORDER THAT PROHIBITS ANY ADDITIONAL PUBLICATION BY SAID DEFENDANTS AT THEIR MAGAZINE INFINIUTE ENERGY ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE NEUTRON AS A BOUND STATE OF A PROTON AND AN ELECTRON WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC QUOTATION OF THE SPECIFIC FIRST AND ORIGINAL REFERENCE IN THE FIELD, REFS. [3,4,5] OF THE COM,PLAINT IN WHICH THE PROBLEM WAS FIRST SOLVED.

A comprehensive documentation for the above Motion shall be provided to this Honorable Court, following a possible Answer to this Motion by the Defendants and/or their representative.

In Faith

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Ruggero Maria Santilli

******************************************

PART 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 99-1675-CIUT-25-A RUGGERO MARIA SANTILLI
Plaintiff

ELIO CONTE, MARIA PIERALICE,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE
LIBERO ISTITUTO UNIVERSITARIO INTERNAZIONALE, EUGENE E. MALLOVE,
BARBARA A.F. DELLO RUSSO, THOMAS E. PHIPPS, JR,
COLD FUSION TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
ENRICO PANARELLA, K. CHARBONNEAU,
B. R. ROBINSON, and ALFT, INC.

PLAINTIFFÕS MOTION TO INCREASE BY ONE MILLION DOLLAR THE PLEA OF DAMAGE COMPENSATION
FROM
DEFENDANTSÕ EUGENE E. MALLOVE, BARBARA A. F. DELLO RUSSO, THOMAS E. PHIPPS, JR., and COLD FUSION TECHNOLOGY, INC.
BECAUSE OF
DEFAMATING STATEMENTS, AND ADDITIONAL COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENTS PERPETRATED IN THEIR MAGAZINE SOLD TO THE PUBLIC FOLLOWING THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT

7. WHEREAS, the author Defendant Phipps was made personally aware of the above Refs. [3,4,5] from a multiple variety of documented and eyewitnessed accounts;

NOW, IN VIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE ABOVE, THE PLAINTIFF RUGGERO MARIA SANTILLI PRAYS THIS HONORABLE COURT TO GRANT A ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) INCREASE OF THE PLAINTIFFÕS CLAIM OF FINANCIAL COMPENSATION UNDER THESE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DEFENDANTS MALLOVE, DELLO RUSSO, PHIPPS, AND COLD FUSION TECHNOLOGY, INC.

A comprehensive documentation for the above Motion shall be provided to this Honorable Court, following a possible Answer to this Motion by the Defendants and/or their representative.

In Faith

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Ruggero Maria Santilli

*****************************************

PART 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT v FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

v Case No. 99-1675-CIUT-25-A

RUGGERO MARIA SANTILLI
Plaintiff

PLAINTIFFÕS MOTION TO ADD AS DEFENDANTS THE FOLLOWING EDITORS OF THE MAGAZINE INFINITE ENERGY
1) JEFFERY D. KOISTRA;
2) JED ROTHWELL;
3) SUSAN SEDDON
4) JEREMY T. SLAYTON
5) CHRISTY L. FRAZIER
6) ELIZABETH GROSSER
7) HAROLD ASPDEN
8) ROBERT W. BASS
9) JOHN OÕ BOCKRIS
10) DENNIS CRAVENS
11) PETER GLUECK
12) XING ZHONG LI
13) M. SRINIVASAN
14) EDMUND STORMS
AND THEIR RESPECTIVE INSTITUTIONS
BECAUSE OF
DEFAMATING STATEMENTS, AND ADDITIONAL, SCIENTIFIC COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENTS, FRAUDS, AND DECEPTIONS PERPETRATED IN SAID MAGAZINE SOLD TO THE PUBLIC FOLLOWING THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT IN FULL AWARENESS AND SUPPORT BY THE AFORESAID EDITORS
WITH THE ADDITIONAL MOTION
TO INCREASE BY THREE MILLION DOLLARS ($ 3,000,000) THE FINANCIAL COMPENSATION PLEADED UNDER THESE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS FOR DAMAGES, INJURIES, AND TORTS SUFFERED BY PLAINTIFF ACCORDING TO POSSIBLE FUTURE ALLOCATIONS AS SET FORTH BY THIS HONORABLE COURT,
WITH THE FURTHER MOTION
TO MANDATE DEFENDANTS EUGENE E. MALLOVE, BARBARA A. F. DELLO RUSSO, and COLD FUSION TECHNOLOGY, INC. , TO RELEASE THE ADDRESSES OF THE MOVED ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS FOR THEIR PROPER SERVING.

p> 4. WHEREAS, subsequent to the filing of said Federal Lawsuit, said Defendants published, sold, and released to the public the defamatory statement in the July-August issue of their magazine Infinite Energy, page 8, reproduced in Exhibit A;

7. WHEREAS, the author Defendant Phipps was made personally aware of the above Refs. [3,4,5] from a multiple variety of documented and eyewitnessed accounts;

10. WHEREAS, also following the filing of said lawsuit, Defendants Mallove,. Dello Russo, Phipps, and Cold Fusion Technology, Inc. additionally published in their magazine Infinite Energy, the issue of September-October 1999, pages 77-87, an additional article by Defendant Conte reproduced in Exhibit D, also dealing, among other topics, with the structure of the neutron as a bound state of a proton and an electron, yet AGAIN WITHOUT the proper quotation of the original Refs. [3,4,5] exactly in that field;

15. WHEREAS, to defend his rights, Plaintiff Santilli has no other choice under these circumstances than that of prosecuting Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, Phipps, and Cold Fusion Technology, Inc., in each and every means permitted by law at whatever personal costs for for whatever length until said Defendants are compelled to act in a honest and legal way, by quoting said Refs. [3,4,5], specifically, in ALL their publications in the structure of the neutron as a bound state of a proton and an electron;

WHEREAS, as already documented in these proceedings, prior to the filing of the Lawsuit, Plaintiff contacted several editors of the magazine Infinite Energy to petition their intervention with Defendant Mallove for the publication of a statement correcting the plagiarized, fraudulent, and deceptive work by Defendant Conte published in their magazines;

WHEREAS, none of said editors intervened or even answered PlaintiffÕs plea for intervention, tall such editors, therefore, acquiring the first direct liability and responsibility on the violations of the Civil and Criminal Codes occurred in that magazine;

WHEREAS, as also documented already in these proceedings, the then Honorary Editor Hal Fox contacted all said editors of Infinite Energy to petition, again, their intervention for the publication of a correction identifying the paternity and priority of said Refs. [3,4,5] by the Plaintiff;

WHEREAS, none of the indicated editors of Infinite Energy assisted, or supported or aided the then Honorary Editor Hal Fox in this moral and legal duty, all said editors, therefore acquiring a second direct complicity in the various violations of Civil and Criminal Codes at that magazine, said refusal being so unethical, let alone illegal, to force Honorary Editor Hal Fox to resign from the editorial board of that magazine;

WHEREAS, as a fantomatic gesture of callous support for the violations of the Civil and Criminal Codes occurring at the Magazine Infinite Energy, its editor Peter Glueck of the Romania Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology resigned from a prestigious honorary professorship Plaintiff Santilli had generously, yet erroneously granted to him;

WHEREAS, such a persistent, repeated, pernicious, insistent, unconditional, immoral, and dishonest support by all editors of the magazine Infinite Energy in favor of the continued and protracted misbehavior at Infinite Energy constitutes ample evidence of a COLLEGIAL AND CONSPIRATORIAL VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL CODE, including the violation of the U. S. Copyright Act, U.S. Code, Title 17, Section 101 et seq.; an additional violation of the adherence in 1989 by the United States of America to the Berne Convention, for which all scientific publications in the U.S.A. after 1989 are protected even if no copyright notice has appeared in them; and a violation of other Civil and Criminal Statutes; all these violations having occurred in a callous collegial and conspiratorial way BEFORE AND AFTER the filing of the lawsuit;

WHEREAS, the same persistent, repeated, pernicious, insistent, unconditional, immoral, and dishonest support by all editors of the magazine Infinite Energy in favor of the continued and protracted misbehavior at that magazine constitutes ample evidence of a COLLEGIAL AND CONSPIRATORIAL VIOLATION OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, because constituting a documented and evident collegial and conspiratorial fraud and deception perpetrated against the Plaintiff;

NOW, IN VIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE ABOVE, THE PLAINTIFF RUGGERO MARIA SANTILLI PRAYS THIS HONORABLE COURT TO ALLOW THE ADDITION AS DEFENDANTS OF ALL EDITORS OF INFINITE ENERGY NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, AS MORE SPECIFICALLY LISTED IN THE EDITORIAL PAGE OF THE DEFAMATING AND PLAGIARIZING ISSUES OF THAT PARTICULAR MAGAZINE DUPLICATED IN THE EXHIBITS, THUS INCLUDING AS DEFENDANT:
<1) JEFFERY D. KOISTRA;
2) JED ROTHWELL;
3) SUSAN SEDDON
4) JEREMY T. SLAYTON
5) CHRISTY L. FRAZIER
6) ELIZABETH GROSSER
7) HAROLD ASPDEN
8) ROBERT W. BASS
9) JOHN OÕ BOCKRIS
10) DENNIS CRAVENS
11) PETER GLUECK
12) XING ZHONG LI
13) M. SRINIVASAN
14) EDMUND STORMS
AND THEIR RESPECTIVE INSTITUTIONS
BECAUSE OF
DEFAMATING STATEMENTS, AND ADDITIONAL, SCIENTIFIC COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENTS, FRAUDS, AND DECEPTIONS PERPETRATED IN SAID MAGAZINE SOLD TO THE PUBLIC FOLLOWING THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT IN FULL AWARENESS AND SUPPORT BY THE AFORESAID EDITORS
WITH THE ADDITIONAL MOTION
TO INCREASE BY THREE MILLION DOLLARS ($ 3,000,000) THE FINANCIAL COMPENSATION PLEADED UNDER THESE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS FOR DAMAGES, INJURIES, AND TORTS SUFFERED BY PLAINTIFF ACCORDING TO POSSIBLE FUTURE ALLOCATIONS AS SET FORTH BY THIS HONORABLE COURT,
WITH THE FURTHER MOTION
TO MANDATE DEFENDANTS EUGENE E. MALLOVE, BARBARA A. F. DELLO RUSSO, and COLD FUSION TECHNOLOGY, INC. , TO RELEASE THE ADDRESSES OF THE MOVED ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS FOR THEIR PROPER SERVING.

A comprehensive documentation for the above Motion shall be provided to this Honorable Court, following a possible Answer to this Motion by the Defendants and/or their representative.

In Faith

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document and all its exhibits has been furnished by regular U.S. mail to: MARK J. RAGUSA, Esq., Shear, Newman, et al., 201 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1000, P.O.Box 2378, Tampa Florida, 33601, who represents Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, Phipps, and Cold Fusion Technology, Inc.; and to TAMARA F. CARMICHAEL, Esq, Fax 1-305-373 9443, Broad and Cassel, 201 So. Biscaine Blvd, Suite 3000, Miami, FL, 33131, who, to my knowledge, represents Defendants E. Panarella and ALFT, Inc., this 20-th day of October 1999. In faith

Ruggero Maria Santilli

******************************************

PART 8

PLAINTIFFÕS MOTION TO ACCEPT EXPERTS REVIEWS UNDER ANY ADMITTING RULE

Plaintiff Ruggero Maria Santilli prays this Honorable Court to admit, as Amendment of the original Complaint, or under any applicable rule, the attached expert reviews conducted by the following scientists:

FOLLOWS A LIST OF SEVEN SCIENTISTS WHOSE NAMES AND REVIEWS HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN FEDERAL COURT

The attached experts reviews are hereby submitted under the protection of the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, as well as under the protection of rules and regulations of the U. S. Federal Court, which guarantee freedom of expression for expert reviewers, and impunity against whatever claims or allegations.

A Memorandum of Law in support of this motion follows. Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court to note that all comments and interpretations of the experts reviews presented in the ensuing Memorandum have been solely made by the Plaintiff without any prior consultation or advance knowledge by the above listed expert scientists.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is solely responsible for this motion and its content.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFÕS MOTION

Following the filing of the Complaint, Plaintiff selected a number of scientists world wide on the conditions that they: 1) had unquestionable credentials; 2) were experts of the conceptual, mathematical, and physical aspects of the Complaint, and 3) had an unimpecheable record of ethical conduct.

Plaintiff then submitted to several scientists verifying the indicated requirements 1), 2) and 3) a copy of the complaint with a questionnaire asking, whether or not, in their independent opinion, Defendant Conte had plagiarized the Plaintiff work in his papers published by Defendant Mallove et al at Infinite Energy, and by Defendant Panarella et al at Physics Essays.

The enclosed seven Attachments constitute the original independent opinions by the above identified seven experts as received by the Plaintiff. The following comments are then in order.

The attached seven expert reviews by independent scientist of high reputation, expertise, affiliation, and ethical standard unanimously and unconditionally agree that, in his papers published by Defendants Mallove et al at Infinite Energy (Ref. [17] of the Complaint) and by Defendant Panarella et al at Physics Essays (Refs. [21,22,23] of the Complaint), Defendant Conte has perpetrated systematic plagiarisms of PlaintiffÕs work, by copying ad litteram the main words, concepts, sentences, equations, physical laws, and numerical results WITHOUT the proper quotation of their originations by the Plaintiff in the related, pertinent, prior ,publications by the Plaintiff identified in the Complaint.

Therefore, the evidence provided by the enclosed seven expert reviews establishes beyond any possible, conceivable or otherwise credible doubt, the perpetration of several violations of the Copyright Law by the above identified Refs. [17,21,22,23], thus providing documented evidence of the validity of the PlaintiffÕs Claims in the Complaint pertaining to each of said Refs. [17,21,22,23].

Since the evidence that Defendant Conte was fully aware of the origination by the Plaintiff and of related, prior, copyrighted publications, and since said prior knowledge has been admitted in writing by Defendant Conte, the seven expert reviews of the Attachments constitute evidence of the profound immorality by Defendant Conte, which is the origination of this Federal Lawsuit.

Plaintiff also prays this Honorable Court to note the comments by the expert reviewers, particularly that in Exhibit 3, page 3.7 and following, on the profound immorality by Defendants Conte and Pieralice in publishing a simply fraudulent experimental paper, Ref. [14] of the Complaint, which scientific evidence re-affirms and reasserts the profound immorality of Defendants Conte and Pieralice, in complete disrespect of any basic human, societal an scientific value.

The prior knowledge by Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, et al at. Infinite Energy of the Plaintiff origination of the concepts, wording, descriptions, equations, physical laws, and numerical results, is also incontrovertible, unquestionable, and beyond any credible doubt, since said Defendants had reviewed, corrected, and edited, prior to the publication of Ref. [17], publications by the Plaintiff exactly in the same topic as that of Ref. [17]. Therefore, the seven documentary evidence of plagiarisms by Ref. [17] presented in the Attachments constitutes documentary evidence of additional violation of the Copyright Laws, the Statute on Torts, and other Laws by Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, et al., and by their corporate conduit, Cold Fusion technology, Inc.

The stubborn, repetitious, and protracted refusal by Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, et. al. to publish in their magazine Infinite Energy, a corrective statement identifying the Plaintiff paternity of the content of Ref. [17] by Defendant Conte, as presented and documented in the Complaint, constitutes evidence of the profound immorality by Defendant Mallove and Dello Russo, which immorality is the second origin of this Federal Lawsuit. In fact, as per current Copyright and other Laws, had Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo et al published a corrective statement identifying the proper paternity of the content of Ref. [17], as per Plaintiff reiterated requests, this Lawsuit against them would have been prevented, or otherwise voided if filed.

The enclosed evidence also establishes the conspiratorial character of the plagiarism, first between Defendants Conte, Mallove, Dello Russo and Phipps, since Defendant Phipps was the reviewer of Ref. [17] as per Defendant MalloveÕs own statement. The same evidence then establishes the conspiratorial character involving ALL editors of Infinite Energy, since the plagiarism continued to be perpetrated following the filing of this Lawsuit, with the publication of additional papers in exactly the same topic of the Complaint (the structure of the neutron as a bound state of a proton and an electron), with the intentional, malicious, pernicious avoidance of quoting the PlaintiffÕs paternity.

The enclosed documentation by seven expert reviews also establishes the fraudulent character of the premeditated action by all editors of Infinite Energy, that is, the pre-meditated intent to defraud the Plaintiff of his scientific paternity, which fraud is a crime equivalent to stealing money or material property, no more, and no less.

Finally, the technical part of the enclosed seven expert reviewers establish the veridicity of the most serious violation of the Law perpetrated by all editors of Infinite Energy, the intentional, premeditated, conspiratorial deception in their magazine sold to the public in the U. S. A. and abroad, which deception consists in the publication of physical theories by Defendant Conte, Phipps, and others used by independent readers for application to experiments implying the use of large sums, said publication occurring in full, documented awareness by said Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo and other editors that said theories are totally and catastrophically inconsistent (since they lack invariance, thus being unable to predict the same numbers at different times).

The prior knowledge by Defendants Panarella et al at Physics Essays of the Plaintiff origination of the concepts, wordings, descriptions, equations, physical laws, and numerical results of Defendant ConteÕs Refs. [21,22,23], is also incontrovertible, unquestionable, and beyond credible doubt, as presented and documented in the Complaint. Therefore, the documentary evidence of plagiarisms in Refs. [21,22,23] presented in the Attachments constitutes documentary evidence of additional violations of the Copyright Law, the Statute on Tort, and other Laws by Defendants Panarella, Charbonneau, Robinson, et. al., and by their corporate conduit, ALFT, Inc.

The stubborn, repetitious, and protracted refusal by Defendants Panarella, Charbonneau, Robinson, et. al. to publish in their magazine Physics Essays, a corrective statement identifying the Plaintiff paternity of the content of Refs. [21,22,23] by Defendant Conte, constitute evidence of the profound immorality by Defendant Panarella, Charbonneau, Robinson, et. al. at Physics Essays, which immorality is the third and final origin of this Federal Lawsuit. In fact, as per current Copyright and other Laws, had Defendants Panarella, Charbonneau, Robinson, et. al. et al published in their magazine Physics Essays a corrective statement identifying the proper paternity of the content of Refs. [21,22,23], this Lawsuit against them would have been prevented, or otherwise voided if filed.

The enclosed evidence also establishes the conspiratorial character of the plagiarism perpetrated by Defendants Conte, Panarella, Charbonneau, Robinson, et. al. at Physics Essays.

The enclosed documentation by seven expert reviewers also establishes the fraudulent character of the premeditated action by all editors of Physics Essays, including Defendants Panarella, Charbonneau, and Robinson, that is, the pre-meditated intent to defraud the Plaintiff of his scientific paternity, which fraud is a crime equivalent to steeling money or stealing material property, no more, and no less.

Finally, the technical part of the enclosed seven expert reviewers establish the veridicity of the most serious violation of the Law perpetrated by all editors of Physics Essays, the intentional, premeditated, conspiratorial deception in their magazine sold to the U. S. public and abroad, consisting in the publication of physical theories by Defendant Conte, and others used by independent readers for application to experiments implying the use of large sums in full, documented awareness by said editors of Physics Essays that said theories are totally and catastrophically inconsistent (since they lack invariance, thus being unable to predict the same numbers at different times).

With the presentation of the seven expert reviews in the enclosed Attachments establishing the incontrovertible character of the scientific plagiarism, fraud, and deception by all Defendants, Plaintiff concludes his case, and begs this Honorable Court for Justice, consisting, as per the original Complaint, in REFILLS I, II, III, IV and V, page 40, that is:

RELIEF I: The payment by Defendants of a cumulative compensatory sum of $ 5,000,000.00 (five million U. S. dollars);
RELIEF II: An injunctive order to publish in ÒInfinite EnergyÓ and, separately, in ÒPhysics essaysÓ the necessary denunciation of plagiarism with the quotation of the missing, original, copyrighted references;
RELIEF III: Injunctive order against any continuation by the Defendants of the ongoing plagiarisms, frauds, and deceptions;
RELIEF IV: An injunctive order against any additional publication of plagiarism of the Plaintiff work by other authors at ÒInfinite EnergyÓ and ÒPhysics EssaysÓ;
RELIEF V: Reimbursement of all costs sustained by Plaintiff for this Complaint, including full reimbursement of the fee of an attorney the Plaintiff may hire for the proper iterim of this Complaint following its filing;
Plus one additional million dollars for financial compensation by all editors of Infinite Energy due to the publication of additional plagiaristic papers following the filing of the Complaint, as per preceding Motions filed on October 20, 1999.

In Faith

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document and all its exhibits has been furnished by regular U.S. mail to: MARK J. RAGUSA, Esq., Shear, Newman, et al., 201 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1000, P.O.Box 2378, Tampa Florida, 33601, who represents Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, Phipps, and Cold Fusion Technology, Inc.; and to TAMARA F. CARMICHAEL, Esq, Fax 1-305-373 9443, Broad and Cassel, 201 So. Biscaine Blvd, Suite 3000, Miami, FL, 33131, who, to my knowledge, represents Defendants E. Panarella and ALFT, Inc., this 12-th day of October 1999. In faith

Ruggero Maria Santilli