Team Weaver Threatening Sifferkoll with Legal Actions due to Uncovering IH Connections and Inconsistencies?

Posted on by

Recieved this comment today from Dewey Weaver on lenr-forum.

.threat1

Sifferkoll – It is so thoughtful that you are concerned about how Thomas uses his time. From where do get your latest revelation? Are there new guidelines for today’s PR war battle plan?

You’re on such thin ice that you’ve proven there is no gravity on P.R.

BTW, keep it all coming pls but perhaps you should get a refresher from Chap 5, Articles 1 thru 3 for the Swedish Criminal Code.

Nothing out of the ordinary. I’m getting used to hints and threats like this. But the last sentence stands out a bit since Dewey actually bothered to check the Swedish “brottsbalk” on “ärekränkning”. I know this well. Stand alone it is not very serious. Basically the law says there has to be reasonable grounds (skälig grund) on what is being stated, then it is ok – of these I consider myself having more than enough. Every post/analysis is backed up with facts, quotes and links. Maybe with a touch of irony, but no slander.

However, considering the high end connections I have uncovered and the importance of the issues involved, I am a bit worried anyway. In that sense Dewey is winning by making these threats. I have no idea what strings can be pulled, probably none, but who knows, anything is possible. If this site goes down – you know one possible reason for it.

The conclusion could of course be that Weaver and IH see my blog as a serious threat and are working their best to stop it. But then again, it could be nothing.

We’ll see.

8 thoughts on “Team Weaver Threatening Sifferkoll with Legal Actions due to Uncovering IH Connections and Inconsistencies?”

  1. It is very difficult to see any alternative explanation for such a threat. Unless Weaver reads Swedish and has access to Swedish law books, then someone on the Cherokee/APCO/Jones Day team must have contacted a Swedish lawyer to obtain the appropriate legal reference to threaten you with.

    If anyone had any doubts that Weaver is just an unpleasant mouthpiece for Darden and his backers then this bit of nastiness should dispel them.

  2. Weaver probably took the lazy route: “google swedish law slander” which pretty quickly (2nd ref.) took him to “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Sweden” which gave him all the Chapter/Article verbiage he needed.

  3. Weaver spends so much time and energy telling us that Rossi’s 1MW plant doesn’t work and supposedly has stacks and stacks of documentation confirming his position. If he has so much proof why does he even need to speak. According to him, as soon as the trial starts it will be over. Why spend so much time insulting people and repeating the same snide remarks about Rossi and those that tend to support him. I have found that generally speaking the firmer one speaks of their position, the weaker is the ground they stand on. I think that I.H. is very concerned about the mess they have got themselves in. I hope that you are not targeted by someone, thinking they can silence you and your site. I know that in the U.S. it’s easy to file a case against someone, just to get them to spend money in their defense even if they have no intent on taking the case to it’s final outcome. Good luck.

  4. Sifferkoll, you are doing a great job and I hope you continue doing it even more eagerly and with good researched facts as you have been doing. No doubt the LENR community will support you if Weaver or whoever wants to silence you.
    BTW, I would not be surprised at all, if Mr Weaver gets APCO support as well or maybe he is one of the the underground mouthpieces of APCO.

  5. Defamation charges against press and website almost always fails. Just saying that someone is wrong is not slander, in USA or Sweden. Especially if the person in concern have a chance to correct and answer (post answers as this example shows).

    Defamation crimes, like slander and insult, is a bit special in Sweden because they are not subject to public prosecution, as most other crimes. This means that you usually can not proceed with a criminal style police investigation (interrogation, houses search etc), even if it is a crime, because the constitution considers freedom of speech more important and have tipped the balance in favour of the defendant.

    Fines are usually around 5000 SEK (USD 500-600).

  6. Yes IMHO Weaver is concerned enough about the ‘blowtorch’ you have been applying to his comments, that he needs to resort to thinly veiled threat.

    It is unfortunate but it is pretty standard tactics of a ‘corporate’ mindset.

    Weaver would much prefer a free rein to sow his POVs and propaganda without the blowtorch you are so effectively applying.

    If I can support you in any way, please ask. Your efforts are very good and provide a counterbalance to what can only be described as the blatant propaganda emanating from the Weaver camp.

    Re this matter going to court. There are many people who naively believe that the allocated judge can ask for proof that the eCat works. This is a very mistaken & quite false view. The type of judge that would ‘adjudicate’ this dispute is a judge of law and not science. He can only apply the law of the land and not of nature.

    A reality check: …
    So, propaganda is a critical factor in creating an impression and a position. It has to be said though, that Andrea Rossi has proven he is ‘master’ of the art himself. In some sense Dewey Weaver is up against the leading expert in this practice. Andrea has successfully shifted focus to his ‘QuarkX’ and a plant in Sweden. Now we are all ‘waiting’ (yet again) for the next great act. A demo of a QuarkX and Andrea has promised this. Will it be anything convincing ?. That can only be determined when any such demo is carried out, and by who, and under what conditions. Is it likely to wrap up this ongoing saga. I doubt it.

    Doug Marker

Comments are closed.