STATUS OF THE LAWSUIT AS OF APRIL 27

STATUS OF THE LAWSUIT AS OF APRIL 27, 2001.

Rather than dismissing the case the Federal Judge ordered Dr. Santilli to prepare "two" Amended Complaints because of legal insufficiencies in the original one evidently due to the fact that the Plaintiff is acting pro se and he is not an attorney.

U. S. DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
801 N Florida Ave
Tampa, FL 33602
CIVIL CASE # 99-1675-CIUT-25-A FILED 6, 16, 1999,
First Amendment 11, 29, 2000
Second Amendment April 27, 2001

RUGGERO MARIA SANTILLI
35246 US 19 No PMB 115
Palm Harbor, FL 34684
Tel. 727-944 2326
Fax 727-934 9275

Plaintiff

vs.

EUGENE E. MALLOVE
editor in chief
Infinite Energy
Bow Technical Center
3 Robinson Rs, Building A, Suite 6
Bow, NH 03304

BARBARA A. F. DELLO RUSSO
Infinite Energy
Bow Technical Center
3 Robinson Rs, Building A, Suite 6
Bow, NH 03304

THOMAS E. PHIPPS, jr.
908 South Busey Ave
Urbana, IL 61801

COLD FUSION TECHNOLOGY, INC
P. O. Box 2816
Concord, NH 03302-2816

EMILIO PANARELLA
Editor in Chief
Physics Essays
ALFT, Inc
189 Devensult St. No. 7
Hull, PQ J8Z 1S7 Canada

ADVANCED LASER & FUSION TECHNOLOGY, IN C (ALFTI)
189 Devensult St. No. 7
Hull, PQ J8Z 1S7 Canada

Defendants

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Ruggero Maria Santilli acknowledges reception of the ORDERS dated March 15, 2001, and March 30, 2001 by the Honorable Judge JAMES D. WITTENMORE (jointly reproduced in Exhibit A), which are hereby accepted in their entirety most humbly and respectfully. Upon a study of the Local and Federal Rules indicated therein as well as the study of other Federal and State Complaints, the Plaintiff files pro se this Second Amended Complaint to the best of his capabilities and understanding of the Laws, on or before the Ordered date of April 27, 2001.

This Second Amended Complaint is filed for injunctive corrective measures, reliefs and damage compensation under the Copyright Laws of the United States, in particular 17 U.S.C. � 501 et seq., various forms of Toir Laws identified below, and any other applicable State and Federal Law that may emerge during the iterim of this lawsuit. Since the protections under the Copyright Act and the Tort Laws are independent of each other, they will be independently treated below.

PARTIES

1. The Plaintiff is a voting resident of Palm Harbor, Pinellas County, Florida, since 1990 who has suffered damages within this District which has, therefore, the competent jurisdiction for the case as explained and documented in more details below.

2. The Plaintiff is a 66 years old retired scientist who has held academic positions at Harvard University, Boston University, and other academic institutions throughout the world; has published numerous articles, monographs and conference proceedings in various scientific conduits; and is well known in the physics community (see a Curriculum summary in Exhibit B).

3. Defendant Mallove is a U. S. Citizen, resident of the city of Bow, New Hampshire, and the editor in chief of the magazine �Infinite Energy� which has published papers identified below that have caused harm within this district.

4. Defendant Dello Russo is a U. S. Citizen, a resident of the city of Bow, New Hampshire, and an associate editor of the magazine Infinite Energy under the indicated publications that have caused harm within this district.

5. Defendant Phipps, jr., is a U. S. Citizen residing in the city of Urbana, Illinois, an author and reviewer of the magazine Infinite Energy under said publications which have caused harm within this district.

6. Defendant COLD FUSION TECHNOLOGY, INC.is a New Hampshire corporation publishing and distributing the magazine Infinite Energy.

7. Defendant Panarella is a Canadian citizen residing in the town of Hull, Canada, and the editor in chief of the magazine �Physics Essays� which published plagiarizing works identified in the preceding and in this Second Amended Complaint that caused harm within this district.

8. Defendant ALFTI is a Canadian corporation printing and distributing the magazine Physics Essays in the U.S.A. and in the rest of the world.

9. All Defendants of this Second Amended Complaints have been duly served. In particular, Attorney Mark J. Ragusa represents Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, Phipps and Cold Fusion Technologies, Inc., while Attorney Tamara Carmichael represent Defendants Panarella and Advanced Laser & Fusion Technologies, Inc. Both indicated attorneys are on record in the case.

JURISDICTION

10. Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, Phipps and Cold Fusion technology, Inc., have consented the Jurisdiction of the case by the US Federal; Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa, Florida, their consent is on record and no further action is needed in this respect.

11. The Jurisdiction of the same Court for Defendants Panarella and Advanced Laser & Fusion Technologies, Inc., is established beyond possible doubt by the following facts as per the Affidavit in Exhibit C:

1) The magazine �Physics Essays� has been regularly sold and continues to be sold at this writing in the State of Florida as per the very admission of Defendant Panarella in one of his Affidavits on record in the case;

2) The owner-editor of said magazine, Defendant Panarella, has solicited in the past, and continues to solicit business in the State of Florida for the sale of his magazine;

3) Defendant. Panarella has routinely solicited a variety of businesses at the Institute for Basic Research, Palm Harbor, Florida, of which Plaintiff Santilli is President, including the solicitation of reviews by Plaintiff Santilli and other scientists of said Institute of articles submitted to his magazine, the submission of papers for publication in said magazine and other business;

4) Defendant Panarella has attended conferences in St. Petersburg, and Tampa, and other cities in the State of Florida during which occasions he has promoted his magazine in the State of Florida;

5) Defendant Panarella has vacationed for a number of years in the State of Florida.

13. In accordance with the regulatory conditions for jurisdiction, the very admission of sales of his magazine by Defendant Panarella, the protracted solicitation of business in the State of Florida, and the residence of the Plaintiff Santilli in Florida who has suffered the damages and injuries from said Defendants, are fully sufficient, alone, to confirm the jurisdiction of the case by said US Federal Court, Middle District of Florida in Tampa.

COPYRIGHTS

14. The Plaintiff owns fourteen different copyrights on theories identified below which were registered beginning from 1978 and were registered in any case prior to the filing of the original Complaint on June 6, 2000, copies of which are enclosed in Exhibit D.

15. For clarity, the Plaintiff hereby admits that said copyrights coverage is restricted to the main structural parts of the �description� of said theories and holds under a statutory expiration dating to three years prior to the filing of the original Complaint on June 6, 2000.

DEFENDANTS VIOLATIONS OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT

16. The scientific background of this lawsuit is presented in details in the original Complaint herein assumed in content and it is summarized in Exhibit E.

17. The main parts of the copyrighted scientific work on hadronic mechanics, the structure of the neutron, hadronic energy, generalizations of Pauli�s matrices, realization of hidden variables and generalization of Minkowski spacetime and special relativity by the Plaintiff are enclosed in Exhibits marked 1 to 12.

18. Works published by Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo and Phipps the magazine �Infinite Energy� on the structure of the neutron plagiarizing the Plaintiff�s copyrighted works Exhibit 3 to 6 published some ten years earlier are enclosed in Exhibits market 14 to 17.C.

19. Exhibits marked 19 and 20A consist of papers authored by the Plaintiff on hadronic mechanics, the structure of the neutron and hadronic energy published by Infinite Energy, while Exhibit 20B consists of the remaining part of the intended publication with hand marking by the Defendants for editorial revisions which markings prove beyond any conceivable or otherwise credible doubt that Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo and Phipps were fully aware of the Plaintiff publications in the field PRIOR to the publication of plagiarized works in Exhibits 14 to 17C, yet elected not to quote them, thus providing evidence of a conspiratorial plagiarism of Plaintiff�s origination of the work, and by inflicting to the Plaintiff intentional injury and damage.

20. Said conspiratorial character of the copyright infringement by Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo and Phipps will be additionally proved during the iterim of this lawsuit via documentation, eyewitnesses and testimonials establishing their prior knowledge as well as their repetitious and stubborn refusal to publish a corrective statement identifying the prior copyrighted papers by the Plaintiff they had intentionally elected to omit from works 14 to 17C, which repetitious and stubborn refusal left no other option than the filing of the original Complaint.

21. Exhibits marked 21, 22 and 23 constitute papers published by Defendant Panarella in the magazine �Physics Essays� which plagiarize the Plaintiff�s works in its various parts including: the most fundamental notions, concepts and descriptions underlying hadronic mechanics, Exhibit 21; the hadronic generalization of the celebrated Pauli�s matrices and related realization of the hidden variables, Exhibit 22; and the Plaintiff generalization of Minkowski spacetime and related special relativity, Exhibit 23.

22. The exhibit marked 24 reproduces a paper published by Defendant Panarella in his magazine Physics Essays with a clear and correct identification of the origination of said generalization of Minkowski spaces and related special relativity, which proves beyond any conceivable or otherwise credible doubt the complete awareness by Defendant Panarella and his associate editors of the Plaintiff�s origination of these theories. Exhibit 24 also proves the consequential conspiratorial character of the plagiarism with the intention to inflict injury and damage to the Plaintiff.

23. Said conspiratorial character of the copyright infringement by Defendants Panarella and his associate editors will be additionally proved during the iterim of this lawsuit via documentation, eyewitnesses and testimonials establishing their full awareness of the prior work by the Plaintiff as well as their repetitious and stubborn refusal to publish a corrective statement identifying the copyrighted papers by the Plaintiff they had intentionally elected to omit from works 21, 22 and 23, which repetitious and stubborn refusal left no other option than the filing of the original Complaint

24. Plagiarism in science is rapidly detected by inspecting the references in view of the ethical, let alone legal obligation to quote all prior works in the field, irrespective of whether copyrighted or not. By following this simple rule, one can see that works 14 to 17A dealing exactly in the structure of the neutron as a bound state of a proton and an electron DO NOT QUOTE Plaintiff�s prior work, Exhibits 3 to 5, in full documented awareness of the same by the author and the editors of Infinite Energy. In fact, in the references of Exhibit 17A one can see in Reference 6 the listing a work by the Plaintiff of 1979

TOTALLY NONRELATED to the field, for the evident intent of stealing the paternity of the theory while mimicking the impression of quotation for nonexperts, and perpetrating a conspiratorial editorial and scientific fraud.

25. The work in Exhibit 17B constitutes an additional publication by Infinite Energy following a chorus of protests on the preceding plagiarized and fraudulent publications. As one can see, rather than correcting the illegal prior acts, which can only be done by quoting the correct prior references, Reference 11 of page 87 of Exhibit 17B quote works by the Plaintiff which are, again, totally nonrelated to the scientific fraud, besides being intentionally distorted, such as avoiding the list of the correct publisher, thus constitute a true editorial and scientific disgrace intentionally perpetrated in a conspiratorial way by Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo and Phipps to inflict damage and injury to the Plaintiff.

26. Exhibit 17C constitutes another blatant plagiarism by Infinite Energy authored by Defendant Phipps and published after the filing of the original Complaint, again squarely in the topic of the structure of the neutron as a bound state of a proton and an electron in which, again, one can see in page 65 that there is the DOCUMENTEDLY INTENTIONAL OMISSION OF DIRECTLY RELEVANT PRIOR REFERENCES BY THE PLAINTIFF, NAMELY, THE REFERENCES IN EXHIBITS 3, 4, 5, which were documentedly known to Defendant Phipps as well as Defendants Mallove and Dello Russo.

27. Comparison of the plaintiff works in Exhibit 3, 4, 5 and the works in Exhibit 14 to 17C establishes that the Plaintiff copyrighted description of said theories are copied work by word, concept by concept and sentence by sentence in their most fundamental parts.

28. Exhibits 19 and 20A, as well as the unpublished but edited exhibit 20C, prove the complete knowledge by Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo and Phipps of his prior copyrighted works by the Plaintiff, since they had reviewed it just before the publication of plagiarizing works 17A, 17B and 17C, thus confirming the intentional and conspiratorial desire to suppress the prior work by the Plaintiff in exactly the same field.

29. The Plaintiff withdrew the publication of work 20C at Infinite Energy due to the prior appearance of the plagiarized work in Exhibit 17A as well as the stubborn refusal by the Defendants to publish a corrective statement on the missing prior works.

30. Exhibit F provides documentation of the refusal by DefendantsMallove and his associate editors of publishing corrective statement, thus leaving no other choice than the filing of the original complaint.

31. Exhibit G provides documentation of the complete support by Defendant Phipps of manifestly unethical scientific behavior by his friends Defendant Mallove, let alone an open undersigned support for illegal acts in the conduction and publication of research, thus constituting an truly incredible document of the current condition of basic science.

32. The case at the magazine �Physics Essays� is an identical copy of that at �Infinite Energy�, although related to other copyrighted publications by the Plaintiff. In particular, the work in Exhibit 21 plagiarizes the most fundamental notions, concepts and descriptions of hadronic mechanics by stating �we have derived...�, �we have obtained...�, �our ....� and similar forms of claiming paternity without proper quotation of the same; the work in Exhibit 22 plagiarizes the Plaintiff�s fundamental results first obtained in the copyrighted work in Exhibit 8 on the generalization of Pauli�s matrices and the realization of hidden variables; and the work in Exhibit 23 plagiarizes identically, words by word, concept by concept and symbol by symbol the Plaintiff�s generalization of the Minkowski spacetime and related special relativity as first derived more than ten years earlier in the works of Exhibit 7 to 12.

33. The Plaintiff reserves the rights to prove during the iterim of this lawsuits via eyewitnesses and testimonials the complete awareness of his prior papers by both the author as well as by Defendant Panarella.

34. The work in Exhibit 24 is a paper by another author published in 1992 in Physics Essays with the full and proper identification of the paternity by the Plaintiff of said generalization of the Minkowski spacetime and related special relativity, thus proving beyond any conceivable or otherwise credible doubt that Defendant Panarella was fully aware of the prior copyrighted works exactly in the same field, yet elected not to have it quoted for personal gains, while causing to the Plaintiff severe damage, injury and tort.

35. Exhibit H provides a documentation of the damage suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of the illegal action by the Defendants in which one can see that the theories which should be rightly called �santilli�s Theories� are instead called �Conte�s Theories�.

36. The Plaintiff states for clarity the following:

1) All claims under the Copyright act are restricted to the DESCRIPTION of physical theories and not to their mathematical elaborations;

2) All plagiarizing works published by Infinite Energy, Exhibit 14 to 17C are fully within the statutory period of expiration set at three years prior to the filing of the original complaint on June 6, 2000.

3) Out of the three papers published by the magazine Physics Essays, Exhibits 21, 22 and 23, only the last falls within the statutory three year expiration limit. Therefore, all claims under the Copyright act are restricted to said last plagiarizing work in Exhibit 23. The plagiarizing works in Exhibits 21 and 22 are included in this Second Amended Complaint because in violation of other State and Federal laws identified below.

DEFENDANTS VIOLATIONS OF TORT LAWS

37. The most fundamental expression of physics, as well as of all quantitative sciences, is given by physical laws which, to be quantitative, have to be expressed via equations predicting numbers verified or verifiable in the physical reality. As a result, the most important origination, also called paternity in physics is that of said physical laws.

38. As an example, a most fundamental discovery of Albert Einstein is the law of equivalence of mass with energy E = mc2 which is rightfully called �Einstein�s laws�. Even the most unethical of a person would agree that calling the equation E = mc2 �The Mallove-Panarella Law� just because they did write it in their work, would be immoral, let alone unlawful.

39. he same profoundly immoral act would occur for trivial modifications of basic laws, e.g., for calling �The Mallove-Panarella Law� the equation E = 2mc2/2 because this is trivially equivalent to the Einsteinian law E = mc2 since the numbers 2 in the numerator and in the denominator cancel out by trivially reproducing the original law.

40. The willful, malicious, intentional, fraud of the paternity of new physical laws constitute a manifest TORT against the lawful originator which fraud, as such, is covered by the several State and Federal versions of the Tort Laws, including the Federal Unfair Competition Law, the State Law of Unfair Competition, the Florida Deceptive State Act, the Law against Unjust Enrichment, and other laws.

41. By far the biggest damages and injuries perpetrated by Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, Phipps, Panarella and their corporate conduits against the Plaintiff has been their intentional, willful, and conspiratorial fraud of the origination of the new basic physical laws first derived by the Plaintiff.

42. As a result, the biggest protection of the law under which this lawsuit is filed is that under the above indicated forms of the Tort Laws because they directly cover the fraudulent assumption of paternity of physical laws which physical laws are not protected by the Copyright act as indicated earlier for clarity. Moreover, the above identified various forms of Tort Laws do not have the three year statutory expiration time as existing for the Copyright act. As a result, said Tort Laws apply for all fraudulent papers published by the Defendants, Exhibits 14, 15, 16, 17A, 17B, 17C, 21, 22 and 23, and not only those published up to three years prior to the filing of the original Complaint on June 16, 2000.

43. As a first concrete example, by far the biggest damages and injuries suffered by the Plaintiff because of the publication by Defendants Mallove and his associates at the magazine �Infinite Energy� of the paper in Exhibit 17A has been the fraudulent assumption of paternity of all basic physical laws, equations and numerical results which were first derived by the Plaintiff ten years earlier in Exhibit 3 and communicated to said authors as per eyewitness accounts and other testimonials.

44. s specific examples: the fundamental generalized commutation rules Equations (2.1) of Exhibit 17A are IDENTICAL even ion the used symbols to those first derived by the Plaintiff, Equations (2.22) of Exhibit 3; the fundamental physical laws in Equation (2.4) of Exhibit 17A is IDENTICAL even in the used symbols to the Plaintiff�s law (2.7) of Exhibit 3; the fundamental Hulten potential in Equation (2.7) and (2.8) of Exhibit 17A is IDENTICAL event in the used symbols to the original derivation in equations. (2.11) and (2.12) of the Plaintiff work in Exhibit 3; the fundamental equations of structure of the neutron, Equation (4.1) of Exhibit 17A is IDENTICAL even in the used symbols to that first derived by the Plaintiff, Equation (2.13) and following equations of Exhibit 3; the numerical results of Exhibit 17A are IDENTICAL to those of Exhibit 3; etc.

45. Numerous torts have been perpetrated here because in none of the above indicated basic physical laws, equations and numerical results their first origination by the Plaintiff was properly identified with the correct quotation of exhibit 3. On the contrary, the fraudulent nature of Exhibit 17A is established by the fact that it states �our equation....�, �we have derived...�, and similar statements asserting fraudulent paternity beyond any possible or otherwise credible doubt.

46. The intentional character of all these torts is established by the facts that both the author of Exhibit 17A as well as Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo and Phipps were fully aware of the paternity by the Plaintiff, as established also beyond any possible or otherwise credible doubt by Exhibit 20B which consists of a review precisely of the Plaintiff�s Exhibit 3 corrected, controlled and edited with their own hand writings by Defendant Mallove and his editorial associates.

47. The applicability of each and all the various versions of the Tort Laws is equally incontrovertible. In fact, it is evident that the above documented, intentional tort inflicted to the Plaintiff constitutes: 1) Unfair competition, evidently because the defendants claimed as belonging to others results in their publication which claim is not true, thus unfair, by therefore activating the Federal and, independently, the State Statute on the same; 2) Deceptive trade practice, evidently because the deceptive nature of the fraudulent publications sold and traded in Florida as well as all over the world is beyond any possible or credible doubt, thus activating the Federal Act on the same; 3) Unjust enrichment, evidently because defendants Mallove and his associates obtained a financial benefit in the sale of their magazine Infinite Energy in Florida as well as all over the world via the use of fraudulent publications such as that of Exhibit 17A, thus activating various Federal and State Laws against such an unlawful and malicious practices without which laws none of the publications of our Land would have any credibility.

48. Essentially the same occurrences hold for the fraudulent publication of Exhibits 17B and 17C which the Plaintiff reserves the right to identify in each details at the appropriate time during the course of this lawsuit.

49. This lawsuit is therefore file against Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, Phipps and their corporate conduit, not only under the Copyright act , because of the plagiarism word by work, sentence by sentence and description by description of the Plaintiff copyrighted prior publications, but also and above all under the various Federal and State Tort Laws, particularly those on Unfair Competition, Deceptive Trade Practices and Unjust Enrichment, because of plagiarizing physical laws by physical laws, equation by equation and numerical result by numerical result in an identical form including even the symbols.

50. The damages and injuries caused to the Plaintiff by Defendant Panarella and his corporate conduit are much greater than those caused by Defendants Mallove, Dello Russo, Phipps and their corporate conduit because the latter defrauded the Plaintiff of the paternity of one theory, that on true Rutherford conception of the neutrons, while Defendant Panarella and his editorial associates defrauded the Plaintiff of the paternity of the totality of his research life.

51. To understand the gravity, dimension and diversification of this fraud, it should be recalled that there cannot be new really new physical theories without new mathematics, and there cannot be really new mathematics without new numbers. For this reason, when at Harvard University under support from the Department of Energy, the Plaintiff, a physicist, was a member of the Department of mathematics for the specific purpose of identifying new numbers and related mathematics, which were indeed discovered and published in Exhibit 6 of 1993 as well as in several preceding publications. This lead to the discovery of new real numbers, new complex numbers and new quaternionic numbers which are essentially characterized by an arbitrary unit, while conventional numbers are characterized by the trivial unit +1. The new numbers were called isotopic by the Plaintiff in the greek meaning of preserving the original axioms.

51. Inspection of Exhibit 21 immediately reveals an incredible fraud perpetrated by the author under the support of Defendant Panarella dealing with the claimed discovery of new numbers called �biquaternions�, Equations (1_ to (129) of Exhibit 21 which are IDENTICAL even in the symbol to the Plaintiff, Equations (10.23) to (10.35) of Exhibit 6. One quantity alone is sufficient to identify the fraud: the basic unit used in the �biquaternions�, given by the generalized unit of equation (17) of Exhibit 21 which is exactly the same as its first origination in Equations (10.26) of Exhibit 6. The fraud and consequential tort consists in the fact that, rather than stating �Santilli derived first this type of generalized quaternions in reference 6�, Exhibit 21 state �We derive�, our generalization...� thus illegally defrauding the real paternity because of the lack of proper quotation of its origination.

52. The fraud in the generalization of the unit then implies consequential frauds for the basic physical laws. For instance, the immediate implication is the generalization of the unit of quantum mechanics, Planck�s constant, into a matrix, which is THE most fundamental assumption of hadronic mechanics repeated in virtual all papers and books of Exhibits 1 to 12. By comparison, Exhibit 21 introduces precisely such a generalization, see Equation 49) of Exhibit 21, and states �Our conclusion is that we have to consider the following...� without any quotation, exactly in that passage of the true origination.

53. Similarly, the subsequent equation (56) is the most fundamental physical law of hadronic mechanics. Yet it is presented with the words �we obtain the final result�, namely, Exhibit (21) claims in that passage the paternity of this fundamental physical laws which constitutes a clear fraud, thus a tort to its lawful originator, the Plaintiff.

54. The Plaintiff avoid the identification of additional incredible frauds in Exhibit 21, although reserves the right to itemize them in extreme details during due proceedings under this lawsuit. It should be noted that at the end Exhibit 21 does indeed quote �Santilli� but without any identification of the origination of the entire theory presented there, thus constituting ad additional deception because any person not expert in the field will never understand from the quotation at the end the real paternity of the results. In this way, rather than avoiding liability, the improper quotation at the end of the paper aggravates the deception, responsibility, the fraud and the tort.

55. The additional frauds in Exhibit 22 are equally incredible. Some of the most fundamental matrices of quantum mechanics are �Pauli�s matrices� and they play a crucial role in the study of the spin of protons and electrons. The generalization of the unit of quantum mechanics evidently implies that of Pauli�s matrices. This generalization was first achieved by the Plaintiff in Exhibit 12 of 1991 and then reprinted numerous times, such as in Exhibit 8 of 1993. In Equations (28) Exhibit 22 of 1995 claim to have obtained the paternity in exactly the same generalization in an astonishing way via the use of EXACTLY THE SAME SYMBOLS AND NOTATION of the original derivation by the Plaintiff, such as in Equation (3.2) of Exhibit 8. Equally incredible frauds occur ion other forms of the same matrices, such as those in equations (47) and (49) which are additional IDENTICAL copy, even in the symbols, of those originally derived by the Plaintiff, such as Equations (3.9) and (3.11)/. The fraud, and consequential tort is due to the fact that, rather than quoting the originations of these fundamental quantities, Exhibit 22 claims again �we have obtained...� �we derive...�, �our ...� which are manifest statement of paternity even the most callous dishonest person should admit, let alone an editor of a scientific magazine such as Defendant Panarella.

56. The remaining part of Exhibit 22 constitutes another incredible fraud beginning with the second part of the title which states �an Explicit and Concrete Realization of Hidden Variables�as permitted by the above generalization of Pauli�s matrices which was first derived and copyrighted by the Plaintiff. Since this fraud is already covered by the Copyright Act, the Plaintiff abstains from further considerations at this time.

57. In the third work reproduced in Exhibit 23 defendant Panarella and his friends perpetrate the most despicable act, inasmuch as they have defrauded the Plaintiff of his most fundamental discovery, a generalization of the Minkowski spacetime with consequential generalization of Einstein�s special relativity, first achieved in the paper of Exhibit 7 of 1983, fourteen years before the printing of Exhibit 23.

58. The beginning, equation (1) of Exhibit 23 is a vulgar fraud of the Plaintiff discovery of generalized Lie algebras published in all copyrighted papers in Exhibits 1 to 12, such as in Equation 9) of Exhibit 7. The frauds then continue in a truly incredible way here omitted for brevity, to conclude with the fundamental generalization of the Minkowski spacetime Equation (23) of Exhibit 23 which, in a truly despicable way for anything believed to be scientific, is COMPLETELY IDENTICAL EVEN IN THE SYMBOLS with the first derivation in Equation (2) of Exhibit 7. The incontrovertible character of the fraud is that the Defendant Panarella and his author claims in conjunction with Equation (23) of Exhibit 23 �we have�, rather than �Santilli derived�, or �our generalization� rather than �Santilli�s generalization� and the like.

59. The intentional character of the fraud and, therefore, of the damages, injuries and torts inflicted by Defendant Panarella on the Plaintiff is proved in an astonishingly way by Exhibit 24 which consists of a paper published by the Same defendant Panarella by another author precisely on the Plaintiff�s theories fraudulently copies in Exhibit 21, 22 and 23. For instance, Equation (4) oif Exhibit 24 is the basic generalization of the Minkowski spacetime duly recognized in Exhibit 24 as being discovered by Santilli and absolutely identical even in the symbols with Equation (23) of Exhibit 23, yet the true paternity of the same is denied in the latter case by the same Defendant Panarella.

60. Therefore, the intentional character of all these torts by Defendant Panarella is established by the facts that both the author of Exhibit 21, 22 and 23 as well as Defendants Panarella were fully aware of the paternity by the Plaintiff, as established beyond any possible or otherwise credible doubt by Exhibit 24 which consists of a prior publication by the same Defendant although with the proper quotations of the origination of the theories.

61. The applicability of each and all the various versions of the Tort Laws is equally incontrovertible. In fact, it is evident that the above documented, intentional, willful and malicious torts inflicted to the Plaintiff constitutes: 1) Unfair competition, evidently because Defendant Panarella maliciously claimed as belonging to others certain fundamental results which instead were originated by the Plaintiff, thus perpetrating unfair competition, by therefore activating the Federal and, independently, the State Statute on the same; 2) Deceptive trade practice, evidently because the deceptive nature of the fraudulent publications sold and traded in Florida as well as all over the world is beyond any possible or credible doubt, thus activating the Federal Act on the same; 3) Unjust enrichment, evidently because Defendant Panarella obtained a financial benefit in the sale of his magazine Physics Essays in Florida as well as all over the world via the use of fraudulent publications such as that of Exhibits 21, 22 and 23, thus activating various Federal and State Laws against such an unlawful and malicious practices without which laws none of the publications of our Land would have any credibility.

NOW IN VIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS THE FOLLOWING:

62. COUNT I- COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT: The paragraphs numbered 1 to 61 are incorporated by reference. The Defendants' acts constitute copyright infringement within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. 501 as a result of which the Plaintiff has been damaged. Therefore, the Plaintiff requests the injunctive publication of a corrective statement identifying the preceding copyrighted works by the Plaintiff. Moreover, the action by the Defendants have caused damages, injuries and distress to the Plaintiff which require a financial compensation in excess of the statutory minimum of the U. S. Federal Court whose amount is hereby left to the judgment by the same Court.

63. COUNT II - FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION The paragraphs numbered 1 to 61 are incorporated by reference. The Defendants' acts and omissions constitute a false designation of origin, sponsorship, a misleading description of facts or a false, and a misleading description of facts that cause confusion within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. 1125. The Defendants' conduct also constitutes reverse palming off as states in other similar cases available in law libraries. As proved in this Second Amended Complaint, such a conduct has been deliberate and willful such thus demanding damages are recoverable. Therefore, the action by the Defendants have caused damages, injuries and distress to the Plaintiff which require a financial compensation in excess of the statutory minimum of the U. S. Federal Court whose amount is hereby left to the judgment by the same Court.

64. COUNT III- STATE LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION The paragraphs numbered 1 to 61 are incorporated by reference. The Defendant's conduct has caused and continue to cause confusion and to deceive the public. Therefore, the action by the Defendants have caused damages, injuries and distress to the Plaintiff which require a financial compensation in excess of the statutory minimum of the U. S. Federal Court in the amount of $ 1,000,000.00 (one million Dollars) to be allocated 50% to Defendants Mallove and his associates and 50% to Defendants Panarella and his associates.

65. COUNT IV- FLORIDA DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT The paragraphs numbered 1 to 61are incorporated by reference. The Defendants' conduct is in violation of section 501.204, Florida Statutes. In particular, the conduct by the Defendants has been willful and deliberate. Therefore, the action by the Defendants have caused damages, injuries and distress to the Plaintiff which require a financial compensation in excess of the statutory minimum of the U. S. Federal Court in the amount of $ 1,000,000.00 (one million Dollars) to be allocated 50% to Defendants Mallove and his associates and 50% to Defendants Panarella and his associates.

66. COUNT V- UNJUST ENRICHMENT The paragraphs numbered 1 to 61 are incorporated by reference. The Defendants have received unjust financial benefits from the sale of their magazine with plagiarizing work identified in this Second Amended Complaint, as well as unjust scientific and honorary benefits.The Defendants have knowingly accepted such benefits. As a result, they have in fact enjoyed the benefit and the plaintiff has been harmed as a result. It would be evidently inequitable to allow them to retain the benefit. Therefore, the Plaintiff requires a financial compensation in excess of the statutory minimum of the U. S. Federal Court in the amount of $ 1,000,000.00 (one million Dollars) to be allocated 50% to Defendants Mallove and his associates and 50% to Defendants Panarella and his associates.

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 North, no. 115
Palm Harbor, FL 346834

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true, signed` 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., Ruden, McCloskey, et al. 401 East Jackson Street, 27-th Floor,Tampa FL, 33602, who represents the indicated Defendants, this 9-th day of March 8, 2001.

In faith

Ruggero Maria Santilli