Alan Smith

There is a link on the ash below is this what you were referring to ?

https://steemit.com/blog/@mfmp…owing-unexpected-elements

ecco-ash

Quote from Rigel

Alan Smith

There is a link on the ash below is this what you were referring to ?

https://steemit.com/blog/@mfmp…owing-unexpected-elements

ecco-ash

Display More

Alan, I may be wrong but I remember a comment that MFMP was analyzing the ash and something like wait to make judgement.

If the comment above is directed to me. If not disregard. Thanks

Summer gives more free time .... there are those who pass it on the beach and there are those who dedicate themselves to internet searches.

I know that Axil and others do not understand the need of investigating about IH / Cherokee's past, but I think it's important to know who are the people involved in the dispute that we are following. And since there are so many people always re-opening the old stories about Rossi's past,

I want to be original and look at the other side for quite a while. On the other hand, we're in a Playground ..... why not have a good time?

Here's what I found about the Zeneca - Cherokee affair:

The property known as Zeneca site consisted of bay-front 86 acre between Marina Bay and Point Isabel in Richmond (CA). Once occupied by a Stauffer Chemicals, Inc plant was later purchased by Zeneca Inc which merged into AstraZeneca , the world’s second largest pharmaceutical manufacturer. Previous chemical manufacturing activities ( sulfuric acid, chemical fertilizers, pesticides) resulted in elevated level of heavy metals and pesticides within portion of the former plant, upland areas and nearby marshes. According to a history of the site prepared in 2001 by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Stauffer for years used the cinders (a highly acidic ash-like substance, by-product of sulfuric acid) as landfill dumping the waste on the east of its property. The cinders are mostly made up of pyrite but include toxic metals like arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury and selenium.

Cherokee proposed to continue the remediation and clean –up plan begun by Zeneca and to develop a mini-city in the site.

At the end of 2002 Cherokee Simeon Venture I LLC , jointly owned by Zeneca Inc and Cherokee Simeon Holding Company LLC acquired Lots 1 and 2 (northern 17 acre lot and 10 acre lot = 27 northern acre) of the site from Zeneca Inc. Zeneca , in the meantime from May to December 2002, started Big Dig 2002 as Self Monitored Cleanup under San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. The lots were named Campus Bay by Cherokee.

In 2003 Cherokee Simeon Venture II LLC acquired Lot 3 , southern 58 acres, that included around 30 acre temporary concrete and paper cap on 8 foot high mountain of 350,000 cubic yards of extremely toxic substances, including hazardous waste and approximately 20 acre highly contaminated with hazardous waste saltwater marsh and fresh water lagoons.

In 2003 the City and the Richmond Redevelopment Agency supported the remediation and redevelopment plan of Cherokee that intended to continue the remediation and clean- up of the site and to create a mixed –use campus( biotech park, housing, retail spaces).

During 2003 Cherokee began to redevelop the Lot 1 , remodeling the building, finishing landscaping and parking lot.

Between July and November 2004 the California Department of Toxic Substances Control made an investigation on use levels of 68 acre property , on criteria for housing on the property , on method used for the clean –up and asked for more tests on soil and groundwater across the entire site.

In February 2005, at the end of its investigation, the Department of Toxic Substances Control released the results that showed an high levels of arsenic, lead, mercury, nickel, polychlorinated biphenyls and three Volatile Organic Compounds (that are tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene and vinyl chloride) in soil and in groundwater, included in northern Lot 1(where the redevelopment had already advanced ).

In September 2006 the California Department of Toxic Substances Control issued a remediation order mandating the remediation of the property. Cherokee was obliged to pay for remediation a portion of the property, capping a portion of the property and monitoring and investigating the property.

In 2007 Cherokee entered into a Loan Agreement with Continental Environmental Redevelopment Financial LLC for up to $42 million, for remediation and maintenance costs of the property (Continental, known as EFG, later assigned its interest in the Loan agreement to CERF SPV I LLC) .

In November 2011 CERF, the lender, send a letter to Cherokee asserting default and seeking immediate payment of $ 51,978,507.00.

In June 2012 CERF settled a lawsuit against two Cherokee entities, Cherokee Investment Partners III Parallel Fund LP and Cherokee Investment Partners III LP (such entities owned Cherokee Richmond LLC that held, at the formation, 96% eventually 100% of Cherokee Simeon Holding Company LLC). Such two entities were guarantors of the Cherokee’s obligations for the loan agreement.

On October 23, 2013 Cherokee filed its petition for Chapter 11 protection (bankruptcy) in Delaware Federal Court.

[Cherokee Simeon Venture I LLC was formed in Delaware on December 12, 2002 and transferred its business in California on March 17, 2003

Cherokee Simeon Venture II LLC was formed in Delaware on June 24,2003 and transferred its business in California on June 30, 2003

Cherokee Simeon Holding Company LLC was formed in Delaware on December 12, 2002

Cherokee Richmond LLC was formed in Delaware on December 12, 2002

Cherokee Richmond LLC held at the formation 96% of Cherokee Simeon Holding Company LLC, as of April 29,2011 was the sole member of Cherokee Simeon Holding Company LLC.]

SSC. You have a short memory.

We discussed this recently.

Little reminder. How many failures do you expect a VC specialising in high risk remediation projects to have?

Second question. Who created the pollution that needed remediation? The guy called in to try and reclaim the land?

Quote from THHuxleynew

Who created the pollution that needed remediation? The guy called in to try and reclaim the land?

Hmm Reading the SSC writing and searching the net seems that Zeneca and Cherokee has done a join venture

Quote from SSC

Cherokee Simeon Venture I LLC , jointly owned by Zeneca Inc and Cherokee Simeon Holding Company LLC

and done illegal activities together.

Here is one interesting document I have found about:

http://www.deb.uscourts.gov/si…nd-order-re-bad-faith.pdf

Quote from THHuxleynew

Little reminder. How many failures do you expect a VC specialising in high risk remediation projects to have?

We are not talking about wrong business or calculated risks. Here we talk about scam. Cherokee had to end the work begun by Zeneca and then build houses on the cleaned up ground. They raised public funds to complete the remediation. But the recovery has not been completed and there are people who have become ill. Do you really want to tell me that it is normal for VCs to behave this way??

Quote from THHuxleynew

Second question. Who created the pollution that needed remediation? The guy called in to try and reclaim the land?

Who cares who created the pollution? Cherokee was paid to remedy and instead they only built houses on a rotten ground. This is a criminal act!

Quote from SSC

 

We are not talking about wrong business or calculated risks. Here we talk about scam. Cherokee had to end the work begun by Zeneca and then build houses on the cleaned up ground. They raised public funds to complete the remediation. But the recovery has not been completed and there are people who have become ill. Do you really want to tell me that it is normal for VCs to behave this way??

Who cares who created the pollution? Cherokee was paid to remedy and instead they only built houses on a rotten ground. This is a criminal act!

 

Again with this house claim which ele already tried to BS through. Where is the evidence that they built houses?

It is clear that they bought an already polluted site with the intention of remediating it and the job was much bigger than planned. Do you think they just pocket the money they received? That would be even cheekier than Rossi.

Evidence, this is not a requirement for the magnificent of the R.SSC and M..ele... twisting duo. It's pretty clear why they are present here getting more desperate by the hour. The obvious problem is no matter what brief the jury are given, they will do a Google search for 'LENR' to try to understand the technology. Google results in the UK and possibly elsewhere list only one open forum (can be read without login) on the first page, guess which one.

Quote from Malcolm Lear

It's pretty clear why they are present here getting more desperate by the hour.

I'm absolutely not desperate ! Why should I ? BTW my name does not begin with M.

My are only considerations done reading that forum and the net with an open mind. From what I can see I have formed the opinion that the actions of the Cherokee Simeon Venture I LLC were not innocent ( VC risks and fail ) but a deliberate criminal act.

Quote from Malcolm Lear

The obvious problem is no matter what brief the jury are given, they will do a Google search for 'LENR' to try to understand the technology. Google results in the UK and possibly elsewhere list only one open forum (can be read without login) on the first page, guess which one.

You are clearly hoping that this forum would influence the Jury in favor of IH.

I would like to take the attention to the fact that modern Courts are well aware of the effect that Social Media could have on a Jury.

Take for example this Article:

http://digitalcommons.wcl.amer…233&context=facsch_lawrev

Modernizing Jury Instructions in the Age of Social Media
By David E. Aaronson and Sydney M. Patterson

The first few lines of it report a case:

Quote

Following a jury trial in Vermont, the defendant, a
Somali Bantu immigrant, was convicted of aggravated
sexual assault on a child. A juror obtained
information on the Internet about Somali culture and religion,
a subject that played a significant role at trial, which
the juror discussed for 10–15 minutes during deliberations
to support his own position. The Vermont Supreme Court
reversed, finding prejudicial error because this information
had the capacity to affect the jury’s verdict, as jurors
could have relied on it to interpret the testimony of the
Somali witnesses and determine the credibility of these
witnesses. (State v. Abdi, 45 A.3d 29 (Vt. 2012).)

The rest of the article is quite an interesting to read.

I think that the best for both parties is that the Jurors will keep away from internet during the trial!

Also I suspect, but I'm not sure, that, if demonstrated, a deliberate attempt by any Internet site to influence the Jury could be considered as crime.

Some more citations of the article that could be quite interesting for discussion. First of all some fun:

Quote

Judge Sweeney did question one juror who
had posted “F--- the Judge” on his Facebook page after
Judge Sweeney had called a hearing on the matter. Judge
Sweeney reportedly asked the juror about his offensive
comment and was told, “Hey Judge, that’s just Facebook
stuff.” (See Brian Grow, As Jurors Go Online, U.S. Trials
Go Off Track, Reuters Legal (Dec. 8, 2010), http://
tinyurl.com/9nt4umx.)

Then something more serious:

Quote

Juror misconduct using social media may have a direct impact on the administration,
fairness, and integrity of the criminal justice system.
In modern jury trials, judges, the parties, and their attorneys
expect that many, if not most, jurors use social media.
Unlike inadmissible or stricken evidence heard by a jury
during trial, ex parte information a juror obtains online
cannot be addressed by the court with a curative or limiting
instruction to correct any prejudicial effects. (See, e.g.,
Hopt v. Utah, 120 U.S. 430 (1887) (holding that a trial
should not be suspended where an error in admission of
testimony can be corrected by its withdrawal with proper
instruction from the court to disregard it).) Both the state
and the defense are likewise deprived of the opportunity to
consider and address the ex parte information by tailoring
their case strategy or closing statement accordingly. Moreover,
complications may arise during jury deliberations
because the individual jurors will not all be considering
the same evidence in reaching a verdict. Jurors who conduct
online research may be tempted to share the results
of their research with their fellow jurors.

Quote

Despite instructions from the judge not to conduct
research on the case, a juror in a murder trial looked up
definitions online for the terms “livor mortis” and “algor
mortis” and the role it might have had in fixing the time
of a beating victim’s death. When asked about it, the
juror responded, “To me that wasn’t research. It was a
definition.” The Court of Special Appeals reversed the
conviction and ordered a new trial, finding that the juror’s
online search was in direct violation of the trial court
judge’s order prohibiting jurors from researching the case.
(Clark v. State, No. 0953/08 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Dec. 3,
2009) (unreported opinion); see also Dennis Sweeney,
Social Media and Jurors, supra, at 46.)
After repeated explicit instructions not to conduct Internet
research, a juror in a capital murder trial researched
how a person could suffer “retinal detachment,” the injury
suffered by the victim. In the resulting contempt proceeding
for misconduct, the juror’s attorney explained that the
juror misunderstood the judge’s instruction not to conduct
research, believing the judge was referring only to facts in
the case, not related issues such as how a person could suffer
certain injuries. (Brian Grow, Juror Could Face Charges
for Online Research, Reuters Legal (Jan. 19, 2011), http://
tinyurl.com/9kjhjv2.)

So I presume the the Judge, as in many other case will instruct the Jury to stay away from Internet!

I have no wish for any social media influence on the outcome of the trail, but we all live in a world where this is almost inevitable to some degree. My point is, Rossi and co are fully aware of this and IMO are targetting the most likely first stop forum any jurors will come upon.

Quote from Alan Smith

I have no doubt both sides are aware of this probability. Look out for some heavy-duty astroturfing from both camps.

My views have evolved on this question. I now definitely wonder whether this place is already the target of astroturfers among us. I do not assign equal likelihoods between IH and Rossi in this connection. But there is an interesting milestone that will be reached at some point should one of the parties run out of money. Will some participants disappear and not come back? We will find out.

Thankfully arguments are arguments, even in the hands of astroturfers, which relieves us of the need for a witch hunt to try to suss them out. If a participant being paid to post here is able to present a cogent argument, fine and well. And if a participant regularly tosses out cheap, throwaway arguments, or offers arguments that are obviously twisted, this is readily apparent as well, whether the poster is an astroturfer or not.