The Playground

  • So Cherokee has learned 2 very valuable lessons now: Don't buy polluted land in California and expect things to go as planned, and do not invest in ornery, mercurial, overunity inventors with a checkered past, without doing a true DD.

    This is the way usual people takes lesson.


    a VC, take the lesson as statistic... as warning to always consider thing can fail.

  • 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.


    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 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.

  • it is hard to distinguish between sincere biased/convinced supporters and paid professional.

    My bet is that the worst tactics are amateur.

    As Milgram experiment have shown, even money cannot buy the worst behaviors, but you can do it for free.

  • it is hard to distinguish between sincere biased/convinced supporters and paid professional.

    My bet is that the worst tactics are amateur.

    As Milgram experiment have shown, even money cannot buy the worst behaviors, but you can do it for free.


    I agree Alain, I wasn't even thinking about penny-a-post astroturfing, I was thinking of the voluntary kind.

  • 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.

    Well, please take a look to this document:

    ORDER OF CALIFORNIA DTSC

    From the Order of California DTSC document it is clear that Cherokee Simeon Venture is responsible as much as Zeneca, from which they bought the lots. It is in fact evident from the beginning that Cherokee is one of the "Respondents". It is also state in the document that subsequent ownership changes will not release Respondents from their responsibilities (§6.25)

    It was then the DTSC to stop the speculation of Cherokee. Dear Jimmy, is it pretty cheeky for you?

  • 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.

    First of all I am not Rossi, it should be fairly clear from my way of writing, which is different from his. Moreover you know that if the jury is looking for information on the internet, it will commit an illicit, and I doubt that a person called to judge would put himself in the condition of being judged. Finally if your speech is valid for Rossi, then it is also for IH: on this forum (and not just here) people often talk about Rossi's past, in order to put him in a bad light. Is not this even a wink to the jury? My purpose is not to influence anyone, I just want to see who are the protagonists of this saga.Who really are.

  • changing of scale, with passion, people can do big acts as Lone Wolf.

    Often there is a network, but it is more a community, like we are, than structured military organization.

    This is how thing seems to work recently with Internet, with many subjects. Even NGO and cults are surprised by they 2.0 version...

    Often also the stakes of people make them commit the worst, the stronger stakes being ideology, emotion, but also sometime money and job.

    I think of people who have invested money in business, time like me... beside pride, ego, network, travel...

  • Well, please take a look to this document:

    ORDER OF CALIFORNIA DTSC

    From the Order of California DTSC document it is clear that Cherokee Simeon Venture is responsible as much as Zeneca, from which they bought the lots. It is in fact evident from the beginning that Cherokee is one of the "Respondents". It is also state in the document that subsequent ownership changes will not release Respondents from their responsibilities (§6.25)

    It was then the DTSC to stop the speculation of Cherokee. Dear Jimmy, is it pretty cheeky for you?


    Yeah, the PDF has nothing that hasn't already been discussed here. Is it such a big surprise that they are liable for clean-up when they bought the site? I guess UC Berkeley are bad guys too right, since they are in the same situation?


    You and ele must spend too much time together, your tricks of linking to long-winded documents with nothing in them and trying to add innuendo are transparent and boring. I'm just interested in the facts, which are very easy for anyone to find with Google. The fact is that there were never any houses built there leading to illness, which is what both you and ele claimed.


    So, would you like to retract your false claim, or leave it hanging around here as a testament to your willingness to lie in your unquestioning support of Rossi?

  • Yeah, the PDF has nothing that hasn't already been discussed here. Is it such a big surprise that they are liable for clean-up when they bought the site? I guess UC Berkeley are bad guys too right, since they are in the same situation?


    You and ele must spend too much time together, your tricks of linking to long-winded documents with nothing in them and trying to add innuendo are transparent and boring. I'm just interested in the facts, which are very easy for anyone to find with Google. The fact is that there were never any houses built there leading to illness, which is what both you and ele claimed.


    So, would you like to retract your false claim, or leave it hanging around here as a testament to your willingness to lie in your unquestioning support of Rossi?

    Yeah, I've been wondering for a while why some people persist with this claim of housing built on contaminated land. The fact is that there are no houses there, so persisting with this claim makes the claimer a liar, no bones about it.