In this case the response was almost immediate.
Looks like we've got the bases covered, for when Dewey throws out threats of litigation against forum members.
-
-
Or indeed when anybody gets a bit too pushy. But it's a balancing act and we fall off sometimes.
-
Please elaborate. This could easily be interpreted as making direct and violent threats towards people who disagree with your view of the matters discussed here. Is this the way you handled IVA? Did you threaten them? Did you maybe send them pictures of their children at school? You obviously symphathise with the Italian mob regarding other issues, so I'm not that surprised if this is the case here which makes me feel sick. Despicable it is.
IMHO, you are close to making, if not already have made, actionable defamatory comments. I would suggest that everyone think very carefully before making allegations that someone has threatened people, or their children. And yes, that would be a tort, not a contract.
-
Yeah, this could very well be the next Cherokee chapter 11, and the investors will certainly not be that pleased with Dewey performance here. What kind of investment fund wants advocates that are making violent threats against all who disagree. Not good PR at all. You're toast Dewey.
And that just crossed the line into defamation, unless of course you can prove that he has made threats of actual violence against specific individuals or institutions. And, at least in the US, you would have the burden of proof on that issue.
-
Of course. Since they were threatened by Dewey et al, they needed to make an official statement to avoid whatever consequences they were facing in those threats. Fact is though, they knew prior to the event exactly who and what was going to take place. Hey - we all knew that ... They were however not expecting the wrath of Darden/Cherokee/IH/Dewey et al. They were not expecting the personal threats Dewey are famous for. They were not expecting any involved embassies, etc. Since both the involved individuals and IVA as an organization are vulnerable to these kind of threats, they chose the easy institutional way and distanced themselves from the subject in an official statement, but at the same time keeping good contacts (probably even better than before) with those that needed to take the blow.
Some content deleted. Alan,
Both defamatory unless you have proof (and I don't mean I heard someone say they heard from their brother in law -- admissible in court evidence).
-
Poor stepp - reality is a bitch sometimes.
-
If you read my post, you should have noted that I did call out Jed for his legal mistakes. And I suggested that the non-lawyers stop opining on things about which they know very little. If a person's legal education is watching Law & Order (or any other TV or movie involving the legal system) or your legal education is a class in Business & Law, that person is generally not going to have the background or skill set to intelligently opine on what is/isn't an offer, an acceptance, consideration, a sufficient writing, etc.
The reason that I specifically identified Kevmo, et al, is because their default position whenever one disagrees with them is to (1) accuse that person of being stupid, (2) assert that they, e.g., Kevmo, knows more about the subject matter than the other person, regardless of the subject or their actual knowledge, (3) engage in ad hominem attacks, (4) refer to something that they said in the past that proves their superiority, even if it doesn't, and (5) never actually address the point that was originally argued. That is one of the reasons I blocked Kevmo -- he rarely actually makes a reasoned logical argument, rather he plays the part of the excrement throwing monkey. To me, his posts are just a waste of time. Just to confirm that, I opened his posts/comments after my long post. After engaging in his usual ad hominem attacks and other asinine behavior, his most telling comment, at least to me, about my post was "tldr." In that I suspect that is his general approach to most things, I would suggest a new acronym in Kevmo's honor -- "drdt" (didn't read didn't think).
And before I return you to your regular programming, I would strongly reiterate what I posted earlier today -- everyone, on both sides, should dial back the rhetoric, especially allegations that someone has threatened acts of violence against others or that someone is corrupt/has been paid off. Calling someone stupid or a moron is okay under the First Amendment, suggesting that you have evidence that someone has threatened children is likely actionable unless you have real proof.
-
I have never seen any evidence of any employee, even though recently he claimed to have 22. Someone said private companies do not leave a paper trail, but I find that hard to believe. You just do not hide that many employees, and many have looked for signs of them over the years. More elusive than Bigfoot!
He did have the handy man in Italy who did much of his fabrication (not the lying kind
). The one who took one of the Ecats without Rossi knowing, and gave it to some UOB scientists to play with it...supposedly successfully. Then he opted not to follow Rossi to the US when he partnered with IH. Not sure he was officially employed though...maybe one of those off the books things, like the day laborers who built that big, fancy mezzanine heat exchanger with the revolutionary steam circulator (should be submitting a patent for it soon) at Doral.Yeah, like you said...kind of funny we never see anyone. I remember in about 2012 he claimed Leonardo was run by a group of investors, which years later we came to find out was his wife. If anyone would know about all this, it would would be his most loyal, and mysterious business partner Hydrofusion. But they are as tight lipped as the maestro himself. Just a positive word, some verification, from them would give a huge morale boost to the Rossi supporters, yet their representative prefers instead to attack IH.
I believe it was IHFB who commented, essentially, that privately owned businesses don't have the same reporting requirements that publicly owned companies do. He is absolutely correct. There are many, many businesses out there, some with revenues in the billions, that are not obligated to say how many employees they have, what there revenues are, who their shareholders are, where they have facilities, etc. IMO, most privately held companies keep that sort of information confidential and generally only disclose it for PR purposes.
For example, building permits are public generally, but if Rossi's company has a subsidiary, let's call it 12345, LLC, the subsidiary can pull the permit, the parent company, being privately held, has no obligation to list it's subsidiaries and 12345 has no obligation to list it's parent. Some permits, etc. may require identification of any parent or any other company under common control, but I suspect that is rarely required. Ditto for employees -- you either form a single purpose subsidiary to hire the employees, who then work for you pursuant to a loan-out agreement, or you hire a company whose sole purpose in existence is to hire people to work for someone else. This is very common today -- 12345 hires Manpower or someone like that who acts as the employer of record.
And although practically every US State requires any company doing business in that state or any company formed in that state to file an annual or biannual statement of officers and directors, that is easy to comply with without actually identifying a particular person. You simply form an LLC, for example, identify it as manager managed, identify the manager as the attorney who formed the LLC for you and then craft the LLC Operating Agreement so that the manager cannot take any action without the consent of the members. The attorney is the "Manager," the members are never identified and anything that might actually reveal anything is going to be contained in what you file with the taxing authorities and that is confidential.
Now, having said all that, doing those types of maneuvers requires competent counsel, competent accountants, and competent execution, initially and on-going. Nothing I have seen from Rossi leads me to believe that he is capable of doing what would be required to keep his alleged factories, employees, etc. hidden from scrutiny.
-
IMHO, you are close to making, if not already have made, actionable defamatory comments. I would suggest that everyone think very carefully before making allegations that someone has threatened people, or their children. And yes, that would be a tort, not a contract.
It's interesting how your legal "advice " is only for those you disagree with and not for the guy who ACTUALLY delivered threats on this forum. Because you agree with him.
-
And that just crossed the line into defamation, unless of course you can prove that he has made threats of actual violence against specific individuals or institutions. And, at least in the US, you would have the burden of proof on that issue.
In order to defame someone's reputation, they have to have a positive reputation. Besides, truth is am affirmative defense in libel.
-
Both defamatory unless you have proof (and I don't mean I heard someone say they heard from their brother in law -- admissible in court evidence).
the proof of the pudding is in the eating. You just issued unsolicited legal advice that could cost you your law license, except that you said you're no longer practicing law.
This forum needs your legal'advice' like it needs a hole in the head. If they got rid of those who issue threats and those who rush to their defense, they would breathe easier.
-
I suggested that the non-lawyers stop opining on things about which they know very little.
So you suggest that folks stop posting on a LENR website because they don't know as much as you about law. Maybe we should post on a law website and suggest they stop posting because they don't know as much as we do about LENR.
For someone who's supposed to have graduate level understanding of inductive reasoning, you sure exhibit a lot of freshman level classical fallacies.
-
If you read my post,
***hahahah , that's funny. Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks your stuff is tldr nonsense.
you should have noted that I did call out Jed for his legal mistakes. And I suggested that the non-lawyers stop opining on things about which they know very little. If a person's legal education is watching Law & Order (or any other TV or movie involving the legal system) or your legal education is a class in Business & Law, that person is generally not going to have the background or skill set to intelligently opine on what is/isn't an offer, an acceptance, consideration, a sufficient writing, etc.
***You crack me up. You''ve supposedly got graduate level training on inductive reasoning but you keep using freshman level logical fallacies. You presume that my level of exposure is only watching TV episodes. I don't presume that about you, but what is a person supposed to conclude after you keep using low level logical fallacies? And why is it a requirement on this forum to have a JD? Is it ONLY a requirement for people you DISAGREE with and who happen to point out your logical fallacies time and again?
The reason that I specifically identified Kevmo, et al, is because
***Is because I keep showing how you use logical fallacies and you prove to everyone that we shouldn't even be listening to you.
their default position whenever one disagrees with them is to (1) accuse that person of being stupid,
***Nonsense. Show where I've done that upthread. My default position with YOU:has become that you don't know how to reason properly, which leads me to wonder how you got through law school. Maybe you have wealthy parents. Besides, didn't you say you blocked me?
(2) assert that they, e.g., Kevmo, knows more about the subject matter than the other person, regardless of the subject or their actual knowledge,
***Again, nonsense. Show where this is being asserted. You won't because you can't.
(3) engage in ad hominem attacks,
***Those are allowed, according to the moderators. So when I started throwing around insults, all these wusses around here weren't used to getting insulted, it had been a 1 way street for so long. You seem to be among the most shocked that your street now allowed 2 way traffic.
(4) refer to something that they said in the past that proves their superiority, even if it doesn't, and
***I love how the further into your argument we go, the more luney tunes you become. You know that by this time, very few people are reading this stuff and you can get away with incredibly ridiculous levels of poor reasoning. So I say again, show where I:did this.
(5) never actually address the point that was originally argued.
***Complete and utter horse manure. You just can't handle that I DISAGREE with your assessments and then I poke holes in your shoddy arguments. You really must have been a crappy lawyer.
That is one of the reasons I blocked Kevmo
***Then BLOCK:me. What the hell? You're delusional.
-- he rarely actually makes a reasoned logical argument,
***You know what's funny? When I point out your logical fallacies, you don't seem to have retorts. If what I was saying was so illogical, a trained lawyer like you should have made mincemeat out of me long , long ago. But you can't, because you don't know how to put together reasoned arguments without resorting to logical fallacies.
rather he plays the part of the excrement throwing monkey.
***You seem to play the part of the idiot lawyer who can't seem to throw together a logical paragraph. I have no idea how you survived as a lawyer.
To me, his posts are just a waste of time.
***Which is so bizarre, because here you are, talking about me. You just don't have a leg to stand on.
-
Just to confirm that, I opened his posts/comments after my
***TLDR
long post.
***You said you BLOCKED me. Just can't keep away from that guy who supposedly wastes your time. Thanks for being such a ridiculous pasquinade.
After engaging in his usual ad hominem attacks and other asinine behavior,
***Dude. I:was responding to insults with insults of my own. I wasn't STARTING it, I was COUNTERpunching. If ya got a problem with the level of invective on the thread, then look to who STARTED it. The fact that I was the only one responding to the asinine behavior on the thread was a sign that all the Rossiphiles had been chased away by the asinine behavior of the misanthRossist crowd, guys like you. Don't START nuthin', won't BE nuthin'.
his most telling comment, at least to me, about my post was "tldr."
***I agree. I:think I still haven't gotten around to reading whatever it was you said. In fact I'm surprised you chastised Jed because you rarely chastise those you agree with. I would have noticed the change in strategy on your part. I guess you're getting tired of being the pasquinade.
In that I suspect that is his general approach to most things,
***Why would you care one whit about what my general approach to most things is? You're like a stalker.
I would suggest a new acronym in Kevmo's honor -- "drdt" (didn't read didn't think).
***It's fun watching you try to imitate my style. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The only problem is, you kinda suck at it.
And before I return you to your regular
***TLDR
programming,
***There, FIFY
I would strongly reiterate what I posted earlier today
***See what I mean about tldr????Get to the frikken point already.
-- everyone, on both sides, should dial back the rhetoric,
***Both sides! What a joke. There's only one side threatening lawsuits, that's Dewzer the Lewzer, and you're the lewzer who's backing him up with your legal bullying tactics.
especially allegations that someone has threatened acts of violence against others
***Maybe it would simply be easier to get rid of Dewser. He has this terrible reputation of issuing threats, so everyone could just breathe easier, including you, because then you won't have to expend those precious processor cycles from your adilpated brain to defend the jerk.
or that someone is corrupt/has been paid off.
***What is your interest in curtailing that? People get paid off all the time. All of a sudden this is your big concern that such stuff shows up on a LENR:forum?
Calling someone stupid or a moron is okay under the First Amendment,
***Oh, good. Because
I do think you're kinda stupid, especially for a lawyer.suggesting that you have evidence that someone has threatened children is likely actionable unless you have real proof.
***
You really are stupid, to be trying to back up Dewser Lewser's threats with your own legal bullying and then to focus on the obvious eye-rolling hyperbole that normally qualifies as ball-busting humor , that is ,until someone as stupid as you comes alongand doesn't get the joke.Edited by Shane.
-
Or indeed when anybody gets a bit too pushy. But it's a balancing act and we fall off sometimes.
Does a forum poster who backs up those threats with his own level of bullying, in this case legal bullying from someone who claims to be a lawyer, does that qualify in your book as "pushy"?
-
Sorry fellas - not feeding the Planet Rossi trolls today - too busy.
I'll bring the baseball bat back out when its needed.
Gee, does that meet the "reasonable person" standard, that a reasonable person would consider using a baseball bat as a threat of violence? Hmmmmm.....
And calling the other side trolls.... That's a personal attack on forum posters. Not even very far upthread was a request to keep things clean for a while, and here ya go issuing veiled threats (again), generating invective, and throwing out personal insults towards other forum participants. This is your idea of "toning down the personal attacks" that Sam12 requested????
-
As it seems that Rossi has ECat orders from other countries incl. EU, it would be interesting if he is following the very strict rules on how to deal with nuclear devices or parts in Europe. Knowing EU and CE requirements it will take years to get clearance on importing/exporting materials and deices that are linked to nuclear processes and radiation, even if proper shielded. We all know that the ECat SK is a nuclear device, and it has neutron detectors, even one as a backup. If Rossi claims he has already a CE mark (without no use or import into EU) for a nuclear device he did finish and start to produce a few month ago only, there is no other way to call this a dream (or a lie)....
That is a good read for him and Leonardo an ROssi should consider that... https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en…other-radioactive-sources
-
Does a forum poster who backs up those threats with his own level of bullying, in this case legal bullying from someone who claims to be a lawyer, does that qualify in your book as "pushy"?
Alan can speak for himself, but in my book -yes, legal bullying is not conducive to civil debate. Dewey has been asked by myself, and others to stop with the threats, as you have been asked to stop being "pushy". We call it like we see it, and show no favoritism.
-
Alan can speak for himself, but in my book -yes, legal bullying is not conducive to civil debate. Dewey has been asked by myself, and others to stop with the threats, as you have been asked to stop being "pushy". We call it like we see it, and show no favoritism.
Where exactly have I been asked to stop being "pushy"? The complaint about me is that I:use insults. I've been very straightforward about my use of insults, in that I return insult for insult. I'm a counterpuncher. Don't start nuthin', won't be nuthin'. A person who doesn't start with insults isn't the one being pushy. The only reason why I stand out is because a whole bunch of Rossiphiles had been driven from this forum due to, you guessed it, insults that were levelled at THEM (not necessarily Rossi). And when someone started responding in kind, the forum participants had a gigantic whine fest because it turns out, they only know how to throw internet punches, they don't know how to take a punch.
-
We all know that the ECat SK is a nuclear device,
Now hold on a second. If the Ecat is a nuclear device, then that means Rossi has got something. The standard line against Rossi is that he has NOTHING, that he's been a fraud all along.
