Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • Don't you think that if you were in Jury pool regarding a case.t that involved "LENR/Cold fushion" that you might just google it to find out what all the roar was about? I would, and I think a lot of others would also and they would probably end up here. Whether that would disqualify them from jury service is another question. I also think you grossly under estimate the number of people here on the forum (Alan, could you comment on this?), not to mention all the other internet sources for Cold Fusion.

  • Whether that would disqualify them from jury service is another question.

    It would disqualify them. As WMartin points out, that is what happens in cases like this. The lawyers from one side or the other would strike the person. The judge would instruct jurors not to investigate the case while the trial is underway.


    The availability of the internet on things like cell phones is causing big problems in trials these days. See:


    http://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Fi…handbookauthcheckdam.ashx


    This was written in 2010. QUOTE:


    "In South Dakota in 2007 a juror was summoned for jury duty. His summons apprised him of the title of the case. Prior to appearing for duty, the juror conducted two separate online “Google” searches of the defendant. He did this in violation of the requirement in the summons which read: “Do not seek out evidence regarding this case and do not discuss the case or this questionnaire with anyone.” During jury selection the juror denied ever having heard of the defendant. The trial lasted nineteen (19) days. During deliberations the “Google” search was made known to five other jurors. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The trial court thereafter granted a new trial based on juror misconduct. The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed. Nineteen (19) days of trial were wasted."

  • Nope. The lawyers will exclude people who know about the case. The judge will instruct the ones who are chosen not to read outside sources of information. If members of the jury disobey, and they reveal information not presented at trial during deliberations, they will be tossed out of the case.

    Maybe in your world, but in the real world curiosity will win out. This isn't a sequestered murder trial, but simply a civil case involving money.

  • They would not be investigating the case, but only the science of LENR.

  • ele,


    Unless Dewey has a split personality, sig is not Dewey. I also highly doubt sig is a paid provocateur. As much as we often disagree, I find him to be level-headed and sincere in his interpretation of the myriad issues at play in this dispute.

  • And your idea that somehow any of this musing about the case on this blog could be considered by any court in the U.S. as influencing a trial indicates that you are either ignorant, paranoid delusional, or some combination of the above.

    Probably a vector combination of the two. :) Sorry if I hurt you.

    But being realist I was really wondering why that trial is so analyzed here even with the participation of people who have a stake in it.

    Seems strange that this is the most discussed trial on blogs and if not you there is for sure people passing hours and days writing here. Seems a real work for them. With an accurate collection of documents also.

    Why ? Can't we get some evidence that something beyond the normal expectation is going on ?

  • As I noted, the American Bar Association experts disagree with you.

    Are you sure ?

    I have found this document in the ABA site. Is quite interesting but I was unable to download it:

    ----------------------------

    Title
    The Legal Case for Twitter in the Courtroom
    By
    Richard M. Goehler, David S. Bralow, and Monica L. Dias
    Description
    Tweeting and live blogging are as much a part of mainstream media as traditional newspapers, TV, and cable. But some judges are still skittish and fear that jurors and prospective witnesses will visit the Twitter site.

    --------------------------

    So as you see social media and Internet are an issue in courtroom.


    at this link you can read the first page. The article is dated 2010 but is quite actual:


    http://heinonline.org/HOL/Land…/comlaw27&div=7&id=&page=

  • The judge in my trial did everything he could do to make the case as short as possible and encouraged the attorneys to keep everything relevant to the legal matters at hand. IMHO, the case will be decided as much as possible on the contract at hand. Any technical issues will be confined to supporting whether of not the contract was valid or fulfilled.

    I really hope so put as pointed above Internet IS an issue at this times.

  • As I noted, the American Bar Association experts disagree with you. Who do you think knows more about jurisprudence?

    Context does help, but still to a non-native English speaker an expert of the American Bar Association sounds like someone familiar with alcoholic beverages more than law. In Italy an American bar is a classy cocktail bar as one may find in five star hotels. Admittedly it has nothing American, like Italian dressing has nothing Italian nor a French kiss anything French about it...

  • But being realist I was really wondering why that trial is so analyzed here even with the participation of people who have a stake in it.


    Methinks you overestimate yourself. Your post belies any semblance of you being a 'realist'.

    Quote

    1) First of all they collected about 100 M$ saying to their investors that they bought the IP of Rossi and showing them the 1MW plant during the one year test. No problem with the test was risen about the test and even about Lugano or any other test in this phase.

    1) There is no evidence that 'they collected about $100 Million'. You made that up - no reality there. Then you say there was 'no problem with the test' despite the reality of abundant evidence and testimony that a) there was no agreement to a test, b) there was nothing close to 1MW being produced

    Quote

    2) Seems that 100 M$ has disappeared (no trace in documents) and so IH decided not to pay Rossi (losing the IP) and IH told the investors thet it has substituted the Rossi technology with others.

    2) There is no evidence that '$100 Million has disappeared'. That is your fantasy. No reality there.

    Quote

    3) this others technologies (reading the papers) seems to have much lower results the the one from Rossi or even may be in conflict with the Rossi patent, so they have almost no commercial value but IH investors have been told they they are a gold mine.

    3) There is no evidence that 'These other technologies ... have almost no commercial value but IH investors have been told they are a gold mine." You have no evidence that IH told any investors anything about other technologies. That is your fantasy. No reality there.

    Quote

    4) The new technologies inventors (Piantelli at al. ) have not been paid with real money but with shares of IH or other "empty boxes".

    4) There is no evidence that "The new technology inventors (Piantelli et. al.) have been paid ... with shares of IH or other 'empty boxes'". That is your fantasy. No reality there.

    Quote

    5) Darden is paying (with real money) actors on the web ...

    5) There is no evidence that "Darden is paying real money to actors...". That is your fantasy. No reality there.


    The realists here know one thing for sure: Your posts here have little to nothing to do with reality.


    There is a saying: 'a dog would rather be kicked than ignored'. I just kicked you with reality. Perhaps that's what you were hoping for. You can expect to be ignored in the future.

  • Motion for Sanctions (179) denied. The judge seems miffed.


    The Judge did choose to use bold font in the following sentence in her denial (from 180), and that could indicate that she was miffed:

    Quote

    No written discovery motions, including motions to compel, for protective order, or related motions for sanctions shall be filed unless the Magistrate Judge so directs at his discovery calendar.


    In other words, Rossi's Motion for Sanctions should not have been filed with the Judge. The correct action by Rossi's lawyers would have been to raise their objections with the Magistrate (who oversees the discovery process, among other procedural issues). Any Motion for Sanctions would first have to be approved by the Magistrate. He would only do that if he determined there were unresolvable issues coupled with serious violations by a party.


    Since the issue is merely about Corporate depositions, it is extremely unlikely that he would permit a Motion for Sanctions. If either party was found to have violated rules of discovery, he would first instruct that party to remedy the situation. Only after a party refused the corrective instructions of the Magistrate would he consider allowing a Motion for Sanctions to proceed.


    So although this Motion for Sanctions seems to have been initiated by Rossi's lawyers rather than Rossi (who most likely was pushing for the 'witness tampering' sanctions), this recent legal fiasco initiated by Rossi's lawyers shows that the level of competence of both Rossi and his lawyers is not very high.


    In my opinion, they over-played their hand (again), and have suffered another credibility hit with the Court as a result.

  • Some new documents on the docket (incl. the order):

    180 Is the Judge's denial of Rossi's Motion for Sanctions. She instructs this issue regarding Corporate depositions to be resolved by the Magistrate (per my post above).

    181 and 182 Announce that there is a one hour hearing scheduled for Thursday March 23.

    183 is an appeal with exhibits (see 184)

    184 Is an amended appeal of IH's appeal in 183, appealing the Magistrate's ruling that Dewey Weaver does NOT have attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine with respect to email communications. It appears that 184 merely adds a brief section of a court transcript to the appeal (184-5). IH is asking (by appealing the previous decision) the Magistrate to re-instate attorney client privilege and work product doctrine to block Rossi from obtaining email communications between IH and DW as evidence.


    I don't think any additional analysis is useful or warranted.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.