Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from woodworker

My apologies, I determined why nobody noticed anything. Rossi borrowed Harry Potter's Cloak of Invisibility, or a Klingon cloaking device, or something like that. Makes perfect sense now.

I'm a little surprised by your comment given your past astute observations. Do you not understand the contention at issue here? There is no evidence on the record that nobody noticed the heat exchanger being installed in the mezzanine. Go read the record. Nothing. We have had very limited access to the deposition record so far. So any assumption that nobody noticed anything is just that.

Quote from WMartin

The construction of the exchanger should be tax deductible as a business expense and might even be eligible for a tax credit so he would have kept the records for IRS purposes.

Agreed. And Rossi testified that there was a record of the purchases. IH has not refuted that with any evidence, at least not yet. How hard is it to subpoena home depot?

Quote from woodworker

Yes, they were seeking investors to invest in property remediation. Totally irrelevant to the present case.

Yes, of course, CIP's brownfield remediation business is totally irrelevant to the Rossi vs. IH case.

But I wonder (looking at the Bloomberg screenshot) whether Cherokee was at some time investing in IH?

So, after more than a year of big reveals, we are now on the eve of trial. Does anyone plan on attending in person? Did Abd confirm whether he was going to or not?

If not, we can at least get access to the transcripts, although it isn't cheap. The first person who requests the transcripts must pay, for the broader benefit of others who request a copy later on.

One of the last quotes from Rossi's puppet blog before leaving for the court case:

1. JPR June 25, 2017 at 5:08 AM

   Update?

2. Andrea Rossi June 25, 2017 at 7:15 AM

   JPR:

   
   Sunday, June 25th.

   
   Also today the QuarkX is working well. I was in the factory few minutes ago, now I am going to meet the Attorneys.

   
   Warm Regards,

   
   A.R.

I do not see any "big reveals" with respect to IHFB's post....

AR's QuarkX is performing well on its way to sigma 5 since for ca. one year now (pure Rossisays). Since AR dropped his successful 1MW plant and stopped sales (?!) in favour of his new gadget we probably will see another long era of boring and independend tests, production and robotic factory and Sigma 5...6 announcements in the coming years, but - my guess - for sure no commercial product, that would save the world's energy problems and environment pollution.

Facing a big lawsuit that probably will break his neck he still seem to have enough time to spend with his new baby in his factory, which tells us there should be a production, shouldn't it? An interesting question then is: where is his "factory"now? The "Doral factory" is locked and not existing anymore, AFAIK. His "factory" but is a few minutes away from his computer, so maybe it could be his office / car port / garage / cellar?

Quote from IH Fanboy

The first person who requests the transcripts must pay

Do you know about how much they cost, and what the process for requesting them is?

Thank you, Alan. Kind of you. I won't need assistance if the amount is on the same order as the court docs. The most likely obstacle in my own case will be working up the stamina to deal with a complex procedure for obtaining the transcripts and scanning them if they come as paper. This is the US court system after all, which appears to be content with what was built for them in the 1990s.

I would not be surprised if there is an online service that you can have something mailed to, and they scan it for you.

https://www.quora.com/What-ser…r-mail-and-send-via-email

Quote from Forty-Two

Yes, of course, CIP's brownfield remediation business is totally irrelevant to the Rossi vs. IH case.

But I wonder (looking at the Bloomberg screenshot) whether Cherokee was at some time investing in IH?

And why would that be relevant to the issue of whether or not Rossi satisfied the conditions precedent to getting the additional $89 million? That is the primary issue re: the plaintiff's complaint.

Re: transcripts:

Expensive, very, if you want daily transcripts. Think $6-7 per page and one day of trial may generate hundreds of pages of transcript. And I think most people would be surprised by how boring much, most, of the trial will be. Watching someone introduce a document and authenticate it is only slightly more interesting than watching paint dry.

Quote from Eric Walker

 

Do you know about how much they cost, and what the process for requesting them is?

 

As woodworker noted, they cost a lot. It's an area where the "you can pick any two from 'good, cheap, and fast'' applies. Getting them during the trial will likely be cost-prohibitive, even with generous crowdsourced contributions. (This is in part because, as a court reporter that I know has pointed out, the court reporter sits in court recording all day, and then has to work overtime to turn around same-day transcripts.) Getting them after the fact will be cheaper.

The least expensive alternative, and one that I think is worth considering even if it's ultimately frustrating, is to wait three months. The transcripts should then be available on PACER at $0.10 per page. Unlike regular documents, the price isn't capped at $3.00, so the cost will likely still be a few hundred dollars for the whole trial, but it's likely to be an order of magnitude less than the price of getting them now.

Quote from MikeDunford

As woodworker noted, they cost a lot. It's an area where the "you can pick any two from 'good, cheap, and fast'' applies. Getting them during the trial will likely be cost-prohibitive, even with generous crowdsourced contributions. (This is in part because, as a court reporter that I know has pointed out, the court reporter sits in court recording all day, and then has to work overtime to turn around same-day transcripts.) Getting them after the fact will be cheaper.

The least expensive alternative, and one that I think is worth considering even if it's ultimately frustrating, is to wait three months. The transcripts should then be available on PACER at $0.10 per page. Unlike regular documents, the price isn't capped at $3.00, so the cost will likely still be a few hundred dollars for the whole trial, but it's likely to be an order of magnitude less than the price of getting them now.

Mike, good to see you here. One thing, IIRC the transcripts will only be on PACER if someone else ordered them first, e.g., a party seeking an appeal. I would also quibble that you can't always get two out of three for daily reports. You can get good and fast, but I don't see cheap and fast or cheap and good as an option for daily's.

Quote from [email protected]

People say this kind of thing all the time but when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, *poof*, they're gone.

https://www.betmoose.com/bet/w…raud-over-ecat-260#bets-1

you're right Kev,

I said the same thing 5-6 years ago, and "poof, like Kiser Soize," I'm gone"

Quote from woodworker

Mike, good to see you here. One thing, IIRC the transcripts will only be on PACER if someone else ordered them first, e.g., a party seeking an appeal. I would also quibble that you can't always get two out of three for daily reports. You can get good and fast, but I don't see cheap and fast or cheap and good as an option for daily's.

It's a jury trial in a case where there have apparently already been multi-million billings, so I was guessing that there's a decent chance that Jones Day will be getting at least daily, if not realtime. But, yeah, cheap and fast isn't on the agenda for a daily, and cheap and good will get you a transcript but not a daily.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

I don't follow this thread that is so long on opinion and short on facts, but as so many delight in writing ad hominems against Rossi it seems fair game to to link Sifferkoll's long list of Cherokee's shortcomings. They are largely the same people as IH.

From this list it is clear that Cherokee is adept at forming paper subsidiaries that allow them to collect investor funds and then declare bankruptcy if the scheme doesn't work out. I wouldn't be surprised if IH does so if they lose the court case rather than pay $89 million.

Despite the hundreds of pages in this thread saying something else the court case revolves around the measurements taken in the plant and not the Johnson plant next door. It will be nice to get some solid facts from the court for a change.

I think you mistake my comment as a defense of Cherokee and/or IH. I have no idea if either of them may have engaged in sketchy behavior in raising money from investors. My point is that issue is not relevant to Rossi's claims to have fulfilled his obligations under the agreement between Rossi and IH.

As to forming a new subsidiary to limit a parent company's liability: you may not like it, but that is standard practice for almost all substantial businesses. The parent will form a subsidiary to hold title to property, to operate a specific business, etc. If you look at the property holdings and business operations of a company like GE, I think you would find that almost of their real property ownership / leases are through single-purpose entities formed solely for the purpose of holding that property or operating that business. If a company owns 20 strip malls, you can be sure that each of those 20 properties are owned by a single-purpose entity, which entity is a subsidiary of the ultimate holding company.

Now you may not like that structure or think that it is wrong or immoral, but it is perfectly legal. Additionally, many investors will insist on such a structure. They want to know that if the strip mall in which they invested is successful, it is not going to be dragged down by an unsuccessful strip mall in which they didn't invest.

Basic business finance 101.

Quote from woodworker

I think you mistake my comment as a defense of Cherokee and/or IH. I have no idea if either of them may have engaged in sketchy behavior in raising money from investors. My point is that issue is not relevant to Rossi's claims to have fulfilled his obligations under the agreement between Rossi and IH.

Then Rossi's past business dealings shouldn't matter either. In reality, both parties are going to attempt to trash the credibility of the other side, and they will dig as much dirt up as possible. Cherokee has been in the crosshairs of the SEC. They aren't boyscouts, as some here would make them out to be. Rossi is no saint either. Dog eat dog world.