Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • Thanks Shane D - you're one smart mofo. The ethics of Planet Rossi are all relative in a good and evil kind of way and are dependent on the needs of the daily narrative. As you infer, that also includes who you share your top secret secrets with.

    We'll be hearing about all of that in the not too distant future. Yet another gauntlet too far for the R'miester.

  •  

    Good. If they have been allowed as evidence then other JONP Rossisays items should be allowed as well. If I were the judge I'd be focusing on the Rossisays "I would refund IH if I got my IP back" and this whole trial could get wrapped up in 20 minutes rather than 5 weeks.

     


    Ummmmm -


    One, it's a jury trial, not a bench trial. That's a peculiarity of the American legal system, and not one that makes a huge amount of sense particularly in highly technical cases, but it would take an amendment to the Constitution to change it, so it's here to stay. So the judge doesn't really have to focus on anything.


    Two, technically nothing has been allowed in as evidence yet. Given the right circumstances, they may be allowed. But, again, not everything that is admissible will necessarily get used. There's a very good chance that the ones that are listed will make it there, but they might not. The right question might not get asked, there may be authentication issues, any number of things could happen.


    Many, admissibility of evidence is always decided based on the exact evidence being offered, not the source. So just because one thing from the site is offered does not automatically mean everything from the site will be admitted.


    Lots, just because you think that something should be put in front of the judge doesn't mean the lawyers will agree. If I was IH's lawyers, I don't think I'd want to put anything suggesting that Rossi offered to refund out there - particularly if it wasn't a formal offer. It would do little to help with the defense of the breach claim, and could actually end up hurting depending on how (and how effectively) it's spun by the plaintiffs. And it would definitely not help them with the counter-claim, because they'd end up looking like they want to keep the IP and the money. And while the posts might be admissible if offered by IH, that does not mean that they'd be admissible if Rossi offers them. Under the rules of evidence, statements made out of court by the other side generally aren't hearsay. But your own out of court statements can be and often are. And that assumes that Rossi's attorneys would want to offer the blog stuff in the first place, which is questionable.

  •  

    Is that how it works? Are you sure? I wouldn't know, but I think a lawyer said the counter-suit would call for another trial.


    If they can do them both at the same time that reduces expenses and saves time.

     


    Positive. It's basic civil procedure.


    And, if you want to check my work, take a careful look at the order denying summary judgment. The cover sheet has the full breakdown of the parties, and lists IH both as the defendant and counter-plaintiff; Rossi is the plaintiff and counter-defendant. (And there's the third-party stuff, but that's more than we need to go into here.)

  •  

    notice in the original opening they made the claim that Rossi was nominated for a Nobel prize. I sure would like to see the evidence for that.

     


    My recollection is that basically anyone can nominate anyone for a Nobel. So there's probably some evidence for that, but it's easily explained as the meaningless thing that it is.

  • Mike is correct. Generally (with some exceptions that don't apply here), if the causes of action arise from the same set of facts and are related, you must file a counter-claim, not a separate complaint.

    So, the jury has to decide the whole kit-and-caboodle? It can award Rossi what he wants, or I.H. what they want, or nothing either way. I guess that will take 5 weeks. It is a tangled mess.


    I hope I.H. wins, or at least, that they do not lose.

  • My recollection is that basically anyone can nominate anyone for a Nobel. So there's probably some evidence for that, but it's easily explained as the meaningless thing that it is.


    IIRC, nominations are publicly disclosed for some significant time, if at all. Only winners.


    Also, on another issue: does anyone immediately recall what lawyer told IH that Rossi had no involvement in the fake company (a/k/a JM). That lawyer may have issues with his state bar.

  •  

    So, the jury has to decide the whole kit-and-caboodle? It can award Rossi what he wants, or I.H. what they want, or nothing either way. I guess that will take 5 weeks. It is a tangled mess.


    I hope I.H. wins, or at least, that they do not lose.

     


    Yup. The claim, the counterclaim, and the claims against the third-party defendants. The whole shooting match. Wednesday morning, the jurors will find notebooks and writing implements laid out on their seats (a duty, usually, of the judge's law clerk). And they'll be given as many notebooks as they feel they need. And encouraged to make use of them.


    Poor bastards.

  •  

    IIRC, nominations are publicly disclosed for some significant time, if at all. Only winners.


    Also, on another issue: does anyone immediately recall what lawyer told IH that Rossi had no involvement in the fake company (a/k/a JM). That lawyer may have issues with his state bar.

     


    I think you're right as far as disclosure is concerned. But that probably wouldn't prevent them from calling whoever nominated him.

  • Also, on another issue: does anyone immediately recall what lawyer told IH that Rossi had no involvement in the fake company (a/k/a JM). That lawyer may have issues with his state bar.


    That was Henry Johnson. He put it in writing too. Johnson has been Rossi's personal lawyer since he set up shop in Miami I believe. He also I think, did Fabiani's "USQL" incorporation, or was that Annesser? . Anyways, Johnson was also "director" of JMP. Not too impressive a guy judging by his depo.


    And yes, Dewey at one point mentioned Johson's professional jeopardy.

  • Dewey Weaver


    Do you have a public CV/Bio posted somewhere or maybe on Linkedin? One question I wanted to ask you since you seem actively involved in this case, is why otherwise smart people like Darden and Vaughn, did not bother to have someone look over the internet chatter about Rossi. Or if they did, why they disregarded it so completely? Also, why would they use entirely or mostly people related to or working with Rossi to evaluate the old work? And why in the world did a one year test of a weird kludge consisting of multiple ecats appeal to them when no decent simple test existed before? Or did they even know that? Or did they care about any of this? How did you feel about it? Thanks


    ETA: why did neither IH nor Woodford contact Krivit, Wright, Pomp and Ericsson, Shanahan, Zeopfl, and many others. Or little old me ([email protected])? Why did they not ask Boeing (or another credible lab) to test a simple ecat BEFORE they committed $10M. Is that such chump change to them?

    Mary Yugoslav,


    I have asked Dewey the same question twice

    And either I missed his response, or he has chosen not to answer it.

    How in the world could a bunch of seemingly smart banker lawyer types got taken by such an obvious con man?

  • That was Henry Johnson. He put it in writing too. Johnson has been Rossi's personal lawyer since he set up shop in Miami I believe. He also I think, did Fabiani's "USQL" incorporation, or was that Annesser? . Anyways, Johnson was also "director" of JMP. Not too impressive a guy judging by his depo.


    And yes, Dewey at one point mentioned Johson's professional jeopardy.


    My thoughts related to Johnson's testimony. Does he get on the stand and say he lied (which exposes him to professional jeopardy), say he didn't lie but based his statements on Rossi's assurances (throws Rossi under the bus), pleads the 5th (plays badly with jury) or asserts that someone told him but that statement is privileged (plays badly with jury). I don't see any good responses for him.

  • Whether or not the alleged settlement offer is credible is immaterial. By allowing it into the docket as evidence, the judge can use his authority to make it a credible offer.



    As far as the sidenote case that if Rossi doesn't pay, he ends up in trouble with the court, which is nothing new to Rossi. But if he does not pay he would not end up with his IP.


    This is a battle over what Industrial Heat calls worthless IP. Rossi wants it and claims he is willing to pay for it (at least on his blog). His claim is admissible in evidence because other claims on JONP have been admissible as evidence.

  • I think you're right as far as disclosure is concerned. But that probably wouldn't prevent them from calling whoever nominated him.


    Nominations are not disclosed by the Academy for 50 years. Procedures for nominators for the Physics Prize are as follows (Chemistry is similar):


    Qualified Nominators

    The right to submit proposals for the award of a Nobel Prize in Physics shall, by statute, be enjoyed by:

    1. Swedish and foreign members of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences;

    2. Members of the Nobel Committee for Physics;

    3. Nobel Laureates in Physics;

    4. Tenured professors in the Physical sciences at the universities and institutes of technology of Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway, and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm;

    5. Holders of corresponding chairs in at least six universities or university colleges (normally, hundreds of universities) selected by the Academy of Sciences with a view to ensuring the appropriate distribution over the different countries and their seats of learning; and

    6. Other scientists from whom the Academy may see fit to invite proposals.


    I believe that historically nominators have kept their mouths closed about nominations, but I could be wrong.

  • This is a battle over what Industrial Heat calls worthless IP. Rossi wants it and claims he is willing to pay for it (at least on his blog). His claim is admissible in evidence because other claims on JONP have been admissible as evidence.


    Nonsense. It is a battle over $89M - and then the consolation prize: $15M in legal costs and (perhaps) $10M or more in the counter-claim


    I don't see Rossi using his IP in Europe - where he has complete control. But then, not many people will pay top dollar money for badly made electric heaters, you need a special sort of person for that.

  • My thoughts related to Johnson's testimony. Does he get on the stand and say he lied (which exposes him to professional jeopardy), say he didn't lie but based his statements on Rossi's assurances (throws Rossi under the bus), pleads the 5th (plays badly with jury) or asserts that someone told him but that statement is privileged (plays badly with jury). I don't see any good responses for him.


    I'm thinking that the best play would be - if possible - to ask Rossi before asking the lawyer. Because if Rossi throws the lawyer under the bus, the privilege goes along for the ride.

  • I see 4 possible outcomes.

    1) Rossi loses both suit and counter suit and ordered to pay lots of $$ to IH. Likely much more than he has.

    2) It is a split baby case with no one wining either case and neither side getting anything of merit.

    3) Rossi wins but IH appeals costing Rossi lots of legal fees and if IH looses either directly or on appeal IH declares bankruptcy and he gets nothing or very little.

    4) Rossi "wakes up" mid trial and leaves the country with whatever is left of his IH money.


    I just don't understand Rossi's rational.


    What scenario am I missing that is good for Rossi?


  • If I was IH's lawyers, I don't think I'd want to put anything suggesting that Rossi offered to refund out there - particularly if it wasn't a formal offer. It would do little to help with the defense of the breach claim, and could actually end up hurting depending on how (and how effectively) it's spun by the plaintiffs. And it would definitely not help them with the counter-claim, because they'd end up looking like they want to keep the IP and the money.

    That makes no sense if they accept the supposed offer. Rossi claims he offered a refund in order to get his IP back. IH gets their money, Rossi gets his IP.


    But where it does make sense is if you're an IH lawyer and you see this

    supposedly bullshit claim by Rossi. If the judge knows about it, the legal proceedings end in 20 minutes and there goes your meal ticket.


  • I said this once already, but it's worth repeating:


    No, a claim that Rossi makes on his blog does not become admissible just because other claims on the same blog are admitted. Just no. The law doesn't work that way. The admissibility of each and every claim is always judged independently. And, because of the way the rules of evidence work - particularly the hearsay rules - whether or something is admissible as evidence often depends on who is seeking to admit it and why they are offering it.


    And, no, the judge has no ability to use her authority (seriously, dude, have you actually been paying attention to this case? The judge was assigned when the case was filed) to "make" something credible. Actually, to put it more accurately, she has no such authority in the first place.

  • That makes no sense if they accept the supposed offer. Rossi claims he offered a refund in order to get his IP back. IH gets their money, Rossi gets his IP.


    But where it does make sense is if you're an IH lawyer and you see this

    supposedly bullshit claim by Rossi. If the judge knows about it, the legal proceedings end in 20 minutes and there goes your meal ticket.


    Rossi usually twists the truth. If he offered a refund it would be 10% of money paid...


    If you don't think Rossi wanted the $89M why was he desperate (his word in the depo) to do the test?

  • Anybody can be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. It is quite a different story for the science Nobels - that is a secret committee that probably doesn't include any of the Uppsala dupes.


    Also, we are not banker-lawyer types - we are cause oriented investors who look for high impact projects that are big enough to change the status quo if they work. We do this knowing full well that most do not work.


    R's privilege is already toast.

  • My recollection is that basically anyone can nominate anyone for a Nobel. So there's probably some evidence for that, but it's easily explained as the meaningless thing that it is.

    "According to the Nobel Peace Prize website, nominees are only accepted from a select few people, including members of national governments, members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and of the International Court of Justice at the Hague, former Nobel Peace Prize winners, university professors in certain fields, and so on.


    But then the nominations are held secret for 50 years.


    But with the possibility of a professor nominating it is fairly open. Perhaps I, as a prof, should nominate Tom D for his humanitarian efforts to bring a new energy source to the world. Then we would have a level playing field.


  • Please explain how said "evidence" is relevant as to the issues of whether or not he satisfied the conditions precedent to IH's obligation to pay or his alleged fraud. His offer, if it happened, clearly occurred after the deadline for him to satisfy the conditions precedent, so how would it be relevant to the satisfaction thereof. Ditto on the fraud. His alleged offer may be relevant to a proposed settlement, but that is not an issue at trial. So please, explain the relevance of after occurring events to whether or not an event that was supposed to occur prior in time occurred (this issue has particular meaning to me as on my contracts final exam, I cited an after occurring fact in support of a prior condition precedent - my professor noted in the margins, "nice trick, time travel - do you pull rabbits out of hats too?).


    As Mike D has pointed out repeatedly, something sought to be admitted as evidence must be relevant to the issues at hand. I don't think his offer (alleged) is. Additionally, as I have said, the touchstone for admissibility for me has always been does the probative value (the value of the proposed evidence in deciding a material issue) greater than its prejudicial value). As noted above, I don't believe the alleged offer has any relevance and therefore has no probative value. I think its prejudicial value is great: it would be used to sway the jury by showing that Rossi is a good guy. IMHO, the Judge won't allow it in.


    As to my question about your litigation experience, I asked because you seem to often opine on what will/should occur and how the judge should rule on evidential issues and and how the lawyers should strategize. Just as we tend to evaluate a certified pipefitter's experience when he is talking about piping issues, IMHO it is relevant in considering your legal judgments just how much experience (legal) you have.

  • That makes no sense if they accept the supposed offer. Rossi claims he offered a refund in order to get his IP back. IH gets their money, Rossi gets his IP.


    But where it does make sense is if you're an IH lawyer and you see this

    supposedly bullshit claim by Rossi. If the judge knows about it, the legal proceedings end in 20 minutes and there goes your meal ticket.

    #1 I don't believe a realistic offer was ever made by Rossi. I doubt if he had the liquidity to make such an offer.


    But what was the offer Rossi offered. How much, payable how, when due , what conditions, did it include legal fees, did it include the cost of testing IH conducted on the 6 cylinder, when was it offered where and how, .....


    Have you or anyone ever seen the claimed offer?

    It is just a Rossi says, or possibly and offer for $1 written in vanishing ink on the back of an invisible heat exchanger.

  • My thoughts related to Johnson's testimony. Does he get on the stand and say he lied (which exposes him to professional jeopardy), say he didn't lie but based his statements on Rossi's assurances (throws Rossi under the bus), pleads the 5th (plays badly with jury) or asserts that someone told him but that statement is privileged (plays badly with jury). I don't see any good responses for him.

    If someone wants to start a Quatloo betting pool on that. I'll bet on him saying it's privileged.

  • Nonsense. It is a battle over $89M - and then the consolation prize: $15M in legal costs and (perhaps) $10M or more in the counter-claim


    I don't see Rossi using his IP in Europe - where he has complete control. But then, not many people will pay top dollar money for badly made electric heaters, you need a special sort of person for that.

    If IH were to get that supposed offer of Rossi into the docket and tell the judge they want to accept it, the $89M thing goes away. And has been posted upthread, the most likely scenario is both sides pay their own legal costs.


    IH's lawyers should be all over this. But they aren't. The expression that comes to mind is a lawyer who bills his client twice when he sleeps with them.