Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from JedRothwell

 

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.

Quote from woodworker

 

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.

Quote from maryyugo

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?

Quote from Shane D.

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.

Quote from MikeDunford

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.

Quote from [email protected]

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.

Quote from woodworker

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.

Quote from ZenoOfElea

Like many my view is that Rossi sued IH hoping they would settle.

If that is the case then his grandiosity has been overplayed, they didn't settle.

However it occurs to me that this could be a way out for Rossi.

Best case he wins and gets $89m.

Worst case he loses but could he be forced to pay any money back?

If, as Sigmoidan, Mike Dunford and others have guessed, neither side is awarded any financial penalty then what is to stop Rossi claiming he cannot work with IH and cannot get his IP back so he will retire with his condos?

IH are his scapegoat, and like many fraudsters he uses the fallout to cover his escape.

It would seem likely that Rossi could get away with this.

Then of course maybe Rossi doesn't know when to quit.

Display More

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?

Quote from [email protected]

 

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.

 

Display More

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.

Quote from [email protected]

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.

Quote from MikeDunford

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.

Quote from [email protected]

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.

Display More

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.

Quote from [email protected]

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.

Quote from woodworker

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.