Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from woodworker

 

Assuming the agreement has a legal fees provision...

 

As far as I can tell, the only provision relating to fees in the license is in the "Expenses" provision (16.2) and says that each side pays own fees. That provision probably isn't intended to handle disputes, but in the absence of another provision who knows. It's possible, of course, that I might have missed something elsewhere in the thing (it's *really* not a well-crafted contract) that contains the usual prevailing party provision, but I don't think I did.

Quote from sigmoidal

And Real LawyerTM or not, I value your legal insight over and above others, including myself.

As I have supposed Woodworker he is not a lawyer. Because Law is a very difficult matter an Amateur Lawyer is not credible and maybe he is simply inventing arguments to bake the Voice of IH. I don't say he is payed by IH, maybe he is simply a mythomaniac (real) woodworker.

Would you trust an Amateur Doctor ? I would not !

Mike D:

I have finally figured out Kev's legal arguments. The law is what he wants it be at any particular moment and, if the law in reality is not what he wants, then it should be changed to accommodate him. The alleged offer not being relevant to the case at hand should be relevant because he says so. I think Kev would make an excellent Judge Dredd - "the law is what I say the law is."

Asking Kev to explain how the alleged offer is relevant to the issues at hand is itself irrelevant - IT SHOULD BE THE MAIN ISSUE BECAUSE HE SAYS SO. And, as lawyers, we should acknowledge that the law should be whatever Kev wants at any particular moment.

I will no longer respond to Kev's posts, for which I am sure he will claim I am running away, because I learned long ago that one does not win an argument with a rock, or with someone who either has a vested interest in not learning or is unable or unwilling to learn.

Quote from [email protected]

You are, IMO, violating the First Law of Holes. I'm happy to keep going, but I thought I'd offer you an opportunity to gracefully step back first.

Quote from ele

 

As I have supposed Woodworker he is not a lawyer. Because Law is a very difficult matter an Amateur Lawyer is not credible and maybe he is simply inventing arguments to bake the Voice of IH. I don't say he is payed by IH, maybe he is simply a mythomaniac (real) woodworker.

Would you trust an Amateur Doctor ? I would not !

 

I've known him online for years and have met him IRL. He's a lawyer.

Quote from Nigel Appleton

Can you, with your superior vision, tell me where in Europe Rossi's IP is being used to enable this?

No problem. Research is going on in Sweden with industry participation. That is a notorious fact.

I have not a superior vision. Simply I don't ignore facts !

Quote from MikeDunford

There's some serious hearsay within hearsay within hearsay issues involved with this one.

Interesting the article that mentioned a possible offer, also says:

"The thermal energy was transfered to the customer with heat exchangers and the heat that was not consumed was vented out as hot air through the roof."

So it would be lots of fun if AR's lawyer try to use that to claim and offer.

But I don't think the offer will ever be admitted.

You quote me:

Quote from sigmoidal

So in concluding that Rossi is both extraordinarily deceptive and technically unskilled, I'm sleeping soundly, and will continue to do so no matter how this turns out.

And then conclude:

Quote from sifferkoll

Well. It's kind of hard to see it any other way.

Most here seem to already know that it's hard for you to see it "any other way", even though the difference is obvious to reasonable observers:

There is a boatload of evidence, which I and others have cited repeatedly (some of which Rossi does not deny), clearly demonstrating Rossi's extraordinarily deceptive behavior and technical naivety. And in the quote you are responding to, I made the point that these claims are true regardless of future outcomes.

But you then say:

Quote from sifferkoll

You were the one saying that your good intentions kept your back clean (and sleeping well) regardless consequences of your actions. I never said so, because I do not believe it to be true.

You conclude this even though none of my statements (including the one you just quoted) have anything to do with my "good intentions" or keeping my "back clean". Rather, I can sleep well, because my statements are strongly supported by impartial evidence, some of which are accepted as 'facts' (in the legal sense) for this very trial by all parties (including Rossi himself).

The fact that for you, "it's kind of hard to see it any other way" (indicating your confusion resulting in your mischaracterization of my statement as indifference to well intentioned actions-gone-bad) confirms a certain bias, or shall we say, character defect, which causes you to reactively shove your own malevolent characterization on those you disagree with, and accuse them (and me) of saying things we didn't say, and of bad 'ethics' based on your own faulty non-sequitur reasoning, and broken moral compass.

And this is a prime example, right here on display for the whole world to see.

I'm sorry that you are burdened with this limitation, demonizing those who don't support your notions.

Maybe this post can help encourage you to think and act differently. I certainly hope so.

Quote from MikeDunford

I've known him online for years and have met him IRL. He's a lawyer.

Quote from woodworker

Once again, I am not a real lawyer (fyi, I made predictions a while ago).

Sorry sir Mike. I presume that you are not saying the truth.

Quote from ele

Sorry sir Mike. I presume that you are not saying the truth.

Mike: see what happens when you try to use sarcasm.

woodworker : there is a way to block certain users, so that their replies are hidden. It can occasionally be useful for making a thread a little saner.

Quote from [email protected]

It was posted upthread why the mediation failed. It was an afterthought by both parties who had already dived headlong into a lawsuit and mediation was doomed to fail.

Put yourself in IH's shoes. Would you have accepted the offer posted on JONP if it had been made during mediation? If not, why not? If so, wouldn't it be in IH's best interest to get that supposed offer onto the docket?

If I was IH I would not be reading the JONP blog.

And any "offer" is not real until it penned with amounts, times, obligations, payment deadlines..... There is no evidence that a real offer was ever made. Again, what was the claimed offer? An unrealistic $1 or realistic $15M+. Did Rossi give evidence that he has that money. (remember how he wanted bank records of IH)

Quote from Eric Walker

woodworker : there is a way to block certain users, so that you can't see their replies. It can occasionally be useful for making a thread a little saner.

I wouldn't dream of blocking Kev. Just because I won't respond to him anymore doesn't make him any less amusing.

Quote from woodworker

 

Mike D:

I have finally figured out Kev's legal arguments. The law is what he wants it be at any particular moment and, if the law in reality is not what he wants, then it should be changed to accommodate him. The alleged offer not being relevant to the case at hand should be relevant because he says so. I think Kev would make an excellent Judge Dredd - "the law is what I say the law is."

Asking Kev to explain how the alleged offer is relevant to the issues at hand is itself irrelevant - IT SHOULD BE THE MAIN ISSUE BECAUSE HE SAYS SO. And, as lawyers, we should acknowledge that the law should be whatever Kev wants at any particular moment.

I will no longer respond to Kev's posts, for which I am sure he will claim I am running away, because I learned long ago that one does not win an argument with a rock, or with someone who either has a vested interest in not learning or is unable or unwilling to learn.

 

Display More

I was actually reading a case related to Judge Dredd earlier today - IPC Magazines v Black and White Music, [1983] F.S.R. 348. Some fun mild snark from the Judge (the real one, that is - not the cartoon or Kev) in a few places, and a good explanation of just how narrowly defined the tort of passing-off is in English law. But I digress.

Yeah, there's a certain obdurateness in play with Kev. Such is life.

At the end of the day, I suspect he'll be one of the many who will not alter their views one iota no matter what evidence is introduced or what the outcome of the case actually is. I strongly doubt he'll be alone.

Quote from ele

 

Sorry sir Mike. I presume that you are not saying the truth.

 

I have no reason to lie. But believe what you want.

Quote from MikeDunford

I was actually reading a case related to Judge Dredd earlier today - IPC Magazines v Black and White Music, [1983] F.S.R. 348. Some fun mild snark from the Judge (the real one, that is - not the cartoon or Kev) in a few places, and a good explanation of just how narrowly defined the tort of passing-off is in English law. But I digress.

Yeah, there's a certain obdurateness in play with Kev. Such is life.

At the end of the day, I suspect he'll be one of the many who will not alter their views one iota no matter what evidence is introduced or what the outcome of the case actually is. I strongly doubt he'll be alone.

Are you still on the other side of the pond?

Quote from [email protected]

IH has already entered evidence from the JONP blog. Why would you not be reading his blog? It is supposedly full of all kinds of classic Rossi bloviations and lies that you could use to paint him as a lying weasel in court.

You, like so many others, are not getting it. It is in IH's interest to get this supposed offer onto the docket where it can be made "real". If it's for a refund of only $1 then the judge can throw Rossi's case under the bus in a hundred ways. If it is for a real refund of the whole amount and IH declines, the judge can make IH's life difficult as well.

That makes this a pivotal issue in this trial. Whether or not Rossi used illegal aliens to install his supposed heat exchanger is not a pivotal issue.

They may be reading it now to get hints about the trial and evidence to use. But an offer on a blog is not a legal offer- surely you know that.

I don't read the blog since it is a waste of time to just wade through all the lies and bad science.

Having an offer or not will not make or brake the case. The case is not about if Rossi believes this or that or if LENR in the form of Ni like Rossi thinks is real. It is about if the work in Florida was the agreed to test of the 6 cylinder engine specified by the contract that was conducted within the agreed to time schedule and was signed by all 3 parties and if Rossi allowed Murray as an agent of IH to inspect the work as he agreed to in contract.

It is not even about the sale of heat to a customer as in the "term sheet".

The offers, some posting on an obscure blog, are of little importance.

IH was under no obligation to accept any offer from Rossi.