Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

@Bob,

Well, maybe you ought to quote my actual language "has been" rather than switch it to "being in" and then arguing against your own strawman construction.

Quote from IH Fanboy

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.

IHFB: if you read my posts about Rossi, you would have noted that I focus on his business practices that relate to the current venture, e.g., the fake company, the fake invoices, the heat exchanger, etc., and those are clearly relevant to whether or not he satisfied the conditions precedent to IH's obligation to pay the additional $89 million. I have not focused on his alleged bad prior acts. However, I do think that there is a difference between his alleged bad prior acts / non-IH related acts and IH/Cherokee alleged prior bad acts, which I will discuss below, and why I think the court may, I stress may, allow some evidence of Rossi's alleged prior/non-IH bad acts to be admissible.

I have consistently argued that the matter at issue in Rossi's claim for the additional $89 million is whether or not he satisfied the conditions precedent to IH's obligations to pay said amount. The fake company and fake invoices already paint Rossi to be a fabulist. Evidence of other similar actions, e.g., his boasting about how he caused a termination of an earlier agreement, his claims to have other sales, etc. could be admitted as showing a pattern of deception and generally an attack against his credibility. Remember, Rossi has the burden of proof to show that he performed. Rossi can attack IH/Cherokee all he wants and could demonstrate that they are (also) lying scumbags.

But that doesn't prove that he performed, it only proves that both sides are liars. If so, he hasn't met his burden of proof and he doesn't win on the principal complaint. I have personally seen cases where the judge has stated that he didn't believe any of the witnesses for any of the parties and was convinced that they were all lying. The judge then followed up by ruling for the defendants, because the plaintiff, Rossi on the principal complaint, has the burden of proof.

If you carefully read my posts, you would have noticed that I didn't make any predictions on IH's counter-claims, primarily because I haven't focused on it as much and haven't read the related documents. But that doesn't mean that I think that Cherokee's/IH's alleged prior bad acts would be admissible against IH on the counter-claim. Cherokee is/may be an investor, but I doubt that the court would find that any alleged bad acts by Cherokee on completely unrelated business transactions, especially where there has not been a judicial finding of wrongdoing, would be admissible against IH here. Secondly, IH's counter-claim is essentially that Rossi fraudulently induced / defrauded them re: the initial $10.5 million. Here the burden of proof is on IH, not Rossi. But I don't see how IH's other business activities are relevant to whether or not Rossi defrauded them, other than to possibly show IH knew of Rossi's fraud and went ahead anyway.

However, I can see the court admitting as evidence Rossi's alleged prior bad acts, especially how and why he caused the termination of a prior agreement in order to get a better deal. I still don't have a good sense of how the counter-claim plays out. I can easily see a jury saying split the baby, i.e., Rossi loses on the principal claim and IH loses on the counter-claim.

Would love to hear Mike Dunford's thoughts. Full disclosure, I have personally met and broken bread with Mike.

Quote from IH Fanboy

@Bob,

Well, maybe you ought to quote my actual language "has been" rather than switch it to "being in" and then arguing against your own strawman construction.

If Cherokee "has been" but not "being in" does that mean that the SEC is no longer investigating Cherokee and/or has not pursued a claim against Cherokee? If the SEC didn't take an enforcement action which resulted in Cherokee being found liable / settling, then claims about SEC investigation of Cherokee are definitely not going to admitted. More prejudicial than probative, ain't coming in.

woodworker,

I believe Cherokee has been fined by the SEC for past behavior. Someone posted a link to the details earlier in this thread.

As for splitting the baby, I tend to agree. Sig speculated that same result some time ago, and I agreed with him then too.

Edit: link to post about SEC action: Rossi vs. Darden developments - Part 2

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.

The Johnson "plant" is directly relevant to whether or not the measurements were measurements or made up numbers. Evidence re: the "plant" is admissible and will be admitted.

Quote from IH Fanboy

woodworker,

I believe Cherokee has been fined by the SEC for past behavior. Someone posted a link to the details earlier in this thread.

As for splitting the baby, I tend to agree. Sig speculated that same result some time ago, and I agreed with him then too.

Edit: link to post about SEC action: Rossi vs. Darden developments - Part 2

Display More

I just read the SEC Order (link to actual Order for anyone interested: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2015/ia-4258.pdf) and I am entirely, 100% confident that will not be admitted against IH. Additionally, not going to be used to impeach Darden's credibility, as Darden is never mentioned in the Order (I am sure he blamed it all on subordinates). For those who don't want to read the order, cease and desist, $100K fine, no admission of any wrongdoing, Cherokee played a little fast and loose in allocating expenses to investors that they shouldn't have. I don't see how any of that is relevant to whether or not Rossi performed. As to all of the other materials re: Cherokee and them being terrible people who ripped off the taxpayers - NOT ADMISSIBLE. Not relevant, prejudicial value outweighs probative value.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

woodworker,

I was well aware of the use of subsidiary companies. You are trying to teach granny to suck eggs.

It can be fraudulent if the new party was given the impression the wealth of the large company was behind the new project when it was not. Rossi originally dealt with Cherokee: I wonder if he was told the deal would be spun off to IH.

Considering that the License Rossi (Leonardo) signed was with IH and not Cherokee, I think he knew. BTW, Cherokee is never mentioned in the License Agreement or any of the amendments thereto.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

woodworker,

You can't know. It was possibly bait and switch.

We DO know: It could not possibly be 'bait and switch', because the signed agreement (you know, the one on the Docket that Rossi has his signature on), was with IH (not Cherokee).

Or are you arguing that Rossi (and his lawyer(s)) didn't read the $100.5M contract when he signed it and that's how IH 'tricked' him into signing it, because they imagined that it was actually Cherokee?

Quote from oldguy

laughable, truly laughable.

WW has posted his name, address, bar number, case he was on, phone number, firm he had worked for, firm he started with........

He has been more forthcoming than anyone here. (although Jed, Dewey, Eric, and Abd are well known)

I only wish my employment allowed me to be so forthcoming on a public forum.

WW don't think the forum is all like him. You are welcome here and are a breath of fresh air.

OT- what kind of wood work do you do if you don't mind me asking. I am trying Marquetry and pen turning.

Display More

Speaking of marquetry, check out this guy's website/work. Absolutely amazing.

ctfinefurniture.com

I love his Automoton. Simply fantastic. I don't know how much, but I would have to believe high five figures, if not six figures.

Quote from sigmoidal

We DO know: It could not possibly be 'bait and switch', because the signed agreement (you know, the one on the Docket that Rossi has his signature on), was with IH (not Cherokee).

Or are you arguing that Rossi (and his lawyer(s)) didn't read the $100.5M contract when he signed it and that's how IH 'tricked' him into signing it, because they imagined that it was actually Cherokee?

Rossi did a classic bait and switch with the Johnson Matthey/JMP "client". Are you going to apply that same reasoning to him and say that IH should have read the final version of the term sheet and not imagine that they were working with Johnson Matthey?

Alan - you're perpetuating Rossi fabrications and you should stop. You should also stop drinking the RoSSC kool-aid and do your best to keep yourself and your position as moderator as far away from libelous activity as possible.

Quote from LENR Calender

Rossi did a classic bait and switch with the Johnson Matthey/JMP "client". Are you going to apply that same reasoning to him and say that IH should have read the final version of the term sheet and not imagine that they were working with Johnson Matthey?

Except, of course, we know from uncontested evidence on the docket that Rossi was intentionally deceiving (defrauding?) IH with JM Products, whereas there is no evidence that IH intentionally deceived Rossi into thinking that IH was actually Cherokee. (I didn't really have to point that out, though, did I?)

Rossi's allegation is that IH couldn't and never intended to pay. Which is a different allegation. And there is clear evidence on the docket (even if contested) that IH could easily raise the money needed to pay if Rossi delivered on the 1 year 'test'.

Quote from woodworker

IHFB: if you read my posts about Rossi, you would have noted that I focus on his business practices that relate to the current venture, e.g., the fake company, the fake invoices, the heat exchanger, etc., and those are clearly relevant to whether or not he satisfied the conditions precedent to IH's obligation to pay the additional $89 million. I have not focused on his alleged bad prior acts. However, I do think that there is a difference between his alleged bad prior acts / non-IH related acts and IH/Cherokee alleged prior bad acts, which I will discuss below, and why I think the court may, I stress may, allow some evidence of Rossi's alleged prior/non-IH bad acts to be admissible.

...

If you carefully read my posts, you would have noticed that I didn't make any predictions on IH's counter-claims, primarily because I haven't focused on it as much and haven't read the related documents. But that doesn't mean that I think that Cherokee's/IH's alleged prior bad acts would be admissible against IH on the counter-claim. Cherokee is/may be an investor, but I doubt that the court would find that any alleged bad acts by Cherokee on completely unrelated business transactions, especially where there has not been a judicial finding of wrongdoing, would be admissible against IH here. Secondly, IH's counter-claim is essentially that Rossi fraudulently induced / defrauded them re: the initial $10.5 million. Here the burden of proof is on IH, not Rossi. But I don't see how IH's other business activities are relevant to whether or not Rossi defrauded them, other than to possibly show IH knew of Rossi's fraud and went ahead anyway.

However, I can see the court admitting as evidence Rossi's alleged prior bad acts, especially how and why he caused the termination of a prior agreement in order to get a better deal. I still don't have a good sense of how the counter-claim plays out. I can easily see a jury saying split the baby, i.e., Rossi loses on the principal claim and IH loses on the counter-claim.

Would love to hear Mike Dunford's thoughts. Full disclosure, I have personally met and broken bread with Mike.

Display More

You're almost certainly far more familiar with the facts and the docket than I am. I just got roped into this recently, after getting into a mild spat with abd regarding the importance of understanding the underlying substantive law if one wants to credibly comment on rulings in the case, and I'm still getting slowly up to speed on the facts of the case in my very limited free time.

That said -

1: If an average jury has to sit through a monthlong trial where the court case involves non-mainstream science combined with what look to be somewhat strange business practices on all sides, I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect that there might be some baby splitting.

2: As far as Rossi's prior bad acts goes, they're probably not relevant to the contract claims, but the fraudulent inducement might be another matter. But they're also potentially a double-edged sword (IMO). If IH was aware of Rossi's reputation, a jury can be induced to wonder why IH first went ahead with the deal and then was so lax in allowing the modifications to the 23.5 hour test. And if IH was not aware, why weren't they.

But that's based on speculation without having carefully reviewed the counterclaim. I'll try to find time to do that in more detail tomorrow.