Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

  • No, the folks who keep calling Rossi a fraud and a crook are the ones being silly. It is time for them to put up or shut up.


    It is provable that Rossi is not a fraud because all of the data has been entered into the docket and it couldn't even meet the civil law standard of "preponderance of evidence" so there's no way it will meet the higher criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt".

    Well then, according to that analysis, nothing IH or Darden, et al did in connection with Rossi et al was fraud either. After all, they haven't been charged or convicted and apparently, according to you, a settlement means that there wasn't a preponderance of evidence against them.


    Sorry IHFB, Kev just said your arguments against IH are crap.


    PS: Welcome back Kev.


    PPS: Just to make it clear, I believe that Rossi is a lying, cheating, hypocritical, thieving con man. And if he wishes to sue me for defamation, my contact information has already been posted and he should call me and I will meet him to accept service (litigation would have to be in California as I have no minimum contacts with any other jurisdiction that would satisfy the predicate requirements of "I Shoe" and it's progeny - sorry Ele, more layer talk, you can look it up). In fact, I will waive any the "New York Times" defense and treat him as any joe schmoe, not a public figure if he so desires.


    If the lying, cheating, hypocritical con man wishes to contact me, he can also reach me at [email protected].

  • Come on ! Weaver and Co. claimed here that Rossi would be destroyed that he would be imprisoned and blah blah blah....... And when Rossi proposed an agreement IH immediately acepted ! This demonstrate that Rossi was able to win the battle and was not a cheater. He proposed the agreement just to to avoid the usual "bankrupt trick" that Darden used many times.


    A bit of revisionist history and plain speculation in what you say:


    First, I always said that I believed that IH would win on the principal claim. Second, I said that it was at best, probably even odds on the counter claim and that a jury could easily split the baby and have IH win the principal claim, Rossi the counter claim and that unless there was an attorney's fees clause (which I stated I had not checked), each side would pay their own costs and fees. Please explain how this differs radically from the agreed upon settlement, other than Rossi got back his worthless IP (time, and the absence of any commercialization of said IP, will prove that it was worthless).


    In the settlement, IH got a complete, COMPLETE, release of any and all claims Rossi had against IH. TO PARAPHRASE BOTH WILLY WONKA AND MICHAEL CORLEONE, Rossi took nothing on his principal claims. Further, in the settlement, Rossi got a complete release of IH's claims against him and IH took nothing on the counter claim.


    As to your comments about Rossi proposing and IH immediately accepting, you could just as easily have said (and assuming you have no inside knowledge, be just as speculative) that Rossi eagerly pushed a settlement offer and IH reluctantly accepted. DO YOU HAVE ANY INSIDE INFORMATION?? And why did Rossi propose?? Was he scared of getting his ass kicked at trial? And if not, why did he settle? After all, according to you, SSC, Kev and many others, he was going to show IH, Darden, et al, for the alleged corporate crooks they were and the jury would carry Rossi off on their shoulders after awarding him 100's of millions of dollars. Why did Rossi settle? Please explain.

  • Aalso notice that AEG was omitted from the settlement. I think they could still bring charges against Rossi. Not sure it would be useful for them though since Rossi doesn't have enough left (likely) to be worth their legal fees. Perhaps all they could get is a bunch of used toupees.


  • I wasn't aware that you are familiar with the laws of all of the states in the US, as well as Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. The ability of a average, non-police powered person to arrest another person is actually fairly limited and is governed by state, not federal, law. So there is no uniform USA-wide rule. Secondly, as far as I am aware, being licensed in California, you may only arrest someone for a felony if you witness, in person, them committing said felony. Being aware of the felony is not sufficient. And, if you are wrong or if the authorities choose not to prosecute, which they may do for a multitude of reasons, the biggest one being a lack of unlimited resources, you may be personally liable in civil court for your arrest. Additionally, to the extent that a person has the right to arrest another person for a crime witnessed, you don't need to be a citizen. You could be an illegal, undocumented alien (or ELE for that matter).


    Second, the allegations of fraud in the civil court are not evidence, in the legal sense, in or of anything. Nothing that was filed in the RvD case would become evidence, in that case, until it was admitted into evidence by the judge during the trial. The various affidavits and statements made during depositions might be admitted in other cases or in a criminal trial because (1) they were made under oath and/or (2) they are statements by a party opponent (in the other case) but at this point they are not "evidence" in a legal proceeding.


    Third, I can continue calling Rossi a fraud, a cheat, a liar, a hypocrite, etc. with complete criminal immunity and I don't have to do or prove anything, unless he sues me in CIVIL court. There is no crime committed by me here, even if I was lying (I am not saying that all such statements would never end up with criminal sanctions - for example, if I publicly disseminated false information about a publicly traded company in order to drive down its share price so I could short sell or buy on the cheap, I could possibly be prosecuted, as a criminal matter if I had used the postal service or telephone laws as violating the mail fraud statutes - which actually is a fairly regularly charged federal crime). Rossi's only potential remedy against me would be to sue in tort and I so hope he does. After all, truth is an absolute defense, even if I intended my statements to injure his reputation. And he has admitted, under oath, that he has lied, cheated, defrauded, etc., or made statements that would making proving that easy. E.g., "I had nothing to do with JMP", oops I owned and controlled it.


    Lastly, your statements that we have proof that Rossi is not a fraud because there was a settlement is a logical non-sequitur. The first does not imply or prove the second, just as the absence of evidence of something does not prove that said something does not exist, it merely means that at this time we don't have evidence of that something. As to Rossi being everything I claim, although evidence has not been admitted in a legal proceeding "yet," I can only that Rossi sues me so that I can have an opportunity to get it admitted at a trial.


    Please Rossi, sue me. I am bored and need some excitement.


    PS: As others have noted, in the grand scheme of things, just as I said that RvD was not a hugely complicated case, Rossi's fraud is not really high on any state law enforcement office's radar or concerns. They have limited resources and serious crimes, e.g., violent crimes, take priority. As to the Feds, the only one that will care is the IRS. Fuck with them at your own risk.

  • PPS: Just to make it clear, I believe that Rossi is a lying, cheating, hypocritical, thieving con man. And if he wishes to sue me for defamation, my contact information has already been posted and he should call me and I will meet him to accept service (litigation would have to be in California as I have no minimum contacts with any other jurisdiction that would satisfy the predicate requirements of "I Shoe" and it's progeny - sorry Ele, more layer talk, you can look it up). In fact, I will waive any the "New York Times" defense and treat him as any joe schmoe, not a public figure if he so desires.


    WW,


    I know you are joking, but just in case you are not...Rossi has threatened several times over the years, that his lawyers were preparing to sue whomever was a thorn in his side at the time. Whether that be Krivit, Gary Wright, MY, or a number of others who publicly took issue with him, he never followed through. Called them "snakes and clowns". Only one he sued, as we know, was IH.

  • Rossi has been described to me by not one but two very knowledgable experimental physicists whose names are not connected with any of his pubic work. By one as 'incredibly intuitive' and by the other as 'able to go from A to E while I'm still working on B&C'.

    As I am in legal mode, objection, hearsay. Federal Rule 801 of the Federal Rules of Evidence:


    801 (c) “Hearsay” means a statement that:

    (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and

    (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.


    801 (a) Statement. “Statement” means a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion.


    801 (b) Declarant. “Declarant” means the person who made the statement.


    Your testimony is about an out of court statement made by "two very knowledgable experimental physicists." For our purposes, they are declarants. The matter that is being asserted is either that Rossi is legitimate and/or that he is respected by these other smart guys. Are you offering their statements to prove either of those two? If so, those statements are out of court statements made by declarants which is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Thus hearsay and, unless you can show an exception thereto (which I very much doubt), not admissible.


    Further, as you are not willing to identify these brave souls, I would give it the same weight I give to the astrology predictions from "qualified, expert psychics" I see advertised on the internet. And, lastly, I will raise your two experts by the four, count them, Nobel Prize winners I spoke to, but whom I can't identify for obvious reasons, all of whom say Rossi is full of excrement (ELE: sarcasm alert).

  • WW,


    I know you are joking, but just in case you are not...Rossi has threatened several times over the years, that his lawyers were preparing to sue whomever was a thorn in his side at the time. Whether that be Krivit, Gary Wright, MY, or a number of others who publicly took issue with him, he never followed through. Called them "snakes and clowns". Only one he sued, as we know, was IH.

    Just to be clear, I an NOT joking. Please, Rossi, sue me.


  • I don't believe I ever said that I specialize in mediation. I don't, so please show me the post where I said so.

  • Neither party made any claims about the IP (that I can recall).
    The claim and counter-claim are so intermingled (in terms of believing who did what) that it's hard to distinguish. So I'll assume one party wins both parts.


    Rossi wins :

    Rossi keeps the $11.5M

    IH pays Rossi $270M plus Rossi's attorney fees ($5M?)

    IH is out of pocket for everything they spent.


    Rossi Loses:

    Rossi pays IH attorney fees ($5M?)

    Rossi pays IH "For compensatory and expectation damages and/or restitution in an amount to be

    determined at trial" -- probably everything IH spent, including the $11.5M, the $5M (?) they paid AEG,

    all the salaries and expenses etc etc ... say $30M (Doubled? Tripled?)

    Ignoring sunk-loses/gains, and awarding triple-damages + fees to the loser, we have in the top lines:
    (?? the forum won't let me add another table??)
    Lower lines : WITH the sunk costs/old gains. IH lost $30M, of which Rossi got $11.5M direct and $0.5M (est) salary and expenses.

    .







    Rossi Wins IH Wins
    Rossi +275 -95
    IH -275 +95
    ^^^ upper lines ^^^ vvv lower lines vvv
    Rossi $11.5M + $0.5M salary + $5M atty + $270M triple = +287 -$5M atty - $90M triple = -95
    IH -$30M sunk - $5M atty - $270M triple = $-305 M +$5M atty + $90M triple = +95

    I'm not sure what game theory would say ... IH has the bigger downside, but in either case the loser is bankrupt!


    (Sorry for the formatting)



  • For Rossi it's maybe $10M in condos -- personal and corporate. For IH .. (presuming Cherokee doesn't get dragged in) ... no idea how much of the total investments are within reach of the court. Darden and Vaughn personally liable?

    Their investment documents said the if the test worked out they'd have to raise $100M more to pay Rossi. But nobody's going to put money into a lost case. Voluntarily, any way.

  • You make my point well — Rossi's upside was an order of magnitude larger than IH's. Even in the most favorable outcome, IH may not have been able to recover full expenses.

    As I said earlier, it is like asymmetric warfare. The bigger player cannot afford to lose -- or win. The smaller one (Rossi) has practically nothing to lose. The best move for the big player is to avoid the fight.

  • As I said earlier, it is like asymmetric warfare. The bigger player cannot afford to lose -- or win. The smaller one (Rossi) has practically nothing to lose. The best move for the big player is to avoid the fight.


    Not always. Even if you are a well-funded startup, your chances of a large company backing down on an IP dispute is not great. Many large companies will fight to the end, if they are confident in their positions.

  • Even if you are a well-funded startup, your chances of a large company backing down on an IP dispute is not great.

    I assume I.H. finally decided this IP is worthless, which I am sure is the case. It was definitely not worth the risk that a rouge jury would award Rossi $267 million.


    I assume here that the version of the settlement published by Rossi is the real thing. That's questionable.

  • I assume I.H. finally decided this IP is worthless, which I am sure is the case. It was definitely not worth the risk that a rouge jury would award Rossi $267 million.

    So they thought the IP had value all the way to the point of agreeing to settle? IH settled because the totality of the evidence did not weigh in their favor.

    Quote

    I assume here that the version of the settlement published by Rossi is the real thing. That's questionable.

    And you really think that none of the other parties would have wanted to correct the public record by now? Seems Abd was pursuing your train of thought as well. All I can hear is crickets. The fact that you and Abd question its veracity betray your true feelings about it.

  • I always it was strange that Rossi claimed that IH didn't have the money to pay him and then turned around and sued them for the money.

    Strange logic.

    Cherokee and Darden were both named in the suit. That provided Rossi with the additional leverage that he needed. While IH would have simply declared bankruptcy, Cherokee and Darden probably have some dough.

  • It would appear we share the same hope, that Rossi would sue you. It's not as outlandish as some might think, because Rossi was moving forward on a libel suit against Wikipedia as soon as he got a little extra money in his pocket.


    I would look forward to seeing your defense. Your lackluster legal performance reflected on this blog (where you said you were going to ignore me) is evidence Rossi would prevail. For instance when I say you can citizen-arrest someone when you see them commit a crime your response is that you have to see them commit a crime. That kind of bullshit response will lead to you having your ass handed to you in court. Best of luck.