woodworker Member
  • Member since May 26th 2017
  • Last Activity:

Posts by woodworker

  • Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

    Odds? If you read my posts, you should have noted that I have never expressed any opinion as to the viability of LENR other than to say I would like to see it succeed. My opinion as to Rossi's prospects/technology, my willingness to bet has nothing to do with the technology, it is based on the fact that Rossi is, IMHO, a lying, hypocritical, sliming, etc. fraud, cheat and conmen. I have absolute confidence that Rossi will not produce what he has promised not because I doubt LENR, but because I don't trust or believe Rossi and, given the evidence, in the court records and the things he has publicly said and admitted to, of Rossi's willingness to lie about everything and anything, I have every confidence that he will again fail to produce (apologies for the run-on sentence - I would have made it shorter, but I didn't have the time).


    You are the some so positive about Rossi, you should be giving me odds.


    As to "Another layer of complexity lies in the fact that if Rossi has what he claims he has, he most certainly will be delayed (or killed) by forces that would be hurt by such an invention" give me a f***ing break. What evidence do you have to support such a statement. And by "have" I don't mean you read something on some website about how the magic pill that turns water into gas was suppressed/killed by the oil companies. I mean real evidence.

    Quote from sigmoidal

    OHHH! This is not a jointly provided agreement? It's currently just Rossisays? (I should have looked more closely at the source).


    Well then, I'm placing my millyun Quatloos and bragging rights for IHFB in escrow until there is joint endorsement of the settlement terms.


    And I'm seeking some Quatloo council to protect my Quatloo interests (on contingency, of course) until this is all resolved. Maybe woodworker can represent me? ;)

    I would require at least $25,000 as an evergreen retainer. US dollars, not quatloos, promissory notes, etc. Cash before I start any work, along with a signed engagement letter.

  • Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

    WCG:


    I don't know if Shane D is in for a bet (I won't presume to speak for him), but I am. $10,000 (US dollars) that Rossi does not have a functioning, independently tested E-Cat QX and ready for commercial use (by a real company, not one controlled by or affiliated with Rossi), within the next 18 months, that does what he claims as of today.


    I think that those are reasonable parameters. If you believe in Rossi and his technology so much you should not have a problem with them.

  • Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

    Assuming that this is a true and complete (and executed) copy of the Settlement Agreement, I don't see anywhere in there where IH agreed to pay Rossi any more money or any portion of Rossi's legal fees. I was absolutely positive (sarcasm warning ELE), based on all of the pro-Rossi pundits posts, all of which were incredibly persuasive, well reasoned and based on inside information (more sarcasm ELE), that IH had agreed to pay Rossi tons of additional monies and some or all of his legal fees to be released from trap that Rossi had IH in. What happened? How did evil IH (more sarcasm ELE) escape from having to pay Rossi more money? Inquiring minds want to know.


    PS: pretty standard form of Settlement and Mutual Release - I must have several almost identical (except names, dates, etc.) in my form file. Also, I noticed AmpEnergo was not released. Would someone refresh my memory as to their involvement.


    PPS: Ele is correct that I have not been a layer (not lately). However, I am still a California lawyer in good standing with the California State Bar.

  • Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

    Quote from interested observer

    I am not sure whether I admire or pity the people who continue to argue with Rossi believers about technical, factual, or even logical matters. They are going to believe Rossi no matter what happens. It is more productive to argue with rocks.

    That is why I quit arguing with them. You can't persuade a stone, no matter how much reason or evidence. It will remain a stone.

  • Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions


    As proof of the argument that VC/s "are are very suspicious bunch and are not easy to fool" I point you to Juicero, Webvan ("founded in 1999 as an online grocery store, delivering goods (including perishables) to doorsteps across the US. Accord to C-Net, “Webvan went from being a $1.2bn company with 4,500 employees to being liquidated in under two years;” eToys.com (an online toy marketplace) lasted for a few short years before closing its doors; Pets.com and, just for the heck of it, Uber, which is losing more money every day and which has no plan for becoming profitable.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Generally, material which you want to have admitted as evidence has to be produced has to be produced in discovery, but also generally most discovery is not part of the docket or is filed prior to the actual trial. For example, excerpts from numerous depositions have been included as parts of motions, responses, etc., but there is no actual requirement that an entire transcript of a deposition be put into the record. Further, as Mike D has pointed out re: the blogs, each piece of material sought to be introduced as admissible evidence has to be shown to be admissible. I am certain that there are lots and lots of information in each of the depositions that would not have been admissible. For example, a standard question at the beginning of every deposition is whether or not the deponent has taken any medications or alcohol in the preceding 12/24 hours. This is asked to make sure that the deponent is mentally alert enough to fully participate in the deposition. Those questions and answers generally would not be admissible at trial, as completely irrelevant.


    But to specifically address materials that would be admissible evidence, I am certain that there is a great deal, probably on both sides, that was never included in any filing but that would have been included in discovery. For example, I have speculated that there was no documentary evidence to support Rossi's allegation that there was a heat dissipation device. I could have been wrong and maybe Rossi had cancelled checks, etc. to support his position. Those would have been turned over to IH as part of the discovery and would almost certainly be admissible (provided that the proper foundation, authentication, etc. were satisfied), but they need not have been included in any filing prior to the settlement.


    As I write this, an interesting speculation came to mind: we know from the fake invoices that Rossi has little problem creating false documents. What happens if, post-settlement, he creates fake checks, etc. and then publishes them as part of his explanation of why IH settled? The settlement agreement has a confidentiality provision. If Rossi had failed to turn over the checks, etc. as part of discovery and IH knows the checks, etc. are fake, could IH reasonably claim that Rossi had breached the settlement agreement by publishing alleged reasons for IH's agreement to settle and could IH therefore publish the entire settlement agreement if they so desired? I don't know the answer to that.


    Whilst on the subject of publishing the settlement agreement, I wonder what are the damages provision of the settlement agreement. If someone leaks the settlement agreement, what are the damages to either party? If the settlement agreement shows Rossi walked away with nothing but a complete dismissal of the all the claims (principal, counter and third party), Rossi would, I am sure, argue reputational damage and assert that the leak affects his ability to raise money from investors. Given what has been publicly disclosed, I don't see how his reputation could be further damaged with investors or the general community - once you have been shown to be a liar, further accusations of lying may not be defamatory. Similarly, I don't think disclosure would damage IH's reputation - they are not coming out of this smelling like a rose, primarily because IMHO they got took by a conman.


    I don't really see any provable actual damages to either party, so, absent a liquidated damages clause for breach of the confidentiality obligations, I don't see any recovery for either party resulting from a breach by the other side.


    Having said all that, I see no incentive for either side to be the first to breach - to me it only makes sense to disclose as retaliation or to take any legal action unless there is a liquidated damages clause.


    Mike: any thoughts? I am sure that I am missing something.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]


    "A couple of IH's Lawyers there not smiling." I'm sorry, but Jones Day lawyers are not allowed to smile (Ele: hint sarcasm).


    Full disclosure: I have worked with many Jones Day lawyers over the years and they have generally been people I have enjoyed having a beer with, despite my use of some of the aliases I was told by Jones Day associates for the firm's name, e.g., Jones Day Night & Weekends, for the number of hours they are required to bill, and Jones Day Reavis Pogue & Satan, for their vigorous representation of their clients and for the number of hours they are required to bill.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from MikeDunford

    With prejudice absolutely applies in civil actions. This case is (or will be with the filing of the Rule 41 stipulation) officially dead. Terry Pratchett.


    The docket, on the other hand, will be available indefinitely via PACER; any transcripts from recent hearings, opening statements, etc will probably become available for purchase via PACER over the next 90 days.

    Quote from MikeDunford

    With prejudice absolutely applies in civil actions. This case is (or will be with the filing of the Rule 41 stipulation) officially dead. As in pining for the fjords. As in is no more, ceased to be, expired and gone to meet its maker, run down the curtain and gone to join the choir invisible. This is an ex case.


    The docket, on the other hand, will be available indefinitely via PACER; any transcripts from recent hearings, opening statements, etc will probably become available for purchase via PACER over the next 90 days.

    As in pining for the fjords. As in is no more, ceased to be, expired and gone to meet its maker, run down the curtain and gone to join the choir invisible. This is an ex case.


    Mike, please stop with the obscure legal references (hint for Ele: sarcasm and not a legal reference).


    One addition to Mike's explanation. This contract dispute is over, done and dead. However, there is now a new contract - the settlement agreement. If either party breaches it or alleges a breach, we could always have new litigation, focusing on the contractual obligations of the settlement agreement - NOT FOCUSED ON LENR, except to the extent that the settlement agreement addresses IP ownership, licensure, etc. issues relating thereto.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from maryyugo

    Extremely well put. My theory about IH is that they could not take the chance that a lay jury would believe Rossi and his witnesses sufficiently to think that the contract conditions had been met, quite apart from whether or not Rossi was honest. Too bad. But no worries. Rossi is likely to step on his own feces once more soon, one way or another. He's done it all his life. He'll do it again unless he's just too old.




    What in the world does THAT mean, Mike?

    I don't know if Mike has answered yet, but I will give a hint. It is a citation to a particular page, page 177, of a particular case, cited as 1 Cranch 137. Google it and you will find the case and the court (hint, a very famous case). There is a statement made by the court in that case that has been, and continues to be, a fundamental foundational basis of American jurisprudence. That's all you get unless Mike wants to disclose more (American lawyers are, or should be, familiar with this case and the statement in question).


    ETA: I see Mike answered already. These young guns are so quick with the keyboard.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Simple answer: NO. Even Rossi's supporters agree he is a showman, and therefore is practiced at putting on a good face. Additionally, I suspect that Rossi is very very glad he won't be subject to examination about the fake company, the fake invoices and the heat exchanger. However, I think all of the protagonists are relieved that this shit-fest is over.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from oldguy

    My guess is that Rossi will now start claiming all kinds of things about the settlement that are not true even though the settlement was to be confidential. He knows that there will be no record to catch him in his falsehoods about the settlement.

    Well, to paraphrase Mike D, the terms of the settlement are confidential, unless one side blows up the confidentiality (or otherwise breaches the settlement agreement). If Rossi starts bragging about what the settlement agreement provides, regardless of whether or not his statements relating thereto are true or false, he may waive the confidentiality provision and IH could decide to publish the whole thing and take their chances that Rossi sues them, again.


    If there is such a suit, IT WILL, AS THIS ONE WAS, NOT BE ABOUT LENR. It will simply be a contract dispute. Did one party's violation of a confidentiality provision release the other party from any confidentiality obligations. So, e.g., if Rossi decides to represent to potential new investors that IH relinquished all North American rights to the e-cat (unless such disclosure was carved out in the settlement agreement and regardless of whether or not such an assertion is true), IH could say that Rossi has breached confidentiality and therefore IH is not bound to confidentiality either. I bring this up specifically because Rossi boasted in the past how he deliberately blew up an agreement with a prior investor/partner. IMHO, Rossi can't keep his mouth shut.


    As to speculation as to other terms of the settlement, as I said was potentially possible (but later than the winner of the sweepstakes and I waive any claims I might have to any quatloos in connection therewith), I would suspect mutual walk-aways. I doubt that any serious money changed hands from IH to Rossi and I very much doubt that IH is picking up any portion of Rossi's legal or other fees. If anything, I suspect, and again pure speculation, that IH continues to have the same IP rights it previously had (and possibly North American rights to anything Rossi may develop in the future) (it would be interesting to check the real property records in Florida in a month or so to see if there are any changes to the title of the condos Rossi is reported to have purchased there with the initial money from IH).


    As to what prompted the settlement, it could have been just each side realizing that spending additional money wasn't cost effective, especially if the other side was essentially judgment proof (pure speculation on my part), although I do suspect that Rossi's lawyers could have realized that they had no case on the principal complaint and so advised Rossi (again, speculation on my part - we will have to wait for their memoirs). Contra one poster above, I do think that the issues relating to the fake company, the fake invoices and the other items referenced by Jones Day in their opening statement might have made an impact on Rossi's lawyers, albeit late in the game. I.e., the heat exchanger and the piping were relevant. Similarly, Jones Day could have advised IH that a win on the counter-claim was less certain, that even if IH won on the counter-claim any monetary recovery would be limited and that a settlement whereby IH doesn't pay Rossi any money on the principal complaint was a reasonable settlement. "Better a bird in the hand than two in the bush."


    As to reputational damage, IH and its investors will always be able to partner with LENR developers so long as IH and its investors have money. I hope that they do better due diligence next time and DRAFT A BETTER AGREEMENT (I very very very much doubt that Jones Day Reavis Pogue & Satan were involved in drafting the ones IH signed with Rossi).


    As to Rossi, he and his supporters will spin this as a great win (despite the fact that having an absolutely brilliant working device and having a slam dunk winning case, he walked away from $89 million), but I do think he will have a harder time finding serious money to invest in him and, as an added bonus, any serious investor will insist on true independent examination and verification before investing. As others have pointed out above, why did/would Rossi settle if his device really was a winner.


    As others have pointed out above, all of the evidence that was publicly disclosed, and which remains public and not subject to any confidentiality provisions, shows Rossi to be a serial fabulist and faker. He has been publicly shown to have created a fake company and to have faked invoices. That is public and I think it will be much more difficult for him to spin that to potential investors.


    I think another result of this whole shit-fest is that, along with it being much more difficult for Rossi to raise serious money, it will result in Rossi announcing bigger, better, greater and more astounding devices, inventions and discoveries, all of which will be incapable of being independently examined or verified (such failure of course will be the result of interference and manipulations by a nefarious anti-LENR and anti-Rossi cabal who are only interested in maintaining humanity's subjugation by the existing energy cartels and THE MAN and who are afraid of Rossi, his brilliance and his inventions).

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    I am sure that MikeD will also answer, but my take, as a non-scientist and non-engineer, is that the outcome of this trial, whatever that outcome may be, should have no effect on LENR and associated research. This trial is not about LENR, it is a simple contract dispute.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from Eric Walker

    @[email protected]'s account suspended for two weeks for incivility and being an all-around boor.

    Please do not suspend Kev. Although he has attacked me numerous times and IMHO is incapable of reasoning with, I do not think he should be suspended/banned. I am not a moderator and am fairly new to this forum, but absent direct threats, blatant ad hominem attacks, extreme foul language or something similar, I ask that you not ban Kev (or anyone else for that matter).

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Mike, Mike, silly Mike: Rules don't apply on Planet Kev (unless he likes it at that particular moment). Note to Ele - this is sarcasm.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    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?

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    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.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from oldguy

    WW do I understand your "Assuming the agreement has a legal fees provision, that means that IH is entitled to making Rossi pay for that portion of the legal fees relating to the defense of the principal complaint, on which, if the jury splits the baby, IH prevailed."

    correctly?.... that is:if Rossi looses one the primary case that Rossi might have to pay IH some of its legal fees? ( I assume that Day is the more expensive law group)

    That is what I meant.


    ETA: Yes, JD is likely to be more expensive. However, judges don't always grant the billing rate actually used. They may reduce based upon what they believe is reasonable considering the geographic area of the litigation, the complexity, etc.