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

Posts by woodworker

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from oldguy

    He (WW) can post his information himself and has done so. Check the forum and try to stay up.


    However, you asking for such information from someone here is doxing and grounds to have you banded from the forum.


    Thanks, OG, but let me respond. Dear Kev: As I have previously posted, I am a semi-retired bum. I don't represent any firms or anyone else in the matter.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from [email protected]

    I regularly bet at PredictIt.org. I get great odds and I know I'll get paid. And I don't have lawyers putting words in my mouth that weren't there in the first place. With a bitch like you and how you talk, I should expect to get 25:1 odds. You willing?

    Quote from [email protected]

    I regularly bet at PredictIt.org. I get great odds and I know I'll get paid. And I don't have lawyers putting words in my mouth that weren't there in the first place. With a bitch like you and how you talk, I should expect to get 25:1 odds. You willing?


    You seem so confident and yet you want odds? To quote the orange haired shi*-gibbon in the White House, Sad. Sorry, straight even.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    I just thought of couple more questions for Rossi that Jones Day I am sure have in their binders:


    Isn't it correct that the agreement between you and the "independent" company provided that said company was supposed to pay you / your "independent company" $1000 per day for heat as long as the 1MW unit

    produces it (and a little less per day if a little less is produced)?


    How many payments were made?


    Where did the money from the payments go?


    You controlled this company, did it ever have the monies to pay approx $350,000 a year.


    Why did you fraudulently lead IH to believe that this company had the money to make such payments when you knew it did not?


    Question to be asked repeatedly: Were you lying then or are you lying now? Why should the jury believe you now when you admit to repeatedly lying before?

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from [email protected]

    And allow me to say that you show the level bullshit and meanspiritedness that I have come to expect from lawyers, affirming once again that y'all have such a lousy reputation.


    edit:

    And you completely missed that Penon gave his deposition, which a was significant oversight in your introduction to this group. How's that for grasping legal issues, lawyer man? By all means, publish again the Law Firm you represent so we can all know who to avoid if we need legal assistance.


    Well, in just a few weeks we will all be able to evaluate the accuracy of our legal predictions. I am a betting man, are you? I will be happy to send a $10,000 (US Dollars) cashier's check to the administrator of this site, by delivery this Friday, betting that IH wins on the principal complaint (as I have previously said, I have no predictions on the counter-claim). Are you willing to match? Winner take all? Also, any other takes, IHFB, et al? I will happily consider upping the ante. All bets to be in by close of business next Monday (June 25, 2017).

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from [email protected]

    This is the case where you cannot verify. In such a case the legal approach is to accept at first pass the face value of what is said by both sides and see which side fits the facts better.


    On second pass it becomes a matter of liar's dice, who can lie better without getting caught. When one side lies and the other side tells the truth, the lying side almost always wins. When both sides lie it gets ugly, which is where this legal case is going.

    I must say that I truly admire your grasp of legal concepts, legal procedure, legal transactional issues, etc. In case it is not clear, that was sarcasm.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]


    Thanks, I had already downloaded, but only a partial transcript and doesn't identify appearances by counsel.


    I did note that depo was taken in Dominican Republic. Dominican Republic is not a party to either of the two international service of process treaties, so formal service requires Letters Rogatory, which are a PITA and ain't cheap. So IH didn't serve Penon, Penon was dismissed, depo was taken of country. Very interesting.


    FYI: "USC Title 22 Foreign Relations, Chapter I Department of State, Sec 92.54.
    Letters Rogatory through diplomatic channels are mandated for formal
    service in all countries that are not parties to an international
    process treaty. Documents must be sent through diplomatic channels
    adhering to strict formal diplomatic protocol. The lengthy and expensive
    procedures are not to be confused with the procedures of The Inter
    American Treaty on Letters Rogatory, which does not go through the
    diplomatic channel, even though these methods of service share a
    confusingly similar name."

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from [email protected]

    Is not Penon's "unavailability" central to your case? That is what you led with.


    No, the unavailability of Penon is not central to my opinions. It is the fraud perpetrated by Rossi re fake company, fake documents.


    Imagine if you will the examination of Rossi by Jones Day (or a portion thereof):


    JD: Isn't it correct that you pushed IH to move the test to Florida, stating that there was a company that wanted to use the heat produced and that such a demonstration would be a huge commercial boost (or words to that effect)?


    JD: Isn't it correct that your lawyer expressly and explicitly stated to IH that neither he nor you had any interest in, control over or involvement in that company?


    JD: Isn't it correct that your lawyer formed that company (IIRC) and that you controlled that company?


    JD: So you lied to IH?


    JD: If it wasn't a lie, what do you call it?


    JD: Why did you lie to IH?


    JD: Did this "independent" company use the heat allegedly produced by your device? What, you don't know what they used the heat allegedly produced? How can that be, you control that company?


    JD: What product was this "independent" company manufacturing? What, you don't know what product they were allegedly making? How can that be, you control that company?


    JD: Please explain these invoices to us. Please explain these emails to us asking one of your confederates (objection, yada yada yada) to make up these invoices.


    JD: Were the products/materials listed in these invoices ever actually ordered from third parties? What, no, are you saying that you don't know/don't remember?


    JD: Please explain your relationship to the named CEO of this "independent" company?


    Please note that none of these are technical/scientific/engineering questions that could be construed to or are likely to confuse a jury. These are questions that a jury will easily understand. These questions are intended to and will make the jury think: Did you lie, why did you lie and, once you are proven to be a liar, why should we, the jury, believe you now?


    I am sure that Jones Day has binders and binders of such and similar questions for Rossi and all of his potential witnesses.


    Also, if anyone has the information handy, when and where was Penon deposed, who took his deposition and do we have a copy? Thanks in advance.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Re: Penon/testimony: I have further refreshed my recollection. IIRC, Penon was originally a cross-defendant, but was dismissed because he was out of the country and unavailable to serve. Interesting to see how court will address issue of service declining defendant showing up to testify (and thereby making himself subject to service by IH). As to whether or not he could make some sort of special appearance, thereby not waving jurisdiction for service - not going to work. He shows up, he is available for service.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from [email protected]

    The typical legal approach is to take things on face value. Rossi has 3 independent reports attesting to his technology, a bunch of swedish scientists who black box tested it, a book written about the technological development, thousands of hours of LENR anomalies to parallel his technology, a few highly regarded scientists who attest that there's something there.


    On the negative side, Rossi is his own worst enemy and you can't trust what he says.


    A am pro-LENR. I have not yet decided if Rossi is forwarding LENR or just an amazing con artist, the best con artist I have ever seen operate. If he really does have a LENR box then I hope he wins this case. If he's a con artist I hope he loses big time. My exposure to the legal system lends me to believe that we will not know further one way or the other (edit: about Rossi's motives) when this trial is over.


    "The typical legal approach is to take things on face value." Really, as a lawyer, I question everything that is said, especially those things said by my clients. I truly despise Ronald Reagan, but I agree with the line "trust, but verify."

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]


    My apologies: I had thought that I read somewhere that Mr. Penon had made himself unavailable. I look forward to his testimony (if he does appear).


    Any other questions to which I have been "evasive?"


    Further to above: I found at least one citation leading me to believe that Penon had made himself unavailable:


    "Penon - not a third party - key figure - vanished to a country where he cannot even be subpoenaed" posted by THHuxleyNew on May 14, 2017. I have multiple recollections on seeing the same information posted elsewhere. More "evasions" please.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]


    I used to do cabinetry and furniture, mostly hardwood mission style, settles, cabinets, coffee tables, end tables, beds, things like that. I started using "woodworker" when I did more of that. Now I mostly relax, read and play with the cats.


    As to those persons who say I haven't answered a particular question, please repeat and I will try to respond promptly. As to my comment that I wasn't going to read the documents relating to the counter-claim, I explicitly explained why and also noted that I wasn't making any predictions on the outcome of the claim BECAUSE I hadn't read and didn't plan on reading the related materials.

  • Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Fred Flintstone? Sorry, I grew up primarily without a television and missed out on many things most people take for granted. It was a big deal going to my grandmother's house because I could then watch Gunsmoke.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from [email protected]

    Objection: Non responsive. I repeat the first question which you did not answer.


    Let's say that you've got such a fancy-dancy lawnmower that you both hire an agreed third party person to write the report on whether the lawn was mowed. The 3rd party writes a favorable ERV report saying he thinks the lawn was mowed. How is the jury going to process that fact?


    Does the 3rd party show up to authenticate and to support the report. A commenter above said that sometimes court will allow video testimony rather than requiring a witness to travel across the country. This is not the case with Penon - he has made himself unavailable, not just inconvenient to reach. Secondly, the report itself can be attacked. We agree to hire someone to evaluate if the lawn was mowed, but if I impeach the credibility of the 3rd party and I show that important aspects of his report re the lawn are false/faked, the report is doo-doo (a legal term for shit). For example, if I can prove that not only did the 3rd party not inspect the lawn, but that he was out of town or in a coma the entire time and that no one else took pictures of the lawn, his report is problematic.

    Quote from [email protected]

    None of those things have direct bearing on a breach of contract case. If they do, then one side or the other can bring it up in court.


    they go to his credibility and could possibly be introduced to show that he is a fabulist. Not saying that they would be admissible. Generally, the test the court will apply, regardless of how it is characterized, is whether the proposed testimony's probative value outweighs its prejudicial value. If the court thinks so, it could let it in. If not, not admissible. This is in the court's discretion.


    Someone asked me somewhere my thoughts on IH's fraud counter-claim for the $10.5 million. I haven't really paid that much attention to the counter-claim and certainly have not read, in detail, either the counter-claim or any of the supporting documents. Having said that, a few thoughts:


    (1) Just as Rossi has the burden of proof on the main complaint (the $89 million), IH has the burden of proof to prove that Rossi defrauded them on the first payment.


    (2) As I haven't paid that much attention to the initial test, and don't intend to read all the documents relating thereto, help me out here on some factual background.


    (a) Are any of the experts/professors who observed/approved/wrote the report on the first test signed up to testify at trial on Rossi's behalf?

    (b) Has that report been withdrawn, is it still being supported by the authors or is it on life support?

    (c) Is there a consensus in the scientific community (yes, I know, a silly question) on the initial report?


    (3) Juries have been known to split the baby. Assuming that they say no to Rossi on his complaint, they may say that IH hasn't satisfied its burden of proof on the counter-claim, say a pox on everyone and say no to IH on the counter-claim.


    (4) If the initial report experts have withdrawn or qualified their opinions or the report, that obviously helps IH. Ditto if none of them are willing to testify on Rossi's behalf or if they decide not to honor a subpoena from IH.


    (5) Having said that, I think, and this is a little bit of a stretch, that IH's best hope may be the fake company, fake invoices, etc. relating to the principal complaint. Those things go primarily to his credibility and, although absent a TARDIS or other time machine, generally later occurring events such as these would not be relevant to whether or not Rossi defrauded IH on the initial test. However, Jones Day could make the argument that the fraud relating to the $89 million claim was part and parcel of a larger fraud that commenced before IH made the initial payment and continued thereafter. The jury doesn't have to explain the factual basis on which they decide whether or not Rossi acted fraudulently, and based on the fake company, etc. the jury may decide that Rossi is irredeemably dirty and find against Rossi on the IH counter-claim. No predictions here as I have said I have not paid that much attention to that issue (although personally I think Rossi acted fraudulently there and rigged the tests).


    Numerous people have asked about settlement? I can see why Rossi would want to settle, but why would IH. There are really only two possible reasons I see for IH to settle: First, Rossi gives them back their money along with more money for their legal fees or second, Rossi somehow comes up with proof, real proof verified by IH's experts, that his machines work.


    Rossi would probably agree to the first scenario, but does he have the cash? In the second scenario, he really really proves his machines work, they settle, do the happy dance and save the world. I would be happy with that result but I just don't see it happening with the current facts.

  • Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Quick comment, then I need to eat dead animal. I don't comment on ANY of the science, technology, etc. re: the issues involved here. I don't because (1) I am not a scientist or engineer, (2) I have not studied or familiarized myself with the science or engineering, and, most importantly (3) I don't understand most of it and won't pretend to. But IMHO it won't make a difference to the outcome of the litigation. I think that Rossi's proven fraudulent behavior, e.g., fake company, fake invoices, will doom his case. Just MHO.


    I have a question for those who don't believe I am who I say I am. Will sending a copy of my bar card to a site administrator satisfy you? Happy to do so.

  • Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Quote from maryyugo

    That was Rossi writing to Rossi or in other words sh*t writing to sh*t. Rossi is such a flaming prevaricator! And why would anyone care what Rossi thinks about the commentary regarding his moronic case?


    Woodworker's real identity is a non-issue. Read what he/she wrote. Evaluate it on its own merits. If it's wrong, simply say why.


    For what it's worth, I have several attorneys in the family and as friends and I know how they talk. Woodworker writes like they talk. I don't know if Woodworker is an attorney but for sure, this person is familiar with legal matters.


    "Woodworker writes like they talk." Thanks (I think). Re that issue, writing/talking like a lawyer. As I previously mentioned, I started at O'Melveny & Myers. While working as a summer associate there after my second year of law school, I wrote a memo (four or five pages) for a fairly senior partner, and revised, and revised and revised and revised, etc., etc., all before giving it to her the first time (funny note: some of you may know that summer associate programs at big firms are big on entertainment, parties, etc. I was in my office on a Friday afternoon, revising, when a fairly new partner stopped by and asked me why I wasn't out partying already. I told him I was revising. He said, "get out of here" and then asked, who is is for?" I told him the partner's name and he said "keep on revising.") After 15 drafts (I shit you not), I gave it to the partner and got it back a day later. It looked as if someone had used an entire box of red pens on - the first comment on the first line was that I had used a split infinitive (I had to look up the rules when revising again). Her last comment, after commenting on just about every line, was that it was a pretty good memo for a summer associate.


    You want to know why legal bills at these firms are so high: because we would spend a hour crafting a two sentence cover letter to a client, which would then be reviewed by a more senior associate and possibly a partner. A $1,500 cover letter was not unusual.


    As to talking like a lawyer: you want to be very clear when you are giving a client advice. You don't want any ambiguity that can come back and bite you in the ass. You may very well want ambiguity when talking to the other side, but you still pick your words very carefully.

  • Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Quote from Alan Smith

    bang99

    Points 1 & 2 are not (necessarily) conflicting at all. With improved grammar they say:-


    1. This persons (self proclaimed) identity is not that of a practising litigation attorney. (May or may not be true).

    2. This persons (self proclaimed) identity is not his real identity. (May or may not be true).


    I am no longer practicing. I believe I said in my brief bio that I am a semi-retired bum now. If I didn't, well now I did.

  • Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion


    I have never watched any Perry Meson shows, however I spent my first year of law school at McGeorge School of Law (I ended up first in my class the first year and transferred to Boalt Hall School of Law at UC Berkeley) where the Dean was a big friend of Raymond Burr, the actor who played Perry Mason. As to your citation to the "ATTORNEY ETHICS & SOCIAL MEDIA" if you actually read it you would have noticed that it addresses the following principal areas:


    1. Giving Legal Advice Outside Your Jurisdiction: I am not doing that, I am merely opining.

    2. Forming Attorney-Client Relationships: Again, not happening.

    3. Advertising and Solicitation: Nope.

    4. Using Social Media in Litigation: As I am not involved in these matters, not an issue.

    5. Revealing Information: I only have what is publicly disclosed and I have NO access to private, confidential or privileged information. So not an issue.

    6. Responsibility for Employees: Unless we count my cats I have no employees.


    So ELE, I guess this means we won't be exchanging Christmas cards this year (well, I celebrate Hanukah anyhow). As to my being who I am, any administrator of this site is welcome to confirm that.

  • Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion


    Joanne:


    Sorry to burst your bubble, but I am real. My name is Howard Michael Appel and yes, you have discovered that the address, 1100 Broadway, Suite 5752, Redwood City, Cal. is the post office box I maintain as my address with the California State Bar (I also use it as the address for my Cal. driver's license). I have practiced for over 25 years and the brief bio I posted is accurate. If you think that I have lied, please feel free to file a complaint with the California State Bar. Their toll free number is 800-843-9053 and here is a handy link: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Publi…s/How-to-File-A-Complaint. I just started posting on this site recently, but I have posted on The Fogbow for a number of years and have met in person with quite a number of other members who are also Cal. lawyers. If the administrator of this site wishes to confirm my identity they have my permission to contact The Fogbow administrator who will confirm who I am and that the ISP/address I am using are mine.


    As to your comment that no serious lawyer would discuss litigation in which they are not involved, you haven't a clue. Lawyers don't discuss litigation in which they are involved, but we love to discuss, criticize, praise, comment, play pundit, etc. on cases where we are not involved. After all, we don't have anything to lose in such cases. And I guess all of the legal blogs, as well as all the legal journals, never discuss active cases. Take a look at SCOTUSBLOG, which discusses pending SCOTUS cases (for non-lawyers, non Americans, SCOTUS is Supreme Court of the United States), or http://volokh.com.


    But please, feel free to call Rossi's attention to me. I would love to hear from him about how he is mistreated.


    Also, I have made it clear that what I post are my opinions, based on what I have read on these sites and in the publicly filed documents. I have no inside information and as I made perfectly clear to IHFB, I am not a shill for anyone here, I have no dog in this fight, I am not affiliated with and, to the best of my knowledge, do not know any of the players involved here. You however, are a cowardly, pusillanimous, recreant, spineless, milk-livered poltroon (just in case, here is a link to the online Oxford Dictionary definition - https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/poltroon).


    Please enjoy the rest of your day.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from [email protected]

    Objection: Non responsive. I repeat the first question which you did not answer.


    Let's say that you've got such a fancy-dancy lawnmower that you both hire an agreed third party person to write the report on whether the lawn was mowed. The 3rd party writes a favorable ERV report saying he thinks the lawn was mowed. How is the jury going to process that fact?


    Does the 3rd party show up to authenticate and to support the report. A commenter above said that sometimes court will allow video testimony rather than requiring a witness to travel across the country. This is not the case with Penon - he has made himself unavailable, not just inconvenient to reach. Secondly, the report itself can be attacked. We agree to hire someone to evaluate if the lawn was mowed, but if I impeach the credibility of the 3rd party and I show that important aspects of his report re the lawn are false/faked, the report is doo-doo (a legal term for shit). For example, if I can prove that not only did the 3rd party not inspect the lawn, but that he was out of town or in a coma the entire time and that no one else took pictures of the lawn, his report is problematic.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]


    I apologize if you took my comments to diminish or denigrate the amount of good that such monies good accomplish. As an extreme liberal, I wish we spent more money on useful things as opposed to oil production subsidies and weapons. My point was simply that in the grand scheme of litigation, what is being spent here, even if up to $5 million already, is not that much. Fresh out of law school I worked on the Exxon Valdez litigation (on the Exxon Shipping side). We probably spent $2-3 million every month or so.