There is a double jeopardy thing but I am not sure it extends to this kind of contract criminal case.
Double jeopardy doesn't apply to appeals in any type of case. I have little doubt that the losing side in this case (whoever it is) will appeal.
joshg
Member
- Member since Oct 11th 2014
- Last Activity:
Posts by joshg
-
-
An homage to Dewey Weaver, in memes:
How I imagine The Dewey as he swaggers into LENR Forum ready to kick ass and take names after knocking back one too many...
...and proceeds to deliver another one of his diatribes with messianic fervor:
lenr-forum.com/attachment/2139/
“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities and tyranny of Planet Rossi. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds LENR through the valley of the darkness, for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of excess heat. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy Tom Darden and Industrial Heat. And you will know I am The Dewey Weaver when I lay My vengeance upon you.”
And then he saunters off, too cool to even bother to look back and survey the devastation left in his wake.
God bless you, Dewey Weaver. Don't ever change!
-
If possible, I am requesting that one of the technical hots shots that frequent this site explain this paper from Rossi in language that is easily understandable.
Axil, you are the chief purveyor of mainstream gobbledygook. If you can't parse this, nobody can. But hey, at least now you know what the rest of us feel like reading your posts!
-
or more worst Dewey Weaver have to testify as witnesses
As long as Jones Day stacks the jury with Frank Zappa fans, they've got nothing to worry about.
-
A wee far fetched, but what the heck!
Are they really father and son?
-
Don't think anyone can argue with that? And the polite confidence trickster, or less polite scammer, seem decent summaries for such behaviour.
I am not arguing with that at all. Nor am I agreeing with it. It just seemed to me that somehow the idea caught on that "scammer" was the euphemism that Dewey was talking about. I don't think that's correct. I think he was saying that "confidence trickster" is a euphemism for scammer. I am not trying to defend or attack either position or criticize or support the use of one over the other. I am simply pointing out what seemed to me to be a misunderstanding that started to catch on. Could it possibly matter one way or another? No. But that can be said about most if not all of the chatter here.
-
Proper words are not intrinsically euphemisms. Scam is for example, a euphemism for criminal or civil fraud, because whereas scam covers acts ranging from mischievous to Madoff, criminal fraud has an exaclt definition. Euphemisms are by definition evasive and vague substitutes for proper descriptions, which 'fraudster' while being an Americanism, is not.
I don't think Dewey "Zappa" Weaver was saying that 'scam' is a euphemism. I think he was implying that your preferred alternative, "confidence trickster," is just a euphemism for scammer, which I suppose he prefers.
-
Is our Fulvio Fabiani an "analytical chemist"?
The chances that this is a different Fulvio Fabiani are slim in the extreme. Keep in mind that there is always a gap (often huge) between organizational charts and how organizations actually work on the ground. The fact that he was hired as a 'researcher' through the analytical chemistry wing of the chemistry dept. probably indicates that this is where they were able to find money to hire Fulvio. One presumes he is there to assist whatever ongoing research they are doing into LENR, rather than doing his own research. Universities are very bureaucratic, and I imagine Swedish universities are even more so. In this case, they may have had money allocated to hire a researcher, and that is the designation they gave him. Alternatively, they had to hire him as a researcher to satisfy the pay scale he demanded. Or, maybe he's not being paid and this is just a courtesy appointment. Hard to know, but I find any of these options more plausible than that this Fulvio is a different one. I also googled his name and the word 'chemistry' and didn't find anyone else with that name who has a career in chemistry. If there really was a chemistry researcher with that name, I think something else would have come up. It didn't.
The fact that he is listed in the analytical chemistry unit of the chemistry department actually makes some sense. Analytical chemistry is defined as "the science of obtaining, processing, and communicating information about the composition and structure of matter." So it makes sense that the physics guys would be working with an analytical chemist, and the fact that Fabio is listed there likely indicates that someone in that faculty has been enlisted to help the physics guys with their work. After looking through the research done in that unit, my money is on Per Sjoberg, who works with mass spectrometry. On the web page of his group it's written "Mass spectrometry (MS) is a powerful analytical technique and as MS separates and measure ions in the gas phase it is of great interest and importance to understand how the detected ions reflect the sample composition." Under research areas we find that they are interested in "fundamental understanding of ionization" and "characterization and detection of non-covalently bound metal-organic complexes, especially Palladium."
But regardless of the specific areas of research, it makes sense that they'd be working with someone who has a mass spectrometer in his lab.
EDIT: Clearly I didn't do my due diligence with this post. Clearly the most likely suspect for Fabiani's position is Roland Petterson (Lugano report co-author), as Andrea S. pointed out a couple of posts above.
-
If you want to ban astroturfers and shills how do you go about that?
I don't want to ban astroturfers and shills, and that's not at all what I suggested. I was talking about people who accuse others of being shills and astroturfers. The absurd thing about all this is I don't really care if people accuse others of being shills or astroturfers. It doesn't bother me. But apparently it rubs Eric Walker the wrong way, and he has banned people and threatened to ban them for making such accusations. But he does so in a biased way, and my suggestion was to try to take the bias out of it.
-
Eric Walker I read your thoughtful reply. And although I disagree with you on this issue, I do have respect for the work that you and Alan Smith and the other moderators do here. I can imagine it isn't easy.
-
Culottor?
CUL8R = "see you later"
-
You then make a further much bigger assumption linking this to the unlikely idea of astroturfing on our this little cranny of the internet.
I guess I just don't think this is such a big leap of logic. But to each their own.
-
The timing does not support the alternate story of them hiring APCO to manage law suit PR.
Why not? It is wholly compatible with that story, which is not an alternate one but simply means they used the PR company they had already maintained for ongoing PR purposes. It's not stretch by any means.
You are naive (in this instance) not for underestimating the importance of this forum but for underestimating the lengths companies will go to in order to manage their image.
-
It would be good to link this: context and timing in these references always matters.
Yeah, it would be good. IIRC it was an e-mail sent a day or two before the APCO-drafted press release. At any rate sometime between the end of the test and the issuing of said press release. Dewey Weaver would presumably know when IH hired APCO.
-
Here's a suggestion. You draft a policy, and I will put it to the team. No promises though.
OK, but I fully expect you to throw some of that ACMF payola my way...
-
That sort of paid engagement is about influencing mass opinion
Yes, it is often used for that reason. But not solely. Or are you some kind of authority on astroturfing?
IH does care about its reputation with potential professional VC investors, and also with the LENR scientists it has funded and continues to fund. I can't see this Forum being relevant to either set of people, can you?
You are basing your conclusions on a very restrictive set of assumptions. Yes, I do happen to think that IH cares about the views of the LENR enthusiast community, some of whom include people that IH might want to do business with. And don't forget there are many people lurking in the shadows. I think you'd be surprised by who is lurking on both LENR forum and ECW. I have pegged you in the past as hopelessly naive, and I see no hope for you on the horizon.
We do the best we can to allow debate and the presentation of different viewpoints without too much censorship. Not an easy job, and you may have noticed that Mods get it in the neck whatever they do - or don't do.
I know, and I hate to kvetch. I do think that at least on this issue you could establish a formal policy. I can't see how the quality of the debate will be negatively affected by disallowing people to accuse others of being shills, etc. And once you have a policy, then guess what? When you step in to enforce the policy, you can simply tell anybody who complains that there's nothing you can do about it, it's forum policy. You are no longer playing judge and jury, only executioner. People can then direct their anger or dissatisfaction at the policy rather than the person (although now perhaps I am the one being hopelessly naive). Now you've got a situation where there is no clear rule on this, so you open yourself to accusations of bias and favoritism. Anyway, that is my last word on this topic in this thread.
But don't forget that on the right at the top of every page is an alarm button - a warning triangle with a 'bang' in it. If there is some aspect of moderation you feel the team has overlooked then that is how you (or any forum member) can tell us about it.
Good reminder.
Meanwhile I must get back to carving my 40' high white marble statue of Andrea dressed as Hercules, smashing a grid transformer with a dogbone club. Only made possible by generous donations from the Alumina Ceramic Manufacturers Federation.
ROTFLMAO
-
Perhaps you'd like to expand on these good reasons?
If I knew what they were, I wouldn't have to wonder about them...
-
I don't think there's enough information to be forced into a negative interpretation yet. One possibility: Perlman Bajandas are just cleaning up loose ends after Annesser left, and "withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client".
Well somebody at LENR-forum apparently doesn't agree with you. Here is the (spam) e-mail I received:
QuoteHello {username},
today new court documents were released, where especially document 292 "Motion to withdraw" seems to indicate significant negative developments in Rossi's camp.
In document 292 most of Rossi's lawyers ask the court for permission to "withdraw from this case and from further representation of Plaintiffs, Andrea Rossi".Spamming a premature, tendentious, and likely inaccurate interpretation of this Motion just confirms that LENR-forum is biased against Rossi in favor of IH. There have been plenty of motions that could be viewed as a setback for IH, yet I was never spammed about that.
And yes, it is spam, since LENR-forum does not provide users with a way to opt-out of receiving such unsolicited notifications.
-
This Annesser is intricately involved in this story, and by that I mean not just as Rossi's defense attorney. He was involved before that.
IIRC, the bookkeeper/accountant for Leonardo (or was it JMC? or both?) was Ms. or Mrs. Annesser. I assume she is related to his lawyer. I guess he has surrounded himself with some true believers. One wonders if they have good reasons for their faith in him.
-
so us non-insider types agreeing with him, or not, should not be seen in this case as trying to out/dox Ahlfors.
Ahifors has had at least 1 warning and 1 post deleted by me.
I wasn't talking about Ahlfors or Dewey Weaver. I quoted Malcom Lear and Shane D. in my previous post.
Lately every time somebody dares to suggest that a poster here is working on behalf of IH or APCO, they are given a warning not to accuse people of being shills or having ulterior motives (even when they don't accuse anyone specifically). We are meant to pretend as if everyone here is simply driven to post out of personal interest or motive. Fair enough. But now when people started accusing or implying that people are posting as shills for Rossi: crickets. Such accusations are no problemo when aimed at Rossi. I was simply pointing out the unfair double standard.
Eric Walker says it's hard not to be biased. And I agree. But it isn't hard to simply introduce a rule, say, that anyone accusing another poster of being a shill will be given a warning. And for the next infraction a 2-week ban. And a permanent ban for the third infraction. That way moderating decisions and the forum debate isn't tilted in favor of the mods' biases. (Or at least is less tilted.)
Eric says the double standard makes sense to him, because he doesn't find it plausible that APCO would be astroturfing this forum on IH's behalf. My intuition is that Eric holds this position because he connects the APCO astroturf scenario to the "IH is trying to stall/kill LENR" conspiracy. But in fact, the APCO astroturf scenario makes sense even if you believe IH has the purest intentions and all the nice things that IH defenders say here about them is true. We know that businesses in general routinely hire people to promote their brands and engage in PR on-line. This practice of astroturfing is widespread, widely accepted, admitted and simply cannot be denied as a fact of life and routine modern day business practices.
As such, one would expect as a matter of course that, if Darden et al. are good businessmen who follow widely implemented and accepted business practices, that they too would hire people to try to protect their reputation in the face of this lawsuit (especially if they view the lawsuit as unjustified but likely to sully their reputations). Their pockets are certainly deep enough, and we know from their past that Cherokee has no problem hiring lobbyists to help their cause, as part of routine business practice. This is really no different.
We know from discovery that IH hired APCO to do their PR (this was in an e-mail from Darden or Vaughn to Woodford and others). It therefore follows that, if Darden et al. are making a reasonable effort to protect their reputations in the face of what they view as a frivolous but nevertheless embarrassing lawsuit, APCO is the most likely firm to be running the astroturfing PR operation. It's not conspiracy theory. It's S.O.P. in the business world.
My own bias says this scenario is actually more likely than the one where Rossi--who is notorious for not trusting people--asking (or paying) people to have a go at the forum on his behalf. But it doesn't really matter which scenario is more plausible. My point is that the mods' bias should not (and need not) affect how this issue is moderated, at least when it comes to people throwing about accusations of "shilliness."
