Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 7767
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Mikedunford » Fri Jun 16, 2017 4:44 pm

Having skimmed a couple of the summary judgment motions, I feel very sorry for the judge and her law clerks. And that's all I'm gonna have to say about that.
1 Cranch 137, 177

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8129
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Notorial Dissent » Fri Jun 16, 2017 4:56 pm

Like I said, I think this is going to be UGLY and EXPENSIVE, and truth be told probably pointless.

A lot though will depend on what the lawyers do. I've seen lawyers go in to court with what should have been a really good easy case and lose it from the start and go down in flames. The opposition didn't win the case they lost it.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Abd
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:37 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Abd » Fri Jun 16, 2017 5:51 pm

Mikedunford wrote:Having skimmed a couple of the summary judgment motions, I feel very sorry for the judge and her law clerks. And that's all I'm gonna have to say about that.
Yeah, I understand. I went over the principal MSJs, linking all the evidences for fast review. It took me many, many hours. Judge Altonaga obviously didn't do it, didn't review the evidence and arguments, but assumed that because the parties did not formally agree -- but formally disputed, in some cases, obvious fact -- she could not rule, which was a very poor understanding, in my opinion, of the standards for Summary Judgment. She also obviously did not delegate that review to a clerk or clerks. Naturally, I didn't expect that they would use the reference documents I prepared (because, for my purposes, I commented as I prepared them), but those existed -- or could have existed -- in rigorously neutral form, where they simply collated the arguments and linked to the cited case documents (including specific PDF pages). Quoting from her dismissal:
The parties’ voluminous, competing briefing and submissions plainly show the record is brimming over with disputed issues of material fact. Indeed, the Court is hard-pressed to locate any material facts on which the parties agree. Disputed factual issues are for the jury to determine.
Her standard would not allow any motion for summary judgment if a party simply claims the alleged fact is "disputed," even if there is no evidence presented other than a pleading of "disputed." IH frequently stated a fact, and Rossi then "disputed" it, but the dispute did not show any evidence contradicting the fact, rather it typically presented arguments about the significance, not the fact. In order to know that, it would have been necessary for the judge, or a clerk working for her, to actually review all the presented citations. She punted, took the lazy way out, making for a poor decision. In fact, at least one of the facts alleged on one of the issues where summary judgment was requested the parties actually did end up agreeing on the crucial fact. But Altonaga did not actually rule on the arguments and alleged facts presented, she ignored them, which is more or less an insult to the attorneys, all of them, and to the public, which expects judges to ... judge! Not just throw everything up. She had done better with the multiple Motions to Dismiss, actually considering arguments, but Summary Judgment is a step more complicated.

All case documents are indexed and linked on http://coldfusioncommunity.net/rossi-v- ... ase-files/

The Altonaga Order dismissing all MSJs is D.E. 302.

Summary documents can be found linked at http://coldfusioncommunity.net/rossi-v- ... s/#Neutral

Notice especially, for the purpose of this particular post, the study of D.E. 207, which merges that with Rossi Opposition and 3rd Party Opposition. I did not get to the point of including the IH Reply. This has my comments, which I eventually plan to move to a separate page to make it rigorously neutral, though that is not a priority at this time because it's all moot -- except for review -- and I'm going to Miami for the trial.

There would have been a trial in any case, because not all issues could be resolved properly with Summary Judgment, though, my opinion, the basic original Complaint could have been totally dismissed -- and it almost was on the original dismissal motion, with the basis for possible dismissal actually being confirmed in discovery -- so what changed? Obviously: Altonaga became frustrated.

neeneko
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by neeneko » Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:32 pm

Abd wrote:The whole IH approach makes no sense if one imagines anything other than "give Rossi whatever he wants so that he reveals all necessary secrets." They appear to have done that, for some years, at high cost, with their reward being that Rossi sued them for fraud. Lovely.
One guess I have seen is that IH's objective was to sell their connection to Rossi to investors, with the money going to a parent company. So the were leasing Rossi's scam to do the same to others, and he wants a cut.

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 18879
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by TollandRCR » Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:51 pm

The stars learned long ago how to do a great job of nuclear fusion. For the time being I am happy to let them do their thing and let us capture solar power in the wind, the water, and the rays themselves.
“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 7767
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Mikedunford » Sat Jun 17, 2017 3:30 am

Abd wrote:
Mikedunford wrote:Having skimmed a couple of the summary judgment motions, I feel very sorry for the judge and her law clerks. And that's all I'm gonna have to say about that.
Yeah, I understand. I went over the principal MSJs, linking all the evidences for fast review. It took me many, many hours. Judge Altonaga obviously didn't do it, didn't review the evidence and arguments, but assumed that because the parties did not formally agree -- but formally disputed, in some cases, obvious fact -- she could not rule, which was a very poor understanding, in my opinion, of the standards for Summary Judgment. She also obviously did not delegate that review to a clerk or clerks. Naturally, I didn't expect that they would use the reference documents I prepared (because, for my purposes, I commented as I prepared them), but those existed -- or could have existed -- in rigorously neutral form, where they simply collated the arguments and linked to the cited case documents (including specific PDF pages). Quoting from her dismissal:
The parties’ voluminous, competing briefing and submissions plainly show the record is brimming over with disputed issues of material fact. Indeed, the Court is hard-pressed to locate any material facts on which the parties agree. Disputed factual issues are for the jury to determine.
Her standard would not allow any motion for summary judgment if a party simply claims the alleged fact is "disputed," even if there is no evidence presented other than a pleading of "disputed." IH frequently stated a fact, and Rossi then "disputed" it, but the dispute did not show any evidence contradicting the fact, rather it typically presented arguments about the significance, not the fact. In order to know that, it would have been necessary for the judge, or a clerk working for her, to actually review all the presented citations. She punted, took the lazy way out, making for a poor decision. In fact, at least one of the facts alleged on one of the issues where summary judgment was requested the parties actually did end up agreeing on the crucial fact. But Altonaga did not actually rule on the arguments and alleged facts presented, she ignored them, which is more or less an insult to the attorneys, all of them, and to the public, which expects judges to ... judge! Not just throw everything up. She had done better with the multiple Motions to Dismiss, actually considering arguments, but Summary Judgment is a step more complicated.
In some ways, summary judgment is actually a step less complicated than dismissal. Summary judgment is supposed to be the exception, not the norm, so the burden is high. The burden to persuade the court that summary judgment is appropriate rests with the moving party,1 the evidence has to be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. In order to receive summary judgment, a defendant must basically show that there is no evidence to support one or more of the elements that the plaintiff must prove. A plaintiff must show that there is absolutely no basis to contest any required element and that there is no evidence to support any affirmative defense.2

What all of this means is that there's very little actual judging to be done at summary judgment.3 Most of the judging is pre-done by the legal standard for the motion. Very little weighing of evidence is done; the major test is to see whether evidence is present or not for each element of a claim. If there's any doubt over what a particular fact means, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the party not seeking summary judgment.

For example, IH can show that they were excused from further payments if Rossi substantially breached before they were required to pay. The 23.5 hour test relates to this point. The contract called for 24 hours of testing, the evidence clearly shows that the test ran 23.5 hours. There is no doubt that 23.5 is less than 24, so that's a breach. But that doesn't make it a substantial breach. Meanwhile, IH apparently failed to object to the discrepency when it happened, and (from what I read) subsequently made a further payment. Viewed in the light most favorable to Rossi, that says that IH did not consider the difference to be a substantial breach, because they didn't immediately terminate or seek a retest. So that's not enough to get IH summary judgment on that claim; there is material doubt as to whether the half-hour difference represents a substantial breach of the contract.


1: Even if the other side has the burden at trial.
2: It's a lot harder for a plaintiff to win on summary judgment.
3: I agree that the 4-page blanket denial was a bit of a slap at the lawyers; I'm not sure it was an unwarranted one. The motion I read (the Int'l Heat one) was very hard to get through and did not do a great job (IMO) of clearly setting out the basis for summary judgment.
1 Cranch 137, 177

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 4755
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Sam the Centipede » Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:23 am

Mike's explanation is, as always, clear and helpful. To this non-lawyer, it seems that if a court has received long non-frivolous motions for summary dismissal from both sides, that surely is prima facie evidence that a full hearing is required. It in itself demonstrates that there is an unresolved dispute about material facts.

Of course the judge (or his clerks) didn't plough through the full set of documents trying to untangle the issues and facts: that's the purpose of a hearing, surely?

And, whatever Abd might believe about the impartiality of his work, it would be absolutely improper for the court to use his writings in a case: it is a clear principle that courts judge only on the evidence and arguments presented to them by the parties in the case (I'm sure Mike could describe the exceptions, but that's the principle). If Abd wants his work used, then he needs to either join with one of the parties or get himself appointed as an amicus curiae (friend of the court). The court does not recognize the status of quidam persona in interrete!

Abd
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:37 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Abd » Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:17 pm

Sam the Centipede wrote:Mike's explanation is, as always, clear and helpful. To this non-lawyer, it seems that if a court has received long non-frivolous motions for summary dismissal from both sides, that surely is prima facie evidence that a full hearing is required. It in itself demonstrates that there is an unresolved dispute about material facts.
The length of pleadings -- which were strictly limited by the Court, by the way, below requested length, this is a very complex case -- is irrelevant to whether or not there is a necessary unresolved issue about material facts. The purpose of the SOMF provided by the moving parties was to establish material fact. Any party may then dispute this, but simply raising a dispute, waving alleged related evidence, does not establish an actual dispute. Darden in numerous places stated facts which are clearly established in the record with no contrary evidence. Rossi "disputed" them, citing evidence that in some cases actually confirmed the stated fact, or that was not related to the fact itself but to how that fact might look, say, to a jury.

Now, suppose I'm wrong on that. One would know the truth by actually examining the pleadings and the cited evidence. Each element in the motions for summary judgment would be, in theory, independent from the others. All elements might be defective in some way except for one, say. The one that is not defective, one would think, if it were properly pled, would be granted and the others dismissed. In the original Motions for Dismissal, Judge Altonaga rather carefully went over each claim, ending up dismissing four out of eight counts of the Complaint. In order to keep some elements of the Complaint, Altonaga relied (properly) on Rossi allegations that were very much counterfactual, as later evidence showed. As an example, a basis for keeping Cherokee Investment Partners as a defendant was a claim, implied by Rossi, that Cherokee Investment Partners was the sole owner of Industrial Heat. She also noticed that the Second Amendment that Rossi relied on for the crucial Count I, as if it were plainly valid, required the testing of a "Six Cylinder Unit," and she speculated that this was just another name for "E-Cat." That was not true, but she was merely protecting the rights of the plaintiff as to a Motion to Dismiss, and that Amendment had failed to be ratified, was "cancelled," as Rossi wrote complaining to Ampenergo about their refusal to sign it. The Amendment was missing signatures and a date and referred to an obsolete idea about the Guaranteed Performance Test because it was moot, never completed and signed by all parties, as explicitly required.

In fact, the Complaint was extensively defective on its face, and that four counts out of eight were dismissed quickly was a clue to what was going on here. The others were kept, more or less, just in case Discovery might validate the claims. Rossi did not claim estoppel on the alleged Second Amendment agreement because it would have called attention to the defect, I assume. The Judge inferred estoppel to keep the claim in the MTD, which was a bit shaky, but within reason.
Of course the judge (or his clerks) didn't plough through the full set of documents trying to untangle the issues and facts: that's the purpose of a hearing, surely?
I was a bit surprised that there was no hearing, where the Judge could have asked the parties to clarify their motions. Instead, it now appears that she and a jury (and the parties and me) will be sitting in Court listening to all this crap for a month.

This is what was needed: for someone to create a document that put together the pleadings and linked to all the cited documents, so that one can read, first of all, a statement of material fact and establish whether or not there is admissible evidence supporting it, then, if the alleged fact is disputed, if there is admissible evidence supporting the dispute as negating the fact. Then, as to each element of the motion for summary judgment, it would be based on uncontradicted evidence, and saying "Disputed" does not contradict evidence. At that point, with that asserted evidence (all attested under oath), a legal judgment could be made. For example, the License Agreement was signed in 2012, was between Rossi, IH, and Ampenergo, and contained a standard integration clause that it replaced oral representations. Rossi alleges that Darden and Vaughn told him that Cherokee Limited Partners was the owner of Industrial Heat and would guarantee payment, inducing him to sign the Agreement. The Agreement does not mention Cherokee. I'm not going to detail the law here, but this is the question that the Judge would properly face: can a corporation be found liable for failure to perform on an agreement that was never signed on the corporation's behalf by an authorized officer, where the corporation did not actually engage with the plaintiff, where another corporation, formed for the purpose, was the clear signing party, where the Agreement explicitly denied reliance on any oral or other prior representations, merely because of allegations, years later, that the officers of the corporation made incorrect (or fraudulent) representations? And further, where the plaintiff had at least a year in which to reconsider, refund the $1.5 million payment, and withdraw from the Agreement?

There is no issue for a jury there, because the matter which is in doubt (the alleged representations), because of conflict of testimony, is not relevant. There are plain facts, not actually in dispute, which would support Summary Judgment on that particular point.
And, whatever Abd might believe about the impartiality of his work, it would be absolutely improper for the court to use his writings in a case: it is a clear principle that courts judge only on the evidence and arguments presented to them by the parties in the case (I'm sure Mike could describe the exceptions, but that's the principle).
I agree, and said so, and I have not claimed impartiality for some of my work. Some is carefully impartial, such as the Docket page linked. That page is not biased opinion, but is only an effort to make the raw docket accessible to anyone interested. There are, then, at the bottom, a few links to discussion and study pages, and discussion and study will evince opinions. So that is separated. The Docket page has been praised by a strong supporter of Rossi, whose opinions are very different from mine as to the significance of it all.

I've pointed to a document studying the IH MSJ SOMF which includes, at this point, my opinions, which would be totally inappropriate for the Court to look at. However, that is easily converted to a document which is simply a copy of the pleadings with links added to the pleadings, which can take a lengthy and tedious process of rummaging through a vast pile of documents, and reduce it to a simple point-by-point rapid examination. Now, imagine such a document. I cannot fathom an attempt to understand the pleadings without creating one. The vast-pile-of-paper approach which may, for all I know, be standard practice, is ancient and highly inefficient.

I created study documents for myself, not for the Court. Had I not done this, my opinions about the case would be shallow, casual, and highly influenced by prior notions. However, anyone could take a basic study document (not including opinions and assessments, only the raw pleadings on each alleged fact and links to the evidencing case documents) and copy it, verifying that the links are correct -- or correcting any errors. I would assume that this kind of task would be done by a clerk. If they used an existing document, and it would not matter where it comes from, since the resulting copied document would be verified by the presumably neutral clerk, so the Judge could have been presented with the material needed to make short work of the legal assessment needed. It appears, however, that no such process occurred, either by the Judge or by a clerk. A party could have submitted such a document, perhaps. Certainly it would be incredibly more informative if actual pleadings could contain those evidentiary links.

It is as if hypertext was never invented, something like thirty years after it was.
If Abd wants his work used, then he needs to either join with one of the parties or get himself appointed as an amicus curiae (friend of the court). The court does not recognize the status of quidam persona in interrete!
Of course they don't. I suggest using my work, not to the Court, but for anyone interested in understanding the case. It will take time. This is a very complex case, confused by smoke screens and misrepresentations, for years.

I will create that raw, unadorned document, it's not a lot of work to excise the comments (In writing, I was interested in saving my own time, because I wanted to comment -- my blog, after all -- and doing it with a separate document would have been more work). To read this document and verify it can be done far more quickly than to compile it in the first place. The parties, or some of them, at least, are aware of my work, and they could use it for their own purposes, if they wish, but I'm independent, and have received no support from any party. I'm going to Miami, funded not by any party, but by the interested public.

Abd
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:37 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Abd » Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:49 pm

Mikedunford wrote:In some ways, summary judgment is actually a step less complicated than dismissal. Summary judgment is supposed to be the exception, not the norm, so the burden is high. The burden to persuade the court that summary judgment is appropriate rests with the moving party,1 the evidence has to be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. In order to receive summary judgment, a defendant must basically show that there is no evidence to support one or more of the elements that the plaintiff must prove. A plaintiff must show that there is absolutely no basis to contest any required element and that there is no evidence to support any affirmative defense.2
Yes. Clear. The term "absolutely" is a bit strong, that is all. "No basis" is more accurate. When a required element is asserted, and supported by admissible evidence, such as sworn testimony or attested and uncontested documents, there is a basis for the element, and this does not become contested merely through a pleading (pleadings can lie with relative impunity and are often conclusory, not evidentiary), but through other admissible evidence that is shown in the opposition, that requires, then, a factual decision resolving a conflict of testimony or implications.
What all of this means is that there's very little actual judging to be done at summary judgment.3 Most of the judging is pre-done by the legal standard for the motion. Very little weighing of evidence is done; the major test is to see whether evidence is present or not for each element of a claim. If there's any doubt over what a particular fact means, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the party not seeking summary judgment.
This, again, is correct. However, what the fact "means" is not relevant to the fact, if the "meaning" is not an element in the legal analysis that a set of facts leads to a clear legal conclusion. In this case, no actual examination of fact took place, and no attempt to apply the law to the arguments presented based on the facts. I do not know if it is anything other than moot at this point, but the Order on Motions for Summary Judgment was blatantly defective, shockingly so. I was, frankly, expecting more, much more, from Altonaga.

It appears that she ruled based on an emotional reaction to the highly disputatious attorneys, and I'd say that she is seeing a case where the root of it is literal insanity, where normal "reasonable" behavior is absent, from the Rossi side. She is probably seeing perjured evidence, there is, to me, a clear basis for it in a few instances (and, in the other direction, Rossi has alleged perjury, in a note). I doubt that Altonaga has ever seen a case like this, normally attorneys will filter this out. I'm not sure at all that Jones Day has fully taken on this, but operated on a more normal expectation of sane behavior. To the Judge, not yet fully familiar with the facts of the case, it looks like a set of parties who won't agree on anything, and she really doesn't like that. Nor would anyone!
For example, IH can show that they were excused from further payments if Rossi substantially breached before they were required to pay. The 23.5 hour test relates to this point. The contract called for 24 hours of testing, the evidence clearly shows that the test ran 23.5 hours. There is no doubt that 23.5 is less than 24, so that's a breach. But that doesn't make it a substantial breach. Meanwhile, IH apparently failed to object to the discrepency when it happened, and (from what I read) subsequently made a further payment. Viewed in the light most favorable to Rossi, that says that IH did not consider the difference to be a substantial breach, because they didn't immediately terminate or seek a retest. So that's not enough to get IH summary judgment on that claim; there is material doubt as to whether the half-hour difference represents a substantial breach of the contract.
I find it sad that Industrial Heat included blatantly losing arguments in their Motion. This would be an example. There was a technical breach, to be sure, but it was obviously not substantial, and by accepting the test, IH would be estopped from claiming breach on that particular basis. They have a somewhat stronger possibility in the possible fraud involved in that Validation Test, which they might not know but only suspect, but that's a difficult claim that would obviously require a jury at this point.

Again, that Industrial Heat included useless arguments in their Motion, based on the too-common kitchen sink school of legal argument (employed by both sides in this case), that this was quite arguably unskillful, should not cause what was appropriately presented to be rejected. However, if they try this with the jury, they might lose. I doubt that they will. As has been pointed out by others, there is a basic case here that, if not confused with irrelevancies, cannot fail to convince a jury -- and should have been enough for Summary Judgment on at least some points. This is apparently to be a one-month trial, unless the parties settle, which is not expected. If Jones Day doesn't keep it crisp and clear, that would present an opening for Rossi to confuse the jury and create sympathy for his position, something that, as to public interactions for almost a decade, he's been remarkably skillful at, though there, he could largely select his audience (kicking out anyone showing a desire to validate or check claims). Here, he's facing a test that, in the past, in Italy, he lost, a neutral public jury. (or presumably neutral judges).
1: Even if the other side has the burden at trial.
2: It's a lot harder for a plaintiff to win on summary judgment.
3: I agree that the 4-page blanket denial was a bit of a slap at the lawyers; I'm not sure it was an unwarranted one. The motion I read (the Int'l Heat one) was very hard to get through and did not do a great job (IMO) of clearly setting out the basis for summary judgment.
The "Industrial Heat Motion" was a set of motions, actually, involving asserted uncontested facts and various legal arguments, of varying strength. I saw, from early on, failures of Jones Day to crisply and clearly present the strongest arguments. Nobody's perfect, and I don't have a clear personal sense of how unusual this was, only some history that lawyers often don't understand a case as well as someone who has spent extensive time studying it or who knows the background. This case confused everyone, probably including lawyers on both sides.

Abd
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:37 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Abd » Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:16 pm

tjh wrote:Woodford Dec 2016 Report

IH is about 2% of their $990M portfolio ... or $20M
That is probably a misreading of the report (which I find vague on the topic). Woodford actually invested, not in Industrial Heat, but in IH Holdings International, Ltd, which, in 2015, became the sole owner of Industrial Heat through a stock swap. Then Woodford invested $50 million US, exactly, using two trusts, buying preferred stock at about $45 per share. Their stock has far lower voting power than ordinary shares, per dollar invested, the latter having a par value of $0.01 per share. So control remained with the IH principals, and this was obviously designed that way. It is known from documents in the case that Woodford actually committed up to $200 million, in 2014, and there are highly misleading claims about this floating around, from the Rossi side, that IH told Woodford how spectacular the current test was, but, in fact, Woodford visited that Plant only at the onset of operation, in February, 2015, before any report, and was already planning to invest -- and also had committed enough funding to pay Rossi $89 million if he had earned it. (Part of Rossi's claim is that IH never intended to pay and never had the means to pay, only a vague alleged guarantee that Cherokee -- a $2.2 billion investment partnership -- would pay. Woodford also visited later, in August I think it was, after the IH-Rossi relationship had clearly broken down, due to Rossi refusing admittance to the Plant to Murray, the IH Engineering Manager. I assume that Woodford wanted to see this thing for themselves, because if IH was unreasonably objecting to Rossi, it could scotch a deal worth billions of dollars, at least. Rossi had said "no more visits by anyone not already approved," -- which was a completely arbitrary breach of the Term Sheet setting up that test -- but ... the Woodford reps had already been approved.

There is no sign of Woodford disapproval of IH actions in this affair. The Woodford investment appears to have been mostly dedicated to exploring LENR in general, not Rossi's technology as such. Much of that money was still unspent at last report. IHHI's formal plans propose that, before there is any possible return, much more will need to be invested. Had the Rossi technology been resellable (i.e., sublicenses), IHHI would already be profiting enormously. It is apparent that this is not going to happen and was probably never a realizable possibility with Rossi's stuff, but until they tested it, IH would not have certainty on that point, and they needed to know. Rossi was confusing the entire LENR field.

Abd
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:37 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Abd » Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:49 pm

neeneko wrote:
Abd wrote:The whole IH approach makes no sense if one imagines anything other than "give Rossi whatever he wants so that he reveals all necessary secrets." They appear to have done that, for some years, at high cost, with their reward being that Rossi sued them for fraud. Lovely.
One guess I have seen is that IH's objective was to sell their connection to Rossi to investors, with the money going to a parent company. So the were leasing Rossi's scam to do the same to others, and he wants a cut.
It's easy to think that, and Rossi may think that, without the "scam," of course; however, IH behavior is now well-documented due to Discovery in the case. This simply did not happen. There was an early $20 million stock offering in 2013 to cover the original $1.5 million and the $10 million tranche to enable the IP transfer, when this was all very secret, and very little additional investment after that until Woodford decided to pitch in in 2015. They had been studying LENR for years, they said. Woodford put in $50 million US, but this merely empowered additional LENR investigation with other inventors or scientists; by 2015, it was becoming obvious to IH that the Rossi technology was not working, as to their own and independent testing, which had become more sophisticated, and there is no sign that they then attempted to sell a pig in a poke. These are people highly experienced with very risky LLCs, and the last thing they would want is to set up a basis for an investor lawsuit.

The company arrangements look complicated to the naive, but they are actually straightforward. IH started out with Industrial Heat, very simply. Because they were looking toward world licensing (allowed by the Rossi Agreement under some conditions), they created IPH as an IP holding company and, with Rossi's agreement, assigned the License to IPH. They were planning on moving all ownership of IH to IPH, but Woodford wanted a new company in the U.K, my guess is so that they could watch the company closely and take legal action more efficiently if needed. It is also apparent that Woodford trusts Darden, so that would merely be precautionary, because Stuff Happens.

So the new company was formed, IH Holdings International, and all new investment has gone there. It is almost entirely Woodford, beyond some small holdings created for IH employees. IHHI is the sole owner of IH, and IH is the sole owner of IPH, the license assignee. Rossi, however, cannot touch IHHI, which must frustrate him no end. Unfair! Yet even if IH had touted Rossi technology, to gain investment, it would be legally irrelevant, except it could show that IH might be lying if they claim it doesn't work. Rossi diligently looked for a smoking gun on this, and apparently did not find one, as far as anything yet visible in the case documents.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40341
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Jun 17, 2017 3:00 pm

Abd - Why haven't you made an appointment to see Elon Musk? Why are you fooling around with these pishers?

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40341
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:08 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Abd - Why haven't you made an appointment to see Elon Musk? Why are you fooling around with these pishers?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4zyjLyBp64

(Abd was here an hour after I posted the question about Musk, above. Why no response? I think I know the answer.)

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 18879
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by TollandRCR » Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:20 am

This strikes me as pages of informed, elegant argument about absolutely nothing. It is not quite the same as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but...

On the other hand, law students might love this and learn from it as well.
“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40341
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:54 pm

Abd won't answer my question, so I will.

Musk would have had sophisticated scientists look at the cold fusion claims, would have been able to test them rigorously, and would have found them to be the utter nonsense that they are.

Instead, when you have nonsense you peddle your bullshit to someone who is greedy and will pull a "Producers" on his investors.

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6631
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Slartibartfast » Sun Jun 18, 2017 7:26 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Abd won't answer my question, so I will.

Musk would have had sophisticated scientists look at the cold fusion claims, would have been able to test them rigorously, and would have found them to be the utter nonsense that they are.

Instead, when you have nonsense you peddle your bullshit to someone who is greedy and will pull a "Producers" on his investors.
Apropos of nothing, my cousin, the CEO of an $18 billion company himself, mentioned the other day that Elon Musk has the same market cap as General Motors but doesn't actually have any products.

I will admit that the scam from The Producers was the first thing I thought of when I read this thread, but that story just doesn't hold up to the facts as we know them. Here is my take sententiam de asino:

First off, this whole case has everything to do with contract law and nothing to do with science. In my opinion, there are no scientific issues which bear on any of the causes of action I've seen here. As has been discussed, Rizzo either fulfilled the terms of the contract or he didn't and it wouldn't seem to matter if he did so with cold fusion, magic, or a chemical reaction so long as it met the benchmarks laid out1. This boils down to matters of fact and matters of law that will be determined in court and, in my opinion, any matters of science raised on either side are little more than pounding on the table.

Let's assume that the technology isn't legitimate LENR capable of being a commercially viable source of energy
2. This doesn't preclude either party from having acted in good faith, just from this being breakthrough science or visionary investment in innovation. In that case, what would "good faith" look like from each side?

For IH it would mean that they are trying to find3 a viable LENR energy source and develop it commercially. We may not consider this wise, but so long as neither the company or its investors are acting under false pretenses they all have the right to choose what they do with their time and money.

It would then follow that they entered into the deal hoping that Rossi's technology would pan out and at least theoretically willing (and able) to pay the $100 million if the reactor performed to specs. It would also seem that they signed a deal that didn't do the best job of ensuring that the technology was scientifically and commercially viable (or failed). Again, not wise, but not necessarily dishonest either. On the other hand, they also don't seem to be all that competent in their pursuit of commercializing LENR -- a goal I would be highly skeptical of at this point even if LENR were established science. A positive output of heat is very different than a functioning power cell or power plant.

For Rossi, if he doesn't have a scalable cold fusion reactor technology, it seems to me that his good faith rests on ignorance. In other words, if he doesn't have a LENR at all or the reaction can't commercially implemented on a large scale, then the only way he can be honest is if he doesn't know that -- if he is a true believer. An interpretation that I think his behavior supports. If he were a con man, I would have expected his "reactor" to pass the tests with flying colors4 since he would know that it couldn't pass a fair test at all.

The actual results, which IH was willing to pay $11 million for, seem more like Rossi had simply promised more than he could deliver (for whatever reason) than a calculated scam. Having spent quite a bit of time exploring the entrepreneurial and inventor communities over the past several years, this type of overconfidence seems very common to me. I can't tell you how many inventors I've met who think that they've come up with the best thing since sliced bread... except it's even better!! I even met one who claimed to have developed a (not cold) fusion reactor. He was advised to get5 someone with scientific credentials to look at his reactor and "do the math", so to speak. I talked with him and exchanged an email or two discussing this but he disappeared long before I got anything more than a lay explanation of the technology (which he certainly believed in but I highly doubt was viable).

Anyway, I don't think Abd is anything more than an interested observer who believes the counter-orthodoxy regarding cold fusion. I haven't seen anything to indicate that he thinks anything less than repeatable scientific evidence would be sufficient to validate that belief. There are certainly far worse hobbies to have...

  • 1. The exception being, of course, if it was all just a con and his method was proven fraudulent.

    2. If this were true, the tests could have been easily passed and, at the very least, it could be established with further testing.

    3. Rather than (or in addition to) developing it themselves.

    4. Because the fix was in.

    5. i.e. pay for.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

Abd
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:37 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Abd » Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:20 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Abd - Why haven't you made an appointment to see Elon Musk? Why are you fooling around with these pishers?
This is actually two questions. Both are trolling, as is readily visible with Friengen's avatar, and rely on a host of offensive assumptions. I did say I would answer questions, so I'll answer them, but, for the future, I cannot be relied upon to respond to trolling, where questions are asked that are not about what I've written, or fact that I might know.

1. Why not Musk? Better question, why would I waste Musks's time?

Condensed Matter Nuclear Science has long had a funding crisis, but there are no present substantiated claims worth high investment, other than a major one which is quite adequately funded already, confirmation of the heat/helium ratio in FP-class experiments. In my paper (2015) I also pointed to the dual laser stimulation work of Dennis Letts as being worth of replication attempts, and Industrial Heat apparently did attempt that, with, so far, no reported success. http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0574.pdf

The questions assume that I'm a promoter of cold fusion, a "believer." It is true that, from years of study, I have come to a personal conclusion that the preponderance of the evidence supports the reality of the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, and its nuclear nature, and that is covered in my paper.

Rossi was, in fact, not a "substantiated claim," but there were various appearances that could have been so, and Industrial Heat decided that, even if there was a 1% chance of a commercially-viable technology, it was worth substantial investment, as long as investors were prepared for what was 99% likely.

2. "Pishers." What pishers? Rossi? He's a lunatic, fanatic, his lawsuit makes no business sense, he has demolished the possibility that he will, in the future, receive major funding, and his ravings in emails to IH would reasonably have been expected to cause them to withdraw before paying the $10 million. My conclusion: IH already understood that Rossi was insane. Crazy people are not always wrong. So they stuck a clothespin on their nose and went ahead.

Why am I interested in Rossi v. Darden? Because what was secret and hidden before is now revealed in admissible evidence, attested under oath. I happen to like facts, as distinct from opinions and interpretations. In order to study the case, I needed an index, so I created one and made it available, so that anyone who is likewise interested in verifiable fact could study the case. People who just want to bloviate on blogs that go nowhere, but take many hours of reading to arrive there, are commonly not interested, and hold firmly to opinions that are impervious to fact.
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
[some fora tolerate the immensely time-wasting posting of videos with sarcastic implications. It's entertaining and keeps the patrons engaged, never mind the ostensible goals of the site, if it is any deeper than "challenge." The challenge is accomplished with the upraised middle finger. What will actually clear the fog?)
(Abd was here an hour after I posted the question about Musk, above. Why no response? I think I know the answer.)
And I think I know why he thinks he knows, but that question was not asked. To answer the question actually asked:

I was visiting a friend and logged in and looked at the site on a computer there, but I had quite a bit to do there, and there was no substantial question requiring any urgency. It could wait, if I was going to answer at all, until I got home. The simple answer would be "take a flying leap," but I'd want to actually think a bit before posting that. I'm not particularly familiar with local culture in this joint. This, however, is common among fanatics who strongly believe in "I'm right," that a non-response is considered proof of something or other, which is utterly routine and one of the readily available signs of Friegen's condition if his avatar were not adequate. I must have seen that response hundreds of times.
Sterngard Friegen wrote:Abd won't answer my question, so I will.
Of course he will, he's itching to express his opinion. Of course, I did answer, above. Friegen's answer continues to assume what he obviously assumed from the beginning, that I have some "nonsense" to "peddle."
Musk would have had sophisticated scientists look at the cold fusion claims, would have been able to test them rigorously, and would have found them to be the utter nonsense that they are.
He could. There is another well-known and very wealthy philanthropist who did consult with "sophisticated scientists," which must mean those who know and understand the history of the research, and who decided to fund the work mentioned above, for confirmation with increased precision of what was already confirmed by more than a dozen research groups around the world, some of which were, themselves, sophisticated. (There is much CMNS research that is shallow and incautious, that's known to experts in the field.) My goal became, by around 2014, to support and facilitate such funding, for basic science, with no regard for commercial applications, though that (rather distant) possibility is a possible extra justification for funding that basic research.

Such funding was unanimously recommended by the 18-member panel convened by the U.S. Department of Energy in 2004. This is modest funding, not a billion-dollar Manhattan-class project. It is sober science, nothing else. It's about time that this be done.

"Cold fusion" is not well-defined. The name tends to assume a particular nuclear reaction, which is probably not happening, and I know, very well, the reasons for major skepticism. However, Pons and Fleischmann looked where nobody had carefully looked before, extreme conditions never before set up (PdD loading above 70%). Science, however, is not founded and grounded in theoretical expectations, but in experimental tests and results. Pons and Fleischmann were, themselves, in error about their interpretations of their experiments. But probably not about the heat itself.

Rossi v. Darden, however, does not -- at all -- depend on the science. As others have pointed out, this is a dispute over a contract, and claims of fraud. A fraud may well pick some marginal area, "fringe science" -- as distinct from pseudoscience -- in order to fleece investors. A fanatic believer in his own ideas might even do this without initial fraudulent intention -- but Rossi clearly knew he was lying about some things of weight.
Instead, when you have nonsense you peddle your bullshit to someone who is greedy and will pull a "Producers" on his investors.
There are various tranches of investment in Industrial Heat. There was the original $1.5 million payment to Rossi to secure the Agreement. That appears to have been paid out of pocket by Darden. Why? Rossi was quite obviously visible to experts in the field as unreliable. However, Rossi had managed to fool some scientists who really should have known better. Investment in the field (which was the original Darden interest, apparently) was being damaged. Why support work that is generating a few watts at most, when someone is claiming a commercial-scale reactor, about 10 KW or more? (The "1 MW reactor" was actually a container filled with over a hundred reactors, for a flamboyant, difficult to assess, and practically useless demonstration). They realized, it became obvious in reviewing the case documents and the context (Rossi meshegas since 2011, public, but with private demonstrations some years before that) that given Rossi's known personality and habits, the only way to test it was to buy it. If that.

The Agreement provided for a "Validation Test." IH knew that test was flaky, but they had decided to give Rossi what he wanted to maximize the chance that if he had a secret, he would reveal it. And the rest of their behavior follows from that, until "giving Rossi what he wanted" passed all acceptable bounds. No. Not $89 million for bullshit. A bridge too far.

So they accepted the validation test, and raised $11.5 million from an LLC stock offering in 2013. This was a close circle of investors, not naive pension funds. They knew how risky this was (very!). That stock offering was permitted initially to extend to $20 million and my sense is that it was completed, and that is what fueled the IH efforts to confirm Rossi's claims, besides covering the inital $1.5 million and then the $10 million payment for the License, IP and trade secret transfer.

The only other major investment was from Woodford in the U.K, $50 million in 2015. Woodford is far from a naive investor. While Rossi claims that IH used his technology to induce Woodford to invest, that does not match the actual history and timing, and Woodford funding was not used with relation to the Rossi claims, but with other approaches.

In spite of extensive revelation of previously private documents, including IH communications with investors, no evidence has surfaced of IH misleading investors, the most that has been found is some early optimism, balanced by normal hedges. No investor is known to be complaining, not to mention the major later investor, Woodford.

So Friegen's comment is simply a cynical "possibility that I can invent must be true" bloviation, followed with offensive personal provocation. Given the sequence, I am ignoring Friegen, so if he asks a legitimate question here, I won't see it. Someone else may repeat it and request that I answer, and, of course, Friegen could ask on my blog or in certain other places. I simply want to reduce the noise and temptation to respond merely because "someone is wrong on the internet." Someone is always wrong on the internet, that, even though common, is a formula for vast waste of time, and I'm of an age where I don't have so much time left.

Bye bye, Friegen. You are welcome to rot in hell, or not, as you choose.

User avatar
Estiveo
Posts: 6341
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Trouble's Howse

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Estiveo » Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:29 am

:lol: Abd be funny. :smoking: :popcorn:
"Moths are velvety-soft abominations attracted to light." --Puck, reporter from Breaking Cat News

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40341
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:57 am

Partnering with Elon Musk on the greatest invention of all time is a waste of Elon Musk's time. Right.

Abd has avoided answering the question. He's got nothing. Thanks for exposing your bullshit as bullshit, Abd.

Others here can decide if I am a troll. But you, Abd, have no idea who I am. And your lengthy post sounds a lot like the posts we read from SovCits. Empty nonsense with silly explanations and self justification.

User avatar
rpenner
Posts: 1227
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:08 pm
Location: Silicon Valley, California
Contact:

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by rpenner » Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:57 am

Abd wrote:Bye bye, Friegen. You are welcome to rot in hell, or not, as you choose.
:crybaby:


Nobody likes being told their baby is ugly. But since 90% of everything all human endeavor (legal reporting, restaurants, etc.) is crap, there is no reason to suspect your baby isn't ugly.

Abd
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:37 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Abd » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:37 pm

Thanks for quoting my post, rpenner.
rpenner wrote:
Abd wrote:Bye bye, Friegen. You are welcome to rot in hell, or not, as you choose.
:crybaby:
Nobody likes being told their baby is ugly. But since 90% of everything all human endeavor (legal reporting, restaurants, etc.) is crap, there is no reason to suspect your baby isn't ugly.
I don't accept the 90% premise, but this all depends on who is judging "crap" or "ugly." It's not an absolute, not a quality of babies, but of relationship to babies, and I was a midwife for a time, delivered about thirty babies, including four of my own five. Yeah, I can understand the "baby is ugly" reaction, but personally, I always dropped that reaction -- which is all that it is -- immediately, with my own babies and those of others. Rather, the stand that works for creating joy is "all babies are beautiful." Since we make it up, as to what we think is real, why not make that one up? I also do the same with nearly everything. Even trolls are beautifui, to other trolls.

But a troll is still a troll, it's about intention and choice.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 7767
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:45 pm

Abd wrote:
Mikedunford wrote:In some ways, summary judgment is actually a step less complicated than dismissal. Summary judgment is supposed to be the exception, not the norm, so the burden is high. The burden to persuade the court that summary judgment is appropriate rests with the moving party,1 the evidence has to be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. In order to receive summary judgment, a defendant must basically show that there is no evidence to support one or more of the elements that the plaintiff must prove. A plaintiff must show that there is absolutely no basis to contest any required element and that there is no evidence to support any affirmative defense.2
Yes. Clear. The term "absolutely" is a bit strong, that is all. "No basis" is more accurate.
It's not 'a bit strong.' To survive summary judgment, the plaintiff must meet a burden of production. That means that the plaintiff must show that there is some admissible evidence to support each required element of each count. To prevail at trial, the plaintiff must meet a burden of persuasion (or proof). That means that the plaintiff must convince the finder of fact that the evidence is sufficiently persuasive to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.

The defendant doesn't have to prove anything or present any evidence to prevail at trial. All the defendant needs to do is convince the finder of fact that the evidence presented by the plaintiff isn't sufficiently persuasive.

Courts are aware of this, and courts are often reluctant to deprive a defendant of the opportunity to convince the finder of fact that the evidence presented by the plaintiff is (for whatever reason) not trustworthy. That's why it's generally a lot harder for the plaintiff to win on summary judgment than it is for the defendant to win. For the plaintiff to win at summary judgment, the facts must for all intents and purposes be undisputed.
Abd wrote:When a required element is asserted, and supported by admissible evidence, such as sworn testimony or attested and uncontested documents, there is a basis for the element, and this does not become contested merely through a pleading (pleadings can lie with relative impunity and are often conclusory, not evidentiary), but through other admissible evidence that is shown in the opposition, that requires, then, a factual decision resolving a conflict of testimony or implications.
As I said above, technically speaking the defendant doesn't need to produce any evidence in opposition. It's a good idea for the defendant to try to produce evidence, of course, but the defendant can - through argument - convince the finder of fact that the presented evidence is simply insufficient to meet the burden of persuasion.
Abd wrote:
What all of this means is that there's very little actual judging to be done at summary judgment.3 Most of the judging is pre-done by the legal standard for the motion. Very little weighing of evidence is done; the major test is to see whether evidence is present or not for each element of a claim. If there's any doubt over what a particular fact means, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the party not seeking summary judgment.
This, again, is correct.
I'm relieved to learn that my years of legal education have not been entirely in vain.
Abd wrote:However, what the fact "means" is not relevant to the fact, if the "meaning" is not an element in the legal analysis that a set of facts leads to a clear legal conclusion. In this case, no actual examination of fact took place, and no attempt to apply the law to the arguments presented based on the facts. I do not know if it is anything other than moot at this point, but the Order on Motions for Summary Judgment was blatantly defective, shockingly so. I was, frankly, expecting more, much more, from Altonaga.
I'm honestly not sure what you are trying to say here.

Summary judgment is about testing whether a burden of production is met. It's not about conducting an in-depth examination of evidence. It's also not about the judge doing extensive independent examination of the evidence. It's a chance for the parties to persuade the judge that summary judgment is appropriate.

The judge has very little, if any, obligation to probe areas of the statements of material fact that are not argued in the motions for summary judgment. It's the job of the moving party to persuade the judge to grant summary judgement. It's not the job of the judge to mine the evidence looking for a reason to grant summary judgment. (And I bet that if I could be arsed to spend 10 minutes skimming through the Westlaw context and analysis for Rule 56, I'd find one or more cases that use either 'mining' or 'sifting' as a metaphor for things that aren't the role of the court at summary judgment.)
Abd wrote:It appears that she ruled based on an emotional reaction to the highly disputatious attorneys, and I'd say that she is seeing a case where the root of it is literal insanity, where normal "reasonable" behavior is absent, from the Rossi side. She is probably seeing perjured evidence, there is, to me, a clear basis for it in a few instances (and, in the other direction, Rossi has alleged perjury, in a note). I doubt that Altonaga has ever seen a case like this, normally attorneys will filter this out. I'm not sure at all that Jones Day has fully taken on this, but operated on a more normal expectation of sane behavior. To the Judge, not yet fully familiar with the facts of the case, it looks like a set of parties who won't agree on anything, and she really doesn't like that. Nor would anyone!
She's seen worse. She probably has worse on her docket right now. In fact, this probably isn't the first cold fusion case she's had - if there's any unique aspect to this, it's probably down to this being the first case where someone was foolish enough to actually pay real money for the novel and unexplained energy technology. Lawyers are supposed to be disputatious, and I'm confident that she has seen plenty of perjury since she took the bench. Also, judges tend to be very pragmatic, particularly when it comes to their time. It's unlikely that a judge - however pissed off - will let a case go to trial when summary judgment is possible. Trials are epic time sinks for the court and the jury, and are to be avoided where possible.

Again, I haven't reviewed the case files in depth. (And have no intention of doing so.) But my first impression looking through the MSJs was that (1) this case has a near-endless suply of stupid; and (2) summary judgment probably isn't appropriate. To the extent that the judge is annoyed, it's probably because the damn thing hasn't settled and isn't going to, so she's going to have to spend a huge amount of time - time that could be spent on any of the 500 or so other cases on her docket - dealing with a full jury trial in a case this ludicrous.

:snippity:
Abd wrote:Again, that Industrial Heat included useless arguments in their Motion, based on the too-common kitchen sink school of legal argument (employed by both sides in this case), that this was quite arguably unskillful, should not cause what was appropriately presented to be rejected. However, if they try this with the jury, they might lose. I doubt that they will. As has been pointed out by others, there is a basic case here that, if not confused with irrelevancies, cannot fail to convince a jury -- and should have been enough for Summary Judgment on at least some points.
Which ones, and why?
Abd wrote:This is apparently to be a one-month trial, unless the parties settle, which is not expected. If Jones Day doesn't keep it crisp and clear, that would present an opening for Rossi to confuse the jury and create sympathy for his position, something that, as to public interactions for almost a decade, he's been remarkably skillful at, though there, he could largely select his audience (kicking out anyone showing a desire to validate or check claims). Here, he's facing a test that, in the past, in Italy, he lost, a neutral public jury. (or presumably neutral judges).
In a patent case? I ask because my understanding was that the invention is recent, while the Italian patent litigation process is so notoriously slow that they literally had to recast the Brussels Convention in part to stop lawyers from improperly abusing the slowness of Italian litigation for tactical gain.
1 Cranch 137, 177

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 4755
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Sam the Centipede » Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Mikedunford wrote:I'm relieved to learn that my years of legal education have not been entirely in vain.
:fingerwag: C'mon Mike, even before you started on your path to Supreme Court robes, your Fogbow legal education would have equiped you with the knowledge of what is required for a summary judgment! Not the details of course, but the outline. ;)

And as you clearly explain, even we non-lawyers understand that the motions for summary judgment effectively says to the judge "look, this case is so darn obvious, it would be a waste of everybody's time to have a hearing, please call it for us now". And the motion will only succeed if the judge is firmly convinced by the motion's argument, taking into account any opposition and other relevant documents in the case. Any doubt, any non-trivial dispute of facts, any requirement for deeper investigation means no summary judgment, because that's what hearings are for.

Clearly there is dispute and more in this case. Even if the judge could theoretically resolve it by deeper investigation, that's not the point: motion fails. I suspect Abd is misunderstanding the judge's essentially reactive role in respect of evidence, argument and analysis.

Real lawyers may disagree with my folksy interpretation... go on, you know you want to!

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8129
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:50 pm

rpenner wrote:
Abd wrote:Bye bye, Friegen. You are welcome to rot in hell, or not, as you choose.
:crybaby:


Nobody likes being told their baby is ugly. But since 90% of everything all human endeavor (legal reporting, restaurants, etc.) is crap, there is no reason to suspect your baby isn't ugly.
ROWR!!!! :like:
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
vic
Posts: 2925
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:36 am
Location: The great San Fernando Valley
Occupation: Web developer

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by vic » Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:03 pm

I suspect that someone's understanding of the definition of "Troll" is approximately the same as their understanding of Physics.

Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”