That’s a Planet Rossi trope. Recent Planet Rossi comments have explained that internet discussions are being warped by attacks against Rossi by “paid” advocates for IH. When it is pointed out that a for-profit venture capital company, operating mostly with high privacy, would not pay for this, because they gain nothing from Rossi looking like he always apparently wanted to look (like a con artist or fake), it is then asserted that the purpose of this is to influence the jury in Rossi v. Darden.
Mostly this is being advocated by people with no deep knowledge of the jury system and how it works. A surprising possible exception is rionrlty, an American, using his real name, with apparent experience as a real estate broker, now retired. With an assumed long career, one might think he’d have more experience than to assert what he’s asserting. I will here examine what is being said about the jury selection process and rules, and provide sourced information about this.
Bottom line, not only is it unlawful to attempt to influence the jury selection process or to present “information” to the jurors outside of the court process, but it is also unlawful for the jurors, who are under oath, to lie about their experience and knowledge of the case or case issues, and they will be asked. It is also unlawful for them to violate the rules, which include any attempt to obtain outside information about the parties or issues, that they don’t already have and admitted having. It is not automatic that a juror would be excused if they knew something about the case and the parties; but it is a factor that the judge and attorneys would consider.
In the end, the goal of the Judge will be that the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) agree that the jury, as selected and having been questioned, under oath, about all this, have been fairly selected and will be fair and impartial.
Let’s start out with Peter Gluck, on Ego Out.
… I can wonder in a rather documented way about some issues and actions of the company/companies confronting inventor Andrea Rossi in the trial.
However from start, in the very spirit of realism and pragmatism we must
accept that no strategy can compensate indeed for lack of knowledge and for absence of solid convincing proofs. What can you do, then?
Peter has just given his qualifications for management expertise, but he shows no understanding of now a venture capitalist would work. They do not start with “solid proofs.” If there are solid proofs, ordinary financing should be available. What we can do is look at evidence, assess the probabilities of various possible realities, not known in advance, and then make investments (“bets”) on various scenarios, balancing risk, cost, and reward. This is all standard game theory.
The skill of venture capitalism is generally in the “guesswork” of risk assessment, as well as the willingness to lose a few to win even fewer, but with high reward when they win. Cherokee Investment Partners did not amass a $2.2 billion portfolio from making a string of bad investment, but they did make risky investments, and lost as much as their entire investment on a few. These few losses ares pointed out on Planet Rossi as some kind of proof, though of what is unclear. Peter then goes on:
On LENR Forum for IH, a forum member with the nickname “ele” probably Lawrence Edwards or Edward Lorentz- has published today the following strategic image:
Peter does not provide links, as common for him in his polemic, which would then establish context. He provides no evidence for the “probable” indentification, other than the obvious: ele could be a nickname for someone with the initials LE, more likely the former than the latter. This was the post:
“Reading carefully the documentation published I think that now I can have a much more precise idea of what the real contribution of IH and Mr. Darden to the LENR community:
There is a lot of documentation, and facts are hidden in motions and complaints to the Magistrate about the discovery process, and in transcripts arguments before the courts, gradually becoming available and some apparently not widely read. If one reads in order to find evidence for some position, one can find it for almost any position, so a sane assessment requires looking at as much of the evidence as possible, and, as well, paying close attention to what others point out, examining it, and especially to understand what may be right about it. In the LF debates, many or even most commentators do not provide evidence but just state opinions and alleged fact that sometimes has been shifted, subtly or otherwise, from what actually is in the evidence. This happens on all sides, but is intense with some.
1) First of all they collected about 100 M$ saying to their investors that they bought the IP of Rossi and showing them the 1MW plant during the one year test. No problem with the test was risen about the test and even about Lugano or any other test in this phase.
I am familiar with the evidenced facts, though it’s always possible I missed something. I have seen no evidence for “$100 million” having been “collected.” IH did buy the IP of Rossi, i.e., a license to it and a right of full disclosure. The Plant was shown to a few investors during the alleged “test.” The only one known to have invested was Woodford, a very special case. They invested $50 million in May, 2015. From circumstantial evidence, they would have fully disclosed the situation to Woodford. I.e., the IP agreement, the Rossi claims, their history in attempting to verify the claims, and Rossi behavior.
2) Seems that 100 M$ has disappeared (no trace in documents) and so IH decided not to pay Rossi (losing the IP) and IH told the investors thet it has substituted the Rossi technology with others.
ele is promoting a Planet Rossi trope that IH misled investors, but no investor has complained. When Woodford invested, the money was put into IHHI, formed for the purpose in England, where Woodford could keep a close eye on it if problems were suspected. That money is accounted for, there are financial statements on-line for IH Holdings International, Ltd, you can google them.
The original investment was $11.5 million, with $1.5 million apparently being loaned by Darden or Mazarrino from personal funds, and then a total of $20 million was the full IH stock subscription, as far as we know, all raised in 2013, though possibly some later. It appears that the original $1.5 million may have been reimbursed with stock.
We know where the $20 million went, at least in round outlines: $11.5 million went to Rossi, leaving about $8.5 million for activities, making reactors (including Doral and Lugano reactors), paying for Penon in 2013 and 2015-2016, paying for Fabiani, first in North Carolina and then in Florida, for West in Florida, at least, and others. If something is missing, it is not large, and the ones would would care about that would be the investors, who get detailed financial reports, from my experience with LLCs.
IH had committed funding, though, from Woodford, an additional $150 million available, so the claim that IH did not pay Rossi because $100 million collected had vanished is, again, standard Planet Rossi preposterousness. Sifferkoll’s common claim was that Darden and Vaughn were in the business of making money disappear, but this is all paranoid fantasy. Your company does not become a $2.2 billion LLC by making money disappear, it would go out of business and some could easily go to jail.
Rossi actually deposed Fogelman, the CFO of Cherokee Investment Partners, who did the accounting for CIP and apparently for IPH and maybe for IH itself. What we saw in the recent Rossi submission was the questions that Fogelman did not answer, not what he answered, which, if the Rossi attorneys were skillful, would have been many. Contrary to Planet Rossi and Rossi attorney claims, Fogelman was far more informed than implied and IH took risks using him as the representative, if they had anything to hide, and even if they did not, because of how depositions can go with attorneys attempting to fluster and flap the witness.
3) this others technologies (reading the papers) seems to have much lower results the the one from Rossi or even may be in conflict with the Rossi patent, so they have almost no commercial value but IH investors have been told they they are a gold mine.
I have seen no evidence that IH has told investors that anything in the field is a “gold mine.” Again, this is a standard Planet Rossi fantasy and is not supported by evidence, other than the common polemic, “I have seen evidence that….”
4) The new technologies inventors (Piantelli at al. ) have not been paid with real money but with shares of IH or other
Some have. Not IH, but IHHI, apparently. That company expects to lose money and to require additional investment. This is very long-term, high speculative, and all investors know that.
5) Darden is paying (with real money) actors on the web (Weaver/Sigmoidal, J.Rothwell and others) in order to influence the trial.
Not a nice scenario ! I presume that part of this activity is illegal.
Again Planet Rossi trope, not supported by fact. The strongest claim would be Weaver, of course, since Weaver is not only an investor in IH, probably from the beginning (long associated with Darden), but also a consultant for them, and probably paid as such. But there is no sign that he was paid for his comments on the web, which would be a waste of money for IH, and here the alleged motive of influencing the trial is introduced again.
Attempting to influence a trial would be illegal, but nothing I have seen from Weaver was that. An email from Weaver to Hoistad is claimed by Rossi to have been an attempt to influence a potential witness, though the probability of Hoistad being called as a witness is small, and Dewey’s consultancy is for interaction with researchers. Is IH supposed to stop developing relationships with others in the field? If so, there would be an injunction, but I’d expect IH to appeal that, given that this would attack their core business.
Peter Gluck should know enough from personal history to know that Jed is not “paid.” It’s the other way around, Jed has invested his time and his money in LENR, for years, and, it’s said and Peter did not deny, helped Peter at one point. A Planet Rossi behavior: bite the hand that feeds.
On influencing the trial, see how federal juries are chosen: Jury Selection Procedures in United States District Courts
By design, it is extremely difficult to improperly influence a jury. The final protection is a process designed to obtain agreement between the parties that the chosen jury is fair and impartial, and as part of this process, the potential jurors will be asked if they know or know about or have read about any party or the issues, and they respond under penalty of perjury. Before then, they don’t know what the case is even about, so they can’t pull out their smartphone. And as I recall in jury duty, we were not allowed to use our phones. And then they are sworn not to research the case independently. More about this will come out in discussion.
IH has not told investors that it has “substituted” other technology for that of Rossi. IH is investigating LENR, and has no technology where there is a plausible claim of the levels of heat Rossi was claiming. What IH has actually said is that, at the present time, they are not pursuing any NiH research. That could change at any time as they are presented with potential projects they might be willing to support. Peter goes on:
Anyway this forumist is probably not a known LENR researcher his opinion is not biased in any direction, just what he has observed.
Ah, but he is suspected of being a “very well known LENR researcher,” very possibly Andrea Rossi. At some point I may look at his corpus of posts, but some arguments he is presenting are only known to have been presented by Rossi and other known and obvious socks.
Peter has shown again and again that he is not familiar with the lawsuit, and has not read the document, except very few, such as the infamous Exhibit 5, which is a minor part of the case, but Peter imagines it to be all that IH has, i.e., that they have nothing but accusations and speculations. Peter complains about how much I write, but I write thoroughly, for those who seek to understand thoroughly, as far as is possible, i.e., to follow what Peter claims is good management practice.
So … how does Peter know or believe that ele has “observed” what he is saying? Where did he “observe” it? Reading JONP or E-Cat World?
It happened that the leader of the IH supporters has definitely disliked the message of “ele” and , inter alia has rejected angrily the idea of “influence the Trial” as calumny- I had to remind him the sincere revelation of his aim on LF as:”
Peter does this all the time: takes a statement, interprets it in a certain way so as to make it something he thinks reprehensible, and then states it as fact, instead of his interpretation. I’ve cited many of these in the past, and he has done it with what I’ve written as well. Key would be that he doesn’t quote in context.
“Leader of the IH supporters”? Who is he and who are they? It would almost certainly be Dewey Weaver, who is actually an IH insider, but who is he “leading”? What Peter and ele and Rossi and others are doing is attempting to discount and discredit the large number of independent writers who have come to the conclusions that, as a minimum, something is drastically off with the Rossi claims. I’ve studied what Dewey has written, in come detail. Set aside his personal conclusions and look at alleged facts. He’s made errors — anyone does who writes much — but they were minor and understandable in matters as complex as those involved here. He’s a reliable witness, and remember that witnesses’ testimony is subject to questioning so that errors may be corrected. What did Dewey actually do?
Dewey Weaver wrote: (42 minutes after the above post from ele)
Aw, Dewey, beating a dead horse is unseemly. While some of these comments are fair complaints, others are raising them without you lifting a finger. I highly recommend letting others defend the truth when you and yours are involved, it is ancient internet wisdom. You can then correct the occasional errors — or provide whatever facts are allowed (i.e., the DR deposition was of Penon), and even better, if it has not been noticed, verifiable fact. Meanwhile, the above comment doesn’t resemble what Peter described. The ele comment has no up or downvotes at this point.
Dewey Weaver wrote: [quoted above] …
A message pretty standard for you- it is absolutely necessary to use Rule/Commandment 3- ‘who does not agree with us is insane’: here has lost itscollective mind” and “disconnects from reality”
He did say that, didn’t he? However, not all claims of insanity are based on disagreement. There are actually insane ideas and positions. The recent Rossi motions were insane, difficult to understand as being presented by sane actors and lawyers. The idea of jury influence through blogging is crazy, given the realities of the U.S. jury system. The only one to gain from blogging, perhaps, would be Rossi, because this kind of publicity has brought the attention he needs for his plans.
Defrauded from 20M, the Trial started because Rossi considered he is defrauded from 89 M and the Law will decide who was defrauded by whom.
Dewey is, obviously, assuming that the IH claims are true. Would one expect anything else from him, as an IHHI investor and one highly informed about IH, who has met Rossi (have you, Peter?), who had high hopes for the Rossi technology, he claims — as do others Peter and ele insult, just as had Jed Rothwell.
Strictly speaking, the Law does not decide, but Courts do, but we also decide, for ourselves. If Rossi’s claims are rejected by the Court, we could still individually choose to support him. Or we could warn others against supporting him, this is legal. It can also be hazardous, because of libel laws, but people commonly do it.
Only here can trial influence be considered – do you remember who has told this memorable thing about the aim of activity here:
Peter ignores the trial issue. Instead, he refers to something else, an incomplete sentence, a clue to quotation out-of-context:
“Expose Rossi in perpetuity to the U.S. Federal Court for what he really is” in a trial about a technology? I will not apply Rule 3 just ask if you have lost your sense of humor?
This is another Gluck trope: “trial about a technology.” It is not a trial about the technology, as such. It’s about a contract and performance under the contract. The technology could be fake and Rossi could still win, if all the conditions of the GPT were performed and IH could not show that the test itself was fake or flawed (i.e., some unknown error, say). The technology could be real, and Rossi’s case would still be rejected (should I say will be?) because the GPT conditions were not set up according to the Agreement, and, in addition, equity would require that IH actually have the opportunity to benefit from what they paid and would be paying, through becoming able to make devices, independently, that pass genuine independent testing, as Rossi was obligated to teach them.
Where did Dewey say that alleged goal? I could not find it, and Peter provides no source. He previously claimed it with this post, and Dewey called it a lie.
However, would we not all want Rossi to be shown in the trial –or elsewhere –to be what he is? Who would not want that? Only a criminal, perhaps, or someone supporting a criminal.
Please define and give examples for “dependent actors” and accuse them for dependency . And please define a few :real independent people unjustly classified as paid actors. Are you one of these victims?
Dewey Weaver is both independent and a dependent actor, or at least one with a conflict of interest. A paid dependent actor would be James Bass. We could also include all the Rossi socks. It is unlikely that Rossi is paying anyone for blogging. Peter’s question is not showing any understanding of the situation. Nor is IH, Dewey is paid for other work, apparently, and we do not know that IH approves of Dewey’s blogging at all. He does not speak for IH, when blogging.
Who has been unjustly accused? Let me define “unjustly” as “falsely or without evidence.” Many of the claims of being “paid” FUD-ders are vague, but I’ve been specifically targeted as such by Rossi and others. Jed Rothwell is accused. There are also accusations about sigmoidal and others.
Dewey is pointing to an obvious situation. Most of Planet Rossi is not “dependent actor,” except as strong belief can create something similar to dependence. But Peter here considered ele as “real,” and is supporting an accusation against Jed Rothwell and others, providing the examples Peter asks for. Peter asks for answers. Does he read and consider them?
Why have you thrown the Pyro-Paint bomb here?
If Peter does not know why Pyro-Paint would be relevant in general, he’s clearly not been paying attention. Paint could alter emissivity, which is relevant for Lugano (I think, or Ferrara?) (though this has nothing to do with Doral and the trial, only Rossi and Planet Rossi think Lugano is relevant.
Surely Truth will prevail.
Then in your next message you seem to predict killer proofs, new ones in the Trial. In the favor of
IH, bien sur! Can you predict their effect, why should Rossi Planet tremble and weep? Or is it a surprise?
Dewey wrote nothing about “tremble and weep.” This is typical Gluck melodrama, he exaggerates what people he disagrees with claim, so that then he can imagine he is more sensible.
I do know something that is very likely coming, but it won’t be a surprise. There may be surprises. It was a bit surprising that they found and deposed Penon. I have found the Rossi legal shenanigans quite surprising, the lawyers are taking risks. The third Motion for Sanctions was dismissed out of hand, as I expected, because it was utterly inappropriate, at a minimum premature. Such motions, if proper, would come out of a Magistrate decision, based on a hearing before that judge.
Today, in fact, IH filed a Notice of a Hearing before the Magistrate over the same kind of issue as Rossi’s third Motion for Sanctions, regarding the deposition of the JMP corporate representative. No details given, and no details were necessary. I suspect the Rossi motions were grandstanding. The second motion, though, may require a hearing, unless the Judge decides that the evidence presented is entirely too thin, as it appears, to even warrant a hearing. (The first was a claim of frivolous representation by IH, dismissed by the Judge as radically premature; that would come after a successful motion for Summary Judgment).
And at least one Motion for Summary Judgment is obviously coming down the pike.
To be realist never hurts- and it is natural that the members of the Jury will search for the Trial including on this Forum, the greatest and most diversified for LENR.
we are living in the 21st Century- interesting times.
Peter has this weird idea of “realism,” I’ve seen it many times. It substitutes his complex social judgments, divorced from verifiable fact, based on shallow impressions, for reality. It might be “natural” to be curious, but for a jury member to research the case on the internet or elsewhere would be a serious offense. Here, an actual case.
Looking up the meaning of a word in a dictionary app on his phone was considered misconduct! When they say “no research,” they mean “no research!” Got a question? Ask the bailiff who will convey it to the Judge.
So Peter imagines that a juror will “naturally” do what he has been warned not to do, strongly and clearly, and that, then, this is so likely that IH would pay people to create some vision of “Rossi Crook.” It’s crazier than some idea that Rossi might pay Wikipedia editors to put favorable material in his articles. That’s more likely, but still quite unlikely. (I’ve known paid editors, it is contrary to policy, but Wikipedia policy has no teeth. What prevents it, mostly, is that with anything controversial, you can pay to get something favorable, all right, but then it’s often quickly gone.)
They may impeach Rossi in court, with evidence, as he is trying to do with them. It’s expensive, but that’s legal. Unless you lie, if under oath, that can be criminal, and if merely in pleadings, there can still be sanctions.
There are only a few hundred at most that read the forums…..
I think it fair to point out that this forum gets between 50,000 and 250,000 visits a month, almost 50% of those from the USA. Average dwell time, 10 minutes.
It might be “fair,” but it might also be quite misleading. This is the total Forum traffic, I assume. Those are that number of page hits, and Alan has not analyzed the traffic for what might relate to Rossi. Alan is correct that the readership may be much higher than what Martin implied. However, those statistics do not reflect how many would be learning about Rossi. Further, the same person may read many pages (and even the same page more than once, and without details on how the statistics were collected, it’s unclear. I read the Forum from different devices and forms of internet access, and may show up as many hundreds of accesses per month. But imagine that this is 10,000 people. The vast majority of them would not live in the Southern District of Florida. Being generous, maybe fifty. Out of how many millions in the potential jury pool? Then the jurors will be asked if they have any knowledge. Ever heard of “Andrea Rossi”? Of “LENR”? If they have, they may get much more detailed questions. Then the Judge and the parties choose to allow them or excuse them.
And then, after being chosen, further research is unlawful. In some cases, where something might be on the news, jurors are forbidden to watch the news. In extreme cases, they are sequestered, put up at a hotel. Those arguing that IH would be motivated to pay blog or forum writers to influence the case is utterly preposterous. To influence public opinion is more possible, someone like Rossi, for example, only needs to interest a very few people in becoming investors. IH has already raised many millions of dollars, and they never used this kind of shotgun outreach, but Rossi did.
I don’t know how is this in the US but here everybdy -age 12 to 91 has a smart-phone or a tablet and uses it.
However if this forum has no influence on the Jury
then why are we arguing? I know you will say ever pipe half full, steam pipe diam 40mm because Murray is your Source and I will not accept these things.
The discussions are pretty useless. Clashes of certainties. Better shut down this thread and let’s go to NISSAN now.
Ah, Peter, but you obviously don’t think it is useless, because you repeat the same arguments, over and over, vehemently. And when it doesn’t go your way, you have done this many times, you want to “shut down” the discussions. Then you come back later and argue the same, ad nauseum, such as all the pipe dreams. Murray may or may not be the source. Murray has been deposed, so the parties know much more. From the appearance of Exhibit 5, Murray may have been told that the pipe was DIN 40, or he said that from personal observation, and we don’t know. People have gone around and around about the grammar, but, in fact, the grammer could support either interpretation, and Murray could also make a mistake, and the real point of Exhibit 5 is that Penon didn’t respond, an action that may have completely demolished Penon’s credibility as a neutral consultant, whereas Peter thinks it was perfectly reasonable for Penon to refuse to answer such a stupid question.
One wonders how Gluck was as an expert. His supervisors (equivalent to customers in many ways) ask him a stupid question and he refuses to answer. He knows perfectly well what would have happened. They might have tossed him in prison, they might have beaten him. But in the U.S., if a private consultant refuses to answer a stupid question from a customer, they fire him. Peter obviously has no experience with real, free-market management and how consultants work. I was a consultant, by the way. If my customer asked a stupid question, I’d patiently explain the matter. I would not call it “stupid.” Ever. I’d consider that something was missing from the customer’s understanding, and it that it was my job to supply it. That’s why they hired me.
[a great post on this, when he was challenged by the troll ele, which reveals his personal history, showing why is knowledge might be beyond the ordinary.]
Don’t you think that if you were in Jury pool regarding a case.t that involved “LENR/Cold fushion [sic]” that you might just google it to find out what all the roar was about? I would, and I think a lot of others would also and they would probably end up here. Whether that would disqualify them from jury service is another question. I also think you grossly under estimate the number of people here on the forum (Alan, could you comment on this?), not to mention all the other internet sources for Cold Fusion.
This is puzzlingly ignorant for Rionrlty, who is apparently the principal at Rion Realty, from the obvious and from some details he has provided. The process of jury selection does not involve knowing what the case is about before being introduced as a prospective juror. The first hint is when you are asked about various elements of prior knowledge. First of all, a knowledge of cold fusion in some way, such as an opinion that it was rejected long ago, is quite common. I would imagine that jurors would be asked about this. No prior knowledge leads, ipso facto, to disqualification, unless it is considered, on examination by the judge and parties, that it could harm the impartiality of the juror.
The entire world is a population, some percentage of which is reading about LENR or cold fusion. I’d say well under 0.1%. From my experience talking with more or less random people, I would guess that well under 1% of a jury pool would even have heard of it. Andrea Rossi, fewer. This prior knowledge — or opinion — could possibly lead to a handful of jurors being dismissed. It’s not going to warp the jury.
Jed Rothwell overstated the matter. It would not automatically disqualify them, but Jed is right about doing further research after being selected. Jed went on to give an example. I think that in the example he cites, if the facts are correct, the juror saw the name of the case. That he was notified of the name of the case was an error, my opinion. (They normally schedule many jury selections together, bringing in a pool of jurors for all the cases, and a juror may end up serving on any jury unless dismissed, they don’t know in advance until they are sitting there in or around the jury box being questioned.) So the juror googled the defendant’s name. And then lied about it when questioned (or to be charitable, forgot the name and then realized who it was later). It was that lie, later, that led to a mistrial.
Nope. The lawyers will exclude people who know about the case. The judge will instruct the ones who are chosen not to read outside sources of information. If members of the jury disobey, and they reveal information not presented at trial during deliberations, they will be tossed out of the case.
Jed, then, understated the matter. Yes, they can be tossed out, but this would likely lead to a mistrial, thus wasting a huge amount of expensive time. And they could then be fined appropriately, and jail time is possible. I cited a case.
Maybe in your world, but in the real world curiosity will win out. This isn’t a sequestered murder trial, but simply a civil case involving money.
The rules for juries are the same. As this was prior knowledge, from his Google search after being summoned, perjury was likely involved. Jed actually quoted the source, for which he is to be commended, so many don’t do that; this was not a murder trial as far as we know. Rionrlty is essentially claiming that the procedures used for selecting juries are deeply flawed, so it won’t be fair, and this kind of opinion seems to be common on Planet Rossi. Again, as with Peter Gluck, we see an opinion of the “real world” that is quite likely warped.
Rionrlty goes on, beating a thoroughly-dead horse with irrelevancies, and matters even more unlikely. “investigating cold fusion”? If they saw a case “Rossi et al vs Darden et al,” they would not Google “cold fusion,” they would google the case name. Again, if they knew it and did that, it would not necessarily exclude them, rather they would likely be questioned more closely to determine, to the (normally) unanimous satisfaction of the parties, if they could judge impartially and fairly.
I’ll add this here just because I can:
Unless Dewey has a split personality, sig is not Dewey. I also highly doubt sig is a paid provocateur. As much as we often disagree, I find him to be level-headed and sincere in his interpretation of the myriad issues at play in this dispute.
I simply want to congratulate IH Fanboy, whom I have often criticized severely, for his expression of good faith. There is hope for the planet, and maybe even for Planet Rossi.
On LENR-Forum, sigmoidal wrote:
IH Fanboy wrote:
IH does ***NOT*** want anybody to know the content of Dewey’s email communications. Period.
We agree! (Nice analysis 😉 )
Nice to be agreeable, but IHFB was misleading. The issue in the Appeal is not simply “Dewey’s email communications,” it is only his communications with lawyers, which were expected to be covered under attorney-client privilege. As well, those communications could be viewed by the Magistrate if needed. This Appeal might merely be a matter of upholding rights as a matter of principle, so I would not assume that they specifically have something to hide, but one may generally “hide” communications with an attorney where there is an attorney-client relationship. That’s the point. It is a crucial principle of law. It does appear that the Magistrate may have erred in his categorical denial of privilege, over the irrelevant “agency” issue, but we will see. (This is a matter where, if IH does not get satisfaction from Altonaga, they might appeal.)