Statistical Process Control

Title: STATISTICAL PROCESS CONTROL OF JUDICIAL MACHINERY

Purpose: To hold judges accountable for accepting bribes.

Premise: The advent of Cryptocurrency ensures bribery is impossible to trace with a money trail. THEREFORE A NEW FORM OF JUDICIAL CONTROL is required to ensure the intended equitable operation of society.

Public Benefit: Shifting the calculus of crime toward fairness. If the rich know they cannot bribe officials to escape responsibility, their behavior will improve.

Requirement for Judges: If a lawyer wishes to be a Judge, he should submit himself to this form of review; a requirement of judicial employment.

Exemplar Case: JAMES TODD WAGNER & SEI vs WARREN MOSLER & MACC

Warren Mosler Bio:

Godfather of Modern Inflation – Inventor and global promoter of “Modern Monetary -Theory” (‘MMT’).

Founder of $57B Hedge Fund trading gov’t bonds; III Capital Management.

Insider-advisor to the U.S. Federal Reserve & several other Fed Banks, the entities whose securities III trades in. Sworn testimony on this topic.

Founder of Mosler Automotive – built vehicles illegally: report being sent to EPA.

Assisted his personal lawyer in $220,000 Insurance Fraud on illegally-built vehicle.

Moved to St. Croix to avoid paying Federal taxes in 2003. Even so, extensive tax evasion via using Mosler Automotive as a “hobby company” to build vehicles for himself and his family that were subsidized by taxpayers.

Ran for Democrat President of the United States in 2012 Election cycle, and is personal friends with Bernie Sanders.

Bribed a circuit Court Judge, Luis Delgado (from Puerto Rico) to escape $300M+ liability and civil judgement for both fraud and punitive damages.

By: James Todd Wagner, Yale SOM MBA ’00 / Va. Tech BSME ‘95 with assistance from Arthur Swersey Yale Professor of Operations

Date: 18 August 2024

BACKGROUND OF STATISTICAL PROCESS CONTROL

Statistical Process Control (‘SPC’) was first developed in Japan for the purpose of ensuring each Toyota vehicle came off of the assembly line with a consistent level of quality. The results for Toyota were so positive, that this technique was employed throughout the automotive industries. SPC has now been adopted in nearly all manufacturing processes, in most hospitals, and even chain restaurants.

Thus far, the legal industry has resisted most forms of oversight and process control. Lawyers run both the lawyer-side of the process, and also the judge-side of the process. “Laymen” are therefore at the mercy of a closed-club that is most concerned with preserving their ability to earn $500/hr without being held accountable in any way.

source: LearnLeanSigma.com

SIMILARTIY BETWEEN SPC ‘Control Limit’ & “BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT”

Although the math of SPC isn’t employed in criminal trials, it is ostensibly the same idea: Does the behavior or data stand out to the point where we know there is something wrong? Or not? This paper postulates that SPC for Judicial actions should serve as evidence that the Judge did (or did not) engage in the criminal activity of accepting a bribe to transfer the outcome of the trial in favor of the bribing party.

A Judicial process that is In-Control exhibits decisions from the Judge that follow the law withing a tight window of reasonableness. One “oops” can be contributed to human error, or natural human bias/favoritism on behalf of the Judge. SPC will expose a SERIES of Judicial ACTIONS that ignore the law or the norms of the legal system. Since this is the only reasonable evidence anyone can gather to prove criminal bribery; SPC must be accepted as the standard.

Judges must submit themselves to the same criminal laws that they claim to enforce. The employers of bribable-judges must be liable for civil penalties; this will encourage municipalizes to strongly self-police the Judges they employ.

CURRENT OVERSIGHT OF JUDGES AND THE LAWYERS WHO BECOME JUDGES

There are Ethics Boards that evaluate the behaviors of Judges and Lawyers; however these boards are made up of the same closed-club members: Lawyers. Most people who have had interactions with lawyers will agree that they are very-often unethical and greedy as a group.

The only persons eligible to become Judges come from this often unethical and lawyer-club. The process of becoming a Judge is often simply luck; getting onto an election ballot and uninformed voters checking a box. There is no competency test, nor routine ethical checks on Judges. Corrupt lawyers seek judge appointments. As with everything, corruption and unethical character are not exemplified in all judges; but the near-impossibility of being punished for corruption leads Judges to accept bribes vs report attempted bribes.

In South Florida, it is well-known that if you pay $10,000 to Lawyer-X who plays golf with the Judge; your case will be dismissed. This is an established practice – pay to escape liability. The $10,000 paid to the lawyer is considered a legitimate payment for legal services; what happens next is the black box of corruption that SPC has the potential to end.

Lawyers who resist having oversight point to Ethics Boards and the Bar as mechanisms of oversight. These organizations are run by lawyers (policing lawyers), and they most-often look the other way when presented with cases of suspected corruption or improper billings / actions by fellow lawyers. The near-impossibility of PROVING a physical cash payment was paid (now that cryptocurrency has become the preferred method of bribery) frustrates any honest lawyers who might be on Ethics Boards.

SPC CAN PROVIDE DATA-BASED PROOF THAT A JUDGE IS INTENTIONALLY OPERATING AS AN ‘OUT-OF-CONTROL’ PROCESS: HE/SHE HAS TAKEN A BRIBE

GIVEN: The existence of a check with the words “Bribe” in the memo line will never be discovered. It is presently near-impossible to discover the physical bribe.

JudgeX: DEPLOYING AI TO THE TASK OF CONSISTENT SPC ANALYSIS OF JUDGES

It almost goes without saying, but AI-for-good is necessary to offset the AI-for-bad that is already in effect. JudgeX will not only evaluate Judicial Actions for compliance with laws and norms (such as whether laws are routinely enforced, or selectively enforced); but also evaluate the style of each judge. When the STYLE of a particular judge suddenly deviates from his personal-style; that is a flag that the Judge has been bribe-induced into deviating.

LUIS DELGADO HAS SELF-IDENTIFIED ON TRIAL TRANSCRIPT AS A ‘PUBLIC FIGURE’ THEREFORE HE CANNOT SUE ANYONE FOR DEFAMATION UNDER FLORIDA AND U.S.A. FEDERAL LAW

Trial Transcript [Mid-Trial Directed-Verdict Hearing] pg 1917 ln 23 – pg 1918 ln 12

23· · · · · · ·You know, it doesn’t take away from the fact

24· · · · that they’re incredibly hurtful to him, but these

25· · · · statements on their face with the rest of this

1· · · · publication just sounds like, you know, an angry

2· · · · Mr. Mosler giving off some opinions.· But as far as
3· · · · defamation —
4· · · · · · ·MR. ZAPPOLO:· So, Your Honor, if you rule
5· · · · against me and I publish something to the Bar
6· · · · Journal next week that says you have serious mental
7· · · · problems that’s okay?
8· · · · · · ·MR. WEBER:· Well, it’s different.
9· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· I mean, you could do that.· It’s a

10· · · · different analysis.· I’m a public official.· You

11· · · · can say the most horrible things about me, it’s

12· · · · okay, you know.

SUBSTANTIVE JUDICIAL ACTIONS ON WAGNER V MOSLER LAWSUIT

May 23, 2023 (Mid-Trial): Judge Delgado took 96% of the potential value of the lawsuit away from the Jury. Judges are not allowed to do this mid-trial (via a Motion for Directed Verdict) unless there is “no evidence nor inference” in front of the jury that the jury could base a judgement in favor of Plaintiffs.

Even more radically, the same judge in his pre-bribe condition REJECTED the near-exact-same argument/case-law via a denied Motion for Partial Summary Judgement that Defendants attempted just 5 months prior. Furthermore, during trial Plaintiffs presented DRAMATICALLY MORE evidence supporting intentional defamation and it’s effects on potential business partners of Wagner than Plaintiffs could present at the MSJ hearing.

IMPORTANT NOTE: This analysis will not evaluate whether or not each element of evidence was in Plaintiffs’ favor or Defendants’ favor; but rather blindly evaluate the statistical probability that the Judicial action could have happened randomly in a properly-conducted Judicial Process; or if it was an “Out-of-Control” Judicial Process.

May 26, 2023 (End-of-Trial): Furthermore, Judge Delgado made it tremendously difficult for the Jury to wind through a gauntlet of numerous, often-confusing “affirmative defenses” in a gigantic 32-page Verdict Form (several lawyers have since stated that they have never seen a verdict form that long before). The verdict form was a gauntlet that Jurors had to navigate in order to award for Plaintiffs, rather than a straightforward verdict form (which is the norm).

In spite of these atypical hurdles-to-deliver-justice, the Jury ruled in favor of Plaintiffs on all categories that Judge Delgado allowed them to rule on. The total amount awarded to Plaintiffs was $850,000.

The total recoupment would have been more than double the nominal ($850,000) award. Inclusive of statutory interest and over $500,000 in legal fees; the amount Warren Mosler would have had to pay was approximately $1.9million.

May 6, 2024 (One-Year after Trial): Per Defendants’ written request for a “Judgement Notwithstanding the [Jury] Verdict” A/K/A JNOV , of the 4% of lawsuit value that Judge Delgado allowed the Jury to find a verdict on was ELIMINATED. Thus, in sum the Judge acting fully on his own removed 99.8% of lawsuit value from the preview of the Jury. Final amount allowed by Judge Luis Delgado: $33,894.

This Judicial action is NOT LEGALLY ALLOWED unless there is the extreme circumstance of there being “no evidence nor inference” that the Jury could find for Plaintiffs. Furthermore, the potential inferences must be viewed in the “light most favorable to Plaintiffs.” In other words, the Judge is only allowed to step-in and strip jurisdiction away from the Jury in instances of obvious corruption in the jury.

The terrible reality is that corrupt Judges are seldom stopped from delivering victory to wealthy litigants. In the new world of Cryptocurrency, untraceable bribery is a few clicks away.

LAWSUIT ELEMENTS IN ORDER OF PRE-TRIAL VALUE ESTIMATE

Count-9a (Defamation Per Se for stmt to Car & Driver with Punitive Damages: est. val. $200million

Count-3 (25-Year Exclusive Distributorships in China & Thailand): est. val. $110million

Count-9b (Defamation for other false statements made by Mosler against Wagner): est. val. $500,000

Count-10 (Trade Libel – defamation against SEI’s RaptorGTR product): est. val. $400,000

Count-1 (unpaid work on RaptorGTR EPA Certification work and value therein): est. val $200,000

Count-6 ($100,000 refundable deposit that Mosler refused to refund): est. val. $100,000

Count-7 (Fraudulent inducement to lure Wagne into submitting $100,000 deposit): est. val. $100,000

NOTE: Some counts have been combined, because they are pled “in the alternative”; such as Count 5 and Count 6 are on the same topic – but provide alternate pathways for the Jury to rule. For simplicity, the alternate of the same “issue” are not included in the key. The above counts are what will be evaluated in this Statistical Analysis.

MID-TRIAL JUDICIAL ACTIONS TO ELIMINATE JURY (MAY 23, 2023)

ACTION: MID-TRIAL ELIMINATION OF THE TWO MOST-VALUABLE ELEMENTS

After 11 years and numerous Motions to Dismiss and Motions for Summary Judgement by Defendants; there were 17 individual elements before the Jury. NOTE: Those 17 elements were contained within 10 ‘Counts’; thus several Counts had multiple ‘Elements’.

This first Statistical Analysis is designed to determine the probability that via RANDOM SELECTION, how many attempts would it take to select ONLY the two most-valuable elements.

Visually (see below), the Judge desires to choose the two ‘X’ Elements (Count 9a and Count 3), but not any of the ‘Y’ Elements. [With a blindfold on] how many attempts should it take to choose only the two ‘X’ elements (one worth $110million and the other worth $200million) at random?

Each selection (choice to remove an element from the jury or no) was an independent analysis/choice. The Judge’s choice was based upon a 32-page Motion for Directed Verdict that was presented to Plaintiffs with no forewarning after a full day of Plaintiff-Wagner’s testimony. The Court did NOT allow Plaintiffs to prepare a written response. The Court further benefitted Defendants by allowing Plaintiffs only 85-seconds per page of legal language before Judge Delgado began ruling on it.

This was one of the MANY actions by Judge Delgado that were unfair to Plaintiffs, and benefitted the multi-billionaire Defendants who had a team of 4 lawyers against Defendant’s one lawyer (who was also trying to juggle 15+ other clients).

One “haunting” moment was immediately after Judge Delgado stripped the $110million est. value 25-Year Exclusive Distributorship from the jury; Steven Weber, lead attorney for Warren Mosler, gave Judge Delgado a very quick head nod. I saw this in my peripheral vision, and it appeared to be a signal to the Judge: “Good job, you got the first one.”

Parties aren’t allowed to videotape the trial, and a head-nod signal by an attorney wouldn’t be recorded in the transcript.

POST-TRIAL JUDICIAL ACTION TO ELIMINATE JURY VERDICT (MAY 6, 2024)

ACTION: POST-TRIAL ELIMINATION OF ALL DEFINED VERDICT AWARDS THAT

DEFENDANTS DESIRED TO BE ELIMINATED

The action of Judge to strip the verdict away from the Jury is only allowed in EXTREME circumstances, thus in order to justify the extreme action Judge Luis Delgado had to make 16 separate statements of [paraphrased] “There is No Evidence, Nor Inference based upon evidence that the Jury could possibly look to in order deliver a verdict for Plaintiffs. Further any Inferences must be taken in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs.”

This is a very difficult ‘Bar’ for any member of the Bar to overcome. In effect, in 16 separate instances (’16 Instances’), Judge Luis Delgado had to comb through the 2727 pages of Testimony and the 259 individual Documents in evidence and make the statement that NOTHING in that gigantic stack of evidence is valid nor could even possibly create an inference that could be valid.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Judge Delgado doesn’t analyze even one element of evidence as being invalid in his Orders; only a blanket statement is given for each of the 16 sections that Judge Delgado had to wipe away in order to give Defendants’ the result that they requested.

HIGH LEGAL STANDARD FOR REMOVING A COMPLAINT ELEMENT FROM THE JURY MID-TRIAL

Below is the exact legal standard as presented by Defendants in the 32-page Motion that Judge Luis Delgado allowed Plaintiffs only 85-seconds-per-page to prepare for.

HIGH LEGAL STANDARD FOR THROWING OUT A JURY’S VERDICT (BELOW RELATES TO JUDGE DELGADO’S ACTION 1-YEAR AFTER TRIAL)

BY THE NUMBERS

Number of questions asked during 11-day trial: 12,000 (2727 page transcript)
Number of documents in evidence: 259

A reasonable person observing those numbers will conclude that it is ostensibly impossible for there to be NO-EVIDENCE in favor of Plaintiffs; especially since Defendants only objected to relevance 30 times [0.2% of the 12,000 questions]; even Defendants saw that the bulk of documents and testimony were relevant.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL ACTIONS

THEME OF THE ANALYSIS: Design the assumptions to make it as easy as possible to conclude that Judge Luis Delgado did NOT take a bribe [and that the multi-billionaire should win everything]. If the assumptions were right-down-the-middle, it would be an immediate revelation that Judge Delgado was bribed, thus these assumptions that favor Judge Delgado / Warren Mosler are employed to drive home that there is no reasonable doubt that Judge Delgado was successfully bribed.

ASSUMPTIONS for this first statistical analysis of the post-trial actions:

Assume that only 1% of the 12,000 questions (120) are potentially relevant for each of the 22 Instances. This assumption is enormously in Defendants favor (and in Judge Delgado’s favor).
1. This means that only 22% of questions are [potentially] relevant to anything (and 78% are irrelevant to everything).
2. This assumption is immensely advantageous to Defendants/Delgado.
Assume that only 2% of the 259 Documents in evidence (5) are potentially relevant for each of the 22 Instances.
1. This means that only 44% of the documents are [potentially] relevant to anything (and 56% are irrelevant to everything).
2. This assumption is very advantageous to Defendants/Delgado.

In the ANALYSIS section, Defendants (Judge Delgado’s position) will be given even more mathematical advantages. This does not mean the reality is that the trial was skewed in Defendants favor (the opposite is true, as evidenced by the Jury’s verdict).

EACH INSTANCE JUDGE DELGADO CLAIMS “NO EVIDENCE NOR INFERENCE”

See Appendix-A for examples of Testimony and Documents associated with each of the below 22 Judge-Delgado-claims of “no evidence nor inference”. This analysis does NOT intend to evaluate individual elements of evidence; thus Appendix-A is primarily for curiosity on what form of evidence could exist in the 2727 page transcript and 259 documents admitted into evidence (nearly all admitted without objection).

Mid-Trial Order 1 [paraphrased from verbal orders]: The Court finds that there is no evidence nor possible inference in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs that the Exclusive Distributorships in China and Thailand were enforceable by Plaintiff-Supercar Engineering, Inc. Jury not allowed to pass any verdict on Count 3.
Mid-Trial Order 2 [paraphrased from verbal orders]: The Court finds that there is no evidence nor possible inference in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs TO OPPOSE THAT the statement spoken by Warren Mosler to journalist Clifford Atiyeh; “He’s nothing. He’s got severe mental problems. He goes around saying he has everything, but he has nothing.”; is solely PURE OPINION.
Post-Trial (1 year after trial) Written Orders Begin Here: The Court finds that there is no evidence nor possible inference that supports the existence of the contract necessary to support the jury’s verdict on Count C:
There is no evidence or inference that supports the jury’s verdict with respect to Statement 1 in Plaintiff Wagner’s Count F or Plaintiff SEI’s Count G.
There is No Evidence Or Inference That Supports Defendant Warren Mosler Published Statement 1.
There is no evidence or inference in the record as to the exact words that Defendant Warren Mosler said to Matthew Farah.
There is no evidence or inference that supports that Defendant Warren Mosler published Statement 1 and JNOV is appropriate.
Accordingly, judgement notwithstanding the verdict is appropriate on this element of the claim because there is no evidence nor inference that Defendant Warren Mosler acted negligently concerning Plaintiff Wagner.
There is No Evidence that the Statement Is Defamatory to Plaintiff Wagner.
There is No Evidence that Plaintiff Wagner’s Damages were Proximately Caused by Statement 1.
First, there is no evidence or inference that Plaintiff Wagner’s alleged damages were caused by the words allegedly spoken by Defendant Warren Mosler to Matthew Farah. Wagner admits that he was not on the phone with Matthew Farah when he allegedly spoke to Defendant Warren Mosler.
There is no evidence of any person being involved in any conversation between Defendant Warren Mosler and Matthew Farah such that anyone could have heard the words allegedly spoke by Defendant Warren Mosler to Matthew Farah.
Nor is there any evidence or inference that supports that any of Plaintiff Wagner’s alleged damages were proximately caused by the words allegedly spoken by Defendant Warren or Matthew Farah’s third-party republication as opposed to some other cause.
During the hearing on Defendants’ JNOV Motion, Plaintiffs argued that Plaintiff Wagner changed his name. However, Plaintiffs admitted that there was no legal name change in Plaintiff Wagner’s name because Plaintiff Wagner’s name is James Todd Wagner and Plaintiff Wagner previously went by Todd Wagner and now goes by James Wagner. There is no evidence of damages to the alleged name change.
There is No Evidence or Inference That Supports Defendant Warren Mosler Published the Statement.
Plaintiff SEI’s trade libel claim in Count G as to Statement 1 is based on the same statement as Plaintiff Wagner’s above defamation claim. E. 825 at 11,20. For the same reasons as set forth above with respect to Plaintiff Wagner, there is no evidence or inference that supports the jury’s finding that Defendant Warren Mosler published the statement at issue.
There is No Evidence or Inference that Defendant Mosler Knew or Should Have Known that the Alleged Statement Would Induce Others Not to Deal with Plaintiff SEI.
1. NOTE: Mosler’s statement to a journalist was “the Twin-Turbo conversion to the ‘RaptorGTR’ Mosler MT900S will not pass emissions and is not certifiable for public sale.”
2. NOTE 2: How many people would purchase a car that the owner of the car company says the car “isn’t certifiable for public sale.”? There was extensive testimony that (in fact) no one did buy even one RaptorGTR. The “no evidence” claim is truly ridiculous.
This Court agrees with Defendants’ contention there is no evidence whatsoever as to what Defendant Warren Mosler allegedly specifically said to Matthew Farah, or that whatever was allegedly said was done under circumstances such that it was done to cause others not to work with Plaintiff SEI.
There is no evidence or inference upon which the jury could find that Defendant Warren Mosler reasonably knew or should have known that the statement would induce others to not work with Plaintiff SEI. [DUPLICATE statement in Judge Delgado’s Orders; thus will be removed from analysis]
There is No Evidence Or Inference that the Alleged Statement Actually Cause Others Not to Deal with Plaintiff SEI or Caused Damages.
In this case, there is simply no evidence or inference that supports that the words themselves that Defendant Warren Mosler allegedly spoke to Matthew Farah were the sole cause of Plaintiff SEI’s losses.
1. NOTE: There is no requirement for Plaintiffs to prove that Defendants’ actions are the “sole cause” is proven for damages. This is a near impossibility in Defamation. Judge Delgado is inventing a higher standard, which helps justify delivering the victory to Defendants.
There is no evidence or inference that supports that anyone heard the words that Defendant Warren Mosler allegedly spoke to Matthew Farah much less that those words specifically cause Matthew Farah to publish anything that then caused anyone to not deal with Plaintiff SEI or cause Plaintiff SEI damages. Accordingly, judgement notwithstanding the verdict is appropriate
[Discussion about single-action rule (which was already handled and settled because there are two different Plaintiffs)], then Judge Luis Delgado’s statement: Due to the foregoing this Court find that there is no evidence or inferences that support Plaintiffs’ positions, or the jury’s findings, which respect to both claims and therefore, Judgement Notwithstanding the Verdict is appropriate as to both claims.

ANALYSIS: Applying Statistical Process Controls Methodology to determining if the Judicial Process is “In Control” [or not]

Primer on Statistical Process Control: All processes have variability. Processes that are “In Control” exhibit predictable and repeatable outcomes that illustrate that the process is operating in the manner for which it was intended. “Out Of Control” processes yield bad outcomes, but sometimes yield good outcomes via luck.

As a society, we rely on fairness and trust to operate an efficient economy. An “In Control” Judicial system, that delivers fairness repeatably and predictably is central to operation of our American society. The laws and LIMITS on Judges’ power is central to an “In Control” Judicial process.

“Out of Control” Judicial process, and the public’s awareness that the legal process favors the rich and unscrupulous will lead to citizens being routinely scammed and taken advantage of by the small percentage of unscrupulous/criminal people among us.

Premise on this new application of SPC to the PROCESS / MACHINERY of PRODUCING Justice: A CNC Milling Machine is the tool that produces a gear. To evaluate how well the machine is operating, the output of the machine [the gear] is measured. That measurement is recorded into a spreadsheet/database, and is compared to the historical norm of that machine and also to the designed dimensions of the gear. When a measurement is suddenly very different, it is a signal that something is wrong.

The goal is to evaluate the MACHINE; via statistically evaluating the output of the machine.

The goal of JudgeX is to evaluate each JUDGE [the machinery producing justice].
Lawyers and lawyers-who-become-Judges don’t want to be evaluated as “machines”, but if they act in strict accordance with written laws – it is a very mechanical job.
The Law says “X”; the Defendant did “Y” à therefore Defendant wins?
SPC will identify patterns in such errors; such as the Judge only defies the law when the Defendant is very rich, or when Lawyer-Z (Judge’s Golf Buddy) was retained.

ANALYSIS #1: Below are the assumptions for ANALYSIS #1. Bear in mind that even Defendants indicated that they believed 99.8% of the 12,000+ questions and 259 exhibits were relevant to the issues of the case (they didn’t object on relevance).

Questions: Assume 1% of the questions have the possibility of being “evidence or inference” [1% of 12,000 is 120]. Assume there is only a 1% probability that each question ACTUALLY IS “evidence or inference”.

Documents; Assume only 2% of the documents have the possibility of being “evidence or inference” [3% of 259 is 5 documents]. Assume there is only a 3% probability that the document ACTUALLY IS “evidence or inference”. Obviously the probability is far greater than 3%; thus this is an enormous “benefit of the doubt” benefitting Judge Luis Delgado.

REMINDER: Defendants at all times had the opportunity to object to either a question or a document on the basis of it being relevant to the issues of the case; YET THEY DID NOT DO SO 99.8% OF THE TIME. Thus, Defendants believed the questions and documents were by and large legitimate and relevant to the issues of the lawsuit/trial. Thus, ANALYSIS #1 assumptions are DRAMATICALLY SKEWED in Judge Delgado’s favor.

DEFINITION OF TERMS:

P(Q) is Probability that an individual Question is relevant to the Claim.

P(T) is Probability that Testimony (made up of a quantity of Questions) is relevant to the Claim.

P(D) is Probability that an individual Document is relevant to the Claim.

P(E) is Probability the Evidence Set (made up of a quantity of Documents) is relevant to the Claim.

P(CLAIM-X) is the total probability that under the highly-favorable prescribed assumptions that Judge Delgado ruled correctly on the specific Claim of “no evidence nor inference”.

ANALYSIS #1 RESULTS:

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-1 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 25.7% (calcs below)

P(Q) = (via Delgado-advantageous assumptions) 99% chance that each of the (1% of 12,000) questions is “No Evidence” = (99%*(1%*12,000)) / (1%*12,000) = 0.99

P(T₁) = P(Q₁)* P(Q₂)* P(Q₃)*P(Q₄)*P(Q₅)*P(Q₆)*P(Q₇)*P(Q₈)*P(Q₉)*P(Q₁₀)*P(Q₁₁)*P(Q₁₂)*P(Q₁₃)* P(Q₁₄)*P(Q₁₅)* P(Q₁)*P(Q₁₆)*P(Q₁₇)*P(Q₁₈)*P(Q₁₉)*P(Q₂₀)* P(Q₁)*P(Q₂₁)*P(Q₂₂)*P(Q₂₃)*P(Q₂₄)* P(Q₂₅)*P(Q₂₆)*P(Q₂₇)*P(Q₂₈)*P(Q₂₉)*P(Q₃₀)*P(Q₃₁)*P(Q₃₂)*P(Q₃₃)*P(Q₃₄)*P(Q₃₅)*P(Q₃₆)*P(Q₃₇)* P(Q₃₈)*P(Q₃₉)*P(Q₄₀)*P(Q₄₁)*P(Q₄₂)*P(Q₄₃)*P(Q₄₄)*P(Q₄₅)*P(Q₄₆)*P(Q₄₇)*P(Q₄₈)*P(Q₄₉)*P(Q₅₀)*P(Q₅₁)* P(Q₅₂)*P(Q₅₃)*P(Q₅₄)*P(Q₅₅)*P(Q₅₆)*P(Q₅₇)*P(Q₅₆)*P(Q₅₇)* P(Q₅₈)*P(Q₅₉)*P(Q₆₀)* P(Q₆₁)*P(Q₆₂)* P(Q₆₃)*P(Q₆₄)*P(Q₆₅)*P(Q₆₆)*P(Q₆₇)*P(Q₆₈)* P(Q₆₉)* P(Q₇₀)*P(Q₇₁)*P(Q₇₂)* P(Q₇₃)*P(Q₇₄)*P(Q₇₅)*P(Q₇₆)*P(Q₇₇)*P(Q₇₈)*P(Q₇₉)*P(Q₈₀)*P(Q₈₁)*P(Q₈₂)*P(Q₈₃)* P(Q₈₄)*P(Q₈₅)* P(Q₈₆)*P(Q₈₇)*P(Q₈₈)*P(Q₈₉)*P(Q₉₀)* P(Q₉₁)*P(Q₉₂)*P(Q₉₃)*P(Q₁₀₀)*P(Q₁₀₁)*P(Q₁₀₂)* P(Q₁₀₃)* P(Q₁₀₄)* P(Q₁₀₅)*P(Q₁₀₆)*P(Q₁₀₇)*P(Q₁₀₈)*P(Q₁₀₉)*P(Q₁₁₀)* P(Q₁₁₁)* P(Q₁₁₂)*P(Q₁₁₃)*P(Q₁₁₄)* P(Q₁₁₅)*P(Q₁₁₆)*P(Q₁₁₇)* P(Q₁₁₈)* P(Q₁₁₉)* P(Q₁₂₀)

= 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 = 0.299 = 29.9%

NOTE: The mathematical / scientific shorthand for the above calculation is 0.99¹²⁰= 0.299

P(D) = (via assumptions) 97% chance that each of the 2% of 259 documents is “No Evidence” = (97%*(2%*259)) / (2%*259) = 0.97

P(E₁) = P(D₁)* P(D₂)* P(D₃)*P(D₄)*P(D₅)= 0.97 * 0.97 * 0.97 * 0.97 *0.97 = 0.859 = 85.9%

NOTE: The mathematical / scientific shorthand for the above calculation is 0.97⁵= 0.859

P(Claim-1) = P(T₁) * P(E₁) = 0.299 * 0.859 = 0.257 = 25.7%

The above indicates that based upon the assumptions, which are dramatically skewed in Judge Delgado’s favor; there is only a 25.7% chance Judge Delgado correctly judged that there is “no evidence nor inference” in the record that could support that the Exclusive Distributorships in China and Thailand could be valid [this is Claim-1 out of 22!!!].

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-2 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 25.7%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-3 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 25.7%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-4 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 25.7%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-5 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 25.7%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-6 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 25.7%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-7 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 25.7%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-8 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 25.7%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-9 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 25.7%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-10 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 25.7%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-11 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 25.7%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-12 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 25.7%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-13 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 25.7%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-14 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 25.7%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-15 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 25.7%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-16 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 25.7%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-17 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 25.7%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-18 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 25.7%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-19 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 25.7%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-20 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 25.7%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-21 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 25.7%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-22 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 25.7%

Probability that All 22 Delgado claims of “No evidence nor inference” is true:

P(All Claims Judged Properly) = 0.257 * 0.257 * 0.257 * 0.257 * 0.257 * 0.257 * 0.257 * 0.257 * 0.257 * 0.257 * 0.257 * 0.257 * 0.257 * 0.257 * 0.257 * 0.257 * 0.257 * 0.257 * 0.257 * 0.257 * 0.257 * 0.257 = 0.000000000000104

NOTE: The scientific shorthand for the above calculation is 0.257²²= 0.000000000000104

Thus, there is a 0.00000000001% chance Judge Delgado properly/honestly stripped 99.8% of the lawsuit value away from the jury.

Given that Judge Luis Delgado from Puerto Rico is intelligent enough to get into law school and pass the Bar exam; it is reasonable to conclude that Judge Delgado was fully aware that he was ruling in favor of Warren Mosler DESPITE THE LAW. Therefore, the reasonable conclusion is that there is a 100% – 0.00000000001% = 99.999999999% probability that Judge Delgado accepted a bribe from Warren Mosler for the purpose of delivering victory to Mr. Mosler.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS COMPARISON TO OTHER NATURAL EVENTS (SIX-SIGMA)

Source: SixSigma.com

IF JUDGE DELGADO WERE AN HONEST JUDGE, IN HOW MANY YEARS WOULD A DECISION-SET LIKE THE WAGNER-MOSLER DECISION SET “NATURALLY” OCCUR?

BACKGROUND: Six-Sigma is considered the gold-standard for a process being “In Control”, meaning errors are all-but-eradicated. Six-Sigma translates to 99.9997 accuracy; in other words 3.4 errors out of every one million opportunities for error.

JUDICIAL OPPORTUNITIES-FOR-ERROR: In Palm Beach County Circuit Court, trials average 3 days. This trial at 11 days, was unusually long due to the vast quantity of wrongdoings that were being tried. To give another advantage to Judge Delgado, this analysis will assume that there are 5 trials per week instead of the actual 5/3 = 1.67 trials per week.

Assuming 5 trials per week * 52 weeks per year; Judge Delgado has 260 opportunities per year for either a correct or an incorrect judgement. Most trials are jury trials, wherein Judges are not supposed to interfere except in extreme circumstances; thus the assumption that Judge Delgado has 5 opportunities to Judge/Interfere in the process of justice is beneficial to Delgado.

Number of Years =(1 / 000000000000104) / 260= 36,982,248,521 years

In words, it would take nearly 37 billion years (more than double the lifespan of the Universe) for an honest judge who desired to follow the law to make such an enormous string of rulings that favor one party via “honest mistakes”. Recall that this analysis gives enormous “benefits of the doubt” to Judge Delgado. The reality is there is extensive evidence in Plaintiffs favor, that Judge Luis Delgado chose to ignore, then chose to ignore when it was brought up directly in post-trial writings, then chose to ignore in post-trial hearings, then chose to ignore in post-trial/post-hearing writings. Examples of what Judge Luis Delgado chose to ignore in order to deliver the across-the-board victory to the multi-billionaire Godfather of modern inflation defendant is in Appendix-A.

ANALYSIS #2: This ANALYSIS #2 will assume of the 120 Questions, there is a 2% probability (chance) that the question is constitutes “evidence or inference” in Plaintiffs’ favor. ANALYSIS #1 will assume only 3% of Documents have the possibility of being relevant; and there is only a 7% probability that each of the 7 (3% of 259 Document)s are “evidence or inference” in Plaintiffs’ favor

To summarize the Assumptions for Analysis #2:

Questions: 1% of the questions have the possibility of being “evidence or inference”, assume there is only a 2% probability that the question ACTUALLY IS “evidence or inference”.

Documents; 3% of the documents (3% of 259 = 7.8 à round down to 7) have the possibility of being “evidence or inference”; assume there is only a 7% probability that the document ACTUALLY IS “evidence or inference” (93% chance Judge Delgado correctly ruled “no evidence nor inference”)

ANALYSIS #2 RESULTS:

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-1 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 5.33% (calcs below)

P(Q) = (via assumptions) 99% chance that each of the 1% of 12,000 questions is “No Evidence” = (98%*(1%*12,000)) / (1%*12,000) = 0.98

P(T₂) = 0.98¹²⁰ = 0.0885 = 8.85%

P(D) = (via assumptions) 93% chance that each of the 3% of 259 documents is “No Evidence” = (93%*(3%*259)) / (3%*259) = 0.93

P(E₂) = P(D₁)* P(D₂)* P(D₃)*P(D₄)*P(D₅) *P(D₆)*P(D₇)= 0.93⁷ = 0.602 = 60.2%

P(Claim-1) = P(T₂) * P(E₂) = 0.0885 * 0.602 = 0.0533 = 5.33%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-2 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 5.33%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-3 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 5.33%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-4 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 5.33%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-5 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 5.33%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-6 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 5.33%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-7 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 5.33%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-8 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 5.33%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-9 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 5.33%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-10 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 5.33%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-11 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 5.33%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-12 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 5.33%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-13 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 5.33%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-14 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 5.33%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-15 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 5.33%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-16 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 5.33%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-17 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 5.33%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-18 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 5.33%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-19 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 5.33%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-20 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 5.33%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-21 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 5.33%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-22 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 5.33%

Probability that All 22 Delgado claims of “No evidence nor inference” is true:

P(All Claims Judged Properly) =0.0533²²= 0.0000000000000000000000000000923

Years between instances wherein such series-of-rulings result randomly = (1/0.0000000000000000000000000000923)/260 = 39,539,215,977,509,300,000,000,000 years

Delgado’s Orders are statistically akin to rolling Snake Eyes 22 times in a row.

ANALYSIS #3: This ANALYSIS #3 will assume an even higher level of ADVANTAGES for Judge Delgado (higher than Analysis #1). Of the 12,000 Trial Questions, only 0.1% (12) of the answers will be considered to have a chance of communicating “evidence or inference” in Plaintiffs’ favor. For the Documents this analysis will assume that only 1% of the 259 Documents (rounding down to 2 Documents) have a chance of being “evidence or inference” for Plaintiffs’.

To summarize the Assumptions for Analysis #3:

Questions: 12 questions with each having a 2% probability that the question ACTUALLY IS “evidence or inference” for plaintiffs’ position.

Documents: 2 of the documents with each having a 3% probability that the document ACTUALLY is “evidence or inference” for plaintiffs’ position.

ANALYSIS #3 RESULTS:

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-1 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 67.9% (calcs below)

P(Q) = (via assumptions) 98% chance that each of the 0.1% of 12,000 questions is “No Evidence” = (98%*(0.1%*12,000)) / (0.1%*12,000) = 0.98

P(T₃) = 0.98¹² = 0.785 = 78.5%

P(D) = (via assumptions) 97% chance that each of the 1% of 259 documents is “No Evidence” = (93%*(1%*259)) / (1%*259) = 0.93

P(E₃) = P(D₁)* P(D₂) = 0.93² = 0.865 = 86.5%

P(Claim-1) = P(T₂) * P(E₂) = 0.785 * 0.865 = 0.679 = 67.9%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-2 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 67.9%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-3 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 67.9%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-4 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 67.9%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-5 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 67.9%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-6 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 67.9%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-7 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 67.9%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-8 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 67.9%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-9 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 67.9%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-10 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 67.9%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-11 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 67.9%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-12 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 67.9%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-13 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 67.9%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-14 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 67.9%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-15 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 67.9%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-16 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 67.9%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-17 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 67.9%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-18 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 67.9%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-19 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 67.9%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-20 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 67.9%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-21 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 67.9%

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-22 of “No evidence nor inference” is true: 67.9%

This Analysis #3 gives enormous “benefit of the doubt” to Judge Delgado, assuming that 2/3 of the time he is correct that there is ZERO EVIDENCE in the 2727 pages of transcript and 259 Documents. Even so, the below statistical analysis is eye-opening.

Probability that All 22 Delgado claims of “No evidence nor inference” is true:

P(All Claims Judged Properly) =0.679²²= 0.00200 = 0.2% probability of honesty even with the ridiculously-skewed set of assumptions in this Analysis #3.

ANALYSIS #4: This ANALYSIS #4 will be a down-the-middle (equally fair to both sides) analysis; WHILE STILL maintaining the primary assumptions that are in Judge Delgado’s favor (only 1% of questions and 2% of documents) are possible “evidence or inference” for each Judicial claim that there is “no evidence nor inference”.

There are only 2 possible outcomes (reasonable given there are 2 possible parties who could be “right”) ; thus each side is given 50% possibility of being right for this final analysis.

1) POSSIBLE OUTCOME 1: Question or Testimony Is-Evidence for Plaintiffs

2) POSSIBLE OUTCOME 2: and Is-Not-Evidence for Plaintiffs

ANALYSIS #4 RESULTS:

Probability No-Evidence-Claim-1 of “No evidence nor inference” is true:

P(Q) = (via assumptions) 50% chance that each of the 1% of 12,000 questions is “No Evidence” = (50%*(1%*12,000)) / (1%*12,000) = 0.50

P(T₂) = 0.50¹²⁰ = 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000752

P(D) = (via assumptions) 50% chance that each of the 2% of 259 documents is “No Evidence” = (50%*(2%*259)) / (2%*259) = 0.50

P(E₂) = P(D₁)* P(D₂)*P(D₃)*P(D₄)*P(D₅) = 0.50⁵ = 0.0313 = 3.13%

P(Claim-1) = P(T₂) * P(E₂) = 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000752 * 0.0313 = 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000235%

EVEN WITHOUT MULTIPLYING BY THE 22 SEPARATE INSTANCES, A “DOWN THE MIDDLE” 50/50 ANALYSIS OF JUST ONE CLAIM LEADS TO IMPOSSIBLE ODDS THAT JUDGE LUIS DEGADO ISN’T CORRUPT. in an 11-day trial with 259 Exhibits/Documents, which were almost universally admitted without objection, there is ZERO probability that there is ZERO evidence in favor of Plaintiffs.

CONCLUSIONS

A primary question that a person who has been wronged has is “Will I get a fair trial?” An In-Control Judicial process will be defined by the answer that question being: Yes.

By the decades-old Statistical Process Control analysis, the Judicial Process presided over by Judge Luis Delgado is NOT IN CONTROL. In other words, Judge Delgado accepted a bribe from a multi-billionaire to remove 99.8% of the value of Jury Trial away from the jury. This analysis is independent of looking at the specifics of the evidence, but rather looking at the whole of the output of the Judicial process.

Looking at the specifics of the evidence, there is Zero Probability that Judge Delgado ruled honestly. The only thing that could possibly induce a Judge, who has a rich lifetime pension from the taxpayers at stake, to issue Orders this way is a bribe.

APPENDIX-A

Below are examples of Testimony and Documents that Plaintiffs see as relevant to each instance where Judge Delgado claims there is “no evidence nor inference” that the Jury could look to in order to select a Verdict for Plaintiffs. This illustrates that there certainly are numerous elements of evidence; thus the Assumptions are highly advantageous to Judge Delgado…even with the enormous “advantages”, it is statistically impossible for the Judge to have made the STRING of rulings to favor the multibillionaire by chance. There was INTENT.

The format of Appendix-A will be a) Judge Delgado’s claim of “No Evidence Nor Inference” then b) Example of Testimony linked to the topic, then c) Example of a Document linked to the topic. Only one of each are shown for brevity; Plaintiffs have a 200+ page summary that lists far more testimony and documents (in list form) for each instance – that is available upon request.

In some instances, one element of Plaintiff-Wagner testifying and one element of Defendant-Mosler testifying will be included.

NOTE on HIDDEN EVIDENCE: Warren Mosler hid a miminum of 18,500 pages of evidence for over 5 years. PRIOR TO finally sending the 18,500 pages, Mosler’s Vice President to lied to the Court to convince the Court that no evidence was being hidden:

Mosler-VP didn’t remember emails about every topic asked of her
Mosler-VP claimed that Mosler wasn’t running MACC, but rather his attorney was directing her actions and the operations of MACC.
Mosler-VP made the claim that herself, MACC-atty, and Mosler communicated primarily by phone (to give the Court a plausible alternate-reality to explain why there were no emails)

CLAIMS OF “NO EVIDENCE NOR INFERENCE” FOLLOWED BY TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENTS

The Court finds that there is no evidence nor possible inference that supports the existence of the contract necessary to support the jury’s verdict on Count C:

TESTIMONY on topic of Claim-1

Trial Transcript, Warren Mosler testifying; pg 264 ln 22 – pg 265 ln 12

22· · · · Q· · You were aware that Supercar Engineering,

23· ·Inc., through Todd Wagner, was working on the EPA

24· ·certification for that car, correct?

25· · · · A· · Yes. ·

1· · · · Q· · Okay.· And why was SEI doing that?

2· · · · A· · Working on the certification?

3· · · · Q· · Yes.· The EPA.

4· · · · A· · So that it would pass emissions.· The car

5· ·would pass emissions.

6· · · · Q· · Okay.· And in your mind what did passing

7· ·emissions mean?

8· · · · A· · It means it would meet the requirement that

9· ·the government set for — for those fumes or whatever.

10· · · · Q· · Okay.· And did you have any hopes about

11· ·whether or not the car would pass emissions?

12· · · · A· · Of course we wanted it to pass.

Trial Transcript, Warren Mosler testifying (con’t) pg 837 ln 22 – pg 838 ln 1

22· · · · Q· · Okay.· Do you remember what your response was?

23· · · · A· · I think I was very pleased when he received

24· ·it.

25· · · · Q· · Okay.· Would the phrase “good job” –

1· · · · A· · Yes, definitely.· It was a huge effort.

Trial Transcript, James Todd Wagner testifying, pg 1787 ln 14 – pg 1788 ln 5

14· · · · Q· · So what’s really the first operative date

15· ·that’s important in this case as far as —

16· · · · A· · Mr. Mosler wanted to stop paying me and told

17· ·me he was going to stop paying me on April 15th, 2011.

18· · · · Q· · Okay.· Did they?

19· · · · A· · They did stop, yes.

20· · · · Q· · Did you agree to that?

21· · · · A· · I didn’t want that, but I also — my

22· ·distributorship, I wanted to maintain the value of that

23· ·and Mr. Mosler said he wanted it to keep going.· So I

24· ·presumed I’d be getting a payoff from having the

25· ·exclusive distributorship, but he stripped that away ·

1· ·from me too.

2· · · · Q· · So because he took all those things away, you

3· ·want to get paid for your work, right?

4· · · · A· · Absolutely.

DOCUMENTS on topic of Claim-1

(PL#114) partial email from MOSLER to Savvas

(PL#74) Exclusive Distributorships (attached to Count 3)

There is no evidence or inference that supports the jury’s verdict with respect to Statement 1 in Plaintiff Wagner’s Count F or Plaintiff SEI’s Count G.

TESTIMONY on topic of Claim-2

Trial Transcript, Wagner testifying on PL#40; pg 1676 ln 22 – pg 1677 ·

22· · · · Q· · So you understand that Mr. Farah is saying

23· ·that he referred to you as a con man because he

24· ·understood that he was led to believe that you were

25· ·still associated with the company, correct?

1· · · · A· · So Mr. Farah thought I was a con man because

2· ·someone at MACC said I wasn’t associated with MACC. I

3· ·absolutely was associated with MACC as an exclusive

4· ·distributor.· That’s the key word.· It’s not that I was

5· ·an employee, I was a distributor, an exclusive

6· ·distributor.

DOCUMENTS on topic of Claim-2: partial of (PL#40) ‘The Truth About Cars’ blog

NOTE: For ease of reading, the key elements are below (then the section is rotated 90deg for reading.

A phone call to Warren Mosler revealed that this buy didn’t actually work for Mosler at all, So we’d been had, by a con-man trying to pass off his own homebrew tuner kit as a genuine Mosler product.

There is No Evidence Or Inference That Supports Defendant Warren Mosler Published Statement 1.

TESTIMONY on topic of Claim-3

Trial Transcript, Matt Farah – Automotive Journalist testifying; pg 1096 ln 7 – 24

7· · · · Q· · All right.· Now, based upon your November 17th

8· ·5:09 a.m. posting, it says “I spoke with Warren Mosler

9· ·today.”

10· · · · · · ·What is “today” if you made that posting at

11· ·5:09?· Did you speak with Warren Mosler between midnight

12· ·and 5:00 a.m., or is there some type of time issue that

13· ·you are aware of?

14· · · · A· · I — I don’t recall; however, I didn’t call

15· ·him in the middle of the night.· It was — it was not a

16· ·wake-him-up-in-the-middle-of-the-night phone call, so…

17· · · · Q· · Okay.· What was your purpose in contacting

18· ·Warren Mosler?

19· · · · A· · He was the only person at the time who I

20· ·thought could confirm whether or not the RaptorGTR was a

21· ·genuine Mosler product…

22· · · · Q· · Was a genuine Mosler product — can you please

23· ·continue?

24· · · · A· · … or not.

Trial Transcript, Matt Farah – Automotive Journalist testifying; pg 1102 ln 9 – 11

9· · · · Q· · Yet Mr. Mosler made it clear to you that the

10· ·RaptorGTR was not a Mosler product, correct?

11· · · · A· · Yes, he did.

DOCUMENTS on topic of Claim-3: partial of (PL#40) ‘The Truth About Cars’ blog

NOTE: For ease of reading, following is the same section of PLE#40 turned sideways.

There is no evidence or inference in the record as to the exact words that Defendant Warren Mosler said to Matthew Farah.

NOTE: This is an absurd assertion for Judge Delgado to make, since there is no statutory nor case law requiring the “exact words” to be proven or known via a recording, etc. It is illegal to record phone calls in Florida, too.

TESTIMONY on topic of Claim-4 (Matt Farah is an automotive journalist)

Trial Testimony, Matt Farah testifying pg 1091 ln 22 – pg 1093 ln 8

23· · · · Q· · Okay.· And then when we flip forward, you

24· ·actually had conversations with Mr. Mosler, correct?

25· · · · A· · Yes, I did have a conversation with

1· ·Mr. Mosler — one.

2· · · · Q· · Okay.· And he said — and he confirmed that

3· ·the twin-turbo conversion to the RaptorGTR Mosler 900S

4· ·will not pass emissions and is not certifiable for

5· ·public sale, correct?

6· · · · A· · That — yeah.· I mean, again, I don’t recall

7· ·some of the more specific details of that conversation,

8· ·but if I wrote that, that’s what he told me at the time.

9· ·My memory would have been very fresh then, so I would

10· ·say that if I said that, then I would stand by it now.

DOCUMENT on topic of Claim-4 (no ‘document’ records Mosler’s exact words, but the below qualifies as INFERENCE of Warren Mosler’s false statements).

(PL#75) partial of Jalopnik automotive blog

NOTE: The below is one of several articles wherein Warren Mosler himself, and his paid employees echo the same basic false statements that Warren Mosler spoke to Matt Farah.

There is no evidence or inference that supports that Defendant Warren Mosler published Statement 1 and JNOV is appropriate.

NOTE: The legal definition of “Publish” is simply to communicate something to someone else. There is no requirement to post something on the Internet, etc. Making the false statement to one person is sufficient: especially a statement to a known Journalist.

TESTIMONY on topic of Claim-5 (Matt Farah is an automotive journalist)

Trial Testimony, Matt Farah testifying pg 1091 ln 22 – pg 1093 ln 8

12· · · · Q· · Nevertheless, your understanding is that

13· ·because of Warren Mosler’s statement to producers at

14· ·”The Car Show,” that the producers at “The Car Show” and

15· ·others at “The Car Show,” including yourself, concluded

16· ·it was not — I’m sorry — that the RaptorGTR was not a

17· ·Mosler product, correct?

18· · · · A· · Correct.

19· · · · Q· · Page 52.· All right.· Would you agree with me

20· ·that on or about November 15, 2011 at 6:10 p.m., you had

21· ·reached the conclusion that Mr. Wagner was a con man?

22· · · · A· · Yes.

WARREN MOSLER’S 2016 DEPOSITION TESTIMONY CONFIRMS THE ABOVE; BUT MOSLER CHOSE TO DENY IT TO THE 2023 JURY. 2016 depo below:

Warren Mosler Feb 10, 2016 Deposition in St. Croix; pg 217 ln 24 – pg 218 ln 10

24 Now, if we go back into Exhibit No. 35, we know that

25 RaptorGTR is not something Mr. Wagner made up, it is

1 something that Mosler Automotive posted on its Certificate

2 of Origin as the name of the vehicle; correct?

3 A. Well, you know — what’s your question?

4 Q. Well, we know that what Mr. Farrah says, and I

5 just read, is not correct; right?

6 A. You can come to that conclusion, but that’s —

7 Q. Can you reach any other conclusion?

8 A. It’s not for me to speculate on what this guy

2 said. If you have a problem with him, go talk to him.

3 Q. Well, the problem is he reached that conclusion

4 after speaking with you; correct?

5 MR. REINBLATT: Objection.

6 BY MR. ZAPPOLO:

7 A. That’s what he, you know — you can — I guess,

8 it doesn’t mean, you know, what you just said is a true

9 statement. He reached that conclusion after speaking to

10 me.

DOCUMENTS on topic of Claim-5:

In 2014 Plaintiffs requested Warren Mosler’s personal phone records and the phone records of MACC. Mosler has relentlessly refused to provide the phone records. This would be the ideal DOCUMENT for this ‘Claim-6’, but Mosler is hiding it.
Judge Delgado was asked to issue an “Adverse Inference” to the Jury stating that since this Document was rightfully requested, and never produced that the Jury should assume the document indicates what Plaintiffs state it does: That Warren Mosler called Matt Farah and delivered a variety of false statements intended to ruin Wagner….making him vulnerable to have his technology and distributorships taken.
Judge Delgado refused to issue the adverse inference, which was an ENORMOUS ADVANTAGE to Warren Mosler. Warren Mosler took advantage of this advantage by “Deny. Deny.”
Mosler could not have done that if Judge Delgado had issued a FULLY PROPER Adverse Inference.

Accordingly, judgement notwithstanding the verdict is appropriate on this element of the claim because there is no evidence nor inference that Defendant Warren Mosler acted negligently concerning Plaintiff Wagner.

TESTIMONY on topic of Claim-6

Trial Transcript, Wagner testifying; pg 1787 4 ln 23 – pg 1788 ln

23· · · · Q· · With respect to MACC — MACC’s production of

24· ·vehicles, what, if anything, had Mr. Mosler told the

25· ·journalists during that same — in that same 18-week

1· ·period?

2· · · · A· · He told the journalists they’re not producing

3· ·a car.

4· · · · Q· · Okay.

5· · · · A· · A car, a car.

6· · · · Q· · So —

7· · · · A· · And the 18 weeks didn’t expire until

8· ·approximately Christmastime.· So well before the

9· ·expiration of the 18 weeks, Mr. Mosler, you know, bombed

10· ·the whole thing.

11· · · · Q· · He told you he wasn’t — they weren’t

12· ·producing cars, right?

13· · · · A· · And that the RaptorGTR is a fake, I don’t have

14· ·a distributorship, I mean, everything.· He just

15· ·essentially, like, just nuked it.

DOCUMENTS on topic of Claim-6: (pl#73) Mosler Automotive Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin which states that MACC built a 2012 Mosler RaptorGTR that it sold to Plaintiff-Supercar Engineering, Inc.

NOTE: It qualifies as “negligent” to sell something that you know is an X, then state to the automotive world that is a FAKE-X.

DISTURBING NOTE: Warren Mosler convinced all of his paid employees to parrot the same nonsense (EVEN UNDER OATH): “We [MACC] didn’t build a RaptorGTR”.

There is No Evidence that the Statement Is Defamatory to Plaintiff Wagner.

TESTIMONY on topic of Claim-7

Trial Transcript, James Todd Wagner testifying pg 1113 ln 20 – pg 1114 ln 6

20· · · · Q· · All right.· When you stopped using the name

21· ·“Todd,” what name did you begin to use?

22· · · · A· · My first name, “James.”

23· · · · Q· · Why did you change your name or why did you

24· ·start using the name James in 2012?

25· · · · A· · Well, I was unemployed and had been for a ·\

1· ·better part of a year.· Much of that time was working on

2· ·the distributorship for Mosler products.· And then after

3· ·all this stuff exploded, I needed to get a job and there

4· ·was so much defamation about me online under the name

5· ·“Todd Wagner,” that I — even with my credentials, that

6· ·I thought were fairly good, I couldn’t get a job

DOCUMENT on topic of Claim-7: (PL#75) partial of Jalopnik automotive blog

There is No Evidence that Plaintiff Wagner’s Damages were Proximately Caused by Statement 1.

NOTE: This is a Cause and Effect’ element. To evaluate this, the START-STATE is: SEI owned the highest power-to-weight supercar ON THE PLANET in 2011. 36% higher than the much-heavier Bugatti Veyron. This was an enormous property; and furthermore SEI’s model was serial #001.

TESTIMONY AS TO CAUSE on Topic of Count-8

Trial Testimony, James Wagner testifying; pg 1790 ln 13 – 122

13· · · · Q· · Okay.· So you had these potential investors.

14· ·And you also had potential buyers of vehicles, didn’t

15· ·you?

16· · · · A· · Yes.

17· · · · Q· · Okay.· What happened to the interest of those

18· ·people once the articles came out?

19· · · · A· · Disappeared, disappeared.

20· · · · Q· · Okay.

21· · · · A· · No one’s gonna buy a $700,000 car when the

22· ·owner of the company says it’s a fake.

TESTIMONY AS TO EFFECT on Topic of Count-8

Trial Transcript, James Wagner testifying; pg 1206 ln 14 – pg 1207 ln

14· · · · Q· · When you say you were busted, what do you

15· ·mean?

16· · · · A· · Broke.

17· · · · Q· · Okay.

18· · · · A· · I had no — nothing.· I had no job, no — I

19· ·was — so Mr. Mosler knew that and they — after,

20· ·essentially, like beating the daylights out of me and

21· ·I’m on the ground, he’s like “Here, sign this.”

22· · · · Q· · What was that?

23· · · · A· · That Termination and Release Agreement where

24· ·I’d have to sign away my intellectual property, my

25· ·exclusive distributorship, which I had two — I’m only

1· ·suing on one, but I had two — and my $100,000 in return

2· ·for $100.· And Mosler said, “You should sign it in

3· ·exchange for me not sending my two attorneys after you

4· ·to sue me for anything.”

5· · · · · · ·Oh, and then there’s an email, which I think

6· ·is in the record, where it says, like, “Any pressure you

7· ·can put.”

DOCUMENT on Topic of Count-8: (PL#80) segments of 8-page-long doc that I refused to sign are below.

NOTE: Upon refusal, I was threatened with being sued for anything “until you’re was broke. That’s the way things work in America.”

– Warren Mosler; Godfather of Modern Inflation

3. Intellectual Property Rights and Confidential Information

NOTE 2: When I didn’t sign, I first got a phone call from Warren Mosler à My testimony on this very-memorable call is below. When that intense threat didn’t lead me to bend-the-knee; I got a second threat in writing that Mosler would stick his two in-house lawyers on me to “bring me to justice” (PL#101)

Trial Transcript, James Wagner testifying; pg 1207 ln 15 – 22

14· · · · Q· · You inferred in this case a motivation behind

15· ·this document, correct?

16· · · · A· · The motivation is very clear.· It wants to

17· ·take SEI’s exclusive distributorships, take its

18· ·distributorships in one-third of U.S.A., several states

19· ·including Florida; wants to take my intellectual

20· ·property and wants to give a full release to Warren

21· ·Mosler to absolve him of the defamation, to absolve him

22· ·of the trade libel, and to allow him to keep my $100,000

23· ·forever.· That’s what this does.· It essentially takes

24· ·everything away from me for 100 bucks.

Trial Transcript, James Wagner testifying; pg 1207 ln 15 – 22

15· · · · Q· · Now —

16· · · · A· · But I actually got a phone call from

17· ·Mr. Mosler and he just tells me, “Hey, Todd, you know,

18· ·you’re outmatched here.· I won’t do it, but Savvas is

19· ·the type of guy who will sue you for anything and then

20· ·you’ll have to hire a lawyer for $400 an hour to defend

21· ·yourself until you’re broke.· That’s the way things work

22· ·in America.” ·

Trial Transcript, James Wagner testifying; pg 1208 ln 1 – 5

1· ·…………………………………………………………… he did follow

2· ·through on that threat.· He actually sued me because I

3· ·didn’t sign that document, and I had to spend two years

4· ·in court over that, essentially, because I didn’t

5· ·surrender everything I had to him…

First, there is no evidence or inference that Plaintiff Wagner’s alleged damages were caused by the words allegedly spoken by Defendant Warren Mosler to Matthew Farah. Wagner admits that he was not on the phone with Matthew Farah when he allegedly spoke to Defendant Warren Mosler.

NOTE: Judge Delgado is spinning the fact that Plaintiff-Wagner hadn’t wire-tapped Warren Mosler’s phone into a [HEINOUS] “ADMISSION”.

NOTE 2: I would expect this type of thing from Mosler’s attorney, Steven Weber; but this looks like a Palm Beach County Judge stepping into the role of advocating for an offshore multi-billionaire.

TESTIMONY on Topic of Count-9

Trial Testimony, James Wagner in cross-examination pg 1431 ln 14 – pg 1432 ln 2

14· · · · Q· · Now —

15· · · · A· · But saying I have severe mental problems

16· ·doesn’t make any article flow, man.

17· · · · Q· · Were you there when the author of those

18· ·articles wrote those articles?

19· · · · A· · No, I was not there in his presence.

20· · · · Q· · And you weren’t on the phone when any of these

21· ·authors allegedly spoke to Mr. Mosler, right?

22· · · · A· · They definitely spoke to him on the phone,

23· ·it’s not alleged.

24· · · · Q· · You were not on the phone with any of these

25· ·authors when they allegedly spoke to Mr. Mosler,

1· ·correct?

2· · · · A· · No, sir, I was not.

DOCUMENT on Topic of Count-9: (PL#42) Second ‘The Truth About Cars’ article.

NOTE: The journalist of this article, Jack Baruth, had a front-row-seat to all of the defamation and trade libel. His CONCLUSION at the end of it all was that Todd Wagner was a con-artist and that potential VICTIMS of a RaptorGTR purchase could find all the information they needed on line to avoid becoming a VICTIM (“mark”).

NOTE 2: Full article follows, but it difficult to read. The CONCLUSION of Jack Baruth that he felt confident enough in to justify publishing to the world is:

“After some discussion, Ray indicated to me that he was going to have Matt Hardigree cover the story – and cover it he has, complete with calls to all the major players. While one might suggest that Matt’s article is perhaps overly sympathetic to J. Todd Wagner, it is nonetheless interesting, balanced, and well-researched. Between that and the Dupont Registry article on the same topic, I’d imagine that potential marks customers for the RaptorGTR will find all the information they need.

******snip from actual article is below******

******full article follows******

INDICATION OF JUDGE DELGADO’S DESIRE TO DELIVER VICTORY TO DEFENDANTS

Trial Transcript, Immediately-Post-Trial JNOV Hearing- Count F; pg 2633 ln 2 – 16

2 ………………………………………… And I argued to the

3 jury he’s likening what Mr. Wagner is doing to

4 committing a crime.· And that’s a perfectly logical

5 inference from the evidence that’s before this

6 jury, and the jury found that Mr. Mosler

7 communicated the claim to a third party.

8 THE COURT:· Well, so we have what the jury

9 said here, and I think that preserves your record,

10 but I agree with Mr. Weber:· Granted as to D.

11 What’s the next one?· Is it D or, I’m sorry,

12 F?

13 MR. WEBER:· It would be G is the next one.

14 THE COURT:· No, no, no.· The one I just

15 granted was F?

16 MR. WEBER:· Count F, Statement 1.

10. There is no evidence of any person being involved in any conversation between Defendant Warren Mosler and Matthew Farah such that anyone could have heard the words allegedly spoke by Defendant Warren Mosler to Matthew Farah.

NOTE: Judge Delgado is required to know that only one recipient of Defamation is required as a matter of law.

NOTE 2: Warren Mosler delievered the gist of ‘Statement 1’ both to Matt Farah’s TV-show producer AND then a second time CONFIRMED the false statements to Matt Farah himself. Mr. Farah sought confirmation from Warren Mosler after Plaintiff-Wagner complained that false statements (the RaptorGTR is a fake) were being spread on the Internet. After Warren Mosler CONFIRMED the false statements, Matt Farah published online that Warren Mosler confirmed the statements that led Matt Farah to CONCLUDE that Plaintiff-Wagner was a con-man.

TESTIMONY on topic of Claim-10:

Warren Mosler’s False Statements to “The Car Show” Producers on November 15, 2011:

Trial Tr. Matt Farah – Journalist testifying pg 1103 ln 9 – 11

12 Q· · Nevertheless, your understanding is that

13 because of Warren Mosler’s statement to producers at

14 ·“The Car Show,” that the producers at “The Car Show” and

15 others at “The Car Show,” including yourself, concluded

16 it was not — I’m sorry — that the RaptorGTR was not a

17 Mosler product, correct?

18 A· · Correct.

19 Q· · Page 52.· All right.· Would you agree with me

20 that on or about November 15, 2011 at 6:10 p.m., you had

21 reached the conclusion that Mr. Wagner was a con man?

22 A· · Yes.

Warren Mosler CONFIRMS False Statements to Matt Farah himself on November 17, 2011:

Trial Tr. Matt Farah – Journalist testifying pg 1098 ln 9 – 16

9 Q· · Okay.· Now, within the November 17th posting

10 you wrote, “I spoke with Warren Mosler today.”· So you

11 spoke with him on or about November 17, 2011, correct?

12 A· · You know, if this has to hinge on a period of

13 12 hours, I cannot give you an accurate answer to that.

14 If you want to give it, you know, did it happen within a

15 couple days, I mean, I have no reason to believe that

16 the conversation didn’t happen on or about that day.·

Trial Tr. Matt Farah – Journalist testifying pg 1103 ln 9 – 11

9 Q· · Yet Mr. Mosler made it clear to you that the

10 RaptorGTR was not a Mosler product, correct?

11 A· · Yes, he did.

DOCUMENT on topic of Claim-10: partial of PL#40 ‘The Truth About Cars’ blog

11. Nor is there any evidence or inference that supports that any of Plaintiff Wagner’s alleged damages were proximately caused by the words allegedly spoken by Defendant Warren or Matthew Farah’s third-party republication as opposed to some other cause.

TESTIMONY on topic of Claim-11:

Trial Testimony, Abby Cubey testifying; pg 598 ln 15 – pg 599 ln 4

15· · · · Q· · Okay.· Are you aware of whether he wanted to

16· ·try and buy the company as well?

17· · · · A· · There was a discussion.· Yes.

18· · · · Q· · And what came of that discussion?

19· · · · A· · He backed out because of the — the stuff

20· ·that’s out there.

21· · · · Q· · When you say the stuff that’s out there, what

22· ·do you mean?

23· · · · A· · There was a — I believe there was an article

24· ·about a burnt engine.· I don’t know exactly.· I don’t

25· ·recall all of that, but this is just basing on what I ·

1· ·remember.· And the — what — what it says out there

2· ·that it’s — the car was fake, it wasn’t Mosler, and

3· ·then he called me, and that’s — and he said that I will

4· ·not pursue.

DOCUMENT on topic of Claim-11: (PL#95) Auto-by-Tel article

12. During the hearing on Defendants’ JNOV Motion, Plaintiffs argued that Plaintiff Wagner changed his name. However, Plaintiffs admitted that there was no legal name change in Plaintiff Wagner’s name because Plaintiff Wagner’s name is James Todd Wagner and Plaintiff Wagner previously went by Todd Wagner and now goes by James Wagner. There is no evidence of damages to the alleged name change.

TESTIMONY on topic of Claim-12

Trial Transcript, James Todd Wagner testifying pg 7 – 19

7· · · · Q· · Okay.· Now after you began — then you said

8· ·you started using the name “James.”· What other

9· ·issues — what other things did you do with respect to

10· ·trying to find a job?

11· · · · A· · Well, I changed my name to “James” on my

12· ·resume, which is still my first name, and I did get some

13· ·interviews.· Then I — in one particular instance it was

14· ·for a jet engine sales position.· When he called me back

15· ·and said “Are you Todd?”· I was like “Yeah.”

16· · · · · · ·So apparently he had called the Mosler factory

17· ·and they gave him a — you know, a dump about me and so

18· ·I didn’t get that job, and then I took the next step of

19· ·taking Mosler off of my resume entirely.

NOTE: Via a conversation with one prospective employer, I learned that employers who were considering hiring me were calling the MACC factory and getting an earful of defamation (verbal, so no written proof of; other than the below). Changing my name and having to take a 7-year stint as Director of Engineering off of my resume is DAMAGES; my career never recovered.

DOCUMENTS on topic of Claim-12: (PL#19) “truly mentally disturbed

13. There is No Evidence or Inference That Supports Defendant Warren Mosler Published the Statement.

(attempt-to-deny) TESTIMONY on topic of Claim-13

Trial Transcript, Warren Mosler in 2^nd cross-examination; pg 2318 ln 5 – 19·19

5· · · · Q· · By the way —

6· · · · A· · I called it Todd’s car.

7· · · · Q· · You said Todd’s car, Todd’s car.

8· · · · · · ·The documents that’s in evidence, the EPA

9· ·certification documents, that doesn’t say Todd’s car on

10· ·it, does it?

11· · · · A· · No.· No.

12· · · · Q· · It says 2012 Mosler — I’m sorry, 2012 Mosler

13· ·RaptorGTR, correct?

14· · · · A· · In the interest of time, I’ll take your word

15· ·for it.

16· · · · Q· · Okay.· And by the way, you can’t confirm or

17· ·deny whether or not you said those — whether you

18· ·confirmed that to Mr. Farah, correct?

19· · · · A· · I will deny I said that.

Trial Transcript, Warren Mosler testifying; pg 942 ln 25 – pg 943 ln

25· · · · Q· · Okay.· But rather than say that, you said “He

1· ·goes around claiming he has a distribution agreement.

2· ·He’s a distributor of nothing because we’re not

3· ·producing a car.”

4· · · · A· · Okay.· You did it again.· Do you want to

5· ·rephrase the question, please?

6· · · · Q· · No.· Let’s go down to the paragraph below.

7· · · · · · ·”Mosler wants nothing to do with Wagner, whom

8· ·he calls a pest.”· You did refer to Mr. Wagner, when

9· ·speaking to Mr. Hardigree, as a pest, correct?

10· · · · A· · Okay.· One more time, that’s what it says

11· ·here.· That’s what he’s saying I said.· I don’t have a

12· ·recollection of saying it, so…

13· · · · Q· · Where’s your email to Mr. Hardigree saying

14· ·“You misquoted me.· I never called Mr. Wagner a pest”?

15· · · · A· · There isn’t one.

Journalist’s TESTIMONY on topic of Claim-13

Trial Testimony, Matt Farah testifying; pg 1096 ln 17 – pg 1097 ln 4

17· · · · Q· · Okay.· What was your purpose in contacting

18· ·Warren Mosler?

19· · · · A· · He was the only person at the time who I

20· ·thought could confirm whether or not the RaptorGTR was a

21· ·genuine Mosler product…

22· · · · Q· · Was a genuine Mosler product — can you please

23· ·continue?

24· · · · A· · … or not.

25· · · · Q· · Okay.· So with respect to the November 17^th

1· ·posting, did you contact Mr. Mosler, or did he contact

2· ·you?

3· · · · A· · There — I got Mr. Mosler’s phone number and I

4· ·called him.

Plaintiff-Wagner TESTIMONY on topic of Claim-13

Trial Tr, James Wagner on PL #112 (below); pg 1818 ln 12 – pg 1819 ln 1

12· · · · Q· · On November 17, 2011, you wrote to who?

13· · · · A· · To Warren Mosler.

14· · · · Q· · Okay.· You wrote, quote, this is your response

15· ·to the successful certification that was done per your

16· ·request, right?

17· · · · A· · Yes.

18· · · · Q· · And why did you send that email to Mr. Mosler?

19· · · · A· · Because I’m reading this stuff where a

20· ·journalist is saying that Warren Mosler told him the car

21· ·won’t pass emissions and isn’t certifiable for public

22· ·sale.· So I’m like, Mosler, are you doing this.

23· · · · Q· · Okay.· And what was his response?

24· · · · A· · “Okay, point?”

25· · · · · · ·Like, I don’t know.· It’s such a — it’s such

1· ·a bizarro answer.·

Trial Tr, James Wagner on PL #112 (below); pg 1703 ln 19 – 23

19· · · · A· · Even when I asked him about it, he didn’t

20· ·admit that he’s the one who was saying this stuff.· He

21· ·shucked and jived and everything, and I couldn’t fathom

22· ·that he would do this.· It still to this day is

23· ·mind-boggling.

DOCUMENTS on topic of Claim-13: (PL#112) DIDN’T DENY publishing to Farah

14. Plaintiff SEI’s trade libel claim in Count G as to Statement 1 is based on the same statement as Plaintiff Wagner’s above defamation claim. E. 825 at 11,20. For the same reasons as set forth above with respect to Plaintiff Wagner, there is no evidence or inference that supports the jury’s finding that Defendant Warren Mosler published the statement at issue.

NOTE: Judge Delgado is doubling-down on the absurd position that Warren Mosler:

Had a financial incentive to publish the statement
Had the opportunity to deny making the statements, but didn’t.
Had the opportunity to publish a Press Release correcting the false conclusions, but didn’t.
Used EXTREME PRESSURE on me to [attempt to] induce me to sign a Full Release for the known-to-be-wrong harmful actions.
Used BLACKMAIL AND EXTORTION to [attempt to] force me to sign an “Acknowledgement” that the RaptorGTR was really a MT900.
I reach out for help, and Mosler ignores me [and LAUGHS ABOUT IT in front of the jury]

NOTE 2: The false statements were BELIEVED by numerous seasoned automotive journalists. The only person who could induce that much BELIEF was Warren Mosler. I was pushing hard to correct the false statements, but the weight of Warren overwhelmed me. Mosler’s refusal to issue a Press Release to correct the false statements will be shown here.

TESTIMONY on topic of Claim-14

Trial Tr. Warren Mosler testifying on Def’s Exh 107; pg 2244 ln 16 – pg 2245 ln 14

16· · · · Q· · Do you remember this press release?

17· · · · A· · Yes.

18· · · · Q· · Just let me know when you’re ready.

19· · · · A· · Go ahead.

20· · · · Q· · Okay.· What do you remember about this press

21· ·release?

22· · · · A· · Not much.· I mean, I remember parts of it, but

23· ·I remember I kind of stopped reading it halfway through.

24· ·I don’t care that much about it.· I was busy working and

25· ·my real job.· And Todd was writing press releases that ·

1· · · · A· · Yeah.· Yes.

2· · · · Q· · Okay.· And you remember this email exchange

3· ·between you and Mr. Wagner?

4· · · · A· · Yes.· I’ve seen it, you know, over the last

5· ·few months.

6· · · · Q· · And it contains a statement here where, at the

7· ·bottom, it says “Mr. Wagner says at the same time it is

8· ·important to me that the wrongful publication about my

9· ·suing Mosler be clearly extinguished.”· Do you see that?

10· · · · A· · Yes.

11· · · · Q· · And he wrote “That is the type of web-yuk that

12· ·will plague me for the rest of my life if it isn’t dealt

13· ·with.”

14· · · · A· · Uh-huh.

Trial Tr. Warren Mosler testifying on Def’s Exh 107; pg 2248 ln 5 – 18

5· · · · Q· · And this is another email where he’s telling

6· ·you that the problem he’s running into is that “my work

7· ·at Mosler is a huge chunk of my experience and the

8· ·fabricated ‘news’ about me suing Mosler and the various

9· ·other nonsense is everywhere.”· Do you see that?

10· · · · A· · Yes.

11· · · · Q· · So what did you understand that to mean?

12· · · · A· · He’s been trying to get a job and “the problem

13· ·I’m running into is that my work at Mosler is a huge

14· ·chunk of my experience and the fabricated ‘news’ about

15· ·me suing Mosler.”

16· · · · · · ·Well, the news that he says was fabricated was

17· ·interfering with his ability to get a job, I guess.· “No

18· ·one will hire me after reading all this stuff.”

Trial Tr. Warren Mosler testifying on Def’s Exh 107; pg 2274 ln 3 – 15

3· · · · Q· · That’s the December 1, 2011 email?

4· · · · A· · Yeah.

5· · · · Q· · You might recall because you were laughing in

6· ·front of the jury when you discussed it with your

7· ·attorney.

8· · · · A· · Okay.

9· · · · Q· · Okay.· And in this email Mr. Wagner was still

10· ·concerned about being maligned, wasn’t he?

11· · · · A· · Where are you pointing to?

12· · · · Q· · Well, in that email —

13· · · · A· · Yeah.· Where in that email?

14· · · · Q· · The general gist of this email —

15· · · · A· · Oh, the general gist?· Okay.

DOCUMENT on topic of Claim-14: (DEF#107) Wagner’s requested Press Release

15. There is No Evidence or Inference that Defendant Mosler Knew or Should Have Known that the Alleged Statement Would Induce Others Not to Deal with Plaintiff SEI.

NOTE: Mosler’s statement to a journalist was “the Twin-Turbo conversion to the ‘RaptorGTR’ Mosler MT900S will not pass emissions and is not certifiable for public sale.”

NOTE 2: How many people would purchase a car that the owner of the car company says the car “isn’t certifiable for public sale.”? There was extensive testimony that (in fact) no one did buy even one RaptorGTR. The “no evidence” claim is truly ridiculous.

TESTIMONY on topic of Claim-15

Trial Tr. Jonathan Frank (Exotic car dealer) testifying pg 1019 ln 18 – 25

18· · · · Q· · How many cars have you sold over the years?

19· · · · A· · Thousands, maybe tens of thousands.· Honestly,

20· ·I’d have to look back.

21· · · · Q· · Okay.

22· · · · A· · But, yeah.

23· · · · Q· · And of those tens of thousands, how many of

24· ·those have been exotic cars?

25· · · · A· · 90 percent.

Trial Tr. Jonathan Frank (Exotic car dealer) testifying pg 1021 ln 22 – pg 1022 ln 14

22· · · · Q· · Over the years have you had conversations with

23· ·potential purchasers of such vehicles?

24· · · · A· · Yes.

25· · · · Q· · Okay.· And what impact, if any, or what role, ·

1· ·if any, have reviews on magazines dedicated to cars, et

2· ·cetera, had in those conversations?

3· · · · A· · Reviews are great.· They’re a high impact on

4· ·the buyers.

5· · · · Q· · Okay.· And can you explain to the jury some of

6· ·the places that — excuse me, some of the periodicals

7· ·that you would have had conversations with people about

8· ·high-end supercars over the years?

9· · · · A· · Everything from — every publication out there

10· ·from MotorTrend, you know, duPont REGISTRY, Road and

11· ·Track, “Car and Driver.”· There’s, you know, endless

12· ·publications.· Plus, in the past, you know, 10 to 15

13· ·years social media has come into play in a big way as

14· ·well.

Trial Tr. Jonathan Frank (Exotic car dealer) testifying pg 1023 ln 24 – pg 1025 ln 8 24· · · · Q· · Okay.· So are you familiar with the car that’s

25· ·been called the 2012 RaptorGTR? ·

1· · · · A· · Yes.

2· · · · Q· · What information about the

3· ·horsepower-to-weight ratio are you aware of?

4· · · · A· · It’s the highest horsepower-to-weight ratio

5· ·out of anything of its time.

6· · · · Q· · Okay.· When you say “of its time,” what time

7· ·period are you talking about?

8· · · · A· · Yes.· The year that it was produced.

NOTE 3: This expert witness’s testimony was going very well for Plaintiffs (bad for the multi-billionaire); thus Judge Luis Delgado wouldn’t allow the expert’s Comparative Analysis Spreadsheet come into evidence…thus we were only [limited] allowed to ask verbal questions (below). MOSLER’S EXPERT WAS NOT LIMITED BY THE JUDGE.

Trial Tr. Jonathan Frank (Exotic car dealer) testifying pg 1031 ln 1 – pg 1032 ln 15

1· · · · Q· · How much is a — well, let me back up.

2· · · · · · ·Do you know what the power-to-weight ratio of

3· ·a 2013 McLaren P1 car was?

4· · · · A· · I’ll have to — it’s on this list right here.

5· ·The ’13 P1 is 537-horsepower per ton.

6· · · · Q· · Okay.· And how much did that car sell for?

7· · · · A· · The McLaren P1 sold for approximately

8· ·1.15 million.

9· · · · Q· · Okay.· And what’s the horsepower — the

10· ·power-to-weight ratio of a 2013 Ferrari LaFerrari that

11· ·you mentioned earlier?

12· · · · A· · It’s 543 per ton.

13· · · · Q· · And what is that car selling for?

14· · · · A· · 1.4 million.

15· · · · Q· · Okay.· And what is the horsepower-to-weight

16· ·ratio of a 2013 Bugatti Veyron SuperSport?

17· · · · A· · It’s 552 per ton.

18· · · · Q· · How much did that car sell for?

19· · · · A· · Approximately 2.4 million.

20· · · · Q· · Okay.· And how much is the — what’s the

21· ·power-to-weight ratio of a 2011 Koenigsegg Agera?

22· · · · A· · 599.

23· · · · Q· · Okay.· And how much did that car sell for?

24· · · · A· · 2.5 million.

25· · · · Q· · Okay.· And then let’s talk about a 2012

1· ·RaptorGTR.· What was its power-to-weight ratio?

2· · · · A· · 649 per ton.

3· · · · Q· · Based upon the horsepower-to-weight ratio,

4· ·what would you expect the 2012 RaptorGTR to sell for?

5· · · · A· · We estimated 700,000.

6· · · · Q· · Okay.· Now when you gave that estimate, did

7· ·you consider certain things such as brand recognition?

8· · · · A· · Yes.

9· · · · Q· · Did you consider the size engine?

10· · · · A· · Yes.

11· · · · Q· · Did you consider whether or not the car was

12· ·made of carbon fiber or not?

13· · · · A· · Yes, we did.

14· · · · Q· · Okay.· Did you consider its top speed?

15· · · · A· · Yes.

Trial Tr. Jonathan Frank (Exotic car dealer) testifying pg 1031 ln 1 – pg 1032 ln 15

13· · · · Q· · Now based upon your experience in the

14· ·industry, what impact would the manufacturer or the

15· ·owner of a vehicle manufacturer going public saying that

16· ·a vehicle was fake, what would that do to the value of

17· ·the car?

18· · · · A· · I think that would hurt the value in a huge

19· ·way.

DOCUMENTS on topic of Claim-15 (PL#94) Automobile Magazine on Hypercars

16. This Court agrees with Defendants’ contention there is no evidence whatsoever as to what Defendant Warren Mosler allegedly specifically said to Matthew Farah, or that whatever was allegedly said was done under circumstances such that it was done to cause others not to work with Plaintiff SEI.

NOTE: The below will focus on the section Judge Delgado’s claim “….or that whatever was allegedly said was done under circumstances such that it was done to cause others not to work with Plaintiff SEI.”

PROFIT MOTIVE behind the Defamation and Trade Libel.

TESTIMONY on topic of Claim-16

Trial Transcript, Warren Mosler in second cross-examination; pg 2312 ln 11 – pg 2313 ln 321 · ·

11· · · · Q· · You wanted to get Todd to transfer the name of

12· ·the Raptor to the company, terminate Todd.· And part of

13· ·that terminating Todd was getting him to sign the

14· ·agreement that said that the company owed him nothing,

15· ·correct?

16· · · · A· · That was him terminating Todd, not me

17· ·terminating Todd.· This says I needed to —

18· · · · Q· · Do you remember the documentation —

19· · · · A· · No.

20· · · · Q· · — in this — okay.· That’s in evidence.

21· · · · · · ·Who benefits from those things?· Who was

22· ·released from the claims?

23· · · · A· · The company — the company that Savvas was

24· ·buying, MACC, after it sold.

25· · · · Q· · MACC? ·

1· · · · A· · Yeah.

2· · · · Q· · Okay.· That you owned at the time?

3· · · · A· · At the time, that he was to buy.

DOCUMENT on topic of Claim-16: (PL#117) The TERMINATE TODD email

NOTE: Full document follows. This scheme was hatched ONE MONTH after my invention (838hp 7.0L V8 with post-catalyst turbos positioned as a visual element of the supercar) was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.

NOTE 2: I excitedly had announced this accomplishment (which would made BOTH of our dreams come true) to Mosler. Mosler decided to TAKE EVERYTHING FOR HIMSELF (and his friend, Savvas)…..but I had no idea this decision had been made behind my back.

DOCUMENT on this Claim-15: Environmental Protection Agency Certificate dated Aug 12, 2011

17. There is no evidence or inference upon which the jury could find that Defendant Warren Mosler reasonably knew or should have known that the statement would induce others to not work with Plaintiff SEI. [DUPLICATE statement in Judge Delgado’s Orders; thus will be removed from analysis]

17. There is No Evidence Or Inference that the Alleged Statement Actually Cause Others Not to Deal with Plaintiff SEI or Caused Damages.

TESTIMONY on topic of Claim-17

Trial Tr. James Todd Wagner testifying pg 1247 ln 11 – pg 1248 ln 5

11· · · · Q· · — I want to talk to you — shift gears a

12· ·minute about the defamation to the car.

13· · · · · · ·You’ve — there’s been repeated testimony

14· ·about a $700,000 price tag for the 2012 RaptorGTR,

15· ·correct?

16· · · · A· · Yes.

17· · · · Q· · Okay.· What did it ultimately sell for?

18· · · · A· · $300,000.

19· · · · Q· · Okay.· Did you have any discussions with

20· ·anyone as to why you couldn’t get more than $300,000 for

21· ·it?

22· · · · A· · Yes.· I mean, the side glass was broken.

23· ·Who’s going to buy a $700,000 car with the side glass

24· ·broken?

25· · · · Q· · Okay. ·

1· · · · A· · And it was one of a kind.· It had a special

2· ·cut.· There’s no way.· And of course I didn’t have the

3· ·money to go and, like, make molds and all that special ·

4· ·cut.· So that plus all of the defamation.· Everyone

5· ·thought it was a fake.

Trial Tr. James Todd Wagner testifying pg 1249 ln 22 – pg 1250 ln 4

22· · · · Q· · Okay.· You had sold Mosler vehicles in the

23· ·past, correct?

24· · · · A· · Yes.

25· · · · Q· · Okay.· Absent the derogatory statements made ·

1· ·about the car, what level of confidence do you have that

2· ·you would have been able to sell that car for 700,000?

3· · · · A· · 100 percent I would have been able to sell ten

4· ·of them easily.·

DOCUMENT on topic of Claim-17 (PL#105) My response to more defamation

NOTE: Within the article that is the topic of this response (to the Journalist); Warren Mosler is attempting to sell an Ilegally-Built [truly fake] 2011 Mosler Photon for $489,000. Part of Mosler’s attempt to sell his [fake] supercar is stating again that the RaptorGTR isn’t a Mosler.

18. In this case, there is simply no evidence or inference that supports that the words themselves that Defendant Warren Mosler allegedly spoke to Matthew Farah were the sole cause of Plaintiff SEI’s losses.

NOTE: There is no requirement for Plaintiffs to prove that Defendants’ actions are the “sole cause” is proven for damages. This is a near impossibility in Defamation. Judge Delgado is inventing a higher standard, which helps justify delivering the victory to Defendants.

NOTE 2: It took something POTENT to ruin the reputation of what was the highest power-to-weight hyperexotic on the market in 2011. Judge Delgado should present his alternate-reality vision: WHAT ELSE COULD HAVE POSSIBLY CAUSED THE SCENARIO WHEREBY NOT EVEN ONE CAR COULD BE SOLD?

NOTE 3: Since it is a given that the Trade Libel was ‘ a cause’ for SEI’s $400,000 loss (on the one vehicle) – the Court has an onus to identify the other causes…if it is to create the false-requirement that the Statements are the ONLY cause.

There was no evidence presented by Defendants of claimed ‘other causes’ for SEI’s losses.

NOTE 4: Defendants have had 11 years to generate any “proof” that there were other [things] that generated SEI’s losses, yet they came up with none.

TESTIMONY on topic of Claim-18

Trial Tr. Abby Cubey testifying pg 599 ln 5 – 21

21· · · · Q· · When you say the stuff that’s out there, what

22· ·do you mean?

23· · · · A· · There was a — I believe there was an article

24· ·about a burnt engine.· I don’t know exactly.· I don’t

25· ·recall all of that, but this is just basing on what I ·

1· ·remember.· And the — what — what it says out there

2· ·that it’s — the car was fake, it wasn’t Mosler, and

3· ·then he called me, and that’s — and he said that I will

4· ·not pursue.

5· 5 – 21 · · · Q· · When you say it was — the car was fake and it

6· ·was not Mosler, it was not a Mosler car?

7· · · · A· · Yes, I mean you can see it’s all over the

8· ·Internet.

9· · · · Q· · Okay.· Were you and/or any of your family

10· ·members ever interested in investing in the company?

11· · · · A· · Yes.· We were going to invest half a million

12· ·dollars.· Yes.

13· · · · Q· · Okay.· Who is we?

14· · · · A· · Me, my mom.· My family overall.

15· · · · Q· · Okay.· And did your family have the means to

16· ·invest that much money?

17· · · · A· · Yes.

18· · · · Q· · Okay.· And what happened to your desire to

19· ·invest in the company?

20· · · · A· · It — it’s — out of all the bad press there,

21· ·I mean, we can’t do it.· It’s just not good for us.

DOCUMENT on topic of Claim-18: (PL#4) Mosler, his VP, and his Office Manager all knew

NOTE: During the DUMB-DEVIOUS “Terminate Todd” scheme that intended to destroy my reputation, while preserving the value of the RaptorGTR’s reputation; insiders of MACC were going to issue a press release…but they eventually decided to simply let Wagner swing.

***Full version of PL#4 is below

There is no evidence or inference that supports that anyone heard the words that Defendant Warren Mosler allegedly spoke to Matthew Farah much less that those words specifically cause Matthew Farah to publish anything that then caused anyone to not deal with Plaintiff SEI or cause Plaintiff SEI damages. Accordingly, judgement notwithstanding the verdict is appropriate.

NOTE: This is perhaps the most absurd of the 20 claims of “No Evidence Nor Inference.” There was EXTENSIVE testimony from Matt Farah himself that he both called Warren Mosler and HEARD Warren Mosler.

NOTE 2: Judge Delgado is attempting to establish a PRECIDENT whereby all defamation law becomes irrelevant.

TESTIMONY on topic of Claim-19

[Discussion about single-action rule (which was already handled and settled because there are two different Plaintiffs)], then Judge Luis Delgado’s statement: Due to the foregoing this Court find that there is no evidence or inferences that support Plaintiffs’ positions, or the jury’s findings, which respect to both claims and therefore, Judgement Notwithstanding the Verdict is appropriate as to both claims.

NOTE: Of all the statements from Judge Delgado that are vigorously-biased in favor of the multibillionaire Defendant; this is the most absurd. Essentially, this states that since there are two causes of action on one statement of Defamation; that NEITHER can be awarded upon.

FURTHER ABSURDITY: There are two different Plaintiffs, so it is fully valid for each Plaintiff to have been damaged (in different ways). The above is the most damning proof that Judge Luis Delgado isn’t acting as an indifferent referee; but rather as an ADVOCATE for Defendants.

BELOW ARE FROM MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ON $100M+ COUNTS REMOVED MID-TRIAL

There is no evidence nor inference [in a light most advantageous to Plaintiffs] whereby the Jury could find for Plaintiffs on the 25-Year Exclusive Distributorships in China and Thailand.

TESTIMONY on topic of Claim-21:

Trial Testimony, James Wagner in cross-examination; pg 1372 ln 22 – pg 1373 ln 5

22· · · · Q· · Let’s look at this email, November 16, 2010.

23· ·So Mr. Mosler says “with a few changes attached,” he’s

24· ·referring to changes to the distributorship agreement,

25· ·right?

1· · · · A· · Yes.· Yes, this is —

2· · · · Q· · And so now —

3· · · · A· · Mr. Mosler is a co-scrivener —

4· · · · Q· · Hold on.

5· · · · A· · — on the distributorship agreement.

Trial Testimony, James Wagner in cross-examination; pg 1699 ln 11 – 23

11· · · · Q· · And you wrote in this email that it was the

12· ·fabricated news about you suing Mosler which was causing

13· ·you a problem in getting hired, correct?

14· · · · A· · And all of the stuff.· It was holistically

15· ·that I’m a con artist and the whole suing Mosler

16· ·precipitated from Benjamin Greene thinking that I’m

17· ·lying and so I’m going to sue him.

18· · · · · · ·So all of this precipitated from Mr. Mosler

19· ·and the people who work for him all stating the same

20· ·thing, that the RaptorGTR is a fake and I’m not a

21· ·distributor, so they all — everyone — all these

22· ·journalists believed what he’s saying, they think I’m a

23· ·con artist.

Trial Testimony, James Wagner testifying; pg 1157 ln 10 – 17

10· · · · Q· · Within Exhibit Number 40, “The Truth About

11· ·Cars” article where Mr. Mosler stated the car will not

12· ·pass emissions and is not certifiable for public sale,

13· ·was that a true statement or false statement?

14· · · · A· · That’s a false statement.

15· · · · Q· · Okay.· How do you know that’s a false

16· ·statement?

17· · · · A· · Well, because we have the EPA certification.

Trial Testimony, James Wagner testifying; pg 1160 ln 9 – 19

9· · · · Q· · Okay.· With respect to the distributorship

10· ·contract that’s in evidence, what was the requirements

11· ·about presenting the car to any media outlets?

12· · · · A· · It was required to present the car in at least

13· ·one media outlet in China and Thailand.

14· · · · Q· · And when you did that — by the way, is one of

15· ·those in evidence?

16· · · · A· · Yes.· It’s sitting right over there.

17· · · · Q· · Oh, okay.

18· · · · · · ·You may recall that I’m showing you now the

19· ·Asia Release News Service

Trial Testimony, Warren Mosler testifying; pg 930 ln 4 – 11

4· · · · Q· · — you entered into a contract for

5· ·Mr. Wagner’s company, Supercar Engineering, to be a

6· ·distributor of the vehicles that you anticipated

7· ·producing, and he was going to distribute them in China

8· ·and Thailand, correct?

9· · · · A· · We entered into a contract for him to try and

10· ·sell it and feel protected that I wasn’t going to cut

11· ·him out, which I didn’t do.

Trial Testimony, Warren Mosler testifying; pg 931 ln 1 – 4

1· · · · Q· · Okay.· Then we have “Forfeit of exclusive

2· ·distribution rights.”· You never declared Supercar

3· ·Engineering in breach of this agreement, did you?

4· · · · A· · I don’t have a recollection of doing that.

Trial Testimony, Warren Mosler testifying; pg 931 ln 21 – pg 932 ln 14

21· · · · Q· · Okay.· “SEI will forfeit its exclusive

22· ·distribution rights in China and Thailand immediately

23· ·upon failure to perform any of the terms 2 through 6 in

24· ·paragraph A, provided that MACC has fulfilled its

25· ·obligation to supply vehicles as described in paragraph

1· ·B.”

2· · · · · · ·Since MACC didn’t supply any vehicles, that

3· ·paragraph can’t come into effect, can it?

4· · · · A· · Why not?

5· · · · Q· · Well, it says provided how — provided, right?

6· · · · A· · Yeah.

7· · · · Q· · So the requirement for paragraph 1 to act as a

8· ·forfeit of SEI’s distribution rights would be that MACC

9· ·has fulfilled its obligation to supply vehicles.

10· · · · A· · Well, a couple of things.· Todd was in charge

11· ·of sales and production, so he’s on both sides of this.

12· ·You know, and we didn’t produce anything because we

13· ·didn’t sell anything.· If he had any orders, he would

14· ·have built the cars and delivered them.

NOTE: “Todd being in charge of sales AND PRODUCTION” is a flat lie. Todd was laid off from MACC on January 7, 2011. That was just 2 months after the Exclusive Distributorship Agreement was signed. Todd could not have been “in charge of production”; the truth is that Mosler chose to lay off the majority of the persons who could have built vehicles right after Christmas 2010 – thus MACC physically could not fulfill Paragraph B. Testimony on this is below.

Trial Testimony, James Wagner in cross-examination; pg 1559 ln 24 – pg 1560 ln 7

24· · · · Q· · Okay.· Let’s start here on line 5.· Actually,

25· ·let’s start here on line 12.· It writes “Anyway, in

1· ·2011, beginning of January 2011 I was laid off.· Warren

2· ·wanted Supercar Engineering to continue working to

3· ·finish the certification of the RaptorGTR.· Warren

4· ·Mosler paid Supercar Engineering only in terms of

5· ·credits toward the purchase of the RaptorGTR —

6· · · · · · ·”Question:· Okay.

7· · · · · · ·”Answer — that year.

THEREFORE, there was no contractual mechanism whereby SEI could lose Exclusivity within the 25-year Exclusive Distributorships in China and Thailand. Even if SEI did lose “Exclusivity”; the obligation to supply 3 vehicles per year to SEI remained a valid term of the contract. MACC breached by not producing the vehicles. Warren Mosler breached via the extensive Defamation and Trade Libel campaign he was waging for the PROFIT MOTIVE of wiping out SEI’s exclusive distribution rights.

Judge Luis Delgado had to ignore the plain language of the contract and extensive evidence in order to deliver the win to the multibillionaire Defendants.

DOCUMENTS on topic of Claim-21: (PL#5) Invoice for RaptorGTR and Exclusive Distributorships of Mosler Products in China and Thailand à as a combined / part-in-parcel purchase.

(more) TESTIMONY on topic of No-Evidence-Claim-21: Mosler attempting to convince the jury that the RaptorGTR wasn’t actually a RaptorGTR, but was instead “Todd’s Car”.

NOTE: Between Warren Mosler and his paid-employee, Sylvia Klaker, they stated the words “Todd’s Car” 14 times at trial….and they tried as hard as they could to NOT say “RaptorGTR”.

Trial Transcript, Warren Mosler testifying; pg 671 ln 18 – 22

18· · · · Q· · What did the company call the car when it was

19· ·sold to Supercar Engineering, Inc.?

20· · · · A· · Todd’s car.

21· · · · Q· · What did the Bill of Sale say?

22· · · · A· · I’d have to take a look at it.

Trial Transcript, Warren Mosler testifying; pg 681 ln 8 – 16

8· · · · Q· · Mr. Mosler —

9· · · · A· · Yeah.

10· · · · Q· · — let’s talk specifically about the 2012

11· ·RaptorGTR.

12· · · · A· · Todd’s car?

13· · · · Q· · Yes.

14· · · · A· · Okay.

15· · · · Q· · SEI’s car, right?

16· · · · A· · Todd.

DOCUMENTS on topic of Claim-21: (PL#3) RaptorGTR #001 in-build within the MACC factory, with the model-specific single tail lights integrated into the bumper. See also following testimony.

Trial Transcript, Warren Mosler testifying; pg 686 ln 16 – 16

16· · · · Q· · I’m going to show you what’s been marked as

17· ·Plaintiffs’ Exhibit Number 3 in evidence.

18· · · · A· · Yeah.

19· · · · Q· · Do you recognize that document?

20· · · · A· · Yes.

21· · · · Q· · That photograph?

22· · · · · · ·Okay.· And what’s that a photograph of?

23· · · · A· · Can you show this to the jury?

24· · · · Q· · We can, but I’m just asking you first.

25· · · · A· · That’s a car in the shop.

1· · · · Q· · Okay.· Do you know what car that is?

2· · · · A· · I saw that it was — it could be anyone, but

3· ·that looks to me like the same Todd’s car.

4· · · · Q· · That’s the 2012 RaptorGTR while it’s in

5· ·progress of being built, correct?

6· · · · A· · Right.

DOCUMENTS on topic of Claim-21: (PL#47) RaptorGTR #001 Completed; photographed behind MACC factory in front of storage containers owned by MACC. See also testimony that follows.

Trial Transcript, Warren Mosler testifying; pg 690 ln 16 – 16

5· · · · Q· · You were here yesterday.· Ms. Klaker said she

6· ·couldn’t identify that car.· Can you identify that car?

7· ·Without showing it to the jury, sir.

8· · · · A· · Sorry.· Yeah, that looks like Todd’s car.

9· · · · Q· · Okay.· And do you recognize the background?

10· · · · A· · Yes.

11· · · · Q· · Okay.· And what’s that background?

12· · · · A· · That’s the shop.

13· · · · Q· · Okay.· That’s in the back of the Mosler Auto

14· ·Care Center shop?

15· · · · A· · Yes.

16· · · · Q· · And that’s the completed 2012 RaptorGTR,

17· ·correct?

18· · · · A· · Well, I don’t know if it’s completed, but it’s

19· ·Todd’s car.

There is no evidence nor inference [in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs] whereby the Jury could decide that the statement to Car & Driver journalist, “He is nothing. He has some serious mental problems…” was defamatory [not stated as PURE opinion].

NOTE: Evidence that Judge Delgado was intent upon throwing out this most-valuable element of the lawsuit is this: When presented with an affidavit from an English & Philosophy PhD illustrating that the grammatical structure of the defamatory statement was FACTUAL (there is no “opinion” structure); Judge Delgado simply threw out that evidence.

DOCUMENTS on topic of No-Envidence-Claim-22: (PL#19) written to a potential business partner of Wagner five (5) days after the Car & Driver defamation was published.

PARTIAL BLOW-UP OF PL#19:

A brief interview with him will assure you he’s truly mentally disturbed a few years ago and is fundamentally irrational now.

DOCUMENTS on topic of No-Envidence-Claim-22: (PL#14) Mosler doubling-down in effort to firmly convince a business partner of Wagner’s that WAGNER IS INSANE / UNSTABLE / SNAPPED.

PARTIAL BLOW-UP OF PL#19:

I’m not saying SEI doesn’t exist, just that I owe it noting.
Todd snapped around the time he lent a guy named Lew something $100,000 close. We all told todd not to do it, that Lew was bogus, but he wouldn’t listen.

DOCUMENTS on topic of No-Envidence-Claim-22: (PL#60)

Click here to visit WarrenMosler.co featuring extensive data on the 11-year-running lawsuit against the “Godfather of Modern Monetary Theory” (inflation); and the EXTENSIVE Evidence that Judge Luis Delgado declared on the Court Record was “No Evidence nor Inference..”