HinduKush Saturday, 05/23/20 04:30:08 PM Re: TastyTheElf post# 275770 Post # of 277701 Hit the nail fairly and squarely on the head: Quote:The offsetting of secondary considerations is a clear, crazy error. And the sequencing of prima facie vs secondary may be in error, but there is a debate there. I would say, however, that the pure factual errors are SO grotesque here that even if the procedural errors weren't out there, there is STILL a very compelling case for reversal. The defendants were so far from presenting clear and compelling prima facie evidence that we shouldn't even have needed any secondary conditions (although we had them -- in spades). Yes, which is why I am trying to dig up as much verifiable documented literature of the period aka peer reviewed published articles circa 2000-2008 that I can. This is the litmus test of a POSA's opinion...on which The Du-ster should have based her prima facie enunciation...turns out she gave up cerebrating and her thesis is a house of straw waiting for the wind of knowledge to blow it down with a puff. I am aware of the rules of what might or might not be admissible but that's Singer's job. HK PS Irregardless of the papers/documents cited in the pretrial and trial briefs, Toth et al did a piss poor job, IMHO, (under Covington guidance) on conveying with clarity the true state of lipid science circa Mori 2000 on cross examination, leave alone establishing a favorable scientific thread of thought in her excellency's mind, whilst allowing themselves to be cornered into utterances that were later misquoted out of context through legal maneuvering on her part in her infamous judgment.