Replies to post #331641 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[rafunrafun]

B-

Also, the trial was largely a battle of the experts. With each side free to present their best case. Why should the court open the case back up to yet more expert opinions that were not but could have been presented at trial?

During trial, witness testifies that he was in NY during the commission of the crime. Judge rules in his side's favor.

After trial, the other side discovers that the witness was actually in CA, not in NY (Judge was lied to and ruled based on that). Can't that new evidence be introduced in court?

[ziploc_1]

B...Quote " Why should the court open the case back up to yet more expert opinions that were not but could have been presented at trial?"
The rule 60 submission depends not on a relitigation of the merits of the case, but on the false cropping of a key piece of evidence(i. e. the Kura table)...which turned the decision in favor the defendant,Hickma.

It is the equivalent, in a criminal case, of the prosecution withholding exculpatory evidence from the defendant to strengthen the prosecution's case...these decisions are often reversed.

In this case it was the judge being introduced to false evidence to benefit the defendant...this too deserves to be reversed.

[Meowza]

Because ruling contrary to the facts presented at trial is bad judicial policy.

[marjac]

The argument I set forth is not re-litigation of the merits outside the scope of Rule 60. Rule 60(b)(1) allows for vacation of a judgment based upon Mistake. Ample binding Ninth Circuit caselaw cited in our Brief, as well as even a previous Judge Du decision, hold that this includes mistakes of law and mistakes of fact made by the judge.

The argument set forth in reliance upon Curfman, Bhatt, Jarvis, HK, factually supports vacation of the Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) based upon judicial mistake. This is even before we reach fraud, fraud on the court, and inequitable conduct.

Your "re-litigation on the merits" critique would hold true if we delved into all of the Singer appeal arguments, which is somewhere we do not venture. The answer to "cases would never end", is that the overwhelming majority of cases end because our Rule 60 arguments (Mistake, Misrepresentation, Fraud, Fraud on the Court, Inequitable Conduct, Unclean Hands) cannot be legitimately advanced. Here, as set forth in our Brief, these arguments not only can be advanced, but they should prevail.

This case should be revisited not because I say so, but due to the facts fitting the Rule 60 elements like a glove. Moreover, the "could have been presented at trial" argument is factually unpersuasive because we are addressing issues not known until the Judgment was rendered, and the cases address these diligence issues as not detrimental to Rule 60 relief.

Just think about it in the barebones abstract: We establish that the premises relied upon by the Court in her own words are without foundation, is the Court to allow a Judgment to stand based upon such erroneous presumptions? Rule 60 is the procedural vehicle to address precisely this situation, and from my exhaustive review of the Rule 60 cases, the ones that fail, do not succeed based upon their facts.