That's what we did in our initial Rule 60/24 filing. We did not blame the Court, but instead, argued that she was mistaken because she misled by Defendants.
However, she essentially spat in our faces when confronted with the facts, law, math, science, and statistical evidence. Not only that, but she actually expressed profound sympathy for the wrongdoers. See Footnote 5 in our Opening Brief:
"For instance, without exhibiting any regard for the concerns expressed by EPADI II, or the truth itself, the District Court audaciously voiced its profound sympathy for Defendants, stating that allowing EPADI II to intervene for the sole purpose of vacating the Judgment, “would substantially prejudice Defendants, as it would nullify the years of work they put into ultimately prevailing in this case.” Amarin III, at *2. Such a statement from the District Court, is both outrageous and astounding, considering that Defendants unjustly prevailed through a combination of mistake, fraud, misrepresentation, unclean hands, and fraud on the court."
Our people were devastated as a result of her grossly negligent judicial misfeasance, and we proved that her decision was wrong, yet when confronted with the proofs, she expressed her sympathy for the wrongdoers, and labelled our fraud claims as "unsubstantiated".
This is inexcusable, and directly established the appearance of impropriety/bias concerns previously expressed. The Court stepped over a line. The gloves are off. At oral argument, we will continue the theme of the Briefs, namely that not only Defendants' misconduct, but the Court's embrace of that misconduct, are reasons for reversal.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
