I guess the part about Cha-Cha's testimony being "compelling" was news to me. I am wondering if the drafter of the reply brief was observing the same trial I was. The only "compelling" argument she made was to support the contention that Knight Equity has long made and that is to say that she was one of the worst analysts of her time. If they can introduce Kevin Starke's material (spoon fed by Rosen) as evidence then why can't we introduce the following as evidence that is equally reliable and from a very credible source in the distressed community:
I just finished reading defendants' reply. Looks like we got "serious pondering" to consider. This stuff is well written and could be damaging. I suggest that one of the legal experts read and explain it. As it stands, it is rather foreboding.
Read the filing at this site:Our board, sideraft (thanks) posted #4365 11/4/2011
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
