Posted On: 03/14/2016 4:32:27 PM
Post# of 72445
We always worry about the stupidity of a jury but (though I do not think this will get that far) I suspect that any jury is going to see right through the stupid fraud.
In a trial, Ashcroft/Sullivan can show how Rosen claimed to rely on an online article from an anonymous short-seller. An article which is provably untrue on all counts regarding the company's statements and the science -- and that Rosen is basing their entire claim on whether Menon or an inaccurate reporter made the Harvard Ph.D. claim.
Would even the dumbest of the dumb think that anyone's diploma made a difference in whether someone invested or not in a possible cure for cancer, a possible new antibiotic class, and a possible cure for psoriasis? Or would they see right through that BS?
Just as an example, Rosen is trying to make a major claim that CTIX "didn't warn" investors that a Brilacidin trial would cost money. That is patently ridiculous. Anyone investing in a biotech knows that drug trials cost money. Sullivan will demolish them on that.
In a trial, Ashcroft/Sullivan can show how Rosen claimed to rely on an online article from an anonymous short-seller. An article which is provably untrue on all counts regarding the company's statements and the science -- and that Rosen is basing their entire claim on whether Menon or an inaccurate reporter made the Harvard Ph.D. claim.
Would even the dumbest of the dumb think that anyone's diploma made a difference in whether someone invested or not in a possible cure for cancer, a possible new antibiotic class, and a possible cure for psoriasis? Or would they see right through that BS?
Just as an example, Rosen is trying to make a major claim that CTIX "didn't warn" investors that a Brilacidin trial would cost money. That is patently ridiculous. Anyone investing in a biotech knows that drug trials cost money. Sullivan will demolish them on that.
(0)
(0)
