I wonder if a diligent attorney would investigate what other actions that FDA functionary and their supervisors took against or for other companies, to see if there is a pattern of attacking small companies and favoring big ones.

I might want to check to see if the FDA ever issued similar letters to any other company ever, or if CYDY was singled out in an unusual move guaranteed to hurt its stock price and deals with other countries.

I might want to look into whether that employee was the same one who wouldn't let CYDY use 4 doses of the drug.

I might want to check to see if that employee had any social connections to well know bashers, short-sellers, or members of the 13D group, or if this is someone who knows people at CYDY personally and has an ax to grind.

I might want to look into whether that person has a nicer house, or car, or other things that would indicate they might be getting money in addition to their salary.

In short, I would want to investigate if there are things that would explain why such a crazy letter was issued hastily after Nader Pourhassen opened his big mouth and talked about how CYDY was going to be a revenue-generating company, undoubtedly freaking out anyone who was short or who was hoping to drive the stock price down so they could do a hostile takeover of the company.

If I were an attorney, I might remember that sometimes when you pull on a string, then the entire item might unravel. Or to put it another way, when you peel off one layer of the onion, you have another layer to examine to see if it is rotten.

Of course, I'm not a securities lawyer nor do I claim to be an attorney, so gee, how would I know if investigating to see if there was improper conduct by an FDA employee might in some way help a company.

But now I guess I've been educated by the implication of the post to which I replied -- that an attorney should just ignore possible sources of evidence.