Of all the stupid things, jesus fuck. This is going to get thrown out almost immediately. The lab is anti-GMO/pesticide, the study was funded by an anti-GMO/pesticide group, the study had no controls and was not peer reviewed or replicated.
That means that until there's a second study and it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no issues with the "experiment" and so on that no one can sue again. Note that it's not whether or not there's a second study. It's when the data is exhaustively studied. That can take years. Instead of waiting for a second study to confirm the results, some moronic retard just went ahead and ruined it for everyone.
How's he gonna do that? He's a lawyer, not a science lab. There needs to be a second set of findings that confirms the first. Any competent judge is going to dismiss this without a confirmation study.
The lawyer is not going to hire them. They lawyer is not going to pay for it. That's all on the client.
Once the suit has been filed, there's a limited amount of time to get everything together. Science doesn't just happen. It takes time.
This is something that should have been done before the lawsuit, hence my original comment. But to hear everyone scream about what I said, you'd think that I'm saying that it's not in the food. I'm saying that a second study needed to have been done before the lawsuit. And since it's highly unlikely that a second study will be completed before the court date, the judge is very likely to dismiss it, possibly with prejudice. That means that anyone else wanting to sue now not only has to wait until a second study is done, they have to wait until the data is analyzed to make sure that it is air tight.
If the dude had waited until a second study, he might have squeaked by with just having a second study. But now it has to be studied again and then analyzed to within an inch of the data's life. That can take quite a while.
There is no reason Mounira Doss couldn't follow the same model, and partner with another Law Firm once the case proceeds to the point that more help/money is needed.
Oh, wait, you're doing Rule by Exception fallacy. You can name one exception so of course you're 100% right. You were doing sooo well for a minute there. (hint: your inner (((jew))) is showing)
It's been, shit, let's call it a full day. I asked you for evidence, you provided none. You're either a liar or you wanted to believe in what you were saying without thinking or knowing.
There are all ready studies used to win cases, and they specifically name Cheerios. It would be a so easy to find and fund another study to explore the claims in existing work(s).
I'm still waiting for you to provide me evidence that pro bono lawyers will hire scientific labs to generate evidence for a trial on a regular basis. You've had 24 hours and 2, no, 3 requests now.
You refuse to provide proof so that makes you a liar.
Pro-Bono Firm White & Case - Started the lead poisoning litigation case on behalf of the children of Flint. The firm fronted all costs to produce evidence which forced the creation of a two-tier screening process of all Flint residents, and the funding their follow up care.
I told you from the start that you needed to prove that a majority of times (very specifically to rule out rule by exception), pro bono lawyers will hire outside firms to generate evidence. You came back with some nonsense about lawyers hiring other lawyers (to do work) and some place in there you keep throwing up the same single incident.
You said pro bono lawyers, as a matter of course, hire outside firms (aside from lawyers) to generate evidence.
You have yet to prove it. You can't. Because you're a fucking kiar. All you can spit out is "rule by exception", ad hominems, and cry like a little faggot baby.
view the rest of the comments →
totes_magotes ago
Of all the stupid things, jesus fuck. This is going to get thrown out almost immediately. The lab is anti-GMO/pesticide, the study was funded by an anti-GMO/pesticide group, the study had no controls and was not peer reviewed or replicated.
That means that until there's a second study and it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no issues with the "experiment" and so on that no one can sue again. Note that it's not whether or not there's a second study. It's when the data is exhaustively studied. That can take years. Instead of waiting for a second study to confirm the results, some moronic retard just went ahead and ruined it for everyone.
KosherHiveKicker ago
All that man's attorney needs to prove is Roundup's presence in that product.
Game Over.
totes_magotes ago
How's he gonna do that? He's a lawyer, not a science lab. There needs to be a second set of findings that confirms the first. Any competent judge is going to dismiss this without a confirmation study.
KosherHiveKicker ago
So you are saying an attorney can't hire/contract an independent lab(s) to simply test for the presence of Roundup in random samples of a product?
totes_magotes ago
The lawyer is not going to hire them. They lawyer is not going to pay for it. That's all on the client.
Once the suit has been filed, there's a limited amount of time to get everything together. Science doesn't just happen. It takes time.
This is something that should have been done before the lawsuit, hence my original comment. But to hear everyone scream about what I said, you'd think that I'm saying that it's not in the food. I'm saying that a second study needed to have been done before the lawsuit. And since it's highly unlikely that a second study will be completed before the court date, the judge is very likely to dismiss it, possibly with prejudice. That means that anyone else wanting to sue now not only has to wait until a second study is done, they have to wait until the data is analyzed to make sure that it is air tight.
If the dude had waited until a second study, he might have squeaked by with just having a second study. But now it has to be studied again and then analyzed to within an inch of the data's life. That can take quite a while.
KosherHiveKicker ago
An Attorney-Law Firm who is looking at the big picture, and deep pockets of the defendant will gladly foot the bill if they see a viable case.
totes_magotes ago
I know what pro bono is and it doesn't always cover additional expenditures such as hiring other professionals to generate evidence.
Got a source one what law firm is representing Mounira Doss and whether or not it is pro bono?
The short answer is "No" because it's behind a pay wall.
OP article links to : https://www.reuters.com/article/products-general-mills-glyphosate/general-mills-hit-with-lawsuit-over-glyphosate-containing-cheerios-idUSL2N1VB1MY
Which in turn links to : https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/v2?culture=en-US&productid=CBT&returnto=https%3A%2F%2F1.next.westlaw.com%2FCosi%2FSignOn%3FredirectTo%3D%252fDocument%252fI8a976b31a4c211e8ae4cc0fd228067bd%252fView%252fFullText.html%253fnavigationPath%253dSearch%25252fv1%25252fresults%25252fnavigation%25252fi0ad604ab0000016559b7194a91531cdf%25253fNav%25253dNEWS%252526fragmentIdentifier%25253dI8a976b31a4c211e8ae4cc0fd228067bd%252526startIndex%25253d1%252526contextData%25253d%25252528sc.Category%25252529%252526transitionType%25253dSearchItem%2526listSource%253dSearch%2526listPageSource%253d34c6c936cd470631fd99c7c8a8f7fc21%2526list%253dNEWS%2526rank%253d7%2526sessionScopeId%253def032cac0f27a0a4fa36a530baef9c60025924d708bda256911507c4a1c056cc%2526originationContext%253dcategorypagelisting%2526transitionType%253dSearchItem%2526contextData%253d%28sc.Category%29%2526firstPage%253dtrue&tracetoken=0824181042300qAzk3Ymo1YLlVBV0SDQTeJ5Jdq546NtBTTvQ82fg_LJ-O_HjUESA8pfRaW9SGMH6cP-KGQH0NqlvP4LCOVUebMPmx_t7JE42l-PNm24-7qcPcuzJEDsyQRCQUJc3aCnR5oNmdS7cnyQ38UoiRyQcbGoD1Weujx9mF3pfA9RnujmH0VT3rWuxiK1oDPZUJtCZwzGz63xRdF25b9xlBPyXtRY_9gcp--Cru08mGNMs0m1l3p-VSATqdcPGjRNBKzmETvQHtpaPtVwBnyFwefHdc-szehwb2FiINStTUlbLdqUmzaGQwLzcPQXqTNKu4-luwsLTQxAf6o4d70Cyq-_HMA&lr=0&bhcp=1
KosherHiveKicker ago
Attorney Edward L. Masry took on all costs to prove the case against PG&E. His firm took ~50% of the $295 (in 1993 Dollars) Million Settlement.
There is no reason Mounira Doss couldn't follow the same model, and partner with another Law Firm once the case proceeds to the point that more help/money is needed.
Fuck you @TotesMcDouchebag
totes_magotes ago
Oh, wait, you're doing Rule by Exception fallacy. You can name one exception so of course you're 100% right. You were doing sooo well for a minute there. (hint: your inner (((jew))) is showing)
KosherHiveKicker ago
No. No I don't.
It is common practice for Attorney's to collaborate, and take on additional co-counsel as cases proceed through the legal system.
totes_magotes ago
Please go back and reread what I wrote right before you sperged out.
Counsel hiring does not generate evidence but hiring a lab does. That’s an important distinction.
KosherHiveKicker ago
It is common practice for another Attorney-Law Firm to be brought on for cost-sharing / funding the efforts to generate evidence
I can link hundreds of cases that have done exactly that.
totes_magotes ago
It's been, shit, let's call it a full day. I asked you for evidence, you provided none. You're either a liar or you wanted to believe in what you were saying without thinking or knowing.
So, without evidence, you you don't have a point.
KosherHiveKicker ago
Right... Right... "No Evidence"
There are all ready studies used to win cases, and they specifically name Cheerios. It would be a so easy to find and fund another study to explore the claims in existing work(s).
totes_magotes ago
I'm still waiting for you to provide me evidence that pro bono lawyers will hire scientific labs to generate evidence for a trial on a regular basis. You've had 24 hours and 2, no, 3 requests now.
You refuse to provide proof so that makes you a liar.
KosherHiveKicker ago
Pro-Bono Firm White & Case - Started the lead poisoning litigation case on behalf of the children of Flint. The firm fronted all costs to produce evidence which forced the creation of a two-tier screening process of all Flint residents, and the funding their follow up care.
@totes_ass_chapped
totes_magotes ago
That's one. You need to prove more than one in order to not be guilty of "rule by exception." Give me at least two more.
KosherHiveKicker ago
I didn't lie. I produced the proof.
Go Fuck Yourself.
totes_magotes ago
Rule by exception. Fucking learn it, retard.
KosherHiveKicker ago
Gets Proven Wrong
How many times are you going to move the goal posts?
@totesmasaltminer
totes_magotes ago
I told you from the start that you needed to prove that a majority of times (very specifically to rule out rule by exception), pro bono lawyers will hire outside firms to generate evidence. You came back with some nonsense about lawyers hiring other lawyers (to do work) and some place in there you keep throwing up the same single incident.
You said pro bono lawyers, as a matter of course, hire outside firms (aside from lawyers) to generate evidence.
You have yet to prove it. You can't. Because you're a fucking kiar. All you can spit out is "rule by exception", ad hominems, and cry like a little faggot baby.
Oh, speaking of which, I got a great recording of you this morning. {Wanna see it?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjkNNDuAb9A))
Dumb cocksucker.