I'm only going by what's in the judge's finding, which states: > "Plaintiff has submitted other affidavits and emails based on personal knowledge of others, al

I'm only going by what's in the judge's finding, which states: > "Plaintiff has submitted other affidavits and emails based on personal knowledge of others, all of which support that plaintiff then had no mental health issues or concerns" This immediately followed the line: > "Defendants submitted affidavits from five of those 35, two of whom included Muela and Grass, one of the three alleged to have knowingly participated with Rubin in the alleged scientific misconduct and her boyfriend." Which, to me, suggests that the first 5 affidavits did allege that he had "mental health issues or concerns". Three of those five can be dismissed: > The "fear" that three of the lab members expressed concerning German appears, at least to this court, exaggerated. The other two could be explained as "Rubin's retaliation was getting to German, and two people were worried enough about German that they wrote 'he might have a mental health issue or concern' in an affidavit" - although multiple others were willing to say, either in affidavits or emails, "he's fine". The other two could also be explained as "Rubin wrote an affidavit for them to sign, and stood there until they signed it" - given that Rubin was found to have retaliated against German, would it be within his character to similarly terrorize other lab members? I don't know, and I don't need to know - the judge's finding seems to me to strongly suggest that the only reason German's mental health was brought into question was because Rubin intentionally raised it. Plus, if you're willing to say "pissing off 5 out of 35 makes him an asshole", would you say the same about "pissing off 2 out of 35"? Or what about "worrying 2 out of 35", since we don't know what their affidavits actually said?