What, then, does "Surely Justice will need to keep one eye open and raise his eyebrows' after learning ASIC has been subject to many many many wrongdoings callings..." have to do with "Sufficient evidence must be provided to affirm the arguments made out to the court. The court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that one case is more plausible than the other"?
Firstly you state that the judge must weigh up items that have nothing to do with the evidence that will be led, then, a moment later, when challenged, spew some guff about the balance of probabilities, and evidence.
You may not be schizophrenic, but for someone who claims that "non holders & cronies are delusional ! Your elevated anxiety is now evident", your posts are coming across as increasingly schizophrenic.
SP1 Price at posting:
$1.07 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
