ASIC v ISX Hearing, page-1575

There's hardly any point making this post, as fanbois will ignore it, and sceptics already get it, but yesterday's cross by Borsky was intended to demonstrate:

That either

• ISX / JK knew that Visa had terminated them, they withheld that information from Seyfort, and that when he advised them not to disclose to ASX that they'd been terminated, he didn't know, so ISX / JK couldn't rely on his advice, so their relying on advice defence fails, or
• ISX / JK knew that Visa had terminated them, even if they withheld that information from Seyfort, Seyfort knew or should have known (or eventually knew) and that when he advised them not to disclose to ASX that they'd been terminated, that advice was flawed, and ISX / JK knew it was flawed, so their relying on advice defence fails, or
• The concept of the fact that there was a negotiation was so flimsy that it couldn't be relied on, and Seyfort either knew that, or should have known that, and there was never a negotiation.

That some of the questions regarding timing were simply intentionally misleading, regardless of reasons why.

• This one was where the goose laid the golden egg for Borksy, as Seyfort, unprompted, began an exposition of the conspiracy theory. The fanbois watching would have been clapping along at home, of course, but for ASIC, you can imagine the closing arguments - it doesn't matter what the state of mind of ISX; they were asked a question and chose to answer a question with an answer that they knew to be untrue.