Ann: Commences Federal Court Action against ASX, page-2616

"There is nothing wrong with an independent, properly certified organisation writing an independent non biased, non vested interest report. A report that provides perspectives from ALL parties who make a contribution and most importantly the entity that is the focus of the report."

The hypocrisy in these two sentences is quite amazing and shows the extent of your indoctrination without you even being aware of it.

For what purpose do you believe the report was written?

Why do you think they are unqualified?

Do you know how many institutions rely or place value on OM for their reports? - hint it's billions

So if we were to seek "Fact" from "All parties" is there one party who has more of a bias then the other? Does ISX have an incentive to defend in the case of wrongdoing or to be truthful. Does OM have an incentive to find a smoking gun, or to produce accurate reliable reports?

Where exactly do you see the incentives, and how do you reconcile them. It looks like blind faith to me.

"The 'report' creator has abided by their law and contrary to what was agreed to with ASIC, gathered untested evidence and prosecuted without interviewing the suspect, created a proxy environment of judgement by releasing the report into the public domain. This is not a fair and equitable process."

How do you know the evidence is "untested"? What makes it tested? Who tests it - ISX?

If there are holes is the whole report rubbish, or are there tested elements which have merit, do you even know? Or do you categorically deny the entire reports utility because it didn't fit your flawed bias framework for reaching a conclusion.

How are you defining public, because I certainly can't get my hands on it. It wasn't released on the ASX website, and I can't sign up for it. So how public is this report?

"Therefore is unlikely to lead to a fair and equtiable outcome where all are given equal opportuity to participate in the process."

Rubbish, that's idealist nonsense. If I'm investigating a murder, I find a suspect that has a registered gun found at the scene as the murder weapon, DNA evidence linked to the victim and a compelling motive but he won't confess to the murder, on the balance of probabilities (because that's the test here) do you think this individual is likely to be guilty, or not guilty? I don't need a confession, I don't even need to ask, I'm pretty damn sure I caught the guy. He can have his equal opportunity to respond in court before he can do anymore damage. That's exactly what is happening here.