Share
782 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 2204
clock Created with Sketch. 09/03/23
17:28
Share
Originally posted by itzgr82balive:
↑
Loved the afternoon opening vis-a-vis ASX and ASIC no basis to suspend and spitballing and ASIC not giving directions to suspend. But then most of us already knew this information. What was very interesting to me is that comments were written by Seyfort in his affidavit (under oath) that he was suspicious (as most of us pro-ISX HC posters relayed at the time) because of the manner and the breadth of the query letters, ASX failing to protect commercial in confidence information and ASX's obvious arrogance. I suppose the down-rampers(DR) here will just add Seyfort to their list of conspiracy theorists even though he is very experienced in how these things generally work. And these DR posters have claimed and continue to claim that most of us pro-ISXers are conspiracy theorists in these current posts and throughout this suspension. And the fact that it was confirmed that ISX had no basis to suspend and were spitballing (including more not necessary to list here) confirmed our suspicions at the time were true and confirmed that our senses run true. As the saying goes, just because we are paranoid about something, it doesn't mean that it isn't true.
Expand
Quick question and especially given that the Judge is going to read the Seyfort affidavit overnight and all that it contains (I'm not familiar with it or its annexures). Was any of this put to the ASIC witnesses on a Browne v Dunn basis by Collinson KC when cross-examining? If not, there may be a case in rebuttal or an application to recall witnesses. Along with what he has said about relevance, that may explain the foreshadowed objection by Borski KC?
