I would like to dig a bit deeper into a couple of parts of your various comments. I will do it one by one for simplicity.
My first question is about caucus. I do want to preface my question by saying that it is not necessary for Advent to prove bias, the heart of the issue is the grounds for refusal. That being said, I believe bias plays a substantive role in why the grounds for refusal are invalid.
So, my question is, you say what Husic says is what matters. On what he has said, I agree, I find no spoken words that could lend themselves to an allegation of bias. I would say the same about Madeline King, all of her biased comments were not spoken. But, this implies that the written word is not something the court would take into account. Are you suggesting the written word is not relevant?
If you could clarify your view on the written word that would be great, then I can push on to my next questions.
Thanks,
BPH Price at posting:
1.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)