Thought I would make a thread that addresses the document made...

Thought I would make a thread that addresses the document made by SMM that has been floating around a few different threads.

http://www.smm.co.jp/solomon/others/pdf/140502.pdf

IMO, the SI government has not sided with SMM.

SI gov't signed a consent order which we have no further information as to the explicit terms of it. Is it conditional upon a win? It is very likely that it is and the SI government is simply stating that if the court decides in favour of SMM and the other claimants then we will allow this with no objection.

Even if the government has "sided" with SMM, it means nothing because the case is before a court and the "government" has no say in any way. The court decides because that's how a legal system operates - 'separation of powers'. Furthering this point, ambiguously referencing the government is ridiculous. What does the report mean when it refers to the "government"? All aspects of the government? Impossible! (No, it does not mean that a "janitor" working for the government has signed this document haha.) The Attorney-General (A MEMBER OF THE FOREVER AMBIGUOUS "GOVERNMENT") has refused to sign that consent order. The Judge (who also makes up the "government") has also declined to accept it.

There is a huge amount of bias in this document due to the very nature of the source: SMM, a party in the case. Obviously they are going to skew and present facts that benefit them to appease shareholders and higher-ups.

Some preliminary questions reveal an interesting story:
Why has it taken so long for SMM to submit this to the public domain?
Why have they not revealed everything in this report?

They say that Axiom and the A-G did not present any "significant" evidence as if it is a huge win. Why? Did they need to? Did SMM f^*k themselves over in the trial? Why would Axiom & co not submit any "significant" evidence or call any witnesses? Axiom have paid a lot of money for a great legal team. It simply does not add up. This fact alone supports everything that has been said about the trial thus far: that SMM have royally screwed themselves over in the course of the proceedings (admitting to bribery. mail interception, contacting witnesses etc). SMM dug their own hole and Axiom did not have to submit any evidence because SMM argued a case that incriminated them. I am actually laughing whilst typing this because it is beyond true. It's hilarious! From what we know the trial did not go their way at all - it seems they had no need to submit evidence for themselves.

They have not revealed ANY information regarding judgments handed down in the case. Why? Because it is negative for them. They have provided everything positive and nothing negative, which is to be expected - both companies have done that and that is why it is vitally important to supplement all documents from such sources with your own credible research.

Is the government portraying support? IMO it is not, rather it is the government remaining impartial to the proceedings as they simply must do. We know nothing of the context surrounding this mysterious consent order and therefore it is beyond stupid to come to conclusions about it. This document is not infalliable. It is on a shady back-up server hosted by the SMM website.

Basic pricinciples of law - whatever the Court decides the "Government" (made up of the executive, legislative and the judiciary) must accept the decision unqualified.

Sick of the bs surrounding this document. People seem to be forgetting that the SMM LOI was given amongst corruption and bribery and this was proven in court. Even a reasonable person who does not have much much knowledge of the law could see that invalidates their LOI, which is the whole crux of the case.