To be honest with you you sound a little confused. You say someone has asked for something that I had asked you for . I'm not sure if you're confused between the posters or not?
I then assume you are accusing me of getting something removed. Something that makes you accusative absent evidence while arguing against people who seek the truth before confirming an accusation. Which again is a bit ironic.
Obviously can't see your removed posts so I'll just assume it was Unacceptable to be on hot copper and not consider it. where did you get this quote from and why did the judge call himself it "it". I assume he might be referencing the court itself but why would he if he's the judge without a jury. Maybe there were three judges there but what court has three judges? Have you perhaps edited this as you seem to have excluded some sections for some reason. I'm always a bit concerned when words have been removed because it could be curtailed to present a fact in an entirely different way
Justice Macfarlan said that on the evidence before it, “it was not open to a jury to conclude . . . [Mr Barnes] knew the report made any . . . false or misleading representations". Finally what you have stated clearly states that Mr Barnes knew that the report made false and misleading representations. Which of course would offer incrimination and not acquittal. So I don't know whether you've actually tried to edit this so much where it's actually worked against you ?
I have read
aurion145 Post above and he has declared it factually and is of course undisputed. However your case appears disjointed and counter contrary to your argument.
The fact that a jury of 12 has decided a guilty verdict should be passed would be suggestive of a common moral decision based on the facts
However an appeal might examine technical claims. Where simple technicalities of law could override that morality . A common disappointment in the courts. We don't know if that's what's happened here of course because nobody's presented enough information to show either way. But it is clear what the majority of a representation of the general public thinks about what went on in their view on who was guilty. That is enough for any of us to conclude there certainly was dubious concerns directed at the accused that found fair validity. As for the overturned ruling I think you need to either stop editing your quotations too much or do a bit more research to ascertain exactly what occurred because as we can see previously that a former poster posted an article which clearly contravenes this statement by stating
was found guilty by a jury on two counts ofpermitting false and misleading informationto be given to the ASX.He was sentenced to nine months imprisonment with a non-parole period of six monthsby the NSW District Court.delisted.com.au+1maynereport.com+1 This suggests to me that a guilty verdict was determined based on permitting the false and leading information .
This may or may not have been overturned based on a technicality in that the lower courts all the courts with the jury did not have adequate jurisdiction to decide this . That sounds like a technicality . Further this might have reached the highest court which would be a final ruling and if the final ruling is the lower courts are not in a position to make the decision and therefore it's overturned that would be the final ruling with no further permission to appeal At any court further up. That doesn't sound like justice that sounds again like a technicality and a very lucky escape . If that was the case then again I think that's a little unfair if a criminal act was actually performed and shareholders suffered grievously for it . However as there's not enough evidence here either way as to why this has happened can I suggest you don't edit your proclamation so much or find something a bit more conclusive to show the crime was in fact not committed? Rather than a potential technicality was used to evade the crime?
I'd be very curious to see exactly what the reasoning is because in my experience GBB will not present it if it doesn't look favourably for him and considering he's not doing so at the moment it is fair reason to question by simply wanting some evidence,
You seem to be quite fond of him . So perhaps you can continue working for him in finding this. Otherwise aurion145s statement seems quite valid on a moralistic evaluation at least and based on what article has been presented and I'll remain open to anything to the contrary if and when you find it Just please don't alter it too much if you do.
