Tuesday, 27 October 2015

More lies and misdirection from Exablaze & Zomojo

Exablaze / Zomojo made an improper statement regarding the legal status of the dispute with myself.

They have publicly pronounced, "This now brings the matter to a close."

This is wrong. Justice Beach was a dissenter with regard to accessorial liability, writing after Besanko & Gilmour JJ on the the Hurd Senior contempt matter, and this makes an obvious appeal to the High Court of Australia warranted.
Justice Gilmour - doing good work in the community

As anyone can see from the notes about apprehended bias, here, there are matters that are not fully resolved from incorrect interpretations, not just limited to paragraph 73, in the main FCAFC judgment. Not withstanding this, there is also a High Court worthy challenge for a clarification concerning apprehended bias as a matter of national significance with respect to the interpretation of the Australian Constitution based on the Judicial Employment Paradox I have previously discussed.

Further to this, at least one of the judges was impaired during the hearing which is yet to be challenged.

We may have many months or perhaps more than a year to go on this matter to get it properly resolved.


And now for something uplifting which my middle daughter inspired me with when we were both suffering a little (we often play it in the car now):
I heard you don't have to wear a suit to argue the truth
And so
Who are you to tell me how to live my life
Cause I won't give this up
These are my shoes
My view
My cue
To say I do give a fuck

Sunday, 25 October 2015

Corruption, Zomojo, Greg Robinson, Gordon J, and the Federal Court

The tragedy of the commoner.

My appeals raised last year and heard on March 3 & 4 had their judgments handed down last week. The judgments were harsh, beyond reasonable belief, and riddled with errors, inconsistencies, and invective.

My first reaction was to be pretty pissed off. Now a few days have passed. The blood simmers rather than boils. I find myself reflecting on how it could go so wrong. It may have been a reasonable result for the JJs to say, “as a self-represented litigant you're an incompetent fool” and dismiss the appeal. I could have respected that.

They did not. They piled on unreasonable and malicious reasoning with intemperate language and flawed logic.

The first question that comes to mind is that is the system a giant conspiracy and out to get me?


The second question to ask is if the JJs are bad judges, full of malevolence, and corruption?


These judges are good people.

Gilmour J was distracted, inattentive, and somewhat regard free. Beach J was impressive but clearly prejudiced. Besanko J simply did not care enough to seek the truth. Nevertheless I've seen the work they do and these are good people who work hard for what they see as justice.

The question remains that if these are good people that made such a malicious judgment, where did their motivation come from?

It's pretty simple on reflection.

Honourable Justice Michelle Gordon's original bias and toxicity has simply infected everything that has subsequently flowed. The JJ's simply believed in Gordon's findings and felt they were doing society and justice a favour by burying me. Hurd the toxic, begone.

The conclusion is pretty simple to reach as you can see in paragraph 73 of their judgment they had no basic understanding of the case. They simply didn't bother. The case seemed to be deemed a distraction from a self-represented litigant who was calling out a biased judge, their friend and colleague. The matter was heard at the end of their appeal circuit and was simply a puss filled boil that was preventing the closure of their junket and further time at the bar. They lanced the boil.

The judges certainly believe they have done the right thing with their inattentive misunderstanding. It is a shame that the legal system works, or fails, in this way.

Davies J decision in 663/2013 was much worse and more perverted but more understandable as Her Honour was:
  1. being fed by corruption within due to Registrar Burns being a friend of Robinson;
  2. worked with Gordon J in the same small department in University Melbourne Law; and, 
  3. no doubt “owed” Gordon J somewhat due to not only the friendship but the recent appointment to the Federal Court and assimilation.
The JJ's decision is simply on the same progression. No understanding of the case and a desire to project a protective shield over criticism of the court and the influential Hayne & Gordon power couple.

The whole saga is representative of the corruption in society that is prevalent when institutions mature and the politics of appointment and favour move the dial from the meritorious to the connected. Australia has long been far from the egalitarian ideal we often fool ourselves into believing. This case shows just how that corruption has become endemic to our society. Not the graft, $ in hand, kind of corruption, but the connected, influence, self reinforcing favour, and status kind of corruption. This case has to be the poster child for exactly that decay. The country is unsafe.

There can be no expectation of public confidence in the legal system.

Australia is dead.

Fiat justitia,


Some details on the apprehended bias I failed to fight against:

Even though Zeptonics and Zomojo are based in the Sydney, the matter is raised in Melbourne.

Robinson has prior boasted of the influence he can bring to bear in Melbourne but there seems little to worry about as the case is largely without merit.

Honourable Justice Michelle Gordon has the case.

Her Honour's husband Honourable Justice Ken Hayne is a High Court of Australia jurist. Hayne is a good mate with the Governor of Victoria, Hon Alex Chernov, both being ex Vic Supreme jurists. Hayne swore in Chernov as the Administrator of the Commonwealth of Australia, for example.

Bill Burdett, Zomojo beneficiary or shareholder, friend of Robinson, works in an excellent charity, Friends of Asha, alongside Chernov.

Greg Robinson and Bill are ex-ITG folk. Bill was on the NY board as a Director, Asia-Pac chairman, and Greg ran ITG Asia-Pac as CEO. I met them in 2005 when I was looking for a job and ITG was considering using me to set-up a prop trading biz in Sydney to complement their existing prop trading in the US and Canada. Bill and Greg decided to take the opportunity for themselves instead of ITG which is how Zomojo was born with me starting up with their capital investment.

Still, these connections the Zomojo guys have should be not that much of a concern, should they? Justice should still work?

The judge Michelle Gordon, works at Melbourne University. Greg Robinson's wife, Patricia Desmond works at Melbourne University as a Prof and runs a medical department there. That's a bit more of a worry. Two senior and powerful University women.

Greg and his wife have donated at least $300,000 to the university and mix it with Gordon and her ilk at the university, including Michael Robinson AO, Gordon's former boss at Allens. Then again, maybe they don't even know each other?

Greg's wife has done work for Michael Robinson AO at his health concern, Epsworth Medical Foundation, he chairs. Patricia has invited him to gala dinners. Perhaps they do know each other after all.

Greg Robinson provides an affidavit that says he had lunch with Michael Robinson at the men's only Melbourne Club.

It turns out Hayne J has a bunch of golf buddies, from that den of paedophilia known as Scotch College, that he plays weekly golf with and some of them, such as Robyn Syme, are mutual friends of Zomojo's legal team (including Janet Whiting), Greg Robinson, or Bill Burdett.

The Melbourne club is a tight knit group and all these people know each other and hangout in the same circles. National Gallery of Victoria. National Australia Day Council. They bump around and feed off each other. That is not that much in itself but the donations of at least $300,000 to the university seem to raise a bit of a worry as, in effect, Robinson has been giving money to the judge's employer. This seems a conflict too far.

Now the original case was run in October 2012. In 2012 a lass by the name of Kate Dillion (nee Desmond), a close relative of Greg Robinson and his wife Patricia Desmond, was awarded the Melbourne Law School Masters Award – Davies Collison Dave Prize for 2012. So, Gordon J's school gave Robinson's relative, where he donated lots of money, a prize. No influence?

It should seem to you less and less likely that a fair trial could be in the offing.

Now the Zomojo barristers are Dr Matt Collins SC and Dr Michelle Sharpe. They seem good people whereas Janet Whiting and Matthew Critchley, Zomojo's solicitors, are outright lying scum.

Hold it a sec. Matt Collins works at the University of Melbourne Law School. Michelle Sharpe has worked there too. Goodness, how far can the conflicts lead us? Really, should it be allowed that it is appropriate for both opposing counsel to work with judge? What the ????

No wonder Zomojo's counsel is so favoured in trial by the judge despite their lies. They are colleagues and friends of the judge!

We get an answer to an interlocutory application, including a Robinson affidavit, before it has even been stamped and received by us. That is strange as it has certainly not been served. We complain. We get another copy of the interlocutory application, this time with a new date stamp on it back dated to the prior week. Hmmmm. Something fishy is going on in the Victoria Registry. Smells of a little corruption.

In VID 663/2013, the Zomojo liquidation matter, Registrar Burns is actingy harshly and weirdly against us prior to trial. Burns declares that Greg Robinson is a friend on the Friday before trial. He does not recuse himself and continues to act against us. This perhaps explains why information and documents have been leaking to the other side all this time. Moles, leaking, favours, corruption. What the ???? Seems a little ridiculous. Why is this case so special?

Besanko, Gilmour, and Gilmour JJ's have ruled this is perfectly OK. Even though, Gordon J acted harshly against us, ignored evidence, granted mistake riddled subpoenas to Zomojo whilst being a pedant with ours, changed the procedures on the fly in favour of Robinson, hardly granted us any objections and granted almost all of theirs, even ignoring evidence that didn't suit Her Honour's prejudice along with many "inconvenient" legal submissions and precedents… there was no possibility of impartiality.

Some of these facts only became known this year, but then again, we should have known we were in trouble when Gordon J made snide remarks about New South Welshmen in court. It was unlikely to end well, and it did not.

The system is corrupt.


Sometimes they try to break me down
Other times I feel safe and sound
And I don't know why I'm weightless now
But I'm guessing it's because we're running on air

I was told that life is as easy as can be
But apparently the tragedy is freedom isn't free

Thursday, 22 October 2015

Exablaze & Zomojo's Greg Robinson identified as a liar by the Federal Court

Some small solace in my continuing battle was that Dr Greg Robinson, former ITG Asia-Pacific CEO, current Chairman of Exablaze and Zomojo, was found to be a liar by the Federal Court of
Exablaze's Greg Robinson?

Small beer in the greater scheme of things perhaps, but it is the first acknowledgement by the court of the fact that Greg Robinson is an unsavoury character.

From paragraph 87,
"What this sequence discloses is that there was a genuine credibility issue that was raised with Dr Robinson on this matter.
This is legal speak for unctuous lying scum. Strangely, the court concludes that the issues of credit with Robinson are of no consequence. Yep. Bizzare. Just as court also concludes that the fact that Mr Matthew Critchley of Corrs Chambers Westgarth lied to the court is of no consequence.

Despite such activity being a criminal offence, the lesson clearly is that it is best to lie as often and advantageously as possible to the court as there are no consequences.
Caveat emptor,
PS: I've previously written about part of this here: Corrupt lawyers - why you should seek them out.

Hurd hit with a suppression order from Federal Court

Apparently the evidence given in my sworn affidavit to the Federal Court of Australia's appeal court is so controversial it had to be placed under a suppression order preventing its publication so that the world would not stop spinning.

Cronyism, bias, corruption, and cover-up is alive and well in the Federal Court of Australia.

The details of the order made by Honourable Justice Beach read:
  1. Pursuant to s 37AF(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), subject to further order the affidavit of Matthew Hurd sworn on 5 January 2015 together with the annexures be prohibited from publication.
  2. The ground upon which order 1 is made is that contained in s 37AG(1)(a) of the Act.
As far as I know, there is no order preventing the publication of this non-publication order.



Grounds for making an order
             (1)  The Court may make a suppression order or non-publication order on one or more of the following grounds:
                     (a)  the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice;
                     (b)  the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the interests of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory in relation to national or international security;
                     (c)  the order is necessary to protect the safety of any person;
                     (d)  the order is necessary to avoid causing undue distress or embarrassment to a party to or witness in a criminal proceeding involving an offence of a sexual nature (including an act of indecency).
             (2)  A suppression order or non-publication order must specify the ground or grounds on which the order is made.

Re: Federal Court of Australia Corruption

Appeal judgment out from the March hearing. Lost badly as expected against any residual flicker of a hope for justice. Example:
73. The chronology of events discloses a number of matters. First, whatever may have been the position before trial or during the hearing concerning how the cross-claim was to be dealt with, as matters developed given her Honour’s principal findings, both parties considered that an order for dismissal of the cross-claim was appropriate given her Honour’s principal findings. No party submitted otherwise. Indeed the respondents below proffered such an order to her Honour. Second, as the chronology discloses, the respondents below were given every opportunity to submit to her Honour that her principal findings did not justify a dismissal of the cross-claim or should be revisited in the light of the orders made prior to trial on the question of how the cross-claim should be dealt with. No such submission was ever made, and even though the respondents below were represented by both counsel and a major law firm. Hurd’s assertion that the respondents below had no choice but to agree to such an order is not credible; the respondents had an opportunity to object but chose not to do so.
WTF? You would think only a triumvirate of imbeciles that failed moron school could write that. Besanko, Gilmour and Beach JJ are not imbeciles. This does not make sense. Unless, malice is the motive.
The wagons circled around corruption and bias at the Federal Court of Australia.
Justice begone.
PS: Background. Judge found that the cross claim to be dismissed. Ordered both sides to bring orders to Her Honour such that this would be effected. You couldn't refuse as you'd be in contempt. Then appeal court finds that you're obviously guilty because you provided such an order. It's like being forced to write your sentence even though you're fighting to prove your innocence and then being found guilty because you wrote your sentence. Bizarre example of corruption and bias in the Federal Court of Australia.

Lesson (1): if you have a choice don't run cases or mediation in Australia as its legal system is expensive, untimely, and corrupt.

Lesson (2): if you have in interest in justice you should either leave the country and live somewhere else; or, take advantage of the corruption and become a crime lord.

Monday, 5 October 2015

Thursday, 1 October 2015

Simple, quick Reg NMS thoughts for the day

There are too many non-public venues and too many complexities around various venues, public or not.

Make an ATS a time limited "pre-exchange" license. Perhaps one or three years. The venue should become a public, open exchange or pack-up and go home. Principle: markets should be fair and open.
Depiction of traders under the buttonwood tree outside 68 Wall Street
(Source: Wikipedia / Library of Congress)

Block venues, currently called an ATS, should be separately licensed and have a minimum size or value threshold for an order. $1M? Perhaps they should just go away or be limited to overnight gatherers that then cross the next day, or the next week, at a fair price such as VWAP. If you don't like it, use algos to trade on public exchanges.

Payment for order flow (PFOF) used to make sense in a less mature world but now it is a perversion preventing fair and open markets, especially for retail. Most retail orders in the US never get to an exchange. This is wrong. PFOF should only be allowed for small brokers as a dip of the hat to small brokers' cost structures. Big brokers should be judged on how they serve their customers. Principle: trades should not be unduly siphoned off from public and fair market places.

Pricing for all exchanges should be one volume tier. Order type and passivity differentiation is OK if not linked to volume. If an exchange needs to consider economies of scale, do it with connection or membership fees as a fixed monthly or annual cost. Principle: fair and simpler markets.

All order types should be replicable from a connected co-location with simple order types, such as limit or ioc, with no disadvantage. Complex order types have unintended consequences and impose complexity on the client. I could imagine an SEC approved list of order type families being limited to perhaps five or ten. If the SEC approves a new family, then one gets kicked out. All other order types would have to be composed from these and be replicable by a client of the exchange with no disadvantage. Participants, including retail, should not be disadvantaged by complex order types. Principle: fair and simple markets.

If delays are used in a matching process, all information should be similarly delayed. That is, there should be no preferential information within the matching boundary, even for an exchange. There shouldn't be complex time based reasoning about time differentials in a matching process. Time differentials are akin to "knowing the future" for a decision and distort reality. Principle: need to simplify and keep markets fair.

Brokers need to do 15c3. A broker needs to understand their clients' credit. Exchanges, as so far as margin or capital requirements for a broker, should do so as well. Perhaps allow third party risk evaluators (somewhat replacing prime brokers)?

Buttonwood Agreement: The first version of Reg NMS?
(Source) (Click to enlarge)
Internalisers, as an ATS, should be a public exchange or shut down. Private parties that wish to exchange ownership should do it transparently in a public forum if they make more than some number of very low number transactions per day. You should allow private exchange of ownership but private trading, whether or not it is under a buttonwood tree, should be limited. Principle: fair, public, and open.

Not sure what to do about routing... perhaps it should be the responsibility of public exchanges or a system closer to that in Canada.

A quick 15 minute dump (or 30 minutes with pictures) until I change my mind tomorrow,