MR LAX
Except to say this, that even on the present application, which for the sake of discussion excludes the two succeeding incidents, if on what your client's instructions to you are, he is already not making full disclosure, because if they are intricately linked, then he is not making full disclosure.
	You are arguing, or your client would be arguing that he's got a different motive, which he hasn't disclosed.  Why is your client leaving the matter be, if he's already got indemnity for those two matters?
	Let me put it another way, why would your client not persist in an objection if he still is not making a full disclosure?  How does the fact that he got amnesty for those two matters, change his lack of full disclosure?