Updated Bruce Lehrmann Pt2 * Reynolds Defamation Trial Current

[Kurve]

Here is PART 1

Historical Rape Allegation Against Fmr AG Christian Porter
The Alexander Matters matters

Just a reminder, this is the crime board and we need to be aware that there will be victims of crime either watching this thread or engaging in here from time to time. A degree of respect in all discussions is expected.

LINK TO TIMELINE
CJS INQUIRY
FINAL REPORT – BOARD OF INQUIRY – CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Joint media statement – Chief Minister and Attorney-General



FIONA BROWN - AFFIDAVIT

 

[Kurve]

They were probably concerned that she was a spy.

Should there not have been some form of notification to the AFP and ASIO? I think I saw somewhere that our national security agency has a permanent station in PH?

 

[Kurve]

I personally think and on the record in here, that the top levels of security have access to sound monitoring in every Minister's suites.

They'd need to be able to listen in, in an emergency.

 

[Kurve]

Reynolds was given a referral to the hospital but she wasn't actually admitted.

Dr Dio said reports he received about the senator’s heart condition after she was hospitalised would not be enough to tell if you a person was at risk of dying.

Senator Reynolds’ GP in Canberra, Dr Antonio Dio, gave evidence in the senator’s defamation case which has now entered its third week.

Dr Dio first saw Senator Reynolds at Parliament House on February 23, 2021, saying she was very anxious and stressed.

“I was asked to see her because of her acute anxiety,” he said.

Dr Dio said the senator was experiencing chest pain so he arranged an urgent referral to Canberra Hospital.

He said there was some concern that she would be seen with urgency so he arranged for a local cardiologist to see her.

When he saw her again five days later, her blood pressure had returned to normal, he told the court.

He also referred her to a clinical psychologist and psychiatrist because he was concerned about her high levels of anxiety and the profound effect it was having on her at the time.

He said it was causing her great distress.

While being questioned by defence lawyer Kate Pedersen, Dr Dio said the senator’s mental health improved in 2022.

Dr Di Dio told the court there was no doubt the senator was far better than the “awful acute period from when we first met”.

https://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/defamation-trial-between-senator-linda-reynolds-and-brittany-higgins-enters-third-week/news-story/d2fcbf4fb1ba28a879b3a0b751cf505b

 

[Ghost Patrol]

If there was no cover up, why didn't Scott Morrison know about it until much later?

 

[Festerz]

Dr Di Dio told the court there was no doubt the senator was far better than the “awful acute period from when we first met”.

Pity he hasn't re-examined Senator Reynolds during her own defamation trial.

Because, as we've seen while she was giving evidence last week and had to have medical breaks, this trial has caused her stress levels to elevate yet again.

And again - as a result of having to deal with her own actions and mis-actions, including the adverse public response and publicity of this vengeful, spiteful multi-million dollar public defamation action.

NOT as a result of a handful of social media texts from her rape survivor staffer that very few people have ever seen or remembered and which is the basis of her legal action.

 

[Lady O]

I personally think and on the record in here, that the top levels of security have access to sound monitoring in every Minister's suites.

They'd need to be able to listen in, in an emergency.

Oh right, now there is covert listening devices in Minister's offices?

 

[Kurve]

Oh right, now there is covert listening devices in Minister's offices?

There would have to be one, like a panic button in the least with two way sound and PH had a recent security upgrade that cost a heap of money.

There's a room within Reynolds suites as well for foreign dignitaries.

 

[Lady O]

If there was no cover up, why didn't Scott Morrison know about it until much later?

Because telling the PM that some junior staff of a senior Minister slept drunk and naked on the Minister's couch would not be something he would need to know, until he did.

 

[Lady O]

There would have to be one, like a panic button in the least with two way sound and PH had a recent security upgrade that cost a heap of money.

There's a room within Reynolds suites as well for foreign dignitaries.

Were these the ones installed by the Chinese?

 

[Festerz]

Today Justice Tottle will decide if the senator’s former chief of staff Fiona Brown will have to give evidence during the trial in person.

Ms Brown’s senior counsel Dominique Hogan-Doran provided the court last week a confidential report and medical certificate requesting that Ms Brown be excused from giving evidence in court.

It is anticipated Ms Brown may be able to give her evidence in the form of a written statement.

Ms Higgins’ lawyer Rachel Young said they had no difficulty with the order being proposed by Ms Brown and did not want to cause her distress by calling her to court to give evidence.

She said as long as what they had been told by Ms Brown’s lawyers was consistent and accurate with what was provided to the court then they would not oppose Ms Brown being released.

Senator Reynolds’ lawyer Martin Bennett said he did not anticipate an argument and agreed a suppression order should be imposed.

He also told the court they may move through the witness list earlier than expected which could result in Ms Higgins giving her evidence earlier than August 26.

But that is likely to be opposed by her defence team and Justice Tottle who said it might be difficult for her logistically.

 

[Festerz]

Media Watch taking a close look at the Linda Reynolds bot issue for discussion in a future episode.

 

[Kurve]

Were these the ones installed by the Chinese?

Probably not but certainly Made in China

I think they all had to be removed.

 

[Festerz]

Brittany Higgins will no longer be called to give evidence in Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds' defamation case against her due to concerns over her mental health and other medical concerns as detailed in highly confidential medical documents.

Higgins, who is pregnant with her first child, had been due to travel from her home in France to give evidence from 26 August but this is no longer possible due to the health risks she faces.

The shock decision is due to cut Reynolds' defamation action short with Reynolds' former CoS Fiona Brown also excused from giving evidence on medical grounds.

Eleventh-hour bombshell as lawyers reveal Higgins won’t give evidence

Former staffer Brittany Higgins will no longer be called to take the stand in WA Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds’ defamation lawsuit against her due to concerns over her health.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Satan]

Media Watch taking a close look at the Linda Reynolds bot issue for discussion in a future episode.

View attachment 2084657

They must read bf like all media orgs

 

[Satan]

Brittany Higgins will no longer be called to give evidence in Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds' defamation case against her due to concerns over her mental health and other medical concerns as detailed in highly confidential medical documents.

Higgins, who is pregnant with her first child, had been due to travel from her home in France to give evidence from 26 August but this is no longer possible due to the health risks she faces.

The shock decision is due to cut Reynolds' defamation action short with Reynolds' former CoS Fiona Brown also excused from giving evidence on medical grounds.

Eleventh-hour bombshell as lawyers reveal Higgins won’t give evidence

Former staffer Brittany Higgins will no longer be called to take the stand in WA Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds’ defamation lawsuit against her due to concerns over her health.

www.theage.com.au

Wowee

 

[Underarrest_]

Brittany Higgins's lawyer Rachael Young
(ABC News: Andrew O'Connor)

Ms Young told Justice Paul Tottle on Monday afternoon there were three reasons for not calling Ms Higgins.

"The first is [she is] not obliged to go into oral evidence," Ms Young said.

The second is, and for reasons that I'll make in closing, which I won't make now, we don't think we need to call Miss Higgins to satisfy your honour as to being successful in these proceedings.

"The third is a matter of Ms Higgins' medical state."

Ms Young filed the medical reports to the court with the request there be restricted access to the documents.

 

[campbell]

Brittany Higgins will no longer be called to give evidence in Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds' defamation case against her due to concerns over her mental health and other medical concerns as detailed in highly confidential medical documents.

Higgins, who is pregnant with her first child, had been due to travel from her home in France to give evidence from 26 August but this is no longer possible due to the health risks she faces.

The shock decision is due to cut Reynolds' defamation action short with Reynolds' former CoS Fiona Brown also excused from giving evidence on medical grounds.

Eleventh-hour bombshell as lawyers reveal Higgins won’t give evidence

Former staffer Brittany Higgins will no longer be called to take the stand in WA Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds’ defamation lawsuit against her due to concerns over her health.

www.theage.com.au

Good......She is the victim here.
Inpatient MH treatment a few times.

She is fragile.She is pregnant.

IMO,LH, should cease this case.
She has done massive damage to herself.

 

[Festerz]

Good......She is the victim here.
Inpatient MH treatment a few times.

She is fragile.She is pregnant.

IMO,LH, should cease this case.
She has done massive damage to herself.

As I keep reminding people, Australia’s defamation laws are the most litigant friendly in the western world, and WA’s are the friendliest of all Australian jurisdictions for those with deep pockets seeking to punish those who criticise them on social media.

In another court in another state, say NSW, the issue of 'demonstrable harm' would have been required to be proven before the matter progressed to trial - especially in relation to the social media posts of Brittany Higgins (as opposed to those of David Sharaz which are indefensible on any count) which are listed in the Reynolds' statement of claim. But no such provision exists in Western Australian defamation legislation. Like the Seinfeld Bizzarro World episode, the defamation laws at play here mean it's up to the defendants to prove that defamation did not occur - guilt rather than innocence is the assumed starting point, hence the heavy reliance in almost all defamation defences , including this one, on the 'truth' defence.

My view is that Senator Reynolds took her quest for private revenge to the WA Supreme Court knowing the odds were stacked in her favour and mortgaged (one of) her houses to fund it on that basis. No way she will back out now. And despite appearances she remains in the box seat to win and get costs and damages awarded in her favour. Whether it will cover her costs is another matter, especially that David Sharaz is a declared bankrupt. But yet again the lawyers end up getting paid regardless.

But if what she says is true, and I don’t believe it for a minute, that she took this court action to repair her reputation as opposed to wreaking financial ruin on her former staffer and rape survivor, then regardless of the judicial outcome, she has already failed.

IMHO Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds reputation as a trustworthy leader; a supporter of sexual assault survivors; those without power; and as a decent human being has been forever tarnished in the eyes of most decent people who have followed these proceedings. She will reap what she has sown.

Which I think is a shame because prior to the series of events leading to this court action, her leadership roles in the military and as a senior Cabinet Minister in the government were deserving of a better epitaph on her career.

 

[FIGJAM]

As I keep reminding people Australia’s defamation laws are the most litigant friendly in the western world, and WA’s the friendliest of all Australian jurisdictions for those with deep pockets seeking to punish those who criticise them on social media.

Ironic that the highest profile defamation cases of recent times are Rebel Wilson (Vic; won, but had to give almost all of the money back on appeal), Ben Roberts Smith (WA; lost badly, but appeal pending) and Bruce (ACT; lost embarrassingly, but appeal pending). Could be 4 of 4 poor outcomes if Reynolds loses!

Glad to hear that Higgins won't be giving evidence. She's given 'her truth' over literally days of media reports and trials. It's stupid to put her and her unborn child under any duress.

Which I think is a shame because prior to the series of events leading to this court action, her leadership roles in the military and as a senior Cabinet Minister in the government were deserving of a better epitaph on her career.

On this we can agree.

Reynolds is a victim of false allegations that were completely unfair and demonstrably false, but she's handled it poorly in the extrovert's way and has tended towards her own private omnishambles (sorry to the usual complainants!).

Brown has very sadly handled it poorly in the introvert's way.

Higgins did show empathy to them both. It was a bit weak of a contrition in my view, but should have been left there by Reynolds.

 

[Festerz]

Jo Dyer has a way with words to get to the essence of truth. She sees politically motivated BS for what it is and cuts it out with a scythe like precision, much like a gardener cuts out strangling poisonous ivy from their precious vegetable garden.

Dyer, an Adelaide educated and trained lawyer, knows a bit about defamation law, having successfully defended action brought against her by former Attorney General Christian Porter in 2020 in relation to her comments made in a Four Corners program about the alleged rape by Porter of her best friend who committed suicide.


'Enter Linda Reynolds. So convinced is she that a young rape survivor and her fiancé “agreed on a common design for the sole or dominant purpose of causing injury” to her, she has unearthed the rare action of “tortious conspiracy” and in the WA Supreme Court this week put herself centre stage as the true victim of the unholy Lehrmann mess. In her telling of this now familiar story, Brittany Higgins and her partner David Sharaz weren’t aggrieved by the Government’s failure to fulfil an employer’s duty of care for a young woman sexually assaulted in the heart of our democracy but were dastardly conspirators with Labor “dogs” in a bid to bring down Reynolds and the Morrison Government.'
-
-


In a bid to prove she was sufficiently supportive of her rape survivor employee, Reynolds is suing her rape survivor employee. She was unmoved by the conciliatory statement and apology Brittany proffered at the conclusion of Lerhmann’s defamation case. She is oblivious to the fact Brittany is now pregnant with her first child. She is unconcerned by Brittany’s mental health challenges that have led to suicidal ideation and hospitalisation. She is indifferent to Brittany’s ongoing trauma resulting from the rape itself. She is suing Brittany despite all the things about which Reynolds is so enraged having happened well before the July Instagram post on which her action is based and, whilst Reynolds’ may believe that her actions as described by Brittany in her post are all completely justified, an outsider may view them as falling well within any reasonable definition of harassment, being undertaken by a thwarted politician hellbent on finding a scapegoat for her own failings, and intent on revenge.

This devastatingly ill-judged lawsuit seems further evidence of that.

The Tale of a Supportive Boss - The Shot

There’s a certain kind of operative ensnared deep within the political depths who sees everything through a dark partisan prism.

theshot.net.au

 

[FIGJAM]

Jo is right about some things there, yet there are factual innacuracies and she engaged in wild conjecture too.

But irrespective of which points above one agrees or disagrees with, there is an immutable truth in this, which is harsh, but accurate; none of this current shit would have happened, if Higgins (obviously fuelled by Sharaz) hadn't put the cart before the horse and told a false narrative to get herself a media profile, before collectively (Higgins, Sharaz and The Project) making an 'afterthought' decision to go to the police.

You can be pissed off as you want at those who have reacted negatively to Higgins' lies after this period, but the lies are the root causation of the (secondary) catastrophes in this seemingly never-ending case.

 

[Kurve]

You can be pissed off as you want at those who have reacted negatively to Higgins' lies after this period, but the lies are the root causation of the (secondary) catastrophes in this seemingly never-ending case.

Higgins is running a truth defence, let's see how it pans out.

 

[Festerz]

Excellent article by University of Melbourne Law School lecturer, Brendan Clift on whether politicians taking high stakes multi million dollar defamation action fits well with our democracy.

'It has become impossible to miss the fact that our political class – including some who invoke freedom of speech while disparaging others – is remarkably keen on defamation litigation in response to actual or perceived slights.'

'It’s rarely a good look when the powerful sue the less powerful. It is an especially bad look for a democracy when politicians, who enjoy not just power but privileged access to communication platforms, pursue legal avenues likely to bankrupt all but the best-resourced defendants.'

His conclusion makes excellent sense from both a legal and democracy perspective -

It’s reasonable that politicians should also have rights of action in defamation. But those rights must be constrained according to what is appropriate in a democratic society.

A way to better align defamation law with democratic expectations may be to return cases to the state courts and reinstate juries to a prominent role. Currently, the overwhelming majority of cases are brought in the Federal Court, where they are decided by a judge sitting alone.

If a public figure claims their reputation has been tarnished in the eyes of the community, we should test that factual claim with members of that community under the legal guidance of a judge. That might make for a welcome injection of common sense.

With more lawsuits potentially looming, should politicians be allowed to sue for defamation?

As Linda Reynolds’ defamation trial against Brittany Higgins continues, Peter Dutton is apparently considering suing fellow MP Zali Steggall. Our legal system is out of step with democracy.

theconversation.com

 

[FIGJAM]

Higgins is running a truth defence, let's see how it pans out.

She's a got half a chance on the social media posts alone, because you can fudge it to claim that the posts were about Reynolds' more recent actions.

As for whether Justice Tottle believes that in light of the longer pattern of untruths and the throwing of Reynolds and Brown under a bus, remains to be seen.

 

[Kurve]

Tick tock.