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

 

[Festerz]

One paragraph in that WA Today article on Sam Maiden's evidence did make me raise my eyebrows...

'Maiden also recalled being approached during Lehrmann’s criminal trial by Reynolds’ long-time partner, Robert Reid, who she said was peppering her with questions about Higgins’ whereabouts.'

Did someone mention 'tortious conspiracies'?

Jesus, Mary and Joseph and the wee donkey, now we're sucking diesel.

(edit - spelling).

 

[Underarrest_]

Source:WA Today
The court was taken to a series of text messages between Maiden and senior Labor Party figures, including Penny Wong and Tanya Plibersek, regarding questions to be levelled at Reynolds during question time.

 

[jason_recliner]

It's tortious, not tortuous.

 

[jason_recliner]

Source:WA Today
The court was taken to a series of text messages between Maiden and senior Labor Party figures, including Penny Wong and Tanya Plibersek, regarding questions to be levelled at Reynolds during question time.

This one is also going to be hard to explain in the context of not intending harm to Reynolds or the Liberal party:

"She wants to do it in an election year..."

 

[InagoRaida]

It would be good to know why Reynolds hasn't pursued Plibersek this far and what Plibersek may have been referring to with regard her comment "all legal options are on the table". Maybe Reynolds is just marking time, waiting on the decision in the current trial.

In June last year.

The Australian newspaper reported on Tuesday night that Reynolds had issued the concerns notice after Plibersek’s appearance on Sunrise on Monday. Asked about claims Katy Gallagher had misled the Senate, Plibersek said: “this is not the central point here.”

“The central point here is that a young woman made an allegation that she had been sexually assaulted in her workplace and that it had been inappropriately investigated, even covered up by her employers.”


The Australian reported Reynolds’ lawyers had written to Plibersek, raising concerns that she had implied Reynolds had acted inappropriately and attempted to “hide the commission of a criminal offence”.

In a statement to Guardian Australia, Reynolds confirmed she had issued the notice.

“I can confirm that yesterday, my lawyers issued a Concerns Notice to Ms Tanya Plibersek in relation to comments she made to Channel 7 Sunrise host Natalie Barr on 12 June 2023,” the senator said.

“Her comments conveyed the defamatory imputations that I acted to conceal or hide the commission of a criminal offence and also that I acted inappropriately during the investigation of … Brittany Higgins’ allegations”.

Plibersek confirmed she had received the notice, adding a cryptic comment hinting at the prospect of her own legal action.

“I received this interesting letter today. As far as I’m concerned, all legal options are on the table,” she said.

Plibersek’s office would not elaborate on what legal options the minister was referring to.

Linda Reynolds threatens to sue Tanya Plibersek over Brittany Higgins comments

The Liberal senator has issued a defamation concerns notice to the Labor MP over her comments in a television interview

www.theguardian.com

This is absolutely like a Lawyers' Picnic...due to so many conflicts of interest, they must be running out of firms across Australia. The "Lawyer Sweepstakes", every Lawyer gets a go!

Ms Reyolds is certainly showing her affinity for litigation, real AND implied! Quite the spectacle really..hope she has lots of houses to keep giving the aforementioned Law firms...

 

[Festerz]

This one is also going to be hard to explain in the context of not intending harm to Reynolds or the Liberal party:

"She wants to do it in an election year..."

LOL.

A comment made by a declared bankrupt who is not contesting the charges.

But yeah...'context'.

 

[jason_recliner]

LOL.

A comment made by a declared bankrupt who is not contesting the charges.

But yeah...'context'.

Sharaz, Higgin's now-husband and father of her unborn child, almost certainly made it up entirely and it has no relationship or relevance whatsoever to Higgin's state of mind and actions at the time. As such it will not, and should not, have any bearing whatsoever on a judgement as to the existence of a tortious conspiracy.

LOL.

 

[Kurve]

Doesn’t appear to have been helpful.

Source WA today 21/08/2024,
Higgins’ partner, former press gallery journalist David Sharaz, first approached Maiden about the story in January 2021, writing a text message about a “Me Too incident” the Liberal Party had “covered up”.
“I am letting this be [Higgins’] decision, but she’s drafting a plan for you. She wants to do it in an election year,” Sharaz wrote.

It just dawned on me that this must be 'The Plan" Reynolds refers to.

 

[MPMonkeys]

Those text messages between Sharaz and Maiden are not good for Sharaz. He comes across as a paranoid nutter.

That message read: “It’s a weird story. Journalism hat on, what a f..king scoop ha ha”.

This is his girlfriends rape he is referring to with a 'hah ha'.

 

[Festerz]

Sharaz, Higgin's now-husband and father of her unborn child, almost certainly made it up entirely and it has no relationship or relevance whatsoever to Higgin's state of mind and actions at the time. As such it will not, and should not, have any bearing whatsoever on a judgement as to the existence of a tortious conspiracy.

You seem not to understand the pretty basic concept that Sharaz and Higgins are separate defendants.

The words of one do not necessarily implicate the other. Especially given one of the key independent witnesses (Maiden) makes it clear their motives and actions were different.

Which is a fundamental point given that when it comes to proving a 'conspiracy' against two defendants it takes two to tango.

Maiden's testimony makes it clear that txt message to her and and motives expressed by Sharaz were his and his alone. That Ms Higgins' (not Higgin's btw) motives were not about 'conspiring' against Reynolds and the government but something far nobler...

'When asked what she had meant by “operation”, Maiden told the court she believed Higgins had shown “great bravery at great cost” to raise issues that had resulted in legal reform and improved parliament as a workplace.'

That's the context here.

Edit: And a reminder (again) that Sharaz is not contesting the defamation charge - he is accepting it.

 

[FIGJAM]

This is his girlfriends rape he is referring to with a 'hah ha'.

Yep!

It's too convenient IMHO to try and handball all of the political weaponisation of the case exclusively onto Teflon Dave, even if he is chief trouble maker. Higgins was aware of his behaviour and complicit with its direction, with evidence supporting that claim, including up to the social media posts that form the heart of this (admittedly foolish) defamation claim.

 

[Underarrest_]

It just dawned on me that this must be 'The Plan" Reynolds refers to.

Will be interesting to see what the Judge makes of all this.
Will see what today brings.

 

[Underarrest_]

Source WA Today:
The article would be published on news.com.au on February 15, 2021, with Maiden telling the court the timing was dictated by Higgins’ desire to have the story drop during a parliamentary sitting week. Higgins’ tell-all interview with journalist Lisa Wilkinson for The Projectwas aired later that evening.

Maiden told the court Higgins gave her the impression her intention was altruistic and she wanted the story to have an impact.

“She was concerned it would be a one-day wonder. She wanted there to be an impact given what she saw as systematic failures [in the government’s handling of the alleged rape],” Maiden said.

 

[jason_recliner]

You seem not to understand the pretty basic concept that Sharaz and Higgins are separate defendants.

I understand it it is convenient for your simple partisan narrative, removed from reality, to treat Higgins and Sharaz as acting separately and independently, Higgins having no say in how the story of her rape was handled. Higgins and Sharaz have become closer since the Maiden and Wilkinson interactions, not grown apart. That doesn't suggest she feels Sharaz handled the matters inappropriately or against her will.

The words of one do not necessarily implicate the other.

Sometimes they do.

...one of the key independent witnesses (Maiden) makes it clear their motives and actions were different.

Maiden's testimony makes it clear that txt message to her and and motives expressed by Sharaz were his and his alone.

Which parts of her testimony suggests this to you? Nevertheless, her testimony is just that, and is questionable, given her claim regarding intended harm which triggered your inane response to my factual observation in the first place.

 

[Underarrest_]

Those text messages between Sharaz and Maiden are not good for Sharaz. He comes across as a paranoid nutter.

This is his girlfriends rape he is referring to with a 'hah ha'.

Yes and this is what concerns me the most.
It’s evident that B did not receive that initial support which is so important especially in the first 48-72 hours but what did her ongoing support look like.
I personally wouldn’t find any part of my partner coming forward to the world that they’d been r*ped, funny. Support them, yes, but this was not a win or lose situation for B. She’d been (allegedly) r*ped.

 

[GrayRanga]

Yep!

It's too convenient IMHO to try and handball all of the political weaponisation of the case exclusively onto Teflon Dave, even if he is chief trouble maker. Higgins was aware of his behaviour and complicit with its direction, with evidence supporting that claim, including up to the social media posts that form the heart of this (admittedly foolish) defamation claim.

With all your cuts and pastes from the Lee trial, where is the evidence presented in this trial that Higgins was part of the conspiracy

As I have said before and being accused by yourself of "mansplaining" (huge assumption on your behalf) different Court, different jurisdiction and, despite some of the names mentioned being the same, a totally different allegation to be adjudicated.

The Judge will make his determination on the basis of the evidence presented before the Court during this sitting and will undoubtedly give a detailed summation of the evidence and the weight he placed upon each element he used to reach his decision.

Until then, any discussion about "evidence" is purely conjecture on your part your constant posts about "evidence" torturously cut and pasted from previous matters is becoming, quite frankly. boring and approaching the transfer of this thread to the conspiracy section

 

[jason_recliner]

... where is the evidence presented in this trial that Higgins was part of the conspiracy

“She was actually quite nice, her [Reynolds] and Fiona I mean..."

"... she said 'I've got no idea, I wasn't in that room, I don't know. She never said she thought it was a lie but she didn't say it was true either."

"I am letting this be [Higgins’] decision, but she’s drafting a plan for you. She wants to do it in an election year..."

Maybe there's been more so far, I'm busy this week.

Lesterz inserts inane laughing emoji response (in contravention of stated board rules) in 3... 2... 1...

 

[Festerz]

“She was actually quite nice, her [Reynolds] and Fiona I mean..."

"... she said 'I've got no idea, I wasn't in that room, I don't know. She never said she thought it was a lie but she didn't say it was true either."

"I am letting this be [Higgins’] decision, but she’s drafting a plan for you. She wants to do it in an election year..."

Maybe there's been more so far, I'm busy this week.

FMD. You were asked to show how Ms Higgins was part of a conspiracy. What conspiracy? How does this random unconnected cut and paste out of context prove it?

You're completely ignoring the full evidence of Ms Maiden to that exact question for your politically motivated nonsense. You're clearly incapable of understanding context.

Maiden told the court Higgins gave her the impression her intention was altruistic and she wanted the story to have an impact.

'Maiden told the court she believed Higgins had shown “great bravery at great cost” to raise issues that had resulted in legal reform and improved parliament as a workplace.'

These aren't my words, they're the words of a witness under oath in THIS trial answering questions about messages SHE received and a person SHE interviewed. Get it?

 

[MPMonkeys]

With all your cuts and pastes from the Lee trial, where is the evidence presented in this trial that Higgins was part of the conspiracy

As I have said before and being accused by yourself of "mansplaining" (huge assumption on your behalf) different Court, different jurisdiction and, despite some of the names mentioned being the same, a totally different allegation to be adjudicated.

The Judge will make his determination on the basis of the evidence presented before the Court during this sitting and will undoubtedly give a detailed summation of the evidence and the weight he placed upon each element he used to reach his decision.

Until then, any discussion about "evidence" is purely conjecture on your part your constant posts about "evidence" torturously cut and pasted from previous matters is becoming, quite frankly. boring and approaching the transfer of this thread to the conspiracy section

How is it a conspiracy if Figjam is simply pasting in findings from the previous trial?

He cannot win - he is asked to provide evidence and when he does is lambasted. I would have thought a finding from a Federal Court judge is as good as evidence as you would get.
Yet when people post screenshots from some anonymous person on X it is treated as gospel.
Go figure !!

 

[jason_recliner]

FMD. You were asked to show how Ms Higgins was part of a conspiracy. What conspiracy? How does this random unconnected cut and paste out of context prove it?

You're completely ignoring the full evidence of Ms Maiden to that exact question for your politically motivated nonsense. You're clearly incapable of understanding context.

Maiden told the court Higgins gave her the impression her intention was altruistic and she wanted the story to have an impact.

'Maiden told the court she believed Higgins had shown “great bravery at great cost” to raise issues that had resulted in legal reform and improved parliament as a workplace.'

These aren't my words, they're the words of a witness under oath in THIS trial. Get it?

Resorting to FMD - the call of the desperate, big-noting, ignorant bogan, eh? Her stated opinion is not supported by the facts, as indicated by previous occurrences/actions/statements/texts/SM posts. Get it?



(saved you the trouble )

 

[Festerz]

Resorting to FMD - the call of the desperate, big-noting, ignorant bogan, eh? Her stated opinion is not supported by the facts, as indicated by previous occurrences/actions/statements/texts/SM posts. Get it?



(saved you the trouble )

So still nothing then. You claim to have 'facts' of a conspiracy. You were asked to provide them. But you can't.

Apparently believing that your politically motivated narrative and opinions to fit it are 'facts' but the testimony of witnesses who actually sent and/or received them are merely opinions without basis.

Have you done any reading on the charges being alleged here in relation to a conspiracy on behalf of BOTH Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz? And done any critical thinking as to WHY the defence has gone down the highly unusual path of alleging a conspiracy as part of a defamation trial?

Seems to me you haven't because you seem totally ignorant of what is required to prove that such a conspiracy actually took place on the balance of probabilities. And that opinions (not facts) as to intent and motive of the so-called co-conspirators are what the defence is trying to lever out of witnesses here. And one of the prime witnesses called by the Defence - journalist Sam Maiden - gave an opinion that is in complete conflict with that allegation of a conspiracy.

Yes, it's laughable. Laughable that someone who spends almost all their time posting on the crime board has zero understanding of the basics of the trial process and the difference between 'fact' and 'opinion'.

 

[Kurve]

Yep!

It's too convenient IMHO to try and handball all of the political weaponisation of the case exclusively onto Teflon Dave, even if he is chief trouble maker. Higgins was aware of his behaviour and complicit with its direction, with evidence supporting that claim, including up to the social media posts that form the heart of this (admittedly foolish) defamation claim.

It seems to me this far, that Sharaz and Higgins motivations and agendas were competing.

Higgins was more about working with the government and she did get a meeting with Scott Morrison but Sharaz was more about making a name for himself and making himself useful to his own team, Labor.

 

[jason_recliner]

So still nothing then. You claim to have 'facts' of a conspiracy. You were asked to provide them. But you can't.

Apparently believing that your politically motivated narrative and opinions to fit it are 'facts' but the testimony of witnesses who actually sent and received them are merely opinions without basis.

Yes, it's laughable.

Eh?

I posted three of them just now (time and, admittedly, increasing ennui, preventing me going back through two threads to find more; noting also that posting evidence relating to this topic is sometimes frowned upon). It's a narrative, but one using logic, deduction and rational thought, unlike your ideological narrative. It requires the reader to follow development of a concept based in reality. Apologies if I have overestimated my audience.

What is my "politically motivated narrative and opinion"? Seeing through the BS both parties propagandise, being non-partisan, and choosing to believe in and support self, family, community and the environment instead must seem to you like a superpower bestowed only upon unicorns.

 

[Kurve]

In this clip, Higgins defends Liberal Party women Julia Banks, Sue Hickey and Christine Holgate.

 

[Festerz]

In this clip, Higgins defends Liberal Party women Julia Banks, Sue Hickey and Christine Holgate.

This reminds me - has the ABC re-instated the full video of the 2022 National Press Club address of Brittany Higgins and Grace Tame on the treatment of women. They removed it from their iview platform when Lehrmann launched defamation action against them, claiming the allegations of his rape of Higgins was untrue.

Given that Lehrmann's defamation action failed with the trial judge finding he most probably DID rape Ms Higgins, surely they are free to re-instate the video?

The speeches and Q&A session got a standing ovation from those present - except for a handful of women and a couple of men who remained seated. I wonder where they're from?