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]

It's because you're toxic Janet.

 

[campbell]

Higgins is saying that even if Reynolds wins the defamation case, then she (Higgins) only has $10,000.

so.

Since when, during a court case, with no judgement yet, do you know who has what funds..

This whole process is invasive and demeaning to the person who is being sued.

I am not comfortable with private sms being paraded in a court room.

 

[Kurve]

Higgins is saying that even if Reynolds wins the defamation case, then she (Higgins) only has $10,000.

You've framed that incorrectly, Higgins was asked by the court to declare her situation.

 

[Kurve]

Fiona Brown's affidavit.

Working for the PMO.



More than one special cleaning.

 

[Kurve]

Here's the link to Fiona Brown's affidavit.

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/114488/Affidavit-of-Fiona-Brown-sworn-15-December-2023.pdf

 

[Festerz]

Fiona Brown's affidavit.

Working for the PMO.

View attachment 2087566

More than one special cleaning.

View attachment 2087562

Yep, I raised it in a post in this thread at the time. But everyone in here keeps referencing the one (first) clean and Ramos' statement in relation to it and not the other one which happened later.

Edit: I'm not tempted to believe the office cleaning(s) were part of any cover-up but it does amuse me that this particular and basic fact (2 cleans) gets ignored by the same posters time and time again. It explains why the AFP was so outraged that the Commissioner sent a letter to the the Dept of Parliamentary Services about it.

https://www.news.com.au/national/former-afp-commissioner-said-decision-to-clean-room-brittany-higgins-was-found-in-was-unacceptable/news-story/e08a4c83d2fa61143bbaee7fd91deb89

 

[campbell]

Yep, I raised it in a post in this thread at the time. But everyone in here keeps referencing the one (first) clean and Ramos' statement in relation to it and not the other one which happened later.

Cover up, cough cough.

 

[big_e]

It's because you're toxic Janet.

"This started when I wanted to bring you news of what Reynolds included in her claim."

Must be the first time in years that Linda Reynolds didn't leak something directly to Janet Albrechtsen, no wonder she's upset.

 

[FIGJAM]

Fair question from Bennett here:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/psychiatrists-vastly-different-reports-on-brittany-higgins/news-story/98e1a459abe4bde64eeeb4fd778db870

 

[jason_recliner]

Who doesn't love a surprise witness!

Reynolds fights to grill Higgins’ psych over ‘materially different’ reports for $2.4m payout​

... Clavijo had produced a bundle of medical reports on subpoena overnight, including two psychiatric assessments of Higgins he claimed had been penned and signed on the same date but in materially different terms. And he branded the documents “significant” because one was later relied upon to support Higgins’ personal injury claim against Reynolds and the Commonwealth over her alleged rape at Parliament House.

https://www.watoday.com.au/national...-reports-for-2-4m-payout-20240822-p5k4j6.html

 

[jason_recliner]

Yep, I raised it in a post in this thread at the time. But everyone in here keeps referencing the one (first) clean and Ramos' statement in relation to it and not the other one which happened later.

I'm not tempted to believe the office cleaning(s) were part of any cover-up but it does amuse me that this particular and basic fact (2 cleans) gets ignored by the same posters time and time again. It explains why the AFP was so outraged that it happened they sent a letter to the then Speaker of the Parliament House about it.

Presumably you're referring to me and I honestly had either never realised the office was cleaned twice or at one time had been aware but had since forgotten. Perhaps the second time was when it was steam-cleaned. Not sure of the relevance to this trial.

 

[Kurve]

Yep, I raised it in a post in this thread at the time. But everyone in here keeps referencing the one (first) clean and Ramos' statement in relation to it and not the other one which happened later.

Edit: I'm not tempted to believe the office cleaning(s) were part of any cover-up but it does amuse me that this particular and basic fact (2 cleans) gets ignored by the same posters time and time again. It explains why the AFP was so outraged that the Commissioner sent a letter to the the Dept of Parliamentary Services about it.

https://www.news.com.au/national/former-afp-commissioner-said-decision-to-clean-room-brittany-higgins-was-found-in-was-unacceptable/news-story/e08a4c83d2fa61143bbaee7fd91deb89

Even if it wasn't a 'cover up', it looks like it was.

 

[jason_recliner]

Probably referring to accessible cash, I'm sure she's got more than that tied up in her house in France.

Net assets, as in the millions have been transferred to a trust.

 

[jason_recliner]

Even if it wasn't a 'cover up', it looks like it was.

View attachment 2087593

View attachment 2087594

Which part/s of that statement makes you think it looks like a cover-up?

 

[campbell]

So, let me get this right.

LR was brand spanking new in the Defence Minister role? A role she thought was warranted as she had the best military service, understanding?

Then the incident occured.

Damn straight she would be angry, she didnt want this position jeopardised by anything.

Seems she has not one ounce of insight into her role in all this.

Let alone her responsibilities for her staff.

 

[Underarrest_]

News.com 22/08/2024

SENATOR HITS HIGGINS’ WITH NEW LEGAL ACTION

Senator Reynolds has hit Ms Higgins with fresh legal action over the trust that holds her multi-million dollar compensation payment from the government.

Ms Higgins retired as trustee of the Brittany Higgins Protective Trust and the role was transferred to Power Blazers Pty Ltd.
The company is owned by Ms Higgins, her father and friend Emma Webster.

The writ states the transfer was made by Ms Higgins with the intention of defeating or delaying creditors.

Senator Reynolds’ is seeking orders for Ms Higgins to be reinstated as the trustee

 

[jason_recliner]

Who is the employer/organisation/body corporate paying Higgins and other advisors? Is it the Minister? Does he/she have an ABN? And each Minister leases a workplace (part of PH) from the owner of PH (presumably the Commonwealth)? Does the Commonwealth employ Ministers, advisors, and other PH staff? And owns the workplace?

 

[Festerz]

Who doesn't love a surprise witness!

Reynolds fights to grill Higgins’ psych over ‘materially different’ reports for $2.4m payout​

... Clavijo had produced a bundle of medical reports on subpoena overnight, including two psychiatric assessments of Higgins he claimed had been penned and signed on the same date but in materially different terms. And he branded the documents “significant” because one was later relied upon to support Higgins’ personal injury claim against Reynolds and the Commonwealth over her alleged rape at Parliament House.

The rest of the article puts that paragraph and the legal relevance for Reynolds' case (or lack of) in context as it:

1. Explains why Reynolds' defence is seeking to table that information, viz:

'Bennett argued the reports unearthed overnight were relevant because they addressed whether Reynolds had a legitimate basis to be concerned about the conduct of the civil claim and refer it to the watchdog.'

2. Why that claim by Reynolds' is non-sensical in terms of timing alone

'But Higgins’ barrister Rachael Young, SC, fought the move, arguing Reynolds could not use information obtained overnight to justify actions she took more than one year ago.'

In other words, it's yet another muck-raking fishing expedition that could not possibly be put to the use that Reynolds' lawyer claimed it was going to be used.

Reynolds loses fight to grill Higgins’ psych over ‘materially different’ reports

Linda Reynolds’ lawyers have lost a bid to grill Brittany Higgins’ doctor after claiming to have uncovered two “materially different” psychiatric reports inked on the same day, one of which underpinned the former staffer’s $2.4 million payout.

www.watoday.com.au

 

[Festerz]

News.com 22/08/2024

SENATOR HITS HIGGINS’ WITH NEW LEGAL ACTION

Senator Reynolds has hit Ms Higgins with fresh legal action over the trust that holds her multi-million dollar compensation payment from the government.

Ms Higgins retired as trustee of the Brittany Higgins Protective Trust and the role was transferred to Power Blazers Pty Ltd.
The company is owned by Ms Higgins, her father and friend Emma Webster.

The writ states the transfer was made by Ms Higgins with the intention of defeating or delaying creditors.

Senator Reynolds’ is seeking orders for Ms Higgins to be reinstated as the trustee

as per BF quoting rules link to story please


Never mind, here is the full story from Nine Newspapers from several hours ago which has already been the subject of discussion in this thread.

Liberal senator Linda Reynolds has levelled a fresh lawsuit against Brittany Higgins and the entity managing the trust established to safeguard the former staffer’s multimillion-dollar payout, as she attempts to secure any damages that may flow from their defamation row.

The trust was established to protect $2.4 million in compensation she received from the federal government in late 2021 for lost earnings, medical expenses and legal fees following her alleged rape in Parliament House.
According to a writ lodged in the WA Supreme Court by Reynolds’ legal team, the former staffer established the trust 24 hours after the settlement was finalised and transferred a significant portion of the sum to herself as trustee.

But on February 23, 2022, Reynolds claims Higgins retired as trustee and handed over the reins to Power Blazers Pty Ltd.

According to ASIC documents obtained by this masthead (The Age) , Higgins, her father, Matthew and her friend Emma Webster are all listed as directors of the entity.

Higgins and her father each have a 50 per cent shareholding in the company.

In the writ, Reynolds alleges the transfer was executed by Higgins in an attempt to defeat any potential creditors that might pursue her.

Reynolds is now demanding orders voiding and reversing that transfer, claiming she is a creditor of Higgins. The pursuit comes as the four-week trial in their year-long defamation row draws to a close.

Reynolds launches fresh pursuit of Higgins’ trust as defamation trial draws to close

Liberal senator Linda Reynolds has levelled a fresh lawsuit against Brittany Higgins and the entity helming the trust established to safeguard the former staffer’s multimillion-dollar payout.

www.theage.com.au

 

[FIGJAM]

Which part/s of that statement makes you think it looks like a cover-up?

All I see are a bunch of people setting about their business and acting in mundane and perhaps sometimes somewhat self-interested ways, that can potentially be spun a certain way, but what I have never been able to see is the primary political cover-up claim of:

 

[jason_recliner]

The rest of the article puts that paragraph and the legal relevance for Reynolds' case (or lack of) in context as it:

1. Explains why Reynolds' defence is seeking to table that information, viz:

'Bennett argued the reports unearthed overnight were relevant because they addressed whether Reynolds had a legitimate basis to be concerned about the conduct of the civil claim and refer it to the watchdog.'

2. Why that claim by Reynolds' is non-sensical in terms of timing alone

'But Higgins’ barrister Rachael Young, SC, fought the move, arguing Reynolds could not use information obtained overnight to justify actions she took more than one year ago.'

In other words, it's yet another muck-raking fishing expedition that could not possibly be put to the use that Reynolds' lawyer claimed it was going to be used.

Reynolds loses fight to grill Higgins’ psych over ‘materially different’ reports

Linda Reynolds’ lawyers have lost a bid to grill Brittany Higgins’ doctor after claiming to have uncovered two “materially different” psychiatric reports inked on the same day, one of which underpinned the former staffer’s $2.4 million payout.

www.watoday.com.au

This will be interesting if a submission proceeds:

Bennett has now called on the court for permission to use the documents in any submission to the corruption watchdog.

 

[Underarrest_]

as per BF quoting rules link to story please

Sorry I can’t link on my device so will delete if needed.

 

[Underarrest_]

News.com 22/08/2024

SENATOR HITS HIGGINS’ WITH NEW LEGAL ACTION

Senator Reynolds has hit Ms Higgins with fresh legal action over the trust that holds her multi-million dollar compensation payment from the government.

Ms Higgins retired as trustee of the Brittany Higgins Protective Trust and the role was transferred to Power Blazers Pty Ltd.
The company is owned by Ms Higgins, her father and friend Emma Webster.

The writ states the transfer was made by Ms Higgins with the intention of defeating or delaying creditors.

Senator Reynolds’ is seeking orders for Ms Higgins to be reinstated as the trustee

I was just noting the information about the trust.

 

[Underarrest_]

This will be interesting if a submission proceeds:

Bennett has now called on the court for permission to use the documents in any submission to the corruption watchdog.

When will this end. Will we be hearing about this in another 5 years time?

 

[Festerz]

This will be interesting if a submission proceeds:

Bennett has now called on the court for permission to use the documents in any submission to the corruption watchdog.

LOL, what?

As Bennett knows full well, the substance of the medical documents is protected by a strict confidentiality order. And he has been denied the right to use them for Reynolds' deframation action for the reasons outlined (relevance).

So what is Reynolds angle in seeking an order from a judge in their defamation action to breach that confidentiality agreement and send them to an office outside of the judge's jurisdiction? He knows full well that order cannot possibly be granted as part of this defamation trial. So why do it?

Surely it's clear that this is yet another attempt by Reynolds to publicly bully and punish Ms Higgins via the media who will publish the request regardless of its validity under a headline featuring the 'corruption watchdog' tag.