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

 

[jason_recliner]

I'm not missing the point. If a bill was in place prior to the interview, it WOULD HAVE protected Reynolds.

Had Reynolds submission been successful going forward, it would have essentially destroyed Higgins legacy.

Can you not see how vindictive Reynolds is yet?

But it's irrelevant because it WASN'T in place! It can only protect Reynolds if she travels back in time.

Not sure what is meant by Higgins legacy. Might be clearer after this case is over.

I agree Reynolds is extremely vindictive. She's very angry and for good reason IMO. Higgins should have apologised and admitted ages ago she lied about Reynolds, Brown, and the situation in the office post-rape. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a conversation and Reynolds threatened Higgins with civil action unless she apologised, Higgins refused to apologise and essentially called her bluff, and here we are (pure speculation on my part).

 

[Kurve]

But it's irrelevant because it WASN'T in place! It can only protect Reynolds if she travels back in time.

It's not irrelevant that she made the submission in the first place, obviously with a plan. Higgins response is evidence in this defamation trial.

Not sure what is meant by Higgins legacy. Might be clearer after this case is over.

Did you miss the marches and the Jenkins Review?

I agree Reynolds is extremely vindictive. She's very angry and for good reason IMO. Higgins should have apologised and admitted ages ago she lied about Reynolds, Brown, and the situation in the office post-rape. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a conversation and Reynolds threatened Higgins with civil action unless she apologised, Higgins refused to apologise and essentially called her bluff, and here we are (pure speculation on my part).

There's a difference between anger and a vindictiveness that appears to have no limits.

I don't know that Higgins consciously lied, anyway she did apologise for any harms to Reynolds and Brown. I didn't expect Higgins to apologise for "lying".

 

[jason_recliner]

I don't know that Higgins consciously lied, anyway she did apologise for any harms to Reynolds and Brown. I didn't expect Higgins to apologise for "lying".

Yes, one of those 'sorry-not-sorry' apologies, surely rubbed salt into the wound of a very angry, vindictive lady! She lied about Reynolds and Brown, it has been proven by Lee, and she needed to admit to it and apologise publicly to avoid this drama. Perhaps she couldn't due to the basis of her payout.

Fair point about the Jenkins review - probably the only good thing to come out of the whole affair.

 

[Kurve]

The overarching reason as to why she was there, is that she was falsely accused of trying to cover-up a rape, despite demonstrably trying to help the alleged victim press charges.

Any statement or opinion blurted out by Reynolds to her shrink is largely irrelevant to this primary issue.

I don't know that the whole reason Reynolds was seeing a psychologist was because she was falsely accused of trying to cover up a rape or it was because she simply couldn't cope with the fallout that included being lambasted by Morrison, embarrassing probing by Labor, losing her job as Minister for Defence and pushed to the backbench.

But it's ALL Brittany Higgins fault.

 

[FIGJAM]

Yes, one of those 'sorry-not-sorry' apologies, surely rubbed salt into the wound of a very angry, vindictive lady! She lied about Reynolds and Brown, it has been proven by Lee, and she needed to admit to it and apologise publicly to avoid this drama. Perhaps she couldn't due to the basis of her payout.

Lee's statements here need to be held to the same esteem as "Mr Lehrmann r*ped Ms Higgins.".

 

[Kurve]

Lee's statements here need to be held to the same esteem as "Mr Lehrmann r*ped Ms Higgins.".

View attachment 2102483

I expect the same findings of untruths, curating material on her phone if cyber hygiene rules are convenient and the making of false representations, against Reynolds.

 

[FIGJAM]

I don't know that the whole reason Reynolds was seeing a psychologist was because she was falsely accused of trying to cover up a rape or it was because she simply couldn't cope with the fallout...

Yes, the combination or the fall allegations and the fallout from the false allegations (remember the Butterfly Effect!) is what Reynolds suffered from and Brown had a nervous breakdown from.

But it's ALL Brittany Higgins fault.

Don't make me unearth Festers' "ingenious" straw man gif!

I expect the same findings of untruths, curating material on her phone if cyber hygiene rules are convenient and the making of false representations, against Reynolds.

I said Reynolds' curation of data was poor form and Reynolds has made incorrect representations.

Reynolds has to her credit also apologised a lot for things that she's done wrong, which Higgins has not. As Recliner has said, a "Sorry-not-sorry" blame it on the memory "apology" was as weak as an overcooked piece of asparagus.

I said very early doors in this saga that all Higgins had to do was sharpen the apology pencil, but she has literally refused to budge an inch. I personally think it's because her and Sharaz have painted themselves into a corner and feel they can't back out without losing a heap of public support.

 

[Kurve]

Yes, the combination or the fall allegations and the fallout from the false allegations (remember the Butterfly Effect!) is what Reynolds suffered from and Brown had a nervous breakdown from.



Don't make me unearth Festers' "ingenious" straw man gif!



I said Reynolds' curation of data was poor form and Reynolds has made incorrect representations.

Reynolds has to her credit also apologised a lot for things that she's done wrong, which Higgins has not. As Recliner has said, a "Sorry-not-sorry" blame it on the memory "apology" was as weak as an overcooked piece of asparagus.

I said very early doors in this saga that all Higgins had to do was sharpen the apology pencil, but she has literally refused to budge an inch. I personally think it's because her and Sharaz have painted themselves into a corner and feel they can't back out without losing a heap of public support.

Reynolds apologised for the "lying cow" comment and paid Higgins a sum of money, later saying the only reason she did so was to make Higgins go away.

She's all over the place. Reynolds last words outside the court were suggesting she was there for Fiona Brown and Michaelia Cash. A champion for the girls? I don't think so. Certainly, Michaelia Cash doesn't need her.

In court on Wednesday, Ms Reynolds was repeatedly asked whether she apologised to Ms Higgins.
She deflected - pointing out that she would not apologise for the 'lies' Ms Higgins had told about her.
Ms Higgins' lawyer Racahel Young SC asked: 'When you made your statement on March 3, 2021, you knew Ms Higgins would see it ... you never apologised to Ms Higgins in that statement, did you?'
Ms Reynolds replied: 'Apologise for lying about me? No, I didn't.'
Ms Young continued: 'You never apologised to Ms Higgins for calling her a lying cow, did you?'
Ms Reynolds pointed to her statement and said: 'You can see though, Ms Young, I have never questioned her alleged sexual assault so I made it very clear that I hadn't and didn't and still do not deny her sexual assault.'
Ms Young asked again: 'You didn't apologise to Ms Higgins for calling her a lying cow?'
Ms Reynolds replied: 'No, I did not apologise for the lies she was telling.'
Ms Young asked again: 'You didn't apologise for calling her a lying cow.'
Ms Reynolds said: 'No.'

• #1,257

 

[jason_recliner]

I expect the same findings of untruths, curating material on her phone if cyber hygiene rules are convenient and the making of false representations, against Reynolds.

If she is found to be dishonest, told lies, been duplicitous, and that was the basis or in part the basis for a taxpayer-funded Commonwealth payout, I would expect her to return the taxpayer funds and will expect the NACC to investigate and charge her accordingly if she doesn't.

 

[Kurve]

If she has found to be dishonest, told lies, been duplicitous, and that was the basis or in part the basis for a taxpayer-funded Commonwealth payout, I would expect her to return the taxpayer funds and will expect the NACC to investigate and charge her accordingly if she doesn't.

Have you seen the complete breakdown of Higgins settlement and all the elements that went in to arriving at $2.4m?

It may have nothing to do with Reynolds but for the fact that Higgins was r*ped in her office.

 

[jason_recliner]

Have you seen the complete breakdown of Higgins settlement and all the elements that went in to arriving at $2.4m?

I've saved a copy in case it is pulled. The Particulars of Liability are full of lies, including about Reynolds (and Brown). The only conclusion one can reasonably draw is that the magnitude of the payout (relative to other workers compensation and sexual assault payouts) was due, at least in significant part, to these Particulars. That Reynolds was lied about, was not given a formal opportunity to respond to and defend against those lies, and those lies forming the basis for an inappropriately immense payout, are the reasons for her animosity and vindictiveness IMO. I believe she believes the Commonwealth was defrauded by Higgins. She also considers herself an advocate for women in the workplace. So she's furious.

 

[Kurve]

I've saved a copy in case it is pulled.

Can you post it please?

 

[jason_recliner]

Can you post it please?

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/...9-Deed-of-Settlement-and-Release_Redacted.pdf

 

[Kurve]

I've saved a copy in case it is pulled. The Particulars of Liability are full of lies, including about Reynolds (and Brown). The only conclusion one can reasonably draw is that the magnitude of the payout (relative to other workers compensation and sexual assault payouts) was due, at least in significant part, to these Particulars. That Reynolds was lied about, was not given a formal opportunity to respond to and defend against those lies, and those lies forming the basis for an inappropriately immense payout, are the reasons for her animosity and vindictiveness IMO. I believe she believes the Commonwealth was defrauded by Higgins. She also considers herself an advocate for women in the workplace. So she's furious.

The NACC doesn't have the capacity to investigate Higgins, they can investigate the government for maladministration. Most believe the NACC won't even pick this up.

Geoffrey Watson SC, specializing in anti-corruption:

“She was r*ped, for God’s sake. The [untrue statements in the deed] that Justice Lee referred to are immaterial, when compared to the fact that she was r*ped by a co-worker in the office of the minister.”

 

[Thats Ambitious]

Why are we still going on about the settlement?
It has been found (on the balance of probabilities) that Higgins was r*ped in a ministers office. The fact that this occurred, or was allowed to occur, is clear evidence that the processes put in place to protect employees in parliament house was grossly inadequate. That is the cause of action whereby Higgins became entitled to the settlement.

Reynolds is shitty that it happened in her office, although it could have been anyone's.

In this defamation action, Reynolds is now trying to "restore" her reputation that somehow was tarnished in 2021 by posts made in 2023...

FWIW, the allegation that Higgins and Sharaz were trying to expose a cover-up is coming from Reynolds, there was nothing in the Higgins posts to suggest a cover-up of the rape. The posts were that Higgins felt that the rape allegations were mishandled and that Reynolds was harassing her (Higgins).

Also, not that it was expected for a solicitor who has previously disclosed highly protected information regarding a persons mental health in Court to be a decent human being, but for Bennett to state that Higgins was not the person most effected by her rape is disgusting and pathetic.

 

[jason_recliner]

The NACC doesn't have the capacity to investigate Higgins, they can investigate the government for maladministration. Most believe the NACC won't even pick this up.

Yes, I know, but I am hopeful they will, and that it leads into some sort of effort to recover some of the payout. I'm an optimist!

The [untrue statements in the deed] that Justice Lee referred to are immaterial,

That's his opinion and he's entitled to it.

 

[jason_recliner]

Why are we still going on about the settlement?
It has been found (on the balance of probabilities) that Higgins was r*ped in a ministers office. The fact that this occurred, or was allowed to occur, is clear evidence that the processes put in place to protect employees in parliament house was grossly inadequate. That is the cause of action whereby Higgins became entitled to the settlement.

No, you need to read the Deed. Some of the payout is rightly compensation for an unsafe workplace. Some is for claims about behaviours after the event which were later found to be fabricated. The payout was much, much bigger than what would be expected for an assault in an unsafe workplace.

 

[Kurve]

I've saved a copy in case it is pulled. The Particulars of Liability are full of lies, including about Reynolds (and Brown). The only conclusion one can reasonably draw is that the magnitude of the payout (relative to other workers compensation and sexual assault payouts) was due, at least in significant part, to these Particulars. That Reynolds was lied about, was not given a formal opportunity to respond to and defend against those lies, and those lies forming the basis for an inappropriately immense payout, are the reasons for her animosity and vindictiveness IMO. I believe she believes the Commonwealth was defrauded by Higgins. She also considers herself an advocate for women in the workplace. So she's furious.

Hurt and humiliation was put at $300k, aggravated by beneficiaries who are referred to as "vicariously" responsible quite a lot, was only at $100K. Beneficiaries include Reynolds and Cash.

The matter was settled with no admissions of liability by any of the beneficiaries and for less than was asked.

I'm not seeing a lot of lies in there tbh. While I haven't studied that doc with any intensity it looks to me like Higgins settled for approximately half a million less than her lawyers asked for.

The hurt and humiliation component was actually too low. IMO.

 

[Festerz]

The same repetitive commentary being rolled out about what was said in The Project interview and what Justice Lee's views of the truthfulness of what was said in The Project Interview in the Lehrmann defamation case.

Of course that would be contextually relevant to what THIS trial in the WA Supreme Court if Senator Linda Reynolds had included Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson in her statement of claim as part of the defamation action against her former junior staffer Brittany Reynolds.

But she didn't. And as a result The Project interview has been barely referenced in evidence presented in this this case. And while Sam Maiden was called as a witness by Reynolds in relation to her interview with Ms Higgins (in evidence that backfired spectacularly on Reynolds claims of conspiratorial intent), no one from The Project interview or Ms Wilkinson was called in relation to their more expansive interview with both Sharaz and Ms Higgins.

The lack of focus on The Project interview seems to me to be very odd. Especially given the fodder that seemed to have been provided by the Lehrmann defamation trial for it being central to the notion of false claims against Senator Reynolds.

Anyone know the reason? Or have a guess as to why? I suspect it has something to do with the expedited basis of Network Ten and Wilkinson's appeal of Lee's commentary and judgement but have zero factual basis for that hunch.

 

[Underarrest_]

It seems from the settlement that a lot of people haven’t supported Brittany throughout this.
I’m surprised that there’s mention of Michaelia Cash in the settlement stating that B was stressed going through PH entrance each day and was told to “suck it up,” but no mention of ill treatment by MC in B’s interview with Maiden.

 

[FIGJAM]

I’m surprised that there’s mention of Michaelia Cash in the settlement stating that B was stressed going through PH entrance each day and was told to “suck it up,” but no mention of ill treatment by MC in B’s interview with Maiden.

That’s because the claim is likely bullshit.

Higgins lays claim to being surprised that Cash ‘pretended’ not to know the mention of a sexual assault in a secret recording that Higgins took herself during her resignation.

Cash must act well, as she sounded genuinely surprised….in a phone call that she had no idea was being recorded, let alone used in what turned out to be one of Australia’s biggest ever court cases.

Interestingly, Higgins didn’t once think to correct Cash with a “You know Michaelia, I told you about this 18 months ago!”.

At court, Higgins actually said under oath she went to delete the Cash and Try recording, as she was “worried about” it, but didn’t delete it on legal advice.

Why “worry” about information that is presumably telling the truth about things?

It’s like what Bennet said the other day, Higgins told Maiden “off the record” that she didn’t think Reynolds should resign. Why off the record? Why not just tell the world “her truth” in totality? Why delete text messages expresses your opinion as to why you didn’t pursue the charge in 2019?

The answer to all of the above is sadly obvious; Higgins knowingly presented a narrative that had substantial falsities intertwined with the truth.

 

[Underarrest_]

That’s because the claim is likely bullshit.

Higgins lays claim to being surprised that Cash ‘pretended’ not to know the mention of a sexual assault in a secret recording that Higgins took herself during her resignation.

Cash must act well, as she sounded genuinely surprised….in a phone call that she had no idea was being recorded, let alone used in what turned out to be one of Australia’s biggest ever court cases.

Interestingly, Higgins didn’t once think to correct Cash with a “You know Michaelia, I told you about this 18 months ago!”.

At court, Higgins actually said under oath she went to delete the Cash and Try recording, as she was “worried about” it, but didn’t delete it on legal advice.

Why “worry” about information that is presumably telling the truth about things?

It’s like what Bennet said the other day, Higgins told Maiden “off the record” that she didn’t think Reynolds should resign. Why off the record? Why not just tell the world “her truth” in totality? Why delete text messages expresses your opinion as to why you didn’t pursue the charge in 2019?

The answer to all of the above is sadly obvious; Higgins knowingly presented a narrative that had substantial falsities intertwined with the truth.

Yes I’m interested why B would speak well of MC in the interview after reading the contents of the settlement.

 

[FIGJAM]

Yes I’m interested why B would speak well of MC in the interview after reading the contents of the settlement.

Me too!

Or why Higgins would send Reynold flowers at the end of her tenure together.

Or earnestly thank Fiona Brown for all of her support via text.

Then Higgins threw all three women under a bus when it suited her for the media articles and the Deed of Settlement.

Then Higgins’ shrink Julio Clavijo wrote two reports in early 2022 about Higgins on the same day that were significantly different, with the second document being worded stronger to maltreatment and more advantageous to extracting money.

Interestingly Higgins got this advice to get her shrink to sharpen up the report from someone. Who exactly?

Since Higgins met Sharaz, she has had zero issue doing or saying whatever it takes to get her (or their!) preferred outcome. This is her legacy!

 

[Festerz]

She also considers herself an advocate for women in the workplace.

Correct. She has said that about herself many times. And the claim is still on her official website.

But would an 'advocate for women in the workplace' and a Federal Senator and former Minister take multi-million dollar civil action that she knows would most likely financially destroy a young woman who was r*ped in the workplace?

And not just any workplace but r*ped in HER (Senator Reynolds) workplace and HER office by one of HER employees - in Parliament House?

All for a handful of social media posts? C'mon seriously?

What self proclaimed 'advocate for women in the workplace' would actually do that to their own junior employee rather than giving them time to heal from the trauma they've been through over more than 5 years, to give them the time to heal and to find their own way to forgiveness and understanding for the pain that others suffered from her outbursts?

Wouldn't an older, more powerful and experienced federal leader who claims to be an advocate for women in the workplace want to be the better person? To rise above their own sense of being hard done by and the need for revenge? To resist the urge to punch down against a rape victim and have their lawyer mock the trauma of a rape victim on the floor of a court room?

Is this really what we should expect from our elected leaders and those with power and privilege? Maybe it is. But that tells its own story of our nation and how it treats survivors of rape, doesn't it?

 

[Percel]

Me too!

Or why Higgins would send Reynold flowers at the end of her tenure together.

Or earnestly thank Fiona Brown for all of her support via text.

Jobs, purely the next job, it happens all around us in Canberra