Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And for just being a ****ing useless defence minister who ****ed up many contracts. While not alone in this, there was nothing to suggest she was good at her job in any way shape or form.A good point.
As previously pointed out, Australia's defamation laws are regarded as being uniquely plaintiff friendly in that it is up to the defendant to prove that defamation did not occur with a publication that names the plaintiff (including in social media posts).
And Western Australia, where this defamation case is taking place, is regarded as being the most plaintiff friendly of all Australian states because WA has not passed changes implemented in most other jurisdictions such as the serious harm threshold and the public interest defence.
Consequently, my layman view is that under WA legislation Senator Reynolds has a very strong chance of proving defamation has occurred and that she is entitled to some form of monetary compensation for reputational damage.
But as you say, imho her reputation in the eyes of most Australians has suffered terminal damage not from social media posts that most of us have ever seen but for her subsequent actions in seeking revenge and retribution from her former staffer.
Waylon Jennings gave up his place on the flight that Buddy Holly died on.
Imagine Reynolds succeeds in her defamation and gets all of Higgins compensation moneys.
Then Lehrman sues Reynolds and takes all the money off her.
Effectively meaning Lehrman ends up with the compensation money paid to the victim he r*ped.
That would be peak Australia legals system
Imagine Reynolds succeeds in her defamation and gets all of Higgins compensation moneys.
Then Lehrman sues Reynolds and takes all the money off her.
Effectively meaning Lehrman ends up with the compensation money paid to the victim he r*ped.
That would be peak Australia legals system
Id think that would probably be No.4 on his list after booze, nose candy and hookers…the rest would just be wasted…Lehrmann will probably just blow it on legal fees past, present and future.
Of course, I half forgot all about those other higher needs/priorities.Id think that would probably be No.4 on his list after booze, nose candy and hookers…the rest would just be wasted…
In June 2024.the age is reporting NACC has raided lehrmanns house over the submarine allegations
ahhh ... ok ...... ive not renewed my subscription so i only caught the headlineIn June 2024.
ahhh ... ok ...... ive not renewed my subscription so i only caught the headline
still, an interesting development
[edit] probably not relevant here but for anyone interested this Xitter account is providing a running commentary on in linda reynolds testimony today
Imagine forgetting a rape.How does Reynolds remember she forgot if her memory was so shite about this part.
Can she tell the court what else she forgot.
I was being silly - Reynolds has no chance of winning based on what I have seen.Does it matter who actually said it? From the posted tweet it would appear that the lawyer is reporting a conversation.
Yet here we are…I was being silly - Reynolds has no chance of winning based on what I have seen.
The idea that Reynolds is suing Higgins to get her hands on the compensation is frankly ridiculous and the idea that Lehrmann would sue anyone for defamation is completely absurd.
Imagine Reynolds succeeds in her defamation and gets all of Higgins compensation moneys.
Then Lehrman sues Reynolds and takes all the money off her.
Effectively meaning Lehrman ends up with the compensation money paid to the victim he r*ped.
That would be peak Australia legals system
With Macca supplying them with bags and them getting busted for possession in Bali and executed in an Indo jail.The true outcome would be that Reynolds lawyers and Lehrmann lawyers will split the cash and go partying overseas