Bruce Lehrmann revealed as man charged with two counts of rape in Toowoomba

[Not Important]

 

[Saint]

Parliamentarians can't sue for anything said about them under parliamentary privilege either. And there are ways of addressing and holding parliamentarians accountable for things said under parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege exists so our laws can be debated without fear of things like defamation.

And parliamentarians got themselves elected.

We are seeing a lot of high profile cases lately, but as far as the political world is concerned, not a lot of them are succeeding. Mrs Deeming is next unfortunately.

It's totally on-brand for people like Deeming and other conservatives who complain about "cancel culture" being the first to utilise defamation laws to stop people talking about their actions.

Peter Dutton trying to prove he isn't racist in court would be glorious. It would be a pretty decent expose of the inherent racism of the Australian Government.

 

[The Punter]

It's totally on-brand for people like Deeming and other conservatives who complain about "cancel culture" being the first to utilise defamation laws to stop people talking about their actions.

Peter Dutton trying to prove he isn't racist in court would be glorious. It would be a pretty decent expose of the inherent racism of the Australian Government.

It would be foolish for Dutton to pursue this in court and I don't think he will do so.

 

[Saint]

It would be foolish for Dutton to pursue this in court and I don't think he will do so.

Same could be said about Lehrman (rapist), Reynolds(vindictive), Deeming(tbc) and Ben Roberts-Smith(war criminal).

 

[campbell]

Glad they both got good representation.

 

[Donakebab]

At least Senator Reynolds has the backing of the bots.

View attachment 2082079


View attachment 2082081

Overseas operation likely behind AI bot network targeting Reynolds defamation trial, ABC analysis finds

A clumsily crafted bot network posting about the Linda Reynolds and Brittany Higgins defamation trial likely originated from foreign influencers wielding culturally divisive topics to sow discord, an ABC NEWS Verify analysis finds.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Festerz]

Lawyers representing Senator Reynolds sought a contempt of court order to stop the bot postings from Justice Paul Tottle, who is presiding over the defamation trial.

However, Justice Tottle questioned whether such an order "would have any effect whatsoever", noting none of the posts came from a mainstream media organisation.

"A warning issued in this court out into the Twittersphere ... may serve no real purpose at all," he said.

FMD - Linda Reynolds is a former Minister for Defence in the Morrison Government yet here's her defence team wanting a WA Supreme Court Justice to issue a contempt of court order to stop AI bots on social media.

Good luck with that.

 

[Festerz]

Glad they both got good representation.

As someone intelligently pointed out in a post in the thread on this case in the crime forum, this scattergun approach from Reynolds’ legal team is probably as much about intimidating Higgins’ supporters as it is about billable hours.

 

[campbell]

As someone intelligently pointed out in a post in the thread on this case in the crime forum, this scattergun approach from Reynolds’ legal team is probably as much about intimidating Higgins’ supporters as it is about billable hours.

sad but true, and higgins as well.

 

[Chief]

Lawyers representing Senator Reynolds sought a contempt of court order to stop the bot postings from Justice Paul Tottle, who is presiding over the defamation trial.

However, Justice Tottle questioned whether such an order "would have any effect whatsoever", noting none of the posts came from a mainstream media organisation.

"A warning issued in this court out into the Twittersphere ... may serve no real purpose at all," he said.

FMD - Linda Reynolds is a former Minister for Defence in the Morrison Government yet here's her defence team wanting a WA Supreme Court Justice to issue a contempt of court order to stop AI bots on social media.

Good luck with that.

"The bots wouldn't obey my court order!"

Another thing to get angry at Higgins over.

 

[BFew]

In the US of A, trying to litigate your political enemy away is currently mis-labelled as a lefty thing.
(Everyone v Trump cases).

Reynolds is probably now regarded as a bit too wet, and a lefty within the Liberal Party.

 

[QuietB]

Lawyers representing Senator Reynolds sought a contempt of court order to stop the bot postings from Justice Paul Tottle, who is presiding over the defamation trial.

However, Justice Tottle questioned whether such an order "would have any effect whatsoever", noting none of the posts came from a mainstream media organisation.

"A warning issued in this court out into the Twittersphere ... may serve no real purpose at all," he said.

FMD - Linda Reynolds is a former Minister for Defence in the Morrison Government yet here's her defence team wanting a WA Supreme Court Justice to issue a contempt of court order to stop AI bots on social media.

Good luck with that.

Did Linda Reynolds have any comment on who has ordered the bots?

I doubt it is Russian or Chinese interference this time. Someone has ordered and paid for this. Who? Why?

 

[Gough]

Did Linda Reynolds have any comment on who has ordered the bots?

I doubt it is Russian or Chinese interference this time. Someone has ordered and paid for this. Who? Why?

Given that they seem to love Rinehart as well the WA chubby chaser community would seem as good a place as any to start.

 

[Festerz]

Did Linda Reynolds have any comment on who has ordered the bots?

I doubt it is Russian or Chinese interference this time. Someone has ordered and paid for this. Who? Why?

No she didn’t and neither has Higgins’ legal team. I mean what do you say to this sort of garbage that no doubt had nothing to do with either of them.

I think someone in Australia had something to do with it, but given how piss poor and transparent it was, it couldn’t have cost them much. I mean someone in Tennessee creating a twitter account just to support the personal defamation case of an Australian senator and attack the US Democrat presidential candidate is laughable.

 

[big_e]

Higgins is not even testifying any more - what a monumental screw up this is turning out to be

Young said there were three reasons behind the decision.

“The first is the defendant is not obliged to go into oral evidence,” she said.

“The second is … we don’t think we need to call Ms Higgins to satisfy Your Honour as to being successful in these proceedings.

“The third is a matter of Ms Higgins’ medical state.”
......
Earlier in the court hearing, the WA Liberal party selection committee chair, Jeremy Buxton, gave evidence that the furore around Higgins and her boss at the time would likely have affected the senator’s re-election chances if she had not chosen to retire at the next election.

Buxton said that while Reynolds had been a well-regarded senator, she could have “been struggling … to get the third position” on the Liberal election ticket.

“It is very likely … there would be a feeling among a considerable number of delegates that [she] had mishandled the situation in her office, that she may have been unethical in her cover-up,” he said.

Brittany Higgins will no longer give evidence at Linda Reynolds’ defamation trial, lawyer tells court

Rachael Young tells court Higgins’ ‘medical state’ forms part of the reasoning behind no longer calling her to give evidence

www.theguardian.com

As someone who will be 60 at the next election, with 12 years in the Senate under her belt and having already been in Cabinet, they would have tapped her on the shoulder anyway.

And her resignation statement was quite upbeat for someone claiming their life has been ruined by an Instagram Story.

 

[QuietB]

No she didn’t and neither has Higgins’ legal team. I mean what do you say to this sort of garbage that no doubt had nothing to do with either of them.

I think someone in Australia had something to do with it, but given how piss poor and transparent it was, it couldn’t have cost them much. I mean someone in Tennessee creating a twitter account just to support the personal defamation case of an Australian senator and attack the US Democrat presidential candidate is laughable.

Did it have nothing to do with either of them?

This legal action in the scheme of things (domestic and global politics) is 100% irrelevant. Someone has pulled the trigger to order it. It is either someone pushing a culture war (usual field of suspects) or someone running a PR campaign (very small field).

 

[Festerz]

As someone who will be 60 at the next election, with 12 years in the Senate under her belt and having already been in Cabinet, they would have tapped her on the shoulder anyway.

And her resignation statement was quite upbeat for someone claiming their life has been ruined by an Instagram Story.

Yep. My guess is that this all about the life after politics she imagined she would have.

She probably envisaged herself as a well paid political lobbyist for the defence industry or her and her partner as diplomats in the US or UK given her previous role as Brigadier in the Defence Force Reserves and Defence Minister prior to the AUKUS deal.

And she blames Dutton and Brittany Higgins for taking that away from her, refusing to believe or accept that she might have been responsible for her own reputational destruction - that is continuing with this vengeful defamation action against a rape victim and now pregnant woman who used to be her own staffer.

 

[QuietB]

Yep. My guess is that this all about the life after politics she imagined she would have.

She probably envisaged herself as a well paid political lobbyist for the defence industry or her and her partner as diplomats in the US or UK given her previous role as Brigadier in the Defence Force Reserves and Defence Minister prior to the AUKUS deal.

And she blames Dutton and Brittany Higgins for taking that away from her, refusing to believe or accept that she might have been responsible for her own reputational destruction - that is continuing with this vengeful defamation action against a rape victim and now pregnant woman who used to be her own staffer.

It is incomprehensible how poorly Reynolds has handled this.

 

[Festerz]

It is incomprehensible how poorly Reynolds has handled this.

Well the previous judge of her case did try and warn her (and her victim/defendant) of the consequences of going to court, multiple times (which is why he recused himself from the trial proper).

 

[big_e]

Yep. My guess is that this all about the life after politics she imagined she would have.

She probably envisaged herself as a well paid political lobbyist for the defence industry or her and her partner as diplomats in the US or UK given her previous role as Brigadier in the Defence Force Reserves and Defence Minister prior to the AUKUS deal.

And she blames Dutton and Brittany Higgins for taking that away from her, refusing to believe or accept that she might have been responsible for her own reputational destruction - that is continuing with this vengeful defamation action against a rape victim and now pregnant woman who used to be her own staffer.

Yet her own testimony showed that all the damage was done prior to the posts in question.

 

[Saint]

Yet her own testimony showed that all the damage was done prior to the posts in question.

She's angry that the questions in Parliament caused the nose-dive of her career. But she couldn't sue the ALP Senators or the Liberal Party, so she waited, then somebody popped their heads up for her to sue. You'd pity her if she wasn't so vindictive about pursuing rape victims in court.

In the US of A, trying to litigate your political enemy away is currently labelled as a lefty thing.
(Everyone v Trump cases).

Reynolds is probably now regarded as a bit too wet, and a lefty within the Liberal Party.

This is completely untrue. It's the conservatives, by far, who are more likely to go to litigation to stop people saying bad things about them. Trump's team do this all the time. It's the same in Australia. Dutton threatens it all the time and the conservatives are always suing news networks and settling.

The court cases against Trump are mostly open-and-shut cases about crimes he has committed, not about things he says and does. Even Obama never sued about birther lies and Hilary never sued about "lock her up".

 

[Chief]

This is completely untrue. It's the conservatives, by far, who are more likely to go to litigation to stop people saying bad things about them. Trump's team do this all the time. It's the same in Australia. Dutton threatens it all the time and the conservatives are always suing news networks and settling.

I think they were saying that it is labeled as a lefty thing, not that it was true.

 

[BFew]

I think they were saying that it is labeled as a lefty thing, not that it was true.

I should have written "mis-labelled" (will go back and correct this).

 

[Festerz]

Yet her own testimony showed that all the damage was done prior to the posts in question.

Exactly.

Which is why Reynolds lawyer has put forward this notion of a tortuous conspiracy - i.e. that the handful of instagram posts from Ms Higgins and her partner that are listed front and centre in her statement of claim should not be viewed on their own but as part of a long series of inter-connected events, starting from Ten's Project interview that aired in March 2021.

It's this idea of of a coordinated and planned conspiracy by Ms Higgins targeting Reynolds that included prepping Labor MPs and Senators such as Katy Gallagher, Penny Wong and Tanya Plibersek for Parliamentary Question time that is central to the Reynolds case. It's why her lawyer subpoenaed Higgins and her partner's text msgs, emails and social media app postings from her mobile devices going back years. Her despicable attempt to subpoena two rape victim survivors (Saxony Mullins and Nina Funnell) who organised an online campaign to raise funds for Brittany Higgins defence costs was also a part of that plan.

But Reynolds and her shifty lawyer Martin Bennett may have been too clever by half in trying to make this catch all claim of a coordinated conspiracy. Because its pretty clear that proving it relied heavily on entrapping Ms Higgins by her own words during cross examination when she gives evidence. Ms Higgins not being able to give evidence on medical grounds has denied them that opportunity.

So as a fall back Reynolds must now rely on tabling all the evidence they captured in terms of emails, txt messages and the like and crafting their own case proving that it all points to a carefully coordinated political conspiracy.

Reynolds' lawyer told journalists yesterday that 'a huge number of documents would need to be tendered to the court now that Ms Higgins is not testifying. This includes 56,287 pages of documents extracted from Ms Higgins's phone by the Australian Federal Police, including WhatsApp messages.'

Both he and Ms Higgins' lawyer, Rachel Young SC, indicated they would need some time – probably days – to sort out which of these communications would be most relevant to each of their cases, and to then tender them to the court so Justice Paul Tottle could easily see the most pertinent parts.

EDIT: One thing that is odd about the witnesses called by Senator Reynolds to prove this idea of a politically motivated 'tortuous conspiracy'. And that is that she did not call any of the Labor politicians that she claims are the other end of this conspiracy. I wonder why? My view is that Senator Reynolds and her lawyer fear what they might reveal about events surrounding the alleged rape in Senator Reynolds' office and subsequently. That and the fact Reynolds seems to be only capable of punching down when it comes to legal action - this being the SIXTH defamation action she has launched in her political career (five have been settled in her favour).

 

[Not Important]

interesting.