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]

underrated post.

But we need to remember this is after all big footy..........opinion and fact are often confused as the same.

Finding that he probably did it, is not the same as he is guilty of it.

If we gave out guilty verdicts for criminal crimes, at a civil level of burden, we would be building a prison every 6 months.

You need to factor in the trial was abandoned and the jury dismissed. What Justice Lee's examination tells me is that the jury were in fact probably leaning towards guilt.

It's safe to call Bruce Lehrmann a rapist.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

You need to factor in the trial was abandoned and the jury dismissed. What Justice Lee's examination tells me is that the jury were in fact probably leaning towards guilt.

It's safe to call Bruce Lehrmann a rapist.

That certainly is your opinion, like I said.

 

[Kurve]

That certainly is your opinion, like I said.

The press ran with it. LOL.

In a headline.

 

[Lady O]

The press ran with it. LOL.

In a headline.

I think OJ was found to have probably killed his wife and her friend (liable for their deaths) in a Civil Trial, but was found not guilty in a criminal trial, and while I know the US laws are not the same as ours, he was never called a "murderer", (not publicly anyway).

 

[Xtreme]

That certainly is your opinion, like I said.

It's also kicking a person when he's down. I put no stock in a civil suit decision.

 

[Kurve]

It's also kicking a person when he's down. I put no stock in a civil suit decision.

Huh? You feel sorry for OJ Simpson?

 

[Kurve]

I think OJ was found to have probably killed his wife and her friend (liable for their deaths) in a Civil Trial, but was found not guilty in a criminal trial, and while I know the US laws are not the same as ours, he was never called a "murderer", (not publicly anyway).

Wrongful death over there.

 

[Xtreme]

Huh? You feel sorry for OJ Simpson?

I mean yes I've seen Made In America

But I've always leaned on that he took the fall for his son.

 

[CM86]

underrated post.

Do you agree that Justice Lee's findings show that there was no coverup?
Or do you think there might have been a coverup?

 

[CM86]

Seems to be working just fine for the Toowoomba complainant, sunshine!

I actually don't even know where to start with this post...

 

[CM86]

One things for sure, the little Higgins-Sharaz definitely won't be called either Bruce or Bryce.

https://www.news.com.au/national/brittany-higgins-and-david-sharaz-announce-pregnancy/news-story/b02b587b2294c0007a79e1e272bdeff8

'Brittany Higgins and David Sharaz announce pregnancy'​

July 14, 2024 - 10:05PM
View attachment 2048641

I think this has to be the point of no return.
Reynolds must drop her vexatious lawsuit against Higgins.

Only the the most hate filled people could support Reynolds continuing to put Higgins through this harassment and stress during pregnancy. The risks are too high.
Let her start to heal and live her life.

 

[BFew]

Reynolds must drop her vexatious lawsuit against Higgins.

Unfortunately, team Reynolds might be looking at it from the point of view of that Higgins must admit guilt and acceptably apologise now, to avoid risk or being seen to risk damaging the health of her child during pregnancy. Even if that means compensating Reynolds, and having to sell up and leave France to return to Australia and live on Centrelink payments only.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Do you agree that Justice Lee's findings show that there was no coverup?
Or do you think there might have been a coverup?

a cover up by whom?

I am quite OK taking Lees findings as accurate

 

[Ballarat Bob]

https://www.news.com.au/national/courts-law/senator-linda-reynolds-to-obtain-a-copy-of-a-trust-held-by-brittany-higgins/news-story/d1742bf7b6cb667f87f2f42c4bab771b

Reynolds really wants blood and seems convinced that she will be getting a settlement in her favour.

 

[CakeEater]

https://www.news.com.au/national/courts-law/senator-linda-reynolds-to-obtain-a-copy-of-a-trust-held-by-brittany-higgins/news-story/d1742bf7b6cb667f87f2f42c4bab771b

Reynolds really wants blood and seems convinced that she will be getting a settlement in her favour.

Her view is that Ms Higgins cost her career and wants her on her knees for that.

Pretty stock standard behaviour when someone has a grievance, where they cant tend to look outside their own bubble at the big picture

 

[FIGJAM]

I actually don't even know where to start with this post...

This was what I was responding to:



Festerz, is inferring that 1 (as yet unproven) questionable cop out of 5 the investigating police officers to the most publicly scrutinised ACT police investigation in history, should reasonably put off rape victims from going to the police in the ACT (at the very least!).

To effectively state "Hey, it's obvious why you'd create a story of a political cover up and broadcast it, because the coppers in the ACT have potentially have some dodgy ones in it!". And of course, there isn't a police force that doesn't and then there's the added fact of how the **** would Brittany know that they were shit, dodgy or otherwise in the first place?!

A genuine question; what do you teach young women who are r*ped to do in your circles of influence? What Higgins and Sharaz did, or what the anonymous Toowoomba complainant has done?

 

[Xtreme]

Her view is that Ms Higgins cost her career and wants her on her knees for that.

Pretty stock standard behaviour when someone has a grievance, where they cant tend to look outside their own bubble at the big picture

BH and DS are about to get a dose of reality, you can't slag someone off on social media and expect the victim to go "lol it's ok".

 

[Ballarat Bob]

Really depends if Reynolds gets the jackpot of damages awarded for her plus costs. If she has remortgaged her house to fund this action and she doesn't get costs awarded she may be out of pocket. I am surprised as it seems like she has a very good case here and I would have thought a law firm would have taken it on a no win no fee basis ?

 

[Festerz]

Her view is that Ms Higgins cost her career and wants her on her knees for that.

Reynolds removal from the Morrison Ministry was due to the actions of her former leader, Scott Morrison no one else.

And she is STILL on the taxpayer payroll earning around $300k p.a. as a serving WA Senator and Shadow Minister. Not that you would know it from her focus on payback legal action from her former employee who was r*ped in her office by another employee.

This is nasty punitive vindictiveness nothing less. And doubtless would have no chance of success in most jurisdictions outside of WA - which has a lower bar of proving reputational harm than others.

In latest news, Reynolds has been granted access to the Trust documents surrounding Ms Higgins Commonwealth payout - in action that was signalled in the Australian newspaper back in May by her media supporter Janet Albrechtsen:

Linda Reynolds wins access to Brittany Higgins’ $2.4m trust documents

Higgins faces a court order to give Liberal senator the deed for a trust containing commonwealth settlement

www.theguardian.com

Chief justice Peter Quinlan said it was in the interests of justice for Reynolds to be granted discovery of the trust deed.

In announcing his decision, Justice Quinlan made one last plea to urge the parties to resolve their disputes before the trial.

“I don’t want to sound like King Canute trying to hold back the ocean,” he said.

“It’s not too late for these parties to take the resolution of all disputes between them into their own hands.”

That plea is likely to fall on deaf ears.

As an aside, I wonder how long before the most triggering details in those trust documents end up posted out of context as a front page feature article in The Australian newspaper, Daily Mail and other tabloids?

 

[FIGJAM]

This is nasty punitive vindictiveness nothing less.

What utter garbage!

It is imperative to not lose sight of the fact that Higgins demonstrably made false accusations against Reynolds (and Brown). Then, once they broadcast their false claims via Maiden and Wilkinson, they proceeded to double-down time and time again, with vindictive social media posts, on which they literally conspired to inflict maximum damage on Reynolds specifically.

These posts did not stop until Reynolds' legal intervention. It is likely that these posts would have continued.

Chief justice Peter Quinlan said it was in the interests of justice for Reynolds to be granted discovery of the trust deed.

In announcing his decision, Justice Quinlan made one last plea to urge the parties to resolve their disputes before the trial.

“I don’t want to sound like King Canute trying to hold back the ocean,” he said.

“It’s not too late for these parties to take the resolution of all disputes between them into their own hands.”

That plea is likely to fall on deaf ears.

You're obviously inferring that Reynolds is acting in bad faith, but the judge is making a plea to both parties.

We won't know if money is a sticking point until cost proceedings in the trial if it goes ahead. What we do know is that Reynolds wants a stronger admission of wrongdoing from the false narrative curated and perpetuated by Higgins and Sharaz. But like Arthur Fonzarelli before them, they have had a hard time admitting that they have done wrong.

As an aside, I wonder how long before the most triggering details in those trust documents end up posted out of context as a front page feature article in The Australian newspaper, Daily Mail and other tabloids?

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/inside-the-mysterious-trust-guarding-brittany-higgins-24-million-payout/news-story/3791e700a9186f2b982612559912b749

I wonder if anyone ever asked Sam Maiden how she felt about getting used by Higgins and Sharaz to publish a false story.

 

[jason_recliner]

... doubtless...

No, that's just your opinion - there's plenty of doubt. It's my opinion that Reynolds will succeed in WA and would succeed in any other Australian jurisdiction. Because she's been, you know, defamed.

 

[Festerz]

No, that's just your opinion - there's plenty of doubt.

If you want to be taken seriously in challenging a posted comment you might want to do the courtesy of quoting the full sentence rather than just a word. Because to do otherwise is disingenuous and misses the proper context and makes you look more than a bit silly.

Here is the sentence in full:

And doubtless would have no chance of success in most jurisdictions outside of WA - which has a lower bar of proving reputational harm than others.

You will note in that context I am NOT saying Reynolds will not succeed in WA at all. In fact I'm saying the opposite. Get it?

Now I'll happily agree I've over-egged the pudding with the use of 'doubtless' and 'no-chance'. But it's an opinion based on my understanding of the 'serious harm threshold' that applies in most other jurisdictions but not in WA for determining effect of the defamatory publication. And noting that Reynold's actions are founded on a few social media posts that most cannot even recall seeing and which in content pale in comparison to comments made against politicians every every day.

I've discussed this previously in this thread but this graphic stolen from the Sydney Morning Herald sums it up.

 

[FIGJAM]

Now I'll happily agree I've over-egged the pudding with the use of 'doubtless' and 'no-chance'. But it's an opinion based on my understanding of the 'serious harm threshold' that applies in most other jurisdictions but not in WA for determining effect of the defamatory publication. And noting that Reynold's actions are founded on a few social media posts that most cannot even recall seeing and which in content pale in comparison to comments made against politicians every every day.

It's not like the posts were "dutton looks like voldemort lol"! They were perpetuating the long-standing false claims of Reynolds being unsupportive and a bully, as well as there being additional evidence in the recent civil trial that Sharaz and Higgins were conspiring to cause maximum damage with their posts (hence the recent tortious conspiracy addition).

The posts were ultimately just the straw that broke the camel's back and the court will be presented with all of the information that was presented to Justice Lee, that show very clearly that there is cannot be a truth defence. It will show that Reynolds suffered a mental breakdown in the Senate, flared up a health condition and had significant stress resulting from these long standing claims.

Stating that the posts in and of themselves wouldn't have had much of a defamatory impact is somewhat true, but it's also something of a three card trick, because it's part of a more significant grievance (again, hence the recent tortious conspiracy addition).

I'm still perplexed as to what the Higgins' team could possibly use as a defence. Unless they are planning on taking a punt on the truth defence, despite Lee's flawless dismantling of this nonsense?!

 

[Kurve]

I'm still perplexed as to what the Higgins' team could possibly use as a defence. Unless they are planning on taking a punt on the truth defence, despite Lee's flawless dismantling of this nonsense?!

Can Reynold's draw on Lee's findings through proceedings in WA?

 

[Lady O]

It's not like the posts were "dutton looks like voldemort lol"! They were perpetuating the long-standing false claims of Reynolds being unsupportive and a bully, as well as there being additional evidence in the recent civil trial that Sharaz and Higgins were conspiring to cause maximum damage with their posts (hence the recent tortious conspiracy addition).

The posts were ultimately just the straw that broke the camel's back and the court will be presented with all of the information that was presented to Justice Lee, that show very clearly that there is cannot be a truth defence. It will show that Reynolds suffered a mental breakdown in the Senate, flared up a health condition and had significant stress resulting from these long standing claims.

Stating that the posts in and of themselves wouldn't have had much of a defamatory impact is somewhat true, but it's also something of a three card trick, because it's part of a more significant grievance (again, hence the recent tortious conspiracy addition).

I'm still perplexed as to what the Higgins' team could possibly use as a defence. Unless they are planning on taking a punt on the truth defence, despite Lee's flawless dismantling of this nonsense?!

I guess now that she has been absolved of the accusations Higgins made that led to the "lying cow" comment, and that it appears from Lee's findings that Higgins did lie, then Reynolds should be entitled to be repaid for the money she gave Higgins in the settlement of that matter as well.