Updated Bruce Lehrmann Pt2 * Reynolds Defamation Trial Current

Remove this Banner Ad

  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #95
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
 
Last edited:
Festerz said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yeah, no, I get it. You mansplaining isn't required.

Reynolds has so obviously been defamed and the evidence documented so publicly that she'd win in WA or any other Australian jurisdiction. IMO. Court actions so far support this opinion, and not your baseless assertions attempted to present as facts.
 
Last edited:
DapperDon said:
She wouldn't have paid a cent in the last one, she was only called as a witness.
Click to expand...

Theoretically she could have just shown up and told the truth, but then Reynolds' initial claim did predate the recent civil trial, so maybe Higgins was just being careful what she said with regards to her 'political cover-up' angle.

We have recorded information of Higgins' lawyer Leon Zwier being up in Sydney at the time of the trial, to give a bit of a 'debrief' with David Sharaz (inexplicably in the Park Hyatt lobby bar!!). I can't imagine that that would be cheap. Unless Zwier just loves being involved in high profile cases for publicity reasons and is doing it pro-bono.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Kurve said:
Sharaz didn't have any input at the trial Lee presided over, his testimony will add another element to Reynolds defamation case.

Sharaz has already indicated he won't fight her, so what do you think he's going to say?
Click to expand...

I think he should apologise to Reynolds, but I'm not holding my breath!

At the end of the day, I am with the judge on this here. Higgins and Sharaz should have apologised and settled some time ago. I foresee a reasonable chance whereby all parties involved are financially decimated (lawyers and judge excepted).
 
FIGJAM said:
At the end of the day, I am with the judge on this here. Higgins and Sharaz should have apologised and settled some time ago. I foresee a reasonable chance whereby all parties involved are financially decimated (lawyers and judge excepted).
Click to expand...

What judge said they should have apologized and settled?
 
Lady O said:
Do they pay witness's expenses to appear?
Click to expand...
I would think only if they bring in a professional with a specific knowledge, I doubt Higgins would have been paid.
 
Kurve said:
What judge said they should have apologized and settled?
Click to expand...

Chief Justice Peter Quinlan said they should settle, hence why he said:

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

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

As for the apology and/or an admission that there was no political cover up and/or accepting Justice Lee's entire verdict, that's coming from Reynolds and has been mentioned in every statement that she's made and in every time she's been asked about it.

Higgins and Sharaz have played political games since they first met and have dug themselves into a political hole, to the point that I fear that their back is so up against the wall, that they are considering that it's best to never, ever admit to any wrong doing and go broke doing so.

As Higgins has said "My health, memory and relationships have been impacted by my rape.". Let's just say that her and Sharaz have in a collective unconscious experience, through Higgins' own over-1-year old reminiscing's of her experiences to her now husband, embellished a story that ultimately became a truth to them.

Saying that in it's own right is a hard sell, because I simply don't believe it and you'd need to completely ignore some of the dodgy evidence provided and the heavily and intentionally curated data and political conspiring.

But let's just say there was a great 'misremembering'. The fall out (ie. the omnishambles!) from this 'misremembering' astonishing. The list of events and people hurt is so long that I don't have time to write it down, but again, I fear the fact that Reynolds wants an admission of a lack of a political cover-up will effectively mean an apology to a very long list of individuals and entities, and the heels are well too dug in.
 
DapperDon said:
I would think only if they bring in a professional with a specific knowledge, I doubt Higgins would have been paid.
Click to expand...
"If you are a witness for a party in a civil trial, it is up to the party calling you to cover your expenses. If they win their case, they may be able to claim witness expenses as part of the costs of the trial. The court has a cost scale which is a guide to fair witness fees. This scale sets the amount the winning party can claim for the attendance of each witness. The amounts vary according to the size of the plaintiff’s original claim."

I suppose if the party being sued wants a witness to attend they would need to offer payment. I'm not sure whether they would cover the airfares from France, though maybe CH10 thought it would be worthwhile.
 
Lady O said:
"If you are a witness for a party in a civil trial, it is up to the party calling you to cover your expenses. If they win their case, they may be able to claim witness expenses as part of the costs of the trial. The court has a cost scale which is a guide to fair witness fees. This scale sets the amount the winning party can claim for the attendance of each witness. The amounts vary according to the size of the plaintiff’s original claim."

I suppose if the party being sued wants a witness to attend they would need to offer payment. I'm not sure whether they would cover the airfares from France, though maybe CH10 thought it would be worthwhile.
Click to expand...
They did bring a lip reader from the UK
 
Kurve said:
What judge said they should have apologized and settled?
Click to expand...
None.

CakeEater said:

Linda allegedly leaked Higgins compo payments to Albrechtsen.
Click to expand...
The Sam Maiden article, detailing the discovery documents, outlines a lot more to the allegations against Reynolds than simply 'leaking compo payments '. The allegations suggest a truly wicked level of complicity from a serving Liberal Senator in working with discredited conservative columnist and Liberal Party aligned think-tank chair Janet Albrechtsen to take down her former staffer and rape victim, Brittany Higgins.

Colour me shocked.

 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Festerz said:
The allegations suggest a truly wicked level of complicity from a serving Liberal Senator in working with columnist and discredited conservative columnist and Liberal Party aligned think-tank chair Janet Albrechtsen to take down her former staffer and rape victim, Brittany Higgins.
Click to expand...

Maybe Higgins wouldn't have had the ire of Reynolds if Higgins didn't falsely say or infer that she was forced to choose between proceeding with her complaint and her job?!

Why is the Reynolds responses "wicked" and the initial Higgins action that caused these events to be brushed under the carpet?

This isn't Israel vs Palestine argument, whereby the who started what arguments are literally thousands of years old. This entire omnishambles started with false allegations against various people in Parliament, politicisation thereof and curation of data to suit a narrative. Borderline none of us who've posted in this thread would even know who Reynolds or Albrechtsen were without this action!
 
FIGJAM said:
Maybe Higgins wouldn't have had the ire of Reynolds if Higgins didn't falsely say or infer that she was forced to choose between proceeding with her complaint and her job?!

Why is the Reynolds responses "wicked" and the initial Higgins action that caused these events to be brushed under the carpet?

This isn't Israel vs Palestine argument, whereby the who started what arguments are literally thousands of years old. This entire omnishambles started with false allegations against various people in Parliament, politicisation thereof and curation of data to suit a narrative. Borderline none of us who've posted in this thread would even know who Reynolds or Albrechtsen were without this action!
Click to expand...
janet was well know before this omnishambles
 
Satan said:
janet was well know before this omnishambles
Click to expand...

I never read The Australian before this omnishambles and before Amex dished out a free pass mid-omnishambles, I couldn't even access it!

If you'd have asked me to name who the Defence Minister was pre-The Project interview, I'd have probably guessed Dutton. There are no doubt a few in here who care more about politics than others...
 
Festerz said:
The Sam Maiden article, detailing the discovery documents, outlines a lot more to the allegations against Reynolds than simply 'leaking compo payments '. The allegations suggest a truly wicked level of complicity from a serving Liberal Senator in working with discredited conservative columnist and Liberal Party aligned think-tank chair Janet Albrechtsen to take down her former staffer and rape victim, Brittany Higgins.
Click to expand...

About time someone in the press addressed this.
 
Kurve said:
About time someone in the press addressed this.
Click to expand...

The press has covered everything! Across both left, right and centrist viewpoints.

When Sharaz and Higgins leak information to the journos and politicians that they call "friendlies", they should rightly get pulled up on it by the media.

When Reynolds leak stuff to her "friendlies" she has been caught and rightly pulled up on it.

Same goes for the rapist ****wit that is Bruce and his "friendlies" (aka: the Spotlight drinking buddies).

They're all balls deep in narrative control! It's what many of us have been saying for years!!
 
Kurve said:
About time someone in the press addressed this.
Click to expand...
The irony of course is that it is Sam Maiden, editor of the news.com.au online site that has exposed these allegations which come from publicly available documentation on the WA Supreme Court website- allegations that effectively suggest a form of conspiracy between a serving Commonwealth Senator and one of her own employer's star opinion columnists.

Which not only highlights the ongoing animosity between Maiden and her non-journalist NewsCorp co-writer, but the degree of independence Maiden gets from her employer's normally carefully controlled/coordinated political narrative. But that's another story.

Albrechtsen got caned in various press outlets for her 'insider' role in the disgraced Sofronoff inquiry trial but that went away pretty quickly - probably everyone awaiting the outcome of the ACT Integrity Commission investigation into the conduct of Walter Sofronoff:



But this allegation, coming directly from emails and correspondence between Senator Reynolds and Albrechtsen obtained via legal discovery, is at another level entirely. It involves a serving Commonwealth Senator and former Cabinet Minister involved in personal litigation action against her former staffer (a woman who had been r*ped in that Minister's office) allegedly providing confidential personal information of that employee to a politically aligned newspaper columnist, against the express written directions of the Commonwealth Solicitor. That information subsequently being published for the express purposes of denigrating her employee and assisting the Senator's personal litigation cause.

Sadly, I'm not sure anyone in government - state or Federal - has the stomach to investigate it fully despite what it says about the ability of the media to manipulate the judicial process for political ends.

And we all know that the Press Council is a paper tiger.
 
Last edited:
Festerz said:
The irony of course is that it is Sam Maiden, editor of the news.com.au online site that has exposed these allegations...
Click to expand...

It's only "ironic" if you are under the mistaken assumption that the Murdoch press only has 'Sky After Dark' journos in it, which is not correct, even for Sky News, the Hun, news.com.au and The Australian.
 
FIGJAM said:
“I don’t want to sound like King Canute trying to hold back the ocean,".

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

Does not 'these parties' indicate he's referring to the three of them and not specifically directed at Sharaz and Higgins?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Updated Bruce Lehrmann Pt2 * Reynolds Defamation Trial Current

Similar threads

Kurve
Current 'Just the greatest groomer' Senior Sergeant Paul Reynolds - Tas
Replies
2
Views
604
Kurve
Kurve
Kurve
Current Met Police Crimes - London * 1,000 officers currently suspended
Replies
9
Views
1K
Kurve
Kurve

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top