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

 

[BonzaRam]

FMD it's like Groundhog Day in this thread the way the same facts have to be restated again and again and again.

You mean like the difference between proven and alleged? Just asking...

 

[Festerz]

You mean like the difference between proven and alleged? Just asking...

What exactly are you 'just asking'? Be specific. Don't be afraid.

Because imho your simple rhetorical question suggests a false understanding of 'facts' and 'allegations' in relation to criminal or civil court 'findings' and 'judgements' and the standards of 'proof' that are used to reach them.

So please be specific and maybe someone here who practices or has studied the law and its application can help you (us) out.

And just to be clear the 'facts' I referred to in my post to which you responded referred to the facts of what had been reported in media in relation to the ACT judicial inquiry into the Sofronoff Inquiry - as quoted and/or linked in my post.

 

[BonzaRam]

What exactly are you 'just asking'? Be specific. Don't be afraid.

Because imho your simple rhetorical question suggests a false understanding of 'facts' and 'allegations' in relation to criminal or civil court 'findings' and 'judgements' and the standards of 'proof' that are used to reach them.

So please be specific and maybe someone here who practices or has studied the law and its application can help you (us) out.

And just to be clear the 'facts' I referred to in my post to which you responded referred to the facts of what had been reported in media in relation to the ACT judicial inquiry into the Sofronoff Inquiry - as quoted and/or linked in my post.

It was simple question...

If i was responding to any other part of your comments i would have left them in the reply box, but i wasn't.
I guess what I was asking is if it is right to be selective about what parts of the law one would choose to uphold whilst ignoring other parts of the law because it doesn't quite meld with their perception of events?

Yes I am aware you were quoting news articles seen as the links you provided go back to news articles :-s

"Because imho your simple rhetorical question suggests a false understanding of 'facts' and 'allegations' in relation to criminal or civil court 'findings' and 'judgements' and the standards of 'proof' that are used to reach them."

What? Are you suggesting I am not aware that the "balance of probabilities" (pssst - insurance companies love it) is of a lower standard than "beyond reasonable doubt?

 

[spike101]

People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people
-Alan Moore

I’m afraid of Albanese and Chalmers

 

[Festerz]

What? Are you suggesting I am not aware that the "balance of probabilities" (pssst - insurance companies love it) is of a lower standard than "beyond reasonable doubt?

No.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I’m afraid of Albanese and Chalmers

I'm not surprised. Have you talked to anyone about it?

 

[jason_recliner]

. She also leaked confidential information to Albrechtsen, which is not the sort of behaviour I would expect from a minister.

Really? What would you expect a minister to leak to a writer? Information in the public domain?

 

[FIGJAM]

FMD it's like Groundhog Day in this thread the way the same facts have to be restated again and again and again.

I agree that it is frustrating having to provide the same facts over and over and over again that there was no political cover up, but it simply has to be done.

 

[Lady O]

I agree that it is frustrating having to provide the same facts over and over and over again that there was no political cover up, but it simply has to be done.

People will believe what they want to believe. The facts have nothing to do with it.

 

[FIGJAM]

People will believe what they want to believe.

So it's less like Groundhog Day and more like The Sixth Sense?!

 

[CD Xbow]

Really? What would you expect a minister to leak to a writer? Information in the public domain?

Very good point. I should expect a minister to leak confidential information about a rape done by her staffer to a journalist, A journalist who has been publicly and repeatedly supportive of the rapist and disparaging on the victim in the countries largest newspaper and media channels. Silly me for expecting better.

Just as I should expect the same journalist to have 273 interactions – calls, texts and emails to Mr Sofronof who iust happened to be running an enquiry in to the ACT's response to the rape claim. Nothing to see here, move along.

 

[FIGJAM]

Silly me for expecting better.

I love that politicians are being held as some sort of beacon of morality, instead of the hotbed of corruption and self-interest that it has been since time immemorial.

All parties leaked information to the press or other politicians here, to either control the narrative and/or for financial or political gain.

And ultimately, Reynolds wouldn't have had to have 'leaked' anything to anyone if she didn't have false allegations made against her.

 

[CD Xbow]

I love that politicians are being held as some sort of beacon of morality, instead of the hotbed of corruption and self-interest that it has been since time immemorial.

All parties leaked information to the press or other politicians here, to either control the narrative and/or for financial or political gain.

And ultimately, Reynolds wouldn't have had to have 'leaked' anything to anyone if she didn't have false allegations made against her.

They should be held to greater account. As should a member of the judiciary like Sofronoff. About which I have to ask, is he still being investigated? This from the Mandarin suggests he is still under investigation for corruption https://www.themandarin.com.au/246183-corruption-investigation-into-walter-sofronoff-commences/

 

[Kurve]

And ultimately, Reynolds wouldn't have had to have 'leaked' anything to anyone if she didn't have false allegations made against her.

Is this a troll?

 

[Festerz]

They should be held to greater account. As should a member of the judiciary like Sofronoff. About which I have to ask, is he still being investigated? This from the Mandarin suggests he is still under investigation for corruption https://www.themandarin.com.au/246183-corruption-investigation-into-walter-sofronoff-commences/

Yes - the damning findings of Justice Kaye about Sofronoff's behaviour in the conduct of his Independent Inquiry, specifically his ongoing relationship with The Australian's Janet Albrechtsen at all stages of that Inquiry and the leaking of the Commission's findings to journalists before providing them the the ACT Government, is still the subject of the ACT Integrity Commission investigation. No comment will be made by the Commission until the Investigation completes its investigation and releases its findings.

Given the gravity of those judicial findings and allegations and that they are centred on a high ranking officer of the law with a previous good public standing I expect that investigation will be thorough and lengthy.

A reminder that Sofronoff is accused of breaching requirements of the Inquiries Act 1991 (a criminal offence) and allegedly constituting corrupt conduct under the Integrity Commission Act 2018 during his inquiry into the aborted rape trial of Bruce Lehrmann in the territory’s Supreme Court.

Should the Commission find the allegations against Sofronoff proven it will be up to the The ACT Government and Parliament to determine what will be their response.

 

[FIGJAM]

They should be held to greater account.

Interesting that Katy Gallagher has seemingly gotten away with misleading Parliament, but there you go!

 

[CD Xbow]

Interesting that Katy Gallagher has seemingly gotten away with misleading Parliament, but there you go!

D E F L E C T I O N

 

[FIGJAM]

Is this a troll?

Not at all!

This whole case is not only about the rape itself, but also the demonstrable false allegations laid against the then government. The fallout from these allegations must be viewed through this lens.

 

[FIGJAM]

D E F L E C T I O N

I ain't "deflecting" shit, because I am not disputing that Reynolds most likely leaked info to the press.

What I am pointing out is that holding politicians a bastions of morality is a waste of time.

As for Reynolds leaking stuff to the press; who can blame her? Imaging having someone perennially telling lies about you. Wouldn't you react in some way or another?

 

[Kurve]

Reynolds wouldn't have had to have 'leaked' anything to anyone if she didn't have false allegations made against her.

With this comment you may as well have posted "Look what Higgins made Reynolds do!"

It's ridiculous.

Reynolds, a senior Minister and lawmaker, is guilty of a similar kind of behaviour Sofronoff must face the ICC for.

 

[CD Xbow]

I ain't "deflecting" shit, because I am not disputing that Reynolds most likely leaked info to the press.

What I am pointing out is that holding politicians a bastions of morality is a waste of time.

As for Reynolds leaking stuff to the press; who can blame her? Imaging having someone perennially telling lies about you. Wouldn't you react in some way or another?

Hogwash. It was a deflection, a complete and total deflection. I don't think many folks would see it as anything else.

Again, I would suggest we are lost if we don't hold our politicians to account for their words and actions. That we should expect certain standards of behaviour, one of which includes honesty. If they are breached then they should be punished.

 

[Festerz]

With this comment you may as well have posted "Look what Higgins made Reynolds do!"

It's ridiculous.

Reynolds, a senior Minister and lawmaker, is guilty of a similar kind of behaviour Sofronoff must face the ICC for.

A reminder that Reynolds' lawyer in her defamation case has form too..

Reynolds’ defamation lawyer hit with misconduct fines

A high-profile defamation lawyer representing Linda Reynolds has been fined heftily for professional misconduct after airing protected health information.

thenightly.com.au

 

[FIGJAM]

With this comment you may as well have posted "Look what Higgins made Reynolds do!"

It's ridiculous.

No, it’s not an excuse for bad decisions made after the fact; but rather a perennial acknowledgement of a primary causation of this fallout.

It's not just Reynolds (or Brown) either. Without the now proven false allegations of a political cover-up and if Higgins went to the police in early 2021, there are no:

• The Project and Maiden articles;
• No Canberra police having credibility concerns with Higgins;
• No (probable) hung jury;
• Bruce probably in gaol;
• No Sofronoff report;
• No Lehrmann civil trial;
• No Spotlight shitshow;
• No Reynolds civil trail.

It really is extraordinary how downplayed the false allegations by some are in this whole shebang.

 

[DapperDon]

I ain't "deflecting" shit, because I am not disputing that Reynolds most likely leaked info to the press.

What I am pointing out is that holding politicians a bastions of morality is a waste of time.

As for Reynolds leaking stuff to the press; who can blame her? Imaging having someone perennially telling lies about you. Wouldn't you react in some way or another?

Poor Linda who's entire political career was to speak lies but protected by parliamentary privlage is now upset because she thinks someone called her out for her shit behaviour towards a rape victim, and for you to just brush off her shit behaviour because "oh, she's just a pollie" is just as shit.

At least you are no longer pretending to not be a Linda fanboy though.

 

[FIGJAM]

Poor Linda who's entire political career was to speak lies but protected by parliamentary privlage is now upset because she thinks someone called her out for her shit behaviour towards a rape victim, and for you to just brush off her shit behaviour because "oh, she's just a pollie" is just as shit.

What was "her shit behaviour towards a rape victim" before The Project interview?