Updated The Bruce Lehrmann Trials Pt2 * Justice Lee - "Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins."

[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

LINK TO FEDERAL COURT DEFAMATION PROCEEDINGS

 

[FIGJAM]

Never ceases to amaze how many people associated with this case have been burned, mostly by hubris.

Quill listened to Lee's statement about this being an omnishambles and then said "hold my beer"!

 

[Anja_Nees]

Quill listened to Lee's statement about this being an omnishambles and then said "hold my beer"!

After what happened with Auerbach, Sofronoff, Drumgold etc you’d think he’d had enough warning but apparently not.

 

[MPMonkeys]

Doesn't mean they won't try to flush out who may have been backing Lehrmann and put pressure on, there's a lot of money at stake and lot of press in it.

Otherwise known as blackmail.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Festerz]

Imo - no lawyer or barrister in their right mind would have taken on that Lehrmann vs Network 10 case on a pro bono basis.

Agreed.

As far as I recall the only BF poster who has seriously suggested that Lhermann was provided full pro bono legal representation for this defamation case was MPMonkeys.

Whybrow did the ACT Criminal trial pro bono. Its a fairly good assumption that he is doing this case pro bono as well.
Not that it should matter anyway.

Whybrow previously provided pro bono legal counsel for Lehrmann in in his aborted rape trial and has fronted media backed presentations and conferences strongly opposed to the MeToo movement and what he sees as 'its attack on the presumption of innocence foundations of our legal system'.

I suggest those convictions was a strong rationale for his decision to be the lead counsel for Lehrmann's defamation action, despite his lack of experience in handling high profile defamation actions and the fact he was facing two highly experienced defamation barristers in the country - one of them (Matt Collins) having literally written a textbook on Australian defamation law.

So maybe, just maybe, I could imagine Whybrow taking the defamation action on a no win/no fee basis. Even if he did, surely he would not have been so blind as to advise his client to reject the pre-trial settlement offered by Ten.

But imho there is no way that Lehrmann's other counsel, including Matthew Richardson KC, would be working on a no win/no fee basis or pro-bono. Their costs for a 22 day trial would be prohibitive for most of us.

And no way Richardson et al would accept the onerous workload of such a high profile and complicated defamation trial without a clear understanding that they would get recompensed for their work.

 

[Kurve]

Otherwise known as blackmail.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I don't get it. How? It's not illegal to help fund a court case.

 

[Kurve]

 

[Brian Oblivion]

Why buying cocaine and sex workers for Australia’s highest profile rapist wasn’t a brilliant idea - The Shot

If you do not harbour at least a smidgen of existential dread about the world we are leaving behind for

theshot.net.au

 

[spike101]

As I've said in another thread, the statements from both Higgins and Reynolds need to be read with some nuance as there is a but of thrust and parry in each.

Higgins stated that her memory has been affected by the rape, that she doesn't agree with all of Lee's findings and that she acknowledged pain and suffering to Reynolds and Brown (both had emotional breakdowns in public for crying out loud!).

Nobody can be sure what part of Lee's findings Higgins disagrees with. Lee ruled against the 'hard cover-up' angle of corrupt conduct trying to bury the story and prevent her going to the police via threats to her job on multiple occasions.



Reading between the lines in Reynolds' statement, she needs Brittany to at least agree with this conclusion.

I have often wondered with Higgins, if the trauma have so significantly affected her memory as to have created something of an alternate reality, or if her significant other could have so easily led her up the garden path. I guess both are possible, but it is a big leap to go from "people being weird" around her, to Brown, Reynolds and others trying to bury her avenue to criminal charges. Notwithstanding, assuming that Higgins had some misremembering, she obviously found some things after the Maiden and Project articles that may have given her pause for thought, thus why she deleted this text (and curated a lot of other information) that was sent the day after first activating the case with the police:



I actually don't think it should be too hard for Higgins to concede some ground here. Maybe a very carefully worded statement from 'Mr Fix It' Zwier.

I firmly disagree with the underlined statement in your post. Reynolds should heed Lee's now famous classification of the current chain of events as an omnishambles and it hasn't stopped yet! If she can get some "common ground", her goal should be break even and then she should even wear some if need be. Otherwise Reynolds will be going back into the lion's den for her Carla Zampatti jacket and will get eaten alive. Probably not by the courts like Bruce did, but in the field of public perception.

Presumably Lehrmann would disagree with some parts of Lee’s judgment.

 

[spike101]

Agreed.

As far as I recall the only BF poster who has seriously suggested that Lhermann was provided full pro bono legal representation for this defamation case was MPMonkeys.



Whybrow previously provided pro bono legal counsel for Lehrmann in in his aborted rape trial and has fronted media backed presentations and conferences strongly opposed to the MeToo movement and what he sees as 'its attack on the presumption of innocence foundations of our legal system'.

I suggest those convictions was a strong rationale for his decision to be the lead counsel for Lehrmann's defamation action, despite his lack of experience in handling high profile defamation actions and the fact he was facing two highly experienced defamation barristers in the country - one of them (Matt Collins) having literally written a textbook on Australian defamation law.

So maybe, just maybe, I could imagine Whybrow taking the defamation action on a no win/no fee basis. Even if he did, surely he would not have been so blind as to advise his client to reject the pre-trial settlement offered by Ten.

But imho there is no way that Lehrmann's other counsel, including Matthew Richardson KC, would be working on a no win/no fee basis or pro-bono. Their costs for a 22 day trial would be prohibitive for most of us.

And no way Richardson et al would accept the onerous workload of such a high profile and complicated defamation trial without a clear understanding that they would get recompensed for their work.

Who do you suggest is paying?

 

[spike101]

Bandana man’s filing system is obviously not very good.

 

[spike101]

After one of 10's lawyers Justin Quill went on a media barrage claiming vindication of 10's articles and that they were on the whole "reasonable", Justice Lee has requested copies of transcripts and copies of in advance of the costs hearing on Wednesday.

Suffice to say, they're not off to a great start in trying to schmooze Lee to their way of thinking on costs! I fear Quill won't be mightier than Lee's sword...

I'm sure 10 are aware that their costs claim is more of a moral whack than actually getting money back. They are arguing and have argued previously in the trial, for what amounts to a type of 'aggravated damages' for costs where the applicant was "deliberately wicked and calculated" in lodging their claim.

I'm not sure Lee would have bought into this argument, even before Quill hit the media circuit.

Hopefully Lee makes the costs awarded to 10 and Wilkinson high enough to force Lehrmann into bankruptcy.

And hopefully Lee puts Quill, 10 and Wilkinson in their place with regards to their claims of 'absolute' vindication, when anyone who has paid any attention to the decision can see that they got their arse handed to them in a variety of ways.

And hopefully Reynolds gets Higgins and Sharaz to pay for her remortgaging (if there is such a word) of her house and hopefully Katy Gallagher is brought to give evidence.

 

[Maggie5]

And hopefully Reynolds gets Higgins and Sharaz to pay for her remortgaging (if there is such a word) of her house and hopefully Katy Gallagher is brought to give evidence.

She doesn't need it.

Could always sell her holiday house in Bali or some of the shares she has in Moog Inc, currently at USD$168.00.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

And hopefully Reynolds gets Higgins and Sharaz to pay for her remortgaging (if there is such a word) of her house and hopefully Katy Gallagher is brought to give evidence.

Why would someone on Reynolds salary need to mortgage a house?

Her reputation is lying cow, it's really not worth much.

 

[spike101]

Why would someone on Reynolds salary need to mortgage a house?

Her reputation is lying cow, it's really not worth much.

Why did Albanese have multiple residences listed on his register of interests before his ex wife Carmel, another hopeless Labor MP, forced him to sell them?

 

[spike101]

Why did Albanese have multiple residences listed on his register of interests before his ex wife Carmel, another hopeless Labor MP, forced him to sell them?

Obviously you don’t regard the damage done to Fiona Brown by the lies told by Higgins and Sharaz worthy of mention?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Why did Albanese have multiple residences listed on his register of interests before his ex wife Carmel, another hopeless Labor MP, forced him to sell them?

What's that got to do with the price of beef in Perth?

 

[spike101]

What's that got to do with the price of beef in Perth?

Why does everyone assume Reynolds has a huge load of cash to afford solicitors, barristers.. to run her case; do keep up.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Why does everyone assume Reynolds has a huge load of cash to afford solicitors, barristers.. to run her case; do keep up.

She earns over 200k/year, and has done for many years.

Does she have a gambling and/or drug addiction?

 

[MrsBlueSky]

She earns over 200k/year, and has done for many years.

Does she have a gambling and/or drug addiction?

Then there's the generous super pollies get. If she needs money from being allegedly defamed, why didn't she just stay in the game longer and keep the money from being a politician rolling in...because no sane person would vote for her inb the next election that's why.

 

[Kurve]

More casualties.

 

[Kurve]

Not a stupid move.

 

[Xtreme]

Not a stupid move.

Agreeing to disagree is not a win. Linda needs to see it through to the end.

 

[Kurve]

Agreeing to disagree is not a win. Linda needs to see it through to the end.

I've interpreted Sharaz's statement as letting her know he doesn't care and she won't get any money off him because he has none. Not as an agree to disagree.

So it's essentially over between Reynolds and Sharaz.

How it plays out against Higgins, is something else but I'm mindful Higgins was careful to frame her comments about Reynolds and the stench of a cover up, as her own perceptions. I think she's entitled to those.

 

[Satan]

The defamation battle between Senator Linda Reynolds and her former staffer Brittany Higgins, as well as her partner David Sharaz, has taken an unusual turn during their latest court hearing.
Senator Reynolds has been suing Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz for defamation over several social media posts they published in 2022 and 2023, following Ms Higgins’ claims she was raped in Parliament House by her then-colleague Bruce Lehrmann.

But during a surprise directions hearing in the WA Supreme Court on Tuesday, Mr Sharaz issued a statement on social media, saying he was no longer contesting the case.
Mr Sharaz said he could not afford the ongoing legal battle against Senator Reynolds.

“Despite our best efforts, Linda Reynolds has not accepted attempts to resolve this matter through mediation and Brittany may now be exposed to another trial. It will be her third,” he said.

“I cannot afford to pay legal costs to defend myself over a six-week trial.

“As a result, I have today informed the court that I will not fight Reynolds’ legal action anymore.

 

[Lady O]

I've interpreted Sharaz's statement as letting her know he doesn't care and she won't get any money off him because he has none. Not as an agree to disagree.

So it's essentially over between Reynolds and Sharaz.

How it plays out against Higgins, is something else but I'm mindful Higgins was careful to frame her comments about Reynolds and the stench of a cover up, as her own perceptions. I think she's entitled to those.

Following Mr Lehrmann’s defamation action, Justice Lee also found that a political cover-up involving Senator Reynolds and others was not true, which Senator Reynolds said was vindication of her.

“For three years I have endured intense public scrutiny, vilification, vile trolling and have been demonised as the villain in a story of a political cover-up I have always known to be untrue,” Senator Reynolds said after Justice Lee handed down his judgment.

[snip]

Senator Reynolds indicated her defamation action would continue.

“I welcome Ms Higgins’ olive branch and her commitment to engage with me to reach a resolution,” she said.

“What still lies between us are not different perceptions. It is a fact that Ms Higgins received our support and that there was no cover-up.

“If Ms Higgins does not accept Justice Lee’s findings on the claims of cover-up and mistreatment then, regrettably, it will have to be proved again in our trial set for July this year.”