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

[Anja_Nees]

No I didn't - go back and read what I posted in full:



I was talking about court costs- a sentence you clearly ignored. A requirement to meet these costs being required to stop vexactrious litigation (note the use of the words 'equivalent' to a financial guarantee). i.e. NOT an actual guarantee.

FFS - give it a rest.

I won't be responding to your pendency any further.

I literally quoted you.

And I think the word you’re after is ‘pedantry’.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Probably. But proceeds from crime legislation and all that? (not sure how that plays out when there has been no actual conviction).

Given he has still not admitted to having had sex with Ms Higgins, all he could write about is the legal system and how hard done by he thinks he was (while treading carefully around contempt issues).

But pretty sure not even The Australian would touch that deal. And it was what the discredited Spotlight story was all about anyway.

Pity - "Liar, Liar, I set my Pants on Fire' would be a great title for a book from the guy who wanted to 'light some fires'

All that's left is to see what happens in his Toowoomba rape case now.

Given financial issues maybe jail is a lifestyle choice for bruce

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Given financial issues maybe jail is a lifestyle choice for bruce

I can only hope they get this grub and Bruce becomes somebody's wife in jail, suffering the same degradation he put his growing number of victims through.

If he is indeed Hillsong, he'll understand and welcome the notion of "an eye for an eye."

 

[Black Diamond]

There could be a long way to go with costs. To the extent 10 and Wilkinson duplicated work they could have collaborated on, for example, both parties are not getting their costs back in full.

Anyway, still having a good laugh at the "I was showing her my whisky collection." What the actual *?

The only people who should have a whisky collection at work are barristers. I can only assume his counsel has a whisky collection, considers this normal for everyone, and so could see nothing wrong with this evidence. Guys, unless you are at the bar do not keep a whisky collection at work.

I did enjoy the smack-downs of Wilkinson. It has clearly affected her career, and as Damo observed on the Sounding Board this morning, she has not been near journalism since.

The main lesson is that many things can be true at once:

1. Lehrmann is an absolute moron and on BOP committed rape.
2. Higgins is incredibly unreliable and her faulty memory means she cannot be trusted.
3. Wilkinson is an idiot and a hack who pushed a conspiracy theory.
4. Drumgold (going back to the trial) is an utter disgrace who should have more to worry about than if he can ever practice law again.
5. Higgins' compensation should be reviewed.

 

[QuietB]

5. Higgins' compensation should be reviewed.

Why and how?

 

[western royboy]

There could be a long way to go with costs. To the extent 10 and Wilkinson duplicated work they could have collaborated on, for example, both parties are not getting their costs back in full.

Anyway, still having a good laugh at the "I was showing her my whisky collection." What the actual *?

The only people who should have a whisky collection at work are barristers. I can only assume his counsel has a whisky collection, considers this normal for everyone, and so could see nothing wrong with this evidence. Guys, unless you are at the bar do not keep a whisky collection at work.

I did enjoy the smack-downs of Wilkinson. It has clearly affected her career, and as Damo observed on the Sounding Board this morning, she has not been near journalism since.

The main lesson is that many things can be true at once:

1. Lehrmann is an absolute moron and on BOP committed rape.
2. Higgins is incredibly unreliable and her faulty memory means she cannot be trusted.
3. Wilkinson is an idiot and a hack who pushed a conspiracy theory.
4. Drumgold (going back to the trial) is an utter disgrace who should have more to worry about than if he can ever practice law again.
5. Higgins' compensation should be reviewed.

Sharaz had far too much input into 2 & 3 IMHO. I took it that he misled or directed way to much of things once he entered the picture.

 

[Festerz]

5. Higgins' compensation should be reviewed.

LOL.

Yep now that an esteemed judge has determined after examining ALL the evidence from ALL the witnesses that Bruce Lehrmann DID rape Brittany Higgins in the Parliamentary Office of a government Minister I reckon the amount of compensation she would be looking for would be multiples of what was previously settled with the government.

Especially given what Justice Lee said in his judgement about the trauma she suffered as a result.

 

[Black Diamond]

Why and how?

Why? Lee J made adverse findings as to what Higgins told the commonwealth when attempting to settle.

How? It is possible to set aside a settlement deed, although extremely tough so realistically there may be no "how".

Sharaz had far too much input into 2 & 3 IMHO. I took it that he misled or directed way to much of things once he entered the picture.

Maybe, but Wilkinson is an adult who had no reason to just go along with his nonsense. You can kind of see why Higgins would be swayed by her other half, but not Wilkinson.

 

[James Colorado]

probably. but think the grub thought he was bulletproof. and he had many peeps from the right reassuring him about that.

I will preface this by saying that I'm not qualified to make a diagnosis, but he does seem to be exhibiting a fair amount of narcissism. In his own mind he's 100% correct, everything he did was fine, and the world is out to get him (deep down though he us aware of his faults, and the thought processes to cover it are a maladaptive response); I'm curious about if any psychological assessment was undertaken that does indicate meeting the criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

 

[Chief]

To be honest that would be half of Parliament House.

 

[Black Diamond]

LOL.

Yep now that an esteemed judge has determined after examining ALL the evidence from ALL the witnesses that Bruce Lehrmann DID rape Brittany Higgins in the Parliamentary Office of a government Minister I reckon the amount of compensation she would be looking for would be multiples of what was previously settled with the government.

Especially given what Justice Lee said in his judgement about the trauma she suffered as a result.

The compensation was linked to the cover-up claims, and the cover-up has been found to not have happened.

 

[BFew]

I'm curious about if any psychological assessment was undertaken that does indicate meeting the criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Might be hard to diagnose whilst/if still on too much illegal drugs, or if an alcoholic.

 

[StingBitten]

Seems like Bruce is paying the consequences for his actions, a Man not even 30 yet has completely screwed up his life and hurt many others in the process. A complete and utter fool.

One thing I haven't been completely on board with today are the many legal professionals in the media stating that this defamation case will make alleged perpetrators 'rethink' their decision to combat alleged victims/accusers with defamation cases. This makes complete sense if the alleged perpetrator is guilty. In the circumstances (and I know it's rare) where the alleged perpetrators are innocent, having that option to counter with a defamation suit is completely valid.

I have witnessed on a couple of occasions in the workplace where one has been unfairly accused of something that never happened - and had little recourse to defend their reputation.

 

[QuietB]

The compensation was linked to the cover-up claims, and the cover-up has been found to not have happened.

No, and no.

 

[Over The Post]

You forgot
6. Sofronoff and Albrechtsen clown act tainting any findings against Drumgold

 

[Carn The Berries]

There could be a long way to go with costs. To the extent 10 and Wilkinson duplicated work they could have collaborated on, for example, both parties are not getting their costs back in full.

Anyway, still having a good laugh at the "I was showing her my whisky collection." What the actual *?

The only people who should have a whisky collection at work are barristers. I can only assume his counsel has a whisky collection, considers this normal for everyone, and so could see nothing wrong with this evidence. Guys, unless you are at the bar do not keep a whisky collection at work.

I did enjoy the smack-downs of Wilkinson. It has clearly affected her career, and as Damo observed on the Sounding Board this morning, she has not been near journalism since.

The main lesson is that many things can be true at once:

1. Lehrmann is an absolute moron and on BOP committed rape.
2. Higgins is incredibly unreliable and her faulty memory means she cannot be trusted.
3. Wilkinson is an idiot and a hack who pushed a conspiracy theory.
4. Drumgold (going back to the trial) is an utter disgrace who should have more to worry about than if he can ever practice law again.
5. Higgins' compensation should be reviewed.

Ummmm.... No, that's not what Justice Lee said at all. In fact, he went to great lengths to discuss how much more believable she was at and around the time of the incident. His references to her lack of reliability/transparency was primarily in relation to the way she pursued the issue, not her accounts of it.

 

[Black Diamond]

Ummmm.... No, that's not what Justice Lee said at all. In fact, he went to great lengths to discuss how much more believable she was at and around the time of the incident. His references to her lack of reliability/transparency was primarily in relation to the way she pursued the issue, not her accounts of it.

He made findings that her evidence in a number of respects, particularly the "conspiracy", was not very good.

The part in bold still does not reflect well on her.

 

[Swan4Life]

In the meeting on 27 January, 2021, David Sharaz said the story had to be published in a parliamentary sitting week in March to allow Labor to put maximum pressure on the Coalition government – before Scott Morrison called an election and prorogued parliament.

Sharaz: “I’ve got a friend in Labor, Katy Gallagher on the Labor side, who will probe and continue it going. So sitting week, story comes out, they have to answer questions at question time, it’s a mess for them.”

Ten ran a highly political story, brought to them by a conduit who articulated clearly his political motive, on his timeline, for his purposes, without proper fact-checking.

What really riled up Justice Lee is Ten’s continuing defiant defence of its decision to approve and endorse Lisa Wilkinson’s Logies speech, which blew up Lehrmann’s criminal trial.

Justice Lee called Ten’s conduct “egregious” and “grossly improper”, and slated its chief litigation counsel.

In this trial, Ten and Wilkinson had two defences: truth and qualified privilege, which requires a demonstration of ‘reasonableness’.

Early in his decision, Justice Lee said their conduct was “not reasonable”.

That left them relying on truth: or, to put it more transactionally, the hope that Bruce Lehrmann’s lies outweighed Brittany Higgins’ lies.

That, at least, was true.

Lucky.

 

[Geelong_Bisons_#36]

Bags.

And Thai masseuses.

 

[Swan4Life]

Why and how?

That's a good question.

Here's another: Why did Labor make available only a heavily redacted report which covered everything surrounding Higgins compensation despite the requirements to provide an unedited version under the Freedom of Information Act?

Is this another example of Airbus Albo's committment to a transparent government as he promised during the 2022 election campaign?

 

[Festerz]

In the meeting on 27 January, 2021, David Sharaz said the story had to be published in a parliamentary sitting week in March to allow Labor to put maximum pressure on the Coalition government – before Scott Morrison called an election and prorogued parliament.

Sharaz: “I’ve got a friend in Labor, Katy Gallagher on the Labor side, who will probe and continue it going. So sitting week, story comes out, they have to answer questions at question time, it’s a mess for them.”

Ten ran a highly political story, brought to them by a conduit who articulated clearly his political motive, on his timeline, for his purposes, without proper fact-checking.

What really riled up Justice Lee is Ten’s continuing defiant defence of its decision to approve and endorse Lisa Wilkinson’s Logies speech, which blew up Lehrmann’s criminal trial.

Justice Lee called Ten’s conduct “egregious” and “grossly improper”, and slated its chief litigation counsel.

In this trial, Ten and Wilkinson had two defences: truth and qualified privilege, which requires a demonstration of ‘reasonableness’.

Early in his decision, Justice Lee said their conduct was “not reasonable”.

That left them relying on truth: or, to put it more transactionally, the hope that Bruce Lehrmann’s lies outweighed Brittany Higgins’ lies.

That, at least, was true.

Lucky.

Given that you have put your whole post in italics I assume it is a direct cut and paste from an online source which obviously has a particular perspective (aka bias) on the matter.

Could you please link to that source so that we understand the context as per BF rules.

Thanks.

 

[Schulzenfest]

That's a good question.

Here's another: Why did Labor make available only a heavily redacted report which covered everything surrounding Higgins compensation despite the requirements to provide an unedited version under the Freedom of Information Act?

Is this another example of Airbus Albo's committment to a transparent government as he promised during the 2022 election campaign?

Lol. Take the L and move on m8.

 

[QuietB]

That's a good question.

Here's another: Why did Labor make available only a heavily redacted report which covered everything surrounding Higgins compensation despite the requirements to provide an unedited version under the Freedom of Information Act?

Is this another example of Airbus Albo's committment to a transparent government as he promised during the 2022 election campaign?

Have we seen the details of Rachelle Millers payout yet?

For the record I'm all for the Higgins details being made public, as well as the Gaetjens enquiry, all of Scott Morrison's various messaging and correspondence, same for Dutton, Cash and Reynolds, etc.

Here are some published details - they are not hard to find. Interesting Albo is not mentioned once;

$400,000 for hurt and distress: Higgins’ government deal released

Brittany Higgins’ settlement deed with the Commonwealth of Australia has been released by a Sydney court, revealing the details of the government’s payment.

www.afr.com

 

[Festerz]

There could be a long way to go with costs. To the extent 10 and Wilkinson duplicated work they could have collaborated on, for example, both parties are not getting their costs back in full.

Not an issue.

Back in February Justice Lee ruled that it was reasonable for Lisa Wilkinson to retain separate lawyers to represent her in the Lehrmann defamation trial stating:

“This is not a case where Ms Wilkinson acted unthinkingly in retaining separate representation,”

“In any event, it seems to me plain beyond peradventure that in all circumstances it was reasonable for Ms Wilkinson to retain separate lawyers.”

Judge vindicates Lisa Wilkinson’s decision to ditch Ten’s legal team

A judge has found that Lisa Wilkinson acted reasonably in ditching Network Ten’s legal team in a defamation case brought by Bruce Lehrmann, noting the “distrust” between the presenter and her former employer as well as matters including the solicitors’ retainer with The Australian newspaper...

www.lawyerly.com.au

 

[Chief]

requirements to provide an unedited version under the Freedom of Information Act?

Are they required?