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

Remove this Banner Ad

I imagine Reynolds had made the assumption that a settlement of her defamation action against Sharaz would give her access to the 'joint' assets of Sharaz and Higgins - hence her attempt to get French authorities to place place a hold over Ms Higgins' French based assets.

If Mr Sharaz has no financial assets of his own either individually or as a joint owner, it leaves Ms Reynolds in a bit of a pickle wrt seeking a financial settlement with him for his multiple twitter posts.
View attachment 1975382
How much was fat cat pollie Reynolds wanting from Sharaz when he can't even afford to defend himself. Does she want blood on her desk as well as semen.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Is Stokes still allegedly bankrolling this?

When you think about it he really has nothing to lose it's not like people can think less of him and he's probably going to declare bankruptcy over court costs anyway may as well take another bite at the cherry if a lawyer is willing to represent him knowing that he probably cant pay.

He should probably be saving whatever cash he has for his lawyers in the Toowoomba case though.
 
“Fiona Brown and I have lost our careers, had our reputations destroyed and have had our health seriously and irreparably compromised.” - you resigned you silly nincompoop
She got told she didnt have the votes and retired.
 
When you think about it he really has nothing to lose it's not like people can think less of him and he's probably going to declare bankruptcy over court costs anyway may as well take another bite at the cherry if a lawyer is willing to represent him knowing that he probably cant pay.

He should probably be saving whatever cash he has for his lawyers in the Toowoomba case though.
Given the result of the defamation trial and the extent to which Justice Lee went to ensure all evidence was heard from all sides I think that the only person Lehrmann has any chance of winning an appeal against is himself

But in all seriousness I think this ‘considering an appeal’ nonsense is just a ruse to provide him with some semblance of cover against going into his next rape allegation hearing as a confirmed rapist.

It allows him to continue saying he does not agree with the judgement and has engaged counsel to consider appealing. Knowing that it is yet another of his Walter Mitty fantasies.
 
Last edited:
They were out for ages and it was careering towards a hung jury, hence the desperation of the juror in question in bringing in external information.
You have a tendency to use emotive and exaggerated wording i your posts that leaves you open to challenge about your motive.

Personally I've never seen a jury or deliberation process "careering" anywhere. I've also never heard anyone suggest the juror in question was acting out of desperation. I think you are just making it up.
 
The credentials of the barrister he’s engaged, Guy Reynolds, (no relation ;)) is on point:

The barrister’s clients have previously included Eddie Obeid, Man Haron Monis, Mick Gatto and Peter Dutton.
Who pays for his legal representation?
 
She got told she didnt have the votes and retired.
She hired a rapist and spent more of her time going after the victim than the rapist.

Has she come out and said anything about Lehrman, now that he can legally be called a rapist?

She was doing things by the book, now she's free to say it, has she said it? That she's disgusted by him, or something similar? You know, like any normal human would do.
 
Any normal employer would have been shocked and appalled. Even said something like that she feels bad for the victim.

Linda Reynolds?

"This judgement about my staff member raping another staff member only vindicates me, that I can't be proven to have covered it up. But yes, I'm suing the rape victim from my office."

She's not even human, surely.

 
Any normal employer would have been shocked and appalled. Even said something like that she feels bad for the victim.

Linda Reynolds?

"This judgement about my staff member raping another staff member only vindicates me, that I can't be proven to have covered it up. But yes, I'm suing the rape victim from my office."

She's not even human, surely.

Perhaps the findings by Lee might have been different if Brittany was able to counter in the Ch10 defamation case some of the evidence given for Lee to reach that conclusion about there not being a cover up.
Brittany will be able to make amends at her July defamation trial and i hope she does and if she gets it delayed I hope she does that too.
 
“Fiona Brown and I have lost our careers, had our reputations destroyed and have had our health seriously and irreparably compromised.” - you resigned you silly nincompoop
Your reputation was s**t before. So doubt anyone gives a flying what you think you useless parasite.

Edit to be clear I am talking about Reynolds not QuietB
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

You have a tendency to use emotive and exaggerated wording i your posts that leaves you open to challenge about your motive.

Personally I've never seen a jury or deliberation process "careering" anywhere. I've also never heard anyone suggest the juror in question was acting out of desperation. I think you are just making it up.
I agree augie.

But at the same time, who the heck are you?
 
Senator Reynolds might want to reflect on this part of the judgement with her behaviour:

"1074 The consequence of all this is that the actual damage proven to be occasioned to Mr Lehrmann’s reputation by the broadcast could only be slight in respect of the defamatory publications unsuccessfully defended, because he is only entitled to be compensated for the reputation he deserves."

Reynolds is busy going about proving that she doesn't care about the victim of rape in her office. Maybe indifference to allowing a cover-up to happen isn't the same are participating, but it's not a lot different.

Just about everyone threatened to quit over Lehrman and Reynolds kept him on and hasn't said a bad word about him, even after a court called him a rapist in her office.

Would it be defamation to suggest he's got something on her? Might not be the first time he's used the couch?

She's either a sociopath and can't really be defamed can she? or she's getting the reputation she deserves.
 
Senator Reynolds might want to reflect on this part of the judgement with her behaviour: "1074 The consequence of all this is that the actual damage proven to be occasioned to Mr Lehrmann’s reputation by the broadcast could only be slight in respect of the defamatory publications unsuccessfully defended, because he is only entitled to be compensated for the reputation he deserves." Reynolds is busy going about proving that she doesn't care about the victim of rape in her office. Maybe indifference to allowing a cover-up to happen isn't the same are participating, but it's not a lot different. Just about everyone threatened to quit over Lehrman and Reynolds kept him on and hasn't said a bad word about him, even after a court called him a rapist in her office. Would it be defamation to suggest he's got something on her? Might not be the first time he's used the couch? She's either a sociopath and can't really be defamed can she? or she's getting the reputation she deserves.
 
Last edited:
Sharaz could be bankrupt if he loses: Reynolds’ lawyer

Brittany Higgins’ fiance could ‘go bankrupt’ if he loses the defamation claim lodged against him by former Liberal Minister Linda Reynolds, after abandoning his defence of the case



The slimy Sharaz about to pay the penalty for doing the ALP's dirty work?

Love it!!

‘Because ALP LOL’
 
I agree augie.

But at the same time, who the * are you?
Quality response. But to indulge you, I'm someone who posts on bigfooty from time to time. Not obsessive like some who seem to spend hours and hours preparing posts to try to convince others that the narrative they are running is right and righteous. That's who I am.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top