Christian Porter

Remove this Banner Ad

Kwality said:
Are you sure?
Whatever Dyer said is not the reason she did not want it heard in open court, her motive cross examined.
Hooke was fair game if the case went ahead.
Either way the decision of Justice Jagot on what is sealed will draw a line between fact & speculation.

Somehow I dont think that decision will be the end of the speculation.
Loose lips sink ships.
Click to expand...

No it won't because the truth already came out.
Again, if you read the judgment, large chunks of it are blacked out.
The only person that protects is Porter.
The only person seeking to keep them blacked out is Porter.

I understand that Dyer being part of some great conspiracy is all you have left.
 
Number37 said:
No it won't because the truth already came out.
Again, if you read the judgment, large chunks of it are blacked out.
The only person that protects is Porter.
The only person seeking to keep them blacked out is Porter.

I understand that Dyer being part of some great conspiracy is all you have left.
Click to expand...
Rubbish, both Porter & the ABC have agreed on what is to be sealed IF Justice Jagot accedes to their wishes.
Dyer has no standing in that.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Kwality said:
Rubbish, both Porter & the ABC have agreed on what is to be sealed IF Justice Jagot accedes to their wishes.
Dyer has no standing in that.
Click to expand...

Porter wants them sealed.
The ABC is happy either way.
What is behind the black marks only hurts one person, and it isn't Dyer.
 
Kwality said:
Got a link to support your claim of the ABC.
Click to expand...

thewest.com.au

Bid to shred Porter-ABC docs hits snag

Redacted documents in the ABC's defence to Christian Porter's defamation claim will remain on the court file for the time being despite the parties' agreement.
thewest.com.au thewest.com.au

The sections are currently under an interim suppression order after Mr Porter raised an objection and applied to have the defence struck out.

But Justice Jayne Jagot said she would have to be convinced why the court should remove files held by the court.

"You've filed orders in a court, it doesn't then become a matter for you about what is to be disclosed or not disclosed," she told the parties on Tuesday.

"I want to keep the costs as low as possible but this is an unavoidable issue if you want to press (the order)."

The ABC took a neutral position on the matter, while intervening parties Nine and News Corporation continued to push for the release of the documents.
 
ralphmalph said:
thewest.com.au

Bid to shred Porter-ABC docs hits snag

Redacted documents in the ABC's defence to Christian Porter's defamation claim will remain on the court file for the time being despite the parties' agreement.
thewest.com.au thewest.com.au

The sections are currently under an interim suppression order after Mr Porter raised an objection and applied to have the defence struck out.

But Justice Jayne Jagot said she would have to be convinced why the court should remove files held by the court.

"You've filed orders in a court, it doesn't then become a matter for you about what is to be disclosed or not disclosed," she told the parties on Tuesday.

"I want to keep the costs as low as possible but this is an unavoidable issue if you want to press (the order)."

The ABC took a neutral position on the matter, while intervening parties Nine and News Corporation continued to push for the release of the documents.
Click to expand...

I am almost certain that;

1/ Kwality already knew that
2/ Kwality could have found that himself
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Kwality said:
The Dyer action is not the Porter/ABC case.
Click to expand...

You must be having a laugh.

The evidence in the Dyer action is central to the Porter action.

You can't seriously still think Porter gave up because he lost Chrysanthou?
 
Number37 said:
You must be having a laugh.

The evidence in the Dyer action is central to the Porter action.

You can't seriously still think Porter gave up because he lost Chrysanthou?
Click to expand...

So what is it that Dyer needs to remain hidden? The truth ?

No I am aware the attempts to settle the Porter/ABC action were underway before the Dyer action was initiated.

As I have said before my preference is none of the material be sealed.
 
Ghost Patrol said:
Mr Walker suggests that Kwality possesses 'magical thinking'

Click to expand...

QuietB said:
Kwality and BruceFromBalnarring will come on here and discredit that as "just one opinion, there are other interpretations"

Completely overlooking the fact that opinion is from Porter's own lawyer :oops:
Click to expand...
These comments really say all there is to say about many of the contributors to this thread.

In their world, everyone is either 'innocent' or 'guilty'. There is no grey.

Maybe, just maybe, some of us assess a situation and determine there is not enough evidence (available to the public) to determine whether someone is in fact innocent OR guilty, and as a result not willing to hang them on the basis of an accusation?!?
 
Fadge said:
These comments really say all there is to say about many of the contributors to this thread.

In their world, everyone is either 'innocent' or 'guilty'. There is no grey.

Maybe, just maybe, some of us assess a situation and determine there is not enough evidence (available to the public) to determine whether someone is in fact innocent OR guilty, and as a result not willing to hang them on the basis of an accusation?!?
Click to expand...

Did you read the article?

Or are you simply happy with the same anti intellectual virtue signalling of our Prime Minster?
 
QuietB said:
Did you read the article?

Or are you simply happy with the same anti intellectual virtue signalling of our Prime Minster?
Click to expand...
I am responding to the assertion from you guys that certain posters in this thread have a conclusive view as to Porter's 'innocence' given they're not stringing him from the rafters in the same way that you guys are, and your jumping on a tweet referencing a Guardian article to say 'I told you so'...
 
Fadge said:
I am responding to the assertion from you guys that certain posters in this thread have a conclusive view as to Porter's 'innocence' given they're not stringing him from the rafters in the same way that you guys are, and your jumping on a tweet referencing a Guardian article to say 'I told you so'...
Click to expand...

"Stringing him from the rafters" :rolleyes:

You really are just another snowflake incapable of any reasonable discussion about anything.
 
QuietB said:
Kwality and BruceFromBalnarring will come on here and discredit that as "just one opinion, there are other interpretations"

Completely overlooking the fact that opinion is from Porter's own lawyer :oops:
Click to expand...

Have I suggested that the presumption of innocence means you are innocent, if so, I'm happy to acknowledge my mistake.

I've certainly suggested the onus of proof is on the prosecution in a Court of Law.

I trust that clarifies my view of guilt & innocence.
 
Kwality said:
Have I suggested that the presumption of innocence means you are innocent, if so, I'm happy to acknowledge my mistake.

I've certainly suggested the onus of proof is on the prosecution in a Court of Law.

I trust that clarifies my view of guilt & innocence.
Click to expand...

And that fair enough.

For the record, our Prime Minister has suggested the presumption of innocence means you are innocent when he states Porter is "an innocent man under our law" which is plainly an incorrect statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top