Christian Porter

Remove this Banner Ad

Power Raid said:
but this isn't about them, this is about us

we are the ones on trial here, not russia


it is no different to punching out ya misses and then saying "she deserved it, cause she's a cheating whore". She may well have cheated but that doesn't condone the response.
Click to expand...
Was she murdering children at the time?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Crankyhawk said:
So that is porters argument?
Here’s mine
Let’s * Russia sideways and seize all their assets because * knows they are a terrorist miscreant state who will like try to fire a nuke for shits and giggles and we are really just hoping that the wiring malfunctions and self detonates
Click to expand...

and then some busted arse african state follows, followed by another state and another state and another state.......not to mention we lead the way

this pathway results in russia winning, as we all end up like russia
 
Chief said:
Not at all.
Click to expand...

I agree with everyone sentiment

I just don't believe that's how the courts will rule and nor do I feel it is in our interests long term



If we were successful the result would be:
2% sovereign wealth insurance passed on to ordinary joe blow
putin takes western assets in russia and gives it to his cronies to ensure their continued support. These assets are ordinary people's super
we lower ourselves to putin's standards
we lose the all important trade and property right concepts which we have been successfully exporting and implementing to developing nations
we lose future investment in our nations
 
Power Raid said:
and then some busted arse african state follows, followed by another state and another state and another state.......not to mention we lead the way
Click to expand...
In kicking Russia out? Taking their s**t?
 
Chief said:
I don't know what that is. Is it a thing? A guess how much investment we will lose?
Click to expand...

we will lose 2% on every single dollar invested into Australia going forward which is on-costed to ordinary Australians

The alternative is we only accept Australian sources of capital which is more expensive, making the rich richer and on-costed to ordinary Australians.



The way places like the ukraine avoid the 2% levy is by signing up to the trade and property right treaties and the investor doesn't take out sovereign risk insurance as they have access to the hague
 
Power Raid said:
but this isn't about them, this is about us

we are the ones on trial here, not russia


it is no different to punching out ya misses and then saying "she deserved it, cause she's a cheating whore". She may well have cheated but that doesn't condone the response.
Click to expand...
No. We say launching a war of aggression invalidates agreements they hold with us because we don’t know if the nut jobs come after us next.
 
Power Raid said:
I agree with everyone sentiment

I just don't believe that's how the courts will rule and nor do I feel it is in our interests long term



If we were successful the result would be:
2% sovereign wealth insurance passed on to ordinary joe blow
putin takes western assets in russia and gives it to his cronies to ensure their continued support. These assets are ordinary people's super
we lower ourselves to putin's standards
we lose the all important trade and property right concepts which we have been successfully exporting and implementing to developing nations
we lose future investment in our nations
Click to expand...
We already have lost assets in Russia. They will be seized by the state.
This oligarch could be pushed out a window. Would that make the case go away?
 
Crankyhawk said:
We already have lost assets in Russia. They will be seized by the state.
This oligarch could be pushed out a window. Would that make the case go away?
Click to expand...

his estate would probably continue the action
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Crankyhawk said:
No. We say launching a war of aggression invalidates agreements they hold with us because we don’t know if the nut jobs come after us next.
Click to expand...

worth a try but I don't think a judge would agree

where the govt may try and pursue is an angle on who is the rightful owner, in the case they are dissatisfied with appropriate disclosure or inaccurate disclosure
 
I was thinking about this issue this morning and it just highlights the importance of stabilising the Ukraine.

Russia and other nation's business plan is to destabilise neighbours through espionage, corruption and conflict. They know this undermines law and order and this creates a breeding ground for corruption and wealth disparity. This in turn drives support for their endeavours.

It is difficult to fight Queensburry Rules when the counter party has taken off their gloves, kicks and bites. but we mustn't lose our control and lower ourselves to their standard. As winning isn't about winning at all costs but winning to maintain what is great.
 
Power Raid said:
I was thinking about this issue this morning and it just highlights the importance of stabilising the Ukraine.

Russia and other nation's business plan is to destabilise neighbours through espionage, corruption and conflict. They know this undermines law and order and this creates a breeding ground for corruption and wealth disparity. This in turn drives support for their endeavours.

It is difficult to fight Queensburry Rules when the counter party has taken off their gloves, kicks and bites. but we mustn't lose our control and lower ourselves to their standard. As winning isn't about winning at all costs but winning to maintain what is great.
Click to expand...
no we can't fight fairly when the other side fights dirty, otherwise the dirty fighters win.
 
Power Raid said:
worth a try but I don't think a judge would agree

where the govt may try and pursue is an angle on who is the rightful owner, in the case they are dissatisfied with appropriate disclosure or inaccurate disclosure
Click to expand...
judge is clearly a putin ********** then, and prejudiced.
 
Big_Birdy said:
It's called the cab rank rule.

A barrister can set their speciality in law and their price.

Generally, if the case is relevant to their speciality and the client accepts the price, the barrister must accept them as the client.

A conflict can exist where it would be inappropriate to represent someone (e.g. had represented the opposing client previously). Not sure if this fits that though.
Click to expand...
Surely being a part of the government that took those actions means that representing someone against those actions is a pretty massive conflict. Surely.
 
MC Bad Genius said:
Surely being a part of the government that took those actions means that representing someone against those actions is a pretty massive conflict. Surely.
Click to expand...
meh, thats not such an issue really, when did the actions occur (wasn't it after he had already lost the attorney general position?) and then hes no longer in parliament

add in that he doesn't seem to be that good a lawyer
 
Chief said:
Where is that?
Click to expand...

where? perhaps the question is what........and it is a proper noun.

thus the difficulty your are finding is what you are taught to believe by memes rather than totally acceptable rules in english
 
Crankyhawk said:
no we can't fight fairly when the other side fights dirty, otherwise the dirty fighters win.
Click to expand...

and I'd suggest the other side wins if we don't fight fairly

as difficult as it is, what we have to remember is we are supposedly defending law and order.

Personally I don't believe we need to lower ourselves to defeat the russians
 
Crankyhawk said:
refuse to recognise the estate as a legitimate entity, and refuse to recognise that court as anything but a russian cocksucking apparatus.
Click to expand...

our own courts?

are you really suggesting the government should over ride our courts and own laws?
 
Power Raid said:
our own courts?

are you really suggesting the government should over ride our courts and own laws?
Click to expand...
No. Was under impression it was some external court. Regardless I don’t see why any Russian oligarch can win given it is extraordinary circumstances due to putins invasion invalidates agreements with Russia and Russians. Legislation trumps legal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top