Scandal Luke Slayers

[MisterB]

What are BF folks plans in November? Public gallery attendance anyone?

 

[Blightys Barrel]

To steal from Paul Keating to John Hewson in the early 1990’s.

Kate wants to do Luke slowly as we all want to see.

 

[western royboy]

What are BF folks plans in November? Public gallery attendance anyone?

I’d still have my doubts that it gets to Court. There are several parties that will want to ensure that doesn’t happen. For the other party the price on that will be very lucrative. But as the voice of experience in a similar area and as has been pointed out already in this thread, Courts prefer not to have to rule on this type of stuff and encourage mediation at every turn. Let’s say Mr S offers the former Mrs S a sum of money which she rejects in the pursuit of the truth. Should she win and be awarded $1 less than she was offered she then goes on the hook for all of Mr S’s legal fees after the offer was made.

The pursuit of justice is a fallacy in many regards.

The only winners are the Lawyers.

 

[largebus]

Luke and the AFL will pay her a nice fat settlement and get her to sign an NDA. Another win for the AFL Sweep Under The Carpet Integrity Unit.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Luke and the AFL will pay her a nice fat settlement and get her to sign an NDA. Another win for the AFL Sweep Under The Carpet Integrity Unit.

How much do you think that would need to be? Billionaire's wife, mother of their 4 children, scorned like Medea

 

[largebus]

How much do you think that would need to be? Billionaire's wife, mother of their 4 children, scorned like Medea

Defamation payouts in Australia, if you win are rarely above low 7 figures. Chump change, relatively speaking for an AFL-assisted settlement so she doesn't decide to go after them in the future.

Who gets the mansions and Ferraris is something else entirely and would be less public in the Family Court, but given the AFL's history of trying to stage manage everything who knows if they get involved

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Defamation payouts in Australia, if you win are rarely above low 7 figures. Chump change, relatively speaking for an AFL-assisted settlement so she doesn't decide to go after them in the future.

Who gets the mansions and Ferraris is something else entirely and would be less public in the Family Court, but given the AFL's history of trying to stage manage everything who knows if they get involved

She won't be settling just for low 7 figures, this is about rock solid vindication, anything less than that and the game continues

 

[GWT6]

You could have drawn a local comparison in Jacinta Allen or Dan Andrews.

Two of the most honest and transparent politions in my lifetime? What a weird comment.

 

[Bostonian]

Two of the most honest and transparent politions in my lifetime? What a weird comment.

I like your sarcasm.

 

[Bostonian]

Only in the same way a millionaire is like a billionaire ie completely different ballparks. Yet you call someone else a stooge haha.

But back to the thread, this playing out in open court is the best possible outcome. For anyone who's bothered to post in this thread, at least.

Serial liars are serial liars, stop being a political party stooge.

 

[Blightys Barrel]

Ms Sayers has 2 cases against the ex if I am not mistaken.

1. Defamation case.
2. Divorce case

Lets assume that for #2 that it is a 50/50 split of all assets down the line.

What would be good to understand if she wins #1 handsomely with a significant payout in the $M’s. Does that eat into his 50%? Really Hope so

This is not really about the money at the end of the day as we all know. It’s a power play and allowing the public to see in a court of law who are some of the dishonest players who have aided and abetted Mr Sayers?

• Everyone on that AFL Integrity Group
• Who signed that Stat Declaration?
• Who else outside of the above 2 were involved in the texts, emails, calls etc and played a part in trying to control this narrative?

 

[The Blue Max]

Serial liars are serial liars, stop being a political party stooge.

Trump is not a ‘serial’ liar - he is pathalogical - it’s his default position.

You can pretend all you like - we all know all pollies lie when necessary to protect their positions - but it’s not with the same degree of emboldened, furiously on-going, unapologetic mantra we see from your ‘main man’.

 

[Bostonian]

Trump is not a ‘serial’ liar - he is pathalogical - it’s his default position.

You can pretend all you like - we all know all pollies lie when necessary to protect their positions - but it’s not with the same degree of emboldened, furiously on-going, unapologetic mantra we see from your ‘main man’.

Not my main man. I'm Australian.

But the same stooges he triggers seem to be the same people who will try and down play serial lying corrupt sacks of shit like Andrews and Allen.

 

[Corkintheocean]

Not my main man. I'm Australian.

But the same stooges he triggers seem to be the same people who will try and down play serial lying corrupt sacks of shit like Andrews and Allen.

What's Jacinta Allen done to rustle your jimmies (aside from being a woman)?

 

[MC Bad Genius]

Serial liars are serial liars, stop being a political party stooge.

I'm a stooge for a political party that I'm not a member of and have not voted for in close to 20 years?

Yup, you're making total sense.

And if you think ANY Australian politician of ANY party/ideology lies even CLOSE to the way Donald Trump does (whether that definition of close is the number of lies, or the impact of the lies, or the easily disprovableness (??) of the lies), then you're completely deluded.

I'm gonna leave it there though, as it's just derailing this thread.

 

[Rail King]

TDS

 

[Cyclops]

Serial liars are serial liars, stop being a political party stooge.

Default picking one party to sledge? Stooges gonna stooge.

Bananaby is an incompetent root rat and a conservative, nothing like Sayers? Sure Rupert.

 

[Devington]

Go somewhere else to bitch about politics, for heavens sake.

 

[Bostonian]

Default picking one party to sledge? Stooges gonna stooge.

Bananaby is an incompetent root rat and a conservative, nothing like Sayers? Sure Rupert.

I've got a song that won't take long, all politicians are campaigners...

 

[EagleMan87]

I've got a song that won't take long, all politicians are campaigners...

Don't tell me you're one of those 'ACAB' people.

 

[Sainter3and7]

Most people don't think "Let's talk about politicians" when they hear about a man posting a dick pic on the internet.

I hope that helps.

 

[Corkintheocean]

Go somewhere else to bitch about politics, for heavens sake.

Leave politics out of sports forums

 

[Bunk Moreland]

How much do you think that would need to be? Billionaire's wife, mother of their 4 children, scorned like Medea

She won't be settling just for low 7 figures, this is about rock solid vindication, anything less than that and the game continues

It’s not just the money. That’s just what will be made public.

If they want her to settle then it will get much dirtier than that. She’ll be threatened with all types of things behind closed doors. Everybody has skeletons they don’t want aired.

 

[The Blue Max]

It’s not just the money. That’s just what will be made public.

If they want her to settle then it will get much dirtier than that. She’ll be threatened with all types of things behind closed doors. Everybody has skeletons they don’t want aired.

They’ll insinuate infidelity - to the point where she will not want her kids exposed at school.

If she’s brave enough, she’ll stare them down in Court, the innuendo will be denounced by the Judge and she can counter sue Sayers for even more.

This is where Defence lawyers should be subject to Civil action - they’d be far less willing to get down with the pigs in the swill.

 

[yaco55]

I’d still have my doubts that it gets to Court. There are several parties that will want to ensure that doesn’t happen. For the other party the price on that will be very lucrative. But as the voice of experience in a similar area and as has been pointed out already in this thread, Courts prefer not to have to rule on this type of stuff and encourage mediation at every turn. Let’s say Mr S offers the former Mrs S a sum of money which she rejects in the pursuit of the truth. Should she win and be awarded $1 less than she was offered she then goes on the hook for all of Mr S’s legal fees after the offer was made.

The pursuit of justice is a fallacy in many regards.

The only winners are the Lawyers.

I fail to see why Ms S wants this to play out in court. She will be extremely wealthy after the divorce settlement. Then again Mary Average would not have the funds to take this to the High Court.