Scandal Luke Slayers

[The Blue Max]

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.

Slayer’s statement to the AFL slaughtered her character.

It brought into question her psychological state, her morals, her family background and her honesty.

It was all bullshit but the AFL acted on it and said ‘nothing to see here’ - in the case of Sayer’s dick they were almost right.

Mrs S has every right to want to see Luke AND the AFL degraded and humiliated in Court.

Then she can go Luke, the AFL and I hope, both legal counsel.

 

[Orfullrules]

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.

Sometimes money isn’t everything

 

[western royboy]

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.

You’re not familiar with the concept defamation I take it?

 

[The Blue Max]

Sometimes money isn’t everything

My god. Some sense.

Well said.

 

[Orfullrules]

My god. Some sense.

Well said.

Please don’t bring religion into the discussion.

 

[MarcusP2]

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.

Her husband called her a crazy bipolar bitch off her meds to escape consequences.

She wants him to be forced to retract that, on the record, and humiliate him in the process. A settlement won't do that and she already has money.

 

[Sainter3and7]

I'm getting the sense she's not happy with him. But I'm not great at communication with the ladies, so if I was him, I'd push my luck.

 

[craffles]

Her husband called her a crazy bipolar bitch off her meds to escape consequences.

She wants him to be forced to retract that, on the record, and humiliate him in the process. A settlement won't do that and she already has money.

And not only that, he convinced two of their kids to side with him too so she has even more incentive to bury him

 

[Broadside]

I think it could yet settle for a great (undisclosed) sum of money now that it will be in open court. Luke Sayers is probably radioactive at this point in terms of his business networking.

 

[Black Diamond]

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.

Where are you getting any of this from? During a defamation action, they will threaten to defame her further? Lawyers are subject to civil actions. That is why the threats you are talking about are unlikely to happen.

Many of you want to see a real life legal drama. It is unlikely to happen. Best we can hope for is a backdown from the AFL honchos and Sayers which allows us to fill in the blanks.

Sorry to disappoint you all.

 

[Blightys Barrel]

Where are you getting any of this from? During a defamation action, they will threaten to defame her further? Lawyers are subject to civil actions. That is why the threats you are talking about are unlikely to happen.

Many of you want to see a real life legal drama. It is unlikely to happen. Best we can hope for is a backdown from the AFL honchos and Sayers which allows us to fill in the blanks.

Sorry to disappoint you all.

Black Diamond you should know better than to question our resident Kings Counsel and Defamation Expert the right honourable Blue Max in such matters from his chambers.

 

[The Blue Max]

Where are you getting any of this from? During a defamation action, they will threaten to defame her further? Lawyers are subject to civil actions. That is why the threats you are talking about are unlikely to happen.

Many of you want to see a real life legal drama. It is unlikely to happen. Best we can hope for is a backdown from the AFL honchos and Sayers which allows us to fill in the blanks.

Sorry to disappoint you all.

I’m talking about when she is giving evidence - or have you never seen a Civil proceeding?

The strongest defence to defamation is the truth, or the genuine belief of something being the truth.

LS’s team will have to prove she’s unbalanced and unfaithful….or at least promiscuous.

It’s the obvious strategy - try to convince the Judge that there is merit in Sayer’s statement, by questioning her behaviour/integrity/morals.

She may not care about herself, but I doubt she’ll want her kids being exposed to the type of speculation a defending Counsel could drum up.

It’s the price she’ll have to pay - as if she hasn’t suffered enough.

 

[Black Diamond]

I have seen many civil proceedings.

You can't just imply scandalous behaviour. You cannot just ask the witness again and again "Have you cheated on your husband?" The judge will intervene unless you actually have something to back up the line of questioning.

And I expect that she would have been counselled on this. Her lawyers would have asked her if there is any truth to the statements she says are defamatory.

 

[The Blue Max]

I have seen many civil proceedings.

You can't just imply scandalous behaviour. You cannot just ask the witness again and again "Have you cheated on your husband?" The judge will intervene unless you actually have something to back up the line of questioning.

And I expect that she would have been counselled on this. Her lawyers would have asked her if there is any truth to the statements she says are defamatory.

What don’t you understand by what I wrote?

“If she’s brave enough, she’ll stare them down in Court, the innuendo will be denounced by the Judge…..”
Nobody said anything about ‘implication’. Nice Straw Man you’ve got.

Of course as soon as it’s evident they have no genuine proof - the judge will require a change in the line of questioning.

You seem to think I’m implying it’ll be a free for all - show the same respect for my intelligence I’m showing you, eh?

 

[The Blue Max]

Black Diamond you should know better than to question our resident Kings Counsel and Defamation Expert the right honourable Blue Max in such matters from his chambers.

I refer you to my signature.

 

[Black Diamond]

What don’t you understand by what I wrote?

“If she’s brave enough, she’ll stare them down in Court, the innuendo will be denounced by the Judge…..”
Nobody said anything about ‘implication’. Nice Straw Man you’ve got.

Of course as soon as it’s evident they have no genuine proof - the judge will require a change in the line of questioning.

You seem to think I’m implying it’ll be a free for all - show the same respect for my intelligence I’m showing you, eh?

That is not a straw man. It is a valid inference from your choice of words. What if she isn't "brave" enough? She will just accept their premise? Her own counsel won't intervene?

 

[The Blue Max]

That is not a straw man. It is a valid inference from your choice of words. What if she isn't "brave" enough? She will just accept their premise? Her own counsel won't intervene?

You’ve completely misconstrued my meaning. By ‘brave’ I meant if she’s willing to go through with it.

You really are nit-picking, I’m leaving this discussion here.

 

[jpart]

At some point the AFL should have wondered why a hacking explanation came with so much character evidence. If you need three pages of “my wife is mad” to explain a deleted post, maybe the access-path theory is doing a bit of overtime.