Updated The Bruce Lehrmann Trials Pt2 * Justice Lee - "Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins."

[Kurve]

Here is PART 1

Historical Rape Allegation Against Fmr AG Christian Porter
The Alexander Matters matters

Just a reminder, this is the crime board and we need to be aware that there will be victims of crime either watching this thread or engaging in here from time to time. A degree of respect in all discussions is expected.

LINK TO TIMELINE
CJS INQUIRY
FINAL REPORT – BOARD OF INQUIRY – CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Joint media statement – Chief Minister and Attorney-General

LINK TO FEDERAL COURT DEFAMATION PROCEEDINGS

 

[BFew]

Did Ardnt even know that Bruce's basic living expenses included both bags and shags?

Might be a typo in the below.
Shouldn't it read 'indiscrete' socialising?

An occasional game of golf = essential living expenses.

From media pics and reports on his and some of his friends behaviours, it doesn't appear like his new friendship network in Sydney went too well.

There's thousands of homeless blokes in Australia, and she chose to support Lehrmann.

Bettina Arndt passed hat around for accommodation, cash and new friends for Bruce Lehrmann | The Weekly Beast

So-called men’s rights activist claims Lehrmann is a victim but says she stopped short of chipping in for his legal defence. Plus: SMH columnists at war

www.theguardian.com

'Bettina Arndt passed hat around for accommodation, cash and new friends for Bruce Lehrmann​

Amanda Meade

So-called men’s rights activist claims Lehrmann is a victim but says she stopped short of chipping in for his legal defence.

Fri 10 May 2024 12.50 AEST
...
Arndt admitted seeking funds for Lehrmann in the past but says she has not contributed towards legal costs.

We saw an email Arndt sent to supporters last year saying she had raised $30,000 but pleading for more cash, as well as accommodation, a scholarship and “a new friendship network” in Sydney: “He’d love an occasional game of golf … and other opportunities for some discrete socialising.”

Arndt told Weekly Beast: “I have never had anything to do with raising money for Bruce Lehrmann’s legal actions, current or future, including the possible appeal of the defamation case.

“I was part of a group of people who attempted to raise money for basic living expenses for Bruce Lehrmann last year after the criminal court case ended. He was then broke and trying to study law with no prospects of earning any income (due to his notoriety after his trial by media).”
...
Promoting the conference, Arndt described Lehrmann as the “poster boy for trial by media” who had “endured years of having his reputation trashed”.'

 

[Kurve]

Justice Lee to deliver his ruling on costs at 2.15pm today.

 

[FIGJAM]

We saw an email Arndt sent to supporters last year saying she had raised $30,000 but pleading for more cash, as well as accommodation, a scholarship and “a new friendship network” in Sydney: “He’d love an occasional game of golf … and other opportunities for some discrete socialising.”

heck me! Did he say anything about liking long walks on the beach?!

 

[BFew]

Why did Lehrmann require a $2000pw apartment.

Surely he could have got one for <$1,000pw and had Seven provide the other $1,000pw in living expenses.

 

[Brian Oblivion]

Justice Lee to deliver his ruling on costs at 2.15pm today.

Rather pointless exercise now it seems ......

 

[FIGJAM]

Justice Lee to deliver his ruling on costs at 2.15pm today.

My guess is that Justice Lee won't buy Network 10's argument that Lehrmann's civil case was so unreasonable as to be pinned for 100% of the costs.

I reckon Lee will make Network 10 bear the responsibility for some of the costs and even in Network 10's submissions, they acknowledge that they have been unsuccessful in some issues.

Will be all somewhat academic though, as Lehrmann will be up for millions and will have to declare bankruptcy.

 

[BFew]

Justice Lee to deliver his ruling on costs at 2.15pm today.

The stream is live and accessible (usually only whilst live) at https://www.youtube.com/@FederalCourtAus

The action starts soon.

 

[BFew]

Rather pointless exercise now it seems ......

Not if bankruptcy doesn't clear any debts that Lehrmann is ordered to pay from today's Court action.

https://www.afsa.gov.au/i-cant-pay-my-debts/bankruptcy/consequences-bankruptcy/what-happens-my-debts

'Bankruptcy doesn't cover all debts, including:

• court imposed penalties and fines'

 

[FIGJAM]

Haha!! Bruce would have had to have paid costs even if Lee didn't find that rape had occurred. Whybrow would have been ****ed over one way or the other!

 

[DapperDon]

Bruce just seen outside the courts

 

[FIGJAM]

So from what I can gather around the legal speak, Bruce is fully responsible for Network 10's costs, save for a few rats and mice costs / affidavits that didn't affect his case directly.

Justice Lee also reiterated early that just because Network 10 established a substantial truth defence, that the rest of their article was acceptable. Very much to the contrary and he wants everyone to know it.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Any idea what sort of figure total costs would be?

 

[BFew]

From what I can't gather, Lehrmann is now up for sale to the highest bidder.
Bids starting at AUD$0.99 on eBags.

 

[Kurve]

My guess is that Justice Lee won't buy Network 10's argument that Lehrmann's civil case was so unreasonable as to be pinned for 100% of the costs.

Justice Lee bought it. Lehrmann maintained a truth defence on a premise he knew was false.

 

[FIGJAM]

Justice Lee bought it. Lehrmann maintained a truth defence on a premise he knew was false.

Yep! I was slightly off on my 'punt'.

Lee also made it clear from the get go, stating that there "Were no real winners." and:

...that just because Network 10 established a substantial truth defence, that the rest of their article was acceptable. Very much to the contrary and he wants everyone to know it.

ABC News reporting that "Justice Lee was scathing of Network 10 at times", which is a fair summation.

Lee also called out Sharaz again.

This is the order:

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/117952/NSD103_2023-Orders-dated-10-May-2024.pdf

 

[BFew]

It was useful to find another one of Lehrmann's secret financial backers was finally revealed today in the Guardian (Bettina Arndt reportedly initiated fundraising for him).

 

[Kurve]

ABC News reporting that "Justice Lee was scathing of Network 10 at times", which is a fair summation.

Lee also called out Sharaz again.

Consequences?

 

[FIGJAM]

Consequences?

About $6 million in legal fees.

 

[BFew]

If Lehrmann is proven technically bankrupt before today's order to pay costs to Ten/Wilkinson, but has not declared it yet, will he be in even more financial strife, and not be able to extinguish these costs from declaring bankruptcy soon?

https://murrayslegal.com.au/blog/2017/07/19/seven-network-v-harrison-costs-orders-and-bankruptcy/

'JULY 19, 2017
...
Bankruptcy and costs

Apart from the facts of this case, bankruptcy can relieve any litigant from the personal liability to pay costs. Those costs are a “provable debt” in the bankruptcy of the litigant.

But the timing has to be right.

If a person in litigation has not yet been ordered by the court to pay costs, and that person goes bankrupt, costs ultimately ordered against them are not provable in or discharged by the bankruptcy. When the court later orders the litigant to pay costs, even the day after, they are a post-bankruptcy debt for which the person remains personally liable. The bright dividing line is the date that the judge decides to make an order for costs.

Only once the court makes an order for costs against the litigant, even if the costs are not at that time quantified, are the costs a provable debt, and, from the bankrupt litigant’s perspective, extinguished by the bankruptcy.

In the context of Seven Network, and hypothetically, if Harrison had gone bankrupt on 16 July 2017, the day before Justice Sackar’s order of 17 July, she would have remained liable for the costs despite her bankruptcy; if she had gone bankrupt the day after, 18 July, those costs would been extinguished by her bankruptcy.
...'

 

[Festerz]

Love this comment from Lee.

‘with the predictability of an atomic clock partisans have focussed solely on those parts of the judgement that happen to align with preconceived notions’

 

[BFew]

Todays Cost Judgement document and cost orders has been published.

Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Costs) [2024] FCA 486

www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/117952/NSD103_2023-Orders-dated-10-May-2024.pdf

 

[Cam Payne]

Bettina thinks the girls Bruce chases are too old. She's a putrid excuse for a human.

 

[Kurve]

About $6 million in legal fees.

They've got it and Lisa will have hers covered by Ten.

 

[FIGJAM]

Love this comment from Lee.

‘with the predictability of an atomic clock partisans have focussed solely on those parts of the judgement that happen to align with preconceived notions’

Would very much apply to this thread

I assume you mean both ways?

3 Of course, with the predictability of an atomic clock, partisans have focused solely on those parts of the judgment (Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369 (judgment or J)) that happen to align with preconceived notions. But the reality of mixed findings has also been somewhat obscured in the public statements of the respondents and their submissions as to costs, which advance the assertion that they “won” the litigation and that costs should axiomatically follow the event.

 

[FIGJAM]

They've got it and Lisa will have hers covered by Ten.

I'm sure everyone at Network 10 are wrapped with paying the better part of $10 mill in legal fees...

I recall Dr Richardson at the costs hearing stating that he was personally going to give Network 10 a lesson on what they did wrong and how to do better. I assume he'll flip them a bill for that Zoom session too!