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

 

[jason_recliner]

Many asking the same thing. My understanding is that she recanted after realising what she'd done on the Spotlight interview in contradicting herself.

If there's any cover ups going on, it's to protect the high office of the government.

Maybe she just made a mistake. There are enough people who would want her blood that they'd follow it up if there was a chance of any penalty. Unlikely the entire Federal and ACT Labor parties are also in on any cover-up. I'm with Lee, I don't think there's a cover-up at all.

 

[Kurve]

Maybe she just made a mistake. There are enough people who would want her blood that they'd follow it up if there was a chance of any penalty. Unlikely the entire Federal and ACT Labor parties are also in on any cover-up. I'm with Lee, I don't think there's a cover-up at all.

Yet this is why the allegations will persist and it isn't just one little mistake in sworn testimony to the Supreme Court on a key issue that contradicted Brown's testimony. Reynolds falsely testified with evidence that had the potential to damage Higgins credibility. And it was a mistake?

There's a long list of disturbing behaviour that a legislator, the Minister for Defence simply dismisses as either not being aware she was acting inappropriately, or she was misunderstood or oops not intentional lying.

 

[FIGJAM]

Who's clutching? It seems to be you hanging on to this issue of a cover up when it's really a side issue to the fact someone was raped in the ministers office, as if that's of lesser importance.

Not true at all!

Firstly, I don't know how many times that I can condemn the rape by Lehrmann on Higgins and express great empathy to Higgins on this front. It is always of primary importance for me.

However, the cover-up claims are integral to the broader Lehrmann/Higgins story. Without it, the various media shitshows and subsequent confusion by the police who were investigating a case that the complainant treated as an afterthought to media appearances (the police's thoughts, not mine!), wouldn't have happened.

When it comes to your claims against me of "lesser importance", Network 10 have been found to have placed greater importance on the cover-up claims. In Lee's second point last week:

2. The result is best characterised as the respondents (Network 10) overcoming a misconceived claim in relation to a broadcast because they were able to prove at trial the substantial truth of what the contemporaneous material demonstrates they considered to be the less substantial allegation made in the broadcast.

Network 10 and Wilkison's story focussed on the cover-up angle as being the primary issue relative to the rape that they considered as a secondary issue. Think about that for just a minute!

And not only that, they went out of their way to not to check the cover-up claims. This is in and of itself a huge story on top of a massive story. How this can be divorced from the broader chain of events by some is beyond me!

These chippy things like "Oh, but the clean up...", or "tardy CCTV access", or "when did ScoMo know" just adds fuel to the fire of the debunked cover-up angle and is precisely why we keep having flare ups on the matter.

 

[Kurve]

When it comes to your claims against me of "lesser importance", Network 10 have been found to have placed greater importance on the cover-up claims. In Lee's second point last week:

They can sue Network 10 then if it's such a serious allegation and leave Brittany Higgins alone.

 

[MPMonkeys]

They can sue Network 10 then if it's such a serious allegation and leave Brittany Higgins alone.

Higgins signed a non-disparagement agreement as part of her settlement.
She then proceeded to allegedly breach this agreement. This led to her being defamed and subject to abuse in the community (as is evident on this very forum - I'm actually surprised some of the posts on here about her aren't presented as evidence).

That is primarily what Reynolds vs Higgins & Sharaz case is about.

 

[Kurve]

Higgins signed a non-disparagement agreement as part of her settlement.
She then proceeded to allegedly breach this agreement. This led to her being defamed and subject to abuse in the community (as is evident on this very forum - I'm actually surprised some of the posts on here about her aren't presented as evidence).

That is primarily what Reynolds vs Higgins & Sharaz case is about.

FAIK, none of Higgins or Sharaz's tweets or Instagram posts went up in these threads. Did any of them mention a 'cover up'?

 

[Kurve]

Higgins signed a non-disparagement agreement as part of her settlement.
She then proceeded to allegedly breach this agreement. This led to her being defamed and subject to abuse in the community (as is evident on this very forum - I'm actually surprised some of the posts on here about her aren't presented as evidence).

That is primarily what Reynolds vs Higgins & Sharaz case is about.

If you're aware of any of Higgins or Sharaz's twitter or Insta posts as the basis for Reynolds claim in this thread, point them out please.

 

[MPMonkeys]

FAIK, none of Higgins or Sharaz's tweets or Instagram posts went up in these threads. Did any of them mention a 'cover up'?

The below sounds like an inference of a cover-up to me.

Among the defamatory imputations claimed against Mr Sharaz's tweets were that Senator Reynolds pressured Ms Higgins not to proceed with a genuine complaint to police, 'is a hypocrite in her advocacy for women's interests and empowerment', interfered in Bruce Lehrmann's trial and bullied Ms Higgins.

Senator Reynolds claims she was also defamed by Mr Sharaz's reply to a comment on her Facebook page that asked how she was still in politics having 'destroyed' Ms Higgins.

The commenter added, 'You're a monster who deserves to be in jail'.

Mr Sharaz responded: 'Thanks for reminding her. I hope she hears this every day until she dies', the senator's statement of claim says.

 

[FIGJAM]

They can sue Network 10 then if it's such a serious allegation and leave Brittany Higgins alone.

They probably could to be fair, but then the added issue is that, like it or not, Higgins is substantially responsible for the false claims in the first place and then her current boyfriend kept on doubling down on the false claims through social media.

We've seen with Lehrmann what happens if you keep on pushing through with demonstrable lies. It's been made clear that a greater contrition from the post-verdict letter on the cover-up angle will go a huge way to them smoking the peace pipe. Then Higgins and Sharaz can get on with their lives. Seems like an easy choice to me! Just get some fancy legal wording from Zwier.

 

[Kurve]

They probably could to be fair, but then the added issue is that, like it or not, Higgins is substantially responsible for the false claims in the first place and then her current boyfriend kept on doubling down on the false claims through social media.

We've seen with Lehrmann what happens if you keep on pushing through with demonstrable lies. It's been made clear that a greater contrition from the post-verdict letter on the cover-up angle will go a huge way to them smoking the peace pipe. Then Higgins and Sharaz can get on with their lives. Seems like an easy choice to me! Just get some fancy legal wording from Zwier.

Wait see how the case pans out, mindful that Higgins has already stated her perceptions on the matter which clearly means she wasn't stating them as hard fact.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

There was a small matter of a criminal trial to consider.

Believe it or not, the public don’t have a right to view any CCTV footage that is taken.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

They ACT police weren't able to get a hold of that footage, LNP wouldn’t allow it to be released. Then we were told it had been deleted.

But ch7 were able to get it at a later date.

Totally normal, nothing to see here.

 

[Festerz]

If you're aware of any of Higgins or Sharaz's twitter or Insta posts as the basis for Reynolds claim in this thread, point them out please.

If my comments in other threads are going to be cut and pasted here I would have hoped they would be pasted/referenced in full and in context.

For the record of this thread here are my posts on this issue in full as posted in the politics thread in response to comments from other posters in that thread. They should answer your question completely and with my opinions put in proper context.:

1. In relation to Ms Higgins social media posts:

yep.

And a reminder we are talking about Senator Linda Reynolds. A long standing Federal Senator and senior government minister here who joined the Liberal Party while at Uni and who, prior to becoming a Senator, held various senior positions in the Liberal Party including as a a campaign manager, deputy federal director, ministerial advisor, notably as chief of staff and senior adviser.

In those high profile political roles you would expect to be subject to targeted personal attacks on mainstream and social media, some of them certainly vicious and many factually wrong. Not to mention the attacks and rumour mongering made under parliamentary privilege that come to Ministers in the mad house of Parliamentary question time. A former Minister and still serving Senator who appeared on the ABC series Nemesis just a couple of months back to talk about her torrid experiences under successive Liberal PMs, including the bullying and victimisation of women MPs in her own party.

So knowing Reynolds' political background and career you would think that the social media posts from Brittany Higgins would have to be pretty bloody nasty/hateful/spiteful for her to take highly costly and public defamation action including diplomatic action in a foreign country to freeze the assets of Ms Higgins and her partner.

Especially given her target in here is a former fellow Liberal Party member and her own former staffer, who was raped in Reynolds office from a fellow Reynolds staffer after hours and went through years of humiliating highly public court and media appearances to have her rape formally acknowledged and her rapist finally called out.

Here are the two social media posts from Brittany Higgins that Linda Reynolds used to start her defamation action and which she says contributed to the 'enormous emotional cost' to her and her family:

One of them was an instagram post from Ms Higgins on 4 July last year referencing an SMH article where Reynolds accuses Federal Attorney General Mark Dreyfus of denying her government funding for legal assistance for representation during the Sofronoff Inquiry. Higgins' instagram post said:

“This is from a current Australian senator who continues to harass me through the media and in the parliament,”

There was another post from Higgins on Twitter on 20 July last year that is also the subject of Reynolds' action:



I'll leave it to others to make their own judgement.

My own view on a current serving Federal MP and former Minister taking defamation action in this way and under these circumstances has been made clear in this thread many times.

2. In relation to Sharaz social media posts (note that my comment was posted in April, PRIOR to Sharaz stating he will not contest Senator Reynolds action against him)

I have listed the social media posts from Higgins above.

But Reynolds main target of attack relating to the cover up claims is Higgins' de-facto partner David Sharaz - specifically his multiple social media posts, including (from the statement of claim):

First, the statement of claim refers to a tweet authored and posted by Mr Sharaz on 27 January 2022, (27 January tweet) in which Mr Sharaz shared a webpage published by Senator Reynolds entitled 'Empowering Women'. In that tweet, Mr Sharaz wrote that 'there is a very real chance [Senator Reynolds] will be called to court this year to answer questions on her involvement in Brittany Higgins feeling pressured by her office not to continue with a complaint to police.' The 27 January tweet is alleged to give rise to the defamatory imputations that:​

​

(a) Senator Reynolds pressured Ms Higgins not to proceed with a genuine complaint to the police; and​

​

(b) that Senator Reynolds is a hypocrite in her advocacy for women's interests and empowerment. ​

​

Secondly, Senator Reynolds identified a tweet authored and posted by Mr Sharaz on 4 December 2022, in which he stated 'Senator Reynolds sent her husband in to watch a victim's cross-examination and was texting the defence team tips. Now, [Senator Reynolds] is leaking privileged information to the paper while [Ms Higgins] is fragile in a clinic. When will the bullying end [Senator Reynolds]?' That publication is alleged to give rise to the following defamatory imputations:​

​

(a) Senator Reynolds interfered with the trial of criminal proceedings against Mr Lehrmann; and​

​

(b) Senator Reynolds bullied, and continues to bully, Ms Higgins. ​

​

Thirdly, on 1 April 2022 Mr Sharaz authored and published a comment, which he left on a tweet by Senator Reynolds (1 April tweet). The tweet by Senator Reynolds included a statement that she was 'aghast but not surprised' about an aspect of the attitude of the Labor Party on an unrelated matter. Mr Sharaz commented on that tweet that he was 'aghast that despite everything you put a staffer through, you're still a minister but we can all be surprised.' That comment is alleged to give rise to the defamatory imputation that Senator Reynolds was not a fit and proper person to hold a position of Government minister. ​

​

Fourthly, on 3 December 2022 Mr Sharaz authored and published a comment on Senator Reynolds' Facebook page. The comment was in response to a previous comment left on Senator Reynolds' Facebook post, addressed to Senator Reynolds, in the following terms: 'how are you still in politics?? You destroyed Brittany Huggins (sic). You're a monster who deserves to be in jail.' Mr Sharaz responded expressly to that comment in the following terms: 'Thanks for reminding her. I hope she hears this every day until the day she dies.'​

​

These social posts are imho without doubt offensive, defamatory and in-excusable. Sharaz may think he was supporting his partner in posting them but he was in fact doing exactly the opposite. It is completely understandable why Reynolds would feel personally aggrieved by them and seek reparations from Sharaz in response.

But it is necessary to repeat the final statement of Justice Solomon in his WA Supreme Court judgement in hearing the application from Linda Reynolds for security of costs against both Higgins and Sharaz:

This application has, necessarily, been exclusively concerned with the financial cost of the litigation. But money is not the only, and probably not the biggest cost. The human cost of litigation looms large. No one should imagine they can remain immune from the psychological stress and emotional pain of litigation of this nature. The human cost too can be crippling, sometimes insurmountable. As in all matters, the court urges, and is anxious to assist the parties to explore means of resolving the dispute without the necessity of a trial.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

Wait see how the case pans out, mindful that Higgins has already stated her perceptions on the matter which clearly means she wasn't stating them as hard fact.

I'm hoping Higgins has the nerve to stand against Reynold's defamation case and doesn't cave in like it looks Sharaz has.
Possibly during that court case in July it may be highlighted there was a cover up that Lee didn't realise.
My fingers are crossed that Higgins has a win and can afford to buy a bigger chateau in France from being awarded punitive or exemplary damages because she deserves it.

 

[MPMonkeys]

They ACT police weren't able to get a hold of that footage, LNP wouldn’t allow it to be released. Then we were told it had been deleted.

But ch7 were able to get it at a later date.

Totally normal, nothing to see here.

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[FIGJAM]

If my comments in other threads are going to be cut and pasted here I would have hoped they would be pasted/referenced in full and in context.

Keep your toys in the cot mate!!

 

[Kurve]

Keep your toys in the cot mate!!

You're lifting posts from other boards to paste in here. That's not to be encouraged to try and prove your point.

 

[FIGJAM]

You're lifting posts from other boards to paste in here. That's not to be encouraged to try and prove your point.

I wasn't trying to "prove a point", but to literally provide you with the information that you asked for!

I wasn't aware of the Festerz's previous post with Higgins' Tweets, as I just remembered that one. A tanty is therefore unwarranted.

Most of the detail Festerz provided isn't available via publicly available means as it's in the court docs that requires a log in.

My 'toys in cot' comment stands.

 

[Kurve]

I wasn't trying to "prove a point", but to literally provide you with the information that you asked for!

I wasn't aware of the Festerz's previous post with Higgins' Tweets, as I just remembered that one. A tanty is therefore unwarranted.

Most of the detail Festerz provided isn't available via publicly available means as it's in the court docs that requires a log in.

My 'toys in cot' comment stands.

You've been around long enough to know that cross posting is against the rules. So keen you were to prove a point, you broke them.

 

[Kurve]

I wasn't trying to "prove a point", but to literally provide you with the information that you asked for!

This is what I asked for and the post you responded to:

If you're aware of any of Higgins or Sharaz's twitter or Insta posts as the basis for Reynolds claim in this thread, point them out please.

 

[FIGJAM]

You've been around long enough to know that cross posting is against the rules. So keen you were to prove a point, you broke them.

I was a moderator at around the time the World Trade Centre collapse and I've never heard of such a rule and quite frankly don't see a problem with it whatsoever.

This is what I asked for and the post you responded to:

If you're aware of any of Higgins or Sharaz's twitter or Insta posts as the basis for Reynolds claim in this thread, point them out please.

I just thought you were interested in the details!

 

[Kurve]

I was a moderator at around the time the World Trade Centre collapse and I've never heard of such a rule and quite frankly don't see a problem with it whatsoever.

As a FORMER moderator you should be across this but perhaps not so surprising given the WTC collapse was in 2001. Twenty three years ago.

 

[Brian Oblivion]

There was a small matter of a criminal trial to consider.

Believe it or not, the public don’t have a right to view any CCTV footage that is taken.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Well at least Channel 7 do.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

What on earth are you talking about?

CcTv footage that wasn’t released until ch7 ‘needed’ it for Lehrmann’s puff piece on spotlight.

 

[MPMonkeys]

CcTv footage that wasn’t released until ch7 ‘needed’ it for Lehrmann’s puff piece on spotlight.

Which CCTV footage are you talking about?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Which CCTV footage are you talking about?

Parliament House. The stuff that LNP wouldnt release to ACT police, but later turned up on channel 7.

This was already explained to you.