HD Forums Australia
Home
Topics

Whistleblowers

5/6
  • paulybronco
    paulybronco
    4 years ago
    So shes batting two from two at the moment with one having his conviction overturned and no charges even placed against the other. Other than a few political points scoring opportunities there cant really be anything else happen, no witness, no evidence (of the alleged rape) i dont see how a criminal case can proceed.
  • paulybronco
    paulybronco
    4 years ago
    Quoting paulybronco on 03 Jun 2021 08:06 AM

    So shes batting two from two at the moment with one having his conviction overturned and no charges even placed against the other. Other than a few political points scoring opportunities there cant really be anything else happen, no witness, no evidence (of the alleged rape) i dont see how a criminal case can proceed.

    I note with some interest that the same journo is about to be embroiled in a further doco that has been momentarily delayed, critics may say purposefully, due to the re appearance of their managing director David Anderson at a senate estimates meeting. Anderson prepares for an additional appearance at Senate estimates on Monday. He was recalled to be questioned about Christian Porter’s defamation suit against the ABC.
    The critics are pointing out that should the doco have been screened when scheduled Mr Anderson would most certainly have been facing the committee on Monday explaining why two law suites were taken out, not just this one.
    Stay tuned....
  • roadrunner14
    roadrunner14
    4 years ago
    QAnon anyone…
    D6424107-191F-49E8-BFE9-F0A1F90D2F3B.png
  • paulybronco
    paulybronco
    4 years ago
    Quoting roadrunner14 on 04 Jun 2021 10:44 AM

    QAnon anyone…

    D6424107-191F-49E8-BFE9-F0A1F90D2F3B.png
    Ha Ha
  • paulybronco
    paulybronco
    4 years ago
     Seems we have a number now as to the cost of wrecking a career...The broadcaster spent $680,000 defending the action, as well as paying $100,000 to the company of Mr Porter’s high-profile defamation lawyer Rebekah Giles, including “mediation and related” costs.
  • paulybronco
    paulybronco
    4 years ago
     Looks like the total costs have been split.   Hopefully you wouldn't resort to misrepresenting the $780,000 costs Magnum.... the truth is As part of the full $780,000 bill, the ABC will split the cost of the mediator – about $31,000 – with Mr Porter not the full amount. Thats interesting in its self that he was quoted Monday as saying "“The ABC will pay to Company (Giles) the sum of $100,000 in respect of mediation and related costs,” Mr Anderson told the estimates hearing on Monday. Defending the action cost the ABC a total of $780,000 and that was their full bill.
    As for more to come...Ben Roberts Smith is the next tall poppy they want to chop.
  • paulybronco
    paulybronco
    4 years ago
    I think you have it wrong ......ABC managing director David Anderson  also revealed on Monday the ABC agreed to pay $100,000 in mediation costs to Industry Minister Christian Porter’s lawyer as part of the settlement of his defamation case and spent a further $680,000 defending the matter.. Lets not talk about Porters costs as no one knows what they were.
  • paulybronco
    paulybronco
    4 years ago
    So you stand by your statement...If half of the cost of the mediator was $31,000, that also made up part of ABC's total of $680,000, leaving $649,000 for their own total legal fees.
    So thinking your explanation of "The figures are the same, expressed in different ways" doesn't stand up, the uncontested and confirmed cost was $780,000.


  • paulybronco
    paulybronco
    4 years ago
    Finally you agree $780k not your quoted $680k.
  • paulybronco
    paulybronco
    4 years ago
    Fabulous we finally agree on something...and it didn't even cost $100k..LOL
  • John.R
    John.R
    4 years ago
    Well the documents have been released, sans some redactions. Heavy reading.
  • paulybronco
    paulybronco
    4 years ago
    And now Porter has resumed further legal action to recoup damages from Jo Dyer, If successful, the legal move could result in Mr Porter recovering some of his legal costs he faces over the legal battle between Jo Dyer, a debating team friend of the Adelaide woman who accused him of rape. The Adelaide accuser died by suicide in 2020 after she informed him NSW police she did not wish to proceed with her complaint. Lets see how it plays out
  • paulybronco
    paulybronco
    4 years ago
    Gee i would also query the bill with claims of those hrs...."Barrister Callan O’Neill, acting for Mr Porter, said it appeared a law firm partner acting for Ms Dyer spent 120 hours working on the matter, while a senior associate spent 220 hours, and a “poor” junior lawyer spent 244 hours on the matter “in 16 days”.

    So we take it that the junior lawyer only had worked for 15.25 a day for 16 days in conjunction with a senior doing 13.75hrs a day not to mention the senior adding his 7.5 hrs a day.....Umm i would be asking for that rundown as well.
  • Jay-Dee
    Jay-Dee
    4 years ago
    Reading this thread a couple of times I've thought about this more than once and I have a question for the legal brains on here regarding Porter's situation. Obviously under current circumstances like it or not he can only be innocent until proven guilty and will likely stay that way irrespective of whether he's a proven scumbag and/or thought by some of us to be one.

    He's certainly copped a trial by media and paid a high price if he's genuinely innocent. Similar to Bloodog though, watching some of his press press conference at the time I didn't feel he was being totally honest.

    Lets assume he's actually guilty though and maybe even put his hand up and admitted guilt, how would he be charged? It was over thirty years ago and he was seventeen (a minor?) with a sixteen year old girl. What would he be charged with and what sort of sentence would you reasonably expect him to receive for that offence if/when found guilty?
  • Jay-Dee
    Jay-Dee
    4 years ago
    Thanks Magnum, I understand that and realise that very little is likely to happen to him outside of a parliamentary enquiry and that's probably unlikely as well.

    I'm curious from a purely hypothetical view on how it might proceed given his and her age at the time, and the time that has passed until now if it was somehow determined he actually had a case to answer.
  • beaglebasher
    beaglebasher
    4 years ago
    Quoting Jay-Dee on 22 Jul 2021 02:11 AM

    Reading this thread a couple of times I've thought about this more than once and I have a question for the legal brains on here regarding Porter's situation. Obviously under current circumstances like it or not he can only be innocent until proven guilty and will likely stay that way irrespective of whether he's a proven scumbag and/or thought by some of us to be one.


    He's certainly copped a trial by media and paid a high price if he's genuinely innocent. Similar to Bloodog though, watching some of his press press conference at the time I didn't feel he was being totally honest.

    Lets assume he's actually guilty though and maybe even put his hand up and admitted guilt, how would he be charged? It was over thirty years ago and he was seventeen (a minor?) with a sixteen year old girl. What would he be charged with and what sort of sentence would you reasonably expect him to receive for that offence if/when found guilty?

    I wouldnt consider myself part of the legal brains team . However I have a question JD.  You said " obviously under current circumstances like it or not he can only be innocent until proven guilty ........."   That just doesnt make any sense .  Is that what you meant to say?
  • paulybronco
    paulybronco
    4 years ago
    Quoting Jay-Dee on 22 Jul 2021 06:53 AM

    Thanks Magnum, I understand that and realise that very little is likely to happen to him outside of a parliamentary enquiry and that's probably unlikely as well.


    I'm curious from a purely hypothetical view on how it might proceed given his and her age at the time, and the time that has passed until now if it was somehow determined he actually had a case to answer.

    Let me put it to you that perhaps this was never intended to go anywhere near a court of law, it was intended as a political assassination using questionable evidence from a "victim" who didn't want to pursue any further action and aired by our public broadcaster "In the public interest" Let you form your own opinion as to why they did this. 
  • paulybronco
    paulybronco
    4 years ago
    So because i require some education i took you up on your request and this was what i found.......
    Investigative journalism is a form of journalism in which reporters deeply investigate a single topic of interest, such as serious crimes, political corruption, or corporate wrongdoing. An investigative journalist may spend months or years researching and preparing a report.

    So after reading that i became mildly confused as non of the criteria seemed to have been met...serious crime...the "victim" chose not to proceed, the "victim" suffered mental health issues, the "victims" next of kin did not want to proceed with publicity. Serious crime....two people knew if there was, regrettably we can only relay on the one version now. Political corruption...no case to answer, N/A. Corporate wrongdoing...no case to answer, N/A.
    As for your assumption of innocence/guilt your not qualified to make those observations as to how people should/must/have to react due to either bad news/grief/ guilt or innocence.
    Lastly i might just refresh your memory that he did indeed declare his innocence from his very first press conference.
    Did he do what is reported.....possibly....do i have a personal view that is not bound by the burden of proof...yes....has he been convicted of a crime...no...therefore the law in which we all abide tells me he is innocent. All that's left is the disgraceful squabbling over the monetary side of litigation...the woman who took her life is now no longer the "public interest" story.
  • Jay-Dee
    Jay-Dee
    4 years ago
    Quoting Jay-Dee on 22 Jul 2021 02:11 AM

    Reading this thread a couple of times I've thought about this more than once and I have a question for the legal brains on here regarding Porter's situation. Obviously under current circumstances like it or not he can only be innocent until proven guilty and will likely stay that way irrespective of whether he's a proven scumbag and/or thought by some of us to be one.


    He's certainly copped a trial by media and paid a high price if he's genuinely innocent. Similar to Bloodog though, watching some of his press press conference at the time I didn't feel he was being totally honest.

    Lets assume he's actually guilty though and maybe even put his hand up and admitted guilt, how would he be charged? It was over thirty years ago and he was seventeen (a minor?) with a sixteen year old girl. What would he be charged with and what sort of sentence would you reasonably expect him to receive for that offence if/when found guilty?

    Quoting beaglebasher on 22 Jul 2021 08:58 AM

    I wouldnt consider myself part of the legal brains team . However I have a question JD.  You said " obviously under current circumstances like it or not he can only be innocent until proven guilty ........."   That just doesnt make any sense .  Is that what you meant to say?

    Sorry beagle, I probably could have worded it better.

    I was meaning it more for people who already believe he is guilty. Whether they like it or not, he is currently innocent unless circumstances change where he could be proven guilty. Magnums reply to me pretty much covered the likelihood of that though which is bugger all.

    Hopefully that cleared it up.
Topics
5/6