Daves2017 wrote on Jun 18^th, 2024 at 11:18am:

Yeah, he has a direct line into all the Appeal Court Judges.

Lehrmann has been adjudicated as a rapist.  That it.  Lehrmann is a rapist.

If he had won the defamation action, Lisa Wilkinson and Ch 10 would accurately be described as defamers.

Aussie wrote on Jun 18^th, 2024 at 2:54pm:

Nah, s51 ACT Crimes Act is Rape. Civil naughty boy is riposte, ripper or rapport. Probably. Betcha.

Daves2017 wrote on Jun 18^th, 2024 at 11:18am:


No - he was not - the judge offered an assertion of his unsupported by evidence personal view - this looks like a case of the 'judge' playing it both ways - each way bet - says he done it without evidence thus opening the door for a review finding he was not guilty on the evidence - Bruce walks but the baying gang at the door is sated in their hunger to drink the blood of the pig, Lord Of The Flies style... Kill the Pig!  Drink His Blood!!

It's cowardly jurisprudence or done under orders...... you don't imagine that 'judges' rub shoulders with the scum of the earth do you, or chat about cases over a glass of fine whiskey with the enemies of the people - the poor who are bent on upsetting the gravy train?

This is a clear case of that lawfare discussed earlier - same with Jarryd Hayne - the Crown, as accuser, has unlimited funds and can thus choose to attack over and over to try to seek a result favourable to the Crown - the accused - the Hayne or Lehrmann type single defendant, has no such unlimited pot of gold and is therefore, in most cases, forced to simply give up at some point or be ruined for life.

No greater form of rape of legal rights and social and economic rights can take place and be seen to take place outside of a despotic Stalinist or similar type society - and this is a cancer on the breast of justice herself.  Furthermore, most witnesses are paid by the State and thus have no burden to bear and have a clear conflict of interest ..... funding for a prosecution must be strictly limited to the same as is available to a defendant.

John Smith wrote on Jun 18^th, 2024 at 7:56pm:


It's not 'true' because the judge in a civil matter asserts it to be so like some prosecutor and without compelling evidence - it is only true when properly upheld to the proper standard in a proper court controlled by the laws of criminal justice.  When Bruce walks on appeal, will you then say the same?

Have you ever heard of Angela Davis?  Black activist in the US in the 1960's ... criticise her claimed political affiliations if you wish, but look into her actual work..... she said once, about the power of the state to intrude at whim and without let:-

"If they come for me in the morning - they will come for you at night!"  ... meaning that once one individual's rights can be abrogated at will by the overpowering state with all its money and power and armed force - every single individual is equally vulnerable.  That is why no Bruce can be left to die a lonely social and economic death on the basis of pure accusation ONLY - if that passes ... the same will apply to all at the whim of the State.

Guilt by accusation has no place in law or jurisprudence.... this 'judge' was wrong.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jun 18^th, 2024 at 8:07pm:

In civil cases, the claim you are making is more probable than not. 51% is enough.

A crime is beyond reasonable doubt. That suggests 100%.

John Smith wrote on Jun 18^th, 2024 at 8:42pm:


... and therefore he wasn't convicted and is therefore not legally a rapist.

Grappler:

Quote:


And when he does not walk on appeal, will you then  be saying the same?