UnSubRocky wrote on May 26^th, 2024 at 4:36pm:


Defamation case against the 'judge'?

Everyone with any sense will tell you that the greatest guards need to be set against government and quasi-government abuse of power and privilege..... our 'founding fathers' had that very much in mind when they formed OUR Constitution...

Government and its agencies - including 'courts' stacked with political activists or any kind - enjoy massive power through holding Billions of your money while you have little, and through holding direct power and even acceptance by a blinded community who know no better.

Look at the apologists for this 'judge's' comment here....

Yadda says Trump is forgiven in heaven. Islam says women are guilty. Judges say 'gimme gimme'. Lehrmann says his bank acount is ready and waiting. (it's down a bit paying for the girl's grog).

chimera wrote on May 26^th, 2024 at 4:43pm:


Well - a certain unnamed other party - let's just call her Britts Witness B - collected a few lazy millions on the basis of some very flimsy assertions.... many of which assertions are now being tested with an ADEQUATE body of evidence in a similar court for a similar reason.

Let's Just Call her Britts (Witness B) clearly has set about precluding the loss of her payout - by putting it into a trust fund ... meaning it is not 'legally' hers any more but is owned by the 'trust' from which she directly benefits**.  That shows a lot of premeditation and clear thought, don' cha think?  Hardly 'broken down' for life and unable to work etc.... even with her new job...

Reynolds has witnesses.... in the room at the time ..... there's the difference.... I suppose that's why Reynolds will not accept any negotiated settlement... she wants her pound of flesh and blood for the assault on her name.

Now then, my fine feathered friends - see the comparisons between a Complainant R case and a Complainant B case?  Complainant B was called upon to PROVE his innocence when there were no independent witnesses, and uphold the assertion that wrong had been done to him - and had no chance with a prejudiced 'judge' prepared to assume guilt on accusation alone .....  Witness B is being called upon to justify her assertions about events that took place in front of witnesses ..... interesting.... very interesting.


** another clear reason for a full review of 'trusts' -  Henri?  Where are you? Vere iss our Voortrekker?

chimera wrote on May 26^th, 2024 at 5:07pm:


~ and yet, stupid.

Aussie wrote on May 26^th, 2024 at 5:23pm:


oooga-booga ....

John Smith wrote on May 26^th, 2024 at 6:13pm:


And you have gone there (a) to get your keys, (b) to make some notes for Question Time (not due for a fortnight) about a conversation concerning French subs and said conversations never occurred that night, and you never produced any of those notes in evidence or (c) because there was whiskey there or (d) because there was whisky there and you wanted that to assist you to root a drunk woman, your subordinate whom you found only as 'alluring' as any other person in the Court Room, the woman you have been plying with piss all night, a woman you have taken there in your own hire ride, and while you were there, you did not answer any of SIX phone calls your girlfriend made to your phone....while you were raping Higgins.

The same Higgins who was later found semi naked alone in that Suite in a drunken stupor, the same Higgins who within days told associates she had been raped.

Yeah.  Bruce is as pure as the driven snow, and did nothing with a helpless pissed woman he schemed to get alone in the one 'safe' place he knew was available and to which he could lure her without getting her suspicious, his work place and hers, on the pretext he had work to do there, or had whiskey there.

Yeah.

John Smith wrote on May 26^th, 2024 at 7:31pm:


Stop it.  You'll bewilder Grappler with common sense.

**repeats** unlike you pair - I said months ago that if he'd been a gentleman he would have seen her home safely - but he was not on trial for not being a gentleman.... you pair were just after his blood from day one.... piggy eyes, you see ....

You pair just sat around and scratched your balls like those 'security' sheilas did and carried on like bonobos....  ooooh - here's a juicy one - you must have had a great time discussing it with the CWA .... given that you're a pair of old sheilas....

oooOOOOOHHHHH!!

OH???  Then how would you leave her there, Smith?  Tied up and gagged?  Chained to a chair?  Locked in a cupboard?  Sprawled and passed out on the carpet legs a-kimbo with no panties on (as she herself said)? Perhaps enjoying the view??

Nobody said Complainant B was as pure as the driven snow.... he may have had intentions.... she may have had intentions too .... intentions are not a crime just yet... but the Aussie Smith method of de-constructing minds and the New Laws will soon put an end to that... in Gondwanamo Bay ... soon it will be a Minority Report crime to think about something..... the Intuits will know before you do what you are thinking... clearly that 'judge' is one of those... and you will be guilty on denunciation by anyone of a specified group.....

Lot of that last going around... the Blecks screech 'racist' every time they turn around with their arses pointed to the ground... the New Poofs who don't know if they are Marthur or Artha screech 'bigots' etc... the Mussos and their enablers screech 'genocide'.... the sheilas whinge about being paid more per hour on average for each hour actually worked than men as some 'wage gap' ... some sheilas says 'rape' and away she goes .. a runaway train bound for the glory hole....

As long as you belong to a Specified Accredited Victimhood Status (SAVS) group you are home and hosed with any Goebbels type assertion...look, Ma - the Pole is attacking something or other .... the Pole is attacking something or other .... the Pole is attacking something or other .... the Pole is attacking something or other ....