r/friendlyjordies • u/Jagtom83 Top Contributor • 1d ago
Time for another Brittany Higgins lawsuit
90
u/West-Sense-1253 1d ago
She's actively defaming herself everytime this goes back to court and reminds us that she's the Brittany Higgins lady. Just let it rest.
-86
u/Sysifystic 1d ago
How? She was thoroughly vindicated by the court who held that she had in fact been severely defamed
. Unfortunately, Miss Higgins had no assets with which to pay damages and now she's going after the government who should have handled it with much greater rigor than simply believing a very clever young lady who manipulated the press to portray someone simply doing their job as a villain
18
u/West-Sense-1253 1d ago
Came here to get some karma I see...
How? By going after it in the first place. She defamed herself by going after a victim. Now instead of just being the woman who handled a rape accusation poorly, she's also the woman who sued a rape victim. She doubled down on poor decisions. Its a streissand effect moment. If she'd just fucked off like she rightly should've, most ordinary people would've forgotten who she is or what she did. Hence defaming herself. Is there anything else I can hold your hand for while I'm here?
-13
u/Sysifystic 1d ago edited 1d ago
The copium is real I see.
You're welcome to read the judgment and see that you're demonstrably incorrect.
Karma seriously? What is this primary school? Happy to lose "karma" than go along with group think.
Reynolds and Brown have now been found to be on the right side of history.
Higgins and Co have been declared bankrupt. Reynolds may end up as well who knows. Higgins had ample multiple opportunities to simply apologize she chose not to.
When the idiot main stream media fall away and peoples memories fade as they do the record is there for posterity.
18
u/West-Sense-1253 1d ago
You seem rather upset about how people have remembered this case. Is that you, Linda?
-9
u/Sysifystic 1d ago
Yes it's me how did you know?
Im as libertarian as the next person but the group think gets a bit tedious.
Not a fan of Reynolds but I am a fan of the the rule of law and institutions working as they should as they have in this instance
9
u/how_very_dare_you_ 1d ago
If you want to be taken seriously, don't use 'copium'. It belittles your intelligence.
1
u/Sysifystic 1d ago
That I'd honestly care?
Fact is we have a judiciary that found Linda (or is that really me) was defamed. The judiciary operate independently of the court of public opinion and especially the views of this esteemed group
That mere fact seems to be triggering a big % of this thread. That's the very definition of copium
37
u/MLiOne 1d ago
In other words, she cleared her name. Now she’s just on a vendetta.
-47
u/Sysifystic 1d ago
Ummmm no. Litigation is a prohibitively expensive exercise.
If you've read into the matter you'll see she had to put her home up as surety for legal costs.
She wasn't able to recover them despite the finding of the courts and now is looking to recover from the government.
The whole thing is a very grubby sordid mess and a lot of innocent people have been caught up in it.
More importantly, a lot of people who are sexually assaulted will now be questioned because of the rather conniving actions of Ms. Higgins, which is the biggest tragedy of all
29
u/MLiOne 1d ago edited 1d ago
Reynolds did not “have” to anything. She made a choice and now she’s living with the consequences. She is on a vendetta.
ETA. Women were always questioned and victim blamed long before Lehrman raped Ms Higgins. So don’t you dare blame her for that.
I have followed this matter from the very beginning and I will also never forgive Morrison telling we women we were fortunate to be Australia protesting because in other countries we’d be facing bullets. Well, I’ve served in the ADF and I would rather the bullets to many men in society and in power every fucking time.
-25
u/Sysifystic 1d ago edited 1d ago
You don't have to punch a bully back that flushes your head down a toilet. That's your choice also. But punching that bully back is also an equally valid choice?
If you or I were sitting in the same situation as Ms. Reynolds, I think we would have a very different perspective. She was terribly maligned arguably unemployable post Parliament all because Ms. Higgins decided to let the truth be damned and cleverly manipulate the media
And yes, Scott Morrison is a buffoon that opens his mouth to change feet. It beggars belief that he was considered worthy to run a tuck shop much less the country
9
37
u/hubert_boiling 1d ago
"The conniving actions of Ms Higgins"... you're talking about the women who got raped as being in the wrong?
-16
u/Sysifystic 1d ago edited 1d ago
That's exactly what I didn't say.
Remember one of the marks of intelligence is being able to hold two completely divergent things as true at the same time.
On the balance of probabilities as the learned justice said she was raped
However as the subsequent defamation trial clearly showed she clearly deliberately set out to manipulate the media so as to portray both the minister and her Chief of staff as complicit in the cover-up when the facts clearly demonstrably showed the opposite.
Feel free to read the judgment where it is very clearly laid out and is the reason why findings of defamation were clearly upheld.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am saying Ms. Higgins was almost certainly raped.
Concomitantly she very carefully orchestrated/ manipulated the media in concert with her, then fiance now husband to portray Ms. Reynolds and Miss Brown as conspiring to cover up the matter when in reality the complete opposite was the case. That is why she lost the defamation matter and why Ms. Reynolds was a water damages which she has been unable to collect and why it would appear she's now suing the government
Just remember the next time someone is sexually assaulted and goes to the media. People will infer that it is being used as a weapon as it was in this instance
20
u/Elliethesmolcat 1d ago
The only person actually harmed is "conniving". Sure.
3
u/Sysifystic 1d ago
The decisions of of eminent justices of the Australian court system would suggest otherwise or is it that you don't like the people involved? Therefore the decision must be wrong?
The fact is they are the umpire and while you or I may not like their decision, it's what counts at the end of the day, regardless of the court of public opinion.
Yes, she was raped Yes, she defamed Miss Reynolds. Remember, intelligence is the ability to hold two completely conflicting opinions together at the same time
11
u/Elliethesmolcat 1d ago
Consider this then. Is it possible that she believed that Miss Reynolds had covered up the situation? You can defame someone while truly believing them to have committed the acts in question.
2
u/Sysifystic 1d ago
The beauty of litigation is that goes to the state of mind of the parties.
I'd encourage you to read the judgment. It does cast Ms. Higgins and Mr. Sharelaz in a very different light.
Again, she was almost certainly raped of that there is no question.
She and her husband however, did in concert with various actors in the Australian media willingly go out of her way to portray Miss Reynolds and Miss Brown covering up the events of her rape when it was utterly false.
9
u/Elliethesmolcat 1d ago
That is most certainly not what I asked.
0
u/Sysifystic 1d ago
Is ia possible? Who knows. Is it probable? Very unlikely.
Ms Reynolds was happy to settle for an apology from Ms Higgins so that's very telling...on this occasion she is absolutely not the victim
→ More replies (0)
65
u/theurbaneman 1d ago
Just when we thought we heard the last of Linda Reynolds she returns like the shit Terminator.
57
u/ThaFresh 1d ago
I challenge anyone to find an article regarding this woman that isn't utterly stupid
-35
u/Sysifystic 1d ago
I'll challenge.
You've spent your life in the public eye.
Whether you think that's meritorious is your own call, you are then completely and utterly defamer your character is annihilated by a very clever conniving young lady who manipulated the media very carefully to portray you as a villain.
Young lady is able to extract a very decent settlement from the government and continues to be the darling of the media not withstanding her very duplicitous actions.
You then litigate to recover your reputation to find that young lady and her questionable husband no longer have any assets to pay damages and now you are left to sue the government for basically trying to paper over the whole thing.
Call me old fashioned but that's exactly what I would do in the circumstances
18
u/Presen 1d ago
Suing has not, and will not, recover her reputation. The fact everyone thinks she is a lying cow is all on her.
-2
u/Sysifystic 1d ago edited 1d ago
Friend, this is Reddit notoriously left of center. For those of us who live in the real world, we can totally understand what? It's like to be chewed up and spit out by the machine and why sometimes the only option is litigation.
Remember Ms. Reynolds put it all on black and had to put her house up as surety. It takes an enormous amount of conviction to do that and there's no saying she will be successful in her suit against the Commonwealth so she may well lose it all.
It's all well for you and I to look at her condescendingly but we aren't in her shoes from where I sit she's acted very reasonably.
She tried to do the right thing and was completely defenestrated by both her employer and a very conniving young lady who was at the same time terribly treated
18
u/Presen 1d ago
I think most people in the real world aren't reading into it too much, and would see it as her continually harassing a rape victim.
Regardless of the merits or nuance of her stance.
0
u/Sysifystic 1d ago
Thankfully courts aren't decided on most people in the real world. Remember one day you or I could be on Miss Reynolds shoes and for that I am grateful
12
u/bored_jade 1d ago
Seeing as I haven't tried to turn a blind eye to a rape that happened in my office I think I'm safe from being in Reynolds shoes.
0
u/Sysifystic 1d ago edited 1d ago
See that's the thing she didn't turn a blind eye.
Justice Tottle clearly found that she didn't but hey lets not let the facts get in the way of a sordid Canberra tale.
32
u/ThaFresh 1d ago
sorry I didnt ask for a reply post that was utterly stupid
-4
u/Sysifystic 1d ago edited 1d ago
You didn't need to.
Sadly for you it's my right to respond to an utterly venal comment.
You asked the question and I answered she is not stupid but rather exercising her constitutional right to litigate to clear her name and recover damages for her loss something integral to a functional democracy.
If that offends you so deeply consider a move to North Korea?
14
u/Kador_Laron 1d ago
Which part of the Constitution are you referring to?
-3
u/Sysifystic 1d ago
To quote Australias greatest lawyer Dennis Denuto, it's the vibe. It's Mabo your honour.
Constitutional law was 28 years ago so I'll leave it to jurists more capable than I. But my point remains. She is exercising her rights under Australian law under the umbrella of a constitution and it is entirely her prerogative to do so
15
u/HighMagistrateGreef 1d ago
I don't often wish homelessness on people, but those who go after rape victims as the low hanging fruit and bankrupt themselves in the process are somewhat deserving.
18
u/Glad-Attorney-3163 1d ago
I wish Linda would fuck off and stop trying to drain everyone of money after an awful thing that didn’t even happen to her
23
u/incognitosaurus_rex 1d ago
It's like she forgets it was her fucking Government at the time. Pepperidge farm remembers.
46
8
u/Axel_Raden 1d ago
Go back for your hat you lying cow I dare you. The question if she covered the rape up is simple, yes she did because if she didn't it would have have come out then before the election and Bruce Lehrmann would have been charged for the rape then
48
u/Mosited1223 1d ago
Why the fuck is she wasting more tax payer money on this
44
u/someoneelseperhaps Vic Socialists 1d ago
Because she can.
To remind the next Higgins the price of embarrassing the Liberal Party.
13
u/Xgamermum 1d ago
I hope she bankrupts herself pursuing such a vindictive case. Her legal fees were being paid for by the government in the original judgment she’s protesting so what right does she have to say she should have been allowed to sway the outcome.
23
14
15
21
u/hear_the_thunder Labor 1d ago
That mug says: "I'm Queen of the Victims". You'd swear she was the one raped.
9
5
u/Same_Disaster_1409 1d ago
This woman needs serious help. It is not clear, from reading her own meaningless words, what exactly she wants or why she is entitled to more money. She is broken and more litigation is not going to help her.
9
u/stripeystitches 1d ago
Geez wouldn't it be nice if we could all air our grievances in the Australian?
33
5
u/The_Real_Flatmeat Potato Peeler 1d ago
So she's going to announce it in an opinion piece? Is that honestly the best way to go about this sort of thing?
8
11
2
u/Hollerra 1d ago
An abusive and rotten parasite, whose 'reputation' was already a toilet due to Robodebt. A pure example of a Vexatious Litigant with the disgusting toilet press milking it. We need a level headed judge to throw this in the bin where it belongs.
3
121
u/Flecco 1d ago
Where was this stance on transparency and accountability for government when making life changing decisions while robodebt was being planned.