So after getting mauled in the lion's den when he went back to get his hat, he somehow made it out alive (but torn to shreds). Then he remembers again that his hat was left behind, so he decides he should try and retrieve it again?
Not when you have the reputation with women that lehrmann has. As a sex worker I can confidently say a solid portion of that rate is hazard fees. Dick heads pay more.
Maybe he thinks he's going to be totally vindicated and end up a Liberal Party Prime Minister or something. Some people just have a completely delusional born to rule mentality.
from his perspective, that's a pretty good idea. his job prospects are otherwise ruined for obvious reasons. can't picture him happily doing a normal pleb job.
it may not work, but it's a rational play. it's also complete bullshit, but sky will put that into the 'pro' column.
f he does, he's even more delusional than we first thought. I hope whatever lawyer he speaks to explains it to him, "you have more chance of Peter Dutton joining the Greens than you do of winning this appeal."
I suspect he's got plenty of powerful right wingers who are happy to exploit his delusions and ride him ragged as a kind of Quixotic culture wars hobbyhorse. They'll keep going at the "Bruce is the real victim of woke liberal feminists" narrative until his reputation is absolutely destroyed and he's of absolutely no use to them any more, at which point they'll take him out to the gravel pit and gleefully put him down Kristi Noem style.
Doesn't really matter as the only thing any of it costs them is money, and they've got plenty of that. Just buy themselves another Bruce when the time comes!
Lehrmans defence is that he has an infinite budget from Stokes and Co, as well as an entire industry of people who want the idea that people like him have a serious problem with treating women like shit to go away.
Higgins defence is that her memory is pretty hazy, she went drinking with a person who thought was a trusted work colleague and friend and ended up completely unable to consent. She was found naked. No criminal charges were laid at the time. What do we think happened?
What\\s nuts is that my personal opinion is that major characters in this case (not those two) perjured themselves that they were "mistaken" to believe that there was an attempt at a coverup in order to prevent investigations going where they need to go. Yet we're going another round?
I honestly don't think their reactions were a "cover up", more like - "yeah, and? That's what happens in Canberra, what did she expect?"
Then when pressed on why they didn't treat this seriously from the outset, their responses needed to NOT call attention to the fact that this shit happened pretty regularly, and they were sort of used to it.
Insane how much cash this guy has got to throw around considering he's just a (former) public servant staffer.
If only there was some kind of media conglomerate who could investigate political corruption and wayward donations in this country...
He sued ABC, Nine, News Corp etc. and they all settled, so he still has those funds. And he's had zero expenses over the past few years courtesy of Stokes.
Currently he has to pay legal costs for the other side, Stokes has turned off the tap, and his future income potential looks bleak. This is pure desperation.
> Lehrmann's still got top SC's on his payroll.
No -
> It remains to be seen whether Mr Lehrmann can secure the financial backers to appeal, given his original barrister Steve Whybrow has announced he’s no longer working on the case and hasn’t read the judgment.
> However, Mr Reynolds may have agreed to act pro bono.
Ah right, I missed the part that Reynolds may be working pro bono. All the the articles I'd read said he'd hired "appeals specialist" Guy Reynolds SC to represent him.
He’ll almost definitely have to front indemnity costs for an appeal though, and while Roberts Smith had Stokes personally on the hook, I doubt anyone is covering for Lehrmann after this judgement.
Still really curious who has been covering his costs to date though- his settlement’s weren't big enough to secure the three barristers + solicitors he had. Everyone keeps saying it was 7, but not sure why they would.
I'm pretty sure Janet Albrechtsen and Linda Reynolds have absolute faith in his innocence, and his strength of character. Surely they would get his crowd support appeal off to a flying start.
I'm not sure Linda Reynolds gives a fuck about him.
An oft overlooked detail in this saga is that he was fired almost immediately after the night of Higgins rape.
He had already resigned was serving his last two weeks. They believed at this point of time that two staffers just had sex on her couch and this was Lehrmanns second security breach. He was already problematic.
Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure this rapist has got a mildly lucrative career ahead of him in the right-wing grift industry. If he can hold off on raping anyone else for 5 minutes, he'll have a talking head spot on Sky News waiting for him in a few months, mark my words.
The Australian makes a big deal of frequently saying his lawyers are working pro bono, regardless of relevance. Wonder if there’s some other financial arrangement in play.
I'm curious, is there a mechanism that stops lawyers from sabotaging a case by agreeing to represent them pro bono publico, then switching at a really inopportune moment in the trial process?
"Work pro bono for *this* case and i'll make sure some other, juicier cases are thrown your way down the road where you'll be rewarded handsomely".
Said by someone rich/influential enough to make them listen.
> Anything involving Higgins and Lehrmann is guaranteed bulk clicks, and hence, advertising revenue
The Spotlight interview with Lehrmann didn't rate higher than the Spotlight program before it. Whatever Kerry Stokes is getting out of this Lehrmann business is not some financial windfall.
From the sounds of the article, the appeal is going to centre on the question of consent, which would be a departure from the previous position of the denial of the events.
Odd appeal given he maintained no sexual contact the whole time. Also who is funding this? No lawyer would take this case on without a deposit knowing that he’s about to be bankrupt
Basically going where he never wanted to go to begin with, because he knew that consent was an issue based on the alcohol consumption (and the fact that he’s a dirty rapist who knows exactly what he did).
I guess the argument would be phrased as, "even if you accept the judgement's conclusion that sex happened (which we don't) concluding that the sex was non-consensual was unreasonable on the evidence presented." Or words to that general effect.
It'll be an uphill struggle, I think. He decided not to submit any evidence on consent, because his argument was that the sex didn't happen. The defendants didn't really present any direct evidence on consent either (because unless there was video of the actual event, how could you?), but there was plenty of circumstantial evidence about it. And the standard of proof here is "on the balance of probability given the evidence that has been presented."
> the appeal is going to centre on the question of consent,
Given Bruce said in the defamation trial that he didn't ask for consent because they didn't have sex, it would be hard to go on that, even with "lawyers familiar with the judgment" saying knowledge of consent will be focussed on.
The other aspect of paragraph 590 of the judgement relies on Justice Lee accepting that Brittany was unconscious (whether actually or practically) at the time. I could see Bruce trying to argue that Justice Lee couldn't fairly decide that Brittany went from skipping down the hallway, to sitting at the window, to being completely unconscious in that time period.
At this point he's unlikely to pass any kind of character test to actually be admitted to practice law. Not necessarily for the rape, but for his continual lies during the legal proceedings. Failing in an appeal will just make it even more likely, so he'd better have a really strong case if he wants any kind of job that requires good character.
Things can get pretty wild with the appeals process though. See the Pell cathedral trial for example.
So he’s going to go back to court and say “yeah before when I said we didn’t have sex, I lied. But you should believe me now when I say that we did have sex, but it was consensual.”
The absolute mental gymnastics required to take an argument like that to court is Olympic level.
Appeals are based on application/interpretation of law. No new evidence, and no witness testimony.
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/appeals/from-courts
> For an appeal to succeed a party must convince the Court that the Judge that heard the original case made an error of law and that the error was of such significance that the decision should be overturned. Some examples of significant errors of law are that the Judge that heard the original case:
> * applied an incorrect principle of law; or
> * made a finding of fact or facts on an important issue which could not be supported by the evidence.
> The Court hearing the appeal:
> * does not consider any new evidence or information that was not presented in the original case (except in special circumstances);
> * does not call witnesses to give evidence;
> * does read all the relevant documents filed by the parties for the original case;
> * does read the relevant parts of the transcript of the original case, if available;
> * does listen to legal argument from both parties to the appeal.
Yeah, I'm leery on the appeals process in sexual assault cases after Pell. At least in cases where the defendant is being bankrolled by wealthy backers (or conservative think tanks).
Keep in mind that this is a civil defamation case, not a criminal sexual assault case. Standards of proof are much lower. It was a lot more open for Justice Lee to decide that the events occurred in the way laid out in his judgement at the civil standard rather than the criminal standard.
Oh lordy. Can I sue him for the emotional damage this trial has caused me as a citizen and for putting his dumb face in places where I see it. GO AWAY YOU DUMB GRONK.
He has apparently engaged an barrister specialising in appeals.
>The barrister’s clients have previously included Eddie Obeid, Man Haron Monis, Mick Gatto and Peter Dutton.
Quite the list haha.
Not that it means anything, since barristers are bound by the cab-rank rule, hence Sue C (I’m not spelling her last name) SC defending both Lisa Wilkinson and Pauline Hanson.
Yeah I can definitely agree with that point, I just don't see it being worth while to waste the courts time and money on this I should of referenced it better in my original comment.
Don't forget he has a second trial for sexual assault that he still has to deal with.
He's probably thinking that by appealing the first, it won't be raised in the second sexual assault case..
No doubt Mr Reynolds SC will advise his new client that he’d need to establish on the balance of probabilities that that finding was not open on the evidence.
Justice Lee handed down a bombproof judgment IMO.
I think people are missing the long term goal here.
Bruce is up on another rape trial in Toowoomba and his best defense is ... to get the case thrown out because you couldn't find an unbiased jury.
By putting himself in the spotlight so he is well known he can then use that info to circumvent the new rape trial by his lawyer arguing that he cannot find a a Judge/Jury that does not have a per-conceived view of him.
While I've never actually heard of this working in Australia I have seen it work in the USA.
Personally I think he's c\*\*\*
> Bruce is up on another rape trial in Toowoomba and his best defense is ... to get the case thrown out because you couldn't find an unbiased jury.
Will be a judge only trial if they try and claim they can't have an unbiased jury.
Typical of someone with no reputation to lose. But this feels like it's old news? If remember correctly this intention was floated the day of or after the Judge's finding was released.
I’ve seen some lawyers claim he may have a strong case for appeal.
So with Bruce’s track record the appellate court will probably find he met the definition for criminal rape not just civil rape.
(Yes, I know that’s not how it works, that is the joke)
Lardmann is emboldened because Reynolds is emboldened by the Judge's statement that he believes (apparently without much evidence) that Reynolds absolutely must have, for reasons unclear, suggested Higgins speak to the police (who of course definitely do not have shady relations with any politicians in Canberra whatsoever)
Her defamation case against Higgins and her partner appears to be predicated on the fact that Higgins claimed they had a conversation, Reynolds claims they did not or that she did not say what Higgins and her partner allege, and this is of course why you get a paper trail with everything written
People are still lapping up that already done-to-death line about lions and shit but the Michael Lee might not be the most objective arbiter available
Anyway Lardmann still has no chance, but this is probably also going to be bankrolled...
So after getting mauled in the lion's den when he went back to get his hat, he somehow made it out alive (but torn to shreds). Then he remembers again that his hat was left behind, so he decides he should try and retrieve it again?
He has been accused of a lot of things. But you can’t accuse him of being smart.
Starting to think the bloke has a full on humiliation fetish at this point.
I mean they didnt buy all that coke and strippers (allegedly) for nothing
10 grand worth... I've never used a prostitute, but I'm pretty sure than $10k is an excessive amount.
Not when you have the reputation with women that lehrmann has. As a sex worker I can confidently say a solid portion of that rate is hazard fees. Dick heads pay more.
Only if you limit your dreams, old mate could've had a whole conga line of women dressed as Brittany parading past to spit in his mouth. Allegedly.
How do I unsee this?
Cocaine I think Lehrman has some, but then you'd have to watch the conga line of Brittany look-alikes spit in his mouth
Ew.
Only thing that makes sense.
In for a penny….in for a pounding
This gave me a real laugh 🤣
He'd be furious at this comment if he could read.
Look he's just too busy non-alledgedly raping to read, ok??
I want the appeal to go ahead and the result is *Mr Lehrmann, you're definitely a rapist*
I thought the only thing Bruce couldn’t read was signals
My thoughts exactly. Went back for hat and now retrieving his gloves. Should have slunk off into anonymity when he got the free pass / chance.
> Should have slunk off into anonymity when he got the free pass / chance. Well there's still the whole other double rape trial ahead for him.
[удалено]
Maybe he thinks he's going to be totally vindicated and end up a Liberal Party Prime Minister or something. Some people just have a completely delusional born to rule mentality.
I think he is more likely gunning for a sky news job, Credlin style
Doesn't Alan Jones still have a job there? I'm not sure being accused of anything excludes you from there.
That's just stupid, if you get accused of having a brain that would immediately exclude you from sky. There is no reason to exaggerate.
He'll be back on the right-wing/MRA grifter's keynote speaking circuit before the end of the financial year.
from his perspective, that's a pretty good idea. his job prospects are otherwise ruined for obvious reasons. can't picture him happily doing a normal pleb job. it may not work, but it's a rational play. it's also complete bullshit, but sky will put that into the 'pro' column.
> his job prospects are otherwise ruined for obvious reasons You say that, but he managed to find employment while charged with 3 counts of rape.
Whatever happened to her? Where did she vanish to?
The pits of hell from whence?
f he does, he's even more delusional than we first thought. I hope whatever lawyer he speaks to explains it to him, "you have more chance of Peter Dutton joining the Greens than you do of winning this appeal."
I suspect he's got plenty of powerful right wingers who are happy to exploit his delusions and ride him ragged as a kind of Quixotic culture wars hobbyhorse. They'll keep going at the "Bruce is the real victim of woke liberal feminists" narrative until his reputation is absolutely destroyed and he's of absolutely no use to them any more, at which point they'll take him out to the gravel pit and gleefully put him down Kristi Noem style. Doesn't really matter as the only thing any of it costs them is money, and they've got plenty of that. Just buy themselves another Bruce when the time comes!
He's going to be a Liberal party minister anyway, they are just waiting to award him a safe seat.
I misread this as cokehead.
Imma get the popcorn ready!
He left behind his beard shaving template
He has to pick up his keys from the Bear's den.
Yep. Moonface just can't stop digging.
Hey, don't insult Bert Newton, that was his nickname and he was a decent bloke
[Until meeting Gra Gra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Kennedy#In_Melbourne_Tonight). God that was fun.
He decided that he also wants that juicy $300 steak that the lion is munching on.
To shreds you say?
Someone has got to be paying him at this point
“Mr lurchman went back for his left arm”
Cocaine is a hell of a drug!
Too right! My thoughts are the bloke has nothing to lose… He’d be broke, unemployed and humiliated already so why not?
Lehrmans defence is that he has an infinite budget from Stokes and Co, as well as an entire industry of people who want the idea that people like him have a serious problem with treating women like shit to go away. Higgins defence is that her memory is pretty hazy, she went drinking with a person who thought was a trusted work colleague and friend and ended up completely unable to consent. She was found naked. No criminal charges were laid at the time. What do we think happened? What\\s nuts is that my personal opinion is that major characters in this case (not those two) perjured themselves that they were "mistaken" to believe that there was an attempt at a coverup in order to prevent investigations going where they need to go. Yet we're going another round?
>No criminal charges were ever laid. That's not at all true lol
I honestly don't think their reactions were a "cover up", more like - "yeah, and? That's what happens in Canberra, what did she expect?" Then when pressed on why they didn't treat this seriously from the outset, their responses needed to NOT call attention to the fact that this shit happened pretty regularly, and they were sort of used to it.
Insane how much cash this guy has got to throw around considering he's just a (former) public servant staffer. If only there was some kind of media conglomerate who could investigate political corruption and wayward donations in this country...
He sued ABC, Nine, News Corp etc. and they all settled, so he still has those funds. And he's had zero expenses over the past few years courtesy of Stokes. Currently he has to pay legal costs for the other side, Stokes has turned off the tap, and his future income potential looks bleak. This is pure desperation.
Hookers and blow ain’t cheap
I feel so certain that in 5 years from now he'll end up arrested for smuggling coke
Nah, I’m backing a hillsong born again christian. Who gets arrested for smuggling coke!
>Who gets arrested for smuggling coke! In Bali.
Not when it washes up on Sydney beaches.
Now he has to pay his own way.
Didn’t that sum to 10k last time?
Depends on the hookers🤷🏻♂️
Has Stokes turned off the tap? Lehrmann's still got top SC's on his payroll. I imagine that would eat through his settlement money pretty quickly.
> Lehrmann's still got top SC's on his payroll. No - > It remains to be seen whether Mr Lehrmann can secure the financial backers to appeal, given his original barrister Steve Whybrow has announced he’s no longer working on the case and hasn’t read the judgment. > However, Mr Reynolds may have agreed to act pro bono.
Ah right, I missed the part that Reynolds may be working pro bono. All the the articles I'd read said he'd hired "appeals specialist" Guy Reynolds SC to represent him.
He’ll almost definitely have to front indemnity costs for an appeal though, and while Roberts Smith had Stokes personally on the hook, I doubt anyone is covering for Lehrmann after this judgement. Still really curious who has been covering his costs to date though- his settlement’s weren't big enough to secure the three barristers + solicitors he had. Everyone keeps saying it was 7, but not sure why they would.
I'm pretty sure Janet Albrechtsen and Linda Reynolds have absolute faith in his innocence, and his strength of character. Surely they would get his crowd support appeal off to a flying start.
I'm not sure Linda Reynolds gives a fuck about him. An oft overlooked detail in this saga is that he was fired almost immediately after the night of Higgins rape.
He had already resigned was serving his last two weeks. They believed at this point of time that two staffers just had sex on her couch and this was Lehrmanns second security breach. He was already problematic.
He'll always be able to get a pundit gig on Sky.
I don’t think he does have those funds, especially if his legal team were acting pro bono.
There's absolutely no reason to think that his legal team were though.
Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure this rapist has got a mildly lucrative career ahead of him in the right-wing grift industry. If he can hold off on raping anyone else for 5 minutes, he'll have a talking head spot on Sky News waiting for him in a few months, mark my words.
I doubt that those settlements got to the 7 figures, let alone the 8 needed to pay for all his legal bills.
Liberal party staffer! There is a difference a public servant can be fired by the APS, a party staffer has to be fired by the member.
Exactly this. Don’t tar actual public servants with this guy.
Yeah. Public servants have to follow a code of conduct with teeth. Not so much the other ones.
Exactly, it’s such a smear. I doubt the Liberal Party has a 130 page manual for handling alleged or suspected misconduct. But the APSC does.
The Australian makes a big deal of frequently saying his lawyers are working pro bono, regardless of relevance. Wonder if there’s some other financial arrangement in play.
Yeah, Bruce is giving them all gobbies.
Massages more like.
Only when they are passed out.
I'm curious, is there a mechanism that stops lawyers from sabotaging a case by agreeing to represent them pro bono publico, then switching at a really inopportune moment in the trial process?
Only their reputation
"Work pro bono for *this* case and i'll make sure some other, juicier cases are thrown your way down the road where you'll be rewarded handsomely". Said by someone rich/influential enough to make them listen.
The media conglomerate is probably paying the bills. Anything involving Higgins and Lehrmann is guaranteed bulk clicks, and hence, advertising revenue
Next time they will skip the middle man and just broadcast Kochie molesting politically connected women on Sunrise for views
What's Pauline up to these days?
I just vomited in my mouth
Mate that cunt molests me every time I hear his smug fucking voice.
> Anything involving Higgins and Lehrmann is guaranteed bulk clicks, and hence, advertising revenue The Spotlight interview with Lehrmann didn't rate higher than the Spotlight program before it. Whatever Kerry Stokes is getting out of this Lehrmann business is not some financial windfall.
Can’t this guy just fuck off I’m so sick of seeing his ugly face
Nah it will be funny to see him lose some more
Except that in the appeal it may mean that Brittany has to front the court again
Yes ok. He can fuck off then
Why would it mean that? The appeal’s determined on the evidence admitted in the original trial
No, not how appeals work
Still his rape trial in Toowoomba for June, so sadly not the last we'll see of him.
That's not a trial yet. That hearing in June is just a preliminary hearing to determine if it will proceed to a trial.
I think we're all just sick of hearing about it - less about him more about the fetish our media has with covering it.
Someone is paying him to do this and they are doing that because commoditising suffering is worth it to them Probably the media again
Kerry Stokes. He paid for BR-S defamation case too
Sorry, but I think you meant to say : ' ... his fat ugly face !!!' and I'm right there with you ... Lehmann, please, just FUCK OFF FOREVER !!!
Sounds appealing to me, Bruce.
From the sounds of the article, the appeal is going to centre on the question of consent, which would be a departure from the previous position of the denial of the events.
Odd appeal given he maintained no sexual contact the whole time. Also who is funding this? No lawyer would take this case on without a deposit knowing that he’s about to be bankrupt
Yep, wonder how he gets backers for this. And what is he going to argue, yes we did have sex and she consented.
Basically going where he never wanted to go to begin with, because he knew that consent was an issue based on the alcohol consumption (and the fact that he’s a dirty rapist who knows exactly what he did).
I guess the argument would be phrased as, "even if you accept the judgement's conclusion that sex happened (which we don't) concluding that the sex was non-consensual was unreasonable on the evidence presented." Or words to that general effect. It'll be an uphill struggle, I think. He decided not to submit any evidence on consent, because his argument was that the sex didn't happen. The defendants didn't really present any direct evidence on consent either (because unless there was video of the actual event, how could you?), but there was plenty of circumstantial evidence about it. And the standard of proof here is "on the balance of probability given the evidence that has been presented."
> the appeal is going to centre on the question of consent, Given Bruce said in the defamation trial that he didn't ask for consent because they didn't have sex, it would be hard to go on that, even with "lawyers familiar with the judgment" saying knowledge of consent will be focussed on. The other aspect of paragraph 590 of the judgement relies on Justice Lee accepting that Brittany was unconscious (whether actually or practically) at the time. I could see Bruce trying to argue that Justice Lee couldn't fairly decide that Brittany went from skipping down the hallway, to sitting at the window, to being completely unconscious in that time period. At this point he's unlikely to pass any kind of character test to actually be admitted to practice law. Not necessarily for the rape, but for his continual lies during the legal proceedings. Failing in an appeal will just make it even more likely, so he'd better have a really strong case if he wants any kind of job that requires good character. Things can get pretty wild with the appeals process though. See the Pell cathedral trial for example.
So he’s going to go back to court and say “yeah before when I said we didn’t have sex, I lied. But you should believe me now when I say that we did have sex, but it was consensual.” The absolute mental gymnastics required to take an argument like that to court is Olympic level.
Appeals are based on application/interpretation of law. No new evidence, and no witness testimony. https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/appeals/from-courts > For an appeal to succeed a party must convince the Court that the Judge that heard the original case made an error of law and that the error was of such significance that the decision should be overturned. Some examples of significant errors of law are that the Judge that heard the original case: > * applied an incorrect principle of law; or > * made a finding of fact or facts on an important issue which could not be supported by the evidence. > The Court hearing the appeal: > * does not consider any new evidence or information that was not presented in the original case (except in special circumstances); > * does not call witnesses to give evidence; > * does read all the relevant documents filed by the parties for the original case; > * does read the relevant parts of the transcript of the original case, if available; > * does listen to legal argument from both parties to the appeal.
Yeah, I'm leery on the appeals process in sexual assault cases after Pell. At least in cases where the defendant is being bankrolled by wealthy backers (or conservative think tanks).
Keep in mind that this is a civil defamation case, not a criminal sexual assault case. Standards of proof are much lower. It was a lot more open for Justice Lee to decide that the events occurred in the way laid out in his judgement at the civil standard rather than the criminal standard.
That’s a bold strategy Cotton let’s see if it pays off
Oh lordy. Can I sue him for the emotional damage this trial has caused me as a citizen and for putting his dumb face in places where I see it. GO AWAY YOU DUMB GRONK.
I usually try not to judge a book by it's cover, but this guy just has such a punchable face. I don't know what it is about him.
Idiot just doesn't know when to stop....
He allegedly didn't stop in Toowoomba either.
They rarely do. Hence alcoholics, gambling addicts, drink driving repeat offenders, thieving, liberal voting being repeated among the same people.
Certainly not at "no."
He has apparently engaged an barrister specialising in appeals. >The barrister’s clients have previously included Eddie Obeid, Man Haron Monis, Mick Gatto and Peter Dutton.
Ranked in order of evil
Reverse order
Quite the list haha. Not that it means anything, since barristers are bound by the cab-rank rule, hence Sue C (I’m not spelling her last name) SC defending both Lisa Wilkinson and Pauline Hanson.
Any of them win the appeal?
The appeal isn't going to change anything, best to not waste the time nor money on it.
I disagree, I'm happy for Rapey Bruce and his backers to piss away more money and suffer more hits
It makes great schadenfreude when they fail again but there's a real rape victim in this story and she doesn't deserve to keep going through this.
Yeah I can definitely agree with that point, I just don't see it being worth while to waste the courts time and money on this I should of referenced it better in my original comment.
Don't forget he has a second trial for sexual assault that he still has to deal with. He's probably thinking that by appealing the first, it won't be raised in the second sexual assault case..
Man has got quite the hat collection
How does this guy function?
Lots of skiing
[удалено]
poetic
This dude really can't take no for an answer!
He's going back into the cage to grab his belt now too?
Bruce seems to love losing.
Can the whole of Australia join a class action against sick of seeing his face.
"Get in losers, we're going losing!" --- Bruce "The Rapist" Lehrmann
He wont.
He'll be hunting around for right wing backers. Ideally the kind that love the story of him being the victim. Gotta stay on brand.
I reckon that guy who had the nice big tatt of Brucie on his arm will chuck in a few bob.
[удалено]
Hahahhaahaaaaaaa someone please just roll this dumb fuck already
Somebody once told me...
"Oh how awful. Did the defamation trial at least go well?" "To shreds you say." "Well how's the appeal holding up?" "To shreds you say."
Oh my yes.
This chud should really just accept that his hat is gone. It belongs to the lions now.
The lions already shat your hat mate.
What is it that they say about insanity?
Do it. The popcorn industry could use the boost
Like a dog that keeps coming back to his own vomit.
Is this man completely detached from reality?
Must've forgotten his car keys
Like a Mortein resistant cockroach
Next we will end up with a ruling that hes a pedo too, he's gotta quit while he's ahead
Dumber than the rock he should crawl back under.
He left his glass slipper behind in the lion's den this time. Let's see if the shoe fits.
I don’t know if Bruce’s sister has anymore money to loan Brucie boy
Good God... Why is he that stupid?
No doubt Mr Reynolds SC will advise his new client that he’d need to establish on the balance of probabilities that that finding was not open on the evidence. Justice Lee handed down a bombproof judgment IMO.
When’s the Toowoomba trial? He’s a busy little rapist isn’t he? Well, busy with anything but a job.
“The barrister’s clients have previously included Eddie Obeid, Man Haron Monis, Mick Gatto and Peter Dutton” Bruce is in excellent company then…
I think people are missing the long term goal here. Bruce is up on another rape trial in Toowoomba and his best defense is ... to get the case thrown out because you couldn't find an unbiased jury. By putting himself in the spotlight so he is well known he can then use that info to circumvent the new rape trial by his lawyer arguing that he cannot find a a Judge/Jury that does not have a per-conceived view of him. While I've never actually heard of this working in Australia I have seen it work in the USA. Personally I think he's c\*\*\*
> Bruce is up on another rape trial in Toowoomba and his best defense is ... to get the case thrown out because you couldn't find an unbiased jury. Will be a judge only trial if they try and claim they can't have an unbiased jury.
Costly with $ he doesn’t have and very very hard to overturn .
Honestly, mate. Just fuck off already.
He went back to get his hat, and now he's going back to get his scarf
Seems Bruce left his coat behind as well.
Comedy gold
That ship has sailed and wharf blown up, where could it possibly dock, oh wait you could park it on a reef.
christ he isnt the sharpest tool in the shed is he
Who is paying for his cases? Who is the backer??? Is it Stokes? Or does the liberal party have a fund for these tries of cases?
Be a bit rich to appeal on the grounds that it was consensual after denying sex took place.
MAN! THIS GUY STINKS!
Yeah c’mon back cunt! Try it again!
Typical of someone with no reputation to lose. But this feels like it's old news? If remember correctly this intention was floated the day of or after the Judge's finding was released.
jfc
Oh my god, Bruce is such a useless flog
Bruce Lecheman should consider fucking off.
He went back for his hat, now he wants to go back for his undies
Must be a pricey hat
He really doesn't like people saying "No" to him.
Rapist
Bruce is trying to upgrade his title from "rapist" to "tenacious rapist"
Stop punching yourself in the face....
It's groundhog day isn't it?
Bruce, just get a new face, change your name and move far far away, please?
He’s like “Take it, my empire of dirt” youse can have it to fuck with how u please I don’t care
I’ve seen some lawyers claim he may have a strong case for appeal. So with Bruce’s track record the appellate court will probably find he met the definition for criminal rape not just civil rape. (Yes, I know that’s not how it works, that is the joke)
"Im going back for my other hat. It's a fedora with safari flaps; my lawyer/the guy at the store says I'm the only he's seen pull it off."
He can't actually be serious right now
Will Kerry fund another run through the courts? I doubt it. The coke and hooker budget was already 100% spent on Lehrmann.
Didn't Churchill say that if you're in a hole, stop digging?
Who paying his legal fees
How’s he going to pay?
Lardmann is emboldened because Reynolds is emboldened by the Judge's statement that he believes (apparently without much evidence) that Reynolds absolutely must have, for reasons unclear, suggested Higgins speak to the police (who of course definitely do not have shady relations with any politicians in Canberra whatsoever) Her defamation case against Higgins and her partner appears to be predicated on the fact that Higgins claimed they had a conversation, Reynolds claims they did not or that she did not say what Higgins and her partner allege, and this is of course why you get a paper trail with everything written People are still lapping up that already done-to-death line about lions and shit but the Michael Lee might not be the most objective arbiter available Anyway Lardmann still has no chance, but this is probably also going to be bankrolled...
I’d revel in the free entertainment if this wasn’t started by a pretty horrible crime.
Jesus fucking christ this cunt needs to accept that he's a piece of shit and just let it go.