Ashby

[Rorschach]

You each failed to address this

Listen you stupid lying shit....

I already addressed it and told you to reread the topic again.

DON'T WASTE MY TIME!!!

[Aussie]

Well, the shit will be hitting the fan this week.

download (1)

By Joan Evatt

April 29, 2013

Editors note: Here is Joan’s preview of the appeals by Ashby and his lawyer Michael Harmer against the Justice Rares’ dismissal of Ashby’s sexual harassment claim against Slipper as an abuse of the judicial system. Joan will report the hearing for @NoFibs. Her first report is here.

Just when you think it is safe to re-enter still waters, the waves start to churn again. It’s a cause to pause. The matter of an application before the Court of Appeal to grant leave, and to consider reasons why Justice Rare’s decision in Ashby v Slipper should be overturned, will be heard this week.

The next saga resulting from Justice Rares’s decision in Ashby v Slipper was always going to be of interest. Public scrutiny of the appeal is further heightened because of one unusual aspect of the appeal. One of the appellants is Mr Ashby’s high-profile solicitor, Michael Harmer, of Harmer’s Workplace Lawyers.

For Mr Slipper, although the appeal is a continuing financial and emotional burden, this time should prove a slightly more refreshing exercise. Slipper is no longer on the back foot. Rather it is Mr Ashby and Mr Harmer who are both now fighting for their future professional careers and public standing.

Both applications contain identical grounds founded in Mr Ashby’s and Mr Harmer’s belief that Rares J erred in finding that the “predominant purpose” of Mr Ashby

“ … for bringing the proceedings was to pursue a political attack against the Respondent (Mr Slipper) and not to vindicate any legal claim he (that is Mr Ashby) may have… and accordingly that the proceedings were an abuse of process.”

Rares' decision was so well written and sourced, I doubt this Appeal will succeed. Costs orders in Slipper's favour will follow, and there will be some politicians, including Pyne, Hockey, Brough and McArdle with sphincter atwitching. Good old Phoney Tony will need to be careful as well,

[IQS.RLOW]

Hahahahahahahahaha. Margo Kingston blog


Is this what you have to resort to for your 'authoritative' source nowadays?

[Aussie]

Hahahahahahahahaha. Margo Kingston blog


Is this what you have to resort to for your 'authoritative' source nowadays?

How do you think the Appeal will go, and I don't care who you refer to in your answer, so long as it includes your opinion.

[IQS.RLOW]

No no, you stick with Margo for your opinions.
Her fucked up views suit yours down to a tee. Blind leftwing asshattery and always wrong.

[Aussie]

No no, you stick with Margo for your opinions.
Her fucked up views suit yours down to a tee. Blind leftwing asshattery and always wrong.

What was Margo's opinion?

[IQS.RLOW]

No no, you stick with Margo for your opinions.
Her fucked up views suit yours down to a tee. Blind leftwing asshattery and always wrong.

What was Margo's opinion?

Obviously the same as her learned accountant mate Joan Evatts and them, like you have little understanding of the law or the appeal as you have demonstrated more than aptly on here regarding Thomson and Gillards cases.

[Aussie]

I was right on Thomson, I am right on Gillard, and I'll be right on Ashby.

[IQS.RLOW]

I was right on Thomson, I am right on Gillard, and I'll be right on Ashby.

You were wrong on Thomson
You were wrong on Gillard
You are wrong on Ashby

[Aussie]

I was right on Thomson, I am right on Gillard, and I'll be right on Ashby.

You were wrong on Thomson
You were wrong on Gillard
You are wrong on Ashby

Show me where and how.