Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | ... | 34
18489 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5289

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2110599 18-Oct-2018 17:32
Send private message quote this post

MikeB4:

 

Unless I am missing something the text messages teh JLR has published prove very little and don't show in my opinion illegal activity, I concede I am likely wrong with that regard.

 

 

 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107937996/jamilee-ross-releases-text-message-exchange-with-national-partys-greg-hamilton

 

 

Well we would both be apparently, since what I see is the opposite. I see the National Party trying to get information to ensure they comply. I am unsure that JLR isn't entirely delusional.

 

 


7529 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3949


  Reply # 2110608 18-Oct-2018 18:03
Send private message quote this post

networkn:

 

MikeB4:

 

Unless I am missing something the text messages teh JLR has published prove very little and don't show in my opinion illegal activity, I concede I am likely wrong with that regard.

 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107937996/jamilee-ross-releases-text-message-exchange-with-national-partys-greg-hamilton

 

 

Well we would both be apparently, since what I see is the opposite. I see the National Party trying to get information to ensure they comply. I am unsure that JLR isn't entirely delusional.

 

 

Yep.  If that's all he's got, then he never had much WRT campaign finance breach.

 

 


278 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 103


  Reply # 2110616 18-Oct-2018 18:42
Send private message quote this post

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12144795

 

Another interesting read. Perhaps there is an indication that the hierarchy were aware but didn't want to act.  Similar to the Waihi Young labour Party???


gzt

10254 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1576


  Reply # 2110622 18-Oct-2018 19:15
Send private message quote this post

gulfa:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12144795


Another interesting read. Perhaps there is an indication that the hierarchy were aware but didn't want to act.  Similar to the Waihi Young labour Party???


Original newsroom article:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/10/17/281200/jami-lee-ross-four-women-speak-out
Horrible.

88 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 20


  Reply # 2110653 18-Oct-2018 20:09
Send private message quote this post

gulfa:

 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12144795

 

Another interesting read. Perhaps there is an indication that the hierarchy were aware but didn't want to act.  Similar to the Waihi Young labour Party???

 

 

Wasnt he basically put on leave for his conduct?


gzt

10254 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1576


  Reply # 2110654 18-Oct-2018 20:15
Send private message quote this post

As I recall Ross took leave for an EMBARRASSING ahem private medical condition as Bridges put it at the time. On the other hand this story is difficult to follow for sure..

7529 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3949


  Reply # 2110655 18-Oct-2018 20:17
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

gulfa:

 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12144795

 

Another interesting read. Perhaps there is an indication that the hierarchy were aware but didn't want to act.  Similar to the Waihi Young labour Party???

 

 

Perhaps not similar to the Waihi incident - as that was alleged sexual assault as opposed to allegations of abusing power to gain consent - and being a dickhead - which isn't a crime.

 

 

 

 


1293 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1005

Subscriber

  Reply # 2110660 18-Oct-2018 20:20
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

wsnz:

 

He has made a perfectly valid decision based on the circumstances, one which many other lawyers could also make. Litigation serves no purpose at this point. 

 

 

This is where you are completely wrong. I can name you no lawyer who has been so publically assailed by statements that, if false, are more plainly defamatory. And I am personally aware of, and have acted, for lawyers who have sued (or at a minimum threatened to sue) for far less. The idea that many lawyers would make a similar call as SB is laughable based on my professional experience.

 

 

 

 


18489 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5289

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2110676 18-Oct-2018 20:49
Send private message quote this post

What would Simon Bridges or National get out of Litigation at this point? Seriously? It would simply give JLR more attention. The evidence more or less speaks for itself. Other than the expense to confirm which is pretty much already known. Your average Kiwi isn't going to give a rats backside that the threat of legal action made JLR retract his statement or even in the best case scenario SB wins and gets some money or JLR is forced to make his retraction. Instead they would resent the cost (probably to the taxpayer at some point). It would simply drag this whole horrible situation on even longer.

 

Just because every lawyer you know would litigate this, doesn't mean it's not a perfectly valid option to not bother. I'd suggest if you polled 100 kiwis randomly from the street they would mostly feel the same way.

 

 


1293 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1005

Subscriber

  Reply # 2110688 18-Oct-2018 21:22
Send private message quote this post

networkn:

 

Instead they would resent the cost (probably to the taxpayer at some point

 

 

What cost would the taxpayer bear? JLR would not be eligible for legal aid; court sitting fees are paid by the plaintiff and if they win, they will (generally speaking) be entitled to recover those costs from the losing party. Networkn, do the world a favour and stop ranting about things on which you know nothing. And no, shouting in CAPS (as is your tendency) won't make your argument any more convincing.


18489 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5289

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2110691 18-Oct-2018 21:37
Send private message quote this post

Speaking of things that people don't know about. My comments/observations weren't a "rant" and CAPS can also be used for emphasis. An entire sentence written in caps *may* (See there are actually mulitple ways to do it!) be considered shouting. A single word, emphasis.

 

Would Simon Bridges not have his legal fees covered by the taxpayer? He was "defamed" in his capacity as leader of the National Party.

 

Who paid the legal fees when Winston Peters decided to try and sue everyone in the National Party over his leak?

 

 

 

 

 

 


1293 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1005

Subscriber

  Reply # 2110696 18-Oct-2018 21:45
Send private message quote this post

networkn:

 

Would Simon Bridges not have his legal fees covered by the taxpayer? He was "defamed" in his capacity as leader of the National Party.

 

Who paid the legal fees when Winston Peters decided to try and sue everyone in the National Party over his leak?

 

 

No, SB wouldn't be eligible to have his lawyers' fees paid for by the taxpayer. Again, you're just aimlessly sputtering away over things on which you know nothing about. Winston Peters would have had to pay his own fees also. They both sued and could only sue in their personal capacities.

 

 


1807 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 648

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2110698 18-Oct-2018 21:51
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

IANAL but the principles are pretty simple. Peters has an extensive record of suing people for defamation and he has paid for that privately. Equally he would keep any recovery.

 

The defense of someone acting as a minister of the crown can be paid for by taxpayers but if they are being sued as individuals then it is generally not recoverable.

 

Eg If I personally called an individual a thief and a liar they could sue me personally. If the government department I headed called someone a fraudster then that the department would be liable and then the crown would pay costs.

 

IMO Lee-Ross called Simon Bridges personally corrupt therefore any action is between them personally. It's got nothing do with the Crown and the Crown doesn't have liability.


18489 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5289

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2110699 18-Oct-2018 21:52
Send private message quote this post

dejadeadnz:

 

networkn:

 

Would Simon Bridges not have his legal fees covered by the taxpayer? He was "defamed" in his capacity as leader of the National Party.

 

Who paid the legal fees when Winston Peters decided to try and sue everyone in the National Party over his leak?

 

 

No, SB wouldn't be eligible to have his lawyers' fees paid for by the taxpayer. Again, you're just aimlessly sputtering away over things on which you know nothing about. Winston Peters would have had to pay his own fees also. They both sued and could only sue in their personal capacities.

 

 

 

 

Really?

 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/106098842/government-will-pay-legal-fees-of-mps-in-winston-peters-super

 

If the Government was prepared to step in and pay for the legal defence of these MP's, then I don't think it's unreasonable that your average non lawyer would assume that SB may have his legal fees contributed to as well.

 

They aren't the exact same situation, granted, however most lay people wouldn't neccessarily understand why MP's might be defended in one situation and not in this one. 

 

 


511 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 123


  Reply # 2110702 18-Oct-2018 21:55
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

dejadeadnz:

 

wsnz:

 

He has made a perfectly valid decision based on the circumstances, one which many other lawyers could also make. Litigation serves no purpose at this point. 

 

 

This is where you are completely wrong. I can name you no lawyer who has been so publically assailed by statements that, if false, are more plainly defamatory. And I am personally aware of, and have acted, for lawyers who have sued (or at a minimum threatened to sue) for far less. The idea that many lawyers would make a similar call as SB is laughable based on my professional experience.

 

 

None of what you have stipulated above invalidates the statement I have made. You state "I can name you no lawyer..." which does not logically conclude that no examples exist in the history of NZ of a lawyer making a decision to not to sue under similar circumstances. You are not aware of any, that's fair enough, but you cannot extrapolate that as evidence that my statement is incorrect. 


1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | ... | 34
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.