ABC TV 7.30 Report 26 July 2012:
On and on the alleged plot wends its way towards eventual publication the mainstream media.
The evidence has been made public by the Federal Court of Australia and can be found at Online file - Ashby v Commonwealth of Australia NSD 580 of 2012.
22 comments:
I read the latest lodgement of texts last night. Then this moring looked at the media. Don't bother with the papers it is too selective. The media appears reluctant to let go of the sexual harrassment as the "real" version of events.
Political plot or not, Slipper is a scumbag, ask anybody within the Canberra corridors of power, lets not make a martyr out of an absolute deluded rogue and get fooled by so-called legal evidence!
Having more than a passing acquaintance with the "Canberra corridors of power", I will go with the judgment of the Court which is based on evidence and legal arguments presented and, will not be swayed by scurrilous gossip.
Nothing scurrilous about the Slipper gossip, ask ex-Speaker Harry Jenkins in an off-the-record question why he's "retiring" from the Parliament at the next election.
And by the way, the judgement of the Court is yet to be handed down but you've already jumped into print with your opinion that this seems to be a political conspiracy - has the Court determined thus?
Actually I didn't say it was a political conspiracy - just that it was hard not to think of it that way based on evidence presented to the Court.
That was in the title.
In the post I stated "alleged plot".
As for Harry Jenkins, his retirement had nothing to do with Slipper and, more to do with the virtual vote of no confidence in him as the then Speaker by a slim majority of the House of Reps last year and the fact that if he stood for another term he would likely be on Opposition benches once more.
So an early retirement began to look attractive.
Canberra gossip should never be taken at face value - it is often wildly off fact.
My last word - personally I much prefer "Canberra gossip" to the slurs/inferences coming from this blog purporting to be "North Coast Voices" but actually running, on occasions, an extreme green agenda!
As for Harry Jenkins retirement, are you suggesting he'd be retiring if he was still in the Speakers role - of course not, he's going because he's fed up, a man of integrity shafted by his leader for a scumbag ex-Lib, all in the name of political expediency.
As for "I didn't say it was a political conspiracy', laughable semantics, you sure inferred it.
It is my understanding that none of the regular author contributors to North Coast Voices are members of either The Greens or the ALP.
Indeed, none appear to belong to any political party whatsoever.
I find it more than passing strange, how far-right positioned commentators such as yourself often attempt to lay that, or similar, charges at our front door.
Australian society is not as politically 'black and white' as you seem to imagine and, very ordinary people actually think for themselves independently of political dogma.
Well, well, NCV Administrator is now joining the fray defending the indefensible! Can't let that one go through to the keeper, I also find it "more than passing strange"; strange indeed that you decree me as a "far-right positioned commentator" on the basis of a few comments highlighting some weird, illogical thought processes of the occasional poster.
I'll continue to quote from your home page - "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and .....".
Well, so far in a few short weeks commenting on inane fantasy-world postings on this site I've been called a far-right, loudmouthed, xenophobic troll and it's been suggested "you know who I am and where I live, even publishing my supposed name"!
So much for freedom of opinion and freedom of speech, all I say is you're a bunch of hypocrites and it's no wonder very few people read this rubbish.
Mr. Schwarz,
I consider you far-right on the basis of comments made on this blog and elsewhere on the Internet.
Although a relative newcomer to NCV, elsewhere you have been submitting comments over a number of years.
As you have always had your comments published here I see no reason for you to feel aggrieved.
Your opinions are not being intefered with - just disagreed with.
Something you appear to find offensive.
I also remind you that you have already published your own name on the Internet side-by-side with your pseudonym.
I suggest you try for a little more maturity in your approach to debate.
What's with this quote?
"you know who I am and where I live, even publishing my supposed name"
I haven't seen that up on the blog before.
Have I missed something?
Is yambaman actually quoting a line that was written earlier or does he not understand the rules of grammar and punctuation?
Well, well Anonymous is back, just for you sunshine here it the quote (with a little poetic licence), posted 5 July by Clarence Girl - "What yambaman forgets is that North Coast towns are not all that big relatively speaking and (just as Boudicca is widely known to hold a degree in environmental science from the University of New England) so many people know a great deal about him.
Such as his real name, what he looks like, his age, home address, the car he drives, preferred sport, hobbies and much, much more ....".
And 8 July from NCV Admin "Mr.Schwarz, five comments were received from you and five comments were published uncensored ... ".
And NCV Admin, what evidence do you have to back your statement that I appear to find disagreement with my opinions "offensive"? Perhaps I could dare suggest in fact it is the reverse?
Also, where have I "already published your (my) own name on the Internet side-by-side with your pseudonym"? All in your imagination I believe, probably an attempt to justify your own seeming pettiness that anybody should dare post something contrary/balanced on this blog? Most blogs at least respect the privacy of individuals - you don't, how sad, look out for a lawsuit.
"Lack of maturity in the debate" - sure seems to be heading that way, wonder where it was generated from, who wrote a completely unnecessary original article about me and then called me a loudmouth xenaphobic troll when I dared defend myself?
yambaman identifies himself immediately as an ignorant extremist by describing the Speaker as a scumbag and basing that description solely on gossip repeated in the 'corridors of power.' Clarence Girl rightly prefers an evidence based assessment of Peter Slipper's alleged offences.
Thanks for this and the many other interesting perspectives on the national scene we get from North Coast voices.
At no time did I call you "a loudmouth xenophobic troll" when you commented under the post 'Da Troll'.
In that particular post I observed that you "began turning into a bit of a troll" when commenting on other sites.
For example when you wrote "Just wondering if some shooters could be let out of national parks to get rid of the human "ferals" living near me?"
I further observed that "An anonymity allowing one to be gratuitously nasty or xenophobic just doesn’t exist today."
See:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6136161833847253297&postID=5627541292286034551
It was someone who obviously knows you from the local golf club who called you "loud-mouthed Dave".
Lawsuit for not respecting your privacy? ROFLOL
"It was someone who obviously knows you from the local golf club who called you loud-mouthed Dave" -I'd suggest somebody with minimal courage hiding behind anonymity Clarence Girl, I'm looking forward to identifying him/her!
As for the one-liner about human ferals it was a joke lady, taking the piss out of a debate about the Shooters Party in National Parks, it would seem you lack a sense of humour. I'd suggest you stop taking yourself so seriously and get a life, go back to your photography where you have a real talent. And just for the record, I'm 100% AGAINST guns; our National Parks are not the place for feral animals but letting loonies free with dangerous weapons is just asking for trouble.
There remains absolutely no justification for publishing my private details on this blog site, it wouldn't happen on any reputable blog, IMO it was a petty attempt to intimidate! To regain any credibility whatsoever, lets see NCV Admin, Clarence Girl and Anonymous's names in print, then I'll lay off!
"go back to your photography where you have a real talent".
I think you've mistaken me for someone else.
As for readers who anonymously comment - well DUH they're anonymous.
No-one has published your private details.
The only mentions are those details you yourself have caused to be published on the Internet.
As for my name - well I came out years ago when the blog was first created.
You have to be kidding - pathetic!
This is one seriously deluded site run by a sadly deluded mates club of nobodies; thank God they represent nothing.
Well, well well, look what has happened - Nicola Roxon made a goose of herself in June, playing politics with a court case, now it would seem Clarence Girl also hasn't a clue, "political conspiracy" yeah!:
You will recall way back - The Federal Government has launched an attack on the sexual harassment case against embattled Speaker Peter Slipper, saying it is politically motivated.
Lawyers for the Commonwealth yesterday told a Federal Court that former staffer James Ashby, who is suing Mr Slipper for sexual harassment, colluded with another staffer, Karen Doane, to undermine Mr Slipper’s reputation and advance his political opponents…
They allege Mr Ashby gave information to former Howard minister Mal Brough and to News Limited journalist Steve Lewis.
Federal Attorney-General Nicola Roxon says it shows the case against Mr Slipper was politically motivated…
“It will be clearly shown and this will be argued in the court that there was in fact clear intention to harm Mr Slipper and bring his reputation into disrepute and to assist his political opponents and that was the purpose for the bringing of this claim,” she said.
Now what has really happened?
The federal government has settled its case with James Ashby, the aide to the stood-aside Speaker of the Parliament Peter Slipper, for $50,000 and a commitment to introduce training for all MPs and senators regarding sexual harassment.
The settlement between the commonwealth and Mr Ashby was reached on Thursday and detailed in a three-page letter of offer from the Australian Government Solicitor.
Mr Ashby’s lawyers, Harmers Workplace Lawyers, accepted the deal on his behalf. Mr Ashby had sued the commonwealth, alleging it had failed to provide a safe workplace.
Separately, Mr Ashby has sued Mr Slipper with allegations of sexual harassment, supported by records of lurid text messages sent by the Speaker to Mr Ashby.
Mr Ashby’s case against Mr Slipper continues and is listed for an interlocutory hearing at 10.15am on Tuesday.
Lets see what Clarence Girl has to say now!!!!!
Well, well, now look what's happened, our so-called Speaker holds the Federal Court in contempt!
Slipper fails to appear in court in Ashby hearing. From the SMH.
A Federal Court judge has sternly rebuked the besieged Speaker of the Federal Parliament, Peter Slipper, after he failed to appear in court for the sexual harassment case brought by his former adviser James Ashby.
The hearing was due to continue this morning, with Justice Steven Rares to consider a claim by the Commonwealth that Mr Ashby's claim represented an abuse of the judicial process.
But this was stymied by Mr Slipper's failure to attend the hearing, either in person or through legal representation, drawing a scathing reaction from the judge.
"He's not a man in penury, he's the Speaker of the House of Representatives and I'm sure he gets paid for it," Justice Rares said.
"He has a responsibility to the public to be here and there are clear consequences for litigants who don't turn up, which I would have thought he would be aware of.
"I'll order him to attend personally ... there's absolutely no reason why he's not here today."
Counsel for the Commonwealth, Julian Burnside, QC, said that it had been a "difficult time" for Mr Slipper and that he may have stayed away from court to avoid being pursued by the media.
He also said that the Speaker's failure to have legal representation at the hearing was related to "financial considerations".
But Justice Rares said that the court had received a letter over the long weekend in which Mr Slipper had indicated that today's hearing was "inconvenient".
Mr Slipper has yet to hire new lawyers after recently parting company with the Melbourne-based solicitor Josh Bornstein, of the firm Maurice Blackburn.
The court also heard that the settlement between Mr Ashby and the Commonwealth, thought to have been sewn up last week, has hit a hurdle.
Mr Ashby's counsel, Michael Lee, SC, said that, having reached an agreement, the Commonwealth has now requested that Mr Ashby sign a deed acknowledging that the government does not have any ongoing liability.
"[These requirements] simply aren't in the express terms of the agreement reached on September 27," Mr Lee said.
"Your honour should make an order in accordance with that agreement."
Mr Burnside also argued that, as Mr Ashby had agreed to settle with the Commonwealth, there should be no other case to pursue against Mr Slipper.
The Commonwealth, not Mr Slipper, is Mr Ashby's employer.
But Justice Rares said this appeared to simply be a lack of "consensus on the wording".
Mr Slipper will attend the Federal Court in Sydney tomorrow, lawyers for the federal government said.
AAP reports: A spokesman for Mr Slipper said he was in Canberra today on Speaker business and would not be commenting on the court matter.
-----------------------------
Just waiting for Clarence Girl to confirm she stills sees all this as a conspiracy, especially all of Slipper's saucy emails to Ashby!
It is an absolute disgrace that the ALP, clinging to power, can leave this man as Speaker of the House of Reps!
Justice Rares 12 December 2012 judgement in Ashby v C'wealth & Slipper:
37 I do not accept Mr Ashby’s commentary that he had feelings of distress and harassment concerning Mr Slipper’s actions. Ms Hubbard’s message quoted in [34] above suggests that at 4 February 2012 Mr Ashby was contemplating that Mr McArdle would use the text messages. The passages I have emphasised from the exchanges of text messages show that Mr Ashby’s discussion with Mr McArdle concerning his text message exchanges with Mr Slipper, particularly those of 1 and 2 February 2012, was to do with empowering Mr McArdle or someone else with the ability to use those messages against Mr Slipper. Mr Ashby’s references to “empowering others”, and “national decisions”, were concerned solely with the political consequences of what Mr Ashby was contemplating. Those consequences could affect the balance of power in the House of Representatives, depending on whether Mr Slipper could remain as Speaker if Mr Ashby used his “power” and what effect that use would have. That was because the Government did not have a majority in the House and was reliant on cross bench support, assisted by Mr Slipper having ceased to be a member of the Opposition and not being able to vote while Speaker, by reason of s 40 of the Constitution, unless the votes in the House were tied.
[cont]
Justice Rares (cont):
132 Mr Ashby and Ms Doane had decided by 29 March 2012 that Mr Ashby would make allegations of sexual harassment in legal proceedings against Mr Slipper and would assist Mr Brough and Mr Lewis to damage Mr Slipper in the public eye and political arena with any information they could find including using the requested diary entries together with any proceedings. Mr Ashby referred to seeing or using lawyers in his texts from about this time. Accordingly, I have inferred that he, Ms Doane and Mr Brough intended that Mr Ashby would bring proceedings against Mr Slipper alleging at least sexual harassment.
133 Once they had decided on their course of action, Mr Ashby and Ms Doane did not go straight to see a lawyer to air any concerns about any legal wrongs that either may have suffered. Instead, Mr Ashby or Ms Doane contacted Mr Brough and they began working with him and Mr Lewis. That was an act of disloyalty that they both knew was antithetic to their continuing to work for Mr Slipper. But they did continue. They asked Mr Brough to help them find a lawyer. They used their positions on his staff surreptitiously to copy and provide extracts from Mr Slipper’s diaries for periods in 2009 and 2010 at the requests of both Mr Brough and Mr Lewis. There is no evidence that Mr Ashby ever provided any of Mr Slipper’s diary entries concerning the 2012 Cabcharge allegations to anyone. Mr Ashby met Mr Lewis on 4 April 2012 and Mr Ashby so enthused Mr Lewis that the latter wrote “We will get him!!” just before flying to Sydney.
[cont]
Justice Rares (cont):
138 I am also satisfied that Mr Ashby and Ms Doane by about 29 March 2012 were in a combination with Mr Brough to cause Mr Slipper as much political and public damage as they could inflict on him….
141 Mr Brough was unlikely to have been offering to assist Ms Doane and Mr Ashby in seeing Mr Russell QC for advice or looking for new careers out of pure altruism. Realistically, his preparedness to act for them was created and fed by their willingness to act against Mr Slipper’s interests and assisting Mr Brough’s and the LNP’s interests in destabilising Mr Slipper’s position as Speaker and damaging him in the eyes of his electorate….
167 …..In my opinion, Mr Ashby included the Cabcharge allegations in the originating application for the predominant purpose of injuring Mr Slipper and assisting a political attack on him to benefit Mr Brough and the LNP…
199...I am satisfied that the exceptional situation that enlivens the Court’s power to dismiss (or stay) proceedings as an abuse has been proved to the heavy standard required: Williams 174 CLR at 529. The duty and power of the Court to protect its own processes require that I give effect to the findings I have made by dismissing the proceedings under r 26.01...
Post a Comment