Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » Justice Rares hands down judgement countersigned by AG Nicola Roxon in the Peter Slipper James Ashby matter

Justice Rares hands down judgement countersigned by AG Nicola Roxon in the Peter Slipper James Ashby matter

Well here is an opinion of the Ashby/Slipper matter that is somewhat different to the one offered by Ray in the previous post at my Sandpit The author makes the same argument that I was suggesting in my comment to that post. Namely that the summary judgement is politically motivated and it is likely to be over turned upon appeal.
Cheers comrades

awig

Kangaroo Court of Australia

Justice Steven Rares has handed down a summary judgement accusing James Ashby of abuse of process, his application being politically motivated and using the proceedings to defame Federal MP Peter Slipper. This is hypocritical of Justice Rares to the extreme.

Rares judgement is clearly politically motivated and he abuses his position as a judge to defame numerous people who were not party to the proceedings thereby denying them natural justice.

What Justice Rares says about Ashby and others (Click here to read Rares’s judgement)

I have reached the firm conclusion that Mr Ashby’s predominant purpose for bringing these proceedings was to pursue a political attack against Mr Slipper and not to vindicate any legal claim he may have for which the right to bring proceedings exists

I am satisfied that these proceedings are an abuse of the process of the Court. The originating application was used by Mr Ashby for the…

View original post 1,647 more words

Advertisements

21 Comments

  1. Ray Dixon says:

    That guy’s a twit, Iain, and he’d be totally alone with that opinion – “the Judge was corrupt”! This is just his (and your) way of avoiding the truth.

    (Btw, what’s with the “DONATE” sign? Why raise money for that nut job?)

  2. Tel says:

    I rather expect that when they start to round up the bloggers and herd them into camps, KCoA will be the first one to get a knock on the door. He doesn’t seem too concerned with insulting powerful people.

    As a believer in evolution, I must be self consistent and thus conclude that the primary purpose of every government department is to maintain its own existence, and grow its budget where possible. The basic principle is that over time ecological niches will always be filled, so if there is any opportunity for corruption at the federal level, sooner or later someone will take advantage.

    Unfortunately, beyond that basic principle, evolutionary theory isn’t much good for making specific predictions, like knowing who and where and when and how to look for the problem. KCoA has at least demonstrated that there is no way for an ordinary citizen to demand examination of legal conduct of a Judge. You just have to trust Parliament to appoint good people, and you just have to trust the voters to vote for good parties.

    If you can’t trust the voters, who can you trust?

    Personally I do think that the Slipper trial did coincidently turn up at a rather politically opportune moment. That’s not proof of course, but it is highly suspicious. I also happen to think that documents vanishing from various government offices around Australia that just happened to be the critical bits of evidence implicating Julia Gillard seemed to be a suspiciously convenient coincidence. No one in Australian politics should be allowed to buy lottery tickets, because they are obviously far luckier than anyone else around.

  3. Iain Hall says:

    The “donate” sign is a function of the way that he writes pieces and the way that WP treats pictures when a post is re-blogged
    That said I think that you are confusing two things in the way that you look at this matter. The dismissal of this matter is based entirely on what Rares perceived the motivation for bringing this case were rather than any consideration of the truth of the allegations which the government thought substantive enough to settle with Ashby rather than to chance their arm in the courts.
    You see I don’t think that you can claim that political considerations in bringing this action are all that there is to the matter any more than I could possibly claim that they were of no consequence at all, they were obviously part of the story but not the whole story.

  4. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain, come on, the whole reason for the case was to get at (and weaken) the government. Don’t kid me (or yourself) that Ashby was a genuinely offended party and/or some kind of innocent here. The guy was a stooge for the coaltion.

  5. Paul Samson says:

    Ray’s got it.
    The case was purely political in nature. Pretty easy to see that ?

    It was to remove the sitting speaker, in controversy, and also to weakon the governments tenuous hold on the seat of government.

    Wouldn’t be the first time either. My memory turns back to the senate all those years, and the promotion of Lionel Murphy to the bench ?

  6. Iain Hall says:

    The political dimension does not have to mean that Slipper did not sexually harass Ashby Ray. all that it may show is that an opportunity was seen and exploited, rather than having been invented entirely out of the air as you want to suggest and believe.

  7. Ray Dixon says:

    That’s a load of doublespeak, Iain. Ashby set out to set Slipper up – with help from the LNP. There’s nothing more to it than that.

  8. Iain Hall says:

    I suppose that Asby sent all of those selacious texts to himslef with slippers phone then eh Ray?

  9. GD says:

    Vote Labor, vote sleaze. For a start you get misogynist Slipper, athiest marriage hating Gillard, pretend mother Penny Wong and brothel-creeping Craig Thomsen.

    Yes vote Labor and see our freedom of speech eroded.

    Yes vote Labor and see laws enacted that say you can’t call a spade a
    spade.

    Yes vote Labor and suffer under the carbon tax, the useless green
    schemes and the curtailment of free and colloquial speech.

  10. GD says:

    Pickering says it all…

    28049_434943769893120_1439598331_n

  11. Ray Dixon says:

    Great source, GD – Larry Pickering, the bankrupt fruit loop.

  12. Iain Hall says:

    Ray
    even “bankrupt Frootloops” are capable of truthful insights and Pickering makes a good point here.

  13. Brian says:

    And is there any evidence that the judge in this case has been subject to political influence? No, of course not. That is something the lying conman Pickering and his slavering fans like “GD” have conjured up.

  14. Iain Hall says:

    Hmm the only evidence that I can see is circumstantial Brian, its just a little too convenient for team Gillard that this matter was prevented from being properly heard and tested before the court.

  15. Brian says:

    Convenience and coincidence are evidence of nothing Iain.

  16. Iain Hall says:

    I am amazed how even the minions of the left were previously willing to admit that Slipper was a VERY flawed character but now they all want to argue that he is some sort of worthy soul who has been so terribly wronged. He was well dodgy before he took Gillard’s thirty pieces of silver and he is was and ever will be well dodgy now no matter what one judge may say.

  17. Brian says:

    Who here is arguing that Slipper is a “worthy soul”?

  18. Iain Hall says:

    Well those who claim that he has been “vindicated” by that judgement are IMHO.

  19. Brian says:

    No they aren’t Iain. They’re saying he’s been proved not guilty of sexual harassment. You’re reading far too much into it.

  20. Iain Hall says:

    They may be saying that Brian but the case has not been allowed to be heard so you can’t claim that Slipper has been found “not guilty” he has certainly managed to avoid answering the accusations but they have not been found to be be true or false.

  21. Brian says:

    Yes, sorry, I meant to type “not been proved guilty”. Which remains the case, thanks to a little legal principle called “innocent until proven otherwise.”

    There is absolutely no evidence that the judge was bribed, coerced or motivated by political factors. I’m afraid that those who claim that (including Larry Pickering, GD, you and the author of this blog fairly lame blog post) are just pissing in the wind.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: