In the biggest anti-climax ever: I am alive.In the second biggest anti-climax ever: get ready to learn about union politics in NSW.Yes, I've chosen to come b...
One, that wasn’t what I was talking about. Shanks had to pay 100k in legal costs in the Barilaro case, pull several videos, and there are some court matters still open in the aftermath of that. Google had to pay Barilaro 715k, and Shanks was referred for possible contempt of court.
Two, the police investigated the arson attacks, someone was arrested and charged. If that classes as “wouldn’t do shit about it” in your book, then I’m not sure what your expectations are.
Which is absolutely fucking ludicrous. Parliamentary Privilege should not be able to be used in that manner. It should protect a politician from any criminal charges against them, and against being sued. It should not be able to be invoked when you are the plaintiff in a case.
Shanks escaped contempt charges. Google settled because they didn’t want a precedent to be set regarding their liability.
During the course of the trial, several videos were uploaded referencing Barilaro’s legal counsel. [Judge] Rares stated that he was “shocked” by the videos, that suggested Barilaro’s lawyers may have submitted false statutory declarations. Rares stated that the videos appeared to be a “calculated” attempt at influencing Barilaro and his lawyers into withdrawing the case, and that he would give “serious consideration” towards referring the case to the Federal Court’s registrar for a contempt of court prosecution.
One, that wasn’t what I was talking about. Shanks had to pay 100k in legal costs in the Barilaro case, pull several videos, and there are some court matters still open in the aftermath of that. Google had to pay Barilaro 715k, and Shanks was referred for possible contempt of court.
Two, the police investigated the arson attacks, someone was arrested and charged. If that classes as “wouldn’t do shit about it” in your book, then I’m not sure what your expectations are.
Shanks was unable to defend himself in the former case because Balilaro invoked parliamentary privilege on evidence Shanks wanted to use.
Which is absolutely fucking ludicrous. Parliamentary Privilege should not be able to be used in that manner. It should protect a politician from any criminal charges against them, and against being sued. It should not be able to be invoked when you are the plaintiff in a case.
It should be a shield, not a sword.
deleted by creator
FWIW The videos were edited, not pulled.
Shanks escaped contempt charges. Google settled because they didn’t want a precedent to be set regarding their liability.
During the course of the trial, several videos were uploaded referencing Barilaro’s legal counsel. [Judge] Rares stated that he was “shocked” by the videos, that suggested Barilaro’s lawyers may have submitted false statutory declarations. Rares stated that the videos appeared to be a “calculated” attempt at influencing Barilaro and his lawyers into withdrawing the case, and that he would give “serious consideration” towards referring the case to the Federal Court’s registrar for a contempt of court prosecution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barilaro_v_Shanks-Markovina