The US JAG corps., has gone rogue . This US detachment working well in Australia under the Obama rainbow flag.

White conservative Christian male? The JAG corps., are after you!

Currently on display in the US military, doing an efficient job on expunging WCC’s from its ranks. BLM.

Wake up call to the West, owned and controlled by lawyers pushing rainbow ideology from its toxic high nest .

Great news for justice and decency. Justice for Drumgold shouldn't end with forced resignation. And other heads, including politicians and one particular bureaucrat should roll. It's a waste of time suggesting the ABC should be penalised, given that the political duopoly is frightened of it.

Now is the time to overturn Higgins' payout out and put it toward compensation for Lehrmann.

We have yet to see Sofronoff's report, but his comment that it was right to charge Lehrmann is certainly peculiar. As are his remarks on the 'mental health' of a person who is looking colder and more vicious with time.

The justice system is in tatters. Throw in the Voice, climate hysteria, censorship of free speech, the increasing arrogance of the political class, and the maniacal media, we will soon be allied with Russia and Communist China.

So some questions.

After it has been acknowledged that Detective Inspector Marcus Boorman deliberately deleted 2 notable paragraphs of a document by other police accusing Bruce Lehrmann of lying why does he still have a job? The edited document was sent to higherups to determine the prospect of rape charges against Lehrmann.

Those paragraphs were:

"The version of events do not seem plausible. The suggestion that two people enter and office at that time of evening and have no further interaction seems unlikely;

However, given the intense media interest in this matter, it is possible that Mr Lehrmann felt he had to lie to investigators or he would be arrested."

Secondly, why did the chair of the ACT investigation Walter Sofronoff send the report to Janet Albrechtsen, a hard right winger who has been vigourously attacking Higgins and defending Lehrmann? Is the potential 'leaking' of such a significant report a criminal offence under section 17 of the ACT Inquiries Act 1991? Did Sofronoff really expect the Murdoch press to respect any kind of embargo given their history? Why shouldn't some people be entitled to feel this may have been done to ensure Albrechtsen's perspective on the findings had clear airtime?

Finally Justice Lee's judgement says "Consistently with his oral evidence, Mr Lehrmann was fashioning some of his comments to suit the perceived exigencies of the moment. It was understandably put to Mr Lehrmann on several occasions that the logic of his evidence was that he had been “fabricating” advice and “lying” to his interlocutors. In large part, these characterisations were accepted."

Why is he believed on anything?

Disagree with the bulk of this blatantly biased rubbish. And a masterclass in, I believe, how to misinform and bastardise the truth.

The legal system is not concerned with daylight or ventilating the truth. Just about winning!

If the almighty irrefutable truth mattered at all, we would deploy new space unbeatable covertly deployed lie detectors!

And the very last thing this, I believe, too clever by half, "author/(!)" and the majority of the legal profession want!?

We cannot legally retry the Britany Higgins case. It's over, done and dusted! The young man accused in this case, has walked virtually scot free.

Only his family and a still persecuted Miss Higgins have paid/are paying with lifelong negative outcomes and harm no amount of compensation can compensate.

My mother raised me to consider the consequences of my actions before embarking on them.

And if romance and a sexual encounter was contemplated? I needed to ask myself this question. Do I want this woman to be the mother of my children?

No amount of (born to rule) privilege or wealth should obviate this question!
Alan B.

What, SteeleRedux says!
Alan B.

"Now is the time to overturn Higgins' payout out and put it toward compensation for Lehrmann."

I support this.
If there's no trial and no finding of guilt...
- Then the only matter is compensation for Lehrmanns defamation.

Regardless of whether he did it or not;
'Innocent until PROVEN guilty.'
- It's better that a guilty person goes free than an innocent person be convicted.