SM,

"....Secondly, even if he was, the misconduct (i.e. the theft of information) was by Ashby not Brough..."

: )

Excerpts: (Rares J)

"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."

"Conclusion

196 Having read all of the text messages on Mr Ashby’s mobile phone, as Mr Ashby’s senior counsel invited me to do, as well as the other evidence, 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. Mr Ashby began planning that attack at least by the beginning of February 2012. As Mr Ashby and Ms Doane agreed in their texts of 30 March 2012 what they were doing “will tip the govt to Mal’s [Brough] and the LNP’s advantage”: [66]. It may be a coincidence that Mr Ashby suggested to Mr Slipper the idea of becoming Speaker just as Mr Brough began to move towards challenging Mr Slipper for LNP pre-selection for his seat and Mr Ashby ended up in an alliance in late March 2012 with Mr Brough to bring down Mr Slipper after he became Speaker. It is not necessary to make any finding about this or about whether Mr Slipper did sexually harass Mr Ashby in any of the ways alleged. It is also not necessary to consider whether these proceedings are “vexatious proceedings” within the meaning of r 6.02 or if that expression has a different meaning in r 26.01(1)(b) under which the Court can give summary judgment if “the proceeding is frivolous or vexatious”."

You've got a hide.

P,

Please get off your soap box and engage your brain. Vexatious court cases are not new and are frequently used by parties such as the greens, interest groups, political parties for various reasons, and with respect to severity on the scales of justice probably falls below jay walking.

The responsibility of the judge is to recognize these cases and dismiss them at the first hurdle. That the judge did not in spite of several pleas from government hired solicitors shows that there was definite merit in Ashby's case. That Ashby over egged the cake is not in doubt, and is the reason that the judge finally decided that the political ends of this case overrode the merits.

As for Brough, the judge refers almost exclusively to Ashby, and Brough is on the periphery.

So P, huff and puff as you may, this is a storm in a tea cup, and in no way compares to the theft and fraud that many Labor MPs are charged for.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-06/peter-dowling-accused-of-sending-explicit-texts-to-mistress/4867008
Shadow Minister likes me to post links.
He has told me so.
Says it at least is evidence I am not telling lies.
He, and others may well walk around this one.
It to them will look like the northern end product of a south bound Bull.
Normally they would gather it in, and use it instead of policy's, to throw at Labor.
Quite frightening in reality, see not the first not the last but one of many, fallen Liberals or their pet Nationals to fall.
Yet they are invisible, to such as SM, and others.
Who pretend the party the failures served is clean, and that is the frightening thing.
Abbott SM a thousand more want us to believe their side is populated by saints.
And too they reserve the right to lie/ make things up/miss lead Australia.

ICAC has made recommendations in regard to alleged corruption on a massive scale, perhaps in the tens of millions, of Obeid and McDonald.

Craig Thomson is facing more than a hundred charges of gross misuse of the union contributions of some of Australia's poorest women workers, in the hundreds of thousands, for pornography and prostitutes.

Mal Brough has been accused of getting access to material from the diary of a vile misogynist.

On a scale of 1 to 10, Poirot, how would you rate those offences ?

Cheers :)

Joe

No huffing and puffing at all, SM.

It's all here in black and white...a fascinating read of skulduggery!

http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2012/2012fca1411

"....Brough is on the periphery." (Chortle, snicker)

You should read it sometime.

Hi Poirot,

1 being not very corrupt, and 10 being extremely corrupt.

No hurry :)

Cheers,

Joe