Annette Kimmitt thought it was an outrage that her firm would represent the Attorney General against defamatory rumours and sent out emails to that effect. The next day she was fired.

"The head of the nation’s largest law firm is expected to leave the firm after emailing all staff last week to tell them the firm’s representation of Attorney-General Christian Porter had “triggered hurt” for her.

MinterEllison board chairman David O’Brien reportedly told Annette Kimmitt her ser­vices were no longer required after a board meeting on Tuesday.

The firm refused to comment on Tuesday night.

Partners were appalled by an email sent by Ms Kimmitt to all staff on March 3 in which she apologised for any “pain” they might be experiencing because of the firm’s representation of Mr Porter, accused of raping a 16-year-old 33 years ago. He has ­denied the allegations.

Ms Kimmitt also sent a separate email to all partners in which she criticised partner Peter Bartlett, one of Australia’s leading defamation experts and a former MinterEllison chairman, for accepting the Attorney-General’s instructions."

shifty & shady minister,

I don't follow your argument.

Are you saying Ms Kimmitt has a conscience?

PS. I found your role model: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBe_guezGGc

Without a trial no one is condemned as guilty under Western rules. These were two teenage kids and they should have been tried under the Childrens Court at the time if enough evidence existed of rape. Those that are baying for blood need to produce evidence, rather than trial by popular media opinion.

People jump on popular opinion campaigns without any knowledge of the facts. The Communist left will condemn without evidence because of political hatred. School girls have had male teachers stood down because they accidently brushed past them in class, claiming assault.

Nothing as dramatic as being "fired". She will be leaving the firm in "coming months", and will undoubtedly be snapped up by an employer just gagging for such a loudmouth. She will certainly be going with a fabulous payout (she has done nothing that would affect that), which raises the suspicion that, wanting to move on, she was advertising herself to the highest bidder.

The next day she was fired.
Good thing for our society !

Of course, she was fired. She was called in and told that her services were not required. Most senior positions have a 3-month clause so that they cannot share confidential information. This is often called gardening leave.

This is the same twisted logic that Antifa uses to justify violence and criminal activity because their cause overrules the law.

Mr uneducated,

No, I don't think Ms Kimmitt has a conscience, in fact, she demonstrated that she favours virtue signalling over legal ethics.

"Of course, she was fired. She was called in and told that her services were not required".

I'm sure SM has indisputable proof of this; he is just not sharing it with us.

If you are a lawyer you cannot justly represent balance in a case if you have already taken sides. She was not given his case, just heard the company was representing him so she already made a judgment of guilt. Probably based on his current political position. She cannot represent justice in her present position, until a Court hands down a verdict.

It has been publicly reported that Kimmitt, although CEO of the firm, is not herself a lawyer. Apparently she has an accounting background.

although CEO of the firm, is not herself a lawyer
ttbn,
Besides the point, she's sowed the seed of the gist to the point of no return !
The damage is done via a most insidious tactic !

ttbn,
Also, it shouldn't come as a big surprise if she didn't bleat sexual harassment before long unless of course, she is part of a plot to cause major damage to this Government !

individual,

It's not beside the point when another poster has spoken of the woman "representing" someone. In all likelihood, she is a jumped up office manager who runs the business side of the practice; in the same way as a 'practice manager' in a medical clinic is not a doctor.

individual,

Maybe she was planted by the Chinese.

There are a lot of people in Australia who are in bed with the Chinese.

We even have an MP who is a former(?) affiliate of the CCP.

ttbn,
I didn't disagree, I meant that by it is not the point anymore because by now she's done the damage she probably planned to do for some time.
I think it's all about sabotage to this Govt by ANY means !

Wake up all ! The CEO of a legal company should have known that the
lawyers taxi rank rule means that they cannot refuse to represent
a client. Many times they know someone is guilty but do their job
of being the legal representative.
For going against that rule is why she got the sack.
This is one of the main protections we will have against Albo if he
becomes PM as he is prepared to "legalise" kangaroo courts.

Bazz,

Lawyers have the right to refuse to represent clients. However, one of the fundamental morals of the legal system is that any person has the right to be represented and that representing someone does not imply in any way agreeing with the client.

What this virtue signalling Fwit did was post an unethical message to the whole company that was factually incorrect and trashed a fellow partner for doing nothing wrong.

No self-respecting company could keep her on.

Shadow Minister;
I was under the impression that they could refuse if it put them in a
conflict of interest situation or similar but otherwise they were
required to accept.
It is what they call the first cab on the rank rule.

Talking of rules, someone I know refuses to employ moslems.
He wrote to the Human Rights NSW Govt body and told them that he
refuses due to the Koran requiring moslems to kill unbelievers, so he
told them he had the right to refuse believers employment as they are
committed to kill him.
All he got was an acknowledgement.

"Dr Kate Ahmad and Dr Anita Hutchison shared an update on call for an inquiry into the rape allegation against Attorney-General Christian Porter and women’s safety in Parliament House

Tanya Plibersek and Larissa Waters will accept petition which has over 80,000 signatures.

Hi all. On Monday at the Canberra March4Justice, our petition will be received by the Hon Tanya Plibersek MP and Senator Larissa Waters. We are thrilled that such inspiring and powerful women are taking notice and supporting our cause."

80,000 people who have no knowledge of the facts of the case that happened between two teenagers 33 years ago, and the police have not laid charges. This is a political campaign, not a justice court

Bazz,

I think that is only possible for public defenders. Lawyers like most consultants can refuse to work for anyone for any reason including if they cannot pay. However, withdrawing from a client in a manner that affects their case is more difficult. One of the basic ethics of the law is the assumption that everyone deserves representation however heinous their crime.

The senior lawyer in question was already employed by Porter for other work and was not just taking him on. If in any other company a CEO had treated a senior employee the way this virtue signalling hussy did the chances of them staying on would be slight.

The Attorney-General Christian Porter has commenced defamation proceedings in the Federal Court against the ABC and journalist Louise Milligan.

He is suing over an article the ABC published on Friday, February 26, which he says made false allegations against him in relation to a person he met when he was a teenager.

In the last few weeks Porter “has been subjected to trial by media without regard to the presumption of innocence or the rules of evidence and without any proper disclosure of the material said to support the untrue allegations.

“The claims made by the ABC and Ms Milligan will be determined in Court in a procedurally fair process.”

“This Court process will allow them to present any relevant evidence and make submissions they believe justifies their conduct in damaging Mr Porter’s reputation.”

Porter’s lawyers include two leading barristers, Sue Chrysanthou SC, and Bret Walker SC, who appeared for Geoffrey Rush when he successfully sued the Daily Telegraph for defamation. Walker also acted for Cardinal George Pell, whose child sex abuse convictions were overturned in an appeal before the High Court.

Josephus,

I think that the best thing is for Porter to take the police polygraph test to show that whatever the ABC said is false.

Mr Opinion,
Polygraph tests are not reliable, memory tests after 33 years.

Mr Odious & Josephus,

Christian Porter has decisively turned the tables on the ABC. The ABC's malicious campaign has been designed to inflict the maximum damage, so now the ABC and LM in order to avoid multi $m damages will have to prove that Porter committed the rape. If they lose, Porter is essentially exonerated and a multimillionaire.

The ABC will have to fire some of their reporters such as LM to cover the payout.

shifty&shadyminister,

I think to be fair to all parties the police need to reopen their investigation into the reported rape and have Porter sit for a polygraph test.

PS Like you I'm wondering how many people will start coming out of the woodwork with knowledge of the reported rape.

Mr Odious,

You were calling for an independent inquiry and now that you have got it you want to use radical methods to interrogate an innocent person.

What's next? Thumb screws?

shadowminister,

Porter threatened to sue the ABC and Louise Mulligan over the Canberra Bubble story but realised there were too many witnesses so pulled the pin.

This time the prime witness is no longer with us so he may well feel he is on safer ground. However I'm not sure the grounds are. The dossier existed, the deceased made certain allegations, the woman took her own life. These are facts and reporting of such doesn't make the case at all.

What do you think the grounds will be?

SteeleRedux,
Can we have the source of the withdrawal of his defamation case, so we can evaluate his reasons are as you claim.

SR,

For the legally ignorant, Publishing a defamatory document is defamation. (damaging the good reputation of someone). The defence against a claim of defamation includes:

- The article was not specific as to the identity of the plaintiff. However, given the information in the article, the identity was clear.
- That the claim in the article was true. Here, the onus of proof lies on the ABC and Milligan.

Given that the Telegraph had the supposed victim testify and lost, things look grim for the ABC and LM.

shady&shiftyminister,

I don't believe that the ABC said it was true.

Didn't the ABC simply report that a Cabinet minister had been accused of rape?

What if there is a person who has knowledge of what happened and his/her account is different to Porter's?

Shadowminister,

You blithely write: “Publishing a defamatory document is defamation.”

They did not publish the document you legally and factually challenged minion.

Here is Porter's statement of claim.

http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Christian-Porter-Statement-of-Claim-1532021.pdf

What in the ABC articles attached do you deem nonfactual?

Dear Josephus,

Threatening to sue does not fully imply there was a case to withdraw.

Sr, You do not believe your own words, "Porter threatened to sue the ABC and Louise Mulligan over the Canberra Bubble story but realised there were too many witnesses so pulled the pin". Pulling the pin is withdrawing as you claim - too many witnesses.

You have no evidences of witnesses, even her parents claimed she made up stories. There were no witnesses, as you claim.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-08/christian-porter-accuser-four-corners/13226794

"I was drunk, and I trusted him, so I agreed. I had no real reason then not to. We went up to my room, and I let him inside … What did happen next was a total surprise to me. "

There are no witnesses who can corroborate that the events she described occurred."

I remember being in a jury of a case where a woman accused a close friend and lover of rape when she discovered she was pregnant with her lovers child, while her husband was away for six months work. The evidence was plain but some of the jury felt they wanted to protect the husband from the facts. But it was in the finish decided he was not guilty of rape, it was a story concocted by the wife of her lover. None of this finished well!

Dear Josephus,

Mate please go and do your research. The Canberra Bubble story by 4 corners in November last year spoke to Porter's dalliances with junior female staffers and historical appalling behavior toward women. He threatened to sue over it but finally decided not to do so.

What he is suing over this time is an article in February this year by Louise Mulligan.

Here it is.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-26/pm-senators-afp-told-historical-rape-allegation-cabinet-minister/13197248

You tell me what is defamatory about it.

SteeleRedux,

I have a very low opinion of the legal system and lawyers in general from the lowest solicitor to the highest judge.

I think they are dishonest and untrustworthy.

They are trained in oratory and sophistry with the singular purpose of convincing people that their arguments are the correct ones. Or, as someone once told me: "Their aim is to put doubt into people's minds."

Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a leech?
A: One is a blood sucking parasite; the other's a leech.

Here's an article I just found:

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/advantage-christian-porter-in-the-defamation-trial-of-the-century/ar-BB1eCslk

Will Porter have to stand down as the Attorney-General in order to avoid him having any influence over the judicial process? You know the old adage: birds of a feather flock together. The law is not impartial and always favours the advantaged.

I find it interesting that one of his lawyers has worked "for bikie gangs and tobacco companies and against traditional land owners." You can read my mind on that one.

PS Better get the police to polish up the old polygraph machine because I reckon they'll need it to solve this one.

SR,

Even someone as woke as you should be able to realise that an accusation of a "brutal rape" is extremely damaging to a person's reputation. If the accusation is false, that makes it defamation.

A media source that publishes an accusation that is false is as guilty of defamation as the original person making the accusation but because it broadcasts this accusation to many more people is responsible for far more damage and thus far more damages.

Given the catastrophic damage that such an accusation will have, there is an onus on any media organisation to ensure that the accusation can be proven at least on the balance of probability.

The court case will be about whether the ABC can show that this accusation has merit. If it can do so Porter's career is ruined, if it can't Porter is essentially exonerated and the ABC is reputationally and financially damaged.

shifty&shadyminister,

I don't think the ABC said that Porter was the rapist. Didn't the ABC just say that the rapist was currently serving as a Cabinet minister.

I couldn't work out who it might be until Porter came out and told the public that he was the person who had been named by the woman as the rapist. Why didn't he just keep his mouth shut. Everyone would have been left guessing. He's the one who put a name to the mystery man.

Unless you are saying that it was not Porter who had been named by the rape victim. Is that what you are saying?

One thing seems certain: the woman recalled being raped by someone in 1988 and she reported it to the police. That is a fact. And that is what the ABC reported.

And you are saying that it wasn't Porter. I assume you are saying that because you know who the rapist is. Are you going to report it to the police or volunteer to be a witness at the defamation hearings?

shifty&shadyminister,

The ABC is not the police and it is not authorized to conduct police investigations.

So won't the police have to re-open the case to determine who raped the woman in 1988?

I believe she was raped by and like most people I am interested to find out who did it and see justice done.

Do you think that is the best approach?

Mr uneducated,

That you "don't think" is the key to your last post, that you don't read should be added.

No one has claimed that the ABC article name Porter, rather that it gave sufficient detail to easily identify him which is exactly what the defamation suit has claimed.

shifty&shadyminister,

So are you saying he did not want to be identified as the person who the woman claimed had raped her?

shifty&shadyminister,

Did you see the interview with Malcolm Turnbull just over a week ago?

He seemed to me to indicate there was something more to be investigated and I thought he implied that the woman's death was a bit suspect.

Mr Opi,
A person does not take their life over something that they believe happened 33 years ago. There has to be other factors that trigger suicide, factors like the state of the mind at the time.

shadowminister,

In Shorten's case it was found that the was absolutely no case to answer. Should he then have been allowed to sue those who reported on it? That is ridiculous.

The ABC reported that an accusation had been made. Just because Porter can't sue the accuser doesn't mean he will be able to make the case that the ABC should then be sued.

The courts will tell us soon enough.

shifty&shadyminister,

Here's that interview with Turnbull on ABC where he seems to imply that there is something a bit suspect with the death of the woman who was raped in 1988:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/calls-inquiry-into-death-of-woman-allegedly-raped-1988/13205762

SR,

In Shorten's case, the police found that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute (same as with Pell) as there was one person's word against another's. They never said that there was no case to answer, but there was far more than with Porter.

With Porter, there is not even a witness or any corroborating evidence or even a complaint laid by a witness. But thanks for exposing your hypocrisy.

Shorten didn't need permission to sue, he just didn't because the chance was far higher that he would lose.

shifty&shadyminister,

What do you think of the interview with Turnbull above?

I don't think Porter will be wanting to get a character reference from Turnbull.

But maybe he could get one from this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBe_guezGGc

shifty&shadyminister,

I get the impression that in the interview Turnbull was suggesting that someone might have bumped her off to stop her from spilling the beans.

But who would want to do something like that?

Starting to look like something out of an Agatha Christie murder mystery: 'Murder On The Canberra Circuit'.

I guess the police will just have to round up all the usual suspects and give them the old polygraph test.

Mr Odious and uneducated.

What do you think of this analysis?

I will enjoy watching the ABC squirm.

"But the defamation law will ask the ABC to prove more than just what it actually reported. Porter’s lawyers say the story raised “imputations” – impressions in the minds of readers – well beyond those words. Imputations are the “vibe” of the story taken as a whole. In this story, the key impression Porter’s lawyers will argue was conveyed to readers is that he, as a matter of fact, “brutally raped a 16-year-old girl in 1988”, and that this contributed to her taking her own life.

Assuming the judge accepts these imputations, if it wants to defend itself on the basis that the article was true, the ABC will need to prove that the rape actually occurred. They will also need to prove that it contributed to the woman’s suicide. The police cannot prove these things. The ABC cannot prove these things. Nobody can.

Or, as The Australian’s Chris Merritt gleefully put it: “Milligan and the ABC are in a dreadful position. Their best option is a long, grovelling apology accompanied by a very large cheque. They have been snookered.”

shifty&shadyminister,

Why can't the police investigate the woman's allegations and determine if a crime was committed by the person she named?

Historians examine cases that occurred hundreds of years ago and are able to work out what happened. So why can't the police work out something that happened recently and where people who have knowledge of the event are still alive to give their account.

shifty&shadyminister,

There's also now Turnbull's suggestion from his interview that the woman might have met with foul play.

Surely if true this would warrant a police investigation.

shifty&shadyminister,

I just found this news item on the web:

http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/exboyfriend-of-christian-porters-accuser-reveals-new-details-about-alleged-rape-case/news-story/28106f04e81f33d1da74113c2ba69881

This is not good. This is not good at all. And it's not even an ABC news item.

This is going from bad to worse. We can't have people talking about other people all the time.

Someone has to pay for this.

Let's just forget anything ever happened and move on. I know! Let's go to Hawaii for a holiday!

Mr uneducated,

The police cannot investigate without a complaint and so far there is no complaint and no case.

Note that hearsay has never been admissible in a court case. Thus the ABC has no case.

shifty&shadyminister,

Oh, I see where you're coming from.

So if she was bumped off but did not complain about it to police then the police would not be able to investigate if she was bumped off.

Of course, why didn't I see it!

Mr Odious and uneducated,

I didn't think that you were so stupid to refer to "Kate's" suicide.

The answer is that the police are free to reopen coroner's findings at any time. However, most police are not Fwits like some on OLO who think that deaths that have been investigated and settled as suicide should be reinvestigated years later because someone completely unconnected to the case makes a throwaway comment.

shifty&shadyminister,

I understand that Turnbull in his interview referenced above has suggested that the death of the woman needs to be investigated.

That's my comprehension of what he said. Unless I got it wrong. Did I get it wrong?

What did you make of it?

Are you saying I got it wrong?

Has anyone else listened to the Turnbull interview above and understood him to say that the death of the woman needed to be investigated because it seemed a bit suspect?

Or have I heard it incorrectly?

Here it is again:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/calls-inquiry-into-death-of-woman-allegedly-raped-1988/13205762

Mr uneducated,

This is more relevant to the case:

https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/bb2ew7/art_students_are_usually_annoying_stupid_and/

"Artists are praised for their uniqueness and how open minded they are, however what I have seen in my major (which I now hate but can't escape because I've taken too many credits in) are some of the most douche baggy, privileged and pretentious losers. I can list all the personality types I've observed they are that predictable:"

shifty&shadyminister,

You are sidestepping my question about Turnbull's commentary on the death of the woman.

I wonder if the police are thinking along the same lines as Turnbull.

Things are starting to get exciting. Can't wait until the defamation case starts to see what comes out of the woodwork.

I hope you haven't got yourself caught up in this sordid affair and have kept your nose clean.

Mr Odius and uneducated,

You are sidestepping the far more relevant question of why everyone thinks art students are pompous twats. As for Turnbull, it would appear that you are the only one that cares what he says.

As for the defamation case, I am looking forward to the ABC's grovelling apology.

I also believe that there a rape by a Labor member against a staffer surfacing. I hope you haven't got yourself caught up in this sordid affair and have kept your nose clean.

shifty&shadyminister,

Wouldn't surprise if there are deviant politicians on both sides. I have always said I think they are dishonest and untrustworthy.

Have you got a name to put to the story or are you just making it up?

Maybe you have a video from YouTube showing him (or her) telling us how he didn't have sex with so and so. I love those videos.

And I especially love this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBe_guezGGc

Mr Uneducated and illiterate.

It would appear that neither you nor Pauliar ever read newspapers. References to these rumours have appeared in the "Fairfax" newspapers and in Newscorp papers over the last couple of weeks.

The journalists probably know the name of the Labor MP but are not as stupid as the ABC Louise Milligan to identify the person without proof.

If it is clearly shown that the ABC acted with malice Porter will be a rich man and it will give the coalition justification to take the ABC to task and fire some editors.

shifty&shadyminister,

I watched The Insiders this morning, where Peter Hartcher thinks Porter having sick leave is actually his boss Soot giving him an opportunity to resign instead of being fired.

I think that might also be the case for Linda Reynolds.

Hi Shadow Minister,

The ABC story referred to the incident as an allegation
only. They did not claim they knew it happened.
And the story did not name Porter. However, Christian
Porter's past history has left him with a guilty verdict
in the trial by the public.

The question is - whether a man who stands
accused of rape should be able to continue to hold
office without further investigation into the
claims. Is Mr Porter suitable to the office of
Attorney General? An independent investigation
commissioned by the office of the PM
can make a reasonable determination
as to Mr Porter's suitability. It can
also give Mr Porter a chance to clear his name.

Foxy,

What do you think of Turnbull implying in an interview that there are questions to be answered re the woman's death? Here's the ABC interview:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/calls-inquiry-into-death-of-woman-allegedly-raped-1988/13205762

Hi Mr O,

I think an independent investigation commissioned
by the Office of the PM would be the way to go.
However the PM appears not to be interested in going
down that path. I guess we'll have to wait and see
how this develops. Trial by media is not a good thing.

Foxy,

You didn't answer my question re the Turnbull interview above.

Good Evening Mr O,

I didn't comment on your link earlier because
to me it was old news. The PM is not
approving an investigation. And, Mr Porter has been
named.

Foxy,

I wouldn't call it old news. The interview is dated less than 3 weeks ago.

I found the important thing is that Turnbull is raising a question over the nature of the woman's death. He actually questions if it was suicide.

What does that mean? Is he implying that someone bumped her off?

People in high places don't do things like that! Never, I say! Never!

No, of course not. If you watch enough movies you will see that they actually have people to do it for them.

Hi Mr O,

It seems that you don't actually need my opinion you've
made up your mind.

Foxy,

I smell hypocrisy. There is far more solid evidence against Bill Shorten than there ever was against Porter. Do you support an independent investigation into Shorten too?

Secondly, there is no evidence surviving against Porter. The police have closed the case as there are no witnesses, no signed statement and the accuser who is now deceased was a certified bipolar sufferer subject to delusions. Whereas for Shorten the victim is alive and not insane.

Thirdly, a civil court case is as close to an independent inquiry as it is possible to get unless you consider a judge biased.

Fourthly, reading Louise Milligan's article it went far further than just reporting an "alleged" rape, and it put enough details about the alleged rapist that it was impossible for it to be anyone other than Porter.

The defamation case will either ruin or clear Porter or the ABC journalists involved.

Foxy,

No, I have not made up my mind. In fact I don't give two hoots about what happens to people like Porter.

But I am curious about Turnbull's comment in the interview that the woman might not have committed suicide. It's like something out of a Whodunnit.

Did you watch The Insiders last Sunday where Peter Hartcher suggested Soot has given Porter sick leave as a way out of the Cabinet?

shifty&shadyminister,

Why do you keep mentioning Bill Shorten? That's ancient history. No one's interested.

What do you think of Turnbull's comment in the interview?

I suppose you like most of us believed the woman committed suicide until Turnbull suggested otherwise.

Hi Mr O,

I'm not sure what to think about Mr Turnbull's
suggestion. I guess anything is possible.
And of course it adds to conspiracy theories.
Eventually I guess we shall learn the truth.
Or perhaps not.

Hi Shadow Minister,

From what I understand - the police did not find
anything to continue pursuing Mr Shorten after
their investigation. The same should happen
with Mr Porter. The PM should allow an independent
investigation to go ahead. It would give Mr Porter
a chance to clear his name - as happened with
Shorten. That's not hypocrisy - but the pursuit
of justice.

Foxy,

If Peter Hartcher is right Porter won't be the A-G when he runs out of sick leave. I understand Hartcher thinks this is what Soot is hoping for.

Hi Mr O,

We'll have to wait and see I guess.