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.