In Australia - Moira Deeming defamation trial now on

[TheSandgroper]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-17/moira-deeming-john-pesutto-defamation-trial-day-two/104360100

This is from our very TRA ABC. Please note the comment from “Mr Southwick, a Jewish MP re Angie Jones’ tweet”. Well, Angie Jones is as Jewish as they come but they don’t say that.

Also, for, those who don’t know, see Angie on m.youtube.com/@TERFTalkDownUnder, though she hasn’t posted for a while. Some really good interviews.

You don't need to be a lawyers to know if someone is an employee or not.

What pathway could she have taken? Why ought she have done that pathway rather than the one she is pursuing?

I'm definitely interested in the hearing. Not as much interested in the other topics, at this time.

I would like you to find some analysis about common features of "hard left" regimes and then illustrate how those features manifest in the current western mainstream political landscape, to back up your claim that the far right is gaining support in response to the hard left.

A necessary basis of that hypothesis would be that the hard left are influential in Western political landscape and I don't believe that to be true.

I could do that quite easily to back up my opinions about the far right. So now its your turn.

You could also take the opportunity to answer the question about what evidence you have that Meloni is not far right.

Looks like we will need a new thread soon if someone wants to start one

I don't know, which was why I asked the question
If you are so certain of the position, maybe you can just answer constructively.

Transcript of this afternoon's proceedings, with the man on the stand (sp?)
Deeming Pesutto 240924.docx - Google Docs

Pesutto’s side submitted a crapload of Tweets as evidence

Yes, I was rolling my eyes at how cherry picked and predictable they were. "Some people on Twitter think she's a Nazi".

As @FeralWoman said it seems like they are adhering to a very particular view of defamation, which may be the law in Australia, I don't know.

SC: You thought it acceptable to use a screenshot and not the full article
JP: I’m not a lawyer. It was to a make firm and early view
SC: As a trained lawyer you subscribe to rule of law?
JP: Yes
SC: And part of rule of law in your mind in March 2023 included procedural fairness?
JP: Yes but I’d say this was and could never be a judicial process. I had to consider reputational damage to the party. Those comments attributed to Mr. Sewell were not in dispute as far as I understood.
SC: There’s a range in the dossier from documents that would be for judicial process and some prepared by an 8 year old?
JP: I have to protect the standing of the party I lead. I understand the question but there are many things I have to take into consideration. I was satisfied there was enough info at our disposal
SC: I’m suggesting to u there is carelessly vs very careful as to the material in this doc
JP: I...had the matter investigated, had staff to assist. Nothing presented to me told me there was anything irregular about the comments made
SC: You are struggling to answer my question. There us a range of very careful and not very careful?
JP: I reject that
SC: On that night you considered the care you took preparing this document fell short of judicial process
JP: I’m saying it’s not a judicial process. At no stage did I review Sewell comments in the dossier
SC: As a politician, a leader, legally trained, you understood cutting and pasting an article without context to make a serious allegation was wholly inadequate
JP: I reject
SC: You agree the range I describe this dossier is no better than a project prepared by an 8 yr old?
JP: I reject
SC: Also channel 9 news broadcast. You didn’t see that broadcast. Re the broadcast, all it said was MD attended the rally and was photographed with KJK. You didn’t discern that channel 9 was accusing MD of associating with nazis?
JP: I can see it didn’t say that
SC: Report said nazis protested opposing groups and your impression of the report was the nazis had appeared in Parliament to cause trouble with 2 parties of protesters
[JP understands that’s what was said]
SC: MC showed Social Media (SM) posts - has anyone posted anything untrue about you?
JP: There isn’t a day
SC: Some of the things you’ve been accused of are serious on social media? Racist?
JP: I presume I’ve been called just about everything
SC: That you’ve associated with far right groups?
JP: If you say so
SC: You’ve been accused of things on soxiam media?
JP: Yes
SC: And do u agree with them?
JP: No
SC: It’s not your position that SM should be considered as a reliable source of info?
JP: For most part – for the amount of ppl on SM. I get that.
SC: You wouldn’t rely on a SM post by unknown person as true without checking it?
JP: Yes

spelling and typos are left in verbatim, from my link above

SC: You accept in your mind re the convo with Mr Wells and thr party room resolution that the party required you to state MD was not a nazi or sympathiser?
JP: Substance was I agreed that
SC::I say after 27th March u never did that
JP: I did on May 4th
SC: I’ll read out [reads ‘I never accused MD of being a nazi or sympathiser’.] Stating you did not call her a nazi in the dossier is not the same as publicly stating that. Agree or disagree?
JP: I don’t think any – particularly with motion reached. On 12th May the party debated the finalisation of the outcome of 27th March meeting. They were satisfied I’d done that

SC repeats the question about saying and writing being two different things
JP: Yes. I dispute the term exonerate here.
SC: OK I’ll not use it. There’s a difference between saying ‘I never said that’ and ‘it’s not true’?
JP: Yes
SC: You were required to say ‘its not true’
JP: I don’t accept wording you used.
[There is confusion from JP]
SC: You agreed MC was correct that the motion required you to say MD was not a nazi sympathiser and what you said on 4th May you did not do that?
JP: I’d argue I did
SC: I suggest what u said on 4th may, para 231 of MD affidavit
JP: Yes I said those words
SC: And those words to satisfy the motion set on 27th March?
JP: I maintain they did
SC: Is that an honest answer JP
JP: They’re the quotes from 4th may?
SC: Yes
JP: From my recollection we had a debate about aspects and then justified in the 12th May minutes.
Judge: Take JP to precise terms of motion that was agreed upon
SC: What minutes JP?
JP: 12th May
SC: MD wasn’t at the meeting 12th May. Mr Wells didn’t agree with the motion?
[JP don’t believe he supported motion]
SC: You say tou set out to do uour side of the deal on 27th March?
JP I believe so
SC: You waited 6 weeks?
JP: I don’t accept. There was alot of discussions that took place 27th March- 4th May. Meetings internally about outcome of meeting particularly focus on joint statement – disputed then resolved – suspension largely settled. Component round the apology wasn’t the main subject of contention between myself and leadership team.
SC: Can u point to anything u said publicly which you say satisfied your end of agreement?
JP: Can’t recall
SC: You U knew didn’t you that Mr Southwick was negotiating with MD about what she had to say on 27th?
JP: Yes
SC: You knew [reads ‘expulsion’]. Did you have any understanding on 27th march if MD was required by leadership team to publish her side?
JP: Wasn’t the Leadership team. Was Mr Southwick and Nicholas johnstone

SC: You U understood those 2 were ensuring MD was publishing her statement that day?
JP: No there was no joint statement and that was part of the dispute
SC: Was it your understanding that day that MD was required to publish a statement about her side?
JP: No that’s not how I understood the matter. First it was a resolution of the party room. Collective decision that was made. Party room outcome was that a statement jointly prepared and that’s what happened
SC: Did you understand that statement had to be published that day?
JP: Yes
SC: And those two were working to get MD to publish her words that day but not yours?
JP: Yes
SC: Why
JP: Because we’d imposed suspension of 9 months and we needed a statement from MD. It was a sanction and a statement was needed.
SC:What made u think you could publish your words which was part of the deal at any time?
JP: I’ve a problem with the word ‘deal’. There was an urgency for MD to make statement
SC: You understand it makes no sense for urgency on item 2 but not item 3.
JP: I had never asserted MD was a nazi sympathiser and needed to address the rally
SC: In failing to carry out Item 3, until May 4th, you breached the agreement?
JP: I reject that
SC: Your interpretation that item 2 urgent and item 3 was not, was a breach of negotiations that had occurred with Mr Wells and You?
JP: I reject that
SC: You agree, as a lawyer re items 2 and 3, there was nothing in that wording to make party room understand. You knew when you put that out you were representing the party room that items 2 and 3 would occur contemporaneously. You knew if it was your intention to wait weeks you should have informed the party room before they voted
JP: I reject
SC: You agree the manner hou approached that motion, I’ll list
1: negotiations with Mr Wells
2.Representation to party room as to agreement

1. Wording of the motion
2. And that What you later told press –

That the motion was wholly dishonest on your part at every turn? JP: I reject SC: I want to ask about some recordings. When was 1st time you listened to the recording of the meeting with MD? JP: Week before the trial started SC: Did you know Mr Southwick was recording? JP: No SC: You sure? JP: Yes SC: You know there are 2 tapes. 1st recording starts at beginning of meeting 5.24 pm. What happened next was that you and your leadership team walked out the meeting. JP: We went to another room SC: Did you not see Mr Southwick take out his phone and record? JP: No SC: You U see that the recordings start at the beginning of the meeting and end at the end? JP: Yes SC: And u never saw Mr Southwick recording? JP: No SC: When did you find out about them? JP: Early 24 SC: How did you come to find out? JP: Mr Southwick mentioned he had a recording. SC: Do you think this happened before or after being sued? JP: Likely after SC: Before or after yo filed defence? JP: Could have been after I’m not sure SC: Were you shocked Mr Southwick had recorded? JP: Surprised SC: Did you ask for a copy? JP: No. Not my possession SC: He is your deputy. Are you suggesting if you had asked for it he would have declined? JP: I don’t know SC: You know if you had asked he would give it to you? JP: I don’t know that SC: You U say you are close and work as a team JP: Yes SC: Surely you know there’d be no doubt he’d give it to you. Did you not want a copy? JP: I didn’t see that as mine. I didn’t want it in my possession SC: Why? JP: Always been my view recordings of that nature, though legal, it’s just not my practice to do that as a lawyer or in public life SC: Can hou listen to my question? JP: I did SC: You didn’t want a copy because it contradicts your evidence – JP: I can only restate what I said before, I was always confident meeting handled appropriate and well SC: That’s not what I asked JP: In fairness I was asked what I thought meeting would disclose Judge: Why did you say it wasn’t yours to disclose? That you’d be bound by the tape? SC: You didn’t tell your lawyers about this tape til 3 weeks ago. Why? JP: On sat before Mon I began reviewing materials my lawyer asked me to review. Saw it for first time and prompted me to reflect whether i should raise with my lawyers SC: Because MD had discovered the recording? That isn’t right. You only raised it as you were worried MD had her own recording of that meeting? JP: No SC: You’re aware your lawyers asked if she had a recording. The only reason you disclosed that recording was because you were concerned MD had her own recording JP: I reject that

SC: You u understood after filing defence that that meeting was relevant event to your defence?
JP: Yes
SC: And it’s a meeting that you rely on
JP: Yes
SC: You understood there was a dispute before affidavits as to what was said at the meeting?
JP: Yes
SC: You knew that a recording of that meeting would save court and parties a lot of cost?
JP: I didn’t at the time but do now
SC: And you knew best evidence was Southwick recording
JP: True
SC::As a lawyer you also knew it was dishonest of you to not disclose in affidavits that those recordings existed
JP::I reject
SC: For what reason did you not disclose..by July you knew there was a real dispute as to what was said at that meeting
JP: Yes
SC: You knew it was dishonest not to disclose that recording?
JP: I reject
[SC takes JP down the line of questioning regarding using staff emails but not staff recordings]

SC: When Mr south told u about recordings did you not ask if anyone else had seen it?
JP: I remember he said ‘noone has seen this but’
SC: Had you discussed tapes with Crozier?
JP: Yes I was allowed
SC: What did u say to her
JP: I said there’s a recording and appears to contradict MD
SC: What did she say?
JP: That she wanted to hear it
SC: Was she given a copy?
JP: I understood she was
SC: Mr Pintos? Any discussions with him?
(Missed)
SC: If it was case you didn’t consider the recording was illegal, you had no reason not to seek a copy from Mr Southwick and offer to the proceedings
JP: Ive already said I didnt regard it as a doc in my possession
SC: You U said you found out about in late Dec/ Jan and hou disclosed 2 weeks ago
JP: Yes
SC: There was nothing stopping you seeking the recording
JP: But I didn’t for reasons explained
SC: But then you did two weeks ago?
JP: After listening to 23rd Feb meeting and reflecting and then I approached Mr Southwick at leadership meeting at 11am just a few mins before we went in. I asked if I could confirm tape existed and he confirmed he had it. I didn’t probe as to whether it was whole thing. We then went into shadow cabinet which would finish at 12. 30 and then went to see Mr Southwick before seeing my lawyers. To close the loop on the convo that was cut short and told him I was proposing to raise it. I said I’d let lawyers know
SC: Is it your understanding ur lawyers asked Mr Southwick for recordings?
JP: Yes
SC: He recorded. You were the leader and him deputy. Was it not shocking to you he recorded?
JP: No
SC: Not that he took the recording – that he didn’t disclose it to you?
JP: I didn’t find that shocking
SC: Did you not find it shocking that he’d made recording til late Dec early Jan?
Jap: No
SC: Did you ask what else have you recorded?
JP::No reason to believe he recorded other things
SC: Why no reason?
JP: You didn’t ask why he recorded it?
SC: No
JP: Why he didn’t tell you he’d recorded it?
SC: No
SC: Are you telling the truth?
SC: Yes

(assume the last should be JP: Yes)

You don't know the difference between an employee and an elected political representative?

What is the question you are asking about that?

I told you she wasn't an employee. And I informed you she cannot be unfairly dismissed as an employee, the laws on unfair dismissal relate to employees. You can't fire a politician. They can be removed from office.

SC: Are you familiar with LP statement of beliefs?
JP: Yes
[Shown on screen]
SC: There’s a donate button there. Do you see there that LP believes in basic freedoms
JP: Yes
SC: And do u agree leader does not change the fundamental beliefs?
JP: Yes
SC: And there are different leaders in each territory so wouldn’t work if underlying beliefs changed depending on who leader is

JP: That’s more complicated than it’s being put. Basic proposition it’s true but we debate on daily basis
SC: It’s not a dictatorship is it?
JP::Of course not
SC::Frankly your personal values as leader are irrelevant to underlying beliefs and values of LP?
JP: That’s wrong
SC: It’s not your party, as of March 2023, you’d been leader for a few months
JP: Of course it’s not my party
SC: Your leadership team were responsible to making decisions on meeting
JP: Of course they were. Any suggestion the leader isn’t relevant to principles is unrealistic
SC: You U were elected by 1 vote.
JP: So what
SC: Would you like to answer my questions? I’m suggesting you as a person coming into leadership after a failed election your beliefs were irrelevant to LP
JP: That’s wrong
SC: There’s people in your party room with views very different to your own
JP: Yes
SC: And you don’t suggest their expelling because of that ?
JP: Of course not
SC: If they express different views?
JP: That’s a difficult question, depends how they express them,
SC: The determination as to expulsion isn’t dependent on your views
JP: The values a leader brings shape the pathway of the party during that person’s role on leadership and those values are very important
SC: Members of your party, 31 of you?
JP: 30 now
SC: ah yes. One less woman. The members of your party were elected by people and their own campaigning and values of LP
JP: Partly true
SC: In para 7 of your affidavit [on screen] under ‘my values’. You refer to you losing your seat in 2018 and attribute that to the party drifting away from mainstream?
JP: Yes, moved away from issues that mattered to them. Perception we were focussed on things other than cost of living – top priorities for them
SC: In 2022 you won your seat back. As far as party procedures are concerned, motions are moved in party room meetings?
JP: At any time but we don’t tend to have a time period
SC: Prior to march 2023 it was not procedure of motions by notice to the media
JP: Wasn’t a specific policy on that
Judge: In your experience in that position have you ever known of a motion to be released to media before?
JP: Can’t recall doesn’t mean it didn’t happen
SC: You’re not aware the release of a motion to the media before March 2023
JP: Yes The motion to expel Bernie Finn
SC: Is that something u recalled recently
JP: I recall generally not specifically because it informed my opinion later on re Mr Finns expulsion. I went back to retrieve articles around that but do recall around the time
SC: Are you sure that what u found wasn’t discussion after it had been voted on?
JP: From material I saw, given I couldn’t recall, were of comments made prior to the meeting. One was Australian article and another one I recall.
SC: They’re not reports your aware of before preparing affidavits
JP: I’d forgotten about those reports
SC: You agree expulsion is serious matter
JP: Yes
SC: And MD allowed to proceed with fairness – she was entitled to respond at meeting
JP: Yes
SC: And other MPs were entitled to speak at meeting
JP: Yes
SC: And vote was to occur after each person who wanted to speak had done so
JP: Yes
SC: And to occur after people put forward evidence
JP: Yes
SC::It would be unfair to MD to pre-judge it
JP: I don’t agree
SC: You U don’t agree?
JP: No I don’t
SC: You’re saying it wasn’t unfair or anyone voting to pre-judge the meeting?
JP: The party room is a room of MPs, elected and able to understand that as leader whether they agree with me or not that u have broader responsibilities. I didn’t need to communicate with the public and I don’t think that’s inconsistent
SC: Public don’t vote
JP: No. I think public needed to understand why major political party was taking action to vote on an expulsion. I believed it was essential to explain to victorian people.
SC: Thank u for that speech but could you answer the question. Your job here as a witness is to listen and answer questions. It’s not your job to give speeches
JP: Some of the questions are open
SC: Is it your view you have answered my questions this afteenoon?
JP: I believe so
SC: Haven’t you given speeches in your own political interest?
JP: Yes
SC: And isn’t that all you’ve been doing all afternoon?
JP: No
SC: As leader to say the motion would succeed before the party room was wrong ( my words). There was nothing MD could have done to stop that motion
JP: Don’t accept. Lots of things she could do
SC: You said you were confident motion would be moved
JP: I was extremely concerned to risks to party if we didn’t take urgent action. Sat down with MD
SC: Are you suggesting when you refer to meeting of March that that was an opportunity for her to give her version?
JP: No No she had an opportunity to talk to us as to what she would do in the matter
[Live link gone]

Pesutto is so slippery and irritating for that reason.

I know I've just posted several walls of text, but I hope they are informative, or just use your mouse wheel (I'm sure users of this forum know where the mouse wheel is). They comprise the bulk of Pesutto's testimony, as far as I can tell.

Whereabouts did this transcript come from, Bez? Thanks for posting it.

I found the link on this page, which I got by googling

Moria Deeming Hearing

ETA: I've appreciated a lot of effort from different posters in the past, so happy to contribute in this small way here

Moira Deeming v John Pesutto: A Case Resource (substack.com)

Perfect, thank you, glad Tribunal Tweets are doing this!

@TheSandgroper do you want to start another thread? This one will end shortly.

@Ereshkigalangcleg Thanks for the heads up. Please move to thread 2.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5172553-moira-deeming-defamation-trial-thread-2-from-australia

I'm there! Thank you!

@BezMills might be good to c and p your transcript posts onto the new thread.

Thank you Bez.

This has been awesome!

What was really interesting is that Sue also questioned that whole 'has the federal Liberal Party's beliefs changed' line. It think there is a real dissonance in people forgetting that the Liberal Party is one that has had what some posters have tried to categorise as 'extreme' as beliefs that have been shared by their federal leaders, and leaders in the past 10-20 years too.

This creep of describing groups as being 'far right' when they are not, as we saw with the Australian CPAC conference being described as 'far right' because there was a lack of a far right example, leads to misinformation being spread. And the mandates and beliefs of one state is not reflective of the entire party.

And if Pesutto could really expel an MP based on beliefs that would be acceptable under the federal leadership, then that would indeed be a significant concern for the democratic processes within the party. Hence, it is important to be accurate in describing whether Moira Deeming's views were 'extreme' for the Liberal Party, or merely acting against the election strategy for the Victorian Liberal Party leadership team.

Because, as with this entire case, getting the facts right matters.

And if Pesutto could really expel an MP based on beliefs that would be acceptable under the federal leadership, then that would indeed be a significant concern for the democratic processes within the party. Hence, it is important to be accurate in describing whether Moira Deeming's views were 'extreme' for the Liberal Party, or merely acting against the election strategy for the Victorian Liberal Party leadership team.

Because, as with this entire case, getting the facts right matters.

Quite. To the new thread!