Moira Deeming defamation trial - Thread 2 from Australia

[TheSandgroper]

Thread 1 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5167282-in-australia-moira-deeming-defamation-trial-now-on?page=40&reply=138525746

Tribunal Tweets Substack https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/moira-deeming-v-john-pesutto-a-case?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share. Thanks to @BezMills

Thanks to everyone on thread 1. I am pleased it generated such interest and conversations. I have learnt a lot from many very bright women.

Lol, apparently as shallow as a cheap child pool. Don’t forget he won the leadership by one vote so there’s someone else almost equally as shit as him.

Court is on lunch for another 1hr 15min.

Crysanthou is carving up Pesutto again.

Mumsnet got a mention today in a Pink News article from October? 2019 about KJK doing a video with a French Canadian right wing man. It contained quotes and posts from Mumsnet.

Pesutto again showed his contempt for women. Deeming agreed to make a statement condemning words and actions of KJK and AJ but Pesutto didn’t believe her. KJK had stated over the years that she’ll do interviews with anyone and doesn’t support Nazi beliefs but again Pesutto didn’t believe her. Of course not. They’re only women after all.

There’s a state election coming up in Queensland next month, and a federal election early next year. Pesutto is making the Liberal Party look worse than usual. I wonder if the other Liberal leaders are going to try to get rid of him? They might even put a woman in charge of Victorian Liberals to try to improve public perception of them.

Loving that a person in the public gallery has been wearing Woman and LWS t-shirts every day. Today it’s a LWS shirt with suffragette colours draped over it. Yesterday it was an adult human female shirt with a suffragette colours scarf.

Deeming is also wearing suffragette colours. An eggplant/purple top and a teal/green jacket.

Crysanthou cost $8 000/day in the last high profile defamation case of Bruce Lehrmann vs Brittany Higgins. She represented Lisa Wilkinson. For the same trial Collins cost $11 000/day. He represented Higgins.

I’ve been catching up on the morning session. They played part of Deeming’s speech as LWS. She was reading out a Muslim immigrant woman’s words about having less rights now in Australia than in her original home country.

They’ve changed the camera framing. The public gallery is no longer visible. Collins had objected to the action/behaviour of the public gallery and the judge reminded them that they are there to observe and not participate. Boo. Guess they noticed the LWS shirt.

Just in case anyone doesn't know or has forgotten: in Australia, the Liberal Party is not a left-wing party. Our general spectrum, beginning with the Left (Australian Democratic is hard centre):

Greens
Labor
Australian Democratic
Liberal
Nationals
One Nation

There are many smaller parties in between those groups, but these are the primary, well-known ones. So, on this spectrum, the Liberal Party is right of centre.

I’m curious why he hadn’t gone after Katherine Deeves. She was in the champagne video. She was preselected by the Liberal Party for a NSW seat. She was controversial because of speaking out for women’s rights. She wasn’t successful in getting elected. Guess that the Liberals who picked her are more powerful than Pesutto is willing to mess with. Deeves is one of Sall Grover’s lawyers for Tickle vs Giggle.

@MessinaBloom Where would you put Palmer United and Jacqui Lambie’s party?

Adjourned until Monday 10:15am. Tomorrow is a public holiday for Melb/VIC for an AFL football final on the weekend. Pesutto will still be on the stand because he’s been wasting time by waffling in his answers and not answering the questions resulting in them being asked again.

A picture of furby with Barbie legs was shown. Weird.

So awful to make unfair accusations, and to imply someone supports …. Mmm, nazis, now why didn’t you think of that before now, on a thread about a man who is on trial for that very thing…… mmm, but oh look says Cassie, look over there, away from the man in the dock.

Clive Palmer's party is middle right. It's had a difficult history, though, and has been deregistered with only one sitting Federal Senator left.

Jacqui's Lambie's party - Jacqui Lambie Network - I'm not overly familiar with. Her politics are quite individualistic. I'd put her party to the right of centre though. (She was formerly a Senator with Clive Palmer's party, so that brand of politics isn't new to her.)

Regarding donors to the cases:

Hopefully this will help.

https://archive.is/6ffiy

It has been listed as Clive Palmer’s wife Anna Palmer who has donated, not Clive Palmer. And of course, as a woman, she is perfectly capable of funding this case for her own reasons, such as she might care passionately about the needs of women and girls. Considering she grew up in Bulgaria, and has two teenaged daughters of her own and a step daughter.

Moira Deeming referenced Warren Mundine as a family friend who was another influence on her politics in her first speech.

https://www.facebook.com/MoiraDeemingMP/videos/judge-for-yourself-my-maiden-speech-to-parliament/1497520223990710

Warren Mundine was also the chairman for the Australian Labor Party nearly twenty years ago. And has been a Liberal party candidate himself not so long ago and is still, I believe, a member of the Liberal Party. He also is the chairman of CPAC.

He also is listed as giving a supportive affidavit.

His reasons?

“Mr Mundine told The Australian he had known Mrs Deeming and her family “for many years”, and helped her to campaign at the last state election.”

“We got big swings in western Melbourne to the Coalition. It was the only place in the state that the Liberal Party got swings, really,” he said.”

“I saw John as the hope, after I met him, to getting the Victorian Liberals back on track, to throwing the Labor government out, but within weeks, he trashed all that (by taking action against Deeming).”

“I don’t understand why he did that. To be quite honest, and it’s a sad indictment of the situation, as they’re going to find it very difficult to come within cooee of the Labor government, despite how bad the government is.”

“I’ve known Moira and her husband and family for many years. I’m very confident that she will win (the case against Pesutto), because there is no way that she is some sort of crazy Nazi and I don’t understand why the party has gone down this track.”

“Everyone involved in this, even the three former Premiers on the other side, we’re all in this for the betterment of the Liberal Party. I want to make that quite clear. We need to have the Liberal Party in Victoria back in government.”

The three former Premiers referred to here supporting Pesutto are :

Jeff Kennett, Ted Baillieu and Denis Napthine

And it seems that Jeff Kennett from what I read yesterday has said any MP giving a supportive affidavit should not expect to be re-selected for the next election. Which is a chilling and I would hope, empty, threat.

“They might even put a woman in charge of Victorian Liberals to try to improve public perception of them.”

That would be great! But I hope it would not be Georgie Crozier. We have already seen that she considered Moira Deeming’s two speeches about the negative impacts on women and children from gender identity as being worthy of censure.

From the previous thread it was those two speeches that formed the two of the ‘three incidents’ -

First incident

https://www.facebook.com/MoiraDeemingMP/videos/judge-for-yourself-my-maiden-speech-to-parliament/1497520223990710/

Here is the 'second incident', the IWD speech:

x.com/moiradeemingmp/status/1634411680498335745?s=46&t=SPorwN-mokktL467rcZ57g

And the transcript for the above.

www.parliament.vic.gov.au/parliamentary-activity/hansard/hansard-details/hansard-974425065-20509

Now Georgie Crozier may personally support women’s and children’s needs on this issue, however, she seems to not be interested in allowing MPs visibility in actively campaigning. Which is something that I, personally, find worse than not having an interest at all.

@Helleofabore

It has been listed as Clive Palmer’s wife Anna Palmer who has donated, not Clive Palmer. And of course, as a woman, she is perfectly capable of funding this case for her own reasons, such as she might care passionately about the needs of women and girls. Considering she grew up in Bulgaria, and has two teenaged daughters of her own and a step daughter.

That's very funny. Thank you.

So if a rich man wanted to donate, he simply needed to obscure his intentions by putting his wife's name on it and that works for you?

Everyone has female relatives. Not everyone is as extremely wealthy as Clive and Anna Palmer.

OMG I know Hilton Grugeon!

This is a feminist board, if I remember correctly.

I believe that a couple in a relationship can have differences in politics. I also believe that a woman can choose to support her own campaigns.

And yes, of course Palmer could have been behind the donation. However, I choose to give Anna Palmer the agency to make her own decisions.

And when it comes to why someone has supported a campaign, I tend not to put my own personal biased interpretations of people's motivations unless I can see from their own words a pattern to indicate those motivations. Sometimes, I do this but I try not to, because people are sometimes very contradictory people.

For instance, for someone who threatened to report me for my 'aggression' when I was asking you questions to clarify your stance, and who makes posts accusing people of mocking you, you seem to have your very own meanings of those words when it comes to you doing it to others.

@Helleofabore

For instance, for someone who threatened to report me for my 'aggression' when I was asking you questions to clarify your stance, and who makes posts accusing people of mocking you, you seem to have your very own meanings of those words when it comes to you doing it to others.

I genuinely found it funny. I'm sorry if you took offence to that. CP isn't known for doing things correctly, particularly when it comes to finance. Of course, Anna might have made the donation herself, but on the balance of likelihood? Who can say.

Re: aggression and mocking, being in the minority, I'd say I put up with so much more than you realise. Perhaps I've just decided to give back a little bit.

And besides, your questions were repetitive, pointless and designed to put me off - so yes, they were aggressive.

So, again. You frame others posts how you wish and make accusations, and then you think you are within your rights to 'give a little back'. Just because.

I call that hypocrisy. But you should feel free to continue to do so. Keep on doing you.

Again, this seems to be you framing others with motivations that you are attributing to them rather than what people say is their motivation.

My questions were repetitive, yes, because your answers were confusing and I was trying not to make assumptions. They were not pointless when you traced them back to the original points, they became pointless because of the subsequent pattern of posting. And no, they were no designed to 'put you off'. That is truly your own projection of my motivation in asking you questions.

You have made a couple of statements that I had wrongly assumed were backed by some kind of evidence. My error, it seems, was assuming you were commenting from a position of knowledge rather than a position of only opinion.

My mistake and I will not be making it again.

Does anyone know why Clive Palmer would want/need to hide it if he was backing Deeming financially?

I have just c&p'd from twitter feed. Apologies if I have missed anything.

Moira Deeming v John Pesutto, Day 9 Part 2

From ExposingNV

Sue Chrysanthou SC continues her cross examination of John Pesutto

SC asks JP whether, at the time of the publication of the Media Release, he believed Deeming had been associated w/ neo-Nazis and white supremacists Pesutto says no, he didn't believe that

SC: "By engaging in strong criticism of Neo Nazis in the 1st paragraph of the Media Release & moving straight on to my client, the conduct of the two would be conflated"?

Pesutto doesn't accept this

In the Media Release, there's a reference to Deeming associating with other organisers who are assoc w/ right wing extremists

Pesutto accepts this would be understood that Deeming was associating w/ far right extremist groups & neo-Nazis

After publishing the Media Release, people started contacting Pesutto. There were also media articles that evening where his Media Release was re-published

The Media Release refers to "other organisers being publicly associated w/ far right extremists"

SC asks Pesutto what he means by "publicly associated"

Pesutto refers to the Champagne Video as an example

SC: "How does the Champagne Video = publicly associating w/ Nazis?"

Pesutto says the video shows them not taking the issue seriously, making light of Nazi attendance & spouting conspiracy theories

SC: "How does 'making light of Nazi attendance' = public association w/ Nazis?"

Pesutto says members of the public who saw the video would see it as a celebration & would associate Deeming et al with Nazis

SC: "Mr Pesutto do you think any of your last 3 answers make any sense at all?"

SC now puts to Pesutto that by 6pm on the Sat night, he knew that Nazis had come to the Parliament Steps yet didn't put out any press release to condemn their attendance like others in his party had done (eg Southwick)

SC: "There was absolutely no need to put out a press release before you'd served the expulsion motion"

Pesutto says he believed it was urgent

SC: "The only reason you did so was to publicly malign my client & to put pressure on party members to vote in favour of the motion"

SC accuses JP of publishing the press release as a political tactic, this was all about his leadership, a vote against the expulsion motion would be a vote against JP

"Your primary concern was your own personal political interests & not the broader interests of the Lib Party"

As an FYI, one of Pesutto's defences is Public Interest, these questions go to that defence

SC: "You are the one that turned this into a major news story, if not THE major story"

Pesutto says that's not the case, the story was already building & was going to continue to build & become a major issue for the party

SC accuses Pesutto of doing all of this to protect himself

In Pesutto's affidavit, he talks about what Daniel Andrews would do in this situation

SC: "It was wholly insufficient merely b/c Mr Andrews would address some criticism about Mrs Deeming for you to engage in the conduct that you did"

JP: "No I don't agree w/ that"

SC puts to Pesutto that he didn't come out & make it plain that Deeming was innocent in any association w/ the neo-Nazis on the steps of parliament

JP says he made it clear that the purpose of the expulsion motion was Deeming's associations not that Deeming herself was a (cont)

Nazi sympathiser

SC: "But you were connecting Mrs Deeming w/ the neo-Nazis"

Pesutto doesn't accept that

SC: "You had read media reports that the Nazi's had "gate crashed" the protest, hadn't you"

Pesutto doesn't accept that they 'gate crashed'. He believes the earlier media reports were that the Nazis were there to support the Rally

SC: "You understood by 8.40pm that the Nazis hadn't been invited to the Rally, they were at the Rally to engage in a dispute w/ the counter protest"

Pesutto says that it was his understanding at the time was that the Nazis were there to support the Rally

SC asks Pesutto why he did so many media interviews

"Why did u need to give any further explanation beyond your media release?"

JP says he anticipated his decision wld be subject of intense public debate

SC accuses JP of "keeping the story going"

SC is now asking Pesutto about his 3AW interview w/ Neil Mitchell. This is another publication that Deeming is suing Pesutto over

In that interview, Mitchell asks Pesutto what Deeming did, & JP says she had associations w/ ppl who had known links w/ Nazis and Nazi sympathisers

In the interview, Mitchell asks Pesutto what links Kellie Jay Keen had with extremists. JP said that Keen "done videos, interviews & shared platforms" w/ far right extremists

Mitchell says KJK said "she's willing to be interviewed by anyone", which Pesutto denies

SC puts to Pesutto that his answer in the interview wasn't true, he knew that it was true that Keen had said she's willing to be interviewed by anyone

JP says he isn't sure, he didn't think he was responding to Mitchel's question

The Judge doesn't seem convinced by this answer

In the 3AW interview, Pesutto also says that Keen was "in league" with far right extremists

SC: You accept don't you that is something MORE than just a mere association

JP doesn't accept this

In the 3AW interview, Pesutto also accuses Deeming of organising a rally w/ ppl who had KNOWN links w/ neo-Nazis

SC puts to JP that he wanted to convey Deeming herself knew that Keen had links w/ neo-Nazis

JP says by "known associations" he meant "publicly known"

SC now asks, "well what are you asserting Deeming's culpability is? What did she do to deserve expulsion?"

Pesutto: "She helped organise and promote a rally w/ ppl who had associations w/ ppl who had known links with neo-Nazis"

SC: "If it's not the fact of the rally, the attendance, the organising, if it's the fact of doing that w/ Ms Keen and Ms Jones, how could Ms Deeming be culpable if she wasn't aware of those associations at the time?"

Pesutto says he would expect Deeming to have done her due diligence before attending and organising the rally w/ Jones and Keen

SC: "I am trying to understand what Deeming's culpability is. What did she do or not do that warranted the expulsion in her mind?"

JC: "She organised, attended and participated in the rally w/ ppl who had known associations w/ far right extremists"

SC: "Mr Pesutto, the manner in which you are trying to justify or explain what my client did makes no sense to you. You're struggling to answer my q's b/c you know you don't have any logical argument for sustaining your decision to expel my client"

JP: "I don't accept that"

SC puts to Pesutto that in the 3AW interview he intended to convey Deeming was associating w/ ppl she KNEW had links w/ far right extremists

Pesutto admits he didn't have a problem with Deeming attending the Rally

In the 3AW interview, Mitchell also asks Pesutto whether he knew that Deeming was going to attend the Rally. Pesutto avoids answering the question. SC puts to him that he avoided answering the question b/c he did know ahead of the Rally that Deeming was going to be attending

In the 3AW interview, Mitchell also brings up Matthew Guy and dinners Guy had attended w/ mobsters/known criminals

SC: "So Mr Guy innocently associated himself w/ someone he shouldn't have, but he wasn't expelled from the party was he?"

Pesutto accepts Guy wasn't expelled

SC asks why such a different approach was taken with Deeming

Pesutto says the circumstances were very different

SC also asks Pesutto about this sentence in the 3AW interview: "Deeming is not a Nazi, but she's associating w/ ppl who are"

SC: "Which Nazis was she associating herself w/ Mr Pesutto?"

Pesutto admits he made an error in the 3AW interview & what he should've said was that Deeming had associations with people who had associations with people who are Nazis

SC puts to Pesutto why he never apologised to Deeming

SC: "You never publicly apologised to Mrs Deeming of accusing her on Neil Mitchel's show of associating w/ neo-Nazis"

Pesutto accepts he didn't, he didn't realise till a good deal later of his mistake, the interview was fast paced, it was an accident

In the 3AW interview, Pesutto also said Kellie Jay-Keen was a Nazi sympathiser

SC: "You had absolutely no information at that stage that justified accusing KJK of being a Nazi sympathiser"

JP: "I believed it to be so"

SC: "You don't believe it to be so now, do you?"

Pesutto says that he does, since the 3AW interview more information came to light which gave him great concern that indicated a sympathy Keen had sympathies w/ neo-Nazis

SC: "But you apologised to Mrs Keen, and that Statement is still up on your website, that you don't think she is a sympathiser to neo-Nazis"

JP says that his public apology/statement was worded very carefully and he only apologises to KJK for being a Nazi, not a Nazi sympathiser

SC now reads out Pesutto's public apology which says that he "accepts KJK and Angela Jones share my belief that Nazism is odious and contemptful"

"How is someone who shares your belief that 'Nazism is odious and contemptful' also a Nazi sympathiser"

Pesutto concedes that he accepts he no longer holds the view that Kellie Jay Keen is a Nazi sympathiser

Pesutto tries to claim that he was conscious of trying to preserving his defence

The Judge is not buying this. "How is anything that was pleaded in the Defence qualify what Ms Chrysanthou read to you in the apology statement?"

JP: "I accept that the concern I had about what I was pleading in my Defence is superseded by this statement"

In the 3AW interview Pesutto also talks about Angie Jones' tweet. Mitchell brings up that Angie Jones said the tweet was taken out of context & Pesutto says in response: "Do you buy that".

SC now puts to Pesutto whether that's something he should have said Pesutto says he didn't buy Angie Jones' excuse, he said when you look at the tweet it's a "fairly odious tweet" and he just didn't buy, nor does he currently buy, her excuse

Chrysanthou now asking Pesutto about an interview he gave the ABC. This is another interview that Deeming is suing him over

In the interview Pesutto says that the Liberal Party doesn't stand w/ neo-Nazis. SC puts to JP that he was trying to associate Deeming w/ neo-Nazis

Michael Rowland (ABC interview) says: "Do you have a view on whether this woman whose views you find abhorrent, or her appearance at the rally yesterday abhorrent, kicked out from the Liberal Party you lead?"

SC: "You didn't find my client's views abhorrent or her attendance at the rally abhorrent did you?"

JP accepts he didn't. SC asks why JP didn't clarify Rowland's comments. JP: "I didn't affirm his comments I just [went on to talk about] the subject I wanted"

SC accuses JP of affirming Rowland's statement by not clarifying that he didn't find Deeming's views abhorrent

Pesutto denies this

SC puts to Pesutto that he should have not only not affirmed it, but clarified that he didn't find Moira Deeming's views abhorrent. Pesutto disagrees, as that "would've taken the interview in a different direction"

SC: "In a different direction where you make it clear that my client is not a neo-Nazi or a Nazi sympathiser?"

One thing is becoming increasingly clear to me: With 15 minutes left, John Pesutto's cross examination is unlikely to wrap up today

SC now showing Pesutto an email from Mr Pintos Lopez sent on 20 March 2023, attaching (what I think is) another copy of the expulsion dossier

In the document are screenshots from Twitter, one showing a reply to Angie Jones' tweet. It's an image of furby holding a sign that says "P*ss yourself"

SC, describing the tweet: "It's a tweet with..I don't even know what that animal is....oh, I'm told it's a furby"

Confirming yes, this is a draft version of the dossier Chrysanthou is now taking Pesutto through

Appears there were several iterations of the dossier before a copy was sent to Deeming

SC asks Pesutto if he knows how the final version came about. Pesutto doesn't recall.

SC: "Did you notice when you approved the dossier that material had been taken out"

The dossier sent to Deeming was much shorter than the previous drafts. SC puts to Pesutto that exculpatory material had been removed

That's it for today! Chrysanthou flags that the hearing is running behind schedule. Evidence should finish on time but flags that Closing Submissions may not. Expect 2 days for both sides to do Closing Submissions

The Judge expresses concern that 2 days may not be enough as need to allow for interruptions from him to ask questions He will "mull over it over this unfortunate long weekend"

Court adjourned till 10.15 am Monday (due to public holiday in Victoria the Court is not sitting tomorrow)

Well this has moved on a bit since I was last online .

Mothra thanks for the context re the pedaphile links to Safe Schools programme. It’s so alarming that there seems to be a global agenda to lower boundaries around children.

My personal opinion is that it is the role of a politician to highlight concerns about this kind of link.

I know Cassie has stepped away from this thread but I’m totally shocked by her posts on this.

Also find it the height of hypocrisy for her to think that her smearing females as being Nazi adjacent because Nazis showed up at events where women were is A-OK but MD pointing out genuine concerns about links between padeophiles & safe schools is not, 🤷‍♀️.

To my mind snowy, he wouldn't. He makes a point of being as 'in your face' as any person can be.

And the degree of 'financially backing' her could be anything. I don't know what she might have done to raise money. It could be a small donation by way of a dinner ticket that Anna Palmer attended or it could have been a significant wad of cash. I have not been able to find how much and how. But then I started looking and gave up because, 'why is it relevant when it is Anna Palmer'?

SC also asks Pesutto about this sentence in the 3AW interview: "Deeming is not a Nazi, but she's associating w/ ppl who are"
SC: "Which Nazis was she associating herself w/ Mr Pesutto?"
Pesutto admits he made an error in the 3AW interview & what he should've said was that Deeming had associations with people who had associations with people who are Nazis
SC puts to Pesutto why he never apologised to Deeming
SC: "You never publicly apologised to Mrs Deeming of accusing her on Neil Mitchel's show of associating w/ neo-Nazis"
Pesutto accepts he didn't, he didn't realise till a good deal later of his mistake, the interview was fast paced, it was an accident

He is still clearly relying on the "I'm just too dumb and careless soz lol" defence.

You can't blame someone for taking their highest percentage line when they're trying to defend themselves, but playing the "DURRRR" Card is how can I say 'some way short of impressive' for a political leader.

Considering that Mermaids had a trustee that supported paedophilia, and that we have seen cases of the same kind of educational programme providers here in the UK having had people in senior roles convicted of child sex abuse, I consider that it is a very important safeguarding discussion.

It is about not allowing exceptions by making a sub group of people and organisations exempt from robust safeguarding criticism.

I remember bits of the Safe School discussion because I had a primary schooler at the time. I didn't go too much into it because I had checked with our primary school and it was not something the Principal gave blanket support to so I didn't look further.

However, seeing what Eresh had posted and what I have now seen published about them, it is really concerning. I find these support group's involvement in school curriculum is very concerning.

It seemed yesterday that we should have been outraged by the language that Moira Deeming used and that this should count against her. As I pointed out yesterday, since when was it appropriate for someone to tell Australian MP's that they should be held to UK political etiquette?

Has there been anytime since 1901?

Anyone want to throw in an answer?

Just read the transcript Helle posted. To those who listened to it did he come across as disingenuous as he appears to be in the transcript?