Andrew L. Urban.
“The Plan … started long before Lisa Wilkinson’s infamous Project interview in February 2021. Shortly after meeting Sharaz in May 2020 – some 14 months after the alleged rape – Higgins crafted a note about an ‘anatomy of a political sex scandal’,” as reported in The Australian (9/7/2024)
The plot, or what Linda Reynolds calls “the Plan” – a carefully orchestrated, pre-meditated political hit job where Brittany Higgins and David Sharaz used allegations of a rape and a political cover-up “as a weapon to inflict immediate political damage” on Reynolds and the then government of the day. It was the allegation of a political cover up that turned the rape claim into a political torpedo. That claim was found to have no merit by Justice Lee in the course of the defamation trial bought by Lehrmann against Wilkinson and Network Ten.
Cover up claim has no merit
We can draw a straight line between that finding and the new material which comes from a copy of Reynolds’ statement of claim (as at June 4, 2024) obtained by Ellie Dudley of The Australian, which the Higgins team tried to block from being available to The Australian, according to Dudley’s colleague, columnist Janet Albrechtson, who writes: “…no wonder they tried to block us from seeing it.” The Reynolds defamation case against Higgins will be heard in the WA Supreme Court, from August 2, 2024.
Reynolds has told reporters she wants to see justice for the “many people whose lives had been destroyed” in the fallout of Higgins’ allegation that she was raped by her former colleague Bruce Lehrmann in the Senator’s office, a claim he denies.
Here’s how Reynolds’ claims are summarised in The Australian:
SHE SAYS: Katy Gallagher and Penny Wong’s ‘aggressive questioning’ of Linda Reynolds in the Senate was centred on information provided by David Sharaz and Brittany Higgins
SHE SAYS: David Sharaz teed up meeting for Higgins with Labor members to discuss her allegations, including then opposition leader Anthony Albanese and Tanya Plibersek, as well as former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and former Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd
Reynolds & Team Higgins
SHE SAYS: Higgins’ Instagram posts are in breach of a deed the pair entered into in the wake of the ‘lying cow’ settlement, which stated that ‘the parties agree not to make any adverse, critical or disparaging statements, allegations or comments … with respect to the conduct of any other party’
SHE SAYS: Higgins posted on Instagram to ‘taunt’ her and she did so around the time of mediation talks, with the express purpose of the media picking it up
SHE SAYS: Higgins’ social media posts ‘brought (Reynolds) into public hatred, scandal, odium and contempt’. ‘(Higgins) acted maliciously in publishing the publications, as they were published in furtherance of a plan by the defendant and Mr Sharaz to use the defendant’s allegations of a rape, and the political cover-up of the same, as a weapon to inflict immediate political damage’
It goes on: “The overriding impression from Reynolds’ claim is clear: Reynolds believes that Higgins and Sharaz left little to chance in furtherance of their Plan. Higgins would later boast in her draft book outline sent to Penguin Random House, “We had become quite a twosome when it came to game planning. My experience as a media adviser, David’s experience as a producer; together we understood how the gallery media sphere operated.”
That much is true. Curated in remarkable detail, the statement takes 20 pages to set out their game planning of various kinds.
“The statement of claim sets out how the Plan involved Higgins speaking with Emma Webster, a former Labor adviser, to discuss how to manage the media when the Project interview dropped; Sharaz lining up Grace Tame to “do media” the day after The Project interview aired.
Katy Gallagher – “really invested”
“The alleged Plan is said to have involved Sharaz co-opting senior Labor figures. Sharaz shared the Project transcript with Gallagher before it aired, providing her with a copy of the dossier timeline. Sharaz told Higgins that “Katy is going to come to me with some questions you need to prepare for … she’s really invested.” All this occurred before the Project aired. Reynolds says that when Sharaz acted it can be inferred from the circumstances that “Mr Sharaz’s conduct … was on the instructions or with the consent of the defendant”.
OMG and (Andrew). “We understood how the gallery media sphere operates” – 20 page game plan – the twosome team – the best laid plans of mice and men
(or Sheilas) Some silly persons seem to have forgotten that 25 million Australians don’t watch channel 10 toothy paste commercial TV Ever ! Silk purses and pigs ears – springs to mind ! Many citizens are not “left” – not “right” – just seek the truth – down the middle -could not give a —-about Senator Reynolds being left or right – she sure smelt a RAT . When commentators of any ilk (not meant in a nice way) talk of left or right – I smell a rat ! Leave that stinking perversion for the Appeals Court System – Let’s not let the system do over another lovely Grandma -Sue Neill-Fraser. Southern France (Ancestoral home of the Neanderthal and my inlaws)
LOOKIN GOOD !
Too much dodgy behavior by the collective in the Liberal party.
The prominent Liberal party males were known as the swinging dicks well before the allegations of rape by Brittany Higgins.
Defending Bruce Lehrmann, will not deliver you any favors, Andrew.
You have too much to lose by siding with the accused rapist, when one considers the rape allegations in Queensland.
The Queensland DPP has recommended a trial will be set in place.
Bruce Lehrmann has a legal defence team in place; they don’t need me, but thank you for your concern.
BTW, it was not the Qld DPP but a Toowoomba magistrate who committed Bruce Lehrmann to stand trial.
AND …from the Urban Dictionary:
big swinging dick
1. the financial industry’s term for a rainmaker; a Wall Street executive who brings in enormous amounts of money for the firm, possibly because he has just screwed a customer.
An expression made famous by Michael Lewis in Liar’s Poker, published in 1989.
2. a mover and shaker in any organization
Calling some one a dick is an insult.
Calling some one a big dick is a bigger insult.
Calling some one a big swinging dick is a term of respect.
My recollection of that term, and I had not heard of it before it was mentioned, was from Julie Bishop at the time referring to AG Porter & certain unnamed males in the Parliament.
Hopefully Ms Bishop looks at the third description of it, from Andrew above, and gives it a thumbs up.
Williambum – can we presume that your verdict is GUILTY ? You can’t possibly have that finding of guilt without some sort of trial and (heaven forbid) even proper legal representation for the accused ? Maybe you can – if you got a smile like a 48 Buick ? All part of the toothsome twosome game plan of media manipulation ?Many (most) of us don’t want favours – and will never lose our good reputation amongst the thinking citizens- when dilingently seeking justice – especially for those Wrongfully Convicted and worse still – without a trial at all ! Swinging Dicks is a confused political attempt to deny justice – and irrelevant ! The type of rubbish used on many a gullible jury – Spanners and screw drivers to you matey !
Andrew – A correction – Juries are not necessarily gullible at all . A jury can only make its decision based on the information put to it. Whether that information comes from flexible forensics or forensics hidden and not presented . Whether a jury is informed by a convincing forensic hot shot that there was fetal blood sprayed all over the
Holden interior and old codger blood splattered in the dinghy – Say no more – gotcha ! A jury must never know until too late – the dpp / judge combo were scurrilous scoundrels . Trained and experienced manipulators. eg. Neatly folded dress on the floor- that evidence discarded- not hammered for truth? A sure sign of rape ? Juries stacked with professional verdict getters (Queensland Style) Witnesses created or removed – genuine and local recognised experts not called . Fly in a hot shot from Londinium – of the Manock ilk . Establish an Appeals Court of mentally geriatric naysayers . We don’t want no Criminal Case Review Commission stuffing around with our system of The Doings Over . If we say there was blood in the dinghy- there was blood in the dinghy. Get the hell out of here with your trouble making mischief !
This is not correct, at least upon all occasions! The foreman in my panel/jury in 1996 stated to me and recorded both sound and on video at a later time on: 27 March 2008 at 4-17pm in the foyer of the Downing Centre Sydney dressed in a Sherriffs uniform:
“none of us (the panel of 10 jurors) thought you were guilty, but something was going on so we put you down anyway”.
I replied: why are you dressed in a Sherriffs uniform? My Short the Foreman replied: “I got a job while we were out considering our verdict as a Sherrif”
I replied: How?
Mr Short stated: I left the jury room only had to go upstairs for the interview.
I replied: “But its supposed to be guilty as charged!
Mr Short replied: “Oh well its over now”
I stated: “Not for me Earnie”
Since that day 25 years ago, following the death of Mr Short and the suicide of the trial judge Luland other panel/jury members have come forward. The book is written by a NY Times best selling author and the movie rights sold! Hopefully the outcome over time will save others from the unnecessary and corrupt powers of Governments.
These are just the sort of cases everyone should be defending.
“Gender crimes” are the new modus operandi of the Left, most of which don’t stand up upon scrutiny.
If you’re not aware of the dangers the Feminazis present to the rule of law, then you haven’t been paying attention.
We all agree Plevick – those of us paying attention- we can surely see the evil of the left and their danger to the rule of law ! One has only to peruse these accounts on Andrews WCR – of the LEFT doing over our innocent citizens – Lind and Michael Chamberlain – Ray Bailey- Derrick Bromley- Darryl Beamish- Sue Neill-Fraser- Graham Stafford – The Hilton Bombing – The John Pat murder – Dr.George Duncan- Ned Kelly ! All, and every one of them done over by the lefty media and lefty police dpp judge combo . Make Australia Great Again ! Throw out those lefty appeals court scoundrels. Future Criminal Trials should be held in the Channel 10 Privy Court of no appearing and no appeal . This privy bench will have holes where learned verdicts are dumped in public view . The good citizens can then dispose of those deemed to be full of excreta!
No left -No right – Yes Justice-
How much has this Cost Australians beside the Questionable Payment???
Some parallel/further reading: https://x.com/OcarinaJones/status/1808987715444359603
(It would be good to read the ‘amended statement of claim’!)
Gov at time, PM comments Higgins lucky
she wasn’t shot !!!
Minister for Defence,monumental cost
to Aust in French submarines contract
failure.
Lehrman vs Higgins a very convenient
diversion.
Isn’t there a song with lyrics, bye bye, bang bang; if there isnt those lyrics are mine, read here first; but I am surevthere is something close.
What a dirty little rat nest; and we, the public are paying the salaries for these shenanigans. How low does it have to go?
Andrew – I need it explained clearly – why did Higgins want to damage those who were her former friends and workmates? What was the motive ? Most – if not all the readers of these pages would seem to be not swayed against Senator Reynolds – In fact -many of us were impressed and agree with the “reported” first remark from Senator Reynolds – did Higgins really say that she and Sharaz were quite a game planning twosome ? OMG ! They may yet come unstuck . Actually, we do know exactly what the plan was ! (and I sure as hell ain’t a liberal voter- yet ! Keep that up and I will be )