The defo appeal has been heard already and is awaiting the outcome. That was the one where Burrows requested an adjournment because she’d forgotten to bring some papers.

The opening and conclusion of the 161-page findings of fact and rulings of law from Young — a Reagan appointee who has already made headlines — will be getting attention.

It is a response to a post card he received, apparently in response to one of his rulings (likely in the NIH funding case):

Yes it’s here from Orwell, 1946, on centrists and pundits: avoidance, power worship, and status quo bias (“present trends will continue”).

Which is true domestically for us too. The WelcomePAC and Blue Rose problem is they think present trends in power and wealth will continue.

Obviously threatening to “hurt Australia” (which is the logical interpretation of Trump’s comment) based on a reporter asking a question Trump doesn’t like is nuts, but everyone else discussing the video is covering that aspect.

Everyone is calling this an apology but there is no apology, remorse, acceptance of wrongdoing - it’s just a limp excuse.

The fundraising page wasn't mentioned. The alleged conspiracy was the initial 'public disclosure of the defendant's story in early 2021' (that may not be an exact quote but pretty close).

Will share the judgment once available. End/

Where a publication is found to have lowered LR's reputation in the eyes of an ordinary person consuming that material, IT IS PRESUMED FALSE unless BH's team can establish a defence, eg it was substantially true or in the public interest for the information to be shared.

Will await the judgment with keen interest. Much will rest on what imputations the judge finds to have been conveyed by the publications - many of which are a bit cryptic, or repeat ideas ventilated previously by others.

I do not suggest that any of the imputations contained within the above-referenced posts / tweets / images are true, only that these are the basis of the legal action - which it is in the public interest to understand, particularly given the plaintiff LR was a WA Senator throughout until 30/6/25.

- 12.9.2023 Insta: LR was 'continuously monitoring' Insta instead of 'just being a Senator';
- 20.1.2024 Insta: 'I won't be bullied'
- 5.3.2024 Insta: 'I won't stay silent so you can stay comfortable'.

Most media have avoided republishing any of these. I share for info only, not to endorse.

LR also argues that the publications breached the terms of settlement of an earlier defo claim (LR's 'lying cow' comment: LR apologised and paid $10k which BH donated to Canberra Rape Crisis Centre).

Oops missed a couple of publications that got added at the end of the SoC:

The claimed "aggravation" supports
a) an effort to attain a higher $$ quantum than would otherwise be available to somebody with no obvious pecuniary loss (salary $200k+ for years after); and
b) LR's introduction of evidence that would otherwise be entirely irrelevant.

LR claimed that the damage caused by these publications was aggravated by "the Plan". This part of the claim alleges that BH and DS pursued a grand conspiracy to harm LR and the Liberal Party politically, and the posts/tweets were part of that Plan.

...their experiences;
- Insta post 20.7.2023 - roughly same in substance as the Tweets above;
- Tweet by Sharaz 27.1.2022 re LR website article about 'empowering women' which LR alleges BH 'published' by virtue of collaborating w DS and commenting underneath the tweet.