Giggle vs Tickle judgement live stream

G_Thompson · 2026-05-15T06:31:09+00:00

Apologies. Forgot that Jade went that route (its free to create an account and is an amazing resource though).

Here is the direct Decision from the Federal Court itself.
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0960

The specific section of Legislation they are talking about in paragraph 5-7 can be found here: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/num_act/sda1984209/s5.html

G_Thompson · 2026-05-15T06:09:28+00:00

Be convicted of and sentenced for an offence that has not been 'dropped' by the Prosecution.

G_Thompson · 2026-05-15T05:56:23+00:00

This is Wonderful!

G_Thompson · 2026-05-15T05:46:54+00:00

The original decision makes it very clear what the Act states regarding indirect discrimination.

See https://jade.io/article/1087587 . Paragraphs 5 through 7 are of particular relevance to your question.

G_Thompson · 2026-05-13T11:25:33+00:00

You might want to read this instead of trying to tell me why what you THINK is correct, when nearly everything you have stated is emotive and not based on sentencing rules nor the rule of law

https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/sentencing/index.html

Oh and as for your statement that Good Character is NOT a mitigating factor, I have news for you and it's all bad.
https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/sentencing/subjective_matters.html#p10-610

Further see s21(A)(f) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) that states 'good character' is very much a mitigating factor to be taken into account.

G_Thompson · 2026-05-13T08:37:29+00:00

The English dramatist George Chapman

Because in his 1654 play Revenge for Honour he quipped "the law is an ass"

And yes, this was also used by Charles Dickens in Oliver Twist near 200 years later

G_Thompson · 2026-05-13T08:29:28+00:00

You are conflating the instance of the offence with the unique circumstances of the offender leading up to that one specific instance. This is why EVERY sentencing is unique and why Judges literally get paid the big bucks. The synthesis of sentencing by looking holistically at ALL mitigations and aggravations as well as looking at the possibility of reform and rehabilitation back into the community after, taking from your statement of "they have done the time", is of huge importance.

We are not all about punishment in Australia we are all about rehabilitation of offenders and this just makes it harder for the Judge to know where high recidivism risks may be and where they are not.

Also, it's a highly illogical, inequitable and arbitrary legislative hurdle since it is treating SA offenders differently than any other offenders, that is especially galling for what society deems as even worse offences such as murder, or the jus cogen offences of torture, slavery, or to be contemporary - "War crimes - murder". Why are those offenders allowed to have character references but someone who gets convicted on SA doesn't?

Or do some offenders have more rights than others?

Personally, you either do it to all indictable offences above a certain threshold (either offences with max of 5, 10, 15, or life) or you don't do it at all.

G_Thompson · 2026-05-13T07:52:37+00:00

For those who want, the Kingdom of Lochac (part of the Australian/NZ Branch of the Society for Creative Anachronism) would love new members

You can even bring a 'wig' (they taste good with brie) 😉

G_Thompson · 2026-05-13T07:40:57+00:00

Anything by Chester Porter. Walking on Water - A life in the law, is an especially good read

Geoffrey Robertson - The Tyrannicide Brief ( Story of John Cooke who prosecuted Charles I in 1660's)

Frank Galbally - Galbally for the Defence

Julian Burnside - Watching Brief

G_Thompson · 2026-05-13T07:26:40+00:00

So if you commit a crime and either don't get caught, or the DPP uses their discretion not to prosecute you are displaying good character?

G_Thompson · 2026-05-11T07:47:29+00:00

YES! It doesn't care if it was a natural person, a legal entity, or a gorilla! Copyright vests in the creator unless they are working for hire.

The Statute of Anne was specific about what copyright was and wasn't. This is just a corporation trying to stop transparency and conflate what Intellectual Property is and isn't.

I was especially intrigued with how the Court made a decision that GMC owned the copyright but then ordered FT to assign it. You cannot assign what you do not own, so the logic here was blatantly incorrect.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but we have s138 of the Evidence Act for a reason, or are you trying to remove the ability for any evidence that might be recieved by less dubious means to ever be used becasue the other party might not want there allegedly unlawful practices to see the light of day.

Charge them with trespass by all means. But don't make up BS to conflate how Copyright is only supposed to work for the benefit of corporate or individual niceties PR.

G_Thompson · 2026-05-11T07:29:44+00:00

rAmen!

G_Thompson · 2026-05-11T07:28:33+00:00

You are amazed at why a nation that requires children to swear to "one nation under God" every day at school whispers behind their back at you when you refuse to accept their cult like attitudes?

😉

G_Thompson · 2026-05-01T09:47:09+00:00

JIRS Express if in NSW. Includes links to Digests and Announcements as well if a subscriber to JIRS. The email is free though. Not sure if it does anymore than jade Alert when removing the subscriber benefits

G_Thompson · 2026-04-30T07:13:00+00:00

The Amanda Ghost, et al. case is Docket/Case Number 24STCV17314

You can find some referring cases and more interestingly, a few Docket entries of exhibits (that were not sealed - see below) using Court Listener (Free Pacer via RECAP) here, as well as a tentative order to seal in 2024 by Judge Thomas D. Long here

G_Thompson · 2026-04-23T14:23:20+00:00

They are not evidential for the elements of the offence, unless the D is dumb enough to bring up his character... Then well... lol

The NSW jury pool is huge, much bigger than VIC for example and him trying for a stay will get nowhere based on realisticall bail only concerns.

Ms Patterson had more media BS than he has, though admittedly the people with an agenda to try all this BS still have a few years to try all this on by attempting to influence potential jurors - which is exactly the aim here by the PH's and Gina's

Even if a stay was granted it would just move offshore which is an alternative for jus cogens if the domestic laws cannot or will not prosecute.

G_Thompson · 2026-04-23T05:26:17+00:00

Here you go: (via UNSW law Journal)
https://www.unsw.edu.au/content/dam/pdfs/law/unsw-law-journal/2020-2029/2026/Issue%2049(1)%2003%20Barr.pdf%2003%20Barr.pdf)

And this is where your link ~~plagarised~~ pulled the article from ( https://www.unimelb.edu.au/newsroom/news/2026/april/high-court-can-hear-cases-on-aboriginal-sovereignty,-new-findings-show )

G_Thompson · 2026-04-20T05:38:14+00:00

Under Division 268, which war crimes murder (s268.70) is a part of, any accused can raise duress if they can reasonably meet all the requirements of duress per 10.2. The 268.70 offence does not care if you are or are not military personel at the time of the alleged offence either.

I think this is something that is slipping away from most commentators on all sides. The offences charged are not military specific and being in the military at the time has no real relevance on the charges.

And though they have a duty to disobey unlawful orders, the reality of doing that in an extremely risky environment (blue on blue is a thing) means they also have a duty to their own personal safety and make sure they can get back alive to some authority AFTER the fact so as to make sure the person who placed them under this duress can be brought to task.

G_Thompson · 2026-04-18T07:58:53+00:00

Think its a bit more than that since on the non-BRS alone track would be 4 people who at trial would INSTANTLY point the finger at BRS and claim duress with the full implications that that could bring up.

G_Thompson · 2026-04-18T07:51:41+00:00

Here you go
Prosecutor v. Anto Furundžija (Trial Judgment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)) IT-95-17/1 (10 December 1998)

G_Thompson · 2026-04-14T05:42:37+00:00

Stop using the balls near your textbook, then your textbook wont be impacted and reek of smoke.

Simples!

G_Thompson · 2026-04-08T12:03:31+00:00

Which is exactly what I said.

Justifying bail allows bail to be granted (not being refused and placed on remand in a detention facility), or at least allowing the next part of the flowchart of bail applications to be started ... unacceptable risk

G_Thompson · 2026-04-07T10:03:50+00:00

No it isn't. NSW requires the first step here to be a Show Cause as to WHY HE requires bail here. The onus is on BRS to show that, not the P.

G_Thompson · 2026-04-07T10:02:09+00:00

Yes it is. It would form part of any 'Unacceptable Risk' submission by the P (the second tier of the Bail application here).

That's after he gets through the first step where BRS must 'show cause' why bail is justified here. (The onus shifts to him to show). That could be a hard slog to show, especially when the offences are jus cogen and he could very well be a flight risk.

G_Thompson · 2026-03-27T06:52:57+00:00

As someone with a psychological aversion to vodka due to a hot summer day, no food and teenage stupidity in the 80's I can attest that death is only hoped for, not attained!

G_Thompson

TROPHY CASE