Queanbeyan Demon 7,024 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 3 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said: How does it come to pass that you guys read it more clearly than the lawyers tasked with representing? (not a crack, just confused?) Maybe 'Landers are far better lawyers. 1 Quote
watchtheeyes 1,429 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 3 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said: How does it come to pass that you guys read it more clearly than the lawyers tasked with representing? (not a crack, just confused?) Yeah I’m confused too.. are people watching this somewhere or making judgements purely on tweets? If it’s the latter I think it’s fair to say we have no idea what’s been said Quote
Jaded No More 68,976 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 Just now, Demonland said: 30 minutes and counting It’s not looking good. I imagine they’re trying to come up with a statement that won’t send the AFL community into meltdown. Again. 1 Quote
Demon Dynasty 17,165 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 Just now, Demonland said: 30 minutes and counting They have to 'appear' to be giving it serious consideration, whether that is the case or not 1 Quote
Demonland 74,431 Posted May 11, 2023 Author Posted May 11, 2023 Just now, Jaded No More said: It’s not looking good. I imagine they’re trying to come up with a statement that won’t send the AFL community into meltdown. Again. yeah probably working out the wording. Quote
Redleg 42,164 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 2 minutes ago, McQueen said: So Red, why can’t it be as simple as showing the Fogarty spoil and then Jacob’s and asking wtf is different? Because this is an Appeal and we need to show legal errors, not other incidents missed. 6 2 Quote
Diamond_Jim 12,773 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 Just now, Queanbeyan Demon said: Maybe 'Landers are far better lawyers. the standard of the reporting blog certainly isn't what it used to be. I suspect one needed to be there to understand the arguments in full. In this day and age of voice generated text not to mention zoom no reason it's not more fully reported 1 1 Quote
deva5610 970 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 (edited) 4 minutes ago, McQueen said: So Red, why can’t it be as simple as showing the Fogarty spoil and then Jacob’s and asking wtf is different? Well, according to the AFL 2023 Tribunal Guidelines, unless something has been cited by the MRO (with or without penalty) it cannot be presented as evidence in a tribunal hearing. I'm not sure if the appeals process is bound by the same guidelines, but it could be. Purely a guess on my behalf though. Edited May 11, 2023 by deva5610 1 1 Quote
Colm 2,204 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 I’m on ferry and will soon be out of signal. Any chance of a decision soon??? Quote
Bystander 903 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 37 minutes ago, picket fence said: Wednesday Adams has just taken the stand for the Dees talking about Vicarious Intent and pure Accident. Seems her logic is impeccable!! Who is Adams? Quote
McQueen 17,867 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 1 minute ago, Redleg said: Because this is an Appeal and we need to show legal errors, not other incidents missed. So the example could/should have been presented in the first appeal? Quote
chook fowler 19,774 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 Probably will increase to 4 weeks 1 Quote
Jaded No More 68,976 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 Just now, Redleg said: Because this is an Appeal and we need to show legal errors, not other incidents missed. I know you said you haven’t read the proceedings, but once you do I would be interested in your opinion of our defense. I’m not a lawyer but I wasn’t impressed. AFL seem to have made a stronger argument. Quote
dazzledavey36 56,336 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 7 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said: How does it come to pass that you guys read it more clearly than the lawyers tasked with representing? (not a crack, just confused?) Because we're better lawyers. 1 1 Quote
leave it to deever 17,618 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 2 minutes ago, Demon Dynasty said: They have to 'appear' to be giving it serious consideration, whether that is the case or not Na, their just waiting for uber eats 3 Quote
layzie 34,528 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 The difference is I'm not pretending to know at all how this works or what it means. Quote
dazzledavey36 56,336 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 Just saw that McDonald is the sole tall being named as emergency 🤮🤮 Please for the love of God now another reason for JVR not to be suspended. 5 1 Quote
BigBadBustling 455 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 1 minute ago, Bystander said: Who is Adams? Agreed, she was soooo yesterday! 1 Quote
John Demonic 5,988 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 1 minute ago, Colm said: I’m on ferry and will soon be out of signal. Any chance of a decision soon??? Maybe your captain can radio in for the result 1 Quote
Diamond_Jim 12,773 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 Just now, leave it to deever said: Na, their just waiting for uber eats surely a single malt... no ice Quote
Jaded No More 68,976 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 1 minute ago, dazzledavey36 said: Because we're better lawyers. I nailed my law exam in year 12 1 3 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.