Schapelle Corby

It's incredible the lies that just spew out.

Latest lie: "This, combined with the 5 year reduction Ms Corby won at appeal, brought me to my earlier estimate of 10 years."

The 20 year sentence was re-imposed at a later appeal. FACT. Even Wikipedia is right on that one. Check ANY site that describes this case in fact. You clearly know next to nothing about it.

She also lost her remission rights on the pretext of a cellphone in her cell. The real reason is almost certainly her book.


Is it any wonder I get frustrated when some people will go to any lengths to distort this, and resort to direct lies to support their campaign?



But I do understand defamation laws in Australia. You cannot cannot accuse someone of stealing/scamming without proving that they are doing so. It is libel. You libelled the family. Any tinpot lawyer could tell you that.

This just in from the newsdesk.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FakeBoobsRule

I'm not a lawyer.

---

It shows.

If you accuse someone of being a thief, and they are not, it is libel. Twist and turn all you wish, but it IS libel. The Corbys are not "scamming dollars online". And the only accusation of this I have ever seen is here.

The fact that you continue to allow this libel to continue on this forum is reckless and far from reasonable. It does you no credit at all.

BTW: You are even quoting the wrong source of the libel! As you defend it, I thought you might at least identify who actually posted!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveV

It's incredible the lies that just spew out.

---

Please source these lies and prove that they are lies.

Quote:

---

Latest lie: "This, combined with the 5 year reduction Ms Corby won at appeal, brought me to my earlier estimate of 10 years."

The 20 year sentence was re-imposed at a later appeal. FACT. Even Wikipedia is right on that one. Check ANY site that describes this case in fact. You clearly know next to nothing about it.

---

Are you relying on wikipedia for your information? Why not provide a more credible source. The burden of evidence and proof is on you and no one else. You are the one who are calling people liars here.

Quote:

---

Is it any wonder I get frustrated when some people will go to any lengths to distort this, and resort to direct lies to support their campaign?

---

If by distorting this you mean acknowledging the fact that she broke international law, then yes I would have to agree with you. However I most assuringly know that this is not what you're referring to. Take my sarcasm with a grain of salt.

Quote:

---

But I do understand defamation laws in Australia. You cannot cannot accuse someone of stealing/scamming without proving that they are doing so. It is libel. You libelled the family. Any tinpot lawyer could tell you that

---

.

Defamation across a website. A forum. Again I guarantee you that any prosecution would scoff at this if you brought it to them for legal matters. So again I bring to your attention that making threats or bringing to attention legal rights over something that is irrelevant really just makes it seem as if you're purposefully trying to rub people the wrong way.

Lastly there is a LARGE difference between public/personal opinion and defamation. For instance.. I could say

"I feel that Steve V guy is a jerk." This is not defamation.. or libel.. this is my opinion.

"That Steve V guy is a liar and a cheat." That is libel/defamation. As you are not stating it as opinion but rather as fact.

The only person I've seen commit that act here is YOU!

Since you chose to use Sarah louise's words out of context I will post the full sentence:

"Mine lead me to believe that so long as she is in Bali and the family is busy scamming dollars online, Australia is a better place"

By simply using "lead me to believe" the statement becomes opinion and not an assertion of fact.

If you would like I would be more than happy to post some "libel" against you and I would love to see you try to take me to court or ANYONE over it. All of your posts reak of immaturity and wanting to force your beliefs and ideals onto others. When others do not comply with what yo usay you seem to throw a tantrum and REALLY REALLY reach to paint them as if they have done something wrong.

You sir are immature and enjoy wasting forum resources.

I purposefully phrased that statement like that so you can see what true libel is. Now go contact your attorney. I'll have mine waiting for you for a counter suit :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveV

It shows.

If you accuse someone of being a thief, and they are not, it is libel. Twist and turn all you wish, but it IS libel.

---

*sighs* For my comments here at can.com to defame someone in Australia they would have to demonstrate the way in which my comments have changed the public perception of the them in a negative manner.

On this, I'm well within the mainstream of public opinion on the matter. My views are not novel in Australia.

On a side note and in deference to an actual Australian precedent, if "the family" were to experience negative treatment in the USA because I changed public opinion of them by posting something bogus in a forum based in the USA, then I might be found guilty of defamation.

Do you really think that what I have said is so inflammatory that anyone linked by blood or marriage would experience a different reception in the USA as a result of my statements?

Come on, really?

If, however, a registered business, for argument sake let's use Schapelle Corby PTY LTD, could demonstrate that I had in some way made lasting damage to their brand name, they could then seek punitive damages. These damages though relate solely to the loss of trade of the brand name, in Australia companies are not imbued with a persona and cannot seek damages in the way an individual can, if defamation can be proved.

Are you still pretending to be some dude who found this stuff on the internet and was appalled? Your focus on me, your ludicrous interpretations of law... all it does is convince me further that you are touting for the Corby cause and your post is spam.

I explained how I arrived at 10 years. If you want to email the centre for Indonesian studies at Australia national university, I'm sure they will be happy to explain 'rubber time' to you.

You claim that I am telling bald faced porkies, yet you do nothing to demonstrate the veracity of your claims, instead you repeatedly attack my character and threaten me with legal actions.

How do you deal with the contradictions between your stated objectives and your actually behaviour?

sara lou :hippy:

"Are you relying on wikipedia for your information? "

Please take the trouble to actually READ my words. They were "Even Wikipedia is right on that one". Does that sounds like I rely on Wikipedia? Pathetic.


"Defamation across a website. A forum. Again I guarantee you that any prosecution would scoff at this"

Is that what you believe? I suggest that you research a little more carefully. The medium used for a worldwide libel is not material to the libel fact itself, other than in setting the level of damages.


"I explained how I arrived at 10 years."

Yes, and I explained how that is ridiculous. The first appeal was reversed by the second. Or did you stop paying attention at that point? The remission was lost last year. Or did you miss that too? Or are you just trying to mislead everyone with more lies?

She continues to twist and turn to campaign to hurt Schapelle Corby further. And more smears, innuendo, this time against me: "Are you still pretending to be some dude who found this stuff on the internet and was appalled?".

Another malicious suggestion. I am sure that the owner of this forum can check out my IP address perfectly easily. I am normal. I encountered this story and was appalled as a normal person would be, appalled enough to research it. What I found was obscene: the injustice, the barbaric sentence, the gutless smearing media, and those who get a kick out of posting their glee on forums like this.

A sad reflection on humanity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveV

"I explained how I arrived at 10 years."

Yes, and I explained how that is ridiculous.

---

No you didn't. You said -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveV

Latest lie: "This, combined with the 5 year reduction Ms Corby won at appeal, brought me to my earlier estimate of 10 years."

The 20 year sentence was re-imposed at a later appeal. FACT. Even Wikipedia is right on that one. Check ANY site that describes this case in fact. You clearly know next to nothing about it.

She also lost her remission rights on the pretext of a cellphone in her cell. The real reason is almost certainly her book.

---

How does that actually refute my initial assessment of the situation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sarah louise

Schapelle's only risk of dying in Bali will be dying from self pity. She has a lot to be sorry for though, she would have done 10 years after her sentence was lightened to 15 (with remission bonuses for xmas, birthdays and good behaviour) but stupidity has already blown it back out to 20 years. If people want to give money to couriers who get snatched, there are other Australian's actually facing the death penalty in Indonesia.

---

You clipped 6 words out of a longer sentence, dropped my conclusion and then said I was lying because wikipedia said effectively the same things as my conclusion. Now you suggest I am the one who is dodging things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveV

She continues to twist and turn to campaign to hurt Schapelle Corby further.

---

Can you explain where I have twisted or turned?

I don't mind if you want to use wikipedia to reference public record, or even other cannabis activism/politics forums/blogs etc to gauge audience response, so long as you identify them and they provide evidence of checkable sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveV

And more smears, innuendo, this time against me: "Are you still pretending to be some dude who found this stuff on the internet and was appalled?".

---

No, it's just a question. You could have answered it with a yes or a no. I am not responsible for what you decide my words mean.

But back my question about the veracity of the website link in your first post.

How do you know that the donation link leads to a legitimate site?

How do you know this particular paypal account hasn't been set up to profit from people's sympathy?

What steps did you take to verify for yourself that it wasn't a scam?

Where is the information about the auditing of accounts available?

There are so many lies coming out of you that it is impossible to know where to start. It is compulsive lying.


Her current release date is in 2024. There were appeals. The 20 years was finally confirmed in March 2008 (which is why she has been medically treated almost continuously since). This is documented all over the net.

Yet you try to pretend it isn't. Why?


You smear her family with allegations of theft. You libel them on here. Have they been charged with any such offence? Are there allegations in the public arena, anywhere, apart from your mouth? No. If you call someone a thief YOU have to prove it, or you are libelous.

Why are you continually smearing them with lies and libel?


You deny a campaign against her, yet you return again and again and again to spew out more smears and lies.

Why? Why are you campaigning against someone who is suffering? What is exactly the matter with you? What is the real motive for this?

This thread has become absolutely ridiculous now. You're both bickering over something irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I guess children will be children. Play nice. :thumbsup:

thankyou daihashi for the reminder, I wont address any more of the straw men and will stay closer to the point.

steve you still haven't answered my questions -

How do you know that the donation link leads to a legitimate site?

How do you know this particular paypal account hasn't been set up to profit from people's sympathy?

What steps did you take to verify for yourself that it wasn't a scam?

Where is the information about the auditing of accounts available?

as to why I am still asking...

you still haven't answered my questions, isn't that enough?