Legacy Media lies and rebuttals

I shared this on twitter to the above statement, I think it's true, that if you want to see how people really are? Wait till money is involved. Given the money and time Kath forked out personally on Kellie-Jay Keen's behalf - the organisation of the Let Women's Speak event in Sydney - (an excuse for media to slam Kath once again,) the work Kath did to promote KJK in the media - and more. I was disgusted. The following is my reply directly to KJK: 12.1.2.24
 

What I find interesting is the timing of these complaints being raised publicly—just before Moira Deeming’s judgment—is indeed curious. It could suggest that Kellie-Jay you see an opportunity to capitalise on potential media interest or a positive outcome for Moira.

If I was cynical I could say you see an opportunity to create an argument for financial compensation in a future case against Kath's ex-firm? That seems to be the arugment that you are setting up? -

You're raising complaints about the lawyers’ ethics that would serve to discredit them or cast doubt on their practices, do what you can to affect their professional standing. - If Moira’s judgment is favorable and sets a strong precedent, you might feel emboldened to build your own case against Rashidi Lawyers for 'mishandling' the matter or 'violating professional ethics'.

As a way to open the door to claims of damages for perceived procedural harm, even if you weren't financially disadvantaged by the resolution of your case. It cost you and Jones - nothing.

Nor lets face it - did Angie and you have the money to run the case that Moira did? Some 300K+ I think. Money you would both have to raise - and take that risk.

OR, you could use this to leverage publicity. A favorable judgment for Moira could provide a platform for you to argue that your case (and Jones’s) was mishandled or downplayed in comparison. This could potentially position you for reputational gains by portraying yourself as a victim of systemic issues in the legal handling of defamation cases.

I mean, we can all publically speculate can't we?

But let me take apart your 'speculations'.. " suspicious payments surrounding our case."

* Early this year, Rashidi lawyers offered to take pro-bono cases for parents we were dealing with in In Defence of Children fighting for their kids - taking costs out of their trust (trust not trusts). Lawyers don't usually set up multiple trusts for mulitple clients.

* Junior lawyers btw get paid a set salary and it's not much and they don't get paid a commission, win or lose there's no financial advantage for Kath - if you're slinging mud in that direction.

* Jones’s invoice was for $12,470.83 yours $37,529.17 totalling exactly $50,000. Neither of you paid a cent  for their legal services - frankly that looked like they negotiated as much as Pesutto could afford.

That's not an uncommon practice. He didn't get that much donated to his side of the cause. So May 17, Mr Pesutto told reporters he paid legal costs as part of the settlement, but downplayed the sum as a “small contribution” and said he had not paid damages. This information has been public for the past 7 months.

By the look of it, that was much as he could afford and if you were actually expected to pay those fees - they were more than reasonable. If you had to pay it - which you didn't.

" I also had an issue where my lawyers talked to the press about a different case without my consent."

If your lawyers talked about another case, hence that has nothing to do with you - why would your consent be required, pray tell?

" It’s possible that the OLSC find that Deves and Nolan have behaved criminally, but it’s odd, at best. "

This is a serious statement, particularly because you publicly questions the professionalism and integrity of a junior lawyer like Deves, who is still early in her career. Along with your latter (rather dark) comment of the situation could turn out to be 'career ending' for Kath.

I'm questioning why would you target Kath? Why include a junior lawyer by name in a public statement, I'm not sure if it suggests a lack of consideration for the power dynamics at play. As a junior lawyer, Deves relies on senior colleagues and firm policies to guide her actions.

Public allegations of potential criminal conduct against someone at the very start of their career could have significant consequences.. - reputational damage within the legal profession. - undue stress, particularly after the hellish year of 2022 and professional harm, even if the claims are baseless.

So..hindering her ability to build trust with future clients or employers. However it certainly aids a strategic move to paint the entire firm as incompetent or unethical. Again call me cynical - but the use of "criminally" is a strong and specific accusation. For something to be criminal, it must involve a clear breach of the law, not just poor judgment or procedural issues. If you cannot substantiate these claims, the comment risks being seen as defamatory itself, doesn't it?

The vague phrasing ("it’s possible") could be interpreted as a way to insinuate wrongdoing without fully committing to the claim, giving you some plausible deniability. At the same time, such language invites scrutiny, as it suggests you could be trying to escalate the situation beyond ethical complaints to something more serious.

Seems kind of dirty and backhanded if I was to be frank, for a situation that cost you nothing. Pro-Bono. I mean, why would one do that? Creating public doubt about Kath's firm, could that pressure her boss to resolve any potential claims quickly and quietly, avoiding further reputational harm. i.e. suggesting a financial incentive on your part.

"Our cases merged without our permission.."

Were they? I don't know, from your and Jones’s perspective, the overlap in your cases—shared legal arguments, identical accusations, and a single offending party (Pesutto)—might create the impression that your individual grievances were diluted or subordinated to a collective strategy.

That perception I assume would contribute to your dissatisfaction. But I would have thought that in reality, combining strategies or pooling resources would be a cost-effective way to handle related legal matters. It’s likely the lawyers were trying to reduce costs for all parties involved (which, ironically, benefited you and Angie) and strengthen the overall case against Pesutto by presenting consistent evidence and arguments.

" and very weak apologies which Pesutto said, on the stand in Moira’s case against him, had been made that way very carefully to practically deny them in court (my opinion on his words). "

Pesutto is a weasley dick, even the Judge wasn't impressed with his inability to answer a direct question. As anyone could tell listening to the whole case, same with his underlings/colleagues. Seriously..

"The whole thing is very very suspicious, and smells of back room dealings of people who thought they had power and pawns to play with."

I could speculate likewise - the whole thing before tomorrow's outcome your allegations about potential criminal behaviour appear disproportionate, especially considering Deves’s status as a junior lawyer and the relatively positive outcome of your and Jone's case (apologies and costs covered). While you may feel aggrieved by the process, your comments seem to reflect an attempt to build a case for financial compensation by casting doubt on the integrity of Kath's firm's legal representation.

However, such tactics Kellie-Jay I think risk undermining your credibility - my feeling is that they are unsubstantiated and opportunistic.
Kat Karena.