Latest news with #Australian-born
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Rupert Murdoch should fight Trump's bogus lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal
Rupert Murdoch is arguably one of the people most responsible for President Donald Trump's ascension to the White House. And yet, at a time when major news outlets' corporate parents are settling Trump's bogus lawsuits and capitulating to regulatory threats by doling out multimillion-dollar payoffs, any freedom-loving American should be rooting for the Australian-born right-wing media mogul to stand up to the president's all-out assault on free speech. Trump is suing Murdoch, News Corp., Dow Jones & Co., The Wall Street Journal's publisher and two reporters who wrote a bombshell article last week about a 'bawdy' Trump-penned birthday note to the late billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Trump claims the letter is a 'fake,' and his lawyers in the suit accuse the Journal of 'glaring failures in journalistic ethics and standards of accurate reporting.' He wants the defendants to pay at least $20 billion. Trump posted to Truth Social on Friday: 'I look forward to getting Rupert Murdoch to testify in my lawsuit against him and his 'pile of garbage' newspaper, the WSJ. That will be an interesting experience!!!' The White House also booted the Journal from the press pool for an upcoming presidential visit to Scotland. It's not hard to see why Trump thinks this could work. Disney and Paramount, rather than take Trump to court and win (as many legal experts said they would), paid off settlements of $15 million and $16 million, respectively, to end Trump's legal attacks against ABC News and CBS News. Just as some white shoe law firms and universities sheepishly bent the knee when faced with the Trump administration's punitive threats, Disney and Paramount helped solidify a model of corporate cowardice. These companies demonstrated they'd rather just pay off the shakedown artist in the White House than stand up for their news operations or the First Amendment. A representative with Dow Jones, the Journal's parent company, said in a statement: 'We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit.' To be sure, that's what they all say at first. But there are reasons for hope that the 94-year-old Murdoch could show more spine than his competitors. Murdoch's Fox News and New York Post properties — for the most part — have been reliable MAGA cheerleaders in the decade since Trump's 2015 escalator ride announcing he was running for the Republican presidential nomination. But there have been cracks in their Trump devotion. The day after the Jan. 6 Capitol riots, the Post's editorial board put the blame on Trump. Murdoch, for his part, was so outraged at Trump's conduct that he wrote in an email to a Fox News executive that he wanted the network to 'make Trump a non person.' Obviously, once the Republican base made it clear that there was literally nothing Trump could do that would make it vote for another contender, Fox News once again got in line behind Trump during the 2024 election. But Murdoch seems to understand that The Wall Street Journal is a much different property from a cable news network and a shouty local tabloid. Murdoch never turned the Journal into a sensationalist, ideologically conservative outlet. Under his ownership, the Journal has maintained its well-deserved reputation for diligent, independent news reporting. And Murdoch knows there's a distinct value to that. Even the Journal's typically Trump-adoring editorial board has repeatedly decried Trump's shakedowns of media outlets' parent companies. A WSJ editorial from June beseeched Paramount to resist the 'threat of regulatory disapproval' and instead 'win the legal case, vindicate its CBS journalists and the First Amendment, and trust that the FCC has enough integrity to operate as something more than the President's personal protection racket.' If only Paramount shared the right-wing editorial board's ethical clarity on the matter. Oh, well. Trump's history of bogus, speech-chilling lawsuits is well-documented. He's been filing them for decades, even once boasting that he knew he'd lose the cases but persisted with them because he knew they would make his perceived enemies' lives 'miserable.' There are other reasons Murdoch should fight back against Trump's legal thuggery. A judge last week threw out Trump's nearly $50 million lawsuit against legendary journalist Bob Woodward, and as my colleague Steve Benen noted, 'When Trump sued CNN and demanded $475 million, the case was thrown out; when he sued The Washington Post, the case was thrown out; and when he sued The New York Times, seeking $100 million, the case was thrown out.' In a thread posted to X, attorney Andrew Fleischman noted some of the reasons Trump's lawsuit against Murdoch and the Journal is a complete mess. These include the fact that Trump's legal team filed the suit in Florida, which has an anti-SLAPP law to protect people menaced by such bogus suits. Fleischman also noted what he says is a procedural error by Trump's legal team that could lead to a dismissal and Trump's paying the Journal's legal fees. Fleischman's conclusion: 'This lawsuit is meant to punish a newspaper for fair reporting. Any lawyer who tells you it has merit is talking out his ass.' Murdoch's often factually challenged right-wing media empire has done incalculable damage to the American body politic — and continues to serve as a faithful echo chamber for MAGA rhetoric during Trump's reign of flagrant authoritarianism. But the nonagenarian billionaire has a chance to stand up to a bully whom he clearly has no great personal affection for, and he has the chance to at least do his part in blocking Trump's rampage on the First Amendment. This is a legacy-defining moment. If Murdoch stands up to Trump's cancel culture and his defamation suit lawfare — and vigorously defends The Wall Street Journal and its journalists — Murdoch can boast that, at least once, he did the right thing for America. This article was originally published on
NZ Herald
15 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Mama Hooch appeal: Rapist Christchurch brothers' lawyer says trial judge ‘biased' and ‘justice not done'
Danny and Roberto Jaz were convicted of 69 charges between them, including rape, sexual violation, indecent assault, stupefying, disabling, making intimate recordings of women without their knowledge or consent and supplying illicit drugs. The offending took place at Mama Hooch and nearby Venuti - a bar and restaurant owned and run by the Jaz family in central Christchurch. Danny was sentenced to 16-and-a-half years in prison for drugging and or violating 19 women. Roberto Jaz was sentenced to 17 years behind bars for offending against eight women. Both men were ordered to serve a minimum of half of their sentences before they are eligible for parole. The Australian-born brothers were described by Judge Paul Mabey - who presided over their trial and sentencing - as 'arrogant' and 'entitled'. 'The level of your offending is unknown in this country ... you helped yourself to young women with callous disregard for their rights and their dignity,' he said at the time. 'You should both be of no doubt that you've severely damaged all of your victims by your predatory and heartless offending, driven by arrogance, misguided self-belief, and a complete lack of respect for the rights of those you've offended against. Judge Paul Mabey KC. Photo / George Heard 'Neither of you showed any remorse… you are sexual predators. Perhaps misogynistic attitudes and the patriarchal approach to life within your family may have engendered an unhealthy attitude to women. 'You make conscious decisions to exploit and abuse your victims… You were men in your 30s… what occurred was a continuous course of conduct over a period of three-and-a-half years.' Both men are now appealing some of their convictions and sentences. Both pleaded guilty to a number of offences at the start of their trial. They are not disputing those counts. Defence - judge biased, made errors The appeal was heard yesterday by Justice Cameron Mander. The Jaz brothers are currently represented by high-profile Auckland defence lawyer Ron Mansfield KC. Mansfield's most notable recent case was the prosecution of Philip Polkinghorne, the Auckland eye surgeon accused and acquitted of murdering his wife, Pauline Hanna. Ron Mansfield KC appearing in the High Court at Auckland during the Polkinghorn trial. Photo / Michael Craig Yesterday, Mansfield laid out the grounds for the appeal. He said the prosecution of the brothers was 'substantial' - from the number of charges to the number of complainants, witnesses and information before the trial judge, including 1947 pages of notes of evidence and many hours of video '(The offenders) did not get a fair hearing in the lower court and there was a significant miscarriage of justice,' he said. 'In effect, the judge simplistically ran roughshod over the defence cases… Beyond that, he failed to consider all relevant evidence related to identified charges resulting independently in miscarriages of justice in relation to those specific charges.' Mansfield said the charges, trial and appeal were 'complex'. The trial began in early February 2023 and finished on April 4. Judge Mabey then delivered his verdicts on April 21. He outlined a number of issues with the way the trial was handled including Judge Mabey 'shutting down' evidence and not allowing the defence or Crown to deliver closing statements. 'This was a long, complex trial involving a number of defendants, a very large number of alleged victims or complainants, and a significantly large number of charges. 'For the judge not to allow counsel… to deliver closing arguments and in fact also not to permit the crown to do so rendered the trial unfair. Danny Jaz in the dock at sentencing. Photo / George Heard 'As the court will know, justice must be done. And in my submission, justice can only be done if ordinary principles of natural justice are applied so that both parties have the opportunity to present their defences in court and to ensure that the trial of those charges has an opportunity to fully understand what they say in relation to each of those charges. 'There's also optical and procedural aspects to this concern - because as the Court knows, justice needs to be seen to be done. 'The primary principle for this appeal was that justice wasn't done, nor was it seen to be done - and principally because the trial judge for efficiency, namely the need to conclude this trial quickly.' Mansfield said there was no doubt Judge Mabey understood the defence cases generally - but he 'didn't give himself the chance to understand them in granular detail'. Thus, he could not possibly deliver 'a reasoned and balanced judgment' that took into account both the Crown and defence cases. Roberto Jaz in court at sentencing. Photo / George Heard He said the judge showed 'predetermination and bias' well before the end of the trial, which was 'improper'. 'He repeatedly oversimplified points and failed to consider others,' Mansfield submitted. 'He also shut down the section 147 applications without argument.' Section 147 of the New Zealand Criminal Procedure Act 2011 allows a court to dismiss a criminal charge before or during a trial, but before a verdict or guilty plea. Mansfield also took exception to the opening address delivered at the District Court trial by Crown prosecutor Andrew McRae. Trial rules dictated that - unless the court directs otherwise - the Crown was allowed to make a 'short outline of the charge of charges the defendant faces' and 'a short outline of the issues at the trial'. 'Neither defendant at that point sought to make an opening statement… but the prosecutor, was permitted to make a very long and detailed opening statement,' he said. McRae's statement was delivered over two days and but was 'reduced in a written form' for the court file. Mansfield said given the length and detail of the Crown opening, it was 'incumbent' on Judge Mabey to ensure that there was an opportunity for the defence to respond. 'Their response would come… ordinarily by way of closing arguments or addresses. In a trial such as this, and especially when the Crown has an opportunity to address the court in such detail at the start of the trial, there must In the interests of natural justice, if nothing more, be the opportunity for the defendant to be able to respond and ensure that the judge understands their defence and identify the relevant or key principles and the relevant and key passages of evidence. 'He failed to properly grapple with points the defence would have made in a closing address. They could have assisted the judge with inconsistencies with evidence.' Justice Cameron Mander. Photo / George Heard Mansfield made a number of other claims about the 'improper' way Judge Mabey conducted the trial. He acknowledged he was an experienced legal practitioner both as a lawyer and judge. 'But while that's true, he has also been appealed and overturned by the Court of Appeal for abandoning the neutrality required by a judge and effectively acting as a second prosecutor. 'Moreover, his experience is irrelevant to the obvious procedural unfairness of allowing the Crown to open, but denying the defence counsel any chance to meaningfully present their arguments at any stage. 'It was unfair for him to effectively focus on the ability of the Crown… over and above the defendant's right to a fair trial. There was a perceived lack of the judge being neutral… and that the (Jaz brothers') right to present their defences and to a fair trial took a backseat to the Crown's ability to present the strongest case against them. 'He did intervene a lot… both when the Crown were leading evidence and when the complainants were being cross-examined." Mansfield went through a number of examples from the trial evidence where he believed Judge Mabey. He said he was 'driven' by 'being efficient' and there was 'no explicable reason why' he made some of the decisions he did. Crown - trial outcome solid Senior Crown counsel Charlotte Brook disagreed with the defence appeal argument. She submitted that Judge Mabey's process and final decision was sound and right. She pointed out to the court that at no time during the trial did the offenders' lawyers raise the issues Mansfield has outlined at the appeal. Brook said the Crown accepted that the decision not to allow closing addresses may have been erroneous. Danny Jaz (L) and Roberto Jaz have been convicted of rape and a raft of other charges relating to the drugging and sexual assault of women at their family bar and restaurant Mama Hooch and Venuti in Christchurch. Photo / Pool But she argued that the error did not give rise to a risk of a miscarriage of justice. '(Judge Mabey) was certainly well aware of the defence case,' she said. 'He did frequently interject during the trial, but… he was the factfinder - he was entitled to ask questions. 'He was indeed well aware of the defence that was running on these charges. 'There wasn't strong opposition to the course chosen by the judge.' Justice Mander has reserved his decision. 'Hard to hear' Survivor Sophie Brown sat through yesterday's hearing, alongside other women assaulted by Danny and or Roberto Jaz, and spoke to the Herald afterwards. Mama Hooch sexual assault survivor Sophie Brown. Photo / Joe Allison She said the appeal grounds felt 'flimsy' and she was confident the offenders would not succeed. 'Some of it was hard to hear. A lot of it actually,' she said. 'I still felt pretty confident that their sentences aren't going anywhere. I said to the (Crown) lawyer afterwards, 'If that was the strongest argument they've got, I feel pretty confident that we're fine'.' Brown was just 18 when Danny Jaz assaulted her in a bathroom at Mama Hooch in 2017. While hearing details of her assault repeated in court was 'jarring', it was important for her to be there. 'While I have no bearing on whatever would happen (in court) I think being there, taking a stand, showing the judge, showing the lawyers that myself - along with other survivors - we care about this case, we care about keeping these men behind bars,' Brown said. 'If we decided that we didn't like the outcome, and we hadn't been here for the legal conversations... even if we don't like the outcome, just being informed makes a big difference.' Anna Leask is a senior journalist who covers national crime and justice. She joined the Herald in 2008 and has worked as a journalist for 19 years with a particular focus on family and gender-based violence, child abuse, sexual violence, homicides, mental health and youth crime. She writes, hosts and produces the award-winning podcast A Moment In Crime, released monthly on
Sydney Morning Herald
16 hours ago
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
‘Forged' and ‘fake': PNG sport, business supremo hits out at corruption concerns
The oil and gas boss who led Papua New Guinea's bid for a National Rugby League franchise has blasted corruption concerns about his business dealings as 'baseless claims' designed to discredit the country's historic admission to the Australian competition. Wapu Sonk on Friday stepped down as a director from the incoming team's board at the request of PNG Prime Minister James Marape, after this masthead uncovered suspect dealings between the Sonk-led Kumul Petroleum Holdings and a Chinese government-controlled entity over the upgrade of a PNG port. Marape said at the weekend that he ordered an investigation after a letter emerged from March this year from Australian-born Kumul Petroleum project manager Jason Pollock to the Chinese company directing it to use companies owned by Pollock and Sonk. Sonk is managing director of Kumul Petroleum, PNG's state-owned energy business and the country's largest company. He declined to answer questions put to him last week by this masthead, but in a statement issued on Monday night, he described the letter as 'fabricated'. 'These claims are based on false information and the matter is being investigated internally within KPHL and will be referred to the police for investigation,' Sonk said. 'I will ensure all these baseless claims are properly addressed, and that those who falsified documents are properly dealt with through legal channels.' Sonk said he had stood down from the board of the Albanese government-backed PNG NRL team 'to ensure there is no hindrance in progressing our new NRL franchise team forward' and that he would pursue defamation action in Australia to clear his name.
The Age
16 hours ago
- Business
- The Age
‘Forged' and ‘fake': PNG sport, business supremo hits out at corruption concerns
The oil and gas boss who led Papua New Guinea's bid for a National Rugby League franchise has blasted corruption concerns about his business dealings as 'baseless claims' designed to discredit the country's historic admission to the Australian competition. Wapu Sonk on Friday stepped down as a director from the incoming team's board at the request of PNG Prime Minister James Marape, after this masthead uncovered suspect dealings between the Sonk-led Kumul Petroleum Holdings and a Chinese government-controlled entity over the upgrade of a PNG port. Marape said at the weekend that he ordered an investigation after a letter emerged from March this year from Australian-born Kumul Petroleum project manager Jason Pollock to the Chinese company directing it to use companies owned by Pollock and Sonk. Sonk is managing director of Kumul Petroleum, PNG's state-owned energy business and the country's largest company. He declined to answer questions put to him last week by this masthead, but in a statement issued on Monday night, he described the letter as 'fabricated'. 'These claims are based on false information and the matter is being investigated internally within KPHL and will be referred to the police for investigation,' Sonk said. 'I will ensure all these baseless claims are properly addressed, and that those who falsified documents are properly dealt with through legal channels.' Sonk said he had stood down from the board of the Albanese government-backed PNG NRL team 'to ensure there is no hindrance in progressing our new NRL franchise team forward' and that he would pursue defamation action in Australia to clear his name.
The Star
19 hours ago
- Politics
- The Star
Putrajaya yet to receive Adams request
WISMA Putra has yet to receive any application from the United States regarding the nomination of conservative commentator and writer Nick Adams as the new US Ambassador to Malaysia, says Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan. Any information regarding the matter would be brought to the Cabinet for its views and consideration before any decision is made, he added. 'On Nick Adams, we have yet to receive any request or agreement from the US government. 'Let's wait and see how it goes. Wisma Putra will provide views and considerations to be brought to the Cabinet and the Cabinet will decide on it,' he said when responding to a supplementary question by Abdul Latiff Abdul Rahman (PN-Kuala Krai). International media had previously reported that US President Donald Trump had nominated Adams, an Australian-born conservative political commentator who is now a US citizen, as the US Ambassador to Malaysia. Mohamad said it would be premature if Malaysia rejected Adams' appointment when no confirmation had been forthcoming from the US government. 'That's my only answer for now, because we haven't received anything (from the US government),' he said. Adams' nomination has been criticised by many over his far-right views and vocal support of the Israeli regime. His nomination by Trump will have to be approved by the US Senate before he can assume the role. Former ministers Datuk Zaid Ibrahim and Khairy Jamaluddin have earlier said Malaysia has every right under the Vienna Convention to reject Adams' appointment without providing a reason. On another matter, Mohamad said Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's recent visit to France has helped strengthen bilateral relations between both countries. He added that leaders of both nations have held talks on several issues during the brief stopover by Anwar while on the way to Brazil to attend the BRICS Summit earlier this month. 'It is not accurate to say the Prime Minister's visit was not meaningful. 'The Prime Minister held talks with French President Emmanuel Macron on several issues. 'It was also the case about the Prime Minister's stopover in Italy, where he met the country's leader,' he told Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal (PN-Machang). The MP had asked why Anwar was not accorded an official welcoming ceremony when he visited France. Wan Ahmad Fayhsal said a state-level welcome was accorded to the then prime minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, in 1997 and Indonesian president Prabowo Subianto, who was invited to attend the Bastille Day celebration recently. He added Anwar's visit was a 'missed opportunity', particularly when Malaysia was chairing Asean. Mohamad said Anwar's visit was just a stopover in France while he was on his way to attend the BRICS summit. 'If it were an official visit, we would have gone directly to the country instead of just making a stopover,' he added. He said that Anwar decided to make stopovers in France and Italy as he had been invited by the leadership of the two countries.
