To, mačko!

[Кристофер Лумумбо]

1 minute ago, harper said:

 

A evo i kopirano sta kaze:

 

"As I tried to explain, we are watching the outcomes of severe incompetence. Indeed, I expect the judge to accept Djokovic’s arguments and set aside the Minister’s on the bases that the reasons are plain and simply rubbish!"

 

ma ovo da oni raspravljuajju o tome da li je on vakser ili antivasker je debilizam totalni, ne mogu da verujem sta slusam, promenio sam kanal. dobar argument adovkatima bi bio da je on obezbedio svedski sto vakcina tensierima i ostalim ucesnicima turnira u beogradu, ima onoliko psotova na interenetu gde mu se ljudi zahvaljuju. cenim da je samo to dovoljno, 

[Hermetico]

3 minutes ago, Redoran said:

Lol, pa ministar je ladno kao dokaz o Novakovom uticaju na vaskoliko australijanstvo ponudio neki anonimni tvit kojii komentariše njegov pritvor u onom hotelu rečima: "Ako mogu da urade ovo bogatom teniseru, zamislite šta će vama".

 

A @Hermetico i ja secirali tu logiku pre nekoliko strana. Pa da li je ovo realno bre.

Da, ali vidiš da uprkos logici utiče i na neke vrlo pametne ljude ovde  Kako li tek na nekog australoanonimusa

 

EDIT Ne kažem da je argument za presudu, doduše. Ne se razumem toliko

Edited January 15, 2022 by Hermetico

[Peter Fan]

1 minute ago, Milošica said:

Pola sata 200 evra.

to je cifra za rutinske korporacijske poslove, tipa savjetovanje. Za pripremu i izlazak na sud, ovaj mu je uzeo barem 100 puta vise.

[dùda]

Just now, Ted said:

 

mislm da je pitanje koliko košta advokat ovde sasvim periferno. košta koliko košta a klijent ima para da plati. i to je to.  

ma jeste, nego eto, dosađujemo se 

[msv]

3 minutes ago, Redoran said:

Lol, pa ministar je ladno kao dokaz o Novakovom uticaju na vaskoliko australijanstvo ponudio neki anonimni tvit kojii komentariše njegov pritvor u onom hotelu rečima: "Ako mogu da urade ovo bogatom teniseru, zamislite šta će vama".

 

 

[Budja]

1 minute ago, Ted said:

 

može da se ispostavi da bi, doslednom primenom ministrovog rezona, on mogao da dođe da zaključka da treba samog sebe da deportuje iz Australije 

 

U stvari, meni nije jasno zasto vlada nije isla na cinicno ali objektivno stanje: Djokovcevo prisustvo znacajno utice na mogucnost nereda u zemlji, ne zbog njegovih aktivnosti i reci, vec samog prisustva koje moze da dovode do sukoba manje grupe koja ga podrava i vece koja ga ne podrzava u ovkiru javnog skupa kakav je AO, a koje, na kraju krajeva, moze da utice i na samu Novakovu bezbednost.

 

Cinicno, ali logicno. Tede, ima smisla?

[Ted]

3 minutes ago, Redoran said:

Lol, pa ministar je ladno kao dokaz o Novakovom uticaju na vaskoliko australijanstvo ponudio neki anonimni tvit kojii komentariše njegov pritvor u onom hotelu rečima: "Ako mogu da urade ovo bogatom teniseru, zamislite šta će vama".

 

A @Hermetico i ja secirali tu logiku pre nekoliko strana. Pa da li je ovo realno bre.

 

naravno da je realno. kad nemaš dokaze onda koristiš "dokaze"

[harper]

3 minutes ago, Lancia said:

Mogao si ranije da ga pitas a ne da ispisujemo ovde 700 i kusur strana 

 

Zato mi je drugar, da ga ne bih placao za ovakve slam dunk "savete".

 

Covek ne moze da se nacudi nekompetenciji australijskih vlasti, sokiran je da su uopste izasli na sud s ovakvim obrazlozenjem.

[Peter Fan]

 

4 minutes ago, Кристофер Лумумбо said:

 

ma ovo da oni raspravljuajju o tome da li je on vakser ili antivasker je debilizam totalni, ne mogu da verujem sta slusam, promenio sam kanal. dobar argument adovkatima bi bio da je on obezbedio svedski sto vakcina tensierima i ostalim ucesnicima turnira u beogradu, ima onoliko psotova na interenetu gde mu se ljudi zahvaljuju. cenim da je samo to dovoljno, 

Pa to je bio glavni argument drzave (da ce Jokerovo pristustvo inicirate ant-vax klimu), i k tome za dokaz su uzeli clanak BBC, u kom zapravu ni nema Jokerove izjave. To je obrani bio zicer koji nisu mogli da propuste.

Edited January 15, 2022 by Peter Fan

[vememah]

Quote

Sangeetha Pillai @sangpillai

UPDATE: Alright! The case is underway. The Minister’s submissions have also just gone online. You can find them here: https://fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/djokovic/filed-documents/sealed-Respondent-Submissions-15-01-2022.pdf. Unsurprisingly, they say that all three of Djokovic’s arguments are incorrect.

Djokovic’s 1st argument was that Hawke fell into ‘jurisdictional error’ when he cancelled the visa, bc it was ‘illogical, irrational or unreasonable’ for Hawke to conclude Djokovic’s presence would stoke anti-vax sentiment w/o considering whether cancellation would also do so

The Minister’s lawyers say Hawke *did* consider this (and that Djokovic can’t prove otherwise). They also say that even if he didn’t consider the counterargument this is not ‘illogical, irrational or unreasonable’. And even if they’re wrong on that too, it wasn’t material.

If Djokovic wants to argue that the Minister didn’t consider whether cancellation might stoke anti-vax sentiment, the ball is in his court to prove it.

This isn’t easy. And Hawke’s lawyers say that here it’s very hard because Hawke had no duty to provide Djokovic with reasons for cancellation at all. They say the court should be slow to infer that something wasn’t considered just because the reasons didn’t discuss it at length.

Hawke’s lawyers say that because Djokovic isn’t arguing that Hawke misunderstood the power under s 133C(3) his job is even harder. In other words, everyone agrees Hawke knew what he was meant to do, so it’s likely that he did it.

Hawke’s lawyers go on to say that the evidence suggests that he did, in fact, consider whether cancellation would itself stoke anti-vax sentiment. While he didn’t spell it out, they say it’s clear from the reasons that he considered the possible consequences of cancellation.

The Minister’s submission goes on to say that even if Hawke did not consider whether cancellation would stoke anti-vax sentiment, this would not be illogical, irrational or unreasonable.

The Minister submissions point out that that the bar for showing something is illogical, irrational or unreasonable is extremely high, and that even if it’s been met here, failure to consider whether cancellation would stoke anti-vax sentiment is not ‘material’.

‘It’s not material’ basically means something like: ‘even if Hawke didn’t consider these things, and he should have, it doesn’t really matter because it was never going to lead to a different outcome’.

Djokovic’s second argument was that it was not open to Hawke to find that Djokovic’s presence may foster anti-vax sentiment. Essentially this boils down to whether Hawke had evidence to reach this conclusion, and whether he reached the conclusion reasonably.

The Minister’s submissions point out that again the bar is high for Djokovic. There doesn’t need to be a ton of evidence, just some. The Minister’s submissions say it’s clear from Hawke’s reasons that there was some evidence…

…and that it’s not unreasonable to draw on that evidence to conclude that Djokovic’s presence ‘might’ stoke anti-vax sentiment. Again, Hawke has a pretty low threshold to get over to be on solid legal ground, which makes Djokovic’s job hard.

Djokovic’s final argument was that it wasn’t open to Hawke to make a finding that Djokovic had a ‘well-known stance on vaccination’ without asking his current views on vaccination. The Ministers subs once again say that this is a hard point for Djokovic to make.

The Minister’s subs point out that failing to make inquiries will only be jurisdictional error in ‘rare or exceptional cases’. Here, they say, Hawke made it clear that it wouldn’t have made a difference to his decision.

Hawke expressly said in his reasons that he was more concerned with the public perception of Djokovic’s views on vaccination than with what Djokovic’s current views actually are.

Moreover, the subs say it was reasonable to conclude that Djokovic is opposed to vaccination based on his previous public statements & the fact that he’s known to be unvaccinated. Hawke’s lawyers say it was thus open for him to infer that Djokovic had known anti-vaccination views

That’s all from the subs. If you would like to watch the hearing you can do so here: https://youtube.com/watch?v=YRxyGJGi6OE. And @karenlsweeney is live-tweeting again

https://twitter.com/sangpillai/status/1482488951579738112

Edited January 15, 2022 by vememah

[Peter Fan]

zaustavio sudija advokatov blitzkrieg, izbacio ga iz takta na momenat

[Frank Pembleton]

Da li je moguće da je Novak u zapravo sada jedino bitno da "skine ljagu" sa sebe da je predvodnik avaxa? I da je advokatima rekao da to forsiraju?

... Shiit has hit the fan

[BlackGeorge]

00.28 Novakovo prisustvo dosad nije izazivalo antivakserske proteste

Đokovićevi advokati su naveli da, uprkos tome što je nastupao na velikom broju turnira, nigde nije bilo problema vezanih za porast antivakserskog pokreta.

00.14 Ministar nije ni pročitao Novakovu medicinsku dokumentaciju 

Houk, ministar za imigracije u Australiji, je otkrio da nije čitao dokumentaciju koju mu je Novakov tim dao jer "nije doktor", te da je odluku doneo na osnovu članka objavljenog na BBC-ju.

[Ros]

Just now, Frank Pembleton said:

Da li je moguće da je Novak u zapravo sada jedino bitno da "skine ljagu" sa sebe da je predvodnik avaxa? I da je advokatima rekao da to forsiraju?

... Shiit has hit the fan
 

 

sumnjam da je on njima odredjivao strategiju. 

[Budja]

1 minute ago, Peter Fan said:

 

Pa to je bio glavni argument drzave (da ce Jokerovo pristustvo inicirate ant-vax klimu), i k tome za dokaz su uzeli clanak BBC, u kom zapravu ni nema Jokerove izjave. To je obrani bio zicer koji nisu mogli da propuste.

 

Meni se cini da je problem u mesanju argumenata Vlade. Bullet points ukazuju da se sentiment siri zbog  Novakovog sirenja antivakserstva I zbog Novakovog samog prisustva. Docim prvo lako moze da se opovrgne, ne znam  kako odbrana moze opovrgne drugo, kada ne postoji counterfactual kao cinjenica - sta bi se desilo da je Djokovic van Australje.