News Curtis Scott

Didn't take long for him to develop the Canberra culture

 

[BadnMean]

Riddle us this?

Why is Greenberg now threatening to stand a player down without being given access to the evidence, but was willing to let the Broncos player off for paying hush hush money because the NRL didn’t have access to evidence?​

 

[typicalfan]

If they are giving nrl an edited version of CCTV and represent that it's the evidence it could possibly constitute fraud/ gain benefit by deception offence.

At the very least the lawyer would be up for professional misconduct.

I would find it interesting if the NRL decide to stand him down factoring in evidence not supplied that it was never entitled to. Can't help but feel the NRL are overreaching if it is true what's been written.

 

[myrrh ken]

...

f**king wot m8?
I'd love to know how Scott or his representitives would face any legal consequences for providing edited footage to a private employer. The NRL have no legal jurisdiction. They dont have ANY legal rights to any evidence. None what so ever.

Scott and his team could provide a video of their arse and f**king balls to the NRL and the only repercussions that would occur is harsher penalties from the NRL and a very bad relationship.

Scott might face some repercussions from his employer for such deception, and perhaps the lawyer might get some bad publicity and lose clients for being a bit of a merkin, but they could do what ever they like to the footage they provide to the NRL and not a single charge of fraud could be laid agianst them and the Bar wouldnt give the faintest f**k what a lawyer gives to a private employer.

The bar association not interested in professional misconduct of one of their own? Of course they bloody would be.

If the lawyer dodgied up a false document in his professional capacity and passed it off as a legitimate one, he would find himself selling real estate very soon.

Fraud would depend on the appetite of the cops but could fit within the elements.

Its not about whether the nrl have rights over the video. They have simply asked. The defence can refuse. And scott will be on the sidelines.

 

[myrrh ken]

I would find it interesting if the NRL decide to stand him down factoring in evidence not supplied that it was never entitled to. Can't help but feel the NRL are overreaching if it is true what's been written.

Theyll go on what they have, which is not good for scott. The vid if its exculpatory as claimed by the lawyer, might change their mind.

 

[Chief_Chujo]

Its not about whether the nrl have rights over the video. They have simply asked. The defence can refuse. And scott will be on the sidelines.

So is the lawyer bullshitting? If the cops don't consent to other parties viewing the footage, doesn't it have to go before the court for a decision?

 

[myrrh ken]

So is the lawyer bullshitting? If the cops don't consent to other parties viewing the footage, doesn't it have to go before the court for a decision?

I dont know what legislation he is referring to and why he had to consult with the cops.

Nrl has no right to the footage so it wont go to court. Lawyer is saving face i reckon.

 

[nick87]

The bar association not interested in professional misconduct of one of their own? Of course they bloody would be.

misconduct to whom? A private entity with no legal rights to the content they are requesting access to?
No, im fairly confident the bar association wouldnt give the faintest f**k about what Eid gave or didnt give to the NRL. That's a PR matter for him and his firm to matter, it's not a legal matter because they have no legal rights to obtain to gain access or the evidence.
Legally the NRL are no different to me, i could request the footage of Scott's team and his team could send me a photo of his hairy nut suck and claim it as whatever they want to,there is no recourse for me.

Reputationally, different story. But legally, no fraud, no misconduct.

(disclaimer, unless there is some sort of standard clause in an NRL contract whereby they are obligated to give their employer this kind of evidence if charged... but i VERY much doubt that)

 

[myrrh ken]

misconduct to whom? A private entity with no legal rights to the content they are requesting access to?
No, im fairly confident the bar association wouldnt give the faintest f**k about what Eid gave or didnt give to the NRL. That's a PR matter for him and his firm to matter, it's not a legal matter because they have no legal rights to obtain to gain access or the evidence.
Legally the NRL are no different to me, i could request the footage of Scott's team and his team could send me a photo of his hairy nut suck and claim it as whatever they want to,there is no recourse for me.

Reputationally, different story. But legally, no fraud, no misconduct.

(disclaimer, unless there is some sort of standard clause in an NRL contract whereby they are obligated to give their employer this kind of evidence if charged... but i VERY much doubt that)

The bar asaociation and law society has a professional code of conduct. This is not a hard concept.

If he corresponds to the nrl he is acting in a professional capacity and bound by that code. He cant blatantly fabricate a document. Doesnt matter what the subject matter is and doesnt matter if he is representing scott in the nrl matter.

Yes he could send them footage of a nutsack. If he claims that nutsack is the police brief he is in the shit.

Lawyers get struck off for any dishonest behaviour like lying on their tax returns.

 

[lynx000]

Riddle us this?

Why is Greenberg now threatening to stand a player down without being given access to the evidence, but was willing to let the Broncos player off for paying hush hush money because the NRL didn’t have access to evidence?​

Sigh, because the NRL Integrity unit had the evidence in Fifita's case and it could not be established from that evidence that an assault occurred. Do you get the difference?

 

[lynx000]

misconduct to whom? A private entity with no legal rights to the content they are requesting access to?
No, im fairly confident the bar association wouldnt give the faintest f**k about what Eid gave or didnt give to the NRL. That's a PR matter for him and his firm to matter, it's not a legal matter because they have no legal rights to obtain to gain access or the evidence.
Legally the NRL are no different to me, i could request the footage of Scott's team and his team could send me a photo of his hairy nut suck and claim it as whatever they want to,there is no recourse for me.

Reputationally, different story. But legally, no fraud, no misconduct.

(disclaimer, unless there is some sort of standard clause in an NRL contract whereby they are obligated to give their employer this kind of evidence if charged... but i VERY much doubt that)

Mate, I think you are actually wrong on this one. The Law Society for a solicitor or the Bar Association would be concerned about one of their members providing an edited or doctored document or video to someone which did not provide a true representation of the facts. Scott's lawyer's are officers of the Supreme Court and have stringent ethical obligations.

 

[lynx000]

The bar asaociation and law society has a professional code of conduct. This is not a hard concept.

If he corresponds to the nrl he is acting in a professional capacity and bound by that code. He cant blatantly fabricate a document. Doesnt matter what the subject matter is and doesnt matter if he is representing scott in the nrl matter.

Yes he could send them footage of a nutsack. If he claims that nutsack is the police brief he is in the shit.

Lawyers get struck off for any dishonest behaviour like lying on their tax returns.

100% on the money.

 

[myrrh ken]

100% on the money.

Sounds like you do a few CLEs too?

 

[lynx000]

Sounds like you do a few CLEs too?

Yes, every year.

 

[THE CHAMP]

not really, if for instance the police officer b shot the offender in the back who was pointing a gun at police officer a

Now think.
How easy is it for a cop to kill you if a moron like you can come up with an explanation

 

[bileduct]

Riddle us this?

Why is Greenberg now threatening to stand a player down without being given access to the evidence, but was willing to let the Broncos player off for paying hush hush money because the NRL didn’t have access to evidence?​

Some galaxy brains over there at the Greenhouse.

 

[betcats]

...

f**king wot m8?
I'd love to know how Scott or his representitives would face any legal consequences for providing edited footage to a private employer. The NRL have no legal jurisdiction. They dont have ANY legal rights to any evidence. None what so ever.

Scott and his team could provide a video of their arse and f**king balls to the NRL and the only repercussions that would occur is harsher penalties from the NRL and a very bad relationship.

Scott might face some repercussions from his employer for such deception, and perhaps the lawyer might get some bad publicity and lose clients for being a bit of a merkin, but they could do what ever they like to the footage they provide to the NRL and not a single charge of fraud could be laid agianst them and the Bar wouldnt give the faintest f**k what a lawyer gives to a private employer.

It’s fraud you idiot. The video will be used as evidence in a criminal matter, they can’t doctor it ffs.

 

[nick87]

It’s fraud you idiot. The video will be used as evidence in a criminal matter, they can’t doctor it ffs.

The video used in the criminal matter of course cant be doctored, i was talking about any version they may elect to give to the NRL. i understand that lawyers obviously cant be providing inaccurate and misleading evidence to the courts, or to the police, but i did think that extended to private businesses who have no role to play in the legal process like the NRL

But enough people who probably know more about it than I are pushing back against that so obviously i am wrong on this one. Full mea culpa here.

It's still got me f**ked why Todd thinks he should be able to demand the evidence before it's gone to trial and why if the charges dont amount to the level of NFSD policy he cant just put out a statement saying the charges dont rise to required level for that policy and the NRL reserve their right to punishment once the legal process has played itself out and the NRL can be assured of it's facts.

If Eid is serious about challenging this, he shouldnt give the NRL the footage, if they see it and they decide to stand him down, that puts the presumption of guilt on his client immediately.

 

[betcats]

The video used in the criminal matter of course cant be doctored, i was talking about any version they may elect to give to the NRL. i understand that lawyers obviously cant be providing inaccurate and misleading evidence to the courts, or to the police, but i did think that extended to private businesses who have no role to play in the legal process like the NRL

But enough people who probably know more about it than I are pushing back against that so obviously i am wrong on this one. Full mea culpa here.

It's still got me f**ked why Todd thinks he should be able to demand the evidence before it's gone to trial and why if the charges dont amount to the level of NFSD policy he cant just put out a statement saying the charges dont rise to required level for that policy and the NRL reserve their right to punishment once the legal process has played itself out and the NRL can be assured of it's facts.

If Eid is serious about challenging this, he shouldnt give the NRL the footage, if they see it and they decide to stand him down, that puts the presumption of guilt on his client immediately.

“Hey toddy we have a video that proves Curtis is inncocent but we aren’t using in his defence because we’d rather do it the hard way so no reason to show it to the police or public” isn’t going to fly mate.

 

[myrrh ken]

Todd doesn't want a blatant cop basher running around playing in the interim. Needs to limit the damage to the game's reputation to the public and sponsors.

If it looks bad, he will sit it out. If it looks like the charge is suss, he can play. He knows there is a good chance the vid does the rounds after the hearing and before judgment comes out.

I get the argument that he is pre-judging the matter but NRL are responsible for the game. My only issue is that Todd has shown bad judgment in the past so I hope its before a panel.

 

[nick87]

“Hey toddy we have a video that proves Curtis is inncocent but we aren’t using in his defence because we’d rather do it the hard way so no reason to show it to the police or public” isn’t going to fly mate.

The footage in question here is being used in his defence and the police do have it.
The footage Greenberg wants to see is evidence in the proceedings, Eid has said his team have not received consent from the police to release this footage to the NRL. And he believes providing it without that police consent would breach legislation... i dont know the ins and outs of that, but that is Eid's claim

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/cu...ing-over-footage-request-20200208-p53yzb.html

"The police force are seeking legal advice, however, in the interim they have confirmed that they have no intention of releasing any of the footage to any persons outside their mandatory brief of evidence serve orders made by the court."

It has never been stated or implied they're sitting on footage that clears him that the police dont have or they dont intend to use, so im not sure where you're going with that..
If Eid is being truthful here (and he may not be, again, dont know what the actual protocol is for this in terms of Scott's team providing this evidence to the NRL) he's saying they not legally able to give the footage to the NRL, they'd happily do so but the police need to agree, so Todd needs to go to the cops and gain that clearance if he'd like to be informed before making his decision.