NEWS Reluctant sex-symbol Anthony Seibold's lawyers may have struck gold

[The Strapper]

"cybercrime experts" sounds like the biggest wank.

Police will humour him a bit I assume and that'll be it.

Hope he finds a better hobby, hell of a way to spend your savings.

Fair dinkum this thread should be closed down it is a waste of everybody’s time.

 

[Kimlo]

Well, it seems Seibold has moved forward with his complaint by lodging details about 3 social media account info with police. The NRL Integrity Unit already has them and now that it is a police matter, will step back in their investigations:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/se...-over-social-media-posts-20200908-p55tll.html

"Sources with knowledge of the situation have told the Herald that the report identified three social media accounts of interest. The cybercrime experts weren’t able to identify the person behind one of them, while another has links to high-profile people within rugby league."

Incidentally, embedded in the article is a grab of Sterlo analysing our poor kicking game in the Panthers match

Give it time mate, it hasn't been 48 hours yet. I'm sure once the ex British special forces dude wakes up and has his coffee we'll be a little closer.

 

[007]

Its a train wreck.

 

[abashii]

Well, it seems Seibold has moved forward with his complaint by lodging details about 3 social media account info with police. The NRL Integrity Unit already has them and now that it is a police matter, will step back in their investigations:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/se...-over-social-media-posts-20200908-p55tll.html

"Sources with knowledge of the situation have told the Herald that the report identified three social media accounts of interest. The cybercrime experts weren’t able to identify the person behind one of them, while another has links to high-profile people within rugby league."

Incidentally, embedded in the article is a grab of Sterlo analysing our poor kicking game in the Panthers match

Given the utter shambles everything else has become, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the account with "links to high-profile people within rugby league" was the Matty Johns Show's Facebook page. People were posting rumours over in the comments there. I wonder how many billable hours of European cybercrime counter-terrorism 1337 hax0rs were spent typing "Matty Johns show" into google and painstakingly sifting through the video results?

Note: I would expect this to be self-evident but for any lawyers, accountants and other similarly handicapped individuals reading this, I'm not alleging, implying or otherwise suggesting Matty Johns or any other employees of the Fox network were behind these posts or through any act of deliberate or negligent malice caused or allowed their page to be swarmed by wave after wave of internet-based halfwits, each one trying to outdo the last in both sheer volume and outrageousness of the vile and untrue rumours they posted. Everyone knows Andrew was the looser of the two brothers.

 

[Horseheadsup]

Inspector Clouseau is on the job.

 

[Sproj]

Inspector Clouseau is on the job.

He's do a FAR better job.

 

[Jason Simmons]

Hypothetically speaking and making no accusations here what so ever.

What is the fallout for the individual if it happens to be a BIG Star current or Ex player.

Im talking about the profile of someone like JT, Parker, Joey, Pearce, Gordie etc.

Depends on the media aspects of course, but legally, Siebold has 2/5ths of f*ckall. He can try defamation but it’s not as easy as made out and if you accuse someone of defaming you, you have to go to a court and prove they did. They don’t have to do jack sh*t.

NSW Police will look at this, laugh and then move on to actual criminal investigations. The Integrity Unit will consider this for a bit before it is filed, most likely as a non-NRL matter and Pies will then have to pursue it out of his own pocket if he wants to have a crack civilly, to achieve what?

There are no pecuniary damages (in Qld at least) for defamation, so the only ‘hip pocket’ he’ll be hurting is his own, unless he can show a major loss of income as a result of the alleged defamation he has suffered... Speculative invoicing is also given short shrift by courts in Australia, and given he just got a million / multi-million plus golden handshake, I think it will be difficult for him to prove any major loss of earnings...

 

[Sproj]

Depends on the media aspects of course, but legally, Siebold has 2/5ths of f*ckall. He can try defamation but it’s not as easy as made out and if you accuse someone of defaming you, you have to go to a court and prove they did. They don’t have to do jack sh*t.

NSW Police will look at this, laugh and then move on to actual criminal investigations. The Integrity Unit will consider this for a bit before it is filed, most likely as a non-NRL matter and Pies will then have to pursue it out of his own pocket if he wants to have a crack civilly, to achieve what?

There are no pecuniary damages (in Qld at least) for defamation, so the only ‘hip pocket’ he’ll be hurting is his own, unless he can show a major loss of income as a result of the alleged defamation he has suffered... Speculative invoicing is also given short shrift by courts in Australia, and given he just got a million / multi-million plus golden handshake, I think it will be difficult for him to prove any major loss of earnings...

Thanks for explaining this but in fairness, I don’t think there is a single person anywhere who hasn’t known nothing will come of it since the start.

 

[rnabokov]

Depends on the media aspects of course, but legally, Siebold has 2/5ths of f*ckall. He can try defamation but it’s not as easy as made out and if you accuse someone of defaming you, you have to go to a court and prove they did. They don’t have to do jack sh*t.

NSW Police will look at this, laugh and then move on to actual criminal investigations. The Integrity Unit will consider this for a bit before it is filed, most likely as a non-NRL matter and Pies will then have to pursue it out of his own pocket if he wants to have a crack civilly, to achieve what?

There are no pecuniary damages (in Qld at least) for defamation, so the only ‘hip pocket’ he’ll be hurting is his own, unless he can show a major loss of income as a result of the alleged defamation he has suffered... Speculative invoicing is also given short shrift by courts in Australia, and given he just got a million / multi-million plus golden handshake, I think it will be difficult for him to prove any major loss of earnings...

I understand Seibold is not interested in defamation. He wants criminal proceedings brought against those he alleges cyber-bullied him and therefore went to the police. Accordingly, the NRL has shelved their investigations because police are conducting theirs. In any case, whether it's defamation or a criminal matter, when you say "you have to go to a court and prove they did. They don’t have to do jack sh*t.", isn't that the case anyway at trial, where the prosecution has to prove its case on the facts? And the defence's job is just that, defend the accusations, which isn't jacksh*t. Seibold's task - an admittedly very difficult one - is to produce the hard evidence hence the police, whose job it is to investigate, whether they laugh at it (probably Roosters supporters) or not. And if they laugh at Seibold's case and "then move on to actual criminal investigations", then that says a lot about the NSW Police.

Since Seibold isn't looking at defamation, the issue of damages doesn't arise. There is no hip pocket wanting to be filled. As he is seeking criminal proceedings and not defamation, then of course he is paying for it. And good on him. He's been bullied and he wants justice. I hope he gets it.

 

[Dexter]

If I was in Seibolds shoes I would release all the names .
Defamation laws should work both ways.

 

[Sproj]

If I was in Seibolds shoes I would release all the names .
Defamation laws should work both ways.

Even if he wanted to, he can’t because he doesn’t have anything.

 

[abashii]

If I was in Seibolds shoes I would release all the names .
Defamation laws should work both ways.

You'd want to be pretty bloody sure you had not only the right names but enough rock solid evidence to show that's the case. That may be why he wants the filth to take on the case instead, that way there's no blowback when it all goes tits up.

 

[007]

I understand Seibold is not interested in defamation. He wants criminal proceedings brought against those he alleges cyber-bullied him and therefore went to the police. Accordingly, the NRL has shelved their investigations because police are conducting theirs. In any case, whether it's defamation or a criminal matter, when you say "you have to go to a court and prove they did. They don’t have to do jack sh*t.", isn't that the case anyway at trial, where the prosecution has to prove its case on the facts? And the defence's job is just that, defend the accusations, which isn't jacksh*t. Seibold's task - an admittedly very difficult one - is to produce the hard evidence hence the police, whose job it is to investigate, whether they laugh at it (probably Roosters supporters) or not. And if they laugh at Seibold's case and "then move on to actual criminal investigations", then that says a lot about the NSW Police.

Since Seibold isn't looking at defamation, the issue of damages doesn't arise. There is no hip pocket wanting to be filled. As he is seeking criminal proceedings and not defamation, then of course he is paying for it. And good on him. He's been bullied and he wants justice. I hope he gets it.

For criminal proceedings, they have to be of a threatening, harassing or intimidating nature directly. Ontop they need to prove said person was behind keyboard at time. If police did chose to prosecute he wouldn't have to worry about the bill, and prosecuting would only be done on the facts.

His only potential avenue is civil, and there's sweet FA there to hold up in a civil case.

 

[Jason Simmons]

I understand Seibold is not interested in defamation. He wants criminal proceedings brought against those he alleges cyber-bullied him and therefore went to the police. Accordingly, the NRL has shelved their investigations because police are conducting theirs. In any case, whether it's defamation or a criminal matter, when you say "you have to go to a court and prove they did. They don’t have to do jack sh*t.", isn't that the case anyway at trial, where the prosecution has to prove its case on the facts? And the defence's job is just that, defend the accusations, which isn't jacksh*t. Seibold's task - an admittedly very difficult one - is to produce the hard evidence hence the police, whose job it is to investigate, whether they laugh at it (probably Roosters supporters) or not. And if they laugh at Seibold's case and "then move on to actual criminal investigations", then that says a lot about the NSW Police.

Since Seibold isn't looking at defamation, the issue of damages doesn't arise. There is no hip pocket wanting to be filled. As he is seeking criminal proceedings and not defamation, then of course he is paying for it. And good on him. He's been bullied and he wants justice. I hope he gets it.

People have an interesting view of police. They seem to think based on US television that it is up to them, whether police charge someone or not. It isn’t. People may make a complaint, but police decide whether to charge or not, the individuals involved and with what. Seibold may well want the police to charge someone, but that doesn’t mean they will.

Now the only likely offences NSW Police can be investigating, if indeed they are investigating anything, unless there is far more to the story than we have been told about, is either Criminal Defamation (if NSW has such an offence), or a Commonwealth offence of Using a Carriage Service, to threaten, Menace or Harass.

The difference between doing it yourself and complaining to the police, is who gathers the evidence, and what ability they have to gather said evidence, and who then presents it to court and how. Police have far more extensive powers available to them to gather evidence, than private investigators or lawyers ever will. They have specialist units, such as forensic computer experts, surveillance operatives and the ability to intercept data, calls and sms / mms during investigations...

When they decide to prosecute, police have trained litigators and / of the office of the DPP to present their case. All of that is why the courts lean so heavily in favour of the defendant’s rights so often, because the weight of ‘power’ in this scenario is clearly with the State.

Now civilly with a legal team, private forensic computer examiners and so on, you can mimic these investigative resources to some degree, but you have to do and fund it all yourself. You have to go to court and present your case, you have to endure all the issues police taken on when they go to court acting on your behalf, with the defendant’s rights and so forth, you don’t have the Crown, arguing on your behalf, it’s all on you and whatever you can convince the court to go along with.

The point about ‘laughing at it’ is in terms of the seriousness of the matter and whether it even constitutes an offence. There is no offence for ‘cyber bullying’ because it is an entirely subject term. What is bullying to you, could be considered banter by others and you can’t legislate on that. What they have legislated on, Federally at least anyway, is repeated such behaviour directed at one specific person, hence the ‘Using a Carriage Service’ offence I mentioned before.

What the NSW police have to decide is whether gossiping about an NRL coach’s private life on social media, constitutes the term ‘harassing’. Hence why I said they’d laugh it. Not the act, but the fact Seibold even bothered making a complaint about this, because again on the public facts known, I can’t see it going anywhere as a “criminal” matter...

 

[rnabokov]

For criminal proceedings, they have to be of a threatening, harassing or intimidating nature directly. Ontop they need to prove said person was behind keyboard at time. If police did chose to prosecute he wouldn't have to worry about the bill, and prosecuting would only be done on the facts.

His only potential avenue is civil, and there's sweet FA there to hold up in a civil case.

As I posted, Seibold (his lawyer) has gone to the police with whatever information he has and asked them to investigate. The matter is now in the hands of the police for the outcome of that. That is all I am saying.

Seibold is also on the public record saying he is not interested in a civil matter.

All I am doing is reporting what is on the public record.

 

[rnabokov]

People have an interesting view of police. They seem to think based on US television that it is up to them, whether police charge someone or not. It isn’t. People may make a complaint, but police decide whether to charge or not, the individuals involved and with what. Seibold may well want the police to charge someone, but that doesn’t mean they will.

Now the only likely offences NSW Police can be investigating, if indeed they are investigating anything, unless there is far more to the story than we have been told about, is either Criminal Defamation (if NSW has such an offence), or a Commonwealth offence of Using a Carriage Service, to threaten, Menace or Harass.

The difference between doing it yourself and complaining to the police, is who gathers the evidence, and what ability they have to gather said evidence, and who then presents it to court and how. Police have far more extensive powers available to them to gather evidence, than private investigators or lawyers ever will. They have specialist units, such as forensic computer experts, surveillance operatives and the ability to intercept data, calls and sms / mms during investigations...

When they decide to prosecute, police have trained litigators and / of the office of the DPP to present their case. All of that is why the courts lean so heavily in favour of the defendant’s rights so often, because the weight of ‘power’ in this scenario is clearly with the State.

Now civilly with a legal team, private forensic computer examiners and so on, you can mimic these investigative resources to some degree, but you have to do and fund it all yourself. You have to go to court and present your case, you have to endure all the issues police taken on when they go to court acting on your behalf, with the defendant’s rights and so forth, you don’t have the Crown, arguing on your behalf, it’s all on you and whatever you can convince the court to go along with.

The point about ‘laughing at it’ is in terms of the seriousness of the matter and whether it even constitutes an offence. There is no offence for ‘cyber bullying’ because it is an entirely subject term. What is bullying to you, could be considered banter by others and you can’t legislate on that. What they have legislated on, Federally at least anyway, is repeated such behaviour directed at one specific person, hence the ‘Using a Carriage Service’ offence I mentioned before.

What the NSW police have to decide is whether gossiping about an NRL coach’s private life on social media, constitutes the term ‘harassing’. Hence why I said they’d laugh it. Not the act, but the fact Seibold even bothered making a complaint about this, because again on the public facts known, I can’t see it going anywhere as a “criminal” matter...

I get what you are saying.

See my above post

 

[Dexter]

Even if he wanted to, he can’t because he doesn’t have anything.

You mean like the people who were saying this garbage about Seilbold?? That's what I'm saying . It works both ways. If he can't sue them then why can they sue him.

 

[Sproj]

You mean like the people who were saying this garbage about Seilbold?? That's what I'm saying . It works both ways. If he can't sue them then why can they sue him.

Why would they be suing him? Sorry I am a little confused.