Posted on 01/10/2022 6:44:51 PM PST by naturalman1975
The Australian Border Force are investigating whether Novak Djokovic lied on his entry form.
It appears he made a false declaration claiming he had not travelled in the 14 days leading up to his arrival in Melbourne, the Herald Sun reports.
All travellers arriving in Australia are asked if they have 'travelled or will travel in the 14 days prior to your flight to Australia'.
They are also warned: 'Giving false or misleading information is a serious offence. You may also be liable to a civil penalty for giving false or misleading information.'
Djokovic ticked 'No' in response to the question, however that appears to be in direct conflict with the timeline of his recent movements.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
So do the judge and the defense lawyers.
You, on the other hand, likely have no knowledge of Australian law or of the Australian constitution, so I'm really not sure why you feel you can tell me I'm wrong about something I know about and you don't.
Perhaps you will show me where I said I know more about Australian law or constitution than you do.
I have consistently pointed out that the duly appointed judge knows the law and the constitution, heard the case argued before his court and made his decision based on the law. That's what counts.
What you think does not count. Again you are not the judge, but you are free to opine
As do the lawyers who represented the government. But while I assume the Judge does understand the law, I do not believe he has followed it. It was clear very early on in the proceedings, he wasn't that interested in the law, when he came out with the widely quoted "The point that I am somewhat agitated about is what more could this man have done?"
That really wasn't a very Judicial thing to say, and really does give a great insight as to why he ruled the way he did.
Thanks for the advice. If I ever have the opportunity, I’ll take your suggestions.
Judges make remarks like that quite often. It doesn't in the least mean they are not interested in the law. They wouldn't be judges if they were not interested in the law.
That really wasn't a very Judicial thing to say, and really does give a great insight as to why he ruled the way he did.
No it doesn't. Now you are reaching.
We’ve already established you don’t know about Australian law so how about you just stop telling somebody trained in it how it works.
So far, you haven’t “established” anything, except mouthing off about your total meltdown over the ruling.
Which is fine. People who lose routinely trash the judge.
Chuckle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.