APPELLANT'S OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS
The judgement of the learned Judge Geoffrey Eames judgement of 27 November 2001 - Reasons why it was wrong in fact and in law and why neither Raymond Hoser or publisher should be found guilty of contempt of court (Appeal due to be heard on 6 October 2003).
This document must be read and cross-checked slowly and methodically, with reference to the other named documents, to confirm the accuracy of all points raised. This will take a long time if done properly. It should not be summarily dismissed by any judges or others who do not want to spend the appropriate amount of time going through it all. What follows is totally and undeniably accurate and claims to the contrary are lies.
The most serious points below are probably: 1, 2, 6, 9, 22-23, 30, 31
Judge Eames fabricated Burke is a rent-a-witness allegation - point 6
Fabrication of Hoser allegation re Neesham/Perry by His Honour, Judge Geoffrey Eames - point 30, 31
Falsification of transcript by Judge Eames - point 30, 31
Gross misrepresentation of facts in judgement (lies) - points 1, 6, 30, 40, 51
Invention of impossible inferences or "facts" - points 1, 2, 6, 9, 11, 21, 27, 30
Ridiculous inference - point 22, 23A, 26, 34
Gross failure to establish truth of relevant passages in book - points 13, 19, 23, 28, 40
Factual Error: failure to read A/ text, B/ VPC book - point 52
Factual error: serious omission - point 45
Ignoring evidence of truth - points 10 and 11, 12, 28
Ignoring evidence of good faith - point 9A, 55A
Misrepresenting and lying about transcript in his own trial - point 12
Evidence of failure to read books as stated - points 12, 23A, 30, 32
Invention of impossible inferences or "facts" - points 1, 2, 6, 9, 11, 21, 27, 30
Judge Usurping role of prosecutor - 54
Improper inference - 15, 17, 23B, 27, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 43, 50, 53, 54, 55
Conflicting and contradictory conclusions of fact drawn by the Learned Judge Geoffrey Eames - point 16, 26, 34
Conflicting legal views on facts - 28, 29
Misreading text - point 49
Gross hypocrisy / Double Standards - point 35, 56, 57
Conflict of interest - point 42, 60
Hoser to be damned no matter what he does - point 47
Ignoring proof of good faith - points 41, 46
Serious factual error by Judge Eames - points 41, 43, 44
Inadvertent corroboration of Hoser's claims against Neesham re unfair trial - point 44
Wrong statement - point 52
Wrong and inconsistent inference - point 53
Unreasonable comment , indication of bias - points 48, 59, 60
Incompatible findings of fact - point 56
Proof of no contempt - Point 61
Double Jeopardy - point 107
Costs orders against Hoser and Publisher in (legal) error - point 108
Why Hoser should not have been charged with contempt - point 109
Further reasons why Hoser should not have been charged with contempt - point 110
Malicious prosecution and defective Crown case - point 111
Judge Eames handling of trial as contrast to Judge Neesham matter - point 201
Further legal arguments - Point 251
Detailed appraisal of the "Contempts" found "proven" by Judge Geoffrey Eames in his judgement are given below and factual proof that His Honour, Judge Geoffrey Eames' claims are wrong and incorrect - point 301
Why the Hulls side Cross Appeal should be struck out and/or rejected - points 350 (1-8)
Definitions of terms used in this document and in Hoser books - point 401
Appellants list of legal authorities to be relied upon - Separate document online at:http://www.smuggled.com/TOTLA1.htm
On 27 November 2001 Supreme Court of Victoria Judge Eames handed down a 78 page written judgement in a case whereby this author (Raymond Hoser) and his publisher, herein treated as one and the same entity was convicted of contempt of court.
This document exposes what is wrong with the Judge Eames judgement document and other serious matters.
In doing so, for the most part, the reader is taken through a very straight foreword intellectual exercise of cross-matching this judgement with earlier published material and evidence (in the form of case transcripts and the like) to show factual errors by Judge Eames, barefaced lies by the same judge, statements of fact that are patently not factual, and even the total invention of events and happenings that on the evidence before the judge (transcripts and the like), the judge could not in any way have possibly believed these stories he has himself constructed in his judgement.
In stating all this, (the detail of which follows), I make a point of stressing none of this relies in any way on a reader depending on believing a single word from my own (Hoser's) mouth, or to accept anything I say as being credible.
This is because the exercise is simply a matter of cross-referencing agreed facts on the record that are impossible to dispute.
This applies also to references within the following summary taken from the books Victoria Police Corruption -2 (VPC-2), Victoria Police Corruption (VPC) and The Hoser Files (HF), themselves derived from these same unarguable sources.
In this case it was more the books on trial than Hoser and the materially important material is what was printed in the books, not what may be inferred was or wasn't printed.
The Judge Eames judgement fails principally because he has either failed to read the books, overlooked important statements within them, or chosen to do so deliberately.
Which is the case isn't as relevant as to the simple fact that his judgement is defective as a result.
The statement/s in the above heading/s that the Judge Eames' judgement is a collection of lies, deception, outright fabrication, omission and baseless conspiracy theories a serious one and wholly substantiated by the numbered points and arguments below.
It is not an attack on the institution of the court, but it is a statement of the facts as they are.
However before commencing with the analysis of this judgement document it is important to make clear one very important point.
On the face of it, and in the absence of the relevant supporting documents from which Judge Eames either refers to, quotes or misquotes (usually out of context), the judgement reads like a perfectly reasonable document, although towards the end it does get somewhat melodramatic with talk of threats and 'new reality' based on earlier false assertions he's made or made up.
Notwithstanding statements of opinion (about myself) and the language they are couched in, there does not appear to be anything in the document as such, that flags it's factual statements (more properly put as allegations, many of which are not true), inferences drawn and other relevant details as being in any way wrong, biased, or fabricated.
These elements only become apparent when cross referenced with the original source documents as cited in his trial, in particular the three Hoser books referred to in the trial, which were tendered absolute and the subject of the proceedings in terms of the exact words as written in the books.
While the books themselves are accurate, this is not even a relevant consideration in terms of many of the defects in the Judge Eames judgement as will become apparent later, a point stressed here to again note that NOTHING stated below depends on anyone finding me to be credible or believing a word of evidence from me … instead everything relying solely on undisputed facts on the public record that is not in dispute.
(Apologies in advance from the constant shifting in this account from the third to the first person in terms of language used).
To counter the inevitable complaints from lawyers for the Crown or a trial judge that this document is defective because it has not been written by the skilled hands of a lawyer the following comments are made:
In the first part of this document, points are addressed in the same order as in Judge Eames' judgement. That is to make the cross-checking exercise easier.
As a matter of course, material repeats at times in line with the repeated assertions of fact that are not so, as stated in the Judge Eames judgement.
Hence the blame for the repetition must rest primarily with the Judge, not myself in terms of rebuttal, noting that failure by myself to rebut may (improperly) be taken as tacit approval of false statements in the Judge Eames judgement.
Finally naming Judges via first or last name only (E.g. "Balmford") is not to be taken as disrespect, merely convenience.
From it's style and content, it becomes patently clear that Judge Eames has failed to make anything remotely resembling an unbiased and reasonable assessment of the facts and legal arguments as presented to him.
Evidence of this follows with the identification of specific points (see later).
It is also evident that in deriving his judgements of fact and law, Judge Eames has ducked and weaved around salient facts and made liberal interpretations of others to draw conclusions that range from unlikely and improper to pure fantasy, and I give examples of all these below from his own written judgement.
In essence he has been acting in a manner as if to try to make a square peg fit into a round hole.
While it could be argued that Judge Eames has honestly tackled this task in terms of judgement, the facts and nature of the written judgement render such a conclusion effectively extremely unlikely, the only reasonable conclusions being that he has deliberately embarked on an exercise to improperly impugn and convict Hoser and attack his good character or otherwise Judge Eames is exceedingly incompetent and careless in his investigations and assessments of the facts and even basic law.
The latter of these scenarios is thought highly unlikely. But to assert the most likely possibility publicly could also in theory have me (Hoser) again cited for contempt on the basis I have impugned improper motives on a judge, even though it is by far the most likely conclusion to be drawn by any reasonable and intelligent person.
Also in his arguments against Hoser in terms of his citing him for contempt, Judge Eames has adopted the attitude that Hoser will be damned no matter what he does and this is to be borne out by cross-referencing Judge Eames' own inconsistent comments and stated views as per the transcript and judgement in this case.
All relevant case transcript and the judgement is posted on the internet at:
and other sites linked from it.
These comments or similar are posted at:
and/or links from that webpage, from the time of sentencing, which is anticipated to be 4 December 2001 or shortly thereafter in response to claims already being widely disseminated by a number of people.
It is anticipated that persons reading what follows have already read the judgement and case transcript and also the three relevant books as cited below.
To best perform the straight forward intellectual exercise that follows, one may either read and believe all that follows, or if you choose not to believe all that follows without cross-checking then you must have the following documents at hand, namely:
1/ The Learned Judge Geoffrey Eames judgement,
2/ The Learned Judge Geoffrey Eames case transcript
3/ Copies of each of, Victoria Police Corruption -2, Victoria Police Corruption and The Hoser Files.
And that is all.
4/ However in terms of strictly corroborating legally undisputed points raised in the books identified above (in a scientific and legal sense) - the latter of which is not in fact necessary here for the main part, one must also have on hand (or at least in a computer), the transcripts of the Hugh Adams trial in 1988 (known as the "Bingley/O'Shannessy case"), the transcript of the Policeman Ross Bingley admitting to paying off the magistrate (Adams) on 21 December 1988, the transcript of the Magistrate Heffey Committal and the transcript of the Judge Neesham case proper.
These total several thousand pages, but fortunately have been generally available since 1999 or earlier on the internet at the web address:
For ease of reference items 3-4 are also on the Hoser Collection CD-rom which has also been on sale since late 2000, which in turn makes the following cross-referencing exercise (or corroboration of it) a simple task which can be undertaken in the complete absence of hard copy material and simply on any reasonable home computer with a decent word processing program such as MS Word and/or Adobe Acrobat programs.
It is via this later method, that this document was in fact compiled in the first instance.
Citations to page numbers in this document refer to the judgement itself. Case transcript page numbers are referred to with the prefix "T-"
This document effectively concentrates only on the Judge Eames judgement and not much else.
The case centred on three books, namely The Hoser Files, Victoria Police Corruption and Victoria Police Corruption -2. The books are referred to herein as "HF", "VPC" and "VPC-2".
The Crown alleged that passages within the books alleged myself had scandalized the courts by improperly impugning bad motives to judges (without evidence of such) and making attacks on them that tended to undermine confidence in the legal system.
The writ in full has been posted at:
and other sites.
In his declaring me guilty as charged Judge Eames went further and said that I had engaged in an exercise of falsification of facts and evidence when writing about the judges and magistrates, however he has either failed to produce the evidence of this (there is none) and has in fact himself fabricated non-existent evidence (examples of which are given below).
In other words, Judge Eames himself has done, what he has falsely accused myself of doing.
In the first instance, I will not rehash legal argument from either side or the evidence in the case unless it is materially relevant to the Judge Eames judgement and conclusions drawn as to facts and the like.
Legal arguments are given later as necessary, but not in terms of analyzing the factual 'findings' or statements of fact by Judge Eames, which forms the bulk of this document.
This is also a job perhaps best left to the lawyers themselves, although it worth noting in passing that Judge Eames has appeared to ignore crucial elements of many of the legal precedents, including the Torney and Kopyto judgements.
Non-citation of material within the judgement by myself does not in any way, tacitly or otherwise, indicate support by myself for the "facts" as decided by Judge Eames and/or conclusions drawn.
The judgement is so replete with errors that it is not possible for me to identify all here, however enough are highlighted to show a systematic abuse of the facts and other relevant matters by the judge.
More Comments of relevance
The contents of the books speak for themselves and because all three books were tendered absolute as exhibits and referred to as the contemptuous material, the judge was duty bound to read them in their entirety. This point was repeatedly made by lawyers from both sides and in his judgement accepted by Judge Eames as well.
Furthermore the factual nature of the books was not disputed by either side's lawyers and therefore must in law be accepted by the judge - this is materially relevant in terms of the conclusions and views formed by the judge and his own convoluted assessment of the "facts" as per his judgement, starting at page 7 and running for most of the rest of the judgement.
The word count of The Hoser Files is 148,164 words and for each of the other books is 329,470 (VPC), and 352,420 (VPC2) words.
As a ballpark figure to read all this material just once (without taking notes), it would take some 80 hours to do this, (rate of 10,000 words per hour) and even allowing for the fact that the judge was directed to the most relevant parts of the books (totaling at least 300,000 words), the statements made in Judge Eames' judgement indicates he has either not read the contents of these parts of the books, and/or invented what he thinks is written there, and/or ignored them.
Examples follow shortly.
As a mathematical exercise, if he had in fact read the books in their totality, that would in itself have been quite a feat, bearing in mind he'd only allowed himself four weeks to do so (from last adjournment).
Assuming he accepted the uncontested assertion that the contents of the books were accurate and in context, particularly with reference to case transcript that would have been the end of the exercise.
However if he chose to dispute the uncontested claim as in to usurp the role of prosecutor and investigate them he would then have to also read all the materially relevant transcripts of the court proceedings subject of the scandalizing charge, namely the three day case in front of Magistrate Adams, the four day trial in front of Magistrate Heffey, the five week trial in front of Judge Neesham and the one day trial in front of Chief Judge Waldron, all of which were cited in the two later books as being available in full, online at:
and materially relevant if the contents of the books.
In his judgement, Eames questioned and disputed the transcripts quoted in the books but without a shred of substantiation on his part, simply because he had none.
Even all this still fails to include other lesser but relevant transcripts and tapes such as the Bingley ones referred to by Judge Eames in this very judgement, which he chose not to listen to.
In his judgement, Judge Eames even failed to get the books titles correct, naming one "The Hoser Report" (sic), indicating a cavalier attitude to the subject at hand and sloppy dealing with the facts. (p. 66).
Throughout his judgement, Judge Eames makes reference to statements in the books or alleged lack of them, which he eventually joins up (like dots in a drawing) to allege that "This is a case where such a sophisticated campaign is being waged" in terms of undermining public confidence in the legal system. (p. 75)
Because of this careful construction by Judge Eames of his case against myself in terms of allegedly scandalizing the court, and his repeated referrals to citations that he'd earlier ruled were not contemptuous (later reversed in part in this ruling) (see comments p. 54) as part of his construction of his allegedly " sophisticated campaign" being waged by myself against the courts, I must also address those points as well, even if they do not specifically relate to the elements of the charge as finally "proved" by Judge Eames.
Specific comments (including relating to transcript from judgement).
Note: Most comments that follow are based on the potentially hazardous assumption that Judge Eames has read the relevant materials, including the books as tendered to the court. This is also because on page 31 in his judgement he states this, and more effectively on page 54 stated when talking about the trial:
"nor had I the opportunity to examine the book (VPC-2) in detail, as I have subsequently been able to do."
If the reverse is true, (making pages 31 and 54 a lie) and he hasn't read this material, then his judgement errors are more easily explainable, but amount to a gross dereliction of judicial duty, a fact that Judge Eames has himself implied is improbable in Victoria in his judgement, (Note comments above re word count of the books and the lack of time between hearing and judgement).
Just one of example amply demonstrating the fact that Judge Eames has not even read the relevant parts of the books, is demonstrated by his point 116 (pages 38 bottom, 39 top), see point "30/" below.
(pages 1-5 of his judgement are a preamble setting out the case as Judge Eames sees it).
1/ Judge Eames attack on myself (Hoser) begins on page 7 of his judgement with a false statement (lie).
"It does not appear that at the outset of the perjury trial Hoser objected to Judge Neesham presiding in the case, but very late in the trial, during final addresses, such a complaint was made."
The obvious assertion by Judge Eames being that the complaint was so late in the trial as to be worthless of merit.
However this statement is a bare-faced lie and Judge Eames must know this. You see a read of VPC-2 (page 259) will see that on the very first day of the case Hoser objected to Neesham being the judge hearing the case and that Hoser was unable to stop this from happening.
And again on page 413 of VPC-2 is a detailed account of yet another plan to have Neesham disqualify himself and the execution of an attempt to have Neesham disqualified from hearing the case in Neesham's court.
Now Judge Eames can hardly accuse me of quoting selectively here, (which has done repeatedly in his judgement), because the relevant transcript is reproduced in full on pages 413-417 and it is quite self evident from Neesham's own words, that at no stage in the trial did he ever seek to have himself disqualified as judge.
There are also earlier examples in the official transcript, but sticking to this one only, you can see that this was on Tuesday 26 September 1995, many days before the "final addresses" as Judge Eames has falsely alleged in his judgement.
And yes, if Judge Eames had taken it upon himself to genuinely dispute the undisputed evidence in the book, he could have easily accessed the "official" Neesham trial transcript and seen the same thing as in the book VPC-2 on pages 1194-1198 (the official transcript running about 1,800 pages).
1B/ Further evidence of the propensity for Judge Eames to make inferences at variance with the facts can be seen in the results of the appeal of the BAT case in which he made an impossible inference in relation to a solicitor from Clayton Utz in a judgement on 22 March 2002, which was overturned by three appeal court judges.
The original case was: McCabe v British American Tobacco Australia Services Limited  VSC 73 (22 March 2002).
It was a highly political case in that a strongly Labor leaning law firm (Slater and Gordon) took on a company with an ex Liberal Premier, Nick Greiner as Chairman of the Australian board, whereby the plaintiff, Rolah McCabe was most likely a mere pawn in the wider battle.
Refer also to:
British American Tobacco Australia Services Limited v Cowell (as representing the estate of Rolah Ann McCabe, deceased)  VSCA 197 (6 December 2002).
The judges PHILLIPS, BATT and BUCHANAN, JJ.A. wrote:
For these reasons, we consider that the order made on 25 March 2002 was erroneous…
… his Honour's findings were, we think, flawed in relation to the criticism he levelled at legal advisers and what he saw to be the "devising" of a "strategy" to enable the defendant deliberately to destroy disadvantageous documents while at the same time claiming "innocent" purpose. Those findings were flawed, with respect, not merely in the construction placed by his Honour upon the documents to which he referred, but also in allowing reference to those documents by over-ruling the defendant's claim to legal professional privilege. Nor, in our view, was the defendant shown to be in breach of any relevant obligation not to destroy documents before the commencement of the proceeding, given that the plaintiff did not rest her case on either an attempt to pervert the course of justice or contempt of court.'
In other words in that case, Judge Eames appeared to have made errors of fact and inference, the latter in terms of accusing lawyers of attempting to pervert the course of justice for which there was no evidence.
Notable also is that Rob Hulls has since made a champion of the case in terms of a High Court Appeal in spite of the known propensity for Judge Eames to make serious mistakes that cause damage to people's reputations. Furthermore and in spite of this knowledge he has elevated and appointed his friend to the Court of Appeal.
Along with the misguided (in hindsight) appointment of his tax-evading friend Robert Kent to the County Court judiciary and other appointments of Labor luminaries including a failed ALP candidate, it could be strongly argued that Mr. Hulls is doing far more to undermine public confidence in the judiciary and it's integrity than Mr. Hoser and his books ever would.
The same accusations of undermining public confidence can also be reconciled with the Hulls campaign against former Chief Magistrate Michael Adams, eventually leading to his resignation, himself first appointed by his good friend, and former AG the Hon. Jan Wade.
The previous cases were mentioned to show that the proceedings involving Hoser have nothing to do with protecting public confidence in the legal system or judiciary, but rather as a direct attack on Hoser.
2/ Judge Eames is improper in questioning Hoser's written (in books) conclusions with regards to taping of court cases in lower courts.
In his judgement he asserts falsely that this is due to financial constraints rather than a desire to hide truth or not be accountable.
He says on p. 7.
"A recurring theme in Hoser's books is his complaint about proceedings in the Magistrates' Court, and County Court Appeals, not being transcribed or taped. It is by no means an unreasonable complaint, but Hoser contends that the decision not to tape proceedings is due not to (unacceptable) financial constraints or for any valid or lawful reason, but to a desire on the part of the judges or magistrates to hide the truth, and reflects a disregard for the fact, as he sees it, that the absence of a record allows prosecution witnesses to commit perjury."
The falsity of the Judge Eames assertion as to cost being the factor preventing tape recording is shown up many times in both HF and VPC2 when the various cases are discussed.
On the relatively unusual occasions that cost is raised as a factor it has always been in the context of that Hoser pays them, never that cost in it's own right makes taping untenable, and the books make it patently clear that cost was never a barrier as in all cases, Hoser immediately volunteered to pay all costs.
The sheer number of such cases discussed in the various books, in particular HF would make it impossible for Judge Eames not to know this and therefore he would know that cost of taping was never a factor preventing it from occurring.
Thus he is being scurrilous to raise this red-herring in defence of those of his judicial colleagues who refused to have their proceedings taped.
Thus there can be no other plausible explanation for the reluctance to be recorded by magistrates and judges, save for a desire to remain unaccountable.
Judge Eames has failed to offer any other possibility and in 25 years in the legal fire-zone, no one else has either!
But more tellingly perhaps is the talk by Judge Eames in his judgement of the Hugh Adams matter (which Judge Eames chose to deal with at length here) where Adams allowed Hoser to tape proceedings at his own cost. (pages 53-54 of HF)!
Surely Judge Eames read this?
Or did he?
In terms of Judge Eames' colleague Judge Neesham, pages 242 and again 245 of VPC-2 tell the story quite accurately (remember this is undisputed evidence).
The first paragraph of page 245 states quite emphatically that Neesham wouldn't have his case taped by any means, and all possibilities are countenanced.
That cost was not a consideration in terms of this refusal is clear by the statement that Neesham even refused government licenced recording people (who are always paid for by the person bringing them in!).
The text of this paragraph reads:
I knew the result of the case before any evidence had been given. You see before I could say a thing, Reynolds was on his feet demanding that I not be allowed to tape the case. He wanted me strip-searched there and then. Neesham agreed with him. I was then relieved of a micro-cassette recorder and told that no taping of proceedings by any means would be allowed. No court recorders, no government licenced recorders, not using the ghetto blaster I had on the bar table, no nothing! When I asked Neesham what he had to hide by not wanting his proceedings taped he got extremely aggressive. He didn’t change his mind though."
Note there is never a refusal by Neesham on the basis of cost (as falsely asserted by Judge Eames) and why … because had there been, Hoser would have paid up and the taping would have happened!
Ditto for the Balmford matter (refer to page 139 of VPC-2) where she also refused to have the matter tape recorded.
Noting that Balmford and Neesham are the two fellow judges Judge Eames has effectively defended by his judgement (effectively claiming they were not corrupt and had as far as he was concerned at all times acted properly), it's also significant that it is uncontested evidence in his court that Neesham and Balmford both had me strip-searched to be relieved of micro-cassette recorders before their relevant cases commenced.
(Balmford page 139 VPC-2, Neesham page 245 of VPC-2).
It must be entirely reasonable that any normal person would question why these two people had such a paranoid fear of the truth to have a person they acknowledge is no physical threat to be strip-searched just for a taping device?
Surely it is reasonable for any reasonable person to ask for the courts to be accountable?
(For the record, the charges were 1/ A parking ticket and 2/ Going through a red light in the wee hours of the morning so I was obviously not being searched for weapons!)
Thus how Hoser's book can be "scandalizing" as asserted by Judge Eames is truly a mystery.
And furthermore tape recorded proceedings as advocated by Hoser would in fact be the best possible protection for the courts against false and baseless allegations being made by their enemies!
(Evidence of good faith by Hoser which is ignored by Judge Eames).
3/ A minor error of fact by Judge Eames - p. 10.
He stated that at Balmford's proceedings,
"Hoser objected to the fact that the proceedings were not being tape recorded and upon her Honour's rejection of his contention that they should be, Hoser thereafter covertly tape recorded part of the proceedings, being the 28 minutes of his own evidence."
A read of either VPC-2 p. 139 or the perjury trial transcripts (committal or trial) would show that far more of the case was recorded (most and as much as my device allowed), but this included the 28 minutes of Hoser's evidence.
This is only raised here in the event that there is some sort of inference Judge Eames is trying to draw that I may be selectively recording bits and pieces of court proceedings, which is not the case - a read of the VPC-2 and HF books shows that I have always sought to tape all.
4/ Judge Eames gets his sequence of events wrong.
"Hoser produced a document and then gave evidence on oath and tendered the document, which he said was advice which he had received in writing from VicRoads" (the fax).
The letter was not produced until some minutes AFTER Hoser was sworn on oath. This issue was done to death in the perjury trial (and of course VPC-2 pages 292-3 and again later in the same book) with a series of false allegations against myself, systematically rebutted by the crown's own witness - the tip staff, who thankfully faithfully recorded the sequence of events in order as well as the informant Keating, via his own written statement (VPC-2 pages 292-3 again)..
The sequence was important as some crown witnesses and it appears here Judge Eames (possibly) are trying to falsely allege that I knowingly tried to tender a forged fax while not on oath to avoid a perjury allegation.
Not only does this allegation by Judge Eames fall down on the basis of the crown's own witness (refer to VPC-2 (pp. 292-3) or the official case transcript as posted on the internet), but also it doesn’t reconcile with the uncontested evidence that I had no idea that the fax was in any way tainted until after it had been tendered by myself in the trial!
5/ Judge Eames - Factual Error.
Judge Eames goes on to say that the fax had been in reply to a "telephone enquiry".
How could Judge Eames get this wrong? There was never a dispute that any faxes relating to traffic lights from Vicroads to myself came as a result of WRITTEN letters sent.
Or is it a case that Judge Eames failed to read the relevant parts of VPC-2, the Appeal Court judgement, the Neesham Trial transcript or the many other relevant documents that state this?
Is this just one of many examples of Judge Eames failing to properly appraise himself of the facts in this case?
6/ Judge Eames account of the perjury matter delves into the realms of fantasy-land.
By way of example, on page 12 when he states:
"In his defence to the charge of perjury Hoser claimed that he had been "set up" by police officers and officers of Roads Corporation, whom he claimed had been victimizing him over a long period of time. He called another taxi driver, one Burke, who gave evidence that he had travelled through the intersection on the same evening for which Hoser had been charged and that the traffic lights were then stuck on red. The witness, Burke, appears to be the same person who gave evidence for Hoser in his earlier Magistrate's Court prosecution for assault which was heard by Magistrate Adams, out of which the "confession" was made by Bingley concerning the alleged corruption of the magistrate. As Hoser acknowledges in his book, Burke's credibility was the subject of sustained attack by the prosecutor in the perjury trial."
How Judge Eames can come up with such unmitigated lies I can only guess.
But here's the uncontested facts on the matter.
Yes, Burke gave evidence at the Neesham trial (and had been summonsed to, but failed to appear at the previous Balmford matter and appeared at the Blashki matter - all cases being related to a single traffic incident, the red light).
But as for the Hugh Adams/Bingley matter, the answer is no!
Burke simply didn't exist as far as that case was concerned.
Burke never attended the court and never gave evidence in that case as he was not present at the time Hoser arrested the police protected criminal and fare evader O'Shannessy!
Judge Eames has attempted to make a character attack on Burke by alleging that he has been twice disbelieved in courts of law on two different matters where he was allegedly present when Hoser was charged. We know this to be a lie as Burke never had anything to do with the Adams matter.
Judge Eames has described Burke somewhat disparagingly as "one Burke", and implied that he is merely some kind of rent-a-witness for Hoser.
This is a very serious and baseless attack on Hoser and also Burke and by it's very nature must in it's own right and even more so in combination with the other sections of the judgement, render the Judge Eames judgement against Hoser to be not worth the paper it is written on.
The attack is made even worse by the fact that Judge Eames has himself set himself up as Judge and jury against Hoser for the same type of allegedly "scurrilous" allegations (he uses the word "scurrilous" at least 12 times in his judgement!).
Now, we know that the idea that Burke gave evidence at the Bingley/Adams matter is a lie, and not just because of HF. You see the case was taped and transcribed at a cost of nearly $3,000 (in 1998/9) by Hoser because he was so keen to get a record.
The DPP sought and got a copy (as per magistrate's orders), tapes and transcripts, and the same transcript has been sitting on the internet since well before 1999 and is cited in the VPC books as being so, so Judge Eames could hardly claim the information had been hidden from him.
Which once again makes a lie of the Judge Eames idiotic argument that cost was the reason for non-taping of legal proceedings in the Hoser matters referred to (see "2" above).
The false and baseless allegations by Judge Eames against Burke (and myself) are made even more serious by the last line in the above quoted paragraph when Judge Eames refers to an allegedly "sustained attack" on Burke's credibility in his judgement.
Furthermore the sound files (tapes) of the case of all witnesses show that Burke's voice is not on the tapes. Since the Judge Eames judgement, these sound files, transcripts and the like have been distributed on CD-rom to some people so that students of legal matters can see how wrong a learned Supreme Court judge can get things during the trial of a corruption whistleblower.
Finally, in terms of the Judge's wild conspiracy theories in relation to Burke, reference is made to a letter sent by Burke to the Supreme Court dated 11 November 2002, for which no reply was sent for nearly a year until Hoser sent a follow-up letter (on 8 September 2003).
It rebuts the Judge Eames claims against him (as if this were really needed?), and calls for the right to appear at the appeal hearing.
The reply from Master Dowling dated 9 September 2003 told Burke he was not allowed such a right, which may in fact be correct, but does in part seem at odds with the appeal hearing in terms of the BAT case.
In that case a lawyer adversely named in a Judge Eames judgement was allowed the right to make submissions and to clear his name (see case references earlier in this document).
Either way, it is critically important that the appeal court formally rule that the findings of Judge Eames against Burke are factually impossible and incorrect. This is especially noting the fact that there is no limitation on perjury charges being laid and the liability of Burke or for that matter Hoser facing new and baseless perjury charges as a result of the story invented in the Judge Eames judgement.
7/ Misrepresentation of facts by Judge Eames.
The statement "a little truth can be dangerous" applies on page 12 of Judge Eames' judgement, where after his attack on Burke he goes on to effectively sum up the perjury trial by stating:
"Unlike his previous encounters in the law courts, the decision in the perjury trial was not made by a magistrate or a judge, but by a jury of 12 citizens who had the opportunity to observe Hoser and his witness, and also the prosecution witnesses. They disbelieved Hoser and his witness. A conviction for perjury was plainly a very serious setback for a person who proclaimed himself to be an authority about corruption and a person whose word should be accepted as truth."
before talking about the appeal to the Supreme Court.
The summary is so incomplete as to be effectively worthless, but serves quite effectively to paint a false and improper picture of the real events at the time.
Judge Eames failed to note here the factors mentioned both in VPC-2 and the official transcript which materially affected the verdict, including:
A/ The fact that evidence tending towards Hoser's innocence (including two tape recordings) was effectively quarantined from the jury,
B/ The jury was intimidated into their verdict,
C/ The jury had acted illegally by forming a verdict even well before the close of the prosecution case,
D/ Numerous other factors, a few of which are alluded to, but invariably improperly dismissed by Judge Eames in his judgement.
Clearly Judge Eames here and elsewhere in this judgement has chosen to "clear" Neesham of any impropriety and reaffirm Hoser's "guilt" of a perjury that by any reasonable assessment did not occur. (Refer to my later comments re the tape made of the Balmford proceedings and the covertly made police tape of their 18 Feb 1994 raid on Hoser's house).
8/ Failure by Judge Eames to note salient facts in Supreme Court Appeal.
The summary of the Supreme Court appeal for the perjury matter by Judge Eames was also worthless in terms of properly explaining the facts, including the most important fact being that the QC, Chris Dane was also representing a murderer by the name of Brooks in the very next court and as a result of the trial going longer than expected had failed to properly brief himself for the appeal, as well as other most important factors, including the failure of the court to grant Dane an adjournment, thereby ensuring that the earlier miscarriage of justice was not reversed.
(See: Hoser v The Queen M50/2000 (16 February 2001) at end of judgement, comments by the judges which read as:
'MR McArdle: It is this: Mr Dane, of course, is not in Court and has no opportunity to respond to the matters put. I looked at the records in relation to the case of Brooks. The verdict adverse to Brooks was delivered on 23 April 1997, which is the same day that this case commenced argument in the Court of Appeal. Judgment in that was delivered on the following day.
Gummow J: On the following day, yes.')
Eames failed to properly account for or revisit the grounds of appeal in that matter that weren't argued by Hoser's counsel (contrary to his instructions) refer to the final judgement for corroboration of this, and further noting that some of those grounds have been upheld in other more recent proceedings including Phung and Katsuno.
See: Phung v Cornall & Ors  VSC 320 (7 September 1999) and
Katsuno v The Queen  HCA 50 (30 September 1999)
In terms of appeal courts making mistakes or improperly upholding convictions and then later overturning them also refer to the case of John Button who took 39 years to overturn his improper manslaughter conviction in WA.
See: BUTTON -v- THE QUEEN  WASCA 35 (25 February 2002).
That case parallels the Hoser one in many respects including new evidence showing the accused's innocence (In Hoser's case, including the Connell confessions, juror's phone call, Phung and Katsuno case judgements, etc ad nauseum).
Also refer to the Mickelberg cases (alleged gold theft and cannabis matters) as cited in the list of legal authorities accompanying this document.
9/ False inference by Judge Eames.
Judge Eames has come up with a really bizarre inference on page 19 of his judgement when he says:
"In his evidence Hoser emphasized the care he took to check the facts in his books. He said that invariably publication of his books was delayed for a substantial period 'so that the facts can be checked and double checked and persons adversely named can be sent relevant manuscripts so that if they believe I have got something wrong, they have the opportunity to correct the whole thing'. He did not suggest, however, that any of the persons named in the particulars for the two counts of contempt were accorded that opportunity."
Put simply, Judge Eames' comments are tripe!
The relevant "official" transcript in his own case was:
"HOSER: … I take all reasonable steps and invariably, particularly with the corruption books, publication is quite often delayed by a substantial period so that the facts can be checked and double checked and persons adversely named can be sent relevant manuscripts so that if they believe I've got something wrong, they have the opportunity to correct the whole thing.
HIS HONOUR: I think the point you were being asked though, was whether those particular paragraphs which appeared to be referring only to the two books should be taken as including - - -?---The Hoser Files.
HOSER: equally applicable to the Hoser Files?---Essentially yes.
MR MAXWELL: Your Honour please I have no further questions.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Langmead."
Now I don't have a copy of the original tape recording made, but if I hadn't used the word "all" in the sentence (which would be highly unlikely) where I refer to persons adversely named, the mere fact I did not say "some" would clearly mean "all" was the intended meaning.
On that basis, how possibly could Judge Eames then go on to infer that I had somehow inferred that I had stated that I hadn't sent relevant manuscript to the judges Balmford and Neesham?
And that's not all.
The same arguments were dealt with in the Zoccoli matter, whom it may be recalled was not located by myself because he was neither in the phone book, electoral roll and perhaps hiding from creditors - making him relatively unusual in that he was an adversely named person NOT sent material from a forthcoming book.
But perhaps the best proof that Judge Eames' false assertion that I had not afforded the relevant judges the opportunity to respond to the allegations appears in a form letter that occurs in both VPC (p. 283) and a similar letter addressed elsewhere in VPC-2 (page 496).
By way of example the letter on page 283 VPC (and 496 of VPC-2) states:
"this standard letter has been sent to you and all others that may by any reasonable interpretation feel adversely named."
Note use of the word "all" (highlighted here).
In the caption with the letter on page 496 of VPC-2, is a notation that among the many recipients was the then Attorney General, Jan Wade (who incidentally was Hulls' predecessor).
Now, while the two VPC books of 1,536 pages are large and a letter may be perhaps "lost" in so many pages, this is NOT the case here. You see the letter on page 496 of VPC-2 is advertised widely throughout the book, including on numerous pages detailing the Neesham trial and it falls within those pages identified to the judge as being materially relevant.
Furthermore, the fact remains that if Judge Eames is to draw such a materially relevant inference against Hoser, in terms of the false assertion in relation to sending manuscript to the adversely named judges, it is incumbent upon him to ascertain the true facts.
The question once again begs, knowing now that Hoser has given sworn evidence in a court - Judge Eames' own court and directly in both the main books in the case, VPC and VPC-2 that ALL persons adversely named were sent copies of manuscript for comment, how is it possible for Judge Eames to infer the opposite of what is in fact true?
Is he merely incompetent, corruptly altering the truth, or by some kind of bizarre accident he's managed to overlook such a materially relevant fact in terms of this contempt charge?
Whatever the answer really is, isn’t relevant, save for the fact that this erroneous conclusion by Judge Eames here, clearly colours the rest of his decision against me in terms of his findings that I am in contempt and failed to properly investigate the book and/or wrote with some kind of hidden agenda or malice.
Add this to some of his other fallacies, such as the fabricated idea that Burke was somehow a witness in the Adams matter and you see that his findings of fact and law against me are fundamentally flawed.
It also makes the anti-Hoser rant at the end of the judgement also seem somewhat without merit.
In terms of law, it's notable that Wade, Hulls' predecessor and in power at the time the books were published (July/Aug 1999), saw no reason to either warn or action this author for contempt, defamation or anything else in relation to the books, even though she'd been effectively invited to identify anything that may have been potentially illegal and they were published well before the announcement of the State Election in mid August 1999.
Notable also is that the author had made it clear that he was willing to alter, change or remove material from the books, as demonstrated by the letters themselves (uncontested evidence) and perhaps even more importantly the blacking out of jurors names in both books, in particular the vast number of deletions in VPC-2!
If the books do in fact constitute a sophisticated attack on the courts as asserted by Judge Eames, why then didn't Wade, the Ombudsman, DPP, or the many judges, magistrates and others who got the manuscript think so?
Alternatively, why didn't any raise the alarm prior to publication. That's especially so, knowing that HF had been published four years earlier, so there was no doubt that publication of the later two books was imminent.
In terms of the documented lack of response from the recipients of these standard letters, as stated in the books,. Judge Eames himself confirms this as the most likely response by his citation of a judgement by Denning on page 16 of his judgement when he quotes Denning saying:
"'All we would ask is that those who criticize us will remember that, from the nature of our office, we cannot reply to their criticisms. We cannot enter into public controversy. Still less into political controversy. We must rely on our conduct itself to be its own vindication.'"
All of which vindicates Hoser's stated position in the VPC books that few people chose to respond to Hoser's request for corrections and the like.
9A/ Selective quoting and interpretation by Judge Eames.
Pages 20-30 of the judgement deal with Judge Eames' interpretation of the law on "fair comment" and "freedom of speech" in terms of contempt law. He cites numerous and sometimes conflicting judgements, quoting selectively from them to cobble together what he sees as his preferred view on contempt law in terms of this case.
He then asserts that fair criticism of the courts is allowed provided it has been "shown to be made in good faith", which ultimately Judge Eames concludes is not the case in the five sections of the book VPC-2 he says are not in good faith.
However based on his already seriously wrong conclusion that the manuscript was not sent to the named judges, Judge Eames' final judgement must be fundamentally flawed.
This is even more so, given that entire manuscripts were sent to so many people who could and/or should have picked up material that was in any way false or illegal.
Thus even if one accepts Judge Eames' final conclusions that some material in Hoser's book is factually incorrect (he appears to have homed in on a single judgement by Balmford in a separate matter - not Hoser's - see later) as "proof" Hoser has got it wrong, Judge Eames' conclusions must fail because his "proof" of lack of good faith is itself negated by the above, as well as the numerous other identifiers of "good faith", including covering statements as noted by the defence and referred to in passing by Judge Eames himself in his judgement on pages 18-19 of his judgement.
In other words if Eames is correct in law in this instance, Hoser is innocent of the charges because Eames has got the facts wrong (opposite to the reality).
10/ Indication Judge Eames has read VPC-2 and still misrepresented facts.
On page 31 of the judgement Judge Eames states:
"If one is to take the books at face value, especially Book Two, then it is difficult to accept that the author is motivated by good faith, or by a desire to correct rather than to vilify. The language used throughout is often both extreme and offensive; his comments about magistrates and judges almost universally contemptuous and sarcastic. His books, themselves, demonstrate how selective he is in his use of relevant material, and how prone he is to inflate a reasonable point by inflammatory language, or by making exaggerated claims as to what the fact demonstrates."
Is extremely useful in terms of assessing the entire judgement.
The first two sentences are a statement by Judge Eames that he has read all or at least most of the 1,532 pages of the VPC books.
If one were to believe this conclusion as fact, then, this leads to the inescapable conclusion that Judge Eames' factual errors (e.g. re Burke and the Adams case, the book's manuscript allegedly not being sent to the named judges, the deliberate and malicious error by Judge Eames relating to the Neesham trial - point "30/" below, etc) are deliberate and part of a deliberate attempt to cobble together an improper judgement against Hoser … or he is manifestly inept!
While Judge Eames is entitled to form an opinion, as is anyone in a democracy, he provides no evidence to support the brave assertions within the above quoted paragraph. This is unlike myself who was able to point to substantiation and corroboration for all assertions about judges and magistrates as referred to in the allegedly contemptuous comments in the books, (refer to the defence case for each and every allegedly contemptuous statement in the official transcript).
However in pre-emptive rebuttal of the false and baseless assertions by my detractors, including now it seems Judge Eames himself, the transcripts of the relevant cases and other relevant material was all placed online as far back as mid 1999 to allow independent readers to form their own views and to publicly dispute Hoser's claims if they saw fit.
The lack of public dispute over the contents of Hoser's books, save for the unsuccessful Zoccoli writ must be taken as evidence, that by and large, Hoser has got his facts and conclusions correct!
Furthermore the books do have 'corruption' in their titles and hence would be expected to concentrate on the negative.
11/ Misquoting by Judge Eames … doing what he falsely accused Hoser of.
On page 32 of his judgment Judge Eames quotes out of context a paragraph from one of my books which he falsely alleges is "an exaggerated claim based on flimsy evidence". The claim being of a "corrupt deal".
The chapter is one which deals with ways and means people obtain widely varying sentences for similar crimes, ranging from drug deals to traffic matters. The chapter is not attack on the judiciary alone, but a generalized critique of all areas of the legal system, including police, prosecutors and the judiciary.
Without requoting the paragraph again and more properly with the surrounding material, the details of the criminal case Judge Eames cited are totally accurate and are reported in context.
Judge Eames has not denied the details of the case as presented in the book, that is, persons named, judges named, sentences and the like, thereby confirming the factual basis of what I have written.
Furthermore the result of the case quoted is itself some of the evidence of the "corrupt deal" which Judge Eames falsely alleges I offered "not a word of evidence to support the assertion". The term "corrupt" as used here, fits totally within the definitions of the term "corrupt" as given at the front of the book, which is very broad and includes "inconsistent".
The deal itself also being an agreement by the prosecution not to oppose a lenient sentence on the woman identified, which did in fact occur. The case result more properly being defined as proof of the success of the corrupt deal.
Corrupt as defined in the book including anything inconsistent, the inconsistent thing here being that sometimes accused persons can make deals with the prosecution and other times they cannot.
Judge Eames has chosen here to ignore the definition of corruption (prominently placed in a black box near the front of the book) and other relevant material in order to further his demonstrably false claim that I have acted without good faith and am in contempt of court.
And that is in spite of his assertion that the book needed to be treated as a whole and not in parts.
Furthermore he has not in any way sought to contradict the material presented following this paragraph of a widely contrasting sentence in another case. (refer to page 655 VPC-2), even though he has somehow asserted I've got it wrong.
As for his assertion that I presented "flimsy evidence" to support my claims of inconsistency in the legal system, the section of the book (pages 653-666 of VPC-2) gives numerous cases and examples with names dates and details of other cases and supporting evidence, in a way that could be easily checked and verified.
That Judge Eames himself knows this, is demonstrated by the fact that he has in his judgement failed to give a single word of evidence rebutting a single claim or allegation in the said chapter!
12/ False statement by Judge Eames.
On page 33 Judge Eames then goes on to state:
"Various other cases are thereafter mentioned, apparently for the purpose of demonstrating that those who received what Hoser regarded as a lenient sentence might have their result explained by virtue of corruption, but, none of the cases mentioned provides any support for the contention of 'deals" being done with magistrates and judges to give the offender an easy passage through the courts, nor could he offer any better support for the allegation when he gave evidence before me."
The statement is a lie!
Referring to the case transcript itself, commencing with the phrase:
"MR LANGMEAD: Go to p.655 please Mr Hoser, of Exhibit B."
I sought to offer further supporting evidence and was stopped from doing so by the prosecution, who then changed the subject of the questions.
Furthermore I cited directly the case of NSW Judge John Yeldham, which is of course also detailed in the book VPC-2 page 666 (including photo) and pages 688-690 in the same book.
But the question of course, is did Judge Eames read this, even though I cited it in his court?
Based on his written judgement he hasn't!
For accuracy's sake, I reproduce the relevant questions from the official transcript (on 30 October 2001) in rebuttal of Judge Eames' above paragraph (his judgement) below, note reference to Judge Yeldham from VPC-2 and note the word "testimony" in the transcript below is an error, it should read "memory":
"MR LANGMEAD: Go to p.655 please Mr Hoser, of Exhibit B. The second complete paragraph under the heading of, "Looking after the criminals", do you see that passage? Starting with the words, "The criminal is then forced"?---Yes.
"To front at court". Just bear with me one moment. "The criminal is then forced to front court but a deal is done with one or more of the clerks, the prosecution and the person hearing the matter, judge or magistrate, to give the person an easy ride through the system". Now that is a generalisation, do you have a basis for it?---There obviously is a basis for it and I would suggest if you read the preceding and the following pages, the basis would be there. Which would again be corroborated by the sources.
I put to you that those pages don't assert any evidence of a deal, direct evidence of a deal being done as you allege in the paragraph that I've read to you?---Well.
Can you point to - - -?---Yes, Your Honour, as I said I wrote the book a while ago. I can't remember, you know, the detail, but I'm just glancing at it just now to my testimony and drawn to it and on the same page, 655, there's on the one, two, three, fourth paragraph and basically the book speaks for itself, because I can't remember what was going through my mind at the time, or what - but it says, take for example, the case of Kathleen Weir of West Heidelberg. She was the treasurer of a major heroin syndicate. The ring trafficked at least $220,000 worth of drugs in just six months during 97/98. "On 27 May 1998 she plead guilty. Judge Leo Hart gave Weir a suspended sentence. She walked free without any tangible penalty. The police side had not opposed the application", and it goes on about another case involving more drug traffickers. And then there's a whole paragraph. There's a section underneath that as well, and it goes on. Now the basis of those cases, my recall is zilch but in answer to the question, Your Honour, I know it's a bit long-winded. There's been a paragraph with a generalisation quoted, or an assertion quoted, and it appears by reading this book that there is corroboration or substantiation of that paragraph immediately following. And can I elaborate a little bit more, Your Honour?
HIS HONOUR: I think perhaps you should wait for the question, yes.
MR LANGMEAD: Is that the most direct evidence you say that appears in the book of a deal being done with the clerk, the prosecution and the person hearing the matter, judge or magistrate, to give the person an easy ride through the system simply to quote some results as to court cases?---I would suggest that there's probably several other cases in that book and other books involving the same sort of stuff and if you read the 1500 pages, I'm sure you'll find them.
Do you have any direct evidence in this book - do you present any direct evidence of a deal being done, other than what you've just cited?---Your Honour, I think we're talking about cross-purposes here. If I can help - - -
HIS HONOUR: Well can I assist by framing the questions I think is being put - it is being put to you that the two examples you've quoted are of what you're suggesting are lenient sentences being given in circumstances where you suggest they shouldn't have been given. Counsel is putting to you expressly the proposition that the statement of there being a deal done between the clerk of courts, prosecution and the person hearing the matter, judge or magistrate, to give the person an easy ride, the question's directed expressly for the proposition do you have any evidence of such a deal being done between prosecution and judge or magistrate to achieve the result?---Yes, I - Your Honour, if I could just help all of us here. This gentleman here keeps asking me for evidence. These books themselves are not evidence. They are a summary of evidence. Now the evidence is the sources that is sighted and the sources, as I said the list of sources runs a hundred odd page, those documents, be they court transcript, covertly tapes, tabloid clippings, letters, whatever, they are the evidence that form the basis of this book. Now Mr Langmead keeps asking me for evidence and in fairness to all of us, the books are a summary of the evidence, though not the evidence in themselves. Does that help.
Do the books refer to any instance of a deal being done between the prosecution, the judge and the magistrate to affect a result, that's the question. Can you refer to any of these issues - - -?---But I can direct - immediately identify a passage?
Yes?---No. However, what I will refer you to is that original paragraph that says, "A common scenario", is - and it talks about a scenario. It doesn't talk about a specific case. Now by way of example, in relation to this business with deals being done with magistrates and judges. In my time in the prison system, I spoke to a number of prisoners who gave me information to that effect, and they gave me specific case details and I was even able to check the results. The only thing I wasn't able to check, of course, is whether or not a deal had in fact been done. So I have listed that there as a scenario. I don't detail a case there, but I do refer you to the section about Judge John Yeldham where the police alleged that they had caught the judge having sex with under aged boys, this came out in New South Wales and the deal was allegedly done with the judge that he would be - look after the police and their cases. Now we know that Judge Yeldham committed suicide and there's been various material. You know, I don't have to rehash the Yeldham story. But, yes, there is evidence that that practice - it is completely within the bounds of human possibility that it could occur and there is evidence or some form of it occurred at least in New South Wales in relation to that particular judge. Now again I go back. It's not an assertion that it happens all the time with all judges, but it certainly is within the bounds of human possibility and that is why it is labelled there as a scenario."
13/ Stupid assertion by Judge Eames
Judge Eames claimed I had a "powerful motive" to discredit the judicial system because of the perjury conviction.
That is patently ridiculous as if accepted on face value, the same claim could be made against anyone who had lost in court, (which would be a sizeable percentage of the adult population).
Be that as it may, his logic is flawed because the allegedly contemptuous claims against Magistrate Adams were made in print well before the perjury charge had even been concocted (refer to Bottom 1991 and HF published in Jun 1995) and countless other prior examples, which clearly indicates the reverse more likely - that is the perjury charge was concocted to discredit a leading whistleblower.
Also note publication of Smuggled, a best-selling corruption book by Hoser a year before the concoction of the perjury charge (published May 1993) and further note the use of a media release by the officials named in that book as presented to the jury in 1995 to falsely accuse Hoser of making things up (refer to Smuggled-2 and Press council judgement of 1994 in Hoser's favor, that incidentally the jury never got access to).
It is notable that in his judgement, Judge Eames has refused at all times to countenance the likely probability that with Hoser being one of Australia's most prominent corruption whistleblowers, persons affected by his disclosures would seek to discredit him by falsifying charges, gaining convictions and convicting him of offences, even though the historical record is full of such cases.
This clearly shows a bias by Judge Eames against persons who may choose to make embarrassing disclosures about corruption, misconduct and mismanagement in high places, including the courts and his fellow judges.
Then there's the numerous favorable or neutral comments about judges and magistrates within the books conveniently overlooked by Judge Eames that totally rebut any suggestion that the book is a wholesale attack on the judicial system.
In fact Judge Eames himself escaped censure when referred to on page 527 of VPC-2!
If then one follows through with what Judge Eames argues at greater length throughout his judgement, namely that the statements and general arguments against Neesham and Balmford by Hoser are also an attack on the pair as a bitter failed litigant, and therefore are malicious, his arguments are found wanting.
Nor does it explain the defence I gave of another magistrate (Hoare) whom I defended in HF after he'd found against me (Hoser), giving justification for his wrong verdict, shown as wrong via cross-referencing with material Hoare didn't have access to.
Even if Judge Eames is adamant that I am incapable of giving an honest appraisal of the court because I lost a few cases, one cannot in any way level the same comments towards the numerous other independent observers within the courts who came up with the same conclusions and were not directly involved in any of the litigation.
These persons are named, photographed and identified within the book (VPC) and include the likes of Peter McCartney, Professor Kim Sawyer (whom Langmead denied existed but provided no evidence for the bizarre assertion), (both pictured in VPC-2) and numerous other relatively elderly, respectable (and unconvicted of any charge) members of the general community, including the seven named and photographed on pages 428-429 of VPC-2).
That all found in agreement with Hoser's assessment of the Neesham trial is irrefutable proof that Hoser has got his facts and assessments right!
This is of course why, in spite of the numerous people available, the crown failed to call any to contradict the account of the Neesham trial as per VPC-2 because the crown knew it was accurate.
Because this account and corroboration was uncontested, Judge Eames by law should have accepted it as correct!
Noting further that all (named persons) attended the Neesham trial and would therefore have a much better idea of what occurred than Judge Eames, who was by his own startling admission, neither familiar with the transcript or what went on that was not recorded on the transcript.
For the record, the allegedly non-existent Dr. Kim Sawyer is an Associate Professor of Economics at Melbourne University and is contactable at the following e-mail address: firstname.lastname@example.org
13A/ Then if malice is the motivation for Hoser's attack on these various judges, why then does he give a sprited defence of magistrate Hoare in The Hoser Files, who in 1998 convicted Hoser of an offence he had not committed (Hoser's indelible proof of innocence being recorded on court transcripts after the finalization of the case)? (see page 52 of HF - conveniently ignored by Judge Eames).
Or reconcile this defence of a magistrate who convicted Hoser, by Hoser, with Hoser's attack on another magistrate (Dugdale) who on 25 May 1989 corruptly sided with Hoser's associate Alan "NAME SUPPRESSED" against RTA officials in yet another case (HF pages 276-77).
The latter cases are proof Hoser wrote without fear or favor.
13B/ And if Hoser was driven by malice in his comments against just two specific judges who convicted him over the fax matter, (Neesham/Balmford), why then did Hoser attack other judges such as Nixon (in both VPC and VPC-2 extensively), Yeldham in VPC-2 (whom he accused of raping children, etc), and so on, even though he had never appeared in front of them and prima facie had far less evidence against them?
Surely no judge's conduct has been so heavily attacked as Yeldham's in VPC-2 and yet the content was not cited as being contemptuous.
And as for the comments in relation to judge Nixon (chapters 12, 12A in VPC and pages 25-28 and 245 and 685 in VPC-2) which included details of him attempting to pervert the course of justice, convict innocent men, make improper rulings, findings and the like and other serious misconduct which all on the face of it, and in totality are far more serious than the allegations against Neesham and Balmford and yet there is no citation for contempt here.
13C/ This leads one to the inescapable conclusion that the prosecution and in turn Judge Eames have honed in on the comments against these two judges to somehow use the contempt matter as a forum to somehow stamp the verdicts as being properly reached and further improperly affirm Hoser's guilt of the perjury matter.
Notwithstanding the fact that Judge Eames appears to have embarked on this exercise, one cannot escape the salient facts that the evidence (in totality and not just that presented at either the committal or trial) proved indelibly that Hoser was innocent.
Now while Judge Eames has boldly declared that the tape of Hoser's evidence in the Balmford matter did not assist his case, he has in his judgement either ignored or been unaware of the vast amount of other evidence withheld at the trial and committal, as documented in VPC-2 including the tape of the raid on Hoser's house (including the 19 or more minutes selectively edited out by the police, where the police frankly admitted that they knew the case against Hoser was fabricated) and other similar material (see pp. 362-373 VPC-2).
13D/ Now Judge Eames in his spirited and improper defence of the two fellow judges (in terms of dismissing claims of evidence of bias) has failed to note that in VPC-2 it is made patently clear that the conduct of the judges, while lamentable, did not on it's own lead to Hoser''s conviction. Judge Eames has failed to address these other factors and has also offered no plausible or credible reason for the official inaction against serious misconduct and corruption by the police including matters such as the indelibly proven perjury by police in the Neesham trial (e.g. VPC-2 pages 319-320 and many other pages in the same book), conduct of the prosecution barrister in terms of his contact with the jury, leading evidence from the bar table, misleading of the jury with conspiracy theories as fact, outright lies from the bar table and so on (as documented in VPC-2 and the official transcript).
The above can also be reconciled again with Hoser's defence of magistrate Hoare who erroneously convicted Hoser in 1988, but against whom no other allegations are made against in the style of those against Neesham, such as strip-searches, bashings of innocent members of the public, including a woman in his court and so on.
14/ Failure by Judge Eames to properly assess the Judge Neesham trial or factually (with evidence) contradict the Hoser book account. AND Failure of Judge Eames to read or note any of the numerous acts of bias by Judge Neesham.
Of very important note is that while Judge Eames improperly alleges Hoser has launched a scurrilous attack against Neesham (in terms of demonstrated bias and/or actions implying the same), he has not by and large made any inroads or contradictions to the account as per VPC-2, save for what are in the main inferences drawn as to motive based on his own admitted limited knowledge of the case.
Judge Eames has in no way disputed the transcript as quoted in VPC-2 in terms of accuracy, save for a sweeping allegation that Hoser may have quoted it out of context, but then providing no transcript or other evidence to back up this assertion (even though he had access to it).
This is a particularly serious omission on the part of Judge Eames as he has effectively left the evidence of bias by the judges unchallenged in any way.
Notwithstanding his own improper inferences, (see in particular point "30" below), Judge Eames has not in any substantive way contradicted the account of Neesham's actions indicative of bias against Hoser, such as his outrageously having Hoser strip-searched upon entering the court at the start of each session (each day and after lunch), which is identified accurately in either VPC-2 or the official transcript and also witnessed with intense shock by numerous independent members of the public.
Judge Eames offers no credible alternative to numerous other factors (some of which are listed below), all of which singly point to bias as an alternative view, but cumulatively leave no other reasonable conclusion.
While Judge Eames has taken great lengths to assert that Neesham's trial of Hoser was by and large normal and proper, even a non-lawyer would know that it most certainly is not a normal procedure in criminal trials in Victoria to strip-search litigants for tape recorders, and Judge Eames would be scurrilous to try to assert it is.
One can only but question why such a stupid order (to strip-search) would be made against a harmless non-threatening person like Hoser (for tape recording devices in a case being taped anyway), while as a matter of course drug dealers and murderers are allowed to walk in and out of courts on a daily basis unchallenged.
Bias and a desire to harass and intimidate is the only reasonable inference to be drawn in terms of the order by Neesham re strip-searching me.
No one has been able to suggest any other reasonable excuse.
This includes Judge Eames, who has chosen to overlook this and other factors that he cannot so easily dismiss in terms of his (predetermined?) desire to find "no evidence" of bias on the part of Neesham.
Furthermore neither Neesham himself or anyone else has offered any reasonable explanation (or ANY explanation for that matter) for his final agreement to drop this idiotic direction (continual strip-searches of Hoser), after numerous requests by him only midway through the trial and after a sizeable contingent of interested onlookers in the gallery of the court had spent the last few days looking at this charade with absolute disgust! This final factor (these onlookers) were the only reason for Neesham's apparently reluctant dropping of the strip-search order (in spite of continual requests by Hoser).
However the most reasonable inference to be drawn from this belated stopping of the strip searches mid-way in the case is that Neesham knew the unbiased observers had formed the view that various factors including the strip searches made it seem that he was biased towards Hoser and Neesham was seeking to hide this bias as best he could.
This understandable desire to hide his bias from the public at large, is also apparent when he lied to the Supreme Court in his letter to the Appeal Court (refer to point "30/" below or pages 448-450 and 519-521 of VPC-2).
Judge Eames has in no way contradicted the account of the arrest and bashing of Ms. Connie Cassar and David Haskins in Neesham's court in front of numerous stunned witnesses (pp. 487-495 VPC-2), the failure of Neesham to take an address from Mr. McCartney at the end of the trial as promised, and countless other serious matters as raised by Hoser in VPC-2 and totally corroborated in VPC-2, which again are not routine matters in criminal trials in Victoria and cumulatively show a clear bias by Judge Neesham
Thus the assertions by Judge Eames to the effect that Neesham's running of the trial were routine and normal are amply demonstrated to be false in the extreme!
It is not normal for people sitting in the public gallery of a court, who when doing nothing untoward, to be arrested on order of the judge, carted off, bashed by police and then in turn wrongly charged with assault!
It is also reasonable to conclude that this action, in combination with the serial strip-searches and other matters as accurately shown in VPC-2 and the official transcript prove indelibly that Neesham's court was in fact a Kangaroo Court.
In terms of Neesham's bias against Hoser, Judge Eames has failed to note numerous other relevant matters as documented in VPC-2.
One such example is at the end of the trial when Neesham refused to entertain bail for Hoser, when Hoser asked for it.
Neesham simply said "Bail refused, take the prisoner away". (VPC-2 p. 458 - quote from official transcript).
Evidence that Neesham's action had been wrong was demonstrated amply when a week later Hoser got bail from another court and it had not even been challenged by the crown!
And yes, again this can only be taken to indicate a predetermined decision against Hoser and bias.
No other reasonable inference can be open or made!
15/ Failure by Judge Eames to note documented inconsistency and bias in Judge Balmford.
Likewise for the more limited account in terms of his fellow Judge Rosemary Balmford who also had me searched for taping devices (which is far from routine) at the start of the case and (as recorded on various transcripts) did not allow her court to be tape recorded.
And again I note that contrary to what Judge Eames has falsely asserted, cost was never raised as a consideration in the application to tape record or it's refusal by Balmford.
Judge Eames has refused to even consider such other matters as Balmford's refusal to adjourn proceedings or stand them down for a time in order that I could locate two materially important witnesses (Burke/"NAME SUPPRESSED"), even though such adjournments are routinely given to other litigants (noting further that the case had not been adjourned previously, only stood down by the crown for about 20 minutes the previous day, making an application for an adjournment even more likely to be accepted); as well as other evidence of bias as documented in VPC-2 but totally ignored by Judge Eames! With the best evidence of all for bias by Balmford being the conviction which occurred in spite of overwhelming evidence in favor of the defendant.
Four indications of bias by Judge Balmford as documented by Hoser in the book were:
Hence the Judge Eames claim of no evidence of bias (against Hoser as stated in Hoser's book) is a lie.
I could have added above the fifth point of her failing to cite the police for perjury by cross-referencing two sets of tapes, the first of which she heard and the second being the oral evidence of police in her case, but that would require judge Eames to hear both and these are not transcribed in the book and hence it could be argued that in terms of that point (alone), no 'evidence' is given.
This also answers two more points.
A/ Was Judge Balmford corrupt?
Yes. As per the definition on page17 of VPC-2 she was because she was inconsistent in allowing the crown permission to stand down proceedings, but did not afford the right to myself in the same case. She was also inconsistent in that she wanted me searched for taping devices and not the crown side.
Both these acts, which served to prejudice me, not just at this trial, but also at the later Neesham trial are also indelible proof of her bias against me.
B/ Was Judge Balmford biased?
Yes. But perhaps the best proof of bias comes from evidence of some sort of predetermined adverse view of myself before the commencement of the trial.
This comes from VPC-2 and the Neesham trial transcript, where it is conceded by several prosecution witnesses that the order to strip search me for taping devices before I was called into Balmford's court had come from Balmford's court.
In other words I had been charged, tried and executed (in terms of being subjected to a strip-search) before I had been given the opportunity to state my case (for not being searched).
Thus we have several separate indicators of bias (identified in VPC-2) and in combination the case for bias becomes overwhelming (see above list).
Finally and in answer to another issue that may be raised is the question, Did Judge Balmford know she was biased?
I cannot answer that, but few people either admit to bias or acknowledge it.
Differences in view are explained away as different views of the facts. Such has been used for years to explain away racism, anti-aboriginal prejudices, anti-gay, etc.
Those who to others are patently biased view their own views as real and other people as 'wrong'.
Hence it is entirely possible that while by any objective assessment judges Balmford and Neesham were biased, neither in their own mind thought so, although Neesham's letter to the Appeal court, that told at least one obvious lie, showed he was biased against me and knew it.
14-15A/ In addressing the question of motive in terms of Neesham and Balmford and dismissing any possibility of bias against me, Judge Eames has in his written judgement clearly failed to consider any of these and other serious matters as identified either in VPC-2 and/or the official transcript.
Thus from any reasonable reading of VPC-2 in conjunction with the reasons given by Judge Eames in terms of dismissing my allegations of bias against the two judges (Neesham and Balmford) it is clear that Judge Eames has failed to take into account numerous specific actions and incidents all of which on their own could be taken as indicative of bias, and cumulatively no other inference could possibly be drawn.
Notable also is that in VPC-2 at no stage does the author give a definitive reason or explanation for most of what is documented (in terms of theories and the like). Instead it is merely an uncontradicted factual account of things that happened and were said based largely on the government's own undisputed transcripts. Thus any statements by Judge Eames to the effect that the allegedly contemptuous statements were either baseless or without foundation are in themselves just that.
By way of example, the allegedly contemptuous statement in relation to Neesham's court having strip searches, bashed people and knobbled juries has in no way been contradicted by any evidence since or findings of fact, inferences and the like by Judge Eames.
15/ Judge Eames claims against Hoser books not valid.
Being books identified by their covers as being about corruption, it is entirely expected that it would highlight what appear to be improper and inconstant behavior (as identified in the book), rather than the many good, proper and uneventful decisions made by the judiciary on a daily basis - clearly and repeatedly acknowledged throughout the books! (as identified to Judge Eames in this case's transcript and summarily ignored by him or see page 18 in VPC-2 or others).
By way of example a book on Australia's "dangerous" venomous snakes is not interpreted as a collateral attack on reptiles because the greater number of harmless species are excluded.
Or perhaps put better, a book titled murderers in Australia is not going to talk extensively about the 99% of the population that do not kill.
While VPC1-2 and HF deal with numerous instances of police, judicial and other government misconduct, those named and cases detailed, represent a mere fraction of the totality of daily cases and thus in the absence of statements to the effect that "all judges are corrupt" cannot in any way be treated as a malicious and baseless attack on the legal system and/or judiciary in particular.
16/ Judge Eames claims against Hoser books still not valid.
On page 31 of Judge Eames' judgement, he says:
"If one is to take the books at face value, especially Book Two, then it is difficult to accept that the author is motivated by good faith, or by a desire to correct rather than to vilify. The language used throughout is often both extreme and offensive; his comments about magistrates and judges almost universally contemptuous and sarcastic. His books, themselves, demonstrate how selective he is in his use of relevant material, and how prone he is to inflate a reasonable point by inflammatory language, or by making exaggerated claims as to what the fact demonstrates."
Whilst his view is obviously in error: Note the contrast in the language here to that of Trevor Torney (who incidentally won his contempt case) and the content as compared to Torney, the claims against judges being far more moderate, Judge Eames is entitled to say that he finds the books' language "extreme and offensive" as these are subjective terms.
I say the same thing about his judgement!
And unlike Judge Eames I can back my claims with facts and hard evidence!
However Judge Eames has used such a broad-brush claim to declare my various claims in the book as being incredible and not believable.
On the face of it, Judge Eames' judgement makes it patently clear that he finds himself a man of good sense and he does not believe that a fellow judges such as Neesham and Balmford would ever be biased, that they would make mistakes and the like and that my claims are ridiculous in the extreme and that anyone else reading the book would know it.
Now Judge Eames has made a cursory judgement that the books are not credible (and in the absence of much supporting evidence), but fundamentally asserts that their contents cannot be believed.
Judge Eames then cites the Torney case and that case found in favor of Torney because the judges said that people wouldn't believe what he said.
(In other words if what you say is total crap and totally unbelievable, you can never be in contempt, but if people reckon you may have got it right, you are in contempt).
Then on pages 77-78 Judge Eames reverses his position to state that responsible people would find Hoser's books credible and thus Hoser should be declared guilty of contempt.
Does this mean that in finality, Judge Eames says he has concluded that because Campbell's views on the book are different, Judge Eames is in fact irresponsible or is he saying that the general public are stupid, and will fall for the manifestly obvious lies as peddled by Hoser, but Judge Eames says that in his infinite wisdom he knows better?
Put more cynically, is it a case Judge Eames merely quarantining the public from his own perverse views of the world? And a blatant case of suppressing the public's right to know about legal issues and various (alternative) interpretations of them.
17/ Judge Eames ignores tempering statements by Hoser in books and apparently shows double standards.
From his comments on page 31 of his judgement, it is clear that Judge Eames regards these books as an attack on the judiciary and he is not influenced by the tempering and qualifying statements in the books as identified.
Once again reference is made by myself to the books titles being about "corruption" and not the "good things done by judges and magistrates" and so it is reasonable that they focus on the bad and not the good.
However of greater note is that books that directly attack the legal system, such as Trial by Voodoo, and others by Evan Whitton, or Who Judges the Judges, by Dan Fritz are not ruled contemptuous, even though they are replete with far more damning allegations against judicial figures and regularly impute bad motive, whereas the book VPC-2 is in contempt even though it's subject and title clearly concentrate on the police and not primarily the judiciary.
Likewise, how is that the countless media reports alleging impropriety against chief magistrate Michael Adams in the Age and Herald-Sun, supported largely by Rob Hulls himself (2000-2001) without ever producing supporting evidence and calls for his removal, are not deemed in contempt.
18/ Contradictory Assertions by Judge Eames.
Furthermore, while Judge Eames may choose to hide behind the failed Appeal judgement for the case as "proof" that Hoser was properly convicted (page 37 of judgement and elsewhere), this assertion by Judge Eames fails to address the salient facts that were NEVER considered by the appeal court and makes a dangerous assumption by Judge Eames of infallibility of the courts - particularly noting that he has not even considered listening to the tape recording of Hoser's evidence at the Balmford matter.
In terms of his defence of the final result of the appeal, Judge Eames takes on the role again as defender of the courts (see page 37 of judgement), however a read of VPC-2 and even of his own case transcript would show that several important factors led to the appeal being unsuccessful, not the least being the fact that Hoser's barrister, Chris Dane, had failed to brief himself properly due to his defending a murderer on another charge at the same time.
Thus Judge Eames appears to have deliberately misread parts of the book as an attack on the Judicial system and it's integrity rather than merely being an account of how justice can get it wrong as a result of numerous and separate factors.
Finally though, Judge Eames' hiding behind the appeal court findings as proof of proper conviction in the Neesham is inconsistent with his own judgement that I was denied a fair trial in the Neesham matter because I was unrepresented (via Judge Eames' citation on the 1999 Phung judgement in relation to the failed legal aid bid in front of Chief Judge Waldron).
Thus any assertion by Judge Eames to the effect that my conviction for perjury reflects truth or proper legal process is contradicted elsewhere in his same judgement (page 7, line 2 and bottom).
Then the fact that the Appeal Court judges did not address the points of appeal not argued by Barrister Dane shows that contrary to the judge Eames assertion that a criminal trial is a search for the truth (see the judgement), clearly the appeal at least is merely something done in accordance with law, procedure and precedent and as a result claims are not tested for truth (as occurred for the unargued points of appeal).
19/ Is truth offensive to a lay person, or for that matter Judge Callinan?
Finally, despite the baseless claims by Judge Eames to the contrary, the book VPC-2 accurately and in excessive detail, reports on the perjury trial and at no stage is there any attempt to hide the conviction, appeal and the like.
However the book makes it patently clear that in this case and others, truth and verdict are not always the same. (In this case man "convicted" of non-existent perjury).
Judge Eames may find this revelation of the truth by a lay person such as Hoser "offensive", but other judicial officers do not, including High Court Judge Callinan who was quoted in the Age as recently as Saturday 1 December 2001, saying (in 1998) much the same thing.
Without access to the original transcript I quote directly from Age newspaper story, which reads:
"The whole truth? Not likely
By EVAN WHITTON
Saturday 1 December 2001
Justice (as he now is) Ian Callinan, QC, said in 1988: 'Commissions of
inquiry are supposed to be different (from adversary trials). They are
supposed to be designed to investigate and expose the truth (but) most
lawyers do not readily translate from the courtroom to the inquiry room.'
The translation is difficult because no law school in Australia teaches
specialist inquisitorial techniques, despite the plethora of inquiries, including
inquests. Inquiry lawyers are thus more comfortable with the adversary
system in which, as Callinan, QC, observed, the object 'is simple, to win
the case' and exposure of the truth is 'incidental'."
Now Judge Eames also falsely implies that I have misrepresented Neesham's quotes in relation to the relevance of truth in his trial, but fails to produce any corroborative transcript evidence, either from the book or the official transcript (because it confirms the quotes as being in context).
Notwithstanding this, Judge Eames then as a secondary argument (and effectively justifying my own reported transcript and assertions) says on page 41 of his judgement that maybe as a lay person I had misunderstood what he was saying.
If this is so, and recall that the phrase is not just being quoted in a routine trial, but rather, in an extraordinary trial punctuated by strip-searches, bashing's, harassment, intimidation and so on, then surely the twelve jurors, all lay people (not lawyers) could have similarly misunderstood Neesham's (and Perry's comments) as recorded in the transcript and VPC-2..
But even more telling is that even in routine trials (without the strip-searches, harassment, bashing's and the like) jurors routinely find that the courts are not interested in finding out the truth.
Judge Eames has himself not disputed this assertion, as reported in the Herald-Sun newspaper on 14 November 1994 and reproduced on page 275 of VPC-2 where a jury foreman says:
"We're not convinced it's a search for the truth".
20/ Pages 34-47 of Judge Eames' judgement are nothing more than a contorted and inept defence of his judicial colleague, Judge Tom Neesham and includes baseless allegations.
Judge Eames has made numerous factual and other errors here, some of the more important ones I will address.
However he has also made numerous assertions of fact, that put simply are not borne out either by the contents of the book VPC-2 itself and/or the relevant sections of the Neesham case transcript.
That Judge Eames could get so many facts wrong is amazing in it's own right, but becomes understandable only if one accepts that he had formed a bias against Hoser in terms of this judgement.
This is amply demonstrated by his early comment:
"Analysis of these complaints (and I stress that they are only some of the matters which Hoser discussed in his books and in his evidence) discloses that even where in some instances there is a basis of fact to justify his complaint, Hoser has often, whether deliberately or unconsciously, so inflated the circumstances as to make his reporting of events quite unreliable and to raise doubts about his claim of good faith. In no instance is an allegation of bias capable of being sustained."
when cross-referenced with his later statement:
"I do not pretend to be familiar with the whole of that transcript" (the Neesham trial).
Thus Judge Eames has made judgements as to facts and circumstances surrounding a case without even appraising himself of the full transcript of evidence, let alone countenanced the other matters raised in the book not properly covered by the transcript, such as the countless and humiliating strip-searches of myself every time I entered the court room, the conversation between prosecutor Perry and the jurors, not recorded on the official transcripts and the other relevant goings on outside the court room including the Cassar incident and cases, jurors discussions with others and so on.
Based on Judge Eames' own admitted lack of knowledge of all these relevant factors, it seems foolhardy for him to make such bold statements of fact in terms of the Neesham case and conclusions drawn in the book VPC-2 and even more so his patently obvious support for the conviction of myself for the perjury charge, which by any reasonaable assessment is not just unsound, but effectively impossible!
Once again, one must ask, that if Hoser's account of the Neesham matter is so unreliable and circumstances "inflated" as Judge Eames states in his judgement, why then did neither the judges or Attorney General see fit to intervene when invited to prior to final publication way back in 1999?
Or putting it another way, how is it that Judge Eames who was not present at and is by his own admission unfamiliar with, the Neesham trial, able to state as a matter of fact that Neesham demonstrated no bias against me, while the likes of independent observers such as Peter McCartney and others who were present for the case so readily observed the bias and were even so moved as to lodge numerous formal complaints?
Also noting that this evidence as reported in VPC-2 was NOT CONTESTED?
Judge Eames has throughout this judgement attacked Hoser without basis of fact or substantiation, an example being on page 35 where he says Hoser is "quite manipulative".
He presents no evidence of such sinister behavior by Hoser (his statement is baseless) and thus one can only ask, why Judge Eames makes such a statement in the first instance.
21/ Judge Eames reverses truth.
On pages 35-37 of his judgement Judge Eames, in line with prosecutor John Langmead have reversed the reality of truth to present pure fiction and then in an even more cynical exercise stated "Hoser has the capacity to leap from fact to fantasy", which is another lie.
The issue at hand was the green-lighting by Neesham throughout his trial of DPP Barrister Ray Perry chatting up the jurors.
This occurred throughout the trial and there is absolutely no dispute among the many independent witnesses of this fact.
In his judgement, Judge Eames and Langmead have reversed the truth to falsely claim that Neesham never allowed this conduct to occur and actually stopped it when he observed it.
This green-lighting of Prosecution/Jury contact was one of many grounds of appeal to the Supreme Court for the perjury matter, and the reversal of the truth in this judgement by Judge Eames represents the success of a very fancy piece of legal footwork by prosecutors John Langmead and Doug Graham who has clearly provided Judge Eames with yet more ammunition to try to improperly discredit Hoser.
But in this case the prosecution tried to assert that the contact between Perry and the jury never occurred (save for the few instances referred to in the official transcript) and I had maliciously made it up.
Anyone who deals with corruption would soon learn that there is far more than can ever fit into one or two books, so there is never a need to invent or make things up!
In my defence in this case, my lawyers tendered Judge Neesham's letter to the Supreme Court as corroboration to the fact that contact between prosecution and jury occurred.
Not surprisingly in the letter, Neesham denied any wrongdoing in this and other matters (in effect saying "I ran the case properly"), and stated that when he saw prosecution/jury contact he stopped it.
This letter disproved the assertions by Graham and Langmead that I made up the claim about the contact between the prosecution and the jury.
However in his summing up of the case, Langmead then asserted that Neesham's letter to the Supreme Court was proof that I had lied about Neesham's Green-lighting of contact between Perry and the jury and that at all times Neesham had tried to stop it.
The argument in itself was perverse, particularly when reconciled with the fact that VPC-2 (which was not contested) talked at length about other incidents of prosecution/jury contact (not referred to by Neesham in his letter or at those times identified in the transcript in Neesham's letter), e.g. that on page 410 of VPC-2 (ignored by Judge Eames) and the fact that numerous independent witnesses had sent letters out complaining of same as referred to in the sources for the books, again at times differing to those few token instances where Neesham disciplined Perry.
I drew this to the attention of my lawyers and they confirmed that because the relevant sections of VPC-2 involving jury/prosecution contact were not disputed, it was not legally open to Judge Eames to conclude that I had somehow made this up - but this is in fact what he's done.
My lawyers told me that the stupidity of the prosecution's argument in this regard showed that their case was clutching at straws, but amazingly, this is one straw that Judge Eames has wrongly grabbed!
For the record, (transcript references as cited in Neesham's letter to the court of appeal) Neesham disciplined Perry on day 3 (6/9/95) in a manner and conversation that I still have no knowledge of, save it had something to do with "Gafari's case" (I was kept out of it). I assume it ("Gafari's case") has something to do with jury contact. On day 7, Neesham first stopped Perry due to the sheer volume that he was speaking to the jury at, and he was worried that this conversation may come out onto the official transcript. Having drawn my attention to Perry's behaviour via his comments, he was then forced to again discipline Perry for sign language, (Pages 462 and 646 of official transcript). Notable is that it wasn't the dialogue Perry was having that sparked Neesham's intervention, but only the volume it was at.
The only other time Neesham intervened was to stop Perry's making of facial expressions on day 12.
This was not a mere coincidence.
You see it was on day 11 at the end of proceedings that I was alerted by independent witness Charles Pierson as to the prosecutor jury contact (as referred to in detail on page 350 VPC-2).
On day 12, it was my pointing at Perry's facial expressions that forced Neesham to intervene and make comments about them. This is entirely corroborated by both VPC-2 and the official transcript. Some days later there is yet further reference to independent observers positioning themselves behind Perry and hearing the full details of conversations between the prosecution and the jury (page 410 and elsewhere in VPC-2).
As these independent (unconvicted and unembittered witnesses) were available to the crown to be called, one can only conclude that they were not because Judge Eames and the crown knew they supported Hoser's claim of prosecution/jury contact throughout the trial.
We know the crown had the names, addresses and other details because of what was written and not contested in VPC-2. However even if that is ignored, we have the police's own witness statements as tendered in court in the Cassar matter and IID, which state quite clearly that the police obtained these details from all who entered the court (refer in particular to the statement from Constable Calkin).
Again noting that Neesham failed to control Perry's behavior, even though he was by his own admission live to it, is evidence at best of a cavalier attitude to justice and at worst of bias.
When taken in the context of other matters such as the strip searches, and various comments made in the presence of the jury, the latter seems far more plausible.
Notable is that at no stage of the Judge Eames proceedings had either prosecution or the judge engaged in the relatively simple exercise in determining if the times Neesham stopped Perry talking or communicating with jury was on the same or different dates as mentioned in the book; not even for the allegedly contemptuous statement on page 350 of VPC-2.
And as shown above, we are dealing with different days and when viewed in their totality make complete sense and are not disputable.
22/ Judge Eames and Hyperbole against Hoser.
As his judgement progresses, Judge Eames moves increasingly into hyperbole in his attack on myself.
On page 37 he wrote:
"Much was made on behalf of Hoser in the proceedings before me of his suggestion that he had been denied the opportunity to present his defence to the perjury charge, because Judge Neesham had refused to allow him to make use of the tape recording of the proceedings before Judge Balmford which he had covertly made (in defiance of the order of Judge Balmford) during the hearing of his appeal before her Honour. In his book Hoser constructs an elaborate defence to the perjury charge whereby the tape recording would constituted definitive disproof of the allegation of perjury."
I note use of the words "elaborate defence" by Judge Eames.
One may ask, what is elaborate about a request to a judge to play some 28 minutes of evidence to a court and then ask, "please identify what I have just said that was in any way perjured?".
Surely this (production of the tape) would have saved a five-week trial arguing over what was or wasn't said, further noting that it was Hoser who was improperly accused by the prosecution of lengthening the trial.
Furthermore, it is obvious in VPC-2 that the innocence of Hoser of the perjury is a 'given' at all stages of the narrative in the book based on the original account involving the faxes.
The book says the faxes were received, it does not say they were forged by Hoser.
Hence the account of the subsequent criminal trial cannot be seen as primarily a case of proving innocence for Hoser as asserted by Judge Eames, particularly in light of the fact that the emphasis is on the case (alleged) against Hoser, but rather as a detailed appraisal of a process by which a verdict was reached (that happened to be wrong) and the consequences thereof as in jail, further vilification, etc.
The significant reason for the detail of the court process in that case is the accurate account of police perjury and other misconduct and the lack of action by other officials to take action to stop it, coupled with the obvious fact that as litigant, Hoser had the transcripts and other corroborating material on hand.
23/ Improper inference by Judge Eames.
That Judge Eames has totally made his mind up that I am guilty of the perjury charge (and he has improperly done so) was borne out by his completely outrageous assertion:
"it seems to me highly unlikely that the playing of the tape recording could have made the slightest difference to his prospects of defence to the charge."
Besides the fact, that even at this late stage, Judge Eames has obviously not listened to the tape (even though we presume it is still available), this also brings us to the Ziems (I think that's the name) case precedent. This says that if a party fails to produce evidence that one would expect to be favorable to it, then one may infer that the evidence would not have helped their case.
Now recall that the covertly made tape of the Balmford proceedings (the one I allegedly perjured myself in) had been seized and retained by the police. I did not have it. It was now their evidence. And recall they did not produce it.
Thus it must by law be inferred it could not have helped their case.
Noting that it contained the very words I'd said, this meant, that clearly the tape provided NO evidence of perjury.
Thus it must have been of critical help to my case.
Thus Judge Eames is totally wrong in fact and in law to assert that the tape would not have helped my case.
Even Blind Freddy would know that the tape recording MUST indelibly prove my innocence or guilt one way or other, as per the foreword by Graeme Campbell MHR, which is also attacked by Judge Eames on pages 77-78 of his judgement.
There he attacks Campbell for thinking the obvious - as in the facts outlined immediately above, and then Judge Eames uses this argument as credible as his final basis to say that because my books are credible and believable, they undermine public confidence in the legal system and thus I should be convicted.
Judge Eames also fails to mention in his judgement other similar evidence with-held from the jury, such as the edited tape recording (minus 19 minutes at least) of the raid on my house, whereby police admit that they were falsifying the charges against me.
Now surely he's not going to allege that a statement to that effect played to an impartial jury is not going to have major impact on the verdict?
We know this and other similarly damaging (to the police side) material is on the tape, because A/ I lodged written complaints to this effect to the authorities (police, ombudsman, etc) after the raid and they denied my claims. B/ The police did not disclose that they had a tape corroborating my statements and instead issued false denials. C/ The existence of the covertly made tape (denied on oath by police already in Neesham's own court) only became known by accident following subpoena of a file from IID in the Neesham trial two years later (see VPC-2 page 362-373) and the corresponding parts of the official transcript.
Notable is that the police officer who'd lied previously in the same hearing about (not) taping the raid was not cited for perjury, even though up to that stage Neesham and Perry had been telling the jury it was a very serious offence.
While this tape recording was not argued in any major way in the proceedings before Judge Eames, the fact is that this covert police tape of the raid on my house in 1994, featured prominently in VPC-2 and the official Neesham trial transcript ((see pp. 362-373 VPC-2), and that's not including the quite separate and detailed account of the raid as documented in HF.
23A/ Here is some more relevant facts, conveniently ignored by Judge Eames when making his judgement and statement that the tape of the Balmford proceedings would not have helped him.
On page 12 of his judgement Judge Eames said:
"They (the jury) disbelieved Hoser and his witness. A conviction for perjury was plainly a very serious setback for a person who proclaimed himself to be an authority about corruption and a person whose word should be accepted as truth."
What Judge Eames failed to note was the central elements of the defence case in the Neesham trial did not in fact rely on the court believing a word Hoser said in the Neesham trial.
Instead it was that the defence sought to rely on production of the tape and transcript of the evidence in front of Balmford (and also that of the raid itself (unedited) - with the damning and self incriminating police comments) to establish indelibly what was said in that case to prove innocence.
This quite sensible option was denied to the defence.
But even more pertinently, is the text on pages 39-47 of The Hoser Files, relating to a decision in 1987 (8 years prior to the perjury case) to buy and regularly use, taping equipment to indelibly establish truth so that in court and related situations, it would not become a contest of my oath against another, whereby the court would invariably side with prosecution, but rather that the tape recordings themselves would show the truth.
And as shown in both The Hoser Files and VPC-2 this tactic of covertly taping police and others who would in due course perjure themselves in court was notably successful in keeping me out of prison or fined for wrongful convictions being sought.
Now noting that covertly made tapes were the sole reason for Hoser winning so many other serious criminal charges (e.g. The Goodson charges as detailed extensively in both The Hoser Files and VPC-2, the Walsh/Milner charges and numerous others, Judge Eames is really a brave man to assert that the covertly made tape of the Balmford proceedings would not have helped the Hoser case.
This is particularly so, noting that Judge Eames himself knew that a series of tapes made in identical circumstances of a hearing in front of Magistrate Iain West on 7-8 November 1990 and in contravention to magistrate's wishes (like in the Balmford matter), in which I was convicted, was able to be used successfully in the appeal to have the conviction (assault and more) overturned!
The latter case, did not rely on my word being believed over the several police witnesses. My covertly made tape recording of West's proceedings, quite adequately proved the perjury.
As already noted, Judge Eames must have been well aware of this case because it is detailed in The Hoser Files (pages 180-285) and again with the above salient facts on pages xxii-xxiii of VPC-2.
Now how is it possible for Judge Eames to infer that a tape made in identical circumstances wouldn't have helped my case, when the other one did so well?
Or did he lie about reading those books?
23B/ In relation to the 26 grounds of appeal as lodged immediately after conviction, Judge Eames, who clearly had access to the file from his own court, would have known the following salient facts as documented faithfully in VPC-2.
A/ The appeal was drawn up by myself, a non-lawyer and lodged, immediately after conviction in Neesham's court.
B/ I reserved rights to add and amend points of appeal, which incidentally QC Chris Dane did two years later when he added three more points.
C/ Numerous other points as raised in VPC-2 should in all probability have been added to the list of appeal points and it had been anticipated that Dane would have done so, but he chose not to for reasons well explained (not being briefed properly, another competing trial and no adjournment allowed).
D/ Appeals to the Supreme Court I was told and still understand, can only be made on points of law, NOT evidence and as the covertly made tapes (myself of Balmford's case and the police of the raid on my house) were clearly "evidence" not law, they were effectively shut out of the appeal process.
Surely Judge Eames must know this?
Alternatively, if these covertly-made tapes could have been brought into the appeal process as materially relevant, surely it was incumbent on a properly briefed legal team to do this, not a non-lawyer such as Hoser, but the fact that Dane was not properly briefed has never been disputed (refer to the transcript in this trial).
Thus the comments by Judge Eames in relation to the tapes and the appeal hearing are totally redundant and do nothing in terms of showing the conviction of myself was either proper or reflected the totality of the evidence that should have been made available to the jury in Neesham's trial.
E/ The mere fact that through oversight or other reason a point is omitted from an appeal document, cannot be taken as proof that something did or did not occur.
By way of example, no appeal document mentions the strip-searching of myself in Neesham's court. However it could clearly be interpreted by jurors of lay people to indicate that I had prior convictions for serious violence, particularly noting that many jurors would be aware that as a matter of course that prior convictions are not openly stated and disclosed at the commencement of a trial. The potential indicator of a prior conviction so serious as to warrant strip-searching twice a day in court could well be interpreted by a juror to indicate that the defendant may also be guilty of this most recent charge as well and thus the trial be prejudiced almost immediately.
Is Judge Eames going to try to state the strip-searches didn't occur either and the transcribers got it wrong, simply because this wasn't on the list of appeal points?
24/ False justification of Neesham trial conviction.
On page 38 of his judgement, Judge Eames justifies the Neesham case conviction (by the jury) when he stated that the jury did not believe the evidence led by Hoser and his witness.
What Judge Eames has chosen to ignore is the well-documented fact (as borne out in VPC-2 and the official transcript) is that Neesham so heavily regulated and restricted the defence case, that it was never properly put to the jury, thereby guaranteeing an unfair trial.
While Judge Eames may attempt to dispute this assertion, his disputing it would rely on the facts that he has clearly not read the case transcript and appears to have summarily dismissed the contents of VPC-2 as untrue even though the salient facts were accepted as uncontested and the crown produced no evidence to contradict anything said!
Furthermore on page 42 of his judgement under the heading "Was the truth hidden from the jury" Judge Eames justifies the restriction on evidence being ascertained or led by myself in the Neesham trial to my being a non-lawyer unfamiliar with the legal system and the inherent problems I faced as a litigant in person.
This was accepted by myself as a partial explanation in the book VPC-2 (pages 237-241) and elsewhere as well as judge Waldron (same pages) who found that I would have better prospect of success if legally represented (refer again to the Phung judgement).
Even Neesham himself made the same conclusion as borne out both in the official and VPC-2 reproduced transcripts.
Judge Eames view is clearly contrary to my interpretation of events and to my credit I have provided such a vast amount of material within the book to allow him to make that conclusion.
Now surely if I were embarked on a campaign against the courts as alleged by Judge Eames, I would not have so freely volunteered information in 1,868 pages of three books and even more transcripts in order to allow views contrary to my own to be formed by disinterested third persons such as readers and even Judge Eames himself. Surely one would expect me to restrict information to such an extent that only one reasonable conclusion could be drawn?
By contrast, even the Supreme Court of appeal only publishes judgements and not the transcript evidence that leads to those judgements - in effect more severely quarantining alternative views.
25/ Failure of Judge Eames to ascertain facts before making adverse judgement.
Furthermore is it reasonable (or open) for Judge Eames to make a finding of fact and then contempt in relation to the Neesham matters without having read the full case transcript as cited and placed on the www, and/or made even a cursory attempt to gain evidence from the independent witnesses as cited in the book VPC-2 who made observations of more materially relevant facts not disclosed by the official transcript?
26/ Double/inconsistent standards by Judge Eames, and evident failure to read VPC-2.
On page 37 of his judgement Judge Eames complains that I have failed to produce a passage of in VPC-2 showing why Neesham refused me permission to tender a particular tape that the police side possessed (namely that of my alleged perjury in front of Balmford). He then spuriously alleges that it is a critical "deficiency" in my book.
His statement is pure tripe!
Besides the fact that he is now usurping the role of book editor, we should also look at a few salient facts.
Bearing in mind that the case ran five weeks, there must come a time when for reasons of space, material must not be included and/or summarized. As it happens, the book runs 800 pages (352,340 words total) and the case itself runs many hundreds of pages and in terms of word count (96,624 words for the Neesham Trial alone), far exceeds your average 60,000 word book in it's own right!
Then of course we have to consider the committal (a week), pretrial hearings, legal aid applications, preceding events, as in Balmford trial (2 days), Blashki Case (another day), the traffic light incident, the raid, the Broadmeadows Court hearing where I sought return of seized tapes and the like, and so on, all of which are part and parcel of what was dealt with in the Neesham case (add a similar number of words again to the 96,624, and that excludes related cases and matters as documented in The Hoser Files 148,164 words).
Now specifically with reference to the tendering of the tape it was referred to in the committal transcript as reproduced in VPC-2 (see pages 213-214) and you will note that as for Neesham, Heffey in this case (and typically) didn't give any decent reason for refusal to allow the tape.
Now also in VPC-2 the following comment is made on page 212 of the book:
"To shorten this account, I won’t discuss all the evidence at the four day committal other than in passing or where relevant to the account of the later trial itself. It should be realized that because the witnesses were the same in both (excluding those that the prosecution added at the trial) and the matters covered were the same, much of the ‘evidence’ was also the same or similar, hence my deciding to try to avoid duplication here where unnecessary."
Had I doubled everything up, I'd have added about another 40-50 thousand words or another 100 odd pages!
(And for those who have actually read the "New Testament Bible" they will know that the varying accounts of Jesus by the various authors of much the same facts, soon makes the book a very boring read!).
Now recall that in the trial itself (before Judge Eames started clutching at straws for so-called "deficiencies" in my books or defence in general) he made numerous derisory comments as to the excessive size and detail in the books, including words to the effect that he doubted anyone would want to read the books.
And even in his judgement my attention to factual detail has made me "obsessive" (p. 70).
But now the quite sensible removal of duplicitous transcript suddenly; becomes a deficiency!
Surely once in the book is enough?
Recall also that the books were way too detailed for the Crown's prosecuting officer Stephen Lee to have read (or so he claims), even though by his own admission and evidence, he'd possessed the book for over a year (refer to his affidavit tendered with the writ).
If Judge Eames is relying on arguments like the one above to cobble together a judgement for criminal "contempt" against me then surely it's not worth the paper it's written on.
The sheer hypocrisy of Judge Eames and his contrasting comments even shows up in his judgement.
On page 37 of his judgement Judge Eames complains about my lack of detail in the book (a point repeated elsewhere), but then near the end of his judgement he uses my attention to factual detail as proof that I am "obsessive" (page 70).
In other words, I am to be damned no matter what I write, say or do.
Too little text and detail (as Judge Eames may summarily declare) means I am hiding material and too much text and detail makes me obsessive.
This inescapable damnation of myself is again a strong pointer that he has made a predetermined decision to find against me and that he will alter the rules so to speak to ensure that I get caught.
And in terms of hiding material, it's OK for him to cite sources available elsewhere in widely scattered locations, but when I cite sources (all located in one place, because I took time to place it all in one place), it's still not acceptable.
27/ False Statement by Judge Eames.
The Summary by Judge Eames of the perjury trial on pages 37 (bottom) and 38 (top) is factually incorrect and can be seen as such from reading either VPC-2 or the corresponding official transcript.
The account in totality is completely misleading and misrepresents the facts.
In paragraph 114 (page 38) of his judgement, Judge Eames asserts unilaterally that the conviction of Hoser arose solely due to a disbelief of Hoser's evidence and that of witness Des Burke.
Without reading the minds of the jurors (something only judges can do), one may assert that Judge Eames' conclusion about the jury's state of mind is correct.
However this is far from a full representation of the facts as known and were documented and uncontested in VPC-2.
These include the following undisputed and indelibly proven facts:
Hence the Eames assertion that Hoser and witness were not believed by the jury is in fact impossible, at least in terms of causing the final verdict.
28/ Improper relitigation of perjury matter and failure to look at the evidence.
From his own judgement, Judge Eames makes it clear that his defence of judge Neesham's trial is based on a cursory evaluation of the relevant evidence.
To protect his own good name so to speak, he then makes the curious comment on page 38 of his judgement:
"In the final analysis, however, the charge of contempt does not require an analysis of the evidence on which Hoser was convicted and the merits of the arguments he made at trial or in his book."
Judge Eames may well be right here, but if this is so, then he surely should not be making findings of "fact" and then drawing improper inferences, without being fully appraised of the full and proper facts, especially when taken in the best of lights, he runs the very real risk of making the wrong conclusions (which is demonstrated here).
Now Judge Eames may well claim that a contempt case is not the forum to relitigate a case.
Again he may have a point to a limited extent.
However if the act of ascertaining whether or not a "contempt" has occurred depends on proving truth or falsity of an allegation, then a relitigation in some form to determine the true facts is effectively unavoidable.
Surely if an author has produced a demonstrable lie in a book, it can be easily proven.
In the case of VPC-2 all the sources are set out in a readily available list and the materially relevant transcripts themselves are also available.
It is not an insurmountable obstacle to prosecution or judge to be able to properly ascertain the facts, by reading all this material (including said tapes), in order to ascertain truth, before going to the next steps to decide whether or not there is a contempt.
In this case the crown failed to produce a shred of evidence of falsehood in terms of the material documented in the VPC-2 books (save for a difference of interpretation in the Demarco judgement), which in the overall totality of both books is extremely minor and even if disregarded fits within the pattern of Judge Balmford as shown in the Hoser matters and Toxic waste dump matter as detailed on page 525 of VPC-2 under the heading "THE OTHER JUDGE" for which the crown and judge make no allegations in terms of interpretation.
In this contempt trial, the Crown were able to use limited and selected, out of context bits of transcript and evidence to make the judge draw inferences, which as it happens were then shown to be false when cross-matched with deliberately overlooked pieces of evidence tendered to Judge Eames' own court.
Judge Eames himself went beyond what the Crown put to him and drew yet more improper and factually wrong inferences in the same way.
An example of the former is the Crown position on Prosecution/jury contact in the Neesham trial, whereby relevant parts of VPC-2 had been overlooked and not even a cursory check of dates and times involved was made by cross-referencing with Neesham's own admissions on this.
An example of the latter is seen in point 1/ above, where Judge Eames himself drew a wrong inference, based on what I do not know, to assert that I hadn't tried to have Neesham struck out as my judge until the last day of the trial, when the record (VPC-2) and the official transcript show otherwise (see 1/ above for details).
29/ Contradictory statements by Judge Eames.
Continuing from his above quoted passage on page 38 of his judgement and in the same paragraph, Judge Eames goes on to state that it is his role to ascertain whether or not I have made baseless allegations against the trial judge.
This is a partial reversal of his earlier position and to this extent at least, he states he must inquire as to the truth of matters.
Assuming he has read VPC-2 in full (uncontested we add), Judge Eames would have known the allegations of bias to be correct.
Should Judge Eames have doubted the contents of VPC-2, he should have sought and read all supporting material.
He has not done this (by his own admission) and thus any adverse findings of "fact' in terms of claims within VPC-2 (not directly supported by the text - if they in fact exist) must be dismissed as being based on insufficient evidence and when the crown itself has withheld evidence, because it did not favor their case.
Recall the crown also had access to the various documents referred to as source and corroborating material for VPC-2, (Ziems case).
30/ Judge Eames makes misleading statements - lies.
Point 116 of Judge Eames' judgement (pages 38-39) is clear and undeniable evidence of a deliberate attempt to deliberately mislead readers of his judgement as to the true facts and circumstances surrounding the book VPC-2 and it's contents, particularly in relation to the alleged contact between Judge Neesham and the prosecutor Raymond Perry out of hours during the trial.
Before explaining the details of the deception, it's worth stating that in essence Judge Eames has falsely accused me of maliciously making an unfounded allegation that judge and prosecutor had met "after hours to discuss the evidence in his case".
That's deliberate lie one.
The second extremely serious lie is that Judge Eames has then said that I had improperly with-held from the readers of VPC-2 a perfectly rational explanation from the readers, namely in the form of a letter from Neesham tendered to the Supreme Court, which totally dismisses that "allegation" as having no "basis" to it (this lie now being both Neesham's and Judge Eames', because Judge Eames has re-adopted it as "fact" in his judgement).
Now here's the detail of this fraudulent piece of legal work by Judge Eames.
The section opens thus:
"The gulf between Hoser's perception of his trial, and reality, is starkly demonstrated by his complaint in Book Two (being, also, one of the grounds of appeal which was not argued) that the judge and prosecutor were meeting after hours to discuss the evidence in his case."
Thus it is clear from the outset that in this paragraph Judge Eames seeks to attack me and prove to his readers that I have got my facts wrong and that not only that my perceptions are for from reality; in other words I am not reliable.
That Judge Eames and his judgement is totally defective is perhaps demonstrated no better than in the next section of text at the foot of page 38, where he states that I have got my facts wrong by alleging on page 448 of VPC-2 that the judge and prosecutor were meeting "the other night" to discuss the evidence in his case.
(The reference by Judge Eames to page 448 is useful in that it indicates that Judge Eames is not relying on any other source, such as page 1,675 of the official transcript (the relevant page), and that he has in fact read ALL the relevant transcript and text from VPC-2).
Judge Eames has deliberately and mischievously put meeting "the other night" in quotation marks to imply that I had said it in the book VPC-2.
For the record, those words do not appear ANYWHERE in the entire book VPC-2.
Nor do those words appear anywhere in the transcript for the hearing in front of himself (Judge Eames), or anywhere in the 1,800 pages of perjury trial transcript!
Nor do they appear in any of my other seven books!
Thus this alleged quote by Judge Eames is the product of his own fertile imagination!
Put bluntly, His Honour, the learned Judge Geoffrey Eames has told a lie.
Am I really undermining the legal system to point this out here?
The reality (truth) is documented accurately and in full on pages 448-450 of VPC-2, where the entire relevant section of the official transcript (page 1,675) is quoted and it is Neesham and Perry who talk about speaking "last night", not Hoser.
In fact Hoser played NO PART at all in the conversation and as such it was not a case of Hoser making such unfounded and baseless allegations, but rather a case of Neesham and Perry stating it as FACT!
Thus if the allegation of overnight contact is in fact baseless, it is Neesham and Perry who have made it!
(But then one must ask, if this was a lie, then why were the pair talking about it as a fact?).
Had Judge Eames properly quoted the transcript either from the book, (noting that this page (488 VPC-2), he states emphatically he had read) or from the identical official case transcript, he would have made his readers well aware that the idea of after hours contact between judge and prosecutor was not the product of my fertile imagination (which he states falsely in his judgement), but a statement of FACT by judge and prosecutor themselves.
One can only ask, why did Judge Eames try to hide this most important fact to arrive at a conclusion at variance with the reality?
The deception by Judge Eames in his judgement doesn't stop there.
Judge Eames then continues his improper attack on myself (thereby asserting the claim attributed falsely to myself of after hours contact between Perry and Neesham being a lie), in the following way:
"Judge Neesham reported to the Court of Appeal that the suggestion that there had been such contact was entirely false. His Honour reported:
'There is no truth in the allegations made, nor any basis for it. All contact between the prosecution and myself took place in court in the presence of the appellant.'"
The most important words above being that there is no "basis" for the allegation.
(Although we now know this to be false, as had anyone who'd read VPC-2), Judge Eames has hidden this most important fact from readers of his judgement.
Judge Eames then ends his discussion of the matter with the above quote, clearly relying on this letter, from Neesham and supposedly hidden from the readers of VPC-2 as a perfectly rational explanation for what Judge Eames has falsely alleged is a baseless allegation by Hoser re the contact between Perry and Neesham outside court sitting hours.
Thus we have in totality Judge Eames own rebuttal of any claims of out of hours contact between Perry and Neesham.
We know for a fact that Judge Eames is claiming I have hidden this letter from readers of VPC-2 and any explanation for it.
You see, we know that Judge Eames has relied upon the letter as tendered to his case, because he has repeatedly referred to it as such in his judgement (see page 36 Judge Eames judgement).
Even more critically in this instance just quoted, Judge Eames has not in his quote of Neesham's letter, directed readers of his judgement to any page numbers of Hoser's book, like he did quote the previous page (for his falsely attributed quote) and for the same matter.
Put in another way, there is no citation as to the source of this quote at the foot of page 39 of the Judge Eames judgement, which is where this quote is placed.
Now the can of worms opened by the Neesham letter to the Supreme Court in terms of it's effective denial of his own statement accurately reported in the official transcript and VPC-2 is serious in it's own right.
But before getting that far, it's worth revisiting Judge Eames new claim that I have hidden the letter from my readers.
A quick look at pages 519-521 of VPC-2 reports on the letter and it's contents and is placed in the book in correct chronological order. This is including the exact quote given by Judge Eames above (p. 519 VPC-2) as well as a detailed critique of the letter's contents.
While one may argue as to whether or not Judge Eames' overlooking of this most important fact in order to make a serious false accusation against me was deliberate or otherwise, the fact remains, that this omission by Judge Eames clearly shows that his judgement is defective and his claim against me of having a gulf between perception and reality is in fact more aptly leveled against himself.
In terms of whether or not Judge Eames' omission of reference to the Neesham letter on pages 519-521 of VPC-2 is accidental or deliberate, we can make the following conclusions from his own judgement.
A/ He says he's read the book, so if that is accepted, he has read this section.
B/ The first part of this attack on myself has already been shown to be based on a knowingly falsely attributed quote.
Noting that the omission has led Judge Eames to draw a particularly bad inference against myself (hiding material from readers), and a similar improper inference is made against me relating to the Bingley transcript of 21 12 88 (where he admitted to paying off magistrate Adams) and the fact that before making such a damning finding of fact against a litigant he should be judicious and proper in his inquiries, one can only conclude that Judge Eames has withheld the fact that the letter was reported in VPC-2 by malice and a predetermined bias to arrive at a conclusion unfavorable to the litigant Hoser.
31/ Judge Neesham's lie to the Court of Appeal is proven simply by cross-referencing his own letter with his comments on page 1675 of an official transcript.
It is clear that the words in Neesham's letter relating to contact between prosecutor and himself outside the court is not consistent with Neesham's own words faithfully duplicated from the transcript in VPC-2.
This glaring inconsistency is highlighted by myself in VPC-2 on pages 519-520 to demonstrate a tendency by Neesham to:
A/ Be inconsistent and
B/ Falsely and improperly imply that I had fabricated an allegation, when I hadn't.
My comments as reported to readers in VPC-2 on pages 519-520 were:
" Neesham said,
‘There is no truth in the allegation made, nor any basis for it. All contact between the prosecution and myself took place in court in the presence of the appellant.’
The fact is I didn’t make up the allegation and it didn’t come from fantasyland. The fact is Neesham and Perry spoke of this conversation in the court proceedings as FACT, in front of many independent observers and the two’s discussion are also accurately recorded on the official transcript (and earlier in this book). Neesham’s statement ‘nor any basis for it’ is demonstrably false and perjured and an unlawful direct attack on my credibility as well as those others who’d also complained about the matter.
And put frankly there could be no other way to look at it.
And for the record VPC-2 not only has the entire relevant transcript in the context of what was said before and after, but there is also printed a detailed analysis of potentially benign explanations for the comments, which were systematically shown to be unavailable possibilities via a simple process of cross-checking and elimination (see pp. 448-450 of VPC-2).
Also of significance, is that Judge Eames himself printed a sizeable excerpt from the Appeal Court judgement in his own judgement on pages 43-44, which show quite clearly that these judges had NOT read the relevant passage from the official transcript (page 1675) as faithfully reproduced on page 448 of VPC-2, which he has also overlooked, which is also a reason why they never picked up on this obvious inconsistency (lie) by Judge Neesham.
32/ Was Neesham corrupt?
Yes. To answer this question one only needs to refer to the definition in the book VPC-2 (quoted below). Most of the terms within the definition are subjective save for the one "inconsistent".
The inconsistent statements relating to contact outside the court between himself and Perry in his own trial and then in his letter to the Supreme court demonstrate that he is inconsistent.
Thus he fits within the definition as per the front of the book.
Thus Neesham has been shown to be both corrupt (inconsistent) and a liar and engaged in impropriety. As the term "bent" is interchangeable with corrupt, (see definition below) and Neesham has been shown to be so, Judge Eames cannot assert that my use of the word "bent" is contempt as he does repeatedly on page 47 of his judgement, when he falsely denies any basis for use of this word in VPC-2.
Or go to page 359 of VPC-2 where Neesham is shown to have overruled my seeking to bring in a witness on his ruling that she was irrelevant and then later allowing the crown to have this person as a witness (Ms. G. Jackson).
But has Judge Eames read this part of the book?
Or the reversal of an undertaking to allow Peter McCartney to address him at the end of the trial in relation to the bashings of innocent people in his court during the trial, an undertaking which he did not keep.
But again, did Judge Eames read this in the book or cross-check it with the official transcript?
These are just some of countless examples.
If lying is described as corrupt, it is evident that judge Neesham has done that too in his letter to the Supreme court by denying any basis for the allegation he'd spoken to Perry outside court sitting times.
33/ Was Neesham biased against Hoser?
Yes. But perhaps the best proof of bias comes from evidence of some sort of predetermined adverse view of myself before the commencement of the trial.
The mere fact that he had already made a prior adverse finding against myself in a case with the same informants (Police/Vicroads) is not a good start for Neesham.
Further proof of bias against me comes in noting that his prior adverse judgement came in the face of overwhelming evidence in favor of myself as related in both HF and VPC in excessive detail.
And while on page 35 of his judgement, Judge Eames claims I have been "manipulative" in my books by failing to provide "innocent explanations" that "even as a non-lawyer" I must have known, the facts don't support Judge Eames' assertion.
You see on page 520 of VPC-2 I print Neesham's "innocent" explanation in full which was:
"The possibility of bias did not enter my mind"
thereby giving the reader a full opportunity to accept or reject his assertion.
In terms of bias, while Neesham may somehow try to explain the necessity of having myself strip-searched constantly through the case, the harassment of persons entering and leaving the court, his restriction of evidence tending to show my innocence, his directions to the jury, and the like, he cannot explain away the deliberate and easily shown lie in his letter to the Supreme Court (relating to prosecution/judge contact) in terms of proving his continuing bias against me.
It is clearly a lie and a lie that if accepted on face value is damaging to my credit and prospects of success at an appeal.
Furthermore, while Judge Eames in his judgement claimed I had excluded "innocent explanations" for various words and events, Neesham himself forfeited that right by falsely denying the conversation in the trial as transcribed on page 1675 of the official transcript (page 448 of VPC-2).
If Neesham had given an "innocent explanation" for the words on page 448 of VPC-2 (although based on the intellectual exercise of cross-checking the words with the previous week's transcript I am unable to think of any), these would have been faithfully recorded in VPC-2 in the same manner as his other explanations were on pages 519-52.
We know this, because contrary to the assertions of Judge Eames, (who has overlooked these pages in VPC-2), other so-called "innocent explanations" are given to the readers and they are free to decide the merits (or lack thereof) of Neesham's arguments for themselves.
In fact the deliberate omission by Judge Eames of reference to these and other similar pages effectively shatters his assertion that I have been manipulative and unfairly selective in the facts presented.
In fact he has been manipulative and selective in his judgement and omitted materially relevant facts as printed in VPC-2 which he himself stated had to be treated as a whole.
34/ Judge Eames himself contradicts his own assertion that Hoser only allowed for the possibility of one view only in his books.
Under the heading "The trial misleads the jury", pages 39-40 of his judgement, Judge Eames in his ready willingness to support his colleague Neesham noted that he put it to me in his case that there may have been a benign reason for Neesham's comments to the jury in relation to comments on a 1993 perjury file, rather than as I had asserted in the book a deliberate misleading of the jury.
In answer to the question, I made a generic concession that I have always left open the possibility that I may have got facts wrong in the books and that was why I had gone out of my way to allow other independent people to check out the sources and so check the facts for themselves and conclusions drawn.
In his judgement Judge Eames states that a benign interpretation of Neesham's comments was that he didn't want to abort the trial unnecessarily.
Judge Eames in his judgement then goes on to falsely allege that I had effectively closed off other benign explanations for Neesham's conduct (by stating I had not mentioned this as a possibility) and by not providing sufficient extracts from the case transcript in the book to enable a reader to form a proper view and that he thought it unlikely a reader would seek the supporting documents from my website.
In relation to the possibility that the comments made on the 1993 perjury file could possibly abort the trial, that had never entered my head at any stage until Judge Eames himself mentioned it in this trial in 2001. Nor had it been referred to Hoser by any of the countless people who had also read the relevant books and/or case transcript.
Even in this case (on 30 October 2001) when Judge Eames himself raised this possibility, Judge Eames conceded that as a non-lawyer I may interpret things differently to himself who is a qualified trial judge.
But notable also is that while Hoser was a non-lawyer in the case, so too were the twelve jurors, all of whom could have similarly interpreted the comments.
But perhaps more tellingly, Judge Eames has claimed I provided insufficient transcript to allow alternative views to his own to form, but in the same section, Judge Eames has himself been able to rely on what was provided to form an entirely different view to that of Hoser and one he is sufficiently confident of to allow him to devote two pages of a judgement to!
Thus the argument that I have provided too little transcript for a proper assessment is shown by Judge Eames himself to be a lie.
Also refer to the prominent statements referring to alternative views being possible throughout the book, including on pages iv (the fourth page), xii (12th page), page 18 and so on, which clearly Judge Eames has not read or recklessly chosen to ignore.
Which again gets us to point "26/" above in terms of how much I was physically able to include in a book.
34B/ Was Judge Neesham really concerned about an aborted trial?
In terms of a desire by the trial judge (Neesham) to avoid aborting a trial, that would be a plausible explanation for the words of Judge Neesham as explained by Judge Eames in his judgement on the so-called presumption of regularity.
Notwithstanding the fact that there is no need for me to argue against this proposition, (see above) there are some important points Judge Eames should also have noted which he didn't.
1/ One is that Judge Neehsam elsewhere in the trial did just that. That is he aborted it after it had commenced when a female juror pulled out.
He restarted it.
But my guess is that Judge Eames failed to read that fact either in the book VPC-2 of the secondary source (transcript).
2/ Judge Neesham made the offer to me to abort the trial mid-way through it's hearing in order to get the Legal Aid Commission to fund a lawyer out of the proceeds of the house I owned. Notwithstanding my refusal, this again indicated a willingness of Judge Neesham to abort the trial.
3/ If Judge Neesham had in fact wanted to avoid aborting a trial and this fact should have been obvious, at least to a legal practitioner, then noting I was in that role as being self-represented and a defacto legal practitioner, it would have been both logical and incumbent for Judge Neesham to advise me of this concern, which is something he didn't do.
Judge Eames would know this as well if he had read either VPC-2 or the transcript.
4/ Finally and perhaps the most telling point in favor of the idea that Judge Neesham was not concerned about the trial aborting and that he'd have been quite happy if that happened, was that throughout the case, both Judge Neesham and prosecutor Perry used an array of tactics to sting out proceedings as long as they could.
All of which would have been self-evident from a reading of either VPC-2 or the parallel case transcript, which again it appears that Judge Eames didn't.
The above four points do however, upon reflection on the recent Judge Eames contention re fear of aborting trial, make the judge Eames theory unlikely in this case.
Furthermore, it must be said that Judge Eames has produced not a shred of evidence to suggest his view in terms of judge Neesham is anything more than a theory, even if it is an 'educated guess' and based on his own experiences as a trial judge.
35/ Double standards by Judge Eames.
Judge Eames' comment:
"It is highly unlikely that any reader would be minded to seek out the transcript, by using the web site, in order to check allegations for which Hoser does not suggest an alternative explanation may be open."
smacks of double standards and hypocrisy.
The book VPC-2 demonstrably does a better job of substantiating it's claims and allegations than Judge Eames own case judgement.
By way of example contrast the matter of the prosecution/judge contact in the Neesham case, (pages 38-39 his judgement, versus pages 448-450 and 519-520 VPC-2).
My own account is both accurate and far more detailed. His own is neither.
And based on the nature of the facts as related by the authors and material both provided directly (via quotes) and also by disclosure (quotes and references), VPC-2 clearly trumps Judge Eames' judgement in all respects.
So his comments in his judgement that I have somehow and cunningly restricted salient facts from readers bombs out there in the first instance.
His latter comment to the effect that it'd be "unlikely" that any reader would seek to check out the sources is true to a large extent, but cannot in itself be used against Hoser.
Even for the book itself Hoser cannot force readers to read it all, and clearly, based on Stephen Lee's own evidence, the crown prosecution team hadn't even bothered to do so.
But notwithstanding this, the double standards of Judge Eames above comments comes from the fact that in his judgement he too provided his "sources" and citations, including page references to the books, court judgements and the like.
How many people that read his judgement, which on the face of it appears very reasonable, are then going to investigate it's factual basis by seeking out and reading the various source material cited, including the Hoser books?
This is particularly so, noting the numerous subjective and derisory comments Judge Eames has made about the books, which would strongly serve to dissuade people from wanting to read the books.
36/ Judge Eames comments on truth in Neesham trial are factually wrong.
The comments quoted by Hoser in the book VPC-2 re Neesham's lack of concern for the truth were entirely relevant on several grounds which Judge Eames has failed to note and notwithstanding his overall comments to the effect of how a trial judge addresses a case to a jury and litigants in person.
The lack of concern for the truth in the relevant case was demonstrated by the willful hiding and destruction of evidence by the prosecution side and obvious acquiescence by the trial judge (as accurately reported in VPC-2), the restriction of evidence being tendered to the jury, tending to show the accused's innocence and the final directions to the jury in terms of the 'charge'.
The comments are also particularly pertinent in the real world as noted in the book, in that while a conviction does not represent a statement of factual truth, (rather an element of probability or what people may believe when forming a verdict, which may in fact be wrong), it is in the general reality of things held as "truth" after the fact.
This has in fact occurred in relation to this perjury matter and Judge Eames has himself adopted this position (and in spite of available evidence to the contrary).
In his discussion of these phrases by Neesham (and I may include here Raymond Perry who made similar comments, including that he doesn't care about the truth), Judge Eames again accuses me of being likely to have misquoted or quoting out of context, but once again fails to substantiate the claim.
Noting that Judge Eames has already been shown to have failed this test elsewhere (e.g. in relation to the Judge/Prosecution contact in the Neesham trial), his generic comments to the same effect must be rejected as likely to be false as well.
A check of the case transcript shows that in fact Judge Eames is wrong - again!
37/ Improper attribution of fault.
Under the heading "Was the truth hidden from the jury", Judge Eames blames my complaints entirely on my being an unrepresented litigant in person.
However he fails to note numerous other undisputed salient facts including that I had been in contact with lawyers before, during and after the trial and long before the book was published.
And by way of example, even a non-lawyer would know that a tape recording and transcript of a trial where a person has allegedly committed perjury would be the most important (and first) evidence that a jury should be getting.
This is so much so that as accurately reported in the official transcript of the committal and VPC-2, when perjury was alleged against the police informant, Leo Keating, her barrister Felicity Hampel demanded a tape recording proving it!
To her shock, she got it!
But did Judge Eames read this?
It is also obvious for example that another tape recording of police (admitted as correctly and lawfully made) stating that they were fabricating the relevant charges against the accused, should also be tendered to the jury and there is no way that the judge should have allowed the crown time to remove 19 minutes of self-incriminating evidence from it, before the accused's lawyers (or in this case the accused in person) had been allowed to listen to and dispute whether or not that material should have been removed.
But again, did Judge Eames read this?
38/ False statement by Judge Eames against Hoser.
Judge Eames in his judgement repeatedly and erroneously tries to paint this author as a man with a fixed set against courts and various people, and with views that he thinks are wrong.
By way of example when discussing Neesham's actions Judge Eames says:
"To Hoser there was only one way to view such an incident".
The text of VPC-2 and The Hoser Files itself shows otherwise.
Firstly in recounting a series of events, it is not by and large necessary to offer readers one or more explanations for what has happened.
This after all steps into the realms of commentary, not reporting. The VPC1-2 and HF books clearly are reporting events, not to a large extent analyzing them or the reasons why.
By way of example, there is no substantive explanation for why Neesham was against Hoser, merely a corroborated statement that he was, with examples of specific acts to show the basis of the statement of fact.
Raymond Hoser does not read minds of people like Judge Neesham and does not pretend to.
But in terms of explanations of events and the countenancing of numerous possibilities, it is again worth referring to the Bingley confessions about Adams.
On pages 71-3 of HF, there are numerous possible explanations of what this author thinks actually occurred in terms of magistrate Adam and his final decision against the author with the author finally offering what he thinks is the real sequence of events, but allowing for the possibility of others.
In terms of an alleged set against the judiciary, Judge Eames has it totally wrong.
By way of example, the text on page 18 of VPC-2 and elsewhere says otherwise (see later quote).
Tellingly Judge Eames has chosen to ignore this.
39/ Incorrect Summary by Judge Eames.
Judge Eames' "Summary as to issues in the perjury trial", is demonstrably false in it's conclusions, because as already shown the alleged facts used by Judge Eames to draw his conclusions were wrong (and in at least some cases, apparently deliberately so).
40/ Misrepresentation of facts by Judge Eames.
On page 43, Judge Eames incorrectly writes off Hoser's innocence of the perjury on the basis of the fact that no grounds of appeal were successfully argued by his lawyer in the court of Appeal.
Judge Eames has however failed again to note the many other grounds of appeal that could have been argued as outlined in the book VPC-2, which because of his other legal commitments, Hoser's QC failed to appraise himself of.
Thus Judge Eames' conclusion is fundamentally flawed.
Refer by way of example to either Katsuno or Phung matters, both resolved after the Hoser perjury matter, vindicating unargued grounds of appeal relevant to Hoser.
Notwithstanding the preceding, in terms of the Appeal Court matter, Judge Eames has failed to note the obvious, that being that the main thrust of the book is not so much an attack on the court or even Hoser's lawyer Chris Dane for failing to advocate properly on his behalf, but rather a factual account of the facts and circumstances surrounding the appeal hearing and what contributed to the final and erroneous decisions of the judges in terms of Hoser's innocenjce or guilt of the alleged charge.
In spite of this serious defect, Judge Eames then rehashes a sizeable chunk of the now obviously deficient court of appeal judgement (due in part to Dane's failure to properly advocate and with the benefit of hindsight) in his own judgement (pages 43-4), even though they related to three points of appeal, themselves relating to some relatively peripheral matters in the Neesham trial.
Even more significant is that the Appeal court judge (one of) himself said he hadn't even appraised himself of all the evidence and transcript in the Neesham trial when he said:
"It generated nearly 2000 pages of transcript. Although, I do not pretend to be familiar with the whole of the transcript".
This is itself a frank admission that he may have omitted something, got his conclusion wrong or not really known whether or not I'd committed perjury.
Interestingly the Mickleberg matter is referred to in two of the three subject Hoser books as a serious miscarriage of justice in Western Australia and at the time derided as a Hoser conspiracy theory.
As a spin-off from the publication of the last book (VPC-3) and WA-related media reports on it calling for a Royal Commission into their local police, there has been a Royal Commission into the WA Police (commenced on 28 March 2002), the most notable spin-off being that one of the charging police officers, Anthony Lewandoski confessed to framing the Micklebergs and committing perjury in trials from 1983 to 1998.
On 2 October 2002 the WA Anti-corruption commission (ACC) issued warrant for the arrest of Anthony Lewandowski.
Commission Chairman, Terry O'Connor QC put out a media release at:
that (in part) said:
'Commission Chairman, Terry O'Connor QC said, "The complaints were sworn and the warrant sought on the instructions of the A/DPP and following a review by the Commission of evidence provided to it by the A/DPP."
"A total of 21 charges have been laid against Mr Lewandowski, alleging offences of attempting to pervert justice, making false statements, fabrication of evidence and perjury", Mr O'Connor said.'
Not worth ignoring is that (without alleging malice) the appeal court in WA got it wrong THREE TIMES (as did another court once) and upheld the improper conviction/s prior to the admissions by Lewandoski.
Put simply, appeal courts are far from perfect and they sometimes get things wrong.
Why is Judge Eames wasting everyone's time pretending otherwise?
41/ An obvious false statement by Judge Eames.
On page 40 of his judgement, Judge Eames claims that readers would not bother to chase up transcripts and other materials as posted by myself on the internet because he alleges I have not given "any hint" that "there may be an innocent explanation open as to what occurred".
In terms of the "any hint" part we know Judge Eames is wrong (an honest or dishonest lie) because of covering statements on the fourth, twelfth and other pages of VPC-2, ignored by Judge Eames stating bluntly there are alternative explanations.
Judge Eames goes further when he says:
"That is a fault which is constantly repeated throughout the book."
His statement is a barefaced lie.
Take for example the generic quote on page 282 of VPC-2
"I must stress that nothing here is quoted out of context and for those who may have any such suspicions, I remind them that the transcript of the case is a publicly available document. It is available from the Victorian Government Court Recording Service, 167 Queen Street, Melbourne, Victoria, Phone (03) 9603-2403.
I’ve taken the further step of posting the entire official transcript on the internet: go to http://www.smuggled.com/Tran1.htm and follow the relevant links."
Here alone and in one foul swoop I've (again) opened up a whole raft of other possible explanations for events and actively invited readers to check.
And in that book alone, there are three other similar generic invitations to visit the website by name (http://www.smuggled.com/Tran1.htm) for further investigation, besides the numerous other invitations to seek alternative views (over 20) to readers inviting them to compare with the official transcript, and in some cases including giving the names and addresses of some of my protagonists with the advice to seek their alternative views.
Now in fairness to Judge Eames, I could establish the above numbers with a click or two of the computer mouse using a CD-rom version of the book. Yes I did one or more simple word searches. But surely if Judge Eames had intended to indict me for not making such statements (as he has done), he should have read the book and taken appropriate notes first.
Furthermore, had he actually got to the second last page of the book, which evidently he didn't, he'd have seen a whole page advert for the CD-rom version and perhaps availed himself of it to check on the veracity of some of his (found to be wrong and bizarre) claims against the book.
Then there's Judge Eames' own differing interpretation of the Heffey committal to my own, based solely on my written account of the event in VPC-2 (see his judgement on page 54). Thus once again Judge Eames has in his judgement made a statement of "fact" in one direction negative to me, while the book (and his judgement itself) shows the complete opposite!
Now if Judge Eames were to write a book about the perjury trial and related matters and he had the same information before me as I had, he may well do it differently (as would I assume any other person).
But surely the exact number of covering statements I have placed throughout the books in relation to possible factual errors, alternative viewpoints and the like is not something regulated by law.
Or putting it another way, it must surely be accepted that in their totality, the books are replete with such covering statements (well over 20), including at the most prominent places.
It's just that Judge Eames chooses to ignore them for the purposes of his judgement and as a result makes findings of fact that are opposite to the reality.
42/ Radical views by Judge Eames.
While talking books and badly written ones at that, perhaps I should make mention of a radical small book brought to my attention on the evening of Sunday 2 December 2001 at a Whistleblowers Australia meeting.
It is titled Land Rights or a sell out? published in 1993 by the Victorian Fabian Society and Society of Labor Lawyers.
It is authored by one Geoffrey Eames, whom I understand is the same person as the trial judge Judge Geoffrey Eames.
Now any half sensible critic can only dismiss some the comments and theories as lacking credibility, but whom am I to deny Judge Eames his democratic rights?
Ditto for the 1996 publication, Legal Aid - A Proposed Plan, by Jim Kennan, Geoff Eames et al, also being sold by the Australian Fabian Society.
These books do however show that the apparently warped thought processes used by this judge in this case have been manifest for some time and are not restricted to his judgement in this matter.
42A/ Conflict of interest.
But perhaps of far greater relevance though is the fact that Judge Eames is apparently identified by the publication as being a card-carrying Labor Party member.
It's also notable that the first author, Kennan, in his incarnation as Labor Attorney General, appointed the second author to his position as judge in the Supreme Court.
While there's no doubt that the first Labor party man would argue that the appointment was based on things like merit, integtrity and so on, a cursory analysis of the judgement being appealed here (as done) would indicate a lack of at least some of these desireable qualities on the part of the Labor lawyer, now turned learned Trial Judge, His Honour Geoff Eames.
Noting that it is a card carrying Labor Attorney General, Rob Hulls who has charged me with contempt, one must then ask, is there a conflict of interest in Judge Eames hearing such a political case? And/or should he have made full and frank disclosures about his relationships and friendships with key Labor figures, including the informant, Rob Hulls.
How many times has Judge Eames met Hulls and in what circumstances?
Likewise for his judicial colleagues, Rosemary Balmford and Tom Neesham whose conduct he has effectively set himself up as judge of and by any reasonable assessment would have a vested interest in protecting their public reputations.
And while talking about conflict of interest matters, what about Judge Eames' connection with ABC radio shock-jock Jon Faine, who has long been attacking Hoser on his radio broadcasts and made it clear that he wants to see Hoser punished via his ABC radio show.
The two Melbourne men go back a long way, by way of example in 1993 they collaborated in the publication of a 206 page book Lawyers in the Alice : Aboriginals and Whitefellas’ law, which they also heavily promoted via the ABC and can still be seen on numerous internet sites including at:
Surely such conflict of interest matters should not be hidden from an accused litigant or his lawyers prior to the commencement of the trial?
Is there any (conflict of interest/bias) allegation made against Judge Eames here?
But surely enough facts and questions have been raised to demand a reasonable explanation and one that should have been given prior to trial, not after.
43/ False inference by Judge Eames.
In his paragraph "Was the truth hidden from the jury" (page 42), Judge Eames once again falsely accuses me of making inferences in my book and at the same time allowing for no other alternative viewpoint.
This is a false assertion on his part and demonstrably so, as demonstrated in the first instance that Judge Eames himself has from the information provided stated on the very same page of his judgement that he has formed a different view of the reasons behind Neesham's actions.
While Judge Eames again blames my allegedly wrong view on my lack of legal experience (a view he may be allowed to draw), it was nonetheless the same view as that reached by the other non-lawyer independent observers in the court and noting that the jury was also consisted of non-lawyers, was of major significance in terms of the final outcome.
However while Judge Eames has once again acknowledged the disadvantage I faced being unrepresented in a five-week trial, he has refused to go to the next logical step and accept that the result may have been different had I been represented.
This in fact contradicts the judgement of Phung 1999, as quoted and acknowledged as correct by Judge Eames on page 7 of his transcript.
Also see Katsuno matter as raised in the VPC-2 and apparently ignored by Judge Eames.
44/ False statement by Judge Eames AND Judge Eames upholds Hoser complaint in judgement, but fails to realise this due to either not reading VPC-2 or ignoring relevant parts.
On page 46 of his judgement Judge Eames notes that my attempts to introduce evidence in the perjury trial showing motive for Vicroads officials to discredit me and that their witnesses were not credible. He goes on to say:
"Those were quite legitimate pursuits on his part, and the judge did not suggest otherwise."
In terms of the first statement, it's pleasing to see Judge Eames agreed with at least one aspect of how I ran that case. However the second part of the sentence:
"and the judge did not suggest otherwise."
is in fact erroneous and demonstrates once again that Judge Eames has either failed to read the relevant parts of the book in it's entirety, because if he had, he'd have realized that this was not the case and Neesham specifically ruled two witnesses irrelevant on that basis.
One of those witnesses, Ms. Jackson was then called by the prosecution well after Hoser had sought to call her (their summons was served later and well into the trial proper) and Neesham in deference to them (inconsistently - corruptly) reversed his ruling to allow her to give evidence.
A substantially more important witness, "NAME SUPPRESSED", who had in fact seen the two materially relevant incoming faxes (at court on 18 Feb 94) was however not allowed, even though he was also the most important witness in terms of discrediting Connell and others from Vicroads and Police.
In other words, Judge Eames has in effect, upheld a complaint by Hoser against Neesham, but failed to realize this because he has failed to read properly the relevant book (VPC-2).
Or has he merely overlooked this?
45/ False statement by Judge Eames.
On page 48 of his judgement Judge Eames talks about my alleged bias by Judge Balmford in her case. He says:
"That is a serious allegation to make, and is based on no evidence apart from her Honour's conclusion that the appeal should be rejected, and upon her refusal to permit Hoser to tape the proceedings."
Once again Judge Eames is wrong. By way of example he has overlooked the following other indicators of bias which all serve to confirm the overwhelming view of bias, including:
A/ The strip searching of myself before even being called into the court room, which was according to the court staff on the court's instructions (refer VPC-2 for details, or the Neesham trial transcript)
B/ Her refusal to stand down proceedings while I located witness "NAME SUPPRESSED" (which Judge Eames indicates he's aware of on the same page of his judgement) - but doesn't even consider it indicative of bias, even when reconciled with the fact that the other side had been permitted to stand down proceedings the previous day (also something Judge Eames notes he's aware of on page 11 of his own judgement).
C/ The generally hostile conduct of Balmford during the trial.
That gives us five good indicators of bias for starters!
Judge Eames is also factually incorrect to state that Balmford's non-taping of proceedings was based on cost considerations "apparently" (see earlier this document) and thus he must be wrong to dismiss it as a basis used by myself to indicate bias.
Thus Judge Eames is wrong to dismiss my claims of bias as false and baseless as he does on page 51 of his judgement.
We know Judge Eames is wrong because he only identified two counts of bias against Judge Balmford in the book, when there were at least five identified and undisputed.
Was Judge Balmford, knowingly and deliberately biased?
Hoser can't read minds?
But that she was in fact biased is evident from any remotely impartial appraisal of the facts, especially with regards to her double standards and inconsistency.
46/ Misrepresentation of Demarco case (and related) by Judge Eames.
The claims by Judge Eames in relation to myself and the DeMarco judgement are factually wrong. He has deliberately misrepresented my answers to his questions in his judgement as can be seen from the transcript of his own case. Lack of detailed recollection is not an indicator of being "decidedly uncomfortable" as Judge Eames improperly asserts.
Nor is it evidence of malice and if it were, then police would be cited for it in almost every court case.
As for the claims by Judge Eames that I was familiar with the DeMarco judgement and had somehow knowingly made false allegations against Balmford, these can be easily disproved.
A check of the sources as published and tendered in the Zoccoli case by way of affidavit, revealed the sole source of the DeMarco information to be a news clipping cited twice as follows:
" Anonymous (1997) ‘Murder charge retrial’, Herald-Sun, June 28:11."
"Coulson, R. (1997) ‘Murder charge retrial’, Herald-Sun, June 28:11."
The text which occurs in the book is effectively a rehash of that article. No more, no less.
Which also fits within the same writing style and citation pattern of all the other cases in the chapter (39) of VPC-2 queried by Judge Eames and the prosecution (see page 655 initially and then the rest of the chapter to page 666), which collectively display a selection of questionable judicial outcomes as reported in the tabloid media.
In terms of questions put to me in the Judge Eames case, my answers were consistent in that I pleaded lack of memory of the details of the cases and from the exact sources, save for the fact that they were all listed and readily identifiable.
It is by this means I derived the citation above (see below).
Now noting that the word count of all my nine books and various scientific papers runs well in excess of 1.5 million words and several thousand pages, is it reasonable to expect me to have a photographic memory of them all?
Or putting it another way, does Judge Eames also expect me to recall from the top of my had the scale counts of the several hundred King Brown snakes I inspected and recorded details from at various Australian Museums early in 2001?.
Much of page 49 of Judge Eames judgement speculates as to what I was or wasn't thinking at the time I wrote the section on the DeMarco piece on page 144 in VPC-2.
The exercise is plainly stupid in that if I can't independently recall what I was thinking, how will he ever find out?
It's a bit akin to trying to read my mind an hour and a half after I was born.
In terms of the DeMarco judgement, Eames in his own judgement asserted falsely that I had seen it and read it.
After the case judgement I raised this false statement with my lawyers and asked how Eames had come to the conclusion to which they proffered the following possibility.
That was in preparing the case, my lawyers had and without my direct involvement, gathered up relevant case precedents (many) and tendered them to the judge as a bundle. Included here was the DeMarco one.
I had not seen this and was unaware of it.
Hence the inference by Judge Eames to the effect that I had seen the judgement was wrong and not withstanding that, my reporting of it in VPC-2 was still correct!
I have since downloaded it from Austlii (after the finalization of the contempt matter in 2001).
Furthermore and with specific reference to Judge Balmford and the DeMarco matter the statements within the book and actions taken in relation to the book, prior to publication, in terms of sending manuscript to all adversely named persons for comment effectively wipes out any possibility of seeking to knowingly publish lies, falsehoods and the like.
The very real fear of defamation actions as noted in both VPC books was always a relevant consideration which constantly restricted me to reporting things as accurately as possible.
This is particularly so, noting that I have been sued for defamation as far back as 1996 and quite understandably have sought to avoid such proceedings since.
Furthermore and as evidence against any proposition by Judge Eames that I had written with malice, one can see from the content of the seven corruption-related books published by myself to date (all of which were known to Judge Eames), and the sheer number of serious allegations against many rich and powerful people, the number of defamation actions against me has been remarkably small.
This again is indicative of writing without malice and by and large getting my facts correct.
A good indicator of my writing style and effort to ascertain truth before publication is easily gained from a read of pages 32-34 of Smuggled-2 (published in 1996), where I published the response of a Mr. John Nichols who had been adversely named in the book Smuggled. Likewise for a Mr. Mike Chep (pages 117-137) who was adversely named in the draft of the book Smuggled-2 and took the opportunity to add his side to the story. (Noting here that the book itself reports on the comments made by these men to the original adverse allegations).
Now surely a person who is writing with malice and to peddle lies and baseless allegations would not allow such targeted persons the right to add their side of the story to such a book?
For example, 3AW shock jock Steve Price on 22 September 1999 made false and defamatory statements about me on air and then refused me the right of correction.
He did the same to another political candidate who had the time and money to sue him and Cecil Hesse got paid out $40,000 for his efforts.
While Judge Eames in his judgement noted he hadn't read the Smuggled books (1 and 2), he was in effect duty bound to read them as well in as much as to ascertain whether or not I did in fact write with malice, noting that these books and their contents are featured prominently in VPC and VPC-2 (by way of example the Smuggled books are referred to more than 100 times in VPC-2 alone).
47/ Improper attack on Hoser by Judge Eames.
Judge Eames attacks Hoser for not placing the DeMarco judgement on his website. This is a spurious argument as:
A/ Hoser did not have the judgement to place on his site.
B/ Save for cases relating to himself, NO other judgements were on Hoser's site, in spite of many being cited. What makes this particular case so special? Why didn't Judge Eames also seek that the other Balmford decision (as reported on page 525 of VPC-2), (namely: Moonee Valley City Council v Quadry Industries Pty Ltd  VSC 95 (30 March 1999) relating to Balmford's toxic waste dump decision in March 1999 also be placed on my website? … or perhaps Judge Eames didn't read that part of the book and so ignored it?
C/ Or for that matter, why didn't Judge Eames also seek that I put the other Neesham material as cited on the internet, such as his report on police corruption?
D/ Had Judge Eames even considered the copyright implications? (Refer to the bottom of the page on http://www.austlii.edu.au/ which says: '© AustLII is a joint facility of UTS and UNSW Faculties of Law'), but is freely accessible, hence negating need for double posting in the first instance.
E/ Or had I in fact placed each and every one of these decisions on my website, would Judge Eames have then used this as further evidence I was "obsessive" as he had already found me to be? Or would he then have used his other argument (as given in his judgement), that no normal person would care to check them out on the website anyway?
In other words, any action taken by myself in good faith (all possible options) was being misinterpreted as malice.
Furthermore it shows that the cumulative claims against myself by Eames with regard to the Demarco matter/Judge Balmford's three cited cases in general are badly thought out and lack any merit.
Then, if there was in fact a factual error in relation to my account of the Demarco case (there wasn't) and which in the overall scheme of things would represent next to nothing, the blame for this error would in large part rest with Balmford and the other persons associated with her (such as Wade), who were sent the relevant manuscript and themselves chose not to alert this author as to what they thought were defects.
Also note the blacking out of jurors names as evidence Hoser doesn’t mind altering text in a book prior to publication in order to be legal, correct or whatever.
47b/ It is worth mentioning that on 23 September 2003, I had a brief look at the Demarco Judgement of R v Demarco  VSCA 69 (24 May 1999), by Phillips, Phillips and Buchanan as posted on the Austlii website.
It appears from that that the appeal was upheld on one ground because of a Judge's direction to the jury about a 'lie' by the accused.
The 'lie' had been alleged by the prosecution and based on the Judge's direction, it appears that she had accepted the prosecution view of a lie being said over that of the defence and directed the jury accordingly.
That is clearly indicative of a bias (see below).
On that basis the central claim in terms of this case as reported in VPC-2 is in fact correct, even though the specific word 'bias' does not appear in the judgement.
What Judge Eames may in fact be contending is that Judge Balmford was not deliberately biased or knew she was acting in a biased manner and that assertion has never been challenged in any way in VPC-2 or other Hoser books.
Hoser reported Balmford was biased, not that she knew she was.
Alternatively, it appears that Judge Eames is hanging his argument on the basis that the very word 'bias' does not appear in the judgement.
That is also improper as other words may indicate the same effect, including " trial judge erred", which is a common phrase in the judgement, even if mainly made out by the appellant's.
This is particularly in view of the trial judge allegedly consistently erring in favor of one side as alleged in this case.
By way of example in the last chapter of VPC-2 the following is written:
'All things being equal, I can assure readers that it is unlikely any Australian Judge or Magistrate will accept the word of a civilian witness (usually the accused) over that of a government official (usually the prosecutor)'.
The key words in the above passage are 'all things being equal'.
Furthermore, this generic bias in the system has been noted by countless legal commentators, including at Royal Commissions into corruption and hence cannot be interpreted as a unique and punishable attack on the legal system by Raymond Hoser.
Furthermore generic bias among judges has been recognized by people including State Attorney Generals, including Rob Hulls who have publicly called for more women to the judicial benches.
Now in a perfect world, all judges would act the same way and make the same judgements without bias, but in the real world things are different and hence a deliberate attempt to remove gender and other biases from the legal system.
The mere placement of different weight on different elements of a trial is in fact bias, even though the judge at the time is probably not conscious of the fact that almost everything they do is biased.
It also explains why three qualified appeal court judges may sometimes dissent from one another.
Finally, while talking bias or evidence of it, notable is that Judge Blamford's record in terms of appeals for police prosecutions on average goes against the appellant, based on a sample of cases seen on Austlii, although one assumes that the Supreme Court itself would have the most accurate and complete breakdown and could independently corroborate this.
While there is little doubt that she'd argue that this is because the appeals have lacked merit (as a group), the aggrieved may well claim bias and may in fact have evidence for it.
48/ Unfair comment by Judge Eames.
His claim on page 52 of his judgement that I was "argumentative" in his court is not borne out by the transcript.
Further noting that it is an adversial system, his comment lacks merit and is indicative of bias against me. Likewise for his unsubstantiated statement on page 66 that I am "a person worthy of little credit as a reporter", which flies in the face of the countless book reviews published to date, including some of those referred to on the back covers of VPC-1 and VPC-2.
Judge Eames did however take offence in the trial when I correctly identified a relevant section of a book that he had not read, which may have impaired his better judgement.
Finally, there is the question of relevance in terms of is being argumentative (if proven) even relevant to a charge of contempt in the contexts of the two books?
49/ Misrepresentation of facts (known false statement) by Judge Eames.
In terms of the Bingley confession of bribing magistrate Hugh Adams, Judge Eames has totally misrepresented the facts.
Both VPC and VPC-2 refer to The Hoser Files as the original source of the allegations and where the details of what led to the confession being made are.
Judge Eames is entitled to form his own opinion as to the context of the pictures, but cannot escape the salient facts that the claims were made and that as accurately reported in the allegedly contemptuous statement, a number of Adams' judgements have come under renewed scrutiny a long time after the cases were finished (as named in VPC1 and 2).
If you read the full account relating to the Bingley confession in The Hoser Files, it is seen that clearly and undeniably the conviction was in error.
As to what happened, to cause this outcome no one will probably ever know.
It's reported on page 70 of HF that "NAME SUPPRESSED" (a reasonable person) thought Adams had been "paid off". My lawyer, Ms. Joye Elleray stated she thought he'd been "spoken to". On pages 70-71 we see that Bingley then asserted he "paid off" Adams, while on page 281 Barbara Oldfield's explanation is shown to be a favor for a mate in return for one later on, or something to that effect.
My own guess (and that's all it was) was stated in The Hoser Files on page 73, when I said:
"As for Adams, well the above speaks for itself. My wanting to tape the case may have put him offside at the outset. Bingley’s explanation after the case (pp 70-71) probably came close to the mark as to what actually happened. Elleray’s explanation (p 70) or that of Barbara Oldfield (p 281) on the subject may well have been the truth in this matter. However, one major problem in Victoria is that magistrates clearly appear to be unaccountable to anyone and are effectively unsackable. What, if anything, actually transpired between Adams and Bingley is never likely to be known. Any later explanation from either man would have to be doubted anyway."
And in 13 years since the event, nothing has changed! That is save for the fact that in 1997 at Loddon Prison I met a self-confessed criminal by the name of "Rick" who claimed to have done a deal through his lawyer to get in front of Adams and an unusually light sentence.
Thus the key element isn't the "bribe" as such, but rather the "fixing" of the case as a result of police/magistrate contact to get an impossible verdict.
Now contrary to the inferences made by Judge Eames in his judgement on page 57, none of the answers I gave Judge Eames in the contempt case shed any new light on the Bingley/Adams matter over and above what is reported on pages 70-73 of HF, including my opinions on the facts of the matter and what is likely to have happened between the prosecution and magistrate, including the possibility canvassed by Judge Eames of there being no contact (see the paragraph from HF quoted above).
The serious allegation in terms of Adams in all three books, is not the "bribe" as such, which as seen in The Hoser Files, I even canvass the possibility of no contact between the two. But rather how and why, Adams was able to come to verdicts that flew in the face of logic.
In the case of the captions in VPC1-2 it's further shown that the pattern of such verdicts appears to have happened more than once and so warrants further investigation.
Claims by Judge Eames on page 57 of his judgement that I had somehow hidden the facts and circumstances surrounding the Bingley/Adams matter are totally false as demonstrated by the fact the references to the case in VPC1-2 invariably repeatedly refer the reader back to The Hoser Files.
Once again, Judge Eames' repeated lie that in my books I have hidden alternative views from readers is exposed again.
By way of example I offer five people's differing views as to what occurred in this matter alone!
Judge Eames is factually incorrect in claiming that I did not tell readers that the bribery case involving Adams was in fact my own Bingley matter.
On page XX (twentieth page) of VPC-2 we see the chronology of events involving Hoser which reads in part:
"21 December 1988: Hoser convicted and jailed for 6 weeks on charges of assault and theft over the Bingley/O’Shannessy matters. Policeman Ross Bingley admits to paying off magistrate Hugh Francis Adams to fix case. Court transcripts and associated documents corroborate Bingley’s confession. Conviction overturned on 27 February 1990. "
which also precedes the Adams photo in terms of placement in the book.
Judge Eames then says that I:
"intended the reader to understand that Mr Adams had been exposed in some serious, official, investigation into corruption, or by a confession made in the context of a court case."
While that is not so, as borne out by the text shown above and again in The Hoser Files (in more detail), Judge Eames has significantly chosen to ignore in his judgement that it was the same Hugh Adams who (as documented in VPC) was exposed at an official coronial inquiry in 1998 as the magistrate that bungled the first inquest into Jenny Tanner way back in 1985 and allowed corrupt policeman Denis Tanner to literally get away with murder!
Put another way, the claim in the judgement quoted above is a proven lie.
50/ Judge Eames claims I presented the Adams photos and captions in VPC1 and 2 with reckless indifference. However noting his failure to identify the qualifying text in VPC-2 (at least) and the other factors mentioned, including the perfectly reasonable explanation as printed in The Hoser Files, it is clear that no such claim of reckless indifference against myself can be made.
51/ False statement by Judge Eames.
The statement by Judge Eames in relation to the Bingley confession that:
"The reader could not have known that to the author the allegation was, at its highest, merely, one that was possibly true."
Is patently false as demonstrated by the text quoted above from The Hoser Files, which I assume Judge Eames has either not read, or overlooked.
While this Bingley/Adams material is not subject to the final findings of contempt, as part of the same judgement and being part of a raft of adverse findings, the false allegations by Judge Eames, must by necessity be rebutted, lest they be generally accepted as based on fact - which they are not.
52/ Misrepresentation (false statement of fact) by Judge Eames.
On page 60 of his judgement Judge Eames does while talking about Hugh Adams state:
"Hoser there stated: 'Adams is well known for doing deals with prosecution to predetermine a trial". Even on his own account, the statement of Bingley could not support that assertion."
My comment is correct and Judge Eames' comment after mine is (on it’s own) also.
The problem however is that Judge Eames has failed to have noted the reality that the comment by myself was not directed in terms of my own case.
Rather it was directed with reference to the Wagnegg and Tanner matters (as specified on the same captions) and as discussed extensively on pages 75-76 and 465-532 of VPC-1, which once again Judge Eames has overlooked.
53/ False inference, false statement by Judge Eames.
On page 66 of his judgement, Judge Eames states that he thinks I had hidden sections of the Bingley transcript from readers because he asserts they "were not helpful to his cause".
Now bearing in mind my cause has at all times been the truth, Judge Eames' suggestion is patently ridiculous.
The general content of the missing bits of transcript is recorded and it is evident from this that it is essentially duplication of what was already said as quoted in The Hoser Files.
The comment by Judge Eames:
"One wonders why, in a book of 320 pages, as 'The Hoser Report'(sic) was, the author would omit such devastating material)."
is patently ridiculous.
A quick perusal of the book will show dozens of similar abridgements to transcript excepts, e.g. pages 136, 137, 144, 146, 233, indicating the abridgement of this transcript entirely reasonable and consistent with the rest of the book.
Now had I included all these transcripts in full, the size of the book would have blown out to be over 1,000 pages, which besides making it uneconomical to publish, would also make for very boring reading!
Surely this is not a sensible way to get a message across?
And yes, if I had included all the transcripts unedited, Judge Eames would then have used it as ammunition to further claim I was obsessive!
54/ The contents of the Bingley tape, Judge Eames becomes a defacto Crown Prosecutor.
Further noting Judge Eames' next comment:
"Hoser was not cross examined, at all, about the content of the tape.",
it is clear that Judge Eames has himself usurped the role of prosecutor in his quest to find "evidence" against me, by fantasizing as to the tape's full contents.
However his failure in this regard is demonstrated by this particular fishing exercise, which in effect reveals nothing for Judge Eames due to the fact that the tape's transcript (as advertised on the internet) simply revealed nothing damaging for my case (as he put it) and the most important fact (the improper Adams verdict) is in any event unaffected by the content of the tape.
As to what was not in the transcript of the tape, well that was either unrelated conversation (irrelevant) or too blurred to accurately transcribe. In other words, Judge Eames has done what he falsely accused Hoser of and that is find inferences of malice that simply weren't there.
55/ Judge Eames steps back into hyperbole and lies towards the end of his judgement.
That's where on page 75 of his judgement he states that my books represent "the new reality"of a person running:
"organised and quite sophisticated campaigns against the integrity of the courts."
His statements remind me of the hype surrounding George Bush's and John Howard's alleged "war against terrorism" that commenced a couple of months earlier.
(Maybe the pen really is mightier than the sword, or Jumbo Jet?).
But the fact is that these books represent no such war or attack.
Both open with statements in support of the legal system.
Both affirm that most of the time the legal system gets things right and both then openly identify defects with a view to improve, but not challenge the authority of the courts.
In the entire 1,536 pages of both books there is not even an invitation to conduct civil disobedience or even to break even the most trivial laws.
Quite the contrary.
Thus while the books may criticize the conduct of specific judicial officers in specific cases, they do not attack the courts as a whole or as an institution (although sensible suggestions for improvements via taping and other means are suggested).
Unlike the Herald-Sun and Age newspapers which in 2000-2001 have editorialized at length and openly called for the removal of tax avoiding Judge Kent and Magistrate Michael Adams (the one who called fellow magistrates "soft cocks"), this book has never sought to so vigorously undermine judicial authority.
If the papers are not in contempt, how possibly can Hoser's books be?
There has also been a deliberate blurring of the lines by corrupt people in terms of using the shield of the courts to protect their own interests after they have transgressed.
Notably, when the now deceased, Hulls appointed, Judge Robert Kent was attacked for his breaches of tax laws, he accused the newspapers of attacking the courts.
In response the Herald-Sun editorialised that it was not attacking the courts, but rather a judge who hadn't been paying his share of tax.
Evidently Rob Hulls agreed as eventually Kent stepped down.
Even then Judge Kent said it was to protect the court, not as punishment for breaking the law.
It is evident in this case that legitimate disclosure of judicial misconduct, anomalies in the legal system and other improvable and correctable defects in the system as identified in HF, VPC and VPC-2 have been deliberately misinterpreted as an attack on the legal system when they are not.
55A/ In terms of undermining public confidence in the courts and causing damage to the legal system, the Judge Kent fiasco caused far more damage to public confidence in the legal system via the publicity in the news media, than the Hoser books could ever have possibly done.
But as for who caused the damage, the blame must rest with three people, namely:
55B/ But in declaring Hoser not to have good faith in terms of his three subject corruption books Judge Eames has failed to get a grip on the major theme running throughout The Hoser Files and to a lesser extent the other two.
The central element of HF is a desire to have all court proceedings taped and a greater emphasis placed on stamping out perjury.
That has been the overwhelming theme of the book as related by most readers and almost all reviewers and it'd be tedious for me to detail the countless references to such a desire in either HF or VPC-2.
And furthermore tape recorded proceedings as advocated by Hoser would in fact be the best possible protection for the courts against false and baseless allegations being made by their enemies, thereby emphatically proving that Hoser and his books are in good faith!
Finally, The Hoser Files - The Fight Against Entrenched Official Corruption is unlike VPC1-2 a book dealing almost exclusively with legal system corruption and thus if any is a wholesale "attack" on the legal system, this book is it.
However the final chapter "Solving problems" pages 316-317 deals solely with recommendations to improve the system.
So far from attacking the system, the book Is totally in support of it.
(And like any such corruption report, including the government's own (e.g. the ICAC report into Neddy Smith and the NSW Police), it identifies the problems and then gives recommendations to solve it).
56/ Double standards (hypocrisy) by Judge Eames
Judge Eames has spent most of his 78-page judgement describing how patently stupid and ridiculous my book's contents and assertions are. To him this is glaringly obvious.
And then at the end of his judgement, pages 77-78 he reverses his tune totally to claim they are credible and believable and would be believed by intelligent people, citing Graeme Campbell's foreword as proof.
But can Judge Eames really have it both ways?
Either the book VPC-2 is obviously tripe as he asserts, so no threat to justice, (by his interpretation of the law), or it's credible and the allegations actually make sense, thereby meaning that Judge Eames has been lying all along in his non-stop allegations and claims to the contrary.
PS. Didn't we have a thing called free speech in Australia?
(Refer also to the 'notice of a constitutional matter' served by the VGS on various parties on 23-24 September 2003).
And hasn't Australia signed the UN Declaration of Human rights, including articles 18 and 29, which specifically guarantee free speech and legal protection from those who try to stop it?
56A/ As an aside, this account here does not deal with the sentencing judgement of Judge Eames, and the many errors within it in terms of inferences that are impossible and the like, but it should be noted that it is riddled with defects and hyperbole in much the same way as his judgement.
This omission is merely to save the tedium of pointing out again the defects in reasoning by the Judge and on the basis that as the crime of contempt was not committed sentencing considerations are in all likelihood not relevant.
However by way of one example, his statement:
'I do not consider that he has provided me with a full and frank disclosure of his financial situation.'
Does not reconcile with the facts or even a cursory check of them.
His immediately preceding inferences in terms of the previously unexplained deduction would, if he had appraised himself of the relevant tax laws, or asked the accountant who made it, would have shown it to be a perfectly legal deduction for which no substantiation is allowed under company tax law and not as inferred by Judge Eames some sort of payment to some hidden asset like a fund in Cuba, other business, or whatever as implied by the above statement.
That Judge Eames himself may be aware of this is potentially indicated by the fact that no subsequent inquiry into this alleged other business or entity by himself to corroborate such a baseless assertion would have revealed any other company or business owned, operated, controlled or whatever by Hoser.
For the judgement in terms of this claim by Judge Eames to have credibility, it would be plain that Judge Eames should have indicated if and what inquiries were made in this respect, (of other alleged companies and the like) especially as he has otherwise condemned and discounted unchallenged evidence on oath, corroborated by authenticated tax returns and the like, which would be patently absurd.
57/ Further double standards by Judge Eames.
In paragraph 42 of his judgement, Eames relies on a jury verdict in the Judge Neesham trial as authoritative and without question. This is in spite of Eames failing to have taken into consideration or even attempt to view the evidence that the jury did not see, as in two withheld tape recordings, which would obviously have been tendered in full, had Hoser in fact been guilty of perjury as charged.
The key element of course being Eames and his unquestioned faith in a jury verdict, the detail of which he had no knowledge.
It is somewhat hypocritical that a judge such as himself puts such faith in a jury verdict bearing in mind the frequency of which his own court overturns jury verdicts. That is when the judge says words to the effect that they know better than the dozen odd independent people.
Perhaps part of this eagerness to overturn jury verdicts may in part rest in the fact that judges are often privy to evidence that juries aren't.
One such example is the case of: Popovic v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd and Anor  VSC 174 (21 May 2002), which has quite a deal of relevance to the Eames judgement, in which fellow Hulls appointed judge, Judge Bongiorno overturned a verdict in favor of Liberal-leaning Andrew Bolt of the similarly Liberal-leaning Herald-Sun newspaper, which incidentally had been a key player in a campaign to remove Bongiorno from the DPP position some years earlier.
No doubt, Judge Bongiorno would deny any malice or connection between the events.
Now, accepting Judge Bernard Bongiorno's integrity for the purposes here and if it is possible for a jury to get the facts wrong in the Bolt case, why isn't the same possible in the Hoser/Judge Neesham case?
Once again, Judge Eames has failed to address the reality in a bid to improperly convict Hoser in 2000.
59/ False and misleading statements by Judge Eames.
In his judgement at point 229 Judge Eames wrote:
Mr Maxwell submitted that if judges and magistrates have been defamed then they have their remedy; they may take defamation proceedings. Hoser himself both in evidence and in his books stresses the fact that he had not been successfully sued for defamation and that many of those he has attacked have not even issued proceedings against him. It must be recognised, however, that it would be very rare for a judge or magistrate to take such action. In the first place, the person who would make such unjustified attacks on the integrity of the judicial officer is unlikely to be worth suing. But more importantly, the costly, time consuming and distracting pursuit of defamation proceedings (and the great reluctance of the courts to grant an interlocutory injunction where a defendant, however, feebly, claims justification) makes the pursuit of such proceedings entirely unattractive, for a judge or magistrate who may have no interest in gaining financial benefit but is simply wanting to defend the institution of the court against unfounded and damaging attack.
Judge Eames is wrong.
Notworthy is the very public proceedings of: Popovic v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd and Anor  VSC 174 (21 May 2002) where magistrate Popovic sued a journalist, the right-wing Andrew Bolt alleging defamation for an article he published in the Herald-Sun newspaper on 13 December 2000.
Hence at least one very busy judicial officer took time to sue!
Furthermore in terms of working hours, financial resources and the like, judicial officers are in fact better placed to sue for defamation than almost all other people in society, including for example taxi drivers, zoologists and corruption book authors, all of whom have longer working hours and less financial resources.
Popovic quite correctly saw Bolt's comments as an attack on herself and her integrity, not that of the court itself and this view was upheld by Judge Bongiorno at the final stages of the case.
Most importantly however, Judge Eames has used these contempt proceedings as a defacto defamation case, which should not have been done and as has been shown earlier (above) he has failed to even remotely establish that any material published was either factually incorrect or against the public interest, thereby not even getting past the first bridge in a defamation claim.
Noting that the Popovic claim commenced after the Judge Eames judgement, it is perhaps fair for me to also note another case that commenced BEFORE the Eames judgement and one which he would have been aware of due to it's significant publicity and the fact it occurred in Victoria.
That was the case of McLeod vs Fletcher/Dowling, in which magistrate Colin McLeod sued the former President of the Real Estate Institute of Victoria for defamation.
That writ was issued on 25 September 2001, which is some weeks prior to the Eames judgement!
60/ Failure to declare potential conflicts of interest.
Prior to the hearing of the case, Judge Eames failed to declare his conflicts of interest in the matter including:
Failure to advise of such conflicts at the outset of the case, combined with the obvious (already identified) defects in his judgement, can only lead to the conclusion of unreasonable bias on his part and an intention to perhaps conceal the truth.
61/ Further and undeniable proof that there was no contempt.
In his judgement, His Honour, Geoff Eames states that the books in general are offensive and use derogatory language. He also makes a barrage of baseless and unsubstantiated assertions to viciously attack the author (Hoser) towards the tail end of his judgement which in all due respects is nothing more than a rant camouflaged as a legal judgement.
In it Judge Eames says:
'The earlier statements of appellate courts, stressing the extreme caution which must be exercised before punishing contempt, must be read now in the light of the new reality that organised and quite sophisticated campaigns against the integrity of the courts, if unchecked, may prove very effective in damaging the reputation of the courts. The "practical reality" of the judicial system being unreasonably damaged must today be considered against the backdrop of the means of mass communication provided by desktop publishing and the Internet. This is a case where such a sophisticated campaign is being waged.'
It seemed that Hoser was now being compared with Al-Qa’ida and the Terrorist threat in terms of the "new reality' of a 'sophisticated campaign'!
But his comments must be reconciled with some salient facts.
This alleged campaign waged by Hoser was reduced to just 219 words that he finally decided were in contempt.
To put this in perspective they were just 219 out of a total of over 600,000 words or about 0.0365 of one percent of the total! (The figure deduced by dividing one by the other and removing two zeros). (Or out of 352,340 in VPC-2 alone).
Noting that the thrust of the books are similar and that in 2001 Judge Eames directed those words be blacked out on further copies sold and some thousands being sold since, one must ask the obvious question. That is has the blacking out of those 219 words made any differences in the readers perceptions in terms of:
The obvious answer would have to be "no", hence confirming no contempt by any measure.
In the case of all relevant judges or magistrates, the body of material in terms of their matters was so vast that the removal of 219 words (between all of them) would literally be lost in the detail.
That the general improvement in public perceptions of the legal system in the last 2 years is not measurable as a result of the Eames censorship of VPC-2, so too was it not measurable prior to it, hence demonstrating no contempt.
Frankly, the legal system and police were lucky that the Hoser books were so well-written and with the benefit of so much research and detail allowing the powers that be a proper chance to avail themselves of the facts and a reasoned public debate on the relevant issues to ensue.
Hence it's also not surprising that the author Hoser has been invited to speak at academic conferences, universities and the like in four Australian states specifically with reference to the said books (VPC and VPC-2).
107 Double Jeopardy.
It is not legal to charge a person with the same offence twice.
In R v ANTON HOFSCHUSTER No. 23 of 1992 Number of pages - 13 Criminal law - indictments - double jeopardy (1993) 70 A Crim R 260;  NTSC 89 (1 November 1993), the judges wrote:
'the doctrine in criminal proceedings is based on the prohibition of double jeopardy, that is, the maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa'.
It is also enshrined in the US constitution as referred to by the judges in:
Pearce v The Queen  HCA 57 (10 September 1998): who wrote:
It also finds reflection in constitutional guarantees such as the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part:
"[N] or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb".
The same judges also wrote:
'Autrefois acquit is the species of estoppel by which the Crown is precluded from reasserting the guilt of the accused when that question has previously been determined against it.'
This is generally known as 'Double Jeopardy'.
This has in fact occurred in terms of Hoser and publisher being charged or cited for contempt.
The first attempt failed in front of another judge (not Judge Eames).
In proceedings in front of Supreme Court Judge, Bill Gillard, (against whom there is no complaint) the plaintiff, Anthony Adam Zoccoli through his lawyers sought to have Hoser and publisher charged with contempt of court via scandalizing the court.
In support of the application was an affidavit from Zoccoli and an exhibit numbered "AAZ5" (both dated 27 March 2000). The exhibit was a letter from the office of Rob Hulls, the same office address as the Victorian Government Solicitor, 55 St. Andrews Place, Melbourne, Victoria, 3002.
The letter, signed by Hulls himself, dated 8 March 2000 was relating to the possibility of bringing contempt proceedings against myself and stated that at this stage there were none, but that he was considering his options.
The letter was in response to one from Zoccoli to Hulls dated 16 February 2000 seeking Hulls charge author and publishers of Victoria Police Corruption 1 and 2 with contempt.
This is self-evident from the fact that citing the books for contempt for scandalising the judiciary had no relevance to Zoccoli's defamation claim against author and publisher.
This self-evidence of citing Hoser and publisher for contempt is also in the fact that the letter refers to both books by name as being in contempt.
Zoccoli was only mentioned by name or otherwise in the first of the two books and his own claim had no mention or relevance to the latter.
Hence it otherwise had no relevance to the proceedings in front of Judge Gillard.
The second book was only referred to in those proceedings by way of attempt to have it cited for contempt.
Yet the letter clearly cited both books by name, as had the original letter to Rob Hulls from Zoccoli, which as of September 2002 has not been made available to Hoser or publisher.
Relying on this non-commitment to punish for contempt by Hulls, Zoccoli's lawyers, John O'Callaghan (solicitor) and Gina Schoff (Barrister) tendered this and other documents, seeking Judge Gillard to rely on this alleged contempt to ban the books Victoria Police Corruption (1 and 2) (both named in the letters) on the basis of contempt and to cite both publisher and author appropriately.
Notable is that contempt proceedings can be brought by a judge in proceedings not themselves dealing with contempt (refer for example to the Judge Beach Vs Parsons case over the comments about the judge allegedly being a wanker, later heard in front of His Honour judge Phillips).
They can also be brought via a plaintiff such as Zoccoli as seen in the recent case involving Stephen William Price (of radio 3AW) suing Steven Mayne for defamation, during which proceedings Mayne was cited by Price's lawyers for contempt and ultimately found guilty in court.
See: Price v Crikey Media Pty Ltd & Anor  VSC 392 (4 October 2001) and related cases.
In other words, Hoser and publisher were cited for contempt in this Zoccoli action as heard in front of Judge Gillard in April 2000 and in a judgement of 18 April 2000, Judge Gillard refused to cite Hoser and publisher for contempt as he evidently rejected the proposition and found against it.
In his judgement Judge Gillard cited Murphy v. Lush (1986) 60 ALJR 523 at p.524.
That was quoted by Judge Gillard and he said:
'Judges over the centuries have also been well aware how easy it would be for a tyrant to stifle all opposition by deciding what was genuine free speech to be allowed on the one hand and what was an unjust or unfair or a dishonest taking advantage of free speech to be repressed on the other hand. When the court enjoins, it must be extremely clear that no unacceptable repression is taking place.'
The above is also compelling legal argument as to why Hoser and publisher cannot and should not be cited for contempt and to which Judge Eames has obviously ignored.
108/ Costs orders against Hoser and Publisher in error.
The method by which the case has been prosecuted has been a hybrid of civil and criminal due to the arcane and out of date law being used.
Notwithstanding this, the general protocol is that criminal charges resulting in criminal sanctions do not have civil costs factors associated.
In other words the crown bears the costs of the case.
In terms of costs being paid by the defendant in the event of successful prosecution, Judge Eames has relied upon the case of HINCH and MACQUARIE BROADCASTING HOLDINGS LIMITED v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA (1987) 164 CLR 15 F.C. 87/046.
However that case involved a person disobeying a court or Attorney General instruction not to broadcast in contempt of court.
This was not the case in the Hoser matter. (Actually it was reverse).
Hence Hoser and publisher should not pay the prosecution costs and there are many precedents that confirm this as seen on Austlii.
109/ Why Hoser should not have been charged with contempt.
Some reasons have been mentioned already.
But from a historical perspective the following should be noted:
Hence claims of bad faith are found to be null and void.
Likewise in terms of lack of evidence of permanent and ongoing damage to the legal system.
Furthermore a prosecution for contempt in light of obvious and undisputed steps by the author to seek and get lawful approval from relevant judicial officers (Wade, etc) prior to publication indicates A/ Good faith on Hoser's part and B/ entrapment by Hulls for later trying to reverse his position and charge Hoser with contempt.
110/ Further reasons why Hoser should not have been charged with contempt.
In terms of who and when contempt charges should be laid, in their judgement in the case,
HINCH and MACQUARIE BROADCASTING HOLDINGS LIMITED v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA (1987) 164 CLR 15 F.C. 87/046
The High Court judges said:
that the summary jurisdiction to punish contempt should be exercised:
"... only if it is made quite clear to the court that the matter published has, as a matter of practical reality, a tendency to interfere with the due course of justice in a particular case".
This has not occurred in the Hoser matters.
No evidence suggests that a single case has been adversely affected or prejudiced by the disclosures in the Hoser books.
There has also been a blurring of the lines in terms of the concepts of public confidence, compliance and administration in the legal system.
It is a matter of reality that many people do not have faith in the legal system in terms of ability to find the truth and get things right.
Daily cases are contested meaning that one side loses and the other wins.
It's regular for the loser to be aggrieved and feel hard done by.
This is indicated in part by the small percentage that opt to spend more time and money on appeals that may or may not succeed.
This general lack of confidence in the legal system in a sizeable chunk of the population will occur regardless of who publishes books or articles on the legal system and likewise in terms of reports in the mainstream media.
Notwithstanding this fact, there is no evidence to suggest that this always translates as disobedience or a failure of the legal system to operate.
Far from it, in fact the legal system is as strong as ever and it's authority is by and large not undermined.
Hence the Hoser books cannot be interpreted as an attack on the legal system, even if it highlights erroneous or inconsistent judgements and other defects within the contexts of a wider, generally working system.
Noting however that the books are about corruption, it is appropriate that they report the bad, not the good.
However as part of the underlying theme that most of the time the legal system does get things right, are many quotes conveniently ignored or not read by Judge Eames.
To save quoting lots, suffice with the one on page 478 of VPC-2 which said when talking about inside jails:
'Many of the inmates were in there for violent crime and notwithstanding the innocent people framed, the fact is that most of the people in prison are in there for things they’ve done. In other words it seems that most of the time the Police put the right people away'.
Now notwithstanding the corruption theme of the book, is the tacit admission that most of the time, (and obviously excluding myself), the police and judges and magistrates have been locking up people who deserve to be locked up. That is the system has been working!
Now surely such a statement doesn't quite reconcile with the Judge Eames claim the book is an attack on the legal system?
Hence there is no basis for a contempt charge.
111/ Defects in the contempt case, a case of malicious prosecution.
If one accepts the Crown (VGS) case on face value, the following facts become clear.
They were advised of the books in February 2000 in terms of potential contempt.
They failed to read them or take any action to ascertain contempt by June 2000, four months.
Surely if the legal system was under threat as implied by contempt (and specified by legal authorities in terms of when to institute such charges) either the damage would have manifested (it didn't), or failing that the VGS should have read the books in their entirety to establish contempt.
In June 2000 the VGS faxed retailers and told them not to sell books based on alleged contempt and yet we find based on the evidence (term used lightly here) of Stephen Lee, that as prosecuting officer he had NOT read the books as of end 2001.
Noting the general presumption of Judge Eames and other parties that the books had to be treated as a whole (each book) it is clear that the VGS had not been able to establish a case on the basis that they had no idea what was in the books in terms of covering and balancing statements in terms of the material in the books or even so much as context!
At that point the case was clearly defective and should have been struck out for lack of evidence.
That is wasn't indicated bias on the part of the judge, but that's another matter and I have already noted his usurping the role of prosecutor by then repeatedly going on a fishing expedition for inferences (shown to be false) against the author and books.
An alternative and more likely explanation was that Stephen Lee did conduct inquiries into the books in terms of accuracy over the 18 months preceding the contempt hearing, (surely that would have been the logical line of inquiry) and as a result of finding them to be true, decided that his case would be enhanced. Hence he decided on the tactic of putting the truthfulness of the books in doubt by falsely claiming not to have read them.
This tactic apparently worked in that it allowed a judge with either bias or defective reasoning ability to find "errors" that by any objective analysis weren't there, thereby ensuring a successful prosecution in the first instance.
Regardless of whether or not Lee's 'evidence' of not reading the books is accepted or rejected, the only conclusion that can be made is that the Crown case was fundamentally defective and should have been struck out at the time Lee made that statement in the trial.
Then of course there's the obvious disregard for all the constitutional rights of free speech, etc.
201/ The motives of Judge Eames
So as to prevent another contempt charge against me, I should make the following points.
The commentary here is based solely on the words of the Judgement document as already noted.
It is from the words and phrases within it, including the obvious fabrications of fact, the glaring and systematic omissions of facts within the judgement and the general wording of it, which leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is an unjustifiable and wholesale attack on myself and not a proper legal document in terms of being an impartial and accurate assessment of either facts or in turn the law.
Disregarding the legal aspects for a moment due to the fact that I am not a lawyer, I say that based on the words in the Judge Eames judgement, it is to me an inescapable conclusion that the document was written with malice and as a not so cleverly crafted character assassination of myself.
By virtue of Judge Eames status as a judge, it will infer credibility, even if it is not entitled to it.
While I impute bad motive (based on those words) and can but speculate as to why, I must (by law) and do, remain open to other so-called "innocent" explanations in the context as raised in his judgement and explanations other than the apparent conflict of interest as noted earlier.
The conduct of Judge Eames in his trial up to the point of handing down his judgement on 27 November 2001 was perfectly reasonable and unlike the Neesham case was not punctuated by two or three strip-searches a day, improper prosecution conduct, bashing and harassment of observers and other such events.
202/ Taking the wind out of the sails of the final (defective) Judge Eames argument.
Paragraphs 227 and 228 of the Judgement climax with this alleged campaign by Hoser against the legal system, couched in such emotive language and terms like:
'the attacks "the like of which we have never seen before in Australia"'
'as new reality that organised and quite sophisticated campaigns against the integrity of the courts, if unchecked, may prove very effective in damaging the reputation of the courts. The "practical reality" of the judicial system being unreasonably damaged must today be considered against the backdrop of the means of mass communication provided by desktop publishing and the Internet. This is a case where such a sophisticated campaign is being waged.'
Which as noted before makes Raymond Hoser sound like one of those Muslim Terrorists John Howard's been warning us against.
There's no need to repeat the over 20 statements in VPC-2 alone affirming the general soundness and authority of the legal system to refute the baseless conclusion of Judge Eames.
But one may question whether the opening statement on page 18 of VPC-2 is really such a sophisticated attack on the legal system as asserted by Judge Eames.
For the record it is repeated below:
'But if there are any apologies to be made, I will a make a form of one here. That is to all the honest police and government officials whose reputations have been sullied by their corrupt collegues. An apology is due to those honest hard-working Police who are called 'pigs', 'scum' and 'filth' by members of the public previously trodden over by their corrupt collegues. But then perhaps an apology is also due to those who were trodden on by the crook cops in the first place. I could go on and on. In other words, this book is not an attack on Police or 'the establishment' per se. In fact I am the greatest supporter of both you will ever find. I seek to highlight the corruption and the wrongs as the first step towards rectifying them and to ultimately strengthen public faith and trust in the very organisations and institutions detailed in this and previous books. The covering statements made in Smuggled, Smuggled-2, The Hoser Files and in particular Victoria Police Corruption are equally applicable here. Those statements detail the extent and limitations of the allegations within these books and on what basis various statements are made. Furthermore I recommend all readers, particularly any who feel that they may take offence at what follows, to read those comments before making any final judgements.
It is also worth noting what Hoser had been campaigning against since the publication of the two VPC books.
On 28 October 2000, Hoser's next two books came out, Taxi and Taxi-2, which are mainly light-hearted and funny books about the life and times of taxi drivers.
They are certainly not part of any 'new reality' of a 'quite sophisticated' campaign against the legal system as asserted by Judge Eames. All evidence suggests the reverse.
Hoser had made his point in the VPC books and moved on. It was instead Hulls, the VGS and in his judgement Eames, who were in effect waging a campaign against the whistleblower Raymond Hoser, who at all times had done nothing more than act in the public interest.
203/ Judge Eames judgement ignores statements in terms of accuracy of the books.
In several prominent places at the front of all Hoser corruption books are statements like that on page xii (twelfth page) of VPC-2 which state that all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure accuracy, but that in spite of this, material may still be factually incorrect.
Having published about 1 million words in five corruption books, it'd be surprising in fact if Hoser hadn't got something in error, hence the covering statements.
These statements would automatically be a legal defence in the event that material was found to be false, incorrect, wrong-headed or whatever.
However in terms of the Judge Eames judgement, the judge has failed to substantiate any claims of error, misleading, etc in terms of the areas of the books he chose to look at.
Hence in this case anyway, those defences are rendered redundant and not necessary.
However as a fallback position and to counter any future arguments in terms of material properly shown to be factually incorrect (including with relevance to these proceedings), the following points are noted.
In the contempt case law as referred to legal counsel in this contempt case, there was justification in terms of erroneous statements made (the precedents not cited here).
Notable is that in a practical sense those precedents revolved around cases of statements of fact being made and found in error and no more and then dealing with alleged damage caused (contempt).
Notable here is that in the context of the Hoser Books (the allegedly contemptuous publications) is a series of over-riding legal warnings advising of potential for error, thereby mitigating any potential contempt, damage to the legal system or whatever, even prior to the allegedly wrong statements even being read.
Hence with these statements being properly considered and noting that they are over and above what's normally seen in public debate on legal matters, the idea of a contempt charge being sustained against any of these books is ridiculous.
251 - Further legal arguments
Judge Eames erred in law in concluding that the appellants had not made out the defence of fair comment (see preceding)
Judge Eames erred in concluding that the first appellant ("Hoser") had not acted in good faith.
Having found that -
it was not open to the Court, as a matter of law, to find that there was -
"a real risk... as a matter of practical reality"
that the statements had a tendency to undermine the confidence of the public in the administration of justice or to lower the authority of the Courts.
Furthermore, Judge Eames' comments in relation to former MHR Graeme Campbell a person who prior to writing the forword to Victoria Police Corruption - 2 had his own experiences in terms of the legal system and defamation proceedings in particular as a defeated litigant, was not in a position to assert that the views expressed by Campbell in terms of the legal system stemmed entirely from reading the Hoser books or as a combination of this and his prior experience or what aspects came from what.
Hence the final and important comment in the Judge Eames judgement must therefore be dismissed.
The learned Judge Eames also failed to take into account relevant considerations, namely -
(vi) and other matters, which showed good faith on the part of the plaintiffs and other relevant considerations.
The Court judge having identified several areas in which the publication of the relevant books had highlighted matters of legitimate concern, in particular regarding -
it was not open to the Judge, as a matter of law, to find that Hoser was acting maliciously and with the intention of lowering the authority of the courts.
The learned Judge Eames took into account an irrelevant (and factually incorrect) consideration, namely, his Honour’s own view of the likely effect on Hoser’s perjury trial of the exclusion of critical evidence favorable to Hoser, and/or other matters.
The learned judge made readily identifiable errors in findings of fact and inferences that were not open to him, either absolutely (i.e. demonstrably false on the evidence before him) and/or in likelihood (so unlikely as to be improbable), which either individually or cumulatively led to one or more adverse findings against the appellants.
The learned judge made other errors of consideration in judgement, including a potential relitigation of a prior conviction, without the full or relevant evidence before him, the possibility of the trial being a defacto defamation case and/or in lieu of one, and other matters.
The learned Judge erred in law in holding that the appellants, as defendants to a criminal prosecution - should, on conviction, pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding.
Notwithstanding the way in which the charges were brought, via quasi-civil means, they have at all stages been criminal and costs awards should be as per standard criminal cases.
In terms of the fines imposed upon conviction of Hoser by Judge Eames, they were manifestly excessive as compared to other contempt penalties issued to other convicted people (see relevant cases) with respect to the financial means of Hoser.
It is contested that the publication of the books did not constitute the offence of scandalising the Court.
Alternatively, if the conduct of the respondents would otherwise contravene the law of contempt, then that law is invalid pro tanto since it -
(a) impairs freedom of communication on matters of government and politics;
(b) is not "reasonably appropriate and adapted" to achieving the legitimate object of protecting the administration of justice; and
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
The offence of scandalising the Court is, or should be, narrowly defined.1
The very notion of "scandalising" is archaic.
According to The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary,2 "scandalise" means -
"offend moral feelings, sense of propriety, or ideas of etiquette '.
In the United Kingdom, as long ago as 1899, the offence was said to be obsolete.3 In 1999, the House of Lords, while recognising the existence of the offence, noted that such proceedings were rare and none had been successfully brought for more than 60 years.4
The law of contempt is, of course, not concerned with hurt feelings, but with the protection of the administration of justice.5
The offence is, or should be, confined to those cases where the publication has a clear tendency to damage the administration of justice and where, as a result, protection is required.
The test developed in the United States, albeit in a different constitutional setting, is of assistance. A publication should not be punishable unless it
"a clear and present danger [of damage] to the administration of justice of high imminence ".6
The entire rationale for the availability, and utilisation, of the summary procedure is that the publication is such as to create an urgent need to protect the administration of justice.7
Clearly the delay of over a year in bringing proceedings against author and publisher prove that there was no such urgency and hence no contempt.
The test of "impairing" or "undermining" public confidence in the administration of justice is unacceptably imprecise, subjective and uncertain, but even within these constraints it is clear that the Hoser books are not in contempt due to the abundant statements affirming the authority of the legal system and courts within the books (see earlier).
Robust criticism of particular courts, judges and magistrates is a commonplace and desireable.8
In the Kopyto matter, in the Canadian Court of Appeal in 1987, Chief Justice Peter Cory tossed out the conviction, stating that judges should expect such critiques. "The courts are bound to be the subject of comment and criticism," wrote Justice Cory. "Not all [judgments] will be sweetly reasoned."
Some of the most trenchant criticism comes from within the justice system itself.9
There is nothing to suggest that criticism of this kind damages the administration of justice, in the sense of impairing the ability of judges and magistrates to carry out their duties in accordance with law. Nor is there any basis for asserting that public confidence is affected.
The same applies to criticisms contained in the relevant books. The books were published in August 1999, more than two years before judgement in this matter.10
The delay in the bringing of these proceedings bears eloquent testimony to the lack of any relevant effect on the administration of justice.10
Whether or not a publication is calculated to cause damage of the requisite kind to the administration of justice must be judged by reference to all of the circumstances, in particular -
(a) the form, content, presentation and circulation of the work;
(b) the status of the author in relation to the subject-matter;
(c) the purpose of the publication.
In the present case, the following circumstances are relevant:
(a) the work is self-published;
(b) its circulation is very limited as compared to tabloid news;
(c) the author is writing not as an expert on law or criminal justice but as a law-abiding member of the public thrust into the criminal justice system as a result of being a corruption whistleblower and who has been subjected to its processes and in search of truth, not a legal outcome;
(d) the author has a long-standing, demonstrated commitment to investigating and exposing what imperfections in the legal system exist;
(e) his expressed intent is to secure improvements in the administration of justice, by drawing attention to its perceived deficiencies and he specifically states it is not an attack on it. 11
It has long been recognised that -
"it is in the public interest, and particularly in the interest of the administration of justice, that members of the public should have the right publicly to criticise the public acts of judges and courts'.12
"criticism does not become contempt because it is 'wrongheaded' or based on the mistaken view of the facts or of the law. Nor, in my opinion need it be respectfully courteous or cool the unemotional. There is no more reason why the acts of courts should not be trenchantly criticised than the acts of other public institutions, including parliaments. " 13
The law of contempt of court will only be attracted where it is shown, beyond reasonable doubt, that the criticism was made otherwise than in good faith.
The prosecution must fail on this ground. No such proof has been established. On the contrary, no other conclusion is open but that Hoser was acting in good faith in making the criticisms complained of. Again refer to the numerous relevant statements in both books subject of these proceedings.
Alternatively, if Hoser and publisher would be liable to conviction at common law for the offence of scandalising the Court, then the law of contempt is in its application to the respondents invalid.
Since Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 14 the operation of the law of contempt is subject to the overriding operation of the implied constitutional freedom of political communication.
Since the law burdens the freedom of such communication, the question is whether the law is reasonably appropriate and adapted to achieving its object, being the protection of the system of administration of justice. 15
Care must be taken in defining the end to which the law is directed. The object of protecting administration of justice means to protect it against actual damage, in the sense of -
(a) inhibiting the ability of a judge to decide a case fairly and without external pressure;
There is no evidence to suggest that the books have damaged either, in fact quite the contrary.
In terms of the conduct in question, the books create no risk of any such damage. Accordingly, an application of the common law of contempt in relation to that conduct is not "appropriate and adapted" to the legitimate end which the law exists to serve.
301/ Detailed appraisal of the "Contempts" found "proven" by Judge Eames in his judgement are given below as is factual proof that Judge Eames' claims are wrong and incorrect:
As all can be factually corroborated, it seems that Judge Eames has made a serious error of law (by his own legal interpretation as stated in his judgement), by finding the statements to be in contempt of court. Judge Eames himself said that statements that are obviously true cannot be deemed to be in contempt!
Substantiation of the factual basis of the statements (in VPC-2), alleged to be in contempt by Judge Eames appears below the sections in type underlined.
Not Underlined = Allegedly contemptuous statements
Underlined = Corroboration (proof) statement is true
(iii) At p.260 of the second publication, the following words were published:
"Perhaps most tellingly, he was one of those judges who had refused to allow me to have the case tape recorded, thereby effectively stamping him as a crook judge who wanted his activities never to be opened up to scrutiny.
My initial judgments of Neesham as corrupt and dishonest were further proven during the course of the trial and its aftermath, much of which will be explained in the material that follows."
In further elaboration - the first sentence (from VPC-2 above is shown as an educated guess or opinion by the text of the second which reads "My intial judgements…" and is then corroborated by later events as detailed in VPC-2.
The truth of the first sentence is shown by Neesham's refusal to allow the Olsen Malliaris case to be taped.
Neesham's corruption is clearly defined above in this document (inconsistency) as is his dishonesty, indelibly proven by his denial of any evidence to give rise to the claim he'd been in contact with Perry outside court sitting times (refer to the official transcript page 1675 (VPC-2 page 448) cross-checked with the Neesham letter to the Appeal Court (pages 519-521 VPC-2), which is again an inconsistent act.
Thus we have established the ABSOLUTE TRUTH of the statements above and therefore no contempt can be proven.
Notable is that here the proof of the dishonesty and corruption comes from Neesham's own mouth.
Judge Eames therefore has no right to claim that the first assertions above are "baseless", as he does on page 45 of his judgement.
While Judge Eames may also claim (page 45 his judgement) that I have malice, the fact remains that because the statements above are a true account of events and fit within the definitions in the book, the statements do not in themselves have malice and thus cannot be contemptuous as per Nationwide News v Wills and R v Dunbabin, Ex Parte Williams.
Judge Eames has got it wrong!
(iv) At p. 274 of the second publication, the following words were published:
"As soon as the trial proper commenced, Neesham's bias against me commenced in earnest and his desired result was clearly known. His whole modus operandi was to guide the jury towards a guilty verdict."
Refer to numerous independent complaints lodged, including the letter printed on page 404 of VPC2 by professor Kim Sawyer. We have copies of other letters of complaint by other independent observers.
Furthermore the whole transcript (the 1,800 odd pages of it confirm this).
Neesham's letter to the Supreme Court (cited above) also indelibly prove an improper desire to convict and maintain the conviction.
"Furthermore these actions were separate to others which also appeared to have been taken to ensure the jury's verdict was predetermined."
This latter comment is not an attack on the judge and thus cannot be interpreted as scandalizing the court. It refers to police, the DPP and others.
However for substantiation refer to the phone call by the juror - (as quoted in VPC-2), theft of and later with-holding of tape of alleged perjury by police side, the raid of 18 02 94 and so on (agreed by police in committal and trial transcripts).
(vii) At p. 329 of the second publication, the following words were published:
"Of course Connell had been doing effectively what Neesham had told him. It was a classic case of bent judge improperly helping a prosecution witness".
Refer direct to transcript
However the noting that this book was written after all important events (published 1999), the comment that Neesham was bent (= corrupt) is verified simply by referring to the case transcript (page 1675) and his letter to the Supreme Court in relation to contact with the prosecutor (or many other examples as listed already).
In terms of Connell, the transcript, including as quoted in VPC-2 makes it clear that Connell a skilled lawyer was taking advantage of Neesham's constant asking me what I wanted to get from the witness.
At p. 142 of the second publication, the following words were published:
"Like I've noted, Balmford wanted to convict me and get the whole thing over with as soon as possible. After all she'd obviously made up her mind before the case even started. Recall, she'd refused to allow the matter to be tape-recorded."
That is true - she repeatedly told me to hurry - refer to the tape of the case - get that from Police with my permission.
This can easily be verified from the transcripts of the Neesham case and/or VPC-2, which remains unchallenged.
As for her refusal to allow me to tape the case (overtly) that's agreed by all sides and was a central element in the "hand-up-brief" used in the first instance to try to convict me of perjury - Police wanted no indelible evidence to clear Hoser.
Refer to Police statements in the brief and transcript as quoted (exactly) in VPC2.
Judge Eames also concedes this fact in his judgement.
As for the contention that Balmford wanted to get the whole thing over with as soon as possible, this is shown by the fact that she refused to stand the matter down in the morning of 18 2 94 to allow me to locate a witness ("NAME SUPPRESSED") who for reasons unknown was not at court (refer to VPC-2 pages 142-144), and then refused to re-open her hastily closed trial when he barged into the courtroom shortly therafter (143-144 VPC-2). Also note the instruction to have Hoser strip-searched before Hoser had entered the court room in the fist instance on 17 Feb 1994.
At p. 144 of the second publication, the following words were published:
"Balmford's bias in favour of Police and the DPP isn't just something I've noted. In fact three Supreme Court Judges have noted it as well."
Is yet another useless bit of gunk misquoted by the Hulls side. In context the above makes sense.
For the record that part of VPC2 reads as follows:
Balmford’s bias in favor of Police and the DPP isn’t just something I’ve noted. In fact three Supreme Court Judges have noted it as well.
On 27 June 1997, the Court of Appeal overturned a murder conviction arising from a hearing in front of her. Former US Marine Russell DeMarco was convicted of murdering a woman and sentenced by Balmford to 23 years jail. All three appeal court judges overturned the conviction. They said Balmford had misdirected the jury in a way that helped guide it to a guilty verdict."
The information for this piece of text above which was accurately interpreted came from a news clipping, not the judgement itself. As it happens, the judgement as posted on the Austlii site says the same thing - Judge Balmford misdirected the jury by asserting a lie when in fact it was disputed. By the way, the clipping was properly cited in my sources and was:
" Anonymous (1997) ‘Murder charge retrial’, Herald-Sun, June 28:11."
And cited again as:
"Coulson, R. (1997) ‘Murder charge retrial’, Herald-Sun, June 28:11."
In rushing to judgement against Hoser in his interpretation of the DeMarco case, Judge Eames did not even bother to make a cursory check of where Hoser's information came from and whether or not it was accurately re-reported, even though to find which clipping it was, was a simple intellectual exercise.
Now bearing in mind the 1536 page VPC books were written in 1997-1999, their size (over 6,000 words) and the fact that since then two more similar sized books Taxi and Taxi-2 were published at end 2000, I had no independent recall of the text, it's source or whatever so I had to do a search for the citation source/s as well.
This also corroborated with my evidence in front of Judge Eames, who quite unrealistically hit me with some questions on this relatively obscure passage in VPC-2 and expected me to have a photographic memory of all that it entailed and how it was derived. (Noting that he then held it against me for not having such impossibly good photographic memory).
(Er sorry, that tends to shatter any evidence of me being "obsessive").
This above mentioned intellectual exercise of finding the citation did however only take a matter of seconds.
I simply got a sources list from the website indicated (download time of seconds with cable or minutes with normal modem). I then typed in the date "June 28" which was that following the case's conclusion and when the media would as a matter of course report on it.
The relevant clipping was found within seconds.
350 - Why the Hulls side Cross Appeal should be struck out and/or rejected.
1 - Cross Appeal lodged out of time.
It was filed out of the statutory time limit by three days.
This is a serious error and in reverse would have resulted in the Hoser case being summarily dismissed.
By way of example refer to the case involving Hoser on 8 November 1994 when an assault case lodged by Hoser against policewoman Nicole Warner was struck out.
The basis was that Hoser was less than five minutes late attending court.
What was disregarded by Magistrate John Hutchins on that day was the following:
Furthermore Magistrate John Hutchins awarded $2000 costs against Hoser which he was forced to pay and did.
All the above was accurately reported in The Hoser Files and can be corroborated in full from the government's court records and/or newspaper archives both of which recorded the same information.
Failure to strike out the cross-appeal on the same procedural basis would be gross double standards, illegal based on court rules and proof that Hoser and publisher are not being treated fairly by the courts in this matter.
The following comments deal with the cross-appeal points themselves, (dated 22 September 2003) notwithstanding that the cross-appeal should be dismissed in whole (see above).
2- Truth must be a consideration in terms of alleged contempt
The following comments are made notwithstanding the secondary defences of fair comment and the right to make errors after proper investigation and so on, none of which are necessary in this case due to the fact that no errors have in fact been (properly) identified by Judge Eames or the crown in their judgement or case (refer to a simple cross check of claims the two parties made), and even though such defences would be relied upon if needed.
The Crown side has said that truth is not a defence in terms of alleged contempt.
That is patently ridiculous and Judge Eames knew this, hence his finding in this regard and to that extent it is agreed that Judge Eames is correct in law.
The Crown side in their cross-appeal refer to this view again in relation to Magistrate Hugh Adams.
As recalled elsewhere, Judge Eames has then failed in his concoction of an account alleging lies in the Hoser books in relation to Adams, in particular the reasons given for what happened at the end of the trial on 21 December 1988 in terms of Adams, policeman Bingley and the two men individually and as a pair.
3- Crown must prove case
In all criminal trials, innocence is (in theory) assumed.
Contempt should be no different and there is no case law that says otherwise.
The onus must be on the crown/prosecution to prove their case.
Point 2(3) in the VGS's notice of contention dated 22 September must therefore be rejected.
Notwithstanding the VGS's assertion that the defendant must prove the truthfulness of what is printed, that was in fact done in the books at the time of publication and the crown either corroborated this in the lead-up the Judge Eames case, or lied on oath via Stephen Lee by claiming that they hadn't even read the books, let alone their sources.
4 - Bingley quotes in Hoser books were accurate
There has been an allegation in both the Eames judgement and the Crown documents to the effect that Hoser did not believe the statements of Policeman Bingley as recorded on 21 December 1988 were true. In other words it's been asserted that Hoser was peddling them as truth, knowing them to be lies.
That is not so.
The facts are as follows:
Nothing since 1995 (the time of publication of the book) has changed specifically with regards to the Adams/Bingley case and tape and nothing said by Hoser on oath in the contempt case in 2001 was at variance to this.
References to the Bingley tape in later publications (VPC and VPC-2) published in 1999 refer readers to the full explanation in The Hoser Files, which Eames and the VGS have chosen to ignore, even though they were directed to the specifically relevant pages.
Hence the claim of reckless indifference made by the VGS in point 2(4) is patently untrue.
5 - Tape recording between Hoser and Bingley on 21 December 1988 exists!
In the contempt case, and at no stage during their case, did the prosecution dispute the existence or contents of the tape as accurately reported in the various Hoser books.
Had they done so, the tape would have been produced as it was available at all times and even made available at the end of the case.
This occurred when the prosecution had the gall to deny prosecution/jury contact during the Neesham trial, resulting in production of a corroborating letter from Judge Neesham.
Towards the end of the trial, neither crown nor judge sought production of the tape to rebut my quotes as false, out of context or whatever and hence it was accepted as accurate.
Recall, the onus of proof otherwise is on the crown and they did not attempt to do so!
To later allege that the tape recording doesn't exist, is wrongly transcribed or whatever at the late stage of cross-appeal is scurrilous in the extreme and grossly dishonest.
6 - Point 2 (7) of the cross-appeal document misrepresents the facts in the Adams/Bingley case.
Whether or not Adams was bribed was not the only basis of the defence case in the lead up to the appeal of the Adams/Bingley matter.
The other points are canvassed at length in The Hoser Files and were in no way disputed by any parties in the contempt matter at end 2001.
The judge himself and Crown side were directed to the specific pages by Hoser's counsel (refer to case transcript).
Hence there was no option available to the Judge but to accept them as fact.
Furthermore, there is no doubt that the crown knew that all statements of fact in the Hoser books was substantiated and that had a dispute been made in terms of the salient facts, then the evidence would have been produced as in fact occurred with the jury knobbing claim that was disputed by the Crown and resulted in production of a letter from Judge Neesham to the court (as also cited and quoted accurately in VPC2 and subsequently overlooked by Judge Eames).
For the record the appeal hinged not so much on whether or not Adams was corrupt, but rather the merits of the case against Hoser, of which there were none.
This included the following key elements:
7 - Presumption of regularity in terms of Magistrate Adams is not necessary in this contempt matter based on it's being dealt with properly in The Hoser Files.
2(9) of the Cross-appeal documents talk about the so-called 'presumption of regularity' in terms of the Adams matter and potential acceptance of a bribe.
The presumption (I assume here) being that a magistrate taking a bribe is thought unlikely.
That was addressed in The Hoser Files in the pages that were apparently ignored by both judge Eames and the cross-appelants, (refer specifically to what lawyer Joye Elleray was reported to have said) and hence cannot be relied upon in terms new and hence obviously false accusations against Hoser with this regard.
Eames has relied upon this presumption of regularity to assert that Hoser knew such a claim (bribery) in terms of Adams was false.
Notwithstanding the self-explanatory remarks in The Hoser Files, Hoser's view was that Adams was corrupt, something proven by his false judgement against Hoser on 21 December 1988 before the conversation with Bingley occurred and was taped.
Hence the major bridge in terms of corrupt behavior was already crossed and a presumption of regularity in terms of Adams not being corrupt had already been broken.
Notwithstanding this, the later Hoser books, show repeated questionable behavior by Adams in other apparently unrelated matters, including in terms of his bungling of the Jenny Tanner inquest, Helga Wagnegg inquest, Strang case and so on.
Hence the reporting of the earlier and generally lesser known case of corruption involving the same magistrate in terms of Hoser is appropriate in the later police corruption books.
Furthermore, corrupt behavior by Hugh Adams has since come to light in terms of misleading letters sent on 12 February 2002 to Libraries across Victoria and interstate in the wake of the 2001 contempt judgement whereby he misrepresents the Judge Eames judgement to imply that statements in relation to himself were found to be untrue or in contempt, when in reality Judge Eames said that those relating to him were not contemptuous.
This includes the book The Hoser Files, for which no contempt finding was made and which Adams illegally sought to ban from public libraries.
The letter is reproduced on the website at:
It speaks for itself.
Hence, and at it's most benign, Adams was corruptly censoring public knowledge of the truth about his own judicial errors.
8 - The Bingley/Adams tape exists! (Mark two)
Ground 3 of the cross-appeal document essentially denies the existence of the tape and claims Judge Eames was therefore wrong to rely on it as evidence in terms of Hugh Adams.
Again this is splitting hairs and misrepresentation in a manner that only lawyers seem able to do.
In the first instance the sole basis was Adams finding of guilt against Raymond Hoser when in terms of the facts this was impossible.
Other factors such as his failure to prosecute two police officers for perjury, or cite them for it, were not used as a basis to accuse Adams of corruption as the failure to cite such people for prosecution, even when obvious appears to be generic for the legal system and so it'd be unfair to single out Adams in that regard.
Hence Adams was afforded all procedural fairness.
The Bingley tape does however corroborate that Adams is corrupt and in no way can be asserted to confirm a contrary view, as in he is not corrupt.
Furthermore, it may or may not be true, in terms of how and why Adams chose to convict Hoser on that day.
Furthermore, the tape itself is evidence of a bribe having been paid, the degree of weight attached to it being for the listener to decide.
Whether or not that evidence is accepted or rejected is another matter.
Hoser's view in The Hoser Files said the same thing and again noted that regardless of the means by which Adams was knobbled or derived his false verdict against Hoser, there is no doubt he was corrupt as per the definitions used in the Hoser books.
9/ Notice of a constitutional Matter.
This was filed by the VGS on 23 September 2003 and relates to free speech matters and the infringement of that right by the current proceedings against Hoser. That is obvious to anyone in Australia with even a cursory knowledge of the law (see UN material above) and a reason why the proceedings should not have commenced in the first instance.
This fact, the right to 'constitutional freedom of communication concerning political or government matters …' is noted to show:
Corrupt: An act is corrupt if it includes any of the following - an illegal, immoral, inconsistent, unethical or dishonest action.
Source: Victoria Police Corruption - 2 page 17, and VPC page 3. (1999)
Corrupt Person: One who knowingly commits any one of the above actions or by virtue of their position allows others to commit such acts without being punished or publicly exposed (usually by deliberately turning a blind eye (ignoring) it).
Source: Victoria Police Corruption - 2 page 17, and VPC page 3. (1999)
Bent: Dishonest, corrupt.
Source: Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary p. 100 (1989)
Baseless: Without cause or foundation.
Source: Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary p. 84 (1989)
Scurrilous: Abusive and insulting, especially in a crude and obscene way.
Source: Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary p. 1139 (1989)
Inconsistent: Not staying the same; changeable.
Source: Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary p. 631 (1989)
Scandalise: Shock by something immoral or outrageous.
Source: Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary p. 1127 (1989)
Note: Some of the factually incorrect statements made by Judge Eames in his judgement of 2001 were rehashed from his posting on the Austlii site and touted as "fact" by persons seeking to discredit Hoser, in particular Stephen Mayne of Crikey Media, who cross-posted on many lists, newsgroups, servers, etc, including under assumed names. As a result a detailed rebuttal of these errors of fact was posted on a website in late 2001 in order to minimize the immense damage to Hoser's reputation arising from the ongoing and at that stage generally uncontested (by Hoser) false statements made via the privilege of legal proceedings and repeated by others as statements of "fact".
Noting the "collateral damage" to the reputations of innocent third parties, most notably Desmond Burke arising from the judgement and it's dissemination, it may be in order for the Supreme Court of Appeal to award damages in his favor.
This document is an objective assessment of a judgement by a single judge in a single case. It is not an attack on the court as a whole, legal system, etc.
Non-urgent email inquiries via the Snakebusters bookings page at:
Urgent inquiries phone:
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia:
(03) 9812 3322 or 0412 777 211