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:

• Most of the comments relate to factual errors and errors of judgement by the trial judge, His Honour Geoff Eames, and/or the Hulls lawyers. As they do not relate to law, the legal issues are in the first instance not relevant.
• Lawyers are trained to hide truth, not find it and as this document is written by a person with the opposite intention it is superior in this regard.
• Claims to the contrary made subsequently by either judge or lawyer should be treated with skepticism and may well precede a hatchet job on the truth explained within this document.
• By and large this document is in "Plain English", not legal gobbledygook or bureaucratic doublespeak, smoke and mirrors or similar forms of language sometimes used for misrepresentation.

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:

http://www.smuggled.com/EamesJC1.htm

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:

And that is all.

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.

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.

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:

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).

He wrote:

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 [2002] 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) [2002] VSCA 197 (6 December 2002).

The judges PHILLIPS, BATT and BUCHANAN, JJ.A. wrote:

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.

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:

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,

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.

He says:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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 [1999] VSC 320 (7 September 1999) and

Katsuno v The Queen [1999] 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 [2002] 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:

Put simply, Judge Eames' comments are tripe!

The relevant "official" transcript in his own case was:

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:

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 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:

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:

The statement is a lie!

Referring to the case transcript itself, commencing with the phrase:

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":

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: k.sawyer@ecomfac.unimelb.edu.au

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 Brygel 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/Brygel), 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:

1. Strip-searching of Hoser by Police on her instruction before Hoser had entered court room or case started, indicating prior knowledge and bias.
2. Refusal to allow proceedings to be taped.
3. Allowing the police side a 20 minute adjournment, but refusing Hoser an adjournment the next day for five minutes to find missing witnesses, one of whom was in the building.
4. The adverse Judge Balmford judgement in the face of the facts.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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:

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:

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:

when cross-referenced with his later statement:

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.

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:

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:

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:

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.