The former federal court judge and well-known bribe taker Michael Francis Moore has been appointed as the administrator of the Health Services East branch by his mate Justice Geoffrey Flick. Flick has been accused of bias which he has form on the board for including the Kristy Fraser-Kirk v David Jones and my own matters.

The proceedings before the court are to have the state union, HSUeast, and the HSU East branch of the federal union into administration. The reason for this is the fall out of the Craig Thomson fraud scandal which I covered extensively in a previous post. (Click here to read the post)

Both Moore and Flick are old sparring partners of mine so to speak which I should put up front because there is at least perceived bias by me and some might argue real bias. But the facts talk for themselves. They should both be in jail. Given that I have had dealings with both of them does put me in a position to give a real viewpoint that others cannot. Moore resigned from the bench last year and Flick is obviously still up to his old tricks.

Michael Moore is the same Michael Moore, along with two others, that Bill Shorten appointed to review the Fair Work Act a few months ago which I did a post on titled “Bill Shorten appoints two stooges to review the Fair Work Act.” (Click here to read the post) And the same Michael Moore who I allege took bribes during the course of my unlawful termination proceedings against Fairfax Media. Allegations that neither Michael Moore nor the attorney general have challenged. And Justice Geoffrey Flick was one of the appeal judges who heard my appeal of Justice Moore’s judgement. An appeal that went forward with no appeals books, no written submissions and they refused to hand over the transcript form the original hearing..

Moore has been appointed to make sure the corruption within the union can be covered up as much as possible and reduce the amount of further crimes that are uncovered. This should keep many people happy including the NSW Police who tried to sweep it under the carpet last year.

It came to my attention Tuesday last week that Michael Moore was a candidate to be appointed as the administrator (which he since has been) so I shot a quick email of to Justice Flick, Chief Justice Keane, the federal police and others which is below. It is not one of my better emails but it was sent to Flick and he knows who I am and he also knows the gravity of the email. The others,  some know me and some do not, would know the gravity of the allegations could and should not go unchecked.

From: Shane Dowling

Sent: Wednesday, 6 June 2012 1:54 AM

To: Justice.Flick@fedcourt.gov.au; ChiefJustice.Keane@fedcourt.gov.au; tony.negus@afp.gov.au; andrew.colvin@afp.gov.au; val.gostencnik@corrs.com.au; attorney@ag.gov.au; Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au; hatcher@hbhiggins.com.au; inquiries@holdingredlich.com.au; PPasfield@slatergordon.com.au; uwe@uwe.com.au; Paul.Lorraine@harmers.com.au; SVecellio@mauriceblackburn.com.au; ncini@mauriceblackburn.com.au; flickg@fedcourt.gov.au; jack.de.flamingh@corrs.com.au; jack.de.flamingh@corrs.com.au; tony.abbott.mp@aph.gov.au; senator.brandis@aph.gov.au

Subject: Health Services Union – NSD579/2012 – NSD613/2012

Dear Justice Flick

It has come to my attention that the former federal court Judge Michael Francis Moore is under consideration as the administrator of the troubled HSU East Branch as mentioned in an article in the SMH titled “Judge criticises Jackson for contacting his chambers” published on the 5th June 2012.

As you are well aware Mr Flick, Michael Moore was well-known for taking bribes when he was on the bench. As you may recall you had to protect him in a full court judgement.

As I am sure you are also aware Michael Moore’s bribe taking ways are well documented in the book I wrote “Love Letters from the Bar Table”

In fact there is even a picture of me on the front cover holding a sign saying “Justice Moore Federal Court of Australia takes bribes”. The same picture you would have seen in the affidavit that is in the court files you had for the appeal. (people can see for themselves on the website – loveletterfromthebartable.com)

The book is in numerous libraries around the country including but not limited to The Australian National Library, NSW State Library and the NSW Parliamentary library.

Mr Moore has never complained about the book which most people would and should take as admission of his bribe taking ways.

As you are aware Michael Moore resigned from the bench last year some 10 to 12 years before he had to because the embarrassment got too much. Everyone in the Law Courts building knew what a joke he was.

It must be noted that Michael Moore is a well-known Labor Party boy as well. I have recently done a posting about him on my website titled “Bill Shorten appoints two stooges to review the Fair Work Act.”

If I was you Mr Flick I would not be worried about looking after Mr Moore, I would be worried about keeping your own sorry ass out of jail.

I will put you on notice that you will be getting a mention or two in at least one up and coming post on my website, Kangaroo Court of Australia, where I name and shame corrupt judges.

Regards

The national secretary of the HSU Kathy Jackson on Friday accused Justice Flick of Bias. Nothing new here! One has to ask is it appropriate for a federal judge to appoint a former federal judge to a position as administrator. The average person would immediately see perceived bias in that they know each other and Justice Flick is looking after his mate. How much will Michael Moore be charging? Maybe $5000 or $10000 per day. And who approves his payments? Justice Flick one would assume.

It should not be allowed for a current federal judge to appoint someone he knows personally. The average person might suspect that Justice Flick appointed his mate Michael Moore, then approves his payments and then gets a kick back off Mr Moore of say $5000 or $10000. Would Moore and Flick do that? Yes they would they are both grubs.

And why did Bill Shorten want Michael Moore as the administrator? He has already given him a big fat pay check to review the Fair Work Act. Shorten and Moore obviously get along very well.

Let’s have a look at the Kristy Fraser-Kirk v David Jones matter which Justice Flick was the presiding judge.

Kristy Fraser-Kirk was harassed by the CEO of David Jones which is a large department store chain in Australia. She took legal action against David Jones, the directors and the CEO Mark McInnes (who was very quickly forced to resign).

Kristy Fraser-Kirk said she had numerous other witnesses to come forward that had been harassed at David Jones by Mark McInnes.

Once I heard the hearing dates that Flick had set down it was clear to me it was game on. He set the case down for hearing on December 20 and said “the hearing will continue during such days as are available between Christmas and the New Year and will further resume at the outset of January 2011.” It is unheard of for a case like this or any case for that matter to be set down for those dates.

These dates clearly benefited David Jones as it would greatly reduce media coverage and public awareness of the case as reporters and the general public are on holidays. It also would make it harder for Kristy Fraser-Kirk to call other witnesses who support her as they would also be reluctant to give up their holidays and probably make excuses of why they could not go.

Justice Flick was sending a clear and loud message to Kristy Fraser-Kirk and her lawyers that they should settle the matter because they will not be getting any favours from him and he will look after David Jones. (As we know they did settle not long after)

But the real humdinger is a report on the matter from the SMH journalist Elizabeth Knight on the October 14, 2010 where she says:

“The Federal Court proceedings yesterday were procedural and provided no real hint as to what the judge was thinking.”

“While it appeared Flick was favouring David Jones, the company had already made more concessions during out-of-court negotiations over the past week.” (Click here to read the full article)

The big problem there is that Elizabeth Knight is clearly defending Justice Flick of perceived bias in favour of David Jones. What Ms Knight should have disclosed is that one of the respondents was the Chairman of David Jones Robert Savage who is also a director of her employer Fairfax Media. And how would have Elizabeth Knight known that they had made out of court concessions? Sounds very much like she was the mouth piece for David Jones lawyers. (Mr Savage has announced his retirement from Fairfax Media effective June 20 2012)

It is well-known that reporters should disclose anything that gives the apprehension of bias. You will see financial reporters do it all the time. At the bottom of the story they will say something like. “This reporter has shares in the above mentioned company.”

I have never known of a reporter to defend a judge for perceived bias let alone when one of her ultimate bosses is a respondent in the matter. There may have been people in court that day who seen Justice Flick in action who came to the conclusion he was biased in David Jones favour then read Elizabeth Knight’s story and changed their minds not knowing of the fact that a director of Fairfax Media was one of the respondents in the case and Ms Knight had concealed it.

Elizabeth Knight is a very experienced reporter she would have known full well she should have disclosed that. I was not in court that day but for Knight to come out and defend Justice Flick for perceived bias and fail to acknowledge a Fairfax director’s involvement says plenty about Flick.

Fairfax directors are well known for interfering in the editorial of their papers and other media assets although they argue otherwise. So the question has to be asked did Robert Savage or any other directors or managers interfere in the Elizabeth Knight story to defend Justice Flick because he was helping David Jones.

Justice Flick and my appeal

Michael Moore was the judge for my unlawful termination proceedings against Fairfax Media and Justice Flick was one of the judges who heard the appeal. But before it got to Justice Moore my matter bounced around all over the place for some 18 months and by the time it got to hearing 22 months. From the start to the appeal judgement it was almost 3 years. Fairfax Media and their lawyers Freehills were running every frivolous and vexatious argument they could to avoid a hearing. Any lawyer will tell you there was something badly wrong there, disturbingly so for it to last almost 3 years.

The reality is I knew six months in that I was pushing the proverbial uphill because of the corruption and said to myself win, lose or draw I can at least write a book about it which I have and I will write another in the future. But that does not mean I did not try in the court case. I did give it 100% effort. As much as you can when you are self-represented and working full-time as well.

But one analogy would be that I was like a Trojan horse right up the guts of the corruption going on in the judiciary. They thought they were denying me justice, as they do on a regular basis with many people, while I was there documenting it all for future publication.

I am certainly not looking for sympathy and have no regrets. I made the choices I made and could have moved on at anytime but decided to follow through with the case. I did not appeal to the High Court as I decided there was nothing to be gained as I would have just wasted more time and money to achieve little based on the corruption I was faced with. As I have said previously this site is not about me and my personal experiences but given I have had direct dealings with a couple of the key players involved (Flick and Moore) that enables me to give the readers of this site an experienced and inside viewpoint of who they really are.

A quick look at Justice Moore’s conduct

If you know the processes and you are a criminal you can abuse the system. And that is what judges and barristers do all the time even more so when they up against a self-represented litigant. But by the time I hit Justice Moore my matters had been before the court for over 18 months and I knew a lot of the processes, so when he abused them I knew.

Justice Moore, as he was then, clearly was taking instructions of Fairfax Media’s barrister Kate Eastman. I knew the court processes and he was dismissing grounds of my claim and interlocutory orders that I sought simply by her raising it in court and asking him to dismiss them. This was a massive abuse off process. She knew if she wanted grounds of my claim or interlocutory orders that I was seeking dismissed she had to file what is called a notice of motion and Justice Moore knew this as well.

For those who do not know what a notice of motion is, it is what you file along with a supporting affidavit when you want something like grounds of a claim or interlocutory orders sought by the other party dismissed. You have to file it at least 3 to 5 clear working days before it is heard. (depending on the court) This gives the other party a chance to prepare counter arguments and defend it. But when you go to court and they start raising these things out of the blue you have very little chance to defend it and are caught on the hop. That is why litigants have to file a notice of motion.

So the next question is why was Justice Moore aiding and abetting Fairfax Media and their Lawyers Freehills and Barrister Kate Eastman.

My initial proceedings where against the company and then also I filed proceedings against the directors and managers. The directors just did bother showing up even though there was a reverse onus of proof and a court order had been issued for them to file their defence. I filed a notice of motion to have them charged with contempt of court for breaching the court order and not filing their defence. Justice Moore dismissed it and never gave any reasons. I also filed a notice of motion to subpoena them as witnesses but once again Justice Moore dismissed it and no reasons were given.

It is standard practice in a case like this for the application to want documents in the companies possession like emails letters etc. So I sought orders for Fairfax Media to hand them over. Justice Moore issued an extremely scandalous order on Kate Eastman’s instruction that being:

“In providing discovery, the Respondents are not required to provide an affidavit verifying the List of Documents”. In other words they could withhold any documents they wanted. It is the same as saying you can commit perjury if you want to.

His next order was “The Respondents, through their solicitor, are to certify the List of Documents.” That is like saying you can get your lawyer to take the oath or affirmation for you when you hop in the witness stand.

I took a video asking one of Fairfax’s lawyers from Freehills, Shivchand Jhinku, about him helping fabricate evidence which he had.

About two weeks later I went to court for a directions hearing and Mr Shivchand Jhinku had filed an affidavit in relation to a video I took (click here to watch on previous post) and Ms Eastman asked Justice Moore to give me a warning. It was 500 pages long when included with an annexure. They gave me the affidavit and annexure while I was at the bar table and said here you go we are about to argue this. I’m there thinking WTF (although they had this sort of things many times). They had filed it with the court the day before and Justice Moore had a copy. So why did they leave it until we were at the bar table to give it to me. I said to Justice Moore it is 500 pages long and I just got it. He said we can adjourn for 30 minutes if I want to read it. I said you have to be joking it is 500 pages long.

He proceeded to give me a warning based on what was in Shivchand Jhinku’s affidavit and annexure. I asked him numerous times exactly what was in the affidavit and annexure that he was giving me a warning for but he would not say. Why? Because he had not read the affidavit and annexure. He was clearly taking instructions off Kate Eastman on what to do.

I asked him what could happen in relation to his warning and he said that I could be charged for contempt of court. I asked him what could happen then and he said that I could go to jail. When he said that I started to drop the boot into him. I said it was nothing more than attempted blackmail by him to try to force me to shut my mouth. Justice Moore backed right off then.

The reference to above video and Justice Moore’s warning had no impact on the merits of my claim but what it shows is actual bias and criminal conduct by Michael Moore. The same actual bias and criminal conduct that was evident with the rest of the proceedings.

The above is just the tip of the iceberg. But Michael Moore cannot justify the above let alone all the rest of his corrupt conduct that is why my book, which accuses him of taking bribes on the front cover, goes unchallenged.

Now back to Flick and the appeal.

The appeal was heard by Justice Graham (now retired), Justice Logan and Justice Flick and went forward with no appeals books, written submissions and they would not give me the transcript.  They blame me for failure to prosecute because I did not get the appeals book ready amongst other things. Their judgement was full of lies. Justice Graham even had a financial interest in the matter through his Fairfax Media shareholding but did not step down from hearing the case.

Justice Graham wrote his decision by himself and Justice Flick and Logan wrote theirs together.

Justice Graham at paragraph 26 says:

26 One would like to excuse the intemperate language employed by the appellant on the basis of his limited understanding of the English language. However, it became quite clear when he was asked what he had meant by his use of the words ‘bribery’, ‘perjury’ and ‘conspiracy’ that he had in mind deliberate wrongdoing on the part of the persons against whom his allegations were made.

Why does he write that? I am a fourth generation Australian with an English heritage and only speak one language and I publish this site and have written a book yet Graham says “on the basis of his limited understanding of the English language.” That is a straight out lie by Graham. He wrote that for a simple reason. Any lawyer who read the judgement would have many queries on many issues that did not seem procedurally fair and straight out wrong. But by putting in there my “limited understanding of the English language” it sounds like I am a new immigrant who just got off the boat and the judges had a hard time understanding me and I had a hard time understanding them. So a lawyer reading the judgement would sit back and think to themselves that is why all the strange decisions by the appeal judges and clear abuse of processes by them.

To prepare for the appeal you need the transcript from the case. It is standard practice that when a party is given fee waivers by the court then they will get a copy of transcript free of charge. It costs the court nothing, they can just email you a copy and there are many precedents on it.

But the best they could do with the transcript is they wanted me to go to the court and identify what pages I wanted and I might get a copy. That would have taken me days although I did go for one hour one day and realised what a waste of time it was and I could not afford the time of work. First it was registrar Tom Morgan and then Justice Flick who refused to give me the transcript. I can only assume they wanted to tamper with the transcript when I had identified the pages.

If you do not have the transcript you cannot prepare properly for an appeal and Flick and the others knew this. And they knew what Justice Moore had been up to. But you are on a website and reading a post written by a person as the appeal judgment says has “limited understanding of the English language”. That says it all for the creditability of the three appeal judges which included Justice Flick.

This is important as people who have been following the HSU scandal now think the HSU East Branch has an honest administrator. Well they do not.

Craig Thomson and others ripped off the Health Services Union which was investigated by corrupt ex union officials (the two general managers) at Fair Work Australia and it now has a corrupt former judge who is a Labor Party boy as the administrator.

The Liberal’s know this but will do nothing as Flick was appointed by them just before they lost government in 2007. And the Greens are obviously in tight with the Labor Party so will say nothing.

I could go on about the appeal and maybe should in another post but I have gone way over the 3000 words I try to limit posts to because if posts get to long people will not read them. (If you have any feedback on this let me know)

Last Friday in court Kathy Jackson asked Justice Flick to stand down for perceived bias. This I believe, from what I have read, will be revisited this coming Friday in court.

Some of the questions that Kathy Jackson should ask Flick.

1. Do you know Justice Moore on a personal basis. Answer: Yes we used to work together.
2. Do you think it is appropriate that you have appointed him as the administrator given that you know him.
3. Did you ever hear an appeal where the first ground of the appeal was that Justice Moore took a bribe off the respondent Fairfax Media? Answer: Yes.
4. Are you aware there is a published book that accuses Michael Moore of taking bribes on the front cover that has gone unchallenged? Answer Yes

If she was to ask those questions it would certainly put a rocket up Justice Flick.

Just as a side note my appeal was heard on the 6^th of November 2009. My book was published on the 18^th of August 2009. So while the three judges were hearing the appeal you could go 100 meters down the road and buy a copy at the Co-op Bookshop. As per state book deposit laws there was even a copy at the State Library which I had to give them given I had published the book in NSW.

I was also meant to give a copy within 2 months of the publication date to the NSW Parliamentary Library but the State Library said there was no need as the parliamentary library is small and they do not usually want a copy.

When the book was published I sent emails to most of the federal and state politicians and then I received the below email.

From: Info Resources [mailto:Info.Resources@parliament.nsw.gov.au]

Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2009 5:58 PM

To: shanedowling1@bigpond.com

Subject: Legal Deposit Claim

Dear Mr Dowling,

A search of our records reveals that we have not received the following publication:

Love letters from the bar table / Shane Dowling

ISBN: 9780646517360

Under the provisions of the Copyright (Amendment Act) 1952 we are requesting a copy of this publication to add to our collection please.

If there is any reason why the provisions of the Copyright (Amendment Act) do not apply to the publication described, could you please let us know.

Yours sincerely,

The point in relation to the book? Here I was appealing Justice Moore’s judgement with the first ground of my appeal being that he took a bribe of Fairfax Media and everyone in the judiciary and political system knew the book had been published. It was the big white elephant in the room during the appeal. It showed what a joke the whole system is.

It would be greatly appreciated if you spend a minute using Twitter, Facebook and email etc and promote this post. Just click on the icons below.

And make sure you follow this site by email which is on the top right of this page and about once a week you will get an email when there is a new post/story on this site.

This site is fully funded by myself, both time wise and monetary wise. If you would like to support the continuance and growth of this site it would be greatly appreciated if you make a donation, buy a t-shirt, coffee mug  or a copy of my book. The links are below.

If you would like to buy a t-shirt or coffee mug visit my online shop (Click here to visit the shop)

If you would like to buy a copy of my non-fiction book on corruption in the Australian judiciary that names names visit my website for the book which has links to the online bookshops. (Click her to visit the website)

Thank you for your support.