Justice Michael Adams of the Supreme Court of NSW has made me take down the post that was here. I have published a new post titled: “Australian KCA journalist to go to jail for breaching suppression order put on a suppression order by 7’s Kerry Stokes“ (Click here to read the post)
In court today (Wednesday 11/6/14) Justice Adams said to me that he will read my submissions later, handed some submissions straight back to me without reading them and then immediately issued orders (Click here to read) giving Kerry Stokes and his barrister Sandy Dawson what they wanted. A clear pre-determined judgement by Justice Adams. He has no shame. He reserved his written reasons which I suspect that will be a long time coming.
And yes I can call Justice Adams corrupt because he is and I am protected by the precedent Coleman v Power and the truth defence.
I will a write a new post soon. In the meantime read below. Yes Michael Adams heard his own case.
Michael Adams is suing Fairfax Media (Canberra Times) for defamation (Proceedings are currently afoot and set down again before Justice Rares (usually a Federal Court judge) in his capacity as an ACT Supreme Court judge on the 13th June 2014) (Click here to see the latest orders by Rares)
How does Justice Adams justify making me take down a post and video regarding allegations of judicial corruption (it’s really a statement of facts) yet the allegation by Jack Waterford and Fairfax are still on the internet. That seems to be an admission of guilt by Justice Adams or maybe Justice Adams is saying that he has incompetent lawyers.
Mr Waterford says in his defence what he wrote was “a recitation” of the allegations put in 2011 to the ACT Supreme Court. I understand Justice Adams never challenged the evidence (or at least not successfully) in the court so once again I take it as an admission of guilt by Justice Adams.
Some of the things Mr Waterford wrote in relation to the conduct of Michael Adams are absolutely scandalous if true which they clearly are as far as I am concerned.
Some of what Waterford wrote:
“There are modern criticisms of the conviction going to issues of propriety by prosecutors and police. For example, the court was not told the major forensic witness had been dismissed for professional failings from the Victorian Police forensic unit, nor that he had significantly altered critical testimony between inquest and trial. Counsel for the DPP misled the High Court on whether Carruthers had seen material raising the question of fitness to plead. There are complaints of police misbehaviour, not least in efforts, admitted by police, to harass Eastman so he would explode, and, they hoped, make damning admissions.” (Click here to read the May 2012 article)
When Waterford talks about the prosecutors and DPP above he is in effect talking about Michael Adams as he was in charge of the prosecution and that is why Adams is suing for defamation.
A precedent that I will use to defend my actions is Coleman v Power as Justice Adams orders are an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech. It relates to a man in Queensland handing out pamphlets “which contained charges of corruption against several police officers.” This is almost identical to the poster that I used during the week except I named 2 judges and it also relates to the post that I published last week. The High Court found that the man was protected by the Constitution because the words used concerned matters within the freedom of communication about government or political matters that the Constitution protects. I will be pushing that myself in relation to my allegations of judicial favours. I am sure Justice Adams new this but did not care less.
Justice Adams denied David Eastman his human rights for 19 years now Adams is denying me my constitutional rights.
I will be writing further about Justice Adams in the near future. He was also involved in the Lindy Chamberlain matter.