Channel 7

Bribing Australian judges the Kerry Stokes and Mafia way

Seven’s Chairman Kerry Stokes was thrown under a bus by his own lawyer Richard Keegan on Wednesday (1/3/17) when Mr Keegan said under oath in the witness stand that Kerry Stokes was personally involved in the management of the Samantha Armytage – Rebecca Gibney defamation case. Keegan said Stokes had sent him 5 to 10 emails about the matter.

Company Chairman and Directors always try to keep as big a distance as possible away from scandals when they happen at the companies they oversee and make sure there is no paper trail showing they knew about the scandal or was involved in it. It is very unusual that Keegan would throw Stokes under a bus and admit Kerry Stokes’ direct intervention. This also ties Kerry Stokes one step closer to being directly involved in the judicial bribery allegations that I have raised previously.

Richard Keegan also confirmed that Seven West Media are paying for four women to sue me for defamation regarding the Seven – Tim Worner – Amber Harrison sex scandal. It would be Kerry Stokes who would have approved Seven paying for the women. One woman does not work for the company anymore and shareholders should be greatly disturbed that Seven is wasting money designed not to protect the woman’s reputation but to conceal the widespread fraud and corruption at Seven West Media being overseen by Kerry Stokes and Tim Worner.

Richard Keegan evidence throwing Kerry Stokes under a bus

Richard Keegan gave evidence at the Contempt of Court proceedings against me on Wednesday the 1/3/17 in the NSW Supreme Court before Justice Ian Harrison. The Contempt proceedings have been instituted by Samantha Armytage and Rebecca Gibney under the pseudonyms Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 because I failed to take down their names on my website as part of their defamation case against me. Two other women have commenced an application to join the defamation against me. One is current Seven employee Eleanor Good and the other is former Seven employee Jennifer Stone (nee Davis).

The proceedings are being paid for by Seven West Media and I suspect the women are in effect being used as a front by Kerry Stokes to institute proceedings against me to help close down the Tim Worner / Amber Harrison sex scandal and also intimidate other media not to run the story.

Q. Mr Keegan, you have four clients in this matter?
A. I do, yes.

Q. They’re all paying you individually?
A. I don’t know whether they’re paying individually or all together for the one proceedings.

Q. So you don’t know?
A. That’s correct.

Later in proceedings Richard Keegan changed his tune. Did he commit perjury?

Q. You don’t know who is paying?
A. No, I don’t.

Q. So is it highly likely Seven West Media, is that right?
A. Yes.

Q. It is highly likely?
A. Yes.

Q. So Seven West Media are paying for their legal fees?
A. Yes.

It is important to confirm the fact that Seven West Media are paying for the matter for many reasons. Whoever pays for the court case controls it and that means Kerry Stokes has ultimate control as chairman.

Richard Keegan again – Kerry Stokes heavily involved in the defamation and contempt case

Q. Have you spoken to Kerry Stokes in relation to this matter?
A. I have been in contact with him.

Q. So he’s involved in this matter now?
A. Yes, he’s concerned about the impact this is having upon his employees.

Q. And Kerry Stokes, how many times have you been in contact with Kerry
A. Do you mean about these matters or ever?

Q. Yeah, about this specific matter?
A. They’re all email.

Q. No, that’s fine?
A. So I probably say five to ten emails.

Q. Five to ten, maybe up to fifteen?
A. No.

Q. So five to ten?
A. (Witness nodded.)

If Richard Keegan is saying 5 to 10 emails I would expect the real number to be a lot higher and how many phone calls have there been? Kerry Stokes is not executive Chairman so shouldn’t have anything to do with the case and even an Executive Chairman should not be giving instructions to a junior lawyer.

To me there is clear-cut evidence that shows that it is Kerry Stokes who is the driving force to have me charged with contempt and not the women and what makes it worse is that SWM shareholders are paying for it. Add that to Richard Keegan at best being an unreliable witness it is easy to argue a prima facie case is made of a conspiracy to have someone falsely charged which is a criminal offence in itself.

Kerry Stokes second go to have charged with contempt of court at Seven West Media shareholder’s expense

Kerry Stokes is now running his second contempt proceedings against me as he ran one in 2014 and I was fined $2000 but never had to pay as it was that dodgy and Stokes should have been charged with conspiracy to have someone falsely charged then as well as now. (Click here to read more)

(As a side note: Justice Ian Harrison reserved his decision on Wednesday (1/3/17) in the current contempt proceedings against me and I have until the 13/3/17 to email further submissions before he writes his judgement.)

I sent an email (2/3/17) to Kerry Stokes and the Directors and asked some questions:

  1. Can you explain why Seven West Media are paying for the 4 women given Seven West Media say it is a personal issue?
  2. Can you explain why Seven West Media are paying for Jennifer Stone (nee Davis) when she no longer works for Seven West Media?
  3. Can you explain why you Mr Kerry Stokes have been communicating directly with a junior lawyer in the matter when you are not an applicant in the matter?
  4. Can you Mr Kerry Stokes, advise what you said in the 5 to 10 emails to Richard Keegan.
  5. Can you advise Mr Kerry Stokes, how many emails, letters and phone calls you have had with Richard Keegan, Justine Munsie and any other lawyers regarding the matter of the four women?
  6. Mr Kerry Stokes, do you agree that it is a major conflict of interest for you to have anything to do with the matter of the four women given you are also suing me directly in the matter Munsie v Dowling.
  7. Mr Kerry Stokes, given you are only Chairman of SWM and not executive Chairman can you explain your micro-management of the company? (Click here to read the full email)

Kerry Stokes and the directors have not responded to the above email. Normally they have their lawyer Richard Keegan respond to my emails.

Kerry Stokes is personally suing me along with his son Ryan who is also a Director of Seven West Media and their lawyer Justine Munsie and have been since 2014 and should be nowhere near the case. (Click here to read more)

Kerry Stokes throws Seven employee Alison Brown under a bus to save himself and Tim Worner

Seven West Media and its management have attacked Amber Harrison for involving other Seven employees in the dispute but they were happy to thow current Seven employee Alison Brown under a bus on the 21st February in court. Richard Keegan says this about Kerry Stokes: he’s concerned about the impact this is having upon his employees” but Kerry Stokes isn’t too concerned about Alison Brown.


Alison Brown

Seven West Media, in their legal battle with Amber Harrison, have deliberately destroyed the reputation and career of Alison Brown who is a Producer on The Morning Show and The Daily Edition at Channel Seven.

Seven tendered evidence in court, via an affidavit by their lawyer Ruveni Kelleher, claiming Alison Brown gave Amber Harrison the password to CEO Tim Worner’s email account in 2014 just before Ms Harrison left the company. (Click here to read more)

Seven West Media and Kerry Stokes – Every touch leaves a trace – Judicial bribery for ex parte hearings and suppression orders  

A major problem for Kerry Stokes and Seven West Media directors is that they have a long history of having secret hearings (Ex parte hearings) with judges and getting suppression orders and then avoiding a final hearing like the plague because their claims are baseless. Below are the ex parte hearings against me over the last three years that cannot be justified. A number of judges have also refused to give reasons or publish the reasons for their suppression orders.

14th April 2014 – Monday – Justice Ian Harrison – ex parte – Super injunction issued

6th May 2014 – Tuesday – Justice Lucy McCallum – ex parte – Notice op Motion abridged (expedited)

17th February 2015 – Tuesday – Act Justice Robert Hulme – ex parte

5th June 2015 – Friday – Justice David Davies – ex parte – Suppression order issued for Ryan Stokes who wasn’t even a party to the proceedings at that time

7th October 2016 – Justice Peter Hall – ex parte – Super injunction issued

10th October 2016 – Justice David Davies – ex parte – suppression order issued

21st December 2016 – Justice Stephen Campbell – ex parte – suppression order issued

23rd December 2016 – Justice Stephen Campbell – ex parte – suppression order continued

21st February 2016 – Justice Walton – ex parte – suppression order issued

Then there is the ex parte hearing and suppression orders against Amber Harrison which is scandalous and suppression orders against Simon Mulvany of Save the Bees and who knows how many others.

Many people don’t believe in judicial bribery

When mainstream media such as Fairfax Media and the ABC’s Four Corners can report that the Australian Mafia have bribed NSW judges $2.2 million and it goes unchallenged and unchecked by politicians and the relevant law enforcement authorities such as ICAC and the Federal Police then you know there is a massive problem. (Click here and here to read more)

Article last year on SWM, Capilano Honey and Addisons Lawyers

I wrote an article last year titled “Channel Seven, Capilano Honey and Addisons Lawyers involved in judicial favours scam”. (Click here to read) No one has ever challenged the article or complained about it which I take as an admission that it is true and correct.

There is a lot of fraud, theft and corruption at Seven West Media which Kerry Stokes tries to conceal from the public. Another example is serious allegations thatKerry Stokes Seven rumoured to be covering up $8 million fraud by management in Perth officewhich is consistent with the multi-million-dollar fraud at Seven’s Sydney office by former staff member John Fitzgerald which is currently before the courts.

You have to wonder what all these staff members have on Kerry Stokes that he refuses to call the police and only takes civil action against staff who steal from companies he controls.

There are reports on News and Fairfax websites that the ABC’s Four Corners are investigating a story on Seven West Media and the Board of Directors which is due to be televised in April and hopefully they will cover some of the issues that I have raised.

Please use the Twitter, Facebook and email etc. buttons below and help promote this post.

Kangaroo Court of Australia is an independent website and is reliant on donations to keep publishing. If you would like to support the continuance of this site, please click on the button below to donate via PayPal or go to the donations page for other donation options. (Click here to go to the Donations page)

If you would like to follow this website, you can by email notification at the top right of this page and about twice a week you will be notified when there is a new article.

Thank you for your support.

16 replies »

  1. a slight tangent but relevant to the issue jeff kennett very akin to affecting the judiciary remember he auspiced the PNG case against BHP and reduced the dept of public prosecution to the point they didnt have the power to carry out their responsibilities so BHP got away with rorting a $5 billion case for destroying villages in PNG! Jeff anyones friend when you want the judiciary to do what you want…!!!

  2. Could it be possible that Richard Keegan has unlocked a ‘back door’in case the shareholders of Seven West Media take out a class action against Stokes & Co for spending shareholders money for illicit purposes.

      • This was written on the KCA Facebook page:

        Keegan has to issue a Lawyer’s cost quote to any client and all clients he represents before representing them.

        “The Legal Profession Act 2007 (the Act) came into force on 1 July 2007. It requires your solicitor to offer you a Costs Agreement together with a Disclosure Statement.

        Your solicitor must disclose to you certain information regarding costs, as set out in s.308 of the Act. The disclosure may be made by using Form 1 Your right to know, or in some other document, or documents, that give the information that is provided in Form 1 and the factsheet.

        Your solicitor must also, pursuant to s. 331 of the Act, notify you of your rights in the event of a dispute about the solicitor’s costs. The notification may be made by using Form 2 with Your right to challenge legal costs, or in some other document, or documents, that give the information that is provided in form 2 and the factsheet.”
        So did he not issue them with a costs statement, if he didn’t then he is in breach of the act. If he did then he made a false statement in court..

        Read more at:

  3. To have it revealed so vividly that Kerry Stokes can influence Australia’s chief justice officials illustrates that the Australian laws are merely tokenistic when it comes down to corporate entities that seek to gain advantage where no advantage should ever exist.

    This whole complex issue is more about revenge than any other subject matter.
    Apparently the laws and law court ministrations of today are more about a person’s wealth and influence than the bona fide carriage of justice.
    This whole affair demonstrates that even the Federal Attorney General (the highest legal authority in our land) cares little about the evidence yet cares even less about the victims suffering from the wrath of Kerry Stokes, then that it is Stokes himself who personally launched his intrigue.
    That this whole sordid female exploitive matter had its genesis under the roof of Seven West Media and was allowed to proliferate under the hand of chairman Kerry Stokes has become a shameful act not unlike the days of decadent Rome.

  4. You have outlined above the formation of a pattern of suppression orders that appear at face value to contravene ‘a primary objective of the administration of justice [which] is to safeguard the public interest in open justice’. s6. Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010

    s8 (2) ‘A suppression order or non-publication order must specify the ground or grounds on which the order is made.’

    “A number of judges have also refused to give reasons or publish the reasons for their suppression orders.”

    If the grounds are not specified in the order, then this is in contravention of the abovementioned Act.

  5. The Seven group is 73% owned and controlled by Stokes; ‘it’ is in essence his own private fiefdom that spreads its influential tentacles widely throughout Australian society.

    By the fiefdoms’ own sworn admission on the 1/3/2017; Stokes is essentially directing and financing the contempt proceedings against Shane Dowling.

    The contempt case should not be hiding behind the pseudonym Jane Doe vs Shane Dowling. Transparency should dictate it be called Kerry Stokes vs Shane Dowling so the world can see what the Stokes fiefdom is up to.

    The frivolous gutter behaviour of the fiefdom that is being granted a pattern of disturbing suppression orders by the highest court in NSW – is alarming. Also of concern is the perceived concealment of the poor treatment of women in the workplace by the suppression orders.

    At the hearing on the 1/3/2017 after the fiefdom had given its evidence against Mr Dowling and prior to Mr Dowling being given the opportunity to present his partly censored defence, Justice Harrison was at pains to point out to the defendant Mr Dowling, that the end result of these proceedings is his possible imprisonment.

    The Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 s16 (1) clearly states the penalty for an offence can be either a fine, imprisonment or a mixture of both.

    Justice Harrison neglected to tell Mr Dowling that the other possible results of the proceedings could also be just a fine, mixture of fine and imprisonment or that the plaintiffs’ case against him might fail with no penalty imposed.

    Justice Harrison only highlighting the possibility of imprisonment to the defendant and neglecting to reveal the other achievable outcomes could be misconstrued as intimidation. Whatever it gets construed as, hopefully for Mr Dowling’s sake it does not turn out to be a harbinger.

Leave a Reply