Journalist found in contempt for political communication re: judge protecting paedophile priest

On Thursday (3/8/17) I was found guilty of contempt of court for exposing the scandal of Justice Clifton Hoeben giving a paedophile priest 3 months jail. I was also found guilty of breaching a suppression order for writing an article telling people that I had been charged for contempt. It was in effect the judicial officers of the NSW Supreme Court putting a suppression order on their own case.

The judgement by Justice Helen Wilson was a total hatchet job on me but what should concern every Australian is the precedent Justice Wilson has set in an attempt to whittle away the rights free speech and political communication of all Australians.

During the course of the matter I was ordered to write to every Attorney-General in Australia and serve them a Notice of a Constitutional Matter as it was my defence that I did not say what they claim I said and what I did say was political communication and it was protected by the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution.

The Notice of a Constitutional Matter gives the Attorney-Generals the opportunity to intervene and put arguments forward to protect the rights of all Australians. It is quite normal for none to intervene at the first hearing but more common that they intervene if it goes to appeal or the High Court of Australia.

Justice Wilson said at paragraph 51: “As the lack of interest in the argument by the Attorneys-General may suggest, the defendant’s confidence in the availability of a constitutional defence is misplaced. (Click here to read the judgment)

That is a scandalous comment by Justice Wilson given the matter was not at the appeal of High Court stage. It is true that no one intervened but the Federal Attorney-General and NSW Attorney-General wrote to me and said that if the case goes to appeal or the High Court they wanted to be notified as they would reconsider intervening. Also 4 other State Attorney-Generals said if the matter went to the High Court they wanted to be notified as they would also consider intervening then. If any of the Attorney-Generals do intervene will Justice Wilson change her judgement to read that there was a constitutional defence and her judgement to dismiss it was misplaced?

The major problem is if what Justice Wilson said is allowed to stand it will be used by other judges to wipe people’s claims of constitutional defences unless an Attorney-General intervenes which is scandalous. So the implied rights to free speech and political communication in the constitution are wiped unless you can get a Attorney-General to support you. Can anyone ever take Justice Wilson serious again?

One of the key defences that journalists and the average person rely regarding defamation claims and other laws when trying to expose government corruption is the defence of “implied freedom of political communication” as the High Court of Australia ruled in Lange v ABC in 1997. Say good-by to using the precedent Lange v ABC unless an Attorney-General is there to support you.

If the AG’s don’t intervene then it means that there is no constitutional issue. Every lawyer in the country would know that is total rot and question Justice Wilson’s competency as a judge which helps explain why Justice Wilson is sneakily trying to put a suppression order on the judgement.

(The background to this article can be read in previous posts by clicking here and here)

Suppression orders. The cover-up to keep everything from public scrutiny.

When the contempt matter against me started in February 2017 Justice Beech-Jones put a suppression order on a few elements such as not naming the judge and registrar in the matter. At no point did he put a suppression order on the whole case.

Justice Wilson already suppressed the names in the judgment so why the suppression order on the whole judgement? Obviously to hide her judgment from the Attorney-Generals and their staff who have already seen the transcript of the hearing when I sent it to them with the Notice of a Constitutional Matter.

At the hearing on May 4 I asked Justice Wilson to review the suppression orders with the view of having the limited suppression orders lifted as there is no exceptional circumstance to justify the suppression orders which by law there needs to be exceptional circumstances. Based on Justice Wilson’s judgment she has ignored my request and now seems to claim Justice Beech-Jones put a suppression order on the whole case and the judgement can’t be published.

Having a suppression order on a whole judgment is a scandal by itself as what is meant to keep judges honest and accountable is the published written judgments which all the public should be allowed to scrutinize. Add that to the fact that Justice Wilson is trying to falsely claim that it was Justice Beech-Jones who put the suppression order on the whole judgment then it is time for the NSW government to intervene and have a good look at what Justice Wilson and other judges are up to issuing dodgy suppression orders.

The transcript

I was charged for contempt for what I said in court in February 2017. The transcript has been deliberately tampered with by selectively editing it by the prosecution. Justice Wilson is well aware of this and has gone along with it to make sure the contempt conviction sticks.

I pushed this point at the hearing on the 4th of May which you can read yourself in the transcript here and here. Compare that to what was said in the judgment and it is disconcerting. I called Justice Hoeben a grub which I am entitled to do as per the precedent Coleman v Power. Not a paedophile as they claim. At the end of the day the whole thing is futile as I wrote an article last year titledPaedophile priest gets 3 months jail for raping 3 boys by NSW Supreme Court’s Justice Hoebenwhich is what started it all and that article has gone unchallenged from a defamation viewpoint and will be there for the next hundred years.

It is also clearly defendable because it is political communication as I questioned the performance and conduct of a judge who is ultimately part of government. The same communication that Justice Peter McClellan AM Chair, Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has encouraged everyone to have. During a speech on Wednesday 2 August Justice Peter McClellan said:

The Royal Commission’s recommendations in relation to criminal justice issues are an opportunity for the entire Australian community to come together through their Parliaments to make changes to ensure that the High Court’s sentiments in Munda are achieved.

There are likely to be some, perhaps many, practitioners and judges, who will be resistant change. Perhaps their thinking may be assisted by reflecting on a comment by Lord Judge, who said:

Just because a change does not coincide with the way we have always done things does not mean that it should be rejected … Do proposed changes cause unfair prejudice to the defendant? If so, of course, they cannot happen. If however they make it more likely to enable the truth to emerge, whether favourable or unfavourable to the defendant, then let it be done. The truth is the objective. 

The Royal Commission provided its report in relation to criminal justice to government last week. (Click here to read more)

The real issue here is that serious allegations against judges that have been made have gone unchallenged and unchecked and they are trying to silence one of the whistleblowers and they don’t want anyone to know the facts. It must be remembered that it was Fairfax Media and the ABC that in 2015 exposed that NSW judges had taken bribes of $2.2 million which would only be the tip of the iceberg so NSW judges have plenty to hide.

I wont dissect the whole judgement but there are plenty of grounds for appeal. For example their key witness was Kerry Stokes’ and Seven West Media’s lawyer Richard Keegan and Justice Wilson refused me the right to cross-examine him which is a blatant denial of natural justice. In fact Richard Keegan never showed up to the hearing so I have to wonder how did he know that Justice Wilson would refuse to allow me the right to cross-examine him on his affidavit? Was he already advised before the hearing?

Over the next day or so I will email formal complaints to the federal and NSW Attorney-Generals regarding Justice Helen Wilson’s decision and conduct during the hearing and add the emails to the comments section below as part of this article. I encourage you to do the same.

I am also due to be sentenced for breaching the dodgy suppression order in the Jane Doe 1 & Ors matter on Thursday (10/8/17). (Click here to read more)

Regular readers would know that my campaign against dodgy suppression orders started in 2014 when I breached Kerry Stokes’ super-injunction. By taking a stand, it has reached the point where appeals need to be fought and it is not really viable for me to represent myself for the appeals.  To run the appeals it really needs lawyers and to help achieve this I have set up a crowdfunding campaign on GoFundMe. (Click here to see the campaign) It would be greatly appreciated if you supported the crowdfunding campaign.

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

Thank you for your support.

Tags: , ,

47 Comments on “Journalist found in contempt for political communication re: judge protecting paedophile priest”

  1. db August 6, 2017 at 12:48 am #

    “The Prothonotary argues that the defendant’s conduct in making the allegations he made in court on 3 February 2017 was an act calculated to impair public confidence in the Court and the administration of justice, and constitutes contempt of the Supreme Court. ”

    What Hogwash! I don’t think Shane Dowling is impairing public confidence, I think it is the behaviour of the court that is creating it’s own self-fulfilling contempt. It appears the court has missed their ride on the Clapham Omnibus and is completely out of touch with public sentiment.

    • helentastard August 7, 2017 at 2:36 pm #

      db. I totally agree. It is the way judges and others behave which causes contempt for courts. In the recent case of three Canberra politicians criticizing judges (for which they apologized in time to avoid being found to be in contempt), a form of contempt called ”Scandalizing the courts” was mentioned in the press. This dates from the 18th century (for the glorification of courts) but was abolished in the UK in 2013. I understand that legal immunity has also been abolished in UK. Our laws are based on those of UK. Why are we lagging behind? Helen Tastard

  2. Casey August 6, 2017 at 1:08 am #

    Shane,
    I’m in.

  3. scartistservices August 6, 2017 at 2:27 am #

    Cheers Shane, think you probably have a best seller in the pipes!

  4. ohdeah August 6, 2017 at 5:16 am #

    Unbelievable – some people think they are above the law – judges, it seems – keep up the fight Shane.

  5. Joe Zidar August 6, 2017 at 8:26 am #

    SD, agree that you have now reached a stage where you need legal representation. That said, it will be challenging to find a lawyers that will do proper justice for all of your hard work and not “rip” you off..

    Lawyers paramount duty is to the court, not their client. This concept has
    bothered me greatly, as this matter is exposing corruption within the system. I do not envisage that many law firms would get involved, however am very supportive that now is the right time to consider legal representation.

    Let’s hope some of the independant journalist guys support you in this battle as their future is also at stake. I want to read “uncensored” news articles that are not biased and display transparency of the facts, rather than much of the jibber that main stream media publishes daily.

    Donation made 👍

  6. Len welsh August 6, 2017 at 8:29 am #

    I fully support you on this matter .as judges have got away with murder as in freedom of speech bring it on man as i have aways saidWE HAVE NO CONSTITUTION IN AUSTRALIA time to stop this in its tracks and WE as Aussies should have AND WILL HAVE OUR RIGHT TO HAVE FREDOM OF SPEACH HAMMER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO BRING TO A HEAD ONCE AND FOR ALL

  7. lawyersorgraverobbersDiarmuid Hannigan August 6, 2017 at 9:16 am #

    It is common practice within the Australian Judicial system for the court to tamper with its own transcripts. I hear it frequently from many people who have been subjected to their tyranny. The whole idea of being in contempt of the court for publishing what has occurred in the court, particularly when it relates to the Judiciary protecting paedophile priests seriously undermines the peoples understanding of justice. In this instance we have two institutions who the community believe they can trust, IE The Church and the judiciary working together to suppress the truth which is a blight upon the integrity of the corner stones of our civilisation. One only has to watch how the judicial process is managing the matter of George Pell and its threats against any reporting of this matter to realise we can no longer trust the institutions we have been conditioned to believe in.
    The court`s request to communicate with the Attorney Generals is an oxymoron as the Attorney Generals are all lawyers and are therefore servants of the court. Although they are elected members of parliament they still hold their allegiance to the court and not necessarily to the people!.

  8. allan moore August 6, 2017 at 9:27 am #

    My blood boils reading about her and others actions here, actions that make one fully understand how rebellions involving extreme violence , civil wars and political assassinations are reverted to in some countries.

  9. Marlene Marinkovic August 6, 2017 at 10:12 am #

    Suppression orders and closed court procedures except in the case of minors are a blight on justice. The judges know it. So what makes them do it? Why do they undermine the system that employs them? Perhaps they are just puppets doing the bidding of powerful others. Something is happening because the courts are in a parlous state. Sadly judges are no longer respected by the public. This matter of yours Shane has turned into a comedy of errors, not serious judicial considerations.

  10. Jonde August 6, 2017 at 10:43 am #

    In the stream of honesty, all adult Australians are aware of The Constitution Of Australia and abide by the rules set out therein.
    All migrants who become naturalised Australians swear to abide by those rules, as must every Australian abide by those rules.
    Why have the facts of the Federal and State governments, City Councils and judiciary becoming private corporations with an ABN come to light.
    The aforesaid are now applying sentences and executing decisions upon Australians which ignore the laws set out in The Constitution Of Australia without approval from any source.
    Is it not within the authority placed in the hands of the Governor-General to ensure that compliance with The Constitutional Laws Of Australia is required by all polititians and the judiciary of Australia.
    [quote]”The judiciary is the branch of government which administers justice according to law. The term is used to refer broadly to the courts, the judges, magistrates, adjudicators and other support personnel who run the system. The courts apply the law, and settle disputes and punish law-breakers according to the law.”

    • Eddy August 6, 2017 at 12:15 pm #

      Jonde, Are you serious with your above post ???? It struck an immediate chord with me as indefensible.
      My parents migrated to this terrific country in 1957, and a few years later,received citizenship, the document of which all their dependents were also attached.
      Now I can honestly state, without question, my parents did not even know an Australian Constitution even existed. In fact even myself, at the ripe old age of 18 years, prior to my departure for service in Vietnam, had no idea such a document existed, nor did anyone else in my Company. (Legal avenues were explored to question the legalities of sending underage people over seas to fight in a war.)
      For you to therefore state and I quote, ” In the stream of honesty, all adult Australians are aware of The Constitution Of Australia and abide by the rules set out therein.” Is pure bullshit.
      I challenbge you to PROVE that ALL ADULT AUSTRALIANS ARE AWARE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ABIDE BY THE RULES SET OUT THEREIN !
      Unfortunately, or fortunately, depends from which side one looks at the issue, I do have a little experience with our what’s so joking called “LEGAL SYSTEM” in particular, Industrial realtions, and have spent more time than I care to recall, in the defence box, and even making submissions under this system.
      Due to that experience, I find the Australian Legal System a toothless joke, and biased to the tenth degree against the people it’s supposed to represent, and there’s no way in Hell, the people involved in implementing this shonky system abide by any Constituion, which is at the best of times, totaly toothless anyway.

      • allan moore August 6, 2017 at 2:18 pm #

        Spot on Eddy

  11. hoboturkey August 6, 2017 at 11:49 am #

    Collusion.
    They are defending there right to be unaccountable.
    Do these public servants have the same staff turnover of private enterprise ?
    If not then they are elitist and self serving.
    If equal access to the law was a pillar of democracy (which it should be). then we are already living in failed state.

    You have enough supporters for a senate run ? Parliamentary privilege may be the last vestige of free speech soon.
    good luck.

  12. Ross Cameron August 6, 2017 at 1:02 pm #

    How about trying to influence citizen groups like Get-up or similar to take up the stand. My fight with others Australia-wide against corrupt divorce lawyers and courts was done at a time when we had an incoming Labor government who had a policy of cleaning up Australia. I`m afraid no political party will do that again while they are infested with lawyers. But citizen groups burning with indignation at this time might be inclined to support you.

  13. Paul 2 August 6, 2017 at 1:03 pm #

    It is time to look at the whole list of protections, that Judges once appointed are entitled to. They are quite staggering and place them in a group of the most protected elite; way above the ordinary Australian. For example, it is contempt for a police officer to even approach them if they are a suspect for a criminal offence. What the ?

    I am concerned that Shane will be the victim of their self protection entitlements and will end up in the wrong no matter how right and correct he is on this matter. As for corruption, it is almost impossible to get rid of them even if it blind freddy can see the connection. All they have to do is weather the storm by bloggers such as Shane and deny, say nothing or use contempt of court as a weapon against anyone who makes allegations.

    As for appointment, that is a political process where the Party in Government decides who they think would be more supportive of their policies. With a selection criteria like that, it’s not surprising that corruption can be a result. Good luck Shane, you are just a little hammer chipping away at the outer protective layer of a very solid object.

    • helentastard August 6, 2017 at 4:33 pm #

      Paul 2. We must find a way to help Shane in his campaign. He is already a victim of the corrupt legal system. The so-called “separation of powers” is a farce. Thank you to Shane for speaking out about this.

  14. DR BARRY TARANTO August 6, 2017 at 1:16 pm #

    These suppression orders are a gross abuse of the legal “System”.
    Keep up the whistleblowing, Shane.
    Your persistence is most admirable.

  15. helentastard August 6, 2017 at 4:29 pm #

    I fully support Shane’s campaign. The entire legal system is flawed. I have a page headed Australian Family Law Reform. Many of my posts to this and similar sites are instantly deleted. This indicates how afraid “they” are of having the corruption exposed.

  16. Shane Dowling August 6, 2017 at 8:35 pm #

    https://kangaroocourtofaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/17004936-prothonotary-of-the-supreme-court-of-nsw-v-dowling-non-intervention-letter-29-june-2017-1.jpg?w=610

    • Shane Dowling August 6, 2017 at 8:41 pm #

      https://kangaroocourtofaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/letter-to-mr-shane-dowling-dowling-s-f-v-prothonotary-of-the-supreme-c-1.jpg?w=610

      • Shane Dowling August 6, 2017 at 8:42 pm #

        From: SHANE DOWLING
        Sent: 06 August 2017 20:35
        To: ‘senator.brandis@aph.gov.au’ ; ‘ConstitutionalLitigation@ags.gov.au’
        Subject: Constitutional Matter

        Dear Attorney-General Senator George Brandis

        I am writing to you as a follow-up to the Notice of a Constitutional Matter that I sent you a few weeks ago (see attachments) and your department responded saying that you would reconsider intervening if the matter went to appeal or the High Court. The reason the Notice of a Constitutional Matter was sent is because of my defence which I said was protected because what I said was political communication as per the High Court judgment in Lange v ABC.

        Justice Helen Wilson handed down her judgment on the 3rd of August and said:

        “As the lack of interest in the argument by the Attorneys-General may suggest, the defendant’s confidence in the availability of a constitutional defence is misplaced.“

        As I said in an article I published today:

        That is a scandalous comment by Justice Wilson given the matter was not at the appeal of High Court stage. It is true that no one intervened but the Federal Attorney-General and NSW Attorney-General wrote to me and said that if the case goes to appeal or the High Court they wanted to be notified as they would reconsider intervening. Also 4 other State Attorney-Generals said if the matter went to the High Court they wanted to be notified as they would also consider intervening then. If any of the Attorney-Generals do intervene will Justice Wilson change her judgement to read that there was a constitutional defence and her judgement to dismiss it was misplaced?

        The major problem is if what Justice Wilson said is allowed to stand it will be used by other judges to wipe people’s claims of constitutional defences unless an Attorney-General intervenes which is scandalous. So the implied rights to free speech and political communication in the constitution are wiped unless you can get a Attorney-General to support you. Can anyone ever take Justice Wilson serious again?

        One of the key defences that journalists and the average person rely regarding defamation claims and other laws when trying to expose government corruption is the defence of “implied freedom of political communication” as the High Court of Australia ruled in Lange v ABC in 1997. Say good-by to using the precedent Lange v ABC unless an Attorney-General is there to support you.

        If the AG’s don’t intervene then it means that there is no constitutional issue. Every lawyer in the country would know that is total rot and question Justice Wilson’s competency as a judge which helps explain why Justice Wilson is sneakily trying to put a suppression order on the judgement. (Click here to read the article)

        This cannot be allowed to stand and go unchallenged. While I will be trying to appeal I have limited resources to and I hereby ask on behalf of all Australians that you intervene and Appeal the judgment as it is in the national interest to do so. Alternatively, please have the matter removed to the High Court of Australia.

        To make matter worse Justice Wilson has also said there is a suppression order on the judgment. Any matter where one party argues it is defendable on the basis of being constitutionally protected “political communication”, whether rightly or wrongly, should never have a suppression order put on it and it is a scandalous.

        I look forward to your expedient response.

        Regards

        Shane Dowling
        Kangaroo Court of Australia

    • Dr John Walsh of Brannagh August 6, 2017 at 8:49 pm #

      Have already sent in a comment/advice

  17. allan moore August 6, 2017 at 8:49 pm #

    I feel i must share this with you all.
    This afternoon we had a typical Aussie BBQ on a great Sunday afternoon, i made a point of alerting some of my mates ( fellow Australians ) of Shane’s site and the disgraceful bastardry directed at him in his endeavour to expose an increasingly sickening group of judicial, political and corporate grubby thugs .
    As an ex serviceman, and i am sure a lot of other ex and serving members would wonder as to why we would serve to protect grubs like these people, we only wish we had met them on a battlefield in all honesty.
    My mates and there wives were stunned at what i was showing them from this site, those friends include, a doctor, a vet, 2 bricklayers,2 electricians, a hospital dietician, a police officer, and 5 ex servicemen and my dog ” costello ” ( yes, my second one named after you know who ) all have promised to alert others to what’s going on here, this bastardry needs to be forced out in the open, the spineless traitors in the mainstream media are never going to help expose this social disease and the vermin who incubate it, and spread it.
    God help future generations, it is incredibly sad the world we are leaving them, a world full of hate, greed, corruption, a world full of incredibly greedy,self serving, spineless politicians and an evil judicial system, in particular here in Australia.

    • helentastard August 7, 2017 at 2:42 pm #

      Allan Moore. Well done for publicizing this! Helen T

  18. Ned. August 7, 2017 at 6:48 pm #

    As a lawyer of almost 47 years standing, it will be unfortunate if Her Honour’s judgement in his case is not reported or available in the normal course, as are ‘all’ other judgements of the Courts.
    Reported judgements, particularly of senior courts, are the foundation of precedents for a lawyer’s ‘armory’ as a basis to properly advise clients and present to their Honours, in the conduct of a submission, to assist the court.
    Assisting the court with known precedents is a primary duty of lawyers to the court.
    It may be unethical for a lawyer not to inform the court of known precedents, even if the precedent is adverse to their litigant’s case.
    Legal submissions must be able to include known precedents, if available/reported to assist the court.
    If there is no reported record of a judgement, a litigant may be adversely inhibited if the litigant’s legal representative is ‘denied’ knowledge of a particular judgement.
    The system does work!!

    • db August 7, 2017 at 9:41 pm #

      The system only works when system abuses can be held to account, suppression of court judgements hinders the exposure of such abuse. If it wasn’t for brave souls standing up to broken systems more abuses would arguably prevail. An effective breach goes a long way to correct injustice and is the right thing to do when such injustices occur.

      What I always find incredible and disturbing is that, with the so-called collective intelligence and moral fortitude of both the courts and the legal fraternity, it always ends up to be a lay person that calls out that the kings are wearing no clothes.

      You all should be ashamed of yourselves.

      • helentastard August 8, 2017 at 12:33 pm #

        db. I have seen no evidence of the qualities you mention in lawyers or judges. Except for one brave lawyer. They are a very privileged group who do not have to apply for their jobs in the normal way. There are no external controls which means their rise is virtually automatic. They are clinging to legal immunity which protects them from consequences of their mistakes. Some of these mistakes might be inadvertent but others are the result of collusion. Helen T

      • db August 8, 2017 at 10:34 pm #

        “I have seen no evidence of the qualities you mention in lawyers or judges” – Neither have I Helen, but what is touted by the legal community of themselves differs from the way you or I see them. Contempt rulings are nothing more than “My way or the highway” bullying to keep the status quo, aka the sanctity of the court system. It is after all a protectionist system that is in desperate need of modernisation. Unfortunately the system is run by old dogs with a resistence to change because they have been doing quite well personally with the system being what it currently is. They will not give that up so easily.

        I say this of course with knowing that there is a public need for an effective legal system and a need for a public respect towards it. Despite the self preservating rhetoric and actions coming from the internals of the current legal system, I do believe it could be much better than it currently stands. Unfortunately law reform is a painfully slow process that is mainly based on the correction of mistakes rather than the anticipation of them.

        To compare, if bridges were built on the correction of mistakes instead of the anticipation of problems there would be many more bridges collapsing, and massive overruns in construction budgets. The legal system is the antithesis of how the rest of the modern world works, and yet the legal system believes that their system can reflect modern public sentiment. But to us it seems to just bungle it’s way along, clinging to catch up.

        It is a delusion of grandeur at the highest level.

    • helentastard August 8, 2017 at 12:15 pm #

      Ned. I cannot understand why the legal profession looks backwards for answers. Surely current laws should be applied to modern cases. If a judge rules unfairly, that judgment can be perpetuated. I know. The reliance on precedents does not encourage intellectual rigour in lawyers and judges. In one Family Court case I know, a very old and irrelevant precedent relating to soap companies was cited. It seemed that the judge had made up his mind and that someone had to cast around for a precedent to fit. The judgement was published online using pseudonyms. If I publish an account of that case, I will be charged with contempt of court. Both the applicant and their lawyer were threatened with that charge for bringing the case to court. It involved child abuse and multiple contact contraventions.

  19. Sam Glenys Kokotis August 8, 2017 at 12:05 am #

    Shane , With your many followers, why not draft a protest letter to all Attorneys-general in each state including the Federal A-G requesting,-( NO, demanding,) that they interfere & resolve this situation. send this draft to all your followers & ask them to sign & email or post same to all the A-Gs. Surely when they receive hundreds, & hopefully thousands of these protest letters, they will have no choice but to “take up the cudgel”.
    People power , Shane. Let’s do this, NOW !

    • allan moore August 8, 2017 at 8:27 am #

      One of you learned people could draft such a petition/protest letter the document should be produced and signed by Shane’s supporters not Shane himself. We must be seen as ticked off citizens demanding intervention to right a disturbing wrong. The outcome of this case will have a profound effect on all Australians in the long run, that being that these grubs will become more powerful and corrupt, the ground swell needs to start now.

  20. allan moore August 8, 2017 at 8:53 am #

    A further thought, such a document should include a preamble which includes the corrupt actions and the threat these actions expose all Australians to.

  21. Ned August 11, 2017 at 8:23 pm #

    Well, what can one say as Shane serves 4 months?
    The lesson is clear, get profesional advice.

    • Joe Zidar August 11, 2017 at 8:47 pm #

      Ned, our courts are being controlled by the elite, most of our politicians have hidden agendas and many of the parasites that run the NSW Government Departments simply protect each others corrupt conduct and get promoted between Departments for such conduct.

      What they are doing to SD is disgusting. Serious criminals are getting no jail time, or less jail time then SD for crimes far worse. We the PEOPLE are loosing all of our rights to the above, and they are finanically rewarded for their criminal activities.

      When you take on the elite and or the government, there is no such thing as JUSTICE…

    • db August 12, 2017 at 8:46 pm #

      No Ned.. ..the lesson is that the system is severly broken and corrupted. You dont need to be a professional fireman to know that fire burns. Shane knew that, he is just fighting it because gutless wonders like me and you are too fightened to stand up to truth. Though we can help him with support.

      • Ned August 14, 2017 at 6:39 pm #

        Suggesting that I am ‘gutless’ is presumptious,.
        Have we ever met?

      • db August 14, 2017 at 8:00 pm #

        Don’t take it out of context Ned, it is not presumptious within the context of this issue against the fact that it is Shane Dowling standing up to this injustice, not you or I. So yes we are gutless compared to what Shane is standing up for.

        If you think I am inferring that you are gutless(cowardly) in *all* matters, I suggest you reread what has been said, with your personal conscience separated from the issue of Shane Dowlings bravery to highlight the imbalance of power within the Australian courts.

        No personal or general offense was meant and if so it was on my part 100% unintentional.

  22. allan moore August 12, 2017 at 9:07 am #

    The PAEDOPHILE PRIEST gets only 3 months for a sickening act of betrayal, an act that truly deserves death by firing squad, Shane gets 4 months for exposing it and a shitload of other judicial bastardry.
    This pack of bastards have pre orchestrated this set up, knowingly setting a precedent to further strengthen their platform for the further growth of the type self serving social engineering they are engaged in.
    God help us all, as we have no chance of helping ourselves against these grubs that are capable of parachuting out of snakes arses

    • Joe Zidar August 12, 2017 at 12:08 pm #

      Well said Allan.

      I have several concerns about the outcome, especially considering that neither Mr Worner or the (2) ladies identified have categorically stated under oath and personally signed such declarations that these relationships did not eventuate.

      Now, unless their is direct evidence, while I appreciate that SD may well be in contempt, the original orders as I understand would not be lawfull resulting in the judiciary committing fraud.

      Based on what I have read, I still remain puzzled as to what SD has actually been jailed for. Now surely, if the contempt charges were illegal in the first instance, which from all the evidence available, SD is a victim of a hidious crime as may has legal options for compensation??

      Further, if my understanding is correct, once he serves his time, the material can remain published on the KCoA??

      Is this correct?

  23. allan moore August 12, 2017 at 5:52 pm #

    The enormity of the blatant judiciary, political, and corporate corruption here is both soul destroying and bloody scary.
    Shane has been sledgehammered by a bunch of hyenas that will not tolerate having their knuckles ( not toes) trod on.
    I only hope that between now and SD release i win the lotto, then he will have the best gorrilla money can buy to represent him in having a go at these dog’s

  24. Joe Zidar August 15, 2017 at 4:08 am #

    Money is not going to help SD.. It’s been over a week and SADLY less then $3000 has been raised. I have learnt that asking people for money may help, but in cases of “fighting corruption”, not many people are interested in supporting, for various reasons.

    Asking people to “sign petitions” is also flawed, and I have signed several on CHANGE.org 👍

    “Trial by JURY” is our right, but the system ignores this right !!!

    The LEGAL system is designed to protect the CORRUPT, not to protect the INNOCENT..that why MEDIATION & SETTLEMENT is always stongly recommended by legal representatives.. Once you enter the courts and you are the “GOOD” party, then you have already lost.

    I am now learning that fighting for “PRINCIPLE” is a complete and utter waste of money. To defeat the SYSTEM, you must avoid it like the PLAGUE..

    At the end of the day, SD lawyer would have advised him to remove content and or to apologise. If SD did that, he would have condeded to live his dream, which is to EXPOSE these grubs, and his supporters would have lost faith in him.

    We can still help, we just need a different approach and a robust plan that is lawful. The LAW can work in mysterious ways..

    PEOPLE need to start thinking of other ways in which we can help SD.. I have several ideas, but no TIME. We need people with SPARE time 👍

    And we need around (25) people…

    • Dr John Walsh of Brannagh August 15, 2017 at 7:11 pm #

      Am slightly puzzled here by the negativity. Previously I offered to appear for Shane but he (as is his right) declined. Then there was a call for funding which was not necessary.
      Where the suggestion came from that content should be removed and Shane apologise I do not know. The defence is a constitutional one and rests on the fundamental challenge to the corporate court. Am happy to discuss this in conference if Shane so wishes. JWB

      • Joe Zidar August 15, 2017 at 10:45 pm #

        Hi Dr Walsh,

        My email was not meant to be negative, however I would like to make one point and that is, SD is the only one in Jail and as I understand will remain so for the next (4) months. I would love to hear what you have to say, however the fact is, while the system has let SD down, obviously he would have better understand the risk associated with his protest, far better than any supporters.

        Secondly, he was willing to go to Jail as a result of not adhering to court orders. I do suspect that he has a plan, however not sure if he will be in a position to get out of Jail before Decemeber.

        My knowledge of the court system is extremely limited and is the very reason I have be one on of SD’s followers, among others.

        I am inclined to write some letters of “disgust and protest”, however not sure if SD has a plan to use this Jailing to his future benefit. Hopefully, he does have a “right to sue” once his has served his time. Hopefully this Jailing doesn’t impact him to financially.

  25. allan moore August 16, 2017 at 10:43 am #

    I’m having deep thought as well Joe, your not alone

  26. Joe Zidar August 19, 2017 at 8:44 pm #

    Saturday nights are not the SAME 😡

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s