My three matters in the High Court of Australia are listed for judgment in Canberra on Thursday (10/10/19) as per the below letter and it’s time to update various issues regarding this website. The issue that I will address in this article are: 1. The court’s failure to silence me 2. Why I have never had to pay costs or damages even though they have been awarded against me 3. The High Court matters 4. The Walkley Awards for journalism 5. Recent changes to this website.
The court’s failure to silence me
One thing that regular readers know is that Chief Justice Tom Bathurst and the NSW Supreme Court have thrown everything they can at me over the last few years, including jailing me twice, and they haven’t been able to silence me. This is an important lesson for everyone as the courts will try and silence more and more people moving forward and what we are doing here on this website is helping draw the boundaries for what is and isn’t legally regarded as free speech and political communication when it comes to government and judicial corruption.
By the supporters of this website and myself standing our ground, we’ve sent a clear message to the courts that you can’t silence us or the nation. It’s a message they eventually understood to some degree and that’s why my sentence last year of 18 months with a non-parole period of 13 months was reduced to 4 months fixed on appeal. Although the High Court of Australia did cover it up at the end by refusing Special Leave to Appeal.
Why I have never had to pay costs or damages even though they have been awarded against me
In April 2014 Kerry Stokes and his lawyer Justine Munsie from Addisons Lawyers instituted defamation proceedings against me in what was named the Munsie v Dowling matter. Ryan Stokes joined the matter in 2015.
In 2018 judgment was handed down against me and they were awarded costs. They never went for damages as they refused to sign affidavits or hop in the witness stand at the final hearing. They have never tried to enforce costs and final orders were only issued this year. Justice Rothman asked me why he should hear my arguments on final orders when I had not complied with the costs order he had issued in May 2018 and I said the applicants had never sent me a bill which shut Rothman up.
I wrote an article about the judgment in May 2018 titled “Billionaire Kerry Stokes made to look like a fool in his defamation “win” against journalist Shane Dowling” which started off:
Kerry Stokes and his son Ryan won their defamation case against Shane Dowling (me) on Monday, but it was one of those legal cases where the so-called “win” was actually a massive loss. Justice Stephen Rothman has made them look like Australia’s biggest fools because key allegations they wanted hidden from the public are now enshrined in the public domain forever via the legal judgment. (Click here to read more)
At no stage have Stokes and Munsie tried to enforce costs and the reason is they can’t because they are so dodgy and corrupt that if they tried to enforce costs my next step would be to ask for an itemised bill, which in this case would show corruption, and then make a complaint to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner.
The problem they have is not only did Kerry and Ryan Stokes pay Justine Munsie to represent them, but she was also paid to be an applicant in the matter. How do I know? Justine Munsie wrote the affidavit supporting the original application in 2014 (Click here to read the affidavit) and at paragraphs 1 to 3 said the below:
Justine Munsie could only have written an affidavit for Kerry Stokes as per what she says above if she was being paid to represent Stokes. But if Munsie was being paid to represent Stokes she could not also legally be an applicant in the matter which she was because there would be a clear conflict of interest. It would also mean she was being paid by Stokes to be a witness in the case and attempting to pervert the course of justice.
What I suspect happened was that Stokes was going to sue me but at the last minute he said he didn’t want his name on the case so Munsie said she would sue me as well but she was too stupid to realise the consequences of her blatant corrupt conduct.
If someone has costs awarded in their favour but they try to fraudulently and corruptly claim more than they are entitled, you can make a complaint to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner who has an obligation to investigate. That is why I also said above that I would ask for an itemised bill from Stokes and Munsie as it would show Munsie was being paid to represent the Stokes or otherwise they would need to provide a fraudulent bill. Either way, they would be in huge trouble, so they have had to walk away from the costs awarded in their favour.
Stokes and Munsie will say it is because I have no money but plenty of applicants go that next step and have the person declared bankrupt to teach them a lesson. Ans Stokes is the type of nutter who would do it if he could. Even Justice Rothman found it odd that they hadn’t enforced the costs he awarded them.
This brings us to the latest SLAPP lawsuit judgment against me in the Jane Doe v Dowling matter which was four Channel Seven female employees suing me for defamation and who were awarded a total of $600,000 plus indemnity costs on the 20th of September 2019. The matter centered around the Tim Worner / Amber Harrison sex, drug and fraud scandal. The problem they have is it was Kerry Stokes’ Seven West Media who paid the legal fees and they did that to protect Tim Worner who was CEO until a few weeks ago when he was sacked.
Once again in the Jane Doe matter, Kerry Stokes and Seven’s lawyers have proven themselves to be that corrupt and dodgy they have dug a huge hole for themselves and can’t afford to enforce the costs or damages for many reasons.
Two examples are if Seven were to enforce costs in the Jane Doe matter the first question that would be asked is why did they never enforce costs in the Munsie v Dowling matter. Secondly, 2 of the women no longer worked for Seven when they were suing me so why did the Seven pay their legal fees? I have no doubt it was to protect Tim Worner’s reputation by concealing the truth. I am sure the shareholders would like to know why Stokes poured so much of their money down the drain and any bill Seven sent me would be published online so the shareholders could see and ask questions themselves at the next annual meeting which would embarrass Stokes and the directors.
The court loading me up with debt hasn’t stopped me, but it has highlighted how corrupt the courts are when the applicants can’t even enforce the costs or damages awarded to them because they are that corrupt and the courts have helped facilitate the corruption.
The High Court matters
All three matters, as per the below letter, lead back to Kerry Stokes as Seven West Media who are paying for the Seven West Media and Jane Doe matters and Stokes was the major shareholder in Capilano Honey when they instituted proceedings against me and they have used Stokes’ lawyers. Stokes is still a shareholder in Capilano as he retained his shareholding when they were privatised in December 2018. (Click here for more details about the three matters)
What the High Court of Australia matters do is allow me to gain direct evidence of what is and isn’t happening in the High Court as far as corruption is concerned. I have already had 2 matters dealt with by the High Court and have written 2 articles alleging corruption in the High Court based on that experience. (Click here and here to read the articles)
There are still plenty of corrupt judges who think they can silence Australians with their suppression orders, non-publication orders and corruptly loading people like me with debt etc but they are fighting a losing battle.
At the end of the day, the public controls the highest court in Australia and that is the Court of Public Opinion. And we can control that by spreading the truth via social media so if the courts continue to fail us we can expose that and help drive change.
The Walkley Awards for journalism
I entered an article in The Walkley Awards which is for journalism. They say on their website:
Nominations closed on the 31st of August 2019 and the finalists will be announced on Thursday the 17th of October. The main reason I nominated was simply to see if I could nominate. From what I can tell the awards have always been solely for journalists who work for old media companies and they have only recently allowed independent journalists and bloggers to nominate. We’ll see how we go and maybe have another go next year.
Recent changes to this website
I changed the template for this website in about February / March as I thought it was time for a change and to give the site a bit more of a media feel. I haven’t had any feedback so I assume most people think it is ok. (Click here to see how the website used to look with the old template)
I also started running ads a few weeks ago. I avoided it for a long time because I thought the ads undermine the site and they don’t raise much revenue. I was right on both fronts. I started out with a lot of ads and have cut back to just two, one on each side of the page. The ads make very little but I’ll keep the two ads going as they might lead to something better later down the track.
Please use the Twitter, Facebook, email and other 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 or left of this page and about twice a week you will be notified when there is a new article.
Thank you for your support.