Barrister Sue Chrysanthou has gone on a personal jihad and concealed her own personal and financial interests in attacking myself and this website in her written submissions, on behalf of her client Lisa Wilkinson, in the Bruce Lehrmann defamation trial.

Sue Chrysanthou referenced 2 precedents in her submissions at paragraph 453 to try to embarrass and/or discredit me in Lehrmann’s defamation trial against Lisa Wilkinson and Channel 10.

The first precedent Sue Chrysanthou referenced to embarrass and/or discredit me is Christian Porter v ABC (2021) where I intervened to argue against suppression orders and Justice Jagot handed down a judgment having a swipe at me.

It’s an own goal for Sue Chrysanthou as it is the same matter in which Jo Dyer took legal action to have the court restrain Sue Chrysanthou from representing Christian Porter. Porter and Chrysanthou defended Jo Dyer’s legal action, but they lost and then lost their appeal and had to pay about $500,000 for Jo Dyer’s legal costs and then had to pay as their own legal costs so they would likely be out of pocket about $1 million.

I published an article on the 18th of July 2022 on the issue titled “Christian Porter, John Barilaro and Alan Jones’ barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC is found to be corrupt by the Full Court of the Federal Court” which starts off:

Christian Porter, on Thursday (14/7/22), lost his appeal in a unanimous decision against Jo Dyer in relation to having his barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC restrained from representing him at his 2021 defamation case against the ABC and journalist Louise Milligan.

For a barrister to have to be restrained by the court from representing a client because the barrister thinks they are above the law and they are caught lying to the court under oath doesn’t get any more corrupt than that.

Sue Chrysanthou SC has not only represented alleged rapist Christian Porter but also alleged paedophile Alan Jones and fraudster and thief John Barilaro who now has multiple crimes under investigation by the NSW ICAC.

The old media regularly refer to Sue Chrysanthou SC as a star barrister and/or part of a star legal team when in fact she is a dud who has done major damage to her own reputation as well as the reputation of her clients and the legal fraternity as a whole.

Below we’ll have a look at the three clients I just mentioned that Sue Chrysanthou SC has left worse for wear which says a lot given all three had extremely poor reputations before they met Sue Chrysanthou. (Click here to read more)

On the 26th of July 2022 I received an email from Twitter saying they had received a concerns notice (defamation threat) from Kennedys Law regarding a message I posted on Twitter promoting the above article about Sue Chrysanthou. (Click here to see Twitter’s email)

I never heard from Twitter again and others kept sharing the article on Twitter. Kennedys Law never sent me a concerns notice or even contacted me and I never heard anything more about the “concerns notice”.

Kennedys Law is the same law firm that represented Sue Chrysanthou in the Christian Porter matter to fight Jo Dyer’s legal action so it’s obvious that Kennedys Law sent Twitter the concerns notice on Sue Chrysanthou’s instructions before she had second thoughts or maybe they were just abusing the system.

Whatever the case Sue Chrysanthou has a personal interest in attacking me and has not declared that to Justice Michael Lee in Lehrmann’s defamation case.

In the below video Serkan Ozturk and myself discuss the issues raised in this article and more:

The second precedent Sue Chrysanthou referenced to embarrass and/or discredit me is Seven Network (Operations) Ltd v Dowling which is one of Kerry Stokes’ 4 SLAPP lawsuits he ran against me from 2014 until 2022. It is also the precedent that an arrest warrant was issued on the 3rd of September 2021 in the NSW Supreme Court for me to serve 10 months jail for contempt of court.

I’ve been a fugitive living in Queensland since but it’s Kerry Stokes and his Seven West Media and the NSW Supreme Court who have most to lose if I was arrested and they tried to extradite me because they breached the Queensland Human Rights Act when they stitched me up.

Also, since I’ve been in Queensland I recorded the judges, a few of which I have already published, and I would tender the recordings as evidence which would be very embarrassing for them and win me the case. So, its Kerry Stokes’ Seven West Media and the NSW Supreme Court who are hiding from an extradition battle in Queensland courts, not me.

But why would Sue Chrysanthou raise the precedent when it has no relevance to Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation case whatsoever? At Kerry Stokes’ request?

What is important is that Sue Chrysanthou failed to declare her financial interest in the Seven Network v Dowling matter as her husband Kieran Smark SC was the barrister representing Seven in the case and my guess is that Smark was paid $millions for his involvement in Kerry Stokes’ 4 SLAPP lawsuits against me.

How much of those $millions paid for Sue Chrysanthou’s BMW or Mercedes or whatever car she drives? And why didn’t Sue Chrysanthou declare her personal and financial interest in the Seven v Dowling matter given her husband represented Seven and was paid big dollars by Seven?

Did Sue Chrysanthou consult her husband Kieran Smark SC before she referenced the Seven v Dowling precedent in the Lehrmann matter to attack me? I have no doubt she did, and Kieran Smark would have ran it across Kerry Stokes first as Stokes is a control freak and very hands on in legal matters.

I’m only a bit player, if that, in the Lehrmann’s defamation trial and that’s because Lehrmann tendered 3 articles that I wrote about him in February 2021 as evidence.

But the first of my 3 articles was based on an article published on the 17th of February 2021 by Serkan Ozturk of True Crime News Weekly who was the first website to name Lehrmann as the alleged rapist of Brittany Higgins.

And all 3 articles that I published that were tendered as evidence by Lehrmann would not have been written by me if Serkan Ozturk at True Crime News Weekly hadn’t published his article outing Lehrmann as the alleged parliament house rapist.

So, Serkan Ozturk’s credibility might be a very minor issue, at best, for the trial but my credibility is a total non-issue for the case which makes Sue Chrysanthou’s attack on me a blatant personal attack.

Sue Chrysanthou is representing Lisa Wilkinson for Lehrmann’s defamation case against Channel 10 and Wilkinson. And I have written numerous articles critical of both in the past which makes me believe they colluded and decided to use the written submissions to attack me as payback.

In June 2022 I published an article titled “Powerful prima facie case to charge journalist Lisa Wilkinson with contempt of court for interfering in the Bruce Lehrmann – Brittany Higgins trial” which starts off:

Lisa Wilkinson was warned last week by the Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold, in the Bruce Lehrmann – Brittany Higgins matter, that anything she said publicly could be used to stop or delay the trial.

Yet Wilkinson shot off her mouth on national TV at the Logie Awards on Sunday (19/6/22) anyhow which has resulted in the trial being adjourned to a later date to be decided.

But that’s only half the story and when all the evidence is collated as per below, I believe Lisa Wilkinson should face contempt of court charges. (Click here to read more)

Sue Chrysanthou and Lisa Wilkinson expose lies and deception as part of their roles as a barrister and journalist, but they don’t take kindly to me doing the same to them and I suspect that is the motivation to waste the courts time in submissions that have no material value to help Justice Michael Lee decide the facts in Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation matter.

Based on Lisa Wilkinson’s recent past of blaming everyone else for her mistakes she would blame Sue Chrysanthou for the attack on me in the submissions but Sue Chrysanthou needs to explain why she concealed her personal and financial interest in the 2 cases she referenced to attack me.

You would think that Sue Chrysanthou would be too ashamed to ever mention the Christian Porter v ABC matter again, but she obviously has no shame.

We’ll wait and see what, if anything, Justice Michael Lee says about Sue Chrysanthou’s attack on me in his judgment. Justice Lee should criticize Sue Chrysanthou in his judgment for wasting his time for referencing precedents that have no relevance to anything in the Lehrmann defamation case.

Please use Twitter, Facebook, email and the other buttons below and help promote this article.

Kangaroo Court of Australia is an independent website and is reliant on donations to keep publishing so please click on the Patreon button below and support independent journalism.

If you would like to support via PayPal use the button below or for other donation options click here to go to the Donations page.

Thank you for your support.

For the KCA t-shirt shop click here.

Follow Kangaroo Court of Australia via email. Enter your email address below and click on the follow button.

Leave this field empty if you’re human: