Legal
HYPOCRISY: Fairfax Media lawyers try to imprison critic for committing crime of journalism
Employment lawyers representing Fairfax Media are believed to be pushing for the imprisonment or other punishment of a Sydney man for contempt of court for filming and asking them questions after they had left the Federal Court. This has raised eyebrows in media circles, because he was doing no more than Fairfax Media’s own journalists do every day outside courts and other workplaces.
Shane Dowling who worked for Fairfax Media before – he says – being unlawfully sacked by the company has represented himself against the company’s high-priced lawyers from Freehills – a highly regarded firm known for aggressively representing the interests of employers – and has made some big claims against the company, the lawyers and even judicial officials involved in the case. Most of them are far too racy, even for us.
An affidavit obtained by VEXNEWS sworn by a Freehills lawyer Shiv Jhinku explains what happened outside the court. Even accepting his story entirely, it has hard to tell how Mr Dowling’s actions differ in any respect from the actions of journalists working at Fairfax Media.
JOURNOS JUST AS RUDE AS FORMER FAIRFAXISTA DOWLING
Dowling’s questions sound very direct, even rude and most probably fantastic. But his conduct – in the video now freely available online – seemed perfectly appropriate for the occasion. He maintained a reasonable distance from those he was questioning and only asked them a few questions in any event over thirty seconds or so. He did so in order to add it to his website. Folks refusing to answer questions is not necessarily the most edifying thing but many other outlets – particularly at Fairfax – would say that in certain circumstances a failure to respond to questions implies something ominous.
We looked carefully at the video, Mr Dowling’s often outrageous claims and the affidavit and can’t see how his behaviour differs substantially from any of Dowling’s former colleagues at Fairfax Media. Anyone seeing feral Fairfaxista Farrah Tomazin at a doorstep would have encountered far more odious conduct than is outlined in Mr Jhinku’s affidavit.
Indeed, behaving badly is not restricted to Fairfax Media scribes either. A former scribbler at The Australian who couldn’t hack the fast pace of its Higher Education Supplement, Louise Perry ended up spinning Socialist Left minister Peter Batchelor. Critics said she had all the charm of a rampaging boar.
Not quite cutting it as a journalist, it was fortunate her dear old mum was an influential battle-axe at the powerful Metal Workers union back in Perth, able to pull a few strings, as Mums should and pulled her a cushy job in the Victorian government media unit. When leaving the employ of a Socialist Left minister, she didn’t last very long in the media unit and has only recently emerged heading the astoundingly large media outfit of supposed charity Oxfam where sources claim she is paid in excess of $100,000 leaching off the world’s poorest people.
That little rant might seem something of a digression but it’s not. Perry is a real pig. If it didn’t make her look like more of one, she’d no doubt love to shut us down too. But she can’t. We rarely turn our mind to her shameful exploits. When we do, we defame her, to be sure, but our remarks are always true and speak to issues of public concern exploring themes of faux sanctimony, hypocrisy, nepotism, strong body odour and such. So she’s free to hate, but isn’t able to shut us down. As it should be.
That’s because a free society needs a free press, speaking truth to powerful people like her. We like to think we do so responsibly, with a pre-occupation for getting facts right.
Increasingly we see the courts abused by those desperate to silence critics.
Is it always a nice process giving targets free character assessments? No. Fair? That depends on your point of view. Sometimes telling the unvarnished, harsh truth can seem very unfair indeed to those on the receiving end.
And that’s where we return to Freehills lawyer Mr Shiv “Glassjaw” Jhinku who has sworn on oath that because Dowling filmed him and asked him questions while he was walking down the street and then published the video that:
“I have concerns about my physical safety… (and has) concerns about what other actions the Applicant may do next in an attempt to harass, intimidate and embarrass (Freehills lawyers)”
Come on. That’s crazy. Perhaps nearly as unwise as litigants accusing judicial officers of taking bungs, which Mr Dowling appears to do with distressing regularity.
GLASSJAW JHINKU’S JIHAD
Jhinku’s autobiography on LinkedIn says he has worked at the Freehills mega firm for nearly a decade, before that he was a student leader of sorts, as the President of Griffith University Law Society. And yet despite that he claims he was intimidated and embarrassed by a camera?
He has sworn it on oath, but it beggars belief. Freehills are regarded – at least in the union movement – as the biggest, baddest boss’s law firm in the land. We cannot help but feel “Glass jaw” Jhinku might be letting the tough team of worker wranglers down a tad.
Other than suing Fairfax Media and litigating the matter in a manner that could be best described as exotic, it is clear that Dowling did nothing of a threatening, harassing or intimidating kind to anyone. He has merely done what Fairfax and other journalists do by asking pesky questions and reporting on the answers (or non-answers) and separately exercised his rights as a litigant in the courts.
Not done with pursuing Dowling in court with dubious claims about threats to his physical safety and complaints he felt embarrassed – presumably at the expense of Fairfax Media shareholders – his affidavit reveals that Jhinku launched a personal anti-free-speech jihad against various video hosts where Dowling had uploaded his video. A number of them, notably Youtube, removed the video as a result of Jhinku’s complaint
Normally we’d be happy to broadcast it ourselves but we won’t because it doesn’t add much. We’re sure you’ll be able to find it if you look but if it was up to Fairfax Media and the lawyers they pay very well indeed with shareholders’ money, they’d censor it in a way their journalists would condemn if it was a foreign regime or a local government suppressing a dissenter and critic.
We will certainly be keeping a close eye on Freehills behaviour in relation to this important free speech issue.
ANOTHER TYRANT ANOTHER TIME
They would do well to remember the highly amusing case of now discredited Liquidator Dean McVeigh who sought a Supreme Court judge’s order that the publisher of a website questioning his honesty and probity be jailed for contempt of court.
The Sunday Age reported:
The judge said that attempts by Mr McVeigh to silence a critic were “ill-judged” and akin “to using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut”.
Particularly relevant in this matter was that the judge also thought the publisher had gone in very hard like Dowling:
Justice Hollingworth said his publications were “frequently intemperate, repetitive and immature. He is doggedly persistent and seems to have plenty of time on his hands to publish criticisms of the liquidator. “He displays some of the zealousness of a crusader, which no doubt makes him difficult for the liquidator’s lawyers to deal with.”
The judge further condemned McVeigh for wasting the court’s time with such applications and having evaluated the claims that McVeigh was spending a lot of creditors’ money on activities unlikely to generate a commercial return for creditors, found that there was a substantial degree of truth to the claims. Still to this day, McVeigh has not accounted for the many millions of dollars he spent in the Melbourne University Student Union liquidation that helped fund his fleet of luxury cars.
Being intemperate, repetitive, immature, zealous and dogged didn’t negate McVeigh’s many critics’ right to free speech. Nor should it in the Dowling case.
Discussion
42 comments for “HYPOCRISY: Fairfax Media lawyers try to imprison critic for committing crime of journalism”
Post a comment
Despicable effort. Such hypocrites.
If you work for the Age, you can shove a camera in someone’s face all day long.
If you do the same back you are a criminal and should be jailed.
Where do these people get off?
Link to video?
I remember Ms Perry wrote a story in The Oz a few years ago about a fellow that fled the country to avoid a court date. What was the name of that fellow?
It was her abusive ex-partner, the Samoan. He still hasn’t paid her for the missing dildo and power tools.
I found that vid I did.
Fark me she’s an ugger.
OINK
That can’t be a real photo of a human being, it must be photoshopped.
Bring back my dildo Aveolela Silei
one should not assume all partners at freehills are liberals. I personally know of a few who are labor and would happily assist on the revolution
Yes, many a pinko lurks in the law library. You know it’s true.
Damn .. I can’t remember that name. He had a history of cocking things up big time, and was careless with other people’s money and company accounts. Ending up chairing Fairfax.
http://www.crimesofthelaw.com
Why use Freehills when you could use Herman ‘Workchoices’ Borenstein?
Oh for heaven’s sake. Dowling is representing himself in these matters and has a history for pursuing employers using this “exotic” litigation style.
What he’s done is hardly journalism – it’s more just a desperate attempt to smear and shame with these obstreperous and loaded questions while his absurd legal claims clog the federal court chewing taxpayer funds.
What he’s done is akin to Fairfax sending its journalists to run dirt campaigns on opposing council in a case against the company. I wonder what the attitude would be to such activity here?
Clearly Dowling’s bullshit should be ignored much less his so called journalism.
Henrich Himmler would have used Freehills for his Industrial Relations matters if he could have.
In response to the post by NinjaWins.
At least I am prepared to put my name on anything I say, not hide behind some alias. It seems like for sure you are a Freehills solicitor just on here lying and badmouthing me. Which is not surprising given that I sent a link to this story to about 100 Freehills solicitors.
You say my “absurd legal claims”. Well I would not have won the appeal to have my matters heard if they were absurd. Fairfax Media had the opportunity to appeal to the High Court if they wished which they have a history of doing, but they did not. The reason being is that the High Court would have belted them into the next century for running some of the most disgusting arguments any court has ever heard.
Mr Jhinku’s affidavit and the action of Freehills, Fairfax Media and Justice Moore are not fantasy.
They happened.
And just for the record I was not interviewed for this story.
Regards
Shane Dowling
Anon March 12 21:01, I am sympathetic to your comment, this is the sort of behaviour one would expect from Freehills.
However, Freehills are so intoxicated by their ideology that they are actually quite bumbling and ineffective.
The real disgrace is the so called Union Lawyer, Herman Borenstein, whom has wielded ‘Workchoices’ in it’s dying days against Trade Unionists.
Check out a matter before SDP Acton on Weds March 11, have a look at the transcript.
You will see that this grey, shabbily dressed old harlot of a so called union lawyer, has used Union members’ money to deploy the less than 100 employees jurisdictional argument against in an appeal against disgracefully sacked Trade Unionists. Then sprinted off after a passing ambulance.
Therefore, I think Heinrich Himmler would have used Herman Borenstein for his Industrial Relations matters.
Mr. Dowling, I think you need to look into the conduct of Herman Borenstein.
I take umbrage to this attack, I saved the MUA, that is the myth I have thrived on for a decade.
The rumors that I, a bumbling MUA leadership, and that overrated twit of a talking head Greg Combet, actually fucked it up and conceded 700 members’ jobs to a Corrigan bluff are unkind.
It doesn’t matter I made a lot of money, and created myself a heroic reputation among some of the more simplistic elements of the Trade Union movement, which enabled me to make even more money.
I reserve the right to deploy any legislation, however immoral, regardless of the views of decent citizens, to make a dollar at the expense of others.
I take umbrage to this attack, I saved the MUA, that is the myth I have thrived on for a decade.
The rumors that I, a bumbling MUA leadership, and that overrated twit of a talking head Combet, actually stuffed it up and conceded 700 members’ jobs to a Corrigan bluff are unkind.
It doesn’t matter I made a lot of money, and created myself a heroic reputation among some of the more simplistic elements of the Trade Union movement, which enabled me to make even more money.
I reserve the right to deploy any legislation, however immoral, regardless of the views of decent citizens, to make a dollar at the expense of others.
Mr Dowling should perhaps seek professional help on two fronts.
Firstly, from a lawyer who could run his case appropriately without acusing everyone who disagrees with him of being corrupt.
And secondly, from a mental health professional to address what appears to be an acute case of paronoid personality disorder. All the conspiracy nonsense on his website is rather pathetic and does his case no favours.
@Shane
I am not a Freehills solicitor.
That’s your problem Shane. You shoot directly from the hip with baseless allegations.
You can’t accept anything that doesn’t remain consistent with your fantastical conspiracy theories which hang together on the thinnest of circumstantial threads.
What you did was nothing more than a cheap tactic to use YouTube to try generate a bit of media coverage to discredit Fairfax lawyers.
You knew damn well they weren’t going to respond to you on camera and that that would give you the lever to draw attention to the apparent paradox of representing a media company and appearing anti-media.
It is common not to discuss court matters in the press mid-case.
If Fairfax sent its journalists to do the same to you, you would no doubt be filing contempt of court motions and screaming blue murder about this corruption.
Well guess what Shane you behaved corruptly and they called it in court – huge surprise.
The real shame is that any legitimate claims you may have against Fairfax are being buried.
Seek help.
Thats what you get for hiring [deleted] and [deleted] lovers hahahaha
Well there are two more negative comments about me personally.
The story above is about free speech and the Hypocrisy of Fairfax using there lawyers to try and shut it down. And that it what is important, not what people think of me personally.
I would just like to make a couple of points.
1. If I did not have any evidence of the corruption going on my website would have been shut down a long time ago. Notice how they have tried to shut the video down but have never approached me to try and have my website down.
2. If Fairfax/Freehills believed they had legitimate claims to have me put in jail or warned with jail by Justice Moore they would have sent me Mr Jhinku’s affidavit days before the hearing and let me know that they were pushing for contempt or a warning for contempt and let me prepare a defence.
What they did was wait for the hearing to start and then give me a copy of his affidavit. Why? Because they knew it was bullshit which is well covered by the story above.
It is amazing they managed to give Justice Moore a copy the day before and Justice Moore should never allowed that to happen. Thye should have been charded or warned with contempt.
NinjaWins!
It your first comment you drop the boot right into me and basically say I have no claims. And then at the end of the second comment you say that any legitimate claims I might have are being buried. You are contradicting yourself.
The problem is that my claims are being buried by the corruption.
You say in your second comment that I acted corruptly and they called it in court. Well it has backfired on them because of the great work of vexnews.com to bring the truth out.
You the go on to say “You shoot directly from the hip with baseless allegations” and then “fantastical conspiracy theories which hang together on the thinnest of circumstantial threads.”
Well how much do you know about me and my case. Very little I suspect and you are doing what you claim I do.
Makes you wonder doesn’t it.
Regards
Shane Dowling
SD – I suspect that if anyone asked you to take down your website, you would say no. So why would they waste their time engaging with you more than they have to – you would probably say that they are harassing and committing a contempt of court and run off to court yourself.
Having looked at your website, I’m not sure exactly what ‘evidence’ you have of corruption or some grand conspiracy against you. It appears that you assume that because somebody doesn’t respond to your somewhat outrageous allegations, that they must be true. Not sure if that would/will stand up in court but good luck with that – I’m sure your many years of legal experience will stand you in good stead.
And why did you send this material to 100 Freehills’ solicitors? I know that YOU think you are important, but do you really think that they have that many of them in their cubicles beavering away on your case? Perhaps it is simply an attempt to gain some cheap media exposure, or is it perhaps to try and embarass ‘Glassjaw’ and his colleagues?
It appears from your website that you are happy to play the man and not the ball when it suits you, but when someone else has the temerity to make any comment about you – eg NinjaWins! and ‘R’, you get all huffy. Something about people in glasshouses perhaps?
As for GhostofSirJoh’s comments, I’m sure that there are laws about racial vilification that apply – that protect even lawyers – right to free speech or not – including against those who publish such comments – isn’t that right Andrew?
Not sure about whether publishing the “N-word” triggers liability under racial vilification laws, but I still don’t want it here. Thanks for alerting us to it.
Anyone else seeing offensive terms like that should not hesitate to email editor (at) vexnews.com or call/txt us on 0415 99 33 26 anytime so we can get rid of it.
Also we’d appreciate it if folks minimised swearing when commenting because it triggers the offensive material alerts of some large computer networks.
Have a good weekend.
@Shane
You’re worried about personal attacks?
Are serious? It’s my understanding that you’ve told court officers they’re going to jail in the middle of cases.
You’ve also asked court administrator for their personal details in order to include them in your spasmodic frenzy of harassment on everyone who happens to be in the process of dealing with your matter when they have no obligation to do so.
Free speech is one civil rights issue of concern to the operation of a society. Libelous activity, defamation and interference in justice are also well in those range of concerns.
That’s why we have contempt laws. and defamation laws. And I wouldn’t be surprised if those lawyers took their time sue you for defamation if not for the fact that they know (well… suspect given you represent yourself in court) that you don’t have the means
to pay them.
And not only that Shane – you’re not a member media. You are the opposing litigant in that case which they well knew.
As I keep saying – if they did the same to you by sending journalists after you to stick a camera in your face and get it alongside a bunch of inflammatory allegations you would be aghast. You’re the hypocrite here given the range of behaviour you complain about on your web site.
Answer me question honestly Shane.
Have you been shopping the details of your case around to the media in the midst of it?
Have you Shane?
I’m sure that Freehills solicitors would love to know about that, if so.
And what really annoys me about this is that there are so many more weighty issues to deal with in the world and here is you using these dodgy tactics to use the media draw a bit of attention to your case…which, though important to you of course, is not an earth shattering matter of import to the rest of the world.
Are you that self-important?
Did you shop your case around to the media?
In response to Antidisestablishmentarism
I will try and address some of the issues you raise. At least your comments are fairly balanced in the context you seem to be looking at the situation from both sides at least to some extent.
But once again like some of the other comments you are getting away from what the above story is about and focusing on me.
The above story focuses on the issue of a person’s right and the hypocrisy of Fairfax Media and the abuse of the system of Freehills. It does not focus one me, but the rights of everyone. If I had a glass jaw I would have criticised the story as it not exactly complimentary of my website and my allegations. But I can fully appreciate that a lot of people going to my website would have the same viewpoint as the writer of the story.
Freehills have written many threatening letters to me alluding to defamation and contempt of court in relation to other issues and even taken the action they have in relation to my video. So the question is why haven’t they done so in relation to my website? They are a large law firm and one would surmise they could take legal action of some sort or another and Fairfax takes plenty of legal action against others. I am sure there is some legal action they could take, maybe get a court order to take at least some of the things down. The reason they don’t is because too much of it will be proven true and correct.
The reason I sent the link to the story to about 100 Freehills solicitors is quite simple. It is because the bullshit needs to stop. The Directors of Freehills are well aware of the situation as I have written to them many times and they have taken no action. The other solicitors have a right to know what is happening under the leadership of their current directors and I put that in the email to them. The Directors do not own the Firm, all the Partners have a share in some form or another.
Getting back to the last post by NinjaWins!
I did not know that Mr Jhinku and Ms Wong would not answer my questions. If I was in there situation I would have refuted the allegations being put to me.
You say “common not to discuss court matters in the press mid-case”. Well I was not trying to discuss the case, I was trying to discuss my allegations of their criminal conduct and breach of the Solicitors Rules which is their ethics code they are meant to abide by.
You the say ”If Fairfax sent its journalists to do the same to you, you would no doubt be filing contempt of court motions and screaming blue murder about this corruption”. Well give them my details as I am more than happy to speak to anyone in the media even if they do not write a complimentary article on me as the one above certainly isn’t. At least some of the issues of Public importance will be brought out in the public which need to be debated and dealt with like the one in the story. And also how after almost two years an Unlawful Termination proceeding still has not been heard by the court. If that is going to be tolerated, well then there really are no Unlawful Termination laws.
Two last points
My website is a work in progress and it will take me a while to put everything on there in a coherent manner so even a layman can see the corruption. A lawyer going on there can see it quite easy. I am not the only one to accuse Judges of corruption. There have been many media stories on that, some even as direct as me and about the same Judicial officers I am talking about. I will put links to at least some of them over the next few days.
People are getting away of the story above and that is what the comments should focus on as it is a lot more important then me and is an issue of public importance.
If the police came and arrested you and did not tell you why and took you to court and the Judge said these are the allegations against you, now defend yourself, would you consider that to be right. That is the sort of thing that happens under Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
Well that is not far of my situation. I went to court that day for a hearing into a Notice of Motion I had filed seeking certain orders and then find myself being handed Shivcahnd Jhinku’s affidavit after the proceedings had commenced and being told to defend my self.
You can see in the story above how Justice Hollingworth dealt with a simular situation. Freehills tried in on when the proceedings were before Federal Magistrate Cameron and even he would not come at it. He basically ignored them.
It is worth noting that when push came to shove Justice Moore backed off. I said to him in court that he was trying to blackmail me to stop speaking the truth and for him to charge me with contempt. Justice Moore started backpedalling like no tomorrow. If speaking the truth is a jailable offence I am more than prepared to do a bit of jail time.
Shane Dowling
@Shane
I notice you’ve carefully side-stepped the issues around your conduct toward officers of the court and the one important question I put to you:
Have you been shopping the details of your case around to the media?
And as for your comments about Jinkhu and Wong and the responses you anticipated… I believe they said that they would respond to your allegations in writing.
I loved your Mugabe analogy. Quite helpful…it’s exactly what you did to Freehills’ solicitors but you tried to push them into a court of public opinion presided over by the honorable Shane Dowling. Rules of evidence – none. Evidence – none. Suppositions, speculation and wild allegations will suffice – that’ll do.
AND clearly Shane, the substance of your allegations were germane to the proceedings. And that’s where they should be dealt with. It’s a little rich to have a litigant deciding to done the press hat and expect to be treated as a fair and impartial conduit to the public don’t you think?
And some of your calls are just absurd.
You jumped these guys with a camera between hearing dates and you are surprised that you weren’t given notice that they intended to file the affidavit? Given your rather guerrilla-styled litigation technique prompted their response don’t you think you have to bear some responsibility for how the matter went?
Contempt rules are there to prevent this sort of interference in judicial process.
The only interesting public issue I see here is that of how our courts are going to deal with the power of YouTube and the like to allow individuals to place pressure on judicial officers with stunts like this.
I’m not a lawyer. I’d be interested to hear from any one out there who is that might know whether the court rules currently have the capacity to deal with this.
Yes, yes, Dowling may be all sorts of wicked and a blight on the legal system or whatever but…
* On what basis do the lawyers say they fear for the physical safety, has he made any threats or hurt them in any way ?
* Fairfax Media lawyers acting so ruthlessly against an expression of opinion is certainly eyebrow raising and at the very least embarrassing for the client
* What harm would have been done by sending Dowling a copy of their stupid affidavit that makes them a laughing stock around town ? He might have thundered on about it on his outrageous website a bit more. Does anyone care? No, all sensible people care about is that the world be made safe even for the most eccentric of f*cked over people.
* Freehills lawyers work in a big firm, with a even bigger clients to pick up the tab. With that power, comes great responsibility. They should not be so pissweak as to fabricate claims they are worried about their safety to use it against people they’re suing. If they don’t comprehend that or have allowed their understandable impatience in dealing with a frustrating self-represented litigant to get the better of them then they have failed their client. At the rates Freehills charge, a sophomoric error of this kind is unpardonable.
* Dowling is probably not going to win, self-represented people have a fool for a client and that’s probably true here. But he has a right to his day in court and every right to legitimately comment on the trial unless there’s a suppression order in place. All they’ve done through these antics is confirm to the bane of their life that he’s got under their skin. It will probably just encourage him further.
Hi
I am going to avoid making anymore comments unless it is really necessary which I doubt it will be. The reason is I am clearly biased to my own actions and situation and it is better left to other people to comment on and debate.
But I would like to respond to NinjaWins! Last two posts. Or should I say Gail Hambly, Group General Council for Fairfax Media. This should make Vexnews extremely proud and honoured that you feel that their story is so good that you have to come on here to try and hose it down.
Whether or not it is you Ms Hambly I do not know. But one thing for certain is that you are from Fairfax/Freehills or maybe their hired mouth piece to deal with any potential fallout form the vexnews.com story.
This also gives everyone the opportunity to see when I make allegations whether they are absurd or whether I can back them up in any credible manner.
And the evidence we use for this:
1. NinjaWins! refers to things in my case that only a person with extreme intimate knowledge of my case would know. They either had to be in court at the time or in some of the things she raises know people who were in court.
2. At the bottom of her post at 17.35 today she (or maybe he) says “I’m not a lawyer.” Well the evidence will show there is an extremely high probability that NinjaWins! is a lawyer.
3. She seems to have a fixation about whether or not I have gone to other Media. (see her comments at 10.07 and 17.35) Well the only people in the world who would give a shit are Fairfax and Freehills.
I will deal with point two first.
The claim that she is not a lawyer is very odd in that the terminology she uses is consistent with a lawyer and a lot of it the average person would not know the meaning of. e.g in her post at 17.35 she says in the first line “conduct toward officers of the court”. The average person would not know that lawyers are officers of the court.
Then at about line 6 she says “presided over by the honorable Shane Dowling”. This is standard legal talk saying that I am the Judge hearing the case.
She then says “Rules of evidence – none. Evidence – none.” Once again this is legal talk. And you can probably include the next part as well as standard legal talk “Suppositions, speculation and wild allegations”.
And then we get a couple of lines down “the substance of your allegations were germane to the proceedings.” Well if that isn’t a lawyer talking I am a Monkey’s Uncle which possibly some of the readers think I am.
And then we go down a few more lines and we get “Contempt rules are there to prevent this sort of interference in judicial process.”
And then in the last line she refers to “court rules.” The only people who would use the term court rules are lawyer or people in the legal profession.
Well readers ask your Mum and Dad or Brother and Sister what the terminology I have indentified above means and 99.9% of them will not have a clue, but a lawyer would.
It is true I am not a lawyer and I know what she is talking about, but that is because my case has been bouncing around in the courts for almost 2 years.
Then we get onto the intimate knowledge. She raises many things about what is said in court or what I have done in court.
The most mind blowing is “You’ve also asked court administrator for their personal details in order to include them in your spasmodic frenzy of harassment” which is line 3 of her post at 10.07 today.
This is true but clearly done to defame me as she takes it out of context.
When we were in court on the 30th October 2007 Fairfax’s Barrister was arguing a point that was in contradiction to what is on the Federal Magistrates web site. In a joking manner I said to Federal Magistrate Cameron that if what their barrister says is true then the Federal Magistrates Court is guilty of false adverting and that I would sue the court and all of the Magistrates. I then said that if federal Magistrate Cameron would be kind enough to supply me with his address for service by the end of the hearing it would be greatly appreciated. It was a joke and FM Cameron smiled. I was making a point of how stupid the barrister’s arguments were. That is the only time I have asked anyone from the court for their personnel details and given that it was done as a joke I was clearly not expecting him to give them to me.
For NinjaWins! to even know this she had to be in court or know someone who was. And then for her to take it out of context in a defamatory manner it is pretty clear who she is working for.
By the way I did not ignore your 10.07 post as for whatever reason it was not there when I wrote my 14.11 post. Maybe the administrator had to take out all the filthy language in your post.
In a court of law in a circumstantial case any inference that can be reasonably drawn from the primary facts the court has to take it at its highest unless proven otherwise. That is a well known precedent which basically means if you can reasonably come to that conclusion from the evidence the court has to take it as being true and correct until proven otherwise.
So look at the evidence above and You be the Judge!!
Truth seeker Truth speaker’s post at 17:54 is very well balanced and I thank you for it.
SD – One of the things you often do is say that a failure to deny one of your ‘allegations’ means that it must be true. Adopting that approach, there are a number of allegations that have been made by various posters in respect of your conduct which you have failed to deny. By way of one example only, NinjaWins! questions regarding you approaching the media. Does that mean that these allegations must be true because you have failed to refute them? After all, those that live by the sword ….
Another major problem you seem to have is that you seem to assume there can only be one conclusion that can be drawn from a set of facts. It appears that you believe that NinjaWins! is Fairfax’s legal counsel – you say that you can’t be sure, but then you continually refer to them in the remainder of your post as ’she’. If you read the post carefully, all it says is that they are not a Freehills solicitor. That does not mean that they could not be a person who has legal training working somewhere else, or perhaps someone who as read a lot of John Grisham novels. One of the beauties of the Internet is that we can all be whoever we want to be, and it is difficult to know who is sitting at the other end of the keyboard.
Truth Seeker takes aim at the lawyers for letting SD get under their skin, and also for fabricating evidence. The second aspect is a pretty big call, as I think that there is jail time for lying in an affidavit – would the lawyers be willing to do that for this type of case? Also, SD says that this matter has been going on for 2 years, so who knows what else has happened during that time? Perhaps the ACA/Today Tonight style interview was the straw that broke the camel’s back? SD has told us that he wasn’t interviewed for the story, so I can only assume that Fairfax wasn’t interviewed either. Happy to be set straight if this is not the case.
I think that what SD has done raises issues in relation to where the right to free speech intersects with court processes. After all, is or should the right to free speech be completely unfettered? And, as has been raised, should SD’s position be any different because he is not officially a member of the ‘media’? Why should that make any difference whether he is or is not? I’ll leave it to wiser/more experienced minds than myself to answer these questions, as I don’t have the answers.
Antidis & Truth Seeker… all fair points I guess. I’m trying to understand exactly where free speech and the courts intersect as it were.
@Shane
This is exactly how you draw all your so called “evidence” for your trumped up allegations and that’s why they should be taken with a grain of salt.
By speculating and drawing faulty conclusions from very thin amounts of circumstantial that draw directly on conspiratorial fantasies.
That’s why you accuse everyone in the legal community around your case of taking bribes and being in bed together.
I am not Gail Hambly (don’t meet the genital requirements to be a Gail). And I’m not a lawyer.
Yet again your paranoia takes control.
I have on occasions had to be a keen observer of legal processes so I don understand some of the language being used in various court circuits…particularly civil ones.
Shane you’ve been sending all the details of your case to literally hundreds of email addresses including those of high-ranking politicians and public servants and all sorts of people.
And yet it doesn’t occur to you these may land before the eyeballs of people beyond and perhaps contexts you’d not be aware of.
They range from comic to ‘Unabomber waiting to happen’.
You’ve asked politicians to step down and sack judges.
And Jhinku would have seen these and he was chased down a street having been witness and all sorts of other weird and wonderful behaviour. Would you feel slightly apprehensive about your safety? I reckon I would.
As for this claptrap:
“In a court of law in a circumstantial case any inference that can be reasonably drawn from the primary facts the court has to take it at its highest unless proven otherwise. That is a well known precedent which basically means if you can reasonably come to that conclusion from the evidence the court has to take it as being true and correct until proven otherwise.”
Precedent???
Sorry, but you’re trying to sound balanced, fair and evenhanded but you’re talking total claptrap.
Now did you or did you not shop the details of your case around to the media? Have you been trying to use the media to act as some sort of lever in your case?
It’s a simple question Shane and it will put all this palaver about internet videos and on camera allegations in a totally different context for this audience in understanding the nature of your conduct.
As to Antidis’s question about whether he needs to be a member of the media…
Of course he’s not required to be a member of the media to broadcast whatever lunatic accusations he sees fit on the web.
But I will say this. The AJA code of ethics requires journalists to identify themselves and their employer and to use fair honest and responsible means to obtain reports.
It also requires them to
“Disclose conflicts of interest that affect, or could be seen to affect, the accuracy, fairness or independence of your journalism.” and “not improperly use a journalistic position for personal gain.”
http://www.australian-news.com.au/codethics.htm
On those grounds I find Shane’s efforts totally deplorable.
And he still won’t answer the question as to whether he tried to loop the media in on his case before the video stunt.
Also
“The most mind blowing is “You’ve also asked court administrator for their personal details in order to include them in your spasmodic frenzy of harassment” which is line 3 of her post at 10.07 today.
This is true but clearly done to defame me as she takes it out of context.”
*Chuckle*
What context would make it less defamatory?
And truth is a legitimate defense in defamation law.
Last Call
I can not thank Ms Hambly enough for coming on here and ranting like there is no tomorrow trying to find out if other media have been tipped off on Fairfax / Freehills conduct.
In your last few postings you must have asked the same question about 7 to 8 times.
I have not addressed that question because there is no need to as it has no relevance to the story and even if I had tipped off other media it would not justify the hypocrisy Fairfax/Freehills conduct. And I know by not answering it will drive you insane.
The fact is, it is in the media as vexnews have run a story on it. Fullstop. If you go to Google and click on news at the top of the page and search Freehills or Fairfax you will find it. So the story has gone global. It’s a bit late to worry if other media companies know or not. And I thgink you forget about my website as well.
That anyone would come on here and write comment after comment trying to find out whether other media companies know shows how greatly worried they are. And who would be that worried? Only Fairfax/Freehills. No one else would give a shit let alone waste time coming on here and continually writing comments trying to draw the answer out of me.
It is interesting that I sent an email at 20.01pm on the 12/3/09 letting people know about the story (Including Fairfax/Freehills) and then NinjaWins! put up a post at 20.38 and drops the boot into me. The first two lines being:
“Oh for heaven’s sake. Dowling is representing himself in these matters and has a history for pursuing employers using this “exotic” litigation style.”
“What he’s done is hardly journalism – it’s more just a desperate attempt to smear and shame with these obstreperous and loaded questions while his absurd legal claims clog the federal court chewing taxpayer funds.”
Those first two lines shows it is definitely someone closely involved otherwise on what basis could she say my claims are absurd? She must off read the affidavits or know someone who has. And what is this history she is talking about? Well she is talking about a bit of dirt digging they have been doing which will end up biting them in the arse.
As a learned person once told me “don’t ask the question unless you know the answer when cross examining a witness.” And how the hell does she know about this if she is not closely associated to the case.
Her first post have all the hallmarks of someone being phoned, going on the vexnews site and chocking themselves and then without thinking writing comment raising issue that only the Fairfax/Freehills would know.
By the way who says ““Oh for heaven’s sake”. Mostly women say that from my experience.
In her last comment at 15.58 she basically admits knowing what was said in court on the 30/10/07 which I raised on my post yesterday at 22.44. How did she know this. A lot of what NinjaWins! does not show up in my emails or on my website as yet, so she has to be close to the action at either Fairfax or Freehills.
It must be noted that the person whom the Board of Directors at Fairfax Media would hold responsible for the outrages stunt they pulled as outlined in the above story is Gail Hambly Group General Council at Fairfax Media. Because the Freehills solicitors would not have acted without her signing off on it first.
It must be noted that almost all of the senior management at Fairfax Media have gone in the last few weeks.
David Kirk the former CEO went in December last year. Linda Price (Director of HR and IT handed in her resignation last year and left in the last few weeks. The Chief Financial Officer Sankar Narayan left about ten days ago. Joan Withers CEO New Zealand left two days ago.
One would suspect Gail Hambly would have to be a bit concerned at the least at the moment. Let alone with a balls-up like the story above addresses which has happened on her watch and approval if not instigation.
And the point to last two paragraphs: Motivation.
Who has the most to lose from any potential fallout from the story above and from Fairfax/Freehills actions in court last Monday?
And who would have a close and intimate knowledge of my proceedings?
And who would be so concerned and motivated enough to come on hear and so doggedly keep on asking the same questions about whether other media know?
And who would keep on putting the boot into me and justifying Mr Jhinku, Freehills and Fairfax and failing to address the key issue of the story – Fairfax Media’s Hypocrisy?
Well the only one I can think of people is Gail Hambly.
Other than of course Prime Minister Rudd whom I am sure lies awake at night worrying about me and my problems.
And the precedent Ms Hambly questioned:
“In a court of law any inference that can be reasonably drawn from the primary facts has to be taken at its highest.” (See the decision of J Gyles in Choundary v Capital Airport [2006] FCA 1755 at 3 and 23).
You might want to also look at Gordon Wood who was just sent to jail for murder in a circumstantial case. I must admit it there was bloody good circumstantial evidence, but none the less it was a circumstantial case as there was no direct evidence that he had killed his girlfriend.
Sorry people, I have a case to prepare for which at this point in time starts on the 23/3 and goes to the 25/3. So I need to focus my time on that. Not Ms Hambly’s rantings.
One last point. On here I use my real name. On my website I have my photo, mailing and email address and mobile number.
I think I have indentified myself.
And it is a bit rich for you to talk about the ethics of Journalism given the stunt in court last Monday.
Regards
Shane Dowling
I need to make a small amendment to my last post… Shane assumes I’m referring to some joke between him and Justice Cameron he seems to think I witnessed.
I was actually referring to an incident where he picked on some administrator on the courts he bullied over some detail about getting his court dates write.
That officer politely told him to shove it.
It was contained in one of the many emails I refer to that he’s been sending to the AFP, politicians and anyone who he feels compelled to bully and intimidate along the way in his blustering litigation style.
now, now Ms Hambly that hardly adds to the debate of the above story.
Once again you a bullshitting in an attempt to try and discredit me.
You say I picked on and bullied some administrator.
From my memory it was not a conference call. So how the hell can you say I bullied and picked on him?
Is Mr Jhinku helping you write your posts?
That is just bullshit you are making up. That is a stupid thing to say unless you were on the call, which you were not. It makes you look like a fool.
I certainly did not say that in my email.
What I did do was ask for his full name so I could make a complaint about him which I am fully entitled to do. He did not tell me to shove it. He refused to give it to me. I never did make a complaint about him, but if he had told me to shove it I certainly would have.
It still does not explain all the other information that you know which is not in the emails or on my website. e.g you said in your first post “absurd legal claims”. On what basis would you be able to have an opinion my Unlawful termination proceedings are baseless. Only if you are from Fairfax or Freehills could you have an opinion. You would need to see all the evidence or at least a big chuck of it to have any real opinion. And what about the other things you know. And the other issues I raise in my last post. Why such the dogged fixation on whether other media know? Etc.
The reality is that Fairfax have not spent the best part of two years and paying $500,000 of shareholders money to Ms Hambly’s old firm “Freehills” avoiding a hearing for no reason. And that will come out in court.
That’s write Ninja, you fucking moron!
@Shane
Telling judge he’s going to jail = absurd legal claim.
Okay it’s time to show some of Mr Dowling’s charm and razor sharp legal reasoning.
Below is fairly typical correspondence from Shane in conducting his litigation. He wrote this John Pasco and a bunch of others in the FMC:
Dear Chief Federal Magistrate Pascoe / John Mathieson CEO / Adele Byrne Registrar
I sent an email last Wednesday the 23rd of January which had the attached letter.
A large part of my email on Wednesday related to further private communication between Freehills/Fairfax and the corrupt Federal Magistrate Cameron. They have said in relation to the two previous letters that it is not private communication because they did not write directly to FM Cameron but wrote to the registrar. FM Cameron has said this as well. (This is a bullshit excuse as we all know FM Cameron and Freehills are corrupt).
The attached letter is addressed to the registrars as well.
How this has happened again is scandalous.
I have previously complained to you three in relation to this same issue.
Given that this conduct has continued, at best one of the registrars is corrupt. At worst all three of youse are.
Can one of you if not all please respond outlining how it has happened again and why, who and where etc and what action youse have taken. E.g. sacked someone for corruption.
Can youse please respond no later than close of business Wednesday 30th of January?
This should not be hard as I am sure that youse would have already fully investigated. If youse have not it would be very disturbing.
I am rather surprised that youse have not contacted me and told me why it has happened again given my previous complaints.
If youse do not want to reply to this email that is fine, but I will expect all three of you to resign your tenures summarily.
Youse probably should anyhow.
Regards
Shane Dowling
All the best.
I’m finished with this idiot.
All my love Gail
Video is now on Google. Has been taken down from Yahoo. The must have recieved a nasty letter from someone I suspect.