From: Raymond Hoser

Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 16:25:47 +1100
Subject: Author loses everything for publishing truth - see below

Corruption author stitched up for publishing truth about corruption
in Australian legal system.

Truth on trial - Legal System scandalised by the Victorian (Australia)
Attorney General (Rob Hulls) and his appointed Judges.

Today was a sad day for all Australians who thought that they lived in a
free country where truth, justice and freedom of speech were meant to be
rights of all citizens.

In a case that's been suppressed in the mainstream media, or when
reported, grossly misrepresented, Australia's leading corruption author
has been declared guilty of "contempt" of court for publishing the truth
about corruption in the legal system in two best-selling books.

The double jeopardy case involved Attorney General Rob Hulls, charging
Hoser with "contempt" of court after Hoser had won a defamation action
to which Hulls had been a party.

Three judges upheld an earlier decision by fellow judge Geoff Eames that
said Hoser and no other Australians a right to make statements adverse
to fellow judges and magistrates.

Free speech case (legal) precedents were ruled irrelevant and Hoser and
his publishing company were fined $5000 for publishing the truth about
corruption in the legal system.

The killer blow was an open-ended "costs" order against Hoser of an
estimated $50,000.

This was designed for both specific deterrence and general deterrence to
stop Hoser or any other persons trying to expose corruption in the legal

The judges effectively ruled that judicial officers are exempt from
criticism by members of the public, even if the criticism is valid.

In this case, the three appeal court judges made a series of defective
claims and inferences that can be shown to be patently false by cross
referencing with the books subject of the case or source documents and
tapes, if the latter were relevant to the Judges claims.

Clearly it would seem the judges are either corrupt, incompetent or
perhaps something else we cannot think of, and/or they are hoping that
no one cross-checks their judgement against the documents it is
allegedly derived from.

The defects of fact stem from what appears to be a deliberate
misrepresentation of the contents of the books, which may also stem from
a failure by the judges to have read them.

For example, upheld by the judges was a claim by the previous judge
(Eames) that Hoser had misrepresented the facts by withholding a
critically important letter from an adversely named judge from his

That letter was in the relevant book at the relevant place, but either
not read or ignored by judge Eames in the earlier trial. Based on the
fact that these three appeal court judges have upheld this obvious Eames
falsehood, one must make similar assumtions in terms of their inability
to deal with the obvious facts.

Other claims made by these judges against the books do not stand up to a
cursory check.

Ironically, in the front of both Hoser books, Hoser himself admitted the
possibility that material in Hoser's books may be incorrect and in spite
of meticulous checking.

Notwithstanding this caveat, neither judge Eames or the three apepal
court judges were able to accurately identify a single fault with either
book and hence so far they remain bullet proof in terms of their writing
and being truthful and accurate.

Hence as a result of this judgement handed down today, the Victorian
Attorney General Rob Hulls and the three appeal court judges themselves
have scandalised the legal system.

Hoser and his publisher will take the matter to the High Court due to
the ramifications of the case in terms of it being a precedent to shut
down all forms of whistleblowing against corruption by members of the
Australian public.

A documentary on this case is being made by an Australian TV network and
the case so far will go down in history as one of the darkest moments in
Australia's legal system.

A full appraisal of the defects in the judgement will be published
shortly, so as to aid uninformed people in terms of cross checking the

The judgement is not yet posted on Austlii, (at: which is the website for legal judgements in

But an indication as to how important the anti-Hoser judgements will be
in terms of suppressing freedom of speech and related whistleblowing
matters can be seen from a search of legal cases since the Eames
judgement against Hoser in late 2001.

That judgement was shown to defective by Hoser and agreed by all
parties, but not withstanding these obvious defects, the three Supreme
Court of Apepal justices refused to find against this judge (Eames).

Perhaps this may stem from the fact that Eames was promoted by Rob Hulls
(Attorney General), the man who charged Hoser, to the same court and
hence all three appeal court judges had sat with Eames on cases in the

In other words it was an in house hatchet job on Hoser.

Seeing what was coming, Hoser had applied at the start of the case for
the three appeal court judges (Batt, Vincent and Harper) to disqualify
themselves on the basis of obvious conflict of interest, but they all
denied that this conflict would influence them and refused to stand
aside from the trial.

The judges own judgement appears to rebutt their claims of no bias, but
of course to allege these judges were biased would be treated as
contempt, so perhaps it is better to assume that these learned men are
merely incompetent and/or have very warped reasoning powers.

Notable is that on this same day, a corruption whistleblower was wrongly
convicted and heavily punished for publishing truth, while in two other
Victorian courts a drug dealing cop and a pedophile were both allowed to
walk free.

This perhaps sums up the priorities of the Victorian legal system and
shows the seriousness of how Hoser has now been punished for merely
publishing truth and stating obvious facts and/or conclusions.

Further inquiries can be made to Whistleblowers Australia (in all
states), including Raymond Hoser himself on 0412 777 211 (who can e-mail
copies of the 31 page judgement to interested parties as it is not yet
on the site).

PLEASE NOTE: The lies, defects and falsehoods in the 31 page judgement
are too many to be summarized in this media release. They will be
summarized in a separate document shortly. Included is the following:

The false claim by the appeal court judges and the original judge
(Eames) that Hoser altered the meaning of the facts by withholding from
readers a letter from Judge Neesham to the appeal court in 1997. Eames
noted that Hoser had this letter in his possession at the time he wrote
the book Victoria Police Corruption - 2 and used this as a basis to find
Hoser had published with malice and bad faith. In other words, if Hoser
had been fair to thejudge (Neesham) the letter and it's contents would
have been made known to readers.

This "fact" as related by the judges is a bare-faced lie as the said
letter is in fact reproduced in the book Victoria Police Corruption - 2
(across three pages). In the first instance Judge Eames failed to read
the book (most likely) and/or ignored it's contents. In the appeal case
the appeal court judges failed to read the book AND failed to read the
written summary of arguments given to them to read (most likely) and/or
chose to ignore them. Note that the judges said they would study this
latter document carefully, but evidently did not.

This is a serious error on the part of the appeal court judges and there
are many others of similar nature in the judgement making it worthless
in terms of being a document of truth, law or even elementary analysis.

Such omissions and perversions of truth by the judges are a matter of
serious public interest and should be widely reported.

Another serious and bizarre error by all four judges is the agreement
with the prosecution claims that Professor Kim Sawyer of Melbourne
University does not exist and the man and statements attributed to him
are therefore figments of Hoser's imagination. The same applies for
about ten other persons photographed and quoted in Victoria Police
Corruption - 2 who complained of corruption involving County Court Judge
Tom Neesham.

For the record Sawyer can be contacted at the School of Economics at
Melbourne University and will confirm claims and statements attributed
to him are accurate and that his photograph as shown in Hoser's book is
legit and no fabrication by Hoser.

The case has been reported in some media, but severely misrepresented by
the ABC who falsely implied that Hoser himself made a false claim about
a magistrate Hugh Adams taking a bribe.

The facts of the matter are as follows:

On 21 December 1988 Policeman Ross Allen Bingley made the statement of
fact that Adams had been bribed to wrongly convict Hoser of Theft and
assault charges. Bingley was the SECOND person to make this claim (the
first being Alan Brygel). This Bingley statement was tape recorded and
has been transcribed since (as was the Brygel claim).

Hoser was innocent and exonerated on appeal.

Evidence that Magistrate Adams was corrupt has been substantial and goes
beyond the improper conviction of Hoser (in the first instance in 1988),
in spite of overwhelming proof of Hoser's innocence, including a last
minute confession by the alleged victim that no assault or theft had
taken place and a covertly made tape recording of the informant that had
him stating that he knew Hoser was innocent but that he'd fabricate
statements and evidence to convict Hoser.

Hugh Adams is also the magistrate that bungled the first inquest into
corrupt policeman Denis Tanner and allowed him to get away with the
murder and escape charges for killing Jennifer Tanner.

A later inquest into the murder by another coroner, overturned the Adams
"findings", stating that the Adams inquest had been bungled and that
Tanner was a murderer but the DPP ruled that too much time had elapsed
to charge Tanner (or words to that effect), due to "destruction of
evidence" and related matters.

Hoser first raised the issues of Magistrate Adams and his probity in the
book "The Hoser Files: The Fight Against Entrenched Official Corruption"
published in June 1995. John Silvester and Andew Rule of the Melbourne
Age followed on from Hoser's lead and published stories on the Tanner
case (involving Adams) in September the same year. This earlier Hoser
book was not found to be in contempt of court, even though three appeal
court judges have now ruled the same material in two later books
("Victoria Police Corruption" 1 and 2 to be "in contempt").

Hugh Adams was also the magistrate involved in the Wagnegg, Denis Allen
and Higgins, Glare and Strang matters all of which resulted in
"judgements" or "findings" that appeared to fly in the face of decency
and logic.

The three appeal court judges also ignored the fact that prior to
publication of these later books, both Hulls and his predecessor Jan
Wade approved of them. Wade as Attorney General had been sent and
received a full manuscript and save for names of jurors wanted nothing
else deleted.

In accordance with the directions of one of Wade's staff these names
were blacked out.

Hoser was then charged with contempt by her successor, Rob Hulls, after
Labor won office from the Liberals.

What this means is that a person who is told they are within the law in
terms of what they write, may be declared outlaw on the whims of a
change in government or policy and this can be made retrospective as
happened with Hoser's books.

It is for these and other reasons that the case must be taken as far as
possible, not to clear Hoser's name, which based on a scrutiny of the
judgements remains untarnished, but rather to stop the same precedent to
be used to suppress whistleblowing and lawful democratic activities
and/or legal dissent in future affecting all Australians.

Earlier information on this case including judgements, rulings,
transcripts and so on can be found at:


See below for some news clips (not necessarily accurate) relating three
cases in Victoria, the first involving a whistleblower Hoser, the others
involving the drug dealing cop and the pedophile, the latter two
generally treated well by the Victorian judiciary.

Author losses contempt of court appeal

The Victorian Court of Appeal has handed down a second contempt of court
conviction to a self-published author.

Raymond Terrence Hoser and his private publishing company were fined
$5,000 two years ago after the release of two books which contained
corruption allegations against two county court judges.

Hoser has lost his appeal against that conviction.

The court has also found him guilty of a second contempt charge which
was originally dismissed.

That charge related to unfounded bribery allegations against a third

Priest walks free on sex assault charges

By Dan Silkstone

December 16, 2003

A Catholic priest who sexually abused a schoolboy and said celibacy was
to blame for his indiscretions walked free from the County Court
yesterday after being given a suspended sentence.

John Barry Gwillim, 71, was a model priest, popular with his flock at St
Peter's Church in East Keilor and a gifted arranger of hymns, Judge Fred
Davey said.

But Father Gwillim had an unholy secret, one that took more than 20
years to emerge.

Judge Davey said Father Gwillim met the boy, then 15, for sexual
encounters in his car, in a motel room and at his presbytery during late
1979 and early 1980.

Judge Davey said Father Gwillim was unlikely to reoffend and wholly
suspended his sentence of two years and eight months. "In any event, you
will serve another sentence, the sentence of a disgraced priest whose
good works will be forgotten," he said. "The memory of your disgraceful
conduct will blot your good deeds from people's memories forever."

Father Gwillim left St Peter's in 1999 and has since worked as a
relieving priest. He is on sick leave from the archdiocese.

The president of victim support group Broken Rites, Chris MacIsaac,
yesterday called on the archdiocese not to reinstate him. "This is just
another example of a pedophile priest," she said. "It's been 10 years
since people started coming forward with these stories. How many more
are there?"

The encounters began in late 1979 when Father Gwillim met the boy and
offered him a lift home from a swimming lesson.

Judge Davey said Father Gwillim stopped his car in a Parkville side
street and asked if the boy "wanted to do something nice for him". He
then directed the child to perform oral sex.

Father Gwillim began regularly collecting the boy from his swimming
lessons. The pair performed sexual acts on each other in the car, at a
motel and in the presbytery at St Peter's.

Father Gwillim pleaded guilty last week to five counts of indecent
assault on a child under 16 and four counts of gross indecency with a
child under 16.

In July, the priest told police: "If we could do away with celibacy this
would all go away. It was the sort of thing (where there was) a lovely
slice of cake and I bloody well ate it."

Judge Davey said Father Gwillim had not used his position to influence
the boy, who initially did not know he was a priest. He said that Father
Gwillim had otherwise led an exemplary life.

Monsignor Les Tomlinson, from the Melbourne Archdiocese, said Father
Gwillim had been formally stood down when the charges were laid. He
would not be restored as a practising priest but there were no plans to
formally remove him.

This story was found at:


Suspended detective gets bail on drug allegations

By Steve Butcher

December 16, 2003

A Victorian detective charged last week by anti-corruption police with
conspiracy to deal in drugs was released from custody yesterday on
$100,000 bail.

Detective Sergeant Paul Dale, 34, who is suspended without pay, was
described in court as being respected, well regarded and having had a
distinguished career.

Dale, who faces a possible maximum sentence of life imprisonment if
convicted, was released on bail after a magistrate said the case against
him was "less than overwhelming".

The Melbourne Magistrates Court heard that he was arrested and charged
last week with a fellow detective from the major drug investigation
division, David Miechel.

It was alleged that Miechel and another man, who cannot be named for
legal reasons, were arrested in September after allegedly burgling a
house and stealing drugs worth $1 million.

Dale faces four charges that include conspiracy to traffic large
commercial quantities of ecstasy and ice amphetamines.

Miechel, 33, who was mauled by a police dog during his arrest outside
the house in Oakleigh East, faces 16 charges that include trafficking
large commercial quantities of ecstasy and ice and trafficking LSD.

Prosecutor Damien Maguire said Dale had to show exceptional
circumstances why detention in custody was not justified.

Detective Senior Sergeant Murray Gregor, from the police anti-corruption
division, said drugs worth a conservative $1.3 million were involved in
the charges. He agreed with defence barrister Ian Hill, QC, that there
was no evidence implicating Dale in any of a number of telephone

Mr Hill submitted that the prosecution case rested on the word of a man
who previously lied to police and who had a serious record of

Mr Maguire said Dale had not shown exceptional circumstances and that
any delay from the time of his arrest until trial was not exceptional.

Magistrate Lisa Hannan, in granting bail, disagreed. She said there
would be a significant delay - analysis of the drugs would not be
resolved until next May and a trial might not be held until 2005.

Ms Hannan said that while the charges were serious, Dale had ties to
Victoria, had no previous convictions and any risk he might pose while
on bail could be met by strict conditions.

Dale, who will reappear in March, must report regularly to police, not
approach witnesses and keep away from ports and airports.

This story was found at:

Back to Reports page

Top of Page | Home Page

-free 2004 Adelaide Institute