COPY OF WRIT SERVED ON HOSERROB HULLS IS NOW TRYING TO JAIL LEADING CORRUPTION AUTHOR
VICTORIAN
Your Reference:
Level 2, 55 St. Andrews Place
East Melbourne, Vic. 3002
PO. Box 4356QQ
Melbourne 3001
Tel: (03) 9651 0444
Fax: (03) 9651 0449
DX 300077
Web:www.vgso.vic.gov.au
ABN: 32 790 228 959
When Replying
Please Quote:
Stephen Lee: VG
Tel: 9651 0474
24 May 2001
The Proper Officer
Kotabi Ply Ltd
41 Village Avenue
DONCASTER Vic. 3108
Dear Sirs,
Attorney-General for the State of Victoria v. Hoser and Another
In accordance with Rule 6.04 of the Supreme Court Rules, I now enclose by way of personal service upon the second respondent, Kotabi Pty Ltd:
(i) originating motion filed 23 May 2001;
(ii) summons on originating motion filed 23 May 2001;
(iii) affidavit in support sworn by Stephen Joseph Lee 18 May 2001; and
(iv) copy exhibits "A" to "F" inclusive of the above affidavit.
Please note that the summons on originating motion is returnable before the Supreme Court on 30 May 2001. On that date, I intend to obtain procedural orders in relation to affidavits in reply and the referral of this proceeding to the Listing Master with such priority as she determines appropriate.
I suggest, with respect, that you immediately refer this letter and the above documents to your legal advisers, and that you ask your legal advisers to call me to discuss the orders proposed on the return of the summons.
Yours faithfully,
James Syme
Victorian Government Solicitor
(Signature)
per:
Encs.
177283:VG
Victoria
The Place To Be
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
No. 5928 of 2001
THE QUEEN
(Ex Parte THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL for the STATE OF VICTORIA)
Applicant
-v-
RAYMOND TERRENCE HOSER
First Respondent - and -
KOTABI PTY LTD
(A.C.N. 007 394 048)
Second Respondent
SUMMONS ON ORIGINATING MOTION
Date of document: 23 MAY 2001 May 2001
Filed on behalf of the applicant
Prepared by:
Level 2, 55 St Andrews Place,
East Melbourne, 3002
Solicitors Code: 7977
Tel: No. 9651 0474
Fax' No. 9651 0449
Ref: 0004190:SJL:VG
To the respondents
of: 41 Village Avenue
You are summoned to attend before the Court on the hearing of an application by the applicant for judgment or an order in respect of the relief or remedy sought in the originating motion as follows:
The applicant seeks the following orders:
1. The requirements of Rules 5.03 (1) and 8.02 of the General Rules of Civil Proceedings be dispensed with.
161108:VG
2. The applicant be authorised to commence this proceeding by originating motion in Form 5C.
3. The first and second respondents each be adjudged guilty of contempt of Court.
Particulars of contempt
(a) The first respondent is the author and the second respondent is the publisher of a book entitled "Victoria Police Corruption - 2" ("the second publication"). The second publication scandalises the court. A copy of the second publication is annexed hereto and marked "B".
Comments re Judge Neesham
(i) At p.245 of the second publication, the following words were published:
"Once Neesham made it clear that the matter wasn't being taped, my being declared guilty became a mere formality.
Perhaps most upsetting about the whole case wasn't Neesham declaring me guilty at the end of the fiasco, but rather the continued wanton disregard for the truth by Malliaras, Olsen and in turn the judge. ..."1
(ii) At p.246 of the second publication, the following words were published:
"That's perhaps the best way to describe how Thomas Neesham runs his circus at the County Court where he is a judge. Knobbled juries, bashing up of independent observers by police, actively sanctioned perjury by bent police, strip searches, unlawful arrests, false statements to other court by himself ... its all apparently routine stuff in and out of his court, (the details of which are later in this book)."
(iii) At p.260 of the second publication, the following words were published:
"Perhaps most tellingly, he was one of those judges who had refused to allow me to have the case tape recorded, thereby effectively stamping him as a crook judge who wanted his activities never to be opened up to scrutiny. My initial judgments of Neesham as corrupt and dishonest were further proven during the course of the trial and its aftermath, much of which will be explained in the material that follows."
(iv) At p. 274 of the second publication, the following words were published:
"As soon as the trial proper commenced, Neesham's bias against me commenced in earnest and his desired result was clearly known. His whole modus operandi was to guide the jury towards a guilty verdict.
Furthermore these actions were separate to others which also appeared to have been taken to ensure the jury's verdict was predetermined."
-4-
(v) At p.280 of the second publication, the following words were published:
"Throughout the case he gave prosecution witnesses an advantage by asking me in their presence what evidence I sought to get from them and what questions I sought to ask.
From Neesham's and the prosecution's point of view this was designed to allow these witnesses time to think of the best answers they could give knowing in advance the answers I sought. When doing this, Neesham made sure that the jury was hurriedly shifted from the courtroom so that they'd never know how he was actively aiding and abetting the prosecution witnesses."
(vi) At p.304 of the second publication, the following words were published:
"JUDGE THOMAS NEESHAM - NO CONCERN FOR THE TRUTH
Neesham's attitude to the truth, or perhaps more correctly his desire to ignore it came out throughout Keating's evidence and later in the trial through various uncalled for outbursts".
(vii) At p. 329 of the second publication, the following words were published:
"Of course Connell had been doing effectively what Neesham had told him. It was a classic case of bent judge improperly helping a prosecution witness".
(viii) At p.350 of the second publication, the following words were published:
"The prosecution team lead by Perry had spent most of the day apparently chatting to jurors. I hadn't been aware of the extent of this until it was brought to my attention. What it probably meant was that while I was systematically destroying the credibility of the police side and various aspects of their case, the jury was being deliberately sidetracked by the prosecution side so none of it really mattered.
Of course the judge, Neesham, should have stopped this carrying on by Perry's side, but no, he'd been green-lighting the whole lot."
(ix) At p.353 of the second publication, the following words were published:
"I directed them both to the previous day's transcript where Brown had confirmed the Broadmeadows strip search. Neesham attempted to write it off saying 'that's another matter altogether'. That Neesham had got it wrong didn't matter to him. However, it would be hard to believe that both Ian Perry would be that stupid. Neesham then improperly made sure that the matter was now effectively closed."
-5-
(x) At p.365 of the second publication, the following words were published:
"Neesham had probably made a deliberate mistake here because the date 1993 would indicate that I had premeditated and planned the alleged perjury in early 1994. It was part of his not so subtle and deliberate campaign to sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of the jurors." P. 365
(xi) At p.435 of the second publication, the following words were published:
"Neesham again should have stepped in stopped Perry's lies. The fact that they had themselves prevented the letter from going to the jury was significant. Furthermore, both knew that the letter was addressed to Martin Smith, my then solicitor, not myself. Both knew it never went to the Crown and thus both knew Perry was lying to the jury.
Significant again was that Perry was flagrantly lying and violating all his rules of conduct in order to gain an improper conviction. Neesham's so-called management of his court was similarly tainted.
The mistrial was to continue.
(Oh and by the way when I raised the letter in my reply address, Neesham jumped in at once and said I couldn't talk about it or introduce the letter - yet more double standards).
This was deliberate as Neesham and Perry were evidently trying to ensure that the jury's imagination ran wild as to what the contents of this now mysterious letter were. Furthermore the Dowd letter didn't contain my 'prior history' as Perry had falsely asserted. But like he said himself, he wasn't interested in the truth."
Comments re Chief Judge Waldron
(i) At p. 240 of the second publication, the following words were published:
"As the case re-opened at 2.15 Waldron displayed further anger and hostility towards me. I could see that there wouldn't be a fair hearing here. "
(ii) At p.241 of the publication, the following words were published:
"Meanwhile I was about to go to trial for a perjury that no one could produce a transcript for, because the Police side didn't want to. But like I've already said; if the Chief County Court Judge doesn't seem concerned with the truth, then what faith can Victorians have in their legal system?
Not only that, but myself and any other concerned citizen have absolutely no power to do anything about the recklessness of judges like
-6-
Waldron even when the proof is there for perpetuity in the government's own transcripts. "
On p.243 of the publication, the following words were published:
"WALDRON'S FORM
While Waldron was hostile on a known corruption whistleblower like myself and has been similarly harsh on others like me by ensuring we don't get a fair trial, he has simultaneously got a reputation for apparently looking after hardened criminals."
Comments re Judge Balmford (as she then was)
At p. 140 of the second publication, the following words were published:
"NO TAPING - JUDGE'S MIND ALREADY MADE UP
After Balmford had stated that she would not allow the case to be tape recorded, it was obvious that I would be losing this one. Like the case in front of Blashki, the only question was the penalty."
At p. 142 of the second publication, the following words were published:
"Like I've noted, Balmford wanted to convict me and get the whole thing over with as soon as possible. After all she'd obviously made up her mind before the case even started. Recall, she'd refused to allow the matter to be tape-recorded."
At p. 144 of the second publication, the following words were published:
"Balmford's bias in favour of Police and the DPP isn't just something I've noted. In fact three Supreme Court Judges have noted it as well."
Comments re Magistrate Heffey
At p.205 of the second publication, the following words were published:
"Although at the time the committal started, I didn't know of Heffey, I was quickly told by Ben Piper and others that she has a long standing reputation as, 'a strongly pro Police Magistrate'. In hearings in front of her, it can come out that Police have committed the most serious of crimes and it seems she would still not do anything about it. Readers may also seek to refer to the Police shootings section of Victoria Police Corruption for details of her past form. Complaint's about Heffey's running of courts and her decisions have also appeared in the mainstream media. These usually follow her routine siding with Police after shootings, or death in custody matters."
-7-
(ii) At p.207 of the publication, the following words were published:
"Jacinta Heffey ... 'A Policeman's magistrate'. Sometimes she seemed so confused and scatterbrained, that one couldn't help but question the selection criterion for magistrates in Victoria."
(iii) At p.208 of the publication, the following words were published:
"In siding with the Police, Heffey made her 'ruling' where she goes through the motions of stating the alleged 'facts' and 'reasons' for her decision. She said she was going ahead because I had failed to notify the other side of my intention to seek an adjournment pending legal aid. That her statement was an obvious lie was demonstrated by the multiple letters in Hampel's files and Heffey's own court records, Then again, I suppose it was a case of not letting the truth get in the way of a predetermined outcome."
(iv) At p.212 of the publication, the following words were published:
"Oh, and, just in case you haven't yet worked it out, my committal to stand trial had clearly been well determined before a word of evidence was given."
Comments re Magistrate H.F. Adams
(i) On the rear back cover of the second publication, the following words were published:
"The Magistrate that the cop said he paid off.
Following the 1995 publication of Policeman Ross Bingley's confession that he'd paid off Hugh Francis Patrick Adams to fix a case, some of his other rulings that seemingly flew in the face of the truth or logic have come under renewed scrutiny. This includes the bungled inquest into the murder of Jennifer Tanner, which Police falsely alleged was suicide."
(b) The first respondent has publicly and extensively disseminated or caused to be publicly and extensively disseminated the second publication.
(c) The second respondent has publicly and extensively disseminated or caused to be publicly and extensively disseminated the second publication.
4. The first and second respondents each be adjudged guilty of contempt of Court.
(a) The first respondent is the author and the second respondent is the publisher of a book entitled "Victoria Police Corruption" ("the first publication"). The first
-8-
publication contains material which scandalises the court. A copy of the first publication is annexed hereto and marked "A".
At p. 57 of the first publication, the following words were published:
"Magistrate Hugh Francis Adams.
In a controversial decision he let corrupt Policeman Paul John Strang walk free from court after he pled guilty to a charge related to planting explosives on an innocent man. He then put a suppression order on the penalty.
In a separate matter, a Policeman admitted to paying a bribe to Adams to have an innocent man sentenced to jail."
(b) The first respondent has publicly and extensively disseminated or caused to be publicly and extensively disseminated the first publication.
(c) The second respondent has publicly and extensively disseminated or caused to be publicly and extensively disseminated the first publication.
5. The first respondent be punished by imprisonment or fine, or both.
6. The second respondent be punished by a fine or sequestration, or both.
7. The respondents pay the applicant's costs of this proceeding on a solicitor/client basis.
8. Such further or other order that the court deems fit.
The application will be heard before the
Supreme Court, 210 William Street, Melbourne, on 30 May 2001
FILED 23 May 2001
Prothonotary
This summons was filed by James Syme, Victorian Government Solicitor of Level 2, 55 St Andrews Place, East Melbourne, solicitor for the applicant.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
AT MELBOURNE
No. of 2001
(Ex Parte THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL for the
STATE OF VICTORIA)
-V-
First Respondent
- and -
AFFIDAVIT
Date of document: 18 May 2001
Filed on behalf of: The Applicant
I, STEPHEN JOSEPH LEE, of 2/55 St Andrews Place, East Melbourne, make oath and say as follows:
1. I am a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Victoria employed in the office of James Syme, Victorian Government Solicitor, solicitor for the applicant.
2. Following receipt of instructions to investigate the publications referred to in the originating motion herein, I have caused to be obtained the publications
-2-
which are now produced and shown to me at the time of swearing this my affidavit and marked as follows:
A. A book entitled "Victoria Police Corruption", written by Raymond Terrence Hoser and published by Kotabi Pty Ltd in 1999; and
B. A book entitled "Victoria Police Corruption - 2", written by Raymond Terrence Hoser and published by Kotabi Pty Ltd in 1999. ("the publications")
3. As appears from Exhibits A and B to this affidavit:
(a) the first respondent is the author of the publications; and
(b) the second respondent is the publisher of the publications.
4. Since receiving instructions to investigate the publications referred to in the originating motion herein, I have also caused to be obtained a company search of the second respondent. As appears from the company search, the first respondent was at all material times a director and shareholder of the second respondent.
Now produced and shown to me at the time of swearing this my affidavit and marked with the letters "C" is a copy of a company search of the second respondent.
5. On 26 July 2000, I sent a circular letter to various retailers and book outlets seeking details of the volume and extent of sales of the publications, An example of such a letter is now produced and shown to me at the time of swearing this my affidavit and marked "D".
6. I have received a number of replies to my letter.
Now produced and shown to me at the time of swearing this my affidavit and marked with the letters "E" is a bundle of relevant replies received from the retailers and book outlets.
7. On 28 July 2000, Mr Nick Peasley, a representative of McGills, phoned me in response to my letter dated 26 July 2000 to McGills and informed me that since January 2000 McGills had sold 16 copies of Volume 1 and 7 copies of
-3-
Volume 2 of Mr Hoser's publications, and had sold 22 copies of Volume 1 and 13 copies of Volume 2 in 1999,
8. As appears from Exhibit "E" to this affidavit, each respondent has publicly and extensively disseminated or caused to be publicly and extensively disseminated the publications containing the words alleged to constitute contempt of court in this proceeding.
9. In proceeding number 7825 of 1999 issued in the Supreme Court of Victoria, in an affidavit dated 7 April 2000 and sworn by the first respondent in the defamation proceeding on his own behalf and on behalf of the second respondent, the first respondent made admissions relevant to this proceeding in respect of matters including:
(a) authorship of the publications;
(b) dissemination of the publications; and
(c) that the second respondent was at all material times under the effective control of the first respondent.
Now produced and shown to me at the time of swearing this my affidavit and marked with the letter "F" is a copy of the said affidavit,
10. In the circumstances, the applicant seeks the orders sought in the originating motion filed herein.
Sworn by STEPHEN JOSEPH LEE
at East Melbourne
in the State of Victoria
this 18 day of May 2001
Before me: K. F. GREGORY ...
AT MELBOURNE COMMON LAW DIVISION
(A.C.N. 007 395 048)
ORIGINATING MOTION BETWEEN PARTIES
Date of document: 23 MAY 2001
May 2001
TO THE RESPONDENTS
TAKE NOTICE that this proceeding by originating motion has been brought against you by the applicant for the relief or remedy set out below
IF YOU INTEND TO DEFEND the proceeding, you must attend before the Court at the time and place named in the summons served with this originating motion.
FILED day of May 2001
23 MAY 2001
THIS ORIGINATING MOTION is to be served within one year from the date it is filed or within such further period as the Court orders.
1 The requirements of Rules 5.03(1) and 8.02 of the General Rules of Civil Proceedings be dispensed with.
(a) The first respondent is the author and the second respondent is the publisher of a book entitled "Victoria Police Corruption. - 2" ("the second publication"). The second publication scandalises the court. A copy of the second publication is annexed hereto and marked "B".
6
publication contains material which scandalises the court. A copy of the first publication is annexed hereto and marked "A",
At p.57 of the first publication, the following words were published:
8. Such further or other order that the Court deems fit.
DATED this day of May 2001 ..
Solicitor for the Applicant
1. Place of Trial: Melbourne.
2. This Originating Motion was filed for the applicant by James Syme, Victorian Government Solicitor of Level 2, 55 St Andrews Place, East Melbourne, 3002.
3. The address of the applicant is 55 St Andrews Place, East Melbourne, 3002.
4. The address for service of the applicant is care of James Syme, Victorian Government Solicitor, Level 2, 55 St Andrews Place, East Melbourne, 3002
5. The address of the first respondent is 41 Village Avenue, Doncaster, 3108.
6. The address of the second respondent is 41 Village Avenue, Doneaster, 3108.
FILED
SCHEDULE OF PARTIES
The Attorney-General for the State of Victoria Applicant
Raymond Terrence Hoser
Kotabi Pty Ltd
Further inquiries: please phone: Kotabi Publishing: 03 9812-3322 Kotabi's lawyers: Duker and Associates, Alex Tees: Mobile: XXXX Raymond Hoser: 0412-777-211 For details of the earlier actions by Rob Hulls and the Victorian Government Solicitor (and relevant documents) go to: http://www.smuggled.com/MedRel48.htm This release is published at: http://www.smuggled.com/VGS1.htm