Today's hearing was mainly an application to have the trial judges not hear the case on the basis of conflicts of interest, including their all sitting with the judge being appealed (Eames), and in the cases of two of the judges, this is very often (as they are all in the same court and sit in trios) - see earlier posts.

This was refused by the judges, who all claimed impartiality in front of what appeared to be a (by that stage) generally skeptical public gallery and as a result the prognosis for the defence (truth) does not look good. The court was full of interested spectators and a number of reporters.

One judge said that they were not appointed by Hulls, but by the governor, but then I pointed out that this was in fact on the recommendation of Hulls, which was confirmed by the judge as correct.

In other words an equivalent would be me handling a snake with a stick/hook and then denying handling the snake because I used a hook to actually pick it up - hence the hook handling the snake not me.

The claim is in reality tripe as in each case the reality is A/ Hulls appoints the judges and B/ Hoser handles the snake and neither the Governor or the hook could do either if the former didn't "pull the strings".

Anyway, one of the judges then claimed who appointed them was irrelevant due to the "oath" of office he took, but this still didn't remove the obvious conflict of interest in the eyes of some commentators spoken to at the end of the day's hearing.

Heartening was the TV Cameras filming the proceedings (outside the court) and it seems that some of the more responsible media is reporting on the case.

Judges hearing the case are BATT, VINCENT and HARPER.

An application to have the hearing transcribed and made publicly available for scrutiny and accountability was made by the defence (Hoser) and has been held over to the morning for the judges to decide (rule on).

Surely a simple "yes" would have done the job and been the best option.

After all, what's to hide?

Anyway in terms of this and a few other procedural things, the case continues, Tuesday (Tomorrow - AM) at 10 AM in the "Blue Court" at the Supreme Court of Appeal - Melbourne.

The judges didn't seem to keen to strike out the contempt charge on the basis of double jeopardy, claiming it wasn't pushed in the original hearing or specified by name in the appeal documents, instead being referred to in more general terms.

In terms of parliamentary privilege, the judges adopted a similar stance, but the problem here is that it was the books on trial and the pair of VPC books have notes to this effect near the fronts of each.

Further comments will be posted as time permits.

Further details in earlier posts at:

and

Hoser was improperly convicted of "contempt" for his truthful disclosures (Truth was apparently not a viable defence in this matter based on the judgement - see relevant link below). Coming up is an appeal hearing against the defective judgement of Labor Appointed Judge Geoffrey Eames (since promoted by Hulls himself to the court of Appeal - the same court as where this appeal is to be heard) and set down for 6 October 2003. Hulls runs this court and so he has control of the judges that will judge his case in what can only be objectively described as likely to be an 'in house hatchet job'.

See history being made as yet another truth-hiding hatchet job on Australia's leading corruption author Raymond Hoser appears likely and at this stage unavoidable. Notable is that we have on the record, a notable Victorian Barrister XXXXX XXXX-XXXX stating that the odds of Appeal Court judges going against their own are effectively remote and regardless of the merits of the case.

For past details of the case in general go to:

and follow the relevant links.

For details what exactly is being appealed (if we can get the Judges to look at the facts) go to:

and if necessary follow other relevant links