The Legal Fraternity of Hobart, Sydney, and Brisbane — Are You “Loyal”?

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

On September 13, 2023, I moaned in the Comments section of GumshoeNews.com that my effort in the Sydney siege case had no results. This was challenged by a reader, Elspeth. Further rumination has brought forth this short article.

My contention is that the following three episodes were false flags: Port Arthur massacre (1996, Hobart court), Hostage taking in the Lindt Cafe (2016, Sydney Coroners Court, and relatedly the Droudis trial in Darlinghurst court), and the arrest of O’Dea and Pridgeon for child stealing (2018, Brisbane Court).

When I said therewere no results, I meant that my hope of getting the cases straightened out came to nought. Although I wrote books about them, no law-minded reader has got in touch with me or even written a review, as far as I am aware.

Do none of the court-related people whom I publicly criticized feel nervous about my having caught them out? Or are my accusations simply incorrect?  Or am I but a flimflam artist who shouldn’t be honored with a reply?

Below I will pop just one question to each of the law personnel in the four cases mentioned.

(The trial of Amirah Droudis should be considered a separate false flag from the Sydney siege. My contention is that Amirah did not stab to death and then immolate the ex-wife of “terrorist” Monis, eight months prior to the Lindt Cafe siege. I say the trial was scripted to ‘pad’ the guilt of Monis. Note: I am the only journo who covered that trial in the flesh.)

Behold my One-Question-Each list, intended to solicit either a reply, or a well-deserved bashing of me for my inaccurate interpretation of the situation:

Port Arthur massacre of April 28, 1996, as disposed of in the Hobart court:

Justice William Cox: As the manager of the case against Martin Bryant, did you not think that a man who is under guardianship for mental deficiency needs special care when being prosecuted?

Prosecutor Damian Bugg: Why did you write a letter to Wendy Scurr, who was on-site at Port Arthur that day, to tell her she would not be called as a witness?

Defendse Attorney John Avery: How did you think it was ethical for you to visit your client 13 times in prison to persuade him to plead guilty, even telling him he would not be allowed to see his Mum again if he pleaded innocent?

Sydney Siege hostage-taking of December 15, 2014, as disposed of in Coroners Court

Coroner Barnes: What did you think of the submission I made to you, entitled “99 things that don’t add up?”

Barrister Gabrielle Bashir, SC, representing the bereaved families of Tori Johnson: Why did you not rail against police for failing to enter the lift lobby from the Jordan Cambers’ Library, where they were stationed, and easily shoot Monis before he could kill Tori?

Barrister Philip Boulten, SC, representing the bereaved Dawson family: Why did you not demand that the Inquest discover who made the decision to not engage in negotiating with Monis, given that the clearly stated police policy is: Negotiate?

Counsel Assisting the Inquest Jeremy Gormly, SC: Why didn’t you call upon an independent analyzer of wound ballistics, instead of using an  expert from within the NSW police, which may entail a conflict of interest since it was a cop’s bullet that killed Ms Dawson?

Amirah Droudis’ Trial of August 2016, conducted in the Darlinghurst court, Sydney

Judge Peter Johnson: How could you sentence Ms Droudis to 44 years’ incarceration by claiming that her brutality was demonstated in the way she murdered Helen Lee, when right before your very eyes (and mine) no good evidence came in to identify her as the murderer?

Barrister Mark Ierace, SC, Public Defender of Amirah Droudis: Why did you allow the frequent reference to Monis’s participation in the murder of Hele Lee (his ex-wife), when he had already died and no information about his participation could be obtained?

Prosecutor Mark Tedeschi, SC: When police Detective Melanie Staples said that “bikies don’t give statements,” did you think of calling her attention to the phenomenon of subpoenas?

The Charges Currently against Patrick O’Dea and Dr Russell Pridgeon, in Brisbane Court, and HCCC’s removal of Pridgeon’s medical license (since restored at Supreme Court level)

Magistrate Anthony Gett : On what basis did you threaten self-represented Defendant Russell Pridgeon with defamation if he tries again to show you incriminating evidence of AFP involvement in child trafficking and documented evidence of police perjury in his case?

Mr Cameron Stewart, professor of Health Law, and member of the NSW Medical Council: Why did you tell Dr Russell Pridgeon that National Law only allows a Section 150 appeal to examine the change of circumstance that allowed the appeal, when what Pridgeon wanted to submit was the same evidence as before that he had not stolen a child but helped a mother protect her child?

Judge Le Poer Trench of the NSW Tribunal (NCAT): In 2018, you continued the suspension of Pridgeon’s medical license on the grounds of emergency when the only instance of his helping a mother occurred in 2014, hence there was no emergency. Did someone tell you to do this?

A Comment on Professional Loyalty

Although I have invested a lot of myself in these cases (not to mention the Boston Marathon case where the court’s behavior is far more egregious), I never get any signal that lawyers are listening to me — and of course media ignore me.

I have assumed that no one in the legal profession will speak out, owing to the belief that criticism of colleagues is a bad thing.  In the case of insulting a judge, each lawyer worries that he may get disbarred, or even cited for contempt. That latter fear is valid, but to criticize in general the performance and the ethics of one’s fellow lawyers must be new. In the past it was standard fare.

So I now add a plea.  Please speak out, honest attorneys, or there will soon be mothing left of you. Just do it for the sake of doing it. Get over your shyness or doubts as to whether it is permissible. Of course it’s permissible! And for academic lawyers and students it is more than permissible, it is de rigeuer. Or should be.

How about you now whack Mary Maxwell by making up a reasonably justificatory reply to each of the 13 questions posted above. If the judges and lawyers are so holy, go on, prove that they’re holy.  Speak for them.

In the case of Coroner Barnes, I asked him to think about 99 complaints I had sent. But in the interests of saving time, I now assign you only one of the 99 things discussed at the Inquest that don’t add up: By 5pm on the day of the “terrifying event,” 5 hostages out of 18, had made their escape, using all three of the available exits.

(The fire exit door was always working; that’s what fire doors are for. The main door, at the corner of Philip St and Martin Place, was operable from inside by pressing the after-hours green button. The swinging doors were slipp-locked but at 4:30pm a waitress simply un-slipped that lock.)

“Why, O Judge Barnes — or judicial substitutes for this exercise — would you assume that the remaining 13 educated adults would sit there for 9 more hours, risking death?” Monis had let them wander around to the kitchen (from which the fire exit was a viable departure point) and Monis let them go, in pairs, to the upstairs toilet, where they could have colluded about how to jump him. I mean, wouldn’t you? At one point Monis went upstairs with 3 hostages, leaving ten persons to their own devices.

Am I implying that the hostages faked their imprisonment in the Lindt Cafe? Yes. Why would I say such a thing? Because when 13 educated adults sit around waiting for possible death (two of whom actually did receive death after 2am), it’s only logical to notice that this just doesn’t add up.

Fight me off. Come on, fight me, fight me! I’m dying to be shown up as a nutter — if you can do it.

Want to tell me in secret?  Email MaxwellMaryLLB@ gmail.com