Commission accused of 'doctored' email in Heydon case

Counsel for the CFMEU seemingly accuses the commission of 'doctoring' an email relevant to Dyson Heydon's invite to a Liberal Party event and then retracts it.

• Heydon interprets the black and white letter of the law
• Analysis: Royal commission email bombshell backfires
• Analysis: Former High Court judge has to put himself in real people's shoes

The head of the royal commission into trade union corruption Dyson Heydon will ponder his own fate over the weekend before delivering his final judgment on whether he will disqualify himself from the inquiry as early as Tuesday.

The royal commission was accused during its Friday hearing of failing to release all relevant information commissioner Heydon received from the organiser of a Liberal Party event he had agreed to address in Sydney next week.

 

read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/royal-commission-admits-email-error-as-dyson-heydon-ponders-his-own-fate-20150821-gj4wm4.html

There is something called Confirmation Bias. It may appear quite obvious that we pick and choose facts, figures and opinions to suit our interpretation of sliced cheese. It's also called myside bias. This is of course the centrepiece of why we disagree, why we have differences of opinions and why we entrench ourselves to dismiss contrariant propositions. 

Of course we are all aware of it, we cultivate it in our partisanship and we use it to our advantage to create our place in the sun.

But it is more than just an oddity in our psychological behaviour. It polarises opinions, sometimes dangerously. 

Confirmation Bias is used to distraction by religious fanatics, by orators and by spruikers such as Lord Monckton and Alan Jones. Ninety-nine per cent of the Murdoch press is swimming in Confirmation Bias. This can be proven to 97 per cent certainty.

This is why we have shows like Mythbusters, where certain urban myths are analysed in a pseudo-scientific way with entertainment added to it. They confirm or disprove myths by removing as much Confirmation Bias (aka myths — true or false) as they can from their investigations.

Judges live in fish bowls. They are employed to interpret the law as much as to apply it. At this point, one could see that the type of judge, his/her opinions at large can influence his/her views in cases. In general, judges tend to stay clear of Confirmation Bias as much as possible even if the proceedings are contrary to their instincts or political views. 

In the Union Bashing Royal Commission (here I show my Confirmation Bias), the terms of references are designed to inflict as much harm as possible on the Labor Party. And it appears that Judge Heydon is part of this rigmarole. There seems to be ample evidence when he went easy on some witnesses and hard on others according to their political affiliation. This is Confirmation Bias.

Scientists are most aware of the importance of killing Confirmation Bias. Scientists are super cautious. Intuition has to play a role in investigation and imagination of scientific possibilities. But these investigations are not confirmed as facts, only possibilities. The "facts" in sciences go through extraordinary rigourous sets of criteria and specific keys of repeat independent experimentation and peer reviews. This is why science is always trying to disprove its own theories. This scepticism is the key to investigations and research. The discovery of patterns is often not enough. One needs statistical certainty of the highest degree. This is why your TV advertisers will say this Bugcrap spray will kill 99.9 per cent of germs. not 100.

The "discovery" of the Higgs Boson for example was set at 99.9997 per cent certainty. Why? Because here we are dealing with "particles" that CANNOT BE SEEN. We cannot see, even with the most powerful electronic microscope, beyond the fuzzy surface of a few atoms. Even here, we have to use interpretations of electronic data to reconstruct the image of what is "seen" by our tiny electron beam. So we rely on mathematical statistical model that interpret the traces of such particles. In order to "discover" the Higgs Boson, the data has to go through complex rigourous analysis and five major keys of statistical record. In some ways, the Higgs Boson was known before confirmation in 2013. But it only satisfied three keys, instead of five. More experimentation had to be made. Here, there is very little confirmation bias. Just simple confirmation rigourous statistical analysis that with 99.9997 chances, THERE IS NO OTHER SOLUTION.

Confirmation Bias enters our life at full bore at the level of politics, economics and religion. Artists knowingly use Confirmation Bias as a creative source, with little consequences. Confirmation Bias has far too many consequences — good and bad — on the structure of societies and on the lives of people... At present , the Turdy Government uses Confirmation Bias to the hilt: it's called lies, porkies, excrementation of ideas, deceit, etc.

The science of global warming has very little Confirmation Bias within, only a small margin of error. The facts of a warming planet are fitting the theory to a glove. Intuition of global warming can be confirmed with mathematical models that DO NOT CONTAIN any Confirmation Bias. On the other side, the scepticism against global warming is filled up with selective facts, invention of facts and erroneous interpretations of figures that would make a crooked judge happy. Religion has one Confirmation Bias source: the Bible, the K'ran the Tanakh. Religions swim in Confirmation Bias. Under no circumstances should science and religion be ever mixed — or be mentioned in the same breath.

All this to say, despite my position which could appear biased, I can confirm the Royal Commission on Trade Unions swims in a tempestuous ocean of Confirmation Bias. Judge Heydon won't help this perception shift a tad, if he stays on the commission. 

HE HAS TO GO.

 

 

Now that he has before him an application from the Australian Council of Trade Unions to disqualify himself from sitting as the royal commissioner into trade union governance and corruption, he has to put himself in the position of the reasonable hypothetical bystander, who theoretically is the judge of an apprehension of bias.

So, what would Dyson Heydon think this ordinary hypothetical person thinks of Dyson Heydon?

He might well arrive at a conclusion that his explanation of “overlooking” the invitation’s connection with the Liberal party should be accepted because, after all, commissioner Heydon is a former high court judge of good character and reputation.

There is some interesting context to consider here, because when Julia Gillard’s lawyers submitted that the former prime minister’s “good character and reputation” should be considered when weighing her evidence against the conflicting evidence of two other witnesses, that submission was firmly rejected by Heydon, who said:

This is a mystifying submission. It is a dangerous submission. And, if it were correct, it would be a very troubling submission.

The commissioner said the list of high-powered positions Gillard held over the years did not of itself give further information about her reputation and character, particularly as against that of other witnesses. He went on:

If some such presumption were adopted, it would always be the case that the powerful, the celebrated and the successful will have undue advantages over the weak, the obscure and those of moderate achievement. Then would be the time to ask the question: ‘Little man, what now?’ It is a strange submission to be advanced on behalf of a former politician belonging to the Australian Labor party tradition – a tradition of social democracy.

Dyson Heydon comes from no such tradition, yet implicit in his claim that he “overlooked” the fact that a Liberal party branch invited him to deliver the Garfield Barwick address is that we, or at least the reasonably hypothetical bystander, would understand he is of good character and reputation.

What else has the bystander to go on, other than that he is “powerful, celebrated and successful”? Good enough for Dyson. Not good enough for Julia.

Memorably, Heydon found that Gillard’s main offence in relation to her role as a solicitor in the creation of an Australian Workers Union slush fund was a “lapse of professional judgment, but nothing more sinister”. Nonetheless, he went on to complain about her skill as a witnesses and her “immense determination to vindicate her position”.

The key parts of her evidence were the product of many months, in a sense nearly 20 years, of thought about the issues - the product, too, of iron willpower which drove her very able mind into the most intense and thorough preparation. All this - her intense degree of preparation, her familiarity with the materials, her acuteness, her powerful instinct for self-preservation – made it hard to judge her credibility.

He again picked up the issue of “credibility” when Bill Shorten was in the commission’s witness box last month, saying to the leader of the opposition:

What I am concerned about more is your credibility as a witness and perhaps your self interest as well. A witness who answers each question ‘Yes’ or ‘No, ‘I don’t remember’, or clarified the question and so on, gives the cross-examiner very little material to work with. It is in your interests to curb these, to some extent, extraneous answers. Mr Stoljar [counsel assisting] has a plan. Plans may succeed or they may fail but he is entitled to pursue it.

For Gillard and Shorten the implicit message is: it’s inconvenient if, as witnesses, you’re thoroughly prepared or you’re not giving Jeremy Stoljar enough rope with which to hang you.

 

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/24/what-would-an-ordinary-hypothetical-person-think-of-dyson-heydon

 

Trade union royal commissioner Dyson Heydon has delayed his decision about whether to stand down from the position.

Unions have applied to Justice Heydon to remove himself from the commission amid allegations of bias and a conflict of interest.

Justice Heydon said he would deliver his decision tomorrow but he has released a statement saying he is still considering the ruling and will announce the timing in due course.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-24/dyson-heydon-delays-decision-royal-commission/6721004

--------------------

Should Dyson Heydon decide to stay on the commission, he will bring the entire justice system of Australian into disrepute... He will show that judges are above the law or that the law means little more than who you sleep with, politically speaking that is. Heydon has to go, as sad as it is (for him and our Turdy — who to say the least should have pushed Heydon to resign)...

Heydon has been a careful political beast for a long time but not careful enough. Now he should go and do the partisan Sir Garfield Barwick lecture to his heart content, with a tear in his eyes...

Should one wonder why Dyson Heydon has not resigned yet, one could assume that he was waiting to see the 4-corners show on tonight (24/08/15) and how the cookie would fall. At this stage, one has to say he has taken FAR TOO LONG to make up his mind about this matter of law which he himself know is quite clear since he used it to grilled witnesses, and at this late stage it shows he is a wuss for not accepting the reality of what happened and not resign as he should — or he is a Liberal Stooge and does not want to quit because Tony Abbott still needs him to do more dirty work.

Either way, the Royal Commission into Trade Unions has no more validity whatsoever... It did not have much before as we know it was only set up by Tony Abbott to damage the Labor Party.

With Bronwyn gone, the departure of Heydon will damage Tony Abbott. Actually should Heydon stay on the commission this would damage Tony Abbott far more, because then far more people would feel there is no credibility left for justice in this country. Zero.

 

Mr Heydon will announce whether he will resign from the royal commission due to an appearance of bias after Fairfax Media revealed two weeks ago he was to be the guest speaker at a Liberal Party fundraiser.

Both Mr Abbott and Opposition Leader Bill Shorten have said the commission can continue under another commissioner if Mr Heydon steps down.

"The important thing is that the royal commission will continue," Mr Abbott said.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-wont-weigh-in-on-dyson-heydons-future-as-royal-commissioner-20150827-gj8rxb.html

 

 

It sounds that Heydon has already told Tony Abbott that he will resign the commission. Heydon would know that should he stay on, the farcical nature of the commission — already set up like a 15th century papal inquisition — will turn into a ridiculous unbelievable circus, for clowns to perform like seals conditioned to clap for a feed.

 

Counsel assisting now in spotlight

Labor says the counsel assisting the trade union royal commission, Jeremy Stoljar QC,is now embroiled in the controversy surrounding Dyson Heydon. Courtesy ABC News 24.

Dyson Heydon has deferred to Monday his decision on whether to resign from the royal commission into trade unions, following claims from the ACTU he may have misled the public on why he withdrew from a Liberal Party fundraiser.

Commissioner Heydon was scheduled to announce whether he would disqualify himself from the commission on Friday morning, following allegations from unions that he had created an apprehension of bias in accepting an invitation to speak at a Liberal Party event, but on Thursday afternoon that decision was delayed till Monday. This was the second time the decision had been delayed this week, with Mr Heydon originally due to make a ruling on his position on Tuesday.  

The ACTU said that Mr Heydon's explanation on August 13 that he had withdrawn from the Garfield Barwick address before media reports emerged "might be misleading".

 

ACTU National Secretary Dave Oliver wrote to the Commission on Thursday, asking it to urgently disclose further emails about what prompted Mr Heydon to withdraw from the event on the day Fairfax Media reported his involvement.  

The call from the ACTU chief follows a report in The Australian on Thursday that counsel assisting the commission, Jeremy Stoljar, SC, may have alerted Mr Heydon to Liberal Party links to the event, named after former High Court chief justice and Liberal MP, Sir Garfield Barwick.

The report said that Chris Winslow, the publications manager from the NSW Bar Association, had called Mr Stoljar because he became concerned Mr Heydon's involvement in the event might soon appear in the media. Mr Winslow reportedly asked Mr Stoljar whether Mr Heydon knew the event was connected to the Liberal Party. Mr Stoljar is said to have replied: "I'll raise that with him."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/dyson-heydon-misled-us-on-decision-to-quit-liberal-party-fundraiser-says-actu-20150827-gj98y6.html#ixzz3k3TudGXq
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

 

The Counsel Assisting has to consider resigning as well...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-31/blog-dyson-heydon-hands-down-royal-commissioner-decision/6737636

 

As a fair lay-person, I feel that Heydon deciding to stay in the position while he inflicted pain on other people in a similar position as his own is WRONG. I feel it is devaluing justice... His is thus unable to apply the law to himself as he is expecting from others...

 

It stinks. It shows the Royal Commission is not genuine. Especially in the light of the Border Force in which the minister's office "DID NOT READ THE PAPERWORK". Are these people paid to be ignorant or what?

 

From Richard Ackland

Dyson Heydon’s reasons for rejecting the applications that he disqualify himself as the trade union royal commissioner involve various definitional refinements, akin to a delicatessen slicing the prosciutto very finely.

For instance, would anyone reasonably think he was invited to a “Liberal party event”?

To the commissioner’s way of thinking it was not so much a Liberal party dinner, rather more a speech on legal matters to a group of lawyers.

After all, he said, anyone could come to the dinner as it was not confined to members of the party, which begs the question of how many Labor lawyers would turn up to an event called the “Sir Garfield Barwick lecture”.

The commissioner points to the fact that former chief justice Murray Gleeson delivered the 2014 Garfield Barwick lecture and his politics are unknown and even beyond speculation. If Gleeson could be the guest speaker, how then could it be described as a “Liberal party event?”

Even if it was a party occasion, the commissioner asks: “how does that demonstrate that the speaker has an affinity with a partiality for or a persuasion or allegiance or alignment to the Liberal party or lent it support?”

If the fair minded lay observer (FMLO), who in this instance is the judge of apprehended bias, had an idea of Heydon’s record on the high court they might get a whiff of partiality to a particular world view, or philosophy.

But that was off the menu for consideration.

The meat slicer was set to extra thin when it came to the issue of whether the dinner was a fundraiser or not a fundraiser. Heydon believed it was not a fundraiser.

The commissioner was sure he was not there to raise funds for the Liberal party, which ignored the prospect that he was a drawcard for well-padded lawyers who could come and also make donations, on top of paying for the cost of the meal.

After all, the invitation was accompanied by forms and information to make that possible.

This suggests that the royal commissioner wasn’t so concerned if his host for the night was a branch of the Liberal party. He was more anxious about it being a fundraiser.

Heydon also said in his reasons that he did not want each event or email in the sequence leading up to his withdrawal as guest speaker to be considered separately.

He said the test was for the FMLO to have knowledge of all the relevant circumstances and then reserve judgment until all matters are considered.

That was quite an interesting comment, because it assumes that the FMLO has all the relevant information, which is something the union applicants contest.

It doesn’t seem to be a level playing field if the commissioner, putting himself in the position of the FMLO, has all the knowledge about what went on behind the scenes, but the real FMLO in the street doesn’t.

There are key gaps in our knowledge on the morning of 13 August, between the commissioner saying he was attending the dinner as guest speaker, but only if it was not described as a Liberal party event, and two hours later when he withdrew as guest lecturer. The timeline from the morning of 13 August goes like this:

• 9.00am: counsel assisting Jeremy Stoljar raises with Heydon a query from the bar association’s Chris Winslow about it being a Liberal party event.
• 9.23am: Heydon’s secretary advises the organisers that he is attending the dinner, but only if it is not “described” as a Liberal party event.
• 9.40am: the Sydney Morning Herald asks the commission for a comment about its story, soon to break.
• 9.53am: The commission’s PR man replies to the Sydney Morning Herald.
• 10.10am and 10.50am: two adjournments, during one of which Heydon speaks on the phone to attorney general George Brandis.
• 10.33am: the Sydney Morning Herald breaks the story.
• 10.35am: Herald journalist Latika Bourke tweets the story. 
• 11.33am: the royal commission issues a media release announcing Heydon’s withdrawal from dinner. 

The commissioner has said that his state of mind can best be discerned from his secretary’s email to the dinner organiser, Gregory Burton SC, at 9.23am on 13 August, which said would give the Barwick lecture, but only if it was not “described” as a Liberal party event. 

That was written as a protective exercise after his counsel assisting had a word with him at 9am that morning. Stoljar’s note said that Heydon justified his attendance at the dinner because he showed an email from Burton saying the evening was not a fundraiser.

read more: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/31/hes-staying-no-bias-dyson-heydon-slices-his-reasons-deli-thin

this Heydon-grocer who slices the prosciutto paper thin has a liberal finger on the scales of justice... 

 

Heydon says, nevertheless, the fair-minded observer could not have come to the conclusion he might harbour a political prejudice for a number of other reasons, including the nature of the Sir Garfield Barwick event.

It was, he says, an opportunity to deliver a "legal, non-political address".

While Heydon was sent emails pointing to the political affiliations of the organisers, and an invitation which solicited donations from people who could not attend, he says he did not read the latter and it is "notorious among the legal profession that I am incapable of sending or receiving emails".

The fair-minded observer could know nothing of this. But Heydon says, in any event, the fact donations were not solicited from attendees (who paid $80 for a dinner) supports the view the address itself was not a fundraiser.

His reasons are forensic and detailed but won't win over any detractors. The next round could be in the Federal Court.

 

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/trade-union-royal-commission-dyson-heydon-finds-fatal-flaw-in-unions-argument-20150830-gjbbl9.html#ixzz3kQgQvBxS 
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

 

Heydon talks (writes) shit. Should he truly believe what he says, he would NOT HAVE CANCELLED HIS APPEARANCE AS THE GUEST SPEAKER TO THE LIBERAL "LAWYER'S" function. By cancelling his appearance he admitted that THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A PERCEIVED BIAS ON HIS PART, which should there not be by his reference to Gleeson, he would not have cancelled...

Heydon talks shit... and I am not a lawyer, but I can see flaws, GIANT FLAWS in Heydon's flimsy argument here...

In the light of the 7/11 investigation by the ABC, one should realise that the need for unions has been as crucial as ever before. One can say that unions make mistakes and can be sometimes "corrupt" but usually they are far less corrupt than businesses and employers. Not all businesses and employers are corrupt but they fly very close to the thin line. 

The Royal Commission into unions should be disbanded, since judge Heydon cannot see that he contradicts himself and applies different criteria to himself than to his fare, and this RC should be replaced by police investigation of where employers and employees have colluded on whatever scheme to make peace... 

 

In the Sydney Morning Herald, Paul Sheehan writes:

 

But nothing touched a collective nerve like the Dyson Heydon saga. No other subject came remotely close to mobilising votes. People know a witch-hunt when they see one. They don't like smearing, bullying or pack attacks.

The Dyson Heydon saga was all of these things. Despite the constant claims that his action would not pass the so-called sniff test or the pub test, it turns out that Heydon's dignified, forensic, scholarly rebuttal of his accusers had both moral and legal weight in the community.

For all the brouhaha kicked in the media you would think that Heydon's 67-page response to his critics' arguments would be the defining document in the coverage.

 

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/bill-shorten-is-flogging-a-dangerous-horse-20150902-gjdgvy.html#ixzz3kcEYUAJ8 
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

 

Gus: I have a beef here. if one needs 67 pages of explanation to say whether or not one should be a judge without perception of bias from the pub sniff test, while one is politically engaged, we, as the unwashed maddening mobs, have a major problem in our hand. We are being snubbed and snobbed. Dyson Heydon is 72. He should know the law by now, not re-write the law to suit his position. He should have been sacked by Abbott but Abbott needs Heydon to kill unionism.

The most astonishing evidence of bias in Heydon's self-justification is that he refers to Justice Murray Gleeson doing a similar speech to the one he was going to make, at the same Justice Sir Garfield Edward John Barwick Liberal (CONservative) ovational oration. And because there was no indication of political bias ever shown by Gleeson, Heydon should be allowed the same privilege.

Should Heydon believe he has no political bias OR APPEARANCE OF POLITICAL BIAS, he should NOT HAVE REMOVED HIMSELF from doing the speech. End of story. He should go ahead and make that speech (Too late now... he has been caught with his pants down).

But he stopped himself doing the speech. The fact that he stopped himself from doing the speech, showed that he knew there could be a perception of political bias — A BIG ONE AS THAT. Ipso facto, one can write a lot of crap about not reading or not receiving emails and writing long hand, in this day and age this show that one is a dinosaur in a position of crapping on people. And with bias, because doing so at a "fund-raising" function for the Liberal (CONservative) Party, he would have been implicated up to his eye-balls in bias, not just perception of bias. 

As the grand master of the unwhashed, I declare that Heyson is politically biased and that is that. And this stain is not going to be washed away, not even by Paul Sheehan.

Heydon should actually apologise to the unwashed for trying to fudge it.

In a column for the Sydney Morning Herald, Waleed Aly objects to the accuracy of the pub test in matters of complex law: 

 

 

I think this is one of them. Not because Heydon's perceived impartiality is beyond any reasonable challenge. For what it's worth, I have my doubts about parts of his decision simply denying the relevant function was a fundraiser. And I suspect he too easily dismissed the clearly political dynamics driving this royal commission.

But, frankly, my doubts aren't worth a coaster. If the unions are as scandalised as they say, I'd encourage them to head to court immediately and mount a challenge. I'd like to see them chance their arm outside the pub. Because I'd hate to think they're content to let Heydon's decision stand so they can play it for politics.

Waleed Aly is a Fairfax Media columnist and winner of the 2014 Walkley award for best columnist. He also lectures in politics at Monash University.

 

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/pub-tests-worthless-as-gauge-of--real-peoples-views-20150902-gjdy8y.html#ixzz3kiK4AnzA 
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

 

I have not fathomed where Waleed comes from. Is Waleed a frequenter of Pubs? Which ones? Does he drink orange juice? It is my humble opinion that patrons of pubs should be able to display the lay person's sense of justice — enhanced by the fermented grape-juice (or malt) and not be afraid to voice an opinion. 

Was Waleed born before the Azaria Chamberlain case (which he refers too)? I doubt it. He seems to have been born yesterday and has opinions that are still green behind the ears. If he had been alive when "the dingo did it" he should have been aware that in many pubs (or drunken households) there were fierce debate about what happened.

At the time, people knew about Daisy Bates and the stories of Aboriginal babies taken by dogs.

At the time, the debate also had the opinions of learned people who had visited Ayers Rock (as Uluru was known then) a few month before the Azaria affair. They knew that "the wild mongrels/dogs" were very DANGEROUS. The beast hunted in packs, visiting tents of tourists (no hotel then), chased women in showers and that justice against Lindy Chamberlain was being roughed up, not in the pubs, BUT IN THE MEDIA. 

At the time, should the story of wild dogs make the papers, the budding tourist trade might have taken a nose dive... But as usual, the media wanted human blood (more than 70 per cent of the media)

The pub test then was more equitable than the courts and fairer than the papers. 

Here in the case of Heydon, the patrons of the pubs sense a fudge.

Writing 67 pages of law gobbleddegook using precedents and opinions about the law (they are no more than opinions), while dismissing the fact that Heydon himself saw fit not to do the Sir Barwick lecture for fear of interpretation of bias shows that he rescinded on this perception to protect his employ at the service of a ultra-right wind inquisition into unions in order to destroy the union movement.

That is what the pub test might show, wrong or right, but on average, contrary to what Heydon says, the ordinary average lay person perceives that Heydon has a Liberal (CONservative) bias and no foray into the intestines of the twisted law is going to change this. 

Waleed is preciously wrong.

Despite these oddities, the Heydon controversy demonstrated why we need the fair-minded lay observer test, or something like it.

It's hard not to think that each person's perspective on Heydon's position reflected their own pre-existing political views. Those who had, all along, seen the Royal Commission as a political stunt pounced upon the claim of bias to add force to the claims they'd been making since the Commission was established. Those on the other side of politics saw the claim of bias as a gross exaggeration of the facts and a tactical move by the unions to whip up public opposition to the Royal Commission.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2015/09/04/4306252.htm

(note from Gus: this is the only couple of paragraphs written by Anna Olijnyk that are not as convoluted as Heydon's self-serving judgement.)

------------------

 

Look, Anna. It is simple as one two three. Heydon decided not to present his lecture at the Garfield Barwick Liberalfest fund-raiser for fear of appearing biased. He then produces a 64 pages of convoluted "arguments" (excuses) trying to prove that doing such lecture would not appear biased because he did not read the email and that the wind was blowing from the north-east.

Can you see the contradiction here? When Justices contradict their own actions and reasoning, we, the unwashed lay person, have GOOD REASONS TO THINK THAT THE LAW IS A STINKING ASS... and that Heydon is not playing by the rules of his own perceptions. He is fudging it as he goes along. Simple.