Talk:Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)

argh. This will need to be merged with Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW). Kewpid 07:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have merged it. Kewpid 06:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Aftermath Kable 2
This section is overly long and contains unnecessary quotations. It appears to claim that any mention of the case is a copyright infringement which is wrong and irrelevant. However, it appears to be defended by the editor who wrote it.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And now the assertion that a mention of the case is defamatory. This appears to be added by Gregory Kable himself, or someone representing him.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2014 (UT


 * The information was posted by Gregory Kable it is specific and accurate and well sourced with appropriate quotations. And is as long as it needed to be considering the complexity of the issues posted. No one said people have to be geniuses to post the truth about subject matter.

Copyright infringement refers the state of NSW and the aftermath of the unconstitutional ACT itself and not Wikipedia or those who reported it after the fact. It was meant to alert people about an injustice that exists in the Australian legal system which is discriminatory. Thanks.--Gkable (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Two of the references added by Evalrw under the heading Decision, were cases that relied on the Kable Doctrine whereby the Doctrine was revisited by those who sought legal relief (after the fact) but were also two cases that were amongst the worst cases of sexual assault in Australia's legal history. And as explained on the page there are hundreds of case after the fact that have relied on Kable Doctrine. It would be unrealistic to post them all. Specifically in relation to Jack Upland's own comment,"is overly long and contains unnecessary quotations".

Those cases should have their own wikipedia page and can refer to this page as a reference. This page would not exist if it was not responsible to the people and families it refers to. I don't expect readers to decide what is or not slanderous and defamatory and libel to Mr Kable or his family. Thanks. --Gkable (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is vague in describing the order of events. Kable was serving a sentence for manslaughter at the time the bill was passed. His 4yr sentence was increased by 6months, by the act. The Fed. Const. prevents any bill from imposing pains and penalties directly, nor in altering ones imposed by the courts. Prior to the Const., this could be done if the person was under sentence. The real issue with the Kable case is that Const. rights cannot be used as a defense in any state court, as only High Court judges can make constitutional decisions. State judges are duty bound to uphold the laws of their state, even if those laws are unconstitutional.203.213.62.125 (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Orthogonjal1 removed relevant material from court records. Nothing bias about it at all from Gkable. If the subject can't have input about the truth then why not? That material has been posted for many years. I simply put back what was deleted. I have also asked for full protection to prevent further vandalism. Gkable (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Subsequently CLPO 13 re removed the material suggesting bias from Gkable. Subsequently Gkable reposted the material. Subsequently CLPO 13 cited a COL tag. This was wrong. Gkable (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Gary. Wikipedia policy normally prevents the subject of an article from editing it. But given the circumstances, I'm happy to have a conversation about this to see if we can get the article into a state that everyone is happy with. There are several reasons that I removed the content. I removed the Court transcripts because: 1. The copyright in them is owned by the Courts 2. The extracts were way too long for a Wikipedia article - Wikipedia should summarise the important points in the article, and provide links to the transcripts if anyone wants to see them. I removed the copyright infringement section because copyright isn't infringed by the mere mention of your name, or of this case. It's a terrible part of the common law system that the names of parties can be mentioned in other cases when citing precedent (at least in the Family Court the parties are given pseudonyms). It must be horrible to constantly be reminded of this case so many years later. I can't even begin to imagine how it feels. But your case was one of the most important cases ever heard by the High Court, so Wikipedia needs to have a page on it. And look at it this way - you won! That is something to be proud of. Let me know if you disagree with anything that I've said or have ideas to make the article better. All I ask is that you don't edit the article until we've worked this out. I won't either. Let's give ourselves at least three days to try to reach an agreement. Orthogonal1 (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Since I haven't received a response in the three day period, I've reverted the changes. Orthogonal1 (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism by users
Othogonal1 would you or any other readers please not remove relevant transcript material and claim some reason like bias. You know it's the truth and the truth hurts. Those comments were made by senior judges and barristers in the courts. These are officers of the court. That is who they are and who they represent.Gkable (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC) Gkable (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

No conflict of interest
I happened to find this page on 16/10/ 2016 links disrupted by a user called find bruce. All I did was atempt to make the links work again. When clicking a link the link would refer to possible corrupt file and ask the user to secure link. Please see edit by find bruce. Or talk to me about my attempt to mearely correct the links. Drm310 please talk? Gkable (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

PS this case is examined and studied by every law student in Australia that is why I corrected the links Gkable (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Replied to duplicate message on my talk page. --Drm310 (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes but I have been totaly missrepresented.There are allot of negative things said about my case on this page however l have not interfeared with that. At some stage I have added more facts and corrected some too as a wiki member. The Kable Doctrine is visited by every law student in Australia I chose to stop vandalism and keep references and links working and updated thats all. Gkable (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Smartse What is wrong with the external links they have been there for 5 years? How does that overshadow wikipedia? I put them back please explain? Drm310 please reply to page discussion here. Thanks. Gkable (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

why do I get attacked by two admins now that I talked? Why did an admin remove the vandalised links I talked about. What kind of bulliing is that? Admins should also be accountable and could appreciate help in tackling vandalism? Why isnt that important smartse and dm310? How come niether of you fixed the problem I came here to fix yesterday by find bruce? You have just gone along with the vandalusm so did you look at what that person did? Or do you send in the clown first? Gkable (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

what did you remove? External link Getting Justice Wrong. The Law according to Gregory Kable opening speech he gave at the First National Conference of Community Based Criminal Justice Activists. The Conference was hosted by Justice Action. Anyone can look it up but why not from here? This is a civil rights issue why not you? Gkable (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I have addressed and answered the conflict of interest notice board posted by Jack Upland as follows:

Yes but I have been totaly missrepresented.There are allot of negative and wrong things said about my case on this page however l have not interfeared with that. At some stage I have added more facts and corrected some too as a wiki member. A fact is a fact not bias. The Kable Doctrine is visited by every law student in Australia I chose to stop vandalism and keep references and links working and updated thats all.

Subsequently I happened to find this page on 16/10/ 2016 links disrupted by a user called Find Bruce. All I did was atempt to make the links work again. When clicking a link the link would refer to possible corrupt file and ask the user to secure link. Please see edit by Find bruce. Or talk to me about my attempt to mearely correct the links. Drm310 please talk?

Typically vandals who dont like the truth attack the page often now 17/10/2016 Smartse removed the external links that have been there for over 5 years? How do those external links overshadow wikipedia?

And then why do I get attacked by two admins now that I talked? Why did an admin remove the vandalised links I talked about. What kind of bulliing is that? Admins should also be accountable and could appreciate help in tackling vandalism? Why isnt that important smartse and dm310? How come niether of them addressed the real problem I came there to fix, a link bug put there by find bruce? They have just gone along with the vandalism. So why didnt they look at what that person did to cause the edit? Or did they send in the clown first?

What did they remove? External link Getting Justice Wrong. The Law according to Gregory Kable opening speech he gave at the First National Conference of Community Based Criminal Justice Activists. The Conference was hosted by Justice Action.

Anyone can look it up but why not from here? This is a civil rights issue why not wiki?

The edits I made are not in conflict of interest of the article. But in conflict of interest of numerous attacks of vandalism and updating broken links and bugs not fixed by admin. Gkable (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you know what liable is? Defamatory and wrong and untrue information spread by people that give no reply to the article by the person they defame. Only the CIA would be so low as to undermine the truth. What about balance? I didnt remove lies just gave a balanced view. What is wrong with correcting vandalism? Bugs put there by anyone! Youd rather Id take Wikpedia to court? Gkable (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Now Tagishsimon the third bully removes Kable 2 an article posted by somone else in respect of hiding the civil and democratic right of reply to a well balanced article. Why not take the lot off? What right do you have to print defamation on line. See you in court. Gkable (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh and you are a reiable source compaired to the court transcripts you removed? Youve gone out of your way to defame the writer. Gkable (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath Kable 2 removed
I have removed the aftermath section. To the extent that it made any sense (i.e. not much), it looks like Kable trying to relitigate some aspects of the case on Wikipedia. I have advised Mr. Kable that he must refrain from editing the article. Should there be anything to say about Kable 2, I would like it to be hashed out here before returning to the page. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for a disgruntled litigant, and the removed section was quite clearly unencyclopedic. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you know what liable is? Defamatory and wrong and untrue information spread by people that give no reply to the article by the person they defame. Only the CIA would be so low as to undermine the truth. What about balance? I didnt remove lies just gave a balanced view. What is wrong with correcting vandalism? Bugs put there by anyone! Youd rather Id take Wikpedia to court? Gkable (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I did not post Kable 2 Gkable (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Now Tagishsimon the third bully removes Kable 2 an article posted by somone else in respect of hiding the civil and democratic right of reply to a well balanced article. Why not take the lot off? What right do you have to print defamation on line. See you in court. Gkable (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * see also Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh and you are a reiable source compaired to the court transcripts you removed? Youve gone out of your way to defame the writer. Gkable (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * If anyone is interested, here is a link to the discussion of the incident and to the Conflict of Interest discussion .--Jack Upland (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

What is this sentence trying to say?
"After a sharp separation from his children to prison the letters were written whilst in prison in the first 12 months after being denied access to his children." Very confusing. Moriori (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I've removed it because it is badly expressed and doesn't appear to add anything to the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Update
I have added a brief mention of Kable 2 which is based on a respected constitutional textbook. I have also removed the CoI tag because the issue seems to have been resolved.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Technically it is a separate case rather than an aftermath so I have changed the heading to reflect that and added a further Court infobox. I have also included a mention of the decisions leading to the High Court in State of NSW v Kable, reflecting the case summary prepared by the High Court, with references. Find bruce (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

NSW v Kable
Kable 2 was NSW v Kable in the High Court, which is why that was the heading used.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)