Geoffrey Edelsten wins injunction against US woman but judge claims both lied under oath

COLOURFUL medical entrepreneur Geoffrey Edelsten and a woman he took to trial were both willing to lie under oath, a Supreme Court judge said today. 

In handing down judgment in a breach of confidentiality trial - and awarding Dr Edelsten a permanent injunction preventing US woman Stacy da Silva and others making public disclosure of details regarding the case, Justice David Beach was highly critical of both parties.
"A little over 13 years ago, Brooking J commenced a judgment with the statement 'Titus Oates was the greatest perjurer that ever lived','' Justice Beach wrote in his judgment.
"Self-evidently, his Honour was not the trial judge in the present proceeding.''
Titus Oates was a 16th century priest who famously concocted a story about a supposed plot to assassinate King Charles II.
During the present trial, both Dr Edelsten and Ms Da Silva accused each other of fraud, Justice Beach said.
"I found both Dr Edelsten and Ms da Silva to be unsatisfactory witnesses. Both were prepared to mislead me in respect of any matter that they thought they could get away with,'' Justice Beach said.
"Each was prepared to be truthful only if it did not otherwise embarrass them or harm their case.
"Most of the evidence given by the defendant (Ms da Silva) was demonstrably false and could not be believed.
"However, Dr Edelsten was no more an impressive witness than Ms da Silva ... much of Dr Edelsten's evidence was simply unbelievable.
"Nothing about Dr Edelsten's appearance in the witness box or any of the evidence in this case led me to conclude that I should accept the evidence given by him.
"Specifically, the way in which Dr Edelsten gave evidence was unsatisfactory. On a number of occasions, there were inappropriately long pauses before an answer was given to a straightforward question that should have been capable of a ready answer.
"From time to time, Dr Edelsten appeared to be contemplating which of a selection of answers might prove least embarrassing or least destructive to his case.
"Finally, in respect of too many matters in cross-examination, Dr Edelsten was content, all too readily, to say that he could not recall the matter inquired of, before having to, somewhat grudgingly, acknowledge its existence.''
Despite Dr Edelsten and Ms da Silva being unbelievable, Justice Beach said Dr Edelsten's expert witness was credible and enabled him to make a finding in favour of Dr Edelsten's case.

hearaldsun.com.au 18 Oct 2012

Certain people are allowed to get away with fraud, corruption and intimidation, amongst other criminal activities.

Since now a judge stated that Edelsten 'lied under oath', which in itself is a criminal act, one in contempt of court. 

Charges can now be laid by police against Geoffrey Edelsten.

This case shows that not only you can lie in court in order to win, but also there are no repercussions.

The legal system serving the elite at its best.

The corporate media is now sponsoring a new reality  trash television program featuring the Edelstens wife Brynne.

The corporate media subservient to governmental policy and a propaganda machine to the corporate elite.