I came across this critical commentary of the Jeremy Shum v. David
Newman, Paul Billingham et al, Maths Worldwide case. In my opinion,
this is going to be one of the most interesting media law cases of the
21st century, as nearly a million people are gathered worldwide in a
lawsuit against a South African company.
LOS ANGELES, CA -- I recently read rumors on a blog about David Newman
(Maddocks Lawyers, Sydney AU) and his campaign to try to discredit the
$4.3bn Jeremy Shum lawsuit, by attempting to portray him as a juvenile
(synonym: child, immature, young, youth, ager, deliquent).
Apparently, the people from Maths Worldwide (Mathemagic) which Jeremy
Shum will be suing for about $4.3bn, are also being asked to do the
same; just think about it, the power of a sheer organization posting
malicious comments on the Internet, about the Disney star turned
lawyer. Nothing out-of-the-ordinary in terms of a response to a case
that is putting Directors of Maths Worldwide and their accountants
(Paul Billingham et al) at a huge risk of liability, though. Most
recently, I have seen gossip regarding an alleged Jeremy Shum . tape
with Brooke Fraser and Demi Lovato, which simply just doesn't exist.
Now of course David Newman's actions would currently seen to be
"allegations" (not yet proved in a court of law), but after making a
few phone calls around to the Law Council of New South Wales and
about, I have been advised that David Newman is supporting these
allegations, and do not have reason to believe otherwise (feel free to
the right of reply if so). Mr. Newman must now respond to media
claims, and answer: (1) did he try to spin public opinion to portray
Jeremy Shum as a juvenile; and (2) why is he using such unethical
methods, if so?
The question about David Newman's conduct as a lawyer is not really
extraordinary though. With only experience in commercial law, Newman
has little experience altogether in media law; Jeremy Shum, plenty.
Mr. Newman just isn't well knowledged in the area of media law, and I
could imagine Jeremy Shum receive a series of legal threats, which he
knows very well Mr. Newman will not be able to pull through with.
Thus, Mr. Newman's last option, is to try to harass, threaten, and
abuse Jeremy Shum personally, so that Mr. Shum will pull his $4.3bn
lawsuit against Maths Worldwide off the reins. This course of action
however, is going to be severely limiting. As a renowned Disney star,
Jeremy Shum's popularity well towers over David Newman. In fact, one
critic observed that David Newman may have been intentionally asked to
serve as the lawyer, to give publicity to the Maddocks Lawyers
company. Talk about where legal ethics is in modern society. Mr.
Newman however, may have just had his last punch, as the wider
Australian public are going to judge Maddock's Law firm on prima
facie, and its blatantly unethical strategies in the media. In many
ways, it is hard to see why such immoral conduct on David Newman's
behalf is not acclaimed as a criminal offense. The other question of
course, is whether Mr. Newman is going to turn into a laughing stock,
seeing as though the Disney star's looks triumphs easily over the
nerdier looking Mr. Newman, who was described by one blogger as a
"double chin fatso". Not that Mr. Shum is void of any commentary,
including a remark that Jeremy Shum was an "anorexicly skinny foul-
mouthed ", but the Internet can be a harsh judge of truth, and
Newman just isn't ready for the reality, but merely, a false
impression, in an arrogant, self-enlightened sense. David Newman is
taking a dangerous route turning a serious lawsuit into a complete
comedic farce, where looks are all that matter; taking up this media
stunt for his law firm Maddocks Lawyers.
For me, the issue is lawyers are not meant to be getting into dirty
work such as public relations. David Newman is simply too arrogant
and proud, to admit his loss, to a younger alma matter of the law.
The profession of law however, in many ways, has seemingly turned from
its ways of protecting legal rights, to now, a farce of the law as
David Newman has, turning the courts into a media circus. This has
even led to one blogger, who apparently has reported David Newman to
the New South Wales Law Society, to have him deregistered as a
lawyer. I was recently conversing with a Professor in the Law from
the University of Sydney, who advised that Jeremy Shum may actually be
able to personally sue Mr. Newman for defamatory comments made Shum
(even if implied), which could potentially shatter Mr. Newman's
chances of ever working again in the legal profession. Of course I am
glad that here in the United States, our American legal system is far
from the farce it has become in Australia. With an express freedom of
speech constitutionally guaranteed, manic controlling suppresionists
like David Newman (and Paul Billingham) would clearly be unable to
restrain freedom of speech. For the comparisons made of Australia
against China, David Newman is heading up a dangerous route trying to
manipulate its common law to bar "implied freedom of political
communication", which is the only implied guarantee in the
Constitution that Australians have.
Then there is the issue about Paul Billingham et al (Grant Thornton
Accounting) and their handling of the Maths Worldwide accounts. As
Jeremy Shum admits himself, there is so little information available
on Maths Worldwide, it is near impossible to ascertain what Maths
Worldwide is, yet alone details about its Directors, and its
commercial activity. Mr. Billingham should be required to provide
sufficient information about Maths Worldwide, which they simply
aren't. Who is Maths Worldwide? Where are they located? How can I
contact them (other than through an email address)? I find it hard to
believe this isn't misleading and deceptive conduct on behalf of Paul
Billingham et al. Where is the Institute of Chartered Accountants of
Australia to take action, when you need them to? Until Maths
Worldwide responds to media questions (which it isn't), you cannot but
just mistake the Company for a fraud. Or at least this is the market
perception. And "A Current Affair" is already crawling on their
backs. Mr. Billingham is also taking a dangerous route in terms of
trying to make the court case a media circus, by painting Jeremy Shum
as a juvenile. Recently, I saw public anger spark over Paul
Billingham's conduct, as a commentary (who claimed to be a former co-
worker with Paul Billingham) described him as a "cocky fat bastard",
to omit other expletives which would not be suitable in a forum
relating to children's current affairs.
Journalists often should try to stay disinterested from the matters of
a case; but I for one, am very dissapointed in Maths Worldwide, and
their obstruction of international law (I'm not so much concerned
about the claims in relation to the Trade Practices Act; but combined,
they are serious offences against children). Defrauding children can
be inserted on the same platform as pedophelia, child .ography,
physical abuse, and other child-related crimes. I'm obviously not
going to say that David Newman and Paul Billingham are child
pedophiles, but to have such reckless disregard for children, surely
the law should do more than it does right now? Sure, media spinners
from Maths Worldwide are going to try to twist Jeremy Shum's image
into the evil stepfather; and their own image into fairytale child
lovers, but anybody who has more than a meticulous eye, will see David
Newman and Paul Billingham for who they really is. And in my view,
what's a commonly used word in English that expresses a deranged
mentally unstable sociopath who have the need to make insane
pathological equivocations? Liars.
(Please note that that the above comments are my own opinion, and may
not represent fact - even though they are based on facts) |
