Further to above, I have just had a quick scan/read of your blog.
For a pro Se plaintiff you have done well for yourself, though the insanity and stressors are normal. You need to now sit back and take it easy.
As for your former employer..... well based on what you have supplied you have ample ability now to have a nice word with them and maybe the FWA as well. I wish you luck in that regard, though you shouldn't need much luck. Just remember, amicability and compromise works better and in practice might be the best interest of yourself for future employment.
Your case though re google has IMO major concerns and ramifications that go beyond yourself. Listen to your silk and solicitors, take there advise and be pragmatic, and look to your future not to the quantum of damages (that's not going to be decided for a long while and might be in our vernacular "bugger all")
>> I think Australia does need a right to be forgotten law. I hadn't thought of it that way but that is a great idea.
No it doesn't. EVER.
No matter the chilling effect of enacting that law would have, believe me when I tell you that just because you have had a lot more positive supporters than negative in no way states what the actual legal fraternity actually thinks of your case.
It is wrong on a few levels, and I hope you realise and your solicitors have advised you that the SC of South Aust is NOT the last step in this process.
This decision is being looked at very closely and people are highly concerned. Your case is not a Gutnick, your case IMO is more damaging and stop putting words into your silks mouth, they don't appreciate it and will now most likely be questioned over it. *shakes head in wonder at stupidity of laypersons* Also your case is NOT precedent, hopefully though it becomes more obiter soon.
Good luck in lobbying the Govt, though be aware myself (who is actually an Australian) will be doing it too to stop your egocentric attempts.
>>> I won and Techdirt has zero influence over me, Google, common law or Australian legislation.
Really? you think Techdirt (in as far as the people who actually write for it) care about humiliating you? they are writing about the stupidity and egocentric nature of your case. As for the rest of your comment the phrase "lol wut" comes to mind.
I wish you luck in your next lobbying endevours, though don't expect it to be as easy sailing as you think.
It's not about kowtowing to USAmerica, it's about sensible network architecture
Though I agree with you regarding sensible architecture (network and otherwise) the kowtow remark is actually what the USG is asking for in TRIPS/TPP etc treaties with the aforementioned countries I stated. They want it to be a breach of said treaties for a country (like Australia for example) to actually make legislation which Australia currently has in place (guess where I am from ;) ) that stops sensitive data from travelling outside of the jurisdiction.
Until the USA stops thinking it has some God given right (and I use that phrase in all its religious and egotistical meanings - since that is the crux of what the USG actually tries to shove down everyones throats) to access information anywhere it sees fit and make up dubious laws and excuses and 'reasons' then for itself to tell China all this is hypocricy in the extreme.
Yes China wants to control it's citizens information etc, I'm not stating otherwise, and most governments want that access if they can too (no matter what style of government or autocracy they have). That doesn't impact or take awaty from the crux of my comment, in that Mike with this article cannot have it both ways. Privacy is either for all or for none and one country does not have an exclusive on how they dictate what it is and isn't to rest of the planet which the US is trying to do.
Though the last item of those two points above does raise serious questions when it comes to the defining of the word 'controllable' (not to mention the defining of the phrase 'all parts of society') the first of these raised points is absolutely a non concern, other than for countries like the USA who seem to think they are allowed access to anyone's data that resides in their 'controlled spaces' (cloud, physical locations, et.al) without due process or comity because of reasons.
Every country that has a minute amount of consumer protection laws and considers there citizens data as not only a privacy issue but also a national security concern (since citizens are the actual nation) is doing this.. Or should Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the whole of the freakin EU, UK, etc all kowtow to America as well and allow ALL citizen data (Health, legals, government, education, etc) to be stored outside of there own borders (and legal protection) where three letter acronyms like the NSA can do what they will, or even worse the data can be onsold to capitalistic* organisations who have no ethical problem with using the data in any way they see fit without the users knowledge or agreement. (*welcome to the near non existent USA consumer data laws where the consumer is just another way to make ethically dubious money)
Sorry Mike, but you cannot have it both ways. The first part of this whole post is extremely US centric and though China might be problematic to the USA at moment, that doesn't really mean it actually is in this matter.
I'd love to hear what Glynn thinks about this as well
Foster's is an EXPORT beverage and rarely drunk in Australia by anyone other than maybe foreigners who ask for it thinking it's our national Drink. Notice I don't deem to call it a beer - because it's more akin to Emu piss than anything else.
Bud on the other hand is a beverage (again distinction of NOT beer) that is absolutely sold in the USA as the USA beer of choice (like miller's... nuff said).
There are a lot of beers in the USA that are great. Bud isn't one of them
Maybe that soulmate of yours has signed you up Mike.. maybe she got fed up with you working 23hrs a day and started to listen to the Pina Colada Song ( 'Escape' by Rupert Holmes) and thought Ah HA I know how I can get his attention.
Though what has been posted above by Mike was a major blow to DBC (Voltage) the most interesting thing IMO (and a lot of solicitors here) is this gift to any respondents (Does) at 
Finally, as in Voltage v John Doe, I think it appropriate if this matter goes further that DBC should also undertake that any proceedings it commences should be commenced in this Court rather than in the Federal Circuit Court. And, at least in the first instance, if the undertaking is forthcoming I will direct the Registrar that any such case which is filed should be listed before me for directions. In particular, any multi-respondent or reverse class action suit should come before me for directions before it is served on any respondent.
Basically this is stating that his Honour has instructed the Registrar (who assigns cases in the federal Court) to put ANY future mass copyright or reverse class action cases by Voltage/DBC (or any plaintiff actually) against ISPs before himself..
This allows this Judge who is absolutely and thoroughly competent due to his brilliant understanding of the technologies and issues involved the ability to assess those cases on their merits and doesn't tie up any OTHER courts. ie: there will be No forum shopping or circuit shopping anymore!
Specultive invoicing is basically dead in Australia before it even started, this is what we all wanted here and no matter what our Governments push through this will always be the case now. Our Judges are very au fait with this type of bullshit.
--------- On a lighter note.. These statements here are Classic Perram who is quite the character ;)
at  and The next round in the proceedings saw this Court make orders on 6 May 2015 which indicated that whilst satisfied, in principle, that DBC was entitled to preliminary discovery, the Court was not going to open the sluice gates until it saw the proposed correspondence and until DBC satisfied the Court that it was that approved correspondence, and not something else, such as a dead cat, that DBC was going to send to account holders.[emphasis added]
and at  ... Maybe the evidence will ultimately show that some of the infringers were true pirates and, sailing under the Jolly Roger, would only ever have acquired a copy of the Film if they did not have to pay for it. [emphasis added]
Oh and this is Aussie Judge speak for "WTF are you lot smoking? There is no way in hell that would EVER occur in Australia" ..at 
In this case, the idea that any court would assess DBC’s damages on the basis that BitTorrent users who were going to share the Film over the BitTorrent network would have avoided infringement by approaching DBC to negotiate a distribution arrangement in return for a licence fee is so surreal as not to be taken seriously. If such a claim were made in a proceeding for copyright infringement in this Court I am satisfied that it would be dismissed summarily without trial under s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) as a case having no reasonable prospects of success.[emphasis added]
Oh and s31A(2) allows our 'loser pays" system to have costs awarded against DBC/Voltage if they even contemplated trying it! :)