|
Dear Robyn,
Under common law, for a contract to be created, there must be
certainty of terms. For a lender to knowingly make out that a contract
where the terms are uncertain, ie: where the interest rate is variable (ie: ie:
uncertain), the lender is guilty of the false representation of that
document, ie: fraud (and taking money by fraud is stealing ---- ie: the 8th
Commandment says "Thou shalt not steal" ---- ie: ie: stealing is a
crime).
Signing a fraudulent contract does not right the wrong and the
contract remains void.
A lender concealing the fraud is also guilty of an additional
crime of "concealing a serious offence".
For a borrower to sign a fraudulent contract knowing it is
fraudulent is something he/she must justify to a tribunal of the people, ie: a
jury, otherwise he/she is also guilty of being party to the wrong. A jury can
decide what are the facts, what is the law, what is the moral intention of the
accused, and whether the law is appropriately being applied with an overriding
duty to judge the justice of the law and vote entirely on their
conscience.......and I am sure that is not taught in Law
Schools.
That is why, under our system of English common law, we have
Courts of Justice where any law is nullified in the interest of Justice.
Lawyers have been brainwashed into believing our courts are exclusively Courts
of Law and that lawyers who become judges are masters of the people. Our
courts have been corrupted by the lawyers -- and that is why the people need to
learn what is, and to re-established, Right.
That is why a jury vote wholly on their conscience. A
jury preserves the moral integrity of the community --- and, as I have said
before, that is why the "elite" want to abolish juries.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
Dear John,
As stated previously, you do have genuine complaints
(but provided you did not sign any agreement accepting "variable"
interest rates; or, aternatively "variable iterest
rates" were not properly explained to you; or there was some especial
conflict of interest) - however in any case, you are still truly
not approaching matters properly. As said before I
truly sympathise and understand you are a new victim and are accordingly,
very naturally, biased (indeed given the foregoiig answers you may have
genuine complaint -alternatively, depending on foregoing answers
and perspective of other real victims, you may not?) - but in any
event you a "fresh victim" and truly, for one reason
or the other, not thinking properly: indeed your are a professional,
but a dentist and not a lawyer (given some smalll grace!!!!)! But
whatever the case please do know that I fully appreciate where you are
coming from at the moment, and deeply sympathise: however that
said and understood your present course is (understandably) affected by your
own personal problems and their deeo rammifications on you and your family
(perhaps you also feel some unexpressable quietly felt "guilt
" with your family?: But, whatever the case, all this
adds to one's "anger" with the system and it's faililngs to
properly state the facts in order that proper decisions might be made when
entering into agreements with major corporations (i.e. at major disadvantage
to indivuduals). Your concerns are, although correct in
essence, improperly addressed and radical....this will get us
absolutely nowhere - although you will attact supporters here and there,
they do not address or properly understand the
problems......the matters need public discussion, addressing so that
everyone understands the issues and problems ----- and then, and only then,
can we proceed to effect realistic, meaningful changes to the legal
system (which evenknowledgeable lawyers admit need change - but those
changes must be addressed properly).
Kind regards,
Robyn
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, 27 September 2000
2:01 PM
Subject:
Dear Larry Dodge,
The NSW Jury Act 1977 No 18 is an
inadequate piece of legislation with no mention of the rights and
responsibilities of the jury in the administration of justice.
The reason for this email is to ask how two sections
of that Act would be regarded if they appeared in legislation in the
U.S.A.
The first is "Section 55C Supply of
transcripts to jury: A copy of all or any part of the
transcript of evidence at a trial or inquest may, at the request of the
jury, be supplied to the members of the jury if the judge or coroner
considers that it is appropriate and practical to do
so.".
And the second is "Section 68B Disclosure
of information by jurors etc: (2) A person (including a juror
or former juror) shall not, for a fee, gain or reward, disclose or offer
to any person information on the deliberations of a jury. Penalty: 50
penalty units ($1,000)".
*************************************************8
There is another section of the same Act under which a
local high-profile radio announcer was convicted when a former lady jury
phoned his radio program in an extremely distressed and sobbing state to
complain that she had been forced by other members of that jury to
change her vote (against her conscience) to return a Not Guilty verdict
in a murder trial. She said the experience had "ruined her
life".
Here is the section for which Mr John Laws (announcer)
was found guilty: "Section 68A Soliciting information from
jurors etc (1) A person shall not solicit information
from, or harass, ajuror or former juror for the purpose of obtaining
information on the deliberations of a jury for the inclusion in any
material to be published or any matter to be broadcast. Penalty: In the
case of a corporation, 50 penalty units; in any other case, 20 penalty
units." It should also be noted that this section was amended in
1997 to delete the Penalty clause and "Insert instead: Maximum
penalty on indictment: imprisonment for 7 (seven)
years.".
I have been told by an observer present at the John
Laws trial that the jury returned to the court to ask for the
legislation but the judge told them it would only confuse
them.
The sentence imposed on John Laws was "18 months
suspended imprisonment". He is not a courageous individual and, in
fact, apologized to the judge during the course of the trial and refused
to put forward any of the Fully Informed Jury Association argument at
any stage - which is consistent with his attitude when he was fined
$40,000 for a previous conviction for Contempt of Court when he made
comments about the character of a person accused of a diabloical murder.
On that occasion when I sent him material, his secretary said "He
does not want to upset the judge.".
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
|
