A Jury Act in New South Wales, Australia.
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 beforeI 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 foregoinganswers andperspective 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 "withyour 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 radicalthis will get us absolutely nowhere - although you will attact supporters here and there, theydonotaddress 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 weproceed 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 - From: John Wilson To: Fija 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
Re: A Jury Act in New South Wales, Australia.
Dear George, Of course, any member of the jury can ask questions of anyone and can call for any documents, any evidence and anyone. They are the judges, in the total sense, and the judge is only there to assist the jury in the conducting of a fair trial. It is Trial by Jury - with the emphasis on by - as opposed to Trial with Jury, which is a phrase the legal fraternity are introducing by stealth to undermine the power of the jury and con them into believing that they are only there at the disposal of the judge. Please look at http://www.FIJA.org Yours sincerely, John Wilson. -Original Message-From: george newnham [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: John Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Wednesday, 27 September 2000 15:24Subject: Re: A Jury Act in New South Wales, Australia.John, Just a question I would like to have cleared up - if you know the answer that is. Can a member of a jury ask a question of anyone in the witness box, that he/she thought that either the defence lawyer/prosecutor/judge should have asked? George Newnham Cairns, Queensland John Wilson wrote: 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). *8There 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.
Re: A Jury Act in New South Wales, Australia.
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. -Original Message-From: Robyn VR [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: John Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: agetch [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Balgarnie [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Grant Callaghan [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; NATIONAL WATCHMAN UPDATE [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Martin Essenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bob Katter [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Caboolture [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Paula [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Graeme A.W. Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Terry Philpott [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bill Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Brett Dawson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Colin Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dorothy Pratt [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Exposure Magazine [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Senator Harradine [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jeanine McRae [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Joe Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Joseph Abram [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Larry Dodge [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Misha [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Omega [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Peter Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Philip Madsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Neither Public List [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ray Platt [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Raymond A. Smyth [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ron Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Scott Balson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sue and Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED]; David Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tony Pitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Arthur Tuck [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Wednesday, 27 September 2000 21:13Subject: A Jury Act in New South Wales, Australia. 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 beforeI 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 foregoinganswers andperspective 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 withyour 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
A Jury Act in New South Wales, Australia.
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.
