Re: A Jury Act in New South Wales, Australia.

[John Wilson]

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.

[John Wilson]

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).