Dear Brian,
I appreciate the
gesture.
My next court expense is to file in the High Court for leave
to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision (7th May) to dismiss my
application for leave to appeal against Justice Sully's ruling that he, without
a jury, would hear the Crown's Notice of Motion to dismiss my case for unlawful
imprisonment - thereby preventing it getting to a jury for a jury to
decide if Australians have the Right to Trial by Jury.
John.
-Original Message-From:
Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED]To:
John Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date:
Thursday, 10 May 2001 8:24Subject: Re: Judicial Corruption,
Bank Fraud Trial by Jury.
Hi John
Good to hear from you.
This is news to me. It's the first time I have
heard the post office question my stamp, which I acquired from them some
time ago.
I am cutting your sixth tape as I write. I will
send it today.
This will I believe complete your order of sis
tapes.
Let me know if you receive them all
OK.
John I know you have had a number of very large
expenses lately, so I would like to take the opportunity to help you is some
small way.
These first six tapes will therefore be free of
charge.
Kind regards
Brian
- Original Message -
From:
John
Wilson
To: Brian
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 1:58
PM
Subject: Re: Judicial Corruption,
Bank Fraud Trial by Jury.
Dear Brian,
Thanks for the replacement video.
You had the Post office confused with your stamp (is
it called franking) but I was happy to pay on picking it up.
They said they had never seen such a thing and the nearest to it was for
the recipent to apply for a licence.
John.
-Original
Message-From: Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED]To:
John Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date:
Monday, 7 May 2001 11:45Subject: Re: Judicial
Corruption, Bank Fraud Trial by Jury.
Dear John
Thanks for the message
John.
I have sent you some more videos. More
in the mail today.
When I have snt you number six, as per
your order, I will send you an invoice for the $100.00 as
quoted.
Regards
Brian
- Original Message -
From:
John Wilson
To: Neither Public List
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001
4:26 PM
Subject: Judicial
Corruption, Bank Fraud Trial by Jury.
Dear Fellow
Australians,
This morning in the Supreme
Court of New South Wales was another evasion of trial by
jury.
Justice David Kirby (brother of
High Court's Justice Michael Kirby) was given the usual
hammering about the necessity of trial by jury because, amongst
many arguments, (a) s.3 of the 1900 Supreme Court Procedure Act
says that only by consent of both parties can there
be a judge without a jury, (b) pleadings of the Crown can only
be tried by a jury, (c) no parliament can make a law to take
away the rights of the people, (d) if a judge denies trial by
jury then that is an offence punishable by 5 years
imprisonment, etc., etc.
I will get the transcript on the
email as soon as it is to hand.
Justice Kirby ended by saying
I'm not denying you trial by jury. Take it up on the
day.
He set 19 July 2001 as the day
for a one-day hearing of my case against the St.
George Bank the Crown where Justice Carolyn Simpson, on 4
August 1991, heard and, on 30 November 1991*, awarded a Writ of
Possession without a jury against my constant insistance that
she had no jurisdiction. The Writ was exercised by the
bank on 11 January 2001. We have since got the house back after
getting $431,000 to the bank. Which, when added to the $230,000
+ paid to the bank in the last 4 years, amounts to over $661,000
the St. George Bank acquired for them creating $380,000
out of thin air. The judges are concealing my
evidence of the Reserve Bank of Australia's own figures that
Australian banks create for themselves
