NSW SUPREME COURT JUDGE INDITED BY FIRST GRAND JURY
Readers on the strength of the email below to Jim Ball at 2GB.
I spoke for perhaps six minutes on the subject of the first peoples Grand Jury in Australia. Mr Ball had obviously been supplied the google reference to Grand Jury origins way back in Magna Carta. I am pleased to say he assisted me to get the idea across that this is an important watershed in jurisprudence. And without doubt a beacon able to light the way for opressed peoples in Australia, god willing.
I don't believe I have put any wrong stuff out their.
Cheers Edward James
----- Original Message -----
From: "2GB" <donotreply@2gb.com>
To: <espj@bigpond.net.au>
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 12:06 AM
Subject: subject
The following is a copy of the message you sent to Jim Ball - Mid Dawn via
2GB.com
Comments received: Dear Jim Ball, 2GB. The Australian peoples have for the first time in Australian judicial history, exercised their rights to hold a Grand Jury, and have findings accepted by the registry of the Supreme Court NSW. Inditeing a Judge of the Supreme Court. Consider that this
momentous occaision is still being kept quiet by the paid print media.
On Tuesday the 27th of February, 2007, in the Registry of the NSW Supreme Court, Queen's Square, Sydney, an Indictment was filed against Michael Frederick Adams on the charge of denying John Peter Bauskis the Right to Trial by Jury....an offence carrying a punishment of "not more than five years imprisonment". Immediately after the filing, the Registrar accepted service of the documents on behalf of Adams. The Case Number is 11031 of 2007.
The date and time for Directions is set for Monday the 12th of March, 2007at 9:00 am. when we will demand a date for the empanelling of a Petit Jury. It is anticipated the the Defendant will file a Notice of Motion to Dismiss the action...a Notice of Motion which, naturally, must be tried and judged by a Jury.
Filed were a Summons (which contained the indictment), a sworn 23-page Affidavit, a sworn 2-page Affidavit (to which the "Record of the Grand Jurors Concurring" from Sunday the 18th of February, 2007 was annexed),
and a thick General Case Management Document (containing 8 Court Transcripts and 2 Judgments). All have been stamped and filed.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
IP: 58.165.170.25
- 2757 reads
Trial by jury is cheaper than corruption/incompetance
If a jury is paid $100 per day per person, this is only $1300. Add some extras , say double = around $2600 per day.
Counsel does not get out of bed for less than $5000 to $8,000 or more per day. And this does not take into account the time spent preparing the case, the teams of lawyers 'instructing' him/her, the teams of lawyers and others assisting him/her in court, and the meetings and strategy submissions afterwards. And these are all reimbursable through costs awards, and government payments for government court cases.
Over the past decade I have observed whistleblowers fighting valiantly for a bit of justice in OUR courts. Standing against them are teams of lawyers, barristers, and their off-siders - all trying to silence and discredit the whistleblower. Invariablay the 'judges' side with their mates and those who put them there in the first place - the lawyers and the government.
If the teams against the whistleblower are government, the attorney general (Debus - and Shaw before him) and premiers (Ieamma - and Carr before him) financially owns the whole lot - judges and lawyers and the courts.
this has seen more and more government officers and lawyers growing fatter on the public purse by failing to clean up wrong-doing. Simply prolonging the matters into the courts and letting the 'judges' do their dirty work of punishing the whistleblowers to the full extent of their power.
In one notable case, John Kite the whistleblower who informed National Parks and Wildlife (NP&W) of the potential for the Thredbow disaster and loss of lives. Whe John proved accurate, NP&W joined with NSW corruption centre (ICAC) and tried to have John thrown in jail. It was only a jury which stopped them! If John's case had come before a jury from the start :
1. I believe that NP&W and ICAC would have suddenly stopped their criminal actions, and
2. The jury (unlike ICAC) had the intelligence and ethics to apply the law and find against NP&W and ICAC.
The clear message sent to the government CEOs Managing Directors and Ministers is that the bigger the mess they are sitting on, the more public funds they can attract, and the bigger the empire they sleep on.
A jury is capable of telling the truth in their judgements - and only the truth will send the message to the corrupt government officers that they cannot hide in the courts any more. A jury can send the message that the boys and girls wigs do NOT control OUR justice.
For more reading on the cost to the public purse of criminal persecuting the government whistleblowers see on our site a very small selection of the hundreds of government officers it takes to do nothing in just one whistleblower case. That of Val Kerrison http://www.wbde.org/documents/2006_Mar_03_IndyMedia_HealthQuestingValKerrison.php who incurred the crimes of govt for trying to allow aboriginies and women to get their rightful TAFE education. Just some of the seemingly idle corrupt are listed: http://www.wbde.org/documents/Measuring_some_of_the_cost.php
This selection does not include
* court processes
*court personnel
* clerical assistants
* costs of meetings, personnel, record keepers, reports - achieving nothing
* costs of public servants 'entertaining ' themselves by emailing jokes, and comments to each other as they sit and watch the mobbing of the whistleblower.
* cost of government 'inquiries' which avoid the issue by prohibiting investigation of its own corruption
*cost of parliamentary 'inquiries' which avoid the issue by setting innocuous, wrong terms of refeence.
Jo Hewitt reporter@wbde.org
WhistleBlowers' Documents Exposed
http://wbde.org
Trial by Jury
I admire what John Wilson is doing enormously. But isn't trial by jury used if you are actually ACCUSED of some wrongdoing - for example if you are accused of murder, or even accused of a traffic offence. But surely trial by jury isn't covered by the constitution, Magna Carta, etc, if you are just going to court to try to get justice over some government misdeed? Say you are asking the court for a decision that a government department's actions were illegal, that wouldn't be a case where you could ask for a jury would it?
A JURY OF YOUR PEERS MAY GIVE YOU JUSTICE IN THEIR EYES
Readers should contact Mr John Wilson for his willing assistance / guidance in these matters jhwilson@acay.com.au . He is the person who succeeded in bringing the concurrence of the people, in a Grand Jury, into public consideration. The date 27 of February 2007 is defined now in the history of jurisprudence by the action of the Registrar of the Supreme Court in NSW. How many readers of these post have taken a grievance to the local police station only to be told we the police are not interested, if you think you have a case take civil action. Then you have approached ICAC or the Ombudsman with you issues and months later understood you have wasted your valuable time. The right to have a Grand Jury is said to be based in common law. And the previously locked gate to access that process is now open to use, should we the peoples wish to exercise that common law right. Just consider the facts we the peoples are entitled to protection under the law. But actually receiving that protection is a distant memory. Please contact Mr John Wilson and move forward into the breach.
AJURY IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUR PEERS TO TEMPER JUDGEMENT
I believe it is exactly the time to ask for a jury. There is a perception governments get away with murder, in some instances with a jury considering the matter there may be a different perception. When the banks get their gready corporate hands on your mortgage anoymous and generational family work and investment in time and money is to be taken away from you. Don’t you think a jury of your peers may find judgement in your favour rather than the banks? Jury is a common law right, denied us because rights to a trial by our peers dose often get in the way of what government and corporations want to do, they claim a speedy trial is good? It is not up to the judge to decide your guilt or innocence,unless you give up that right. That is entirely down to the Jury of your peers. So yes a parking ticket issued while you may have been carrying a child from an illegally parked car into a doctors surgery. Is technically evidence there may have been a breach of law, or helping your pregnant wife into a medical centre from a double parked car because she is unable to walk from the parking area to the medical centre. Certainly you and the Judge may agree to forgo a jury, but it is up to you, if you want one insist on your right to be judged by your peers it is still your common law right. And remember your peers may consider there is no guilty action. Why would you not contact Mr John Wilson on 02 98721661 and ask him to explain more clearly for you. I am not that well versed in law. But it is interesting to note that all eight Attorneys General have been given a heads up by the State legal officers on this constitutional issue. "Know your rights at work" pales into insignificance beside this. You are entitled to have your peers there to protect your common law rights. I believe Magna Carta was written to put the power in the hands of the people, it was and still is a way to avoid the people resorting to the sword and long bow, we know that as anarchy Edward James
Woman charged over theft of Brock memento
Police in Perth have charged a 37-year-old woman with stealing material from the scene of a fatal crash involving racing identity Peter Brock.
Australian People's Grand Jury
I would like to know please, is New Zealand a State of Australia, as stated in the Australian Constitution of 1900 and again reiterated in 2003?
Also is Western Australia a true State of Australia or has that also been overlooked as well over the decades?
Below is a statement I wish to document, which is about as clear as the Yarra River!
New Zealand is written into the Covering Clauses of the UK Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia (Victoria 63 & 64. Chapter 12) [9th July 1900] and Western Australia is not. The Bill for that Act was passed by Referendum in 1899 and taken to England where the Parliamentary Secretary, Joseph Chamberlain, altered it before it was passed through that Parliament and received Royal Assent from the near-death Queen Victoria, and without being re-submitted to a Referendum in Australia. Because it took so long to sail backwards and forwards to England, the 6-man delegation decided not to do so and re-submit it to an Australian Referendum. They decided to take what Joseph Chamberlain dictated and to return with for the Proclamation Day Celebrations already planned for January 1, 1901, in Centennial Park, Sydney, with the investiture of Lord Hopetoun to be the first Governor-General. New Zealand pulled out before the 1899 Referendum (and all the other nonsense), but was not deleted from the Bill and is still there in that UK Act.
So, you see, the whole affair was a shambles, from the very beginning. Then in 1919, with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, Australia (and the other British Dominions who signed the Treaty) became independent Nations (which was the stipulation in the Treaty to be a signatory) with the endorsement of King George V to do so. From that date on, Australia has not been "under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". Several "Constitutional Conferences" were held in the 1920s and early 1930s to resolve the legal status of the former Dominions. The resultant Statutes of Westminster made it clear that, from then on, UK Acts of Parliament had no sway over the former Dominions. However, British interests in Australia didn't fancy losing the protection of the British Navy and kept the whole issue secret from the Australian People....and it wasn't until 1942, when Winston Churchill wouldn't release Australian troops to return to fight the Japanese, that the Australian Prime Minister John Curtin decided to pass the Adoption of the Statutes of Westminster Act and the Australian Parliament formally acknowledged the independence of Australia.
The Australian Elite have been trying to finagle their way around the cover-up, ever since, with Styles and Titles Acts, doggy Referenda, and water-tight control of the Media. They feared (and still do) that, if the Australian People were given the opportunity they would make for themselves a Constitution which really establish the People as the rulers of their own country and dis-empower the corrupt and treacherous Bankers, Judges and the other sons-of-bitches.
The Campaign to restore the Right to Trial by Jury is the only bloodless path that will lead to Australians reclaiming their country...which is why the Bankers, Judges and other sons-of-bitches are so determined to crush this Fight for Liberty.
I apologise for any rude remarks made by this person who wrote the report, however it seems to me that Australia is in a precarious situation, where in Asia at present, there are many military events occurring and as Australia and New Zealand are not fully secure due to the Constitution laws, we should be looking at becoming the 51st State of America and New Zealand, if the country does belong to Australia, then also becomes the 51st State of America.
By becoming a State of America, we would then have absolute military backing against any current Asian ideas that Australia is an easy target, especially from Indonesia and the way the Terrorists have been moving South towards Iran Jaya.
With the Indonesian Military in disarray at present, with many siding with the Terrorists, plus their feelings towards us Australians, it wouldn't take much to have the Indonesian Military attack PNG and take over that small country, as the Terrorists are used to living in the jungles, which would then make it easy for them to island hop to Australia.
However if Australia was a State of America, they would not dare attack us. We are also aware that Malaysia isn't so happy with us anymore, as well as a couple of other Asian countries, so I would like to know how you feel about the current situation and please explain to me, about the New Zealand State side of things, along with Western Australia please. I have served in the Air Force for sixteen years, so I am well aware of military events going on at present!
Regards,
Phillip Moon
Grab New Zealand while we can
A state of America? Nah. You'll be shot down in flames around here for saying that. BUT your message has given me new hope that we can grab New Zealand and all its assets and citizens. They've never got over the underarm bowling thing and they're terrible sports, the way they try to intimidate us with their dancing.
You wouldn't have won if
You wouldn’t have won if we’d beaten you.
Re: NSW SUPREME COURT JUDGE INDITED BY FIRST GRAND JURY
Val Kerrison's cases filed in the ADT are finally being allowed to be heard. They are the discrimination and victimising cases against TAFE (especially Ramsey and Willmott), and aiding and abetting cases against CSAH (HealthQuest) and NSW Health Dept (MAP) . Crown Solicitors and ADT put them off for years, but they are set down for hearing soon.
Keep an eye on WhistleBlowers' Documents Exposed
http://wbde.org
Jo
Post new comment