Trial by Jury and Def. act!
<<< Back to About Our Judges
<<< Back to Other Articles
Dear Jose,
"A Judge is a Judge of the Court" (Supreme Court 1899), ie: a Judge is not
"the Court" - he is "of the Court", ie: a part of the Court. A Court is
constituted by a Judge and a Jury. There is no Court unless there is a Jury.
Trial by Jury means Trial by Jury....not Trial with Jury, as the Judges and
Parliamentarians tell you and have written into their Rules. The only way a
Judge can hear and determine the whole of any part of an action is if both
parties give their clear and unequivocal consent to be without a Jury
(same 1899 Act) - and, even then, if the Judge feels that, at any time, there
should be the input of the community, he will call for a Jury. Statute Laws
since then have been corrupted and are no laws because no Constitutions give
any Parliaments the power to take away the Rights of the People (eg: the Right
to Trial by Jury). What you quote is a typical example. No Judge or any other
Officer of the Court can make a Judgment on the whole or any part of an action
(already mentioned) - and that includes Notices of Motion, etc. All those
fraudulent, lying, criminal, treacherous and foolish Judges are headed for
prison.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
Hi, Mr Wilson!
Yes, Trial by Jury?! Or?...
This
tells me a lot...
But
This link
in its section 7A
Functions of judge and jury is stated:
(1) If proceedings for defamation are tried before a jury, the court and not the jury is to determine whether the matter complained of is reasonably capable of carrying the imputation pleaded by the plaintiff and, if it is, whether the imputation is reasonably capable of bearing a defamatory meaning.
(2) If the court determines that:
(a) the matter is not reasonably capable of carrying the imputation pleaded by the plaintiff, or
(b) the imputation is not reasonably capable of bearing a defamatory meaning,
the court is to enter a verdict for the defendant in relation to the imputation pleaded.
(3) If the court determines that:
(a) the matter is reasonably capable of carrying the imputation pleaded by the plaintiff, and
(b) the imputation is reasonably capable of bearing a defamatory meaning,
the jury is to determine whether the matter complained of carries the imputation and, if it does, whether the imputation is defamatory.
(4) If the jury determines that the matter complained of was published by the defendant and carries an imputation that is defamatorry of the plaintiff, the court and not the jury is:
(a) to determine whether any defence raised by the defendant (including all issues of fact and law relating to that defence) has been established, and
(b) to determine the amount of damages (if any) that should be awarded to the plaintiff and all unresolved issues of fact and law relating to the determination of that amount.
(5) Section 86 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 and section 76B of the District Court Act 1973 apply subject to the provisions of this section.
___________________________________________________
Does all this mean that the Jury means... nothing?
Do you know of any good critique of the DEFAMATION ACT 1974 ???
Could you, please, put me in contact with a good/affordable barrister/lawyer to help me in the Sydney District Court to face a defamation Claim in a matter of Public Interest?
Many thanks,
Jos� D'Almada
Back to top of Document
