 |
||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
||||||||
| Some References, Definitions, and Notes Used by WhistleBlowers | ||||||||
Trial by Jury - Challenging juristiction
Dear Fellow Australians,
Re: JURY or CHALLENGE.
Everyone has the Right of Trial by Jury, ie: for a Jury to
judge the laws and the facts of any action. There must
be the clear and unequivocal consent of both parties to be
without
a Jury - otherwise the Court has no Jurisdiction to proceed
summarily, ie: without a Jury.
"Once Jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven".
If a Judge should deny you your Right to Trial by Jury, then
you must say, "I challenge the Jurisdiction of the Court",
and that challenge can only be decided by a Special Jury,
ie: one empanelled specifically to rule on that one issue.
No Judge can arbitrarily rule that he has Jurisdiction ,
ie: that he has the authority or power to sit in Judgment
of a case, because "no man can judge in his own cause".
If there is no difficulty in obtaining Trial by Jury, then
the Court is properly constituted and both parties present
their evidence to the Jury who give their unanimous and lawful
Judgment (again, NB: no Judge can deliver a Judgment unless
both parties give their consent that he can).
TRIAL BY JURY IS DEMOCRACY.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.