Re: HERC -Vs- WIN TELEVISION (PART II)
Sylvia Else
>
> *Request for evidence for court RE: Win Television*
>
> Add star
> <https://mail.google.com/mail/h/17c3qn5uz7jdv/?redir=?v%3Dc%26s%3Ds%26th%3D12c77a0504777d61&a=st&at=AF6bupNXhyvE_uFJhtbxKEN685PyrgjaDw&m=12c77a0504777d61#m_12c77a0504777d61>
>
>
>
> *Graham Cooper*
>
> <graham...@gmail.com> AttachmentTue, Nov 23, 2010 at 5:26 PM
> To: mjo...@bennettphilp.com.au
> Cc: mars...@winqld.com.au, rock...@winqld.com.au
> Reply
> <https://mail.google.com/mail/h/17c3qn5uz7jdv/?v=b&s=s&rm=12c77a0504777d61&pv=cv&th=12c77a0504777d61&cs=r>|Reply
> to all
> <https://mail.google.com/mail/h/17c3qn5uz7jdv/?v=b&s=s&rm=12c77a0504777d61&pv=cv&th=12c77a0504777d61&cs=ra>|Forward
> <https://mail.google.com/mail/h/17c3qn5uz7jdv/?v=b&s=s&rm=12c77a0504777d61&pv=cv&th=12c77a0504777d61&cs=f>|Print
> <https://mail.google.com/mail/h/17c3qn5uz7jdv/?v=pt&s=s&msg=12c77a0504777d61>|Delete
> <https://mail.google.com/mail/h/17c3qn5uz7jdv/?s=s&a=dm&at=AF6bupNXhyvE_uFJhtbxKEN685PyrgjaDw&m=12c77a0504777d61>|Show
> original
> <https://mail.google.com/mail/h/17c3qn5uz7jdv/?v=om&th=12c77a0504777d61>
> Dear Mr Jones,
>
> are you still representing Win Television?
>
> If so, I would like to refer to my previous court action against WIN
> Television in which you stated:
>
> 1/ The claim was incomplete and didn't clearly specify legal cause of
> action.
> 2/ There was no explanation for the delay in proceedings.
>
> As you know I was only released from involuntary treatment last year
> so it is possible my claim of defamation is not statute barred.
>
> I submit a copy of the court verdict that also states I was under a
> disability at the time of the publication of defamatory matter by Win
> News.
>
> As I am considering further legal action against Win Television it is
> my right to request evidence that may be crucial to my case.
>
> I would refer you to UCPR 411, 412.
>
> I hope I have addressed your concerns about point 2, but in order to
> make an accurate statement of claim and issue court proceedings I
> would require a copy of the
> Rockhampton Win News video from March 8, 2002 on my extortion charge
> hearing.
>
> If I do not receive satisfactory response within 14 days this matter
> will be referred to my legal aid.
>
> Regards
>
> Graham Cooper
>
> --
> www.CamGirls.com <http://www.camgirls.com/>|www.CamAffiliate.com
> <http://www.camaffiliate.com/>
>
>
> --
> www.CamAffiliate.com <http://www.CamAffiliate.com>
> Got Traffic? We Convert All Types! Promote www.CamGirls.com
> <http://www.CamGirls.com>
> 35% LifeTime Revshare. MASSIVE 6% C.T.R. on Banners!
> Refer 1 WHALE and be Set For Life!
For crying out loud, Herc, have you learnt nothing?
They are not going to help you. All you're doing is forewarning them
that you haven't given up, while making it clear to them that you still
don't know how to go about this. You simply risk having them seek to
have you declared a vexatious litigant.
Where is the psychiatrist? I'm pretty sure I said that there needed to
be one. The court decision is not sufficient to show that you were of
unsound mind from the date of the publication until the date you became
subject to a treatment order. It merely shows that you were of unsound
mind on the day of the alleged offence. It is useful, but no more than that.
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in
It said the stalking (Eve) ranged from 1999 to Sept 2002, and I was of unsound mind
during the time of the offence.
It's breaking the law if they DON'T send me the news video. Although I may need
a lawyer to send the request for it.
Herc
Jeremiah Bullfrog
> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in
>
>
>
> > On 23/11/2010 6:42 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>
> >> *Request for evidence for court RE: Win Television*
>
> >> Add star
>
> >> *Graham Cooper*
>
> >> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> AttachmentTue, Nov 23, 2010 at 5:26 PM
> >> To: mjo...@bennettphilp.com.au
> >> Cc: marsha...@winqld.com.au, rockn...@winqld.com.au
> >> Reply
> >> <https://mail.google.com/mail/h/17c3qn5uz7jdv/?v=b&s=s&rm=12c77a050477...>|Reply
> >> to all
> >> <https://mail.google.com/mail/h/17c3qn5uz7jdv/?v=b&s=s&rm=12c77a050477...>|Forward
> >> <https://mail.google.com/mail/h/17c3qn5uz7jdv/?v=b&s=s&rm=12c77a050477...>|Print
> >> <https://mail.google.com/mail/h/17c3qn5uz7jdv/?v=pt&s=s&msg=12c77a0504...>|Delete
> >> <https://mail.google.com/mail/h/17c3qn5uz7jdv/?s=s&a=dm&at=AF6bupNXhyv...>|Show
Face it fool, you're permanently of unsound mind.
|-|ercules
--------------------------------------------------
I wish, I'm permanently of sound transmitted into my mind.
Herc
Jeremiah Bullfrog
> I wish, I'm permanently of sound transmitted into my mind.
>
> Herc
Would go away if you took your medication.
Sylvia Else
What was the exact date of the start of your treatment order?
> It's breaking the law if they DON'T send me the news video.
In legal correspondence, you should avoid using abbrevations that you
haven't defined. It gives the other side too much scope for simply
claiming that they didn't know what you meant.
The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 411 and 412 are not applicable to your
case. There is no relevant "future event". Where it talks about "can not
be brought to trial" it means that there is a legal impediment. I know
that you hope an event will occur in the future that provides the
necessary funds for litigation, but that is not what is meant by this rule.
In any case, those rules relate to an application to the court. They
don't compel production of evidence simply on the strength of a request.
But DON'T start an application to the court, because, as I've said, you
have no grounds.
I gather you've already sent the email. The best you can do would be to
send a followup, advising that it was sent in error, and should be ignored.
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
It's not important, should they give me another bum steer THEN I can
get a lawyer to request the evidence.
It's simply a courtesy letter for a forthcoming legal request for the news story.
>
> The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 411 and 412 are not applicable to your case. There is no relevant "future event". Where it talks
> about "can not be brought to trial" it means that there is a legal impediment. I know that you hope an event will occur in the
> future that provides the necessary funds for litigation, but that is not what is meant by this rule.
>
> In any case, those rules relate to an application to the court. They don't compel production of evidence simply on the strength of
> a request. But DON'T start an application to the court, because, as I've said, you have no grounds.
>
> I gather you've already sent the email. The best you can do would be to send a followup, advising that it was sent in error, and
> should be ignored.
>
> Sylvia.
My lawyer suggested I use 411 so I don't know what you are talking about.
Forenzic Order was made at the MHCourt July 2003, which included limited community treatment.
But my bail conditions included involuntary treatment since July 2002.
Herc
Sylvia Else
A lawyer previous told you that being incarcerated kept the clock
ticking on when you could start legal action, and there's nothing to
indicate that that's correct.
I cannot find any case law on rule 411, but read the words.
"This rule applies if a person would, under the circumstances the person
alleges to exist, become entitled to property or office on the happening
of a future event, the right or claim to which can not be brought to
trial before the happening of the event. "
So there has to be some property or office to which you become entitled
at some future event and the right or claim that you'll bring to trial
has to relate TO THAT PROPERTY OR OFFICE.
The claim you'll be bringing to trial is for defamation. What is the
office or property to which that claim for defamation relates that you
are not currently entitled to, but will become entitled to in future?
The possibility that you'll get funds for litigation in future simply
doesn't fit the definition.
> Forenzic Order was made at the MHCourt July 2003, which included limited community treatment.
>
> But my bail conditions included involuntary treatment since July 2002.
The bail conditions do not create a presumption that you were of unsound
mind in the way that the treatment order does. Which means that there's
an even longer gap than I thought during which you need to get evidence
from a psychiatrist that you were of unsound mind. You can't simply wave
your hands in the air. Every single day has to be accounted for, either
by way of evidence from a psychiatrist, or by a statutory presumption.
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in \>>
>>
>> My lawyer suggested I use 411 so I don't know what you are talking about.
>
> A lawyer previous told you that being incarcerated kept the clock ticking on when you could start legal action, and there's
> nothing to indicate that that's correct.
>
> I cannot find any case law on rule 411, but read the words.
>
> "This rule applies if a person would, under the circumstances the person alleges to exist, become entitled to property or office
> on the happening of a future event, the right or claim to which can not be brought to trial before the happening of the event. "
not the one sorry. Might be crminal proceedings.
Getting evidence that may be required for court..
>
> So there has to be some property or office to which you become entitled at some future event and the right or claim that you'll
> bring to trial has to relate TO THAT PROPERTY OR OFFICE.
>
> The claim you'll be bringing to trial is for defamation. What is the office or property to which that claim for defamation relates
> that you are not currently entitled to, but will become entitled to in future?
>
> The possibility that you'll get funds for litigation in future simply doesn't fit the definition.
>
>> Forenzic Order was made at the MHCourt July 2003, which included limited community treatment.
>>
>> But my bail conditions included involuntary treatment since July 2002.
>
> The bail conditions do not create a presumption that you were of unsound mind in the way that the treatment order does. Which
> means that there's an even longer gap than I thought during which you need to get evidence from a psychiatrist that you were of
> unsound mind. You can't simply wave your hands in the air. Every single day has to be accounted for, either by way of evidence
> from a psychiatrist, or by a statutory presumption.
>
> Sylvia.
I've got the START DATE of unsound mind - covers date of publication March 2002 - on MHC Order.
I've got the minimum END DATE of unsound mind - Sept 2002 - MHC Order.
I've got the forensic order START DATE - July 2003 - MHC Order date
I've got the END DATE of ITO - revocation April 2009
And I've got 6 years grace after declared fit.
It's unlikely to be speculated there were 2 seperate forensic orders less than a few months each.
This is not for court anyway, it's only to demonstrate to WIN Legal that a case is likely such for evidence to be required
Herc
|-|ercules
"|-|ercules" <radgr...@yahoo.com> wrote in
\> not the one sorry. Might be crminal proceedings.
>
> Getting evidence that may be required for court..
>
to determine if court proceedings should be started.
Herc
Sylvia Else
So there's a possible gap from September 2002 to July 2003.
If there's a single day in the past when you were not of unsound mind,
then the six years starts from that day, and it never restarts at a
later date, no matter what happened to your health. It seems absurd, but
that's how I read the law.
You will have to show, on balance of probability I suppose, that you
were of unsound mind throughout the period from when the defamatory
material was publishied until the revocation of the treatment order in
April 2009. WIN do not have to show that you were of sound mind. So you
need EVIDENCE for any period not covered by the treatment order, and it
has to be evidence of your state of mind, not evidence of what someone,
being a person not before the court, thought about your state of mind.
>
> It's unlikely to be speculated there were 2 seperate forensic orders less than a few months each.
It will definitely be speculated, in the absence of evidence. WIN's
lawyers will do anthing they can to avoid having the substantial issue
adjudicated. That's their job.
>
> This is not for court anyway, it's only to demonstrate to WIN Legal that a case is likely such for evidence to be required
If the evidence were subsequently destroyed, and you could demonstrate
that its destruction was subsequent to your letter, and you could
demonstrate that the lawyers informed WIN about the letter, then the
court might take an interest, but it's a big IF. It seems a risky strategy.
At the very least, I think you'd be well advised to post to aus.legal
about your intended actions BEFORE you take them.
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
I have my own advisor. did you find rule 411? that edu site search is horrendous.
Herc
Sylvia Else
I found it in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/ucpr1999305/s411.html
If you have some other rule with the same number in mind, I'll need some
clues to find it.
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
(2) The person may start a proceeding by application to obtain evidence that may be material for establishing the right or claim.
(3) The proceeding to obtain evidence for a future claim may only be started by application.
(4) The person against whom the right or claim is made is the respondent to the application.
The future property seems to be the $250,000 defamation award.
Herc
The Man From Havana
> "Jeremiah Bullfrog" <jerebull...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> - Show quoted text -
Put a gun to your fat head turd.
Sylvia Else
> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid <mailto:syl...@not.here.invalid>>
> wrote in ...
> > On 24/11/2010 12:03 AM, |-|ercules wrote:
> >> "Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid
> >>> On 23/11/2010 11:27 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
> >>>> "Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid
They are not alternatives. They're merely stating different aspects of
the process. None apply unless you meet the requirement in (1) "This
rule applies if..."
>
> The future property seems to be the $250,000 defamation award.
What is the future event? It can't be the fact that the court makes the
award, because the claim clearly has to be brought before that event,
which contradicts the requirement that it can not be.
Sylvia.
Sunny
aus.politics,aus.general
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
news:8l335u...@mid.individual.net...
> On 24/11/2010 7:43 AM, |-|ercules wrote:
<snip>
Sylvia Else
back. You'd best just killfile the thread and be done with it.
Sylvia.