Sylvia Else
10/20/2012 1:04:00 PM
On 20/10/2012 12:18 PM, Pelican wrote:
>
>
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> news:aeebpoF9gpmU1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 20/10/2012 10:55 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:
>>>>> COMPLAINTS - What For? - Prison Time
>>>>
>>>>> 1 BEACH - watching the surf - 30 days
>>>>> 2 BLANCH ST - waiting at ex-girlfriends back yard - 2 weeks
>>>>> 3 BROOKS - sending valentines card - 2 weeks
>>>>> 4 BARRY SKEPTIC CEO - '$100,000 rippoff' dialog - 5 months
>>>>> 5 BROTHER - told her to 'shut up' and walk out - 3 weeks
>>>>> 6 BOYCOTT APPOINTMENT - after appointment date misshap - 1 week
>>>>> 7 BOWDITCH SKEPTIC PRES - 'you better hope you're right' - 1 week
>>>>> 8 BENNETT PHILP LEGAL - stalking WIN NEWS Lawyer - 3 Hour Interview
>>>>> 9 BRITTNEY - complaints to rentals@raywhite - Stalking Charge
>>>>> 10 BENNEDON APARTMENTS - Wanted Criminal Listing - 1 night
>>>>> 11 BAIL SKIPPED - Police circle my shed middle of the night..
>>>>
>>>>> www.AUSTRALIAMOSTWANTED.com
>>>>
>>>>> CC:aus.tv,aus.legal,misc.legal,aus.politics,alt.politics
>>>>> courthouse.maroochyd...@justice.qld.gov.au,courthouse.caloun...@justice.qld.gov.au,
>>>>>
>>>>> courti...@justice.qld.gov.au,courti...@justice.nsw.gov.au,courti...@justice.vic.gov.au
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You do tend to leave out pertinent facts. For example, I can find no
>>>> mention there of rat poison. One has to wonder what else you've left
>>>> out. Any apprehended violence orders that you've overlooked?
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> 4 BARRY SKEPTIC CEO - '$100,000 rippoff' dialog - 5 months
>>>
>>> That was the point!
>>>
>>> I got 5 months prison and a media reputation as an extortionist
>>> and no extortion letter was shown to court!!
>>
>>>
>>> How could they, they threw me into prison inside 3 minutes of court
>>> time!
>>>
>>> The POLICE REPORT was the only EVIDENCE - HEAR SAY!
>>>
>>> ATTRIBUTING COMMENTS TO ME THAT I NEVER WROTE!
>>
>> You have yourself conceded that the email containing a comment about
>> putting rat poison into food was genuine, and that that email was
>> presented to the court as exhibit 20.
>>
>> We need not, though, again have the discussion about what you intended
>> by that comment, which is not relevant.
>
> There must be an offence, somewhere, of serially flogging a defunct equine.
Hmm..
s137 Flogging of Dead Horses
(1) A person commits an offence if
(a) on two or more occasions
(i) the person flogs an animal,
(ii) at the beginning of the occasion of (i) the animal is dead,
(iii) the same animal is flogged on each occasion, and
(iv) the animal is a horse.
(b) Strict liability applies to (ii).
(c) Absolute liability applies to (iii) and (iv).
(2) There is a rebuttable presumption that, if the animal is dead on
at the beginning of an occasion, then it is also dead at the beginning
of any subsequent occasions.
(3) For the avoidance of doubt, it is not a defence for the accused to
show that he or she believes that horses are people.