TFrom: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: stephen.grodzicki@cdpp.gov.au
CC: nuckhley.succar@afp.gov.au
Subject: RE: Considering defeat? [DLM=Sensitive:Legal]
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 20:08:04 +1100
Hi Stephen,
********************************************************************** The information contained in this message and in any attachments is privileged and confidential and intended only for the use of the addressee. You should not read, copy, use or disclose this information without authorisation. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please e-mail the sender immediately and delete this message. Any unauthorised dissemination, disclosure, copying or use of the contents of this message is prohibited and may result in legal action. **************************************he reasonable persons test is used extensively in law.
Please make sure McCosker is made available for me.
You already have a list of those I want to cross examine.
You should take into careful consideration that the reasonable person test requires that you are unable to take extracts of my blogs and attempt to prosecute me on this only.
Please advise me how have I actually offended these people according to the reasonable persons test?
Cheers
Fiona Brown
From: Stephen.Grodzicki@cdpp.gov.au
To: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
CC: Nuckhley.Succar@afp.gov.au
Subject: RE: Considering defeat? [DLM=Sensitive:Legal]
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:14:20 +0000
From: Stephen.Grodzicki@cdpp.gov.au
To: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
CC: Nuckhley.Succar@afp.gov.au
Subject: RE: Considering defeat? [DLM=Sensitive:Legal]
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:14:20 +0000
Sensitive: Legal
Dear Ms Brown,
Please find attached by way of service the following additional witness statements which the Crown proposes to rely on at the hearing:
· Supplementary statement of Ms Pearce dated 13.3.14
· Statement of Mr Wong dated 13.3.14.
Keeping in mind the witnesses you require for cross examination, I propose to call the following witnesses:
1. Pearce
2. Succar
3. Potter
4. Rye
5. Pleno
6. Chang
7. Dunkinson
8. Toma
9. Findlay
10. Osborne
11. Ingram
12. Cullen
13. Maher
14. Wong
There is no statement from Mr McCosker. I do not propose to call him as I do not consider he can provide any relevant evidence. He has not been subpoenaed by the Crown.
Please advise whether you still require all of the above persons for cross examination.
With a view to narrowing the issues, please advise whether there will be any dispute that you uploaded the 7 relevant blog posts, as identified in my table headed “Fiona Brown matter – Blog Extracts” (emailed to you on 12.3.14).
Many thanks for your time and happy to discuss further on 9321 1111.
Stephen Grodzicki
A/ Principal Legal Officer | Prosecutions (3)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Sydney Office
T: 02 9321 1111 | F: 9321 1351 | E: Stephen.Grodzicki@cdpp.gov.au
From: fiona brown [mailto:fionabrown01@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 13 March 2014 1:29 PM
To: Grodzicki Stephen
Cc: Succar, Nuckhley (Nuckhley.Succar@afp.gov.au)
Subject: RE: Considering defeat? [DLM=Sensitive:Legal]
Sent: Thursday, 13 March 2014 1:29 PM
To: Grodzicki Stephen
Cc: Succar, Nuckhley (Nuckhley.Succar@afp.gov.au)
Subject: RE: Considering defeat? [DLM=Sensitive:Legal]
Hi Stephen,
further to the amended charges which you are attempting to intimidate me with it is interesting you are trying to fuck me over and try to charge me simply with using offensive words.
Clearly the Summary Offences Act could only jail me for 3 months for offending someone so considering the Crimes Act has a penalty of 3 years then I would consider that to offend the corrupt staff at AFSA which the Commonwealth Ombudsman are protecting requires a much higher level to anything I have posted.
I also refer to the additional statement which you are seeking leave to serve .
Please correct me if I am wrong but I understand that Magistrate Buscombe told you to kiss his arse concerning them.
Cheers
Fiona
further to the amended charges which you are attempting to intimidate me with it is interesting you are trying to fuck me over and try to charge me simply with using offensive words.
Clearly the Summary Offences Act could only jail me for 3 months for offending someone so considering the Crimes Act has a penalty of 3 years then I would consider that to offend the corrupt staff at AFSA which the Commonwealth Ombudsman are protecting requires a much higher level to anything I have posted.
I also refer to the additional statement which you are seeking leave to serve .
Please correct me if I am wrong but I understand that Magistrate Buscombe told you to kiss his arse concerning them.
Cheers
Fiona
It also requires thing not be taken out of context.
For example if I said" fuck the dog" and went on to tell a story and then the Federal Police tried to charge me with " Fucking a dog" or bestiality then the 'Reasonable Persons Test would apply!!!!!
It appears the shonks at AFSA or ITSA Federal Police and the CDPP are so desperate to protect corruption and systemic corrupt conduct at ITSA that they have lost sight of this test.!!
From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: stephen.grodzicki@cdpp.gov.au
CC: nuckhley.succar@afp.gov.au
Subject: RE: Considering defeat? [DLM=Sensitive:Legal]
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 20:08:04 +1100
Hi Stephen,
Please make sure McCosker is made available for me.
You already have a list of those I want to cross examine.
You should take into careful consideration that the reasonable person test requires that you are unable to take extracts of my blogs and attempt to prosecute me on this only.
Please advise me how have I actually offended these people according to the reasonable persons test?
Cheers
Fiona Brown
From: Stephen.Grodzicki@cdpp.gov.au
To: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
CC: Nuckhley.Succar@afp.gov.au
Subject: RE: Considering defeat? [DLM=Sensitive:Legal]
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:14:20 +0000
From: Stephen.Grodzicki@cdpp.gov.au
To: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
CC: Nuckhley.Succar@afp.gov.au
Subject: RE: Considering defeat? [DLM=Sensitive:Legal]
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:14:20 +0000
Sensitive: Legal
Dear Ms Brown,
Please find attached by way of service the following additional witness statements which the Crown proposes to rely on at the hearing:
· Supplementary statement of Ms Pearce dated 13.3.14
· Statement of Mr Wong dated 13.3.14.
Keeping in mind the witnesses you require for cross examination, I propose to call the following witnesses:
1. Pearce
2. Succar
3. Potter
4. Rye
5. Pleno
6. Chang
7. Dunkinson
8. Toma
9. Findlay
10. Osborne
11. Ingram
12. Cullen
13. Maher
14. Wong
There is no statement from Mr McCosker. I do not propose to call him as I do not consider he can provide any relevant evidence. He has not been subpoenaed by the Crown.
Please advise whether you still require all of the above persons for cross examination.
With a view to narrowing the issues, please advise whether there will be any dispute that you uploaded the 7 relevant blog posts, as identified in my table headed “Fiona Brown matter – Blog Extracts” (emailed to you on 12.3.14).
Many thanks for your time and happy to discuss further on 9321 1111.
Stephen Grodzicki
A/ Principal Legal Officer | Prosecutions (3)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Sydney Office
T: 02 9321 1111 | F: 9321 1351 | E: Stephen.Grodzicki@cdpp.gov.au
.
No comments:
Post a Comment