| Back |

  

From: judy
Thursday 26 October 2000 22:08
To: OVOP
Subject: dad

Mum and l went down to Melbourne to see dad yesterday. We were able to spend an hour talking with him but only through the glass. It is very hard to hear in those pokey cubicles. He seems ok and looks better than last time l seen him. I left some documents for him last Saturday and he received them on Monday and was able to read them. Mostly correspondence that l have received and also some legal cases for him to study up on. He maintains that under the Imperial Acts Application Act, 1980, of Victoria, he is being held illegally under the Bill of Rights which is incorporated into our Commonwealth Constitution of virtue of Section 106, 107, 108 and 118. It appears at this stage that his bail application will be heard on Tuesday 31st October, 2000, in the Melbourne Magistrates Court. I have had a number of Dad's friends and acquaintances ring up to offer their assistance in any way possible. I have asked them if they would be prepared to write a character reference for dad. It appears the Sheriff's department and the Conservation Department, who have possession of the property, are going to oppose bail on the grounds that dad is a danger to witnesses and will try to gain entry to his property. Did l tell you that l have found out from a reliable source that there are 6 security guards on twelve hour shifts guarding the property? That is 12 guards every 24 hours, which are hired from a private security company at a cost of about $50 per hour per guard. This equates to quite a large amount of taxpayer's money over a 24 hour period. Apparently these guards will be stationed on the property until it is sold. I am hoping to see dad's solicitor tomorrow to try and find out what sort of case they intend to present for the bail application. Maybe I am being paranoid but l sort of get the feeling that Mr. Hoban thinks this bail application will not be successful and dad will be held in custody until the trial. I don't think that it is good that a solicitor has a negative opinion about all of this. Perhaps I am wrong.