Home  Latest News  Press Release  The Book  Newsletters  Links

Previous Chapter  |   Index  |   Next Chapter



On 26 JUN 1998 I filed a Notice of Motion in the Court of Appeal asking for Leave to file a Requisition for Trial by Jury to try the Application for Leave to Appeal against Hidden J's denial of trial by jury. This was done under s 86 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 because the New South Wales Supreme Court's Court of Appeal comes under that Act. The additional reason I gave in an Affidavit was that Part 51, rule 23.8 of the Supreme Court Rules says: "A judge ought not hear a case if there is a reasonable apprehension that an impartial mind will not be brought to bear on the resolution of proceedings.".

To the Affidavit I put an Annexure which was one of my leaflets entitled "BANK FRAUD & CORRUPT JUDGES". It went this way:

Bank loans are fraud.
Taking money by fraud is stealing.
Concealing fraud is corruption.

Under common law there must be certainty of terms for a contract to be created. Variable, by definition and in reality, means uncertain. To make out a contract with uncertainty of terms, ie: variable interest rates, to be a valid contract is false representation or fraud.

Yet, the Supreme Court says: "Thus whilst the amount of that future rate is uncertain, the rate itself is indeed certain" (17/9/96 ). and replies "No" when asked "Shouldn't the terms of a contract be established when a contract is made?" (30/9/9). In the Court of Appeal, common law is regarded as "no arguable cause for action" (28/10/9). And in the High Court they refuse to answer the question, "Does variable mean uncertain?", nor the discreet question of law as to "whether variable interest rates render a contract void for uncertainty" (11/4/97). On 1/2/97 the Judicial Commission and on /9/9 the Supreme Court dismissed actions that those judges had lied, supported lies, concealed fraud and perverted the course of justice whereby victims could claim the return of stolen money and property. Judges are protecting the banks and declaring themselves to be "immune from suit", ie: above the law and unaccountable for their actions.

In the Supreme Court, they are: Terrence Greenwood, John Hamilton, Matthew Clarke, Alan Abadee, John Dunford, Graham Barr, Peter Hidden, Brian Murray, David Levine and Timothy Studdert. In the High Court, they are: Daryl Dawson, John Toohey and Michael Kirby. In the Judicial Commission, they are: Murray Gleeson, William Fisher, Mahla Pearlman, Reginald Blanch, Michael Campbell and David Jackson (with the laymember being Lynn Gain).

Banks cannot erase the tragedies and hardships they have caused, knowingly, wrongfully and remorselessly. They can be stopped and made to give back the money they have stolen - but will never have to for as long as they are protected in the courts where judges lie in order to cover up their crimes.

-Written by J.Wilson, Rights and Wrong,P.O.Box 4520,North Rocks, NSW, 2151.

It is worthy of note that one of the above named, Murray Gleeson, administered the Oaths of Allegiance and Office in swear in Mr. Gordon Samuels (a judge from the NSW Supreme Court) to be the present Governor of New South Wales whilst knowing of a complaint I lodged with the Independent Commission Against Corruption accusing Mr. Samuels and the NSW Premier, Mr. Robert Carr, of conspiracy to defraud and betray the Queen and the people of New South Wales because those two people had struck a pact whereby the incoming Governor would vacate that grand and historic Government House in the heart of the Botanic Gardens in spite of the fact that it had been dedicated by the Parliament of new South Wales and gazetted on 2nd November, 1917 to be the Official Residence of the Vice Regal (Governor). It has never been repealed. Mr Carr and Mr. Samuels had plotted to erode the position of the Governor as a step towards their ultimate goal of abolishing the Monarchy. The Commissioner, Mr. Barry O'Keefe QC, eventually replied to my complaint saying he had decided not to investigate the matter. Mr. Murray Gleeson is now the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia.

I have circulated many such leaflets by letter, fax and hand to everyone from the Governor-General to Attorneys-General and from the media and anyone I could think of, but never had any actions for defamation or contempt of court brought against me. They play the game of "If we ignore it, it might go away!".

The hearing was on Monday 6 July 1998 before Registrar Jupp. He, of course refused the Requisition, in line with all the other judicial officers who have no intention of allowing a fair trial.

At the hearing I asked if I could clear up a matter which was causing me concern. Registrar Jupp said he would try to help. I asked if the solicitors for the opposition represented the Crown. He said "No" and that they were merely private solicitors working in the Office of the Crown Solicitor.

To that I said I couldn't imagine Queen Elizabeth The Second, that is the Crown, fighting to deny an Australian citizen his right to trial by jury.

I asked Registrar Jupp for an order that all reference to the Crown in the documents pertaining to this case be deleted and that new papers, etc. be made out. He refused to make that order.

I wrote to Prince Charles telling him briefly of the overall situation and where solicitors were practicing deceit in and out of the courts by pretending to be the Crown Solicitor and fighting to deny a person's inalienable right to a jury as guarantied by the Magna Carta and the Australian Constitution. That letter was posted on 20 November 1998 but no reply has been received at this stage.

To me that is straightout false representation or deceit in order to gain an advantage. Letters to the Registrar of the high Court and the Crown Solicitor also have produced total silence.

There are all sorts of questions, ie: How are those solicitors paid?; Do they pay rent for the space they take up in the Office of the Crown Solicitor?; Do they pay for the Crown Solicitor's letterheaded writing materials?; Why aren't these people charged with a serious offence?; etc..

I learnt of another fellow who was trying to get a trial by jury for his charge of contempt of court down in Melbourne after he distributed leaflets in front of the Family Court. By making a few phone calls, I managed to get in touch with one of his solicitors and met him in the foyer of a hotel in Parramatta. We discussed points of law and both cases over about forty minutes before I had to do back to work. When I mentioned the business about my opponents making out that they were the Crown Solicitor when they weren't, this solicitor said, "That's just artificial!". It's not "artificial" to me or indeed to anyone else who has the slightest appreciation of our Constitution and the role the Crown has to play. In fact, in the letter to prince Charles I referred to the words of "God Save the Queen" which go "May She defend our laws". The Crown cannot be party to any attempt to take away a citizen's rights otherwise the Queen would be breaking Her Coronation Oath.

I will be raising this question again in the High Court.

Previous Chapter  |   Index  |   Next Chapter                 Top of Page

Home   Latest News  Press Release  The Book   Newsletters  Links

Site researched and written by J. Wilson jhwilson@acay.com.au and is best viewed with a screen resolution of 600 x 800ppi
or better, using Netscape or MSIE version 4.0 browsers or higher. © 2000