Home  Latest News  Press Release  The Book  Newsletters  Links


Summons | Section 78b | Notice of Appeal | High Court Judgement | Summary

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES SYDNEY REGISTRY

COURT OF APPEAL   File No:

COURT BELOW   File No: 12914 of 1997

The proceedings in respect of which leave to appeal is sought were heard on Monday 6 SEPTEMBER 1999 and decided on 6 SEPTEMBER 1999.

The claimant claims an order granting leave to appeal from the decision of Justice Scully dismissing my Motion for Trial by Jury.

TO THE OPPONENT: The Prothonotary, Crown Solicitor's Office, 

  60-70 Elizabeth Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000.

The rules require you to file and serve a response (as to which see Part 51 rule 4C) within 28 days of service of this summons and the documents referred to in Part 51 rule (4B(1) or 4C(3)) upon you, in default of which the summons may be disposed of:

(a) in your absence; and

(b) solely on the basis of the claimant's argument.

Before you file the notice or take any steps in the proceedings, you must enter an appearance in the Registry unless you have by then filed a summons in the proceedings.

PLACE: Queen's Square, Sydney.

CLAIMANT: John Wilson, PO Box 4520 North Rocks, NSW, 2151.

CLAIMANT'S ADDRESS FOR SERVICE:  PO Box 4520 North Rocks, NSW, 2151.

ADDRESS OF REGISTRY: Queen's Square, Sydney.

............................................

     Signature Claimant


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES SYDNEY REGISTRY

COURT OF APPEAL  File No:        of  1999

IN THE COURT BELOW  File No: 12914  of  1997

    JOHN WILSON

    Appellant

    THE PROTHONOTARY

    Respondent

NOTICE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER

1. The Applicant gives notice that the above proceedings involves a matter arising under the constitution or involving its interpretation within the meaning of Section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903.

Does the Australian Constitution have merit in law?

2. The Australian Constitution is Part 9 of the United Kingdom Parliament's "The British Colony of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act", (9th July 1900, 63 & 64 Vict., Chapter 12)".

3. However, the "Draft Bill to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia, Victoriae Reginae A.D. 1897" was not accepted by the United Kingdom Parliament when taken there by the Australian delegation in 1900. It was appreciably changed before the UK Parliament passed it and Royal Assent was given by Queen Victoria. The amendments were never put to the voters of Australia in any referendum. 

4. The alteration I would like to focus on is the deletion by the UK Parliament of the word, "treaties". 

5. Covering clause 7 of the "Draft Bill to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia, Victoriae Reginae A.D. 1897 " read as follows: "This Constitution established by this Act, and all laws made by The Parliament of the Commonwealth in pursuance of the powers conferred by the Constitution, and all treaties made by the Commonwealth, shall, according to their tenour, be binding on the Courts, judges, and People, of every State, and every part of the Commonwealth, anything in the laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding; and the laws and treaties of the Commonwealth shall be in force on board of all British ships whose last port of clearance or whose port of destination is in the Commonwealth.". 

6. In the UK Parliament's 1900 Act, this clause was changed to read as follows: "This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State; and the laws of the Commonwealth shall be in force on all British ships, the Queen's ships of war excepted, whose first port of clearance and whose destination are in the Commonwealth.".

7. Australia signed the Articles 1 to 30 and Annex of the Treaty of Versailles, otherwise known as "The Covenant of the League of Nations" as a sovereign or independent country on 10th of January 1920.

8. Australia signed the United Nations Charter at San Francisco on 26 June 1945, also as an independent and sovereign country.

9. Australia cannot be a British colony and an independent and sovereign country. 

10. Under UK and International Law, the Covenant of the League of Nations Article XX and under the United Nations Charter Articles 2.1 and 2.4, all Colonial laws applying to Australia pre-Sovereignty are voided.

11. Included in those Colonial laws is "The British Colony of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)".

12. Therefore, the Australian Constitution has been erased and is of "no merit in law".

13. Also, therefore, all institutions established by those Colonial laws are without credentials or legitimacy. Australian Parliaments have no authority to make laws and Australian Courts are without any jurisdiction.

14. Under Article 14 of the United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, "All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.".

15. For me to be charged and tried for an offence against a law, the law and the offence under that law must be legally prescribed a legitimate government and the court must properly established.

16. Without a valid constitution to underpin such authorities, the laws and the courts have no merit.

17. I call upon the Federal and State Attorney-Generals to confirm or deny the foregoing.

18. If the foregoing is confirmed, then the Australian Parliaments and Courts have, respectively, no power to make laws and no jurisdiction.

19. If the foregoing is denied, then this matter will be submitted to the United Nations' Human Right Commission in Geneva, Switzerland.

Dated the  day of  , 1999.

................................................

    Applicant. 1


SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

SCULLY J

MONDAY, 6 SEPTEMBER 1999

12914/97 - THE PROTHONOTARY V JOHN WILSON

JUDGEMENT

HIS HONOUR: before the Court is an application filed on 19 August last by Mr. John Wilson. Mr. Wilson seeks, put shortly, trial by jury of a charge, that has been current against him for better than a year, of contempt of court.

Hidden J of the Court, in a reserved judgement delivered on 16 March 1998 held, for reasons which are set out in full in the judgement and which I need not repeat in their detail, that there was no such right as Mr. Wilson claims. That judgement was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in a judgement delivered ex tempore on 24 August 1998 and refusing Mr. Wilson's application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judgement of Hidden J.

 While I do not have before me as I speak the relevant documents, I am informed that in the wake of the judgement of the Court of Appeal, Mr. Wilson moved in the High Court for leave to appeal to the High Court against the judgement and orders of the Court of Appeal, and that such application was refused.

 The application that Mr. Wilson brings to this Court is in every sense the same as the application dealt with successively by Hidden J, by the Court of Appeal and by the High Court in the contexts to which I referred.

 Mr. Wilson bolsters his present submissions, as I have followed it, by referring to provisions of the relevant international covenant positing the right in everybody to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal. Mr. Wilson pits the submissions in support of the proposition that trial of the outstanding contempt charge is not a fulfilment of the requirement of the international covenant.

 It is, I think, sufficient to say of those submissions that they are, in my respectful view, wholly and transparently without merit either in law or in fact and I reject them.

 The present application is not supported by any other submissions of substance differing from the submissions which were urged unsuccessfully in connection with the earlier application.

 The charge of contempt of court has been outstanding for an unconscionable length of time. So far as this Court is concerned, it is not going to remain outstanding for a further and more unconscionable length of time. The application is dismissed with costs.

   I certify that this and 1 preceding

   page is a true copy of the reasons

   of judgement herein of the    Honourable Mr. Justice Scully.

    (J.B. Alt.....) Associate

   Dated   6/9/99


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES SYDNEY REGISTRY

COURT OF APPEAL  File No: 40731 of 1999

IN THE COURT BELOW   File No: 12914/97

NOTICE OF APPEAL

The proceedings appealed from were heard on Monday, 6th September, 1999 and decided on Monday, 6th September, 1999. The appellant appeals from the decision of Justice Scully.

GROUNDS:

1. On Monday, 6th September, 1999, Justice Scully dismissed my Motion for Trial by Jury.

2. Justice Scully wrongly decided (to use his words) that my submissions, based upon Article 14 of the United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were "without merit either in law or in fact".

3. Justice Scully cannot dismiss International Law. Justice Scully cannot dismiss the facts surrounding this case. The reasons why Justice Scully was wrong are outlined in the Claimant's Summary of Argument and will be gone into at greater length at the hearing of the Appeal.

ORDERS SOUGHT:

1. To overturn Justice Scully's judgement and to grant the Requisition for trial by jury for the charge of Contempt of Court.

2. Costs.

The Appeal will be called over at Queen's Square, Sydney on 1999 at .

TO THE RESPONDENT: The Prothonotary, Crown Solicitor's Office, 60-70 Elizabeth Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000.

Before you take any step in these proceedings, you must enter an appearance in the registry.

APPELLANT: John Wilson,

  PO Box 4520, North Rocks, NSW, 2151. Telephone No: 

APPELLANT'S ADDRESS OF SERVICE: PO Box 4520, North Rocks, NSW, 2151.

ADDRESS OF REGISTRY: Queen's Square, Sydney, NSW, 2151.

.................................................

     Appellant+


IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.

Office of the Registry  Sydney  No S127 of 1998
Between -

JOHN WILSON  Applicant and
THE PROTHONOTARY  Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GAUDRON J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 16 APRIL 1999, AT 2.17 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GAUDRON J: Yes, Mr. Wilson, you appear for yourself, do you?

MR. J. WILSON: Yes, your Honour.

GAUDRON J: Yes, thank you.

MR T.L. BUDDIN, SC: May it please the Court, I appear on behalf of the respondent. (instructed by the Crown Solicitor for New South Wales)

GAUDRON J: Yes, Mr Wilson.

MR WILSON: I would like to start off with a few words as an introduction. I have made copies of these words, which I would like to read to the Court. Would your Honours like copies to follow the words?

GAUDRON J: We have a transcript, thank you.

MR WILSON: OK. Contempt of court is court, whether it occurs inside or outside any court in the land. Contempt of court is the interference with the administration of justice, and is an offence against common law. Common law is a law of the States and it is a law of the Commonwealth (*section 80 of the Judiciary Act 1903 and section 4 of the Crimes Act 1914). Section 80 of the Australian Constitution guarantees trial by jury on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth. Indictment includes an information and a presentment (*section 4A of the Crimes Act 1914). There are no State laws which preclude trial by jury for contempt of court, and if there were, they would be invalid under section 109 of the Australian Constitution, and the covering clause of the Constitution Act, UK, says that:

This Act, and all the laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution , shall be binding on the courts, judges and people of every State and every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State;

Covering clause 6 says:

"The States" .... are part of the Commonwealth.

 As and Australia I am a subject of the Queen, (referred to in section 117 of the Constitution) and am entitled to the protection of the Crown and the charters such as Magna Carta, which guarantees the inalienable right of trial by jury. This right is further protected by the other charters of the Crown, such as the Bill of Rights 1688 and the Petition of Right 1627. These rights and freedoms have been fought for and died for by countless generations of men and women. Lest we forget. These charters are listed in the New South Wales Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 and an offence against them is punishable by imprisonment (*section 43 of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969).

English common law and the rights and freedoms granted by the charters of the Crown are our heritage because we are a constitutional monarchy, and we are under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. These rights and freedoms are yours and mine. They belong to our children and our grandchildren. They belong to your children and grandchildren.

When what is now the United States of America broke away from the Crown, they were forced to draw up the Declaration of Independence to ensure the continuance of these same rights and freedoms, and their system of justice is founded on, and reliant upon, those charters of the Crown.

The role of the jury in the protection of liberty has been emphasised by numerous authorities and the High Court has the power to direct trial by jury in any suit (*section 77B of the Judiciary Act 1903). This case is of national importance because (a) it is in defence of Australians' rights, and (b) it exposes the seriousness of judicial corruption. I have documented my experiences through the courts over the last three years and ordinary people are amazed and horrified at what has happened.

Contempt of court is a serious offence and it is the only vehicle to bring the seriousness of judicial corruption before the people. A conviction for contempt of court is personally very serious to me because it would mean deregistration as a dentist and the destruction of my livelihood, which in turn would mean the dispossession of my home and the devastation of my family.

Trial by jury is trial by the country. With our heritage and the very survival of democracy at stake, the people must be educated and learn what is happening.

Judges are academics, and the weakest element in our community. They must be protected against subversion and must never be given absolute power whereby they can conceal their own incompetence, corruption and treachery. They have sworn to do right, but when they fail they must be accountable to the people. Without trial by jury for contempt of court, judicial corruption knows no bounds. That is my introduction. I have also filed ---

GAUDRON J: Mr Wilson, you must address yourself to the question of error in the court below.

MR WILSON: That is my establishment, the fact that Justice Hidden has denied the right to trial by jury, and that is the error. It is a guarantee under Magna Carta and Magna Carta is in force in Australia. That is the error. And what I am appealing for now is that Justice Hidden's ruling that Magna Carta has been overridden should be struck out, and that I am allowed my right to trial by jury.

The importance of trial by jury has been emphasised by many authorities. I have, and you have, the case of Brown v The Queen. In that the judges in the High Court emphasise the important role that trial by jury has in the administration of justice. On page 179 Chief Justice Gibbs said:

The requirement that there should be trial by jury was not  merely arbitrary and pointless. It must be inferred that the  purpose of the section must be to protect the accused -- in  other words, to provide the accused with a "safeguard  against the corrupt or over-zealous prosecutor and against  the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge"

He goes on to say:

The jury is a bulwark of liberty, a protection against tyranny  and arbitrary oppression, and an important means of  securing a fair and impartial trial. It is true that the jury  system is thought to have collateral advantages (e.g., it  involves ordinary members of the public in the judicial  process and may make some decisions more acceptable to  the public) -

This is a common theme in the High Court.

GAUDRON J: Yes, but now, Mr Wilson, the procedures for dealing with contempt are dealt with in the rules of the Supreme Court, are theynot?

MR WILSON: They are dealt with in a number of courts. They are dealt with in the High Court as well.

GAUDRON J: Well, so far as you are concerned, the procedures are dealt with in the Supreme Court Rules, are they not?

MR WILSON: No. In fact, I have a letter from the Supreme Court of New South Wales - I am sorry I did not put this one in - but it is from the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court. The second paragraph says:

 There is no State legislation which makes contempt of court an offence.

GAUDRON J: Yes, but the procedures for dealing with contempt are set out, are they not, in the Supreme Court Rules?

MR WILSON: Yes, and I can find nowhere where they preclude trial by jury.

GAUDRON J: Do they say you can have trial by jury?

MR WILSON: It is my right to have trial by jury, and I am demanding that I have my right.

GAUDRON J: Well, that is what you have to establish. You cannot simply assert it, Mr Wilson, you have to establish it.

MR WILSON: Trial by jury for contempt of court is the will of the people. There was a referendum in 1988 whereby the politicians tried to change section 80 of the Constitution to exclude trial by jury for contempt of court, and the people said --

GAUDRON J: That is contempt of a court exercising federal jurisdiction.

MR WILSON: Contempt of court is contempt of court whether it is any court of the land, inside or out. In the Constitution it does not say anything to the contrary. Contempt of court is contempt of court, and the people expressed themselves very clearly by an overwhelming majority that trial by jury shall not be exempt for contempt of court. You have the voting figures there, you have the proposed alteration and that was rejected overwhelmingly by the people. It is the will of the people that there should be trial by jury for contempt of court.

The other side, the opponents, quote Willesee back in 1984 in which the judges then said that the practice of trial by jury for contempt of court was "obsolete". According to Magna Carta, the rights have been granted forever. So something that has been granted forever can never become obsolete. And also, in the Bill of Rights and also in the Petition of Right referring to - in fact the Petition of Right actually restates Magna Carta. There is a section where it says:

that no freeman may be taken or imprisoned or be disseised  of his freehold or liberties, or his free customs, or be  outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, but by the  lawful judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land.

and the law of the land is the Constitution, which guarantees trial by jury.

GAUDRON J: Now, would you like to read section 80 of the Constitution, Mr Wilson?

MR WILSON: Read section 80?

GAUDRON J: Yes, that is what - and see exactly what it relates to.

MR WILSON: I will read section 80 of the Constitution. It says:

The trail in indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury --

GAUDRON J: That is right, "against any law of the Commonwealth". You are charged with contempt of court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

MR WILSON: Which is part of the Commonwealth.

GAUDRON J: Well, it may be part of the Commonwealth, but it deals with --

MR WILSON: You cannot exclude New South Wales from the Commonwealth.

GAUDRON J: --- it deals with a distinct area of judicial power. It involves a distinct area of judicial power.

CALLINAN J: Mr Wilson, both the Commonwealth --

MR WILSON: I am a bit hard of hearing and I ask you to speak louder.

CALLINAN J: Both the Commonwealth and the States of Australia can make laws.

MR WILSON: And any law of a State --

CALLINAN J: No, no, you just listen to me for a moment ---

MR WILSON: -- which is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth is invalid under section 109.

CALLINAN J: No, Mr Wilson, you are not understanding what I am saying. They each can make laws within their own areas of power and the States have power to make laws for the regulation of the State courts, and that is, in effect, what you are charged with, breaking a law made for the regulation of proceedings in the State courts.

MR WILSON: And if that law is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, that is invalid. And as reinforced by the Bill of Rights and the Petition of Right, which says:

noe Declarations, Judgements, Doeings or Proceedings to  the Prejudice of the People in any of the foresaid   Premises ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter into  Consequence or Example.

So, the proceedings with Willesee where they said that - which is "to the Prejudice of the people"- is null and void. And also in the Bill of Rights it says the same thing:

that the awards, doings and proceedings, to the prejudice of  your people in any of the premises, shall not be drawn  hereafter into consequence or example -

So any time a court tries to disadvantage or take rights away from the people, those rulings are of no example, they are invalid.

There have been many learned people talk about the importance of trial by jury. I would refer to Chapter 1 of this essay by Lysander Spooner, and there they go to the importance, the fact that trial by jury is:
(*Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain  that, instead of juries being) a "palladium of liberty" - a  barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government  - they are mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution  any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.

So, in other words, only by putting such an important issue as contempt of court to the people can there be justice, and the court is purely here to administer justice, whether it is the High Court, Supreme Court or any court.

So, also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is the United Nations Charter, also emphasises the importance of having "a fair ... and impartial tribunal". I cannot get a fair or impartial tribunal from any judge because I have found in the last three years, as I have put in this leaflet, which I have also submitted to the Court, that in my experience "Australian judges are liars, criminals and traitors", and I have listed their offence. I have gone into more detail in the publication which you also have before you in chapter 12, "What Crimes Have the Judges Committed". Now I,list there the offence such as "concealing a serious offence", "...perverting the course of justice", "Judicial corruption". And there is no way other than trial by jury can I get an impartial tribunal.

So, fundamentally, the Constitution, section 80, guarantees trial by jury for any offence against any law of the Commonwealth and New South Wales is part of the Commonwealth. The will of the people must be respected. The will of the people was expressed in the referendum of 1988 in which they overwhelmingly rules out any question that contempt of court shall be exempt from trial by jury.

So I can only say that in the interests of justice, there can only be trial by jury in my case. Thank you.

GAUDRON J: Thank you, Mr Wilson. We need not hear you, Mr Buddin.

The applicant's argument fails to distinguish between State laws regulating procedures in State courts and offence against the laws of the Commonwealth. Section 80 of the Constitution has nothing to say as to the former. It follows that the decision of the Court of Appeal is correct and special leave is refused.

MR WILSON: Could I interrupt hers? Can the Court prove to me legally that I have no entitlement to trial by jury?

GAUDRON J: Do you seek costs, Mr Buddin?

MR BUDDIN: No, your Honour.

GAUDRON J: Special leave is refused, Mr Wilson, and the Court will now adjourn.

AT 2:36 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED
 ___________________________________________________
N.B.: In regard to inserts marked with an asterisk (*), I neglected to read these words from my own printed material when in front of the court. I apologise for taking the liberty to put them into the text of the High Court transcript but thought them necessary in the interests of clarification and understanding.


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES SYDNEY REGISTRY COURT OF APPEAL

File No:        of  1999.

COURT BELOW   File No:  12914  of  1999.

                   SUMMARY OF CLAIMANT'S ARGUMENT

1. I truly believe that Justice Scully's decision to dismiss my application requisitioning trial by jury was wrong "in law and in fact", to use his words from his judgement from the hearing of the application in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on Monday the 6th of September, 1999.

2. Justice Scully was wrong to say that my "submissions ... are ... wholly and transparently without merit either in law or in fact".

3. Judges must never be given nor allowed to assume absolute power whereby they can conceal their own incompetence, corruption and treachery.

Are Australian Judges and Courts Competent?

4. My Notice of Motion requisitioning trial by jury was filed on 19 August 1999 and accompanied by an Affidavit sworn to on 18 August 1999 which quoted and based these particular submissions on Article 14 of the United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

5. That United Nations' covenant is international law and is binding on Australia which means it is as covering clause 7 of the "Draft Bill To Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia, Victoriae Reginae A.D. 1897" says, ie: "This Constitution established by this Act, and all laws made by The Parliament of the Commonwealth in pursuance of the powers conferred by the Constitution, and all treaties made by the Commonwealth, shall, according to their tenour, be binding on the Courts, Judges, and people, of every State, and every part of the Commonwealth, anything in the laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding; and the laws and treaties of the Commonwealth shall be in force on board of all British ships whose last port of clearance or whose port of destination is in the Commonwealth.". 

6. The fact that the Parliament of the United Kingdom removed treaties from this paragraph 7 of the Draft Bill, which became covering clause 5, and enacted their amended Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia, 63 & 64 Victoria, Chapter 12, 19th July, 1900, without the approval by referendum of the voters of Australia, is proof that Australia was still very much a colony and subject to legislation imposed on it by the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, the power to make or enter into treaties belongs to the monarch, acting on the advice of government ministers. Clearly, the Parliament of the United Kingdom were not prepared to allow the Commonwealth of Australia to make or enter into treaties as a sovereign nation would. 

7. However, on June 28th 1919, the Australian Prime Minister, Mr. "Billy" Hughes, signed the Peace Treaty of Versailles and on January 20th 1920, Australia joined the League of Nations as a full member state. The prerequisite for becoming a member was sovereignty. Therefore, under International Law, Australia was a sovereign nation. The United Kingdom became a foreign power to Australia and United Kingdom laws, including the Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia, were extinguished in line with Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations 1919. The status of the United Kingdom as a foreign power was confirmed recently in the High Court of Australia's ruling in the Heather Hill case.

8. In the United Kingdom a treaty does not become part of municipal law until brought into force by an Act of Parliament. In Australia, that protocol is said to persist, ie: that treaties are not binding on a signatory nation unless that nation creates its own specific local laws to allow the substance of the treaties to flow on to its people. Having regard to this incongruity, the United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights can be found as Schedule 2 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (a law enacted by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia). Article 14 of that covenant can be found on page 52 of Reprint No. 3, reprinted as at 31 March 1994. 

9. Therefore, Article 14 of the United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has merit in law.

10. Whether the Australian Constitution, itself, has "merit in law" is another question which will have to be decided by the United Nations, in time, and will form the basis of a Notice of a Constitutional Matter under section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 to the Federal Attorney-General.

11. If there is no valid Australian Constitution, Australian courts can have no credentials, competence, nor jurisdiction.

12. Justice Scully was wrong to say my "submissions ... are ... without merit ... in fact". My submission is that I am "equal before the courts and tribunals" and that "In the determination of any criminal charge against (me), or of (my) rights and obligations in a suit of law, (I am) entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial established by law".

13. At the hearing of the Motion for Trial by Jury, on Monday 6 September 1999, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, I said, "In the Courts of Australia, there are two forms of trial: One, trial by jury; and, secondly, trial by judge or judges. This matter is about my right to protest and take action against bank fraud, corrupt judges and how those corrupt judges are misusing the Court to oppress and victimise the people of this country.". His Honour replied: "You are saying it is your right to throw paint over a member of the Court?". I then said, "It is my right to trial by jury; and, in my defence, I will bring out all the issues.".

14. Magna Carta 1297 guaranties me "Right and Justice" and should this be denied, the United Nations' Human Rights Commission will be told of all previous legal argument in my quest for trial by jury wherein the incompetence, corruption and treachery of Australian judges will be revealed to that Commission. 

Are Australian Judges Independent and Impartial?

15. I have composed a book entitled "Banks and Judges" which covers these issues of bank fraud and judicial corruption. The ISBN is 1 74018 020 8. I will include this book as part of my presentation to the Court of Appeal should leave be granted for the Appeal.

16. At the same hearing, I quoted from Article 14 of the United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and added, "Now that competent, independent, impartial tribunal cannot be before a judge because of the involvement of judicial corruption." and "At my trial for contempt of court, I will subpoena the judges involved in the initial corruption, involved ... leading (to the) incident on 5 September 1997. No other judge or judges can qualify under Article 14 of the United Nations' Covenant for a competent, independent and impartial trib(un)al in the determination of my rights nor of justice. Should this application for trial by jury be dismissed, then I will appeal through the Court of Appeal to the High Court and then on to the United Nations' Human Rights Commission in Geneva in Switzerland, once all domestic remedies have been exhausted, which is the requirement to be met before their Optionl Protocol comes into effect. I would like to point out to you something in this very room. Above your head is the Royal Coat of Arms which has the inscription on it which says "God and my right". It is my right to have (a) tribunal before a jury.".

17. At my trial for contempt of court I will question judges on their rulings in matters numbered CL 20680/96, CA 40593/9, S 190/96 and CL 20723/97 as to the why they lied, supported lies, and concealed fraud in the form of variable interest rate loan contracts issued by the banks. Under common law, for a contract to be created, there must be "certainty of terms". "Variable", on the other hand, means "uncertain" and "certain" means "not variable" which renders loan contracts having variable interest rates void for uncertainty.

18. Questioning of those judges at that time must not be before another judge or judges because such a tribunal would not be "independent and impartial".

19. Contempt of court concerns "interferring with the administration of justice". Only a jury of my peers who are "honest and true" and who are "competent, independent and impartial" can judge what are the facts, what is the law, judge the justice of the law and determine my guilt or innocence. 

20. Those judges, whom I will question, will not be on trial on that occasion. It will I who will be on trial.

21. There must be no temptation for a judge or judges to obstruct the presentation of evidence and my defence. To quote Lysander Spooner from his "Essay on the Trial by Jury" (1852), "the jury must judge of and try the whole case, and every part and parcel of the case". 

22. There must be no temptation or a judge or judges to violate their Oath of Allegiance and Judicial Oath which are to "be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second" and "to do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this State without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, SO HELP ME, GOD" where Her Majesty, at Her Coronation, received the Holy Bible to be "royal Law" and swore to "cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all (Her) judgements' and received the Sword from the Archbishop of Canterbury with the prayer "that she may not bear the Sword in vain; but may use it as the minister of God for the terror and punishment of evil-doers, and for the protection and encouragement of those who do well, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.". There is no greater force for evil than the banks who, through fraud, have inflicted untold deprivation, misery and hardship on ordinary men, women and children. And there are no greater evil-doers than the banks who have corrupted an entire judiciary to have them lie, commit crimes, betray their people and betray the oaths they have sworn before God.

23. A tribunal of a judge or judges cannot constitute "a competent, independent and impartial tribunal" for the determination of a charge of contempt of court against me or of my rights and obligations.

24. The Star Chamber was banished in England in 1640 because "the Proceedings, Censure and Decrees of that Court have by Experience been found to be an intolerable Burthen to the Subjects, and the means to introduce a arbitrary Power and Government;". 

25. Australian judges claim some "Doctrine of Immunity" (?) which make them "immune from suit". However, judges are not above the law but are indeed liable to punishment when they commit crimes in or out of the courtroom. To deny trial by jury in this case is to attempt to prevent evidence of judicial corruption being presented to a tribunal of the people and it is the people to whom the judges are accountable in this world.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES, ETC.

1. United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 14.

2. Draft Bill to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia, Victoriae Reginae A.D. 1897, Covering Clause 7.

3. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986.

4. Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia, 63 & 64 Victoria,  Chapter 12, 19th July, 1900, Covering Clause 5.

5. Peace Treaty of Versailles, Covenant of the League of Nations, 1919.

6. The Royal Coat of Arms.

7. "Essay on the Trial by Jury" by Lysander Spooner, 1852.

8. "Banks and Judges" by J. Wilson, 2nd ed., 1999.

......................................................

    Claimantm

Summons | Section 78b | Notice of Appeal | High Court Judgement | Summary


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

.