Home  Latest News  Press Release  The Book  Newsletters  Links






Claimant appeared unrepresented
Mr NA Nicholls for the Opponent

MEAGHER JA: Yes, Mr Wilson.

CLAIMANT: Your Honours, which one is Roderick Meagher? Are you Roderick Meagher?


CLAIMANT: And you are?

HANDLEY JA: I'm Justice Handley.

CLAIMANT: Handley, yes, I've got your name down here. Kenneth Handley?


CLAIMANT: I object to both of you people being as judges in this Court, because you have already demonstrated your bias towards trial by jury. You Mr Handley-

HANDLEY JA: I havenrt sat on any previous case involving you, Mr Wilson, I don't believe.

CLAIMANT: Weren't you in the Court of Appeal with Justice Paul Stein when you upheld Justice-

MEAGHER JA: Excuse me Mr Wilson, I don't know what you're doing. It's no business of yours to interrogate the Court.

CLAIMANT: It's a matter of bias, isn't it?

MEAGHER JA: If you wish to make an application that Handley J should be discharged from bias, go ahead and make it but it's not your business to interrogate him.

CLAIMANT: He just said that he wasn't in my case and I'm telling him he was, just like you. You wanted me to stay in gaol when there was an appeal against Chief Justice-

MEAGHER JA: Look, let's get some order into the case.

CLAIMANT: Yes, that's right.

MEAGHER JA: If you are asking Mr Justice Handley to discharge himself, go ahead and make that application.

CLAIMANT: Alright, Mr Justice Handley I ask you to discharge yourself, or disqualify yourself, and also you, Justice Meagher, I ask that you disqualify yourself.

MEAGHER JA: One at a time.


MEAGHER JA: One at a time.


HANDLEY JA: Mr Wilson, I won't disqualify myself. It seems to me that your point would disqualify every judge of the Court of Appeal and every judge of the Supreme Court.

CLAIMANT: They were not in the Court of Appeal when I asked for leave to appeal against Justice Peter Hidden's judgment that Magna Carta was obsolete and that I did not have the right to trial by jury.


CLAIMANT: Do you remember that one?

HANDLEY JA: I may or may not have been in it but of course you appreciate that the High Court of Australia refused to interfere. :

CLAIMANT: You remember the case, do you?

MEAGHER JA: It's not your business to ask questions like that.


MEAGHER JA: You go and-

CLAIMANT: That's why you come to the court, to ask questions of what is fair and what is just, that's why you go to court.

MEAGHER JA: You make submissions about what is fair and what is just.

CLAIMANT: It's a question. Judges are to answer questions.

MEAGHER JA: I can tell you that I don't intend to answer any of your questions because it's not your business to
ask them.

CLAIMANT: I have a document here which is from the Court of Appeal and it's dated 29 February 2000 and the judges were Meagher, Heydon and Sheller.

MEAGHER JA: Very well.


MEAGHER JA: Have you finished with Mr Justice Handley in this application?

CLAIMANT: You're interjecting. I'm talking to him.

MEAGHER JA: Alright.

CLAIMANT: Would you disqualify yourself?

HANDLEY JA: No, I'm not going to disqualify myself.

CLAIMANT: Okay, now I'll get on to you. I ask that you disqualify yourself because you've already demonstrated a bias against trial by jury when that was brought up in my case appealing against being convicted and imprisoned. In fact, your opening statement was "I have read in draft the judgment of Heydon JA. I disagree with it". I think Justice Heydon and Sheller they agreed that I should be released from gaol on that day, but you disagreed, you wanted me to stay in gaol. So you've already demonstrated a bias against me and also a bias against the right to trial by jury and that's what this is all about. Justice is about the protection of rights and the punishment of wrongs and the right to trial by jury is inalienable, it cannot be taken away. There is no law that a Parliament can make to take away the rights of the people. None.

MEAGHER JA: Is there anything else you wished to say on this application?

CLAIMANT: I can go on, yes. I'm asking you to disqualify yourself.

MEAGHER JA: Yes. Is there anything more you wish to say in support of that application?

CLAIMANT: No, that's enough for that application.

MEAGHER JA: The application is refused.

CLAIMANT: Okay, so now we get on to the actual application for leave to appeal.


CLAIMANT: Alright. So you have got the white folder including the opponent's document and the claimant's reply?


CLAIMANT: The claimant's reply was filed on Monday 30 April.


CLAIMANT: So it's simply a matter of jurisdiction that Justice Brian Sully ruled that he would hear a notice of motion without a jury and he cannot do that, because he does not have my consent to that. This is already stated in-lny argument and in my claimant's reply. There is the Supreme Court Procedures Act of 1900 which says in s 3 under Common Law Procedures "in any action by consent of both parties the whole or any one or more of the issues of fact in question may be tried or the amount of damages of any damages or compensation may be assessed by a judge without a jury". I have never given my consent to be without a jury.

HANDLEY JA: The Common Law Procedure Act was repealed in 1972.

CLAIMANT: There was another Act which says in the Interpretations Act 1987, s 30 "the amendment or repeal of an Act or statutory rule does not affect, part (b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the Act or statutory rule". So you cannot abolish the rights of the people. It is the right to trial by jury and that's where it begins and ends, because it's a matter of natural justice in this case as well. Justice Brian Sully is not only a judge acting without my consent but he has also ruled against trial by jury against;me. I put the judgment and transcript into the white folder.

MEAGHER JA: Yes, it's there, we've read it.

CLAIMANT: It's there. So he has already overruled my right to trial by jury, he has overruled the United Nations covenant on civil and political rights and so he is already heavily involved in the case that led to my imprisonment. He should have disqualified himself straight away, just like you two. This is a travesty. A court is a place where justice is administered. Justice is the protection of rights and a punishment of wrongs. It's as simple as that. The fact that these courts are subject to rulings by judges which are totally out of their jurisdiction is a crime. It's a crime to such an extent that it's imprisonable by five years in gaol. Section 43 of the Imperial Acts Application Act says that any offence against the constitutional enactments which includes Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Petition of Rights, is punishable by five years in prison. And yet the judges fly in the face of this. They think they make the laws. They don't make the laws. They think they can act out of jurisdiction ultra vires and they can't. So this appeal for leave to appeal is another travesty because it is denying and delaying right or justice, that's Magna Carta again. To no-one will we sell, to no-one will we deny or delay right or justice. That's another offence committed by judges. They drag out procedures in order to frustrate and deny justice. As far as there being no law that a Parliament can make to take away the rights of the people, I'd like to quote from, as I've done in the white folder already, "an act in excess of the authority conferred by the constitution is no law". No law. "To be valid and binding they must be within the domain of the jurisdiction mapped out and delineated in express terms or by necessary implication in the constitution itself. What is not so granted to the Parliament of the Commonwealth is denied to it" and that applies to the State Parliament as well. So when you say that an Act of Parliament abolishes the right to trial by jury, it does not.

There is a book written by AV Dicey(?) who was a former Professor of English Law and he wrote a book called the Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. In that, he states quite clearly that the ordinary course of the country constituted by a judge and a jury. So by Justice Brian Sully deciding to take matters into his own hands is quite illegal, it is malicious, malicious being a premeditated design to do evil or harm.

All this is about going through the rigmarole of appealing and asking for leave to appeal against something which is totally, totally wrong.

Yes, there's another thing too. Because my action is against the State of New South Wales, the Crown, these involve pleadings of the Crown. Pleadings of the Crown can only be heard by a jury. Judges are employed by the Crown. It can only be by a jury. Any part and parcel of the case must be heard by a jury. Thank you.

MEAGHER JA: Mr Nicholls, I don't think we need to hear from you.






Plaintiff appeared unrepresented
Miss C Webster for the defendant in the first matter and the
second defendant in the second matter
Miss F Booth for the first defendant in the second matter

- - -

PLAINTIFF: I am John Wilson and I am representing myself. This is a matter of motion put up by the opposition but in fact you have no jurisdiction to hear such a notice of motion.

HIS HONOUR: Why do you say this Court has no jurisdiction to hear this notice of motion?

PLAINTIFF: This is not a Court. The Court is constituted by judge and jury. There is no jury. I have not given my consent to be without a jury so therefore this is no Court.

The right of the consent to be without a jury is established in the Supreme Court Procedures Act 1900 which says section 3 "In any action by consent of both parties the whole or any one or more of the issues of fact in question may be tried, or the amount of damages or compensation may be assessed by a judge without a jury". I do not give my consent to be without a jury.

So the Court is entitled to hear notices of motion, writs, summonses, pleadings, affidavits, et cetera from the Court associated with section 259 of the Commonwealth Procedures Act of 1899 that the Court or a judge - the Court consists of a judge and the jury - I do not give my consent for it not to be a jury.

HIS HONOUR: I don't need to hear from you Miss Webster. Just let me confirm, the matter for hearing is the amended notice of motion of the 2 April, is that so?

WEBSTER: That is so in proceedings 20653/00. Does your Honour wish to deal with the two matters separately? There is a motion in the other matter seeking, in substantially similar terms, stay or dismissal of the proceedings or striking out of the proceedings, a matter of notice of motion filed on the 10 April.


PLAINTIFF: You are wrong on a point of law.

HIS HONOUR: Don't interrupt me. Please sit down.


PLAINTIFF: I wish to appeal against that.

HIS HONOUR: You may do so.

PLAINTIFF: And I will take it to the Court of Appeal and then on to the High Court.
HIS HONOUR: Certainly, Mr Wilson. I have heard what you have to say. Would you please sit down so I can hear the application.
PLAINTIFF: You cannot hear the application. HIS HONOUR: I have already ruled against you.

PLAINTIFF: I am appealing against that and therefore on an interlocutory matter these proceedings must cease until an interlocutory matter has been decided in the Supreme Court. You can't proceed.
HIS HONOUR: I don't propose to argue against you.
PLAINTIFF: You intend to proceed against the law?
HIS HONOUR: I propose to hear these applications. Would you please sit down.
BOOTH: I only have a short comment. The Bank's position with respect to the second motion - I am not sure which motion your Honour proposes to hear first?
WEBSTER: It might be convenient to deal with the matter 20714/00 in which the Bank is the first defendant because the other matter concerns only my client and Mr Wilson.
BOOTH: The Bank's position is that it simply wishes to support the submissions and orders.
HIS HONOUR: You don't wish to make any other additional application or submissions?
BOOTH: No, the Bank's supports the submissions in the proceedings commenced by Mr Wilson.
WEBSTER: As I indicated to your Honour the notice of motion is the motion filed on the 10 April this year. It was originally returnable on the 23 April, that is in proceedings 20714/00. I move on that motion. The relief is sought in the alternative, either under Part 13 rule 5 or Part 15 rule 26. In support of that I read the affidavit of Jillian Frances Mahoney sworn 10 April.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson do you have the affidavit of Jillian Frances Mahoney of the 10 April 2000?
PLAINTIFF: Which case are we talking about?
HIS HONOUR: 20714 of 2000.
PLAINTIFF: What's the date of that one?
HIS HONOUR: 10 April 2001.
PLAINTIFF: 10 April, yep.
HIS HONOUR: Do you have any objections to any matters in that affidavit?
PLAINTIFF: I object to these proceedings going ahead.
HIS HONOUR: In addition to the objection which you have already taken?
PLAINTIFF: I haven't finished with that yet. There are a lot of points of law which I haven't finished with yet.
HIS HONOUR: I am asking you about this affidavit.
PLAINTIFF: You have no right to ask any question about this affidavit or any part of the case.
HIS HONOUR: I take it you do not wish to be heard in this matter?
PLAINTIFF: I will defend the right of trial by jury to the end. Against all the corruption in the world I will defend it, so I will answer your question under protest that you have no right to deal with these matters.
HIS HONOUR: Very well, answer it under protest.
PLAINTIFF: I don't object. They have stated quite correctly that natural justice has been denied, that is quite correct. That Justice Simpson has acted unlawfully and maliciously, that is correct. They give no reasons whatsoever. They just state, as I have stated, that proceedings by Justice Simpson are unlawful and malicious. Where is any argument against it?
HIS HONOUR: I am just dealing with the affidavit and I am asking you whether you have any objections to any part of it?
PLAINTIFF: The objection to the part where they are asking for it to be - the affidavit is in support of the notice of motion, so are you separating one from the other?
HIS HONOUR: I am dealing with the affidavit itself.
PLAINTIFF: You are not talking about the notice of motion?
PLAINTIFF: The affidavit is quite correct, there is a miscarriage of justice.
HIS HONOUR: Paragraph 8 is not appropriate for an affidavit, I strike it out.
WEBSTER: I don't read it.
HIS HONOUR: Is that the only affidavit you rely on?
WEBSTER: Yes. It would be a matter far more of submissions. However, before we come to that stage it would seem appropriate that your Honour read the statement of claim.
HIS HONOUR: I will do that in due course. Mr Wilson do you have any affidavit material in reply?
PLAINTIFF: I have a lot of affidavits.
HIS HONOUR: Relevant to this motion?
PLAINTIFF: They are all part of the whole, you cannot separate them. As a matter of natural justice, as a matter of law, you cannot separate one from the other. The affidavits I have filed in this Court are not only in this case of number 20714 but also in the affidavits I have filed in the case of 11203 of 1999. These have been introduced into this Court, into this case, by Justice Hulme, so therefore all the affidavits here, all the affidavits there, are in question.
HIS HONOUR: Would you please list the affidavits upon which you rely?
PLAINTIFF: We will start off with the earlier case. The affidavit in the case of 11203 of 99, it was filed on the 28 May. You are talking about affidavits or notices of motion?
HIS HONOUR: Affidavits.
PLAINTIFF: There is in fact two affidavits of 28 May 1999 in case 11203.
HIS HONOUR: Have they been filed in this case?
PLAINTIFF: They have been brought into this case by Justice Hulme who on, I think it was the 28 December, he says he is calling on the file to be examined by him. Here it is. On the 29 December his Honour said "Mr Wilson I have just sent for a copy of the file 11203 of 99. I think there might be an advantage for my looking at it", so therefore all these documents are now introduced into this case.
HIS HONOUR: That is not so, Mr Wilson. If there is any affidavit upon which you rely and you haven't filed it or given notice, you may do so now. Have you got it there?
PLAINTIFF: Give notice of what?
HIS HONOUR: Have you got the affidavits there with you that you wish to rely on?
PLAINTIFF: They are all affidavits which I filed. They are all filed in the previous case and in this case they are all filed. They are all stamped by the Supreme Court.
HIS HONOUR: They are all filed in this case as well, are they?
PLAINTIFF: The initial part, which is 20714, that's the title, but because of the fact that Justice Hulme has now introduced the entire contents of the file of 11203, that is now in evidence.
HIS HONOUR: To what issue do those affidavits go?
PLAINTIFF: They all refer to fraud committed by the banks, by St George in particular, on the issue of loan contracts which are fraudulent under common law because variable means uncertain. Do you agree that variable means uncertain?
HIS HONOUR:Mr Wilson--
PLAINTIFF:I am asking you a question.
HIS HONOUR:I am afraid I am not answering your questions.
PLAINTIFF: Aren't you answering the question?
HIS HONOUR:No, I am not.
PLAINTIFF:Why aren't you answering my question?
HIS HONOUR:I am not entering into a debate with you.
PLAINTIFF: I am not asking you to. I am asking you an absolute question. It is an Oxford dictionary definition.
HIS HONOUR: Why does the affidavit not shed any light on what you --?
PLAINTIFF: Because it is all to do with justice that the Court has to administer.
HIS HONOUR: The file number is what?
PLAINTIFF: The file number on the initial case is 11203 of 99.
HIS HONOUR: And you wish to rely on the affidavits in this case?
PLAINTIFF: As well as the ones already filed in this case 20714. The initial parts started off with this case 20714, and then, by virtue of the fact that his Honour, Justice Hulme has introduced the file into this case, so therefore it is part of the evidence of this case and that in particular refers to again the right to trial by jury which is denied by Justice Simpson. It refers to fraud of a monumental nature which includes contract fraud and it includes the fraud of the creation of money which is the greatest swindle in the history of mankind.
HIS HONOUR: Very well Mr Wilson, we will just leave the question of those affidavits to one side. I am getting the file brought up. Perhaps we might deal with any other affidavit on which you rely?
PLAINTIFF: There are many affidavits in this case.
HIS HONOUR: Would you go through each one for me please? There are a large number of affidavits filed, I want to know in particular.
PLAINTIFF: The affidavit in this case was filed on the 28 December 2000.
HIS HONOUR: What date was it sworn?
PLAINTIFF: Sworn on the 28th before a Justice of the Peace. That affidavit "I, John Wilson..."--
HIS HONOUR: It has 11 paragraphs, does it?
PLAINTIFF: It refers to the unlawful and malicious prosecution of me, if you wish to read it.
HIS HONOUR: Just sit down and I will read it.
PLAINTIFF: Again the same issues keep coming up of monumental fraud and gross judicial corruption.
HIS HONOUR: I have read that affidavit. What's the next affidavit you rely on?
PLAINTIFF: The next affidavit was filed - have you read the annexures to the affidavit filed on the 28th which includes the notice to vacate from the Sheriff and it includes the transcript of the 4 August 1999 before Justice Simpson? Have you read that transcript?
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson I told you I have read the affidavit and the annexures.
PLAINTIFF: You have read the annexures?
HIS HONOUR: Move on.
PLAINTIFF: Did you see there Justice Simpson denied me the right of trial by jury?
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson I am presently dealing with the affidavits themselves. You can tell me about the significance of them at a later point. We will just go through each affidavit so I know what it is you rely on.
PLAINTIFF: The next affidavit was filed on the 29 December.
HIS HONOUR: Does that have eight paragraphs, sworn the 29 December?
PLAINTIFF: It has eight paragraphs and it refers to in particular the Court case in the State of Minnesota, County of Scott, township of Credit River, between the first National Bank of Montgomery and Jerome Daly. That is a very, very telling landmark case where it is established that banks create money out of thin air and that is fraudulent. That is a most significant case.
HIS HONOUR: I have read that affidavit.
PLAINTIFF: You have read the affidavit of the 29 December 2000 and you have read the annexures which is in particular annexure A, judgment and decree from the Court case in the State of Minnesota?
HIS HONOUR: What's the next affidavit Mr Wilson?
PLAINTIFF: And there is also annexure B which lists figures from the Reserve Bank of Australia's own journal illustrating that banks create money out of thin air. There are the figures there. You have read those figures?
HIS HONOUR: What's the next affidavit? I have read the material. There is no need to be repetitious. Would you please go on?
PLAINTIFF: I am going through the list so that your Honour has an understanding of what is involved.
HIS HONOUR:I have read the affidavit.
PLAINTIFF:Including the annexures?
HIS HONOUR:Of course.
PLAINTIFF: Including the notice of motion for discovery which was denied by the Supreme Court, discovery being denied by the Supreme Court?
PLAINTIFF: So the next affidavit in this case was filed on the 11 January. It has five paragraphs with annexures.
HIS HONOUR: Yes. I have read that affidavit.
PLAINTIFF: You have read the annexures which includes a copy of a press release called Bank Fraud, Judicial
Corruption, Imprisonment and Eviction? There is also an annexure to that one which is marked B which is headed Actions Based upon Plaintiff's Wrongful, Illegal and Immoral Acts or Conduct. There is another annexure marked C which is an extract from that case.


PLAINTIFF: The next affidavit was filed in the Supreme Court on the 16 January. It is made up of 19 paragraphs.

HIS HONOUR: I have that affidavit.

PLAINTIFF: That in particular refers to the Great Charters of Liberty and Petition of Rights guaranteeing the person's right to trial by jury and again it refers to the fraud committed by St George Bank in particular in paragraph 15 which says "My allegations against the St George bank Limited concerned the bank's committing fraud by "variable interest rate loan contracts" and "creating money for themselves from thin air".

The next affidavit was filed on the 16 January which is made up of six paragraphs. That is on the issue of--

HIS HONOUR: I have that affidavit. I have read the affidavit.

PLAINTIFF: In particular there is paragraph 2 which says "This affidavit sets out the reasons why no judge cabn judge any issue in this suit, which includes a Notice of Motion to Dismiss my Statement of Claim filed by the defendant" and it goes on to explain that a tribunal must be independent and impartial and it refers also to the Crown Proceedings Act.

The next affidavit is filed on the 20 February in the Supreme Court sworn on the 20 January. That has three paragraphs to the affidavit.

HIS HONOUR: I have that affidavit.

PLAINTIFF: This affidavit is for the purpose of putting before the Court the case of the trial of William Penn and William Mead which establishes the right of juries to nullify the law, the importance of a jury.

HIS HONOUR: I have read that affidavit.

PLAINTIFF: Is this the first time you have seen a record of the trial of William Penn and William Mead?

HIS HONOUR:Yes. Move to your next affidavit.

PLAINTIFF:Is that the first time you have seen a record?

HIS HONOUR:I am not answering questions.

PLAINTIFF: We are here for you to answer questions. The next affidavit was filed on the 20 February and sworn on the 20 February. This has 35 paragraphs. It begins "I am the deponent. A Court is a place where Justice is administered. Justice is the PROTECTION OF RIGHTS and the PUNISHMENT OF WRONGS. JUSTICE is a moral ideal which the LAW seeks to UPHOLD. A LAW which DESTROYS RIGHTS or PROTECTS WRONGS is UNJUST and has no place in a Court".

HIS HONOUR: I have read that affidavit. Do you have any more affidavits?

PLAINTIFF: Yes I do. That particular affidavit, filed on the 20 February, is a very very important affidavit because of all its inclusions and it's outlining of the function of the Court and a Court which does not follow those ideals is no Court.

One of the cases cited in that particular affidavit is Cable v the Director of Public Prosecutions for New South Wales in the High Court on the 12 September 1996 and the construction of that matter is that the Court has ruled that that law made by a State Parliament was in fact no law because that Parliament exceeded its jurisdiction to make laws.

It also refers to a video tape. This is it, in particular made by the New South Wales Attorney-General's Department, entitled No Juries, No Justice. It also explains the value of a jury.

The next affidavit was filed in the Supreme Court on the 6 March 2001. It was sworn on the 5 March and is made up of three paragraphs and includes an annexure which is a leaflet I put out called Conspiracy, Banks and Judges, "Australian banks commit the crimes of fraud and Australian Judges conceal those crimes.

HIS HONOUR:What's the date this was sworn?

PLAINTIFF:This was filed on the 6 March.

HIS HONOUR:Sworn 5 March and has three paragraphs?

PLAINTIFF: And includes an annexure, a leaflet entitled Conspiracy, Banks and Judges. It talks about contract fraud under common law, variable interest rates under contract void for uncertainty, obtaining money under fraud is stealing, and it also refers to the creation of money and the fact that Australian banks on average create themselves 20 billion dollars a year. These are figures taken from the Reserve Bank of Australia's own figures and it also says that "Judges conceal these crimes...by jury".

The next affidavit was sworn on the 19 March and filed on the 15 March. It was made up of--

HIS HONOUR: Sworn on the 13 March?

PLAINTIFF: Sworn on the 13 March and filed on the 15 March. It has 25 paragraphs. The second paragraph of that particular affidavit says "In this case on the 28 September 2000 in the Supreme Court New South Wales, Hulme J said, on page 1 at line 48, "my understanding of the law is that neither the judge or the state is liable in tort for anything which a judge does". That is patently absurd and wrong.

Then I go on to other references to the New South Wales Law Reform Vicarious Liabilities Act and I refer to habeas corpus and the abolition of the Star Chamber and I mention Halsbury's Laws of Australia on the subject of judges being immune from suit which says that "A judge acts in the performance of his or her duties in the bona fide exercise of office" (?) ...punishment of the law.

An annexure to that affidavit is marked A which is a copy of the transcript of proceedings before Justice Hulme on the 28 December 2000. Annexure B is a copy of the transcript of proceedings in the Supreme Court before Justice Hulme on the 26 February. Annexure C is a copy of the judgment of Justice Hulme from the 26 February. Annexure D is a copy of the transcript of the Supreme Court hearing on the 29 December, again before Justice Hulme.

HIS HONOUR: I have read that affidavit.

PLAINTIFF: The next affidavit is sworn on the 28 March and filed at a status conference on the 4 April. It is made up of 15 paragraphs. It refers to my web site.

HIS HONOUR: Just a moment, I haven't found it. This was sworn the 28 March?


HIS HONOUR: Filed the 4 April?


HIS HONOUR: And 15 paragraphs?

PLAINTIFF: 15 paragraphs.

HIS HONOUR: I have it now. I have read that affidavit.

PLAINTIFF: That refers to the fact I am an Australian citizen. There is my passport (shown) that says I am aa Australian citizen. Therefore I am entitled to the right of trial by jury. It also refers to my web site which is http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au. In that I am recording all the transcripts and judgments of proceedings in the Supreme Court, Federal Court, High Court. It is all relating to the basic denial of the right of trial by jury.

Annexed to that affidavit sworn on the 28 March is annexure A which is the record of the Supreme Court of New South Wales before Justice Simpson with the judgment itself from Justice Simpson and again I repeat the leaflet entitled Conspiracy, Banks and Judges. That is annexure B.

The next affidavit was sworn on the 30 April and filed on the 30 April. It has 12 paragraphs.

HIS HONOUR: I have that affidavit.

PLAINTIFF: That starts off with quoting Thomas Jefferson who said "The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we are separated" .

HIS HONOUR: I have read that affidavit.

PLAINTIFF: There are also a few quotes from the Bible. This is the Bible. It is the ultimate book of law which prevails in these courts.

The next affidavit was sworn on the 18 June and filed on the 27 June.

HIS HONOUR: I have read that affidavit.

PLAINTIFF: An annexure to that affidavit is marked A which is a copy of a letter from solicitors Bizannes and Kekados outlining moneys paid to the St George Bank and the affidavit itself, paragraph 10 "Therefore the amount of money, $644,218 and 94 cents" which I have contributed to the St George Bank for money which they have created out of thin air. That is gross fraud. That is profiting by fraud. It also details moneys which have been paid because of the eviction of my family from my house unlawfully, because Justice Simpson did it without a jury. She has no right to do that. The inconvenience and hardship for my family has been enormous. That is unjust, unlawful and malicious.

The next affidavit was sworn on the 25 June and filed on the 27 June. It is made up of 10 paragraphs.

HIS HONOUR: I have read that affidavit.

PLAINTIFF: Annexed to that affidavit sworn on the 25 June are annexures A and B. These highlight the gross discrepancy between what the Attorney-General purports to be a transcript of a hearing of the 4 May before Justice Kirby. The first, A, is the copy of the Attorney-General's transcript and annexure B is a copy of the transcript made by a friend, from a tape which he recorded in the Court. This is the copy of his tape and it clearly shows that,-I think it is over 44 lines of dialogue have been omitted by the Attorney-General in the transcript. These are very telling references to the law. In particular it ends short, the Attorney-General's transcript ends short, and I go on to say the Attorney-General's version ends with my saying, the plaintiff saying "they should hear it too, they should know what they are entitled to". That's the end of the Attorney-General's transcript but in fact it goes on, as evidenced by a sound recording, to say that I would also like to mention section 3 of the Supreme Court Procedures Act, which I have referred you to earlier, which says "In any action by consent of both parties the whole or any one or more of the issues of fact inquestion may be tried, or the amount of damages or compensation may be assessed by a Judge without a jury.

I do not give my consent any other way. That is a very very important point because this clearly shows that Justice David Kirby was made aware of the rights of the Australian people and this has been deleted, omitted by the Attorney-General's transcript. That is a gross corruption.

That is the last of my affidavits filed in the case of 20714. Because Justice Hulme has introduced the entire file of Court case number 11203 of 99 there are more affidavits which I refer to in the pursuit of truth and justice.


PLAINTIFF: The first affidavit in that particular case was sworn on the 28 May 1999 and filed on the 28 May 1999. It is in support of a notice of motion which is a requisition for trial by jury. It refers to Magna Carta. That affidavit has two paragraphs. The second paragraph has three subparagraphs.

HIS HONOUR: I have read that affidavit.

PLAINTIFF: The affidavit has as paragraph 2 (a) "Magna Carta, 1297, says 'No free man shall be taken, or imprisoned, or dessiesed of his freehold, or his liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any wise destroyed, nor will we pass upon him nor condemn him unless by the lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice'" and annexure to that is a leaflet marked A or annexure marked A headed and written by me. It is entitled "Australian Judges are Liars, Criminals and Traitors: These are serious accusations".

The next affidavit in that particular case of 11203 of 99 was sworn on the 28 July 1999 and filed on the 28 July 1999.

HIS HONOUR: Is it your affidavit?

PLAINTIFF: It is my affidavit filed for John Wilson. The applicant is John Wilson, sworn on the 28 July and stamped in the Supreme Court on the 28 July.

HIS HONOUR: I have one filed the 20 July and sworn the 16 July.

PLAINTIFF: In 11203?

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Does the one you refer to have 11 paragraphs?

PLAINTIFF: It has seven paragraphs.

HIS HONOUR: Perhaps you might show it to me. Would you mind handing it to the officer so I can have a look at it? (Handed up).

I can't find it in the file. If you don't mind I will have it photocopied and then I will return your copy to you. Move on to the next one.

PLAINTIFF: That is an important one.

HIS HONOUR: We will come back to it. Move on to the next one.

PLAINTIFF: The next affidavit was sworn on the 31 August 1999 and filed on the 31 August 1999. It is made
up of six paragraphs with no annexures.

HIS HONOUR: Are you the deponent?

PLAINTIFF: It says "I am the deponent John Wilson and I say on oath".

HIS HONOUR: I can't find that affidavit either. Would you mind showing me that please? (Handed up) I will need to have that copied as well Mr Wilson. Do you have any others?

PLAINTIFF: I will wait for those two. (documents to be photocopied)

HIS HONOUR: Do you have any others? We might as well find out if you have any others?

PLAINTIFF: The fact that the Court doesn't have those affidavit is a farce. I will wait for the first and the second and then go back to the other affidavits.

HIS HONOUR: You can certainly have them all. I will just check whether there are some other missing documents.

PLAINTIFF: There are no more affidavits in the case. I would like to explain why there are no other affidavits in the case.

HIS HONOUR: Certainly. I will return to you the affidavit of the 28 July.

PLAINTIFF: The reasons there are no more affidavits--

HIS HONOUR: Just one moment, we will just deal with this one by one. I have read the affidavit of the 28 July 1999.

PLAINTIFF: It is made up of seven paragraphs and the substance of that one refers to article 14 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Legal Rights which says "1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights, " - they emphasise all of his rights - "and obligations in a suit of law, shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law". A judge who is employed by the defendant cannot be an impartial tribunal.

I will wait on the other one. The reason there are no more affidavits is because on the 9 November the Chief Judge at Common Law conducted a trial, also without a jury, against the law and sentenced me to two years imprisonment. He did that without a jury. This is unlawful and malicious.

HIS HONOUR: I return to you the affidavit of the 31 August 1999 (having been photocopied). You wish me to read the affidavit Mr Wilson?


HIS HONOUR: I have read that affidavit.

PLAINTIFF: This affidavit has six paragraphs and in particular mentions cap or heading or section 29 of Magna Carta which says "To no-one will we sell to no-one will we deny or deny rights or justice" and it refers to section 43 of the Imperial Enactments Act, New South Wales 1969, which says "Any person guilty of any offence under the Imperial enactments included in Part 1 of the Second Schedule for which there is no punishment otherwise provided is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 5 years or to a fine not exceeding 20 penalty units, or to both such imprisonment and fine". Judges who deny trial by jury are guilty of that offence.

Those are the affidavits that have been filed in those two cases.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson can I just ask you, your statement of claim makes allegations against Justice Simpson?


HIS HONOUR: You understand that the defendants to the proceedings say that you have not sufficiently particularised your claim against Justice Simpson, you understand that?

PLAINTIFF: No, I do not.

HIS HONOUR: That is what they say.

PLAINTIFF: It is very clear, one simple issue, it does not have to be elaborated upon. It is very simple.

HIS HONOUR: I just want to ask you, as to the affidavits to-which you refer, do they comprise the particulars of the allegations which you wish to prove in the trial in order to make good your claim against Justice Simpson?

PLAINTIFF: Yes, they are part of the whole. You can't exclude one part from the other. The action is against the St George Bank and the State of New South Wales.

HIS HONOUR: I understand that. In relation to the St George Bank and the State of New South Wales do you say that your affidavits set out the nature of your claim?

PLAINTIFF: Yes, of judicial corruption, very clearly. The fact that Justice Simpson concealed very serious offences committed by the Bank and she proceeded and denied me the right of trial by jury which is treason.

HIS HONOUR: I understand what you say, and the matters on which you rely are set out in the affidavit which you have?

PLAINTIFF: Yes, there is more than adequate evidence there to find her guilty and to find St George Bank guilty.

WEBSTER: Your Honour my client was not a party to the proceedings 11203 of 1999 and has not seen those affidavits. It does appear from what has been said in the course of your Honour being taken to them that they raise substantially the same matters as were canvassed in the affidavits filed in these proceedings.

HIS HONOUR: So you take no point?

WEBSTER: Unless there is something else in the affidavits I ought to see because, as I say, I have not seen those affidavits at all. For the purposes of the application today I take no point in relation to them. The defendant's submission in relation to this is that the actions which are
complained of are --

HIS HONOUR: That is the statement of claim filed on the 28 December 2000?

WEBSTER: Yes, your Honour. Assuming that the matters which have been pleaded were to be substantiated, including with reference to the matters that have been referred to in the affidavits the plaintiff has referred to, all of those matters it is submitted fall within the judicial immunity to which the plaintiff referred in his affidavit, so that there would be no liability for suit by Justice Simpson.

HIS HONOUR: Justice Simpson is not a party to the action.

WEBSTER: No, your Honour, Justice Simpson is not, but it is sought to say that the State of New South Wales is vicariously liable for the conduct in question. Because the actions would be the subject of judicial immunity in relation to Justice Simpson there can be no vicarious liability on the part of the State, that is the first submission that is made.

I have the authorities in relation to judicial immunity, I have some copies to hand up, and a list of the authorities for the shorthand reporter as well. My solicitor will extract the cases I am about to hand up as a bundle for Mr Wilson as well.

The High Court, in the decision of Re East and Others, ex parte Nguyen, which is a 1998 decision referred to at page 354-1 have copies here that I can hand up - I hand up Re East and Others, ex parte Nguyen; Gallo v Dawson, which is a High Court decision, Justice Wilson; Raj ski v Powell, decision of the Court of Appeal in 1987, Moll v Butler, -decision of Justice Wood in 1985 - as I hand up the list I shan't recite all the authorities - and Attorney-General for New South Wales v Agarsky, a 1986 decision of the Court of Appeal.

In Re East, exparte Nguyen, the High Court, in the judgment of the majority, referred to the long established principle of judicial immunity. That passage appears in paragraphs 30 to 31, pages 365 to 366. It refers to the conduct. "There is a well established immunity from suit which protects... or capacity" and then further down paragraph 31 their Honours say "Nothing in the Act... from suit".

The case to which their Honours refer in the footnote at footnote 21 is the decision in Raj ski v Powell, and the second defendant places considerable reliance upon that decision. It is one of the decisions mentioned in Mr Wilson's affidavit of the 13 March which was read.

Rajski v Powell was an application in the Court of Appeal to strike out a statement of claim under the same provisions as those under which the second defendant moves today, and the Court referred to, in separate judgments the President and Justice Hope referred to earlier decisions establishing quite clearly judicial immunity from suit. The particular passages to which I invite your Honour's attention appear at pages 527 through to 528. In the third last line "It is a fundamental principle... function or capacity".

His Honour goes on to deal with the purpose of the immunity and then at page 530 the President turned his attention to the claim which was also made in that case against the Attorney-General for a form of vicarious liability for the action of the judge complained of in the statement of claim under consideration and at page 531 F his Honour concludes that "The claim against the Attorney-General must be dismissed because there is no such vicarious liability on the part of the Attorney-General". That followed from a decision which is one of those I hand up to your Honour, Attorney-General for New South Wales v Agarsky where that principle was established.

The reasons which are given at page 530 for the lack of any form of vicarious liability on the part of the Attorney-General are adopted in this case by the second defendant in relation to the claim which is sought to be made for a form of vicarious liability. That is the passage from D to the foot of page 530. Without reading all of that out, your Honour, I do rely on that section of his Honour's judgment dealing with the independence of the judiciary and the lack of any power to direct and control the actions of individual judges in the performance of their judicial functions.

His Honour states specifically under F "It is fundamental to our arrangements... exist" and that is a power to direct and control between the Attorney-General and judicial officers such as the judge, the subject of that statement of claim "So that a theoretical basis... between them".

His Honour concluded that the statement of claim must be struck out, and that conclusion appears at page 536 of the judgment, on the basis that the complaints which are made, at D on page 536 "The complaints all relate to the manner in which the first complainant who was the Judge in question exercised the power...in commercial list".

In this case it is quite clear, in the second defendant's submission, from the statement of claim and the further matters in the nature of particulars which might be found in the affidavit, that the acts complained of are acts of Justice Simpson in the course of hearing the proceedings 11203 of 9999 between St George Bank as plaintiff and the defendant and his wife.

There is nothing that has been pleaded in my submission which would suggest that Justice Simpson was acting outside the jurisdiction that she had to deal with those proceedings. A similar conclusion was reached by Justice Priestley and his Honour deals with the question of the immunity and the need for and recognition of judicial immunity at pages 538 to 539 of the judgment.

His Honour in that case also struck out the statement of claim save for a suggestion that had been made that there was additional evidence which Dr Raj ski might have wished to rely upon and reformulate his statement of claim. He was given one final opportunity to seek to do that, as your Honour will see from the order made by the Court, order number 2.

The decision in Attorney-General for New South Wales v Agarsky is quite a short one. The conclusion that the President reached is expressed at page 39 of the judgment. It was, as I indicated earlier, an application to strike out a statement of claim. The matter had reached the .Court of Appeal because an order had been made by Justice Wood below striking out the statement of claim below. There was an attempt to appeal from that. It was the summons and appeal which was struck out by the Court of Appeal in this decision and that is on the basis that at page 40, from just under point A, point two of the page "On the present state of the law...cause of action" and at point C in the middle of that sentence of the paragraph beginning "There the cause of action...maintainable", asking whether the judicial officers act in good faith in the performance of their duties. The good faith that was inserted there has been doubted in other cases including Raj ski v Powell, but at point D "The Attorney-General is not... opponent". His Honour there refers to a decision of Justice Aiken in the High Court, Durak v Gosney, and strikes out that process.

HIS HONOUR: Is there a material distinction between the Attorney-General on the one hand and the State of the New South Wales on the other?

WEBSTER: In the nature of cases, such as can be gleaned in the statement of claim, what is sought is to make the second defendant responsible for the acts of the judges.

The approach "has been taken in the cases and, so far as the claim that has been propounded, it is understood there is no material distinction to be drawn. The important point, and of course the point which was determined in the judgment of the President in Raj ski v Powell is the judicial independence, which is protected to this day through Part 9 of the Constitution Act, providing for security of judicial tenure and limited bases of removal requiring an address from both Houses of Parliament, and only then may the Governor take any action with the additional requirement of the Judicial Officers Act 1986, which have been followed.

HIS HONOUR: Are those your submissions?

WEBSTER: Your Honour I could deal at a greater length with the Law Reform Vicarious Liabilities Act which is predicated on a tort having been committed.

References there are, in the case of a tort having been committed, to make someone in the nature of the employer liable. In my submission here, because of the matters to which I have referred, there is a truly independent function being performed, no-one falling within the category of a person in the service or a servant of the Crown, regardless of the fact that the way the proceedings are presently constructed, there is no allegation of a tort having been committed. For that reason in my submission the reliance on the law for vicarious liability is misplaced.

The other decision I handed up and I briefly refer to - it is further High Court authority to the same effect, of Re East, ex parte Nguyen - and Gallo v Dawson, and it is one of the decisions Mr Wilson referred to in his affidavit of 14 March. His Honour says at 402 to 403 that the principle of immunity is clear and well established and that the decision that his Honour took was considered by the Full Court on an application to extend the time for an appeal from that decision.

The Full Court in the decision which is reported at volume 66 of the ALJR page 859, a decision in 1992, held that the action taken by Justice Wilson was entirely appropriate in the state of the law. I can hand copies of that decision up to your Honour if it will assist but the principle, in my submission, is sufficiently well established with Re East, ex parte Nguyen and Gallo v Dawson and Raj ski v Powell in relation to judicial immunity.


PLAINTIFF: The Crown Solicitor is claiming immunity for o judges but judges are, in fact, not above the law. If they do wrong they should and must be punished so all these precedents, naturally I haven't had time to go through them but it is simply a matter of right and justice that - I would say there is no defence for a judge to conduct any sort of hearing without a jury without the consent of both parties.

I am already into the High Court on exactly the same issue regarding unlawful imprisonment whereby the Chief Judge at Common Law conducted a trial without a jury and, again, the Crown Solicitor - I think it is the same person, isn't it, Julie Mahoney - cites the only examples of authority being section 40 and 41 of the Supreme Court Act and my reply to that was that the respondent refers to the Supreme Court Act, section 40 and 41 which has the heading "single judge to constitute the court" and "judges in the division", (read). That is not democracy, that is not freedom. That is not what the courts are intended to do. The courts are here to defend the rights of the people. The Government is there to secure the rights of the people and the right to a trial by a jury is a birthright. It can't be discarded and it is a whole issue that judges in the Supreme Court, whether it is Justice Simpson or Justice Wood or Justice Sully, they all think that they make the laws. They do not make the laws, they are outside the law.

As far as this case here against the St George Bank and the State of New South Wales, I will be subpoenaing Justice Carolyn Simpson to answer questions before a jury and as far as the judicial immunity, any understanding or any credibility for such a thing is based upon good faith. Where judges act outside the law, where they act unlawfully and maliciously they have no entitlement to any immunity whatsoever.

As far as precedents go, precedents should be considered by a jury, fair enough, and a jury will decide if they have any merit but as far as trial by jury is concerned, the jury determine the facts, they judge the justice of the law, they decide if the law is good, is appropriate to that particular case, they judge the moral intentions of both parties and they vote for a verdict purely upon their conscience. That is what justice is. It is the voice and the conscience of the people.

So as far as, again, any act made by, any law made by a Parliament, I will quote here from Quick v Grarran, "The law in excess of the authority... Is denied to it". That also applies to the state. So as far as you hearing even this notice of motion, you have no entitlement, you have no jurisdiction, you have no power to do so. I think the logical conclusion from this time we have spent here today is that you send it back to the list judge and with the order that this case go to a jury, as it should.


PLAINTIFF: I will be appealing against your judgment which is wrongful in the extreme. I will be going to the Court of Appeal. You know you have done wrong.





Mr Wilson in person
Ms C Webster for the defendant

HIS HONOUR: The second matter in the list is John Wilson and the State of New South Wales, matter number 20653 of 2000. This, I think, Mr Wilson, involves a statement of claim?

PLAINTIFF: I ask that this matter be adjourned to another date.


PLAINTIFF: Because I am too emotionally distraught by your wilful and wrongful actions in the previous case. I don't think you are a fit person to be a judge and I ask - the other side have given me a stack of precedents, I have not had a chance to read them. I have to consider your judgment in the previous matter because they are very, very identical and I ask that it be put to another date so that I -can consider what you have said and work out the points of law where you are wrong, the points of justice where you are wrong and because it is the same principle, it must be heard by a jury, and you have obviously indicated your bias against the peoples' right to a trial by a jury so I ask that you .disqualify yourself.

HIS HONOUR: It is the same principle?

PLAINTIFF:: Yes, it is :the same principle, no notice of motion can be heard apart, except by a jury. You have already shown your leanings to abolish the right to a trial by a jury and I ask that the matter be put off to another date so I can regather my thoughts. You will be taking advantage of me and that is not fair.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, there are other litigants in this court whose cases had to make way for yours when your case--

PLAINTIFF: This is a matter of national importance. This is a matter of democracy. This is a matter of right and
justice, your Honour. You have already got a couple of henchmen over here intimidating me. 

HIS HONOUR: I saw you turn around and greet one previously.

PLAINTIFF: Yes, he has met me I don't know how many times now, dozens. Sometimes he comes up along my shoulder.

HIS HONOUR: You are referring to one of the sheriff's officers?


HIS HONOUR: They have been sitting in the back of the court not doing anything at all except sitting there.

PLAINTIFF: Their presence is intimidating. Your attitude is wilful, unjust.

HIS HONOUR: If you found it intimidating why didn't you make that application at the commencement of the proceedings?

PLAINTIFF: He has always been there.

HIS HONOUR: Do you intend proceeding hearing this without a jury?

PLAINTIFF: Yes, I do. Well, I am going. It is a waste of time being here, the decision will be the same. You have no intention of exercising justice, none whatsoever.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, there are two matters here. The first one is whether--?

PLAINTIFF: , They are identical. They are based upon right and justice. They are identical.

HIS HONOUR: The first question is whether the application--

PLAINTIFF: Perhaps you ought to read that little book that you swore an oath on. Perhaps you had better read it and understand what it means. You are a crim.

HIS HONOUR: The first question is whether these proceedings should be heard by a judge alone. The second question is whether or not they should be heard by a judge alone, whether you are ready to proceed. Are you saying to me that you are not ready to proceed?

PLAINTIFF: No, I will fight the same battle again another day.

HIS HONOUR: So you are ready to proceed?

PLAINTIFF: I am exhausted from this morning. I am not ready to proceed.


PLAINTIFF: Because I am emotionally exhausted by the criminality of this court.


HIS HONOUR: Do you have an objection to that course?

PLAINTIFF: It must be before a jury.

HIS HONOUR: That won't be possible, I am afraid but you can have your hearing, if you wish it. I set down the matter for the hearings list next after this week.
Mr Wilson, I think it will be likely to be Friday week. You should inquire at the Registry to see whether that is so or not.

WEBSTER: Might I just record that what was to be indicated by your Honour's tipstaff was, as I understood it, your Honour would be coming onto the bench for about two minutes. I think for the purposes of the transcript that might be made clear... .

PLAINTIFF: Your Honour, you are saying you are going to determine that case as well?..

HIS HONOUR:   I may or may not.

PLAINTIFF:  Perhaps you ought to read the Bible.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, I will adjourn.                        

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