THE SUPREME COURT OF
NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVSION
MONDAY 4 FEBRUARY 2002
20137/00 JOHN WILSON V STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Plaintiff appeared unrepresented
Mr Nicholls for the Defendant
WILSON: it is in regard to jurisdiction of the Court. I have already
filed a notice of motion in the nature of quo warranto as to the right of any judge to sit on this matter without a jury.
HIS HONOUR: I am simply asking for adjournments (Duty Judge listing containing 30 matters).
WILSON: The matter of quo warranto must be determined by a jury. There is no jury here.
HIS HONOUR: Your are not asking for an adjournment?
WILSON; I would like qualification of the status of this Court.
HIS HONOUR: Are you ready to meet the application?
NICOLLS: Yes. It is an application for summary dismissal.
HIS HONOUR: I will leave it in the list for the moment.
NICHOLLS: It is an application summarily dismissing proceedings commenced by Mr Wilson. It was specially fixed for today. It
may have been listed for hearing before the Master.
Filed originally May 2000. It has been around for a long time. Mr Wilson has, in that motion, urged upon the Court a submission the Court cannot hear the
defendant's motions for summary dismissal without a jury. That issue went to the Court of Appeal. No leave granted. Special leave to the High Court sought and dismissed. Back before this Court for
summary dismissal. Mr Wilson in the meantime has filed a summons seeking an injunction in the nature of seeking quo warranto. We move the summons be dismissed today, using the same arguments.
I indicate that because your Honour may be allocating priorities for the list.
HIS HONOUR: What I am minded to do is. take it at 2pm.
WILSON; I am ready to proceed before a jury on the whole issue.
HIS HONOUR: The first thing is whether you are entitled to a jury. I will consider that matter at 2pm.
WILSON: A jury decides. It is a right to trial by jury, it ie constitutional right.
HIS HONOUR; That is a matter for argument. I will take the argument at 2pm.
ADJOURNED TO NOT BEFORE 2PM
HIS HONOUR: I have a document indicating an estimate of a day
plus. Is that your estimate, Mr Wilson, based on the proposition that there would be a jury trial?
WILSON: Today with the actual trial before a jury it would take probably about a day.
HIS HONOUR: I just want to understand it. We had best deal with the preliminary question.
HIS HONOUR: Now you have a motion, Mr Wilson, in which you are asking that any judge or
Master asked to deal with this matter not do so because you are entitled to have the matter tried by jury.
WILSON: That is right.
HIS HONOUR: What is the matter you wish to have trialed by jury?
WILSON: You were involved in it, where they put me in gaol without a jury.
HIS HONOUR: That was the contempt proceedings.
WILSON: Yes, that was wrong. You gave a judgment against trial by jury.
HIS HONOUR: I did, yes.
WILSON: And you were wrong.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, but I may have been but, unfortunately, I cannot fix it. I gave a judgment. Did you appeal from that judgment?
WILSON: Yes, of course. It went right through to High Court, It was a travesty all the way through.
HIS HONOUR: You were not successful?
WILSON: It was a travesty all the way through,
HIS HONOUR: That having happened, there is not anything I can do about that really.
WILSON: You can admit you are wrong. Behind you it says "GOD AND MY RIGHT". The first question is, are
you a minister of God?
HIS HONOUR: Even if I admit I am wrong--
WILSON: Could you answer the question about being a minister of God?
HIS HONOUR: Lord, I do not think so.
WILSON; You are not going to answer that?
HIS HONOUR: I do not think I am.
WILSON: You are not a minister of God?
HIS HONOUR: I want to be perfectly clear.
WILSON: We have to get the ground rules right.
HIS HONOUR; You are saying - being a minister of God does not help very much. I am a judge of the Supreme Court, which is why you are here. You wish to
have the contempt proceedings recalled before a jury?
WILSON: That is the end of the line. I am continuously denied trial by jury. Up there behind you it says you will protect my right.
HIS HONOUR: The trial by jury for the contempt charge-
WILSON: In any action by consent of both parties can there be a judge without a jury (omitted from Attorney-General's transcript). Trial by jury in any
HIS HONOUR: What is it that you want tried by jury? What case do you want tried by jury?
WILSON: It is the fact that the judge put me in gaol without a jury.
HIS HONOUR: That is what I am trying to get.
WILSON: That is the end of the line but in between are all the in between stages, all the notices of the motion which must be determined by a jury.
HIS HONOUR: You want the contempt charge, in effect, retried with a jury? Is that why you are here?
HIS HONOUR: It is the contempt charge you want retried with a jury?
WILSON: Yes, and the only way we are going to do that is to establish the right to trial by jury, which is our inalienable right, our inherited right and our constitutional right.
HIS HONOUR: So that is your
application. Then Mr Nicholls, you have an application that the proceedings be dismissed.
NICHOLLS: Summarily dismissed, yes.
WILSON: The notice of motion I filed on 13 December 2001.
HONOUR: Yes, I have got that, thanks. There is an affidavit on that. I will read your affidavit, Mr Wilson.
NICHOLLS: I take it that your Honour is reading that. I have a large number of Mr Wilson's affidavits,
HIS HONOUR: I have an affidavit attached to the notice of motion also filed 13 December
2001. I have read that affidavit. That is the affidavit you rely on for the present application for trial by jury. Mr Nicholls, do you have any evidence?
NICHOLLS: Yes. Your Honour, there are two
affidavits on which I move; affidavit of Natalie Jane Adams sworn 17 May 2000 and affidavit of Neil Richard Guy sworn 11 December 2000.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, you have seen both of these affidavits?
WILSON: Are you proceeding to determine this notice of motion?
HIS HONOUR: On the question of whether there should be trial by jury.
WILSON: But you have no jurisdiction. There is no jury.
HIS HONOUR: That is a question I will have to determine myself whether I have jurisdiction. Not uncommonly judges determine whether they have jurisdiction in a case.
WILSON: A judge cannot determine his own
jurisdiction. That is determined by a jury. This is called a democracy and I am demanding my right. It is a constitutional, inalienable and inheritable right. It cannot be given away. It cannot be taken away.
HIS HONOUR: Let me just read this. I have read that material.
NICHOLLS: Could I just to assist your Honour - Mr Wilson has indicated to your Honour this morning that he is entitled in some way to
assert a right to have either this motion heard by a jury. The position is that that issue has already been determined. It was determined by his Honour Justice Sully on 12 December 2000 when his Honour determined as a
threshold issue whether his Honour had jurisdiction--
HIS HONOUR: Is that an annexure to his Honour's judgment?
NICHOLLS: No, it is not. It is a judgment in these proceedings. It should be on the court file. I hope it is.
HIS HONOUR: 12 September 2000, is it?
NICHOLLS: 12 December. What
came before his Honour was the status motion for summary dismissal of these proceedings. Mr Wilson submitted that motion could only be heard by a judge and jury.
HIS HONOUR: Do you have a copy with you?
NICHOLLS: I will hand your Honour a copy which appears in the application papers before the High Court. (Handed to his Honour) If it is of assistance, your Honour, at the bottom of the page your Honour will see
pagination at the top right hand side. At the bottom of page 5 about .22 his Honour summarises Mr Wilson's then submission.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you. I have read that. Thank you.
NICHOLLS: Mr Wilson filed an application for leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed that application on 7 May 2001. Mr Wilson filed a special application for leave to apply to the High Court. That
was refused on 21 November 2001. Could I hand to your Honour a chronology which may be of assistance.
(Chronology handed to his Honour.)
HIS HONOUR; The 2000 one?
NICHOLLS: Yes. I will
come to that and I will provide Mr Wilson with a copy of the chronology. The events have been taken from the events in these proceedings which are a matter of court record. Insofar as there is any contention that this
court could not determine this motion except by jury, that matter has been determined finally.
NICHOLLS: And we are here to deal with the proceedings.
WILSON: These people
are fighting to destroy their own right, their children's right to trial by jury. It is mindboggling. How can anybody hate their own children? The corruption and oppressiveness of the judiciary is
amazing. (Reads) They keep on bringing them up as examples. They are of no consequence or example. W E Hearne wrote a book and said (reads) "Lord Coke declared that "the Common Law doth control
Acts of parliament and adjudge them when against common right to be void."". (omitted from Attorney-General's transcript). These Acts are all voided. The Courts Legislation Amendment Act which takes away the
right to trial by jury. Because of this I have filed a summons in the Supreme Court charging the Premier with treason and treachery because he has not only failed his allegiance to Elizabeth II but is also attempting to
overthrow a fundamental right.
I came to these courts in 1996 and thought this is going to be simple, cut and dried. End of story. Then the judges started lying. I went to the judges in the High Court, and
asked "Does variable mean uncertain?', simple plain English. (Reads). Their Honours Toohey, Kirby and Dawson JJ said, "Sorry, we cannot answer that question.". They are avoiding it. I
twigged to the fact there is such judicial corruption. I have got to go to a jury. Every step of the way trial by jury has been denied even though it has been our right since Magna Carta. It has been
reinforced by statutes and so forth.
It is mindboggling that these judges think they are so powerful they can dispense with the rights of the people.
WILSON: It has only been 100 years I gather that judges have
taken on this false position of absolute power. An absolute authority says: "We are the Court". No way in the wide world. They are officers of the court, but they were not the Court.
every full step of the way, I have got other actions in the Supreme Court, even in the District Court at Parramatta, in the High Court, all on the same basis. I demand the right to trial by jury.
This thing about
that name is not stated anywhere, is it? The Supreme Court Act says (Read). All the time in the laws passed by the Parliament, it says "a judge" is "a judge of the court" - not "the
Court". Now they are turning around with their absolutely scandalous lies saying: The Court is constituted by judges sitting alone. It is wrong. It is not.
Over the centuries millions of people
have died, fought and died, for justice and for freedom. And what do we get in the courts for Australia? They say about the safeguard of the freedom, "Poohie to that." And what of justice? I have made up a
pamphlet. I have "a court and place where justice is administered. Justice is the protection of right and the punishment of wrong.". I have my rights - so far as a court is constituted by a judge and
jury. Once you eliminate the people, you wipe out democracy. Even the Constitution Act of New South Wales, and again in the Act constituting the Commonwealth of Australia, it says the Parliament shall make law subject
to the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia. It has powers to make laws for peace, welfare and good government of New South Wales, - of good government - and government is of the people, by the people and for the
people. Once you eliminate the democratic principle you have destroyed justice.
I will keep on hammering this until the day I am successful on that matter of basic rights. We have to respect the people who have gone
before us and respect the children and the people who come after us. That is basic and fundamental and right. It cannot be dispensed with by tyrants. And that is what we are getting into the situation of -
tyranny. Tyranny. I am for the rights of people. Thank you.
HIS HONOUR: I do not need to hear you, Mr Nicholls, unless there are matters you wish to raise?
NICHOLLS: The matters in the statement of claim to establish the basis of summary dismissal.
HIS HONOUR: The statement of claim?
NICHOLLS: Filed by Mr Wilson.
HIS HONOUR: I had better
find that. 8 April 2000. I have just found the judgment of Sully J. I have it, thank you,
NICHOLLS: It is just to demonstrate to your Honour what claims are made by Mr Wilson/ the first unlawfully
imprisoned on two separate occasions (read). In relation to that he asserts a right to have been entitled to a trial by a jury on each occasion.
HIS HONOUR; Mr Wilson, you say the imprisonments were unlawful
because you were not given your right for trial by jury?
WILSON: Quite right, that right is a constitutional right.
HIS HONOUR: I understand. I wanted to make sure that is the basis of the claim,
WILSON: Down the track. We have got first base, which is establishing the right to trial by jury. All these other things will come into play once the first principle is established - the principle of justice and
NICHOLLS; In relation to the first episode there is an affidavit of Mr Neil of 11 December. Details the period in which Mr Wilson taken into custody, the reason that bail was not entered by Mr
Wilson. He was then taken into custody and ultimately bailed in 1997.
In relation to the second period, commencing 9 November 1999, Justice Wood's judgment sentenced Mr Wilson to two years imprisonment and that
appears at page 45 of Ms Adam's affidavit. An appeal reduced that period to three months and three weeks.
HIS HONOUR: Released on 28 February.
NICHOLLS: Yes. Thank you very much.
HIS HONOUR: Is there anything further you wish to say, Mr Wilson?
HIS HONOUR: Does it add anything to what you have already said,
WILSON: Re-emphasising - proving that I
had the right to trial by jury, constitutional right, that has been denied by judges from the Supreme Court right through to the High Court, here. It is a constitutional enactment - meaning a law, or a provision of law, a
constitutional law. Magna Carta, Bill of Rights. It is all there. Yet the judges, and I can only assume that it is a power grab, overthrowing the constitution and this is so criminal. It is so treacherous. It has
to be brought to a stop. I see we do not have what people fought and died for. Judges take it upon themselves that they are the absolute authority.
I have given quotes from Thomas Jefferson who said the
destruction of our nation lies in the power of the jury and I read that quote from Thomas Jefferson to you today. He said it in 1802 and it is as applicable today.
HIS HONOUR: At the time of the section 326 charge were they dealt with summarily?
NICHOLAS: What happened those charges were not proceeded with.
HIS HONOUR: That is quite right.
NICHOLAS: Because the contempt proceedings commenced in this Court.
HIS HONOUR: Is there anything further, Mr Wilson. I think I understand your argument.
WILSON: Again making distinction
between the court made up of a judge and jury and judge. I found dozens and dozens of documents of laws which talk about "the Court or a Judge" may amend any notice of motion, rule, de nova, writ, proceeding, or
other procedures used before a court. The distinction is that, the Judge is not the Court - never can be the Court, under English Common Law.
So this notice of motion, because it is absolutely crucial, continues the
whole theme. Unless we have trial by jury, we do not have freedom and we do not have justice.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you, Mr Wilson.
FOR JUDGMENT SEE SEPARATE TRANSCRIPT.