Home  Latest News  Press Release  The Book  Newsletters  Links




Plaintiff appeared unrepresented
Mr D Sibtain for the Defendant

PLAINTIFF: I notice your name is Greenwood. Are you related to Terence Greenwood?

REGISTRAR: No, I'm not. Now, let's move on. We've got a lot to do this morning.

SIBTAIN:Registrar, there is a problem with the statement of claim. It doesn't comply with s 6 of the Defamation Act in that there's no imputation which has been pleaded. It is liable to be struck out. However, as Mr Wilson is a litigant in person perhaps the appropriate course would be for the proceedings to stand over for a brief time so that he can seek some advice as to how to put it into proper form.


PLAINTIFF:I intend this to go to a trial by jury as defamation should and in this particular matter there should be community input because of the gravity of the situation and the very question of the whole structure of our government. I'd point out that the Queen has not appointed the Governor General, has not appointed the Governors. So therefore all the judges are illegitimate, their appointments are invalid and this is of greatest concernto the community and it should not be dismissed in any way.

REGISTRAR:Can I just clarify to make sure my reading of this is correct that the basis of your claim is that thenewspaper refused to publish a notice that you sought to have published?

PLAINTIFF:No, the basis is the accusation of sedition against me made by the person who is termed to be the legal representative of the newspaper and on that basis a public notice was not put in challenging the Governor General to prove his credentials to be Governor General and that is oppression.

REGISTRAR: Okay,I couldn't see the accusation of sedition but perhaps I missed something.

PLAINTIFF:  I can't hear, what?

REGISTRAR: I could not see the accusation of sedition in the papers here but perhaps I missed something.

PLAINTIFF: You cannot see the word "sedition"?

REGISTRAR: I cannot see any accusation of that kind and it sounds to me like

PLAINTIFF: But you would have no authority to judge anything in this matter.

REGISTRAR:  It sounds to me like there needs to be perhaps consideration by the defendant of what it wants to do here.

SIBTRAIN: Yes, well, as I've said, Registrar, the statement of claim is liable to be struck out.

PLAINTIFF: Not by a jury it will not. The jury is most concerned in this matter. It's the community's issues. It is not to be determined by judges who are fraudulent to begin with.

REGISTRAR: Okay, well, Mr Wilson, there needs to be a proper cause of action so what are we going to do?

SIBTRAIN  Perhaps if the matter could be stood over for a period of two weeks. If the plaintiff does not wish to amend his statement of claim then we'll need to make application to have the statement of claim struck out.

PLAINTIFF: To be struck out by who?

REGISTRAR: Have you had any discussions this morning?


PLAINTIFF: To be struck out by who?

REGISTRAR: By the Court.

PLAINTIFF: The Court, meaning the jury. There is no court without a jury.

REGISTRAR: You're seeking to have it stood over for two weeks?

SIBTRAIN: I would not make an application in view of the fact that Mr Wilson is a litigant in person to have it struck out instanter. I would ask that it be stood over for two weeks. If he chooses not to amend within that period of time then I'll make an application to have it struck out.

REGISTRAR: Okay. Do you understand what's been proposed, Mr Wilson?

PLAINTIFF: I understand that there is great suppression from the so-called courts by the judiciary in order to protect themselves because I have clear evidence from the Privy Council that the Queen does not appoint the Governor Generals, does not appoint the Governors, so therefore the appointments of the judges are illegitimate. They are fraudulent. So the easiest way is for judges to strike out the action so it is all suppressed.

REGISTRAR: I think you've misconceived my role, Mr Wilson. My role is to get this matter ready for hearing and that's what I'm going to do.

PLAINTIFF: For a jury trial.

REGISTRAR: Get it ready for hearing. Now, Mr Wilson, what do you want to do, a two week adjournment?

PLAINTIFF: I want to go straight to a jury trial so that all the material can be put before the community, trial by the country, that is what trial by jury is.

REGISTRAR: Okay, I think you might have your answer so can I bring this back here in two weeks and would you be putting on any kind of an application?

SIBTRAIN: Yes, we'll make an application to have the proceedings dismissed.

PLAINTIFF: But this, the Court is not a Court without a jury so no matter what submission he puts forward it must be dealt with by a jury.

REGISTRAR: Okay, I've heard your views, Mr Wilson. I'm bringing this matter back here on 31 October, 2003.

PLAINTIFF: And on that occasion he will put his submission.

REGISTRAR: It's a matter for him what he does but if he puts an application to me I will list it appropriately.

PLAINTIFF: Will that be a jury on that occasion?

REGISTRAR: There will not

PLAINTIFF: Well then it's not a court, it has no jurisdiction.

REGISTRAR: Thank you. I need to move on to the matter and the next matter is matter 8 and I'll see you both next time.






Plaintiff appeared unrepresented
Mr D Sibtain for the Defendant

SIBTAIN: On the last occasion I indicated that there were some defects in the statement of claim which rendered it demurrable. I invited Mr Wilson to amend. He has not amended the statement of claim. In the circumstances we'll be making an application to have the statement of claim summarily dismissed or, in the alternative, the pleadings struck out. I can undertake to file that notice of motion on Monday and file any supporting affidavits by Wednesday.

REGISTRAR: Let's just go back a step. Mr Wilson, we seem to have a notice of motion from you?

PLAINTIFF:A notice of motion?

REGISTRAR: Or is this your originating proceedings?

PLAINTIFF:I filed a statement of claim.

REGISTRAR: What's the document filed Notice of Motion and it was filed on 23 October?

PLAINTIFF: Oh, the injunction, yeah. All this has got to be heard by a jury. You can't determine anything.

REGISTRAR: Yes, but I'm very confused here because your motion seeks an injunction against a judge.

PLAINTIFF: Any person who claims to be a judicial officer, you or a judge.

REGISTRAR: I'm confused because you're the plaintiff in these proceedings. I'm quite confused about this.

PLAINTIFF:Who's the plaintiff?

REGISTRAR:You are the plaintiff.


REGISTRAR: And you're seeking an injunction against any judicial officer.

PLAINTIFF: Yeah, because they are illegitimate. This is the whole context of the matter, that the Queen has not appointed any representative in Australia so how can they appoint judges so therefore--

REGISTRAR: Right but then what confuses me is your proceedings are seeking a judge of this Court to hear your matter.

PLAINTIFF: That should be heard by a jury. Any part of the case should be heard by a jury.

REGISTRAR: Okay, let's fix this motion then.

PLAINTIFF: Before a jury.

REGISTRAR: Before a judge of the Court and that will be--

PLAINTIFF: Before a jury. There is no judge of the Court because they are not legally appointed.

REGISTRAR: Okay, I'm going to fix this matter before a judge of the Court during motions week.

PLAINTIFF: You are doing it wrong. You are sworn to do right.

REGISTRAR: That's a matter for you to seek a review of my decision. Now, did you want to put a motion on?

SIBTAIN: Yes, is there still room in the argument week of 24th?

REGISTRAR: I'm afraid there isn't.

SIBTAIN: When is the next argument week in December?

REGISTRAR: 15 December.

SIBTAIN: Perhaps it would be convenient, I don't wish to offer any suggestions in relation to Mr Wilson's motion but if those motions were heard at the same time, arguably with Mr Wilson's motion heard first and then our application to summarily dismiss also heard.

REGISTRAR: Yes, how long in total?

SIBTAIN: I don't apprehend that Mr Wilson's motion will take terribly long, for argument's sake two hours but it's probably one hour to two hours.

REGISTRAR: Right and when can you put yours on?

SIBTAIN: In view of the fact it won't go over until December perhaps - we can file the motion certainly on Monday but as far as any evidence in support, if we could have another week for that or perhaps till the Friday of that week?

REGISTRAR: So that would be 7 November?


REGISTRAR: I'll give you a little longer given the time frame.

SIBTAIN: And there should be a direction in relation to Mr Wilson filing any evidence in reply in respect of our strike out motion. Perhaps if he were given two weeks to do that.

REGISTRAR: Can you do that within a week, Mr Wilson?

PLAINTIFF: So you're saying on the time frame, when does he anticipate putting in his?

REGISTRAR: Well, I'm going to give him until 14 November.

PLAINTIFF: 14 November to put in his motion to dismiss?

REGISTRAR: And any evidence and then give you a week, if that's sufficient, to put on any evidence in reply.

PLAINTIFF: Yeah, a week is fine.

REGISTRAR: That will be 21st.

PLAINTIFF: Would that have to be filed three days before any so-called hearing?

REGISTRAR: They have to be filed by the date I'm going to read to you now. Anything else this morning?


REGISTRAR: Thank you. In matter 20231/03, Mr Wilson's notice of motion, that's the plaintiff, to be heard during the motions week of 15 December, 2003. Any notice of motion filed and served by the defendant, and the date for that is 14 November, will be heard during that same week, the two motions to be heard together, and any evidence in reply by the plaintiff to be filed and served on or by 21 November, 2003.

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