Home  Latest News  Press Release  The Book  Newsletters  Links





Mr S Reuben for the Plaintiff.

The. Defendant in person.

(The second defendant, Lorraine Joy Wilson, was called outside the court and did not appear.)

DEFENDANT:My wife signed an affidavit yesterday which I would like to file in court. (Shown to Mr Reuben)

HER HONOUR:No object.ion to that, Mr Reuben?

REUBEN:No objection, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:That can be filed in court.

REUBEN:Could I hand up also and file in court an affidavit of service in relation to Mrs Wilson; principally annexures B and G relate to her. (Copy to Mr Wilson)

HER HONOUR:Have you had a chance to lock at that, Mr Wilson?

DEFENDANT:No, I've just received it now. None of this can proceed without a jury.

HER HONOUR:Do you want to read that now?

DEFENDANT:No, I don't want any proceedings without a jury.

HER HONOUR:I will grant leave to file in court affidavit of Patrice Emma Daley sworn 3 August 1999.


HER HONOUR:I have granted leave to file an affidavit in court. Mr Wilson, you have had an opportunity to read that. Mr Reuben, what do you understand to be the issues before me today?

REUBEN:Your Honour, we have a motion to strike out the defences by Mr and Mrs Wilson, who are the owners in possession of some mortgaged land.

HER HONOUR:Those defences are not in the court file. You have copies of them?

REUBEN:Yes, we will make those available.

HER HONOUR:So the motion to strike out is one issue. Any others?

REUBEN:The motion to strike out also incorporates an application for summary judgment on the claim, so we are seeking an order for possession. Mr Wilson has filed a motion which is also before the court today, a motion for an application for a jury trial, and that motion was filed some time on 28 May. I am content to have both matters dealt with together and we can deal with such submissions as are necessary in relation to that motion, which would obviate any problems that might otherwise arise in terms of the timing.

HER HONOUR:Mr Wilson, the question of whether there is to be a jury trial or not and the question of whether the defences should be struck out, are questions which have to be decided by a judge alone, and I propose--

DEFENDANT:No, they are not to be decided by a judge alone.

HER HONOUR:--and I propose to proceed to hear those matters.

DEFENDANT:I have filed an affidavit on 28 July which recites Article 14 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which demands--

HER HONOUR:You wish to read your affidavit, do you?

DEFENDANT:Yes please.

HER HONOUR:It is the affidavit of 28 July?

DEFENDANT:Which details Article 14 of the United Nations International Covenant.

HER HONOUR:Mr Reuben, do you have any objection to that affidavit?

REUBEN:I should say I object to that affidavit formally on the ground of relevance, but I have iio objection to your Honour reading it.

HER HONOUR:I have read the affidavit. It will be admitted, subject to relevance. Anything else, Mr Wilson?


HER HONOUR:Is there any other evidence?

DEFENDANT:I am quite prepared, if you do not accept that this must go to a jury, to appeal to the Court of Appeal, then to the High Court of Australia and then directly to Geneva, the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

HER HONOUR:The first step is for me to make a decision. There has to be a decision before you can appeal to the Court of Appeal.

DEFENDANT:You can't make that decision, your Honour. One particular question, are you at present or past a relative, friend or associate or colleague of Terrence Greenwood, John Hamilton, Matthew Clarke, Alan Abadee, Sir Darryl Dawscn, Michael Kirby, Michael Toohey, Virginia Bell?

HER HONOUR:I'm not hear to answer personal questions.

DEFENDANT:This has to do with whether you are an independent and impartial tribunal.

HER HONOUR:I'm not going to answer your questions, Mr Wilson. We will go on with the proceedings.

DEFENDANT:Then I will have to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

HER HONOUR:We will deal with the application for trial by jury first. Is there anything else you want to say besides what is in your affidavit, Mr Wilson?

DEFENDANT:Under the United Nations Article 14 of the Covenant of Human and Civil Rights, it says that "In the determination of any criminal charge against him or of his rights and obligations in a suit of law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law." This is determining my right to a trial by jury and I put it that the judge cannot even determine that because of the involvement of massive judicial corruption and I have nominated seven judges in my defence document and also St George have brought up another judge in this matter, Justice Virginia Bell.

HER HONOUR:Anything else?

DEFENDANT:I just say again, if you do not accept that opinion of this that can be heard by a judge, then I will have to appeal to the Court of Appeal, then to the High Court and then on to the United Nations.

HER HONOUR:So far as the application for trial by jury of the plaintiff's notice of motion is concerned, the application is refused.

DEFENDANT:I am leaving this court because this court has no jurisdiction whatever.

HER HONOUR:It is inappropriate for a- -

DEFENDANT:I would ask for the transcript of what you have just said. You have no jurisdiction to even make that ruling.

HER HONOUR:Well, I have made that ruling.

DEFENDANT:You have ho right to do it.

HER HONOUR:Mr Wilson, I am going to proceed with the plaintiff's application to strike out the defences and for summary judgment.

DEFENDANT:You have no right to determine that either.

HER HONOUR:I note that, having said that, Mr Wilson has left the courtroom voluntarily. I will note that occurred at lO.l5am.

Yes, Mr Reuben? As I said, I have not got a copy of your defence.

REUBEN:I will make sure your Honour has everything in order. May I proceed through the documentation in the order I think is most appropriate. Does your Honour have the notice of motion?

HER HONOUR:Which notice of motion?

REUBEN:Filed 29 July 1999. That is the plaintiff's motion for the defence to be struck out and summary judgment. The statement of claim is filed - does your Honour have the statement of claim?

HER HONOUR:Yes, I have, 19 May.

REUBEN:Could I hand up the defence of the first defendant. There are a number of attachments which would normally, strictly speaking, go with that and the defence of the second defendant, both of which appear to be filed on 2 July 1999.

HER HONOUR:I think I should note for the record in these proceedings the affidavit provided to the court, t'hrough Mr Wilson, apparently sworn by Lorraine J Wilson on 3 August 1999.

REUBEN:I might briefly take you through the defence. Paragraph 1 is a denial of the general issue; it makes no allegation of fact. Paragraph 2 is really irrelevant to •any issue pleaded, as is paragraph 3. Paragraph 4--

HER HONOUR:I will read paragraph 4.

REUBEN:Paragraph 4 recites previous proceedings in the Supreme Court which were commenced before Master Greenwood. I think, in the nature of things, I will have to take your Honour in a little bit of detail to those proceedings. They were decided by Master Greenwood on 17 September 1996.and they struck out Mr Wilson's statement of claim in respect of which he claimed that a variable rate of interest ... saying the mortgage the subject of these proceedings was invalid and that the loan agreement which was based upon that mortgage could not stand because it was provided for a variable rate of interest to cOme into effect after the fixed term.

He argued that there was no certainty of terms. That proposition was dismissed by Master Greenwood. On appeal it was dismissed by Acting Justice Hamilton. Then it was also dismissed in the Court of Appeal. Ultimately the High Court refused special leave to appeal.

The reason I will need to go into a little bit of detail in relation to that is because that proposition surfaces further down in this defence. I will be arg3ling that, in itself, constitutes an abuse of process.

Paragraph 5 of the pleadings is an allegation against the judges of this court and the High Court because they did not agree with Mr Wilson's propositions as referred to in paragraph 5, concerning what his view of certainty of terms was. Similarly, paragraph 6, paragraph 7. Those paragraphs do not plead any facts against the plaintiff. Paragraph 8 repeats the pleading (read) and makes the claim again in these proceedings.

Paragraph 9 is, in general terms, against judges. Paragraph 10 says that.there is a denial in respect of the writ of possession (read) . So he is pleading there that those contracts in respect of the fact that they claim variable interest rates rather than those contracts void for uncertainty and that there is a confusion on what he regards as a fraudulent activity because of that allegation.

The defence, in itself, pleads no material facts upon.which one can make any findings and for that reason •alone would fall foul of the provisions of Part 15 rule 7.

HER HONOUR: The defendant doesn't have to plead material facts, does he?

REUBEN: Yes, a pleading has to plead those matters which are material.

HER HONOUR: But a defence can simply deny the statement of claim. It does not have to prove positive facts.

REUBEN:I think the right to plead the general issue has been abolished under Part 15 rule 26.

HER HONOUR: But a defendant is still entitled to deny each allegation made by a plaintiff and put the plaintiff to proof.


HER HONOUR:That is as much as the defence has to do, the minimum it has to do. It doesn't have to plead facts.

REUBEN:We would say that it would at least have to plead, in the requirements under Part 15 rule 7, that a pleading, whether it be a defence Or not, needs to comply with that rule. It may be that if the defendant says that the mortgage is invalid because of a point of law it is entitled to do so, but it still necessarily needs to be a pleading in brief and in summary form of the material facts upon the issue on which he relies. We say this pleading falls foul of that.

HER HONOUR: I do appreciate that there is a lot of extraneous material in the defence, but what about the first sentence of paragraph 11?

REUBEN: He denies the truth and soundness of the plaintiff's statement of claim which is a pleading of the general issue so, in essence, what he would be saying is he would wish to put the plaintiff to proof and we are in a position to prove those matters.

HER HONOUR: What about paragraph 11, the first sentence?

REUBEN: He does plead a fact in the first sentence of paragraph 11.

HER HONOUR:Is Mrs Wilson's defence identical?


HER HONOUR:I will come back to that.

REUBEN:It may be that there is some pleading of fact that will permit the first sentence of paragraph 11 to stand, but we principally rely on Part 15 rule 26.

HER HONOUR:That is the general issue rule, isn't it?

REUBEN:That is the basis upon which we can strike out a pleading where it is an abuse of process, discloses no reasonable defence appropriate to the nature of the pleading, has a tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment and delay, and we say this is an embarrassing pleading because it raises matters which are incapable of being established and is otherwise an abuse of process of the court for matters which have been either previously determined or have been determined by another court elsewhere on the substantial issue in relation to the variable rate interest loan.

We would also be bringing forward evidence in support of the plaintiff's claim in denial, of the matters referred to in paragraph 11 of the pleading and we would be putting forward the matters which would support the plaintiff's application for summary judgment in accordance with Part 13 rule 2. It may be worthwhile for your Honour to note that the court may receive evidence on the hearing of an application under Part 15 rule 26(2).

The defence of Lorraine Joy Wilson appears to be in. the form of a letter to the court. I will be putting to your Honour we would be in a position, through the evidence, to negative that there was any unconscionable conduct on the part of the plaintiff bank that would give Mrs Wilson any right, of redress, and if she is under some pressure from her husband, that that would not vitiate her consent at law. It certainly will appear from the documentation it has filed that she willingly consented to the signing of the loan documentation in this case, and indeed .that is .a matter which has been referred to by her Honour Justice Bell, which
is another matter which I will be needing to take your Honour to.

Could I take your Honour to the evidence.



If your Honour goes to page 7, Part G Default, clause 38 (read) . That is the case here, we assert later on in this affidavit. Page 9 is the powers. Paragraph 40 (read) That is the order that we are seeking - to take possession of the property.

HER HONOUR: How does this relate to annexure B?

REUBEN: Under the mortgage it refers to a filed memorandum in the Land Titles Office, the number is E524972. Page 8 is the offer from the bank at 14 August 1998.

HER HONOUR: Where does it say it is the offer from the bank?

REUBEN: It refers to an offer on the top line. To understand where this loan fits into the context of the proceedings, what happened was that Mr Wilson took those proceedings before Master Greenwood in relation to the certainty of terms and the question as to whether or not variable rate interest mortgages conferred certainty of terms. He took that matter through to appeal right through to the High Court and lost those proceedings at every step and was awarded costs against himself.

He then made an application to the St George Bank, with whom he was already a customer, for funding accommodation to cover those costs orders and this loan, this $35,000-odd--

HER HONOUR: The initial proceedings were also against St George Bank, I take it?

REUBEN: That is so. This loan was in fact granted in order to pay the costs. He then took proceedings after the issue of the default notice. Prior to this time Mr Wilson had never been in default under his mortgage to the loan, which was substantial. He defaulted under this loan - it appeared to be deliberate.

We issued a default notice and he then took proceedings seeking an injunction on that default notice and also proceedings to have this loan agreement, the subject of this transaction, set aside. Those proceedings came before her Honour Justice Bell and a copy of that judgment is attached to a later affidavit. Those proceedings were based upon unconscionability and duress and her Honour struck out the statement of claim and awarded costs. The bank subsequently then brought these proceedings for possession.
(Affidavit and annexures read)


REUBEN: I was taking you to the last annexures to the affidavit of Jan Croft of 22 July, the last two pages thereof.

(Leave sought and granted to file in court affidavit of Jan Croft sworn 2 August 1999. Read.)





(Extracts and summaries given of above judgment)

It was that decision which has been upheld by an appeal through the appellate process, both to the Court of Appeal and to the High Court.

That now brings me back to my final submission, if I could come back to the defence of Mr Wilson. I refer to Scanlan New Neon Limited v Tooheys Limited. This relates to a question of where a prior court has determined substantially the same issue on a previous application so that, in essence, what ends up as being the situation is that a subsequent proceeding can be an abuse of process, where what is sought to be litigated as a rehearing on the same issue that has previously been ventilated in another court, i.e. the High Court. (Extracts from page .55 of the judgment of Herron J read)

Those principles are those which we rely upon in this matter. Summarising the argument and looking again at the defence firstly filed by Mr Wilson, paragraph 1 of the defence simply makes the assertion denying the validity in truth and soundness of the plaintiff's claim. That would not stand on its own without any other material that could support the defence. In any event the plaintiff has provided material in support of the motion for summary judgment, which will enable the court to make the findings if the defence goes, that the plaintiff is entitled to succeed on the application for an order of possession, which it seeks.

Paragraphs 2 and 3 do not relate to any matter that needs to concern the court in this application. Paragraph 4, on its own and on its face, refers to the previous proceedings in the Supreme Court, commencing with Master Greenwood's decision and which comes within the matters which could amount to an abuse of process (see Scanlan v Tooheys) dealing with the question of variable interest rate loans are void for uncertainty. That is the same issue raised in paragraphs 8 to 10 of the pleading and which necessarily amounts to what might be regarded as an abuse of process of this court, if allowed to stand.

The matters raised in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 9 are of no consequence to this application, and that leaves the matter raised in paragraph 11 which your Honour raised with me earlier, and your Honour has seen the evidence that the mortgage itself, the loan application and the offer and acceptance of loan, were all three of them executed by Mr and Mrs Wilson, and accordingly any pleading in respect of that could not stand, contrary to the true facts in the matter.

HER HONOUR: It is the 1995 mortgage that he said was not executed?

REUBEN: Yes, and that your Honour has seen was executed -annexure B to the affidavit of Patrice Daley.

HER HONOUR: I wonder if Mr Wilson is using the word "executed' not in the sense of "signed", but in the sense of having been put into effect. If you read the next sentence it might suggest he intended something different bythat.

REUBEN: It is difficult to know what is really being asserted there, but I think the assertion is that the .fact that the bank pays money which, in some way, is generated in a fashion which Mr Wilson said was artificially generated, that this is a fraud on the public.

HER HONOUR: I don't know what it means.

REUBEN: But taken on its face, the pleading cannotstand against the facts. If I could then deal with the defence of Mrs Wilson. That document does not deal with any pleading in any formal sense, but it appears from the faxes before your Honour that she has willingly entered into the loan agreement with the bank and been a party to the application in July 1998, and having had the benefit of the offer by the bank in August 1998 and having signed the acceptance in October 1998 and also that such conduct that she complains about of her husband, would not vitiate any consent in relation to that loan at law, and that accordingly there ought to be no impediment to the bank having its summary judgment of its claim and an order for possession, and for leave to issue a writ of possession forthwith, as referred to in paragraph 12 of the statement of claim, and an order for costs in favour of the plaintiff.

HER HONOUR: What are the orders you seek, the declaration in terms of paragraph 12(a)?

REUBEN:Yes, I would like an order that the plaintiff is entitled to possession and an order that the plaintiff have leave to issue a writ of possession to enforce that order, and an order for costs.

(It is noted that Mr Wilson lives in.Elm Close at the address referred to in his affidavit. Telephone number to be provided.)

Could I also ask your Honour to have regard to the fact that what is also before the court in this matter, if your Honour deals with the application, on one view of it, it may be that there is a motion for a requisitioii for trial' by jury by Mr Wilson. Your Honour dealt with that earlier today with Mr Wilson, but it could be regarded - Mr Wilson may, in terms of what transpired before your Honour, because Mr Wilson said he wanted all matters to be dealt with before a jury, and your Honour, quite rightly in my submission, said that any motion could be dealt with by your Honour.

But there is potentially also the question of the fact that there is before the court a motion for the proceedings, as opposed to what has transpired, to be dealt with by a trial by jury.

HER HONOUR: All I dealt with was that part of the motion that required this application of yours to be heard by a jury.


HER HONOUR: And I suppose his own application for trial by jury. I have not disposed of any part of his notice of motion that would concern the hearing of the substantive claim, if it survives this application, by jury or by judge, and I quite deliberately framed what I said.

REUBEN: Of course, I am aware of that. I might note for the purposes of the record that there is still before the court a motion filed by Mr Wilson, I think on 28 May, for a requisition for trial by jury, and say a couple of things about that.

HER HONOUR: I'm not going to hear that now.

REUBEN:But it is still before the court. If your Honour is with me on my motion it doesn't need to be dealt with.

HER HONOUR: If I don't strike out the defence then I will give Mr Wilson the opportunity to put his case for the substantive proceedings to be heard by a jury. I have not dealt with that at all at this stage.

REUBEN: There is a motion for discovery filed by Mr Wilson, returnable before the court on 10 August. I don't think your Honour needs to make any order about that.

HER HONOUR: I would not. It was not raised while Mr Wilson was here and he is not now here and it is not before me today.

REUBEN: No, I just indicate that to your Honour. Mr Wilson is expected before the court on 10 August.

HER HONOUR:I will bear that in mind, Mr Reuben.





Mr D Norris for the plaintiff/respondent
Defendant/applicant in person

HIS HONOUR: Mr Norris, tell me briefly what is the point that causes you to say this matter will be short?

NORRIS: These are proceedings for contempt of court. The applicant today seeks trial by jury. He's previously applied, by motion, for such leave. That was refused by Hidden J on 16 March 1998. Mr Wilson appealed to the--

HIS HONOUR: Did you say 16 March 1998?

NORRIS: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: When is the contempt supposed to have occurred?

NORRIS: 5 September 1997.

HIS HONOUR: Why has nothing happened until now?

NORRIS: Your Honour, the main reason has been the application that is again before your Honour today.

HIS HONOUR: What happened in the aftermath of the judgment of Hidden J?

NORRIS: Mr Wilson sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. That was refused on 24 August 1998. Special leave was sought from the High Court. That was refused on 16
April this year.

APPLICANT: Could I add a reason why that has been so delayed as well?

HIS HONOUR: One moment. I can't hear everybody at once. I will hear what you have to say in a moment. Please sit down and you will have your chance.

NORRIS: The proceedings are presently listed for call-up on 27 September, later this month. I can hand up, if it would assist your Honour, copies of the judgments and the orders as entered.

(Above mentioned documents handed up to his Honour.).

HIS HONOUR: Did Hidden J give discursive reasons, or did he deal with the matter ex tempore?

NORRIS: No, it was a reserved judgment. The reasons are relatively short, but it was a considered decision.

HIS HONOUR: Is there a copy of them somewhere?

NORRIS: Yes; in the document I've handed up there was a copy of the order as entered and a copy of his Honour's reasons.

APPLICANT: Your Honour, the reason this has been so dragged out is because on 5 September when the incident occurred, the original charges were under section 326 of the Crimes Act. I was put on bail and ordered to appear three weeks later at the Downing court. Then, the terms of the bail were increased in severity and I spent three days in Silverwater Gaol. Three weeks after that, I was issued with a summons for contempt of court. I previously said, or demanded, that the charges under 326 go to trial by jury. It was in the process of going before a paper committal and all of those proceedings, and so only after Hidden J overruled Magna Carter did the deputy or the public prosecutor withdraw those charges.

I had been appealing all along to have this heard by a jury. So I previously requested trial by jury on the basis of Magna Carter, the Australian Constitution and numerous other entrenched and modern laws. This requisition for trial by jury is based on the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 14 of which is included in my affidavit filed on 19 August.this year. I believe you should have a copy of that?

HIS HONOUR: Yes, I do. Go on please.

APPLICANT: I would like to read from that particular article.

HIS HONOUR: There is no need. Just go on with the balance of your submissions as to their substance.

APPLICANT: 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: You are saying it is your right to throw paint over a member of the Court?

APPLICANT: It is my right to trial by jury; and, in my defence, I will bring out all the issues.

HIS HONOUR: Hidden J held there was no right; the Court of Appeal held his Honour was correct; the High Court refused leave to appeal. How can I possibly grant the present application?

APPLICANT: I am now raising the issue of international law, which is the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which says:

'All persons shall be equal before the court and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him or of his rights and obligations in a suit of law, everybody shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law."

Now that competent, independent, impartial tribunal cannot be before a judge because of the involvement of judicial corruption.

HIS HONOUR: I entirely reject that submission. If you wish, you can put it, but I reject it completely.

APPLICANT: At my trial for contempt of court, I will subpoena the judges involved in the initial corruption, involved in the leading incident on 5 September 1997, and they will have to answer the questions put to them. No other judge or judges can qualify under Article 14 of the United Nations Covenant for a competent, independent and impartial tribal 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 f 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 optional 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 tribunal before a jury.

HIS HONOUR: I understand. Is there anything else you would like to say?

APPLICANT: That is it.

HIS HONOUR: I understand.







Ms Nicholson for the New South Wales Crime Commission
Mr Wilson appeared unrepresented.

WILSON: Mr Registrar, I filed a notice of motion for discovery on 1 July with an affidavit. It's been delayed several times. I have now filed a notice of motion to expedite discovery, accompanied by an affidavit and I'd like to point out there are two honest errors in the affidavit. I've got you down as Deputy Registrar Hagger instead of Haggett and Justice McInerney did not delay discovery, he delayed a motion for trial by jury. But otherwise it's okay. I have made an amended affidavit if you would like me to submit that or just accept -

DEPUTY REGISTRAR: Yes, you van certainly file that.

WILSON: I'll have to get that witnessed by a JP.

DEPUTY REGISTRAR: What's the position with this matter overall. The file was with Simpson J yesterday.

NICHOLSON: Well that's correct. The overall position with the matter is that it was heard, the application for summary judgement by my client was heard on 4 August and we are waiting for the judgement of Simpson J. It was reserved. Our position would be that today's matters of motion is totally unnecessary and serves the only purpose of trying to increase the costs of my client.

DEPUTY REGISTRAR: Well the motion for discovery is still on foot. I think we are waiting for this reserved judgement to be handed down before the matter went any further.

NICHOLSON: That is correct.

WILSON: I think that is the wrong way to go because -

DEPUTY REGISTRAR: Well regardless of that, the fact is that the matter is, there is a reserved judgment with a judge. Nobody is going to deal with the matter until such time as that judgment is handed down.

WILSON: But I am entitled to defence and this is part of my defence and I'd like to point out that the function of the Court is to administer justice.

DEPUTY REGISTRAR: I'm not here to administer justice. I'm here to give directions.

WILSON: You're not. Who administers justice.

DEPUTY REGISTRAR: I'm here to give directions. That is not my function. That is that function of a judge.

WILSON: Are you part of the Court, you're a court officer.


WILSON: Have you sworn an oath of allegiance to the Queen.

DEPUTY REGISTRAR: I don't have to do anything of the such.

WILSON: You haven't.


WILSON: You have not sworn an oath of allegiance.

DEPUTY REGISTRAR: Any way, be that as it may, what was the position with Simpson J yesterday?

NICHOLSON: I'm not quite sure Deputy Registrar. I didn't realise that she didn't in fact have the file yesterday.

DEPUTY REGISTRAR: Well she had the file up there. I can only presume it had something t do with the judgment, but what you're saying is that this judgment still has not been handed down.

NICHOLSON: It still hasn't been handed down and Mr Wilson had the opportunity to defend the summary judgment, the application for summary judgment. Obviously if the judgment is in favour the notice of motion or the notice of discovery is of no use whatsoever.

DEPUTY REGISTRAR: Well a master is not going to deal with a matter like this until such time as he knows exactly what the position of the summary judgment application is.

WILSON: There was no sign of Simpson J coming down with a judgment. It's been over a month now.

DEPUTY REGISTRAR: Well that's a matter for her Honour.

WILSON: In fact, on that occasion I walked out of the Court because I told the Court that she had no jurisdiction to make any rulings in this matter because it must be heard by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal and because there is so much judicial corruption and because I will be subpoenaing judges to answer questions, no judge can take any part in determining this matter. So I'd still like to go ahead with discovery.

DEPUTY REGISTRAR: Well you won't be going ahead with anything. The motion is stood over generally with the liberty to restore on seven days notice.

NICHOLSON: I would be seeking costs, the costs of this motion.

DEPUTY REGISTRAR: I will reserve the question of costs of this motion.

WILSON: So you are refusing discovery?

DEPUTY REGISTRAR: Yes, I am refusing to deal with your motion at this point in time.

NICHOLSON: And costs are reserved.

WILSON: You are refusing discovery.




Tuesday 9 November

MR BUDDIN SC for the plaintiff.
The defendant appeared in person.

WILSON: You are a false Judge in a false court established by a false law. This court has no jurisdiction over people of Australia and I demand my rights under international law, in particular, the United Nations International Covenant of Civil and political Rights. Only yesterday I received a letter from the High Commissioner for Human Rights and I will read what he says. (Read) This is the actual material containing the Covenant on Civil and political Rights. It has been incorporated into domestic legislation under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission Act 1986. Under article 14 it says. (Read)

You are a false Judge because yo have sworn an oath to do right and you are not doing right. This is the Petition of Right which clearly sets out. (Read) It also goes on, in par 11, to say. (Read)

I remember you saying before that the issue of trial by jury had been resolved. All those doings and proceedings should not be drawn into consequence or example. Therefore, I am demanding my right to trial by jury and this is not a legitimate court.


WILSON: I protest because the Uriited Nations Covenant clearly says there must be a tribunal established by law. There is no law establishing this Court

HIS HONOUR: I have heard your submissions.

WILSON: You haven't heard this --

HIS HONOUR: I would ask you, please, to sit down. The matter has been determined.

WILSON: This has been formed under the Supreme Court ---

HIS HONOUR: I will ask you to sit down while the proceedings continue.

WILSON: Will you allow me to have -

HIS HONOUR: I have heard your application.

WILSON: This is a court that is su,pposed to establish the tribunal and administer justice. .1 am talking the truth in that I have said that this Court has been established under the Supreme Court Act 1970 which has been made - this legislation has been made by the legislature which clearly stated in the Constitution Act 1902, that the legislature means His Majesty the King. His Majesty the King is a foreign power and the United Nations clearly says that no foreign power shall impose its laws on a sovereign independent self-governing State.

So, therefore, all laws made by the King or the Queen of the United Kingdom are enveloped in Australia which includes the Supreme Court Act. Therefore, this Court is not established in law. It has no jurisdiction.

HIS HONOUR: I have determined the matter. The proceedings will continue.

BUDDIN: The plaintiff seeks declarations in identical terms in a summons filed on 14 October 1997 that the defendant was guilty of contempt of court by reason of his conduct on 5 September 1997 following judgment having been given against him by Murray AJ in a matter in which his Honour had reserved the decision. The events which constituted the charges; mainly, two incidents of throwing paint at Murray AJ are particularised in the summons. There are a number of affidavits which I will read.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, you have a copy of the summons, have you not?

WILSON: This Court has no jurisdiction.

HIS HONOUR: You have a copy of the summons. I am bound to inform you that the proceedings will continue.

WILSON: I thought about that and I have come to the conclusion you can't defeat an enemy by running away from it. That's why I'm still here.

HIS HONOUR: I need to explain to you - and please listen to this because I need to explain some things to you - first of all, you must understand that these proceedings are criminal in nature. Certainly, you should understand that the offences which have been charged against you are those which are set out in the summons. It is alleged that you have been guilty of contempt in throwing the plastic bag of paint at Murray AJ, thereby conducting yourself in a manner which tended to interfere with the administration of justice. There are two such counts. You are entitled to legal representation.

Do I take it that you do not seek legal representation and will appear f or yourself?

WILSON: I might remind you that the first charges put against me were under s 326 of the rimes Act and I was bailed on those charges and I appeared at the Downing Centre Local Court and I clearly stated that I wanted trial by jury.

HIS HONOUR: I understand that, but these are contempt proceedings which will proceed in this court not in the Local Court.

WILSON: Those charges were withdrawn because I demanded trial by jury. I say again those charges were withdrawn because I demanded trial by jury.

HIS HONOUR: This is a separate proceeding. I am now explaining some things to you. Do I take it that you do not want to have legal representation today?

WILSON: This court has no jurisdiction, there is no need for representation.

HIS HONOUR: Being criminal proceedings the prosecution; that is the plaintiff, has to prove the various charges beyond reasonable doubt. The Crown is permitted to call evidence by way of affidavit and Mr Buddin has announced that that is what he is going to do.

You are entitled, if you wish, to cross-examine the persons who swore those affidavits.

WILSON: I am entitled to a fair hearing. This is not a fair hearing because I have been denied my rights, so it can't be a fair hearing.

HIS HONOUR: I have informed you that you are entitled, if you wish, to cross-examine the various witnesses who have sworn affidavits. You have the right to object to any of the evidence which they give if you think it to be inadmissible. If you make an objection to it I will rule upon its admissibility.

You will have the right to call evidence yourself at the close of the Crown case. You are not obliged to give evidence. If you remain silent then no inference of guilt or otherwise will be drawn contrary to your interests. However, if you do not give evidence the only evidence before me would be that in the affidavits. You are entitled - please listen to me - you are entitled to address me after the evidence is concluded as to whether contempt has been proved and, if it has been proved, you are also entitled to address me as to penalty.

If you are in any doubt as to your legal rights during the proceedings or as to the course of the proceedings then you are entitled to ask for assistance from me; that is, an explanation as to what the position of the proceedings are. I cannot advise you as to how you should conduct your case but I can give you some basic advice concerning matters of procedure and the like. Do you understand that?

WILSON:I have been frustrated in the courts for the last three years. I have found that Judges are lairs, criminals and traitors. I have no confidence in you or the system as it stands, it must be dismantled and rebuilt on the principles of justice. We do not have that.

HIS HONOUR:I have noted what you have said.

The proceedings being summary in nature and primarily seeking a declaration, do I take it it is inappropriate to formally charge the defendant and to seek a plea as to whether he is guilty or not of contempt?

BUDDIN: My instructing solicitor informs me that in fact a plea was taken on the first occasion. The matter was in for hearing on a prior occasion, so in so far as there is interest for the proceedings to be regularised in that fashion, that has been done.

HIS HONOUR: I will have it noted that the defendant on a prior occasion has pleaded that he is not guilty to the charges of contempt. I take it that is what you say, you say that you are not guilty?

WILSON: I would like to file a notice of motion supported by an affidavit in the court. (Handed up)

HIS HONOUR: I will grant you leave to file in court the notice of motion and also the affidavit sworn 8 November 1999. I note those documents. In substance, they record the submissions you made earlier this morning seeking that the hearing be vacated and the matter in effect stand over until after the proceedings; that is, your motion be heard in the Court of Appeal. The application raises the same matters based upon the Petition of Right and the other arguments pursuant to which you submit this court has no jurisdiction over people of the State. I have already dealt with that application and I will not deal with it any further.

WILSON: It is a matter of constitutional concern. Notices under s 78B of the Judiciary Act have already been circulated to the nine Attorneys-General. I have their replies here and because it is of such importance nationally the actual jurisdiction of the courts and the Parliaments, it cannot proceed until this matter is resolved. This is a false court.

HIS HONOUR: Can you hand me Buddin those replies? (Handed to counsel) (Handed up to his Honour) Mr Buddin, what do you say about those?

BUDDIN: None of the jurisdiction indicate that they wish to intervene at this stage and that is the only question that really should exercise your Honour'.~ mind in relation to this.

HIS HONOUR: The New South Wales Attorney, however might give an indication one way or the other.

BUDDIN: My instructing solicitor is of the view that the matter has been determined since the letter was sent.

HIS HONOUR: That should be confirmed.


BUDDIN: The New South Wales Attorney-General, I am instructed, does not wish to intervene and we will be bringing over a letter in due course which will indicate that that notification was sent, regrettably only yesterday. I do not have that letter at the moment.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, do you mind if I have these photocopied and give copies to Mr Buddin and also they will be an exhibit?


I will have it noted that Mr Wilson, in support of his application, relies, in essence, upon an argument that the Supreme Court Act 1970 was invalid because the legislature which he submits was a foreign power ceased to have any power to make laws when the Constitution Act 1902 was extinguished.

The argument rests upon the proposition that the Supreme Court was not established by law as required by Article 14 of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

I am of the view on this argument, which has been addressed in various forms by Mr Wilson during these proceedings, is utterly without merit. The Constitution Act of 1902 provides sufficient authority for the legislature of this State to pass laws, one of which was the Supreme Court Act 1970.

Mr Wilson has given notice under the Judiciary Act to the Attorneys-General for the purpose of arguing this point. A bundle of correspondence has been tendered in support of the application which reveals that all Attorneys-General, both State and Federal, do not intend to intervene in the proceedings. I have been informed from the Bar table this morning that the Attorney-General of New South Wales, whose reply as tendered was somewhat equivocal, is similarly taking that approach and I am further informed that a letter to that effect will be tendered later in the proceedings.

Upon that basis there is no reason for the proceedings to be stayed or for the matter to be referred to the High Court. As previously indicated, the matter will now proceed.

WILSON: I take it you don't consider the constitutional matter worth passing on to the High Court?

HIS HONOUR: That is the position, yes, I do not consider it to be a legitimate argument and the matter will proceed.

WILSON: So you are taking the position of the High Court.

BUDDIN: I have an affidavit of Natalie Adams sworn 14 November 1997.

HIS HONOUR: I will note the affidavit of Natalie Adams sworn 14 November 1997. Mr Wilson, if there is any portion to which you object will you please say so.

WILSON: I object to the whole proceedings.


BUDDIN: The next affidavit is of Walter William Baer sworn 12 November 1997.

HIS HONOUR: I will hand the originals of the correspondence back to you, Mr Wilson. The copies will be Ex A and a further copy will be handed down to Mr Buddin. Again, Mr Wilson, if there is any part of the affidavit to which you object you may indicate that and I dill hear any objection to the admissibility that you may have.

WILSON: This court has no jurisdiction.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, I should ask you do you wish to cross-examine Natalie Adams or Walter William Baer?

WILSON: In front of the jury by all means, not here.

BUDDIN: The next deponent in Mama Gordon, an affidavit sworn 12 November 1997.

HIS HONOUR: I will note that affidavit. Mr Wilson, if you wish to object to any portion of this affidavit you may say so and I will rule upon its admissibility.

WILSON: This court has no jurisdiction.


HIS HONOUR: Do you wish to cross-examine Mama Gordon?

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

HIS HONOUR: I take it that answer indicates you do not wish to cross-examine.

BUDDIN: The next is the affidavit of Gregory Peter McNally sworn 11 November 1997.

HIS HONOUR:I will note that affidavit.


HIS HONOUR: Do you wish to cross-examine Mr McNally?

WILSON: I have constantly been refused the right to trial by jury and in the judgment of Mr Greenwood he said, "Judges are immune from suit." Judges are not above the law. If they are corrupt they should be tried and imprisoned.

HIS HONOUR: I take it your answer is you do not wish to cross-examine Mr McNally?

HIS HONOUR: Do you wish to cross-examine Catherine Olsen?

WILSON: Juries the only defence the people have against judicial corruption.

HIS HONOUR: I assume by the answer again that you do not wish to cross-examine her?

(Mr Buddin sought leave to file in court a
further affidavit of Catherine Olsen sworn
4 November 1999.)

HIS HONOUR: Do you have a copy, Mr Wilson?

BUDDIN: A copy was served on Mr Wilson.

HIS HONOUR: I will note the affidavit.


HIS HONOUR: I take it you do not wish to cross-examine her on that affidavit or do you?

WILSON:In front of a jury.

AFFIDAVIT OF BERNARD LEE ROACH SWORN 11 NOVEMBER 1997 READ. HIS HONOUR: Do you wish to cross-examine Mr Roach?

WILSON:This story of judicial corruption can be found on the internet on "http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au."

BUDDIN: I tender the black folder that had been described in the affidavit.

HIS HONOUR: Do you wish to examine the black tolder?

WILSON: This court has no jurisdiction.



HIS HONOUR: Have you seen this document, Mr Wilson, and do you object to it?

WILSON: Not having trial by jury for contempt of court it is the Star Chamber of old re-visited where you have despotic Judges, it was banished in 1641 and now we have an equivalent situation where Judges refuse to submit themselves to any cross-examination by the people. A jury is a tribunal of people and Judges are not above the law.



HIS HONOUR: Do you wish to examine the photographs?

WILSON: In front of the jury.



(Mr Buddin sought an order for the witnesses to be

HIS HONOUR: On the basis there has been no request for any of the witnesses to be cross-examined, the witnesses may be excused.

WILSON: I have a request to examine witnesses in front of a j ury.

HIS HONOUR: This is a trial without a jury. You have chosen not to exercise the right here so the witnesses may be excused.

WILSON: I am denied my right.

HIS HONOUR: That is the plaintiff's case. Do you wish to place any evidence before me today?

WILSON: The charge in the first place was for causing a detriment or injury to an official officer.

HIS HONOUR: What I am asking you at this stage is not to address me on the substance of the matter but as to whether you want to call any evidence yourself.

WILSON: I want to call evidence in front of a jury.

HIS HONOUR: You do not wish to call evidence today before me, is that the case?

WILSON: I don't mind if you are there but I want a jury.

HIS HONOUR: I understand that.

WILSON: You can be there to assist the jury.

HIS HONOUR: This matter is proceeding as a trial without a jury before me. If you want to place any evidence before me this is your chance to do so.

WILSON: You must disqualify yourself because you are not a competent independent and impartial tribunal as established by law.

HIS HONOUR: I am only taking it from your answer that you do not wish to place any evidence before me today.

WILSON: Not before you, not before a Judge only.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Buddin, in the circumstances where the defendant is appearing for himself it is probably not appropriate that the Crown address me. Perhaps you could tell me what relief it is you seek.

BUDDIN: The relief that we seek appears in the first three paragraphs of the summons; namely, declarations that the defendant is guilty of contempt of court and then that an order that the defendant be punished or otherwise dealt with for such contempt of court. I do have some written submissions in terms of the general principles which I am happy to hand up to your Honour.

WILSON: I am not and never have been in contempt of court. I am in great respect of the court where a court administers truth and justice. This is not. I am never guilty of interfering with the administration of justice. I want to see the administration of justice. There is no contempt of court on my behalf. I am in great respect of the court and truth and justice.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, do you understand these charges relate not to your general attitude about courts but rather to the occasion on 5 September 1997 when it is said by a number of witnesses that you threw paint at a Judge. That is what we are concerned with and the question before me to decide is, first of all, whether that constitutes a contempt of court and, if it does, to determine what the appropriate response of the court should be.

If you wish, you may address me now as to whether, first of all, those events occurred as the witnesses have described and if they did occur as they described, whether they constitute a contempt of court. If you want to do so you have the chance to address me now. If you do not wish to do so then I will not compel you to do so.

WILSON: The duty and responsibility of a jury is to determine the facts and to judge the justice of the law. That is the function of a jury, so determining the facts must be done by a jury, determining the justice of the law must be determined by a jury.

HIS HONOUR: I understand the submission you make in that regard but it is a submission which has failed before other Judges and before Courts of Appeal. The matter is proceeding as a trial without a jury. This is your chance to address me, if you want to, as to whether you were guilty of conduct which constituted a contempt in the face of the court on 5 September 1997.

WILSON: I am not guilty of any such charge. The contempt of court, as I interpret it, means interfering with the administration of justice. I have never done that. I have always sought justice. Murray AJ was not administering justice. He was administering injustice. So I can't be held in contempt of court where justice was not being administered.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Buddin, I think in the circumstances where the defendant is appearing for himself I will not invite you to give me your submissions I think the principles are probably clear enough and, in fairness, it is better to follow the traditional course.

BUDDIN: I am happy with that. I have had it noted on the record that there are such submissions available.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, it is your exhibit. It is a matter whether you want to add this to your exhibits if not, the Crown will tender it.

WILSON: The Attorney-General of New South Wales mentions the High Court.

HIS HONOUR: He says that he has decided not to intervene. What he has said is that he has decided not to intervene but should the matter be removed to the High Court or proceed to appeal and further notice be given, then he will reconsider.

WILSON: There is no doubt about that because I have to exhaust all the domestic remedies before I can go on to the United Nations, so I quite anticipate appealing to the High Court and true to form, I will not succeed there, so the only course I have for justice and truth is to go international to the United Nations.

HIS HONOUR: Do you want to add this to your bundle of letters you tendered or do you require

WILSON:I haven't got the original.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Buddin, I think it would be better if you tendered it.



HIS HONOUR: On the basis of those findings, Mr Wilson, it is necessary that I proceed to consider the matter of sentence. Do you wish to be heard in relation to sentence?

WILSON: In regard to sentence; as far as the paint incident, this was to try to secure justice, to try to secure a trial by jury which has been denied to me many, many times through the course of the last three years. My original case in the Supreme Court was on the issue of bank fraud in which I stated that variable interest rates render contracts void for uncertainty because the definition and the reality of "variable" is that it. is uncertain.

I found that the first Judge, Master Greenwood, lied absolutely when he said that the rate itself is indeed certain. That is unconscionable, it is corrupt in the extreme. My appeals to subsequent courts upheld Master Greenwood's lies. This is corruption beyond understanding.

With the course of other cases I have brought, including the one involving Murray AJ, I accused seven Judges of civil wrong, that they had lied, supported lies and concealed the truth to the detriment of the community. Master Greenwood dismissed those by saying that Judges are immune from suit, that Judges are above the law and not accountable to the people.

The first charges were indeed indictable offences and I demanded trial by jury. In fact, in the Local Court in the Downing Centre the opposition tried to railroad me through to a summary hearing and I said no, I wanted trial by jury. Six weeks after the incident on 5 September I received a summons for contempt of court.

It has been the tradition, the practice, to hold contempt of court hearings without a jury for the last 100 years but prior to that it has also been by a jury. Judges have secured for themselves protection against being accountable to the people. When I insisted on a trial by jury for the first charges the Public Prosecutor withdrew those charges, they had no intention of me being allowed to subpoena Judges to answer questions before a jury.

The function of a jury is to judge the facts and the justice of the law and only through a jury can we protect our freedoms as a safeguard against tyrannical, arbitrary, corrupt judicial system. This is an example of what I am talking about: I am being denied a jury against all the charges and the statutes which I have nominated in the High Court and now I am relying upon international law to get me justice.

HIS HONOUR: I think you are not addressing the point, the matter of sentence. Do you want to put any evidence before me about sentence?

WILSON: Sentence is a matter about severity and I am trying to tell you why I am seeking justice.

HIS HONOUR: I understand what you are doing in that regard, but do you want to put any evidence before me on sentence?

WILSON: My evidence is that in fact I took the paint bombs, which I regarded as a harmless gesture, I took them to courts on three other occasions. I was waiting for an absolute dismissal by a Judge because I knew it was coming, I have had experience of lies in the judiciary for the last three years. It was a deliberate attempt to put the issues of bank fraud, which has caused untold misery and hardship to the people of Australia, and I find the Judges have been lying and protecting that crime and the only way of resolving it: I approached the Judicial Commission and they dismissed it. I approached various bodies at the ICAC and they don't want to handle it. It is a closed shop, not unsimilar to the Star Chamber of old where it was found to be deliberately intolerable and I found that our system, which denies trial by jury, to be intolerable.

This must be taken further and my intentions have always been in the interests of truth and justice and the fact that I will be convicted here is a foregone conclusion because even delaying tactics - ano~her issue I have before the courts where the St George Bank are trying to get money out of me. I have put a notice of motion for discovery and it has been denied by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court are concealing bank fraud over and over.

Every time I ask for a jury it has been denied. There has been an out and out conspiracy to protect the banks in their criminal activities and the Judges have become involved. I have even published a small book which I call "Banks and Judges", I put them both in the same category. it is an intolerable situation where a person or an Australian cannot put the evidence before a tribunal of the people, only to be frustrated by Judges who are protecting themselves.

So far as the severity of the sentence goes, you can say what you like but I intend to pursue truth and justice wherever I am, in gaol or out of gaol. This will ultimately go to the international courts because, quoting from the United Nations, and I believe this court is in violation of this - so far as the sentence goes it is up to your discretion but I will not stop fighting for truth and justice.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Buddin, is there any prior record that I need to be aware of?

BUDDIN: I am just checking on that.

HIS HQNOUR: Mr Wilson, I understand the submission you make and the reasons for it but is it correct that you do not wish to call any evidence in mitigation of sentence from any other person?

WILSON: I have found by telling the truth in court is a total waste of time.

HIS HONOUR: You understand it is open to you to call witnesses as to your character or otherwise or anything that you might wish to plac.e before me which I would take into account as to severity of the criminality and a~ to appropriate sentence?

WILSON: First of all, there is the conviction.

HIS HONOUR: Leaving that aside, I am just giving you a chance - -

WILSON: Before you get to a sentence you have to have a conviction.

HIS HONOUR: You have been convicted.

WILSON: That is unjust.

HIS HONOUR: Is there any witness ycu want to call?

WILSON: I have been involved in fighting for occupational safety for many, many years. I am a dentist by trade and I care for people and I want to defend them and defend them against the criminality of the banks and now the criminality of the Judges. You can impose whatever sentence you like.

HIS HONOUR: I take it you do not wish to call any evidence?

WILSON: Not in front of a Judge only but in front of a jury.

HIS HONOUR:  In case you misunderstand the situation: had you been tried before a jury the jury's role is to determine whether you are guilty of an offence. It would then be up to a Judge to sentence you. We have now got to a stage where you have been convicted of an offence and it is up to me alone to sentence you, as it would be if you had a jury trial. It is open to you to call evidence, if you want, in relation to penalty. If you do not want to do so - you are not obliged to do so - you have a chance --

WILSON:  The function of the jury is to vote on their conscience and to disregard any law which they feel inappropriate or bad. That is the system of English justice. They must consider the facts, whether I am guilty of an incident, they must consider the justice of the law and many times through history notable people have said the Judge is entitled - they have said -he jury is entitled to return a verdict in the face of any evidence, if they believe that justice must be served. A jury is not at the dictate of a Judge.

HIS HONOUR: I think I have made the position clear. I have given you the chance to call evidence. From what I understand you do not wish to exercise that right.

WILSON: I do in front of a jury.

LOVETT:  May I make mention?

HIS HONOUR: The only way you can say anything is if you are called as a witness and give evidence.

WILSON: Can I call Mr Ray Lovett as a witness?


HIS HONOUR: You wish to ask some questions of him, Mr Wilson?


HIS HONOUR: Q. Would you give your full name?

A.Raymond Ronald Lovett, 32 Atunga Road, Miranda.

WILSON:  Q.. Are you a member of the organisation known as FLAC?

Q.Which stands for For Legally Abused Citizens?
A.I am ashamed to say I am in as much as I don't think there should be reason in our community for citizens to have to form such a group but the evidence, not of one, two, three but hundreds of people, proves that this legal system is out of balance, is not giving justice where justice is deserved.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Lovett, you are really embarking upon a matter which is not relevant.

WITNESS: I believe it is. I don't wish to be disrespectful, but I am an ordinary layman that hasn't had much of an education but I have beliefs as to this system we are in now.

HIS HONOUR: What is relevant is anything that might touch upon Mr Wilson, his character or otherwise that would be of assistance to him.

WILSON:Q. We have only known each other a short while but can you say anything as to my character?
A. I have made the commitment with John that I will be his friend in his matter totally and utterly because what is happening to him is happening to others of our group and that is what I was trying to get around to, the fact that John has a dedicated belief that there is a wrong in the society as far as the law profession goes and there is hundreds of people, not one or two, but hundreds that can give you instances of not where they are sorry they lost the case but of fraud, of deceit, of mis-management, whatever you like to call it, that people's lives have been ruined and John is the flagship of this cause at the moment. He might be able to do something for us. He believed, as we all do in the group, that we are totally and utterly right and we have the evidence to present but that evidence at every turn is being prevented from being given to the authorities and accepted as such.

There has been enough on television, in the papers, to say what is going on in the system. The barristers, solicitors, Judges, they are all crooks but I reckon there is more crooks than goodies, because the crooks seem to be controlling the system and John is there to help to do something about it. If you take the value of what he is saying, it is an enormous upheaval for the legal profession of Australia but it must be fought and we don't see any help coming from the legal profession ar.d I believe John to be true, just and, if he did throw the paint - I don't know -but I just wonder whether paint to 3ome people is sufficient

Q. Do you believe in the jury system for acquiring justice?
A. I think, and it is always understood, that the jury system was the heart and the understanding of the court of law. Once or twice I have been called to jury earlier in my life and proud and privileged to act --


Q.In regard to sentence, do you believe I should be in prison for what I have done or not done --


HIS HONOUR:It is not a matter foz him. He can give evidence, for example, about your character, as to whether you are a person of good character, what you have done, what your life is and so on but he cannot - the ultimate question is for me rather than for him. If you want to ask him questions about what he knows of your character you may do so.

WILSON:Q. Do you know of anything of the work I have done for many years in regard to mercury poisoning of dental nurses?
A.No, I am sorry, John, I don't, to be truthful. John is a truthful man as I find him and a man that will do things to help the community. He is there for that one and only reason. Today he could go to gaol, I expect. Why would he put himself in that position unless he was an honest, decent citizen believing what he was doing was true. It is a very hard.thing, I know, for the legal profession to be hit in the face with what he is saying without being hit by the yellow paint but through the membership of FLAC I honestly believe that paint is nothing - I am frightened of what might happen, we talk to people, people are frightened of the guns being taken away from them, they are frightened of the migration that is sneaking into the country and people's lives are being ruined, their houses gone, their families gone and John is there trying to dc" what is right so the system, I believe, is crooked can he made healthy and made well and soothe people rather than destroy them.



(Mr Buddin stated Mr Wilson had no prior


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