THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH ALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
WOOD CJ at CL
Tuesday 9 November
12914./97 - THE PROTHONOTARY -V- JOHN WILSON
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.
FOR JUDGMENT SEE SEPARATE TRANSCPIPT
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
EXHIBIT #1 BUNDLE OF CORRESPONDENCE FROM ATTORNEYS-GENERAL TENDERED, ADMITTED WITHOUT OBJECTION
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.
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.
AFFIDAVIT OF NATALIE ADAMS SWORN 14 NOVEMBER 1997 READ
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.
AFFIDAVIT OF WALTER WILLIAM BAER SWORN 12 NOVEMBER 1997 READ.
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.
AFFIDAVIT OF MAINA GORDON SWORN 12 NOVEMBER 1997 READ.
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.
AFFIDAVIT OF GREGORY PETER McNALLY SWORN 11 NOVEMBER 1997 READ.
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?
AFFIDAVIT OF CATHERINE OLSEN SWORN 12 NOVEMBER 1997 READ.
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.
AFFIDAVIT OF CAThERINE OLSEN SWORN 4 NOVEMBER 1999 READ.
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.
EXHIBIT #A BLACK FOLDER TENDERED, ADMITTED WITHOUT OBJECTION
JUDGMENT OF MURRAY AJ DATED 5 SEPTEMBER 1997 TENDERED.
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
EXHIBIT #B JUDGMENT OF MURRAY AJ DATED 5 SEPTEMBER 1997 ADMITTED WITHOUT OBJECTION
HIS HONOUR: Do you wish to examine the photographs?
WILSON: In front of the jury.
EXHIBIT #C PHOTOGRAPHS TENDERED, ADMITTED WITHOUT OBJECTION
CASE FOR THE PLAINTIFF CLOSED.
(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
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.
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.
EXHIBIT #2. SUPPLEMENTED BY THE ADDITION OF A PHOTOCOPY OF
THE LETTER SENT TO MR WILSON YESTERDAY FROM THE NEW SOUTH
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
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.
EXHIBIT#D LETTER FROM THE CROWN SOLICITOR'S OFFICE DATED 8 NOVEMBER 1999 TENDERED, ADMITTED WITHOUT OBJECTION
FOR JUDGMENT SEE SEPARATE TRANSCRIPT.
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
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?
<RAYMOND RONALD LOVETT (11.45 AM)
SWORN AND EXAMINED
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.
NO CROSS -EXAMINATION
(Mr Buddin stated Mr Wilson had no prior
FOR SENTENCE SEE SEPARATE TRANSCRIPT.