DCV2494 414/02 VMB-E1
THE DISTRICT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
PARRAMATTA: WEDNESDAY 24 APRIL 2002
349/00 - DEPUTY COMMISSION OF TAXATION v JOHN WILSON
Mr Fleming for the Plaintiff Defendant appeared in person
HIS HONOUR: Mr Fleming, which motions am I to hear today?
DEFENDANT: Your Honour before we start.
HIS HONOUR: Would you please sit down for a moment.
DEFENDANT: I just want to ask for a tape recorder.
HIS HONOUR: Would you please sit down? Yes, Mr Fleming?
FLEMING: Your Honour there are several matters before the court today. The
defendant has requisitioned for a jury filed on 17 October 2000. The defendant has requisitioned for a grand jury filed on 10 April 2002. The defendant's Notice of Motion seeking orders that this matter be heard
before a jury dated 20 February 2002. The defendant's Notice of Motion seeking orders that his cost claim which he attempted to file on 17" October 2000 be reinstated which was dated 23 January 2002 and the
plaintiff's Notice of Motion seeking summary judgment dated 5 December 2000.
HONOUR: Are you ready to proceed on all those motions?
FLEMING: Yes the plaintiff has prepared written submissions to assist the court in all matters.
HIS HONOUR: Are you ready to proceed with your matters, Mr Wilson?
DEFENDANT: They have to be done in order
HIS HONOUR: Are you ready to proceed with them?
DEFENDANT: No, not entirely because I haven't got the facilities here. I wish to present evidence in the
form of a CD ROM and to do that I need the projection equipment before a jury so there must be a date set that I can organise that equipment so that I can display the evidence.
HIS HONOUR: You have till 11.30 to obtain it.
DEFENDANT: It can't be done. I have to - I've been in touch - you are not being fair.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson you've known about the hearing of this matter since 8 February.
DEFENDANT: And this is for establishing a grand jury. That is the number 1 priority because of the importance of this
case. I'm talking about grand fraud which involves hundreds of billions of dollars that the banks are stealing from ordinary people which the judges are concealing - so you have grand judicial corruption. These
are monumental issues. They cannot be dismissed lightly. They must go to a grand jury--
HIS HONOUR: I will deal with all of your motions this morning. I will deal with them at 10.30 Mr Fleming.
FLEMING: Thank you your Honour.
DEFENDANT: You cannot deal with them because you are a judge. You are not the court.
HIS HONOUR: I will deal with it at 10.30 and you-
DEFENDANT: You are not the court. A court is made of a judge and a jury.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson if you do not sit down and listen to what I am saying I will have you removed. Please sit down, I'll
hear your case at 10.30.
DEFENDANT: You cannot hear my case because you are not the court. The court is made up of a judge and a jury.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson you've had plenty of opportunity.
Would you please sit down and I'll hear your case at 10.30.
DEFENDANT: You are railroading this case and you are perverting the course of justice.
HIS HONOUR: I will now deal with another matter and I will deal with your case at 10.30.
DEFENDANT: This has monumental issues which cannot be dismissed by any judge.
HIS HONOUR: Please get the
sheriff's officer. You either comply with my request, which is reasonable at this stage because I am not yet--
DEFENDANT: It is--
HIS HONOUR: -prepared to hear your case yet. You will comply with my
request and I will start your case at 10.30, alternatively I will have you removed. Which do you wish it to be sir? 10.30?
DEFENDANT: I'll play your game but it will end up in the High Court like all
the other issues of grand fraud and judicial corruption.
MATTER STOOD IN LIST
HIS HONOUR: Mr Fleming you were saying to me earlier on when I was asking just what there was before the court that firstly there
was a Notice of Motion that I had to deal with dated 11 October - what is the earliest in point of time?
FLEMING: I believe that it is the plaintiff's Notice of Motion for summary judgment.
DEFENDANT: Your Honour there is a matter of jurisdiction.
HIS HONOUR: Would you just please wait, Mr Wilson?
DEFENDANT: ..(not transcribable)..
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, you've appeared before me a lot of times. We've got on pretty well haven't we 'so far?
HIS HONOUR: Can I just ask you to bear with me a
little? I will give you plenty of opportunity to be heard and put your position but can I just ask you to just wait until I invite you to say what you want to say and then if you need to make some further submissions I'll
give you the opportunity but I'm just trying to find out what is going on, all right?
DEFENDANT: But shouldn't the parameters be established first?
HIS HONOUR: Could you just take a seat for me please? I'm not being rude to you.
DEFENDANT: No, I'm trying to encourage you to do right.
HIS HONOUR: I know you are. Could I just listen to Mr Fleming first please and I'll hear you-
DEFENDANT: No, I don't think you should be able to hear it at all.
HIS HONOUR: I know that's what you say. Yes, Mr Fleming?
DEFENDANT: Can't we discuss that?
HIS HONOUR: No not yet.
DEFENDANT: Not the jurisdiction?
HONOUR: Just take a seat. Mr Fleming first of all there is the Notice of Motion that you have for summary judgment.
FLEMING: Yes, your Honour, 5 December 2000 I believe.
HIS HONOUR: 5 December 2000. Then the next Notice of Motion in terms of time is?
FLEMING: The defendant's Notice of Motion seeking orders that his cross-claim which he attempted to file on 17 October
2000 be reinstated, which I believe was 23 January 2002.
HIS HONOUR: What date is that?
FLEMING: That is the next Notice of Motion, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Thatis the 22nd?
FLEMING: 23 January 2002.
HIS HONOUR: The next motion?
FLEMING: Was the defendant's Notice of Motion seeking orders that this matter be heard before a jury which was dated 20 February 2002.
HIS HONOUR: And then was there any other motion?
FLEMING: We have the two requisitions which the defendant has put before the court. The first requisition for a jury-
HIS HONOUR: Dated when?
FLEMING: Was filed 17 October 2000. -
HIS HONOUR: And the second one?
FLEMING: And then the defendant's requisition for a grand jury which was filed 10 April 2002.
HONOUR: Mr Fleming you may be able to help me. Was the requisition for a jury by the defendant on 17 October 2000 filed within time provided by the rules?
FLEMING: No it wasn't your Honour. It was filed one month before the status conference.
HIS HONOUR: One month before the status conference. What should it have been filed according to the rules?
FLEMING: Two months prior to the status conference your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Was that requisition rejected by the registry?
FLEMING: It does on the face of the requisition your Honour have stamp
upon it. I'm not sure whether it was accompanied by the requisite payment in accordance with the regulations.
HIS HONOUR: That is 17 October. There's a court note on it "not accepted as filed. Filed out of time".
DEFENDANT: May I comment on that one point?
HIS HONOUR: You will be able to in just a minute, Mr Wilson.
DEFENDANT: It makes more sense if I answer the-
HIS HONOUR: Just wait a minute, Mr Wilson. So your argument will be as I understand it
that in respect of that requisition for a jury for 17 October that it was out of time and has never been properly put back before the court?
FLEMING: Yes your Honour and it wasn't filed in accordance with the practice notes or the rules.
HIS HONOUR: So far as the requisition for the grand jury 10 April yousay that that is governed by section 76A of
the District Court Act or not?
FLEMING: Your Honour as we understand it-
HIS HONOUR: Or is it that it is merely out of time or merely that I don't have any power to grant it anyway?
FLEMING: That is going to be our argument. As we understand the defendant's grounds for basis of a grand jury are pursuant to section 354 of the State of Victoria's--
HIS HONOUR: What I want to try
and do is work out the order in which these motions .should be heard. What I have in mind and I will discuss this with Mr Wilson in a moment, is that we deal firstly with the requisition for jury of 17 October and try and
sort that out and then deal with the requisition for the jury for 10 April. Mr Wilson as I understand it from his earlier arguments which he has put forward when we've been talking about these cases generally on many of the
previous occasions we've been before the court, he is likely to argue that even this proceeding at the moment cannot take place because it is not before a jury. So that in other words because this proceeding today is
not before a jury then ergo I can't decide any of these other points. That is what I expect will be the argument. Are you in a position to deal with all those motions today?
FLEMING: Yes I am your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson I've just outlined all of the different motions that appear before the court. Are you in a position to deal with all those motions today?
DEFENDANT: Before a jury yes. I want to point out one thing that--
HIS HONOUR: Well that is conceded, before a jury.
DEFENDANT: But this is very important because when we left the court last
time, standing outside, this fellow, Mr Fleming-
HIS HONOUR: Do you mean Mr Fleming who appears for the Deputy Commissioner?
DEFENDANT: Okay. He gave me these bundle of documents.
HIS HONOUR: I don't know what they are.
DEFENDANT: I don't know what they are either.
FLEMING: Your Honour that would be our written submissions which we will tender.
DEFENDANT: And I've got written across the top here "Court by surprise".
HIS HONOUR: Yes?
DEFENDANT: Well I understand that the court must not be caught by surprise. That any sort
of material put forward must be given due consideration or time for consideration and to walk outside in the lobby and present me with, I don't know whether there' s a hundred, hundred and fifty pages or
something. But that's just one aside. Now as far as before a jury, I contest that this is no court in any sense of there being a court because there is no jury. This matter is a federal issue so therefore this
court takes on federal jurisdiction where I put it to you that you are not a federal judge. You have not sworn the oath required by a federal judge. I could be wrong, but as far as I know you've sworn an oath to
bear true allegiance -no, to well and truly serve her Majesty the Queen and to do right to all manner of people without fear or favour after the laws of the State of New South Wales. Because these issues, and
they are very, very big issues, they involve federal laws that I don't believe you are qualified to deal with the case. I don't think you have the jurisdiction on two counts, because there is no jury and you are
not a federal judge.
HIS HONOUR: Do you wish me to rule on either of those two matters that you've put before me or do you wish to put some further arguments on those two matters sir?
DEFENDANT: This argument will go on because it's the fundamental-
HIS HONOUR: I appreciate it will because there are two motions but--
DEFENDANT: Because there are fundamental issues of
justice. So another side point, I see on the table there's a sprig of rosemary because of Anzac Day tomorrow, just in front of me--
HIS HONOUR: I think that's right, the Sheriff's Officers may well have done that.
DEFENDANT: That's right. So I think this is very significant because of all the people over many, many years,
several wars who have fought for justice and I think they should not be dismissed, their sacrifices should not be dismissed by the judiciary of this country.
HIS HONOUR: I don't think anyone would disagree with that sentiment, Mr Wilson--
DEFENDANT: I hope you follow through then because our system of English Common Law requires that a court is constituted by a
judge and a jury. It is our right, it has been our right guaranteed since Magna Carta, it was guaranteed forever and you mentioned before about this Act from the New South Wales parliament coming into force on 18 January
which takes away that right. That is no law and I think you, sitting there should declare that to be no law. I think it should be. If you are to administer justice then you would declare that law which is the
Civil Juries Act illegal and void on the very principle that it is against a common right. I am surprised in an earlier hearing where you said you refused to allow a jury--
HIS HONOUR: No that was agreed between the parties-
DEFENDANT: Agreed was it?
HIS HONOUR: Yes, there were applications but that was a matter which the parties eventually agreed upon after hearing
DEFENDANT: That is as it should be because the Supreme Court Act of 1900 says quite clearly that in any action by consent of both parties. We have just confirmed that, by consent of both parties.
But here we have another two parties and I definitely do not give my consent to be without a jury.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson the first two matters you've raised before me are that firstly I am not a
federal judge and therefore I cannot exercise jurisdiction in respect of the proceedings by the Deputy Commission of Taxation against you. The second issue is that I should not be hearing even this preliminary matter
without a jury.
DEFENDANT: Exactly right.
HIS HONOUR: Before I proceed to consider any of those other matters, the Notices of Motion which are before the court, and you've already indicated to me
the circularity of the situation, what I propose to do and tell me if you do not agree, is that I propose to rule initially on your submission that I cannot determine the first issue or be here at all without a jury on an
interlocutory or ancillary matters. Do you wish me to make that ruling at this stage?
DEFENDANT: Yes I'd like that--
HIS HONOUR: Is there anything else you would like to say-
DEFENDANT: Yes I'd like to add to that. The Supreme Court Act of 1900 says quite clearly that to be without a jury requires consent of both parties. The typical response from a judge is that that's been
repealed and replaced by the Supreme Court Act of 1970. Then I counter that by saying that the Interpretation Act of 1987 says that in section 30, this is an Act number 15, "The amendment or repeal of an Act or a
statutory rule does not affect part B any right, privilege, obligation or liability require to prove or incurred under the Act or statutory rule". So, in other words, you can repeal an Act but you can't take away
the right. So that remains in ..(not transcribable).., it remains very substantial. As far as a judge being able to deal with matters summarily, that's covered quite adequately by Halsberry's(?) Laws of
Australia. I could probably find it given the time but that says quite clearly, I think it is paragraph 13, 605 or something like that. It says that the jurisdiction of the court can only be determined by a special
jury appointed to determine the jurisdiction of the court. And yet I've come across judges who say "No I'll decide my own jurisdiction". I said, "No you can't". That is against the
very basis of natural justice. Here is a judge judging his own cause. He says "I'm the judge and I am the jury and I am ready". He is not. So as far as you being able to deal with any part of
the case, either the interlocutory, final, whatever, it cannot be done without a jury. I actually saw on the list outside that this matter is listed twice in the one day. In the afternoon it is listed for a jury, do
you realise that? It is on the list twice, once with the word 'jury' typed on the schedule. I've argued the point many times before, in the Supreme Court, the High Court and generally the judges, they
dismiss it because they say "Well now we've got this other Act which reinforces our power to take away the rights of the people" and I say that is no law. I think if this court is to administer justice,
justice is the protection of rights and the punishment of wrongs. If the court is not prepared to protect the rights you disqualify yourself on that count. Behind you it says "God and my right".
HIS HONOUR: Thank you.
FOR JUDGMENT ON PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS SEE SEPARATE TRANSCRIPT
DEFENDANT: I'd like a supplementary argument to that.
HIS HONOUR: I've given the judgment on that now, Mr Wilson.
DEFENDANT: Yes but it is not over by a long way.
HIS HONOUR: I am not suggesting it is-
DEFENDANT: In fact I refer to an email actually I got from a law student up in Queensland--
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson can I just go on to the next point please?
DEFENDANT: No you can't.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson the next matter--
DEFENDANT: Justice has not been done.
HIS HONOUR: The next matter is the Notice of Motion that you filed asking for a grand jury. I would be very
grateful if you would now turn your mind to that Notice of Motion so that we may deal with that application.
DEFENDANT: I would like to register my strong objection to your wrongful judgment and every issue you have
brought up can be defeated by the freedoms, the Charters of Freedom. So "when you're referring to the District Court Act giving total power to a judge that is totally repugnant to our system of English Common Law and I
just cannot understand how people, how judges can turn agains the very principles of fair play and justice. It bothers me - every time I go to court I say "Maybe I'm going to get an honest judge" but what I
find is that the system is so strong that there must be forces working behind the scene which dictate to a judge who is wavering. I've had a few judges waver, leave the room and come back with stern faces and just
dismiss cases. So this is the argument put forward by Peter--
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, I have dealt with your preliminary point. I would now very much like to go on to your motion, seeing it is your motion--
DEFENDANT: It is not over because it is the issue of trial by jury.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, we are going to get to that now. I have ruled that I am going to hear your motion now by which you seek to have
a grand jury summoned for the hearing of the action between yourself and the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation.
DEFENDANT: Okay, so far you have given two judgments, correct? Two interlocutory judgments.
HIS HONOUR: I have given my judgment on the preliminary matter that you raised.
DEFENDANT: On two issues?
HIS HONOUR: That is right. I now wish to turn-
DEFENDANT: Okay so do I now
go to the Supreme Court, then to the Court of Appeal, then to the High Court all on the same issue?
HIS HONOUR: That is a matter entirely for you but I am now turning to your Notice of Motion in which you are
seeking a grand jury. Would you like to address your arguments on that point for me, sir?
DEFENDANT: Okay, a grand jury.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, please. It is your application where you requisition a
grand jury. That is dated 10 April 2002, we'll deal with that now.
DEFENDANT: I support that with an affidavit.
HIS HONOUR: Is that your affidavit of 10 April 2002?
DEFENDANT: Yes it has been filed and stamped by the District Court.
HIS HONOUR: Is that the one where yousay - I'll just hand it down and make sure we have the same one.I'll just hand that down to you
and you can tell me if that's the same affidavit that you're referring to.
DEFENDANT: Yes, it has got any stamps on it I've got but it's the same one.
HIS HONOUR: That's all right. It's the same one is it, Mr Wilson?
DEFENDANT: Mine is stamped every page but I think it's the same one.
HIS HONOUR: You can hand that back. Thank
you very much indeed. Is that your evidence in support of your motion for a grand jury sir?
DEFENDANT: It's the beginning of it. In fact this is why I want a jury to decide the question of a grand jury--
HIS HONOUR: Well I have ruled against you on that.
DEFENDANT: And I mention
in the affidavit I refer to a CD ROM of my web site. These are the CD ROM's. I'd like to hand one into the court and one to the opposition.
HIS HONOUR: Are you tendering that as part of your case?
DEFENDANT: Yes please.
EXHIBIT #A, CD ROM TENDERED, ADMITTED WITHOUT OBJECTION
DEFENDANT: Part of this web site is entitled "Court transcripts and judgments" which are in fact
transcripts and judgments. There is a lot more information in that. In fact I include in that--
HIS HONOUR: Can you tell me for my assistance what you say is the basis upon which I could grant your request for
a grand jury? In other words, I have already indicated that I am bound by a piece of legislation called The District Court Act which has been amended as to what I can do. What I am inviting you to tell me is where in
the District Court Act is there a provision which would permit me to grant your application?
DEFENDANT: You are bound by a higher commitment than the District Court Act. I remind you of your judicial oath.
HIS HONOUR: Are you saying to me that I should exercise jurisdiction which the District Court Act passed by parliament does not give me?
DEFENDANT: If it is wrong, absolutely.
HIS HONOUR: You say that I should act contradictory to legislation? .
DEFENDANT: To bad laws, yes.
HIS HONOUR: Whether it is bad or good isn't that something that has to be decided by the
people of the State in encouraging the politicians to change the law which members of our society consider to be bad?
DEFENDANT: No there is a higher authority than the parliament. It is called the
jury. The jury represents the people.and the people have sovereignty. The jury nullify...
HIS HONOUR: Do you say that I should act contrary to the Act of Parliament?
DEFENDANT: Yes, if you are going to administer justice, you must.
HIS HONOUR: Well you see Mr Fleming will say, I assume, this, he'll say, whether he agrees with your sentiments and the principles behind
your sentiments or not, I, as the judge, cannot act beyond the jurisdiction given to me when I was sworn in as a judge of this particular court. I am not a judge of the Federal Court, I am not a judge of the Supreme Court,
where there are different rules and different jurisdictional limits. But Mr Fleming is going to say, I have not read his submissions but I bet this is what he is going to say--
DEFENDANT: I haven't, either.
HIS HONOUR: He is going to say that I have got to do what parliament says I've got to do. For example, if I was over there in the criminal court, and there's three judges across the way, and there was
somebody there who was being arraigned for a serious criminal offence and the maximum penalty that I could give for that criminal offence was ten years and you came along to me and said "The law of the parliament is
wrong. The real maximum sentence that the people want this person given is fifteen years" and I went contrary to the Act of Parliament which said that I could only give ten years as a maximum and gave the person
fifteen years, what do you think would happen?
DEFENDANT: The question goes back to you. Would you be doing right? - because that is what your commitment is.
HIS HONOUR: But what do you think would
happen to that decision that I made? It would immediately be overturned and I would be in difficulties because I had acted outside the bounds of the jurisdiction that parliament had given me. That is precisely what is
occurring here, isn't it, Mr Wilson?
DEFENDANT: No you would not be acting outside the jurisdiction because your jurisdiction is to administer justice. A jury or (a judge can) -
HIS HONOUR: Can you point -
DEFENDANT: --nullify bad laws.
HIS HONOUR: Can you point to me anywhere in any Act of parliament of New South Wales any Act where there is a right given to you to
seek a grand jury?
DEFENDANT: Yep. Yes I've already put that in my affidavit.
HIS HONOUR: Please refer me to the section.
DEFENDANT: Particularly in Australia there is the paragraph--
HIS HONOUR: Seven?
DEFENDANT: I'm just trying to find the right paragraph. It is actually section 354 of the Criminal Crimes Act, I'm just trying to find the right one.
HIS HONOUR: But that is a Victorian statute isn't it sir?
HIS HONOUR: That does not apply to me does it?
DEFENDANT: Yes it does.
HIS HONOUR: I don't think so.
DEFENDANT: Because of section 117 of the Constitution. 117 says that a subject of the Queen, which I am, resident in any State shall not be subjected in any other State to any
disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if it were a subject of the Queen resident in such another State. So, in other words, if an Australian resident in Victoria is entitled to a grand
jury, an Australian resident in New ,South Wales cannot be discriminated against to say, "Oh no, because you're a resident in New South Wales you can't have it". That is the whole idea of
Federation. Whereas before we had colonies, come January 1, 1901 we became a united Commonwealth, uniting the people and section - covering clause 5 says that this Act and all laws made - again I'm talking about
constitutional federal issues. These are to be determined by the Federal Court. It says that this Act and all laws made by the Parliament and Commonwealth under the Constitution shall be binding on the courts and
judges and people of every State of the Commonwealth notwithstanding anything of the laws of any State. So the idea of Federation was to do as the High Court Fisher, I think it was 1915, said, "There is one code of
law in Australia". One. A person in Victoria is entitled to a grand jury and so is an Australian in the Northern Territory or Tasmania, any State. We are one nation. So the request for a grand jury is
that a grand jury investigates offences and maladministration. The evidence in this CD ROM is overwhelming of the criminality that I have been fighting in the courts - the criminality of the banks. The first issue
should have been cut and dry. Should have been over in five seconds. I put it to the Supreme Court that variable means uncertain. Oxford English Dictionary. There :is no question whatsoever but the first
judge was a Master Greenwood said, "No, the rate itself is indeed certain". That is a bald-faced lie. That is so. corrupt it protects the banks and it allows them to carry on an illegal practice. It amounts
to multi billions of dollars. It overturns all the cases of repossession where people have lost their homes. It allows people to claim compensation because of the wrong done, because of the courts upholding this criminal
act by the banks. Also the other issue of fraud comes into play, I brought it first of all in 1999 where I raised the issue of money creation and I offered evidence to a judge there, her name was Simpson--
HIS HONOUR: That doesn't have anything to do with whether I've got power to order it.
DEFENDANT: This is justifying the summonsing of a grand jury because a grand jury--
HIS HONOUR: It is not a
question of justifying it to the extent that there may be some reason you advance why a grand jury might be necessary but I'd ask you to return to the question of what power I have to grant it. I state that, noting for
the record, that I am aware of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Damjanovic(?) and that I have allowed Mr Wilson to continue, notwithstanding the situation with the other persons waiting for their case to be heard on this
Mr Wilson can you please tell me what else you wish to say in relation to your application for the grand jury based on the situation of the matters that you have set out in your affidavit?
DEFENDANT: It can only be gone into by offering, or bringing into court, and having a jury see the evidence which is on this CD ROM.
HIS HONOUR: Yes.
DEFENDANT: At the moment there is just a disc of plastic. It has to be projected--
HIS HONOUR: I have got no intention of permitting you to do that.
DEFENDANT: You are obstructing evidence.
HIS HONOUR: On this motion.
DEFENDANT: You are obstructing evidence. You asked me for reasons why, I'm giving it and you're saying
no you wont allow it. You are obstructing.
HIS HONOUR: Is there anything else you want to say on the application for a grand jury.
DEFENDANT: Again I protest that you're unjustice. It is not a trivial matter.
HIS HONOUR: Of course it is not. It is a very serious matter from a number of points of view.
DEFENDANT: Extremely serious. It involves everybody in Australia.
HIS HONOUR: Is there anything else you'd like to say on the question of whether or not you're entitled to a grand jury?
DEFENDANT: Because of the very function of a grand jury to investigate serious offences and the maladministration - in particular the judicial corruption which has concealed the frauds committed by the banks and, in turn,
the corruption by the judges to conceal their own corruption. It becomes a sort of a cyclic thing. This cycle of injustice and criminality and treachery must be broken. While ever it goes back into the laps of judges, I
have found that there is no justice being delivered - even though judges swear to do right. As far as judges swearing, they swear to well and truly serve her Majesty the Queen. This refers to the Coronation, and in fact
I've previously given you a leaflet--
HIS HONOUR: You have.
DEFENDANT: On what is a court.
HIS HONOUR: You have and I have no hesitation in telling that I visited your web
site. Have you got any other submissions to address to me as to why you should have a grand jury, sir?
DEFENDANT: Because of the importance to the nation, that will come from justice which can only be derived
from the people. Natural justice must be upheld. Whenever these issues go to judges, judges protect themselves. They judge in their own cause. What more fundamental violation of natural justice is there? As
far as I know there's two rules of natural justice. One is that you're allowed a fair hearing and the other one is that you cannot judge in your own cause. So by taking these issues away from judges
and putting where it rightly belongs, before a grand jury, only will this country be saved. It might be poetic but I believe that Parramatta has been called the birthplace of the nation. Well the nation has gone
horribly, horribly corrupt because of the judicial system - and now it is about time our nation was reborn or born again in Parramatta.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you. I now give judgment in--
DEFENDANT: I haven't finished on the grand jury.
HIS HONOUR: I think you have had sufficient time on that matter.
DEFENDANT: I haven't referred to a fellow called Blackstone.and his remarks
on grand juries. Are you familiar with Professor Blackstone?
HIS HONOUR: From my days at law school, yes.
DEFENDANT: He wrote three volumes outlining the common law in England. One part is
entitled, Chapter the 23rd on Trial by Jury. In that he refers to the importance of not only the petit juries but also the grand jury and I refer to that.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, anything further?
DEFENDANT: I'll just have a flick through. As far as what you won't allow to be presented, I've already made inquiries of how it can be presented and I've contacted this firm called Tech Reynolds and
they've given me a price on renting a data projector for one, two and three days. So it can be done. It can physically be done and I think you've accepted this as evidence but you now bury it. On one hand
you accept it, and then you destroy it. So I ask that a time be set for the delivery or presentation on the evidence in the exhibit which you've already accepted and that can only be done, again, in front of a jury.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Anything else?
DEFENDANT: I don't think I'll get anywhere.
HIS HONOUR: I don't know but I now propose to deal with the judgment unless you have something else
to say on your application for a grand jury. That is the next motion, do you understand? I am going to deal with that now.
DEFENDANT: Are you? I know what to expect.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you.
FOR JUDGMENT ON APPLICATION FOR GRAND JURY SEE SEPARATE TRANSCRIPT
HIS HONOUR: I now propose to turn to the next matter which is whether or not there is evidence that a requisition was made for a jury
within the time provided for the rules, that is a jury to hear the action, as opposed to a jury to hear any Notice of Motion. The court file on its face suggests that the application was not filed in accordance with the
rules but Mr Wilson can you assist me on that matter please as to when you say the application for a jury was filed and whether or not it was filed in accordance with the rules.
DEFENDANT: Yes there was a hearing
which was not recorded - which I am disgusted about. It washeld in a little tiny room at the base of the stairs next to the lift-
HIS HONOUR: Was that before a Registrar of the Court?
DEFENDANT: Registrar Breen is his name and I said "I intend to requisition a trial by jury" and he said "You've got fourteen days to put in your requisition".
HIS HONOUR: Yes?
DEFENDANT: I complied with that. I did exactly as the Registrar said.
HIS HONOUR: And what happened then?
DEFENDANT: And then the kafuffle about the other registrar rejecting my cross-claim. This is why--
HIS HONOUR: What happened with your jury request, Mr Wilson?
DEFENDANT: Nothing happened with the
jury request. This is the first time you've mentioned it. That's been put on hold and because I wanted my cross-claim against the Crown and the Registrar rejected it after it had been filed. That's why I
took it to the Supreme Court claiming that his action was unlawful and malicious and I requested a jury to decide that and what do you expect? No jury. This is the whole issue -
HIS HONOUR: I think a lot of
courts have fixed that up but what I want to talk about is - I really want to talk about when it was that you asked for the jury in this case because Mr Fleming has already said that it appears that your requisition may have
been not made in accordance with the rules, setting aside whatever the Registrar may have said. Can you just help me with that as to when you did it?
DEFENDANT: From day 1. Every Australian is entitled to
trial by a jury. It goes without saying. There is no time limit in which you must fill out a document and dot the t's and cross the i's(as said). This is our right. It is only a formality. I paid
money. You shouldn't have to pay money either. This is an obscenity. I am entitled to a trial by jury.
HIS HONOUR: I am asking you for your assistance if you wouldn't mind to tell me when it
was that you say that you filed your requisition for a jury and whether or not you say that it was in time pursuant to the rules or whether it wasn't. If you can help me with that, that is fine, if you--
DEFENDANT: What is this bit of trivia about time?
HONOUR: Because there is a time limit that is all know you don't agree with--
DEFENDANT: I'm entitled to a trial by jury. There is no time--
HIS HONOUR: I'll ask Mr Fleming to assist me. You just take a seat for a minute, Mr Wilson--
DEFENDANT: You're asking me about the time factor.
HIS HONOUR: Well you've just said it is not relevant so I'm asking you to sit down for a minute. I'll hear Mr Fleming and then
I'll come back to you.
FLEMING: Your Honour I believe that it was filed on 17 October 2000 and the status conference on this matter was listed and held on 13 November 2000.
HIS HONOUR: What rules govern that?
HIS HONOUR: Please Mr Wilson.
FLEMING: Practice note 33, paragraph 5.2 provides that a jury demand must be filed not later than two
months before the scheduled status conference. Unless there are the most exceptional circumstances the court will not extend the time for filing for a jury demand. And part 12 rule 5 of the District Court Rules
provides that in any action in which a party is entitled to require a jury to be summoned the party so requiring shall file and serve on each other party a requisition for jury and shall pay the fee required by the regulations
made under the Act at least two months before the date first scheduled for a status conference in the action.
HIS HONOUR: Do you have a document that sets out the status conference notification from the court?
DEFENDANT: I have some particulars here.
HIS HONOUR: I have a copy on the court file which says "review date 9 October. Status conference 13 November" is that correct?
FLEMING: Yes your Honour.
DEFENDANT: Yep. 9 October I went to court 9 which is that little cupboard with no recording facilities.
HIS HONOUR: They don't normally record proceedings before registrars.
DEFENDANT: Why not? It was said in court. The registrar said--
HIS HONOUR: It is no use arguing that with
me. I don't have any control about things like that. I am just telling you that it is normally not recorded. Okay, I understand what the-
DEFENDANT: And then the registrar said - I said that
I intend to cross-claim and I intend to demand my right to trial by jury and he said "All right, you've got two weeks to do it" so I complied with it. Does that qualify as exceptional circumstances that a
fact, that an officer of the court said that I had time in which to do it or are you going to go back to--
HIS HONOUR: I don't know yet Mr Wilson, I'm just trying to get the dates right. What I think
I'll do next is that I will deal with your application. Do you wish to proceed with your application that the cross-claim be reinstated?
DEFENDANT: Of course that is most important.
HONOUR: But do you want to do that in the light of the fact of what Judge Dunford decided in the Supreme Court?
DEFENDANT: Quite frankly the corruption in the judiciary is astounding and I've got a list of
about fifty judges who are all going to come under the scrutiny of a grand jury. They will be investigated and they will be brought before them. I said in the Local court I said, "As soon as I get my trial by
jury I am going to subpoena these judges and I am going to ask them questions in front of a jury" and the magistrate said "Oh you can't do that" and I said, "yes I can".
HIS HONOUR: What I would like to do -
DEFENDANT: And so then they dropped the charges.
HIS HONOUR: What I would like to do is know whether or not you are going to continue with your motion seeking
that the cross-claim that you filed on 17 October be reinstated. Are you proceeding with that motion?
DEFENDANT: Yes there are two together. There is the cross-claim thing I filed on the same day.
HIS HONOUR: Yes that is right. Are you going to proceed with that and does that still seek five million dollars?
DEFENDANT: Yes, I think there should be a lot, lot more because fighting the banks and
fighting the judge is going to take an awful lot of money. Five million dollars is just a start.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you. That is what you're asking for is it?
DEFENDANT: That's the
starting figure. In fact when it goes to the jury the jury will assess or give an assessment. They will decide. If they want to give me tuppence, then I'll get tuppence. If they want to give
me twenty million dollars it will all be well spent in the cause of justice.
HIS HONOUR: Anything else you want to say about that?
DEFENDANT: . No.
FOR JUDGMENT SEE SEPARATE TRANSCRIPT
HIS HONOUR: I now turn to the next notice of motion which is before the court and that is the notice of motion by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation seeking summary judgment of 5 December. Is that correct Mr Fleming?
FLEMING: Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Are you reading to proceed with that application'Mr Wilson?
DEFENDANT: There's no justice here.
HIS HONOUR: Are you ready to proceed with that application?
DEFENDANT: I'll proceed in another place and at another time. You are obviously not going to deliver justice. You've got no intention of
HIS HONOUR: Do you wish to commence now the notice of motion for summary judgment?
DEFENDANT: I've got some sections of the bible and Jesus said that the judges ignore the weightier elements of
the law which are mercy, justice and faith. They strain out a gnat and swallow the camel. It's all very colourful language but the same thing applies, you know. You've got no intention of delivering
justice. You've got no intention of protecting rights. You've got no intention of punishing wrongs - so there's no point in being here. So you carry on--
HIS HONOUR: You may take your choice
but I propose to deal with the notice of motions today which include the notice of motion by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation seeking summary judgment. You may absent yourself if you do not wish to participate in the
DEFENDANT: There is no point. I talk about fairness and justice and you dismiss it.
HIS HONOUR: If you do wish to be here and to deal with the motion I am happy to hear what you have to say.
DEFENDANT: No, you're not happy to hear it at all.
HIS HONOUR: That is your opinion.
DEFENDANT: You think that I am just a common little bug you can squash. I represent the
people. I'm talking about the rights of the people. These inalienable rights.
HIS HONOUR: Please take a seat Mr Wilson. Mr Fleming your motion is for a summary judgment. Can you tell me what
affidavits you rely upon?
FLEMING: Yes your Honour the plaintiff relies upon the affidavit of Gregory Phillips which was sworn on 28 November 2000.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson seeing that you are still
here, do you have any objection to me reading the affidavit of Gregory Phillips of 28 November 2000?
DEFENDANT: Yes because you are not the court. You have--
HIS HONOUR: Do you wish to have Mr Gregory
Phillips attend court to be cross-examined on any matter that he has raised in his affidavit?
DEFENDANT: No, you're as corrupt as all the rest of them.
HIS HONOUR: Do you wish to have Mr Gregory Phillips attend for cross-examination on his affidavit?
DEFENDANT: How will you spend ANZAC Day?
HIS HONOUR: If you would like to address the matters that I am putting to you I'd be happy to hear from you.
DEFENDANT: There's no way.
HIS HONOUR: Are you now leaving the court, Mr Wilson?
DEFENDANT: Yes, I trust you will send the judgments to me and I'll appeal against the injustice and the wrongs which you have delivered today.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson I note that you are now leaving the
court and absenting.yourself after I have called on for hearing the notice of motion for summary judgment sought by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation. Good-bye, Mr Wilson.
DEFENDANT: I bow to the Crown but not to the judge. He is as corrupt as the other judges.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you, Mr Fleming. You rely on that affidavit and what else?
FLEMING: The only
other affidavit evidence which we rely on will be an affidavit of debt which was sworn by Mr Phillips--
HIS HONOUR: Do you have that there?
FLEMING: Yes, if I might hand that up.
Would you like to refer me to some authorities dealing with the question of the defence that has been raised in these proceedings?
FLEMING: Yes your Honour, I have some written submissions which I would like to hand
up and which I rely on which deal with some of the issues in the defence--
HIS HONOUR: Thank you. I will reserve my decision on this matter and hear some further submissions from you at 2 o'clock.
HIS HONOUR: I note that it is now 2 o'clock and that Mr Wilson left the court before 1 o'clock and has not returned. Will you please call Mr Wilson's name outside the
court? Call John Wilson. I told Mr Wilson that I intended to proceed with the notice of motion for summary judgment and he indicated, I do not know whether the tape picked it up as he was leaving the court, that he
said that he had patients this afternoon that he had to see. I understand that Mr Wilson has qualifications as a dentist.
COURT OFFICER: No appearance.
HIS HONOUR: The sheriff's officer
announces that there is no appearance. Yes, Mr Fleming? You have handed me, in addition to your relying upon the affidavit of Gregory Phillips of 28 November 2000 and Gregory Phillips of 23 April 2002,
you've handed me an outline of submissions is that right?
FLEMING: Yes your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Do you wish me to read those?
FLEMING: Yes your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: And you
wish to proceed in the absence of Mr Wilson with your notice of motion for summary judgment?
FLEMING: Yes your Honour.
FOR JUDGMENT ON APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SEE SEPARATE TRANSCRIPT
HIS HONOUR: Any other orders you are seeking?
FLEMING: No your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you for you assistance Mr Fleming.