IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
SYDNEY REGISTRY
COMMON LAW DIVISION File No: 20137/00

AFFIDAVIT

I, John Wilson of 19 Elm Place, North Rocks in the State of New South Wales, say on oath:

1. I am the Deponent.

2. By a two to one split decision in the New South Wales Court of Appeal I was released from prison on Tuesday 29 February 2000 having been incarcerated for 3 months and 3 weeks.

3. Late in March 2000 I attended and delivered an address to a gathering of Australians concerned about the present and future wellbeing of our country. As a means of informing the people of my particular confrontation with banks and judges, I prepared, copied and distributed some 250 leaflets. Hereto annexed and marked "A" is a copy of that leaflet.

4. Whilst in prison I wrote a letter to the Australian Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. John W. Howard MP, to inform him of what had happened to me in the courts and asking for a response. Hereto annexed and marked "B" is a copy of that letter. The Prime Minister has not replied to that letter and I truly believe the Prime Minister is remiss in not doing so.

5. I truly believe that the story revealed in these two annexures is a national crisis in terms of the very existence of democracy and the preservation of truth and justice. I truly believe that, as I once heard said "a country is not a rock but it is what it stands for" and I truly believe that the outcome of this case for unlawful imprisonment will has a significant influence in determining those questions.

......John Wilson..........

Sworn at ...North Rocks............................

on the ...1st....... day of ...June..... , 2000

before me .........C Hamilton JP 9425132............
(Justice of the Peace/Solicitor)


Annexure "A":

THIS IS THE ANNEXURE MARKED "A" REFERRED TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT
OF ...John Wilson..
SWORN AT ..North Rocks..
THIS ...1ST ..DAY OF ...June, 2000 
BEFORE ME ....C. Hamilton JP 9425132
          JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.


BANK FRAUD
CORRUPT JUDGES
UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT
WHY IS IT SO? & WHAT CAN BE DONE.

BANK FRAUD: The GOOD NEWS BIBLE says: "when two people agree on a matter and sign an agreement, no one can break it or add anything to it" (Galatians 3: 15). The COMMON LAW says there must be "certainty of terms" in order to create a contract. The OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY say, "variable means uncertain and "certain means not variable". Therefore, all loans incorporating variable interest rates are invalid. For the banks to make out that these contracts are valid is "false representation" or fraud. Obtaining money by fraud is stealing. The borrower has been cheated. Signing a fraudulent contract is not "informed consent" because he or she has not been told of the illegality and neither renders the contract valid nor binding.

Banks also generate their own wealth by creating money "out of thin air" which they lend to customers to be paid back with interest over a period of time amounting to several times what the bank created at the inception of the loan. The impact on the economies of Australia and the world is that we are all being cheated while "the rich get rich and the poor get poorer". 

Victims of crime are entitled to their money back "in full plus an additional 20 per cent" (Leviticus 6: 4-5) and compensation for any injury caused. The banks and the judges know this but their alliance has been designed to pervert the course of justice.

CORRUPT JUDGES: To a Statement of Claim filed in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Master Greenwood's judgement (17/9/96) declared that "the rate itself is indeed certain". This is an unmitigated lie. On 30/9/96, I asked Justice Hamilton "Shouldn't the terms of a contract be established when a contract is made?" and he answered "No.". On 28/10/96, in the Court of Appeal, Justices Clarke and Abadee ruled that the common law criteria for the creating of a contract were "No arguable cause of action". On 11/4/97, in the High Court of Australia, when I asked Justices Dawson, Toohey and Kirby "Does variable mean uncertain?", Dawson J. answered "No, we cannot answer those questions, I am sorry.". I replied "That is what I am asking. Can I ask the questions?". Dawson J. said "No. You can ask different questions, but ---". I then said "Because that is the basis of my case, uncertainty.". Dawson J. replied "I think we appreciate what the case is.". I said "That is all I have to say.". Dawson J.'s words , turning to the barrister for the St. George Bank, then were "Thank you, Mr Wilson. We need not trouble you, Mr Bennett.". Is this not clear testimony of a conspiracy by the judges to conceal bank fraud?

A complaint was lodged with the Judicial Commission of New South Wales on 26/11/96 regarding the Greenwood lie. In a letter dated 11/2/97 the Commission (made up of Gleeson CJ, Fisher J, Pearlman J, Blanch J, Campbell J, Pike CM, Jackson QC & Ms Gain) wrote back supporting the Greenwood judgement.

Bell J, in the Supreme Court on 10/5/99, rejected a requisition for trial by jury and also supported the Greenwood judgement. When I tried to file an indictment against Bell J in the Federal Court, Beaumont J (3/6/99) refused to allow the indictment to be filed. 

More recently, Simpson J in the Supreme Court, refused to allow a jury and awarded a Writ of Possession for my home to the St. George Bank (30/11/99). In these proceedings and on three separate occasions, Registrar Haggett refused to allow Discovery which is an order for the banks to reveal the source of the money they lend.

YELLOW PAINT: Meanwhile, Levine J in the Supreme Court on 25/7/97 prevented my defamation case against the Bulletin magazine proceeding to a jury trial which would have exposed a jury to the judgements in favour of the St. George Bank. 

The frustration of being denied access to a jury led to my taking seven judges (Greenwood, Hamilton, Clarke, Abadee, Dawson, Toohey & Kirby) to the Supreme Court charging them with civil wrong and concealing fraud and when Murray J dismissed the case (saying "judges are immune from suit") I threw a small plastic bag containing some yellow paint at him. I was charged under the Section 326 of the Crimes Act 1900 but when I demanded trial by jury the Director of Public prosecutions, Mr. N. Cowdrey, withdrew the charges even though I was imprisoned for a period of three days at one stage when the solicitor for the D.P.P., Mr. P. Morgan, had the bail conditions altered three weeks after the incident. In other words, I was imprisoned but never had a hearing of the charges.
 
UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT: To prevent a tribunal of the people from having a say in the determination of these issues, all judges have repeatedly refused to allow trial by jury culminating in Chief Justice Wood (9/11/99) imprisoning me for 2 years without parole. This imprisonment is in violation of Magna Carta and every domestic and international law since guaranteeing this inalienable right and to a "competent, independent and impartial tribunal" (United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and political Rights). It is also in defiance of the will of the Australian people who, at a Referendum in 1988, voted, by the largest majority ever, against a proposal to alter the Australian Constitution to exclude trial by jury from contempt of court and court martial. Juries safeguard our rights and freedom. Without juries we are nothing but slaves to the likes of Banks and Judges.

Previous to this, in the Supreme Court, Dunford J (3/12/97), Hidden J (16/3/98); in the Court of Appeal, Stein J and Handley J (24/8/98); while in the High Court Callinan J and Gaudron (16/4/99) denied me the right of trial by jury.

An appeal was heard by three judges in the Court of Appeal on 16/2/00. The judgement was reserved and on 29/2/00 two of the three decided to release me from custody on that day. All three upheld the conviction and the denial of the right to trial by jury which, in itself, is an offence under s.43 of the NSW Imperial Acts Application Act and carries a penalty of "imprisonment for not more than five years" - however, judges believe themselves to be "immune from suit" (above the law). The matter is now being taken to the United Nations' Human Rights Commission for redress and remedy.

WHY IS IT SO?: To subjugate people and countries, an enemy can either conquer by force of arms or commit them to debt from which they cannot recover and then trade off debt for equity. The banks, and their "knavish tricks", have achieved the latter by lending money which never existed and claiming that it was their own. Whoever issues the money makes the laws. 

People have either been unaware of the swindle or have known about it and climbed aboard to benefit themselves in some way. The vast majority have suffered and will continue to suffer by losing their prosperity and their sovereignty to that minority who see themselves as "the elite". What has happened to me demonstrates their ability and willingness to suppress anyone who tries to resist.

At the moment, big banks are swallowing small banks and merging with other big banks, leading to one super power to rule the world. The "war between the banks and the people" has been conducted by stealth and involved judges and politicians whose crimes are nothing less than treason.

WHAT CAN BE DONE: There is an answer - but have governments the courage and do they truly represent the people? One, all direct and flow-on debt to banks must be cancelled; two, governments must nationalise the banks within their borders; three, the gold taken by the banks must be returned to the respective countries; and four, governments must resume the role of issuing their own money. Power and control have to be wrested from the banks and countries have to be self-governing and independent. To ensure this, trial by jury is essential because, as Thomas Jefferson once said, "I consider trial by jury to be the only anchor yet imagined by man which can hold a government to the principles of its constitution.".
  
- Written by J. Wilson, PO Box 4520, North Rocks, NSW 2151, Australia and http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au


Annexure "B":

THIS IS THE ANNEXURE MARKED "B" REFERRED TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT
OF ...John Wilson..
SWORN AT ....North Rocks...
THIS ...1ST ..DAY OF ..June, 2000
BEFORE ME ...C. Hamilton JO 9425132 JUSTICE OF THE PEACE

. "E" Wing,
Silverwater Jail,
Silverwater,
NSW, 2158,
Australia.
8th December, 1999.

The Rt. Hon. John Winston Howard, M.P.,
Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia,
Parliament house,
Canberra,ACT, 2600.

Dear Prime Minister,

Re: The Right to Trial by jury.

Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury to be the only anchor yet imagined by man which can hold a government to the principles of its constitution.".

"Governments are instituted to secure the rights of the people.". The most important of those rights is the right to trial by jury granted under Magna Carta "for evermore" and has always been regarded as the "palladium of liberty".

When, in 1988, the federal Parliament asked the Australian voters for permission to exclude contempt of court and court martial from trial by jury, the result was the largest "No" vote ever recorded for a referendum in Australia.

There was no ambiguity in that rejection. There was no hidden meaning or legalistic or corrupted divisiveness in that expression of the will of the people. The people said that contempt of court will not be excluded from trial by jury.

However, State and High Court judges have decided that an Australian citizen will not have the right of pleading before a jury.

Judges not only offend against the will of the people but they offend against the Charters of Liberty including the petition of Right 1628 which is a Constitutional Enactment and law in Australia by virtue of the Imperial Acts Application Acts.

The Petition of Right says quite clearly that "awards, doings and proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the premises (eg. The right to trial by jury in Magna Carta) shall not be drawn into consequence or example". But that is exactly what Australian judges are doing.

The Petition of Right protects itself and our inherited and inalienable rights against any "knavish tricks" (words from "God Save the Queen") to divest us of them.

The judges have handed down rulings that contempt of court does not receive trial by jury. Then they draw those instances into "consequence and example" to maintain this aspect of the law to their own exclusive domain.

Therefore, under our laws, the judges are guilty of offences under section 43 of the Imperial Acts Application Act which carries the penalty of "not more than five years imprisonment...".

I have said in the high Court of Australia that, "Judges must never be given nor allowed to assume absolute power whereby they can conceal their own incompetence, corruption and treachery.".

The charge of contempt of court deals with the administration of justice. By denying citizens the right to trial by jury, the judges are denying a tribunal of the people the right, duty and responsibility to determine whether justice is being administered by a judge or judges.

Sovereignty in Australia, as strongly declared by International Law, lies with the people of Australia.

Judges are not above the people nor the law.

As Prime Minister, your government is "instituted to secure the rights of the people". And, in order to be able to appeal to the United Nations' Human Rights Commission under the Optional Protocol of its Covenant, all domestic remedies have to have been exhausted.

The typical response I get to a request to intervene is that of a negative nature. However, this issue has taken on such importance that Australia's credibility as a democratic nation in the eyes of the world is in serious peril.

In my case, I went to the Supreme Court of New South Wales in 1996 with a Statement of Claim that, because "variable" means uncertain and "certain" means not variable, that variable interest rates render those loan contracts void for uncertainty.

The ruling by Master Greenwood was that "the rate itself is indeed certain".

A more ridiculous and blatant lie there can never be. This lie was maintained through to and including the High Court of Australia where Sir Daryl Dawson refused to answer my direct question of "Does variable mean uncertain?".

The effect of judges telling the truth would have been to establish a precedent whereby victims of those loans would be entitled to restitution because the court would have recognised the fraudulent reality of those contracts.

Banks would have to return the money they have taken by that false representation because taking money by fraud is stealing.

Australian judges do not want a tribunal of the people to judge this issue. This is especially grave now because of the obvious corruption on the part of the judges to conceal the fraud.

I said in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 9th November, 1999, when I was convicted by Wood CJ for contempt of court without trial by jury, that "Trial by jury is the only protection the people have against judicial corruption."

This is because I have tried ever other avenue including higher courts, the Judicial Commission of New South Wales, the Independent Commission Against Corruption, etc., etc., only to encounter what can only be called a "Conspiracy of Silence."

A solicitor once told me, "Judges have all the power.", which means that the people have none. This is intolerable.

If your reply to this letter is that you do "not wish to intervene" or any reference to the judiciary being "independent", then that will be submitted to the United Nations' Commission for human Rights in Geneva.

I sincerely hope that your response will be as it should be, ie: that you guarantee that this outrage will be redressed and remedied.

Yours sincerely,

.....John Wilson...
John Wilson.
Inmate No: 282529