27. Affidavit 15 (Willson) 6 November 2000

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
NEW SOUTH WALES
SYDNEY REGISTRY
COMMON LAW DIVISION

File No: 20137/00

AFFIDAVIT
Deponent: John Wilson
Sworn:  6th Nov 2000
Filed for: John Wilson.

JOHN WILSON
Plaintiff

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Defendant

Applicant:John Wilson,
of:19 Elm Place,
North Rocks,
NSW, 2151.
Tel:(02) 9630 2618.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
SYDNEY REGISTRY
No: 20137 of 2000

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. On Friday morning 3 November 2000, while I was at work, my wife was
served with a "NOTICE TO VACATE" our home at 19 Elm Place, North Rocks from the Office of the Sheriff Annexed hereto and marked "A" is a copy of that "NOTICE TO VACATE".
3. I truly believe that dishonesty on the part of the judges in the Supreme Court
of New South Wales and the High Court of Australia, acting without juries in a matter between myself and the St George Bank Limited, is responsible for this eventuality and that the Crown is vicariously liable for that dishonesty.




OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF
                                                       
Court House,Parramatta
P.O. Box 92 Parrarnatta 2150
Telephone:(02) 9895 4170                           
Facsimile (02) 9895 4174
2 November, 2000

John Wilson, Laraine Joy Wilson, or occupier,
19 Elm Street
North Rocks
NSW 2151

NOTICE TO VACATE


Reference: W.Fryer
Writ of Possession:11203/99

To: John Wilson, Laraine Joy Wilson or occupier,

St George Bank Limited
(Claimant)
versus

John Wilson, Laraine Joy Wilson
(Defendant)

The Sheriff is commanded to place the abovenamed Claimant in possession of the lands and premises described hereunder.

All occupants are hereby warned that they must vacate the premises without delay - in any event not later than 12.3OPM Tuesday 14th November, 2000

otherwise action to evict will proceed without further warning.

Sheriff's Officer.
Court House, Parramatta
LANDS AND PREMISES REFERRED TO

The whole of the land described in Certificate of Title Folio Identifier 116/598683 and known as 19 Elm Street, North Rocks in the State of New South Wales.

28. Affidavit 16 (Willson) 7 November 2000

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
NEW SOUTH WALES
SYDNEY REGISTRY
COMMON LAW DIVISION

File No: 20137/00

AFFIDAVIT
Deponent:John Wilson
Sworn:  7th November ,2000
Filed for: John Wilson.

JOHN WILSON
Plaintiff

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Defendent

Applicant:John Wilson,
of:19 Elm Place,
North Rocks,
NSW, 2151.
Tel:(02)9630 2618
.
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
SYDNEY REGISTRY
COMMON LAW DIVISION
File No: 20 137/00

AFFIDAVIT

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

1. I am the Deponent.
2. I truly believe that the Supreme Court of New South Wales's Chief Judge at Common Law, The Honourable Justice Wood has violated the Oath of Allegiance and the Judicial Oath. Hereto annexed and marked "A" is a copy of page 18 of the Oaths Act 1900 No 20 setting out the words of the Oath of Allegiance and the Judicial Oath.

3. I truly believe that "be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second" means to do one's duty and be loyal to the cause to which she committed herself at her Coronation. Annexed hereto and marked "B", "C" and "D" are copies of the words and procedures for "IV. The Oath", "V. The Presenting of the Holy Bible" and "VIII. The Presenting of the Spurs and Sword, and the Oblation of the said Sword" from the Coronation Ceremony of Queen Elizabeth the Second.

4.I truly believe that "royal Law" is explained in the Holy Bible in the Book of Matthew, Chapter 22, Verses 35 - 40. Hereto annexed and marked "E" is a copy of page 957 of The Holy Bible, The New King James Version published by The Gideons International in Australia, 1987 Edition, which contains those verses.
                                     *****
"A"

Oaths Act 1900 No 20

Second Schedule     Oath of allegiance
(Sections 3, 4, 5)

I,, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her Heirs and Successors according to law. So help me God.

Third ScheduleOfficial oath
(Section 5)

I,, do swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Victoria in the office of          .So help me God.

Fourth ScheduleJudicial oath
(Section 5)

I,, do swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria in the office of      and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the State of New South Wales without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. So help me God.

Fifth Schedule Executive Councillor's oath
(Section 5)

I,, being chosen and admitted of Her Majesty's Executive Council in New South Wales, do swear that I will to the best of my judgment at all times when thereto required freely give my counsel and advice to the Governor or officer Administering the Government of New South Wales for the time being for the good management of the public affairs of New South Wales, that I will not directly or indirectly reveal such matters as shall be debated in council and committed to my secrecy, but that I will in all things be a true and faithful councillor. So help me God.
                                       *************

"B"

IV. The Oath

The Queen having returned to her Chair (her Majcsty having alrcady on Tuesday, the 4th day of November, 1952, in thc presence of thc two Houses of Parliament, made and signed the Declaration prescribed by Act of Parliament), the Archbishop standing before her shall administer the Coronation Oath,first asking the Queen,

Madam, is your Majesty willing to take the Oath?
 And the Queen answering,
I am willing.

The Archbishop shall minister these questions; and the Queen, having a book in her hands, shall answer each question severally as follows:

Archbishop : Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern lreland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

Queen:I solemnly promise so to do.

Archbishop: Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be execute in all your judgements?

  Queen:I will.

Archbishop: Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England ? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

"C"

Queen: All this I promise to do.

Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of all the people to observe the promisses laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible (which was before carried in the processlon and is now brought from
the Altar by the Archbishop, and .tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and saving these words:

The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.

Then the Queen shall kiss the Book and sign the Oath. And a Silver standish

The Queen having thus taken her Oath shall return again to her Chair, and the Bible shall be delivered to the Dean of Westminster.

V. The Presenting of the Holy Bible

When the Queen is again seated, the Archbishop shall go to her .Chair:and the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, receiving the Holy Bible from the Dean of Westminster, shall bring it to the Queen and present it to her, thc Archbishop saying these words:

OUR gracious Queen: to keep your Majesty ever mindful of the Law and the Gospel of God as the Rule for the whole life and Government of Christian Princes, we present you with this Book, the most valuable thing that this world affords.

And the Moderator shall continue:

Here is Wisdom; This is the royal Law; These are the lively Oracles of God.

Then shall the Queen deliver back the Bible to the Moderator who shall bring it to the Dean of Westminster, to be reverently placed again upon the Altar. This done, the Archbishop shall return to the Altar.

                                ****************************
"D"

This prayer being ended, the Queen shall arise and sit down again in King Edward's Chair, while the Knights of the Garter bear away the pall; whereupon the Queen again arising, the Dean of Westminster, assisted by the Mistress of the Robes, shall put upon her Majesty the Colobium Sindonis and the Supertunica or Close Pall of cloth of gold, together with a Girdle of the same. Then shall the Queen again sit down; and after her, the people also.

VIII. The Presenting of the Spurs and Sword, and the Oblation of the said Sword

The Spurs shall be brought from the Altar by the Dean of Westminster, and delivered to the Lord Great Chamberlain; who, kneeling down, shall present them to the Queen, who forthwith sends them back to the Altar.

Then the Lord who carries the Sword of State, delivering to the Lord Chamberlain the said Sword (which Is thereupon deposited in Saint Edward's Chapel) shall receive from the Lord Chamberlain, in lieu there-of another Sword in a scabbard which he shall deliver to the Archbishop and the Archbishop shall lay it on the Altar and say:

HEAR our prayers, 0 Lord, we beseech thee, and so direct and support thy servant Queen ELIZABETH, that she may not bear the Sword in vain ; but may use it as the minister of God for the terror and punishment of evildoers, and for the protection and encouragement of those that do well, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Then shall the Archbishop take the Sword from off the Altar, and (the Archbishop of York and the Bishops of London and Winchester and other Bishops assisting and going along with him) shall deliver it into the Queen's hands; and, the Queen holding it, the Archbishop shall say:

RECEIVE this kingly Sword, brought now from the Altar of God, and delivered to you by the hands of us the Bishops and servants of God, though unworthy. With this Sword do justice, stop the growth of iniquity, protect the holy Church of God, help and defend widows and orphans, restore the things that are gone to decay, maintain the things that are restored, punish and reform what is amiss, and confirm what is in good order: that doing these things you may be glorious in all virtue; and so faithfully serve our Lord Jesus Christ in this life, that you may reign for ever with him in the life which is to come. Amen.

                                ---------------------------------------
"E"

MATTHEW 22, 23

35.Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying,
36."Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"
37.Jesus said to him, "You shall love the LORD, your God with all your heart, with all your souls, and all your mind.'
38."This is the first and great commandment.
39."And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'
40."on these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

29. Affidavit 17 (Willson) 4 December 2000

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
NEW SOUTH WALES
SYDNEY REGISTRY
COMMON LAW DWISION

File No: 20137/00

AFFIDAVIT
Deponent:John Wilson
Sworn: 4th December 2000
Filed for: John Wilson.

JOHN WILSON
Plaintiff

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Defendant


Applicant:John Wilson,
of:19 Elm Place,
North Rocks,
NSW, 2151.
Tel:(02)9630 2618
.
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
SYDNEY REGISTRY

COMMON LAW DIVISION
File No: 20 137/00

AFFIDAVIT

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

1.  I am the Deponent.

2. In the Supreme Court of New South Wales on Thursday, 9 November 2000, Acting Justice Carruthers adjourned this matter pending the outcome of his suggestion for "pro bono" advice through the provisons of Part 66A of the Supreme Court Rules. He made out an Order to that effect.

3. Nirida Johnson, the Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court of New South Wales arranged for such advice from a barrister by the name of Mr. Kim Morressey and a solicitor by the name of Mr. Chris. Watson.

4. The advice from Mr Morressey was faxed to me by Mr Watson on Friday, 24th November 2000.

5. 1 wrote a letter to the Nirida Johnson on 27th November 2000 saying I had received and read the advice which 1 consider to be "no good". Annexed hereto and marked "A" is a copy of that three page letter to the Nirida Johnson.

6. The matter of Expedition of this mailer is one of the utmost urgency because of the threatening Notice to Vacate which is annexed to an Affidavit I filed in Court on 9 November 2000 to Acting Justice Carruthers.

7. The matter of Expedition is also of great importance to the whole community for the resolution of the question of bank fraud in the banks creation of money from "thin air". This issue impacts directly on the complete administration of Justice.

8. In regard to the issue of banks creating money, 1 have been sent, via email, a large scanned picture which I have transcribed for the convenience of the Court. Annexed hereto and marked "B" is a copy of that transcript.

             
331 North Rocks Road,
North Rocks, 2151
27th November, 2000.

Nirida Johnson,
Principal Registrar,
Supreme Court of New South Wales,
Queen's Square,
Sydney, 2000.

Dear Principal Registrar,

Re:"Pro bono" Panel re John Wilson -v-State of New South Wales.

Thanks but no thanks.

You appointed 2 lawyers in response to Acting justice Carruthers' certificate for "pro bono assistance". Mr Chris Watson, solicitor, faxed to me the "advice" from Mr Kim Morressey, barrister, and it was no good. I certainly do not intent to allow either of these gentlemen to represent me in any of these proceedings.

You may be interested to hear of some "advice" given to me, over the telephone a few weeks ago, by Mr. John McDonnell, Senior Solicitor for Crown Solicitor, who said he would be representing the Crown against me in the District Court of New South Wales at Parramatta in a taxation matter. He said, "You do not talk about the truth in courts of law.". This, plus Mr. Morressey's "advice", reflects the quality of training received by the legal profession. It requires intelligence, conscience and courage to go against such indoctrination.

You may also be interested in a leaflet, hereto annexed, regarding the plight of our farmers. The suggestion is that farmers should go to court, as I am having to do, to resolve their problem because I truly believe courts are for the administration ofjustice. Unfortunately, lawyers have no concept of justice. Fortunately, fully informed juries have the power to do right.

One of the recipients of copies of this letter will be Acting Justice Carruthers. If he does not act to expedite proceedings, then I will file another Notion of Motion to that effect.

Yours sincerely,

John Wilson.

Cc to:Mr Kim Morressey, Mr Chris Watson, Acting Justice Kenneth
Carruthers, Mrs Natalie Adams.

PRESS RELEASE:

THE PLIGHT OF FARMERS & ITS SOLUTION:
The floods are a disaster threatening financial ruin.
The floods will pass but the financial ruin is permanent.

The SOLUTION is simple:-
I. cancel all bank debt, arid
2. return to the farmers all monies the banks have taken from them, plus 20%.

Why cancel the debt? Because the money the banks gave to the farmers was "created out of thin air" in the first place, ie: the loans were fraud and the farmers, along with the rest of us, are victims of a monstrous swindle.

Why the additional 20%? Because Leviticus (6: 2-5) says so.

The EFFECT from this righting of wrongs means that the destitute farmers are relieved of the criminal debt imposed upon them. They are also able to wait for the floods to subside arid start again with their own money.

The farmers must take their destiny into their own hands and state their claim. If the banks don't co-operate, then the Statement of Claim for Tort should be filed in the Supreme Court - citing the particular bank as the First Defendant and the Crown as the Second Defendant because the public servants (for whom the Crown has vicarious liability), eg: parliamentarians and judges, have aided and abetted in the wrong.
The ALTERNATIVE? The banks will get richer and the farmers destroyed.
 It's time!
- Written by J. Wilson, PO Box 4520, North Rocks, NSW, 2151.
                        ******

IN JUSTICE COURT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
TOWNSHIP OF CREDIT RIVER

JUSTICE MARTIN V. MAHONEY

First National Bank of Montgomery,
Plaintiff
vs

Jerome Daly
Defendant

JUDGMENT AND DECREE

The above entitled action came on before the Court and a Jury of 12 on December 7,1968 at 10:00 am. Plaintiff appeared by its President Lawrence V. Morgan and was represented by its Counsel R. Mellby. Defendant appeared on his own behalf.

A Jury of Talesmen were called, impaneled and sworn to try the issues in the Case. Lawrence V. Morgan was the only witness called for Plaintiff and Defendant testified as the only witness in his own behalf.

Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the possession of Lot 19 Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minn. Plaintiff claimed title to the Real Property in question by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed dated May 8,1964 which Plaintiff claimed was in default at the time foreclosure proceedings were started.

Defendant appeared and answered that the Plaintiff created the money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry as the consideration for the Note and Mortgage of May 8,1964 and alleged failure of the consideration for the Mortgage Deed and alleged that the Sheriffs sale passed no title to plaintiff.

The issues tried to the Jury were whether there was a lawful consideration and whether Defendant had waived his rights to complain about the consideration having paid on the Note for almost 3 years.

Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private Bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this. Plaintiff further claimed that Defendant by using the ledger book created credit and by paying on the Note and Mortgage waived any right to complain about the Consideration and that the Defendant was estopped from doing so.

At 12:15 on December 7,1968 the Jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendant.

Now therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of United States and the Constitution and the laws of the State of Minnesota not inconsistent therewith

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1. That the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of Lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota according to the Plat thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office.
2. That because of failure of a lawful consideration the Note and Mortgage dated May 8,1964 are null and void.                                            
3. That the Sheriffs sale of the above described premises held on June 26,1967 is null and void, of no effect.
4. That the Plaintiff has no right title or interest in said premises or lien thereon as is above described.
5. That any provision in the Minnesota Constitution and any Minnesota Statute binding the jurisdiction of this Court is repugnant to the Constitution of the united States and to the Bill of Rights of the Minnesota Constitution and is null and void and that this Court has jurisdiction to render complete Justice in this Cause.
6. That the Defendant is awarded costs in the sum of $75.00 and excecution is hereby issued therefore.
7. A 10 day stay is granted.
8. The following memorandum and any supplementary memorandum made and
filed by this Court in support of this Judgment is hereby made a part hereof by
reference.

Dated December 9,1968
BY THE COURT
MARTIN V. MAHONEY
Justice of the Peace
Credit River Township
Scott County, Minnesota

MEMORANDUM

The issues in this case were simple. There was no material dispute of the facts for the Jury to resolve.

Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of their interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire $14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8,1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and tendered to support the Note. See Ansheuser-Busch Brewing Company v. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318, 46 NW. 558. The Jury found that there was no consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing.

Even if Defendant could be charged with waiver or estoppel as a matter of Lawthis is no defense to the Plaintiff. The Law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them. See sections 50, 51 and 52 of Am Jur 2nd 'Actions' on page 584 - "no action will lie to recover on a claim based upon, or in any manner depending upon, a fraudulent, illegal, or immoral transaction or contract to which Plaintiff was a party.

Plaintiffs act of creating credit is not authorized by the Constitution and Laws of the United States, is unconstitutional and void, and is not a lawful consideration in the eyes of the Law to support any thing or upon which any lawful right can be built.

Nothing in the Constitution of the United States limits the jurisdiction of this Court, which is one of original Jurisdiction with right of trial by Jury guaranteed. This is a Common Law action. Minnesota cannot limit or impair the power of this Court to render Complete Justice between the parties. Any provisions in the Constitution and laws of Minnesota which attempt to do so is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and void. No question as to the Jurisdiction of this Court was raised by either party at the trial. Both parties were given complete liberty to submit any and all facts to the Jury, at least in so far as they saw fit.

No complaint was made by Plaintiff that Plaintiff did not receive a fair trial. From the admissions made by Mr. Morgan the path of duty was direct and clear for the Jury. Their Verdict could not reasonably been otherwise. Justice was rendered
completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, freely and without purchase, conformable to the laws in this Court of December 7,1968.

December 9,1968

BY THE COURT
MARTIN V. MAHONEY
Justice of the Peace
Credit River Township
Scott County, Minnesota.

Note: It has never been doubted that a Note given on a Consideration which is prohibited by law is void. It has been determined, independent of Acts of Congress, that sailing under the license of an enemy is illegal. The emission of Bills of Credit upon the books of these private Corporations for the purpose of private gain is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States and is unlawful. See Craig v. Mo. 4 Peters Reports 912. This Court can tread only that path which is marked out by duty. M.V.M.

FORWARD: The above Judgment was entered by the Court on Decemebr 9, 1968. The issue there was simple - Nothing is the law gave the Banks the right to create money on their books. The Bank filed a Notice of Appeal within 10 days. The Appeals statutes must be strictly followed, otherwise the District Court does not acquire Jurisdiction upon Appeal. To effect the Appeal the Bank had to deposit $2.00 with the Clerk within 10 days for payment to the Justice of the Peace when he made his return to the District Court. The Bank deposited two $1.00 Federal Reserve Notes. The Justice refused the Notes and refused to allow the Appeal upon the grounds that the Notes were unlawful and void for any purpose. The Decision is addressed to the legality of these Notes and the Federal Reserve System. The Cases of Edwards v. Kearnzey and Craig vs Missouriset out in the decision should be studied very carefully as they bear on the inviolability of Contracts. This is the Crux of the whole issue. Jerome Daly