CHAPTER 5 TRIAL BY JURY
That is what the judges really fear.
In December of 1997 I employed a solicitor who bluntly said, "Judge shave all the power.". "Power corrupts". Never has that adage been more appropriate than here and now.
After the Master Greenwood judgment I made up a leaflet which I faxed to probably 50 or so persons from the Governor-General down. The leaflet said:
THE SUPREME COURT IS CORRUPT. MASTER TERENCE GREENWOOD OF THE COMMON-LAW DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES IS CORRUPT AND A TRAITOR.
PROOF IS HIS RULING IN CASE No. 20680/96 (JOHN WILSON v. St. George BANK).).
MASTER GREENWOOD ACCEPTED THAT, BECAUSE OF INDETERMINATE CHANGES IN INTEREST RATES, THE
COST OF A LOAN TO A BORROWER COULD NOT BE KNOWN BUT DECLARED THAT THIS DID NOT CONSTITUTE UNCERTAINTY OF TERMS WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE RENDER A CONTRACT VOID UNDER COMMON LAW, I.E.: HE RULED IN FAVOUR OF THE BANKS DEFRAUDING THE
PEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA.
John Wilson, P.O. Box 4520, North Rocks, NSW 2151 (18/9/96).
but the only response I got was to be visited by two uniformed policemen to tell me I shouldn't be doing that sort of thing. They were curious to know what was behind the seemingly irrational behaviour and I explained how the banks were operating their fraud with the protection of the courts. Once they understood what my motives were, they wished me all the best and wanted to know if I was the only person trying to do anything about it.
As the hearings continued, I produced more and more leaflets accusing the judges of corruption and challenging them to put me in front of a jury. Their silence was deafening.
When the Bulletin article came up and the journalists would not retract, I filed in the Supreme Court on 17th June, 1997 for Defamation (which has to have a jury). On 30th June, 1997 Judge Levine said to me that I was "dangerously close to pleading a cause of action in defamation but ((that I was) not quite there" and asked that I amend the Statement of Claim which I did do. However, on 25th July, 1997, Judge Levine said my amended Statement was "embarrassing and vexatious" and he struck it out thereby eliminating the possibility of the whole sordid affair (including the conduct of the judges) being brought before a jury.
"Judges have all the power."
On 24th July, 1997 I filed another Statement of Claim in the Supreme Court saying "I am the victim of a terrible civil wrong, i.e. tort, where a succession of members of the judiciary have lied, supported lies and concealed the truth with the result that the course of justice has been perverted."
On 4th August, 1997 Registrar Irwin did not strike out the action but sent myself and the opposition to the Duty Judge, a Judge Barr, who seta hearing date. I asked for a jury, in line with paragraph 3 of my Statement under "The Plaintiff Claims" when I said, "A trial by jury is the only acceptable method of determination in this case because of the number of members of the judiciary who are the defendants", but Judge Barr said there was "no jury available".
On 25th August, 1997 Mr. Acting Justice Murray heard the proceedings. After repeated requests he allowed me to read a prepared address to the court. He did not dismiss the case there and then but reserved his judgment. Here is what I said to the court:
ADDRESS TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES:
(Monday, 25th August, 1997)
Your Honour, the seven defendants have abandoned common law.
The case I brought against the St.George Bank was on the basis that, under
common law, there must be certainty of terms for a contract to becreated.
The loan contract in question was for seven years with the first five years being at a fixed interest rate of 9.9% and the final two years to be either at a fixed rate
which would be applicable at that time or at a variable rate applicable at that time.
I claimed that neither of the two alternatives for the final two years were certain at the time the contract was made and they remain
uncertain. Therefore, I asked the court to sever that part of the contract because it was void under common law. It was not a contract for a loan at a fixedprice.
"Certainty" means that which is absolutely assured, regular, fixed. And the "terms" of a contract means the conditions, stipulations, charge, price, rate of payment. Whereas "variable" means apt to change, changeable, uncertain.
The first Defendant, Master Greenwood, said in his judgment that ""the rate itself is indeed certain". However, the rate for the final two years is either variable or uncertain.
A "lie" is an intentional violation of the truth.
Master Greenwood's lying judgment has been supported, in turn, by the other six defendants.
During the course of proceedings from the Common Law Division of the New South Wales Supreme Court through to the High Court of Australia I filed 24 documents with Affidavits, etc., repeating the same theme of the common law requirement of certainty of terms and pointing out that making out a contract with variable interest rates or, in other words, uncertain of terms to be a valid contract is false representation or fraud and that taking money by fraud is stealing.
All this the seven defendants dismissed.
They have committed a terrible civil wrong.
They are not immune from civil action for their offence because they have abused the process of the court and the function of a court is toad minister justice.
I would like to quote from Lord Denning (and this quote appears in my Statement of Claim): "In a civilised society, legal process is the machinery for keeping order and doing justice. It can be used properly or it can be abused. It is used properly when it is invoked for the vindication ofmen's rights or the enforcement of just causes. It is abused when it is diverted from its true course so as to achieve an improper end. When it is so abused, it is a tort, a wrong known to the law. The judges can and will intervene to stop it. They will stay the legal process, if they can, before any harm is done. If they cannot stop it in time, and harm is done, they will give damages against the wrong doer.".
The solicitors for the defendants have supplied me with some precedents which deal with the issue of immunity and I would like to quote passages from these documents.
In the case of Gallo v Dawson where Wilson J said, "if the judge has accepted bribes or been in the least degree corrupt, or has perverted the course of justice, he can be punished in the criminal courts."
Here I would like to quote from Halsbury's Laws of Australia on the subject of a judge being "immune from suit in respect of acts done ...in the performance of judicial duties ...". It says that "A judge acts in the performance of his or her judicial duties when acting in the bona fide exercise of office and under the belief that he or she has jurisdiction."
The words, "bona fide", mean in good faith or having honest intentions.
From the text of Rajski v Powell and another Kirby P said, "Suchimmunity rests, as it has been said, upon consideration of public policy."
"Public policy" means in the interest of the community.
Lying, supporting lies and concealing the truth cannot be considered to be "acting in the bona fide exercise of office" nor in the interests of the community.
Also from Rajski v Powell and another, Kirby P refers to ""redress, through the Judicial Commission".
I have tried that path with a complaint against Master Greenwood (thatis Annexure "A" in the Affidavit I filed on 12 August, 1997) only to be rejected by a panel of more judges.
In order to seek redress, I also wrote to the Governor-General of Australia on the 25th April, 1997 only to be turned away with the comment that the Governor-General "cannot intervene".
I sent a petition to Her Majesty the Queen on the 9th May, 1997 only to be rejected with the comment that "she is unable to take any direct action on (my) behalf".
And again, from Rajski v Powell and another, Kirby P quotes from an 1811 case in America of Yates v Yansing when Platt Sr said: "Let usbeware that in our zeal for securing personal liberty we do not destroy the virtuous independence and rightful authority of our courts of justice, and thereby subvert the foundations of social order. So long as our courts are pure, enlightened and independent, we shall enjoy that greatest of earthly blessings, a government of laws; but whenever these tribunals shall cease to deserve that character, the standard of justice and civil liberty must give place to the sceptre of a tyrant."
"The sceptre of a tyrant"!
These seven defendants have sacrificed truth, law, justice and the rights of the people to appease a tyrant. They have not acted "judicially".
The tyrant, of course, is in the form of the banks.
The Royal coat of arms and the Australian coat of arms have been displaced by bank logos.
Proof of the power of the tyrant was seen in the repealing of an important Statute Law in 1981. The Moneylenders and Infants Loans Act of 1941, which stated that "a loan contract shall show ... the total amount of interest to be paid" and outlawed compound interest and penalty interest rates, was repealed and a Consumer Credit Act passed to allow the terms of a contract to be varied by the lender.
This was and remains a violation of common law.
The fraud has persisted and this is what the banks now call a ""contract" I will read from a letter from a major bank where it says:
"Under the
contract, the annual percentage rate, the interest free period, the minimum repayment, and the fees and charges may all vary without your consent. New fees or charges may also be introduced without your consent."
Such a document is no contract.
The banks have trampled common law and these seven judges have abandoned it.
What is at the heart of this case is a fight for democracy and against the tyranny of the banks.
Many, many people know what I am doing farmers, policemen, bank employees and they wish me good luck while telling me that I can't win because the banks won't allow it.
It is the simplest of cases. I don't know the price of a loan and nobody can tell me because the terms of the contract were not fixed when the transaction was made.
If the courts were "pure", that is not corrupt, my application for severance of the part of the contract which is void by common law should have been granted in the first instance.
But that didn't happen. I have attempted appeals to higher and higher authorities and it has still not been remedied to this point in time.
The entire system stands condemned in the eyes of the people.
That can be turned around and hope can be restored.
Or the corruption can be further entrenched by yet another denial of truth, law, justice and right.
These seven judges gave orders against me to pay the bank's
costs for which I have been sent a demand from their solicitors for $32,917.72.
I ask this court for an order against the defendants for damages and costs and an amount of $32,917.72 to compensate me for the injury they have caused to me.
If there is any doubt in the mind of this court as to whether the defendants are guilty, then I would simply like to say that:
1. Variable does mean uncertain.
2. Uncertainty does not mean certainty.
I have been denied common law and I have been denied natural justice.
John Wilson
Ten days later a message was left on my answering machine at work asking me to attend court the next day to hear the decision.
On 5th September, 1997, in the King Street annex of the Supreme Court, I attended but there was no representative from the other side. Wasting no time, the judge dismissed
the case and I hit him with a small plastic bag containing a quantity of yellow paint. I was taken into custody and nine and a half hours later was charged under section 326 of the Crimes Act 1900 which says: "A person
who threatens to do or cause, or who does or causes, any injury or detriment to any person on account of anything lawfully done by a person: ... (b) as a judicial officer ... is liable to penal servitude for 10 years.".
My defence is, of course, that the "judicial officer" had betrayed his Oath of Office and what he did was unlawful, i.e.: criminal.
I was released on bail to appear at the Downing Centre Local Court on 26 September, 1997. The solicitor for the Public Prosecutor asked for an adjournment because they had not fully their brief. That solicitor did, however, tell the court that I was a "danger to the community" and asked that the terms of the bail be increased in their severity. I had nothing in those three weeks to justify such action. I had complied with the conditions set down not to go within 500 metres of the Supreme Court nor approach any members of the judiciary. I said changing the conditions was unfair but the Magistrate Williams imposed the additional burden which caused me to be imprisoned at Silverwater for two days until a friend came up with the $5,000 surity and I could be with my family and go back to work.
According to section 34 of the Crimes Act 1914 it is an offence for a judge or magistrate, "without reasonable excuse", to act oppressively in setting terms of bail. The penalty is "imprisonment for two years".
The solicitor for the Public Prosecutor, in his attack on me, held up and read from one of my leaflets in which I accused the seven judges of being corrupt and said they should be disbarred and imprisoned. I told Magistrate Williams that it was what the judges had done that had been responsible for the paint bomb. He said I would not be allowed to use anything of the sort in my defence at a trial. I answered by saying that a trial was when "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" must be heard.
I composed a leaflet (which I distributed) explaining why I threw the paint at a judge. The following is that two-page leaflet:
PRESS RELEASE:
Why did I throw paint at a Judge?
In contempt of court? Absolutely not!
To fight the corruption of our courts? Absolutely yes!
A court is "a body established by laws for the adminstration of justice by judges and magistrates". When the courts have been corrupted andare used against the people, democracy is lost.
My name is John Wilson and I am a 55-year-old Australian. In July 1996,I took a case to the Supreme Court of New South Wales claiming ""severance" or the cutting out of a bad part out of a loan contract. Under common law there must be "certainty of terms" to have a valid contract. ""Variable", by definition and in reality, means uncertain and the price or charge ((the terms) of a loan is not fixed. Therefore, contracts with variable interest rates are invalid for uncertainty.
However, the Supreme Court judge declared, "Thus whilst the amount of the future rate is uncertain, the rate itself is indeed certain." and dismissed the claim. This judge did not simply lie when he said "the rate itself is indeed certain", he concealed the serious offence (Crimes Act, section 316) of banks obtaining money by fraud (Crimes Act, section 178BB). He also perverted the course of justice (Crimes Act, section 312) because if the court, as it should, declares that variable interest rates render a contract void for uncertainty then past victims of this form of stealing would be entitled to restitution (the return of property or money) and future victims would be spared.
Subsequent appeals through the court system, up to and including the High Court of Australia, upheld the corrupt ruling and those judges made themselves party to those same crimes against the Commonwealth. The Judicial Commission of New South Wales dismissed a complaint against the first judge. The Governor-General refused to "intervene" and returned a petition with the comment that "the Queen is unable to take any direct action". Even the Police Department of New South Wales would not listen to the claim of corruption in the judiciary nor the issue of bank fraud and would not allow me an appointment to see the Commissioner. All of this amounts to massive concealment by the authorities, i.e.: a cover up.
In 1997, I went back to the Supreme Court claiming seven judges had" lied, supported lies and concealed the truth", yet another judge dismissed the claim saying I was "vexatious" (annoying) again concealing the serious offences.
Frustration at the total corruption of our system of law and justice meant that something had to be done to break out of the clutches or stranglehold maintained by the judges who were not only protecting fraud but each other. But this judge caused me to hold out a glimmer of hope because, at the first hearing when I presented my verbal argument, he did not immediately dismiss my claims but reserved his judgment to go away and consider the sistuation saying he would let me know when he had made up his mind. However, when I was called to return for his ruling eleven days later, no representative was there from the solicitors for the seven judges to hear the decision which indicated collusion (a secret understanding). When the judge smiled and dismissed the claim, I threw a plastic bag containing yellow paint which made a 7 mm stain on the judge's suit. If the judge was doing "alawful thing", causing an injury or detriment to him and an indictable offence and I am liable to a penalty of ten years imprisonment and the destruction of my own life. But the banks have destroyed countless numbers of Australian lives by their fraudulent contracts and those crimes are being covered up by judges who are supposed to be administering law and justice but who are, in fact, accomplices. The entire situation is gravely serious and the way of a jury trial is our last hope.
When truth and justice are gone, so is democracy.
Proceedings were being gone through working towards a jury trail on the charge under s.326 of The Crimes Act 1900 of causing a detriment to a judicial officer but have been adjourned or delayed because on 20th October, 1997 a Summons was left with my receptionist ordering me to appear in the Supreme Court on 27th October, 1997 to face a charge of Contempt of Court.
There have been the usual preliminary hearings and on 17th November, 1997 I said that I must have a trial by jury but Judge Studdert replied, "You do not get a trial by jury.".
Now we start the fight for one's right to trial by jury.
The following is the text of an Affidavit supporting a Requisition for Trial by Jury:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES
SYDNEY REGISTRY
File No.: 12914 of 1997
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.I truly believe it is my right as a subject of the Queen and an Australian citizen to have a trial by jury for the charge of Contempt of Court because:
((a) The MAGNA CARTA, CAP. XXIX says: "NO freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or his liberties, or freecustoms, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any other wise destroyed, norwill we pass upon him nor condemn him (a, unless by the lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay, Right or Justice." This is found in Annexure"A".
((b) The CONFIRMATIO CARTARUM, CAP. II says: "AND we will, that ifany Judgments be given from henceforth contrary to the Points of the Charters aforesaid by the Justices, or by any other Officers that hold the Plea before them against the Points of the Charters, they shall be undone, and holden for nought." This is found in Annexure "B".
((c) The AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION (63 and 64 Vict.), Commonwealth of Australia(CH 12) Constitution Act s.80 says: "The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, ...".This is found in Annexure "C".
((d) Clause 5 of the CONSTITUTION ACT says: "This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and the people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State: ...". This is found in Annexure "D".
((e) Clause 3 of the CONSTITUTION ACT proclaimed "that ... the people of New South Wales, Victoria (etc) ... shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia." This is found in Annexure "E".
(f)A PROPOSED LAW attempted to exclude contempt of court from trial by jury, passed by both Houses of the Parliament and submitted to the voters by way of a referendum in 1988, said: "80. (1) The trial of a person for an offence, where the accused is liable to imprisonment for more than two years or any form of corporal punishment, shall be by jury except in the case of a trial for contempt of court or a trial of a member of the Defence Force of the Commonwealth before a court martial ...". This if sound in Annexure "F". The published "NO case" said: ""The trial by jury proposal is similarly and hopelessly flawed, and would undermine our existing rights enshrined for seven centuries since Magna Carta. At present, a person charged with any serious offence has the right to a jury trial. This proposal would enshrine in our Constitution lower standards of rights than Australians already have". The proposal was rjected in every State. This is found in Annexure "G".
3. On the day of the incident, 5/9/97, I was charged under the Crimes Act 1900, Section 326 (1)(B). Six weeks later, on the 20/10/97, I received a Summons to appear in the Supreme Court on 27/10/97 to answer the charge of Contempt of Court.
4. On the first charge, being dealt with in the Downing Centre Local Court, proceedings have advanced to the Paper Committal stage for a trial by jury. However, on the day set for the Paper Committal (27/11/97), the solicitor for Public Prosecutions asked that it not go ahead "in light of the outcome of the contempt matter". I truly believe that I cannot be tried twice under the Double Jeopardy rule and that "Right or Justice" must not be "denied or delayed" by delaying proceedings on a first charge while denying my right to a trial by jury for a second charge.
5. On 3/12/97, in the Supreme Court, the Crown Solicitor handed me documents relating to a 1984 case involving Mr. Michael Willesee in which the judgment claimed that trial by jury for contempt of court was ""obsolete". However, in Annexure "H", the MAGNA CARTA, CAP. I says: "We have granted also, (and given) to all the freemen of our realm, for us and our Heirs for evermore, (all the) liberties underwritten, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of us and our Heirs, for evermore." Therefore, this, with the Australian Constitution and the 1988 referendum and the Confirmatio Cartarum, establishes the fact that trial by jury for contempt of court cannot be made obsolete.
Sworn at on, 1997 before me
(Justice of the Peace/Solicitor)
The Crimes Act 1900, under "Part 4 OFFENCES RELATING TO PROPERTY, CHAPTER 1 Stealing and like offences", includes "Obtaining money, etc.,., by false or misleading statements 178BB" which carries the penalty of "imprisonment for five years" or even "Inducing persons to enter into certain arrangements by misleading, etc. statements, etc., 185A".
As explained earlier, making out a contract with uncertainty of terms to be a valid contract is false representation or fraud and taking money by fraud is stealing.
Each and every time my case came before a court the documents, in the form of Affidavits with their accompanying Annexures, gave clear proof of the fraudulent practice of variable interest rate loan contracts. Each and every time the judges dismissed the evidence.
The Crimes Act 1900, under "PART 7, CHAPTER 2 Interference with the administration of justice", includes "Concealing serious offence316. (1) If a person has committed a serious offence and another person who knows or believes that the offense has been committed and that he or she has information which might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension of the offender or the prosecution or conviction of the offender for it fails without reasonable excuse to bring that information to the attention of a member of the Police Force or other appropriate authority, that other person is liable to imprisonment for two years.".
In the same Act, "perverting the course of justice" is defined in s.312 by saying it refers "to obstructing, preventing, perverting or defeating the course of justice or the administration of the law" and s.316 says: "A person who does any act, or makes any omission, intending in any way to pervert the course of justice, is liable to penal servitude for 14 years.".
As explained earlier, for the course of justice to be followed, the practice of loan contracts with variable interest rates (i.e.: uncertainty of terms) should be declared to be fraudulent which would allow victims to claim restitution for what has been stolen and would prevent the crime happening again in the future.
Site researched and written by J. Wilson jhwilson@acay.com.au and is best viewed with a screen resolution of 600 x 800ppi
or better, using Netscape or MSIE version 4.0 browsers or higher. © 2000
.