THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
GROVE J
MONDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 2002
10088/02 - JOHN WILSON V THE HONOURABLE ROBERT JOHN CARR MP
Plaintiff in person
Mr N.A. Nicholls, Solicitor, for the defendant
APPLICATION TO HAVE MATTER REFERRED FOR TRIAL BY JURY
(Mr Nicholls informed his Honour that he opposed Mr Wilson's application.)
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, it has been indicated to me by the solicitor opposing you that he wishes to have your application summarily
rejected. I assume you oppose that and I will, therefore, hear argument about it.
WILSON: You do not need to hear argument about it. I have a right to have a trial by jury and you have no right to refuse
me.
HIS HONOUR: I will get back to your matter as I am going to call through the list.
MATTER STOOD DOWN WHILST HIS HONOUR CALLED THROUGH THE LIST
(On one occasion during which his Honour was calling
through the list, consisting of 35 matters, Mr Wilson wished it to be noted that he objected to the delay.)
RESUMPTION
HIS HONOUR: In this matter you are appearing in person?
WILSON: Yes, your Honour. I wish to file a requisition for trial by jury and I have the appropriate fee prescribed.
HIS HONOUR: I will note that you have the fee but I won't accept it.
WILSON: Pardon?
HIS HONOUR: I won't accept it. I will note that you say you have the fee there but I am not a cashier, Mr Wilson.
WILSON: Yes but it is important that a cashier accept the money.
HIS HONOUR: I will defer reading the document. What is this requisition for trial by jury, the requisition to be tried by a jury?
WILSON: To try the case. To try the action. The action which I brought. The action with respect to -------- the Governor of the State of New South Wales. It is an object of controversy. I must have a jury anyway,
because I do not consent otherwise, and also, I have referred to the actual Bill of Rights, because this is an issue of high treason and the Bill of Rights actually says, para 11: "That Jurors ought to be duely
impannelled and returned and jurors which passe upon Men in Trialls for High Treason ought to be Freeholders.".(This was omitted from the Attorney-General's transcript).
HIS HONOUR: Yes. The use of
juries in the State of New South Wales is governed by an Act of parliament called the Jury Act.
WILSON: It cannot be governed. It is a right of every Australian. It is an inalienable right which cannot be
given away. It cannot be taken away. It is a constitutional right. My father was a British subject -
HIS HONOUR: You have raised similar issues on other occasions. It may be of interest for you
to know, if you do not already know, that some of your exchanges with McHugh J in the High Court have been published this month in the Australian Law Journal.
WILSON: I wish to draw your attention to the fact that
trial by jury is a constitutional right, is a constitutional enactment. A constitutional enactment is a law. There it is (indicating on document), it is listed as a constitutional law.
HIS HONOUR: I am sorry, what is it you are trying to show me?
WILSON: You can have a look at it, if you like. It is the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969, No 32. It says: "Second Schedule Part 1
- Constituional Enactments. Magna Carta. Petition of Right." (Left out of A-G transcript). Further down the list we have traditional rights; further down the list we have the Bill of Rights, and so it goes
on. It is a right that Australians have.
HIS HONOUR: The Imperial Acts Application Act is an act of the Parliament of New South Wales. It is currently in force -
WILSON: Are you an not impartial judge, or are you arguing for the defendant?
HIS HONOUR: I am merely indicating to you that when you speak of the Imperial Acts Application Act that it is a statute that is
currently in force.
WILSON: Certainly it is current. The right to trial by jury is granted for every citizen and every issue affecting every citizen in New South Wales may be tried by jury. This is why I
am going through the formality of actually doing the paper work, submitting the requisition, paying the fee but, in reality, that right cannot be denied.
HIS HONOUR: You can sit down, for a moment, Mr
Wilson. Mr Nicholls, you have a motion which you wish to make?
NICHOLLS: Your Honour, I seek to file in court a notice of motion. The notice of motion was supplied to Mr Wilson only this morning. He
is aware that we are proposing to proceed on it in court today.
WILSON: So you accept his motion but you don't accept mine. That is discrimination.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, this is a notice of
motion which is within my jurisdiction. If you can persuade me that these proceedings should go further, then I will consider whether or not they may be tried by a jury.
WILSON: You have no jurisdiction to make that decision.
HIS HONOUR: So you say and if I decide I have jurisdiction to decide that and you say I am wrong, there are ample places you can go to remedy that.
WILSON: That is a typical legal ploy employed by judges and legal counsel. They keep you running around in circles. They keep their distance away from the people. These juries are people. Sovereignty lies
with the people, not with judges, not with the politicians, it lies with the people.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, if you would be good enough to sit down for a moment, Mr Wilson.
(Mr Nicholls addressed his Honour.)
NICHOLLS: The application is made on the pleading itself. There is no evidence. It is our submission that a perusal of the notice of motion will reveal that there is no evidence to support the application and the
proceedings should be dismissed.
HIS HONOUR: A preliminary matter with which I should decide, Mr Wilson, is, first of all, whether or not I should deal with the motion which has been filed in Court instanter, that
is, read now.
WILSON: So you decide your own jurisdiction, do you?
HIS HONOUR: And the second question I decide, in the event that I decide I will deal with the matter, is whether or not your pleadings
disclose a reasonable cause of action.
WILSON: First of all, the jurisdiction of the court must be determined by a jury, not a judge or judge in his own cause. That is natural justice, especially in this case
where there is so much judicial corruption which will come up in the course of evidence. . Are you saying that you have the jurisdiction to decide your own jurisdiction?
HIS HONOUR: I am listening to the submissions
that you wish to make in response to the motion presently before the Court on behalf of the defendant, which have been advanced by Mr Nicholls.
WILSON: So you are judging, you are trying, you are determining the notice of motion?
HIS HONOUR: Yes.
WILSON: Well, you have no jurisdiction to do so.
HIS HONOUR: All right but now you have the opportunity to explain to me why I haven't.
WILSON: There is s 3 of the Supreme Court Procedures Act which says: "In any action by consent" --
HIS HONOUR: Firstly, the Supreme Court Procedures Act of what year?
WILSON: 1900, No 49.
HIS HONOUR: That Act has been repealed.
WILSON: The rights incurred in that Act cannot be changed by any repeal.
HIS HONOUR: This is exactly the proposition McHugh J in the High Court told you was intangible.
WILSON: He is wrong, this is
why it has to be considered by a jury. This is why we have judicial corruption. I will read it out in full: "In any action by consent of both parties the whole or any one or more of the issues of fact in
question may be tried, or the amount of damages or compensation may be assessed by a judge without a j ury."
When you say that that Act has been repealed, you then go to the Interpretations act 1987 No 15 s
30: "The amendment or repeal of an Act or statutory rule does not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liablity acquired, accrued or incurred under the Act or statutory rule." See, you can take a
law off the books but you can't take the rights that have been granted under them.
This right of trial by jury is not peculiar just to this Act. This right to trial by jury goes back 800 years. It was,
indeed, confirmed by Magna Carta. The right actually goes back many hundreds of years before that.
Now, we have a situation where this is an absolute act of treachery which Mr Carr has been instrumental in bringing
before the government. That takes away the right of trial by jury -
HIS HONOUR: What is it you are holding up now?
WILSON: This is the Courts Legislation Amendment (Civil Juries) Act 2001 No
124. This is an act of treachery and this is why I hold Mr Carr responsible for it, because he was the principal adviser when this act, this act of treachery was taken from the parliament and the governor.
HIS
HONOUR: Am I missing some point here? Was not that statute passed by parliament as distinct to Mr Carr personally?
WILSON: That is right, he was involved in that. As a matter of fact, the view was the
same from the government and the opposition. This is why it must be tried by the people. It is the people's right which has been taken away by the treacherous parliament.
HIS HONOUR: But the people have the right to have their say at the poll booths.
WILSON: The fact that common law over-rules statute law was concluded many years ago -
HIS HONOUR: I thought the law was exactly the reverse.
WILSON: You are wrong. You are supposedly a learned jdge. You do not know what you are talking about. It says here: "Lord
Coke" -
HIS HONOUR: I remember him well, he has been dead for a year or two.
WILSON: He said: "Common Law doth control Acts of Parliament and adjudge them when against common right to be
void.". You can't get clearer than that. So this is why the jury must be given the chance to nullify, to make void these bad laws because they take away common right. This is what it is all
about. While ever judges sit in there with their position of false power and deny trial by jury to the people, you have tyranny and this is not justice.
The court is supposed to be a place where justice is
administered. Justice is the protection of rights and the punishment of wrongs. The first law is the protection of rights. Now, if a court does not protect the rights of people, then that court is illegitimate.
The first function of any government is to secure the rights of the people. Any government which takes away the rights of people, does not represent the people, it is an enemy of the people.
So when I get around to
actually presenting my case to a jury, I will require electronic facilities. I will be putting this in as an exhibit to be shown to a jury - it is a video tape made by a Governor of New South Wales, the late Sir David
Martin - and as I have already stated in a summons, I would be producing.that as evidence.
I will also be producing the texts of the Coronation. I have made several extracts which I will be presenting also as far as the
Oath to Queen and country -
HIS HONOUR: This is the Coronation of Elizabeth II?
WILSON: Yes, the Queen of England. It will include -
HIS HONOUR: She is also by Federal statute Queen of Australia.
WILSON: Did you swear your oath as to the Queen of England, or Queen of Australia?
HIS HONOUR: I am asking you whether, when you make
your reference to the Coronation, whether you are aware that she is also the Queen of Australia?
WILSON: Yes, that is why I will be producing it to the jury.
HIS HONOUR: Would you kindly focus at the
moment as to whether or not it should go to a jury. Not what you want to put before a jury but whether or not all the issues should be tried by a jury.
WILSON: The issue is treason and treachery.
HIS
HONOUR: Treason is a crime. Criminal assertions are usually brought before the Court as a result of information being laid, or a charge being laid before a Justice of the Peace, although I am not a
Magistrate; and then there are committal proceedings and when they are dispensed with somebody is committed for trial. Treason is a crime, not a civil wrong.
WILSON: It is a crime against -the
people. Whether it is not a civil wrong, all these nit-picking points, must be determined by a jury. There is another section called the Commonwealth -
HIS HONOUR: I think I have your point and that is
that you say, no matter what issues are raised, there is an entitlement to be tried by a jury.
WILSON: Yes. And this is a section of the Commonwealth Procedures Act 1889, No 1, 259: "A court or judge
may amend any notice of motion, rule nsis, summons, writ, pleading, affidavit, jurat or title of affidavit..." - I will show you it, it is on that page: "A court or ... of the case."
So, therefore
when you are talking about whether it is a civil action or criminal action, all these issues are determined by a jury, because I do not give my consent otherwise. So the whole matter of the rights of the people must be put
to the people. It must be trialled by the people of the country, and to have an elite group determine the rights of the people is just not on, it is no longer a right.
Therefore, the people, it is their country, it
is not the country of the judges or the politicians, it is the people's country and the people have sovereignty. They determine what is the law. They nullify bad laws.
To present my case I must have the
electronic facilities to present my case. For that I require a VCR play-back machine and I need a screen, I need a computer with a monitor to show this to the jury and to the court in general, because it is a public
hearing and people who attend that court are entitled to hear the evidence.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you, Mr Wilson, is that your submission?
WILSON: No. I have more documents to present to a jury substantiating -
HIS HONOUR: We have already been through this. The issue before me is whether or not you go to a jury, not what you want to put
before a jury. If you would kindly address that question.
WILSON: I have already addressed it.
HIS HONOUR: Well, if you have finished, do sit down.
WILSON: When I sit down it has been my
experience with judges that they will just show their bias in a matter --
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, part of my function is to determine issues that are properly before the Court. In this case the issue to be
determined, as you have put it, is whether or not the matter should be referred for trial by jury, and there is also before the Court a motion filed by Mr Nicholls that I dismiss these proceedings, or permanently stay them.
WILSON: You have already shown your bias by accepting his motion and not accepting mine. It is little issues like that -
HIS HONOUR: If that is your claim, then there are ample places you can go to to remedy the situation.
WILSON: - you get on the legal merry-go-round and then you are denied justice. The Magna Carta -
HIS HONOUR: Yes, I know what Magna Carta says.
WILSON: Because I can put it on the record that -
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, I am not going to sit here and let you harangue me with inconsistencies -
WILSON: You are at fault. You are saying you have powers which you do not have.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, sit down.
FOR JUDGMENT SEE SEPARATE TRANSCRIPT.
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
.