THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
LEVINE J
THURSDAY 18 DECEMBER 2003
20231/03 - WILSON v THE NEWS CORPORATION
Plaintiff in person
Mr Sibtain for the defendant
PLAINTIFF: I would like to protest. This is not being sound recorded.
HIS HONOUR: It will be recorded manually.
PLAINTIFF: I have had things go wrong with that before.
HIS HONOUR: Tough. Sit down, Mr Wilson.
PLAINTIFF: I have two things: First of all, the Holy Bible and a Christmas card saying "Peace on Earth".
HIS HONOUR: Who is the card for?
PLAINTIFF: This is very much to do with it, because there can never be peace without justice.
HIS HONOUR: Sit. Mr Sibtain, as I understand the proceedings on 29 August this year, Mr Wilson -
PLAINTIFF: Excuse me. What are you doing? You have no authority in this court. You have no jurisdiction.
HIS HONOUR: I propose to ignore you.
PLAINTIFF: That is no good. You can't ignore the truth. You have no
jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the court must be established first. It must be done by a special jury empanelled to decide the jurisdiction of the court. You have no jurisdiction. I have the evidence to prove -
HIS
HONOUR: Mr Sibtain, your client was sued by a statement of claim on 29 August alleging it had defamed Mr Wilson, is that correct?
SIBTAIN: That is so.
HIS HONOUR: And that is the statement of claim which, by
notice of motion filed on 13 November, you seek to have dismissed under Part 16. Is that right?
SIBTAIN: If your Honour pleases, I have an amended notice, of motion. What was sought under the notice of motion that was
filed was an order that the statement of claim be struck out pursuant to Part 15. I seek primarily that the proceedings be dismissed under Part 13 and in the alternative, that it be struck out. I have given that to Mr Wilson
and I regret to say that I note that the copy that I am handing up to your Honour carries a photocopied signature of my instructing solicitor. I can provide an undertaking on behalf of my instructing solicitor that the original
will be filed within 24 hours, if your Honour is minded to accept.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Sibtain, whilst I will grant you leave to file this document in court, I propose only to deal with this matter as originally, subject -
PLAINTIFF: You have no right to grant anybody anything in any court.
HIS HONOUR: In support of the motion that was originally filed you are relying on the affidavit of Kia Hamilton Wood?
SIBTAIN: I do. I also have an affidavit.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Sibtain, on Monday and today Mr Wilson and I came to deal with this case, in our different ways, as it was on Monday and that is how I am going to deal with it.
SIBTAIN: If your Honour pleases, I seek leave to file it in court, subject to what your Honour says upon receiving it. I won't read the affidavit. It seeks merely to clarify a matter in the previous affidavit in
relation to the question of employment.
HIS HONOUR: Employment?
SIBTAIN: There is an affidavit which was filed on 14 November.
HIS HONOUR: I have read that.
SIBTAIN: Which included, as annexure B, a
letter from my instructing solicitors dated 15 September 2003. In paragraph 4 of that letter it is stated, "Mr Brian Gallagher is not an employee of either News Corporation or Nationwide News Pty Limited ... Nationwide
News Pty Limited". For the purposes of ensuring it is admissible, this affidavit records a conversation between my instructing solicitor and Warren Revesby, the Editorial Manager of News Group, confirming that fact and
goes no further.
HIS HONOUR: I grant you leave to file it
Mr Wilson, turning to you. You have a notice of motion on 23 October?
PLAINTIFF: I am intending to go to a Jury. You are not a Jury; you are not a
Judge. I have the evidence here. It consists of, in fact, three emails from the Privy Council Office and a letter from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, already included in an affidavit. This shows clearly that the Queen in
Council -
HIS HONOUR: I want to make sure I have what you say you have.
PLAINTIFF: It does not matter what you have got. You have no authority here. You can't consider anything. It must go to a Jury.
HIS HONOUR: Why are you talking to me?
PLAINTIFF: I am trying to get the courts back in the hands of the people where they belong. People such as yourself have no authority here whatsoever. The previous case I had before
you has already been submitted to the United Nations as a violation of human rights.
HIS HONOUR: Is this my decision of 25 July 1997?
PLAINTIFF: Yes. I have included that in quite a few cases of violations of
political and civil rights and last I heard from the United Nations is, they were proceeding with the investigation. So you are just compounding your felony by acting the way you are.
HIS HONOUR: Let us just talk, man to man. Can we do that, right?
PLAINTIFF: Yes, man to man. Is this on the record?
HIS HONOUR: Everything is being taken down. I just want to make sure - I have got an email from
the Privy Council Office, "I am sorry but there is no order for this appointment". That is one.
PLAINTIFF: That is one of them, yes. That is the only one I put in the affidavits. The other ones I have not
thought necessary to put in. I have those, in case you want to see them.
HIS HONOUR: I have Miss O'Callahan's letter from the Commonwealth Office. You said there were some other emails?
PLAINTIFF: On the
same line. I have made copies of those too but all these things are to be submitted before a Jury, not you. You cannot judge in your own cause. I am saying you have no jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the court must be decided
by a Jury. You are not a Jury. Even the Supreme Court Act says Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the Governor. The Governor hasn't been appointed by the Queen, so she or he is a fraud as well. The whole system of
government in Australia is in total disarray because of the corruption and concealment that has been going on.
HIS HONOUR: Would you say that that proposition extends to every Act of Parliament that has been passed in
New South Wales?
PLAINTIFF: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: Would that include an Act of Parliament establishing a university?
PLAINTIFF: Yes, they are not legitimate Acts, they are defacto Acts.
HIS HONOUR: Would
it include an Act of Parliament establishing the Professional Registration Board, for example?
PLAINTIFF: Every single Act, so-called granted Royal assent, is worthless. It is a terrible, terrible situation. It has been
that way since 1919.
HIS HONOUR: Okay. Well, I am sure you will appreciate, I don't agree with you.
PLAINTIFF: I think you do but you are not saying so. You are not a silly person, you know the truth. The
truth is clear as crystal. You refuse to accept it.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Okay.
PLAINTIFF: Where is my Jury? This is not a court; you are not a Judge. These are matters vitally concerning the people of Australia.
The people of Australia must decide.
HIS HONOUR: Can I, before I start talking - if I, in your view, make a wrong decision and dismiss your motion, where do you go? To another fraudulent three judges?
PLAINTIFF: I
keep fighting. I have been fighting the last seven years. It all started in 1996 with the simplest of all lies when Master Greenwood said that a variable rate of interest was indeed certain. That is, if he told the truth and
all the other judges honestly told the truth, all the last seven years wouldn't have happened. If truth was in existence in these courts, all my imprisonment, the whole box and dice would not have happened, if there was
honesty, truth in the courts. But because the Judges are corrupt, fraudulent, this is why it has all come about. I will never stop fighting.
HIS HONOUR: Taking into account that the plaintiff says I have no jurisdiction,
I disagree. I have read his notice of motion filed on 23 October and I have read the affidavit with it. I do not call upon the defendant in response to the plaintiff's notice of motion. It is frivolous on its face.
PLAINTIFF: You have no right to make that decision. Any amendment must be done by a Jury. It says so in the law.
HIS HONOUR: I dismiss your notice of motion.
Mr Sibtain, I have read the affidavit of Kia Hamilton
Wood and the material that accompanies it, which happens to coincide to a great degree with the material Mr Wilson has otherwise put on it. The Statement of Claim, on its face, is deficient in not complying with the Rules for
pleading a defamation action or with the Practice Note and on its face, fails in my view reasonably to disclose any cause of action where -
PLAINTIFF: You are judging your own cause.
HIS HONOUR: -- where I would
dismiss the whole of the pleading. I would add these remarks, for anyone's interest. Taking into account all the material that I have read, that it appears that a Mr Brian Gallagher did send an email.
SIBTAIN: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: And it appears that that email was incorporated into an email sent by someone to the Plaintiff.
SIBTAIN: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: I won't say anything more than that. I am satisfied that this statement of claim
PLAINTIFF: Got no right to do anything.
HIS HONOUR: -- fails to comply with any rule of court, has not reasonably
disclosed a cause of action and I strike it out in toto. I make the inevitable order for costs in each case.
SIBTAIN: There is another matter I might raise with your Honour. There is an inherent power of the court to
deal with abuses of its own process. In circumstances where, as in the present case, a party who has commenced proceedings refuses to proceed with it, in the ordinary way, in the ordinary manner, there is a natural
demonstration of an absence of intention to prosecute his case. Given that there is that absence of intention, your Honour would, in the circumstances, dismiss the proceedings for want of prosecution by reason of the
demonstration of the intention that Mr Wilson has put forward to the court today. I say that, independently of the fact that your Honour is not accepting a motion in accordance with the amended notice of motion.
HIS
HONOUR: The proceedings that were instituted are now no longer on the record under the Rule under which they were originally sought to be removed and I am sure Mr
Wilson -
PLAINTIFF: My intention is to proceed
with this legally, properly, in every way. Not before a judge who is an obvious fraud and it must be done in front of a Jury. My intentions for the last 7 years have been very, very sincere ~ to find truth and justice and fight
for the freedom of all Australians, even your children's and your grandchildren's.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, let me say this: That I do not doubt for one moment that, in your own mind, you genuinely believe that
first, you have a grievance arising out of the decision of Master Greenwood seven years ago.
PLAINTIFF: He is a bald-faced liar.
HIS HONOUR: And that you genuinely wish to obtain justice. I don't dispute you
have those views but you have succeeded not at all before me today. What step you take thereafter is entirely in your hands.
PLAINTIFF: Before you? Who are you? That is the question. Quo warranto, who are you? You are
nobody. You are not a Judge. The Petition of Rights says that awards -
HIS HONOUR: So far as I am concerned, Mr Wilson, these proceedings are concluded and I will now adjourn.
PLAINTIFF: Traitor!
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
.