|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
NEW SOUTH WALES
SYDNEY REGISTRYFile No: 20137/00
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
PARTICULARS
1.
I have been imprisoned unlawfully on two separate occasions. The first was from 26 September 1997 to 28 September 1997 and the second was from 9 November 1999 to 29 February 2000.
2. The first episode of imprisonment relates to charges under section 326 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
3.The second episode relates to the charge of contempt of court (a Common Law offence).
THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS
1.That the Crown is vicariously liable for the unlawful imprisonment under section 8 of the Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983 which states: "(1) Notwithstanding
any law to the contrary, the Crown is vicariously liable in respect of the tort committed by a person in the service of the Crown in the performance or purported performance by the person of a function
(including an independent function)...".
2.That the Crown may be sued under the Crown Proceedings Act 1988.
3. Relief by:
(i) the Jury and the Court adjudging the awards, doings and
proceedings in the matter of File No: 12914 of 1997 in the Supreme Court of New South Wales Common Law Division, Queen's Square, Sydney on 9 November, 1999 to be of no consquence or example, in accordance
with the Petition of Right 1628.
(ii) the Jury and the Court adjudging the awards, doings and proceedings in the matter of File No: 40928 of 1999 in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New
South Wales Court of Appeal, Queen's Square, Sydney on 29 February, 2000 to be of no consequence or example, in accordance with the Petition of Right 1628.
(iii) the payment of compensation for
the denial of my right ("mon droit"), the injustice caused, time spend in prison, loss of earnings whilst in prison, loss of earnings caused by interruption to business, damage to
reputation, distress caused to my family and self. The amount in Australian dollars to be 5 (five) million.
JOHN WILSON
The Plaintiff's address for service is 19 Elm Place, North Rocks, 2151.
TO THE DEFENDANT:State of New South Wales,
Crown Solicitor's Office,
60 - 70 Elizabeth Street,
Sydney, 2000.
1. You are liable to suffer judgment or an order against you unless the prescribed form of notice of your appearance is received in the Court within 14 days after the service of this Statement of Claim upon
you and you comply with the rules of court relating to your defense.
2. You may at any time before judgment confess the plaintiff's claim.
The plaintiff so pleads his cause for action.
JOHN WILSON
AFFIDAVIT VERIFYING STATEMENT OF CLAIM
On the ......10th.. day of ...April.........2000, I, John Wilson of 19 Elm Place, North Rocks in the State of New South
Wales, say on oath:
1. I am the Plaintiff.
2. I believe that the allegations of fact in the Statement of Claim set out above are true.
John Wilson
........................................
Sworn at ...North Rocks....................
before me ......A. Burrows..............
(Justice of the Peace 7100108)
Sworn
|
|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
NEW SOUTH WALES
SYDNEY REGISTRY
COMMON LAW DIVISIONFile No: 20137/00
AFFIDAVIT
I, John Wislon of 19 Elm Place, North Rocks in the State of New South Wales, say on oath:
1. I am the Deponent.
2. I have been imprisoned on two separate occasions or episodes.
3. On the first occasion I was imprisoned for three days from 26 September 1977 to 28 September 1997. This was Episode #1.
4. 4.On the second occasion I was imprisoned for three months and three
weeks from 9 November 1999 to 29 February 2000. This was Episode #2.
5. Imprisonment for Episode #1 was at the Metropolitan Reception and Remand Centre at Silverwater.
6. Imprisonment for Episode
#2 was initially at the Metropolitan Reception and Remand Centre at Silverwater and, upon "classification", at the Silverwater Correctional Complex.
7. Episode #1 came about as a result of
the Sydney Local Court at the Downing Centre increasing the conditions and terms in relation to two charges against me under section 326 of the Crimes Act 1900 to be what I truly believe to be "excessive and
unreasonable bail", which is an offence, in itself, under section 34 of the Crimes Act 1914 and carries the penalty of "Imprisonment for 2 years" for and guilty judge or magistrate.
8. Episode #1 occurred in the course of proceedings in the Sydney local Court for two charges under section 326 of the Crimes Act 1900 which were withdrawn by the Director of Public Prosecutions on 19 March 1998
before and without a trial being conducted. The withdrawing of those charges is confirmed in a letter dated 27 April 1998 from the Office of the Director of Public prosections and a copy of this letter is the
Annexure herein attached marked "A".
9. This I trult believe is a violation of an Australian's inalienable right under Magna Carta which states the "No freeman shall be taken, or be
imprisoned, or be desseised of his freehold, or his liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or be exiled, or in any other wise destroyed, nor will we pass upon him nor condemn
him, 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 of Justice." I truly believe that
imprisonment which happened in September 1997 was unlawful and wrong.
10. Episode #2 occurred as a result of Chief Judge at Common Law Wood in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Sydney on 9 November 1999
summarily disposing of a charge of contempt of court against me, ie: without a jury.
11. I truly believe the proceedings conducted by Wood CJ were unlawful and wrong for the following reasons:
11.A AN OFFENCE: The committal proceedings constituted an offence under section 43 of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 which states that "The awards, doings and proceedings, to the
prejudice of your people in any of the premises (eg: Magna Carta), shall not be drawn hereafter into consequence or example." Which carries a penalty of "imprisonment for a term of not more
than five years" for any guilty Judge of Magistrate. I truly believe Wood CJ is guilty of such an offence because in his Judgment dated Tuesday November 1999 and in paragraph 23 (g) Wood CJ said
"Summary trial is now the ordinary procedure for the determination of contempt charges." Which denied and accused the right to trial by jury, into consequence and example and Wood CJ proceeded on
that basis.
11.B BIAS: "At common law and pursuant to sections 5(1)(a) and 6(1)(a) of the (CTH) Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 the test (of procedural fairness) is not
whether there is actual bias but whether there is an appearance of bias." and "nobody may be a judge in his or her own cause" and "the public is entitled to expect that issues tried by
judges, juries and other public office holders should be decided free of prejudice and without bias" - Halsbury's LAWS OF AUSTRALIA vol 1(2) (10-2006) and (10-2009) and (10-2015).
In this case:
(i) Reference was made to the proceedings in the Sydney Local Court, Downing Centre, for the charges under section 326 of the Crimes Act 1900, wherein "BAIL CONDITIONS" as part
of Form 5A Bail Act 1978 stated that "(5) ...1) Not .. approach the Supreme Court Queen's Square, Sydnet or be within 500 metres of it." and "Not .. approach or contact any Judge of the
Supreme Court or their officials in any way or by any manner where they may be sitting or residing from time to time."
(ii) I truly believe that, by such directions issued in the Sydney Local
Court, Judges would be seen to habe an interest in events concerned with the incident of throwing paint, ie: that it is their "own cause" and are party to proceedings and seen to require this
form of "apprehended violence order".
(iii) I truly believe that it is very much the judges' "own cause" when there is a challenge to or an attack on the way in which Judges administer
justice, especially when judges deny citizens such inalienable rights as trial by jury and assert that "Judges are immune from suit", ie: regard themselves as unaccountable for their actions.
(iv) I truly believe that it is very much the Judges' "own cause" to conduct that committal proceeding of the 9th November 1999 because, in this case and in court on that day, I said
"Judges must never be given nor allowed to assume absolute power whereby they can conceal their own incompetence, corruption and treachery." and told of "My original case in the Supreme Court was
on the issue of bank fraud in which I stated that variable interest rates render contracts void for uncertainty because the definition of "variable" is that it is uncertain. I found that the first
Judge, Master Greenwood lied absolutely whem he said that the rate itself is indeed certain. That is unconscionable, it is corrupt in the extreme. My appeals to subsequent courts upheld Master
Greenwood's lies. This is corruption beyond understanding." Therefore, I truly believe it is the judges' "own cause" to not allow evidence to be put before a jury which is
"a tribunal of the people".
11.C DISQUALIFICATION: "Disqualification by association, where the apprehension or prejudgment or other bias results from some direct or indirect
relationship, experience or contact with a person or persons interested in, or otherwise involved in, the proceedings." - Halsbury's LAWS OF AUSTRALIA vol 1(2) (10-2015).
11.D ACCUSER
PARTICIPATING IN ADJUDICATION: "A person who is in the position of accuser or prosecutor ought not to particippate in the decision which is reached in relation to the charge which is made." -
Halsbury's LAWS OF AUSTRALIA vol 1(2) (10-2042)
In this case:
(I) The ACCUSER was the Chief Judge at Common Law Mr Justice David Hunt who wrote in a letter to the Acting Prothonotary,
Mr. Ted Irwin, on 12 September 1997 saying "It appearing to me that Mr. John Wilson is guilty of contempt of the Supreme Court by throwing paint at Mr. Acting Justice Murray, I by this Order, and
pursuant to SCR Pt 55 r 11(1), direct you to commence proceedings for the punishment of that contempt." A copy of this letter is Annexure herein attached marked "B".
(ii) The ADJUDICATOR
was the Chief Judge at Common Law, Mr. Justice James Wood who took on this role on 3 April 1998, following Mr. Hunt's departure on 31 march 1998.
(iii) The role of the Chief Judge at Common Law as
the ACCUSER was pointed out to Hidden J in the Supreme Court on 13 February 1998 by Ms Latham for the Plaintiff/Respondent when she said "the Chief Judge at Common Law directed proceedings for contempt to be
pursued."
11.E CONDUCT IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS: "Conduct of a judge or tribunal member I the course of the proceedings may give rise to an appearance of bias." - Halsbury's
LAWS OF AUSTRALIA vol 1(2) (10-2060)
In this case:
(i) I filed a Notice of Motion supported by an Affidavit "for orders:
1. To vacate 9th November 1999 as the date set for the hearing of the charge of contempt of court against me.
2. To set the matter back in the list to a date that will allow the Summons in the court of Appeal,
where the file number is 40731 of 1999, which is applying for Leave to Appeal against the judgment of justice Sully on 27th September 1999 in the SupremeCourt of New South Wales to reject my requisition for trial by
jury.
3. To set the matter back in the list to a date that will allow the Constitutional matter included in the White Folder in those proceedings in the Court of Appeal (CA 40731/99), which asserts that
Australian Courts have no jurisdiction over the people of Australia."
However, Wood CJ would not allow the proceedings in the Court of Appeal nor Order 69A of the High Court Rules (for an
application to be filed in the High Court "within 28 days after the judgment" of the Court of Appeal) to stop him conducting the committal proceedings he had embarked upon. I truly believe that
Wood CJ has usurped and possessed himself of the authority of the Court of Appeal and the High Court which are actions of "ultra vires", ie: beyond the limits of his power or jurisdiction.
12. I truly believe that a gross miscarriage of justice involving judicial impropriety has occurred.
........John Wilson...........
Sworn at .....North Rocks...
on .....10th April ...., 2000
before me .......A. Burrows .....
Justice of the Peace
7100108
. ANNEXURE "A":
OUR REFERENCEOFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
K. Sellars 9285-2552OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
YOUR REFERENCE265 Castlereagh Street,
Locked Bag A8
DATESydney South NSW 1232
27 April 1998DX 11525 Sydney Downtown
Telephone (02) 9285 8611
Facsimile (02) 9285 8600
"A"
Mr. John Wilson
19 Elm Place
NORTH ROCKS NSW 2151
Dear Sir,
RE: DPP -v- Yourself
Threaten Judicial Officer x 2
Cases No: 9720778
Downing Centre Local Court
I refer to
the above matter which was last before the Local Court on the 27th March 1998. I confirm that on that date the Director of Public Prosecutions sought the leave of the court to withdraw the charges against
yourself.
Mr Brydon, Magistrate, made an order that the matter and charges dismissed.
Yours faithfully,
S E O'CONNOR
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Per Kirsten Sellars
THIS IS THE ANNEXURE MARKED "A"
REFERRED TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF
JOHN WILSON SWORN AT NORTH
ROCKS THIS 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2000 BEFORE ME A. BURROWS JUSTICE OF THE PEACE 7100108
. ANNEXURE "B":
Chief Judge at Common Law
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Queen's Square,
Sydney NSW 2000
"B"
This is the annexure marked with the letter "A" referred to in the annexed Summons.
Mr Ted Irwin,
Acting Prothonotary
Supreme Court of New South Wales
It appearing to me that Mr John
Wilson is guilty of contempt of the Supreme Court by throwing paint at Mr Acting Justice Murray, I by this Order, and pursuant to SCR Pt 55 r 11 (1), direct you to commence proceedings for the punishment of that
contempt.
David Hunt
______
MR JUSTICE DAVID HUNT
Chief Judge at Common Law
12 September 1997
THIS IS THE ANNEXURE MARKED "B"
REFERRED TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF
JOHN WILSON SWORN AT NORTH
ROCKS THIS 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2000
BEFORE ME A. BURROWS
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE 7100108
The Hon Mr Justice David HuntGPO Box 3, Sydney Australia 2001
Telephone (02) 230 8765DX 829 Sydney Fax (61 2) 230 8123
|
|
