4

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

File No: 20137  of  2000
___________________________________

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

Filed for the State of New South
Wales
___________________________________

JOHN WILSON
Plaintiff

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Defendant
___________________________________

I V Knight
Crown Solicitor
Level 5
60 - 70 Elizabeth Street
SYDNEY NSW  2000

The State of New South Wales of Level 20,
Goodsell Building,
8 - 12 Chifley Square, Sydney appears.

Address for service:
I V Knight
Crown Solicitor
Level 5
60 - 70 Elizabeth Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000
DX 19 SYDNEY

Tel: p224 5176
Ref: Natalie Adams

-------I V Knight -----
I V Knight
Solicitor for the Defendant

Signed in my capacity as a solicitor
employed in the office of the said
I V Knight

------N Adams -----------

Tel: 9224 5176
Ref: Natalie Adams
     AGD010.5772                Filed:  28 APR 2000
 


5

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
SYDNEY REGISTRY
COMMON LAW DIVISION
No 20137/00
__________________

NOTICE OF MOTION
Filed for State of New South
Wales
__________________
JOHN WILSON
Plaintiff

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Defendant

I V Knight
Crown Solicitor
60-70 Elizabeth Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000
DX 19 SYDNEY
Tel: 9224 5176
Ref: AGD010.5772
     N Adams

The Applicant: State of New South Wales

The applicant will at 9:30am on 19 June 2000 At the Supreme Court of New South Wales,Law
Courts Building, Queen's Square, Sydney Apply to the Court for orders:

1 .That these proceedings be dismissed pursuant to SCR Part 13 rule 5 on the ground that no
reasonable cause of action is disclosed.

2 .Further, or in the alternative, that the proceedings be dismissed pursuant to SCR Part
13 rule 5 on the ground that the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious.

3 .Further, or in the alternative, that the proceedings be dismissed pursuant to
SCR Part 13 rule 5 on the ground that the proceedings are an abuse of the process of the Court.

4 .Such further or other orders as the Court
may deem fit.

5.Costs.

To:The Respondent

John Wilson
19 Elm Place
North Rocks NSW 2151.

If there is no attendance before the Court by you or your counsel or solicitor at the time and place
specified above, the application may be heard and an order may be made against you in your absence.

Applicant's Address for Service:I V Knight
                               Crown Solicitor
                               Level 5
                               60 - 70 Elizabeth Street
                               SYDNEY NSW 2000
                               DX 19 SYDNEY

                               Tel: p224-5176
                               Ref: AGD010.5772
                               Natalie Adams

                               .........I V Knight.....
                                           I V Knight
                               Solicitor for the Applicant
                              
                               Signed in my capacity as a solicitor
                               employed in the office of the said
                               I V Knight

                               ........N. Adams.........

Filed: 17 May 2000


6

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

No;  20137/00
___________________

AFFIDAVIT

Natalie Jane Adams
Date:  17 May 2000
Filed for the defendant
___________________

John Wilson
Plaintiff
State of New South Wales
Defendant
__________________

I V Knight
Crown Solicitor
60 - 70 Elizabeth Street,
SYDNEY NSW 2000
DX 19 SYDNEY
Tel: 9224 5176
Re:  AGD010.5772
N. Adams
_____________

On 17 May 2000, I Natalie Adams of 60-70 Elizabeth Street, Sydney, solicitor, say on oath:

1.I am a solicitor employed in the office of IV Knight, Crown Solicitor, and I have the carriage of this matter on behalf of the State of New South Wales subject to theDirection and control of
Mr Knight.

2.On 17 September 1997 I received instructions from the Prothonotary to commence proceedings against the plaintiff for contempt of court ("the matter").  Annexed hereto and marked "A" is a copy Plaintiffof the letter from the then Chief Judge at Common Law State of New South Wales Mr Justice David Hunt directing Defendantthe Prothonotary to commence proceedings.

3.On 14 October 1997 I caused to be filed in the Supreme Court Registry commencing the contempt matter against the plaintiff. 
Annexed hereto and marked "B" is a copy of that summons.

4.Shortly after I received instructions in this matter I was provided with documents from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions which disclosed that on 5 September 1997 the plaintiff had been
arrested and charged by police with two counts of threatening a judicial officer contrary to s.326 (b) of the Crimes Act 1900. 
The plaintiff applied for and was granted bail.  Annexed hereto
and marked "C" is a copy of the NSW Police COPS entry listing the
plaintiff's bail conditions.

5. On 27 October 1997 I appeared on behalf of the Prothonotary at the return of the summons in the contempt matter before Justice Dunford.  The plaintiff appeared in person. Directions were made as to the filing of Affidavits and the matter stood over for mention or plea on 17 November 1997.

6. On 14 November 1997 I received a press release by way of facsimile from the plaintiff.  Annexed hereto and marked "D" is a copy of that press release.

7. On 17 November 1997 I appeared on behalf of the Prothonotary at the further mention of the contempt matter before Justice Studdert. The plaintiff appeared in person and indicated to his Honour that he wanted trial by jury for the contempt matter. His Honour advised the plaintiff that a jury trial was not available in contempt matters and stood the matter over till 1 December 1997 for him to obtain legal advice.

8. On 24 November 1997 I was served with a summons filed by the plaintiff in the Court of Appeal registry returnable 3 December 1997 purporting to appeal against Justice Studdert's refusal to grant him a jury trial.  The plaintiff also filed a Notice of Motion in the Common Law Division returnable on 1 December 1997 seeking stay of the contempt matter until after the Court of Appeal had dealt with his appeal on the question of a jury trial.

9. On 27 November 1997 I received a letter by way of a facsimile from the office of the Director of public Prosecutions. Annexed hereto and marked "E" is a copy of that letter.

10. On I December 1997 I appeared on behalf of the Prothonotary at the mention of the contempt matter before Justice Dunford. His Honour advised the plaintiff that there had been no formal application before Justice Studdert for a jury trial and hence no judgment to appeal against.  His Honour stood the matter over until 3 December 1997 to hear the plaintiff's Notice of Motion seeking a Stay of the contempt matter.

11. On 3 December 1997 I appeared on behalf of the Prothonotary before Justice Dunford for the plaintiff's application for a stay of the contempt matter. The application was refused and the contempt matter stood over to a call over on 19 December 1997.

12. On 19 December 1997 I appeared on behalf of the Prothonotary before justice Barr at the callover for the contempt matter.  Alex Tees, solicitor, appeared on behalf of the plaintiff.  His Honour
listed the contempt matter for hearing on 20 March 1998.

13. On 23 january 1998 I received a copy of a Notice of Motion and requisition for Trial by Jury returnable on 9 February 1998 filed by the plaintiff.

13. On 9 February 1998 and 13 February 1998 submissions were heard before justice Hidden on the question of the plaintiff's right to a jury trial for the contempt matter. The then Crown Advocate, Megan Latham, appeared on behalf of the Prothonotary and Mark Anstee of counsel appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. Judgment was reserved.

14. On 16 March 1998 the plaintiff's application for trial by jury was dismissed.  Annexed hereto and marked "F" is a copy of Justice Hidden's Judgment of 16 March 1998.

15. On or about 17 March 1998 I received a copy of a Notice of Motion to the Court of appeal filed by the plaintiff against Justice Hidden's judgment of 16 March 1998.

16. On 19 march 1998 the Hearing date of 20 March 1998 for the contempt matter was vacatedby Justice Barr.

17. On 1 June 1998 I appeared on behalf of the Prothonotary before the Registrar of the Court of Appeal.  The Registrar informed the plaintiff that his appeal was incompetent as he has not filed a summons seeking leave to appeal and advised him to file a summons. The matter was stood over to 26 June 1998.

18. On 26 June 1998 I appeared on behalf of the Prothonotary before the registrar of the Court of Appeal.  The appeal for leave to appeal against Justice Hidden's judgment was listed for hearing on 24 August
1998.

19. On 24 August 1998 I appeared on behalf of the Prothonotary in the Court of Appeal before Appeal Justices Handley and Stein at the plaintiff's appeal against Justice Hidden's decision of 16 March 1998.  The plaintiff appeared in person. Leave to appeal was refused with costs.  Annexed hereto and marked "G" is a copy of the judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal on 24 August 1998.

20. On 3 September 1998 I appeared on behalf of the Prothonotary before Justice Barr in the Common-law division at the mention of the contempt matter. The plaintiff appeared in person and said words to the effect of "I am in the process of seeking special leave to appeal to the high Court against the Court of Appeal decision of 24 August 1998". The matter was stood over for mention on
16 November 1998.

21. On 16 November 1998 I appeared on behalf of the Prothonotary before Justice Barr at the mention of the contempt matter.  The contempt matter was stood over generally pending the outcome of the plaintiff's special leave application.

22. On 16 April 1999 I instructed the Crown Advocate,  Terry Buddin SC, in the High Court before the Honourable Justices Gaudron and Callinan at the plaintiff's application for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal on 24 August 1998. Leave was refused with costs.  Annexed hereto and marked "H" is a copy of the transcript of the Special Leave application.

23. On 6 September 1999 the plaintiff again made application for a trial by jury before Justice Sully. The application was dismissed with costs.  Annexed here and marked "I" is a copy of Justice Sully's judgment.

24. On or about 6 September 1999 I received a copy of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal filed by the plaintiff against Justice Sully's decision of 6 September 1999.

25. On 27 September 1999 I appeared on behalf of the Prothonotary before the Honourable Justice Wood at the callover of the contempt matter. The plaintiff appeared in person.  The matter was listed for hearing on 9 November 1999.

26. On 1 November 1999 I appeared on behalf of the Prothonotary before Acting Justice Smart on a Notice of Motion filed by the plaintiff to vacate the hearing date of 9 November 1999 and adjourn the matter until after the Court of Appeal had considered the matter. The Application was refused. Annexed hereto and marked "J" is a copy of Justice Smart's judgment.

27. On 8 November 1999 I appeared on behalf of the Prothonotary before the registrar of the Court of Appeal in relation to the appeal against Sully's judgment to refuse the plaintiff a jury trial. The appeal was stood over until 13 December 1999.

28. On 9 November 1999 I instructed Mr Buddin SC at the hearing of the contempt matter before Justice Wood.  The plaintiff appeared in person and pleaded not guilty.  The plaintiff was convicted of two counts of contempt and sentenced to a fixed term of two years imprisonment.  Annexed hereto and marked "K" is a copy of his Honours judgment.  Annexed hereto and Marked "L" is a copy of his Honour's Remarks on Sentence.

29. In mid November 1999 I received a copy of a notice of appeal filed by the plaintiff against Justice Wood's judgment.

30. On 16 February 2000 I instructed Mr Buddin SC in the Court of Appeal hearing against the sentence imposed on the plaintiff in the is matter.  Robert Toner SC appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. Judgment was reserved.

31. On 23 February 2000 the plaintiff's appeal against Justice Sully's refusal to grant him a trial by jury came before Justice Sheller in the Court of Appeal. Mr Buddin SC appeared on behalf of the Prothonotary and Mr Toner SC appeared on behalf of the plaintiff.  Application for leave to appeal was dismissed as an abuse of process of the court. Annexed hereto and marked "M" is a copy of Justice Sheller's judgment.

32. On 29 February 2000 the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in relation to the plaintiff's appeal against sentence. The conviction was confirmed and the sentence reduced. The plaintiff was released from custody on that day. Annexed hereto and marked "N" is a copy of the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Sworn at Sydney      )

Before me:               ) ......D. Noris......................N Adams .......
60 - 70 Elizabeth St
Sydney

   NJA\AGDO010\AGD010.5772.5d
____________________________________________

Annexure "A"
                                     Chief Judge at Common Law
                                     Supreme Court of New South Wales
                                     Queen's Square
                                     Sydney NSW 2000

Mr Ted Irwin
Acting Prothonotarv
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 5CR Pt 55 r 11(1). direct you to commence proceedings for the punishment of that contempt.

MR JUSTICE DAVID HUNT
Chief Judge at Common Law

12 September 1997

This is the annexure marked with the letter "A"
referred to in the affidavit of  Natalie Jane
Adams  Sworn 17 May 2000
Before me  ????  Solicitor

GPO Box 3 Sydney 2000
DX 829 Sydney Fax (61 2) 9230 8123

The Hon Mr Justice David Hunt
Telephone (02) 9230 8765
______________________________________

Annexure "B"
Form 6
-[Pt5r4A]

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

No. 12914 of 1997
___________________________

SUMMONS

Filed for
The Prothonotarv
______

THE PROTHONOTARY
Plaintiff


JOHN WILSON
Defendant

I V Knight
Crown Solicitor's Office
60-70 Elizabeth Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000
DX 19 SYDNEY
Tel:(02) 9224 5176
Fax:(02) 9224 5177
Ref:T6 SPRI6O.50
Natalie Adams

The Plaintiff claims:

1.A declaration that the defendant is guilty of contempt of court in that on 5 September 1997 after judgment was handed down by the Hon. Acting Justice Murray in the matter of John Wilson -v- Terence Greenwood & six others in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the defendant did throw a plastic bag filled with paint at Actin2 Justice Murray and did thereby conduct himself in a manner tended  to interfere with the administration of justice.

2.A declaration that the defendant is guilty of contempt of court in that on 5 September 1997 after judgment was handed down by the Hon. Acting Justice Murray in the matter of John Wilson -v - Terence Greenwood & six others in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the defendant did throw a further plastic bag filled with paint at Acting Justice Murray and did thereby conduct himself in a manner which tended to interfere with the administration of justice.

3.Orders that the defendant be punished or otherwise dealt with for such contempt of court.

4. Such further or other orders as the Court may deem fit.

STATEMENT OF CHARGES

1. It is alleged that the defendant is guilty of contempt of court in that on 5 September 1997 after judgment was handed down by the Honourable Acting Justice Murray in the matter of Jhii Wilson -v- Terence Greenwood and six others in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, he did throw a plastic bag filled with paint at Acting Justice Murray and did thereby conduct himself in a manner which tended to interfere with the administration ofjustice.

2. It is alleged that the defendant is guilty of contempt of court in that on 5 September 1997 after judgment was handed down by the Honourable Acting Justice Murray in the matter of John Wilson -v- Terence Greenwood and six others in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, he did throw a further plastic bag filled with paint at Acting Justice Murray and did thereby conduct himself in a manner which tended to interfere with the administration of justice.

PARTICULARS

1. On 24 July 1997 the defendant filed a Statement of Claim in the Supreme Court Registry, Common Law Division, against seven defendants namely Terence Greenwood, the Hon. Justice John Hamilton, the Hon. Matthew Clarke, the Hon. Justice Alan Abadee, the Hon. Sir Darryl Dawson, the Hon. Justice Michael Kirby and the Hon. Justice John Toohey.

2. On 4 August 1997 a Notice of Motion was filed in court on behalf of the defendants seeking that the proceedings be dismissed, alternatively, that the Statement of Claim be struck out.

3. On 25 August 1997 the Notice of Motion was argued before the Hon. Acting Justice Murray in the Supreme Court. Judgment was reserved.

4. On 5 September 1997 the matter was listed for judgment to be delivered. The defendant appeared in person. The defendant brought into court a black folder inside which was a hidden cavity containing three plastic bags filled with yellow paint.

5. Before judgment was delivered, the defendant asked his Honour: "May I record or will there be a transcript?"

At this time the defendant was observed to be holding a dictaphone
in his hand.

His Honour replied:
'1 will be handing down a copy of my reasons so there won't be anything to record, other than that the proceedings are dismissed. I order the respondent to pay the applicant's costs. I publish my reasons."

Immediately upon these words being uttered by his Honour the defendant threw one of the bags of paint towards him. The bag hit his Honour and landed on the bench before him causing yellow paint to splash onto his Honour's coat. The defendant then threw a second plastic bag of yellow paint towards his Honour. The second bag landed between the Judge's Associate and the Court Reporter splashing paint on impact. The court staff thereafter restrained the defendant.

6.The actions of the defendant referred to in the paragraph 5 of these particulars tended to interfere with the administration of justice in that:

(a)they were intended or were likely or calculated to intimidate his Honour and discourage him from performing his judicial function:

(b)they were intended or were likely or calculated to intimidate judicial officers and discourage them from performing their judicial function:
and

(c)they were intended or were likely or calculated to impair public confidence in and respect for the courts.

7.On 12 September 1997 the Honourable Mr Justice David Hunt, Chief Judge at Common Law, ordered the Acting Prothonotary of New South Wales to commence proceedings against the defendant for contempt. Annexed hereto and marked with the letter "A" is a true copy of that order.

To the Defendant:
John Wilson
19 Elm Place North Rocks

If there is no attendance before the Court by you or by your counsel or solicitor at the time and place specified below, the proceedings may be heard and you will be liable to suffer judgment or an order against you in your absence. Before any attendance at that time you must enter an appearance in the Registry at Queens Square. Sydney. Before any attendance at that time you must enter an appearance in the Registry or SubRegisty.

Date:27/10/97  at  10am

Place:Supreme Court of New South Wales
Queens Square, Sydney
Time:

Plaintiff:Prothonotary of New South Wales

Plaintiffs
Address for ServiceI. V. Knight
Crown Solicitor's Office
60-70 Elizabeth Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000
Tel (02) 9224 5176
Fax (02) 9224 5177
Ref: T6 SPRI 60.50
Natalie Adams

Address of RegistrySupreme Court of New South Wales
Queens Square, Sydney

...I Knight......
Ian Knight
Solicitor for the Plaintiff

Signed in my capacity
as a solicitor employed in
the office of Ian Knight

......N Adams.....

Filed:

 "A"Chief Judge at Common Law
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Queen's Square,
Sydney NSW 2000

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 AND THE PRECEDING 4 PAGES IS THE
ANNEXURE MARKED "B" REFERRED TO IN 
THE AFFIDAVIT OF Natalie Jane Adams
SWORN AT Sydney
THIS 17th DAY OF MAY 2000
BEFORE ME
............
Solicitor

The Hon Mr Justice David Hunt GPO Box 3 Sydney Australia 2001
Telephone (02) 230 8765DX 829 Sydney Fax (61 2) 230 8123
_______________________________________

Annexure "C"

SENT BY:               18:13DPP SPECIAL CRIME UNIT ~ +61 2 9224 5177
29-3-99 4:52PM             CITY CENTRAL
"C"

NSW POLICEPROCOPS29/03/W99 16:41
NSW P, MCAULIFFE ANTHONY Enquiry Conduct Condition  LA4CJ130:OOHCC
Charge Number : 68146l346Ref No: H 4012005
Charge Namc: WILSON. JOHN Type : CHARGE

Responsible Station CITY CENTRAL
Creating Officer: CONROY. STEPHEN THOMAS
Date/Time Created : 05/09/! 997 19:17

Cunduct Conditim : I I.  That the defendant not approach the Supreme
2.     Court situated in Queen's Square. Sydney with 500
3      metres of the said court
4 4 2. That he not apprnach any members of the
5      Chamber of  that Court or their officials or
6 3    That if he fails to comply with these
7      conditions he forfeits the amount of $10,000 in
8      cash or Surity

eposition to Line (  )lines Remaining: 0
D~alh () PF5-~$how PP keysCIiA500MI

29/03/9918:13  DPP SPECIAL CRIME UNIT ~ +61 2 92245177
29-3-99  :4:52 PMCITY CENTRAL
NSW POLICE PRDCOPS29/03/1999 16:42
NSWP:MCAULIFFE ANTHONY  Enquire Request for Bail 1A4C3T30:OOHCC
                                      
CNI ?fumber : 681461346Ref No: H 4012005

Charge Name: WILSON JOHNType CHARGE

Responsible Station: . CITY CENTRAL
Creating Off icer: CONROY. STEPHEN THOMAS
Date/Tirne Created :05/09/1997 19:12

Request for Bail: 1. THAT THE DEFENDANT ENTER A AGREEMENT FOR A SURITY
 2 OF $I0.000  IF HE FAILS TO COMPLY WiTH HIS BAIL
3 CONDITIONS

Reposition to Line ( )Lines Remaining : 0
PF5= PF keys~CHA5OOMI

THIS AND THE PRECEDING
1 PAGES IS THE ANNEXURE REFERRED
TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF Natalie Jane Adams
SWORN AT Sydney
THIS 16TH DAY OF MAY 2000
BEFORE ME
Solicitor

29 MAR '99 17:0861 2 9285 8998PAGE :03
_______________________________________

Annexure "D"

JOHN WILSON,
331 North Rocks Road,
P.O. Box 4520,
North Rocks, NSW 21St,
AUSTRALIA.
Telephone:(02) 9873 1459 (bus)
PhonelFax:(02) 9872 1661

BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION

DATE:14th November 1997
ATTENTION: Mr Justice David Hunt, Chief Judge at Common Law
SUBJECT: "Contempt of Court"
FAX NUMBER:  9230 8123
PAGES:three (incluing this page)

Comments:

Dear Mr. Hunt,

The following two pages of this transmission are a "Press Release" regarding the yellow paint incident.

Last year I went to the courts seeking truth and justice.  All I found was entrenched corruption from the judges.

The seriousness of this situation warrants a full Royal Commission. The community deserves to be protected but I was frustrated at every turn. Even the Judicial Commission were intent of covering it up.  A jury was the only hope left. And, as I have emphasized to my solicitors, I am deeply sorry that I had to resort to creating a reason for there being a jury trial. It is a terrible state of affairs but a corrupt judiciary is intolerable. The I.C.A.C. are investigating and we have a genuine and extreme crisis on our hands.

Yours Sincerely,
.....John Wilson.....

(Copy to the Crown Solicitors Office)

PRESS RELEASE:1 of 2

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 administration of justice by judges and magistrates ". When the courts have been corrupted and are 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 tin certainty Then past victims of this form of stealing would be entitled to restitution (the return of property or money) and futire 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 Buckingham Palace 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, ie: 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 1 presented my verbal arguement, he did not immediately dismiss my claims but reserved his judgement to go away and consider the situation 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 "a lawful thing" causing an injury or detriment to him and an indictable offence and
I am liable to a penalty of tcn 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 arc 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 triial is our last hope.

When truth and justice are gone, so is democracy.

Proceedings are being gone through working towards a juiy trail on the charge of causing a detriment to a judicial otncer and, on 18/10/97, 1 have received a summons for contempt of court. Any enquiries should he sent to P.O. Box 4520, North Rocks NSW 2l5l

THIS AND THE PRECEDING 2 PAGES IS THE
ANNEXURE MARKED "D" REFERRED TO IN
THE AFFIDAVIT OF Natalie Jane Adams
SWORN AT Sydney
THIS 17th DAY OF May 2000
BEFORE ME
Solicitor
___________________________________

Annexure "E"

OUR REFERENCE
Ms K.Sellars 9285 2552
YOUR REFERENCE

DATE

27 NOVFMBER 1997

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
OF PUBLiC PROSECUTIONS
265 Castlereagh Street
Locked Bag A8
Sydney South NSW 1232
DX 11525 Sydney Downtown
Telephone (02) 9285 8611
Facsimile (t02) 9285 8600

Ms Natalie Adams
Crown Solicitor's Office

FAX No: 9224-5177

Dear Ms Adams.

DPP -v- John WILSON
Threaten Judicial Officer (x2)
Downing Centre Local Court
DPP CASES No: 9720778

I refer to the above matter and advise that it was mentioned this morning in the Registrar's Court of the Downing Centre Local Court.

An adjournment was sought by myself on the basis of the outstanding contempt matters in the Supreme Court. It was indicated to the Registrar that the Director would be assessing the future course of the Local Court proceedings in light of the outcome of the contempt matter.

On adjournment was granted and the matter is next listed for mention on 16 January 1998.

Yours faithfully

S E O'CONNOR
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

Per: ...Kirsty Sellars

This is the annexure marked with the letter "E" referred to in the affidavit of Natalie Jane Adams
Sworn  17 May 2000 at Sydney Before me
SoIicitor.
______________________________________

Annexure "F"

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

Hidden J

Monday 16 March 1998

12914/97 THE PROTHONOTARY v John WILSON

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: The defendant, John Wilson, is alleged to have thrown paint at Murray Al after his Honour delivered a judgment adverse to him on 5 September1997. As a result, the Chief Judge at Common Law, pursuant to Pt 55 r 11(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, directed the Prothonotary to commence proceedings against the defendant for contempt. On 14 October 1997 the Prothonotary,
as plaintiff, issued a summons against the defendant seeking a declaration that he was in contempt and an order that he be dealt with accordingly.

On 5 September 1997, the day of the incident, - the defendant was also charged by police with an offence under s 326(1). of the Crimes Act of threatening injury or detriment to a judicial officer. The Director of Public Prosecutions assumed the conduct of those proceedings on 21 October 1997, and they have been adjourned at the Downing Centre Local Court to abidethe outcome of the proceedings in this court.

The contempt proceedings are to be dealt with summarily and are now for hearing on Thursday next, 19 March 1998. On 13 February 1998 1 heard an application by the defendant that the alleged contempt be the subject of trial by jury. I should record that on 24 November 1997 the defendant issued a summons in the Court of Appeal seeking the same order, and the matter was listed for hearing in that court on l5 December. On 3 December the defendant sought from Dunford J a stay of proceedings upon the Prothonotary's summons pending the hearing in the Court of Appeal, but his Honour refused to grant a stay on the basis that any submission that he was entitled to trial by jury for contempt was without substance: The Registrar of Court of Appeal v Willesee & Ors [1984] 2 NSWLR 378. In the event, on 15 December the summons in the Court of Appeal was withdrawn.

The application before me must also be dismissed for the same reason that Dunford J refused to grant a stay. WIllesee is clear authority for the proposition that trial by juiy for contempt is obsolete and that summary trial is now the normal procedure. Before me, the defendant was represented by counsel who tried valiantly, but unsuccessfluly, to find some way around that decision. He referred to Cap. 29 of Magna Carta, affirming the right to trial by one s peers, and its incorporation into the law of New South Wales by s 6 of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969  However, by that section,
various imperial enactments have the force of law in New South Wales "except so far as affected by ... State Acts from time to time in force in New South Wales": s 6(b). In Galea v New South Wales Egg Corporation (C of A, unreported, 21 November 1989) Kirby P (at p 11) observed that this "would
appear to envisage the affectation and modification of the continuing application of the enumerated Imperial Acts by ordinary legislation enacted by the State Parliament." Accordingly, any guarantee of trial by jury in Magna Carta can be, and has been, overridden by the Supreme Court Act and Rules as far as contempt is concerned.

Counsel made reference to the guarantee of trial by jury in respect of indictable offences against any Federal law in s 80 of the Commonwealth Constitution. In oral argument he acknowledged that s 80 is concerned only with Commonwealth offences and, as I understand it, his reference to the section was merely as part of the history of the development of trial by jury in this country, and as an indication of the respect afforded to that method of trial.  For the plaintiff, the Crown Advocate queried whether any submission based on s 80 might involve a matter arising under the Constitution so as to require the procedure under s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 to be followed. When I reserved judgment I invited counsel for the defendant to provide submissions in writing if he wished to develop an argument founded upon s 80, in which event the necessity to proceed in accordance with s 783 of the Judiciary Act would be considered. As it happened. Mr Wilson withdrew his instructions from his legal advisers shortly thereafter. He has since forwarded some written material to me which refers to s 80 of the Constitution, but takes the matter no further. I am satisfied that the proceedings before me do not involve a matter arising under the Constitution, or involving its interpretation, and s 78B of the Judiciary Act has no application.

A submission was also made that the prosecution under s 326 of the Crimes Act, which would be on indictment should proceed in advance of (or perhaps instead of) the contempt proceedings, so as to afford the defendant the benefit of a trial by jury. This argument also is without substance. As the
Crown Advocate pointed out, the deferral of the prosecution under s 326 is a legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion and this court could not compel the Director to take some other course.

Accordingly, the application for trial by jury in respect of the allegedcontempt must be dismissed.

I certify that this and the 2 preceding pages are a true copy of the judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Peter Hidden Dated 16/3/98  Associate

THIS AND THE PRECEDING 2 PAGES
IS THE ANNEXURE MARKED "F" REFERRED
TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF Natalie Jane Adams
SWORN AT Sydney
THIS 17TH DAY OF May 2000
BEFORE ME 
                         Solicitor. -
__________________________________

Annexure "G"

COURT OF APPEAL

RECORD SHEET

NATURE OF JURISDICTION:Supreme Court - Common Law Division
                       (Hidden J)
FILE No/s:             CA 40127/98   CL12914/97
DELIVERED:             Monday 24 August 1998
HEARING DATE/S:        Monday 24 August 1998
PARTIES:               JOHN WILSON v THE PROTHONOTARY
JUDGMENT OF:           Handley JA  Stein JA
APPEARANCES:
Claimant:              In person
Opponent:              Ms N A Adams, Solicitor
CATCHWORDS:            CONTEMPT OF COURT - jury
EX TEMPORE/RESERVED:   Extempore
ALLOWED/DISMISSED:     Leave refused with costs
NO OF PAGES:           2

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL

40127/98

HANDLEY JA
STEIN JA

Monday 24 August 1998

JOHN WILSON v THE PROTHONOTARY

JUDGMENT

HANDLEY JA: This is an application by Mr John Wilson for leave to appeal against a decision of Hidden J on 16 March 1998. Hidden J held that Mr Wilson had no right to trial by jury in proceedings pending in the Common Law Division against him for contempt of court arising out of incidents on
5 September 1997.

The question whether a person accused of the offence of contempt of court is entitled to a trial by jury is obviously an important one. However, a consistent course of decision of this Court establishes that there is no right to trial by jury in such cases. The earliest of these decisions is The Registrar of the Court of Appeal v Willesee & Ors (1984) 2 NSWLR 378. Mr Willesee sought special leave to appeal from the High Court of Australia from that decision which was refused on 7 December 1984. This Court followed that decision in Galea v New South Wales Egg Corporation on 28 November 1989 and again in United Telecasters Sydney Limited v Hardie in 1991.

In view of that consistent body of decision extending back over some fifteen years, and the refusal f special leave to appeal by the High Court on 7 December 1984, the proposed appeal of Mr Wilson has no prospects of success. For that reason leave to appeal is refused and it must be refused with costs.

I certify that this and one (1) preceding pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein
of The Honourable Mr Justice Handley and of the Court.
....Jennifer Donaldson ...
Date 24 August 1998             Associate

THIS AND THE PRECEDING 2 PAGES IS
THE ANNEXURE MARKED "G" REFERRED
TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF Natalie Jane Adams
SWORN AT Sydney
THIS 17th DAY OF May 2000
BEFORE ME .......
Solicitor

Click Here to continue with this Document

Home   Latest News   Press Release   The Book   Newsletters   Links

.