Back

"E" Wing,
Silverwater Jail,
Silverwater,
NSW, 2128,
Australia.
8th December, 1999.


The Rt.Hon. John Winston Howard, M.P.,
Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia,
Parliament House,
Canberra,
ACT, 2600.

Dear Prime Minister
,

Re: The Right to Trial by Jury.

Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury to be the only anchor yet imagined by man which can hold a government to the principles of its constitution."

"Governments are instituted to secure the rights of the people.". The most important of those rights is the right to trial by jury granted under Magna Carta "for evermore" and has always been regarded as the "palladium of liberty".

When, in 1988, the federal Parliament asked the Australian voters for permission to exclude contempt of court and court martial from trial by jury, the result was the largest "No" vote ever recorded for a referendum in Australia.

There was no ambiguity in that rejection. There was no hidden meaning or legalistic or corrupted divisiveness in that expression of the will of the people. The people said that contempt of court will not be excluded from trial by jury.

However, State and High Court judges have decided that an Australian citizen will not have the right of pleading before a jury.

Judges not only offend against the will of the people but they offend against the Charters of Liberty including the Petition of Right 1628 which is a Constitutional Enactment and law in Australia by virtue of the Imperial Acts Application Acts.

The Petition of Right says quite clearly that "awards, doings and proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the premises (eg. the right to trial by jury in Magna Carta) shall not be drawn into consequence or example". But that is exactly what Australian judges are doing.

The Petition of Right protects itself and our inherited and inalienable rights against any "knavish tricks" (words from "God Save the Queen") to divest us of them.

The judges have handed down rulings that contempt of court does not receive trial by jury. Then they draw those instances into "consequence and example" to maintain this aspect of the law to their own exclusive domain.

Therefore, under our laws, the judges are guilty of offences under section 43 of the Imperial Acts Application Act which carries the penalty of "not more than five years imprisonment..". 

I have said in the High Court of Australia that, "Judges must never be given nor allowed to assume absolute power whereby they can conceal their own incompetence, corruption and treachery.".

The charge of contempt of court deals with the administration of justice. By denying citizen the right to trial by jury, the judges are denying a tribunal of the people the right, duty and responsibility to determine whether justice is being administered by a judge or judges. 

Sovereignty in Australia, as strongly declared by International Law, lies with the people of Australia.

Judges are not above the people nor the law.

As Prime Minister, your government is "instituted to secure the rights of the people". And, in order to be able to appeal to the United Nations' Human Rights Commission under the Optional Protocol of its Covenant, all domestic remedies have to have been exhausted.

The typical response I get to a request to intervene is that of a negative nature. However, this issue has taken on such importance that Australia's credibility as a democratic nation in the eyes of the world is in serious peril.

In my case, I went to the Supreme court of New South Wales in 1996 with a Statement of Claim that, because "variable" means uncertain and "certain" means not variable, that variable interests render those loan contracts void for uncertainty. 

The ruling by Master Greenwood was that "the rate itself is indeed certain".

A more ridiculous and blatant lie there can never be. This lie was maintained through to and including the High Court of Australia where Sir Daryl Dawson refused to answer my direct question of "Does variable mean uncertain?".

The effect of judges telling the truth would have been to establish a precedent whereby victims of those loans would be entitled to restitution because the court would have recognised the fraudulent reality of those contracts.

Banks would have to return the money they had taken by that false representation because taking money by fraud is stealing.

Australian judges do not want a tribunal of the people to judge this issue. This is especially grave now because of the obvious corruption on the part of the judges to conceal the fraud.

I said in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 9th November, 1999, when I was convicted by Wood C.J. for contempt of court without trial by jury, that "Trial by jury is the only protection the people have against judicial corruption.".

This is because I have tried ever other avenue including higher courts, the Judicial Commission of New South Wales, the Independent Commission Against Corruption, etc., etc., only to encounter what can only be called a "Conspiracy of Silence".

A solicitor once told me, "Judges have all the power.", which means that the people have none. This is intolerable.

If you reply to this letter is that your do "not wish to intervene" or any reference to the judiciary being "independent", then that will be submitted to the United Nations' Commission for Human Rights in Geneva.

I sincerely hope that your response will be as it should be, ie: that you guarantee that this outrage will be redressed and remedied.

Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
Inmate No: 282529
.

 

Back


Home  Latest News   Press Release   The Book  Newsletters   Links