Date:     20th March, 2003.

 Communication to:

The Human Rights Committee,
 c/o Centre for Human Rights,
United Nations Office,
8 - 14 avenue de la Paix,
1211 Geneva 10,  Switzerland.

 submitted for consideration under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

 1. Information concerning the author of the communication

 Name:              Wilson                   First name:  John

Nationality:            Australian             Profession:          Dentist

Date and place of birth:           25 June 1942.          Sydney, Australia.

Present address:            19 Elm Place, North Rocks, NSW 2151, Australia.

Address for exchange of confidential correspondence:       331 North Rocks Road, North Rocks, NSW 2151, Australia.

 Submitting the communication as:

(a)          Victim of the violation or violations set forth below:

 The overriding violation of my Civil Rights is the denial of "a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law" which, in Australia is Trial by Jury,  ie: a group of (usually 12) persons sworn to give a true answer to questions put before it in a court of law.  Trial by Jury is established as Constitutional Law in Australia (see: Schedule 2, Constitutional enactments, NSW Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 No 30). 

 The denial of this Civil Right has resulted in:-

                    1.          Unlawful imprisonment (*CL12914/97).

                    2.          Unlawful eviction and dispossession (*CL11203/99).

                    3.          Unlawful defaming (*CL20589/97).

                    4.          Unlawful authority by a foreign power (**S284/01).

                    5.          Unlawful denial of protection against fraud (*CL20680/96                                   and *CL20714/00).

 (Where *CL means the Common Law Division of the NSW Supreme Court and **Smeans the Sydney Registry of the High Court of Australia)

 II.  Information concerning the alleged victim(s) (if other than author)

 Not applicable.

  III.  State concerned/articles violated/domestic remedies

 Australiaand

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

 Articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights allegedly violated:

 1.          Article 1, subsection 1. , ie: that "All peoples have the right of self-determination.".

 2.          Article 2, subsection 3 , ie: that "Each State party to the Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.  (b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;". 

 

3.          Article 9, subsection 5,  ie:  that "Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforcible right to compensation.". 

 4.            Article 14,  subsection 1, ie: that "All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals.  In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law,  everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law established by law."

 5.           Article 17,  subsection 1:  ie: that "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation." 

  Steps taken to exhaust domestic remedies:

 1.            Unlawful imprisonment:  Appeals through to and including the High Court of Australia

 2.            Unlawful eviction and dispossession:  Appeals through to and including the High Court             of Australia.

3.            Unlawful defamation: Only in the NSW Supreme Court.

4.            Unlawful authority by a foreign power: Only in the High Court of Australia.

5.            Unlawful denial of protection against fraud: Appeals through to and including the High    Court of Australia.  

 Initial court actions for which no jury has been allowed to me are:  (a) In the NSW Supreme Court: File No.s CL20680/96;  CL20589/97;  CL20723/97; CL12914/97;  CL20100/99;  CL11203/99; CL20137/00;  CL20714/00;  CL20653/00; and CL10088/02;  (b) In the Local Court:  File No. Z3675517/00;  and (c) In the District Court:  File No. DC349/00.

 When applying for Leave to Appeal in the NSW Supreme Court Court of Appeal the File No.s were:  CA40592/96;  CA40127/98; CA40731/99;  CA40928/99; CA41074/00;  CA40579/01; and CA40398/02.

 When applying for Leave to Appeal in the High Court of Australia the File No.s were:  S190/96;  S127/99; S110/01;  and S284/01.

 Domestic remedies have been exhausted,  ie: going through to the High Court of Australia, apart from defamation - and, as for that,  the denial of my right to a jury by the judge in the NSW Supreme Court made it quite clear that this was the only way judges could prevent the administration of justice to remedy the fraud committed by the banks and the corruption committed by the  judges in concealing the fraud. My struggle for my civil rights became a common theme to all subsequent court actions by me and against me,  ending in actions in the High Court and all having the same outcome, ie: judges endorsing the violations.

 IV.  Other international procedures:

 These matters have not been submitted for examination under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

   V.          Facts of the claim:-

 1.          REGARDING:  Article 1, subsection 1. , ie: that "All peoples have the right of self-determination.". Whereas, in Australia, all Members of State and Federal Parliaments swear an Oath of Allegiance or Affirm to "well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second (of England)", who is a a foreign power whose "sovereignty is the United Kingdom of Great Britain" (Justice Gummow of the High Court of Australia in Wilson v St George Bank Ltd & Anor S284/2001 (14 February 2003) and the Full Court of the High Court of Australia in Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30 (23 June 1999).

 The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act was passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in 1900 and came into force in 1901.  The Preamble of the  Act  states that the "Federal Commonwealth of Australia (was) under the Crown of the United Kingdom of

Great Britain and Ireland" when the Crown was Queen Victoria who reigned between 1837 and 1900 A.D.  Section 61 of that Act says that "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.".

 In 1902, when the New South Wales Constitution Act came into force, the King (referred to insection 3 as the "Legislature", was King Edward the Seventh of England, ie: the seventh King of England called Edward with King Edward the First having ruled between 1272 and 1307 A.D. while King Edward reigned between 1900 and 1910 A.D.    The Executive power of King Edward the Seventh has carried through "His heirs and successors" to the present Queen Elizabeth the Second (Queen Elizabeth the First having reigned between 1558 and 1603 A.D.). The State Governors, as are the Commonwealth Governor-Generals, are the Representatives of the Kings and Qeens of England and carry out their duties within Australia. 

 Section 5 of the New South Wales's Constitution Act 1902 No 32 says that "The Legislature shall, subject to the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, have power to make laws for the peace, welfare and good government of New South Wales in all cases whatsoever:" and section 3 of this Constitution Act 1902 No 32 defines "The Legislature" as "mean(ing) His Majesty the King with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly", which are Houses of the State Parliament.  The King in 1902 was King Edward the Seventh of England. 

 Queen Elizabeth the Second, at Her Coronation in 1952,  swore "to govern the Peoples of the united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada,  Australia,  New Zealand,  the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and (Her) Possessions and other Territories and to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to thei respective laws and customs".

 However, Australia is a Member State of the United Nations which is inconsistent with being governed or "under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Breat Britain and Northern Ireland" because Member States of the United Nations need to be "sovereign and independent"; with the "right of self-determination by that people"; that "Every State has an inalienable right to choose its political, economic,  social and cultural systems without interference in any form by another State"; and "Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter  To bring a speedy end to colonialism having regard to the freely expressed will of the people concerned"  (Resolutions Adopted on the Reports of the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly - Twenty-fifth Session).

 Therefore,  Australian Judges and Members of Parliament, by swearing allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second are in breach of the principles, goals and Charter of the United Nations.

2.          REGARDING:   Article 2, subsection 3 , ie: that "Each State party to the

 Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein

recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.  (b)  To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;".  Whereas the Judges, whom I claim have violated my rights and freedoms, have declared themselves to be the only authorities to determine my claims.  This is contrary to Natural Justice which says that "no man shall judge in his own cause" because a judge has an interest in any situations or laws which affect their powers or jurisdiction.

 Sir William Blackstone (1723 - 1780) wrote in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (page 350, Book III, in Chapter the Twenty Third of the Trial by Jury) "this tribunal was universally established among all the northern nations, and so interwoven in their very constitution......In magna carta it is more than once insisted on as the principal bulwork of our liberties; but especially by chap.29. that no freeman shall be hurt in either their person or property, "nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terrae."

 On 26 September 2001 the Australian Prime Minister, the Hon John Winston Howard, opened the Magna Carta Monument in the grounds of the Parliamentary Triangle in Canberra.  A plaque on the wall of the monument says "Magna Carta is now seen as the tradition mandate for trial by jury, justice for all, accountable government and no arbitrary imprisonment.".

 In Australia, the right to trial by jury has long been entrenched constitutional law in 1828 "by virtue of the Imperial Act 9 George IV Chapter 83" (section 6 "Preserved Imperial enactments" Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 No 30).  A jury is a group of jurors (usually 12) selected at random to hear and determine actions brought to court.  This right was formally granted by the treaty between King John of England and his People known as the Magna Carta of 1215 which said, "We have also granted to all the freemen of our kingdom, for ourselves and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written below, to be had and held by them and their heirs from us and our heirs." and "No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or desseised of his freehold, or his liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any other wise destroyed, nor will we pass upon him nor condemn him unless by yhe lawful judgment of his equals, or by the law of the land.  To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay, Right or Justice." . 

 The Magna Carta was entrenched as a Act of the English Parliament by the Confirmation of the Charter of Liberty of 1297, which said "if any Judgments be given from henceforth contrary to the Points of the Charters aforesaid by the Justices, or by any other our Officers, that Plea before them against the Points of the Charters, shall be undone, and holden for nought.", and is listed in the "Second Schedule PART 1 - Constitutional enactments" of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1968 No 30 along with other designated constitutional laws such as the Petition of Right 1627 which says "that the Awards, Doings and Proceedings, to the Prejudice of Your People in any of the Premises shall not be drawn hereafter into Consequence or Example;".

 Another "Constituional enactment(-)" scheduled in the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969

No 30 is the Habeas Corpus Act 1640 called "An Act for the regulating of the Privy Council, and for taking away the Court commonly called the Star Chamber" which begins "Whereas

 by the Great Charter (many Times confirmed in Parliament) it is enacted , That no Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his Freehold or Liberties, or Free Customs, or be outlawed or exiled or otherwise destroyed; and that the King will ot pass upon him nor condemn him but  by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land.".

 The above constitutional laws are recognized by section 117 of the United Kingdom Parliament's Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900, 63 & 64 Victoria, Chapter 12, which says "Full faith and credit shall be given throughout the Commonwealth to the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of every State.". 

 The United Kingdom Parliament's Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900, 63 & 64 Victoria, Chapter 12is constitutional law in Australia and in it section 128 says that it shall not be altered except by any proposed law to alter it is approved by a majority of electors in a majority of States.  In 1988 such a referendum was held to obtain the necessary approval to alter section 80 of this Act to exclude trial by jury from trials of contempt of court and courts martial.  The result of the referendum was an 80% "NO" vote rejecting

 the proposed law.  That is the Will of the People and no referendum has since been conducted for the electors to approve the removal of the right to trial by jury. 

 Similarly, in the State of New South Wales, no referendum has been conducted to approve the deleting or amending any of the abovementioned "Constitutional enactments" to remove the right to trial by jury and yet the NSW Parliament passed a law and had the State Governor,  Professor Marie Roslyn Bashir, called the Courts Legislation Amendment (Civil Juries) Act 2001 No 124 which specifically denies Australians the right to trial by jury in the State's Supreme and District Courts.  State Governors and the Governor-General of the Commonwealth have also sworn to "be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.",  the same foreign power mentioned above.

 In particular, the "provision(-) of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act" to which the Legislature of New South Wales must comply is section 109 which says "When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.".  Therefore, to be consistent with section 128 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, the State Parliament cannot make laws which remove the rights of the People, eg: to trial by jury, without the approval of the majority of the electors.  No such referendum has been held.

 Trial by jury is a tribunal established by law throughout Australia by virtue of State legislation such as the New South Wales Supreme Court Procedure Act 1900 No 49 where section 3 said "(1) 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 any damages or compensation may be assessed by a Judge without a jury.  (2) Notwithstanding such consent a Judge may at any time order that all or any of the issues of fact in an action be tried with a jury if it appears to him to be expedient." and where section 5 said "The verdict or finding of any Judge sitting without a jury on the trial or assessment of any issue of fact or amount of damages or compensation pursuant to this Act shall be of the like force and effect in all respects as the verdict or finding of a jury.". The NSW Supreme Court Procedure Act 1900 No 49 has been repealed and the current legislation is the Supreme Court Act 1970 No 52

 The repeal of the Supreme Court Procedure Act 1900 No 49 does not take away the right to trial by jury nor the obligation to obtain the consent of both parties to be without a jury.  This saving is law by virtue of section 3 of the Commonwealth Acts Intepretation Act 1901 and section 30 of the NSW Interpretation Act 1987 No 15 which say "The amendment or repeal of an Act or stautory rule does not affect....any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the Act or statutory rule;".

 The right to trial by jury being an irrefutable mandate is clearly expressed in Halsbury's Laws of Australia in section 130-13460 which says "The consent to be tried summarily (ie: without a jury) must be clear and unequivocal and failure to carry out the procedures for obtaining the consent will deprive the court of jurisdiction to determine the matters

 summarily.".  I have repeatedly said to the judges that I have never given my consent to be without a jury from the beginning of my involvement in court actions in 1996.  I have repeatedly laid before the judges in written form such as Affidavits and Summaries of Argument and citing numerous laws and authorities which establish the right to trial by jury as the Rule of Law. I have repeatedly stood in court and argued with the judges for this same right.  However,  the judges have arbitrarily dismissed the right and never addressed those cited laws and authorities.   

 3.          REGARDING:   Article 9, subsection 5,  ie:  that "Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforcible right to compensation.".  Whereas I was unlawfully imprisoned from 9 November 1999 to 28 February 2000 in the Silverwater Correctional Centre, Sydney after being tried and convicted by the New South Wales Chief Judge at Common Law in  the NSW Supreme Court, Judge Wood, on the charge of contempt of court whilst being denied trial by jury.  I was released from prison on 28 February 2000 by a 2 to 1 decision by three Judges in the NSW Court of Appeal which quashed the original sentence of "2 years without parole" and revised the sentence to time spent up to that day.

 On 5 September 1997 I was arrested and after nine and a half hours at the Darling Harbour Police Station I was charged under section 326 of the NSW Crimes Act 1900 No 40 which was "threaten(ing) to do or cause, or who does or causes, any injury or detriment to any person on anything lawfully done by a person: (a) as a witness or juror in any judicial proceeding; or (b) as a judicial officer;  or (c) as a public justice official in or in connection with any judicial proceeding, is liable to penal servitude for 10 years.".  I was then released on unconditional bail to appear in court in 3 weeks.

On 26 September 1997 I appeared in Local Court at the Downing Centre in Sydney and, at the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. Nicolas Cowdrey, the charge sheet read 2 offences (File No. Z3676 517/00) which meant, if convicted, 20 years in prison. I made it clear  that I demanded trial by jury and Magistrate G. Henson was in agreement with there being a  jury. The Prosecutor,  Sargeant Croft,  protested strongly that the unconditional bail should be revoked and I was imprisoned for 2 days at Silverwater Correctional Centre until a friend could satisfy the surety imposed.

 On 17 November 1997 I appeared in the NSW Supreme Court in response to a Summons issued on behalf of the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court to have me charged with contempt of court.  When I asked that there be trial by jury,  Studdert J said "It won't be set down for trial by jury." -  inspite of my protesting that it was my constitutional right.

 On 27 March 1998 in the Downing Centre Local Court, the Director of Public Prosecutions withdrew the charges which were proceding to trial by jury.

 Proceedings continued in the Supreme Court to try me without the benefit of trial by jury and, on 26 August 1998, 2 judges in the NSW Supreme Court Court of Appeal, Handley JA   

and Stein JA, dismissed my Appeal against the desision by  Hidden J, handed down on 16 March 1998 from a hearing on 13 February 1998 in the Supreme Court,  to rule that I had no right to trial by jury. 

I then applied to the High Court of Australia for Special Leave to Appeal against those decisions denying me the right to trial by jury and on 16 April 1999 High Court Justices Gaudron and Callinan said "the decision of the Court of Appeal is correct and special leave is refused.". 

4.            REGARDING:   Article 14,  subsections 1, ie: that "All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals.  In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law,  everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law established by law." Whereas the judge, having sworn allegiance to a foreign power, was not competent in that he was disqualified from having jurisdiction over an Australian citizen.  

Also, the judge was not independent because the charge of contempt of court was brought by the Prothonotary, or Registrar, of the Supreme Court and he was a judge of that same Supreme Court.

The judge was not impartial in that he was a fellow-judge to Justice Murray who was the recipient of the yellow paint in the incident of in the Supreme Court on 5 Septmber 1997.  Nor was the judge impartial in that Justice Murray's judgment of 5 September 1997 proclaimed that judges "in the performance of their judicial functions are immune from suit" - in other words, judges cannot be prosecuted which is not so if those judges do not perform those duties in good faith, ie: they do so corruptly.  It is in the interest of the judge to maintain a "doctrine of immunity" against actions of wrong doing.  No one is above the law.

 

For "All persons (to be) equal before the courts",  I cannot be discrimated against when other persons are so entitled.  This principle of anti-discrimination must be applied to "All persons .. In the determination of any criminal charges against him,  or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law..", ie:  I am entitled,  in the determination of my right to trial by jury,  to the same fair and public hearing to which any person is entitled for the determination of any civil or political right.       

On 6 Septembet 1999, in the NSW Supreme Court, I raised the issue of Article 14 of the United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights saying that I was entitled to "a fair and public heaing before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law" and "Now that competent, independent and impartial tribunal cannot be before a judge because of the involvement of judicial corruption.".   Sully J said "I entirely reject that submission. If you wish, you can put it, but I reject it completely." In his Judgment he said "I think, sufficient to say of those submissions that they are, in my respectful view,  wholly and transparently without merit either in law or in fact and I reject them.".

The United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is law in Australia by virtue of being incorporated into Australian legislation as "Schedule 2" of the Commonwealth Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1988 - and the Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act 1901 says, under section 13 (2), that "Every schedule to an Act shall be deemed to form part thereof." and, under section 12, that  "Every section of an Act shall have effect as a substantive enactment without introductory words.".

 

On 9 November 1999 in the NSW Supreme Court, Queen's Square, Sydney,  the NSW Chief Judge at Common Law Wood conducted a proceeding without a jury and against my repeated demands that it is my right to have trial by jury and inspite of my raising the issue of a person's entitlements under Article 14 of the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  He sentenced me to "two years imprisonment without parole" and the Sheriffs took me into custody and I was transported to prison.  I was released for prison after three months and three weeks by a 2 to 1 decision of the NSW Supreme Court's Court of Appeal.

Prior to being imprisoned:  on 4 August 1999 in the NSW Supreme Court, another judge, Simpson J, conducted a proceeding in the matter of St. George Bank Ltd -v- John and Laraine Wilson in which the bank sought a Writ of Possession for my home.  Simpson J refused my repeated demands for trial by jury.  My defence was that the bank had committed fraud in two areas, ie: (i)  issuing a loan contract which was illegal as it incorporated variable or uncertain interest rates which render a contract void and (ii)  creating money "out of thin air" to serve as the principal of the loan and for which they demanded I repay with interest.  Simpson J refused to allow a jury to hear and read the damning evidence I presented in Affidavits and documents.

On 30 November 1999,  Simpson J handed down her judgment which was to grant the Writ of Possession to the St George Bank Ltd. which the bank exercised on 11 January 2001 to evict my wife and me from our home and took possession of our household belongings and furnishings to remove to a storage depository.  My wife and I were forced to rent premises in another suburb until I raised in excess of $400,000 to pay the St George Bank Ltd some three months later and the bank handed over keys to the new locks they had put on the doors of our home.  I then had to pay the storage company some $7,000 to have our household belongings returned. 

The traumas of imprisonment and dispossession have caused immeasurable damage to our marriage and to my reputation.

In CL20714/00, I filed a Statement of Claim in the NSW Supreme Court, on 28 December 2000, against the St. George Bank Ltd and the Crown, ie: the State of New South Wales, naming Simpson J as the judge whose actions for which the Crown was "vicariously liable" in Perverting the Course of Justice in her concealing the serious offences of fraud committed by the bank and denying me the right to trial by jury.  On 19 July 2001 in the

NSW Supreme Court, a judge,  Adams J, conducted proceedings without a jury against my repeated protests that it was my right to have trial by jury.  Adams J ruled that I had no such right and dismissed my actions against the St George Bank Ltd and the Crown.

On 1 August 2001, I filed a Summons for Leave to Appeal in the NSW Supreme Court's Court of Appeal and on 16 November 2001 Priestley JA and Stein JA dismissed dismissed my application.

On 6 December 2001, I filed an Application for Special Leave to Appeal in the High Court of Australia, Sydney Office of the Registry and on 14 February 2003 High Court Justices Gummow and Callinan refused my application. 

In 4 separate court actions I have even paid the fee of $663-00 required by the court for a jury and have the receipts (but no refunds), ie:  on 11 April 2000 (File No. CL20137 of 2000);  on 13 November 2000 (File No. DC349 of 2000); on 30 November 2000 (File No. CL20653 of 2000); and on 16 January 2001 (File No. CL20714 of 2000).  This fee is in addition to the regular filing fee of $546-00.  Magna Carta is confirmed as Constitutional Law in Australia and Magna Carta says, "To no one will we sell,  to no one will we deny or delay, Right of Justice." - and yet legislation in Australia demand a fee for a jury when it is a Constitutional Right, eg: section 86 (i)  of the NSW Supreme Court Act 1970 No 52 says "In proceedings on a common law claim, except proceedings to which either sections 87 (Common law claim - running down cases) and 88 (Common law claim - fraud, defamation etc) applies,  issues of fact shall, if any party files a requisition for trial with a jury and pays the fee prescribed in the regulations made under section 130 (Fees and percentages), be tried with a jury.".

In CL20680/96 (John Wilson -v- St George Bank Ltd) in which I claimed the bank was guilty of fraud by issuing loan contract which are illegal under Common Law, neither Registrar Irwin (2 August 1996) nor Master Greenwood (17 September 1996) sought consent for the matter to be tried summarily (without a jury). 

 In CL20589/97 (John Wilson -v- ACP Publishing), on 25 July 1997,  I asked in court for trial by jury and the judge,  Levine J, said "No." and dismissed my Statement of Claim for defamation.

In CL20723/97  (John Wilson -v- Greenwood & 6 other judges) in which I claimed the 7 judges werehad guilty of concealing fraud committed by the St George Bank and perverted the Course of Justice, on 4 August 1997,  I asked in court for trial by jury and the judge, Barr J, said "You are not full of confidence in me then? You need not answer that question.".  On 25 August 1997 the matter was heard by a single judge,  Murray A.J.,  without a jury and on 5 September 1997 he handed down his judgment saying "the applicants (ie: the 7 judges seeking summary dismissal) in the performance of their judicial functions are immune from suit.  Accordingly,  the proceedings are dismissed.  I order the Respondent (me) to pay the Applicants' costs.".   

In CL12914/97 (Prothonotary -v- John Wilson), when in court on 17 November 1997, I said "When it is set down for trial by jury."  the judge, Studdert J, said ""It won't be set down for trial by jury.". On 23 January 1998 I filed a Notice of motion for trial by jury which was heard by a single judge, Hidden J, on 13 February 1998 when I had a barrister, Mr. Anstee, represent me before the court.  On 16 March 1998 the judge, Hidden J, handed down his judgment on the Notice of Motion dismissing it saying the argument was "without substance".  An Notice of Appeal was filed in the NSW Supreme Court's Court of Appeal (CA40127/98) on 17 March 1998 and was heard by 2 judges,  Handley JA and Stein JA, with the judgment that "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.". An Application for Special Leave to Appeal was filed in the High Court of Australia on 11 September 1998 (S127/98) and heard by 2 judges,  Gaudron J and Callinan J, who said "The applicant's argument fails to distinguish between State laws regulating procedures in State courts and offences against the laws of the Commonwealth.  Section 80 of the Constitution has nothing to say as to the former.  It follows that the decision of the Court of Appeal is correct and special leave is refused.".

In CL20100/99 (John Wilson -v- St George Bank Ltd), On 18 March 1999,  I filed a Notice of Motion for trial by jury.  In court on 6 May 1999 a judge, Bell J, without a jury, upheld a Notice of Motion filed on 3 May 1999 to dismiss my Statement of Claim before dealing with my application for trail by jury with the concluding dialogue as follows: -

"HER HONOUR: It follows, Mr Wilson, in consequence of the orders that I have made that the notices of motion that you have filed in the proceedings have been dismissed because the proceedings have been dismissed. 

PLAINTIFF:  Have been terminated? 

HER HONOUR:  Yes. 

PLAINTIFF:  Without a jury? 

HER HONOUR:  That is so.".

In CL11203/99 (St George Bank Ltd -v- John and Laraine Wilson), I filed a Notice of Motion for trial by jury on 28 May 99 and a Notice of Motion for Discovery (to find the source of the money the bank lent) on 31 August 1999.  In court on 4 August 1999, the judge was Simpson J and the early dialogue was as follows:-

HER HONOUR:  Have you had a chance to look at that (an Affidavit from the bank), Mr Wilson? 

DEFENDANT:  No, Ive just received it now.  None of this can proceed without a jury.

HER HONOUR:  Do you want to read it now?

DEFENDANT:  NO, I don't want any proceedings without a jury.

HER HONOUR:  I will grant leave to file in court affidavit of Patrice Emma Daley sworn 3 August 1999.

Throughout the proceedings the judge ignored my references to Article 14 of the United

Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and, as to my Notice of Motion for trial by jury, the judge said "So far as the application for trial by jury of the plaintiff's notice of motion is concerned,  the application is refused.".   Then followed a brief verbal protest to the judge that she had no jurisdiction to determine any of the issues and I left the court to the judge and the bank.  On 30 November 1999 (at which time I was in prison - having been tried and sentenced without a jury on 9 November 1999) Simpson J handed down her judgment to award a Writ of Possession for my wife's and my home.

In CL10088/02 (John Wilson -v- NSW Premier Robert John Carr) in court on 18 February 2002 was a judge, Grove J, without a jury.  I offered to file in court a Requisition for trial by jury and had the fee prescribed by the Supreme Court Act 1970 No 52.  Part of the dialogue is as follows:-

HIS HONOUR:  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 the 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 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 momemt, Mr Wilson.

In his Judgment,  Grove J said "that he (me) obviously has a misconceived obsession about the nature of jurisdiction and the protection of the rights of citizens by various arms of government, including the parliamentary arm and the judicial arm ...... I order that proceedings on the summons be permanently stayed.". 

Initial court actions for which no jury has been allowed to me are:  (a) In the NSW Supreme Court: File No.s CL20680/96;  CL20589/97;  CL20723/97; CL12914/97;  CL20100/99;  CL11203/99; CL20137/00;  CL20714/00;  CL20653/00; and CL10088/02;  (b) In the Local Court:  File No. Z3675517/00;  and (c) In the District Court:  File No. DC349/00.

When applying for Leave to Appeal in the NSW Supreme Court Court of Appeal the File No.s were:  CA40592/96;  CA40127/98; CA40731/99;  CA40928/99; CA41074/00;  CA40579/01; and CA40398/02.

When applying for Leave to Appeal in the High Court of Australia the File No.s were:  S190/96;  S127/99; S110/01;  and S284/01.

5.           REGARDING:   Article 17,  subsection 1:  ie: that "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy,  family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation."  Whereas, an Australian national weekly magazine, the Bulletin, published by Australian Consolidated Press Pty Ltd published an article about me and written by a journalist,  Mr David McNicoll.  The magazine was dated 17 June 1997 but was in the newsagents a week before.  The article was defamatory and wrongful in its content.  When the journalist and the magazine's Managing Editor,  Mr Scott Milson,  refused to print a retraction I filed a Statement of Claim in the NSW Supreme Court on 17 June 1997 (File no CL20589 of 1997). 

On 27 June,  in the Supreme Court a judge, Levine J, said "You get dangerously close to pleading a cause of action in defamation but not quite there.  I will give you an opportunity to put it in order, the publication and what you say it means and that you claim damages.".  I amended the Statement of Claim to contain more information about fraud committed by the bank and the concealing of the fraud by the judges I had encountered.

On 25 July 1997,  the judge,  Levine J, without a jury struck out my claim inspite of my protesting that actions for defamation must be determined through trial by jury and that the issues of bank fraud and judicial corruption should be presented to a jury.

  6.    REGARDING:   Article 26,  ie: that "All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law.".  Whereas,  from the time I first filed an action in the NSW Supreme Court against the St. George Bank Ltd accusing the bank of fraud inasmuch as the loan contracts the bank was issuing contained variable interest rates which are illegal under Common Law where an essential element for the creation of a contract was "certainty of terms",  Australian judges from the NSW Supreme Court to the High Court of Australia have denied me the protection of the law against the banks' criminal practices.  The first Judicial Officer,  Master Greenwood on 17 September 1997 in the NSW Supreme Court said in his Judgment "Thus, whilst the amount of the future rate is uncertain, the rate itself is indeed certain." - which is a contradiction within itself and intended to pervert the Course of Justice, conceal a serious offence and deny me the protection of the law.  Since then all other judges have endorsed that position.  I have recorded  many transcripts and judgments from the hearings in which I have participated onto a website at  http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au   

 Enclosures:

 1.         (a) Transcript of High Court of Australia action, Wilson v The Prothonotary

                   S127/1998 (16 April 1999).

           

             (b) Transcript of NSW Supreme Court action, The Prothonotary v John Wilson                                CL12914/97,  judgment and sentence (9 November 1999).

2.         (a) Application Book of High Court of Australia action, John Wilson v State of New          South Wales S110/2001 (23 November 2001) and transcript.

            (b) Transcript of NSW Supreme Court action, St. George Bank Limited v John &                Laraine Wilson CL11203/99 (4 August 1999).

3.         (a)  Transcript of NSW Supreme Court action, John Wilson v ACP Publishing Pty                    Limited CL20589/97 (17 June 1997 & 25 July 1997).

4.         (a)  Transcript of NSW Supreme Court action, John Wilson v St. George Bank

                    Limited CL20680/96 (17 September 1996) and judgment.

            (b)   Transcript of High Court of Australia action, John Wilson v St. George Bank         Limited S190/96 (11 April 1996).

5          (a)  Transcript of NSW Supreme Court action, John Wilson v State of New South           Wales CL20653/00 and John Wilson v St George Bank Limited & State of New           South Wales CL20714/00 (both on 19 July 2001) and judgments.

6.         (a)  Application Book of High Court of Australia action,  John Wilson v St. George                   Bank Limited & State of New South Wales S284/2001.

            (b)   Applicant's Authorities for High Court of Australia action John Wilson v St.           George Bank Limited S284/2001.

            (c)   Transcript of High Court action, Wilson v St Geoerge Bank Ltd & State of New          South Wales s284/2001 (14 February 2003)

                                                     Author's signature:...................................... 

Home  Latest News   Press Release   The Book  Newsletters   Links