Rights And Wrong Banks & Judges Website Documents One Mans Battle Against The Evil Crime Syndicate/Terrorists "Banksters"

Rights And Wrong Banks & Judges Website Documents One Mans Battle Against The Evil Crime Syndicate/Terrorists "Banksters"
Go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5317

This website documents one person's battle against the most powerful, determined, uncaring and greedy enemy of ordinary people in the world, "THE BANKS"

ABOUT THIS SITE - SITE CONTENTS

The banks have corrupted parliaments and courts in order to achieve their seemingly invincible position. Through the parliaments, banks have set in place legislation which form the blue print and provide the means to realize their goal.

However, such legislation can only be enforced through the courts where, if justice were to prevail, bad laws would be vetoed and rejected in fair trials or tribunals. That is why the banks have to have dominance over the courts. They do this by firstly controlling the judges and secondly eliminating juries - thereby removing any possibility that the judges may "do right" or that the people may exercise their will.

But there is a chink in the banks' armour - an Achilles' heel. There is a way to smash the banks by proclaiming a simple truth which the banks have swept aside in the implementation of their practice of issuing loan contracts.

The truth is in the meaning of the word, "variable", as found in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Variable" means "uncertain" and "certain" means "not variable". For contracts to be valid under the common law, there must be "certainty of terms" as an essential element. Therefore, all loan contracts in which the banks have incorporated variable interest rates are invalid. Those loans are illegal and the banks are common law criminals.

The judges know this and are concealing this serious offence. This website exposes the incompetence, corruption and treachery in the judiciary.

Magna Carta says, "To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay, Right or Justice.". Unless the banks can be defeated, such noble principles are gone and the people, having no rights, are merely slaves.

All that it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing - Sir Edmund Burke

Video Of John Wilson Being Arrested - A Current Affairs Channel 9 Sydney 11th September 2008 - Look For The one That Says Home Eviction - The scary story of how one mans house was repossessed by his own bank 5 Minutes

Click Here For The Latest John Wilson Updates & Comments From The Take Back Your Home Website - (sanitised)

John Wilsons Website RightsAndWrong.com.au

Rights And Wrong - Banks & Judges

MAXIMS OF LAWS:

Lawyers and Judges like quoting "Maxims of Law" because they like to think that, by doing so, they are showing a superior knowledge and intelligence and that only they are fit and proper persons to run the Courts. What follows will hopefully dispel that myth. Read ON 670k pdf: http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au/MAXIMS.pdf

SITE CONTENTS - INDEX

# Common Law Rights Group

# TRUE DEMOCRACY presentation

# Challenging the Jurisdiction of the Court

# NO JUDICIAL IMMUNITY - The Act Abolishing the Star Chamber pdf

# A Right is Right

# Jail for the want of a Jury

# Common Law Damages pdf

# Democracy and How It Works pdf

# FREEDOM MARCH

Sheriffs Calling

# INDICTMENT OF NSW JUDGE

# Summons against Governor-General for Treachery (pdf)

# Federal Court rejects Summons against Governor-General (pdf)

# Australian Judges are FRAUDS

# Family Court Juries

# Trial by Jury by Kenn d'Oudney

# Should I hire an attorney

# Privy Council emails and Foreign & Commonwealth Office letter

# Treason, Treachery and the Premier

# Press Release for General Distribution

# Submission to the United Nations' Human Rights Commission

# TRANSCRIPTS & JUDGEMENTS

# Andrew's email to the Sheriff

# UN rejects the Right to Trial by Jury

# Forging The Queen's Signature

# Letter to the Queen

# "The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance"

# Trial By The Country (Jury)

# Unlawful Imprisonment

# What is a Court?

# Judges Stealing Common Law

# Notice Of Demand On Federal Judge

# Vote OUR WAY or else!

# How to defeat the JUDGES

# Quo warranto - challenging the Judges

# Trial By The Country (Jury) Unlawful Eviction

# Pity bank employees who don't know

# "High Court blocks Grand Jury"

# "What is Sovereignty?"

# Common Law Demand Format

# AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE'S GRAND JURY

# A Landmark Decision

# Unanswered Letter to the Australian Prime Minister

# A Poem from Jail

# My Book (online) - Banks & Judges

# Newsletter Archive

# Receive regular Newsletters and Updates via e-mail

Click here and type in your e-mail address: mailto:jhwilson @ rightsandwrong.com.au?subject=Please add me to your mail list&body=THANK YOU for your Interest ...Please type your NAME and E-MAIL address below.....!

# Other Interesting Links

# E-mail Me: mailto: jhwilson @ rightsandwrong.com.au

Site researched and written by J. Wilson jhwilson @ rightsandwrong.com.au © 2000

Home: http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au/index.html

Latest News: http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au/html/latest_news.html

Press Release: http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au/html/pressrelease.html

The Book: http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au/html/the_book.html

Newsletters: http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au/html/newsletters.html

Links: http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au/html/links.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE BOOK

These pages contain the text of a book written by me entitled "BANKS AND JUDGES" (ISBN 1740 18 020 8) 2nd edition printed January, 1999. It is of 17 chapters and reproduces documents, including judgements, from a series of cases I brought in an effort to reverse an infamous swindle inflicted on ordinary people and perpetrated by the banks.

There are Two options to view this information

1. View Book Online: http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au/html/the_book.html#BookIndex

Chapter

Contents

Introduction

1. What happened in 1981?

2. Variable interest rates means stealing.

3. The Media, Politicians, Prices Surveillance Authority, Police, Judicial Commission, I.C.A.C., et al.

4. In the courts.

5. Trial by Jury.

6. Part of the Big Picture.

7. The Campaign.

8. Rights to a trial by Jury.

9. The Petition of right.

10. Respondants Summary of Arguements.

11. My reply to the Respondants Summary of Arguements.

12. What crimes have the Judges committed?

13. FIJA- Fully Informed Jury Association.

14. How to fight the war against banks.

15. The "Crown" Solicitor?

16. FLAC - For Legally Abused Citizens.

17. Judas judging Judas.

--------------------

INTRODUCTION

The rights of all Australians are enshrined in the Constitution Act (Vic. 63 and 64) 9th July 1900 which contains the Australian Constitution in Clause 9. The Constitution Act is a British Act of Parliament and begins:

"WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland; and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:".

Queen Elizabeth the Second, at Her Coronation, took The Oath to govern the Peoples of Australia and "cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all (Her) judgments" . Then the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland presented Her with the Holy Bible and said: "Our gracious Queen: to keep your Majesty ever mindful of the Law and the Gospel of God as the Rule for the whole life and government of Christian Princes, we present you with this Book, the most valuable thing that this world affords. Here is Wisdom; This is the Royal Law; These are the Oracles of God."

Australia is "one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown". Therefore, we have all the rights that our forefathers fought and died for since time immemorial because we are "under the Crown". Those rights are set down in The Bible, in Magna Carta, in the Bill of Rights 1688 and all of English Common Law. The Queen has sworn to govern us according to those laws.

However, the banks find that all too inconvenient. They have been systematically and illegally stripping us of those rights and protections.

Why? Greed, of course. It is time to awake. It is time to learn of our inheritance.

It is time to fight back.

A war between the banks and the people will not be won by force. The banks are powerful and command as much physical strength as would be required to put down any uprising or indiscriminate protest. Nothing pleases the banks more than bombings or shootings such as Oklahoma City or Port Arthur. "From disorder comes order". An excuse to swing into action with propaganda through their controlled media to condemn any opposition and render the entire community defenceless through punitive legislation. Anyone who resists is branded as a "right wing extremist" or a criminal.

The American Oath of Allegiance includes the pledge to "support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
The only way to win against such an all-conquering enemy, who are both "foreign and domestic", is to support and defend the Constitution Act (Vic. 63 and 64) 1900 which contains the method and the system to bring about truth and justice. The enemy have been progressively sabotaging our foundation document for many years with the assistance of politicians, judges and civil servants who can only be described as "ignorant, corruptor gutless" and as "liars, thieves and traitors".
Force is out. Nonviolence is in.

Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) understood the dignity and strength to be achieved by simply standing one's ground in the face of overwhelming firepower. Oh, how we need a Gandhi now!

The banks have the parliaments and the courts in their pocket. They have all the mercenaries, both military and intellectual, at their disposal. But there is an "Achilles' Heel". It is the truth!

And the truth is found in the word, "VARIABLE".

Banks have implemented the system of charging variable interest rates on loans. However, variable means uncertain and common law demands that, for a contract to be valid, there must be certainty of terms. In other words, what the banks are doing is committing fraud.

This book tells of the frustration of trying to reason with and even challenge authorities politely and legally. For many years I wrote and spoke all to no avail. Taking the issue to court proved the extent of the banks' influence from Master Greenwood in the Supreme Court of New South Wales saying, "Thus whilst the amount of the future rate is uncertain, the rate itself is indeed certain." Through to Sir Daryl Dawson J. in the High Court of Australia saying, "No, we cannot answer those questions, I am sorry." when I asked, "Your Honours, ... the first question is, 'Does variable mean uncertain'?".

That is the Achilles' Heel.

To keep the truth from the people, the electronic and print media have built a wall of silence around all the proceedings and the judges are refusũng allow the matter to go before a jury. The contents of this book will tell of the skullduggery employed to those ends.

Now that channels of appeal and methods of redress and remedy have been attempted. Now that law and justice have been decidely perverted. Now it is time to "go to the streets" with a campaign of creating awareness and demanding that truth be enforced.

The people know what is right.

There must be posters/stickers/leaflets/messages saying:

"VARIABLE MEANS FRAUD SO SAYS COMMON LAW".

These words must be seen everywhere. In the vicinity of banks. On carbumpers. Under windscreen wipers. Handed to shoppers in malls.

The banks will ignore it. But it must persist.

It may take a year but the awareness must be created. The banks are our servants and not our masters.

When people see the words, "Variable means fraud so says common law", some will want to know more. Then the questioning will start.

Q: "Why is it fraud?"
A: To make out a loan contract with uncertainty of terms (i.e.: variable or uncertain interest rates) to be a valid contract is false representation or fraud. To take money by fraud is stealing. The 8th Commandment says: "Thou shalt not steal".

Q: "But agreed to those terms and signed the contract?"
A: You cannot agree to be defrauded. Signing a fraudulent document is void and of no effect.

Q: If the interest rates go down, isn't it to my advantage if the bank lowers my rate at the same time?
A: The contract is still fraud. It is invalid. If the market interest rates go down, then a memorandum can be added to a valid contract to fixin the new and lower rate. This must be agreed to and signed by both parties.

Q: And I suppose if the market rates go up then, with a valid contract, i.e.:.: with a fixed rate, the bank can't make me pay any more!?
A: That is correct. You have the protection of a legitimate contract.

Q: What about all those poor individuals who have suffered in the past when the banks changed the interest on their loans anything up to 23% or more?
A: They are entitled to restitution, i.e.: the return of stolen money or property. The Bible says they should get that plus another one fifth. The actual amount to be returned would have to be calculated in each case.

Q: Why don't the courts recognise the swindle?
A: It's called corruption.

-----------

CHAPTER 1 - WHAT HAPPENED IN 1981?

The banks had planned their move not unlike the Japanese had 40 years earlier when the then U.S. President Roosevelt described the sneak attack on Pearl Harbour as "a day that will live in infamy".

The sleepy people of Australia were not not aware of what was in store when our politicians passed a Bill called the Consumer Credit Act to replace the Moneylenders and Infants Loans Act of 1941. The Moneylenders Act clearly stated that a loan contract shall show the total amount of interest payable which meant that the lender knew exactly what the loan would cost, i.e.: there was certainty of terms in accordance with common law and the fundamental principles of economics governing the setting of interest to be charged on a loan. This and a few other qualities of the Moneylenders Act are explained in a leaflet I produced to support a motion I put before a Liberal Party State Convention in 1994 which is reprinted here.

So anxious were the politicians to institute the banks' plan that the new legislation was passed before the old was repealed which meant that legislation was passed which was repugnant or incompatible which existing statute law. When I pointed this aspect out to some bureaucrats they dismissed it by saying that it didn't matter in which order Bills went through the House.

The banks' Consumer Credit Act introduced the system of variable interest rates under the clause "Variation of Contract" which was and remains a clear and irrefutable violation of common law which demands that there be certainty of terms for a contract to be created. The Consumer Credit Act should never have been granted Royal Assent by the State Governors whose duty it is to reject such legislation which contravenes common law. Their excuse for rubber stamping the infamous document is that they "act on the advice of their Ministers". The reality is that they failed in their duty to the Queen and to the People. They have degraded their role to that of mere puppets being manipulated by politicians who are, in turn, manipulated by the banks. A pathetic state of affairs and one which should enrage all right-minded and patriotic Australians.

The stage was now set for criminal exploitation that would devastate so many ordinary people and swell the coffers of the banks to unprecedented proportions.

When victims protested and said, "The banks have broken their contract!", the ready reply came back, "But the contract you signed gives us the right to vary the interest rate without your consent.". The plan worked beautifully.

However, an Act passed by Parliament is called a Statute Law whereas Common Law has evolved independently over the centuries and based on court precedents accepted by the community.

In Australia we have the protection of our Constitutional Monarchy. Common law is the superior law because, if legislation passed by the Parliament is repugnant to common law, it is the duty of the Queen's Representative to refuse Royal Assent which is necessary for a Bill to become law. The unacceptable nature of a Bill should be made known to the Governor at the time. If it is not then the Ministers are culpable. If the error is realised later, the Act should be disallowed and struck out.

Lawyers will tell you that Statute Law displaces Common Law but that is wrong for the reason I have explained. Lawyers will tell you that Parliament is the ultimate authority but that is wrong, too. The people are the ultimate authority and if legislation does not meet the standard of Due Process, i.e.: that it is in the interests of the welfare of the community, then it must be removed from the Statutes.

Lawyers have been brainwashed through their universities and the people have been denied knowledge of their own Constitution and inherited rights. The ignorance created has been fertile ground for the banks to sow their seeds for absolute power.

Politicians have already admitted that they lie and must lie to keep their jobs. Now, with the unfolding of my case through the courts, judges are just the same.

What happened in 1981?

The banks performed their own version of Pearl Harbour. Fortunately, the Americans had the resources to regroup and eventually defeat the enemy.

Similarly, we have the resources, in the form of common law and our Constitutional Monarchy, also to win through. All that is needed is the will to do the job. All that is needed is the courage and the spirit of those good men and women who have gone before us to fight for truth and our rights.

The following is the leaflet I put together for the Liberal Party State Convention in 1994 and for the information of the delegates:

A Motion before the 50th Anniversary State Convention of the Liberal Party, the Riverside Theater, Parramatta, 19th and 20th November, 1994:

"that the Consumer Credit Act, 1981, No. 124 should be repealed and the Moneylenders and Infants Loans Act, 1941, No. 67 be reinstated."

Put by the Parramatta North Branch.

THE REASON: The Consumer Credit Act is fraudulent in that it makes "use of false representations". It is the means by which an horrendous swindle (defined as "to cheat a person out of money; a fraudulent scheme; a person or thing represented as what it is not") has been perpetrated on the people of Australia.

The Consumer Credit Act represents a "loan contract" to be something it is not, i.e.: that it is an agreement which is not binding in so much as the lender can vary the interest rate. It is "a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth or a fact used to take money, rights, or other privilege or property away from a person or persons"... ipso facto ... fraud.

A ""contract" is an "agreement". An "agreement" is "a contract duly executed and legally binding". "Binding means unalterable".

A second definition of a ""contract" is one that it is "a business agreement for supply of goods or performance of work at fixed price". "Interest" is the price of borrowing money.

At common law, eight elements are essential to the creation of a contract:

1. offer

2. acceptance

3. an intention to enter legal relations

4. sufficient consideration

5. a capacity to contract

6. legality of purpose

7. genuine consent

8. certainty of terms

""Certainty" means "that which is certain" or "absolutely determined, regular, fixed, sure to happen, ... reliable, unerring ...".

The Act which the Consumer Credit Act replaced, the Moneylenders and Infants Loan Act, by stating that a loan contract, in s.22, "... shall show ... (2) ... (d) the total amount of the interest to be paid", complied with the common law requirement of "certainty of terms". The Consumer Credit Act is in breach of common law.

The Consumer Credit Act says that a loan contract (s.35 (1) (d)) shall include "where, at the relevant date, it is possible to express the whole of the credit charge as an amount of money, a statement of the total of: (i) the credit charge; and (ii) the amount financed;" and "(e) a statement of the APR (annual percentage rate) in accordance with section 37". Section 37 (b) (ii) refers to "the percentage rate determined according to the method set out in Schedule 6 ... (etc.) ... whichever the credit provider determines". In s.75, and spread thoughout the Act, the concept of "Variation of contract" is indoctrinated.

(Section 12 describes what "credit charge" means in 36 lines and cross-references to Section 59 and Schedule 1. Schedule 6 says "the annual percentage rate may be determined in accordance with the formula: 2NF (300C + NF) divided by 2N squared + 300C (N + 1) where "F" is an amount determined in accordance with the formula: 100C x T divided by N x A.)"

The Consumer Credit Act is 130+ pages of legal gobbledegook and a miriad of cross-references designed to confuse and repel anyone wanting to examine it.

Due Process?

"A course of legal proceedings according to the rules and principles that have been established in a system of jurisprudence for the enforcement and protection of private rights ... If a law may reasonably be deemed to promote the public welfare and the means selected bear a reasonable relationship to the legitimate public interest, then the law has met the due process standard". (Encyc. Brit.). The Consumer Credit Act meets none of these criteria but sacrifices them in favour of the banks.

From that time on the borrower has been at the mercy of the lender and been denied any right of appeal when the interest rates rose "from 5 per cent to 22 per cent" (to quote one example).

Prohibition of Compound Interest:

Another notable feature of the Moneylenders and Infants Loans Act (section 28) is that if the loan contract "provides directly or indirectly for (a) the payment of compound interest; or (b) any increase of interest by reason of any default" then the contract "shall be illegal".

The Result of Corrupt Legislation:

Quote 1, from the Sun-Herald, 18/9/94, p.3: "In the New England area a recent survey estimated 80 per cent of farmers had less than 20 pc equity in their farms, making four out of five farmers in the area highly vulnerable to losing their homes. I see what it does to families, it's terrible the divorce, the break-ups and the suicides ...".

Quote 2, from Michael Clough (State Member for Bathurst): "Case No. 6 concerns a Commonwealth Bank customer who borrowed $530,000 and then had two bad seasons. He has paid back $715,000 plus $70,000 in overdraft, but still owes $1,239,000 surely an indictment against the Commonwealth Bank. Case No. 7 ... In this case the State Bank has been charging interest on interest ..."

Quote 3, from Jeanine McRae of the Union of Farmers: "It is quite common for a farmer to have paid for his farm two and three times over the last ten years and still owe more than he originally borrowed."

By manipulating interest rates, the banks can take advantage of and obtain money from innocent clients to pay for bad debts incurred by the failures of other enterprises and other loans.

The Consumer Credit Act was Assented to before the Moneylenders and Infants Loans Act was repealed and all by the Labour Government under Mr. Neville Wran.

You cannot fool all the people all the time. Justice must be restored and the Liberal Party must show that it is truly a government of, by and for the people.

The Consumer Credit Act must be REPEALED and, as a first step, interest rates on existing loans must be FROZEN immediately!

----------

CHAPTER 2 - VARIABLE INTEREST RATES MEANS STEALING

The title of this chapter is the theme of the whole exercise and I am sorry for its repetition. The following leaflet is one of the many which I have used to try to spread the story. Banks, politicians and bureaucrats deny it, of course, but it is really pretty simple. Equally, their denial says it all.

I am not legally trained nor qualified. When the variable interest scam swung into operation in the 80s, I wrote letters to newspapers complaining it wasn't fair that banks could change the interest rates on loans and generally bitched to managers for whom I feel great sympathy. Being a bank manager used to be a position of prestige in the community but that image rapidly disappeared and some left the profession because of their downgraded and tarnished role.

In one letter I wrote in February 1988, I complained that I had paid, in installments in two years, $37,692.10 on a 15-year loan of $94,000.00 and yet the balance owing had risen to $98,138.56.

Others suffered far more than I to the eternal shame of our representatives in government who were supposedly elected to protect the people. Bank assets skyrocketed while the people and the country plummeted into debt. Politicians betrayed the nation and still refuse to admit guilt or make amends.

Always there was this feeling that it just wasn't fair or right. I started searching for a legal angle at the nearby Macquarie University Law Library. On the third visit I was browsing the shelves and came across a small, battered, soft-covered version of "The Australian Legal Dictionary "by S. E. Marantelli and under the word, "contract", found the eight essential elements required by common law to create a contract and Number 8 said, "certainty of terms" EUREKA!

Then came books on contract law and the pieces of the jigsaw came together to form the picture which the banks have been trying to hide.

More letters to newspapers which were actually published.

Approaches to parliamentarians resulted in the familiar "Thank you for bringing this to my attention" and the merry-go-round of referrals with no intention of doing anything.

Out of frustration, I stood as an independent. Then joined a new party which promised to reform and restore but they were "easy meat" and were quickly undermined when they threatened by achieving record membership growth and started scoring at the polls. I was expelled when I suggested changing its name from the Confederate Action Party to the Constitutional Australia Party to improve voter appeal.

Anyway, I was invited to join the Liberal Party and, after an interview before a panel of the local branch, was voted by 12 to 1 to be allowed to take up membership.

The local branch supported my campaign to wipe out variable interest rate loans and I presented motions at two State Conventions. However, support of grassroot Liberals and acceptance by the executive are two entirely different things. At the executive level, one comes up against politicians and lawyers ... need I say more?

I resigned from the Liberal Party after a formal debate in their rooms in Parramatta when a lawyer proudly said, "There is certainty. The certainty is the uncertainty." A sick joke which revealed the criminality to which the Liberal Party had sunk.

The only course of action left was to go to court using one of my loans as the test case. Surely judges wouldn't lie! How wrong I was.

The following is a leaflet entitled "Variable Interest Rates Means Stealing "explaining severance and the bona fides method of transacting a loan contract.

VARIABLE INTEREST RATES MEANS STEALING

(1) they are ILLEGAL. Under common law, for there to be a contract created, there must be "certainty of terms" as an "essential element". This certainty does not exist if the interest rate is not known and not specifically written into the contract. To have a formula whereby a future interest rate is to be applied constitutes lack of certainty and the contract is void. There is no contract binding the borrower to repay the money. A bank misrepresenting such a document to be a contract is guilty of fraud and taking money by fraud is stealing. Legislation which allows variable interest rates, e.g.: the Consumer Credit Act, etc., is repugnant to common-law and is void and inoperative.

(2) they CONTRAVENE the principles of economics. When a loan is transacted," the level of interest rates is determined by the forces of demand and supply for finance in the money market." "The rate of interest charged for any particular transaction will depend on such considerations as the purpose and duration of the loan, the amount borrowed, the collateral security offered (if any), and the credit worthiness of the borrower, all factors influencing the degree of perceived 'risk' involved in making the loan by the lender." (Collins Dictionary of Economics. Second Edition.) Different interest rates being applied subsequently are levied on the outstanding balance of a loan transacted previously to which the determinants were established at the time, i.e.: there is no new loan to which the principles for the reckoning of interest rates can be imposed.

Might I suggest that a lawyer be consulted with a view to asking for "SEVERANCE",", i.e.: "The separation of the good parts of the contract from the bad, which are rejected. The doctrine of severance applies to any contract that is void by statute or common law, or even, in some cases, illegal, provided there is no "public policy grounds against severing (see void contract). The courts will, if possible, save the contract from total invalidity by severing the offending part." (Oxford Reference. A Dictionary of Law. New Edition.)

("Public policy. The interests of the community. If a contract is (on common law principles) contrary to public policy, this will normally make it an illegal contract.")

Written by J.Wilson, P.O. Box 4520, North Rocks, NSW 2151.

Amortising (Extinguishing) A Loan (i.e.: Without Interest Being Varied):

Example No. 1: a 10-year loan

Years - % of total interest paid* - % of principal paid*

1 ------------ 16.6 --------------------------- 6.6

2 ------------ 15.5 (32.1) ------------------- 6.8 (12.9)

3 ------------ 14.3 (46.4) ------------------- 7.5 (20.4)

4 ------------ 13.0 (59.4) ------------------- 8.3 (28.7)

5 ------------ 11.5 (70.9) ------------------- 9.1 (37.8)

6 ------------ 19.9 (80.8) ------------------- 10.1 (47.9)

7 ------------ 18.0 (88.8) ------------------- 11.1 (59.0)

8 ------------ 16.0 (94.8) ------------------- 12.3 (71.3)

9 ------------ 13.8 (98.6) ------------------- 13.6 (84.9)

10 ----------- 11.4 (100) ------------------- 15.1 (100)

*each year and running totals

Example No. 2: a 25-year loan

Years - % of total interest paid* - % of principal paid*

1 ------------- 5.9 ---------------------------- 1.2

2 ------------- 5.8 (11.7) -------------------- 1.3 (2.5)

3 ------------- 5.8 (17.5) -------------------- 1.4 (3.9)

4 ------------- 5.7 (23.2) ------------------- 1.5 (5.4)

5 ------------- 5.6 (28.8) -------------------- 1.6 (7.0)

6 ------------- 5.5 (34.3) -------------------- 1.8 (8.8)

7 ------------- 5.4 (39.7) -------------------- 1.9 (10.7)

8 ------------- 5.3 (45.0) -------------------- 2.1 (12.8)

9 ------------- 5.1 (50.1) -------------------- 2.3 (15.1)

10 ----------- 5.0 (55.1) -------------------- 2.5 (17.6)

11 ----------- 4.8 (59.9) -------------------- 2.8 (20.4)

12 ----------- 4.7 (64.6) -------------------- 3.0 (23.4)

13 ----------- 4.5 (69.1) -------------------- 3.3 (26.7)

14 ----------- 4.3 (73.4) -------------------- 3.6 (30.3)

15 ----------- 4.1 (77.5) -------------------- 3.9 (34.2)

16 ----------- 3.8 (81.3) -------------------- 4.3 (38.5)

17 ----------- 3.5 (84.8) -------------------- 4.7 (43.2)

18 ----------- 3.2 (88.0) -------------------- 5.1 (48.3)

19 ----------- 3.0 (91.0) -------------------- 5.8 (54.1)

20 ----------- 2.6 (93.6) -------------------- 6.1 (60.2)

21 ----------- 2.2 (95.8) -------------------- 6.6 (66.8)

22 ----------- 1.8 (97.6) -------------------- 7.3 (74.1)

23 ----------- 1.3 (98.9) -------------------- 7.9 (82.0)

24 ----------- 0.8 (99.7) -------------------- 8.6 (90.6)

25 ----------- 0.3 (100) --------------------- 9.4 (100)

*each year and running totals

-----------

CHAPTER 3 - THE MEDIA, POLITICIANS, PRICES SURVEILLANCE - AUTHORITY, POLICE, JUDICIAL COMMISSION, I.C.A.C., et al. - the list goes on and on.

Absolutely nobody in the public service or any organisation is prepared to be honest and stand up to the power of the banks. I have a filing cabinet full of the correspondence which has gone on between us.

Those who don't "pass the buck" with one of those stereotype letters in reply, actually say they see nothing wrong in the scam.

Politicians say that borrowers have a choice of variable or fixed interest rates. Banks will sometimes allow fixed interest rates on a loan for periods up to a maximum of 5 years after which the variable cuts in. They deliberately set the fixed rate higher than the variable rate to discourage the borrower adopting the fixed rate. All the time they make out that variable interest rates are legitimate. Not by common law, they are not! The contracts are fraud. The fact that corrupt politicians pass corrupt legislation and spineless, traitorous governors sign on the dotted line, doesn't make the swindle right. And for justice to exist, right must be done.

Once I gave an interview to personnel and camera crews from four television networks on the steps of the Supreme Court surrounded by senior police officers. Nothing went to air because they would not transmit what I said.

I have sent long faxes and more than enough material to the major newspapers documenting what has transpired. I have argued with editors and managing editors but nothing has appeared in print.

The only time an article appeared was in the Bulletin in which they said that I sought "to prove that the word 'variable' means certain, whereas his opponents hold that 'variable' means uncertain.". I phoned them and the journalist refused to admit he had got it wrong and the managing editor refused to retract anything. I filed for defamation and, at the first appearance in the Supreme Court, Judge Levine indicated that the case for defamation was strong and asked that I amend the Statement of Claim to be more descriptive. I duly enlarged on the circumstances to include the conduct of the judges which would have gone before a jury because all defamation cases must be heard by a jury.

At the next appearance in court, Judge Levine dismissed my case despite my protest that "to dismiss something which is truthful is a denial of justice". I called Judge Levine corrupt. He warned of contempt. I challenged him and he ordered me from the court. I refused to go and sheriffs were called to escort me out of the building. Once they had put me outside the doors in Macquarie Street, I immediately stepped back inside. The police were called and, by then, the journalists and camera crews had assembled. The interview was conducted on the steps, as I have said, and then I was taken in a police car to Day Street Station. No charges were laid and I was driven to the car park where I had left my car earlier. The police were courteous and were sympathetic to my situation when I told them the facts.

On the 26th of November, 1996, I lodged a formal complaint with the New South Wales Judicial Commission that Master Greenwood had lied and perverted the course of justice. The complaint was accompanied by documentation. They would not allow me to appear before them. Their letter, dated 10th February, 1997, said they had decided to dismiss the complaint because there was no evidence to support my accusation.

I sent a fax to the Independent Commission Against Corruption which was acknowledged by a letter giving me a File Number and saying the matter would be looked in to. A few months later a second letter arrived from them saying they had decided not to investigate the matter.

Efforts to secure an appointment with the Commissioner of Police, to see if the police would investigate the bank fraud and the corrupt judges, were rejected by his staff. One sergeant told me on the phone that I had been classified as a "persistent letter-writer" and never to bother them again.

I put in a submission to the Prices Surveillance Authority for the Bank Fees Enquiry in 1995 and attended to give an oral presentation. The reaction from one of the gentlemen on the panel was to say, "It would be interesting to hear a High Court decision on that." But, when the handsome volumes of the report were published, not one word of my submission was anywhere to be found."

Admittedly, nothing of another of my submissions to the House of Representatives Report into Fair Trading was given space, either. But they did include my name in the table of persons who had contributed.

Here are examples of the type of letters I have received:

1. From Hon. Wendy Machin, MP, NSW Minister for Consumer Affairs,17th November, 1994:

"Deregulation of the finance market is seen by Governments to produce greater efficiency in that market. Over-regulation was considered to be the direct cause of the limited availability of credit which was seen prior to the 1980s."

"In a competitive environment, financial institutions are able to offer a wide range of products, which may include fixed and variable rates, and to make those products available at a competitive price. This cannot be achieved by a highly regulatory regime."

"I have recently introduced into Parliament consumer credit legislation which is uniform to all States an Territories, and which is seen to be appropriate to the current deregulatory environment. The basis of the legislation is 'truth-in-lending', which requires that financial institutions give prospective purchasers of credit sufficient information to make informed choices of products. The Bill also provides for strong redress mechanisms if the legislation rules are breached."

"I believe therefore, that reinstatement of outmoded legislation as proposed by the Parramatta North Branch would not be a realistic option for the Government."

2. From Tim Fischer, MP, Federal Member for Farrer, Leader of the National Party of Australia, 2nd December, 1994:

"At the outset, I must say to you that I do not equate variable interest rates with corruption. In a modern economy, the price of money will change according to principles of demand and supply in much the same way as price changes for other goods and services."

"The price of money is, of course, interest rates."

"Any National Government will seek to utilise monetary policy through the mechanism of interest rates to influence economic growth and general economic health within the economy. The banks and other financial institutions make many products available to their customers, including fixed interestrate loans. No one is forced into a variable rate loan it depends on how much you want the credit."

"Fixed rate loans, it is true, are invariably more expensive. However, they do avoid the vagaries of the Government's monetary policy."

"Once again, I do not accept that variable interest rates are either necessarily corrupt or unconstitutional."

3. From A. E. McKenzie, Official Secretary to the Governor of New South Wales, Rear Admiral Peter Sinclair, 1st February, 1994:

"I refer again to your several letters about the Consumer Credit Act."."

"I should like to say that the Governor acts on the advice of his Ministers in relation to matter of this nature and it is regretted that there is nothing further that can be done by Government House."

"You should pursue your representations through Government."

----------

CHAPTER 4 - IN THE COURTS

The reason for a court case was straightforward, i.e.: to get the court to declare that variable interest rates were illegal under common law and thereby create a precedent so that past victims could make their claims for restitution and compensation. But there had to be a reason, at law, to bring the case to a court.

As I said previously, I am not legally trained and, therefore, had to ferret around in the hope of finding something.

In our local shopping mall is a Dymocks bookshop which has a section catering to school children and other novices. One of the small volumes I bought in this quest was the "Oxford Reference A Dictionary of Law" with "Over 3,000 clear and concise entries".

One of those entries said "severance" which described how, if a contract had any bad bits under statute or common law, one could have that element removed from the contract. That became the path to follow.

Here follows a sequence of papers and extracts from affidavits I filed in the Supreme and High Court. I have all the transcripts and judgments in full but the courts have copyright on their publications which is suspicious, in itself, because the courts belong to the people and there should be complete freedom to broadcast anything that is said or done, especially when the matter is of national importance (which this most definitely is).

I hope this construction sufficiently tells the story. But if the reader has any questions, please write to my postal address of:

P.O. Box 4520, North Rocks, NSW 2151, Australia.

To begin the process I filed a Statement of Claim in the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Sydney Registry, Queens Square on 4th July, 1996. The following extract is paragraphs 8 to 12 of the Particulars:

18. In "FIXED INTEREST RATE LOAN FIXED FOR 1, 2, 3, 4 OR 5 YEARS" it says that "On the 5th anniversary of the first advance of your loan the above fixed interest rate will cease. At that time, the following interest rate options will be available:

(a) A further interest rate period at the rate for St.George's fixed rate residential loans at that time, OR (b) St.George's variable residential loan interest rate applicable at that time."

19. There is no certainty as to what "the rate applicable for St.George's fixed rate residential loans" will be "On the 5th anniversary of the first advance" and, therefore, what the monthly repayment figure will be."."

10. There is no certainty as to what "St.George's variable residential loan interest rate" will be "On the anniversary of the first advance" and, similarly, what those monthly repayment figures will be.

11. Variable interest rate loan contracts are contrary to Common Law which demands that "certainty of terms" are an essential element for the creation of a contract.

12. Variable interest rates contravene basic principles of economics applicable to the determination of "The rate of interest charged for any particular transaction" (Ref: Collins Dictionary of Economics. Second Edition) which "will depend on such considerations as the purpose and duration of the loan, the amount borrowed, the collateral security (if any), and the credit worthiness of the borrower, all factors influencing the degree of perceived 'risk' involved in making the loan by the lender."

I filed a Differential Case Management Document on 18th July, 1996. The following are the first two pages of that document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
File No: 20680 of 1996.
NEW SOUTH WALES
SYDNEY REGISTRY.

THE PLAINTIFF'S D.C.M. DOCUMENT:

1.I am the Plaintiff and I am aware of the need to serve the DCM and the notice of status Conference on the St.George Bank Limited, the Defendant.

2. Contained in this DCM are:

((1) photocopies of pages 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of a fax to me and imprinted "07 MAR. '96 (THU) 16:35 COLIN BIGGER TEL: 61 2 221 7224" containing the "LOAN APPROVAL",

(2)a photocopy of a letter to me from St.George Bank Limited, dated 2 April, 1996, and

(3)a photocopy of my letter to Mr. John Kolyvas dated 6th March, 1996.

3.A NARRATIVE OF THE FACTS:

3.1. In the Statement of Claim, I have outlined the terms of Loan Account No. S.211.9702210 which illustrate the confused, misleading and render the contract void under Common Law.

3.2. The letter from St.George Bank (2nd April, 1996) refers to a letter I sent to Mr. John Kolyvas on the 6th of March, 1996 in which, the latter, I enclosed a leaflet I wrote entitled, "Variable interest rate loans are bad because."

3.3 My leaflet says that "certainty of terms" is an "essential element" under Common Law for the creation of a contract. On that basis, variable interest rate loans are repugnant to Common Law and, therefore, thoseĠcontracts are void.

3.4. The St.George letter says that, "At the moment it is proposed to introduce a new uniform Consumer Credit code ... implemented Australia-wide on 1st August, 1996. This legislation will cover home loans."

3.5. That is one of the reasons for the urgency for orders from the Supreme Court, i.e.: the proposed legislation is intended to legalise the unjust and illegal practice of variable interest rate loans. This action would deny the people of Australia their constitutional right to be protected under Common Law. A judgment from the Supreme Court in this case would go a long way to preventing such a monstrous miscarriage of our legislative process.

3.6. The other reason for expedition is that there is a possibility that St.George Bank will increase the interest rate on my loan by either 2% or 3% (the latter if reduction from 10.9% to 9.9% is also removed) ""on the anniversary of the approval" which will be on the 3/8/1996.

3.7. This increase in the interest rate after one year (even though St.George clearly say the interest rate is "fixed" for five years) could see my monthly repayments go from $2,483.00 to either $2,645.20 or possibly $2,717.43. It is uncertain.

3.8. When I took the loan from St.George Bank it was after making extensive enquiries to raise money to help pay out a previous "interest only" loan I had on my house. The previous loan fell due in September 1995. St.George would not offer any more than five years at the fixed interest rate. An independent financial consultant, Mr. David Carroll, confirmed that no one was offering better. Therefore, the choice was accept this ""best" loan, which I knew to be invalid, or sell my house.

3.9.I took the loan and have been trying constantly to persuade the bank to put right what is wrong in the agreement. This they refuse to do and that is why I am appealing to the Supreme Court to order the relief asked for in my Statement of Claim.

3.10. This action is appropriate to be brought in the Supreme Court because it is "a matter of public interest".

3.11. The practice of variable interest rate loans has become widespread across Australia. It is unconscionable. It is rapacious. It has caused misery, hardship and devastation. It is wrong.

3.12. In regard to the quote in my Statement of Claim for the method of determing the interest rate on a loan: by talking on the telephone with the editor of that reference book, Monica Thorp, in London and explaining I was using it in the Supreme Court in a dispute with my bank, permission has been granted for its use. The title of the book is the Collins Dictionary of Economics, Second Edition, with Christopher Pass, Bryan Lowes and Leslie Davids the authors and Harpers Collins, Publishers.

JOHN WILSON

The following is the Judgment of Master Greenwood. (There is no copyright restriction on this document as appears on the transcripts.)

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
MASTER GREENWOOD

TUESDAY, 17th SEPTEMBER, 1996
20680/96 JOHN WILSON v ST.GEORGE BANK LIMITED JUDGMENT MASTER:

On 22nd August, 1996 the defendant filed a motion seeking that the statement of claim be struck out pursuant to Part 15 r 26, or that the proceedings be summarily dismissed under Part 13 r.5 of the Supreme Court Rules.

I remind myself that in dealing with an application for summary disposal the onus is on the party seeking relief on a summary basis to satisfy the Court that the opponent has no plausible claim or defence.

Briefly, the facts of the relationship between the parties concern the borrowing by the plaintiff of $150,000 from the defendant. The contract was referred to as a "Home Loan Plus".

The Loan Approval, which is annexure A to the affidavit of David Singer, sworn on 21st August, 1996, indicates that the loan was for a period of seven years with a five-year period of fixed interest at 10.9 per cent, reducing to 9.9 per cent for prompt payment.

The annexure to the loan approval document dealt with the remaining terms of the loan. It is headed "Fixed Interest Rate Loan fixed for 1, 2, 3 or 5 Years". The relevant part of that document reads that the interest rate on the loan approval is fixed for a period of five years. It continues:

"On the fifth anniversary of the first advance of your loan the above fixed interest rate will cease. At that time, the following interest rate options will be available:

(a) A further interest rate period at the rate applicable for St.George's fixed rate residential loans at that time; or
(b) St. George's variable residential loan interest rate applicable at that time."

The defendant published from time to time the interest rates for it's various lendings, including the home loan interest rates. Annexed to Mr. Singer's affidavit are two publications, one is a copy of a publication of the rates which is available in branches of the defendant's bank, the second (annexure E) is an example of a publication in The Sydney Morning Herald of Monday, 29th July, 1996. Mr. Singer deposes that the rates are published in The Sydney Morning Herald on each Monday.

The plaintiff's statement of claim was filed on 4th July, 1996. It recites in the first eight paragraphs details of the Home Loan Approval. It sets out information which the plaintiff says is relevant to his argument. The statement of claim then reads:

"9. There is no certainty as to what 'the rate applicable for St.George's fixed rates residential loans' will be "On the fifth anniversary of the first advance' and, therefore, what the monthly repayment figure will be.

10. There is no certainty as to what 'St. George's variable residential loan interest rate' will be 'On the anniversary of the first advance' and, similarly, what those monthly repayment figures will be.

11. Variable interest rate loan contracts are contrary to Common Law which demands that 'certainty of terms' are an essential element for the creation of a contract.

12. Variable interest rates contravene basic principles of economics applicable to the determination of 'The rate of interest charged for any particular transaction' (Ref. Collins Dictionary of Economics. Second Edition) which will depend on such considerations as the purpose and duration of the loan, the amount borrowed, the collateral security (if any), and the credit worthiness of the borrower, all factors influencing the degree of perceived 'risk' involved in making the loan by the lender."

Part 13 r 5 of the Supreme Court Rules provides that where in any proceedings it appears to the Court that there is no reasonable cause of action disclosed, or the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious, ot vexatious, or the proceedings are an abuse of the process of the Court, the Court may order that the proceedings be stayed or dismissed generally, or in relation to any claim for relief in the proceedings.

Part 15 r 26 provides that:

"Where a pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence or other case appropriate to the nature of the pleading, or has a tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay in the proceedings, or is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court, the Court may ... order that the whole, or any part of the pleading be struck out."

The plaintiff's argument is quite simple and clear. He submits that under his contract with the defendant he does not know what rate of interes the will have to pay in five years time when the fixed interest component of his loan expires and he, therefore, does not know what the loan willcost. Thus, the contract is uncertain and must be void for uncertainty.

In aid of this submission the plaintiff calls on the words of Viscount Maugham in Scammell and Nephew Limited v Ouston (1941) AC 251 where the learned judge said:

"There was no evidence to suggest that there are any of the well-known usual terms of such a contract, for instance, as to the interest payable."

The "terms" to which the judge was referring concern interest rates which were said to be "hire-purchase terms payable over two years" and in the circumstances this term was held to be void for uncertainty and therefore the contract was held to be void for uncertainty.

The question of the effect on a contract where the future interest rate is uncertain, although specified at the time when the contract was entered into, was considered by Smith J. in the Supreme Court of Victoria in Tonelliv Komirra Pty Limited. It is reported at (1972) VR 737. At page 741 the learned judge wrote:

"The defendant's contention that the sale note was void by reason of uncertainty as to the rate of interest payable on outstanding purchase money was based on the fact that conditions 2 (A) and 2 (B) provided that the rate of interest should be one-quarter per cent above 'the current bank overdraft rate'. It was submitted that what these words referred to was a current rate which would have been charged by whatever bank the plaintiff might have approached for a loan of the amount of the outstanding purchase money. And it was pointed out that, according to the evidence, the rate which each bank would have charged any customer upon any loan, whatever the amount or purpose, would have been fixed by negotiation with the particular borrower; so that it was not possible to identify any rate as being that currently charged by banks for any particular size or class of loan.

"In my view, however, the conclusion that follows from this state of the evidence is not that the provision as to the rate of interest was void for uncertainty. It is that the provision does not refer to a rate of interest currently charged by banks for loans of a certain size or class, but refers to the only uniform rate that did exist, namely, the uniform maximum bank overdraft interest rate prescribed and published from time to time by the Reserve Bank with the approval of the Commonwealth Treasurer. Accordingly, this third allegation of uncertainty, like those earlier discussed must be rejected."

Turning now to the terms of the loan approval which I have dealt within greater detail earlier, the loan approval is for the period of seven years, the first five years of interest being fixed at 9.9 per cent, the remaining two years of interest on the loan would be set at one of the two options which were available: either the St. George fixed residential rate applicable at that time; or the St. George variable residential loan interest rate applicable at that time.

I am of the view that the contract which the parties entered into is not void for uncertainty. The agreement between the parties is that at the end of five years the interest rate will be that prescribed and published by the bank for residential fixed interest rate loans, or variable interest rate loans.

Uncertainty does not lie in the terms of the contract which were agreed between the parties, but in what the rate will be applicable at the expiration of five years. Thus, whilst the amount of that future rate is uncertain, the rate itself is indeed certain. It has been defined as the rate that is applied in the circumstances which I have earlier setout.

It follows, therefore, that the plaintiff's pleading falls because the gravamen of his complaint, namely, that the contract is void for uncertainty, is not correct. The contract is certain, certain in its terms. It is the percentage of interest to be determined in an agreed way and payable in the sixth and seventh years of the contract which is unknown at this point in time. Now whilst the quantum of the future interest rate is uncertain, its method of determination is not.

As the basis of the plaintiff's claim is built upon the submission that the contract is void for uncertainty, it follows that the plaintiff's claim cannot stand. I, therefore, dismiss the statement of claim. The plaintiffis to pay the defendant's costs.

It follows from what I have said that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment also cannot stand. I, therefore, dismiss that motion, the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs.

I certify that this and the five preceding pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of Master Greenwood.

S. Arundsen
Associate

Dated 17th September, 1996

I filed a Notice of Appeal from Master to Judge on 24th September, 1996.I filed more Affidavits to support the Notice of Motion.

On 30 SEP 1996 the hearing was before Mr. Acting Justice Hamilton. Again, copyright restrictions on the transcript prevent me reproducing it here but the following is his judgment:

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
HAMILTON AJ

MONDAY, 30th SEPTEMBER, 1996
020680/96 JOHN WILSON v ST. GEORGE BANK LIMITED

JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF:

Shouldn't the terms of the contract be established when the contract is made?

HIS HONOUR: No, that is the problem. You see, that is not the law and that is the point of the maxim that I have given you, that the law regards as certain something which can be rendered certain provided there is some objective criterion or objective formula by which at sometime you can obtain certainty. You cannot do it simply by saying in general terms, well, whatever one party to the contract does binds the other, but you may have a reference to either the decision of a third person or to the Consumer Price Index for instance, rents in leases are often fixed for the future by reference to the Consumer Price Index, which is published from time to time; so that if a formula is specified whereby in some objective way certainty can be obtained at the relevant time, then in one sense, of course, it is uncertain, but for legal purposes it is not uncertain.

If have heard the submissions that have been made about this matter, I think there is not a great deal for me to say about the matter, save that Master Greenwood's judgment appears to me to be correct and indeed for the reasons given by the learned Master with which I agree. The appeal will therefore be dismissed.

I certify that this and the one preceding page are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of
The Honourable Mr. Acting Justice Hamilton.
Associate

Dated 30th September, 1996

I filed a Notice of Appeal in the Court of Appeal on 9th October, 1996.I filed another Affidavit and on 18th October, 1996, filed a Notice of Motion asking for injunctions to be placed on the St. George Bank Ltd. to stop them trading in variable interest rate loans "until this case can be fully heard".

On 21st October, 1996, the opposition solicitors filed a Notice of Motion asking "That leave to the appellant to appeal be refused."

I filed another Affidavit with Annexures that were Press Releases from the Reserve Bank of Australia which were clear testimony to the uncertainty of future interest rates.

On 28th October, 1996 a hearing was held in the Court of Appeal before Judge of Appeal Clarke and Acting Judge of Appeal Abadee.

Again, the transcript from the Court of Appeal has copyright restrictions but the following four pages are their judgment:

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL
CA 40593/96
CLARKE JA, ABADEE AJA

MONDAY, 28th OCTOBER, 1996
JOHN WILSON v ST. GEORGE BANK LIMITED JUDGMENT

CLARKE JA: Mr. John Wilson has filed a notice of appeal from a decision by Hamilton AJ on 30 September, 1996 in which the learned judge dismissed an appeal brought by Mr. Wilson from a judgment of Master Greenwood given on 17th September, 1996.

In the course of preparation for the hearing both parties seem to have directed their mind to the need to secure the leave of this court to bring the appeal. Quite unusually, St. George Bank Limited, the opponent, has not sought, as I understand it, to strike out the appeal but in a gesture helpful to Mr. Wilson has invited the Court to consider an assumed application by Mr. Wilson for leave to appeal and to dismiss it.

The factual background is that Mr. Wilson filed a statement of claim in the Supreme Court seeking a declaration that a loan account that he has with the bank is void; or, alternatively, the severance of part of what is described as a contract.

Without going into the detail of the statement of claim, my understanding is that Mr Wilson complains that a mortgage which he entered into with the St. George Bank is void, or partly void because in one respect it is uncertain in its terms.

The mortgage provides for the payment of a fixed rate of interest for the first five years of its term and for the following two years make the following provision (I am not quoting from the mortgage but the effect of the mortgage).

"On the fifth anniversary of the first advance of your loan the above fixed interest rate will cease. At that time the following interest rate options will be available:

(a) A further interest rate period at the rate applicable for St. George's fixed rate residential loans at that time; or
(b) St. George's variable residential loan interest rate applicable at that time."

The point is that at the end of five years the fixed interest rate ceases and there then is an option available to Mr. Wilson to determine whether, in the ensuing period of the mortgage, he will pay interest at the St. George fixed interest rate for residential loans, or the St. George variable interest rate for residential loans. His complaint is that the provision for interest during the final two years is not fixed, i.e., the interest rate payable in respect of those two years is not known at the time of the mortgage and accordingly there is an uncertainty in the agreement between the parties which renders the agreement void or partly void.

The St. George Bank, upon receipt of the statement of claim, moved to strike it out or, alternatively, secure an order that the proceedings be summarily dismissed on the ground that there was no arguable cause of action disclosed in the statement of claim. The argument of the St. George Bank was that it was clear that there was no uncertainty in the terms of the mortgage and that the parties had expressly agreed upon the manner or mechanism by which the interest rate for the mortgage would be fixed in the last two years of its term. Accordingly, there was no substance at all in the complaints in the statement of claim and it should be struck out and the proceedings dismissed.

Master Greenwood heard the application and he on 17th September, 1996, he ordered that Mr. Wilson's claim be summarily dismissed. Mr. Wilson there upon appealed from that judgment and the appeal was, as I have earlier indicated, heard by Hamilton AJ and dismissed.

The Supreme Court Act in section 101(2)(i) provides that an appeal shall not lie to this court, except by leave of the Court of Appeal, from a judgment or order of the court in a division on an application for summary judgment under the Rules. As I understand the motion considered by Master Greenwood, and upheld by him, it was an application for summary judgment. Accordingly, Mr. Wilson can bring an appeal to this Court from Hamilton AJ's order only by leave of this Court and, despite the absence of a formal application by him, the Court is disposed in the circumstances to treat the present hearing as an application for leave to appeal. Clearly, if Mr. Wilson does not get leave to appeal he cannot seek any other orders from this court, which acts only the basis of the existence of pending appeals.

The question then is whether Mr. Wilson should be granted leave to appeal. In my opinion the material before the court demonstrates that there was no uncertainty in the terms agreed between the parties, and therefore noinvalidity of the agreement. The uncertainty that exists in only as to what interest will be payable by Mr. Wilson for the last two years of the term. The parties have, however, in their contract provided an agreed mechanism for determining with certainty what that interest rate will be.

Such a method of determination of interest rates and analogous payments is well known to the law and, provided that the parties have agreed in terms that could be described as certain as to the mechanism which is to be applied in determining what the interest rate or other payment should be, the agreement does not fail for lack of certainty.

I regard that proposition as such trite law as to need no authority for its support. It is well established and is applied as settled in the commercial law of this State on a regular basis.

Although the decision in Tonelli v Komirra Pty Limited (1972) VR 737was somewhat different, it provides an example of the method by which the law upholds contracts as sufficiently certain where a mechanism is provided for determining interest rates payable in the future which have not been expressly agreed at the time of the contract.

In my opinion there is no substance at all in law in Mr. Wilson's complaints and I would be disposed to dismiss the application with costs.

ABADEE AJA: I agree with the orders proposed by Clarke JA and his reasons for them.

CLARKE JA: The orders of the court will be that leave to appeal from the judgment of Hamilton AJ is refused with costs.

I hereby certify that this and the preceding three pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of his
Honour Mr. Justice Clarke and of the Court.
Associate
Dated 28th October, 1986.

On 7th November, 1996 I lodged an Application for Special Leave to Appeal in the High Court. I submitted all the necessary Statements, Appeal Books and Summaries of Argument.

Again, because of copyright restrictions, no transcript but here is my Summary of Argument and the Address I made to
High Court on 11th April, 1997:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SYDNEY OFFICE OF THE REGISTRY
No. S190 of 1996

BETWEEN: JOHN WILSON Applicant and St. George BANK LIMITED Respondent

APPLICANT'S SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Part I:

1. Whether a loan contract, which provides for variable interest rates or a future fixed interest rate not established at the time the loan contract was created, is void for uncertainty? "It is a discrete question of law" (letter from the High Court, 10/1/97).

Part II:

1.I filed a Statement of Claim with the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 4th July, 1996 saying that I have a seven-year loan contract with the St. George Bank Limited where the bank would only allow five years maximum at the specified fixed interest rate and then for the final two years I could choose either the bank's fixed interest rate applicable at that time or the bank's variable interest rate applicable at that time.

2.On 17th September, 1996, Master Greenwood dismissed my Statement of Claim saying, "Thus whilst the amount of that future rate is uncertain, the rate itself is indeed certain."

3.I appealed from a Master to a Judge and, on 30th September, 1996, Mr. Acting Justice Hamilton upheld Master Greenwood's judgment and, when I asked Mr. Acting Justice Hamilton, "Shouldn't the terms of the contract be established when the contract is made?", he said, "No, that is the problem."

4.I appealed to the Court of Appeal and at the hearing on 28th October, 1996 Judge of Appeal Clark and Acting Judge of Appeal Abadee refused me leave to appeal on the grounds there was "No arguable cause for action in Statement of Claim."

5.I am now applying to the High Court of Australia for Special Leave to Appeal.

Part III:

11. Master Greenwood said "Thus whilst the amount of that future rate is uncertain, the rate itself is indeed certain". Master Greenwood's untrue statements and his corruption of the meaning and the Spirit of the Law are an attempt to pervert the course of Justice. To defeat this, keywords should be defined.

12.A "loan" is a "thing, especially money, lent to be returned with or without interest".

13.A "contract" is "an agreement duly executed and legally binding". It is a "business agreement for supply of goods or performance of work at fixed price".

14. Under Common Law, there must be "certainty of terms" for a contract to be valid.

15." Certainty" means "that which is certain" and ""certain" means "absolutely assured, regular, fixed".

16. "Terms" means "conditions, stipulations, price, charge, rate of payment".

17. "Variable" means "apt to change, changeable, uncertain".

18. For a loan contract to be valid, the interest rate must be certain.

19. To make out a contract with uncertainty of terms (e.g.: variable interest rates) to be a valid contract is false representation, i.e.: fraud.

10. The practice of variable interest rate loans has become wide spread across Australia. It is unconscionable. It is rapacious. It has caused misery, hardship and devastation. It is wrong.

11. Variable interest rates even contravene the basic principles of economics applicable to the determination of "The rate of interest charged for any particular transaction" (Ref: Collins Dictionary of Economics) which "will depend on such considerations as the purpose and duration of the loan, the amount borrowed, the collateral security (if any), and the creditworthiness of the borrower, all factors influencing the degree of perceived 'risk' involved in making the loan by the lender.".

12. When variable interest rates go up they are penal, i.e.: the borrower is punished by having to pay more when he or she has done nothing wrong.

13. When the market rates go down, a borrower should be at liberty to negotiate refinancing with the same lender or obtain funds elsewhere to pay out the balance of the loan. Then the new rate becomes the new fixed rate and the contract is valid.

14. My appeal is to have Master Greenwood's judgment overruled because the evidence as to the uncertainty of the terms of my loan contract was wrongfully rejected (SCR Part 51 r.16.4).

15. Master Greenwood said: "Uncertainty does not lie in the terms of the contract which were agreed between the parties, but in what the rate will be applicable at the expiration of five years." Is not the interest rate one of the terms of a loan contract?

16. My contract is a loan contract and the terms of a loan contract areas above, i.e.: the "conditions, stipulations, price, charge, rate of payment".".

17. Master Greenwood is saying in one breath that the terms are certain and in the next that the rate is uncertain and yet in another that ""the rate itself is indeed certain".

18. Master Greenwood's judgment is "gobbledegook". It is confused and contradictory. It is a travesty. It is fundamentally erroneous. Master Greenwood makes a mockery of the court. He is in contempt of the court.

19. Mr. Acting Justice Hamilton (30th October, 1996) wrongly applied the legal maxim "certum est quod certum reddi potest" and said that certainty of terms was not necessary when creating a contract. He wrongfully rejected Common Law.

20. The Oxford Reference Dictionary of Law says this of the maxim: ""If something is capable of being made certain, it should be treated as certain." If the interest rate at the expiration of five years was capable of being made certain at the time the contract was made then there would be no case. However, "the amount of that future rate is uncertain" ((Greenwood 17th September, 1996). Therefore, the rate itself is indeed uncertain. Therefore, the contract is void.

21. Annexures "A", "B", "C" and "D" to my Affidavit filed on 23rd October, 1996 is material sent to me by the Reserve Bank of Australia and received on 21st October, 1996. They support the argument that there was no certainty at the time of creating my loan contract as to what any future interest rate might be. This uncertainty still exists.

22. Master Greenwood said: "Now whilst the quantum of the future interest rate is uncertain, its method of determination is not."

23. Not even the "method of determination" of future interest rates is certain....not when one reads Annexures "A", "B", "C" and "D".

24. Those documents are similarly Annexures "A", "B", "C" and "D" to this Summary of Argument and are numbered pages 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,15 and 16, 17 and 18.

25. Annexure "A" uses the words: "Following on from the improvement in the financial outlook, the Board has decided to reduce interest rates"; "to around 7 per cent."; "This follows deliberations at the Boardmeeting yesterday, and consultations with the Treasurer."; and "The2-3 per cent objective, and its view that the economy has the capacity to grow a little faster than at present without threatening this objective".

26. Annexure "A" also refers to: (i) "Last week's CPI figure"; (ii) "inflation was running at an annual rate around 21per cent";(iii) "other price indicators"; (iv) "The Statistician's series of manufacturing prices"; (v) "The Bank's forecast suggest"...etc. ... and lists "factors influencing future inflation".

27. Annexure "A" states: "it (the Board) will be ready to increase interest rates if wages and salary developments get out of line with that objective."." and "The reduction in rates will help buoy the economy, and make more progress over the year ahead in reducing unemployment."

28. Annexure "A" illustrates the fact that the Reserve Bank of Australia makes decisions on what interest rates will be depending on factors which exist at that time and what the Board decide will be its objective or policy at that time.

29. Annexure "B" is headed "MONETARY POLICY TIGHTENS" and talks of "taking action this morning to raise cash rates" and "this further tightening has occurred rather sooner than some might have expected.".

30. Annexure "B" talks of "Notwithstanding the effects of the severe drought" and "rising imports" and "employment, which grew by 3.3per cent.".

31. Annexure "B" talks of "consumer prices are increasing by about 2 per cent" and "Rises in labour costs also have been quite modest" and "the strengthening international economy".

32. Annexure "B" shows a graph comparing the "Housing rate of major banks" to the "Cash rate" in the period from 1984 to 1994 which proves that the practice of passing on fluctuations in market rates to the borrower is at the discretion of the lender in that the fluctuations may be passed on either in full or in part or not at all and either immediately or at a later date.

33. Annexure "C" is headed "MONETARY POLICY TO TIGHTEN" and tells that "The Reserve Bank will be operating in money markets this morning to increase cash rates by 0.75 per cent, to around 51per cent. This action follows deliberations by the Board over several months, and consultations with the Government."

34. Annexure "C" says "Given these development, the current interest rate regime, which was adopted more than a year ago when the recovery was much less robust, is no longer appropriate." and "At least part of the increase in short term interest rates can be expected to flow through to variable home loan rates. The Bank is announcing another change of a prudential kind, which, at the margin, is expected to have some influence on home lending." and "The bank is writing to the banks on the details of this change in arrangements, which will apply to all housing loans approved after 5th September, 1994.".

35. Annexure "D" is headed "FURTHER TIGHTENING OF MONETARY POLICY" and talks of "this increase will help to avoid overheating of the ecomony further down the track" and "Policy setting, however, must be forward looking".

36. These Annexures support the argument of the uncertainty of future interest rate by explaining the changes in and the multiplicity of the factors which are considered and how even policies influence the final rate arrived at on a particular date.

37. When Judge of Appeal Clarke and Acting Judge of Appeal Abadee refused leave to appeal because there was "No arguable cause of action disclosed in Statement of Claim, that is emphatically untrue. "

38. The Statement of Claim, in paragraphs 9 and 10, says "There is no certainty as to what "the rate applicable for St. George's fixed rate residential loans" will be "On the 5th anniversary of the first advance" and, therefore, what the monthly repayment figure will be." and the same for "St. George's variable loan interest rate".

39. In the Statement of Claim I ask for "the severance of the part of the contract contrary to Common Law".

40. There is not simply an "arguable cause for action".

41. Subsequent material I have filed in the Supreme Court leave no doubt of the need for an Australian court to protect the Australian people against this heinous and fraudulent practice of variable interest rate loans.

42. Under Common Law, "certainty of terms" is an essential element of a contract.

43. Considering what has transpired in the courts to this point in time, the question that demands an answer is: "Does Common Law exist in Australia?".

44. "Honi soit qui mal y pense."

45. "Let right be done."

Part IV:

1. Special leave to appeal should be granted because ""substantial injustice will be done by leaving that erroneous decision unreversed" (SCR Part 51.3.2).

2. Master Greenwood is wrong and, subsequently, Mr. Acting Justice Hamilton, Judge of Appeal Clark and Acting Judge of Appeal Judge Abadee are wrong.

Part V:

1. If this application is refused, the quest for Truth and Justice does not end there. I shall apply for special leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council.

2. No order for costs in favour of the respondent should be made and those made should be stuck out because the respondent has included in the loan contract a clause to "oust the jurisdiction of the courts" (Ref: Cheshire and Foot. Law of Contract. Chapter 14 (1402), i.e.: even if I should win the St.George Bank will add their costs to my loan. This is confirmed in a letter the respondent's solicitors sent to my wife and dated 9th August, 1996 (Annexure "E", page 19, of this Summary of Argument).

Part VI:

1.I rely on Common Law.

Part VII:

1.I would like to supplement this summary with oral argument to ask each judge on the bench of the High Court of Australia

(a) "Does "variable" mean "uncertain"?" and (b) ""Does" uncertainty" mean "certainty"?" and to have the opportunity to participate in debate on any issue which may arise.

Dated the 28th day of January, 1997.
John Wilson
(Signed, Applicant)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SYDNEY OFFICE OF THE REGISTRY
No. S190 of 1996
APPLICANT'S ADDRESS TO THE HIGH COURT (Item 1)

11.I would firstly like to draw your attention to the Notice of Motion I filed on 1st April, 1997. I am reporting the crime of fraud being committed by the banks in the form of variable interest rate loans. The proof that this is a crime is contained in my Summary of Argument and the Affidavit accompanying the Notice of Motion.

12.I am also drawing your attention to an illegal Act of Parliament called the Australia Act 1986 which attempts to deny me my right to Appeal to the Privy Council. I have documented the proof that this Act is illegal in my submissions.

13. To summarise what I ask: that the Constitution Act 1900 be enforced, that the Bill of Rights 1688 be enforced, and that Common Law be enforced.

14.I want the High Court of Australia to grant Special Leave to Appeal and I move that the orders and the certificate in my Notice of Motion begranted.

15. In Part III of the Respondent's Summary of Argument they say: ""There is no lack of certainty." The interest rate for the final two years of the loan contract is uncertain as explained in my Statement of Claim.

16. They also say: "There is a clear mechanism for determining the variable interest rate when the time arrives." The loan contract was created in 1995 and the mechanism for determining the interest rate after five years was not certain then and it is not certain now. The contract was void for uncertainty then and it is void for uncertainty now. This I have explained in my
Summary of Argument.

17. They also refer to the maxim certum est quod certum reddi potest. This is not applicable here because the maxim means "if something is capable of being made certain then it must be considered to be certain". When the loan contract was taken out the interest rate for the final two years was not capable of being made certain and even now it is not capable of being made certain.

18. The case of Tonelli v. Komirra Pty Ltd (please refer to item 2) should be disregarded because there Smith J, said "(at page 741) ... and it was pointed out that, according to the evidence, the rate which each bank would have charged any customer upon any loan, whatever the amount or purpose, would have been fixed by negotiation with the particular borrower; so that it was not possible to identify any rate as being that currently charged by the banks for any particular size or class of loan." and "(atpage 741) ... In my view, ... is that that provision ... refers to the only uniform rate that did exist ...".

19. In other words, "the uniform maximum bank overdraft interest rate prescribed and published from time to time by the Reserve Bank with the approval of the Commonwealth Treasurer" "would have been fixed" into the loan contract and if the interest rate is not variable.

10. When I said to Judge of Appeal Clarke (item 3) that "I repeat that the rate would have been fixed by negotiation with the particular borrower and that means it is stated quite categorically what that will be."." Judge of Appeal Clarke said "You are making submissions. IfI repeat your submissions and I disagree with every word of them, they are not part of my judgment, except I am reflecting my view that your submissions will not be accepted."

11. When I said to Judge of Appeal Clarke (item 3) "referring back to that legal maxim ("certum est certum quod reddi potest"), it (the interest rate) is uncertain if it can be referring to something that is not certain", Judge of Appeal Clarke said "Maxims are useful, but they are tools."

12. The rates for the last two years of my loan contract do not exist.
They are not yet known.
They are uncertain.
They did not exist when the loan was taken out and the contract made.

13. The Tonelli v Komirra judgment supports my case not the Respondent's.

14.I could not find any case dealing with variable interest rate loans contracts.

15. The Respondent's paragraph 3.3 is wrong, i.e.: my complaint is asto the uncertainty of both choices after the first five years and that is clearly explained in my Statement of Claim, i.e.: there is no certainty either way.

16. The Respondent has no defence and, if it were possible, the HighCourt of Australia should give a Summary Judgment in my favour on the 11th April, 1997.

17. To have a Summary Judgment was, in fact, the direction of the Supreme Court on 2/8/96 (please refer to item 4) but the Respondent disobeyed that direction and filed for a Summary Dismissal and, from that point on, I have received a series of "wrongful" judgments.

18. Those "wrongful" judgments being:
((1) Master Greenwood 17/9/96,
((2) Mr. Acting Justice Hamilton 30/9/96, and
((3) Judge of Appeal Clarke + Acting Judge of Appeal Abadee 28/10/96.

19. It's time for the Judiciary to put its house in order.

20.I my Differential Case Management Document, filed on 18th July, 1996, was a letter to the St. George Bank dated 6th March, 1996, which included a copy of a leaflet I was distributing at the time entitled "Variable interest rates are bad because:" It explains "they are ILLEGAL" and how "they CONTRAVENE the principles of economics". (Please refer to item 5).

21. Again I ask that: (a) Special Leave to Appeal be granted,
(b) the Injunctions be imposed, and
(c) the Certificate be made out.

22. Finally, in my Summary of Argument I have said that I would like to ask each Judge, here today, two questions and I draw your Honours' attention to item 6 where those questions are laid out. And, with your Honours' permissions I would like to ask them now.

--------------

CHAPTER 5 - TRIAL BY JURY

That is what the judges really fear.

In December of 1997 I employed a solicitor who bluntly said, "Judge shave all the power.". "Power corrupts". Never has that adage been more appropriate than here and now.

After the Master Greenwood judgment I made up a leaflet which I faxed to probably 50 or so persons from the Governor-General down. The leaflet said:

THE SUPREME COURT IS CORRUPT. MASTER TERENCE GREENWOOD OF THE COMMON-LAW DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES IS CORRUPT AND A TRAITOR.

PROOF IS HIS RULING IN CASE No. 20680/96 (JOHN WILSON v. St. George BANK).).

MASTER GREENWOOD ACCEPTED THAT, BECAUSE OF INDETERMINATE CHANGES IN INTEREST RATES, THE COST OF A LOAN TO A BORROWER COULD NOT BE KNOWN BUT DECLARED THAT THIS DID NOT CONSTITUTE UNCERTAINTY OF TERMS WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE RENDER A CONTRACT VOID UNDER COMMON LAW, I.E.: HE RULED IN FAVOUR OF THE BANKS DEFRAUDING THE PEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA.

John Wilson, P.O. Box 4520, North Rocks, NSW 2151 (18/9/96).

but the only response I got was to be visited by two uniformed policemen to tell me I shouldn't be doing that sort of thing. They were curious to know what was behind the seemingly irrational behaviour and I explained how the banks were operating their fraud with the protection of the courts. Once they understood what my motives were, they wished me all the best and wanted to know if I was the only person trying to do anything about it.

As the hearings continued, I produced more and more leaflets accusing the judges of corruption and challenging them to put me in front of a jury. Their silence was deafening.

When the Bulletin article came up and the journalists would not retract, I filed in the Supreme Court on 17th June, 1997 for Defamation (which has to have a jury). On 30th June, 1997 Judge Levine said to me that I was "dangerously close to pleading a cause of action in defamation but ((that I was) not quite there" and asked that I amend the Statement of Claim which I did do. However, on 25th July, 1997, Judge Levine said my amended Statement was "embarrassing and vexatious" and he struck it out thereby eliminating the possibility of the whole sordid affair (including the conduct of the judges) being brought before a jury.

"Judges have all the power."

On 24th July, 1997 I filed another Statement of Claim in the Supreme Court saying "I am the victim of a terrible civil wrong, i.e. tort, where a succession of members of the judiciary have lied, supported lies and concealed the truth with the result that the course of justice has been perverted."

On 4th August, 1997 Registrar Irwin did not strike out the action but sent myself and the opposition to the Duty Judge, a Judge Barr, who seta hearing date. I asked for a jury, in line with paragraph 3 of my Statement under "The Plaintiff Claims" when I said, "A trial by jury is the only acceptable method of determination in this case because of the number of members of the judiciary who are the defendants", but Judge Barr said there was "no jury available".

On 25th August, 1997 Mr. Acting Justice Murray heard the proceedings. After repeated requests he allowed me to read a prepared address to the court. He did not dismiss the case there and then but reserved his judgment. Here is what I said to the court:

ADDRESS TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES:

(Monday, 25th August, 1997)
Your Honour, the seven defendants have abandoned common law.
The case I brought against the St.George Bank was on the basis that, under common law, there must be certainty of terms for a contract to becreated.

The loan contract in question was for seven years with the first five years being at a fixed interest rate of 9.9% and the final two years to be either at a fixed rate which would be applicable at that time or at a variable rate applicable at that time.

I claimed that neither of the two alternatives for the final two years were certain at the time the contract was made and they remain uncertain. Therefore, I asked the court to sever that part of the contract because it was void under common law. It was not a contract for a loan at a fixedprice.

"Certainty" means that which is absolutely assured, regular, fixed. And the "terms" of a contract means the conditions, stipulations, charge, price, rate of payment. Whereas "variable" means apt to change, changeable, uncertain.

The first Defendant, Master Greenwood, said in his judgment that ""the rate itself is indeed certain". However, the rate for the final two years is either variable or uncertain.

A "lie" is an intentional violation of the truth.

Master Greenwood's lying judgment has been supported, in turn, by the other six defendants.

During the course of proceedings from the Common Law Division of the New South Wales Supreme Court through to the High Court of Australia I filed 24 documents with Affidavits, etc., repeating the same theme of the common law requirement of certainty of terms and pointing out that making out a contract with variable interest rates or, in other words, uncertain of terms to be a valid contract is false representation or fraud and that taking money by fraud is stealing.

All this the seven defendants dismissed.

They have committed a terrible civil wrong.

They are not immune from civil action for their offence because they have abused the process of the court and the function of a court is toad minister justice.

I would like to quote from Lord Denning (and this quote appears in my Statement of Claim): "In a civilised society, legal process is the machinery for keeping order and doing justice. It can be used properly or it can be abused. It is used properly when it is invoked for the vindication ofmen's rights or the enforcement of just causes. It is abused when it is diverted from its true course so as to achieve an improper end. When it is so abused, it is a tort, a wrong known to the law. The judges can and will intervene to stop it. They will stay the legal process, if they can, before any harm is done. If they cannot stop it in time, and harm is done, they will give damages against the wrong doer.".

The solicitors for the defendants have supplied me with some precedents which deal with the issue of immunity and I would like to quote passages from these documents.

In the case of Gallo v Dawson where Wilson J said, "if the judge has accepted bribes or been in the least degree corrupt, or has perverted the course of justice, he can be punished in the criminal courts."

Here I would like to quote from Halsbury's Laws of Australia on the subject of a judge being "immune from suit in respect of acts done ...in the performance of judicial duties ...". It says that "A judge acts in the performance of his or her judicial duties when acting in the bona fide exercise of office and under the belief that he or she has jurisdiction."

The words, "bona fide", mean in good faith or having honest intentions.

From the text of Rajski v Powell and another Kirby P said, "Suchimmunity rests, as it has been said, upon consideration of public policy."

"Public policy" means in the interest of the community.

Lying, supporting lies and concealing the truth cannot be considered to be "acting in the bona fide exercise of office" nor in the interests of the community.

Also from Rajski v Powell and another, Kirby P refers to ""redress, through the Judicial Commission".
I have tried that path with a complaint against Master Greenwood (thatis Annexure "A" in the Affidavit I filed on 12 August, 1997) only to be rejected by a panel of more judges.

In order to seek redress, I also wrote to the Governor-General of Australia on the 25th April, 1997 only to be turned away with the comment that the Governor-General "cannot intervene".

I sent a petition to Her Majesty the Queen on the 9th May, 1997 only to be rejected with the comment that "she is unable to take any direct action on (my) behalf".

And again, from Rajski v Powell and another, Kirby P quotes from an 1811 case in America of Yates v Yansing when Platt Sr said: "Let usbeware that in our zeal for securing personal liberty we do not destroy the virtuous independence and rightful authority of our courts of justice, and thereby subvert the foundations of social order. So long as our courts are pure, enlightened and independent, we shall enjoy that greatest of earthly blessings, a government of laws; but whenever these tribunals shall cease to deserve that character, the standard of justice and civil liberty must give place to the sceptre of a tyrant."

"The sceptre of a tyrant"!

These seven defendants have sacrificed truth, law, justice and the rights of the people to appease a tyrant. They have not acted "judicially".

The tyrant, of course, is in the form of the banks.

The Royal coat of arms and the Australian coat of arms have been displaced by bank logos.

Proof of the power of the tyrant was seen in the repealing of an important Statute Law in 1981. The Moneylenders and Infants Loans Act of 1941, which stated that "a loan contract shall show ... the total amount of interest to be paid" and outlawed compound interest and penalty interest rates, was repealed and a Consumer Credit Act passed to allow the terms of a contract to be varied by the lender.

This was and remains a violation of common law.

The fraud has persisted and this is what the banks now call a ""contract" I will read from a letter from a major bank where it says:
"Under the contract, the annual percentage rate, the interest free period, the minimum repayment, and the fees and charges may all vary without your consent. New fees or charges may also be introduced without your consent."

Such a document is no contract.

The banks have trampled common law and these seven judges have abandoned it.

What is at the heart of this case is a fight for democracy and against the tyranny of the banks.

Many, many people know what I am doing farmers, policemen, bank employees and they wish me good luck while telling me that I can't win because the banks won't allow it.

It is the simplest of cases. I don't know the price of a loan and nobody can tell me because the terms of the contract were not fixed when the transaction was made.

If the courts were "pure", that is not corrupt, my application for severance of the part of the contract which is void by common law should have been granted in the first instance.

But that didn't happen. I have attempted appeals to higher and higher authorities and it has still not been remedied to this point in time.

The entire system stands condemned in the eyes of the people.

That can be turned around and hope can be restored.

Or the corruption can be further entrenched by yet another denial of truth, law, justice and right.
These seven judges gave orders against me to pay the bank's costs for which I have been sent a demand from their solicitors for $32,917.72.

I ask this court for an order against the defendants for damages and costs and an amount of $32,917.72 to compensate me for the injury they have caused to me.

If there is any doubt in the mind of this court as to whether the defendants are guilty, then I would simply like to say that:

1. Variable does mean uncertain.

2. Uncertainty does not mean certainty.

I have been denied common law and I have been denied natural justice.

John Wilson

Ten days later a message was left on my answering machine at work asking me to attend court the next day to hear the decision.

On 5th September, 1997, in the King Street annex of the Supreme Court, I attended but there was no representative from the other side. Wasting no time, the judge dismissed the case and I hit him with a small plastic bag containing a quantity of yellow paint. I was taken into custody and nine and a half hours later was charged under section 326 of the Crimes Act 1900 which says: "A person who threatens to do or cause, or who does or causes, any injury or detriment to any person on account of anything lawfully done by a person: ... (b) as a judicial officer ... is liable to penal servitude for 10 years.".
My defence is, of course, that the "judicial officer" had betrayed his Oath of Office and what he did was unlawful, i.e.: criminal.

I was released on bail to appear at the Downing Centre Local Court on 26 September, 1997. The solicitor for the Public Prosecutor asked for an adjournment because they had not fully their brief. That solicitor did, however, tell the court that I was a "danger to the community" and asked that the terms of the bail be increased in their severity. I had nothing in those three weeks to justify such action.

had complied with the conditions set down not to go within 500 metres of the Supreme Court nor approach any members of the judiciary. I said changing the conditions was unfair but the Magistrate Williams imposed the additional burden which caused me to be imprisoned at Silverwater for two days until a friend came up with the $5,000 surity and I could be with my family and go back to work.

According to section 34 of the Crimes Act 1914 it is an offence for a judge or magistrate, "without reasonable excuse", to act oppressively in setting terms of bail. The penalty is "imprisonment for two years".

The solicitor for the Public Prosecutor, in his attack on me, held up and read from one of my leaflets in which I accused the seven judges of being corrupt and said they should be disbarred and imprisoned. I told Magistrate Williams that it was what the judges had done that had been responsible for the paint bomb. He said I would not be allowed to use anything of the sort in my defence at a trial. I answered by saying that a trial was when "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" must be heard.

I composed a leaflet (which I distributed) explaining why I threw the paint at a judge. The following is that two-page leaflet:

PRESS RELEASE:

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 adminstration of justice by judges and magistrates". When the courts have been corrupted andare 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 uncertainty then past victims of this form of stealing would be entitled to restitution (the return of property or money) and future 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 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, i.e.: 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 I presented my verbal argument, he did not immediately dismiss my claims but reserved his judgment to go away and consider the sistuation 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 "alawful thing", causing an injury or detriment to him and an indictable offence and I am liable to a penalty of ten 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 are 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 trial is our last hope.

When truth and justice are gone, so is democracy.

Proceedings were being gone through working towards a jury trail on the charge under s.326 of The Crimes Act 1900 of causing a detriment to a judicial officer but have been adjourned or delayed because on 20th October, 1997 a Summons was left with my receptionist ordering me to appear in the Supreme Court on 27th October, 1997 to face a charge of Contempt of Court.

There have been the usual preliminary hearings and on 17th November, 1997 I said that I must have a trial by jury but Judge Studdert replied, "You do not get a trial by jury.".

Now we start the fight for one's right to trial by jury.

The following is the text of an Affidavit supporting a Requisition for Trial by Jury:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES
SYDNEY REGISTRY
File No.: 12914 of 1997

AFFIDAVIT

I, JOHN WILSON of 19 Elm Place, North Rocks in the State of New South Wales, say on oath:

1.I am the DEPONENT.

2.I truly believe it is my right as a subject of the Queen and an Australian citizen to have a trial by jury for the charge of Contempt of Court because:

((a) The MAGNA CARTA, CAP. XXIX says: "NO freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or his liberties, or freecustoms, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any other wise destroyed, norwill we pass upon him nor condemn him (a, 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 or Justice." This is found in Annexure"A".

((b) The CONFIRMATIO CARTARUM, CAP. II says: "AND we will, that ifany Judgments be given from henceforth contrary to the Points of the Charters aforesaid by the Justices, or by any other Officers that hold the Plea before them against the Points of the Charters, they shall be undone, and holden for nought." This is found in Annexure "B".

((c) The AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION (63 and 64 Vict.), Commonwealth of Australia(CH 12) Constitution Act s.80 says: "The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, ...".This is found in Annexure "C".

((d) Clause 5 of the CONSTITUTION ACT says: "This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and the people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State: ...". This is found in Annexure "D".

((e) Clause 3 of the CONSTITUTION ACT proclaimed "that ... the people of New South Wales, Victoria (etc) ... shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia." This is found in Annexure "E".

(f)A PROPOSED LAW attempted to exclude contempt of court from trial by jury, passed by both Houses of the Parliament and submitted to the voters by way of a referendum in 1988, said: "80. (1) The trial of a person for an offence, where the accused is liable to imprisonment for more than two years or any form of corporal punishment, shall be by jury except in the case of a trial for contempt of court or a trial of a member of the Defence Force of the Commonwealth before a court martial ...". This if sound in Annexure "F". The published "NO case" said: ""The trial by jury proposal is similarly and hopelessly flawed, and would undermine our existing rights enshrined for seven centuries since Magna Carta. At present, a person charged with any serious offence has the right to a jury trial. This proposal would enshrine in our Constitution lower standards of rights than Australians already have". The proposal was rjected in every State. This is found in Annexure "G".

3. On the day of the incident, 5/9/97, I was charged under the Crimes Act 1900, Section 326 (1)(B). Six weeks later, on the 20/10/97, I received a Summons to appear in the Supreme Court on 27/10/97 to answer the charge of Contempt of Court.

4. On the first charge, being dealt with in the Downing Centre Local Court, proceedings have advanced to the Paper Committal stage for a trial by jury. However, on the day set for the Paper Committal (27/11/97), the solicitor for Public Prosecutions asked that it not go ahead "in light of the outcome of the contempt matter". I truly believe that I cannot be tried twice under the Double Jeopardy rule and that "Right or Justice" must not be "denied or delayed" by delaying proceedings on a first charge while denying my right to a trial by jury for a second charge.

5. On 3/12/97, in the Supreme Court, the Crown Solicitor handed me documents relating to a 1984 case involving Mr. Michael Willesee in which the judgment claimed that trial by jury for contempt of court was ""obsolete". However, in Annexure "H", the MAGNA CARTA, CAP. I says: "We have granted also, (and given) to all the freemen of our realm, for us and our Heirs for evermore, (all the) liberties underwritten, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of us and our Heirs, for evermore." Therefore, this, with the Australian Constitution and the 1988 referendum and the Confirmatio Cartarum, establishes the fact that trial by jury for contempt of court cannot be made obsolete.

Sworn at on, 1997 before me
(Justice of the Peace/Solicitor)

The Crimes Act 1900, under "Part 4 OFFENCES RELATING TO PROPERTY, CHAPTER 1 Stealing and like offences", includes "Obtaining money, etc.,., by false or misleading statements 178BB" which carries the penalty of "imprisonment for five years" or even "Inducing persons to enter into certain arrangements by misleading, etc. statements, etc., 185A".

As explained earlier, making out a contract with uncertainty of terms to be a valid contract is false representation or fraud and taking money by fraud is stealing.

Each and every time my case came before a court the documents, in the form of Affidavits with their accompanying Annexures, gave clear proof of the fraudulent practice of variable interest rate loan contracts. Each and every time the judges dismissed the evidence.

The Crimes Act 1900, under "PART 7, CHAPTER 2 Interference with the administration of justice", includes "Concealing serious offence316. (1) If a person has committed a serious offence and another person who knows or believes that the offense has been committed and that he or she has information which might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension of the offender or the prosecution or conviction of the offender for it fails without reasonable excuse to bring that information to the attention of a member of the Police Force or other appropriate authority, that other person is liable to imprisonment for two years.".

In the same Act, "perverting the course of justice" is defined in s.312 by saying it refers "to obstructing, preventing, perverting or defeating the course of justice or the administration of the law" and s.316 says: "A person who does any act, or makes any omission, intending in any way to pervert the course of justice, is liable to penal servitude for 14 years.".

As explained earlier, for the course of justice to be followed, the practice of loan contracts with variable interest rates (i.e.: uncertainty of terms) should be declared to be fraudulent which would allow victims to claim restitution for what has been stolen and would prevent the crime happening again in the future.

-----------

CHAPTER 6 - PART OF THE BIG PICTURE

"The Big Picture" is made up of too many parts to be covered here but the parts are coming together and it is not a pretty sight at least, for ordinary Australians.

What was envisaged and formulated a hundred years ago, when the Australian Constitution went to the people for approval by referendum, has been eroded to the point where we are a divided and debt-ridden nation. We are losing our assets and our sovereignty at a frightening rate. The high level of youth unemployment has not come about by accident. The economic mismanagement has been skillfully managed by the "enemies, foreign and domestic".

A nation's strength is based upon its people's ability to create and retain their own independence and prosperity. We have been made weak by our enemies corrupting and manipulating our public administration that involves the parliaments and the courts. The parliaments pass bad and treacherous laws and the courts enforce them while the multinational corporations play their game of rigged monopoly. The people and their rights are of no consquence in the Big Picture.

The issue of whether Australia should abolish the Monarchy may seem remote from an interest rate scam but, the Commonwealth of Australia in indissolubly under the Crown and we are entitled to petition or appeal to the Queen which, in law, means the Privy Council on matters where we feel we have been wronged.

In 1986 our treacherous politicians passed the "Australia Act" to eliminate appeals to the Privy Council which where I wanted to take my case as the last hope for the truth to surface. The following two pages are taken from an Affidavit I filed in the High Court on 1st April, 1997 to accompany a Notice of Motion for Injunctions against the bank to stop trading invariable interest rate loans "until this case can be fully heard", i.e.: on the assumption that the High Court would grant Special Leave to Appeal.

35. This case aims to "redress and remedy" a dreadfully wrong ""judgment" which is definitely "to the prejudice of the people" (to use the words from the Bill of Rights 1688).

36. The duration of "until this case is fully heard" over which this injunction is to be effective is to include the time taken to appeal to Her Majesty in Council should that become necessary.

37. It is an inalienable right of an Australian citizen to be able to appeal to Her Majesty in Council and any attempt to take away that right is a violation of the Australian Constitution and the Bill of Rights 1688.

38.A copy of the Constitution Act is attached to this affidavit as annexure "B".".

39.A copy of the Bill of Rights 1688 is attached to this affidavit as annexure "C".

40. Such a violation is the Australia Act 1986 where Section 11 is entitled" Termination of appeals to Her Majesty in Council".

41.A copy of the Australia Act 1986 is attached to this affidavit asannexure "D".

42. Appeals to the Queen in Council are Section 74 of the Australian Constitution and Section 128 says that "This Constitution shall not be altered except" by referendum. No such referendum has been conducted.

43. The Australia act is, therefore, repugnant to the Constitution. It is void and inoperative.

44. The Bill of Rights 1688 guarantees "That it is the right of the subjects to petition the King" and "that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in anywise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example; to which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein."

45. The Bill of Rights 1688 cannot be altered. It says, "11. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after this present session of Parliament no dispensation by non obstante of or to any statute or any part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during this present session of Parliament."

46. The Australia Act 1986 is "void and of no effect".

47. The Australia Act was drawn up on the premise of the Australian Constitutions. 51 which says that "The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: ... (xxxviii). The exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the Parliaments of all States directly concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia".

48. The words "subject to this Constitution" prevent the Australia Act from terminating appeals to the Queen in Council because section 128 of "This Constitution" requires a referendum to alter section 74.

49. The words "exercise ... any power which can ... be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia" are also pertinent because the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Federal Council of Australasia "at the establishment of this Constitution "did not have the power to terminate appeals to the Queen in Council therefore, the Australia Act cannot exercise that power, either.

50. The High Court of Australia was created by Chapter 3 of the Australian Constitution to have "The judicial power of the Commonwealth" and the first paragraph of the Constitution Act (containing the Australia Constitution as Part 9) states that we have an "indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland".

51. The word, "under", means "to govern, control, bind" and the Queen, in the Coronation Oath, has sworn to govern "in Law and Justice".

52. Commonwealth is "under the Crown" and the Judicature is "under the Crown".

53. There has been no referendum put to "the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives" asking to have the Constitution Act repealed and the Australian Constitution abolished.

54. The High Court of Australia remains "under the Crown" and Australian citizens retain their right to appeal to Her Majesty in Council.

55. Even Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition Reissue, Butterworths 1991, has it wrong because in para. 868 it refers to the Australia Act 1986 s.11 (1) when it says "No appeal may be brought from or in respect of any decision of an Australian court to the judicial Committee of the Privy Council.".

A Status Conference was held on 2nd August, 1996 before Registrar Irwin who refused to strike out the Statement of Claim but insisted that the question of law must be answered. He set a date for a Special Fixture for 17th September, 1996 and concluded by telling me to "be prepared to argue law".

I filed Affidavits and various Notices of Motion and so did the solicitors for the St. George Bank Ltd. in the game of moves and countermoves.

The Notice of Motion also asked for a Certificate from the High Court "to the Privy Council Office, London, confirming that: (a) an Australian citizen's right to appeal to her Majesty in Council has not been taken away, (b) the Privy Council does still have jurisdiction denied in the letter from the Registrar of the Privy Council dated 25th February, 1997 (annexure "F" in the Affidavit), and (c) that the Australia Act 1986 is "void and of no effect";".

On 11th April, 1997, Sir Daryl Dawson dismissed the Notice of Motion saying, "None of the arguments which the applicant advances to support that contention (regarding the Australia Act) can be sustained.".

As far as abolishing the Monarchy, I composed the next two leaflets which draws attention to an angle which will never appear in print or on the air in the major media. And finally, I can not think of anything more appropriate nor ironic than the words of the anthem, "God Save the Queen". If the banks are allowed to steal and judges to lie and pervert the course of justice, then the meaning of those words and the sacrifices of our ancestors are lost and gone forever.

WHY DO THE BANKS WANT TO GET RID OF THE QUEEN?

BECAUSE THEY WANT TO GET RID OF ENGLISH LAW AND MAKE THEIR OWN.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS 1688 GUARANTEES "THAT IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE SUBJECTS TO PETITION THE KING" "FOR OBTAINING A FULL REDRESS AND REMEDY" TO "DECLARATIONS, JUDGMENTS, DOINGS OR PROCEEDINGS TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE". THE MAGNA CARTA 1215 GUARANTEES "TO NONE WILL WE SELL, TO NONE DENY OR DELAY, RIGHT OR JUSTICE".

THE QUEEN HAS TAKEN THE CORONATION OATH AND SWORN BEFORE GOD ""TO GOVERN THE PEOPLES OF .... AUSTRALIA." AND "CAUSE LAW AND JUSTICE, IN MERCY, TO BE EXECUTED IN ALL (HER) JUDGMENTS".

THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT'S CONSTITUTION ACT (63 and 64 VICTORIA, CHAPTER 12) (HAVING THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION AS CLAUSE 9 WITH ITS CHAPTERS, PARTS, SECTIONS AND SCHEDULE) SAYS THAT AUSTRALIA IS "ONE INDISSOLUBLE FEDERAL COMMONWEALTH UNDER THE CROWN".

THE BANKS ALREADY CONTROL OUR PARLIAMENTS AND COURTS THROUGH CORRUPT AND TRAITOROUS POLITICIANS AND JUDGES WHO PASS AND ENFORCE LEGISLATION AT THE BANKS' BIDDING. (ONE EXAMPLE IS THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT WHICH VIOLATES COMMON LAW AND GIVES THE BANKS AN UNRESTRICTED LICENCE TO STEAL. ANOTHER IS THE AUSTRALIA ACT WHICH VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION ACT, THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE OUR PROTECTIONS AGAINST THE BANKS AND WITH NO REFERENDUM.)

THE QUEEN IS THE LAST OBSTACLE TO BANKS GAINING ABSOLUTE POWER.

THE BANKS ARE ORCHESTRATING THE REMOVAL OF THE QUEEN BY USING THEIR POLITICIANS AND THEIR MEDIA. IT IS ILLEGAL BUT THAT IS NOT STOPPING THEM. THEY CALL IT CREATING A "REPUBLIC". IT IS ALL A LIE.

THE QUEEN CANNOT STOP THEM WITHOUT THE HELP OF THE PEOPLE. BUT THE PEOPLE ARE BEING BRAINWASHED AND RAILROADED.

WILL YOU FIGHT TO SAFEGUARD YOUR COUNTRY AND YOUR CHILDREN?

LEARN AND FIGHT!

Written by J. Wilson, P.O Box 4520, North Rocks 2151

TRAITORS, ALL!

AUSTRALIAN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE:

"I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!".

U.S.A. OATH OF ALLEGIANCE:
"..................; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;....................."

THE AUSTRALIAN CRIMES ACT 1914:
"Section 24AA TREACHERY:

A person shall not: (a) do any act or thing with intent:

(i)to overthrow the Constitution of the Commonwealth by revolution or sabotage;....".;....". Penalty: life imprisonment.

The Australian Constitution is Part 9 of the British Constitution Act 1900 (Vict. 63 and 64) which states "Whereas the people of New South Wales,(etc.), have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom..". To abolish the Crown from Australia would require the repeal of the entire British Act which would bring about the "complete overthrow of (our) established government or political system" which is, by definition, a "revolution".

By any standard, our politicians, judges, governors and so-called ""republicans" are traitors and criminals!

WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?

Written by J. Wilson, P.O. Box 4520, North Rocks, NSW 2151

God Save the Queen:
God save our gracious Queen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen.
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the Queen.
Oh Lord, our God, arise,
Scatter her enemies,
And make them fall.
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On her our hopes we pin.
God save us all.
Thy choicest gifts in store,
On her be pleased to pour,
Long may she reign.
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause,
To sing with heart and voice,
God save the Queen.

------------

CHAPTER 7 - THE CAMPAIGN

There is no huge organisation backing the fight. You will not see any mention of any of this in newspapers or on television. About all that can be done is to make up some stickers (as many as one can afford) and spread the message that we know "Variable means fraud so says common law". Therefore, there must be:

Stickers everywhere! Stickers till the banks are beaten!

VARIABLE MEANS FRAUD SO SAYS COMMON LAW.

We can do it with: non-violence, persistence, and the truth in their faces

------------

CHAPTER 8 - THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY

(Update: 7th October, 1998)

Chapters 1 to 7 were put together very quickly in January of 1998 for the purpose of getting the actual judgements onto paper to act as a ready reference of court documents.

This chapter is similarly to put onto the Internet the Summary of Argument which the High Court of Australia require when making a Special Application for Leave which became necessary when Justice Peter Hidden brought down his judgement on 1 March, 1998 denying me the right to a jury trial. Here is his judgement:

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES - COMMON LAW DIVISION

Hidden J

Monday 16 March 1998

12914/97

THE PROTHONOTARY v John WILSON JUDGEMENT

HIS HONOUR: The defendant, John Wilson, is alleged to have thrown paint at Murray AJ after his Honour delivered a judgement adverse to him on 5 September 1997. 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 Prosecution assumed the conduct of those proceedings on 21 October 1997, and they have been adjourned at the Downing Centre Local Court to abide the 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 I heard an application by the defendant that the alleged contempt be subject to 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 15 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 refused to grant a stay. Willesee is clear authority for the proposition that trial by jury 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 unsuccessfully, 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 judgement I invited counsel for the defendant to provide submissions in writing if he wished to develop an argument founded upon s80, in which event the necessity to proceed in accordance with s78B 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 trial by jury. This argument also is without substance. As the Crown Advocate pointed out, the deferral of the prosecution under s 326is 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 alleged contempt must be dismissed.

I certify that this and the 2 preceding pages are a true copy of the judgement ........ herein of the Honourable Justice Peter Hidden

16/3/98 P. Garrett
Dated Associate.

I should explain that the reason for issuing a Summons in the Court of Appeal on 24 November 1997 was that in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 17th November when I said to Judge Studdert that I "insiston a trial by jury" the judge replies "You do not get a trial by jury.". I replied to him, "Yes I do. The Magna Carta and the Constitution of Australia says so.".

I believe that was a denial of my right and promptly filed in the Court of Appeal against that denial.

When, on 3 December 1997, Judge Dunford dealt with my application for a stay of proceedings until after the Court of Appeal his comment in his Judgement was: "...it is claimed in the Court of appeal summons that Studdert J denied the applicant a trial by jury on the contempt charges. However, a reading of the transcript of what occurred on 17 November makes it clear that, although Mr. Wilson made an oral application that the matters be heard by a jury, his Honour did not determine such application, and in particular said at p 5, "I am not dealing with any question of trial by jury ".".

On 15 December 1997, outside the court and before going in, a solicitor whom I was employing at the time said that I should have made a written application called a "Requisition" according the rules. On that advice I withdrew the action in the Court of Appeal and went back to my source of legal information, the Law Library at Macquarie University. There I found the precedent forms and put it together to file back in the Supreme Court on 23rd January, 1998 the Notice of Motion asking for leave to file a Requisition for Trial By Jury.

As already said, Justice Peter Hidden eventually dismissed the application for a jury trial on 16th March, 1998. The following day I filed a Notice of Appeal in the Court of Appeal. Two days after that, in the Downing Centre Local Court, the Public Prosecutor withdrew the first charges under section 326 of the Crimes Act 1900 (which was to have had a jury trial at my insistence and when I had told the court I would subpeona judges) because it now looked assured that I would not be getting a jury through the Supreme Court and that an appeal to the Court of Appeal would similarly fail.

Without going into the written argument in the Affidavits nor the verbal argument which transpired in the Court of Appeal on 24th August, here is the Judgement of Handley JA and Stein JA:-

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 JUDGEMENT

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 offense 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 NSWLR378. 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 Corporationon 28 November 1989 and again in United Telecasters Sydney Limited v Hardiein 1991.

In view of that consistent body of decision extending back over some fifteen years, and the refusal of special leave to appeal by the High Courton 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 the one (1) preceding pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgement herein of The Honourable Mr. Justice Handleyand of the Court.

Jennifer Donaldson
Date Associate
24 August 1998

I have now filed an Application for Special Leave to Appeal in the High Court of Australia on 11th September 1998 and a Summary of Argument on 2nd October, 1998
Here follows the text of that Summary of Argument:-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA SYDNEY OFFICE OF THE REGISTRY

No. S 127 of 1998

BETWEEN JOHN WILSON

Applicant

and

THE PROTHONOTARY

Respondent

APPLICANT'S SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Part I: The Special Leave Questions arising in this case are those of:
(a) the determination of a substantive right
(b) the imposing of a substantive injustice.

Part II: The Applicant was served with a Summons on 20th October, 1997 to appear in the Supreme Court of New SouthWales. The Summons contained a Statement of a Charge alleging Contempt of Court over an incident which happened on 5th September, 1997.

The Applicant filed a Requisition for Trial by Jury on 23rd January, 1998 and hearings were held before Justice Peter Hidden on 9th and 13th February, 1998. Judgement was reserved and handed down on 16th March, 1998 dismissing the Requisition.

The Applicant filed a Notice of Appeal in the Court of Appeal on 17th March, 1998. The call-over was on 4th June, 1998 and the hearing was on 24th August, 1998.

The Applicant filed a Notice of Motion for a Trial by Jury on 25th May, 1998 to determine the Application for Leave to Appeal in the Court of Appeal. On 6th July, 1998 Registrar Jupp dismissed the application.

In the Court of Appeal on 24th August, 1998 Handley JA and Stein JA dismissed the Application for Leave to Appeal.

The Applicant filed in the High Court of Australia on 11th September, 1998 an Application for Special Leave to Appeal.

Part III:

A BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE APPLICANT'S ARGUMENT

1. MAGNA CARTA & REASONS FOR GRANTING SPECIAL LEAVE

CAP XXIX of the Magna Carta 1297 says: "To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay, Right or Justice." and the reasons for granting leave to appeal, as stated in Supreme Court Procedure (NSW) Part7 - Appeal to the Court of Appeal, s. 101.4 Appeal from interlocatory order at 1164.1 Butterworths, are (a) "the determination of substantive rights" and (b) to avoid "a substantive injustice".

2. THE PROTECTION OF MAGNA CARTA

Magna Carta is protected by section 43 of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 No. 30 which says: "Any person guilty of any offence under any Imperial enactment included in Part 1 of the Second Schedule for which no punishment is otherwise provided is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or to a fine not exceeding 20 penalty units, or to both imprisonment and fine.".

Justice Peter Hidden has denied the applicant the right to trial by jury and should be indicted to face trial by jury for that offence. Handley JA and Stein JA have endorsed Justice Peter Hidden's actions by refusing leave to appeal and have made them selves party to the offence.

3. ABSOLUTE POWER OF JUDGES

Judges must never be given nor allowed to assume absolute power whereby they can conceal their own incompetence and their own corruption. Judges are not above the law nor are they unaccountable to the people.

4. JUDICIAL OATH & SAVING RIGHTS

Judges swear before God an Oath to "well and truly serve" Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II who has sworn, also before God, to govern the people of Australia in Law and Justice and with Mercy. She cannot extinguish the rights of Her subjects and nor can judges. To extinguish or override the rights of the people is an act of tyranny and oppression. Not even the repealing of legislation can extinguish the rights of the individual and proof of this reality is seen in the "Savings" section of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 No. 30 which says: "9. (1). The repeal by this Act of any Imperial enactment does not: ..(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired, accrued, or incurred under any Imperial enactment so repealed:".

5. TRIAL BY JURY IN THE U.S.A.

Article the eighth (Amendment VI) of the United States of America's Bill of Rights says "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury" and Article the ninth (AmendmentVII) similarly says that "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved". Is an Australian less equal before the law than an American?

6. MAGNA CARTA & THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY

CAP XXIX of the Magna Carta 1297 says: "NO freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised 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 the lawful judgement of his Peers or by the law of the land.".

7. THE LAW OF THE LAND

The law of the land is the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 which says, in clause 5 that "This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State:".

8. THE CONSTITUTION & THE JUDICIARY ACT & THE CRIMES ACT

The Constitution says in section 80, about trial by jury, that: "Thetrial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury," and contempt of court is an offence against a Commonwealth law, being section 24 of the Judiciary Act 1903, and section 4A of the Crimes Act 1914 (a Commonwealth law) says that: ""indictment" includesan information and a presentment".

9. SECTION 109 OF THE CONSTITUTION

The Constitution says in section 109 that: "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, because contempt of court shall have trial by jury under a Commonwealth law, contempt of court shall have trial by jury under a State law.

10. THE IMPERIAL ACTS APPLICATION ACT & GALEA

As far as section 6 of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 No. 30 is concerned, any State law which is invalid by virtue of being inconsistent with a Commonwealth law cannot affect an Imperial enactment such as Magna Carta. Therefore, Justice Peter Hidden's referral to Galea v New South Wales Egg Corporation (C of A, unreported, 21 November 1989) has no substance and his argument that "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." is wrong.

The Galea proceedings were to do with a "Motion for leave to appeal out of time against the orders of Needham J dated 9 February 1988" (with no mention of the right to trial by jury) and to an "Appeal from the orders of Needham J of 19 August 1988" as to whether the Egg Industry Act 1983 met the requirements of s. 5 of the NSW Constitution Act 1902 in regard to the counting of hens and eggs.

11. THE INTERPRETATION ACT SAVING RIGHTS

The Galea judgement did quote section 30 of the Interpretation Act 1987 No.15 which says: "(1) The amendment or repeal of an Act or statutory rule does not: ... (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the Act or statutory rule,". This restates the same protection of rights found in section 9 of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969. Therefore, the Supreme Court Act and Rules cannot take away the right of the individual to trial by jury.

11. THE CONSTITUTION & STATE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

Section 118 of the Australian Constitution says that: "Full faithand credit shall be given, throughout the Commonwealth to the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of every State.", and section 51 (xxiv) says the Federal "Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws ... with respect to ...The service and execution throughout the Commonwealth of the civil and criminal process and the judgements of the courts of the States:".

These reinforce sections 80 and 109 of the Constitution which ensure that contempt of court shall proceed by trial by jury.

12. SECTION 5 OF THE NSW CONSTITUTION & TELECASTERS

Handley JA, on 24 AUG 1998, was wrong when he said that: ".. in the Constitution nor in an Act made in Canberra is there a law, ...., that is a Commonwealth law, which says there must be trial by jury for state offences. That's a matter which under our federal system is left to the states.". The New South Wales Constitution Act 1902 No. 32, General legislative powers, section 5. says: "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:". Because of section 109 and 80 of the Australian Constitution, New South Wales cannot make a law to deny trial by jury for contempt of court. Therefore, such "a matter" is not" left to the states" and when in United Telecasters Sydney Limited v Hardie (1991) 23 NSWLR 323 Meagher JJA said; "Contempt committed in the face of a State court, whatever jurisdiction is being exercised, isa matter for State law.", the State law must be consistent with Commonwealth law, i.e.: there must trial by jury for both the Commonwealth offence of contempt of court and the State offence of contempt of court to be consistent (section 109 of the Australian Constitution).

13. COURTS DECLARING LAWS VOID

In the Annotated Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, p. 791,John Quick and Robert Randolph Garran say: "In the exercise of the duty of interpretation and adjudication not only in the High Court, but every court of competent jurisdiction, has the right to declare that a law of the Commonwealth or of a State is void by reason of transgressing the Constitution. This is a duty cast upon the courts by the very nature of the judicial function. The federal Parliament and the State Parliaments are not sovereign bodies; they are legislatures with limited powers; and any law which they attempt to pass in excess of those powers is no law at all it is simply a nullity, entitled to no obedience.".

Section 31 of the Interpretation Act 1987 No. 15 says: "(1) An Actor instrument shall be construed as operative to the full extent of, but so as not to exceed, the legislative power of Parliament.".

Parliament does not have the power to extinguish the right to trial by jury which is an integral part of the common law which "was assumed by, and controlled, the Constitution" (Sir Owen Dixon - Jesting Pilate,pp 198 - 202, 203 - 13) ( from The High Court and the Constitution by LeslieZines p 400 ).

14. JUDGES DON'T MAKE LAWS & THE REFERENDUM OF 1988

Nor is the judiciary a sovereign body having the ultimate authority to make and impose laws. They must comply with the law of the land, being the Australian Constitution, which embodies the will of the people. Article 21. 3 of the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that:" The will of the people shall be the basis of authority of government:" and the will of the people was expressed in Referenda before the Constitution Bill could be made the law of the land and again in 1988 when a proposed law to alter section 80 of the Constitution to exclude contempt of court from trial by jury was defeated in every State. The published "WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE 'NO' - ON TRIAL BY JURY" in newspapers at the time immediately prior to the referendum said that the proposed law "would undermine our existing rights enshrined for seven centuries since Magna Carta. At present, a person charged with any serious offence has the right to a jury trial.".". The voters rejected excluding contempt of court from trial by jury. Government and the judiciary must obey the will of the people.

15. JUDGEMENTS REPUGNANT TO MAGNA CARTA ARE VOID

CAP II of the CONFIRMATIO CARTARUM 1297 says that "AND we will, that if any Judgement be given from henceforth contrary to the Points of the Charters aforesaid by the Justices, or by any other Officers that hold Plea before them against the Points of the Charters, they shall be undone, and holden for nought.". Therefore, no court has jurisdiction to conduct a trial for contempt of court against me unless it accords me my right to a jury trial.

"The consent to be tried summarily must be clear and unequivocaland a failure to carry out the procedures for obtaining the consent will deprive the court of jurisdiction to determine the matters summarily."- Halsbury's Laws of Australia, para (130 - 13460) at 250,997.

16. TRIAL BY JURY NOT "OBSOLETE" ...... WILLESEE

Justice Peter Hidden was wrong when on 16 MAR 98 he said, when referring to The Registrar of Court of Appeal v Willesee & Ors (1984) 2 NSWLR378, that: "Willesee is clear authority for the proposition that trial by jury for contempt is obsolete ..." because Magna Carta, in CAP I, granted that right "for evermore" -which means it can never become "obsolete".".

17. FAILURE TO INFORM OF RIGHTS

Justice Peter Hidden went on to say: "..and that summary trial is now the normal procedure.". But if summary trial was not elected by the accused because he/she was not informed of their inalienable rights, then those judgments (no matter how many) are "to be undone and holden for nought".

18. HANDLEY JA & NORMAN GALLAGHER

Handley JA (24 AUG 98) said of a case against Norman Gallagher ""about 10 or 12 years ago", "he was tried for contempt of the Federal Court by the federal Court and without a jury.". I replied: "Was he given the choice, was he given an election?". Handley JA said: "I don't believe he was given any choice.". I said: "Well, I'd say his rights were infringed if he wasn't.". Handley JA said: "He didn't argue, his counsel didn't argue that he was entitled to a trial by jury.".

19. FAILURE TO INFORM OF RIGHTS

This is the deplorable situation of Australian citizens not knowing of their Constitutional and inherited rights and, at the same time, judges and lawyers being equally ignorant or else failing to advise the accused person of their rights.

20. WORKING TO IMPOSE A SUBSTANTIVE INJUSTICE

Besides "the determination of a substantive right", the other main criterion for granting leave to appeal is that the judgement appealed from "must also work to impose a substantive injustice:" ((Supreme Court Procedure, Part 7, s.101.4 Appeal from interlocatory order) .. The injustice which would result if leave to appeal is not granted is that bank fraud, in the form of variable interest rate loans, would continue to be concealed by the corrupt practices of the judiciary which presently places the entire system of justice in Australia in jeopardy.

21. CONCEALING JUDICIAL CORRUPTION

Justice Peter Hidden's judgement imposes "a substantive injustice" in that it serves to protect the concealing of extensive judicial corruption which was the subject of the proceedings heard by Acting Justice Brian Murray and which gave rise to the incident of the 5th of September, 1997.

Judicial corruption comes under Part III of the Crimes Act 1914 which is a Commonwealth law "binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State;".

22. CONCEALING FRAUD

The injustice also extends to victims of bank fraud in the form of variable interest rate loan contracts being denied restitution because corrupt judges refuse to declare that variable means uncertain and certain means not variable and, therefore, variable interest rates render a loan contract void for uncertainty. This is the claim which originally drew me to the courts in 1996 to establish this simple truth.

23. JURIES DO WHAT JUDGES DON'T FOR JUSTICE

"For more than six hundred years 0 that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 -- there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such law." -An Essay on The Trial By Jury by Lysander Spooner, 1852.

"Trial by jury has long been considered a fundamental safeguard off airness and impartiality in the administration of justice, especially of criminal justice. Jury trial stemmed from a deep-seated conviction about the exercise of judicial power, that it should not in matters affecting the liberty of the subject be entrusted unchecked to any official, judge or administrator but should be vested in ordinary citizens." - The Laws of Australia 21.6, Part D, (38), p. 47.

24. JUDGES OUGHT NOT HEAR THIS CASE

Under the Supreme Court Rules, Part 51, rule 23.8, it says that "A judge ought not hear a case if there is a reasonable apprehension that an impartial mind will not be brought to bear on the resolution of proceedings.". I have already expressed such an apprehension when I filed an Affidavitin the Court of Appeal to support a Notice of Motion to that effect on 26 JUN 98 to which I annexed one of my leaflets entitled "BANK FRAUD & CORRUPT JUDGES".

25. WITHDRAWAL OF FIRST CHARGE GOING TO A JURY & INJUSTICE

The first charge imposed on the Applicant, under section 326 of the Crimes Act 1900, over the incident of 5 SEP 97 was withdrawn by the Public Prosecutor on 19 MAR 98 in the Downing Centre Local Court when it was proceeding to trial by jury. I had made it clear in the Downing Centre that I would be presenting evidence of judicial corruption to a jury and that a jury should hear "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". During those proceedings, on 26 SEP 97, the magistrate in the Downing Centre imposed additional and oppressive terms to the bail to imprison me in the Silverwater Remand Centre for the period 26 SEP 97 to 28 SEP 97 when a friend guarantied surety for me. I truly believe this action also constitutes a violation of my human rights by wrongful imprisonment.

26. THE INJUSTICE IS THE PERVERSION OF JUSTICE

Whilever the right to trial by jury, which is the tribunal of the people, is denied and judges continue to use their authority to perpetuate the lie that "the rate itself is indeed certain" and to protect themselves, there can be no justice.

27. INALIENABLE RIGHTS

Rights granted by Imperial enactments such as Magna Carta cannot be taken away or "overridden" by politicians, bankers or judges.

Part IV:

Special leave to appeal should be granted because there must be a full examination as to the determination of a substantive right, i.e.: the right to trial by jury, and as to the reasons behind the judgement appealed from, and as to whether a substantive injustice has been imposed.

Part V:

An order for costs should not be made in favour of the respondent in the event that the application is refused because counsel for the respondent have, with the knowledge of the respondent, fraudulent made out that they represent the Crown whereas they are, in fact, merely private solicitors, i.e: they have indulged in deceit.

Part VI:

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES, ETC.
1. Magna Carta 1297, CAP XXIX, CAP I.
2. Supreme Court Procedure (NSW), Part 7, s. 101.4.
3. Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 No. 30, s. 43, s. 9(1), s. 6.
4. Judicial Oath.
5. Coronation Oath.
6. U.S.A. Bill of Rights 1789, Article 8, Article 9.
7. Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, cl. 5, s. 80, s.109, s. 118, s. 51 (xxiv).
8. Judiciary Act 1902, s.24.
9. Crimes Act 1914, s. 4A, and Part III.
10. Interpretation Act 1987 No. 15, s. 30 (1), s.31 (1).
11. Constitution Act 1902 No. 32, s. 5.
12. Annotated Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia by Quickand Garran, p. 791.
13. The High Court and the Constitution by Leslie Zines, p. 400.
14. Referendum 1988, Question 4 - Religion, Jury and Property.
15. United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 21.3
16. Confirmatio Cartarum 1297, CAP II.
17. Halsbury's Laws of Australia, para (130 - 13460) at 250,997.
18. Transcript of 24 AUG 1998, Court of Appeal, p. 3, lines 40 - 55.
19. Supreme Court Rules, Part 51, r. 23.8.
20. An Essay on The Trial By Jury - Lysander Spooner, 1852.
21. The laws of Australia - The Law Book Company Limited, 21.6,
Part D, (38), p. 47.
22. Supreme Court Rules, Part 51, rule 23.8.
23. Crimes Act 1900, s. 326.

Part VII:

The applicant seeks to supplement this summary with oral argument.

Dated the day of , 1998.

............................................
Applicant.

-----------

CHAPTER 9 - THE PETITION OF RIGHT 1627

Having met with the times allowed by the Rules for submitting the Application and the Summary of Argument into the High Court of Australia, an interesting piece of legislation was sent to me by two fellows from the Hunter River Valley who have dedicated a great deal of the energies to preserving our inherited rights. Denis Troy and Bob Heath have researched laws which to our legal profession have no understanding, eg: the Australian Constitution, Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, etc., etc.. They are not alone because men such as Ray Platt, Bevan O'Regan, Tony Pitt, Joe Bryant, Robert Balgarnie, David Lane and so many more are out there fighting for their country. They will not surrender. I want to thank them for their help and support. Perhaps, one day, this story as well as theirs will be professionally and properly recorded.

Denis sent me some material which included the Victorian Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 which featured the Petition of Right 1627. This was drawn up by a fellow named Lord Coke who was a staunch defender of the rights of the individual. I thought it appropriate to add a reference to it in my Summary of Argument and phoned the Registry to ask permission to add an extra page. The Registrar said okay and below is that Supplementary filing.

Actually, the Law Library at Macquarie University did not have a copy of the Petition of Right and even the State Library only had it on microfilm of a three hundred and fifty year old volume called "English Liberties: Or, The Free-Born SUBJECT'S INHERITANCE".

Viewing this old text was educational not only in what it contained but the way in which it was conveyed. It begins: "THE PROEM. The Constitution of our English Government (the best in the World) is no Arbitrary Tyranny, like the Turkish Grand Seignor's, or the French Kings, whose Wills (or rather Lusts) dispose of the Live sand Fortunes of their unhappy Subjects; Nor an Oligarchy, where the great ones (like Fish in the Ocean) prey upon, and live by devouring the lesser at their pleasure: Nor yet a Democracy or popular State, much less an Anarchy, where all confusedly are hail fellows wellmet. But a most excellent mixt or qualified Monarchy, where the King is vested with large Prerogatives insufficient to support Majesty; and restrain'd only from Power of doing himself and his People harm, (which would be contrary to the very end of all Government, and is properly rather weakness than power) the Nobility adorn'd with Priviledges to be a Screen to Majesty, and a refreshing Shade to their Inferiors, and the Commonalty too, so Guarded in their Persons and Properties by the sense of Law, as renders them Free-men, not Slaves.". Of course, "s" appears frequently as "f".

Nevertheless, it is law in New South Wales and, therefore, Australia. The fact that judges have been getting away with denying the inalienable right of trial by jury can only be described as criminal.

Here is the extra page filed on 11th October, 1998:-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SYDNEY OFFICE OF THE REGISTRY

No. S 127 of 1998

BETWEEN JOHN WILSON
Applicant
and
THE PROTHONOTARY
Respondent

APPLICANT'S SUPPLEMENTARY SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Part III (cont.):

28. Section 3 of (1627) 3 Charles I. (Petition of Right) c. I says: "And where also by the statute called, The great charter of the liberties of England, it is declared and enacted, That no free man may be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold or liberties or his free customs, or to be outlawed or exiled, or in manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land." and section 8 of this same Imperial enactment, which is listed in Part I of the Second Schedule of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 No. 30, says: "That the awards, doing and proceedings, to the prejudice of your people in any of the premises, shall not be drawn hereafter into consequence or example:".

Therefore, cases of contempt of court held without the accused allowed or given the right or, as Justice Peter Hidden described it on 16 March 1998, "the benefit of trial by jury" cannot be held as precedents and cannot affect the common law.

Part VI (cont.):

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES, ETC.
24. Petition of Right 1627, ss. 3 & 8.
25. Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 No. 30, Part I of Second Schedule.

Dated the day of , 1998.

................................................
Applicant

----------

CHAPTER 10 - RESPONDENT'S SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The other side has the opportunity to answer my Summary of Argument and what follows is the content of that response.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SYDNEY OFFICE OF THE REGISTRY

No. S 127 of 1998

BETWEEN JOHN WILSON
Applicant
and
THE PROTHONOTARY
Respondent

RESPONDENT'S SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

PART I - REASONS WHY SPECIAL LEAVE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED

The applicant does not raise any matter justifying the grant of special leave. The judgement of the Court of Appeal is correct and nothing raised in the Applicant's submissions casts doubt on its correctness. The application does not require the Court to resolve differences of opinion as to the state of the law. Rather the issue which the Applicant seeks to raise is one in which the law is well settled.

The judgement appealed from is of an interlocutory nature. In the event that the Applicant is convicted of contempt after a summary hearing, he may, should he choose to do so, raise this issue on appeal against his conviction.

PART II - BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Subject to one matter, the Respondent adopts the facts as set out in the judgement of Hidden J of 16 march 1998, together with the brief statement of facts in the Applicant's summary of argument.

The additional matter of fact is that the allegation against the Applicant is that the paint was thrown at Murray AJ immediately after judgement had been delivered, and before the Court had been adjourned.

PART III - A BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENT

Authority establishes that contempt is punishable summarily

1. It has long been the law that contempt, particularly in the face of the Court as is alleged against the Applicant, may be prosecuted summarily. In John Fairfax & Sons P/L v McRae (1954-55) 93 CLR 351, Dixon CJ, Fullagar, Kitto, and Taylor JJ, at 34, said "(A)ll criminal contempts are indictable offences at common law. Contempts in the face of the court have, however, from time immemorial been punishable summarily (ie without conviction by a jury) by the court before which the contempt is committed.".

2. In this Court's recent examination of civil and criminal contempts in Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525 Brennan, Deane, Toohey and Gaudron JJ, at 534, noted that "... to say that proceedings for contempt are essentially criminal in nature is not to equate them with the trial of a criminal charge. There are clear procedural difference, the most obvious being that criminal charges ordinarily involve trial by jury, whereas charges of contemptdo not.".

3. This Court has considered a number of cases in which contempt was dealt with summarily. In no such case has it been suggested that a jury trial was required, see eg The King v Taylor & Ors, Ex Parte Roach (1951) 82 CLR 587, James v Robinson (1963) 109 CLR 593, Keeley v Mr Justice Brooking (1978-79) 143 CLR 162, Hinch v Attorney General (Victoria) (1987) 164 CLR 15 and Macgroarty v Clauson (1989) 16 CLR 251.

4. When the High Court considered whether certain publications amounted to a contempt of itself (The King v Fletcher; ex parte Kisch (1935) 52 CLR 248), this court held that it had jurisdiction to punish contempt summarily: "The High Court has ample jurisdiction to punish summarily those responsible for publications calculated to obstruct or interfere with the administration of justice ..." (per Evatt J, at 257). "In all cases of contempt, the Court has power to act not only summarily but ex mero motu" Per Evatt J, at 258.

5. Indeed, one of the reasons for the circumspection which should be exercised before a court invokes a jurisdiction to deal with contempt in the face of the court is that its exercise may deprive a person of his or her liberty without a jury trial, see Consolidated Press Ltd v McRae (1954-55) 93 CLR 325 at 342 where McTiernan J refers to Ex Parte Gaskell v Chambers Ltd (1936) 2 KB 595.

6. In Registrar of Court of Appeal v Willesee Ors (1984) 2 NSWLR 378 the NSW Court of Appeal dismissed a motion seeking trial by jury on a charge of contempt. The basis of the Applicant's argument in that matter was that proceedings for contempt not committed in the face of the court could have the benefit of trial by jury. It was put that in the absence of any need to act swiftly to vindicate the authority of the Court the use of a summary procedure was inappropriate (see 381G to 382B). The response to that submission by Samuels JA was:-

"It is true, of course, that the capacity of summary trial to produce a speedier determination of the issues than a trial on indictment can do, represents its 'practical justification'. But this is not to say that cases in which the exercise of the contempt power is justified may be divided into those which require speedy trial, and those which do not. (I am not considering examples of what is called contempt in the face of the court.) Since all of them, on the assumption made, involve, or may appear to involve, acts calculated to embarrass the normal administration of justice, all demand speedy trial. It is therefore the nature of the offence which commends the summary mode of dealing with it."

In any event as the Court noted, trial on indictment or by way of criminal information for contempt has not occurred in New South Wales for at least the last ninety-five years. "The procedure is for all practical purposes obsolete ..." (page 379E).

7. In Director of Public Prosecutions v ABC (198) 7 NSWLR 588, at 595, a five-judge bench of the NSW Court of Appeal approved Registrar of Court of Appeal v Willesee & Ors. An application for special leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal in Registrar of Court of Appeal v Willesee & Ors was refused on 7 December 1984. The High Court, Gibbs CJ, Wilson and Dawson JJ, saw "no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusion reached by the Court of Criminal Appeal." (High Court, Transcript of Proceedings, 7 December 1984, p16).

Magna Carta does not establish a right to trial by jury

8. The applicant relies on c.29 of the magna carta as establishing a right to trial by jury. Although c.29 traditionally has been thought to embody this fundamental principle, historical analysis reveals that this chapter " ... has had much read into it that would have astonished its framers: application of modern standards to ancient practice has resulted in complete misapprehension" (McKechnie, Magna Carta, 2nd ed (1914) at 395 as quoted by Toohey J in Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23 at 66). In Jago Toohey J thought it pertinent to note Holdsworth's observation that whilst it was said in the seventeenth century that c. 29 (together with related chapters) embodied the principles of the writ of Habeas Corpus and of trial by jury, "It is not difficult to show that, taken literally, these interpretations are false. Trial by jury was as yet in its infancy ..." (Holdsworth, History of English Law, 7th edition (1956), volume 2 at pp 214-215 cited by Toohey J at p 66). Similarly in Kingswell v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 264, Deane J (in dissent as to the outcome of the appeal) observed that modern scholarship would indicate that much of the traditional identification of trial by jury with magna Carta was erroneous (see 299).

9. For authority that the phrase "The judgement of his peers" in c. 29 did not refer to trial by jury, see Adams and Schuyler, Constitutional History of England, Jonathon Cape, London at 136-7; Forsyth, History of Trial by Jury, 2nd Edition, Burt Franklin, New York, 1878 at pp 91-92; Holdsworth, History of English Law, 6th edition, volume 1 at pp 59-660, 385 48; Holt, Magna Carta, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp 9-10; Howard, Magna Carta Text and Commentary, The University Press of Virginia, at 14; Lyon, Magna Carta, the Common Law, and Parliament in Medieval England, Forum Press, Missouri, 1980 at p 7; McKechnie, Magna Carta, 2nd edition, 1914 at pp 375-379; Windeyer, Lectures on Legal History, Law Book Company, 1938, "Magna Carta" at pp 64-66.

10. Magna Carta c 29 embodies a "protest against arbitrary punishment, and against arbitrary infringements of personal liberty and rights of property" (Holdsworth, Volume II at p 215; Wade and Bradley, Constitutional and Administrative Law, 10th edition, Longman, London, pp 13-14). The summary procedure proposed to be undertaken in this case accords with these principles.

Magna Carta may be modified by NSW law

11. Even if the above submission is incorrect, c 29 of the magna carta cannot be availed of in this case as it does not hold the status of a constitutional provision of NSW, rather it is open to "affectation and modification" by ordinary legislation enacted by the State Parliament (Galea v NSW Egg Corporation Court of Appeal, 21 November 1989, Unreported, at 6, Adler v District Court of NSW (1990) 19 NSWLR 317 at 332; see also Chester v Bateson (1920) 1 KB 829 per Darling J). Such is explicit in s 6 of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 (NSW) which declares c 29 to have remained in force in NSW "except so far as affected by any ... State Acts from time to time in force in New South Wales" (6(b)). The Supreme Court Act and Rules have affected the asserted right to trial by jury in providing for a procedure whereby contempt may be prosecuted by summary procedure (see Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 53(3F), Supreme Court Rules Part 55; Fraser v The Queen (No 2) (1985) 1 NSWLR 680 at 91-3 per McHugh JA).

12. This Court has held on a number of occasions that local law is able to over-ride Magna Carta. In Chia Gee v Martin (1905) 3 CLR 649 Griffiths CJ said, at 653, "The contention that a law of the Commonwealth is invalid because it is not in conformity with Magna Carta is not one of serious refutation." In Re Cusak (198) 60 ALJR 302 Wilso J pointed out that "The validity of laws enacted by the Commonwealth Parliament falls to be determined by reference to the proper construction of the Australian Constitution. It is not open to base an argument for validity by reference to alleged inconsistencies between laws of the Commonwealth and either Magna carta or the Bill of Rights.".

13. For many years after the establishment of the colony of NSW there were no jury trials, with criminal matters being heard by the Judge Advocate and a panel of six military officers, see Evatt J "The Jury System in Australia" (1936-37) 10 ALJ (Supplement) 49, Bennett JM "The Establishment of jury Trial in NSW" (1956-61) 3 Sydney Law Review 463 and Neale D The Rule of Law in a Penal Colony, Cambridge University Press, 1991, Chapter . Thus it has long been recognised in this State at least that Magna Carta did not establish an immutable right to trial by jury for criminal offences.

Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)

14. The Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) has no application. S30(1)(c) protects rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities "acquired, accrued or incurred under the Act" from affectation by the amendment or repeal of an Act. As at the date of commencement of operation of the Supreme Court Act and Rules, the applicant had no right or privilege acquired or accrued under s 6 of the Imperial Acts Application Act. The actions giving rise to the prosecution for contempt had not been committed nor had any prosecution been instituted against the applicant. If the right to trial by jury is conferred by Magna Carta as is asserted by the applicant, at the commencement date of the Supreme Court Act and Rules, the applicant had "a mere right or privilege in the abstract which could not be regarded as a right or privilege which has accrued or been acquired within the meaning of the ... Act." (R v Boland (1974) VR 849 at 860 per Adam, Little and McInerney JJ).

Constitution - Sections 80 and 109

15. Section 80 of the Commonwealth Constitution does not require that proceedings for contempt be dealt with by way of jury trial. Such proceedings are not "on indictment." As originally drafted the section applied to trials of "all indictable offences." However during the Constitution Convention an amendment was successfully moved to change the words "indictable offences" to the present "trial on indictment" so as to ensure that contempt and the less serious offences could be prosecuted summarily, see Pannam C "Trial by Jury and Section 80 of the Australian Constitution" (1968) 6 Sydney Law Review 1 at 3. Even the amendment proposed to section 80 in 1988 (which would have enlarged the right to jury trial, but was defeated) specifically exempted contempt proceedings from its operation (see Constitutional Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill 1988).

16. In Brown v The Queen (1985-86)160 CLR 171 Gibbs CJ at 181 said "It has been held in a long line of cases ... that s 80 applies only if there is an indictment and that the Parliament is free to decide whether any particular offence, however serious, may be tried summarily."

17. In any case contempt of a NSW Court is an offence against NSW law. It is not an "offence against any law of the Commonwealth" as referred to in section 80 Constitution, see United Telecasters Sydney Ltd v Hardy (1991) 23 NSWLR 323, The King v Fletcher; ex parte Kisch (1935) 52 CLR 248 at 2566-257, Director of Public Prosecutions v ABC (1987) 7 NSWLR 88 at 593. Further, the applicant's reliance on s 24 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to invoke the application of s 80 is misplaced, as s 24 of the judiciary Act relates to the powers of the High Court to punish contempt of its own Court.

18. The Applicant relies on the Constitution of the united States and asks "Is an Australian less equal before the law than an American?". Article III of the US Constitution provides that "(t)he Trial of all Crimes ... shall be by jury ...". The US Supreme Court has held that this clause does not preclude the summary trial of contempt proceedings before State and Federal courts, except where the punishment imposed on conviction makes the offence a serious one, see Bloom v State of Illinois (1968) 391 US 194; Taylor v Hayes (1974) 418 US 488; International Union, United Mine Workers of America v Bagwell (1994) 512 US 821; Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 50A, "Juries", pp 239-243. In any event, the provisions of the US Constitution do not govern the present application.

19. There is no inconsistency between the Supreme Court Act and Rules and any enactment of the Commonwealth Parliament, such as to invoke the application of s 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution.

PART IV - COSTS

The Respondent seeks costs (see Hinch v Attorney General (Victoria) at 89-90 contra Craven v Registrar NSW Court of Appeal (1995) 20 Leg Rep SL6).

PART V - AUTHORITIES

Chia Gee v Martin (1905) 3 CLR 649
R v Fletcher; ex parte Kisch (1935) 52 CLR 248 at 256
John Fairfax & Sons P/L v McRae (1954-55) 93 CLR 351
Re Cusack (1986) 60 ALJR 302
Brown v The Queen (1985-86) 160 CLR 171
Hinch v Attorney General (Victoria) (1989) 168 CLR 15
Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23
Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525
R v Boland (1974) VR 849
Registrar of Court of Appeal v Willesee & Ors (1984) 2 NSW LR 378
Fraser v The Queen (No 2) (1985) 1 NSWLR 680 at 691-3
Director of Public Prosecutions v ABC (1987) 7 NSWLR 588 at 93, 595
Adler v District Court of NSW (1990) 19 NSWLR 317 at 332
United Telecasters Ltd v Hardy (1991) 23 NSWLR 323
Galea v NSW Egg Corporation Court of Appeal, 21 November 1989, Unreported
Chester v Bateson (1920) 1 KB 829 at 832 per Darling J
Supreme Court Act 1970
Supreme Court Rules
Holdsworth, History of English Law, 6th edition, volume 1 at pp 59-60, 385, 487
Holt, Magna Carta, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, 1992 at pp9-10
McKechnie, Magna Carta, 2nd edition, 1914 at pp 375-39
Pannam C "Trial by Jury and Section 80 of the Australian Constitution" (19668) 6 Sydney Law Review 1

PART VI - ORAL ARGUMENT

The Applicant has sought to supplement his Summary of Argument with oral argument. Accordingly the Respondent will be represented and if required will present oral argument.

Dated the 20th day of October 1998

Peter Berman
A/Crown Advocate

------------

CHAPTER 11 - MY REPLY TO THE RESPONDENT'S SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

I did not receive the Respondent's Summary of Argument until I realized there was such a document when I saw it listed on the Draft Index for the Application Book for Special Leave to Appeal in the High Court of Australia. The Draft was posted by the Registrar of the High Court, dated 11 November 1998, and I received it on it on 12 November. I phoned the High Court on 13 November telling of the opponent's solicitors' withholding of the document and asked that they insist that it be served. The Respondent's Summary of Argument was filed on 22 October 1998 and I finally received it in the mail on 16 November. The Registrar still kept to the deadline for my Reply which had to be filed by Wednesday 25 November.

The respondent's Summary of Argument was nine pages long with twenty-two references, as can be seen in the previous chapter.

There was no time to research those references and my Reply could not exceed five pages. The answers to those twenty-two references will have to put to the High Court in the form of an address, i.e.: when I have had time to get to the law library and look them up. Their argument consists solely of repeating that the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to summarily try contempt of court but nowhere is trial by jury precluded, i.e.: nowhere does anyone say one cannot have a jury trial. It is all bluster. Anyway, I filed it on Tuesday 24 November and it appears below.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SYDNEY OFFICE OF THE REGISTRY

No. S 127 of 1998

BETWEEN: JOHN WILSON
Applicant
and
THE PROTHONOTARY
Respondent

APPLICANT'S REPLY

PART 1 - REASONS WHY SPECIAL LEAVE SHOULD BE GRANTED

Contrary to what the Respondent claims, i.e.: that I have not raised any matter justifying the grant of special leave, I have raised many matters which demand the High Court to administer not only the law but justice which is the primary function of all courts. Not to grant special leave would be compounding the injustice which has already been inflicted on me.

The matters:-
(a) are of NATIONAL IMPORTANCE and
(b) require the resolution of QUESTIONS OF LAW.

Granting special leave would be the first step necessary to redress and remedy the perverting of justice which has resulted from wrongful judgements brought down by a succession of judges I have encountered in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and the High Court of Australia who have repeatedly concealed bank fraud in the form of the variable interest rate loan affair.

This is a matter of national importance because the extent of judicial perfidy and corruption, if not eradicated, is a scandal which will destroy the integrity of our system of justice.

This is a matter of national importance because banks must be brought to justice and their victims, who are the ordinary people of Australia and have suffered hardship and misery involving the theft of their homes, farms, businesses with devastating effects to their families, are entitled to restitution.

This is undoubtedly the most crucial case ever to be brought in Australia's history because should leave not be granted then the people of Australia will have the proof that the judiciary are the instruments of oppression and tyranny who willfully are in contempt of the due process of law and willfully take from the people their rights. If special leave is not granted the judiciary will be branded the enemy of the people.

JUDICIAL PERFIDY, PERJURY AND CORRUPTION:

Judges have sworn an Oath of Allegiance to "well and truly serve" Her Majesty when She has sworn to uphold "Law and Justice, in Mercy" and to accept the Holy Bible as "royal Law". Judges have sworn "to do right". However, by uttering that and adhering to the statement that "the rate itself is indeed certain", when the rate is variable or uncertain, plus having in their possession information of the serious offence of fraud while taking no action, judges have committed perfidy, perjury and corruption. This is of national importance.

QUESTIONS OF LAW:

Questions of law based upon the sections of the Australian Constitution and numerous State and Federal laws, their validity and application, as well as the very fundamental principles of government (eg: the will of the people) mentioned in my Applicant's Summary of Argument must be determined for "peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth" and in the interests of justice, itself.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT:

The Respondent saying "In the event that the Applicant is convicted of contempt after a summary hearing, he may, should he choose to do so, raise this issue on appeal against his conviction" makes a mockery of due process because there must not be a summary hearing in the first place because it is my inalienable right to trial by jury which is the substance for my Application for Special Leave to Appeal. The High Court of Australia must not abrogate its "original jurisdiction".

PART II - THE RESPONDENT'S "BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS"

The fact is that I dispute the entirety of the judgement of Hidden J of March 1998.

The additional matter of fact is that I am charged with contempt of court which is the interference with the administration of justice and of which I am not guilty.

PART III - THE RESPONDENT'S "BRIEF STATEMENT OF ... ARGUMENT"

Because the Respondent's Summary of Argument was withheld from me from the date it was filed (22 OCT 1998) until the Registrar of the High Court told the Respondent's solicitors to serve it whereupon it arrived in my letterbox on 18 NOV 1998, the limit of 5 pages for this Applicant's Reply and the deadline imposed by the Registrar of the High Court, a full and detailed reply to the argument raised by the respondent's solicitors and the citings listed is not possible. To be fair, I must be given more space and time.

For example: the Respondent's paragraph 8, where he claims that "Magna Carta does not establish a right to trial by jury" and quotes McKechnie, Magna Carta, 2nd ed., McKechnie says, on page 376, the following when describing "CHAPTER THIRTY-NINE": "1. Its Main Object. It has been usual to read it as a guarantee of trial by jury to all Englishmen; as absolutely prohibiting arbitrary commitment; and as solemnly undertaking to dispense to all and sundry an equal justice, full, free and speedy.2 The traditional interpretation has thus made it, in the widest terms, a promise of law and liberty and good government to every one.". This interpretation is strongly endorsed in The Statutes at Large of England and of Great-Britain, edited by Thomas Tomlins (M.DCCC.XI.), when referring to CAP.XXIX of Magna Carta it says:

"See 4 H.7.c12. giving directions to Justices of the Peace; and 16 Ca(n).I.c.10. for taking away the Star Chamber." and "The following is Lord Coke's exposition of this interesting Passage, 'No Man shall be condemned at the king's Suit, either before the King in his Bench, where the Pleas are corum Rege, (and so are the Words nec super cum ibimus, to be understood) nor before any other Commissioner or Judge whatsoever ( and so are the Words nec super cum mittemus to be understood.).

And where the Respondent refers to such quotes as Toohey J in Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23 at 66 citing Holdsworth, History of English Law, 7th edition (1956), volume 2 at pp 214-215, as being "pertinent .. that whilst it was said in the seventeenth century that c 29 (together with related chapters) embodied the principles of the writ of Habeas Corpus and of trial by jury, "It is not difficult to show that, taken literally, these interpretations are false. Trial by jury was as yet in its infancy.. " ", the actual words and the literal interpretation of that part of CAP XXIX of Magna Carta are: "nisi (unless, except, but) per (by, by means of) legale (lawful) judicium (judgement) parium (equals, peers) suorum (of his own) and William Hawkins' book, Lord Coke, Professional Books Limited, London, reprint 1982, at page 225, publishing Lord Coke's manuscript with the column note of "The beginning of juries" saying: "And albeit, that certain opinions and judgements are reported in the Norman tongue, yet those are not aptly termed the laws of England. But it is objected out of Polidore Virgil, (see Hick. Dissert. epistol. p. 152, 153.) that juries and trial by twelve men were first invented in the Conqueror's time; which undoubtedly is apparently false; and thus I prove it. The book of Dooms-day was made in Saint Edward the Confessor's time, and all the manors that were in the hands of king Edward were ancient demesnes, and all his tenants had those privileges, that those tenants in ancient demesne have at this day..... (etc).". Saint Edward the Confessor was born in 1003 and died in 1066.

The argument as to when juries came into being is of historic interest but the reality is Magna Carta guaranties the right to trial by jury. Magna Carta granted that right "for evermore" and many Acts, such as Habeas Corpus reiterate that right and that guarantee.

When the Respondent's solicitor says, in paragraph 10, that "The summary procedure proposed to be undertaken in this case accords with these principles" ie: that "Magna Carta c 29 embodies a "protest against arbitrary punishment, and against arbitrary infringements of personal liberty and rights of property" (Holdsworth, Volume II at p 215; Wade and Bradley, Constitutional and Administrative Law, 10th edition, Longman, London, pp 13 -14), this is absolutely false.

The word arbitrary means "based on one's own wishes, notions or will; not going by the rule of law; using or abusing unlimited power; tyrannical; despotic..." and what clearer examples of arbitrary can there be than Master Greenwood's declaration which started this scandalous affair of "Thus whilst the amount of the future rate is uncertain, the rate itself is indeed certain." and then all the subsequent judgements which will be presented in my defence?

When the Respondent's solicitors say, in paragraph 11, that Magna Carta "does not hold the status of a constitutional provision in NSW, rather it is open to "affectation and modification" by ordinary legislation enacted by the State Parliament (Galea ..)...", this is untrue as explained in my Summary of Argument when referring to section 80, 109, and 118 of the Australian Constitution and clause 5 of the Constitution Act 1900 and section 5 of the NSW Constitution Act 1902.

Also, in paragraph 11, when the Respondent's solicitors say: "The Supreme Court Act and Rules have affected the asserted right to trial by jury in providing for a procedure whereby contempt may be prosecuted by summary procedure (see Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 53 (3F), Supreme Court Rules Part 5; Fraser v The Queen (No2)(1985) 1 NSWLR 680 at 691 - 3 per McHugh JA)., where does it say that trial by jury is precluded for contempt of court? Even if the Supreme Court Act and Rules did say that trial by jury was precluded, that would be a nullity because as it is said in The Annotated Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia by Quick and Garran, 1901 at page 791: "The Federal Parliament and State Parliaments are not sovereign bodies; they are legislatures with limited powers, and any law the attempt to pass in excess of those powers is no law at all, it is simple a nullity, entitled to no obedience."

Please note that this incomplete Reply cannot be regarded as a dealing with the situation in the manner in which it must.

PART IV - COSTS

The Applicant seeks costs.

PART V - AUTHORITIES

McKenie, Magna Carta, 2nd edition, 1914 p 376
Tomlin, ed., The Statutes at Large of England and Great-Britain, Volume the First, Printed by Eyre and Strahan, London, at p 8.
Hawkins, Lord Coke, Professional Books Limited, Oxon, at p 225.
Australian Constitution 1900, ss 80, 109 & 118
Constitution Act 1900, cl 5
NSW Constitution Act 1902, s 5
Quick and Garran, The Annotated Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, 1995 reprint of 1901 edition, at p 791.

PART VI - ORAL ARGUMENT

I seek to supplement my Summary of Argument, my Supplementary Summary of Argument and this Reply with oral argument.

Dated the day of November, 1998

...................................
Applicant.

-----------

CHAPTER 12 - WHAT CRIMES HAVE THE JUDGES COMMITTED?

The fact that banks are committing fraud is obvious, as explained many times over already. The judges have made themselves party to the crime and have built a whole plethora of offences as a result ..... and it all stems from two diametrically opposed words, ie: variable and certain. Variable means "apt to change, changeable, uncertain" while certain means "absolutely assured, regular, fixed, not variable".

Master Terrence Greenwood started the ball rolling with his nonsensical and lying statement of "Thus, whilst the amount of that future rate is uncertain, the rate itself is indeed certain.". And the rest of his Judgement on 1 SEP 1996 is equally a pack of lies, eg: that the method of determining the future interest was certain. All of this I have put in affidavits.

With Master Greenwood started the sequence of offences committed by the ensuing judges. There are many offences and here follows some which even I, as an ordinary citizen, can find and, with a little more effort, other victims surely can come up with more.

(1) Concealing serious offence (s 316 Crimes Act 1900):

(1) If a person has committed a serious offence and another person who knows or believes that the offence has been committed and that he or she has information which might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension of the offender or the prosecution or conviction of the offender for it fails without reasonable excuse to bring that information to the attention of a member of the Police Force or other appropriate authority, that other person is liable to imprisonment for 2 years.

Every judge has had before him the brief of my case containing information about the fraud committed by the banks. All of them have withheld that information from the Police and the Public Prosecutor. Every judge after Master Greenwood has had information about other judges who have concealed fraud and concealed the concealing of fraud.

(2) General offence of perverting the course of justice (s 319 Crimes Act 1900):

A person who does any act, or makes any omission, intending in any way to pervert the course of justice, is liable to penal servitude for 14 years.

Omission means non-performance, neglect, duty not done. By the judges not doing their duty, which is to honour their Oaths of Allegiance and Office, and no doing "right", they have perverted the course of justice because once the courts declare that variable interest rates are indeed uncertainty of terms, thereby rendering those loan contracts void, victims of that fraudulent practice will be entitled to claim restitution, ie: the return of the stolen monies. Further to this aspect of restitution, the Queen swore to hold the Holy Bible as "royal Law" and there is reference in part of the Bible to just such a situation. In Leviticus it says that the monies taken by fraud must be returned with an additional one-fifth.

(3) Judicial corruption (s 32 Crimes Act 1914):

Any person who:

(a) being the holder of a judicial office, corruptly asks, receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain, any property or benefit of any kind for himself, or any other person, on account of anything already done or omitted to be done or to be afterwards done or omitted to be done by him in his judicial capacity; ..... shall be guilty of an indictable offence. Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.

Concealing fraud and judicial corruption is obtaining a benefit for the bank directors and the judges.

(4) Offence of perjury (s 327 Crimes Act 1900):

(1) Any person who in or in connection with any judicial proceeding makes any false statement on oath concerning any matter which is material to the proceeding, knowing the statement to be false or not believing it to be true , is guilty of perjury and liable to penal servitude for 10 years.

Judges have taken Oaths of Allegiance and Office requiring them to "do right". Master Greenwood told the initial lie ("the rate itself is indeed certain"). Acting Justice Hamilton told the second lie when he answered "No" to the question put of "Shouldn't the terms of a contract be established when the contract is made?". All the other judges have made themselves party to the false statements.

(5) Offences - penalties (s 43 Imperial Acts Application Act 1969):

Any person guilty of any offence under any Imperial enactment included in Part 1 of the Second Schedule for which no punishment is otherwise provided is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or to a fine not exceeding 20 penalty units, or to both such imprisonment and fine.

Magna Carta guaranties the right to trial by jury. Justice Hidden, Appeal Judges Handley and Stein denied me that right and, therefore, offended against Magna Carta which also says "To none will we sell, to none deny or delay, right or justice.".

(6) Perfidy, Malfeasance, Nonfeasance, Misfeasance:

Perfidy means "a breaking faith, base treachery, being false to a trust, betrayal, disloyalty". Judges are held in a position of trust by the community and they are bound by their Oaths to "be faithful and bear true allegiance" to the Crown and to "do right to all manner of people according to the law without fear of favour, affection or ill-will. So Help me God!". While malfeasance, nonfeasance and malfeasance means that they have committed an unlawful act, failed to perform an act required by law and neglected or otherwise improperly performed a lawful act. All of these have resulted in tort or civil wrong. The penalties would be determined by a jury in preference to asking other judges.

Including the judges who make up the Judicial Commission of New South Wales, I have racked up a total of twenty corrupt judges as at 15th January, 1999.

----------

CHAPTER 13 - FIJA - FULLY INFORMED JURY ASSOCIATION

Some people who know of the battle I am having send me letters from time to time. One enclosed a small booklet entitled "Gentlemen of the Jury" which told the story of William Penn in the seventeenth century who was charged with preaching Quakerism in defiance of a then-current law. The jury defused to find him guilty because they believed the law was a bad law. The judges imprisoned the jury and made them suffer physical deprivation for months. But the jury still refused to change their verdict. In the end, the jury won and William Penn was released and the King granted him land in the American colonies where he established the state of Pennsylvania.

Another letter contained a photocopy of another small booklet entitled the "Jury Power Information Kit" put out by an organization in America called the Fully Informed Jury Association.

I must apologize for not being able to recall the names of those kind people but these booklets I kept and about midway through 1998 I got them out and decided to "surf the Internet" for trial by jury and came up with "An Essay on the Trial by Jury" by Lysander Spooner, 1852 at the website of www.geocities.com/Heartland/7394/lysander.htmll which is the most wonderful article and, as I later found out, is the basis for the philosophy of FIJA.

Again, on the Internet I found the website for FIJA which gave postal and email addresses for their founder, Larry Dodge. In November of 98 they were holding their get-together in Dallas, Texas which they called JIFACON IV. After corresponding with Larry and his No. 1 helper, Kathy Ballard, I asked permission to attend the Convention and they graciously consented.

I flew out of Sydney at 5.25pm on the 5th of November to arrive in Dallas at 7.26pm the same day, having crossed the International Date Line. The convention was held at the Holiday Inn in Bedford, not far from the airport.

Those three days were stimulating and encouraging. The speakers were of the highest calibre and many were published authorities in their fields of law. Everyone had the same passion for justice and preserving the rights of the American people. They knew that the threat of tyranny was very real and strategy to fight it was laid down in their Constitution, their Declaration of Independence and their Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, their Constitution and Bill of Rights can be changed by their governments. This is quite different to the situation in Australia where our Constitution can only be changed by a referendum of the people and legislation such as our Magna Carta 1297 and Bill of Rights 1688 are there "for evermore" and cannot be altered by any means.

However, our politicians would have you believe otherwise in respect to our rights under Magna Carta and Bill of Rights which they say can be "displaced by State and Federal legislation". Our politicians are as treacherous as our judges which all goes to focusing on the words of Lysander Spooner and other freedom fighters who promote the role of juries as our last safeguard to defeat bad laws intended to oppress us and strip us of our common wealth.

The tapes of the Dallas convention (along with posters, videos, etc. for FIJA, generally) can all be acquired through the website of www.fija%20org/orderfrm.html

At the dinner on the Saturday night Larry Dodge presented plaques and certificates of appreciation to numerous recipients who were playing an active role to their organization. I was surprised and delighted when he called me up to accept a certificate saying that I was their "Man in Australia" and a beautiful Lysander Spooner medallion in a purple case.

All through the three days the pace never slackened and the spirit never diminished. Professors, attorneys, legislators and (what they call) activists delivered their talks and discussions at coffee breaks and luncheons all focused on the issues which had brought them there.

In Australia, we have a coming together of freedom fighters called the Inverell Forum every March when that percentage of the population who not only know that great and many injustices are being done to the country but want to do something to put it back the way it is supposed to be with a harmonious and prosperous community.

The enemies of the people are right here in amongst us and they are the bankers, politicians and judges. Subjugation (or the enslavement) of Australia is a sinister and insidious campaign with the electronic and print media very much involved in keeping the truth from being known.

Many bad laws, ie: laws contrary to the best interests of the people, are being implemented one after the other while the media try to brainwash us. One could go on for volumes, eg: multiculturalism, antiprotectionism, etc., etc.. The politicians have even taken away our right to free elections which is guarantied by the Bill of Rights and the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights. How have they done this? By day of the Elections and Referendum Act which now has an Amendment which says that unless the voter numbers every square on the ballot paper, in what is now a "compulsory preferential system", the ballot paper will "be set aside from the count", ie: discarded. This means that the voter is forced to vote for and the vote will go to a candidate whom the voter does not want to receive his or her vote. That is not a free election and the 1998 Federal Election is completely illegal. However, any challenge in the courts would be dismissed by a judiciary which is completely corrupt and treacherous.

How can they hold the Olympic Games in Sydney in the year 2000 when Australia is a country where the government has denied its people the right to free elections?

I wrote to the Governor-General, Sir William Deane, before the 1998 Federal Elections asking him to intervene in this appalling situation but have never had a reply. Sir William Deane was a Justice of the High Court before being nominated by the Prime Minister who was, at that time Mr. Paul Keating who still campaigns to overthrow the Constitution of the Commonwealth, which is an offence called Treachery carrying the "Penalty (of): Imprisonment for life" (s 24AA Crimes Act 1914) because:

(a) the Constitution Act says, in the first paragraph that "the people ...... have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown ... and under the Constitution hereby established",

(b) "under" means "governed by, bound by, controlled by",

(c) "indissoluble" means "indissoluble", therefore

(d) the only way to abolish the Crown from the Commonwealth of Australia is to repeal the entirity of the Constitution Act which cancels the Australian Constitution. Our forefathers were smart fellows and anticipated such acts of treachery as people like Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull, with their Republican schemes, are trying to pull on us. In fact, words in "God Save the Queen" say "Confound their politics. Frustrate their knavish tricks.". All Australians aren't the fools they think we are .... but, if there is a referendum on abolishing the Crown, the question is "Will there be enough fools to fall for their lies?".

Our only hope of restoring democracy is by way of the juries because, as Lysander Spooner summarized it in his essay that here are five tribunals to veto bad laws which are: "representatives, senate, executive, jury, and judges". In Australia we have the same situation with (1). the House of Representatives, (2). the Senate, (3) . the Governor-General (executive), (4). jury, and (5). judges. With the exception of the jury, those tribunals have become the instruments of corruption and tools of oppression.

Lysander Spooner begins his essay with these words:
"For more than six hundred years - that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 -- there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the law, and hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such law.".

A jury must be fully informed of what their role is. They can not be compelled to obey any directions or orders issued by a judge. they must vote according to their conscience. This concept is not original to America but has its roots firmly in English law and history.

Being "Fully Informed" means just that. The jury must be told of their responsibilities and that they can ask questions of anyone at any time; that they can call for evidence which they think they might require; and they must be told of the possible sentence or penalty which may be imposed on the accused if they find him or her or them guilty.

The Americans are more vocal and active in their participation in their politics and their expressing of what they believe to be truth and justice. FIJA is conducting lobbying throughout the United States for legislation requiring juries to be fully and properly instructed once they are impanelled. They have declare a Lysander Spooner Day to commemorate the William Penn verdict on the 5th of September which, coincidentally and quite unknown to me, was the day of the paint incident in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Queens Square, Sydney.

One of FIJA's leaflets says: Our third president, Thomas Jefferson, put it like this: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."'. Another quote FIJA uses is from their D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1972, which "held that the jury has an "..unreviewable and irreversible power .. to acquit in disregard to the instruction on the law given by the trial judge. The pages of history shine upon instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge, for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law." (473 F. 2d 1113)".

FIJA proudly point to that time in history when juries were directly involved in the circumstances which led to the American War of Independence. The story goes that England was imposing a tax on goods imported into the colony from other countries but many merchants were not paying the tax and they were charged and put on trial but the juries refused to convict them because the colonists did not want to pay the tax to England especially when they had no representation in the British Parliament. The English then tried to transport the "smugglers" back to England for trial and that is when the hostilities really began "and the rest is history".

Ironically, Australians have a more direct claim on English common law and the system of jury power because our Constitution is actually part of a British Act of Parliament called the Constitution Act (63 & 64 Vic.) and, as it says in the Preamble, we are "one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland".

Therefore, beware of politicians who want to sever our links with the Crown because then we would have lost all those inalienable rights and absolute power would be delivered into the hands of politicians who are the mere puppets of the banks and the multinational corporations whose ambitions are all too obvious.

FIJA is the voice of the people in America and we would do well to learn from them and demand our rights as they are doing.

-----------

CHAPTER 14 - HOW TO FIGHT THE WAR AGAINST THE BANKS

We have no strategy or plan of how to fight the banks. It is war - make no mistake about that! The object of the aggressor in a war is to gain victory and take possession of the conquered lands with all its treasures. The objective of the home side is to defend one's territory and repel the enemy.

I remember a scene in an old movie when an actor, George Arliss, playing the part of the British Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, said he would "smash the banks!". Unfortunately, he was not successful and even victories by US Presidents Jackson and Lincoln were short-lived. The banks eventually won back in the middle of the 19th century and that is when the wealth and assets began to be siphoned away from the people and into the coffers of the banks. There is a very interesting video tape telling the story - please contact Tony Pitt on (0741) 221 412 to obtain a copy.

Inflation and devaluation coupled with manufactured cycles of "boom and bust" have been other techniques employed by the powerbrokers. As an example of devaluation, I Denis Troy sent me a copy of Habeas Corpus which said that a judge could be fined one thousand pounds for delivering a wrong judgement back in 1670. I phoned up the reserve bank of Australia and asked what would that be worth today. The young man was helpful and phoned me back an hour later to say that in 1850 that one thousand pounds was worth one thousand and fifty pounds, ie: almost no devaluation, but in 1998 it was then worth over one hundred and thirty-four thousand dollars. In 1963 Australia decimalized its currency by converted one pound into two dollars.

The banks are now amalgamating to become more powerful to very soon become, in effect "El Supremo" to the world. What price freedom, then?

This simple common law claim will right the scales of justice providing people are game enough to take up the gauntlet.

In this war there is no point in even thinking of armed resistance because the banks control all the forces with the army and police at their beck and call. There is not even any point in trying to stir the majority of the populus in Australia because they are apathetic and been effectively divided and dispirited as a result of years of media propaganda.

There is an old saying that "you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time". It is to that percentage who have twigged to the swindle that the burden of retaliation falls. It is to those who have suffered under the variable interest rate scam that have to take the truth to the courts and turn the tables using the justice system as it was intended to be used and not as it is now implemented by a corrupt judiciary.

Before Christmas 1998 Tony Pitt asked if I would write a short article for his newspaper called "National Interest News" and which he publishes from time to time as finances will allow. I responded with what follows and it is worth remembering that the criminality of the banks extend beyond the variable interest rate loan contract swindle however to prove those other crimes in court would require far more complicated and time-consuming procedures such as full disclosure of the bank's records which it is not unknown for the banks to forge and lose.

And keep in mind that, following the introduction of the Consumer Credit Act in 1981 to set the scene for the variable interest rate debacle, the collective assets of the major banks in Australia rose from 81 billion dollars to 384 billion dollars in six years. The method was simple, ie: create credit and give it to customers and in return take money plus interest. It's as silly as that! Give nothing and demand money. The one-way flow of money has had the banks laughing ever since.

Tony said he might change the title of the article but this is how I wrote it:

VARIABLE INTEREST RATES MEAN FRAUD - VICTIMS ARE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION.
By John Wilson

COMMON LAW DEMANDS:

Common law demands that, for a contract to be created, there must be "certainty of terms" otherwise the contract is void, ie: of no legal effect (invalid and not binding) and must be set aside.

A SIMPLE TRUTH:

Without even getting into the argument of whether banks actually lend money or dispense mere credit, which they themselves create, for which the borrowers have to pay for with real money plus interest, this is simply a matter of the definition of words in the English language.

Please take note of the following definitions:

1. certain - absolutely assured, regular, fixed, not variable.

2. variable - apt to change, changeable, uncertain.

3. terms - conditions, stipulations, price, charge, rate of payment.

COMMON LAW OVERRULES STATUTE LAW:

Under our system of a Constitutional Monarchy, any statute law which in violation of the common law and to the prejudice of the people is void and inoperable and should not be granted Royal Assent or, if it has (because Ministers have misled the Governor), should be disallowed by the Governor who took an Oath of Allegiance to the Queen. Any Governor failing in his/her duty must be sacked.

FRAUD IS STEALING:

Banks make out, ie: present, loan contracts containing variable interest rates as being a valid contract. This is false representation, "passing off" or fraud. Taking money by fraud is stealing and victims are entitled to compensation or restitution under the law.

THE LAW OF TORT:

Tort means harm or wrong. This tort is also a crime but don't expect the Police or the Public Prosecutor to take any action against the banks.

GOING TO COURT:

In order to obtain restitution, firstly file a Statement of Claim in the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court and secondly file a Requisition for Trial by Jury. The jury is vital because judges are not to be trusted. They will not take action against the banks. The judges are corrupt. I have documented this corruption on an Internet website and can be found under http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au/ where victims can read what skullduggery is practiced by judges from the Supreme Court of New South Wales to and including the High Court of Australia. For example: on 17/9/96 in the Supreme Court Master Terrence Greenwood ruled that "Thus, whilst the amount of that future rate is uncertain, the rate itself is indeed certain" and on 11/4/97 in the High Court Sir Daryl Dawson, when I asked the three judges (Dawson, Toohey and Kirby) to answer the discreet question of law as to "Whether variable interest rates render a contract void for uncertainty?" and "Does variable mean uncertain?", replied "Sorry, we cannot answer those questions." The judges are guilty of Perfidy, Perjury and Corruption.

INSIST ON A FULLY INFORMED JURY:

The jury is the last remaining tribunal capable of delivering justice. Judges fear juries and will try desperately to deny victims of bank fraud access to them. An individual plaintiff (person who takes a claim to court) is easily disposed of by judges. That is why, as Tony Pitt suggests, there must be multiple plaintiffs or a Class Action. My experiences through the courts is proof of that. People must be united if they are to win over our corrupt judiciary and obtain "Law and Justice" which Queen Elizabeth The Second swore in the Coronation Oath on 2 June 1953 in the Abbey Church of Westminster to uphold.

The Statement of Claim should ask for Severance of the part of the loan contract which is bad under common law which has made the contract void, ie: the variable interest rates.

FORMULA FOR COMPENSATION:

A simple formula for the calculation of restitution is that, because variable interest rate have no legal affect and therefore no value, ie: they are in fact 0%, any monies paid to the bank in excess of either (a) the principal of the loan; or (b) the principal plus the fixed interest rate applicable to the fixed interest rate period; should be returned to the borrower. The jury can decide whether to add the "one fifth" mentioned in Leviticus when repaying monies obtained by fraud because, after all, the Queen also swore to accept the Holy Bible as "royal Law".

REPRESENT YOURSELVES:

Do not trust lawyers who will take your money and then double-cross you. Filing in the Supreme Court costs $495 and the fee for a jury is about the same. Represent yourself and don't be bullied by the judge. Please write to P.O. Box 4520, North Rocks, NSW, 2151 for information on the duty and rights of the jury so that they will judge the facts and the law.

IT'S TIME:

It is time for justice and it is time for the criminal banks to compensate their victims.

----------

CHAPTER 15 - THE "CROWN" SOLICITOR?

On 26 JUN 1998 I filed a Notice of Motion in the Court of Appeal asking for Leave to file a Requisition for Trial by Jury to try the Application for Leave to Appeal against Hidden J's denial of trial by jury. This was done under s 86 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 because the New South Wales Supreme Court's Court of Appeal comes under that Act. The additional reason I gave in an Affidavit was that Part 51, rule 23.8 of the Supreme Court Rules says: "A judge ought not hear a case if there is a reasonable apprehension that an impartial mind will not be brought to bear on the resolution of proceedings.".

To the Affidavit I put an Annexure which was one of my leaflets entitled "BANK FRAUD & CORRUPT JUDGES". It went this way:

BANK FRAUD & CORRUPT JUDGES

Bank loans are fraud.

Taking money by fraud is stealing.

Concealing fraud is corruption.

Under common law there must be certainty of terms for a contract to be created. Variable, by definition and in reality, means uncertain. To make out a contract with uncertainty of terms, ie: variable interest rates, to be a valid contract is false representation or fraud.

Yet, the Supreme Court says: "Thus whilst the amount of that future rate is uncertain, the rate itself is indeed certain" (17/9/96 ). and replies "No" when asked "Shouldn't the terms of a contract be established when a contract is made?" (30/9/9). In the Court of Appeal, common law is regarded as "no arguable cause for action" (28/10/9). And in the High Court they refuse to answer the question, "Does variable mean uncertain?", nor the discreet question of law as to "whether variable interest rates render a contract void for uncertainty" (11/4/97). On 1/2/97 the Judicial Commission and on /9/9 the Supreme Court dismissed actions that those judges had lied, supported lies, concealed fraud and perverted the course of justice whereby victims could claim the return of stolen money and property. Judges are protecting the banks and declaring themselves to be "immune from suit", ie: above the law and unaccountable for their actions.

CORRUPT JUDGES:

In the Supreme Court, they are: Terrence Greenwood, John Hamilton, Matthew Clarke, Alan Abadee, John Dunford, Graham Barr, Peter Hidden, Brian Murray, David Levine and Timothy Studdert. In the High Court, they are: Daryl Dawson, John Toohey and Michael Kirby. In the Judicial Commission, they are: Murray Gleeson, William Fisher, Mahla Pearlman, Reginald Blanch, Michael Campbell and David Jackson (with the laymember being Lynn Gain).

Banks cannot erase the tragedies and hardships they have caused, knowingly, wrongfully and remorselessly. They can be stopped and made to give back the money they have stolen - but will never have to for as long as they are protected in the courts where judges lie in order to cover up their crimes.

-Written by J.Wilson, Rights and Wrong,P.O.Box 4520,North Rocks, NSW, 2151.

It is worthy of note that one of the above named, Murray Gleeson, administered the Oaths of Allegiance and Office in swear in Mr. Gordon Samuels (a judge from the NSW Supreme Court) to be the present Governor of New South Wales whilst knowing of a complaint I lodged with the Independent Commission Against Corruption accusing Mr. Samuels and the NSW Premier, Mr. Robert Carr, of conspiracy to defraud and betray the Queen and the people of New South Wales because those two people had struck a pact whereby the incoming Governor would vacate that grand and historic Government House in the heart of the Botanic Gardens in spite of the fact that it had been dedicated by the Parliament of new South Wales and gazetted on 2nd November, 1917 to be the Official Residence of the Vice Regal (Governor). It has never been repealed. Mr Carr and Mr. Samuels had plotted to erode the position of the Governor as a step towards their ultimate goal of abolishing the Monarchy. The Commissioner, Mr. Barry O'Keefe QC, eventually replied to my complaint saying he had decided not to investigate the matter. Mr. Murray Gleeson is now the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia.

I have circulated many such leaflets by letter, fax and hand to everyone from the Governor-General to Attorneys-General and from the media and anyone I could think of, but never had any actions for defamation or contempt of court brought against me. They play the game of "If we ignore it, it might go away!".

The hearing was on Monday 6 July 1998 before Registrar Jupp. He, of course refused the Requisition, in line with all the other judicial officers who have no intention of allowing a fair trial.

At the hearing I asked if I could clear up a matter which was causing me concern. Registrar Jupp said he would try to help. I asked if the solicitors for the opposition represented the Crown. He said "No" and that they were merely private solicitors working in the Office of the Crown Solicitor.

To that I said I couldn't imagine Queen Elizabeth The Second, that is the Crown, fighting to deny an Australian citizen his right to trial by jury.

I asked Registrar Jupp for an order that all reference to the Crown in the documents pertaining to this case be deleted and that new papers, etc. be made out. He refused to make that order.

I wrote to Prince Charles telling him briefly of the overall situation and where solicitors were practicing deceit in and out of the courts by pretending to be the Crown Solicitor and fighting to deny a person's inalienable right to a jury as guarantied by the Magna Carta and the Australian Constitution. That letter was posted on 20 November 1998 but no reply has been received at this stage.

To me that is straightout false representation or deceit in order to gain an advantage. Letters to the Registrar of the high Court and the Crown Solicitor also have produced total silence.

There are all sorts of questions, ie: How are those solicitors paid?; Do they pay rent for the space they take up in the Office of the Crown Solicitor?; Do they pay for the Crown Solicitor's letterheaded writing materials?; Why aren't these people charged with a serious offence?; etc..

I learnt of another fellow who was trying to get a trial by jury for his charge of contempt of court down in Melbourne after he distributed leaflets in front of the Family Court. By making a few phone calls, I managed to get in touch with one of his solicitors and met him in the foyer of a hotel in Parramatta. We discussed points of law and both cases over about forty minutes before I had to do back to work. When I mentioned the business about my opponents making out that they were the Crown Solicitor when they weren't, this solicitor said, "That's just artificial!". It's not "artificial" to me or indeed to anyone else who has the slightest appreciation of our Constitution and the role the Crown has to play. In fact, in the letter to prince Charles I referred to the words of "God Save the Queen" which go "May She defend our laws". The Crown cannot be party to any attempt to take away a citizen's rights otherwise the Queen would be breaking Her Coronation Oath.

I will be raising this question again in the High Court.

----------

CHAPTER 16 - FLAC - FOR LEGALLY ABUSED CITIZENS

In 1998 I was contacted by an organization called FLAC which means For Legally Abused Citizens and invited along to one of their committee meetings in the city.

The name describes exactly their purpose, ie: people feel they are getting badly treated in the courts because judges are either knowingly or unknowingly doing the wrong thing and innocent or well-meaning people are suffering in a variety of ways financially and emotionally.

Many believe the system is at fault and others that the personnel are to blame. I am of the second opinion because our system of justice has evolved over a thousand years through the endeavours of many good and hardworking men and women. It is also based on Christian values and protected by the Crown.

Therefore, why is it going bad? Obviously it is not being allowed to function correctly and, in many instances, bad politicians and bad judges have created a climate of injustice.

Those who say we should scrap such things as the Australian Constitution or English common law and make up a new set of rules and procedures are either plainly ignorant and stupid or they have a hidden agenda ... and the banks and the multinational corporations are spending so much time and effort are the likely beneficiaries and the education-deprived and taken for granted ordinary guys and gals stand to lose everything.

The address for FLAC is P.O. Box 599, Northbridge, NSW 2963, Australia. The phone number is (02) 9416 8202 with a fax of (02) 9415 6517.

FLAC has monthly Sunday afternoon gatherings of members in a run-down Workers' club in the city. Those who attend are enthusiast. They share their experiences and try to find answers. They made a detailed submission to the government when suggestions were called for the possible reform of the legal profession only to discover that the government report had been written before the closing date for such submissions, ie: it was a typically hollow enquiry which bureaucrats and their ilk put on for window dressing and to con the people into thinking something is being done.

A few members have actually come to a couple of hearings to witness proceedings and their support has been invaluable. Joe Bryant, Denis Troy and Bob Heath have also attended a Court of Appeal hearing. To these people I owe a great debt of gratitude. I hope they are more patriotic Australians can find the time to be there when the judges again preside.

FLAC, like any group of well minded people, must be watchful for people who will infiltrate their organization to "white ant" their cause and bring discredit on them in order to destroy them. This is the method commonly used when there is any hint of a threat to the establishment.

FIJA in America have realized this and now not longer have members and only subscribers because anyone claiming to be a member can do something outrageous and bring the whole movement down. Therefore, no members but, in fact, their following is growing at the rate of knots and their influence is getting stronger with every campaign they embark upon.

FLAC must succeed, for the sake of us all.

-----------

CHAPTER 17 - JUDAS JUDGING JUDAS

The stage is set for the greatest betrayal of the people ever in history. The players have been learning their parts and have taken up their positions. The curtain is about to rise.

The politicians are organizing a "plebiscite" question for November 1999 asking the people of Australia whether they want to abolish the Crown from the Commonwealth of Australia. This is an act of Treachery which has to produce summonses against everyone involved including the Prime Minister.

Section 43 of the Australian Constitution says "Every senator and every member of the House of Representatives shall before taking his seat make and subscribe before the Governor-General, or some person authorised by him, an oath or affirmation of allegiance in the form set forth in the schedule of this Constitution." The Oath says "I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!" and, of course, can only be altered by a referendum.

When Queen Elizabeth the Second took the Coronation Oath the Archbishhop of Canterbury asked Her "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profesion of the Gosphel? " to which she answered, "All this I promise to do." and "The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.". Then the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland presented her with the Holy Bible saying, "Our Gracious Queen: to keep your Majesty ever mindful of the Law and the Gosphel of God as the Rule for the whole life and government of Christian Princes, we present you with this Book, the most valuable thing that this world affords. Here is Wisdom; This is the royal Law; These are the lively Oracles of God.".

There was nothing vague about all that. The Crown has sworn to govern Australia by Christian laws and values. Our parliamentarians have sworn to be faithful and bear true allegiance to her so she can do what she promised which is to govern Australia by Christian laws and values.

If the traitors have their way, by what laws and values will we be under? Those of banks and our existing judges and politicians? That is a recipe for civil war, if ever there was one. IT MUST NEVER GET TO THAT!

Therefore we must ward off the impending disaster by using what our forefathers have set in place in anticipation. By the lessons of history, we have been endowed with the Constitution Act with all that it entails. Laws for our protection are there for example Treachery is the plotting to overthrow the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia and is an offence under s 24AA of the Crimes Act 1900 carrying the penalty of "Imprisonment for life".

But the laying of such charges has already been calculated for with traitor judges installed as judges in the courts to dismiss any attempts by patriotic Australians wanting to protect their inherited freedoms which must ultimately be defended by the Crown according to the Coronation Oath. But the politicians have "terminated appeals to the Queen" with their highly illegal Australia Act 1986 and the judges are blocking any effort to have that Act rightly overturned.

It is a stacked deck! It is a conspiracy !

Q: How can right and justice be done, as demanded by CAP XXIX of Magna Carta?

A: The courts have to be purged of the traitor judges!

As can be seen by the content of this book, judges have no intention of putting their house in order because they are ignorant, corrupt and/or gutless.

Therefore, only juries are capable of this enormous task. But, by stealth, the judges are taking away our right to trial by jury. My Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court against the Supreme Court's denial of my right to a jury is crucial to this whole situation. The referendum of 1988 clearly demonstrated the will of the people to preserve trial by jury for contempt of court. If the High Court judges dismiss this and the other arguments I have set out in Chapters 8 and 9, then it will be proof that they are our enemy.

Below is the text of yet another of my leaflets.

AUSTRALIAN JUDGES ARE LIARS, CRIMINALS AND TRAITORS

LIARS: Australian judges say "the rate itself is indeed certain" in regard to variable interest rates. But variable means uncertain which, therefore, renders those loan contracts void for uncertainty, ie: they are fraud under common law and taking money by fraud is stealing.

CRIMINALS: Australian judges are concealing this criminal activity of the banks and, by so doing, are committing the crimes of concealing a serious offence (s 316 of Crimes Act 1900), judicial corruption (s 32 of Crimes Act 1914), perverting the course of justice (s 319 Crimes Act 1900), etc., which are punishable by imprisonment.

TRAITORS: Australian judges have declared themselves to be "immune from suit", ie: above the law and unaccountable to the people. For their own protection, they have overruled and cancelled Magna Carta which guaranties the right to trial by jury. A jury is the last and only means the people have to defend themselves against injustice and the excesses of bad and oppressive government.

Trial by jury is an inalienable right essential to the preservation of truth and justice. Lose that and freedom and democracy are dead.

SPECIAL NOTICE: On Friday, 16 April 1999, in the Law Courts Building, Queens Square, Sydney, in the Matter of John Wilson v The Prothonotary (S 127 of 1998), the High Court of Australia will decide an Application for Special Leave to Appeal against the NSW Supreme Court's dismissal of the right to trial by jury and its overthrowing Magna Carta on 16 March 1998 which was supported by its Court of Appeal on 24 August 1998. Be there or tell someone else to witness what the judges do and say! It's your right!

-Written by J.Wilson,P.O. Box 4520,North Rocks,2151 www.rightsandwrong.com.au

And don't forget, once you have lost the right to trial by jury then you can say 'goodbye' to every other right and freedom you thought were part and parcel of being Australian.

Without freedom, you are slaves.

----------

Written by J. Wilson jhwilson @ rightsandwrong.com.au © 2000
www.rightsandwrong.com.au

Link to this booklet: http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au/html/the_book.html

Support The Love For Life Campaign, Kindom & The Cristian Family

Supporting The Love For Life Website, The Cristian Family and The Living Dream Of Kindom (Creation Of Do No Harm Communities) - The Love for Life website is produced for free without a fee (no contract or conditions attached) as a gift of love for the benefit of others. If you feel you have gained something from visiting it, feel inspired, and would like to reciprocate as an equal exchange in substance and support (value), you are most welcome to make a gift of love to keep it and the dream of Kindom going. As always, we thank you for your gifts of love.

Additional Options

Bank:
Account name:
BSB:
Account number:
SWIFT BIC Code:
Australia New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ)
Fiona Caroline Cristian
012 547
5576 81376
ANZBAU3M

PAY PAL

Go To Your Pay Pal Account To Send Gifts To action @ loveforlife.com.au
Additional Options

 

The Cristian Family November 2006

We Stand For NO SYSTEM

Kindom (Do No Harm Communities) is the dream for freedom, but it is the dream for the freedom of those around us who also live the dream of freedom, because it is in living for the freedom of others that we get our freedom. When we live for the dreams of Kindom of those around us, we live life as a gift because we live for (dedicate our lives to) their dream of freedom, truth, peace, joy, abundance, etc, just as they live for our Kindom dreams too. This is true co-creation (cooperation) with no attack on the uniqueness of each of us. When we live this way, we have no need for any man-made system - everything/everyone has already been taken care of by our love for life.

Just as we do not have to jump 10 feet across the room to grab our next breath, neither do we have to worry about food, water and shelter because it has all been taken care of as we each co-create Kindoms/Kin-Domains for everyone. Now everybody and everything of the dream of life that is Kindom/Paradise is free (has been set free once again). The issue is greed and selfishness, power and control trips, arrogance, ignorance, being fed many many lies and being traumatised. The issue is not overpopulation - there is more than enough land available for every family to have a hectare (2.5 acres Kin-Domain) to care for. The land of Australia can provide a Kin-Domain for every family across Earth, each with a food forest, clean fresh drinking water and plenty of space for building natural do no harm habitats and with plenty of land left over.

Everyone must have the freedom to take full-responsibility for their lives, for the water they drink, the food they eat and for their shelter. Currently, "The System" forces everyone to give up taking full-responsibility so that we become grown up children accustomed to sucking on the nipples of "The System" corporations for everything, having to use money to get by and to follow the rules of money because we are not co-creating freedom, peace, truth, joy and abundance for each other. Money only leads to haves and have nots and all the abuse, manipulation and distractions that we are subjected to as slaves to money.

When we give up living for other's Kindom dreams, we start creating hell ("The System") all around us because we become self-centred - now it's all about "my freedom","my money", "my land", "my belief", "my saviour", "mine", "mine","mine", "i","i", "i", "own", "own", "own", etc. To protect what we claim we own requires a man-made system with FORCE to protect those self-centred claims. This is ALL trauma based and all story-telling (brainwashing/braindirtying).

NO SYSTEM = KINDOM/DO NO HARM COMMUNITIES
NO SYSTEM = KINDOM/DO NO HARM COMMUNITIES photo Kindom_zpsa6d24e8a.jpg

Our true freedom comes when we set our thoughts of freedom into motion so that we live freedom rather than just talking and thinking about it while we still slave for "The System". Kindom will not happen while we meditate for hours in the bush or do yoga retreats or wait for Jesus or follow the processes of the OPPT (One People's Public Trust now called One People). This is not freedom because we are not living freedom because we are living the story-telling of Jesus or Zeitgeist or The Secret or Thrive or One Earth/Consciousness/People.

Living Kindom is very, very hard work as we set about repairing the damage to MAN/Earth/Nature that we are ALL responsible for but the burden becomes lighter the more of us put our life-energy into the dream of returning Earth to Paradise. Day-after-day, we all have to work our arses off until Kindom is all around us (MAN) once again. This is the price we pay to set each other free on a piece of land (Kin-Domain), so that no one is under the image-power (education/brainwashing/story-telling) of another MAN anymore and so that everyone can have their space of love to create and live their unique, do no harm dreams. This only happens once we have the Kindoms set up so that everyone is provided for.

Once we re-create the food forests, whether on land or in the suburbs, we can re-claim our freedom, breaking the strangle-hold of "The System" because we are no longer reliant on its services and benefits and no longer turning each other into slaves of "The System", cogs in the wheels of "The System" machine. If we don't put the effort in to set everyone and everything free all around us then we still live in HELL ("The System"). The key is to live for everyone else's freedom so that we can have it too.

From Bare Dirt To Abundance
A Year In The Life Of The
Love For Life Food Forest

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
8th February 2013
51 Minutes 46 Seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sJCcCvZ97A

From Bare Dirt To Abundance Part Two A
5th November 2014
http://youtu.be/TPTPn8tgcPI
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8545

From Bare Dirt To Abundance Part Two B
Coming Shortly

We live for NO SYSTEM. We do not lose anything by not having a man-made system and, in fact, we gain. We gain our freedom and we gain abundance. Let go of the fear.

The Cristian Family November 2006

A Collection Of Various Love For Life Posts
Providing The Big Picture We See

Sequential Order

We ask you to NOT believe anything we say/share and instead use scrutiny like an intense blow torch and go where the logic of truth/sense takes you. This is very, very important. Put everything you believe up to the test of scrutiny to see how it stacks up. If you are true to your heart/senses and go where the logic of truth/sense takes you will find that NO belief, etc, will stand up to the test of scrutiny. They just do not stack up because they are lies/fraud.

After you have watched and read all the material and any questions are left unanswered, send us your landline number and we will use the internet phone as a free unlimited call. We are on Sydney NSW Australia time. Best times for us to chat are between 11.00am and 6.00pm.

It is critical that you fully comprehend Image Power, "Spelling", Trauma, Reaction To Trauma, Curses, Processing Curses, Full-Responsibility/Liability, Limited Liability/Responsibility (passing-the-back), Slavery, Senses/Sense vs Non-Sense/Senses, Re-Presenting Intellectual Property such as but not limited to "Name", Storytelling/Storytellers, Duality, Black-Magic, Belief, Lies, "i", All Seeing "i" (eye), etc..... These themes and others are covered over and over and over again.

If you do not comprehend these insights and are unable to use your senses to sense your way through all the non-sense/non-sensory-images that enslave MAN under their image power (darkness = "The System" = Hell), men and women will remain deeply trapped under a terrible state of trauma. Our intention is to inspire you to remedy by showing you how to move away from reacting to trauma in all its nefarious and devious forms.

IMAGE POWER
Superb Diamond Range Interviewing
Arthur & Fiona Cristian 4th February 2014
http://youtu.be/qFnuuw3kLog
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8501

His-Story/Her-Story (History)
Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
2005-2007 - Re-posted July 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8529

The Dream Of Life Part 6
Under The Spell Of Intellectual Property

Arthur Cristian - 51 Minutes 52 Seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMK7CkU1ih8

Trauma Induced Fantasy
July 2013 Interview With
Jeanice Barcelo And Arthur & Fiona Cristian
http://youtu.be/CZVj-ddUoZw
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8500

The Dark Side Of The Moon
The Background To "The System"

Arthur & Fiona Cristian Interviewed By
Jahnick Leaunier, The Tru-Mon Show
24th August 2016
Love For Life - 142 Minutes
https://youtu.be/C5TViw1NLr4

Eric Dubay's Flat Earth Is A Cult
The Background To The System Part Two

Arthur & Fiona Cristian Chatting With
Jahnick Leaunier On The Tru-Mon Show
Love For Life - 31st August 2016
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8585
154 Minutes
https://youtu.be/rCPWgEQg-2M

Eclipse Of The Sun - Video (Arthur swears in this video)
The Background To The System Part Three
Arthur & Fiona Cristian Chatting With
Jahnick Leaunier On The Tru-Mon Show
Love For Life - 25th October 2016
https://youtu.be/FMOsOi1kNRc

The "Name" Is The Mark Of The Beast
The Strawman Identifying
Your Slave Status In "The System"

By Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
5th February 2012 - 56 Minutes 25 Seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdOag66v7uo

The Satanic Craft Of Inculcation In Practice
Fiona's ACT Supreme Court Affidavit Explaining Inculcation & Illumination
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
4th March 2016
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8578

The Spinning Top
Full Bloom Inculcation

Arthur And Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
Facebook Discussions Between The
8th December 2016
And
26th January 2017
Link: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/16/03/04/satanic-craft-inculcation-pra...

The Shit Of Death
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
28th January 2017
Link: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/16/03/04/satanic-craft-inculcation-pra...

The Selfie Of Freakenstein
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
17th March 2017
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8588

Three Sets Of Fiona Cristian Documents Filed With ACAT
Merged Into One Document For Downloading
https://www.scribd.com/document/327370355/Fiona-Cristian-Affidavit-ACT-S...

Fiona Cristian Affidavit
ACT Supreme Court / Court Of Appeal

https://www.scribd.com/doc/316218306/Three-Sets-of-Fiona-Cristian-Docume...

Dancing With Magic (Lies)
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Videos, Articles, Comments
And Pending E-Book
Love Fort Life
September 2015
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8575

Dancing With Magic Part One
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
5th September 2015
https://youtu.be/hx7qJ7r2OS4

Dancing With Magic Part Two
Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
12th September 2015
https://youtu.be/b_KuEFdKmnA

Dancing With Magic Part Three
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
13th September 2015
https://youtu.be/9pJc1NfnAcI

Dancing With Magic (Lies) Part Four:
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
16th September 2015
https://youtu.be/kSVURGwm1Go

Introduction To Kindom Video
By Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
6th March 2015
https://youtu.be/7SspPm9wRgo

To Be Educated Is To Have No Soul
The System Is Soul Destroying

Frederick Malouf & Michael Tellinger's
Contrived Gifting
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
1st September 2016
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8586

Illumination IS Definition
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
26th to 29th January 2016
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8577

IMAGE POWER
The Nefarious Tactics Used
To Disguise Truth And Distract Us
From Remedy

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
24th January 2014
This post contains many recent Facebook comments
and email replies which collectively provides a big picture
into exposing the deception behind IMAGE POWER.
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8496

The Pull Of E-Motion
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
8th February 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8499

Processing Curses
A Lie Is A Curse
Liars Process Curses

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
26th February 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8503

How The System Is Really Constructed
Bouncing Back Curses Upon Curse Makers
To Stop Harm Forevermore

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
27th February 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8504

Slave To A Name
Parts One, Two, Three, Four,
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
3rd to 6th March 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8505

Educated Slaves
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
20th March 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8506

The Only Path To Freedom
Beware The False Steps

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 2nd April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8508

Free-Dumb For All
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 5th April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8510

Revoking The Ego
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 8th April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8511

How MAN Commits Spiritual Suicide
Arthur Cristian
Love For Life - 3rd April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8509

How To Detect Intel Operatives Working
For The New World Order Agenda
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 10th April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8512

How The Psyop Program & Intel Networks
Are Messing With Your Head +
His-Story/Her-Story

Arthur & Fiona Cristian - April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8513

Godzilla Through The Looking Glass
Destroyed By Name"

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 20th April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8514

What It's Going To Take
To Co-Create Freedom Forevermore

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 22nd April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8514

Falling For Fairy Stories
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 24th April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8514

A Disassociation From The Work
Of Kate of Gaia

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 17th May 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8517

Separating The Wheat From The Chaff
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 22nd May 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8516

Revolution Or Revolution
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 25th May 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8520

Routing Out Psyop Programs
Routs Out Intel Operatives
Exposing Max Igan's Psyop Program

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 31st May 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8524

The Psyop Program Scam
Behind Religion Belief Faith
& Associated Opinion

Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
11th June 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8525

Another Delusion
Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
11th June 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8526

A World Of Words Is A World Of Lies
Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
13th June 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8527

E-MAN
The Name Of The Beast Is MAN

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 9th May 2014
Includes Mountain MAN Arrested
Facebook Discussion About "Name"
Uploaded 25th June 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8528

E-Motion
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 13th August 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8537

Discussion With Brother Gregory
Clearly Demonstrating Christianity
Is Part Of The Problem
And Not The Solution

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
Between the 12th May 2014 and 30th August 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8542

The Psyop Program Behind Free Food
And Permaculture

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
29th October 2014
Facebook Discussion With Unconditional Love Moon
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8544

Head So Strong
Music and Vocals Arthur Cristian
Backing Vocals and Vocal Effects Arthur Cristian & Hannah Wood
Lyrics Fiona and Arthur Cristian
Written during our spare time between Aug & Oct 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG4UQCTsqwU

The Time Of Trauma That Destroys Us
Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
9th November 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8547

The Most Powerful Video On Spirituality
And Happiness FOR SLAVES
Or
How To Accept Slavery And Be Happy About It

Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
6th August 2014
Facebook Discussion About The Work Of Eckhart Tolle
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8548

What Can We Do What Can We See
Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
A series of Arthur Cristian Facebook
posts and discussions
between 17th and 21st November 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8552

The Misuse Of Love By Intel Networks
To Create Doubt And Uncertainty
With The Intention To Destroy Love
And Therefore Destroy MAN
(True Freedom, Peace, Joy, Abundance And Truth
For Everyone)

By Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
26th November 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8554

The Void Of E-GO That Is Spiritual Suicide
The Justification Of Laziness
That Perpetuates System Creature Comforts
Ensuring Our Fall

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
13th December 2014
Massive Update Occurred 14th Dec 2014 3.10pm Sydney Aust time
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8556

Darkness Visible Part One A, B, C, D
The Freemasonic World In Plain Sight
Decoding George Washington Lithographs

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
14th December 2014
Part One A http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8557
Part One B http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8567
Part One C http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8568
Part One D http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8569

Darkness Visible Part Two
Yin And Yang, Duality, Spiritual Suicide
And Frank O'Collins UCADIA / One Heaven

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
14th December 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8558

Darkness Visible Part Three
How The Word Sausage
Re-Presents The New World Order
Boiling Point & Out To Get Us

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
27th December 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8560

Darkness Visible Part Four
Aleister Crowley - Thelema - OTO
And The Black Magic Psychedelia Of The Intellect

Facebook Discussion
4th to 10th January 2015
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8561

Darkness Visible Part Five
Living MAN Fiona Cristian's Standing
+ Decoding Judeo/Judaism

Fiona Cristian & Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
24th January 2015
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8562

Darkness Visible Part Six
The Many Fingers Of The Hidden Hand Appearing
YouTube Community Flagged A Video
Posted To The ArthurLoveForLife YouTube Channel
As Being "Hate Speech"

Fiona Cristian & Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
4th February 2015
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8563

Darkness Visible Part Seven
The Full Responsibility For Setting
True Freedom For All Into Motion
In Present-Sense Forevermore

Fiona Cristian & Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
10th February 2015
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8564

Who We Really Are Does Not End
At The Surface Of Our Skin

Arthur Cristian & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 22nd February 2015
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8565

Introduction To Kindom Video
By Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
6th March 2015
https://youtu.be/7SspPm9wRgo

The Rot Parts One, Two, Three
Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
5th June 2015
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8571

"The Good Guys" And The "Bad Guys"
Working Together To Bring In
The New World Order

Arthur Cristian - 18th July 2015
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8572

Can You Spot The Ego?
Where's Wally? Part One

Compilation of Facebook & Youtube
Insight Posts During Aug/Sept 2015
By Arthur Cristian
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8573

Can You Spot The Ego?
Where's Wally? Part Two

Compilation of Facebook & Youtube
Insight Posts During Aug/Sept 2015
By Arthur Cristian
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8576

Dancing With Magic (Lies)
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Videos, Articles, Comments
And Pending E-Book
Love Fort Life
September 2015
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8575

Dancing With Magic Part One
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
5th September 2015
https://youtu.be/hx7qJ7r2OS4

Dancing With Magic Part Two
Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
12th September 2015
https://youtu.be/b_KuEFdKmnA

Dancing With Magic Part Three
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
13th September 2015
https://youtu.be/9pJc1NfnAcI

Dancing With Magic (Lies) Part Four:
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
16th September 2015
https://youtu.be/kSVURGwm1Go

Illumination IS Definition
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
26th to 29th January 2016
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8577

The Satanic Craft Of Inculcation In Practice
Fiona's ACT Supreme Court Affidavit Explaining Inculcation & Illumination
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
4th March 2016
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8578

The Dark Side Of The Moon
The Background To "The System" Part One

Arthur & Fiona Cristian Chatting With
Jahnick Leaunier On The Tru-Mon Show
Love For Life - 24th August 2016
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8583

Eric Dubay's Flat Earth Is A Cult
The Background To The System Part Two

Arthur & Fiona Cristian Chatting With
Jahnick Leaunier On The Tru-Mon Show
Love For Life - 31st August 2016
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8585

To Be Educated Is To Have No Soul
The System Is Soul Destroying
Frederick Malouf & Michael Tellinger's
Contrived Gifting

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
1st September 2016
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8586

New Love For Life Kindom Facebook Group
Started March 2015
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1434747556816918
Includes 63 Minute
Introduction To Kindom Video
https://youtu.be/7SspPm9wRgo
By Arthur & Fiona Cristian
and
Facebook Kindom Group Guidelines
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8566
The Love For Life website home-page provides
the bigger-picture background to the themes
touched on in this video: http://loveforlife.com.au

Crop Circles Are A Massive Hoax
Facebook Discussion On Simon Kawai's Wall
Involving Arthur & Fiona Cristian
31st August 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8470

OPPT & Slavery Through Intellectual Conscription By Deceit
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
27th February 2013 onwards...
Part One: http://youtu.be/Qjp_9nlrBao
Part Two: http://youtu.be/tbybeOWZ-Bc
Part Three: http://youtu.be/yOWoxH-HbVw

Water Is The Life Of MANS Consciousness (Breath)
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life - 8th February 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8350
Part One: http://youtu.be/4ze66_33wxM - 70 Minutes 5 Seconds
Part Two: http://youtu.be/43gIi-sjxJc - 81 Minutes 13 Seconds
Part Three: http://youtu.be/oooY6W63K-M - 70 Minutes 18 Seconds

What Do You Believe On Origins?
Who Said There Was A Beginning?
Who's Truth Do You Accept?
Belief Is A Strange Idea.

Discussion Lyndell, Scott and Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Between March and April 2013
Posted 29th October 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8487

So You Want The Good Bits Of "The System"
But Not The Bad Bits?

By Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 12th August 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8468

Turning Away From The Reflection
Of MANS Looking Glass

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
30th April 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8404

REMEDY

From Bare Dirt To Abundance
A Year In The Life Of The
Love For Life Food Forest

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
8th February 2013
51 Minutes 46 Seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sJCcCvZ97A

From Bare Dirt To Abundance Part Two
5th November 2014
http://youtu.be/TPTPn8tgcPI
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8545

From Bare Dirt To Abundance Part Three
7th March 2016
60 Minutes
https://youtu.be/SH9i8ZStzWI

Love For Life Food Forest & Native Garden March 2016
Extension Of The Love For Life Food Forest And Establishment
Of A New Native Garden At The Front Of The Rental Property
In East Bowral - 24th October 2015 to Mid February 2016.
15 Minutes
https://youtu.be/y-Uz8HmnSIM

Control The Land
And You Control MAN On The Land
Displace MAN From Land
And You Turn MAN Into Slaves

Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
April 2011 (Updated 14th September 2011)
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8237

The Divine Spark
Facebook Discussion With Raymond Karczewski
Arthur & Fiona Cristian & Others
2nd October 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8483

Capturing Another MANS Uniqueness
A Facebook Debate With
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
And Raymond Karczewski
Starting 13th May 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8414

The Spell Is Broken
Taking The Land To Create Kindom

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
3rd March 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8365

The Steps Of Kindom
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life 2006/2007
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8304

To explore these themes in greater detail go here where you can find links to all our Love For Life comments, articles, debates, discussions, videos, podcasts, etc: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385

All the best
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life

Website: http://loveforlife.com.au
Email : action@loveforlife.com.au
Mobile : 0011 61 418 203204 - (0418 203204)
Snail Mail: PO Box 1320 Bowral 2576 NSW Australia
Facebook Arthur Cristian : http://www.facebook.com/arthurcristian
YouTube Arthur Cristian : http://www.youtube.com/ArthurLoveForLife

Register To The Love For Life Mailing List: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/09/05/14/mailing-list

Facebook Group Why Aren't We Free Discussion : http://www.facebook.com/164918753537287
Facebook Group Kindom/Do No Harm Community Discussion : http://www.facebook.com/151811728195925

Links below will kick in when the professionally recorded Love For Life music is released.

SoundCloud : http://soundcloud.com/loveforlife
Nimbit Music : http://www.nimbitmusic.com/loveforlife
Twitter : https://twitter.com/loveforlifemusi
Facebook Music : http://www.facebook.com/loveforlifemusic
YouTube Love For Life Music : http://www.myspace.com/loveforlifemusic
MySpace : http://www.myspace.com/loveforlifemusic
Google + Fiona Cristian : https://plus.google.com/100490175160871610090

Peaceful Transition Through Sacrifice And Service

We feel there is an essential peaceful do no harm transition required to get all of MAN back to standing on MANS feet without reliance upon another MAN for water, food, shelter. As it stands everyone in "The System" are highly dependent and reliant on the "group mind-set" that forms "The System" of slaves providing services and benefits for the emotionally addicted slaves to "The System" (and you can put us in the same basket too). The transition is to get MAN back to relying ONLY on nature without 3rd party interlopers, intermeddlers, interceders getting in the way. The transition is a team effort with the foresight for setting all of MAN free down-the-line so that MAN is no longer dependent on slaves and masters providing services, benefits, privileges and exclusivity while being bound to contracts, rituals, procedures, conditions, rules & regulations which compromises MAN severely.

This transition is all about shifting from limited liability/responsibility to full liability/responsibility. This full responsibility is all about caring for our health, nature all around us, clean uncorrupted (pure) water and food, partner/co-creator, children, shelter, animal-friends in partnership, etc. In "The System", we are already together destroying each other - we have to come together to create peace together so that we can all have peace. We cannot live peacefully when we are islands, not taking full responsibility for the lives of those around us until EVERYONE can take full responsibility for their life, which means that EVERYONE is healed of system trauma. In "The System", we all come together to make slaves of each other - now is the moment to come together to set each other free, to live for each other's freedom, peace, joy and abundance. Once we have set each other free, we are free.

Control The Land
And You Control MAN On The Land
Displace MAN From Land
And You Turn MAN Into Slaves

Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
April 2011 (Updated 14th September 2011)
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8237

The Spell Is Broken
Taking The Land To Create Kindom

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
3rd March 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8365

"The Steps Of Kindom"
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8304

---------

Once we fix these issues, we or our children or our descendants to come, can start focusing on the even bigger picture of getting back to where our ancestors were, as breatharyan's, before they fell into non-sense images to be enslaved by them.

All the best to you and your family
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life

The Cristian Family November 2006

The Cristian Family Declaration

The Cristian family and The Love for Life Campaign are apolitical, non-religious, non-violent, anti weapons, anti drugs (both pharmaceutical and recreational) and anti any ideology that denies the existence of Do No Harm Communities (Kindoms) and suppresses the uniqueness and freedom of all men, women and children.

The Cristian family and our Love For Life work is unaligned to any big business corporation, intelligence agency, government body, "system" law, "system" think tanks, "system" green or environmental movements, religion, cult, sect, society (fraternity, brotherhood, sisterhood, order, club, etc,) secret or not, hidden agenda, law or sovereignty group, occult, esoteric, New Age or Old Age.

The Cristian family supports and promotes the remedy that brings an everlasting peace, freedom, truth, joy, abundance and do no harm for all of life without causing loss of uniqueness or the need for having slaves and rulers. We are not into following the one in front or being shepherds for sheeple. Most importantly, we take full-responsibility for everything we think, feel and do.

The Cristian family are not Christians.

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life

December 2006

The Cristian Family November 2006

THE CRISTIAN FAMILY PLEDGE

Being of clear brain, heart and intention, we each declare the following to be true:

• We have no intention of ending our own lives.

• We will not tolerate suppression of truth, ideas, freedom, or our work. We stand for freedom of speech.

• We stand together to support others in the expression of truths and freedom to speak out no matter how radical those ideas may seem.

• Standing for freedom takes courage; together we shall be strong in the face of all odds.

• If it is ever claimed that we have committed suicide, encountered an unfortunate accident, died of sickness/disease, disappeared, been institutionalized, or sold out financially or in any other way to self-interested factions, we declare those claims false and fabricated.

• We testify, assert and affirm without reservation, on behalf of all those who have dedicated their lives to the ending of secrecy and the promotion of freedom of thought, ideas and expression that we shall prevail.

• We Do Not Have Multiple Personality Disorders

Arthur Cristian
Fiona Cristian
Jasmin Lily Cristian
Emma Rose Cristian
Frances Hannah Cristian
Xanthe Jane Cristian

15th December 2006 (Edited/Updated 18th September 2011)

The Cristian Family November 2006

Update Regarding The Love For Life
Home Page And Quick User Guide

We are turning the Love for Life Quick User Guide http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608 into a blog of all the main insights of our work since March 2005, whether through articles, videos, podcasts or discussions/debates.

As we do not have the time to compile everything we have written into a book, as many have suggested we do, compiling all our most important work into one area of the website is a way of providing easy access to this work so those interested are able to fully comprehend the big picture.

Instead of having to find our different articles, videos, etc, in various parts of the website, it will all be accessible here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608 and here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385.

Love For Life Videos

As amateurs and posted in the Quick User Guide below the Facebook links, we're currently creating and posting a series of videos called "The Dream Of Life" which covers the ground of all the Love For Life insights. We plan to have the videos completed by December 31st 2012. Once this is behind us, our intention is to create a 2 hour or so video covering the body of this work. All videos are embedded in the quick user guide http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608 and uploaded in Arthur's YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/ArthurLoveForLife.

Love For Life Music

We have started recording songs, with others, that express the themes of Love For Life. They are now being posted on Arthur's YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/ArthurLoveForLife and are embedded in the quick user guide http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608. We have over 100 songs to record. A few rough demos have already been used as the soundtrack on the first "Dream of Life" video.

About Us - Love For Life & The Cristian Family

Also, everything we, the Cristian family, have gone through, from bank fraud and the theft of the family home to death threats and attempts on Arthur's life, is documented in the Quick User Guide too. If you, the reader, are prepared to put the effort in, you will comprehend the extent to which we have all been tricked into becoming slaves, giving up our uniqueness and our full-responsibility for life and destroying everything of life to the point where life is in danger of dying out completely. You will also comprehend the remedy to all this chaos; a remedy that requires only love for life and the determination to do what needs to be done. Though our focus is very strongly on the remedy that creates a world of freedom, truth, peace, joy, abundance and Do No Harm for all of life without loss of uniqueness or the need for slaves and rulers, we realise that it is vital to comprehend how to get there and what stops us from getting there. This is why there is so much information on the hows and whys of everything going wrong in the world today. We are not into peddling conspiracy theories, we are into routing out all forms of organised crime.

Saturday 26th November 2011

Arthur and Fiona Cristian
Love For Life

Website: http://loveforlife.com.au
Email: action@loveforlife.com.au
Mobile: 0011 61 418 203204 - (0418 203204)
Facebook Arthur Cristian: http://www.facebook.com/arthurcristian
YouTube Arthur Cristian: http://www.youtube.com/ArthurLoveForLife
SoundCloud: http://soundcloud.com/loveforlife
Nimbit Music: http://www.nimbitmusic.com/loveforlife
Twitter: https://twitter.com/loveforlifemusi
Facebook Music: http://www.facebook.com/loveforlifemusic
Facebook Why Aren't We Free Discussion: http://www.facebook.com/164918753537287
Facebook Do No Harm Community: http://www.facebook.com/151811728195925
YouTube Love For Life Music: http://www.myspace.com/loveforlifemusic
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/loveforlifemusic
Google + Fiona Cristian: https://plus.google.com/100490175160871610090
Register To The Love For Life Mailing List: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/09/05/14/mailing-list

1. For The Body Of The Love For Life Work by Arthur and Fiona Cristian

Which Unravels The Reasons For The Chaos, Mayhem and Confusion Being Experienced In The World Today, Explains The Need For "Community Immunity" and Responsibility, and Focuses On The Creation Of Kindoms - Do No Harm, Life-Sustainable Communities (As The Remedy That Heals All Mans Woes) - And How We Can Co-Create Them. For Comments, Articles And Discussions, Go Here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385 - Also Go Here To See Podcasts And Videos Posted by Arthur & Fiona Cristian: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7309 - The Information Shared Comes From Inspiration, Intuition, Heartfelt-Logic And Information Gathered From Nature And Many Amazing Men And Women Along The Way. It Is Not Found In Any Books Or Channellings, Or Talked About By "Experts". Go Here To Read A Brief Synopsis Of Why We Started Love For Life: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8182

2. For Information About The Ringing Cedars of Russia Series

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/1125 and for more on Eco Homes, Villages, Organic and Permaculture Gardening and Life-Sustainability, etc, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3641 and here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/1985 and Mikhail Petrovich Shchetinin - Kin's School - Lycee School at Tekos: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5173

3. For How To Eat A Raw, Living Food Diet,

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5068 - LIFE is information. When we distort LIFE and then eat, drink, absorb, think, feel, hear, see, touch, taste, smell and perform these distortions, the information of LIFE, your LIFE, our LIFE, our children's lives, everyone's LIFE, is distorted.

4. To Find A Menu For The Extensive Research Library (over 8,000 items posted embodying over 11,000 documents, pdf's, videos, podcasts, etc)

Which Covers Topics From Health to Chemtrails/Haarp to Brain Control to Archaeology to Astronomy Geocentricity Heliocentricity to Pandemics Bird Flu Swine Flu to Fluoride to Cancer to Free Energy to Global Warming, 9/11, Bali Bombings, Aspartame, MSG, Vaccinations, Aids/HIV, Mercury, New World Order, Satanism, Religions, Cults, Sects, Symbolism, etc, etc, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/82

5. If You Would Like To Read About The Cristian Family NSW Supreme Court Case

(Macquarie Bank/Perpetual Limited Bank Fraud Condoned By Judges, Registrars, Barristers, Lawyers, Politicians, Public Servants, Bureaucrats, Big Business and Media Representatives - A Crime Syndicate/Terrorist Organisation) Which Prompted The Creation Of This Love For Life Website December 2006, And The Shooting And Torture Of Supporters Who Assisted Us In Reclaiming The Family Home, Joe Bryant And His Wife, Both In Their Late 70's, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5 And Read Some Of Our Email Correspondence With Lawyer Paul Kean - Macedone Christie Willis Solari Partners - Miranda Sydney May 17th-June 27th 2006: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7300

6. For The Stories Of Other Victims Of The System,

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/australian_stories (If you have a story you would like us to put up, we would love to here from you:
action @ loveforlife.com.au)

7. For Documentation Of Harm Done By The Powers-That-Be And Their Representatives,

Evidence Revealing How Victims Did Not Break The Peace, Caused No Crime or Harm, There Were No Injured Parties. Documenting Incontrovertible Evidence Demonstrating How The Powers That Be (PTB) And Their Lackeys Will Break All The Laws They Are Supposed To Uphold. They Will Kidnap, Intimidate, Terrorise, Rape, Pillage, Plunder And Lie And Take Responsibility For None Of It. All Part Of Their Tactics Of Using Fear And Trauma To Keep Us In Our Place. Relatives Of Those Under Their Radar Are Also Not Safe From Attack And Intimidation. All Starting From A $25 Fine For Not Voting And A $65 Fine For Not Changing A Dog Registration. We Do Not Have Freedom And Can Only Appear To Have Freedom If We Comply. Regardless How Small The Matter The PTB Throw Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars Away To Enforce Their Will.... Go Here:
Fiona Cristian Reply To State Debt Recovery Office - Part One to Part Ten - From 17th October 2008 And Still Continuing:
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6319 or
Fiona Cristian Reply To State Debt Recovery Office
Part One: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5742 - From 17th October 2008
Part Two: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6135 - From 18th December 2008
Part Three: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6295 - From 9th January 2009
Part Four: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6296 - From 14th January 2009
Part Five: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6375 - The Sick Puppy - From 20th February 2009
Part Six: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6390 - Police Officers, Sheriff’s Officers, Tow Truck Driver and State Debt Recovery Office Blatantly Ignore the Law To Rape, Pillage and Plunder The Private Property Of Fiona Cristian - From 11th March 2009
Part Seven: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6445 - Affidavit Of Truth - Letter To The Queen + Australia: Fascism is Corporatism - From 30th March 2009
Part Eight: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6652 - The Pirates Auction And The Ghost Of VSL386 - From 4th April 2009
Part Nine: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7073 - Arthur Cristian's Letter To Pru Goward MP - From 15th December 2009
Part Ten: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7500 - Should We Be In Fear Of Those Who Claim To Protect Us? "Roman Cult" Canon Law - Ecclesiastical Deed Poll - The Work Of Frank O'Collins - From 13th October 2010

8. If You Are Interested In Information On Freedom From Statutes, Rule-Of-Law, Free Man/Free Woman, Strawman, "Person" and Admiralty Law (The Law Of Commerce),

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/895 - For Common Law, Democracy, Constitution, Trial By Jury, Fee Simple, etc, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/category/main/law-articles-documents

9. If You Are Interested In Banking and Money Created (Fiat/Credit/Debt/Mortgage/Loan/Overdraft etc) Out-Of-Thin-Air, How Banks Counterfeit Money,

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/banks

10. For A List Of All The Latest Posts In The Love For Life Website,

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/tracker

11. For Links To Many Hundreds Of Videos, DVDs And Podcasts

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/video_dvd

12. To See The Cristian Family Pledge, Legal and other Disclaimers

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/06/12/05/love-life-legal-disclaimer

13. To Read About How A Representative Of The NSW Jewish Board Of Deputies Had Threatened To Shut Down The Love For Life Website

go here: Part One: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6616 Part Two: THE STEVE JOHNSON REPORT AND VIDEO: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6665 and Part Three: Latest Update On James Von Brunn: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6673

Conscious Love Always
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
action @ loveforlife.com.au
www.loveforlife.com.au
0418 203204 (int: 0011 61 418 203204)
PO Box 1320 Bowral 2576 NSW Australia

Arthur Cristian

Create Your Badge

Love For Life Discussions - Why Aren't We Free? How Can We Be Free?

Promote your Page too

The Cristian Family November 2006

Love For Life Legal Disclaimer

The information contained on this world wide web site (the web site and all information herein shall be collectively referred to as "Web Site Information"), under the registered url name, loveforlife.com.au, resides on a host server environment in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15203, United States of America.

The Web Site Information has been prepared to provide general information only and is not intended to constitute or be construed as providing substantive professional advice or opinion on any facts or circumstances. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, nor does its receipt give rise to, a professional-client relationship between 'Love for Life' and the receiver.

While every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the information prepared and/or reported on this site, 'Love for Life' is not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the Web Site Information not being up to date. The Web Site Information may not reflect the most current developments.

The impact of the law, policy and/or procedure for any particular situation depends on a variety of factors; therefore, readers should not act upon any Web Site Information without seeking professional advice. 'Love for Life' is not responsible for any action taken in reliance on any Web Site Information herein.

'Love for Life' is not responsible for any action you or others take which relies on information in this website and/or responses thereto. 'Love for Life' disclaim all responsibility and liability for loss or damage suffered by any person relying, directly or indirectly, on the Web Site Information, including in relation to negligence or any other default.

'Love for Life' does not warrant, represent or hold out that any Web Site Information will not cause damage, or is free from any computer virus, defect(s) or error(s). 'Love for Life' is not liable to users for any loss or damage however caused resulting from the use of material found on its web site.

'Love for Life' does not necessarily endorse or approve of any Web Site Information linked to and contained on other web sites linked herein and makes no warranties or representations regarding the merchantability or fitness for purpose, accuracy and quality, of any such information.

The sending of information by you, and the receipt of it by 'Love for Life', is not intended to, and does not, create a professional-client relationship.

All Web Site Information is considered correct at the time of the web site's most recent revision.

ADDITIONAL DISCLAIMER

THE CRISTIAN FAMILY SUPPORTS
FREEDOM OF SPEECH - FREEDOM OF THOUGHT

The Cristian Family November 2006

Posted Wednesday 17th June 2009
Updated September 2011

NSW Jewish Board Of Deputies
Has Threatened To Shut Down
The Love For Life Website

No Freedom Of Speech - No Freedom Of Thought

Love For Life does not support harm doing in any shape or form. However, we are supporters of free speech and post articles, documentaries, etc, that represent a wide cross section of ideas. See the Love For Life extensive research library where over 6000 documents, articles and videos are posted: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/82. We clearly see the evidence of the destruction to MAN and the earth that has been caused by ALL religions over the centuries and are therefore not supporters of religions, cults, sects or any group that demands conformity of thought, speech or action, or has rules, regulations or rituals that must be followed. Religions, nationalities and cultural "identities" are formed as a result of the brainwashing we receive from childhood. They are part of the tactics the Establishment uses to keep us all divided from one another and fighting one another.

All religions promote discrimination and division, leading to hatred and even violence and murder. None of them have yet to produce a remedy to all the suffering, poverty, unhappiness and discrimination in the world. If any religion truly had the remedy to all the suffering on earth, there would no longer be any suffering. What have Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, atheism and the New Age done to end the suffering in the world?

Since December 2006, there have been many attempts to take down the Love For Life website. Any attempts have been thwarted by Love For Life supporters inundating the harm-doers with emails, etc, objecting to them taking down the website for a variety of reasons. The trouble makers usually back off when they realise that they can post all their views, arguments, beliefs, etc, in the Love For Life website without censorship or restriction imposed. They get to see that even the Queen, Pope, Prime Minister, President of America, etc, can post all their views without hindrance or sabotage and that we support freedom of speech/thought which means we support the right of all sides to express their views.

Of note, there is a vast amount of information posted in the Love For Life website which we do not agree with but we leave it all up because we refuse to be biased, opinionated or self-centered/self-serving. Of the many thousands of comments posted over the years we have only removed posts containing secret links to commercial advertisements, terrible foul language, threats of violence and death, etc, and attacks on other people's characters that avoid the subject/debate at hand. Besides links to advertisements, we have taken down less than six comments due to the above. We usually leave everything up, all warts and all, even those posts threatening to do terrible things to Fiona, our children, our dogs, our friends, family & supporters, etc.

The Love For Life website has information from all sides on many subjects, whether about Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Law, health, psychology, mind control, vaccination, aspartame, MSG, Chemtrails etc. There are over 11,000 articles, documentaries etc on the website and they are so diverse that we are sure that everyone would be able to find something they loved and something they hated, if they took the time to search. If we removed all the articles hated by everyone, there would probably be nothing left! We are not anti anyone but freedom of speech is freedom of speech and no one should condemn the work of another without taking the time to research the subject themselves. Yes, there are articles by those who have a less-than-rosy-viewpoint of Judaism, but there are also articles on the dark side of Tibetan Buddhism (and it is very dark) for those who are interested in the truth: Tibet - Buddhism - Dalai Lama: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6271 Should the authors of these articles be abused and imprisoned for daring to challenge the widely conceived reputation of Buddhism as being the religion of peace and love and that of the Dalai Lama as a saint, or should those interested be allowed to study the work and come to their own conclusions? The same applies to all the articles, documentaries, etc, about Christianity, Islam, Freemasonry, New World Order, etc.

The Love for Life website also shows how the Rule of Law, the Bar, the Government, the Monarchy, the system of commerce, the local, national and multi/trans-national private corporations, all the courses and careers on offer from our universities, all the educators, scientists, academics and experts, the aristocrats and the Establishment bloodlines have also done NOTHING to end the suffering in the world. The website maps the insanity of a world where there is no help for those in need, just as there was no help available for us when we were victims of terrible bank fraud: "NSW Supreme Court Case - Macquarie Bank/Perpetual Limited vs Fiona Cristian - Victims Of Bank Fraud Condoned By Judges" http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5 (orchestrated, condoned and protected by an international crime syndicate/terrorist organisation of judges, barristers, registrars, lawyers, politicians, banksters, big business representatives, media moguls and other lackeys who, all together, put up a wall of silence despite our trying many, many avenues. After the family home was stolen and business destroyed we were left close to poverty and destitution caring for 4 young daughters. Three years later not much has changed regardless of all our efforts. Where were all the followers of all the religions to help us? Or do we have to be members of those religions to receive help from others involved in them?

The New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies accused us of being anti - Jewish, see: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6616 and http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6665 because we had posted an excerpt from James von Brun's book: Kill the Best Gentiles: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6054 in which he blames Jews for the problems of the world. Obviously this is not our view because of what we have stated above. We do not hate anyone, whatever religion they follow. We are always open to talk to any religious leader or politician and meet with any judge, member of the Bar, experts, academics, educators etc to share the remedy we offer that heals all the divisions between MAN and MAN, and MAN and the EARTH.

Today, a representative of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies is threatening to close the website down, because they have decided it is anti - Jewish and that we promote racism. What has the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies done to end the suffering in the world? Can they show that they are concerned with the suffering of ALL men, women and children AND ARE SEEN TO BE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT or are they only concerned with Jewish affairs? If so, they, along with all the other religions that only care for their own, are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The man who rang Arthur today was only concerned with Jewish affairs; he was not interested in our intentions or in anybody else, just as most Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Catholics, etc, are only interested in their own. While we separate ourselves into groups, dividing ourselves from others with rules, regulations, rituals, procedures and conditions, we will never solve our problems.

No matter what we in the Western World Civilisation of Commerce have been promised by our politicians, religious leaders, scientists, educators, philosophers, etc, for the past two hundred years, all we have seen is ever-increasing destruction of men, women and children and the earth. None of the so-called experts and leaders we have been taught to rely on are coming up with a solution and none of them are taking full-responsibility for the fact that they can't handle the problem. All religious books talk about end times full of destruction and suffering but why do we have to follow this program when there is an alternative to hatred, mayhem and death? Why are our leaders following the program of destruction and death rather than exploring the alternatives? It seems that any mainstream politician, priest or academic are only interested in supporting the RULES OF THE DIVIDE, that maintain the haves and the have nots. For 200+ years, 99% of the world population have been so trained to pass on their responsibility for themselves, others and the earth, that the 1% of the population that make up the leaders of the rest of us are making all the decisions leading to the destruction of all of us and the earth. Let's not forget the education system that brainwashes the 99% of the population that we are free and have equal rights while, in fact, we are feathering the nests of those at the top.

At the root of all our problems is self-centredness, an unwillingness nurtured by the Establishment that keeps us concerned only with our own needs rather than the needs of others around us and the Earth. Instead of creating and releasing acts of love for those around us as gifts to benefit them and the earth, we take, take and take, until there is nothing left. The whole point of the Love for Life website is to show people the root of all our problems and to share the remedy. The extensive research library is there to attract browsers and to provide access to information not available through mainstream channels. If the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies can, after careful examination of our work, prove that anything we are saying is wrong, we will be happy to accept their proof. If they cannot, and they are still insistent on closing the website down, they will be showing themselves to be traitors to MAN because they are not interested in pursuing any avenue that can end the suffering in the world.

All religions, corporations and organisations that support and maintain the Western World Civilisation of Commerce are part of the problem because our civilisation is a world of haves and have nots, racism, violence, hatred, poverty, sickness, discrimination, abuse, starvation, homelessness, corruption, collusion, vindictiveness, social unrest, arrogance, ignorance, fear, war and chaos. While we support civilisation, we support death and destruction because ALL civilisations that have ever existed are apocalyptic by design.

If we truly want peace on earth and freedom for all, we have to let go of all that which keeps us divided, and come together as MAN, conscious living co-creators of creation. The Love For Life website offers a remedy to the problems we all face in the form of DO NO HARM COMMUNITIES: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3641 For more details see here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6511 and here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385 - We also highly recommend that everyone read the brilliant Russian books called The Ringing Cedars: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/1125 - The Love For Life Website Homepage also provides lots of inspiring remedy based information: http://loveforlife.com.au - If you want to be kept up to date with our work please register to the Love For Life Mailing List here: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/09/05/14/mailing-list. We usually send two postings per month. Presently (September 2011) there are over 7000 registrations reaching over 500,000 readers across Earth. The website now (September 2011) receives up to 12 million hits per month. Since December 2006, over 100 million people have visited the Love For Life website.

Conscious Love Always
Arthur and Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
17th June 2009

The Cristian Family November 2006

Clarification Regarding Our Intentions
Behind The Use Of Donations

The Love For Life website is offered for free without a fee and without any conditions attached. If people are inspired to donate money, then we accept their gift and have provided an avenue for them to support the work we do through Fiona's Paypal or ANZ bank account http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8515. There is no obligation whatsoever to donate and all are equally welcome to our work and to our "time", whether they donate or not. Over the last 9 years, all the Love For Life work has been put out for free and it has often been donations from supporters that have enabled us to renew the domain name, etc, to keep the website going. While some complain that we have an avenue for donations, others complained when we didn't! Either use it or don't - the choice is yours.

Since Love For Life started March 2005 and website December 2006, Arthur has worked 16 hours a day, 7 days a week unpaid for much of this period, putting together the website and sharing insights to wake people up to what has been done to them, whether through the 11,500+ individual articles, videos, podcasts, debates, discussions, pdf's, research documents, etc, found amongst the 8,500+ posts, as well as helping many, many men and women over the phone, and through email, website correspondence, Facebook and YouTube, and creating the Love For Life food forest vege garden and Love For Life music recording studio. This is our life is a gift commitment to serve MAN/Nature/Earth but we are still severely compromised by "The System" and still have to give to Caesar what is claimed to belong to Caesar, which is where the donations help us.

Fiona & Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
21st July 2014