I am the Court - Justice Brian Sully, NSW Supreme Court.
Dear Fellow Australians, Today, in the Supreme Court of NSW, Justice Brian Sully overruled my assertion that no judge had jurisdiction to hear or judge any part of my case for unlawful imprisonment. He overrule my particular assertion that he had no jurisdiction because of the fact that I had already named him as one of the judges responsible for the unlawful imprisonment. He said I am the Court and This is my Courtwhich I, naturally, refused to accept. Anyway, the transcript will be out for Internet consumption as soon as I get it. The judges denying trial by jury is an act of incredible treachery. The judges -v- democracy = tryanny -v- the people. Are Australians THAT brain dead as to give up their rights and their liberties??? Yours sincerely, John Wilson.
NSW Supreme Court concealing money creation by banks
Dear Fellow Australians, On 1 JULY 1999, I filed a Notice of Motion in the Suprme court of New South Wales for Discovery to uncover the authenticity of money which the St. George Bank used as the principal of 2 loans. I wanted the bank to produce evidence in the form of their bank account statements with verification of the source of the money. In an Affidavit in support of the notice of Motion one annexure was a table of Reserve bank of Australia figures showing the discrepancy between the annual increase of Money in Existence and Currency in Existence which revealed an average of $20 billion per year, ie: the Reserve Bank of Australia put into circulation $1 billion per year and another $20 billion is created by the banks. The Motion was in court on 15 July 1999 before Deputy Registrar Howe who refused to deal with it but stood it over to 22 JULY 1999 which was after 19 JULY when the origianl Statement of Claim by the St.George Bank was to be heard. However, I learnt on the friday before that Justice Abadee was to hear it. I complained to the List Clerk that justice Abadee was one of the judges I had named in my Defence document as being a corrupt judge because Justice Clarke and he had ruled, in a previous hearing related to this matter, that the Common Law criteria for the creation of a contract was no case for action revealing in (my) Statement of Claim. The List Clerk rescheduled the hearing for 2 AUGUST 1999. When the Motion for Discovery came up on 19 JULY 1999, Deputy Registrar Hagger also would not order Discovery but stood it over to 10 AUGUST 1999. On 2 AUGUST 1999 Justice Simpson stood over the hearing of the bank's Motion to Dismiss my Requisition for Trial by Jury and to Strike out my Defence to 4 AUGUST 1999 when she ignored my claim that she, as a judge, could not hear any part of the proceedings because of the involvement of massive judicial corruption - which disqualified any judge and only left a jury as a competent, independent and impartial tribunal according to the United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. She still did as the bank wanted but reserved her judgement on the bank's original Statement of Claim. When 10 AUGUST 1999 came around, Deputy Registrar Hagger still refused to order Discovery but stood the matter over indefintiely. Nothing has happened from Justice Simpson as of today, 18 AUGUST 1999. The point I wish to make is that the New South Wales judiciary have no intention of alowing the exposure of the banks' fraudulent practice of creating money. Yours sincerely, John Wilson.
Fw: CJ NSW
-Original Message-From: Bill Sweetwater [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: omega [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Monday, 16 August 1999 9:02 AMSubject: Re: CJ NSW Orm, I have not paid tax in Australia for five years. I told the tax commissioner I would not pay tax to somebody attempting to impose invalid British law upon me and demand money with menaces. Neither would I submit returns nor attend any interviews. I have had nothing from the ATO except watery standard letters claiming the high Court of Australia rules the laws valid. So what? If you e-mails the Institute of Taxation Research through www.institutetr.com.au they will give you information regarding cases won. The attachment should interest you. Please remove any names before forwarding this attachment to anybody. Len -Original Message-From: omega [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Bill Sweetwater [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Monday, 16 August 1999 8:52Subject: Re: CJ NSW Good one Len. I am still waiting for an answer to my question though and so is John [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message-From: Bill Sweetwater [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: undisclosed list [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Sunday, 15 August 1999 9:30 PMSubject: CJ NSW Steve Chapman 1.doc Colony to independence.doc.lnk
Plans to neuter NSW Upper House
Favourite quote: "Building 'front' parties for preference flows used to be a favoured pasttime of the majors. Now that everyone has caught on, it's an assault on democracy." http://www.smh.com.au/news/9906/03/pageone/pageone6.html - push to axe minnow MPs http://www.smh.com.au/news/9906/03/pageone/pageone7.html - Egan's big picture http://www.smh.com.au/news/9906/03/pageone/pageone8.html - plan to neuter minor parties The NSW Upper House is actually elected reasonably democratically (in my opinion) as there are no electorates. It's quite an accurate reflection of votes - about 65% of people voted for the Liberal/National parties and the ALP, and they have about 65% of the seats. About 35% of people voted for minor parties and independants, and so independants and minor parties have about 35% of the vote. Interestingly enough, One Nation is the only minor party to support these changes. They appear to feel ripped off that no-one preferenced them or something. Alister -- "Let us not fool ourselves, half a century after the adoption of this Declaration (of human Rights) and supposedly under its protection, millions of people have died in the world without reaching the age of 50 and without even knowing that there was a universal document that should have protected them." Roberto Robaina, Cuba's Foreign Minister This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion. To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm For archives http://www.mail-archive.com/public-list@neither.org
Push to 'reform' NSW Upper House widens
Sydney Morning Herald Tuesday, April 27, 1999 Push is on for Upper House changes By MARK ROBINSON Reform of the NSW Upper House appears inevitable after all the major parties agreed yesterday on the need to cut the number of minor parties gaining seats with only a tiny portion of the votes. The National Party went further, proposing changes to the Legislative Council's powers, including ending its ability to block indefinitely Government legislation. A day after the Treasurer, Mr Egan, pushed for the abolition of the Upper House, the Nationals' leader, Mr Souris, said it should have 30 MPs instead of 42. That would mean an increase of more than 50 per cent in the number of votes required by candidates to get elected. The push for reform follows final election results, which gave seats to seven minor party MPs - three with 1 per cent or less of the primary vote - from a record field of 264 candidates whose names filled a ballot paper the size of a tablecloth. Labor and the Coalition indicated they would support an increase in the number of members a party needed to be registered, and agreed parties should be registered for 12 months before the election. The State Government said it would introduce legislation proposing the longer registration period and raising the minimum party membership from 200 to 1,000. Mr Souris said the required number of party members should be 2,000. The confidence of voters had been severely shaken by the election, he said, and there was widespread public support for change. "It should be done now while we are of the view that reform is necessary." Mr Souris stopped short of backing Mr Egan's call for the Upper House to be abolished, saying he was "50-50" on the idea. However, reducing its numbers by 12 would increase the required number of votes to be elected from 160,000 to about 245,000, or from 4.5 per cent to more than 6 per cent of the vote. Ending its powers to delay any Government bill for more than 12 months would bring it into line with other houses of review in the Westminster system, including the House of Lords, Mr Souris said. The Opposition Leader, Mrs Chikarovski, backed the call for reform and confirmed her support for increasing the number of party members and the time that parties had to be registered. A group of Liberal MPs had been assigned to review all aspects of the Upper House, including its composition, functions and powers. Once that process was complete, reform options would be put forward for public debate, Mrs Chikarovski said. "I think we do need to ensure that the Upper House is really one of review." Upper House results made public on Saturday boosted the campaign for reform, particularly after it was revealed that the Outdoor Recreation Party's leader, Mr Malcolm Jones, had been elected despite getting just 7,264 primary votes. Mr Jones defended his election yesterday, saying he had been given the preferences of more than 40 parties which supported his party's central commitment that everybody should have access to public land. "The rules are the rules and if we got a lot of support I'm certainly not going to be an apologist for it," he said. The election of the seven minor-party MPs brings to 13 the number of cross-benchers in the Upper House. Labor will have 16 MPs in the new Parliament and the Coalition 13. This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion. To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm For archives http://www.mail-archive.com/public-list@neither.org
Re: NSW branch
At 16:28 13/10/98 +1000, one xerro wrote: If any new south welshmen/women would like to start a branch I am eager to get one going. It is questionable as to how much I am capable of doing as I live and at university in Armidale in the states north but in this day and age I doubt this poses too much of a problem. Yes, I would be interested. I'm in Sydney. As to organising Neither! I will personally have to go away and think about that one for awhile. Ultimatley a legal practitioner would be the person to ask. I disagree - I don't know that there's a need for a lawyer-type at this ponit in time, if the current list membership is an indication of the number of members... I'd hope that any structure could (and would) change over time in any case as it needs to. Alister
Danger in move on NSW Upper House
I understand that the Labor and Liberal Parties are ganging up for a
referendum to reduce the size of the NSW Upper House, presumably so that
two-party ("bipartisan") control is consolidated. (Shades of Tasmania?).
Tinkering with representative systems is perfectly acceptable if it
strengthens the hand
of the electors and hence strengthens democracy -- even if the motive is to
advantage one or another party. However, it seems that the tinkering going
on in NSW is aimed at weakening the ability of the voters to elect a
representative mixture (including independents and parties not owned by
corporate business) which reflects numerical strength in the community.
Dion Giles
Fremantle, WA
NSW
At 18:52 23/10/98 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) Start a subject thread on "NSW" in this public-list Ask, and it shall be done :-) OK, for those interested/resident in NSW, may I suggest the following: We try to look at local branches? Perhaps a Sydney one, or maybe an inner-Sydney one, and then others as required in regional NSW? We can co-ordinate by email if possible, which would be good to get feedback from everyone else, but bad for those who don't have access. I'm happy to do the web stuff... it's what I do, and I can put together a NSW bit. However, I'd like to suggest (if possible) one of the following URLs: http://nsw.neither.org or http://www.neither.org/nsw/ as the shorter the address, the better. The first one would require some technical assistance by whoever's running the neither.org domain name... (if there's anyone who'd like me to elaborate, please ask). I can prepare some documents etc, but mainly links to existing stuff would be more useful, once we can get something together. As for an initial meeting, I'd like to arrange to advertise it amongst any contacts that NSW'ers on this list have, and see how many people we can get interested. I mean, if we can only get about three people, we might have a problem :-) (and a meeting might be pointless). These are just suggestions, but I feel it's something concrete which we can look at doing. Building up numbers would be the place to go, and I have a small number of contacts in anarchist and socialist circles in Sydney, and just happen to be moderating a national left email list (for events and articles, not discussion) with a fair number of subscribers (you might have heard of Leftlink?). Alister
More on plot to nobble NSW Upper House
I apologise for delaying my answer to the request on this list for more information but have been checking back with the source. Here's the available info: The reduction in size of the NSW Upper House is at this stage no more than a gleam in the eyes of Labor and Liberal who are understood to have got into bed together to produce this particular brat. I got it from a posting by Simon Disney, a staffer for the Australian Democrats in the NSW Upper House. Here is what Simon wrote: "Rumours circulating around here at the moment are that the Liberals have done a grubby little deal with Labor to introduce a referendum bill to cut the number of Upper House Members by 10. That's apparently what you get for standing up to Treasurers who won't give the House the information that it needs. Naturally, a groundswell of community outrage would be appreciated!" Of course it is a threat to the Australian Democrats, but it is also a threat to Greens, One Nation, Independents and any other person or group seeking to represent in parliament the voice of all those who are disfranchised by two-party rule. Simon has written that it is highly likely that the major parties will seek to increase the quota to exclude minor parties and independents, and that if, for example, they set the quota at 6.5%, with no preference exchanges, this would leave the Democrats and One Nation as the only parties likely to pick up a seat. On current polling, the Dems would probably pick up one seat and One Nation 2. Simon has since added: You might also add that these veiled threats come as a result of a majority of Upper House Members voting to suspend the Treasurer for 5 days because he failed to comply with a direction of the House to make available for scrutiny, papers and contracts relating to Sydney's water supply. It was the will of the Parliament (the people's representatives) to hold the Executive to account and allow scrutiny of the documents. The Treasurer refused and was 'sin-binned'. In a new development yesterday, the Premier, Bob Carr, probably sensing community disquiet at this apparent cover up, granted powers equivalent to a Royal Commissioner to the head of the inquiry into the water crisis. We didn't quite win, but we sure shook 'em up! --- Dion Giles Fremantle
RE: NSW Upper House
[DG] Albert's reasoning (see his posting) makes a lot of sense. Why do half a job when there's a prospect of doing the whole job? I know the Australian Democrats have a policy favouring PR and another policy (buried in the fine print but not pressed by their parliamentary wing) favouring citizen-initiated referenda. I believe a move towards PR will generally strengthen the voice of the people but it's still representative democray which means government OF the people BY the politicians FOR their power brokers and ultimately their corporate sponsors. To be more democratic it needs to be backed up by a great many more opportunities for binding referenda on key issues (e.g. sale of public assets, regressive tax packages etc) instead of spurious "mandate" claims. To save cost it might even be possible to run referenda using a statistical smapling procedure, with a fullscale refereendum if the sampling doesn't lead to a result at least, say, 60% either way. [AL] Actually I think that PR, with or without Citizen-Initiated-Referenda (CIR) does far less than half the job - e.g. such systems exist in some European countries that have essentially the same social system as Australia and the same problems - as you say, they are "representative democracies" even those with CIR, with all that implies. My view is simply that the two party state in Australia has reached a point of absurdity where a popular movement could force a significant change in the electoral system by introducing full PR and thereby give people a real sense of empowerment - that would in turn lead to opening up a higher level of political debate in Australia than exists at present. [DG] In parliamentary terms there are probably limited opportunities for raising the PR question, though if the corporate business parties in NSW move further on the Upper House that's a golden opportunity to make a fight of it. However, there are many opportunities to push referenda even without constitutional amendment -- e.g. a challenge to Howard to put items like his tax package (aimed against the lower-income groups which have expanded considerably in sizeas a result of LabLib policies over the past 20 years or so) to the people or otherwise the Senate won't pass it. It seems that politicians who shirk this kind of measure disrespect the people. [AL] Yes, both a referendum to raise the quotas for the upper house (and any move to coerce people to vote in favor of candidates they want to vote against), could be golden opportunities (in NSW). I doubt that demands for a referendum on the GST would be a similar golden opportunity. It would fit more into taking sides with the ALP against the Coalition on an issue which is really a quite artificial policy difference between them of no direct interest to people opposed to both. The 1998 Commonwealth election was a "golden opportunity", which we missed, though the aftermath could be important if we get our act together. To me the next national "golden opportunity" is the republic referendum. Still waiting for any responses to the subject thread "Vote No http://www.neither.org/vote_no/confound.htm " and my article at that link.
