In the Matter of Cusack; In the Matter of Skyring

[1989] HCATrans 36

!

'i

'

• ~

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Registry	No C4 of 1989
In the matter of -

An application by

PATRICK LEO CUSACK

Registry	No CS of 1989
In the matter of -

An application by

ALAN GEORGE SKYRING

Applications for leave to issue

process

McHUGH J

(In Chambers)

Cusack

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 28 FEBRUARY 1989, AT 10.31 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

C3Tl/l/RB 1 28/2/89

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, Mr Cusack.
MR P.L. CUSACK:	Yes, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:	You are an applicant for leave to issue process.
MR CUSACK:	That is correct.
HIS HONOUR:	Yes, and you appear in person?
MR CUSACK:	Yes.
HIS HONOUR:	Mr Skyring, you are also an applicant for leave.
MR A.G. SKYRING:	Yes, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:	Are you agreed upon yourselves as to what order these matters should be taken?
MR CUSACK:	Not amongst ourselves, Your Honour, no. There may be some preference from your point of view but - - -

HIS HONOUR:  No, there is no preference. I would propose to

hear both applications, one after the other but it

is a matter for you,whoever wants to go first.

MR CUSACK:  There is much connnon matter between us certainly

as is well understood but, if you have no objection,.

I will start.

Your Honour, before I say anything, there are several more recent developments in my situation.

One is a letter to me from the bank's solicitors and documents from the supreme court, taken out by the same solicitors. They are formal - - -

HIS HONOUR: Just let me read them.

MR CUSACK:  Yes.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, thank you, Mr Cusack. They may be returned

to you.

MR CUSACK:  Thank you. The situation is that my family and I

face ejection from our family home on 9 March, if we

are not able to obtain relief through the courts

before 8 March, which is eight days from now.

The situation I face as against the bank has, I

believe, come about through at least the suspicion of fraud at a personal level in a business matter with a

partner.

C3Tl/2/SH	2	28/2/89
Cusack

MR CUSACK (continuing):  I sought not to raise that matter in the

courts because as I see the situation there is a far

more fundamental element of fraud involved in the

situation and it goes to the heart of our national

banking system.

In the supreme court I sought not to defend myself against statutes which are apparently correct

in the form of the PROPERTY ACT which allows banks

to draw mortgages having a power of sale incorporated

in their terms. I chose the path of challenging the

right of the bank to that power of sale in its

documents on rather fundamental principles, the

Magna Carta provisions which allow creditors to hold

property until a debt is paid, not to sell it up. the argument.

But far more fundamental to this issue and

reaching out from it in a way which touches every

aspect of perhaps everybody's life in Australia, is

the manner in which the bank has obtained this power -

or the banking system, in fact, not just the bank that

I dealt with - the banking system has attained the

power to create money and to issue it into circulation

thereby reaping what I would characterize as the

benefits due to "a counterfeiter" or a federal

government. The federal government has constitutional

power to create money and issue money into

circulation and is duly entitled to the benefit of the

counterfeiting process which is involved in

representing the real assets of a nation in a monetary

system. A counterfeiter assumes that right illegally

and it is rightfully recognized as a usurper of that

right and is, if caught and proven guilty, rightly

punished for his usurpation.

Unfortunately, through no fault of any individual

person, but more perhaps as a result of an evolutionary
process through quite a few hundred years since the

banking system, as we know it, evolved, the process of

creation of money has, unfortunately, been placed in

the hands of private corporations. The process is

real, it takes effect, it has been taking effect and is

continuing to take effect today.

It is that issue which I seek to address as the

crucial issue underlying the reasons why I seek leave to issue process. I will not outline what I feel are the relevant portions of the JUDICIARY ACT or

CONSTITUTION under which I feel jurisdiction applies

in this case, Your Honour,. If you wish me to do so, I

can nominate various sections, but I believe there is an

inherent jurisdiction to issue process sought.

HIS HONOUR:  Mr Cusack, could I ask you how you seek to

distinguish the earlier decisions, namely the decision

C3T2/l/JH	28/2/89
Cusack

of the Full Court of the High Court

in Mr Skyring's application confirming the

judgment of Mr Justice Deane and also the judgment

of Mr Justice Wilson in 1985 in your own case.

MR CUSACK:  Right. In my own case, the earlier case with

Justice Wilson. The matter involved the implications,

or the currency question as it is now referred to,

in the electoral process. I ranged a little wider

than the simple currency issue in that application and

sought to correct errors in the electoral process as
they bear upon the representation of the public in

the Houses of Parliament.

It seemed to me that the situation that was

presented to Justice Wilson was one which would have

been considered perhaps fairly, with hindsight, of

particularly inconvenience if the matter were to

proceed at that time. The issues which surrounded the

matter at that time could have been seen on a

reasonable interpretation of my position in that

matter as slightly artificially constructed around the

currency question in that as a potential candidate for

election I objected to having to pay money for that

again. And going back to the - the election ought to

be free - which is the Bill of Rights underpinning

the parliamentary privilege.

(Continued on page 5)

C3T2/2/JH	4	28/2/89
Cusack

MR CUSACK (continuing): In relation to the judgment, it appeared

not to be so much a judgment of the currency question at all as a judgment on the basis that the peripheral issues in relation to the electoral process were

considered inconvenient to be addressed in that

manner.	Going on to Justice Deane - and I would
speak only briefly on this.	I feel this possibly

is a matter that Mr Skyring may address more efficiently.

One of the key items in Justice Deane's judgment was that there was no substance to the argument and

part of the reasoning behind that was that there was

no matter in the inferior courts which could be

brought forward on appeal. The matter would have

been isolated on its own with no foundation, so to

speak. That particular point was made very clear in
the subsequent Full Court judgment where the substance
of the question was highlighted as a reason for not

proceeding with the issue at that stage.

As I have attempted to make out in the various

affidavits which I have filed in this action so far

to date, the present situation which I present to the

Court is not only a matter of very real substance in

relation specifically to the currency question but is

a matter of extreme seriousness for myself personally

and for my family and I believe also to be not

uncharacteristic or unrepresentative of, I think the

phrase I used was, "the too often repeated social
tragedy today of families being ejected from their

homes under the strain of today's financial

mismanagement".

In relation to the terms substance as it came

out of the full High Court judgment, it could be

interpreted in either of the two ways which I have

touched on very lightly there. In relation to the

currency question specifically per se, the substance

is in three forms - if I may just put them on the

table now, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.
MR CUSACK:	There is the presence of Her Majesty's head on a one ounce gold coin warranting $100. There is the
other form of money.  I do not have a $100 to match
the coin but the wording on it is all that is
relevant there. And in between the two of those is
the key document which appeared in my original documents
which was a set of receipts - the relevant one is
the one ounce gold coin there -  a set of receipts
issued by what I now have to refer to as the Westpac
Money Changer Corporation, for we have, Your Honour, two forms of Australian money and a law which says
both of them are legal tender and I cannot get gold
for $100 in paper money. This particular coin cost me
$581.

C3T3/l/BR	5	28/2/89
Cusack

I believe the three elements - the paper money

paid, the receipt issued, and the coin passed to me

in exchange - are the undeniable physical, evidential

proof of the point which had ever only before been

put in the hypothetical or abstract situation. Just

one further document which I would hand to you in this

context to indicate some of the ramifications which

flow from this demonstrated conflict in our financial

system. I will outline it, Your Honour. You probably

do not need to read any except the front page.

HIS HONOUR:  Do you want me to read the front page now,

Mr Cusack?

MR CUSACK:	No, I will direct you to the relevant part. The work I did for Mount Isa Mines late last year, for which I earned considerable fee - in round figures
let us call it $20,0U0.  I demanded payment in legal
tender, refusing to accept the debased form, demanding the form provided for under the CURRENCY ACT.
HIS HONOUR:	By legal tender you mean - - -

MR CUSACK:  I mean legal tender, Xour Honour. I mean legal

tender according to section 16 of the CURRENCY AeT, as

I am entitled to do according to section 22 of the CURRENCY ACT. The initial reaction from the first man I spoke to was, "No trouble".

HIS HONOUR:  I take it your argument does not recognize the

validity of the paper note issue.

MR CUSACK:  It cannot, Your Honour. I cannot recognize it.

The substance of what I have before you there, tne first man I spoke to said, "No trouble, Mr Cusack. We will fix that up for you." Subsequently, one of

his superiors came back rather agitated saying, "No, we

can't do that. We've already paid you, issued you a

cheque for the amount and you will have to be satisfied

with that because that is all we have to do legally."

Under the CURRENCY ACT, I think he said, but I did not

pursue the matter vigorously with that fellow.

I subsequently re-issued my invoice for one-fifth

of the original amount and repeated my demand for payment

in legal tender and that request was complied with.

(Continued on page 7)

C3T3/l/BR	6	28/2/89
Cusack

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, I see they paid you $4000 ..
MR CUSACK:	They paid me $4000-odd; let us say round figures

$4000,, Your Honour. Which is 41 ounce gold coins.

I will contend, in any court in this land, even to

the Privy Council if necessary, that I have been paid

$4000 for a job which is acknowledged by the Mount Isa Mines to have been a $20,000 job~. which raises

the spectre of tax evasion. I do not believe I am

evading tax but the laws of the land as they stand at
the moment allow me to legally discount my income
and demand payment in legal tender, according to the
CURRENCY ACT sections 16 and 22. S~ction 22 excludes

this form of money from being legal tender and thereby achieve a direct and substantial benefit

through the Income Tax provisons.

There is no illegality in that process. I stand

on the ~arliament's own provision, the provisions made
by our larliament and our government, that the coin

one ounce gold is $100. If this fact were to become

widely publicized and widely acted upon, I see scope

for damage to the revenue of the Connnonwealth and I

have refrained from publishing this information.

Although, I must say the reluctance of authorities to

deal with the issue which I point up here or even to

acknowledge that it exists does leave open the

possibility of public acceptance of the nature of the
problem and widespread public action to force action

by the authorities to address the issue.

HIS HONOUR: Could I just ask you this? Is it your submission

that section 36 of the RESERVE	BANK ACT is invalid
because it is in conflict with	the CURRENCY ACT? Is
that the submission?

MR CUSACK:  Partly. That is part of it, Your Honour. It is

more fundamentally based on the CONSTITUTION section 115

and I can give you a reading of section 115 which does

not change the meanings of the words in the section but

outlines very, very specifically how that section

should be read to avoid the conflict between the two Acts.

The grammar terms of the words "legal tender". Very Perhaps the critical part - just in grammar terms.

often the two words together are thought of as a noun

describing a property which can be inherent in a

material, as though this particular piece of money has

legal tenderness inside it. That is not possible; it
is not a possible interpretation of that Act. "Tender",

the word in the English language in its ordinary

meaning is "offer". It is an active verb - a verbal
form of expression. For a tender to be legal it must

meet certain criteria. In these terms, section 115

of the CONSTITUTION can be read - I would like to

refer to my documents. In a previous attempt to raise

C3T4/l/JH	7	28/2/89
Cusack

this issue through the Tax Office I refused to
accept a Reserve Bank cheque and on pursuing
the matter through the magistrate's court I

issued a section 78B notice in connection with it.

HIS HONOUR:	Just excuse me, Mr Cusack. Have you finished with these documents?
MR CUSACK:	Yes, it was only the numbers on the front page,

Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, Mr Cusack?
MR CUSACK:	I have filed documents as exhibit A to affidavit

sworn on 28 October, Your Honour. Do you have that?

HIS HONOUR:	No, I do not recollect seeing it.
MR CUSACK:	It is a very large - the original bundle of file

documents - - -

HIS HONOUR:  No, I have not got it. But perhaps you could

read to me.

MR CUSACK:	I will certainly read the relevant portions.
HIS HONOUR:	Yes.
MR CUSACK:	I will start at section 8 of what is, in fact, a

78B notice:.

It will be argued particularly by plaintiff

that, since the States are constitutionally
prevented from "making ... legal" (i.e.
authorising the use of) "anything but gold

or silver coin (as) a (form of) tender (which

must be accepted) in payment of debts", any

law purporting to "make (something other than)

gold or silver coin ... legal (as a form of)

tender (which must be accepted) in payment

of debts" can therefore have no force in any

State of the Connnonwealth.

Since there is no PLACE called "the Connnonwealth",

and irrespective of the action of the

federal Parliament, S.36(1) of the RESERVE BANK

ACT has no ground on which to stand, literally,

geographically or legally.

HIS HONOUR:  Well, can I ask you what your answer to this

proposition is? Section 115 is found in chapter 5 of
the CONSTITUTION which deals with the States and the

introductory words of section 115 is that, "a State

shall not" - - -

C3T4/2/JH	8	28/2/89
Cusack

MR CUSACK:  Yes, I need to go a little further in the reading,

Your Honour, that is, I refer to the -"there is no l'LACE

called "the Commonwealth"','that is the first point.

it cannot apply in any state since paper

cannot be mRde ... legal ..... in payment of debts

within in this or any other State of the

Commonwealth.

I am talking from Queensland -

therefore, any law purporting to achieve that

condition should become null and void by

virtue of the constraints on the powers

(and the implied duty) of the States under

section 115 of the CONSTITUTION.	The
meaning sought	to be read into section 115 -

this is really the final part which you may like

to note -

can therefore be stated in other words,as

follows:  The Federal Parliament, alone

shall have the power the coin money,but the
States shall be bound to ensure that ONLY
gold or silver coin is made ... iegal (as-a form
of)tender(which must be accepted)in payment

of debts within their jurisdiction.

HIS HONOUR:  Now, is this lynchpin of your whole argument,

this constitutional section?

MR CUSACK:  There has to be a constitutional basis for

resolution of the conflict, as I understand the way the

legal process operates, Your Honour, but more than

that I have taken the liberty of projecting myself

forward a little to a proposal which outlines what

might be on the far side of the issue of any

process. It may explain better some of the

propositions.

HIS HONOUR:	Do you want me to read this?
MR CUSACK:	Would you care to read that one, Your Honour,

yes.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. Well, you might sit down while I read it,

thank you. I have read the appendix and I have

read the first two pages and I have read phase 1.

Phase 2 and phase 3 seem to be rather directed to

political aspects. Is it necessary for me - - -

MR CUSACK:	Not entirely political, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:	Is it necessary for the purpose of this

application for me to read those two parts?

C3T5/l/MB	9	28/2/89
Cusack

i:1R. CUSACK:  I felt that what is proposed in that document

is valuable as a possible future scenario in terms

of what we are proposing to do.

HIS HONOUR:  Thank you, Mr Cusack, I will read it.

Yes, thank you, Mr Cusack, I have read that.	Do
you want this back?

i:1R. CUSACK:	No, Y01.1r Honour. If that is in acceptable form, Your Honour, I would not mind if that stayed on the
record.
HIS HONOUR:	Thank you.
i:1R. CUSACK:	It seemed a little impractical and unrealistic

to attempt to institute process in the form that

is being proposed without some, at least, outline

of what tha effects of that process might be, but

to go back to the real questions certainly there

is, undoubtedly, a conflict between the two statutes.

The definition of"legal tender"is well established

in HALSBURY, - and other references, as "a

form of offer of payment", tJ:7.e critical word being

"offer" which is the "tender part of "legal tender"

and - - -

HIS HONOUR:  What do you say about the fact that section Sl(xii)

of the CONSTITUTION gives the Commonwealth, or
the Parliament of the Commonwealth, the power to make
laws with respect, not only to currency and coins

but also legal tender? Does that not imply that

legal tender may be something different from currency
and coinage?

i:1R. CUSACK:  With respect, Your Honour, the head of that

section includes the words:

the Commonwealth Parliament shall have

power to make laws for the peace, welfare

and good government of the nation. (Continued on page 11)

C31'5/2/MB	10	28/2/89
Cusack

MR CUSACK (continuing):  If in enacting an arbitarily,

self-contradictory body of law to govern the

financial system they thereby destabilize the nation

or upset the process of cormnerce or even their own

taxation power - - -

HIS HONOUR:  But, Mr Cusack, you will be well aware from your

studies of constitution of law that the High Court

has said again and again that provided a law has been

made with respect to one of the innumerated subjects

in section 51, the merits, the efficiency, the

responsibility of it is a matter for the people to

vote in or out	governments which pass such
legislation.

MR CUSACK:  With respect, Your Honour, if something so

self-contradictory as this issue appears in the

product, the output of the legislature, I believe the
High Court has, if not a duty, then an absolutely
unqualified power to address the conflict itself for
the simple reason that it is one of the most fundamental

powers of the Crown to issue currency.And if it gets

it wrong - to put it quite simply, if it gets it

wrong at that level to the point where I can defraud the to get from me by standing on their own laws and demanding payment in a certain form, it is more than a

political question, Your Honour. It is a fundamental

issue going to the most fundamental power of the Crown.

If it fails to activate that power correctly, without

internal self-contradiction, then it leaves itself wide

open to abuse.

But I wou]d like to go back a little to the -

quote a judgment, in fact, Your Honour, which supports

part of what is being said. The judgment, I believe,

is unreported; it is No 5 of 1983 in the Queens land Supreme

Court by Justice .McPherson in the matter of the

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT and an appeal against an

assessment by Alan George Skyring:

In this Cburt the matter of the law governing

discharge of obligations is determined by the

CURRENCY ACT 1965, S-16 of which

prescribes what is legal tender in Australia.

That Act binds me. It is certainly in no way affected by s.115 of the CONSTITUTION which

creates-simply a_prohibition against the issuing

.of currency by state g~vernments.

L

. I do not think I will quote the rest of it. It

is referring to:-	coins specifically and saying that
if coins are used the payment can be made.	The point

is that a payment can be made using coins but in order

to obtain the coins I have to suffer a penalty of

C3T6/l/JH	11	28/2/89
Cusack

500 per cent. That is the reason why I have refused

to use the other debased form of currency.	They have
got it wrong and it has to be fixed.	The

contradiction alone does not appear to be sufficient

and the accepted reading of section 115 up to now

and section Sl(xii) relating to currency and legal

tender - the reading of those sections of the

CONSTITUTION cannot - I submit, Your Honour, cannot

be allowed to be read in such a way that they create

a blatant contradiction of this type and upset, or

provide the mechanism by which an upsetting of the

taxation revenue of the Commonwealth, can be instituted

on a large scale.

If it is a solution to be _politically solved and

the Court refuses to proceed along the lines which are sought here today, my personal position in relation to the bank, which I need to get back to eventually - but

my personal position in relation to that is that I
would need to institute an appeal to the Full Court and

have that heard and accepted within an eight-day

period, which is physically and technically impossible,

from my point of view.

I would, therefore, have no option but to take

this matter to the public in the most forceful way
possible to draw attention to the issue by whatever
means are available in the public arena. This, to my

way of thinking, is unacceptable. It is the sort of

issue which is damaging to revenues of the Commonwealth,

therefore disturbing peace and good operation of the

system. The public argument on an issue of this type

could only be damaging. I prefer not to see - - -

HIS HONOUR:  I want to understand your argument

fully. Am I right in thinking that your basic

submission is that section 36(1) of the RESERVE BANK ACT

is invalid?

(Continued on page 13)

C3T6/2/JH	12	28/2/89
Cusack

MR CUSACK:	In essence, yes, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:	Yes. That is the key.
1v1R. CUSACK:	I am not against having this type of money, so

long as it does not claim to be equivalent to that.

If it -wants to then let it be equivalent. Let it be
$50 for $50, otherwise who is going to tell me what

a dollar is. We may as well have different lengths

of kilometres fordifferent times of day, Your Honour,

and clocks that run at different speeds.

HIS HONOUR: Well, can I just ask you this: section 36 says

that Australian notes are legal tender throughout

Australia and why is that not a law with respect to

legal tender within the meaning of section 51(xii) of

the CONSTITUTION?

1v1R. CUSACK:  With respect, Your Honour, it is necessary that it

be in agreement with the power. I understand that

reasoning. It is certainly necessary that that
section come within a power for it to be able to get

out of the Governor-General's office with a signature

on it.

HIS HONOUR:	Yes.
1v1R. CUSACK:	If it does not meet that necessary condition, it

cannot be on the statute books -

HIS HONOUR:	But, is that not where - - -
1v1R. CUSACK:	- - - but this is not -as my mathematical training

and scientific background says, that is not enough. You have to

>', have'hecessary and sufficiency: It is not sufficient that it come within one correct power. It must not

infringe any other condition which is implied by

another section of the CONSTITUTION.

HIS HONOUR: Well, you rely on section 115 there, do you?
1v1R. CUSACK:	Yes, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:	Yes.
1v1R. CUSACK:	I do not want to say too much more about the money on the table because that is only a small portion of
the money in Australia and it is not the part that is
causing me a big problem.
HIS HONOUR:	You are concerned about the issue of credit, are

you, bank credit?

1v1R. CUSACK:  The part that is causing me problems is that, having

attempting to do something about this even to the extent

of standing for Parliament and failing, I got myself into

C3T7/l/SH	13	28/2/89
Cusack

a situation which I thougr,twould do something for

myself and for the country with an invention to
make towing of vehicles on the road a little safer. That is the supreme caurt matter which is now about

to cost me my home as a result of suspected fraud

by a business partner.

The crime for which I am to be punished is

creating something for Australia, using my house

as security to obtain finance.	I owned that house
at the time that business venture was started.	I
had actually made the last payment on a previous
mortgage and I owned it fully. Let us say it was
worth $150,000. What did the bank contribute to
Australia in providing the equivalent value of my

house to me for establishment of a business? What
did it cost the bank? The answer to that, Your Honour,
is the cost of establishing the numbers in a computer

record which is the effort of a person to type in

through the computer keyboard,say $100,000 or whatever

it was with my name on top of - or, my partner's

name - my wife's and my nan:e~ in fact on top of the doC1..Jm2I1.t

saying "The Cusack family can now spend, say, $100,000.

You can write a cheque for it." The interesting and

the curious part of this process, Your Honour, which

is assiduously supressed by all the media and the

banking institutions is that no other account in

Australia is reduced by so much as one cent because

of my being able to write cheques to the extent of

$100,000. What that means is that the counterfeiting

benefit accrues entirely to the banking industry on

the value of all loans created. Not only do they

obtain the counterfeiter's benefit of the $100,000

in the first instance, they have the temerity to add

interest charges to it and, in default of my being

able to make repayments when the business venture

collapses as a result of circumstances which I cannot

bear to describe because I am liable to break down, they

obtain my home. They throw me on the street. I will

not surrender to counterfeiters, Your Honour.

Counterfeiting is bad enough but to add usury

to it, on top of the counterfeiting, is adding insult

to injury.

HIS HONOUR:  Mr Cusack, I am not quite following your argument

as to how the provision of credit by the banks and

this bank in particular infringes the CONSTITUTION.

(Continued on page 15)

C3T7/2/SH	14	28/2/89
Cusack

MR CUSACK:  No, it is not a constitutional matter at this

point, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:	ls this the Magna Carta point?
MR CUSACK:	It is a matter of common law equity, I believe.
HIS HONOUR:	Yes.
MR CUSACK:	But underpinning this position that I have

taken is the question, "I'm an honest man,

Your Honour. I've borrowed money and I believe I

have to repay, but the position I was in was

impossible. I have taken the issue of the currency

as a defence that I cannot pay because the legal

tender situation is completely haywire.	I cannot
get money and I cannot make you payments.	On

the basis of that the bank has said, 'You haven't paid, therefore you're going to lose your house'.

I therefore take a further defence. I take a defence

on the grounds that chapter VIII of the Magna Carta
prevents the creditor from selling up, gives t~em
the right to hold the property as security and

holding the property is the security, except that

people do not see security the way I do. People

these days are so infatuated with money and money is so overwhelmingly powerful in its influence in society today that such things as the value of

a family, the tools of a housewife, a kitchen, has

no place in this commercialized world."

HIS HONOUR:  Mr Cusack, when you were opening this

application I thought you said to me that you had not

challenged the statutes of the Queensland Parliament

which authori~ed powers of sale.

MR CUSACK:  I d~fended against the action in the

supreme court, Your Honour. In fact, I sought

injunctions to restrain the action of the power of

sale and the courts have consistently rejected me

through to the full supreme court.

HIS HONOUR:  But if you have got Queensland statutes which

aurhori~e a mortgagee to exercise a power of sale,

what law invalidates those statutes, or those laws

of the Parliament of Queensland?

MR CUSACK:  I put up two defences, Your Honour. The first

is common equity in that there is no equity between

what the bank has provided and what I have provided

in the initial transaction. In fact, if anyone was

entitled to the ownership of the initial credit it

is probably me in trust to the community. The

second one is the Magna Carta which I believe - this

is not something that the High Court could deal with.

I believe it is more a State matter, but it is such a pressing matter upon me and my family that I have

C3T8/l/HS	15	28/2/89
Cusack

linked it with the currency question and seek an

injunction against the loss of my home because of

the currency question intervening to prevent

resolution of the other issue on an equitable

basis. The provision of CAP VIII of MagnaCa~ta

I believe entitles the bank to hold the title to

the house and that is all. I think I rely on

section 80 of the JUDICIARY ACT, Your Honour.

Section 80 relates to jurisdiction in the High Court

applying with the common law of England:

as modified by the CONSTITUTION and

by statute law in force in the State.

In Queensland we have Act No 70 of 1984 which

reconfirmed Magna Carta at least the relevant

portions of it. On that ground I suggest the

jurisdiction of the High Court should apply in that

case. The fact of the urgency of the need for

relief in that case also, I believe, warrants the

jurisdiction of the High Court to intervene against

the bank in the supreme court matter and to at least,

on an interim basis, to establish a process whereby

this issue can be looked at in perhaps a wider

discussion group involving politicians, but under

judicial direction; effectively a mandamus but

to just hold the fort, as it were.

I have to argue the question. I cannot accept

the contradiction in our own laws. While the

contradiction is there I must rely on it to defend

myself. There is certainly an interpretation

of the CONSTITUTION involved in the currency question,

and I believe section 80 of the JUDICIARY ACT would

allow the other matter to be addressed also.

Your Honour, may I reserve the right to speak further

later? I think I am running out of steam just for

the moment, but other thoughts may occur to me.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. If you have another thought or so that comes

to you, then you can put it to me after Mr Skyring.

MR CUSACK:  I would like to stop just now if I may though.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. I will hear what Mr Skyring has to say

in support of his application. Yes, Mr Skyring?

C3T8/2/HS	16	28/2/89
Cusack

MR SKYRING:  Your Honour, if I could take up a couple

of points that you have raised with Mr Cusack,

because in so far as the interaction between

the s e e f f or t s g o th e r e are s om e 2 0 , 0 0 0 bu c k s

of mine has also been swallowed up in this effort

that Pat has been involved in -which the tax

comm i s s i oner reckons he has his hands on so I have got

myself a real problem as well and it has all

got to do with this right of the banks to basically

foreclose in the manner that they have.

If I could just carry on in respect of the

points which you put to Mr Cusack early on in

respect of -where I thought the bench previously

was wrong - if I may use that word - in respect

of the earlier ruling given by Justice Deane.

On what I would regard as a trivial level, in reading there was - and, Your Honour, I only

just discovered just a few nights in a text

that I have had for ages, How to Understand

an Act of Parliament by K.H. Gifford, which

you may know, there was talking about interpreting

an Act in the light of other Acts.

At the end bit of that chapter which is chapter 30, it says:

The effect of Acts which are not raised

or an Act being considered~ Ev~n if some s~ction

of an Act of Parliament is one which is

capable of having two or more meanings -

sorry, wrong page.

Other conflicts between Acts of Parliament:

The conflict may occur between Acts of Parliament when Acts connected do not fall into classes

of a general Act on the one hand and of

a specific Act on the other. In such a

case the rule is that if it is impossible

to read two Acts together without conflict

the latter Act prevails over the earlier

one.

So we have	got this time function coming into
the scheme	of things. This becomes highly relevant
in respect	of the CURRENCY ACT versus the RESERVE
BANK ACT.	I am just purely on this time question
alone.

The RESERVE BANK ACT was passed in 1959

1n its basic form and section 36(1) was part

of that Act and has been in there right from

day one. The CURRENCY ACT was changed in 1965

to be got into the form it basically is now

which changes over to decimal currency. And

there were a few other things were made changes

at the same time.

C3T9/l/ND	17	28/2/89
Cusack

I first became aware of this Act about 1980

as a result of the studies I have been involved

in in 1978-79 through the Institution of Engineers

and it would be from a whole lot of studies that I had done at the time. It had become

apparent to me and from discussions within the

group on how to smarten up manufacturing industry

in this country. The conclusion I drew was,

we are not strapped for ideasin this country but

when it comes to doing anything there is never

any money. Why is there not any money?

So posing my question or working from that standpoint then I, in effect, was to take the

lid off a Pandora's box.	I did not realize
what I had done.	But that was, in fact, how

I got started in it.

(Continuing on page 19)

C3T9/2/ND	18	28/2/89
Cusack

MR SKYRING· (continuing):  As part of the task force I was

involved in two sections: innovation and human

relations, and one of the steering committee

who was involved in this lot had read a paper
which I had read, which was one that was given to

the I.Mech.E in 1968, entitled, fhe engineer

in society , which addressed the general question:

how do you work development in a society which

has got an advanced technology but an antiquated

financial system? Suffice to say - just very

briefly.

That paper was in three parts: the first

was, where do the people come from?	Dead simple.
They are replaced by technology.	Okay, that

sorts that one out. The second one: where does

the money come from? Might I summarize this

by saying, as the paper ran, "Well, that is an
interesting question but first of all we had

better get a few things sorted out about what

money is.", and then they proceeded to go into

the ins and outs of the various forms of money

which got me on to credit and the floating of the

Bank of England and what Abe Lincoln had to say

about it in 1860. And then there was a rather

interesting discussion by one Sir Henry Kelleher,

who was then a director of the Bank of New Zealand,
who made some very interesting observations.

Now, that primed me.

This member of the steering committee,

Bob Brown, said to me - I chatted him up on this

whole monetary thing and he said, "Well, why

do you not put in a mini report to the steering

committee and we "11. take it up from there".

Well, in fact, rather than do one for them, I

will do one report which I will put into Mr Campbell's

inquiry into the financial system which was then

underway. As a bit of back history: I have

reason to believe that some correspondence of

mine to the ombudsman may well have precipitated

that inquiry. In particular, there was an enclosure

by one Arthur Cbresby,who had been Member of

Griffith, in the federal legislature from 1958

to 1961, who wrote a very interesting paper entitled,

'How the Federal and State Reserve Banks could

work? That complemented the sort of thing

I had run across from my reading in other directions.

So, to cut a long story short, then, I put

this submission into the .financial inquiry.

It was, I would have reason to believe, would have been considered as one of those class of

submissions that have no standing. It was just

so far out it is just not credible.

HIS HONOUR; Is this the Campbell report?

C3Tl0/l/SDL	19	28/2/89
Cusack

MR SKYRING: 

Yes, it was only about 11 pages that I put in

but I got over an awful lot of ground very quickly,
covering our major institutions because they

are all involved in this.

Anyway, I was to get a - in part of my normal

work I happened to chat up some friends and they
gave me a little volume that was circulating

around Brisbane at the time,  I want the world

plus 5 per cent , by a gent by the name of language - virtually the same language as I put

in rather more formal effort in my submission
to the financial inquiry. But, interestingly,

at the end of that there was a bunch of very

quotable quotes which really made me raise an

eyebrow and was, in fact, to lead me to take

a bit of action or was to lead to my eventually

being given, from the offices of the British

Consulate here in Sydney, a little volume entitled.
Magna Carta and its Influence on the World Today ,

by one Sir Ivor Jennings.  You may know it;

it is only about a 30-page text.  But that was

a real eye opener and this got me on to Magna

Carta.

The crucial bit on that was the celebrated

Chapter XXIX of the Magna Carta, that "No free man should

be excised of his liberties", et cetera. On

that, speaking about property rights, what the

good Sir Ivor had to say - and this I had put

in my original letter of objection to the tax

commissioner - this is how it all started~

Although Chapter XXIX protects property rights

this is of very little value if the King can

impose arbitrary and heavy taxation - and then

his punchline:

Though it was and still is the law that

a tax on property is not a diminution of

property rights, this is a very legalistic

interpretation because in fact tax must

be met out of property.

Now, what I read him to be saying, in a roundabout

sort of way, taxation, as a means of raising

revenue as an infringement on property rights,

is illegal - in layman's language. Well, all

right, if taxes are illegal how the hell do you

fund the Crown's purposes? Well, this is where

the whole other side of my studies come in.

Dead simple: run the bank's properly - and that

was what got me under way. So to get the whole

show on the road, then, at the end of 1979 I
had got this actually on the Friday before we
went for a fortnight's holiday at the end of

1979. I bought myself a copy of the CONSTITUTION -

because I never actually had a copy till that time.

C3Tl0/2/SDL 20 SKYRING 28/2/89

Cusack (Continued on page 20A)

I had a read through this to see what they had to say about money and that was when I got on to

this.	I just had a look-see what was referred
to as money.	The only thing that was said was

section 115 and section 51, and sections (xii),
(xiii) and (xvi) has got to be the business parts of it.

So I got myself a copy of the CURRENCY ACT at this stage and at this point I noted that as

the Act had been framed in 1965 - and it had

not been changed up till this time - coinage

was -section 16 covered coinage. It only denoted

silver coinage up to the denomination of 50 cents

which was when - the powers came in when we went

decimal.

So I had a bit of a think about this lot and

I reckoned that there was an inconsistency to

the point of absurdity in this situation.

(Continued on page 21)

C3Tl0/3/SDL	20A	28/2/89
Cusack

MR SKYRING (continuing):  Now, after the holidays, on

20 December, I went in to see the Federal A-G's

office in Brisbane; mentioned - we told him, you know,

the whole damned thing is so wrong, it is just silly,

it is so wrong it just not funny. So they said,

"Well, why don't write down to the Attorney-General?"

Which is did on Christmas Day 1979, and basically

spelled out where I saw the fundamental things were

wrong in respect to the way the whole Crown functions

in respect to funding its purposes through taxation

and the banking - the whole shooting match. It was

only a fairly short letter, about 10 pages - to me that

is short.	I	outlined where I saw it as all being
wrong.

I had intimated - my covering letter opened - I

saw inconsistency to the point of absurdity between

you look at this constraint, the second part of it,	sect:i.on 51, (vii), (xiii), (xvi) and 115 taken together: When
making the gold and silver coin a legal tender in the payment of debts. Anyway, I indicated that - at that
stage the Tax Commissioner did not realize it, but
he was going to start the procedure which would
ultimately bring about the remedy. So when my assessment come around for that year I objected to the total of it. Well, that then was to start to
a whole train of events in many ways I did not fully
grasp for many years later, 1 will be quite honest with you.

Anyway, I got the tax assessment in the February

and well, I put my objection in. I thought, hell,

now I have done it and they are going to descend on

me so I had better have a damn good argument to sort

out, to back up what I had said in what was fairly

general terms and I would have·., difficulty making

entitled, "The History of Money" which I had a bit

the case stand up in court, as I saw it at that time.

of a chase through and here was, beautifully spelled

out, was how, in fact,, the Bank of England got floated

in 1694 and, reading through that and all the other

general things I picked up from history, it seemed

to me that was where and when the damage was done.

So based on that, then, I was to do a three-part

appendix to my Christmas 1979 letter which I shot

down to the A-G and asked for a comment on that. Now,

in that I had spelled out this whole interaction with

the law - all the rest of it. Now, all of that

correspondence was, in fact, in the documentation

which I filed for the first action I brought on before

Justice Deane in 1985. Now, I had, in fact, sought

to take the matter head on through taxation in the

Federal Court.	It started off in 1983 which was then
that judgment by Justice McPherson was given.	Now,
I outlined - there was the tax . . . . .	come in on

Mag.na Carta, it was the first part of his judgment

C3Tll/l/VH	21	28/2/89
Cusack

dealt with that. Now, we have got again the Tax Act

being later in time and Magna Carta superseded it,

type thing. And then he, just in a casual sort of

way,brought in the whole of the second part of it and

it was he who raised this matter of the CURRENCY ACT

in section 115 of the CONSTITUTION. Thad not twigged

it, but he had got on to me and really set it up for

me if I had the wit to be able to handle it.	So, in fact,
I will, perhaps,	read you the first bit - now, at

that stage, the full significance of that did not hit
me because I was thinking that, in fact, the

CURRENCY ACT was still as I had read it back in 1979, ie, your silver coinage.

It had not dawned on me that only about a year

later when I got a revised set of the CURRENCY ACT

and I looked at the schedules and here we have this

$200, $100, $50 and $25 gold coins all added to the

schedules. and they had amended section 16. Now,

Justice McPherson knew that but it had not twigged

with me. And then what the upshot of it seemed to me

from my correspondence with the A-G's Department, in

effect, somebody agreed with me in respect to the

absurdity of the system. So what they done then was,

in fact, to; set the thing up properly to have our

gold currency and what they said at the time was that

they put these $200 coins in circulation but they

were put around - the word was that they were collectors'

items which, at least, had sort of got the Act partly

right, but there were much bigger issues involved in

this to get the whole thing straightened up because

what we get into then is international treaty obligations

and that makes it very, very complicated and this

was the difficulty, but the stage was set.

Anyway, just going on from where 'Pat. stopped

because this becomes highly relevant. Talking about

secton 115:

(Continued on page 23)

C3Tll/2/VH	22	28/2/89
Cusack

MR SKYRING (continuing):

Accordingly, no problem will arise in

relation to the tender by a taxpayer of a

sufficient number of notes and coins

constituting legal tender within section 16

of the CUR.1<.ENCY Act for the purpose of

discharging his liability under the

assessment which has issued.

Now, that is where the problem arises. The way he

sort of casually said it there, if you have a l0ok

at section 16 it says nothing about notes, and that

is the problem. We also do not have our gold coin

in circulation so as I have outlined the thing in

the final page of my affidavit seeking leave to

issue this process, I am in an impossible situation.

I would seek to obey the law, but I cannot strictly

legally.

Just leaving out the bit in the middle about

"certainly no way affected by section 115". Now,

bear in mind that was in August 1983 and as I have

read that, that was reflecting the given legal

wisdom of the day and I think it still widely does.
But my reading of what has happened in my exchanges

with Justice Deane and indeed the Full Court, if one reads the subtleties of these arguments, my reading of the situation is that the High Court, anyway,

certainly_ the Judges I have spoken to - you have

not come in on this one before - but all the other

Judges in my reading of the situation is that they

do not reckon that is right in terms of what has

been said to me.

Now, there is an extremely difficult situationin that

we .· are trying to handle here and it is a matter of basically how to handle the thing in a way and maintain credibility and, indeed, strict law and

order. Now, the sort of problem that we are

confronted with as I see it and Pat knows which is

what he was intimating about, what has to be done

down, as I see it, is that we have got to institute

a sort of set-up like one sees done when the engineers

get to do a major civil engineering work. You have

got to keep society going so you organize a by-pass

to keep society going while you work on the main bit

and then when you have got that built then you put

that back in circulation, cut your by-pass and by

doing a series of things like this, then one can

institute a whole new set-up.

The question is then, okay, well, is it that

wrong that drastic action of the type that we are

contemplating really needs to be done? This, I guess,

is the fundamental question.

C3Tl2/l/BR	23	28/2/89
Cusack

HIS HONOUR: That is a political question, is it not?

MR SKYRING: It is also a legal one, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:	How is it a legal question?
MR SKYRING:	Because very simply the matter of rights are

involved.	Now, Pat has been chucked out of his
house - you have seen the documentation.	I have

got action for bankruptcy against me because I

have not, in fact, paid tax and I am being heavie-d,

so,in essence, the same thing could well happen to

me. Now, our ..... very substance is on the line.

HIS HONOUR:  That may be the effect of it but the question

is, is it not - at least I think Mr Cusack conceded

this - the question is whether section 36 is a

valid enactment.

MR SKYRING:  No, that is in fact what the matter has centred

on. Chasing the whole thing through, my view of it

is, in fact, that it was presented in this way, in

fact, by Justice Deane in that original judgment in

1985. The two parts of the judgment were that

he saw no substance to the argument, and I stress

the choice of words, that there is a constitutional
bar against the feds issuing paper money as legal
tender. Nor is there any substance to the point
that the CURRENCY ACT overrides the RESERVE BANK ACT.

In subsequent actions, I believe both of those have, in fact, been rebutted. In respect of the

CURRENCY ACT overriding the RESERVE BANK ACT - there

was the bit that I had not previously pointed out

which I just read out to you earlier on about Acts

later in time superseding the earlier ones.

HIS HONOUR:  The accepted legal doctrine is that they can

bring about the implied repeal but it has got to
be an extraordinary case.

MR SKYRING:  I would submit that this is just such a case,

Your Honour; that, in fact, although that is - what

I have stated is the nice point of law, the fact on

the ground that all the rest of society is working

on is that that paper money is still legal tender

and the banks have got very upset about it in Pat's

case because he will not use it, and so has the

Tax Commissioner because I will not use it either.

So we have here a matter which goes to the heart of the very operation of the nation, so this sort of conflict cannot be allowed to stand.

Now, this is the difficulty, that where you

have statutes in conflict like that and, I suppose

the point that comes up here is the balance of

convenience which was a matter which was covered -

C3Tl2/2/BR 24 SKYRING 28/2/89

Cusack	(Continued on page 24A1
HIS HONOUR:	But that is the point, is there - - -

MR SKYRING: Right, okay, that is what we have got to address

and that is what is really comes down to.

HIS HONOUR: Is there conflict between the two?

MR SKYRING:  There is one hell of a conflict,.and may I put

it to you very bluntly, and if this is not seen

then, to me, again if you will permit me to be very

blunt, it can mean either that the persons viewing

are incompetent to put the best light on it or they
are outright bloody-well corrupt. There is no

other way to describe it.

(Continued on page l5)

C3Tl2/3/BR	24A	28/2/89
Cusack

MR SKYRING (continuing): For a conflict of that order which

goes to the very heart of the way the nation
operates and if the courts condone this then they

are corrupt - and I will put it to you bluntly, that

it is as bad as that. That is why we have stood our

ground. It is that bad. The point is to have a

formal way to resolve the conflict, that is the

crucial thing. Because of the nature of the problem -

and here we do get into the matter of politics as

this affects what affects all of society. The place

is going; it has managed to go for centuries on this

form; but what is becoming increasingly clear is

that it is - I reckon it has been about to blow up

for ages and if one tunes into the discussion of

the informed opinion of the international financial

arena, very clearly the impression that was got - and

just in passing I would note there was a very

interesting three part series run on SBS TV at the end

of last year entitled, "A Matter of Life and Debt" - I

do not know whether you would have seen it - but in

that there was a whole range of opinion being given

from the heavies of the financial conmrunity around

the world, and I mean around the world.

What became very clear to me from that was that

they do not know what to do simply because they do

not understand the basic problem and it has all got

to do with sovereignty and the whole way the place is

run. Now, that is the fundamental effort, so the

whole effort of my endeavours over the years has been
to try to provide a sound legal basis - and again,
one gets into high generality here of the law as it
is intended to be, and you get back to fundamental
philosophy or what is the law, what it is about, what it

is supposed to do, all of the rest of it, as

opposed to the immediate practice on the ground now .

Part of the resolution seems to me to be through the constitutional approach and it was for

this reason that in my rejoinder when I came back to

eventually take up Justice Deane, which I did in 1986

..... Your Honour, just to outline for you as you may
not be familiar with what actually happened.	I sought
special leave to get up on appeal from

Justice McPherson's judgment.I eventually appealed

to the Federal Court. Now, the only thing that I

agreed with him on was that little bit about section 16

binding in respect of what constitutes legal tender.

All the rest of his judgment I basically disagree with.

But it became a very wide subject very early on.

It was eventually heard by the Full Federal

Court in the April of 1984 and, in fact, again I was given a very interesting observation from the bench,

namely, to wait till I was sued and then the whole

matter would come up in a way that the courts could

handle it. I sought leave to appeal on the tax

C3Tl3/l/BR	25	28/2/89
Cusack

effort in the normal process.	I was not granted
leave so that approach died.	However, it had been

suggested to me that the way to get this thing up

might be to use the prerogative writs, so at that

stage then I had a bit of a look at the book of

words to see how to do this. It had been

previously suggested to me by a private constitutional

lawyer that the way to fly was to use quo erranta.

So I tried habeas corpus but that really only got

you sprung without addressing the r~l problem. I had been

put on to quo erranto because that really started

to raise the matter of the King's rights challenge of

ministers.

So I had a go in the State Supreme Court against State Cabinet and then in then here against the

Federal Cabinet which was heard by Justice Brennan

and I had sort of worked the cnangeover to interrelate

the money thing to government because it all swings

on this creation of money. That is the central

function. Anyway, that lot did not get underway.

Then I had meantime been boxing on at the State level and it had been suggested to me by the lawyer at SEQEB, Why do younot try certiorari. Looking back on it now with the wisdom of hindsight, I think they

wanted to see what could be done in certiorari.

It looked like I would be mad enough to try it, so I

got on to certiorari and I read the books and I read

a bit of the history about it and it seemed to me,

"Right, this is the one to go on".

I then took four actions in simultaneously

against the council,SEQEB,at State level and the

Patents Commissioner and Telecom at the Federal

level under an ADJR before Justice Spender in the

Federal Court in Brisbane and he basically again

stated: - in the course of his· judgment he knocked

me back. But again, what one draws is more of

the legal wisdom as to why it is knocked back. And

it was on the basis of that then that I brought the

action here seeking a certiorari to review and to

quash Justice Spender's judgment.

I gave a very wide range of ..... to

Justice Deane and, again, he narrowed me down in

the same sort of way as Justice McPherson did on

the key issues, which is this currency deal.	I
then sought to appeal to the Full Bench of the
High Court in July 1985.	I gather this is a matter
of approach here.	I had always seen money and

taxation as being related but rather than address

him specifically on the points he had set me up

for, I broadened the issue to bring in taxation

without specifically addressing his two points to:

show where I was wrong or where the statement was,

in fact, wrong.

C3Tl3/2/BR	26	28/2/89
Cusack

MR SKYRING (continuing):  Now, it should be mentioned in that

original judgment: as I saw it, as being the party

to the show who had actually done it, it has get
to do with judicial process. Now, as I understand

it, interpretation of the CONSTITUTION can only be

given to the Full Bench, not by a single Judge.

So, what he did, in fact, was to state my case for

me, negatively and allowed me to appeal. This was

very clear from the transcript.	I have a feeling
it was done that way.	My reading of it was

that those who should be able to do it, that is,
the A-G's Department do not seem to be able to.

So, you know, well, he will have a go. That is

the way I read it. Now, whether that was, in fact,

what he meant or not, I do not know but that was

how it seemed to me, the real-life situation on

the ground.

Okay, so I got knocked back, of course, needless

to say, but what I did get in was this matter of property rights and taxation in the Magna Carta.

So, again, it was stated but what the Full Bench

did was to really home in on the specific points

in Justice Deane's judgment which had rather

escaped me. Okay, so I had these other efforts

that were lying dormant then in the State Supreme

Court and they had said to me, in the registry there,

"Look, if you can . get the High Court to issue these writs,

we will issue them here".	So they put them back here
because that is the heirarchy.	The High Court must

do this as, in effect, the Court of Queen's Bench

in this country. That is really what it amounts to.

Okay, so I worked these two other actions up through

the system and, at this stage then, the AUSTRALIA ACT

has come on line so this was tampering with the powers

of the State governors, although the courts also came

into it which, basically, severed the bond with the

Privy Council.

So, anyway, I had been chatted up and I said,

'~et us try a certiorari on that one. That seems
to be the best way to quash it".	So, again, we worked a

ceFtiorari on the AUSTRALIA ACT, basically seeking to attack at its source in that the original effort

had been got through Queensland in· violation of our

State Constitution that, on matters of this order,

tampering with the powers of the governor . that has

got to go to referendum, which was never done.

Well, of course, okay, again, you get mixed up

in process. I made my point which, in effect, the

1::ench, in effect, upheld but the judgment was I got
knocked back and that is what is seen so that is

what the judgment is. So, I brought both of those,

then, both actions together which now draws the

C3Tl4/l/SH	27	28/2/89
Cusack

powers of the governor and the money thing at

State level, up again, then, before Justice Deane

in the appellate sittings up in Brisbane in June 1986.

I appealed - now, on this one, I did specifically

address his two previous points.to say that there is

of constitutional bar and how it operates.

Now, he did not demur in the argument that I had

put up to show that there was a constitutional bar.

What happened though was that the attention then

turned to process in that I sought certiorari to be

used in its pristine form - and the wording of this

is taken out of the Supreme Court Rules - which is

that:

We are willing -

that is, the Crown -

for certain matters to be certified;command

that you send to us in our court that matters

may be looked at.

So, he was not prepared to - again, the case was

not together enough to merit issue of the writ and he

was not prepared to issue process. So, I then appealed

that decision to the Full Court and, again, taken up

the matters which Justice Connelly had, in fact,

mentioned in the judgment against SEQEB V THE COUNCIL

here that I must come to realize that if I keep

seeking to litigate points which have already been

determined, then I can have the VEXACIOUS LITIGANTS

ACT levelled against me.

So, anyway, interestingly, the Full Bench -

it was only a two-page judgment - having cited the

case as you do, then raised this matter about vexacious

litigants but then went on to say that this provision is

there as much for the protection of litigants as for

the courts. It did not say I was vexacious or litigant

but only that I did not have my act together and they

could not afford the time to be wasted on actions

which are not got together with relevancy and precision.

Well, okay, that was fair enough but I had made

my point that, in fact, what I was on about on this

fundamental C)nstitutional thing, was not wrong.

Okay, so-~ that was at the end of 1986 - in the middle of 1987 when the tax boys came in on the

scene, basically following up what the Full Bench

of the Federal Court had said back in 1984, "Right.

Sue me". So, she was fairly and squarely on then.

I had done a sizeable job through one of the companies up in town which got me enough credit in the account

to pay this tax bill. So, they hit me at the end

of June. One gets the impression that everybody

C3Tl4/2/SH 28 28/2/89

Cusack (Continued on page 28A)

knows what is going on although there might not

be any formal recognition of it. The grapevine

is very efficient and so, clearly, word was around

that she was going to go.

(Continued on page 29)

C3Tl4/3/SH

28A 28/2/89

Cusack

MR SKYRING (continuing):  Now, having had the bite put on,

the process would normally be to hit with a writ

of summons,- okay, why should you not pay? So I

put in a very brief defence which basically centred

on the two points. Firstly, was the validity of

taxation as a means of funding the Crown's purposes

anyway, as a general proposition, as to chapter xx.ix

which was the effort I dropped here back in 1979.

But, that aside, there is still this nasty matter

that is a Crown charge to be paid in the Queen's
money which is gold and silver coins, so how am I

going to pay? Which was the argument we have been

talking about here now. So to force things to a head,

then, I put that defence in.

. - ·-

Anyway, to try and do the right thing, I t..'l.en rroved

against the ANZ Bank. In the meantime, I had asked
the employers if they could pay me, the full amount,

in gold coin, the sort of of thing that Pat has since

done. They wrote to their bankers and they came back -

a very interesting letter - an extract entitled
'Bankers and the Law and it was by a solicitor of

the State Supreme Court of New South Wales, and a barrister

acting on behalf of the Bank of New South Wales.

We checked back to see when that book was published -

1975. They had not caught up with the 1981 amendments

and it was very, very simple. Okay, --' coinage for

small amounts, paper money for the rather larger

denominations.

Interestingly, the comment was to the accountant,

nwell, here it is for what it is worth." I had a

word to the accountant.	Mind you, it is not worth
very much at all.	Okay, so then I thought well, having

been given a bit of prompting on how to do this thing
from a private solicitor, I put the bite on the ANZ:

right, pay me properly in the Queen's money or legal

tender, on the basis of the impost that I had to meet,

and demanded payment. If they did not pay then this

would be seen as a dishonour of the cheque and action would be taken. So we went through due process and

in the meantime the tax boys had hit me with more

summary judgment - you have not paid and summary

judgment was given against me.

HIS HONOUR:	How much was the amount of the summary judgment?
MR SKYRING:	It was about 23 grand; about 32 was :imvolved in the

payment that I had got now. It was more than covered

it. But it was the principle of the thing to draw

attention to way the whole - not only private efforts
are financed - but the national effort as well and

to try and point up this fraud in the banking system

as to where it is wrong.- numbers that are big enough

to be relevant. Anyway, suffice to say I appealed

the tax effort up on the basis that - first of all

summary judgment was given against me. I sought to

appeal that before a chamber judge and, as I have

noted, I have outlined very briefly in the latter part

C3Tl5/l/VH	29	28/2/89
Cusack

of my affidavit seeking this action now. They

brought in a procedural point so that sort of ducked

it and that went on. I should have appealed to the

Full Court so that I eventually did. Meantime, on the ANZ one, I ,first tried a bank cheque to keep my

employers happy because I did not see they were involved

in it.	It was really between me and the bank and
the national system.	So anyway it came on before

Master Lee, now Justice Lee, up in Brisbane. There
was interesting back chat between Master Lee, as

he then was, and the opposing counsel - "Well,

you could have paid it." "Yes, but . . . " Anyway,

suffice to say that my claim was struck out ·which was

what they moved for, because it was a bank cheque

and there were particular things about banks cheques.

But the point of it was there really needed to be

a third party in it so I went back to my employer -

"Can you give us an open cheque or at least a cheque

marle out in my name, which will bring you into it."

t.bat they gave ·ue was an open, a cash cheque and that really opened it.

So some bloke down at the ANZ again, similar action,

back into court again and back before Master Lee

and in the meantime they had given me the updated

effort of our BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT, so we went through

that lot. How it happened, he said from the b~nch.	11Well, what you need is a bit of legal advice," and
he just mentioned declaratory proceedings and
gave his judgment. Nothing was said in the judgment;
no judgment recorded.

But that to me, as I saw it, back into the

High Court here again to seek a declaration in respect

to the point that I had been progressively working up.

Okay, well, I eventually came on then before the

Full Bench; eventually the documentation got filed

for a section 40 rei:wval asis the proper way to handle it

in this instance. seeing it was~still going through' the system.

That was heard by the Full Berich - well, it was a short bench actually, three judges, on 1 July last year.

Very early on in the proceedings they pointed out to me,

Gourt that can be raised. 11 I had not actually filed 11But you have not actually got a case now before the

an appeal against the ANZ. I had sort of let it go

but I still had the tax one. Anyway, I had raised
the matter of costs because that is another vital

bit under chapter IX to know:

No man shall be sold, deferred

or denied right or justice.

I argue you have got to put cash on the counter before

or after the event to · · have your case heard.	In the
ordinary meaning of the language everybody else
understands that that i.is selling justice.	That was

outlawed in Magna Carta and reinstated in Queensland

in 1984. So what we need is a re-interpretation of

what that word means in the light of rrodern technology .

C3Tl5/2/VH	30	28/2/89
Cusack

MR SKYRING (continuing):  Anyway, they basically heard my

argument out, where I outlined the basic situation

and closed on the latter part of the judgment which is what they gave me when I wanted to get a copy of

the judgment, wherein we basically honed in on the

matter, "Well look, the central point at issue really

is, where does our CONSTITUTION stand vis-a-vis

treaty obligations when treaty obligations set up

a situation which virtually can destroy the nation

whereas in fact our own CONSTITUTION does not."

So it is at this level really that the problem lies

because if you chase the thing back historically,

which I have done, in fact it seems to me that the

wording on those bank notes follows on from US practice.

The wording on the US bank notes, "This certificate

is legal tender for all debts public and private",

very very similar to what our, "Australian notes are

legal tender in Australia and its territories".

Now, if you chase back through the US Constitution

it is a moot point whether in fact that is a legal operation, but it seems to me very clear that that is there by treaty obligations and our currency is

there by our own inherited CONSTITUTION. So this is

really the level at which the problem really lies

and the question, if you go on a few more steps,

then, "Are we a sovereign nation?". Well, are we? This is

the point on which an adjudication has to be given

ultimately. Anyway, suffice to say that the

judgment on this occasion was that there was

insufficient substance to the points to merit removal

into the court at that time.

Now, the argument, of course, as I have said in

one of the earlier affidavits in this present round,

the whole thing centres on what that submission
substance means. Now, the first interpretation is

in respect of soundness of the legal argument, which

was the way Justice Deane originally framed it back

in 1985.	My interpretation to th.c}.t is. that becau.se
he did not rebut on any of the points that I had put

in the 1986 effort, and neither did the Fuli Court,

then, okay, the constitutional bar does stand.	So
it is not the legal argument.	It then becomes

a relation of the statute to a real life situation

on the ground.

That was in July 1986. There was then

subsequent to that Pat - certain things happened

in respect of him which was to eventually drag

me into a - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Mr Skyring, quite apart from any view I might

hold	about the matter,	the fact is that the
Full	Court of the High	Court has held that section 36
lS a	valid enactment.

C3Tl6/l/HS	31	28/2/89
Cusack

MR SKYRING:  Right. Now, let me take you up on that point.

There is a couple of levels in this. First of all- well

what you are saying is a 1985 judgment. In terms of what I have just outline to you which are later judgments I believe they would have been overruled.

HIS HONOUR:  A decision of the Full High Court of Australia

can only be overruled by a decision of the

Full High Court of Australia.

MR SKYRING:  I believe that is what has happened because

there have been two other Full Court decisions

since that 1985 one:	1986 and 1988, which have
in fact done just that.

HIS HONOUR:	What, in terms?
MR SKYRING:	It is not explicitly stated because of the

nature of this - you see the problem is that if,

in fact, this Court states this inequivocally that

causes absolute bloody chaos - pardon the French,

Your Honour - in society. So if it has to be done

it has to be done ver½ very gently and there has got

to be an alternate system in place so as not to

cause utter chaos in society because if in fact the

sort of declaration I am asking was made outright

bold, then it would not - I say it would cause

chaos, which brings u~ around to this process of what

we are trying to do. The last judgment was

insufficient substance to the point in the sense

of a real live case. Okay, my original effort

was 20 grand. Okay, that has now been jacked up

to about 100 grand in Pat's effort. Now, okay,

if we go on a little further then, in fact what we

start to get into then is the whole blooming

national financial system which really becomes

the next step because, you see, what we have got here

is an interaction - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Mr Skyring, the question is, is not it,

whether or not section 36(1) of the RESERVE BANK ACT

is a valid enactment.

MR SKYRING:  In so far as the feds are empowered to

legislate in the arena, yes, but for paper money

to be called legal tender, which is effectively

what has happened, if you take section Sl(xii) -

firstly, be it noted that that enactment is in the RESERVE BANK ACT, not in the CURRENCY ACT.

Now, this is where it has to do with the whole operation of the banking system, and this where

one really needs to pick up another line of arguments

of some fairly celebrated judgments of the
Full Bench of this Court which have been given

over a period of time, not least the three decisions

in 1932 which was to culminate in Sir Phillip

going and firing Jack Lang as a result of decisions

that were made. I do not know if you have ever read the law reports

or not. It is very interesting. I commend it to you.

C3Tl6/l/HS	32	28/2/89
Cusack

MR SKYRING (continuing): It is:32 CLR 155 to 255. )'}ow., what in·fact

happened on that lot, is that the initial action there centered on

what 'the make' meant in section 105 _A. which was

added as a result of a referendum in 1927 to try
and get the national finances - - -

HIS HONOUR:	Not a referendum, the financial agreeme.i.1.t.
MR SKYRING:	Pardon?
HIS HONOUR:	The financial agreement.
MR SKYRING:	Yes, but it was what meant by that make. Now, if

you read:..at the time the Chief Justice Gavan Duffy

and Justice Evatt reckoned that the Act that what the

HIS HONOUR:  They were dissenters, .. were they not?

MR SKYRING: 

- - - feds had passed was invalid and the other

three -I think there was only a five-member bench in
those days, the other three said, no, it was not, and

it passed.  So she moved on two other steps.

Now, in fact, that was in about April/May of 1932.

Now, it is to be noted that, in fact, it was in about

the middle of 1931 that our gold currency was withdrawn.

Whereas, as the jargon of the day, Your Honour,

'we went off the gold standard".

Now, Jack Lang gave instruction to his officers not - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, I know, but Mr Skyring, in 1959 the

RESERVE BANK ACT was passed.

MR SKYRING:  Right, okay. In the meantime, there had been

the Royal Cammission of 1937 into the financial system;

it was interesting that: there was - again I have seen

parts of the report of that lot - why there had been a

subrni,~sion made by the grm:p i.n support of Douglas Credit as it

then was-	'1:hey were on to this sort of thing that we are
onto now but only in a rather more developed effort.

Basically, the point that was made in that royal

commission was - or what the Douglas Credit_ point

they sought to make was that there is insufficient credit to bow to balance the books with the assets

if one does a proper balance sheet.

Now, the royal commissioner dismissed that lot.

And having dismissed that, then went on to say that,
"Well look it_has.caused too much chaos and they

could not see how to do it". That is not to say it

was wrong. They could not see how to do it which is

really the crux of the matter.

C3Tl7/l/JH.	33	28/2/89
Cu.sack

Now, it is to be noted that there was a dissenting report put in at that Royal Commission by one

J.B. Chifley,	who was later to become Treasurer
and Prime Minister.	He

was on about this nationalization of the banks

which got to be rather a dirty word. That action

then went through the Court and eventually got into

the Privy Council and it was knocked back on section 92.

Now, as I have argued in other places, no one has ever demonstrated at all that the essential functions

of banking, which is creation of money in the
dematerialized form of credit, is properly regarded as

trade; therefore, that the action was even properly

heard under section 92. It was but it was a wacking,

great presumption and I believe it was a wrong

presumption. So the BANK NATIONALIZATION case, al though

it passed through the system - and the upsnot of it was

that, in fact, the then Commonwealth Bank had to be

split into a trading bank which made it look like the

other trading banks and the Reserve Bank which
retained the sovereign functions.

Now, again, it is of particular interest here to

note that the form that the Reserve Bank takes is
remarkably similar to the form of the federal reserve

system in the USA.

HIS HONOUR:  I am only relying on my memory. But was there not

a RESERVE BANK ACT of 1975 and was not that Act brought

in by the Chifley government? That was before the

BANK NATIONALIZATION case in 1948-49.

MR SKYRING:  Well, okay, I was not aware of that one, to be

quite honest with you. What one needs to realize here

in respect to this Reserve Bank format, that if

one reads the history of how the federal reserve has
got through in the US, again there was a monumental
fraud in that one as well. And it is a moot point

whether in fact, that, which is forming the basis of

the who\e deal, is, in fact, constitutionally correct,
even in the US.	Now, just because of the sheer

industrial might of the US, of course, and their

financial clout through. their banking system, when

we literally have it imposed on us here and this - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Well, there have been two constitutional cases in

the United States concerning the validity of notes.

The first one, the United States Supreme Court held

that notes were not legal tender within the meaning of

the United States Constitution and after a short period

that decision was reversed. Those decisions were, if I

remember rightly, in the period of 1860-1870.

MR SKYRING:  Right. Well, that is very interesting. Because I

had, in ~act, concluded the first one myself, ?aving had

C3Tl7/~/JH 34 28/2/89

Cusack (Continued on page 34A)

basis of ours. But, it those bank notes were	a read of the US Constitution ~vhich formed the
able to - - -

HIS HONOUR:	They are called the legal tender cases.
MR SKYRING:	I was not aware of that one.

(Continued on page 35)

C3Tl7/2/JH	34A	28/2/89
Cusack·
MR SKYRING:	I was not aware of that one.	Now, the way,

of course - it was flowed and Abe Lincoln wanted

to finance the northerners in the Civil War and

he went to the private bankers and they wanted 24 per cent

interest: "Blow you, mate, I will print my own"·,

which is how the bank notes got printed; that was

the original green back dollar. But, again, this

has got to be related, of course - this starts

to get on to the subject which is relevant to what

is happening in this country because if one looks

at the US Constitution as vis-a-vis our own, this

starts to become important because this is where

the real problem lies.

Under the US Constitution it is very clear

there - section 8 paragraph 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and

collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United

States, but all Duties, Imposts and Excises

shall be uniform throughout the United States -

so you have hung what is generally regarded as the

Crown's purposes by taxation. The second one:

To borrow Money on the Credit of the United

States.

Outright. Naw, it is that bit, in fact, that Abe Lincoln

was into in 1861 and it was here where he first got

on to this notion, in effect, of this sovereign right

of creation of money. That is the point, in effect,

which is the driving force ultimately behind when

we are about here, in a sense, and, of course, what got the act together sufficiently to be able to make

it all work. But to solve the world's international

monetary problem something of the like, of something

in this order has to be done.

I would take it you would be familiar with -

one of the main things which has been driving me,

in this I.Mech.E: paper ~hat I mentioned.

Abraham Lincoln's views were recorded by the Library of Congress - Legislative Reference Service, as tmder:

nGovernment possessing the power to create

and issue currency and credit as money and

enjoying the right to withdraw both currency

and credit from circulation by taxation
and otherwise, need not and should not

borrow capital at interest as a means of

financing governmental work and public

enterprise. The privilege of creating and

issuing money is not only the supreme

C3Tl8/l/MB	35	28/2/89
Cusack

prerogative of Government, but it is the

Government's greatest creative opportunity.

'By the adoption of these principles,

the long-felt want for a uniform medium will

be satisfied. The tax-payers will be saved

immense sums of interest, discounts and

exchanges. The financing of all public

enterprise, the maintenance of stable

government and ordered progress the conduct

of the Treasury will become matters of

practical administration. The people

can and will be furnished with a currency

as safe as their own Government. Money will

cease to be master and become the servant
of humanity."

So said Abe Lincoln. It seems now, given he was known as the great emancipator, it seems to me he was right on to it. Oka.y, so why did it not happen?

Well, this, again, brings us back to the formation of

the federal reserve in the US in 1911 which is influencing what is happening in this country to this day. If I could read two very short

segments, Your Honour, because in 1904 Teddy Roosevelt,

in fact, did try to move in this direction but he

got very, very heavily jumped on by the financial

interests. That absolutely wrecked what he was about.

There is about half a page. It is worth reading into

the record just to ~~ke it a little bit clearer what

happened with·Abe Lincoln. There was a bit I have

just read to you which was in this paper as well.

The comment on this text:

Lincoln established a true national currency

by the issue of notes, popularly known as

"greenbacks", but commenting on this action

the London "Times" stated:

"If that mischievous financial policy which

had its origin in the North American Republic

during the late war in that country should

become indurated down to a fixture, then

Government will furnish its own money without

cost. It will pay off its debt and be

without a debt. It will have all the money

necessary to carry on its commerce. It

will become prosperous beyond precedent in the
history of the civilized government of the world.

That Government must be destroyed; or it will

destroy every monarchy on the globe.

Now, it is a matter - this is the financial interest

talking.

C3Tl8/2/MB	36	28/2/89
Cusack

In regard to Lincoln's death by an assassin's

bullet, Emil Ludwig, in his "Life of Lincoln",

1:·rrote: "Two years before his death, a secret

society for the assassination of Lincoln had

been financed in Richmond by wealthy persons."

Okay, if we jump over then, that was what happened

to Abe Lincoln. Okay, Teddy Roosevelt had a go

then in 1904 to try and smarten the place up. I will

just short-circuit it just to give you the final bit

at the end, which is the punch line:

Held by the Throat:

"The banks held the country by the throat.

If any depositor moved by legal process, the great magnates could carry him from court to

court for years. If the Government enforced the
law of cash redemptions the Banking Trust
threatened to close its doors. Only a
revolutionary seizure, that Congress was not

prepared to enforce or the press to endorse,

could defeat the conspiracy of the financial

thuggery.

"The London 'Standard' .... reported what

followed. It said: 'Mr Pierpont Morgan is in

virtual control.	He has made it too strenuous
even for Mr Roosevelt.	Mr Roosevelt sent an

invitation to Mr Morgan to come to White House

and discuss the situation. Mr Morgan consented

to go only when Mr Rcosevelt sent him a personal

letter, promising a different attitude towards

financial interests in future.

Okay, now carrying on - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Mr Skyring, I have heard you at great length.

You have got to come back to the fundamental question

of section 36. (Continued on page 38)

C3Tl8/3/MB- .	37	28/2/89
Cusack

MR SKYRING: 

Okay, what I am saying is that in fact while

the feds can pass legislation as they have done
in respect of legal tender - which they are empowered
to under section 51 (xii) which relates to currency -

there is, in fact, this nasty little provision
of section 115.

HIS HONOUR: 

You accept the section 115, now?

MR SKYRING: 

The second part of it.

A State shall not coin money -

well, okay, that is pretty straight forward and

that is how the margin note goes -

nor make anything but gold and silver coin

a legal tender in payment of debts.

This gets back, then, to the whole nature of

the federal compact, and what it is and what

actually happened when our Federation was formed.

This wa_s spelt out rather well in the Law of Agency

which was mentioned in another Yankee text that

I had come about where there has been later action

to try an~ spring things in the US. The· Law

of Agency - there is a page - it is worth reading

in relation to the US estimate and it applies

with equal force here in respect of the States

versus the Commonwealth:

The original thirteen Nations, recognized

as such by the Treaty of Peace which concluded

the Revolutionary War, created the Federal

government.

Following the War for Independence,

the thirteen nation-states organized themseves

as the United States under a mutual compact,

the Constitution of the United States.

Every succeeding State entered the

Union of States, " ... upon an equal footing
with the original States .....

The constitutional contract established,

in the first three Articles, three branches

of government: Legislative, Executive and

Judicial. The People, through their State

deputies, delegated to these three agencies

certain limited powers, retaining unto

themselves all powers not so delegated.

Each sovereign State, as a Principal

under the constitutional compact, is supreme

over its Federal agencies. The State is
empowered to correct acts by its Federal

agents which IT deems violate delegated

powers enumerated in the Articles of the

Constitution.

C3Tl9/1/SDL	38	28/2/89
Cusack

Each sovereign State has the authority

and the responsibility to enforce provisions

of the Constitution within its borders,

and to provide criminal sanctions for violators.

The People, from whom flow all political

powers, are responsible for instructing

their State senators and representatives

to challenge unconstitutional acts by Federal
agents, as they are required to do by oath
of office.

Each citizen is charged with the mission

of defending and preserving freedoms of
persons and property guaranteed to the People
by the Constitution of the United States.

Okay, so the feds can act but they are not free

agents, and this is the point which seems to

be misunderstood. This comes about, no doubt,

because of the parallel with the UK system where

it is an unitary State as opposed to a Federation -

this with the amalgamation of Scotland in 1603 and

Ireland in 1800. So they think there in terms

of an unitary State, not a Federation like we

have got here.

Clearly, then, the situation replies in

respect of that ....• in·section 115. Okay, the

feds have acted to call paper money legal tender.

Interestingly, as I have noted before, that is

in the RESERVE BANK ACT. I would draw your attention

to section 22 of the CURRENCY ACT which specifically

excludes paper from being legal tender. Very

very clear.- and this is where the conflict comes

and somebody has got to do something about it

because we have the CURRENCY ACT which, in broad

principle, to my mind, is right - there are a

few minor points that I would haggle with about

the smaller denomination coinage but, in broad

principle, that section 22 makes it very, very

clear that paper is excluded.

A person shall not make or issue a piece

of gold, silver, copper, nickel, bronze or of any other material ..... as a token for money or as purporting that the holder

is entitled to demand any value denoted

on it.

Now,	that makes - if you look at the CURRENCY
ACT -	then that makes it very very clear that
paper	money is not legal tender. It cannot be;
it is	outlawed.

C3Tl9/2/SDL	39	28/2/89
Cusack

HIS HONOUR: Well, it is only directed to a person. It

surely is not directed to the Commonwealth because,

if it was directed to the Commonwealth, the

Commonwealth could not even issue any gold coins.

MR CUSACK: 

No, no, it allows gold but section 22 allows coin under the Act.

MR SKYRING: 

Now, this is where we can get down to it nicely·

These notes are, in fact, printed by the Reserv~
Bank and they are a co~porate person

and, interestingly they are r~gistered in the phone

book as being private outfits, not government

instrumentalities.

So, in fact, there is a very - well, the upshot

of it all is, Your Honour, that we have a situation

on the ground which, if one puts a normal meaning

on words and, in the end - this is what the ordinary

folk have to do and the law is for the ordinary folk -

"Guidance to wise men and obedient a fool may be" -

but, ultimately, it is for the ordinary folk to-be

interpreted in the normal meaning of words. Now,

that was a decision by - a~ain, going back earlier
in my little book by Professor Gifford which was the

one that I cited earlier:

The plain meaning rule is the basic rule for

the reading of any Act of Parliament. If the

meaning of the words is plain, the plain

meaning rule is applied; and there is no room

to use any other rule at all.

So, that is your plain meaning rule. Then, coupled

with this, then, we have the matter of absurdity

which is what, in fact, we have here. Now, on this

one - this was, in fact, what I quoted in my original

letter of objection to the Taxation Department: There is a rule that an Act of Parliament

should be read in such a way as to avoid a

result of manifest absurdity or injustice.

"An absurd result ... is only to be accepted

if there is no acceptable alternative

available. "

That was given by Justice Windeyer here in FORBES V

TRADERS FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED, (1971) 45 ALJR 668,

at page 672 which, I presume, was a High Court decision.

Right, so, now going on from there:

It must always be borne in mind that it is

not for the person reading the Act of

Parliament to substitute his own ideas of

C3T20/l/SH	40	28/2/89
Cusack

justice for Parliament's ideas of justice.

He may not agree with the way in which

Parliament has dealt with a matter in the

Act of Parliament, but it is not for him

to agree or disagree on policy when seeking

to find the meaning of the Act of Parliament -

But this raises the matter of the courts -

"The duty of the court, and its only duty,

is to expound the language of the Act in

accordance with the settled rules of

construction. It is ... as unwise as it is

unprofitable to cavil at the policy of an

Act of Parliament, or to pass a covertcensure on the legislature."

So, this is where it is that it seems, to us, to be

right, that this matter be brought before the courts

and what we are asking is an interpretation - well,

against the general or ordinary meaning of words in

respect of a statute in situations prevailing on the

ground and we say there is an enormous conflict.

Now, carrying on from there, on the matter of

conflict:

Chief Justice Barrowclough of the Supreme Court
of New Zealand expressed the position clearly

when he said:

"Even if the literal construction did appear

to be absurd and inconvenient it would not

necessarily follow that the court ought to

refrain from giving to the proviso its

ordinary meaning if that meaning is plain

and unequivocally expressed in the statute

Even if the literal construction of

the proviso did result in an absurdity ... it

is still our duty to decide that the proviso

must have its literal and plain grammatical	meaning and to leave to the legislature the	task of providing a remedy if any remedy be
thought desirable or necessary.

So, in fact - and this is why I originally brought

the matter before the Court back in 1985 - was to

get in the first instance a simple statement, a

declaration that, "Look, we have a conflict and

we have an absurd situation which demands action

by the legislature and that is not going beyond

your duty. Indeed, it is your bounden duty to so

state" and that is all, in effect, we are asking.

Okay, now, once you make that declaration, of course,

then, that is -

C3T20/2/SH 41 28/2/89

Cusack	(Continued on page 41A)
HIS HONOUR:	Mr Skyring, the dual system of notes and coinage has operated in this country for a very long period
of time.  There was an AUSTRALIAN NOTES ACT as
long ago as 1910 - - -

MR SKYRING: Right. Yes, fair enough. I am not disputing

that.

HIS HONOUR:	And there were CURRENCY ACTS.
MR SKYRING:	Right.  I am not disputing any of that. The point

I am on about is the one that Pat pointed up.

Following on from what Justice McPherson said, as

he cited here earlier, section 16 of the CURRENCY ACT

binds him on what is legal tender.	I presume it will be
equally binding on yourself.

If you have a look at the schedules, that refers

to coinage only.

(Continued on page 42)

C3T20/3/SH	41A	28/2/89
Cusack

MR SKYRING (continuing):  I am entitled to pay and be

paid in that medium and nothing else. And we do

riot hav·e any and the statutes say we should have

and I demand that we have it. And that is why I brought the action. I have gone for the tax

commissioner because he is the key bloke. He

is after the Crown's purposes - the funding

of the Crown's purposes. If I cannot pay him

then okay, then the nation has real problems

and that is the stance I have taken. I cannot

pay or I have not paid because I cannot pay

strictly legally in terms of what Justice ·McPherson

said and I believe in that he is quite correct

as the Act is now framed and if I cannot pay

legally I will not pay at all.

That is a stand-up situation, then, of me

versus the authorities. I am not breaking the

law, I am seeking to play strictly by the law.

Therein lies the problem and it is that one which needs to be addressed. The upshot of

it all is that, okay, if you unspring that one

then there is an enormous lot of other stuff

which has got to be put into shape and it is

that really which is the point of what our mission

is about, it is to try and assist the process,

having discovered that it is wrong, brought

it to the authorities.

Again, back in the early eighties when I

first got into this there was a rather interesting

item - - -

HIS HONOUR:	I have listened to you for two hours - - -
MR SKYRING:	- - - by the then Governor of the Reserve Bank,

if, in fact, a person discovers a counterfeit - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Mr Skyring, I have listened to you and

Mr Cusack for two hours. I will hear you if

you have got anything further to say about the

validity of 36 but I cannot allow you to continue

discussing the background of this.

MR SKYRING:  Okay, I have gone into the background,

Your Honour, because it seems to me that it

is pretty essential that one understands the

background because you cannot take things in

isolation. The law is not to be construed in

isolation, it has got to be said in its political

and social context and that is the point of

the mission. It is very clear if one takes,

as ordinary folk are concerned, that there is

an enormous problem. Pat's is a case is point

of the sort of thing that happens if, in fact,

this problem is not addressed

C3T21/l/ND	42	28/2/89
Jauncey

Not only is there - at the federal level there is the federal/State's rights in respect

of the currency, what has been done and who

ought to act. But then, of course, we have

still got the residual individual rights which,

in effect, reside with the States. This is

where this - just if I could follow up on Pat's

argument, now, because that does involve me

as well. But, in fact - - -

HIS HONOUR:  I follow you now, I understand what you both

put. I will have to ask Mr Cusack, is there

any further matter that you want to put,

Mr Cusack?

(Continuing on page 44)

C3T21/2/ND	43	28/2/89
Jauncey

MR CUSACK: 

I was just a little concerned to understand

properly, Your Honour, what documentation you had.
Mv most recent affidavit referred to a series - - -

HIS HONOUR: 

The documentation I have consists of your

summons of 20 February, the affidavit in support

of that dated 18 February -

MR CUSACK:  Which refers to three other affidavits in the

early part. Those other affidavits - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. The original summons which Justice Wilson

put the notation on; your affidavit which sets out

your arguments.- that is, the affidavit dated

15 December; and together with the forms pf the

writs.

MR CUSACK: It stops at that point.

HIS HONOUR:  No, I have got the affidavit of 25 November 1988.

MR CUSACK: With a large number of exhibits.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

MR CUSACK: The very thiclc one. That is all right. Thank

you, Your Honour. Listening, I begin to sense what

is being attempted here. I think all the major

points have been covered, probably not adequately

in my case but I plead the mercy of the Court for a

layman - - -

HIS HONOUR:  I do not think either of you should apologize.

You have both put your cases very eloquently and

very powerfully and I am indebted to you both for

the way you have stated your case.

MR CUSACK: There is one thing I would speak to very briefly,

Your Honour. It is the fact of the novelty of what

we seek and I have not spoken to that specifically.

The term'certiorari' is very well recognized in the

legal profession but it is a staid work-horse which

has a very, very functional and isolated purpose:

the quashing of judgments which are absolutely
unquestionably bad on their face. The process as

we seek it to issue in this instance is very much

an engineer's view of what certiorari is and can

be -- reconstituted into from its origins, going back

to its origins before it became atrophied into the

lesser role.

The fact of innovation is something which,

apparently, does not fit well within the legal

context, largely by virtue of the admirable

characteristic of relying on precedent; ..a worthy

process but one which tends to resist innovation

by its very nature. I have no real confidence that

C3T22/l/BR	44	28/2/89
Cusack

an innovative process can be admitted within a system

that relies entirely on precedent and I would urge

the court to consider no precedent in this case except the precedent of 3 1700 and the calendar

when this process was available.

HIS HONOUR:  Mr Cusack, it is impossible for me to disregard

what has been said by the Full Court of the High

Court on this matter as it is impossible for me to

disregard what has been said by Justice Deane and

Justice Wilson in similar applications.

MR CUSACK: True. No, I am only speaking to the form of the

process, Your Honour, the multi-stage nature of the

process.

HIS HONOUR:  I understand. Y-ou seek to interpret certiorari

as it was used many centuries ago when it was

regarded really as a means of obtaining information

on the part of the monarch·,

MR CUSACK:	True, on the authority of the monarch from others. The Crown calling into question what has been raised
in the issue. In that case, Your Honour, the
judgments that have - - -
HIS HONOUR:	This application will not turn on that, on any

question of procedure, Mr Cusack.

MR CUSACK:  Fine. I think Justice Deane and the Full Court

have been addressed fairly thoroughly by Mr Skyring

so I think I will leave it at that, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, I am indebted to you both. I will give

judgment in these matters. I will commence with

the matter for an application by Alan. George

Skyring, number CS of 1989.

(Continued on page 46)

C3T22/2/BR	45	28/2/89
Cusack

HIS HONOUR (continuing): This is an application for leave to

issue process. On 7 February 1989, Justice Wilson,

pursuant to Order 58 rule 4(3) of the High Court Rules, directed that process in this matter "not

issue without the leave of a Justice first had and

obtained". The process which the applicant seeks to

have issued involves a number of writs directed to

various officers of the Commonwealth.

The first one is a writ of certiorari for the

removal into this Court for the purposes of

certain provisions contained" in a number of

determining "the validity, relative to the

Commonwealth statutes. The statutes are the RESERVE

BANK ACT 1959, the COMMONWEALTH BANK ACT 1959, the
BANKING ACT 1959, the CURRENCY ACT 1965 and the INCO1:1E

TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936. The writ of certiorari is

to be directed to "the Attorney-General of the

Commonwealth of Australia and others".

The applicant also seeks a writ of prohibition "directed to the judges of the Federal Court of

Australia prohibiting them and each of them,

together with the Commissioner of Taxation, from

proceeding further in the action against A.G. SKYRING

under Bankruptcy Notice No.1378 of 1988" and "a writ

of certiorari be issued to remove from the Federal

Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of Queensland,

quashing orders and judgments given by those courts	in 1987 and 1988 against A.G.SKYRING".
The third writ is a writ of prohibition "directed to the officer of the Commonwealth popularly
known as the 'Prime Minister' prohibiting him in
his public activities from exceeding those which are
relevant to his proper constitutional role, defined Further process in the nature of a writ of

T23	as 'First Lord of the Treasury'."
mandamus is also sought to be issued against:

Minister for Finance, commanding them and each	" ... The First Lord of the Treasury and the
of them to institute a proper legislative
framework to facilitate the work of 'the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia in
arranging the necessary finance for the proper
conduct of a nation's affairs'and 'the
Taxation Commissioner of the Commonwealth to
oversee the proper application of the finance
so raised' to the end that the money of the
realm shall maintain its value and that all
necessary social development of the nation shall not be hindered but shall be accomplished at
equitable rates of rem.meration for all who participate
constructively therein ... "

C3T24/l/RB	46	28/2/89
Cusack

The basis of the present application is set out

in an affidavit filed by Mr Skyring dated

15 December 1988. In paragraph (2) he states:

"Suffice it to say that if I am to get any

relief at all from my overall predicament,

then proper and definitive judicial

determinationsare required on the following

points:-

. The validity of s.36(1) of the Reserve

Bank Act 1959 (and by implication, s.14 of

the Currency Act 1965), versus ss.5l(xii),

(xiii), (xvi) and 115 of the Corrnnonwealth

Constitution, and ss .16 & 22 of the Currency

Act 1965, taken together.

. The validity of the provisions of the

various Banking Acts in respect of the creation
of credit and the associated mortgage provisions
on property, versus rights of individuals
secured under the inherited Cap.8 of Magna
Carta, still in force.

. The validity of the provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act as a whole, in particular

(and by implication those of all other acts used

to finance the Crown's purposes by "taxation"
in its various forms), versus rights of individuals

secured under the inherited Cap.29 of Magna Carta,

still in force.

The validity of the statutes and Court Rules

in respect of the levying of costs in actions

at law through the Courts, versus rights of
individuals secured under the inherited Cap.29

of Magna Carta, still in force.

. The validity of the present "political

conventions" determining parliamentary practice

versus the written constitutional provisions,

ss.61-64, which set out the configuration of

the Executive arm of the national government -

insofar as the present "subverted" order of

government at the highest administrative levels

of the nation, as manifested in present

Parliamentary practice, has been brought

about by and/or is causing the "corrupting"

influences in society at large (but

particularly the financial community thereof}

and which is associated with arrangements

formalized by the abovementioned statutory

provisions."

The reason why the writs should issue in this case

is set out in paragraph 4 of the same affidavit where

Mr Skyring states that:

C3T24/2/RB	47	28/2/89
Cusack

"Only the processes associated with the prerogative

writs of Certiorari (used in its pristine form),

Prohibition and Mandamus have anything like the

power necessary to deal with such problems.

Accordingly therefore this application is made

for the issue of Certiorari in the first instance
to bring into court for certification and

review, the offending statutes - and those

officers of the Cormnonwealth through whom they

are administered - that appropriate remedial
action may be put in train in the overall

interest of the peace, order and good government

r24	of the nation as a whole."
It will be seen that the basis of the application

is a far-reaching attack on the legal framework of the

financial system operating in Australia. It is

apparent that, in particular, Mr Skyring wishes to

challenge the validity of section 36(1) of the

RESERVE BANK ACT 1959, which provides:

"Australian notes are a legal tender	throughout Australia. 11
The alleged invalidity of this sub-section is

fundamental to Mr Skyring's attack on the validity

of the financial system operating in this country.

It was also argued alternatively that section 36(1)

was impliedly repealed by the CURRENCY ACT 1965. But

there is no substance in this argument.

It is plain enough that section 36(1) of the

RESERVE BANK ACT, 1959, is authorized by the

provisions of section 5l(xii) of the Cormnonwealth of

Australia CONSTITUTION ACT, 1900. I did not

understand Mr Skyring to dispute that, prima facie,

this was so. However, he seized on the provisions

of section 115 of the CONSTITUTION which provide

that:

A State shall not coin money, nor make anything

but gold and silver coin a legal tender in

payment of debts.

As I understood his argument, the provisions

of section 115 prevent the Cormnonwealth from making

r25	notes legal tender in payment of debts. I am unable to accept this argument. Section 115 is directed to the States, not the Connnonwealth. It would be
sufficient to dispose of this summons on the ground
that the argument of the applicant breaks down at the threshold. But independently of my own views concerning the matter, this Court, on a number of occasions, has dealt with this or a similar argument on the part of
Mr Skyring and Mr Cusack and has upheld the validity
of the relevant provisions which Mr Skyring in the present application seeks to attack.

C3T26/l/RB	48	28/2/89
Cusack

In 1985 in RE SKYRING, 58 ALR 629, Justice Deane

considered an application for leave to issue "five

documents" directed to different government ministers.

In the course of his jud·gment His Honour said at

pages 630 to 631:

"The affidavit (ie the affidavit filed in

those proceedings by Mr Skyring) refers to
previous proceedings in this court, the
Federal Court and the Supreme Court of

Queensland. It indicates that Mr Skyring seeks to have litigated both a general attack

upon the national financial system and a number

of more particular complaints relating to an

objection lodged by him to his taxation

assessment in respect, apparently, of the

1979 tax year and to objection taken by him

to other charges exacted by "Crown

instrumentalities" such as Telecom Australia."

After considering the submissions of Mr Skyring,

Justice Deane said at page 633:

"The overall attack remains one upon the

Australian financial system and to some

extent the Australian legal system. The

objective of the attack is to obtain a
general review and reform of the law of

those areas."

His Honour then set out two specific submissions of

T26 Mr Skyring and said, at page 633:

"I have come to a clear conclusion that there

is no substance in the argument that there
is a constitutional bar against the issue of

the Commonwealth of paper money as legal
tender nor, in my view, would there be any

substance in an argument that the provisions

of section 36(1) of the Reserve Bank Act, 1959,

are invalidated or overruled by the provisions

of the Currency Act, 1965."

An appeal from that decision was heard by a Full Court

of this Court consisting of Justices Mason, Wilson,

Brennan and Dawson. Their Honours said:

Having listened attentively to the submissions
made by the appellant in support of this

appeal, we are not persuaded that the

judgment of Justice Deane contains any error.

We should say, in addition, that the power conferred upon the Commonwealth Parliament by section 5l(ii) of the CONSTITUTION to

legislate with respect to taxation extends

to the imposition of taxation and its

C3T27/l/SH 49 28/2/89

Cusack

collection even though it has the effect

of requiring the person on whom taxation is levied to pay the tax out of property

which he owns.

I perhaps should mention that Justice Wilson has also heard an application for the issue of

certiorari by Mr Skyring directed to the quashing

of a conviction against him for an offence under

section 52 of the RESERVE BANK ACT, 1959. In the

course of his judgment, His Honour referred to

Mr Skyring' s contention that section 36 ( l_) of the

RESERVE BANK ACT was beyond the legislative power

of the Cormnonwealth and went on to refer to what

had been said by Justice Deane on 6 February 1985

in the judgment to which I have referred and also to what was said by the Full Court of this Court.

Justice Wilson said that there was no doubt,

on the materials before the Court, of the validity of section 52(a) of the RESERVE BANK ACT, 1959, or

that Mr Skyring had been rightly convicted of an

offence under the section.

In the circumstances, it is plain that the

matters which are sought to be litigated by the issue
of process in this case have been already litigated

and ruled on by the Full Court and by Justice Deane

in 1985. Mr Skyring sought to distinguish the

judgment of the Full Court by suggesting that it

has been overruled by implication by subsequent

decisions of the Court, apparently in further

applications brought by him. However, I was not

referred to any remarks of this Court specifically

reversing that decision.

In the circumstances, to allow the matter to

proceed would be futile. The only order which I

can make is that the application for leave to

issue process in this matter be refused. I so order.

r27 I now deal with the application brought by

Mr Cusack in matter No C4 of 1989.

This is an application for leave to issue the process reviewed by Justice Wilson on 7 February 1989.

On that date, pursuant to Order 58 rule 4(3) of the

High Court Rules, Justice Wilson directed that certain

process - which he identified - should not issue

without the leave of a Justice first had and obtained.

The relief sought in this application is

substantially similar to that sought in the matter

of the application of ALAN SKYRING with which I have

just dealt. I have carefully read the documentation

C3T28/l/SH	50	28/2/89
Cusack

filed in support of this application, and no useful

purpose would be served in setting it out at length.

However, the essence of the claim is, I think, set

out in paragraphs 2 to 4 of an affidavit of

Mr Cusack sworn on 15 December 1988. I will set

them out.

Mr Cusack says:

"2. The two levels at which conflict between

statutory provisions has arisen in the hearing

of these matters are related to two separate

issues, viz:-

. actions of the Crown in issuing "tokens

for money", for circulation and use within the various states of the Commonwealth, in the form of "Australia Notes", "purporting
that the holder (of any such Note) is entitled

to demand any value denoted on it", i.e. that

Australian Notes are "a legal tender", and

. the creation and issue of credit by private

commercial trading banks against 'security' of
a mortgage taken over private property, which

mortgage contains unjust and inequitable

provisions purporting to confer a 'power of

sale' on the mortgagee.

3. The first issue has been referred to as the

"currency question" and cannot be resolved
without formal and definitive judicial
determination by this honourable Court of
the constitutional basis for each of the

present forms of "legal tender" now in

T28	circulation. The alleged "legal tender" status
of Australian Notes (issued pursuant to s.36(1)
of the RESERVE BANK ACT 1959) cannot be maintained
in the face of the clear constitutional standing
which can be demonstrated for the alternative
form of "money token", viz. gold and silver
coin, issued pursuant to provisions of the CURRENCY ACT,1965, with which Australian
Notes are in clear legal conflict.
4. The second issue requires formal and
definitive judicial determination of the constitutional validity of the alleged
"Power of Sale" provisions incorporated in a
mortgage given over private property, which
provisions are seen to be in conflict with
inherited provisions of Cap.8 of the
Magna Carta, still in force."

In his oral sul:missions today, Mr Cusack has elaborated on the grounds why certiorari should issue and, in

C3T29/l/SH	51	28/2/89
Cusack

addition, in paragraph 4 of an affidavit filed

dated 16 February 1988, he has set out what are

the crucial questions of law which he says arise

in the matter. They are stated to be:

". the validity of certain federal statute
provisions, vis-a-vis the Connnonwealth

Constitution at federal level, and

. mortgagee 'Power of Sale' provisions,

vis-a-vis State statutes, especially

those inherited, i.e. Cap. 8 of the

'Magna Carta' (c.f. No.70 of 1984 (Qld)

at state level ... "

The validity of the various statutory provisions

now sought to be impugned were, as I pointed out in

the application of ALAN SKYRING, upheld by

Justice Deane in a reported decision, namely, In

the Matter of an Application by ALAN GEORGE SKYRING,

(No 2), 59 ALJR 561. The decision of His Honour

was upheld by the Full Court of this Court on
9 July 1985.

Moreover, in RE CUSACK, (1985) 60 ALJR 302, an application by Mr Cusack for the issue of writs

of certiorari to be directed against

"Mr Justice Spender, a Judge of the Federal Court

of Australia, in respect of decisions delivered by

His Honour on 6 November 1984 and 29 November 1984"

T29 was the subject of a decision by Justice Wilson.

In that case, His Honour said (at page 303)

that the submission made by Mr Cusack was similar:

" ... to that advanced by Alan George Skyring

in support of an application for a writ of

certiorari against L.P. Mitchell Esq. S.M.

which has been heard with the present matter.

In this regard I see no reason to doubt the

relation to the validity of the currency and	correctness of the decision of Spender Jin
banking system in Australia. 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 invalidity by reference to
alleged inconsistencies between laws of the
Commonwealth and either Magna Carta or the
Bill of Rights ... "

His Honour quoted from and followed the decision of Justice Deane in RE SKYRING's APPLICATION (fu 2),

(1985) 59 ALJR 561. He refused the application of

C3T30/l/SH	52	28/2/89
Cusack

Mr Cusack for the issue of the writs of certiorari,

saying:

"To allow them to proceed would be to
initiate a process that could end only

in futility and expense and inconvenience

to the parties."

The challenge to the constitutional validity of the federal statutes is precluded by the decisions to

which I have referred. But, in any event, I am

clearly of opinion for the reasons I gave in

Mr Skyring's application that there is no substance in the attack on these statutes.

The second ground upon which Mr Cusack sought

to rely in support of the issue of the process was
that power of sale provisions in mortgages generally

and in respect of a mortgage with which he is concerned

T30 in particular are in conflict with Magna Carta.

Mr Cusack candidly informed me that mortgagee

power of sale provisions are authorized by statutes

of the Queensland Parliament. However, he argued that they were invalid because of Magna Carta and

because of what he referred to as "common equity."

It is sufficient to say that in so far as the

Queensland Parliament has authorized the use of

power sale provisions in mortgages, that is a

complete answer to any challenge, based on the

general provisions of Magna Carta or, on what

Mr Cusack described as, "grounds of common equity."

In the circumstances, the only order that can be made is that leave to issue the process be refused.

I so order.

AT 12.54 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

C3T31/l/SH	53	28/2/89
Cusack