Jury v NSW Sheriff, Jury v State of NSW, Wilson v NSW Sheriff

[2006] NSWSC 988

CITATION:	Jury v NSW Sheriff, Jury v State of NSW, Wilson v NSW Sheriff [2006] NSWSC 988
HEARING DATE(S):	19 September 2006
JURISDICTION:	Common Law
JUDGMENT OF:	Michael Grove J at 1
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	09/19/2006
DECISION:	OBJECTION TO COMPETENCY OVERRULED
CATCHWORDS:	COURTS AND JUDGES - LEGITIMACY OF ESTABLISHMENT OF SUPREME COURT AND APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES CHALLENGED - PROPOSITIONS WHOLLY UNTENABLE AND MISCONCEIVED
PARTIES:	Eric Abraham Jury v New South Wales Sheriff Eric Abraham Jury v State of New South Wales John Wilson v New South Wales Sheriff
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 20294/06; 20281/06; 20310/06
COUNSEL:	In person (Plaintiffs) R.H. Weinstein (Defendants)
SOLICITORS:	I.V. Knight (Crown Solicitor)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

MICHAEL GROVE J

Tuesday 19 September 2006

20294/06 - ERIC ABRAHAM JURY v NSW SHERIFF
20281/06 – ERIC ABRAHAM JURY v STATE OF NSW
20310/06 – JOHN WILSON v NSW SHERIFF

JUDGMENT (On whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the Notices of Motion (see p 7 of transcript)

1 HIS HONOUR: There are before the court three Notices of Motion in which the various named defendants seek relief by way of either striking out originating process or staying proceedings upon the various statements of claim. In two of the actions the plaintiff is Eric Abraham Jury, and in the third action the plaintiff is John Wilson.

2 Upon the matters being called, Mr Wilson has asserted that there is no jurisdiction in this court to determine any matter because, as I understand his submission, I am invalidly purported to be appointed. I have invited him to address me with argument in support of his proposition and he has repeated his claim.

3 The proposition which he wishes to advance is apparently that no determination of any sort can be made by a court other than by a jury. It is on that basis that he advances the contention that I have no power to make any ruling. It is my decision that the submission is entirely misconceived and --

WILSON: I have some e-mails from the Privy Council.

4 HIS HONOUR: -- Mr Wilson --

WILSON: Do you recognise the Privy Council?

5 HIS HONOUR: -- Mr Wilson --

WILSON: Do you recognise the Privy Council?

6 HIS HONOUR: -- wishes to challenge my ruling. There are avenues by which he can seek so to do.

WILSON: Now is the time and now is the place.

7 HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson has pointed out that this is not the first occasion that he has appeared before me, and I have noted that he did appear before me, and I made certain orders in a matter in which he was suing the then Premier of New South Wales, Robert John Carr. My judgment on that occasion can be found under medium neutral reference [2002] NSWSC 184.

8 The litigation is in fact before the court as a result of the issue of Statements of Claim in the court by Mr Wilson and Mr Jury. It is convenient to note that insofar as what has been put might be described as argument, it has been presented by Mr Wilson, and Mr Jury has indicated that he wishes to adopt what has been said. It is therefore convenient to deal with what seems to be a global challenge to jurisdiction in respect of all three matters at the one time.

9 The proceedings, as I have said, are instituted by Statements of Claim issued by the plaintiffs. The various defendants as nominated in those pleadings move for relief of the nature that I have previously specified. It is, with respect to Mr Wilson, quite absurd to suggest --

WILSON: I didn't hear that.

10 HIS HONOUR: -- that this Court does not have a jurisdiction to deal with matters which are brought before it. The Supreme Court of New South Wales has been in existence since 1824, established by Royal Warrant and the Supreme Court Act of 1970 provides that that court continues in existence. This is not, however, the occasion for me to deliver a lecture upon legal history to Mr Wilson, but rather to deal with his assertion that there is no jurisdiction in the court --

WILSON: None.

11 HIS HONOUR: -- to deal with what is before it, namely the three notices of motion --

WILSON: No because you are not a judge. A judge must be appointed by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Any appointment supposedly making you a judge is fraudulent, I have the evidence here from the Privy Council. You have been fraudulently appointed, you are not a judge.

12 HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson continues to interrupt and simply reasserts the proposition, which as I understand it --

WILSON: I have the proof.

HIS HONOUR : -- lies at the root of his objection, and that is that he says that --

WILSON: Where is the proof?

13 HIS HONOUR: -- I am not a judge --

WILSON: Where is the proof?

14 HIS HONOUR: -- and he waves a piece of paper which he says emanates from the Privy Council.

WILSON: The Privy Council.

15 HIS HONOUR: It does not seem to me that any realistic goal will be achieved -

16 WILSON: Justice.

17 HIS HONOUR: -- by my elaborating --

18 WILSON: The goal is justice.

19 HIS HONOUR: -- any further and I overrule the objection --

WILSON: You've got no authority to overrule anything.

20 HIS HONOUR: -- and I hold that I do have jurisdiction --

WILSON: You do not, I am challenging the jurisdiction.

21 HIS HONOUR: -- to deal with these motions.

**********