Well, well, well. Seems like the judges are mere wanna-bes, not judges at all. Who were they again? Staff, Walton, Staunton, Wright? Probably the Crown Solicitors are bogus appointments too? Can someone tell us?

This is based on John Wilson's impressive research and he reports: "Re: JURY or CHALLENGE. Everyone has the Right of Trial by Jury, ie: for a Jury to judge the laws and the facts of any action. There must be the clear and unequivocal consent of both parties to be without a Jury - otherwise the Court has no Jurisdiction to proceed summarily, ie: without a Jury.

"Once Jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven".

"If a Judge should deny you your Right to Trial by Jury, then you must say, "I challenge the Jurisdiction of the Court", and that challenge can only be decided by a Special Jury, ie: one empanelled specifically to rule on that one issue. No Judge can arbitrarily rule that he has Jurisdiction , ie: that he has the authority or power to sit in Judgment of a case, because "no man can judge in his own cause". If there is no difficulty in obtaining Trial by Jury, then the Court is properly constituted and both parties present their evidence to the Jury who give their unanimous and lawful Judgment (again, NB: no Judge can deliver a Judgment unless both parties give their consent that he can).

From wbde References section

John Wilson also wrote: "If either the Plaintiff or Defendant Challenges the Jurisdiction of the Court, the Court cannot proceed to do anything, ie: A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G, until the Jurisdiction has been proven and a Special Jury delivers their Judgment accordingly. "Anything" includes "invit(ing) the defendant to hear the claim (etc)...". A Judge has NO Jurisdiction to "brush aside or dismiss anything". A Judge has no Jurisdiction, ie: no authority, whatsoever. If a Judge tries to do anything, that Judge is in Contempt of Court and guilty of a miriad of offences."

Thanks Jo for putting up Val Kerrisons story in indymedia node/35858

when i followed the links it is on the wbde site too.

I guess it is too much to ask that the NSW Law Society or a competent lawyer would help her, seeing as she has cancer against her now as well as the cast of thousands that it took to tread her into their mud. I guess none of them would be able to bring themselves to say "fraudulent retirement certificates are as illegal as fraudulent Birth Certificates" or "forced retirement on any grounds under the AntiDiscrimination Act is illegal i.e. age retirement, marriage retirement, medical statement retirement, etc)". And, as far as making a name for themselves they would probably be excommunicated by their brother lawyers. And NEVER get appointed to be a Judge - bogus or otherwise!