The issues raised before the Registrar and in Pepper Finance Corporation Limited v Wichman  NSWSC 1009 relate, amongst other things, to what Mr Warren Ronald Wichman refers to as “common law rights” and the requirement to be sworn to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 (UK). The applicant disputes the jurisdiction of the Registrar to make the orders that were made and disputes the Court as presently constituted making orders. The court held that it does not render the Court any less effective in the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court when sitting as a single judge, and dismissed the motion.
In Warren Ronald Wichman v Pepper Finance Corporation Limited  NSWCA 195, the appellant sought a stay of execution of the writ. He again challenged the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to deal with the subject matter of the proceedings, and the application of any relevant laws, both statutory and common law, of either the Commonwealth or of the State of New South Wales, to Mr Wichman in his “relevant” capacity which is described in his submissions as being a “flesh and blood man”. It was also suggested that the outcome of the making of the loan agreement and grant of the mortgage was that the relevant advances were not made by the funder in accordance with the terms of that agreement. It was said that this was so because any advances made were not in “legal tender”. That submission is an example of a “pseudolegal commercial argument” which makes no sense.
“It is convenient at this point to record some matters concerning the content of Mr Wichman’s earlier affidavits. Those affidavits make a number of assertions as to the application of Australian common law and statutory law to the deponent in language which is strikingly similar to that described in the judgment of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, as “Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument”: see also K Sheridan v Colin Biggers & Paisley  NSWSC 528 at  (Black J).”
The court held that there were no arguable grounds of appeal from the judgment of Rothman J. and the application for stay of execution of the writ was dismissed.
Wichman v Pepper Finance Corporation Limited (No 2)  NSWCA 296 concerned an appeal to the judgment of Rothman J. The court held that no arguable grounds have been identified which would justify the setting aside of the underlying default judgment and writ of execution.
- https://jade.io/article/657436 https://freemandelusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/pepper-finance-corporation-limited-v-wichman-2019-nswsc-1009.pdf
- https://jade.io/article/657478 https://freemandelusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/warren-ronald-wichman-v-pepper-finance-corporation-limited-2019-nswca-195.pdf
- https://jade.io/article/693327 https://freemandelusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/wichman-v-pepper-finance-corporation-limited-no-2-2019-nswca-296.pdf