John Peter Bauskis

“The circumstances of the contemnor’s offence are sufficiently set out in my judgment dealing with his guilt. I have given him opportunity after opportunity to acknowledge his wrongdoing and to apologise. He has remained defiant throughout, maintaining his right to disobey orders of the Court, maintaining his contempt (using that word in its ordinary meaning) of the Court and the processes of the Court. It appears that he will not be reasoned with. I have therefore decided that I have no other alternative but to commit him to prison.”

John Bauskis served the term of imprisonment.  He did not exercise his right of appeal, seek to purge the contempt, apply for bail or apply for a writ of habeas corpus. He instead filed a summons in the Common Law Division against the judge in Bauskis v Adams [2007] NSWCA 293

“It is alleged that, on Friday 4 August 2006, Michael Frederick Adams, acting as a Judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Common Law Division in a courtroom in the King’s Street, denied me, John Peter Bauskis, my Right to Trial by Jury by saying, “You cannot have a trial by jury. There is no procedure for having a trial by jury for offences of this kind.” in reply to my saying, “We request trial by jury”. This is an offence under Section 43 of the NSW Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 No 30. which says, “Any person guilty of any offence under any Imperial enactment included in Part 1 of the Second Schedule for which no punishment is otherwise provided is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or to a fine not exceeding 20 penalty units, or to both such imprisonment and fine.”  Such Imperial enactments are titled “Constitutional Enactments” and include (1297) 25 Edward 1 (Magna Carta); (1627) 3 Charles 1 (the Petition of Right); (1640) 16 Charles 1 (The Habeas Corpus Act 1640); and (1688) 1 William and Mary (The Bill of Rights) which prescribe and guarantee a Freeman’s Right to Trial by Jury.”

The court rejected the applicability of a jury trial for contempt of court, and dismissed the summons.

The appellant sought special leave to the High Court in John Peter Bauskis v Michael Frederick Adams [2008] HCASL 233 which was likewise refused.

John Bauskis commenced proceedings by summons in Bauskis v Thomson [2011] NSWSC 27 seeking 1 million dollars in damages on a claim in tort for wrongful arrest, unlawful imprisonment, assault, and “false accusations” arising from the conduct of four police officers, and also named as the fifth defendant, the State of New South Wales. The State accepted vicarious liability for the police officers named and filed a motion that they be removed from proceedings.

“Mr Bauskis opposes the orders sought in the notice of motion and disputes the jurisdiction of this Court to make those orders. He submits that as a citizen of Australia he has an inalienable right to have the entirety of his dispute, including all procedural aspects of it, heard and determined by a jury and that anything less would be an infringement of his fundamental rights and civil liberties. He further submits that the law of God is the overriding legal system which gives rise to that inalienable right. As well, he submits that he is entitled to rely on the Magna Carta, and the fact that the people of Australia, who as a whole have sovereignty, are together the ultimate authority to make “imposed” laws. He submits that he has a legal right derived from the legal system which I have just outlined, which cannot be disrupted by any law, including a statute, to join such people, including the police officers, as he wishes, to his suit. He further submits that it is not open to the Crown to move for the relief which it does, and that it is open to this Court to grant the relief.”

The court rejected these submissions, granted the motion and ordered that he file a statement of claim within 42 days to articulate the cause of action and ensure that the real issues are identified. It appears this never occurred, as there are no further proceedings in this matter.

An animal control officer received reports from police regarding two separate dog attacks outside the applicants property, attended and identified himself. The applicant refused him entry to his property and stated he did not recognise the Council as a legal entity and that “the Companion Animals Act is not the law and it does not apply to me”. The police then attended the property and explained to him sections 16(1), 18(1) and (3) and, 69A of the Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW) under which they were empowered to enter the property, and the council subsequently seized the dog. In Bauskis v Wainhouse & Ors [2020] NSWCA 17 the applicant contended that the matter could only be determined by a jury, described the proceedings as a “Kangaroo Court”, and filed a submission under the heading “QUO WARRANTO”, relying upon, variously, the restoration of Charles II in May 1660, the Constitution of the Commonwealth, the maxim “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, remarks attributed to Thomas Jefferson and Ecclesiastes 3:16. The court noted:

“Some, but not all of these matters were raised in Wichman v Pepper Finance Corporation Limited (No 2) [2019] NSWCA 296 and K Sheridan v Colin Biggers & Paisley [2019] NSWSC 528. Arguments of a similar kind were aptly described in the judgment of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, as “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument”.”