Dear Mr Michael Ahrens and Transparency Australia,
The Victorian Premier, and Victorian MP, and those charged with protecting the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006 (VIC),
Immigration Minister, and the Defence Minister,
Attorneys General and VIC Equal Opportunity & Human Rights Commission,
MPs, Friends, Students of Law and Human Rights Defenders,
1. Here is a draft of the High Court challenge to the collusion of the Supreme Court Victoria, VEOHRC, court registrars and officials in perversion of the Charter and the administration of justice.
2. You will note that the Victorian Attorney General Robert Clark is named along with their corrupt lawyers Bruce Chen and JM Davidson, for a collusion to pervert the administration of justice.
3. Is it the intention of the Victorian Parliament and TI to allow these corrupt individuals including two (2) Australian Order recipients including the supreme court judge Gregory Howard Garde AO, who is also the President of VCAT, to pervert the Charter and the administration of justice?
4. It seems this Refugee needs to break this vicious cycle of judiciary corruption and denial of justice, that includes the High Court and Registrars, Mussolino and Weybury, in order to cause injuries and deaths.
5. Mr Chin, Rogerio, Berto, Peter and others, this draft will include further material butthe core is there for anyone to use to prove a collusion between the judiciary and their mates in order to pervert the administration of justice, in order to profit from the proceeds of their crimes.
6. It relies on the s75 of the Constitution, s38 of the Judiciary Act and sections of the Crimes Act to prosecute the corruption.
7. If you wondered how the pedophiles and their mates got away with their crimes for so long, now you can see the tactics of these corrupt individuals.
8. If Kirby J does not expose the Unlawful Discrimination of the High Court Australia, the Supreme Court of India will expose their abuse of discretion.
9. Feel free to assist in make an corrections, but remember that you need to file the other documents as well to see Mandamus and Notice of Constitution.
10. I give you permission to use my name and legal documents, you just need to alert me to the action.
11. We notice that the Federal Attorney General and his clowns got their behinds handed to them by the Japanese in the International Criminal Court, for (you guessed it) racially vilification of the Japanese people. We guess that they need to justify the Welfare handed to them from the Australian people.
12. We hope that the Immigration Minister will make sure that the Royal Australian Navy will do their duty to assist Refugees on the high seas, instead of making up BS about their own safety and causing deaths. We may or may not include the Navy in the High Court proceedings, BUT definitely the Autralian Human Rights (and Equal Opportunity) Commission and their President (John von Doussa) will be.Humbly Searching for answers,
Le Tuan PHAM
PO BOX 1255
St Albans 3121
nwn.webmaster@gmail.com
http://kangaroocourtaustralia.tk/
http://kangaroocourtsofaustralia.tk/
=============================
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
[MELBOURNE] REGISTRY No. of 2012
BETWEEN:
Robert Alan Thorpe First Plaintiff
Le Tuan Pham Second Plaintiff
and
Denise Weybury (Registrar High Court Australia) First Defendant
Rosemary Musolino (Registrar High Court Australia) Second Defendant
Attorney General (Commonwealth Australia) Third Defendant
Robert William Clark, Attorney General (State of Victoria) Fourth Defendant
President of Australian Human Rights Commission (Commonwealth Australia) Fifth Defendant
Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VIC) Sixth Defendant
Simon Paul Whelan (Court of Appeal Victoria) Seventh Defendant
Peter Norman Vickery (Court of Appeal Victoria)Eighth Defendant
Geoffrey Arthur Akeroyd Nettle (Supreme Court Victoria) Ninth Defendant
Marcia Ann Neave AO (Supreme Court Victoria) Tenth Defendant
Gregory Howard Garde AO (Supreme Court Victoria) Eleventh Defendant
Karin Leigh Emerton (Supreme Court Victoria) Twelfth Defendant
Nemeer Mukhtar (Supreme Court Victoria) Thirteenth Defendant
President VCAT Victoria (VCAT Victoria) Fourteenth Defendant
Prothonotary (Supreme Court Victoria) Fifteenth Defendant
Dep President Ian Lulham (VCAT Victoria) Sixteenth Defendant
S/Member Cremean (VCAT Victoria) Seventeenth Defendant
Principal Registrar (VCAT Victoria) Eighteenth Defendant
Judicial Registrar Mark Pedley (Court of Appeals Vic) Nineteenth Defendant
APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
To: Parties (according to the attached Schedule)
TAKE NOTICE that this application has been made by the plaintiff for the relief that is set out below on the grounds that are set out below.
IF YOU INTEND TO DEFEND the proceeding you must file a notice of appearance in the office of the Registry named above.
IF YOU ARE WILLING TO SUBMIT to any order that the Court may make, save as to costs, you may file a submitting appearance in the office of the Registry named above.
THE TIME FOR FILING AN APPEARANCE is as follows:
(a) where you are served with the application within Australia – 14 days from the date of service;
(b) in any other case – 42 days from the date of service.
THE RELIEF CLAIMED is
1. Bold Declaration from the High Court Australia:
a. that judgment without reason amounts to denial of justice;
2. Bold Declaration from the High Court Australia:a. that pursuant to COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 75, (the Constitution)
Original jurisdiction of High Court
In all matters:
(i) arising under any treaty;
(iii) in which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party;
(iv) between States, or between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of another State;
(v) in which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth;
and or,
b. JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 38,
Matters in which jurisdiction of High Court exclusive
Subject to sections 39B and 44, the jurisdiction of the High Court shall be exclusive of the jurisdiction of the several Courts of the States in the following matters:
(a) matters arising directly under any treaty;
b) suits between States, or between persons suing or being sued on behalf of different States, or between a State and a person suing or being sued on behalf of another State;
(d) suits by a State, or any person suing on behalf of a State, against the Commonwealth or any person being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth;
(e) matters in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth or a federal court.
c. the High Court shall have original jurisdiction;
d. And that the High Court is made of no less than two (2) properly authorized judges;
e. And that the Plaintiffs do not need LEAVE to have such matters heard in the High Court, arising directly under any treaty: inter alia:
i. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
ii. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
And or,
f. matters in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth or a federal court.
3. Bold Declaration from the High Court Australia:
a. an officer of the Commonwealth or a federal court is defined in the CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 3
Interpretation
"Commonwealth officer" means a person holding office under, or employed by, the Commonwealth, and includes:
(a) a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ;
(aa) a person permanently or temporarily employed in the Public Service of a Territory or in, or in connection with, the Defence Force, or in the Service of a public authority under the Commonwealth; (b) the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, a Deputy Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, an AFP employee or a special member of the Australian Federal Police (all within the meaning of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 ); and
(c) for the purposes of section 70, a person who, although not holding office under, or employed by, the Commonwealth, a Territory or a public authority under the Commonwealth, performs services for or on behalf of the Commonwealth, a Territory or a public authority under the Commonwealth; and
(d) for the purposes of section 70:
(i) a person who is an employee of the Australian Postal Corporation;
(ii) a person who performs services for or on behalf of the Australian Postal Corporation; an
(iii) an employee of a person who performs services for or on behalf of the Australian Postal Corporation.
4. Writ(s) of mandamus or prohibition is sought against the Defendant(s), officers of the Commonwealth or a federal court, for an abuse of discretion, and a breach of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act (Cth) 1986 (the HREOCA), and the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act (VIC) 2006 (the Charter), in flagrant disregards for Australia’s obligations to International Treaties, s75 of the Constitution and s38 of the Judiciary Act.
5. And any other orders as the High Court sees fit, in order to serve the best interest of Justice and public interest, in the administration of Australian Democracy.
THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE RELIEF IS CLAIMED are:
1. Relief is claimed pursuant to s75 of the Constitution, and or
2. S38 of the Judiciary Act, and or
3. The Crimes Act s3,
a. s42. Conspiracy to defeat justice
b. s43. Attempting to pervert justice
c. s44. Compounding offences, and or
4. Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ("ADJR Act") s5; inter alia.
5. Mandamus will lie for an abuse of discretion where discretion has been exercised arbitrarily and capriciously or where discretion has been exercised in bad faith, Peavey Co. V. Corcoran 714 S.W.2d 943. In such instances the abuse amounts, in effect, to no discretion. Mandamus is warranted when the abuse is clear or results in a manifest injustice, Reis V. Nangle 349 S.W.2d 943. Mandamus will lie when an official refuses to act when he has a duty to act and refuses to do so.
6. The High Court of Australia's decision in 1995, in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Ah Hin Teoh, confirmed that legislative provisions should be interpreted by courts in a manner that ensures, as far as possible, that they are consistent with the provisions of Australia's international obligations:
7. It is well established that the provisions of an international treaty to which Australia is a party do not form part of Australian law unless those provisions have been validly incorporated into our municipal law by statute ...
8. But the fact that the Convention [on the Rights of the Child] has not been incorporated into Australian law does not mean that its ratification holds no significance for Australian law. Where a statute or subordinate legislation is ambiguous, the courts should favour that construction which accords with Australia's obligations under a treaty or international convention to which Australia is a party, at least in those cases in which the legislation is enacted after, or in contemplation of, entry into, or ratification of, the relevant international instrument. That is because Parliament, prima facie, intends to give effect to Australia's obligations under international law.(1)
9. The High Court also held that ratification of a treaty raised a legitimate expectation that an executive decision-maker will act consistently with its terms:
10. .. ratification of a convention is a positive statement by the executive government of this country to the world and to the Australian people that the executive government and its agencies will act in accordance with the Convention. That positive statement is an adequate foundation for a legitimate expectation, absent statutory or executive indications to the contrary, that administrative decision-makers will act in conformity with the Convention and treat the best interests of the children as "a primary consideration". It is not necessary that a person seeking to set up such a legitimate expectation should be aware of the Convention or should personally entertain the expectation; it is enough that the expectation is reasonable in the sense that there are adequate materials to support it.(2)
1.(1995) 183 CLR 273 at 287 (footnotes omitted).
2. (1995) 183 CLR 273 at 291 (footnotes omitted). Recent comments by members of the High Court have suggested that the 'legitimate expectation' principle outlined in Teoh may be the subject of reconsideration by the High Court in future (Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs: Ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6). However, the principle is still binding law in Australia. Note, in particular, that there have been three attempts to introduce legislation that overrules the 'legitimate expectation' principle - Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 1995, Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 1997, Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 1999. However, none of those bills were passed. The Executive also attempted to overturn this principle in 1995 by issuing a statement which asserted 'that entering into an international treaty is not reason for raising any expectation that government decision-makers will act in accordance with the treaty ...'; Minister for Foreign Affairs and Attorney-General, International Treaties and the High Court Decision in Teoh, Joint Statement, 10 May 1995. A statement in similar terms was released by the Attorney-General of South Australia on 8 June 1995. See generally S Roberts, 'Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Ah Hin Teoh: The High Court Decision and the Government's Reaction to it', Australian Journal of Human Rights, vol 2, 1995, p135. These statements have been found to be of no effect by the courts; see, for example, Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Ram (1996) 69 FCR 431; Browne v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 566 FCA; Tien v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 89 FCR 80.
11. Legitimate expectations and statutes form the backbone of Australian Democracy, and it appears there are “legitimate” attempts to undermine democracy.
12. Manifest Disregard for the Facts and Evidence go hand in hand with Manifest Disregard for the Statutes: Marshall J of the Federal Court labeled the HREOCA a general rule.
13. The Supreme Court of Victoria and Court of Appeal have consistently refused to answer questions of an interpretation of the Charter, or an interpretation of statutes according to the Charter;
14. There appears to be collusion between the executive and the judiciary to undermine the administration of justice, and a clear breach of the separation of powers of the judiciary and the executive, built into the Constitution.
15. Breaches of the statutes include
a. the Charter in totality: the Supreme Court of Victoria and Court of Appeal ignore it completely;
i. s8. Recognition and equality before the law
ii. s10. Protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
iii. s13. Privacy and reputation
iv. s20. Property rights
v. s24. Fair hearing
vi. s32. Interpretation
vii. s33. Referral to Supreme Court
viii. 38. Conduct of public authorities
ix. 39. Legal proceedings: collusion to deny the Plaintiff the legal remedies, under common law and the Charter;
b. the Administrative Law Act (VIC) 1978, refused to apply it, in order to coverup for judicial abuse.
c. Manifest disregards for Statutes, Facts and Evidence, amounts to judgment without reason, a denial of justice
16. “ADJR Act”, s5
1 e. that the making of the decision was an improper exercise of the power conferred by the enactment in pursuance of which it was purported to be made;
2 The reference in paragraph (1)(e) to an improper exercise of a power shall be construed as including a reference to:
e. an exercise of a power that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power;
17. The “reasonable” Justices of India’s highest court, the Supreme Court, have continuously confirm and reaffirm:
a. Judgement without reason amounts to denial of justice;
b. Justices Arijit Pasayat and Aftab Alam, New Delhi, Jan 6 2008 (UNI) The Supreme Court;
c. ''the emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the inscrutable face of the sphinx, it can by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to performs their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision.''
d. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons were sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before courts,
e. that another rationale was that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him.
f. ''One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out,''
g. strongly disapproved the casual approach of the High Court
h. and held the judgement of the court was unsustainable.
i. The apex court pulled up both the courts for not performing their duties and concluded by holding ''the trial court on the facts of this case did not perform its duties, as was enjoined on it by law.
j. The questions involved were not trivial.
k. On plainest consideration of justice, the high Court ought to have set forth its reasons howsoever brief, in its order indicative an application of its mind, all the more when its order amenable to further avenue of challenge.
l. ''The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration and failure to give reason amounts to denial of justice,'' it added. UNI AKS/SC SK RK1736
18. The “Reasonable” Justice Peter Bell:
Tomasevic v Travaglini & Anor [2007] VSC 337 (13 September 2007), inter alia
139 Every judge in every trial, both criminal and civil, has an overriding duty to ensure the trial is fair. A fair trial is the only trial a judge can judicially conduct. The duty is inherent in the rule of law and the judicial process. Equality before the law and equal access to justice are fundamental human rights specified in the ICCPR. The proper performance of the duty to ensure a fair trial would also ensure those rights are promoted and respected.
140 Most self-represented persons lack two qualities that competent lawyers possess - legal skill and ability, and objectivity. Self-represented litigants therefore usually stand in a position of grave disadvantage in legal proceedings of all kinds. Consequently, a judge has a duty to ensure a fair trial by giving self-represented litigants due assistance. Doing so helps to ensure the litigant is treated equally before the law and has equal access to justice.
141 The matters regarding which the judge must assist a self-represented litigant are not limited, for the judge must give such assistance as is necessary to ensure a fair trial. The proper scope of the assistance depends on the particular litigant and the nature of the case. The touchstones are fairness and balance. The assistance may extend to issues concerning substantive legal rights as well as to issues concerning the procedure that will be followed. The Family Court of Australia has enunciated useful guidelines on the performance of the duty.
142 The judge cannot become the advocate of the self-represented litigant, for the role of the judge is fundamentally different to that of an advocate. Further, the judge must maintain the reality and appearance of judicial neutrality at all times and to all parties, represented and self-represented. The assistance must be proportionate in the circumstances - it must ensure a fair trial, not afford an advantage to the self-represented litigant.
143 It remains to apply these principles to the present case.
THE JUDGE DID NOT PROPERLY PERFORM HIS DUTY TO ASSIST MR TOMASEVIC AS A SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT.
19.
20. Authorities:
a. Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34 (8 September 2011)
b. Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32
c. Gurnett v The Macquarie Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd [No 2][126]
d. University of Wollongong v Metwally (1984)
e. Tomasevic v Travaglini & Anor [2007] VSC 337 (13 September 2007)
f. Mandamus will lie for an abuse of discretion where discretion has been exercised arbitrarily and capriciously or where discretion has been exercised in bad faith, Peavey Co. V. Corcoran 714 S.W.2d 943. In such instances the abuse amounts, in effect, to no discretion. Mandamus is warranted when the abuse is clear or results in a manifest injustice, Reis V. Nangle 349 S.W.2d 943. Mandamus will lie when an official refuses to act when he has a duty to act and refuses to do so.
This application shall be heard at the time and place stated [if a summons is to be served with the application] in the summons served with this application / [if no summons is to be served with the application] in a summons to be served at a later time.
This application was filed by the plaintiff.
Dated:
................(signed)....................
[Name of plaintiff / plaintiff’s solicitor]
The plaintiff’s address is [].
The plaintiff’s address for service is [PO BOX 1255, St Albans 3021].
6:56 PM (15 hours ago)
