The costs consequences of failing to prove a responsibly advanced allegation of fraud - The Australian Professional Liability Blog

The Australian Professional Liability Blog via google.com 12:03 (20 hours ago) to me The Australian Professional Liability Blog The costs consequences of failing to prove a responsibly advanced allegation of fraud Posted: 25 Feb 2014 03:45 PM PST The irresponsible advancement in litigation of allegations of fraud undoubtedly triggers the jurisdiction to award indemnity costs and even to make personal costs orders: White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Flower & Hart (1998) 156 ALR 169, approved on appeal at (1999) 87 FCR 134, discussed in this post. But what about responsibly advanced, but ultimately unsuccessful, allegations of fraud? In a leading case, Woodward J said: ‘It is sometimes said that [special] costs can be awarded where charges of fraud have been made and not sustained; but in all the cases I have considered, there has been some further factor which has influenced the exercise of the court’s discretion: for example, the allegations of fraud have been made knowing them to be false, or they have been irrelevant to the issues between the parties’.[1] That statement has been followed subsequently and, in my view, very likely represents the law in Australia.[2] Nevertheless, it is possible to find statements made, apparently without consideration of Woodward J’s observation, in cases[3] and commentaries which appear to say that the mere failure of a fraud allegation justifies departure from the usual rules of thumb in to costs. Professor Gino Dal Pont’s outstanding Law of Costs speaks of ‘the “rule” that a party alleging but failing to prove fraud is deprived of costs even if successful in the action generally’ without citing Australian authority, before suggesting that it is too broadly formulated.[4] Conduct rules often require lawyers in Australia to make allegations of criminality, fraud and other serious misconduct only after having warned their clients of the consequences of doing so and obtained specific instructions to go ahead and make the allegations (e.g. Victorian Bar Conduct Rules, r. 34). Quite what such an advice ought to contain is, I suspect, not immediately apparent to most lawyers. Conceivably, uncertainty about the content of this obligation, and fear about costs consequences even in the absence of misconduct on the part of those responsibly advancing fraud allegations, are matters which contribute to allegations of fraud being made so rarely. It would be helpful if the law in relation to the consequences of failing in a responsibly advanced serious allegation were clarified and more widely disseminated throughout the profession. [1] Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd [1988] FCA 202; (1988) 81 ALR 397 (Woodward J) at [21] citing his Honour’s earlier decision in Australian Transport Insurance Pty Ltd v Graeme Phillips Road Transport Insurance Pty Ltd [1986] FCA 85; (1986) 71 ALR 287 at 288. [2] Thors v Weekes (1989) 92 ALR 131 at 152 (Gummow J); Vink v Tuckwell (No. 3) [2008] VSC 316 at [93] and [101] (Robson J); Rosemin Pty Ltd v Gasp Jeans Chadstone Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2010] FCA 406 (Middleton J); Tetijo Holdings Pty Ltd v Keeprite Australia Pty Ltd (Federal Court of Australia, 3 May 1991, unreported, French J: see Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd[1993] FCA 536 at [24]; (1993) 46 FCR 225 at 233-4 (Sheppard J) at [17]). To similar effect is Jarrold v Isajul (No. 2) [2013] VSC 657 (McMillan J). [3] Chen v Chan [2009] VSCA 233 at [10] (Maxwell P, Redlich JA and Forrest AJA) (‘Special circumstances may also include the making of an allegation of fraud which is not proved’), but what the Court must have meant is revealed by a consideration of the cases cited for that proposition: Australian Transport Insurance Pty Ltd v Graeme Phillips Road Transport Insurance Pty Ltd [1986] FCA 85; (1986) 10 FCR 177 (the very source of Woodward J’s the ‘something more’ proviso); Re Talk Finance and Insurance Services Ltd [1994] 1 Qd R 558 (a case about a knowingly false allegation of fraud) and NIML Ltd v Man Financial Australia Ltd (No. 2) [2004] VSC 510 (an inadequate factual foundation case). [4] Gino Dal Pont, Law of Costs (2013) at [8.58]; citing Ex parte Cooper (1878) 10 Ch D 313 at 322; Chambers and Campbell v Merchants Bank of Canada (1922) 68 DLR 381 at 385, 392. Cooper is scant authority for the ‘rule’, consisting of nothing other than an affirmation of a registrar’s disallowance of a successful party’s costs to the extent of an unsuccessful fraud claim which took much time. There is nothing to suggest that the deprivation of those costs was anything other than an issue-by-issue costs order, or an order under the principle that the fraud allegation had an insufficient factual foundation or was irrelevant. Chambers and Campbell is even more scant authority. The first pin-point citation is to a dissenting judgment, and what Beck JA actually said at 385 is: ‘Although it is said to be the general rule that a party, setting up fraud but failing to prove it, though succeeding nonetheless, ought to be deprived of costs, I think the rule ought not be given effect to, unless the fraud alleged is glaring and likely to injure the reputation of the party against whom it is alleged’. The second pin-point citation is to a judge in the plurality who said nothing about costs of unproven allegations of fraud but made clear that he saw ‘not a scintilla of evidence’ in support of the fraud allegations, suggesting that this was really a no factual foundation case. In a later Canadian case, Mitran v Guarantee RV Centre Inc, 1999 ABQB 276; [1999] 12 WWR 669 (Alta QB), the plaintiff got costs despite unsuccessful allegations of fraud because their making, though ‘not well thought out’ was not ‘reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous’: SLT v AKT, 2008 ABQB 450 at [27]. In that last case, the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta said: ‘While in some cases Courts have deprived a successful party of the costs of the action where fraud has been alleged and not proved, this is not a general rule and I am of the opinion that the character of the allegations and the circumstances in each case must be considered before a conclusion can be reached as to whether a successful party should be deprived of all costs because of unfounded charges of fraud.’ To similar effect is Conway v Zinkhofer, 2007 ABQB 2 at [23] and the cases there cited where, furthermore, Kenny J said that whether the allegations were made intentionally or recklessly is one of the considerations. You are subscribed to email updates from The Australian Professional Liability Blog To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

DOES THE TRAIL OF DEAD BANKERS LEAD SOMEWHERE? BY MICHAEL SNYDER

Does The Trail Of Dead Bankers Lead Somewhere? Michael Snyder What are we to make of this sudden rash of banker suicides? Does this trail of dead bankers lead somewhere? Or could it be just a coincidence that so many bankers have died in such close proximity? I will be perfectly honest and admit that I do not know what is going on. But there are some common themes that seem to link at least some of these deaths together. First of all, most of these men were in good health and in their prime working years. Secondly, most of these “suicides” seem to have come out of nowhere and were a total surprise to their families. Thirdly, three of the dead bankers worked for JP Morgan. Fourthly, several of these individuals were either involved in foreign exchange trading or the trading of derivatives in some way. So when “a foreign exchange trader” jumped to his death from the top of JP Morgan’s Hong Kong headquarters this morning, that definitely raised my eyebrows. These dead bankers are starting to pile up, and something definitely stinks about this whole thing. What would cause a young man that is making really good money to jump off of a 30 story building? The following is how the South China Morning Post described the dramatic suicide of 33-year-old Li Jie… An investment banker at JP Morgan jumped to his death from the roof of the bank’s headquarters in Central yesterday. Witnesses said the man went to the roof of the 30-storey Chater House in the heart of Hong Kong’s central business district and, despite attempts to talk him down, jumped to his death. If this was just an isolated incident, nobody would really take notice. But this is now the 7th suspicious banker death that we have witnessed in just the past few weeks… - On January 26, former Deutsche Bank executive Broeksmit was found dead at his South Kensington home after police responded to reports of a man found hanging at a house. According to reports, Broeksmit had “close ties to co-chief executive Anshu Jain.” - Gabriel Magee, a 39-year-old senior manager at JP Morgan’s European headquarters, jumped 500ft from the top of the bank’s headquarters in central London on January 27, landing on an adjacent 9 story roof. - Mike Dueker, the chief economist at Russell Investments, fell down a 50 foot embankment in what police are describing as a suicide. He was reported missing on January 29 by friends, who said he had been “having problems at work.” - Richard Talley, 57, founder of American Title Services in Centennial, Colorado, was also found dead earlier this month after apparently shooting himself with a nail gun. - 37-year-old JP Morgan executive director Ryan Henry Crane died last week. - Tim Dickenson, a U.K.-based communications director at Swiss Re AG, also died last month, although the circumstances surrounding his death are still unknown. So did all of those men actually kill themselves? Well, there is reason to believe that at least some of those deaths may not have been suicides after all. For example, before throwing himself off of JP Morgan’s headquarters in London, Gabriel Magee had actually made plans for later that evening…There was no indication Magee was going to kill himself at all. In fact, Magee’s girlfriend had received an email from him the night before saying he was finishing up work and would be home soon. And 57-year-old Richard Talley was found “with eight nail gun wounds to his torso and head” in his own garage. How in the world was he able to accomplish that? Like I said, something really stinks about all of this. Meanwhile, things continue to deteriorate financially around the globe. Just consider some of the things that have happened in the last 48 hours… -According to the Bangkok Post, people are “stampeding to yank their deposits out of banks” in Thailand right now. -Venezuela is coming apart at the seams. Just check out the photos in this article. -The unemployment rate in South Africa is above 24 percent. -Ukraine is on the verge of total collapse… Three weeks of uneasy truce between the Ukrainian government and Western-oriented protesters ended Tuesday with an outburst of violence in which at least three people were killed, prompting a warning from authorities of a crackdown to restore order. Protesters outside the Ukrainian parliament hurled broken bricks and Molotov cocktails at police, who responded with stun grenades and rubber bullets. -This week we learned that the level of bad loans in Spain has risen to a new all-time high of 13.6 percent. -China is starting to quietly sell off U.S. debt. Already, Chinese U.S. Treasury holdings are down to their lowest level in almost a year. -During the 4th quarter of 2013, U.S. consumer debt rose at the fastest pace since 2007. -U.S. homebuilder confidence just experienced the largest one month decline ever recorded. -George Soros has doubled his bet that the S&P 500 is going to crash. His total bet is now up to about $1,300,000,000. For many more signs of financial trouble all over the planet, please see my previous article entitled “20 Signs That The Global Economic Crisis Is Starting To Catch Fire“. Could some of these deaths have something to do with this emerging financial crisis? That is a very good question. Once again, I will be the first one to admit that I simply do not know why so many bankers are dying. But one thing is for certain – dead bankers don’t talk. Everyone knows that there is a massive amount of corruption in our banking system. If the truth about all of this corruption was to ever actually come out and justice was actually served, we would see a huge wave of very important people go to prison. In addition, it is an open secret that Wall Street has been transformed into the largest casino in the history of the world over the past several decades. Our big banks have become more reckless than ever, and trillions of dollars are riding on the decisions that are being made every day. In such an environment, it is expected that you will be loyal to the firm that you work for and that you will keep your mouth shut about the secrets that you know. In the final analysis, there is really not that much difference between how mobsters operate and how Wall Street operates. If you cross the line, you may end up paying a very great price.

EMAIL LETTER FROM MR. DANN DERMOTT AND MR. PETER MARKAN OF QUEENSLAND

e : INVOICE‏ Actions Dann Dermot (dermotdann@lawsociety.org)Add to contacts 03:01 To: nnchin09 Picture of Dann Dermot As the result of the understanding between Bar Association of Queensland and myself, where the parties have reached an agreement by virtue of their conduct, I provided to them the service of 'public ridicule' and 'public humiliation'. The service was provided in honest, fair and reasonable manner according to law and due process. It was done exercising my own forensic judgement consistently with applicable rules of conduct and my over-riding duty to the justice. On 2 documented occasions, in clear terms I asked the Defendant to fulfil their obligations and to pay the Invoice for the service I provided to them. On both occasions there was no response from the Defendant. By failing to perform without a legitimate excuse their legal obligation of paying the money due to me for the service I provided to them - they breached the law resulting in legal consequences. So, we are going through Queensland legal system. ********************************************************** 18.02.2014 - The Appeal against Bar Association of Queensland and Mr Fryberg heard by Appeal Court judges McMurdo, Muir, Mullins. In spite of 2 of them being judicial members of BAQ and being involved deeply with the daily workings of BAQ - they refused to recuse themselves. All of them were previously involved either in my appeal in personal matter or other appeal against BAQ. Using their own 'authority' which judges and lawyers love to quote Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 where it is said in relation to the selection of an arbiter in the court case - "a judge is disqualified if a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the question the judge is required to decide." I challenged them to ask 'a fair-minded lay observer' what he/she thinks about them claiming to be 'impartial' arbiters in the matter involving their mates from BAQ. In reply I heard that this is a 'test' which is actually never being 'tested' (presumably 'assumed' that judges already known what 'a fair-minded lay observer' thinks) - and they declined my kind offer of verifying my personal opinion with opinions of other people in this matter. Regrettably, I forgot to thank them for participation and assistance in proving in anglo court of law that judges references to 'authorities', as supposedly valid legal arguments to justify judges decisions, are in fact fake, worthless bulshit stories without any meaning. I stated that I do not accept legitimacy of such court and I presented further arguments for the Appeal ONLY as I would in a legitimate court. And I reminded them that I do not consider them as legitimate court at the end of my presentation as well. 'Desision' reserved. To make it even more interesting Mr Muir will be managing/chairing next month the lecture for barristers at their Annual Conference at the Sheraton Mirage on the Gold Coast. Title of the lecture is very appropriate 'The Latest Word on 'Authority' and Other Significant Issues' - is he going to quote the application of 'Ebner......' in his own decision. May be someone should ask him? . Information about my battle with the devilish forces in barbaric Queensland ( with the copies of relevant documents ) is on - www.petermarkan.org/ - www.queenslandinstitute.org/ and some others . . You are receiving this email as the person of public importance and the matters this message refer to are not only personal but also public importance as well . Respectfully Peter Markan . This message is sent by Peter Markan 64 Wishart Rd Up . Mt Gravatt Qld . 4122 , Australia petermarkan@queenslandinstitute.org . If this message was sent in error please write word ' remove ' in email to petermarkan@queenslandinstitute.org

THE LEADING CASE OF UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SOLICITORS:

The Australian Professional Liability Blog Clyne v NSW Bar Association: the leading case on unfounded allegations Posted: 10 Feb 2014 03:12 PM PST Clyne v New South Wales Bar Association (1960) 104 CLR 186; [1960] HCA 40 is a unanimous decision of the Dixon Court confirming the striking off of a Sydney barrister, Peter Clyne, for making unfounded and serious allegations on behalf of a husband against the wife’s solicitor in matrimonial litigation for the admitted purpose of getting the wife’s solicitor out of the case. Those allegations were in fact made in a private prosecution by the husband of the wife’s solicitor for maintenance. Reading the decision, one might think that striking off the rolls was a relatively harsh penalty by today’s standards for the conduct recorded, especially since his client succeeded at committal in having the wife’s solicitor presented for trial. And also if one believes Mr Clyne’s autobiography where he asserted: ‘Particulars given by the New South Wales Bar Association made it quite clear that it was not part of the charge to say that my advice to prosecute was wrong, or improper. Indeed, as I have mentioned before, the advice to prosecute Mann was given in writing, by the eminent and respected Sydney QC, Mr Newton, who later became (and still is) a judge of the New South Wales District Court; and no one has ever criticized Mr Newton for his advice.’ But Mr Clyne had done it before and been sternly warned (see CLR 202) and was unrepentant to the moment he was struck off. Further, he was absolutely one out of the box (he will be the subject of a further blog post) and was no doubt regarded as an excrescence on the legal system to be excised at almost any cost. He went on to irritate the authorities as a professional tax evader and unashamed advocate of tax evasion, writing many books on the subject and others (e.g. Adventures in Tax Avoidance, How Not to Pay Any Taxes, Guilty But Insane) while living a decadent lifestyle which hopped, first class, between hotels in Sydney and his native Vienna. Like George Herscu, one of the villains in White Industries v Flower & Hart, Clyne spent time in jail, and only avoided spending more time by fleeing America without a passport while on appeal bail. He seems to have been intelligent and to have had enough charm to be married to a Welsh entomologist who also wrote many rather different books (e.g. Silkworms, All About Ants, and Plants of Prey). But his autobiography (Outlaw Among Lawyers; the Peter Clyne Story, Cassell Australia, 1981) reveals a thoroughly dishonest if colourful character with very little if any regard for the law.Mr Jacombe and a woman were engaged in ‘an orgy of litigation’ involving more than 20 proceedings arising out of their matrimonial or quasi matrimonial affairs. Most were commenced by the husband, but the wife petitioned for divorce on the basis of adultery, and for alimony pending the determination of that petition. The wife also sought an accounting in equity for monies allegedly owed to her, and a property law suit for the division and sale of the matrimonial home. They had first separated about two years before the final separation, at which time the wife had commenced proceedings in equity for an account of her share in jointly owned property. The same year, they reunited at which time the wife signed a deed, witnessed by an independent solicitor who ‘may be presumed to have explained to her the effect of the deed’, acknowledging that she had no beneficial interest in any property held in either party’s name except a half interest in the matrimonial house, Lynton Manor. Three months later, she also made a statutory declaration which was ‘on its face a very curious document’. (197) Mr Jacombe defended the divorce case on the basis that there was no marriage to annul, since the wife was married at the time she purported to marry him. (194) (In his autobiography Mr Clyne said: ‘Jacombe v Jacombe was not merely a lawsuit. It was a tornado of litigation; and I was one of the things that the tornado swept away. Murray Stephen Jacombe was a very successful financier who married a ballet dancer in Estonia in the late forties and brought his wife and daughter out to Australia in the early fifties. … Life has its ironies! The Privy Council finally upheld Mr Jacombe’s arguments and ruled that his marriage was null and void; and then he got lonely, married the lady again, and as far as I know they are still happily married, laughing about the bad old days.’) Mr Jacombe changed his solicitors, who briefed new counsel (Mr Clyne), mid-orgy. Mr Clyne decided that the best thing to do would be to launch a private prosecution of the wife’s solicitor for the indictable criminal offence of maintenance. The prosecutions were: ‘admittedly devised as a means of intimidating that solicitor into ceasing to act for’ the wife (p. 188). ‘In opening the proceedings before the magistrate the appellant deliberately used the occasion to make a savage public attack on the professional character of that solicitor. He made that attack in extravagant terms, alleging fraud, perjury and blackmail. He knew that he had no evidence to substantiate such allegations. At the end of his opening, he invited the man whom he was prosecuting for a crime to defend himself before any evidence had been given against him, and intimated that, if he were to cease to act for his client, the criminal proceedings would have achieved their object and could be discontinued.’ (p. 188) ‘What was said later in court by the appellant suggests that it was hoped that Mr Mann would, rather than face trial on a criminal charge, agree to cease to act as Mrs Jacombe’s solicitor. But it is not easy to believe that this hope was very seriously entertained. No self-respecting solicitor would react in such a way to such a threat, and, in the light of what happened, it is probably true to say that the general idea was to make a vigorous public attack on the professional character of Mr Mann and hope for the best. At any rate, it is quite clear that the prosecutions were undertaken with no other object in view than the elimination of Mr Mann from the proceedings between Mr and Mrs Jacombe, and the whole enterprise seems to have been irresponsible and mischievous.’ (p. 191) ‘What was said later’ seems to be a reference to this: ‘I say, if Mrs Jacombe or Mr Mann undertakes to allow her consult [sic.] an independent solicitor this matter could be settled within 48 hours. We have taken the course which may seem desperate and unusual because we can see no other way of avoiding litigation which is going to go on and on in a number of courts simply because a solicitor wants to make money’. Five allegations were in substance made by Mr Clyne. (193) First, that he was in financial difficulties because he undertook to pay large sums as a result of his partner’s defalcations, providing a motive for the commission of the offence of maintenance. The Court characterised this as a statement that the solicitor was in such financial difficulties as would induce him to commit a crime. (193) The only evidence he had was that of a policeman who said that the wife’s solicitor had told him more than eighteen months previously that if the defalcations of about £13,000 were at any stage shown to be a liability of the partnership, then the solicitor would have no alternative but to meet them. No inference that the solicitor was, eighteen months later, in financial difficulties, could be drawn, the Court said, no doubt because there was no evidence that the defalcations had been found to be liabilities of the partnership and no evidence that the solicitor had had to meet them and no evidence that doing so put the solicitor in financial difficulties. The fact that the husband had subpoenaed the solicitor’s financial records and that the solicitor had not produced them in response did not assist the barrister. Most obviously, one might think, an unresponded-to subpoena yields no evidence, but the Court also said that the only person through whom any documents which were ultimately produced in response to the subpoena could be adduced was the solicitor who was not a compellable witness. (193) The second allegation was that the application for alimony was procured upon an affidavit prepared by the solicitor which he knew to be false when sworn by the wife, so that the solicitor had been an accessory to perjury. She said ‘I have no income, no money in the bank and no means whatsoever.’ The only evidence to establish the falsity of those propositions was that she had £11 in the bank, and had received the payments from Mr Mann which were the subject of the maintenance allegation. There was no evidence that the wife knew them to be materially false, and no evidence that the affidavit was in fact prepared by the solicitor as opposed to a clerk in his office. (194) The third allegation was that the solicitor was deliberately protracting litigation to serve his own ends because he refused to give particulars in the divorce case. The husband had sought particulars of whether it was alleged that the person he said was still married to the wife when she purported to marry the husband was dead or whether it was alleged that he was divorced. The husband did not take out a summons to compel the production of these ‘particulars’. But the request was not for particulars at all. It was a request for evidence which did not need to be acceded to. The allegation was that the wife and the husband were married. It was the husband’s case that they were not, and it was for him to prove it. The allegation that the non-response ‘made costs for’ the solicitor to the disadvantage of the wife was logically unsound because, as the Court said ‘Why should [the husband] not be left to destroy her prima facie case, if he could, by cross-examination or otherwise?’ But there also seems to have been no evidence as to the wife’s instructions to Mr Mann in relation to this question and the extent to which they were fully informed. The fourth allegation was that the solicitor had refused or neglected to negotiate with the husband’s camp a settlement of the proceedings so as to ‘extract as much money as possible out of [the wife]’. The primary basis for this allegation was the non-response to a letter which offered not to resist the proceeding so long as the wife acquiesced to the orders relating to alimony and custody which he wanted. In default, he said, he would resist the suit by reference to evidence which might result in the suit failing and would be most material to the question of alimony and custody and there would be ‘scandal and publicity’. (195) This allegation too was logically flawed, according to the Court, since ‘any responsible solicitor, whose client brought him that letter in the circumstances of this case, would certainly advise his client to ignore it, and would himself either not answer it at all or, if he did answer it, would say little more than that his client was not be to intimidated’. But Mr Clyne had no evidence that the letter had even been shown by the wife to the solicitor, let alone any evidence of what was said between them about it. (196) The fifth allegation was that the solicitor was conducting for the wife hopeless litigation without expectation of receiving any payment directly from her. The Court dealt with each proceeding separately: It said that the petition for divorce and alimony in the meantime had not been demonstrated to be obviously hopeless, so the allegation was simply logically wrong. (196) The suit for the division and sale of the home was not obviously hopeless for the reasons suggested either, so the allegation was once again simply logically wrong. But again, Dr Clyne had no evidence as to the instructions the wife had given her solicitor, and no evidence at all that the solicitor even knew of the husband’s allegations which Mr Clyne asserted made the wife’s case hopeless. (196 – 197). The equitable suit for an accounting was not demonstrated to be hopeless either despite the accord and satisfaction defence, the acknowledgements in the deed, and the statutory declaration, which provided the husband with a prima facie defence. As the Court put it, ‘but it is a far cry from saying this [that there was a prima facie defence] to saying that a solicitor, who acts for a wife in a suit which cannot succeed unless a deed between her and her husband is set aside, is acting purely in his own interests or is in any way guilty of misconduct.’ It was clear that the wife was challenging the deed and once again, Mr Clyne knew nothing of the instructions given by the wife to her solicitor. Marvellously, in the circumstances, Mr Clyne said of the wife’s solicitor that her equity suit ‘was brought utterly without any foundation or responsibility’. (198) The main allegation of maintenance to which these five allegations were an adjunct seems to have been based principally on evidence that the solicitor had made out some cheques in favour of the wife. The Court said: ‘It is impossible to say that the making of a payment by a solicitor to a client for whom he is conducting litigation is proof that he is “unlawfully maintaining” that litigation. He may be paying money which he owes to the client. He may be making a loan to the client: there is no reason why he should not do so.’ (192) Stating the law, the Court said at 200 – 201: ‘a member of the Bar enjoys great privileges both de jure and de facto. In particular his privilege in relation to defamatory statements made by him in court is not qualified but absolute. It is perhaps worth while to quote yet again the oft-quoted words of Lopes L.J. in Royal Aquarium and Summer and Winter Garden Society v. Parkinson (1892) 1 QB 431 . His Lordship said : “This ‘absolute privilege’ has been conceded on the grounds of public policy to ensure freedom of speech where it is essential that freedom of speech should exist, and with the knowledge that Courts of justice are presided over by those who from their high character are not likely to abuse the privilege, and who have the power and ought to have the will to check any abuse of it by those who appear before them.” (1892) 1 QB, at p 451. The last thing we would wish to do would be to say anything which might be thought to curtail this freedom of speech, which public policy demands. Cases will constantly arise in which it is not merely the right but the duty of counsel to speak out fearlessly, to denounce some person or the conduct of some person, and to use such strong terms as seem to him in his discretion to be appropriate to the occasion. From the point of view of the common law, it is right that the person attacked should have no remedy in the courts. But, from the point of view of a profession which seeks to maintain standards of decency and fairness, it is essential that the privilege, and the power of doing harm which it confers, should not be abused. Otherwise grave and irreparable damage might be unjustly occasioned. The privilege may be abused if damaging irrelevant matter is introduced into a proceeding. It is grossly abused if counsel, in opening a case, makes statements which may have ruinous consequences to the person attacked, and which he cannot substantiate or justify by evidence. It is obviously unfair and improper in the highest degree for counsel, hoping that, where proof is impossible, prejudice may suffice, to make such statements unless he definitely knows that he has, and definitely intends to adduce, evidence to support them. It cannot, of course, be enough that he thinks that he may be able to establish his statements out of the mouth of a witness for the other side. This was explained to the appellant, who should have known it before, by Manning J. in certain proceedings in April 1957, to which we shall refer in a moment.’ The Court made no reference to any formal conduct rule which had been breached. It seems likely from pp 199 – 200 that the conduct rules relating to a proper foundation were at the time of Mr Clyne’s address unwritten.

COMPLAINT PROCEDURE OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL: RE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA OR PIRATE SHIP AUSTRALIA, Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and Judicial Apartheid

COMPLAINT PROCEDURE OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL: RE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA OR PIRATE SHIP AUSTRALIA, Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and Judicial Apartheid Inbox x chas x 11:54 (16 hours ago) to ethicsoffice, cuba_onu, chinamission_un, misionvene, missionecuador, cp, indigenous, urgent-action, migrant, sr-torture, ie-internation., OTP, palestine, info, Ben, FKLegal, Tamar_Hopkins, senator.brandis, office, robert.clark, Attorney, Minister.Misch., agd, Brian.Wightman, corbell The UN is the guardian of several new international standards addressing accountability and transparency, such as the UN Convention Against Corruption and the UN Global Compact. As such, we should practise what we preach. We need to preserve and invest in one of our greatest assets: moral credibility. A reputation for honesty and integrity is indispensable to the work we do. To contact us, please call our Helpline: +1-917-367-9858 or email us: ethicsoffice@un.org. The UN Ethics Office, The Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, James Anaya. Mr Alfred de Zayas @Alfreddezayas, Prosecutor International Criminal Court, UN Human Rights Council, Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations, Other Rapporeurs, Friends and Human Rights Defenders, Dear Sirs and Madams, 1. Given that Australian Government has a seat on the UN Security Council, and has opportunity at its presidency, the chance of them tampering with the UN process(es) are almost given; 2. They have broken every Treaty they have signed with the UN; subjecting Aborigines and Refugees to genocide and crimes against humanity; 3. Is there anything that the Ethics Office of UN can do to assist us at UN Human Rights Council Branch, even with the new procedure? 4. COMPLAINT PROCEDURE OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL: addresses consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of all human rights and fundamental freedoms occurring in any part of the world and under any circumstances (Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 of 18 June 2007), modified to ensure that the procedure is impartial, objective, efficient, victims oriented and conducted in a timely manner. 5. We would like to congratulate the new members of the Human Rights Council and look forward to working with you to educate on the definition and protection mechanisms against Genocide and Crimes against Humanity, including Judicial Apartheid. 6. The signed attachments have been sent to the relevant UN bodies. With Respect, Djuran Bunjileenee Borun MunDunDarung robbiethorpe@gmail.com http://treatyrepublic.net/ SIGNATURE Le Tuan Pham nwn.webmaster@gmail.com http://judicialcorruptionaustralia.tk SIGNATURE The Ethics Office promotes an ethical organizational culture based on our shared values of integrity, accountability, transparency and respect. We are: Independent from management and all other UN offices. Impartial in how we treat individuals. Confidential with information that is entrusted to us. Professional in our dealings with our stakeholders. The Ethics Office was established in 2006 to secure the highest standards of integrity of staff members in accordance with Article 101, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations, taking into consideration paragraph 161 of the2005 World Summit Outcome and pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/248. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cuba Permanent Mission to UN Address: 315 Lexington Ave, New York, N.Y. 10016 Telephone: (212) 689 7216 Fax: (212) 689 9073 E-mail: cuba_onu@cubanmission.com Permanent Mission of the People's Republic of China to the UN Address: 350 East 35th Street, Manhattan, New York, NY 10016, USA http://www.china-un.org/eng/ Email：chinamission_un@mfa.gov.cn Mission Directorate, 335 East 46th Street, New York, New York 10017 Phone: (212) 557-2055 Central (212) 557-3528 fax Email misionvene@venezuelaonu.gob.ve Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the United Nations 866 United Nations Plaza, Room 516, New York, N.Y. 10017 Telephone: (212) 935-1680, -1681 Telefax: (212) 935-1835 e-mail: missionecuador@nyct.net ============================== Complaint Procedure Unit Human Rights Council Branch Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights United Nations Office at Geneva CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland Mr. Alfred de Zayas Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order Palais des Nations CH-1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland Fax: + 41 22 917 9006 Email: ie-internationalorder@ohchr.org Communications and claims under art.15 of the Rome Statute may be addressed to: Information and Evidence Unit Office of the Prosecutor Post Office Box 19519 2500 CM The Hague The Netherlands or sent by email to otp.informationdesk@icc-cpi.int, or sent by facsimile to +31 70 515 8555. Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations 115 East 65th Street New York, NY 10065 Telephone: 212-288-8500 Fax: 212-517-2377 Email: palestine@un.int The Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, James Anaya. Mr Alfred de Zayas @Alfreddezayas, Prosecutor International Criminal Court, UN Human Rights Council, Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations, Other Rapporeurs, Friends and Human Rights Defenders, Dear Sirs and Madams, 1. We wish to further submit additional statements, facts and evidence, on the Crimes of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity, especially of Judicial Apartheid, conducted, aided and abetted by the Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Government, Government Officers and or Officials, Judicial and Tribunal Officers and or Officials. 2. We wish for Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations, to continue assisting us for the re-affirmation of the definition of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity; their knowledge and expertise will be invaluable for the education of u in particular, and of the World and Leaders. 3. If memories serve me right, Mr Michael Ahrens of Transparency International Australia indicated that he does not have funding. We have not asked him to do much more then observe and report; whatever his mandate is, we would wish for him to carry it out. 4. WE will send the signed documents straight after this email. We wished for our private details, signatures, address and phone numbers, to be kept private. With Respect, Djuran Bunjileenee Borun MunDunDarung robbiethorpe@gmail.com http://treatyrepublic.net/ Le Tuan Pham nwn.webmaster@gmail.com http://judicialcorruptionaustralia.tk ============================= A Nation of Pedophiles protected by the Unconscionable and Dishonorable High Court Australia, in a Conspiracy of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity of Judicial Apartheid, in order to deny Aborigines and Immigrants access to Treaties, With Australians and United Nations Identification of the person(s) or organization(s) submitting the communication: Djuran Bunjileenee Borun MunDunDarung robbiethorpe@gmail.com http://treatyrepublic.net/ SIGNATURE: Le Tuan Pham nwn.webmaster@gmail.com http://judicialcorruptionaustralia.tk SIGNATURE: Identification of the alleged victim(s): · Djuran Bunjileenee Borun MunDunDarung (Also know as Robert Alan Thorpe) · Krauatatungalung Tjapwhurong and other Aborigines Peoples; · TJ Hickey and other Aborigines Peoples; · Le Tuan Pham, Ethnicity: Vietnamese, Racial: south-east Asia · Phuong Ngo, Vietnamese and SouthEast Asians. Inter alia; Identification of the alleged perpetrators of the violation (if known) · Commonwealth of Australia · Executive Branch of the Commonwealth of Australia (Australian Government); · Judiciary Branch of the Commonwealth of Australia; French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel JJ, inter alia · Federal and State Police; · Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Cth) (Human Rights Commission) · Victoria Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission; · Victorian Attorney General Robert Clark Inter alia; · UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS · ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT · International Criminal Court Act 2002 (Cth) An Act to facilitate compliance by Australia with obligations under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and for related purposes · International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination · Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) · Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) · Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) · International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 1 · The Australian Constitution (UK) An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia [9th July 1900] · JUDICIARY ACT 1903 (Cth) · CRIMES ACT 1914 (Cth) · CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ACT 2006 (VIC) · ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 (Cth) · Administrative Law Act 1978 (VIC) · Inter alia · · CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT THE BANGALORE DRAFT o WHEREAS the importance of a competent, independent and impartial judiciary to the protection of human rights is given emphasis by the fact that the implementation of all the other rights ultimately depends upon the proper administration of justice. · Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (Paris Principles) Competence and responsibilities 1. A national institution shall be vested with competence to promote and protect human rights. Composition and guarantees of independence and pluralism Inter alia. We Hold these Truths to be Self Evident 1. In honour of the man, Mr Nelson Mandela, and his work, against oppressive and Unconscionable Apartheid, we file this submission to the United Nations and the Internal Criminal Court, against the High Court Australia and Australian Judiciary, in conspiracy with the Australian Government to pervert their own laws and International Treaties, as a means for Genocide and Crime against Humanity of Apartheid. 2. One death is a tragedy and a million deaths are a million tragedies. How many more deaths do we need to present to the UN and the ICC before the UN and ICC will act? 3. Is it the intention of the United Nations and the ICC to allow the unconscionable conduct of the Australian Judiciary and the Australian Government; we do not need to reharsh the definition to the UN and ICC: Corroborating Evidence and Facts: Same Corruption Tactics on Immigrants, used on Australian Aborigines On May 26, 2010, the Chinese man who died after crawling in agony out of his police cell was the second prisoner to die after being arrested by Dandenong police in the past six months. Dandenong had been highlighted as a problem area for prisoners before the latest deaths. A report into conditions for people in custody by the Office of Police Integrity and the ombudsman in 2006 showed that Dandenong police station was suffering serious problems in its cells the previous year. The report showed that between July 2004 and June 2005 there were 142 recorded incidents involving prisoners becoming ill in police cells. CCTV footage shows the 53-year-old man doubled over and bleeding as he left his cell, pleading for help - with an interpreter saying he had been treated like a dog. The 1991 royal commission into deaths in custody recommended that police ''should regard it as a serious breach of discipline for an officer to speak to a detainee in a deliberately hurtful or provocative manner''. The man's interpreter, known only as Jay Jay, said police told her ''he was dying anyway''. Jay Jay said she was receiving counselling and having nightmares after witnessing the man's degradation and suffering. He was dumped outside the station in the rain with the interpreter, waiting for an ambulance. He died the next day in hospital. The Chinese community, as well as the wider community, is shocked and disgusted to learn that a sick man in custody was ignored for an extended period of time when he asked for assistance from the Victoria Police; particularly disturbing that police failed to call for immediate medical assistance for somebody who was obviously in distress. The man's death came to light only after Jay Jay heard that a 23-year-old Meadow Heights man, of Turkish origin, had died in police custody this week. In Bare v Small [2013] VSC 129 (25 March 2013), WILLIAMS J indicated: 6(3) - Does section 40(4)(b)(i) of the [Police Integrity Act] authorise the making of a decision that is incompatible with [Mr Bare’s] right to an effective investigation of his complaint of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment? 192 Question 6(3) is premised upon the existence of the asserted implied procedural right under s 10(b) and I will not answer it. In effect that there is NO right to an effective investigation of complaint of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment by Victoria Police or other officials. What William J refused to answer, the existence of the asserted implied procedural right under s 10(b), is explicitly stated in Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 - SECT 8 Recognition and equality before the law 8. Recognition and equality before the law (1) Every person has the right to recognition as a person before the law. (2) Every person has the right to enjoy his or her human rights without discrimination. (3) Every person is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection of the law without discrimination and has the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination. Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 - SECT 9 Right to life 9. Right to life Every person has the right to life and has the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life. Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 - SECT 10 Protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment 10. Protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment A person must not be- (a) subjected to torture; or (b) treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way; or (c) subjected to medical or scientific experimentation or treatment without his or her full, free and informed consent. Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 - SECT 13 Privacy and reputation 13. Privacy and reputation A person has the right- (a) not to have his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with; and (b) not to have his or her reputation unlawfully attacked. Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 - SECT 21 Right to liberty and security of person 21. Right to liberty and security of person (1) Every person has the right to liberty and security. (2) A person must not be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. (3) A person must not be deprived of his or her liberty except on grounds, and in accordance with procedures, established by law. (4) A person who is arrested or detained must be informed at the time of arrest or detention of the reason for the arrest or detention and must be promptly informed about any proceedings to be brought against him or her. (5) A person who is arrested or detained on a criminal charge- (a) must be promptly brought before a court; and (b) has the right to be brought to trial without unreasonable delay; and (c) must be released if paragraph (a) or (b) is not complied with. (6) A person awaiting trial must not be automatically detained in custody, but his or her release may be subject to guarantees to attend- (a) for trial; and (b) at any other stage of the judicial proceeding; and (c) if appropriate, for execution of judgment. (7) Any person deprived of liberty by arrest or detention is entitled to apply to a court for a declaration or order regarding the lawfulness of his or her detention, and the court must- (a) make a decision without delay; and (b) order the release of the person if it finds that the detention is unlawful. (8) A person must not be imprisoned only because of his or her inability to perform a contractual obligation. Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 - SECT 22 Humane treatment when deprived of liberty 22. Humane treatment when deprived of liberty (1) All persons deprived of liberty must be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. (2) An accused person who is detained or a person detained without charge must be segregated from persons who have been convicted of offences, except where reasonably necessary. (3) An accused person who is detained or a person detained without charge must be treated in a way that is appropriate for a person who has not been convicted. Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 - SECT 24 Fair hearing 24. Fair hearing (1) A person charged with a criminal offence or a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the charge or proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing. The Incompetence is in Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, and the Attorney-General for the State of Victoria to intervene in order to undermine the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, and the aforementioned sections, inter alia. Heavy Reliance on the ineptitude of Lawyers is the Apartheid enslavement in ineptitude: 4. Article 5: Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court 1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes: (a) The crime of genocide; (b) Crimes against humanity; 5. Article 7: Crimes against humanity 1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: (a) Murder; (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population; (e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; (f) Torture; (h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; (i) Enforced disappearance of persons; (j) The crime of apartheid; (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health. Inter alia. 2. For the purpose of paragraph 1: (a) "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack; (b) "Extermination" includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population; (c) "Enslavement" means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children; (d) "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law; (e) "Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions; (g) "Persecution" means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity; (h) "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime; (i) "Enforced disappearance of persons" means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time. 6. The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide: 1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and 2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide." Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity. 5. "Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Article III: The following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide. " 6. Punishable Acts The following are genocidal acts when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group's existence: · Killing members of the group includes direct killing and actions causing death. · Causing serious bodily or mental harm includes inflicting trauma on members of the group through widespread torture, rape, sexual violence, forced or coerced use of drugs, and mutilation. · Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group's physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts. · (Prevention of births includes involuntary sterilization, forced abortion, prohibition of marriage, and long-term separation of men and women intended to prevent procreation.) · Forcible transfer of children may be imposed by direct force or by through fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or other methods of coercion. The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines children as persons under the age of 14 years. · Genocidal acts need not kill or cause the death of members of a group. Causing serious bodily or mental harm, prevention of births and transfer of children are acts of genocide when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group's existence: · It is a crime to plan or incite genocide, even before killing starts, and to aid or abet genocide: Criminal acts include conspiracy, direct and public incitement, attempts to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide. Key Terms · The crime of genocide has two elements: intent and action. "Intentional" means purposeful. Intent can be proven directly from statements or orders. But more often, it must be inferred from a systematic pattern of coordinated acts. · Intent is different from motive. Whatever may be the motive for the crime (land expropriation, national security, territorial integrity, etc.,) if the perpetrators commit acts intended to destroy a group, even part of a group, it is genocide. · The phrase "in whole or in part" is important. Perpetrators need not intend to destroy the entire group. Destruction of only part of a group (such as its educated members, or members living in one region) is also genocide. Most authorities require intent to destroy a substantial number of group members -- mass murder. But an individual criminal may be guilty of genocide even if he kills only one person, so long as he knew he was participating in a larger plan to destroy the group. · The law protects four groups - national, ethnical, racial or religious groups. Conscious that all peoples are united by common bonds, their cultures pieced together in a shared heritage, and concerned that this delicate mosaic may be shattered at any time, The Commonwealth of Australia was founded on stolen Aborigines and First Nations peoples’ Lands. The lack of a Treaty with the Indigenous Peoples amounts to theft and piracy pursuant to the International laws of the seas. The Crime of Genocide has been admitted to by Australian judges, and for which the Prime Minister has apologized for the Stolen Generation(s) of Aborigines children. Reconciliation and Reparation has not been forthcoming. Mindful that during this century millions of children, women and men have been victims of unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the conscience of humanity, Yet it has been the Australian judiciary (ies) and High Court Australia who have denied the Aborigines and Immigrants the access to the Rule of Law and protection from criminal acts of genocide, murder, and Apartheid and other Crimes against Humanity. Recognizing that such grave crimes threaten the peace, security and well-being of the world, When there is a law enacted by the Commonwealth of Australia, the judges refuse to apply it. Affirming that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation, When there is material evidence and facts, the judges refuse to consider it. Determined to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus to contribute to the prevention of such crimes, The Commonwealth of Australia and the Australian Judiciaries, including the High Court Australia, conspire to breach the Separation of the “government” and the “judiciary” as in Exhibit 1: Recalling that it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes, It’s a conspiracy which Michael Kirby J would label as “profiting from the proceeds of crime”. TACKLING JUDICIAL CORRUPTION – GLOBALLY http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/kirbyj/kirbyj_stjames.htm Reaffirming the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular that all States shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, It is a conspiracy with, collusion of and inherent threat to inept lawyers, “human rights” commission (States and Federal), •Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (Paris Principles) Emphasizing in this connection that nothing in this Statute shall be taken as authorizing any State Party to intervene in an armed conflict or in the internal affairs of any State, The attack is on Community Leaders and Human Rights Defenders and any lawyer who would challenge the Apartheid system Determined to these ends and for the sake of present and future generations, to establish an independent permanent International Criminal Court in relationship with the United Nations system, with jurisdiction over the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, Race discrimination and racial vilification is based on the superiority of the ALL WHITE IMPROPERLY CONSTITUTED High Court Australia to read and interprete their own laws. Indeed, It is the IMPROPERLY CONSTITUTED High Court Australia that is refusing to interprete and make declarations on question of law for Community and Ethnic Leaders. Emphasizing that the International Criminal Court established under this Statute shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions, That may or may not be true, it is the Justice Peter Bell who determined that it’s the Duty of the Presiding Judge to assist the Unrepresented Litigants, where inept lawyers and human rights commissions failed to ask the pertinent questions. Resolved to guarantee lasting respect for and the enforcement of international justice, · A nation of Pedophiles, in a culture of coverup and protection, · A school system of bullies, leading to youth suicides. · A Defence Force rife with racial and sex discrimination and sexual assaults and rape. · Inept Lawyers and Human Rights Commissions colluding and in conspiracy to protect their own mates at the expense of public safety, · Inept Judges and High Court Australia refusing to hearing application for “prerogative writ” of Mandamus and or Prohibition, amounting to authoring unlawful conduct of the Commonwealth Officials, failing to interpret and make declarations on questions law put to them. FACTS: 1. In March to May 2013, Djuran Bunjileenee Borun MunDunDarung (AKA Robert Alan Thorpe), applied to the Supreme Court of Victoria to be heard on Human Rights Matters pursuant to the Victorian Administrative Law Act 1978 (VIC) and the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006 (VIC), the Charter 2. After witnessing human rights abuses and abuse of the Charter by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal (VCAT) Members (Wentworth and Deputy President I Lulham and President Garde J, inter alia); 3. In addition the the separate Charter of VCAT; 4. Court staff and Prothonotaries unlawfully removed the name Robert Thorpe, representing Djuran Bunjileenee Borun MunDunDarung 5. Various Associate Judges ignored Djuran Bunjileenee Borun MunDunDarung, and his Affidavits, treating him less than HUMAN; 6. The Judge Emerton, ignored his Affidavits and Applications, treating him less than HUMAN; 7. In October 2013, the High Court Judge Crennan refused WITHOUT reasons his application, for “prerogative writ” of Mandamus and or Prohibition and other reliefs according the Australian Constitution and Judiciary Act, and other declarations as to the application of Commonwealth and State Human Rights, Discriminatory and Vilification laws; 8. This abuse of Rule 2.06 of the High Court is an conspiracy with the Registrar of the High Court Denise Weybury to racially discriminate and vilify the Applicants, denying the Applicants the protection of the whiteman’s Law against crimes of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity; 9. This refusal amounts to Judicial Apartheid Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group, with 10. a sense of despair, hopelessness and inferiority; 11. The ineptitude of the Judge is compounded by the ignorance of the decision of Justice Peter Bell, who indicated that accoring to law, it is the duty of the presiding judge to clearly articulate and determine for unrepresented litigants the legal aspects of the case, and the Supreme Court of India, who states that Judgement without Reasons amounts to Denial of Justice; 12. It’s the collusion to attack Ethnic and Community leaders and Human Rights Defenders, in order to protect an Apartheid system of corruption, murder, genocide and other crimes against humanity for the profit of the few in positions of public trust (attachment and exhibit 1, shows the collusion against Mr O’Bryant, of the High court Australia and government lawyers in order to interfere with the administration of justice, and the independence and impartiality of the court process); 13. It is the authorization of crimes from the very improperly Constituted High Court Australia, aided and abetted with inadequate Legal Aid and inept Lawyers and Human Rights (sic) Commissions; 14. It’s the attempt at unlawful racial discrimination and racial vilification in an effort to brand community and ethnic leaders INFERIOR so that they can be “dispatched” by their henchmen of state and federal police. 15. In 2002, Mr Pham brought a case of Unlawful Racial Discrimination and Disability against the Royal Australian Navy and the Brisbane Hospital. 16. It was President John Von Doussa of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission who refused to investigate, 17. And it was the Federal Court Judge Robert French (Chief Justice of the High Court Australia), who refused to hear application for “prerogative writ” of Mandamus and or Prohibition and other reliefs according the Australian Constitution and Judiciary Act. 18. The result was that a woman was raped on the Defense Force Academy grounds or their surroundings, and other sexual assaults and racial discrimination acts; as an inappropriate culture admitted to by the Defense Force 19. The result was that Mr Pham received no treatment for his heart and cardiovascular treatment and resultant Retinal eye bleeding; 20. African Youths have been targeted by Victorian Police as tabled in their public papers by the Monash Legal Service. 21. TJ Hickey’s death and investigation have gone in front of the United Nations; once again unfortunately, the lawyers have failed to ask the correct questions, meaning 10 years after TJ Hickey’s Death we have a Chinese man dying in Victorian Police cell above; 22. And with NOONE to speak for him, noone to investigate; 23. AN ANOTHER WASTED LIFE. 24. COMPLAINT PROCEDURE OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL: addresses consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of all human rights and fundamental freedoms occurring in any part of the world and under any circumstances (Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 of 18 June 2007). 25. The fact that it’s been modified to ensure that the procedure is impartial, objective, efficient, victims oriented and conducted in a timely manner, is both a concern and a relief for us; 26. The relief is that the Human Rights Council, recognizes there was a need to improve the process; 27. ... [Message clipped] View entire message 2 Attachments PDF Human Rights Council SUBMISSION 03022014_web(LITE).pdf PDF Collusion of the Cth and High Court Registry.pdf

LE THUAN PHAM: HELPING CLRG TO IMPROVE THEIR LAW EDUCATION PROCESS

HELPING CLRG IMPROVE THEIR LAW EDUCATION PROCESS Fwd: [CLRG News] New CLRA meeting at Truganina TONIGHT - Wed 5th Feb Inbox x chas x 02:18 (19 hours ago) to info, bcc: me Dear All, 1. I see the CLRG has a link to court information regarding judicial reviews.... http://www.clrg.info/2013/11/judicial-review-rules-and-forms-vic/ 2. what that page doesnt tell you is how to APPLY the Law.... 3. here is a webpage telling you how to apply Judicial Review by barrister Fiona McKenzie http://www.lawhandbook.org.au/handbook/ch21s01s01.php 4. Actually her explanation is better on other pages but i am too tired to search for it, its on the same website: search ALA (VIC) 1978, or AD(JR) Act. 5. She gives you the terms and language to apply the law. 6. This guy is apply the law (canadian). He doesnt waffle on about NO jurisdiction. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z5SdAgdH7w 7. Gluck