Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 31

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

[MELBOURNE] REGISTRY No. of

BETWEEN:

LE PHAM
FIRST PLAINTIFF
DAVID WOOLLEY
SECOND PLAINTIFF

And

THE QUEEN
FIRST DEFENDANT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (COMMONWEALTH AUSTRALIA)
SECOND DEFENDANT
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION (COMMONWEALTH OF
AUSTRALIA)
THIRD DEFENDANT
AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (COMMONWEALTH AUSTRALIA)
FOURTH DEFENDANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL (STATE OF VICTORIA AUSTRALIA)
FIFTH DEFENDANT
DENISE WEYBURY (REGISTRAR HIGH COURT AUSTRALIA)
SIX DEFENDANT
ROSEMARY MUSOLINO (REGISTRAR HIGH COURT AUSTRALIA)
SEVENTH DEFENDANT
WILSON SECURITY
EIGHTH DEFENDANT

AFFIDAVIT LE PHAM IN SUPPORT

Date of Document:
Filed on behalf of: LE PHAM
Prepared by: LE PHAM Solicitor Code:
Tel:
Fax:
Ref:
Email

I,

of [address]

1
In the State of Victoria
[make oath and say or solemnly and sincerely affirm] as follows:

That I am the . in
this matter and I make this affidavit from my own knowledge unless otherwise stated.

1. I am an Australian Citizen; and I am of Vietnamese heritage and background;

2. I have standing to sue in this matter; or that the High Court must declare why I have NO

standing to sue in this matter.

3. I have been unlawfully denied an interpretation of the Constitution, s75 and s51, in part or in

whole, via a mere court rule that allows the High Court Registrars to vilify Immigrants,

Refugees and Asylum Seekers, and to discriminate in denying access to the legal process, and

Equality before the Law.

4. Judges of the Supreme Court Victoria and High Court Australia have arbitrarily and

capriciously interpreted the law, the Constitution and the Victorian Charter, or interpret the law

according to the common law rights and human rights, and or the Charter, rather that they

apply Pretend Law, or the Colour of Law, an arbitrary and capricious interpretation of the law,

and refusing to provide any or proper reasons.

5. This amounts to the establishment of Star Chamber system and kangaroo courts, thats been

outlawed.

6. This amounts to a death sentence for Aborigines, Immigrants, Asylum Seekers and Refugees,

ad extra-judicial murder, as aiding and abetting unlawful discrimination in health, education,

employment and equality before the law.

7. There appears to be Arbitrary Arrests and Indefinite Detention of Aborigines, Immigrants and

Asylum Seekers and Refugees, without cause, and or refusing to apply the Charter to seek

answers to question of law, or an interpretation of the Charter and declaration of inconsistent

interpretation.

2
8. It appears that the judges have denied Mr Kevin Kahler and Ms Kerri Bennett in 2013, from

filing s75(v) challenges against incompetent decisions of Family Court judges, who arbitrarily

and capriciously make judgements without considering evidence of sexual abuse.

9. This has led to numerous deaths and suicide and murders.

10. The personal attacks on the Neurosurgeon Dr Charlie Teo, amount to discrimination, direct and

or indirect, and an attack on Informed Consent.

11. I need to know that my doctors and specialists are governed by their ethical standards and the

Rule of Law;

12. As such, I believe that this case is of much important Public Interest, and should be heard in

the front of the full bench of the High Court, as soon as is reasonably possible

13. The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006 (VIC) demands a competent,

independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing: s8 and s24.

14. This is supported by s51 of the Constitution in whole or in part,

a. (xxv) the recognition throughout the Commonwealth of the laws, the public Acts and

records, and the judicial proceedings of the States;

15. In addition, Tomasevic v Travaglini & Anor [2007] VSC 337 (13 September 2007), demands

that the High Court apply International Human Rights Laws;

16. The failure to interpret the Constitution and or the Charter, and or Acts in accordance with the

Charter, in an open manner has caused uncertainty in law, aided and abetted unlawful

discrimination, unlawful abuse of positions of power and trust, contributing the deaths of Mr

Gong Ling Tang at the hands of Victoria Police, and that of Ms Dhu in custody, and numerous

asylum seekers and refugees.

17. As such, I wish to expedite this matter, so that asylum seekers are not refouled to death, or that

there are more deaths in custody, or abuses at the Australian Human Rights Commission, The

Australian Defence Force, or in Hospitals, or within the police forces: basic human rights to

health, education, employment, equality before the law.

3
18. Vietnamese Asylum seekers, refugees and those of other ethnic backgrounds, have been

detained on the high seas, amounting to Piracy;

19. Vietnamese Asylum seekers, refugees and those of other ethnic backgrounds, have been turned

back to physical and psychological harm, torture, amounting to refoulement;

20. Vietnamese Asylum seekers, refugees and those of other ethnic backgrounds, have been denied

a proper and fair hearing of their asylum claims;

21. Vietnamese Asylum seekers, refugees and those of other ethnic backgrounds, have been

arbitrarily detained in Offshore processing facilities, without trials or due process;

22. Vietnamese Asylum seekers, refugees and those of other ethnic backgrounds, have had to

endure the conditions of life, created with the intent to destroy them; as an unlawful deterrence

for lawful asylum claims.

23. From the Prime Minister John Howard to the Minister Peter Dutton, Commonwealth officials

have vilified and discriminated against Asylum Seekers and Refugees, labelling them Inferior

and Illegal, and that they would deliberately harm their Children;

24. As such, it appears to be a continuation of the unlawful discrimination and vilification against

myself, Aborigines and other immigrants, and breaching s18C, and s9(1A) of the Racial

Discrimination Act;

25. And I feel offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated, by the registrars Mussolino and

Weybury and judges who refused to interpret the law, the Constitution and the Charter, in an

open and fair hearing according to law; And without providing any reasons whatsoever.

26. Arbitrary and capricious interpretation of s51 and 75 of the Constitution, and the Victorian

Charter, inter alia, under the colour of law allowed Police to cause and or contributed to deaths

of Aborigines, Immigrants and Asylum Seekers.

27. Arbitrary and capricious interpretation of s51 and 75 of the Constitution, and the Victorian

Charter, inter alia, under the colour of law have denied basic human rights, to health, education,

employment and equality before the law.

4
EXHIBITS TO AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT:
a) VCAT H8/2015 Kelly vs Ratcliffe, Presided G Nihill
b) VCAT H274/2014 Kelly vs AG and State Victoria, presided G Nihill
c) Kelly in Chambers Forrest J 14th January 2015.

SWORN or AFFIRMED at
In the State of Victoria

On

Before

.
LE PHAM

5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
[MELBOURNE] REGISTRY No. of

BETWEEN:

LE PHAM
FIRST PLAINTIFF
DAVID WOOLLEY
SECOND PLAINTIFF
10
And

THE QUEEN
FIRST DEFENDANT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (COMMONWEALTH AUSTRALIA)
SECOND DEFENDANT
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
(COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA)
THIRD DEFENDANT
20 AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (COMMONWEALTH
AUSTRALIA)
FOURTH DEFENDANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL (STATE OF VICTORIA AUSTRALIA)
FIFTH DEFENDANT
DENISE WEYBURY (REGISTRAR HIGH COURT AUSTRALIA)
SIX DEFENDANT
ROSEMARY MUSOLINO (REGISTRAR HIGH COURT AUSTRALIA)
SEVENTH DEFENDANT
WILSON SECURITY
30 EIGHTH DEFENDANT

APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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.
40
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.


[] Telephone: []
[] Fax: []
Ref: [ ]
To: Parties

Peter Dutton MP
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
PO Box 6022
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Telephone: 02 6277 7860
Fax: 02 6273 4144
10 Email: minister@border.gov.au

George Brandis MP
Robert Garran Offices
3-5 National Circuit, BARTON ACT 2600
PO Box 6100
Senate
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Telephone: 02 6277 7300
20 Fax: 02 6273 4102

The Hon Martin Pakula MP


Level 26, 121 Exhibition Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000
martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au

Denise Weybury
Rosemary Musolino
Level 17, Law Courts Building,
305 William Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000
30

President of Australian Human Rights Commission


Level 3, 175 Pitt Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000
GPO Box 5218
SYDNEY NSW 2001

Wilson Security
Level 16
40 Melbourne Central Tower
360 Elizabeth Street
Melbourne VIC 3000

2
THE RELIEF CLAIMED is
1. An urgent hearing is sought in front of the Full Bench of the High Court of Australia on
Matters of the Constitution and International Treaties, and an Application for a Notice to
Show Cause why Prerogative Writs of Mandamus, and or Prohibition should not be granted
to the Plaintiffs, preventing Commonwealth of Australia from unlawful discrimination
based on race, ethnicity or creed resulting in genocide and or murder by joint enterprise, of
asylum seekers, refugees, other immigrants, first nations peoples, and for the creating of
the conditions of life with the intent to destroy people; and the declarations and answers to
the following questions of law;

10 2. The Question(s) of law is whether Arbitrary and Capricious interpretation of the law and
court rules is an attack on the integrity of the court and or tribunal, and is incompatible with
and inconsistent with the Kable Principle, s75 and s51 of the Constitution, in part or in
whole, s38 and s78B of the Judiciary Act, the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibility
Act 2006 (VIC), s18C and or 9(1A) of the Racial Discrimination Act 1978 (Cth), inter alia?

3. Whether HIGH COURT RULES 2004 - RULE 6.07 in part or in whole is incompatible
with and inconsistent with the Kable Principle, s75 and s51 of the Constitution, in part
or in whole, s38 and s78B of the Judiciary Act, inter alia?

20 4. Whether HIGH COURT RULES 2004 - RULE 6.07 in part or in whole is incompatible
with and inconsistent with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006
(VIC), s18C and or 9(1A) of the Racial Discrimination Act 1978 (Cth), inter alia?

5. Whether HIGH COURT RULES 2004 - RULE 6.07 in part or in whole is incompatible
with and inconsistent with the s51 of the Constitution, in whole or in part?
a. (xxv) the recognition throughout the Commonwealth of the laws, the public Acts and
records, and the judicial proceedings of the States;
b. (xxxi) the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose
in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws;
30
6. Whether HIGH COURT RULES 2004 - RULE 6.07 in part or in whole is incompatible
with and inconsistent with the Victorian Charter, in whole or in part? s8 Recognition and
equality before the law; s24 Fair Hearing, the right to have the charge or proceeding
decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public
hearing, inter alia.

3
7. Whether Arbitrary and Capricious interpretation of the law and court rules amounts to a
Death Sentence for Australians, Aborigines, Immigrants, Asylum Seekers and Refugees?

8. Whether Arbitrary and Capricious interpretation of the law and court rules, amounts to the
creation of the unlawful STAR CHAMBERS?

9. Whether HIGH COURT RULES 2004 - RULE 6.07 in part (6.07.03) or in whole is
incompatible with and inconsistent with the abolition of the Star Chambers?

10 10. Whether HIGH COURT RULES 2004 - RULE 6.07 in part or in whole is incompatible
with and inconsistent with the Separation of Powers Doctrine, for the single judges to
modify court documents to Ex Parte.

11. Whether HIGH COURT RULES 2004 - RULE 6.07 in part or in whole is incompatible
with and inconsistent with the Separation of Powers Doctrine, for the single judges to refuse
to interpret and or apply legal precedence in Tomasevic v Travaglini & Anor [2007] VSC
337 (13 September 2007)?

12. Whether Offshore Processing of Asylum Seekers and Refugees amount to the creating of
20 the conditions of life with the intent to destroy them, and is incompatible with and
inconsistent to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide, pursuant to s75(i) of the Constitution?

13. Whether Offshore Processing of Asylum Seekers and Refugees without the competent,
independent and impartial judicial oversight is incompatible and inconsistent with the
Racial Discrimination Act 18C and 9(1A) inter alia?

14. Whether the powers, acts and conduct of the Minister for Immigration and Border
Protection to turn back boats of Asylum Seekers and Refugees of Vietnamese and other
30 backgrounds, from Australian territory waters, are an administrative power what can be
reviewed by a competent, independent and impartial judiciary?

15. Whether the powers, acts and conduct of the Minister for Immigration and Border
Protection to turn back boats of Asylum Seekers and Refugees of Vietnamese and other
backgrounds, on the high seas, amount to Piracy?

4
16. Whether the powers, acts and conduct of the Minister for Immigration and Border
Protection to turn back boats of Asylum Seekers and Refugees of Vietnamese and other
backgrounds, on the high seas, amount to Refoulement?

17. Whether the powers, acts and conduct of the Minister for Immigration and Border
Protection to turn back boats of Asylum Seekers and Refugees of Vietnamese and other
backgrounds, on the high seas, amount to extra-judicial murder?

10 18. Whether the powers, acts and conducts of the Minister for Immigration and Border
Protection to turn back boats of Asylum Seekers and Refugees of Vietnamese and other
backgrounds, from Australian territory waters, are incompatible and inconsistent with the
Racial Discrimination Act 18C and 9(1A) inter alia?

19. Whether payments to Asylum Seekers and Refugees in order to force them to return to their
port of origins, amount to people smuggling, and or aiding and abetting people smuggling
and trafficking?

20. Whether a Refugee of Vietnamese background can have his Questions of the Constitution
20 and or its interpretation; and or the Charter, its interpretation and or the interpretation of
other Acts pursuant to the Charter, without being vilified and discriminated against by the
Commonwealth officers, in order to protect the basic human rights to health, education,
employment and equality before the law, in a fair and open hearing?

21. A declaration as to Why this application is not of Public Interest when Arbitrary and
Capricious interpretation of the law and court rules have aided and abetted unlawful
discrimination, and caused and or contributed to the deaths of Australian Citizens,
Aborigines, and the Asylum Seekers and Refugees?

30 22. Constitutional Writs are last resort when the Commonwealth officers refuse to act when he
has a duty to act and refuses to do so;

5
23. Constitutional Writs of Mandamus, or Prohibition are sought against the High Court
Registrars Mussolino and Weybury, in order to prevent them from engaging in or
processing court documents in which they are listed as party to the proceedings;

24. Constitutional Writs of Mandamus, or Prohibition are sought against the High Court
Registrars Mussolino and Weybury, in order to prevent them from engaging in any conduct
that breaches the proper administration of justice.

25. Constitutional Writs of Mandamus, or Prohibition are sought against the High Court
10 Registrars Mussolino and Weybury, in order to prevent them from engaging in any conduct
breaching Racial Discrimination Act 18C and or 9(1A), in the arbitrary and capricious
interpretation of the Constitution or the Judiciary Act, and or the Charter.

26. Constitutional Writs of Mandamus, or Prohibition are sought against the Federal Attorney
General, Mr George Brandis, in order to prevent him from engaging in any conduct
breaching Racial Discrimination Act 18C and or 9(1A), in the apparent attempt to offer
monetary inducement and or other employment positions, to the President of the Australian
Human Rights Commission.

20 27. Constitutional Writs of Mandamus, or Prohibition are sought against the Minister for
Immigration and Border Protection, Mr Peter Dutton, in order to prevent him from
engaging in any conduct breaching Racial Discrimination Act 18C and or 9(1A), in the
apparent conduct to vilify and discriminate against Asylum Seekers and Refugees.

6
THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE RELIEF IS CLAIMED are:

Colour of Law and Pretend Laws


28. It appears that Arbitrary and Capricious interpretation of the law, the Constitution, the
Judiciary Act, the Charter, and court rules have aided and abetted unlawful discrimination
and a culture of human rights abuses by Australian police and government solicitors,
costing the lives of Mr Gong Ling Tang at the hands of Victoria Police at Dandenong, Ms
Dhu in custody in Western Australia, and the uncertainty in the interpretation of law is
forcing Police officer Rick Flori to expose and whistleblow the corruption, cover-up and
10 malicious and wilful affray and assault of public persons by Australian Police, as a
conscientious objection to institutionalised abuse and corruption.

29. It appears that Arbitrary and Capricious interpretation of the law and court rules resulted
in Arbitrary Arrest and Detention of Australian Citizens at the whims of the judge, contrary
to the Charter, inter alia, and or Arbitrary and Indefinite Detention of Asylum Seekers
without just cause, and without open and fair hearing, breaching s75, s51 of the
Constitution, and the Charter, in whole or in part.

30. It appears that the failure to hear matters that are exclusive original jurisdiction of the High
20 Court, relating to the Constitution or the interpretation of the Constitution, and or the
Charter, and or the interpretation of laws in accordance with the Charter, and or the
Constitution, has led to creating the conditions of life with the intent to destroy people, and
resulting in the deaths and hardship, in the defence forces, of child abuses from the family
court, of Asylum seekers and refugees, and of racial hatred, and theft by deception.

High Court Registrars Mussolino and Weybury


31. In order to allow the High Court Registrars Mussolino and Weybury, to continue to
interfere with the administration of justice, unlawful racial vilification and discrimination
under the guise of the Colour of Law, the Governor General at the behest of the Australian
Senate, signed into law without the consent of the Australian People via referendum, HIGH
30 COURT RULES 2004 - RULE 6.07, thereby granting the exclusive original jurisdiction
and powers and functions of the High Court Australia to the registrars.

7
Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission
32. Between 2002 and 2010, or thereabouts the Australia Human Rights Commission refused
to properly terminate complaint(s) in writing from the Plaintiffs and the Aboriginal man,
Fred Wilson, pursuant to the s46 PH and or 46PE of the Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Act 2006 (Cth).

33. In 2016 or thereabouts, the Australian Human Rights Commission denied the QUT students
their Human Rights to Fair Hearing and Equality before the Law, and contributed to
extortion of payments from the students.

10 Supreme Court Victoria and VCAT


34. Between 2002 and 2010, Members of VCAT and Judges of the Supreme Court Victoria,
refused to answer Questions of Law regarding the Charter or its interpretations, aiding and
abetting and or contributed to the death of Mr Gong Ling Tang at the hands of Victoria
Police at Dandenong.

35. Numerous judges have failed and or refused to apply Tomasevic v Travaglini & Anor
[2007] VSC 337 (13 September 2007), and appeared to breached the Racial
Discrimination Act 18C and 9(1A).

2036. In 2013, Mr Kevin Kelly filed complaints against Victoria Police, The VCAT Member G
Nihill, refused to hear his matter of discrimination, and colluded with government solicitors
to throw out the matter on a strike out application: G Nihill refused to provide any reasons
for judgement.

37. Application was brought to the Supreme Court pursuant to the Administrative Law Act
1978 (VIC); The Registrar Ratcliffe refused to file the matter and provided no reasons;

38. Application was sent the Forrest J, in chambers. The judge appears to have vilified and
breached the discrimination act and the Charter against the Applicant, and again provided
30 NO reasons for refusal.

8
39. Death of Mr Gong Ling Tang at the hands of the Victoria Police at Dandenong in 2010,
when Victoria Police Officers threw the ill man into the streets, and thereby endangering
the public, resulted from the arbitrary and capricious interpretation of the Charter and the
Equal Opportunity Act, that empowered Victoria Police to act unlawfully.

40. Arbitrary and Capricious Interpretation of the Constitution and the Judiciary Act, have
allowed the Prime Ministers from John Howard, all the way through to the Minister Peter
Dutton, to vilify and discriminate against Asylum Seekers and Refugees, thereby creating
the conditions of life with the intent to destroy people without cause, amounting to extra-
10 judicial murder.

41. Arbitrary and Capricious interpretation of the law, the Constitution, the Judiciary Act,
the Charter, and court rules have aided and abetted unlawful discrimination and a culture
of human rights abuses by Australian police and government solicitors, costing the lives of
Mr Gong Ling Tang at the hands of Victoria Police at Dandenong, Ms Dhu in custody in
Western Australia, and the uncertainty in the interpretation of law is forcing Police officer
Rick Flori to expose and whistleblow the corruption, cover-up and malicious and wilful
affray and assault of public persons by Australian Police, as a conscientious objection to
institutionalised abuse and corruption.
20

9
42. EXHIBITS TO AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT:
a) VCAT H8/2015 Kelly vs Ratcliffe, Presided G Nihill
b) VCAT H274/2014 Kelly vs AG and State Victoria, presided G Nihill
c) Kelly in Chambers Forrest J 14th January 2015.

39. 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]
10 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
20 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)....................
LT PHAM
Human Rights Defender

30

DAVID WOOLEY
Human Rights Defender
The plaintiffs address is [ ].
The plaintiffs address for service is [ ].

10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
[MELBOURNE] REGISTRY No. of

BETWEEN:

LE PHAM
FIRST PLAINTIFF
DAVID WOOLLEY
SECOND PLAINTIFF
10
And

THE QUEEN
FIRST DEFENDANT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (COMMONWEALTH AUSTRALIA)
SECOND DEFENDANT
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
(COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA)
THIRD DEFENDANT
20 AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (COMMONWEALTH
AUSTRALIA)
FOURTH DEFENDANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL (STATE OF VICTORIA AUSTRALIA)
FIFTH DEFENDANT
DENISE WEYBURY (REGISTRAR HIGH COURT AUSTRALIA)
SIX DEFENDANT
ROSEMARY MUSOLINO (REGISTRAR HIGH COURT AUSTRALIA)
SEVENTH DEFENDANT
WILSON SECURITY
30 EIGHTH DEFENDANT

NOTICE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER

1. The Plaintiff gives notice that this proceeding involves a matter arising under the
40 Constitution or involving its interpretation within the meaning of s 78B of the Judiciary
Act 1903 (Cth).

[] Telephone: []
[] Fax: []
Ref: [ ]
Nature of constitutional matter

i. The constitutional issue(s) raised by the Plaintiffs application to the HIGH COURT
OF AUSTRALIA pursuant to COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 75, and SECT 51 (the Constitution), inter alia, and
JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 38, and SECT 78B, inter alia, on Question(s) of Law
relating to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Australian Human Rights Act, Cth), Charter for
Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006 (VIC) (the Charter), inter alia, is the
10 exclusive original jurisdiction of HIGH COURT AUSTRALIA, to make a bare
declaration(s) as to the privileges, powers and immunities of the Judicial Officers,
Registrars of the High Court, Supreme Court of Victoria, and Court of Appeal,
administrative and or judicial arm of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
(VCAT), and the Inconsistent Interpretation of the Constitution, s75 (i, iii, iv, v) and
s51, in part or in whole, the Judiciary Act s38, and s78B, and the Charter, pursuant to
s33, s36 and s39 of the Charter, and the common law rights, espoused by NSW Chief
Justice Spigelman, inter alia;

The determination and or lack of determination of this issue(s) may raise for
20 consideration sections 109, 75, 51 of the Constitution, inter alia.

2. It appears that in 2010, the Australian Parliament and the Governor General of Australia
have unlawfully modified the Australian Constitution without the Consent of the
Australian people via a referendum, in an effort to deny Australian Citizens seeking
answers to matters arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation, in the
effort to interfere with the administration of justice, engaging in unlawful
discrimination and vilification, via HIGH COURT RULES 2004 - RULE 6.07.

3. HIGH COURT RULES 2004 - RULE 6.07 appears to be granting the exclusive
30 original jurisdiction, functions, and powers of the High Court Australia, pursuant to
the Constitution s75 (i, iii, iv, v) and the Judiciary Act s38, and 78B, to the mere
administrative Registrars of the High Court, without the consent of the Australian
people via a referendum.

2
4. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 75
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
10 of the Commonwealth or a federal court.;
the High Court shall have original jurisdiction.

5. HIGH COURT RULES 2004 - RULE 6.07.3 appears to allow the creation of the
Star Chambers, and the modifying of the documents to Ex Parte appears to be a
breach of the Separation of Powers doctrine.

6. It appears that Arbitrary and Capricious interpretation of the law, the Constitution,
the Judiciary Act, the Charter, and court rules have aided and abetted unlawful
discrimination and a culture of human rights abuses by Australian police and
20 government solicitors, costing the lives of Mr Gong Ling Tang at the hands of Victoria
Police at Dandenong, Ms Dhu in custody in Western Australia, and the uncertainty in
the interpretation of law is forcing Police officer Rick Flori to expose and whistleblow
the corruption, cover-up and malicious and wilful affray and assault of public persons
by Australian Police, as a conscientious objection to institutionalised abuse and
corruption.

7. It appears that Arbitrary and Capricious interpretation of the law and court rules resulted
in Arbitrary Arrest and Detention of Australian Citizens at the whims of the judge,
contrary to the Charter, inter alia, and or Arbitrary and Indefinite Detention of Asylum
30 Seekers without just cause, and without open and fair hearing, breaching s75, s51 of the
Constitution, and the Charter, in whole or in part.

8. It appears that the failure to hear matters that are exclusive original jurisdiction of the
High Court, relating to the Constitution or the interpretation of the Constitution, and or
the Charter, and or the interpretation of laws in accordance with the Charter, and or the
Constitution, has led to creating the conditions of life with the intent to destroy people,
and resulting in the deaths and hardship, in the defence forces, of child abuses from the
family court, of Asylum seekers and refugees, and of racial hatred, and theft by
deception.

3
9. The Question(s) of law is whether Arbitrary and Capricious interpretation of the law
and court rules is an attack on the integrity of the court and or tribunal, and is
incompatible with and inconsistent with the Kable Principle, s51 of the Constitution, in
part or in whole, the Charter, the Racial Discrimination Act s18C and or 9(1A), inter
alia?

10. The Question(s) of law is whether Arbitrary and Capricious interpretation of the law
and court rules amounts to a Death Sentence for Australians, Aborigines, Immigrants,
Asylum Seekers and Refugees?
10
11. The Question(s) of law is whether Arbitrary and Capricious interpretation of the law
and court rules, in addition to HIGH COURT RULES 2004 - RULE 6.07 amounts to
creation of the unlawful STAR CHAMBERS?

12. The Question(s) of law is Whether HIGH COURT RULES 2004 - RULE 6.07 in part
or in whole is incompatible with and inconsistent with the Separation of Powers
Doctrine, for the single judges to modify the court documents and or refuse to interpret
and or apply legal precedence in Tomasevic v Travaglini & Anor [2007] VSC 337 (13
September 2007)?
20
13. The Question(s) of law is on the Interpretation of Why this application would not be of
Public Interest when Arbitrary and Capricious interpretation of the law and court rules
have aided and abetted unlawful discrimination, and cause the deaths of Australian
Citizens, Aborigines, Immigrants, and the Asylum Seekers and Refugees?

14. The Question(s) of law is whether Arbitrary and Capricious interpretation of the law
and court rules, in addition to HIGH COURT RULES 2004 - RULE 6.07 amounts to
Theft by Deception.

4
Facts showing that s 78B Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) applies

Colour of Law and Pretend Laws


15. In 2010 or thereabouts, the Governor General of the Commonwealth single-handedly
signed into effect the HIGH COURT RULES 2004 - RULE 6.07;

16. The HIGH COURT RULES 2004 - RULE 6.07 appears to be an attempt to change the
Australian Constitution without the consent of the Australian people via
REFERENDUM.
10
17. The HIGH COURT RULES 2004 - RULE 6.07 appears to deny Australians from
seeking effective legal remedy via the remnants of the Magna Carta, and the
Constitutional Writs, to have the Constitution and the laws interpreted in an open and
fair manner, under the test of reasonableness.

18. The HIGH COURT RULES 2004 - RULE 6.07 appears allow aiding and abetting of
discrimination (via the High Court Registrars) contrary to the Racial Discrimination
Act 18C and or 9(1A).

20 19. The HIGH COURT RULES 2004 - RULE 6.07 allowed the High Court Registrars
Musolino and Weybury to continue to racially vilify and discriminate against the
Plaintiff(s) by refusing to file the matters without proper reasons and any reasons at all,
and or by changing the documents.

High Court Registrars Mussolino and Weybury


20. Registars Mussolino and Weybury were then listed as party, and the single judge of the
High Court Australia allowed them to continue to process further documents against
them.

21. By refusing to hear the matters of Racial Discrimination, and the Charter and
30 Constitutional Writs or Mandamus and or Prohibition in the High Court, the uncertainty
in law allowed, aided and abetted the Victorian Police and thereby contributed to the
Death of Mr Gong Ling Tang (2010) outside police station at Dandenong, and the death
of Ms Dhu (2014) in Western Australia in custody.

5
22. There appears to be attempts at theft by deception of the Filing Fees of the matters, by
refusing to give proper reasons for refusal to file documents, or of taxation and other
monetary payments, and duties, inter alia.

23. In 2013, further attempts to file documents on the Questions of Law and the Question
of Interpretation of the Charter, and the Constitution, for the Asylum Seekers and
Refugees on Manus and Nauru, inter alia, pursuant to the s75 (i) and the International
Treaties.

10 24. The Registrars Musolino and Weybury engaged the Victoria Police and Wilson
Security to harass and intimidate the Plaintiffs.

25. When asked why the Plaintiff was forced from the public space of the High Court
Australia on a peaceful filing of his court documents, Wilson Security Staff, mentioned,
for being a pest; Victoria Police refused to reply.

26. By refusing to hear the matter of Racial Discrimination, the Charter and Constitutional
Writs or Mandamus and or Prohibition in the High Court, the uncertainty in law
allowed, aided and abetted the creating of the conditions of life with the intent to destroy
20 Asylum Seekers and Refugees, leading to many deaths and hardship on offshore
detention centres on Manus and Nauru, inter alia.

Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission


27. Between 2002 and 2010, or thereabouts the Australia Human Rights Commission
refused to properly terminate complaint(s) in writing from the Plaintiffs and the
Aboriginal man, Fred Wilson, pursuant to the s46 PH and or 46PE of the Human Rights
and Equal Opportunity Act 2006 (Cth).

28. In 2016 or thereabouts, the Australian Human Rights Commission denied the QUT
students their Human Rights to Fair Hearing and Equality before the Law, and
30 contributed to extortion of payments from the students.

6
Supreme Court Victoria and VCAT
29. Between 2002 and 2010, Members of VCAT and Judges of the Supreme Court Victoria,
refused to answer Questions of Law relating to the Charter or its interpretations, aiding
and abetting and or contributed to the death of Mr Gong Ling Tang at the hands of
Victoria Police at Dandenong.

30. Numerous judges have failed and or refused to apply Tomasevic v Travaglini & Anor
[2007] VSC 337 (13 September 2007), and appeared to breached the Racial
Discrimination Act 18C and 9(1A).
10
31. In 2013, Mr Kevin Kelly filed complaints against Victoria Police, The VCAT Member
G Nihill, refused to hear his matter of discrimination, and colluded with government
solicitors to throw out the matter on a strike out application: G Nihill refused to provide
any reasons for judgement.

32. Application was brought to the Supreme Court pursuant to the Administrative Law Act
1978 (VIC); The Registrar Ratcliffe refused to file the matter and provided no reasons;

33. Application was sent the Forrest J, in chambers. The judge appears to have vilified and
20 breached the discrimination act and the Charter against the Applicant, and again
provided NO reasons for refusal.

34. Death of Mr Gong Ling Tang at the hands of the Victoria Police at Dandenong in 2010,
when Victoria Police Officers threw the ill man into the streets, and thereby
endangering the public, resulted from the arbitrary and capricious interpretation of the
Charter and the Equal Opportunity Act, that empowered Victoria Police to act
unlawfully.

35. Arbitrary and Capricious Interpretation of the Constitution and the Judiciary Act, have
30 allowed the Prime Ministers from John Howard, all the way through to the Minister
Peter Dutton, to vilify and discriminate against Asylum Seekers and Refugees, thereby
creating the conditions of life with the intent to destroy people without cause,
amounting to extra-judicial murder.

7
36. EXHIBITS TO AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT:
a) VCAT H8/2015 Kelly vs Ratcliffe, Presided G Nihill

b) VCAT H274/2014 Kelly vs AG and State Victoria, presided G Nihill

c) Kelly in Chambers Forrest J 14th January 2015.

37. 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]
10 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.

20

FILED:

LT PHAM
Human Rights Defender

30 DAVID WOOLLEY
Human Rights Defender

8
TO: The Respondents
AND TO: George Brandis QC
Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia
senator.brandis@aph.gov.au,
AND TO: Mark Speakman MP
Attorney-General of New South Wales
cronulla@parliament.nsw.gov.au,
AND TO: Martin Pakula MP
Attorney-General of Victoria
10 martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au,
AND TO: Yvette D'Ath MP
Attorney-General of Queensland
attorney@ministerial.qld.gov.au,
AND TO: Michael Mischin MP
Attorney-General of Western Australia
Minister.Mischin@dpc.wa.gov.au,
AND TO: John Rau MP
Attorney-General of South Australia
agd@agd.sa.gov.au,
20 AND TO: Vanessa Goodwin MP
Attorney-General of Tasmania
vanessa.goodwin@parliament.tas.gov.au,
AND TO: Gordon Ramsay MLA
Attomey-General of the Australian Capital Territory
ramsay@act.gov.au,
AND TO: Natasha Kate Fyles MLA
Attomey-General of the Northern Territory of Australia
minister.fyles@nt.gov.au,
..
30

Оценить