IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF VICTORIA IMELBOURNE] REGISTRY . BETWEEN: DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, JOBS, TRANSPORT & RESOURCES , 2. Imake this affidavit from the information within my own knowledge, except where stated to the contrary or where the context indicates to the contrary, I challenge every and ALL accusations and attacks on my name, person and reputation; I challenge every and ALL legal presumptions; ‘This is a case that’s frivolous, lacking in substance and is purely driven by hearsay. 1 appears to be an attempt at thefl by deception under the Color of Law, a star chamber, and an attack on the Kable Principle and the integrity of the courts: 7. On the 7 of February and 2" of March of 2007, Johnstone, BR, Judicial Registrar, refused to let me speak and refused to file the Notice of a Constitutional Matter. 8. It appears that Johnstone JR: wanted to me to appeal his abuse of process and discretion, ‘and racial vilification and discrimination, that caused or led to the Death of Mr Gong Ling ‘Tang by Victoria police at Dandenong and Ms Dhu in Western Australia. 9. ‘There is an application for a referral to the Supreme Court pursuant s33 (and s36, $39) of the Charter for the interpretation of the Charter or the interpretation of other Acts in accordance with the Charter. 10, Johnstone JR has refused, and his interference with the administration of justice continues the aiding and abetting unlawful discrimination, amounting to a death sentence for Aborigines, Asylum Seckers and refugees, from a Star Chamber that’s in contempt of the Rule of Law, the Constitution and the Charter. 1 Inthe event that Johnstone JR continued his interference with the administration of justice, and denying a fair hearing and equality before the law, pursuant to the Char 12, Lam a cater of the elderly father who needs medical attention, I up Me13. Johnstone JR’s interference with the administration of justice, and refusal to confirm with ‘me the availability of the hearing dates, is an attempt to injure by mysclf and my father, physically and peychologically as an aterapt st unlawful discrimination; 14. Exhibit 4 is the evidence of my father's emergency appointment with eye specialist for further surg 15, If cannot attain a fair hearing and equality before the law at a mention or special mention hearing; it is not likely 1 will get a fair hearing and equality before the law at the full hearing: 16, However, in the interest of the public, this matter should be sent to the Supreme Court Pursuant to the s33 and s36 of the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act (VIC) 2006, the Equal Opportunity Act (VIC) 2010, and the Administrative Law Act (VIC) 1978, inter alia 17. The Questions of Law, in this prima facie ease, are 18, Whether the Magistrates Court and or VCAT, has the authority to answer questions of law under the Charter, and or the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act; 19, Whether the Magistrates Court and or VCAT, has the authority 10 refuse to refer to the ‘Supreme Court, questions of law under s33 of the Charter, or 536 for a Declaration of an inconsistent interpretation of the Charter or Act(s), and or the Commonwealth of Australia ‘Constitution Act; without any proper reasons, 20. Whether the Magistrates Court and or VCAT and or the Supreme Court Victoria, breaches ‘the Charter, the Equal Opportunity Act, the Racial Discrimination Act (Cth) 1975 and or the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, by refusing to answer the questions of Jaw herein, as an inconsistent interpretation of the Charter and or Constitution: 21. Whether the Magistrates Court and or VCAT and or the Supreme Court Vietoria, breaches the discrimination act(s), direct and or indirect, RDA 9(1A), and or vilification RDA 18C by declaring that the questions of law herein are not of public interest despite the death of Mr Gong Ling Tang at the hands of Vietoria Police at Dandenong, or the deaths of [Aborigines in custody including Ms Dhu in WA for mere fines, and the highest rates of Aborigines incarceration. 22. Whether the Magistrates Court and or VCAT and or the Supreme Court Victoria, breaches 51 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, in the arbitrary and capricious Ue23. 24. 25. 27 28. 29. interpretation of mere court rules, and or the abuse of disoretionary powers. rather than applying the Charter in providing fair and open and public hearing. and equality before. the law. - Whether the Magistrates Court and or VCAT and or the Supreme Court Victoria, breaches 351 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, in the arbitrary and capricious interpretation of common law rights, or the abuse of discretionary powers, rather than applying the legal precedence from case of Bell J, that it’s the duty of the presiding judge = ‘Tomasevic v Travaglini & Anor [2007] VSC 337 (13 September 2007) Whether Forrest J of the Supreme Court Victoria, breached the Kable Principle, and the integrity of the Courts, vilified and or discriminated against the Aborigines man, Mr Kevin Kelly, by accusing him of abuse ofthe court process and being vexatious, denied him fai, open and public hearing WITHOUT providing ANY proper reasons, just because Mr Kevin Kelly wanted a proper answer from a court of law and a court of record. There is now effectively no record of Mr Kelly's question(s) of law being answered }. Whether failure of the judges to act in a judicial manner rather than as corporate ‘administrators that have cost the lives of many Australian including Mr Gong Ling Tang, Ms Dhu, many others and those seeking asylum, amounts to a breach of the Kable Principle, an attack on the integrity of the courts, and the Commonwealth of Australia ‘Constitution, and the Principle of Legality. Whether failure of the judges to act in a judicial manner rather than as corporate administrators amounts to discrimination, direct and or indirect, and vilification, and thus ‘ereating uncertainty in the law, which would breach 551 of the Commonwealth of Australia ‘Constitution, in whole or in part ‘The Qld Police Officer Rick Flori, has had to whistleblow and expose the abusive and unlawful conducts of his colleagues due 10 the improper conduct and failures of the institutions that have been set up to investigate and prosecute unlawful behaviors, Whether a failure t0 answer the Question(s) of Law amounts to setting up Immigrants, Asylum seekers and Refugees to ful, thereby creating the condition of life with the intent to destroy.30. 31. 32, 33, 34. ‘This is an Application to Strike out this Matter, for being lacking in substance and facts, frivolous and vexatious and in breach of the Charter, RDA. 18C and or 9(1A); In the alternative, or in addition to, is a request for the maiterto be referred to the Supreme ‘Court Victoria, pursuant to £33 of the Charter, forthe above questions of Jaw, and for a Chaster, acts, rules, principles, inter alia, according to the Charter. Failure to refer the matter without proper reasons. isan inconsistent interpretation of the Charter or Statutes according to the Charter. Johnstone JR tried to have the G10447136 of 2017 heard at a FULL hearing without gi the brie ofthe case the accused. (610447136 02017 has been wihrown afer 4 plas mentions and special mention snd fil hearing date, when it should have been dismissed at mention onthe strikeout aplication. EXHIBITS TO AFFIDAVITIN SUPPORT: 1. VCATH8/2015 Kely vs Ratcilfo, Prosidod G Nit 2. VCATH274/2014 Kelly vs AG and State Victoria, presided G Nihil 3. Kelly in Chambers Forest J 14th January 2015, 4. Mexvan Phom Emergency Eye Appointment for Surcery ‘Authontios: © Memdlovic vthe Queen [2011] HCA 34 (8 Seplomzer 2011) b.—_Kottorw HA inuzonce Serces Pry sted [2010] HCA 32 © Gurmet vThe Maca Soveciring Co Py Io 21024 2. Univorty ot Wotongong v Moti) (1984) Toric ravogle & Aor [2007] VSC-97 [13 Setembar 2007) Mendomas il fo for an abuse of dicetion where dicroion has boon ercrciod atiboriy and ‘Spuctousy or where ctcration hse on wxarsaad bod tlt Peavey Co. ceweeran 7A SIN 31a. Inwwchinatonce: the dbuse omounta effec! 0 ne decotion, Manoa is worried whon the State & cher otis m a rani! Wattce Rek Vangie Se” Nad Pe, Marceau vie we [Ghffciareturesto.ac! when he nas a duty fooct ondrohes te doo. FILED: SWORN/AFFIRMED AT 1+ LEQURNE In the State of Victoria on 11 APR 2017 Before Me: A bearer Maria Liberatore ’ Registrar Magistrates’ Court of Vietoria 3 Wiliam St. MelbourneIN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF VICTORIA (MELBOURNE) REGISTRY ‘ BETWEEN: DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, JOBS, TRANSPORT & RESOURCES EXHIBIT SHEET EXHIBIT -1" now produced and shown to a: ime of swenningltiming this aaviton Monday, Api if. 2017, UW lw Mogistratos’ Court of Vietona 288 William G&. Melasurns Maria Liberatore VCAT H8/2015 Kelly vs Ratclife, Presided G Nihitt Human Rights DefenderAT MELBOURNE IN THE MATTER of an application by Kevin Kelly for an order unc rule 27.06(3) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 WHEREIN: Kevin Kelly Plaintiff | JUDGE: ‘The Honourable Justice J Forrest DATE MADE: I Jamuary 2015 HOW OBTAINED: In chambers OTHER MATTERS: A. The Plaintiff sought to file the following: | 1, Summons dated 14 January 2015; 2, an Affidavit in Support swom 14 January 2015 (the Plaintiff's documents). | B. The Prothonotary refused to seal the Plaintiff's documents pursuant to r 27,06(1) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules (Rules) on the basis that if sealed, the proceeding so commenced would be itregular or an abuse of process, C. The putative Plaintiff sought a direction from the Court to order the Prothonotary to seal the Plaintiff's documents pursuant to r 27.06(3) of the Rules. ¥ Xs D. Its apparent that if the Plaintiff's documents were sealed the proceeding so commenced would be iregular ot an abuse of process, ORDER 1, The Court declines to direct the Prothonotary to seal or accept the Plaintifi’s documents for filing. DATE AUTHENTICATED: 14 January 2015VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION HUMAN RIGHTS LIST ve. Reference: H274/2014 APPLICANT: Kevin Kelly FIRST RESPONDENT: Attorney-General for the State of Victoria SECOND RESPONDENT: State of Victoria (Department of Justice) WHERE HELD: Tn Chambers BEFORE: Deputy President G. Nihill DATE OF ORDER: 24 April 2015 ORDER The Tribunal records that: 1. The following order was made on 30 March 2015: Having regard to order made on 11 December 2015 and 17 February 2015 and correspondence from both parties the Tribunal orders that: Unless the Applicant files particulars of his elaim on or before 17 April 2015 then on that date the application will be struck out without hearing. 2. On17 April 2015 the Applicant filed a document entitled ‘continuing particulars of all matters before the court of crimes being committed’, 3. Neither this document nor any other material filed by th particulars of any claim in respect of which the Tribunal has juris The Tribunal therefore orders that: Under s75 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 the proceeding is struck out on the basis that it is misconceived,VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION HUMAN RIGHTS LIST ve. Reference: H274/2014 APPLICANT: Kevin Kelly FIRST RESPONDENT: Attorney-General for the State of Victoria SECOND RESPONDENT: State of Victoria (Department of Justice) WHERE HELD: Tn Chambers BEFORE: Deputy President G. Nihill DATE OF ORDER: 24 April 2015 ORDER The Tribunal records that: 1. The following order was made on 30 March 2015: Having regard to order made on 11 December 2015 and 17 February 2015 and correspondence from both parties the Tribunal orders that: Unless the Applicant files particulars of his elaim on or before 17 April 2015 then on that date the application will be struck out without hearing. 2. On17 April 2015 the Applicant filed a document entitled ‘continuing particulars of all matters before the court of crimes being committed’, 3. Neither this document nor any other material filed by th particulars of any claim in respect of which the Tribunal has juris The Tribunal therefore orders that: Under s75 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 the proceeding is struck out on the basis that it is misconceived,