Monday, June 10, 2013


IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA No. of 2013 PERTH REGISTRY In the matter of an application by Rogerio Martins Cristovao for leave to issue a proceeding EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO ISSUE A PROCEEDING 10 1. The Applicant applies for leave to issue the attached proceeding. 2. On 22.3.2013 Justice Kiefel directed the registrar to refuse to issue the proceeding without the leave a justice first had and obtained by the party seeking to issue it. GROUNDS: 1. The grounds of the application appear in the supporting affidavit of Rogerio Martins Cristovao sworn on June 2013. 20 Signed ………………………….. IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA No of 2013 PERTH REGISTRY In the matter of an application by Rogerio Martins Cristovao for leave to issue a proceeding EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO ISSUE A PROCEEDING ________________________________________________________________________ AFFIDAVIT 10 1. I, ROGERIO MARTINS CRISTOVAO, of number 4, Bellier Place, Hamilton Hill in the State of Western Australia, Butcher by Trade, being duly sworn make Oath and say as follows: 2. I am a Self-Represented litigant Applicant above named in this action. 3. The facts herein are true and correct, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Where I identify the source of facts stated, as other than from my own personal knowledge, I believe such facts to be true and correct. 4. I swear this affidavit in support of my Application for the purpose for leave to issue a proceeding from the High Court of Australia. 20 5. I refer to the attached documents to this Affidavit as itemized under the heading: 5.1. SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENTS 5.1.1. Amended Writ of Summons dated 7th June 2013. 5.1.2. Exhibit “RC-1” Letter from Deputy Registrar Carlsund to the Applicant rejecting the Originating Process dated 4.4.2013 in 2 pages. 5.1.3. Exhibit “RC-2-” Letter from Registrar Carlsund to Applicant dated 10.4.2013 in one page. 5.1.4. Exhibit “RC-3” Letter from Applicant to the respective Associates of 30 Justice Kiefel and the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia dated 14.4.2013 in 3 pages. 5.1.5. Exhibit “RC-4” Response letter from Registrar Carlsund dated 16.4.2013 in one page responding to the Applicant’s complaint letter dated 14.4.2013 in one page. 5.1.6. Exhibit “RC-5” Letter from the Applicant dated 23.4.2013 to the Principal Registrar of the High Court for a Show Cause Application in Form 21 in 21 pages. 5.1.7. Exhibit “RC-6” Letter from the Registrar of the High Court to Applicant dated 30.4.2013 in 3 pages rejecting the Form 21 Show Cause Application as indicated in item 5.1.6 above. 5.1.8. Exhibit “RC-7” Cover Letter from Applicant dated 9.5.2013 in 2 pages attaching Affidavit of Applicant filed in PTW 3009 of 2002 in 17 pages sworn 8.5.2013. The latter includes the case of O’Bryan & Ors v Commonwealth (Matter C1-06-03878) CLRG COMMONWEALTH; it indicates, inter alia, the laws of Australia that an originating process of any court of competent jurisdiction in Australia cannot be stopped on the 10 pretext of a perceived abuse of process and that the judiciary must not be involved in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice under the penalty of the provisions of Crimes Act, 1914 (Comm.). 5.1.9. Exhibit “RC-8” The response letter dated 15.05.13 of Registrar Carlsund accepting item No. 5.1.8 and requesting the Applicant to make this Ex Parte Application for leave to issue proceeding in the High Court pursuant to Rule 6.07 of the High Court Rules, 2004, in 2 pages. 5.1.10. Exhibit “RC-9” Letter from Applicant dated 22.05.13, in 2 pages to the Deputy Registrar Carlsund of the High Court, refer to D R refusal to accept Applicant’s to Show Cause Application in Form 21. 20 5.1.11. Exhibit “RC-10” Letter from Applicant dated 23.05.13, in 2 pages to Deputy Registrar Carlsund of the High Court refers to Show Cause Application in Form 21 returned by Federal Court Registry accompanied by an unidentified handwriting slip note. 5.1.12. Exhibit “RC-11” Letter from the Deputy Registrar of the High Court to Applicant dated 27.05.13 in 1 page in response to Applicant’s letters dated 22 and 23 May 2013 indicating inability to add any information other then D R letters dated 15.05.13 and 30.04.13. 30 1. The GROUNDS FOR LEAVE TO ISSUE PROCEEDINGS are as follows: 1.1. The Originating Process as in the Amended Writ of Summons in item 5.1.1. above, is neither frivolous nor vexatious and is therefore not an abuse of process of court; it is a process to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to provide me with a proper remedy of a fair trial and equality before the law (the Proper Remedy). 1.2. Both the Defendants have an obligation under Article 2 of the ICCPR to provide competent judiciary for the Proper Remedy (the ICCPR Obligations). 1.3. The original BPC Fraud in the Family Court of Western Australia (P) PTW 3009 of 2002 dated 21.3.2003 is the cause of the conspiracy of the agents of 40 both the Defendants in terms of the State and Federal Judiciaries as one of the three branches of the Government of Australia in failing to provide the Applicant with the ICCPR Obligations (the Source of the Fraud). 1.4. The Applicant is the aggrieved person authorized by Section 15F of the Crimes Act, 1914 (Comm.) to commenced proceedings against the Defendants in any court in respect of any act or omissions that is punishable as an offence against the Act (the Proper Plaintiff in the Originating Process). 1.5. The Defendants are the Corporation Aggregate granted power by its articles of Association, the Constitution of Australia to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Australia by s.51 Placita 1-39 (The Proper Defendants in the Originating Process). 1.6. In 1979 and at other times since 1900, The Proper Defendants in the 10 Originating Process have made illegal or unauthorized laws purporting to confer jurisdictions to make Rules on the High Court and restricting the types of matters that the High Court will hear in its original jurisdictions and they are altogether contrary to the Constitution and they do constitute an offence against the Crimes Act, 1914 (Cth) (the Perversion of the Laws on the Administration of the High Court). 1.7. S.45 of the High Court of Australia Act, 1979 constitute an admission by the Defendants that it had caused the Perversion of the Laws on the Administration of the High Court (the Admission of the Defendants). 1.8. The Proper Plaintiff in the Originating Process against the Proper Defendants in 20 the Originating Process is based upon the Admission of the Defendants to give the former the right to proceed in these proceedings for the purpose of obtaining the Proper Remedy in order to enable the ICCPR Obligations to be fulfilled (the Entitlement of the Proper Plaintiffs). 1.9. The administration of the High Court is deficient in that it no longer issue process in the name of the Queen as required by s.33 of the High Court of Australia Act, 1979 and this constitutes an offence by the Proper Defendants under the Crimes Act, 1914 (Comm.) (the Deficient High Court Administration). 1.10. The Proper Plaintiff as the representative of the populace is being aggrieved by 30 the Deficient High Court Administration but the offender is not the High Court itself but the Proper Defendants who have merged the High Court and the Commonwealth thus fusing the Executive and the Judiciary Branches of Government thus compromising the political integrity of the courts of Australia. This has resulted in all the Magistrates and Judges of all the courts of Australia dancing to the tune of their political masters thus prejudicing the independence of the Judiciary of Australia. Thus the Proper Defendants as a Corporation has to pay a proper penalty to the Proper Plaintiff (the Penalty). 1.11. Section 41, 42 and 43 of the Crimes Act, 1914 (Comm.) renders it a statutory offence for the Proper Defendants to conspire to bring a false accusation, conspire to defeat justice and attempting to pervert justice respectively in respect of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth and this offence carries a penalty of $170.00 per units in accordance with Crimes Act 1914 Section 4AA for 2,000 penalty units in accordance with Crimes Act 1914 Sect 4K totaling $340,000.00 each offence. Since the Defendants are a Corporate Body Aggregate, the fine would be five times of $340,000.00 in accordance with Corporation Act 2001 -Section 1312 (1) which is $1.7m for each of three offences. These crimes have been committed against the Proper Plaintiff by the Proper Defendants since the date of the rejection of the BPC Fraud by the various judges where there is clear evidence before them acting as agents for the Proper Defendants (the Penalty). 1.12. The Proper Plaintiff is entitled to the Penalty against the Proper Defendants 10 as from the date when the former as an Innocent Plaintiff self litigant was unsuccessful in achieving the Proper Remedy caused by the Conspiracy of the Proper Defendants or its agents to merge the Perversion of the Laws on the Administration of the High Court which had resulted in the Judiciaries of Australians lacking in integrity caused by the Judiciary losing its independence as a separate branch of Government of Australia to the Executive Branch of the Government of Australia. This entitlement to Penalty arises from 24.2.2005 when improper costs orders were made against the Proper Plaintiff by Registrar Ellarda of the Family Court of Western Australia (P) PTW 3009/2002. This was followed by other improper costs orders made in 20 the District Court Case No 1874/05 and the Supreme Court of Western Australia in, 56 of 2006, 42 of 2008, 108 of 2009, Federal Court TAD 56 of 2010, Western Australia Magistrates Court 1691 of 2010, Western Australia Supreme Court of Appeal CACV: 88, 89 and 90 of 2012, (the Entitlement of the Proper Plaintiff to the Penalty). 1.13. On the 11th day of March, 2013, the Proper Plaintiff attempted to file the Originating Process in the High Court of Australia for prerogative writ orders against the Proper Defendants as granted by section 75(ii) Constitution, namely a proceeding between a subject and the Commonwealth. 1.14. On the 22nd day of March, 2013, two public officials, one Deborah Carlsund as 30 Deputy Registrar and Justice Kiefel, in contempt of the Constitution and the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth, with intent on behalf of the Commonwealth to prevent proceedings issuing and contrary to ss. 41, 42 and 43 of the Crimes Act, 1914 (Comm.) refused to issue the proffered proceedings (The Contempt of the Administrators of the High Court). 1.15. At that point in time, the offence against the Crimes Act, 1914 (Comm.) was complete and the Proper Defendants i.e. the Commonwealth and the State of WA is liable for the penalty that Parliament of the Commonwealth has prescribed to it in terms of the Penalty as described above. 1.16. In addition, the Proper Defendants will be obliged to make restitution to the Proper Plaintiff in the amount claimed against the former in the Amended Writ 40 of Summons by reference to Section 20(1)(a)(ii) of the Crimes Act, 1914 (Comm.) i.e. the reparation and restitution referred to as the Penalty. 1.17. The Proper Defendants by reference to section 64 of the Judiciary Act, 1903 (Comm.) is no different to any other corporate offender. Sworn by the Deponent ) Rogerio Martins Cristovao ) at in the State of ) Western Australia this day ) of June 2013. ) ___________________________ Before me, In the presence of an authorized witness for the Taking of Affidavits in Western Australia: _______________________________ Experienced Lawyer / Justice of the Peace

1 comment:

    .... The Supreme Court’s Inaction.

    We are watching with shame and trepidation the unraveling of a justice system that needs a dose of reality check. In fact, this Supreme Court case has hugely opened our eyes to the rot that masquerade as a justice system. What is even amazing is that the visible players in this historic case including our justices do not appear to appreciate the depth of the decadence and arrogance that have engulfed our justice delivery system. Honestly, our hearts are bleeding not only for our justice system but all vital state institutions. The rot is everywhere. The dire predicament facing the downtrodden and politically unconnected in our society can be traced directly to this endemic rot.

    Yesterday, Lawyer Phillip Addison, the lead counsel for the petitioners, had the impudence to tell the highest court of the land that it doesn’t matter how evidence to be proffered in court is obtained. To showcase his contempt for our justice system, he went further to boldly and arrogantly state that he can present to the court even evidence that has been stolen and that there is a whole stretch of legal authorities to support his scandalous assertion! What Lawyer Addison did not tell the world is that all these authorities are themselves writhing in controversy. They are not set in stone. And when this petition comes to be discussed, legal and social commentators will have a field day. To some of us, what makes Addison’s statements even more scandalous is the uncomfortable fact that there was not a whiff of protestation from our highly learned justices. So the end justifies the means, huh? Wow!

    As ordinary citizens, are we to believe that our justices are prepared to admit into evidence any RELEVANT material no matter how fabricated, forged, stolen or tainted that evidence is? For example, are our learned and highly respected justices prepared to admit into evidence materials Mr. Addison obtained by torture or theft? What is so disturbing about the justices’ loud silence and/or accommodation is the fact that they are trying a case that calls into question the integrity and credibility of our electoral system. Thus, to allow Addison to get away with such malicious statements speaks volumes about the kind of justice system we are operating! It is baffling how and why Addison got away with such ridiculous statements that have the potential of further eroding public confidence in our justice delivery system.

    There is no doubt that our justices are operating under intense pressure but that in and by itself does not excuse such infringement on our sensibilities and value system. They owe us a duty to protect our value system more especially so when the whole proceeding is being telecast live and practically every citizen is glued to his or her television set. This kind of inaction is inexcusable when it borders on the very integrity of our justice and value systems. After all, we have watched and heard a particular justice loudly lambasting some individuals who had had the A/Cs in the court room turned down!

    The Supreme Court must start cracking the whip to bring some measure of respect and dignity to process. The Supreme Court has been too accommodating. What are they scared of?