Monday, October 7, 2013

NOTICE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER: BY LE THUAN PHAM

Notice of a Constitutional Matter served on the Attorneys General, Federal and State Inbox x chas x 5:23 AM (2 hours ago) to fire, info, Ben, FKLegal, Tamar_Hopkins, senator.brandis, office, robert.clark, Attorney, Minister.Misch., agd, Brian.Wightman, corbell, john.elferink, Paul, priscilla, office, greg.barber, Colleen, sue.pennicuik, richard.dalla-., christine.camp., vplrc, andrew.homer, helen.mason Dear Attorneys General, Federal and State, 1. You are hereby notified and served with a Notice of a Constitutional Matter on the conduct of the Australian Judiciary including the High Court Australia; 2. We believe it to be a conspiracy to pervert the Crimes Act 1914 s42, s43, s44, inter alia; 3. We seek to know if the Commonwealth will comply with its own laws, leaving aside international laws and treaties; 4. We seek to know if the Attorney General and the Commonwealth Senate will continue to conspire to pervert the Australian Constitution, in their attempt to profit from their proceeds of their crime against humanity, including Aborigines, Refugees and other Australians. Reply to Robert Alan Thorpe (Djuran Bunjileenee Borun Mundundarung) 175/110 Elizabeth St, Richmond 3121 PS. to the YouthLaw Centre, we seek that you provide us with the legal documents and any appeals you are seeking against the Williams (?) decision, against your client and he can contact us asap ====================== IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA [Melbourne] REGISTRY No. of 2012 BETWEEN: Robert Alan Thorpe (Djuran Bunjileenee Borun Mundundarung) First Plaintiff Krauatatungalung Tjapwhurong Aborigines People Second Plaintiff(s) and Denise Weybury (Registrar High Court Australia) First Defendant Rosemary Musolino (Registrar High Court Australia) Second Defendant Attorney General (Commonwealth Australia) Third Defendant Robert William Clark, Attorney General (State of Victoria) Fourth Defendant President of Australian Human Rights Commission (Commonwealth Australia) Fifth Defendant Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VIC) Sixth Defendant Simon Paul Whelan (Court of Appeal Victoria) Seventh Defendant Peter Norman Vickery (Court of Appeal Victoria) Eighth Defendant Geoffrey Arthur Akeroyd Nettle (Supreme Court Victoria) Ninth Defendant Marcia Ann Neave AO (Supreme Court Victoria) Tenth Defendant Gregory Howard Garde AO (Supreme Court Victoria) Eleventh Defendant Karin Leigh Emerton (Supreme Court Victoria) Twelfth Defendant Nemeer Mukhtar (Supreme Court Victoria) Thirteenth Defendant President VCAT Victoria (VCAT Victoria) Fourteenth Defendant Prothonotary (Supreme Court Victoria) Fifteenth Defendant Dep President Ian Lulham (VCAT Victoria) Sixteenth Defendant S/Member Cremean (VCAT Victoria) Seventeenth Defendant Principal Registrar (VCAT Victoria) Eighteenth Defendant Judicial Registrar Mark Pedley (Court of Appeals Vic) Nineteenth Defendant Shane Marshall (Federal Court Australia) Twentieth Defendant NOTICE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER 1. The Appellant gives notice that this proceeding involves a matter arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation within the meaning of s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). Nature of constitutional matter 2. The constitutional issue raised by the Plaintiff’s application to the High Court Australia pursuant to COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 75, (the Constitution), and JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 38, inter alia, on a Question of Law relating to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Commonwealth), Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006 (VIC), inter alia, is the jurisdiction of High Court Australia, to make a bare declaration as to the privileges, powers and immunities of the High Court Registrars, Supreme Court of Victoria, and Court of Appeal, administrative and or judicial arm of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and the Supreme Court Victoria, and Inconsistent Interpretation of the Charter, pursuant to s 36 and 39 of the Charter, inter alia; The determination and or lack determination of this issue may raise for consideration s 109, 75, 98, 107, 108, 117, 118 of the Constitution, inter alia. Facts showing that s 78B Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) applies 3. For over 200 years of Australia’s colonization of The Great Southern land of Australia, a history of genocide and murder and rape of Aborigines peoples exists; 4. The new form of genocide is for the Australian Judiciary to collude with Executive branch of the Commonwealth and or the States, using as a private vigilante militia, in the form of the Federal and State Police forces to terrorise and murder Aborigines and Refugees, as well as other Australians; 5. And not to be properly investigated by statutory bodies and or the Judiciary; 6. Aborigines, Refugees and Australians alike need protection from the Australian Judiciary and their vigilante police forces and court officials; 7. The Conspiracy by the High Court Australia, and its registrars, Mussolino and Weybury, inter alia, to deny the Aborigines peoples (and Immigrants and refugees) access to an effective legal, and or lawful remedy; by abusing Rule 6.07 of the high Court Rules 2004; inter alia; 8. The tactic is to refuse to give reasons for judgements, in order to abuse the legal and lawful process of legal and lawful remedies under any statutory laws. 9. On March 4th 2013, I and Mr Le Tuan Pham submitted an Application to Show Cause, together with a Notice of a Constitutional Matter, a Summons, An Affidavit(s) in support and Outline of submission. 10. The Registrar Weybury indicated that she would apply Rule 6.07; 11. We sought her reasons why she would apply that rule, and she refused to provide any reasons; 12. I and Mr Pham feel vilified that we should be forced to comply with an ultra vires action of an Officer of the court in conspiring to pervert the Crimes Act 1914 s42, s43, s44, inter alia; 13. Keifel J authorised the Registrar’s unlawful racial discrimination and vilification; once again WITHOUT proper and lawful reasons; 14. Weybury refused to return to us other documents than the Notice to Show Cause, thus we have no way to confirm what the Registrar showed to the Kiefel J; 15. In an earlier Notice To Show Cause, the other Registrar Musolino, also played her game of perverting the Crimes Act 1914 s42, s43, s44, inter alia; 16. Crennan J also authorised the Registrar’s unlawful racial discrimination and vilification; once again WITHOUT proper and lawful reasons. 17. It is an abuse of judicial immunity that doesn’t apply, because unlawful discrimination based on race and disability amounts to “acting in BAD faith”. 18. We are amazed that two female voices on the High Court Australia do not understand unlawful discrimination; It’s what the Supreme Court of India, Justices Arijit Pasayat and Aftab Alam, New Delhi, Jan 6 2008 (UNI) The Supreme Court, a decolonised highest court of India, would call an “application of the mind to the matter”; 19. In other words, Crennan and Kiefel JJ were engaging in unlawful racial discrimination and vilification; once again WITHOUT proper and lawful reasons; there is no possible other reasons. 20. In Reggie Wurridjal, Joy Garlbin And Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation V The Commonwealth Of Australia And Arnhem Land Aboriginal Land Trust, the Honorable Justice Michael Kirby suggesting that the Aboriginality of the applicants influenced the High Court decision. 21. In Reggie Wurridjal, Joy Garlbin And Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation V The Commonwealth Of Australia And Arnhem Land Aboriginal Land Trust, the High Court erred on the false assumption that the Commonwealth would act honorably on justice compensation, thereby engaged not only in unlawful discrimination based on races, but also vilification based on race; 22. Kirby J seems to echo the following principle: 23. 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. 24. In Tomasevic v Travaglini & Anor [2007] VSC 337 (13 September 2007), Justice Bell indicates that it is the duty of the judicial officer to assist the unrepresented litigant, when inept and corrupt lawyers in Legal Aid and other community legal centres, refuse to act on the written law, namely the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006 (VIC), inter alia 25. The conspiracy to pervert the rule of law and the Crimes Act 1914 s42, s43, s44, inter alia, has filtered down to the Supreme Court of Victoria and the Victorian Court of Appeal; 26. Applications by Mr Le Tuan Pham pursuant to the Charter to Court of Appeal, Whelan and Vickery, Nettle and Neave have refused to answer the question of an interpretation of the Charter or an interpretation of other statutes pursuant to the Charter; 27. When Mr Pham asked to have the orders and reasons authenticated by Whelan and Vickery, Nettle and Neave, the Court of Appeal refused to the do so; 28. Whelan and Vickery, Nettle and Neave refused to release an undoctored transcripts of proceedings; 29. The Plaintiff instructed Mr Pham to submit an application under the Administrative Law Act, for himself and the Aborigines people; 30. The prothonotary conspired to remove the Plantiff’s name from the proceedings without his consent; 31. An appeal from the Associate Justice Mukhtar as to the validity of the Prothonotary’s ultra vires action to the Supreme Court Judge Emerton; 32. Emerton J refused to consider the facts and evidence in the Appeal Book, including the Plaintiff’s Affidavit; 33. Emerton J allowed the Victorian Attorney General, Robert Clark and his lawyers, to interfere with proceedings and conspired with the Real Estate Agent, Mr Tony Rachele, in order to rort money from the defendant Ms Minh Nguyen; 34. Emerton J could not get the facts correct and had to be told by the lawyers of the Attorney General of her ineptitude; 35. When the Plantiff was in Queensland, Mr Pham asked that Emerton J allow the Plaintiff enough time to come speak for himself, 36. Emerton J refused without reasons; 37. According the Supreme Court of India, Emerton J is applying her mind to the matter in a way that breaches the Discrimination Act in perverting the Crimes Act 1914 s42, s43, s44, inter alia; 38. Emerton J was brazenly ultra vires because the High Court Australia authorised unlawful disctimination based on race in Reggie Wurridjal, Joy Garlbin And Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation V The Commonwealth Of Australia And Arnhem Land Aboriginal Land Trust; 39. Emerton J and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal including the President of VCAT (Garde J) and the Deputy President I. Lulham denied Mr Pham medical care and hospitalisation by refusing his medical certificate from a major hospital; Application of the mind to the matter; 40. Breaches of the Charter: inter alia 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. 41. 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. 42. 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. 43. 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. 44. An attack on Mr Pham is an attack on the Plaintiff, the Aborigines peoples and other Australians; 45. The Plantiffs are denied competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing; 46. In addition to denying Mr Pham the ability to seek medical assistance, Victorian Supreme court Judge Williams, has indicated that the conduct of the Victorian Police cannot be properly investigated internally or by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing; 47. All this stems from the ultra vires decision of the High Court Australia in Reggie Wurridjal, Joy Garlbin And Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation V The Commonwealth Of Australia And Arnhem Land Aboriginal Land Trust, and the conduct of the Crennan, and Kiefel JJ in abusing the rule 4.06 of the High Court Rules 2004. 48. Authorities: a. Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34 (8 September 2011) b. Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32 c. Gurnett v The Macquarie Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd [No 2][126] d. University of Wollongong v Metwally (1984) e. Tomasevic v Travaglini & Anor [2007] VSC 337 (13 September 2007) f. Mandamus will lie for an abuse of discretion where discretion has been exercised arbitrarily and capriciously or where discretion has been exercised in bad faith, Peavey Co. V. Corcoran 714 S.W.2d 943. In such instances the abuse amounts, in effect, to no discretion. Mandamus is warranted when the abuse is clear or results in a manifest injustice, Reis V. Nangle 349 S.W.2d 943. Mandamus will lie when an official refuses to act when he has a duty to act and refuses to do so. FILED: Robert Alan Thorpe (Djuran Bunjileenee Borun Mundundarung) Human Rights Defender TO: The Respondents AND TO: George Brandis QC Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia senator.brandis@aph.gov.au, AND TO: Greg Smith MP Attorney-General of New South Wales office@smith.minister.nsw.gov.au, AND TO: Robert Clark MP Attorney-General of Victoria robert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au, AND TO: Jairod Bleigie 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, AND TO: Brian Wightman MP Attorney-General of Tasmania Brian.Wightman@dpac.tas.gov.au, AND TO: Simon Corbell MLA Attomey-General of the Australian Capital Territory corbell@act.gov.au, AND TO: Johan Wessel Elferink MLA Attomey-General of the Northern Territory of Australia john.elferink@nt.gov.au, …………..……………………… 3 attachments — Download all attachments HC_form-21_08102013.rtf HC_form-21_08102013.rtf 122K View as HTML Download HC_Notice_of_A_Constitutional_Matter_08102013_2.rtf HC_Notice_of_A_Constitutional_Matter_08102013_2.rtf 157K View as HTML Download HC_Form-12_08102013_3.rtf HC_Form-12_08102013_3.rtf 182K View as HTML Download chas x 5:47 AM (1 hour ago) to fire, bcc: me Dear Rogerio, Berto, Hilda Zhang, Helen Tsigounis, Friends, Stooges and other, 1. its taken a while but the papers are almost done, 2. If you have received the attachment the arguments are almost complete 3. As I said, there are 7 high court judges, you want them all to taint their name!! 4. I have named Crennan and Kiefel, so you just have to get to the Chief justice. 5. Just replace your own names and add your cases, and file them

1 comment:

  1. Great post!!Thanks for sharing it with us....really needed.Criminal Lawyers Geelong, we will fight to get you the best outcome at court!David Dribbin & Michael Brown have a combined experience in excess of 40 years.They direct an enthusiastic team of lawyers from their Geelong office that regularly attend the Geelong Magistrates Court.Criminal Solicitors Geelong

    ReplyDelete