HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
CANBERRA OFFICE OF THE REGISTRY
P 0 Box 6309, CANBERRA ACT 2604
DX 5755 Canberra
ABN: 69 445 188 986
Telephone (02) 6270 6857
Facsimile (02) 6273 3025
ttp:IIwww.hcourt.gov.auI
Our ref: P35/2013
Your ref:
13 August 2013
Rogerio Martins Cristovao
4 Bellier Place
HAMILTON HILL WA 6163
Dear Sir,
In the matter of an application by Rogerio Martins Cristovao for leave to issue a proceeding (P35/2013).
On 13 August 2013 in Canberra, Justice Hayne delivered judgment in the abovenamed matter.
The order of Justice Hayne was: Application for leave to issue dismissed.
Please find enclosed reasons for decision in this matter.
If I can be of further assistance, please contact me on (02) 6270 6857.
Yours faithfully
Deborah Carlsund
Deputy Registrar
______________________________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY
ROGERIO MARTINS CRISTOVAO
FOR LEAVE TO ISSUE A PROCEEDING
REASONS FOR DECISION
______________________________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY
ROGERIO MARTINS CRISTOVAO
FOR LEAVE TO ISSUE A PROCEEDING
Rogerio Martins Cristovao seeks leave to issue a proceeding in the original jurisdiction of this Court naming as defendants “The State of Western Australia as Represented by the Attorney General of Western Australia, Hon Michael Mischin”, “The Commonwealth of Australia as Represented by the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Australia, Hon Mark Dreyfus” and two judges of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, the Hon Justice Pullin and the Hon Justice Murphy.
On 22 March 2013, Kiefel J directed the Registrar to refuse to issue the process without the leave of a Justice first had and obtained. Leave to issue the process should be refused.
The nature of the claim which Mr Cristovao wishes to make by the proceeding he seeks to institute in this Court is sufficiently described by par 1 of the endorsement on the proposed process:
“1) The Defendants do fulfil their obligations under article 2 of the ICCPR to the Plaintiff to provide a competent judiciary and proper remedy of a fair trial and equality before the law (in tandem with the courts duty to assist a self-represented litigant in the person of the Plaintiff), in accordance with the laws of Australia and the Constitutional Rights of the Plaintiff as a Citizen of Australia, in proceedings relating to CACV 88, 89 and 90 of the 2012 or RE: RE: His Honour Magistrate Bromfield; EX PARTE CRISTOVAO WASCA 17 (the ICCPR Obligations).”
On its face, the proposed proceeding would be an abuse of the process of the Court and vexatious. It makes no allegation that reveals any arguable course of action.
Leave to issue the process is refused.
This page and the preceding one page comprise my reasons for judgment In the Matter of an Application by Rogerio Martins Cristovao for Leave to Issue a Proceeding.
THIS IS THE PROBLEM OF ROGERIO WITH THE WHOLE LEGAL SYSTEM: HIS FORMER SOLICITOR FILED A SMALL CLAIM AS A GENERAL PROCEDURE CLAIM. THE DEFENDANTS HOWEVER, ENGAGED SOLICITORS AND IS MAKING UNLAWFUL CLAIMS FOR LEGAL COSTS AS A MINOR CLAIM FROM HIM. THIS IS WHAT HIS FORMER SOLICITOR SAID:
ReplyDeleteRogerio Cristovao
10:55 PM (17 hours ago)
to me
Subject: Re: Request
From: geofflegal1@iinet.net.au
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 09:19:49 +0800
To: rogermar3@hotmail.com
Hello Roger,
It was a pleasure in catching up with you, and I thank you for your kind words or encouragement.
With regards to lodging a claim in the magistrates court, I was told by the registry and they have accepted these filings, that If the claim is valued at below $10,000 the claimant, if not being represented by a solicitor is required to lodge a claim as a small procedure claim, yet when the claimant is being represented by a solicitor, the claimant, via his/her solicitor, is allowed to file the claim under a general procedure claim, yet the claimant is unable to claim legal costs if the claim was successful or otherwise, nor may a solicitor (without the approval or permission of the defendant/s) appear at trial for the claimant and vice versa.
This is the best way that I can explain my understanding of the procedure - which has never once been questioned by the court and I've been permitted by registry to lodge claims in this manner and procedure.
Regards Geoff
Sent by Geoff Dutton's iPhone.
On 12/08/2013, at 9:14 AM, Rogerio Cristovao wrote:
Hi Geoff
Hope evrey thing Ok from your side.
Please inform on the discussed subject issue refer
to the Form General Claim filed in the Magistrates Court.
I am out of the Australia but I need your clarification before by 18th.
Best Regards
Roger
WHY IS THE LAW NOT BEING APPLIED BY THE COURTS. IS THERE A CONSPIRACY TO DEFEAT JUSTICE? IF THERE IS NONE, WHY IS THE HIGH COURT REFUSING TO LOOK INTO HIS CASE?
ReplyDeleteTHE INTERPRETATION OF S. 26 OF THE DEFINITION OF A MINOR CASE MUST BE LOOKED AT TOGETHER WITH S. 30(2), S. 44(2) AND S. 28(3) OF THE MAGISTRATES COURT (CIVIL PROCEEDINGS) ACT, 2004. ONCE IT IS A MINOR CASE, IT CAN NEVER CHANGED ITS LEOPARD SPOT AS A MINOR CASE, UNLESS THERE IS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DISPUTING PARTIES TO CHANGE IT INTO A GENERAL PROCEDURE CASE OR THERE IS A COURT ORDER TO THAT EFFECT. THIS MEANS LAWYERS REPRESENTING ONE OF THE PARTIES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM LEGAL COSTS AS A RESULT. WHY IS THIS NOT HAPPENING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW? WHY IS THE LAW CHANGED? CAN YOU CHANGE THE FORCE AND EFFECTS OF STATUTE LAW IN AUSTRALIA? WHO CAN ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS?
MAYBE ROGER NEED TO REPHRASE THE ENDORSEMENT IN THE WRIT OF THE ORIGINATING PROCESS THAT HE HAD STARTED IN THE HIGH COURT ONCE ALL PROCESS THAT MEETS THE CRITERIA OF A SUPPOSED CONSPIRACY AMONGST THE JUDICIARY HAVE BEEN FULLY EXHAUSTED.
ReplyDeletenot BS
ReplyDeleteInbox
x
L Fedeli
Aug 17 (2 days ago)
to Kangaroo, me, nwn.webmaster
Luke Walladge who says he is a “Media, Campaign and Communications Consultant at ALP” and was recently sued for an outstanding debt of $15,000 by a prostitute has decided to tell lies about this site.
How come that every body can sue every body else and I can't find a solicitor or a court registrar (which can't even give me any suggestion)who let me sue Peter Robert James which in collusion with Anthony John Gallagher, James William Meehan court registrar Chris Dalby and a district court judge defraud me of $165.280.87. Is any body out there whom is willing to let me know or help me? Ph. 02-89647367. Reverse the charge but not BS please.
Many thanks.
Lamberto Fedeli
The BattleLines are here: HIGH COURT REFUSAL OF APPLICATION
ReplyDeleteInbox
x
Jim MacLeod
Aug 20 (1 day ago)
to L-F, Rogerio, me, GREGORY-JOHN, chas
Greg
I bothered to scout around the realm on a quest for some insightful options for our boy having observed his gratuitously grubby disdain for the genuine gesture you made in the most recent minutiae in his ongoing theatre – below is a section from within the above attachment which might hopefully give a general kind of guidance for the little lad – what a pity he takes such a hostile and offensive attitude!!!! – we know who the truly genuine folks are and we know the ones with the less noble bonafides……little skid-marks with limited verbal hygiene are it seems a perennial problem – is it disinfectant or defoliant that we need…..???
Good faith, or in Latin bona fide, is the mental and moral state of honesty, conviction as to the truth or falsehood of a proposition or body of opinion, or as to the rectitude or depravity of a line of conduct, even if the conviction is objectively unfounded. This concept is important in law, especially equitable matters.
1. made, done, presented, etc., in good faith; without deception or fraud: a bona fide statement of intent to sell.
2. authentic; true
Cheers
MacLeod (J
The main Commonwealth Federal Tribunals
In addition to the courts, the Commonwealth has established a number of tribunals to deal with disputes in specific areas, such as human rights, immigration, native title and industrial relations.
Tribunals are intended to be more informal than courts, and to provide quicker and more cost-effective forms of dispute resolution. Tribunals have range of functions. These include:
the review of decisions made by Commonwealth government agencies and departments
dispute resolution in areas such as native title, industrial relations or consumer protection
the making of original decisions.
Unlike the courts, tribunals can review the merits of decisions made by government agencies as well as their lawfulness.
tribunals include:
Administrative Appeal Tribunal (AAT)
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)
Australian Industrial Relations Commission
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC)
Migration Review Tribunal
National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT)
Refugee Review Tribunal
Social Security Appeals Tribunal
Veteran's Review Board
From: chas x [mailto:nwn.webmaster@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2013 2:56 AM
To: GREGORY-JOHN TUDEHOPE
Cc: Jim MacLeod
Subject: Re: The BattleLines are here: HIGH COURT REFUSAL OF APPLICATION
this is what i get for asking a question of a jerkoff WASP?
A stupid answer, where did you get this High Tribunal, Moron?
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:21 PM, GREGORY-JOHN TUDEHOPE wrote:
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:02:08 +1000
Subject: Re: The BattleLines are here: HIGH COURT REFUSAL OF APPLICATION
From: nwn.webmaster@gmail.com
To: gregt51@hotmail.com
At least you got one thing right, you do only file in the office of the Registrar, since you dont even know if they send the correct documents to the high court.
You have got that wrong, you File the process in the Registry and its issued out of the Registry under the SEAL of THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA, as apposed to, lodging your process in the Office of the Registrar and getting the office stamp (rubber stamp) placed on your documents.
Whats this High Tribunal BS? Do Tell.
That is what you get as the alternative dispute resolution procedure, not the statutory court as provided and required by the legislation, when you have had your process lodged with the Office stamp placed on them. All of the States do exactly the same, they never use the official seal of the court, only the rubber stamp of the office.
Mr Rogerio shouldnt get discouraged, he's done better than the inept lawyers down here, including barristers they used for recent Charter challenges. The morons have gone into hiding now and wont challenge that Williams decision.
Best of luck
WASP GT
ReplyDeleteOn Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 3:30 PM, GREGORY-JOHN TUDEHOPE wrote:
Mister C,
You will never get your act together and you wont get into any High Court of Australia.
You may eventually get into the High Tribunal as that is the only forum that exists in this country, you don't file anything in the Registry of the High Court, you only lodge it in the Office of the Registrar but you will never know or identify the difference.
If you rely on that other clown Mr Chin you will get the same result but he will also take your money.
GT
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:20:03 +1000
Subject: The BattleLines are here: HIGH COURT REFUSAL OF APPLICATION
From: nwn.webmaster@gmail.com
To:
Dear Mr Rogerio,
1. This is were the battlelines are drawn, corrupt judges doing the dirty were, in a sense making it easier to smear their names.
2. A lot of people are playing "bush lawyers" and sending me UK Acts, but they will end up at your exact place.
3. My advice: go back and accuse the High Court of Racial vilification: you are not abusing the process, you are seeking a declaration under the judiciary act and the constitution, listing all deaths in custody, Aboriginal or otherwise, BUT remember to throw in their faces what Kirby said about them racially abusing the Aborigines (Its in my documents somewhere), PLUS the Indian Supreme Court's declaration of judgements without reasons amounts to denial of jJustice
4. Secondly, you can go to the United Nations now, ask Mr Chin to help you, once again: vilification and deaths in custody.
5. I should get my act together soon.
C
-----Original Message-----
ReplyDeleteFrom: Rogerio Cristovao [mailto:rogermar3@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 2:25 AM
To: Nicholas N Chin; Chan; JimMacleo; skyrail5@bigpond.com Robert; Raoul Agapis
Subject: RE: Never pay Lawyers for Human Rights: The BattleLines are here: HIGH COURT REFUSAL OF APPLICATION
Thank you everyone for the comments refer to the refusal of my application in the H Court
I would be most obliged to yours all for not going out of our goals to achieve equal justice to ALL.
Refer to the messages contents refer to monies circulating of pay or not to pay it is a matter not to be
mix up.
I never made any comment that Mr Chin collects monies from anyone.
Anyone makes those assertions in my behalf should refrain and will be proper to apologise to him.
I do not want to be involved in gossips which is out of the contest of my case.
I help anyone on the best of my capacity and appreciate the others help including useful comments.
I have dealt with 5 lawyers which had suck me $100K in left me on the lurch.
I have a pile up of papers of wrong work which I look at and become emotional sometime crying asking GOD
WHAT I HAVE DONE WRONG?
Not only the criminal lawyers had cause me so much loss of monies but also they had ruined my life.
Those CRIMINALS and those CRIMINALS inside COURTS as JUDGES are the same and
they cause me to be assisted by lawyers which before they doing wrong they should double
view if they do wrong or right. The ones they do wrong be they licenced or not they are not culpable
THE AUSTRALIA LEGAL SYSTEM ALLOW THEM TO BE WRONG.
Today I appear before Magistrate Cockram at Magistrates Court Perth.
I had push him to state to the Transcript if the WRONG Form used by my then solicitor had or had NOT
caused the $26K of legal costs.
Conclusion the solicitor suck me 20K to assist me. Never told me the Wrong Form. Pull out in February 2012
and fork me on an liability where I have 50K seized in trust account on the verge to run out of my control.
SO: as I said to the Magistrate "I am not prepare to pay to someone that charge $3K for the wrong application"
Response: it is between you and him!
INDEDDE Court have two sets of forms but no responsibility or liability to accept the wrong one.
Please stay calm -tomorrow will be other day -Please respect the draw line of respect to each other.
Cheers
Roger
From: nnchin09@tpg.com.au
ReplyDeleteTo: rogermar3@hotmail.com
Subject: FW: Never pay Lawyers for Human Rights: The BattleLines are here: HIGH COURT REFUSAL OF APPLICATION
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:32:39 -0700
-----Original Message-----
From: chas x [mailto:nwn.webmaster@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 9:38 PM
To: ROGER
Subject: Never pay Lawyers for Human Rights: The BattleLines are here: HIGH COURT REFUSAL OF APPLICATION
Dear Mr Rogerio,
1. Never pay lawyers for Human Rights issues, or anyone.
2. And Never listen to morons who tell you to go to the "high" tribunals.
3. Show us the seal on your documents, it must be the high court seal and NOT the registrar's seal
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: GREGORY-JOHN TUDEHOPE
Date: Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 3:30 PM
Subject: RE: The BattleLines are here: HIGH COURT REFUSAL OF APPLICATION
To: chas x , Jim Macleod
Mister C,
You will never get your act together and you wont get into any High Court of Australia.
You may eventually get into the High Tribunal as that is the only forum that exists in this country, you don't file anything in the Registry of the High Court, you only lodge it in the Office of the Registrar but you will never know or identify the difference.
If you rely on that other clown Mr Chin you will get the same result but he will also take your money.
GT
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:20:03 +1000
Subject: The BattleLines are here: HIGH COURT REFUSAL OF APPLICATION
From: nwn.webmaster@gmail.com
To:
Dear Mr Rogerio,
1. This is were the battlelines are drawn, corrupt judges doing the dirty were, in a sense making it easier to smear their names.
2. A lot of people are playing "bush lawyers" and sending me UK Acts, but they will end up at your exact place.
3. My advice: go back and accuse the High Court of Racial vilification: you are not abusing the process, you are seeking a declaration under the judiciary act and the constitution, listing all deaths in custody, Aboriginal or otherwise, BUT remember to throw in their faces what Kirby said about them racially abusing the Aborigines (Its in my documents somewhere), PLUS the Indian Supreme Court's declaration of judgements without reasons amounts to denial of jJustice
4. Secondly, you can go to the United Nations now, ask Mr Chin to help you, once again: vilification and deaths in custody.
5. I should get my act together soon.
C
MY CASE FR 944 OF 2006
ReplyDeleteNicholas N Chin
4:52 AM (15 hours ago)
to Rogerio
1) I filed Form 4 Minor Case under $10k against Timothy Tim Thies in the Fremantle Magistrates Court Case in FR944. .
2) I was ordered Costs by the First Magistrate.
3) After my case was dismissed by the District Court I went to the Second Magistrate at Fremantle Michelides and was ordered to pay costs.
4) I appealed the First Magistrate Decision to the District Court and I was also ordered to pay costs.
5) When I put up a review at the Supreme Court, there was no costs order against me against me because I got the Review by Justice Hasluck. The first stage is done.
6) At the second stage of the Review at the Supreme Court before Ken Martin, I was asked to pay costs but he retrieved it back. Instead Tim applied for security of costs and he was allowed. I was ordered to put in $20k as security to continue the second stage of the Review. I refused so I could not go further until today.
6) I refused to pay the costs of the two Magistrates and they never enforced it.
7) I refused to pay the costs of the District Court and they never enforce it.
8) Tim sued my son and I had to pay $11k. I made a mistake to pay him and not happy therefore I launched the $10k Minor Case in FR944 against Tim.
9) I could never get back the money I paid to Tim Thies with the Minor Case and not even at the Supreme Court although I won the first stage of the Review.
10) I went to High Court and was refused Leave to Appeal. In effect I never had to pay costs until today for my Minor Case in FR944.
11) So with Cockram saying that the Costs was triggered by the wrong form of Geoffe Dutton is correct.
Mr. Cristovao: I think the learned Justice of the High Court, His Honour Justice Haynes has got it right this time. In order to make a determination whether leave would be granted you to issue proceedings invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, your endorsement on your proposed Writ of Mandamus have have the succinct wordings that evinces a reasonable cause of action. If your endorsing words to that Writ is right, there is no one who can stop you from issuing that originating process in the High Court. There is no need for any argument about a seal of the High Court and so on..... That's confusing...and not to the point.
ReplyDeleteNICHOLAS N CHIN .
ReplyDeleteSent from Windows Mail
From: Robert Paul
Sent: 22 August 2013 09:47
To: Raoul Agapis, JimMacleo, Chan, Nicholas N Chin, Rogerio Cristovao
Subject: Re: Never pay Lawyers for Human Rights: The BattleLines are here: HIGH COURT REFUSAL OF APPLICATION
Rogerio
I was not a part of the argument you refer to so do not understand it nor do I have many details about it. On the face of what you have sent me here I can only issue the following response-
1. I most certainly agree we should not go out of our goals and the backflip we all witnessed last friday in the Supreme court was quite astounding considering that 'person' just last year was running all manner of argument why he is not the 'person' and how he was going to charge supreme court judges etc with contempt etc. All recorded and uploaded to you tube too!? I for one fail to see how that 'person' can achieve justice from this new position or why we were even invited to be witnesses at the proceedings just to be told to shut up and say nothing whilst he threw himself to the sharks as the 'person'? The mind boggles but I know where I am going even if he doesn't.
2. It would appear from the cut and paste below that you did not particularise your claim to the high court thus giving them the opportunity to toss it straight out. If that is not the case then the decision is apparently flawed and you should appeal. I personally would have filed for a writ of Mandamus under the judiciary act, the constitution and the acts interpretation act to convene a court of Federal jurisdiction in the court that has fucked you over.
3. I would suggest for your own sake that you do not use, pay, accept advice or deal with any lawyers. That is ANY LAWYER save a lawyer representing the other side.
Good luck and keep me posted with your progress.
RP
----- Original Message -----
From: Rogerio Cristovao
To: Nicholas N Chin ; Chan ; JimMacleo ; skyrail5@bigpond.com Robert ; Raoul Agapis
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 5:24 PM
Subject: RE: Never pay Lawyers for Human Rights: The BattleLines are here: HIGH COURT REFUSAL OF APPLICATION
Thank you everyone for the comments refer to the