FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA TAD 1 OF 2013
DISTRICT REGISTRY: TASMANIA
Division: GENERAL
Applicant Rogerio Martins Cristovao
Respondent Registrar Scott
______________________________________________________________________________
APPELLANT’S OUTLINE OF ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT TO THE NON- EXISTENCE OF SOLICITORS ALLEGEDLY APPOINTED BY RESPONDENT, AND INVALIDITY, VOIDABILITY, ILLEGALITY AND FICTIONAL NATURE OF THE IMPUGNED COSTS ORDERS OF REGISTRAR SCOTT DATED 17.03.2011 FOR HEARING BEFORE THE PANEL OF JUDGES SCHEDULE ON 24.05.2013.
______________________________________________________________________________
- I Refer to my letter dated 20 May 2013 and Affidavit of same date, addressed to the Deputy Registrar of the Federal Court, Perth Registry for the purpose for the hearing before the panel judges on the 24 May 2013.
- I am appealing the order of Murphy J Judgement from 27 September 2012 given during the unlawful 'hearing' in breach of internationally recognized legal principles.
- The subject of my appeal to this Court relates to the issue of the lack of respect for the Human Rights in Western Australia and Tasmania and the issue of racist attitude, discrimination and vilification of people who are not lawyers and not of Anglo origin, and who represent themselves in courts.
- The Western Australia judiciary in practice it says - we can ignore people who are not lawyers and not of Anglo origin, we can tramp over their Human Rights because we are the law unto ourselves and whatever we do cannot be brought against us because we created a devise called 'immunity' for ourselves.
- Such conduct shows dreadful attitude towards respect for human rights and the internationally recognized legal principles among Western Australia and Federal Court of Australia judiciary - ignoring, disrespecting, insulting, denigrating, demeaning, sneering, belittling, mocking the very basic values.
- Encouragement to such conduct seem to be emanating from the fact that in Western Australia appointing a court judge is a process shrouded in secrecy and practically judiciary became 'invitation only' very exclusive club where members owe their loyalty to 'sponsors' and not to the society at large.
- 'Immunity' combined with 'discretion'; lack of any criticism from within Legal Industry, intimidated by the licensing system; absolute lack of community control over judges selection and conduct - created the environment of arrogance and lawlessness.
- The dogma of relying for the court decision on 'authorities' - previous cases, which are claimed to be 'similar'; elastic 'justifications' instead of common sense and objective, rational reasoning, is the disgrace of that pseudo 'justice system'.
- One of the last bastions of feudal concept of the world transposed from 16 century England to 21 century Australia serves exclusively to protect privileges and benefits of the very narrow group of puppeteers at the expense of 'les miserables' of this state.
- Uncontrollable 'discretion' allows a judge to make any judgment they want with the pretext of references to selected 'authorities'- which is particularly effective to abuse and discriminate against non-lawyers in courts and people with non-Anglo background. It became very safe operation due to 'shielding' among judiciary - higher courts just rubber stamp the abuse provided by lower courts.
- The obvious evidence in this case Cristovao v FDE and Cristovao v Registrar Scott, is the use by Murphy J the authority of 'GUIDE TO JUDICIAL CONDUCT' and conveniently ignoring much more important and internationally accepted 'authorities' mentioned in point 22 below.
- His Hon North J, although knowing that what he does is WRONG, he choose to preside over this court hearing (24.05.2013) where he is a judge in his own case and he did not express any feeling of guilt or remorse by his previous adverse association in this case.
- I am rejecting the motion of 'impartiality' which North J conduct in this matter is the abuse of internationally recognized legal standards preserved in Latin canon 'Nemo iudex in causa sua' that means, literally, no-one should be a judge in their own cause in spite being expected to be conscious and aware of the international standards.
- Such conduct of theirs Honours Murphy and North J’s is also the abuse of Article 14 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - which is included in Federal Legislation Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 - as Schedule 2.
- Australia, on Federal level, ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1980. That covenant, which Australia has voluntarily entered in, set out in clear terms Australia's International Human Rights Obligations.
- Australia is bound to comply with their provisions and to implement them domestically. Ratification of the covenant by the Australian Federal Government encourages Australian courts (including Western Australia and Federal Court) to consider their provisions in their interpretations and judgments.
- The entitlement to an impartial Tribunal or Court is one of the most important human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized by international law. The fact that in this corrupt, Elite infested State, there is officially sanctioned disgraceful abuse and discrimination affecting 99% of Western Australians, by the shameful lack of ANY FORMAL LEGISLATION, has to be addressed.
- That situation allows for widespread and systematic violations of human rights in Western Australia by all elements of 'government' and courts. Such conduct can be only described as CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.
- I am requesting this Court Panel to determine if Murphy J was attempting to pervert the Charter for Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Schedule 2) and I am requesting the Court to determine if Murphy J conduct constitutes the offence - 'an attempt to pervert course of justice'. See my affidavit dated 20.05.13.
- I am rejecting existence of such 'practices' of one Law to the RICH and other Law to the POOR to cover-up their own cronies as unlawful and not in compliance with;
* Federal law (Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986-Schedule 2);
* Article 14 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
* THE BANGALORE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT;
* Latin canon 'Nemo iudex in causa sua'- which is the basic component of the ‘natural justice' concept and is more widely respected than Anglo 'law'.
- THE BANGALORE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
- 2.2. A judge shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary;
- 2.5. A judge shall disqualify himself or herself from participating in any proceedings in which the judge is unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that the judge is unable to decide the matter impartially;
- 3.2. The behaviour and conduct of a judge must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done;
- A judge shall ensure that his or her conduct, requires and deserves an analysis of the law to ensure a fair trial by giving due assistance to a self-represented litigant, taking into account the fundamental human rights of equality before the law and access to justice specified in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
- The right of every person to a fair Criminal or Civil trial, and the duty of every judge to ensure it, is deeply ingrained in the law. Expressed in traditional terms, the right is inherent in the rule of law – indeed, “in every system of law that makes any pretension to civilisation” – and in the judicial process. Expressed in modern human rights terms, the right to a fair trial is important for promoting and respecting equality before the law and access to justice.
- The numerous human rights specified in the ICCPR, including equality before the law and access to justice, form the basis of the human rights set out in Part 2 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, which may be referred to, with a direct simplicity that only serves to emphasise its historic significance, as the Charter.
- Australia may be an island geographically, but in international law terms, we are not. Australia has chosen to become a party to the ICCPR, and so has undertaken to promote and respect the human rights of equality before the law and access to justice, which are universal and fundamental.
- Without impairing, indeed by asserting, the independence of our own law, judges can, and in my view should, act consistently with the international obligations specified in the ICCPR by accepting that, when appropriate, the exercise of relevant judicial powers and discretions, such as the duty to ensure a fair trial, can take into account the human rights specified in the ICCPR. That, I think, is the state and rationale of the current law.
- The French author Anatole France captured the essential injustice of treating unequal people equally. He wrote that “the law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”.
- The maxim 'Nemo iudex in causa sua' crystalized in British-tradition common law in the case Frome United Breweries Co. v Bath, in which British's highest legal officer, called the "Lord Chancellor" (LC), made a decision favourable to a canal company.
At the time, unbeknownst to the parties to the litigation, the LC was a shareholder in the canal company and had not told the litigants. The LC's decision was set aside because of the nemo judex maxim.
"The maxim that no man is to be judge in his own case should be held sacred. That is not to be confined to a cause in which he is a party, but applies to a cause in which he has an interest...."This will be a lesson to all ... tribunals to take care, not only that in their decrees they are not influenced by their personal interests, but to avoid the appearance of labouring under such an influence."
- I am emphasizing that Murphy J has vital interest in my case against 'Cristovao v FDE and Cristovao v Registrar Scott', (eg. my affidavit paragraph 4 to 9, 11 to 11.3 and annexure marked C-1, 2 pages) because granting me the requested relief would NEGATIVELY affect his Hon judgement as well.
- Murphy J, during the court hearing on 21.09.2012, disregarded my RIGHT to adduce evidence of the bona fide to unravel the truth to set aside Registrar Scott null and void costs orders dated 17.03.2011. By doing such abhorrence and vilification only to the purpose to cover-up Lacroix’s Perjury, he showed DISRESPECT to the legal system he is working for, the court procedures and for his own juniors and seniors judicial colleagues.
- I am requesting the Court panel to determine if his conduct constitutes the offence - 'the indirect contempt of court'. The fact that he has 'immunity' protecting him from punishment does not repudiate the fact of committing a criminal offence.
- Another issue I want to raise in this court is the matter of bullying by judiciary of people who are not lawyers and not of Anglo origin, who represent themselves in courts. Since bullying is an offence when committed in schools, offices and factories, why should it be tolerated in courts?
- As Murphy J did what he could to disturb my cross examination, and create confusion by interrupting, interjecting me every several seconds. Evidence is in the transcript of the hearing.
- In case of self-represented people, this is a standard tactic used by judges to deprive a fair hearing by making people feel intimidated, unsettled, speechless, and overwhelmed.
Combined with the policy of rejecting ALL arguments presented by self-represented people it is intended to deny any chance of success.
- Clear collusion of judiciary with lawyers to protect their financial interests.
- I am requesting this court to determine if Murphy J conduct during that hearing constitutes bullying and intimidation as defined by law.
- His Hon Murphy is involved in the abuse of judicial discretion, which has been exercised arbitrarily and capriciously and in bad faith. (eg. my affidavit annexure C -1 page 2 subparagraph 6.4.1 to 6.4.5.) The abuse resulted in a manifest injustice.
- Registrar Scott, Hon Murphy J and North J conduct brings the administration of justice in Australia into disrepute and has impact on the issue of integrity and respect for the law affecting Australia legal system as the whole. It is embarrassingly embarrassing that Registrars and Judges of the Federal Court and Western Australian Courts, would dare to act in such disgraceful manner after been aware of the illegality of Lacroix’s impugned affidavit and Page Seagers, Paula Sutherland solicitor for FDE using substandard court officials falling short in theirs duties and integrity hushing-up wrongdoers for the purpose of subverting the administration of Justice, and to pillage and plundering a self-represented litigant-Appellant.
- Denial of a neutral, impartial arbiter to preside over the court hearing deprived me the access to justice, deprived me of fair hearing, and denied me recognition and equality before the law.
- I am determined that my Human Rights are acknowledged and respected. Particularly, the provisions of Article 14 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
- 'All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.'
The disadvantages suffered by self-represented litigants
- The Australian Institute of Judicial Administration has prepared a report to assist courts and tribunals in planning for the management of litigants in person.[Footnote] It describes the disadvantages suffered by litigants who appear without representation in civil and criminal proceedings.
- Litigants in person also lack familiarity with the language and specialist vocabulary of legal proceedings.[Footnote] This disadvantage comes from a lack of objectivity.
- The problem of self-representation is not just a lack of legal skill – it is also a problem of a lack of objectivity and emotional distance from their case. None of this denies that some people appear self-represented by choice - one that the law respects.
- The rule is that, in the ordinary course of civil or criminal litigation, all natural persons have a right to appear unrepresented.[Footnote] The right to defend yourself without legal representation in criminal proceedings is “fundamental” and should not be interfered with.[Footnote] The duty of a trial judge is to ensure that the trial of a self-represented person is fair applies whether he or she has been unable to obtain legal representation or appears self-represented by their own choosing.[Footnote]
- But most people who appear self-represented do not do so by choice as in my case. This gives rise to a potential injustice, the one identified by Anatole France, for how can it be said the law operates equally in such a situation? The law confronts this problem through the application of the overriding principle of the fair trial.
- A judge has a fundamental duty to ensure a fair trial by giving due assistance to a self-represented litigant, whilst at the same time maintaining the reality and appearance of judicial neutrality.
- The duty is inherent in the rule of law and the judicial process. The human rights of equality before the law and access to justice specified in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are relevant to its proper performance. The assistance to be given depends on the particular litigant and the nature of the case, but can include information about the relevant legal and procedural issues.
- Fairness and balance are the touchstones. Ref. [Milan Momasevic v Danny Travaglini-Supreme Court of Victoria [Field]No. 8658 of 2006] [Peter Markan v Bar Association of Queensland Court of Appeal of Queensland CA No: 3593/13 Number: 928/13].
I am requesting this Court Panel to determine FDE’s in the person of his director Mr Lacroix and Page Seagers, solicitors if either are guilty of a criminal offence in accordance with Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 Divisions: 136.1, 137, 137.1, refer to false or misleading information for the purpose a financial advantage by deception; or alternatively a determination in accordance CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 319 General offence of perverting the course of justice
ORDERS SOUGHT -
- That Hon Murphy J, Judgement dated 27 November 2012 be Set Aside.
- That the Impugned Registrar Scott Costs Orders dated 17 March 2013 and subsequent costs associated be Order NULL and VOID.
- That Mr Adrian Lacroix by virtue of Deposed Perjurious Facts to the Federal Court of Australia be order for criminal Prosecution.
- That Page Seagers by virtue of Misleading Conduct to the Federal Court be order for criminal Prosecution.
- That FDE and Page Seagers Lawyers compensate Appellant as the Litigants in person Costs and Expenses (Out the Pocket Expenses).
- Any other orders deemed fit by the court having regard to the complicity of FDE and Page Seagers caused costs orders dated 17.03.2011.
