Anda di halaman 1dari 14

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF VICTORIA

[MELBOURNE] REGISTRY No. of

BETWEEN:

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, JOBS, TRANSPORT & RESOURCES

LE PHAM

10

NOTICE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER

1. The Plaintiff 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

20 2. The constitutional issue raised by the Plaintiffs application to the SUPREME COURT OF
VICTORIA pursuant to COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT -
SECT 75, SECT 51 (the Constitution), inter alia, 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 Supreme Court Victoria, to make a bare declaration as to the
privileges, powers and immunities of the Supreme Court Victoria 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 s33, s36 and s39 of the Charter, inter alia;
30
The determination and or lack determination of this issue may raise for consideration sections
109, 75, 51 of the Constitution, inter alia.

3. Arbitrary and capricious interpretation of the law and court rules have aided and abetted
unlawful discrimination and a culture of human rights abuses by Australian police and
government solicitors, costing the lives of Mr Gong Ling Tang at the hands of Victoria Police
at Dandenong, Ms Dhu in custody in Western Australia, and the uncertainty in the
interpretation of law is forcing Police officer Rick Flori to expose and whistleblow the
corruption, cover-up and malicious and wilful affray and assault of public persons by Australian
40 Police.

[] Telephone: []
[] Fax: []
Ref: [ ]
4. Arbitrary and capricious interpretation of the law and court rules is an attack on the integrity of
the court and or tribunal.

Facts showing that s 78B Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) applies

5. On the 29/9/2016, matter was brought in front of the Judicial Registrar Horsburgh.
6. Judicial Registrar was asked if he had read the Affidavit on file; he indicated that he hadnt;
7. Judicial Registrar refused to allow the accused to speak in proper manner;
8. Judicial Registrar refused to apply the Charter s33 and to refer the matter up the supreme
10 court as the accused had requested;
9. Judicial Registrar refused to adjourn the matter so that the Attorneys General can consider
the constitutional matter.
10. The accused now challenges any and ALL rebuttable presumptions of the Judicial Registrar,
inter alia
a. Arbitrary and capricious interpretation of law amounts to unlawful discrimination;
b. Competence, impartiality, independence of the judicial officer;
c. Fair hearing, open and public hearing; Accused has been denied contrary to the Charter
ss 8, 24, 25, inter alia.
d. Accused has been denied fair hearing according to Equal Opportunity Act 2010, the
20 Charter and Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) 9, 9(1A), 18C.

11. Notice of Constitutional matter is filed; and should be dealt with prior to any further hearing of
the matter;
a. (xxxi) the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any
purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws; taxes and rates of
the public is wasted on improper court procedures.
b. (xxv) the recognition throughout the Commonwealth of the laws, the public Acts and
records, and the judicial proceedings of the States;
12. Notice is now submitted, to refer the matter up to the Supreme Court, pursuant to the Charter
30 s33;
13. Accused challenges that there is valid or sufficient evidence for the case to proceed; There is
NO evidence the Accused owned the vehicle, or that the vehicle falls under the definition of
the Act;
14. Lack of want of prosecution, given that the informant failed to filed the brief with the courts
over 2-3 court dates.

2
15. The Accused does not have the brief of the charges.
16. The Questions of Law, in this prima facie case, are
17. 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;
18. Whether the Magistrates Court and or VCAT, has the authority to refuse to refer to the Supreme
Court, questions of law pursuant to s33 of the Charter, or s36 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,
19. Whether the Magistrates Court and or VCAT and or the Supreme Court Victoria, breaches the
10 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 law
herein;
20. Whether the Magistrates Court and or VCAT and or the Supreme Court Victoria, 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 Victoria Police at Dandenong, or the deaths of Aborigines in custody
including Ms Dhu in WA for mere fines, and the high rates of Aborigines incarceration.
21. Whether the Magistrates Court and or VCAT and or the Supreme Court Victoria, breaches s51
of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, in the arbitrary and capricious
20 interpretation of mere court rules, and or the abuse of discretionary powers, rather than applying
the Charter in providing fair and open and public hearing, and equality before the law.
22. Whether the Magistrates Court and or VCAT and or the Supreme Court Victoria, breaches s51
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 its the duty of the presiding judge to assist the
unrepresented litigants
23. Tomasevic v Travaglini & Anor [2007] VSC 337 (13 September 2007)
24. 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
30 Kelly, by accusing him of abuse of the court process and being vexatious, denied him fair, 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 Kellys question(s) of law being answered.
25. 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

3
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.
26. 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 creating uncertainty
in the law, which would breach s51 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, in whole
or in part.
27. The Qld Police Officer Rick Flori, has had to whistleblow and expose the abusive and unlawful
conducts of his colleagues due to the improper conduct and failures of the institutions that have
been set up to investigate and prosecute unlawful behaviors.
10 28. Whether a failure to answer the Question(s) of Law amounts to setting up Immigrants to fail.

29. EXHIBITS TO AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT:


a) VCAT H8/2015 Kelly vs Ratcliffe, Presided G Nihill
b) VCAT H274/2014 Kelly vs AG and State Victoria, presided G Nihill
c) Kelly in Chambers Forrest J 14th January 2015.

30. AUTHORITIES:

a. Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34 (8 September 2011)


b. Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32
20 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.

30

FILED: Wednesday, 1 March 2017

LT PHAM
Human Rights Defender

4
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
10 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,
20 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,
..
30