Draft Notice of Constitutional Matter: Why Judges should NEVER be allowed control of the Bill of Rights
Posted February 17th, 2009 by meme

Madame, Monsieur,
Veuillez trouver en pièce jointe une communication du bureau du procureur de la cour pénale internationale.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached a communication from the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.

Office of the Prosecutor - International Criminal Court
Bureau du Procureur - Cour pénale internationale

OTP-CR-415_09

Dear M.P. Dillon
Head of Information & Evidence Unit
Office of The Prosecutor

We only made preliminary submissions and seek the correct format to file our documents with the ICC.

We continue to seek the correct format. in the meantime, we add two more documents:

Form 55A Notice of Appeal
(Order 53, rule 2, Order 53B, rule 2 and Order 59, rule 1)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

No. VID91 of 2009
DISTRICT REGISTRY
On appeal from the ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN
PHAM Applicant
and
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND
WORKPLACERELATIONS Respondent

NOTICE OF APPEAL (Amended Monday, 16 February 2009)

AND

Notice of a Constitutional Matter.

We wonder that all correspondence between us could be made public, such that we will post them on our website

 http://kangaroocourtaustralia.com

More information can be found there, feel free to contact us for more information

In the meantime, we seek an urgency of sorts for this matter, and would like to know the timetable for your decision. We could like to add John Wilson to our case since we have added him to our highcourt cases. John Wilson is being physically and emotionally harassed and abused by corrupt judges. Under law, when an appeal is lodged with the High Court, all preceding legal action must cease, until the matter is resolved.

We have added John Wilson to this conversation and will ask him to make submission.

PHAM

 http://www.scribd.com/doc/12491447/Draft-Notice-of-a-Constitutional-Matter17FEB2009Web

 http://www.scribd.com/doc/12491447/Draft-Notice-Why-Judges-should-NEVER-be-allowed-control-of-the-Bill-of-Rights

Form 1 Notice of a constitutional matter
(rule 5.01.3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA No. of

[ MELBOURNE OFFICE OF THE ] REGISTRY

BETWEEN:

TRAN

PHAM

WILSON Plaintiffs

and

Quentin Bryce Defendants
Governor General (Commonwealth of Australia)

Kevin Rudd
Prime Minister of Australia (Commonwealth of Australia)

Robert McClellan
Attorney General (Commonwealth of Australia)

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 Section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 .

Filed for Plaintiff by

2. [ State the nature of the matter (e.g., the constitutional issue which is said to arise).

a. A matter arising under The Constitution or involving its interpretation within the meaning of section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 as follows:

b. Whether Section 1 of the constitution is null and void. S1:
Legislative power
The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is hereinafter called The Parliament , or The Parliament of the Commonwealth .

c. Whether Section 51 of the constitution is null and void. S51:
Legislative powers of the Parliament
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: (inter alia)

(vi) the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, and the control of the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth;

(xix) naturalization and aliens;

(xxiii) invalid and old age pensions;

(xxiiiA) the provision of maternity allowances, widows' pensions,
child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances;

(xxiv) the service and execution throughout the Commonwealth of the civil and criminal process and the judgments of the courts of the States;

(xxv) the recognition throughout the Commonwealth of the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of the States;

(xxvi) the people of any race , other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;

(xxvii) immigration and emigration;

(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;

(xxxvi) matters in respect of which this Constitution makes provision until the Parliament otherwise provides;

(xxxix) matters incidental to the execution of any power vested by this Constitution in the Parliament or in either House thereof, or in the Government of the Commonwealth, or in the Federal Judicature, or in any department or officer of the Commonwealth.

d. Whether Section 52 of the constitution is null and void. S52:
Exclusive powers of the Parliament
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have exclusive power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

(i) the seat of government of the Commonwealth, and all places acquired by the Commonwealth for public purposes;

(ii) matters relating to any department of the public service the control of which is by this Constitution transferred to the Executive Government of the Commonwealth;

(iii) other matters declared by this Constitution to be within the exclusive power of the Parliament.

e. Whether Section 73 of the constitution is null and void. S73:
Appellate jurisdiction of High Court

The High Court shall have jurisdiction, with such exceptions and subject to such regulations as the Parliament prescribes, to hear and determine appeals from all judgments, decrees, orders, and sentences:

(i) of any Justice or Justices exercising the original jurisdiction of the High Court;

(ii) of any other federal court, or court exercising federal jurisdiction; or of the Supreme Court of any State, or of any other court of any State from which at the establishment of the Commonwealth an appeal lies to the Queen in Council;

(iii) of the Inter State Commission, but as to questions of law only;
and the judgment of the High Court in all such cases shall be final and conclusive.

But no exception or regulation prescribed by the Parliament shall prevent the High Court from hearing and determining any appeal from the Supreme Court of a State in any matter in which at the establishment of the Commonwealth an appeal lies from such Supreme Court to the Queen in Council.

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the conditions of and restrictions on appeals to the Queen in Council from the Supreme Courts of the several States shall be applicable to appeals from them to the High Court.

f. Whether Section 75 of the constitution is null and void. S75:
Original jurisdiction of High Court
In all matters:

(i) arising under any treaty;

(ii) affecting consuls or other representatives of other countries;

(iii) in which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party;

(iv) between States, or between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of another State;

(v) in which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth;
the High Court shall have original jurisdiction.

g. Whether Section 80 of the constitution is null and void. S80:
Trial by jury
The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes.

h. Whether judges, commonwealth officials, registrars and deputy registrars of the courts, or prothonotaries have the legal capacity to make laws contrary to the aforementioned Constitution sections, inter alia;

i. Whether Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 is null and void as illegally opinioned by French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan, North, Gray, Heerey JJ, contrary to

i. Being validly published and proclaimed Act of the Australian Parliament;

ii. By Reference to Section 13 Acts Interpretation Act 1901, as part of an Act it is Law;

iii. It is cited as a Law in the Privacy Act 1988;

iv. It is cited in S 138 (3) (f) Evidence Act 1995;

v. It is cited as a Law in the Criminal Code Act 1995, in the Dictionary, and three offences;

vi. By S 5 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, it
binds the “courts judges and people of every State” so every Magistrate and Judge must cease discrimination, Guaranteed by Article 14 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (THE COVENANT);

vii. By Article 50 of the Covenant its provisions extend to every State Jurisdiction in Australia.

j. Whether S 3 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 is null and void: decisions under an Enactment are reviewable

“Enactment is defined as set out below, and where a decision is made by any administrative officer, whatever called, it is caught by the Act:

Rules which purport to confer a power to make a decision, but do not specify that it must be made by a “court” including decisions made under Rules of Court are reviewable under the above Act.”

Enactment includes: (c) an instrument (including rules, regulations or by?laws) made under an Act or under such an Ordinance;

k. whether the Affidavits and the sworn Statements of Australian Citizens are less valid and of less legal basis than the lies and fabrication of other Australians and the Commonwealth of Australia;

l. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act (HREOA) 1986 (Cth): whether Australia has obligations under International Convention on Civil and Politcal Rights and other International Human Rights charters make it unlawful to deprive Australian citizens access to the laws and legal process and to basic Human Rights;

m. Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth): whether Australia has obligations under International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and whether Commonwealth laws (HREOA and RDA) make it unlawful to discriminate and treat differently based on race; and whether the Judiciary is exempt from them;

n. Whether Order 53 r 2, 0 53B r 2 and 059 r 1 and Section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 permit the Plaintiff the option seek the Court make findings of facts;

o. Evidence Act 1995: whether hearsay is admissible; Respondents' documents satisfy all the elements that make them prima facie inadmissible by the rule against hearsay;

p. Whether perjury is endorsed and encouraged by the Judiciary in the interpretation and/or application of the Judiciary Act 1903 and/or any other Acts;

q. Whether fabrication of evidence and facts are endorsed and encouraged by the Judiciary in the interpretation and/or application of the Judiciary Act 1903 and/or any other Acts;

r. Whether rule 6.07 of the High Court Rules 2004, dispenses with the Constitution, and all other Acts of Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, and International Treaties to which Australia is signatory;

s. Whether rule 6.06.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 provides for “having given that person an opportunity to be heard”.

3. I State the facts showing the matter is one to which Section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 applies.

i) On 24th January 2008, Hayne J violated the Plaintiff's rights to Originating Process and Notice(s) of Constitutional Matter in the High Court jurisdiction in direct violation of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 - SECT 25D and others, the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), the Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) S 43 and other sections, the HREOCA 1986 and RDA 1975 which give rise to Australia's obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, under articles relating to "right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals" and "right to social security"; as affirmed by Crennan J on 20 February 2008, in denying the Applicant right of reply in further application (5 Feb 2008) to the High Court, contrary to rule 6 of the High Court;

ii) Hayne J not only prejudiced the process by effectively running the defence for the Defendants, (who failed to file notices of appearances), on false pretenses and non-existent jurisdiction; All Defendants failed to appear to challenge the proceedings;

iii) Hayne J failed to recognize "Peremptory Stay of Proceedings" on challenges of jurisdiction at the lower courts;

iv) Hayne J failed to award court costs for the Defendants' non-appearances and for costs from costs regulations 8.2, 9, 10, 11;

v) The Commonwealth Governor General authorized Fee Regulations Rule 11, without authorization of Australian Parliament, and contrary to Australia's obligations to ICCPR article 14.1 and others; thereby authorized the Commonwealth's violations of the Plaintiff's Human Rights of access to the High Courts, and lower Courts;

-----------------------------------------------------------

Come help spread awareness of kangaroocourts in the first world.

Kirby's last dissent: my fellow judges racists


 http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/story/kirbys-last-dissent-my-fellow-judges-racists-0



How High Court Australia conspire to pervert justice, and to cause injury leading to deaths


 http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/story/how-high-court-australia-conspire-pervert-justice-and-cause-injury-leading-deaths



 http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/story/draft-notice-constitutional-matter-why-judges-should-never-be-allowed-control-bill-rights


Draft Notice of Constitutional Matter: Why Judges should NEVER be allowed control of the Bill of Rights



 http://kangaroocourtaustralia.com/