• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
Form I
Notice of a constitutional matter
(rule 5.01.3)IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
No. of 
[ MELBOURNE OFFICE OF THE ] REGISTRY
BETWEEN:
10
PHAM
Plaintiff 
and
The Hon Kenneth Madison Hayne
Defendants
Judge, High Court of Australia
20
The Hon Crennan
Judge, High Court of AustraliaMajor General Michael JefferyGovernor General (Commonwealth of Australia)
Attorney General
(Commonwealth of Australia)
30
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
PHAM
 
2. [ State the nature of the matter (e.g., the constitutional issue which is said to arise). I
a.
 A matter arising under The Constitution or involving its interpretation within the meaning of section 7813 of the Judiciary Act 1903: whether the Affidavits and the sworn Statements of 
 Australian Citizens of Southeast Asian descent are less valid and of less legal significance
than the lies and fabrication of other Australians and the Commonwealth of Australia;
b.
 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act (HREOA) 1986 (Cth): whether Australia has
obligations under 
International Convention on Civil and Politcal Rights
and 
other
10
 International Human Rights charters make it unlawful to deprive Australian citizens access tothe laws and legal process and to basic Human Rights;
c.
 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;
d.
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;
20
e.
 Evidence Act 1958: whether hearsay is admissible; Respondents' documents satisfy all the
elements that make them prima facie inadmissible by the rule against hearsay;
 f 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;
g
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;
30
3. 1 State the facts showing the matter is one to which Section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 applies.
On 24
th
January 2008, the Honorable Kenneth Madison Hayne conspired to pervert justice by
violating the Plaintiff's rights to Originating Process and Notice(s) of Constitutional Matter in theHigh Court jurisdiction in direct violation of 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 onCivil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, underarticles relating to "right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals" and "right to
40
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;
2.
The Honorable Kenneth Madison Hayne 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;
3.
The Justice failed to recognize "Peremptory Stay of Proceedings" on challenges of jurisdiction at
the lower courts;
50
4.
The Justice failed to award court costs for the Defendants' non-appearances and for costs from
costs regulations 8.2, 9, 10, 11;
5.
Major General Michael Jeffery 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;
2
 
6.
On 24
1 h
January 2008, the Honorable Kenneth Madison Hayne refused to authenticate in writing
his decision to dismiss application to which Section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 applies,
rendering his decision unconstitutional and invalid;
7.
On 24
1 1 1
January 2008, the Honorable Kenneth Madison Hayne indicated that Australian Citizens
of SouthEast Asian descent had no access to the High Court for the following unlawful
discrimination of the Judiciary and Statutory bodies:
10
8.
On 22 November 2007 the Honorable Robert Shenton FRENCH, Justice Kevin Edmund
LINDGREN, Peter Michael JACOBSON passed judgement in matter VID 491 of 2007;
9.
The Honorable Robert Shenton FRENCH, Justice Kevin Edmund LINDGREN, Peter Michael
JACOBSON in paragraphs 12 and 13, erred by stating the following did not arise under theConstitution or involved its interpretation, making the decision erroneous and defective and
lacking jurisdiction:
"Whether the Judiciary Act 1903 invests legislative powers of the Parliament of the
Commonwealth to the Judiciary contrary to the separation of judicial, executive and legislative power 
20
entrenched in the Constitution;
Whether the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act 1986 (Cth) is null and void and of no legaleffect in the interpretation and/or application of the Judiciary Act 1903 and/or any other Acts;
Whether the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) is null and void and of no legal effect in the
interpretation and/or application of the Judiciary Act 1903 and/or any other Acts;
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; "
10.
The Honorable Robert Shenton FRENCH, Justice Kevin Edmund LINDGREN, Peter Michael
JACOBSON in paragraph 7,
fabricated
a document dated 11 April 2007 that was absent from the
Appeals Book and the Appellant's Supplementary Appeals Book, and making the decision
erroneous and defective and lacking jurisdiction;
11.
The Honorable Robert Shenton FRENCH, Justice Kevin Edmund LINDGREN, Peter Michael
JACOBSON in paragraphs 14,
fabricated
a document dated 3 July 2007 that was absent from the
Appeals Book and the Appellant's Supplementary Appeals Book, and making the decision
erroneous and defective and lacking jurisdiction;
12.
The Honorable Robert Shenton FRENCH, Justice Kevin Edmund LINDGREN, Peter Michael
JACOBSON failed to indicate what jurisdiction the FULL Court had to hear a Notice of Motion,or any motion
not heard by the single Judge,
and making the decision erroneous and defective and
lacking jurisdiction;
13.
The Honorable Robert Shenton FRENCH, Justice Kevin Edmund LINDGREN, Peter Michael
JACOBSON indicated in paragraph 15 "the decision appealed from is interlocutory and thereforerequires leave of the Court before the appeal will be entertained". The question was posed to theJustices on 20 November 2007, as to what rules or laws or jurisdiction the Justices were using in
50
application of this requirement; No answer was forth coming and non proffered in judgement,
making the decision erroneous and defective and lacking jurisdiction;
14.
The Honorable Robert Shenton FRENCH, Justice Kevin Edmund LINDGREN, Peter MichaelJACOBSON have failed to indicate or state reasons or facts regarding "reasonable prospect of 
success", making the decision erroneous and defective and lacking jurisdiction;
30
40
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...