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 Australia

Major General Michael Jeffery

Governor 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 to
the 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 the
High 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 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
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;

6. On 24 1h 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 24 111 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 the
Constitution 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 legal
effect 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; "
30
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;
40
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 therefore
requires leave of the Court before the appeal will be entertained". The question was posed to the
Justices 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 Michael
JACOBSON have failed to indicate or state reasons or facts regarding "reasonable prospect of
success", making the decision erroneous and defective and lacking jurisdiction;
 15. The Honorable Robert Shenton FRENCH, Justice Kevin Edmund LINDGREN, Peter Michael
JACOBSON have failed to entertain the Appellant's Outline of Submission and Arguments,
Appellant's Reply to Respondent's submissions, and the Appellant's Outline of Further
Submissions and Authorities, and therefore making the decision erroneous and defective and
lacking jurisdiction;

16. The Honorable Robert Shenton FRENCH, Justice Kevin Edmund LINDGREN, Peter Michael
JACOBSON have failed to entertain the Appellant's submission that the Respondent had failed to
challenge any of the Appellant's submissions or arguments, making the decision erroneous and
10 defective and lacking jurisdiction;

17. The Honorable Robert Shenton FRENCH, Justice Kevin Edmund LINDGREN, Peter Michael
JACOBSON have failed to entertain the Appellant's submission that the Respondent had agreed
wholeheartedly with Appellant on all points outlined in the Notices of a Constitutional matter,
making the decision erroneous and defective and lacking jurisdiction;

18. An invalid or fatally defective decision based on superficial statements without proper jurisdiction
precludes the Court from acquiring jurisdiction over the Plaintiff and therefore has no authority to
conduct an Appeal.
20

FACTS:

1. On Monday, November 12, 2007, The Appellant files his OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS and
Argument in cause VID 491/2007 stating:

h. The Constitution or involving its interpretation within the meaning of section 78B of the
Judiciary Act 1903: whether the Affidavits and the sworn Statements of Australian Citizens of
30 Southeast Asian descent are less valid and of less legal significance than the lies and
fabrication of other Australians;

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act (HREOA) 1986 (Cth): International Human Rights
charters make it unlawful to deprive Australian citizens access to the laws and legal process;

Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth): Commonwealth laws (HREOA) make it unlawfid to
discriminate and treat differently based on race;

k. Order 53 r 2, 0 53B r 2 and 059 r I and Section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
40 Act 1975 permit the Applicant the option seek the Court make findings of facts;

1. Evidence Act 1958: whether hearsay is admissible; Respondents' documents satisfy all the
elements that make them prima facie inadmissible by the rule against hearsay;

m. 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;"

2. On 15 November 2007, the Respondent filed his Outline of Submissions without challenging any
50 of the Appellant's submissions and argument but agrees and accepts the Appellant's position on
his Notices of a Constitutional matter;

3. On 19 November 2007, the Appellant files his Reply to the Respondent's Outline of submission
challenging the fact that the Respondent failed to challenge the Appeals at hand;

4
 4. On 20 November 2007, The Honorable Robert Shenton FRENCH, Justice Kevin Edmund
LINDGREN, Peter Michael JACOBSON indicated that a Leave to Appeal was required from the
interlocutory decision of North J. The Respondent admitted to knowing nothing about the
requirement for Leave to Appeal; The Appellant seeks the FULL COURT reveal the jurisdiction,
rules or law the Court was enacting; NO ANSWER was forthcoming from The Honorable Robert
Shenton FRENCH, Justice Kevin Edmund LINDGREN, Peter Michael JACOBSON;

5. The Honorable Robert Shenton FRENCH, Justice Kevin Edmund LINDGREN, Peter Michael
JACOBSON then adjourned the decision till 22 November 2007;
10
6. In light of the fact that The Honorable Robert Shenton FRENCH, Justice Kevin Edmund
LINDGREN, Peter Michael JACOBSON brought up new line of argument without the behest of
the Respondent, the Appellant submitted by fax his "Further Outline of submissions and
authorities" with copies sent to the Respondent on 20 November 2007;

7. The Honorable Robert Shenton FRENCH, Justice Kevin Edmund LINDGREN, Peter Michael
JACOBSON failed to challenge

"A Question of Law can be Question of Fact: Powley v Crimes Compensation Tribunal (16 December
20 1996 Vic CA);

Section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 subsection 7: Federal Court may make
findings of fact.

Merits of the case is proportional to the Notices of a Constitutional Matter filed, and the Appellant's
Outline of Submissions and Arguments, and the threshold applied by Lehane J for the power of
summary dismissal, whose authorities he refers to as well understood such that he does NOT need to
list;

30 There are three levels of analysis:

i. That the decision is unreasonable, having regard to the evidence;
ii. That the decision is based upon a wrong decision of a question of law;
iii. Or on any ground whatsoever, there was a miscarriage of justice

The whole issue can however be simplified by going back to the earlier stage of the legislative
provision. Callinan J in Gipp v The Queen (1998) 155 ALR 15 at 48; [1998] HCA 21 at [121] pointed
out that in speaking of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), Isaacs J in Hargan v The King (1919) 27
CLR 13 at 23 had said:

40 "If [the appellant] can show a miscarriage of justice, that is sufficient. That is the greatest innovation
made by the Act, and to lose sight of that is to miss the point of the legislative advance." [5]

The Appellant understands that Australian Citizens with SouthEast Asian descent, we have to jump
through hoops to find justice in John Howard's Australia, but the FULL COURT has failed to indicate
what rules or laws it applied to seek that the Appellant seek leave to appeal when the Respondent has
failed to alert the court.

1. R v Derek Bentley (Deceased) [1998] EWCA Crim 2516

2. R v Mahmoud Mattan (Deceased) 24th February 1998 No: 9706415/S2
50 3. High Court of Australia Act 1979 (Cth) s 11 and Schedule (emphasis added)
4. Lord Denning, The Discipline of Law, Butterworths, London 1979 p 292 (emphasis added)
5. Gipp v The Queen (1998) 155 ALR 15 at 48; [1998] HCA 21 at [121]
6. Gipp v The Queen (1998) 155 ALR 15 at 60; [1998] HCA 21 at [169] per Kirby J referring to
Davis & Cordy v R (1937) 57 CLR 170 at 180 and Ratten v R (1974) 131 CLR 510 at 515
7. Gipp v The Queen (1998) 155 ALR 15 at 49; [1998] HCA 21 at [126] per Kirby J"

5
 8. The Plaintiff now comes before this Court seeking orders to cause The Honorable Robert Shenton
FRENCH, Justice Kevin Edmund LINDGREN, Peter Michael JACOBSON, Anthony Max North to
comply with the Federal Court Rules of Court, the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, the Judiciary
Act 1903 and the Australian Constitution, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act 1986 (Cth),
the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), as confirmed by the Respondent in reply to Notices of a
Constitutional Matter; applying for Writ of Mandamus and a Writ of Prohibition preventing the
Justices from conspiring to pervert justice by fabricating documents, abusing discretionary
powers, unlawful racial discrimination, and human rights violations;

10 9. The Plaintiff now comes before this Court seeking orders to cause the Victoria District Registrar
(High Court) to expedite this application and the Notices of a Constitutional Matter to be heard in the
High Court as a matter of Public interest and Australia's obligations under the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, RDA 1975, and HREOCA 1986
which gives effect to the following relevant international conventions and declarations, such the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Declaration on the Rights of Persons
Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities, also gives effect to International
Labour Organisation Convention on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation and United
Nations declarations concerning the rights of people with disabilities.

20 "A matter arising under The Constitution or involving its interpretation within the meaning of section
78B 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 (Caucasian) Australians;

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act (HREOA) 1986 (Cth): International Human Rights charters
make it unlawfull to deprive Australian citizens access to the laws and legal process;

Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth): Commonwealth laws (HREOA) make it unlawful to
discriminate and treat differently based on race;
30
Order 53 r 2, 0 53B r 2 and 059 r 1 and Section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
permit the Applicant the option seek the Court make findings of facts;

Evidence Act 1958: whether hearsay is admissible; Respondents' documents satisfy all the elements
that make them prima facie inadmissible by the rule against hearsay;

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;"

6
 AUTHORITY

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.

1. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination;

10 2. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act (Cth) 1986;
3. Racial Discrimination Act (Cth) 1975;
4. Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965;
5. Travers v State of New South Wales [2000] FCA 1565 (3 November 2000);
6. R v Derek Bentley (Deceased) [1998] EWCA Crim 2516
7. R v Mahmoud Mattan (Deceased) 24th February 1998 No: 9706415/S2
8. High Court of Australia Act 1979 (Cth) s 11 and Schedule (emphasis added)
9. Lord Denning, The Discipline of Law, Butterworths, London 1979 p 292 (emphasis added)
10. Gipp v The Queen (1998) 155 ALR 15 at 48; [1998] HCA 21 at [121]
11. Gipp v The Queen (1998) 155 ALR 15 at 60; [1998] HCA 21 at [169] per Kirby J referring to Davis &
20 Cordy v R (1937) 57
12. CLR 170 at 180 and Ratten v R (1974) 131 CLR 510 at 515
13. Gipp v The Queen (1998) 155 ALR 15 at 49; [1998] HCA 21 at [126] per Kirby J

Dated: [

30 (signed)

( Plaintiff/Appellant or
solicitor for Plaintiff/Appellant )

7
 To:
Attorney-General's Department
Central Office
Robert Garran Offices
National Circuit
BARTON ACT 2600
Tel: (02) 6250 6666
Fax: (02) 6250 5900

10 PO Box 6022
Elouse of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Tel: (02) 6277 7300

Fax: (02) 6273 4102
E-mail: ag@ag.gov.au

Hulls, The Honourable Rob Justin

20 Address: Level 26, 121 Exhibition Street, Melbourne Vic 3001
Phone: 03 8684 1100
Fax: 03 8684 1122
Email: rob.hulls@parliament.vic.gov.au

Simon Corbel) MLA

Attorney General (includes Corrections)
Minister for Police and Emergency Services

General enquiries
30 Phone: (02) 6205 0000
Fax: (02) 6205 0535
Email: corbell@act.gov.au

I- Ion Syd Stirling MLA

't reasurer
Minister for Justice and Attorney-General
Minister for Statehood

Contact:
40 GPO Box 3146
Darwin NT 0801
Telephone: 08 8901 4052
Facsimile: 08 8901 4060
Email: minister.stirling@nt.gov.au

Steven Kons
Deputy Premier
Attorney-General
Minister for Justice and Workplace Relations
50 Minister for Planning

Office address
'1 rafalgar Building
Level 14, 110 Collins St
flobart Tasmania 7000

8
 Postal address
GPO Box 825
flobart Tas 7001

Phone (general enquiries)

1300 135 513
Fax (03) 6233 2332

Email
10 records@justice.tas.gov.au

The Honourable Kerry Shine MP

Contact information:
Ministerial Office: Phone 3239 3478; Fax 3220 2475 or email attorney@ministerial.q1d.gov.au .

I he Hon. John Hatzistergos,

GPO Box 5341,
Sydney NSW 2001
20 Phone (02) 9228 4977
Fax (02) 9228 3600
Email office@hatzistergos.minister.nsw.gov.au

Hon MICHAEL ATKINSON MP

Attorney-General
Minister for Justice
Minister for Multicultural Affairs

Phone
30 8207 1723
Fax
8207 1736
E-Mail
attorney-general@agd.sa.gov.au

Postal Address
GPO Box 464
ADELAIDE SA 5001

40 Office
11th Floor, 45 Pirie Street
ADELAIDE SA 5000

THE HON JIM A McGINTY BA BJuris(Hons) LLB JP MLA

Attorney General; Minister for Health; Electoral Affairs

Mail:

4th Floor, London House

50 216 St Georges Terrace
PERTH WA 6000

e-Mail: jim-mcginty@dpc.wa.gov.au

Phone number: (08) 9422 3000

Fax: (08) 9422 3001