IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

[MELBOURNE] REGISTRY

No.

of 2016

BETWEEN:
First Plaintiff
Second Plaintiff
10
Third Plaintiff
Fourth Plaintiff(s)
and

20

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Commonwealth of Australia)
First Defendant
Attorney General (Commonwealth Australia)
Second Defendant
Attorney General (State of Victoria Australia)
Third Defendant
Denise Weybury (Registrar High Court Australia)
Fourth Defendant

30
Rosemary Musolino (Registrar High Court Australia)
Fifth Defendant
Australian Human Rights Commission (Commonwealth Australia)
Sixth Defendant
Wilson Security
Seventh Defendant
40

[]
[]

Telephone: [0412 871 985]
Fax: []
Ref: [ ]

-2APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

To:

10

20

Parties

Peter Dutton MP
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
PO Box 6022
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Telephone: 02 6277 7860
Fax: 02 6273 4144
Email: minister@border.gov.au
George Brandis MP
Robert Garran Offices
3-5 National Circuit, BARTON ACT 2600
PO Box 6100
Senate
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Telephone: 02 6277 7300
Fax: 02 6273 4102
The Hon Martin Pakula MP
Level 26, 121 Exhibition Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000
martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au

30

40

Denise Weybury
Rosemary Musolino
Level 17, Law Courts Building,
305 William Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000
President of Australian Human Rights Commission
Level 3, 175 Pitt Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000
GPO Box 5218
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Wilson Security
Level 16
Melbourne Central Tower
360 Elizabeth Street
Melbourne VIC 3000

-3TAKE NOTICE that this application has been made by the plaintiff for the relief
that is set out below on the grounds that are set out below.

IF YOU INTEND TO DEFEND the proceeding you must file a notice of
appearance in the office of the Registry named above.

10

IF YOU ARE WILLING TO SUBMIT to any order that the Court may make, save
as to costs, you may file a submitting appearance in the office of the Registry
named above.

THE TIME FOR FILING AN APPEARANCE is as follows:
(a) where you are served with the application within Australia – 14 days from
the date of service;
(b) in any other case – 42 days from the date of service.
20

THE RELIEF CLAIMED is

1.

An urgent hearing is sought in front of the Full Bench of the High Court of Australia
on Matters of Constitutional Matters and International Treaties, and an Application
for a Notice to Show Cause why Prerogative Writs of Mandamus, and or Prohibition,
and or Habeas Corpus, and or Injunction, should not be granted to the Plaintiff(s),
preventing Commonwealth of Australia and or the State of Victoria and or the State

30

of Western Australia, from unlawful discrimination based on race, ethnicity or creed
resulting in genocide and murder by joint enterprise, of asylum seekers, refugees
and other immigrants, and first nations peoples;
2.

The matter should be expedited given that the uncertainty in law has cause the death
of Mr Gong Ling Tang, whether in the custody of Victoria Police or their unlawful
action and or inaction, the death of Ms Dhu in Police Custody in Western Australia,
the deaths and alleged torture and physical and psychological harm to Asylum
seekers, Refugees, First Nations peoples, Immigrants and other Australians.

3.

The matter should be expedited given that the uncertainty in law, aiding and abetting
a culture of abuse of the public office and unlawful discrimination, has caused the

40

action and conduct of a senior police officer, Rick Flori, charged with criminal
misconduct for allegedly leaking footage of a police bashing on the Gold Coast.

-44.

The matter should be expedited given that the uncertainty in law, aiding and
abetting a culture of abuse of the public office and unlawful discrimination, has
caused the action and conduct of Ms Jasmine Pilbrow, charged with charged with
Interfering with a Cabin Crew member, for the prevention of the unlawful refoulement
of asylum seekers.

5.

Bold Declaration from the Full Bench of the High Court Australia, that:
a. Rule 6.07.2 and 6.07.3 of the High Court Rules 2004 are invalid and are
inconsistent with Australian Constitution, allowing the Registrars of the High Court
to exercise judicial powers, without the CONSENT of the Australian Peoples via a

10

referendum; thereby breaching the separation of powers doctrine, and an abuse of
office.

b. Rule 6.07.2 and 6.07.3 of the High Court Rules 2004 are inconsistent with
the Kable Principle and putting the institutional integrity of the High court in question;
thereby breaching the separation of powers doctrine.

c. Rule 6.07.2 and 6.07.3 of the High Court Rules 2004, amounts to an
administrative function, and should be challenged under Judicial Review;
d. Rule 6.07.2 and 6.07.3 of the High Court Rules 2004 breach s 9(1), s9
(1A), s10 and or 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act (Cth) 1975, inter alia.
The Court’s jurisdiction was invoked under s 38 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)

20

because Plaintiff(s) had raised a question arising under the Constitution and
involving its interpretation.
e. Rule 6.07.2 and 6.07.3 of the High Court Rules 2004 are invalid given

that they breach s51 of the Constitution in whole or in part, with particular
attention to s 51 (xxv), and s 51 (xxxi).
6.

Bold Declaration from the Full Bench of the High Court Australia, that:
a. An abuse of Discretion amounts to unlawful discrimination, direct and or indirect,
where protected groups of people are affected;
b. An abuse of Discretion in application of the law amounts to unlawful
discrimination, and vilification.

30

-5-

7.

Bold Declaration from the Full Bench of the High Court Australia:
a. that pursuant to COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT SECT 75, (the Constitution)
Original jurisdiction of High Court
In all matters:
(i) arising under any treaty;
(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;

10

and or,

b. JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 38,
Matters in which jurisdiction of High Court exclusive
Subject to sections 39B and 44, the jurisdiction of the High Court shall be exclusive of the
jurisdiction of the several Courts of the States in the following matters:

20

(a) matters arising directly under any treaty;
(b) suits between States, or between persons suing or being sued on behalf of different States,
or between a State and a person suing or being sued on behalf of another State;
(d) suits by a State, or any person suing on behalf of a State, against the Commonwealth or any
person being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth;
(e) matters in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition is sought against an officer of the
Commonwealth or a federal court.

30

Any questions arising under the Constitution and involving its interpretation, amounts to
Public Interest test.
8.

Bold Declaration from the High Court Australia:
a. that Offshore Processing Policy for Asylum seekers and Refugees is
inconsistent with s51 of the Constitution in whole or in part, with particular attention

to s 51 (xxv), and s 51 (xxxi).
b. that Offshore Processing Policy for Asylum seekers and Refugees breaches s
9(1), s9 (1A), s10 and or 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act (Cth) 1975, inter
alia. And breaches the Convention of the Child, inter alia.
c. that Offshore Processing Policy for Asylum seekers and Refugees amounts

40

to arbitrary detention and creating the conditions of life with the intent to destroy.

-69.

Bold Declaration from the High Court Australia:
a. that refoulement Policy for Asylum seekers and Refugees is inconsistent with
s51 of the Constitution in whole or in part, with particular attention to s 51 (xxv),

and s 51 (xxxi).
b. that refoulement Policy for Asylum seekers and Refugees breaches s 9(1), s9
(1A), s10 and or 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act (Cth) 1975, inter alia. And
breaches the Convention of the Child.
c. that refoulement Policy for Asylum seekers and Refugees amounts to arbitrary
detention, human trafficking and creating the conditions of life with the intent to

10

destroy.

10.

Writ(s) of mandamus or prohibition is sought against the Defendant(s), officers of
the Commonwealth or a federal court,
a. for an abuse of discretion and an abuse of office, and interference with the
administration of justice, and
b. a breach of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act (Cth) 1986 (the
HREOCA) s46PE, and the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act
(VIC) 2006 (the Charter), in flagrant disregards for Australia’s obligations to
International Treaties, s75 of the Constitution and s38 of the Judiciary Act.

20

c. And a conspiracy to cause injury and Deaths to Aborigines and Refugees,
by using commonwealth officers including federal and state police force
and a private army against defenseless peoples.
11.

Writ(s) of Habeas Corpus, or an Application in the manner of, is sought for ALL the
Asylum Seekers and refugee children under the age of 10 at the time of arbitrary
detention, and other detainees under Immigration and Border Protection Act or
otherwise; or for the Asylum Seekers, Refugees and other detainees under the
Immigration and Border Protection Act or otherwise, be brought before the Court;

-712.

Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition, or an Application in the manner of, is sought
against the Immigration Minister and all Attorneys General, in order to prevent them
from acting and or making false accusations against Asylum seekers and
Refugees in a manner that may be construed as unlawful discrimination, direct
and or indirect, and or vilification against Asylum Seekers, Refugees and any
Australians who share their race, gender, ethnicity;

13.

And any other orders as the High Court sees fit, in order to serve the best interest
of Justice and public interest, in the administration of Australian Democracy, and its
obligations to international laws and treaties.

10

14.

Plaintiff(s) seek to file submissions to any High Court hearing relating to any
Asylum Seeker, Refugee matters before the Court.

THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE RELIEF IS CLAIMED are:

THE “CONSTITUTIONAL” CHALLENGES
1. The jurisdiction of this Court, under s75 of the Constitution and under s38 of the
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) have been invoked numerous times since 2002; also invoking
the Court’s pendant or accrued jurisdiction, in raising question(s) of law arising under

20

the Constitution and involving its interpretation, and or the question(s) of law arising
under the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act (Vic) 2006 (“the Charter”)
and involving its interpretation, and or other Acts and its interpretation under the Charter.
2. The refusal of the individual judges to hear the matter as judicial officers, rather than
corporate administrators, has caused uncertainty in law and its interpretation, leading
to deaths of Australian citizens Mr Gong Ling Tang of Melbourne, Ms Dhu in Perth, at
the hands of the State Police, and Mr Reza Barati, Asylum Seeker, at the hands of
immigration forces, inter alia.
3. These ultra vires acts contravened various constitutional protections, including the
implied principles of the Magna Carta of Equality before the Law, implied Principle of

30

Legality, the Kable Principle and that they are inconsistent with the Racial Discrimination
Act (Cth) 1975, the Charter and the Equal Opportunity Act (VIC) 2010 (the “EO” Act);

-84. In making the order that the Plaintiff change his application to an Ex Parte application,
it appears the judge(s) had made the corporate administrative act which breached the
separation of powers doctrine, and that the order(s) was incompatible with Chapter III
of the Federal constitution; and breaches s9(1), s9(1A), 10, 18C of the Racial
Discrimination Act (Cth) 1975, the Charter and the EO Act.
5. In 2010, Rule 6.07.2 and 6.07.3 of the High Court Rules 2004, signed in effect

by the Federal Attorney General and the Governor General with the intention of
contravening the aforementions rights of the Plaintiff and breaching the
aforementioned Acts.
10

6. In 2013, the Aborigines Man, Kevin Kelly and the Plaintiff, attempted to file a Notice to
Show Cause application invoking s75 of the Constitution, inter alia, for the application
of the Convention for the Child in protecting his children and those of the Asylum
Seekers.
7. The Registrars, Rosemary Mussolino and Denise Weyberry refused to do so, colluding
with the Victoria Police and Wilson Security to remove the Plaintiff(s) from the High
Court Melbourne Registry.
8. The reason Wilson Security and the Victorian Police gave was that the Plaintiff “was
being a pest”; Victoria Police refused to indicate if they had jurisdiction.
9. It appears the Registrars, Victoria Police and Wilson Security colluded to engage in the

20

abuse of public office, unlawful discrimination and racial vilification.
10. The abuse of the public office appears to breach the s51 of the Constitution in whole of
in part,
a. (xxv) the recognition throughout the Commonwealth of the laws, the public
Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of the States;
b.

(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;

11. Common Law Principles dictates that precedence be applied, and Tomasevic v

30

Travaglini & Anor [2007] VSC 337 (13 September 2007), dictates that the presiding
judge assist unrepresented litigants
12. The Charter and the EO Act has been contravened.

-913. 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.
14. The refusal of the single judge to act in a judicial manner pursuant to the Australian
Constitution, relating to Treaties and prerogative writs, has allowed the Commonwealth

10

to continue with their discriminatory policies and pretended laws, in causing hardship
for Aborigines and Indigenous peoples, Asylum Seekers and Refugees and well as
Australian Citizens;
15. The murder of 23-year-old Iranian asylum seeker Reza Berati during the February 2014
riot inside the Manus Island detention centre.
16. At the end of May 2014, 29-year-old Leo Seemanpillai feared being sent back to Sri
Lanka, extremely anxious about being deported the day before he died after setting
himself alight in Geelong;
17. In May 2010, Gong Ling Tang was left to die outside Dandenong police station; police
smirking as a man in their custody writhes in pain, and is then abandoned outside a

20

police station to die.
18. The uncertainty in law caused by the refusal of the single judge to hear matters of a
constitutional matter has caused confusion in the general community, created a culture
of abuse and corruption in the Royal Australian Navy, and the Australian Defense
Force, the State Police forces, requiring Royal Commissions.
19. It will be in the public interest for the Full Bench of the High Court to hear this cumulative
Notice to Show Cause Application invoking the s75 of the Constitution, and
international Treaties, the Convention of the Child, seeking to apply s51 of the
Constitution, and for the recognition throughout the Commonwealth of the laws, the
public Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of the States, including the

30

Charter.

-1020. Should Police Officer Rick Flori and or Ms Jasmine Pilbrow wish, an injunction should

be sought for their cases till this Constitutional matter be heard and clarified.
21. An expedition of this matter is now sought in order to protect the Asylum Seeker and

refugee children and Australian Children.
22. Whether the Attorney General for Western Australia should be party for the release

of the CCTV footage of the death and ordeal of Ms Dhu.
23. Mandamus is the last resort for judicial review of judgements of those who refuse to act
in judicial capacity rather than corporate administrators, who in applying the law in an
arbitrary and capricious manner, seek to attack the institutional integrity of the federal

10

and state courts, allowing arbitrary detention and creating a culture of lawlessness.

This application shall be heard at the time and place stated [if a summons is to be served
with the application] in the summons served with this application / [if no summons is to be
served with the application] in a summons to be served at a later time.

This application was filed by the plaintiff.

20
Dated:
................(signed)....................
[Name of plaintiff / plaintiff’s solicitor]
The plaintiff’s address is

[ ].

The plaintiff’s address for service is [ ].