[Le Tuan Pham] Telephone: [ ]

[ ] Fax: []
Ref: [MBJE-Commonwealth]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
[MELBOURNE] REGISTRY No. of 2014
BETWEEN:
Le Tuan Pham
First Plaintiff
Koula Rafailidis
SecondPlaintiff
10
Djuran Bunjileenee Borun Mundundarung
ThirdPlaintiff
Krauatatungalung Tjapwhurong Aborigines People
FourthPlaintiff(s)
and
20
Tony Abbott, Prime Minister (Commonwealth of
Australia)
First Defendant
Scott Morrison, Immigration Minister (Commonwealth
Of Australia)
Second Defendant
George Brandis, Attorney General (Commonwealth
Australia) 30
Third Defendant
Denise Weybury (Registrar High Court Australia)
Fourth Defendant
Rosemary Musolino (Registrar High Court Australia)
Fifth Defendant
Jarrod Bleijie, Attorney General (State of QLD)
Sixth Defendant 40
Robert William Clark, Attorney General (State of
Victoria)
Seventh Defendant
-2-
President of Australian Human Rights Commission
(Commonwealth Australia)
Eighth Defendant
Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights
Commission (VIC) Ninth Defendant
Simon Paul Whelan (Court of Appeal Victoria)
Tenth Defendant 10
Peter Norman Vickery (Court of Appeal Victoria)
Eleventh Defendant
Geoffrey Arthur Akeroyd Nettle(Supreme Court
Victoria)
Twelfth Defendant
Marcia Ann Neave AO(Supreme Court Victoria)
Thirteenth Defendant 20
Gregory Howard Garde AO (Supreme Court Victoria)
Fourteenth Defendant
Karin Leigh Emerton(Supreme Court Victoria)
Fifthteenth Defendant
Nemeer Mukhtar (Supreme Court Victoria)
Sixtheenth Defendant
30
President VCAT Victoria(VCAT Victoria)
Seventeenth Defendant
Prothonotary (Supreme Court Victoria)
Eighteenth Defendant
Dep President Ian Lulham(VCAT Victoria)
Ninteenth Defendant
S/Member Cremean(VCAT Victoria) 40
Twentieth Defendant
S/Member J Grainger(VCAT Victoria)
Twenty First Defendant
Principal Registrar(VCAT Victoria)
Twenty Second Defendant
-3-
Judicial Registrar Mark Pedley(Court of Appeals Vic)
Twenty Third Defendant
Shane Marshall (Federal Court Australia)
Twenty Fourth Defendant
Anthony Max North (Federal Court Australia)
Twenty Fifth Defendant
10
John Handley (Senior Member,
Administrative Appeals Tribunal)
Twenty Sixth Defendant
John Von Doussa, President Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission
(Commonwealth of Australia)
Twenty Seventh Defendant
Bernard Bongiorno(Supreme Court Victoria) 20
Twenty Eighth Defendant
-4-
APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
To: Parties
Tony Abbott
Parliament Office
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House 10
Canberra ACT 2600
Scott Morrison MP
Parliament Office
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
George Brandis 20
Parliament Office
PO Box 6100
Senate
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Jarrod Bleijie
Ministerial Office Address
Level 18, State Law Building
50 Ann Street 30
BRISBANE QLD 4000
Denise Weybury
Rosemary Musolino
Level 17, Law Courts Building,
305 William Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000
Robert William Clark,
Level 26, 121 Exhibition Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000
40
President of Australian Human Rights Commission
John Von Doussa
Level 3, 175 Pitt Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000
Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission
Level 3, 204 Lygon Street, Carlton 3053
Simon Paul Whelan
Peter Norman Vickery 50
Geoffrey Arthur Akeroyd Nettle
Marcia Ann Neave
Gregory Howard Garde
Karin Leigh Emerton
Nemeer Mukhtar
Bernard Bongiorno
Prothonotary
Judicial Registrar Mark Pedley
210 WilliamSt
Melbourne VIC 60
(03) 9603 6111
-5-
John Handley
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
GPO Box 9955
Melbourne VIC 3001
Anthony Max North
Shane Marshall
305 William Street
Melbourne VIC 3000 10
President VCAT Victoria
Ian Lulham
Cremean
J Grainger
55 King Street, Melbourne Vic 3000 Australia
GPO Box 5408 Melbourne Vic 3001
TAKE 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. 20
IF YOU INTEND TO DEFEND the proceeding you must file a notice of
appearance in the office of the Registry named above.
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.
30
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.
40
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 whyPrerogative Writs of Mandamus, and or
Prohibition should not be granted to the Plaintiffs, preventing Commonwealth of
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;
-6-
2. Warrants are sought for the Arrest of Tony Abbott, Scott Morrison and George
Brandis for the
a) Genocide, resulting in the
b) Murders by J oint Enterprise of Asylum Seekers, Refugees, and other
immigrants, and first nations peoples;
c) Piracy on the High Seas;
d) Human Trafficking of 157 asylum seekers;
e) Child Abuse.
3. Warrants are sought for the Arrest of Robert Clarke for the interference in the
administration of justice; 10
4. Bold Declaration from the Full Bench of the High Court Australia:
a. whether the Commonwealth of Australia is governed by the Rule of Law or by
the Whims of Men, corrupted by the Law;
5. Bold Declaration from the Full Bench of the High Court Australia:
a. whether the Commonwealth of Australia is governed by the Principles of
Common Law;
b. whether the Commonwealth of Australia is governed by the Principles of
Legality;
c. whether the Commonwealth of Australia is governed by the Kable Principle;
6. Bold Declaration from the Full Bench of the High Court Australia, that: 20
a. Rule 2.06 of the High Court Australia is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and violates and
usurp the Australian Constitution without the CONSENT of the Australian Peoples;
b. Rule 2.06 of the High Court Australia, amounts to an administrative
function, and should be challenged under J udicial Review;
c. Rule 2.06 of the High Court Australia is discriminatory, directly or indirectly; and
targeted at the First Plaintiff in 2010 by the Senate Committee for Constitutional
Matters and the Governor General without the Consent of the Australian People;
c. Rule 2.06 violates the Kable Principle and puts the integrity of the High court in
question;
-7-
7. Bold Declaration from the Full Bench of the High Court Australia, that:
a. An abuse of Discretion amounts to unlawful discrimination, direct or indirect,
where protected groups of people are affected;
b. An abuse of Discretion amounts to unlawful discrimination, and vilification.
8. Bold Declaration from the Full Bench of the High Court Australia:
a. Which Groups are exempt from the Crimes Act 1914 (Commonwealth), and
other Crimes Acts.
9. Bold Declaration from the Full Bench of the High Court Australia:
a. that pursuant to COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT -
SECT 75, (the Constitution) 10
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;
20
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:
(a) matters arising directly under any treaty;
(b) suits between States, or between persons suing or being sued on 30
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.
c. that the High Court shall have original jurisdiction in all aforementioned
matters; 40
-8-
d. And that the High Court is made of no less than two (2) properly authorized
judges;
e. And that the Plaintiffs do not need LEAVE to have such matters heard in the
High Court, arising directly under any treaty: inter alia
i. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
ii. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination
iii. Inter alia;
And or,
f. matters in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition is sought against an officer 10
of the Commonwealth or a federal court.
10. Bold Declaration from the High Court Australia:
a. an officer of the Commonwealth or a federal court is defined in the CRIMES
ACT 1914 - SECT 3
Interpretation
"Commonwealth officer" means a person holding office under, or employed by, the
Commonwealth, and includes:
(a) a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ;
(aa) a person permanently or temporarily employed in the Public Service 20
of a Territory or in, or in connection with, the Defence Force, or in the Service of a
public authority under the Commonwealth;
(b) the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, a Deputy
Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, an AFP employee or a special member
of the Australian Federal Police (all within the meaning of the Australian Federal Police
Act 1979 ); and
(c) for the purposes of section 70, a person who, although not holding
office under, or employed by, the Commonwealth, a Territory or a public authority
under the Commonwealth, performs services for or on behalf of the Commonwealth, a
Territory or a public authority under the Commonwealth; and 30
(d) for the purposes of section 70:
(i) a person who is an employee of the Australian Postal
Corporation;
(ii) a person who performs services for or on behalf of the Australian
Postal Corporation; and
(iii) an employee of a person who performs services for or on behalf
of the Australian Postal Corporation.
11. Writ(s) of mandamus or prohibition is sought against the Defendant(s), officers of
the Commonwealth or a federal court, 40
a. for an abuse of discretion, and
-9-
b. a breach of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act (Cth) 1986 (the
HREOCA), and the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act (VIC)
2006 (the Charter), in flagrant disregards for Australias obligations to
International Treaties, s75 of the Constitution and s38 of the J udiciary Act.
c. And a conspiracy to cause injury and Deaths to Abori gines and Refugees,
by using commonweal th officers i ncludi ng federal and state police pol ice
force and a private army against defenseless peoples.
12. Suspension of Offshore processing of Asylum Seekers is sought;
13. Suspension of Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Bill 2013 is
sought; 10
14. Suspension of ALL Proceedings, Orders and J udgments against ALL Plaintiffs and
any Australian Citizens, until Rule of Law is re-instated or re-established;
15. Writ of Habeas Corpus, or an Application in the manner of, is sought for ALL the
Asylum Seekers, and other detainees under Border Protection or otherwise; or for
the Asylum Seekers, and other detainees under Border Protection or otherwise, be
brought before the Court;
16. Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition, or an Application in the manner of, is sought
against the Immigration Minister and all Attorneys General, preventing them from
interfering with investigations into the deaths of Asylum Seekers, Refugees or
other Immigrants, and to interfere with the administration of justice; 20
16. No other orders or proceedings can commence until the aforementioned questions
are answered;
17. And any other orders as the High Court sees fit, in order to serve the best interest
of J ustice and public interest, in the administration of Australian Democracy, and
its obligations to international laws and treaties.
18. Plaintiffs seek to file submissions to any High Court hearing relating to any
Asylum Seeker, Refugee Welfare.
-10-
THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE RELIEF IS CLAIMED are:
1. The Rule of Law and the Principle of Legality demands the Competence,
Independence and Impartiality of the J udge;
2. And the Australian Constitution demands the Separation of the powers of the
Executive and J udiciary; these principles are violated the officers of the High court
of Australia; Exhibit 1 of Affidavit in support:
Correspondence between Mr David McCann, Senior Registrar County
Court Victoria and Mr Christopher M Doogan, Chief Exeutive and Principal
Registrar High Court Australia, indicating it is considered appropriate for 10
the High Court of Australia to be responsible for the handling of the
Commonwealths defence in the matter of OBryan v Commonwealth.
3. The Incompetence of the Individual J udge(s) of High Court of Australia to act in a
judicial capacity has caused the death of First Nations Peoples, Asylum Seekers,
Refugees and other Immigrants;
4. The Incompetence of the Individual J udge(s) of High Court of Australia to act in a
judicial capacity has allow the Commonwealth of Australia to engage in Genocide
resulting in Murder by J oint Enterprise, Piracy on the High Seas, Human
Trafficking, and Child Abuse;
5. The Incompetence of the Individual J udge(s) of High Court of Australia to act in a 20
judicial capacity has allowed the state judges to engage in usurping the
Discrimination Acts (State and Federal), the Charter for Human Rights and
Responsibility Act 2006 (VIC), inter alia , as a means to usurp the Rule of Law and
the Principle of Legality; Exhibit 2 of Affidavit in support
Correspondence between, Assistant Victorian Government Solicitor to the
Associates to Emerton J , indicating the incompetence of Emerton J in
failing to consider the facts in the cases S CI 2013 00093 and 00092, which
the Appellant had asked to be separated;
6. Common Law Principles dictates that precedence be applied, and Tomasevic v
Travaglini & Anor [2007] VSC 337 (13 September 2007), dictates that the 30
presiding judge assi st unrepresented li tigants
-11-
7. These are further precedence ignored:
a. Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34 (8 September 2011)
b. Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32
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. 10
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.
8. Until the incompetent lawyers and barristers at Government Solicitors Office(s)
challenge that decision, any judge that refuses to comply and abuse discretion
amounts to unlawful discrimination, direct or indirect.
9. Incompetent Lawyers begat incompetent judges, and their incompetence is unsafe
for First Nations Peoples, Asylum Seekers, refugees and other immigrants.
10. The Principle of Separation of Powers of J udiciary, Executive, and Legislative 20
branches are usurped.
11. The Kable Principle has been usurped.
12. The murder of 23-year-old Iranian asylum seeker Reza Berati during the February
2014 riot inside the Manus Island detention centre.
13. 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;
14. 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 police station to die. 30
-12-
15. In 2004, Seventeen-year-old Thomas "TJ " Hickey was killed when he lost control
of his bicycle and became impaled on a fence next to Redfern Park, when chased
and threatened by Police.
16. In incompetence of the High Court Australia to act in a judicial manner pursuant to
the Australian Constitution, relating to Treaties and prerogative writs, has allowed
the Commonwealth to continue with their genocidal policies in causing murders by
joint enterprise;
17. The Incompetence of the Court of Appeal of Victoria to answer questions of law or
make declarations pursuant to the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility
Act 2006, has allowed the Attorney General and the Victorian Government 10
Solitictors to continue with their genocidal policies in causing murders by joint
enterprise with Victorian Police, usurping the Fairing Hearing rule;
18. On the 23
rd
of J uly 2014 at filing of these documents, the Registrar Rosemary
Musolino, despite being listed as Fifth Defendant, continues to provide the
Plaintiffs with advice that has no foundation in rules or otherwise.
19. Plaintiffs cannot be certain as to what other false information the Registrar has
provided;
20. The Second, Third and Fourth Plaintiff are temporarily crossed out until they file
separate Affidavits.
20
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.
Dated: 23 J uly 2014
................(signed).................... 30
[Name of plaintiff / plaintiffs solicitor]
The plaintiffs address is [ ].
The plaintiffs address for service is [ ].
3
Shane Marshall (Federal Court Australia)
Twenty Fourth Defendant
Anthony Max North (Federal Court Australia)
Twenty Fifth Defendant
John Handley (Senior Member,
Administrative Appeals Tribunal)
Twenty Sixth Defendant 10
John Von Doussa, President Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission
(Commonwealth of Australia)
Twenty Seventh Defendant
NOTICE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER
20
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
J udiciary Act 1903 (Cth).
4
Nature of constitutional matter
2. The constitutional issue raised by the Plaintiffs application to the High Court
Australia pursuant to COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT -
SECT 75, (theConstitution), and J UDICIARY 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 High Court Australia, to make a bare
declaration as to the privileges, powers and immunities of the High Court Registrars,
Supreme Court of Victoria, and Court of Appeal, administrative and or judicial arm of 10
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and the Supreme Court Victoria, and
Inconsistent Interpretation of the Charter, pursuant to s 36 and 39 of the Charter, inter
alia;
The determination and or lack determination of this issue may raise for consideration
s 109, 75, 98, 107, 108, 117, 118 of the Constitution, inter alia.
Facts showing that s 78B Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) applies
3. Rule 2.06 of the High Court Rules was devised by the Senate Committee for Constitutional 20
Affairs and signed into operation by the Governor General as a discriminatory act against
the First Plaintiff, in order to deny him a Fair Hearing;
4. It appears to breach the Kable Principle;
5. Rule 2.06 of the High Court Rules amounts to an administrative function and usurp the
power of the High court to hear matters under the Original Jurisdiction of the High Court.
6. Hayne, Gummow, Crennan and Keifel JJ as the single judge have individually failed to act
in a judicial manner in applications brought on by the First Plaintiff between 2002 and
2013, including M142 of 2007 Pham vs Commonwealth,
7. the result of which the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has failed to
understand its obligations under Australian Laws, in addition to international laws; 30
8. the result of which have led to the deaths of First Nations Peoples, of Asylum Seekers,
Refugees and other immigrants.
9. Genocide with the intent to destroy protected groups, resulting in Murder by Joint
Enterprise. Piracy on the High Seas, Human Trafficking, and Child Abuse.
5
EXHIBITS TO AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT:
1. Correspondence between Mr David McCann, Senior Registrar County Court Victoria and
Mr Christopher M Doogan, Chief Exeutive and Principal Registrar High Court Australia,
indicating it is considered appropriate for the High Court of Australia to be responsible
for the handling of the Commonwealths defence in the matter of OBryan v
Commonwealth.
2. Correspondence between, Assistant Victorian Government Solicitor to the Associates to
Emerton J , indicating the incompetence of Emerton J in failing to consider the facts in the
cases S CI 2013 00093 and 00092, which the Appellant had asked to be separated; 10
Authorities:
a. Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34 (8 September 2011)
b. Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32
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 20
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.
FILED: 23 July 2014
Le Tuan Pham
Human Rights Defender
6
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
robert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au, 10
AND TO: J airod 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: J ohn Rau MP
Attorney-General of South Australia
agd@agd.sa.gov.au,
AND TO: Brian Wightman MP 20
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: J ohan Wessel Elferink MLA
Attomey-General of the Northern Territory of Australia
john.elferink@nt.gov.au,
..
30
-4-
OUTLINE OF SUBMISSION


THE RULE OF LAW and PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY

1. The Commonwealth of Australia is governed by the Rule of Law and NOT by the
Whims of Men, corrupted by the Law;
2. and the Supreme Law is the Australian Constitution;
3. The Australian Constitution dictates that the matters of Treaties and where
Officers of the Commonwealth are involved, they are the Original Jurisdiction of 10
the High Court Australia and not individual judges;
THE KABLE PRINCIPLE & HIGH COURT RULE 2.06:
1. In 2010, Rule 2.06 was brought in to deny the First Plaintiff a Fair Hearing and
Equality before the Law;
2. This Rule appears to be administrative and is designed to circumvent the
Constitution;
3. And this is without the Consent of the Australian People.
4. Rule 2.06 is therefore Unconstitutional and
5. It appears to be discriminatory, directly or indirectly, affecting large groups of
people. 20
6. and puts the integrity of the High court in question;
PRINCIPLES OF COMMON LAW:
a. An abuse of Discretion amounts to unlawful discrimination, direct or
indirect, where protected groups of people are affected;
b. An abuse of Discretion amounts to unlawful discrimination, and vilification.
THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE RELIEF IS CLAIMED are:

1. The Rule of Law and the Principle of Legality demands the Competence,
Independence and Impartiality of the Judge;
-5-
2. And the Australian Constitution demands the Separation of the powers of the
Executive and Judiciary; these principles are violated the officers of the High court
of Australia; Exhibit 1 of Affidavit in support:
Correspondence between Mr David McCann, Senior Registrar County
Court Victoria and Mr Christopher M Doogan, Chief Exeutive and Principal
Registrar High Court Australia, indicating it is considered appropriate for
the High Court of Australia to be responsible for the handling of the
Commonwealths defence in the matter of OBryan v Commonwealth.
3. The Incompetence of the Individual Judge(s) of High Court of Australia to act in a
judicial capacity has caused the death of First Nations Peoples, Asylum Seekers, 10
Refugees and other Immigrants;
4. The Incompetence of the Individual Judge(s) of High Court of Australia to act in a
judicial capacity has allow the Commonwealth of Australia to engage in Genocide
resulting in Murder by Joint Enterprise, Piracy on the High Seas, Human
Trafficking, and Child Abuse;
5. The Incompetence of the Individual Judge(s) of High Court of Australia to act in a
judicial capacity has allowed the state judges to engage in usurping the
Discrimination Acts (State and Federal), the Charter for Human Rights and
Responsibility Act 2006 (VIC), inter alia , as a means to usurp the Rule of Law and
the Principle of Legality; Exhibit 2 of Affidavit in support 20
Correspondence between, Assistant Victorian Government Solicitor to the
Associates to Emerton J, indicating the incompetence of Emerton J in
failing to consider the facts in the cases S CI 2013 00093 and 00092, which
the Appellant had asked to be separated;
6. Common Law Principles dictates that precedence be applied, and Tomasevic v
Travaglini & Anor [2007] VSC 337 (13 September 2007), dictates that the
presiding judge assist unrepresented litigants
7. These are further precedence ignored:
a. Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34 (8 September 2011)
b. Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32 30
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)
-6-
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.
8. Until the incompetent lawyers and barristers at Government Solicitors Office(s)
challenge that decision, any judge that refuses to comply and abuse discretion 10
amounts to unlawful discrimination, direct or indirect.
9. Incompetent Lawyers begat incompetent judges, and their incompetence is unsafe
for First Nations Peoples, Asylum Seekers, refugees and other immigrants.
10. The Principle of Separation of Powers of Judiciary, Executive, and Legislative
branches are usurped.
11. The Kable Principle has been usurped.
12. The murder of 23-year-old Iranian asylum seeker Reza Berati during the February
2014 riot inside the Manus Island detention centre.
13. 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 20
setting himself alight in Geelong;
14. 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 police station to die.
15. In 2004, Seventeen-year-old Thomas "TJ" Hickey was killed when he lost control
of his bicycle and became impaled on a fence next to Redfern Park, when chased
and threatened by Police.
16. The incompetence of the High Court Australia to act in a judicial manner pursuant
to the Australian Constitution, relating to Treaties and prerogative writs, has
allowed the Commonwealth to continue with their genocidal policies in causing 30
murders by joint enterprise;
-7-
17. The Incompetence of the Court of Appeal of Victoria to answer questions of law or
make declarations pursuant to the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility
Act 2006, has allowed the Attorney General and the Victorian Government
Solitictors to continue with their genocidal policies in causing murders by joint
enterprise with Victorian Police, usurping the Fairing Hearing rule;
18. On the 23
rd
of July 2014 at filing of these documents, the Registrar Rosemary
Musolino, despite being listed as Fifth Defendant, continues to provide the
Plaintiffs with advice that has no foundation in rules or otherwise.
19. Plaintiffs cannot be certain as to what other false information the Registrar has
provided; 10
20. The Second, Third and Fourth Plaintiff are temporarily crossed out until they file
separate Affidavits.
21. The incompetence of the High Court Australia to act in a judicial manner pursuant
to the Australian Constitution, relating to Treaties and prerogative writs, has made
it unsafe for First Nations Peoples, Asylum Seekers, Refugees and other
immigrants.
22. The incompetence of the Chief Justice French as Federal Court Judge, Hayne,
and Gummow JJ to apply the Jurisdiction of the Constitution, in order to hear an
Application for Writs of Mandamus and or Prohibition in 2002 or thereabouts
against the Royal Australian Navy, has led to the Rape of the Woman on the 20
Defence Force Academic Premises, and an admission of a culture of
discrimination and abuse.
23. The Incompetence of French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan, Kiefel JJ, to apply the
Jurisdiction of the Constitution, in order to hear an Application for Writs of
Mandamus and or Prohibition, has led to the death of First Nations Children,
Asylum Seekers, Refugees and other immigrants.
24. The incompetence of the High Court Australia to act in a judicial manner pursuant
to the Australian Constitution, amounts to improper instructions to Juries and is
unsafe for First Nations Children, Asylum Seekers, Refugees and other immigrants
-8-
25. The incompetence of the High Court Australia to act in a judicial manner pursuant
to the Australian Constitution, to spare 20 minutes of their time, amounts to
unlawful discrimination, based on race and or ethnicity, indirectly and or directly;
26. The incompetence of the High Court Australia to act in a judicial manner pursuant
to the Australian Constitution, to spare 20 minutes of their time, amounts to
vilification;
27. The incompetence of the High Court Australia to act in a judicial manner pursuant
to the Australian Constitution, to spare 20 minutes of their time, amounts to set up
people to fail and when they do, to call them inferior.
28. The incompetence of the High Court Australia to act in a judicial manner pursuant 10
to the Australian Constitution, to spare 20 minutes of their time, amounts to
providing improper instructions to Administrative Bodies as to what their
responsibilities and lawful actions might be.
29. The incompetence of the High Court Australia to act in a judicial manner pursuant
to the Australian Constitution, relating to Treaties and prerogative writs, has made
it unsafe for all Australians.



20
-9-
EXHIBITS TO AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT:

1. Correspondence between Mr David McCann, Senior Registrar County Court Victoria
and Mr Christopher M Doogan, Chief Exeutive and Principal Registrar High Court
Australia, indicating it is considered appropriate for the High Court of Australia to be
responsible for the handling of the Commonwealths defence in the matter of OBryan
v Commonwealth.
2. Correspondence between, Assistant Victorian Government Solicitor to the Associates
to Emerton J, indicating the incompetence of Emerton J in failing to consider the facts
in the cases S CI 2013 00093 and 00092, which the Appellant had asked to be 10
separated;

Authorities:
a. Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34 (8 September 2011)
b. Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32
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 20
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.

This application was filed by the plaintiff.

Dated: 30
................(signed)....................
[Name of plaintiff / plaintiffs solicitor]
The plaintiffs address is [ ].
The plaintiffs address for service is [ ].