PHAM vs Dutton, Brandis and Ors: Perverting and Interfering with the Administration of Justice is a criminal offense in the Crimes Act (Cth)
Dear Australia Federal Police,
Human Rights Defenders,
Rule of Law Defenders,
Members of Parliament,
Senator David Leyonhjelm,
Senator Nick McKim
MP Andrew Wilkie,
Refoulement breaching RDA 9.1(A)
Tis time to get PHAM vs Dutton, Brandis & Ors into the courts, come help remove the moral highgrounds from the Australian Federal Police and we will deal with the court issues of Arbitrary and Capricious interpretation of Australian and International Laws as an attack on the RDA s9.1(A) Indirect Discrimination and s75 and s51 of the Australian Constitution.
YOU can do this by writing to your local Federal and State Members, demanding that the Constitution and the law be upheld, and an open and public court be held to hear matters rather than corrupt lawyers parading as competent, impartial and independent judicial officers, abusing the Kable Principle.
YOU can cite the death of Mr Gong Ling Tang and Manmeet Alisher
1. We made a complaint against the Federal Attorney, George Brandis for the alleged attempt to bribe the President of the Human Rights Commissioner, Gillian Triggs, and
2. and the Attorney General and Department of Immigration and Border Protection for alleged human trafficking by paying off people smugglers,
3. pursuant to the INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT ACT 2002, inter alia
International Criminal Court Act 2002
3. We have written to the Federal Police in writing AND yet we have NO written reply.
4. Mr Chris Notman has replied to a request to have Australian Federal Police at the court filing due to harassment and intimidation from the Victoria Police and Wilson Security and the Registrars Mussonlino and Weybury,stating that court filing is a civil matter; I suggest to the Australian Federal Police that they look at the sections of the Crimes Act (Cth) on perverting and interfering with the Administration of Justice;
5. If the Australian Federal Police needs us to locate the sections for them, feel free to contact us
6. We indicate to the Senator David Leyonhjelm, that 18C is not as important as section 9.1(A) of the RDA: INDIRECT discrimination.
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 – SECT 9
Racial discrimination to be unlawful
(a) a person requires another person to comply with a term, condition or requirement which is not reasonable having regard to the circumstances of the case; and
(b) the other person does not or cannot comply with the term, condition or requirement; and
(c) the requirement to comply has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, by persons of the same race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin as the other person, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life;
the act of requiring such compliance is to be treated, for the purposes of this Part, as an act involving a distinction based on, or an act done by reason of, the other person’s race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin.
Racial Discrimination Act (Cth) 1975
7. We need firstly from the Federal Australian Police an indication to the Australian People, if they are protecting the Rule of Law and the Australian Constitution as we attempt to file our case in the High Court;
8. We suggest that the arbitrary and capricious interpretation of the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act (VIC) 2010, and or the Equal Opportunity Act, by victoria judges, Whelan, Nettle, Neave, Emerton, Garde and VCAT Members Anna Dae, G Nihill, Lulham, Wentworth, Cremean, inter alia, has caused the death of Mr Gong Ling Tang at the hands of the Victorian Police at Dandenong, and other offenses.
9. Now it appears that the Attorney General Brandis’ incitement of racial hatred has caused the death of the bus driver in Qld, Manmeet Alisher.
10. I suggest to the MP Mr Andrew Wilkie, that he continue his work and submission to the International Criminal Court; not sure why he has gone cold and soft.
11. We suggest to the Australian Federal Police that s75 and s51 of the Australian Constitution, be protected from the attempts of the Registrars Mussolino and Weybury
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 75
Original jurisdiction of High Court
In all matters:
(i) arising under any treaty;
12. We are now ready and wish to file our documents in the high court without harassment and vilification from inept, registrars, trying to profit from the proceeds of crimes of perverting and interfering with the administration of justice pursuant to the Crimes Act (Cth),
13. according to law and s51 of the Australian Constitution, in the next week, and we will call in on the Australian Police.
Pham vs Brandis & Ors
14. We will formalise this complaint and notification to the Australian Federal Police in writing and have it registered with Australia Post so that a paper trail is maintained.
0412 871 985
Judicial Corruption Australia
State Member for Melbourne