Community Law Resource Group

Greer V Federal Court of Australia      Matter no Administrative Appeals Tribunal:   2009 / 0807

Application for review of the decision of the Federal Court of Australia not to file an application.

ARGUMENT:

1. A decision on whether or not to accept a matter for consideration by a court, is a decision made in the administrative capacity of the said Court, and not a judicial proceeding having never had the opportunity to become such a proceeding.
   
   
2. The Course of justice in  relation to the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth is obstructed, prevented, perverted or defeated when a Duty Judge or Deputy District Registrar  dismisses an application before it has even had a chance to be heard by a court. This is prohibited by s 43 Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth).
   
   
3.  A court without a Capital letter, is an incorporeal political entity, where political decisions are made affecting the subjects of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second  by a fair just and impartial tribunal of fact, drawn from the community and the word judges, in s 79 Constitution confirms that. It is a crime to deny any person access to a political forum, declared by s 28 Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth).
   
   
4. Furthermore, in 2001, the Commonwealth proclaimed the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth)  in force, and Section 268:10 Crime against humanity— enslavement  is one section, and a slave cannot come to court, but a free man should be able to without interference from his masters, and when a proceeding is presented to a court, it takes on the properties of property, and the Commonwealth or any of its servants should not acquire that property except on just terms, to comply with S 51 Placitum xxxi Constitution.
   
   
5. Section 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth)   makes it a crime to discriminate as prohibited by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and to deny access to court to some but not others violates Article14 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as it denies equality before the courts.
   
   
6. Just terms means on terms of justice, and it is unjust to deny any person his day in court.
   
   
7. The Application to the Federal Court of Australia presented on the 2^nd February 2009 did not on its face have the words:
   The Federal Court of Australia is granted jurisdiction by Section 39B (1A) (b) Judiciary Act 1903   in all matters connected  with the interpretation of the Australian Constitution and this jurisdiction is concurrent with that granted to the High Court under s 76 (i)  Constitution.
   
   
8. However, this ought to have been known to the Deputy District  Registrar, Mr Tony Tesoriero and to the Duty Judge, Mr Justice Bennett, and the decision to refuse to file the material is a reviewable decision in the light of the following authorities.
   
   
9. S 2 Judiciary Act 1903 has since 1903, defined Appeal to includes an application for a new trial and any proceeding to review or call in question the proceedings decision or jurisdiction of any Court or Judge. My decision to appeal the decision of the RTA and OSR to the Federal Court was authorized by S 2 Judiciary Act 1903.  
   
   
10. From 1903 until 1975, and the ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 there was never a place where administrative decisions made by such places as the Registry of the Federal Court of Australia and officers like Justice Bennett that are not truly judicial decisions, but may be classified as administrative  may be reviewed.
    
    
11. I say: - SECT 2A Tribunal’s objective  In carrying out its functions, the Tribunal must pursue the objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick, gives a broad jurisdiction to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
    
    
12. authority of the Commonwealth means an authority, tribunal or other body, whether incorporated or not, that is established by an enactment.  The Federal Court of Australia and Federal Court Rules are laws made under an enactment, namely the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976.
    
    
13. Judge means:
    (a)a Judge of a court created by the Parliament; or
    (b)a person who has the same designation and status as a Judge of a court created by the Parliament.
    
    
14. The Dictionary in the Evidence Act 1995, (Cth) defines an Australian court, as  (b) a court exercising federal jurisdiction. (c) a court of a State or territory. (d) a judge, justice or arbitrator under an Australian law.(e) a person or body authorized by an Australian law, or by consent of the parties, to hear receive and examine evidence, and (f)  a person or body that , in exercising a function under an Australian law, is required to apply the laws of evidence.
    
    
15. I say that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal comes within the definitions contained above of court, and is an Australian court, as opposed to an Australian Court, and since the Federal Court of Australia has original jurisdiction, under the Australian Constitution to hear any matter involving the interpretation of the Constitution, it should do so as a matter of course.
    
    
16. The respondent to my application to the Federal Court of Australia are the State Debt Recovery Office and the Roads and Traffic Authority, both institutions erected by the State of New South Wales, and my affidavit shows that they are purporting to exercise powers inconsistent with the provisions of a law made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth.
    
    
17. The asserted authority of the State of New South Wales to restrict my free travel in Australia unless I pay their demands, through the RTA and SDRO, without first taking me before a Ch III Constitution court, is I assert illegal and has been since 1995.
    
    
18. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal may not have direct authority, to deal with the RTA and SDRO, but I assert that because the matter involves the Constitution, as I  asserted in my Paragraph 1 of my affidavit dated the 2^nd February 2009, the Federal Court of Australia has a statutory duty to call together a court and determine the limits of State power, and the supremacy of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth.
    
    
19. I assert that s 79 Constitution, binds the courts judges and people of every State notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State, and it is only a lack of understanding, of the basic English Rules of Punctuation, that has led the officers of the Federal Court of Australia to reject my application.
    
    
20. The Federal Court of Australia has  power granted by S 23 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 to issue writs, of such kind as the Court thinks appropriate.
    
    
21. S 79 Constitution reads as follows: the federal jurisdiction of any court may be exercised by such number of judges as Parliament prescribes. One Capital letter, on Parliament, but none on either court or judges. The word any includes each and every court, that constitutes itself as an institution, and not a place. The word judges, describes the individuals who make up a court.
    
    
22. The Federal Court of Australia is a Place with Capital letters in it. Deputy District Registrar and Duty Judge, capitalized are not the same as judges. The capitalized titles to these individuals makes them Administrative Officers, and subject to the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
    
    
23. To exercise legitimate federal jurisdiction, there must be a court and judges, not a Court and a Judge.
    
    
24. S 15AA Acts Interpretation Act 1901 ( Cth) demands that a court give consideration to the purpose and object of an Act, and the purpose and object of the ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 was to give individuals such as myself, when afflicted by administrative as opposed to judicial decisions a quick, cheap and effective means of appeal.
    
    
25. I say the Federal Court of Australia is an authority established under an enactment. The State of New South Wales is an authority established under an enactment, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, and that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is also such an authority, and has an absolute duty to direct the Federal Court of Australia when it makes a decision under an enactment, as opposed to a decision in a court with judges in it, to convene itself so that it complies with S 79 Constitution, and exercise its federal jurisdiction, in a way that does not infringe any other law of the Commonwealth.
    
    
26. A court was a grass roots political meeting in 1900. It had 12 electors drawn from the general population as judges of fact, it had a lawyer as president, and its verdict was declared as law, and an appropriate Writ was issued by it for the purposes of enforcing its  will.
    
    
27. A writ of  Quo Warranto ( by what authority) could issue from the Federal Court of Australia to the respondents to my original application, calling upon them to show cause why they should not be restrained under S 80 Trade Practices Act 1974 from further attempting to cause me serious injury, by suspending my right to free travel in Australia until I pay an imposition, levied upon me without any judicial proceedings of any kind.
    
    
28. The right of Parliaments was supposed to replace the divine right of  Kings to rule, but at all times subject to review by courts, and unless we can get access to courts, as opposed to Courts, with 12 ordinary people paid for by the Commonwealth as the judges, we are being denied our basic Constitutional civil rights.
    
    
29. In 2001 the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth)   was declared law in Australia, and the exercise by Judges and Magistrates of powers associated with ownership of a human being, was made a crime against humanity, by section 268:10 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) and because of that section s 14 Magna Carta as in force in 1900 in Australia has been reenacted. It says;

Clause 14: [14] A Freeman shall not be amerced for a small fault, but after the manner of the fault; and for a great fault after the greatness thereof, saving to him his contenement; and a Merchant likewise, saving to him his Merchandise; and any other’s villain than ours shall be likewise amerced, saving his wainage, if he falls into our mercy. And none of the said amerciaments shall be assessed, but by the oath of honest and lawful men of the vicinage. Earls and Barons shall not be amerced but by their Peers, and after the manner of their offence. No man of the Church shall be amerced after the quantity of his spiritual Benefice, but after his Lay-tenement, and after the quantity of his offence.

1. It is lawful for an Australian under S 24F Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) to point out in good faith errors in the administration of government, and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is a place where this can be done, and I commend this argument to the court.

Signed

George Stephen Greer.   Dated the 17^th April 2009.