IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
ADELAIDE REGISTRY No. of 2014
BETWEEN: TREVOR
KINGSLEY FERDINANDS
Appellant
and
COMMISSIONER
OF POLICE
Respondent
AFFIDAVIT
/ AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, Trevor Kingsley Ferdinands, of 592
Brighton Road, BRIGHTON S.A. 5048,
former police officer, say on oath as follows:
1. This matter is about the powers of the master to call
for a hearing and hear greater evidence and make orders for the release of
evidence so that the current appeal in Ferdinands v South Australia Police can
go forward and all members of the Australian law courts may have an opportunity
to set the face of the public record straight.
2. On the 8 August 2014 the proposed action for judicial
review was refused.
3. The Registrar states, “It appears to me that the
documents constituted an abuse of process within the meaning of Rule 53 of the
Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006. The
documents were referred to the master.
4. The master directed the documents be rejected.
5. The master did not give any reasons.
6. The master may have agreed with the Registrar but this
is not known for sure, in law.
7. Thus, the special leave for the High Court is
required.
8. The facts are that the documents are not an attempt to
re-litigate matters that occurred more than 13 years ago as those matters are
still alive-and-well with the blessings of Justice Young and Justice Wicks of
the Supreme Court of South Australia who disagreed with Justice Martin.
9. Hence, the High Court of Australia is required to
state this is not an abuse of process.
10. Further, the High Court of Australia is required to
state that the master must accept the documents and proceed in accordance with
due process and allow the Commissioner of Police to have his say and his day in
court as to why he has not responded to any letters in 13 years nor provided
any new evidence or fresh evidence to the applicant or the Australian law
courts.
11. The applicant is unemployed and suffering serious
hardship and health issues caused by the abuse of power by the respondent in
2000 to bring a prosecution in malice, ill-will and fraud.
12. The intent of that prosecution was to remove the
applicant from police service using any methods possible including all illegal,
unlawful and wrongful methods.
13. The applicant states clearly that the prosecution has
no merit in law.
14. The prosecution has no jurisdiction whatsoever and is
out of jurisdiction and thus the High Court of Australia must address these
issues, however the matters must be sent back to the master first, so that the
Supreme Court of South Australia can address the issues and the facts.
15. I seek a declaration from the High Court of Australia
that this is not an abuse of process.
16. I seek an understanding that if this matter is fraud
or a perversion of the court of justice then no person in history can uncover
or discover that fraud or conspiracy within 14 days or 28 days as allowed by
the rules of the court, and the wheels of justice turn slowly for one good
reason and that is so all the evidence and all the facts can be obtained so
judgments written are not categorised as frivolous or gibberish.
17. All documents sent to the master for his consideration
are attached by example to affidavit for the High Court judges to consider.
18. If the prosecution in 2001 is brought by racial hatred
and discrimination then those facts of racial hatred must be gathered and
examined before any final judgment is made by the full court of the Supreme
Court of South Australia.
19. The applicant seeks waiver of all fees and charges and
states he has been unemployed since November 2007. Health care card 504 090 262K expires 30 June
2015.
|
SWORN by
the deponent
at Adelaide
in State of South Australia
on 14
August 2014.
Before me:
Signature
[name and qualification of
witness administering oath or affirmation] |
Signature of deponent
______________________
|
No comments:
Post a Comment