From: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, 14 November 2015 10:26 AM
To: Rosemary Musolino; KINGSLEY FERDINANDS
Subject: AMENDED REPLY - Re: REPLY - UNSWORN AFFIDAVIT - PRIVATE HEARING UNDER RULE 6.07 HCR
Saturday 14 November 2015
Registrar
High Court of Australia
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Dear High Court
Please find attached copy of unsworn affidavit in response to email of 14 November 2015.
It occurred to me last night that these matter are in fact Notice of Constitutional matter as there seems to be a misplaced sense of justice by the Crown and some judicial officers.
I have address those problems clearly and I believe no other person or group in Australia has addressed these problems because they have no experiences other than second-hand or third-hand knowledge of vexatious litigants.
The notice is for all Attorney-Generals. Can you indicate whether I am required to notify them or whether there is a process within the courts of emails and faxes whereby the High Court can notify them promptly as to hearings. The exhibits remain the same and there are no changes to the exhibits sent earlier.
I hope to hear from you soon. Again, these are private hearings however if the High Court wants to see me then I will swear the affidavits and sign off all docs in accordance with High Court Rules.
Yours faithfully
TK FERDINANDS
From: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, 13 November 2015 2:30 PM
To: Rosemary Musolino; KINGSLEY FERDINANDS
Subject: REPLY - UNSWORN AFFIDAVIT - PRIVATE HEARING UNDER RULE 6.07 HCR
Friday 13 November 2015
Registrar
High Court of Australia
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Dear High Court
Please find attached copy of unsworn affidavit in response to email of 10 November 2015.
I still have to comply with HCR and submit my docs for approval in the private hearing even though the HCA has made up its mind. The attack upon my name, character and reputation as a dedicated hard working army officer cannot be allowed to stand and those who cheated the system in 1999 possibly cheated the system in 1989. Thus any vexatiousness is on Chief of Army and not me.
Furthermore, I fail to see how something that has only been before Chief of Defence Forces for a short time can even remotely be described as vexatious.
I have submitted my docs for the private hearing.
If you need hard copy then I can attend HCA Adelaide registry. In my mind, the private hearing before the justice should be decided on the unsworn affidavit. I cannot keep on going with this madness. It shows the world one thing clearly and that is madness has in fact taken over the government and the judiciary and this madness passes normality.
It is 15 years and still no orders for evidence suppressed by any independent judicial officer.
I have attached TF-01 and TF-02 exhibits. Likewise, the exhibits are unsworn. But all documents can be taken to be fully accurate and complete.
This constitutes the whole of the case of the unlawfulness and illegality of Rule 6.07. I have asked for orders for all vexatious proceedings and named vexatious litigants to be quashed and all judgments set aside. It is important that all Registrars use their brain matter and go over all cases from 1901 to 2015 and where ever a litigant has been identified as so called vexatious the Registrar on behalf of the Court and this ruling should inform them that the judgment no longer stands and they are free to agitate any matter assuming off course they have evidence.
There is no need for me to see the single Justice; unless of course he wants to see both parties.
I hope to hear from you soon.
Yours faithfully
T.K. FERDINANDS
No comments:
Post a Comment