KINGSLEY FERDINANDS
|
To:
Rosemary Musolino <rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au>;
KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>;
Fri 4/12/2015 4:08 PM
Dear Registrar
This does not sound right at all.
I am not convinced that I will get any hearing let alone a fair hearing.
The Rule 6.07 must be addressed by the Plaintiff.
The case is not the Rule 6.07 and if there is a rule 6.07 to be decided then the Justice cannot decide the case and then make up his mind on the case, and then further make up his mind at state that this is a Rule 6.07 case. That entire process needs 3 different sets of Justices.
If Rule 6.07 was such a godsend and was so great then as Registrar you should send ever case regardless of civil and criminal law to the Rule 6.07 and have just one Justice decide the case full stop. That is precisely what you are saying, aren't you?
I mean can you explain what this single Justice will be doing under Rule 6.07 and precisely what aspects of law he will be studying and reverting to.
There has been a serious breach of the rule of law and a serious miscarriage of justice.
I hope to hear from you soon.
Yours faithfully
T.K. FERDINANDS
From: Rosemary Musolino <rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au>
Sent: Thursday, 3 December 2015 4:10 PM
To: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS
Subject: Re: AMENDED REPLY - Re: REPLY - UNSWORN AFFIDAVIT - PRIVATE HEARING UNDER RULE 6.07 HCR - no.5
Sent: Thursday, 3 December 2015 4:10 PM
To: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS
Subject: Re: AMENDED REPLY - Re: REPLY - UNSWORN AFFIDAVIT - PRIVATE HEARING UNDER RULE 6.07 HCR - no.5
Dear Mr Ferdinands,
In response to your email I would note that Rule 6.07 provides as follows: 6.07 Refusal to issue or file a document
6.07.1 If a writ, application, summons, affidavit or other document (the document) appears to a Registrar on its face to be an abuse of the process of the Court, to be frivolous or vexatious or to fall outside the jurisdiction of the Court, the Registrar may seek the direction of a Justice.
6.07.2 The Justice may direct the Registrar to issue or file the document, or to refuse to issue or file the document, without the leave of a Justice first had and obtained by the party seeking to issue or file the document.
6.07.3 An application for leave to issue a proceeding that is subject to the direction of a Justice under subrule 6.07.2:
(a) must be in Form 31; and
(b) must not be served on any person, unless the Court or a Justice otherwise orders.
You have yet to present anything for filing, but you had emailed me your proposed application for order to show cause (Form 12) together with an affidavit in support, a summons (Form 21) and an outline of submissions. I had indicated to you that when your proposed application for order to show cause was presented I would be seeking a direction under Rule 6.07. As is clear from the provisions of Rule 6.07.1, it is a Registrar who may seek a direction, not a respondent. It is the documents presented for filing that are put before a Justice and that would not include any proposed affidavit addressing Rule 6.07.
In the event that a Justice were to make a direction under Rule 6.07.2 that the Registrar refuse to issue the documents, it would be as Rule 6.07.2 provides, "without the leave of a Justice first had and obtained". In that event under Rule 6.07.3, you would be able to apply for leave to issue (from another Justice) and it would be at that point that you would file an affidavit in support of that application for leave to issue.
Yours faithfully,
Rosemary Musolino
Acting Senior Registrar
From: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>
To: Rosemary Musolino <rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au>, KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>,
Date: 02/12/2015 02:21 PM
Subject: Re: AMENDED REPLY - Re: REPLY - UNSWORN AFFIDAVIT - PRIVATE HEARING UNDER RULE 6.07 HCR - no.5
Dear Registrar
These are very serious matters.
They affect national security and the senior executives of the military who are prepared to mislead and misinform both the judiciary and parliament to obtain mall gains of racism and racist victories over great losses of loss of the army and loss of morale.
I am prepared to take your advice that you wish to put the docs I have prepared to a Justice, but I also believe that you must put every matter and every mail as well including my unsworn affidavit and all emails with regards to this matter.
The facts of the case are 17 witnesses were not called. Those 17 witnesses prove conclusively I was not involved in any offending in the military.
The documents withheld from the DFM court in 1999 that it simply was not possible for me to attend any video party, waste time, and energy when I was the only person on camp who was the company clerk.
The alleged complaint is a false complaint driven by Gary Hevey, barrister, and David McLeod, barrister and Michael Heseltine, Warrant Officer in the Army Reserve.
The High Court is playing ducks and drakes with racial hatred and trying to cover up the sins of Army Legal Corp and the Australian Government Solicitor.
This is totally unacceptable.
Further from 1999 to 2015 I have suffered great losses, greater damage and greatest loss of reputation than any other persons as I have been falsely accused and wrongfully convicted.
If you did not know then I tell you Morecombe QC is mates with Hevey and McLeod. Good mates. Great mates and they cooked up this rubbish to cause he harm.
The issue has always been that I did not want McLeod as my legal representative but the army forced him on to me. They said he had nothing to do with the army and nothing to do with Hevey. This later turned out to be a BIG LIE as both worked together on Tuesday nights at Keswick barracks for Defence legal as reserve officers.
So I was lied to before the first witness was ever called. The High Court has seen fit now to protect Hevey, McLeod and Morecombe merely because they are white.
Thus, this matter of 15 years of not calling the witnesses and not tendering documents is a breach of international law and my human rights.
Having said that, it is not for the Registrar to bring Rule 6.07 cases rather it is for the respondent.
The fact is I have never seen the respondent in court and it would be utterly absurd in view of Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 1985 that there was no power or authority for Chief of Defence Forces to call a Commission of Inquiry especially when the Army Board of Inquiry failed to do its duty.
The issue of professional misconduct extends now from the DFM to the army prosecutor, to defence counsel and to the Board of Inquiry.
The case is won for me on the merits because the facts are plain for a blind man to see that 17 crucial witnesses that would have destroyed the Crown version of events and by not calling those witnesses the case is proven for the accused that there was no case to answer.
This is the evil and the bastardry I have had to live with for 15 years. people who cannot add one plus one. People who have no intelligence but one hundred per cent racism.
if the 17 witnesses were for the Crown then obviously they would have called them to hammer deep every nail in my coffin.
I only ask the Chief Justice of the High Court to grow up and stop being so juvenile, so immature and so full of racial hatred and get on with the Commission of Inquiry and the arrest warrants for Hevey, Mcleod, Morecombe and the Board of Inquiry.
I will await your response.
be aware I have sworn all other docs except the unsworn rule 6.07 hearing.
I believe in law that the Registrar has no power for Rule 6.07 and one the respondent can bring a Rule 6.07 application.
if the Registrar takes a Rule 6.07 then clearly there is prejudice and bias in the court and the court no longer is a court of competent jurisdiction.
Yours faithfully
TK FERDINANDS
PS - ANY ONE CAN GIVE THEMSELVES POWER, ANY ONE.
In response to your email I would note that Rule 6.07 provides as follows: 6.07 Refusal to issue or file a document
6.07.1 If a writ, application, summons, affidavit or other document (the document) appears to a Registrar on its face to be an abuse of the process of the Court, to be frivolous or vexatious or to fall outside the jurisdiction of the Court, the Registrar may seek the direction of a Justice.
6.07.2 The Justice may direct the Registrar to issue or file the document, or to refuse to issue or file the document, without the leave of a Justice first had and obtained by the party seeking to issue or file the document.
6.07.3 An application for leave to issue a proceeding that is subject to the direction of a Justice under subrule 6.07.2:
(a) must be in Form 31; and
(b) must not be served on any person, unless the Court or a Justice otherwise orders.
You have yet to present anything for filing, but you had emailed me your proposed application for order to show cause (Form 12) together with an affidavit in support, a summons (Form 21) and an outline of submissions. I had indicated to you that when your proposed application for order to show cause was presented I would be seeking a direction under Rule 6.07. As is clear from the provisions of Rule 6.07.1, it is a Registrar who may seek a direction, not a respondent. It is the documents presented for filing that are put before a Justice and that would not include any proposed affidavit addressing Rule 6.07.
In the event that a Justice were to make a direction under Rule 6.07.2 that the Registrar refuse to issue the documents, it would be as Rule 6.07.2 provides, "without the leave of a Justice first had and obtained". In that event under Rule 6.07.3, you would be able to apply for leave to issue (from another Justice) and it would be at that point that you would file an affidavit in support of that application for leave to issue.
Yours faithfully,
Rosemary Musolino
Acting Senior Registrar
From: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>
To: Rosemary Musolino <rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au>, KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>,
Date: 02/12/2015 02:21 PM
Subject: Re: AMENDED REPLY - Re: REPLY - UNSWORN AFFIDAVIT - PRIVATE HEARING UNDER RULE 6.07 HCR - no.5
Dear Registrar
These are very serious matters.
They affect national security and the senior executives of the military who are prepared to mislead and misinform both the judiciary and parliament to obtain mall gains of racism and racist victories over great losses of loss of the army and loss of morale.
I am prepared to take your advice that you wish to put the docs I have prepared to a Justice, but I also believe that you must put every matter and every mail as well including my unsworn affidavit and all emails with regards to this matter.
The facts of the case are 17 witnesses were not called. Those 17 witnesses prove conclusively I was not involved in any offending in the military.
The documents withheld from the DFM court in 1999 that it simply was not possible for me to attend any video party, waste time, and energy when I was the only person on camp who was the company clerk.
The alleged complaint is a false complaint driven by Gary Hevey, barrister, and David McLeod, barrister and Michael Heseltine, Warrant Officer in the Army Reserve.
The High Court is playing ducks and drakes with racial hatred and trying to cover up the sins of Army Legal Corp and the Australian Government Solicitor.
This is totally unacceptable.
Further from 1999 to 2015 I have suffered great losses, greater damage and greatest loss of reputation than any other persons as I have been falsely accused and wrongfully convicted.
If you did not know then I tell you Morecombe QC is mates with Hevey and McLeod. Good mates. Great mates and they cooked up this rubbish to cause he harm.
The issue has always been that I did not want McLeod as my legal representative but the army forced him on to me. They said he had nothing to do with the army and nothing to do with Hevey. This later turned out to be a BIG LIE as both worked together on Tuesday nights at Keswick barracks for Defence legal as reserve officers.
So I was lied to before the first witness was ever called. The High Court has seen fit now to protect Hevey, McLeod and Morecombe merely because they are white.
Thus, this matter of 15 years of not calling the witnesses and not tendering documents is a breach of international law and my human rights.
Having said that, it is not for the Registrar to bring Rule 6.07 cases rather it is for the respondent.
The fact is I have never seen the respondent in court and it would be utterly absurd in view of Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 1985 that there was no power or authority for Chief of Defence Forces to call a Commission of Inquiry especially when the Army Board of Inquiry failed to do its duty.
The issue of professional misconduct extends now from the DFM to the army prosecutor, to defence counsel and to the Board of Inquiry.
The case is won for me on the merits because the facts are plain for a blind man to see that 17 crucial witnesses that would have destroyed the Crown version of events and by not calling those witnesses the case is proven for the accused that there was no case to answer.
This is the evil and the bastardry I have had to live with for 15 years. people who cannot add one plus one. People who have no intelligence but one hundred per cent racism.
if the 17 witnesses were for the Crown then obviously they would have called them to hammer deep every nail in my coffin.
I only ask the Chief Justice of the High Court to grow up and stop being so juvenile, so immature and so full of racial hatred and get on with the Commission of Inquiry and the arrest warrants for Hevey, Mcleod, Morecombe and the Board of Inquiry.
I will await your response.
be aware I have sworn all other docs except the unsworn rule 6.07 hearing.
I believe in law that the Registrar has no power for Rule 6.07 and one the respondent can bring a Rule 6.07 application.
if the Registrar takes a Rule 6.07 then clearly there is prejudice and bias in the court and the court no longer is a court of competent jurisdiction.
Yours faithfully
TK FERDINANDS
PS - ANY ONE CAN GIVE THEMSELVES POWER, ANY ONE.
No comments:
Post a Comment