From: Rosemary Musolino <rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au>
Sent: Tuesday, 1 December 2015 4:54 PM
To: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS
Subject: Re: AMENDED REPLY - Re: REPLY - UNSWORN AFFIDAVIT - PRIVATE HEARING UNDER RULE 6.07 HCR - no.4
Dear Mr Ferdinands,
In my email sent 10 November 2015, I had written: "I note that you have amended the plaintiff's outline of submissions following my comments. I confirm that your documents are now in a form that complies with the requirements of the High Court Rules. However I would point out that if and when those documents are presented at the Adelaide Registry they will not be accepted for filing immediately, as I would propose to seek a direction from a Justice pursuant to Rule 6.07 of the High Court Rules in the first instance."
This was intended to indicate to you that while your documents appeared to be compliant with the Rules, I was not giving approval for your documents to be accepted for filing and given a file number when presented at the Adelaide Registry. The documents would have to be forwarded to me and I would intend to put them before a Justice pursuant to Rule 6.07.
I note that the affidavit you have now prepared appears to be directed to Rule 6.07 and you refer to a Rule 6.07 hearing in your email correspondence. I would point out that there is no "Rule 6.07 hearing". The documents, if and when presented, are put before a Justice and that Justice will either make a direction that the documents be accepted for filing or make a direction that the Registrar not accept the documents for filing.
Consequently your recent affidavit is not required. If you wish to present your proposed application for order to show cause and accompanying documents (which I had previously advised were compliant) then you should present those documents at the Adelaide Registry.
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: 30/11/2015 01:44 PM
Subject: Re: AMENDED REPLY - Re: REPLY - UNSWORN AFFIDAVIT - PRIVATE HEARING UNDER RULE 6.07 HCR - no.4
Monday 30 November 2015
Dear HCA Registrar
I refer to the Rule 6.07 hearing.
I am in your capable hands. I have done my unsworn affidavit with regards to whether or not FERDINANDS v Chief of Defence Forces will go ahead.
If the High Court judges state that it will not then there is no problem I shall have to wait another day when the court is more moderate and conservative towards the plights of minority groups and blacks.
If the High Court judges say they wish a Rule 6.07 hearing then I simply cannot go ahead with a half baked hearing and the notice of constitutional matters must go out.
This need not be a song and dance show. The Solicitor Generals may turn up or may not turn up but at least all are notified and if submissions need be made then fine.
I am convinced as to its illegality, unlawfulness and wrongfulness as all law is evidence and not beer-talk. Thus, when evidence and facts are presented then the case ends. If there is no evidence then there seems to be inquiries, Commissions, Boards of Inquiry and Royal Commissions.
I await your response on how best to proceed.
Yours faithfully
TK FERDINANDS
From: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 18 November 2015 3:17 PM
To: Rosemary Musolino; KINGSLEY FERDINANDS
Subject: Re: AMENDED REPLY - Re: REPLY - UNSWORN AFFIDAVIT - PRIVATE HEARING UNDER RULE 6.07 HCR - no.2
Wednesday 18 November 2015
Dear HCA Registrar
I am prepared to proceed with the Rule 6.07 hearing on unsworn affidavits.
I am way too tired and exhausted to be chasing JP's and all the side stuff that goes with these applications.
I can send hard copies to registry in Canberra by overnight post if so desired for the private hearing.
I rely on the amended docs I have sent you with regards to rule 6.07.
Please keep in contact.
Yours faithfully
T K FERDINANDS
592 BRIGHTON ROAD
BRIGHTON SA 5048
Sunday, December 6, 2015
KINGSLEY FERDINANDS: FIGHTING GREAT CORRUPTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
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
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
KINGSLEY FERDINANDS: CORRUPTION IN THE HIGH COURT MUST BE ADDRESSED
From: Rosemary Musolino <rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au>
Sent: Tuesday, 10 November 2015 4:46 PM
To: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS
Cc: SA Registry
Subject: Re: TK FERDINANDS - AMENDMENTS MADE....RE: PARA. 55 & CORRECT DATE
Dear Mr Ferdinands,
I note that you have amended the plaintiff's outline of submissions following my comments. I confirm that your documents are now in a form that complies with the requirments of the High Court Rules. However I would point out that if and when those documents are presented at the Adelaide Registry they will not be accepted for filing immediately, as I would propose to seek a direction from a Justice purusuant to Rule 6.07 of the High Court Rules in the first instance.
Yours faithfully,
Rosemary Musolino
Deputy Registrar
From: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>
To: Rosemary Musolino <rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au>, KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>,
Date: 09/11/2015 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: TK FERDINANDS - AMENDMENTS MADE....RE: PARA. 55 & CORRECT DATE
Dear Registrar
Please be aware that I have just received your email and have fixed up the final doc for approval to file.
If approved I am able to file on Wednesday (pension day for the unemployed) this week, 11 November 2015.
I hope to hear from you soon.
Yours faithfully
TK FERDINANDS
From: Rosemary Musolino <rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au>
Sent: Monday, 9 November 2015 11:03 AM
To: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS
Subject: Re: TK FERDINANDS - FINAL DOCS FOR APPROVAL
Dear Mr Ferdinands,
I note that paragraph 55 of the plaintiff's outline of submissions reads as follows:
"An order in the nature of certiorari quashing the Defendant’s decision made on 20 July 2015 to appoint a person to undertake an independent Commission of Inquiry pursuant to Regulation 109 Part 8 Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 1985 for Commission of Inquiry"
It seems to me that it should read "not to appoint".
Your other documents appear to be in the correct form.
Yours faithfully,
Rosemary Musolino
Deputy Registrar
From: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>
To: Rosemary Musolino <rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au>, KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>,
Date: 02/11/2015 04:01 PM
Subject: Re: TK FERDINANDS - FINAL DOCS FOR APPROVAL
Monday 2 November 2015
Dear Registrar
Thank you for your email and I have corrected all errors and added extension of time reasons in application.
Please find all docs attached for your inspection and consideration with regards to FERDINANDS v Chief of Defence Forces.
I hope to hear from you soon.
Yours faithfully
TK FERDINANDS
From: Rosemary Musolino <rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au>
Sent: Wednesday, 28 October 2015 4:43 PM
To: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS
Subject: Re: TK FERDINANDS - AMENDMENTS COMPLETED AND DOCS READY FOR APPROVAL FOR FILING
Dear Mr Ferdinands,
I have looked at your amended documents and I note the following:
- the application for an extension of time for the making of the application is an order that should be sought in the Application (Form 12) itself;
- you have prepared two affidavits, one apparently in support of the Application and the other in support of the extension of time: however there is a amount of overlap and repetition in those affidavits. I would suggest it would be more efficient to have only one affidavit which deals with both the extension of time for the making of the application and also deals with the application itself;
- in both of your affidavits you seek orders, inter alia, "that the appeal is allowed". This is inappropriate, as an application for an order to show cause is not an appeal;
- in paragraph 56 of your outline of submissions you should consider whether the inclusion of "not" in the first sentence is correct;
- included in your documents is "Cover Sheet TF-1" however I'm not sure what it is intended to relate to as I could find no reference to it in either affidavit.
Yours faithfully,
Rosemary Musolino
Deputy Registrar
From: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>
To: Rosemary Musolino <rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au>, KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>,
Date: 24/10/2015 11:07 AM
Subject: TK FERDINANDS - AMENDMENTS COMPLETED AND DOCS READY FOR APPROVAL FOR FILING
Saturday 24 October 2015
Registrar
High Court of Australia
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Dear Registrar
Please be aware I have completed and reworked all documents to make it more appealing to read and understand. I have attached normal affidavit and extension of time affidavit and completed orders seeking extension of time and appeal (order to show cause) allowed. Is that the correct wording? I am unsure. if you are happy them we can proceed and I shall file on Wednesday, at the HCA Adelaide registry.
I hope to hear from you soon as to approval to file.
Yours faithfully
TK FERDINANDS
From: Rosemary Musolino <rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au>
Sent: Tuesday, 20 October 2015 3:57 PM
To: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS
Subject: Re: TK FERDINANDS - REQUEST FOR UPDATES
Dear Mr Ferdinands,
I have now looked at your documents and I note the following matters:
- In the application (Form 12) you have written:
THE RELIEF CLAIMED is:
1. An order in the nature of certiorari quashing the Defendant’s decision made on 20 July 2015 to not appoint a person to undertake an independent Commission of Inquiry pursuant to Regulation 109 Part 8 Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 1985 for Commission of Inquiry.
2. An order in the nature of mandamus compelling Defendant to not appoint a person to undertake an independent Commission of Inquiry pursuant to Regulation 109 Part 8 Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 1985 for Commission of Inquiry.
3. A declaration by the Commission of Inquiry as to whether or not the Commonwealth of Australia via Chief of Army issued a false summons in the Defence Force Magistrate’s court in 1999 against 418609 CPL FERDINANDS, T.K.
It seems to me that in paragraph 2 you would want to delete the word "not". I note that also appears in paragraph 4 on page 4 of that same document; in your affidavit on page 5 and 6 under "Orders sought"; on page 7 of the Plaintiff's outline of submissions and in the Summons. The relief sought under paragraph 3 is premature and so not something this Court could order since the relief you seek in paragraphs 1 & 2 is for a Commissions of Inquiry to be undertaken and the relief sought in paragraph 3 seems to be the relief you would ultimately seek form any Commission were it to be set up.
- I note that the decision of the defendant of which you complain is a decision made on 20 July 2015. Under the High Court Rules, an application for mandamus should be made within 2 months, so you would also need to seek an extension of time in the application (Form 12) and your affidavit would also need to address why such an extension should be granted.
- In the Application (Form 12) under the heading "The Grounds of (sic) which the relief is claimed" you then refer to and reproduce Rule 25.03.2. I note that Rule 25.03.2 sets out what needs to be addressed in an outline of submissions, rather than in the application for order to show cause.
- You may wish to give further consideration to whether your outline of submissions does in fact address the requirements of Rule 25.03.2
Yours faithfully,
Rosemary Musolino
Deputy Registrar
From: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>
To: Rosemary Musolino <rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au>, KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>,
Date: 19/10/2015 02:06 PM
Subject: Re: TK FERDINANDS - REQUEST FOR UPDATES ON 2 APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA - 4
Monday 19 October 2015
Dear High Court Registry
I was in court one day in South Australia and I heard a judge say to a party that they must always keep in contact with the court on all matters so the court is aware. The reason being one of the arguments the Crown has is time limits and the matters are old and stale when in fact they have been stalling and delaying on their side.
I keep the HCA informed because it is the only court working for me at the time.
I think by this week I should be able to get some positive action from them with regards to other matters.
This matter is FERDINANDS v Chief of Defence Forces.
I apologize if you have not had them earlier as they may have been confused with other emails to SA Registry.
At ant rate I am keen to get a decision from the court on this matter.
I attach the docs for your inspection.
If you say yes and approve then the Army must do all the work and have a Commission. This is very very different to the 15 years of appeals as I have said in my docs.
The Commission will make a recommendation and then I shall bring that recommendation to court to have the 1999 DFM conviction and penalty set aside.
This then ends FERDINANDS v Chief of Army.
If the Commission make other recommendations then that is up to Chief of Defence Forces to act on.
I can't go back to the army because as I have been told by 100's of soldier I will probably get killed by 'friendly fire'. I take that as a warning and not as a threat.
Anyway, I joined in 1982 and did 6 years before that as a cadet officer. So I have had 15 years active service and 15 years in the courts. A good way to fight the army or in the army.
I can file on Friday if approved.
Yours faithfully
TK FERDINANDS
592 BRIGHTON ROAD
BRIGHTON SA 5048
From: Rosemary Musolino <rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au>
Sent: Friday, 16 October 2015 2:02 PM
To: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS
Subject: Re: TK FERDINANDS - REQUEST FOR UPDATES ON 2 APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA - 3
Dear Mr Ferdinands,
Unfortunately to the large volume of emails which you choose to copy me in on (but which do not directly concern the High Court) I am unable at present to identify which documents you are referring to. You will need to either advise me of the date and time or your email or forward the documents again.
Yours faithfully,
Rosemary Musolino
Deputy Registrar
From: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>
To: "rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au" <rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au>, "enquiries@hcourt.gov.au" <enquiries@hcourt.gov.au>, KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>,
Date: 16/10/2015 02:06 PM
Subject: Re: TK FERDINANDS - REQUEST FOR UPDATES ON 2 APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA - 3
Friday 16 October 2015
D High Court
As yet I have had no response with regards to the serious matter of FERDINANDS v Chief of Defence Forces.
Can you indicate whether or not the documents are ready and suitable for filing, and if so I can file by Monday, 19 October 2015.
Thank you.
Yours faithfully
TK FERDINANDS
Sent: Tuesday, 10 November 2015 4:46 PM
To: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS
Cc: SA Registry
Subject: Re: TK FERDINANDS - AMENDMENTS MADE....RE: PARA. 55 & CORRECT DATE
Dear Mr Ferdinands,
I note that you have amended the plaintiff's outline of submissions following my comments. I confirm that your documents are now in a form that complies with the requirments of the High Court Rules. However I would point out that if and when those documents are presented at the Adelaide Registry they will not be accepted for filing immediately, as I would propose to seek a direction from a Justice purusuant to Rule 6.07 of the High Court Rules in the first instance.
Yours faithfully,
Rosemary Musolino
Deputy Registrar
From: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>
To: Rosemary Musolino <rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au>, KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>,
Date: 09/11/2015 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: TK FERDINANDS - AMENDMENTS MADE....RE: PARA. 55 & CORRECT DATE
Dear Registrar
Please be aware that I have just received your email and have fixed up the final doc for approval to file.
If approved I am able to file on Wednesday (pension day for the unemployed) this week, 11 November 2015.
I hope to hear from you soon.
Yours faithfully
TK FERDINANDS
From: Rosemary Musolino <rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au>
Sent: Monday, 9 November 2015 11:03 AM
To: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS
Subject: Re: TK FERDINANDS - FINAL DOCS FOR APPROVAL
Dear Mr Ferdinands,
I note that paragraph 55 of the plaintiff's outline of submissions reads as follows:
"An order in the nature of certiorari quashing the Defendant’s decision made on 20 July 2015 to appoint a person to undertake an independent Commission of Inquiry pursuant to Regulation 109 Part 8 Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 1985 for Commission of Inquiry"
It seems to me that it should read "not to appoint".
Your other documents appear to be in the correct form.
Yours faithfully,
Rosemary Musolino
Deputy Registrar
From: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>
To: Rosemary Musolino <rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au>, KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>,
Date: 02/11/2015 04:01 PM
Subject: Re: TK FERDINANDS - FINAL DOCS FOR APPROVAL
Monday 2 November 2015
Dear Registrar
Thank you for your email and I have corrected all errors and added extension of time reasons in application.
Please find all docs attached for your inspection and consideration with regards to FERDINANDS v Chief of Defence Forces.
I hope to hear from you soon.
Yours faithfully
TK FERDINANDS
From: Rosemary Musolino <rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au>
Sent: Wednesday, 28 October 2015 4:43 PM
To: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS
Subject: Re: TK FERDINANDS - AMENDMENTS COMPLETED AND DOCS READY FOR APPROVAL FOR FILING
Dear Mr Ferdinands,
I have looked at your amended documents and I note the following:
- the application for an extension of time for the making of the application is an order that should be sought in the Application (Form 12) itself;
- you have prepared two affidavits, one apparently in support of the Application and the other in support of the extension of time: however there is a amount of overlap and repetition in those affidavits. I would suggest it would be more efficient to have only one affidavit which deals with both the extension of time for the making of the application and also deals with the application itself;
- in both of your affidavits you seek orders, inter alia, "that the appeal is allowed". This is inappropriate, as an application for an order to show cause is not an appeal;
- in paragraph 56 of your outline of submissions you should consider whether the inclusion of "not" in the first sentence is correct;
- included in your documents is "Cover Sheet TF-1" however I'm not sure what it is intended to relate to as I could find no reference to it in either affidavit.
Yours faithfully,
Rosemary Musolino
Deputy Registrar
From: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>
To: Rosemary Musolino <rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au>, KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>,
Date: 24/10/2015 11:07 AM
Subject: TK FERDINANDS - AMENDMENTS COMPLETED AND DOCS READY FOR APPROVAL FOR FILING
Saturday 24 October 2015
Registrar
High Court of Australia
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Dear Registrar
Please be aware I have completed and reworked all documents to make it more appealing to read and understand. I have attached normal affidavit and extension of time affidavit and completed orders seeking extension of time and appeal (order to show cause) allowed. Is that the correct wording? I am unsure. if you are happy them we can proceed and I shall file on Wednesday, at the HCA Adelaide registry.
I hope to hear from you soon as to approval to file.
Yours faithfully
TK FERDINANDS
From: Rosemary Musolino <rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au>
Sent: Tuesday, 20 October 2015 3:57 PM
To: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS
Subject: Re: TK FERDINANDS - REQUEST FOR UPDATES
Dear Mr Ferdinands,
I have now looked at your documents and I note the following matters:
- In the application (Form 12) you have written:
THE RELIEF CLAIMED is:
1. An order in the nature of certiorari quashing the Defendant’s decision made on 20 July 2015 to not appoint a person to undertake an independent Commission of Inquiry pursuant to Regulation 109 Part 8 Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 1985 for Commission of Inquiry.
2. An order in the nature of mandamus compelling Defendant to not appoint a person to undertake an independent Commission of Inquiry pursuant to Regulation 109 Part 8 Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 1985 for Commission of Inquiry.
3. A declaration by the Commission of Inquiry as to whether or not the Commonwealth of Australia via Chief of Army issued a false summons in the Defence Force Magistrate’s court in 1999 against 418609 CPL FERDINANDS, T.K.
It seems to me that in paragraph 2 you would want to delete the word "not". I note that also appears in paragraph 4 on page 4 of that same document; in your affidavit on page 5 and 6 under "Orders sought"; on page 7 of the Plaintiff's outline of submissions and in the Summons. The relief sought under paragraph 3 is premature and so not something this Court could order since the relief you seek in paragraphs 1 & 2 is for a Commissions of Inquiry to be undertaken and the relief sought in paragraph 3 seems to be the relief you would ultimately seek form any Commission were it to be set up.
- I note that the decision of the defendant of which you complain is a decision made on 20 July 2015. Under the High Court Rules, an application for mandamus should be made within 2 months, so you would also need to seek an extension of time in the application (Form 12) and your affidavit would also need to address why such an extension should be granted.
- In the Application (Form 12) under the heading "The Grounds of (sic) which the relief is claimed" you then refer to and reproduce Rule 25.03.2. I note that Rule 25.03.2 sets out what needs to be addressed in an outline of submissions, rather than in the application for order to show cause.
- You may wish to give further consideration to whether your outline of submissions does in fact address the requirements of Rule 25.03.2
Yours faithfully,
Rosemary Musolino
Deputy Registrar
From: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>
To: Rosemary Musolino <rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au>, KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>,
Date: 19/10/2015 02:06 PM
Subject: Re: TK FERDINANDS - REQUEST FOR UPDATES ON 2 APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA - 4
Monday 19 October 2015
Dear High Court Registry
I was in court one day in South Australia and I heard a judge say to a party that they must always keep in contact with the court on all matters so the court is aware. The reason being one of the arguments the Crown has is time limits and the matters are old and stale when in fact they have been stalling and delaying on their side.
I keep the HCA informed because it is the only court working for me at the time.
I think by this week I should be able to get some positive action from them with regards to other matters.
This matter is FERDINANDS v Chief of Defence Forces.
I apologize if you have not had them earlier as they may have been confused with other emails to SA Registry.
At ant rate I am keen to get a decision from the court on this matter.
I attach the docs for your inspection.
If you say yes and approve then the Army must do all the work and have a Commission. This is very very different to the 15 years of appeals as I have said in my docs.
The Commission will make a recommendation and then I shall bring that recommendation to court to have the 1999 DFM conviction and penalty set aside.
This then ends FERDINANDS v Chief of Army.
If the Commission make other recommendations then that is up to Chief of Defence Forces to act on.
I can't go back to the army because as I have been told by 100's of soldier I will probably get killed by 'friendly fire'. I take that as a warning and not as a threat.
Anyway, I joined in 1982 and did 6 years before that as a cadet officer. So I have had 15 years active service and 15 years in the courts. A good way to fight the army or in the army.
I can file on Friday if approved.
Yours faithfully
TK FERDINANDS
592 BRIGHTON ROAD
BRIGHTON SA 5048
From: Rosemary Musolino <rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au>
Sent: Friday, 16 October 2015 2:02 PM
To: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS
Subject: Re: TK FERDINANDS - REQUEST FOR UPDATES ON 2 APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA - 3
Dear Mr Ferdinands,
Unfortunately to the large volume of emails which you choose to copy me in on (but which do not directly concern the High Court) I am unable at present to identify which documents you are referring to. You will need to either advise me of the date and time or your email or forward the documents again.
Yours faithfully,
Rosemary Musolino
Deputy Registrar
From: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>
To: "rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au" <rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au>, "enquiries@hcourt.gov.au" <enquiries@hcourt.gov.au>, KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>,
Date: 16/10/2015 02:06 PM
Subject: Re: TK FERDINANDS - REQUEST FOR UPDATES ON 2 APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA - 3
Friday 16 October 2015
D High Court
As yet I have had no response with regards to the serious matter of FERDINANDS v Chief of Defence Forces.
Can you indicate whether or not the documents are ready and suitable for filing, and if so I can file by Monday, 19 October 2015.
Thank you.
Yours faithfully
TK FERDINANDS
KINGSLEY FERDINANDS: CORRUPTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
From: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 14 October 2015 2:47 PM
To: rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au; enquiries@hcourt.gov.au; KINGSLEY FERDINANDS
Subject: Re: TK FERDINANDS - REQUEST FOR UPDATES ON 2 APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA - 2
Wednesday 14 October 2015
Dear High Court Registrar
Please be advised that I made a mistake yesterday and in fact I am waiting for information to file
FERDINANDS v Chief of Defence Forces first. That is the request for Commission of Inquiry that was refused or rejected by Chief of Defence Forces in 2015.
I hope those matters can proceed soon to get the ball rolling.
Thank you.
With regards to the Registrar, masters and registry in the Supreme Court of SA there has been no news, no contact and continued excuses and delays to simply providing a hearing date. It is most extraordinary indeed. I suspect that there are a lot of behind the scenes activities but I am unsure what all the activities mean.
Quite simply I do not believe for one moment the Registry of the Supreme Court of South Australia lost or misplaced by initial legal documents rather they shredded them or burned then or threw them into the street to be soiled and damaged. Thus this notion that they are lost is fantasy.
My army matters are serious and urgent. I hope the High Court judges are ready to rule.
Yours faithfully
T K FERDINANDS
Sent: Wednesday, 14 October 2015 2:47 PM
To: rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au; enquiries@hcourt.gov.au; KINGSLEY FERDINANDS
Subject: Re: TK FERDINANDS - REQUEST FOR UPDATES ON 2 APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA - 2
Wednesday 14 October 2015
Dear High Court Registrar
Please be advised that I made a mistake yesterday and in fact I am waiting for information to file
FERDINANDS v Chief of Defence Forces first. That is the request for Commission of Inquiry that was refused or rejected by Chief of Defence Forces in 2015.
I hope those matters can proceed soon to get the ball rolling.
Thank you.
With regards to the Registrar, masters and registry in the Supreme Court of SA there has been no news, no contact and continued excuses and delays to simply providing a hearing date. It is most extraordinary indeed. I suspect that there are a lot of behind the scenes activities but I am unsure what all the activities mean.
Quite simply I do not believe for one moment the Registry of the Supreme Court of South Australia lost or misplaced by initial legal documents rather they shredded them or burned then or threw them into the street to be soiled and damaged. Thus this notion that they are lost is fantasy.
My army matters are serious and urgent. I hope the High Court judges are ready to rule.
Yours faithfully
T K FERDINANDS
KINGSLEY FERDINANDS: FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
From: KINGSLEY FERDINANDS <kingsley_ferdinands2007@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 13 October 2015 3:59 PM
To: rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au; KINGSLEY FERDINANDS; enquiries@hcourt.gov.au
Subject: TK FERDINANDS - REQUEST FOR UPDATES ON 2 APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAA
Tuesday 13 October 2015
Dear High Court
My purpose in writing is to inform you that I am seeking a update in 2 matters that I have submitted for approval, namely:
1. FERDINANDS v Commissioner of Police, and
2. FERDINANDS v Commissioner for Business Affairs the matter of Notice of Constitutional matter
To this date I have not had any reply.
I am seeking to file these matters if approved for filing.
The position of the Supreme Court of South Australia is not to process my forms promptly or with due diligence and yet again emails have gone unanswered by the Registrar and registry and legal documents for filing have been 'lost' in the Supreme Court of SA.
The matters of security guard's licence is most important. I hope this court house can approve filing this week and set the face of the public record straight and off course, make declarations of its own volition against the Commissioner of Police Mal Hyde and Commissioner for Business Affairs Paul White.
I hope to hear from you soon.
Yours faithfully
T K FERDINANDS
592 Brighton Road
BRIGHTON S.A 5048 [attachment "INTHEHIGHCOURT_PLAINTIFF’S OUTLINE OF SUBMISSION_09November_2015.doc" deleted by Rosemary Musolino/registry/HCA]
Sent: Tuesday, 13 October 2015 3:59 PM
To: rmusolino@hcourt.gov.au; KINGSLEY FERDINANDS; enquiries@hcourt.gov.au
Subject: TK FERDINANDS - REQUEST FOR UPDATES ON 2 APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAA
Tuesday 13 October 2015
Dear High Court
My purpose in writing is to inform you that I am seeking a update in 2 matters that I have submitted for approval, namely:
1. FERDINANDS v Commissioner of Police, and
2. FERDINANDS v Commissioner for Business Affairs the matter of Notice of Constitutional matter
To this date I have not had any reply.
I am seeking to file these matters if approved for filing.
The position of the Supreme Court of South Australia is not to process my forms promptly or with due diligence and yet again emails have gone unanswered by the Registrar and registry and legal documents for filing have been 'lost' in the Supreme Court of SA.
The matters of security guard's licence is most important. I hope this court house can approve filing this week and set the face of the public record straight and off course, make declarations of its own volition against the Commissioner of Police Mal Hyde and Commissioner for Business Affairs Paul White.
I hope to hear from you soon.
Yours faithfully
T K FERDINANDS
592 Brighton Road
BRIGHTON S.A 5048 [attachment "INTHEHIGHCOURT_PLAINTIFF’S OUTLINE OF SUBMISSION_09November_2015.doc" deleted by Rosemary Musolino/registry/HCA]
Friday, December 4, 2015
KINGSLEY FERDINANDS - WWW.THEAUSTRALIAN.COM.AU - THE MOSY UNAUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPER IN AUSTRALIA
KINGSLEY FERDINANDS - WWW.THEAUSTRALIAN.COM.AU - THE MOSY UNAUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPER IN AUSTRALIA.
CHEER ON POOR MEDIA AND EVEN POORER INFORMATION FROM MEDIA OUTLETS.
THE WWW.AUSTRALIAN.COM.AU HAS REFUSED TO PRINT:
1. LAUNCHING OF CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENT PARTY.
VOLUNTEERS AND CANDIDATES WANTED.
email: bgceg.2011@gmail.com if you are keen to join and save Conservation, save Environment and protect Law and Justice.
First platform policy is Royal Commissioner into FERDINANDS v Chief of Army and new laws to imprison dishonest and corrupt judicial officers in the military justice system.
JOIN TODAY.
START TOMORROW.
CHEER ON POOR MEDIA AND EVEN POORER INFORMATION FROM MEDIA OUTLETS.
THE WWW.AUSTRALIAN.COM.AU HAS REFUSED TO PRINT:
1. LAUNCHING OF CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENT PARTY.
VOLUNTEERS AND CANDIDATES WANTED.
email: bgceg.2011@gmail.com if you are keen to join and save Conservation, save Environment and protect Law and Justice.
First platform policy is Royal Commissioner into FERDINANDS v Chief of Army and new laws to imprison dishonest and corrupt judicial officers in the military justice system.
JOIN TODAY.
START TOMORROW.
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
CONNECT: Will you connect to the Royal Commission?
CONNECT: Will you connect to the Royal Commission?
I have done all the work for the Royal Commission.
Will you join the Conservation and Environment Party and help bring a meaningful Royal Commission to South Australia with proper UK Justices heading the Commission.
I have done all the work for the Royal Commission.
Will you join the Conservation and Environment Party and help bring a meaningful Royal Commission to South Australia with proper UK Justices heading the Commission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)