IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF VICTORIA

[MELBOURNE] REGISTRY No.

BETWEEN:
....
.
AFFIDAVIT OF

1. I am ..;
2. I make this affidavit from the information within my own knowledge, except where
stated to the contrary or where the context indicates to the contrary,
3. I challenge every and ALL accusations and attacks on my name, person and reputation;
4. I challenge every and ALL legal presumptions;
5. This is a case thats frivolous, lacking in substance and is purely driven by hearsay.
6. It appears to be an attempt at theft by deception under the Color of Law, a star chamber,
and an attack on the Kable Principle and the integrity of the courts;
7. On the 7th of February and 2nd of March of 2007, Johnstone, BR, Judicial Registrar,
refused to let me speak and refused to file the Notice of a Constitutional Matter.
8. It appears that Johnstone JR wanted to me to appeal his abuse of process and discretion,
and racial vilification and discrimination, that caused or led to the Death of Mr Gong
Ling Tang by Victoria police at Dandenong and Ms Dhu in Western Australia.
9. There is an application for a referral to the Supreme Court pursuant s33 (and s36, s39) of
the Charter for the interpretation of the Charter or the interpretation of other Acts in
accordance with the Charter.
10. Johnstone JR has refused, and his interference with the administration of justice
continues the aiding and abetting unlawful discrimination, amounting to a death sentence
for Aborigines, Asylum Seekers and refugees, from a Star Chamber thats in contempt of
the Rule of Law, the Constitution and the Charter.
11. In the event that Johnstone JR continued his interference with the administration of
justice, and denying a fair hearing and equality before the law, pursuant to the Charter;
12. I am a carer of the elderly father who needs medical attention;
13. Johnstone JRs interference with the administration of justice, and refusal to confirm with
me the availability of the hearing dates, is an attempt to injure by myself and my father,
physically and psychologically as an attempt at unlawful discrimination;
14. Exhibit 4 is the evidence of my fathers emergency appointment with eye specialist for
further surgery;

1
15. If I cannot attain a fair hearing and equality before the law at a mention or special
mention hearing; it is not likely I will get a fair hearing and equality before the law at the
full hearing;
16. However, in the interest of the public, this matter should be sent to the Supreme Court
pursuant to the s33 and s36 of the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act
(VIC) 2006, the Equal Opportunity Act (VIC) 2010, and the Administrative Law Act
(VIC) 1978, inter alia
17. The Questions of Law, in this prima facie case, are
18. Whether the Magistrates Court and or VCAT, has the authority to answer questions of law
under the Charter, and or the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act;
19. Whether the Magistrates Court and or VCAT, has the authority to refuse to refer to the
Supreme Court, questions of law under s33 of the Charter, or s36 for a Declaration of an
inconsistent interpretation of the Charter or Act(s), and or the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act; without any proper reasons,
20. Whether the Magistrates Court and or VCAT and or the Supreme Court Victoria, breaches
the Charter, the Equal Opportunity Act, the Racial Discrimination Act (Cth) 1975 and or
the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, by refusing to answer the questions of
law herein, as an inconsistent interpretation of the Charter and or Constitution;
21. Whether the Magistrates Court and or VCAT and or the Supreme Court Victoria, breaches
the discrimination act(s), direct and or indirect, RDA 9(1A), and or vilification RDA 18C
by declaring that the questions of law herein are not of public interest despite the death of
Mr Gong Ling Tang at the hands of Victoria Police at Dandenong, or the deaths of
Aborigines in custody including Ms Dhu in WA for mere fines, and the highest rates of
Aborigines incarceration.
22. Whether the Magistrates Court and or VCAT and or the Supreme Court Victoria, breaches
s51 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, in the arbitrary and capricious
interpretation of mere court rules, and or the abuse of discretionary powers, rather than
applying the Charter in providing fair and open and public hearing, and equality before
the law.
23. Whether the Magistrates Court and or VCAT and or the Supreme Court Victoria, breaches
s51 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, in the arbitrary and capricious
interpretation of common law rights, or the abuse of discretionary powers, rather than
applying the legal precedence from case of Bell J, that its the duty of the presiding judge
to assist the unrepresented litigants

2
24. Tomasevic v Travaglini & Anor [2007] VSC 337 (13 September 2007)
25. Whether Forrest J of the Supreme Court Victoria, breached the Kable Principle, and the
integrity of the Courts, vilified and or discriminated against the Aborigines man, Mr
Kevin Kelly, by accusing him of abuse of the court process and being vexatious, denied
him fair, open and public hearing WITHOUT providing ANY proper reasons, just
because Mr Kevin Kelly wanted a proper answer from a court of law and a court of
record. There is now effectively no record of Mr Kellys question(s) of law being
answered.
26. Whether failure of the judges to act in a judicial manner rather than as corporate
administrators that have cost the lives of many Australian including Mr Gong Ling Tang,
Ms Dhu, many others and those seeking asylum, amounts to a breach of the Kable
Principle, an attack on the integrity of the courts, and the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution, and the Principle of Legality.
27. Whether failure of the judges to act in a judicial manner rather than as corporate
administrators amounts to discrimination, direct and or indirect, and vilification, and thus
creating uncertainty in the law, which would breach s51 of the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution, in whole or in part.
28. The Qld Police Officer Rick Flori, has had to whistleblow and expose the abusive and
unlawful conducts of his colleagues due to the improper conduct and failures of the
institutions that have been set up to investigate and prosecute unlawful behaviors.
29. Whether a failure to answer the Question(s) of Law amounts to setting up Immigrants,
Asylum seekers and Refugees to fail, thereby creating the condition of life with the intent
to destroy.
30. This is an Application to Strike out this Matter, for being lacking in substance and facts,
frivolous and vexatious and in breach of the Charter, RDA 18C and or 9(1A);
31. In the alternative, or in addition to, is a request for the matter to be referred to the
Supreme Court Victoria, pursuant to s33 of the Charter, for the above questions of law,
and for a declaration of inconsistent interpretation of the Charter and or interpretation of
statutes and acts, rules, principles, inter alia, according to the Charter.
32. Failure to refer the matter without proper reasons, is an inconsistent interpretation of the
Charter or Statutes according to the Charter.
33. Johnstone JR tried to have the heard at a FULL hearing without giving the brief of the
case the accused.
34. has been withdrawn after 4 plus mentions and special mention and full hearing date, when it
should have been dismissed at mention on the strike out application.

3
EXHIBITS TO AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT:
1. VCAT H8/2015 Kelly vs Ratcliffe, Presided G Nihill
2. VCAT H274/2014 Kelly vs AG and State Victoria, presided G Nihill
3. Kelly in Chambers Forrest J 14th January 2015.
Authorities:
a. Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34 (8 September 2011)

b. Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32

c. Gurnett v The Macquarie Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd [No 2][126]

d. University of Wollongong v Metwally (1984)

e. Tomasevic v Travaglini & Anor [2007] VSC 337 (13 September 2007)

f. Mandamus will lie for an abuse of discretion where discretion has been exercised arbitrarily and
capriciously or where discretion has been exercised in bad faith, Peavey Co. V. Corcoran 714
S.W.2d 943. In such instances the abuse amounts, in effect, to no discretion. Mandamus is
warranted when the abuse is clear or results in a manifest injustice, Reis V. Nangle 349 S.W.2d
943. Mandamus will lie when an official refuses to act when he has a duty to act and refuses to do
so.

FILED:
SWORN/AFFIRMED AT
In the State of Victoria on
Before Me:

Human Rights Defender