Judicial Crisis and Treason by the HIGH COURT of Australia

How effective is the new UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL'S SPECIAL PROCEDURES for petitions against HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

this case will test it out and a way for others to use for remedies 

 http://rapidshare.com/files/90317709/OHCHR.24January2008.web.pdf.html

Date:     Thursday, January 24, 2008

Communication
to: Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the Independence of Judges
and Lawyers

Human
Rights Council Complaint Procedure

Accordingly,
ECOSOC resolution 1503 (XLVIII) of 27 May 1970 as revised by resolution 2000/3
of 19 June 2000, served as a working basis for the establishment of a new
Complaint Procedure and was improved where necessary to ensure that the
complaint procedure be impartial, objective, efficient, victims-oriented and conducted
in a timely manner.

Review
of the 1503 procedure

Pursuant
to Council resolution 5/1, the Complaint Procedure is being established to
address consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of all
human rights and all fundamental freedoms occurring in any part of the world
and under any circumstances.

It
retains its confidential nature, with a view to enhancing cooperation with the
State concerned. The procedure, inter alia, is to be victims-oriented and
conducted in a timely manner.

After
consulting the requirements established by each mandate for the submission of
allegations, information can be submitted by fax to +41 22 917 90 06, by e-mail
to urgent-action@ohchr.org , or by postal mail to:

OHCHR-UNOG

8-14
Avenue de la Paix

1211
Geneva 10

Switzerland

“Special circumstances of urgency

As with the other procedures described, you may seek interim measures
by the Committee to prevent irreparable damage while the communication is being
considered. The basis for such a request by the Committee to a State party is
rule 91(3) of the rules of procedure. 

Additional pointers on the admissibility of your case

You should be aware that complaints to the Committee on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination differ on two issues of admissibility from the general
procedure outlined above. First, your complaint will not be considered
inadmissible if the same matter is pending before or has been the subject of a
decision by another international procedure. Second, as already emphasized,
complaints brought after a six-month time limit will, as a rule, be declared
inadmissible.”

We request Special circumstances of Urgency so that Australian Citizens of all ethnicity can gain
access to

a.      
the law and legal system and

b.     
under Australian laws and Constitution;

In addition an innocent man
Mr Phuong Ngo is in prison for lack of a fair trial; Mr’s example is clear
example of the disregard for law and order , and the conspiracy to pervert
justice.

Date:     Thursday, January 24, 2008

 Communication to: Special Rapporteur of
the Commission on Human Rights on the Independence
of Judges and Lawyers

After
consulting the requirements established by each mandate for the submission of
allegations, information can be submitted by fax to +41 22 917 90 06, by e-mail
to urgent-action@ohchr.org , or by postal mail to:

OHCHR-UNOG

8-14
Avenue de la Paix

1211
Geneva 10

Switzerland

With
application for Special circumstances of urgency or sensitivity due to
incarceration, and with regards to Article 5 (b) “The individual has
exhausted all available domestic remedies. This shall not be the rule where the
application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged”.

This
petition is to be faxed and a copy to be emailed to the above address.

Should
the attachments fail to send properly please see the email;

Should
my English be inadequate, please contact me asap

 1. Information concerning the author of the
communication

 Name:                                 First
name: 

Nationality:            Australian             Profession:          Medical Research/IT

Date
and place of birth:           .          Long Xien, Vietnam.

Present
address:            .

Address
for exchange of confidential correspondence:      

                                    nwn.webmaster@gmail.com

 Submitting the communication as:

(a)          Victim of the Human Rights violation
or violations set forth below:

 The overriding violation of my Civil Rights is
the denial of "access to a competent, independent and impartial tribunal and
court established by law" which, in Australia is governed by the
Australian Constitution and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act (Cth)
1986;  as established as Constitutional
Law in Australia (see: Schedule 2, Constitutional enactments, NSW Imperial Acts
Application Act 1969 No 30). Further there is a conspiracy to pervert the
course of justice by perjury and fabricating court documents and conspiracy to
cause injury instructed by the Prime Minister and the Attorney General and the
President of Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission;

 The denial of my Civil and Human Rights has
resulted in:-

                    1.          Conspiracy to Pervert of the Course
of Justice, perjury and denying of access to the Australian Constitution and
the Australian Laws (* Federal Court No. 491 of 2007)

                    2.          Unlawful authority by the President
of Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, John von Doussa (* Federal
Court No. 491 of 2007)

3.             Unlawful
denial of access to remedy from violations of Human Rights and inhumane degradation
(* Federal Court No. 491 of 2007)

4.             Conspiracy
to Pervert the Course of Justice , perjury and denying of access to the
Australian Constitution and the Australian Laws (* Administrative Appeals
tribunal No. 2007/1865)

 (Where *)

 II.  Information
concerning the alleged victim(s) (if other than author)

 Phuong Ngo                                        community
worker

            http://home.iprimus.com.au/dna_info/phreephuong/

                        PO Box 109, Glebe, NSW 2037

email phreephuong@hotmail.com

Vivian
Solon, Cornelia Rau, Tony Tran 

Aborigines
Black deaths in Custody cases and other cases;

  III.  State
concerned/articles violated/domestic remedies

 Australia and

United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

These
are the local (Federal) laws that give effect to Australia’s obligation to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights

   
*  Age Discrimination Act 2004

   
* Disability Discrimination Act 1992

   
* Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986

   
* Race Discrimination Act 1975

   
* Sex Discrimination Act 1984

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/about/legislation/index.html

http://rapidshare.com/files/90804544/IN_THE_HIGH_COURT_OF_AUSTRALIA.affidavit.08february2008.web.pdf.html

 

make oath and state that :

1. The Defendants failed to serve Notices of Appearance, except the SSAT Members who declined to be heard on summons;

2. On 24^th January 2008, No defendants came forth to challenge the proceedings;

3. The Honorable Kenneth Madison Hayne was asked what jurisdiction he was applying for the directions hearing without the representation of the Defendants; “High Court doesn’t allow these hearings” was all he could proffer. White Australia Policy had been dispensed with and Racial Discrimination Act came into force in 1975, with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act in 1986;

4. The Honorable Kenneth Madison Hayne was told “Peremptory Stay of Proceedings” had been enforced with challenges of jurisdiction at the lower courts; as such the Plaintiff did not want to seek leave for an Appeal against unconstitutional and non-legally binding decisions of the lower courts; and further sought to be heard at the FULL BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT on constitutional grounds;

5. The Honorable Kenneth Madison Hayne erred by refusing to consider aspects of the Notices of a Constitutional Matter; thereby confirming and endorsing unlawful discriminatory acts of the Commonwealth and the Statutory bodies;

6. The Honorable Kenneth Madison Hayne erred by refusing to consider aspects of an Injuction against lower courts and Tribunals on Constitutional grounds;

7. The Justice failed to award court costs for the Defendants’ non-appearances and for costs arising from Fees regulations 8.2, 9, 10, 11 and the unconstitutional conducts of the deputy registrar Mussolino; The Honorable Kenneth Madison Hayne admitted to having seen the affidavit against Mussolino;and was told of the regulations;

8. According to the Deputy Registar Ms Denise Weybury, The Honorable Kenneth Madison Hayne has refused to authenticate his decision to dismiss the Application in writing;

9. I have suffered financial hardship due to the Judicial crisis created by The Honorable Kenneth Madison Hayne; depriving myself and my business from functioning under the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia;

10. I have been made homeless by The Honorable Kenneth Madison Hayne; deprived of Australian citizenship unlawfully;

11. The Honorable Kenneth Madison Hayne sanctioned the continued conspiracy to pervert justice by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and Senior Member John Handley, and the Commonwealth of Australia Lawyer Tim De Uray, in fabricating facts and evidence, abusing jurisdiction and positions of trust, at hearing at the AAT on 7 February 2008;

Sworn at , in the State of Victoriathis day of 2008Before meSignature: Date: