The following is an email I wrote to the High Court registry with regards to the matters I had filed in the High Court. I thought it was worth sharing with this group to show the absolute disconnect between what should happen in law, compared to what is happening. The matters both relate to the Victorian Supreme Court case Cotterill v Romanes that myself and Tony Pecora were involved in prior to being removed via Supreme Court rules despite the court being in federal jurisdiction.
Thanks for your email dated 2nd August 2021.
I have a right to due process of law pursuant to section 40 of the Judiciary Act (1903) where a matter can be removed to the Court prior to final judgement. It is the duty of the inferior court not to proceed in the matter. Should the inferior court make a final judgement in the matter, the Court can not be the original decision maker that section 40 of the Judiciary Act (1903) requires, the Victorian Supreme Court substituting itself as the original decision maker. It is on this ground that the Court is compelled by section 40 of the Judiciary Act (1903) to intervene and notify the inferior court that it cannot proceed to final judgement.
The second matter I have pending before the Court – my appeal pursuant to 73(ii) of the Commonwealth Constitution against my removal of the matter further compels the Court to intervene as my right to natural justice demands this. The Victorian Supreme Court has concluded the hearing that went for 3 days. If I’m reinstated back into the proceeding, how would I be able to present my arguments given that the court has concluded hearing arguments?
Chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution contains the implied rule of law from which it derives its efficacy. A basic tenet of the rule of law includes my right to natural justice, a right not only to a fair hearing, but a hearing in the 1st instance which I have been denied by the inferior court concluding it’s hearing of legal argument by the parties. Chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution also envisages an Australian integrated judicial system of which the State courts are part, known as the autochthonous expedient. Given that the inferior court has been invested with federal jurisdiction because of the originating motion containing a matter rising under the Constitution or it’s interpretation pursuant to section 76(i) of the Commonwealth Constitution (1901) in relation to the implied freedom of political communication, the Victorian Supreme Court is bound by it’s position as a repository of the judicial powers of the Commonwealth to exercise these powers to the dictates of Chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution. Furthermore, given the court is exercising federal jurisdiction, it is bound to comply with federal acts such as the Judiciary Act (1903) which has supremacy over the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Victoria) because of the operation of section 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution (1901).
I request that the Court intervene as a matter of law to ensure that section 40 of the Judiciary Act (1903) is properly complied with as a matter of urgency.