I am Fred Wilson

H180/2015

Of [Address]
From [Tribe]
Violations of the Rule of Law by Member A Dae, Principal Registar Jim Nelms, abuse of
discretion, perverting the administration of justice
Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006,
s 8, Recognition and equality before the law
s24, Fair hearing
(1) A person charged with a criminal offence or a party to a civil proceeding

has the right to have the charge or proceeding decided by a competent,

independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public
hearing,
inter alia
Equal Opportunity Act 2010 - s 9 Indirect discrimination, inter alia
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), Racial vilification under s 18C
Administrative Law Act 1978, reasonableness of judgement, inter alia
Kable Principle: offending the judicial function, or the judicial process
Crimes Act 1914 and or 1995: conspiracy to interfere with the administration of
justice
Common law rights to Equality before the Law, retrospective laws
Legal Precedence:
Tomasevic v. Travaglini & Anor 2007 VSC 337: it is the duty of the
presiding judge to assist unrepresented litigants
Beckett v New South Wales [2013] HCA 17: No Requirement to Prove
Innocence in Malicious Prosecution

1. This matter clearly illustrates why Indigenous and Aborigines Australia has the

highest incarceration rates in the world: inept judicial officers conspiring to pervert
the administration of justice in collusion with court officers, causing the death of Mr
Gong Ling Tang, health issues of Mr Pham, my witness.
2. On 26 November 2015, at hearing, and at numerous other occasions, Member A Dae had
been asked to recuse herself due to apprehended bias, she has refused.
3. On 26 November 2015, at hearing, and at numerous other occasions, Member A Dae had
been told in no uncertain terms that the case was a matter concerning the Equal
Opportunity Act 2010 s 9, indirect discrimination against the respondent(s).
4. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ACT 2010 - SECT 9
Indirect discrimination
(1) Indirect discrimination occurs if a person imposes, or proposes to impose, a requirement, condition
or practice
(a)

that has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging persons with an attribute; and

(b)

that is not reasonable.

(2)
The person who imposes, or proposes to impose, the requirement, condition or practice has the
burden of proving that the requirement, condition or practice is reasonable.

5. The incompetence of Member A Dae puts the integrity of VCAT into question;
6. It appears the Member has no idea of the definition of a prima facie case;
7. It appears that Member is racially vilifying my witness; and thus indirectly and or directly
8.
9.
10.

11.

12.

discriminating against me;

It appears that the Member is usurping the power Parliament to enact the law, an Act of
Parliament, Charter s8 and s24, inter alia
The question of law is thus:
Member A Dae, should do the honorable act, recuse herself from the matter for perceived
and or Apprehended Bias, and refer the matter up to the supreme court for an
interpretation of the Charter, Equal Opportunity Act, VCAT Act, inter alia, and
whether arbitrary and capricious application of the law amounts to direct and or indirect
discrimination if it affects large groups of people protected under law, causing hardship
and deaths.
The Member has provided No evidence was to why she agrees with the Respondents, and
it appears she has no idea regarding s9 of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010

13. The Member A Daes apparent discriminatory and incompetence is an attack on the

integrity of the VCAT,

14. And thus is incompatible with the Kable Principle:
15. McHugh J opined that:
While nothing in Ch III prevents a State from conferring nonjudicial functions on a State
Supreme Court in respect of nonfederal matters, those non-judicial functions cannot be of
a nature that might lead an ordinary reasonable member of the public to conclude that the
Court was not independent of the executive government of the State
16. Toohey J similarly found the legislation incompatible with the exercise of federal

jurisdiction because it diminished public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary as an

institution.10 Gaudron and Gummow JJ also found the legislation incompatible with the
exercise of federal jurisdiction, in part, on the basis of public confidence.
17. The email to Principal Registrar Jim Nelms, and his reply are now submitted as evidence
of the apparent conspiracy to interfere with the administration of justice, and
retrospective application of laws or rules, and as such the question of law must be sent to
the supreme court for declaration of inconsistent interpretation of the Charter and or other
Statutes according to the Charter, inter alia.
18. For the protection of the welfare of Aborigines, refugees and immigrants and other
defenseless peoples.
Authority
1. Tomasevic v. Travaglini & Anor 2007 VSC 337: it is the duty of the presiding judge to
assist unrepresented litigants
2. Beckett v New South Wales [2013] HCA 17: No Requirement to Prove Innocence in
Malicious Prosecution
3. Inter alia

Signed:
Fred Wilson
Witness:

Date: 6 Novermber 2015