A Letter to the Chief Justice Federal Circuit Court & Family Court

If you have ever wondered why we cannot get justice in any court in Australia. our research has exposed the massive corruption that reaches to the highest offices in the land. Not one of those We the People have elected to protect our Rights has done anything to justify the massive salaries we pay them out of the public purse.

It is very clear that the Prime Minister, the Attorney General, the Parliament, the Judiciary, are all ignoring the Constitution and attempting to rule our nation using State laws instead.

Peter Gargan, a member of the Commonwealth of Australia with more than 30 years knowledge and experience in law, has written to the Chief Justice of Australia, The Honourable William Alstergren AO and Deputy Chief Justice The Honourable Robert McClelland AO to tell them about the crimes and treason being committed in the Courts.

Every Australian should know this, because it exposes the government’s attempts to subvert our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act by the lawyers sitting unconstitutionally in our Parliament. Instead of obeying the highest law of the land, our Constitution, they have changed the Court rules to enable the Courts to act as though they serve the States, and not We the People of the Commonwealth.

Peter and Mike Holt have been writing numerous letters to the Prime Minister, the Federal Attorney General and to various Senators, but without any acknowledgement at all. These public SERVANTS are supposed to serve We the People. Instead, they serve their World Economic Form (WEF) and UN masters.

Can anyone in Australia point to an election where the People of the Commonwealth voted to allow the UN to dictate our laws?

This is the letter Mr Gargan has sent to the Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice of Federal Circuit & Family Court:

	Peter Alexander Gargan XXXXXXXXX Victoria 3000
The Honourable William Alstergren AO and The Honourable Robert McClelland AO

12 February 2024

Dear Sirs,

I note you both are alumni of either a secular High School or a respectable Protestant Christian College, and as such probably free from Roman Catholic Church bias. From the Federal Circuit Court and Family Court of Australia website I found this reference to the duties cast upon you both.

The Chief Justice is responsible for ensuring the effective, orderly and expeditious discharge of the business of the Court (S 21B Family Law Act) and for managing its administrative affairs (S 38A). The Chief Justice is assisted in judicial responsibilities by the Deputy Chief Justice S 21B) and in administrative responsibilities by the Chief Executive Officer (S 38D(3)).

During the tenure of the Deputy Chief Judge as Attorney General of the Commonwealth and the period when Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister, I wrote to the Prime Minister pointing out that the word “Court” in an Act that was capitalised was not consistent with S 79 Constitution. To his credit the then Attorney General of the Commonwealth Department corrected that error in reprints.

In Act No 13, 2021 S 10 (3) the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 was amended to include the Federal Circuit Court and Family Court of Australia. It does so in these words: In this section review includes a review by way of reconsideration, rehearing, appeal, the grant of an injunction or of a prerogative or statutory writ, or the making of a declaratory or other order. The Prerogative Writ is the most powerful of all remedies available. 

Michael Thomas Holt was not aware of that when he made his Affidavit, but he has filed an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus on 31^st January 2024, which is still awaiting acceptance for a hearing by the Supreme Court Brisbane. The registrars are refusing to do their job and process his application. They are exercising the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth without authority to do so.

Does your Order of Review apply to all Registrars?

The High Court Rules 2004 has a Part 25 Prerogative Writs, containing five Prerogative Writs that may be issued by it. It also has Rule 6.07.1, 2 and 3 that allows a Single Justice of the High Court to refuse to allow matters to be filed, and considered by a Full Court. In 2023 I am aware of four times that rule was used by a Single Justice to deny access to the Federal Supreme Court to be called the High Court as established under S71 Constitution and consider applications for Prerogative Writs.

Because the High Court does not accept that a Prerogative Writ is a basic human and natural law right, and a form of Judicial Review, and is refusing to exercise the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth by Rules of Court the people of Australia have suffered greatly under Australian Government and State Government tyranny.

Nature abhors a vacuum. The refusal of the Justices of the High Court to abide the Constitution and obey the law has created a vacuum. That vacuum will need to be filled, and it could be filled by two or more Justices of the Federal Circuit Court and Family Court of Australia if a Petition presently being signed and emailed to Senators to the Senate praying for their removal is activated.

S 5 Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 is a very comprehensive collage of grievances that may be addressed. The definition of “delegate” in S 7 Federal Circuit Court and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 does not comply with the definition in S 34AB Acts Interpretation Act 1901. It says;

Effect of delegation

General
(1) Where an Act confers power on a person or body (in this section called the authority) delegate a function, duty or power:

(a) the delegation may be made either generally or as otherwise provided by the instrument of delegation;
(b) the powers that may be delegated do not include that power to delegate.
(c) a function, duty or power so delegated, when performed or exercised by the delegate, shall, for the purposes of the Act, be deemed to have been performed or exercised by the authority;
(d) a delegation by the authority does not prevent the performance or exercise of a function, duty or power by the authority; and
(e) if the authority is not a person, section 34A applies as if it were.

The powers delegated to a Judge in Court are those of the King in the Parliament of the Commonwealth. His/her powers cannot be exercised arbitrarily, as there must be elected judges (plural) to form a quorum to advise Him in the Parliament of the Commonwealth. Likewise, the delegates of the King in Judge in Court Courts cannot arbitrarily decide anything. Democracy demands electors in the Federal Courts of Australia. This is S 79 Constitution.

In effect the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 by Act no 13 of 2021 makes you the King and deputy King of the Australian land mass, due to the default of King Charles III and Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second to exercise power and supervise his/her Governor-General and such individual has allowed laws to be enacted by all the Parliaments of the Commonwealth that do not apply S 15A Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and honour Almighty God and the Constitution in which His blessings are sought. Humbly relying on Almighty God I ask for your help to restore the Rule of Law. Your Order of Review form, on its face appears to limit your ability to issue Prerogative Writs against a Judge in Court. I believe that needs to be addressed.

I am eighty years old, and like you would like to leave a better Australia for my children and grandchildren when Almighty God calls me and I die. I have evidence that followers of the Roman Catholic Church have sabotaged the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 and Constitution and installed a Roman Catholic Church regime of Star Chamber Courts in all the Courts with Judges in the Commonwealth. That evidence is contained in decided cases under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 by Justices of the Federal Court of Australia who have failed to apprehend the depth and power of S 10(3) Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. There are at least ten that I can name including the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia. By the authority to issue the Prerogative Writ, the Parliament of The Commonwealth has delegated the power of God Almighty vested in the Monarch by the Statute 1 Will and Mary (Coronation Oath) 1688 (C 6) to the Federal Circuit Court and Family Court of Australia. This Imperial Statute has been omitted from the Victorian Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 and other declaratory Acts.

A Star Chamber Court is any court that has merged the power to judge with the power to administer the law. Michael Thomas Holt has detailed this in an Affidavit supporting an application to the Supreme Court in Queensland that was initially refused filing by a Registrar.

In it he refers to the Federal Court of Australia as the remedy Court, but on at least ten occasions I am aware of it has failed to grant remedies it could have granted, and I am not comfortable appealing to Chief Justice Deborah Mortimer, as she arbitrarily refused me a remedy, I should have been entitled to in 2017. Please read any reference in the Affidavit of Michael Thomas Holt referring to the Federal Court of Australia as referring to the Federal Circuit Court and Family Court of Australia.

I am old enough to remember when the Registrar at the Supreme Court in Cairns, would file anything and everything that was in the correct form without question. That was before the Supreme Court in Queensland became a Star Chamber Court in 1991.

The Doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy is a Roman Catholic Church construct that is illogical and without legal foundation, as a country cannot have nine Sovereign Parliaments and be governed properly. That is what the Australia Act 1986 purports to achieve, however, Bob Hawke failed to have the Act ratified in a Referendum of the People. Nor would Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth sign it into law until he conducted a Referendum. Without a Referendum the Australia Act 1986 is Null and Void, and all legislation passed since then is also null and void.

Attempts to have the High Court Judicially Review the S 9 of that Act which mandates it were refused, so we have not had a Federal Supreme Court for a long time.

Roman Catholic Church elements in the first Parliament of the Commonwealth established the first High Court as a Star Chamber Court by S 12 High Court Procedure Act 1903 by vesting the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth unconstitutionally by reference to S 71 Constitution and in contempt of Queen Victoria’s Letters Patent 1900 in a single Justice. It has miserably failed the Commonwealth.

I am asking you to consider my submissions, and the evidence in Michael Thomas Holt’s Affidavit, that we do not have Courts of Judicature but Star Chamber Courts instead. You are authorised to introduce the reform the Parliament of the Commonwealth is so far refusing to introduce.

Gentlemen, the finger of Almighty God is upon you. You have the power, exercise it to the Glory of God.

Kindest regards

Peter Alexander Gargan

Inspector-General in Bankruptcy

             (1)  For the purposes of this Act, there shall be an Inspector-General in Bankruptcy.

             (2)  The Inspector-General has:

                     (a)  the general administration of this Act; and

                     (b)  the other powers and other functions conferred or imposed on him or her by this Act.

             (3)  The Inspector-General may exercise any of the powers (including the power under section 18), and perform any of the functions, of an Official Receiver, in the same way as the Official Receiver.

             (4)  The Inspector-General may by signed instrument delegate to an authorised employee all or any of the powers and functions of the Inspector-General under this Act.

Applications for review of decisions

             (1)  A person who is aggrieved by a decision to which this Act applies that is made after the commencement of this Act may apply to the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) for an order of review in respect of the decision on any one or more of the following grounds:

                     (a)  that a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred in connection with the making of the decision;

                     (b)  that procedures that were required by law to be observed in connection with the making of the decision were not observed;

                     (c)  that the person who purported to make the decision did not have jurisdiction to make the decision;

                     (d)  that the decision was not authorized by the enactment in pursuance of which it was purported to be made;

                     (e)  that the making of the decision was an improper exercise of the power conferred by the enactment in pursuance of which it was purported to be made;

                      (f)  that the decision involved an error of law, whether or not the error appears on the record of the decision;

                     (g)  that the decision was induced or affected by fraud;

                     (h)  that there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision;

                      (j)  that the decision was otherwise contrary to law.

             (2)  The reference in paragraph (1)(e) to an improper exercise of a power shall be construed as including a reference to:

                     (a)  taking an irrelevant consideration into account in the exercise of a power;

                     (b)  failing to take a relevant consideration into account in the exercise of a power;

                     (c)  an exercise of a power for a purpose other than a purpose for which the power is conferred;

                     (d)  an exercise of a discretionary power in bad faith;

                     (e)  an exercise of a personal discretionary power at the direction or behest of another person;

                      (f)  an exercise of a discretionary power in accordance with a rule or policy without regard to the merits of the particular case;

                     (g)  an exercise of a power that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power;

                     (h)  an exercise of a power in such a way that the result of the exercise of the power is uncertain; and

                      (j)  any other exercise of a power in a way that constitutes abuse of the power.

             (3)  The ground specified in paragraph (1)(h) shall not be taken to be made out unless:

                     (a)  the person who made the decision was required by law to reach that decision only if a particular matter was established, and there was no evidence or other material (including facts of which he or she was entitled to take notice) from which he or she could reasonably be satisfied that the matter was established; or

                     (b)  the person who made the decision based the decision on the existence of a particular fact, and that fact did not exist.