FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Connor v State of Queensland (Department of Education and Training) (No 2) [2019] FCA 366

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application for a stay of proceedings is dismissed.

2.    The applicant’s litigation representative file and serve a notice of address for service by 4pm on 20 March 2019.

3.    The applicant file and serve any affidavits in reply by 3 July 2019.

4.    The respondent file and serve any expert evidence in response by 4pm on 31 July 2019.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(DELIVERED EX TEMPORE AND REVISED)

RANGIAH J:

1    The applicant, by his litigation representative, has brought a proceeding under ss 5, 6 and 22 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) seeking a declaration and damages against the State of Queensland.

2    The applicant’s litigation representative had been represented by a firm of lawyers, but they have recently ceased to act. The litigation representative has indicated that he fired those lawyers.

3    The litigation representative has now applied for a stay of the proceeding. That is an unusual course, given that it is his proceeding. The basis of his application is set out in an email to the Court sent on 12 March 2019. The email states:

On the other hand I have an important issue that has to be dealt with as a matter of high priority!!!

As the Registrar of The office of mediation is employed by the state of Queensland,

The Judge sitting is also employed by the same,

And the Department of Education along with its legal team, there is an “obvious bias” and serious issue at hand.

The “State” has unlimited funds and resources which I do not..

The matter cannot be heard and I wish to for a stay on proceedings until a “lawful” judiciary and unbiased option is available to me where a clear “conflict of interest” does not exist.

(Errors in original.)

4    The email goes on to set out s 44 of the Constitution, which deals with matters disqualifying a person from being chosen or sitting as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives. The email then continues as follows:

As the Queen of England is no longer considered our “constitutional monarch” (due to the lisbon treaty 2009) we have no option but to hold all proceedings.

With the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA being registered on the u.s sec with its “registered business address” being Washington D.C (District of Columbia),

There is no “Lawful judicary” as Australia is governed under a “judicary” and not “The rule of law”!

These are serious implications for those in those positions and of the Constitution.

Senator Rod Culleton along with Senator Jacqui Lambie in the name of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second as the First Lady of the Commonwealth Constitution, requested Senator George Henry Brandis and Senator Pauline Hanson to explain to the Senate why we are governed by a Judiciary and not by the Rule of Law!

So unless both Houses of the Parliament of the Commonwealth deal with Senator Culleton’s question (Motion 163) from 2016 and answer to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second why they have not acted upon that Royal Command, made at the request of the Senate as one of the High Courts of Parliament, then this matter can not progress under the current circumstances at all!!!

(Errors in original.)

5    The basis of the application for a stay of the proceedings seems to be an assertion that all judges of the Federal Court of Australia are employees of the State of Queensland, and therefore have a conflict of interest. However, a judge of this Court is, pursuant to s 6(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), appointed by the Governor-General by commission. A judge of this Court is not an employee of the State of Queensland.

6    The remainder of the email is unintelligible. I can see no basis for granting any stay of the proceeding.

7    The application for a stay will be dismissed.

Associate:    

Dated:    20 March 2019