Application by Gabor Horvath (senior)
[2004] VSC 332
•23 August 2004
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA |
AT MELBOURNE
PRACTICE COURT
IN THE MATTER of an application by GABOR HORVATH (Senior)
| MR G. HORVARTH | Plaintiff |
---
JUDGE: | OSBORN J. | |
WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 23 AUGUST 2004 | |
DATE OF RULING: | 23 AUGUST 2004 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY GABOR HORVATH (SENIOR) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2004] VSC 332 | |
---
Direction sought pursuant to r.27(6) Supreme Court Rules, or in the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, that the Prothonotary be directed to issue an originating motion – Application rejected.
---
APPEARANCES: | |
In Person | Mr G. Horvarth |
OSBORN, J.: Mr Horvarth, come forward. Mr Horvarth, as I understand it, you are a vexatious litigant. Is that correct?
MR HORVATH: Only in civil matter to order be made under s.21(3) only to naming few people which I undertake to civil litigation any more, but I am not a vexatious litigant in criminal matters.
OSBORN, J.: Yes. Is that why, in part, the proceeding that you propose is one which alleges treason, contrary to the provisions of the Crimes Act?
MR HORVATH: Yes.
OSBORN, J.: That's the basis of the proceedings, is that right?
MR HORVATH: Basis of the proceeding, yes.
OSBORN, J: Is your application for me to direct the Prothonotary to issue the proceedings, is that what it comes down to?
MR HORVATH: Yes. I tried to make an application, but they refused it and I went down to Master. Master Cain directed me to come to a Court in front of a judge. But he did not, the Master did not really specifically tell me to come to Court, to the Practice Court.
OSBORN, J: Yes.
MR HORVATH: So I turn up in front of Justice Habersberger, which he refused to see it on the basis that I have made a criminal charges against him which is still pending in the Court. The Public Prosecutor took it over from me and just holding it.
OSBORN, J: Yes. Well Mr Horvarth, I have read your document and it seems to me that the Prothonotary was correct and that the proceedings are irregular and would constitute an abuse of process.
MR HORVATH: I will not waste your time in arguing. Even if it is a constitutional matter and it has been served onto the Attorney-General, onto the Prime Minister, onto the Cabinet and everything else, how could it be unconstitutional? How can a Court deny me for over ten years for my right, when according to the constitution I have every right.
OSBORN, J: Yes. Well is your complaint with respect to the way previous proceedings have been determined, is that what it comes down to?
MR HORVATH: No the previous, it was not determined yet, no.
OSBORN, J: Is your complaint with respect to what happened in the course of your bankruptcy?
MR HORVATH: In the bankruptcy matter, I charged them, I charged ten people in the Magistrates' Court. The charge was accepted by the Magistrate and I referred it, I can only charge them according to the Act which was forced to the High Court. I have to take it, only the High Court has the right to determine the charges if it is made in the Bankruptcy Act, which is not right. The Magistrates' Court had all the power that could have acted up on it.
OSBORN, J: Yes.
MR HORVATH: So it's not finished, it has not been determined and it is still in the High Court. I have three applications in the High Court which they are sitting on it. I'm not arguing on any subject, on your knowledge, Your Honour, I am only asking myself, in our constitution if the constitution say that I'm right, how can I be wrong in front of the Court? Section 180 says, I will read it out to you. Section 180, the constitution and (indistinct) constitution, does not (indistinct) or anybody, the people of every state of the Commonwealth (indistinct) the constitution. (Indistinct). I have been here for ten years now and you are still doing this to me, to not allow me to file an application which they should and defend it. Where is our constitution? What authority is it the Court using against the constitution? And I believe I've got schedules in the constitution for every judge is a note in hand.
OSBORN, J: Yes. Well Mr Horvarth, I have heard what you've said and I've looked at the papers and I've formed a view about the matter and I propose to give a ruling. In this matter, Gabriel Horvarth Senior, seeks a direction pursuant to Rule 27, sub-rule 6 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, or alternatively in the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, that the Prothonotary be directed to issue an originating motion. The substance of that originating motion and of a document entitled application which was handed to the Court in conjunction with the originating motion and a series of affidavits is that Mr Horvarth desires to allege that the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and the Commonwealth of Australia are guilty of treason, contrary to a provision of the 1914 Crimes Act.
Mr Horvarth acknowledges that he is a vexatious litigant, but contends that because this is a criminal proceeding, he is not constrained from instituting it. In my view, the proceeding is wholly irregular and an abuse of process and its institution would be vexatious and oppressive to the proposed respondents.
Putting to one side the potentially fundamental conceptual problem with the Commonwealth of Australia committing treason against itself, the documentation presented to me provides no basis whatsoever on which it could be alleged that circumstances of treason have arisen in any shape or form and hence I reject the application.
Would you adjourn the Court please.
---
0
0
0