Staats, An application by

[1994] HCATrans 435

•

.

•

•

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Melbourne	Nos M301 and M304 of 1994
In the matter of -

Applications by STEVEN J. STAATS for leave to issue

process

MASON CJ

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON TUESDAY, 16 AUGUST 1994, AT 11.31 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

Staats(S) 1 16/8/94

MR S.J. STAATS appeared in person.

HIS HONOUR:  Mr Staats, you have two applications before the

Court?

MR STAATS: That is correct, Your Honour, but yesterday I

also presented to the Registry, for directions, if

necessary - and I must say I am very grateful to come before Your Honour and very grateful to the

Court to be able to be here - directions in
relation to further process that has been presented

to Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, but I can only deal with the cases that

are listed today, Mr Staats.

MR STAATS:  I see. The reason for saying that, Your Honour,

is that since the matters are all integrally

related, and to avoid multiplicity, I suppose, of

proceedings which cover the same issues - and I

seek Your Honour's indulgence in relation to these

matters, and my apologies for not having been able

to get the other process related to the issues to

you in earlier - my concern in these matters is, of course, that the relief and remedy and the capacity

and ability of the Court to grant same, therefore,

I would seek leave, if required, so that all of the

matters could be heard together so that if judgment

is required in terms of the existing applications,

that the other applications be heard in relation to

that.

I do not believe that the issues in terms of

the other matters are so substantively different;

that is the issues. I am not saying that the

causes of action are not, but since the questions

are about leave or seeking leave for a notice of

motion to be filed before the Full High Court, I	would seek Your Honour's indulgence in that the	further applications that were presented to the
Registrar and the Registry, that reference be made
to those such that - and my reasons for saying that
are that whereas the intelligence transactions and operations complained of have previously referred
to those intelligence transactions and operations
from a period of time of 1958 onwards and that
those transactions and operations have bound the
Australian Government from that time onwards, it seems that from the time of my birth, which is
2 September 1948, preceding that period of time,
that the intelligence transactions and operations as they bind, respectfully, Your Honour, the Australian Government, that that period of time
does not also bind inter alia this Court.

Staats(S) 16/8/94

It is for that reason that, as I said, relief

and remedy is my concern. That the later

application and applications and the proposed

substitution of respondents would seem to me,

respectfully, Your Honour, to be fundamental in

coming before you. However, without going into

very much great detail, I would be completely

amenable, of course, to Your Honour's directions in
terms of the matter in the way that they should

proceed.

In saying this too, of course, I again

emphasize I am only interested in relief and remedy

and it seems that the issues are of such importance

that that relief and remedy requires the attention

of the Full Court in terms of the ultra vires

directions, orders and, respectfully, judgments

pursuant to the transactions and operations at the

behest of, of course, the Chase Manhattan Bank

(North America and Australia) Limited, the

principals and originators of this entire scheme.

Knowing the difficulties the Court has faced

and being aware now that the transactions and

operations do not cover the period preceding, it

would seem to me that in terms of relief and

remedy, it would make sense that I respectfully

refer to the further process.

HIS HONOUR:	You can refer to it, Mr Staats.
MR STAATS:	Thank you, Your Honour, I deeply appreciate it.
HIS HONOUR:	But I propose only to deal with the

applications that are listed before me today. But

to the extent that it may be relevant, and I may

have to determine that, you can refer to these

other materials.

MR STAATS: Thank you, Your Honour. Again, my deep apologies

to you for not being able to present that process

to you earlier. Also, my apologies for my

appearance. I did explain to the Registry this

morning the reasons for that.

HIS HONOUR:	Yes.
MR STAATS:	The material that I have presented to

Your Honour - one consists of, of course, an appeal

that will proceed eventually to the Full High

Court. I suppose to encapsulate the purpose: it

is not a collateral purpose in any way, is the

application that Your Honour has suggested which is

the first one in terms of the matter of leave to

issue.

Staats(S) 16/8/94

Now that I have the privilege to come before

Your Honour, it is really up to Your Honour to

decide whether or not you will issue the requests

that were really made to the Registrar of the

High Court in terms of what would boil down to

expediting the appeal. That would be fairly

obvious, I think, in terms of the process itself;

in terms of the seriousness of the situation of

litigation proceeding; in terms of such

neutralization of law enforcement, intelligence,

investigating and all of the other claims that are

made in terms of the originating process which make

it so, so difficult in terms of further delay and

taking into account respectfully also, and without

wishing to prejudice, of course, in any way the

importance of the other appeals that would be

before the Full High Court - I do not mean to be

sounding as if somehow they are not important - but

the matters are also of such significance.

I am not particularly fussed that the process did not name the parties to the proceedings in

terms of the orders of the Court et cetera. I

mean, appeals are always going to have parties.

But at the time of filing that process, it was only for the purpose, and certainly not to cause

embarrassment or anything else, to the United

States of America. In terms of that, I would say

that if Your Honour acceded to what the application

boils down to, that leave also be granted to amend

the parties to include the principals. They would

be Mr David Rockefeller and the Chase Manhattan

Bank (North America and Australia) Limited, tying

the named defendants in those proceedings. It is

only out of fairness and, I think, courtesy to

them.

I also wish to record my deep appreciation to the executive of the United States of America, in

many ways, who have assisted me to even proceed in
relation to these matters.	I have no - I am not

there to grind any axes against any of the

defendants. The matters are obviously very, very

serious and what the application or the writ boils

down to is something that could, I think, be

determined by Your Honour in terms of what

Your Honour considers appropriate and necessary in the circumstances, since I have the privilege of

coming before Your Honour, without having to take

the application for the writ of mandamas further.

Of course, the Royal Netherlands Government

could be joined into that because it is still a

party to the proceedings but it is like the other

governments that are involved, it is really totally

dependent, I suppose - variable - rather than

independent. But orders, if they were granted -

Staats(S) 16/8/94

and the jurisdiction of the Court in terms of the

principals for which, in the original jurisdiction

of the Court, there would not be jurisdiction

except to the extent of accrued jurisdiction

deriving from the United States being made one of
the parties.

In saying all of this too, I should say that other governments that are involved, namely, The

Peoples Republic of China, they must be fairly

significant in terms of the transactions and

the reasons for fabrication and their compliance
with it in terms of agreements between the
principals tying the Government of the United operations as they affect the fabricated book and future derive from that.

I am not here to adjudicate upon any of those

sorts of issues but, obviously, very serious

matters are involved and I am only interested in

relief and remedy to the extent that the Court can

grant it.

Having approached that issue, if I may

respectfully then say that I have also asked in the

originating process there for relief and remedy to

the extent that it was possible in terms of that

application. In terms of that application, it was

equitable relief and remedy. As I have

respectfully put before Your Honour, the writ of

summons that was presented naming the Commonwealth

of Australia as the defendant in the original

jurisdiction of this Court, since the intelligence

transactions and operations tie the Australian

Government and tie very senior levels to the extent

that all directions and orders in that application

have been ultra vires, respectfully, in my opinion,

the appropriate course would be, in terms of the

consideration of that issue, to name the Government

of the Netherlands as the defendant for that writ

to the extent, as I understand it, the intelligence
transactions and operations do not and cannot tie
the Australian Government for the period of

liability from 1949 to 1958 and the orders sought

in relation to that, which would be of great

benefit to myself in terms of regaining my

citizenship of the Netherlands which would give me

all sorts of entitlements and assistance and where,

within the European union, the transactions and

operations do not and cannot apply.

For that reason, I would be joining within

that, in terms of seeking leave, Your Honour, to

join, the process for application for declarations

in the original jurisdiction of the High Court,

notice of motion returnable before the

Staats(S) 16/8/94

Full High Court of Australia. If Your Honour is

not prepared to issue that process, this

application ought to make reference, as Your Honour

has said, to it.

It would seem again to me fairly obvious the

reasons for that but as I am interested in relief

and remedy, the fact of the writ of summons being

also joined in relation to that means that as the

Netherlands Government has been a party to the

transactions and operations right from the

commencement, that the period of liability accrues

from the commencement of the transactions and

operations to which it is bound as principals by

the Chase Manhattan Bank, principally of North

America and the principals in relation to that.

Whilst this could only grant me, if it was

issued, equitable relief, the substitution of the
process regarding the writ of summons to name

solely the Royal Netherlands Government who, if I happen to be successful in my claims - and I hope

that I am - could take action against the other

governments concerned if it is thought appropriate.

I have, of course, Your Honour, raised these issues with the Royal Netherlands Government but,

in the context of Australia, it would take orders

from the Court for me to obtain the relief that I

am seeking.

If Your Honour pleases, and I thank

Your Honour for his indulgence and the Court, that

relates the applications in terms of that process
which is the application for declarations, the writ
of summons and the issue of referral to the

Full High Court by way of motion, the High Court

appeal in relation to No M301 and the substitution
of respondents.

If Your Honour pleases, I could then direct my

attention to the further process that is directed

towards the principals in terms of the ex parte

summons which relates to the Director-General of

the Australian Security Intelligence Organization

and the Director of Access and Client Services of

Australian Archives, being unable to perform their

duties, which is slightly different, I think, to

saying "not performing" but being unable to perform

their duties which would still constitute

constructive refusal as a result of the

transactions and operations which I am attempting

to seek the nullification of by naming the

principals which happen to be David Rockefeller

and, again, the Chase Manhattan Bank (North America

and Australia) Limited in terms of that refusal and

the directions by the Justice of the High Court.

Staats(S) 6 16/8/94

All of that is, of course, pursuant to the

intelligence transactions and operations, all

detailed, of course, within the documents.

The reason for that application is, of course,

this - and I like to come here with salient and

cogent reasons that are amenable to relief and

remedy: if the transactions are set aside and

there is still no further compliance with the

request, in that case I think that the whole case

would have been settled and the issues in relation

to this would all be over and in terms of my

favour. But that would be contingent, and the

further consideration of this matter would be

contingent upon the resolution of the originating

process against the United States and which I have

now suggested, respectfully, that it is really

David Rockefeller and the Chase Manhattan Bank

tying the US Government which would never do this

of its own accord, that that be adjourned until

those questions are respectfully resolved.

That, Your Honour, would conclude my

submissions.	I would like to thank Your Honour for
his indulgence.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. Well now, Mr Staats, you have two formal

applications before me today.	One is pursuant to
your summons dated 14 July.

MR STAATS: That is correct.

HIS HONOUR:  In which you seek the issue of a writ of

mandamus directed to the Senior Registrar and the

Deputy Registrar.

MR STAATS: That is correct.

HIS HONOUR:	It is to fix an urgent date for the hearing of the notice of motion.
MR STAATS: That is correct.
HIS HONOUR:	And the other application you have is an

application for leave to issue process.

MR STAATS: That is correct.

HIS HONOUR: That arises because Justice Deane has directed

that process not be issued in proceedings that you

are seeking to bring against the Director-General

of ASIO, is that right?

MR STAATS: That is correct, Your Honour, but if I may

respectfully respond to what Your Honour has said:

in coming before Your Honour, I am only guided by

the questions of relief and remedy, the most

Staats(S) 16/8/94

efficacious manner in achieving that, the manner in

which the Court can exercise its judgment - and

Your Honour can proceed in relation to the

reasonable and sensible claims that are made before

it - rather than some sort of rigidity in terms of

correctness or otherwise of claims. In other

words, I see all of this as a means to an end and

not as an end in itself.

It is clear that no one in the Court, none of

the Judges involved, would have been issuing any of
the directions, any of the orders; indeed, any of
the judgments unless they were pursuant to the

transactions. Now, there is no point, in my

respectful submission, to waste your time,

Your Honour, and that of the Full High Court if,

through no fault of its own, it is tied by these
transactions and operations. It is all very well
to condemn a situation where the executive, the

legislature and the judiciary are so tied. But, in

coming before you, I think I have to take into

account how and when the Court is able to act and

in doing so it is my consideration that the only

way that the Court can act is in relation to the

further process that has been presented naming the

Royal Netherlands Government as the defendant in

relation to the existing applications.

To that extent, in terms of the application

for a writ of mandamus, well, now that I have the

opportunity to come before Your Honour and if

Your Honour thinks that the Full High Court can act

in relation to that application, that is a decision

now really for Your Honour and there would be no

further point, respectfully, in my view, for any

orders to be directed towards any of the most

helpful, capable and I would say, very wonderful

people in the Registries for whom I have the

highest respect and regard, and I would like to
record again, publicly, my deepest appreciation.

That also extends, respectfully, Your Honour, to all of the Judges in the Court. It is not their

fault that the situation is the way that it is.

So, my submissions, respectfully, to you are

directed towards the practicalities of realizing

the seriousness of the situation but realizing also

that issues that are justiciable can go so far. It

is nice to have them in judgments and to say how

condemnatory it is but when the Court is also tied

to the extent that it is, well, the only thing that

is left is to recommend the means by which the

Court can act. As I see it, respectfully,

Your Honour, and I may very well be wrong, that is

the way that I see it in terms of the process that

has been presented to the Court.

Staats(S) 16/8/94

It is obvious that if single Justices, in my

opinion, are tied in that way - and it is not just

as a result of the seriousness of the issues - that

the Full High Court itself may not be able to

significantly depart from that. Of course, in

saying that - there are two judgments, of course,

on appeal in terms of No M300 and M301 - it may be

possible for the Full High Court to act in relation

to one of the judgments. But I do not think that
anyone is interested in obtaining favourable
judgments unless they are specifically related to
relief and remedy and, as I see it, Your Honour,

whereas I could possibly be successful in one of

the judgments because the issues in that would not

be tied by intelligence, whether that would lead to

the relief and remedy would be, respectfully,

again, another question.

So, in directing my consideration towards

those issues, it would seem to me that naming the

Netherlands Government as the defendant to the proceedings in terms of this application for

declarations, which is intimately related to the
originating process of 7 April and the writ of

summons, that the way around all of these obstacles

is to substitute the Commonwealth of Australia for

the writ of summons, for the Netherlands

Government; to have the Netherlands Government in

relation to the application for declarations- and,

as Your Honour considers appropriate, in reration

to the declarations. But I am not here to obtain

judgments from the Full High Court for the sake of

busying Your Honours without obtaining the relief and remedy and, as I see it, the transactions are

able to tie the executive, the legislature and,
unfortunately, the Full High Court because,

otherwise, they would not dare do this. But

because the time span for the transactions, as they

tie the Australian Government and tie us here, is

only from 1958 onwards, well, we may as well

proceed, I believe, from the period of time and

with a government that is not so tied here from the

commencement. If that leads to the relief and

remedy, that is all that I am interested in.

Thank you, Your Honour. I thought I should

say those things to you because - - -

HIS HONOUR:  I follow that, Mr Staats, but the problem is

that there are certain proceedings brought before

me and I can only deal with the proceedings that

are brought before me and listed for hearing today.

MR STAATS:  Could I then respectfully suggest to

Your Honour, if it is not possible to consider those questions then in terms of what has been

brought before Your Honour today - - -

Staats(S)	16/8/94
HIS HONOUR:	No.
MR STAATS:	- - - that we adjourn the matters until such

further time as Your Honour has given directions in

relation to them?

HIS HONOUR:  Mr Staats, you will have to take whatever

course you think is appropriate in the

circumstances. What I am saying to you is that I

have to deal with the matters that are listed for
hearing today, and I will deal with them, and I

will deal with them in the light of the arguments

that you have presented to me. But in so far as

you wish to, as it were, issue new proceedings,

then it is a matter for you to determine in what

form you are going to cast any future proceedings. But all I can say to you is that I think you ought

to give very careful thought to that.

MR STAATS: Again, Your Honour - - -

HIS HONOUR:  I mean, I am not going to put myself in the

position of endeavouring to advise you as to what

you ought to do or to make suggestions to you as to

the form in which you should institute proceedings.

You ought to take account of the fact that up to

date you have expended a good deal of energy and

time and it has been fruitless. However - - -

MR STAATS: Sorry, will I be seated while you speak?

HIS HONOUR:	No, no, you can stand.
MR STAATS:	Thank you.
HIS HONOUR:	But what I am saying to you is I am going to

deal with the applications that are listed for

hearing today.

MR STAATS: Well, could I respectfully ask Your Honour then

for an adjournment until there have also been

directions in relation to the further process that

has been presented?

HIS HONOUR:  No. I will deal with the applications that are

listed for hearing today. I do not think I should

adjourn them any further today, Mr Staats.

MR STAATS:  Okay. Thank you, Your Honour. Will I be

seated?

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, you can be seated now and I will deal with

it.

MR STAATS:  Thank you.

Staats(S) 10 16/8/94

HIS HONOUR:  This is an application in M301 of 1994. On 8

April 1994 Justice Dawson directed the Deputy

Registrar, pursuant to Order 58 rule 4(3) of the

High Court Rules, not to issue process purporting

to be a summons presented by the applicant, without

the leave of a Justice first had and obtained.

The defendants to that summons are the

Ambassador and the Consul-General to Australia for

the United States of America. The summons seeks

declarations that their "transactions and

operations" regarding the Australian Federal
Police, the Police of the State of Victoria, the
"Inspector-General of Security and Intelligence",

the Legal Aid Commission of Victoria and the

Central Intelligence Agency were all ultra vires.

The summons also seeks declarations that the
defendants' transactions and operations regarding

"collapsing the plaintiff economically, sexually

and personally" were ultra vires.

The applicant applied to Justice Dawson

pursuant to Order 58 rule 4(3) for leave to issue

that process and Justice Dawson refused the

application. On 30 June 1994, the applicant filed

a notice of appeal from Justice Dawson's decision

refusing leave to issue the process. Subsequently,

on 11 July 1994, the applicant attempted to file a

notice of motion returnable before the Full Court

seeking, among other things, that his ex parte

appeal from the decision of Justice Dawson be

brought on for hearing before the Full Court. The

applicant sought certain other orders and
declarations against the proposed defendants and
the Chase Manhattan Bank.

On 12 July, the Registry sent a letter to the applicant advising that the appeal in matters

Nos M301 and M302 of 1994 would not be listed until

1995 as the sitting dates for the Full Court in the

current year were already filled. The notice of

motion and the affidavit in support were returned

to the applicant.

On 14 July, the applicant issued a chamber

summons which is now returnable before me. By that

chamber summons the applicant seeks, in effect, an

expedited hearing of his appeal to the Full Court

from the decision of Justice Dawson. The

applicant, evidently, regards this application as

one for leave to issue the notice of motion but, in
form, the summons seeks the issue of a writ of
mandamus directed to the Senior Registrar of the

Court and the Deputy Registrar of the Court in the

Melbourne Registry.

Staats(S) 11 16/8/94

The orders sought in the summons seem to be

that the Senior Registrar direct the Deputy

Registrar to fix an urgent hearing date for the

me with respect to the hearing date.

notice of motion and, alternatively, that the with

In my view, it would not be appropriate to

make the orders sought. If it be necessary for the
applicant to obtain leave to issue the notice of

motion, I would not be prepared to grant that leave

nor would I be prepared to make the orders sought

in the summons.

Having regard to the state of the Court's list

as it stands - and the state of that list has
already been communicated by the Registry to the

applicant - the applicant's appeal cannot be heard

until next year. What is more, no basis has been

made out for displacing cases already listed for

hearing this year and, in the circumstances, it

would not be right to make orders of the kind

sought in the summons. The application for

mandamus, which I treat as an application for an

order nisi for mandamus, is refused.

The next matter is the application in No M304

of 1994. Pursuant to Order 58 rule 4(3),

Justice Deane directed the Registrar to refuse to

to issue without the leave first had and obtained

issue a notice of motion to the Full Court of this

of a Justice of this Court. The application now

before me, brought by chamber summons dated

9 August 1994, is again in the form of an

application for a writ of mandamus. The summons

seeks certain orders or, it would seem,

declarations. Those orders do not correspond with

the relief sought in the notice of motion which was

the subject of the order made by Justice Deane.

The first order sought in the summons now

before me is as follows:

That the transactions and operations by David

Rockefeller in his public and private

capacities and the Chase Manhattan Bank (N.A.

& Australia) Ltd., and the Central

Intelligence Agency of the United States of

America to defeat the course of Justice by

refusing issuance of well based and well

substantiated claims in his Applications and

otherwise to the High Court of Australia are

ultra vires.

The material before me does not indicate what are the relevant transactions and operations, nor does

Staats(S) 12 16/8/94

the material disclose in what respect or how those

transactions and operations are ultra vires.

Again, the material does not disclose the basis for

concluding that the respondents or any of them have

refused or failed to perform a public duty imposed

upon them by Australian law, and that is a

prerequisite to relief by way of mandamus.

Likewise, the material does not establish that this

Court has jurisdiction under section 75 of the

Constitution or otherwise to grant relief by way of

mandamus directed to the respondents. None of the

respondents are officers of the Commonwealth.

The second claim for relief in the chamber

summons is in these terms:

Accordingly that the alleged directions by

Deane J of 4 August 1994 and otherwise to

refuse to issue Application for Writ of

Mandamus or to set a hearing date for the

Notice of Motion returnable before the Full

High Court therefore allegedly pursuant to

Order 58 Rule 4(3) are inter alia ultra vires

and directed in furtherance of a conspiracy to

defeat the course of Justice to deny the

Plaintiff any relief and remedy.

There is no basis whatsoever disclosed in the materials for the assertion that the direction

given by Justice Deane was ultra vires and there is

nothing at all to suggest that the direction was

given in further of a conspiracy.

The application, which I shall treat as an

application for an order nisi for mandamus, is
refused. There is no basis in law, on the

materials before me, for the orders sought.

AT 12.12 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

Staats(5) 13 16/8/94