Staats v United States of America

[1992] HCATrans 239

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Registry

B e t w e e n -

STEVEN J. STAATS

Plaintiff

and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

First Defendant

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Second Defendant

Application for leave to issue

DEANE J

(In Chambers)

Staats(3) 1 26/8/92

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 26 AUGUST 1992, AT 9.32 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HIS HONOUR:  You are Mr Staats, are you?

MR S.J. STAATS: That is correct, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Staats, I have read the papers. Is there

anything in the material that you particularly want

to bring to my attention?

MR STAATS:  Yes, certainly. I am genuinely committed to the

proper issuance of the writ of summons upon both
defendants at the appropriate time in the
appropriate way. The matters are fairly complex;

they have gone for a very lengthy period of time.

There are certain preliminaries I suppose also to

the proper trial of the notice of motion in terms

of the questions of law that are involved. The

issuance of the writ is contingent upon proper evidence being brought to the attention of the

Court to justify such a course of action of

transmission of the notice of the writ of summons

to a foreign government and what that entails.

HIS HONOUR: Well, at this stage, what you need to persuade

me of is that your action in this Court would have

some prospect of success, which is what you should

direct your comments to.

MR STAATS:  Thank you, Your Honour. I have given a lot of

consideration to that question. The prospects of

success are determined by two things: the evidence

in relation to these matters and whether that

evidence is relevant to the appropriate case law to

justify a good cause of action.

HIS HONOUR:  Against the United States of America and the

Commonwealth, for criminal conspiracy?

MR STAATS:  I have not said that it is a criminal

conspiracy.

HIS HONOUR:  Of the conspiracy?

MR STAATS: That is right, I have said that it is a

conspiracy, respectfully, Your Honour, within the

area of the law of tort. I am not precluding that,

and the matters of the latest affidavit,

Your Honour, have been referred to the Australian

Federal Police, but - - -

HIS HONOUR: That is the affidavit that was filed yesterday?

MR STAATS: That is correct, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, I have read that.

Staats(3) 2 26/8/92

MR STAATS:  That affidavit has also been referred to

Mr Barry Parker, Detective Sergeant Munrolly,

Detective Sergeant Cochran and Constable Innis for

their investigation as appropriate, but I do know

as in the case of the Inspector-General of Security

and Intelligence that they have been tied by

intelligence in relation to these things.	I am
just sort of saying that in passing.	I do

apologize to Your Honour for some of the format in

which the documents appear.

HIS HONOUR:  You need not worry about the format except in

so far as it goes to whether the documents show a

good cause of action or not.

MR STAATS: All right. I think the first thing I should

address myself to then is the authority that I do

have the notes on and the authority in argument

that I am precisely citing, so that the evidence

adduced is respectfully to what Your Honour has

requested me in terms of justifying a good cause of

action, in terms of an action in tort for

conspiracy to injure.

Now, the original writ was refused on the

grounds put to me that it was an abuse of process.

There were no particulars provided and abuse of

process, in my mind, is not necessarily coterminous

with cause of action but I will address myself to

what Your Honour has requested me to begin with.

The first case that I will be citing is Munro

v Shell Petroleum, No 2 House of Lords, England. It is the only case, Your Honour, that I will be citing actually; Weekly Law Reports 3 July 1982.

HIS HONOUR:  I have not the case here, have you got it with

you?

MR STAATS:  I have the notes in the case that I have taken.

HIS HONOUR:  Why do you not read me the proposition you want

to get from that case?

MR STAATS:  Your Honour, I will do so and my apologies if my

describing the case may not be exactly - I did

look, Your Honour, for the case yesterday and I

could not find it in the law library. His Honour

Lord Diplock has said:  ·

The gist of the cause of action -

this is in terms of the cause of action in terms of

conspiracy to injure in tort -

is damage to the plaintiff. So long as it

remains unexecuted the agreement which done

Staats(3) 26/8/92

constitutes the crime of conspiracy causes no

damage. It is only acts done in execution of

the agreement that are capable of doing that.

So the tort, unlike the crime, consists not of

agreement but of concerted action taken

pursuant to the agreement.

On page 42:

The civil tort of conspiracy to injure the

plaintiff's commercial interests, where that

is the predominant purpose of the agreement

between the defendants and if the acts done in

execution of it which cause damage to the

plaintiff must, I think, be accepted by this

house as too well established to be discarded,

however anomalous it may seem today. It was

applied by this house 80 years ago in Queen v

Latham, (1901) AC 495, and accepted as good

law in the Crofter case, (1942) AC 435, where

it was made clear that injury to the plaintiff

and not the self-interest of the defendants

must be the predominant purpose of the

agreement in execution of which the damage

causing acts were done.

So even if the first two elements of the tort are established, that is the agreement and operations in relation to an agreement, unless the actual acts

can be clearly demonstrated to have caused me loss

and damage, which is clearly the case, Your Honour,

there would be no good cause of action.

So this case is very important, in my view. There are other cases, also, from the Australian

scene which I have the utmost respect for, but I do

not have them in front of me right at the moment.

Sut it is really damage and loss that can be

determined from the execution of the agreement and

evidence of damage and loss which would give

grounds for a good cause of action in relation to

the matter. So that would be the principal
authority that I would rely upon in determining

what the criteria for a good cause of action in

terms of that case would then be.

To then justify the Court proceeding further, in my affidavits, in the proposed writ of summons,

and again I apologize to Your Honour for the format

in which some of this appears, I have pleaded very

specifically loss and damage that emerged out of

the specific acts by the defendants principally at
the behest of the first defendant occurring to my

employment from Mitchell College onwards where I was a lecturer in community development; at the

Institute of Administration in Boroko, Papua

New Guinea, where I was driven into resignation at

Staats(3) 26/8/92

the behest of the first and second defendants after

six months thereat, and I was offered an

appointment there at least for three years; as

adult education officer at the Balgo Mission; and

all of the damage and loss occasioned to me in

terms of my subsequent attempts to pursue a public

service career.

I refer in that case to the affidavits in

annexure H by one Lawrence Baxter, and then myself

in terms of the gross repudiations constituting

such a conspiracy to dismiss me from the Australian

Public Service and forcing me into resignation therefrom.

The previous documents I do not really have in

relation to the employment, but these are all

operationalization of, in fact, the underlying

transactions and the underlying acts. The acts

are specifically related to the inquiry report and the notice of direction in relation to that, which

was annexure C of his notice of direction of

23 June 1989.

So that is the first head of claim in relation

to the actual loss and damage resultant from the

acts to which the transactions happened to be

specifically based. I should say that even though

they were specific acts directed at my career which

in those days was fairly promising because I had

numerous publications; I had written up courses;

was well regarded; had good references; quite a

number of friends in the area; had wide circles to

recommend me, that whilst I was pursuing also the

academic career in those areas, all of those acts

also denied me proper career advancement where I

had contacts who were ministers in the government,

and also to deprive me from further publication

relevant to those areas.

There is a whole series of acts that go

through the public service employment which I have

data on, fortunately, which was really the reason

for pursuing the proceedings even if I could not

stop them in terms of the remedy that was then

proposed before Mr Justice Neaves, which was the

declaration, all sorts of acts to terrorize and

frighten me, even to put loaded SLR guns at me when

I was in the pay office at the Royal Military

College of Duntroon.

I also refer to annexure G which prior to

that, when they could not get that, they tried to -

after a one and a half day absence where I was

really assaulted for a certain matter and given the

stress, they tried to arrange all medical

appointments on that basis and to put me into the

Staats(3) 5 26/8/92

hands of a psychiatrist. This all terminated

before His Honour Mr Justice Neaves on 10 and

12 November 1987 where not even a prima facie case

was made out by the department for the exercise of

residual employment to subsequently dismiss me from the public service when they could not get their objectives satisfied in relation to that.

the regulation enabling these decisions to be made.

All of those specific actions are as a result

of the specific operationalization of the

transactions of conspiracy for which there is

evidence that had been derived from previous

proceedings specifically in the High Court. So I

apologize to Your Honour if I cannot factually

demonstrate the previous propositions, as I do not

have those documents, but I have approached the

sources for the documents without response yet.

The second head of claim - once someone's

employment is totally destroyed, it terrorizes and

frightens other people because they worry that

things like that may happen to themselves. Whilst

I was a fairly well-off person in those days,

because of the protracted nature of these matters,

the destruction of the employment drove me into the

welfare and further and further poverty from which I could not escape. There were just no other real

alternatives.

The second head of claim in relation to this

for the damage and loss caused by the specific acts

relate to the affidavit - the second head is:

loss and damage caused by the Defendants to

the Plaintiff's heterosexuality and all

personal damages.

Perhaps I should say from personal damages,

after these things happened in Papua New Guinea, I

felt a tremendous loss of memory and this loss of

memory was compounded particularly at the Balgo

Mission where the mission head, one, C. Mathias was

gaoled for four years and was known as a Hilton job

and I had felt terrible amnesia. That was

continued when I was driven into poverty and

unemployment in Adelaide from 1981 to 1984 at the

behest of the two defendants and I systematically

had stooges placed upon me including the gentleman,

Priskala, who was directed by, one, s. Ronalds for

an on behalf of the defendants, although Priskala

also has a record in the United States in addition
to having been released from Yatala Prison~

They did not give the features of being criminals until I subsequently discovered and I

Staats(3) 6 26/8/92

began to get further and further amnesia and more

and more loss of memory. I even recall now that in

1983 my former boss, the Prime Minister, the

Honorable R.J.L. Hawke - and I say that because I

think that his previous article,

"Shiny Brass Coffin Handles" - and I deeply regret,

Your Honour, what has happened to Mr Hawke in these

proceedings in terms of giving me some sort of an

indication of what the United States had proposed

in that article, and particularly also to his

former senior adviser, Ms Jean Sinclair who, in her

desperation drew it to my attention, consulted the

Netherlands Ambassador and prematurely deceased as

a result of it.

I.say those things with great regret to my

former bosses, so to speak, because they did do

everything to try and alert me. The only thing was

no one had ever told me about this article and I

did not know until 13 September 1990. I remember

seeing Mr Hawke in Adelaide during this period of

time with a whole stack of security personnel

deliberately to try and give me some sort of

indication, but I could not even remember at that

stage he had been my former boss.

These stooges would follow me wherever I went.

If I found one place and tried to obtain casual work, which I did, of any nature or went from

suburbs of Adelaide to Port Noarlunga where I had

some other acquaintances or went to see Dr Catley

over in politics school at the university, these

stooges would follow me and if I would go to a

cafeteria or something like that, sometimes I would

have a drink and have complete loss of memory again

after it.

On one occasion this gentleman, Priskala,

directed by Ronalda, when I say "to destroy my
heterosexuality", he lifted his fists like this in

this sort of manner.	He was a big, muscular sort
of a person and had threatened me with blows to my

head and I was there in total shock, but to give me

the indication that if I, in terms of pursuing a

proper married life or with girls - this is when I

had a lady friend in Adelaide - that the lady

friend was not to be on and I felt totally

intimidated and I ran away and I did not quite know

any more really what to do.

This, of course, also prompted my sudden

departure from there. I had applied widely for

employment, I had applied for employment as a tutor
in the Politics School, I had done work for a

company called Homeshields, I had done any

voluntary work that was required. I even went to

the length of the desperation to clean bricks, any

Staats(3) 26/8/92

sort of work that was going. I could not break out

of the poverty. Any reasonable employment they

gave me amnesia, so even before an interview I

would feel giddy and ill and would not really know

further what really to do. But the action by

Priskala, when I had a lady friend in Adelaide and

terrorized me, that has still had very bad

consequences because whenever I relate to women,
that terrible experience still comes into my mind

and the subsequent injection, which is only a

pretext, is really the finalization of that

objective rather than just the sudden

accomplishment of it.

I must say that a lot of people knew that

something seemed to be happening, but they did not

know, I did not know. I was also sent a copy of

that strange book "The Prime Minister Was A Spy"

during this period of time but I could not remember

anything more about it and it was just put out of

my mind. When you are reduced to such a low common

denominator level, in that case all your relevant

circles tend to disappear and I do not like to ask
others for money or for anything else, particularly

when I was a very healthy sort of person at that

age. They also go their own way and you fall

further and further into these sorts of circles.

So the loss and damage of the specific acts, they

would be acts caused by the defendants to my

heterosexual and damages that emerged and the

reasons for why I had no recollection of these matters. I could not even positively remember

hardly anything at that point.

I never really knew what was really involved

in these matters, and like I said, the only time

when I had further contact with the Prime Minister

and Mrs Sinclair was after my dismissal from the

public service, when those documents in the

annexures that I referred to were sent to the

Prime Minister and Mrs Sinclair contacted me about

it. She had some chats to me and she said she

would further discuss these matters and that is the
only time. If I had not pursued those proceedings

then - At the time of those proceedings,

Your Honour, I did not know the causes, but the

first defendant certainly knew the causes because I

have been subsequently told that at the time when speak, at the US Embassy that because of the

protracted nature of these proceedings to obtain my

dismissal from the public service or resignation

there from, the Americans knew what was behind it.

I had someone tell me from the Uniting Church

that they had spoken to Mr Kelly, a counsellor, and

that this once emerged and that he had mentioned

Staats(3) 26/8/92

Portugal and all sorts of things, just to give the

hint a little bit.

I am told that in the end, because they were

so implicated in all of these matters, that it led
to the change to Mr Sembler being appointed on

17 October 1989 and that they have someone

appropriate in relation to the continuation of the

objectives that have been outlined in the shiny-

brass coffin handle story, which is annexure J and

which I put into evidence.	I have put all those
other annexures into evidence also.	I put all of

the annexures, Your Honours, that have been

attached to the application into evidence.

I also include in that, Your Honour, the applications that were made before this

Honourable Court and before the Judges concerned, where, for the first time really, I had become

aware of what was involved last year in those

proceedings for injunctions against the

Honourable R.J.L. Hawke and Mr J.M. Moten.	I am
indeed sorry that their resignations and

dispensations were a result thereof, because I do

think that they acted sufficiently honourably to

still alert me. Those proceedings were not further

appropriate to the extent that all of this was

being done at the behest of the first defendant to

which, as a result of certain agreements in

relation to intelligence, the second defendant has

had to go along with. But even in relation to that

joint liability still arises whether or not the

second defendant is necessarily doing this at the

behest and whether or not the agents for the
commission of these matters are not agents or
servants or employees directly of the first

defendant.

The third area is loss and damage caused by

the defendants. Well, there is all loss and damage

caused by the defendants in terms of these acts to

my character, standing and reputation. You know,

for people to have heard that I have been dismissed

from the public service 14 times over; for them to

know about all of those proceedings; usually that

happens to someone who has got criminal

convictions.	I am a person with an Honours degree
and a Master of Arts; numerous publications.	I

have no convictions; I am a person of great honesty

and integrity. That is the first.

All the previous decisions in relation to my

employment also had greatly affected my character,

standing and reputation, because when I tried to

apply for other academic positions, in that case

they took into account that I had only been there

for six months and I was forced into resignation;

Staats(3)	26/8/92 perhaps some sort of scandal had emerged, which was
not so, beyond being pressured into the resignation
and it is difficult then to recover in your career,
because my career is the circumstance, Your Honour,
where these things are mutually reinforcing and
once you break the chain, so to speak, in that case
the whole thing can just fall apart. And being
denied proper education and proper professional development of an independent nature to earn my
income, in that case you know, I am totally
dependent upon my character, standing and
reputation for employment in those areas. And some
people, you know like, even though they think that
something very strange has been going on, they
think or wonder what could be the cause, but we are not going to burn our hands, and understandably so,
in relation to it.

I must say that a lot of people have been very

kind from previous academic days.	I have had
letters from former school mates of mine:	Bob

Barker, who is an Ambassador to Jordan; people in

Foreign Affairs.

HIS HONOUR:  Mr Staats, we are getting a bit away from the

question whether there is evidence that establishes

a conspiracy between the United States of America

and the Commonwealth of Australia.

MR STAATS:  Okay. Well, in that case I have directed myself

to the specific acts.	We now may turn then to the
nature of the transactions and their origins.	I
think that is a very important - and I thank

Your Honour for your direction in relation to that

but it is the loss and damage that emerges from

those transactions and that conspiracy. Where does

all this then really emerge from? What is really

behind it? Why would they want to do this?

I can partially answer those questions at this

point of time, in terms of the substantive
evidence.	I think the evidence would justify the

sorts of conclusions that have been made but

whether they can all be properly substantiated at

this point is another matter.

So if I may turn, Your Honour, then to - and I

apologize to Your Honour for digressing a little

bit - the questions of the transactions and the

reasons for the transactions in terms of why they

constitute conspiracy. In my annexures to the

affidavit to support evidence, I have a whole

series of annexures from annexure A onwards.

My understanding of these matters is that

emerge from certain matters that happened between

the Netherlands Government and the United States

Staats(3) 10 26/8/92

Government during World War II. That is the

origin. The Netherlands Government got the support
of the United States for certain things that

related to prisoner of war release. My mother and

my parents consented as a request put by the United

States that if they were going to get that they

would have to agree to an artificial insemination

programme.

The documents in relation to this have been

requested from the Netherlands archives and also

the United States archives which are still pending

but which certainly the defendants would have in

their possession.	My parents did so agree in
relation to that.	My brother and sister, before

me, were born '44 and '46, are in fact my

precursors. My birth was arranged and the donor of

the artificial insemination was, in fact, as I have

been explaining, Mr Harold Holt, and even though it

is a long distance away this is how it was

arranged.

This is where these matters emerged from. The

immigration was arranged at the age of 4 when he

was Minister for Immigration in the Menzies

Government. This is the photo of the immigration

and that is the photo directly of the family.

Nothing principally happened until the

naturalization was achieved. I have asked for

corroboration of those allegations from the

Netherlands Archives Intelligence, the United

States Intelligence Archives. I have been very

promptly replied to by Elizabeth Lockwood of the

United States Archives who were doing the searches

and who also referred certain matters of a freedom

of information capacity to the Central Intelligence

Agency who have only deposited the archives from 30

years ago, so to speak - a Mr John Wright. So they

too have been very prompt and efficient to get

these things going.

The photographs of 1959 specifically taken,

which otherwise have no real significance to me and

never had any significance to me, were only

explained to me, the significance, in terms of the

serial numbers that were at the end of them to sort

of explain what this has been about. This is one

year after the naturalization. The last two

numbers of the serials, 44 and 43, appear in the

fabricated book, The Prime Minister was a Spy, at

page 82. They have just sort of given the hint

there that 44 and 43 have some sort of significance

in relation to birth.

The final document that I have in relation to

these matters emerging is this photograph from the

magazine, The Record of the Glenroy High School.

Staats(3) 11 26/8/92

This magazine at the time was specifically given to me by the headmaster, a Mr F.M. Alexander, but I

was too young to really know very much about what

the significance of it all was. In terms of what I

had been explaining to Your Honour, the last

statement in that - and I put all those documents

in as evidence - annexure C:

Eddie Bugg and his band minus the trumpet provided excellent music. They played a wide

variety of music.

Ann and Eddie were also the two that accompanied

subsequently our immigration - we came by aeroplane

to Australia - and to monitor it all very, very

completely, as has been put into the affidavits

setting out all of these matters, and I put all of

this in evidence also, Your Honour, to monitor the

situation.

As I said on that page, there is a somewhat

strange social text on the same page regarding

antibug in the band minus the trumpet, I do not

know whether that is part of the agreement in

relation to it.

I always found it very strange that we could

be in Australia without proper relations, and only

my maternal relations were provided. Children at

the school and my friends at the school came to
visit us at home and found the situation quite

frightening in terms of where we were located, some

of the people around, and what could sort of happen

to me. And also, seeing that he was a leading

liberal and obviously in a fairly disadvantaged

western suburbs-type school he would be appearing

on our side in terms of the parliament of youth.

However, the seat was previously that of Faulkner,

so there may have been some significance in that.

Why the headmaster should give it to me

specifically at the time I do not know. My parents had praised Mr Holt previously in

about 1958 because it was intimated to me then that

a parliamentary career could be proposed. But I

did not really know too much about it, and never

really bothered to think about it. I was a person,

Your Honour, that was very deeply engaged in most

of the sports at the school, cricket, football, the

athletics, and did not deeply worry about these

things too much. And even from some of my school

friends, well, some of them told me that there was

something terribly abhorrent and strange.

Subsequent to this, I have been told by the

deputy headmaster of the school after I made

inquiries that with the exception of this magazine,

Staats(3) 12 26/8/92

all other magazines at the school have been

destroyed, and this is the only one that they have

left, so that in case I ever inquired from the

school that I would get to know precisely what it

is about. This is where these transactions emerged

from.

The next matter is I have alleged that during

this time that the purpose of the immigration at

that time was so that whilst Mr Holt knew of my

existence and knew who I was, this is put in a book

that he also edited called, "Australia and the

Migrant", where he intimates these matters, of this

photograph, and subsequently I never really knew

very much about him beyond speaking with Dame Zara,

his wife, on the telephone in the early 1960s, and

once meeting her also at the Queen's College.

I have alleged that I was exploited by certain

people from the first defendant principally,

knowing that I would fear death unless he went

along with a number of matters.

These are very serious allegations. I am told

that the evidence in relation to those allegations

relate to what he was intimated when he was Prime

Minister and Federal Treasurer. When he was Prime
Minister, a prototype like myself in the United

States context to give him the hint would be

raised. In relation to when he was chairman of the

International Monetary Fund, which is where a lot

of these things derived from, he could assuage that

sort of situation really himself.

The nature of the exploitation is when I was

required to go on wild pig shooting expeditions to

the Nap Nap Station in Balranald in New South Wales

and had 303 and other rifles in my immediate

vicinity, and even gunshots coming in the car. I

was terrified and frightened but was required to go

with these sorts of thugs. I would not really know

what else to comment. My other school friend,

Stephen Gerry, had also run away and he had

returned to Britain because he claimed that there

were terrible things that were transpiring.

HIS HONOUR:  Mr Staats, I do not really think you need to go

into - - -

MR STAATS: Further details, no, I do not really wish to,

either.

HIS HONOUR:  - - - detail, since it is upsetting you, but

what I keep trying to direct your attention to is

the need for material which supports a conspiracy

between the United States of America and the

Commonwealth, as distinct from the damage you say

Staats(3) 13 26/8/92

you have suffered, except so far as that goes to

show there was a conspiracy.

MR STAATS:  Okay, Your Honour, thank you very much indeed

for that. I appreciate your guidance and direction

because I do not like to get too much into those

matters further either. If we look at the last

affidavit, and I again put those matters into the

evidence also, the conspiracy - - -

HIS HONOUR:	Mr Staats, unfortunately we have to adjourn, since I am sitting on a Full Court at 10.15. What
I would suggest, if this is convenient to you, is
that we resume at 1.30 and that you take the time between now and then and at 1.30, if you could in
five to ten minutes point to any material on which
you particularly rely to support - not to show how
great your damage was or anything else, but simply
to support your case that there was a conspiracy
between the United States of America and the
Commonwealth of Australia.

Can I say this to you:  I appreciate that you

believe that there was but in so far as a court is

concerned you cannot give evidence of what you

believe. You must have evidence of facts. In

other words, you cannot in a court go along and

say, "I believe that X killed Y".	You have to
prove that X killed Y.	All I am saying this is for

I want to make sure that you do have the

opportunity of pointing out to me any thing that

you say is evidence that there was such a

conspiracy.

The next thing is that we will have to limit

things at half past one to about 10 minutes so that I can then tell you what my decision is because the

Full Court will be again sitting at a quarter past

two.

MR STAATS:  Thank you, Your Honour. I very much appreciate

your directions and guidance.

HIS HONOUR:  We will now adjourn until half past one.

AT 10.12 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED

UNTIL LATER THE SAME DAY

Staats(3) 14 26/8/92

UPON RESUMING AT 1.31 PM:

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, Mr Staats?
MR STAATS:	Thank you, Your Honour, and thank you to the

Court. My apologies for belaboring you. I have

given careful consideration and I hope that this

consideration meets your requirements.

The defendants are, in fact, of course, two governments and the acts for and behalf of the

defendants that were discussed in the proceedings

earlier and detailed in the writ and in the

accompanying affidavits and otherwise have really

been acts for and on behalf of the defendants,

whereas the request put to me by you, Your Honour,

is for the acts done by the defendants.

I have interpreted that to mean that when we

are dealing with these acts, we are talking about

acts in their various stages. The intelligence

stages of the acts which I have discussed the acts

for and behalf of the defendants being the
resultant consequences, the acts done by the

defendants in that interpretation, are really

unknown to me because I do not know who and when

intelligence conspired to produce the resultant

consequences. That is because at that stage in

those acts, being intelligence operations, to

achieve those consequences are virtually very much

in secret and it is even to the extent that the

employees in ASIO are covered by the ASIO Act to

the extent of being exempt fromnamed beyond the

Director-General. There is no way I can really get

freedom of information upon them beyond certain

archival requests.

They are, however, essential to this action in

and determine, in my view, the causal relationships	that they determine the liability of the defendants
such that the resultant acts can only be clearly demonstrated to be executed pursuant to the
transactions and as a direct consequence thereof if
we are able and what is necessary to demonstrate
that causal relationship.

In saying that, Your Honour, I now would like

to address myself then to the reasons for issuing

this subpoena duces tecum if I may.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

MR STAATS:  Thank you, Your Honour. In this subpoena duces

tecum I have respectfully requested that on the part

of the second defendant - perhaps if I may explain

Staats(3) 15 26/8/92

my reason, Your Honour, for doing that, is that I

did not know with the subpoena duces tecum whether

it could also be issued directly on the first

defendant and whether there would be any further

problem in terms of direction by the Court to the
Attorney-General and then having to go through

Foreign Affairs to issue it. So to avoid complication, it may also be that the second

defendant documents may be sufficient and further

consideration could be given to the first

defendant's documents if that does not happen to be

so.

I have requested in this subpoena duces tecum,

directed it towards Mr David Sadleir, Director-

General, Australian Security Intelligence

Organization, ASIO Headquarters, Russell Drive,

Canberra, ACT, 2600 for the second defendant. I

should say that Mr Sadleir, of course, is a former

very distinguished Australian Ambassador to the

European Economic Community. The documents

requested really relate to all documents regarding

Central Intelligence Agency and Australian Security

Intelligence Organization concerning the

plaintiff's transactions and operations therewith,

and more particularly; all documents relating to

the acts causing the plaintiff serious loss and

damage by the defendants' servants, agents or

employees or otherwise. Now, this relates

specifically to Your Honour's request to me in

terms of the acts done by the defendants - in this

case interpreted as the acts done by the
defendants' intelligence services - to put these

resultant acts into some sort of circular motion,

so to speak.

Arising from a cause by the defendants' conspiracy to injure the plaintiff from 1958,

principally, to present, the evidence that would be

required in relation to that, in my view,

respectfully, Your Honour, would require the

issuance of such a subpoena and the fulfilment of

the request of this subpoena by Mr Sadleir, the

Director-General of ASIO. To that extent to which

Your Honour has requested me to address myself to

that I would have to say that the evidence required

would be very much within those documents and to

satisfy the Court going to the next stage then of

issuing the writ of summons upon the first

defendant, that we could satisfy that requirement

by relying upon the documents of the second

defendant.

I can go into the reasons for the conspiracy

but that is not as I understand it,
respectfully,Your Honour, quite necessary for my

action beyond the resultant acts which their

Staats(3) 16 26/8/92

intelligence services committed and which can be

clearly demonstrated to be executed to the

resultant consequential acts for and on behalf of

the defendants, causing me the damage and loss,

which I happened to partially explain to

Your Honour in the Court this morning.

So in fulfilment, Your Honour, of your request

I could only recommend most strongly and

respectfully that the subpoena duces tecum please

be issued by the Court, and that we could then

proceed further in terms of the further documents

that would then be disclosed in terms of the

fulfilment of that subpoena.

In saying that, of course, I am not in any way

qualifying that the acts done for and on behalf of

the defendants in terms of the damage and loss

which has been outlined and which has been alleged

in the writ of summons and in the accompanying

affidavits, and further affidavits and

submissions - I am not qualifying in any way that

they are not the result, but I do not have the

evidence in my possession to demonstrate the causal
connection, say, in a 100 per cent sort of
capacity, even though on the balance of

probabilities my suppositions and my allegations

they would be the direct consequence of the actual
transactions. But for the firm evidence to

completely prove that, so to speak, in an

unequivocal way at a much higher level than just on

the balance of probabilities, yes, the subpoena

duces tecum, I think, would be most justified.

I hope, Your Honour, that directs myself to

what you have requested of me.

HIS HONOUR:  Thank you, Mr Staats.

The rule of law which permeates our system of

government requires that all persons have access to

the courts of the land. That principle is at its

most important in a case where proceedings against

government and those exercising governmental power

are involved. Indeed, in a case such as the
present, where proceedings against the Commonwealth
or an officer of the Commonwealth in the original

jurisdiction of this Court are involved, the right

of access is constitutionally entrenched.

Nonetheless, considerations of justice, the

interests of plaintiffs themselves and the public

interest combine to require that there be

procedures for ensuring that a court can prevent

the institution or maintenance of frivolous or

vexatious proceedings. The interests of justice

demand that a defendant (and those who are alleged

Staats(3) 17 26/8/92

to have acted unlawfully on behalf of a defendant)

be protected from the cost, time and personal

stress involved in defending such proceedings. The

experience of those involved in the administration

of justice in this country is that a plaintiff who

persists in bringing hopeless proceedings is

commonly convinced of the righteousness of his or

her cause and will suffer increased stress, damage

to health and, commonly, financial ruin if

proceedings which are clearly foredoomed to fail

are not halted at the outset. The public interest

demands that court time and facilities,

particularly the very limited time and facilities

of this Court, are not devoted to pointless and

misconceived litigation to the detriment of genuine

disputes. Thus it is that O. 58 r. 4 of the Rules
of this Court, while recognizing the right of every

person to access to the Court, provides for a

procedure whereby a Justice of the Court can

prevent the issue of a writ, process or commission

which appears to a Registrar to be on its face an

abuse of process or frivolous or vexatious. That

rule provides:

"(l) Where a person desires to sue out a

writ, process or commission authorized by law

or by these or any other rules of Court, he may

prepare it (in the prescribed form, if any) and

present it to a Registrar for issue.

(2) If it appears that the writ, process

or commission is in proper form and that the

person presenting it for issue is entitled to

sue it out, the Registrar or his clerk shall

sign and seal it with the Office Seal.

(3) If the writ, process or commission

appears to a Registrar on its face to be an
abuse of the process of the Court or a

frivolous or vexatious proceeding, the

Registrar shall seek the direction of a

Justice who may direct him to issue it or to

refuse to issue it without the leave of a

Justice first had and obtained by the party

seeking to issue it."

One effect of that rule is to empower a Justice of the Court effectively to prevent the institution of proceedings which are vexatious in the sense that

it can be seen that they cannot succeed. It is a power which must be exercised with great care and

in only a clear case.

The applicant, Mr Steven Staats, sought last

year to lodge a notice of motion against the Prime

Minister of Australia and the Director-General of

Staats(3) 18 26/8/92

the Australian Security Intelligence Organization,

seeking an order restraining those persons:

"from any further intelligence neutralization

operations against the plaintiff in any way

whatsoever, such operations being ultra vires

directed towards causing the plaintiff serious

loss and damage".

On 4 November 1991, Toohey J. gave a direction to

the Registrar, pursuant too. 58 r 4(3), not to

issue the process without the leave of a Justice of

the Court first had and obtained. On

7 November 1991, his Honour heard a motion by

Mr Staats for such leave. He dismissed the motion.

His Honour's reasons for that refusal appear from

the following extract from his judgment:

"From the documents before me, it is

apparent that Mr Staats has been engaged in

the Federal Court of Australia in proceedings

against the Commonwealth. On 3 October this

year, Mr Justice Neaves ordered that

Mr Staats' application be dismissed as

disclosing no reasonable cause of action. On

21 October, Mr Staats presented the District

Registry of the Federal Court at Canberra a

notice of appeal from the judgment of

Mr Justice Neaves. That notice of appeal

named as respondents the Commonwealth of

Australia and also the Prime Minister, who had

not been a party to the original proceedings.

On that day Mr Justice Neaves directed that

the notice of appeal be not accepted.

Mr Staats' affidavit in support of the

present motion, an affidavit dated 5 November 1991, although it is not apparent whether the affidavit was in fact witnessed, speaks of

appeals to the Full Court of the Federal Court

being heard on 30 March 1992. What the scope

of those appeals is does not emerge. Now, I· am not concerned with the

proceedings in the Federal Court, except

perhaps to the extent that they throw light

upon the process Mr Staats wishes to issue in

this Court. Without going into detail, the

proceedings in the Federal Court concern

Mr Staats's position in the Department of

Defence and, in particular, disciplinary

charges that were laid against him.

It is by no means clear, from a perusal

of the papers before me, just how far the

proceedings in the Federal Court impinge on

the action Mr Staats wishes to bring against

Staats(3) 19 26/8/92

the Prime Minister and the Director of ASIO.

But, to the extent that the proposed action raises issues with which the Federal Court

proceedings are concerned, it would be

inappropriate for this Court to entertain the

action, particularly if proceedings are on

appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court.

But it is unnecessary to pursue that

matter because, on the material before me,

there is simply no foundation for concluding

that a cause of action may exist against

either of the proposed defendants. There are

allegations in Mr Staats's affidavit which I

do not propose to detail, because on any view

of them they do not support a claim for

injunctive or declaratory relief or anything

in the nature of prerogative relief or,

indeed, any relief against the proposed

defendants. In my view the proceedings

proposed would be futile."

Some nine months later, Mr Staats sought to

have issued from the Registry of the Court a writ,

with statement of claim endorsed, naming the United

States of America and the Commonwealth of Australia

as defendants. A Registrar of the Court sought

direction from Toohey J. pursuant too. 58 r. 4(3).

On 7 August 1992, his Honour directed the Registrar

to refuse to issue the writ without the leave of a

Justice first had and obtained. The present

application is brought by Mr Staats for such leave.

The proposed statement of claim alleges that

the matters of which Mr Staats complains:

"arise from the Plaintiff's birth by

artificial insemination (Mr Harold Holt is in

fact the Plaintiff's true father former late

Australian Prime Minister) •.•.. and the

exploitation by the Central Intelligence

Australian Security Intelligence Organization
of the Commonwealth of Australia of the

Plaintiff principally after his naturalization

in 1957 after immigrating to Australia in

1952".

Agency of the United States of America and the

Paragraph 3 of the proposed statement of claim

alleges:

"The plaintiff was principally exploited by

the two Defendants in order to obtain leverage

over the late Hon. Harold E. Holt when he was

Federal Treasurer of Australia and Prime

Minister of Australia principally from 1958

until 17 December 1967."

Staats(3) 20 26/8/92

Paragraph 4 states:

"It was completely unknown to the Plaintiff

until recently the Plaintiff's birth by

artificial insemination and his exploitation

for political purposes from 1958 onwards such

matters culminating in High Court Ex Parte former Australian Prime Minister and
Applications for Issuance of Process for

J.M. Moten former ASIO Director-General, for

serious intelligence neutralization

operations, in 1991."

That paragraph makes clear the close connection

between the present proposed proceedings and the

earlier process which the plaintiff unsuccessfully

sought to issue in this Court. As I follow the

statement of claim, Mr Staats' alleged cause of

action against the United States of America and the

Commonwealth is summarized in paragraph 20 which

reads:

"The compelling reasons for this serious
intelligence conspiracy to seriously injure

the Plaintiff for which the Defendants are

liable involve the serious exploitation of the

Plaintiff during the late Hon. H.E. Holt's

time as Prime Minister of Australia and

Federal Treasurer of the Commonwealth of

Australia, particularly when Chairman of the

International Monetary Fund so proposed

therefore by Mr David Rockefeller, former

Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank and for which

the late President John F. Kennedy invited

Mr Holt to the White House and which is linked

to that President's assassination. It is for

this reason despite serious amnesia and

attempts to drive the Plaintiff to suicide and

death that the Defendants' intelligence

transactions and operations after 1977

constituting serious conspiracy to injure

seriously the Plaintiff and fabricate the book

"The Prime Minister Was a Spy" was of such

concern to the Defendants to prevent such

exposure, and to bind the Plaintiff's former
boss, inter alia, from the Australian Council
of Trade Unions the Hon. R.J.L. Hawke (as
explained in his short story "Shiny Brass

Coffin Handles" forwarded for the first time

13.9.90 by Ms J. Sinclair now tragically

deceased his former Senior Advisor) and

otherwise."

Mr Staats has placed a considerable amount of

material before the Court. Much of it consists of

broad general assertions rather than evidence of

Staats(3) 21 26/8/92

particular facts. It is unnecessary that I set it

out. Some of the material relates to events said to have occurred in very recent times. Thus, for

example, an affidavit filed yesterday asserts that,

on the evening of 19 August last, agents of the

United States of America visited Mr Staats' home

and, while he was asleep and completely against his
wishes, injected him for the purpose of doing

serious damage to him "in an attempt to further

induce [his] suicide".

I have given careful consideration to the material which Mr Staats has placed before the Court and to what he has said in the course of his

oral submissions. That consideration has led me to
the firm and clear view that his proposed action

against the United States of America and the

Commonwealth for conspiracy would not enjoy any

prospect of success. In particular, I do not think

that any evidentiary basis has been indicated upon which a reasoned finding of conspiracy between the

United States of America and the Commonwealth of

Australia could conveniently be made. Accordingly,

I must refuse leave for the issue of the initiating

process.

It should be mentioned that Mr Staats also

sought my authority, pursuant too. 37 r. 27 of the

Rules of Court, for the issue of a subpoena duces

tecum directed to the Director-General of ASIO

requiring the production of:

"All documents regarding Central Intelligence

Agency and Australian Security Intelligence

Organization concerning the Plaintiff

transactions and operations therewith and more

particularly all documents relating to the

acts causing the Plaintiff serious loss and

damage by the Defendants servants agents or

employees or otherwise arising from or caused

by the Defendants Conspiracy to Injure the

Plaintiff from 1958 principally to present."

The reasons given above explain why I was not

prepared to authorize the issue of such a subpoena.

In that regard, I should expressly indicate that

any formal defects in the framing of the process

did not influence me in declining to order that it

issue.

The notice of motion is therefore dismissed.

Now, Mr Staats, you follow the result of what

I have said. The transcript of the judgment which
I have just given should be available within the

next day or so.

Staats(3) 22 26/8/92

MR STAATS:	Thank you, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:	If you lack the funds to obtain a copy, if one needs funds to obtain a copy - I am not sure - I
will give a direction that a copy be provided to
you if you want me to give that direction now?
MR STAATS:	Yes, I would be most grateful, and I would like

to thank Your Honour for his courtesy and

thoughtfulness for providing that direction.

HIS HONOUR:  Very well. I direct that when a copy of

today's transcript is available, it be made

available to Mr Staats without any charge.

MR STAATS:  Thank you, Your Honour. I will be proceeding to

appeal and will be discussing this with -

HIS HONOUR: That is a matter for you, Mr Staats.

MR STAATS:  Thank you, Your Honour. I look forward to

seeing a transcript.

HIS HONOUR: Court will now adjourn.

AT 1.56 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

Staats(3) 23 26/8/92