SECI 00654/2024 – Kant – Draft Summons (18 February 2024)

FORM 46A
Rules 28A.04(5), 46.04(1), 57.02(2), 57.03(1)(a)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

No.

BETWEEN

JAN MAREK KANT
Plaintiff

-and-

THE COMMISSIONER OF THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
and others according to the attached schedule
First Defendant

SUMMONS

Date of Document: 18 February 2024
Filed on behalf of: The Plaintiff Telephone: 0450 827 208
Prepared by: The Plaintiff Email: jmjarosz01@gmail.com
3/33 Bewdley Street
Ormond VIC 3204

To: The Defendants named in the attached schedule
And: The Victorian Government Solicitor

You are summoned to attend before the Court on the hearing of an application by the Plaintiff for orders voiding all statutory instruments, orders, warrants or directions which have the effect of restraining him.

Take note that:

  1. The Plaintiff applied for writ of habeas corpus under Section X of the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and 39(1) of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 concurrently.
  2. Section X of the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 gives that no authority, privilege, immunity, jurisdictional limit, nor law to the contrary may interfere with the execution of writ of habeas corpus or examination of evidence by the Court.
  3. [1640] 16 Charles I c. X s VII requires the Court to, without delay upon any pretence whatsoever, grant unto a person restrained of his liberty a writ of habeas corpus directed generally unto all and every minister, officer or other person who restrains him.
  4. [1679] 31 Charles II c. I s 9 provides that a person may apply for writ of habeas corpus to any court of competent jurisdiction, and that court must not deny such writ for lack of evidence if the person makes oath that he was denied evidence of his detention.
  5. 21(7) of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 requires this court to determine the lawfulness of the plaintiff’s detention without delay, and order the Plaintiff’s release if his detention is unlawful.
  6. Section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975 gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction without geographic bounds; “non-Victorian Earth” is an area adjacent to Victoria.
  7. Sections 106 and 51 of the Constitution give the Supreme Court of Victoria jurisdiction to order void any law that the Parliament of the Commonwealth makes inconsistently with the Constitution Act 1975; including, by extension of 3(1) of the Constitution Act 1975, any law made inconsistently with the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980.

Insofar as it is presently unclear, the nature of the plaintiff’s detention is expected to become apparent on examination of evidence taken from the defendants.

This is not an application for appeal from, or the review of, judgement of another court.

The application will be heard by the Judge [name] Supreme Court, [insert address or other location details of hearing] on [insert date] at …………. a.m. [or p.m.] or so soon afterwards as the business of the Court allows.

FILED

This summons was filed by Jan Marek Kant, Plaintiff.

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES

BETWEEN:
JAN MAREK KANT
Plaintiff

and

THE COMMISSIONER OF THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
First Defendant

and

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE AUSTRALIAN CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE COMMISSION
Second Defendant

and

THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF AUSTRALIA
Third Defendant

and

THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY
Fourth Defendant

and

THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT SECURITY VETTING AGENCY
Fifth Defendant

and

THE STATE OF VICTORIA
Sixth Defendant