To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives

Supplement to the petition to the House 15th March 2010, 24th May 2010, 15th November 2010 and a submission sent on 7th April 2011

This petition of the "Principal Petitioner" and fellow citizens that have been aggrieved by an administrative decision of a member of the Judiciary and Officers of the Commonwealth as set out in Section 75(v) of the Constitution.

A writ of mandamus to show cause is based on a presumption of misbehaviour. Officers of the Commonwealth, appointed by the Governor-General compounded with liquidators to freeze assets of companies and depositors on a presumption of insolvency.

These Officers (judicators) tendered their submission to the High Court.

The High Court failed to set aside orders that were obtained on a presumption.

Where a cause is pending involving interpretations of the Constitution, it is the duty of the Court not to proceed without advising Parliament.

This matter has been referred to the Attorney-General on four occasions, where the petitioners asked the Attorney-General to review his decision on the grounds that the Attorney-General is in breach of the rules of natural justice by disallowing Section 75(v) to the aggrieved citizens.

We the aggrieved citizens ask the House to request the Attorney-General to show cause why he should not be removed from office for being in breach of the rules of natural justice and that his decision was made with the intention of defeating the aggrieved citizens.

We ask the House to address the Corporations Act 2001, Chapter 5—that allows the Courts to compound with Officers of the Courts (liquidators) to use their position to destroy companies and the savings of citizens of Australia.

We ask the House to address matters where only Parliament has jurisdiction.

from 1 citizen