Rout v Hutchinson & Ors C102/1996 [1996] HCATrans 265 (11 July 1996)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SITTING AS THE COURT OF

DISPUTED RETURNS

Registry No C102 of 1996

B e t w e e n -

THEODORE J. ROUT

Plaintiff

and

JOHN HUTCHINSON

NEIL D.L. BAIRD

ADAM SPENSER

MELODIE RAHME

BOB REID

MARNIE KENNEDY

VICKIE KEARNEY

MARC AUSSIE-STONE

LINDA COGGER

PETER SAYEGH

PETER J. KRUMINS

MICHAEL HATTON

Defendants

Application for leave to issue an electoral petition

BRENNAN CJ

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 11 JULY 1996, AT 10.15 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

_______________

HIS HONOUR: You are Mr Rout?

MR T.J. ROUT: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: You want to file a document, Mr Rout?

MR ROUT: Yes. Can I briefly point out that in the letter I received from the Court it mentions the word "trivia" - well, "frivolous". This does have a humour about it but it is all very, very serious. This divide and multiplying by zero copyright international is of very great importance to me and to Australia. If you consider Nikola Tesla, great Serbian scientist, paid his own way from his patents and copyrights.

HIS HONOUR: Just a moment, Mr Rout. You may be talking about a lot of interesting propositions. I have to consider whether or not there is any legal comprehensibility in this document, legal comprehensibility.

MR ROUT: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: Unless you can show me that there is, I am not going to sit here - - -

MR ROUT: It says here - I am referring to the word "frivolous", so it is not frivolity. It is very serious.

HIS HONOUR: It is legal frivolity that that letter speaks about, Mr Rout.

MR ROUT: Yes, OK. Now, as well it is intellectually bankrupt to think that the laws of this universe which comprise the numerical system are not the laws of this world, this country or the legal system. So I am applying the law of the numerical system and it has international ramifications because mathematicians say they can reduce everything to mathematical terms which means that people internationally are important to them. We have applied the law of the numerical system to defeat the criminal laws of countries overseas.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Rout, what you are saying is still making no legal comprehensible sense.

MR ROUT: I am applying the law of the numerical - - -

HIS HONOUR: Just a moment, Mr Rout. I will give you three more minutes to make some proposition which has some relevance to the application of the law as it is understood by this Court. After three minutes I am not going to sit here and listen to other material.

MR ROUT: Two $5 notes exchanged for a $10 note is not a legal transaction unless a numerical system is the law. Now, they are subject to the laws of this universe and the numerical system. Whether they like it or whether they do not, they are subject to it. And I am subjecting them to their own law and I multiplied one and all votes for them at the election and all future votes at the electorate of Blaxland which means they got zero votes under the law. I divide all the opposition to it by zero, which means it all fragments into infinite pieces. Therefore all they had to do was to state to me in writing, do what this man here, Geoff Lee, from the Australian Micro Systems did, was to sign, agreeing that my dividing and multiplying by zero is correct, that the one I am applying is wrong and that all computers and software sold by his company are in fact defective. But not only his, worldwide. That was signed on 9 January.

That was signed on 9 January. Now, I am applying the law - and these people have had a whole year since February `92. They have had since 1993 to pick up the situation and deal with it but they have refused and failed. Now, there is a lot more involved with this. The public cannot find out because of the conspiracy that I put in there. So, how can Australia lead the world or be involved in technology when it has been allowed to be stolen overseas? So I have in fact applied the law and as a citizen I have the right to do so. So, the Court, by not ruling against me - if by ruling against me and in favour of them you have ruled in violation of your own oath which I am supposed to take here: to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That means the foundations of the premises are true in that witness-box but, yet, that 1 divided or multiplied by zero is the foundation. It is a premise upon which is very, very important. So, your ruling - if you rule against me, then you are saying that one divided or multiplied by zero equals - well, sorry: one multiplied by zero equals nought and one divided by zero equals infinite times. It is a false premise and I have asked for the court order and I cannot see how you can rule without the premise itself being put to the test.

So, I ask for an order that the Secretary to the Department of Employment, Education and Training supply the proof that 1 multiplied by zero equals 0, and it is a disgrace that I have to ask for the order, and Dr Brice who was supplied the information from me back in `93 wants a court order. Now, look at my ridiculous situation of..... I require to do work on the mass of zero which pertains to fusion energy and Mark Oliphant, retired physicist, agreed with the foundations that the speed of light is relative to the density of nothing in four dimensions.

Now, I am supposed to work - to deal with the mass of zero with computers that incorrectly divide and multiply by zero. It is very, very important to me and I am holding it..... Let them fill out that statement there as did Geoff Lee. State it. That is all I had to do: answer a simply question and then they would have answered it. Can I give you a copy of this?

HIS HONOUR: No, Mr Rout.

MR ROUT: And also there is the book - - -

HIS HONOUR: Mr Rout, I am afraid - - -

MR ROUT: May I just point out Fundamental University Principles by W. Wallace McCormick and he states in here - - -

HIS HONOUR: Mr Rout, you are concerned with the operation of mathematical and physical rules. That is, no doubt, a matter of great importance. This Court does not have any jurisdiction over the laws of mathematics and physics.

MR ROUT: But you are to be bound by them.

HIS HONOUR: Your application is not intelligible in the sense that it does not invoke legal remedies in a fashion which is comprehensible by legal analysis. Accordingly, I propose to dismiss your application. The Court will now adjourn.

MR ROUT: Would you - could you - - -?

HIS HONOUR: No, that is all, Mr Rout.

AT 10.22 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED