One Nation senator Rod Culleton gets confirmation High Court rules are flawed

Rod Culleton, One Nation senator for Western Australia puts the Attorney General and the High Court on notice: the HCA been acting unlawfully since 1979

HCA agrees to amend its Rules: the banks could owe the Commonwealth $30 billion in fines

David with his slingshot , aka WA One Nation senator Rod Culleton, launched his first question in the Senate at Goliath’s Attorney General George Brandis that shattered the halls of power.

Culleton’s legal team had discovered Constitutional flaws in the High Court Rules and the response from the Attorney General confirms the HCA Rules Committee will make amendments to bring the rules into line with the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia Act 1900.

This decision begs the question, what effect will this have on every matter that has been before the HCA over the past 37 years?

The Question asked in the senate that rattled the High Court:

“Chapter III of the Constitution creates a Federal Supreme Court to be called the High Court. Could the Attorney General please explain to the Senate how the High Court of Australia Act 1979, complies with the first paragraph of Chapter III Constitution and why when the Federal Supreme Court in the United States overturned sixty seven Statutes between 1952 and 1998 when the book, The Judicial Process (which I have) was last printed, the High Court in Australia hardly overturned any at all, because they have been allowed to make Rules of Court preventing ordinary Australians going to them for Judicial Review of alleged breaches of the Constitution and Laws of the Commonwealth.”

George Brandis, reflecting on his arrogance with ignorance, smirking while congratulating Culleton on his question, attempting to distract from his own, obvious limited legal ability, then answered:

“I will refer the question to the High Court rules committee”.

While the new age of crossbench politicians continue to threaten the establishment, this farmer, now a senator, needed to be taught a lesson. Brandis was well aware Rod Culleton had admitted guilt to the theft of truck keys worth $7.50 during an altercation with a tow truck driver thug who attacked him while trying to repossess his truck before he was elected to the senate.

Brandis referred the application to the High Court on direction from ALP and LNP senators requesting a ruling if Culleton was an eligible candidate at the July 2^nd 2016 election.

The problem facing the establishment’s attempt to get rid of bank-bashing Culleton is a lower court’s decision on appeal to annul Culleton’s conviction for larceny.

Rod Culleton’s question to the Attorney General was answered by the High Court:

Brandis congratulated Culleton for pointing out to the senate the existing rules did not conform to the Constitution. His hand written congratulatory note appears below

From Peter Gargan, legal affairs advisor to Senator Rodney Culleton, One Nation Senator for Western Australia:

Since 1952, the High Court has been refusing to file process unless it first approves of it, so we have no way of judicially reviewing the Commissioners appointed by the Parliament to execute and maintain the Laws of the Commonwealth. There are four Commissioners who should be Judicially reviewed and sacked. They are the Commissioner of theAustralian Federal Police on $600,000 per year, who has allowed State Police to terrorise the populations in breach of S 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 in force since 2001, and has allowed the Judiciary of both the States and Commonwealth to sit as slave masters without juries, in their civil jurisdiction in breach of S 268:10 Criminal Code Act 1995.

S 12DJ of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 bans harassment and coercion in respect of loans from Banks, and the ASIC Commissioner has the power to collect $1,300,000 per offence from all the Banks when they use harassment and coercion to collect loans on which they have been manufacturing defaults. I estimate there is around thirty billion dollars owing to the Commonwealth, if that Commissioner was doing his job properly.

S 44ZZRA  — of the Competition and Consumer Act  2010 empowers the Commissioner for Consumer Protection to smash the cartel with the High Court at its head. People who use legal services are consumers, and because this cartel extends from the tiniest solicitor through Judges and Magistrates to the High Court the refusal to accept process to judicially review this lazy person, has allowed thousands of productive people to be destroyed by the cartel whose biggest clients are drug dealers,  Banks and Insurance Companies who will not willingly pay, even if a premium has been paid for years.

The fourth Commissioner who should be immediately Judicially Reviewed is the Commissioner for Human Rights. She has the duty to enforce the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which is Schedule 2 to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986. In Article 14  there is a Statutory Command drawn straight out of the New Testament that all persons shall be equal before the law.  That section is an element of the Offence against S 268:12  Criminal Code Act 1995, so there can be no doubt it is a law. If that law was enforced every criminal would be entitled to be tried with a jury and also sentenced by a jury. Civil Litigants would no longer be second class citizens subject to arbitrary and ridiculous orders from Judges and Magistrates depriving them of their driving licences, their properties, and in some cases their children, on application from people who can afford the services of the Cartel.

Further if the High Court had not been in contempt of the Parliament for 64 years, S 90 of the Constitution would see car registration abolished, as car registration is an internal tax on goods, as are licence fees to drive cars, and the exclusive responsibility of the Parliament of the Commonwealth. Likewise if they had not been in contempt, the Fines Registry in every State, the subject of Political Protests from people who have no means to pay such fines, would have to be immediately abolished as they Offend S 43 Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) in that they are acting on the pockets of Australians without the sanction of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth. That is about nine billion dollars that should no longer be owing. The Commonwealth would have to put a little more excise on fuel, to build the roads we need and Ferries needed to give Tasmanians equality of transport.

I attach for your perusal the brilliant Speech given by Alfred Deakin in 1902 which tells us what we should have as a High Court. It was to be head of an Independent Australian Judiciary separate from any State Parliaments influence. That it has been in contempt since 1952, has allowed all sorts of skulduggery to take place in Queensland , Western Australia, New south Wales and Victoria, where Rules of Court are held to overrule any prior inconsistent Act  depriving the people of Australia of the Rule of Law, and substituting instead The Rule of Lawyers.

Read Alfred Deakin’s speech in full

click the book.