from Gil Hanrahan in Melbourne
One Nation Senator Pauline Hanson, two of her senators and Attorney General George Brandis QC, have had criminal conspiracy charges filed against them in the Melbourne registry of the High Court of Australia.
The complaint was filed by former One Nation WA Senator Rodney Culleton on Friday June 23 and includes former colleagues senators Brian Burston (NSW) and Malcolm Roberts (Qld).
They have been charged under Section 43, Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
The summons will be served by Mr Culleton on Monday, June 26.
Former senator Rodney Culleton, was sacked from the senate on Jan 12 after being found bankrupt by the Federal Court. His brother-in-law Peter Georgiou was nominated by the High Court to sit in his place as a One Nation senator for Western Australia.
Mr Culleton filed criminal charges of intent to attempt to pervert the course of justice in respect of the judicial power of the Commonwealth.
Mr Cullleton accused the senators of “seconding a motion in the Senate on the 7th November 2016, to refer the question of the possibility that Rodney Norman Culleton would be subjected to a term of imprisonment by a Magistrate at Armidale, and the Senate did refer the said Rodney Norman Culleton’s eligibility to the High Court.”
The charge further reads “…..and you allowed the matter to continue, even after an agreed Statement of Facts was filed in that Court proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the said Rodney Norman Culleton was never under potential imprisonment and thereby in breach of your sworn public duty, attempted to pervert the course of justice in respect of the judicial power of the Commonwealth.
“ (this is) An Offence against S 43 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Under S 129 (5) Evidence Act 1995, the transcript of proceedings in the Senate are admissible against you.”
The charges were filed in support of a notice under 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 of a constitutional matter alleging the Attorney General had withheld the agreed statement of facts of the referral to the courts by a motion instead of a mandated petition which in any case exceeded the 40 day requirement to lodge an objection to the eligibility of a sitting member.
The agreed statements of fact were not filed in the HCA by the Attorney General.
Culleton said the statements of fact clearly show that he would never have been sentenced to imprisonment for the alleged theft of a truck key two years ago.
“I got no say and the agreed facts were never presented to the bench,” he said.
“Brandis should have filed the agreed facts that were signed of off by the Australian Government solicitor stating that I would never have been sentenced.
“Sect 25 (1) (a) of the Crime Sentencing Procedure Act says the local court must not make an order of imprisonment if the offender is absent.
“This matter has never been held at trial but was only based on non-agreed facts put to the HCA by Brandis.
“He has used taxpayers money to unlawfully remove me from senate at the request of the banks.”
No date has yet been set for a hearing.
Senator Hanson was unavailable for comment.
During Culleton’s short tenure sitting in the senate he forced the High Court to restore the Queen in legal process.
He says the restored ‘Queen of Australia’, does not exist. Culleton has been a huge thorn in the side of the banks, calling for a federal inquiry into banking practices after presenting evidence of widespread corruption involving farm foreclosures.
View documents of charges lodged;
I’m sure many lawyers don’t like anyone calling them out. Rod Culleton wants his day in court…a real court…..a court that adheres to the Rule of Law…a court with a fully informed Jury of his equals.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
Hi Ian, Rod Culleton advises he is not under a trustee and is in control of his assets. Several lawyers do not believe his charge is nonsense.Editor
There was NO Bankruptcy of Rod Culleton… just like there were NO convictions of him, either. The LAW in Australia is English Common Law and English Common Law says, “No free man shall be taken indeed imprisoned, or exiled or outlawed, or dispossessed, or destroyed in any way, nor shall we pass over him nor send over him unless by the lawful judgment of his equals which is the law of the land” and “we will that if any judgment be given from henceforth, contrary to the points of the charters aforesaid, by the justices or by any other our ministers that hold plea before them against the points of the charters, it shall be undone and holden for naught.” plus Petition of Right 1627, Habeas Corpus 1640, Bill of Rights 1688 to go with the just quoted Magna Carta 1215 and Confirmation of Charters 1297. The so-called “Judges” and “Magistrates” are committing Treason by trying to overthrow the Sovereignty of the People.
And, any “Trustees” are part of this Racketeering and Treachery that is going on in OUR courts.
Even if the culprits might be Ignorant of the law, that is no excuse. But, when the evil done (as per Ecclesiastes 3:16) is as colossal as is happening in Australia, we have a Dark Age that not even Winston Churchill could have imagined.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
Can you report if Rod Culleton obtained his Trustee in Bankruptcy approval to file such a nonsense motion ? Currently all his powers lay with his official Trustee in Bankruptcy Shaun Rowland. Rod Culleton has no rights whilst a Bankrupt to instigate any litigation.
absolutely correct J W most people have been kept ignorant of that fact by the supposed elite but it is finaly being made more available to the general public and those who do some searching
Dear John Russell,
The title, “Queen of Australia” is a con. When Australia became a Commonwealth on 1st January 1901, British rule here was extinguished. But that wasn’t to the liking of the Elite who were quite cosy with being “under the Crown”….and so, they immediately went about concealing the reality with a comprehensive campaign against allowing ordinary people to govern themselves.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
While your looking into this, check out the details of Why the federal Government, Is in Breach of the Constitution by allowing people with vested Interest into parliament, It is against the Australian Constitution and needs to be addressed.
Mr. Culleton
You say there is No restored “Queen of Australia”,
Her Majesty says other wise.
By the Grace of God Elizabeth The Third Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Her Other Realms and Territories Joint Head of The Commonwealth
……..
The Commonwealth
https://sites.google.com/site/royalbankofqld/
Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland & The Commonwealth
https://sites.google.com/site/australianimperialcrowncorp/home
Subpages – Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland & The Commonwealth
https://sites.google.com/site/australianimperialcrowncorp/system/app/pages/subPages?path=/home
2nd Subpages –
https://sites.google.com/site/australianimperialcrowncorp/system/app/pages/subPages?path=/home&offset=50
The Royal Bank of Australia
https://sites.google.com/site/royalbankvictoria/home
Australian Catholic Church
https://sites.google.com/site/holyaustraliancatholicchurch/
Regards
John Russell
The Australian peoples’ legal authority – against the unlawful action of this Australian Government Corporation and actions stemming from the Parliament of Australia – are set out in the matter of Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (“Engineers’ case”) [1920] HCA 54; (1920) 28 CLR 129 (31 August 1920) – HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.
Start…………
When the people of Australia, to use the words of the Constitution itself,
“united in a Federal Commonwealth,”
they took power to control by ordinary constitutional means any attempt on the part of the national Parliament to misuse its powers.
If it be conceivable that the representatives of the people of Australia as a whole would ever proceed to use their national powers to injure the people of Australia considered sectionally,
it is certainly within the power of the people themselves to resent and reverse what may be done.
No protection of this Court in such a case is necessary or proper.
Therefore, the doctrine of political necessity, as means of interpretation, is indefensible on any ground.
The one clear line of judicial inquiry as to the meaning of the Constitution must be to read it naturally in the light of the circumstances in which it was made,
with knowledge of the combined fabric of the common law, and the statute law which preceded it, and then lucet ipsa per se.
………………………………..
1. united in a Federal Commonwealth
2. took power to control by ordinary constitutional means
3. resent and reverse
4. No protection of this Court in such a case is necessary or proper.
5. indefensible on any ground
6. read it naturally in the light of the circumstances
7. combined fabric of the common law, and the statute law
End…………………………
Jury service depends on good fortune…being lucky to be summoned by the sheriff, in the first place, and secondarily, lucky to be chosen when the parties to the proceedings do their jury selection.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
Will be following this one very closely..
How does one get on this JURY???
Hooray for Rodney. Bring it on! the country must judge….that means TRIAL BY Jury….by a fully informed jury who judge the facts and the law and who decide who and what are right or wrong.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.