High Court should go back to primary school; learn to read

Attorney General George Brandis QC next to go: says government insider

We have been made a Republic without a Referendum. The High Court of Australia is not even ashamed of itself for failing to read the Sections 16 and  34(2) Constitution, and the ABC in the form of Anthony Green tweets that those Sections of the Constitution, were exhausted in 1901 with the first Election. In this republic we never agreed to there  must be some sort of magic  that turns people into gender neutral robots, who fail to understand the plain words of the English language. It is time the whole Parliament, the 76 Senators and 150 members of the House of Representatives met in a joint sitting and asked some hard questions of the seven members of the High Court and the judiciary generally but especially the High Court, because we need these questions answered.

What do you not understand about Clause 5 of the Commonwealth of Australia  Constitution Act 1900? It says , This Act and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under this Constitution, Shall be binding on the courts judges and people of every State notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State. If the High Court Judges are people, they are bound. If not or they do not understand that the Constitution binds them, and if Anthony Green of the ABC does not understand that he is one of the people referred to in that Section, the Commonwealth and ABC should let them go. If someone who earns $350,000 at least tax free cannot read and understand plain written English, then it is time that we got someone in there who can. That is what S 72 (ii) Constitution provides.

S 16 Constitution deals specifically with the Qualification of Senators, and S 34 (ii) Constitution deals with the qualification of Members of the House of Representatives. These sections say that if they have been in the country five years and owe allegiance to the Queen, they are eligible. Clear straight forward instructions, to the courts judges and people and once again the High Court is defying the Parliament of the Commonwealth and the Laws of the Commonwealth. So too are Judges and Magistrates all over Australia and a regime of institutional theft has been introduced by the States, for the benefit of the States because the High Court needs to go to Specsavers.  So too it seems do all the lawyers who had their expenses paid by the Commonwealth and failed to make this argument to the Apex Club sitting at the top of the organised crime gang, presently operating in Australia and severely burdening the people with greater and greater expenses keeping children in poverty, and old people poor while our wealth is exported and the Banks pay huge dividends and make enormous profits.

If the High Court were not really ordinary people and did not have to eat as we do, drink as we do, and die eventually as we do, they would be entitled to consider themselves as Gods. They will all die eventually, they will all retire at seventy, but they should on their performance since 2004, be all sacked after their response to my first question. I asked Senator George Brandis the Commonwealth Attorney General, on the 12^th September 2016 why for 12 years they had felt free to defy the Laws of the Commonwealth by leaving the Name of the Queen off all process issued out of the High Court. If they had bona fide set out to correct the High Court Rules 2004, after they admitted they were wrong, then this debacle of supposedly sacking six duly elected Members of Parliament would never have happened. I have incontrovertible evidence on the High Court letterhead that they were advised of this problem in 2006-7 and did nothing for nine more years.

They may look like a Golden Calf, and Act like a Golden Calf, but the same fate as befell those who worshipped that Golden Calf in Exodus, should all make their exodus, with their lives, but little else. The Sins of the High Court are many. They believe, if the Record is  examined that they are the Government and the Parliament is an inconvenient nuisance to be ignored. I and every other member of the people of the Commonwealth, have been given authority to call them before the Queen they deny is the Sovereign, the Queen to whom I swore allegiance when I became a Senator. I have got Senator George Brandis as George Henry Brandis before that Queen on criminal charges, and when a person, any person reads S 5 Commonwealth of Australia  Constitution Act 1900 and then S 147.1 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) it is quite clear that it is a serious crime to put violence on a Commonwealth Public Official. The head -butter who assaulted Tony Abbott is prosecuted by the Australian Federal Police but they have not yet prosecuted the High Court for assaulting by Paper Order they expect to be obeyed, 6 out of the eight sitting Members illegally haled before them, and thrown out of Parliament by them. There is a special punishment prescribed for people who are Judges and Magistrates who assault Members of Parliament. Instead of ten years imprisonment the Parliament says they must get 13 years . It’s all there in black and white.

As for the lawyers of the Commonwealth. Not one of them publicly pointed out that Ss 16 and 34(ii) Constitution make the politically murdered perfectly qualified to be in Parliament. As for the lawyers of the Commonwealth. Not one of them publicly pointed out that Ss 16 and 34 (ii) Constitution mean they are perfectly qualified if they were here for five years and owe allegiance to the Queen. Not one of them.

Lets get to the Court of Disputed Returns. After I attempted to intervene to save the other five elected representatives in this proceedings, by pointing out that S 77 (i) Constitution prohibits the Parliament of the Commonwealth from legislating to define the jurisdiction of the High Court, which it has done in the Court of Disputed Returns, and pointed out that since 1986 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is definitely part of the Laws of the Commonwealth, they ploughed on regardless. The Court of Disputed Returns is illegal and has been ever since it was created. It is being used not for its intended purpose but to intimidate Members of Parliament. It exercises a defined jurisdiction. So intimidated are the Members of both Houses the High Court and Federal Court of Australia  have been allowed to get away with political murder.

For 498 years from 1372, to 1870 lawyers were banned from Parliament in the United Kingdom. Perhaps we need a referendum to ban them from this nations Parliament in the House of Representatives. If the best we have can get it so wrong, what are we employing them for? I am a rainmaker. The drought certainly broke for the lawyers I employed to defend me in the High Court and the Federal Court of Australia has arguably by sitting without a jury, which I requested, broken the law in S 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) which bans the arbitrary infliction of imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty upon any of us, and a Sequestration Order in Bankruptcy, is a severe deprivation of physical liberty carrying Seventeen Years imprisonment , and this Order of the High Court is another.  Where are the Australian Federal Police when we really need them? They should march up to the High Court as Moses did to the worshippers of the Golden Calf, and lay the charges that ought to be laid on them for political murder. A political murder that should not go unpunished in the Parliament of the Commonwealth. It is utter and complete contempt by them for your elected representatives, and must be fixed. The Parliament of the Commonwealth has the power. For our Nations sake it must use it.    from Rodney Culleton’s law research team