A CALL has gone out to all Australians affected by the Covid restrictions and medical mandates to attend a hearing at the High Court in Canberra on April 9th.
Former senator Rod Culleton is seeking a High Court ruling under Part 5, Section 51 of the Constitution Powers of the Parliament and the legality of states closing borders contrary to Section 92 of the Constitution that states “trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States … shall be absolutely free”.
When the Commonwealth tried to stop Dulcie Johnson crossing state borders to see her fiancé one last time before he headed off to war in World War II, it failed, but when Western Australia closed its border to Clive Palmer during the COVID plandemic, it succeeded, because the High Court ruled WA’s Emergency Management Act “complied with the Constitution”.
“Chief Justice Susan Kiefel said today the court had found the Act complied with the Constitution, and the directions did not raise a constitutional issue,” the ABC reported at the time. So a state’s Act of Parliament that allows the border to be shut down contrary to Section 92 of the superior law, the Constitution, “complies with the Constitution”?
Rod Culleton quite rightly wants this issue clarified. What sort of a precedent does it set if a power-drunk state premier can simply write an Act that defies the Constitution and get away with it?
The High Court of Australia owes it to the people of Australia to at the very least explain their contradictory ruling.
The other case under Section 109 (Inconsistency of laws) is that of Dr Beverley (aka Valerie) Peers who is seeking a ruling on whether states can force vaccination in the workplace, which is inconsistent with the Federal Fair Work Act 2009 which has no such provision. Her Writ of Summons is against Eastern Health and the State of Victoria.
Dr Peers first lodged her Writ with the HCA in July last year, but was asked to amend it. She relodged it in December and again in January after multiple amendments.
Section 109 states: “When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.”
Both matters will be addressed at a directions hearing of the HCA on April 9, and supporters of the actions are urging people to attend and show their support.
“Every Australian who was affected by the Covid restrictions needs to be out the front of the High court in Canberra on this day so the High Court can see that we the people are on their doorstep – demanding our Constitution and our Constitutional protections are upheld and that the governments must adhere to the restraint of the Constitution on them. They are bound to it under Clause 5,” supporters posted on social media.
For those can’t make it to Canberra, it’s been suggested to attend the High Court in your state, with banners pertaining to Mr Culleton’s and Dr Peers’ matters.
Dr Peers, a general practitioner, had her registration suspended in November 2021 after the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) accused her of providing Covid vaccination exemptions without clinical reason.
She was later charged with seven offences in April 2023 after allegedly continuing to practise medicine out of a Altona North clinic between November 2021 and May 2022.
Dr Peers has taken these matters to the Appeals Court and was also planning to fight for free speech of doctors in the Supreme Court of Victoria, because doctors are precluded by the Medical Board of Australia from freedom of speech. “So this application has the potential to bring relief to doctors and patients Australia wide.” Dr Peers can be supported at givesendgo.
Thank you for the detailed explanation and analysis of the case and the constitutional issues involved. You’re absolutely right in pointing out that the central issue in Palmer v. Western Australia (2021) was the challenge to the directions made under the Emergency Management Act (WA), not the Act itself. The distinction you’ve made between challenging the directions versus the Act is critical to understanding the Court’s reasoning.
Here’s a breakdown of the core points you raised:
1. Challenge to the Act vs. Challenge to the Directions
Mr. Dunning’s Argument: Mr. Dunning QC, representing the plaintiffs, focused on challenging the directions issued under the Emergency Management Act (specifically the quarantine and border closure directions) but did not challenge the validity of the Act itself. This was a critical point, as the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 71 of the Constitution is concerned with constitutional questions—typically involving challenges to the validity of statutes or laws themselves, rather than executive actions taken under those laws (like directions).
The Court’s Clarification: Chief Justice Kiefel and Justice Edelman rightly pointed out that Section 92 of the Constitution (which guarantees freedom of interstate movement) operates as a limitation on legislative powers, not on executive actions such as the directions made by the government under a valid Act. Therefore, challenging the directions without challenging the validity of the underlying Emergency Management Act itself did not raise a constitutional issue.
2. The Constitutional Question and Judicial Power
The High Court pointed out that since the Act was not challenged, there was no constitutional question before the Court. Section 92, which protects freedom of movement, typically applies to laws passed by Parliament (i.e., legislation) rather than executive actions under those laws. If the Act itself had been challenged as unconstitutional, then Section 92 could have been engaged to evaluate whether the Act itself violated the constitutional guarantee of free interstate movement. Since this was not the case, the Court concluded that the judicial power of the Commonwealth was not engaged in a way that would warrant a constitutional ruling under Section 71 of the Constitution.
Wednesbury Reasonableness: The plaintiffs could have argued that the directions were unreasonable, illogical, or irrational in the manner of the Wednesbury test (which applies to the review of administrative decisions). However, proving such a claim in the context of emergency health measures like border closures is exceptionally difficult. The Court ultimately found that the directions complied with Section 92 and were a valid exercise of the powers granted under the Emergency Management Act.
3. The Outcome of the Case
Court’s Decision: The High Court’s decision reaffirmed that Palmer had not challenged the Emergency Management Act itself, but only the directions made under it. The Court ruled that the directions were valid, and they did not raise a constitutional issue under Section 92. The decision did not address any challenge to the validity of the Act.
Impact of Not Challenging the Act: Had the plaintiffs challenged the Emergency Management Act (and its provisions allowing for such directions) on constitutional grounds, the outcome of the case could have been different. If the Court had found the Act unconstitutional, it could have invalidated the border restrictions. However, because the validity of the Act was not at issue, the Court upheld the directions under the existing framework of the Act.
4. No Constitutional Question Raised
As you rightly pointed out, by not challenging the validity of the Emergency Management Act, Palmer’s legal team essentially limited the scope of the case to whether the directions themselves were consistent with Section 92. This approach resulted in no constitutional question being raised before the Court, and therefore, the judicial powers vested in the High Court under Section 71 were not triggered in a way that would have allowed for a broader constitutional review.
Final Thoughts:
You’ve made an important observation about the technical legal aspects of this case. The plaintiffs’ decision not to challenge the Emergency Management Act itself significantly narrowed the scope of the case, leading to a decision where the High Court upheld the directions as valid under existing state legislation. Had the plaintiffs taken a broader approach and challenged the validity of the Act, the constitutional implications might have been more pronounced, and the outcome could have been different—potentially opening up interstate borders.
The distinction between challenging a law (the Act) and challenging an executive decision (the directions) is crucial in understanding why the Court did not engage with a constitutional question in this case.
The plaintiff choses the jurisdiction, if not by subject matter (is the nature of the subject matter in the original jurisdiction or is it in the legal) then does equity have exclusive jurisdiction of the subject matter.
Rod (and his advisors) does not see that the legal jurisdiction was created in the late 1920’s and became the default jurisdiction as it is today. Nor that the people have been induced (in their ignorance) to present as a fiction, such being the holder and user of an unqualified BC.
To file a brief in the Supreme Court of Western Australia it appears that one has to present as a legal fiction.
If I had worked out how to circumvent this preventative measure that stops ‘one of the people’ from accessing the equity division of the Court, I would (will) share it.
It could be something so simple as invoking the equity division of the Court by claiming that the controversy (being an infringement of one’s right) can only be dealt with in the exclusive jurisdiction of equity (particularly a private trust ).
Without having studied the Acts pertaining to the HCA, I have nothing to share on that, other than it was formed under the original Constitution and so has statutory jurisdiction over both the original and legal jurisdiction.
The Federal Court was created by a Parliament that only existed in the legal jurisdiction and so had no capacity to imbued that Court with any equity powers in the original jurisdiction.
Not a word of criticism on the treasonous Susan Kiefel, yet her name always attached to treasonous acts…they always stick women into the power games when they gona commit such felonies-unions, banks, the usual suspects…
perhaps you’d like to enlighten Culleton and others as to how to call out the dejure juridiction for HC Peterbro-at this late hour, it should not be hidden in mystery!!!!
@Aussiemal
“I hope it has nothing to do with Trump, as I believe he is a fraud. Just throwing a few tidbits to the masses but doing nothing about the big things like the Covid-19 massacre.”
Fraud indeed, but:
Doing nothing about the big things?
Yeah, because he’s responsible for the whole covid thing via his genocidal ‘Operation Warp Speed’ and is very proud of his hateful, dastardly deeds, while his hopelessly deluded and propagandized fans worship the WEF’s handpicked, evil dictator as their savior!
ReL “And the proper manner to now reprimand these Treasonous sold-out baby-eating bastards is with some sturdy lengths of rope.”
I must register dismay about how the MSM went into a spin during the c-vid injection attacks on the population when protesters held up a symbolic effigy of Andrews and a mock gallows.
The protest caused more distress to the MSM than the attacks themselves. Go figure how a bit of symbolism gets twisted into a greater “reality” for them than reality itself.
Maybe the MSM themselves feared the stench of their collaboration in the attacks and any Mussolini style partisan justice on their doorstep?
Bill Francis said some wise words – “… there was no-one to reprimand them and uphold the Constitution…”
And the proper manner to now reprimand these Treasonous sold-out baby-eating bastards is with some sturdy lengths of rope.
We might expect, that’ll get their attention.
And Bill Francis said – “… Any lesser decision will indicate the complete capture of the judiciary by its political overlords, and its utter worthlessness to Australian society…”
… and what’s more, no-one anywhere will have any excuse for being surprised in the least.
And just BTW, folks, you DO know that these worthless mongrels set their OWN salaries & entitlements & benefits & pensions, they screw the money out of US, and they get paid no matter what – FOREVER!
Fool me once…
1973: The year your family went bankrupt, changed their name and moved to another country
The year was 1973: It was the the year that the US ceased its decade-long offensive in Vietnam. The year of the final moon landing. The US dollar devalued by 10% in a single day. The Watergate Scandal was top news. OPEC doubled the price of crude oil, leading to a large fuel crisis. Queen Elizabeth II of England visited Australia’s capital city on a special mission of great importance, and signed a new secret Act into force inside Parliament House (more on that later).
It was the year when your family went bankrupt, changed their name and moved to another country; the exact thing which many would do if they owed and could not pay.
We don’t blame them. We don’t judge them. We just want them to tell the truth about what occurred in 1973, and tell you the truth about how it affects you now.
1973 was also the year your money died…………………
1973 — the year that Australia was sold to the USA, the banksters and the IMF.
Sceptics are now tut-tutting and looking for tinfoil hats. More open-minded people will click on the next link and see the SEC filing on the US government website.
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=Commonwealth+of+Australia&CIK&filenum&State&SIC&owner=include&action=getcompany
https://fyrst.wordpress.com/2016/03/05/the-year-your-family-went-bankrupt-changed-their-name-and-moved-to-another-country/
Proverbs 23
23 When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee:
2 And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite.
3 Be not desirous of his dainties: for they are deceitful meat.
4 Labour not to be rich: cease from thine own wisdom.
5 Wilt thou set thine eyes upon that which is not? for riches certainly make themselves wings; they fly away as an eagle toward heaven.
So which came first?
Charlie handing over our Sovereignty to the Globalist baby eaters or we, ourselves, handing over our Sovereignty to the Globalist baby eaters?
Or did the Globalist baby eaters buy off our treacherous, treasonous, trojan politicians to hand over our Sovereignty to them?
The Constitution says our Sovereignty rests with us!
Don’t tell me we dropped it, can’t be fkd to pick it up and are letting vermin two bit SCUMbags walk all over it and ourselves?
Lest we forget who we are!
” Nuremberg 2.0 is coming! ”
Nuremburg was a fake show, run mostly by the swill presented from the Soviets, despite the British presiding judge.
There was neither a fair tribunal of truth nor any justice in Nuremburg. It was a pure theatre of BS, the equivalent of the Soviet “Communist Kommissar” trials held by the Soviets.
Stay away from Spencer Tracy and the fake Hollywood Metro Goldwyn Mayer imagery.
It’ll even have you convinced the Soviets were run by the Russians. And I reckon you don’t want to be anybody’s fool, right?
The denial of Clive Palmer’s right, under section 92 of the Constitution, to travel to WA during the covid scam was only made possible by the Commonwealth’s failure to fulfil its constitutional obligations.
Section 101 says:
“There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance , within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade, commerce, and of all laws made thereunder.”
Because the federal government deliberately, in my opinion, ignored this section of the Constitution, by never having formed an Inter-State Commission, it gave carte blanche to the Feds and the States to ignore whatever sections of the Constitution they did not like, because there was no-one to reprimand them and uphold the Constitution.
All the States’ premiers, like Mark McGowan, took full advantage of this.
It is therefore incumbent on the High Court to find the federal government and the States guilty of illegal behaviour, amounting to fraud, for ignoring and misrepresenting the Constitution to the detriment of every Australian. Any lesser decision will indicate the complete capture of the judiciary by its political overlords, and its utter worthlessness to Australian society.
People don’t realise how serious this is
This is the mechanism of “treaties” by which our “SOVEREIGNTY” is handed over to the UN and W.H.O. with their mercenaries, forced experimental injections and private armies which are empowered to enforce whatever idiocy the W.H.O. comes up with next, these will be FOREIGN INVADERS, armed and protected by the state and judiciary, I am not exaggerating any of this, it is L-A-W
If you want to stymie reprobate governance, follow the course Dr Peers took
i. e. let the bastards take YOU to task, not vice versa
Because, as any competent soldier will affirm, it’s always much easier to defend what you have than to win back(get recompensed) what you’ve lost
Come on people, “wake the f**k up” !
There are 2 jurisdictions and 2 Constitutions.
There is the original/inherent/equitable jurisdiction where the people did and should live, and there is the legal jurisdiction that came into existence from 1928 onwards which is for fictions and includes those who elect to present as such ( whether knowingly or not ).
The plaintiff choses the jurisdiction ( the High Court sits in both ) and I fear Rod has chosen the legal jurisdiction and the High Court will find against him.
The Courts are not corrupt, but such is the simple explanation used by ignorant people who fail to practice due diligence and act on what they discover so that they may correct the mistakes done in the past by their parents and themselves.
Lindesymonds said – “… The really sad part about this that people who are now disabled or seriously ill because of the modRNA bioweapon [and the AHPRA system denies this], people who are homeless because of loss of livelihood (mandates) etc. probably will not be able to make it…”
And there’s already well over 100,000 Australian men, women, children and BABIES planted in cemetries all across Australia, who DIDN’T make it. Every single one of them a victim of PREMEDITATED EXTERMINATION.
And lots more to come, folks, more and more dropping dead every single day, never mind all those impoverished and ruined and bankrupted and injured and maimed and STERILISED – literally millions of Australians, folks.
The growing number of people who’ve woken up enough to SEE what has been done to us and can SEE what has been going on and is STILL going on, will have little doubt about the appropriate remedy for this ONGOING premeditated act of Treason and genocide against Australia by our ENTIRE fake corporate “government” and the hordes of unelected beauracrats and public officials and “health care professionals” and shit-for-brains hired mercenary thugs, traitors and mass-murderers one and all, who all enthusiastically aided and abeted and PARTICIPATED in this monumental atrocity.
What is an Australian life worth, folks? Chef’s parents might say about three fiddy, but Snuff Scotty would say TWO DOLLARS, because that’s how much he got paid – $52 Million – to KILL AUSTRALIA.
Every last one of these mongrel bastards should have been swinging from lamp posts YEARS ago, folks. If you have trouble grasping the concept, just meditate and try to picture in your mind’s eye a couple hundred thousand Australian corpses rotting in the ground right now, with the understanding that it was these REMORSELESS GENOCIDAL ARSEHOLES that KNOWINGLY and DELIBERATELY put them there. The same mass-murdering baby-eating Luciferian arseholes, folks, who shit in our faces and laugh at us every single day because they have the absolute assurance of being UNTOUCHABLE.
The High Court of Australia is corrupted. That was evident when Howard got given a 3-2 win over workchoices. The People had spoken twice in Referendums to refuse any government control over work places. The High Court ruled that of no consequence with 3 traitors agreeing to let Howard dictate workplace practises. The Court supports the System (UN Decreed) not Constitutional Law per 1901.
The really sad part about this that people who are now disabled or seriously ill because of the modRNA bioweapon [and the AHPRA system denies this], people who are homeless because of loss of livelihood (mandates) etc. probably will not be able to make it. The casualties from the attack of the government upon the Australian nation are still coming in, the losses are still mounting up. Those who took the covid injection and came through (and deny their health is impaired in any way) – and good luck to them think they ‘survived’ covid and are moving on.
There really is a deep divide in Australia.
The Australian judiciary has lost all credibility a LONG time ago.
https://gumshoenews.com/review-of-australian-law-and-its-decline/
Only way for this to finish is military Tribunals, very quick no BS .space force and cyber command have all the details . They are all guilty from the bottom up . Remember the top minions did not need to take the jab ???. We are in a war , not talking about Ukraine or Middle East . Cabal , deep state but hopefully this horror movie is coming to the end .
Claude Ramains said -“… That means that parliaments powers CANNOT MANDATE ANY pharmaceutical, hospital or medical treatments…”
Tell that to all the children that Brad the Hitman Hazzard with the enforcement of the shit-for-brains granny-bashing child-molesting hired mercenary thugs trading under the registered business name of the “NSW Police” herded into a Sydney stadium and SLAUGHTERED.
And Claude Ramains said – “… Completely unlawful. They broke all our own laws…”
Yes, and what does any of that mean? Nothing, apart from them shitting in our faces and laughing about it as they beat us all down into the dirt and dared us to do anything about it.
Then Claude Ramains said – “… And yet here we are…”
We certainly are, right here is where we are. Pretty much right in the same place we’ve always been, forever. If there’s one thing that we can depend on here in Australia, it’s that nothing ever seems to change.
And I’ll be buggered if Claude Ramains didn’t say – “… Nuremberg 2.0 is coming!”
Been coming for a quite a while now, years in fact, but all I’ve ever heard is crickets.
Maybe that’s creepy Bill coming to feed us.
The Powers and limits on powers in the Australian Constitution states….
Part V – Powers of the Parliament
51. Legislative powers of the Parliament
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power12 to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:…
The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances;
NOTE: “but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription”
That means that parliaments powers CANNOT MANDATE ANY pharmaceutical, hospital or medical treatments.
That means that all the mask wearing, PCR tests, Rat tests, social distancing, lockdowns, forced home detention, curfews in the name of medical health and everything else like it was completely unconstitutional.
Completely unlawful.
They broke all our own laws.
This section was put into the Australian constitution via referendum straight after ww2 when the allies found out what the Nazis had done to the Jews in the gulags and their horrendous human medical experimentation. Australia was so shocked and horrified that they swore that it would never happen in our nation.
And yet here we are.
Nuremberg 2.0 is coming!
Aussiemal said – “… why 8 years?”
Martin Armstrong forecasts that the Globalists will be defeated by sometime around 2032, corresponding with a world-wide revolt against our utterly corrupt Treasonous hijacked systems of “government”.
And Socrates has never been wrong in decades of operation – not even once.
We’ve also got Exercise WWIII between now and then. And when the Fat Lady sings, I doubt Trump will even be around any more. Neither will the USA or Europe, just BTW.
Knowing that it’s eight years, ONLY eight years, and that there’s a light at the end of the tunnel, is important, otherwise as we continue to get buried and drowned in mountains of genocidal Globalist shit, what hope is there? And it’s also a catalyst for people to get up off their fat lazy hairy arses and start the long hard arduous work of saving themselves and building a better future.
[…] Go to Source on cairnsnews.org Follow altnews.org on Telegram Please donate now! 00 […]
I wish the challengers to the High Court the best of luck. We shall soon see whether the Judiciary is doing the job they are being paid to do. That is providing truth and fairness in law to the Australian people.
[…] Source link […]
Pat from Vic, I have missed something along the way. I know you have mentioned 8 years before, but I am amiss, why 8 years?
I hope it has nothing to do with Trump, as I believe he is a fraud. Just throwing a few tidbits to the masses but doing nothing about the big things like the Covid-19 massacre.
Well folks,
This falls squarely under the banner of “Whattya gonna do about it?”
Rod Culleton is being real nice about it and “playing the game” with the very same sold-out paid-off foreign-owned Treasonous arseholes who’ve hijacked our “government” and occupied our country under force of arms.
The author quotes – “… “Every Australian who was affected by the Covid restrictions needs to be out the front of the High court in Canberra on this day so the High Court can see that we the people are on their doorstep…”
I’d suggest their presence might be more compelling if they brought sturdy lengths of rope and a few fully operational mobile scaffolds with them. That appears to me to be the missing but essential ingredient in this particular recipe.
I wish Rod and friends every success, folks, but I’m guessing it’s going to take another eight years or so to bake this cake good and proper.
Because let’s face the facts, folks, here’s another quote from the headline article – “… the governments must adhere to the restraint of the Constitution on them. They are bound to it under Clause 5…”
But they’re not, are they? Clause schmause. There’s no consequences, no accountability, they suffer no penalty and face no restitutions, they keep getting paid shitloads of our money no matter what, and they laugh right in our faces as they shit down our throats and fart in our general direction, and they use their armies of shit-for-brains mass-murdering hired mercenary thugs to beat us all down into the dirt if we get any fancy ideas otherwise.
And that’s the way it will stay, folks, unless and until they are bound to it by their F*CKING NECKS.
Eight more years, folks. Might as well bunker down for the long road ahead.
And just BTW, Lurch is coming, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.
[…] Source link […]
[…] Source link […]
[…] Source link […]
[…] Source link […]