Category Archives: Courts
Victoria Legal Services Board
April 20, 2021
Dear Mrs Bennett
We have been following the legal challenges mounted by Advocate Me in Victoria courts. In particular the court challenge to the entire Covid 19 strategy of the Victoria Labor Government. We would also direct these questions to Premier Dan Andrews but we understand he is convalescing after a serious assault at Portsea.
1. Has your Board cancelled the solicitor’s practicing licence of Serene Teffaha?
2. On what grounds was it cancelled? At what precise time was Serene Teffaha notified of this cancellation?
3. Is your Board or its representative taking over Advocate Me client files?
4. Are these files in your possession?
5. Has your representative or the Board taken monies from the Advocate Me Trust Account or any other account?
6. For what purpose?
7. Has your Board or its representative requested all the client details of those participating in the class action against the government for its Covid responses?
8. Has the Board requested any other details of any other of Advocate Me clients?
9. What does the Board intend doing with the client details?
10. Has your Board or any of its representatives made any threats, verbal or otherwise against Serene Teffaha?
11. By what authority has the Board acted against Serene Teffaha?
12. Was there any request or pressure placed on yourself, other board members or representatives of your Board by the Attorney General, the Bar Association, the Law Society or politicians to take action against Serene Teffaha?
13. Has your Board ever received any complaints from an Advocate Me client in relation to a class action or any other matter involving Serene Teffaha?
14. Has your Board charged Serene Teffaha with any offence?
15. Is your Board now investigating any replacement lawyer who may have taken over Serene Teffaha’s files?
Your early advice would be appreciated. Cairns News is one of the largest independent news sites in Australia.
Robert J Lee
State sanctioned violence and intimidation must stop. The clients of Advocate Me solicitor Serene Teffaha are being targeted for the sole purpose of sabotaging the National Class Action and taking over the Melbourne Detention Tower Class Action.
In an astounding illegal move, the VLSB has demanded the identity of the 5000 litigants involved in the class action.
The Victorian Legal Services Board cancelled her solicitor’s practicing licence trying to stop the class action which would allow witnesses under oath in court, to reveal the genocidal activities of the communist Victorian Government.
Joining this team of ravaging wolves is the Commonwealth Bank which removed Serene’s access to her trust account then allowing a dodgy accountancy firm to access class action funds, crippling her proceeding.
A US reader wrote:
Just wanted to ask, we know what’s happening all around the world with this plandemic, the vaccine, the new world order, etc. There are a lot of Americans making a stand, we listen to Robert David Steele & Dr Charlie Ward he has 11.1 million followers.
What we want to know is, why isn’t anything happening in Australia it needs to stop, they will kill millions.
What can we do? No one even talks about it in Australia they just watch the news & do what they are told.
How do we wake every one up?
Thanking you Cherie
Time for Qld objectors to file in the Federal Court against Ministerial and doctor’s Covid decrees while we have a few businesses left
Support Victorian solicitor Serene Taffaha in her battle against the corrupt legal system
Brussels courts rule against all coronavirus measures
From the Brussels Times
The Belgian State has been ordered to lift “all coronavirus measures” within 30 days, as the legal basis for them is insufficient, a Brussels court ruled on Wednesday.
The League for Human Rights had filed the lawsuit several weeks ago and challenged Belgium’s system of implementing the measures using Ministerial Decrees, which means it is done without any input from parliament.
The judge gave the Belgian State 30 days to provide a sound legal basis, or face a penalty of €5,000 per day that this period is exceeded, with a maximum limit of €200,000, reports Le Soir.
The current coronavirus measures are based on the Civil Safety Act of 2007, which enable the State to react quickly in “exceptional circumstances,” but the judge has now ruled that these laws cannot serve as a basis for the Ministerial Decrees.
“The judge ruled that the principle of legality has been violated because the current way of working is not foreseeable enough,” Kati Verstrepen of the Human Rights League confirmed to VRT, adding the consequences are “not so dramatic” that from one day to the next, the measures would no longer be valid.
For the time being, the current coronavirus measures will not change, and the verdict is currently being studied by the office of Interior Minister Annelies Verlinden, reports De Standaard.
Appealing against the court ruling is still possible, but as it concerns a summary judgment, an appeal would not suspend the execution of the judgment.
On Wednesday afternoon, the Chamber will debate Belgium’s upcoming pandemic law, which is supposed to provide “a permanent legal basis, for taking this kind of restrictive measures during a pandemic.”
Several legal experts already pressed the Belgian State to bring forward the law as soon as possible to avoid judges cancelling fines written out for violations of the measures, and this ruling only increases the pressure to quickly adopt it.
Maïthé Chini & Lauren Walker
The Brussels Times
Covid crusader Serene Teffaha is seeking whistleblower protection from the Federal Government and Victorian Ombudsman from interference by State Government regulators threatening to shut her down and steal funds from her trust account to cover costs after she filed in the Supreme Court on March 19, a substantial class action against the Victorian government seeking damages for Covid lockdowns, forced testing, forced vaccination, forced detention, forced masking and forced restrictive behaviors.
One of several class actions has 5000 participants challenging the responses to the pandemic and she is on the verge of filing a national class action attested by the knee jerk reaction from Deep State politicians who want to shut her down with government interference bordering on criminal behavior.
Cairns News has thrown its support behind this gutsy solicitor who in 2012 took on the ‘old boys club’ of the Australian Taxation Department when she blew the whistle on corruption within its higher ranks.
Her firm Advocate Me provides a commendable community service often acting on a pro bono basis and it is of note she is acting for two gutsy NSW police officers who blew the whistle on highly questionable Covid responses and suppression of readily available and cheap remedies by the NSW Government last year.
She said she has another class action ready to file against the Family Court due to the way in which it deals with family violence and is specifically targeting the corruption and maladministration by Family Court judges who have brutalised thousands and thousands of people.
We applaud her gutsy, long overdue actions which would be sending shivers up the spines of her colleagues in the legal profession and courts Australia wide. Is it any wonder the corrupt court registries wielding unlawful power in concert with judges and their wink and nod outcomes would be terrified of her offensive. Hopefully she can find enough honest judges and demand a jury as insurance.
from Serene Teffaha, Solicitor and Covid 19 plandemic adversary
Advocate Me has been working hard at providing a platform to bring together other lawyers, activists, medical experts, police and professionals, to promulgate various legal campaigns exploring the devastating impacts that forced lockdowns, forced detention, forced testing, forced masking, forced business and service closures, forced denial of access to loved ones and forced vaccinations have brought to our nation.
Our website details all the legal campaigns we have been working tirelessly on. Many of these campaigns are reaching the pointy end of being lodged in Court. We will be filing the Detention Towers class action on the 2nd of Feb, when the court resumes, in which we are representing some of the most disenfranchised and vulnerable members of our community. This will soon be followed by the National Class Action, in which we are challenging most of the issues listed above.
We are also representing whistle-blowers who have come forward to expose corruption and maladministration in our courts, policing and medical establishments. Specifically, we are now helping two police officers who have blown the whistle and formed the Cops for Covid Truth campaign. Many whistle-blowers are confronted by the sheer vengeance of the system and are often pressed financially, so we are representing them on a pro bono basis.
Furthermore, the fast-tracked approvals of the covid-19 vaccines without adequate long-term safety studies is an issue that has quickly presented itself over the past two months, and we have brain-stormed the best methods to challenge the roll out of these vaccines, and the threats these will either be mandated or coerced on the public.
Through our networks, we have established a strong connection with qualified individuals who are happy to take the lead as directors of People for Safe Vaccines Ltd, a company limited by guarantee, one of its purposes being to challenge the data and representations made by our government and the vaccine companies themselves, in relation to their safety and efficacy claims.
If this issue is as important to you as it is to so many of our clients, please express your interest in becoming a member, to support this vital campaign. The company is a great vehicle for ensuring that your voices can be heard without exposing you to any liability, which is only limited to your contribution as a member. www.peopleforsafevaccines.org
We are very pleased with the website we have launched, and we ask that you become a member and circulate to your friends, family, and colleagues to do the same. Once you become a member, you will be regularly informed of everything we do when launching any legal challenge against the government, in their attempts to potentially force unsafe and ineffective vaccines on the public.
As you can imagine, we are trying to respond as quickly as possible to these issues, realising that many people are reluctant to be at the forefront of any challenge. We do not want to wait until the damage is done. This is our opportunity to get organised quickly, and be strategic in the way we respond.
We have already started taking the legal steps necessary to question the processes used to fast-track these experimental vaccines. All this information is available on the website for you to consider and read.
Serene Teffaha, as the principal for Advocate Me, is the CEO for People for Safe Vaccines; and our legal associate and colleague, Ben Clemens from Clemens Haskin Legal, is the solicitor.
Your membership will also allow you access to a specific People for Safe Vaccines forum to discuss the experimental covid-19 vaccines and all associated issues.We have also launched a separate forum for the Advocate Me website that will give you free access, where you can communicate with other community members on a myriad of issues relating to the lockdowns and mandatory flu vaccinations.
Advocate Me is representing our whistle-blower clients on a pro bono basis, and the Detention Towers clients, on a no-win, no-fee basis. Clemens Haskin Legal is handling People for Safe Vaccines on a no-win, no-fee basis. We have created a series of letter templates to empower you to deal with several key issues around masking and vaccination, where businesses and employers are acting unlawfully. These can be downloaded free from our forum.
Our preference is that you join and become a member of People for Safe Vaccines or our National Class Action, however we appreciate that some of you would prefer to make a donation to support us to manage all these vital campaigns.
If you would like to donate, please go to www.advocateme.com.au/donate and nominate how much you would like to contribute, and what campaigns you are supporting. Complete the form so we can provide you with updates and details as the money is spent, to ensure transparency.
Funds raised support us to manage all these vital campaigns, and vulnerable people, and continue to provide free templates and a free community forum, as we transition away from traditional social media platforms that are rife with censorship and trolls.
Thank you for your ongoing support.
Serene Teffaha and the team
Barrister calls out Andrews: The lockdown is a bluff and illegal
The barrister then pointed to page 106 of The Public Health and Wellbeing Act Division 1 Section 111 which states the spread of an infectious disease should be prevented or minimised with “the minimum restrictions on the rights of any person”.
“The clause doesn’t say ‘the restrictions on the rights of any person will be minimum to contain the spread of an infectious disease’. If the clause’s construction read this way, it would attempt to give the chief health officer arbitrary power to decide what’s minimum to get his job done as he sees fit, and with no consideration or reference to what the person, whose rights being restricted, thinks. This is not how the law works or what the clause says.
“The legal drafting and clause construction is very clear. It says the chief health officer can do his job to stop the spread of an infectious disease, but a person’s rights restrictions must be minimal. He has a qualifier and restraint. He doesn’t decide what’s minimum. So who does decide what’s minimum?
“If a person, whose rights are being restricted, has no say in the matter, there would have been no need to include the clause in the legislation. The Parliament sought to preserve and protect civil liberties. It’s a check on unfettered powers. That is the purpose of the clause, otherwise, why have it in the legislation if the chief health officer has unrestrained powers? It’s a reminder and constraint on the chief health officer.”
The barrister’s message notes that the Westminster system constrains, separates, checks and contains power, through a mechanism known as the Separation of Powers, which means that the legislature (that makes laws), the Executive (Premier and Ministry) who execute law, and the Judiciary who interpret laws, remain separate. “This is a check on power so it’s not concentrated as we seem to have in Victoria at the present.”
“The default ‘Mentis’ (mind) of Parliament, in a liberal democracy, is to preserve freedoms, particularly the freedom of movement and association which the High Court has protected over and over and now Daniel Andrews thinks he can extinguish.
“The person who decides what’s a minimum restraint on a person’s rights is the person who has the rights. If that person has no say on what’s a restraint, the person would be deemed to have no rights, so why mention them? In this event, the person at best, has privileges which can be limited or extinguished. Like a driving licence.
“True rights can only be suspended or limited by the right’s holder. These are known as inalienable rights – God-given which cannot be extinguished by the state, the chief health officer or Daniel Andrews.
“Division 1 Section 111 was drafted in acknowledgement of this liberal democratic principle. The Section is even referred to as the Principle of the Act, against which all Directions Orders must be measured. Case closed,” the barrister notes.
“What I have just set out is a legal argument by a barrister might make before a magistrate, who is usually ill equipped to handle such arguments. Now you understand why the last thing Daniel Andrews wants is fines to be challenged in court. Push the problem into the future. Maybe, even forgive fines so they never see a courtroom. The podium have zero standing and will never stand up in court when the BS fines are challenged. They’re all a big bluff. The lockdown is a bluff.
“It’s no wonder the Magistrates Court has adjourned all Covid challenged fines well into 2021.
If one illegal fine gets before a court, Andrews will buckle like he did with the Curfew when it was uncovered as a fraud. The Directions Order will be found to be as illegal as the Curfew. The day before the Curfew was challenged in the Supreme Court, it was quickly ended by Andrews.”
The barrister says the 5km restraint is equally illegal as an excessive restraint on the rights of Victorians. “I remind you. If Victorians have no rights, as Andrews asserts, then why mention them in the Act?
“While Andrews can’t be removed as Premier, he is subject to the Westminster system Separation of Powers, which means the Parliament or courts can clip his wings and stop his tyranny. As he has the numbers and Parliament and it’s not sitting, it’s useless to try a no confidence motion against Andrews, so we’re left with the judiciary and the courts. Spread this across social media.”
“Being awake and informed will set you free,” says the barrister. “With the legal illusion of fines swept away, so is lockdown. We decide when the lockdown ends, not Daniel Andrews. The police will run out of ink in their pens writing fines if we don’t cooperate.
“It was for this reason Daniel Andrews wanted detention powers in his Omnibus Bill. He feared someone would write a post like this and wake up Victoria. Repost this as far and wide as you can.
“Victorians don’t know or understand the law and Andrews feels omnipotent whilst Victorians are oblivious and kept in the dark. The average police member in the street is even less well equipped to handle these matter, so don’t try to enlighten them or argue whilst being issued with an illegal and worthless fine.
“They have no idea. They’re just following orders. In any event, fines are only allegations and not findings of fact or guilt. Fines become an admission of guilt when you pay them.”
By Tony Mobilifonitis
KIWIS face the most crucial election in their history on October 17, with both major parties – Labor and the “opposition” Nationals – now united on running with the medical dictatorship model driven by the Gates-Rockefeller-World Economic Forum “global health” cabal.
Despite the New Zealand High Court’s bizarre recent ruling that the first nine days of Ardern’s lockdown was “unlawful but justified”, the National Party leader Judith Collins has joined with Ardern in using “the virus” to impose a medical tyranny.
Collins wants to make it compulsory for everyone entering the country and border workers to carry contact tracing technology, which is the thin edge of the wedge for the vaccination certificates floated by her fellow fake conservative across the Tasman, Scott Morrison.
There is little or nothing separating the COVID policies of the major parties on either side of the ditch, prompting another desperate attempt by NZ Public Party leader Billy Te Kahika to rally the collection of minor parties into some sort of united front that can mount an effective challenge at the election.
Under New Zealand’s mixed-member proportional (MMP) electoral system, introduced in 1996, smaller parties have a better chance of gaining seats, especially in alliances.
“I will approach minor parties again because we need to work together to defend democracy and protect our economy. We are dealing with a very hostile government,” he said on a recent YouTube broadcast. He says 87% of all businesses in Auckland are on some sort of government subsidy, which makes a joke of Ardern’s Labor Party election slogan “Let’s Keep Moving”.
“We’ve got people just creating fear and panic to create systems of control like we’ve never seen. We have less than 40 cases in New Zealand but we’ve got roadblocks, checkpoints and normalization of mask wearing.”
NZPP has formed an alliance with ex-Nationals MP Jami-Lee Ross, whose Advance New Zealand Party has also merged with several other smaller parties. An alliance of small parties in 1996 won 10 per cent of the total vote, gaining 13 MPs. Australian minor parties have to rely on preference distributions which can, in rare circumstances, put a larger minor party like One Nation into a seat.
One Nation Senator Pauline Hanson, by the way, has taken a strong stand against Morrison’s vaccine push, declaring in a new video she will not have any COVID vaccine shot. She already does not take flu shots. This should be a major issue in the upcoming Queensland state election on October 31.
Morrison’s proposed deal with the pharma giant Astra Zeneca to push the so-called Oxford Vaccine is nothing more than a neo-Nazi eugenics system which makes unvaccinated people a restricted class of outcasts, banned from restaurants, jobs, government entitlements, education and travel.
The policy recalls Hitler’s Germany in 1935-36, when Jews were denied the vote and banned from all professional jobs, effectively preventing them from exerting any influence in education, politics, higher education and industry.
Meanwhile Ardern, the neo-fascist witch of the south, has upped the ante in pushing her medical tyranny even further, with new “rules” forcing people testing positive to COVID-19 (or is it just coronavirus i.e. colds and flu?) to quarantine in “government facilities” for two weeks. Those who refuse tests get four weeks incarceration for exercising their right at common law to informed consent to medical treatment.
Te Kahika says he heard from desperate families inside the detention centres where there’s no-one to talk to from health department. He’s alarmed that health authorities will detain family members and separate them from children.
In one incident late in July members of a young family absconded from a quarantine facility to go to the tangi (funeral) of the father. They had tested negative but been refused an exemption to go to Auckland from the facility in Hamilton.
The High Court case last week was initiated by Wellington lawyer Andrew Borrowdale, who challenged the legality of the early stages of the lockdown, including calls by Ardern and others between March 26 and April 3 for New Zealanders to stay home.
In a bizarre ruling, the court found that while there was “no question that the requirement was a necessary, reasonable and proportionate response to the COVID-19 crisis at the time”, it was not prescribed by law and was therefore contrary to section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
Taxi licences worth nothing due to Uber rideshare
Far North Queensland Federal Member for Kennedy Bob Katter delivered a scathing attack against the State judicial system today when the Supreme Court ruled against a delegation of over 1300 taxi plaintiffs seeking compensation from the Queensland Government for eroding the value of taxi licences when they legalised ride sharing in 2016.
The Closed Action case was submitted to the Brisbane Supreme Court in March last year and the decision which was handed down this morning ruled in favour of the State Government; a move which Mr Katter slams as being the most recent example in an “accumulating pool of evidence that the State justice system serves their masters.”
“I’ve received calls from many constituents who believe that the justice system just feel like they are part of the government, and saying this exposes me to great criticism, but I don’t make these statements without being able to back them up,” Mr Katter told media in Townsville.
“Over 1300 cabbies personally put in a thousand dollars each to fight against the Queensland Government for giving them a property right and then taking it away. I personally told them that we would not win this case in Queensland, history records case after case after case where they rule in favour of the Government.
“Pauline Hanson’s case was one of the most appalling cases in the history of the State – it was just political imprisonment and there was not a single respective justice person that agreed with that case – but Hanson’s was overturned at the Appeals Court.
“In the extraordinary case with Dan McDonald who fed his starving cattle grass – which they call mulga trees – and was fined $250k – his appeal was overturned.
“In Pell’s case the State Court was presented with 80 people saying he couldn’t have done it, and one saying that he did. They led a persecution of him, threw him in jail and then the High Court overturned it.
“In the outrageous case of defamation against me, four Justices in the State Court found against me. When we got to the High Court they humiliated the opposition 7/0 and threw the case out with a very stern caution.
“So it would appear to me that once again our faith in the system has been shaken and you’re now shaking the pillar upon which our democracy and freedoms were built. Once again the Governments have served the interests of big corporations and just walked all over the top of ordinary Australians.
“As a result of these cases, the ordinary person could justifiably believe on this basis that State Courts serve their masters – the government. I’m inclined to agree. It’s just another classic example where the people that are supposed to be looking after us are not on our side, they represent the interests of the stinking rich.”
Mr Katter said that the taxi owners had never said they wanted ride share banned, but was seeking compensation from the State Government for hanging them out to dry. According to a Cairns taxi owner, prior to ride sharing being allowed in Australia, taxi licenses were valued at over $500,000 and a number of drivers are repaying bank loans to cover that expense. Since ride sharing, the value has declined to around $100,000 – leaving almost a $400,000 abyss in the loan repayments. It must not be forgotten that the angst, and other lenders, are unforgiving and these poor people are now at their mercy.
Homeless owners suicide, lose homes
He warned that the accumulating evidence over recent years demonstrated a pattern of behaviour of State Justices that was “very unpleasant.”
“The complete underpinning of our democratic rights, the separation of powers, just doesn’t exist. Each of those cases and today’s ruling proves that again and again.
“2000 taxi owners owned a property right created by the State Government, got us to pay that money for the property right and then took it away and now half the taxi owners have mortgaged their houses or foreclosed, I have no idea how many are homeless, suffering deep depression or how many suicides there have been – but this is the ugly reality of this decision.
“So, while these owners are copping it today, I warn you will get your turn.”
If you want justice never file in a Queensland Court. Party political judicial appointments must be stopped. We should be adopting the US system of voting for the judiciary with fixed term appointments. Editor
by Jim O’Toole
Senator in exile, Rodney Culleton, after being locked in battle with the corporate Australian legal system since 2016, has filed an action in the High Court of the United Kingdom to have his expulsion from the senate overturned.
Culleton said yesterday he was excited the High Court had accepted his Constitutional argument in the first step to overturn the Australian High Court direction he be thrown out of the senate because of bankruptcy.
“I have never been bankrupt,” he said.
A single judge of the Federal Court issued sequestration orders against Culleton in 2017 freezing his assets in spite of a 21 day stay of proceedings being granted by the Federal Court.
Vexatious litigant and Perth businessman Dick Lester claimed Culleton owed him $200,000 over a failed sale contract on land, a claim pursued hotly by Culleton but he says Federal Court Judge Michael Barker failed to follow court rules, ignored all due process and did not look at his affidavits.
“When I was sworn-in as a senator on August 30, 2016, I swore allegiance to Queen Elizabeth 2 of the United Kingdom, making an oath to uphold the law.
“I did not swear allegiance to the fictitious Queen of Australia.
“This ceremony was witnessed by the Governor General and his deputy.
“It should be noted the Commonwealth Constitution Act of Australia 1900, (UK) remains in force and cannot be repealed by an Australian Government.
“The High Court of Australia does not have the jurisdiction to throw senators or members out of Parliament. Either House has the only jurisdiction under s47 of the Constitution to deal with a Member’s qualification.
“The Constitution is everyone’s contract but we can’t get a remedy in Australian star chambers which don’t recognise the Constitution.”
The HCA has long drawn criticism from those being refused a hearing on Constitutional matters, with litigants claiming the court is not functioning as a Chapter 3 court as required by the Constitution.
Culleton gave the example of any senator or MHR who files an action in the HCA. It is unlawful for the court to hear any evidence relating to parliamentary procedures under s16 (iii) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, he said.
“As a result they threw out my Motion 163 without having jurisdiction because they are not sitting as a Chapter 3 court operating under the proper Crown.
“There is no such thing as the ‘Queen of Australia’.
Culleton has asked the Law Lords of the Queens Bench to examine his request to debate his senate Motion 163 of 2016 which the Solicitor General filed in the HCA.
The statement of agreed facts filed in the HCA by the Solicitor General states a NSW Magistrate, in Culleton’s absence could not imprison him for the alleged theft of a $7 truck key from his own truck.
This matter could have, if imprisoned, disqualified Culleton from the senate under s44 of the Constitution.
“Motion 163 of 2016 was a requirement passed by the House announcing that Attorney General George Brandis’ referral of November 7, 2016 to the HCA is faulty and that there needs to be further investigation into that faulty action, originally orchestrated by former Senators Parry and Brandis, which was never passed by any procedure of law, ,” Mr Culleton said.
He said the senate could not lawfully vote on Brandis’ December 7 motion at the time because there were insufficient senators present to form a Quorum under s22 of the Constitution and the relevant material was withheld from the chamber by Senator Brandis and Senator Pauline Hanson.
Culleton’s legal team remains in London until a hearing date is set by the full bench.
Walter calls for supporters to attend the court
After losing his wife and property, then being jailed for a month in 2017, former policeman and Constitutional analyst David Walter has struck back, filing a claim in the Supreme Court against the Queensland Premier.
A hearing to strike out Walter’s application under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 by solicitor Paul Andrew Lack for Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk has been set down for October 12, 2018 in the Cairns Courthouse.
Walter was bankrupted by the Mackay City Council and other regional councils allegedly for advising ratepayers not to pay council rates.
He said he had made two requests to the Premier to have the matter settled out of court, but she had refused.
In 2017 he was unlawfully bankrupted by four shire councils as a non-party to actions taken by the councils against ratepayers for refusing to pay rates. In what was a first ever action of this nature, Walter experienced and exposed judicial and political corruption on a scale not ever seen in Queensland.
In his deposition Walter states private citizens are excluded from any criminal or civil legal actions by the ‘State Government.’
“Any property be it real or ready money Legal tender of the Commonwealth Pounds, shillings and pence, real property land or any private property held in any private Constructive Trust of any private person which includes Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth 2 in their will and testament for their heirs and assigns, is protected under the Common Law of the Commonwealth of Australia (UK) as held to Crimes Act 1914 and the ASIO Act of 1914 from any taking and use for any business purposes of a private person themselves the Members of the Registered Political Parties in the Commonwealth of Australia Act (UK), must be by way of signed Contracts by all parties involved and the property be it Money Legal tender of the Commonwealth or Real or Personal Property by way of acquisition only,” Walter deposed.
“Any acquisition of property by the Members of the Registered Political Parties are held to Paragraph 51 (xxxi) of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK):
acquisition of property has the same meaning as in paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution.
“Section 33 binds the Crown in the right of the Commonwealth, as the Crown is represented by the Constitutional Sovereign Her Majesty the QUEEN Elizabeth 2, in the Constitutions of the Six former Colonies those Constitutions are held to Parliaments of the (UK) – as members of the House of Commons as held to Common Laws of England, not being Members of Registered Political Parties or a MP in a signed De Facto Relationship with either John Howard or Peter Beattie both private persons an subjects of the Crown in the Preamble, the Deed of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK).
“As the Crown, being a private person Elizabeth 2, the Crown herself cannot be liable to pay any pecuniary penalties in Australian Currency $AUSD a digital Currency only, by way of a fine under Australian Law.
“Nor can Her Majesty the Queen be imprisoned for any Statutory Offence of the Australian Parliaments commencing 1988, by any Judicial Officer (Justice or Magistrate) in any Australian Court on the land of the Crown held to Common Law of England as is every other person of the Commonwealth including the Queen herself.
“Therefore any person being a subject of the Crown, imprisoned in Queensland, under the statutory Laws of Private persons, Members of Registered Political Parties, in unsigned and dated and sealed Judgements signed by a employee of (the “State”) a State of a Clerk of any Queensland Courts or person holding that authority and paid in Australian Currency, for their private services to the Parliamentary Members of the Parliament of Queensland Act No.80 of 2001. Reprint 1E © State of Queensland 2016, persons themselves inside the Constitution Act 1867 Qld, as those they have imprisoned or fined under digital Australian Law, must be immediately released as held to the Common Law of England as held to Church of England and the Holy See.”
David Walter has asked for supporters to turn up at the Cairns hearing to ensure a repeat of his incarceration by a wayward Magistrate does not occur again.
by Gil Hanrahan in Melbourne
An attempt by the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions to prosecute ‘Senator in exile’ Rod Culleton for not complying with a sequestration order, has so far failed in the Commonwealth Magistrates Court in Perth.
After a submission by Culleton, at a hearing on Friday, the Magistrate ordered the criminal matter be adjourned for two months to allow mediation between the parties.
Culleton said he had not been served with any summons by the CDPP prior to the court appearance yet the case had been listed to be heard on July 27 without his prior knowledge, had he not been ‘tipped off’ by a third party.
He said inquiries made to the court prior to the sitting revealed he had been charged but not informed of the charges.
In a letter to the court Culleton explained he had not been served with any process.
“I made appropriate enquiries today (July 10) to the registry of the Magistrates Court in Perth and to Peter Botros (CDPP, Canberra) outlining my concerns. I have been informed that fresh criminal charges have been made against me personally, which has taken me by surprise,” Mr Culleton said.
“I had not been informed of the details of the spurious charge …..listed for 27th July 2018 as I have not been personally served on any matter.
“It appears that the CDPP is usurping its powers to commence a criminal prosecution over a matter I know nothing about.
“All other matters are before the High Court (C15/2016) in Canberra re s44(ii) and s44(iii) (disqualification re jurisdiction) which is still awaiting a ‘date to be fixed,’” he said.
Culleton was charged by WA police two years ago for allegedly stealing a receiver’s car at an attempted farm seizure by the ANZ Bank. The police, without any benefit of a sworn statement by any person present commenced proceedings against him for allegedly placing barley straw bales around the locked vehicle.
Barley straw is so light in weight that a child could have removed the hay bales, an onlooker commented at the time.
He said the police have no direct evidence or sworn statement that implicates him. He was one of a large crowd helping another distressed farmer rally against the now-proven criminal activities of banks.
“At the original hearing about the straw bales I told the Magistrate there was no case to answer. Then the police escorted me from the court,” Mr Culleton said.
This matter has been set down for another hearing on August 27.
The Federal Liberal Government is desperate to get Culleton out of the way before the High Court rules on the unsettled matter of jurisdiction.
Should the HCA order Culleton be returned to the senate the ramifications for the government are extraordinary, which would almost certainly result in criminal conspiracy charges against former Attorney General George Brandis QC, the dismissal of the Government and a fresh election of both Houses.
A directions hearing is scheduled for August 6.
In reply from a letter to the Governor General from Culleton suggesting Saturday’s five by-elections could be unlawful, Government House Secretary Mark Fraser said the GG cannot intervene in a matter “that is the responsibility of the Government”
The GG is the Head of Government in Australia. Legislation passed in Parliament cannot become law unless the GG gives Royal Assent, albeit a token gesture these days.
The letter demonstrates the highest office in Australia has been completely neutered since the creation of Whitlam’s republic in 1975 and Hawke’s Australia Act 1986.
The Constitution clearly gives the GG Sir Peter Cosgrove authority to intervene in the Culleton matter, but it seems the former army General has lost his way.
Culleton’s very public argument that s 47 of the Commonwealth Constitution clearly states his matter of qualification to sit in the senate under s 44 can only be decided by the senate and not the Court of Disputed Returns, has been filed with the HCA.
So-much-so that he attracted the attention of respected counsel and former Solicitor General of Australia, David Bennett AC, QC to represent him on the disqualification question.
The Federal Government’s dirty tricks department is alive and well and demonstrates the extent to which Cabinet and the Liberal Party will go to protect the Canberra lawyers club.
The President of the Senate, Liberal Scott Ryan has been summonsed to appear in the Court of Disputed Returns to defend the unconstitutional referral of Senator Rodney Culleton to the court which saw him dismissed from the senate.
Two weeks ago ‘exiled’ Senator Rodney Culleton filed an action in the High Court of Australia sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns.
Mr Culleton said his dismissal and that of Senator Bob Day were unconstitutional and that all hostile referrals by the senate of other senators since dismissed were unlawful.
“It is clear that at all material times, the Government did not follow proper due process as required under the Constitution. All referrals from the House post 7th November 2016 appear to be invalid,” Mr Culleton told Cairns News.
He said under section 47 of the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia only the senate can decide on the qualifications of a senator.
“On the 4th July 2018, a summons was successfully filed back into the Court of Disputed Returns, Matter No C15/2016 Culleton v Commonwealth.
“This unconcluded case is now unprecedented and has in effect re-opened all invalid hostile referrals that have been invoked by the House under s 376 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, post 7th November 2016 which did not comply with the Constitution.
“Section 368 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, states Decisions to be final: All decisions of the Court shall be final and conclusive and without appeal, and shall not be questioned in any way.
“Notwithstanding the prohibition as defined in ss 368 and 364 CEA ,Section 47 of the Constitution, in contrast, is squarely addressed to authority to decide and to nothing other than authority to decide. Each House shall be the Judge of the … Qualifications of its own Members”, there is in s 47 a textually and Sections 22, 23 and 49 Constitution.”
Acting for Mr Culleton is the former Solicitor General of Australia, David Bennett AC, QC who has been following the saga with interest.
Culleton said Mr Bennet believed he had a strong case which was straightforward Constitutional law.
“The relevant effect of the section 47 Constitution is that, unless the Parliament otherwise provides and to the extent that the Parliament does not otherwise provide, ‘any question’ which answers the description of a ‘question respecting the qualification of a senator’ in our matters, must be determined by the Senate and not otherwise,” stressed Mr Culleton.
“The House must hear the disallowance motion 163 of 2016 and allow all constitutionally elected Senators to appear at the bar in order to have the Senate demonstrate its constitutional commitment of the determination of the identified questions to a coordinated political department as a privy council in order to judge the qualification of its own members.
“This must be remedied to restore honesty and integrity back into Parliament.
“The House is not only sitting unconstitutionally but these breaches have set a bad case precedent in allowing the major parties to re-shuffle the deck of cards and regain power by removing Independents and defanging the minor parties.”