Category Archives: Culleton
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.”
The federal Member for Kennedy Bob Katter on June 25 introduced a private member’s bill into the Australian Parliament to protect the economy and bank customers from dangerous financial speculation and predatory banking.
The Banking System Reform (Separation of Banks) Bill 2018 is based on the USA’s successful Glass-Steagall Act. It will separate Australia’s commercial banks, which hold deposits, from risky investment banking, as well as other financial services that Australia’s banks have acquired in recent decades, including insurance, superannuation, wealth management, and stock broking.
The ongoing Financial Services Royal Commission, which Bob Katter led the political fight to establish, has laid bare the predatory banking practices that the bill will end. The revelations from the royal commission have been so dramatic that it has attracted global attention, and kindled fear in the City of London that Australia’s inquiry could lead to a renewed push to break up Britain’s too-big-to-fail banks.
Katter excoriated Australian banking in a passionate speech introducing his bill. “The situation in Australia is ugly and it is evil”, he said, “and this legislation is needed to overcome those problems and what effectively it says is—‘Mr Banks you are no longer out there in the market, in the arena buying and selling. Your job is to loan to people that buy and sell, develop and invest. You don’t do that, you judge them.’”
Aside from the conflicts of interests in banking, Katter’s chief concern in moving Glass-Steagall is for the looming financial crisis arising from the banks’ speculation in real estate and derivatives. He identified the reckless speculation threatening the financial system today was also the cause of the 1929 crash, which led to the passage of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1933.
“What we’re talking about here is derivatives: when you don’t buy a loaf of bread; you buy a contract to buy a loaf of bread”, he said. “That is what we call a derivative.
“Glass-Steagall came in and it overcame the vast bulk of those problems so that the American economy ran fairly effectively, making it three, four, five times the size of any other economy on earth, until Mr Bill Clinton, ‘Mr Free Markets’ himself. … In 1999, he abolished the Glass-Steagall Act. Within two years, the dot-com collapse occurred, taking down trillions of dollars of savings, superannuation and retirement moneys of Americans and the rest of the world, and in 2008, as we’re all familiar with, came the GFC.
“Clearly, that timeline indicates the necessity for Glass-Steagall legislation in this place.”
The most immediate danger for Australia, Katter emphasised, is from the bubble in the real estate market.
“The housing boom in Australia today—does anyone seriously think that we are not sitting on the brink of disaster?” he warned. “A quarter of Australia’s population, maybe a third, live in Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong. The average price of a house is over $800,000. That means that 50 per cent of the houses are over that value. Yet the average income for an Australian after tax is about 50 grand a year [$50,000]. So how are they going to make the repayments on a house? And yet they’re buying houses. The banks are financing them. The banks make money when you go broke and they sell the house out from under you. They don’t lose money; they make money out of what has occurred. They should be held responsible.
“I would love to be in a business that is guaranteed by the government”, he continued. “If I buy a corner store and I know that, if I go broke, the government’s going to give me the money, everyone will be buying corner stores in Australia. They are given this, but there is no responsibility placed upon their shoulders to act in a prudential manner.”
Katter singled out the team of people responsible for organising the bill, including Robert Barwick, Dr Wilson Sy, and Bob Butler. Sy is the former principal researcher at bank regulator APRA (Australian Prudential Regulation Authority). Barwick and Butler are representatives of the Citizens Electoral Council, which has led a nine-year campaign to get Glass-Steagall legislation enacted in Australia.
It is significant that on the same day as Bob Katter introduced his bill, Australia’s biggest bank CBA announced it was demerging from its wealth management businesses, as if to send the message that Glass-Steagall legislation is unnecessary because the banks are doing it voluntarily. On closer examination, however, CBA is not completely demerging from other services, and along with the other big banks it is continuing to speculate in dangerous derivatives and other forms of financial gambling. Only a strict Glass-Steagall law will end these practices, which is the intention of the Katter bill.
As a private member’s bill, Katter’s Separation of Banks Bill 2018 will only be debated if a majority of members of parliament agree to do so, which will require the support of one or the other major party. Ordinarily, the governing Liberal Party would be expected to protect the banks, but many Liberal politicians are shocked by the revelations of the royal commission and are concerned about a financial crash. And what about the Labor Party—will it block or delay Glass-Steagall the way it blocked the banking royal commission for six years, or return to its roots as champions of working people against the Money Power? It will be up to the Australian people to demand the major parties stop protecting the banks, and allow a debate and vote on Glass-Steagall.
Former West Australian One Nation Senator Rodney Culleton will appear on the ABC 7.30 Report Monday Night EST
7.30 pm June 4, 2018.
He will tell all about the One Nation imbroglio, the Royal Commission into banks which he and Bob Katter initiated and how the Commonwealth Constitution has been subverted.
Don’t miss this revealing interview.
Harry Palmer and Mike Holt -“Oz Chat” today looks at the news exposing our government spies expanding their violation of your privacy once again under the cloak of “NATIONAL SECURITY”. Now the “spooks” will
West Australian Senator in exile, ‘bank basher’ Rodney Culleton is expecting to be re-instated to the senate after the High Court delivered a fatal blow to the long-running ANZ Bank campaign to destroy his career and livelihood
A unanimous decision handed down on March 21, 2018, Alley-v-Gillespie, paves the way for the senate to re-install senators Bob Day and Rod Culleton, however it could have further far-reaching ramifications for other senators removed under s44 of the Commonwealth Constitution.
In essence the HCA has ruled it cannot decide on a question of disqualification or vacancy without first empowering the House under s22 and s47 challenging any question under s44 of the Constitution which states any question of eligibility for an elected candidate to the Upper or Lower House can only be decided by the respective House of Parliament.
Culleton has maintained this argument ever since Judge Barker of the Federal Court in 2016 found Culleton bankrupt because a proposed land deal between himself and Perth businessman and leading Liberal Dick Lester had turned sour.
Lester was reported as spending $1.6 million with Perth law firm King Wood Malleson chasing an alleged
debt of $200,000.
Culleton alleges the law firm and Lester were acting on instructions from the ANZ Bank because he had challenged the ANZ Bank’s bona fides over bank foreclosures through the senate.
Two solicitors, Michael Lundberg and Adam Rompopis who were leading the Culleton offensive, have since departed the firm.
To add insult to injury in June last year, the Federal Government pursued Culleton for $712,000 in expenses and wages incurred while his senate office was in operation.
It was a first ever demand for office expenses by government against a former Member.
On March 7 the Finance Minister Mathias Cormann wrote to Culleton stating he had forgiven the office bill. Culleton said he refused the offer because legally, he remained a senator.
“I did not accept Cormann’s waiver of the debt because I was unlawfully removed from the senate,” Mr Culleton said.
“After the s47 ruling on March 21 I informed the senate President he must recall the senate to deal with the matter of my disqualification which will have implications for other senators who were also disqualified by the High Court.
“All facts must be debated in the House and questions of disqualification or vacancies must be dealt with by the House.
“My argument regarding s47 has never changed and I put the President on notice last week the ‘surrogate’ senators not elected by the people are only filling the void created by the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns.
“They should pack up and go home. The whole senate has been brought into disrepute by former Liberal Attorney General George Brandis and former President Stephen Parry when Brandis withheld the statement of agreed facts from the senate.
“The new president must recall the senate and deal with the matters.”
The extract below is from a story published by Cairns News on March 8, 2017:
A single judge of The High Court of Australia, on March 2, 2017 struck out Culleton’s appeal against bankruptcy, previously handed down by the Full Bench of the Federal Court.
“I am outraged and disappointed Justice Patrick Keane of the High Court did not ever read my written submissions yet he handed down his finding in spite of me asking for more time to prepare,” Mr Culleton said.
Coincidentally, March 2, 2017 was the 12 month anniversary when he was convicted of larceny in absentia in the Armidale Magistrates Court over the disappearance of a truck key worth $7.50, a charge for which he would not ever have been jailed.
“My counsel clearly told Justice Keane that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to deal with my position in the senate,” he said.
“Counsel told the court only the senate could deal with it and Justice Keane only had to read Section 47 of the Constitution which says any question over the qualification of a senator or a member of either House, ‘….shall be determined by the House in which the question arises.’
“The High Court says it gets its power from the unlawful Australia Act 1986 which was introduced two years after a referendum of Australian people said they did not want the Commonwealth to give its powers to the States.
“This referendum failed but here we have the High Court using powers the states should not have such as the denial of juries.”
Lower House supporter Katter’s comments from January 19, 2017.
KAP Federal Member for Kennedy, Bob Katter who had formed an alliance with Senator Culleton because of his effective attack against unlawful bank foreclosures, waded into the fray last year.
“The more we become aware what has been done to Senator Culleton the more clear it becomes that the Liberal Party counts on the vote of One Nation,” Mr Katter said.
“This morning in the Perth Federal Court, Senator Rod Culleton was granted his right to have an Appeal heard on his bankruptcy ruling.
“The Senator’s Appeal application was a live matter last week when the Senate President removed Senator Culleton from his elected seat in the Senate on the basis of Senator Culleton’s bankruptcy declaration being finally determined, which at the time — it was not.
“Whilst One Nation may have started off the ‘Killing of Culleton’, it is most certainly the Liberal Party who are trying to finish the job. The Liberals are doing exactly the same job on Senator Culleton that they did on Pauline Hanson herself. I was always appalled with what they did to her and publicly said so on numerous occasions. However, it is hard to feel sorry for her now.
“It’s becoming clear now that the Liberals with the support of One Nation moved at lightning speed to bankrupt Senator Culleton and in my opinion, stand him down from the Senate.
“On the issue of bankruptcy, the Liberal W.A Government gets to make the decision (in cahoots with One Nation).
“If Senator Culleton is thrown out over the loss of a $7 key then the Liberals and One Nation do not get to choose his replacement. It goes to the number 2 on the ballot who is a One Nation True Believer, not of the new, ‘James Ashby (Liberal) One Nation’ that we see today.”
On March 8, 2017, Culleton warned of the looming “biggest Constitutional correction since federation.” It has occurred.
Submissions called to investigate the unlawful removal of Senator Rod Culleton from the senate earlier this year.
What really happened? Why did the Attorney General Liberal George Brandis, intentionally mislead the senate about Culleton and how did the Senate President Stephen Parry(former Port Arthur undertaker) remove Culleton without a motion of the senate? Section 47 of the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia says only the senate can rule on the eligibility of a senator.
Brandis is hightailing it to London as the new High Commissioner. He will no doubt be called to give evidence. He has a problem.
‘On 6 December 2017, the Senate resolved that the following matter be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for inquiry and report by 6 February 2018:
The implications of recent decisions by the Court of Disputed Returns concerning section 44 of the Constitution on questions referred by the Parliament under section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, with particular reference to:
(a) the decisions in connection with the disqualification of former Senators Bob Day and Rodney Culleton;
(b) a regime for disclosing information relating to aspects other than section 44(i), for which the Parliament has already provided;
(c) the form such a process might take and how it could be implemented; and
(d) any related matters.’
Committee Secretariat contact:
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters
PO Box 6021
Canberra ACT 2600
Phone: +61 2 6277 2374
Fax: +61 2 6277 4773
Banks order the Member for Goldman Sachs, Mal Turnbull to knock up an inquiry for which they will provide the terms of reference
30 November 2017: KAP Federal Member for Kennedy Bob Katter today applauded the Turnbull Government’s endorsement of a Royal Commission into the banks, but warns that whilst this battle is won, the war will continue should the Government opt to uphold a 12 month review period and construct the review board from those within the finance industry.
Mr Katter, who was the first Member of Parliament to call for a Royal Commission into the banks in May 2015 and who introduced legislation in the Parliament earlier this year, labelled today’s announcement as ‘a great victory of the people of Australia’.
“This is a great victory for the ordinary Australians. Today my fellow Australians we have won. We have proved that we can win. The Government has been resistant almost to a point of bringing down their own Government against having a Royal Commission into the banks.
“Resistant to a point where the people had a great stroke of luck and the Liberal Party was one down in the Parliament and since they were one vote down, we could cease control of the Parliament and get through the Royal Commission into the banks.
“But the victory lies with those people that did not cop if from the banks but stood up and fought and fought and fought, and with the meagre resources they had they went into the courts and got slaughtered, constantly coming to people like myself and the crossbench – together were able to get the victory today”
“I had the very great honour of having drafted the legislation in conjunction with George Christensen; just two ordinary Australians. The leader of the Government is a banker and unfortunately for him, from Goldman Sachs whose history is checkered.
“This is where the second ball game arises. The Government only acted at the request of the banks. They ignored the majority of the Parliament, they ignored the majority (I suspect) of their own Party and they most certainly treated with contempt the view of the people of Australia. They only acted when they got their writing instructions from the banks and that is a terrible indictment of the Government.”
Mr Katter said that the substance behind the Royal Commission will come down to the composition of terms of reference of the inquiry and said that appointments to the Commission should be approved by the Parliament.
“We put in our legislation, that there will be three judges and three people from the community. We don’t want Caesar judging Caesar. We don’t want just anyone from the financial sector. On our list of names, we suggested Oliver Yates who has a banking background but has proved again and again what he thinks is the right thing and not just what the banks say is the right thing to do. These are the sort of people the people of Australia would trust to do the right thing.
“To my fellow Australians I say this; you have risen up, not given in and fought, you never gave up and you never gave in. You kept out there fighting and fighting. But I warn you, the man from Goldman Sachs is not going to be giving you the inquiry that you want.”
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 12th 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
The Federal Government and Opposition continue to fall apart driven by corruption scandals, citizenship disqualification and a judiciary acting as the arm of dishonest political parties.
Former One Nation WA senator Rod Culleton has borne the brunt of a corrupt and unaccountable judiciary marching to the orders of Liberal Attorney General George Brandis.
This time justice might catch up to the errant Brandis after he was served with a summons to face the Magistrates Court on a criminal conspiracy charge.
Culleton has charged the beleaguered Attorney General with conspiracy allegedly over his part in giving the senate false information to have the High Court disqualify Culleton over his bankruptcy which he says was an intentionally incorrect finding of a Federal Court judge.
Culleton launched the private prosecution after a meeting with the Chief Magistrate in Canberra.
Meanwhile the Director of Public Prosecutions is attempting to take over the case and shut it down, no doubt on orders from the accused Attorney General.
Culleton says the DPP is a public servant, “not a duly elected public officer.”
“The Director has no right or qualifications to take over my case. They are not a judge or jury,” he claimed.
“I was tossed out of the senate because my first question to Senator Brandis pointed out the High Court and all other courts had been functioning unlawfully since 2004 when the courts removed the Crown(Queen) from all process.” (Cairns News Nov 22, 2016)
Disqualification of sitting politicians under Section 44 of the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia, should also apply to lawyers or barristers who sit in Parliament.
“The Parliament is in conflict with the Constitution by having lawyers as politicians,” Mr Culleton explained.
“These members are officers of the court and being a politician they receive a reward under the Crown and as such should be disqualified under Section 44 too.”
A constitutional analyst has pointed out to Cairns News that George Brandis’ parents were both born in Germany, entitling him to German citizenship.
“”This would bar him from sitting,” the analyst said.