Category Archives: High Court Australia

High Court belongs to political parties

Letter to the editor
I have the Doc to prove what I write.
The Political Parties changed the Constitutional and Official Definitions in 1973 without a Referendum. So now the word Australia is NOT the Australia or Commonwealth of Australia as established UNDER the Founding and Primary law, Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 as Proclaimed and Gazetted = TREASON
The High Court of Australia belongs lock stock and barrel by the Political Parties. It is NOT a Chapter 3 Court and was established in 1979 by and for the Political Parties under their own Party Constitutions and sealed by the Great Seal of Australia. That Seal (Great Seal of Australia) was established by and for the Political Parties in 1973.
The Judiciary of the Political Parties High Court of Australia sit there as a Coram.
Note: Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary
Coram /koraem/ lat – in the presence of: before. = TREASON
Therefore they have NO MORE Authority than you and me.
The Judges at times have told us
KIRBY J. : “ A legislature cannot, by preambular assertions, recite itself into constitution power where none exists. ”
DAWSON J. : “ It may be observed that a legislature wishing to enact a statute ordering that all blue-eyed babies be killed would hardly be perturbed by a principle of law which purported to deny it that power. ”
Chief Justice French
We do so against the backdrop of the supremacy of Parliament
Chief Justice French
A new kind of common law evolves derived from many decisions applying the same broad statutory language.
Dick Yardley
Babinda
Advertisements

Many more MP’s face dual citizenship including Labor

Letter to the editor

GRANT NEWTON

The Editor

The Canberra Times

letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au

 

Dear GRANT,

Now that the High Court has shown it will almost strictly interpret OUR constitution, will we now see those who are “entitled” to the rights and privileges of citizens of foreign powers willingly or otherwise be removed from OUR parliament?

There are many who are in the proverbial cleft stick as they have parents who are citizens of Great Britain, Greece and others. If you have, for instance, renounced your British citizenship, you may still recover it by way of application and the Home Secretary will approve it unless you have a criminal record or an unstable mind. Apparently you will only have it returned once, but to reapply for it to rid yourself of it demonstrates a disloyalty to Australia.

Those born of German parents automatically gain German citizenship, as with George Henry Brandis.

How many other of those sitting in OUR federal parliament are ineligible according to Section 44?

Sincerely,

Leonard William

Kallangur

Draining the Australian swamp continues with Liberal Senator Parry gone and more to come

from New Daily and Cairns News
Parry was last year accused by Austrian author Keith Noble of being involved in the Port Arthur training massacre. In a speech to the Undertakers and Embalmers Association several years after the alleged shooting of 30 people, Parry admitted he knew the operation was going to take place.

Tasmania Senator Stephen Parry resigns from the senate. He is, a former police officer and undertaker and has been accused of prior knowledge of the alleged Port Arthur massacre in 1997

Only days after the High Court disqualified five parliamentarians, the Tasmanian Liberal senator on Tuesday said he believed he may hold UK citizenship. If this is confirmed by UK authorities, he will immediately resign from Parliament.

Senator Parry’s revelation comes after the High Court thrust a by-election on former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce, disqualifying him and four senators from Parliament under Section 44 (i) of the constitution.

 As Senate President, Senator Parry, who earns $348,320 a year, oversaw the referrals of six senators to the High Court over dual citizenship.

He has contacted the British Home Office seeking confirmation of his citizenship status, he said in a statement to the Senate on Tuesday afternoon.

joyce
Barnaby Joyce is fighting a byelection in his seat of New England. Photo: AAP

Senator Parry said he did so after the High Court’s unanimous decision on Friday provided “absolute clarity” over Australian’s citizenship law.

“In the event that I am found to hold British citizenship by virtue of my father’s status, then I will clearly be in breach of Section 44 (i) of the Constitution and would therefore resign as President of the Senate,” he said.

“I would further resign as Senator for the State of Tasmania and not await the outcome of any referral to the High Court, as I believe the High Court has made it abundantly clear what action is required.”

Senator Parry’s father moved from the UK to Australia in the 1950s, leaving him vulnerable to holding citizenship by descent in a similar situation to former Nationals deputy leader Fiona Nash.

The development has already reignited calls for an audit of the eligibility of all parliamentarians, as advocated by the crossbench but rejected by the major parties, and may also bolster Mr Joyce’s proposal for a omnibus referendum that would consider a change to Section 44 of the Constitution.

On Sunday, Attorney-General George Brandis said he had “no reason … to believe that there is any other Coalition member” who held dual citizenship.

“Surely the time has come for the Libs and ALP to back the Greens’ call for an audit of all MPs and end this crisis,” Greens leader Richard Di Natale tweeted on Tuesday afternoon.

Senator Parry, who turned 57 on Tuesday, would be the first Liberal parliamentarian hit by the citizenship crisis that claimed Mr Joyce and his former Nationals deputy Fiona Nash.

Constitutional cloud looms

The news of Senator Parry’s potential disqualification comes as the Liberal politician in line to replace Ms Nash is placed under a possible constitutional cloud.

Hollie Hughes, the NSW Liberal candidate who is tipped to win the recount ordered after the High Court disqualified Ms Nash over dual citizenship, could be vulnerable to a challenge under section 44 of the constitution, experts have said.

That is because Ms Hughes, a one-time aide to the former Liberal senator Bill Heffernan, was recently appointed by Attorney-General George Brandis to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Under section 44(iv) of the Constitution, members of Parliament must not hold an office of profit under the crown when they nominate for election. The law saw independent MP and former school teacher Phil Cleary booted from Parliament in the early 90s.

Constitutional law experts Anne Twomey, of the University of Sydney, and the University of New South Wales’ George Williams, have both argued Ms Hughes could face difficulties because of the precedent set by the 1992 Sykes v Cleary case.

The Greens have also found themselves facing another possible constitutional headache, with Queensland candidate Andrew Bartlett, who is in line to replace Larissa Waters, also facing questions under s44 (iv).

Mr Bartlett, a former leader of the Democrats, worked at a university while he nominated for the Senate.

Vacant One Nation senate position could go to the top of the party

Queensland State election to be held on November 25

by Gil Hanrahan in Brisbane

Rumblings from One Nation members have confirmed there is an unhatched master plan in place to elevate Pauline Hanson’s Chief of Staff James Ashby to the senate.

In its usual response the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns has ordered a recount for the next candidate on the party ticket to replace the ousted Malcolm Roberts, a most competent senator.

Roberts now will stand in the state seat of Ipswich as a part of the plan, to take over the state leadership should sitting One Nation member Steve Dickson(another competent Member) lose his seat of Buderim at the November 25 poll.

In the current episode of sloppy administration by One Nation, the next in line is Fraser Anning, a Gladstone business man.

Sources have revealed that Anning, believed to be close to bankruptcy, suddenly had his creditors paid off allowing him to sit in the senate.

Has One Nation senate candidate Fraser Anning been asked to stand aside for James Ashby?

It seems the deal is for Anning to step aside and create a casual vacancy which would allow Pauline Hanson to insert Ashby into the senate.

There is a similar precedent to this scenario going back to the famous  case when a hostile Labor Party member,Albert Patrick Field(Pat)  was appointed to the senate after union organiser, Senator Bertie Milliner died suddenly. This extract from Wikipedia explains how One Nation could appoint Ashby:

“On 30 June 1975, Bertie Milliner, a Queensland ALP Senator, died suddenly. It had long been a tradition that when a casual vacancy occurred in the Senate, the relevant political party would nominate the replacement to the state premier, and the state parliament would formally appoint the new senator. As was usual practice, the Labor Party nominated only one name, Mal Colston, to replace Milliner. Country Party Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen asked for a list of three names from which he would choose the replacement; he was possibly relying on a 1962 precedent, when his predecessor, Frank Nicklin, had also required such a list of names. The Labor Party refused to provide a list and insisted on Colston being appointed.

Token Labor member Pat Field was nominated by Joh Bjelke Petersen in 1975 as a replacement for Bertie Milliner after his sudden death

Although Field had long Labor Party and union connections, he was certainly not an active politician and had never before sought to become one. Nevertheless, he made himself known to the Premier’s office and offered his services.[1]

Although he would be technically a Labor Senator, he vowed never to vote for the Whitlam government. Field was conservative and religious and was openly critical of what he saw as a range of “immoral” policies being advanced by Whitlam and his government. That was exactly the sort of person wanted by Bjelke-Petersen, who responded by nominating Field in the Parliament of Queensland as the new senator.”

To the public, One Nation it appears, can do no wrong. Their savage internal politics have seen numerous candidates kicked out because they would not pay Ashby’s Sunshine Coast printing business for election material believing they could buy it cheaper elsewhere. Others have been kicked out for not adhering to Hanson’s ‘it’s my way or the highway’ policy.

This writer does not believe the  platitudes coming from the mouth of Liberal leader Tim Nicholls stating he will not do a deal with Hanson to form government. He would do a deal with the devil to grab a hold of the Treasury spoils.

So would Hanson and Ashby, both traditional Liberals with close ties to both the state and federal Liberal parties.

At a Canberra function soon after last year’s federal election, according to a bystander, Hanson’s first comments to Malcolm Turnbull were,” how can I help you Malcolm?” (Cairns News has contacted a bystander and Hanson’s comments were confirmed).

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

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

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

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

Former One Nation senator Rod Culleton was tossed out of the senate due to an alleged conspiracy between George Brandis, senate President Stephen Parry and Pauline Hanson. Brandis has been charged with criminal conspiracy and is awaiting trial. He should not be sitting in the senate while under serious charges.

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

%d bloggers like this: