Category Archives: High Court Australia

High Court ruling paves way for Culleton and others to be re-instated to the senate

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.

Perth businessman and Liberal Dick Lester allegedly under instruction from the ANZ Bank pursued Senator Rod Culleton through the courts spending $1.6 million trying to recover an alleged debt of $200,000

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.

Former Senator Rod Culleton warned of a massive Constitutional correction 18 months ago and it has just arrived with the High Court handing the eligibility of Members or senators over to either House

“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.’

High Court Chief Justice Susan Kiefel backed by a unanimous decision on March 21, 2018 handed over the eligibility of members of Parliament to the respective Houses, the basis of Culleton’s argument since he was disqualified from the senate

“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.

Advertisements

Senate orders inquiry into the sacking of Senators Culleton and Day

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.

The senate has ordered an inquiry into the sacking of WA senator Rod Culleton while Brandis and Parry head for the hills.

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.’

Senator Bob Day(above) and Rod Culleton could be reinstated to the senate after a senate inquiry investigates the circumstances of their removal

 

Committee Secretariat contact:

Committee Secretary
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters
PO Box 6021
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Phone: +61 2 6277 2374
Fax: +61 2 6277 4773
em@aph.gov.au

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

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: