Letter to the Editor
As I see it –
Karl Marx Communist Manifesto
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents (land taxes, council rates)
of land to public purposes.
The “rent” on your property in Australia is in the form of an illegal tax which if not paid over a period of 3 years the “Local Government’ is obliged to hold an auction sale for the recovery of the money owed. So who owns the house and land?
“The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is an Australian government statutory agency…..”
Where are the statutes to be found?
Similarly where are the Commonwealth of Australia governments statutes authorising a 3rd tier of government?
Section 109 of the Australian Constitution states:
“When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.”
Because the state Parliaments of Australia are subject to the Commonwealth Parliament and also subject to the Commonwealth Constitution, the states cannot lawfully impose a ‘Land Tax’, ‘only the Commonwealth Government holds such taxation authority’.
“The very same applies to local governments continuance and application of rates and taxes issued on their behalf”
(State governments cannot be awarded powers from the commonwealth that are not theirs to hand over)
Until the states of Australia can provide a legal authority either from the High Court of Australia; or from the Federal Government giving authority to raise taxes, to comply with your intentions would be in breach of the law itself, that you are bound to uphold.
All local government has been constitutionally illegal since 3-9-88 when there was a referendum to incorporate local Government into the Australian Constitution, and prior to the referendum, there has never been any implied legality.
This means that all local government authorities now operate without a lawful head of power. The legal bind is that states cannot retain legislation that condones any form of local government.
Thus all levels of government are operating illegally ignoring the instructions of the people. If the government will not obey the Constitutional Will of The People and thus democratic law, why should the people obey parliamentary law? The precedent has been set.
FURTHERMORE Local Government Rates are deemed a tax thus no GST is applicable.
Clearly in sections 51 and 52 of the Constitution and from the Constitutional Commission (1985 – 1988) report that the power of taxation is held exclusively by the Federal Parliament. No states have authority under the constitution to impose a tax. Clearly in sections 51 and 52 of the Constitution and from the Constitutional Commission (1985 – 1988) report that “The power of taxation is held exclusively by the Federal Parliament.” Thus Local Government Rates being a tax are unlawful and in breach of the constitution.
4. Unless we receive a “Rates Notice” from the ‘Commissioner for Taxation council rates are INVALID and UNLAWFUL.
BUT – The ATO is an agency of the Commonwealth.
STATEMENT by former Attorney General to prevent validity of ATO from scutiny
Attorney-General – George Brandis QC
Senate Hansard, Monday, 28 November 2016
“………..Nevertheless, because a constitutional issue had been raised, a notice under section 78B of the Judiciary Act went to the Commonwealth, as well as to the states and territories, asking if the Commonwealth wished to intervene in the proceedings. It is important to point out that although the ATO is an agency of the Commonwealth it is a different legal personality. It nevertheless represents the interests of the Commonwealth in protecting the revenue. It is not automatic that the Commonwealth intervenes in proceedings every time it receives a section 78B notice. Every section 78B notice is assessed according to its own particular facts………………”
….Relatively low key but highly symbolic Commonwealth support of local government continued during the Howard Liberal–National Government (1996–2007). A significant local government initiative of the Howard years was the Roads to Recovery program, which provided funds direct to local governments to upgrade, construct and maintain local roads. Begun in 2000, some $1.2 billion dollars was spent on Roads to Recovery grants by May 2005, and a further $1.23 billion was subsequently committed for the 2005–06 to 2008–09 fiscal period. This program benefited many rural and regional councils, a reflection, perhaps, of an old national ideal identified by political scientist Judith Brett:
Built into the notion of what it was to be an Australian was an idea of shared access to basic services, a shared minimum standard of living, no matter where you lived.
The rhetoric behind the Roads to Recovery scheme included a slightly ‘Whitlamesque’ concern for fostering local ‘agency’ and expeditious outcomes without state involvement: ……
Public Service Act 2008 Section 24 Chapter 1 Introduction Part 2 The Queensland Public Service
What is a government entity
1. (a) a department or part of a department; or
2. (b) a public service office or part of a public service office; or
3. (c) an agency, authority, commission, corporation, instrumentality, office, or other entity, established under an Act or under State authorisation for a public or State purpose; or
4. (d) a part of an entity mentioned in paragraph (c); or
5. (e) another entity, or part of another entity, declared under a regulation to be a government entity; or
6. (f) a registry or other administrative office of a court of the State of any jurisdiction.
(2) However, each of the following entities is not a government entity— (a) a local government; etc
Therefore corporate Local government is like the corporate ATO which has no Commonwealth Constitutional authority and is therefore an agency of the Commonwealth and States. Local Government and ATO Acts are only corporate statutes, and only apply to the employees of that private company (Corporations Act 1990 Sec 8).
from Kev Crisscross,
Exclusive report by Jim O’Toole
Culleton advised by UK Supreme Court his senate expulsion was wrong at law leaving the way open for other expelled senators to reclaim their seats
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has advised Western Australia Senator-in-exile Rod Culleton the High Court of Australia has erred by removing him from the senate.
In January Culleton filed an appeal, contrary to legal advice, against his senate expulsion in the Supreme Court(Privy Council) citing s47 of the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia, which had been ignored by the High Court.
This section states: ‘Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting the qualification of a senator or of a member of the House of Representatives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the House in which the question arises.’
The High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, expelled him from the senate in 2017 on a referral from then Attorney General, Senator George Brandis.
“Preliminary guidance from my case manager in the UK Supreme Court referred me to a legal maxim from a case precedent, Hilary Term  UKSC 3.”
The case precedent cites “….. Blackstone (Commentaries on the Laws of England) says that the whole of the law and custom of Parliament has its original from this one maxim: ‘that whatever matter arises concerning either House of Parliament, ought to be examined, discussed, and adjudged in that house to which it relates, and not elsewhere.’
“The senate now has no choice but to remove all of those candidates who filled casual vacancies created by the High Court and reinstate me, because a legal maxim is the final say, there is no law above it,” Culleton said.
“This includes Jacquie Lambie and Bob Day who have indicated to me they will now contest their expulsions by the High Court under s44 of the Constitution.
“The senate will have to decide on my eligibility to sit as a senator.”
Tomorrow Culleton intends to inform the Clerk of the senate of this legal maxim leaving the Clerk no choice but to ask the senate to reinstate any senator expelled by the High Court.
“The Parliament is compelled and bound by this maxim. The senate cannot abuse its powers and must immediately ask the surrogate senators to remove themselves from the House as they are only filling a vacancy,” he said.
“Furthermore, I believe those unelected surrogate Senators are now impersonating a Commonwealth Public Official and putting the Senate in disrepute through their unlawful representations and I quote Odgers Australian Senate Practice, 13th Edition, 2012 page 160:
“Presumably if a conviction is quashed on appeal the vacancy which was taken to have occurred upon conviction and sentence is taken not to have occurred. If such a presumed vacancy has been filled the filling of the vacancy would then also be void.”
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.
by Gil Hanrahan
West Australian senator in exile Rodney Culleton has called on the senate President Richard Pye to call him and former senator Jacqui Lambie to appear before the senate by issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus.
Culleton has been dogged by state and federal government-initiated law suites since being forced out of the senate. When sitting in the senate he pushed for a Royal Commission into corrupt behaviour of banks and for the High Court to reinstate Queen Elizabeth 2 to legal process.
With the help of federal MP Bob Katter, he was successful with the Banking Royal Commission. In part, he got the Queen restored but he pointed out the HCA actually reinstated the fictitious Queen of Australia, which he says is not a lawful entity.
The maverick former farmer has been stymied by government in every legal move he has made to get himself reinstated to the senate.
On the evidence, there is no doubt government has called in judicial favours to knock out his appeals on every occasion, in all levels of courts.
Culleton has also called on the senate to include all other sacked senators, removed as a result of an order from the HCA sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns sought by the Turnbull Government which he says was in breach of the Commonwealth Constitution.
He has asked the senate to debate Motion 163 of 2016, which was lawfully enacted on December 1, 2016 and warned that s147.1 of the Criminal Code Act of 1995 could be invoked for failing to list the motion for further debate.
“Motion 163 of 2016 was a requirement passed by the House announcing that the referral of November 7, 2016 is faulty and that there needs to be further investigation into that faulty action, which was never passed by any procedure of law, orchestrated by former Senators Parry and Brandis,” Mr Culleton said.
“Brandis’ motion to the House in constitutionally forming a meeting by way of a Quorum on November 7, 2016 as defined in s 22 Constitution was a failure of the tellers who counted the ‘Ayes’ and ‘Noes’ who should have noticed insufficient senators were present to take a vote.”
It is of interest that former inept senator George Brandis was whisked away to London to fill the position of Australian High Commissioner, a reward from Turnbull, the Australian Bankers Association representative in government.
Former senate President Stephen parry, a former Tasmanian police officer, has disappeared from the face of the earth after allegations of his involvement in a massive cover-up concerning the framing of alleged Port Arthur shooter, Martin Bryant, caught up to him while sitting as President.
Harry Palmer speaks candidly with controversially sacked Senator Rodney Culleton about his rise, fall and pending resurrection in the Australian parliament. How he placed the Senate and High Court squarely behind their created hurdles thought to silence this patriotic, independent politician leading the charge to restore your parliament to the people. This interview is without parallel, riveting in content while exposing the backdoor Rod has opened the establishment thought locked and sealed tight…Click here to hear podcast
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
from Gil Hanrahan in Melbourne
One Nation Senator Pauline Hanson, two of her senators and Attorney General George Brandis QC, have had criminal conspiracy charges filed against them in the Melbourne registry of the High Court of Australia.
The complaint was filed by former One Nation WA Senator Rodney Culleton on Friday June 23 and includes former colleagues senators Brian Burston (NSW) and Malcolm Roberts (Qld).
They have been charged under Section 43, Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
The summons will be served by Mr Culleton on Monday, June 26.
Former senator Rodney Culleton, was sacked from the senate on Jan 12 after being found bankrupt by the Federal Court. His brother-in-law Peter Georgiou was nominated by the High Court to sit in his place as a One Nation senator for Western Australia.
Mr Culleton filed criminal charges of intent to attempt to pervert the course of justice in respect of the judicial power of the Commonwealth.
Mr Cullleton accused the senators of “seconding a motion in the Senate on the 7th November 2016, to refer the question of the possibility that Rodney Norman Culleton would be subjected to a term of imprisonment by a Magistrate at Armidale, and the Senate did refer the said Rodney Norman Culleton’s eligibility to the High Court.”
The charge further reads “…..and you allowed the matter to continue, even after an agreed Statement of Facts was filed in that Court proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the said Rodney Norman Culleton was never under potential imprisonment and thereby in breach of your sworn public duty, attempted to pervert the course of justice in respect of the judicial power of the Commonwealth.
“ (this is) An Offence against S 43 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Under S 129 (5) Evidence Act 1995, the transcript of proceedings in the Senate are admissible against you.”
The charges were filed in support of a notice under 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 of a constitutional matter alleging the Attorney General had withheld the agreed statement of facts of the referral to the courts by a motion instead of a mandated petition which in any case exceeded the 40 day requirement to lodge an objection to the eligibility of a sitting member.
The agreed statements of fact were not filed in the HCA by the Attorney General.
Culleton said the statements of fact clearly show that he would never have been sentenced to imprisonment for the alleged theft of a truck key two years ago.
“I got no say and the agreed facts were never presented to the bench,” he said.
“Brandis should have filed the agreed facts that were signed of off by the Australian Government solicitor stating that I would never have been sentenced.
“Sect 25 (1) (a) of the Crime Sentencing Procedure Act says the local court must not make an order of imprisonment if the offender is absent.
“This matter has never been held at trial but was only based on non-agreed facts put to the HCA by Brandis.
“He has used taxpayers money to unlawfully remove me from senate at the request of the banks.”
No date has yet been set for a hearing.
Senator Hanson was unavailable for comment.
During Culleton’s short tenure sitting in the senate he forced the High Court to restore the Queen in legal process.
He says the restored ‘Queen of Australia’, does not exist. Culleton has been a huge thorn in the side of the banks, calling for a federal inquiry into banking practices after presenting evidence of widespread corruption involving farm foreclosures.
View documents of charges lodged;
Validity of the Australia Act 1986 comes into play
Litigants in all four levels of Australian courts have long complained about spending sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars for lawyers and counsel to wade through thousands of pages of the Corporation law or any other law only to have a single judge throw out their case.
This time around a high profile victim of judicial chicanery, the erstwhile senator, Rod Culleton, wants natural justice after his brush with a bankruptcy finding.
A single judge of The High Court of Australia, or the Federal Supreme Court, 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.”
The senate should be dealing with the validity of the Australia Act 1986 and this would result in Western Australia getting its fair share of GST revenue and preventing the sale of Australian freehold land to foreign governments.
“The people continue to say no to foreign buyers but the Liberals and Labor keep selling off our land,” he said.
“There is a huge cloud over the judicial system and my matter should be used as an example in the senate to clean it up.”
Comment from a reader, Howard, which is worthy of publication:
To hell with them alright, they are unfaithful usurpers and abusers of power who themselves will not acknowledge or respect law unless it is their own invention but they claim the claims of true law yet not only ignore their vows to the queen who evidently sets the example by ignoring her vows to God (legislatively recognised as the Lord Jesus Christ) and together they walk hand in hand with the Vatican to enforce legislated law that has been invented in parliament by a code that recognises the roman pontiff as God and thus, these usurpers embrace and endorse the very entity that once was universally recognised as the anti Christ eg true enemy of the legitimate head of the true and legitimate commonwealth. Whilst brutally enforcing their law they claim the authority from which their law comes doesn’t really matter. We have been manipulated into a western roman government system but in fact our legitimate government should be decidedly Christian , thus we are meant to have rights and to be ruled by moral principle but instead commercial contracts are being brutally and deceptively forced on us and that is what happened to our right of self determination. Once we are manipulated into the situation where an accused is considered guilty unless they prove otherwise as is typical of many state penalty based systems like traffic fines, then we have lost self determination. It means you can wake in the morning having stayed at home and ‘determined’ to not get involved in anything, yet, another can accuse you and you are required to defend or pay up. In such a situation (for example) you have no say in your involvement and no determination in your life, the state takes over.
by Robert J Lee in Canberra
Embattled Western Australia independent Senator Rodney Culleton has accused the Attorney General of “total incompetence” for referring him to the High Court to determine if he had been disqualified from entering the senate after the July 2 election.
A petition to the Federal Court from Perth businessman Dick Lester to have Senator Culleton declared bankrupt over alleged debts could only be determined by the senate.
He said the Attorney General was “out of his depth” in referring the matter to the High Court.
“Section 47 of the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia is quite plain when it says ‘until the Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting the qualification of a senator or of a member,…. and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the House in which the question arises.’” Senator Culleton explained.
“Quite clearly the judge was wrong in making a Sequestration Order to seize or freeze my assets especially after my lawyer told Justice Barker that sufficient funds had been deposited into his trust account to cover any alleged debt.
“The antics of Justice Michael Barker whose Court was described as a ‘circus’ by the Western Australia Newspaper and the efforts to frustrate the will of the people of Western Australia who have duly elected a Senator are matters that must now be faced by Attorney General George Brandis and the offending judge in the Senate.
“A referral to the High Court can only occur under the Electoral Act. There is no law which can refer a question like this to a court. This is a job for the Senate.
“The senate must consider Section 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act which brings in the Bill of Rights 1688 that guarantees jury trial and appeals to Parliament.”
Senator Culleton says he has the numbers to call the judge and Attorney General before the Bar of the senate to show cause why they should not be sacked.
Primary producers, small business and truck operators who had been gutted by the banks and lost their properties and lifetime’s work through similar court proceedings would benefit enormously from this manoeuvre, he said.
Rod Culleton, One Nation senator for Western Australia puts the Attorney General and the High Court on notice: the HCA been acting unlawfully since 1979
HCA agrees to amend its Rules: the banks could owe the Commonwealth $30 billion in fines
David with his slingshot , aka WA One Nation senator Rod Culleton, launched his first question in the Senate at Goliath’s Attorney General George Brandis that shattered the halls of power.
Culleton’s legal team had discovered Constitutional flaws in the High Court Rules and the response from the Attorney General confirms the HCA Rules Committee will make amendments to bring the rules into line with the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia Act 1900.
This decision begs the question, what effect will this have on every matter that has been before the HCA over the past 37 years?
The Question asked in the senate that rattled the High Court:
“Chapter III of the Constitution creates a Federal Supreme Court to be called the High Court. Could the Attorney General please explain to the Senate how the High Court of Australia Act 1979, complies with the first paragraph of Chapter III Constitution and why when the Federal Supreme Court in the United States overturned sixty seven Statutes between 1952 and 1998 when the book, The Judicial Process (which I have) was last printed, the High Court in Australia hardly overturned any at all, because they have been allowed to make Rules of Court preventing ordinary Australians going to them for Judicial Review of alleged breaches of the Constitution and Laws of the Commonwealth.”
George Brandis, reflecting on his arrogance with ignorance, smirking while congratulating Culleton on his question, attempting to distract from his own, obvious limited legal ability, then answered:
“I will refer the question to the High Court rules committee”.
While the new age of crossbench politicians continue to threaten the establishment, this farmer, now a senator, needed to be taught a lesson. Brandis was well aware Rod Culleton had admitted guilt to the theft of truck keys worth $7.50 during an altercation with a tow truck driver thug who attacked him while trying to repossess his truck before he was elected to the senate.
Brandis referred the application to the High Court on direction from ALP and LNP senators requesting a ruling if Culleton was an eligible candidate at the July 2nd 2016 election.
The problem facing the establishment’s attempt to get rid of bank-bashing Culleton is a lower court’s decision on appeal to annul Culleton’s conviction for larceny.
Rod Culleton’s question to the Attorney General was answered by the High Court:
Brandis congratulated Culleton for pointing out to the senate the existing rules did not conform to the Constitution. His hand written congratulatory note appears below
From Peter Gargan, legal affairs advisor to Senator Rodney Culleton, One Nation Senator for Western Australia:
Since 1952, the High Court has been refusing to file process unless it first approves of it, so we have no way of judicially reviewing the Commissioners appointed by the Parliament to execute and maintain the Laws of the Commonwealth. There are four Commissioners who should be Judicially reviewed and sacked. They are the Commissioner of theAustralian Federal Police on $600,000 per year, who has allowed State Police to terrorise the populations in breach of S 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 in force since 2001, and has allowed the Judiciary of both the States and Commonwealth to sit as slave masters without juries, in their civil jurisdiction in breach of S 268:10 Criminal Code Act 1995.
S 12DJ of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 bans harassment and coercion in respect of loans from Banks, and the ASIC Commissioner has the power to collect $1,300,000 per offence from all the Banks when they use harassment and coercion to collect loans on which they have been manufacturing defaults. I estimate there is around thirty billion dollars owing to the Commonwealth, if that Commissioner was doing his job properly.
S 44ZZRA — of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 empowers the Commissioner for Consumer Protection to smash the cartel with the High Court at its head. People who use legal services are consumers, and because this cartel extends from the tiniest solicitor through Judges and Magistrates to the High Court the refusal to accept process to judicially review this lazy person, has allowed thousands of productive people to be destroyed by the cartel whose biggest clients are drug dealers, Banks and Insurance Companies who will not willingly pay, even if a premium has been paid for years.
The fourth Commissioner who should be immediately Judicially Reviewed is the Commissioner for Human Rights. She has the duty to enforce the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which is Schedule 2 to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986. In Article 14 there is a Statutory Command drawn straight out of the New Testament that all persons shall be equal before the law. That section is an element of the Offence against S 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995, so there can be no doubt it is a law. If that law was enforced every criminal would be entitled to be tried with a jury and also sentenced by a jury. Civil Litigants would no longer be second class citizens subject to arbitrary and ridiculous orders from Judges and Magistrates depriving them of their driving licences, their properties, and in some cases their children, on application from people who can afford the services of the Cartel.
Further if the High Court had not been in contempt of the Parliament for 64 years, S 90 of the Constitution would see car registration abolished, as car registration is an internal tax on goods, as are licence fees to drive cars, and the exclusive responsibility of the Parliament of the Commonwealth. Likewise if they had not been in contempt, the Fines Registry in every State, the subject of Political Protests from people who have no means to pay such fines, would have to be immediately abolished as they Offend S 43 Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) in that they are acting on the pockets of Australians without the sanction of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth. That is about nine billion dollars that should no longer be owing. The Commonwealth would have to put a little more excise on fuel, to build the roads we need and Ferries needed to give Tasmanians equality of transport.
I attach for your perusal the brilliant Speech given by Alfred Deakin in 1902 which tells us what we should have as a High Court. It was to be head of an Independent Australian Judiciary separate from any State Parliaments influence. That it has been in contempt since 1952, has allowed all sorts of skulduggery to take place in Queensland , Western Australia, New south Wales and Victoria, where Rules of Court are held to overrule any prior inconsistent Act depriving the people of Australia of the Rule of Law, and substituting instead The Rule of Lawyers.
click the book.
Dark clouds are gathering over the duopoly dictatorship with One Nation unearthing the High Court of Australia dismissing the rule book and running their own race.
This video of the senate show attorney general Brandis running for cover to the question from Senator Culleton;
“It has come to my attention that there is a discrepancy between Section 33 of the High Court Act 1979 which says all process shall (which means must) be issued in the name of the Queen and the High Court Rules 2004. Why has the High Court felt free to defy the Parliament for 12 years?”