Letter to the editor
The Canberra Times
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?
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
Culleton forces HCA to restore the wrong Queen in court process, resulting in its bench closing ranks on Culleton and refusing to hear his arguments about nullified charges in a NSW court involving the disappearance of a $7.50 car key
The continual denial of natural justice in Australia is a direct result of political appointments to the bench
a dissertation by law analyst Peter Gargan
The Restoration of the Queen and all She stands for in the law, must be a priority for every West Australian voter this election because:
The Queen by Her Coronation Oath represents peace, order and good government as the Corporate Parliament of the Commonwealth has tried to legislate since 1986, but after the Australia Act 1986, The Parliament of Western Australia has legislated to remove all safeguards for private property, all freedoms of travel except other than that they approve, and tax, legislated to imprison people without fair trials, and not one Judge or Magistrate in Australia has ever said this is wrong.
Because all WA Judges and Magistrates are supposed to represent the Queen but now only represent the State of Western Australia and its people, they are repudiating the Australian Constitution. Consequently the entire Commonwealth Parliament is absolutely useless to the people of Western Australia because the Judges and Magistrates are treating the work of the Commonwealth politicians as a joke.
When Rodney Norman Culleton asked why the Queen was removed from the High Court the republican lawyers as Judges and Magistrates set out to get him. They put the Queen back in, but only the Queen of Australia not the one who represented peace order and good government from 1900 to 1973.
Your hip pocket is paying all the time for this new regime. Every time a Sheriff attempts to have a Judgment executed or take away your licence to drive, unless you pay the fines they have in the Fines Registry, they are breaking the Laws of the Commonwealth. By levying fines without first taking you to a proper Ch III Constitution Court they are breaking S 43 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and should be paying you, instead of attempting to steal your property. The penalty for that is ten years jail. It should mean the State of Western Australia pays you, $540,000 in liquidated damages every time a Sheriff tries to steal a car for unpaid fines. The Sheriff himself should pay $108,000 and so should every Police Officer who helps him get away with highway robbery.
Likewise every person who has lost his or her property in the last ten years, since the real Queen was abolished, ought to be able to collect this liquidated penalty, pay fifty percent tax upon it, and still be far better off than they are now. The biggest beneficiaries of this regime put in place by the Liberal Party are the Big Banks who made a $46 Billion Dollar profit last year, while the Liberal Government in Canberra is trying to screw Centrelink clients, to rake in around the $35 billion dollars deficit that they have allowed the Banks to evade using captive Judges and Magistrates.
Since 1983, the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Commonwealth has had power to overrule the Laws of the Commonwealth when it comes to law enforcement. Each and every one of the people was granted power, in 1914 in the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) in s 13 of that Act, to prosecute any offender, but the Protection Racket this person has been running since this Act was passed, a protection racket for Banks, Corporate Offenders, Drug Dealers and Judges and Magistrates that has directly caused the present Budget Deficit of the Commonwealth is still there. The DPP has done this by s 9.5 Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983, an Act that should never have received the Royal Assent because it has robbed the Crown. This should be repealed, but you need Rodney Norman Culleton in the Senate to get it done.
In 1973 the Governor General was misled into consenting to the creation of the Queen of Australia. Since then only a few High Court Justices have cast doubt on any allegiance whatsoever to the homespun Queen looking upon Her as illegitimate. Every Senator and Member of the Parliament of the Commonwealth swears allegiance to the Successor of Queen Victoria. This pretend Queen does not qualify, and no wonder some High Court Justices think she is a pretender. The present High Court which had five Judges declare Rodney Norman Culleton disqualified from the Senate, and the five Federal Court Judges who accepted a Judgment from a District Court Judge in Western Australia not made in the name of the Queen ought to be charged and disgraced. This should be enough to see Rodney Norman Culleton restored to the Senate and that Attorney General and President of the Senate charged as accessories to the said perversion of justice.
The Attorney General Senator George Brandis got a written Notice that Rodney Norman Culleton wanted the Commonwealth to strictly prove the Queen was legitimate in Western Australia, and he refused to come to the party. Senator Parry used the Judgment of an alleged illegitimate Judge in bankruptcy to kick out Rodney Norman Culleton from the Senate, on a dodgy contract no self- respecting lawyer would hold valid.
The Family Court has been illegal since its creation. It owes no allegiance whatsoever to the Queen. It destroys lives every time it adjudicates. It sends children into danger. It treats fathers and mothers alike as slaves. It treats children as chattels, as property of the State, to be dealt with like a commodity. It is the greatest lawyer’s money making machine ever created. It only continues because the High Court refuses to acknowledge the Queen and all She stands for.
No one, no one at all, should be imprisoned, have to pay any debt, unless the approval has been obtained from one of the Courts of Her Majesty. There are no such Courts in Australia today. There are lawyers Courts in the present Australia, but none “in the name of the Queen”, the words Senator Culleton insisted the High Court comply with, and as top of the pile, every lower court must comply too. For this they set out to destroy him, using Courts of Lawyers, and the lack of a proper education for every lawyer in Australia including those who advise the President of the Senate. The people of Western Australia must protest. By protesting and tossing out the present lawyers government in Western Australia and putting in a democratic party with the balance of power, you, the people of Western Australia will get your lives back, and your fair share of the GST. You will also lead the Commonwealth back to the Rule of Law, and get justice restored.
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.