Harry Palmer had this exclusive interview with Senator Rod Culleton with an update to his challenge of the senate president and attorney general orchestrating his removal from the senate on politically motivated agenda misinformation. Rod has now officially been granted a hearing in the Court of Disputed Returns with a dynamic legal team and an Australian leading QC. Blind Freddie can see through the holes in the dismissal case and now it is about to dump on the establishment power brokers thought invincible……
Podcast link to listen or download – http://www.australianpatriotradio.com/podcasts/rod-culleton-interview-podcast-july-11-2018/
There’s one man I think could be our Donald Trump….ex-Senator Rod Culleton….soon to be Senator again.
Rod is fiercely dedicated to bringing back government that works with our Constitution. He is a dedicated fighter for our rights, especially for farmers, but also for all people.
He’s articulate, knowledgeable, and a true patriot. Keep an eye on him. He’s doing great things. from Michael Thomas Holt
Former West Australian One Nation Senator Rodney Culleton will appear on the ABC 7.30 Report Monday Night EST
7.30 pm June 4, 2018.
He will tell all about the One Nation imbroglio, the Royal Commission into banks which he and Bob Katter initiated and how the Commonwealth Constitution has been subverted.
Don’t miss this revealing interview.
The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has today released its report into matters related to Section 44 of The Australian Constitution.
Committee Chairman Senator Linda Reynolds said the report found that s. 44 was becoming increasingly undemocratic and that future referrals to the High Court would be inevitable.
“Problems with s. 44 are neither new, nor unforeseen,” Senator Reynolds said.
“20 years of Parliamentary Committee reports and a Constitutional Convention have all predicted that without constitutional reform to parts or all of s. 44, challenges would occur to otherwise qualified and validly elected Members of Parliament.
“Problems with the operation of s. 44 have come to public attention over the past year as a result of the high number of s. 44(i) citizenship matters referred to by the High Court. While public discussion has been on these citizenship cases, two other sub sections of s. 44 were also the subject of High Court consideration.”
Senator Reynolds said in addition to the previously identified problems with s. 44, recent High Court decisions have created new uncertainties and future opportunities to manipulate election results, which are likely to end by being referred to the High Court.
“Recent High Court decisions on the interpretation on s. 44 are clear–to nominate as a candidate, all reasonable steps must be taken prior to nomination to ensure all candidates are not disqualified to be on the ballot paper,” Senator Reynolds said.
“The Committee makes no judgement on the dual citizenship issue itself,” Senator Reynolds said.
“The question of whether or not the application of these rules meets contemporary Australian expectations is a different matter altogether and is one for Australians to ultimately determine.”
“We believe that issue is one for Australians to consider as part of a wider debate on qualities we want in our candidates when they stand for election and for those who are elected to Parliament.”
Based on the significant and persuasive evidence to the Inquiry, the Committee has recommended that the Australian Government prepare a referendum question to either repeal sections 44 and 45 or insert the words ‘Until Parliament so provides…’ into both sections.
Senator Reynolds said while the Committee had recommended a referendum to permanently fix the problems with s. 44, the Committee acknowledged the preconditions for a successful referendum do not yet exist and may take time to achieve.
Until such time a referendum is successful in providing Australians or their elected representatives the ability to change disqualifications, the committee has recommended the Federal Government consider implementing a range of mitigation strategies. The first measures should be in place before the conduct of the upcoming by-elections to minimise the chance of those elections being challenged in the high court.
- Recommendation 1
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government prepare a proposed referendum question to either:
- repeal sections 44 and 45 of the Constitution; or
- insert into sections 44 and 45 the words: ‘Until the Parliament otherwise provides…’
- Recommendation 2
If the referendum passes, the Committee further recommends that the Australian Government further engages with the Australian community to determine contemporary expectations of standards in order to address all matters of qualification and disqualification for Parliament through legislation under section 34 of the Constitution.
- Recommendation 3
In the event that a referendum does not proceed or does not pass, that the Australian Government consider strategies to mitigate the impact of section 44 as outlined in this report.
- Recommendation 4
The Committee recommends that the Government consider the implications of this report in the context of the upcoming be-elections, in particular the options outlined in chapter 4.
Further information will be available on the Committee’s website www.aph.gov.au/em.
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
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
Judicial corruption has again reared its head after Western Australia Federal Court Judge Michael Barker informed the President of the senate that Senator Rod Culleton is a bankrupt.
Senator Culleton said he had challenged the alleged financial claims against him that led to Judge Barker issuing sequestration orders to freeze his assets yet the judge had ignored all due process in his haste to get him tossed out of the senate.
The President of the senate, Liberal Stephen Parry, a former Tasmania police officer and mortician who has been accused of involvement in the official Port Arthur massacre cover-up, had “usurped the powers of the senate” by declaring Senator Culleton’s position vacant.
Senator Parry announced on Wednesday he had received confirmation from the Federal Court that Mr Culleton was bankrupt, making his position vacant, but Mr Culleton said the statement was premature and “should be withdrawn immediately”.
“No one is above the law, and the 21 day stay of proceedings granted to me in the Federal Court on December 23 does not expire until tomorrow,” Senator Culleton said.
“Senator Parry has no right to jump in before the 21 day stay period expires.”
Senator Culleton also filed a notice of appeal in the West Australian registry of the Federal Court late on Wednesday, along with an interlocutory application seeking that the sequestration order and proceedings under the sequestration order be stayed pending the hearing of the appeal.
“I am not a bankrupt and evidence of sworn valuations was given to Judge Barker by my solicitor in the court hearing but he refused to accept it,” he said.
The ‘law’ particularly in Western Australia has long had a question mark over its head and Senator Culleton has been another victim of the nexus between the judiciary, the Parliament and the public service.
He said the judiciary was a ‘basket case’ and this had been highlighted after Judge Barker called his own court a “circus” a sentiment echoed by the West Australian newspaper when reporting on Senator Culleton’s hearing in December after several One Nation antagonists were ordered to leave the courtroom.
“The courts have been starved of government funding and are not getting the revenue they need to operate properly,” he said.
“All courts need juries and litigants have the right to get one.”
On March 11 last year, to commemorate Australia’s worst official massacre, Cairns News ran a story about Senator Parry and his involvement in the Port Arthur cover-up by the major media and governments.
Revelations by Austrian-based author and researcher, Keith Noble, that Senator Stephen Parry had prior knowledge of the shootings, have not been refuted by him.
In his 16 page, disturbing 1997 paper entitled ‘Port Arthur Massacre – AFDA National Embalming Team – Detailed Report’, that appears in a little-known book entitled ‘PORT ARTHUR SEMINAR PAPERS: A record of the Port Arthur Seminar’, 11-12 March, 1997, Melbourne, Victoria (ISBN 0642271364) clearly shows the incident that rocked a nation was planned.
Senator Parry stated in the following passage :
“I was particularly impressed by the quick response and initiatives by some of the team members in packaging and collecting equipment.
The response time and the amount of equipment quickly relocated was fantastic. One firm in particular, Nelson Brothers, had organised for an embalming machine box and a special large equipment case to be manufactured ready for the incident. These two containers were the envy of all embalmers and worked extremely well.
I would suggest that design specifications may be available from this firm for any future considerations by other firms.”
Such is the appalling state of injustice in Australia where justice is only(sometimes) available to those who can afford it, that the public has lost any confidence it may have had in the court system and parliaments long ago.
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.