Senator Culleton's submission to the High Court
- Category: Constitutional Issues
- Created: Monday, 21 November 2016 21:39
- Written by Senator Culleton - WA Senate
Senator Culleton has been sent to the High Court regarding the eligibility of his election to the Senate.
He has decided to make the most out of this turn of events and has put forward some serious questions in his submission to the High Court.
"A correction to the system is coming and if the Senate want to question my eligibility, I will use the opportunity of appearing in the High Court to in turn put forward questions regarding the validity of the Parliament and High Court," he said.
"The judiciary expects everyday people to follow the laws but they must first set an example and do the right thing when they are in positions of leadership."
"People are committing suicide and losing their hard earned property due to our courts. Australians are hurting and it simply is not good enough."
Below is Senator Culleton's submission to the High Court which is backed up by evidence, laws and the Constitution - it is not 'bizarre' or 'conspiracy' as the media have reported, it is FACT.
IN THE HIGH COURT
IN THE MATTER OF CULLETON.
COURT OF DISPUTED RETURNS.
The respondent, Rodney Norman Culleton, a Senator duly elected for the State of Western Australia makes the following submissions in support of an adjournment:
In Breach of S1 Constitution since 1990 in Act no 138 of 1900, it appears the Parliament of the Commonwealth has not been constituting itself with the Queen, and renamed itself without a Referendum the Parliament of Australia.
By S 32 Judiciary Act 1903. (Cth) now we are in the High Court on one matter on referral from the Senate, all the grievances, I have with the Government of Australia can and must be aired and all such remedies shall be granted to the respondent as it appears to be just. Consequently this submission is substantial.
That renamed Parliament of Australia appears to be held in contempt by the Judges and Magistrates of Australia after it started, on the 8th January 1991, enacting Legislation as “The Parliament of Australia enacts.” Because the Queen has been removed from the enacting words of the Parliament of the Commonwealth a reign of terror for which only physical violence or the threat of it, and the good common sense of Swat Teams and Police called upon to commit proxy violence in the name of Banks, Financiers and non compliant Courts, created by the States of Australia on any individual or family or corporation that dared to make a Political protest causing suicides family breakups, destruction of the family unit, and immense heartbreak to thousands of committed hard working Australians.
One such Court in my personal experience is the Supreme Court of Western Australia which appears to have been constituting itself with a single Registrar and making orders to be executed by the Bank's agents including the Police, without a trial or any proper judicial proceeding under Order 62A R4(1) Supreme Court Rules of Western Australia, even if the victim is in Court as I was, Registrar Whitbread made orders giving a shell lender possession of another entity of my own personal property and other third party assets which had nothing to do with the case. Under the guillotine Order you only have three days to Appeal which has recently been extended. Under this Order the WA Supreme Court had shut its doors preventing me from having my case heard.
The seeds of this disastrous failure in the delivery of peace order and good government started in 1952 when the High Court Rules 1952 were promulgated and approved by somnolent and irresponsible Parliament allowing the so called High Court to depart from the promised and mandated Federal Supreme Court to a selective, isolated, elitist High Court with power given to a Registrar and a Judge sitting alone, not the minimum of three Justices, mandated by S 71 Constitution, and without a hearing, just on the papers, to refuse access to the High Court as it now calls itself.
The Original published version, of the High Court of Australia Act 1979 as published in 1979, while outside the scope of S 71 Constitution, did in fact have the proper enacting words, but the latest version, obtained from the Table Office in the Senate has no enacting words at all in it. It is no wonder Banks, Trustees, their liquidators, receivers and agents have been able to use the Supreme Court of each State to get arbitrary orders stripping the assets of hard working Australians and giving them with the help of Armed Swat Teams, to the legal thieves, condoned by the State Governments of Australia.
This should never have been allowed to happen but for a series of incompetent, hopeless, Attorneys-General in both the Commonwealth and in the States. Who have been delivering law but not justice, since 1991, using armed swat teams, created as a Private Army by every State mostly from ex Army personnel, trained in assault weapons, in breach of S 114 Constitution.
These 150,000 odd strong armed organisations one in every State have been protected since 1983, by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, who since 1983 has had the power to deliver protection from the application of the common law and Part III Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) by Complaint and Summons in a Magistrates Court in the State of Victoria, Queensland and New South Wales and in Western Australia, by using S 9.5 Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 to take over and discontinue any proceedings started by a person authorised by S 13 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) or S15F Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and deny access to justice to aggrieved Australians unless their Political Masters, in whatever Government happens to be in power directs.
An physically intimidating thug in a 550 horsepower Tow truck came to a property unannounced I was leasing in Guyra, without any paperwork, or other documentation or identification. He attempted to repossess a company vehicle by force ,and I physically resisted him on his failure to leave, and we had a fight about it. The individual was adamant he was coming in, and in order to stop him stealing or trespassing I switched his idling truck off, and removed the single key from the ignition. The thug started punching me, I punched back, and during the altercation, the key allegedly got lost, although he could have put it in his pocket. I was not worried about a key but where I would land my next punch. I was searched but he was not.
He alleges that he hot-wired this Turbo Charged Truck and got it going but since modern trucks have several layers of protection against theft, he almost certainly had the key. He drove away.
On the 12th September 2016, in the Senate I raised as an Issue for the Senate to consider, the fact that since the High Court Rules 2004, no longer issued process in the name of the Queen the High Court was out of order, and in contempt of Parliament, as 33 High Court of Australia Act 1979 mandates that Process be issued in the name of the Queen.
In fact it has been out of order since 1952, when Order 58 rule 4 Subrule 3 was approved by the Parliament of the Commonwealth and this malpractice continued in the High Court Rules 2004 in Rules 6.5, 6.6 and 6.7.which means no political pressure relief valve through the courts, and revolving door government.
In fact the High Court and Attorney-General were informed by action in the County Court in Bendigo in 2006, over ten years ago, and used the Australian Government Solicitor and political pressure on the County Court in Victoria to overturn a Default judgment entered against the Commonwealth in that action by one Judge Davis. The State of the Judiciary in Victoria being hopeless since 1986, no further action was taken by the Community Law Resource Group but the paperwork, letters from the High Court Registrar, the Office of Legal Services Coordination the Writ and most of the paperwork, is still available for filing.
The High Court is authorised to make Rules for the purposes of carrying into execution, the purposes and objects of the Judiciary Act 1903 by S 86 Judiciary Act 1903. It has been granted original jurisdiction under S 30 Judiciary Act 1903 to try on indictment any offence against the Laws of the Commonwealth.
To achieve this, requires Rules providing for Grand Juries, to investigate and commit to trial offenders caught offending against the Laws of the Commonwealth, but neither the High Court Rules 1952, nor the High Court Rules 2004, contain Rules to facilitate this very important function of a Federal Supreme Court no matter what it is called. Breach of Statute Law was always an Indictable Offence at Common Law, but without access to the High Court or rules that regulate such a proceeding, the State Governments of Australia may have embarked on a reign of terror against the subjects of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second living within their borders.
In Breach of S 90 Constitution which gives exclusive jurisdiction over Excise to the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments have levied an internal taxes including vehicles, property and transfers, a tax on the right to drive by selling driving Licences, acquired private property without paying compensation, all taxes and actions that are absolutely prohibited to the Queen, unless legislated for in Her name, with the consent of both Houses of Parliament.
In New South Wales where the incident prompting this referral to the High Court occurred the Parliament of New South Wales in 1970 legislated to give a rules Committee of nine Judges power, under S 6 Supreme Court Act of New South Wales power, by Rules of Court to overrule any prior inconsistent Act, including the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 and Constitution, thereby depriving the Australians in New South Wales of the protection of a court of Judicature as required by Ch III Constitution.
In 1986 an Oxymoron of an Act was agreed between the States and Commonwealth that both abolished the Australian Constitution and continued it and the Australian Courts Act 1828. This inconsistency was presented to the High Court by Senator Len Harris of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation around one year prior to the election where he was defeated, and it was rejected under Order 58 Rule 4 Subrule 3 High Court Rules 1952, and this capricious and unreasonable conduct by the Registry of the High Court and the Judges of it has resulted in Revolving Door Governments in every State and the Commonwealth since 1952.
It appears to be clear the Family Court of Australia has never required the Judges of that Court to swear Allegiance to the Queen, and as a consequence it puts a big question over its legitimacy, never been legitimate, because Allegiance to the Queen is the cornerstone of representative democracy, because the Queen, before She can assume Office, must take an Oath Herself, and that Oath incorporates the Principles of Protestant Christianity into the fabric of society.
Those principles are:
(a) That no one shall be subject to arbitrary judgment by one individual over another.
(b) No one shall be compelled to worship false gods.
(c) Only a panel drawn from the electoral Roll, comprising more than one, can find a verdict or the truth.
(d) No one shall be the slave of another and all persons shall be equal before Almighty God , and therefore the Law.
(e) A conscience of Almighty God is exercised by the Queen in all her judgments, and the Conscience of Almighty God is called equity, and it was exercised by the Archbishop of Canterbury as Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the Chancery Court until 1873, when the Court of Chancery and Courts or Law were amalgamated, to make the courts of Judicature.
The Court of Chancery as the conscience of Almighty God was charged with executing and maintaining the Statute Laws of the Realm, and it was a simple matter of a pleading of Statute in that Court to instil respect in the deliberations of the Parliament. As a safeguard, the principles of the Magna Carta were observed by that court and all parties since 1275, and the Statute of Westminster the first, had the right to elect mode of trial: at Bar before Judges or with a jury of their peers.
The Principals outlined in Paragraph 18 above are incorporated into the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As Schedule 2 to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, by s 13 Acts Interpretation Act 1901 this is law, but its application has been frustrated by Judges and Magistrates whose allegiance to the Queen must be questioned, because it was enacted properly in 1986 at the same time as the Australia Act 1986 gave the States a licence to do as they pleased to Parliaments in every State by removing Judicial Review as envisaged by Alfred Deakin in the second reading speech to the Judiciary Bill 1902.
Without Judicial Review as a right to peace order and good government no one can truly live in peace in this country, because if he does anything at all to upset a government official, a nasty vindictive Judiciary will be engaged to attack him.
To protect Parliamentarians, who under Parliamentary Privilege may bring the grievances of the people to the Parliament S 14 Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, one of the Acts properly enacted before 1990, is enacted and it provides that no Parliamentarian ‘shall be required to attend before a court or a tribunal…on any day:
(c.) on which the House of which that member is a member meets.
(e.) which is within five days before or five days after a day referred to min Paragraph (c.) or (d.)”
Consequently on the above submissions, I humbly request that the hearing be adjourned to another date and time agreeable to both parties.
Rodney Norman Culleton proudly Representing Western Australia in the Commonwealth Senate.
Spurce : http://www.senatorculleton.com.au/single-post/2016/11/20/High-Court-Government-put-on-notice