19 – Rod Culleton

Many have told me the 2 x videos were stopped from playing in a recent email.    I wonder who is panicking ?     Here they are –  download and save –    I use Wondershare

https://larryhannigan.com/australia/01d-australian-in-2019/

It is indeed difficult for people to get their heads around the deception even when the Australian Government tells us straight out that they have “replaced” the manner and form of government from the Commonwealth under the Crown with true and balanced separation of powers to a corporate form  of government totally under political party control – no separation of power. 

https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/Australian_Government_Branding_Design_Guidelines.pdf

The Australian coat of arms, a gift from the Crown to the People of the Commonwealth, has been expropriated by the Australian Government as their corporate logo and does not represent the Commonwealth of Australia as established by the Constitution.  Reference to the Commonwealth is to be avoided when referring to the Government of Australia and their brand logo as they are two separate entities.  This is from their own web site and documents.  See #4 OTHER ISSUES from the link above:

FOUR OTHER ISSUES

Reference to ‘Australian Government’ for branding purposes

All references to the ‘Commonwealth Government’ or ‘Federal Government’ must now be to the ‘Australian Government’ in all cases and on all products.

Departmental names

Where previously a reference would be made to ‘the Commonwealth Department of XYZ’, it must now be to ‘the Australian Government Department of XYZ’.

Use of the term ‘Commonwealth’

The ‘Commonwealth of Australia’ is the legal entity established by the Constitution. It is sometimes referred to simply as ‘the Commonwealth’. Where the term ‘Commonwealth Government’ has been used previously to refer to the national government, whether in relation to the elected government or the bureaucracy that serves it, it will normally be appropriate to replace it with ‘Australian Government’. References to the ‘Commonwealth of Australia’ as the entity established by the Constitution must remain unchanged.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Video 1    One time Senator, Rodney Culleton,….speaks, having just won a matter in court and planning to go to the UK, as you’ll hear     https://dbudimir.com/2018/12/22/bank-ceos-to-face-criminal-charges-in-country-court/

Have you had enough yet?  Yellow vest anyone?

Senator (in exile) Rod Culleton has had enough, and that’s why he’s called on the United Kingdom to restore our true Commonwealth.  This video is Senator Culleton’s first in quite sometime due to all the work he and the team have been putting into getting our Commonwealth back on track. He speaks with passion for the Commonwealth and you, the Great Australian People!

Please follow the links below and download copies. Read to understand what has happened and why we must reinstate the de jure (true) Commonwealth of Australia and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) as was established and brought into force on the 1st January 1901 under the de jure Crown – Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

You can also help yourself by joining the Great Australian Party here: https://www.thegreataustralianparty.com.au

Prayer to the House of Lords: https://drive.google.com/…/1TT3litkDaRUAU3BaPdAhr9U_S…/view…

Notice of Extracts – Queen and Crown
First & Final Constitutional Commission Reports 1988.: https://drive.google.com/…/0B_61oonROKcpTllZTk5ldmlSM…/view…

Bank CEO’s to face criminal charges in country court: https://www.facebook.com/796812177191622/posts/919905414882297/

The Federal Court of Australia recognises Senator Culleton as unlawfully removed: https://www.facebook.com/796812177191622/posts/917649211774584/

Senator Culleton ready to fly to the Uk with Queens Council ready to robe: https://www.facebook.com/796812177191622/posts/898791663660339/

Former Senator Rodney Culleton’s plans for political comeback – The Australian, 18 November 2018: https://www.facebook.com/796812177191622/posts/900616843477821/

Download a copy of the original Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) in scanned PDF version here: http://commonwealthofaustralia.org/files/Con.pdf

Download a copy of the original Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth 1901 in scanned PDF version here: http://commonwealthofaustralia.org/…/annotatedconstit00quic…

All of these documents are extremely important for everyone to know. They can’t say otherwise if we know the truth        Thank you

Tracie Hanna  IT Department  e:thanna2009@hotmail.com

t:03 9324 8288 m:0497 544 433
—————————————————————————————————————-

Video 2   Rod Culleton Update United Kingdom update: 30 January 2019.   It’s been a long wait, but we need to make sure we dot our I’s and cross our T’s before we can release information out to the public.

 

Future videos of Senator Culleton to be updated on his progress in the UK.

Affidavit: https://drive.google.com/…/1R-1VcM4vXKKrP3wqcp_lHLSHQ…/view…

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

A message from Dick

The Federal Courts of Australia in every State’s District Registry is the Political Party’s Australia – not our Australia under our Commonwealth of Australia Act 1901, proclaimed and Gazetted and approved in Referendum by us the people.

In the Australia Act 1986, they  declared Australia to be a sovereign, independent and federal nation and claimed in their Australia Act –

16 Interpretation
(1) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:

Australian court means a court of a State or any other court of
Australia or of a Territory other than the High Court.

court includes a judge, judicial officer or other person acting
judicially.

However, we voted in 1999 for this to be removed,  so what they continue doing  is TREASON, it also proves that Political Parties don’t represent us, and every Local Gov/t Act is invalid,

Video 3

 

Excerpt in words of above video:

Senator CULLETON (Western Australia) (Wednesday 10th November 2016, 14:53): My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. I refer the Attorney-General to my question without notice on 12 September 2016 regarding section 33 of the High Court Act and the High Court Rules 2004 and my concerns about the High Court of Australia generally. In light of the Attorney-General’s response to my question, which he tabled in the Senate yesterday, can the attorney please explain to the Senate how the High Court intends to deal with the issues I have raised?

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:54): It is not for me to speak on behalf of the High Court, but I can tell you that after your question I did raise the matter with the Principal Registrar and CE of the High Court, Mr Phelan. Mr Phelan has responded to me in a form which I have his authority to read to you. He said: ‘An exposure draft of the High Court Rules 2004 was circulated in April 2004. The exposure draft was the subject of detailed comments by the Law Council of Australia, the Australian Bar Association and the Special Committee of Solicitors-General. After considering those comments, the justices made the High Court Rules 2004 on 5 October 2004. They were tabled in the parliament on 16 November 2004 and came into effect on 1 January 2005. No issue was raised in the process of drafting or consulting concerning the consistency of the rules with section 33 of the High Court of Australia Act 1979.

‘The rules committee of the High Court considered that issue on 12 October 2016. The committee proposes a number of amendments to the rules to address the issue. The proposed amendments will be drafted by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and will be the subject of consultation with professional bodies before being finalised by the court.’  Why the words “professional bodies” – Where is the Governor-General??

Senator Culleton, it was you who spotted this discrepancy in the High Court Rules which the High Court Rules Committee has now acted upon. I might say that, since those rules were promulgated in 2004, there have been 16 distinguished Australian jurists who have sat on the High Court, including two chief justices, and I must congratulate you, Senator Culleton, on being the first person to spot the problem.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Culleton, a supplementary question.

Senator CULLETON (Western Australia) (14:56): Given what the Constitution provides in chapter 3(72) regarding the removal of judges, how is it possible to address the now proven misbehaviour by simple amendment without first addressing the original breach of the Constitution by the High Court of Australia in failing to take the changes effected by the High Court of Australia Act to referendum?

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:56): I have to correct you, with respect. There is certainly no breach of the Constitution. There is no requirement. What we are talking about here is a discrepancy that you have identified between the High Court Rules 2004 and the forms to the High Court Rules. That is not a constitutional issue; it is an issue that is entirely able to be corrected by the amendments to the rules that are now in contemplation following your question. There is no issue of constitutional invalidity or indeed no constitutional issue raised here whatsoever.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Culleton, a final supplementary question.

Senator CULLETON (Western Australia) (14:57): Given my question concerns the issue of the past and present deliberations of the same High Court of Australia while this misbehaviour remains unaddressed, can the Attorney-General advise whether the High Court must stand down until such times as the matters under investigation are clarified and resolved? 

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:57): You really should not accuse the judges of the High Court of misbehaviour. There is absolutely no suggestion of that, and it is not a proper thing to do. It appears that a mistake was made in 2004 in the drafting of the High Court Rules—a mistake of a very technical nature—so that there was a small discrepancy between a form and a rule. That is not legally consequential. In fact, no member of the current High Court was a member of the High Court of Australia in 2004, so no member of the current High Court was involved in the decisions made in 2004. No member of the High Court has been guilty of misbehaviour. No member of the High Court has been guilty of any unconstitutional conduct. This is not a constitutional issue. It is not an issue of behaviour. It is a question of a minor discrepancy which you, Senator Culleton, have noticed. (Time expired)

PS Since then, George Brandis ran off to London as Australia’s  High Commissioner to the United Kingdom,  While there he was apparently charged with Treason, came back to Australia and seems to have vanished ?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Video 4

**UK UPDATE** 10 Feb 2019 Such a breakthrough has never occurred before in our history 

Video: (15 mins) Senator Culleton interviews one of our team members Darryl O’bryan upon his arrival back from the UK after a month.  The next phase is about to take off with a new gun team heading back out to the UK shortly.

The High Court of Justice in London acknowledged Senator Culleton as a Federal Senator and deferred jurisdiction to the Privy Council (Supreme Court) in front of a bench of 12 justices.  The Privy Council have accepted the filing and we await a date. Things are certainly about to get very interesting. 

“(The Senator) Rodney Culleton”. Say’s “The UK Supreme Court, Australia’s Highest Constitutional Court ruled.  Senator Rodney Culleton was correct and he is challenging the Australian courts” He has spoken with other Senators this morning.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0172-judgment.pdf

At 203. ‘It is, we recognise, one that may be specific to the United Kingdom. Article 9 of the Bills of Rights, one of the pillars of constitutional settlement which established the rule of law in England in the 17th century, precludes the impeaching or questioning in any court of debates or proceedings in Parliament. Article 9 was described by Lord Page 71 Browne-Wilkinson in the House of Lords in Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593, 638, as “a provision of the highest constitutional importance” which “should not be narrowly construed”. More recently, in the Supreme Court case of R v Chaytor and others [2011] 1 AC 684, para 110, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry said this:

“[I]n his Commentaries on the Laws of England, 17th ed (1814), vol 1, Bk 1, chap 2, p 175, under reference to Coke’s Institutes, Blackstone 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.’”

01.png

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Remember – Councils are not a third tier of Government they cannot make any laws nor impose fines. It goes against our Constitution which stipulates who makes and enforces laws, not bloody Councils. They are acting unlawfully.   The councils are bowing to the UN Bigger Government picture  so large Chinese operations can control Australian beef and much else.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

High Court expulsion of Senator Culleton wrong at law – UK Supreme Court

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.

culleton

‘Bank Basher’ WA senator in exile Rod Culleton heading back to 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 [2014] 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.”

 “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.”

 

 

 

cc

Advertisements