West Australian ‘Senator in exile’, Rod Culleton, is firing shots from all angles to reveal the truth in relation to his unconstitutional removal from the Senate earlier this year.

The resilient farmer was disqualified from the Senate on 23rd December 2016 over a purported bankruptcy. He and others have now filed petitions into the Senate under Standing Order 207, which allows people to dispute the election of his replacement. Mr Culleton says that he has filed a 231-paged affidavit into the High Court yesterday making this move, after learning from a ‘leaked source’ that the Government is moving to sue him for the salary he collected as a duly elected Senator for West Australia.

“In January, Senator Parry declared that I had been disqualified, yet the bankruptcy matter was still before the court at the time. He ignored the court stay on all proceedings and the notices from my legal team; he interfered with the process and I believe he breached both the Bankruptcy Act and Commonwealth Constitution,” Culleton argued.

“Senator Brandis, as Attorney General, was also asked to intervene to ensure a lawful and transparent process but was found derelict in his duty in refusing to act to rectify the anomalies. This matter is very serious, as it constitutes a breach of the Senate Standing Orders and both Brandis and Parry, I believe, are in contempt of the Senate Standing Orders.”

“Furthermore, the Governor of West Australia, who had the jurisdiction to appoint a replacement Senator because the WA State Parliament was not sitting, had not ratified the appointment. The procedure under Section 15 of the Commonwealth Constitution clearly demands these procedures are followed, however there is no evidence to suggest this has happened. Documents tabled in the Senate show that Senator Parry used the 10th March 2017 Court of Disputed Returns Order, over a matter which had been annulled, to fill the ‘vacant position’ instead, clearly showing that correct procedure was not adhered to.”

“Senator Parry has crossed the legal boundaries, breaching his responsibilities as Senate President and must review the Senate rules on this matter. He is not above the law and has clearly usurped the powers of the Senate and the West Australian Parliament. This has become an embarrassment for the government and the evidence points to Senator Parry and Senator Brandis having misled the Senate.”

“My submissions state that the Supreme, Federal and High Courts breached Constitutional clauses, the Parliamentary Privileges Act and the Senate’s manual on its powers, procedures and practices, ‘Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice’, which instructs that no vacancy is to be filled until an outcome is final, or that placement will be void”.

“If these actions and omissions of the government and the courts in this matter are addressed, this will also expose the constitutional breaches of both groups and their failure to curtail the actions of the banks and their agents, regarding bank foreclosures and evictions, and will clear a pathway for those disenfranchised farming families, home and business owners and individuals to receive restoration of properties and/or restitution, deeming the sale and actions by the bank and their agents ultra-vires” and ultimately ending the criminal behaviour by those financial institutions and their agents.”

“I will not turn my back on this travesty of justice. I will uphold the oath I swore to represent the people of West Australia, in accordance with the Westminster system of democracy and not an unconstitutional, republican impost. The evidence I have now filed must be dealt with as a matter of public importance - the process and decisions made by our politicians must be lawful.”

#END#

Document:

Document:

Link: Odgers' Australian Senate Practice

Link: Senate Standing Orders

Link: Online Public Petition

Senator Rodney Culleton, who fought the banks and judicial system in his role as a Senator, was removed from the Senate, by Senator Parry (Senate President) and the High Court of Australia in January this year.

It has however come to light that Senator Parry and the High Court of Australia, in their removal of an elected Senator, broke several Commonwealth laws and Parliamentary procedures and now the matter must immediately be dealt with and rectified by the Senate as it is the Highest Court in Australia, under our Commonwealth Constitution.

SIGN THE ONLINE PETITION TO SHOW YOUR SUPPORT HERE:

- - - -

PETITION SHOWING SUPPORT FOR INVESTIGATION

Petition Disputing Election of a New Senator and the Removal of Senator Culleton

I ask the Senate to take the following facts, including any additional information that may be called upon by the Senate, or any evidence submitted by Rodney Culleton, into consideration.

On 11th January 2017, Senate President Stephen Parry wrote to the Governor General of Western Australia to notify them of a Senate vacancy due to the removal of Senator Culleton, based on a purported bankruptcy (under Section 44 (iii) Commonwealth Constitution). However, the Federal Court ordered a stay on all proceedings surrounding the bankruptcy (to expire on 8th February 2017), which Senator Parry ignored. Directly after the stay expired, Senator Culleton successfully filed an appeal in the High Court of Australia on 9th February 2017. Senator Culleton filed an appeal for the following reasons:

The Federal Court of Australia ignored all affidavits supporting Senator Culleton’s case and also ignored that a bond had been offered in trust to the court, as security against any purported debt.Senator Culleton proved to the court that he was solvent and able to pay any debt however the Federal Court of Australia (sitting in Western Australia) ignored this and proceeded.Senator Culleton did not have his legal team available and was denied an adjournment by the Federal Court. They proceeded without Senator Culleton having legal representationThe Federal Court was in violation of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, as they presided on Senator Culleton’s case whilst he had Parliamentary duties.The Federal Court failed to carry out 7 of the 10 mandatory procedures required by law under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Commonwealth). 


Senator Parry’s office notified ‘The Australian’ of his written correspondence to the Governor of Western Australia, that Senator Culleton had been removed from the Senate, prior to Senator Culleton receiving formal notification and whilst a court order of a stay on all proceedings was in place. Senator Parry and Senator Brandis therefore interfered with the natural course of justice and procedure by notifying third parties of a court outcome relating to the removal of a Senator.

Due to all court appeal avenues not being exhausted, Senator Parry disregarded the law and procedure for removing a Senator under Chapter 6 of Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice which states that Senator Culleton’s filed appeal means that no action can be taken to fill the alleged vacant senate seat. 


Chapter 6 of Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice also states “If a senator becomes disqualified after completion of the election process, this creates a casual vacancy which may be filled under Section 15 of the Commonwealth Constitution,” however Senator Panagiotis Georgiou was sworn into the Senate without the resolution of both Houses of the WA Parliament and Governor of Western Australia, as required.

The question of Senator Culleton’s removal from the senate, based on a purported bankruptcy, has never been raised or heard by the Parliament, as required under Section 49 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1901, as the Australia Parliament has not declared bankruptcy provisions for members and so the Bankruptcy Act 1883 (Imperial) applies. By this definition, Senator Culleton is not a current bankrupt and therefore 
Senator Parry misled the Senate, as he did not table all these associated facts regarding the purported bankruptcy.

The Senate, on 7th November 2016, also referred Senator Culleton to the Court of Disputed Returns due to a possible disqualification, for a larceny conviction (in absentia), handed down on 2nd March 2016.

Attorney-General George Brandis only presented some of the facts surrounding the larceny conviction in absentia to the Senate, to achieve a successful outcome of a motion to refer Senator Culleton to the Court of Disputed Returns. He therefore misled the Senate.

On 1st December 2016, Senator Culleton successfully moved and resolved a motion in the Senate that Senator Brandis be called before the House to answer why he did not present all evidence surrounding the conviction ‘in absentia’. If all facts were presented, the Senate may have dealt with the matter under Section 47 of the Commonwealth Constitution, not requiring Senator Culleton to go to the Court of Disputed Returns. See further notes:

Under Section 25.1(a) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, “The Local Court must not make any of the following orders with respect to an absent offender: (a) an order imposing a sentence of imprisonment,” and therefore Senator Culleton was never subject to being sentenced to imprisonment for one year or longer which is required for disqualification under Section 44 (ii) Commonwealth Constitution Act 1901. 
Senator Culleton received the conviction in absentia (larceny of a $7.50 lost key) because he was denied the right to attend the hearing by Magistrate Holmes of the Armidale Local Court; denying his right to natural justice.Senator Culleton was denied an adjournment and the court automatically ruled against him, resulting in a conviction in absentia and denying a natural course of justice.Senator Culleton was never under sentence or subject to be sentenced at the time of nominating as a candidate with One Nation nor the Australian Electoral Commission, nor at the Federal election on 2nd July 2016 as he had filed an application for annulment of the conviction on 24th March 2016 and upon the acceptance of the application, the court had to deal with the matter as if no conviction or sentence was recorded (Section 9 NSW Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001).

Senator Culleton notified the Senate on the 7th November 2016, that the High Court of Australia (Court of Disputed Returns) was not able to preside over any matter as the High Court Rules did not abide by the High Court Act, due to the removal of Her Majesty from the court which was uncovered by Senator Culleton on 12th September 2016, in a question to the Senate.

The High Court and Senator Brandis proceeded with Senator Culleton’s disqualification matter even though the High Court was not operating correctly as required under the Commonwealth Constitution.

Larceny, under the NSW Crimes Act, is an indictable offence, and a person subject to an indictable offence under the Commonwealth can request a jury trial under Section 80 of the Commonwealth Constitution. There is no indictment record for Senator Culleton and he was not granted a trial by jury, even though the disqualification required an indictable offence.

Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice also states that “Presumably if a conviction is quashed on appeal the vacancy which was taken to have occurred upon conviction and sentence is then taken not to have occurred. If such a presumed vacancy has been filled the filling of the vacancy would then also be void” and “the member’s place should not be filled until any appeal against the conviction is determined.” Senator Culleton’s ‘conviction in absentia’ was annulled.

On the 3rd February 2017, the Court of Disputed Returns brought down an ambiguous, contradictory and indefinite judgement based on whether Senator Culleton “might have been subject to sentencing”, yet they stated that he ‘was’ subject to sentencing and ruled that is was not ever deemed to be validly elected and hence there is now reasonable doubt in their ruling. The Court of Disputed returns judgment was only an opinion, based on a referral by the Senate.

Due to the facts stated above, and to reinstate confidence in the Australian judicial system, I request that the Senate provide the remedy reinstating Senator Rodney Culleton under Section 47 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1901.

SIGN THE ONLINE PETITION TO SHOW YOUR SUPPORT HERE:

You may also lodge a Petition to the Clerk of the Senate, for presentation to the Senate, under Standing Order 207:

Disqualified One Nation senator Rod Culleton has played his next card in his campaign against his removal, bizarrely claiming in a 15-page letter to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull that courts are invalid because WA has “written itself out of the Commonwealth”.

But the self-described “senator in exile” appears to have effectively pronounced his own election invalid all over again in the process, along with every other WA senator appointed since 2004.

Mr Culleton’s latest claim of injustice rests on a theory that the West Australian Acts Amendment and Repeal (Courts and Legal Practice) Act 2003 renders the Federal and High courts “nugatory”.

In the letter, sent to the Prime Minister, Deputy PM Barnaby Joyce, Bill Shorten and senators, the former Williams farmer says the Act’s replacement of references to the Queen with “Governor” in the District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 and the Supreme Court Act 1935 invalidates the Federal Court’s authority to declare him bankrupt.

He also claims that the removal of the Queen was “concealed from every elector in Western Australia, since 2004 and up until this present day, when the Western Australian Parliament did not ask the people at a referendum”.

“As elected members of your respective constituents, and duly accountable to such and parliamentary leaders of our nation, I am respectfully requesting that you have a look at all material facts surrounding my purported removal from the Senate, in doing so placing me in the capacity of ‘senator in exile’,” Mr Culleton wrote.

Mr Culleton wraps up the correspondence saying he is “looking forward to having (his) time on the Senate floor to speak on behalf of all people and electors of Western Australia” and “table full documentation to support all of the above”, despite his brother-in-law Peter Georgiou being sworn in as his replacement on Monday.

Mr Culleton was stripped of his Senate spot earlier this year after being declared bankrupt, with the High Court later ruling that he was ineligible to be elected in the first place.

Mr Georgiou’s appointment to the Senate restores Pauline Hanson’s One Nation voting block to four senators.

Source: https://thewest.com.au/politics/federal-politics/rod-culletons-letter-to-prime-minister-argues-australian-courts-dont-apply-in-wa-ng-b88430370z

In the wake of the Australian Electoral Commission conducting a recount of ballots to replace the position of Rod Culleton in the Senate, Mr Culleton has fired another shot back at the High Court, reminding them that the matter can only be addressed by Senate as required by the Australian Constitution. He also wants the High Court to reveal to the public and voters of Western Australia that they do not have the jurisdiction to remove a Senator.

“In relation to appealing the decision to the full bench of the High Court’s, it has come to my attention, that not only was there a discrepancy in the High Court rules which I raised in my inaugural question to the Senate, resulting in the amendment of the rules, but I believe that there is another serious discrepancy in the High Court, and of a greater magnitude.”

Mr Culleton has said that it appears that the High Court does not have the jurisdiction, under the Australian Constitution, to remove him or any other member of Parliament, from the Senate.

“The implementation of the Australia Act 1986, which was to separate the United Kingdom from legislating for Australia, failed at the 1984 referendum; the people voted a resounding “no,” so if the Australia Act is ultimately invalid, then how could it be invoked to be the foundation of the judiciary laws operating in Australia today at both Commonwealth and state levels?”

Sir Harry Gibbs, the High Court Chief Justice at the time of the referendum, has also previously echoed these concerns in a letter he sent in 1995. He said that “the Constitution cannot be altered under Section 128 to remove the Crown from the Commonwealth” and that “the Commonwealth was established not by the Constitution but by the Constitution Act…. The British Parliament has by the Australia Act 1986 terminated its power to legislate for Australia. In practice, if all the Parliaments concerned did legislate to amend the Australia Act they would be effective although it would amount legally to a revolution. Like many other legal questions this one is not altogether free from doubt but my opinion which I have expressed above is shared by a number of other lawyers. The opinion has been expressed in public but it has received little media attention.” []

Mr Culleton has said that it is hypocritical of the Government to expect others to follow the Constitution and rules, when they do not do so themselves and said it was one rule for them and another for ordinary Australians.

“Why then did the government at the time ignore the will of the people, and potentially mislead the House of Lords into instructing the Queen of England to assent the Australia Act in 1985? Our government enforced the Australia Act in 1986 and now due to this revelation, a big question mark now looms over not only the High Court, but also filters to the state courts too. I believe the courts are circumnavigating the Australian Constitution, using the fraudulent Australia Act, and it now looks like they are writing their own laws which are not in sync with the Constitution. Is this the reason why people are losing their properties to banks and why they cannot get a fair go in the courts?”

Mr Culleton has said that the genie is now out of the bottle and has said that the only body that lawfully and constitutionally has the power to put him on trial over his eligibility as a Senator, is the Senate itself, under Section 47 of the Australian Constitution.

It reads: Disputed elections - 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.

“When the Senators voted to send my case to the High Court, the only thing the High Court delivered was it’s opinion and advice – there was never any stamped court order to remove me from the Senate, yet Senator Parry, in tow with Senator Brandis, took it upon themselves to usurp powers to remove me and therefore jumped the gun. The Constitution clearly indicates that the question of eligibility is to be decided by the Senate.”

“I find it incomprehensible that Senator Brandis, the Attorney General, appears to not know the laws of the Australian Constitution. Has he consequently misled the Senate? I call for his sacking immediately.”

Mr Culleton’s barrister, Peter King, was in the High Court on behalf of his client on the 2nd of March when Justice Patrick Keane brought down his judgement to order a recount of the ballots. Justice Keane said that Mr King’s argument, regarding the decision being referred back to the Senate under Section 47 of the Australian Constitution, was “hopeless” but Mr Culleton revealed on his Facebook page that Justice Keane had ignored his Barrister’s written submissions in court, writing his judgement prior to attending the 2nd March hearing. Justice Keane did not take note of Mr King’s oral submissions either.

The Australian Electoral Commission would not declare whether the recount would result in Mr Culleton’s brother-in-law, Peter Georgiou, claiming the vacant Senate seat but rather, the result would be provided to the High Court for their consideration and for Justice Keane to deliver a decision.

“I am appalled at the conduct and judgement of the High Court, as my conviction in absentia over a $7.50 key, which was annulled, never had any chance of imposing or being subject to a sentence of imprisonment under Section 25 of the Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999. Therefore, I was never ineligible as a Senator under Section 44 of the Constitution.”

Mr Culleton claims that the High Court got it wrong and that there was never a trial and he is not alone in that opinion with Melbourne University Law School professor, Jeremy Gans, saying: “Re Culleton [No 2] is a fine example of much that is wrong with Australia’s apex court these days” and “I think a minor case like this – well, a major minor one – is a good opportunity to ponder a major question about the High Court: why do smart people write bad judgements?” [Read blog]

Mr Culleton has said that his appeals have been about clearing his name and setting things right.

“This ordeal has branded me as a criminal and a bankrupt when I am clearly solvent. I did not steal a key, it was lost as I tried to protect my property and I have spent a vast amount of money and my time trying to fight these charges. The High Court and other courts have dealt with my cases in haste which gave poor outcomes by the senior courts. I have done my legal homework and I will not accept them removing me from the Senate without jurisdiction.”

“I will be informing my legal team over the next few days, of my findings regarding the Australia Act and I will be delivering a Show Cause letter to put the Governor General on notice.”

##END##