1. Section 44 (ii) - Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
Any person who:
(ii) is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer
The Constitution requires a conviction AND sentence or subject to being sentence for 12 months imprisonment, for a Member to be disqualified from Parliament. Culleton was convicted in absentia, due to being denied an adjournment by the Magistrate Holmes, and under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act (NSW), the local court cannot impose a sentence of imprisonment, therefore Culleton was never subject to being disqualified under section 44(ii) of the Constitution.
2. Section 25 - Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Local Court not to impose certain penalties if offender is absent
(1) 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
Culleton was never subject to imprisonment due to this Act and therefore was never ineligible to sit in the Senate under section 44 of the Constitution.
3. Section 10 - Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW)
Effect of annulment of conviction or sentence
(1) On being annulled, a conviction or sentence ceases to have effect and any enforcement action previously taken is to be reversed.
On 24th March 2016, Culleton successfully filed an application to have the 'conviction in absentia' annulled. Therefore, at the time of the election, the larceny matter (lost tow truck key) was still before the courts.
4. Section 80 – Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
Trial by jury
The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes.
5. Section 77 (b) – Judiciary Act 1903
Power of High Court to direct trial with jury
The High Court may, in any suit in which the ends of justice appear to render it expedient to do so, direct the trial with a jury of the suit or of an issue of fact, and may for that purpose make all such orders, issue all such writs and cause all such proceedings to be had and taken as the Court thinks necessary, and upon the finding of the jury the Court may give such decision and pronounce such judgment as the case requires.
Larceny can be an indictable offence and the courts ignored Culleton’s applications for a jury trial.
6. Section 47 - Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
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.
Under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, the Parliament has provided provisions for disputed elections through the High Court of Australia, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns. However the court does not have final jurisdiction to determine an election void, under section 376 Commonwealth Electoral Act which is the section that was used for the Senate Referral. Therefore the Court of Disputed Returns’ judgement could only be used as an opinion, and this opinion had to come back to the Senate to be heard and debated under section 47 of the Constitution.
7. Section 77 - Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
Power to define jurisdiction
With respect to any of the matters mentioned in the last two sections the Parliament may make laws:
defining the jurisdiction of any federal court other than the High Court
Under the Australian Constitution, the Parliament did not have the power to run the High court as the Court of Disputed Returns, despite it being written into the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The Court of Disputed Returns can be created but only allocated through a Federal Court. This would have allowed appeals from the Court of Disputed Returns to the High Court, since the Privy Council appears to have been abolished.
8. Section 353 - Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
Method of disputing elections
(1) The validity of any election or return may be disputed by petition addressed to the Court of Disputed Returns and not otherwise.
Under the Electoral Act, a Member's validity can only be challenged through a petition to the Court of Disputed Returns, and in Culleton's case, there was no petition. Culleton was sent to the Court through a Senate motion under Section 376 of the Electoral Act which does not have the power to evict him from the Senate. Senator Parry usurped his powers as Senate President to remove Culleton.
9. Section 354 - Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
The Court of Disputed Returns
(1) The High Court shall be the Court of Disputed Returns, and shall have jurisdiction either to try the petition or to refer it for trial to the Federal Court of Australia (the Federal Court ).
(2) When a petition has been so referred for trial, the Federal Court shall have jurisdiction to try the petition, and shall in respect of the petition be and have all the powers and functions of the Court of Disputed Returns.
This section of the Act discusses the jurisdiction of the Court of Disputed Returns which only prescribes for action to be taken under a petition and there was no petition in Culleton's matter. Furthermore, under section 77 (i) Australian Constitution, the Parliament cannot define the jurisdiction of the High Court and therefore section 354 (i) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act appears to be unconstitutional.
10. Section 376 - Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
Reference of question as to qualification or vacancy
Any question respecting the qualifications of a Senator or of a Member of the House of Representatives or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament may be referred by resolution to the Court of Disputed Returns by the House in which the question arises and the Court of Disputed Returns shall thereupon have jurisdiction to hear and determine the question.
This act states “may be referred” however in Culleton’s matter, the Senate was not privy to the facts and did not participate in any petition.
11. Section 15 - Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
Casual vacancies [see Note 8]
If the place of a senator becomes vacant before the expiration of his term of service, the Houses of Parliament of the State for which he was chosen, sitting and voting together, or, if there is only one House of that Parliament, that House, shall choose a person to hold the place until the expiration of the term. But if the Parliament of the State is not in session when the vacancy is notified, the Governor of the State, with the advice of the Executive Council thereof, may appoint a person to hold the place until the expiration of fourteen days from the beginning of the next session of the Parliament of the State or the expiration of the term, whichever first happens.
Where a vacancy has at any time occurred in the place of a senator chosen by the people of a State and, at the time when he was so chosen, he was publicly recognized by a particular political party as being an endorsed candidate of that party and publicly represented himself to be such a candidate, a person chosen or appointed under this section in consequence of that vacancy, or in consequence of that vacancy and a subsequent vacancy or vacancies, shall, unless there is no member of that party available to be chosen or appointed, be a member of that party.
(a) in accordance with the last preceding paragraph, a member of a particular political party is chosen or appointed to hold the place of a senator whose place had become vacant; and
(b) before taking his seat he ceases to be a member of that party (otherwise than by reason of the party having ceased to exist);
he shall be deemed not to have been so chosen or appointed and the vacancy shall be again notified in accordance with section twenty-one of this Constitution.
The name of any senator chosen or appointed under this section shall be certified by the Governor of the State to the Governor-General.
If the place of a senator chosen by the people of a State at the election of senators last held before the commencement of the Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) 1977 became vacant before that commencement and, at that commencement, no person chosen by the House or Houses of Parliament of the State, or appointed by the Governor of the State, in consequence of that vacancy, or in consequence of that vacancy and a subsequent vacancy or vacancies, held office, this section applies as if the place of the senator chosen by the people of the State had become vacant after that commencement.
A senator holding office at the commencement of the Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) 1977 , being a senator appointed by the Governor of a State in consequence of a vacancy that had at any time occurred in the place of a senator chosen by the people of the State, shall be deemed to have been appointed to hold the place until the expiration of fourteen days after the beginning of the next session of the Parliament of the State that commenced or commences after he was appointed and further action under this section shall be taken as if the vacancy in the place of the senator chosen by the people of the State had occurred after that commencement.
Subject to the next succeeding paragraph, a senator holding office at the commencement of the Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) 1977 who was chosen by the House or Houses of Parliament of a State in consequence of a vacancy that had at any time occurred in the place of a senator chosen by the people of the State shall be deemed to have been chosen to hold office until the expiration of the term of service of the senator elected by the people of the State.
If, at or before the commencement of the Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) 1977 , a law to alter the Constitution entitled " Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) 1977 " came into operation, a senator holding office at the commencement of that law who was chosen by the House or Houses of Parliament of a State in consequence of a vacancy that had at any time occurred in the place of a senator chosen by the people of the State shall be deemed to have been chosen to hold office:
(a) if the senator elected by the people of the State had a term of service expiring on the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and seventy-eight--until the expiration or dissolution of the first House of Representatives to expire or be dissolved after that law came into operation; or
(b) if the senator elected by the people of the State had a term of service expiring on the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and eighty-one--until the expiration or dissolution of the second House of Representatives to expire or be dissolved after that law came into operation or, if there is an earlier dissolution of the Senate, until that dissolution.
Senate President Parry wrote to the Governor of WA on 11 January 2017 and notified them of a vacancy due to a Federal Court deeming Culleton to be a bankrupt (even though his appeals were not exhausted and he was not insolvent). Because the purported bankruptcy ruling came down prior to the High Court judgment which was delivered on 3rd February, this created a vacancy under section 15 of the Constitution and therefore that procedure should have been followed, however Senator Parry informed the Governor of WA that it was not a section 15 vacancy when it was.
12. Section 14 - Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987
Immunities from arrest and attendance before courts
(1) A member:
(a) shall not be required to attend before a court or a tribunal; and
(b) shall not be arrested or detained in a civil cause;
on any day:
(c) on which the House of which that member is a member meets;
(d) on which a committee of which that member is a member meets; or
(e) which is within 5 days before or 5 days after a day referred to in paragraph (c) or (d).
On the 21st November 2016, Culleton was sitting in the Upper House of Parliament. Prior to this date, he duly notified, in writing, both the High Court of Australia and the Federal Court in Western Australia, that he was unable to attend the directions hearings, due to being a sitting day of Parliament. Culleton specifically relied on section 14 (1) (a-e) Parliamentary privileges act 1987.
Both Courts ignored his request and Culleton believes they clearly breeched the said act.
The Attorney-General, George Brandis, and Senate President Stephen Parry were also notified of the breach of law, if the High Court and Federal Court (purported Bankruptcy) cases did not adjourn until the Parliament sitting dates were finished.
13. Section 78B – Judiciary Act 1903
Notice to Attorneys-General
(1) Where a cause pending in a federal court including the High Court or in a court of a State or Territory involves a matter arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation, it is the duty of the court not to proceed in the cause unless and until the court is satisfied that notice of the cause, specifying the nature of the matter has been given to the Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth and of the States, and a reasonable time has elapsed since the giving of the notice for consideration by the Attorneys-General, of the question of intervention in the proceedings or removal of the cause to the High Court.
(a) may adjourn the proceedings in the cause for such time as it thinks necessary and may make such order as to costs in relation to such an adjournment as it thinks fit;
(b) may direct a party to give notice in accordance with that subsection; and
(c) may continue to hear evidence and argument concerning matters severable from any matter arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), a notice in respect of a cause:
(a) shall be taken to have been given to an Attorney-General if steps have been taken that, in the opinion of the court, could reasonably be expected to cause the matters to be notified to be brought to the attention of that Attorney-General; and
(b) is not required to be given to the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth if he or she or the Commonwealth is a party to the cause and is not required to be given to the Attorney-General of a State if he or she or the State is a party to the cause.
(4) The Attorney-General may authorize the payment by the Commonwealth to a party of an amount in respect of costs arising out of the adjournment of a cause by reason of this section.
5) Nothing in subsection (1) prevents a court from proceeding without delay to hear and determine proceedings, so far as they relate to the grant of urgent relief of an interlocutory nature, where the court thinks it necessary in the interests of justice to do so.
78B Notices were provided on numerous occasions to the Attorney-General however Culleton received no reply. Culleton raised Constitutional matters that needed to be addressed before proceeding in the Court of Disputed Returns or the Federal Court, for both the larceny (lost tow truck key).
Why the Senate did not invoke their power as the highest court in the land, as granted to it by section 47 Commonwealth Constitution Act 1901, and deal with his larceny matter when it became evident that the High Court was temporarily out of order (not issuing writs in the name of the Queen) and Senator Brandis had prior knowledge since 12th September 2016.
That the following acts were breeched under sect 73 (2) Western Australian Constitution with the removal of the Queen without a referendum. Those acts are listed below:
(1) Australia Act 1986 – In particular section 7 (1)
(2) Western Australia Constitution Act 1889
(3) Commonwealth Constitution Act 1901
(4) Bill of Rights 1688 (UK)
(5) Act of Settlement 1701 (UK)
(6) Acts Amendment and Repeal (Courts and Legal Practice) Act 2003 WA (NO. 65 of 2003) – in particular section 130 (3)
14. Section 33 – High Court of Australia Act 1979
All writs, commissions and process issued from the High Court shall be:
(a) in the name of the Queen;
(b) under the seal of the Court or a duplicate of that seal or such other seal as is prescribed by Rules of Court; and
(c) signed by:
(i) the Chief Executive and Principal Registrar or an officer acting with the authority of the Chief Executive and Principal Registrar; or
(ii) an officer authorized by an arrangement in force under subsection 30(4) or (5) or a person acting with the authority of such an officer.
On the 12th September 2016, Senator Culleton asked his inaugural question in the Senate about why the High Court Rules did not comprise of writs being issued in the name of the Queen, as required by the High Court Act. Senator Brandis said that Culleton was the first person to spot the "discrepancy" even though 16 justices had sat in the High Court. He further went on to say he had not been made aware of it before however Culleton has evidence to prove that the Attorney-General’s office was aware of the matter and the High Court also was aware as a case had gone before the judges in 2007.
15. Section 43 – Crimes Act 1914
Attempting to pervert justice
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person attempts to obstruct, to prevent, to pervert or to defeat the course of justice in relation to a judicial power; and
(b) the judicial power is the judicial power of the Commonwealth.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.
(2) Absolute liability applies to the paragraph (1)(b) element of the offence.
Note: For absolute liability, see section 6.2 of the Criminal Code .
(3) For the person to be guilty of an offence against subsection (1), the person's conduct must be more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence. The question whether conduct is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence is one of fact.
(4) A person may be found guilty of an offence against subsection (1) even if doing the thing attempted is impossible.
Senator Brandis did not produce the ‘agreed facts’ regarding Culleton’s case to the High Court. He also did not explain that Culleton’s conviction was a ‘conviction in absentia’ that could not impose a sentence of imprisonment when he moved the Senate motion to refer Culleton to the Court of Disputed Returns. Furthermore, the 3 One Nation Senators, including Pauline Hanson, had been given evidence to show that Culleton was not ineligible to stand for Parliament, and yet they did not present it to the Senate, but rather voted against Culleton. They, Senator Leyonhjelm and the government voted against Culleton’s Senate motion on the 1st of December 2016 to call Senator Brandis before the Senate to answer why evidence was withheld.
16. Chapter 7 – Criminal Code Act (Commonwealth) 1995
The proper administration of Government
Part 7.1 -- Preliminary
Division 130 -- Preliminary
In this Chapter:
"duty " :
(a) in relation to a person who is a Commonwealth public official--means any authority, duty, function or power that:
(i) is conferred on the person as a Commonwealth public official; or
(ii) the person holds himself or herself out as having as a Commonwealth public official; and
(b) in relation to a person who is a public official--means any authority, duty, function or power that:
(i) is conferred on the person as a public official; or
(ii) the person holds himself or herself out as having as a public official.
"gain " means:
(a) a gain in property, whether temporary or permanent; or
(b) a gain by way of the supply of services;
and includes keeping what one has.
"loss " means a loss in property, whether temporary or permanent, and includes not getting what one might get.
"obtaining " includes:
(a) obtaining for another person; and
(b) inducing a third person to do something that results in another person obtaining.
"property " includes:
(a) real property; and
(b) personal property; and
(c) money; and
(d) a thing in action or other intangible property; and
(e) electricity; and
(f) a wild creature that is:
(i) tamed; or
(ii) ordinarily kept in captivity; or
(iii) reduced (or in the course of being reduced) into the possession of a person.
"services " includes any rights (including rights in relation to, and interests in, real or personal property), benefits, privileges or facilities, but does not include rights or benefits being the supply of goods.
"supply " includes:
(a) in relation to goods--supply (including re-supply) by way of sale, exchange, lease, hire or hire-purchase; and
(b) in relation to services--provide, grant or confer.
Note: The expression person includes a Commonwealth entity. This is the combined effect of subsection 2C(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (which provides that person includes a body politic or corporate), and the definition of person in the Dictionary.
130.2 When property belongs to a person
(1) For the purposes of this Chapter, property belongs to a person if, and only if:
(a) the person has possession or control of the property; or
(b) the person has a proprietary right or interest in the property, other than an equitable interest arising only from:
(i) an agreement to transfer an interest; or
(ii) an agreement to grant an interest; or
(iii) a constructive trust.
(2) Subsection (1) has effect subject to subsections 134.1(9) and (10) (which deal with money transfers).
For the purposes of this Chapter, dishonest means:
(a) dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people; and
(b) known by the defendant to be dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people.
Note: The following provisions affect the meaning of dishonesty :
(a) section 131.2 (theft);
(b) section 134.1 (obtaining property by deception).
130.4 Determination of dishonesty to be a matter for the trier of fact
In a prosecution for an offence against this Chapter, the determination of dishonesty is a matter for the trier of fact.
Part 7.2 -- Theft and other property offences
Division 131 -- Theft
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of the property; and
(b) the property belongs to a Commonwealth entity.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.
(2) For the purposes of this Code, an offence against subsection (1) is to be known as the offence of theft.
(3) Absolute liability applies to the paragraph (1)(b) element of the offence of theft.
(4) Section 15.4 (extended geographical jurisdiction--category D) applies to an offence against subsection (1).
Note: For alternative verdicts, see sections 132.1 and 134.1.
131.2 Special rules about the meaning of dishonesty
(1) For the purposes of this Division, a person's appropriation of property belonging to another is taken not to be dishonest if the person appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
(2) However, the rule in subsection (1) does not apply if the person appropriating the property held it as trustee or personal representative.
(3) For the purposes of this Division, a person's appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest even if the person or another person is willing to pay for the property.
131.3 Appropriation of property
(1) For the purposes of this Division, any assumption of the rights of an owner to ownership, possession or control of property, without the consent of the person to whom it belongs, amounts to an appropriation of the property. This includes, in a case where a person has come by property (innocently or not) without committing theft, any later such assumption of rights without consent by keeping or dealing with it as owner.
(2) For the purposes of this Division, if property, or a right or interest in property, is, or purports to be, transferred or given to a person acting in good faith, a later assumption by the person of rights which the person had believed himself or herself to be acquiring does not, because of any defect in the transferor's title, amount to an appropriation of the property.
131.7 Property obtained because of fundamental mistake
(1) For the purposes of this Division, if:
(a) a person gets property by another's fundamental mistake; and
(b) the person is under a legal obligation to make restoration (in whole or in part) of the property, its proceeds or value; then, to the extent of that obligation, the property or proceeds belongs (as against the person) to the person entitled to restoration.
(2) For the purposes of this Division, an intention not to make restoration is:
(a) an intention to permanently deprive the person so entitled of the property or proceeds; and
(b) an appropriation of the property or proceeds without the consent of the person entitled to restoration.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a fundamental mistake is:
(a) a mistake about the identity of the person getting the property; or
(b) a mistake as to the essential nature of the property; or
(c) a mistake about the amount of any money if the person getting the money is aware of the mistake at the time of getting the money.
(4) In this section:
"money " includes anything that is equivalent to money. For this purpose, cheques, negotiable instruments and electronic funds transfers are taken to be equivalent to money.
131.8 Property of a corporation sole
For the purposes of this Division, property of a corporation sole belongs to the corporation despite a vacancy in the corporation.
131.10 Intention of permanently depriving a person of property
(1) For the purposes of this Division, if:
(a) a person appropriates property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself; and
(b) the person's intention is to treat the thing as the person's own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights; the person has the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a borrowing or lending of a thing amounts to treating the thing as the borrower's or lender's own to dispose of regardless of another's rights if, and only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.
(3) For the purposes of this section, if:
(a) a person has possession or control (lawfully or not) of property belonging to another; and
(b) the person parts with the property under a condition as to its return that the person may not be able to perform; and
(c) the parting is done for purposes of the person's own and without the other's authority; the parting is taken to amount to treating the property as the person's own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights.
Note: See also paragraph 131.7(2)(a).
Division 132 -- Other property offences
(1) A person commits an offence if the person dishonestly receives stolen property, knowing or believing the property to be stolen.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.
(2) For the purposes of this Code, an offence against subsection (1) is to be known as the offence of receiving.
(2A) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1), it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew or believed that the property belonged to a Commonwealth entity.
142.2 Abuse of public office
(1) A Commonwealth public official commits an offence if:
(a) the official:
(i) exercises any influence that the official has in the official's capacity as a Commonwealth public official; or
(ii) engages in any conduct in the exercise of the official's duties as a Commonwealth public official; or
(iii) uses any information that the official has obtained in the official's capacity as a Commonwealth public official; and
(b) the official does so with the intention of:
(i) dishonestly obtaining a benefit for himself or herself or for another person; or
(ii) dishonestly causing a detriment to another person.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.
(2) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person has ceased to be a Commonwealth public official in a particular capacity; and
(b) the person uses any information that the person obtained in that capacity as a Commonwealth public official; and
(c) the person does so with the intention of:
(i) dishonestly obtaining a benefit for himself or herself or for another person; or
(ii) dishonestly causing a detriment to another person.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.
(3) Paragraph (2)(a) applies to a cessation by a person:
(a) whether or not the person continues to be a Commonwealth public official in some other capacity; and
(b) whether the cessation occurred before, at or after the commencement of this section.
Division 147 -- Causing harm to Commonwealth public officials
147.1 Causing harm to a Commonwealth public official etc.
Causing harm to a Commonwealth public official
(1) A person (the first person ) commits an offence if:
(a) the first person engages in conduct; and
(b) the first person's conduct causes harm to a public official; and
(c) the first person intends that his or her conduct cause harm to the official; and
(d) the harm is caused without the consent of the official; and
(e) the first person engages in his or her conduct because of:
(i) the official's status as a public official; or
(ii) any conduct engaged in by the official in the official's capacity as a public official; and
(ea) the public official is a Commonwealth public official; and
(eb) if subparagraph (e)(i) applies--the status mentioned in that subparagraph was status as a Commonwealth public official; and
(ec) if subparagraph (e)(ii) applies--the conduct mentioned in that subparagraph was engaged in by the official in the official's capacity as a Commonwealth public official.
(f) if the official is a Commonwealth judicial officer or a Commonwealth law enforcement officer--imprisonment for 13 years; or
(g) in any other case--imprisonment for 10 years.
(1A) Absolute liability applies to the paragraphs (1)(ea), (eb) and (ec) elements of the offence.
(a) a person is charged with an offence against subsection (1); and
(b) the public official concerned is a Commonwealth judicial officer or a Commonwealth law enforcement officer; a court of summary jurisdiction may, with the consent of the defendant and the prosecutor and if the court is satisfied that it is proper to do so, determine the charge summarily.
(1C) If a court of summary jurisdiction convicts a person of an offence against subsection (1) in accordance with subsection (1B), the penalty that the court may impose is a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding 120 penalty units, or both.
S 130 (1) defines ‘duty’ and as Duty is used in S 78B Judiciary Act 1903, stating, “It is the duty of the court not to proceed in the cause until the court is satisfied that notice of the cause has been given to all Attorneys-General. Clearly this did not happen in the Court of Disputed Returns referral.
‘Commonwealth entity’ is defined in the Dictionary to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). (b) as a Commonwealth authority. Commonwealth authority means a body established by or under a law of the Commonwealth and the Senate and Senators are such an authority being established under the Constitution and each Senator is a Corporation sole.
‘Commonwealth Public Official’ means a member of either House of the Parliament.
131.3 defines ‘Appropriation of Property’ and the key word is Consent in that section. There was never consent either in the Court of Disputed Returns to appropriate a Senate Seat by a Court or Judge.
131.6 defines Obligation to deal with property in a particular way. The Property in the Senate Seat still belongs to Culleton.
131.7 defines Property obtained because of fundamental mistake.
Since the Court of Disputed Returns ordered the confiscation of Culleton’s property (Senate Seat) by a fundamental mistake, the property or proceeds belongs as against the person, to the person entitled to restoration.
(3) (b) defines a mistake as to the essential nature of the property.
131.8 defines a ‘Property of a Corporation sole’: Corporation sole, is defined as a corporation consisting of one person only, and that person’s successors in a position where the person constitutes an artificial legal entity, until the next election. This is a Senator.
132.1 defines ‘Receiving stolen property is a theft’.
There can be no doubt that the entity referred to by Senator George Brandis in the Senate as “the Government” (see Hansard) comprises of Commonwealth Public Officials and the Governor General. That they were persuaded to act contrary to law during a hiatus in the Office of the Solicitor-General, is immaterial, it was absolutely reckless. Justin Gleeson departed his office whilst the proceedings were on foot and another Solicitor-General was not appointed until the middle of January 2016.
Senator George Brandis ignored concerns by the Opposition when they expressed that the evidence had not been put forward, suggesting the Senate referral was rushed. Senator George Brandis, the Government and Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Senators ignored the Censure Motion moved on the 1st December 2016, and had other unelected Commonwealth Public Officials carry out their unauthorised will in both the High Court and Federal Court of Australia.
The government has also issued a $700,000+ bill to Culleton and this can be considered as causing serious harm.
17. Section 343 – Fair Work Act 2009
(1) A person must not organise or take, or threaten to organise or take, any action against another person with intent to coerce the other person, or a third person, to:
(a) exercise or not exercise, or propose to exercise or not exercise, a workplace right; or
(b) exercise, or propose to exercise, a workplace right in a particular way.
Note: This subsection is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4-1).
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to protected industrial action.
Culleton has received a letter from the government, telling him to either pay the $700,000+ that he and his staff received in way of salary and expenses to carry out work as a Senator, or request for the purported debt to be waived. If Culleton signs the letter and asks for a waiver, then it is an admission that he was never a Senator when he was under law, and that a debt exists. The government has threatened him with a debt unless he signs for a waiver to surrender.
18. Section 20 – Members Of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984
Senators and Members may employ staff
(1) A Senator or a Member of the House of Representatives may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, employ, under an agreement in writing, a person as a member of the staff of the Senator or Member.
(2) The power conferred on a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives by subsection (1) is not exercisable otherwise than in accordance with arrangements approved by the Prime Minister, and the exercise of that power is subject to such conditions as are determined by the Prime Minister.
Culleton’s staff were employed by the Commonwealth to run a Senate office for the Commonwealth and therefore Culleton should by law not be required to pay for his staff salaries or expenses incurred, as demanded by the Government in their ‘debt’ letter.
CULLETON'S HIGH COURT CHALLENGE
On the 23rd December 2016, Senator Rodney Culleton was ejected from the Australian Senate for a purported bankruptcy and due to a High Court finding, based on limited evidence at the time and without the jurisdiction to invalidate a Member of Parliament. This is why Rodney Culleton has continuously said that the Senate MUST deal with his removal and investigate it as the highest court in Australia. Rodney Culleton has not walked away because he is upholding his oath to serve the people of Western Australia. Under the law and Constitution he was not ineligible to sit in Parliament.
What the mainstream media have failed to report is that various laws were broken by Attorney-General George Brandis, Senate President Stephen Parry and even justices of the High Court and Federal Court to make Senator Culleton ineligible to sit in Parliament. The three One Nation Senators also withheld evidence from the Senate and voted to send their own colleague to the High Court instead of informing the Senate of the facts.
Evidence has been hidden and the removal of a Senator, without following the rules of law, is not only a grave carriage of injustice but those people who sit in high places have also eroded the will of the Australian voters and broken our Constitution.
For 7 months, Rod Culleton has been discussing these matters with several Senators however to date, none of them have followed through on the successful motion moved on 1st December 2016, where Attorney-General George Brandis was called forward to explain why he did not submit all evidence. It has also most recently been discovered that there was not a quorum in the Senate for the debate regarding Rod's removal, and under Parliamentary procedures, the Senate President must adjourn the Senate. Rod Culleton called for an adjournment so that evidence could be brought forward however Senator Parry laughed at the idea and did not grant Rod leave.
View the truth and evidence below and call your local Senator and tell them that Rodney Culleton must be reinstated and those politicians responsible, be held to account.
LAWS BROKEN/IGNORED TO REMOVE SENATOR CULLETON
CULLETON SENATE CHALLENGE DOCUMENTS
Sign the petition to investigate the removal of
Senator Rod Culleton here...
- - - -