Good Question Whistler, why didn’t Parliament annul them. The answer is they are quite happy to see the High Court and Federal Court as their public servants, and the Constitution suspended. The Parliament has a limited time to annul Regulations. The Queen may disallow any law, by s 59 Constitution, within one year, and can annul such laws, but since She is in England, and her delegate the Governor General is a bit slack at times, this was not done in the case of either set of High Court Rules or the Federal Court Rules where they are offensive. However the time limit is set at 15 sitting days at the moment. Have a look here: http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/committee/regord_ctte/alert2009.htm

The High Court can annul any regulations and have a duty to do so, but like so many public servants are afraid to act. The power of Judicial Review of Legislative Instruments is one of the awesome powers of a Christian Legal System. It has not been used since we went pagan. When it is used, as in the Kable decision in 1996, it is disregarded.

There is a Book by Henry Abraham, a Textbook that is not used in Australian Universities anymore, entitled THE JUDICIAL PROCESS. An extract from it is posted on the Net here. http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=238

You and other contributors are completely ignorant of the fact that a court can annul legislation and regulations. That is why Parliament has allowed Judges to do as they please. It is also why Judges have probably been told they toe the line or will be indicted.

Parliament has a duty to dismiss the whole High Court for contempt. The High Court Rules 2004 directly contradict s 33 High Court of Australia Act 1979. The Parliament says the High Court must issue process in the name of the Queen, but rebels on that Court have taken Her name off all process since 2004. The Queen’s name, used to be like the name of Jesus Christ, and was very powerful. She herself never discriminated, Judges do. A Judge is not judges and cannot be a court.

The Parliament of the Commonwealth has made legislation granting powers to any person but the High Court has made laws excluding most persons from access to the course of justice in respect of the judicial power of the Commonwealth. The words any person appear in s 58 Judiciary Act 1903, and allow for such a suit to be commenced in the High Court where it has original jurisdiction.

Any person includes any homeless person, and the word State in its proper meaning must also mean the Commonwealth. When the High Court misbehaves as it has done with the High Court Rules 2004 it can be sued in a State Supreme Court, because the Commonwealth has made itself the same as the High Court, in S 45 High Court of Australia Act 1979, so the separation of Church and State is no longer a fact in Australia. The State and Church were one and the same in 1899. In 1900 the Church and State were separated by separating the power to judge from the administrative functions of a Justice, and the Justice was known universally as representative of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, The Queen. The Queen by s 61 Constitution, is Chief Executive Officer of the Commonwealth, so all Justices should be executive officers of Her Majesty.

The complete breakdown of respect for Commonwealth Legislation, by State Governments stems directly from the restrictive trade practices of the High Court. When Paul Keating’s government enacted amendments to the Trade Practices Act 1974 in 1995, to they say, enhance the welfare of Australians through the promotion of competition and fair trading and provision for consumer protection, it has meant nothing, because instead of competing, the State and Federal Courts, have introduced cartel type Rules, to ensure they do not compete in the sale and delivery of justice. This cartel ensures that the homeless are not housed or cared for.

When New South Wales repealed the provision that allowed any person to sue for a breach of Statute Law, in 1970, it set the scene for homelessness to become an epidemic

The original jurisdiction of the High Court, derives from S 75 and 76 Constitution, and from S 30 Judiciary Act 1903. It has original jurisdiction in all matters arising under the Constitution, or involving its interpretation, and in trials of indictable offences against the laws of the Commonwealth.

Its current Rules provide neither the Forms, not any Rules to allow the prosecution of indictable offences against the laws of the Commonwealth. It should have made Rules necessary for carrying into effect the provisions of the Judiciary Act 1903, especially Section 30 because the Parliament has said they should. It has been an indictable offence since time immemorial to fail to obey Statute Law, but since the High Court has no provision to indict offenders, it cannot or does not want to exercise its original jurisdiction, so the homeless are powerless too.

It is the powerlessness of the homeless that causes the homelessness. The Parliament of the Commonwealth has given power to the homeless, provided they breathe, by s 13 and S 15F Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth), but they are powerless because seven people, three women and four men, have no hearts or compassion whatsoever. The Rules of Court prove this.

The homeless have the power to lift themselves out of poverty by taking advantage of the provisions of liquidated penalties, converting a prison term to a monetary sum, in s 4B Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth), but the block on the road to their rehabilitation is the High Court. In 1363, the Parliament of the United Kingdom enacted 36 EDW III C9, and it said that if any Statute was broken any person could complain and get a remedy, or anyone on his behalf could too. This was in force in Australia in 1828, and should have been tucked away safe from repeal by any State Government, by S 118 Constitution, on the 9th July 1900.

The homeless will stay homeless until Kevin Rudd insists the High Court do its job under the Constitution. The High Court has enormous power to do good. Why do they choose not to?

Kevin Rudd said he would address homelessness in his first term in office. Bickering between the States and Commonwealth, have stopped him, but the old saying, give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish and he will feed himself forever, applies to homelessness.

There was no homelessness before Judges were allowed to make their own Rules of Court. There should be no homelessness in Australia because we are an enormously prosperous country, with vast mineral wealth, resources to feed ourselves, but the wealth is unevenly distributed, because the Judges of all the Courts, have made Rules of Court to exclude most people from access to them.

Homelessness in Sydney flows directly from the failure of the High Court to accept suits from people adversely affected by contempt by Local Councils for Commonwealth laws. The Commonwealth in the Trade Practices Act 1974 has made every law necessary for the abolition of homelessness. The one thing that instills fear in the heart of a public servant is a court. They (courts) were an essential part of Christian Australia. A court was where even the poor could pray, and get relief.

A court was a branch of the Anglican Church up until 1900, because until then Justices of the Peace were appointed by the Church, and the separation of Church and State was effected by universal jury trials, of all except very minor criminal offences.

To fix homelessness Kevin Rudd should deliver an ultimatum to the High Court. Fix your Rules of Court to reflect the duties cast upon you, or face indictment for attempting to pervert the course of justice in respect of the judicial power of the Commonwealth. The evidence he could use against them is their published Rules of Court. If a man or woman will not work, he or she does not deserve to keep the job they have, and if the High Court continues to refuse to work it should be sacked. Blatant contempt for Parliament should be raised in the Parliament. It has the power and should use it.

The fees the High Court wants to consider an application are currently set at $2726 for a Corporation and $1,364 for an individual, and that may be a fair price if they would do some work for that money. It is twice as much as the Federal Court charges to start a proceeding, but neither of them constitutes themselves in their original jurisdiction as a proper Ch III court. Both Courts will waive these fees if a person is unable to pay, due to difficult circumstances, so there is no impediment to a homeless person filing in the High Court except the Rules of Court that prevent them getting in, and if they get in, getting justice.

Before Judges started making Rules of Court giving themselves absolute power, and becoming absolutely corrupted, the Justices of every Supreme Court in every State had to get consent in writing before they could sit without a jury. That meant the courts referred to in the Constitution were incorruptible, and lawyers were not in a position to sell and buy judgments from Judges. The first entrepreneurial Judges were in South Australia, and persuaded their Parliament to allow them to sit alone without juries, so giving them the opportunity to sell justice and make a personal fortune.

The Courts now operating in Australia in every State including the Commonwealth, are wide open to charges of corruption, and every opportunity is given to Judges to sell justice. Before 1986, Victoria had Chambers where consent orders could be entered, but all trials had to be in open court. Judges and Magistrates all over Australia are selling justice, and anyone who goes to Court without a lawyer, can expect to be severely shafted.

The court was a place where the Biblical Promise, in Matthew 7 Verse 7 was carried out and Almighty God and the Queen both kept their word. Ask and you will be given what you ask for.. for everyone who asks receives. The only way a Justice could refuse to give an applicant what he asked for was if a jury said he could not

Peter the Believer,
Eddie Mabo made an application
which succeeded
to the High Court when he was homeless.