The judgment states
In support of his preliminary matters Mr Haughton filed an affidavit on 29 April 2020. The affidavit includes two volumes of exhibits which include the “Memorandum and Articles of Association of Commonwealth Bank of Australia”. The affidavit is not set out in any conventional matter and contains a series of assertions and suggested legal propositions. Exhibited to it are two volumes of exhibits exceeding 200 pages. Many of them are poorly copied and their relevance is difficult to understand. For example, at page 2 of volume 2 of the exhibit books appears a photograph entitled “Yalta in Russia (1945 – 1948)” depicting Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin.
In an attempt to understand the ambit of Mr Haughton’s preliminary matters I articulated seven matters at the outset and during the course of the hearing which, I explained, represented my understanding of the matters Mr Haughton wished to argue. Mr Haughton appeared to agree that these were the matters he was raising and he addressed them at the hearing as well as subsequently in writing. The bank also addressed these matters at the hearing and subsequently in writing. Those matters were:
1 The Marquet point; [Attorney-General (WA) v Marquet (2003) 217 CLR 545]
2 Manner and form;
3 The Australia Acts and fraud;
4 The courts are outside Chapter III and s 49 of the Constitution;
5 Sundry criminal matters;
6 The fraudulent sale of the Commonwealth Bank; and
7 The promissory note.
As will be seen, these points were addressed by Mr Haughton in a manner that was very difficult to understand. They were not addressed sequentially and they often overlapped. Many of the points raised pseudo-legal issues which ranged indiscriminately across state and federal laws without regard to the particular laws engaged in these proceedings.
Speaking generally, Mr Haughton and his “group of friends” believe that there have, since 1945, been a series of legally significant events. These include that Australia remains under the trusteeship of the United Nations, that the Honourable R J Hawke AC and others were ineligible to sit in the Commonwealth Parliament when significant decisions were taken during the 1980s and 1990s (including the “sale” of the bank), that the bank’s Memorandum and Articles of Association were not validly signed, that the Australia Acts of 1986 were passed without the necessary referenda and that all laws since passed (whether state or federal) are invalid, and that the Commonwealth of Australia is in fact a privately owned corporation based in the United States of America with the result that I and other judges are paid by a foreign power.
I shall refer to the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) as the “Australia Act” and it and its UK counterpart as the “Australia Acts”. When I asked Mr Haughton whether his group of friends, who he said help each other out with information, included the nine people that sat in the public gallery during the hearing on 4 May 2020 he responded:
No, there’s hundreds of thousands of them in Australia - hundred thousand, hundred thousand, we can go through all their names now. And we’ll get to the 20,000 letters I’ve had signed at the back here, the 20,000 of them. 20,000 people asking for the arrest of the government and a grand jury, 20,000. That might be 100,000 in the next two months. What’s going to happen if I’ve got 100,000 wet blue ink signatures with two witnesses on it, power of attorney requesting for an investigation into a grand jury of the government. What about if it gets to 500,000 because that’s how many people you’ve got whingeing about it. People are in trouble in this country and we need to fix it up because your kids - we’re going down a river that is not going to end good for everyone.
And I can’t believe that the people like Grant Stevens, the chief of police [sic], can’t see that what he’s enacting is going to hurt all his family. That’s how it is, we’re going down - they’re worshipping the shriners, that’s what they’re doing instead of Jesus Christ. We want to convert everybody back to Jesus Christ in this country because it’s a Christian country. Not have an Islamic constitution already put on the floor in parliament trying to take this nation over in concealment from the people. All these laws that are being passed without referendum and there’s literally hundreds of them. And it’s from a foreign government of political subdivision.
… if someone can provide me with [an] original copy of Bob Hawke’s signature signed at Balmoral, that’ll be the only time anybody, anywhere I know, including police prosecutors, retired - I’m not going to mention their names - retired police prosecutors are saying the exactly the same thing as I am because they’re annoyed that they’ve put people in gaol and they didn’t have the authority to do it. And some of those people are in gaol doing life sentences however, they may have deserved it, but as an honorary police officer he’s very worried now that he didn’t have the authority to do it because he knows he didn’t.
So all those people - all those people, the judiciary seem to be like saying, I wouldn’t be surprised if I get a letter saying this is a vexatious and scandalous argument, because that’s what we get from the courts. I’ve got dozens of them. I’ve got over 30 or 40 letters from the Attorney-Generals all with identical, the same writing on them.
One of the fundamental difficulties with Mr Haughton’s point about whether I am sitting as a member of a valid Chapter III Court is that, as presently advised, I am not being asked to exercise federal jurisdiction under s 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).
The Court rejected Haughton’s desire to administer a Notice to Admit, which included
Livesey J commentsYou are required to admit and/or not to conceal the following fraudulent facts. 1. In regard to MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION of the purported sale of the COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA revealed herein below. … There then appears another version of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Commonwealth Bank of Australia and, on the final page, the absence of a signature by the Treasurer as well as the absence of any name or signature by a witness are both highlighted. It is then asserted that this has the effect of “[r]endering the MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION null and void”. This is followed by the statement that there are signatures by board members “only, evidencing 29 years of CBA bank fraud as at 16th April 2020”. The following is then provided: a. If you do not admit or agree, then clearly explain why do you not admit or agree? b. If you say the facts are not so, then clearly explain why do you say the facts are not so? c. If you say the facts are not so, then how are they not so? d. If you say the facts are not so, who told you this, what is their position and experience? e. Do you admit or agree that it is the case, is it not, that as claimed, the above fact/s, is or are so?
Not only is it difficult to discern any clear proposition of fact, but the relevance of these assertions to the proceedings is very far from clear'. Insofar as Mr Haughton seeks to challenge “all” legislation passed after the Australia Acts of 1986 it is far from clear what legislation is relevant to his defence of the bank’s claim. Having said that, Mr Haughton did not suggest any challenge to the common law of contract, nor the Real Property Act 1886 (SA) and the Law of Property Act 1936 (SA).
In any event, it is a longstanding rule that legislation is presumed to have been regularly passed. No federal legislation appears to be relevant but, even here, the proceedings of the House of Representatives and the Senate are not invalidated by the fact that a member sat when incapable of being a member.
Mr Haughton put the point in a dramatic way: … so the electorate don’t know that ‘cos most of the electorate don’t even know what the Australia Act is, was or did, and that was to basically kidnap or hijack the whole of the sovereign power and put it into parliamentary supremacy of a private business; that’s a big move, that’s what they did, a big move into a private business held by private political party members with private shareholders only - we can’t vote. How do we vote for a corporation registered in Washington DC that we don’t have shares in? It’s a private administrative firm, it’s a private business - Australia is run by a private business.
Essentially, Mr Haughton contends that because there were no referenda at the time of the passage of the Australia Acts they are invalid. He says that, in consequence, every law made after those Acts is invalid: “every single one of them”.
So far as South Australia is concerned, Mr Haughton contended that the Constitution of South Australia requires referenda and that there have been none. He then went on to contend that this was supported by s 6 of the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) which provides: … a law made after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of a State respecting the constitution, powers or procedure of the Parliament of the State shall be of no force or effect unless it is made in such manner and form as may from time to time be required by a law made by that Parliament, whether made before or after the commencement of this Act.
Just why Mr Haughton was relying upon a provision in an Act which he contends is invalid was not made clear to me. Be that as it may, his argument was that s 6 had been breached because there had been no referendum “to bring it into force”.
Whilst Mr Haughton initially suggested that every South Australian law passed after 1986 came within s 6, he backed away from that proposition without identifying precisely which law of any relevance to these proceedings did so. Significantly, he did not suggest that either the common law of contract, the Real Property Act 1886 (SA) or the Law of Property Act 1936 (SA) were affected.
Mr Haughton contended that the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) altered the Constitution because it introduced a Queen of Australia when in fact there was no Queen of Australia. This is a little different to an argument previously made by him. Previously, Mr Haughton has contended against the validity of the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 (Cth) because it is this Act which purportedly creates a “Queen of Australia” and all legislation passed since then is invalid because any assent is made in the name of an office that does not exist.
Likewise, all appointments (including of Judges of the Supreme Court of South Australia) are invalid because they involve the taking of an oath to an office that does not exist.
It seems to me that the reasons that required earlier courts to reject this argument apply here. In Joose v Australian Securities andInvestment Commission Hayne J rejected this argument as seriously misconceived because ss 58, 59 and 60 of the Constitution deal with the ways by which royal assent may be given, and s 58, in particular, provides that the Governor-General “shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen’s name”. Likewise, in Sill v City of Wodonga Beach JA held that Australian citizens owe allegiance to the Queen of Australia.
When this was pointed out to Mr Haughton he told the Court that Beach JA had been “criminally charged for that case, under a private prosecution”.
Ultimately, Mr Haughton contended that the consequence is that this Court fell outside the definition of a Chapter III court within the meaning of the Constitution because “it’s not of the people, we haven’t voted for this stuff. No one has voted for this stuff”.
Mr Haughton then referred to Sue v Hill and submitted:
It’s a private argument of private people that failed to bring in the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, and that’s held to the parliamentary members, and we will travel forward through and you can see the Deakin Law Review on the next page, which outlines that fact …
Mr Haughton also contended that the failure to bring in the Bill of Rights of 1688: …
was because the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement 1700 bans Catholics. Bans them outright, get rid of them, get lost, get out of here. Now that didn’t get put into the case and that’s why the case went through but … really it’s a joke.
I was provided with copies of the ACT iterations of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement in Mr Haughton’s exhibit book. Mr Haughton contended that because the ruling in Sue v Hill was that the UK may be regarded as a foreign power for the purposes of s 44 of the Australian Constitution:
… you can’t have it both ways. So if you want to invoke the United Kingdom as a foreign power then that invalidates the warrant to build Masonic Lodges in Australia and the warrant to have anything to do with Masonic Lodges here in Australia because Masonic Lodges are a foreign power of the United Kingdom joined by the Scottish right and the York right I think, don’t quote me, but I think about 1825 or something. The Freemasonry is a foreign power and if you’re going to say that Sue v Hill is valid then all Freemasons and Freemasonry Lodges have to go. They’ve got to pack up and go because you can’t have both.
The relevance of these matters to the bank’s case or his defence was never explained by Mr Haughton.
As may be obvious from the foregoing, these arguments from Mr Haughton encompassed not merely the “manner and form” point but also the Australia Acts and the Chapter III points that he wished to raise as part of his preliminary matters.
In bringing his submissions on these matters to a conclusion, Mr Haughton emphasised that the relevant foreign power was Catholicism and that this included:
… the very large fraud out the front of the Catholic Church building just across the road there ... you know the statue of Mary Mackillop … that’s actually Ethel Shaw. That’s a picture of somebody else. So they’re gaining a financial advantage by deception by putting a picture of somebody else in black and people are going donating [sic] money to it. It’s a huge fraud. But anyway that’s not for this case. It’s everywhere here.
Mr Haughton exhibited an affidavit by Mr Brian Shaw, farmer, making serious allegations against the Honourable Julia Gillard, the Honourable Rob Hulls, Damian Bugg AM QC and James McGinty, including allegations of criminal conduct and of treason. Mr Haughton said these allegations have been concealed since 2007 by the “President of the Full Court of the Supreme Court Chris Maxwell in Victoria” [sic]. Mr Haughton focused on what amounted to a private prosecution brought by Mr Shaw against the Honourable Rob Hulls. He said that his point was that:
If I am charged with a criminal charge, I can’t come into the court and direct the court to throw it out and not hear it, breaching [Byrne v Armstrong] …
The relevance of these prosecutions was never explained. Nonetheless, I was told that these ultimately led to Mr Shaw being declared a vexatious litigant in Victoria, and in Western Australia.
Although it is difficult to be confident, it may be that Mr Haughton believes that the bringing of criminal prosecutions are of some assistance to him. This might possibly explain why he recently brought criminal charges against the South Australian Attorney-General, the Honourable Vickie Chapman, as well as against Judge Roder. These were dismissed by a Magistrate and subsequent appeals to the Supreme Court were dismissed with the criminal proceedings being described as “incoherent” and the appeals “frivolous, vexatious and oppressive”.
Apparently an attempt was made by Mr Haughton to file criminal proceedings against the Honourable Justice Kelly for treason and criminal defamation. This was rebuffed by the Registrar at the Christies Beach Magistrates Court.
Although it was very difficult to understand, the allegations of treason appear to be bound up in legislative changes which delete references to the Crown and replace them with references to the State. Mr Haughton said that his research had been assisted by others. When I asked Mr Haughton about his reference to the law researchers who have assisted him in his case, he said:
The whole of Australia that knows that you [are] unconstitutional. The whole of Australia knows, right, that these courts are unconstitutional. We can go on the internet and flick around and you will see 100,000 things on there, also including Rob [Hulls] … application to the High Court of London, which I have brought three copies here, where it actually brings into question the same question that I am bringing in here, is the Australia Act is invalid.
Mr Haughton then relied upon provisions of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), asserting that he needed to bring these matters to my attention:
I didn’t explain to you about what my actual purpose was … my purpose is I have to do this or I am going to gaol, right, because under s.51 – s.80.1 of the Criminal Code it says here 1995 Criminal Code Chapter 5 Treason … ‘Knowing that another person intends to commit … commission of the offence.’ I get life imprisonment. That’s what’s happening that’s why I’m here today because the government’s committing it if I don’t say anything …”
Mr Haughton’s argument then leapt to what he described as an “Edgar search result”, being a search of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, which apparently showed that there was a “Commonwealth of Australia” which was a private corporation with shareholders and that this, therefore, proved that the “Commonwealth of Australia” referred to in Commonwealth legislation is “owned by the private political parties called Commonwealth of Australia”. He then told me:
The Constitution Act of 1900 which encompasses our human rights document, the Magna Carta and all those other things and our constitutional monarchy which forces us to vote for any changes in that constitution at s.106, 107 and 129. But this one here has no constitution the Commonwealth of Australia.
Mr Haughton contended that there had been no election to “turn us from a company of living people into a corporation with shareholders of the political parties”.
The registration of the “Commonwealth of Australia” as a privately owned American company was explained some time ago by the Australian Treasury in response to a freedom of information request. Registration occurred in 2009 in connection with a guarantee issued under the Australian Government Guarantee Scheme for large deposits and wholesale funding.
There was obviously no evidence identified by Mr Haughton to support his next assertion that, in some way, Judges sitting on State Supreme Courts are funded by the privately owned American company to which he referred.
Rather, under s 12(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) each Judge is entitled to a salary and allowances as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal established under the Remuneration Act 1990 (SA) and, as s 12(4) clarifies, that is payable from general revenue. How any of this could possibly be relevant to Mr Haughton’s case involving the Commonwealth Bank was never explained.
It was in the course of this part of his speech that Mr Haughton introduced the proposition that the Honourable R J Hawke AC will yet be disqualified by the High Court under s 44(1) of the Constitution because he was granted honorary citizenship of Israel and was therefore a dual citizen, ineligible to sit in the Australian Parliament.
How this step might be undertaken following Mr Hawke’s death in a manner consistent with the High Court’s decision in Re Canavan, still less addressed by this Court in these proceedings, was never explained by Mr Haughton.
Mr Haughton next complained that the Commonwealth Memorandum and Articles of Association to which I have referred were signed by Mr Anthony Cole AO, the then Secretary of the Treasury, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia in its capacity as a member. His proposition was that this rendered them invalid.
It may be, although Mr Haughton was not clear, that this issue is coupled with his complaint about the status of the Honourable R J Hawke AC in connection with the decision taken to privatise the Commonwealth Bank some decades ago. How this could possibly be determined in these proceedings, or be relevant to Mr Haughton’s defence, was never explained by Mr Haughton.
