Leonard Clampett ran a number of proposed constitutional arguments, but the main contention seems to be the section 115 currency argument which appears in many of his cases. He was also among the plaintiffs in Halliday v The Commonwealth of Australia  FCA 950 which contested the Goods and Services Tax, and the New Tax System in general.
The currency argument
Leonard Clampett appealed his conviction for an offence under the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), but his appeal was dismissed. He then applied to the Supreme Court for judicial review against the District Court Judge who dismissed his appeal, in Clampett v Robyn Hill, Principal Registrar of the District Court of Queensland  QSC 292 but refused to make any submissions, so the application was summarily dismissed.
In Clampett v Hill  QCA 394 he appealed this dismissal, contending that the Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 (Qld) was not preceded by a referendum, and that was contrary to the requirements of section 53 of the Queensland Constitution Act 1867 (Qld) which, because the Queensland Act anticipated alterations to the office of Governor, necessitated a precedent referendum. The court referred to Sharples v Arnison & Ors  QCA 518, Skyring v Electoral Commission of Queensland & Anor  QSC 080 and Lohe v Gunter  QSC 150, and rejected the argument. Leonard Clampett also sought to re-agitate the so-called “currency argument”, previously rejected on a number of occasions in this court, including Lohe v Gunter, (at 8-10) and Skyring v Electoral Commission of Queensland (at 7-9), and had been refused by the High Court on a number of applications. The court characterised the appeal as vexatious and it was dismissed.
Leonard Clampett appealed against that decision in Clampett v Kerslake (Electoral Commissioner of Queensland)  QCA 104, alleging that subsection 85(1) of the Electoral Act 1992, which requires that a deposit of $250 “in cash or bank cheque” accompany the nomination of a candidate for election, is invalid, as it is inconsistent with section 115 of the Commonwealth Constitution because it authorises the use of paper money, coins that are not silver or gold coins, and bank cheques. The court noted the currency argument was rejected as vexatious in Clampett v Hill  QCA 394, and also in Re Skyring’s Application (No 2) (1985) 59 ALJR 561, and Re Skyring  QCA 460, where three Justices unanimously dismissed an appeal from Justice White’s decision, affirmed Justice Davies’ statement in Skyring v O’Shea  QCA 376 that, “Time has long passed when it is necessary to set out and reject, once again, the arguments of the appellant.”
Leonard Clampett also contended that enactments leading up to and including the Australia Act 1986 (UK) were constitutionally invalid on account of a failure to comply with referendum requirements in section 53 of the Constitution Act 1867 (Qld), to which the court referred to Clampett v Hill  QCA 394 (at 12-14). The appeal was struck out as incompetent.
Leonard Clampett sought special leave to appeal to the High Court in Leonard William Clampett v David Kerslake, Electoral Commissioner Of Queensland  HCASL 280 which was likewise rejected.
Contempt of Court
In Noah v Bailey  FMCA 1002, Leonard Clampett had interrupted proceedings to which he was not a party, yelling obscenities from the public gallery. He was warned once and refused to abide the warning, and was subsequently found guilty on two counts of contempt and was sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for 28 days on each count, to be served concurrently. He remained in custody for over a week, including during the trial.
He successfully appealed this conviction in Clampett v Attorney-General (Cth)  FCAFC 151, as it was unsatisfactory for the Federal Magistrate to have proceeded upon the basis that he would not have paid any fine and that he should therefore have been sentenced to imprisonment without any option to pay.
He applied for costs in Clampett v Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia (No 2)  FCAFC 13 but it was refused as they were “the authors of their own misfortune”.
Brisbane Times: “Two jailed over electoral dispute“:
In Clampett v Wensley  QSC 164 Leonard Clampett sought an order that “the election for the entire complement of 89 candidates, ostensibly returned as the Members of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland from that election, be declared null and void”. The application was dismissed because it was filed out of time, nor was he entitled to dispute any election other than that for the electoral district in which he was an enrolled elector, and because he did not deposit with the Court $400 when the application was filed, as he claimed he could not be required to pay in the expected form of legal tender, as certain provisions of the Currency Act are invalid by reason of section 115 of the Constitution. The court noted that a similar argument was rejected by the Court of Appeal in Clampett v Kerslake and Re Skyring’s Application (No 2).
Leonard Clampett appealed this decision in Clampett v Wensley  QCA 277 and the appeal was dismissed.
Leonard Clampett sought special leave to appeal this decision from the High Court in Leonard William Clampett v Her Excellency Penelope Wensley, Governor Of Queensland and Ors  HCASL 279, which was likewise dismissed.
An application for special leave to issue further proceedings in the High Court was dismissed in Clampett, In the matter of an application for leave to issue a proceeding  HCATrans 216.
An appeal of this decision to dismiss was likewise dismissed in Re: Leonard William Clampett  HCASL 292.
The speeding fine
Leonard Clampett was convicted of a speeding offence in Brisbane Magistrates Court, after he argued he could not pay the $200 speeding fine, because “there is no gold and silver coins in common circulation”. He insisted that “A state, as opposed to the Commonwealth, cannot compel you to pay in other than gold and silver coin. Fairly simple.” His argument inevitably failed, with Magistrate Sheryl Cornack finding Leonard Clampett guilty and ordering he pay the $200 fine, and $76.90 in court costs. She also ordered he pay police prosecution’s out of pocket expenses, totaling $3500, in obtaining an expert witness.
Brisbane Times: “It’s the constitution, no bullion“:
Three weeks later, Leonard Clampett fought to have the ruling overturned by the Supreme Court in Clampett v Magistrate Cornack  QSC 123 applying for a judicial review on the grounds no court had previously defined the terms of the constitution. He also raised a challenge to the photographic evidence, contending that the speed camera failed to comply with the National Measurements Act (Cth). Supreme Court Justice Martin Daubney ruled that the basis of his argument “has long been discredited” and dismissed his application. “None of the reasons advanced by the applicant amount to any good reason for having instituted the present application.”
“To the extent that the applicants justification for bringing the present application in this Court relies on a contention that he was precluded from approaching the District Court because of his assertion that this would require him to make payment in a manner which was not “strictly legal manner, constitutionally” (i.e. the legal tender argument referred to in paragraph 2 of his prayer for relief), it is clear that the argument on which that contention is based has been long discredited. It is sufficient in that regard to refer to the judgment of Deane J in Re Skyring’s Application (No 2).”
Leonard Clampett appealed this decision in Clampett v Magistrate Cornack & Anor  QCA 2 and the application was dismissed.
In Clampett v Magistrate Cornack & Anor  QCA 30 the court ordered Leonard Clampett pay the costs of the respondent in these proceedings.
Leonard Clampett sought special leave to appeal to the High Court in Leonard William Clampett v Magistrate S Cornack and Anor  HCASL 81 and it was likewise dismissed.
Prior to the breach the Commissioner of Police advised Leonard Clampett by letter that the speed detection devices comply with National Measurement Act 1960 (Cth). He sought judicial review of that statement in Clampett v Hales & Anor  QCA 3, as the primary judge held that the statement in the letter was not a decision made under an Act.
The application was dismissed, and in Clampett v Hales & Anor  QCA 31 Leonard Clampett was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent.
Entrenched provisions again
In Clampett v Attorney-General of Queensland  QCA 325 Leonard Clampett sought orders that the Queensland Parliament had unlawfully presented for Royal assent the Bill for the Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 (Qld) in breach of section 53 of the Queensland Constitution, that there having been no referendum approving the Bill in accordance with sub-sections 53(2) to (4) the Act was invalid. The court referred to Sharples v Arnison  2 Qd R 444 and Clampett v Hill & Ors  QCA 394, and also another decision which was inconsistent with his argument, R v Minister for Justice and Attorney‑General of Queensland, ex parte Skyring  QSC 8. The court noted:
“Notwithstanding the authoritative decision in Sharples v Arnison the appellant advanced similar arguments in Clampett v Hill & Ors, where they were again rejected. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of those decisions. The appellant had not advanced any new argument of substance. The appeal should be dismissed.”
Leonard Clampett was convicted of driving a motor vehicle while his driver’s licence was suspended. He appealed against that decision in the District Court, arguing that there was bias or a denial of natural justice on the part of the magistrate; that deemed knowledge of the suspension was an error of law; that proof of mens rea was required and that he was prosecuted under the wrong name. The District Court judge dismissed the appeal and the further appeal against the sentence. In Clampett v Queensland Police Service  QCA 345 Leonard Clampett sought an extension of time in which to appeal against the judgment of the District Court dismissing his appeal from the Magistrates Court, but as he failed to demonstrate error on the part of the District Court judge from whose judgment leave to appeal was sought, leave to appeal was refused.
Leonard Clampett again sought special leave to appeal to the High Court in Leonard William Clampett v Qld Police Services  HCASL 64 which was refused.
In Clampett, In the matter of an application for leave to issue or file  HCATrans 2 Leonard Clampett sought to file an Application for a Constitutional or other Writ in order to commence a proceeding against the Treasurer of the Commonwealth, Joshua Anthony Frydenberg, for his removal from the House of Representatives; and that he be prohibited from sitting in the Parliament. The application was dismissed.