Category Archives: Commonwealth of Australia
by Jim O’Toole
Senator in exile, Rodney Culleton, after being locked in battle with the corporate Australian legal system since 2016, has filed an action in the High Court of the United Kingdom to have his expulsion from the senate overturned.
Culleton said yesterday he was excited the High Court had accepted his Constitutional argument in the first step to overturn the Australian High Court direction he be thrown out of the senate because of bankruptcy.
“I have never been bankrupt,” he said.
A single judge of the Federal Court issued sequestration orders against Culleton in 2017 freezing his assets in spite of a 21 day stay of proceedings being granted by the Federal Court.
Vexatious litigant and Perth businessman Dick Lester claimed Culleton owed him $200,000 over a failed sale contract on land, a claim pursued hotly by Culleton but he says Federal Court Judge Michael Barker failed to follow court rules, ignored all due process and did not look at his affidavits.
“When I was sworn-in as a senator on August 30, 2016, I swore allegiance to Queen Elizabeth 2 of the United Kingdom, making an oath to uphold the law.
“I did not swear allegiance to the fictitious Queen of Australia.
“This ceremony was witnessed by the Governor General and his deputy.
“It should be noted the Commonwealth Constitution Act of Australia 1900, (UK) remains in force and cannot be repealed by an Australian Government.
“The High Court of Australia does not have the jurisdiction to throw senators or members out of Parliament. Either House has the only jurisdiction under s47 of the Constitution to deal with a Member’s qualification.
“The Constitution is everyone’s contract but we can’t get a remedy in Australian star chambers which don’t recognise the Constitution.”
The HCA has long drawn criticism from those being refused a hearing on Constitutional matters, with litigants claiming the court is not functioning as a Chapter 3 court as required by the Constitution.
Culleton gave the example of any senator or MHR who files an action in the HCA. It is unlawful for the court to hear any evidence relating to parliamentary procedures under s16 (iii) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, he said.
“As a result they threw out my Motion 163 without having jurisdiction because they are not sitting as a Chapter 3 court operating under the proper Crown.
“There is no such thing as the ‘Queen of Australia’.
Culleton has asked the Law Lords of the Queens Bench to examine his request to debate his senate Motion 163 of 2016 which the Solicitor General filed in the HCA.
The statement of agreed facts filed in the HCA by the Solicitor General states a NSW Magistrate, in Culleton’s absence could not imprison him for the alleged theft of a $7 truck key from his own truck.
This matter could have, if imprisoned, disqualified Culleton from the senate under s44 of the Constitution.
“Motion 163 of 2016 was a requirement passed by the House announcing that Attorney General George Brandis’ referral of November 7, 2016 to the HCA is faulty and that there needs to be further investigation into that faulty action, originally orchestrated by former Senators Parry and Brandis, which was never passed by any procedure of law, ,” Mr Culleton said.
He said the senate could not lawfully vote on Brandis’ December 7 motion at the time because there were insufficient senators present to form a Quorum under s22 of the Constitution and the relevant material was withheld from the chamber by Senator Brandis and Senator Pauline Hanson.
Culleton’s legal team remains in London until a hearing date is set by the full bench.
Letter to the editor
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a lawfully binding Treaty, so it does not directly create legal obligations for countries to provide these universally agreed human rights to their inhabitants or citizens and at the time of this universal Declaration some governments, including the government of the Commonwealth of Australia were already taking advantage of the ignorance of our parents and they were already securitising one of the declared human rights and trespassing on our parents personal property before and when they were adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on the 10 December 1948.
Australia has ratified almost all of the major international human rights instruments and it declares that human rights are universal – to be enjoyed by all people, no matter who they are or where they live EXCEPT those human beings who live or are born to the land in Australia as the Government is going to get the beneficial use of your universally accepted human right to the “security of person” in Article 3 as we have been doing that since 1934.
Motivated by the experiences of the preceding world wars, the Universal Declaration was the first time that countries agreed on a comprehensive statement of inalienable human rights but with the help of the Roman Civil administrative law that commenced in Australia after 1934, when the government of the Commonwealth of Australia signed up a juristic person and legal entity, COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA registered as an American company with the United States and Securities and Exchange Commission, to be bound by the statutory provisions of the Securities Act 1933 US and the Securities and Exchange Act 1934, we were then allegedly able to abandon this particular inalienable human right, our equitable share of the wealth in the land we were born to that provides for the “security of our person” of which the governments were already securitising and using and investing these securities and getting the beneficial use of as collateral for the debts of the government’s commercial entity, the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA and State commercial entities that were registered in a foreign jurisdiction, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and the securities and our financial assets were deposited in the Federal Reserve System without our knowledge or consent.
G J Tudehope