By TONY MOBILIFONITIS
A CASE brought to UK courts by former WA Senator Rod Culleton has shown the government of Western Australia is unable to demonstrate that it has legal standing under the lawful Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, as opposed to the unlawful “Australian Constitution” and its so-called “Queen of Australia” head of government.
Constitutional researcher Darryl O’Bryan believes the case is the most important one in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia. It also has implications for the UK itself and other British Commonwealth nations.
The case has led Senator Culleton’s Great Australian Party to call for more “interveners”, that is people in any way affected by this situation, to file a claim in support. Already interveners include the Original Sovereign Tribal Federations, 10 indigenous tribal councils, the Rural Australia Intervention Directive and various individuals.
Culleton has been in constant court battles related to attempts to disqualify him as a senator, originally based on larceny charge in NSW over a $7.50 tow truck key. He was convicted in March 2016, but the conviction was annulled in August.
In December 2016 he was declared bankrupt by the Federal Court in Perth and was subsequently barred from serving in the Senate under section 44 of the constitution where a senator who is declared bankrupt or insolvent is disqualified. The verdict followed legal action against him by alleged creditor and former Wesfarmers boss Dick Lester to have him declared bankrupt.
Senator Culleton’s counter action included asking the courts and Senate to show him a valid Australian court order that offended the Constitution, which they were unable to do. “It was then that I decided I would fight this the whole way,” Culleton told Cairns News.
“The whole point is that the government is not recognised under the Commonwealth Constitution and the law makes it clear that we’re supposed to be under that Constitution.” The situation led to Culleton and his supporters taking the issues to the Privy Council and other UK courts.
The WA government was unable to answer Culleton’s UK case by the deadline. It was an application for judicial review of a decision of the Chief Justice of the WA Supreme Court and for the Governor and Attorney General of WA to demonstrate lawful standing. The government failed to file a notice of appearance or defence and instead chose to write to the UK court asking it to throw the case out.
But case No. CO/588/2020, currently before a judge in the High Court in London, gives Australians a chance to “reset their governance” and regain the rights that have increasingly been violated in recent years – especially under the so-called COVID pandemic, says Melbourne-based legal activist Darryl O’Bryan, one of the original parties in the action. O’Bryan is a leading independent constitutional researcher and says the WA case implicates all states and all levels of government in Australia.
O’Bryan and other researchers in recent years have discovered that the Whitlam government’s Royal Styles and Titles Act (1973) silently transformed the lawful structure of government in the nation into a shadow system, most likely designed to facilitate the country into the emerging global corporatist system we now see today.
O’Bryan says when the UK became part of the European Union in 1972 the Queen became an EU citizen, and this was without the consent of the Commonwealth of Australia. The UK “let Australia go” and that was why the Queen signed the top of the front page of The Australia Act 1986 as “Elizabeth R”.
By this time Whitlam had removed the word “Commonwealth” from all government legislation and stripped the Queen of her full Constitutional title including the words “Queen of the United Kingdom and Ireland, Defender of the Faith” into the “Queen of Australia”, under the guise of making the system “more Australian”. “It’s a parliamentary-created monarch and that’s not the prescription the Constitution allows,” O’Bryan said in a recent video. “The signing of that document (The Australia Act) has no legal effect. It’s still waiting for assent.”