Are you lost and abandoned at sea therefore considered dead in law?

3 Oct

Cestui que whaaaat? (Pt1)

Are you lost and abandoned at sea therefore considered dead in law

Constitutional advisor and candidate for The Great Australian Party in the state of Victoria, Darryl O’Bryan explains some very important distinctions about the law of the sea. In order to fix the issues we all face, they must be first acknowledged and brought into the light.

Please see our videos album for more.

Don’t forget to join and become an official party member of the greatest political movement since federation of this superb nation called The Commonwealth of Australia.
www.thegreataustralianparty.com.au

Cestui que whaaaat? (Pt1)Are you lost and abandoned at sea therefore considered dead in law?Constitutional advisor and candidate for The Great Australian Party in the state of Victoria, Darryl O'Bryan. Here, Darryl explains some very important distinctions about the law of the sea. In order to fix the issues we all face, they must be first acknowledged and brought into the light.Please see our videos album for more.Don't forget to join and become an official party member of the greatest political movement since federation of this superb nation called The Commonwealth of Australia.www.thegreataustralianparty.com.au

Posted by The Great Australian Party on Tuesday, 2 October 2018

Cestui que pt 2.

Cestui que whaaaat? (Pt1)Are you lost and abandoned at sea therefore considered dead in law?Constitutional advisor and candidate for The Great Australian Party in the state of Victoria, Darryl O'Bryan. Here, Darryl explains some very important distinctions about the law of the sea. In order to fix the issues we all face, they must be first acknowledged and brought into the light.Please see our videos album for more.Don't forget to join and become an official party member of the greatest political movement since federation of this superb nation called The Commonwealth of Australia.www.thegreataustralianparty.com.au

Posted by The Great Australian Party on Tuesday, 2 October 2018

No automatic alt text available.

Immunity from taxation under the law?

Corporations and ALL! Financial corporations under the Constitution must be taxed!

If we the people needed anymore proof that the parliament is under control of the big banks, here it is!

It’s not rocket science.

A big Thank you to Cairns news! An honest and very well written article about our good senator..

Written by Gil Hanrahan

https://cairnsnews.org/…/culleton-demands-senate-president…/

More here by Justinian Woods https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=501115180357260&id=100013763477146

The implementation of GST by the Howard Government commencing 1st of July 2000 should have been put to the people via referendum as defined in s128 of the Commonwealth Constitution as it defies s55.

55 Tax Bill

Laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect.

Laws imposing taxation, except laws imposing duties of customs or of excise, shall deal with one subject of taxation only; but laws imposing duties of customs shall deal with duties of customs only, and laws imposing duties of excise shall deal with duties of excise only.

The Great Australian Party’s number one policy is to uphold the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 (uk) anything that does not stand the test of our inherited asset falls away as if it never existed!
Without proper representation no bills can be accented into law.

If you would like to see proper REPRESENTATION of your will
Join the Great Australian Party today!

………………………

How can we the people find out whether a law is an actual law and if it has followed the due process to become a binding law?

The Great Australian Party’s very own walking encyclopedia & candidate for Victoria- Darryl O’Bryan explains

Please see our videos album for more.

And don’t forget to join up as a member to the party.

Join Gap today:
www.thegreataustralianparty.com.au

All the archived videos posted by the Great Australia Party can be found here:-

https://m.facebook.com/pg/greataustralianparty/videos/?ref=bookmarks&mt_nav=0

https://www.thegreataustralianparty.com.au/

Please consider donating to the ‘Culleton v Commonwealth II’ Go Fund Me campaign.This highly constitutional matter…

Posted by The Great Australian Party on Tuesday, 24 July 2018

*** UPDATE ON CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PRIVY COUNCIL**

Get behind us, research these questions!
If we are wanting to save the Commonwealth of Australia we need you all to rally behind us and help fund the battle to our go fund me on the pinned post on our wall or here- https://www.gofundme.com/5ssp45k?member=442442

Rod has always said we will go to the very top, and we are but to make profound impact we need you, the people united with us & backing us financially. Everything thus far has come from Rods pocket.

Rodney Culleton

MAYLANDS WA 6051

Email:

5th October 2018

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,
Parliament Square, London SW1P 3BD
DX157230 Parliament Square 4

Via email: [email protected]

Dear Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,
I have made the appropriate enquiries with your office and understand that there appears to be jurisdictional issues with why Australia withdrew itself from the Privy Council of the United Kingdom without a successful referendum first had.
On the 30th August 2016, I gave a sworn public duty to the Crown as in the first schedule on the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 (UK) to uphold the laws within the Commonwealth and duly serve the people without fear or favour.
It is under this Oath and being a duly sworn Officer of the Crown that I state my reasons that are known to me as a right of equity and in the public interest of Australia to have this application heard in the jurisdiction of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom as I have exhausted all avenues available here in Australia.
Please find my application of my granted right under s73 Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 (UK) being the first law of the Commonwealth which requires the acknowledgement and participation of the Crown Queen for which right of being an Heir and Successor necessitates the identity of that office for the Sovereign to issue a writ of Mandamus to seek remedy at law.
It is my understanding that the right to a creation of the Queen under the Crown of the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 (UK) when created could never give an adopted right to another queen through office to inherit and hold the rights of inheritance and that office, so it may not be substituted for the Crown Queen.
Is it not the case that the Australia Act 1986 of the United Kingdom does not acknowledge Australia as being sovereign and independent as the UK version of the Act and the Australian version of the Act differ to where the UK Privy Council must comport to the English version of the law?
Isn’t it the case that the United Kingdom must follow that the Commonwealth of Australia is under the Crown of the UK because there is no valid law to modify that? If that’s not the case, where is the law that modifies it that has the reach to change the Constitutional structure because Australia cannot change the Constitutional structure as it is English law and will not the Courts of England follow the English law?
Isn’t it the case that there has to be a legal instrument in order to modify the constitutional structure of the Commonwealth in English Law? Where is the same in Australian law when it refers to the Statute of Westminster or the Royal Styles and Titles Act or The Australia Act, as they don’t have the possibility of changing our constitutional structure as they are supposed to be Commonwealth law subordinate to the constitutional structure?
Isn’t it the case that the adoption by the Commonwealth Parliament of the Statute of Westminster sections 2-6 is a function of law making controlled by the Constitution, as regarded by clause 9 within the same Act, and such adoption required the constitution impediments removed by referendum before the adoption? Isn’t it the case that no referendum is recorded for the adoption to become Commonwealth law and the passing of the Australia Act is evidence of constitutional expansion and/or conflict for all of its repugnant intent and provisions to the scheme of the Constitution with respect to the constraint of the covering clauses?
Isn’t it the case that section 5 of the Australia Act does not affect the Commonwealth Constitution therefore s11 of the Australia Act must be holden for nought and the repeals of the appeals to the Privy Council must be read out of the Australia Act?
My arguments to advance my rights to the Privy Council of the UK to hear this matter will be advanced further in my foreshadowed submissions. If, however, the Privy Council feels that I am mistaken for the above mentioned, I will be indebted to the Privy Council for such corrections or clarity, as the case may be forthcoming for the record.

Kind regards,

Rod Culleton
(Senator in Exile)

Clerk of the Privy Council

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

Landmark & historical placeLondon, United Kingdom