In Culleton v Elliott  WASC 407 the applicant resisted a mortgage foreclosure commencing a private prosecution against the respondent for obtaining ‘stolen goods’ and selling those goods.
“The bulk of the outline of submissions is concerned with a tired and unmeritorious argument challenging the validity of the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 (Cth) providing that the royal style and titles of Her Majesty, in this country, are ‘Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth’. The argument is hopelessly misconceived and has previously been rejected in decisions of this and other courts. (See e.g. Hopes v Australian Securities and Investments Commission  WASC 198 and Hopes v Australian Securities and Investments Commission  WASCA 108.)”
“Mr Culleton spent the better part of that opportunity challenging my authority to sit as a judge of this Court or yelling at me. He also maintained that I must first determine an application in an appeal in relation to which, in essence, Mr Culleton sought to agitate the conspiracy theory concerning the royal style and title of Her Majesty and other amphigories concerning the legal system in this country. I declined to do so, they having no bearing on whether there were reasonable grounds to appeal the learned Magistrate’s decision.”
In Culleton v McAlpine  WASC 243 the appellant sought leave to appeal against a conviction of stealing a motor vehicle, on the grounds that the magistrate acted without jurisdiction as she “…was not exercising the judicial power of the Commonwealth as she had not taken an oath of allegiance to the Queen.” Despite repeated correspondence to the appellant from the court advising him that he was required to lodge his submissions, the appellant expressly declined to do so, and although he attended the hearing, he stood in the public gallery and informed the court that he refused to appear and be heard in respect of the applications and the appeal, as the judge had no jurisdiction to determine any matter unless they had sworn an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. The court held that as the appellant was not convicted of an offence created by a law of the Commonwealth, nor did the magistrate exercise any judicial power of the Commonwealth, and that “the contention is plainly wrong at law.”:
“The basis of the appellant’s refusal to appear and be heard on the appeal is nonsensical. A judge of this court is not required to swear an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. .. The Court of Appeal have repeatedly dismissed variants of these contentions as being completely devoid of merit, and have described such arguments as frivolous and vexatious. (See Hedley v Spivey  WASCA 116 ,  (McLure P, Buss & Mazza JJA agreeing); Hopes v Australian Securities and Investments Commission  WASCA 108 (Corboy J). The appellant recently sought unsuccessfully to raise such arguments before the Chief Justice in Culleton v Elliot  WASC 407  ‑ .”
Read more about Rodney Culleton’s pseudo legal contentions here: Rodney Culleton