Culleton successfully files in the High Court of Justice, London UK

Most will know the story of Rodney Culleton being ousted from the Senate in early 2017 after a losing battle for his Senate seat in the High Court of Australia sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns.

During this time, Senator in exile Rod Culleton has maintained he continues to be a constitutionally elected Senator due to the procedural requirements set out in our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) which he believed had not been followed.

Section 22 Commonwealth Constitution sets out that a third of the Senate must be seated to to form a quorum to hold any validity. With the passage of the Senate (Quorum) Act 1991, the Parliament has changed the quorum to one quarter of the total number of Senators, which with the current Senate size of 76 means that at least 19 Senators are required for a quorum. The Senate was not quorate the day the referral was made in the Senate. Parry ignored this even after Sam Dastyari made reference to the state of the chamber.

In August 2018 Culleton faced Chief Justice Susan Kiefel in the High Court of Australia which after hearing his argument reserved her decision for later. He was denied justice on the grounds he did not bring up s22 quorum from the beginning. In doing so Kiefel basically denounced our constitution having any validity even after former Solicitor General David Bennett stated to Kiefel that a stream cannot rise above its source.

Culleton knowing too well that justice was never going to be served in Australia, and the jurisdiction was of the incorrect Crown, that being the Queen of Australia vs the Queen of the United Kingdom which is considered a legal nonsense, so Culleton set out to file in the UK where he had the jurisdiction of the Queen of the UK.

Yesterday 16 January 2019 the High Court of Justice in London UK, accepted a filling on behalf of Senator Culleton and his team to commence proceedings to call Senator Culleton in the Queen’s jurisdiction of the UK to deal with the unconstitutional removal of a federally elected Senator of the 45th Parliament in order to address the constitutional instrument (motion 163) invoked on 1st December 2016 which remains part heard in the senate.Interim submissions were submitted to the registrar proving the UK had the jurisdiction to hear the application.

This is a historical step in the nations history for the restoration of the commonwealth of Australia, which is clearly outlined in Senator Culleton’s Prayer to the House of Lords, to which Senator Culleton is very proud to call on the UK to uphold its binding commitments, and to come in and constitutionally address the legislative power and judicature in the Commonwealth of Australia.

The question would arise, what now with the Australia Act 1986 which removed our constitutional right to seek remedy in the UK leaving us with the High Court of Australia as our final means of justice? Does this new precedence prove the Australia Act as an invalid Act of the Australian Parliament?

10 thoughts on “Culleton successfully files in the High Court of Justice, London UK

  1. I’d like to refer you to David Fitzgibbon, who applied a similar contention to the UK High Court in 2004. The case was dismissed by High Court judge Justice Gavin Lightman, who noted that not only did he have no say over the case, but even if he did rule in favour of Mr Fitzgibbon the Australian Government, independent since 1901, could ignore him completely. “It is for the Australian courts to apply Australian law to determine the capacity in which Her Majesty the Queen is acting. It is not for the UK courts to enter the field, proffering their view as the to the proper interpretation of the Constitution.” Calling Mr Fitzgibbon’s action “quite purposeless”, the Chancery Division’s Master Bencher Bowman said: “The claim should be struck out on the basis of hopelessness … and, where appropriate, embarrassment.”


      1. Interesting:

        Status: Positive or Neutral Judicial Treatment Positive or Neutral Judicial Treatment

        Fitzgibbon v Attorney General
        Chancery Division

        09 February 2005

        Case Analysis
        Where Reported
        [2005] EWHC 114 (Ch); [2005] 2 WLUK 194; (2005) 28(5) I.P.D. 28035; Times, March 15, 2005; Official Transcript;

        Case Digest
        Subject: Constitutional law Other related subjects: Legislation

        Keywords: Comity; Commonwealth; Constitutions; Delay; Judicial review; Jurisdiction; Letters patent; Seals; Sovereignty

        Summary: English courts had no jurisdiction to inquire into the effect of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 as it functioned from the time of Australia’s independence as part of the law of Australia.

        The appellant (F) appealed against an order striking out his claim for declarations in relation to the power of the Queen to issue letters patent in respect of her functions under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. F was a lawyer and a British and Australian national resident in Australia. F brought proceedings by a Part 8 claim seeking declarations that the exercise by the Queen and her heirs and successors of the functions prescribed in the 1900 Act were exercised in right of her and their sovereignty of the United Kingdom and that the issue of letters patent must be under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom and not under the Great Seal of Australia. Upon an application by the Attorney General the action was struck out. Permission to appeal was granted. F conceded that he had failed to adopt the correct procedure as he should not have brought proceedings under Part 8 but should have made an application in the Administrative Court under the Civil Procedure Rules Part 54 seeking permission to bring proceedings for judicial review. F argued that the 1984 Letters Patent made by the Queen purporting to revoke the 1900 Letters Patent and making changes to the office of Governor General under the Australian Constitution were invalid and without legal effect, as they were not sealed with the Great Seal of the United Kingdom.

        Held, dismissing the appeal, that (1) as soon as Australia became independent, the 1900 Act ceased to have any effect as an exercise of the sovereign power of the UK, and whatever effect it then and thereafter had was as part of the law of the sovereign state of Australia, into the validity of which the court had no jurisdiction to inquire, Buck v Attorney General [1965] Ch. 745, [1965] 2 WLUK 44 considered. It was for the Australian courts to apply Australian law to determine the capacity in which the Queen was acting, the appropriate seal and the consequences, if any, if the wrong seal was used. (2) As a matter of international comity, the court would not entertain the matter, as to grant the declarations sought would amount to an unwarranted interference in the affairs of an independent member of the British Commonwealth. (3) Permission to bring judicial review proceedings seeking the relief sought would also be refused on the ground of delay as it was 19 years since the 1984 letters patent and there was no explanation or apparent excuse for the delay. (4) F did not have sufficient interest in obtaining the relief claimed as the grant of the declaration sought would have had no practical effect; no effective relief was sought, and any declarations could be ignored with impunity in Australia.

        Judge: Lightman J

        Counsel: For the appellant: Leolin Price QC, Eason Rajah. For the respondent: Jonathan Crow.

        Solicitor: For the appellant: Beynon Nicholls. For the respondent: Treasury Solicitor.

        Appellate History & Status
        Chancery Division; 09 February 2005
        Fitzgibbon v Attorney General
        [2005] EWHC 114 (Ch); [2005] 2 WLUK 194; Times, March 15, 2005; (2005) 28(5) I.P.D. 28035


        Court of Appeal (Civil Division); 21 April 2005
        Fitzgibbon v Attorney General
        [2005] EWCA Civ 593; [2005] 4 WLUK 453

        Significant Cases Cited
        Buck v Attorney General
        [1965] Ch. 745; [1965] 2 W.L.R. 1033; [1965] 1 All E.R. 882; [1965] 2 WLUK 44; (1965) 109 S.J. 291; CA; 12 February 1965

        All Cases Cited
        Sort by:
        Attorney General’s Reference (No.2 of 2001)
        [2003] UKHL 68; [2004] 2 A.C. 72; [2004] 2 W.L.R. 1; [2004] 1 All E.R. 1049; [2003] 12 WLUK 296; [2004] 1 Cr. App. R. 25; [2004] H.R.L.R. 16; [2004] U.K.H.R.R. 193; 15 B.H.R.C. 472; Times, December 12, 2003; Independent, December 16, 2003; [2004] Crim. L.R. 574; (2004) 101(4) L.S.G. 30; (2004) 148 S.J.L.B. 25; HL; 11 December 2003

        R. v Rochdale MBC Ex p. Schemet
        [1992] 7 WLUK 362; [1993] 1 F.C.R. 306; 91 L.G.R. 425; [1994] E.L.R. 89; Times, September 9, 1992; Independent, November 9, 1992; [1993] C.O.D. 113; Guardian, October 7, 1992; QBD; 24 July 1992

        R. v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Ex p. Indian Association of Alberta
        [1982] Q.B. 892; [1982] 2 W.L.R. 641; [1982] 2 All E.R. 118; [1982] 1 WLUK 786; (1982) 126 S.J. 208; CA (Civ Div); 28 January 1982

        Buck v Attorney General
        [1965] Ch. 745; [1965] 2 W.L.R. 1033; [1965] 1 All E.R. 882; [1965] 2 WLUK 44; (1965) 109 S.J. 291; CA; 12 February 1965

        Significant Legislation Cited
        CPR Pt 54

        Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (c.12)

        Legislation Cited

        CPR Pt 8

        CPR Pt 54

        Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (c.12)

        De Smith’s Judicial Review 8th Ed.
        Chapter: Chapter 3 – Defendants and Decisions Subject to Judicial Review
        Documents: Territorial Reach of Judicial Review and the HRA

        Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws 15th Ed.
        Chapter: Chapter 5 – The Exclusion of Foreign Law
        Documents: Chapter 5 – The Exclusion of Foreign Law



        It is an incorrect decision however, as we have, constitutionally, a right to Petition the Queen (among other things, like Australia is a self-governing colony & Possession of the Queen…

        He should have appealed it to the Privy Council.


      2. Another dopey thing in Fitzgibbon v Attorney General was the failure to distinguish Buck’s case – they erred in law… which was about Sierra Leone… note s 1(2)(a)… there is no such Act/provision in Imperial law to Australia:

        “Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom shall have no responsibility for the government of Sierra Leone; and…”


        Sierra Leone Independence Act 1961 c. 16
        This version in force from: March 28, 1961 to present

        << >>

        1.— Provision for the fully responsible status of Sierra Leone.
        (1) On the twenty-seventh day of April, nineteen hundred and sixty-one (in this Act referred to as “the appointed day”), the Sierra Leone Colony and the Sierra Leone Protectorate (of which the combined area is that specified in the First Schedule to this Act) shall together constitute part of Her Majesty’s dominions under the name of Sierra Leone.

        (2) No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed on or after the appointed day shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to Sierra Leone as part of the law thereof, and as from that day—

        (a) Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom shall have no responsibility for the government of Sierra Leone; and

        (b) the provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to legislative powers in Sierra Leone.

        (3) Without prejudice to subsection (2) of this section, nothing in subsection (1) thereof shall affect the operation in Sierra Leone or any part thereof on and after the appointed day of any enactment, or any other instrument having the effect of law, passed or made with respect thereto before that day.


    1. Actually if you claim yourself well educated you would know that the Statute of Westminster Act UK 1931 was when the Parliament of the UK severed itself from passing legislation relative in the Commonwealth of Australia. Australia had to accept the changes and nothing more. This severed the Imperial Crown which Australia was founded on by the newly appointed Parliament of the UK. Which in turn was a foreign entity taking over the government. We have been removed from the Imperial Realm into a Foreign Realm. When the people remember who they are the pieces will begin to fall into place and the illusion we have been blinded by will shatter.

      Every case you try and jam down our throats to prove that the laws are legal are under a foreign crown not the crown Australia was federated on. The laws may be legal in a Roman Empire but in a country founded by the Imperial Realm where catholics were extirpated and our ANZACS fought and died to defend the Realm so Commonwealth of Australia could benefit as beneficiaries to a greater Trust. The Commonwealth of Australia became the Birth Right handed down along with the Laws of England and born from the Authorized King James Bible as a Christian Commonwealth. So all the laws made under the St Edwards Catholic Crown are in fact not lawful in this Imperial Realm. Our Constitution clearly states that in the original preamble that John Howard tried to replace claiming it did not have a preamble.

      When it all comes to light my dear sir I believe you may be charged with Treason for brain washing the masses on your pseudo legal nonsense you unabashedly claim those learning the truth are spouting.

      When you put all the pieces together from all the different movements you begin to see the bigger picture. Each movement holds a key when placed together unlocks the doors to a tsunami of information held hostage so we would not know the truth. Most of us have a higher knowing and know what is. Putting the pieces together in written format is more difficult. Trying to articulate what is known, compared to histories that have been doctored and altered as each generation leaves earth, as there are no survivors to protest the truth.


  2. Thank you for all your efforts so far Mr Cullerton. – I can’t thank you enough I only wish I had a spare $Mill to donate to your cause. – I don’t accept that The Australian Govt has the Jurisdiction to repeal common law by stealth or at all. – if there is any cred left in the court system you may get a judge who is prepared to rule according to the Law of the Land. – Our sovereignty relies on your success.
    Thanks again – All the best


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s