Rodney Culleton filed a writ naming Bradley Kershaw as the first defendant along with some further 17 individuals as defendants to his claim for $250,000 for defamation and injury to his reputation, caused by the defendant’s written publication on the Australian Sixty Minutes Program of Channel 9 Face Book Account in April 2015. (See Culleton v Kershaw  WASC 334)
The matter concluded in Culleton v Kershaw [No 2]  WASC 238 as Culleton was unable to attend to the filing of a simple change of representation form sent to him on three separate occasions and took no steps at all to advance his defamation litigation from December 2016 onwards. That was the case throughout the course of the 2017 calendar year right up to June 2018. Consequently, it came to be entered to the court’s inactive cases list on a basis that no procedural step had been taken in the action for 12 months. The matter was taken to have been dismissed for want of prosecution.
Rodney Culleton, and Lesley Culleton commenced proceedings against 14 defendants by writ with endorsed statement of claim filed 29 February 2016, concerning a default of a mortgage. In Culleton v Permanent Custodians Ltd  WASC 251 Allanson J. found that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court.
A writ of summons was filed by Rodney Culleton against Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd, for damages for breach of an exclusivity licence agreement, as well as an allegation that the defendant infringed certain intellectual property rights over a device known as a ‘Grain Keg’. In Rodney Culleton v Inghams Enterprise Pty Ltd  WADC 79 Gething DCJ determined there was no basis to support a conclusion that Rodney Culleton executed the Licence Agreement as Trustee of the Trust, noting he was an undischarged bankrupt, by which he became disqualified from being the Trustee of the Trust. It was held that the claim was frivolous in the sense of raising no arguable case, and the defendant was entitled to summary judgment.
Rodney Culleton challenged a mortgage foreclosure from 2012 commencing a private prosecution against the respondent for obtaining ‘stolen goods’ and selling those goods. On 22 July 2019, a Magistrate heard, and allowed, an application to dismiss the prosecution. Rodney Culleton appealed that decision in Culleton v Elliott  WASC 407 which was again dismissed.
“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 Rodney Culleton 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  ‑ .”
The Guardian: “Former senator Rod Culleton throws glasses and shouts at magistrate“:
Despite a consistent string of legal failures, many have considered Rodney Culleton to be competent in law, enough to appoint him as “power of attorney” and even representation in their own cases. Some examples can be found in Wallace v Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited & Anor  QCA 122 where the applicant saw fit to appoint Rodney Culleton to appear on his behalf. Dalton J. declined to allow him to appear, as he is not a legal practitioner. Some also relied on his material and assertions, as in footnote 8 in Sprlyan v Wyborn  WASC 227:
“The application also has a 7 page attachment entitled “Notice of Extracts – Queen and Crown” by Darren Dickson and a 6 page attachment which is said to be a “Petition for the Restoration of the Commonwealth” by Mr Rodney Culleton. The attachments were not evidence that was taken into account by the magistrate and neither are they evidence in the appeal. I have not had regard to them.”
Also in Connor v State of Queensland (Department of Education and Training) (No 2)  FCA 366 where the applicant demanded both Houses of the Parliament of the Commonwealth deal with Senator Culleton’s question (Motion 163) from 2016 and answer to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, and Schafer v Bacon  QDC 60, where the applicant filed documents which contained a letter from Rodney Culleton of the Great Australian Party to the Governor-General earlier that year calling on him to stand down.
Wayne Manolini is another example, where a Bank brought proceedings against the Manolini’s claiming repayment of money owing under a loan, and vacant possession a farm which was subject to a first mortgage securing the debt. The judge granted summary judgment in favour of the Bank against the Manolini’s, and judgment was entered against them in the sum of $1,448,085.59 plus interest at the rate of $353.84 per day from 2 July 2019 until payment, and indemnity costs. Rodney Culleton’s involvement is noted in Rural Bank (A Division Of Bendigo And Adelaide Bank Limited (ACN 068 049 178) v Manolini  WASC 313 (at 93):
“The Culleton affidavit, which Mr Manolini had sought to incorporate through his materials, displayed that Mr Culleton was seeking to act for and raise legal arguments for Mr Manolini (somehow) linked to the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 (Cth), and the (somehow) actions of the Whitlam government at in around 1973 related to that Commonwealth Government’s interactions with Buckingham Palace around the time. Apparently, this Commonwealth Crown nomenclature material was supposed to somehow support arguments bearing against the court’s present jurisdiction to deal with the plaintiff bank’s present application against the first and second defendants.”
An application for an extension of time and an appeal were subsequently dismissed in Manolini v Rural Bank (A Division of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited (ACN 068 149 178)  WASCA 196 where again Rodney Culleton was mentioned (from 18):
“The appellant attended in person at the bar table. He was accompanied by Mr Neil Pichinin and Mr Rodney Culleton at the bar table. He referred to both as his ‘power of attorney’. Counsel for the Bank and the second respondent (who acted in person) objected to Mr Culleton being at the bar table. The judge asked Mr Culleton to leave the bar table. Mr Culleton then sat in the public gallery. His Honour allowed Mr Pichinin to remain at the bar table as a ‘McKenzie friend’, but did not permit him to address the court without leave. The appellant sought to object to the court’s jurisdiction over him by reference to issues said to concern the Crown. The judge overruled his objection. This resulted in the appellant and Mr Pichinin joining Mr Culleton in the public gallery. They left the courtroom together at 11.14 am.”
The Manolini’s did not give up vacant possession of the farm, which ultimately resulted in the Bank seeking an order for possession. The Sheriff accompanied the Bank representatives to the property on 14 October 2021, where Rodney Culleton was waiting. A confrontation ensued, in which Rodney Culleton had allegedly assaulted the Sheriff, and was subsequently charged with Assaulting a Public Officer.
Rodney Culleton broadcast the whole event on a Facebook live video:
He appeared for the mention on 29 March 2022. The Leader: “Culleton clueless about WA assault charge“:
Wayne Manolini’s sister had apparently placed a caveat on the property, which was finally lifted on 31 March 2022, allowing the Bank to take possession. West Australian: “Farm at centre of former senator Rod Culleton’s Great Southern showdown set for sale after court lifts caveat“:
Rodney Culleton had travelled to Canberra for the vaccine mandate and lockdown protests in late January 2022, and upon return to Western Australia was prevented from crossing the border due to COVID-19 restrictions. Some chose to ignore the directions, and were subsequently charged.
Rodney Culleton had been over the previous months been spreading the myth that covering clause 8 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 abolished all State boundaries, and therefore the restrictions were invalid. At the border, he became frustrated the officials weren’t complying with his warped interpretations of the law, even when he repetitively informed them he was a former senator. Feeling all alone without any support, he threw a tantrum threatening to resign as party leader if his followers didn’t show up to protest at the Western Australian border.
He was likewise charged for failing to comply with a direction, and appeared at Kalgoorlie Local Court on 5 April 2022. ABC: “Former One Nation senator Rod Culleton in court over alleged quarantine breach, vows to fight charge in High Court“:
To be continued….
You can read more about Rodney Culleton’s litigation history in the previous articles
- Rodney Culleton
- “Appeals to the UK Privy Council“.
- “Great Australian Party“.
- “The UK High Court application by the Great Australian Party“.