Wayne Glew

37234997_949179781950375_7242598850119073792_n (1) - Copy - Copy.jpg

Wayne Kenneth Glew 1 has an extensive OPCA and constitutional litigation history.  In fact, the decisions made in Wayne’s cases are relied upon, whenever similar contentions are brought before courts today, and in many cases they have become precedent in the particular point of law.

Here is a brief summary of cases past: 

Glew & Anor v Shire of Greenough [2006] WASCA 260: 2

Click to access glew-v-shire-of-greenough-2006-wasca-260.pdf

Glew & Anor v Shire of Greenough [2007] HCATrans 520: 3

Click to access glew-v-greenough-p38-06-hcatrans-520-slp-6-9-07.pdf

Wayne Glew tried to reagitate the same matters raised in [2006] WASCA 260, in Glew Technologies Pty Ltd v Department of Planning and Infrastructure [2007] WASCA 289 but the application was rejected. 4

Click to access glew-technologies-pty-ltd-v-department-of-planning-and-infrastructure-2007-wasca-289.pdf

Wayne Glew then objected to the taxation on the costs in [2006] WASCA 260, in Glew v Shire of Greenough [No 2] [2008] WASCA 75 which was likewise dismissed. 5

Click to access glew-v-shire-of-greenough-no-2-2008-wasca-75.pdf

Glew v The Governor of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 123: 6 [Appeal]

Click to access glew-v-the-governor-of-western-australia-2009-wasca-123.pdf

Glew v The Governor of Western Australia [2009] WASC 14: 7 [Trial]

Click to access glew-v-the-governor-of-western-australia-2009-wasc-14.pdf

Glew issued a writ of summons on 28 August 2008 directed to the Governor of Western Australia.” The Crown responds that it should be struck out. The Courts agree. The Court of Appeal provides a brief summary of Glew’s argument: (from 5)

“The appellant alleged that, on 1 January 2004, the Governor, the Attorney-General and the Parliament of Western Australia unlawfully and illegally enacted the AARCLP Act, which purported to remove the Crown and Monarch from all legislation within Western Australia, without the formal referendum consent required under s 73(2)(g) of the Constitution Act. The appellant pleaded that, by purporting to do so, the Parliament of Western Australia, with the apparent consent and agreement of the courts of the State of Western Australia and of the Commonwealth, in effect, created an illegal State and fractured the Commonwealth. The appellant pleaded that the office of Governor has been altered by the substitution of the Governor for the Monarch and Sovereign in the AARCLP Act. The appellant pleaded that the AARCLP Act ‘has created [a] breach of allegiance being treason and misprision of treason’. The appellant sought declarations that the Acts referred to were void and of no effect. He also sought an injunction, pursuant to s 73(6) of the Constitution Act, to enforce the provisions of s 73(2)(g) of that Act, and an injunction to prevent the state election scheduled for 6 September 2008.”

The appeals court is less than complementary on Glew’s materials (para. 20)

“The appellant’s written outline of submissions did not advance the matter. It consisted, without any explanation as to their relevance, of the reproduction of a number of provisions of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), Crimes Act 1958, Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Cth), and miscellaneous other legislation, extracts from Black’s Law Dictionary and, from The Bible, extracts from the books of Exodus and Zechariah, the second epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, the epistle of James and the gospel according to St Matthew.”

Glew v City of Greater Geraldton [2012] WASCA 94: 8

Click to access glew-v-city-of-greater-geraldton-2012-wasca-94.pdf

Glew tried the same appeal grounds that he used in [2010] WASCA 87. It still doesn’t work.

Glew v White [2012] WASCA 138 9 [upper appeal]

Click to access glew-v-white-2012-wasca-138.pdf

Glew v White [2012] WASC 100 10 [lower appeal]

Click to access glew-v-white-2012-wasc-100.pdf

Municipal officers visited Glew’s residence as they suspected there was a fire. They had a duty to investigate under the Bush Fires Act. Glew appeared, used nasty language, and forced them back into their car. The officer’s withdrew. Glew was subsequently arrested by police for assault and interference with exercise of official duties. On appeal Glew complained that he was tried without a jury, that he didn’t consent to the proceedings, that he didn’t consent to his plea, the courts were defective for assorted constitutional reasons, and that his “no trespassing’ sign trumped state authority.

The Western Australia Court of Appeal offers some excerpts from Glew’s submissions (para. 7):

“All Acts of Parliament in Australia since 1919, with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, have not been lawfully enacted due to the fact that there have been no Orders in the Privy Council, ie: the Queen-in-Council, for the Appointments of any Vice Regal executive representatives of the Crown of the United Kingdom to grant the ‘Royal Assent’ to enact Statute Laws, which was the procedure when the Commonwealth of Australia was ‘under the Crown of the United Kingdom’ as per the Act of the UK Parliament to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia (Victoria 63 & 64, Chapter 12, 9th July 1900) it follows that all the Appointments of Judges and Magistrates are also Fraudulent. ‘A Judge without Jurisdiction is to be disobeyed with immunity’ Australia is Democracy which literally means that the PEOPLE RULE, ie: Sovereignty lies with the People who exercise that ‘ultimate authority to make and impose laws’ by way of the unanimous Judgements of 12 Free Men empanelled as Jurors who as: ‘So Help me God’, in order that they can administer Justice. I, therefore, Challenge the Jurisdiction of the court. This Challenge can only be determined by Special Jury. I have NO CONTRACT with any person posing as a Magistrate or Judge in either the Commonwealth or the State of Australia, and I do NOT CONSENT to their having any Jurisdiction over me. I am a FREEMAN-ON-THE-LAND and NOT IN BONDAGE to any person posing as a Judge or Magistrate, nor to any corporation either in Australia or Overseas.”

The court is not impressed, and they’ve heard it all before (para. 11):

“This appeal is an abuse of process. The appellant is well aware that his idiosyncratic contentions have been repeatedly rejected in other cases. The appellant has invoked the court’s process and procedures for an illegitimate or collateral purpose, namely, as a platform for advancing his nonsensical theories. He appeared at the hearing with the support of a large retinue who appear to share or sympathise with his views. The appellant is not interested in securing justice according to law (either in relation to the convictions in question or otherwise) in accordance with the system of justice administered by the courts of this State. At the hearing on 5 July 2012 he advanced arguments in language which was often disparaging and derisory of this court and the functions it performs.”

Glew is apparently an inventor, and had “invented systems for the supply of fuel in a vaporised form into the combustion chamber of an internal combustion engine.” (para. 1). Glew may or may not have transferred title of the invention to his company, Glew Technologies Pty Ltd. Frank Jasper and his company invested i n the technology in exchange for a share of the profits. Jasper & Co. bought a license from GlewTech to sell the invention in part of the US for $1 million (para. 5). The parties became unhappy with one another, Jasper sues, and Glew argues he never gave GlewTech the invention, so Jasper’s lawsuit is moot. Jasper also says the invention is crap, and Glew lied about that.

The majority of the trial addresses two issues. First, when Glew spoke was it for GlewTech or both GlewTech and himself. The court, rather unsurprisingly, says they were one and the same. The second issue is whether the invention was misrepresented as not-crap. Yep, and over and over and over… Glew also lied about other sales and licenses in the works, such as that Toyota had offered $100 million for a license, and Mercedes wanted the technology for aircraft engines. The trial judge concludes the GlewTech corporation is essentially irrelevant, and that Glew systematically misrepresented his invention, and interest in his invention. The next step is to calculate damages, which will be heard separately. 

Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2008] WASCA 186 11

Click to access glew-v-frank-jasper-pty-ltd-2008-wasca-186.pdf

Frank Jasper Pty Ltd v Glew [2009] WASC 13 12

Click to access frank-jasper-pty-ltd-v-glew-2009-wasc-13.pdf

It also seems Glew tried to appeal a step by the trial judge for various forms of misconduct and bias, but then abandoned that appeal. The attempt by the other parties to obtain elevated costs for that appeal meets with mixed success:

Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 87: 13

Click to access glew-v-frank-jasper-pty-ltd-2010-wasca-87.pdf

Glew tries to get leave to appeal to the Western Australia Court of Appeal. He alleges the trial court judge, Justice Martin, had made many errors.

  • Wayne Stuart Martin sat in criminal contempt of the High Court of Australia when he failed to meet the requirements of chapter 3 of the Australian constitution.
  • Wayne Stuart Martin represented himself as a justice of the supreme court of Western Australia when he was an employee of the corporation ‘The Department of the Attorney General’. ABN: 70598 519443.
  • Wayne Stuart Martin sat in the supreme court of Western Australia knowing that the supreme court of Western Australia did not meet the constitutional requirements of chapter 3 of the Australian constitution.
  • Wayne Stuart Martin while acting as the chief Justice of the supreme court of Western Australia refused to allow a trial by jury contrary by [sic] section 80 of the Federal constitution and the act of Habius Corpus 1640. 1 Charles chapter 10.
  • Wayne Stuart Martin refused to allow Wayne Kenneth Glew the right to represent his company ‘Glew Technologies’ and then forced ‘Glew Technologies’ and Wayne Kenneth Glew the Director of ‘Glew Technologies PTY LTD’ to stand trial without representation. And therefore committed a crime against humanity being enslavement contrary to sections 268, 10, 11 and 12 of the crimes act 1914 Federal.
  • Wayne Stuart Martin handed down the decision in the above case on the 15th of February 2010 and at the time of handing down the decision ignored key parts of the evidence presented in court and acted in fraud and total bias to Wayne Kenneth Glew and ‘Glew Technologies PTY LTD’.
  • Wayne Stuart Martin had revealed to him on the 9th of September 2009 two separate indictable offences, those being conspiracy to pervert the course of justice contrary to section 42 of the Crimes Act 1914 Federal and an attempt to pervert the course of justice contrary to section 43 of the Crimes Act 1914 Federal. Wayne Stuart Martin refused to deal with the issues revealed to him therefore making him party to the offences committed.
  • Wayne Stuart Martin refused to acknowledge the constitutional issues raised in the court on the 7th – 10th September 2009 and refused to abide by them.”

The court briefly responds to each of these issues at paras. 14-28. They amount to a mixture of spurious arguments on judicial oaths, constitutional structure, and allegations of fraud. These complaints were rejected, and the leave to appeal application was dismissed.

Frank Jasper Pty Ltd v Glew [No 2] [2010] WASC 24: 14

Click to access frank-jasper-pty-ltd-v-glew-no-2-2010-wasc-24.pdf

Frank Jasper Pty Ltd v Glew [No 3] [2012] WASC 24: 15

Click to access frank-jasper-pty-ltd-v-glew-no-3-2012-wasc-24.pdf

Back to the trial court. Now that Glew and his company have been found liable there is the issue of court costs. The value of the inventions is assessed – absolutely nothing (paras. 22-23). Combining the damages and court costs, Glew is assessed at over $2 million (para. 25). The supplementary decision doubles certain of the court costs. Yikes! Globally, the court concludes that the fact this proceeding was so difficult to advance and resolve is all Glew’s fault and he is going to bear the consequences of that.  

Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 93: 16

Click to access glew-v-frank-jasper-pty-ltd-2012-wasca-93.pdf

Glew isn’t happy with that result, and tries to appeal on basically the same basis as in [2010] WASCA 87. The court rejects the leave application for essentially the same reasons as before. Glew walked out of the proceedings, and any defect for that was his own fault. 17

Re Glew; ex parte the Hon Michael Mischin MLC, Attorney General (WA) [2014] WASC 107 18

Click to access re-glew-ex-parte-the-hon-michael-mischin-mlc-attorney-general-wa-2014-wasc-107.pdf

On 23 December 2011 Wayne Glew was convicted in the Geraldton Magistrates’ Court of one offence of assaulting a public officer and one offence of obstructing an officer in the execution of his duty. Glew provided legal advice to Heather Glendinning, who killed herself and her two daughters in a murder–suicide in 2011. He subsequently told The West Australian that she had been murdered, and that “I spent 17 years in the police and you can make anything look like anything”. 19

Wayne Glew has been a claimant, defendant or appellant in at least 16 Court proceedings in which he has argued against the validity of the Australian legal system. Glew has not been successful in a single proceeding to date. This resulted in Glew being declared a vexatious litigant by the Supreme Court of Western Australia in Attorney General (WA) v Glew [2014] WASC 100 and being prevented from initiating any further Court proceedings in Western Australia. 20

Click to access attorney-general-wa-v-glew-2014-wasc-100.pdf

The decision to declare Wayne Glew a vexatious litigant was appealed in Glew v Attorney General (WA) [2014] WASCA 93 but it was also dismissed. 21

Click to access glew-v-attorney-general-wa-2014-wasca-93.pdf

Wayne Glew keeps a high public profile, calls himself The Talking Bulldog  you can find a plethora of his videos on the Internet. He also posts regularly on his Facebook page. 22

On the 22’nd of September 2014 the registered CPO’s of Western Australia filed in the High Court register Perth 1. Writ of Mandamus 2. Writ of Prohibition against the corporation of the State Government of Western Australia and Colin Barnett. WRIT OF MANDAMUS This Writ commands you to dissolve the company known as the State Government of Western Australia ABN 072526008 and remove yourself and all other so called Politicians from our Parliament. And further you are commanded to remove Wayne Stuart Martin, John McKechnie and the so called Governor of Western Australia from our Governing bodies or show cause why it has not been done. Further you are commanded to stop personating an Officer of the Crown and a lawful Government contrary to section 271 Commonwealth Criminal Code. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO make a return to this Writ by filing a notice on or before 3rd October 2014 stating whether you have done what you are commended to do by this Writ or stating why it has not been done. TAKE NOTICE that disobeying this Writ is a contempt of Court which may be punished by imprisonment, fine or both.” 23

Wayne Glew has his property seized because he refuses to pay $300,000 owing in rates

Wayne Glew

A long-running dispute in Western Australia has ended with a ‘sovereign citizen’ having his property seized and sold from under him.

Wayne Kenneth Glew, from Geraldton, owed his council $300,000 in rates and legal costs, which he refused to pay because he believed local governments were unconstitutional. Mr Glew is one of an informal movement of ‘freemen’ or ‘sovereign citizens’, who believed Australian legislative laws only applied if you consented to them.

Mr Glew, a former police officer, has appealed a court order from the council to remove his possessions from the property. It is not the first time he has taken his fight to the court of appeal. In 2014 he was declared a “vexatious litigant” by the Supreme Court of WA, with his position being described as “nonsensical and incoherent”. Mr Glew claimed the City of Greater Geraldton could not lawfully make constituents pay rates, because local governments were not written in Australia’s constitution. Mr Glew said the city could not seize his land because he claimed it under Magna Carta. “It is not getting sold because I have it held under clause 61 of Magna Carta,” he said. “They cannot touch it, they fenced it — I threw the gates away, they put concrete blocks there — I threw them away, I blocked it. “I own it and I paid for it.”

City of Greater Geraldton Mayor Shane Van Styn said Mr Glew’s actions were an injustice to those doing the right thing by paying their yearly rates. “He has some crazy misconception that the laws do not apply to him, and regrettably we have been forced to take action to seize his property to cover costs that rightfully belong to the ratepayers of Greater Geraldton.” Mr Van Styn said seizing Mr Glew’s property was a last resort. “Everyone is required to pay the costs of living in a community,” he said. “We do not have roads and civic services out of nowhere. We require rates to run a city that functions with all the services that everyone needs from day to day. If people think they are above contributing to that under lawful direction from the state then regrettably we must take such severe action.”

Constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey said the council’s actions were legal. “The State of WA has the power to enact legislation that sets up a system of local government, which includes the City of Greater Geraldton and other places,” she said.  

Professor Twomey said Magna Carta was an important historic statute but had little relevance in today’s society. “You have got to understand that under British law, their constitution is the system of parliamentary sovereignty and that means parliament itself can always change its own laws,” she said. “There is very little left of Magna Carta in the United Kingdom because many later laws have overridden and changed it from time to time. The same issue arises in Australia — Magna Carta became part of Australian law as a received British law … it would have been a much cut-down version of Magna Carta. Only the little dribs and drabs that were left, and even those dribs and drabs they are not entrenched as part of our law they are just part of ordinary statute that can be changed by later statute.” 

Professor Twomey said despite what people believed, the law would prevail. “If you notice, all of these people [who] object to paying taxes or rates and everything else say that the laws are invalid,” she said. “The curious thing is I have never heard any single one of them ever complain that the law is invalid if it gives them unemployment benefits or if it gives them any advantage. Nor do you ever see them refusing to use a hospital or a school or a road because it has been paid for by other people under invalid taxes or rates. People tend to just want to take the benefits and not want to pay or contribute.” 24

Public Notice from City of Greater Geraldton Council 25

The endless vexatious challenges and non-payment of the rates on his land eventually caught up with Wayne Glew in August 2017, with City of Greater Geraldton taking possession of the property under section 6.64 of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA):

Actions to be taken

(1) If any rates or service charges which are due to a local government in respect of any rateable land have been unpaid for at least 3 years the local government may, in accordance with the appropriate provisions of this Subdivision take possession of the land and hold the land as against a person having an estate or interest in the land and-

(a) from time to time lease the land; or
(b) sell the land; or
(c) cause the land to be transferred to the Crown; or
(d) cause the land to be transferred to itself.

(2) On taking possession of any land under this section, the local government is to give to the owner of the land such notification as is prescribed and then to affix on a conspicuous part of the land a notice, in the form or substantially in the form prescribed.

(3) Where payment of rates or service charges imposed in respect of any land is in arrears the local government has an interest in the land in respect of which it may lodge a caveat to preclude dealings in respect of the land, and may withdraw caveats so lodged by it.” 26

wayne glew

Of course, Wayne Glew did not recognise their authority to do so, and has consistently denied ever since that the property has been seized by council. He used the proceedings to recover items on the property as a platform for his arguments, (most of which had already been rejected in Shoalhaven City Council v Ellis [2012] NSWLEC 225 and his own prior cases above) but after failing to submit details on items and their owners, the case was dismissed.

“Well-known litigant Wayne Glew is suing the City of Greater Geraldton in an attempt to recover personal property from the Glenfield house the City seized in lieu of unpaid rates. 27

About 30 people filled the public gallery at Geraldton Courthouse, with one man eventually ejected. Proceedings began at 2.15pm today, with more than an hour of court time taken up as Mr Glew disputed Magistrate Chris Miocevich’s authority to hear the civil case. Mr Glew cited several legal milestones including the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights, and said he had recently lodged an appeal to the House of Lords in England. Representing himself, he also argued against the City of Greater Geraldton’s constitutional authority to tax and seize land, as it had done with his former home.

Mr Miocevich dismissed these objections after citing several legal judgments, mostly against Mr Glew who had been disputing his rates bills since 2005, and ruled that he had the authority to hear the case. He then ruled against Mr Glew’s authority to issue documents jointly on behalf of himself and his former wife, whose signature did not appear on them. “She told me on Christmas Day 2017 to do what I effing well like,” Mr Glew said. “So you honestly take that as her authority to proceed on her behalf?” the Magistrate said. 

Two witnesses were called. City of Greater Geraldton rates coordinator Sandra Lee Russell under oath agreed she had issued three affidavits and issued rates bills for $146,000 and $285,000 to Mr Glew. Mr Glew attempted to challenge her legal authority to do this, and the magistrate repeatedly reminded him he could only ask her to answer questions of fact. Mr Glew then produced a document he described as a notice of seizure under clause 61 of the Magna Carta he said he had issued to the City. The Magistrate rejected this. “There is a requirement under the Act that notices must be sent and her evidence is that the notices have been sent,” Mr Miocevich said. The rates coordinator left the court to calls of “coward” and “no b**ls” from the public gallery.

The second witness, Peter Smith, said the City had contracted him to produce an inventory of the personal belongings inside and outside the seized property in Chapman Road. He said he had attended several times, once in the company of Mr Glew’s former wife, who  placed her personal items on a verandah with the intention of returning to collect them. However Mr Smith said the City advised him not to allow her to do so unless in his company. “I wrote to her and when she did not reply I returned. The items had been thrown out into the rain, the wedding dress, the bikes, et cetera,” he said. When cross examined by Mr Glew, Mr Smith said he had not cut a padlock. “The first time I went there the padlock was cut and windows smashed,” Mr Smith said. 

Mr Miocevich then adjourned the case until 2.15pm tomorrow, giving both parties the option of calling further witnesses or simply summing up their respective cases. “I will hear evidence from both sides, I don’t expect to give a decision tomorrow,” he said.”

“Well-known Geraldton litigant Wayne Glew has been ordered to submit a list of people who own various items stored in the shed of his former home. 28

The City of Greater Geraldton seized the Glenfield property last year in lieu of unpaid rates, and Mr Glew told the court he had continued to use the shed in order to earn a living. 

Magistrate Chris Miocevich said Mr Glew had caused Council “a great deal of expense” by not disclosing that the items belonged to other people until today, and asked him to list the owners on an affidavit. “Do not order me to do an affidavit because I won’t,” Mr Glew said. “It is a legally binding document that can be later used in a court of law against me.” After conferring with City of Greater Geraldton’s lawyer Gray Porter, the magistrate agreed that a list would be acceptable. “You are to file with the court a list of names, phone numbers and addresses of the people you say have an interest in the property,” the magistrate said. “You are to advise in writing any person you claim has an interest in those properties and they must contact the City of Greater Geraldton by February 4. “If you don’t take these items the council will have to sell them.”

Today’s session began at 2.15pm, having been adjourned from the day before when Mr Glew’s legal arguments delayed the City’s attempted application for a court order to dispose of the goods. Mr Glew continued to challenge the constitutional authority of the City and the magistrate throughout today’s hearing which ran from 2.15pm to 4pm. Mr Glew claims a magistrate has no authority to preside over the case because their power came from Section 35 of the Magistrate’s Court Act WA 2004 which was “repugnant” to the Commonwealth Constitution section 75.5. The magistrate reserved his decision and adjourned the matter until February 6. Outside the courthouse Mr Glew told The Geraldton Guardian he had lodged an appeal with the House of Lords in England.”

In the minds of Wayne Glew’s followers, the case was regarding the seizure of the property, but this was never even entertained by the court, but simply the recovery of items.


Wayne Glew continued to post via his Facebook page through early 2019 that the property is still his, that no seizure occurred, and that the outcome of the court proceedings were in his favour, because no ruling was made regarding the property. In response to this, and the constant barrage of comments from Wayne Glew’s supporters, City of Greater Geraldton Mayor Shane Van Styn 29 posted a copy of the Duplicate Land Title on his Facebook page. 30 He said:

“It sadly has been a long path (since 2003) for the ratepayers of Geraldton and not an outcome we wished to pursue, but we were left with no choice. Next time Mr Glew tells everyone he won, please feel free to show him this…”


UPDATE: June 2019


I made the following meme for an experiment in confirmation bias. It was shared hundreds of times by supporters of Wayne Glew, without even reading the content, which I thought quite humorous, and yet they took it as gospel truth based on their pre-existing beliefs.


The Great Australia Party


Rod Culleton and Wayne Glew teamed up as candidates for the right-wing “Great Australia Party” (GAP) in the 2019 Federal Election. Based in an ideology of constitutional conspiracy and popularism, they ran on the platform that they were going to “restore the Commonwealth”. 31

Read more…