A man accused of punching a glass door in Matthew Guy’s office before telling staff there that it was his ‘constitutional right’ to go on a shooting spree has been granted bail. Rohan Brown, 46, is facing more than 30 charges including damaging property and unlawful assault. He visited the Victorian Opposition Leader’s office on April 28 and demanded to speak with Mr Guy about police corruption, the Age and Daily Mail reports.
Staff also reported that Mr Brown knocked down a pamphlet stand and smashed the glass door as he left, according to the Age. In court documents, Mr Brown told the court he suffers from PTSD, claiming it was triggered by bullying from police.
Brown, 46, is facing more than 30 charges including damaging property and unlawful assault. Mr Brown allegedly said ‘if Mr Guy couldn’t help him, it was his constitutional right to go on a shooting spree’ He added that he apologised to staff for the incident. He admitted breaking the door to the office, but said it was an accident that happened ‘in the heat of the moment.’
Rohan commented on the Freeman Delusion Facebook page:
“If only the sovereign files were not FAKE NEWS. Can anyone find the errors, obvious glaring failure and complete incompetence of this page to investigate the circumstances prior to exposing themselves as a joke by including it in it’s so-called sovereign files. Perhaps you might consider a retraction and public apology in lieu of legal proceedings. Likewise perhaps you might consider following up this story with your own account of my appearance before Judge Lyon on the 24th of June 2020 at the County Court of Victoria in Melbourne. It is an application for permanent stay due to failure by the DPP/OPP t provide full disclosure. See you there, I may consider chatting with you after.
George Koromilas, I thought it was time to bring old mate Freeman Delusion up to date, Let’s see what kind of game he has, eh?”
“Rohan Brown, there is no ability for you to succeed in any proceedings against me, as I haven’t even made any statements about you. Perhaps you’d like to take the matter up with the Daily Mail and The Age.
As far as your upcoming application, that is yet to be determined by the court so there is nothing to report as yet. I would however suggest that there is no need for full disclosure when it comes to enforcing the law. It is presumably based on a premise that there exists some sort of a commercial contract, which is a typical OPCA myth. The obligations to law are not contractual, they are statutory obligations.
Rohan Brown also commented on various other posts with pretty much identical comments, so I will add them here to avoid it being considered spam by the FB algorithms, or myself. The other comments will be deleted. You are however welcome to comment in replies on this thread you started.
“Hi Freeman Delusion, great concept and I wish you all the best. You may wish to attend to the accuracy of some of the detail as you may end up getting feedback and legal mail which won’t paint your efforts in the best light. I’m with you, “sovereign citizens” are a joke, the term itself an oxymoron. However, accuracy is important to me and this kind of false and scandalous FAKE NEWS will likewise undermine your efforts. Come to the County Court on the 24th of June 2020 and observe a preview of what I do to people who make false claims about me. Challenge accepted Freeman Delusion? I promise you that if you observe me in court and meet me in person you will be as certain as I am that this was a media beat up for political advantage concealing serious indictable offences and corruption from within police and courts. This is now coming to a head.”
“sovereign citizens” are a joke, the term itself an oxymoron.”
The term is an irrelevancy, the ideology of the US Posse Comitatus Movement is the reality of their nature, something that is shared by many other movements, and hence they are all considered by the courts to be “Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants or adherents. It would do you well to educate yourself on the origin of the term though. Saying it is an oxymoron is a cliche’ that means nothing. They originally referred to themselves as ‘organic citizens’ and later ‘sovereign citizens’.
That being said, I won’t be coming to your application hearing, I have better things to do with my time. I wish you well, but I already know the inevitable end result.”
“Freeman Delusion read the Victorian Criminal Procedures Manual s7.2 and learn something about the law. You appear to be typing on subjects upon which you have a diminished capacity.
Not a cliche at all. A citizen is not sovereign and a sovereign is not a citizen. No fiurther education on that subject required here as anyone who speaks along these lines has no place in the law.”
“Rohan Brown The majority of my analysis is extracted from statements in law directly from the judgments of the higher courts on appeal. Like your previous contentions, it is not me that is saying these things, it the higher courts setting binding precedent.
As already stated, without you being aware of the origin of the term sovereign citizen, your response itself is an oxymoron.”
“Considering everything is backed up by reliable sources, including legislation and court cases, I’d say it’s all pretty damn accurate. Perhaps you could give an example of something that’s inaccurate?”
“Rohan Brown The evolution of the term also requires some attention too, as it is rarely used these days, and is more US-centric in origin. These days it is “Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants” or “Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument adherents” and includes all the variations of the original ideology of the US Posse Comitatus Movement.
This is ultimately due to the decision in Meads v Meads ABQB 571:
“This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions:
Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels – there is no closed list. In the absence of a better moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants [“OPCA litigants”], to functionally define them collectively for what they literally are.
These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by ‘gurus’ (as hereafter defined) to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.
Over a decade of reported cases have proven that the individual concepts advanced by OPCA litigants are invalid. What remains is to categorize these schemes and concepts, identify global defects to simplify future response to variations of identified and invalid OPCA themes, and develop court procedures and sanctions for persons who adopt and advance these vexatious litigation strategies.”
It would also assist your argument if you could competently cite what provision you refer to.
I can only assume you are referring to the “Victorian Criminal Proceedings Manual” and not the “Victorian Criminal Procedures Manual” as it doesn’t exist. In the Victorian Criminal Proceedings Manual, there are no sections, there are chapters.
Or are you referring to the s.7(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic)? It is difficult to make sense of your citation. Please clarify your position.”
“Bantoni Plakantry He appears to have gone silent lol. I always get a bit of a laugh when people like Rohan Brown come here threatening legal action against me, simply for reproducing verbatim a media report. They seem quite unaware of basic procedure. It really is as simple as an application for summary dismissal under section 63 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) because it is not at all difficult to establish the claim has no real prospect of success and is frivolous in nature, an abuse of the processes of the court. I don’t even have to appear, I can have counsel appear, and Rohan is then liable for all their costs, which don’t come cheap. But if I want to be nice, I can submit the application online or by mail, and save him the expense of being a total idiot.
“Freeman Delusion And if the newspaper article was somehow libellous, I would think it would be more profitable to sue a major newspaper, where you could show a wider audience, along with more chance to get a sizable payment.
“As far as what I can gather from the text of the articles, the word “allegedly” is frequently used when referring to the allegations, information sourced from personal accounts of the staff, admissions from Rohan himself, and verifiable court documents, so the claim would equally have no prospects of success.
THE CONVERSATION CONTINUES AFTER THE 24TH…
“Rohan Brown So tell me, how did you go yesterday? Did you get your order or were you removed from the court?”
“Actually Freeman Delusion Judge Lyon made a point on commenting on my excellent behavior in court when referring to the content of emails I had sent his associate. He also appologised for making a mistake in a previous ruling and it was dealt with like men, like gentleman. Perhaps it is because Judge Lyon is an extraordinary individual and Judge. However, certainly that quick resolution of a potentially explosive issue dealt with truth, humility and contrition appears to be a blueprint upon which the justice system could begin to deal with the many errors which occur either accidentally or purposely within the system of justice. If only this were the practice of violent cops who tend to prefer escalating matters rather than resolving them, then I would not have had reason to attend the courts which blind statists like you Freeman Delusion seem to love and respect so much.
I did dress down the Inspector of the unit that charged me and demonstrated as well as asserted that his “boss”, Graham Ashton is a liar who has failed to comply with his obligations under section 169 of the Victoria Police ACT 2013. There were six PSOs just outside the court as I left and yes of course they are my own personal security detail. Ask the PSOs (I can provide a recording of some if you like) they know that myself and George Koromilas are not the instigators of perversions and skirmishes in the courts. Likewise the security and corrections officers, they always, always give very positive feedback on how well the presentations to the court clearly and factually dissected the illusion that police and prosecutors are for starters even honest, let alone interested in upholding the law. (NB: I have court transcripts, recordings, documents and numerous unchallenged affidavits to support everything asserted here)”
“Rohan Brown I note you didn’t address the question. Is this avoidance because your order of a “permanent stay due to failure by the DPP/OPP to provide full disclosure” (sic) was not granted? You certainly haven’t stated that it was, merely commented on your submissions and the pleasant demeanor of the judge.
The results of any case are all that matters to me. Your ‘statist’ assertions are likewise misplaced. I simply cite the case law as it is, not how I think it should be. My own anarchist philosophies and 40 year long alternative lifestyle are completely irrelevant to the point. It’s not about anyone’s personal belief, but the results of cases.
Now, can you address the question?”
“champ you post media containing false claims all the time Freeman Delusion it just happens that you avoid the debunking of the crap you post. No I did not get the ord3r and not because the OPP/ DPP did not provide full disclosure just that the law allows for the OPP/ DPP to pervert the course of justices.
“Rohan Brown Convenient excuse, but it is merely your opinion, unless you can establish it is a perversion of justice in a court of law. So ultimately, the claims made by the articles I quoted are just as valid as when I posted them, and will remain so until you successfully challenge them.
I was actually hoping for a positive outcome that I could update your page with, but such wishful thinking is probably at the root of your issue to begin with. As I said earlier, the results of any case are all that matters to me. I simply cite the case law as it is, not how I think it should be.”
“You have no idea what you are talking about, also it’s not my page, it’s your page, its factually incorrect and the photograph is not even me, you are full of crap. You are a prized wanker, that is the fact of the matter.”
“Rohan Brown You have yet to establish that anything I have stated is incorrect, and the courts and police probably feel the same way. You just make assertions you can’t substantiate, and think your opinions mean something lol. It’s quite funny really, considering all you have is ad hominem remarks and nothing of any substance.
Your page is but part of a small section in my book which is a collection of media reports of OPCA adherents and constitutional nutters in the magistrates courts, which are not published cases. The vast majority of my book is published cases directly from higher court judgments. The main reason I included your story was because of your alleged assertion that you had “a constitutional right to go on a shooting spree” which I found quite hilarious, albeit completely unfounded in law. The photo is from the articles, so as I said, if you have an issue take it up with the Daily Mail and The Age.”
“Bi note that you failed to address the issue that the photograph in the article is not even me, Gronk.”
“Rohan Brown I have nothing to address about it. You claim the photo isn’t you, but that is all it is, a claim. You have not substantiated that claim with anything.
I can’t disprove a negative, nor will I attempt to. It is you making the claim, the burden of proof lies with you not me.
How about you post a photo of your drivers licence?”
“Freeman Delusion Delusion is your defining trait in this thread champ, the fact is you are wrong. I have had several wins. I have decisions in the Magistrates and County Court where charges have been dismissed on the merits of my self represented case  November 2013 Heidelberg Magistrates Court  November 2014 County Court of Victoria,  21 April 2017 Dandenong magistrates Court,  Last year 13 March 2019 I beat the police and the OPP in their application to impose a condition of bail to ban me from contacting all members of parliament, I had charges dismissed as false charges.  17 February 2020 I had false charges withdrawn in County Court. So your submission that “such wishful thinking is probably at the root of”, my[sic] “issue to begin with.” is false and to remind you of your words “As I said earlier, the results of any case are all that matters to me. I simply cite the case law as it is, not how I think it should be.” These are documented results of cases and charges, I have also had two winning Supreme Court Applications ( 21 Sep 2016 &  15 Nov 2019) a County Court Application (9 Sep 2019) and a Magistrates Court Application ( 3Aug2018) as well and I assure you by the time my trial comes around on the 4th of November there will be several more wins and examples of case law to add to those listed above. So wrong again champ, time for that retraction. Either that or call me a liar publicly over the cases cited and I’ll produce the orders and we can begin mediation over the defamation. You only cite case law, cite this.”
“Rohan Brown Firstly, I have not even mentioned any other (alleged) cases, nor whether you have succeeded or not in any cases in the past. These are your claims not mine. I’d be interested in reading the Supreme Court cases, but as I already know, there is no results in any database. Again, it is you making the claims, the burden rests with you to substantiate your own claims, for all I know you are talking out of your arse.
Secondly, if you had any case in the Supreme Court, you would at least be able to correctly cite it, and generally, (as it is a court of public record) link me to the case so I can read it.
Thirdly, I have purely dealt with the case mentioned in the articles, not anything else you want to divert to. The notion that one has “a constitutional right to go on a shooting spree” is very wishful thinking indeed.
Fourthly, I haven’t even given my own opinions or made any claims in your page on my website, simply reproduced the articles of the Daily Mail and The Age verbatim, and as already stated, since I have not even made any claims regarding you, you have no case for defamation, and I can easily shake it in a summary judgment as being without cause and an abuse of process. Do you want me to give an expensive barrister the job so you end up paying costs, or would you prefer I emailed the application to save you the expense?
Fifthly, even if you have (allegedly) won cases or not is entirely irrelevant to the notion that OPCA concepts and such claims as one has “a constitutional right to go on a shooting spree” have any validity in law, which is the subject matter of my work.
Sixthly, I note you haven’t yet substantiated the photo claim, and just went on to make more unsubstantiated claims. Yawn…
I thought I’d also move your other pointless comments here to this thread you started…
“Yes Mike Palmer is a Gronk however not as brain dead as the cowards in blue and Stockholm suffering feral statists such as Delusional Man who think that all who oppose police terrorism think the same just because the brain dead statists and law enforcement low lives don’t have the capacity to think themselves. Here is a clue for you Delusional Man, I too believe Darren Dickson is like you a crap talking brain dead moron. It took all of 2 minutes of being in that swarmy command presence. Not all critical thinkers are the same Delusional Man.”
“How about brain dead, unwashed timid ferals suffering from cognitive dissonance and Stockholm Syndrome? What social distancing does a cowardly statist such as yourself apply, Delusional Man.”
I will also remind you that you have already been warned about spamming on this page. I invited you to substantiate the claims you have made on this thread, and not to go around posting your unintelligible random comments on other threads.
Your piss weak attempts at insulting me and intimidating me with frivolous defamation suites has failed miserably. But if all you can produce is ad hominems, strawman and other logical fallacies which you have, all of which you also have no chance of substantiating, then I think it best you either restrain your emotive outbursts or you will be banned from the privilege of making any further comments on this page at all.
You can take this as your final warning.
You have not yet pointed to a single claim I have made in relation to the law that is in any way flawed. I enjoy debates regarding the various aspects of constitutional law, but to engage you in these interactions with your petty little schoolyard type banter only belittles myself.
Now, it is up to you to either substantiate the numerous claims you have made, right here on this thread, or just shut the fuck up.”
“Freeman Delusion, it appears that it is you delusional man who has gone silent. I always love it when brain dead statists speak crap and then can’t back it up, weak cowardly prick, perfect recruit for the academy.”
“Rohan Brown You are going around in circles here and wasting my time. How can I have “gone silent” when I just made comment? That assertion is as unintelligible as the comments in the rest of this thread. Do you actually have a legal contention to debate with me, or can you provide substantiation for a single claim you have made? If not, then fuck off.”
“Freeman Delusion I have you dimwitted clown, I have cited dates and locations of court wins. You weak cowardly, lying bootlicker piece of scum. As I said from the start SHIT FOR BRAINS, the photo is not even me, you dimwitted clown. I hope the bloke in the photo does you in though. Freeman Delusion you did the same thing you hypocritical cop suckup.”
“Rohan Brown I have already addressed that comment too. the court dates etc are merely claims that are not substantiated, nor do they have anything to do with the subject matter. Same as your photo claim. Are you finished with your weak attempts at insults or do you just want me to ban you right now?
I did the same thing? Really? Can you point to a single unsubstantuated claim I have made? The articles I referenced certainly aren’t my claims, as I’ve already pointed out.”
“Freeman Delusion got me on one word, it just goes to show that you have no argument whatsoever. Ban me you weak minded bootlicker.”
“Rohan Brown Yes you are right, I have no argument whatsoever. This is due to the fact you have given me nothing to argue with lol. I actually wish you would provide me with something of substance to refute, but as yet you haven’t.
As you wish. But when a page bans someone, their comments also disappear, so I have copied this exchange verbatim for future reference, and will be making it a separate post shortly. I may even update your page on my website with it, so readers can see what sort of character they are reading about, by your own admissions, not a newspaper article.”