Glen Bowley was once a big supporter of Rod Culleton, he even met up and was pictured in these photos with Rod Culleton in October 2016, (black suit with red ID band) along with Danny Maksacheff (in the grey tshirt).
Back then he was employed as an Advanced Rigger-Crane Operator-Twin Rope Access-Rescue, which unfortunately all seems to have fallen by the wayside in his adoption of OPCA concepts.
In my many exchanges with Glenn Bowley, he argued, among other things, that everything was invalid because the wrong seal was used for the Governor General’s Letters Patent. He was involved with Michael Nibbs and made up this myth about a judges statement in a court case which he spread around the internet.
After Glenn Bowley blocked me on Facebook, I released the following open letter to him on 17 October 2017:
The Glenn Bowley profile disappeared shortly afterwards, and Glenn then only popped up every once and a while in various places with various other profiles, finally reemerging as “Gypsy Hors De Combat”, and then later “Christian Crown”.
A video posted by Danny Maksacheff of Glenn Bowley and himself… The thread and video refers to Glenn Bowley as “Gypsy” in numerous places, and then some time later Danny Maksacheff himself specifically mentions the profile Christian Crown in reference to the same person, Glenn Bowley or “Gypsy”…
The last comment in the thread was:
Danny deleted this comment as soon as he seen this article, but I have it in screenshots to add as soon as I locate it in my files. I also downloaded the video itself in case Danny deletes it, as I’m quite used to the extent of the dishonesty that these people display. Pic
The same Glenn Bowley profile was mentioned in the following posts, with the same crew, prior to the profile being deactivated…
Glenn Bowley: “Rob Sudy Works for the DPP. I know this because I had him threaten to sue me for naming a prosecutor in a case in Tasmania. Then earlier this week he took stills creating memes from one of my videos “the sale” where I blitz 2 cops and a council ranger over a council works zone out the front of my house. In that video there is a female Blonde Cop called Cst Poorly. Guess who slipped a Court Attendance Notice under my door yesterday for a made up charge stemming from Nov 2015? Little miss Poorly.”
This was Glenn Bowley’s response to the Court Attendance Notice, posted on his Facebook page:
“Public Notice to the NSW Police Force. In the Matter of matter – H 61903624. Your offer of contract has been conditionally accepted as a wager as defined in the Crimes Act 1900. The Minister Of Police and Justice has received and accepted my terms contained within the claim of intent and right as delivered during 2016. Your acceptance to these terms will be considered as a legitimate bill of exchange at the mention of the matter scheduled on the 1st of February 2017 by your and delivered by your agent Constable Pawley on the 10th of January 2017. I look forward to doing business with you. Sincerely, Glenn Geoffrey of the Bowley Family.”
Glenn Bowley’s traffic incident
The following video was recorded during a traffic stop on 20 July 2019.
This second video was posted on 31 July 2019.
Glenn Bowley seems to have an obsession with posting the following extract from an email on social media, asking various people their opinion about it, promptly dismissing their opinion as irrelevant and “just their opinion” and then ranting that they haven’t addressed his question. It’s quite fascinating behaviour.
Senior Sergeant David Prevett’s closing email to “Gypsy Hors De Combat” is the finest, wisest, wittiest, most comprehensive response I’ve ever come across. The sarcasm was of a superior quality, went strait over his head as good sarcasm always does. It’s amazing how one can insult in such a sophisticated fashion that the receiver interprets it as a compliment. Christian Crown posts this email extract everywhere on Facebook without even realising the jokes on him.
The extract states…
Having refreshed my knowledge of Article 2 of the Geneva Convention and taking into account the actions of the unelected government of 1975 in regards to the bloodless coup de tat undertaken in Canberra on November 11, I am more aware of my role as an armed occupier of these lands. Clearly under the Geneva Convention I am at war with my own government, the Crown and myself. I patiently await the arrival of agents from a foreign land as they arrive to extradite me to an international court, possibly in the Hague, where I may be held accountable for my actions.
In the meantime, I will assume the status of “hors de combat”. As such I can no longer engage in this futile battle with you, as interesting as it has been, and I too invoke my rights as recocnised by the Lieber Code of 1863 and Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and it’s protocols.
You are now banned from contacting me in any format.
David (hors de combat)…”
To the average person…
To the man on the Clapham omnibus, it would be obvious in reading this short extract of an email response, if not reasonable to surmise, that:
(1) It was obviously extracted from the end of a much larger ongoing discussion in which the officer wanted no part of and was finalizing that point with the receiver.
(2) The rest of the discussion is omitted, and ultimately that content would be the only way anyone could truly know the intention in these comments.
(3) The officer conceivably voiced his intention not to go into these matters any further numerous times, probably to the point of reasonable frustration, using all sorts of attempts to disengage, but the questions and assertions kept coming in multiple emails.
(4) Finally, in order to end the discussion and disengage, the officer became totally agreeable with the receiver, in a very sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek manner.
(5) The conclusion was stated facetiously, and was extremely capitulating, to the point of absurdity and absurd conclusions.
(6) These conclusions were, as close as possible, mirroring the conclusions of the receiver, including his “hors de combat” replacing the surname motif and the alleged alteration of status the receiver initially implied.
But of course this is just my opinion, and conceivably most people with the capacity for critical analysis would interpret this extract the same way.
An opinion is all you can get when you ask for an opinion.
The perception of the man on the Clapham omnibus.
Posting as the same profile Danny Maksacheff mentioned earlier, Christian Crown, Glenn Bowley claims he has never gone by either of those other former names. He continually and consistently refers to himself in a first, third and fourth sense, which is quite deliberately confusing to engage with. First, there’s a Christian Crown, third there’s a Gypsy, and fourth a Glenn Bowley, who are in fact all the same person.
When this was pointed out in our exchanges in 2020, Christian Crown went into denial and resorted to a form of gaslighting every time, claiming that I invented this fictional character “Glenn Bowley” to debate with in the open letter on my website, (dated 17 October 2017). He did the same with a few people over several days, saying they’re delusional it’s all in their heads, we’re part of a cult, etc, anytime someone raised the point.
It seems, judging from the following recorded conversation with police regarding his bail reporting conditions, that Glenn even takes offence at being referred to as “you”, and draws some type of distinction between “Gypsy” and “you” in the exchange. Hilariously, the officer actually had to point out that he was referring to himself in a third sense…
Glenn Bowley alleges that the extract is the officer is in breach of section 307c of the NSW Crimes Act 1900 “False or misleading documents” and expresses his search for justice in that capacity. I informed him if he is seeking legal advice that he should talk to a qualified lawyer, but pointed out the following observations…
(a) For a document to be false or misleading it would have to actually be a document, not a mere extract from an email. Consumer laws relating to “deceptive or misleading conduct” do not apply in this situation, there is no contract being sought nor product or service tendered in regard to the remarks in the email. All the stamps and extras do not retract from the fact this is NOT a letter, or a document, it is merely a copy of an extract of an email exchange.
(b) If it is claimed that David Prevett was being deceptive and misleading in his email exchanges, in order for a court to determine if, in context, this extract is in fact deceptive and misleading, it would require the whole email exchange to be submitted into evidence, not merely a snippet of what appears to be a sarcastic and facetious conclusion to that email exchange.
(c) Glenn Bowley stated the document of the extract has been submitted into a court file three times, and pointed to the stamps. I responded that if the court has seen it, why is he asking anyone else their opinions? It’s the opinion of the court that counts, not anyone else’s. Was he unhappy with the decision of the courts, so he is subsequently seeking validation from strangers online?
Glenn Bowley isn’t the only one convinced of the content of this email. Peter Scott Haughton also submitted it to the court, and remarked about it on pages 13-16 of the transcript of Peter and Sam Nominees Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, and Haughton likewise believes that the statement is fraudulent:
“I mean, now, this was stamped by the Commissioner of Police and my apologies, I’ve printed the wrong – I do have a stamped copy, my apologies, but I gave it to the Commissioner of Police and he’s done nothing with it. So we can’t trust the people who we run to for help because in this document here, if we go to the back of it, there’s a forensic examination – this is how bad the justices are in this country. I gave him a forensic examination document, the court, and they said it’s not fraud but it’s been done by a police officer. So the courts are telling the police officer that fraud is not fraud.”
David Prevett responds
Out of curiosity, I thought I would contact Senior Sergeant David Prevett by the same email address and inquire into his intention in the statements, whether the conclusions above were reasonable of me to assume, and whether he wished to make comment regarding the email.
- Hot Shots (1991) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haBOYm9SpDA