The appellants were each convicted of six offences under the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), for development activities carried on in relation to their jointly owned property. The Palmers’ counsel was John Walsh of Brannagh who made written submissions on ‘constitutional issues’ prior to trial, which were rejected by the magistrate, but there were numerous attempts to re-agitate the matters’ during the trial, and on the application for leave to appeal in Palmer v City of Gosnells  WASC 446. It concerned whether the magistrate was operating as an employee of the Department of the Attorney General of Western Australia and was therefore not a judicial officer, the absence of Constitutional power for the Local Government Act 1995 (WA), the failure to swear the appropriate judicial oath to the Sovereign or her Governor, whether the appellants were denied procedural fairness by refusing them adjournments; whether there was a reasonable apprehension that the learned Magistrate was biased, or whether he was actually biased; and whether the learned Magistrate properly considered various issues and authorities.
Palmer v City of Gosnells  WASCA 102 was an application for leave to appeal from this decision refusing leave to appeal on all grounds and dismissing the appellants’ appeal against conviction. The grounds were that Edelman J failed to see the magistrate failed to swear the lawful Oath of Allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II lawful sovereign of Australia, failed to see the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) was repugnant to the Commonwealth Constitution 1901 therefore invalid; and committed a ‘tort’ in judicial misfeasance when he deliberately ignored the requirements of the State and Commonwealth Constitution 1901 in relation to the Oath of Allegiance. Further, the appellants contended The Constitution used by the State of Western Australia since Federation is a fraud, decisions of State courts do not form part of the common law, and that the Commonwealth of Australia is a corporation registered on the US Securities and Exchange Commission, and both the State of Western Australia and the Department of the Attorney General are corporations with ABN’s.
“None of the grounds of appeal, as elaborated on in the submissions, have a reasonable prospect of succeeding. The same issues have been repeatedly raised in the Supreme Court and dismissed. See for example Shaw v Jim McGinty in his capacity as Attorney General  WASCA 231; Glew v Shire of Greenough  WASCA 260 (special leave refused: Glew v Shire of Greenough  HCATrans 520); Glew Technologies Pty Ltd v Department of Planning and Infrastructure  WASCA 289; Glew v City of Greater Geraldton  WASCA 94; Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd  WASCA 93; Krysiak v Hodgson  WASCA 114; Glew v The Governor of Western Australia  WASC 14; Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd  WASCA 87; O’Connell v The State of Western Australia  WASCA 96. The grounds of appeal are devoid of any merit.”