Wayne Glew recently published several videos regarding a Facebook group I regularly post in called “Are Council Rates Legal ?” administrated by Tim Prater. Although they are quite the convoluted collection of assertions and claims, I would like to do a point by point response to Wayne Glew regarding the content of these videos, which I had to access through another account as he has blocked me on the profile I usually use, and numerous others.
This is a response to Wayne Glew’s first video directed at me, published 19-03-2021.
1. “A government paid – law society paid bunch of trolls” If you think I’m paid by anyone, provide the evidence, and tell them to make sure my bank account knows too.
3. Yes I have the “audacity” to provide valid High Court judgments that dispose of the contentions you make, you on the other hand merely state your warped interpretations of a couple of decisions, and ignore everything inconsistent with your beliefs.
4. Yes you do block people who disagree with you, there are dozens in this group alone, and many more who dared to comment with doubts on any of your posts. You have blocked me on multiple profiles, one as recent as a few weeks ago. Your definition of a “derogatory comment” is obviously someone that disagrees with you, and not everyone wants to share photos of themselves on public access, their choice of privacy settings doesn’t automatically make them a “troll” at all, it is a very weak excuse for your cognitive dissonance and inability to participate in a formal rational debate on matters of law. What you display is the actions of a coward.
5. It is well established that Tim Prater is neither a lawyer or a paralegal, and neither am I. We are both just concerned citizens that were once influenced by your ideas and found out the hard way they don’t work in reality, and voluntarily spend time warning others about this indisputable fact. If only you possessed this level of honesty, I could call you a man, as a real man can admit where he is wrong. You badly lack this capacity, despite being a serial litigation failure.
6. Nobody on this group is responsible for the issues between your son and yourself, in fact they have existed long before he joined this group last week. Even on your own admissions, you claim an incident occurred 2 years ago. You ought to take responsibility for your own relationships, it has nothing to do with anyone here. Nobody in this group has encouraged or incited him into any unlawful actions.
7. Your strawman fallacy regarding an idea that I support a “one world system” is severely lacking any factual basis or evidence, and hardly deserves a response.
8. If you claim that anything in law that I have stated is somehow inconsistent with the higher court judgments that I always provide to substantiate each point, feel free to highlight them. Whether you agree with the decision is irrelevant, (including your own cases) if the decision is a final decision, it is not even my opinion in order to be a “lie” as you claim.
9. It is not only Tim who has used your contentions, but provably dozens of others. You just have to look at all the cases in which Glew & Anor v Shire of Greenough  WASCA 260 has been cited in cases since 2006, using the contentions you still claim are valid. There are over 50 cases where the case has been referred to, to dispose of the contentions of your followers, and that is just one of your cases, your other 15 cases have many more references to gullible people that have taken your word as gospel and tried your contentions in the courts. Here is a document listing all the subsequent cases in the higher courts which have referred to the decisions in your failed cases to reject the particular contentions.
10. Yes you use religion frequently, even in this very video. As soon as you start quoting biblical passages you leave the sphere of law and enter the sphere of religious belief, which has no effect on the supremacy of parliament, as upheld by every court in Australia including your own Supreme Court in BarrettLennard -v- Bembridge  WASC 353 and the High Court in Kable v DPP (NSW)  HCA 24 and the UK House of Lords in British Railway Board v Pickin (1974) AC 765. The Bible is not the common law. The decisions above are part of the common law, and they clearly reject the notion.
11. You are not a Commonwealth Public Official, and never have been. You were a State Police Officer, and despite your confusion of the constitutional structure and division of powers, it has nothing to do with the Commonwealth, and it ended with your termination of employment with the Western Australian Police Force. This claim was rejected in Re Glew; Ex Parte The Hon. Michael Mischin MLC; Attorney General (WA)  WASC 107, where it was stated
“This was absurd histrionics. He is not, and was not, a Commonwealth official; there was no basis for charging anyone and his remarks were nothing less than preposterous. The incongruity of Mr Glew’s contentions, and of his claims, was plainly obvious to their Honours and must have been obvious to any fair-minded, reasonable observer. No such observer could attach any credit or plausibility to Mr Glew’s behaviour, which was that of an ignorant man disastrously pursuing his own obsession.”
You are actually impersonating a Commonwealth Public Official contrary to Division 148 of the Criminal Code 1995 with this talk, as rightfully recognised in Woolnough & Anor v Isaac Regional Council  QSC 54; Althaus v Australia Meat Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors  QCA 312; and Tatana v Commonwealth DPP  VSC 367, only 3 of your followers that have ran with this contention and likewise been rejected.
The definition of an actual Commonwealth public official is listed in the dictionary of the Criminal Code 1995 and even as a current serving WA Police officer you don’t fall within any of these definitions:
12. Your claims that your invention “worked” and has some enormous value are irrelevant and absurd, as the value of these inventions were assessed in Frank Jasper Pty Ltd v Glew [No 3]  WASC 24 (at 20-23) and accepted by the court to be worth absolutely nothing. The evidence of the expert witness David Worth who testified that they: “…offered no benefit over existing fuel systems and were not viable because of their inability to satisfy emission requirements in both Australia and the United States.” and the court likewise accepted this evidence.
13. You may want to educate yourself on the basic Facebook features relating to groups. If an admin blocks someone from a group, the whole group disappears and they can’t even see any posts. If however, you are not a member of the group, only the “like” and “share” features are visible, and there is usually a notice stating “join this group to comment” or something similar. You obviously let your paranoia overtake your logic. Your photo shots prove nothing except you are not a member.
14. You keep addressing me as if I’m responsible for everything that happens on the internet that you don’t like. I have nothing to do with “Wayne Glew Lost Cases” or “Wayne Glew for the Iron Throne” and anything else you want to make false allegations about without even a hint of evidence to substantiate. I am admin of one page on Facebook, and that is this page, Freeman Delusion, part of the title of my encyclopedia of pseudo legal contentions. I am not Tim Prater, or anyone else, I am Rob Sudy, so you might want to get your facts right and sort out your accusations to differentiate between the alleged comments made by different people.
15. As far as your transcripts, they are merely submissions, and it is the final judgment of the case that is most important, not the submissions made. Your repeated rants and transcripts will not overturn the fact the court has rejected the contentions therein. And that is the problem with most vexatious litigants like yourself, you absurdly repeat the contentions, and ignore completely how the court has ruled in relation to those contentions. And you then go on to attempt the same identical contention again, expecting a different result. As Einstein once said, “…the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.” Fail.
16. Regarding McGinty v Western Australia  HCA 48; this is a great example of you cherry-picking one half of a passage (at 49) “Certainly the States derive their existence as States from the Australian Constitution. The original source of authority for the legislative power of the States is Imperial legislation but the present source of that power is s 106. Even so, it does not follow that the plaintiffs’ submission is correct.” and you leave out the rest of the judgment completely, where their Honour’s go on to explain (at 56) “Section 106 does not effect a blanket importation of the Australian Constitution into State constitutions. To interpret s 106 in this way unduly subjects State constitutions to the Australian Constitution at the price of the other stated aims of the section. Its primary aim is to guarantee the continuation of State constitutions after federation, though subject to the Constitution.”
In fact, Robert Garran is succinct on the point in his commentary, stating in ss 444 “The States” (page 928):
“…that in the Constitution there is a division of that delegated sovereignty into two spheres or areas, one being assigned to the Federal Government, and the other to the State Governments ; that each Government is separate and distinct from the rest; that the Federal Government cannot encroach on the sphere or area of the State Governments, and that the State Governments cannot encroach on the sphere or area of the Federal Government; that the sphere or area of the Federal jurisdiction can only be modified, enlarged or diminished by an alteration of the Constitution ; that the sphere or area of the State jurisdictions can only be modified, enlarged, and diminished by a similar alteration. This dual system of government is said to be one of the essential features of a Federation. It may be added that the governing powers reserved to the States are not inferior in origin to the governing powers vested in the Federal Government. The States do not derive their governing powers and institutions from the Federal Government, in the way that municipalities derive their powers from the Parliament of their country. The State Governments were not established by the Federal Government, nor are they in any way dependent upon the Federal Government, except by the special provisions of sec. 119. The States existed as colonies prior to the passing of the Federal Constitution, and possessed their own charters of government, in the shape of the Constitutions granted to them by the Imperial Parliament. Those charters have been confirmed and continued by the Federal Constitution, not created thereby.”
See also ss 160, “The Plenary Nature of the Powers” (page 509) that the State powers are plenary, while the enumerated powers are limited, and the State powers are “as ample and plenary as the power possessed by the Imperial Parliament itself” a point also upheld in Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King (1988) HCA 55. See also ss 330(3) “As a Federal Constitution” (page 794):
“The Constitution draws a line between the enumerated powers assigned to the Federal Government and the residue of powers reserved to the State Governments. Both sets of Governments are limited in their sphere of action, but within their several spheres they are supreme.”
Therefore, had you of raised the reference to McGinty v Western Australia  HCA 48 in Glew & Anor v Shire of Greenough  WASCA 260 it would of been disregarded. The court is bound to the ratio decidendi of the decision, not your personal interpretation of it. As the court concluded, “…the appellants’ submissions are based on a misunderstanding of the Commonwealth and State Constitutions and are entirely lacking in legal merit.” The most striking part of this assertion, is that the decision in Glew & Anor v Shire of Greenough  WASCA 260 was upheld by the High Court itself in Glew & Anor v Shire of Greenough  HCATrans 520 so you really have no argument that it was a wrong decision.
17. Ironically, your weak threats of you or anyone else “suing” me are a welcome gesture, and in no way intimidating. I started in this as confused as you still are, and I grew from there, unlike yourself, gaining the respect of judges, professors of law, legal academics around the world, and countless barristers and lawyers as I’ve progressed, many who have offered to take any such case as they already know the outcome will make the applicant liable for their costs. The only one who will be getting “an education” will be those attempting it, and it will be an expensive lesson for them.
18. As far as your assertions regarding Fee Simple alienation, I’m a bit surprised that the court didn’t immediately refer to Bone v Mothershaw  QCA 120, as that is considered an authoritative statement in law on the subject, widely cited in courts in every State, upheld by the High Court in Bone v Mothershaw  HCATrans 779. The words “to make laws for the peace, welfare and good government of the colony in all cases whatsoever.” have traditionally been used to confer “the widest legislative powers appropriate to a sovereign”. (See Ibralebbe v The Queen 1964 AC 900 at 923 and Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King (1988) HCA 55 at 9-10) and permit the State parliaments to pass laws restricting, modifying or even removing common law rights. The property has not been “alienated from the State” in the sense that State law does not apply to the property or that the legislature is precluded from passing laws adversely affecting the property. Similarly though, in Glew & Anor v Shire of Greenough  WASCA 260 the court responded: “Because of the ample plenary power conferred by s 2 of the State Constitution, any proposition to that effect would simply be wrong. Fee simple is, as the appellants say, the most ample and unfettered title known to the common law, but Parliament can change the common law as it sees fit.” and again, the decision was upheld by the High Court in Glew & Anor v Shire of Greenough  HCATrans 520.
19. As far as your recent case concluding in early 2019, you continue to misrepresent what the case was in relation to, which was personal items left on the property. You continue to imply that it was in relation to council gaining seizure of the property, and use the premise that the magistrate said he cannot rule in relation to that, but simply what the case was in relation to, which was personal items left on the property. The council didn’t need a judgment to seize the property, they had sufficient statutory power under section 6.64 of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) and that had already occurred long before the case, and public notice was made that the property had been seized pursuant to this provision on the 8th of August 2017. It goes without saying that the court cannot make judgment on the possession of the property, as it was already in the councils possession.
20. As far as your assertion that the State constitutions passed after 1901 are invalid and generally that the original State constitutions are controlled and cannot be amended, repealed or otherwise changed, this contention was also disposed of in your own cases, including Glew & Anor v Shire of Greenough  WASCA 260 (at 11) and Glew v The Governor of Western Australia  WASC 14 (at 44), citing a decision of the Privy Council in McCawley v R  AC 691.
“So far as the State Constitutions are concerned, unless there is some particular provision in the State Constitution prescribing the “manner and form” for amending particular parts of the Constitution, then the State Parliament is free to amend the State’s Constitution in any way it sees fit. That is, the State Constitutions can generally be amended as easily as any other Act. As the Privy Council has said, they occupy “precisely the same position as a Dog Act or any other Act, however humble its subject matter.”
In McCawley v R  AC 691, the appellant appealed a decision of the High Court in McCawley v The King  HCA 55 to the Privy Council, on this particular point of law, regarding the power of Queensland Parliament to amend its own Constitution Act 1867. McCawley was a justice of the Supreme Court, and his story is an interesting one. The Constitution Act 1867 purported to provide that all appointments to the Supreme Court be for life:
“The commissions of the present judges of the Supreme Court of the said colony and of all future judges thereof shall be continue and remain in full force during their good behaviour…”
Subsection 6(6) of The Industrial Arbitration Act 1916 (Qld) limited this appointment to seven years:
“The President and each Judge of the Court of Industrial Arbitration shall hold office as President and Judge of the said Court for seven years from the date of their respective appointments, and shall be eligible to be reappointed by the Governor in Council as such President or Judge for a further period of seven years.”
In McCawley v The King  HCA 55, the High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that subsection 6(6) of the Industrial Arbitration Act 1916 was inconsistent with the provisions of the Queensland Constitution as it stood when the Act was passed, and that subsection 6(6) of the Industrial Arbitration Act 1916 is therefore void and inoperative. Higgins J. dissented:
“In England the question to be considered could not arise, because there is not any written Constitution. The power of Parliament is unlimited. The question could not well arise in connection with the Commonwealth Constitution, for the Constitution provides that no amendment of it can become law until after both Houses of Parliament pass a Bill containing the proposed amendment, and it is approved of by the electors qualified to vote for the election of the House of Representatives in the manner and subject to the conditions set out in sec. 128. Any Act inconsistent with the Constitution, before amendment, is always held by this Court to be ultra vires. Queensland has a written Constitution also; but it is contended – after it has been in existence as a Constitution for fifty one years, that Acts inconsistent with it can be passed before any amendment of the Constitution, just as freely as in England, where there is no written Constitution or other limitation to the powers of Parliament: in fact, that the Constitution can be ignored, as my brother Higgins put it during the argument, as if it were a Dog Act. Sec. 5 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act does allow the Queensland Legislature to amend the Constitution Act of 1867, but if the contention of the appellant is right the Imperial Act has the effect of doing away with the colonial Constitutions as such, and allowing colonial legislatures to pass legislation without recognizing that there is an existing Constitution.”
McCawley appealed this decision to the Privy Council, who upheld the validity of subsection 6(6) of The Industrial Arbitration Act 1916 (Qld) as validly altering the Queensland Constitution which contemplated that all appointments to the Supreme Court be for life. Although recognising that the Queensland Constitution was a flexible constitution, one which could be amended expressly or, impliedly as in this case, the Privy Council recognised that the Queensland Parliament possessed limited sovereignty:
“The Legislature of Queensland is the master of its own household, except in so far as its powers have in special cases been restricted.”
“It is of the greatest importance to notice that where the Constitution is uncontrolled the consequences of its freedom admit of no qualification whatever. The doctrine is carried to every proper consequence with logical and inexorable precision. Thus when one of the learned Judges in the Court below said that, according to the appellant, the Constitution could be ignored as if it were a Dog Act, he was in effect expressing his opinion that the Constitution was, in fact, controlled. If it were uncontrolled, it would be an elementary commonplace that in the eye of the law the legislative document or documents which defined it occupied precisely the same position as a Dog Act or any other Act, however humble its subject matter. The fundamental contention of the respondents in this appeal requires the conclusion that the Constitution of Queensland is in the sense explained above a controlled Constitution. The inquiry ought not to be, and in fact is not, a very difficult one; and it is proposed shortly to examine the principal points which arise; but it is important at the outset to notice that the respondents do not find themselves in the position which they would occupy under any genuinely controlled Constitution with which their Lordships are familiar. In such a case, confronted with the objections by which they are met in this appeal, they would have no difficulty in pointing to specific articles in the legislative instrument or instruments which created the Constitution, prescribing with meticulous precision the methods by which, and by which alone, it could be altered. The respondents to this appeal are wholly unable to reinforce their argument by any such demonstration. And their inability has involved them in dialectical difficulties which are embarrassing and even ridiculous. They are, for instance, driven to contend—or at least they did in fact contend—that if it were desired to alter an article of the Constitution it was in the first place necessary to pass a repealing Act; and in the second place by a separate and independent Act to make the desired change effective. Counsel for the respondents, in fact, though perhaps unnecessarily, went so far as to maintain that the attempted modification would not be effectively carried out by a single Act, even if such an Act incorporated the provisions of the two Acts which, in his view, required a separate existence.”
Citing Section 5 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, the Privy Council went on to say:
“It would indeed be difficult to conceive how the Legislature could more plainly have indicated an intention to assert on behalf of colonial Legislatures the right for the future to establish Courts of Judicature, and to abolish and reconstitute them, than in the language under consideration; nor were the framers of this Act content with making provision for the future. Adhering to their fundamental purpose, which was to remove doubts as to the validity of colonial laws, they affirmed in terms that every colonial Legislature should be deemed at all times to have had full powers in the matters in question. Upon this part of the case their Lordships do not think it useful to expend time upon a more detailed examination of the materials which were so much discussed in the Courts below and which have been the subject matter of argument before the Board. In their view it is evident that unless the Act to consolidate the laws relating to the Constitution of the Colony of Queensland which was passed in 1867 contributed some new and special quality to, or imposed some new and special restriction upon, the Constitution of that Colony the argument for the respondents upon the matters hereto fore discussed wholly fails.”
Prior to Federation, there was a number of cases decided by Privy Council ruled that when not subject to a specific restriction, powers of colonial Parliaments were as “plenary and ample” as powers of British Parliament, as referred to by the High Court in Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King (1988) HCA 55 (at 14):
“The power to make laws “for the peace, welfare, and good government” of a territory is indistinguishable from the power to make laws “for the peace, order and good government” of a territory. Such a power is a plenary power and it was so recognized, even in an era when emphasis was given to the character of colonial legislatures as subordinate law-making bodies. The plenary nature of the power was established in the series of historic Privy Council decisions at the close of the nineteenth century: R v Burah (1878) 3 App Cas 889, Hodge v. The Queen (1883) 9 AppCas 117, Powell v. Apollo Candle Company (1885) 10 AppCas 282, and Riel v. The Queen (1885) 10 AppCas 675. They decided that colonial legislatures were not mere agents or delegates of the Imperial Parliament.”
Robert Garran also describes the plenary powers of the State parliaments as such on page 509 of your favorite commentary. He even cites these very cases as authorities on the matter.
So ultimately, the position of the law is that the powers to amend or even replace their own constitutions are within the powers of a State Parliament, and therefore they can be altered merely by enacting legislation inconsistent with their articles.
21. Section 51 subsection 24 of the Constitution states nothing as you imply regarding “no man can be held to a decision of a court given in his absence without his ability to defend himself”. It actually states (xxiv) “the service and execution throughout the Commonwealth of the civil and criminal process and the judgments of the courts of the States”. As Robert Garran points out at (page 614) ss 206 (Service) “Under this sub-section of the Constitution a most important power is conferred on the Federal Parliament. It will enable that Parliament to provide procedure for the service, throughout the Commonwealth, of the civil process of the courts of the States, such as writs, summonses, notices of legal applications issued in and by the courts of the States.” If you are going to cite something, you should check your citation to see if it is correct. Of course, you realize that your followers lack the cognitive ability to check your citations, because if they did, they wouldn’t be following you.
I realise of course, that you are “paraphrasing” (or rather, badly misinterpreting) the words of Robert Garran regarding Service in ss 206 (page 614):“No man can be legally bound by a judgment given behind his back and without his having had an opportunity of being heard. (Per Erle, C.J., in re Brook, 33 L.J. C.P. 246.)” but this is very unhelpful for you as you were served, and did have the opportunity to be heard, and you abused that opportunity. One of your followers actually raised this section 51(xxiv) contention in Roberts v Harkness  VSCA 215 (at 44) as an application for removal to the High Court on constitutional grounds, and the court rejected the application. In your case, the reasons were obvious, and best stated by the court in Boros v O’Keefe  VSC 560:
“The accused has a fundamental right to be present. This fundamental right is only lost if it becomes necessary by reason of the accused abusing the right to be present. The loss of this right may occur where the accused uses his or her right to be present to obstruct the proceeding in such a way that it is necessary for him or her to be removed to enable the proceeding to be completed. Where an accused is, by his or her outrageous behaviour, preventing a proceeding from continuing, a court may remove such an accused so as to avoid the consequence of being unable to complete a proceeding.”
22. As anyone with a hint of critical thought can tell, your whole video has merely been a pointless rant, full of emotive outbursts, random opinions, and a complete lack of evidence, and you have failed in every single assertion made. Don’t let it worry you though Wayne, I’m sure you’re quite happy in surrounding yourself with those around the same level of IQ as you have, so that as a collective group you possess the intelligence of a blunt pencil. Please accept my heartfelt congratulations on your success in collecting all the brainless fools in Australia that are led by moralistic fallacy. I’m sure you’ll achieve something, but it certainly won’t be anything in relation to law. If only you had someone of sound mind and is knowledgeable in these matters of law such as myself, that could offer you some sort of challenge. Unfortunately, you have for many years persisted in blocking me every time I’ve interacted with you, as you probably realise by now you really have no legitimate response that I can’t refute with evidence to the contrary within minutes. I certainly wish I had someone that could offer me some sort of dissenting opinion, it gets boring constantly being correct all the time.
This is a response to Wayne Glew’s second video directed at me, published 20-03-2021.
1. I’ll start by noting that you failed to address a single point in my last response to your video published 19-03-2021, including the numerous High Court decisions provided to the contrary. In fact, you simply repeated many of the claims, ignoring all evidence to the contrary, which actually validates my view in point 3 and point 15, regarding this tendency of yours. Instead you went off on various tangents in your rant, commonly called red herring fallacies, adding a few more contentions. So let’s address those too shall we?
2. You claimed that you won Glew v The Governor of Western Australia, so let’s look at what the actual judgment says about that. The primary case was Glew v The Governor of Western Australia  WASC 14, in which all your contentions were rejected, including that the validity of the Australia Acts had been upheld by the High Court, and that the claim s 73(2)(g) of the Constitution Act required a referendum for their enactment had no legal merit. You appealed this decision in Glew v The Governor of Western Australia  WASCA 123, and the appeal was likewise rejected, the court declared your 42 grounds of appeal were “entirely without merit” “incomprehensible” and “incorrect or irrelevant legal propositions” and a number of them to be “scandalous and offensive”. The court noted that
“The appellant needs to understand that he cannot simply revisit in other guises issues that have been decided against him. The persistent re-agitation of these issues is a waste of the time and resources of the court and puts the other party to significant expense and inconvenience. It cannot continue.”
So in reality , you did not win the case at all. Your denial of the outcome is very obvious, and borders on delusional behavior.
3. Regardless of your lengthy claims in relation to your supposed invention, (which you no doubt presented to the court) these assertions were clearly rejected. Refer to point 12 in my last response. As already stated, I deal with the final outcomes, not merely repeat the allegations as you do. You are again entering the realm of denial with the claims that “we have no lawful courts” etc. The outcome clearly shows that you lost the case, that the invention was valueless, didn’t work, and that is the only relevant issue, and it is not disputable with these claims. You exercised your right of appeal in Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd  WASCA 93, and it also failed. These facts cannot be refuted with any amount of denial. Again, the court noted:
“The appellant has persisted in running arguments that have already been decided against him, without regard to the inevitable waste of the time and resources of this court and of the party on the other side. No purpose can be served by repeating failed arguments and to continue to do so is an abuse of the system.”
4. Again you merely repeat the contention in Frank Jasper Pty Ltd v Glew [No 3]  WASC 24 on 21 June 2011, and ignore the responses of the court already stated in Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd  WASCA 87 on 22 April 2010 (at 18):
“There is no substance in ground 4. In this court, s 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA) sets out the circumstances in which trial by jury is available in civil proceedings. Section 42 provides, in effect, that if, on the application of a party to an action, the court is satisfied that (relevantly) a claim of fraud is in issue, the action shall be tried by jury unless the court is satisfied that (among other things) the trial requires any prolonged examination of documents or scientific examination which cannot conveniently be made with a jury. Unless an order for trial with a jury has been made, a civil trial is heard by a judge without a jury: O 32(3) of the Supreme Court Rules. 19 On 23 July 2009, before the trial had commenced, Mr Glew made an oral application to the primary judge for trial by jury. That was opposed by the respondent. His Honour refused the application, concluding that the trial involved technical issues and the examination of documents which made it inappropriate for a jury trial. On the appeal, Mr Glew did not challenge the exercise of the primary judge’s discretion. Rather, he contended that the refusal of a jury trial infringed s 80 of the Commonwealth Constitution and habeus corpus. Section 80 provides that the trial on indictment of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury. This, self-evidently, was not such a trial. Nor does habeus corpus assist Mr Glew..”
Therefore your whole story that it was an indictable offence that requires a trial by jury doesn’t have any legal merit.
In relation to where an actual basis for trial by jury might occur, was when you were convicted in the Geraldton Magistrates’ Court on 23 December 2011 of one offence of assaulting a public officer and one offence of obstructing an officer in the execution of his duty. Whether the offence is classified as summary or indictable depends on the nature and circumstances surrounding the offence and the injuries sustained by the officer as a result of the offence. Section 222 of the Criminal Code 1913 (WA) defines the term assault as minor as “any bodily act or gesture that attempts or threatens to apply force”. In Scratchard v R (1987) 27 A Crim R 26, the court stated that the injuries caused to the officer must constitute more than merely pain or discomfort, experienced at the time of the assault. Pursuant to section 318 l (i) and (ii) of the Criminal Code 1913 (WA) the charge of assaulting a public officer can only be heard summarily (in the Magistrates Court) if the offender was not armed with any weapon and was not in the company of another person or persons.
5. The oaths in the Schedule to the Constitution relates only to section 42, which applies to “every senator and every member of the House of Representatives” as clearly provided, not to any judges. This was a point highlighted in Jakaj v Kinnane (No 2)  ACTCA 28 (at 11).
6. Section 72 of the Constitution relates to the Justices of the High Court and of the other courts created by the Commonwealth Parliament, not the Justices of the State Supreme Courts, and doesn’t even mention oaths, It is therefore no surprise that the court rejected this contention. In fact your whole notion regarding Chapter III courts is not one based in law, as it is a State court exercising State jurisdiction, not a State court exercising Federal jurisdiction. As ruled by the High Court in Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld)  HCA 46 (from P. 36, per McHugh J. in his analysis of Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) HCA 24).
7. Regarding your citation of Forge v Securities and Investments Commission  HCA 44 that “Kirby said not only permanent judges but temporary judges must swear the oath of allegiance before taking their oath of office.” This assertion is a fabrication, and no such passage exists in the case. In fact the word “allegiance” doesn’t even appear anywhere in the judgment. It actually states (at 23) that “Finally, before an acting Judge enters upon the performance of duties pursuant to a commission, he or she must take the judicial oath or affirmation, which is a commitment to do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.” citing section 8 of the Oaths Act 1900 (NSW) and the Fourth Schedule of that Act, and not the oath in the Schedule to the Constitution. Similarly, you cited  HCA 44 in Glew Technologies Pty Ltd v Department of Planning and Infrastructure  WASCA 289 and the court responded (at 12): “Ground 5 refers to Forge v Securities and Investments Commission  HCA 44, but nothing in that decision provides a basis to conclude that the magistrate’s decision should be overturned, or that it was in any way contrary to ch III of the Commonwealth Constitution.”
8. No wonder you stuff up on simple things like this, while claiming “it’s all out of your head”. Because it IS all out of your head, in your wild imagination, and doesn’t actually exist in the passages of the judgment. As stated previously in point 16, the court is bound to the ratio decidendi of the decision, not your personal interpretation of it.
9. Similarly, the facts in my US SEC article is what you need to refute, not your flawed interpretation of it, that “it’s not an American company, it’s an Australian company registered in the US SEC.” If you actually read the article instead of merely the title, you would see that ample evidence has been supplied that it is neither. A privately owned American company uses Form 10-k U.S. Company, while a privately owned Australian company uses Form 6-k Australian Company and the Australian Government uses Form 18-k annual report foreign governments.
10. I have no interest in discussing your issues with your son, that is an issue between yourselves, as you would note if you read my comments prior to your first video, I said I will not be adding his claims to the article on my website because I see it as no more than a family squabble, anecdotal, circumstantial, and in no way deals with the matters of law as a legal resource such as my website concentrates on. I immediately questioned the identity behind the profile, and demanded proof of it, and I actually defended you to a certain extent, telling your son I hoped he inherited your powerful sense of determination, and that if he directed that energy into something more constructive than you have, (harping on the same issues for 15 years now) he could accomplish some amazing things. But identically to your son, I also see your own opinions of him as no more than a family squabble, and very anecdotal. Hence I won’t go into it any further.
11. I note your opinion that various separate individuals are “alter egos” or fake profiles, which is just that, your own opinions, completely unsubstantiated with any evidence, and hence does not even deserve a response. It does however highlight the extent you will fabricate unfounded allegations in some weak attempt to back your other opinions. You keep saying “I can prove what I say” as if it is even slightly believable. You are a serial litigation failure, a declared vexatious litigant, and have failed horribly in proving anything as history has shown. Proving things is not really your strong suit at all, as even these last two responses to your videos directed at me shows, you will deliberately manipulate the truth to meet your ends, never concede to errors in your rants despite ample evidence of them, and block anyone that attempts to publicly put you on the spot, while you do it consistently to others in your videos.
12. You claim that “the judicial system is so crooked and bent, not one of their decisions is correct” (including regarding the validity of the Australia Acts) and then go on to say “there is no precedent set by any other court but the High Court” while failing to note that the validity of the Australia Acts was upheld by the High Court in Attorney-General (WA) v Marquet (2003) HCA 67 and Shaw v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) HCA 72. This highlights a rather extreme internal inconsistency in your statements, as well as the dozens of other High Court decisions I’ve cited in both of these responses, which directly overrule your contentions.
13. You have “proven” nothing regarding the validity of the States and their constitutions, you have merely made assertions, which have already been disposed of by both the High Court and the Privy Council in McCawley v R  AC 691. See point 20 in my last response. Fail.
14. Regarding Lipohar v The Queen  HCA 65, I note that you relied on this decision in Glew v White  WASC 100 (at 28) and the court responded that your reliance “proceeds upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the law.” Similarly, in Cardinia Shire Council v Kraan;  VMC024, one of your followers also raised Lipohar with the argument that: “the decisions of the Supreme Courts of the States do not form part of the Common Law…” The court corrected his misquote with what the passage actually states (at 52): “The “common law” here is that of Australia, rather than a “federal common law” distinct from the common law of each of the other bodies politic in Australia.” And I’d agree to a certain extent with your conclusions, but this isn’t to say, as you rightly point out, that the decisions of the higher courts of the States are not binding as precedent on the inferior courts of that State, and can be persuasive on the higher courts of other States. The case was ultimately in regard to the common law as defined by section 80 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), and whether decisions of the appellate courts of the States form part of this body of law. At least since the UK Privy Council ceased to be the ultimate court of appeal for Australia, decisions of English courts as to the content of English common law are useful “only to the degree of the persuasiveness of their reasoning.” In this sense, the expression ‘common law of Australia’ signifies a distinction from the ‘common law of England’ in the same way (at 250):
“Naturally, if and when the matter comes to this Court, the result is likely to be a decision binding for all of Australia; but in the meantime, the common law applied in the States will be that which has been stated to be the law by the respective Courts of Appeal and Full Courts.”
As also stated (at 46):
“Until the High Court rules on a particular matter, the doctrines of precedent which bind the respective courts at various levels below the High Court will provide a rule for decision.”
So where I do disagree with your conclusions, is that just because “the common law of each of the other bodies politic in Australia” are not included into the common law as defined by section 80 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, but it has no recognition on a federal level. I’m not really sure why you raised this particular decision to me anyway, because I don’t think I’ve ever stated the contrary anywhere.
15. In conclusion, I think I should make comment on your general abuse nature and very childish name-calling more suited to a preschool playground than someone that holds themselves in such high esteem as a man of noble qualities. Namely continually calling me a liar, maggot, etc etc, especially when you severally lack the substantiation to evidence that I have been in any way dishonest, or even stated a thing inconsistent with the decisions of the higher courts . As anyone can no doubt see and appreciate, I do not resort to those levels of depravity, and rather try to deal with the issues relevant to the law. I do however point out that there are very obvious flaws in your logic, and quite possibly your intelligence, due to the amount of easily established errors that you perpetuate. I can only hope that your next video displays a more fitting example of the virtuous man you claim to be, instead of demonstrating the complete opposite.
I should also add that I’d like you demonstrate that you possess the cognitive ability to debate rationally on these points of law provided for you in both this and my previous response, instead of resorting to various logical fallacies and demonstrating my fears that you are incapable of such intellectual discourse, and only capable of the childish tantrums you’ve displayed in these last two videos.
Wayne Glew’s video published 06-04-21
(Video deleted by Facebook due to threats and incitement of violence against authorities)
(1) At 0:42 in this video, Wayne insists on the relevance of the Magna Carta retorting…
“Anne Twomey, shut your mouth you have no idea what you’re talking about, you can blab on as a professor saying it’s no longer relevant, but you’re a liar, it is, and to sit in your position and say what you’re saying, you’re lying…”
A few days prior he posted a screenshot of the first page of a paper by Amelia Devlyn called “The Magna Carta and Its Relevance to Contemporary Australia”. If he read further than the first page he would note that Amelia Devlyn states that only chapter 29 is in force in most States of Australia, and definitely not the chapters that were repealed before it’s reception into Australia, such as the article 61 he relies on.
If he looked even further, he would note the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia in their document “United Kingdom Statutes in Force in Western Australia” specifically state that only chapter 29 is in force in Western Australia.
Finally, he seems to think this is just Anne Twomey’s opinion, whereas the High Court has ruled on the matter beginning with Chia Gee & Ors v Martin (1905) 3 CLR 649. Sir Samuel Griffith, the first Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, and arguably the principal drafter of the Commonwealth Constitution, dismissed this in a single sentence: “The contention that a law of the Commonwealth is invalid because it is not in conformity with Magna Charta is not one for serious refutation.” Justices Barton and O’Connor concurred with the Chief Justice. Justice Barton, who was the first Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, and Justice O’Connor, were both involved in the Constitutional conventions, Barton extensively so. Following from this, it is the position of the High Court, not just Anne Twomey, in cases such as Ex parte Walsh and Johnson; in re Yates (1925) 37 CLR 36; Re Cusack (1985) 60 ALJR 302; Skyring v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1991) 23 ATR 84; and in Essenberg v The Queen  HCATrans 297, where McHugh J. said:
“Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights are not documents binding on Australian legislatures in the way that the Constitution is binding on them. Any legislature acting within the powers allotted to it by the Constitution can legislate in disregard of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. At the highest, those two documents express a political ideal, but they do not legally bind the legislatures of this country or, for that matter, the United Kingdom. Nor do they limit the powers of the legislatures of Australia or the United Kingdom.“
But Wayne would know this if he actually read his favorite commentary, instead of just waving it about in front of a camera. Robert Garran makes clear on page 316 that Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights and the Bill of Rights “…may guide but cannot bind the British Parliament, which may repeal them at any time.”
And likewise on page 721 regarding the the ability to repeal Magna Carta here in Australia, that “…no constitutional limitation is imposed on the plenary power of a colonial legislature.”
New Zealand also has the exact same situation as here in Australia, only chapter 29 remains valid. As explained by David Clark in “In a Constitutional State – Magna Carta in New Zealand 1840-2015“:
“Given that the British Parliament repealed most of Magna Carta 1297 between 1863 and 1969 because its terms were either obsolete as they dealt with medieval circumstances that had passed into history, or because some of the problems had been addressed in later statutes, the problem for New Zealand was whether the wholesale adoption approach remained useful. A Law Commission report in 1987 recommended a special statute that identified particular Imperial enactments for retention and also identified the provisions of those acts that would remain part of New Zealand law. The result was the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 (NZ), which, by s 3(1) and the First Schedule, retained only chapter 29 of 1297 as part of the law of New Zealand.”
But Wayne Glew holds this unshakable belief that all the provisions of the Magna Carta are current and valid, and consistently relies on Article 61 to establish a right to lawful rebellion, including his claims of “seizing” the three branches of the Western Australian government.
Regarding Article 61 of the Magna Carta, the identical situation applies in Australia as it does in Canada, due to the fact, as Amelia Devlyn points out above, that only those articles that were not repealed by the British Parliament prior to their reception in these colonies, were received in these colonies. Article 61 is one provision that lost its effect only a year after its inception, so it was certainly not received in these colonies, only the remaining provisions of the later 1297 charter, not the outdated 1215 charter, were received in Australia.
These assertions regarding the existence and effect of article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta were recently addressed by Justice Robert Graesser in the Court of Queen’s Bench in Alberta, Canada, in AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 489 on the same basis in AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 790 regarding a local variety of the “Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion” group.
“Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta has nothing to do with the rights of individual persons, but instead only granted a counsel of 25 barons the authority to seize King John’s castles, lands, and possessions in the event of a dispute between the barons and the king. Worse, when King John died in 1216, so did the provision of the 1215 Magna Carta that MCLR adherents claim creates their extraordinary status. These modern Magna Carta rebels have therefore mustered over 800 years too late.”
However, the spirit of Article 61 of the Magna Carta is alive and well, and has long since evolved through the principle of Responsible Government. Like most other articles of the Magna Carta, the intention and effect had been addressed by later statutes, by convention, or other constitutional enactments. Through the age of enlightenment with the further extrapolations of numerous philosophers and legal minds, to the US Declaration of Independence, with the incorporated ability to “alter or abolish” the form of government, and notions highlighting the consent of the governed. The spirit of Article 61 of the Magna Carta is now a ceremony that occurs every few years at election time, as the people gather to “alter or abolish” the current form of government if the majority so wishes.
(2) Another point that needs highlighting, is the provisions of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) he is quoting do not apply to authorities who are acting under other laws. Section 10.5 “Lawful authority” provides that “A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the conduct constituting the offence is justified or excused by or under a law.” The various sections also have specific exemptions, for example in relation to section 270, section 270.12 provides that section 270 is “not intended to exclude or limit the operation of any other law of the Commonwealth or any law of a State or Territory.”
(3) Far too many times have his own rants been in conflict with the words of Robert Garran in his favorite commentary, like his flawed interpretation of section 116 of the Commonwealth Constitution in the comments to this video. Section 116 applies only to the Commonwealth government, and does not preclude the states of Australia from making such laws. The first draft, approved by the Melbourne Convention of 1891, would have prohibited the states from passing laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, but the amendment was defeated. It was feared the provision would impede the states’ legislative powers, so section 116 passed and did not mention the states, as Robert Garran notes on pages 951 to 953, and the High Court in Kruger v Commonwealth  HCA 27.
MORE RESPONSES SOON TO BE PUBLISHED HERE:
Wayne Glew’s fourth video directed at me, published 22-04-2021
Wayne Glew’s fifth video directed at me, published 24-04-2021.
Wayne Glew’s sixth video directed at me, published 24-04-2021.
Wayne Glew’s seventh video directed at me, published 25-04-2021.
Wayne Glew’s eighth video directed at me, published 26-04-2021.
Wayne Glew’s ninth video directed at me, published 04-05-2021.
Wayne Glew’s tenth video directed at me, published 05-05-2021.
Wayne Glew’s eleventh video directed at me, published 06-05-2021.
For more on Wayne Glew’s failed litigation history, why he was declared a vexatious litigant, why he lost his property, and also the outcome of his recent case you can read my previous article Wayne Glew which also includes pdf versions of each of the complete judgments of all of his cases in the higher courts.