First, Wayne Kenneth Glew, who appears to fall into the Sovereign Hedgehog / Settler school of misconduct. I detected him as he self-describes as a Freeman-on-the-Land. He has an extensive litigation history, so I’ll review some of his actions:
GLEW -v- WHITE  WASCA 138: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/W ... 2/138.html
GLEW -v- WHITE  WASC 100:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/W ... 2/100.html
I don’t think the trial decision is reported.
Municipal officers visited Glew’s residence as they suspected there was a fire. They had a duty to investigate under the Bush Fires Act - great legislation name! 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’s next litigation involves a number of decisions:
FRANK JASPER PTY LTD -v- GLEW [No 2]  WASC 24: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/WASC/2010/24.html
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 in 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. [Does Mercedes even manufacture those?]
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.
An earlier case relates to trial procedural issues and is not directly relevant: FRANK JASPER PTY LTD -v- GLEW  WASC 13: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/WASC/2009/13.html
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  WASCA 186: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/W ... 8/186.html
GLEW -v- FRANK JASPER PTY LTD  WASCA 87:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/W ... 10/87.html
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 3]  WASC 24: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/WASC/2012/24.html
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  WASCA 93:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/W ... 12/93.html
What a surprise – Glew isn’t happy with that result, and tries to appeal on basically the same basis as in  WASCA 87. The court rejects the leave application for essentially the same reasons as before. Furthermore, Glew walked out of the proceedings, and any defect for that was his own fault.
GLEW -v- CITY OF GREATER GERALDTON  WASCA 94: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/W ... 12/94.html
No idea what this lawsuit is about, but Glew tried the same appeal grounds that he used in  WASCA 87. It still doesn’t work.
GLEW -v- THE GOVERNOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA  WASCA 123: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/W ... 9/123.html
GLEW -v- THE GOVERNOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA  WASC 14: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/WASC/2009/14.html
Glew seeks to blow up the government. More specifically, he “issued a writ of summons on 28 August 2008 directed to the Governor of Western Australia.” The Crown responds this is crap and should be struck out. The Courts agree.
The Court of Appeal provides a brief summary of Glew's argument:
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.
6 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.
7 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'.
8 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.
A more detailed run-down is provided in the trial decision, but it looks about all the same.
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.
And perhaps unsurprisingly, Mr. Glew doesn’t like to pay taxes:
Glew & Anor v Shire of Greenough  WASCA 260: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/W ... 6/260.html
Glew & Anor v Shire of Greenough  HCATrans 520: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/ ... 7/520.html
GLEW -v- SHIRE OF GREENOUGH [No 2]  WASCA 75:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/W ... 08/75.html
These all relate to the same constitutional issues Glew argued on other occasions. If I understand  WASCA 260 correctly, one of Glew’s arguments is the bizarre idea that the government had become rogue because of a couple referendums which occurred, but were not successful (paras. 22-25). Very odd indeed.
So we’ve seen the cases, what about the man?
Wayne keeps a high public profile, and claims to be a former police man and "prosecutor". With the public label, “The Talking Bulldog”, one can find a plethora of his videos on the Internet, for example:
[as “Wayne Glew Strawman”]
[as part of the Constitutional People]
This last collection includes a number of clandestine videos but I’m not certain to what proceeding they are linked.
Aside from the attacks on specific aspects of Australia's constitution and federal structure, there just do not seem to be any novel concepts in play here. Glew seems to have a number of like-minded allies who use similar techniques and ideas, and have also been the subject of reported court cases, which I will hopefully have a chance to summarize at a future point.