Private prosecution of PM for treason leads to vexatious litigant status

It took an awfully long time — almost 15,000 words — for Justice Hansen to state the bleeding obvious in Attorney-General for the State of Victoria v Shaw [2007] VSC 1148, but in the circumstances, I well understand why his Honour desired to appeal-proof his judgment. Mr Shaw, who as a newly annointed vexatious litigant, must obtain leave of the Supreme Court before commencing proceedings, may be Victoria’s most unsuccessful litigant. He unsuccessfully sued (in many cases as private prosecutor of serious criminal offences) the Chief Magistrate, Masters Wheeler, Evans, Kings and Cain and Justice Smith of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal’s President Winneke, Justices of Appeal Brooking, Charles, Buchanan, and Chernov, the High Court’s Justices Kirby, Callinan, Crennan, Gummow, Heydon, Gleeson, and Hayne, the Commonwealth Governor-General, the Victorian and Commonwealth Directors of Public Prosecutions, the Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of Victoria, Rob Hulls and the Attorney-Generals of Tasmania and NSW, and Julia Gillard. He sued Kim Beazley and John Howard for treason and misprision of treason. He had been declared vexatious already in Western Australia, and took to suing a similar cast of Western Australians in Victorian courts — for an enumeration of these actions, see the judgment…

Of course there were the predictable forms of hopeful litigation, such as the defence of speeding charges on the bases that ‘the Magistrate’s [sic.] Court at Werribee was never legally Constituted, because Victoria does not have a valid Constitution,’ and ‘The Queen of England has abdicated her role as DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, that faith being Christian, by abdicating to the foreign power of Freemasonry’. But one must admire the chutzpah in the attempt to convoke a grand jury under s. 354 of the Crimes Act, 1958 to rule on Mr Shaw’s arguments that:

(a) a Freemason conspiracy has corrupted the judiciary and the court process in Victoria;

(b) there is currently an illegal conspiracy, already commenced in Western Australia, to fracture the Commonwealth of Australia and create a republic in its place; and

(c) the Victorian Constitution is invalid and enacted without legal authority.

I have long been intrigued by the name of my fellow member of the Victorian Bar, Dr John Francis Patrick Cyril Colclough Walsh of Brannagh. I looked him up for the first time this evening, and found that he is the one-time Chancellor of the Greenwich University on Norfolk Island, set up by the Greenwich University Act 1998 (Norfolk Island). Dr Walsh, Mr Shaw’s counsel, made the following submission to Justice Hansen:

‘What Mr Shaw wants to do is to have these matters aired and the simplest way to get rid of this man who is a farmer is to have the matters heard before a jury and if the charges have no substance, if they are hopeless, if they lack merit as my learned friend puts it, the jury will see this quite clearly. Charges will be dismissed, the defendants will be free to go and Mr Shaw will go back to his farming activities, but until that day happens he is concerned.’

It was faintly reminiscent, I thought, of this passage commenting on the client from the memorandum to counsel of one of the allegedly negligent solicitors in Arthur J.S. Hall & Co (a firm) v Simons, the English case which abolished advocates’ immunity:

‘Cockbone is a typical farmer. He lives in cloud cuckoo land and will say whatever comes into his head at that particular moment. . . . The inadequacy and superficiality of these instructions is greatly regretted . . . Please conduct the case simply to the best of your ability with the information at your disposal. We are well aware it is less than adequate.’

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

20 Replies to “Private prosecution of PM for treason leads to vexatious litigant status”

  1. Here is my question, and its a very serious one. Is someone paying you to write this?
    You haven't been able to refute any of Brian Shaw's claims. Simply stating that someone is a 'vexatious litigant' won't make the evidence of treason magically disappear.
    Either refute the evidence that is still tied up in the court system, or admit that you are trying to smear a man who is standing up to a corrupt corporate system which no longer represents the interests of the Australian people.

    1. Liz
      Well spotted.
      However, to confront a solicitor and expect comitment and honesty in a response is unreasonable.
      Even in a Court of their Law they tell "little white lies from the Bar table". Howz that? Why? You ask. Answer: Because they can and they know they can get away with it.
      Jie Fu Kwan Wu; Author of Without Prejudice, Nailing the Standard

  2. Having thoroughly researched all of this, and can I say how much people tried to prevent me from getting the information in a suitable format for any blind persons, I am amazed. I am not a lawyer, I’ve never studied law formally, before I went blind I was an insurance investigator. i knew enough law to know what I had to do to investigate a claim that was it. But I heard things. I heard about masons, even though it was suppose to be some secret society and whatever else. It’s taken me 2 years to find what Brian was saying in a format which I can read as a blind person. I will go on record and say that blindless agencies and government departments didn’t look after my constitutional rites as a blind person and go out of their way and provide me with the information in an accessible format. I could easily have got it as a fully sighted person when I had full sight, but the reluctance to put certain documents in alternative formats was astounding. So after 2 years of exhaustive research, I want Brian to contact me. I want to take up Brian’s case in my name. I’ll pay for everything. Brian, if you’re out there, call me 0434 503 607. Email me at

  3. Wolter,

    Can you send me your ph no or email address? I have tried to send you a full report on legal proceedings I am taking on behalf of the fishing industry but this system is not sending it on and I’m not typing this out again.All this bullshit about spam being stopped by wordpress is wasting everybody’s time. This may not go to you in which case that’s all the time I’m wasting on this nonsense.

  4. As in the Closimo case where there were more then 20 lawyers involved against him and he was also represented by a barrister, finding to be placed under administration upon medical evidence and already been through 5 contempt hearings, that when I took over the case I showed that all the lawyers involved never had attended to the issue that Mr Colosimo was never even formally charged with contempt! More over, the medical evidence was based upon that Mr Closimo refused to accept being convicted for contempt (which never eventuated!) and this may just underline that and for this was placed under administration! Well, I got rid of all orders against Mr Colosimo and did so free of charge! Mr Stephen Warne you may know a lot about legislation but it appears to me nothing or about next to nothing about constitutional matters and I understand Shaw based his case upon constitutional issues. I had no input in the Saw case but well aware some of his issues had constitutional founded arguments.

  5. Lawyers are so smart that when they signed up with an internet provider such as iiNet then the terms of agreement includes disclosure to Authorities and so there goes their client-solicitor confidentiality! (And as I pointed out to iiNet the legislation it referred to didn't even exist! iiNet later acknowledged it was wrong!.)
    Declaring a person to be a vexatious litigant (justified or not) isn't going to resolve the issues at hand, if there are any.
    I may not have agreed with Shaw as to how he went about matters but it doesn't mean he was totally and uitterly wrong on all points and I view Stephen Warne as a legal practitioner rather should have had concerns that critical uissues such as a State constitution may indeed be ULTRA VIRES and should have been appropriately explored in litigation.

  6. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST it appears to me that Stephen Warne as a legal practitioner thinks he knows it all. It is not that I agreed with Shaw about everything, as I made then already clear, however If Stephen Marne as a legal practitioner doesn't even know and/or understand that the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975 is unconstitutional this as since federation all colonies now within s106 being States lost their colonial sovereign Parliaments and now only have constitutional Parliaments who cannot amend their own constitutions but require a State referendum to approve a proposed amendment to the State constitution then who really is the fool, I may ask?
    Lawyers are so smart that when both parties are represented by lawyers 50% of the lawyers are in the wrong!

  7. It’s pretty hilarious that some one would demand that Mr. Warne respond to a response to a three year old blog entry.

    If you want Warne to take the time to respond to your ridiculous comment, I suggest you pay his going rate.

  8. Hello again,

    I was just wanting a legal opinion – Is this vexatious as well 😉 I think corrupt judiciary should probably replace there wigs with crash helmets – but what would i know……. right?

    The unlawfully corporation known as "The Commonwealth of Australia" has been served in the High court of Australia!

    Yours in Truth and Honor

  9. Hi There,

    The old "vexatious litigant" trick hey ? Ripper – no one saw that coming. Brian Shaw is an Australian Hero. Brave enough to do your job for you. Who do you serve? The People of Australia or the Liar Society (did I spell that wrong?).
    If you had the courage to honor your oaths (except the Victorians – we all know you don't take them) then it would not be necessary for Brian to do it for you.
    I suspect what troubles you the most is his courage and his display of virtue must surely hold a mirror up to the collection of weaklings and sell outs known as the BA (there goes that spelling again!).
    You can only "attempt" to stand between Gillard and friends and their date with destiny (a grand jury to dumbies like the public) – that IS going to happen. You see the illusion just isn't that magical anymore.
    Actually on reflection there may be a course of action left for you – grow some ball and do your job – who knows – you might earns some respect – however unlikely that may seem.

    Yours in Truth and Honor

  10. Dear Sir,

    How very droll…

    As one who prefers not to ass-u-me anything and since you have asserted "I did not delete them, and I am unaware of any glitches.", maybe, given the complex nature of the technology at hand, further investigation via a simple application of Hanlon's razor might indicate either you or your webmaster has simply, "seemingly" accidently, turned the public display of those comments off…

    Regardless, I would like to thank you for your statement in the article “the chutzpah in the attempt to convoke a grand jury” which led me to investigate matters concerning jurisdiction and I now have a much better understanding of why the law of the land (our constitution) can and is held in contempt within Australian Courts when said Court operates under ‘Admiralty’ jurisdiction and for this I am truly grateful.

    I wish you well in your ongoing adventures in the fictional world of legalese and once again thank you for your time and effort.

    Goodbye and God bless.

  11. Dear Sir,

    Firstly thank you for your blog. Due to the subject matter in this entry being raised by inference in the more recent Peter Spencer affair I thought I would check back here to see if you had responded to the issues raised in comments left by one "Wolter Joosse".

    You can of course imagine my surprise to find that your site is now proclaiming 'There are no comments posted yet. Be the first one!'

    Thus I am left wondering as to what may have occurred…

    Does your site currently have a technical problem preventing display of comments?
    I suppose the answer to this will become obvious if this is posted…

    Did your site have a technical problem and the restore of those comments from backups failed?
    In this case I may be able to post the questions as put so that the discussion can continue…

    Has some external entity required removal of those comments or have you chosen to censor those comments due to the nature of the questions asked? If so why?

    Kindest Regards


  12. Stephen,

    One would think by your blog title;

    “Stephen Warne on professional negligence, regulation and discipline around the world”

    that the issues raised above, require at least a response, or is the title actually referring to your own ‘professional negligence, regulation and discipline around the world’?

    Come on mate, think back to the reasons that ORIGINALLY prompted you to get into law, (assuming that they were not ALL financially driven) were any of those reasons to stand up for the rights of your fellow Australians?

    Your non-response only further solidifies the disrespect I have for 90% of lawyers.

    Ian Heatherich

  13. Am I correct in saying that our new Prime Minister should have stood down from her parliamentary position once she was charged with treason in the Melbourne Magistrate Court according to Commonwealth Law? Why is she still there? Why aren’t all the media asking this question? If what Mr.Shaw is saying is incorrect why is the judiciary ducking and weaving, it appears as though they are a law unto themselves, and the rest of us plebs are excrement below their feet. This surely does “stink a rat” ,we out there aren’t stupid Mr.Warne, you are just another person residing in our midst who is part of a fraternity who obviously consider themselves masters rather than servants of the people, shame on you all!!! Keep up the good work Brian, these treacherous tyrants ought to be exposed for what they are trying to establish.

    Erik Ceslis
    Managing Director
    Cescom Enterprises Pty Ltd

  14. Dear Mr Warne, I am personally also disappointed not to have received a response from you and must question the purpose of your site [and personal comments].

    Could you at least provide for your readers a definition of what constitutes an act of treason.

    Also could you explain by what lawful process the Legislature of Victoria removed Grand Jury applications. Members elected to the Parliament have an inherent duty of care, as trutees and delegates, to uphold the rights of the people and protect them from the rogue courts and judges and or de facto authority. No clearer evidence of a court dispensing with law was more evident than the Magistrates’Court Melbourne on 15 December 2006 when the Chief Magistrate allowed the accused to take over their own prosecution, only not to have them lead any evidence [that would convict them]. The Chief Magistrate also instructed Mr Shaw ‘not to bring the Constitution [ie law] into his court’. No member of Parliament could claim to have a mandate to vote for the repeal of Grand Jury and thereby deny the people their independent court to deal with situations described above. Each and every member would surely be liable to action and a claim for damages. Your learned views would be most welcome.
    Wolter Joosse

  15. It is clear from Mr Warne’s inability or refusal to refute the irrefutable arguments of Mr Joose that Mr Warne is a freemason who believes in and with every word he utters engages in treason.

    All of the money he makes from this blog, which no doubt runs into the millions, should be seized forthwith and held in a sty until Mr Warne renounces his treason and wears a pink mohair jumper to Court, though a true Court and not the illegal ones we have in Australia.

    Rudi III of the Republic of Winkie Wee Wollop and Dollop

  16. I think it is clear, having now had three months to respond to Walter Joosse, that Mr Warne is either still in the legal books and journals searching for a response; not able to find a suitable challenge to the comments: or, runs his blog purely to make money and ridicule the seemingly defenceless.

  17. Dear Sir,

    without prejudice and in answer to your comments re: Mr Shaw, I would like to leave the comments and questions below for your subscribers:

    In view of your understanding of this matter, it strikes me as odd that you fail to comment on the fact that the removal of the Crown by any State or Federal Legislature constitutes irrefutably an act of treason. Attempting to conceal treason, that is to say, being notified of the fact, constitutes misprision of treason. But since you claim to understand law and charge for legal advice, I guess I need not explain that to you.

    Was it not odd, that the Chief Magistrate allowed some of the defendants, the DPP of the Commonwealth and of the State, to take over their own prosecution? Was that decision not the most unthinkable and unforgiving decision of any judge or magistrate in the jurisprudence of the State or Commonwealth?

    It is suprising that you failed to comment on this, as indeed you failed to comment on the direction of the Chief Magistrate to Mr Shaw not to bring the Constitution [Law] into his court. It also appears to have slipped your notice that in matters of treason the DPP is prohibited by statute from taking over the prosecution, let alone when they are the defendants themselves.

    Furthermore it must have slipped your attention that one qualifies automatically for a Grand Jury application when a court fails the prosecute. Grand Jury is a remedy and safeguard for the people when facing a court that is not independent and dispenses with law. One will never see a more fitting situation as the one that unfolded on 15 December 2006 in the Magistrate’s Court, Melbourne.

    To declare a person vexatious when knowing that no evidence had been led is yet another amazing decision, and is obviously an attempt by the ‘boys club’ to ensure that none of its members will appear before a Grand Jury.

    In regards to Mr Shaw’s claim, rightly or wrongly, regarding Freemasons, the record shows, or ought to, that Justice Hanson refused to allow witnesses to give evidence on oath and refused to view video evidence. Both Justice Hanson and the Attorney representing the Attorney-General, accused himself of treason, accepted that the oaths of Freemason were those which had been submitted by Mr Shaw. In doing so, it is strange that whilst these qualify under the Criminal Code as ‘unlawful oaths’ Mr Shaw was deemed to be vexatious. In truth and reality this is deemed dispensing with a law and aiding and abetting the offenders.

    In regards to Mr Shaw’s claim that Victoria has no validly constituted courts, maybe you wish to advice the readers of your blog from where the Victorian Legislature obtained lawful authority to repeal an Act of the Parliament at Westminster, the Victorian Constitution 1855, and from where it derived the power to create its own constitution without consent of the people, when authority was only granted to repeal, alter, or vary any or all clauses under the 1855 Act and to place others in lieu thereof. That is to say within the same Act. Or explain how the queen of Australia replaced the Queen of the UK under the ultra vires Victorian Constitution Act, 1975 when it never enacted a Royal Style & Titles Act of its own, and could not since it was subject to the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865. Or whilst the Office of Governor was and remained under the Letters Patent and Instructions 1900 & 1913 of the Queen of the UK. That is the Queen in [Divine] Right at Westminster, and the Queen to whom all Australians owe allegiance pursuant to Covering Clause Five and the Schedule of the Constitution Act 1900. It might have slipped your attention that at exactly the same time & date as the ultra vires Australia Acts, fresh Letters Patents were issued under the hand of the Queen in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. It goes without saying that the Governors of the States could hardly claim to be acting in the name of the fictional queen of Australia whilst under Letters Patent and Instructions of, and occupying the Office of Governor to the Queen of the United Kingdom.

    Maybe you ought to acquaint yourself with the introduction of the Royal Styles Bill (1953) in Hansard by PM Menzies (as he was then) and learn that the title “Queen of Australia” was designed only for use amongst Commonwealth nations for the ‘Head of the Commonwealth’ and not for the Queen under our constitutions. PM Menzies reminded the House that covering clause Two and section 8 of the Statute of Westminster prohibited the Queen under the constitutions to be altered by the Australian Legislature.

    I suggest I could go on further and remind you of s.42 of the Federal Constitution and the fact that a foreign oath, not the one mandated under the Constitution, was administered and subscribed by members of Parliament, rendering all ineligible to take their seat in Parliament and make all liable to a charge of treason. Or the fact that governments in Australia are acting as corporate republics without the consent of the people, or that there cannot be any Australian ‘citizens’ because the power to define or deal with an Australian ‘citizen’ had been explicitly denied to the Parliament by the Framers following a motion by Dr John Quick . of Quick & Garran fame, seeking that power at the Third Melbourne Convention 1898, or the fact that the Australian British subjects enjoy the guaranteed protection of the Coronation Oath and Contract which mandates, that they are to be governed in accordance to the Laws of God and the Natural Law.

    In view of the fact, that you were so outspoken in regards to Mr Shaw and Sir John Walsh of Brannagh, I believe that it is appropriate that you provide your readers with answers to the above, based on law. Failing to do so shall be taken and construed that you cannot provide answers that are founded on law, and accept that our system is ungodly, treasonous, and that the queen and government have abdicated government by operation of law on grounds of breach of contract.

    It should also be mentioned that since you have been made aware of the various constitutional problems, the dispensing of law, the removal of the Crown (even under the Legal Practice Act the oath of allegiance has been removed) that you are required by law to act. Failing to act would make you liable to a charge of misprision.

    I look forward to your learned comments

    Wolter Joosse

Leave a Reply