A CHARGE of vexatious litigation against Victorian farmer Brian Shaw is the trigger to challenge the validity of the one-vote, one-value legislation passed by the WA State Government after the last election.
Mr Shaw, who also is a WA landholder, provoked the Supreme Court lawsuit after filing a common law charge of treason against Attorney-General Jim McGinty.
Mr Shaw was in WA this week to drum up public interest and support for the case, arguing more than 80 amendments removing the Crown and Monarch from Acts in WA were invalid.
It will be alleged that Mr McGinty ordered reference to the Crown or Her Majesty be deleted and replaced with the word State in the Acts Amendment and Repeal (Courts and Legal Practice) Act 2003, bypassing sections of the state constitution and making the amendments invalid.
Binding conditions in the constitution meant such changes, including one-vote, one-value, had to be automatically decided by public referendums before passing both house of Parliament with an absolute majority.
Since coming into force on January 1, 2004, the changes made all and every Act emanating from the State Parliament void because of the criminal offence committed by all of the individuals involved in the illegal removal of the Crown and Monarch.
The Electoral Amendment and Repeal Act 2005, better known as one-vote, one-value, was caught in this invalidity.
Mr Shaw said his charge with a vexatious writ was the catalyst for court action to overturn the constitutional changes and the one-vote, one-value legislation.
He hoped country people would turn out in force for the court case to demonstrate public interest, which under section 13 of the Criminal Act would win him immunity from prosecution as a person disclosing information in the public interest.
An application for a criminal trial was dismissed earlier in the Supreme Court by Justice John McKechnie, who ruled there was no public interest in the matter.
Mr Shaw said irrespective of the Court of Appeal decision (the matter will be heard at 10.30am on April 6) the matter had to go to the High Court of Australia because of the constitutional and criminal breaches.
Two public meetings, including one at Narrogin on Monday night, were attended by people who shared his concern that the constitution was being changed by stealth and would rob future generations of their rights and heritage.
One concerned citizen said the changes to the constitution would turn WA into a state with statute law similar to Indonesia, where people had no right of appeal.