Sovereign Citizen Case Law Echo-chamber

“Fraud unravels everything, fraud vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a degree of solemnity” with the transaction void as from the beginning by the fact itself. 

Lord Parker LJ.

The Just Because Rule (JBR)

Just Because someone labels you as something it doesn’t make it true – labels stick and the label of Domestic Terrorist (Sovereign Citizen) by Police, Judiciary and media can have real and lasting harmful consequences.

In court you can refute the label of Sovereign Citizen, OPCA litigant or Pseudo-law enthusiast and it won’t make one iota of difference. If you assert your rights as a Self-litigant and have been labelled as such and they will proceed as if you are regardless.

In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, despite refuting the label of Sovereign Citizen, OPCA litigant and Pseudo-law enthusiast, Justice Musikanth rather than addressing the points of law presented in the appeal he labelled the arguement as gobbledygook. A degrading label – using an opinion statement NOT LAW to deflect addressing my points of appeal!

Appeal Points deflected

1. Divine Special Appearance Mentioned in the transcript: Living Woman. Magistrate accepted our Divine Special Appearance: “I don’t know what that means but I will take your word for it”.
2. Magistrate directed the witness, Owain FIANDER not to answer citing irrelevance as reasoning which aided and abetted the Prosecution’s case creating an estoppel of the defence to cross examine the witness.
3. The Reasoning of Relevance is to be drawn out by cross-examination of the Witness, not determined by the Magistrates opinion to stop the witness answering question. The defence case arrived at an estoppel of the witness testimony and could not proceed: Interfering with the defence’s case during cross-examination of a sworn witness to give evidence in chief.
4. Unfair trial, diminishing capacity to question the witness in lawful cross-examination by the interference of the Magistrate interjecting and stopping the witness answering, acting on behalf of the prosecutions case. The Magistrate is acting in favour of the prosecutions case. Impartiality of adjudication duty was not present
5. Procedural unfairness demonstrated by the Magistrates continual hinderance to stop the defence drawing out relevance in cross examination, the legal name, being the primary legal instrument in the original prosecution notice, to create joinder with the word person in the act to infer person and Dawn Michelle Kelly are one and the same, by way of trespass of the Magistrate an estate name without consent.
6. The Magistrate in the transcript states that the word “person” in the act means “everyone”, no evidence was brought forward in trial by the Magistrate or the prosecution that “person” and “everyone” includes Dawn Michelle Kelly by the Magistrate inferring that it does, are we to believe Magistrates inference words alone.
7. Magistrate stated cross-examination questions were irrelevant shutting down our defence case. All questions put to the Witness in Chief were not in violation to s.26, 1 (a)(b) of the Evidence Act (WA). The questions put to the witness in chief were not misleading, unduly annoying, harassing, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, or repetitive.
8. Non-Impartiality ruling of the magistrate directing the witness not to answer clearly illustrates biasness contra to the Evidence Act s.26. Relevancy is not a condition to direct a witness not to answer.
9. Magistrate in his direction to a witness not to answer is withholding true testimony to be given in chief by right of cross examination.
10. Seditious expressive demeanour of Magistrate holds fast to objectionable decisions contra to law: When the Magistrate answered “Not today at least” to the question “So the Crown has no relevance in any law” it demonstrated his presence of mind in the face of adversity, the Crown MUST be in the forefront of fairness in the adjudication process in the Kings Courts.
11. In The transcript: “It doesn’t change the elements of the offences” however the element of the legal name eluded, is the primary instrument of prosecution.
12. Protection from Statutory Encroachment. Clarity of Language – Ambiguity in Statutes must be challenged and cannot be denied: The Magistrate yet again blocking the defence right of cross-examination directing the witness not to answer the question being put to the witness “Why is the name of the drivers licence back to front with the surname first and the Christian name second in all capital letters because it does not appear to be in any form of correct Kings English text in relation to the Oxford Styles Manual or the Chicago Styles Manual article 11.147, 16th Edition?
13. The Magistrate shut down the defence line of questioning pertaining to the legal name by instructing the witness: “Don’t answer that… it’s irrelevant” “Question is not relevant …. Move on” “I’m not letting you waste time” and “We know what the charges are, you don’t need to read them” …
14. The Legal Name Decedent is the Primary Legal Instrument for Prosecution: The Magistrate: ‘Question is not relevant …. Move on’ ‘I’m not letting you waste time’ – ‘Okay. So, Officer Fiander, why is the name on the drivers licence back-to-front with the surname first and the Christian name second … ‘- – – capital letters? Because it does not appear to be in any form of correct – correct form of King’s English text in relation to Oxford Style – – -‘; …
15. Magistrate used ‘time’, as a restraining reasoning to expedite the trial on an economic basis over a judicial duty to adjudicate fairness of an accused preventing full or hinder the progression of defence cross examination as a right. In doing so, favouring the prosecutions case against the accused defence right at trail denying the cross in full.
16. On the introduction of the illustrated drivers licence to the witness to establish the authenticity of the licence being issued by the Department of Transport and showing the legal name in all caps: capitalisation.
17. The Magistrate directed the prosecution witness … ‘Don’t answer that’ … ‘I’m directing him not to answer it’: The magistrate holding in direction the witness not to answer, as acting council for the witness on the principal: privilege against Self-incrimination, ‘ not to answer’, hears no substance in reasoning as the witness is not on trial the accused is.
18. The Magistrate in his directions to the witness for the prosecution knowingly perverted the course of justice against the accused.

Evidence presented at trial stating Owain Fiander labelled the accused as a sovereign citizen, being the Suzuki Grand Vitara displaying sovereign citizen banners, being the 1901 federal land flag, the flag our Anzacs fought under, which is this flag here. This is what he’s calling – this is what police and governments call a sovereign citizen banner, and it is not.

Okay, lawful authority citations. We’ve got the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. Anyway, I’m not going to go into that too much here. Actually what I will say that relates to this, the corporatised governments of Western Australia, being the Magistrates Court and the Supreme Court, have erred in judgement and opinion, and as a consequence of perpetuating a damning culture of implicit bias, discrimination, and prejudicial attitudes, in this case specifically, Vandongen Js judgment in Kelly v Fiander 187, wrongly labelled myself as a pseudo-law devotee.

That then created an avenue for Young M to place an estoppel on my defence case, resulting in a perversion and miscarriage of justice. This widespread and dangerous level has far-reaching consequences in how groups of people are perceived. My personal treatment by police, judges and magistrates, government employees and society support this culture of discrimination and implicit bias vacuum, a systemic structural bias against certain groups resulting in trespass of my lawful rights.
It would appear that justice has been intentionally denied in a strategic unified approach of the political party legislators, a private militarised police force militia and corporatised judiciary to maintain their position of power and control over we the people of the Commonwealth. Where is the separation of power and accountability?

This erroneous blanket of labelling sovereign citizen is a strategy used to target individuals as domestic terrorists and suppress common law. ASIO uses the term sovereign citizen to clarify a group of people, just as Owain Fiander did, and police do in general. The website states:

A growing number of individuals and groups no longer fit into the right-wing spectrum rather they are motivated by fear of societal collapse and social economic grievances of conspiracy. As we predicted when we updated our language protests in Australia and overseas are being driven by anti-vaccination agendas conspiracy theories and anti-government sovereign citizen’s belief.

In trial Owain Fiander described the red 1901 federal land flag, the flag our Anzacs fought and died under. The very same flag that I had displayed on my car at the time of arrest as a sovereign citizen banner. On page 47 of the transcript we asked Owain Fiander:

So in your incident report you’re saying that we are a sovereign citizen?—That the Suzuki Vitara station wagon displaying sovereign citizen banners on the windows.

Can you explain what a sovereign citizen banner is?

Was this his opinion alone or is this a systemic indoctrination of bias used to identify alleged criminals without a crime ever being committed? A crime cannot exist without a victim. In trial, Owain Fiander did not produce a victim. The mere breach of a statute does not constitute a crime.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CIV 1001 of 2024
DAWN MICHELLE KELLY and OWAIN FIANDER
MUSIKANTH J
AT PERTH ON MONDAY, 10 JUNE 2024, AT 10.07 AM

Judges, Lawyers and Police Prosecutors use an echo-chamber opinion based case law to tarnish you as a Sovereign Citzen pseudo-law nut job. As a Self-litigant, it is a demeaning and detrimental process.

Sovereign Citizen List

If your name was on a government ‘Sovereign Citizen’ list, wouldn’t you like to know?

The label of ‘Sovereign Citizen’ shown in the declassified AFP documents, means you are considered to be a domestic terrorist (enemy of the state). If you have been labelled as a ‘Sovereign Citizen’ by Police then you are being labelled as a domestic terrorist.

If that is the case the chances your name maybe on a ‘Sovereign Citizen’ list somewhere, wouldn’t you like to know?

I received a phone call from the State Security group in 2020 for hosting a picnic in Kings Park, I know that I was, and maybe still am considered to be a domestic ‘paper’ terrorist. see my Corona timeline.

Freedom of Information

The Freedom of Information Act 1992 (FOI Act) provides a general right of access to documents held by the WA Police Force. You can access documents and information held by the WESTERN AUSTRALIA POLICE  [ABN 91 724 684 688] by filling out a freedom of information request located on the WAPOL website.

Suggested wording of a Freedom of Information Request (FOI)

Please provide the following:

1. The Sovereign Citizen List created by the Western Australia Police/State Security Group of redacted names showing the name ‘John Doe’ only.
2. The file created by the state security group investigating the forementioned ‘John Doe’
3. All police internal correspondence flagging ‘John Doe’ as a Sovereign Citizen relating to prosecutions initiated by: Named Police Officers……[PD1234567890]

Echo-Chamber of Case Law to justify decisions made by Magistrates and Judges

Meads v Meads [2012] ABQB 571

Summary: A wife brought a divorce and matrimonial property action against the husband after 31 years’ marriage. The wife, having difficulty moving the proceeding forward due to the husband’s lack of cooperation, applied to appoint a case management judge under the Rules of Court. The husband filed documents and made arguments espousing the views of various groups collectively referred to as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants (OPCA litigants). A common theme of OPCA litigants was the general rejection of state and court authority over them, unless that authority was to their benefit. The husband argued that the court had no authority to grant his wife a divorce or to order him to pay spousal and/or child support. He walked out of the proceedings. The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench dealt with the husband’s OPCA litigant conduct and documents, and allowed the wife’s application to appoint a case management judge. The court rejected all of the OPCA litigant arguments and tactics, the sole purpose of which was to evade his lawful obligations and the authority of the court and the state. The court exhaustively reviewed the history of OPCA litigants, the universal rejection of their theories, and offered a general guideline of appropriate remedies, criminally and civilly, for judges to deal with such issues in the future

Meads v Meads [2012] ABQB 571

Branch v Town of Victoria Park [2023] WASC 231

[31] At that hearing, the appellant appeared in person and made oral submissions. Those oral submissions did not correspond with the specific grounds of appeal contained in his written documents filed with the court, and instead consisted of a series of submissions which were difficult to follow and generally concerned the appellant’s legal status and his rights in that regard under the Australian legal system. The oral submissions also appeared to address the ‘strawman duality theory’ referred to by Vandongen J in Kelly v Fiander (which I have discussed further below). The appellant also relied on a variety of constitutional arguments pursuant to which the authority of the respondent (being a local government body) was challenged.
32 Counsel for the respondent relied on his written submissions.

[64] This ground (as expanded) appears to be directed to the ‘strawman duality theory’ described by Vandongen J in Kelly v Fiander as follows:40
11 The strawman duality theory is based on the fundamentally misguided notion that there exists a physical human being and, at the same time, a separate non-physical person (a ‘doppelganger’). Under this theory, it is said that while governments can exercise power over both the physical and the non-physical person, the capacity to exercise power over the physical person only exists because there is a ‘contract’ that links the physical person with the non-physical person. This ‘contract’ is evidenced by documents such a birth and marriage certificates.

[12] The non-physical person is often identified by pseudolaw exponents using an upper-case letter name because, it is said, government and legal documentation such as birth and marriage certificates use capital letters when recording names.

[13] A critical component of this strawman theory is the idea that government authority over the physical person can be negated by removing the doppelganger. In very simple terms, this is said to be achieved by revoking or denying the legitimacy of thecontract. This then has the effect of removing any government authority over the physical person.

[65] Each of the components of this ground of appeal appear to concern this separate non-physical person theory and/or the appellant’s proposal to settle the prosecution in a manner which is consistent with this theory. To the extent the appellant’s submissions purport to refer to legal principles in support, those submissions are non-sensical. As noted by Vandongen J, the ‘strawman duality theory’ is misguided.41

BRANCH -v- TOWN OF VICTORIA PARK [2023] WASC 231

GLEW & ANOR -v- SHIRE OF GREENOUGH [2006] WASCA 260

[12] The Commonwealth Constitution can be altered only in the manner
provided by s 128 of the Constitution. There is no express power
conferred on the Commonwealth Parliament to pass laws proposing
amendments to the Constitution. However, such power is implied by the
first paragraph of s 128, which provides that a proposed law for the
alteration of the Constitution must be passed in a particular manner byeach House of the Commonwealth Parliament, as part of the process of
altering the Constitution. The Commonwealth Parliament, then, can
propose an alteration to the Constitution to include in it a matter over
which the Commonwealth, at the time of passing the law for the proposed change, has no power at all. This was what happened in relation to the referendum concerning local government, to which the appellants refer. The Commonwealth Parliament has no power over local government. However, pursuant to s 128, it passed a law submitting to the electors the question of whether the Commonwealth Constitution should be amended so as to make provision for local government.

[13] Once a proposed law for the alteration of the Commonwealth
Constitution is passed by both Houses of the Parliament of the
Commonwealth in the manner prescribed, it must be submitted to the
electors in each State and Territory. If it is passed by the electors in the
manner prescribed by s 128, it is to be presented to the Governor-General
for the Queen’s assent.

[14 ] If it does not so pass, then the referendum fails and the Constitution
is not amended. However, the failure of a referendum does not prevent
the Commonwealth from proposing amendments on the same subject
matter in the future. Nor does the failure of a referendum question either expressly or impliedly prohibit either the Commonwealth Parliament or the Parliament of any State from passing legislation which is otherwise within its power and which touches on the same subject matter as the proposed referendum question. Against that background, I now turn to the appellants’ assertions.
15 Reading the grounds:

Ground 1 – Acts Amendment and Repeal (Courts and Legal Practice) Act
2003 (WA)

[16] This ground is concerned with the passage of the abovementioned
2003 Act. It is contended by the appellants that the Local and District
Courts of Western Australia do not have lawful authority to administer
law within the State since the passage of that Act. The concern appears to
be that the Act has “removed Her Majesty and the Crown” from a large
number of Acts within Western Australia, including the District Court of
Western Australia Act 1969 (WA) and the Local Courts Act 1904 (WA).

[17] The Act referred to changes the terminology in a large number of
statutes of Western Australia. In broad terms, references to the Crown orto her Majesty are changed to references to the Governor or the State.
The first observation to be made about the Act is that it purports to change terminology only, not constitutional reality. That is, it does not attempt to alter the relationship between the Crown and the various bodies contained within the Acts amended.

[18] There is no constitutional prohibition upon the alteration of the
terminology which refers to the Crown or to her Majesty. Further, the
changes of terminology contained within the Acts Amendment and Repeal (Courts and Legal Practice) Act 2003 are consistent with constitutional reality. The Governor is, for constitutional purposes, effectively the Queen’s representative in Western Australia (s 50 State Constitution) and so is, for practical purposes, “her Majesty” within Western Australia. The “State” is simply another way of referring to the executive power of the Crown in right of the State of Western Australia. Parallel terminology can be found in the Commonwealth Constitution. For example, although the Commonwealth Constitution provides, by s 61, that the executive power of the Commonwealth is “vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative”, a number of sections of the Constitution refer simply to “the Commonwealth” as a shorthand expression for the entity exercising that executive power. A striking example is s 119, which provides that “the Commonwealth shall protect every State against invasion … “.

[19] As is explained in a text book popular in constitutional law courses,
“when we talk of the Crown in the context of Australian government in
the late twentieth century, we refer to a complex system of which the
formal head is the monarch. We do not refer to a replica of sixteenth
century English government, where real power was vested in and
exercised by the monarch personally. Rather, we mean that collection of
individuals and institutions (Ministers, public servants, a Cabinet, the
Executive Council, a Governor or Governor-General, and statutory
agencies) which exercise the executive functions of government” (Hanks
& Cass, “Australian Constitutional Law: Materials and Commentary”, 6th
ed (1999) at [7.1.6]).

[20] The Acts Amendment and Repeal (Courts and Legal Practice) Act
2003 effects no constitutional alteration. Even if it did, and even if it did
so invalidly, the consequence would not be that the Courts suddenly
lacked jurisdiction. The only consequence of that Act having been passed
in a manner which was constitutionally invalid, would be that the Acts
Amendment and Repeal (Courts and Legal Practice) Act 2003, or portions
of it, would be invalid and that the Courts and bodies in relation to which…..

GLEW & ANOR -v- SHIRE OF GREENOUGH [2006] WASCA 260

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Casley [2017] WASC 161

Jurisdiction – Straw man

[15] In an affidavit filed by Leonard Casley he swore: 2. I am the Real Man, Leonard George Casley born at Kalgoorlie Western Australia on 27 August 1925. 3. Upon the registration of my birth certificate, it is claimed that I became a ward of the state. Owing allegiance to the Monarch, under contract and the Monarch undertakes the protection of myself and my property. … 5. I am Leonard George Casley, a real man not a straw man. 6. The Straw Man is a fictitious body, which does not exist, but is that which is controlled by the State, and the State’s judiciary. An affidavit filed by Arthur Casley contains similar statements. This appears to be a variant of the strange pseudo-legal straw man theory. The theory holds that an individual has two personas, one of himself as a real flesh and blood human being and the other, a separate legal personality who is the straw man. The idea is that an individual’s debts, liabilities, taxes and legal responsibilities belong to the straw man rather than the physical individual who incurred those obligations, conveniently allowing one to escape their debts and responsibilities. It is all gobbledygook.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION -vCASLEY [2017] WASC 161

Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; (2000) 201 CLR 488

Kelly v Fiander [2023] WASC 187

The proceedings in the Magistrates Court
[10] Before describing what occurred in the Magistrates Court it is necessary to say something about the appellant. It is apparent from the record of the proceedings in the Magistrates Court, the various documents that the appellant has filed in this court, and the proceedings that were conducted before me, that the appellant is an adherent of what has come to be known as ‘pseudolaw’.5 It is also clear that she is an enthusiastic proponent of a theory espoused by pseudolaw devotees that some call the ‘strawman duality’.

[11] The strawman duality theory is based on the fundamentally misguided notion that there exists a physical human being and, at the same time, a separate non-physical person (a ‘doppelganger’). Under this theory, it is said that while governments can exercise power over both the physical and the non-physical person, the capacity to exercise power over the physical person only exists because there is a ‘contract’ that links the physical person with the non-physical person. This ‘contract’ is evidenced by documents such a birth and marriage certificates.

[12] The non-physical person is often identified by pseudolaw exponents using an upper-case letter name because, it is said, government and legal documentation such as birth and marriage certificates use capital letters when recording names.

[13] A critical component of this strawman theory is the idea that government authority over the physical person can be negated by removing the doppelganger. In very simple terms, this is said to be achieved by revoking or denying the legitimacy of the contract. This then has the effect of removing any government authority over the physical person.

[14] One of the appellant’s affidavits, on which she sought to rely in support of her appeal amply demonstrates the appellant’s peculiar beliefs:

[17] When the appellant’s matter was called by the court orderly on 13 September 2022, the following exchange took place between the person who came forward and the magistrate:
ORDERLY: From the K list, calling the matter of Kelly, Dawn Michelle Kelly.
HER HONOUR: All right. Remain standing, please. Are you Dawn Kelly?
……, MS: I’m – on – for the record, I am Dawn Michelle – Minister Dawn Michelle, executor for the Dawn Michelle Kelly estate.
HER HONOUR: All right. Well, unless you’re Dawn Kelly, you have standing [sic] to appear in court.
……, MS: Okay.
HER HONOUR: If you have – are not Dawn Kelly and have no standing to appear in court, you must leave the courtroom. So either you are Dawn Kelly, or you are not Dawn Kelly. If you [are] not Dawn Kelly, please leave the courtroom.
……, MS: Under duress?
HER HONOUR: Not under anything.
……, MS: Under duress?
HER HONOUR: If you are not Dawn Kelly, then – if you are Dawn Kelly, you must announce your appearance in court. If you are not Dawn Kelly, you are to leave the courtroom.
……, MS: I’m Dawn Michelle, executor for the Dawn Michelle Kelly estate.
HER HONOUR: I don’t recognise that in any way. All I can assume is that you are not Dawn Kelly, and you are to leave the courtroom.
……, MS: Sorry. I have – just one moment, please.
HER HONOUR: Please, unless you are Dawn Kelly and answer yes or no as to whether you are Dawn Kelly – – –
……, MS: I am the natural – you know, executor for contracts for the natural private person. So that is a
HER HONOUR: This court does not – – –
……, MS: Misnomer.
HER HONOUR: – – – recognise – – –
……, MS: Sorry, what’s – – –
HER HONOUR: – – – that sort of – – –
……, MS: – – – your name?
HER HONOUR: – – – nonsense argument.
……, MS: What’s your name?
HER HONOUR: This person is not Dawn Kelly. They have no standing to appear. They refuse to announce their appearance to the court, and they may leave. Thank you. And the matter will now be heard in the absence of any person. Thank you. Please leave, whoever you are.
……, MS: I did put documents in, which were sent to your email address, but, anyway

LOVEROCK, MR: (indistinct) to proceed by section 55, your Honour.
HER HONOUR: I’m satisfied that there is no person who responded in a positive manner and appropriate manner recognised by the court as Dawn Kelly. On that basis, I am satisfied that there has been a notice of adjournment issues by the court on 30 August to the known address of Dawn Kelly. On that basis, I’m satisfied leave will be granted to proceed under section 5

[18] As can be seen, when faced with what can only be described as ‘gobbledygook’ from the person who was then before the court, the magistrate decided that the summary conviction power provided for in s 55 of the CP Act could and should be invoked.

KELLY -v- FIANDER [2023] WASC 187

Kelly v Finader [2024] WASC 275

Pseudolaw/Strawman Duality Theory
[26] In their recent article entitled the ‘Internationalisation of Pseudolaw: The Growth of Sovereign Citizen Arguments in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand’, Hobbs, Young and McIntyre opined as follows:
The term ‘pseudolaw’ refers to a distinct phenomenon whereby ‘a collection of legal-sounding but false rules that purport to be law’ are deployed. Pseudolaw ‘superficially appears to be law, or related to law, and usually uses legal or legal sounding language, but is otherwise spurious’. For this reason, it is regularly described by courts as nothing more than ‘obvious nonsense’, legal ‘gibberish’, or ‘gobbledygook’. However, while pseudolaw is ‘largely incoherent, if not incomprehensible’, and impenetrable to outsiders, it is not just a misunderstood and misapplied collection of doctrines, instruments, and rules. Pseudolaw is an ‘integrated and separate legal apparatus’ with its own confounding legal theories. Much of the source material is originally drawn from conventional law and legal sources, but it constitutes an ‘alternative legal universe’.3 (citations omitted) WHY DID HE OMIT CITATIONS??????

[27] According to the learned authors, the ‘strawman’ argument or ‘duality’ theory is one of the three principal forms of the ‘six core concepts’ constituting the ‘pseudolaw memeplex’ which has recurred most often in Australia.4

[28] In Kelly v Fiander,5 Vandongen J (as his Honour then was) summarised the strawman duality theory in these terms:6
11 The strawman duality theory is based on the fundamentally misguided notion that there exists a physical human being and, at the same time, a separate non-physical person (a ‘doppelganger’). Under this theory, it is said that while governments can exercise power over both the physical and the non-physical person, the capacity to exercise power over the physical person only exists because there is a ‘contract’ that links the physical person with the non-physical person. This ‘contract’ is evidenced by documents such a birth and marriage certificates.
12 The non-physical person is often identified by pseudolaw exponents using an upper-case letter name because, it is said, government and legal documentation such as birth and marriage certificates use capital letters when recording names.
13 A critical component of this strawman theory is the idea that government authority over the physical person can be negated by removing the doppelganger. In very simple terms, this is said to be achieved by revoking or denying the legitimacy of the contract. This then has the effect of removing any government authority over the physical person.

[29] The theory, and its variants, have been repeatedly rejected by Australian courts,7 including this court, having been variously described as ‘nonsense’,8 ‘nonsensical’,9 ‘fundamentally misguided’10 and ‘gobbledygook’.11

[30] It is unnecessary for me to attempt to add to the catalogue of euphemisms.

[31] It is enough to observe there is ample authority which safely supports a conclusion that Grounds 1, 6, 12 and 17 have no merit at all.

CITATION : KELLY -v- FIANDER [2024] WASC 275
CORAM : MUSIKANTH J

Kwok v City of Subiaco [2023] WASC 307

[39] It is not entirely clear what the remainder of the grounds of appeal relate to – they appear to challenge the general jurisdiction of the courts and judicial officers. They are largely non-sensical. Such arguments have been repeatedly rejected by the Court of Appeal as being completely devoid of merit, frivolous and vexatious.31 40 Further, the appellant gave her appearance at trial as ‘Michele … from the family Kwok’. 32 It appears from this and a number of the grounds of appeal and ‘points’ in the outline of submissions, that the appellant attempts to deploy what has been referred to by Vandongen J (as his Honour then was) in Kelly v Fiander33 as the ‘strawman duality theory’. There is no merit in such a contention. 41 I therefore, limit my consideration to each of the themes of the grounds of appeal that I have identified.

Kwok v City of Subiaco [2023] WASC 307

Stack v The State of Western Australia [2004] WASCA 300;

(2004) 29 WAR 526 Stefan v McLachlan [2023] VSC 501;

(2023) 105 MVR 214 Williamson v Hodgson [2010] WASC 95

Yap v Matic [2022] WASC 181

Judgements made on citations of Opinions NOT Law

A Kind of Magic – A Magistrates guide to managing OPCA litigants and Sovereign Citizens

The strawman duality theory is based on the fundamentally misguided notion that there exists a physical human being and, at the same time, a separate non-physical person (a ‘doppelganger’). Under this theory, it is said that while governments can exercise power over both the physical and the non-physical person, the capacity to exercise power over the physical person only exists because there is a ‘contract’ that links the physical person with the non-physical person. This ‘contract’ is evidenced by documents such a birth and marriage certificates. 12 The non-physical person is often identified by pseudolaw exponents using an upper-case letter name because, it is said, government and legal documentation such as birth and marriage certificates use capital letters when recording names. 13 A critical component of this strawman theory is the idea that government authority over the physical person can be negated by removing the doppelganger. In very simple terms, this is said to be achieved by revoking or denying the legitimacy of the contract. This then has the effect of removing any government authority over the physical person.

His Hon Judge Glen Cash QC ‘A Kind of Magic: The Origins and Culture of “Pseudolaw”’, speech given at the Queensland Magistrates’ State Conference, Brisbane (QDC) [2022] Qld J Schol 1. See also, Meads v Meads [2012] ABQB 571.

Western Australian Supreme Court Judge cites Microbiologist as legal expert

THE INTERNATIONALISATION OF PSEUDOLAW: THE GROWTH OF SOVEREIGN CITIZEN ARGUMENTS IN AUSTRALIA AND AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND

In their recent article entitled the ‘Internationalisation of Pseudolaw: The Growth of Sovereign Citizen Arguments in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand’, Hobbs, Young and McIntyre opined as follows: The term ‘pseudolaw’ refers to a distinct phenomenon whereby ‘a collection of legal-sounding but false rules that purport to be law’ are deployed. Pseudolaw ‘superficially appears to be law, or related to law, and usually uses legal or legal sounding language, but is otherwise spurious’. For this reason, it is regularly described by courts as nothing more than ‘obvious nonsense’, legal ‘gibberish’, or ‘gobbledygook’. However, while pseudolaw is ‘largely incoherent, if not incomprehensible’, and impenetrable to outsiders, it is not just a misunderstood and misapplied collection of doctrines, instruments, and rules. Pseudolaw is an ‘integrated and separate legal apparatus’ with its own confounding legal theories. Much of the source material is originally drawn from conventional law and legal sources, but it constitutes an ‘alternative legal universe’.3 (citations omitted)

According to the learned authors, the ‘strawman’ argument or ‘duality’ theory is one of the three principal forms of the ‘six core concepts’ constituting the ‘pseudolaw memeplex’ which has recurred most often in Australia

3 Hobbs H, Young S & McIntyre J, ‘The Internationalisation of Pseudolaw: The Growth of Sovereign Citizen Arguments in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand’ (2024) 47(1) UNSW Law Journal 309, 312 and 324

Pickett v Western Australia [2020] HCA 20; (2020) 270 CLR 323 [66]

Representation

S Vandongen SC with A J Robson for the appellants in all matters (instructed by Legal Aid WA)

A L Forrester SC with L M Fox for the respondent in all matters (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (WA))

Conclusion
On the authoritative exposition of the Code in Barlow, s 7, in referring to “an offence”, refers to the act or omission which constitutes the offence. In its operation, s 7 deems each category of person referred to in paras (a) to (d) to be a person who may be charged with the offence constituted by the act or omission. Similarly, s 8 of the Code deems each of two or more persons to have done the act, the doing of which was a probable consequence of the prosecution of an unlawful purpose. It is the doing of the act or the making of the omission by the actor that is attributed to another person or other persons, not the criminal responsibility of the actor. Sections 7 and 8 of the Code render a person other than the actor liable to criminal punishment for those acts or omissions, subject to the personal circumstances of that other person having regard to the other provisions of the Code. The circumstance that one of those persons may have an immunity from criminal responsibility by reason of his or her personal circumstances addressed in Ch V of the Code does not prevent the operation of ss 7 and 8 against the other persons[82].

Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473 [56].

[56] The ordinary meaning of the words, taken in their context (which
includes the legislative purpose) must accordingly be taken to mean that a ground is required to have a rational and logical prospect of succeeding; that is, it would not be irrational, fanciful or absurd to envisage it succeeding in that forum; in effect, that it has a real prospect of success. However, it is important to bear in mind that, because the test is directed to each ground, it seems that the answer to the question whether leave to appeal is or is not granted will not involve any consideration of whether, if the ground of appeal succeeds, the error in question has led to a substantial miscarriage of justice. That issue is left for determination on the appeal proper.

SAMUELS -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN
AUSTRALIA [2005] WASCA 193