Before we go into the nitty gritty of R v Sweet [2021] QDC 216 it is important to note that in Justice’s Vandongen’s judgement delivered on 1st June 2023 KELLY -v- FIANDER [2023] WASC 187 he stated in paragraph [61] “… Under the system of law that operates in this state, only a person can do (or be deemed to have done) ‘an act or omission which renders the person doing the act or omission liable to punishment’. Criminal liability attaches to a human being, not to a ‘doppelganger’.

A Person is defined as a corporation or association of persons.

Western Australian Constitution Act 1890 (UK);

What Justice Vandongen is saying is that only a Corporation is liable to punishment. A living breathing sentient man or woman of Soul is not!

In the judgement of the QUEEN v KIM ANTHONY SWEET Justice Glen CASH delivers a massive p*** take and attempts to discredit the ‘Strawman’ argument labelling it gobbledygook, which is a rather interesting choice of words considering that the etymology of the made up word came from a Texan politician Maury Maverick, the chairman of U.S. Smaller War Plants Corporation during World War II.

Sovereign Citizens beware

Furthermore Justice Glen CASH discredits the applicant in paragraph [5] who used Post Master documents from Russell Jay Gould, “Some of the applicant’s documents have the appearance of form documents,8 and it seems to be common for overseas based charlatans to exploit the gullible by selling these form documents as ‘solutions’ to a variety of legal problems. None of the documents are of any legal effect whatsoever”

“The one to whom the applicant refers, Russell Jay Gould, is a resident of the United States of America. He claims to have unlocked the secrets of ‘quantum grammar’ and in doing so he saved America from once again becoming a colony of the United Kingdom because of a secret prerevolution
postal contract. In this way he became the ‘postmaster-general of the world’. (I am not making this up.)”

CASH goes on to say in paragraph 6 of his judgement that “In Australia, a human being is also a legal person. An adult human being with full
capacity can sue and be sued. They are subject to the criminal laws of this state”. Which backs up what Justice Vandongen pointed out in Kelly v FIANDER.

It is noteworthy to point out that in Kelly v FIANDER, the appellant was denied her right to make a plea and was denied her right to a trial as Magistrate Dianne SCADDAN in Albany Magistrates Court ruled that Dawn-Michelle Executor of the Dawn Michelle Kelly Estate did not appear yet was physically present in the court room. She proceeded from s.55 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 to s. 44, and handed out a summary judgement to the tune of $1,200.00.

This decision was over turned and it was determined that a miscarriage of justice had occurred as she had erred in her judgement as it was obvious that Dawn had appeared.

In the appeal process Dawn made it abundantly clear that she was not a ‘Person’, a ‘human being’ or an ‘individual’, she was a woman. She appeared by Divine Special Appearance.

R v Sweet [2021] QDC 216

“[2] The applicant now applies for these charges to be dismissed. The essence of the applicant’s argument is that he possesses two distinct personas. One the ‘real live flesh and blood man’ and the other a ‘straw man’ or ‘dummy corporation’. The former is designated in the applicant’s material as ‘Kym-Anthony:’1 and the latter as KYM ANTHONY SWEET.2 According to the applicant’s argument, the real person is not subject to the laws of Queensland, and the charges should be dismissed”.

“[3] Merely setting out the argument is sufficient to show it is nonsense. It is apparent that the applicant is one of a group of people who for some years have attempted, universally without success, to avoid the operation of laws with which they do not wish to comply. The term ‘organised pseudo legal commercial argument’ litigants (OPCA) was coined by Rooke ACJ in Meades v Meades to describe adherents to these discredited theories. The ideas promoted by OPCA litigants emerged, of course, in the United States. They have since spread to most parts of the common law world, including Queensland. Recognising that the arguments presented by OPCA litigants are largely incoherent, if not incomprehensible, courts have been increasingly willing to dismiss their claims summarily. While I think the present application is devoid of merit, I do propose to mention at least some reasons why that is so, in the hope that it might dissuade similar pointless applications in the future.

“[4] The ‘straw man’ argument has its origins in the premise that human beings do not inherently possess a legal personality. Instead, some separate legal identity is imposed upon them (through birth certificates and the like) by the government. This process creates a kind of contract, but one that can be repudiated by the human being, usually through a declaration or affidavit (in this case the applicant’s ‘Affidavit of the Truth’) and ‘surrendering’ the birth certificate. The purported effect of such repudiation is to render the human being immune to the laws of the relevant polity. The processes adopted by OPCA litigants to achieve this repudiation can be arcane. Some of the language used, and documents relied upon, resemble spells or incantations.”

“[5] The present case is no exception. A number of the applicant’s documents have affixed what appear to be fingerprints in red ink, and an extract of his birth certificate was sent to the registry accompanied by a commemorative coin. One document is headed ‘Evidence-Claim-of-live-life-certificate’. Its contents are even less comprehensible than its title. Other documents contain references to overseas law, such as the Uniform Commercial Code of the United States. Some of the applicant’s documents have the appearance of form documents,8 and it seems to be common for overseas based charlatans to exploit the gullible by selling these form documents as ‘solutions’ to a variety of legal problems. None of the documents are of any legal effect whatsoever.”

“[6] In Australia, a human being is also a legal person. An adult human being with full capacity can sue and be sued. They are subject to the criminal laws of this state. These fundamental propositions cannot be doubted. It is true that a natural person can create a legal entity that has a distinct legal personality – such entities are commonly called companies – but this is an adjunct to, rather than a replacement for, the legal personality of the human being. One way of illustrating why this must be so is to consider the consequences of the ability to ‘renounce’ legal personhood. The law has at times recognised categories of person who did not possess a legal personality. These categories included, before 1833, slaves, who were regarded as chattel property, could be bought and sold, and who had no rights under the law. At times women and children were thought not to possess a legal personality. Blackstone regarded children as the property of their fathers, and women have been regarded as chattels without a distinct legal personality. The fates of people who were in these categories were rarely pleasant. If the applicant were somehow able to renounce his legal personality, he would become a human being without rights. He would be mere property. Such an outcome would be antithetical to our society and system of laws.”

“[7] For these reasons I reject the applicant’s argument he is constituted by two separate legal entities. But even if I were wrong about that, the argument can do him no good in the face of a criminal prosecution brought under the statute law of Queensland. The Criminal Code provides in section 7: (1) When an offence is committed, each of the following persons is deemed to have taken part in committing the offence and to be guilty of the offence, and may be charged with actually committing it, that is to say – (a) every person who actually does the act or makes the omission which constitutes the offence … An ‘offence’ is defined by section 2 to be: an act or omission which renders the person doing the act or omission liable to punishment …”

“[8] Criminal liability attaches to a person where they ‘do the act or one or more acts in a series which constitutes or constitute the offence’. On any view of the present allegations, that could not be the ‘straw man’ or ‘dummy corporation’ mentioned by the applicant. The applicant’s own writings describe this purported alternate persona as ‘an artificial person’, a ‘legal entity’, ‘an artificial legal person’ and a ‘legal fiction’. Even if it existed in law, it is not capable of doing the act or acts that attract criminal liability. Of the two entities claimed by the applicant to exist – the applicant as ‘a real live flesh and blood man’ and the ‘straw man’ – the only one who could have done the acts that constitute the offences is the applicant, constituted in the corporeal form of the person who appeared in court to make this application. That is the person who was charged by the police, committed to stand trial by a Magistrate and against whom the present indictment was presented. That person is subject to the criminal law of this State and may be found to be criminally liable for his own acts. Even if the applicant possesses a ‘legal split-personality’, a proposition I reject, it could not alter this reality.”

“[9] There is no room for doubt or confusion as to who is said to have done the criminal acts and who is to stand trial in relation to the allegations. That is the applicant. His apparent wish to be identified by a name that is different to the name he was assigned at birth is of no moment at all. However he is known, and no matter how odd the punctuation, he remains the same person – the one alleged to have committed the offences charged in the indictment.”

References were made to the Queen v Sweet in this video

“[10] While the so called ‘straw man’ argument may properly be described as nonsense or gobbledygook, it is in any event of no assistance to the applicant in present circumstances. It is to my mind clear that under the criminal law of Queensland the applicant’s claim to possess or be associated with some separate legal entity is entirely irrelevant.”

“[11] There being no merit to the application, it must be dismissed.”