'The Social Phenomenon of Romana Didulo: "Queen of Canada"' by Christine M Sarteschi in International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation comments
Romana Didulo is a conspiracy theorist who claims to be the ruler of Canada, despite all evidence to the contrary. She has a fairly large following in social media. Her movement, though not easily categorized, can best be described as a combination of QAnon, sovereign citizen/pseudo-legal, conspirituality, and anti-vaccination motifs. This overview explores her belief system, her origins, the evolution of her movement, and the behavior of her followers. This review finds that Didulo poses two main kinds of threats. She: 1) encourages followers to engage in vigilantism, and 2) has created a pool of desperate people who have had their utilities shut off, and lost their vehicles and homes. People are suffering as a result of her edicts. ...
Romana Didulo is a Philippine born immigrant, in her 50s, who contends she is the leader of Canada. She has adopted the titles of “Queen and Commander-in-chief, Head of State and Government, President and National Indigenous Chief of the Kingdom of Canada.” Didulo and eleven of her closest followers are currently on their third tour of Canada. They utilize multiple recreational vehicles (RVs) (see Figure 1) and travel to meet-and-greet locations where Didulo gives speeches, sometimes several times a week. Didulo maintains multiple Telegram channels and has approximately 50,000 followers who cheer her on and fund her travels. The purpose of this article is to expand the knowledge base of this social phenomenon using observation and analysis of Didulo’s social media postings and the content of her speeches. This article tracks Didulo’s rise, describes her belief system, and documents the activities of her and her followers. ...
Didulo and her followers express beliefs that combine QAnon, sovereign citizen/pseudo-legal, conspirituality, and anti-vaccination motifs. QAnon is a conspiracy-based belief system. Its followers claim that high level Democratic politicians control the government and all media, and are harming children (Moskalenko & McCauley, 2021). QAnon followers are highly concerned about the “cabal,” powerful individuals who they believe are working covertly behind the scenes (Moskalenko & McCauley, 2021). The cabal, they believe, is also seeking to acquire adrenochrome from the blood of children to extend their personal lifespans (Garry, Walther, Mohamad, & Mohammed, 2021). Sovereign citizens are individuals who reject their respective governments as illegitimate, and do not believe conventional laws apply to them; they instead are subject to a different, superior law (Kalinowski, 2019; McRoberts, 2019; Netolitzky, 2021; Sarteschi, 2020). Conspirituality is a term coined by Ward and Voas (2011) that describes individuals who combine a New Age belief system with conspiracy theories where secret groups control the political and social order. New Age beliefs are characterized by four main elements: 1) “mythical individual transformation;” 2) “awareness of non-material realities;” 3) “the imposition of (a) personal vision onto society;” and 4) “belief in universally invisible but pervasive forms of energy” (Ward & Voas, 2011, p. 106). Research has shown that conspirituality is common among those in the QAnon movement (Robertson & Amarasingam, 2022; Ward & Voas, 2011). Much like QAnon, the conspirituality movement is decentralized and virtual (Ward & Voas, 2011). Finally, individuals who subscribe to anti-vaxx ideology are those who are “... wholly opposed to vaccinations” (Burgess, Osborne, Yongabi et al., 2021, p. 8). Those beliefs, and how they are expressed by Didulo, are described below.
In Ricks v Te Pukenga - New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology t/a Ara Institute of Canterbury [2023] NZHC 936 the Court states
[1] Tahi Ricks successfully completed two years of a three-year Bachelor of Architectural Studies (BAS) degree at the Ara Institute of Canterbury (Ara). He says he did not undertake his final year of study in 2022 because of Ara’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. Under the Policy, Mr Ricks was not permitted to attend campus unless he was fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or had a Ministry of Health approved vaccine exemption. Mr Ricks did not accept the Policy and withdrew from the BAS and has not returned to his studies.
[2] Mr Ricks seeks declarations that Ara breached a re-enrolment contract with him by changing the conditions of his study without his consent and breached also the Education (Pastoral Care of Tertiary and International Learners) Code of Practice 2021 (the Code). In addition, he seeks a declaration that Ara failed to rebut a “rebuttable affidavit” such that the affidavit has become a “judgement in commerce”. Finally, he seeks an order Ara must pay him $10,522,540 as stated in the unrebutted affidavit. ...
[20] On 17 March 2022, Mr Ricks sent Ara another document, this time headed “Affidavit of Truth”. This document required Ara to dispute “claims, statements, assertions, facts contained herein” which were said to represent Mr Ricks’ “truth”. There followed 82 matters for Ara to respond to and it was stated that if Ara did not dispute any of the claims that were made within 14 days it would result in an automatic default judgment against Ara and it would be liable to Mr Ricks’ fee schedule. The fee schedule contained amounts payable by Ara totalling more than $10 million said to relate to losses Mr Ricks suffered, including $3 million for harm to his education and $7 million for harm to his future.
[21] On 4 April 2023, Mr Ricks sent Ara a document headed “Notice of Recognition and Thanks”, noting that Ara had failed to rebut the Affidavit of Truth which “now stands as Truth in Law and a Judgement in Commerce, which no-one can overturn”. He stated that “ultimately, this means you — Darren Mitchell/Ara are now liable to the fee schedule which is remedy for the damages caused to me”. He advised that Ara had a further 10 working days to arrange a meeting with him if it would like to discuss a settlement figure or arrange payment options, otherwise he would pursue collection of the debt for the full amount....
Mr Ricks’ submissions
[26] Mr Ricks seeks summary judgment for payment pursuant to the unrebutted affidavit. He identifies the issue as whether Ara has an arguable defence to overturn an unrebutted affidavit, and submits it cannot do so. Mr Ricks believes there are 10 commercial maxims, which are legal directives that must be upheld by the New Zealand courts and he relies on passages from the Bible in support of his submission that an unrebutted affidavit must stand and he is entitled to judgment accordingly. In a concession to his position, however, at the conclusion of the hearing Mr Ricks advised he was now prepared to accept just $1 million in satisfaction of this claim.
My analysis
[27] Mr Ricks’ belief in the efficacy of the Affidavit of Truth document is misguided and his claim for judgment based upon it has no prospect of success. The legal maxims that Mr Ricks relies upon are not legal directives which the courts must uphold regardless of context. Bible passages are not law enforceable in the courts. Further, the law does not recognise a process of entering judgment on the basis of an unrebutted affidavit and certainly not when such affidavit was not issued in respect of any proceeding then currently before the Court.
[28] The pseudo-legal documents Mr Ricks relies upon are commonly presented to the courts by people influenced by the Sovereign Citizen movement. They have been consistently rejected by the courts. [note: Bank of New Zealand v Warahi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2021] NZHC 3059, Warahi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2022] NZCA 105 at [9]–[11]; Niwa v Commisioner of Inland Revenue [2019] NZHC 853; [2019] NZAR 1104; Department of Corrections [2017] NZSC 20 ; Rangitaawa v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2013] NZCA 2; Martin v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZHC 2811 at [20]; Wallace v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZSC 1 at [4]–[5]; James v District Court at Whanganui [2022] NZHC 2196; James v District Court Whanganui [2022] NZHC 2309, Baker v Lawrence [2022] NZHC 2734, Brady v New Zealand Police [2019] NZHC 1040.] Mr Peers referred to Warren v Chief Executive of the Stewart which concerned an application for an order adjudicating Mr Stewart bankrupt. Mr Stewart sought to oppose the application on several bases, including that the bank had admitted certain allegations contained in an unrebutted affidavit which became a judgment in commerce. Associate Judge Bell dealt with this matter quickly by stating “[n]ext, Mr Stewart alleges that the bank, by not refuting his allegations, is deemed to have admitted them. That submission is simply wrong.”
[29] Mr Ricks sought to distinguish the decision in Bank of New Zealand v Stewart on its facts. He is correct that as that proceeding concerned an insolvency matter it arose in a different context than this case but, regardless, the decision demonstrates that an unrebutted affidavit of the kind Mr Ricks relies upon has no legal recognition and is of no legal effect.
[30] The fact that Ara did not respond to Mr Ricks’ Affidavit of Truth document does not give rise to any cause of action recognised in law. Mr Ricks’ application for summary judgment is therefore dismissed.
