Yet another pseudolaw claim, this time with a pseudo-royal twist. In
Morros v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2025] SASC 40 the Court notes
The first document purporting to be a promissory note was styled ‘Promissory Note No 767-87’ and stated that the issuer, who was named as ‘Matthew James, House of Morros’, undertook to pay the bearer upon presentation of the note at the designated place and time of settlement ‘the sum of one hundred four thousand two hundred forty-three point four (104243.40) Pound Sterling as full and final payment and or discharge of their obligations under this note’. The date of settlement was a date prior to the date of issue, and the place of settlement was an address in Woodend, Victoria, styled the ‘Royal Registry De Jure’. ...
The appeal grounds comprise the following.
Undue process. Unserved documents, giving no time to act and served documents contain fraud.
Perverting course of justice, withholding crucial evidence in way of discovery.
Lack of jurisdiction of article 1 court as I’m a living man who can only be presenting in article 3 courts.
Crime of personage attempting to join a fiction name to a living man.
Attempting to usurp my property causing the only loss to the only victim in this case.
The orders sought on appeal are:
Discharge orders of possession I have declaration of sale and sealed deed with common law courts international and common law courts australia along with land title in my name claiming ownership and reserving all my rights under common law.
In connection with the appeal the applicant has filed an affidavit. The affidavit is difficult to follow. It makes reference to the failure to produce the original wet-ink signature and accounting records. It appears to allege conversion of promissory notes and appears to complain of the court’s failure to respond to the request for common law rights of the applicant. It concludes:
For the final statement by Matthew-James: of the family Morros with the claim of non-consent to the fraudulent actions by the court and the Commonwealth banks representatives is with the declaration of the rights as a living man with the allegiance to the crown with the unalienable rights under common law.
The applicant also filed with the Court a bundle of documents purportedly created in 2023 and styled a ‘Book of Deeds Extract Sale Declaration’. They bear a logo or purported seal of the ‘Common Law Courts Great Britain & International’. The claimed effect of the documents appears to be that the Land has been ‘transferred from the statutory jurisdiction to a Common Law jurisdiction and from the legal fictions/entities to the man and woman’.
Finally, the applicant filed a document styled a ‘Notice of lawful challenge to the authority and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of South Australia’. The document amounts to a series of arguments as to why this Court lacks jurisdiction over the applicant or the Land. It contains references to the creation of a ‘Cruinn Community’, assertions that a State Court can only deal with ‘PERSONS and not living, breathing men and women’, statements to the effect that slavery is abhorrent, purported summaries of decisions of the Scottish Court of Sessions and the United States Supreme Court, references to the ‘Hague Conference on Private International Law 1951’ and the ‘United Nations Declarations of Human Rights 1948’, and contentions relating to ‘Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg’s Fraudulent Coronation’.
The applicant has not filed written submissions in support of his appeal, or in support of any application for leave to appeal, or any extension of time within which to do so. It is apparent from various communications he has sent to the Court and to CBA that he contests the jurisdiction of the Court in various respects and this may explain his failure to comply with the requirements of the Rules.
The respondent to the appeal has, however, filed written submissions which respond to the main contentions that can be discerned from the documents filed by the applicant.
In brief overview, CBA contends, and I accept, that:
(1) there was proper material before the Court to justify the possession order;
(2) the contention that the loan agreement was not enforceable, or that the possession order should not have been made, without production of an original document, is baseless;
(3) at the time the order for possession was made there was no material before the Court giving rise to an arguable defence, and so the order was properly made;
(4) the subsequent reliance by the applicant upon purported and unaccepted promissory notes does not avail him, even if they are contended to comprise bills of exchange, for reasons given in numerous authorities;
(5) the contentions to the effect that this Court lacks jurisdiction, apart from being self-defeating in respect of the proposed appeal, are without foundation, having regard to the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) and the State and Commonwealth Constitutions;
(6) the balance of the applicant’s contentions comprise arguments that can fairly, or even generously, be described as ‘ pseudolaw’ and have been consistently rejected. For instance, the claimed distinction between the capacities or personae of the applicant has been consistently rejected. There is no basis to entertain a challenge to the validity of relevant legislation or the identity or status of the sovereign, and no reason to give any credence to documents purporting to emanate from ‘common law courts’ that do not form part of the integrated Australian judicial system. The international treaties or conventions referred to by the applicant have no relevance to the matters that arose in the course of the possession proceedings.
Subsequently to the filing of CBA’s written submissions, the applicant prepared a written document by way of rebuttal. The document contended, inter alia, that the appearance of a Crown Seal on court documents was fraudulent, exposing the persons responsible to criminal penalties, asserting that the Court’s failure to respond to his earlier ‘lawful challenge’ document meant that the Court lacked authority to hear the case, reiterating a request for a ‘wet ink’ document, asserting a failure by the bank to provide consideration in connection with the loan, demanding disclosure of various documents, asserting that the promissory note were a legally recognised financial instrument, and other contentions.
