In Ms Julia Elana Miroch v Powercor Australia Ltd [2022] FWC 1880 the Fair Work Commission has dealt with a claim featuring a 'Galactic Emissary' with authority from the 'Moot Court of Terra Australis Incognito'.
The Commission states
[3] The Applicant was represented by Trevor Alexander at the hearing, although he preferred to describe himself as “‘Trevor John’, of the family Alexander”, and similarly the Applicant described herself as “‘Julia Elana’ of the family Miroch”. (I note briefly that these designations appeared to have some significance to the Applicant’s contention that the Respondent had committed unlawful “personage”, as well as the lawfulness of contracts between natural persons and other entities who are not natural persons, such as the Respondent.) While Mr Alexander described himself as ‘Attorney in Fact’ for the Applicant and some correspondence indicated he represented “The Moot Court of Terra Australis Incognito”, he confirmed, and I am satisfied, he was not a paid lawyer or agent for whom permission needed to be obtained to represent the Applicant. …
[7] The second matter was a request for me to recuse myself on the grounds of bias or apprehended bias. Various grounds were advanced. One ground was that my associate, in correspondence with the parties, described the Applicant’s representative as ‘Mr Alexander’. By doing so, it was put that my associate (and, through him, me) engaged in “personage”. The claim of “personage” was not entirely clear to me, even following the hearing. While it has no coherent legal basis that I am aware of, as best as I can understand the claim, it contends that as the Applicant’s representative is a natural person (as distinct from, for example, a body corporate) and by addressing him as “Mr”, that implicitly denies his status as a “living person”. I note that the first question the Applicant’s representative asked in cross-examination was whether the Respondent’s witness was a “living person”. As far as I referred to the Applicant as Ms Miroch or her representative as MrAlexander, I consider there was (and is) nothing improper about it and, to the contrary, that reflects a common and courteous manner to address or refer to people. This is particularly the case in more a formal forum, such as a court or tribunal hearing, or where over-familiarity might otherwise be conveyed through use of a person’s given name. I would make the same observation about the complaints made by the Applicant and her representative in relation to the Respondent’s communications. That is not to say that a person’s request as to how they might be addressed ought not be reasonably accommodated as a matter of courtesy, but the complaints of “personage” are not maintained. • … •
[31] On 18 October 2021, the Applicant swore a document titled “Statement of Declaration of Truth “Affidavit”” (the quotations around the word “Affidavit” being in the original document). It was 30 pages in length and signed before a Justice of the Peace. The document described the Applicant’s “Purpose (occupation)” as “Galactic emissary” and current address as “Planet known as Earth”. The document was apparently served on the Victorian Government as well as the Australian Government, neither of whom challenged it. The Applicant’s oral evidence in chief says she took the lack of any response or challenge to mean that what she had stated in that document “had become truth”. Suffice to say, that was not the legal or factual consequence but it would appear that the document at least supplies an explanation for the Applicant’s views regarding “fictitious” (i.e. non-individual) entities, which was to “rebut any and all alleged claimed authority and/or jurisdiction of any and all fictitious, corporate or private entities, over the deponent, those entities being without standing on the land”. …
[55] On 23 February 2022, the Applicant’s representative sent the Applicant’s team leader an email regarding the following day’s meeting. It was addressed to the “living woman known as” the Applicant’s team leader. He described himself as “’Trevor John’, of the family/house/tribe/clan Alexander” and as the Applicant’s “Attorney in Fact concerning this matter”. In it, he requested – although it was more in the nature of a direction – that all communications with the Applicant be through him.
[56] The email purported to contain what was described as a “Notice of Legal Liability” which alleged as follows: “Notice of Legal Liability: Any deviation from this directive will be taken as your willful attempts to intimidate and harass Julia, and, as such, you agree that any such action in contradiction to this directive, by you, [the Applicant’s team leader], or any agent of "Powercor" at this meeting, or from the moment of this correspondence forwards, shall incur a remedy to Julia of $50,000 per incursion, per living man or woman who commits these serious assaults, payable to Julia within 28 days of service of invoice, in accordance with the terms contained within that invoice.”
[57] The content of the purported notice needs only be stated to observe that it is legally nonsensical. The notice has no such legal effect and has no legal basis. Nonetheless, it would appear that the Applicant (or at least, her representative for whom she appeared content to allow him to speak on her behalf) believed it to be real and, while it not necessary for me to make conclusions about that belief, it perhaps explains the subsequent tenor of subsequent communications (which I set out below). …
[63] Also on 25 February 2022, the Applicant’s representative sent to “The living man known as “Daniel Bye”” an invoice that purportedly required payment of $50,000 for an alleged breach of the notice sent on 23 February 2022. The invoice was expressed to be “certified”, perhaps to imply some additional legal status, as follows:
Certified True Copy
Milky Way Galaxy
Solar System
Planet known as Earth
Land Mass known as: Terra Australis Incognito
Earth date known as 25/2/2022
Registrar: [which was initialled ‘TJA’]
[64] The invoice made other claims, including for “workplace violence”. The payment was to be made in “Sterling Silver” of “99.9999% Troy weight” although it would appear that “cash” would be acceptable. It required payment within 10 days or to otherwise dispute the invoice “with a sworn affidavit of rebuttal”, lest there be “Tacit Acquiescence” of its terms. The invoice itself appears to have been signed by the Applicant. …
[66] The invoices are legally nonsensical. Suffice to say, neither document had any of their purported legal effect, despite the recourse to the various pseudo-legal words, phrases and jargon contained within them. I do not wish to be too critical, however. From the Applicant’s perspective, she was being placed in a position where the operation of Victorian government public health orders directly clashed with her (sincere) beliefs and concerns regarding the vaccinations those mandates were promoting. That said, I do not consider that the “invoices” and similar such documents assisted and, so far as they might have given her a false sense of hope, they were unhelpful.
[67] It would appear, however, that the Applicant and her representative were just beginning with the “legal” demands and notices of such a kind. …
[71] On 26 February 2022, the Applicant sent a separate document, titled “Proposal for the Resolution of Dispute” and “Notice of Agent is Notice to Principal”. It was expressed to be signed by the Applicant and was four pages in length. Among other matters, “in considering an appropriate settlement amount, ‘Julia Elana’, of the family Miroch” asked for $7.25 million. …
[79] On 9 March 2022, the Applicant’s representative sent the Applicant’s team leader an email titled “Meeting”. The email stated that the Applicant “is still on sick leave due to the workplace violence committed against her” and asserted that the team leader had “breached” the “Notice of Legal Liability” (i.e. the “invoice” I described above) and committed a “further act” of workplace violence. He stated he would be attending the meeting for the Applicant and requested a meeting link. The email itself contained in the evidence does not expressly identify the Applicant’s representative by name as the “From” email field instead refers to it being sent by “Galactic Emissary”. It was also signed “The Moot Court of Terra Australis Incognito”. It does not appear in controversy, and I find, that the email was sent by the Applicant’s representative. I also conclude he did so at the request of the Applicant, as her representative was not copied into the meeting invitation sent on 7 March 2022 ….
[81] Shortly after the telephone call, the Applicant’s representative sent Mr Bye an email containing two documents that, it appears, purported to provide proof of his “attorney” status. One document was expressed to be a “general non-enduring power of attorney” made under the “law of the land of, Terra Australis” and “also” under the Power of Attorney Act 2014 (Vic). Neither basis was effective. The other document was slightly shorter and referred to the Applicant appointing her representative on 23 February 2022 as her “attorney in fact”. It was dated 10 March 2022 and appears to have been signed by her …
[95] For completeness, I note that the Applicant, through her representative, sent a further invoice dated 6 April 2022 (for $7,250,000), a “Notice of Acceptance by Tacit Acquiescence” dated 8 April 2022 (again for $7,250,000) and a “Reminder Invoice Notice” on 8 April 2022 (for $50,000) and again on 10 May 2022 (for $7,250,000).
