Another instance of the unpersuasive straw man often adopted by sovereign citizens. In Rambaldi and Anor v Rice Bar Restaurant and Anor [2018] VSC 218 the Court states
[27] On 4 January 2018 the defendant filed an affidavit sworn by him on 28 December 2017. The affidavit is rambling, nonsensical and, aside from the occasional assertion in respect of matters the subject of this claim, is unresponsive to Mr Rambaldi’s affidavit of 7 December 2017. By way of example in this regard, an extract of the defendant’s affidavit (paragraphs [1] to [15]) reads as follows: SC:CTM
1. Kim Huit is consciously aware, that He is “Living Spirit” living as “Servant to Al Might Creator” in the “Greater Universe Continuum”. We are integrally interlocked to the immutable1 laws of this “Natural Element” wherein our inalienable “Spirit” is constituted in interlocutory law without been holder or occupier of “PERSON” Office.
2. Therefore the Man called Kim Huit of the House Tang, with the Grace of God as living breathing soul force of man, whereas one of the people of the land called Australia, and sincerely avow that in Kim Huit’s correct and proper public capacity exclusively as the beneficiary to the Original Jurisdiction, being of majority age, competent to testify, a self-realised man upon the land, that My yes be yes, My no, no, My word be true, and that do avow the truths and facts contained herein, are of Kim Huit first hand, sincere belief and knowledge as being, true, correct, complete, certain and not misleading; and grateful to the Blessing of Almighty God to allow Kim Huit to write this affidavit:
3. In the State of Victoria, the “Constitution Act 1975 – SECT 76, state that the Supreme Court of Victoria “to be a court of record and to have a seal. The Court shall be a court of record, and shall have and use as occasion may require a seal bearing an impression of the Royal Arms having inscribed thereon the words “The seal of the Supreme Court of the State of Victoria”; and such seal shall be kept in the custody of the Chief Justice of The Court”.
4. THAT We make this “special appearance” before this honourable court, to assist the court in distinguishing between ourselves: Kim Huit living spirit of the House Tang and KIM HUIT TANG (and all the derivatives and variation in the spelling of the said name (CORPORATION SOLE), in DOG-LATIN of the grammatical fact stating that such NAME written in DOG-LATIN-GLOSSA style in any of your documents are Corrupt and Criminal, our appearance before the court must not be construed as volunteering or consenting to the Plaintiff or the court jurisdiction.
5. That We have not engaged the services of licenced legal counsel and, thereby rebut any assumed “consent to contract” or “consent to jurisdiction”.
6. That We are “Kim Huit” with the initial letter capitalized as required by the rules of English Grammar when writing the description of living Spirit man. With the blessing of Al Mighty Creator of All Things We become the son of a man and a woman that was born in our mother womb with rights of inheritance and issue from the house of Tang” with the initial capitalized.
7. That We are not a life-less, dead-in-law-artificial-legal-entity-person- natural-person-human being.
8. That We are who we are, not, who the imagination, devices or records of men, say that we are.
9. That it is the responsibility of the plaintiff and court registrar to bring the correct party before the court, we are not that party.
10. “. .And the LORD-GOD formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life: and man become a living soul” Genesis Chapter 2:7
11. That consistent with the God’s scriptures laws unless we have wilfully harmed someone or damaged their property, we have not committed any wrongdoing; and therefore we are not liable to answer or enter to any contract without consent or be liable for any damage/penalty(s) but the court should consider a remedy to the benefit of the Living Man Kim Huit of the House Tang.
12. We truly believe and say that we had fulfilled our obligation lawfully with the A.T.O, we had tendered 7 payments in total in our good faith and accordance with Bill of Exchange 1909, as amended in2011 and administered by the Treasury ....
13. ATO as a Government entity are well verse in financial instruments and the laws and obligations that must be followed, the Commissioner or his/her deputies know that they had the right to protest at the time stipulated in the instruments; however they chose not to show up at the time of the meeting and they failed or refused to protest and the ATO had never returned the tendered instruments.
14. Awe (sic) demand that PITCHER PARTNERS and GESS MICHAEL RAMBALDI verify in writing that the A.T.O had never received any payment in a way of Bill of Exchange, and what firsthand knowledge do they have regarding the tendered Bill of Exchange to the ATO, or did ATO mislead them by not disclosing the true facts of the payments they received by BOE, or are they both colluding to deceive us and the Honorable Court to benefit financially.
15. Notwithstanding we attached A.T.O’s Department inchoate instruments including what have been begun but apparently not completed (missing several material particulars, including some or all of the Parties being expressed in a representative capacity as part of our presentments that having been all accepted for valuable consideration as per the tenor of such terms, provisions and endorsements so expressed (subsequently issued complete with any negativing or limiting one’s liability by such endorsements), as being an “unqualified offer to Contract between the Parties” so named thereon.
[28] The affidavit continues for another 15 paragraphs in the same vein. If one were attempting an analysis of its substance, the defendant appears to contend that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the claim and that by the proffering of bills of exchange the Commissioner’s claim (which constitutes the entirety of the plaintiffs’ claim in this proceeding) has been discharged.
[29] On 23 February 2018, the defendant sought to file several additional documents, headed ‘Writ of Error’, ‘Facts-Finding’, and ‘Judicial-Notice’, which were in the same vein as the affidavit to which I have referred. On 27 February 2018 Ms Helena Konstanopoulos, an Assistant Registrar (Legal) and Deputy Prothonotary of the Court wrote to the defendant advising him that the documents had been rejected for filing as they had not been prepared in accordance with the rules of Court and were not in the correct form. The defendant responded on 14 March 2018 in argumentative terms.
In Roberts v Goodwin Street Developments Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 103 the Court states that the grounds of appeal by Mr Roberts were as follows:
1. A competent person would agree that the flesh of “daniel” or “daniel roberts” is not the same as the office of Trustee “Daniel” or “Daniel Roberts” or the Trust Corpus True Person “DANIEL” “ROBERTS” “DANIEL “ROBERTS” “BENEFICIARY”.
2. The appellant is a living man with flesh and blood, a living man cannot defend himself in a civil jurisdiction.
3. The appellant is a member of the Homo Sapien Species, owns Divine Trust Rights to a Good Soul, Body, Mind and Property.
4. The appellant is not a Thing and cannot be Legally converted to a Thing via Civil Controversy.
5. The appellant is a Property owner and is apologetic for any Mistake of Fact.
6. The prospective respondent is a Protagonist of Drama and discharging this case is resolution of the Plot.
7. The prospective respondent is a fictional Person and cannot make a claim against a living man Natural Person under the Law.
8. The appellant is not surety for a corporate fiction, Inferior Trust(s) can’t stand, there is hidden accounting, we don’t accept punitive or cohesive benefits.
9. The appellant is trustee of an express True Trust, appellant has a superior Trust position.
