'The Internationalisation of Pseudolaw: The Growth of Sovereign Citizen Arguments in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand' by Harry Hobbs, Stephen Young and Joe McIntyre in 47(1) University of New South Wales Law Journal (Forthcoming) comments
Pseudolaw refers to the phenomenon whereby adherents adopt the forms and structures of legal argumentation while substituting the substantive content and underlying principles for a distinct parallel set of beliefs. In this paper we explore and catalogue the forms of pseudolegal claims made by a particular subset of adherent – the sovereign citizen movement – in one part of the common law world, courts in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Our study demonstrates both the internationalisation of pseudolaw, and that the phenomenon adapts and evolves to suit local legal discourses. We conclude by offering suggestions to respond to pseudolaw.
In Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Garrett [2023] FCA 956 the pseudolaw is nicely captured in the Catchwords:
– “jumble of gobbledygook”
– where respondent claims that trial judge and other judges are bankrupts and should be extradited and imprisoned in Siberia or Outer Mongolia
– where respondent claims to be repository of all public powers in Commonwealth of Nations
– injunctions –application by Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) to permanently restrain applicant from conducting “banking business” within the meaning of the Banking Act 1959 (Cth) (Banking Act)
– where respondent vexatious litigant
– latest iteration in broader litigious saga
– where respondent associated with various non-legal “banking” entities – where entities controlled by respondent carrying on “banking business” without authorisation under the Banking Act
Lee J states
This is an application brought by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) concerning a claim that the respondent, Mr Andrew Morton Garrett, is unlawfully conducting a “banking business” in contravention of the Banking Act 1959 (Cth) (Banking Act). Mr Garrett is a former Australian winemaker. He is also a vexatious litigant, being the subject of an order of this Court made in 2015, pursuant to s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (FCA Act), which has not expired: see Garrett v Commissioner of Taxation [2015] FCA 117; (2015) 147 ALD 342 (at 371–372 [35] per Pagone J). In litigation spanning nearly two decades, Mr Garrett has commenced (or has been the subject of) various proceedings which broadly relate to his decision to divest himself of his former winemaking business: see, for example, Rubis v Garrett as Trustee of the Andrew Garrett Family Trust Trading as Dynamic Commercial Workforce Solutions [2018] FCA 1760 (Rares J); Garrett v Make Wine Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1258 (Mortimer J); Garrett, as Trustee for the Garrett Family Trust [2009] FCA 252 (Gilmour J); Garrett v Foster’s Wine Estates Limited [2007] FCA 253 (Finn J); Garrett v Tseng [2007] FCA 93 (Lander J). Although Mr Garrett today is a respondent, this proceeding is the latest iteration of this broader litigious saga. APRA seeks, in summary, final relief under s 65A of the Banking Act and s 23 of the FCA Act to enjoin Mr Garrett from carrying on a banking business. ...
As best I understand it, it is in this capacity that Mr Garrett claims to be the personal repository of all public powers in the Commonwealth of Nations. In a letter attached to an email sent to my Associate in July (which appears to have been filed in proceedings commenced in the United States District Court in Colorado), Mr Garrett claims, among other things, that:
I am the Managing Controller and Liquidator appointed to the Crown (Liquidator and Managing Controller Appointed), Globally, as well as holding Hereditary Public Office as Crown Attorney General appointed to the Commonwealth of Nations. ... I am a person exercising hereditary discretionary public powers conferred under THE EIGHT ENACTMENTS and Hold s61 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), the assets of THE CEST TUI QUE VIE TRUST, THE NORTH AMERICA PROPERTY TRUST, THE AUSTRALIA PROPERTY TRUST, THE UNITED KINGDOM & IRELAND PROPERTY TRUST, THE INDIA PROPERTY TRUST, THE AFRICAS PROPRTY TRUST, THE CANADA PROPERTY TRUST, THE NEW ZEALAND PROPERTY TRUST, THE REMAINING BRITISH EMPIRE DOMINIONS PROPERTY TRUSTS and all treaties executed between Members of the Commonwealth of Nations as personal property.
In exercising these purported powers, Mr Garrett is said to have placed various government bodies (including this Court) into liquidation. He also claims to have placed various former and current Judges of this Court (including myself) into bankruptcy. He also seeks the extradition of the same judges to, and their imprisonment in, the People’s Republic of China (although Mr Garrett now apparently favours, for reasons that are not pellucid, Siberia or Outer Mongolia). This is illustrated in two emails copied to my Associate, the first in July:
Dear Mesdames et Messieurs The proliferation of Numbnuts as a result of failure to exercise discretionary public powers conferred under enactments in the Public Interest beggars belief. The Public Trust in Australia has been betrayed by all three branches of Government and most particularly by the Australian Judiciary; AUSTRALIA IS POORLY SERVED BY THE ACTING JUDICIARY, ACTING ATTORNEYS GENERAL, ACTING SOLICITORS GENERAL, ACTING GOVERNORS, PARLIAMENTARIANS, COMMITTEES ETC. I have named 671 Convicted persons and entities in the Hong Kong Proceedings which will no doubt become much larges on completion of disclosure of all materials facts in accordance with the Crown Common Law Model Litigant Obligations for Continuous Full Disclosure. THE FINDINGS OF MORTIMER IN 2014 (as attached) ARE CRIMINAL .......is this the best you can do as Chief Justice.............the only Justice who shows any sense of balance is Logan J...........The above and particularly Charlesworth, White, Kenney, Beach, Middleton, Davey, Pagone and all of the South Australian and High Court Judiciary should be extradited and incarcerated in accordance with the Mandatory Life Sentence applicable under South Australian Law. I am content to fund the building of the Prison in China. And the second in early August: 2023_95600.jpg
As will already be evident, Mr Garrett’s claims are not legally compelling. Indeed, to borrow an expression from a case involving claims not dissimilar to those in the present case, they resemble a “jumble of gobbledygook”: see Bradley v The Queen [2020] QCA 252 (Sofronoff P, with whom Mullins JA and Boddice J agreed). This is self-evident and I do not propose to waste time dealing with the allegation I am a bankrupt, nor explain why I consider the better view is that I should not be imprisoned in Outer Mongolia or some such place. As will be seen, the claims made by Mr Garrett in the correspondence above broadly underpin his contentions in relation to the entities the subject of this proceeding. ...
Mr Garrett is associated with various non-legal entities, including “Dynamic Capital Bank” (DCB), “Banca di Como”, and “Banque de Capital Dynamique” (together, relevant entities), which he seeks to register as business names: Sheehan Affidavit (at [24]). APRA contends it is these “entities” through which Mr Garrett is conducting a “banking business” without proper authorisation, in contravention of the Banking Act. Mr Garrett purports to be, among other things, the Chief Executive Officer of DCB. The DCB website ... lists various Australian office locations, with its head office purportedly located at the Reserve Bank Building, 111 Macquarie Street, Hobart, Tasmania 7000. As of today, the DCB website is operational and contains the following information under the “About” tab:
A Private Investment and Trading Bank with Global reach under a Banking License granted by the Crown Attorney General ("the CAG") acting for the Liquidator and Managing Controller Appointed to the Liquidator and Managing Controller Appointed) Crown Globally and the Secretariat of the Commonwealth of Nations (Liquidator and Managing Controller Appointed). The Bank is pursuing the development of representative offices through a licensee network in every State. Territory, Province and Nation of the Member Nations of the United Nations and the Commonwealth of Nations. (Emphasis added). The entities “Banca di Como” and “Banque de Capital Dynamique” associated with Mr Garrett do not have websites. ...
APRA seeks, among other things, final injunctive relief as follows: The Respondent be permanently restrained under s 65A of the Banking Act, whether by himself, his servants or agents or otherwise, from orally or in any written or electronic form: (a) carrying on any banking business in Australia in contravention of s 7 of the Banking Act; (b) assuming or using the words ‘bank’, ‘banker’, ‘banking’, ‘banca’, ‘banque’ or any words or phrases of like import (whether or not in English) in relation to any purported bank, business or purported business in contravention of s 66 of the Banking Act; and (c) advertising, representing or stating that any purported bank, business or purported business will carry on banking business. The Respondent be permanently restrained under s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), whether by himself, his servants or agents or otherwise, from carrying on any activities incidental to carrying on a ‘banking business’ as defined s 5 of the Banking Act, including but not limited to, issuing any bill or note for the payment of money payable to bearer on demand and intended for circulation, or which purports to be a bill or note for the payment of money payable to bearer on demand and intended for circulation, in contravention of s 44 of the Reserve Bank Act 1959 (Cth). ...
Thirdly, Mr Garrett contended that the relevant entities are “all registered in Australia with the Crown” by virtue of, among other things, his purported exercise of the executive power of the Commonwealth. Fourthly, and more broadly, Mr Garrett claims this Court lacks jurisdiction to deal with the present application. This contention is put by Mr Garrett in various ways, though one example will suffice:
By way of disclosure the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (Liquidator and Managing Controller Appointed) seeks to prevent me from usings [sic] words associated with Banking and thereby frustrate my access to global payments platforms in order to confirm transfer of value.(AMG 6876o), [sic] they have allegedly commenced proceedings against me in the Federal Court of Australia however it is not possible for a lower power to have jurisdiction over a higher power in which regards the matters arising in all proceedings related to me are already on foot as a consequence of my consent to the jurisdiction of the High Court of Hong Kong. (Emphasis added).
These contentions are devoid of merit. To the extent it is necessary, I will deal with each in turn before turning to why I consider it is appropriate to grant the injunctions sought by APRA. .... There is no legal basis to contend that the relevant entities are registered by the exercise of the executive power of the Commonwealth. Fourthly, the Court plainly has power to hear and determine the present application. Jurisdiction is the authority of the Court to adjudicate: Australian Securities Investment Commission v Edensor Nominees Pty Limited [2001] HCA 1; (2001) 204 CLR 559 (at 570 [3] per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Gummow JJ); see also Leeming M, Authority to Decide: The Law of Jurisdiction in Australia (2nd ed, Federation Press, 2020). This Court’s jurisdiction is relevantly attracted by a matter arising under a law made by the Parliament (here, the Banking Act): see Mulley v Hayes [2021] FCA 1111; (2021) 286 FCR 360 (at 377–379 [47]–[58] per Lee J).
