In Nelson v Greenman & Anor [2024] VSC 704 Gobbo AsJ dealt with a range of pseudolaw arguments, including the assertion that one party's soul - and everything else - was outside Victorian Law. The judgment features reference to the sovereign citizen “People’s Court of Terra Australis”.
The judgment states
17 On 19 January 2024, Einsiedels solicitors lodged the Caveat over the Land on behalf of the first defendant. 18 On 21 February 2024, Mr Harffey filed a Form 46A Summons and an affidavit in the 2023 Proceeding seeking to be joined as a party to that proceeding as: (a) the ‘Occupant of the office of Special Trustee for the "Douglas, Stephen Ross, Estate Trust A.B.N. 79 773 773 977 and the Koo Wee Rup Ministry, Trust A.B.N. 88 778 945 997” both formally Expressed and Established in 2017’; (b) the ‘rightful trustee of the property concerned’; and (c) ‘Trustees of The Property’. 19 On 27 February 2024, Victoria Police made a second unsuccessful attempt to execute the VCAT Warrant. 20 On the same day, Quigley J, heard the appeal filed by the Bankrupt and his son against the orders of VCAT, including the application by Mr Harffey to be intervene and be joined. 21 On 18 March 2024, Quigley J dismissed the 2023 Proceeding.[1] 22 On 21 March 2024, Victoria Police executed the VCAT Warrant, removed the Bankrupt and his family from the Land, and gave the plaintiff possession. The plaintiff has appointed estate agents and conveyancing lawyers to assist with selling the Land which is currently being offered for sale. In order to proceed with the sale of the Land, the plaintiff seeks the removal of the Caveat. ... The first defendant’s case is expressed in two different sources. First, in the documents provided by his former solicitors, Einsiedels, to the plaintiff’s solicitor in purported support of the Caveat. Second, in the First Defendant’s Affidavit and the other documents submitted in opposition to the application. For the reasons that follow, I have determined that there is no cogent evidence before the Court from which the Court could be satisfied that the first defendant has a prima facie case for the asserted implied, resulting or constructive trust.
Documents submitted by Einsiedels
27 Dealing first with the letter from Einsiedels dated 19 February 2024 (‘Einsiedels’ Letter’), the first defendant’s interest in the Land, was expressed in the following terms: The Trust property is a Christian ministry headquarters and is listed as a house of worship. It was the earliest Christian church in Koo Wee Rup in the 1800’s before there was a dedicated church built in the town, and since our client has been at the house they have held Sunday services and prayer meetings in the house with visiting churchgoers. Ther are two trusts, one being the DOUGLAS Stephen Ross Estate Trust and the other being the Koo Wee Rup Ministry Trust. Our client, Paul Spencer Green [sic], has instructed us that their caveatable interest in the property is due to his role as Special Trustee for the DOUGLAS, Stephen Ross, Estate Trust ABN: 79 773 773 977 as shown to you in the first attachment titled “Acceptance of Office - Special Trustee - dated 11.1.2024”. The Special Trustee was formalised by trust deed which included the property at Lot 1 Walker Street, Koo Wee Rup in 2017 and is in possession of the property at present. The Trust is a Life Estate in Fee Simple. The Trust has a caveat on the property. Under the Trusts (Hague Convention) Act 1991 Cwth [sic], whoever holds a title to the property holds it on behalf of the trust. With this in mind, it is our belief that Simon Nelson cannot touch any assets of a religious ministry or church. It is part of exempt property held in a trust by the bankrupt for the benefit of someone else as described in Sect. 116 of the Bankruptcy Act. The “others” described in the Act would be the not for profit, charitable trust organisation, being the Koo Weep Rup Ministry. It is a non-denominational, Christian ministry, operating out of Lot 1 Walker Street, Koo Wee Rup. We also enclose the Certificate of Trust Affirmation.
28 The ‘Certificate of Trust Affirmation’ was in two parts. The first page, carrying an unidentifiable coat of arms and the words Commonwealth of Australia, was headed ‘Acceptance of Office “Special Trustee”’ and was in the following terms: DOUGLAS, Stephen Ross, Estate Trust Whereas, Paul Greenman, of Berwick in the Original State, Victoria, The Commonwealth of Australia, whom, is known to execute contracts by the Name: Paul Greenman, does hereby accept the Office of Special Trustee for the DOUGLAS, Stephen Ross, Estate Trust - [ABN: 79 773 773 977), this private agreement with trust provisions is in full force and effect as of subscribing hereunto with the authorisation of the Special Trustee. This Trustee further pledges to minister, protect, and preserve The Trust, through prudent exercise of the powers and authorities vested to the Office, as expressed in the Trusts Deed and the limits of the Office set by The Board of Trustee, and acknowledge that I may be removed from the Office by The Board without cause by written notice therefrom. Affirmation: Whereas, this Acceptance of the Office is hereby affirmed by subscribing hereunto, with explicit reservation of all rights, without prejudice to any of those rights, and reserve the right to resign from any position at any time. This Private Contract is entered and executed willingly, knowingly, and voluntarily in good faith and with clean hands.
29 The second page was a document headed ‘Certificate of Trust Affirmation’ which purportedly recorded the ‘DOUGLAS Stephen Ross, Estate Trust’, a ‘pure express trust’ signed on 16 November 2023 with the settlor named as Stephen Ross Douglas and the Trustee named as Keith-Charles, who the document recorded was ‘known to execute contracts using the name Keith Charles Harffey’.
30 A further document headed ‘Trust Schedule’ was also attached which recorded the name of the trust as ‘Douglas, Stephen Ross, Estate Trust – [ABN 79 773 773 977]’, the settlor as Mr Stephen Ross Douglas, the special trustee as Mr Keith Charles Harffey and the type of trust being a ‘Hybrid Trust: Discretionary Trust and a non-fixed Unit Trust’. The document further recorded that the founding date for the trust was 2 October 2019 and the applicable law was ‘King James Version Bible (A.D. 1611)’.
31 Even the most cursory review of the documents enclosed with Einsiedels’ Letter, leaves no doubt that the documents are no more than a jumble of legal gibberish. That those documents were conveyed by a solicitor on the basis that they recorded either proper and competent instructions or a trust said to support a caveatable interest in the Land, which Caveat the solicitor then lodged, is nothing short of staggering.
32 The many and obvious shortcomings with the documents enclosed with Einsiedels’ Letter were addressed in a letter sent by the plaintiff’s solicitor on 6 March 2024. The plaintiff’s letter sought the removal of the Caveat within seven days failing which the plaintiff indicated that an application would be made to Court for its removal together with a claim for indemnity costs. There was no response to that letter. .... Einsiedels were not present before the Court at the hearing of the application in order to provide an explanation for their conduct which I have identified. Documents submitted by the first defendant
35 In addition to those documents contained in Einsiedels’ Letter, the First Defendant’s Affidavit set out a myriad of further assertions which appeared to mirror many of those which appeared in documents previously provided to the plaintiff.
36 The First Defendant’s Affidavit, which was 34 pages of nonsensical quasi‑legal concepts and phrases, Bible quotes and references to organisations and entities with unconventional titles or descriptions, urged the Court to draw the conclusion that the first defendant had created legal entitlements or protections which would defeat the plaintiff’s entitlement to possession of the Land.
37 Contained in the First Defendant’s Affidavit are concepts which have been comprehensively dismissed by other Courts or which are so absurd so as to have no relevance to first defendant’s prima facie case.
38 Without being exhaustive, and only to demonstrate the absurdity of the arguments advanced by the first defendant, I note that his affidavit contained 34 pages of the following (largely incomprehensible and unintelligible) types of statements: On the date known “24th July 2024'” that Statement and Declaration of Truth/'”Affidavit” (Annexure “A”) was served on, amongst others, the living man known as “The Hon. Anthony Carbines MP”, acting as “MINISTER FOR POLICE”, the living man known as “Shane Patton APM”, acting as “Chief Commissioner”, POLICE DEPARTMENT (VIC), the living woman known as “The Hon. Jaclyn Symes MLC”, acting as “Attorney-General, Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council” “STATE OF VICTORIA-PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA”, the living woman known as “Her Honour Judge Lisa Hannan”, acting as “Chief Magistrate” Melbourne MAGISTRATES COURT, and ... [11] What is unlawful ought not be entered under the pretext of legality “QUOD-ESTILLICITUM, PRAETEXU-LEGALITATIS-NON-DEBET-INTROIRl” – (repeated at paragraph [16]) [12] The malicious designs of men must be thwarted “MALITIA-CONSILIA HOMINUM-FRUSTRARI-DEBENT” – (repeated at paragraph [17]) ... [14] "72. As the Creator is the giver of all spiritual life and the creator of the living being, and whereas the living being is the creator and giver of life to the paper fiction known as the “person”, “Government”, “Corporation”, “Citizen”, and other nonliving transmitting entities of fictional nature, a created fictional paper entity cannot rule over its creator an, as such, the ‘soul’, ‘Greenie’, and the living being we are incarnated into,’Paul Spencer’,of the tribe/family/house/clan “Greenman”, is not, and cannot be, under the jurisdiction of any man-created fiction ; and [sic] ... [20] “Universal Proclamation of Human Rights (UDHR) signed in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A). ... [31] “QUOD-EST-ILLICITUM, PRAETEXU-LEGALITATIS-NON-DEBET INTROIRI” - What is unlawful ought not be entered under the pretext of legality ... [34] . The ‘soul’, ‘Greenie’, and the living being it incarnated into, ‘Paul -Spencer’, of the tribe/family/house/clan “Greenman”, renounce, rebut, disassociate and reject that any and all corporate entities masquerading as, or purporting to be, a “government”, including, but not limited to, the following; [35] “STATE OF VICTORIA - PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA” [ABN 57 505 521 939] [36] and/or all of its/their trading names, and/or departments, and/or all of its employees, has any authority or jurisdiction over us in any way; ... [82] 126. In particular, the ‘soul’, ‘Greenie’, and the living being it incarnated into, ‘Paul-Spencer’, of the tribe/family/house/clan “Greenman”, unless we specifically contract, and that written and signed contract can be produced as proof on demand, do not acknowledge or consent that the corporate entity “POLICE DEPARTMENT (VIC)” [ABN 63 446 481 493] and/or all of its trading names, and/or all of its employees, has any authority or jurisdiction over us in any way; ... [89] 173. Any and all ‘”Courts” of “Australia” and/or any of its agents, is/are dismissed from ever assuming the role of “trustee” in any matters concerning the ‘soul’, ‘Greenie’, and the living being it incarnated into, ‘Paul -Spencer’, of the tribe/family/house/clan “Greenman”, and/or any trust accounts, including, but not limited to, “PAUL -SPENCER GREENMAN”, Estate, “PAUL E. GREENMAN”, Estate, “PAUL GREENMAN”, Estate, “GREENMAN, PAUL E.”, Estate, et alia, or any other such “CAPITAL-LETTERED” or lower case variation of such, in any way, including, but not limited to, the use of initials, prefixes, suffixes, titles, appendages, and the like, of/to which We, the ‘soul’, ‘Greenie’, and the living being it incarnated into, ‘Paul -Spencer’, of the tribe/family/house/clan “Greenman”, believe we am/are the “Principal” and “Executive Beneficiary”, and ... [97] 191. Anxiety caused by the actions of the aforementioned “Governments”, corporations, non-living entities and all the members/ employees/”officers” and agents of such, resulting in fear of harm, damage, loss or injury is here now sighted as unliquidable damages, the extent of which is to be determined by a competent assessor of the choosing of the living man “Paul -Spencer’, of the tribe/family/house/ clan “Greenman”; [98] “QUI-NON-NEGARE, ACCIPIT” - He who does not deny, accepts ... [100] The Statement and Declaration of Truth/”Affidavit” (Annexure “A”) has not been challenged nor rebutted; [101] “An-soluto-tabellam-dare-iudicium-in-Commerce” - An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in Commerce ... [127] Notice of Legal Liability [128] This is a Non-Negotiable Self-Executing Contract [129] Any attempt by you, the aforementioned addressee, or any agent of/from any of the following entities: [130] “STATE OF VICTORIA - PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA” trading as “PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA” ABN 57 505 521 939 [131] “SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA” ABN 32 790 228 959 [132] “SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA PROPERTY LIST” trading name of “SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA)” [ABN 32 790 228 959] [133] any corporate entity [134] who attempts to act in any unauthorised manner as executor of/for the aforementioned trust accounts administered through this Office of the Executor, will be taken, under this Notice of Legal Liability, and pursuant to Canon 2035, as to agreeing to pay the following remedy; [135] a) for “individuals”, living man or living woman; the remedy of One-Million US Dollars ($1,000,000 USD), or its equivalent, per infraction, payable within twentyeights [sic] days of service as per the terms and conditions of that invoice, and [136] b) for “corporations”, “body politics” and/or “Government departments”; the remedy of Ten-Million US Dollars ($10,000,000 USD), or its equivalent, per infraction, payable within twenty-eights [sic] days of service as per the terms and conditions of that invoice, ... [27] PENHALLOW V DOANE ADMINISTRATORS (3US 54; 1 L.Ed 57; Dall N54) UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULING 1795 No corporation has jurisdiction over a natural man. "In as much as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction and a creature of the mind only, a government can interfere ONLY with artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc, can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the CONTRACTS between them".
39 For completeness, I note a further document relied upon by the first defendant, namely the ‘Notice of Attendance Notice of Rebuttal of any and all Presumptions of Law - Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent - Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal’ also contained a jumbled mess of references to concept of the ‘Living Man’ together with a variety of legal maxims. Some examples contained in the 80 paragraphs set out in that 11 page document included: [1] I, the living man “Paul-Spencer’, of the family/house/tribe/clan “Greenman”, am recorded as such with The People's Court of Terra Australis PC-LS-2917, and [2] I, the living man ‘Paul-Spencer’, of the family/house/tribe/clan “Greenman”, act in the belief I am principal and executive beneficiary of the non-living Cestui Qui Vie estate/trust “PAUL SPENCER GREENMAN”, also referred to as “GREENMAN, PAULS.” “Paul GREENMAN” “Mr. Paul GREENMAN” et alia, and [3] I, the living man ‘Paul-Spencer’, of the family/house/tribe/clan “Greenman”, act in the belief, according to The People's Court of Terra Australis (PC-FN-2916), that I am and the owner of the fictitious names “PAUL SPENCER GREENMAN”, “Paul GREENMAN”, “PAUL S GREENMAN”, “GREENMAN Paul”, et alia, and ... [5] I, the living man ‘Paul-Spencer’, of the family/house/tribe/clan “Greenman”, i am not illiterate, and [6] I, the living man ‘Paul-Spencer’, of the family/house/tribe/clan “Greenman”, i am no ignorant, and ... [8] I, the living man ‘Paul-Spencer’, of the family/house/tribe/clan “Greenman”, i am no lunatic, and ... [12] I, the living man ‘Paul-Spencer’, of the family/house/tribe/clan “Greenman”, i am of the belief and comprehension that the corporate entity “SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA” may only hear Civil claims of disputes of contract in which both/all parties agree and consent to the corporate entity “SUPREMEN [sic] COURT OF VICTORIA” presiding over the matter, and ... [25] That the unchallenged affidavit stands as truth in law; Legal Maxim: “INEXPLICABILIS-LIBELLUS-PRO-VERO-IN COMMERCIUM” - AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT STANDS AS TRUTH IN COMMERCE. (12 Pet. l :25; Heb. 6:13-15;) Claims made in an affidavit, if not rebutted, emerge as the truth of the matter. ... [43] I, the living man ‘Paul-Spencer’, of the family/house/tribe/clan “Greenman”, being a living man, am Sui Juris ("SUI-JURIS"), Principal and Executive Beneficiary of the non-living Cestui Qui Vie estate/trust “PAUL SPENCER GREENMAN” do not consent, nor agree, to any “Acts”, “Legislation”, “Rules” “Directions”, and/or “Demands”, and ... [57] I, living man ‘Paul-Spencer’, of the family/house/tribe/clan “Greenman”, am not a dead entity that is “summonsed” to life via magic or spells, and ... [74] The “Judge/Magistrate/Justice” claiming to preside in the matter “S ECI 2024 04778”” has no right, nor authority, from me, the living man ‘Paul Spencer’, of the family/house/tribe/clan “Greenman”, to assume the role of “true” executor and has no right to seek the assistance of police, bailiffs or sheriffs to assert their false claim and have me, the living man ‘Paul-Spencer’, of the family/house/tribe/clan “Greenman”, arrested, detained, fined or forced into a psychiatric evaluation, and ... [79] I, the living man ‘Paul-Spencer’, of the family/house/tribe/clan “Greenman”, rebut, rebuke and reject any and all presumptions that the matter “S ECI 2024 04778” listed on the date known as “25/10/2024” before the “SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA ABN 32 790 228 959” is a private business meeting of the Bar Guild, and rebut reject and rebuke any and all presumptions of “guilt”, and
40 A further document relied on by the first defendant, being the ‘Proclamation of the establishment of Office of the Executor of Paul Spencer Greenman’ similarly contained yet more gibberish relating to the ‘Living Man’ whereby the first defendant purported to proclaim, amongst other matters, that he is: Pursuant to the unchallenged and unrebutted Statement and Declaration of Truth/”Affidavit” of the living man ‘Paul Spencer, biological creation of Bert and Margaret, being of the family “Greenman”, made the date known Twenty-Fourth of June Two-thousandTwenty-Four (24/06/2024) and served on, amongst others, “Theresa Fairman, Director and Registrar” “REGISTRY OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES NSW” on the date known as Ninth of July Two-thousand-Twenty-Four (09/07/2024), and, as such, being of the belief and understanding that I, the living man ‘Paul Spencer, am the sole beneficiary of all trust accounts created by “State” of “NEW SOUTH WALES” from the “BIRTH CERTIFCATE” “REGISTRATION NUMBER 44280/1968”, Barcode numbers 066904720241723409087235/ 06690472024/ 30004479978, Re: “GREENMAN, Paul Spencer” “Date of Birth” 23 March 1968” “Date of Registration” “10 April 1968” , I, the living man ‘Paul Spencer’, biological creation of Bert and Margaret, do proclaim; (a) I, the living man ‘Paul Spencer’, am not “Lost at See/Sea” and (b) I, the living man ‘Paul Spencer’, have the capacity to act as Executor of all associated aforementioned trust accounts, and ...
41 Finally, at the hearing before me, the first defendant read onto the transcript a document headed ‘Notice of Intervention’ dated 23 October 2024 which was in the following terms consistent with the previous pseudo-legal nonsense the first defendant had submitted: [1] The living man ‘Paul Spencer’, of the family “Greenman” attempted to file an Interlocutory and Affidavit with the “SUPREME COURT of VICTORIA” in coherent English, readable and complete, and [2] The living man ‘Paul Spencer’ of the family “Greenman” has attempted to file an Interlocutory and Affidavit with the “SUPREME COURT of VICTORIA”, and were refused based on format and wrong form, and [3] All of the “SUPREME COURT of VICTORIA” documents and forms contain Glossa, which is Debased Latin rendering them Criminal and Counterfeit, and [4] The “SUPREME COURT of VICTORIA” requires the living man ‘Paul Spencer’, of the family “Greenman”, to commit fraud in order to accept document for filing, and [5] The “RedCrest Online Portal” only permits fictional entities to file, therefore... [6] Agents of the “SUPREME COURT of VICTORIA” have committed personage and barratry, and [7] The grounds unanimously determined, by a jury of the people, 23-0 that The People’s Court of Terra Australis intervene in the matter “S ECI 2024 4778” before the “SUPREME COURT of VICTORIA” for the purpose of ensuring justice and fairness, and judicial processes are adhered to, and [8] This matter is hereby transferred from, and out of, the jurisdiction of the Magistrates/County/District/Supreme Court to The People’s Court of Terra Australia (Australasia) listed for the date known as “Friday, 22nd November 2024”
42 The ‘Notice of Intervention’ was purportedly signed by both the ‘Attorney-General’ and a ‘Registrar’. During the hearing when I asked the first defendant who had signed the document, he declined to tell me. It is apparent looking at the document that it was not signed by either the Victorian or Commonwealth Attorneys General or by any Registrar or officer of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The document otherwise purported to unilaterally transfer the proceeding and plaintiff’s application from the Supreme Court of Victoria to the ‘People’s Court of Terra Australia (Australasia)’ on 22 November 2024. The proceeding before me was not transferred and is not the subject of a further hearing on 22 November 2024.
Analysis
43 Taking it at its highest, the first defendant’s case appears, as set out in his various submissions and in his affidavit, to rely on an argument that the plaintiff has no legal entitlement to possession as legal owner because the Land was legally transferred to a trust and, as trust property, it is immune from being considered as part of the bankrupt estate.
44 The documents said to be evidence of the trust before me were the subject of consideration by Quigley J in the 2023 Proceeding in which her Honour dismissed the VCAT appeal.
45 In that proceeding, Mr Harffey sought to advance a similar argument that the Land was the subject of an express trust in his favour. In considering similar alleged trust documents, Quigley J concluded that she was not satisfied that the Bankrupt had made a valid transfer of the legal ownership of the title to the Land to any trust entity, stating that there was no competent evidence before the Court to demonstrate the legal transfer of the Land to any trust entity.[6] Her Honour went on to quote Marchesi v Apostoulou (‘Marchesi’) where Weinberg J considered the law in which equity will recognise the assignment of property without consideration. The question in that case was whether a ‘gift’ to a family trust was ‘perfected’ in accordance with the principles established by the High Court in Corin v Patton.[8] That is, whether the bankrupt did all that was necessary to arm the donee with the capacity to register the titles in the name of the trustee of the trust.
46 Weinberg J held at paragraph 25 that the position was settled by the High Court in Corrin v Patton quoting Mason CJ and McHugh J:[9] Where a donor, with the intention of making a gift, delivers to the donee an instrument of transfer in registrable form with the certificate of title so as to enable him to obtain registration, an equity arises, not from the transfer itself, but from the execution and delivery of the transfer and the delivery of the certificate of title in such circumstances as will enable the donee to procure the vesting of legal title in himself.
47 I respectfully adopt the analysis of both Quigley J and Weinberg J. The documents supplied by the first defendant to support the Caveat do not establish that the Land is an asset of any trust, whether express, implied, resulting or constructive. The ‘Acceptance of Office – “Special Trustee”’ document simply accepts an appointment as a trustee to an express trust, the details of which are not supplied. The ‘Certificate of Trust Affirmation’ appears to ‘affirm’ a prior trust, rather than prove the establishment of any trust, or the conveyance of the Land to that trust. The attached Trust Schedule does not advance matters. The subsequent documents provided by the first defendant to the Court in addition to his affidavit similarly do nothing to establish that the Land is an asset of any trust, whether express, implied, resulting or constructive.
48 Further, the trust being contended for is said to have been created in 2017. Critically for the first defendant, there is no evidence showing that the Bankrupt, whilst he was the registered proprietor of the Land, took any steps to create a trust or to gift the Land to any trust. The Bankrupt remained the registered proprietor of the Land until well after, his bankruptcy on 26 September 2019. The plaintiff holds the legal title to the Land by reason of the Bankruptcy Act and has possession by reason of an order made by the Federal Court of Australia on 5 July 2022.
49 The is no evidence of a transfer being executed, or stamp duty being paid, or the consent of the mortgagee, Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited, being sought or obtained, noting that these elements were present in Marchesi and the Court still found that the purported gift of the property in the trust had failed. The documents supplied by Einsiedels on behalf of the first defendant were nothing more than pseudo-legal gibberish. The documents filed by the first defendant with this Court, including his affidavit, are similarly incomprehensible gobbledygook. ...
Conduct of the first defendant
52 Whilst the first defendant’s legal arguments were without any merit, and can all be aptly described as arrant nonsense, it is appropriate nonetheless that I say something further about the documents he filed (including correspondence advanced on his behalf by his former lawyers, Einsiedels) and his submissions at the hearing before me (to the extent that they could be classed as submissions), lest any other Court is required to consider such absurdity in the future. Living Man 53 In Stefan v McLachlan, John Dixon J comprehensively dealt with the fatuous concept of the ‘Living Man’. At paragraphs 23 to 26 his Honour held:
The law recognises a living person as having status in law and any person is, in this sense, a legal person. Conceptually, there may be differences between the legal status of a person and that of an entity that is granted a like legal status, but what ever they might be they have no application on this appeal. In asserting that he is a ‘living man’, the appellant does no more than identify that he is a person, an individual. Every person, every individual, and every entity accorded status as a legal person is subject to the rule of law. There are no exceptions in Australian society. It is plainly wrong to assert that a natural person is not subject to statute law, only to common law and the principles of equity. All persons are subject to all law whether its source be the Constitution, statute, or judge made law. No distinction can be made by using an analogue, such as ‘living man’ for ‘person’. There was no legal significance in the informant’s agreement with the appellant’s proposition in cross-examination that he was a ‘living man’. That conclusion was, and remained, blindingly obvious. A like argument was also based on the notion that the living man is created by God and not by the State and the Australian Constitution does not grant legislative power to the Parliament of Australia to affect the rights of the living man. No support can be found for such notions by reference to style guides, as the appellant sought to do, to draw inferences from obscure facts. In this case, the appellant noted that his name was printed on his driver’s licence wholly in capital letters. Such irrelevant matters cannot impugn the jurisdiction of a magistrate under the Road Safety Act. The appellant also advanced a like proposition that seems to have developed some momentum as a ‘sovereign citizen defence’, based in some way on notions of freedom to contract with others, as developed in a commercial context. The defendant contends that a living man is only answerable to those articles of law and legal proceedings to which he or she has consented. The contractual notion that the appellant alluded to has no role in public law in the manner suggested. Regulatory schemes legislated by Parliament do not require the consent of every individual for the law to apply to that individual. There is no contract and nor does the authority of the Parliament to pass such laws come from a sovereign, notwithstanding that the legislative power of the State is vested in the King and the Parliament of Victoria. The ‘consent’ of Victorians to statute law, in the sense in which the appellant used the expression, follows from the election of parliamentarians to make laws for the peace, order and good governance of the State and their subsequent exercise of that legislative power.
54 I respectfully adopt the helpful analysis by John Dixon J and reject, in their entirety any submission by the first defendant which relies on concepts of the ‘Living Man’.
55 I otherwise note that before me, the first defendant sought to class himself as the ‘Living Man’ in order to create a different identify from that of the person named in the Court proceeding as the first defendant. It is not without some degree of irony that, on the one hand, the first defendant sought to rely on the legal protections afforded by reason of lodging the Caveat over the Land in the name of Paul Spencer Greenman but simultaneously sought to divorce himself from that persona when his conduct in lodging the Caveat was subject to challenge.
56 In Re Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd,[12] Hetyey AsJ similarly considered the ‘Living Man’ stating (citations omitted):[13] The defendants appear to be seeking to draw a distinction between themselves as ‘natural’ or ‘living’ persons, on the one hand, and their status as ‘legal’ personalities, on the other. However, contemporary Australian law does not distinguish between a human being and their legal personality. Any such distinction would potentially leave a human being without legal rights, which would be unacceptable in modern society. The contentions put forward by the defendants in this regard are artificial and have no legal consequence.
Unilateral agreements
57 Hetyey AsJ went on to also consider unilateral contracts, a concept advanced by the first defendant who suggested that his alleged interest in the Land would be taken as having been established if certain of his various notices and declarations were not rebuffed within arbitrarily set timeframes. Relevantly, for the purpose of the arguments advanced before me I respectfully adopt his Honour’s observations as follows (citations omitted): It is a fundamental principle of contract law that an offeree’s intention to accept an offer must be clear and unequivocal. However, because silence is almost always equivocal, it will rarely be regarded as acceptance. As the Court of Appeal further explained in Danbol Pty Ltd v Swiss Re International SE: The requirement for acceptance, which must be communicated by the offeree to the offeror, is subject to a number of principles. First, as a general rule, silence cannot constitute acceptance. The rule is primarily designed to protect the offeree from having a contract foisted upon it by preventing the offeror from stipulating that a contract will be created by silence on the part of the offeree. It is a reflection of the requirement for mutual assent. The Court of Appeal further observed that in the absence of a clearly identified offer and acceptance, it will be difficult for a party to identify mutual assent to a binding legal relationship and its terms.
Other submissions
58 During the hearing before me, the first defendant refused to give his appearance. Rather he repeatedly stated that ‘I am Paul Spencer, acting in the capacity of the officer of executor for the so-called defendant 1’,[15] and ‘I’m the occupant of the office of executor for the defendant 1 and I will be heard’.[16] Thereafter, he refused to give his appearance instead repeating loudly ‘permission to come aboard’[17] as though those words carried with them some unique legal meaning, which they do not. Subsequently, five submissions were advanced by the first defendant.
59 First, he submitted that there was no legal merit in the Court.[18] No further submission was made in this respect. I reject the submission.
60 Second, he contended that the Supreme Court, all capitals, as the seal is ... with an ABN 32 790 228 959, did not have authority or jurisdiction over, Paul Spencer, the occupant of the office of executor.[19] There is no concept known to the law of ‘the occupant of the office of executor’ such that this Court would not have jurisdiction to hear an application for the removal of a caveat. I reject the submission.
61 Third, he contended that there was some limit on the Court’s ability to hear the matter until it was determined whether the Court was a public space or a private Bar guild space.[20] This concept also appeared in the various documents filed by the first defendant. This submission is irrelevant to the issues I am required to determine, it lacks any legal merit and is rejected.
62 Fourth, he contended there was some limit on the Court’s ability to hear the matter until it was determined whether I was a public servant and the source of my power to hear the application.[21] The power of an Associate Judge of this Court to hear and determine an application under s 90(3) of the TLA is not controversial. The source of power for Associate Judges of this Court was comprehensively addressed by Keogh J in Goodenough v State of Victoria.[22] I reject the first defendant’s submission.
63 Fifth, he had sought to file a ‘Notice of Intention’ the effect of which was, as I understand the submission, to remove jurisdiction from the Supreme Court of Victoria to hear and determine the application and vest the jurisdiction to determine the application with a court called ‘the People’s Court of Terra Australis’ with the submission put in the following terms:[23] One, by the living man Paul Spencer of the Family Greenman attempted to file an interlocutory and an affidavit with the Supreme Court of Victoria, all capitals, in coherent English, readable and complete and two, the living man Paul Spencer of the Family Greenman has attempted to file interlocutory and affidavit with the Supreme Court of Victoria, all capitals, and were refused based on format and wrong form. And three, all of the Supreme Court of Victoria, all capitals, documents and forms containing glosser which is debased Latin rendering them criminal and counterfeit. And four, the Supreme Court of Victoria, all capitals, requires the living man, Paul Spencer of the Family Greenman to commit fraud in order to accept the documents for filing. Five, the RedCrest online portal only permits fictional entities to file. Therefore coercing the living man to commit fraud so as to file documents as the person, which I am not. And six, agents of the Supreme Court of Victoria, all caps, have committed personage and barratry. Seven, the grounds unanimously determined by a jury of the people 23 to zero, 23 for zero against, that the People’s Court of Terra Australis intervene in the matter S ECI 2024 4778 before the Supreme Court of Victoria, all caps, for the purpose of ensuring justice and fairness and judicial process are adhered to. And eight, this matter is hereby transferred from and out of the jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court, County Court, District Court, Supreme Court to the People’s Court of Terra Australis for a de novo hearing before the People of Terra Australis, listed for the date known as Friday, 22nd of November 2024. And it is dated, date known as 23rd of October 2024, signed and sealed by Attorney General, Registrar and the People’s Court.
64 As noted above, the first defendant refused to tell me the identity of the person who had signed the documents he filed in the name of the Attorney-General. Further, he refused to tell me where ‘the People’s Court of Terra Australis’ would be sitting other than to say it would be in ‘in exactly the same place as the Supreme Court of Victoria, all caps, does’.[24]
65 Having made reference to ‘the People’s Court of Terra Australis’, the first defendant informed me that he had ‘just changed where this [proceeding] is going to be heard’[25] and that the Court was a ‘fraud’[26] and that I did ‘not have [his] consent or permission to continue’[27] with the hearing. I rejected that contention and informed the first defendant that I intended to hear and determine the application. No further submissions were advanced by the first defendant and none of the submissions (to the extent they could be characterised as such) made by the first defendant at the hearing before me were addressed to the establishing a prima facie case such that the Caveat ought not be removed.
The People’s Court of Terra Australis
66 ‘The People’s Court of Terra Australis’ appears to be a recent invention which seeks to give itself legitimacy thought the operation of a website “thepeoplescourtofterraaustralis.org”, established in mid-2022. On that website can be found a pseudo coat of arms/court seal and various pro-forma documents some of which were relied on by the first defendant. A brief review of those documents suggests that they are nothing more than a series of random statements copied from other sources and cobbled together into supposed official looking documents. No doubt the pseudo coat of arms/court seal have been included to provide some air of legitimacy to the alleged court. It is sufficient to observe that the inclusion of a made up coat of arms/court seal for a made up court does not legitimise the court or the arguments advanced by the first defendant. Any suggestion that ‘the People’s Court of Terra Australis’ has any legal status, authority or standing in Victoria or indeed Australia ought to be denounced in the strongest possible terms as should the content on its website. I reject that it has any validity, application or relevance to the proceeding before me.
Pseudo-law concepts
67 Pseudo-law concepts such as those raised by the first defendant before me are by no means new. In their recent article, ‘The Internationalisation of Pseudolaw : The Growth of Sovereign Citizen Arguments in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand’,[28] the authors Hobbs, Young and McIntyre tracked the development of pseudo-law describing it in the following terms (citations omitted): The term ‘ pseudolaw ’ refers to a distinct phenomenon whereby ‘a collection of legal-sounding but false rules that purport to be law’ are deployed. Pseudolaw ‘superficially appears to be law, or related to law, and usually uses legal or legal-sounding language, but is otherwise spurious’. For this reason, it is regularly described by courts as nothing more than ‘obvious nonsense’, legal ‘gibberish’, or ‘gobbledygook’. However, while pseudolaw is ‘largely incoherent, if not incomprehensible’, and impenetrable to outsiders, it is not just a misunderstood and misapplied collection of doctrines, instruments, and rules. Pseudolaw is an ‘integrated and separate legal apparatus’ with its own confounding legal theories. Much of the source material is originally drawn from conventional law and legal sources, but it constitutes an ‘alternative legal universe’.
68 The Courts have, particularly over recent years, seen an increase in the number of these types of arguments stemming from a fanciful legal universe that seems to have proliferated largely online.
69 Examples include: (a) newly created credit and book entries, promissory notes, assignment of a reversionary interest in one’s birth certificate, the ‘Living Man’, the ‘Straw Man’, the capitalisation of a person’s name alleged to constitute a ‘corporation trust’ and acceptance for value in Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited v Grahame;[29] (b) an authenticated birth certificate as a security in Aidan Llewellyn trading as the Trustee for the House of Llewellyn v State of New South Wales,[30] (c) the ‘Living Man’ and the capitalisation of a person’s name alleged to constitute a ‘corporation trust’ in Yap v Matic;[31] (d) the ‘Living Man’ in Stefan v McLachlan,[32] Re Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd,[33] Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Bonaccorso (No 2),[34] Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Bonaccorso (No 3),[35] and Palmer v No Respondent;[36] (e) the ‘Living Man’, ‘wet ink contracts’ and the Supreme Court being an alleged ‘fiction’ in Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Moir;[37] (f) Turnbull v Clarence Valley Council,[38] where the Court considered: (i) alleged international frauds and conspiracies (including one from the 1960s and involving secret IMF banking policies to control the global financial system and all governments under a world government and another allegedly pursued by Australian prime ministers, to remove the people from the Commonwealth of Australia); (ii) the ‘Living Man’ including assertions of universal sovereignty, deficiencies in birth registration, personage flowing from the Creator, and claimed violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and (iii) a notice issued to Council by the Velvet Revolution, which the plaintiff claimed evidenced service of a moratorium on all Local Council members, charging them with misprision of treason, which rested on which rested on the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), UK legislation, the Nuremburg Code, Helsinki Code and Magna Carta, as well as claimed inalienable rights; (g) sovereign citizens generally in Bradley v The Crown,[39] and State of New South Wales v Hardy (Final); [40] (h) the ‘Straw Man’ in Kelly v Fiander;[41] and (i) secession and the ‘Straw Man’ in Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Casley.
70 Like many of the previous iterations by sovereign citizens that have been comprehensively rejected before, the first defendant’s arguments before me concerning the ‘Living Man’ and ‘the People’s Court of Terra Australis’ were nothing more than carnival of absurdity drawn from a mishmash of delusional arguments. Whilst it may be tempting to simply dismiss these claims as nonsense, gibberish, gobbledegook or like, in doing so that should not diminish from the serious impact these delusional arguments can have on the authority of the Court.
71 In Yap v Matic (No 4), Solomon J described the danger of these type of arguments in the following terms:
There are aspects of the views of that movement that have come before this and other courts, including some of the views expressed by this defendant, which reflect a rejection to one degree or another of the court's authority. Those views, and their apparent increasing popularity, or acceptance, cannot be dismissed as harmless or bemusing nonsense. The promulgation of such views and beliefs represents a dangerous corrosion of some of our society's most fundamental values in the maintenance of the rule of law and the administration of justice
72 In Yap v Matic (No 7), Solomon J expressed similar concerns in respect of the sovereign citizen movement, stating:
This is a movement that has been gaining popularity and traction in Australia over the last few years but has also been prolific in other jurisdictions for longer. The growing prevalence of this class of beliefs and associated conduct is a matter of concern for the preservation of the authority of the court and the administration of justice...
73 I respectfully adopt the concerns expressed by Solomon J.
74 Similarly, the waste of limited Court resources in having to deal with pseudo-legal concepts should likewise be denounced.
75 Observations have been made by judges in other cases pointing to the waste of scarce judicial resources involved in addressing the pseudo-legal claims of sovereign citizens, ‘living persons’ or other such incarnations.
76 In Rossiter v Adelaide City Council, Livesey J said (citations omitted):[48] Various terms have been used to describe “pseudolegal arguments” such as those advocated by the appellant in this case. They have without reservation been rejected as involving both legal nonsense and an unnecessary waste of scare public and judicial resources. So too here.
77 In Re Magistrate M M Flynn; Ex parte McJannett,[49] McKechnie J said:[50] Finally, judges administer justice according to law. They are not required to expend judicial time, a scarce public resource, on applications that have no legal foundation and involve deluded understanding of the law.
78 I wholly agree with and adopt those criticisms.
