An estates dispute involving pseudolaw claims in Norfina Limited v Fish [2024] WASC 471.
The Court states
Before I address the substance of the applications, there are some important background and contextual matters to outline.
The pseudo-law approach adopted by the defendant and by Ms Kounis xx Given the form and content of the affidavits filed by Mr Fish and the affidavits relied upon by Ms Kounis, it is convenient that I make some observations about the approach they have adopted in these proceedings.
It is apparent from the affidavits sworn by the defendant and by Ms Kounis that the defendant and his partner share a similar view as to the applicability to them of the laws of this country, and the applicability of those laws to the financial and property arrangements between Mr Fish and the plaintiff lender.
In broad terms, the material they have filed reflects a nonsensical view of the essential framework of our legal system, sometimes conveniently referred to as the ' sovereign citizen ' movement.
Much of the affidavit material and the accompanying submissions are, objectively, nonsense. The arguments expressed by the defendant and Ms Kounis are similar to those which were reviewed by Vandongen J, as his Honour then was, in Kelly v Fiander. As his Honour there explained, such theories have been repeatedly rejected by Australian courts. Regrettably, by responding to legal claims using this pseudo-law approach, the party in question tends to obscure rather than elucidate their position.
By way of example of the material in the affidavits, I note the following:
(a) the defendant styled himself as 'Stevan Gordon of the family Fish, a living man, loyal subject of the crown, (Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith)';
(b) the defendant prefaced his affidavits with the phrase 'without prejudice, reserving all of my rights in common law and do not enter into any contract or accept any services or benefits on offer that contradict or prejudice my common law rights'; and
(c) the jurat employed by the defendant in his affidavits states that the deponent is 'Stevan Gordon of the family Fish, the living man for and on behalf of the all caps Defendant STEVAN GORDON FISH'.
In her most recent affidavit dated 20 November 2024, which consists of 42 pages of closely typed material, Ms Kounis asserts that the plaintiff, the plaintiff's solicitors and, quite remarkably, this Court are, in truth, liable for the debts of the defendant. Indeed, it appears to be suggested, although it is unclear, that this liability may now be owed to Ms Kounis.
Having reviewed this material, it is unnecessary to recite the extensive pseudo-legal journey that Ms Kounis invites the Court to follow, commencing with the Laws of God, then to the Magna Carta of 1215, the first five books of the King James Bible of 1611, various English statutes from the 17th and 18th centuries, isolated quotes from Blackstone's Commentaries, a review of the constitutionality of income tax laws in this country, and several High Court authorities, all taken out of context. This material is irrelevant to the disposition by this Court of the present action and the pending applications and I will put it to one side, unless it requires an express mention.
