The Justinian Deception by Romley Stewart Stover is a captivating work of fiction.
I say fiction because that is all it is, a conspiratorial bedtime story about a world ruled by Rome through the secret use of grammar. There are no references cited that establish his story line as fact, only a couple of cherry-picked obscure verses to which he applies his own distorted interpretation to fit the narrative. It is jam-packed with innuendos, abstract speculations, unanswered questions, superstitions, personal religious bias, more warped interpretations, and possible theories, but facts are hard to come by.
It also adopts other myths already covered, like the basic maritime admiralty myth, Lost at Sea – The Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 and Australia is NOT a foreign corporation registered with the U.S. S.E.C. and most others, and portrays them from the perspective of the “Glossa” narrative.
Ultimately, it is a story about a desperate search to establish that all capital lettering means something, because that is where it began. “Rohan walked in and said: I found something in the: Chicago Manual of Styles, that identifies the all uppercase text as a “GLOSSA” and from that find, we found Justinian, of 530 AD, and the GLOSSA, that now gave us the ability to place a name with the all uppercase text.”
(1) There is not a mention of how the name of his “tale” is associated with the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian I, only his own conspiratorial speculation that this person created “Glossa” to enslave humanity. Apparently it was Accursius though, a Roman jurist “around 1230 in the Hohenstaufen Dynasty of the Roman Empire” that completed the “Justinian GLOSSA Corpus Juries Code, laws of the Dead Corporation System”. There is no mention of what the Corpus Juris Civilis is, anything about its history, continuation, or revival. There is not even a single reference to the many fine literary works written about the Corpus Juris Civilis, to add a touch of credibility.
(2) The second glaring absence, is the meaning of a “Glossa”. He sidesteps around it citing every narrative-fitting definition of a similar root word “gloss”, except the actual meaning of a “Glossa”. The term has a specific meaning that in all honesty, looks to be intentionally omitted. Again, there is not a single reference to the many fine literary works written about “Glossa’s” to add a touch of credibility. I should tell him his page requires a “Glossa” for references, but he doesn’t have any, and understanding what that might possibly mean would only confuse him further.
(3) The third point, identical, is the meaning of “Dog Latin”. He again sidesteps around it citing only the narrative-fitting Blacks Law: “the language of the Illiterate” and how since “Dog Latin” is considered “debased Latin”, therefore it is “criminal, immoral and constitutes a counterfeit”. Again, the term actually has a specific, first meaning, that in all honesty, looks to be intentionally omitted. And likewise, not a single reference to the many fine literary works written about “Dog Latin” to add a touch of credibility.
There is a reason why he makes so many omissions, it is simply because the facts omitted are inconsistent with his narrative, which is to establish that all capital lettering means something. After reading this analysis, it becomes obvious to the reader that he has cherry-picked a couple of terms out of context, and without even understanding what they mean, ran with it for his story, simply because it mentioned a possible association with all capital lettering. His very imaginative, lengthy extrapolations on these terms is really quite an absurd, paranoid delusion.
His basic premise is: “The: SECRET-FOREIGN-SIGN language hidden in plain sight. “DOG-LATIN”: The poison in the text: It is a poisonous gloss that corrupts the essence of the text.”
(4) He snatched this ambiguous beauty from the 4th Edition of Blacks Law Dictionary: “GLOSSA VIPERINA EST QUIE CORRODIT VISCERA TEXTUS. 11 Coke, 34. It is a poisonous gloss which corrupts the essence of the text“. It’s a perfectly vague passage to promote further speculation, well, paranoia more so, since it is based on previous conclusions. Again, the associated lengthy extrapolations, warped personal opinions, and spooky insinuations, but not one reference to judicial meaning of the phrase cited.
(1) The Corpus Juris Civilis
(“Body of Civil Law”) is the modern name for a collection of fundamental works in jurisprudence, issued from 529 to 534 by order of Justinian I, Eastern Roman Emperor. It is also sometimes referred to as the Code of Justinian, although this name belongs more properly to the part titled Codex Justinianus. The work as planned had three parts: the Code (Codex) is a compilation, by selection and extraction, of imperial enactments to date; the Digest or Pandects (the Latin title contains both Digesta and Pandectae) is an encyclopedia composed of mostly brief extracts from the writings of Roman jurists; and the Institutes (Institutiones) is a student textbook, mainly introducing the Code, although it has important conceptual elements that are less developed in the Code or the Digest. Justinian found himself having to enact further laws and today these are counted as a fourth part of the Corpus, the Novellae Constitutiones (Novels, literally New Laws).
(See Charles M. Radding & Antonio Ciaralli, “The Corpus Juris Civilis in the MIddle Ages: Manuscripts and Transmission from the Sixth Century to the Juristic Revival” (Brill, Leiden, 2007)
The work was directed by Tribonian, an official in Justinian’s court. His team was authorized to edit what they included. How far they made amendments is not recorded and, in the main, cannot be known because most of the originals have not survived.
The text was composed and distributed almost entirely in Latin, which was still the official language of the government of the Byzantine Empire in 529–534, whereas the prevalent language of merchants, farmers, seamen, and other citizens was Greek. By the early 7th century, the official government language had become Greek during the lengthy reign of Heraclius (610–641).
New Greek legal codes, based on Corpus Juris Civilis, were enacted. The most known are: Ecloga (c. 740) – enacted by emperor Leo the Isaurian, Proheiron (c. 879) – enacted by emperor Basil the Macedonian and Basilika (late 9th century)—started by Basil the Macedonian and finished by his son emperor Leo the Wise. The name “Corpus Juris Civilis” occurs for the first time in 1583 as the title of a complete edition of the Justinianic code by Dionysius Godofredus.
(See Kunkel, W. An Introduction to Roman Legal and Constitutional History. Oxford 1966 (translated into English by J.M. Kelly), p. 157, n. 2)
The Corpus Juris Civilis was translated into French, German, Italian, and Spanish in the 19th century. However, no English translation of the entire Corpus Juris Civilis existed until 1932 when Samuel Parsons Scott published his version The Civil Law.
(See Hulot, H. et al., Corpus iuris civilis. Le Digeste, les Institutes, le Code, les Nouvelles 14 vols (1803-11); Otto, C.E., Schilling, B., Sintenis, C.F.F., Das Corpus Iuris Civilis in’s Deutsche übersetzt... 7 vols. (1831-39); Vignali, G., Corpo del diritto, corredato delle note di D. Gotofredo… 10 vols. (1856-62); Rodriguez de Fonseca, B. et al., Cuerpo del derecho civil… 2 vols. (1874)
Unfortunately, Scott did not base his translation on the best available Latin versions, and his work was severely criticized. Fortunately, Fred. H. Blume did use the best-regarded Latin editions for his translations of the Code and of the Novels. A new English translation of the Code, based on Blume’s, was published in October 2016.
(See Bruce W. Frier, ed. (2016), The Codex of Justinian. A New Annotated Translation, with Parallel Latin and Greek Text, Cambridge University Press, p. 2963)
(2) The “Glossa”
Romley Stewart obviously read the definition of “Glossa” in Blacks Law Dictionary it is where he sourced the name Accursius, yet he neglected to give the stated definition. Although he should have used Greek scholar and translator Irnerius as an example instead of Accursius, because he had more influence on the early concept of a “Glossa”. (not that he even mentioned what one was) Irnerius’ technique was to read a passage aloud, which permitted his students to copy it, then to deliver an excursus explaining and illuminating Justinian’s text, in the form of “Glosses”. Irnerius’ pupils, the so-called Four Doctors of Bologna, were among the first of the “glossators” who established the curriculum of medieval Roman law. The tradition was carried on by French lawyers, known as the Ultramontani, in the 13th century.
(See Campbell, Lyle. 2004. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press)
(Lat. glossa). Interpretation; comment; explanation; remark intended to illustrate a subject, especially the text of an author. See Webster. In Civil Law. Glossae, or glossemwta, were words which needed explanation. Calv. Lex. The explanations of such words. Id. Especially used of the short comments or explanations of the text of the Roman law, made during the twelfth century by the teachers at the schools of Bologna, etc., who were hence called glossators, of which glosses Accursius made a compilation which possesses great authority, called Glossa Ordinaria. These glosses were at first written between the lines of the text (glossae interlineares) , afterwards, on the margin, close by and partly under the text (glossae ma/rginales). Cush. Introd. Rom. Law, 130132.
A gloss (from Latin glossa; from Greek γλῶσσα (glóssa), meaning ‘language’ or ‘tongue’) is a brief notation, especially a marginal one or an interlinear one, of the meaning of a word or wording in a text. It may be in the language of the text, or in the reader’s language if that is different. The word “gloss” was first used in the 1570s to refer to the insertion of a word as an explanation, the concept of a note being inserted in the margin of a text to explain a difficult word.
A collection of glosses is a glossary. A collection of medieval legal glosses, made by glossators, is called an apparatus. The compilation of glosses into glossaries was the beginning of lexicography, and the glossaries so compiled were in fact the first dictionaries. In modern times a glossary, as opposed to a dictionary, is typically found in a text as an appendix of specialized terms that the typical reader may find unfamiliar. Also, satirical explanations of words and events are called glosses. The German Romantic movement used the expression of gloss for poems commenting on a given other piece of poetry, often in the Spanish Décima style.
As such, glosses vary in thoroughness and complexity, from simple marginal notations of words one reader found difficult or obscure, to interlinear translations of a text with cross references to similar passages. Today parenthetical explanations in scientific writing and technical writing are also often called glosses. Hyperlinks to a glossary are today the most often used variation of a “gloss”.
As I said earlier, Romley Stewart’s “Justinian Deception” badly needs such a “Glossa” to hold all its missing references. It’s common practice really, I suppose we call it a footnote.
“Gloss : “word inserted as an explanation, translation, or definition,” c. 1300, glose (modern form from 1540s; earlier also gloze), from Late Latin glossa “obsolete or foreign word,” one that requires explanation; later extended to the explanation itself, from Greek glossa (Ionic), glotta (Attic) “language, a tongue; word of mouth, hearsay,” also “obscure or foreign word, language,” also “mouthpiece,” literally “the tongue” (as the organ of speech), from PIE *glogh- “thorn, point, that which is projected” (source also of Old Church Slavonic glogu “thorn,” Greek glokhis “barb of an arrow”).
Glosses were common in the Middle Ages, usually rendering Hebrew, Greek, or Latin words into vernacular Germanic, Celtic, or Romanic. Originally written between the lines, later in the margins. Both glossology (1716) and glottology (1841) have been used in the sense “science of language.”
“From the Ancient Greek γλῶσσα ( glôssa , “ tongue ” ) ; compare -glossia. gloss- ( chiefly anatomy ) tongue, speech , language. Usage notes. An obsolete or foreign word requiring explanation.
In the medieval legal tradition, the glosses on Roman law and Canon law created standards of reference, so-called sedes materiae (literally: seat of the matter). In common law countries, the term “judicial gloss” refers to what is considered an authoritative or “official” interpretation of a statute or regulation by a judge. Judicial glosses are often very important in avoiding contradictions between statutes, and determining the constitutionality of various provisions of law.
Ironically, the one point that caught his attention in the first place, that inspired wishful thinking, the mention of SMALL CAPITAL LETTERING being used, is not always the case for glossa’s either. The Glosas Emilianenses, which are glosses added to this Latin codex, are now considered the first phrases written in the Castilian language. You will note that lower case lettering is used as a gloss, even back then.
This brings us to Romley Stewart’s most cited little gem:
Article 11:147 of Chicago Manual of Styles.
He assets that the “sign language” mentioned here means a “symbol” or as he puts it: “Ancient Latin, being an illustrative text”. It clearly says: “The written transcription of a sign is called a gloss.” In usual form he again extrapolates on this point to absurdity, and again omitting any inconsistencies. He then applies his literal but false interpretation of these passages to the written language, insisting that it is proper use of written English grammar to add the described hyphens, breaks and stopples (full stops). “One rest in relation to sign language constitutes a stopple between the signs, whereas, one rest in written English constitutes the joinder between the two words. Two rests are needed to confirm the stopple between words appearing in written English text, whereas only one rest will cause the stopple between words appearing as signs.” etc. It’s clearly written there for all to see. What a discovery!
So he concludes:
“So lets translate: “The cat sat on the mat” into the Latin, in relation to article 11:147 of the: Chicago Manual of Styles, to see what happens:
“The cat sat on the mat” = “THE-CAT-SAT-ON-THE-MAT”
Now from DOG-LATIN to English:
“THE CAT SAT ON THE MAT” = “The. Cat. Sat. On. The. Mat.”
As you can see, the second sample translated into nothing readable, its babble, that’s why the second sample is called: “DOG-LATIN” or “Dog Latin” being the language of the illiterate. It is debased.”
“COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA” = “Commonwealth. Of. Australia” …??? Does it grammatically exist in fact? Notice the full stops after each word? So lets translate the “Commonwealth Of Australia” into correct: American Sign Language, under the correct grammatical rules of Latin Text:
“Commonwealth Of Australia” = “COMMONWEALTH-OF-AUSTRALIA”. There is no ALL UPPERCASE TEXT constituted in the English Grammatical rules. It does not exist, and there is also no “unhyphenated” strings of SIGNES in the LATIN or American Sign Language.”
“A car drove by“. The translation into ASL (American Sign Language) appears as: “VEHICLE-DRIVE-BY“… Did you notice the “hyphen“? … One rest in Written LATIN and American Sign Language, constitutes a break between the two signs, (Words) where as in relation to the English grammatical rules dealing with English Text, one rest constitutes joinder between the two words. Two rests or one rest and a full stop constitutes the break in relation to the written English Grammatical rules. Two different sets of very different grammatical rules!”
The basis of his argument:
“This means that when LATIN or American Sign Language is used without the “hyphen” it renders nothing in fact, leaving only an ignorant presumption that such ALL UPPERCASE TEXT is valid. This is just word science. If you operate English text or Latin text in breach of its relating Manuals, you void warranty! just like operating an automobile in breach of its manuals. You void warranty.”
Incidentally, this assertion evokes influence from David Wynn Miller, or Mary Elizabeth Croft, who also share this conclusion regarding the use of hyphens, and existence due to grammar.
Now, lets get back down to the missing facts, and put some perspective and context to this cherry-picked screenshot and reference, which is in fact the one reference he cites constantly to establish his narrative.
Now, the reader has to take into consideration one very important, bubble-busting oversight. This section of Chicago Manual of Styles is describing the proper use of American Sign Language. Well, he obviously didn’t know what that was, cherry-picked in isolation to its context, so he just speculated, as usual.
American Sign Language is actually the language of the deaf.
When it mentions a “sign” it refers to an associated hand signal, not a symbol, and not another language as theorised. “The written transcription of a sign is called a gloss.” means exactly that, how to write a hand signal.
Now you can understand his precious citation, that is self-explanatory really, once you realise what a “sign” really is:
“Sign languages are typically transcribed word-for-word by means of a gloss written in the predominant oral language in all capitals; American Sign Language and Auslan are written in English. Prosody is often glossed as superscript words, with its scope indicated by brackets.
[I LIKE]NEGATIVE [WHAT?]RHETORICAL, GARLIC. = “I don’t like garlic.”
Pure fingerspelling is usually indicated by hyphenation. Fingerspelled words that have been lexicalized (that is, fingerspelling sequences that have entered the sign language as linguistic units and that often have slight modifications) are indicated with a hash. For example, W-I-K-I indicates a simple fingerspelled word, but #JOB indicates a lexicalized unit, produced like J-O-B, but faster, with a barely perceptible O and turning the “B” hand palm side in, unlike a regularly fingerspelled “B”.
(3) “Dog Latin”
…is also known as Cod Latin, macaronic Latin, mock Latin, or Canis Latinicus. It refers to the creation of a phrase or jargon in imitation of Latin, often by “translating” English words (or those of other languages) into Latin by conjugating or declining them as if they were Latin words. Unlike the similarly named language game Pig Latin (a form of playful spoken code), Dog Latin is more of a humorous device for invoking scholarly seriousness. Sometimes “dog Latin” can mean a poor-quality attempt at writing genuine Latin.
Pig Latin is mostly thought of as a secret language game for kids. In pig Latin, one takes a word, i.e., bibliophage, moves the first letter to the end of the word, and adds an “ay” sound. So, we get ibliophagebay. The most famous examples of this exercise are the words “ixnay” and “amscray” produced from “nix” and “scram” – so famous that today they’re considered slang words in themselves. There are some additional rules about what to do when the word starts with a vowel.
The formalized modern game has its roots in centuries long past and may even predate Shakespeare. In Love’s Labor’s Lost (act V, scene 1), we find the following exchange:
Costard: Go to; thou hast it ad dungill, at the fingers’ ends, as they say.
Holofernes: O, I smell false Latine; dunghill for unguem.
This is a play on a Latin proverb, a nonsensical multilingual wordplay was well known in Shakespeare’s time – and now it had a name, false Latin, which had become “dog Latin” by the 18th century and “dog Greek” not long afterwards. Edgar Allen Poe used the term “pig Greek” in 1844. All of these terms were meant to signify “bad” Latin or things that sounded like Latin but weren’t.
Thomas Jefferson mentioned dog Latin by name in 1815:
“Fifty-two volumes in folio, of the acta sanctorum, in dog-latin, would be a formidable enterprise to the most laborious German.”
At first the idea was simply to amuse, using puns, Latin endings appended to English roots, and so on. The first instance of a term describing a language purposely modified to confuse the listener is in Walter Scott’s Kennilworth (1821), where a character says…
“A very learned man … and can vent Greek and Hebrew as fast as I can ‘thieves’ Latin.'”
The expression referred to the argot of the underworld, sometimes used in conversation to confuse outsiders. In the mid-19th/early 20th century it also meant the lingo used in carnivals and circuses to prevent a “mark” from understanding what the carnies were saying.
A verse in similar vein, from Ronald Searle’s Down with Skool:
“Caesar adsum jam forte
Brutus aderat
Caesar sic in omnibus
Brutus sic in at”
(which, when read aloud using traditional English pronunciation of Latin, sounds like…
“Caesar ‘ad(had) some jam for tea
Brutus ‘ad a rat
Caesar sick in omnibus
Brutus sick in ‘at (hat)”
(but which means in Latin…
“Caesar I am already here by chance
Brutus was present
Caesar thus in all things
Brutus thus in but”
Kids developed their own secret code, which by 1866 was called “hog-Latin.” In The Galaxy of that year we find the following:
“He adds as many new letters as the boys in their “hog latin,” which is made use of to mystify eavesdroppers. A boy asking a friend to go with him says, “Wig-ge you-ge go-ge wig-ge me-ge?” The other, replying in the negative says, “Noge, Ige woge.”
The term “pig Latin” appeared in the same decade and seems to have gradually vanquished other claimants (double Dutch, etc.) as the term of choice. The modern system of dropping the first letter, etc., is almost certainly an invention of the 20th century. Proving that silliness knows no bounds, one can find on the Internet today a translation of the Bible into pig Latin. Google even has a pig Latin translator in its language tools.
Ankindmay isway oomeday!
(4) “GLOSSA VIPERINA EST QUIE CORRODIT VISCERA TEXTUS.
11 Coke, 34. “It is a poisonous gloss which corrupts the essence of the text.”
Romley Stewart would of loved these tidbits too:
Glossa Viperina Est Quae Corrodit Viscera Textus: “A viperine gloss which eats out the vitals of the text.” 10 Coke, 70; 2 Bulst. 79. “To their false glosses that opposeth his own sole and single authority. Christ, by taking away their viperine glosses that did eat out the bowels of the text…” or… “Any viperine gloss that may be put upon it…” evil because… Viperine describes a snake, an identical meaning to the “poisonous” description in 11 Coke, 34. Maledicta expositio quae corrumpit textum: “A cursed construction which corrupts the text”. 2 Coke, 24; 4 Coke, 35; 11 Coke, 34; Wingate, Max. 26.
These phrases are quite simple to understand, now that one knows what a “Glossa” really is. They describe the actions of a glossator placing a glossa on a manuscript, with an interpretation that is flawed, contrary or inconsistent with the source text, presumably added to confuse or cause the reader to adopt a certain unfavourable interpretation. This was much the case in various interpretations of holy books, with the glossator adding notes from the perspective of his own philosophy, school of thought, sect or denomination, especially during the Schisms and the Reformation.
We now know…
(a) the real meaning of “Glossa” and that it is not a secret symbol language invented by Justinian, or anyone else. Your name appearing on your licence in capital letters is definitely not a “Glossa” margin or footnote, it doesn’t even have any relation to the term.
(b) how hand signals for the hearing impaired are written is also very irrelevant to the way a name is written on a licence.
(c) that “Dog Latin” is a word game, for kids it has nothing to do with unhyphenated capital lettering, and likewise, proper English in all capitals doesn’t require any hyphens to be valid.
What the courts think about this concept
O’Hagan v Commissioner of Taxation [2020] QDC 288:
“The defendant relies upon the fact that English is the official language of Australia and that The Chicago Manual of Style is definitive of the language. It does seem to be a 1104-page venerable, time-tested guide to style, usage, and grammar. This ground of appeal is misguided. It seems to me that it is a mere manual of style to guide consistency of style for writers, editors, proof-readers, indexers, copywriters, designers, and publishers, informing the editorial canon with sound, definitive advice – this is distinct from being definitive of the English language itself. The language is that understood of the ordinary use and meaning of the language in conventional society, and even if written in a different style, with poor grammar or punctuation, or syntax, or slang, the court will resort to acceptance principles of interpretation and common usage to determine the ordinary meaning of the words in the community. In this case, all documents were in English and readily understood. They were properly admitted by the magistrate pursuant to s 69 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). … I have done my best to learn and understand the merits of the appellant’s arguments to ensure a fair and full review of the case. For the most part, the appellant’s assertions could be considered a nonsense in conventional society, foreign to Australian law and verging on the bizarre, and whilst very interesting, they are well beyond the scope of this proceeding and role of this court.”
Maksacheff v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2017] NSWCA 126:
“Mr and Mrs Maksacheff’s written submissions also assert that there were various deficiencies in the Bank’s supporting affidavits and the judgments of the courts below, to the effect that the differing languages and fonts appearing in the judgments proved “deception by this arbitral tribunal that appears not a Court of competent jurisdiction or have subject matter jurisdiction” [sic, as in original] and that the pro-forma “Judgement/Order” documents contain “unreadable hidden languages, which appears to be dog latin/Glossa” and are illegitimate for want of a signature of a Supreme Court Justice. The submissions also refer to “symbolism” and the use of “hidden language” by the Bank, which is alleged to be an attempt to deceive Mr and Mrs Maksacheff and to constitute fraud. As will be manifest, these assertions are nonsensical. Neither appears to advance comprehensible claims. We reproduce them, not to imbue them with any substance, but, rather, to illustrate their nonsensical nature.”
Rambaldi & anor v Rice Bar Restaurant & anor [2018] VSC 218:
“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: “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.
Wollongong City Council v Falamaki [2009] FMCA 1204:
“In summary, Dr Falamaki and Ms Williams are making an informal application for a person identifying himself as Judge: David-Wynn: Miller to intervene or to appear as amicus curiae in order to prove by evidence and draw the Court’s attention to a series of frauds which they describe and characterise as syntax fraud. I have ignored and put to one side the numerous statements delivered by Ms Williams and her supporters that the failure to hear and accept the argument in respect of syntax fraud would result in me also being guilty of fraud and breaching my judicial responsibilities. The apparent fervour of the members of this linguistic cult led by Mr Miller has the distinct character of a crusade – searching for a public platform to ventilate their views. .. Fraud at common law or in equity concerns the use of false representations to gain an unjust advantage. Syntax is the grammatical arrangement of words showing their connection and relationship (a set of rules for analysis of this connection and relationship). The concept of fraud perpetrated by syntax is not a concept currently reflected in the Commonwealth or State statutes or at common law.
Wollongong City Council v Dr Masood Falamaki [2010] NSWLEC 66:
“HIS HONOUR: This case is not about sentence structure and syntax. It’s about orders which I’m sure Dr Falamaki can read and understand. .. We’re not dealing with maritime law here. .. Regrettably, I did not find the submissions helpful in addressing Dr Falamaki’s claim.”
The Trustee of the Property of Currey (A Bankrupt) v Currey [2017] FCCA 2692:
“The respondents’ argument is that by reason of “syntax fraud”, the respondents have some type of defence to these proceedings. “Judge: David-Wynn: Miller” has in another case attempted to explain a theory that appears to be a creation by him that Mrs Currey referred to before me as “CORRECT-SENTENCE-STRUCTURE-COMMUNICATION-PARSE-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR”. Craig J recorded that: Regrettably, I did not find the submissions helpful in addressing Dr Falamaki’s claim. Similarly, I do not find the submissions made by Mr and Mrs Currey based upon what they described as “CORRECT-SENTENCE-STRUCTURE-COMMUNICATION-PARSE-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR” helpful. Indeed, I did not find them comprehensible.”