Much like Romley Stover, Rohan Hilder doesn’t recognise his surname, so he is more commonly known online as “Rohan Lorian”.
Rohan Hilder has been in custody in New South Wales several times over his handling of various offences with the “glossa” theories he preaches. He is often held in remand in such situations, for refusing to identify himself. Such is the case in the recent interaction with Cairns Police in April 2020:
“Rohan Lorian Hilder, 48, a sovereign citizen who refused to acknowledge his surname during an appearance in the Cairns Magistrates Court yesterday, is charged with two counts of stalking and one count of observations or recordings in breach of privacy…”
Rohan Hilder subsequently spent the next 22 months in custody. There were further charges in early 2020, relating to having a camera set up filming the neighbors child in her underwear, and using a carriage service to access child abuse material 168 times over the Dark Web to access 2500 category 1 images, and downloading 284 of those images on to his computer.
Morzone QC DCJ noted in R v Rohan Lorian Hilder  QDCSR 268:
“The nature and seriousness of the images are described variously. In a general sense, they included vaginal and oral sexual acts with adult men, sex toys being used on the children’s genitalia, masturbating or touching of their genitals and the area, touching adult male genitalia with the children’s hands, adult male ejaculation onto the children’s both parts and into their mouths, close-up images of the children’s genitalia whilst posing naked and children dressed in bondage clothing and lingerie. There was at least one video of 15 minutes in length which displayed a child dressed in lingerie.”
He pleaded guilty to all the offences and was sentenced to two years in prison, but due to the numerous rehabilitation programs he voluntarily completed while serving time, including mental health assessments and the assistance of medication, he was released from the date of this hearing 11 February 2022 for time already served, on the condition that he enter into a two year good behaviour bond where he will be supervised by a probation officer, must obey all reasonable directions given, and banned from travel outside Queensland without their permission. Failure to comply with those conditions may mean he will be required to serve out the remainder of his sentence in prison.
There were several other court appearances since this hearing, which may be associated with the bond. The Courier Mail: “Mareeba Local Court list, Monday, February 14“, and Daily Telegraph: “Central Local Court list, Wednesday, March 16“:
A conversation with Rohan Hilder in 2018-2019:
(1) Hello, first thank you for your work, it is most informative. I wish to ask you about the full capital letters where you say Romley Stewart is wrong. I refer you to the Commonwealth Style manual, Sixth edition, page 121 says a name has initial capital letters. Page 291 says full capitals is a corporate letter form identifier. This is a word mark (Trademark made of text). This is further supported by the Privacy Act 1988 (C’wth) Part II, 6,1, “Identifier” subsection (a). According to Lon L Fuller inn Legal Fictions (1967) only the artist can give meaning to artwork attributed to him/her (i.e. the word mark). I look forward to hearing from you. Regards. Rohan
(2) Sorry to bother you again, you state in page 9 of your open letter to Romley Stewart that a corporation is two or more people. This is normally correct however in Australia one person can be an incorporation. I think I read that fact in the Corporations Act 2001 (C’wth). Ill find it for you. They do this to incorporate us I think. cheers
(1) Thank you for your question. Firstly, to answer the question regarding Romley Stewart Stover’s “Glossa” contention, you can read Glossa? The Romley Stewart Deception by Justinian on this website.
Now turning to the rest of your question, I agree that a name has initial capital letters and full capitals is a corporate letter form identifier. But if you note in any style guide, the address also has several all-capitals uses, including the name of the city or town, which are also the correct form of drafting a corporate letter. This doesn’t make the city or town a “corporation” any more than it does using all-capitals for emphasizing a surname.
Your question contains several assertions, and links these assertions to a further assertion. This is commonly known as an abstract speculation, and it is a great way to end up in a false conclusion.
Your question is already answered by s 6(1) of the Privacy Act 1988, as an individuals name is covered by an exemption from being an “Identifier”.
The following articles explain what an “Identifier” actually is:
9.5 An ‘identifier’ of an individual is defined in s 6(1) [of the Privacy Act 1988] as a number, letter or symbol, or a combination of any or all of those things, that is used to identify the individual or to verify the identity of the individual.
9.6 The following are explicitly excluded from the definition of identifier:
- an individual’s name
- an individual’s Australian Business Number (ABN)
- anything else prescribed by the regulations made under the Privacy Act. This provides flexibility to exclude any specified type of identifier from the definition, and therefore the operation of APP 9, as required.
‘Government related identifiers’
9.7 A ‘government related identifier’ of an individual is defined in s 6(1) as an identifier that has been assigned by:
- an agency
- a State or Territory authority
- an agent of an agency, or a State or Territory authority, acting in its capacity as agent, or
- a contracted service provider for a Commonwealth contract, or a State contract, acting in its capacity as contracted service provider for that contract.
9.8 The following are given as examples of government related identifiers:
- Medicare numbers
- Centrelink Reference numbers
- driver licence numbers issued by State and Territory authorities
- Australian passport numbers.
9.9 Some government related identifiers are regulated by other laws that restrict the way that entities can collect, use or disclose the particular identifier and related personal information. Examples include tax file numbers and individual healthcare identifiers.
(2) “Incorporation” (s 9 of Corporations Act 2001)
(a) of a company–means the company’s first registration under this Act; and
(b) of any other incorporated body–means the body’s incorporation by or under a law (other than this Act).
This clearly denotes a body incorporated under law, other than the Corporations Act 2001, a good example would be an exempt public authority such as in s 57A(2).
Regards, Robert Sudy.
It appears you have misunderstood again. Lowercase lettering or minuscule indeed didn’t evolve until well after the Roman Empire when the doctrine of capitis diminutio maxima, media, and minima existed in law.
You also misunderstand that this is MY claim, because it isn’t. The first examples of lowercase lettering is the Carolingian minuscule, in the late 8th century and early 9th. The lower case (minuscule) letters developed in the Middle Ages from New Roman Cursive writing, first as the uncial script, and later as minuscule script.
The photo you have linked to is not lowercase or minuscule. It is called New Roman Cursive. The Old Roman cursive, also called majuscule cursive and capitalis cursive, was the everyday form of handwriting used for writing letters. A more formal style of writing was based on Roman square capitals, but cursive was used for quicker, informal writing. It was most commonly used from about the 1st century BC. New Roman cursive, also called minuscule cursive or later Roman cursive, developed from old Roman cursive. It was used from approximately the 3rd century to the 7th century, and uses letter forms that are more recognizable to modern readers; “a”, “b”, “d”, and “e” have taken a more familiar shape, and the other letters are proportionate to each other rather than varying wildly in size and placement on a line. These letter forms were in part the basis for the medieval script known as Carolingian minuscule.
A FINAL COMMENT
Rohan, I have noticed a familiar trend. Your comments invariably end up in dead ends, and when faced with a referenced response you refuse to comment further, and then go onto comment on other posts with the exact same contentions. This is the definition of spam, and the WordPress algorithms are treating it that way too.
As I said after a few first responses, I am merely repeating what has already been succinctly covered in various chapters on this website, so it is obviously a waste of my time engaging with you in this way. There is nothing new you have brought to the table here. I clearly recall saying that you should do us both a favour and actually *READ THE EBOOK* before commenting further and wasting my time. You have not done so but continue to repeat things already covered. I am responsible for managing and approving comments here, so I’ve decided to delete most irrelevant similar threads that go nowhere, and not approve any similar comments.
I have given you an enormous amount of references and resources for your contentions, everything I stated I supported with case law extracts, all of which you promptly ignored. I really have better things to do with my time than go over things already covered.
I however collected all our exchanges and posted them on your page on here.
Take care and good luck in the future. Inevitably, it will be a future of consequences of your own actions, same as me.
Shortly after this exchange, I received an email from Rohan Hilder regarding my use of his surname in this article, with threats of summoning me to appear before the Hague on charges of Slave Trading.