“…rambling, nonsensical babble…”
53. 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.
Extract from Rambaldi & anor v Rice Bar Restaurant & anor  VSC 218: 2
27. On 4 January 2018 the defendant filed an affidavit sworn by him on 28 December 2017. 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.
It is a variation of the syntax grammar premise concocted by David-Wynn: Miller and the classic sovereign citizen motive of a name appearing in all-capital lettering representing “Capitis diminutio maxima“ the lowering of one’s legal status into that of a slave.
21 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.
23 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. This is not a person or persons adopting the traditional and accepted role of amicus curiae.
24 Ms Williams’ statement in respect of the position of amicus curiae seems completely misunderstood. The argument being advanced is that by filing a form stating that a person is an amicus curiae immediately joins them to the proceedings. In the circumstances I do not intend to grant leave for this person to appear in that capacity.
25 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.
26 The preliminary argument advanced by Ms Williams and a large number of supporters present in the Courtroom, some of whom I am advised are specialists in the area, is that the Creditor’s Petition was fraudulent because of the structure of the syntax in that document. I enquired of Ms Williams whether her argument was that all Petitions issued were fraudulent because of their grammatical construction. She indicated that she did not wish to pursue this broader argument but wished to focus on the Petition currently before this Court.
35 I invited Mr Miller to focus the submission that he would give on 15 April upon the rule that Dr Falamaki invoked, namely Pt 36 r 15 and the cases that inform the operation of such a rule. It is appropriate for reasons which I will next make apparent, that I quote from the transcript both my observation to Mr Miller and his response.
“HIS HONOUR: At 2 o’clock tomorrow the arguments will conclude, the hearing will conclude within that two hours and can I respectfully remind you that your focus would and should be upon the particular rule that authorises or rather provides to me a discretion to set aside perfected orders. There are a large number of decided cases that relate to that.
MILLER: Conclusionary law not based on now time jurisdiction under rules of evidence are void for one thing. Two, I’ll give you a little secret. Every word that starts in the English language with a vowel, a, e, i, o and u and followed by two consonants is a word that means no contract. If you’re arguing a condition, a negative condition which can’t be proved under a seal which says syntax would be used in its correct format then the technology of writing will be syntaxed accordingly. The words will be identified for their true syntax and the value of that word will be brought to this court so if you have a rule our syntax can tell you exactly what it means frontwards and backwards because the order of operations of syntax are one and the same planet- wide in all five thousand languages, just like as a track multiplying and dividing for the operations of numbers. It is universal communication issues. Closure has to be on the table here for everything under maritime law of commerce because a piece of paper is a vessel in a sea of space and vessels must give closure for their movement between point A and point B and I’m a past master and as a plenipotentiary judge of 75,000 hours of training and 30 years I know how to dissect all this. There hasn’t been anything put in front of me in 30 years that I haven’t been able to dissect to its syntax.
36 Mr Miller appeared for Dr Falamaki at the resumed hearing of the matter on 15 April. He proceeded for almost one and a half hours to make submissions in terms similar to those that I have quoted in the preceding paragraph. When, after listening to his philosophical discussion as to grammar and syntax, I sought to direct him to the orders which were the subject of Dr Falamaki’s application, the following exchange took place:
“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.
MILLER: Actually, he doesn’t.
HIS HONOUR: I see.
MILLER: Because when he looks up the definition of the words, he can’t find them. They don’t exist and there was no closure put on the documents for the modification of language and if you don’t show your closure, what the volition is of the content of the moving party under maritime law, that document is moot.
HIS HONOUR: We’re not dealing with maritime law here.
MILLER: That’s a maritime vessel. It’s got a stamp on it. It’s a vessel. All paper is a vessel in a sea of space and therefore it has to fly a vessel. It has to pay its postage to go between point A and point B. The bailiff over here is actually the letter carrier to transport the letter from myself to you. The postage has been paid on my letter, to go to you so that you could mark it as evidence. The postage has been paid for me to bring it from the street. Dr Falamaki has also signed it. To transport the vessel from the street to the port of the court. Have it filed and filed stamped. The clerk of the court file stamps the document and received the vessel into the port of the court and signs their name across the received stamp and I also cancel that stamp as well and then it goes to you for adjudication.
I know the procedures of how vessels flow through the court but that shortcut, everybody likes to take the shortcut and skip over those things. I don’t take shortcuts, I follow all the rules and regulations that are correct to move that vessel as correct evidence into this court. You’ve received it as correct evidence, it was carried to you by the bailiff or a tipstaff. So the documents are delivered to you and now it’s your choice to make a determination and if you have a problem with what syntax is and how it works on the back of the cover of my book we have a complete outline that took six years to research as to the accuracy of how syntax functions so that the information that I bring to this court, I can back it up and you have your styles manual that Australia publishes, we have a styles manual that the United States government, that China, Russia, all the other countries of the world have their style manuals to communicate under a standard of styles and a standard of syntax and mathematical procedures otherwise we wouldn’t have communications.
When those styles are violated and the modifications are allowed to go unchecked we have chaos and so I brought the mathematical interface on April 6 1988 when I broke the code and I was able to mathematically certify it is what has created this book to advertise how the math interface of language now functions in now time. Not only that all judges worldwide and attorneys worldwide have been asked to try and defeat this and find out if this is a lie and they’ve all come back to certify the fact. This is required study at Scottsdale Arizona and Reno Nevada at the judge institutes. I have been teaching there for 15 years now. Universities that teach law for lawyers are required to study this book so that they understand what syntax means. We’re in a changing world. You can call my government, you can call the United States Supreme Court, your judge can call your High Court down here, you don’t think they haven’t contacted Washington and talked with the Supreme Court to compare notes as to what’s going on and how big this things has gotten and how many cases are involved with this worldwide? I invite you to do it, take my passport number, run my passport and check the 38 pages of information, credentials I have on that as to my travels around the world to educate.
When I was invited to this case I looked at the paperwork and I said, this is all wrong, it’s impossible for a case to run as long as it has but because that nothing has been said, I said show me the first piece of paper, the first day of trial and when that first day of trial was handed to me I said I syntaxed it and said it’s in a box, it’s written in adverb/verb, there’s no correct sentence structure, therefore it’s mute. If you build a case on a lie, it’s a lie. From what I understand you’ve just been brought in as a judge to sit on this case after all the other judges have recused themselves because they know it’s a fact. I don’t know what your position is or what the politics are going on behind the scenes here but I can pretty well put the pieces together, I’ve been around the court system for 30 years.
37 Regrettably, I did not find the submissions helpful in addressing Dr Falamaki’s claim.
15 FOR THE DATE-~27-~ OCTOBER-~2017 OF THIS WITNESS: Kevin-Grantley: Currey WITH THE LOCATION OF THE ~177-~CURREY-ROAD, -~ WONGAWALLAN, -~ ‘QUEENSLAND’, -~ 4210, IS WITH THESE CLAIMS BEFORE THIS FEDERAL – CIRCUIT – COURT OF AN AUSTRALIA-COURT IN THE DRY-DOCK BY THIS: Kevin-Grantley: Currey.
1. FOR THIS WITNESS: Kevin-Grantley: Currey’s KNOWLEDGE OF THE CORRECT-SENTENCE-STRUCTURE-COMMUNICATION-PARSE-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR IS WITH THIS DAMAGE-CLAIM OF THE ORIGINAL-FILING-SYNTAX-FRAUD and: TESTIMONY-FRAUD BY THE COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA and: “OTHERS”, WITH THE FIRST-COURT-HEARING AGAINST THE CASE-FILE: ‘No.9397. Of 2013’ IN THE SUPREME-COURT OF THE ‘QUEENSLAND’-TERRITORY WITH THIS CLAIMANT: Kevin-Grantley: Currey.
2. FOR THIS WITNESS’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS IS WITH THIS DAMAGES-CLAIM OF THE PERJURY, MIS-APPROPRIATION, and: FRAUD-PARSE-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR-DOCUMENTS WITHIN THE ORIGINAL-FILING-SYNTAX-FRAUD-DOCUMENTS BY THE ‘COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA’, ‘QUEENSLAND’-STATE’S-VASSALEES, and: “OTHERS”.
20 Judge Lloyd-Jones was confronted with a similar document in Wollongong City Council v Falamaki  FMCA 1204. At  –  his Honour reviewed the facts of that case against the commonly understood function of amicus curiae in the courts of this country. Curiously, the application before Judge Lloyd-Jones was for a person who identified himself as Judge: David-Wynn: Miller to appear as a lay advocate for one of the parties in that case, as well as to give evidence as an expert in respect of “syntax fraud” and finally as that of an amicus curiae in assisting the Court to understand the offence of “syntax fraud”. His Honour declined to permit “Judge: David-Wynn: Miller” to appear as amicus curiae.
21 While there is no similar application before me, the respondents’ argument is that by reason of “syntax fraud”, the respondents have some type of defence to these proceedings. The document that I have admitted as exhibit 1 (the “amicus curiae”) bears the name of “FEDERAL-PLENIPOTENTIARY-JUDGE: David-Wynn: Miller”. That appears to be the same name of the person to whom Judge Lloyd-Jones refers in his reasons in Falamaki.
22 “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”. In Wollongong City Council v Falamaki  NSWLEC 66, Craig J had the benefit of Judge: David-Wynn: Miller appear before him to explain his theory in support of Dr Falamaki’s case. After setting the transcript of some exchanges with Judge: David-Wynn: Miller and recording that lengthy submission had been made by him, Craig J recorded that: 37 Regrettably, I did not find the submissions helpful in addressing Dr Falamaki’s claim.
23 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.
See also: The Fundamentals #1 Your Strawman is Indivisible
Chapter (1) Meet your Strawman Chapter (2) The Evil Conspiracy to Capitalise Lettering Chapter (3) A Corporation can be a Person, but a Person cannot be a Corporation Chapter (4) The Strawman in the Courts Chapter (5) I’m not a citizen and I’m not a person! Chapter (7) It’s illegal to use a legal name– Kate of Gaia
- 1 Maksacheff v Commonwealth Bank of Australia  NSWCA 126 https://jade.io/article/532646
- 2 Rambaldi & anor v Rice Bar Restaurant & anor  VSC 218 https://jade.io/article/583330
- 3 WOLLONGONG CITY COUNCIL v FALAMAKI  FMCA 1204 https://jade.io/article/121670
- 4 Wollongong City Council v Dr Masood Falamaki  NSWLEC 66 https://jade.io/article/191148
- 5 THE TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF CURREY (A BANKRUPT) & ANOR v CURREY & ANOR  FCCA 2692 https://jade.io/article/561690