The applicant was convicted of a driving offence ex parte as he did not appear, because he had sent correspondence which was not responded to, and therefore he believed a private agreement had been achieved. He contended in this correspondence that he was not bound by statutory laws as he is not a citizen of the state, but merely “a human being” occupying or inhabiting an area of land named or known as Queensland and that as a “human being,” he had not contracted with or otherwise agreed to be bound by the laws of the state of Queensland.
“Affiant did not and do not, as a flesh and blood human being, consent to being bound by any statute, specifically but not limited to the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995. Affiant maintains that these so called “Acts” have not been lawfully enacted. Queensland Police Service is not recognised within the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) nor the Queensland Constitution, therefore, the Queensland police force is a “private corporation”. Affiant has no contract or agreement with representatives or agents or principal or anyone acting on behalf of the Queensland Police Service. Affiant is not a party of the body politic or corporate.”
He appealed the matter in Christie v Commissioner of Police  QDC 70, seeking an extension of time on the grounds he was denied natural justice. The court dismissed the appeal and responded:
“At its basic level, the whole basis for this application and the appeal is based on the notion that the applicant and others of like mind are unilaterally able to opt out of the State’s legal system including relevantly here, the relevant transport legislation and the jurisdiction and supervision of the relevant State courts. That is to unilaterally opt out of the “social contract” between the State and its citizens that allows a civilised and sophisticated society to function in an orderly and cohesive way. This can be achieved according to the applicant by purporting to renounce citizenship of any State or territory and not enter into any binding contract or other agreement to be bound by the statutory laws of the State. The notion is without merit and in my view the matters raised in the application and in the notice of appeal filed by the applicant, together with the affidavit material, raises no matter which would have any prospects of being successfully prosecuted on appeal.”