Rambaldi & anor v Rice Bar Restaurant & anor [2018] VSC 218

Rambaldi & anor v Rice Bar Restaurant & anor [2018] VSC 218 (at 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.”

Click to access rambaldi-anor-v-rice-bar-restaurant-anor-2018-vsc-218.pdf


See also Wollongong City Council v Falamaki [2009] FMCA 1204, Maksacheff v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2017] NSWCA 126 and The Trustee of the Property of Currey (A Bankrupt) v Currey [2017] FCCA 2692 

David Wynn Miller‘s “syntax grammar fraud” is also raised in relation to the “glossa” or “dog latin” premise concocted by Romley Stewart Stover and Rohan Lorian Hilder. This is covered in The Romley Stewart Deception, by Justinian


Leave a Reply