The Trustee of the Property of Currey (A Bankrupt) v Currey [2017] FCCA 2692 

The Trustee of the Property of Currey (A Bankrupt) v Currey [2017] FCCA 2692 

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”.”

The Court responded (from 20):

“Judge Lloyd-Jones was confronted with a similar document in Wollongong City Council v Falamaki [2009] FMCA 1204. At [13] – [19] 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. 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. “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 [2010] 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. 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.”

Click to access the-trustee-of-the-property-of-currey-a-bankrupt-anor-v-currey-anor-2017-fcca-2692.pdf

.

See also Rambaldi & anor v Rice Bar Restaurant & anor [2018] VSC 218, Maksacheff v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2017] NSWCA 126 and Wollongong City Council v Falamaki [2009] FMCA 1204

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

.