Police had stopped a car with no number plates attached to do a registration and licence check, and the driver refused to comply with their requests. After finally exiting the vehicle, in the course of speaking with the police officer, she threw a bottle of iced coffee over him and another officer, and threatened to run them over. She was subsequently arrested and charged with obstruct police and two counts of assault, as well as the unlicenced, unregistered and uninsured offences. She was convicted of these six offences in the Magistrates Court, and appealed the convictions in Reiman v Commissioner of Police [2021] QDC 242.
Fantin DCJ initially noted that she did not wish to be referred to by her surname, and therefore referred to her throughout the appeal as the appellant. She submitted her “Affidavit of Truth”, which was not accepted. She asserted:
“I am not a Legal Fiction Person nor a Corporate Entity or some kind of Partnership, but instead am a living breathing, sovereign, flesh and blood Human Being with a living soul, with a distinct Mind is capable of possessing Knowledge. I am a woman, a living woman. I am not dead or lost at sea. I stand under the jurisdiction of my flag.”
As she draped a flag over the lectern at the bar table, she insisted she had renounced any “contract” or “agreement” with any government agency or entity, as she had “absolutely no desire whatsoever to be a “client” (slave) of any governmental agency, state or federal” that she had “unalienable/inalienable indefeasible rights to life, liberty, freedom and property”, concluding that “slavery and peonage are immoral and fraud, misrepresentation, nondisclosure, intimidation, deceit, concealment of material fact, lying, and treachery are morally wrong.” Fantin DCJ stated (at 18):
“Despite the appellant’s apparently strongly held belief otherwise, none of these repeated incantations have any relevant legal effect.”
She contended that she was not subject to any Queensland government statutes or proceedings, because laws were created by God, in the Bible, upheld by the Magna Carta and reflected in the Constitution, and because of the operation of section 109.That she was not required to hold a driver’s licence, registration or insurance, as she was travelling under her “inalienable right” under the Magna Carta and ss 51 and 92 of the Constitution.
That the police acted without authority or jurisdiction, and were committing “war crimes” under the Geneva Convention, as she was “kidnapped” and falsely imprisoned, as persons interacting with her must produce evidence of their lawful authority and pay a fee of “four-hundred-thousand dollars credit in gold or silver”. Further, that she was denied a fair trial, and claimed provocation and self defence with respect to the two charges of assault police.
Fantin DCJ stated (at 20): “Despite contending that the District Court lacked jurisdiction and was a fraud, when invited to discontinue her appeal, the appellant declined to do so.” noting this paradox did not trouble Ross Bradley in Bradley v The Crown [2020] QCA 252 either.
Her Honour considered the submissions were “incomprehensible, misconceived and devoid of merit” with the jurisdictional arguments being rejected in other cases such as R v Stoneman [2013] QCA 209, Hubner v Erbacher [2004] QDC 345, Van den Hoorn v Ellis [2010] QDC 451 and Elliott v Commissioner of Police [2014] QDC 161, likewise concerning the Magna Carta in Carnes v Essenberg [1999] QCA 339, Essenberg v R [2002] QCA 4, Re Skyring (1994) 68 ALJR 618 and Skyring v ANZ Banking Group Ltd [1994] QCA 143.
All of the grounds failed and the application was dismissed.
You must log in to post a comment.