Sovereign Freeman JOHAN is the subject of a single reported appeal decision from the Queensland District Court:
- Van den Hoorn v Ellis [2010] QDC 451: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinod ... 0/451.html
Sovereign Freeman JOHAN subscribed to the classic Freeman-on-the-Land strawman double/split person concept (para. 2):
While Sovereign Freeman JOHAN refused to file affidavit evidence, “this free man cannot swear” (para. 5), he nevertheless provided an “Outline of Argument”, a modest 245 pages long (para. 6). Justice Dorney attempted to summarize that in one paragraph:The appellant, who appeared in person, while conceding that I could address him as Mr Van den Hoorn, asserted, as he had done in the Magistrates Court, that he was merely the “owner of the created fictions known as JOHAN HENDRICK VAN DEN HOORN and JOHN HENRY VAN DEN HOORN, being created fictions fraudulently owned and controlled by legal fictions” which included “australia inc” and “queensland inc”, as well as “queensland transport inc” and “numerous other incorperations and deciets”
A Magna Carta based argument was summarily rejected on the basis of previous jurisprudence: para. 16. Other constitutional arguments, including that the Constitution of Queensland 2001 was not valid as its name did not include the word “Act”, are reviewed and rejected at paras. 17-22. A quirkier constitutional argument, that the instructions given by English King George III to Australian Governor Phillip on April 25, 1787 override subsequent legislation, is addressed and rejected at para. 23 on the basis of academic commentary on the status and relevance of English law that may have ‘snuck into’ Australia.[14] Insofar as it is discernible, particularly from the Outline of Argument of the appellant, the constitutional arguments are centred on what has been termed an “assumed” jurisdiction “over a free man” because the magistrate “lacked lawful standing to judge a free man” who was “in good standing”. The apparent basis for this lack of jurisdiction is that the Constitution (Cwth) accords sole relevant legislative powers to the Federal Government or, alternatively, that any adverse (to the appellant) precedential authority, if it previously has existed, ended when the Constitution (Qld) was rewritten in 2001. Additionally, there was the puzzling contention that, before the lower court, the appellant was assumed to be a “corperation [sic]” by the fact of the court accepting the alleged “capitalisation of (his) family name” which so led to him being deemed to be a “corporative fiction of limited liability” when he was “a living/breathing soul ... of full liability”. Its “liability” relevance, if any, seems to be limited to the statutory requirement of mandatory third party personal injury insurance for motor vehicles. The “person” aspect will be canvassed when discussing the relevant Queensland legislation.
Challenges to legislative and police authority are also reviewed and rejected: paras. 26-35. Unsurprisingly, the meaning of “vehicle” is another issue. Sure enough, Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed.) is deployed, as is creative interpretation:
I think Freemen sometimes refer to this process of mangling language and logic as “deconstruction”.[37] Turning first to the definition of “vehicle” in the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, Schedule 4 defines it in a way which “includes” any type of “transport” that moves on wheels. In turn, “transport” is defined “in relation to” dangerous goods “to include” each of specified ways which are set forth in subparagraphs (a) to (e). “Include” is contended by the appellant, by reference to Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed), to mean to “shut in” or “keep within” and therefore “limiting” the subject to the specified objects: cf (9th ed) at p 831. Hence, the interpretation advanced by the appellant is that “transport” is limited to the transport of goods and that, in turn, means that the only objects that are vehicles are those that transport goods. The argument must fail. First, it is clear that the actual definition of the word “transport” is limited to defining such “in relation to” dangerous “goods”. Secondly, both in the definition of “vehicle” and of “transport”, “includes” is not intended to be an exhaustive definition: see Statutory Interpretation in Australia (6th ed) (Pearce & Geddes) at [6.56] – [6.59]. The vehicle involved here is a motorcycle.
[38] A second interpretive argument is based upon there being evidence that the particular “vehicle” had details which were “on” the register. Exhibit 7 certified that as at 10 December 2009 the “register of vehicles” showed that a “2001 Suzuki GSXR 750 Motorcycle, Vehicle Identification Number JS1BD12130010043 and registration number WP670” was “cancelled” by Queensland Transport on 9 February 2009. The Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 defined “registered” as meaning registered “in a register of vehicles” kept by the chief executive under a transport Act. In the relevant Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Regulation 1999, s 5, for this regulation, stated that a vehicle is “taken to be” a “registered vehicle” if it has “current registration” under the regulation. The appellant, in his Outline of Argument, included 12 pages of definitions which included a definition of “registration” as meaning the transfer of “superior ownership to the entity accepting the registration”, adding that once an item has been registered, “you are no longer the OWNER ... but instead you become the KEEPER”. Accordingly, so the argument runs, if the relevant vehicle was, as here, “on” the register, it must mean that the vehicle registration was “registered”. This is contended to have the consequence that it was thus not “cancelled”.
[39] Such an approach to interpretation blatantly ignores the fact that the definition of “registered” means entered in a register as “registered”. It does not mean simply that, if there are details of a vehicle on or in a register, then it must be “registered”. It is inherently contradictory to accept that the relevant Certificate contains details that the registration of the vehicle was “cancelled”, yet at the same time contend that the mere recording of details means that the vehicle is relevantly registered. The meaning of “registered” depends on context and it is clear from the whole of the relevant Act that being “registered” does not encompass any registration which has been cancelled.
[40] The third attack on the legislation is that, since “driver” in the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 is defined as meaning the “person” driving the vehicle (including the “rider” of a vehicle), the appellant is not a person who falls within the Act because, from the same definitions just referred to, a person “includes” a “corporation” and the appellant is not a “corporation”. Besides misunderstanding, as discussed before, about what “includes” means, it is clear from the context of the definition – and reality - that a corporation could never drive or ride a vehicle. Such an interpretation is therefore absurd, and must be rejected. A similar fate follows from any argument that a “person” is only a fictitious legal entity.
[41] Here, again, reference is made to the definition of “vehicle”. So, for the reasons canvassed above, the limitation of such to being one of transportation must again be rejected. The last part of the argument would appear to be that, since there was actually no vehicle, there could be no driver. But there was a motorcycle – and it was a “vehicle”.
[42] Considering, then, the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 – relevant to the charge that the appellant did drive an “uninsured vehicle” – the appellant contends that he has insurance since all persons are taken to be “insured” through the Nominal Defendant provisions. Further, since he is a “free man”, he contends that he has unlimited liability and thus he cannot be “uninsured” within the meaning of that Act. A “motor vehicle” within the provisions of this Act means a “vehicle” for which registration is required under the relevant regulation concerning vehicle registration made pursuant to the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995. As noted, Exhibit 7 shows “cancellation”. The argument as to being a free man is to contrast such an entity to a corporation which the appellant states has “limited” liability. Passing on from that argument (which has no merit at all), even if there was an “insurance” component in all registration payments, in circumstances where Exhibit 7 certifies that the records of the Chief Executive do not show that there was “in force” a Compulsory Third Party insurance policy in relation to the vehicle bearing registration WP670 and containing the above designated Vehicle Identification Number, it cannot mean that the vehicle was not “uninsured” according to the governing legislation. Although the Act states, for example, that the Nominal Defendant is “taken to be” a licensed “insurer” in s 18, it is clear from the context of the Act as a whole that such is “statutory insurance” only: see, for instance, s 3(a), concerning the “objects” of the Act. The definitions of “insured motor vehicle” and “uninsured motor vehicle” in s 4 make the position abundantly clear.
Unsurprisingly, the police officer who arrested Sovereign Freeman JOHAN was found to be a credible witness: paras. 48-54. Nor was the court impressed by an argument that Sovereign Freeman JOHAN was unable to pay his fines because he rejects paper money, and this was an “odious debt”, that related to a “fraudulent national debt”: paras. 55-56.
The trial conviction and sentence are confirmed.
One thing that is quite interesting about Sovereign Freeman JOHAN is that I was able to identify a direct connection with Canada and the World Freeman Society. JOHAN was at one point very active in that forum, posting under the alias “one under god..de jure”. He shared a simply massive Notice of Understanding Intent and Claim on that message board in 2009: http://public.worldfreemansociety.org/i ... -and-claim
He is one of the leading posters on the WFS forum, as of this date having posted 3460 messages, fourth highest. That said, Sovereign Freeman JOHAN seems to have become increasingly disenchanted with the WFS forum and its inhabitants, by 2012 complaining that his posts were being deleted, and had been repeatedly banned (http://public.worldfreemansociety.org/i ... s?start=18), even though “i invested cash money in keeping the site going - 1000nz - how much you invested into the forum? - [in cash]”: (http://public.worldfreemansociety.org/i ... un?start=6)
It appears JOHAN’s religious beliefs were an ongoing point of contention with the WFS forum administration.
Like many other Freemen, Sovereign Freeman JOHAN appears to have a hippy / environmental protest / left of centre background. In particular, he has been involved with an Australian mini-self-propelled protest effort called “The Peacebus” (http://www.peacebus.com). A review of that website offers some interesting insights into JOHAN, and reveals his peers think he’s a little nuts.
For example, account of the Peacebus protest at the 2002 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (http://www.peacebus.com/chogm2002/) reveals JOHAN’s grand plan was:
And that didn’t work out too well as JOHAN ends up arrested after an unsuccessful interaction with police:Johan was determined to petition Queen Elizabeth II, who would be opening the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting later that morning. He had prepared a lengthy analysis of the ills of the worlds and assembled it in a thick ring folder each page in a plastic sleeve. Maybe 150 pages, it was the product of much research, TV watching, social isolation, paranoia and obsessive thinking. At essence it was a plea for unity and reason, a cry of a man who had a big heart, a sense of injustice and good intentions. But who was just not being heard.
He had sent me emails with part of his rave and battered my ears with other aspects of it. Rave without end, amen. Brow creased, eyes pleading, manner earnest, talk relentless in its mind numbing intensity.
…
Now Johan had fixed his mind that his rave had to be presented to the Queen, somehow. What the aging and increasingly irrelevant monarch might do with it, I had no idea. But Johan was convinced there might be a chance. “Her sister has just died, Graeme. I saw her on TV grieving beside the grave, a small mound of flowers, insignificant when compared to the floral abundance on Lady Di’s grave. She must have noticed that. She is open to change and new ideas.”
The account closes with an exploration of JOHAN’s personal living circumstances:When I got back to Sir Johan, he wasn’t listening to me. “Everyone knows you are working for ASIO, an undercover operative set on rendering the CHOGM protests ineffective,” he said. “If you were a real friend you would find an Aboriginal elder to sign and authorise my petition to the Queen.” An elder who could read and understand Johanism. In Coolum at 2.30 am in the morning. Get real.
Paranoia in full flight, Johan raved on, abusive now, chiding me for the insults he had suffered over the past three days. Bone weary, I told the Inspector I could do no more, washed my hands of Sir Johan, until very recently the driver of Peacebus. Left him to his fate, and drove back to Birranl Park to sleep.
JOHAN has a much less dramatic appearance in this account of an anti-Bush protest: http://www.peacebus.com/BushVisit/But what a house! Johan is an obsessive collector of stuff. For him all trash is treasure. The interior of the house is warren of narrow passageways weaving between walls and columns of stuff arranged in collections. There is an aesthetic in it, fancy arrangements of this and that. But the overwhelming impression is overwhelm. Everywhere stuff!
You name it and Johan has twenty of it at least. Stamps, cameras, wrist watches, stones, sticks, and books. Walls and walls of books. No theme in the collection that I could see at a glance. Some 7,000 he said and recently catalogued by Jan.
“I even collect broken bottles’, Johan said opening a draw. Within was a collection of glass weathered and opalescent with age. Johan picked up the neck of an old broken bottle. ‘You know”, he mused. “No two pieces are ever alike.”
SMS Möwe