Or having your evidence dismissed as if it’s just worthless drivel;2 - The applicant now applies for these charges to be dismissed. The essence of the applicant’s argument is that he possesses two distinct personas. One the ‘real live flesh and blood man’ and the other a ‘straw man’ or ‘dummy corporation’. The former is designated in the applicant’s material as ‘Kym-Anthony:’[1] and the latter as KYM ANTHONY SWEET.[2] According to the applicant’s argument, the real person is not subject to the laws of Queensland, and the charges should be dismissed.
3 - Merely setting out the argument is sufficient to show it is nonsense.
The “charlatan” referred to in footnote 9 is one of my favourite fools;Some of the applicant’s documents have the appearance of form documents,[8] and it seems to be common for overseas based charlatans to exploit the gullible by selling these form documents as ‘solutions’ to a variety of legal problems.[9] None of the documents are of any legal effect whatsoever.
However the judge was in error in stating that Gould “unlocked “the secrets of “quantum grammar””. That was the life’s work of David-Wynn Millar, the deceased king of Hawaii. However Gould stabbed Miller in the back and took over his title of Postmaster-General of the World by court martialing Miller and throwing him out of his own organization for the heinous criminal offense of “failing in his duty to know and maintain fluency for now-time cognition in the field”. It’s all recorded in one of the most hysterically funny sovereign videos I’ve ever seen, a standout in a field in no way lacking in serious contenders. Even the title is a winner;The one to whom the applicant refers, Russell Jay Gould, is a resident of the United States of America. He claims to have unlocked the secrets of ‘quantum grammar’ and in doing so he saved America from once again becoming a colony of the United Kingdom because of a secret pre-revolution postal contract. In this way he became the ‘postmaster-general of the world’. (I am not making this up.)
FOR THE STAND-DOWN-COURT-MARTIALING OF THE :David-Wynn: Miller.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaMOsVXQOU4
Back to Mr. Sweet. He’d been charged with marijuana offenses;
R v Sweet [2021] QDC 216Kym Anthony Sweet, committed two offences contrary to the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld). The first allegation is that between February and August 2019, he unlawfully produced cannabis in amount exceeding 500 grams. The second allegation is that on 1 August 2019, he possessed hydroponic equipment that he had used in connection with producing cannabis.
https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/ ... c/2021/216
And he responded with the strawman argument. He probably got this from Miller’s vast library of videos. Millar had released a six part video seminar on how to claim your strawman along with associated documents and it appears these documents formed the basis for the application.
However the judge did not disregard all documentary evidence. A primary source of information backing the court’s decisions came from one of our own Quatloos posters!
It’s an insultingly short decision that you can read it for yourselves because it's past midnight and I'm up at 6AM babysitting my five year old grandson. Grandparents are an exploited resource. The decision ends with;ARTICLES: - Netolitzky, D J, ‘A Pathogen Astride the Minds of Men: The Epidemiological History of Pseudolaw’, paper delivered at the Centre d’expertise et de formation sur les intégrismes religieux et la radicalisation symposium: ‘Sovereign Citizens in Canada’, Montreal, 3 May 2018
Netolitzky, D and Warman, R, ‘Enjoy the Silence: Pseudolaw at the Supreme Court of Canada’, 2020 57-3 Alberta Law Review 715, 740
[8] Criminal liability attaches to a person where they ‘do the act or one or more acts in a series which constitutes or constitute the offence’.[12] On any view of the present allegations, that could not be the ‘straw man’ or ‘dummy corporation’ mentioned by the applicant. The applicant’s own writings describe this purported alternate persona as ‘an artificial person’, a ‘legal entity’, ‘an artificial legal person’ and a ‘legal fiction’. Even if it existed in law, it is not capable of doing the act or acts that attract criminal liability. Of the two entities claimed by the applicant to exist – the applicant as ‘a real live flesh and blood man’ and the ‘straw man’ – the only one who could have done the acts that constitute the offences is the applicant, constituted in the corporeal form of the person who appeared in court to make this application. That is the person who was charged by the police, committed to stand trial by a Magistrate and against whom the present indictment was presented. That person is subject to the criminal law of this State and may be found to be criminally liable for his own acts. Even if the applicant possesses a ‘legal split-personality’, a proposition I reject, it could not alter this reality.
[9] There is no room for doubt or confusion as to who is said to have done the criminal acts and who is to stand trial in relation to the allegations. That is the applicant. His apparent wish to be identified by a name that is different to the name he was assigned at birth is of no moment at all.[13] However he is known, and no matter how odd the punctuation, he remains the same person – the one alleged to have committed the offences charged in the indictment.
[11] There being no merit to the application, it must be dismissed.