David Wynn Miller

[grixit]

One of the interesting delusions the theory is based on or implies is that you can determine the truth of a written statement by only reading the statement. So for example as long as you write “for the car is with the color red”, because the grammar is correct then the car really is red.

For I am with the $1,000,000,000 in the bank account.

[BBFlatt]

No dashes, so that's plainly false.

[Blackbeard]

FOR THE LYING OF THE FORMER-BODY-REMAINS OF THE :David-Wynn::Miller: IS WITH THE LYING OF THE HERE-PLACE.

[TheNewSaint]

FOR THE LYING OF THE FORMER-BODY-REMAINS OF THE :David-Wynn::Miller: IS WITH THE LYING OF THE HERE-PLACE.

That's actually pretty good.

[Gregg]

His heart finally stopped, years after the brain.

[HardyW]

Thank you to Burnaby for posting a case from Alberta where the OPCA litigant had made use of David Wynn Miller's syntax arguments. The Alberta judge having seemingly made a search for previous Miller references in court cases, quoted the Australian case Wollongong City Council v Dr Masood Falamaki [2010] NSWLEC 66 where Miller made an appearance in person on behalf of the Applicant.

This case is not to be confused with Wollongong City Council v Masood Falamaki [1998] NSWLEC 130, Wollongong City Council v Masood Falamaki [1998] NSWLEC 277, Wollongong City Council v Masood Falamaki [1999] NSWLEC 23, Falamaki v Wollongong City Council [2001] NSWCA 55; 113 LGERA 207, Falamaki v Wollongong City Council s 89/2001 [2002] HCATrans 460, Wollongong City Council v Falamaki (No 3) [2009] NSWLEC 80, Wollongong City Council v Falamaki (No 4) [2009] NSWLEC 83, or Wollongong City Council v Falamaki (No 5) [2009] NSWLEC 117.

So just to quote paras 33 to 36 and the all important para 37:
https://jade.io/article/191148

33 At the conclusion of the hearing on 9 April, I reserved my decision and indicated that I would deliver judgment at 2.00pm on Wednesday 14 April. When the Court resumed on that day, Dr Falamaki sought leave to file in Court a further notice of motion seeking further time before judgment to make oral submissions as well as seeking a declaration that condition 6 of the building approval had not been breached by him. He was represented at that time, as agent, by one David-Wynn Miller. Mr Miller described himself as “plenipotentiary judge David-Wynn Miller from Milwaukee Wisconsin in the United States.

34 I indicated concern at the delay in delivery of judgment, given that the evidence had closed and submissions appear to have been completed. That said, in deference to Dr Falamaki I agreed to allocate a further two hours for the conclusion of the hearing at 2.00pm on Thursday 15 April. Although the Council objected to any further evidence being raised by dint of the new notice of motion and objected to any new matter being raised, no objection was voiced to my providing the additional time to Dr Falamaki so as to allow Mr Miller to complete submissions on his behalf.

35 I invited Mr Miller to focus the submission that he would give on 15 April upon the rule that Dr Falamaki invoked, namely Pt 36 r 15 and the cases that inform the operation of such a rule. It is appropriate for reasons which I will next make apparent, that I quote from the transcript both my observation to Mr Miller and his response.

HIS HONOUR: At 2 o’clock tomorrow the arguments will conclude, the hearing will conclude within that two hours and can I respectfully remind you that your focus would and should be upon the particular rule that authorises or rather provides to me a discretion to set aside perfected orders. There are a large number of decided cases that relate to that.

MILLER: Conclusionary law not based on now time jurisdiction under rules of evidence are void for one thing. Two, I’ll give you a little secret. Every word that starts in the English language with a vowel, a, e, i, o and u and followed by two consonants is a word that means no contract. If you’re arguing a condition, a negative condition which can’t be proved under a seal which says syntax would be used in its correct format then the technology of writing will be syntaxed accordingly. The words will be identified for their true syntax and the value of that word will be brought to this court so if you have a rule our syntax can tell you exactly what it means frontwards and backwards because the order of operations of syntax are one and the same planet- wide in all five thousand languages, just like as a track multiplying and dividing for the operations of numbers. It is universal communication issues. Closure has to be on the table here for everything under maritime law of commerce because a piece of paper is a vessel in a sea of space and vessels must give closure for their movement between point A and point B and I’m a past master and as a plenipotentiary judge of 75,000 hours of training and 30 years I know how to dissect all this. There hasn’t been anything put in front of me in 30 years that I haven’t been able to dissect to its syntax.

36 Mr Miller appeared for Dr Falamaki at the resumed hearing of the matter on 15 April. He proceeded for almost one and a half hours to make submissions in terms similar to those that I have quoted in the preceding paragraph. When, after listening to his philosophical discussion as to grammar and syntax, I sought to direct him to the orders which were the subject of Dr Falamaki’s application, the following exchange took place:

HIS HONOUR: This case is not about sentence structure and syntax. It’s about orders which I’m sure Dr Falamaki can read and understand.

MILLER: Actually, he doesn’t.

HIS HONOUR: I see.

MILLER: Because when he looks up the definition of the words, he can’t find them. They don’t exist and there was no closure put on the documents for the modification of language and if you don’t show your closure, what the volition is of the content of the moving party under maritime law, that document is moot.

HIS HONOUR: We’re not dealing with maritime law here.

MILLER: That’s a maritime vessel. It’s got a stamp on it. It’s a vessel. All paper is a vessel in a sea of space and therefore it has to fly a vessel. It has to pay its postage to go between point A and point B. The bailiff over here is actually the letter carrier to transport the letter from myself to you. The postage has been paid on my letter, to go to you so that you could mark it as evidence. The postage has been paid for me to bring it from the street. Dr Falamaki has also signed it. To transport the vessel from the street to the port of the court. Have it filed and filed stamped. The clerk of the court file stamps the document and received the vessel into the port of the court and signs their name across the received stamp and I also cancel that stamp as well and then it goes to you for adjudication.

I know the procedures of how vessels flow through the court but that shortcut, everybody likes to take the shortcut and skip over those things. I don’t take shortcuts, I follow all the rules and regulations that are correct to move that vessel as correct evidence into this court. You’ve received it as correct evidence, it was carried to you by the bailiff or a tipstaff. So the documents are delivered to you and now it’s your choice to make a determination and if you have a problem with what syntax is and how it works on the back of the cover of my book we have a complete outline that took six years to research as to the accuracy of how syntax functions so that the information that I bring to this court, I can back it up and you have your styles manual that Australia publishes, we have a styles manual that the United States government, that China, Russia, all the other countries of the world have their style manuals to communicate under a standard of styles and a standard of syntax and mathematical procedures otherwise we wouldn’t have communications.

When those styles are violated and the modifications are allowed to go unchecked we have chaos and so I brought the mathematical interface on April 6 1988 when I broke the code and I was able to mathematically certify it is what has created this book to advertise how the math interface of language now functions in now time. Not only that all judges worldwide and attorneys worldwide have been asked to try and defeat this and find out if this is a lie and they’ve all come back to certify the fact. This is required study at Scottsdale Arizona and Reno Nevada at the judge institutes. I have been teaching there for 15 years now. Universities that teach law for lawyers are required to study this book so that they understand what syntax means. We’re in a changing world. You can call my government, you can call the United States Supreme Court, your judge can call your High Court down here, you don’t think they haven’t contacted Washington and talked with the Supreme Court to compare notes as to what’s going on and how big this things has gotten and how many cases are involved with this worldwide? I invite you to do it, take my passport number, run my passport and check the 38 pages of information, credentials I have on that as to my travels around the world to educate.

When I was invited to this case I looked at the paperwork and I said, this is all wrong, it’s impossible for a case to run as long as it has but because that nothing has been said, I said show me the first piece of paper, the first day of trial and when that first day of trial was handed to me I said I syntaxed it and said it’s in a box, it’s written in adverb/verb, there’s no correct sentence structure, therefore it’s mute. If you build a case on a lie, it’s a lie. From what I understand you’ve just been brought in as a judge to sit on this case after all the other judges have recused themselves because they know it’s a fact. I don’t know what your position is or what the politics are going on behind the scenes here but I can pretty well put the pieces together, I’ve been around the court system for 30 years.

37 Regrettably, I did not find the submissions helpful in addressing Dr Falamaki’s claim.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I’ll give you a little secret. Every word that starts in the English language with a vowel, a, e, i, o and u and followed by two consonants is a word that means no contract.

So we finally have the derivation of the legal argument used by Sov Cits that: "The Law's an ass."

I can also see the validity of claiming a piece paper can be a vessel:

[Burnaby49]

Your welcome but keep in mind that Knutson didn't use Miller in his assault on the bank because he was a follower but because he was just dumping anything on the court he could find on the internet. It didn't matter to him what it was and he probably had even less of an understanding of Millerese than I do.

[notorial dissent]

Your welcome but keep in mind that Knutson didn't use Miller in his assault on the bank because he was a follower but because he was just dumping anything on the court he could find on the internet. It didn't matter to him what it was and he probably had even less of an understanding of Millerese than I do.

This collection of Millerese was even more incoherent than normal for Miller, but I do agree with you on the throw it at the wall and see what sticks scenario, and it didn't work any better than it ever did. I just can't believe how patient the judge was with that nonsense.

[TheNewSaint]

The late Mr. Miller doesn't seem to apply his rules to himself. I counted at least 7 words in his screed that started with a vowel and two consonants, including "and."

[KickahaOta]

The pedant in me insists on pointing out that it's only a violation of the rules if Miller thought he was writing a contract.

Of course, like the rest of his rules, it's still utterly ludicrous and insane either way. And if pressed (and if he were still alive to be pressed) he'd probably come up with some other rule, like 'No, I used a word that ended in -iate, and that nullifies the secret power of the no-contract rule.' That's the beauty of playing linguistic Calvinball; there's always an out.

[JohnPCapitalist]

That's the beauty of playing linguistic Calvinball; there's always an out.

This. Exactly.

And the good news is that the courts are becoming more sensitive to the fact that there are organized efforts to spread this crap around, and they're becoming a lot less willing to indulge defendants or vexatious litigants.

[Burnaby49]

That's the beauty of playing linguistic Calvinball; there's always an out.

This. Exactly.

And the good news is that the courts are becoming more sensitive to the fact that there are organized efforts to spread this crap around, and they're becoming a lot less willing to indulge defendants or vexatious litigants.

If you've been following my posts you're aware that it's absolute scorched earth at Alberta's Queen's Bench the moment anyone tries any OPCA bullshit. They're handing out vexatious litigant orders like achievment prizes at a grade school sports day.

[JohnPCapitalist]

If you've been following my posts you're aware that it's absolute scorched earth at Alberta's Queen's Bench the moment anyone tries any OPCA bullshit. They're handing out vexatious litigant orders like achievment prizes at a grade school sports day.

I have been following your posts, and revel in the brutal, thorough but typically polite stompings that the Alberta courts have been regularly handing out.

My lament was more about how the courts south of the 49th Parallel are a bit slower on the uptake. I'd love to see our courts more uniformly trained on the sovcit menace. Much hilarity would result if we had the equivalent of Meads vs Meads.

[Burnaby49]

The courts in British Columbia treat these assholes like fragile misguided flowers that need to be endlessly indulged with unlimited court time until they see the right path. Queen's Bench just gives them a shitkicking, my much preferred approach.

[TheNewSaint]

Well, it's not much of a game of Calvinball when the opening move is always "You used a word with letters in it, therefore I win."

[Siegfried Shrink]

The prepared contestant can counter this argument by only using farts, belches and squeaky noises made with the armpits, not dissimilar in meaningful content to Mr. Miller's Quantum Grammer

[HardyW]

My lament was more about how the courts south of the 49th Parallel are a bit slower on the uptake. I'd love to see our courts more uniformly trained on the sovcit menace. Much hilarity would result if we had the equivalent of Meads vs Meads.

From my reading on Quatloos! I have the impression that the US Tax courts, at least, do this well. A list of frivolous arguments that are capable of attracting a penalty almost by default, seems to be equivalent to a list of "OPCA" practices listed in Meads that can be dismissed without detailed scrutiny. Perhaps the sheer variety of courts in the US system, combined with the weird position in many states of judges being elected, does not provide such a simple way of spreading such practices around the system.

[notorial dissent]

The Tax Courts and the IRS have, after getting tired of seeing the same old drivel time and again, did pretty much what CAJ Rooke did and compiled a collection of TP drivel that had no basis in reality or law and have ceased to refute it ad naseum and simply refer to it by the item and go on. The regular courts haven't gotten to it yet, although I suspect that it will be coming if sovcit litigation reaches a certain level.