James v District Court Whanganui
[2022] NZHC 2309
•9 September 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE
CIV-2022-483-004
[2022] NZHC 2309
BETWEEN JAMES
Applicant
AND
DISTRICT COURT WHANGANUI
Respondent
On the papers: Judgment:
9 September 2022
JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J
Introduction
[1] On 14 February 2022, the applicant filed a statement of claim in the Whanganui High Court. The matter has now come before me for consideration as Duty Judge.
[2] On 24 March 2022, the applicant’s statement of claim was referred by Mallon J to the Registrar for consideration under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016. Regrettably, due to an administrative error, the matter was not dealt with or subsequently referred to a Judge to consider under r 5.25B.
[3] In order for a Judge to consider a proceeding pursuant to r 5.35B, it must be referred to them “as soon as practicable after accepting the proceeding for filing”.1 As some months have passed since the proceeding was referred to the Registrar, and no action has been taken, the matter can no longer be dealt with under rr 5.35A and 5.35B.
1 High Court Rules 2016, r 5.35A(3)(a).
JAMES v DISTRICT COURT WHANGANUI [2022] NZHC 2309 [9 September 2022]
However, the High Court retains the inherent jurisdiction to manage and regulate its own processes, including the power to dismiss or stay proceedings.2
Statement of claim
[4] The applicant says that his name is James, and I will therefore call him that. His statement of claim seeks an injunction against the Whanganui District Court in the following terms:
Article One;
The District Court has proceeded without consent to conduct business with the Legal Fiction JAMES JONES, James JONES, Mr J Jones, and all similar constructs of the Person Registered with Births Deaths and Marriages and having a Birth Date of 8th January 1951.
Such action is unlawful.
Article Two;
The District Court refuses to acknowledge the true identity of the Man James as identified in a Statutory Declaration made to the DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS who is an agent of the CROWN CORPORATION OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED.
The District Court obstructs the filing of documents which do not admit joinder Man to the Legal Fiction.
Such action is unlawful.
Remedy Sought
There is a current matter to come before the District Court and the Applicant, because of previous District Court obstruction, seeks the High Court to issue an Injunction:
1.Ordering the District Court to acknowledge that the living body of the Man, as indicated in the Statutory Declaration of Identity is the Man James and not the Legal Fiction Person JAMES JONES, date of birth 8th January 1951, and
2.That the District Court, having been denied jurisdiction must obtain written consent from James in order to conduct any business with the Legal Fiction JAMES JONES, James JONES, J Jones, Mr J Jones, and all other similar constructs having the name Jones and with a birth date of 8th January 1951.
2 Senior Courts Act 2016, s 12; High Court Rules 2016, r 15.1(4); see also Siemer v Solicitor- General [2013] NZSC 68, [2013] 3 NZLR 44 at [114].
[5] From the other documents that have been filed by James, it appears that his claim is based on the assertion that he is not subject to the laws of New Zealand. In an affidavit filed on 22 February 2022, James stated, among other things:
Jurisdiction follows a natural hierarchy. The order of jurisdiction is logical; Nature/God > Man/[Wo]Man > State/Government > Corporate/Person.
Man lives in the jurisdiction of the Common Law, which is de jure “in Law”. A lesser creation cannot contradict the higher / creator.
Corporations are the construction of Man and cannot rule over Man unless Man consents.
Consent makes the law…
…
There is no decree that the Office of Parliament can pass that can lawfully force One to consent to be subject to the rules of that Corporation, to argue otherwise would be a legal nonsense.
I James, withdrew my consent to be governed by the CROWN on 17th January 2014 by way of a Claim of Right served on the Crown and perfected by my actions and a Default Notice creating an Estoppel by Silence, on the 28th January 2014.
[6] James alleges also that “Governments can never be Sovereign as they are Legal Fictions”, and that he has “never given informed, written consent to be governed or agreed to be Surety for the debt of a corporation”.
Analysis
[7] It appears that James has made his claim to the High Court with the goal of invalidating criminal proceedings taken against him in the District Court or various actions taken by the Police.
[8] James’ statement of claim is made in terms commonly used by the ‘Sovereign Citizen’ movement. Such claims are made in the Courts not infrequently, and have been the subject of previous judicial commentary both in New Zealand and in other
common law jurisdictions.3 They are often made in the context of applications for habeas corpus.4
[9] The Court of Appeal has recently described the Sovereign Citizen movement as:5
…an ideology that first emerged in the United States in the 1970s. [The] core belief, for present purposes, is that [Sovereign Citizens are] not subject to the jurisdiction of the State (including legislation enacted by Parliament or decisions made by the courts). This belief is based (at least in part) on the dual persona theory — the proposition that individuals have two personas, one of flesh and blood and the other a separate legal or “corporate” personality that is subject to the jurisdiction of the State. Followers of the Sovereign Citizen movement believe that it is possible to dissociate themselves from their legal or corporate persona, and hence free themselves from the jurisdiction of the State. [They believe they have] successfully done this and, as a result, the State has no authority over [them].
[10] James’ statement of claim seeks to draw a distinction between “the Legal Fiction JAMES JONES”, “James JONES”, “J Jones”, “Mr J Jones”, and “all other similar constructs having the name Jones”. Such a practise is a hallmark of the behaviour described in the Canadian judgment Meads v Meads as being adopted by “Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants”.6 In that case, the Alberta Associate Chief Justice identified three factors that unify such litigants, being:7
(a)a characteristic set of variable strategies that they employ;
(b)specific but irrelevant formalities and language which they appear to believe are or portray as significant;
(c)the sources from which their ideas and materials originate; and
3 See Meads v Meads 2012 ABQB 571; cited in Niwa v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2019] NZHC 843.
4 The examples cited in Warahi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2022] NZCA 105 were Smith v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2019] NZCA 362; Te Tangata Whenua v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZSC 189; and Nathan v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2020] NZHC 2486.
5 Warahi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2022] NZCA 105 at [9].
6 Above n 3, at [1].
7 At [4].
(d)that they will only honour obligations created pursuant to law if they feel like it.
[11] Through these practises, and the idea of the “dual persona” theory, adherents to the Sovereign Citizen movement attempt to argue that the laws and territorial authority of the Crown do not apply to them. James’ claim falls squarely within the types of claims brought by “Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants”.
[12] I adopt the Court of Appeal’s conclusions in Warahi to the effect that such arguments are untenable and without legal foundation.8 Acts of Parliament are binding on all persons within the geographical territory of New Zealand, and are upheld by the Courts. It is plainly true that “No person within New Zealand is able to dissociate themselves from their “legal persona” so as to remove themselves from the jurisdiction of the courts”.9
[13]Further, as stated by Ellis J:10
…it will inevitably be an abuse of process for a litigant to attempt to employ [Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument] concepts in seeking to avoid or defeat any state, regulatory, contract, family or other obligations recognised by law.
Result
[14] I am satisfied that James’ claims for an injunction against the Whanganui District Court are based on Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments, and that they have no legal foundation.
[15] Accordingly, I strike out his claim pursuant to r 15.1(1) of the High Court Rules, and the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, as an abuse of process.
Churchman J
8 At [11].
9 Warahi, at [11].
10 Niwa, above n 3, at [16].
5
3
0