Miller v South Wairarapa District Council

[2024] NZHC 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND MASTERTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKAORIORI ROHE

CIV-2024-435-14

[2024] NZHC 2024

UNDER

Section 240(1), (1A) and (2) of the Crimes Act 1961

IN THE MATTER OF

a referral under rr 5.35A and 5.35B of the High Court Rules 2016

BETWEEN

ISAAC JAMES MILLER
Plaintiff

AND

SOUTH WAIRARAPA DISTRICT COUNCIL

Defendant

On the Papers
Judgment:	23 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF GWYN J

MILLER v SOUTH WAIRARAPA DISTRICT COUNCIL [2024] NZHC 2024 [23 July 2024]

[1]                 The plaintiff has filed a statement of claim dated 5 July 2024 and three associated affidavits. The statement of claim has been referred to me in my capacity as Duty Judge by the Registrar under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016 (Rules).

[2]                 Rule 5.35A provides that if a Registrar believes that, on the face of a proceeding tendered for filing, the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court, the Registrar may:

(a)as soon as practicable after accepting the proceeding for filing, refer it to a Judge for consideration under r 5.35B; and

(b)until a Judge has considered the proceeding under that rule, decline to sign, and release, the notice of proceeding and attached memorandum.

[3]                 Rule 5.35B provides that if a Judge to whom a Registrar has referred a proceeding under r 5.35A is satisfied that the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court, the Judge may make a number of orders, including that the proceeding be struck out.

Statement of claim

[4]                 This proceeding is brought against the South Wairarapa District Council, but makes little sense. I set out the statement of claim in full below:

1.     As the SOUTH WAIRARAPA DISTRICT COUNCIL is a corporation, it is bound by basic principles and rules of commerce and contract.

2.     Therefore the unrebutted affidavit of conditional acceptance, date received, 4th October 2023. From living Man :Murray-Keith: of the house Parker, stands as truth and judgement in commerce.

3.     The Notice to cure, received, 1 November year 2023, 12:01pm, by SOUTH WAIRARAPA DISTRICT COUNCIL corporation, as a courtesy, to remind the representatives of that corporation, to address, within 240 hours of receiving the Notice of default and opportunity to cure.

4.     The Notice of default, dated 17 November 2023 established, truth and judgement, in contract and commerce, as clarified through tacit agreement, by the representatives of the SOUTH WAIRARAPA DISTRICT COUNCIL corporation.

5.     The prohibited actions exposed in the Notice dated, 21 December 2023, at the restorative meeting, dated 7 December 2023, in the minutes of that meeting, with the representatives of SOUTH WAIRARAPA DISTRICT COUNCIL, Martin Connelly, doing business as, Mayor of SOUTH WAIRARAPA DISTRICT COUNCIL and concerned Men and Women, Ant, Murray, Jasmina, Nicki, all standing in their natural states, shows the intent of all parties involved in this matter, the unrebutted Affidavit of Conditional Acceptance stands as truth and judgement in commerce.

6.     In the matter of Martin Connelly, doing business as, Major of SOUTH WAIRARAPA DISTRICT COUNCIL, Proof of actions done in bad faith, with intent, are clarified within the minutes and the summary of the meeting, dated 23rd February 2024, received date, 26th February 2024, at 1pm, via electronic device, email, remains unrebutted.

7.     Janice Smith, perverting the course of justice by using a third party, GAWITH BURRIDGE LAWYERS, to coerce and deceive, with intent to impose actions of serfdom, servitude and debt bondage, with proof in the email, dated 19th April 2024, from Janice Smith, doing business as CEO SOUTH WAIRARAPA DISTRICT COUNCIL corporation, stopping all meetings to amend all wrongs, as identified in the emails.

8.     The intention of this claim, is to uphold peace and good order.

[5]                 Mr Miller has also filed three affidavits, all styled as affidavit of Murray-Keith and all dated 3 October 2023. The first is labelled an “Affidavit of Conditional Acceptance” another as a “Notice to Cure” and the third “Notice of Default”. Each is also stated to be a “self-executing contract”. The general purport of the affidavits appears to be that various local body organisations and other official bodies have acted unlawfully in various ways, including in relation to, for example, adding fluoride to water supplies, imposing taxes, rates and fines, consenting to 5G towers, and implementing or committing to implement UN Agenda 2030.

[6]                 The third affidavit notes that “Murray-Keith” had not receive a rebuttal of the first two. It appears that the statement of claim is based on that “failure”. It appears that the plaintiff seeks to have the Council “rebut the contents within the unrebutted affidavit of conditional acceptance dated, 3rd of October 2023, from :Murray-Keith: of the house Parker…”. However the nature of the relief sought by the plaintiff is not clear.

[7]                 Mr Miller’s statement of claim and affidavits, are, to adopt the phrase used by Churchman J in Larsen v New Zealand Police Company,1 “full of pseudo-legal mumbo jumbo that is characteristic of the ‘sovereign citizen’ school of thought”.

[8]The Senior Courts have consistently struck out similar claims.2

[9]                 The claim as it is presently framed is legally untenable. The claims are also plainly an abuse of the Court’s process. Pursuant to r 5.35B I order that they be struck out.

[10]Mr Miller has the right to appeal against that decision.3

Gwyn J

1      Larsen v New Zealand Police Company [2022] NZHC 2374 at [8].

2      See Niwa v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2019] NZHC 853, [2019] NZAR 1104; and James v District Court Whanganui [2023] NZCA 181.

3      High Court Rules, r 5.35B(3).