Why has a link to R v Sweet, a decision by a Queensland district court, been in my bookmarks bar for almost five years, probably? Two-part answer: (1) it’s one of several amusing opinions rejecting the nutball claims of so-called “sovereign citizens,” so it’s worth mentioning; and (2) I occasionally procrastinate. But I eventually get around to whatever it was, so here this one is.

As do most of these people, the plaintiff contended that he has “two distinct personas”: (1) a “real live flesh and blood man” and (2) a “straw man” or “dummy corporation” that was somehow formed via a contract with the State at the birth of the former. The advantage of this, you see, is that the RLFABM can repudiate said contract at will (which typically isn’t how contracts work but never mind that), and by doing so becomes free of the laws to which his straw man persona was once subject. (The image above, which is not directly related to this case, may be an example of such a repudiation, but really, who knows what the hell it is.) The RLFABM therefore need not pay taxes, follow the law, or be subject to the jurisdiction of any court.

The only problem with this argument: it’s complete bullshit.

In R v Sweet (no periods, they’re running short of those in Australia), Judge Cash uses words like “nonsense,” “gobbledygook,” “incoherent,” and “incomprehensible,” and those are perfectly good (and accurate) words too. The four-page opinion is a good summary of this common sovereign-citizen argument and why those words are accurate.

My favorite line in the opinion is this: “The ideas promoted by [these] litigants emerged, of course, in the United States.” (He cites authority for this if you really feel the need to question it.)