NZ - Malcolm France - manic moped rider

Moderators: Prof, Judge Roy Bean, ArthurWankspittle

Dai Kiwi
Cannoneer
Cannoneer
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:06 am
Location: An Island South of the Equator

NZ - Malcolm France - manic moped rider

Postby Dai Kiwi » Wed Jul 01, 2015 9:44 am

Malcolm France – aka Malcolm-Daniel:Freeman

It is so nice to finally see another Freeman on the Land making the newspaper reports in New Zealand. I was starting to think that nobody cared.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11474023
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/69859262/auckland-man-criticised-by-court-for-refusing-to-admit-his-own-identity

One day in 2013 Malcolm France fell off a moped he was riding. The skid & fall was seen by a police officer who spoke to Mr France. And then it all starts to go wrong for him. He was arrested for failing to give his name and address. When identified, he was found not to have a drivers license. He defended the matter before JPs in the District Court, and received a fine - $850 + $130 costs on each charge.

Malcolm wasn’t going to have this – he was a free man and didn’t recognise their authority.

Appeals for a rehearing failed.
Appeals against conviction failed
Appeals for leave to appeal to the High Court failed.

Somehow he managed to successfully appeal that decision and took the matter to the Court of Appeal, which, today, has ruled against him (decision not online yet). France was rebuked by Justices Wild, Keane and Kós who were unimpressed by his "frivolous behaviour", and described it as a "mischievous attempt to avoid or overturn a conviction".

Mr France/Freeman/whoever says he’s not beaten yet and will take it to the Supreme Court (the final level, since dispensing with the Privy Council a few years back)

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/pdf/jdo/84/alfresco/service/api/node/content/workspace/SpacesStore/e79d92be-437b-43c7-b7c5-1269b0ab49b4/e79d92be-437b-43c7-b7c5-1269b0ab49b4.pdf

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/pdf/jdo/e3/alfresco/service/api/node/content/workspace/SpacesStore/43834abd-3f2e-4dae-a56b-f7359411522e/43834abd-3f2e-4dae-a56b-f7359411522e.pdf

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/pdf/jdo/a5/alfresco/service/api/node/content/workspace/SpacesStore/623ddb44-a6f4-4694-b62b-be7ec090548d/623ddb44-a6f4-4694-b62b-be7ec090548d.pdf


Malcom has a bit of a history as a protester, though I haven’t bothered to go googling him.

In 2009 he was convicted for assault on a policeman (he blew snot out of his nose onto the cop!) and possession of a knife at a protest against then Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. He appealed this decision in a normal manner, but lost.

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/pdf/jdo/98/alfresco/service/api/node/content/workspace/SpacesStore/2fdb5e55-134c-404a-8741-c9bd1254ae5e/2fdb5e55-134c-404a-8741-c9bd1254ae5e.pdf

In January 2010 he, along with five others, was convicted of disorderly behaviour at a protest against Israel’s involvement in Palestine, held at the ASB Tennis Open tournament because one of the players was an Israeli woman. This was appealed on quite normal grounds, and won – the convictions were set aside.

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/pdf/jdo/47/alfresco/service/api/node/content/workspace/SpacesStore/099c5fbb-0214-468b-8f01-cdff271e237c/099c5fbb-0214-468b-8f01-cdff271e237c.pdf


In July 2011 a group of people broke through gates to climb the Auckland Harbour Bridge arches and fly the Tino Ranitiratanga [Maori Sovreignty] flag in protest of deep sea oil drilling off the New Zealand coast. Malcolm was driver of the van which dropped off the protestors at the top of the bridge. He was convicted in the District Court on charges of being found in an enclosed area without reasonable excuse and causing wilful damage.

Malcolm filed an appeal against conviction. By this time he has been influenced by the Sov/FMOTL movement and had a MacKenzie friend - Mr Areta Ransfield – helping him. Mr Ransfield has history of “wins” (what we in the normal world call “losses”).

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/pdf/jdo/fd/alfresco/service/api/node/content/workspace/SpacesStore/b58d5b03-ecf3-4bf2-b2fb-1e9954ba0faa/b58d5b03-ecf3-4bf2-b2fb-1e9954ba0faa.pdf

The grounds of the appeal were:

1.1 that though that said judgement has sought to impose said allegations of said offending causing and validating by the said district and high courts my said convictions, paras 1 to 5, it attempting further to prove liability finally also, paras 15 to 18, they are not matters that I can consider as being anything other than erroneously arrived at either; for the further following reasons that

1.2 by the fact of my being in possession, by way of this documentation being copied to a usb drive that I own, that was filed as I was informed by my said mackenzie friend/s having assisted myself as said appellant-litigant in person before the said high court, as said appellants to the said supreme court at Wellington on 15 January 2010, and it having contained within and as part of it applications of Interim and Permanant Injunction with Summary Judgement of the 2005 general election and other instruments of government or crown as state, this being inclusive of all the said courts and their respective said jurisdictions as well; and that

1.3 because those injunctions are also able to validate liability as Criminals, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth 11, the Governor-General as First Second Agent – Dame Sylvia Cartwright, and the Chief Electoral Officer – David Henry as second Second Agent, of a said authority falsely, unlawfully, and, retrospectively gained through the English Laws bill enacted on the 28 May 1858 as the English Laws Act, citing the 14 January 1840 as the beginning of english law across Aotearoa New Zealand, then no legal law can be said to exist then either; and that by this fact,

1.4 persons being now in inlawful possession of the seal of New Zealand being also cited upon WRITS-WARRANTS for their respective arrests, being inclusive again also all said judges of all said judicial jurisdictions; and

1.5 my having cited Queen Elizabeth 11 as Defendant Principal Respondent at Large, Her Majesty being the Vicarious Liability; and Finally, 1.6 because Her Majesty did not appear at my said proceeding, notwithstanding that I had sent to Her Address at Buckingham Palace the application for my said appeal hearing, she clearly not wishing to oppose that application; then

1.7 I was enabled, and should have been granted such, that in Her Absence, Judgement was able to be said entered and granted in and to my favour;

1.8 comments having been made by the said judge Woolford j in respect of matters earlier litigated by my said Mackenzie friend – Areta Ransfield, paras 12 to 14, becoming irrelevant by the fact that they are matters before the supreme court by way of said appeal to that said highest jurisdiction, and are therefore no longer able to be decided in any lower said jurisdiction to it, any such attempt being further enabled to be hereby invalidated in regard to they made finally, also.

1.9 For the above reasons, I seek the relief of the said grant of the said order, that I am granted said special leave from this said high court to file to the said court of appeal, a said appeal from the said judgement of Woolford j in said cri-2012-404-000187 – [2012] nzhc 2780, of the 23 October 2012, upon the fact that where they have been above enabled to be disputed by me to the extent they have, that it is therefore erroneous in all its findings having brought it to its conclusion arrived at resulting in my said appeal having been dismissed.

The judge wrote:

[6] In the application for leave, the applicant repeats the submissions he made in the High Court. The applicant’s submissions, in effect, challenge the jurisdiction of the Courts. In my judgment of 23 October 2012, I made reference to two cases in which similar points taken by the applicant’s MacKenzie friend were rejected. They are the High Court decision of Ransfield v Police 1 in which Dobson J addressed and dismissed the points made by the applicant’s MacKenzie friend. Special leave to appeal Dobson J’s decision was sought but that leave was declined by the Court of Appeal in the case reported as Ransfield v Police. 2

[7] I am therefore of the view that the jurisdictional point argued by the applicant has been considered previously by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal and has been determined to be without merit.

[8] I therefore cannot find any question of law which, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is declined.


The moped case:

FRANCE v POLICE [2014] NZHC 1657 [15 July 2014]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CRI-2014-404-214 [2014] NZHC 1657

BETWEEN MALCOLM FRANCE Appellant AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent Hearing: 14 July 2014
Appearances:
Appellant in person
W N Fotherby for the Respondent

Judgment: 15 July 2014

JUDGMENT OF BROWN J
This judgment was delivered by me on 15 July 2014 at 4 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Solicitors: Crown Solicitors, Auckland Copy To: Appellant

Introduction

[1] The appellant lodged an appeal against his conviction and sentence in the District Court at Manukau on two charges:
(a) driving a motor vehicle during a period in which he had been forbidden to drive contrary to s 52(1)(c) of the Land Transport Act 1998 for which he was fined $850 and court costs $130; and
(b) refusing to provide his name and address in response to a lawful demand from an enforcement officer in contravention of s 52(1)(c) of the Land Transport Act 1998 in respect of which he was fined $850 together with court costs of $130.

Background facts

[2] At approximately 11 pm on Saturday 29 June 2013 it is alleged that the appellant was driving a moped in a northbound direction on Mangere Road when he attempted to turn westbound onto Walmsley Road. The moped lost traction, slid and caused the appellant to fall to the ground.

[3] The incident was observed by Constable Kanai who spoke to the appellant, ascertained that he was uninjured and requested the appellant to provide his name and address.

[4] The appellant failed to provide his name and address. Constable Kanai warned the appellant three times about the consequences of failing to give his name and address, namely that he may be arrested. The appellant was then arrested for failing to give his name and address.

[5] Inquiries revealed that the appellant was a forbidden driver.

District Court hearing and decision

[6] The matter came for hearing on 11 October 2013 before Justices of the Peace S Howorth and N Madden.

[7] There appears to have been uncertainty whether the appellant was in the courtroom. A person identifying himself as Malcolm Freeman addressed the Court. He did not accept that he was Mr France. Annexed to this judgment is a transcript of the hearing on 11 October 2013.

[8] The Court proceeded on the basis that there was a non-appearance by Mr France, treated the case as one of formal proof, accepted the evidence in the formal signed statements of the two police officers and entered the convictions and fines referred to in [1] above.

Grounds of appeal

[9] A notice of appeal against conviction and sentence dated 10 March 2014 was filed signed by “Malcolm-Daniel:Freeman”.

[10] The grounds of appeal were detailed and I set them out in full:

This matter was turned down for rehearing on 15 Nov 2013 before JP’S Haworth & Madden. These are the same JPs that on 11 October 2013 had forsaken their oath and abandoned their bond. Both JP’s were not competent to hear the matter. Both JP’s refused to accept Mr Malcolm France was in the Courtroom. Both JP’s refused to accept Affiant and Mr Malcolm France’s Attorney in Fact was in the courtroom and ready to deal with the matter.

Both JP’s accepted Affiants affidavit on the record and ignored it. Both JPs and registrar ordered Affiant and Attorney in Fact for Mr Malcolm France and Mr Malcolm France from the courtroom and the court premises using security to do so.

Both JPs left the courtroom without dealing with the matter. The matter was heard later without Mr Malcolm France or Attorney in Fact for Mr Malcolm France or Affiant being given opportunity to attend. Thereby denying recourse and remedy.

Judge Andree Wiltens declined a 2nd rehearing application.

Affiant Affidavit has never been rebutted by any party of real interest or the NZ Police.

Approach to appeal

[11] The appeals against conviction are brought under s 229 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. Under s 232(2)(b) and (c) of the Act the High Court can only allow an appeal if it is satisfied that the Court erred in its assessment of the evidence to such an extent that a miscarriage of justice has occurred or that a miscarriage of justice has occurred for any reason.

[12] “Miscarriage of justice” is defined in s 232(4) as: Any error, irregularity or occurrence in or in relation to or affecting the trial that: (a) Has created a real risk that the outcome of a trial was affected; or (b) Has resulted in an unfair trial or a trial that was a nullity.

[13] The appeal is by way of rehearing and the approach to be taken is set out by the Supreme Court in Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stichting Lodestar1 which means that:

(a) Mr France bears the onus of satisfying me that the judgment was wrong;
(b) I am required to come to my own view on the merits of the appeal;
(c) If I disagree with the conclusion reached by the Justices of the Peace I should allow the appeal; and
(d) I may not necessarily find the reasoning of the Justices of the Peace persuasive. Nevertheless I may reach the same conclusion but for different reasons. It is the correctness of the decision reached by the Justices of the Peace rather than the reasoning followed to reach their decision which is of paramount importance.

[14] The appeals against sentence are brought under s 244 of the Act. Under s 250(2) the High Court must allow the appeals if satisfied that:

(a) for any reason there is an error in the sentence imposed on conviction; and 1 Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stichting Lodestar [2007] NZSC 103; [2008] 2 NZLR 141.
(b) a different sentence should be imposed. The High Court must dismiss the appeal in any other case.

[15] The approach on appeal was recently considered by the Court of Appeal in Tutakangahau v R2 where the Court stated that the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 was not intended to change the approach taken under the previous statutes including the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. The Court said:

[30] The practical effect of preserving the approach applied to date is that the appellate court does not just start afresh nor simply substitute its own opinion for that of the original sentencer. Rather, in the words of Shipton, it must be shown that there was an error “whether intrinsically, or as a result of additional material submitted” on appeal.3 If there is an error of the requisite character, the court will then form its own view of the appropriate sentence.4
Hammond J used the terminology of an error “vitiating” the sentence but it may be more helpful to consider the issue in terms of whether the error is material. That was the terminology used in Te Aho v R where this Court said:5

This Court does not lightly quash a sentence of imprisonment, and in the absence of a material error in the sentencing process which requires a re-assessment of the sentence, or a clearly excessive sentence, will not intervene.

[31] The Court in Te Aho went on to state that “it must be shown that the sentence is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, or there must be exceptional circumstances”.6

Presentation of the appeal

[16] This appeal was heard at the same time as an appeal by the appellant against a decision of Judge A-M J Bouchier which is the subject of my judgment delivered today in France v Police [2014] NZHC 1656.

[17] Malcolm-Daniel appeared in both the appeals and raised essentially the same issue on the appeals, namely the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the two matters. I refer to (but do not repeat in this judgment) the matters recorded at [11]-[19] of my judgment in [2014] NZHC 1656
Decision

[18] It was quite apparent that the man who appeared in Court called “MalcolmDaniel” was one and the same as the individual who fell from the moped (or travelling apparatus as Malcolm-Daniel described it) on 29 June 2013, who then refused to provide his name to Constable Kanai and who was subsequently charged, convicted and sentenced.

[19] I reject the submission made by Malcolm-Daniel that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal in this matter.

[20] I have heard nothing which causes me to consider that there was an error in the decision of the Justices of the Peace. I consider that their decision was correct.

[21] Consequently the appeal in this matter is dismissed.

Footnotes:
2 Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279.
3 At [139].
4 At [140].
5 Te Aho v R [2013] NZCA 47 at [30].
6 At [30] (footnote omitted).


________________________________ Brown J

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5539
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: NZ - Malcolm France - manic moped rider

Postby Burnaby49 » Thu Jul 09, 2015 8:00 pm

"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
Dr. Caligari
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: NZ - Malcolm France - manic moped rider

Postby Dr. Caligari » Thu Jul 09, 2015 11:24 pm

Burnaby49 wrote:His appeal judgment is out;

http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZCA/2015/282.html


Comedy gold!

The courts are vexed by the occasional person who pretends not to be who he
— or she — is. Some of these people may have a genuine identity crisis, but more
usually they are engaged in a mischievous attempt to avoid or overturn a conviction.
These people may think they are funny or clever, but they are not. Courts are busy
and serious places, and judges are busy people. This sort of frivolous behaviour is
not wanted in courts.
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)

Dai Kiwi
Cannoneer
Cannoneer
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:06 am
Location: An Island South of the Equator

Re: NZ - Malcolm France - manic moped rider

Postby Dai Kiwi » Fri Jul 10, 2015 9:34 am

Thanks for posting that, I should have checked for it sooner myself.

As an aside Mr France's career as an activist includes standing for Parliament in the 2009 by-election for the Mt Albert seat (an inner-city suburb of Auckland). He got 13 votes out of the 20,000 cast, coming 12= in a field of 15.

I have to say my favourite part of the whole tale, apart from their Honours' snarky opening, is the previous Court deciding that since he says he isn't himself they'll carry on as if he isn't present. Wish I could have been there that day to see the look on his face.

Late last year I had a pub discussion with one judge about these types and it was quite interesting to hear their take on things. The SovCit/FMOTL people show up regularly enough that their tactics are well known to the Registry and the Judiciary, but they are rarely of sufficient interest to get the attention of the news reporters on the Court beat. I daresay the only exceptional thing about Mr France is his his persistence.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5539
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: NZ - Malcolm France - manic moped rider

Postby Burnaby49 » Fri Jul 10, 2015 10:10 am

Dai Kiwi wrote:Thanks for posting that, I should have checked for it sooner myself.

As an aside Mr France's career as an activist includes standing for Parliament in the 2009 by-election for the Mt Albert seat (an inner-city suburb of Auckland). He got 13 votes out of the 20,000 cast, coming 12= in a field of 15.

I have to say my favourite part of the whole tale, apart from their Honours' snarky opening, is the previous Court deciding that since he says he isn't himself they'll carry on as if he isn't present. Wish I could have been there that day to see the look on his face.

Late last year I had a pub discussion with one judge about these types and it was quite interesting to hear their take on things. The SovCit/FMOTL people show up regularly enough that their tactics are well known to the Registry and the Judiciary, but they are rarely of sufficient interest to get the attention of the news reporters on the Court beat. I daresay the only exceptional thing about Mr France is his his persistence.


The Canadian judiciary is losing patience with these assholes;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10660
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

pigpot
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:49 am

Re: NZ - Malcolm France - manic moped rider

Postby pigpot » Fri Jul 10, 2015 11:43 am

Dai Kiwi wrote:Thanks for posting that, I should have checked for it sooner myself.

As an aside Mr France's career as an activist includes standing for Parliament in the 2009 by-election for the Mt Albert seat (an inner-city suburb of Auckland). He got 13 votes out of the 20,000 cast, coming 12= in a field of 15.

I have to say my favourite part of the whole tale, apart from their Honours' snarky opening, is the previous Court deciding that since he says he isn't himself they'll carry on as if he isn't present. Wish I could have been there that day to see the look on his face.

Late last year I had a pub discussion with one judge about these types and it was quite interesting to hear their take on things. The SovCit/FMOTL people show up regularly enough that their tactics are well known to the Registry and the Judiciary, but they are rarely of sufficient interest to get the attention of the news reporters on the Court beat. I daresay the only exceptional thing about Mr France is his his persistence.


So "Dai Kiwi", is there much Sovereign Citizen / Freeman-on-the-land going on in "Godzone" then?
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.

Dai Kiwi
Cannoneer
Cannoneer
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:06 am
Location: An Island South of the Equator

Re: NZ - Malcolm France - manic moped rider

Postby Dai Kiwi » Fri Jul 10, 2015 12:17 pm

Hi pigpot,

I think my posts in this sub-thread and a search of 'Kiri' give a good picture of where things are at in NZ: There's a bit of noise but it doesn't account to much. The courts give it no attention, it has no real traction in the general populace, even the protestistas don't give it much thought. The facebook groups generally have about one or two hundred 'likes' and an active membership in the dozens.


Return to “Other Countries/Regions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest