- Agapis v Birmingham DCJ,  WASC 329: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinod ... 3/329.html
Starting at the end of Raoul’s tale we meet a broken man. He appears at the Supreme Court of Western Australia, attempting to unwind a criminal action in which he was found guilty. Sues many. They did not even show up for this hearing.
Raoul in May 2011 was the subject of a jury criminal trial. He allegedly broke into a house and threatened to kill its occupants. He was found guilty, sentenced to 15 months, which was suspended for 2 years: para. 2. That decision was unsuccessfully appealed (Agapis v The State of Western Australia,  WASCA 132), and the High Court of Australia in Dec. 2012 denied leave (Agapis v The State of Western Australia,  HCASL 186). We’ll get to the first appeal a little later – it has some details.
Anyway, it’s now Aug. 2013, and even though the highest court of the land has said "No!", Raoul is still kicking at that can, via a judicial review of the original trial. He alleges a bunch of defects (para. 4):
1. Gross Miscarriage of Justice based on the Trial Judge's Misdirection to the Jury renders the Verdict null and void (the Misdirection to the Jury).
2. The Lack of Jurisdiction of the Trial Judge and Jury on the grounds of Errors in law and Errors in fact, renders the Verdict null and void.
3. The Denial of Justice to the Applicant in the Trial process or the Lack of Procedural Fairness renders the Verdict null and void.
4. The Denial of the Applicant his Dietrich's Right to Counsel or the Applicant's Right to Defence or taking a Step in his Defence renders the Verdict null and void.
5. The Refusal of the Trial Judge to take into Account Relevant Considerations and NOT TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT Irrelevant Considerations, thereby misdirecting the Jury and thus rendering the Verdict Null and Void (the 'Inferability' Issues).
Raoul’s argument is, well, sketchy. He tells a tale of woe:
8 The applicant sought and obtained an extension of time until 22 August 2013. The matter was relisted for 29 August 2013. The applicant wrote to the court on 13 August 2013 seeking a further adjournment until October 2013 and advising that he was spending every day in the Law Library researching the matter. He was unemployed and had been effectively homeless since he was sentenced.
9 The applicant advised that he was still completing his affidavit and submissions. He had completed and perfected 30 pages of material fact and evidence in relation to the affidavit and identified another 34 pages of material fact and evidence. He had compiled 64 pages from the first two days of transcript and still has another two days of transcript to decipher material fact and evidence.
10 In describing the reasons for his delay in lodging the supporting affidavit and submissions he said he was not a lawyer and had no experience and no idea when first starting, the mountain of work required to complete his task. He said he had been at the Supreme Court Library every day typing and researching from 12 June 2013 to complete his commitment. His resources are very limited. He is on the dole, facing abject poverty, and has been living in his car since 1 September 2011.
The court decides this particular case should be put out of its misery (para. 11):
In order to avoid the applicant spending more time on what at first sight looked a hopeless application, the court wrote to the applicant indicating that time would not be extended and that the matter would proceed on 29 August 2013. The letter also drew attention to some of the legal issues that the applicant may care to address.
Familiar language appears in the reply, from “'The living, breathing sovereign man, known as Raoul of the family Agapis'.” His submissions follow the usual pattern, for example the application:
1.1 ... As Australia has NO legislative Courts and only Chapter III Courts of the Commonwealth Constitution 1901, therefore, natural justice applies in all courts.
3.3 I find that it is irrational and unlawful for the Judge to stop an originating process which is the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court having regard to its constating statute which is the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA). To do so would be a conspiracy of that judge with the trial judge to defeat justice.
3.4 Also, as a Judicial Officer, you are now on Notice of the crimes associated with District Court Criminal Trial 349 of 2011 against me and if you do not take steps to rectify the injustice suffered by me then you become a party to the crime.
An August 20, 2013 affidavit:
I, the living, breathing sovereign man known as Raoul of the family Agapis, In the Care of 66 St George's Terrace, Perth, being of majority in age, competent to testify, my yes be yes and my no be no, do state that the truths and facts herein are of first hand personal knowledge are true, correct and complete so help me YHVH
I’ll cut to the chase – the answer is no (para. 24):
While I do not doubt the assiduousness of the applicant's efforts as evidenced by his letter, to allow him to continue on a course which is doomed to fail would simply be cruel.
There is no judicial review remedy available at this point because the trial is already over, judicial review of the lower court is not authorized by legislation, and this whole attempt to re-open the trial is a collateral attack on the litigation that has already been exhausted, right up to the High Court itself: para. 25.
Still, the panel is generous and closes the judgment with this statement (paras. 26-27):
Despite the applicant's impressive efforts and research the application is completely misconceived and an abuse of process.
It must be dismissed.
So what led to this sad state? Raoul, in his car, homeless, destitute, no doubt troubled. Whisky, my friends. A bottle of Jack Daniels, a night with what perhaps had been pals, and a failure to turn and walk away from a dispute. Anger and whiskey.
Raoul’s troubles began on Sept. 18, 2010, and the appeal decision from the District Court of Western Australia lays that out in detail (Agapis v The State of Western Australia,  WASCA 132: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/W ... 2/132.html). Raoul that evening ended up at the Perth residence of an Adam Griffin, who rented a spare room to his friend Lauren Plummer. All three gathered, drank whiskey, and at some point an argument occurred. Raoul got locked out, but then kicked down the house side gate, broke in through a window, where Adam whacked his legs with an aluminum baseball bat. Raoul kept coming, so the next blow was to Raoul’s head. He was knocked unconscious, and arrested when police arrived.
Well, that was Adam/Lauren’s story, which the jury believed. Raoul said it was an unprovoked attack.
At trial Raoul fired his lawyer, denied his was “Raoul Agapis” or “Mr. Agapis.” “He said that he was known as ‘the Man’”: para. 13. At the appeal Raoul argued the trial judge had stepped outside his designated role and instead engaged in “Neuro Linguistic Programming” to control the jury (para. 69):
The appellant's submissions proceeded in this way. He contended that the role of a judge in a criminal trial was to be 'an adjudicator' and, as such, the learned trial judge should not have made any comments or given any opinion about the facts of the case. However, contrary to this role, his Honour did make comments on the facts with a view, the appellant says, to influencing the jury to convict. He further contends that, at times, the learned trial judge used a technique Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) to influence the jury. The appellant did not explain what NLP was, or how his Honour used it.
Then there’s the argument that Raoul’s identity, as other than “the Man”, was never established:
101 The appellant's written submissions with respect to this ground are incoherent and, frankly, nonsense.
102 The appellant submits that there was no evidence that he was the person named 'Raoul Agapis' in the indictment and that his Honour placed him into 'involuntary servitude' for the duration of the trial.
103 Contrary to the appellant's submissions there was evidence from Detective Sergeant Mercer that the appellant was the accused person and that he was known by the name of Raoul Agapis.
So much for that.
Now while Raoul was facing his criminal proceeding something else was going on. It turns out in Australia (or at least in this part of Australia), you have to be certified to be a plumber. Interestingly enough, criminal misconduct is apparently a potential basis to strip that status! This led to a series of reported decisions of Raoul losing his plumber certification.
Agapis and Plumbers Licensing Board,  WASAT 206: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinod ... 1/206.html
Raoul unsuccessfully appeals being stripped of his plumber’s certification. His license was up for renewal, and he needed to attach a police certificate to indicate if he had been the subject of criminal misconduct. Instead Raoul answered with this statement and supporting materials (paras. 15, 20):
My name is :Raoul: Agapis . I have testimony from my mother as to my arrival on this planet[.] My father and her gave me the name of Raoul Agapis , not a legal fictional entity or a corporation that was created by a government such as RAOUL AGAPIS, AGAPIS Raoul, e.t.c. I have no title[.] I have neither assumed or inherited a title. I have proved all of the above many times in court. Quite frankly, a piece of plastic does not make me a plumber[.] The apprenticeship and years of experience make me a plumber. Police have lied and are generally corrupt in NSW. They have a lot of sour grapes in regard to me the man, Raoul Agapis .
A six page 'Notice' dated 'May Twenty First, Two thousand and Eleven'.
A copy of a birth certificate issued pursuant to the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW) dated 8 November 2010 concerning 'Raoul AGAPIS ' born 16 October 1959, which certificate notes that it had 'been superseded by a later record'.
A copy of a birth certificate issued pursuant to the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW) dated 21 February 2002 concerning 'Raoul AGAPIS ' born 16 October 1959, which certificate notes that the full name of the registered person was previously recorded as 'Raoul LANARCH'.
The appeal court observes:
The applicant provided the respondent with various other documents, the contents of which did not assist him and contained statements of the applicant's opinion on irrelevant matters, including references to various international declarations and covenants concerning human and political rights.
The Plumbers Licensing Board decision is confirmed, and they get costs.
Raoul is undeterred:
Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board,  FCA 1375: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinod ... /1375.html
Raoul asked for a review of the Plumbers Licensing Board decision in summer of 2012 by the “Administrative Appeals Tribunal”, and when it refused to disclose a witness statement Raoul went straight to the courts – and before the Tribunal had come to any final decision. Raoul’s argument is rather creative: he argues that only an Australian court can issue/deny plumber’s certificates, not the Tribunal.
And the answer is no – the Tribunal and Board were authorized by legislation, that was not a judicial function, and Raoul was ordered to pay costs.
The Tribunal ultimately shoots Raoul’s appeal down:
Agapis and Plumbers Licensing Board,  AATA 187: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinod ... 3/187.html
Raoul filed lots of paperwork and the Tribunal reproduces chunks of that. Most is pretty dry. However, what is also interesting is that the Tribunal finds there is yet more suspect behavior in Raoul’s history that he did not disclose (para 33), including a couple resisting police officer convictions and two more curious items: May 22, 2007 – “Behave in offensive manner in/near public place/school” and June 23, 2010 “Excluded person remaining in vicinity of licensed premises”. Oh dear. The Tribunal concludes that Raoul has lied about his criminal activities on two separate occasions now, and that’s definitely enough to deny him his plumber’s license.
Think he’s had enough? Of course not…
Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board,  FCA 1221: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinod ... /1221.html
Raoul’s back before the Federal Court, again, now challenging the March 2013 decision of the Tribunal to confirm Raoul is not suitable to be a plumber. Raoul tries the “Tribunal isn’t a court” argument again. It flops.
And that’s that. As usual, I tried to learn more about Raoul, but didn’t find much. I think this is probably Raoul’s Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/raoul.agapis), particularly since he has Robert Menard as a friend, and the Facebook page itself is chock full of resistance-ish copypasta, and a few chunks of legal-ish argument. Nothing about his litigation, though.
Another unfortunate soul led astray by the Freeman-on-the-Land Pied Piper. (And whiskey.)