‘Nonsense, gobbledygook’: Judge criticises man’s bizarre argument to throw out drug charges

A Queensland judge has described a man’s bizarre legal argument – that he was exempt from criminal laws – as “nonsense” and “gobbledygook”.

Kym Anthony Sweet claimed he had two distinct personas, one of which he claimed was not subject to the laws of Queensland, in a bid to have serious drug charges he was facing thrown out at Maroochydore District Court.

But Judge Glen Cash rejected the argument – which remains popular in sovereign citizen movements – as being “devoid of merit”.

“Merely setting out the argument is sufficient to show it is nonsense,” Judge Cash said.

“The essence of the applicant’s argument is that he possesses two distinct personas. One, the ‘real live flesh and blood man’ and the other, a ‘straw man’ or ‘dummy corporation’.

“The former is designated in the applicant’s material as ‘Kym-Anthony’ and the latter as ‘Kym Anthony Sweet’. According to the applicant’s argument, the real person is not subject to the laws of Queensland, and the charges should be dismissed.”

Mr Sweet is charged with unlawfully possessing more than 500g of marijuana and hydroponic equipment used in connection with the drug.

Judge Cash noted Mr Sweet had filed a number of documents with fingerprints in red ink as well as an extract of his birth certificate with a commemorative coin.

Another document was titled “Evidence-Claim-of-live-life-certificate” – the contents of which were “even less comprehensible than its title”.

“None of the documents are of any legal effect whatsoever,” Judge Cash said.

In sovereign citizen movements, the “straw man” argument operates on the premise that a person possesses two distinct identities, one of which is exempt from legal responsibilities and state laws.

Judge Smith dismissed Mr Sweet’s application, saying human beings were also considered as legal persons in Australia and were therefore subject to the criminal laws of the state.

“The applicant’s own writings describe this purported alternate persona as ‘an artificial person’, a ‘legal entity’, ‘an artificial legal person’ and a ‘legal fiction’,” Judge Cash said.

“Even if it existed in law, it is not capable of doing the act or acts that attract criminal liability.

“The only one who could have done the acts that constitute the offences is the applicant, constituted in the corporeal form of the person who appeared in court to make this application.

“While the so called ‘straw man’ argument may properly be described as nonsense or gobbledygook, it is in any event of no assistance to the applicant in present circumstances.”

Sweet‘s matters are still before the courts.