Court of Appeal tosses out ‘incoherent’ suit against China, Reserve Bank, Google, Apple and others

The Court of Appeal today tossed out a self-represented litigant’s bid to sue the Reserve Bank of Australia, Google, Apple, the People’s Republic of China and others.

The court refused Mashiachimmanuel Mikhael Eretzyisraeldovid leave to pursue his suit against numerous respondents, including Telstra and Queensland Supreme Court Justice David Jackson, on the basis that the action was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.

Justice Hugh Fraser, in a three-page decision, said Eretzyisraeldovid’s proposed appeal was “substantially incoherent”, defied legal analysis and was both vexatious and an abuse of process.

“That proposed application is dated 9 August 2021 and names as defendants the respondents to a proposed appeal,” Justice Fraser said. “It refers to a form purportedly under s46 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) and an affidavit ‘of deponent in support of applicants, plaintiffs, Native Title, application for the Federal Court for several occupations, intellectual property’.”

The court was told Eretzyisraeldovid’s application went on to describe “10 annexures” to support his so-called claim of copyright and intellectual property.

“The … annexures refer to such matters as the Royal Instructions to Captain Cook and Governor Phillip, a copy of ‘intellectual property, title, and proposal’ and various apparently irrelevant documents. There (is also a) … claim in a form bearing some resemblance to a claim for native title to land,” his Honour said.


“Notwithstanding that attempt to summarise the proposed application, it is substantially incoherent and it defies legal analysis.

“There is no coherent description of any factual basis for a patent or copyright, or of any relationship between those concepts and a claim for native title.”

The ruling also noted that the Supreme Court of Queensland has no jurisdiction to rule on matters relating to native title – a matter which is the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia.

Justice Fraser also makes reference to oral submissions made by Eretzyisraeldovid, as well as a document describing his legal argument.

“It is sufficient to quote what appears to be the fundamental basis of the (Eretzyisraeldovid’s) argument set out in that document,” he said.

The document reads: “I propose to the Supreme Court of Appeal my pre-constitutional argument that’s fundamental to the Australian constitution inception, and that also concurrently vested in the oath of office, including one’s a just – a Justice’s take to be a Judge in higher branches of law or parliament in one’s administration resulting in acts of parliament, and carrying out legislation. And it is all regarding the generations of the British Crown passing down acts of parliament that owe it existence to the Crown vested in King George III, so too with that of Queen Victoria and others past on powers of Governor-General, and the administration of oath to Australia’s highest appointment of office.”


In response: Justice Fraser said: “As will be apparent, the arguments advanced to the Court supply no support for any coherent claim against any of the defendants.’’

“The order is that the application for leave is refused.”

Read the decision.

Share this article

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search by keyword