Sovereign Citizen

The Sovereign Citizen Fraud in New Zealand

A Complete Exposure of a Weaponised Label, the Commercial System It Protects, and Why It Can Never Be Used as a Legal Argument in Any New Zealand Court

Published by the Living Sovereign Research Association

Reference: LSRA-SC-PUBLIC-2026-001

livingsovereign.org

FOREWORD

This report exists because a label has been weaponised against the living people of New Zealand.

The label is sovereign citizen. It is used by police officers, prosecutors, and judges whenever a living man or woman stands in a New Zealand court and asks a question the system cannot honestly answer. The label is not a legal argument. It is not evidence. It is not a finding available to any New Zealand court under any New Zealand statute. It is a deflection mechanism. A commercial shield. A fraud upon the court dressed as a legal conclusion.

This report exposes that mechanism completely and permanently.

It establishes five things that cannot be honestly disputed.

First. The sovereign citizen label is an American construct with no standing, no

definition, and no legal force in New Zealand law.

Second. The jurisdiction that label is used to deny is real, documented, and confirmed by the New Zealand government's own public registers.

Third. The entities using the label are registered commercial corporations protecting their commercial interests, not sovereign authorities administering justice.

Fourth. Using the label to deflect a documented jurisdictional challenge is fraud upon the court at natural law and a breach of the oath every constable and soldier in New Zealand has sworn.

Fifth. Every New Zealand court decision that has applied the label without answering the substantive jurisdictional arguments raised is void from its inception because it was obtained by fraud upon the court.

This report is written for the living people of New Zealand. It is written in plain language. It requires no legal training to understand. It is also written for every judge, prosecutor, registrar, and police officer in New Zealand. When they read it they will understand that the label can no longer be used as a shield. The questions must be answered. The jurisdiction must be established. The commercial structure must be disclosed. Or every proceeding in which the label is used is a nullity.

PART ONE. THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE SOVEREIGN CITIZEN LABEL

1.1 Where It Came From

The sovereign citizen movement originated in the United States of America in the 1970s and 1980s. It did not emerge from legal scholarship. It did not emerge from judicial decision. It emerged from a combination of tax protest movements and various anti-government ideologies rooted in the specific structure of American constitutional law, American federal and state government, and the American Uniform Commercial Code. The foundational premise of the American sovereign citizen movement is rooted entirely in the American constitutional framework. It has no equivalent in New Zealand law, New Zealand constitutional history, or New Zealand government structure. New Zealand is not a republic. New Zealand does not have a written constitution equivalent to the American constitution. New Zealand does not operate under the Uniform Commercial Code. The entire foundational premise of the American sovereign citizen movement does not exist in New Zealand.

1.2 How the Label Entered New Zealand

The sovereign citizen label entered New Zealand through three documented channels. The first channel was academic. The label was imported into Australian universities through American legal scholarship. Academic papers characterising pseudolegal commercial arguments as sovereign citizen ideology were published in Australian law journals and adopted into Australian legal education. This academic framing

established the label as an intellectual category before it had any legislative foundation in any Australian or New Zealand statute.

The second channel was judicial. Australian judges who had encountered the label through academic and legal education began applying it in Australian courts. New Zealand judges attend joint judicial education programmes with Australian judges. The Judicial College of New Zealand and Australian equivalents share curriculum,

speakers, and materials. New Zealand judges were exposed to the sovereign citizen characterisation through those shared judicial education programmes and brought it into New Zealand courts without any independent analysis of whether it had standing in New Zealand law. Seminars attended by New Zealand judges introduced the label as an established legal category when it had no legislative foundation in New Zealand whatsoever.

The third channel was media. Australian media coverage of sovereign citizen cases was adopted by New Zealand media. That coverage framed the label as a threat category before any New Zealand court had independently analysed whether it had any legal standing in this jurisdiction. New Zealand Police adopted the threat framing from media and from Australian law enforcement liaison without legislative foundation and without independent analysis.

The result of these three channels is a label that entered New Zealand law enforcement and judicial practice through academic papers, judicial seminars, and media framing. Not through legislation. Not through Parliament. Not through any democratic process. Not through any independent New Zealand analysis of whether the label applied to New Zealand law, New Zealand constitutional structure, or the living men and women of this land.

A label that entered New Zealand through academic papers and judicial seminars rather than through Parliament has no legislative foundation. It has no legal force. It is an imported opinion dressed as a legal conclusion.

1.3 How It Is Used as a Weapon

The label is deployed in a consistent and deliberate pattern in New Zealand courts. A living man or woman raises a documented jurisdictional challenge. They ask specific questions. They require specific answers. Those questions go to the commercial nature of the prosecution, the identity of the injured party, the existence of a verified contract, and the constitutional foundation of the court's authority. The court and the

prosecution do not answer those questions. Instead, they apply the label. The label is then used to characterise the questions as pseudo legal and the questions are

dismissed without being answered.

This pattern is not accidental. It is structural. The questions being asked cannot be honestly answered without exposing the commercial foundation of the entire system. The label exists to prevent those questions from ever receiving an honest answer on the permanent record of any New Zealand court.

1.4 The Propagation Mechanism

The most dangerous aspect of the label's use in New Zealand courts is not the initial application. It is the propagation mechanism that follows.

When one judge applies the label and dismisses the arguments as an abuse of process every subsequent judge in every subsequent proceeding adopts that characterisation without independent analysis. The second judge does not read the arguments and conclude they are sovereign citizen arguments. The second judge reads the first judge's characterisation and adopts it. The label propagates through the judicial record without ever being defined, without ever being subjected to independent analysis, and without ever answering the substantive arguments beneath it.

This propagation mechanism has been confirmed in New Zealand court decisions as recently as 2026. In 2026 NZDC 20445 a District Court judge adopted a prior judicial characterisation of arguments as sovereign citizen concepts without independently analysing those arguments or answering any of the specific questions raised. The door was then closed on any further pre-trial applications on any matter already heard and determined. One label applied by one judge becomes a permanent procedural bar enforced by every subsequent judge.

That is not justice. That is a closed system protecting itself from questions it cannot honestly answer.

1.5 The New Zealand Police Mobile Phone Application

New Zealand Police officers are now equipped with a third-party application on their mobile phones that provides scripted responses to jurisdictional questions asked by living men and women who know their standing. The application is programmed with sovereign citizen awareness content. It tells the officer what label to apply. It tells the officer what to say. It tells the officer how to proceed.

The officer does not need to understand the arguments being made. He does not need to research the law. He does not need to answer the questions. The application

answers for him. With a script. Based on sovereign citizen content that has no standing in New Zealand law. Programmed into a device carried by officers who have sworn an oath to serve the living sovereign people of this land.

An officer who files a sworn statement in court proceedings characterising a living man or woman's documented arguments as pseudo-legal points consistent with sovereign citizen ideology based on the output of a third party application is placing on the permanent record of the court a characterisation he cannot personally verify, cannot personally substantiate, and cannot personally defend under cross-examination. That is a false statement on the permanent record of the court made under oath. That is perjury under section 108 of the Crimes Act 1961 and fraud upon the court at natural law.

PART TWO. THE LABEL HAS NO LEGAL STANDING IN NEW ZEALAND

2.1 It Does Not Exist in Any New Zealand Statute

Search every Act of Parliament in New Zealand. Search the Policing Act 2008. The Crimes Act 1961. The District Court Act 2016. The Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The Summary Offences Act 1981. The Land Transport Act 1998. The Senior Courts Act 2016. The Constitution Act 1986. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

The words sovereign citizen do not appear in any of them.

The label has no statutory definition in New Zealand law. It has no legal meaning in New Zealand law. It is not a legal category. It is not an offence. It is not a status. It is not a finding available to any New Zealand court. A judge who writes in a judgment that arguments are consistent with sovereign citizen ideology is not making a legal finding. That judge is expressing an opinion using a label borrowed from American law

enforcement that has no standing in the jurisdiction that judge is supposed to be administering.

An opinion is not a legal conclusion. An opinion dressed as a legal conclusion placed on the permanent record of a court to prevent a documented jurisdictional challenge from being heard and answered is fraud upon the court.

2.2 It Has Never Been Defined by Any New Zealand Court

No New Zealand court has ever defined what a sovereign citizen is in New Zealand law. No New Zealand court has ever identified the statutory provision that creates the category. No New Zealand court has ever identified the legislative instrument that makes sovereign citizen ideology an offence. No New Zealand court has ever identified the threshold of argument or belief that causes a living man or woman to cross from legitimate jurisdictional challenge into sovereign citizen territory.

The label is applied without definition. Without threshold. Without legislative

foundation. Without any of the certainty that the rule of law requires before a legal conclusion can be drawn against a living man or woman in a court proceeding.

A legal system that applies labels without defining them, without legislative foundation, and without answering the questions those labels are used to deflect is not

administering justice. It is administering compliance.

2.3 The No Injured Party Argument and the System's Response

When a living man or woman raises the argument that there is no living injured party and therefore no crime the system has a prepared response. That response is that some offences are offences against the state rather than against any particular

individual and that no living injured party is required for such offences.

This response has been used in New Zealand District Court decisions including 2026 NZDC 20445 where the court stated that MPI is a public service agency responsible for overseeing the primary industries sector for the benefit of all New Zealanders.

The answer to that response is this. The state is a legal fiction. A legal fiction cannot suffer real harm. Only a living man or woman can suffer real harm. The entities

described as the state or as public service agencies are registered commercial

corporations on the New Zealand Companies Register as confirmed in Part Three of this report. A registered commercial corporation cannot be an injured party in a criminal proceeding. It can be a party to a commercial dispute. The distinction between a criminal offence requiring a living injured party and a commercial breach of contract requiring only a contracting party is precisely the question the sovereign citizen label is being used to avoid.

2.4 The Cases That Have Applied the Label Are Distinguishable

The primary New Zealand case relied upon to apply the sovereign citizen label is James v District Court at Whanganui 2023 NZCA 181. That decision is cited in virtually every New Zealand prosecution where a living man or woman raises a jurisdictional

challenge. It does not say what prosecutors and judges claim it says. It is

distinguishable on grounds that have never been addressed by any subsequent court. What James actually decided.

James initiated a separate civil proceeding in the High Court to challenge the District Court by way of judicial review. He was the initiating party in a collateral attack on the court's authority. The Court of Appeal struck out that collateral attack as an abuse of process. The Court noted that it was not possible to discern the subject matter of the District Court proceedings with any certainty from the documents James filed. The Court considered only the bare argument that a living man's consent is required before statutory jurisdiction attaches and rejected it in that bare form.

What James did not decide.

James did not consider the trust law argument under the Trusts Act 2019. James did not consider the self-dealing trustee prohibition. James did not consider the Clearfield principle. James did not consider the corporate registration argument confirmed on the New Zealand Companies Register. James did not consider the commercial bond and securities argument. James did not consider the police oath argument under section 22 of the Policing Act 2008. James did not consider the fraud upon the court argument. James did not consider the consequence of a prosecution's failure to respond by sworn affidavit to specific jurisdictional questions. James did not consider the distinction between a judicial review proceeding and a criminal defendant exercising the right to challenge jurisdiction within the criminal proceeding itself.

James cannot be applied to arguments it never considered. Every New Zealand court that has cited James as authority for dismissing arguments James never considered has misapplied that decision. A judgment obtained by misapplication of authority is obtained by fraud upon the court. It is void from its inception.

The Organised Pseudo Legal Commercial Argument designation.

The Court of Appeal in James applied the Organised Pseudo legal Commercial

Argument designation borrowed from Canadian jurisprudence. That designation has no statutory foundation in New Zealand law. It was imported from Canada without

legislative foundation and without any consideration of whether it applies to New Zealand law, New Zealand constitutional structure, or New Zealand living men and women. A designation borrowed from a foreign jurisdiction and applied without

legislative foundation is not a legal conclusion. It is an administrative label. It has no more legal force in New Zealand than the sovereign citizen label itself.

PART THREE. THE ANCIENT INSTRUMENTS OF RIGHT THAT PARLIAMENT ITSELF CONFIRMS ARE IN FORCE IN NEW ZEALAND

3.1 Why This Matters

The system's entire counter-argument to any challenge raised by a living man or woman rests on one position. That Parliament is supreme. That whatever Parliament enacts is the law. That statutory law overrides everything a living man or woman might say about their rights.

That position is destroyed by Parliament's own hand.

There are instruments of ancient right and natural law that Parliament itself has

confirmed remain in force in New Zealand. Parliament did not create them. Parliament has never repealed them. Parliament has confirmed them. They sit above ordinary statute. They cannot be dismissed with the sovereign citizen label because every instrument cited here was confirmed in force by the New Zealand Parliament itself. They are the law of this land by Parliament's own declaration.

3.2 The English Laws Act 1858

The English Laws Act 1858 is a New Zealand statute confirmed at legislation.govt.nz. Its full title is An Act to declare the Laws of England so far as applicable to the

circumstances of the Colony to have been in force therein on and after the 14th day of January 1840.

This Act confirmed that the common law of England as it existed on 14 January 1840 was received into New Zealand law. The common law of England at 1840 included every ancient right, every principle of natural justice, every protection against arbitrary imprisonment, and every limitation on government power that had been established by centuries of English legal history. Those rights and protections became part of New Zealand law on 14 January 1840 by this Act. They have never been repealed. They remain in force today.

The living people of New Zealand have carried those rights since 1840. Not because any government gave them. Because the law confirmed them. And no subsequent statute has taken them away.

3.3 The Imperial Laws Application Act 1988

The Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 is a New Zealand statute confirmed at

legislation.govt.nz. Section 3(1) declares that the Imperial enactments listed in

Schedule 1 are hereby declared to be part of the laws of New Zealand.

Parliament did not suggest those instruments might be part of New Zealand law. Parliament declared them to be part of New Zealand law. That declaration is absolute. It is on the permanent legislative record of New Zealand. It cannot be dismissed with a label.

The instruments confirmed in Schedule 1 of the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 that are directly relevant to the rights of every living man and woman in New Zealand are as follows.

3.4 Magna Carta 1297. 25 Edward I. Chapter 29.

Confirmed in force in New Zealand by Schedule 1 of the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988. Confirmed by a speech delivered to the Courts of New Zealand legal research foundation published at courtsofnz.govt.nz which states that it remains law in New Zealand by virtue of the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 and is positioned in the schedule with other enactments described as constitutional.

The version confirmed in force is the reissue by Edward I as entered on the

parliamentary roll in 1297. The text of Chapter 29 as confirmed in force reads as follows.

No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his freehold or liberties or free customs or be outlawed or exiled or any otherwise destroyed nor will we not pass upon him nor condemn him but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right.

This is not history. This is the law of New Zealand today. Confirmed by Parliament. Confirmed by the Courts of New Zealand. A living man or woman cannot be taken, imprisoned, or destroyed except by the lawful judgment of their peers or by the law of the land. Justice cannot be sold. Justice cannot be denied. Justice cannot be deferred. When a New Zealand court applies the sovereign citizen label to dismiss a documented jurisdictional challenge without answering it that court is denying justice to a living man or woman in direct breach of Magna Carta 1297 Chapter 29 confirmed in force in New Zealand by the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988. That is not a theoretical breach. It is a breach of the law of New Zealand as declared by Parliament itself.

3.5 The Petition of Right 1628

Confirmed in force in New Zealand by Schedule 1 of the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988.

The Petition of Right 1628 established foundational protections for every living man and woman against arbitrary government action. It confirmed that no man may be

compelled to make or yield any gift loan benevolence tax or such like charge without common consent by Act of Parliament. It confirmed that no free man may be

imprisoned or detained without cause shown. It confirmed that soldiers and mariners shall not be billeted in private homes without consent. It confirmed that commissions for proceeding by martial law shall not issue.

The principle that no living man or woman may be compelled to yield any charge without consent confirmed by Parliament is directly relevant to every infringement notice, every fine, every penalty, and every commercial enforcement action taken by a registered commercial corporation against a living man or woman who has not

consented to that commercial relationship. The Petition of Right 1628 confirmed that compulsion without Parliamentary consent and without the consent of the living man or woman is unlawful. That confirmation remains in force in New Zealand today by Parliament's own declaration.

3.6 The Bill of Rights 1688

The Title and Preamble of the Bill of Rights 1688 are confirmed in force in New Zealand by Schedule 1 of the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988.

The Bill of Rights 1688 established that excessive bail ought not to be required nor excessive fines imposed nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. It established that it is the right of subjects to petition the King and that all commitments and

prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal. It established that jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned and that jurors in trials for high treason ought to be

freeholders. It established that all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.

The confirmation that all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures before conviction are illegal and void is directly relevant to every financial instrument, bid bond,

performance bond, and security created from criminal charges before any conviction has been recorded. If such instruments exist and are created before conviction they are illegal and void under the Bill of Rights 1688 confirmed in force in New Zealand by Parliament itself. That is why those questions must be answered. And that is why they never are.

3.7 The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is a New Zealand statute confirmed at

legislation.govt.nz. It is not an instrument of ancient right. It is a modern statutory confirmation of the rights that living men and women carry in New Zealand today. The following sections are directly relevant to every living man or woman standing before a New Zealand court.

Section 11. Right to refuse medical treatment. Every person has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment.

Section 18. Freedom of movement. Every person lawfully in New Zealand has the right to freedom of movement and residence in New Zealand.

Section 21. Right against unreasonable search and seizure. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure whether of the person property or correspondence or otherwise.

Section 22. Right not to be arbitrarily detained. Everyone has the right not to be

arbitrarily detained.

Section 23. Rights of persons arrested or detained. Everyone who is arrested or who is detained under any enactment has the right to be informed at the time of the arrest or detention of the reason for it and to retain and instruct a lawyer without delay and to be informed of that right and to have the validity of the arrest or detention determined without delay by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the arrest or detention is not lawful.

Section 27. Right to natural justice. Every person whose rights obligations or interests are affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by that tribunal or authority.

These rights are not suggestions. They are not guidelines. They are confirmed rights of every living man and woman in New Zealand under statute. They cannot be suspended by the application of a label. They cannot be waived by silence or assumption. They must be actively honoured by every court, every prosecutor, and every police officer in every proceeding.

3.8 The Combined Effect of These Instruments

These instruments taken together establish one irrefutable conclusion.

The living people of New Zealand carry ancient and confirmed rights that predate every commercial registration event, every corporate structure, and every statute that the system relies upon to enforce compliance. Those rights were not given by Parliament. They were confirmed by Parliament. The distinction is absolute. What Parliament confirms it does not create. What Parliament does not create Parliament cannot take away.

Magna Carta 1297 confirmed that no free man shall be taken or imprisoned except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. The English Laws Act 1858 confirmed that the common law of England as it existed at 1840 is the law of New Zealand. The Petition of Right 1628 confirmed that no man may be compelled to yield any charge without consent. The Bill of Rights 1688 confirmed that all grants of fines and forfeitures before conviction are illegal and void. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 confirmed the right against arbitrary detention, the right to natural justice, and the right to refuse medical treatment.

Every one of those instruments is on the permanent legislative record of New Zealand. Every one of them is confirmed in force today. Every one of them is violated every time the sovereign citizen label is applied to dismiss a documented jurisdictional challenge without answering it. Every one of them is violated every time a living man or woman is arrested without a living injured party, detained without lawful cause, and prosecuted by a commercial corporation that has never established its authority over the living man or woman standing before it.

The sovereign citizen label cannot dismiss these instruments. They were confirmed by Parliament. They are the law. And they stand.

PART FOUR. THE JURISDICTION BEING DENIED IS REAL

4.1 New Zealand Police Is a Registered Commercial Corporation

This is not an assertion. It is a confirmed fact on the public record of the New Zealand government's own Companies Register.

New Zealand Police is registered as body corporate company number 300001205. NZBN 9429041909966. Incorporated on the fourteenth day of June 2017.

Three separate commercial registrations exist under the New Zealand Police brand on the public register. Company number 300001205 being the current operational entity incorporated 14 June 2017. Company number 21392 being POLICE WELFARE FUND LIMITED with a fifty-seven year commercial history. Company number 3238729

formerly NZ POLICE LIMITED renamed to a numeric identifier before removal from the register.

A sovereign law enforcement authority does not hold three separate commercial registrations under its own brand on the public register.

New Zealand Police directs payment of infringement fees to Westpac commercial bank account 03-0049-0000802-27 and accepts credit card payment through a commercial gateway at www.police.govt.nz/pay. The amounts are described as fees. A sovereign law enforcement authority does not issue fee invoices payable by credit card to a commercial bank account. A commercial revenue collection entity does.

4.2 Every Major Crown Entity Was Corporatised on the Same Day

Ministry of Justice. Company number 300001099. Incorporated 14 June 2017.

New Zealand Police. Company number 300001205. Incorporated 14 June 2017. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Company number 300000327.

Incorporated 14 June 2017.

Department of Internal Affairs. Company number 300000326. Incorporated 14 June 2017.

Inland Revenue Department. Company number 300000693. Incorporated 14 June 2017. Ministry for Primary Industries. Company number 300001091. Incorporated 14 June 2017.

Department of Corrections. Company number 300000325. Incorporated 14 June 2017. Crown Law Office. Company number 300000307. Incorporated 14 June 2017.

Serious Fraud Office. Company number 300001738. Incorporated 14 June 2017. Every major Crown entity. The same day. 14 June 2017. A coordinated mass

commercial registration event confirmed on the New Zealand government's own public register. That event has never been explained to the living people of New Zealand by any Parliament, any Minister, or any court

A sovereign government does not register itself as a commercial corporation. A

commercial structure operating under the appearance of sovereign authority does. The question that no New Zealand court has ever answered on the permanent record is this. Why does a sovereign government register itself as a commercial corporation on the same day as every other major government entity in a coordinated mass registration event. That question has been placed on the permanent record of New Zealand courts. It has not been answered. It stands as tacitly agreed by every party required to answer it.

4.3 The Crown in Right of New Zealand Is Registered Internationally as a Commercial Bond Issuing Entity

The Crown in right of New Zealand holds London Stock Exchange Legal Entity Identifier 549300237GPHG2AI7C34. It was previously registered with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission under Central Index Key CIK 0000216105. A sovereign government does not register with the London Stock Exchange as a commercial bond issuing entity. A commercial entity raising capital on international markets does. This registration is on the public record of the London Stock Exchange and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. It has never been explained to the living people of New Zealand.

4.4 Salomon v Salomon and What It Means for the Living People of New Zealand

Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd. House of Lords. 1897 AC 22. UKHL 1.

This is the foundational case of corporate law in every common law jurisdiction

including New Zealand. Lord Macnaghten confirmed that a company is at law a

different person altogether from those who form it. The company has rights and

liabilities distinct from the individuals who operate it.

The New Zealand system applies this principle to protect its commercial entities from accountability. But Salomon cuts both ways.

If New Zealand Police is a registered commercial corporation under Salomon then it is a separate legal entity from the sovereign government of New Zealand. It is not the sovereign. It is a corporate body. It has commercial interests. It has commercial liabilities. It has commercial revenue streams. It is not a sovereign law enforcement authority. It is a commercial body corporate exercising law enforcement functions. A commercial body corporate exercising law enforcement functions without the informed consent of the living men and women it enforces against is conducting commercial transactions without contracts. A commercial transaction without a contract, without consent, and without disclosure is void at natural law.

If the Ministry of Justice is a registered commercial corporation under Salomon then it is a separate legal entity from the sovereign government of New Zealand. It is not a sovereign court. It is a commercial body administering proceedings. A commercial body administering proceedings brought by another commercial body against living men and women who have not consented to that commercial authority is not a court of justice. It is a commercial tribunal serving commercial interests.

Fraus omnia corrumpit. Fraud corrupts everything that flows from it.

4.5 The Clearfield Principle

When a government entity descends from its position of sovereignty and enters the commercial arena it abandons its sovereign immunity and becomes subject to the same commercial liabilities as any private actor. Clearfield Trust Co v United States 318 US 363 1943.

New Zealand Police registered as a commercial corporation on 14 June 2017. From that moment it entered the commercial arena. From that moment it is subject to

commercial law. From that moment it has commercial liabilities. From that moment it cannot claim sovereign immunity for its commercial acts. Every infringement notice directing payment to a commercial bank account and accepting credit card payment is a commercial transaction. Not a sovereign act. A commercial transaction requires a contract. A contract requires consent. Consent requires full disclosure. Full disclosure has never been given. Therefore every enforcement action taken by New Zealand Police as a commercial body corporate against a living man or woman who has not consented to that commercial relationship is void at natural law.

4.6 The Financial Instruments That Are Never Disclosed

Every criminal charge creates a financial instrument. A bond. A security. A negotiable instrument that enters the commercial system and generates value for the entities that hold it.

The following questions have been placed on the permanent record of New Zealand courts. They have not been answered by any court, any prosecutor, or any government agency in response to any Official Information Act request, any criminal disclosure request under the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008, or any court filing.

What bid bonds have been issued in relation to criminal charges filed by New Zealand Police and Ministry for Primary Industries?

What performance bonds have been issued in relation to those charges?

What securities have been created from those charges?

What commercial value has been extracted from those charges?

What commercial agreements exist between New Zealand Police and the Ministry of Justice regarding revenue sharing from enforcement actions?

What financial instruments have been created from the detention of living men and women in New Zealand custody?

Not one of those questions has ever been answered. The Criminal Disclosure Act 2008 requires the prosecution to disclose all information that is relevant to the proceeding and that might reasonably be expected to assist the defence. Information about financial instruments, bid bonds, performance bonds, and securities created from criminal charges is directly relevant to whether the prosecution is a sovereign law enforcement action or a commercial revenue collection exercise. It must be disclosed. It has never been disclosed. That non-disclosure is a systemic breach of the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008 in every criminal proceeding in New Zealand where those

questions have been asked and not answered.

The refusal to answer is not administrative oversight. It is deliberate concealment of the commercial foundation of every prosecution. If no such instruments existed the answer would be simple. No such instruments exist. That answer has never been given. The silence is the proof.

PART FIVE. THE POLICE OATH AND THE MILITARY OATH. WHO THEY TRULY SERVE.

5.1 The Exact Words of the Constable's Oath

Section 22 of the Policing Act 2008 prescribes the constable's oath in the following exact form.

I, name, swear that I will faithfully and diligently serve His Majesty specify the name of the reigning Sovereign, King of New Zealand, his heirs and successors, without favour or affection, malice or ill-will. While a constable I will, to the best of my power, keep the peace and prevent offences against the peace, and will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, perform all the duties of the office of constable according to law. So help me God.

Every sworn constable in New Zealand takes this oath before they are authorised to exercise any constabulary power. Without this oath they have no constabulary

authority. The oath is the source and the limit of their power.

5.2 The Exact Words of the Military Oath

Every member of the New Zealand Defence Force swears the following.

I, name, solemnly promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to our Sovereign Lord the King, His heirs and successors, and that I will faithfully serve in the New Zealand Defence Force and that I will loyally observe and obey all orders of His Majesty, His heirs and successors, and of the officers set over me, until I shall be lawfully discharged. So help me God.

5.3 Who Is the Sovereign They Serve

Both oaths are sworn to the Sovereign. Not to the Parliament. Not to the Minister of Police. Not to the Commissioner of Police. Not to the corporate entity New Zealand Police company number 300001205. Not to the Crown in right of New Zealand London Stock Exchange LEI 549300237GPHG2AI7C34. Not to any commercial corporation registered on the New Zealand Companies Register on 14 June 2017.

To the Sovereign.

The Crown of New Zealand is held in trust for the living people of New Zealand. That is the foundational principle of constitutional monarchy. The Sovereign holds the Crown not as personal property but as trustee for the people. The living men and women of this land are the ultimate beneficiaries of the Crown. The Sovereign exercises the Crown's authority on behalf of and for the benefit of those living men and women.

Every constable who takes the oath swears to serve the Sovereign faithfully and

diligently. Every soldier who takes the oath swears to bear true allegiance to the Sovereign. The living man or woman standing before that constable or that court is the living embodiment of the people for whose benefit the Crown is held in trust. The constable's duty runs directly to that living man or woman. Not to the commercial corporation that employs him. Not to the revenue collection targets of that corporation. Not to the scripted output of a third party mobile phone application programmed with sovereign citizen awareness content.

5.4 Constabulary Independence Confirms the Standing of the Living People

The New Zealand Police Act and constitutional convention confirm that sworn

constables have constabulary independence from the government of the day. The Commissioner and sworn members swear allegiance directly to the Sovereign and by convention have constabulary independence from the government.

Constabulary independence means the constable's authority does not derive from the government. It does not derive from the Minister of Police. It does not derive from the Commissioner. It derives from the oath. The oath runs to the Sovereign. The Sovereign holds the Crown in trust for the living people of this land.

This is the proof that the jurisdiction being denied is real.

The constable's authority derives from his oath to the Sovereign. The Sovereign holds the Crown in trust for the living people. The living man or woman standing before the constable is the beneficiary of that trust. The constable's duty runs directly to that living man or woman. Not to the commercial corporation that employs him.

A constable who uses the sovereign citizen label to dismiss a living man or woman's documented challenge to jurisdiction is not performing his duty under the oath. He is protecting the commercial interests of his corporate employer against the very people he swore to serve. That is a breach of oath. That breach is on the permanent record every time the label is used to deflect a documented jurisdictional challenge.

5.5 The Oath Confirms the Standing of the Living Man or Woman

The sovereign citizen label is used to deny that a living man or woman has any standing to challenge the authority of the police or the court. But the oath itself confirms that standing beyond any argument.

The constable swears to serve the Sovereign. The Sovereign holds the Crown in trust for the living people. The living man or woman is the beneficiary of that trust. The

constable's duty runs to that living man or woman. The living man or woman therefore has standing to hold the constable to his oath. Standing to ask whether the constable is serving the Sovereign or serving a commercial corporation. Standing to ask whether the arrest serves the living people or the revenue targets of a registered body corporate. That standing cannot be dismissed with a label. It is confirmed by the oath itself. It is confirmed by the Trusts Act 2019. It is confirmed by Magna Carta 1297 25 Edward I Chapter 29 confirmed in force in New Zealand by section 3(1) and Schedule 1 of the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988. No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any way destroyed except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

The law of the land is natural law. It is older than any statute. It sits above any Act of Parliament. It cannot be repealed by a corporate registration event on 14 June 2017.

PART SIX. THE LABEL IS FRAUD UPON THE COURT

6.1 What Fraud Upon the Court Means

Fraud upon the court occurs when an officer of the court, or a party to a proceeding, places false information on the permanent record of the court with the intent of

preventing the court from performing its duty to administer justice honestly and

impartially.

It is confirmed as an offence in New Zealand by section 9 of the Crimes Act 1961 which preserves common law offences not expressly abolished by statute. It is confirmed by the maxim fraus omnia corrumpit. Fraud corrupts everything that flows from it. Every order made on the basis of a fraudulent record is void from its inception. Not voidable. Void. It never had legal force from the moment the fraud was committed.

Fraud upon the court is not a minor procedural irregularity. It is not a technicality. It is an attack on the integrity of the court itself. It corrupts the entire proceeding from the moment it occurs.

6.2 How the Sovereign Citizen Label Constitutes Fraud Upon the Court

When a prosecutor files submissions characterising a living man or woman's

documented jurisdictional challenge as sovereign citizen ideology that prosecutor is placing a false characterisation on the permanent record of the court.

It is false for four reasons.

First. The sovereign citizen label has no statutory definition in any New Zealand Act of

Parliament. A characterisation built on a label with no legal definition is a

characterisation built on nothing. It is false on its face.

Second. Those arguments are grounded in the Trusts Act 2019, the New Zealand Bill of

Rights Act 1990, the Policing Act 2008, Magna Carta 1297 25 Edward I Chapter 29, the Bill of Rights 1688, the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988, and the common law of equity. Those arguments are grounded in the Trusts Act 2019, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, the Policing Act 2008, Magna Carta 1215, the Bill of Rights 1688, the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988, and the common law of equity. Characterising New Zealand law arguments as sovereign citizen ideology is a false characterisation.

Third. The characterisation is made not to advance the truth but to prevent the court

from having to answer the jurisdictional questions raised. That is the intent. Intent is the key element of fraud.

Fourth. Where the characterisation is derived from the scripted output of a third party

mobile phone application rather than from the officer's own legal knowledge and analysis the officer is placing on the permanent record a characterisation he cannot personally verify, cannot personally substantiate, and cannot personally defend under cross-examination. That is a false statement made under oath. That is perjury under section 108 of the Crimes Act 1961 and fraud upon the court at natural law.

6.3 When a Judge Adopts the Label the Fraud Is Compounded

When a judge adopts the sovereign citizen characterisation in a judgment without answering the jurisdictional questions raised that judge is compounding the fraud. The judgment becomes a fraudulent record. Every order made under that judgment is void from inception.

This compounding has been confirmed in New Zealand court decisions as recently as 2026. In 2026 NZDC 20445 a District Court judge adopted a prior judicial

characterisation of arguments as sovereign citizen concepts that are an abuse of the Court's process without independently analysing those arguments or answering any of the specific questions raised. The prior characterisation was itself made without definition, without legislative foundation, and without answering the arguments. One fraud upon the court compounded by a second fraud upon the court. Every order made in both proceedings is void from inception.

A judge who writes in a judgment that arguments are unintelligible and untenable without identifying the specific argument, without citing the specific legislative

provision that makes it unintelligible, and without answering the specific question raised is not performing the duty of justice. That judge is protecting the commercial structure that licenses him, pays him, and depends upon his cooperation to continue functioning.

Nemo judex in causa sua. No man may be a judge in his own cause. A judge whose professional authority traces through the New Zealand Law Society body corporate through the Inns of Court of London through the Temple Bar to the commercial

jurisdiction of the City of London Corporation cannot impartially adjudicate matters involving Crown corporations that are themselves agents of that same commercial structure. The conflict of interest is structural. It is built into the system.

6.4 The Procedural Shutdown Mechanism

The most dangerous consequence of the fraudulent application of the sovereign citizen label in New Zealand courts is not the immediate dismissal of the arguments. It is the procedural shutdown that follows.

Once a judge has applied the label and characterised the arguments as an abuse of process every subsequent judge in every subsequent proceeding adopts that

characterisation without independent analysis. The door is then closed on any further pre-trial applications on any matter already heard and determined.

This procedural shutdown has been confirmed in New Zealand court decisions as recently as 2026. In 2026 NZDC 20445 the court stated that it was not prepared to relitigate matters previously decided and that there would be no more pre-trial

applications in relation to any matter already heard and determined in the District Court.

One label applied by one judge becomes a permanent procedural bar enforced by every subsequent judge. The arguments are never answered. They are never examined. They are dismissed once by label and then permanently barred by procedural rule. That is not justice. That is a closed commercial loop protecting itself from examination.

6.5 Every Decision Applying the Label Without Answering the Questions Is Void

A judgment obtained by fraud upon the court is void from its inception. Not voidable on appeal. Void. It never had legal force. Every order made under it is equally void. Every conviction recorded under it is equally void. Every fine imposed under it is equally void. Every term of imprisonment served under it is a false imprisonment for which the living men and women who caused it bear full personal liability.

This is the direct and necessary consequence of the maxim fraus omnia corrumpit confirmed in New Zealand law by section 9 of the Crimes Act 1961 and by centuries of equity jurisdiction.

Every New Zealand decision that has applied the sovereign citizen label to dismiss documented jurisdictional arguments without answering those arguments must now be reviewed. Every conviction recorded on the basis of such a decision must be examined. Every living man or woman imprisoned on the basis of such a decision has a claim for false imprisonment against every officer personally responsible for that imprisonment.

PART SEVEN. THE TRUST STRUCTURE AND WHY TRUSTEES CANNOT PROSECUTE THE BENEFICIARY

7.1 The Birth Registration Creates a Trust

When a child is born in New Zealand the hospital sends a notification to the Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages. The Registrar creates a registered entry in the name of the child. That entry is a legal fiction. A trust entity. An estate. It is not the living child. It has no body. No breath. No blood. No soul.

The living child is the beneficiary for whose benefit that estate trust was created. The government entities that administer the trust, including the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, the Inland Revenue Department, and New Zealand Police, are trustees of that estate trust. Their authority to administer the trust derives from their trustee status. It does not extend beyond it.

The birth certificate issued in the name of the registered entry carries a warning printed upon its face in both English and Te Reo Maori stating that it is not evidence of the identity of the biological man or woman presenting it. The government that created the fiction printed that warning upon its own document. That warning is the government's own acknowledgment that the registered entry and the living man or woman are not the same entity.

7.2 The Absolute Prohibition on Trustees Acting Against the Beneficiary

The Trusts Act 2019 confirms three absolute duties that every trustee owes to every beneficiary.

Section 28 confirms the duty of loyalty. A trustee must act in the best interests of the beneficiaries and must not act in the trustee's own interests or the interests of any third party at the expense of the beneficiaries.

Section 29 confirms the duty to avoid conflicts of interest. A trustee must not place themselves in a position where their personal or commercial interests’ conflict with the interests of the beneficiaries.

Section 32 confirms the duty not to profit. A trustee must not profit from the trust relationship. All unauthorised profits must be returned to the trust.

These duties are absolute. They cannot be waived by the trustee. They cannot be overridden by statute. They cannot be suspended by corporate resolution. They apply to every trustee in every trust in New Zealand including every Crown entity acting as trustee of the estate trust created at birth registration.

A trustee court administering proceedings brought by a trustee prosecutor against the Principal Beneficiary of the trust both entities serve is self-dealing. Self-dealing by a trustee is void ab initio at natural law and under the Trusts Act 2019. It never had legal force from the moment it occurred.

7.3 The Irreconcilable Conflict

Every entity listed in Part Three of this report operates simultaneously in two

irreconcilable capacities.

First capacity. Trustee bound by absolute duties under the Trusts Act 2019 to act exclusively in the best interests of the living beneficiary, to avoid all conflicts of interest, and to make no profit from the trust relationship.

Second capacity. Commercial corporation seeking revenue through enforcement, fines, penalties, detention, and prosecution of the very beneficiary those absolute duties require it to serve.

These two capacities cannot coexist. A trustee that prosecutes its own beneficiary for commercial revenue is in absolute breach of every duty the Trusts Act 2019 imposes upon it. That breach is not a procedural irregularity. It is not a technicality. It is a fundamental corruption of the trust relationship that voids every act taken in breach of it from its inception.

The sovereign citizen label is used to prevent this irreconcilable conflict from ever being examined on the permanent record of any New Zealand court. That is its commercial purpose. That is why it is applied every time a living man or woman raises the trust law argument. And that is why every application of the label to dismiss the trust law

argument without answering it is fraud upon the court.

PART EIGHT. WHAT MUST HAPPEN NOW

8.1 The Questions That Must Be Answered

Every New Zealand court, every New Zealand prosecutor, and every New Zealand police officer must now answer the following questions on the permanent record of every proceeding where a living man or woman raises a jurisdictional challenge. These questions must be answered by sworn affidavit. Not by submissions. Not by citing James. Not by applying the sovereign citizen label. By sworn affidavit signed by a living man or woman who can be held personally accountable for every word.

Question One. Who is the living injured party. Identify by name the living man or woman

who has suffered real verifiable harm as a direct result of a specific act of the living man or woman being prosecuted.

Question Two. Where is the verified contract. Produce the contract bearing the wet ink

signature of the living man or woman confirming full informed consent to the statutory obligations being enforced.

Question Three. What financial instruments have been created from the charges.

Produce all bid bonds, performance bonds, securities, and financial instruments created from or linked to the charges filed in this proceeding.

Question Four. Why does a sovereign government register itself as a commercial

corporation. Identify the legislative instrument authorising the commercial registration of New Zealand Police company number 300001205 and the Ministry of Justice

company number 300001099 on 14 June 2017.

Question Five. How does a commercial corporation registered on 14 June 2017 claim

sovereign law enforcement authority over living men and women who have not

consented to its commercial authority.

Question Six. Why does a sovereign law enforcement authority direct payment of

infringement fees to a commercial bank account and accept credit card payments through a commercial gateway.

Question Seven. How is the constable's oath to the Sovereign under section 22 of the

Policing Act 2008 reconciled with enforcement actions taken by a commercial

corporation against the living beneficiaries of the Crown held in trust by that Sovereign.

Question Eight. What authority allows a trustee court administering proceedings

brought by a trustee prosecutor against the Principal Beneficiary of the trust both entities serve to proceed without the express authority of that Beneficiary.

Question Nine. Why has no New Zealand court defined the sovereign citizen label,

identified its legislative foundation, or answered the substantive arguments beneath it in any proceeding where it has been applied.

Question Ten. Why has no New Zealand court, prosecutor, or government agency

answered questions about bid bonds, performance bonds, securities, and financial instruments created from criminal charges in any proceeding where those questions have been placed on the permanent record.

8.2 What Happens If They Are Not Answered

If these questions are not answered by sworn affidavit within a reasonable time after they are placed on the permanent record of any proceeding the following

consequences follow as a matter of natural law and commercial law.

Qui tacet consentire videtur. He who is silent is taken to agree. Every unanswered question is tacitly agreed. Every fact and claim in the jurisdictional challenge stands as established by the silence of the party required to answer.

Every proceeding that continues without answering these questions continues on the basis of a tacit agreement that every jurisdictional claim is correct. Every order made in such a proceeding is made without jurisdiction. Every order made without jurisdiction is void from inception.

Every officer who continues to participate in a proceeding after these questions have been placed on the permanent record and not answered does so with full personal liability for every consequence of that participation. Crown immunity does not protect criminal conduct. Crown immunity does not protect breach of fiduciary duty. Crown immunity does not protect self-dealing by trustees. Crown immunity does not protect acts taken with knowledge of the Beneficiary's status and standing.

Personal property of every named officer becomes subject to registration of a security interest on the Personal Property Securities Register without further notice. The fee schedule of the Beneficiary applies from the moment of the first act of trespass against the living man or woman after receipt of formal notice of their standing. Every

subsequent act of trespass accrues fees that are self-executing, cumulative, and enforceable as liquidated damages confirmed by Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage and Motor Co 1915 AC 79 as applied in New Zealand.

8.3 What Must Change in the New Zealand System

This report is not written only for living men and women who are standing in courts today. It is written for the system itself. For the judges. For the prosecutors. For the police officers. For the registrars. For the politicians who created the commercial registration events of 14 June 2017 and who have never explained them to the living people of this land.

The following changes must occur.

The sovereign citizen label must be retired from New Zealand law enforcement and judicial practice immediately. It has no statutory foundation. It has no legal definition. It cannot be applied as a legal conclusion. Its continued use is fraud upon the court. Every officer, prosecutor, and judge who continues to use it after reading this report does so with full knowledge that it is a fraudulent label. That knowledge removes any defence of ignorance. Personal liability attaches from the moment of knowledge. Every New Zealand Police officer must be retrained. The sovereign citizen awareness modules currently incorporated into New Zealand Police training must be reviewed and removed. They are based on content that has no standing in New Zealand law. They produce institutionalised bias that contaminates every enforcement action taken against living men and women who know their standing. The third-party mobile phone applications programmed with scripted sovereign citizen responses must be removed from service immediately. An officer who consults a script rather than the law is not performing his duties according to law. He is in breach of his oath.

Full financial disclosure must be made in every criminal proceeding. Every bid bond, performance bond, security, and financial instrument created from or linked to any criminal charge must be disclosed to the living man or woman charged under the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008. The systematic failure to make that disclosure in every New Zealand criminal proceeding where those questions have been asked is a

systemic breach of the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008. It must end.

The commercial registrations of 14 June 2017 must be explained to the living people of New Zealand. The Parliament of New Zealand must answer on the public record why every major Crown entity was registered as a commercial corporation on the same day. What the purpose of those registrations was. What commercial activities those

registrations authorise. What financial instruments have been created using those registrations. What international commercial obligations those registrations have created. The living people of New Zealand are the beneficiaries of the Crown held in trust by the Sovereign. They have an absolute right to know what has been done with their trust in their name without their knowledge or consent.

The trust law obligations of every Crown entity must be acknowledged and honoured. Every Crown entity is a trustee of the estate trusts created at the birth registration of every living man and woman in New Zealand. Those trustees have absolute duties under the Trusts Act 2019. Those duties have been systematically breached by every enforcement action taken against living beneficiaries without their informed consent. Those breaches must be acknowledged. Restitution must be made. And the system must be restructured so that trustees serve the beneficiaries rather than prosecuting them.

PART NINE. THE NATURAL LAW FOUNDATION

9.1 What Natural Law Is

Natural law is not a theory. It is not a philosophy. It is not an ideology. It is the law that exists independent of any government, any parliament, any statute, and any court. It is the law that arises from the nature of living men and women as conscious, breathing, sovereign beings upon this land. It is older than Magna Carta. It is older than any Act of Parliament that has ever been written.

Natural law recognises four foundational truths. First. Every living man and woman is born free. No government creates that freedom.

No government can take it away without the informed consent of the living man or woman whose freedom is being taken.

Second. No living man or woman can be compelled to answer to the name of a legal

fiction created in their name without their knowledge or consent. A legal fiction is not a living man or woman. It has no body, no breath, no blood, and no soul. Compelling a living man or woman to identify as a legal fiction is compelling them to deny their own existence. No court, no statute, and no commercial corporation has that authority.

Third. No living man or woman can be prosecuted for an act that caused no harm to any

other living man or woman. Where there is no injured party there is no crime. Where there is no crime there is no prosecution. Where there is no prosecution there is no jurisdiction. This is the foundational principle of natural law confirmed by every system of law that has ever claimed to be just.

Fourth. Every living man and woman has the absolute right to ask of any authority that

claims power over them by what right that power is claimed. That question cannot be dismissed with a label. It must be answered honestly on the record by a living man or woman who can be held accountable for their answer. If it cannot be answered the claimed authority does not exist.

9.2 The Maxims of Natural Law That Govern This Matter These maxims are older than any statute. They sit above any Act of Parliament. They

cannot be repealed. They cannot be amended. They cannot be dismissed with a label. They are the foundation upon which all just law rests.

Fraus omnia corrumpit. Fraud corrupts everything that flows from it. Every proceeding

founded upon a fraudulent label, a fraudulent characterisation, or a fraudulent record is void from its inception.

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. The act does not make a man guilty unless the

mind is also guilty. Where there is no guilty intent there is no crime. Where there is no crime there is no prosecution.

Ubi jus ibi remedium. Where there is a right there is a remedy. Every living man and

woman whose rights have been violated by the fraudulent application of the sovereign citizen label has a remedy. That remedy exists in natural law, in equity, and in the courts of this land when those courts are performing their true function.

Nemo judex in causa sua. No man may be a judge in his own cause. A trustee court

administering proceedings brought by a trustee prosecutor against the Principal Beneficiary of the trust both entities serve cannot be an impartial tribunal. Its

judgments in such proceedings are void.

Audi alteram partem. Hear the other side. Every question placed on the permanent

record of a court deserves a genuine answer. Applying a label is not hearing the other side. It is silencing the other side. That is a denial of natural justice confirmed by section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. No right of action arises from fraud. Every proceeding

founded upon the fraudulent application of the sovereign citizen label to dismiss documented jurisdictional arguments is founded upon fraud. No right of action arises from it. Every order made in such a proceeding is void.

Qui tacet consentire videtur. He who is silent is taken to agree. Every unanswered

question on the permanent record of a court is tacitly agreed by the party required to answer it. Silence is not a defence. It is an admission.

Nemo dat quod non habet. No one gives what they do not have. A commercial

corporation registered on 14 June 2017 cannot give itself sovereign law enforcement authority it does not possess. The authority claimed by registered commercial

corporations over living men and women who have not consented to that commercial authority is authority those corporations do not have. It cannot be exercised. Every act taken under that claimed authority is void.

Fiat justitia ruat caelum. Let justice be done though the heavens fall. Justice is not

optional. It is not conditional on the convenience of the system administering it. It is not suspended by a label. It will be done. On the permanent record. Before the courts of this land. Or before a higher authority.

In fraudem legis agere. To act in fraud of the law. Every officer, prosecutor, and judge

who applies the sovereign citizen label to prevent a documented jurisdictional

challenge from being heard and answered is acting in fraud of the law. The law requires jurisdiction to be established. The law requires injured parties to be identified. The law requires contracts to be disclosed. The law requires honest dealing on the permanent record of every court. The label is used to avoid every one of those requirements. That is acting in fraud of the law. And it carries personal liability for every living man or woman who does it.

PART TEN. THE DECLARATION TO THE SYSTEM

This report is placed on the public record of New Zealand by the Living Sovereign Research Association. It is available to every living man and woman in New Zealand at livingsovereign.org. It is available to every judge, prosecutor, registrar, police officer, and government agent in New Zealand. It is available to every journalist, every

politician, and every member of the public who wishes to understand what is being done to the living people of this land in the name of law enforcement.

The sovereign citizen label is fraud upon the court.

The jurisdiction being denied is real and documented on the New Zealand government's own public registers.

The commercial structure being protected by the label is confirmed by the London Stock Exchange, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and the New Zealand Companies Register.

The questions being avoided by the label are legitimate questions that every living man and woman in New Zealand has the right to ask and the right to have answered honestly on the permanent record of any court before any proceeding against them continues. The silence of every party required to answer those questions is tacit agreement to every fact and claim in every documented jurisdictional challenge that has ever been dismissed with the sovereign citizen label in any New Zealand court.

Every conviction recorded on the basis of a judgment that applied the sovereign citizen label to dismiss documented jurisdictional arguments without answering them is void from its inception. Every fine imposed under such a judgment is void. Every term of imprisonment served under such a judgment is false imprisonment. Every living man or woman who suffered those consequences has a remedy at natural law, in equity, and before any court that is performing its true function as a servant of justice rather than a servant of commerce.

The living people of New Zealand are not sovereign citizens.

They are the living sovereign people of this land.

They are the beneficiaries of the Crown held in trust by the Sovereign to whom every constable and every soldier has sworn their oath.

They are the men and women for whose benefit every court in this land was

established.

They are standing up.

And they will not be silenced by a label.

Nemo me impune lacessit.

No one provokes me with impunity.

Fiat justitia ruat caelum.

Let justice be done though the heavens fall.