A new phrase enters the legal lexicon: OPCA litigants. Labelled as Organised Pseudo-legal Commercial Argument litigants they appear in court arguing they are not on trial since another manifestation of themselves is liable. Judges are getting beyond tolerating such tactics by allowing OPCA litigants their day in court; they are now striking out such claims before trial as an abuse of process and a waste of court resources.
In New Plymouth, Justice Ellis struck out a court filing purporting to be an application for judicial review by one Donald James Niwa challenging Inland Revenue’s successful District Court judgment for payment of income tax arrears. In court Mr Niwa claims he did not owe any tax. This liability fell on an individual with a similar name written in capital letters: DONALD NIWA. This DONALD NIWA was created by the state, he said, and is the only person responsible for debts owed the state. The Mr Niwa, written in lower case letters, did not sign DONALD NIWA’s application for judicial review; it was ‘signed’ by use of Mr Niwa’s thumb-print. His application for judicial review was struck out, without a court hearing.
OPCA litigants surfaced in North America last century. There is no closed list. In North America they are commonly labelled as de-taxers, freeman, sovereign citizens or members of obscure cults denying the state has any authority over them. In New Zealand, OPCA litigants are frequently Maori claiming their iwi or hapu never submitted to crown sovereignty following the Treaty of Waitangi. They are often encouraged in this defence by gurus who peddle pseudo-legal nonsense encouraging a split identity defence; arguing that an individual can somehow exist in two separate but related states. Their ‘real’ self is free of any legal obligations whilst their ‘state-created’ alter ego is the only ‘person’ subject to government authority.
Court hearings often descend into farce as it is unclear which of the two persona is making an appearance and answering questions. Judges dismiss split-person defences. The individual before the court is under its jurisdiction and must obey its rulings.
In the words of a Canadian judge, OPCA litigants share a critical characteristic: they will honour regulatory, contract, family and other legal obligations if they feel like it. And typically, they don’t.
Niwa v. Inland Revenue – High Court (17.04.19)
19.077