Here is the seal whose inter-word dots are discussed in the quoted transcript:
Wikipedia explains what a "McKenzie Friend" is (and gives some background on DM). Beyond that, you're on your own.
[From ALJ 2010]: An obscure directions hearing
Most cases in the trial divisions of the New South Wales Supreme Court are the subject of directions hearings a couple of months before the date fixed for trial to ensure that pleadings and affidavit evidence are properly finalised and the matter is actually ready for hearing.
Usually these proceed with workmanlike efficiency. However, particularly where there is a litigant in person, odd things occur. The following is the edited transcript of a directions hearing last November before McClellan CJ at CL:
Applicant F in person
Mr B Hodgkinson SC for the Respondent
HIS HONOUR: Mr F?
M: Appearances from plenipotentiary judge, DM.
HIS HONOUR: I am sorry?
M: I am a plenipotentiary judge. My name is DM. I am from America
HIS HONOUR: That may be, but what is your right to appear here?
M: Excuse me?
HIS HONOUR: What is your right to appear here?
M: Under knowledge of a fraud and the right to stop and correct it. In other words, I have a –
HIS HONOUR: Unless you are a legal practitioner in this State you can't appear in this court.
M: I have been already certified here in the New South Wales courts on four different occasions.
HIS HONOUR: Do you currently hold a practising certificate in New South Wales?
M: No. I just got in from America a couple of days ago. I am making an appearance –
HIS HONOUR: Then, Mr F, you will have to appear. Mr F, you will have to appear for yourself.
HIS HONOUR: You will have to appear for yourself. Do you understand? The gentleman with you does not have a right of audience in a New South Wales court. Do you understand?
APPLICANT: I do also understand that my friend is a judge who can appear in any court anywhere in the world.
HIS HONOUR: Not in New South Wales, I am sorry.
APPLICANT: But New South Wales is also in the same planet.
HIS HONOUR: That's true, but we have a statute in New South Wales which controls legal practitioners who can appear in the Supreme Court and they have to be admitted to appear. Do you understand?
APPLICANT: You see, it is my understanding that Judge DM has been appearing in a number of hearings in this country and even yesterday and technically speaking there is nothing to stop him because he is a judge of the world court and he can step in any court and rule. That's my understanding. So I would appreciate if you can kindly consider what you said previously and allow judge DM talk on my behalf and he has very important things to say as I understand.
HIS HONOUR: He cannot appear without a practising certificate as a lawyer.
HIS HONOUR (to DM): I need evidence that you have a practising certificate in New South Wales. However, you are entitled, if the court grants you leave, to have a friend –
M: McKenzie Friend, yes. I have been a McKenzie Friend, both here and in New Zealand.
HIS HONOUR: Well, that might be right, but you can't come here and act as a lawyer. Do you understand?
M: No, I never have. I have always been a McKenzie Friend here and in New Zealand. I didn't say I was a lawyer. I said I was here to assist him.
HIS HONOUR: You gave me the understanding that you thought you had a right of appearance, or at least –
M: A right as a McKenzie Friend because I have pertinent information that's relevant to this court.
HIS HONOUR: Just a minute. Mr Hodgkinson, what do you say?
HODGKINSON: Your Honour, frankly, I am in the dark. I don't know what the relevant information is. I haven't heard of this gentleman before. I am not sure that I could make any sensible submission. I think the best thing, if there is an application to be made, is to allow Mr M to appear as a McKenzie Friend, then the basis for the application without amplification ought be made to the court. That would at least allow us to compute the reasoning and take an informed view.
HIS HONOUR: What I will do, Mr Hodgkinson, is I will allow Mr M to speak this morning, but confine the leave I grant to this morning. Do you understand?
M: The paperwork in this case goes back twelve years, as you well know, and I saw the file brought in, it's about four inches thick. The syntax, and I am the judge in 1988 who wrote the mathematical interface on all 5,000 languages proving that language is a linear equation in algebra certifying that all words have 900 definitions through this mathematical algebraic formula and over the course of the past 21 years have developed an accuracy level in the syntaxing of language sentence structure to prove the correct sentence structure communication syntax language is required in a court system.
Now, the seal behind you which advertises the Crown's seal and jurisdiction of this court uses the correct syntax. That is why you have the dots. Now, the dots between the words are prepositional phrases. There's only two places where dots as allowed as a syntax prepositional phrase to certify the value of each word and that is on money, coinage and on seals. When you created, when your Government created the seal they used the correct sentence structure, they used the correct syntax and they are advertising that you have the correct syntax and knowledge of it.
I have looked at the paperwork for the past twelve years and both the doctor and the State in one hundred percent of every single sentence you have got in that folder is modified with adverbs and adjectives and there is not one legal sentence or a prepositional phrase to certify the value of any word so, therefore, the facts of the case have been have been muddled since this case started twelve years ago. The necessity of having the accuracy of a fact in a court, if you are not in a fact you have not committed perjury. And Bernie Madhoff, who you would know has just walked away from Wall Street with $69 billion, was prosecuted under the fictitious conveyance of language of title 18.1001.
Now, this law, title 18.1001, is required on all 250 countries' passports. In other words, fraudulent conveyance. The title 15 chapter 2(b) section 78FF carries a $25 million fine to modify language to extort money from a private citizen from a corporation. This gentleman represents corporation and every single document he has filed has been modified with adverbs and adjectives. So if you are going to modify a fact and change it to something that is not what the true definition of that word is you have got a babble of information in front of you. Now, I know that when we communicate, you and I – you've got a mess.
[Further discussion ensued and the directions hearing was adjourned for some weeks to allow the applicant to apply to amend his Statement of Claim.]
M: Your Honour, can I leave my book with you?
HIS HONOUR: Yes, you may.