Merged: Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants

[JLord]

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench has just issued the most epic written decision of all time dealing with litigants who adopt freeman, sovereign, detaxer, etc., type schemes as their litigation strategy. I was very surprised by this decision as it is nearly 200 pages and goes into great detail about almost all the common freeman arguments.

The decision also coined a new term for these litigants and the arguments they employ. Organized pseudolegal commercial argument, or OPCA is the term that court will now use to describe these types of arguments and litigants. So because of the scope of this decision and the new vocabulary that has been introduced, I created a new thread to introduce this topic. So for those who are interested in a good read... Enjoy!

Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571

[Horatius]

Quote:

[3] One participant in this matter, the Respondent Dennis Larry Meads, appears to be a
sophisticated and educated person, but is also an OPCA litigant. One of the purposes of these
Reasons is, through this litigant, to uncover, expose, collate, and publish the tactics employed by
the OPCA community, as a part of a process to eradicate the growing abuse that these litigants
direct towards the justice and legal system we otherwise enjoy in Alberta and across Canada. I
will respond on a point-by-point basis to the broad spectrum of OPCA schemes, concepts, and
arguments advanced in this action by Mr. Meads.

Yeah!

[Horatius]

Quote:

These are all, of course, nonsense

How often do you read that in court documents?



ETA:

At least twice!

Quote:

This is, of course, nonsense

[Horatius]

Quote:

[72] Beyond that, these are little more than scams that abuse legal processes. As this Court
now recognizes that these schemes are intended for that purpose, a strict approach is appropriate
when the Court responds to persons who purposefully say they stand outside the rules and law,
or who intend to abuse, disrupt, and ultimately break the legal processes that govern conduct in
Canada. The persons who advance these schemes, and particularly those who market and sell
these concepts as commercial products, are parasites that must be stopped.

Do Judges ever get fan mail? Because I feel like writing some!

[Horatius]

The Masochistic Lie:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=203495

Quote:

All these features appear necessary for gurus to
market OPCA schemes to their often desperate, ill-informed, mentally disturbed, or legally
abusive customers. This is crucial to understand the non-substance of any OPCA concept or
strategy. The story and process of a OPCA scheme is not intended to impress or convince the
Courts, but rather to impress the guru’s customer.

Myriad wins!

[WhenDanSaysJump]

Quote:

Mediaeval alchemy is a helpful analogue. Alchemists sold their services based on the theatre of their activities, rather than demonstrated results, or any analytical or systematic methodology. OPCA gurus are modern legal alchemists. They promise gold, but their methods are principally intended to impress the gullible, or those who wish to use this drivel to abuse the court system. Any lack of legal success by the OPCA litigant is, of course, portrayed as a consequence of the customer’s failure to properly understand and apply the guru’s special knowledge.

[threadworm]

Wow, just...wow!

My brain started to hurt after a while, but the gist of it seems to be that while the OPCA community of vexatious litigants believe they have the right to challenge the legal authority of the court, the court equally has the right to tell them to get stuffed, and what's more, they are bigger than them and have prisons.

Can we appoint this judge to look at all the other CT garbage?

[Border Reiver]

"These claims are, of course, pseudolegal nonsense."

I need a moment.

Thanks, now that that's over I need to express my belief that this Judge needs a big high five first and then a round of drinks.

[Boot2TheHead]

Welp, there goes my afternoon.

This is awesome. Thanks for bringing this up!

[JLord]

A few nuggets from the decision as I realize many people will not have the desire to read such an extensive case:

Quote:

The persons who advance these schemes, and particularly those who market and sell these concepts as commercial products, are parasites that must be stopped.

Quote:

When reduced to their conceptual core, most OPCA concepts are contemptibly stupid.

Quote:

The bluntly idiotic substance of Mr. Mead’s argument explains the unnecessarily complicated manner in which it was presented. OPCA arguments are never sold to their customers as simple ideas, but instead are byzantine schemes which more closely resemble the plot of a dark fantasy novel than anything else.

Quote:

Mediaeval alchemy is a helpful analogue. Alchemists sold their services based on the theatre of their activities, rather than demonstrated results, or any analytical or systematic methodology. OPCA gurus are modern legal alchemists

Quote:

OPCA litigants appear, engage in a court drama that is more akin to a magic spell ritual than an actual legal proceeding, and wait to see if the court is entranced and compliant. If not, the litigant returns home to scrutinize at what point the wrong incantation was uttered, an incorrectly prepared artifact waved or submitted.

Also of note to this forums is that former members Robert Arthur Menard, Eldon Gerald Warman, and other OPCA "gurus" get specific mention. The court mentions these "gurus" as an overview. It was not known which guru had conned Mr. Meads in this case.

This forum even gets a mention:

Quote:

The “James Randi Educational Foundation” (http://forums.randi.org/) and “Quatloos! Cyber Museum of Scams & Frauds” (http://quatloosia.blogspot.com/) have significant and ongoing discussion of OPCA concepts and movements, world-wide. Persons in these forums go so far as to actively challenge and debate OPCA gurus, including Canadian OPCA gurus.

The decision goes on to describe and categorize in great detail the many arguments made by OPCA litigants:

Quote:

Another branch of the immunity category flows from an argument that a person has some status or has undertaken certain steps that renders the OPCA litigant immune to court action. I have given this category the name ‘magic hats’ to capture the manner in which OPCA gurus and litigants approach these arguments.

Quote:

Henry also has worn a literal ‘magic hat’! In the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Henry v. Starwood Hotels (1 September 2010) Edmonton 1003-01152 (Alberta Q.B.) before Justice Shelley, Henry appeared wearing what is best described as ceremonial garb, with a robe and red fez, that he indicated had special significance.

You can see almost every FMOTL argument dealt with in this decision. For instance the Menard argument:

Quote:

A second common OPCA litigation category is grounded in a belief that all legally enforceable rights require that a person agree to be subject to those obligations. This strategy takes two closely related forms:

1. every binding legal obligation emerges from a contract, and

2. consent is required before an obligation can be enforced.

Persons who advance this concept extend it to interactions between state actors, including Canada and the provinces, and individual persons. This is a kind of ‘magic hat’; the OPCA litigant says he or she has not agreed to be governed or subject to court authority, and the OPCA litigant is therefore allegedly immune.

Quote:

A claim that the relationship between an individual and the state is always one of contract is clearly incorrect. Aspects of that relationship may flow from mutual contract (for example a person or corporation may be hired by the government to perform a task such as road maintenance), but the state has the right to engage in unilateral action, subject to the Charter, and the allocation and delegation of government authority.

And the court goes on to suggest that the courts punish OPCA litigants for their behavior:

Quote:

it seems that perhaps when a person advances a ‘fee schedule’, that may be prima facie evidence of the act and intention of the Criminal Code, ss. 423.1, intimidation of a justice system participant offence.

Quote:

Punitive damages are warranted when a person bases a legal action or files a spurious lien or personal property claim on the basis of a foisted unilateral agreement.

Pretty much every OPCA scheme I've ever heard of is judicially debunked in this decision. This is going to be a big problem for the internet debater types who try to convince people of the validity of these ideas.

Quote:

It is very unfortunate that any person would be so gullible as to believe that free money can be obtained by these theatrics, but nevertheless some, like Mr. Meads, appear unable to resist the temptation of wealth without obligation. One can only hope that in the future OPCA gurus will find A4V less attractive, and their risk-loving customers instead invest in alternative forms of speculation, such as lottery tickets, which provide infinitely better prospects for return.

Menard's consumer purchase scheme is dealt with specifically as well.

In the end this decision is meant to put an end to the court wasting time with these arguments, and to authorize swift action to be taken against these litigants. The most comprehensive decision to date. We'll see what happens from here.

Quote:

In that sense the debate on the validity of OPCA concepts, such as there ever was, is over. The provincial and federal courts of appeal have uniformly upheld trial decisions to reject OPCA concepts. By my count at least nine of these cases sought leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada. None were granted. Legally, there is no dispute or issue outstanding.

[JLord]

Also of interest is starting at paragraph 663 where the court speaks directly to OPCA litigants and provides a list of questions they should consider asking their gurus:

1. Why do these gurus seem to have little, if any, wealth, when they say they hold the proverbial keys to untold riches?

2. Why do those gurus not go to court themselves, if they are so certain of their knowledge? If they say they have been to court, ask them for the proceeding file number, and see if their account is accurate. Those are public records.

3. Can that guru identify even one reported court decision where their techniques proved successful? If not, why then are all successes a tale of an unnamed person, who knew someone who saw that kind of event occur?

4. How are their ideas different and distinct from those surveyed and rejected in these Reasons?

5. How are these advisors different from the OPCA gurus who have been unsuccessful and found themselves in jail? What did Porisky, Warman, and Lindsay do wrong?

6. Will your advisors promise to indemnify you, when you apply the techniques they claim are foolproof? If not, why?

7. If they cannot explainthese points, then why should you pay them for their legal nonsense?

[JLord]

And finally, the court speaks directly to the gurus themselves.

Quote:

[669] In his poem Inferno at Cantos 26-30, Dante placed the “evil counsellors” - those who used their position to advise others to engage in fraud, and “the falsifiers” - alchemists, counterfeiters, perjurers, and imposters, into the inner canyons of the eighth circle of hell. As sinners, the evil counsellors and falisifiers were matched by those who induce religious schisms, and surpassed only in fault by oath-breakers.

[670] Persons who purposefully promote and teach proven ineffective techniques that purport to defeat valid state and court authority, and circumvent social obligations, appear to fall into those two categories. That they do so, and for profit at the expense of naive and vulnerable customers, is worse.

[671] William S. Burroughs in Naked Lunch (New York: Grove Press, 1962, p. 11) wrote: “Hustlers of the world, there is one Mark you cannot beat: The Mark Inside.” I believe that is true for you. At some basic level, you understand that you are selling lies, or at the very most generous, wildly dubious concepts.

[672] It does not matter whether you frame your ‘business’ as a joke, religion, for educational purposes only, or as not being legal advice; your ‘business’ harms your naive or malicious customers, their families, and the innocent persons whom your customers abuse as they attempt to exercise what you have told them are their rights.

[673] You cannot identify one instance where a court has rolled over and behaved as told. Not one. Your spells, when cast, fail.

[674] If you believe what you teach is true, then do not encourage others to be the ones to execute those concepts in the courts. Present your ideas and concepts yourselves. You will get a fair hearing, and as detailed a response as your ideas warrant. The caselaw cited in these Reasons make that very clear. Canadian courts will hear you and will consider whether what you claim is or is not correct.

[675] In that sense, I acknowledge a grudging respect for David Kevin Lindsay, in that he has personally tested many of his ideas in court. That does not excuse his inciting others to engage in vexatious, illegal conduct, or his profiting from the same. Nevertheless, he has “walked the walk”. If you truly believe your ideas are valid, look at how Lindsay has been treated by Canadian courts and the careful analyses of his ideas. Yes, he has failed, but where he has approached Canada’s legal system with clarity and respect, he has received the same.

[carlitos]

Now that's Legaltainment^TM!

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by JLord

This forum even gets a mention:

Woohoo! I didn't have time to read that far earlier!

I also like how he strips away the OPCA nonsense to highlight exactly how stupid their asserted positions actually are:

Quote:

[75] These claims are, of course, pseudolegal nonsense. A judge who encounters and reviews
OPCA concepts will find their errors are obvious and manifest, once one strips away the layers
of peculiar language, irrelevant references, and deciphers the often bizarre documentation which
accompanies an OPCA scheme. When reduced to their conceptual core, most OPCA concepts
are contemptibly stupid. Mr. Meads, for example, has presented the Court with documents that
appear to be a contract between himself, and himself. One Mr. Meads promises to pay for any
liability of the other Mr. Meads. One owns all property, the other all debts. What is the
difference between these entities? One spells his name with upper case letters. The other adds
spurious and meaningless punctuation to his name. Mr. Meads (with punctuation) is the Mr.
Meads who appeared in court. He says the Mr. Meads (all capitals) is the one who should pay
child and spousal support.

[76] So where is that Mr. Meads (all capitals)? At one point in the June 8 hearing Mr. Meads
said that Mr. Meads (all capitals) was a “corporate entity” attached to his birth certificate. Later,
he told me that the other Mr. Meads was a “person” - and that I had created him! Again, total
nonsense.


[77] The bluntly idiotic substance of Mr. Mead’s argument explains the unnecessarily
complicated manner in which it was presented. OPCA arguments are never sold to their
customers as simple ideas, but instead are byzantine schemes which more closely resemble the
plot of a dark fantasy novel than anything else.

[Nick Terry]

It's an awesome read. Judge Rooke has written the best skeptical court judgement since Kitzmiller vs Dover.

[Hans]

Oh lovely, many thanks Jlord. I'm glad to see the use of the word 'magic', a term I've been using to describe their attempts to change reality for some time.

Excellent thread. JB could you be so kind as to make sure 'our' Menard gets a link to it?

I'd appreciate that more than you could imagine

[D'rok]

The legal research that went into this decision is absolutely top notch.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by JLord

And finally, the court speaks directly to the gurus themselves.

Quote:

[669] In his poem Inferno at Cantos 26-30, Dante placed the “evil counsellors” - those who used their position to advise others to engage in fraud, and “the falsifiers” - alchemists, counterfeiters, perjurers, and imposters, into the inner canyons of the eighth circle of hell. As sinners, the evil counsellors and falisifiers were matched by those who induce religious schisms, and surpassed only in fault by oath-breakers.

[670] Persons who purposefully promote and teach proven ineffective techniques that purport to defeat valid state and court authority, and circumvent social obligations, appear to fall into those two categories. That they do so, and for profit at the expense of naive and vulnerable customers, is worse.

[671] William S. Burroughs in Naked Lunch (New York: Grove Press, 1962, p. 11) wrote: “Hustlers of the world, there is one Mark you cannot beat: The Mark Inside.” I believe that is true for you. At some basic level, you understand that you are selling lies, or at the very most generous, wildly dubious concepts.

[672] It does not matter whether you frame your ‘business’ as a joke, religion, for educational purposes only, or as not being legal advice; your ‘business’ harms your naive or malicious customers, their families, and the innocent persons whom your customers abuse as they attempt to exercise what you have told them are their rights.

[673] You cannot identify one instance where a court has rolled over and behaved as told. Not one. Your spells, when cast, fail.

[674] If you believe what you teach is true, then do not encourage others to be the ones to execute those concepts in the courts. Present your ideas and concepts yourselves. You will get a fair hearing, and as detailed a response as your ideas warrant. The caselaw cited in these Reasons make that very clear. Canadian courts will hear you and will consider whether what you claim is or is not correct.

[675] In that sense, I acknowledge a grudging respect for David Kevin Lindsay, in that he has personally tested many of his ideas in court. That does not excuse his inciting others to engage in vexatious, illegal conduct, or his profiting from the same. Nevertheless, he has “walked the walk”. If you truly believe your ideas are valid, look at how Lindsay has been treated by Canadian courts and the careful analyses of his ideas. Yes, he has failed, but where he has approached Canada’s legal system with clarity and respect, he has received the same.

One of the most awesome bits (of many).

[Mojo]

Actually, I'm waiting for the FOTLers to claim that...

Quote:

Editorial Notice: On behalf of the Government of
Alberta personal data identifiers have been removed
from this unofficial electronic version of the judgment.

...is evidence of a gubmint conspiracy.

[dudalb]

God, we could use this Judge in the US legal system. Epic, just Epic. You don't see a judge drop the legal terminlogy and say what he really thinks very often.

[carlitos]

As the bloggers say, read the whole thing.

Quote:

[123] In 2008 the British Columbia Supreme Court in The Law Society of British Columbia v.
Robert Arthur Menard (8 January 2008) Vancouver S073719 (B.C.S.C.) granted an order
prohibiting Menard from acting as a lawyer and providing legal advice, and receiving
compensation for the same.
[124] This Court’s review of the Freeman-on-the-Land phenomenon has observed that Menard
is associated with or operates a number of “Freeman” Internet websites that market OPCA
materials, including the “Canadian Common Corps Of Peace Officers” (“C3PO”) (website:
http://www.c3po.ca), a group of self-declared and appointed vigilante “peace officers” who:

... are the answer to avoiding a police state in Canada. All able bodied and
suitable candidates can if they wish be hired to preserve and maintain the public
peace under affirmation and contract. In this way the people of Canada can deal
with errant or rogue police from the position of a peace officer, and those who are
Freemen can exercise their rights without hindrance by existing policy
enforcement officers and with the full protection of true peace officers.

Quote:

[125] Eldon Gerald Warman [“Warman”] is a “Detaxer”; he operates the
“http://www.detaxcanada.org/” website. Warman typically styles himself via the ‘dash-colon’
motif as “Eldon-Gerald: Warman”. He has a historic association with Lindsay: R. v. Warman,
2001 BCCA 510; Warman (Re), 2000 ABPC 181, 48 W.C.B. (2d) 194. His stated beliefs
combine the “natural man” scheme of Porisky and Lindsay, with an emphasis on historical
common law and the interrelationship between the king and society, such as the Magna Carta. A
helpful survey of Warman’s concepts is found in R. v. Warman, 2001 BCCA 510 at paras. 9-10.
[126] In 2000 Warman had a roadside encounter with a peace officer who attempted to
investigate the permit status for Warman’s vehicle. That led to an assault on the officer for which
Warman was subsequently convicted: R. v. Warman, 2000 BCPC 22, affirmed 2001 BCCA 510.
Warman had denied the officer’s authority because “... issuing tickets at the side of the road is to
conduct a roving court not permitted by Section 17 of Magna Carta.”: para. 36. These roadside
confrontations between peace officers and OPCA community members are a reported aspect of
OPCA litigation, for example in R. v. Kaasgaard, 2011 MBQB 256.
[127] Mr. Warman has been the subject of complaints of racist and anti-Semitic statements that
were considered by the Canadian Human Rights Commission: Warman v. Warman, 2005

Wow, Eldon Warman was snagged in those "hate crime" cases by none other than Richard Warman. That's almost meta. No wonder he's paranoid; they really are out to get him. He was the "Red Robed Priests of Isis" guy, EldonG at the JREF.

[LashL]

Fantastic and thank you, JLord. I've only skimmed it so far but I will give it a nice, leisurely read over the weekend so as to enjoy it more thoroughly. Moreover, it will serve as an excellent resource for lawyers, court clerks, other court staff, and judges across the country to have such a comprehensive piece of work all in one judgment.

I suspect that someone we know did much of the legal research for Associate Chief Justice Rooke for this judgment...

[jargon buster]

Quote:

Excellent thread. JB could you be so kind as to make sure 'our' Menard gets a link to it?

I'd appreciate that more than you could imagine

Already sent him a PM to his yahoo account with a nice message.

[LashL]

Originally Posted by Horatius

At least twice!

At least.

Para 44:

Quote:

This is, of course, nonsense.

Para 71:

Quote:

Because of the nonsense they argue, OPCA litigants
are invariably unsuccessful...

Para 75:

Quote:

These claims are, of course, pseudolegal nonsense.

Para 76:

Quote:

Again, total nonsense.

Para 238:

Quote:

...this notation is nonsensical...

Para 294:

Quote:

Of course, that is nonsense.

Para 503:

Quote:

Similarly, the claim in relation to trade-mark or trade-name is nonsense.

[Horatius]

Text of an e-mail I just sent DJ Grothe:

Quote:

I just wanted to make sure you had seen this. There's a thread on the JREF Forum:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=244827

which links to a recent Court decision from the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, comprehensively dealing with the pseudolegal claims of various movements generally known as "Freemen on the Land", or "Sovereign Citizens".

In paragraph 655, the judge writes:


"[655] Perhaps unsurprising for what appears to often be an Internet driven phenomenon, the
OPCA community has drawn the critical attention of others online. Anti-scam and skeptic web
forums include persons interested in OPCA concepts and their proponents. The “James Randi
Educational Foundation” (http://forums.randi.org/) and “Quatloos! Cyber Museum of Scams &
Frauds” (http://quatloosia.blogspot.com/) have significant and ongoing discussion of OPCA
concepts and movements, world-wide. Persons in these forums go so far as to actively challenge
and debate OPCA gurus, including Canadian OPCA gurus."

("OPCA" is "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument", a term he coins as a catch-all for all the various flavours of these legal shenanigans)

I thought you'd appreciate seeing that we've been noticed in such an important context. These sorts of legal scams have hurt a lot of people who are already in desperate circumstances, and it's good to see that some of what we've done on the JREF Forum is being noticed by those with the legal authority to really do something about it!

Let's see if we make it into Swift!

[Horatius]

Just saw this bit! In paragraph 692, he quotes one of Mead's submissions:

Quote:

May Almighty God Jehovah bless all of ewe through His Living Son and Reigning King, Jesus the Christ. Amen and Amen.

I know there's a Sheeple joke in there somewhere!

Or maybe he takes "Lamb of God" waaaay too literally?

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by LashL

Fantastic and thank you, JLord. I've only skimmed it so far but I will give it a nice, leisurely read over the weekend so as to enjoy it more thoroughly. Moreover, it will serve as an excellent resource for lawyers, court clerks, other court staff, and judges across the country to have such a comprehensive piece of work all in one judgment.

I suspect that someone we know did much of the legal research for Associate Chief Justice Rooke for this judgment...

Although the ruling has no legal status in the US, something tells me that a lot of the arguments are going to be very useful to US judges and legal staff dealing with the American flavor of the FOTL kooks.

[LashL]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Now that's Legaltainment^TM!

Indeed.

[Nowhere Man]

Quote:

[671] William S. Burroughs in Naked Lunch (New York: Grove Press, 1962, p. 11) wrote: “Hustlers of the world, there is one Mark you cannot beat: The Mark Inside.”

Is this the first time that Bill Burroughs has been quoted in a legal document like this? The mind boggles.

Fred

[JLord]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Although the ruling has no legal status in the US, something tells me that a lot of the arguments are going to be very useful to US judges and legal staff dealing with the American flavor of the FOTL kooks.

I think this case could be cited anywhere as a comprehensive summary of OPCA litigants for those unfamiliar. Certainly in Canada this gives judges good reason to immediately treat these litigants as vexatious and to dismiss their claims and impose sanctions immediately. Previously each case would have to run its course before finally the OPCA litigant would be declared vexation or have penalties imposed against them. The hope now is that if you're facing one of these people you can immediately point out the problem to the court and get a result without having to waste so much time. A normal self represented litigant is expected to lack knowledge of court procedure and quite rightly is going to be given some breaks here and there by the court. I think this decision serves notice that the OPCA class of self represented litigants is not going to get the same generous good faith of the court.

So the first hint you get that you are dealing with a freeman you would simply file their own documents as evidence against them, have them declared vexatious litigants. This requires them to have leave of the court before filing claims or applications, thus greatly reducing the damage they cause to innocent parties by dragging them into court. And if you are the one taking action against a freeman you can essentially treat their nonsense paperwork as a non-response and proceed to get default judgment or other sanctions imposed against them. The days of these people getting the benefit of the doubt from courts may be coming to an end.

[ComfySlippers]

Originally Posted by JLord

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench has just issued the most epic written decision of all time ...

[LightinDarkness]

To our JREF lawyers - I have been thinking about writing an academic style article on the "sovereign citizen" phenomena (using that term to encompass all of this woo) which would include a (1) short history, (2) summary and debunking of main arguments, and (3) a recommendations list for public sector employees on how to manage the crazy people who do this (things like - check your credit report frequently to identify fraudulent liens, notify your office's counsel if you interact with one, etc.).

This would be a generalized type of article targeted at public sector employees, because thats my field (Public Administration). I would need someone with actual legal knowledge to help though - anyone interested? I think it would probably take 20-40 hours of someones time. We could discuss what journals to target (my first though is Review of Public Personnel Administration - but I am open to target journals).

Anyone who is even slightly interested (no commitment needed, apply now!) PM me. For purposes of what I am thinking about, you don't have to be a US based lawyer.

[FMOTLgroupie]

Honestly, this is spectacular. The best, most in-depth explanation of the OPCA universe anywhere.

Not only does he demolish the OPCA ideas (not that hard, though he does it exquisitely), but he does a spectacular job of explaining the complex web of ideas, nomenclature, and personal affiliations that make up the OPCA universe. I find it can be hard to talk about OPCA without implying that it's much more one-dimensional than it is, but Rooke has done it.

As I said, this is a fantastic leap forward in the courts' dealings with these types.

[LightinDarkness]

Oh my, this IS beautiful. More so than I thought. It truly is a one-stop-shop for all your debunking needs. This judge has done a monumental community service. If there was an award to "slapping the legal woo believers with sanity" this would be it.

Of course you just know when the sovereigns, Rob Menard, et. al get a hold of this they will proclaim VICTORY! because someone actually addressed their arguments...even though in doing so all of them were summarily dismissed.

[TjW]

Quote:

When reduced to their conceptual core, most OPCA concepts
are contemptibly stupid.

I hope the judge doesn't have any tendencies toward alcoholism. I suspect many lawyers will want to shake his hand and buy him a drink.

[ComfySlippers]

Court of Queen’s Bench Associate Chief Justice John Rooke deserves a medal for his in-depth analysis of FOTL/Sov/DeTaxer Woo.

I'm still reading the original .pdf after several hours

I suspect that when the FOTL-Wafflers wake up, sometime after midday no doubt, there will be more of the usual "Well, they would say that wouldn't they!"
Unfortunately the document is lengthy and is comprised of legal fact... for a FOTL-Waffler that is like garlic to a vampire.

Nice to see conman Menard get a mention though.
Remember when, before he quit JREF, he called us simple fools for not realising we were advancing his cause?

Not only was every principle of FOTL-Waffle proved to be pure fantasy, but a lovely new acronym has been born:

God bless OPCA and all who sail in her
--

PatrickPretty.com : Covering Ponzi schemes and Internet Crime

Quatloos!

Original .pdf

Nice one JLord!

[Orphia Nay]

Thanks for the news, JLord. I look forward to reading the judgement in full.

I'm loving all the snippets so far.

Originally Posted by JLord

This forum even gets a mention

Yay, JREFers!

[Bishop]

Originally Posted by LightinDarkness

Of course you just know when the sovereigns, Rob Menard, et. al get a hold of this they will proclaim VICTORY! because someone actually addressed their arguments...even though in doing so all of them were summarily dismissed.

Actually, it's more likely that they'll ignore the part where he debunks the arguments and simply focus on looking at the specific case and the defendant to find one of the inevitable signs that he "accidentally contracted" with the court (e.g. he owned a driver's license at some point in his life, he rose for the judge, etc.) Once that sign has been found, they'll present it as the rationalization of the judge blatantly lying in the rest of the ruling. And then they'll follow this up by insisting that if the defendant had done it 100% correctly, the judge would have gladly recognized The Law and bowed to his demands.

[ComfySlippers]

Originally Posted by Bishop

... And then they'll follow this up by insisting that if the defendant had done it 100% correctly, the judge would have gladly recognized The Law and bowed to his demands.

Something that is explained in great detail in the .pdf
Another "alert" that you are dealing with gullible people who follow gurus that are conmen.

[Myriad]

An excellent piece of writing, I agree.

Is there any possibility of a "U.S. translation" of some sort -- that is, swapping in U.S. cases for all the relevant case references? Of course unless a judge did it it wouldn't have the standing of the Canadian one, but it might still be useful.

Respectfully,
Myriad