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]

[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]

These are all, of course, nonsense

How often do you read that in court documents?



ETA:

At least twice!

This is, of course, nonsense

 

[Horatius]

[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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203495

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]

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:

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

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

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.

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

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:

The “James Randi Educational Foundation” (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/) 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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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]

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:

[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]

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

[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...

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.