Meads v Meads, 10 years later

[AnOwlCalledSage]

At least my schnauzer hasn't killed any owls yet this winter.

[LordEd]

The judge, by the repetition of "Cameron Hardy" is being very careful to ensure that no OPCA type argument as to dual identity can be made.

It is difficult to understand how a judge can respond otherwise where a litigant in court argues any variation of the “Strawman” scheme, particularly if that proceeding degenerates into a cat and mouse affair where the litigant claims to speak in two or more modes. 233 The risk of doing otherwise is illustrated by the retrial of Detaxer Cameron Hardy, who successfully appealed a conviction for contempt of court on the basis that his guilty plea was made on behalf of his “Strawman” — but not by Hardy himself. 234

https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/do ... TocPage31/(hash:(chunk:(anchorText:zoupio-_TocPage31),notesQuery:'',scrollChunk:!n,searchQuery:'"cameron%20hardy"',searchSortBy:RELEVANCE,tab:search))
Cameron Hardy, CAMERON HARDY, or the person representing Cameron Hardy has played this game before.
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2 ... ultIndex=5
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2 ... ultIndex=4
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2 ... ultIndex=2

Was searching out cam hardy and quatloos never disappoints.

Recent article and court decision resulting in a contempt of court sentence of 1 year:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... Tz2jVntUZb

[164] Hardy is of the view that this court has no jurisdiction over him. He is wrong. He
has been found guilty of criminal contempt of court. As I have repeatedly said, the
present case's primary sentencing goals are denunciation and deterrence. The
sentence that is called for must get the attention of Hardy and other like-minded OPCA-
type adherents. It must get people to sit up and take notice. It is in the interests of
justice to do so

[166] In the circumstances, the court must bring home to Hardy and other like-minded
individuals the futility of denying the legitimacy and authority of Canada’s courts and the
consequence of disrupting and impeding the administration of justice. No fine, a
conditional sentence order, or a probationary term would be appropriate, given Hardy’s
refusal to accept the court's jurisdiction or follow its orders. Although I am not ordering
costs against Hardy, as set out in Fearn v Canada Customs, the prospect that in the
future, costs will be considered against OPCA-type offenders in criminal contempt of
court cases should not be dismissed.

[167] The sentence imposed is one year in jail.

[Albert Haddock]

Recent article and court decision resulting in a contempt of court sentence of 1 year:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... Tz2jVntUZb

[164] Hardy is of the view that this court has no jurisdiction over him. He is wrong. He
has been found guilty of criminal contempt of court. As I have repeatedly said, the
present case's primary sentencing goals are denunciation and deterrence. The
sentence that is called for must get the attention of Hardy and other like-minded OPCA-
type adherents. It must get people to sit up and take notice. It is in the interests of
justice to do so

[166] In the circumstances, the court must bring home to Hardy and other like-minded
individuals the futility of denying the legitimacy and authority of Canada’s courts and the
consequence of disrupting and impeding the administration of justice. No fine, a
conditional sentence order, or a probationary term would be appropriate, given Hardy’s
refusal to accept the court's jurisdiction or follow its orders. Although I am not ordering
costs against Hardy, as set out in Fearn v Canada Customs, the prospect that in the
future, costs will be considered against OPCA-type offenders in criminal contempt of
court cases should not be dismissed.

[167] The sentence imposed is one year in jail.

I see it cites a couple of Donald Netolitzky's articles.

[Burnaby49]

Everything to do with sovereigns here in Canada cite a couple of Donald Netolitzky's articles. He's ubiquitous.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Not found this one on here.

R. v. Kenneth Jeffrey Cooper

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-judge-rejects ... -1.6373126

On the driving while prohibited charge, the defendant argued that he was not driving, but rather "travelling," which he claimed was not the same thing and was not subject to the province's Motor Vehicle Act.

In his decision, Whyte describes this attempt to argue a meaningful distinction between the two verbs as "astounding."

"Giving effect to the defendant’s argument would be the worst example of elevating form over substance," the judge wrote.

"It would render virtually any law meaningless, merely by referring to the prohibited conduct by another name. One could not be convicted of shoplifting when they were simply repurposing unsold goods for personal use. Assault would no longer be criminal, when the defendant was guilty only of intentional force application absent consent. Murder would be allowed as purposeful non-consensual early life termination."

The defendant also argued that changing his name from Kenneth Cooper to Tiberius Rex had "disassociated" him from the person who committed the offences, and that because the charges against him displayed his given name in all capital letters, they were not actually referring to him, according to the decision.

[Rupert68]

Not found this one on here.

R. v. Kenneth Jeffrey Cooper

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-judge-rejects ... -1.6373126

I remember years ago at a backyard event hosted by RM in Oshawa I lowered myself to attend. One of his supporters said driving has one definition and one only and it's piloting a vehicle commercially, not privately.

So afterwards I asked him what my one wood is called? What should I call the software that runs my printer? How should someone refer to herding livestock? Driver, I said has a multitude of meanings depending on context.

It seemed he didn't know the meaning of context either.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Ontario drivers' licence application page...

Signatures with "add-on statements" or illustrations will not be accepted. If your signature has not been accepted, you will need to correct your signature before you can receive your new driver’s licence.

The following types of statements are considered ‘add-ons’ and are not accepted:

“I hereby certify…”
“Without prejudice…”
“All rights reserved per…”
“Freeman on the Land”
“Sovereign Citizens”

https://www.ontario.ca/page/renew-drive ... #section-7

[The Observer]

Ontario drivers' licence application page...

Signatures with "add-on statements" or illustrations will not be accepted. If your signature has not been accepted, you will need to correct your signature before you can receive your new driver’s licence.

The following types of statements are considered ‘add-ons’ and are not accepted:

“I hereby certify…”
“Without prejudice…”
“All rights reserved per…”
“Freeman on the Land”
“Sovereign Citizens”

https://www.ontario.ca/page/renew-drive ... #section-7

Well, at least they didn't ban thumbprints in red ink.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I forgot all about my plan to write up the various Anderson lawsuits. Maybe I subconsciously quailed at the thought of diving into that bottomless sea of madness.

Here's one! Fresh off the press.

They've upped the money to be taken from her inheritance to C$400k

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2 ... kb313.html

[Pottapaug1938]

I forgot all about my plan to write up the various Anderson lawsuits. Maybe I subconsciously quailed at the thought of diving into that bottomless sea of madness.

Here's one! Fresh off the press.

They've upped the money to be taken from her inheritance to C$400k

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2 ... kb313.html

It's hilarious how these Canadian OPCA filings love to mention the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the United States Code (what? She forgot the Uniform Commercial Code???) which are creatures of United States laws and wholly in applicable to Canadian court cases.

[eric]

Time for an update on Ms. Anderson and her antics since I recently became aware of a court case that I am somewhat surprised has not been reported on in the media. To summarize, Ms. Anderson is a wealthy woman in her own right. She is also a beneficiary of a rather large inheritance which is the subject of a long running estate battle. She has used her money to file frivolous suits, ignored court judgements, and generally been an annoyance to the Alberta Court of King's Bench. The court has taken the step of transferring large sums of money to be put on deposit with the court to pay out these costs, etc.

Note to self – time to tread carefully, you will understand later. As mentioned elsewhere on Quatloos, at one point she teamed up with Daniel Lozinik to use, promote, and explain his methods as an OPCA “guru”. Lozinik's method is based on a template letter sent to assorted individuals and published on his web site. I have obtained a copy of one of these letters which was used as evidence in a recent lawsuit. No I am not going to publish it in full for obvious reasons. So here we go with the letter:

PUBLIC NOTICE
(A NORTH AMERICAN NON-JUDICAL MATTER)
DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER(S) WITH PREJUDICE
Against the following individuals

(redacted list of lawyers and judges)
You can see where this is going with the word “defamation”.

LET IT BE KNOWN TO ALL, FORMER & EXISTING CLIENTS OF THE
NAMED LAWYERS LISTED

(redacted list of 'orrible crimes)
Lozinik then goes on a riff about the Canadian/US income tax convention which allows the two countries to exchange tax information so that individuals are not double taxed, not going to go into it in full

UNITED STATES - CANADA INCOME TAX CONVENTION
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-fin ... eaties/cou
ntry/united-states-america-convention-consolidated-1980-1983-1984-1995-1997-2007
.html

(redacted)

• The Income Tax Convention is secretive, ambiguous and unlawful as it pertains to Common Law
and the liberties, rights and freedoms of the private sovereign people.
Income Tax was a “temporary measure” and was Proclaimed and Gazetted officially over Jan. 3, 1948 by
Gov. General Varcoe within the Hansard of Parliament, and, is NOT LAW.

(redacted)
Since income tax is illegal somehow, therefore, maybe, in somebody's twisted mind no court orders are enforceable.
(redacted more 'orrible crimes)

And a template ending:

You’ve all lost your moral compass!
Your codes, rules, regulations, by-laws, agendas, policies, licenses are NOT LAW, AND UN-ENFORCEABLE.
Both North American governments, (Canadian Government and the U.S. Federal Government) are both
private corporations! Since they both declared Bankruptcy in 1933 and have never paid back the Foreign
Creditor(s), there remains NO LAW regarding TAX upon the private sovran people of North America.
Simply Put: How does any private sovereign person and/or secular corporation own anything if they’re
BANKRUPT?
The Lawyers on behalf of G7 governments have perpetrated a scheme, laying claim on Land they never
created nor own, AND, thereby levy tariffs, fines, taxes upon the private sovereign people, when they
DECLARED BANKRUPTCY?

?????

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Hopefully I have redacted enough to prevent me from being sued, but still retained the gist of the letter.

Anyways, one of the individuals took exception to the defamation and this was the result. Since Anderson offered up no defence it became a simple Rule 7.3 application.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5d5-BlaYAA ... =4096x4096
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5d59WUbsAA ... =4096x4096

So there you go with the that declared the defendants engaged in defamation, and that imposed damages totalling $6,655,000 and $30,000 costs. This was an oral decision. This is probably one of the largest defamation awards ever in Canada. Maybe some serious economic damage to Ms. Anderson will make her rethink her strategy....