i: man: christopher james

[eric]

BTW, for those of you who may be interested, this web site has a compendium of all the fake Indian nations, with references to court cases, in Eastern Canada and some parts of the US.
https://www.raceshifting.com
Personal side note, as a little gaffer my family worked with, and I went to school with, many members what I believe is the only recognized Eastern Metis Nation. One little group in extreme North Western Ontario who can trace their lineage to the original Red River Metis and as a distinct anomaly are also recognized as Status Indians since something like 1875.

[eric]

Just checking the local news to me and noted this:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ ... -1.6119390
I'm not going to talk about Donald Smith, he's not a FMOTl, he just has a very long history of being an effin' idiot. Anyways, as I have noted before, Christopher has a habit of doing what Donald Smith has done and has posted recordings of virtual court proceedings to his various social media accounts. In fact he has promised to do it again this week with more details of what went on in his dispute with the BC Law Society. Christopher may find that the long arm of the BC Courts reaches out with a contempt charge or two against him.

[eric]

So anyways, here's another "win" for our hero. Anyways picked up this one off Canlii and then checked back on his web site. In the last few years Alberta has implemented a procedure to weed out "unusual" filings before they reach trial known as Civil Practice Note 7.
https://albertacourts.ca/docs/default-s ... cb2fa480_6
In summary, instead of going through long trials where every OPCA argument possible is attempted, the plaintiff receives a curt notice from the judge telling them that they have 14 days to prove they're not an idiot or the case gets thrown out. This means that instead of having to search through Canlii for recent OPCA filings I just search for "CPN7" and I'm immediately thrown into the world of the whacky and wonderful that often includes OPCA arguments.

Anyways, back to the case at hand. Michelle Davidson, a resident of Medicine Hat in Alberta, in 2014 bought a house that she claimed was full of mold. As a result she decided to live in the back yard in a tent with her adult son who has some mental issues. In August of this year Gabriel was picked up wandering around in CFB Suffield in a confused state suffering from exposure. For those of you not in the know, the British Army, not having local room enough to conduct large scale maneuvers and blow things up, does it at Suffield where they only have the local wildlife to disturb. It has also been used since the 1940's as a testing site for biological and chemical warfare. Certainly not a good spot to take a leisurely stroll. Since it was obvious Gabriel has mental issues he was placed in a psych ward at the local hospital.

The mother, being somewhat upset at this "kidnapping", turned to Christopher for help. Typical Christopher video, the courts are going to be quivering in fear when they hear he is involved, somehow he conflates covid restrictions into it, etc.
https://www.brighteon.com/77a4ac49-559e ... 6c0caaf8a6
Rather than rolling over, the Alberta Court system put her through the CPN7 process:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2 ... qb886.html
And of course with the inevitable result:

IV. Conclusion
[44] Ms. Davidson’s Statement of Claim appears to be a suitable candidate for review per CPN7. The Court, therefore, seeks that Ms. Davidson answer how the Statement of Claim is not an abuse of the Court:

1. as a collateral attack of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2108 00268 September 1, 2021 oral decision, and decisions of the Mental Health Review Panel in relation to Gabriel Davidson;

2. as busybody litigation;

3. by raising OPCA arguments, and that the Amended Statement of Claim is conducted for bad-faith, ulterior purposes;

4. by:

a) not providing a basis for a meaningful response by the Court and Defendants,

b) relying on extraordinary, hyperbolic claims, and

c) advancing “gibberish” claims; and

5. seeking remedies that are impossible or excessive.

[JamesVincent]

I must admit that I have never seen the term "busybody litigation" before. That would a great way to dispose of a great deal of cases.

[eric]

This court case here gives examples and definitions of the various things that may qualify an action to be put under the CPN7 microscope: https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2 ... tml#par664

Busybody Litigants

[664] There are several particularly serious forms of litigation for an improper purpose which deserve special mention. The first is “busybody” litigation, where the abusive litigant engages in litigation to enforce the alleged rights of third parties. “Busybody” litigation is particularly serious since that puts potentially innocent and uninvolved parties at risk

[eric]

As I have mentioned before, although Christopher can be considered the last guru standing, he is still the go to guy if you run into problems. And as usual, perhaps more so than with other gurus, if you use his methods you just don't lose your case. Instead you go through a glorious crash and burn resulting in expenses and fines that would not have happened if you fought your case using conventional means.

Anyways, enough rambling. I did my weekly or so trawl through Canlii using CPN7 as a search term. Part of the CPN7 process is the plaintiff gets fourteen days to prove they're not an idiot. Ms. Davidson talked about above was put through this process and this was the result:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2 ... ultIndex=2
Ms. Davidson did not reply within the fourteen days so:

The deadline for Ms. Davidson to make a Written Submission has passed. No response has been received. I, therefore, conclude that Ms. Davidson has not rebutted the Davidson #1 prima facie conclusion that the Amended Statement of Claim is a hopeless and abusive proceeding. Accordingly, I order the Docket 2108 00225 Amended Statement of Claim is struck out, pursuant to CPN7, para 3(c) and Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, Rule 3.68.

and of course there are some financial costs:

[5] Ms. Davidson’s Amended Statement of Claim incorporated Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [OPCA] (Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571) claims that are so notoriously false that simply employing these schemes creates a presumption that a person appears in court for a bad-faith, ulterior purpose: Davidson #1 at para 23. Furthermore, Ms. Davidson attempted to interfere in the medical treatment of another individual on the basis of OPCA concepts, and the proclamation that she owns her adult child as chattel property. The latter claim that is repugnant to modern Canadian society, values, and law: Davidson #1 at paras 24-25.

[6] Taking into account Schedule C of the Alberta Rules of Court, the $25 million quantum of Ms. Davidson’s claims, and the aggravating characteristics of Ms. Davidson’s abusive litigation conduct identified above, I order Ms. Davidson pay each of the two Defendants $2,000 in costs, forthwith.

[serfmaninthepolis]

What I find baffling about these guys is that they never want to use any sort of citation---I mean, one can argue that Bracton, Fleta, Coke, Blackstone, etc. have no currency in Canada because CURRENT YEAR, etc. but at least you are putting in something that was at one time considered good law. For example, in Fleta (try finding a copy in a Law Library! I had to join the Selden Society to get mine!) it says very clearly that a superior justice (e.g. one dealing in pleas of land, etc.) must have a warrant and must show it to the parties.

It also gives very clear definitions of freedom and serfdom, freedom being the natural power of every man to do as he pleases except as forbidden by force or by law, that is, the law of nature, because freedom is anterior to serfdom. Serfdom, on the other hand, is when one is bound "ex conventione" to do something or not to do something. Ex conventione could be translated a number of ways, but the basic sense is "out of convention," that is assembly/gathering/dwelling.

Coke in his commentary on littleton gives an account of how when everything was in common, wars arose, and it was the practice of the victor to take captives, and hence they were called servi from conserving, that is, because they did not just execute them. And eventually kings were created, who would protect the life and member of even the serfs, from evil Lords who might otherwise despoil them. I think you can call it quaint, etc. and possibly argue that it is from a past that is no longer current, but these guys, you put the stuff right in front of them on their facebook groups and they think it is nonsense, just like you guys think what they say is nonsense =].

For example, Christopher James got Mak Parhar, a Vancouver, BC guy who died of a heart attack after opposing some COVID stuff, I think there is a thread about him, doing this weird act where he would call him "your honorable man judge" or something. Like, if you want to rebut the notion that he is a judge, just ask why he thinks he is a judge. "I am not saying you are not a judge, I am just, like, wondering why you think you are a Judge? Could you not be mistaken?"

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I think we've seen these commentaries by Coke before

A Readable Edition of Coke Upon Littleton...

Hi Parzival. Nice of you to pop along again with your word salad posts.

[serfmaninthepolis]

I think we've seen these commentaries by Coke before

A Readable Edition of Coke Upon Littleton...

Hi Parzival. Nice of you to pop along again with your word salad posts.

A lot of the stuff in Coke is of course invalid, but it contains one or two things that are still good, for example, the translation of "fee simple" which is like word salad because what does it mean? Littleton says it means "lawful inheritance," feodum, inheritance, simplex, pure or lawful. It also contains some interesting stuff about the two types of persons capable of holding by purchase, those natural, created of God, and those artificial framed by the policy of man.

You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. To this day, in Canada, if you have a registered interest in fee simple, fee simple means the same thing it did in Littleton's day...

[Dr. Caligari]

You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. To this day, in Canada, if you have a registered interest in fee simple, fee simple means the same thing it did in Littleton's day.

I think that what Aristotle wrote about the "golden mean" is pretty smart, but a 5-pound weight doesn't fall 5 times as fast as a 1-pound weight.

[serfmaninthepolis]

You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. To this day, in Canada, if you have a registered interest in fee simple, fee simple means the same thing it did in Littleton's day.

I think that what Aristotle wrote about the "golden mean" is pretty smart, but a 5-pound weight doesn't fall 5 times as fast as a 1-pound weight.

My view is that Aristotle introduced a couple of errors so that we would know he was human. He also said men have more teeth than women. One of my favorite passages:

"What nature is, then, and the meaning of the terms 'by nature' and 'according to nature', has been stated. That nature exists, it would be absurd to try to prove; for it is obvious that there are many things of this kind, and to prove what is obvious by what is not is the mark of a man who is unable to distinguish what is self-evident from what is not. (This state of mind is clearly possible. A man blind from birth might reason about colours. Presumably therefore such persons must be talking about words without any thought to correspond.)" (Physics, II.ii)

So, that natural law exists would be absurd to try to prove. And on the topic of Lord Coke, his case, Calvin's case suggests that allegiance to the Sovereign is due by the law of nature, so, of course, someone who is blind to the law of nature mind be blind to the obedience they owe to their natural liege lord, they might think "natural obedience to the liege lord" is word salad. But, of course, this does not mean it is word salad, it just means such a one is legally blind.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

So, that natural law exists would be absurd to try to prove. And on the topic of Lord Coke, his case, Calvin's case suggests that allegiance to the Sovereign is due by the law of nature, so, of course, someone who is blind to the law of nature mind be blind to the obedience they owe to their natural liege lord, they might think "natural obedience to the liege lord" is word salad. But, of course, this does not mean it is word salad, it just means such a one is legally blind.

No. It just means that the man on the Clapham Omnibus can recognise gibberish when it is set before them to consider. And you spout the finest of gibberish. Bravo Sir. I guess everyone needs a hobby.

[serfmaninthepolis]

So, that natural law exists would be absurd to try to prove. And on the topic of Lord Coke, his case, Calvin's case suggests that allegiance to the Sovereign is due by the law of nature, so, of course, someone who is blind to the law of nature mind be blind to the obedience they owe to their natural liege lord, they might think "natural obedience to the liege lord" is word salad. But, of course, this does not mean it is word salad, it just means such a one is legally blind.

No. It just means that the man on the Clapham Omnibus can recognise gibberish when it is set before them to consider. And you spout the finest of gibberish. Bravo Sir. I guess everyone needs a hobby.

Well, these fictitious persons are not Judges, they are used to determine, in various cases, whether conduct is what the aforesaid man on the bus would think reasonable, or prudent. He is not especially wise; he does not have even a Bachelors degree.

For example, he might think this is gibberish

"And therefore thus were directly and clearly answered as well the objections drawn from the severalty of the kingdoms, seeing there is but one head of both, and the postnati and us joined in ligeance to that one head, which is copula et tanquam oculus of this case; as also the distinction of the laws, seeing that ligeance of the subjects of both kingdoms, is due to their sovereign by one law, and that is the law of nature." ( 7 Coke Report 14 b)

[irrelevant word salad tossed]

Just because a mentally retarded whig on the bus goes "ligeance, they never taught me that in school!" does not mean it is gibberish. And then you have the political implications of whigs like AV Dicey, etc. printing scurrilous textbooks, well, really it goes back to Blackstone and his inappropriate and unacceptable suggestion that Parliament is Sovereign. But as soon as you say anything but jaundiced whigism is gibberish, well, there is no debating with whigs, I guess. They simply believe in parliament's capacity to use force.

You seem fixated on centuries-old legal commentary -- Sir Edward Coke was active in the 16th and 17th centuries. UNLESS his comments are contained in a case of much more recent vintage, there is no reason to believe that the statement is good law. If you look inside Black's Law Dictionary, you will find extensive lists of legal definitions and maxims, much of which are of only academic interest, often to those who, for some reason, choose to research centuries-old points of law, many of which are no longer valid. So, spare us Coke and Glanville; and -- IF you can -- cite us some MODERN cases which illustrate your points -- if you have any.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Just because a mentally retarded whig on the bus goes "ligeance, they never taught me that in school!" does not mean it is gibberish. And then you have the political implications of whigs like AV Dicey, etc. printing scurrilous textbooks, well, really it goes back to Blackstone and his inappropriate and unacceptable suggestion that Parliament is Sovereign. But as soon as you say anything but jaundiced whigism is gibberish, well, there is no debating with whigs, I guess. They simply believe in parliament's capacity to use force.

You do know that there is a strict rule about discussing politics on this forum? Perhaps you should try Fogbow.

[serfmaninthepolis]

So, that natural law exists would be absurd to try to prove. And on the topic of Lord Coke, his case, Calvin's case suggests that allegiance to the Sovereign is due by the law of nature, so, of course, someone who is blind to the law of nature mind be blind to the obedience they owe to their natural liege lord, they might think "natural obedience to the liege lord" is word salad. But, of course, this does not mean it is word salad, it just means such a one is legally blind.

No. It just means that the man on the Clapham Omnibus can recognise gibberish when it is set before them to consider. And you spout the finest of gibberish. Bravo Sir. I guess everyone needs a hobby.

Well, these fictitious persons are not Judges, they are used to determine, in various cases, whether conduct is what the aforesaid man on the bus would think reasonable, or prudent. He is not especially wise; he does not have even a Bachelors degree.

For example, he might think this is gibberish

"And therefore thus were directly and clearly answered as well the objections drawn from the severalty of the kingdoms, seeing there is but one head of both, and the postnati and us joined in ligeance to that one head, which is copula et tanquam oculus of this case; as also the distinction of the laws, seeing that ligeance of the subjects of both kingdoms, is due to their sovereign by one law, and that is the law of nature." ( 7 Coke Report 14 b)

[irrelevant word salad tossed]

Just because a mentally retarded whig on the bus goes "ligeance, they never taught me that in school!" does not mean it is gibberish. And then you have the political implications of whigs like AV Dicey, etc. printing scurrilous textbooks, well, really it goes back to Blackstone and his inappropriate and unacceptable suggestion that Parliament is Sovereign. But as soon as you say anything but jaundiced whigism is gibberish, well, there is no debating with whigs, I guess. They simply believe in parliament's capacity to use force.

You seem fixated on centuries-old legal commentary -- Sir Edward Coke was active in the 16th and 17th centuries. UNLESS his comments are contained in a case of much more recent vintage, there is no reason to believe that the statement is good law. If you look inside Black's Law Dictionary, you will find extensive lists of legal definitions and maxims, much of which are of only academic interest, often to those who, for some reason, choose to research centuries-old points of law, many of which are no longer valid. So, spare us Coke and Glanville; and -- IF you can -- cite us some MODERN cases which illustrate your points -- if you have any.

[word salad tossed]

You don't learn, do you? I asked you for some modern citations which are relevant to your point. YOU are the one making the claim; so YOU are the one who must PROVE that your assertions are backed by CURRENT law. Neither I nor anyone else has to prove anything to you.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

You don't learn, do you? I asked you for some modern citations which are relevant to your point. YOU are the one making the claim; so YOU are the one who must PROVE that your assertions are backed by CURRENT law. Neither I nor anyone else has to prove anything to you.

But I do learn. When not to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

[serfmaninthepolis]

No. It just means that the man on the Clapham Omnibus can recognise gibberish when it is set before them to consider. And you spout the finest of gibberish. Bravo Sir. I guess everyone needs a hobby.

Well, these fictitious persons are not Judges, they are used to determine, in various cases, whether conduct is what the aforesaid man on the bus would think reasonable, or prudent. He is not especially wise; he does not have even a Bachelors degree.

For example, he might think this is gibberish

"And therefore thus were directly and clearly answered as well the objections drawn from the severalty of the kingdoms, seeing there is but one head of both, and the postnati and us joined in ligeance to that one head, which is copula et tanquam oculus of this case; as also the distinction of the laws, seeing that ligeance of the subjects of both kingdoms, is due to their sovereign by one law, and that is the law of nature." ( 7 Coke Report 14 b)

[irrelevant word salad tossed]

Just because a mentally retarded whig on the bus goes "ligeance, they never taught me that in school!" does not mean it is gibberish. And then you have the political implications of whigs like AV Dicey, etc. printing scurrilous textbooks, well, really it goes back to Blackstone and his inappropriate and unacceptable suggestion that Parliament is Sovereign. But as soon as you say anything but jaundiced whigism is gibberish, well, there is no debating with whigs, I guess. They simply believe in parliament's capacity to use force.

You seem fixated on centuries-old legal commentary -- Sir Edward Coke was active in the 16th and 17th centuries. UNLESS his comments are contained in a case of much more recent vintage, there is no reason to believe that the statement is good law. If you look inside Black's Law Dictionary, you will find extensive lists of legal definitions and maxims, much of which are of only academic interest, often to those who, for some reason, choose to research centuries-old points of law, many of which are no longer valid. So, spare us Coke and Glanville; and -- IF you can -- cite us some MODERN cases which illustrate your points -- if you have any.

[word salad tossed]

You don't learn, do you? I asked you for some modern citations which are relevant to your point. YOU are the one making the claim; so YOU are the one who must PROVE that your assertions are backed by CURRENT law. Neither I nor anyone else has to prove anything to you.

It's because you're retarded. Are you using "modern" in the sense of literature? As for "CURRENT" law, if that means modern, you are not defining the cut-off dates.

If something was law in 1066, it is still law today unless parliament has altered it, that is your dogshit parliamentary supremacist view, so you need to either say when parliament altered, for example, the meaning of "fee simple" or you have to state a cut-off date upon which things prior to that are no longer valid as "law."

This is like arguing with retards who just bully people, you really have no idea how to form a persuasive argument, do you?

[wserra]

If something was law in 1066, it is still law today unless parliament has altered it, that is your dogshit parliamentary supremacist view, so you need to either say when parliament altered, for example, the meaning of "fee simple" or you have to state a cut-off date upon which things prior to that are no longer valid as "law."

Clearly wrong. As perhaps you know, per common law all felonies were punishable by hanging. Not only was this the law in 1066, it persisted for hundreds of years after that date. Over the years, it even developed a name - the "bloody code". Are you really saying that, if someone charged with stealing a pair of shoes can't prove that Parliament specifically altered the penalty for doing so, he is liable to be hanged? Suppose he refuses to say anything? Well, then, to the gallows with him!

... you're retarded ... dogshit ... This is like arguing with retards

Keep it up and you'll be moderated - or just banned. First and last warning.

[Pottapaug1938]

This is like arguing with [deleted] who just bully people, you really have no idea how to form a persuasive argument, do you?

You have no idea how to form ANY kind of argument. You generate heaps of word salad, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing; and you evade questions posed to you with more word salad. You have consistently failed to construct an argument which is worthy of any respect; and we do not care to spend time and effort to respond to posts devoid of rational arguments.

[Hercule Parrot]

This is like arguing with --------- who just bully people, you really have no idea how to form a persuasive argument, do you?

Serious question - how 'persuasive' do you think your own arguments have been so far? If you're here to convince us that there is another legitimate perspective on these questions of law, how many minds have you changed?

If that isn't your purpose, why waste time on composing these posts?