Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument

[GlimDropper]

Patrick Pretty has a fascinating post on his blog today:
FOR COURT PERSONNEL, ATTORNEYS, INVESTIGATORS: Alberta Judge Analyzes Bizarre Filings By ‘Sovereign Citizens,’ Others; Divorce Case Leads To Extaordinary Dissection Of Various Schemes And Introduces New Term: ‘Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument’ (OPCA)

By PatrickPretty.com 12:24 pm Sep 28, 2012

Court of Queen’s Bench Associate Chief Justice John Rooke used the divorce case as a springboard to discuss some of the bizarre litigation now occurring in Canada and the United States — theories advanced by “sovereign citizens,” for instance. Highlighted below are snippets from the judge’s issuance of a “Reasons for the Decision.” (Bolding added by PP Blog.)

<Snip>

OPCA strategies as brought before this Court have proven disruptive, inflict unnecessary expenses on other parties, and are ultimately harmful to the persons who appear in court and attempt to invoke these vexatious strategies. Because of the nonsense they argue, OPCA litigants are invariably unsuccessful and their positions dismissed, typically without written reasons. Nevertheless, their litigation abuse continues. The growing volume of this kind of vexatious litigation is a reason why these Reasons suggest a strong response to curb this misconduct.“ — Queen’s Bench Associate Chief Justice John Rooke, Sept. 18, 2012

The rest of the article is available at the link above. The judges ruling is linked at the bottom of the post and is well worth reading. 183 pages describing and dissecting the sovereign problem. And you just have to love the phrase "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument."

The Edmonton Journal published this today:
Judge refutes 'idiotic' claims

Alberta's courts should take steps to combat growing abuse of the legal system by "vexatious litigants" who reject state and court authority, a top Court of Queen's Bench justice says.

Alberta's courts should take steps to combat growing abuse of the legal system by "vexatious litigants" who reject state and court authority, a top Court of Queen's Bench justice says.

In a decision issued in response to a June 8, 2012, divorce case involving a self-declared "freeman on the land," Court of Queen's Bench Associate Chief Justice John Rooke analyzes what he calls "organized pseudolegal commercial argument," or OPCA, litigants. His 185-page analysis of their arguments and legal implausibility was posted on the Alberta Justice court website on Thursday.

[Kestrel]

Here's the direct link to Justice Rooke's 185-page Reasons for Decision.

It looks like a fun read. Here's a snippet regarding Strawmen:

Of course, that does not work. Mr. Meads is Mr. Meads in all his physical or imaginary aspects. He would experience and obtain the same effect and success if he appeared in court and selectively donned and removed a rubber Halloween mask which portrays the appearance of another person, asserting at this or that point that the mask’s person is the one liable to Ms. Meads. Not that I am encouraging, or indeed would countenance, the wearing of a mask in my courtroom.

Regarding Accepted for Value:

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 Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (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.

[GlimDropper]

I am amazed by the patients and persistence of Judge Rooke.

3. A Broad Set of OPCA Concepts and Materials

[53] There is a third reason for a broad-based decision and analysis. It so happens that Mr.
Meads has provided a remarkable and well developed assortment of OPCA documents, concepts, materials, and strategies. These materials also illustrate particular idiosyncrasies that this and other Courts have identified as associated with the OPCA community and OPCA litigation. Phrased differently, Mr. Meads’ materials and approach provide an ideal type specimen for examination and commentary, which should be instructive to other OPCA litigants who have been taken in by these ideas, opposing parties and their counsel, as well as gurus.

[54] Mr. Meads’ submissions also make an excellent subject for a global review of the law
concerning OPCA, the OPCA community and its gurus, and how the court, lawyers, and litigants
should respond to these vexatious practices and the persons who advance and advocate these
techniques and ideas. In this sense, the present case management allows the litigation between
Mr. and Ms. Meads to explore the OPCA community and its concepts, for the benefit of this and
other Canadian Courts, and litigants appearing before the courts.

[55] I will use Mr. Meads’ materials and arguments to illustrate many points in this review.
Those materials will be supplemented from several sources. First, I review judgments from this
and other Courts that report on OPCA strategies and court responses to OPCA litigants.

[56] Second, this Court and its justices have been involved in a large number of court
proceedings that include OPCA elements, deployed by a spectrum of OPCA litigants. As the
senior administrative judicial official of the Court of Queen’s Bench in Edmonton, I am usually
made aware of this litigation. Our Court’s experience has been that OPCA-related litigation
involves particular security and court efficiency issues, which fall within my purview. Thus, I
will, in certain instances in my review and analysis, reference unreported litigation before
justices of this Court that has come to my attention.

[57] Last, I am frequently the direct recipient of documents sent by OPCA litigants. This may
be because I am the senior administrative justice of this Court in Edmonton. These documents
frequently purport to ‘bind’ or ‘notify’ me of various OPCA schemes and obligations. I review
this correspondence as a facet of my administrative judicial duties. Though no doubt unintentional, these materials are a useful and direct way to investigate certain OPCA schemes
and strategies, and provide a plethora of characteristic OPCA litigation ‘fingerprints’.

4. Mr. Meads Faces No Unexpected Sanction

[58] Mr. Meads does not face any sanction or other negative consequence flowing from these
Reasons. To date, I have not accepted any of his materials or submissions and he is aware of
that. These Reasons do not put him at greater risk for his prior activities. However, to be clear, my decision to direct disclosure does anticipate sanctions for non-compliance, that should be of no surprise to Mr. Meads.

[59] In fact, Mr. Meads can only benefit from a comprehensive response by this Court.
Through these Reasons, Mr. Meads is now on notice of how Canadian courts have responded to
OPCA litigation and litigants. The more thorough my explanation of that, the better.

Does anyone know of a comparable US decision? Where a Judge went point for point trying to establish a template for addressing future similar cases?

[grixit]

At last *someone* has written a book on the movement.

[scottmsg]

In the section on education for lawyers and courts:

[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.

[wserra]

Not to mention (¶ 654):

American lawyer Daniel B. Evans maintains “The Tax Protestor FAQ” (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html), which is a remarkably comprehensive index of American OPCA concepts and associated jurisprudence, as well as an index of certain known American OPCA gurus.

I had not had a chance to peruse this decision until this (Saturday) morning. Wow. We gotta invite Justice Rooke to the next Q beerfest.

Fin du Monde on tap!

[Kestrel]

[654] Several American sources are helpful. The IRS maintains a detailed index of “frivolous
tax arguments”, which, when advanced, result in an automatic rejection and fine. Canadian
variations have emerged in one form or another for almost all of these concepts. American
lawyer Daniel B. Evans maintains “The Tax Protestor FAQ”
(http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html), which is a remarkably comprehensive index of
American OPCA concepts and associated jurisprudence, as well as an index of certain known
American OPCA gurus.

ETA: AH, I see Wes got this before I did. I should have refreshed the page before posting.

[Gregg]

At last *someone* has written a book on the movement.

You just go on baiting the citrus headed feline. I'll watch from WAY over here.

[Gregg]

I had not had a chance to peruse this decision until this (Saturday) morning. Wow. We gotta invite Justice Rooke to the next Q beerfest.

Fin du Monde on tap!

Speaking of which, I'm looking forward to having a drink with you when I'm in NYC on the holiday weekend. Getting in Friday and leaving Sunday afternoon.

[Montana Notasovrun]

Not to mention (¶ 654):

American lawyer Daniel B. Evans maintains “The Tax Protestor FAQ” (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html), which is a remarkably comprehensive index of American OPCA concepts and associated jurisprudence, as well as an index of certain known American OPCA gurus.

I had not had a chance to peruse this decision until this (Saturday) morning. Wow. We gotta invite Justice Rooke to the next Q beerfest.

Fin du Monde on tap!

I play poker occasionally with the Justice of the Peace from Lethbridge. I'm sure she knows Justice Rooke. I'll have to ask her about the OPCA movement and Judge Rooke. You'll probably have to invite them both.

[Judge Roy Bean]

At last *someone* has written a book on the movement.

Yea, right. Yet more mythology.

[wserra]

Among the Canadian gurus Justice Rooke profiles is our old friend Robert-Arthur: Menard, who has been discussed on this board on several occasions. Rooke's discussion of : Menard appears in ¶¶ 121-124 of his opinion. It's actually pretty mild (he's Canadian - they're nicer that we are). Most of it consists of Menard quotes. That's really hitting below the belt.

Anyway, Menard has responded in a video. I know that's how I practice law, right? Don't write a brief, drone away in a video. Anyway, if you want to waste a half-hour of your life, watch it. It's the usual combination of breast-beating and pseudo-legal positions the only support for which consists of unverifiable anecdotes. Moreover, as we've observed before, the guy is one of the world's worst speakers. Watching him fumble simple words gets painful. And he's reading.

Perhaps someone here can explain to me how quoting someone's own words can be "malicious and defamatory". And : Menard threatens to convene his own "true courts of common law".

Does Canada have Denny's?

[webhick]

I practice law...in...Denny's

They're your own words. In order, no less.

[Famspear]

I practice law...in...Denny's

They're your own words. In order, no less.

I'm a little weak on my knowledge of procedure, here. An appeal from a decision at Denny's would be taken to....

where?

International House of Pancakes?

[webhick]

I'm a little weak on my knowledge of procedure, here. An appeal from a decision at Denny's would be taken to....

where?

International House of Pancakes?

Their headquarters in Spartanburg, S. Carolina.

[Burnaby49]

Among the Canadian gurus Justice Rooke profiles is our old friend Robert-Arthur: Menard, who has been discussed on this board on several occasions. Rooke's discussion of : Menard appears in ¶¶ 121-124 of his opinion. It's actually pretty mild (he's Canadian - they're nicer that we are). Most of it consists of Menard quotes. That's really hitting below the belt.

Anyway, Menard has responded in a video. I know that's how I practice law, right? Don't write a brief, drone away in a video. Anyway, if you want to waste a half-hour of your life, watch it. It's the usual combination of breast-beating and pseudo-legal positions the only support for which consists of unverifiable anecdotes. Moreover, as we've observed before, the guy is one of the world's worst speakers. Watching him fumble simple words gets painful. And he's reading.

Perhaps someone here can explain to me how quoting someone's own words can be "malicious and defamatory". And : Menard threatens to convene his own "true courts of common law".

Does Canada have Denny's?

Of course we have Dennys. How could our judicial system operate otherwise? At least two here in Vancouver, one of which, over forty years ago, I sat in all night having coffee, doped out of my mind. Ah, memories of university days in the late 60s.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

A little update on the Meads v. Meads front. Since the decision was released there has been a growing demand from Canadian OPCA litigants, particularly Freemen-on-the-Land, that someone "Deal With It." Inquiries for help from gurus have had mixed results. Robert Menard released a video in which he alleged he had never promised people big bucks, freedom, and has never called himself a guru. Dean Clifford explained the judgment was simply trickery - Freemen-on-the-Land win all the time! Then the authorities miracle all evidence away. And minister Belanger ... well, no one really can stand listening to him anyway.

But at long last, someone has stepped into the fray, and taken on the mantle of Meads-Buster. May I present, The Human Rights Defenders League In Canada ["HRDLIC"], and its groundbreaking rebuttal:

http://humanrights.kentbarrett.com/wp-c ... -Meads.pdf

There is the idiom that instructs one to not judge a book by its cover. But here, a not-so-subtle clue is offered by the boldly coloured clown posing before a gavel-wielding bewigged judge. I'll steal the author's thunder, but if you bother to read this treatise you will learn that the Meads v. Meads decision is, in fact, a kind of legal cryptogram. The trick is that everytime the justice uses the word "person" you swap in instead "a not a human being".

With that triumph of decoder-ring jurisprudencial analysis, all becomes clear. And A.C.J. Rooke's decision is nothing more than a big and scary lie.

The HRDLIC website thoughtful suggests how to use their publication:

As soon as somebody brings up Meads v Meads ….. just start reading and every time they interrupt start over at the beginning. Read the whole darn thing into the court record!

Another helpful HRDLIC publication explains their masterplan:

http://HumanRightsDefendersLeague.ca/book.pdf

The HRDLIC seems to be the brain child of Kent Barrett, who has been quite frequently posting on Robert Menard's Facebook page of late. Kent is a photographer from Newfoundland, who amongst his other works, poses nude females with dried cod

:

http://kentbarrett.com/aud-with-cod-2/

This is the second in a series of uncertain number on this theme.

Kent's Facebook website is "on strike" until more people 'like' his HRDLIC page:

http://www.facebook.com/kent.barrett

There are a number of associated websites:

• the inevitable flakey religion/church group: http://naturalgod.com/
  
  the facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/HumanRightsDefendersLeague
  
  the intense dude who records himself speaking in front a whiteboard: http://eternallyaware.com/
  
  the anti-police website: http://copwatchnl.ca/
  
  the "buy our logo crap" website: http://www.zazzle.ca/humanrightsdefenders

... but then there's this real gem! Driving In Canada With Dean Clifford:

http://copwatchnl.ca/driving-in-canada/

Cue the 1950's educational film short soundtrack! The introduction promises:

This transcript is from a video recorded in Manitoba, when the RCMP had stopped Dean Clifford, and attempted to enforce the Highway Traffic Act, against Mr Clifford.

This clearly demonstrates that even the RCMP do not know the Law that they purport ( IN ALL OF CANADA), to enforce, but yet they are willing to Violate The Charter Of Rights And Freedoms, that allows Citizens to drive freely, without Licences, Plates, Insurances, because you CANNOT BE FORCED INTO A CONTRACT. These things are contracts, a clear violation of your rights!!

The dialogue that follows is aching to be turned into a satirical animated YouTube video. Does anyone have connections at Newgrounds.com?

The webpage concludes:

FOOTNOTE*, Dean is still being targeted by the RCMP, and will lose BIG TIME, in his up coming Law suit against Vic Towes, Public Safety Minister, who hired the RCMP. ALL ARE Violators of Human Rights, and the Charter Of Rights And Freedoms in CANADA, amongst other abuses!!!
This Document neither implies or GUARANTEES, your rights won’t be violated, but learn and educate others, as a Human being, it is your duty! SAFE DRIVING, don’t drink and drive!!

Underlining added by myself.

And while you're here, why not follow the link "Become a Peace Officer" and join Robert Menard's Canadian Common Corps Of Peace Officers?

http://c3po.ca/

They have nifty badges... And Rob needs the drinking money.

I have great hopes for Kent Barrett! He has initiative! Artistic skill! Dried cod! With these things, much can indeed be accomplished.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

So, as I understand the Human Rights Defenders League In Canada argument (and I went through the entire document); Porisky was in error by parsing "person" into two components, a regular Person who is taxable, and a Natural Person who isn't. Apparently the entire "Person" argument is a red herring in determining who is taxable under the Income Tax Act. We Canadians are not legally "Persons" at all, we are Human Beings. Since the Income Tax Act babbles on and on about the taxability of persons but never mentions human beings we human beings are not subject to its provision. Well, I'll wait to see how that one works out in the Tax Court of Canada or, more likely, a Provincial criminal court.

Anyhow thanks Möwe, you've given me an entire lunatic's library to check out but it will have to wait until my six week jaunt (starting tomorrow) is over. I expect a lot to review on my return. Since I'll also have to catch up on a month and a half of missed Canadian tax jurisprudence it's going to be a busy summer.

And I wouldn't describe the guy with the whiteboard as having an "intense" gaze. I'd go more with psychotic. I tried listening to him, really, but he drones on and on and thinks he has to repeat everything slowly, like he is talking to the repeat graders. Maybe he has had experience with the comprehension abilities of his target audience.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

I noticed that today is the first anniversary of the release of A.C.J. Rooke's decision of Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, and in celebration of "Meads Day" I decided to do a little investigation on what has occurred during the previous year.

First, A.C.J. Rooke has spoken at a number of conferences on the subject of OPCA litigants and litigation, including a Canadian Bar Association national conference last month, and in the process has provided some details on just what subsequently happened in the Meads v. Meads action itself. In brief, ::Dennis-Larry: of the Meads:: Family:: smartened up! He ditched the OPCA concepts, hired an actual lawyer, and reached a negotiated settlement with his now ex-wife. Unfortunately those are all the details I have been able to uncover, so the fate of Mr. Meads' bullion remains unknown to us curious snoopers.

As far as I am aware neither Meads has spoken to the public on the matter - and it's kind of hard to blame them.

That said, Ms. Meads lawyer, Michelle Reeves, has been interviewed (http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/4463/t ... gants.html). She thinks it was an ambush!

Michele J. Reeves, a veteran litigation lawyer in Edmonton and counsel for Crystal Lynne Meads, says she does “a ton” of family law, and “another ton” of civil cases. Was Meads her first exposure to vexatious self-reps in a courtroom? “Hell no,” she says. “I’m old and it seems like it’s always been going on since I first entered a courtroom. Vexatious litigants are not the norm, but they are a common problem and feature in family law — and it’s not just self-reps.”

She says they are easiest to spot in morning chambers, where they derail proceedings over the need to produce documentation. “They come in and start their spiel, ‘That’s my commercial name, but it’s not me. I’m a sentient man, yadda, yadda, yadda.’ Sometimes they even bring in the Magna Carta. The poor judges sit there like the proverbial deer in the headlights,” she says. “You could never charge your client for all the time and trouble it costs to deal with all their shenanigans. They’d go broke. As a lawyer, you just have to have the patience to slug through it to the end. I like to tell people that dealing with vexatious litigants is like eating an elephant: you have to do it slowly, one bite at a time.”

In this case, she says she quickly realized Dennis Meads was “going to take us to Crazytown. And he wasn’t even that bad. But once it became clear that he was going to be difficult, I did what I always do in those cases, I brought in a motion for case management.” Normally, she adds, the judge will issue a decision on the matter. But in this case Rooke called the parties to open court. “That was interesting. I knew something was up.” She said it took only a few questions from Rooke for Dennis Meades “to start doing his thing.”

She says the judge listened patiently to all of his arguments, then declared he would render a written judgement — another rarity in a case like this, notes Reeves. “When you read his ruling it’s obvious that Justice Rooke had an agenda. He was waiting for a case like this.”

In the intervening year there has been broad-based reference Meads v. Meads in Canada. I have identified a total of 31 decisions that cite Meads v. Meads, here in chronological order:

• R. v. Bydeley, 2012 ONCJ 837 (http://canlii.ca/t/fwtwr)
  
  Grattan (Re), 2012 NBQB 332, 395 N.B.R. (2d) 198 (not in CanLII)
  
  Stancer (Re), 2012 BCSC 1533 (http://canlii.ca/t/ft9nt)
  
  HSBC Bank Canada v. Lourenco, 2012 ABQB 648, 549 A.R. 2 (http://canlii.ca/t/ftjrr)
  
  R. v. Duncan, 2013 ONCJ 160 (http://canlii.ca/t/fwsm0)
  
  Scotia Mortgage Corporation v. Gutierrez, 2012 ABQB 683 (http://canlii.ca/t/ftq8h)
  
  R. v. Martin, 2012 NSPC 115, 323 N.S.R. (2d) 376 (http://canlii.ca/t/fvfwl)
  
  R. v. Lavin, 2013 ONCJ 6 (not in CanLII)
  
  MacDonald v. Smith, 2013 NSSC 143 (http://canlii.ca/t/fxb0m)
  
  [b]Cassa v. Canada[/b], 2013 TCC 43, 2013 D.T.C. 1060 (http://canlii.ca/t/fw1v5)
  
  A.N.B. v. Alberta (Minister of Human Services), 2013 ABQB 97 (http://canlii.ca/t/fwx39)
  
  R. v. Tyskerud, 2013 BCPC 27, 2013 D.T.C. 5049 (http://canlii.ca/t/fw4sw)
  
  R. v. Valliere, 2013 ONCJ 158 (http://canlii.ca/t/fws16)
  
  Law Society of British Columbia v. Goodwin, 2013 BCSC 537 (http://canlii.ca/t/fwsvd)
  
  R. v. Sands, 2013 SKQB 115 (not available on CanLII)
  
  J.A. v. New Brunswick (Minister of Social Development), 2013 NBQB 137 (not in CanLII)
  
  R. v. Jastrebske, 2013 SKQB 150 (http://canlii.ca/t/fx72k)
  
  A.R. v. Alberta (Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act Director), 2013 ABQB 280 (http://canlii.ca/t/fxkb8)
  
  R. v. Cassista, 2013 ONCJ 305 (http://canlii.ca/t/fxs0b)
  
  Isis Nation Estates v. Canada, 2013 FC 590 (http://canlii.ca/t/fxr9t)
  
  Banque Royale du Canada c. Minicozzi, 2013 QCCQ 6566 (http://canlii.ca/t/fzlg1)
  
  R. v. Fischer, 2013 BCPC 154 (http://canlii.ca/t/fzf8j)
  
  First National Financial GP Corporation v. Maritime Residential Housing Development Ltd., 2013 NSSC 219 (http://canlii.ca/t/fzkvt)
  
  O'Brien v. Murchland, 2013 ONSC 4576 (http://canlii.ca/t/fznz5)
  
  Haynes v. The Queen, 2013 TCC 229 (http://canlii.ca/t/fzqr1)
  
  Sinclair-McDonald v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2013 ONSC 4900 (http://canlii.ca/t/fzs5k)
  
  Dillon v. The Queen, 2013 TCC 242 (http://canlii.ca/t/fzxbs)
  
  Dalle Rive v. The Queen, 2013 TCC 243 (http://canlii.ca/t/fzxbt)
  
  1158997 Alberta Inc v Maple Trust Company, 2013 ABQB 483 (http://canlii.ca/t/g0bdl)
  
  R. v. Westover, 2013 ONCJ 472 (http://canlii.ca/t/g098h)
  
  Dominique (Re), [2013] O.R.B.D. No. 2236 (not in CanLII)
  
  R. v. Leonard, 2013 ABQB 531 (not in CanLII)

In every reported decision Meads v. Meads has been either applied or acknowledged as an authoritative source.

Meads v. Meads has been similarly endorsed by reported decisions in four Commonwealth jurisdictions, in two instances by appellate courts:

• Australia: Kosteska v. Magistrate Manthey & Anor, [2013] QCA 105 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinod ... 3/105.html)
  
  Jersey: Vibert v. AG, [2013] JRC 030 (http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JRC/2013/030.html)
  
  Republic of Ireland: Freeman & anor -v- Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Ltd & ors, [2013] IEHC 371 (http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2013/H371.html)
  
  Scotland: Watson v. Lord Advocate Sheriff Court, [2013] G.W.D. 19-378

Of all these cases I think the most unusual application of Meads v. Meads is in Dominique (Re), which is a decision of an Ontario tribunal that evaluates the status of persons who are detained for mental health reasons. One issue in that decision is whether a refusal to acknowledge the authority of the courts is a basis to conclude a person is unfit for trial due to mental defect. The answer is no - Meads v. Meads identifies an entire category of persons who deny court authority who are at least sane enough to face trial.

Meads v. Meads has been reported in three published case law reporters:

• [2013] 3 W.W.R. 419
  
  (2012) 543 A.R. 215
  
  (2012) 74 Alta. L.R. (5th) 1

These collect general purpose Western Canadian case law, so nothing particularly remarkable there.

Meads v. Meads has been the subject of considerable media and editorial attention. I will point out just a few examples of that which I identified in Canada and elsewhere:

• Canadian Bar Association editorial by Douglas Mah: http://www.nationalmagazine.ca/Articles ... es&lang=EN
  
  MacLeans Magazine: http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/03/06/cour ... following/
  
  UK Human Rights Blog: http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/09/30 ... ghts-back/

Another development, and this is purely my qualitative opinion, is that the public as a whole now exhibits a far greater knowledge of and hostility to OPCA litigants, particularly the "Freeloaders-on-the-Land." Interest and knowledge of this particular judgment emerges ... well, pretty much anywhere! In forums about hockey, Irish poker discussions, even SomethingAwful.com.

At the end of 2012 the Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII) released statistics on how many times various court decisions had been accessed in 2012 (http://www.canlii.org/en/blog/index.php ... cases.html). Though Meads v. Meads was issued 3/4 of the way through the year, it was overall the third most accessed decision (13,378 views), and the second most accessed decision issued in 2012. CanLII also releases weekly reports of the top three referenced decisions, and Meads v. Meads has appeared in many weekly lists to date in 2013.

Something else that I have noticed is that there are certain persons who are not talking about Meads v. Meads. That would be those who participate in Canada's Sovereign / Freeman-on-the-Land message forums. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest it has become "The Decision That Is Not To Be Named". Though many OPCA gurus commented on the decision shortly after its release, it has since been a non-subject. Aside from the occasional but ignored plea from an OPCA litigant facing impending court sanction.

I'll offer a couple particularly stupid examples of the initial OPCA guru response:

• Robert-Arthur: Menard complains to the Canadian Judicial Counsel about A.C.J. Rooke ... by video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGdQjknv1kE). Sorry Rob, the procedure is actually to mail your complaint.
  
  Frank O'Collins of UCADIA 'codifies' various variations on "OPCA" in his "Books of Canon Law" (http://blog.ucadia.com/2012/10/opca-exp ... inion.html). Guru Principle #413 - when threatened by authority put on a paper crown and wave a twig, while shouting "I'm the king! You can't touch me I'm the KING!"

So what comes next? The next major development that I anticipate is some judicial commentary on OPCA litigants as criminal defendants in non-tax proceedings. To date there has not been a substantial post-Meads v. Meads analysis of the criminal implications in Canada of being a Sovereign or Freeman-on-the-Land. What I think can be predicted with some certainty is that OPCA affiliation will not be seen as a mitigating factor. R. v. Jastrebske suggests custodial sentences will be the usual result, rather than conditional sentences served in the community.

I am aware of a number of what appear to be serious criminal matters that have OPCA aspects that are moving to trial. I expect in the next year we will see some interesting scenarios for commentary and analysis.

So everyone - Happy Meads Day!

(and with that I think it's time for a suitably themed drink.)

SMS Möwe

[wserra]

Robert-Arthur: Menard complains to the Canadian Judicial Counsel about A.C.J. Rooke ... by video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGdQjknv1kE). Sorry Rob, the procedure is actually to mail your complaint.

Actually, he mailed in the video. Problem is, no one can find it. It appears that everyone who tried to watch it lapsed into a coma.