Chief2k13 wrote:... Anyways i wrote up a blog about Ron Ron and his activities. ... Anyways guys thanks again for keeping this thread alive, i welcome all the comments negative or positive lol. ...
http://chiefrockmusic.wordpress.com/201 ... extortion/
the blog link, almost forgot
Chief Rock Sino General: I had a chance to read the blog you linked in this message, and while I will not respond to much of what you wrote, there was one particular theme that caught my attention. To summarize, you are concerned that your ideas on contract law will not or have not received a fair assessment and analysis in court:
- 1. you and other non-lawyers are using the same legal rules, maxims, cases, and textbooks that are commonly used by Canadian lawyers in court;
2. once a court litigant is labelled as a Freeman-on-the-Land, or an OPCA litigant, then that litigant's arguments and evidence will receive an improper or cursory response from a judge; and
3. when the Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 judgment is cited, judges rely entirely on that case to dismiss the arguments of persons who argue legal concepts like your own.
I hope that is a fair summary of your perspective.
It seems to me that what may be a solution to this concern is to go to court in a test case. I cannot see any reason why you and a like-minded person cannot enter into one or more contracts between yourselves, breach those contracts, file a lawsuit between the two of you, and then go to a judge to obtain a legal ruling.
There would be no interfering outside parties, such as government bodies, financial institutions, or legal professionals. No 'insiders' would be involved - there would be no lawyers - just you, your fellow litigant, and the judge.
No one would be labelled a Freeman, OPCA litigant, Sovereign Citizen, or so on. You and the other litigant would appear to the judge to just be ordinary business persons, engaged in contract. No one would be called a vexatious litigant, or alleged to make frivolous arguments. As far as the judge would know, this is two serious honest people, attempting to resolve a dispute between them, applying the law as they understand it.
You and the other litigant can cite exactly what legal principles, arguments, and authorities you believe are relevant. In your blog entry you were concerned that certain legal maxims have been ignored. Concepts such as tacit or implicit acceptance of a contract offer can be raised. You and the other litigant can provide the judge with what you identify are the relevant legal textbooks and cases.
No one would bring up
Meads v. Meads - unless of course you chose to do so.
I suspect the trial would be a simple procedure. You and the other litigant could agree on a statement of facts; there would be no need for either of you to testify or provide other evidence, unless of course you wanted to. Perhaps this could be the scenario you present to the judge:
- a) The other person enters into a written contract to provide you with consulting services; you will pay $1000 for the services.
b) The consulting services are provided and both parties agree the services match the terms of the contract. You owe $1000.
c) You write the consultant a letter you say is a contract offer: that both parties agree to amend the contract so that the total payment will be $500. You enclose a $500 cheque. The letter says the consultant has 10 days to refuse the contract offer. If there is no refusal, then the consultant has agreed to accept only $500 as the total payment for the contract.
d) The consultant cashes the cheque, but does not reply in the 10 day period to reject your offer.
e) The consultant says he has not agreed to only be paid $500 for the consulting services, and wants the remaining $500.
f) You disagree, say that the $500 contract offer was tacitly accepted, and so there is no debt.
g) The consultant sues you for the allegedly outstanding $500 debt.
The trial would simply be legal arguments from both parties, and those facts.
Whatever judge heard that trial would have a duty to hear the arguments, read the materials submitted, and then provide a full judgment in response. If the trial involves a real legal dispute then the litigants have an absolute right to have a clear, definitive resolution to that dispute, and reasons why the judge came to that result.
You could even ask the judge to provide written reasons, rather than an oral judgment. I do not believe judges are obligated to provide written reasons on request, but if you explain this judgment will be important as a precedent for other trials then the judge may understand this is potentially an important piece of case law that deserves to be reported in public databases. At the very worst, you can order a transcript of the proceeding and outcome.
Some persons in the Freeman-on-the-Land community say they are often successful in court, but that their 'wins' get hidden from the public. If you and a colleague were to run one or more test case trials like this, and were successful, then that would provide proof to all that your understanding of contract law is correct.
That is just a suggestion, but I think if you are serious about testing and proving your understanding of contract law then there is no a better way to establish to everyone that the legal strategies you teach are valid. If your position is accepted and applied by the court then you would have achieved a standard that would clearly set you apart from others who make large claims, but have provided absolutely no evidence of success. I won't name names - we both know the many persons who fall into that category.
The only cost would be time, court fees, and perhaps if you lose the amount in dispute - after all, the successful party would have a judgment that can be enforced under law.
Perhaps Tony Boutros would be interested in being the 'other half' of the dispute? I may be mistaken, but I believe you both have a similar perspective on contract law. If nothing else, the trial and result would be a very interesting - and important - subject for his Internet radio program.
I hope this idea is helpful.
SMS Möwe
