Jeffrey wrote:... Dean also appears to quote a non-existant line of Meads v. Meads.
Dean seems to be having a problem with that. In Update #12 he insisted that on the first page of the judgment it states that Mr. Meads (sorry, Mr. :::Meads::) is a taxpayer which, of course, it does not.
But then again, Dean does seem to have a vivid imagination.
And now we have two strawmen! The one created by the state, which is the only way state actors can control or have authority over Dean the Dude, but instead Dean the Dude can create his own personal strawman - and no one can control that. Dean has that right because of international treaties.
And that's why he's spent seven months in detention.
Just a few more lies. Dean at 14:00 claims he was refused the right to appear in the Federal Court for when his lawsuit there was struck out. Unfortunately for Dean that is a lie. There never was a hearing, instead the matter was addressed on documentation alone:
Order dated 16-MAY-2014 rendered by Roger Lafrenière, Esq., Prothonotary Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Motion in writing Doc. No. 3 Result: granted This Court Orders that: 1. The Statement of Claim is struck out, without leave to amend. 2. Costs of the motion, hereby fixed in the amount of $400. 00, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, shall be paid by the Plaintiff to the Attorney General of Canada. Filed on 16-MAY-2014 certified copies sent to parties Transmittal Letters placed on file. entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1230 page(s) 343 - 346 Final Decision
And Dean did not choose to submit a written response.
Or then at about 15:00 Dean begins complaining that he has a hearing scheduled in August where the charges are being advanced by the Federal Crown Prosecution Service. But ... didn't Dean a few weeks ago assure us those charges were dropped? How odd!
But yes, the best is at 19:30 when Dean cites
Meads v. Meads. As Jeffrey observed, Dean is just simply lying to his brother and his customer base as a whole:
O.K. this is the very front page of Meads v. Meads, again you don’t need to look further than Meads v. Meads, you wait three seconds I’m going to get it, I’m going to read the money line right on the beginning of the front page … Doesn’t take me long, so I was obviously served a copy of this because this is their fuckin’ book of authorities, Meads v. Meads, you open up the front page here and you read the very fuckin’ front part of the decision, by this uhhh… Justice fuckin’ Rooke or whatever his name is here ok, it says right here. I got it underlined:
"Taxpayer did not have personal identity separate from any corporate identity which affected his liability for tax and other legal purposes and documents proffered to contrary were ineffective.”
That’s the only line that you need to read in Meads v. Meads, it’s on the front fuckin’ page.
But that's not anywhere in the first paragraphs (
http://canlii.ca/t/fsvjq):
Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice.
Force, and fraud, are in war the two cardinal virtues.
...
The laws are of no power to protect them, without a sword in the hands of a man, or men, to cause those laws to be put in execution.
...
And law was brought into the world for nothing else but to limit the natural liberty of particular men in such manner as they might not hurt, but assist one another, and join together against a common enemy.
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Forgotten Books, 2008), at pp. 87, 147, 184
I. Introduction to Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [“OPCA”] Litigants
[1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels - there is no closed list. In the absence of a better moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants [“OPCA litigants”], to functionally define them collectively for what they literally are. These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by ‘gurus’ (as hereafter defined) to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.
[2] Over a decade of reported cases have proven that the individual concepts advanced by OPCA litigants are invalid. What remains is to categorize these schemes and concepts, identify global defects to simplify future response to variations of identified and invalid OPCA themes, and develop court procedures and sanctions for persons who adopt and advance these vexatious litigation strategies.
[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.
[4] OPCA litigants do not express any stereotypic beliefs other than a general rejection of court and state authority; nor do they fall into any common social or professional association. Arguments and claims of this nature emerge in all kinds of legal proceedings and all levels of Courts and tribunals. This group is unified by:
- 1. a characteristic set of strategies (somewhat different by group) that they employ,
2. specific but irrelevant formalities and language which they appear to believe are (or portray as) significant, and
3. the commercial sources from which their ideas and materials originate.
This category of litigant shares one other critical characteristic: they will only honour state, regulatory, contract, family, fiduciary, equitable, and criminal obligations if they feel like it. And typically, they don’t.
[5] The Meads case illustrates many characteristic features of OPCA materials, in court conduct, and litigation strategies. These Reasons will, therefore, explain my June 8, 2012 decision and provide analysis and reasoning that is available for reference and application to other similar proceedings.
[6] Naturally, my conclusions are important for these parties. However, they also are intended to assist others, who have been taken in/duped by gurus, to realize that these practices are entirely ineffective; to empower opposing parties and their counsel to take action; and as a warning to gurus that the Court will not tolerate their misconduct.
[7] As a preliminary note, I will throughout these Reasons refer to persons by their ‘normal’ names, except to illustrate various OPCA motifs and concepts. OPCA litigants frequently adopt unusual variations on personal names, for example adding irrelevant punctuation, or using unusual capital and lower case character combinations. While OPCA litigants and their gurus put special significance on these alternative nomenclature forms, these are ineffectual in law and are meaningless paper masks. Therefore, in these Reasons, I will omit spurious name forms, titles, punctuation and the like.
Did Dean get the wrong page? Well, the word "taxpayer" appears at paras. 89, 319, 343, 346, 365, 390, 422, 441, 561, and 562, but never as a part of the passage Dean "had underlined" and then read.
Did Dean get confused and read from a different judgment? Well, doesn't look like it because that sentence (or similar sentences) does not appear in any CanLII database judgment.
In fact, a 'Google' search does not detect that in any Internet document, nor anything even similar to that sentence.
So ... it's a lie. But it's such a stupid one. Many of Dean's other lies have required investigation - you need to see court records for example to verify Dean was dishonest, or you need to compare different statements to identify inconsistencies. But this one is so stupid, so blatant. Almost all of his customers have heard of
Meads v. Meads - many of them have likely read it. How can Dean possibly imagine any benefit to stating - to the public - in a recording - that he will rely on a line of text that is not in the judgment he plans to challenge?
Frankly, I'm pretty bewildered. This kind of make-believe is so obvious. Who could it possibly fool?
I'm wondering about Dean's mental health, if he has been reduced to this.
SMS Möwe
