Poor Dean just had a major prop for his legal strategy knocked out from under him! Remember how he planned to rely on the
Meads vs Meads head note? The one Mowe was distainful in his discussion of it (well if calling it the "shitty, shitty" head note just "distainful")?
Well, perhaps as a result of Quatloosian mockery, Carswell has changed it to;
2012 CarswellAlta 1607, 2012 ABQB 571, [2013] A.W.L.D. 1153, [2013] 3 W.W.R. 419, 74 Alta. L.R. (5th) 1, 543 A.R.
215
Meads v. Meads
Crystal Lynne Meads, Appellant and Dennis Larry Meads, Respondent
Alberta Court of Queen's Bench
J.D. Rooke A.C.J.Q.B.
Heard: June 8, 2012
Judgment: September 18, 2012
Docket: Edmonton 4803-155609
© Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its Licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved.
Counsel: Michele J. Reeves, for Applicant
Dennis Larry Meads, for himself
Subject: Tax — Miscellaneous; Civil Practice and Procedure; Public; Torts
Tax --- General principles — Miscellaneous
Parties were involved in divorce proceedings — DM refused to produce documents regarding income for several reasons related to incorrect legal theories, and provided several unorthodox documents to court — DM's spouse brought application for case management and for orders regarding documentation — Application granted — DM was Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigant, and his conduct was potentially vexatious and in contempt of court — Conduct of DM warranted close judicial supervision through case management — DM ordered to provide routine information such as tax returns and statement of earnings — Several improper documents proffered by DM were declared invalid — Existence of coat of arms in court room did not mean that proceedings involved admiralty law and did not affect court's jurisdiction — DM did not have personal identity separate from any fictitious "corporate identity" which affected his liability for tax and other legal purposes, and documents proffered to contrary were ineffective — DM was not entitled to foist documents on court or others in order to create unilateral legal obligations, and purported agreements were not binding — DM could not claim trade-mark or copyright interest in his name or impose penalties on others for use of his name, and DM's intellectual property scheme had overwhelmingly juvenile character — No secret government account existed from which DM could force payments of his family law obligations — DM could not avail himself of money for nothing scheme.
Cases considered by J.D. Rooke A.C.J.Q.B.:
Alberta Treasury Branches v. Klassen (2004), 364 A.R. 230, 2004 ABQB 463, 2004 CarswellAlta 824 (Alta. Q.B.)
— considered
I know, they still call it a tax case in the title, but they have purged tax from the remainder and modified the line that Dean is relying on as his lifeline, his comment on the head note was;
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.
Again, they still have the word taxpayer in it, extremely shoddy work as Mowe has commented about Carswell head notes in general but they have changed Dean's "money" line to;
"DM did not have personal identity separate from any
fictitious "corporate identity" which affected his liability for tax and other legal purposes, and documents proffered to contrary were ineffective"
So Carswell is telling poor Dean that his whole corporate identity argument is just a fiction. I'd extend that to his entire sad shoddy defense.
