"JamesVincent"
[16] When Mr. Meads married Ms. Meads, he said he was told he required a marriage license to avoid commission of incest, but he has subsequently learned, from Black's Law Dictionary, that a licence is an authorization to do something that is otherwise illegal.
Seriously? You use "seriously" in this context?
Mr. Meads just puked up a huge grab-bag of bullshit spoon-fed to him by an unknown outside source with apparently no understanding of what any of it was supposed to mean; as if anybody else did. When it didn't work he caved. I'm told that after this decision came out (threatening him with possible contempt of court if he continued) he shed Freemanism like a snake sheds its skin and became a model divorce proceedings party. Win some lose some.
However Mr. Meads' desperate doomed attempts to evade his legal responsibilities weren't all in vain!
Meads v Meads is much much more than a minor decision in respect to a trivial problem with an obstructionist husband in a divorce hearing. It is a 188 page PHD thesis on the history of Canadian OPCA beliefs, gurus, and jurisprudence. It has become the cited defining basis of almost all subsequent Freeman/OPCA decisions in Canada and has been cited, with approval, in numerous other countries. The gift that keeps on giving.
So why was Mr. Meads chosen out of the multitudes of other Freeman/OPCA cases the courts of Alberta faced to become the leading authority on the Freeman/OPCA litigation? Refer back to my original comment about the "huge grab-bag of bullshit" Mr. Mead tried to rely on. Meads himself provided the rope on which he was hung!
[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.
[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.
As a unrelated note of interest the term "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument" (OPCA) which has now become the standard description of a universe of diverse but casually related claimed beliefs, apparently originated with Justice Rooke and the
Meads decision. I've searched and found no prior reference;
[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.
Note - A whole whack of editing numbers at the bottom. These are not based on me revising my own comments but on my total incompetence to handle the quote function. Somehow I ended up with me quoting my own prior paragraphs and James was buried in a layer of quotes. Giving me access to website options is like giving a child a gun.
