Brenden Rothweiler demands $22 Million - Gets Rooked instead

[notorial dissent]

Oh thank you, another loon for the loon patch. Just what we need, FRESH MEAT. Andy has been getting bored.

[grixit]

Frankly ACJ Rooke was being a real pain in the ass as far as Brenden's $22,000,000 was concerned.

Rooke threw the book at Rothweiler. Actually all the books.

[49] In short, even according to Black’s Law Dictionary, “Maxims of Law” have as much binding authority and intellectual merit as fortune cookies.

Rooke even throws the one book the sovs claim as their own bible!

[66] This, however, did not bring to a close Rothweiler’s sending further unusual and irregular correspondence to the Court. The following day I received via email an “International Citizens Arrest Warrant In the Matter of Genocide in Canada: Case Docket no. 22513-001” ‘issued’ on March 5, 2013 by “The International Common Law Court of Justice: A Lawful Judicial Body constituted under Common Law and The Law of Nations”, which names numerous political and religious authorities, including Queen Elizabeth II, Pope Benedict XVI, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, former RCMP Superintendent Robert Paulson, and several Aboriginal leaders. (I am not named.)

Bones feels your pain, Judge Rooke!

[Hercule Parrot]

Bones feels your pain, Judge Rooke!

Heh, that's a funny little coincidence.... I miss Bones.
But wait, OMG, the final clue was under our noses all along! What are chess pieces made from?

Until someone proves otherwise, it pleases me to believe that Bones left us to continue better and greater work in the capacity of his judicial corporate straw person.

[Burnaby49]

Brenden's a star! While I mocked him as a pathetic loser making totally hopeless idiotic arguments at the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta the rest of Canada, ignoring my petty sarcasm, has given his landmark case the attention it deserves. CanLII, the national database for almost all Canadian court decisions, reported this week that Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 399, the decision I just reviewed in Quatloos, is hot, hot, hot, the second most viewed case in Canada this week!

http://www.slaw.ca/2018/07/18/wednesday ... anlii-276/

Great job Brenden! Now all of Canada can mock you too! Also of note is that six years after its initial publication, Meads v Meads is still number one. So Queen's Bench and sovereign stupidity rule this week.

[KickahaOta]

At this rate CanLII is going to have to create a "Hall of Fame" and retire Meads v. Meads to it so that the newer crops of frivolous litigation have a chance to shine in the rankings.

[Burnaby49]

At this rate CanLII is going to have to create a "Hall of Fame" and retire Meads v. Meads to it so that the newer crops of frivolous litigation have a chance to shine in the rankings.

First off, a mea culpa, I've possibly been too harsh on Brenden. I've been treating him like an idiot for pursuing a lawcase so stupid, so lacking in any merit whatever that it earned him a vexatious litigant status right out the gate on the first venture of his legal career. Little did I know he's a multi-dimensional man with talents bursting out in other directions. What are these you ask? He's a man with a great passion and talent for cooking, he says so himself in this video audition for Hell's Kitchen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkqGNY1alr0

He cooked up a variant of Chicken Alfredo, his claimed signature item. I was onboard until he tossed in the Kraft parmesan. I think Gordon Ramsay requires higher quality ingredients than those manufactured by the proud producer of Kraft Dinners. And I could have lived without the dramatic musical background that made it sound like he was deciding the fate of nations when he pondered when to stop reducing the cream sauce. Also, a technical tip Brenden. I know it's just a smart phone video but still, we need to see what's going on. Use landscape rather than portrait. Gordon doesn't want to peer through a slot to figure out what you are doing.

Brenden does seem to have a legitimate kitchen background of sorts, having worked in a number of them. But he's somewhat reticent about what he did in them apart from saying he's been a sous chef which seems unlikely but, who knows, maybe true. He ended with;

"I think I'm ready for Hell's Kitchen but is Hell's Kitchen ready for me?"

He also runs a humanitarian foundation helping people and animals and delivers cookies to firemen. At least so he says on the video. He said he's taken some wrong turns in life but he's straightened out. I'd question that comment given that the video was done in 2014, three years before he started his doomed on arrival legal action.

[notorial dissent]

Brendan is indeed a prime example, a prime example OF WHAT NOT TO DO, but the crowd who should be most interested and most need it aren't smart enough to figure it out.

[Burnaby49]

At this rate CanLII is going to have to create a "Hall of Fame" and retire Meads v. Meads to it so that the newer crops of frivolous litigation have a chance to shine in the rankings.

I got so distracted by Brenden's cooking class that I forgot to respond to KickahaOta's comment. Meads does cast a disproportionate shadow, at least disproportionate to the issues addressed in the decision. The actual issue covered was an entirely trivial (to everyone but the concerned parties) routine divorce procedural issue. As I recall it Dennis Meade didn't want to pay support to his separated but not yet divorced wife and downloaded every piece of sovereign crap he could find on the internet and bundled it up in a court filing as his compiled arguments. Rather than, as is done nowadays, just telling him to shove off, Judge Rooke addressed every issue included in the filings in great, indeed encyclopediac detail, producing a 736 paragraph work that has served as a template for virtually every sovereign based decision since. The only decisions that have come close matching Meads in analysis and insight into Freeman mythology are also products of Queen's Bench of Alberta.

So, yes, Meads has to some extent stifled the debate but has in no way stopped idiots from retrying tactics already covered and discredited in Meads. Take Brenden's idiotic filings. He tried both the strawman theory and the three-letter scheme. Both of these were totally discredited at least a decade ago and both are well covered in Meads. But that didn't deter Brenden in the slightest and no doubt there are numerous other eager litigants ready and willing to try yet again. Whack-A-Mole with Meads as the hammer.

[notorial dissent]

Yep, that mean old party pooper Judge Rooke just sucked all the fun and adventure out of the sovrun/fotl loonysphere, and it's all Meade's fault if they really want to blame someone.

[JurisEquity]

I therefore caution Rothweiler that further irregular communications directed to the Court, or other inappropriate litigation activities, may result in further steps, such as additional court access restrictions, unfavourable cost awards, penalties, contempt of court, and criminal sanction.

I was wondering what those criminal sanctions would consist of.

I found this: "Indeed, Justice Rooke suggests that most OPCA strategies potentially meet the threshold for these remedies, especially the costs and contempt remedies. He also indicates that serving a lawyer with a fee schedule containing exorbitant penalties may be enough to charge an OPCA litigant with the Offence of intimidating a justice system participant under section 423.1of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, chapter C-46." http://canliiconnects.org/fr/r%C3%A9sum%C3%A9/28397

I don't know if everyone agrees this is what Justice Rooke was hinting at.

[grixit]

It certainly gives less bold judges cover to do it; as any appeal would have to address Rooke's opinion as well.

[Burnaby49]

I found this: "Indeed, Justice Rooke suggests that most OPCA strategies potentially meet the threshold for these remedies, especially the costs and contempt remedies. He also indicates that serving a lawyer with a fee schedule containing exorbitant penalties may be enough to charge an OPCA litigant with the Offence of intimidating a justice system participant under section 423.1 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, chapter C-46."

http://canliiconnects.org/fr/r%C3%A9sum%C3%A9/28397

I don't know if everyone agrees this is what Justice Rooke was hinting at.

While 423.1 is a possibility I suspect he was thinking in broader terms than that. Any fee schedule, any fake statement of claim, any fake judgment, any fake arrest warrant, any lien that is not authorized by law, are all potential charges under Criminal Code, s 423.1, intimidation of a justice system participant.

Claiming to have authority to do peace officer-like authorities could lead to personation of a peace officer charges (CC 130), as Menard found out. Targeting jurors or witnesses could lead to an obstruction charge (CC 139). That might very well apply where say a police officer is going to appear as a witness for a 'travelling' case, and gets a fee schedule.

Alleging judges or other government officials are engaged in illegal acts because of pseudolaw could lead to public mischief charges (CC 140).

Overall CC 423.1 seems to be the most useful for these situations.