Dean Clifford is Deemed a Vexatious Litigant in Alberta

[Burnaby49]

Bad news for Dean, he's just been declared a vexatious litigant by the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench and barred from commencing, or attempting to commence, or continuing, any appeal, application, or action or proceedings at the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, the Alberta Court of Appeal, or the Provincial Court of Alberta. Additionally he's prohibited from providing legal advice, documents intended to be filed in court for any person other than himself, or communicating with the courts in any way except on his own behalf. Nor can he act as an agent, McKenzie Friend, next friend or any other form of representative at any of these courts. In order to get involved in any case at Queen's Bench, including his own, he has to get the approval of the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice of the court. That might be a bit problematic for the Deanster given that the dreaded Judge Rooke is the Associate Chief Justice at Queen's Bench.

What's that, you're asking yourselves; how could Dean have been a party in an Alberta lawsuit and Burnaby49 didn't hear about it and report it in Quatloos? True, Burnaby's getting old and senescent, but still, missing a Dean Clifford court proceeding at Queen's Bench takes the old guy up to a new level of incompetence. Well I'm pleading mitigating circumstances. There was nothing public to indicate that Dean was about to get a judicial stomping. Dean, to the best of my knowledge, has never been a named party in any action in any Alberta court. However, en route to deeming Dean a vexatious litigant, Queen's Bench got around the awkward fact that Dean had actually never litigated within the court's jurisdiction by employing the court's inherent jurisdiction to simply tack Dean on as a party in an ongoing legal proceeding to which he was not previously a party and had never intended to be a party. To add injury to insult Queen's Bench also awarded costs against him. All to beat Dean over the head. Dean should be proud of himself.

This unexpected turn of events is a follow-up to a Queen's Bench decision I've already reported on Quatloos, a run of the mill "get out of paying your mortgage through Freeman magic" scam at Queen's Bench that turned into a potential "inherent jurisdiction" vexatious litigant designation in an October 16th judgment. You can read it here;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 9a368a9e12

Although this write-up only got to the point where the court told Ms. Landry that it was considering deeming her to be a vexatious litigant. She was told that there would be a follow-up hearing where she could argue why she should not be so designated. That judgment for that hearing was released on November 21st.

Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Landry
2018 ABQB 951
http://canlii.ca/t/hw8rq

I didn't expect much from it. She was virtually guaranteed to be deemed yet another Queen's Bench vexatious litigant. But the first thing that caught my attention was the list of parties. This is the list from the October 16th decision;

Scotia Mortgage Corporation

Plaintiff
- and -

Vanessa Landry

Defendant

And this is the list from the November 21st judgment;

Scotia Mortgage Corporation

Plaintiff
- and -

Vanessa Landry

Defendant
- and -

Dean Christopher Clifford and 4240944 Manitoba Limited

Added by Order

How the hell did Dean and his private company get tossed into the case by court order? A partial clue is given in paragraph 8;

[8] That deadline is now past, and no materials have been received from Ms. Landry. However, counsel for Scotia did respond, and provided additional information which further explains Ms. Landry's OPCA activities, and discloses the identity of her partner and likely mentor in this affair: notorious OPCA guru Dean Christopher Clifford.

The October 16th judgment had invited Ms. Landry's creditor bank to make submissions regarding whether she should be declared a vexatious litigant and they did by submitting a copy of some documents Dean had provided to her. As this excerpt from a transcript of her original hearing shows she was obviously coached. She had absolutely no clue what she was babbling about in court;

Landry: I have a security agreement and an abatement. I have an abatement.

Master Smart: You have ... a declaration of a security agreement. Oh. Uh huh. So this is something that you found on the web?

Landry: Ah, no.

Master Smart: No? Re an abatement to the process generally considered. So what is this supposed to do? Oh, there’s money. This is consideration for you to not to have to pay, is that what that is? You don’t know. Somebody helped you prepare this?

Landry: Yes.

Master Smart: Yes.

Landry: Did you read the security agreement?

Master Smart: Sure, so what you want to do is say well take this security agreement in lieu of my actually paying on the mortgage ... I think that is what you’re asking for today, aren’t you?

Landry: I’m here for the remedy sought.

Master Smart: And what remedy sought is that?

Landry: I don’t know.

Master Smart: You don’t know?

Landry: Do you know?

Note that she was asking the judge if he understood her "security agreement" so that he could explain to her what the remedy was that she was demanding from the court. So the court spent the next six pages of the November 21st judgment subjecting Ms. Landry to restrictions on her court access and stipulating the rules that now applied to her. But, before getting into to that, the court made this ominous statement;

[14] Finally, the bank has provided the Court with a document it received on August 30, 2018, titled: “SPECIAL PRIVATE NOTICE CEASE TRESPASS ORDER BREACH OF TRUST”. This document is reproduced as Appendix “A”, though Ms. Landry’s birth certificate number has been redacted. This unusual document confirms several points.

[15] At the June 5, 2018 hearing, Ms. Landry acknowledged someone helped her with her OPCA materials. The SPECIAL PRIVATE NOTICE document identifies the individual who was assisting Ms. Landry in her pseudolegal attempts to evade her debt obligations: Dean Clifford, president of 4240944 Manitoba Limited. Mr. Clifford is a notorious Freeman-on-the-Land guru, a person who promotes OPCA concepts for profit. I will later discuss Mr. Clifford in more detail.

And, on page 12 of the judgment, the court did exactly that with the remaining ten pages of the judgment dedicated to a review of;

IV. Dean Christopher Clifford, OPCA Guru

First the court took a little nostalgic wander down memory lane;

[40] The SPECIAL PRIVATE NOTICE identifies the person supplying the materials for Ms. Landry’s litigation, Dean Christopher Clifford. While Mr. Clifford is not mentioned in Meads v Meads, he is (or was) one of the leading personalities and promoters in the Freeman-on-the-Land movement circa 2012-2013: Donald J Netolitzky, “The History of the Organized Pseudolegal Argument Phenomenon in Canada” (2016) 53(3) Alta L Rev 609 at 626-627; Barbara Perry, David C Hofmann & Ryan Scrivens, “Broadening our Understanding of Anti-Authority Movements in Canada” (2017) University of Waterloo TSAS Working Paper No 17-02 at 16-18, 46-48.

[41] Mr. Clifford’s ideas work no better for him than anyone else. In November 2013 he was arrested at the end of one of his seminars and spent over a year in remand prior to him being convicted of firearms and drug offenses: R v Clifford (12 January 2016), Winnipeg CR14-01-33786 (Man QB). Clifford received a three year sentence.

Ahh, the good times. I remember them well. After the little history lesson the court came to the same conclusion that everyone but Dean and his suckers had arrived at years ago;

[47] These failures and incarceration apparently had a negative effect on Mr. Clifford’s credibility as a legal authority. That said, it now appears Mr. Clifford has resurfaced, and resumed his promotion of pseudolegal schemes.

Then the court linked paragraph 47 to Ms. Landry and that quote about her complete ignorance of her own documentation that I made above;

[48] In Meads v Meads, Rooke ACJ concluded that “gurus” like Mr. Clifford “... are nothing more than conmen.”: para 85. Some, like Mr. Clifford in this action, “... are ‘legal busybodies’ who attempt to introduce themselves into other proceedings.”: para 157.

[49] He observed at paras 669-670 that gurus “... who purposefully promote and teach proven ineffective techniques that purport to defeat valid state and court authorities, and circumvent social obligations” are Dante’s “evil counsellors” and “the falsifiers”, who profit at the expense of others.

[50] That is what Mr. Clifford has done to Ms. Landry. He has used her, and, presumably, insisted on the services of himself and his corporation be paid, perhaps also in pieces of silver. Ms. Landry got no benefit from Mr. Clifford’s participation in her foreclosure. Instead, Mr. Clifford’s participation could only have made things worse.

[51] Mr. Clifford is, at a minimum, a participant in Ms. Landry’s scheme. However, I conclude his role is that he was the directing mind behind the A4V debt elimination scam. Ms. Landry in Court could not explain what “the remedy” was, and mouthed non-responsive replies when asked to explain her objectives and documents.

Then the hammer;

[53] Now that it is apparent that Mr. Clifford is marketing OPCA ‘money for nothing’ “remedies” in Alberta, I conclude that it is foreseeable that Mr. Clifford and his corporation will engage in future litigation misconduct in Alberta courts, either directly, as some form of agent, or as a purported holder of a “100% Priority Lien Interest”. He might involve himself with any like-minded person and their disputes with state and institutional actors. Mr. Clifford is obviously ideologically aligned with the usual Freeman-on-the-Land anti-state and anti-institutional conspiratorial beliefs. He even makes money off that.

[54] I therefore conclude that Mr. Clifford and his corporation should be made subject to strict court access restrictions in all Alberta courts. No notice is required in these circumstances: Re Boisjoli; Re Gauthier. Mr. Clifford cannot be surprised that he is being made subject to court access restrictions for what he knows is unlawful conduct. His litigation history establishes that.

But even the dreaded Queen's Bench had to acknowledge that Dean is very, very special and that your everyday plain vanilla vexatious litigant designation simply wasn't good enough for him. Given his impressive list of career achievements (years of free room and board at Crown expense!) he deserved more than the basic minimum. And he got it;

[55] Instead of a simple leave application, I conclude that for persons like Mr. Clifford, who engage in the trade of pseudolaw, that a simple leave application requirement is not an adequate response. Instead, Mr. Clifford and his corporation may only apply for leave where that application is submitted by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta, or another person authorized to represent Mr. Clifford or his corporation in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench pursuant to the Legal Profession Act, RSA 2000, c L-8. This is an analogous basis to the Court’s established practice of taking this additional but proportionate court access restriction step when persons attempt to enforce fictional OPCA claims on a target: Re Boisjoli; Re Gauthier; Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 834 (CanLII).

[56] I conclude this restriction should also apply to the Criminal Code, ss 504, 507.1 private information process: Lee v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ABQB 464 (CanLII) at paras 160-164; Hill v Bundon, 2018 ABQB 506 (CanLII) at para 125, Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association v Bourque, 2018 ABQB 821 (CanLII) at para 204; and McKechnie (Re), 2018 ABQB 677 (CanLII) at para 37; Lymer (Re), at para 135.

[57] I therefore on my own motion and under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction order:

1. Dean Christopher Clifford and 4240944 Manitoba Limited are vexatious litigants, and are prohibited, under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, from commencing, or attempting to commence, or continuing any appeal, action, application, or proceeding:

(i) in the Alberta Court of Appeal, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, or the Provincial Court of Alberta, and

(ii) on their own behalf or on behalf of any other person or estate,

without an order of the Court in which the proceeding is conducted.

2. Dean Christopher Clifford must describe himself, in the application for leave or document to which this Order applies, as “Dean Christopher Clifford”, and not by using initials, an alternative name structure, or a pseudonym.

3. 4240944 Manitoba Limited must describe itself, in the application for leave or document to which this Order applies, as “4240944 Manitoba Limited”, and not by using an alternative name structure or tradename.

4. Any application for leave by Dean Christopher Clifford or 4240944 Manitoba Limited will only be accepted if Dean Christopher Clifford or 4240944 Manitoba Limited are represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta, or another person authorized to represent Dean Christopher Clifford or 4240944 Manitoba Limited in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench pursuant to the Legal Profession Act, RSA 2000, c L-8.

5. To commence or continue an appeal, application, or other proceeding in the Alberta Court of Appeal Dean Christopher Clifford or 4240944 Manitoba Limited must apply to a single appeal judge for leave to commence or continue the proceeding, and

(i) The application for leave must be made in writing by sending a Letter addressed to the Case Management Officer explaining why the new proceedings or the continuance of an existing proceeding is justified.
(ii) The Letter shall not exceed five double-spaced pages.

(iii) The Letter is to contain no attachments other than, for a new proceeding, the proposed notice of appeal, application or other proceeding.

(iv) If the single appeal judge requires further information, he or she can request it.

(v) The single appeal judge can respond to and dispose of the leave application in writing, or hold the application in open Court where it shall be recorded.

(vi) If the single appeal judge grants Dean Christopher Clifford or 4240944 Manitoba Limited leave to commence an appeal, Dean Christopher Clifford or 4240944 Manitoba Limited may be required to apply for permission to appeal under Rule 14.5(1)(j). An application for permission to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Alberta Rules of Court and must be accompanied by an affidavit:

a) attaching a copy of the Order restricting Dean Christopher Clifford’s and 4240944 Manitoba Limited’s access to the Alberta Court of Appeal;

b) attaching a copy of the appeal, application, or proceeding that Dean Christopher Clifford or 4240944 Manitoba Limited proposes to file;

c) deposing fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed appeal, application, or proceeding, so as to demonstrate that it is not an abuse of process, and that there are reasonable grounds for it; and

d) indicating whether Dean Christopher Clifford or 4240944 Manitoba Limited has ever sued some or all of the respondents previously in any jurisdiction or Court, and if so providing full particulars.

5. To commence or continue an appeal, application, or other proceeding in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench or the Provincial Court of Alberta, Dean Christopher Clifford or 4240944 Manitoba Limited shall submit an application to the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate:

(i) The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate, may, at any time, direct that notice of an application to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding be given to any other person.

(ii) Any application shall be made in writing.

(iii) Any application to commence or continue any appeal, action, application, or proceeding must be accompanied by an affidavit:

a) attaching a copy of the Order arising from this Decision, restricting Dean Christopher Clifford’s and 4240944 Manitoba Limited’s access to the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Provincial Court of Alberta;

b) attaching a copy of the appeal, pleading, application, or process that Dean Christopher Clifford or 4240944 Manitoba Limited proposes to issue or file or continue;

c) deposing fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding, so as to demonstrate that the proceeding is not an abuse of process, and that there are reasonable grounds for it;

d) indicating whether Dean Christopher Clifford or 4240944 Manitoba Limited has ever sued some or all of the defendants or respondents previously in any jurisdiction or Court, and if so providing full particulars;

e) undertaking that, if leave is granted, the authorized appeal, pleading, application or process, the Order granting leave to proceed, and the affidavit in support of the Order will promptly be served on the defendants or respondents; and

f) undertaking to diligently prosecute the proceeding.

(iv) The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate, may:

a) give notice of the proposed claim or proceeding and the opportunity to make submissions on the proposed claim or proceeding, if they so choose, to:

(1) the involved potential parties;
(2) other relevant persons identified by the Court; and
(3) the Attorney Generals of Alberta and Canada;
b) respond to and dispose of the leave application in writing; and
c) hold the application in open Court where it shall be recorded.

6. Leave to commence or continue proceedings may be given on conditions, including the posting of security for costs, and proof of payment of all prior cost awards.

7. An application that is dismissed may not be made again, directly or indirectly.

8. An application to vary or set aside this Order must be made on notice to any person as directed by the Court.

9. Dean Christopher Clifford is prohibited from:

(i) providing legal advice, preparing documents intended to be filed in court for any person other than himself, and filing or otherwise communicating with any court, except on his own behalf; and

(ii) acting as an agent, next friend, McKenzie Friend (from McKenzie v McKenzie, [1970] 3 All ER 1034 (UK CA) and Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, ss 2.22-2.23), or any other form of representative in court proceedings before the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal.

10. No information shall be received by a justice from Dean Christopher Clifford per Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 504 unless Dean Christopher Clifford is represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta, or another person authorized to represent Dean Christopher Clifford in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench pursuant to the Legal Profession Act, RSA 2000, c L-8.

11. The Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal shall refuse to accept or file any documents or other materials from Dean Christopher Clifford, unless:
(i) Dean Christopher Clifford is a named party in the action in question, and

(ii) if the documents and other materials are intended to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding, Dean Christopher Clifford has been granted leave to take that step by the Court.

12. The Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal shall refuse to accept or file any documents or other materials from 4240944 Manitoba Limited, unless:

(i) 4240944 Manitoba Limited is a named party in the action in question, and
(ii) if the documents and other materials are intended to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding, 4240944 Manitoba Limited has been granted leave to take that step by the Court.

13. All fee waivers granted to Dean Christopher Clifford and 4240944 Manitoba Limited by the Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal are revoked.

14. The Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal shall refuse any fee waiver application by Dean Christopher Clifford or 4240944 Manitoba Limited unless Dean Christopher Clifford or 4240944 Manitoba Limited has a court order which authorizes that step.

15. The Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Appeal and the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of Alberta, or his or her designate, may, on his or her own authority, vary the terms of this Order in relation to the requirement, procedure or any preconditions to obtain leave to initiate or continue litigation in their respective Courts.

That is one hell of an impressive vexatious litigant order. But I think we all agree that Dean has earned the honour. Then, that done, the judge had a happy thought about the cost award he was going to grant in favour of Scotia Bank. Why should Ms. Landry hog it all when Dean had done so much sterling work to sink her case past redemption? So he added this bonus for Dean;

[59] Though it does not arise on the facts of this court access restriction review, it occurs to me that when someone participates in an OPCA scheme, to argue a matter, or as Mr. Clifford has done, to insert himself or herself into the litigation to further a pseudolegal scheme, then a court which awards costs against the OPCA litigant can and should make both the OPCA litigant and OPCA facilitator/representative jointly and severally responsible for those amounts. That step is an appropriate one, given the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and duty to scrutinize non-litigants who intrude into actions as abusive representatives, and third party “busybodies”: R v Dick, 2002 BCCA 27 (CanLII), 163 BCAC 62; Peddle v Alberta Treasury Branches, 2004 ABQB 608 (CanLII), 133 ACWS (3d) 25; Hill v Hill, 2008 SKQB 11 (CanLII), 306 Sask R 259; Perreal v Knibb, 2014 ABQB 15 (CanLII), 8 Alta LR (6th) 55; Law Society of British Columbia v Boyer, 2016 BCSC 342 (CanLII); Gauthier v Starr.

[60] Naturally, in a situation such as this, Mr. Clifford would not be able to shelter his liability behind 4240944 Manitoba Limited: Myers v Blackman, at paras 39-41. A corporation may not be used as a shield for fraudulent or improper conduct. A4V OPCA litigation qualifies as both.

V. Conclusion

[61] Ms. Landry, Mr. Clifford, and 4240944 Manitoba Limited are declared to be vexatious litigants and are subject to court access restrictions.

[62] I direct that the annotated June 5, 2018 Order in Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Landry is to be placed in the Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Landry file, but only for the purposes of providing evidence of Ms. Landry and Mr. Clifford’s OPCA activities. This document has no effect on the litigation beyond the negative implications that flow from that attempt to abuse the Court’s processes.

And, not wishing to seem too harsh, the judge had some kind advice for Ms. Landry.

[63] In Landry #1, at paras 9-10, I noted that Ms. Landry is currently involved in two other debt collection actions in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. I hope when she receives this decision she will carefully consider the law I have explained, read Meads v Meads and other jurisprudence I have cited, and investigate for herself whether Mr. Clifford’s history indicates he is a legal expert, or a pseudolegal charlatan. I believe no one would dispute that it would be unfortunate if Ms. Landry were to incur further unnecessary court costs, interest charges, penalties, and other expenses due to her employing worthless pseudolegal garbage. But that choice is hers, alone.

Judge Thomas also helpfully included a sample of what he considered Dean's "worthless pseudolegal garbage" at the end of the judgment as;

Appendix “A”: “SPECIAL PRIVATE NOTICE CEASE TRESPASS ORDER BREACH OF TRUST”

This document lists Dean as being;

Dean Clifford/President/4240944 Manitoba Limited/Executor/Secured Party Lienor

And is full of prime OPCA gibberish such as;

This Organization is the Secured Party Lienor with 100% Priority Lien Interest under Private Security Agreement in all Trust Property in Birth Certificate Trust VANESSA AMY LANDRY Registration No. [redacted] Declared by the Grantor for the exclusive Private Use and Private Benefit of the True Beneficiary (see above), without impeachment for waste, which this Organization Acts for and on behalf of as Executor of the Expressed Wishes of the True Beneficiary.

This Organization confirms it is in possession of a Notarized Private Security Agreement and that all Private Property Rights in the above named Birth Certificate Cestui Que Trust has been Assigned to a Private and Sole Beneficiary, the True Beneficiary, and has been deposited into the Trust Res of Private Estate RN 233 361 577 CA.

. . . . .

v. We claim the equitable right to redemption and require that the Bank either return possession of the Property (#2 16004 54 Street, Edmonton, Alberta) to the True Beneficiary immediately and without delay and set off the alleged debt with the Security Instrument which was intended to be deposited in favour of the True Beneficiary, which it apparently was not, reimburse the True Beneficiary for all payments made on the debt resulting from the Bank not crediting the account with the security deposit, and tum over the Interest, Rents and Accruals from the securities generated from the Property of the True Beneficiary; or the Bank is required to immediately provide a full accounting of the value of all securities, which also includes the Principal Deposit and all Rent, Interest and Accruals, close the account and send payment to this Office without delay. Failure to do one or the other, immediately, constitutes another breach of trust;

and even a pending knockout blow that will shatter the Edmonton police department!

THAT affidavits are currently being prepared regarding the treatment of the True Beneficiary during Incident Number RN-233-361-577-CA-002 on August 30th, 2018, by the Edmonton Police Service/Trustees (police incident number 186-249-84) and Officer C. Luimes, whos Birth Certificate Trust is hereby Attached and Liened as collateral and surety for the harm to the True Beneficiary and the yet unnamed Officer who violently and physically attacked the True Beneficiary while in the lawful Enjoyment and Use of Private Trust Property, and placed her into custody, for which that Officers Birth Certificate Trust is also hereby Attached and Liened as collateral and surety for the harm caused to the True Beneficiary;

It seems that Dean still has a fondness for legal maxims;

“He who seeks equity must bring equity”

"Equity regards the beneficiary as the true owner"

"Equity will not allow a trust to fail for want of a trustee"

"Equity will not aid a Volunteer"

Although "Equity will not aid a volunteer" is a new one to me and, not having Dean's brilliant analytical legal mind, I have to admit the meaning is somewhat obscure to me. If you want to give Dean a call and tell him how much you admire his work and ask him what the hell that maxim means he listed his private phone number on the Special Private Notice.

[notorial dissent]

Even funnier, is that I doubt if ole Deano even knows what most of those big words and high sounding phrases even mean.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Thanks, Burnaby for another admirable write up.

[grixit]

Wikipedia has a nice outline of Inferno. The "Evil Counsellors" are those who advise people to use fraud, rather than using it themselves. This includes Odysseus because he thought up the Trojan Horse and persuaded Agamemnon to build it. The punishment for this class is to be each wrapped in their own individual flame. I disagree with Dean Clifford being so designated, he does not have the guile. On the other hand, the "Falsifiers" is apt, those are fraudsters and cons. Their punishment is to be afflicted with a variety of physical afflictions, which drives them to assault each other.

[Burnaby49]

Thanks, Burnaby for another admirable write up.

Dean deserves my best effort. He's the last sad remnant of the glory days of the Canadian Freeman movement.

[notorial dissent]

Yes, most certainly. I didn't effuse much as I was half asleep when I read it, but quite a send up/off for our dear Deano.

All I can figure is that Mr. Justice D.R.G. Thomas must have been feeling left out of all the fun, Rooke style, and wanted to play. WELL played. Deano may be a sorry excuse for a guru, but he is most definitely a purveyor. I wonder when, or if, we'll see the whining and chest eating over this latest indignity. I can't imagine Mrs Landry's next two affairs du court are going to go any better.

[eric]

I'm waay behind on my postings (building a mew computer since my old one had an unfortunate heat-related incident) but I was aware that Deano is back on the scene. Obviously not much employment for rough framers around Winterpeg at this time of year. He's starting to crop up again on Facebook, replying to posts among the FMOTL set. Even Scott (I am not a freeman) Duncan has joined the fray, reposting old stuff from after their domestic break-up.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater

[grixit]

Oh, also note that our visiting scholar, Donald J Netolitzky, is now citable!

[Tevildo]

Although "Equity will not aid a volunteer" is a new one to me and, not having Dean's brilliant analytical legal mind, I have to admit the meaning is somewhat obscure to me.

The Wikipedia article on the maxim is here - it's the equitable equivalent of the legal doctrine that a contract requires an exchange of consideration. If I volunteer to do something for you without your agreeing to it, I can't insist that you pay me for it after the event, either in law or in equity. It seems an odd one for Dean to quote, as the general modus operandi of the movement relies on foisted and unilateral obligations of one sort or another.

[Chaos]

was good to see the ballsofjolli get a mention.

[Burnaby49]

What I found profoundly disappointing about Dean's return was how lazy, how unimaginative it was. How bankrupt of absolutely anything new or innovative. He had nothing to confront Queen's Bench with that hadn't been tried, and discredited, at least a decade ago. A4V, birth bonds, strawmen, unilateral contracts, trusts, these were all foundational theories when the Freeman movement first started in the late 1990's. Dean provided Ms. Landry with nothing but ancient hack-work of no higher quality than the gleanings of any ignorant beginner randomly ransacking the internet for ideas. The court didn't even have to bother discussing Dean's exhausted shop-worn arguments, it just referred to Meads v Meads, a decision from over six years ago.

Dean's lost in a reverie of the golden days of his young manhood when he was an admired national figure and anything was possible. Now he's just a predatory opportunist skulking in the shadows conning desperate bankrupts. A surprisingly pathetic ending for the man who could, at one time, legitimately make the claim to be Canada's leading Freeman guru and who filled lecture halls with adoring acolytes. I suppose it's as appropriate an epitaph as any to the Canadian Freeman movement. While a few sad losers like Boisjoli and Belanger still fitfully, momentarily, bob to the surface the movement is dead. Dean's shabby doomed attempt at a comeback is a fitting final act for the Freeman movement in Canada.

[notorial dissent]

lazy, unimaginative . bankrupt of absolutely anything new or innovative. nothing to confront Queen's Bench with that hadn't been tried, and discredited, at least a decade ago.

I'd say that describes Deano to a T though, originality has never been his, or any of the gurus for that matter, long suite. Everything, or almost everything they peddle is stolen borrowed from lower Canada it would seem. The only thing you can't blame on us is the whole coronation oath, King James Bible, and other tangential stuffs, and even at that we still have a class of sovcit nutter who rabidly insist that the Queen is still, well the Queen and our Queen.

[bmxninja357]

well lizzy is the queen of canada. she just happens to have a second job as queen somewhere else. i never really understood why this little fact was never (that i recall) used in the opca gibber jabber. you dont write the queen of england your opca complaints as a canadian. you write the queen of canada. the queen of england has little to do with your canadian concerns.

and there is no guarantee the next monarch of jolly old is the next monarch of canada. perhaps these legal buffoons could entertain us better by finding a way to use that. its been kinda boring in the north.

personally i hope harry the beheader is the next monarch of canada.

peace,
ninj

[Philistine]

...harry the beheader...

peace,
ninj

Literal lol from me on that one. Well done. (Not much chance for Harry though unfortunately)

[Hyrion]

The Wikipedia article on the maxim is here - it's the equitable equivalent of the legal doctrine that a contract requires an exchange of consideration. If I volunteer to do something for you without your agreeing to it, I can't insist that you pay me for it after the event, either in law or in equity. It seems an odd one for Dean to quote, as the general modus operandi of the movement relies on foisted and unilateral obligations of one sort or another.

Actually - in the context of a recent youtube post by another (I forget exactly who) that might make sense.

That other statement was expressed along the lines:

Nothing inside the square exists, that's the four corners rule

The irony behind that is that the actual Legal application is precisely opposite. The four corners rule is that if it's clearly defined in the "four corners of the contract" then outside evidence cannot be submitted to resolve a dispute on said aspect (my wording on my understanding).

So... if we posit that the average OPCA litigant believes:

• Big corporation is out to get them

• Big corporation owns the government

• Big corporation created the Laws and Law Courts to trick people into becoming slaves

• Legal wording is deliberately constructed to mean something different to what you think it means in order to trick you into giving up rights - example: "do you understand" means "do you stand under me and submit" rather than the obvious "do you comprehend what was just explained"

If we understand that to be the basis of their core belief system - then understanding something to mean exactly the opposite of what it does mean makes sense. So while "equity will not assist a volunteer" normally means you can't demand payment for volunteering for something - in Deans mind it may mean the exact opposite... that somehow you can deliberately paint someone's fence (even if they tell you not to) and then force them to pay you.

[notorial dissent]

If we understand that to be the basis of their core belief system - then understanding something to mean exactly the opposite of what it does mean makes sense. So while "equity will not assist a volunteer" normally means you can't demand payment for volunteering for something - in Deans mind it may mean the exact opposite... that somehow you can deliberately paint someone's fence (even if they tell you not to) and then force them to pay you.

That actually makes a great deal of sense considering Dean's true lack of grasp all things legal, and the English language even more so.

[Hyrion]

That actually makes a great deal of sense considering Dean's true lack of grasp all things legal, and the English language even more so.

To clarify: I don't for an instant believe he actually views Society that way. His own actions and choices are sufficient to convince me he's a conman who'll say what needs to be said to collect a fee for doing as little work as possible.

However: there might be some in the OPCA crowd that actually believe that. Having gone so far down the rabbit hole, that's the perspective they now have. While it's understandable once you connect A to B to C to get that result, I certainly wouldn't recommend taking on such a belief.

If one truly believes the dictionaries all lie about the definitions of words so they mean something else that's undocumented - how would that not make one's life infinitely more difficult due to the troubles of communications with everyone else around them - not just the authorities.

It'd be worse then just speaking another language. At least if you hear someone talking Japanese and you don't know that language you can point to an apple, make an eating motion and say "hungry?". You can make additional efforts to communicate. But if the other person sounds like their talking your language. They're saying things that don't quite make sense. And when you make the attempt to understand them by rewording what they say in your understanding and asking them "is that what you understand you said?" and they reply "No... I certainly do not stand under you".... there's really not much you can do but shake your head and walk away muttering things like "nutjob".

That's just one aspect. Add in the other factors such as the factor that you must take on the perspective everyone is lying to you - I really can't imagine life being very comfortable in such a "reality".

[essene]

Everyone keeps quoting Meade vs Meade. Well I read the whole damn thing and understood it.
The judge tells it very straight. It's the part no one mentions that got my attention, because no one quoting the case has actually read the damn thing. Here in paragraph 318 is the punch line.

Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII)
[318] Of course, it is indeed possible to cease to be governed by Canadian law. One only need leave Canada and break formal ties with this jurisdiction. However, the ‘immune by declaration’ school claims a person can live in Canada but without any obligation or responsibility as a consequence of some special status, which has various names such as a “sovereign man”, a “freeman”, or a “Freeman-on-the-Land”. This “Immune by declaration” group often draws an arbitrary line between “statutes” and “common law”, and says they are subject to “common law”, but not legislation. Mr. Meads appears to have adopted that kind of distinction.

Still some questions to answer are:

1) "Canada" What is it????? Well I did my own research and found five different definitions of "Canada".
1) as defined in the Interpretation Act (water); 2) the landmass called Canada (land), 3, the corporation of Canada as
listed on the Security Exchange "CANADA CIK#: 0000230098", her Majesty's privately owned business,
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edga ... e&count=40)
4) the nation of Canada, which are the employee's of the Queen's privately owned corporation, (whether they want to or
not) and to which, is just one of many nations in within the, 5) the country of Canada, although it's not clearly laid out in
law, a territory essentially becomes a sovereign state when its independence is recognized by the United Nations, which
Canada did on 9 November 1945.

So which defintion(s) of "Canada" in paragraph 318 does the judge mean, and which one(s) is a man suppose to leave?
My current understanding is that it must be the Corporation/Nation of Canada. However being classified by Crown Agents as a man with no Nation (stateless) will result in being treated horribly by them. The alternatives are, a) join another nation on the landmass of Canada, or b) start a new Nation on the landmass of Canada so as not to suffer ill treatment at the hands of Crown Agents.

2) So just how do you break all formal ties? Is the act of sending back your birth certificate enough, or do you need to do something more? I don't know how, however I certainly would like to know how to do it, and to have it recognized by all Crown Agents (the semi-conscious men running around in their costumes and imaginary titles breaking God's laws).

3) "with this jurisdiction" Exactly what jurisdiction is the judge referring to? Can anyone name them all?

4) "immune by declaration" Here the judge is correct. While any man who has not left Canada, and has not formally broken all ties, can not by simply by declaring it so, be immune from their private/social contract with "Canada". That is being dishounorable and stupid.

5) The Judge erred when he wrote "This “Immune by declaration” group often draws an arbitrary line between “statutes” and “common law”, and says they are subject to “common law”, but not legislation. Mr. Meads appears to have adopted that kind of distinction." The Judge should have know that Section 8.1 of the Interpretation Act clearly makes a non-arbitrary line distinction/line that conditionally, both the common law and the civil law are equally authoritative and recognized sources of the law of property and civil rights in Canada.

6) The Judge also erred when he wrote, "However, the ‘immune by declaration’ school claims a person can live in Canada but without any obligation or responsibility as a consequence of some special status, which has various names such as a “sovereign man”, a “freeman”, or a “Freeman-on-the-Land”." There is no 'immune by declaration' school, and has never been one. I know of no such claim made by anyone other than the Judge claiming it so. Also the things claimed by this never existing school are simply things the Judge himself decided to make up. I certainly understand the Judges words in Paragraph 318, in that there are two status's of men in his mind, a) the man who has not left "Canada" and terminated all formal ties with the jurisdiction of Canada and those who have. Additionally, I have yet to personally meet anyone who wants to be free of the Crown slavery system to claim they have no obligations or responsibilites. No one other than the Judge, who has no right to make personal claims and be the judge at the same time has made these blasphemis claims.

Anyone care to answer any of the above questions with evidence/facts/proofs/reasons?

[wserra]

1) "Canada" What is it?????

Yet another unfortunate victim of chronic traumatic encephalopathy who doesn't know what "Canada" is. Here in the US, the courts recognize that for the nonsense it is: "The arguments about a territorial application of federal income tax laws and multiple definitions of 'United States' have no basis in law and have been consistently rejected as frivolous in this and other circuits." United States v. Nelson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97117 (SDSD 2015).

2) So just how do you break all formal ties?

In the US, it's called renouncing your citizenship, and the details are contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1481. I'm sure that Canada has an equivalent.

3) "with this jurisdiction" Exactly what jurisdiction is the judge referring to? Can anyone name them all?

Well, let's see. The Meads court wrote, "One only need leave Canada and break formal ties with this jurisdiction". Now to what jurisdiction could that possibly refer? Probably Afghanistan.

There's that encephalopathy again.

4) "immune by declaration" Here the judge is correct.

I'm sure that he treasures your approval.

[morrand]

Still some questions to answer are:

1) "Canada" What is it????? Well I did my own research...

I have my doubts.

So which defintion(s) of "Canada" in paragraph 318 does the judge mean, and which one(s) is a man suppose to leave?
My current understanding is that it must be the Corporation/Nation of Canada.

How did you come to that?

However being classified by Crown Agents as a man with no Nation (stateless) will result in being treated horribly by them.

No doubt. Being classified by Crown Royal as a man with no Nation is even worse, though.

The alternatives are, a) join another nation on the landmass of Canada, or b) start a new Nation on the landmass of Canada so as not to suffer ill treatment at the hands of Crown Agents.

Or, c) get the heck off the landmass of Canada.

2) So just how do you break all formal ties? Is the act of sending back your birth certificate enough, or do you need to do something more? I don't know how, however I certainly would like to know how to do it, and to have it recognized by all Crown Agents (the semi-conscious men running around in their costumes and imaginary titles breaking God's laws).

Vide: Give up (renounce) Canadian citizenship

3) "with this jurisdiction" Exactly what jurisdiction is the judge referring to? Can anyone name them all?

Yes.

4) "immune by declaration" Here the judge is correct. While any man who has not left Canada, and has not formally broken all ties, can not by simply by declaring it so, be immune from their private/social contract with "Canada". That is being dishounorable and stupid.

Agreed, except I don't know what you mean by "private/social contract." If you mean "law," say so.

5) The Judge erred when he wrote "This “Immune by declaration” group often draws an arbitrary line between “statutes” and “common law”, and says they are subject to “common law”, but not legislation. Mr. Meads appears to have adopted that kind of distinction." The Judge should have know that Section 8.1 of the Interpretation Act clearly makes a non-arbitrary line distinction/line that conditionally, both the common law and the civil law are equally authoritative and recognized sources of the law of property and civil rights in Canada.

Which, if they're "equally authoritative and recognized sources of law," means anyone subject to one is equally subject to the other. Which is Judge Rooke's point, actually.

6) The Judge also erred when he wrote, "However, the ‘immune by declaration’ school claims a person can live in Canada but without any obligation or responsibility as a consequence of some special status, which has various names such as a “sovereign man”, a “freeman”, or a “Freeman-on-the-Land”." There is no 'immune by declaration' school, and has never been one. I know of no such claim made by anyone other than the Judge claiming it so. Also the things claimed by this never existing school are simply things the Judge himself decided to make up.

Look around here a bit; you'll see plenty of examples. Canada, US, UK; the idea gets around. Here's a particularly horrible example from my notebook: US v. Jonassen, in which the defendant used sovereign citizen tactics (among others) to try to get out of trouble for kidnapping and assaulting his daughter. A somewhat lighter example is Cornell v. Burke, where the plaintiff declared himself a "Natural Person" in court (he was trying to get his car back after it was repossessed), and was subsequently arrested for contempt.

Anyone care to answer any of the above questions with evidence/facts/proofs/reasons?

Perhaps. They've previously been asked and answered, though, so sarcasm's a more likely response.