up home page mail me! Add to Technorati favourites bottom

Add a comment

French German version Spanish version Italian version

header image

Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) Litigants

In the Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 case of 2012 from the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke, wrote the following opening statement:

“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.”

Interestingly, prefacing this case document was a series of quotes from Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Forgotten Books, 2008):
“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.”

Further into the Case there is a meaty examination of the many arguments/concepts that are brought before the courts by what is refer to as “OPCA litigants”.

Here is a partial copy of the table of contents of the case documentation:

VI.. OPCA Concepts and Arguments……………………………………………………………………….. 60

A. The Litigant is Not Subject to Court Authority………………………………………… 60

  • 1. Restricted Court Jurisdiction…………………………………………………………… 61
  1. a. Admiralty or Military Courts………………………………………………… 61
  2. b. Notaries are the Real Judges………………………………………………… 62
  3. c. Religion or Religious Belief Trumps the Courts……………………….. 63
  • 2. Defective Court Authority……………………………………………………………… 65
  1. a. Oaths………………………………………………………………………………… 65
  2. b. The Court Proves It Has Jurisdiction and Acts Fairly………………. 66
  3. c. Court Formalities……………………………………………………………….. 66
  4. d. The State is Defective…………………………………………………………… 67
  5. e. Conclusion – Defective Court Authority………………………………….. 67
  • 3. Immune to Court Jurisdiction – Magic Hats………………………………………. 68
  1. a. I Belong to an Exempt Group……………………………………………….. 69
  2. b. I Declare Myself Immune……………………………………………………… 71
  3. c. I Have Been Incorrectly Identified…………………………………………. 72
  4. d. I Am Subject to a Different Law…………………………………………….. 73
  5. e. Conscientious Objector………………………………………………………… 75
  6. f. Tax-Related Magic Hats………………………………………………………. 76
  7. g. Miscellaneous…………………………………………………………………….. 78
  • 4. The Inherent Authority of Provincial Superior Courts………………………… 79
  1. a. Superior Courts of Inherent Jurisdiction…………………………………. 79
  2. b. Procedural Jurisdiction……………………………………………………….. 80
  3. c. Subject Jurisdiction……………………………………………………………… 82
  4. d. Inherent Jurisdiction vs. OPCA Strategies and Concepts………….. 84

B. Obligation Requires Agreement………………………………………………………………. 85

  • 1. Defeating Legislation…………………………………………………………………….. 86
  • 2. Everything is a Contract…………………………………………………………………. 86
  • 3. Consent is Required………………………………………………………………………. 89
  • 4. Conclusion – Obligation Requires Agreement……………………………………. 91
  • 5. Court Misconduct by Everything is a Contract and Consent is Required Litigants 91

C. Double/Split Persons……………………………………………………………………………….. 92

  • 1. Unshackling the Strawman……………………………………………………………… 94
  • 2. Dividing Oneself……………………………………………………………………………. 94
  • 3. In-Court Behaviour of the Divided Person………………………………………… 96
  • 4. Conclusion – Double/Split Person Schemes……………………………………….. 98

D. Unilateral Agreements…………………………………………………………………………….. 99

  • 1. The Legal Effect of a Foisted Agreement……………………………………….. 101
  • 2. Common Uses of Unilateral Agreements………………………………………… 105
  1. a. To Create or Assert an Obligation……………………………………….. 105
  2. b. To Discharge an Obligation or Dismiss a Lawsuit…………………. 108
  3. c. Foisted Duties, Agency, or Fiduciary Status………………………….. 110
  4. d. Copyright and Trade-mark…………………………………………………. 110
  • 3. Fee Schedules……………………………………………………………………………… 112
  1. a. Disproportionate and Unlawful Penalties…………………………….. 114
  2. b. The Targets and Intended Effect of Fee Schedules…………………. 115
  • 4. Effect of Unilateral Agreements……………………………………………………. 116

E. Money for Nothing Schemes………………………………………………………………….. 117

  • 1. Accept for Value / A4V……………………………………………………………….. 117
  • 2. Bill Consumer Purchases………………………………………………………………. 120
  • 3. Miscellaneous Money for Nothing Schemes……………………………………. 121

F. Legal Effect and Character of OPCA Arguments………………………………….. 121

  • 1. OPCA Strategies that Deny Court Authority………………………………….. 121
  1. a. An OPCA Argument that Denies Court Authority Cannot Succeed Due to the Courts Inherent Authority……………………………………………………………… 121
  2. b. An OPCA Argument that Denies Court Authority is Intrinsically Frivolous and Vexatious……………………………………………………………………………………….. 122
  3. c. An OPCA Argument that Denies Court Authority May Be Contempt of Court Authority……………………………………………………………………………………….. 123
    i. Denial of Tax Obligation Evades Tax……………………….. 123
    ii. Denial of Firearms Restrictions Proves Intent for Illegal Possession 124
    iii. Denial of Court Authority May Prove the Intent to Engage in Contempt of Court…………………………………………………………………………….. 125
    iv. Other Government Authorities…………………………………. 127
  • 2. Other OPCA Strategies………………………………………………………………… 127
  • 3. Responses to OPCA Strategies……………………………………………………… 128
  1. a. Strike Actions, Motions, and Defences………………………………….. 128
  2. b. Punitive Damages……………………………………………………………… 128
  3. c. Elevated Costs………………………………………………………………….. 129
  4. d. Order Security for Costs…………………………………………………….. 131
  5. e. Fines……………………………………………………………………………….. 132
  6. f. One Judge Remaining on a File………………………………………….. 132
  • 4. Responses to OPCA Litigants and Gurus……………………………………….. 133
  1. a. Vexatious Litigant Status…………………………………………………….. 133
  2. b. Deny Status as a Representative………………………………………….. 133
  • 5. Conclusion – Responses to OPCA Litigation and Litigants……………….. 134

As you see, there is plenty to examine, as the view from the Bar is an extensive commentary, which is cross referenced to other case precedence and rulings..

And this case is itself, a precedence for newer cases, as illustrated by the remarks of Justice Fergus ODonnell, in the case of R. v. Duncan, 2013 ONCJ 160 from the Ontario Court Of Justice:

“As I left court that day and contemplated returning in the autumn to finish the trial, it occurred to me that I would have to write rather a lot to address the various procedural issues raised by Mr. Duncan in his tome and his verbal arguments. Now, don’t get me wrong about this; I’d be happy to write until the cows came home about matters of substance relating to the guilt julietta casino online or innocence of the defendant and the liberty interests of a citizen vis a vis the constabulary, but the idea of having to disentangle all of the palaver, nonsense and gobbledygook in the document Mr. Duncan presented to me was not particularly appealing. ”

… and then…

“If December 7, 1941 is a day that will live in infamy, for anyone faced with “freemen on the land”[6] or similar litigants, 18 September, 2012 is a day that will shine in virtue. On that day, Mr. Justice J.D. Rooke, the Associate Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, delivered a judgment in the matrimonial case of Meads v. Meads 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII). Given that the judgment weighs in at a mammoth 736 paragraphs, I wonder if these litigants are perhaps more prevalent in wild rose country than they are in Ontario. Be that as it may, Justice Rooke’s comprehensive judgment on what he labels “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants” (of various iterations), wonderfully frees me from having to address any more effort to the jurisdictional arguments raised by Mr. Duncan. As I have said, there is a lot of patent rubbish on the internet; if Mr. Duncan wishes to while away a few hours more productively on something that actually makes sense, I commend Justice Rooke’s judgment on CanLII.org to him.”

Again, there is much to learn about the courts view on the validity of any and all arguments/concepts that someone referring to Freeman-on-the-Land concepts might be looking into.

And therefore, again, to the point of the previous post, how can we re-create a meaningful and purposeful site on this domain, that would bring more social value to context, and clarity.

If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds

No comment yet : Be the first to set ablaze the conversation!

Leave your feedback

(name)

(email)

(website)