Merged Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants

[carlitos]

As the bloggers say, read the whole thing.

[123] In 2008 the British Columbia Supreme Court in The Law Society of British Columbia v.
Robert Arthur Menard (8 January 2008) Vancouver S073719 (B.C.S.C.) granted an order
prohibiting Menard from acting as a lawyer and providing legal advice, and receiving
compensation for the same.
[124] This Court’s review of the Freeman-on-the-Land phenomenon has observed that Menard
is associated with or operates a number of “Freeman” Internet websites that market OPCA
materials, including the “Canadian Common Corps Of Peace Officers” (“C3PO”) (website:
http://www.c3po.ca), a group of self-declared and appointed vigilante “peace officers” who:

... are the answer to avoiding a police state in Canada. All able bodied and
suitable candidates can if they wish be hired to preserve and maintain the public
peace under affirmation and contract. In this way the people of Canada can deal
with errant or rogue police from the position of a peace officer, and those who are
Freemen can exercise their rights without hindrance by existing policy
enforcement officers and with the full protection of true peace officers.​

[125] Eldon Gerald Warman [“Warman”] is a “Detaxer”; he operates the
“http://www.detaxcanada.org/” website. Warman typically styles himself via the ‘dash-colon’
motif as “Eldon-Gerald: Warman”. He has a historic association with Lindsay: R. v. Warman,
2001 BCCA 510; Warman (Re), 2000 ABPC 181, 48 W.C.B. (2d) 194. His stated beliefs
combine the “natural man” scheme of Porisky and Lindsay, with an emphasis on historical
common law and the interrelationship between the king and society, such as the Magna Carta. A
helpful survey of Warman’s concepts is found in R. v. Warman, 2001 BCCA 510 at paras. 9-10.
[126] In 2000 Warman had a roadside encounter with a peace officer who attempted to
investigate the permit status for Warman’s vehicle. That led to an assault on the officer for which
Warman was subsequently convicted: R. v. Warman, 2000 BCPC 22, affirmed 2001 BCCA 510.
Warman had denied the officer’s authority because “... issuing tickets at the side of the road is to
conduct a roving court not permitted by Section 17 of Magna Carta.”: para. 36. These roadside
confrontations between peace officers and OPCA community members are a reported aspect of
OPCA litigation, for example in R. v. Kaasgaard, 2011 MBQB 256.
[127] Mr. Warman has been the subject of complaints of racist and anti-Semitic statements that
were considered by the Canadian Human Rights Commission: Warman v. Warman, 2005

Wow, Eldon Warman was snagged in those "hate crime" cases by none other than Richard Warman. That's almost meta. No wonder he's paranoid; they really are out to get him. He was the "Red Robed Priests of Isis" guy, EldonG at the JREF.

 

[LashL]

Fantastic and thank you, JLord. I've only skimmed it so far but I will give it a nice, leisurely read over the weekend so as to enjoy it more thoroughly. Moreover, it will serve as an excellent resource for lawyers, court clerks, other court staff, and judges across the country to have such a comprehensive piece of work all in one judgment.

I suspect that someone we know did much of the legal research for Associate Chief Justice Rooke for this judgment...

 

[jargon buster]

Excellent thread. JB could you be so kind as to make sure 'our' Menard gets a link to it?

I'd appreciate that more than you could imagine

Already sent him a PM to his yahoo account with a nice message.

 

[LashL]

At least twice!

At least.

Para 44:

This is, of course, nonsense.

Para 71:

Because of the nonsense they argue, OPCA litigants
are invariably unsuccessful...

Para 75:

These claims are, of course, pseudolegal nonsense.

Para 76:

Again, total nonsense.

Para 238:

...this notation is nonsensical...

Para 294:

Of course, that is nonsense.

Para 503:

Similarly, the claim in relation to trade-mark or trade-name is nonsense.

 

[Horatius]

Text of an e-mail I just sent DJ Grothe:

I just wanted to make sure you had seen this. There's a thread on the JREF Forum:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244827

which links to a recent Court decision from the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, comprehensively dealing with the pseudolegal claims of various movements generally known as "Freemen on the Land", or "Sovereign Citizens".

In paragraph 655, the judge writes:


"[655] Perhaps unsurprising for what appears to often be an Internet driven phenomenon, the
OPCA community has drawn the critical attention of others online. Anti-scam and skeptic web
forums include persons interested in OPCA concepts and their proponents. The “James Randi
Educational Foundation” (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/) and “Quatloos! Cyber Museum of Scams &
Frauds” (http://quatloosia.blogspot.com/) have significant and ongoing discussion of OPCA
concepts and movements, world-wide. Persons in these forums go so far as to actively challenge
and debate OPCA gurus, including Canadian OPCA gurus."

("OPCA" is "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument", a term he coins as a catch-all for all the various flavours of these legal shenanigans)

I thought you'd appreciate seeing that we've been noticed in such an important context. These sorts of legal scams have hurt a lot of people who are already in desperate circumstances, and it's good to see that some of what we've done on the JREF Forum is being noticed by those with the legal authority to really do something about it!

Let's see if we make it into Swift!

 

[Horatius]

Just saw this bit! In paragraph 692, he quotes one of Mead's submissions:

May Almighty God Jehovah bless all of ewe through His Living Son and Reigning King, Jesus the Christ. Amen and Amen.

I know there's a Sheeple joke in there somewhere!

Or maybe he takes "Lamb of God" waaaay too literally?

 

[dudalb]

Fantastic and thank you, JLord. I've only skimmed it so far but I will give it a nice, leisurely read over the weekend so as to enjoy it more thoroughly. Moreover, it will serve as an excellent resource for lawyers, court clerks, other court staff, and judges across the country to have such a comprehensive piece of work all in one judgment.

I suspect that someone we know did much of the legal research for Associate Chief Justice Rooke for this judgment...

Although the ruling has no legal status in the US, something tells me that a lot of the arguments are going to be very useful to US judges and legal staff dealing with the American flavor of the FOTL kooks.

 

[LashL]

Now that's Legaltainment^TM!

Indeed.

 

[Nowhere Man]

[671] William S. Burroughs in Naked Lunch (New York: Grove Press, 1962, p. 11) wrote: “Hustlers of the world, there is one Mark you cannot beat: The Mark Inside.”

Is this the first time that Bill Burroughs has been quoted in a legal document like this? The mind boggles.

Fred

 

[JLord]

Although the ruling has no legal status in the US, something tells me that a lot of the arguments are going to be very useful to US judges and legal staff dealing with the American flavor of the FOTL kooks.

I think this case could be cited anywhere as a comprehensive summary of OPCA litigants for those unfamiliar. Certainly in Canada this gives judges good reason to immediately treat these litigants as vexatious and to dismiss their claims and impose sanctions immediately. Previously each case would have to run its course before finally the OPCA litigant would be declared vexation or have penalties imposed against them. The hope now is that if you're facing one of these people you can immediately point out the problem to the court and get a result without having to waste so much time. A normal self represented litigant is expected to lack knowledge of court procedure and quite rightly is going to be given some breaks here and there by the court. I think this decision serves notice that the OPCA class of self represented litigants is not going to get the same generous good faith of the court.

So the first hint you get that you are dealing with a freeman you would simply file their own documents as evidence against them, have them declared vexatious litigants. This requires them to have leave of the court before filing claims or applications, thus greatly reducing the damage they cause to innocent parties by dragging them into court. And if you are the one taking action against a freeman you can essentially treat their nonsense paperwork as a non-response and proceed to get default judgment or other sanctions imposed against them. The days of these people getting the benefit of the doubt from courts may be coming to an end.

 

[ComfySlippers]

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench has just issued the most epic written decision of all time ...

 

[LightinDarkness]

To our JREF lawyers - I have been thinking about writing an academic style article on the "sovereign citizen" phenomena (using that term to encompass all of this woo) which would include a (1) short history, (2) summary and debunking of main arguments, and (3) a recommendations list for public sector employees on how to manage the crazy people who do this (things like - check your credit report frequently to identify fraudulent liens, notify your office's counsel if you interact with one, etc.).

This would be a generalized type of article targeted at public sector employees, because thats my field (Public Administration). I would need someone with actual legal knowledge to help though - anyone interested? I think it would probably take 20-40 hours of someones time. We could discuss what journals to target (my first though is Review of Public Personnel Administration - but I am open to target journals).

Anyone who is even slightly interested (no commitment needed, apply now!) PM me. For purposes of what I am thinking about, you don't have to be a US based lawyer.

 

[FMOTLgroupie]

Honestly, this is spectacular. The best, most in-depth explanation of the OPCA universe anywhere.

Not only does he demolish the OPCA ideas (not that hard, though he does it exquisitely), but he does a spectacular job of explaining the complex web of ideas, nomenclature, and personal affiliations that make up the OPCA universe. I find it can be hard to talk about OPCA without implying that it's much more one-dimensional than it is, but Rooke has done it.

As I said, this is a fantastic leap forward in the courts' dealings with these types.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Oh my, this IS beautiful. More so than I thought. It truly is a one-stop-shop for all your debunking needs. This judge has done a monumental community service. If there was an award to "slapping the legal woo believers with sanity" this would be it.

Of course you just know when the sovereigns, Rob Menard, et. al get a hold of this they will proclaim VICTORY! because someone actually addressed their arguments...even though in doing so all of them were summarily dismissed.

 

[TjW]

When reduced to their conceptual core, most OPCA concepts
are contemptibly stupid.

I hope the judge doesn't have any tendencies toward alcoholism. I suspect many lawyers will want to shake his hand and buy him a drink.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Court of Queen’s Bench Associate Chief Justice John Rooke deserves a medal for his in-depth analysis of FOTL/Sov/DeTaxer Woo.

I'm still reading the original .pdf after several hours

I suspect that when the FOTL-Wafflers wake up, sometime after midday no doubt, there will be more of the usual "Well, they would say that wouldn't they!"
Unfortunately the document is lengthy and is comprised of legal fact... for a FOTL-Waffler that is like garlic to a vampire.

Nice to see conman Menard get a mention though.
Remember when, before he quit JREF, he called us simple fools for not realising we were advancing his cause?

Not only was every principle of FOTL-Waffle proved to be pure fantasy, but a lovely new acronym has been born:

God bless OPCA and all who sail in her
--

PatrickPretty.com : Covering Ponzi schemes and Internet Crime

Quatloos!

Original .pdf

Nice one JLord!

 

[Orphia Nay]

Thanks for the news, JLord. I look forward to reading the judgement in full.

I'm loving all the snippets so far.

This forum even gets a mention

Yay, JREFers!

 

[Bishop]

Of course you just know when the sovereigns, Rob Menard, et. al get a hold of this they will proclaim VICTORY! because someone actually addressed their arguments...even though in doing so all of them were summarily dismissed.

Actually, it's more likely that they'll ignore the part where he debunks the arguments and simply focus on looking at the specific case and the defendant to find one of the inevitable signs that he "accidentally contracted" with the court (e.g. he owned a driver's license at some point in his life, he rose for the judge, etc.) Once that sign has been found, they'll present it as the rationalization of the judge blatantly lying in the rest of the ruling. And then they'll follow this up by insisting that if the defendant had done it 100% correctly, the judge would have gladly recognized The Law and bowed to his demands.

 

[ComfySlippers]

... And then they'll follow this up by insisting that if the defendant had done it 100% correctly, the judge would have gladly recognized The Law and bowed to his demands.

Something that is explained in great detail in the .pdf
Another "alert" that you are dealing with gullible people who follow gurus that are conmen.

 

[Myriad]

An excellent piece of writing, I agree.

Is there any possibility of a "U.S. translation" of some sort -- that is, swapping in U.S. cases for all the relevant case references? Of course unless a judge did it it wouldn't have the standing of the Canadian one, but it might still be useful.

Respectfully,
Myriad