Merged Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants

[LSSBB]

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

In the US they would be called

Organized
False
Federal
Argument
Litigants.

 

[TjW]

That's just awful.

 

[D'rok]

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

This is true.

For all those heaping praise on Justice Rooke, the real credit goes elsewhere. I sincerely hope that person consents to bask in the glory that is due.

 

[D'rok]

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.

This is really important. Access to justice is a real and pressing issue. The quicker that OPCA types can be disposed of, the more time and resources courts will have to devote to things that really matter. This decision may accomplish that, in Alberta at least.

It should also make its way into law school curricula. In fact, there really should be a standard upper year course on vexatious litigants with this as the centrepiece.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Someone from here posted a thread about it in the Godlikeproductions.com forum - oh my goodness the hilarity that ensued. The sovereigns came out of the woodwork like banshees declaring first that (1) since this was a Canada decision it had no impact on US sovereigns and (2) when it was pointed out this debunks UCC mythology, which IS US law, they started reverting back to "your all slaves!" and "sheeple!"

If sovereigns are like Dracula, this opinion is the equivalent of splashing holy water on his face. They wretch and scream and run away. Oh the truth, IT BURNS!

 

[LightinDarkness]

This is really important. Access to justice is a real and pressing issue. The quicker that OPCA types can be disposed of, the more time and resources courts will have to devote to things that really matter. This decision may accomplish that, in Alberta at least.

It should also make its way into law school curricula. In fact, there really should be a standard upper year course on vexatious litigants with this as the centrepiece.

Interestingly we have something that kind of deals with it in my field, most "citizen engagement" courses for future public sector high level managers (usually enrolled in Master of Public Administration programs) spend a significant part of their time on "how to deal with crazy citizens" - although when I took such a course in 2006 it did not include sovereigns specifically it did deal with tax protestors and conspiracy theorists that like to annoy government officials. Maybe I should contact that Professor and get them to add sovereigns - sovereign's aren't only messing with the courts in the US, as we can see by all the false liens they like to file against public officials outside the justice system and through spamming offices with their fake paperwork.

 

[Mojo]

Maybe I should contact that Professor and get them to add sovereigns - sovereign's aren't only messing with the courts in the US, as we can see by all the false liens they like to file against public officials outside the justice system and through spamming offices with their fake paperwork.

Antics like the fiasco at Birkenhead County Court must cause quite a bit of pointless disruption and expense as well.

 

[000063]

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 assume there's nothing to prevent US judges from quoting this ruling, or saying that they agree with certain portions of it?

 

[Mojo]

I assume there's nothing to prevent US judges from quoting this ruling, or saying that they agree with certain portions of it?

Judgments from other jurisdictions can certainly be quoted, and although never binding can sometimes be persuasive. See, for example, the England & Wales Court of Appeal in British Chiropractic Association v. Singh:

We would respectfully adopt what Judge Easterbrook, now Chief Judge of the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, said in a libel action over a scientific controversy, Underwager v Salter 22 Fed. 3d 730 (1994):

"[Plaintiffs] cannot, by simply filing suit and crying 'character assassination!', silence those who hold divergent views, no matter how adverse those views may be to plaintiffs' interests. Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation. … More papers, more discussion, better data, and more satisfactory models – not larger awards of damages – mark the path towards superior understanding of the world around us."​

The judgment also quotes Milton's Areopagitica. Basically, judges can quote whatever they like.

 

[Mojo]

Actually, I think the defendant's response in Arkell v. Pressdram would be an appropriate response to OPCA arguments in any jurisdiction.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Yeah what I found most amusing about the "ITS IN CANADA DOESNT APPLY HERE" sovereign response that I'm getting from this is that all flavors of this woo extensively rely on the UCC and often (misinterpreted, of course) US case law while pulling this crap in the UK or Canada.

And even so, the jurisdiction doesn't matter when its a full refutation and debunking of FOTL arguments. Its like arguing that the sky in American is purple because the meteorologist in the UK who told you its really blue isn't in America. No, reality is reality...everywhere.

 

[Mojo]

Yeah what I found most amusing about the "ITS IN CANADA DOESNT APPLY HERE" sovereign response that I'm getting from this is that all flavors of this woo extensively rely on the UCC and often (misinterpreted, of course) US case law...

And, of course, the out of date editions of Black's Law Dictionary.

 

[Border Reiver]

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

I think we can export this. NAFTA and all. Or just good neighborly relations. The UK and Australia should feel free to borrow as well.

 

[Mojo]

Actually, I think the defendant's response in Arkell v. Pressdram would be an appropriate response to OPCA arguments in any jurisdiction.

From the Meads v. Meads judgment (my emphasis):

[626] I have previously discussed the potentially appropriate civil responses to arguments of this kind.

Regrettably, that probably rules out Arkell v. Pressdram.

 

[Mojo]

Yeah what I found most amusing about the "ITS IN CANADA DOESNT APPLY HERE" sovereign response that I'm getting from this is that all flavors of this woo extensively rely on the UCC and often (misinterpreted, of course) US case law while pulling this crap in the UK or Canada.

You have to remember that, like all other rules, the rules to do with precedent and jurisdiction don't apply to the FOTLers, only to other people.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Oh, this is a thing of beauty! I've only read through a few parts, but how damned refreshing it is when a judge just lays it on the line and says that something's nonsense - and repeats it numerous times. (I don't like reading long documents on a computer screen. I want to print it and read it as a complete paper. Yeah, I'm an old analog kinda guy.)

Kinda like the smackdown that judge gave Orly. A good day, all around.

 

[Mojo]

I don't like reading long documents on a computer screen. I want to print it and read it as a complete paper.

Me too. But it's nearly 200 pages.

 

[Mojo]

It just gets better every time I look at it:

This category of litigant shares one other critical characteristic: they will only honour state, regulatory, contract, family, fiduciary, equitable, and criminal obligations if they feel like it. And typically, they don’t.

 

[D'rok]

It's starting to make the news up here.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...hts-to-take-back-legal-system/article4576517/

 

[BaaBaa]

It's starting to make the news up here.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...hts-to-take-back-legal-system/article4576517/

I saw that in the print edition, or specifically a box on 'vexatious litigants'- I'll have to get back to the article tonight....