Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 Date: 20120918 Docket: 4803 155609 Registry: Edmonton Between: Crystal Lynne Meads Appellant - and - Dennis Larry Meads Respondent Editorial Notice: On behalf of the Government of Alberta personal data identifiers have been removed from this unofficial electronic version of the judgment. _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________

Table of Contents I. ......... Introduction to Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [OPCA] Litigants .... 1 II. ....... The Present Litigation ....................................................................................................... 2 A. Prior Activity .......................................................................................................... 3 B. The June 8, 2012 Hearing ..................................................................................... 4 C. Subsequent Developments .................................................................................... 8 D.

The Purposes of These Reasons ......................................................................... 12 1. Ms. Meads ................................................................................................. 12 2. Mr. Meads ................................................................................................. 12 3. A Broad Set of OPCA Concepts and Materials ....................................... 13 4. Mr. Meads Faces No Unexpected Sanction .............................................. 13 III. ......

Overview of these Reasons .............................................................................................. 14 IV. ...... The OPCA Phenomenon ................................................................................................ 15 A. Characteristics of OPCA Group Members ....................................................... 17 B. The OPCA Guru ................................................................................................. 18 1. Russell Porisky and the Paradigm Education Group ................................ 18 2.

Other Canadian Gurus ............................................................................... 21 a. David Kevin Lindsay ..................................................................... 21 b. John Ruiz Dempsey ....................................................................... 25 c. Robert Arthur Menard ................................................................... 28 d. Eldon Gerald Warman .................................................................. 29 e. David J. Lavigne ............................................................................ 30 f.

Edward Jay Robin Belanger .......................................................... 32 g. Other Gurus ................................................................................... 33 h. Mr. Meads Guru ............................................................................ 34 3. How Gurus Operate .................................................................................. 35 C. OPCA Litigants ................................................................................................... 36 D.

OPCA Movements ............................................................................................... 38 1. Detaxers ..................................................................................................... 39 2. Freemen-on-the-Land ................................................................................ 39 3. Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens ....................................................... 40 4. The Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International [CERI] ........... 41 5.

Moorish Law ............................................................................................. 42 6. Conclusion - OPCA Movements ............................................................... 44 V. ....... Indicia of OPCA Litigants, Litigation, and Strategies .................................................. 44 A. Documentary Material ........................................................................................ 45 1. Name Motifs .............................................................................................. 45

2. Document Formalities and Markings ........................................................ 47 3. Specific Phrases and Language ................................................................. 48 4. Legislation and Legal Documents ............................................................. 50 5. Atypical Mailing Addresses ...................................................................... 51 6. Conclusion and

Summary of Documentary Indicia .................................. 52 B. In Court Conduct ................................................................................................ 53 1. Demands .................................................................................................... 53 2. Documentation .......................................................................................... 54 3. Names and Identification .......................................................................... 54 4.

Court Authority or Jurisdiction ................................................................. 55 5. Other In-Court Motifs ............................................................................... 56 6.

Summary of In-Court Indicia .................................................................... 57 C. Conclusion - OPCA Indicia ................................................................................ 58 1. Procedural Responses to Suspected OPCA Documents ........................... 58 2. Courtroom Procedure Responses to Suspected OPCA Litigants ............. 59 VI. ...... OPCA Concepts and Arguments ................................................................................... 60 A. The Litigant is Not Subject to Court Authority ................................................ 60 1.

Restricted Court Jurisdiction ..................................................................... 61 a. Admiralty or Military Courts ......................................................... 61 b. Notaries are the Real Judges ......................................................... 62 c. Religion or Religious Belief Trumps the Courts ............................. 63 2. Defective Court Authority ........................................................................ 65 a. Oaths ............................................................................................. 65 b.

The Court Proves It Has Jurisdiction and Acts Fairly ................... 66 c. Court Formalities .......................................................................... 66 d. The State is Defective ..................................................................... 67 e. Conclusion - Defective Court Authority ......................................... 67 3. Immune to Court Jurisdiction - Magic Hats .............................................. 68 a. I Belong to an Exempt Group ........................................................ 69 b.

I Declare Myself Immune ............................................................... 71 c. I Have Been Incorrectly Identified ................................................. 72 d. I Am Subject to a Different Law ..................................................... 73 e. Conscientious Objector .................................................................. 75 f. Tax-Related Magic Hats ................................................................ 76 g. Miscellaneous ................................................................................ 78 4.

The Inherent Authority of Provincial Superior Courts .............................. 79 a. Superior Courts of Inherent Jurisdiction ........................................ 79 b. Procedural Jurisdiction ................................................................. 80

c. Subject Jurisdiction ........................................................................ 82 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 a. To Create or Assert an Obligation ............................................... 105 b. To Discharge an Obligation or Dismiss a Lawsuit ...................... 108 c.

Foisted Duties, Agency, or Fiduciary Status ................................ 110 d. Copyright and Trade-mark .......................................................... 110 3. Fee Schedules .......................................................................................... 112 a. Disproportionate and Unlawful Penalties ................................... 114 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 a.

An OPCA Argument that Denies Court Authority Cannot Succeed Due to the Courts Inherent Authority ........................................................................ 121 b. An OPCA Argument that Denies Court Authority is Intrinsically Frivolous and Vexatious ..................................................................................................... 122 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 a. Strike Actions, Motions, and Defences ......................................... 128 b. Punitive Damages ........................................................................ 128 c. Elevated Costs ............................................................................. 129 d.

Order Security for Costs .............................................................. 131 e. Fines ............................................................................................ 132 f. One Judge Remaining on a File .................................................. 132 4. Responses to OPCA Litigants and Gurus ............................................... 133 a. Vexatious Litigant Status .............................................................. 133 b. Deny Status as a Representative .................................................. 133 5.

Conclusion - Responses to OPCA Litigation and Litigants .................... 134 VII. .... Review ............................................................................................................................ 135 A. Judiciary ............................................................................................................. 136 B. Lawyers .............................................................................................................. 138 1. A Lawyers Duties .................................................................................... 138 a.

Notarization of OPCA Materials ................................................. 138 b. Triage: Identification of Legal Issues ........................................... 139 2. Education ................................................................................................ 139 a. Judges and Courts ....................................................................... 139 b. The OPCA Litigant ...................................................................... 140 3. Conclusion - Lawyers and OPCA Litigation .......................................... 141 C.

Target Litigants ................................................................................................. 141 D. OPCA Litigants ................................................................................................. 141 E. OPCA Gurus ..................................................................................................... 143 VIII. ... Application of These Reasons to the Meads v. Meads Litigation ............................... 144 A. Ms. Meads .......................................................................................................... 144 1.

Case Management ................................................................................... 144 2. Disclosure by Mr. Meads ......................................................................... 144 B. Mr. Meads .......................................................................................................... 145 1. Pre-Hearing Activities ............................................................................. 145 a. The February 15, 2011 Document .............................................. 146 b. The March 3, 2011 Document ..................................................... 147 c.

The April 27, 2012 Documents .................................................... 148 2. The June 8, 2012 Hearing ........................................................................ 151 3. The June 19 and June 21, 2012 Documents ............................................ 153 4. Conclusion ............................................................................................... 154

Appendix A - Meads Fee

Schedule .......................................................................................... 157 Appendix B - Meads Copyright and Trademark Notice ....................................................... 176 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. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Forgotten Books, 2008), at pp. 87, 147, 184 I. Introduction to Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [ “ OPCA ” ] Litigants [ 1 ] 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. [ 2 ] Over a decade of reported cases have proven that the individual concepts advanced by OPCA litigants are invalid.

What remains is to categorize these schemes and concepts, identify global defects to simplify future response to variations of identified and invalid OPCA themes, and develop court procedures and sanctions for persons who adopt and advance these vexatious litigation strategies. [ 3 ] One participant in this matter, the Respondent Dennis Larry Meads, appears to be a sophisticated and educated person, but is also an OPCA litigant.

One of the purposes of these Reasons is, through this litigant, to uncover, expose, collate, and publish the tactics employed by the OPCA community, as a part of a process to eradicate the growing abuse that these litigants direct towards the justice and legal system we otherwise enjoy in Alberta and across Canada. I will respond on a point-by-point basis to the broad spectrum of OPCA schemes, concepts, and arguments advanced in this action by Mr.

Meads. [ 4 ] OPCA litigants do not express any stereotypic beliefs other than a general rejection of court and state authority; nor do they fall into any common social or professional association. Arguments and claims of this nature emerge in all kinds of legal proceedings and all levels of Courts and tribunals. This group is unified by:

1. a characteristic set of strategies (somewhat different by group) that they employ, 2. specific but irrelevant formalities and language which they appear to believe are (or portray as) significant, and 3. the commercial sources from which their ideas and materials originate. 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. [ 5 ] The Meads case illustrates many characteristic features of OPCA materials, in court conduct, and litigation strategies. These Reasons will, therefore, explain my June 8, 2012 decision and provide analysis and reasoning that is available for reference and application to other similar proceedings. [ 6 ] Naturally, my conclusions are important for these parties.

However, they also are intended to assist others, who have been taken in/duped by gurus, to realize that these practices are entirely ineffective; to empower opposing parties and their counsel to take action; and as a warning to gurus that the Court will not tolerate their misconduct. [ 7 ] As a preliminary note, I will throughout these Reasons refer to persons by their ‘normal’ names, except to illustrate various OPCA motifs and concepts. OPCA litigants frequently adopt unusual variations on personal names, for example adding irrelevant punctuation, or using unusual capital and lower case character combinations.

While OPCA litigants and their gurus put special significance on these alternative nomenclature forms, these are ineffectual in law and are meaningless paper masks. Therefore, in these Reasons, I will omit spurious name forms, titles, punctuation and the like. II. The Present Litigation [ 8 ] These Reasons relate to materials and arguments advanced by Dennis Larry Meads [“Mr. Meads”] in and after a hearing on June 8, 2012 for appointment of a case management justice, as authorized by Alberta Rules of Court , Alta. Reg. 124/2010, s. 4.11(c) [the “ Rules ”, or individually a “ Rule ”].

The application was brought by Crystal Lynne Meads [“Ms. Meads”] in a divorce and matrimonial property action against Mr. Meads initiated on January 11, 2011. [ 9 ] I granted that application and appointed myself as the Case Management Justice. These Reasons follow from that hearing and deal with materials that have been filed or submitted by Mr. Meads. [ 10 ] Mr. and Ms. Meads were married in 1980. They had six children. The Meads separated in 2010. At present two children are potential dependants. On March 18, 2011, Veit J. ordered interim monthly child and spousal support payments from Mr. Meads.

My understanding is that to date Mr. Meads has generally honoured that obligation. A. Prior Activity [ 11 ] Review of the divorce file discloses a number of unusual documents filed by Mr. Meads: February 15, 2011 : Mr. Meads filed a one page notarized document, printed in black and red ink, and marked with what may be a red thumb print.

It also bears postage stamps in three corners on front and back, and includes various declarations including that “::dennis- larry:meads::” is a “living flesh and blood sentient-man”, a postmaster general, and that Barb Petryk, a clerk of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, is appointed his fiduciary and is liable for “all financial damages and bodily harm against myself ::dennis-larry:: of the

meads-family::”. Mr. Meads then purports to “...do here and now Adjourn this instant matter until further notice, from my office.” March 3, 2011 : Mr. Meads filed a second one page notarized document, in black, red, orange, and blue ink. Again, it has unusual formalities such as a red thumb print. This document is directed to “Audrey Hardwick/AUDREY HARDWICK BEING A CORPORATE ENTITY”, and in

part is a “Notice for a Cease and Desist” in “Enticement in Slavery”, that threatens criminal charges, and “FULL COMMERCIAL LIABILITY AND YOUR UNLIMITED CIVIL LIABILITY”. This one is signed “:::dennis-larry:: of the meads- family:::”. April 27, 2012 : Ouellette J. authorized the simple filing of these materials by Mr. Meads “... for the purposes of argument before the A.C.J. Rooke at the case conference” on June 8, 2012.

This was a “Notice for an Order to Show Cause”, “Affidavit in Support of Order to Show Cause”, “Order to Show Cause and Appear”, and “Affidavit in Support of Order to Show Cause” filed by “::Dennis Larry:: on behalf of DENNIS LARRY MEADS (juristic person)”. The “Notice for an Order to Show Cause” states, “::Dennis Larry::” is “attorney in fact” and seeks an order that Ms. Reeves (Ms. Meads counsel) be “... held in contempt for violation of false claims made under penalty of perjury ...” and that Ms.

Reeves has taken on “... full responsibility/liability for CRYSTAL LYNNE MEADS the Debtor and Grantor.” The two “Affidavit in Support of Order to Show Cause” documents restate the claims that Barb Petryk has a fiduciary obligation to Mr. Meads, quote part of the March 18, 2011 transcript before Justice Veit, and allege that Ms. Meads has not conformed to the Veit order. Mr. Meads denies contact with Ms. Reeves and that he has been difficult. He states Ms. Reeves has made “... an offer to Contract and/or Enticement of Slavery (Title 18 United States Code and/or

Article 4 Universal Declaration of Human Rights) ...”, and that Ms. Meads had “... voided/annulled the Marriage Contract by adulterous affair in 2011 ...” [sic]. Mr. Meads observes Ms. Meads has a share of “acuminated assets from the Marriage Contract” [sic], a new home, training, and a job opportunity as a lab technician. Mr. Meads says Ms. Meads has sent various messages that are “disturbing communications” and quotes email messages that indicate conflict between the parties. The February 15 document is attached to the April 27 materials. B. The June 8, 2012 Hearing [ 12 ] Mr. Meads and Ms.

Reeves appeared before me on June 8, 2012. Ms. Reeves explained that Mr. Meads had generally conformed to the terms of Justice Veit’s March 18, 2011 Order, but that he had not disclosed financial records to calculate interim child and spousal support amounts. She also indicated that she was experiencing problems in moving this litigation forward as a consequence of unorthodox documentation from Mr. Meads. She had difficulty communicating with Mr. Meads, and asked the Court to appoint a case management justice to facilitate that process. [ 13 ] Mr.

Meads commenced his submissions by noting that he was not Dennis Meads, the “corporate identity”, but was present as Dennis Larry Meads, “a flesh and blood man”. He said this Court is “a house of law.” [ 14 ] I explained the nature of case management and asked as to his position on that. He did not object, but wanted to talk about his own Motion, the April 27 documents, rather than Ms. Reeves’ point of interest. [ 15 ] Mr. Meads launched into an explanation of a number of things.

He said that when he was born, he was given a register of birth, “a corporate identity”, bonded and registered in the Bank of Canada and in the state stock exchange, and that registration had an imputed income. [ 16 ] When Mr. Meads married Ms. Meads, he said he was told he required a marriage license to avoid commission of incest, but he has subsequently learned, from Black ’s Law Dictionary , that a licence is an authorization to do something that is otherwise illegal. But, Mr.

Meads said, he is only subject to God’s Law, the “Maximus of Law”, and the Bible indicates that adultery is the sole basis to dissolve a marriage. In this case, he alleged that Ms. Meads had committed adultery with his brother-in-law, and that she had broken the contract of marriage by that adultery - that is God’s law - the remainder is man’s law, statute law: which does not affect or apply to Mr. Meads.

[ 17 ] Mr. Meads rejected the assertion that he had a legal obligation to pay spousal and child support, though he did so on his own accord. Further, he had identified to Ms. Meads and her lawyer (and myself) a method to access a huge amount of money that was attached to his “corporate identity” via his birth certificate. That could pay his child and spousal support obligations. Mr. Meads said he had provided the documentation to pursue that avenue, but Ms. Meads and her lawyers had not done so. [ 18 ] Mr. Meads asserted that he has done nothing wrong; he has committed no criminal offence; nothing that Ms.

Meads’ lawyers have sought is mandatory; Ms. Meads has her 50% share of the marriage corporate entity; and his ongoing payments to Ms. Meads have purchased a new home for her and her partner, an RCMP officer. [ 19 ] Mr. Meads, at this point and later, provided his position concerning potential issues in dispute. Ms. Meads was concerned that a part of his reported income were RRSP withdrawals. Mr. Meads explained that amount was a living allowance he received for travelling to work away from home, a legitimate expense that is not a part of personal income for support calculations. Mr.

Meads also alleged that his wife had received training as a laboratory technician, but had not pursued that career as she did not like the work. [ 20 ] Mr. Meads also explained why he discontinued child support payments after one of his children had her 18 th birthday. He explained that several of his older children have attended and been successful in post-secondary education, but that he and his wife believed that a child should pay for their own education. He saw no reason to treat this now adult child differently.

That said, the Meads had assisted their older children during their studies, when necessary, and Mr. Meads reaffirmed he would do the same for the daughter who was now about to enter post-secondary education. [ 21 ] In his opinion, Ms. Meads had already received a fair share of the matrimonial property. She had taken the bulk of his silver bullion, and $250,000.00 from a joint bank account. [ 22 ] Mr. Meads then said: I do not want to be enticed into slavery, sir. She contacts me, her other lawyer contacted me, they are enticing me into contract. And I do not want to go there. I just want to be left alone.

Give me a divorce. ... I speak passionately when I talk, but I am not angry. I want you to understand that. My voice is raised. That is the emotional side of me that is coming out. I am not mad or angry. I want to make that clear as well. You sir, are the judge in this matter. And so I, Dennis Larry Meads, being a flesh and blood man, and as the creditor and beneficiary for and the private record, do here nominate and appoint you, Judge Rooke, fiduciary trustee liable under your full commercial liability, and your unlimited civil liability capacities, for my full protection and benefit as a de jure court.

For the record, I, Dennis Larry Meads, and for the record a child of the almighty God Jehovah, and not a child of the state. For the lord and saviour Jesus the Christ is my spiritual advocate and in this instant matter at hand, and that God’s laws rule supreme in my life and this court, and I, Dennis Larry Meads, being a flesh and blood man pray that the judge, you sir Mr.

Rooke, Justice Rooke, and court follows this claim in God’s law, and if they should they decide not to they should make the claim right now that they are above God’s law and prove beyond the breath they let out pray again that the almighty God, all of us and protect us all, will abide with us in his laws. [ 23 ] After hearing submissions from the parties I concluded that case management would be appropriate in this instance, and appointed myself to that task. I noted that this Court will apply the laws of Canada, and explained to Mr.

Meads the basic aspects of child and spousal support, matrimonial property division, and the mutual and reciprocal obligations for disclosure in family law proceedings, including disclosure that he may seek from Ms. Meads. [ 24 ] Mr. Meads then asked me “about the sign above my head”, which is the Royal Coat of Arms of Canada, and declared:

This is an admiral court, your jurisdiction is on water, it’s not on land; I am a freeman on the land, and for you to play down some of the statements I am making is not acceptable unless you prove it to me in law, and just saying it to me is nothing. [ 25 ] He complained that he had asked Ms. Reeves to provide her bond and license to practice law, but had not received that, and continued: But I do sir want to work with law, and not statutes and rules that have come up from man over time. I understand they work for the bulk of the people, but ... I’m representing myself and what I speak about I believe in.

There are rules above man’s rules, and God’s laws is where your laws originated from, so let’s go back to the Maximus, and deal with it as quickly as possible. [ 26 ] Mr. Meads stated that his birth certificate has an associated bond with large amounts of money that could easily discharge in full the claims advanced by Ms. Meads. He said this Court could order that payment. He then attempted to provide me with an envelope, presumably containing documents. Mr.

Meads said the contents of the envelope had been “filed internationally”: a UCC filing, a Canadian filing, a commercial security agreement, an identity bond, “actual and constructive notices”, hold harmless and identity agreements, non-negotiable security agreements, an affidavit of his status, a copyright and trade-mark of his name contract, and

definitions of the words used in those documents. “UCC” means the “Uniform Commercial Code”, which is U.S. commercial legislation. [ 27 ] I refused the envelope, and noted that if the envelope was abandoned then I would put those materials in the garbage. I reassured Mr. Meads that I will apply the laws of Alberta and Canada, and that while he is in Court, he will follow the Court’s rules. Mr.

Meads’ reply was that was “unacceptable”, and he claimed that the “UCC” is “universal law”. [ 28 ] It appeared to me that it would be possible to sever the divorce and have that proceed, but there remained issues to address, specifically spousal and child support, and division of matrimonial property. It is generally my personal practice not to sever while such collateral, but important, matters remain unresolved. I asked Ms. Reeves to explain what disclosure she required, which amounted to 2010 and 2011 tax returns, certain employment pay and compensation information, as well as information in relation to Mr.

Meads’ investments, including the precious metals he personally owns. [ 29 ] Mr. Meads explained he has yet to file his 2010 and 2011 income tax returns, and he did acknowledged that was a task he needed to address. He promised to provide that information by September 1, 2012. [ 30 ] After informing Mr. Meads about the Court’s contempt authority, I reassured him that I want to assist him and Ms. Meads to move forward, separate their affairs, and allow each to live on their own. There were still issues to explore, but that I would assist. Mr. Meads responded in this manner: Mr.

Meads: A lot of things have happened today that I need to wrap my mind around. The one thing that comes out to me loud and clear is you’re treating the person Dennis Meads with all of these statements, and not the living soul. You are enticing me into slavery ... The Court: I am going to let someone else deal with your living soul. I’m just going to deal with your person. Mr. Meads: Alright, then that’s your responsibility, because you created it. [ 31 ] He asserted he was willing to go to jail, but as he is “flesh and blood” he is free from the “mumbo jumbo that is law”. Mr.

Meads alleged that an emergency protection order to which he is subject was the result of a trap, and his wife had been coached by the RCMP to spring that trap. He rejected the system into which he is pushed, and indicated that my statements are directed to a “corporate entity” created by the government. [ 32 ] I reassured Mr. Meads that I did not want to put him into jail, but would do so if necessary. His recourse to my decisions is an appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal. Conversely, Mr. Meads could apply and the Court would order disclosure from Ms.

Meads to learn the fate of the $250,000.00 and silver bullion that he alleges Ms. Meads possesses.

[ 33 ] This led to a final statement by Mr. Meads. He asserted the Bible is the “Maximus of Law” and is the binding basis of all law, and said: You are enticing me again to ask her to disclose $250,000, you are trying to bring me into this court proceeding that I have no desire to get into. [ 34 ] Mr. Meads then left the courtroom before the completion of the hearing. He abandoned the envelope he had attempted to provide to me. The envelope was put in the trash by the Clerk. [ 35 ] My “Conditions and Guidelines of Case Management” [“Conditions and Guidelines”] were sent to Mr. Meads on June 13, 2012.

Part of those instructions was that in these proceedings Mr. Meads was not to correspond with the Court, except to either: 1. propose an application, or 2. to request a case management conference. [ 36 ] Though I will later return to this hearing at various points in these Reasons, I will now briefly outline my understanding of the meaning of certain of Mr. Meads’ actions and statements: 1. Mr. Meads clearly subscribes to the OPCA concept that he has two aspects, what I later discuss as the ‘double/split person’ concept.

The German folk term “doppelganger”, a kind of paranormal double, is a useful concept to describe this curious duality. Mr. Meads labels one aspect as a “person” or “corporate entity” while the other is his “flesh and blood” form. 2. Mr. Meads also subscribes to the theory that almost any interaction with the court or state can result in a binding contract. That is why he was so apprehensive about accepting my proposal to order disclosure from Ms. Meads - that apparently benign act would allegedly bind him in contract to this Court’s authority. 3.

The reference to Admiralty Law relates to an OPCA concept that there are two kinds of law, “common law” and “admiralty law”, and Mr. Meads rejected application of the latter to himself. 4. The discussion of the alleged source of funds to discharge his child and spousal support obligations, a bank account related to his birth certificate, indicates Mr. Meads has advanced a ‘money for nothing’ scheme called “A4V”. These are all, of course, nonsense. C. Subsequent Developments [ 37 ] On June 19 and 21, 2012 the Court received two effectively identical sets of documents sent by Mr. Meads.

One was addressed to me, the second to the Chief Court Clerk. These were not filed with the Court. [ 38 ] These documents generally match Mr. Meads’ verbal description of the abandoned envelope’s contents. The June 19 and 21 materials were returned to Mr. Meads as they do not represent an application for leave, supported by a draft application and supporting affidavit(s), as required by my Conditions and Guidelines for Case Management. Further, they have no application known to law. However, copies were retained.

[ 39 ] The first document is a letter with multicoloured text (that facet I do not reproduce). It is addressed in this manner: SECURED PARTY CREDITOR is ::Dennis-Larry:Meads:: FIDUCIARY-TRUSTEE-LIABLE is “Associate Chief Justice” J.D. Rooke [ 40 ] Summarizing this document, it thanks me for accepting appointment as “FIDUCIARY-TRUSTEE-LIABLE” on June 8, 2012.

It then appoints me: ... with the Fiduciary-Trustee-Liable Position with the highest and with the greatest- level for the care in the equity and in the Law and is with the expectation that-is that-you being the Fiduciary-Trustee-Liable are Duty-Bound for the utmost-case and protection for the living flesh and blood sentient - man, ::Dennis-Larry:Meads:: who is the creation for the Lord God Almighty Jehovah with whom you owe the duty (the “principal ” qui facit per alium, facit per se): you, “Associate Chief Justice ” J.D.

Rooke must not place your personal interests before the duty, and must not profit in your position as the Fiduciary-Trustee, unless the principal gives you consent in the written-format. [sic, emphasis in original] If I believed that Mr. Meads acted sincerely (which I do not), I would conclude Mr. Meads misapprehended the scope of the responsibility and authority of a case management justice.

However, this, instead, seems to be a kind of OPCA document that purports to unilaterally foist a particularly impressive sounding string of gibberish obligations upon me. [ 41 ] The letter then instructs, “under the guidance and direction with the Almighty God Jehovah watching over us through His Son and Reigning King Jesus Christ”, that I use the attached documents to do the following: • ... for the completion and carrying-out for the full protection and benefit for the ::Dennis-Larry: Meads:: and for the children of the union with the full-written-text/report for the “Instant-Matter-In-The-Hand ” at the end of the every-month till the end for the contract with the child of the union,. • One time Lump Sum Payout (With-Out-Recourse) in the form of a bond or other financial instrument from the Provincial- Registered-Estate for the Persona DENNIS LARRY MEADS (juristic person) thru the Provincial-Registered-Event in the PROVINCAIL BIRTH CERTIFICATE and/or any other government(

s) for the Canada Registered Event(s) - for the make-whole for the Debtor CRYSTAL LYNNE MEADS and Michele J. Reeves DRA MICHELE J. REEVES (PERSONA-AT-LAW-PERSONA) • Debtor, being the CRYSTAL LYNNE MEADS and Michele J.

Reeves DBA contact via the any media with the living flesh and blood sentient - man, ::Dennis-Larry:Meads:: and/or the DENNIS LARRY MEADS (juristic person) and when-there is the claim for a breach face the penalties as-is prescribed in the attached-documents. • For the claim for the Divorce-Papers signed as the CRYSTAL LYNNE MEADS, which does not abhor delay. • For the claim for the Child-Support-Payments for the child in the Union, [child #1] of $1000.00/ month. (When is for the claim for the habituation with mother) till the full-age-eighteen years with the no-section-7-rules application/begging , for the child being the [child #1] can/must dialogue the her-needs as-is needed with the father with the new-arrangements provision-in the written-format and fully-notarized and full-authentication . • Child-Support-Assistance for the child of the union being the [child #2] as per the negotiation with her-earthly-father till the full- age being the twenty-one (21) and being in the attendance in the post-education. • And other useful-beneficial-information for the make and for the keeping for the all parties-whole . [sic, emphasis in original, some reformatting for clarity.]

[ 42 ] The remaining documents are: 1. a power of attorney where DENNIS LARRY MEADS grants general authority to Dennis-Larry: Meads; 2. a UCC Financing Statement registered in Ohio for a Certificate of Birth; 3. a UCC search of “DENNIS LARRY MEADS, foreign situs cestui qui vie trust”; 4. a government of Alberta Personal Property Registry Verification Statement for “DENNIS LARRY MEADS, foreign situs cestui qui vie trust” that lists as collateral a birth certificate, social insurance number, UCC1 financing statement, a certificate of marriage, an operator’s license, Canadian passport, and what I believe are two court orders; 5. a commercial security agreement where DENNIS LARRY MEADS assumes all debts and obligations of Dennis-Larry:Meads, while granting Dennis-Larry:Meads all his property; 6. an “Actual and Constructive Notice” from Dennis-Larry: Meads to the Bank of Canada that “accepts for value” enclosed documents in accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code and the Bank of Canada Act to charge his “public treasury”, which is identified by his social insurance number, for $100 billion Canadian dollars or the equivalent in silver or gold; 7. a “Hold Harmless and Indemnify Agreement Non Negotiable Between the Parties”, that DENNIS LARRY MEADS generally indemnifies Dennis-Larry: Meads; 8. a ‘fee schedule’, which is a kind of document I will later discuss in more detail; 9. a document entitled “Notice to YOURFILINGCOUNTY County Register Of Deeds Clerk”; 10. an “Affidavit of Political Status”, with “Grantor: DENNIS LARRY MEADS” and “Grantee: Dennis-Larry: Meads”; 11. a “Copyright Trade-name/Trademark Contract” between DENNIS LARRY MEADS and Dennis-Larry: Meads, the intellectual property subject being the name Dennis Larry Meads, in various forms; and 12. a document that purports that anyone who uses “Dennis Larry Meads” (or variations of that) owes Dennis-Larry: Meads $100 million per use of that. [ 43 ] From a review of these documents, it appears that Mr.

Meads is purporting to split himself into two aspects. One gets his property and benefits, the other his debts and liabilities. The ‘Mr. Meads with liabilities’ has entirely indemnified the ‘Mr. Meads with property’. He also appears to instruct me and the Bank of Canada to use a secret bank account, with the same number as his social insurance number or birth certificate, to pay all his child and spousal support obligations, and provide him $100 billion in precious metals. Mr.

Meads has also purported to create various contractual obligations for those who might interact with him, or who write or speak his name. [ 44 ] This is, of course, nonsense. As I have noted to Mr. Meads, these materials have no force or meaning in law, other than they indicate an intention on his part to evade his lawful obligations and the authority of the Court and government. He is an OPCA litigant. That has legal consequences for him, which these Reasons will explain.

D. The Purposes of These Reasons [ 45 ] These Reasons have a number of purposes. The requests of both Mr. and Ms. Meads are best met by a broad and comprehensive response. The scope and variety of Mr. Meads’ materials and submissions touches on many related issues. [ 46 ] Its context is also important. These Reasons sets the stage for an ongoing procedure - case management of this file - and respond to a collection of issues that have emerged immediately at the beginning that process. If not fully addressed, I believe the OPCA aspect of this litigation will hamper successful resolution of Mr. and Ms.

Meads’ divorce. 1. Ms. Meads [ 47 ] Counsel for Ms. Meads, Ms. Reeves, sought case management because she cannot meaningfully communicate with Mr. Meads. She explained she had attempted to engage in mundane procedural steps, such as requests for disclosure, and instead received complex and cryptic documents, demands, and threats. She turned to the Court for hands-on management because she does not otherwise have an effective mechanism to deal with Mr.

Meads, and his OPCA strategies. [ 48 ] These Reasons are intended to assist her, explain what she faces, and illustrate how this and other Courts have responded to litigants who adopt and advance OPCA concepts and strategies. I cast these Reasons broadly to help her both understand what she has already encountered, but also to deal with developments in the ongoing litigation and case management processes. 2. Mr. Meads [ 49 ] These Reasons are also a response to Mr. Meads. He clearly plans to frame his entire divorce action in an OPCA context. He arrived in court with that intention.

That was the only ‘issue’ on which he wanted to respond. Since the June 8 hearing I have seen no evidence that Mr. Meads intends to abandon his strategies to defeat Court authority and his child and spousal support obligations. [ 50 ] I was explicit on June 8 that I considered Mr. Meads’ OPCA submissions and claims irrelevant, yet he has persisted. At that hearing he announced that my decision was “unacceptable”, and has subsequently acted in defiance of my explicit instructions that he only communicate with the Court to propose an application or to request a case management conference.

He said he would not voluntarily put himself under the Court’s authority, denied the Court had any lawful hold over him, and left. [ 51 ] Mr. Meads did not accept the result of the June 8 hearing, and proceeded to send additional documentation to the Court and myself. His intention to employ OPCA concepts and defy my instructions is very clear in his June 19 and 21 cover letters. He demands that I act on his behalf, using highly unusual and mandatory language. [ 52 ] These Reasons are not merely a response to Mr.

Meads’ in-court misconduct but also a global response to the entire litigation strategy he has underway. There are no signs he has decided to back down and adopt a more reasonable approach. From the file record and his documents, he has been on this path for over a year and a half. I intend these Reasons to clearly identify for him why it is time to change his approach. 3. A Broad Set of OPCA Concepts and Materials [ 53 ] There is a third reason for a broad-based decision and analysis. It so happens that Mr.

Meads has provided a remarkable and well developed assortment of OPCA documents, concepts, materials, and strategies. These materials also illustrate particular idiosyncrasies that this and other Courts have identified as associated with the OPCA community and OPCA litigation. Phrased differently, Mr. Meads’ materials and approach provide an ideal type specimen for examination and commentary, which should be instructive to other OPCA litigants who have been taken in by these ideas, opposing parties and their counsel, as well as gurus. [ 54 ] Mr.

Meads’ submissions also make an excellent subject for a global review of the law concerning OPCA, the OPCA

community and its gurus, and how the court, lawyers, and litigants should respond to these vexatious practices and the persons who advance and advocate these techniques and ideas. In this sense, the present case management allows the litigation between Mr. and Ms. Meads to explore the OPCA community and its concepts, for the benefit of this and other Canadian Courts, and litigants appearing before the courts. [ 55 ] I will use Mr. Meads’ materials and arguments to illustrate many points in this review. Those materials will be supplemented from several sources.

First, I review judgments from this and other Courts that report on OPCA strategies and court responses to OPCA litigants. [ 56 ] Second, this Court and its justices have been involved in a large number of court proceedings that include OPCA elements, deployed by a spectrum of OPCA litigants. As the senior administrative judicial official of the Court of Queen’s Bench in Edmonton, I am usually made aware of this litigation. Our Court’s experience has been that OPCA-related litigation involves particular security and court efficiency issues, which fall within my purview.

Thus, I will, in certain instances in my review and analysis, reference unreported litigation before justices of this Court that has come to my attention. [ 57 ] Last, I am frequently the direct recipient of documents sent by OPCA litigants. This may be because I am the senior administrative justice of this Court in Edmonton. These documents frequently purport to ‘bind’ or ‘notify’ me of various OPCA schemes and obligations. I review this correspondence as a facet of my administrative judicial duties.

Though no doubt unintentional, these materials are a useful and direct way to investigate certain OPCA schemes and strategies, and provide a plethora of characteristic OPCA litigation ‘fingerprints’. 4. Mr. Meads Faces No Unexpected Sanction [ 58 ] Mr. Meads does not face any sanction or other negative consequence flowing from these Reasons. To date, I have not accepted any of his materials or submissions and he is aware of that. These Reasons do not put him at greater risk for his prior activities.

However, to be clear, my decision to direct disclosure does anticipate sanctions for non-compliance, that should be of no surprise to Mr. Meads. [ 59 ] In fact, Mr. Meads can only benefit from a comprehensive response by this Court. Through these Reasons, Mr. Meads is now on notice of how Canadian courts have responded to OPCA litigation and litigants. The more thorough my explanation of that, the better. III. Overview of these Reasons [ 60 ] The remainder of these Reasons address aspects of the OPCA phenomenon, and the courts’ responses, closing with the application of these Reasons to the Meads litigation.

There are four main parts to these Reasons: The OPCA Phenomenon [ 61 ] This part of the Reasons is a detailed review of the OPCA community, its membership, organization, and known history. It sets out the Court’s understanding of persons who affiliate with OPCA concepts, what traits they do and do not share, and how they organize themselves. [ 62 ] This community has “guru” leader, and follower / customer, cohorts. Groups of persons who have similar beliefs join together into “movements”. Known gurus and movements are identified and described. Indicia of OPCA Litigants, Litigation, and Strategies

[ 63 ] The documentary material and in-court conduct of OPCA litigants involves very unusual and stereotypic motifs. The second part of these Reasons identifies these ‘fingerprints’ that characterize OPCA activities. The problematic character of OPCA litigation and litigants may warrant special court procedures; some possibilities are surveyed. Judicial Response to OPCA Concepts and Arguments [ 64 ] This part of the Reasons surveys existing caselaw that reports and rejects OPCA strategies and concepts. Those strategies and concepts are grouped by their shared themes and mechanisms.

The theoretical basis and operation of certain more elaborate OPCA schemes are examined in detail. [ 65 ] No Canadian court has accepted an OPCA concept or approach as valid. This part of the decision identifies a common basis to reject these ideas as a category: they directly attack the inherent jurisdiction of Canadian courts. That fact is also a basis for why OPCA schemes are inherently vexatious, and provide evidence that may potentially lead to orders for contempt of court. Remedies for OPCA litigation and litigation strategies are reviewed.

Summary and Direction [ 66 ] There is no place in Canadian courts for anyone who advances OPCA concepts. The last part of these Reasons suggests how judges, lawyers, and litigants may respond to persons who adopt and advance th ese concepts. I also comment directly to those in the OPCA community - both gurus and their followers - with the hope that these Reasons will lead them to more productive and successful interaction with the courts, government, and their fellow citizens. IV. The OPCA Phenomenon [ 67 ] I will first engage in an overview of the OPCA community, its composition, and their concepts.

Certain of these observations are generalizations that flow from the more specific examples and materials that make up the bulk of these Reasons. In other instances, this information reflects the experiences of justices of this Court that have come to my attention as the supervising administrative Justice of this Court. [ 68 ] Members in the OPCA community appear surprisingly unified by their methodology and objectives. They are otherwise diverse. OPCA litigants appearing in our Court may be anything from educated professionals to retired senior citizens. They may be wealthy or poor.

The famous are not immune; for example the American action movie actor Wesley Snipes adopted OPCA techniques in an attempt to defeat his income tax obligations: United State v. Wesley Trent Snipes et al. , No. 5:06-cr-00022-WTH-GRJ-1 (U.S.D.C. M.D. Fl., February 1, 2008). Snipes presently is serving a three year prison sentence for income tax evasion. [ 69 ] In Canada, this category of litigation traces into the late 1990’s, representing the spread of concepts that emerged much earlier in the United States.

Our Court’s experience has been that persons involved in the OPCA community often hold highly conspiratorial perspectives, but there is no consistency in who is the alleged hidden hand. Another uniform OPCA characteristic appears to be a belief that ordinary persons have been unfairly cheated, or deceived as to their rights.

This belief that the common man has been abused and cheated by a hidden hand seems to form the basis for OPCA community members perceived right to break ‘the system’ and retaliate against ‘their oppressors’. [ 70 ] These Reasons in many instances identify reported caselaw that comments on OPCA litigants, OPCA gurus, and their misconduct. It should be understood that the reported caselaw is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of encounters between this Court and OPCA litigants are not reported. These litigants and their schemes have been encountered in almost all areas of law.

They appear in chambers, in criminal proceedings, initiate civil litigation based on illusionary OPCA rights, attempt to evade court and state authority with procedural and defence-based schemes, and interfere with unrelated matters. [ 71 ] OPCA strategies as brought before this Court have proven disruptive, inflict unnecessary expenses on other parties, and are ultimately harmful to the persons who appear in court and attempt to invoke these vexatious strategies. Because of the nonsense they argue, OPCA litigants are invariably unsuccessful and their positions dismissed, typically without written reasons.

Nevertheless, their

litigation abuse continues. The growing volume of this kind of vexatious litigation is a reason why these Reasons suggest a strong response to curb this misconduct. [ 72 ] Beyond that, these are little more than scams that abuse legal processes. As this Court now recognizes that these schemes are intended for that purpose, a strict approach is appropriate when the Court responds to persons who purposefully say they stand outside the rules and law, or who intend to abuse, disrupt, and ultimately break the legal processes that govern conduct in Canada.

The persons who advance these schemes, and particularly those who market and sell these concepts as commercial products, are parasites that must be stopped. [ 73 ] A critical first point is an appreciation that the concepts discussed in these Reasons are frequently a commercial product, designed, promoted, and sold by a community of individuals, whom I refer to as “gurus”. Gurus claim that their techniques provide easy rewards – one does not have to pay tax, child and spousal support payments, or pay attention to traffic laws.

There are allegedly secret but accessible bank accounts that contain nearly unlimited funds, if you know the trick to unlock their gates. You can transform a bill into a cheque with a stamp and some coloured writing. You are only subject to criminal sanction if you agree to be subject to criminal sanction. You can make yourself independent of any state obligation if you so desire, and unilaterally force and enforce demands on other persons, institutions, and the state.

All this is a consequence of the fact gurus proclaim they know secret principles and law, hidden from the public, but binding on the state, courts, and individuals. [ 74 ] And all these “secrets” can be yours, for small payment to the guru. [ 75 ] These claims are, of course, pseudolegal nonsense. A judge who encounters and reviews OPCA concepts will find their errors are obvious and manifest, once one strips away the layers of peculiar language, irrelevant references, and deciphers the often bizarre documentation which accompanies an OPCA scheme.

When reduced to their conceptual core, most OPCA concepts are contemptibly stupid. Mr. Meads, for example, has presented the Court with documents that appear to be a contract between himself, and himself. One Mr. Meads promises to pay for any liability of the other Mr. Meads. One owns all property, the other all debts. What is the difference between these entities? One spells his name with upper case letters. The other adds spurious and meaningless punctuation to his name. Mr. Meads (with punctuation) is the Mr. Meads who appeared in court. He says the Mr.

Meads (all capitals) is the one who should pay child and spousal support. [ 76 ] So where is that Mr. Meads (all capitals)? At one point in the June 8 hearing Mr. Meads said that Mr. Meads (all capitals) was a “corporate entity” attached to his birth certificate. Later, he told me that the other Mr. Meads was a “person” - and that I had created him! Again, total nonsense. [ 77 ] The bluntly idiotic substance of Mr. Mead’s argument explains the unnecessarily complicated manner in which it was presented.

OPCA arguments are never sold to their customers as simple ideas, but instead are byzantine schemes which more closely resemble the plot of a dark fantasy novel than anything else. Latin maxims and powerful sounding language are often used. Documents are often ornamented with many strange marking and seals. Litigants engage in peculiar, ritual-like in court conduct. All these features appear necessary for gurus to market OPCA schemes to their often desperate, ill-informed, mentally disturbed, or legally abusive customers. This is crucial to understand the non-substance of any OPCA concept or strategy.

The story and process of a OPCA scheme is not intended to impress or convince the Courts, but rather to impress the guru ’s customer . [ 78 ] Mediaeval alchemy is a helpful analogue. Alchemists sold their services based on the theatre of their activities, rather than demonstrated results, or any analytical or systematic methodology. OPCA gurus are modern legal alchemists. They promise gold, but their methods are principally intended to impress the gullible, or those who wish to use this drivel to abuse the court system.

Any lack of legal success by the OPCA litigant is, of course, portrayed as a consequence of the customer’s failure to properly understand and apply the guru’s special knowledge. [ 79 ] Caselaw that relates to Gurus, reviewed below, explains how gurus present these ideas in seminars, books, websites, and instructional DVDs and other recordings. They provide pre-prepared documents, which sometimes are government forms, and instruct how to fill in the necessary information that then produces the desired effects. Gurus write scripts to follow in court.

Some will attempt to act as your representative, and argue your case. [ 80 ] When gurus do appear in court their schemes uniformly fail, which is why most leave court appearances to their customers. That explains why it is not unusual to find that an OPCA litigant cannot even explain their own materials. They did not write them. They do not (fully) understand them. OPCA litigants appear, engage in a court drama that is more akin to a magic spell ritual than an actual legal proceeding, and wait to see if the court is entranced and compliant. If not, the litigant returns home to scrutinize at what point the

wrong incantation was uttered, an incorrectly prepared artifact waved or submitted. A. Characteristics of OPCA Group Members [81] As is illustrated in the specific examples that follow, persons who adopt OPCA ideas may come from practically any part ofsociety. OPCA ideas appear to be developed in social groups. For example, this Court has often observed ‘supporters’ attending OPCAlitigation hearings. OPCA litigants frequently say they work or study in groups. Mr. Meads mentioned he studies the law with a numberof other persons with similar interests.

Internet forums are clearly important mechanisms by which OPCA litigants and those interested inOPCA concepts discuss and plan their activities. OPCA litigants and gurus often appear to prefer to communicate and broadcast theirideas with video recordings made available on the “www.youtube.com” website. [82] This Court and the reported caselaw indicates that OPCA litigants and gurus do not have a particular political orientation.Intriguingly, the same concepts and mechanisms are advanced by both persons who hold perspectives that are alternatively extremelyright wing (for example: R. v.

Warman, 2001 BCCA 510; Warman v. Warman, 2005 CHRT 36; Warman v. Warman, 2005 CHRT 43)or extremely left wing (for example: Jackson v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2001 SKQB 377 at para. 21, 210 Sask.R.285). They use the same ‘techniques’ but each has a different backstory or context for that methodology. [83] Other OPCA litigants proclaim bizarre alternative histories which have no obvious or explicit political affiliations, forexample: Henry v. Starwood Hotels, 2010 ABCA 367, leave refused [2010] S.C.C.A. No. 475; Henry v. El, 2010 ABCA 312, leaverefused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 138. Some, like Mr.

Meads, frame their beliefs in a religious context, for example: Bloom v. Canada, 2011ONSC 1308; Sandri v. Canada (Attorney General), , 179 A.C.W.S. (3d) 811 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); Pappas v. Canada,2006 TCC 692, [2006] G.S.T.C. 161; R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265. [84] The alternative history and conspiracy stories that cloak various different groups of OPCA litigants may be very different, butthe caselaw and this Court’s experience increasingly points to these apparently disparate groups making the exact same pseudolegalarguments.

The only ideology, such as it is, that unifies these litigants and their leaders is a belief that they should be immune fromobligations. B. The OPCA Guru [85] These Reasons will survey a number of known OPCA gurus, and their activities. In

summary, the guru class are nothing morethan conmen. Gurus are the usual source of new OPCA concepts, though more often their novel contribution is to simply create avariation on or repackage a pre-existing strategy, perhaps changing language or putting in some particular twist to a concept. Gurus seemto borrow extensively from one another. For example, its appears that parts of a document filed in one OPCA matter may be reproducedin another proceeding. An excellent example of that is the ‘fee schedule’ attached to these Reasons. Identical language is reproduced inmaterials discussed in Szoo v.

Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police), 2011 BCSC 696. [86] The caselaw indicates that gurus adopt a number of strategies. One is that they provide materials, such as seminars, books,and DVDs, that explain the theoretical context of their ideas, and demonstrate the application of those ideas for the benefit of theircustomers. These commercial products may include items such as form documents, scripts, and other materials that can be used in court,sent to government actors, or used in litigation. Some OPCA gurus hold seminars to promote the materials they sell.

Many have Internetweb pages that serve the same function. 1. Russell Porisky and the Paradigm Education Group [87] Typically, this Court has learned about gurus and their activities from the perspective of an outside observer. For example, incourt, justices see litigants identify certain persons who provide assistance or guidance to an OPCA litigant.

Some gurus have appearedbefore justices of this Court and have directed (or appear to direct) the OPCA litigant’s conduct, or attempt to represent the OPCAlitigant. [88] Recently, a more complete window into the operations of an OPCA guru and his customer base has been provided by the trialand conviction (R. v. Porisky, 2012 BCSC 67, 2012 D.T.C. 5037 [“Porisky Trial Decision”]) and sentencing (R. v. Porisky, 2012 BCSC771 [“Porisky Sentencing Decision”]) of Russell Porisky and Elaine Gould for tax evasion and counseling others to commit fraud. R. v.

Sydel , 2006 BCPC 346 also reports on the Porisky operation but from the perspective of one customer, a dentist. These cases provide many details on how an OPCA scheme operates. [ 89 ] Porisky operated a business, named “The Paradigm Education Group”, that advanced a concept that it was possible for a potential taxpayer to: ... structure their affairs so that they were a “natural person, working in his own capacity, under a private contract, for his own benefit”.

Paradigm taught that money earned under this arrangement was exempt from income tax. ( Porisky Trial Decision , at para. 1) [ 90 ] Porisky claimed this was in response to a banking conspiracy: He founded what he eventually called The Paradigm Education Group to “create a structure that everyone could work together in to save the country from a foreign parasite”.

The foreign parasites were the international bankers who were, directly or indirectly, responsible for the income tax system. ( Porisky Trial Decision , at para. 38) [ 91 ] Porisky taught that the Canada Revenue Agency had tricked persons into believing there was an obligation to pay tax, and further that taxation is slavery, serfdom, and contrary to the Canadian Bill of Rights : para. 111. Justice Myer helpfully isolates representative examples of the alternative reality and rhetoric Porisky directed to his customers in the Appendix to the trial decision.

It is typical that a guru will frame his or her arguments in a conspiratorial context, and claim that the potential customer has been cheated. The state is an enemy and oppressive. A few sample passages illustrate Porisky’s perspective on the world: ... When I was a good slave I dismissed my thoughts because I was taught that I was incapable of understanding the superior wisdom of my elected officials. The more I studied though, the freer my mind grew and the clearer it became.

They never had some kind of superior wisdom as I had been taught, in fact it became painfully clear that many of them could not or would not even think for themselves ... ... As far as propaganda goes, the “National Post”

article was a great textbook example of promoting a victim mentality. It seems to stimulate sympathy for our poor federal government, while painting everyone who doesn’t submit to their national plundering program as a criminal. Nevertheless, it was a great read, I laughed, I cried and I’ll definitely want to read it again when I feel like being shamed into feeling that I should waive my natural rights so our government can keep its trough full enough to ensure their fiscal mismanagement can continue unabated. ...

This mental shift toward total government dependence is what will allow the implementation of the banker’s ultimate agenda, a New World Order run by a One World Government that they control. ... ... The choice is yours, but consider this, ignorance may be bliss, but it costs you plenty.

[92] I will not review the basis on why Porisky’s “natural person” scheme is incorrect, as this question is thoroughly dissected inreported cases including: R. v. Klundert, 2008 ONCA 767 at para. 19, 93 O.R. (3d) 81, leave denied [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 522; R. v.Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 at para. 27, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265; R. v. Pinno, 2002 SKPC 118 at paras.12-13, 15-16, [2003] 3 C.T.C. 308; Kennedy v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), (ON SC), [2000] 4 C.T.C.186, 2000 D.T.C. 6524 (Ont. Sup. Ct.

J.); and Porisky Trial Decision at paras. 58-61. [93] Porisky and Paradigm advanced this scheme on a commercial basis. Porisky operated a website, and sold instructionalmaterials such as books and DVDs: Porisky Trial Decision, at para. 39. Porisky also conducted seminars where he changed a fee (atpara. 39), and provided levels of training and exams (at paras. 101-105). Paradigm operated as something of a pyramid scheme; Poriskyalso qualified “educators” to further proselytize his approach: Porisky Trial Decision, at paras. 39, 106.

At least one of these educators isnow also the subject of criminal litigation: R. v. Lawson, 2012 BCSC 356, at para. 21, as are other participants in the Porisky taxevasion ring: R. v. McCartie, 2012 BCSC 928. Many other persons who used Porisky’s techniques have already been convicted of taxevasion: Porisky Trial Decision, at para. 63. [94] Additionally, and in what can only be described as an exercise in pure arrogance, Porisky demanded 7% of the next two yearsincome from his subscribers in exchange for his or his educator’s assistance: Porisky Trial Decision, at para. 40.

The tax liberator hadbecome a tax collector. [95] The pseudolegal basis for Porisky’s claims is very representative of how OPCA arguments are rationalized and explained bytheir proponents. Statutes, caselaw (often foreign or obsolete), legal platitudes and

definitions (again often foreign or obsolete), politicalideology, and conspiracy, were strung together into a loose cloud that pointed to a desired result. Justice Myers eloquently described thisprocess at para. 67 of the trial decision: Mr. Porisky’s analysis picks and chooses snippets from various statutes and cases, and attempts to create logical links where none exist. It is, in effect, legal numerology. [96] It is important at this point to again stress the audience for Porisky’s ideas. That was not the courts, government actors, but hisclientele.

What mattered was that his customer base believe and then pay for his services. [97] Porisky was convicted and sentenced for having personally evaded taxes, and having aided and abetted the evasion of incometax. Justice Myers rejected a disclaimer by Porisky that his ideas, materials, and advice were for “educational purposes only”: PoriskyTrial Decision, at para. 98. Porisky had gone so far as to prepare (unsuccessful) legal arguments for one of his clients who had been suedfor tax evasion.

Porisky then analyzed that result, and told his subscribers why the client’s conviction was “ambiguous” and “... justanother desperately needed bowl of propaganda pabulum for public consumption, to keep the masses asleep and enslaved ...” [sic]: paras.118-121. [98] In total, Porisky’s guru activities led to substantial tax evasion, which was difficult to quantify with precision: PoriskySentencing Decision, at paras. 38-40. He had approximately 800 “students” who applied his scheme: at para. 40. A 4.5 year prisonsentence was ordered: para. 57. 2.

Other Canadian Gurus [99] Porisky’s guru activities are far from unique in Canada. A number of other gurus have been the subject of reported decisions,or have become directly known to this Court. a. David Kevin Lindsay [100] For over a decade David Kevin Lindsay [“Lindsay”] (usually styled David-Kevin: Lindsay) has been involved in OPCA typeactivities as a guru and litigant. He has repeatedly personally challenged various aspects of tax legislation and the authority of theCanadian state and courts: R. v. Lindsay, 2004 MBCA 147, 187 Man.R. (2d) 236; R. v.

Lindsay, 2006 BCSC 188, 68 W.C.B. (2d) 718,affirmed 2007 BCCA 214; R. v. Lindsay, 2006 BCCA 150, 265 D.L.R. (4th) 193; R. v. Lindsay, 2008 BCCA 30, 250 B.C.A.C. 270; R.

v. Lindsay , 2011 BCCA 99 , 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265. In 2008 he was sentenced to 150 days imprisonment for failure to file income tax returns: R. v. Lindsay , 2008 BCPC 203 , [2009] 1 C.T.C 86, affirmed 2010 BCSC 831 , [2010] 5 C.T.C. 174, affirmed 2011 BCCA 99, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265. [ 101 ] OPCA concepts that Lindsay has promoted include: 1. various deficiencies in judicial oaths prohibit court action: R. v.

Lindsay , 2006 BCSC 188 at paras. 30-38 , 68 W.C.B. (2d) 718, affirmed 2007 BCCA 214 ; 2. that the relationship between the state and a person is a contract, and one can opt out of that contract: R. v. Lindsay , 2011 BCCA 99 at para. 32 , 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265; 3. that the obligation to pay income tax is one such agreement: R. v. Lindsay , 2011 BCCA 99 at para. 31 , 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265; 4. legislation, the common-law, and court principles and procedures are trumped by “God’s Law” and other divinely ordained rules and principles: R. v.

Lindsay , 2011 BCCA 99 at para. 31 , 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265; 5. the same natural person argument advanced by Porisky: R. v. Lindsay , 2011 BCCA 99 at para. 27 , 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265; 6. that an aspect of the 1931 Statute of Westminster meant all post-1931 government legislation and action is unauthorized: R. v. Lindsay , 2004 MBCA 147 at para. 32 , 187 Man.R. (2d) 236; and 7. that the Magna Carta has super-constitutional status and restricts state and court action: R. v.

Lindsay , 2008 BCCA 30 at paras. 19-21 , 250 B.C.A.C. 270. [ 102 ] Lindsay holds seminars (for pay) to teach his beliefs. R. v. Dick , 2002 BCCA 27 , 163 B.C.A.C. 62, leave refused [2002] S.C.C.A. No. 128 provides a useful review of those activities and the manner in which Lindsay promotes himself: 10 Further, there is evidence that Mr. Lindsay has, in this province, been advertising himself as an expert on legal matters or permitting others to do so on his behalf.

In advance of a recent "seminar" that he instructed, he was described in an Internet notice (essentially promotional material for the seminar) as "Canada's foremost freedom expert on the secrets of laying criminal charges against government officials." The notice continued: Dave will examine some of the common law, principles and obligations as well as some of the rights and freedoms we have there under.

Included will be answers to pertinent and repeatedly asked questions involving our RIGHT to use the highways, how this right has been denied to us, how the courts have self-admittedly been a part of this fraud, what happens with insurance , and how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not protect you.

You will learn how the criminal process works, Dave will be explain [sic] how one can lay their own private criminal charges against anyone in the country, including government ministers, CCRA and other government officials, and even police officers ... 11 According to other material published on the Internet, Mr. Lindsay has also negotiated an “exclusive agreement” with a publisher: ... to work with our subscribers as a court procedure assistant. Whether it means getting help in drafting up court documents correctly,

how to lay charges against government agents or how to deal with your own lawyer more effectively, Lindsay has the solution. ... Lindsay has been involved in court procedures literally hundreds of times, for both defendant and plaintiff's challenges, or for filing courtdocuments on their behalf. Lindsay is not a "lawyer" but has the ability to act as an "agent" for anyone who has to go to court and wishesto do so without spending a fortune on lawyer fees.

We have arranged to make Lindsay available for one-on-one telephone assistance to any Canadian who needs help with court challengesor wishes to learn how to deal with court challenges for their own benefit. [Emphasis added.] [103] As is typical of most recent gurus, Lindsay also advertises his services on an Internet website: British Columbia (AttorneyGeneral) v. Lindsay, 2007 BCCA 165 at para. 15, 238 B.C.A.C. 254. [104] Sadly, some persons have taken up that offer. Lindsay has a history of advising and representing persons who advance hisschemes (Superior Filter Recycling Inc. v.

Canada, 2005 TCC 638, 2005 D.T.C. 1426; R. v. Meikle, 2008 BCPC 265 at para. 5, [2009]1 C.T.C. 184, affirmed 2009 BCSC 1540, [2010] 2 C.T.C. 76, affirmed on other grounds 2010 BCCA 337, 2010 D.T.C. 5140; Coulbeckv. University of Toronto, [2005] O.J. No. 4003 (QL), 142 A.C.W.S. (3d) 889 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); Coulbeck v. University of Toronto,[2005] O.J. No. 5688 (QL), 145 A.C.W.S. (3d) 393 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); R. v. Dick, 2000 BCPC 221, [2003] 1 C.T.C. 277 (and relatedproceedings); R. v. J.B.C. Securities Ltd., 2003 NBCA 53 at para. 9, 261 N.B.R. (2d) 199; Canadian Western Bank v. Ricci, (Ont. Sup. Ct.); R. v.

Gibbs, 2002 BCPC 703, [2

[…]