1. We are going going to be looking looking into an importan importantt court case case the famous famous meads vd meads. meads. 2. There is much much to be said said and gleamed gleamed from walking walking through through this this case. case. This judgeme judgement nt was produced on purpose with a direct reason for this action. The judge went through and quoted from close to 100 supreme court cases in order to drive the points po ints home that he was making in this judgment. 3. The amount amount of work that that went into into this this judgement judgement is a lot lot it is close close to 200 pages pages long and was created with intent and with a purpose. !. This is the the judgment judgment that is is being used used in the courts courts of "anada "anada now to ask ask that cases cases which are deposited in court but have no operation of law to be dismissed from court. This judgement is the model e#ample that the courts are using to determine whether a individual has been e#posed to a false conception of law. $. This judgement judgement is meant meant to describe describe and bring bring forth the qualiti qualities es of a ve#atious ve#atious litigant. litigant. %t is meant to show the courts the attributes of claims and cases that have no chance of succeeding and where the individual appl& to the court is using useless applications of law. '. The judgement judgement claims claims to uncover uncover e#pose e#pose and publis publish h or bring to to light the the tactics tactics used b& (pca litigants. 7. )ection !* This "ourt has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category
of vexatious litigant.
% have collectivel& labelled them as (rgani+ed ( rgani+ed ,seudolegal "ommercial -rgument litigants /(,"- litigants litigants to functionall& define them collectivel& for what the& literall& are. . (ne of the the purpos purposes es is is throug through h this liti litigan gant t to uncover, expose, collate, and publish the tactics employed by the OPCA community, as a part of a process to eradicate the growing abuse abuse that these these litigants litigants direct towards towards the justice justice and legal system system we otherwise enjo& in -lberta and across "anada. % will respond on a point*b&*point basis to the broad spectrum of (,"- schemes concepts and arguments advanced in this action b& r. eads. 4. The judge is is using this this specific specific litiga litigant nt to e#pose e#pose and make a report report about about the man& man& individuals who use ,seudolegal "ommercial -rguments. These t&pes of arguments are an abuse of the court procedure and a waste of the courts time. This is a bold declaration and a helpful one to an& individual seeking their freedoms who ma& come across these individuals who are teaching these tactics. 10. This judgment is going to to be used to assist others who have been taken in and duped b& that these practices practices are are entirely entirely ineffective ineffective . 5urther this judgment these gurus , to realize that will assist council of the legal communit& when facing these litigants
11. 11. )ection )ection ' * 6aturall& m& conclusions are important for these parties. 7owever they also are intended to assist others, who have been taen in!duped by gurus to reali+e that these practices are entirely ineffective 8 to empower opposing parties and their counsel to take action8 and as a warning to gurus that the Court will not tolerate their misconduct . printed in blac and 12. 5ebruar& 1$ 20119 r. r. eads filed filed a one page notari+ed document printed red in, and mared with what may be a red thumb print. "t also bears postage stamps in three corners on front and bac, and includes various declarations including that /99dennis*larr&9meads99 is a /living flesh and blood sentient*man a postmaster general and that :arb ,etr&k a clerk of the -lberta "ourt of ;ueen
13. (ne of the tactics being used used and e#posed b& the judge is the following following a (,"- litigant red in, and mared mared with what what may be a red red will file documents printed in blac and red thumb print. "t also bears postage stamps in three corners on front and bac, and includes various declarations. 1!. #hese are the signs that the court is looing for in order to deem the individual a frivolous litigant . %f an individual has been taught influenced and duped b& these gurus the& will think that b& placing their thumb thu mb print either in ink or blood will add some legal force to their documents. )o this is e#actl& wha t the& will do and now when the courts see such documents the& will automaticall& label them as an (,"- litigant. 1$. 1$4 1$4 %n this "ourt. The motivation to adopt an (,"- approach varies. "ertain "ertain (,"- litigants litigants are clearl& undergoing some kind of stress such as9 ?
$orovic v. v. %aurentian %aurentian $an of Canada 2001 :")" 33> foreclosure on a home @ $orovic &ontreal v. &cCance @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at para. 1$ 103 -.".W.). -.".W.). @3dB >008 $an of &ontreal 2012 -:;: $3> @"anA%%BB8 @"anA%%BB8
?
'. v. (ydel (ydel 200' :"," 3!' @"anA%%BB8 a bankruptc& @ '. @"anA%%BB8
?
v. Ontario *+irector *+irector,, amily disputes over child and spousal support @ )ajdu v. 'eponsibility 'eponsibility OfficeOffice- 2012 (6)" 13$ @"anA%%B8 @"anA%%B8 Callaghan v. &cCaw 8 C.C. v. .&. 2010 )C;: >4 @"anA%%B @"anA%%B 3$1 )ask.D. $$B8
?
(haes v. v. Canada *Public (afety (afety and /mergency /mergency Preparednes Preparednesss- 2011 deportation @ (haes "anA%% '0!4! @"- %D:B %D:B 2011 "anA%% '0!4! @%.D.:.BB8 or
?
+empsey v. v. /nvision /nvision Credit 0nion 0nion , 200' :")" 132! in response to large debts @ +empsey @"anA%%B '0 :.".A.D. @!thB 3048 1ravlin et al. v. Canadian "mperial $an of @"anA%%B Commerce et al, 200$ :")" 34 @"anA%%B @"anA%%B 1!0 -.".W.). -.".W.). @3dB !!>B.
1. This "ourt
23. The vast majorit& of (,"- litigants use highl& stereot&pic formats formats to name and identif& themselves. The most common form adds at&pical punctuation usuall& co lons and dashes into a name. -n& litigant who uses this =dash colon< motif motif almost certainl& has some kind of (,"- background or affiliation. The most common versions of this name format are9 9 first name E middle name 9 last name 9 or first name E middle name 9 last name
The difference is the first alternative has an additional colon before and at the end of the name. 2!. )ection 20> 5or e#ample (,"- guru Favid Cevin Aindsa& st&les his name as /Favid*Cevin9 Aindsa& r. eads also sometimes employs the clan!family!house name motif but he combines it with the =dash colon< motif to create a h&brid9 /99dennis*larr&9 of the meads*famil&99. #he family!clan! house motif is also meaningless -nother name*related indication of an (,"- litigant is that the litigant marks their name with a cop&right andGor trade*mark indication 2$. (,"- litigants frequentl& mark their documents in unconventional wa&s. #he meanings of many of these mars is unclear, and these certainly have limited or no legal significance. %t ma& be that these motifs simpl& are theatre used b& gurus to impress their customers and create what appear to be =powerful< documents. 2'. The judge judge is is about about to name a few actions that will indicate to individuals, the court system and the justice system as a whole that you are dealing with a OPCA litigant . %f an& of the following are being encouraged b& an individual then &ou should becareful. 2>. )ection 21$* %ndications that appear restricted restricted to (,"- documents include9 a thumbprint, typically in red in, though in certain instances our Court has encountered litigants who will injure themselves when presenting documents to the court clers, so that they can mae a thumb mar in blood &ercedes2 $enz inancial v. 4ovacevic 2004 (.H. 6o. >3 at @for e#ample &ercedes2 para. 12 2004 "anA%% 43' @(6 )"B )"B 2004 "anA%% 43' @(nt. )up. "t. H.B8 Callaghan v. @"anA%%B at at para. 10 3$1 )ask.D. $$8 this &cCaw8 C.C. v. .&. 2010 )C;: >4 @"anA%%B proceeding8
2. ore than than one signature signature often in atypical colour in such as red or green in5 this proceeding6 proceeding6 and attaching attaching one or more postage stamps, stamps, sometimes sometimes the stamps have text or a signature written across the stamp &ercedes2 $enz inancial inancial v. 4ovacevic 2004 (.H. 6o. >3 at para. 12 @for e#ample &ercedes2 2004 "anA%% 43' @(6 )"B )"B 2004 "anA%% 43' @(nt. )up. "t. H.B8 this proceedingB
and in certain instances these stamps are =simulated< and simpl& printed on the document itself. 37. r. eads< 5ebruar& 1$ 2011 and arch 3 2011 documents show many of these unusual features.
89. "f your documents include the above mentioned indications the court will be aware and determine that you are are an OPCA litigant and your are vexatious. #he court or counter party will see to have the case dismissed due to this fact, they will now swee to further fine you and cause you financial damage.
31. -n& use of phrases such as /accept for value /accept for value and return return for value or /accept for value and consideration and honour indicates OPCA affiliation but not necessarily use of the :A;<= OPCA scheme 8 this language arises in multiple conte#ts when incorporated in a document. 32. an& (,"- documents including those of r. r. eads , , feature a declaratio declaration n concerning service, such as >service to agent is service to principal? and >service to principal principal is service to to agent? presumabl& an attempt to e#pand the =notification< function of these materials. 33. % see this all the the time individuals teaching that notice to agent is notice to principal yet they never have a law to bac up what they are professing . 7ere the judge specificall& stated that if this phrase is included in the documents &ou can be sure the individuals are (,"- litigants. 3!. 3!. The The majority of the individuals teaching these false commercial arguments have no idea how to invoe their own fundamental rights and freedoms . )ince the& are unaware where an individualIs freedoms are ensured and protected the& tend to use obsolete and irrelevant laws to claim their apparent rights 3$. an& (,"- documents mention certain obsolete foreign foreign or t&picall& otherwise otherwise irrelevant legislation including9 @
@"anA%%B at paras. 4*1$ 3'4 the &agna Carta 9 )arper v. v. Atchison Atchison 2011 )C;: 3 @"anA%%B at ebbett 2003 :""- '4 @"anA%%B )ask.D. 13!8 '. v. ebbett @"anA%%B 10 :.".-.". 218 '. v. %indsay 200 :""- 30 @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at paras. 14*21 2$0 :.".-.". 2>08 '. v. arman 2001 :""- $10 @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at paras. 4*10 13*1!8 inningham v. Canada 9
?
the Uniform Commercial Code of the Jnited )tates of -merica often simpl& identified as the /UCC /UCC this is sometimes mistakenl& named the /Universal /Universal Commercial Code8 Code8
?
the Constitution of the United States8 States8
?
other -merican state and federal legislation9 inningham v. Canada 8
?
J6%FD(%T and J6 "%TD-A contract interpretation and dispute guidelines8
?
=oaths< legislation legislation such as the -lberta Oath Oathss of Offic O fficee Act Act D.). D. ).-. -. 200 2 000 0 c. c . ( *1 and the federal Oaths of Allegiance Alle giance Act Act D.). D. ).". ". 14 1 4$ $ c. ( *1 and Oaths of Office Regulations ".D.". c. 12!2 Regulations 12!2 or an& version of the J.C. Coronation Oath Act 8 $an of &ontreal &ontreal v. &cCance 2012 -:;: $3> @"anA%%B at para. 48
?
the Canadian Bill of Rights Rights ).". 14'0 c. !!9 !!9 Canada *&inister of Bational 'evenue 2 &.B.'.- v. (tanchfield (tanchfield 2004 5" 44 @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at para. 13 3!0 5.T.D. 1$08 '. v. Amell 2010 )C," 10> @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at paras. 1$'*1$> 3'1 )ask.D . '1 '188 this proceeding8
?
(ummerland *+istrict*+istrict- v. Bo (trings (trings /nterprises /nterprises %td. %td. 2003 the Statute of Frauds9 Frauds9 (ummerland :")" 440 @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at para. 14 12! -.".W.). -.".W.). @3dB 34 leave denied 200! :""3'0 @"anA%%B @"anA%%B 131 -.".W.). -.".W.). @3dB 44!8
?
%indsay the 1431 Statute of Westminster 9 '. v. +ic 2001 :"," 2>$ @"anA%%B8 @"anA%%B8 '. v. %indsay 200! :"- 1!> @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at para. 32 1> an.D. @2dB 23'8 and
?
the -pril 10 1433 (rder*in*"ounsel that abandoned the gold standard for "anadian currenc&.
3'. an& of these teachers of these these false s&stems do not understand that their fundamental rights and freedoms are protected through the charter of rights and freedoms. 3>. 2'' 2'' -s a preliminar& note review of the case law and this "ourt @"anA%%B at paras. 1$'*1$> 3'1 )ask.D. '1 )ask.D. '188 riesen v. Canada 200> T"" 2> @"anA%%B at para. 3 Attorney 200> $ ".T.". 20'>B which has a well*established limited legal effect @ Attorney 1eneral of Canada v. %avell 14>3 "anA%% 1>$ @)""B @)""B 14>! ).".D. 13!4 3 F.A.D. @3dB !1B. 3. )ection 224 (,"- litigants also often stress the relevance of and quote from the :ible usuall& the Cing Hames version9 Callaghan v. &cCaw 8 C.C. v. .&. 2010 )C;: >4 @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at para. > 3$1 )ask.D. $$. 34. )ection )ection 230 - person=s person=s birth birth certificate certificate is a focus focus of certain certain OPCA schemes . -n& mention or reproduction of that certificate in at&pical circumstances is a strong indication of an (,"- =-!K< scheme9 0nderworld (ervices %td. v. &oney (top %td. 2012 -:;: 32> @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at paras. $ 13.
!0. In Court Conduct )ection 2!2 OPCA litigants often engage in unusual in2court conduct. That seems to be in part because man& (,"- litigants are following a =script< prepared b& (,"- gurus. This was apparentl& true for r. eads. 5or e#ample at certain points in the court hearing he appeared to read word for word from a prepared document. (ther aspects of his speech seemed rehearsed. !1. Feman Femands ds
2!3
"ommon =scripted< motifs include demands b& the (,"- litigant9 ?
to see the oath of office of a judge law&er or court official9 '. v. %indsay %indsay 200' :")" 1 @"anA%%B @"anA%%B ' W.".:. @2dB >1 affirmed 200> :""- 21! @"anA%%B8 @"anA%%B8 %aw (ociety of of $ritish Columbia Columbia v. +empsey +empsey 200$ :")" 12>> @"anA%%B at para. 1>4 1!2 -.".W.). -.".W.). @3dB 3!' affirmed 200' :""- 1'1 @"anA%%B @"anA%%B 1!4 -.".W.). @3dB >3$8 'amjohn v. 'udd 200> -:;: ! @"anA%%B at para. 4 1$' -.".W.). -.".W.). #reasury ry $ranches $ranches v. 4lassen 4lassen 200! -:;: !'3 @"anA%%B at @3dB 38 Alberta #reasu @"anA%%B at para. 2$ 3'! -.D. 2308
?
v. 'udd 200> -:;: ! that a judge prove his or her appointment9 'amjohn v. @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at para. 4 1$' -.".W.). -.".W.). @3dB 38
?
the judge make certain oaths or statements such as that the judge is a public Cree!Patricia )ills )ills Area Area %andowners %andowners v. %ac %ac (te. Anne Anne *County*Countyservant9 4ilini Cree!Patricia (ubdivision (ubdivision and +evelopment +evelopment Appeal $oard $oard 2001 -:"- 42 @"anA%%B @"anA%%B 10! v. /nvision /nvision Credit 0nion 0nion , 200' :")" 132! -.".W.). @3dB 11!28 +empsey v. @"anA%%B '0 :.".A.D. @!thB 3048 @"anA%%B
?
to see the =bond information< of a litigant judge law&er or court official9 inningham v. Canada 8 this proceeding8
?
that the court indicate the basis or scope of its authorit&9 Canada v. 1albraith 2001 :")" '>$ @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at paras. 2'*2 $! W.".:. W.".:. @2dB $0!8 %aw (ociety of $ritish Columbia v. +empsey 200$ :")" 12>> @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at paras. 10*11 1!2 -.".W.). @3dB 3!' affirmed 200' :""- 1'1 @"anA%%B @"anA%%B 1!4 -.".W.). -.".W.). @3dB >3$8 '. v. &artin 2012 6)," >3 @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at para. !8
?
that the "rown provide proof that it has authorit& to proceed against a litigant9 '. v. &artin 2012 6)," >3 @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at para. !8
?
that an opposing part& provide proof it has authorit& to proceed against the (,"litigant8 $an of &ontreal @"anA%%B at para. >8 &ontreal v. v. &cCance 2012 -:;: $3> @"anA%%B at
?
$runo 2002 :""- 3! for a =certified< cop& of a document or legislation9 '. v. $runo @"anA%%B88 '. v. 1ibbs @"anA%%B @"anA%%B 200' 3 ".T.". ".T.". 2238 "wanow v. 1ibbs 200' :")" !1 @"anA%%B
Canada 200 T"" 22 @"anA%%B @"anA%%B 200 ""% 228 '. v. ehr 2002 )C," v. &alei 200' (6"H !01 @"anA%%B @"anA%%B 22! )ask.D. 1328 Audcent v. @"anA%%B @"anA%%B 200> 1 ".T.". 2128 and
?
that the court state whether it is addressing the litigant in one of two roles such as whether this is to a /legal person or a /corporation vs. a /flesh and blood person or a /natural person9 Porisy #rial #rial +ecision +ecision at para. '08 '. v. %indsay %indsay 2011 :""- 44 @"anA%%B @"anA%%B 302 :.".-.". >' leave refused 2011 ).".".-. 6o. &ercedes2 $enz inancial v. 4ovacevic 2004 (.H. 6o. >3 2004 "anA%% 2'$8 &ercedes2$enz 43' @(6 )"B )"B 2004 "anA%% 43' @(nt. )up. "t. H.B8 &ercedes2 &ercedes2 $enz inancial inancial v. 4ovacevic 2004 (.H. 6o. >3 at para. 2! 2004 "anA%% 43' @(nt. )up. "t. H.B8 this proceeding.
!2. Focumen Focumentat tation ion 2!! (,"- litigants often present documentation to the court or another part& at the hearing itself without prior service or warning. "ommon e#amples include9 ?
an attempt to present the judge or a court official with documents that mae the court a fiduciary agent or foist a contract on the judge or court official9 this proceeding8 and
?
presenting the judge the court clerk or an opposing litigant with a :fee schedule= or other foisted unilateral agreement @see belowB.
!3. 6ames and %dentif %dentificati ication on 2!$ -nother common motif is that an (,"- litigant will engage in in various peculiar comments that relate to names and identification. 5or e#ample an (,"- litigant ma& refuse to identif& themselves b& name instead stating the& are an agent or representative of an entit& identified b& the litigant
v. Ontario *+irector *+irector,, amily 'eponsibili 'eponsibility ty OfficeOffice- 2012 (6)" 13$ )ee9 )ajdu v. @"anA%%B88 Canada v. 1albraith 2001 :")" '>$ @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B @"anA%%B at paras. 2'*2 $! W.".:. W.".:. @2dB $0!8 #urnnir v. #he ueen 2011 T"" !4$ @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at paras. $*'8 Canada *&inister of Bational 'evenue 'evenue 2 &.B.'.- v. (tanchfield (tanchfield 2004 5" 44 @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at paras. *&inister of Bational 'evenue 2 &.B.'.- v. Camplin6 2*! 3!0 5.T.D. 1$08 Canada *&inister &.B.'. v. Camplin Camplin 200> 5" 13 @"anA%%B at paras. *4 2 200> 2 ".T.". ".T.". 20$8 $an @"anA%%B at para. 48 this proceeding. of &ontreal v. &cCance 2012 -:;: $3> @"anA%%B at
2!' -dditionall& -dditionall& the (,"- litigant ma& identif& him or herself with an entirel& fictitious name or via a (,"- alternative name format9 (haes v. v. Canada *Public *Public (afety (afety and /mergency Preparedness- 2011 "anA%% '0!4! @"- %D:B %D:B 2011 "anA%% '0!4! at (argent 200! (6"H 3$' @"anA%%B para. 11 @%.D.:.B8 '. v. (argent @"anA%%B 200$ 1 ".T.". ".T.". !!8 '. v. Crischu 2010 :")" >1' @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at paras. 31*32 affirmed 2010 :""- 341 @"anA%%B @"anA%%B
(ervices de financement financement #+ inc. inc. c. &ichaud 2011 ;""; 1!' 2010 F.T.". $1!18 (ervices @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at para. '8 this proceeding.
2!> )imilarl& an OPCA litigant may mae an unusual mention of copyright or trade2mar, typically because the OPCA litigant claims copyright or trade2mar in their own name 9 )ajdu v. Ontario *+irector, *+irector, amily 'eponsibility 'eponsibility OfficeOffice- 2012 (6)" 13$ @"anA%%B @"anA%%B at at para. 238 +empsey v. v. /nvision /nvision Credit 0nion 0nion , 200' :")" 132! @"anA%%B at para. 3> '0 :.".A.D. @!thB 304. !!.
"ourt -uthorit& -uthorit& or Hurisdict Hurisdiction ion 2!
freDuently deny that that a court has has jurisdiction jurisdiction or authority authority over (,"- litigants freDuently them. That emerges in a number of wa&s9
?
a direct denial that the court has authority over the litigant 9 '. v. ennings ennings 200> v. Ontario *+irector *+irector,, amily 'eponsibil 'eponsibility ity OfficeOffice- -:"- !$ @"anA%%B8 @"anA%%B8 )ajdu v. 2012 (6)" 13$ @"anA%%B8 @"anA%%B8 '. v. ar @"anA%%B at para. 18 arman man 2001 :""- $10 @"anA%%B at '. v. %inehan %inehan 2000 -:;: 1$ @"anA%%B v. /nvision /nvision @"anA%%B 2>' -.D. 338 +empsey v. Credit 0nion, 200' :")" 132! @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at para. 4 '0 :.".A.D. @!thB 3048 this proceeding8
?
identification of some physical elements of the courtroom or court dress that indicates the court is a military or admiralty court 9 '. v. .$.C. (ecurities %td. 2003 6:"- $3 @"anA%%B @"anA%%B 2'1 6.:.D. @2dB 1448 inningham v. Canada 8 this proceeding8
?
a statement or declaration that9
?
the court is restricted to certain domains of law, usually legislation, military law, and!or admiralty law 9 Canada v. 1albraith 2001 :")" '>$ arman man 2001 :""@"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at paras. 2'*2 $! W.".:. W.".:. @2dB $0!8 '. v. ar $10 @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at paras. 4*10 1$8
?
the court is onl& a /de facto court or the judge is onl& a /de facto judge8
?
a declaration that the litigant$ @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at paras. 2'*2 $! W.".:. @2dB $0!.
!$. (ther %n*"our %n*"ourtt otifs otifs 2!4 (ther stereot&pic (,"- litigant conduct includes9
@
a refusal to pass the bar 9 Canada v. 1albraith 2001 :")" '>$ @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at paras. &ercedes2 $enz inancial inancial v. 4ovacevic 2004 (.H. 2$*24 $! W.".:. W.".:. @2dB $0!8 &ercedes2 6o. >3 at para. 2004 "anA%% 43' @(6 )"B )"B 2004 "anA%% 43' @(nt. )up. "t. H.B8 Callaghan v. &cCaw6 C.C. v. .&. 2010 )C;: >4 @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at para. > 3$1 )ask.D. $$8
?
inquir& whether the court is attempting to create a contract with the litigant8
?
refusal to enter or a premature departure from a courtroom, this is often accompanied by a denial of court authority5 &ercedes2$enz inancial v. v. 4ovacevic 2004 (.H. 6o. >3 at paras. 1$*1' 2004 "anA%% 43' @(6 )"B )"B (ydoreno v. &anitoba 2012 :;: !2 2004 "anA%% 43' @(nt. )up. "t. H.B8 (ydoreno @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at para. 108 this proceeding8 and
?
=ritualistic< responses to inquiries such as repetition of what seem to be formal automatic responses for e#ample9 ?
v. /l 2010 -:"- 312 @"anA%%B /% accept that for value and honour9 )enry v. @"anA%%B leave refused 2011 ).".".-. 6o. 13
?
/Lour /Lour 7onour % accept it for value and return it for value for settlement v. 4ovacevic 4ovacevic 2004 closure in this matter.9 matter.9 &ercedes2$enz inancial v. (.H. 6o. >3 at para. $1 2004 "anA%% 43' @(6 )"B )"B 2004 "anA%% 43' @(nt. )up. "t. H.B and
!'. )ummar& of of %n*"ourt %n*"ourt %ndicia %ndicia 2$0 These various motifs are usuall& u suall& found in combination. co mbination. - useful and representative sample transcript of (,"- litigant conduct is found in Canada v. 1albraith 2001 :")" '>$ @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at paras. 2'*2 $! W.".:. W.".:. @2dB $0!. 2$1 - particularl& difficult difficult categor& of (,"- litigant are those who adhere to the (,"concept that all interactions between the state courts and individuals are contracts. -s is later e#plained in greater detail persons who ado pt this concept will interpret almost an& invitation b& the court or compliance with court procedure as the formation of a contract. 5or e#ample e#a mple members of this "ourt have observed that litigants who appl& the (,"- =ever&thing is a contract< strateg& strateg& will refuse simple court directions and processes such as to pass the bar sit stand or acknowledge their identit&. 2$2 )imilarl& )imilarl& litigants who refused to identif& themselves but claim to represent an entit& related to the litigant will often maintain this role in the face of strong court warning. These (,"- litigants are often ver& argumentative
!>. Miven the intrinsicall& ve#atious ve#atious nature of (,"- methodologies which % review in detail below it it is appropriate that a court adopt special procedures for documents that show (,"- indicia which ma& include9 1.
that court clerks reject the materials that do not conform with required standards8
2.
that the court clerks accept and mark these materials as /received rather than /filed8 and
3.
that materials that disclose OPCA characteristics may be reviewed by a judge without further submission or representation by the litigants, and that the judge may5
aB
declare that the litigation, application, or defence is frivolous, irrelevant or improper improp er *'ule 8.EF*38. EF*3-*c-*c--,, or an abuse of process @ Rule Rule 3.'@2B@dBB also Canam /nterprises "nc v. Coles @2000B 2000 "anA%% $1! @(6 "-B $1 (.D. @3dB !1 @(nt. ".-.B at paras $$*$' affirmed 2002 )"" '3 "-B @"anA%%B 2002 3 ).".D. 30>8 @"anA%%B
bB
order that the documents are irrelevant to the substance of the litigation but are onl& retained on file as evidence that is potentiall& relevant to costs against the (,"- litigant ve#atious status of the litigation and litigant andGor whether the litigant has engaged in criminal or contemptuous misconduct.
c -
reject the the documents documents and order order that if the litigant litigant wishes wishes to continue continue its action, application, or defence, the litigant then file replacement documentation that conforms to court formalities and does not involve irrelevant (,"- arguments8
dB
order that the litigant appear a before the court in a /show cause hearing to prove the litigant has an action a ction or defence that is recogni+ed in law8 that hearing need not involve participation of the other part& or parties8 and
eB
assign fines, as authorized by 'ule G9.;7*G-.
!. "ourtroom ,rocedure Desponses to )uspected (,"- Aitigants 2$> OPCA litigants are nown to engage in disruptive and inappropriate inappropr iate in 2 court conduct5 for e#ample e#ample Callaghan v. &cCaw 8 C.C. v. .&. 2010 )C;: >4 @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at para. 4 3$1 v. /nvision /nvision )ask.D. $$ and sometimes appear with supporters who do the same 9 +empsey v. @"anA%%B at paras. 1'*2! '0 :.".A.D. @!thB 304. This Credit 0nion , 200' :")" 132! @"anA%%B at misconduct e#tends to disrespect threats and in some cases violence directed to court personnel v. Canada *Public *Public (afety (afety and /mergency /mergency judges and other parties. 5or e#ample9 (haes v.
Preparedness Preparedness- 2011 "anA%% '0!4! @"- %D:B v. %D:B 2011 "anA%% '0!4! @%.D.:.B and )ajdu v. Ontario *+irector, amily 'eponsibility Office- 2012 (6)" 13$ @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at paras. 10*1!.
2$ (,"- litigants litigants have an alarming predisposition to a belief that the& can =take justice into their own hands< and act against the judiciar&. The The attempted arrest of a judge reported in '. v. &ain at para. is a good e#ample. ore recentl& during the trial of a ,orisk& associate @ '. '. v. @"anA%%B at para. 2' 2012 201 2 F.T.". F.T.". $0'4B the defendant referred to9 %awson 2012 :")" 3$' @"anA%%B at ... NLouTubeN NLouTubeN videos showing people swarming the courts of Ongland Nto demand justice and chasing judges from the bench.N There is a reference to the Npublic who are pa&ing close attention to this and related proceedings in growing numbers.N 2$4 While Hustice &ers chose to /... give r. Aawson the benefit of the doubt and assume that this was not meant as a veiled threat ... @para. 2>B % think this ver& effectivel& illustrates the potential activities that judges and court officials officials can e#pect when dealing with (,"- litigants. litigants. The& have been incited b& the misguided and dangerous rhetoric spewed b& their gurus and that raises the troubling possibilit& of in*court misconduct if not ph&sical ph &sical risks. 2'0 (,"- litigants often attempt to =rall& the troops< so that groups of supporters a ppear at a +empsey v. v. /nvision /nvision Credit 0nion, 200' hearing. That can lead to orchestrated disruptions @ +empsey :")" 132! @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at paras. 1'*2! '0 :.".A.D. @!thB 304B including threats directed at judges @ '. '. v. &ain at para. B. (ur "ourt has e#perienced high tension incidents particularl& with 5reemen*on*the*Aand and "OD% members where persons in the public galler& had to be e#pelled sometimes b& force. 2'1 %t is therefore appropriate that a court ma& adopt specific in*court and securit& procedures in response to persons who are suspected (,"- litigants. -dditional -dditional in*court securit& is generall& warranted. 2'2 %n particular this "ourt has discovered that (,"- litigants will make clandestine audio and video recordings of "ourt proceedings proceed ings in violation of "ourt rules. These are then often posted on the %nternet. 2'3 The fact that litigation involves (,"- motifs ma& also be a basis for a judge to order a courtroom closed to the public particularl& if persons in the public galler& disrupt proceedings v. /nvision /nvision Credit 0nion 0nion , 200' :")" 132! @"anA%%B at paras. 1'*2! '0 such as in +empsey v. :.".A.D. @!thB 304 or pose a ph&sical threat. % have made an order of this kind about allowing public entr& subject to a search and removal of prohibited electronic recording equipment prior to entr&. 3! -nother (,"- approach is to argue that a court or government actor is a corporation and therefore onl& has the rights of a corporation9 +empsey v. v. /nvision /nvision Credit 0nion 0nion , 200' :")" 132! @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at para. 3> '0 :.".A.D. @!thB 304. #he result is a claim that legislation has no more special meaning than any unilateral declaration. A telltale indication of this scheme is that a litigant files corporate registry documents for Canada, a province, or a municipality.
or some reason, many OPCA litigants claim Canada is a >municipal corporation domiciled in the +istrict of Columbia? .
!10 -s with the =all relationships are a re contracts< variant variant (,"- litigants seem to see =consent< emerging from ver& mundane activities. The& ma& for e#ample refuse to advance past the bar in a courtroom because that would =consent< to court authorit&9 Canada v. 1albraith 2001 :")" &ercedes2 $enz inancial inancial v. 4ovacevic '>$ @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at paras. 2$*24 $! W.".:. W.".:. @2dB $0!8 &ercedes2 2004 (.H. 6o. >3 at para. 2004 "anA%% 43' @(6 )"B )"B 2004 "anA%% 43' @(nt. )up. "t. H.B. The same reasoning leads this categor& of (,"- litigant to refuse to plead guilt& or not*guilt& or to disobe& an instruction to sit or stand.
!11 H A claim claim that the the relationship relationship between between an individual individual and the the state is always always one of of contract is clearly incorrect. incorrect . Aspects of that relationship may flow from mutual mutual contract contract *for example a person or corporation may be hired by the government to perform a tas such as road maintenance-, but the state has the right to engage in unilateral action, subject to the Char Ch arte terr , and the allocation allocation and and delegation delegation of government government authority authority..
!4. Focuments frequentl& refer to to the litigant as having a particular status or characteristic9 ?
a /flesh and blood man @this has man& variationsB8
?
a /freeman*on*the*land or /freeman8
?
a /free will full liabilit& person8
?
a /sovereign man /sovereign citi+en or /sovran8
?
that the litigant9
?
was created b& Mod8
?
is onl& subject to a categor& of law t&picall& t&picall& /common law or /Mod
?
is an ambassador8
?
is the postmaster general6
?
is a member of a fictitious nation*state or aboriginal group8
?
represents or is /an agent or /secured part& for a similarl& named individual or thing8 and
?
is a /private neutral non*belligerent.
ost of these items are strong indicia with the e#ception of those that involve Mod or religion which also stereot&picall& emerge in submissions of certain persons with mental impairment and disorder. 22$ an& (,"- documents including those of r. eads feature a declaration concerning service such as /service to agent is service to principal and /service to principal is service to agent presumabl& an attempt to e#pand e#pa nd the =notification< function of these materials. 22> - demand that a remed& be paid onl& in precious metals usuall& gold or silver is t&pical in (,"- litigation
$0.
Feman Femands ds 2!3 "ommon =scripted< motifs motifs include demands b& the (,"- litigant9 ?
to see the oath of office of a judge, lawyer, or court official5 '. v. %indsay %indsay 200' :")" 1 @"anA%%B @"anA%%B ' W.".:. @2dB >1 affirmed 200> :""- 21! @"anA%%B8 @"anA%%B8 %aw (ociety of of $ritish Columbia Columbia v. +empsey +empsey 200$ :")" 12>> @"anA%%B at para. 1>4 1!2 -.".W.). -.".W.). @3dB 3!' affirmed 200' :""- 1'1 @"anA%%B @"anA%%B 1!4 -.".W.). @3dB >3$8 'amjohn v. 'udd 200> -:;: ! @"anA%%B at para. 4 1$' -.".W.). -.".W.). #reasury ry $ranches $ranches v. 4lassen 4lassen 200! -:;: !'3 @"anA%%B at @3dB 38 Alberta #reasu @"anA%%B at para. 2$ 3'! -.D. 2308
?
v. 'udd 200> -:;: ! that a judge prove his or her appointment9 'amjohn v. @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at para. 4 1$' -.".W.). -.".W.). @3dB 38
?
the judge make certain oaths o aths or statements such as that the judge is a public servant9 4ilini Cree!Patricia Cree!Patricia )ills )ills Area %andowner %andownerss v. %ac (te. (te. Anne Anne *County*County@"anA%%B 10! (ubdivision (ubdivision and +evelopment +evelopment Appeal $oard $oard 2001 -:"- 42 @"anA%%B v. /nvision /nvision Credit 0nion 0nion , 200' :")" 132! -.".W.). @3dB 11!28 +empsey v. @"anA%%B '0 :.".A.D. @!thB 3048 @"anA%%B
?
to see the =bond information< of a litigant judge law&er or court official9 inningham v. Canada 8 this proceeding8
?
that the court indicate the basis or scope of its authorit&9 Canada v. 1albraith 2001 :")" '>$ @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at paras. 2'*2 $! W.".:. W.".:. @2dB $0!8 %aw (ociety of $ritish Columbia v. +empsey 200$ :")" 12>> @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at paras. 10*11 1!2 -.".W.). @3dB 3!' affirmed 200' :""- 1'1 @"anA%%B @"anA%%B 1!4 -.".W.). -.".W.). @3dB >3$8 '. v. &artin 2012 6)," >3 @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at para. !8
?
that the "rown provide proof that it has authorit& to proceed against a litigant9 '. v. &artin 2012 6)," >3 @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at para. !8
2'2 %n particular this Court has discovered that OPCA litigants will mae clandestine audio and video recordings of Court proceedings, in violation of Court rules. #hese are then often posted on the "nternet. 2'3 The fact that litigation involves (,"- motifs ma& also be a basis for a judge to order a courtroom closed to the public particularl& if persons in the public galler& disrupt proceedings v. /nvision /nvision Credit 0nion 0nion , 200' :")" 132! @"anA%%B at paras. 1'*2! '0 such as in +empsey v. :.".A.D. @!thB 304 or pose a ph&sical threat. % have made an order of this kind about allowing public entr& subject to a search and removal of prohibited electronic recording equipment prior to entr&. Destricted "ourt Hurisdiction 2' - common and older (,"- concept is that a "anadian court has a restricted jurisdiction. The majorit& of these schemes appear to have an -merican origin. a"
Admiralt# or $ilitar# Courts
2'4 - t&pical situation is that an (,"- litigant ma& claim a court is a militar& or admiralt& v. Ontario *+irector *+irector,, amily court and therefore has no jurisdiction over the litigant9 )ajdu v. 'eponsibility 'eponsibility OfficeOffice- 2012 (6)" 13$ @"anA%%B8 v. 'udd 200> -:;: ! @"anA%%B @"anA%%B8 'amjohn v. @"anA%%B (ecurities %td. 2003 6:"- $3 @"anA%%B 1$' -.".W.). @3dB 38 '. v. .$.C. (ecurities @"anA%%B 2'1 6.:.D. @2dB 1448 this proceeding. (nce the true restricted nature of the court is =unmasked< the litigant will declare themselves immune to court action. That of course has been uniforml& unsuccessful
2'' -s a preliminar& note review of the case law and this "ourt @"anA%%B at paras. @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at paras. 24*30 3!0 5.T. 5.T.D. D. 1$08 see also '. v. Amell 1$'*1$> 3'1 )ask.D. '1 )ask.D. '188 riesen v. Canada 200> T"" 2> @"anA%%B at para. 3 200> $ ".T.". Attorney 1eneral 1eneral of Canada Canada v. %avell 20'>B which has a well*established limited legal effect @ Attorney 14>3 "anA%% 1>$ @)""B @)""B 14>! ).".D. 13!4 3 F.A.D. @3dB !1B.
2>0 r. eads at one point pursued this approach in his oral arguments. 7e demanded to know the meaning and significance of the Do&al "oat of -rms of "anada attached to the back of the courtroom behind the bench. (nce % translated the Aatin motto / A $ari us%ue ad $are $are /from sea to sea r. eads declared it meant the -lberta "ourt of ;ueen s. 22B. 22B. -dmittedl& landlocked as -lberta is litigation of that kind is not e#actl& a common occurrence. r. eads is however manifestl& mistaken if he thinks that is the sole the sole jurisdiction jurisdiction of the -lberta "ourt of ;ueen! 6aturall& this claim is rubbish and the litigants offered offered no foundation for this concept. "
Religion or Religious Belief &rumps &rumps the Courts
2>' Deligion is a common basis for a claim that a court cannot act. While the precise manner in which religion or religious principles are invoked ma & var& all these schemes appear to flow from a common rationale8 there is some form of religious authorit& or law that trumps that of the court and "anada. 2>> )ome (,"- litigants claim immunit& on the basis of religion or like r. eads sa& the& are onl& subject to something like /Mod4 (,"- litigants do not usuall& frame their religious arguments in a Charter conte#t conte#t but that would be the appropriate approach approa ch for them to pursue the rights the& sa& flow from their beliefs rather than a bald declaration of religion*based immunit&. immunit&. That is not to suggest that that such Charter *based *based arguments will succeed but the& will at least be ap propriatel& framed. 20 (,"- litigants have also sei+ed on the preamble to &he to &he Constitution Act, 19!, Schedule B to the Canada Act 19! 'U() 'U() 142 c .11 .11 which reads9 Whereas "anada is founded upon principles that recogni+e the supremac& of Mod and the rule of law ... Omphasis added. 21 This passage has been the subject of occasional judicial commentar& most simpl& because various litigants have argued that the preamble makes an& of "anada
uldoon in O=(ullivan v. Canada *Bo. 3- @1441B !$ 5.T.D. 2! ! F.A.D. @!thB 12! @5.".T.F.B where he concludes9 The preamble to the "harter provides provides an important element in defining "anada but recognition of the supremac& of Mod emplaced e mplaced in the supreme law of "anada "anad a goes no further than this9 it prevents the "anadian state from becoming officiall& atheistic. atheistic. %t does not make "anada a theocrac& because of the enormous variet& of beliefs of how Mod @apparentl& the ver& same deit& for Hews "hristians and uslimsB wants people to behave generall& and to worship in particular. The preambleIs recognition of the supremac& of Mod then does not prevent "anada from being a secular state. (ther (,"- litigants claim that legislation common law and court principles an d procedures are subject to /Mod8 (andri v. *Attorney 1eneral- 2004 "anA%% !!22 @(6 )"B )"B 2004 "anA%% !!22 at paras. $ 13 1>4 v. Canada 200' T"" '42 @"anA%%B at -.".W.). -.".W.). @3dB 11 @(nt. )up. "t. H.B8 Pappas v. @"anA%%B at paras 1 4* 12 200' M.).T.". 1'18 '. v. %indsay @"anA%%B at para. 31 302 :.".-.". >' %indsay 2011 :""- 44 @"anA%%B at leave refused 2011 ).".".-. 6o. 2'$8 1ravlin et al. v. Canadian "mperial $an of Commerce et al
30> an& (,"- litigants argue that the& cannot be the target of state sanction or legal obligation because the& are not subject to that kind of obligation. These arguments are often bi+arre. 5or e#ample Warman Warman then represented b& Aindsa& Aindsa& @unsuccessfull&B argued argued that the Criminal Code onl& applies to /fictitious persons and not /a sovereign flesh and blood living arman man 2001 :""- $10 @"anA%%B at man9 '. v. ar @"anA%%B at paras. 4*10 13*1!. That was /... rejected as being without an& legal historical or constitutional foundation whatsoever inningham v. Canada where the litigant claimed the Criminal Code onl& applies to /corporations and fictitious persons.
1!4 %t appears that r. eads< guru is -merican. -merican. Deview of the materials filed b& r. eads shows a strong -merican influence in his (,"- materials. 5or e#ample in one of his -pril 2> 2012 /-ffidavit in )upport of (rder to )how "ause documents he references /Title 1 Jnited )tates "ode which is the criminal and penal code for the federal government gov ernment of the Jnited )tates. )tating the obvious this court will not be appl&ing that legislation. 1$0 )imilarl& )imilarl& r. eads in his documents and arguments references the Uniform Commercial Code the Code the /UCC /UCC which is -merican legislation to harmoni+e co mmercial transactions within the Jnited )tates. That too is not relevant to this proceeding and will not be applied b& this court. That said as the caselaw surve& that follows illustrates the UCC is is also a common motif in material from "anadian (,"- gurus and forms a significant element in much (,"- m&tholog&. m&tholog&. 7owever wh& an&one would believe that -merican commercial legislation would appl& in "anada is baffling. )till (,"- litigants indicate that this legislation has a broad
even e#traordinar& scope. & office has recentl& received a document where an (,"- litigant litigant said the UCC applies applies to governments
v. 331 )imilarl& )imilarl& attempts to appl& foreign law ver& often the UCC are without merit9 )enry v. /l 2010 -:"- 312 @"anA%%B at Pinno @"anA%%B at para. 3 leave refused 2011 ).".".-. 6o. 138 '. v. Pinno 2002 )C," 11 @"anA%%B at paras. 12*13 1>*1 2003 3 ".T.". ".T.". 30. - combination of these Papadopoulos v. $org 2004 -:"- 201 features is evident in the documents reproduced in Papadopoulos @"anA%%B at @"anA%%B at para. 3.
!3$ The J"" 5inancing )tatement registered in (hio for a "ertificate of :irth purports to create or reflect a trust of /FO66%) A-DDL O-F) foreign situs cestui qui vie trust in favour of /Fennis*Aarr&9eads as :eneficiar& of the Devested Trust. The document continues9 This is actual and constructive notice that all of Febtors interests now owned or hereafter acquired is hereb& accepted as collateral for securing contractual obligations in favour of the )ecured part& as detailed in a true complete notari+ed securit& agreement in the possession of the )ecured part&. 6otice in accordance with J""*,ropert&* this is the entr& of the debtor in the "ommercial Degistr& as a transmitting utilit& and the following propert& is hereb& registered in the same as public notice of a commercial transaction
