FOR COURT PERSONNEL, ATTORNEYS, INVESTIGATORS: Alberta Judge Analyzes Bizarre Filings By ‘Sovereign Citizens,’ Others; Divorce Case Leads To Extraordinary Dissection Of Various Schemes And Introduces New Term: ‘Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument’ (OPCA)
From time to time over the years, readers have commented that some of the stories published by the PP Blog read like fiction. Did AdSurfDaily Ponzi schemer Andy Bowdoin, for example, really compare the U.S. Secret Service to “Satan” and the 9/11 terrorists?
The answer is yes. But if the answer weren’t disturbing enough, any number of Bowdoin’s apologists were more than pleased to help the recidivist con man spread his reality-distortion field on the Internet. By the time it was over, purported “sovereign citizen” Kenneth Wayne Leaming was filing false liens against a federal judge, three federal prosecutors and a Secret Service agent who’d had roles in the ASD case, according to the FBI.
The Blog itself has pointed out that various “defenders” of various bizarre schemes have woven impossible tales — tales that wouldn’t sell as fiction because they require the suspension of too much disbelief.
If you’re a reporter, you haven’t lived until you’ve been invited to a ribbon-cutting ceremony conducted by the nonexistent “prince” of a nonexistent undersea nation that purportedly sells driver’s licenses for $140.
Never in human history has fractured thinking been packaged and sold at the scale provided by the Internet. Law enforcement and the courts are facing unprecedented challenges as various litigants and, in some cases, their customers, seek to undermine the authority of judges, prosecutors and police.
In what the PP Blog believes to be one of the most important pieces of judicial reasoning published in 2012, an Alberta judge overseeing a divorce case and encountering bizarre posturing by one of the parties appears to have coined a new term: “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” or OPCA for short.
Court of Queen’s Bench Associate Chief Justice John Rooke used the divorce case as a springboard to discuss some of the bizarre litigation now occurring in Canada and the United States — theories advanced by “sovereign citizens,” for instance. Highlighted below are snippets from the judge’s issuance of a “Reasons for the Decision.” (Bolding added by PP Blog.)
“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 defencebased schemes, and interfere with unrelated matters.
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.” — Queen’s Bench Associate Chief Justice John Rooke, Sept. 18, 2012
Did you know that American Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) schemes advanced by vexatious litigants have made their way into Canada?
And did you know that some individuals advancing such schemes do not seem to understand they are quoting codes and law to Canadian judges that apply only in America?
Not only do the codes and law not only not apply under Canadian law, they misinterpret the meaning and application of American law.
But it gets stranger than that: Dennis Larry Meads is a party to the divorce case filed in Alberta and referenced above. To say the case has served up a symphony of the bizzare would be an understatement.
Meads, for instance, allegedly has instructed Rooke “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.”
The case has prompted Rooke to dissect some very strange events taking place in Canadian and U.S. courts.
Theses cases, according to the judge, “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.”
At one point in the divorce proceeding, Meads attempted to give an envelope to the judge, but the judge refused, explaining “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,” according to the judge.
As the proceeding continued, according to the judge, Meads accused the court of “enticing me into slavery.”
Meads went on to insist that “the Bible is the ‘Maximus of Law'” before leaving the courtroom.
Read the judge’s reasoning and dissection of strange courtroom events in multiple cases.
Wow, excellent article Patrick. It will take a while to read the entire ruling but it looks very much like a full frontal assault on the delusion merchants.
I’ve spent a lot of time on forums, chat rooms, listening to confrence calls and absorbing other media from and about internet fraud. And I’ve spent some time doing the same with “sovereign citizens” and the amazing thing is how similar they are on a functional level.
No HYIP, pyramid or ponzi has ever endured but that doesn’t stop people from promoting or participating in them. No sovereign guru has ever won a court case but that doesn’t stop the people who want to believe in them from buying their bull crap.
The world is divided into two rival camps, the true believers and the naysayers. And it never matters to the true believers that the naysayers are proven correct time and time again because there’s always something else to invest their blind faith into.
It will not matter to most of the members of the “Republic for the united States” that their president Tim Turner’s legal magic tricks wont save him from prison. They’ll just start buying their legal magic kits from Kelby Smith or some other guru.
It doesn’t matter to many Zeek Rewards victims that Paul Burks gave up the company rather than argue the SECs accusations, they still believe the money for nothing schemes are completely legal. So sadly they’ll follow Todd Disner or Dave Kettner into the next “miracle opportunity.”
The lyrics are a little different but the song remains the same.
Thanks, Glim. Much appreciated.
I hope a lot of people read the Alberta document. The judge effectively is providing a free legal clinic, one that could save highly impressionable people a good deal of money, heartache and embarassment.
Here is another paragraph of note from Judge Rooke (CAPS ADDED FOR EMPHASIS):
[384] Another OPCA approach is to argue that a court or government actor is a corporation and therefore only has the rights of a corporation: Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union, 2006 BCSC 1324 at para. 37, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309. The 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. For some reason, many OPCA litigants claim Canada is a “municipal corporation domiciled in the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA”.
Patrick
I wish people would quit using “Sovereign Citizen” in their blogs and news. That is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. You are either Sovereign, or you are a Citizen. There is a difference.
Yea, but it’s a difference without a distinction. The notion of individual sovereignty is even less rational than the idea of a “sovereign citizen.” Two or more people can not hold supreme and independent authority over the same piece of land unless they do so through a shared social compact of some sort through which they wield their sovereignty on a collective basis.
We usually call that sort of thing a government.
If you don’t like the government you’re living under, vote against it. If that doesn’t work move to a different geographic location which has a government that better fits your world view.
But to the people (and I’m not wishing to imply that Tropical is one of them) who insist that if you speak the right secret words and perform the magic rituals just right, you become exempt from the laws of the government you live under, well all I can say is that I hope that neither you nor any traffic cop ever needs to pay for the delusions you’re buying into.
Wow…excellent cherry picking…really falls flat, Patrick. In my opinion an excellent report would involve taking a few risks and challenging one’s underling assumptions about the very nature and the reality of the system. May I suggest a report on government and legal profession secrecy, corruption, propaganda, and tax scams? Or perhaps Court and Legal Profession Corruption and the Enfranchisement of Courts? Or if that doesn’t grab ya try your limp hand at reporting on some government and legal profession commercial scams. Don’t be such a chicken, Patrick…it’s only a system, what ya scared of?
I think I’ll click over to some of these other topics now, nothing to be learned to anyone’s real benefit here…and not even entertaining…(yawn)…
Right back at ya, crassfrazier.
Patrick
[…] September, a judge in Canada deconstructed some bizarre arguments from “sovereigns” and […]
[…] On Sept. 28, 2012, the PP Blog reported on bizarre court filings linked to “sovereign citizens,” “Freemen-on-the-Land” and others in Canada. The story may provide some additional context for a story published yesterday by the Global Post with a Vancouver dateline. […]