COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF ALBERTA CITATION: MEADS V. MEADS, 2012 ABQB 571 PART 1

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.
2
[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.
3
[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 ::dennislarry::
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.”
4
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.
5
[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 18th 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
6
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.
7
[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.
8
[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
9
[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 “FIDUCIARYTRUSTEE-
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,.
10
• 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 fullauthentication.
• 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
11
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
12
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.
13
[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
14
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 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.
3
[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 ::dennislarry::
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.”
4
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.
5
[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 18th 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
6
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.
7
[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.
8
[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
9
[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 “FIDUCIARYTRUSTEE-
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,.
10
• 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 fullauthentication.
• 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
11
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
12
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.
13
[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
14
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:

Read More

THE AUSTRALIAN TRUST COMPANY - 1857 NEW SOUTH WALES ACT

An Act to enlarge the powers of " The Australian Trust Company" and to remove doubts as to the validity of Deeds executed by Agents of the Company. [23rd February, 1857.]
WHEREAS by a charter or letters patent under the Great Seal of Great Britain bearing date at Westminster the sixth day of October in the fourth year of the reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria Her said Majesty did grant that the persons therein named and others and their successors should be one body politic and corporate in deed and in name by the name of " The Australian Trust Company " and by the said charter or letters patent it was declared that the said company was established for the purpose of lending and advancing money upon the security of lands situate in Her Majesty's Colonics or Settlements in Australia and for the other purposes thereinafter specified and by the said charter Her said Majesty did grant unto the said company and their successors that it should be lawful for the said company for the purposes aforesaid to take hold sell and dispose of all such lands tenements and hereditaments in any of Her said Majesty's Colonies or Settlements aforesaid as might be conveyed to the said company or any trustee or trustees for them by way of mortgage; or on any trusts for sale or otherwise in the way of security for advances and to purchase and hold other lands tenements and hereditaments in any of Her said Majesty's Colonics and also in Great Britain and Ireland so that such lands tenementsand hereditaments so purchased as last aforesaid in any of Her said Majesty's Colonies were not altogether of more than the value of one thousand pounds per annum at the time of purchase and also that such lands tenements and hereditaments in Great Britain and Ireland so to be purchased were not altogether of more than the value of one thousand pounds per annum at the time of purchase and that the said company might do all other acts and things in relation to the premises in all respects as beneficially as any other body politic or corporate; or any subject of the realm was by law entitled to do and by the said charter Her said Majesty did will and declare that the said company should not take any conveyance of land to such company or to its trustees of any lands tenements and hereditaments in any of Her Majesty's said Colonies or Settlements except by way of mortgage; or upon trusts for sale or otherwise bond fide by way of security for money advanced and that if in default of payment of the money which should be so secured or the interest thereof or otherwise in due course of law the said company its trustees or agents should enter into possession or receipt of the rents and profits of any such lands tenements and hereditaments and should not within one year after such entry into possession or receipt have sold and disposed of or transferred the same then and in such case; such company or its trustees should with all convenient speed after being thereunto required by writing under the hand of Her said Majesty's Governor or Lieutenant Governor of the Colony or Settlement where such lands tenements and hereditaments should be situate or of any one of Her said Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State proceed to make sale; thereof or agree
for the transfer thereof and sell and convey or transfer and assure the same accordingly And whereas it has happened and may from time; to time again happen that the same causes which disable the borrowers of money from the said company on mortgage from paying the principal or interest due on such mortgages also temporarily depreciate the market value of the mortgaged property and make it impossible to sell the same at the fair average value thereof or to effect a transfer of the security and it is therefore expedient that the said company should be authorized to continue in the possession or receipt of the rents and profits of any mortgaged property after having lawfully entered into such possession or receipt during such time as they shall think fit without being bound to sell or transfer the same within the time mentioned in the said charter and to foreclose their mortgages or to
purchase the equity of redemption or otherwise to compound or agree with the mortgagors or other persons interested in the property mortgaged upon terms whereby the said company shall become the purchasers of the property mortgaged or some part thereof Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales in Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same as follows—
1. In all cases where the said company has already taken or shall take to the company or to its trustees any conveyance of any lands tenements or hereditaments within the Colony of New South Wales by way of mortgage or upon trust for sale or otherwise bond fide by way of security for money advanced and the said company or its trustees in default of payment of the money which has been or shall have been so secured or the interest thereof or otherwise in due course of law has or shall have entered into possession or receipt of the rents and profits of such lands tenements or hereditaments or any part thereof it shall be lawful for the said company or its trustees on behalf of the company to retain such possession or receipt or to let or otherwise deal with such lands tenements and hereditaments and to hold the said lands tenements and hereditaments unsold and untransferred until such time as the said company shall deem it expedient to sell or transfer the same anything in the above recited charter contained and any requisition made or to bo made by the Governor or Lieutenant Governor of the Colony of New South Wales or by any of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State to the contrary notwithstanding And further that it shall be lawful for the said company or the trustees of the company on behalf of the company to foreclose the equity of redemption of any lands or other property mortgaged to the company or their trustees as aforesaid and to contract or agree with the owner or owners of the equity of redemption or other person or persons interested in the lands or other property mortgaged or assured as aforesaid for the purchase thereof or any part thereof and to take and accept to the said company or to trustees for the said company absolute conveyances of all or any part of the said lands or other property and hold the lands and other property foreclosed or purchased and to sell and dispose of or otherwise deal with the same and every part thereof anything in the above recited charter contained to the contrary notwithstanding.
2. And whereas doubts have arisen respecting the validity of conveyances and other deeds executed by the attorneys or agents of the said company in New South Wales Be it further enacted that all conveyances and other deeds which have been or shall be executed by • any person or persons as the attorney or attorneys of the said company in accordance with the terms or true intent and meaning of any general or special power of attorney or authority already given or to be hereafter given under the common seal of the said company shall be
and (as to such conveyances and deeds as are already executed) shall be deemed to have been as valid and effectual in law and to all intents and purposes as if the same conveyances or deeds had been duly executed and passed under the common seal of the said company.
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/sessionalview/sessional/act/1857-atc.pdf

Read More

ALBERTA COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROOKE TAKES AIM AT ORGANIZED PSEUDOLEGAL COMMERCIAL ARGUMENT LITIGANT

By Tony Blais ,Edmonton Sun Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Law Court sign on the east side of the Edmonton Law Courts at 1A Sir Winston Churchill Square. (TOM BRAID/EDMONTON SUN)

This is your traditional hit piece from a conservative tabloid. It is designed to scare the ignorant and fearful. It will not seek to be either objective or fair. It will not tell you that Brian Mulrooney, former C.E.O/Prime Minister is one of the board of directors for this paper. For those of you who don't know, Mulrooney introduced a G.S.T, had their own "terrorist attack" with the Air India 182 bombing, negotiated a free trade agreement with his good mate Ronald Reagan, established the AMEX Bank of Canada on an election day, ratified legislation on climate change, was involved in accepting government bribes in a scandal involving Thyssen industries, and after his popularity dropped so low that his party became almost non existant due to voter rage, he took a tax payer funded holiday DURING the election campaign itself. 
To quote Wikipedia, "Mulroney has served as an international business consultant and remains a partner with the law firm Ogilvy Renault. He currently sits on the board of directors of multiple corporations, including Barrick Gold, Quebecor Inc. -who owns the Edmonton Sun-, Archer Daniels Midland, TrizecHahn Corp. (Toronto), Cendant Corp. (New York), AOL Latin America, Inc. (New York) and Cognicase Inc. (Montreal). He is a senior counselor to Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst, a global private equity fund in Dallas, chairman of Forbes Global (New York), and was a paid consultant and lobbyist for Karl-Heinz Schreiber beginning in 1993. He is also chairman of various international advisory boards and councils for many international companies, including Power Corp. (Montreal), Bombardier (Montreal), the China International Trust and Investment Corp. (Beijing), J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. (New York), Violy, Byorum and Partners (New York), VS&A Communications Partners (New York), Independent Newspapers (Dublin) and General Enterprise Management Services Limited (British Virgin Islands)" 
So Mulrooney is your garden variety elitist scum who happily raped the Canadian people on behalf of the elitist New World Order agenda of of global slavery. So we can expect a fair and balanced article from this criminal, oops, I meant newspaper, can't we? ;)
A top-according to who? this newspaper? Do you think that the Canadian rape victim that Rooke called "stupid" would agree? Alberta judge-appointed by the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE in 2009- has exposed-opinion, expressed without proof- a group of "vexatious litigants" he says are abusing the legal system and is warning them-using an individual matter to fire off unsubstantiated threats to arbitrary people not involved in the matter being determined appears to be an abuse of process, but, Rooke does have form-that their misconduct-opinion, expressed without proof-will not be tolerated.-nor, will due process, or presumption of innocence it seems, but, unsurprisingly, this newspaper appears not to be interested in these key components of our natural, unlienable, and unalienable rights, nor the consequential slide into slavery that this inevetibably constitutes.
In a recent decision -- slated to be released Wednesday -- Court of Queen's Bench Associate Chief Justice John Rooke takes on the group-as opposed to adjucating court cases which is what a judge is supposed to do in a free and just society- he is calling Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigants.-Don't be surprised if this becomes the corporate media description of choice.
In the decision, which stems from an Edmonton divorce case, Rooke says OPCA court strategies are "disruptive" -to their attempts at fleecing you, NOT to the appropriate transmission of law and justice in an environment that presumes justice- and are "invariably unsuccessful"-due to corporate/judicial/government corruption, but, notice the employment of the word "invariably", as opposed to 'always'. When an honest judge presides, justice is swift and in our favour- and typically dismissed by judges due to the "nonsense" -no verification of his claim presented at this point, but, even if one or three people poorly presented their matters,  it does not justify lumping every specific matter in the same basket- that is argued.
"Beyond that, these are little more than scams that abuse legal processes," said Rooke in the decision. only a Alberta judge because he was appointed-by the company that profits of people's ignorance and therefore gives rise to a genuine belief that Rooke has arbitrated on a matter that he has a personal involvement in this matter that is in fact a perversion of the course of justice.
"Nevertheless, their litigation abuse continues," says Rooke,-who may be guilty of the crime that he baselessly accuses others of- adding that the "growing volume" of such cases calls for "a strong response to curb this misconduct."-Actually it means that we are absolutely correct, we are successful, we only lose when they pervert the course of justice, we are growing powerful, they are losing debt currency hand over fist, and they are going to resort to naked violence to try to reassert their dominance. That said, this, of course is more about controlling and shepharding the herd, rather than the money which is of no value whatsoever.
We always knew that they would respond savagely to our massive awakening. They have form. Martin Luther King, Malcom X, Vietnam War Protests, the worldwide Occupy movement, Melbourne S11, Davos, Seattle, and so on, and so on, whenever we violate the conditional freedom that they feel that we as their cattle deserve.  
An executive summary of the case says the group call themselves various names, including Detaxers, Freemen, Sovereign Men and the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International, and notes they base their activities on a common collection of "conspiratorial, legally incorrect and spurious beliefs."-how many cases can a judge hear simultaneously? Can I presume that they were heard ex-parte?
The summary states OPCA litigants -Who? That is their creation, did you ever agree to join? It is their way of reducing you down to a simplistic identity for the purposes of exploitation- deny they have obligations to honour government, courts, -does any such obligation exist? Notice they did not employ any trick words that obligate anyone to anything such as 'require' or 'must''? contracts and laws-this is a complete and absolute lie which is a libellous assault on innocent people that may result in a series of tort actions being placed against Rooke, not to mention criminal proceedings, but, maybe there is a Canadian law that allows their judiciary to lie about and threaten innocent people arbitrarily while adjudicating other matters- and says they often follow so-called OPCA gurus, whom Rooke calls "parasites," and put forward "bizarre" ideas. -As opposed to Rooke who appears to be a parasite putting forward bizarre ideas himself. Double Standard?
Some of those ideas include arguing-provocative word designed to imply meaning where it does not exist, otherwise known as lying, but, also, a description of what they do to all of us-  that spelling their names with irrelevant punctuation or only in lower case letters makes them immune to court and state actions. What is a state action?
The summary says the group -further reduction of a made up group with no members-also claims that they can declare themselves exempt from the law -the same lie restated for those who don't know what an obligation is, as well as a repetitive programming tool and and attempt to enjoin the following choices as being lawful obligations- and can opt out of things like being governed, paying taxes or having motor vehicle licences or insurance.
It also says OPCA litigants have proven to be "highly disruptive"-opinion, expressed without proof- in and out of court and have been in confrontations with police, court security and other authorities. Confrontations that are always initiated by them, but, an elitist paper like this is never going to confront the government about their violence on the people that it was "elected"-nudge nudge, wink, wink-to serve. Just as importantly, did you notice that the previous sentence tried to group private security guards alongside police and the vague term "other authorities"? Precisely which of these groups exist between any of you and the Divine Creator?
In his decision, Rooke speaks about an OPCA guru who was ejected from the annual Law Day event at the Law Courts Building in April for disrupting things-opinion, expressed without proof- and then tried to press charges against the sheriff involved.-if the sheriff can't be charged for an alleged crime then it means that s/he is above the law. Who else is above the law in this corporate Canadian farm?
Another recent related Edmonton case, reported by Sun Media, involved a city woman who launched a constitutional challenge against three traffic tickets she'd got, claiming her religious beliefs exempt her from the law. -opinion, expressed without proof, but this time done deliberately trying to prey upon your ignorance of who you are, and the difference between law of staute. Statute is a word you will never read about in a hit piece such as this-
The woman had argued she could drive her "pursuit chariot" without a licence, registration or insurance because the provincial civil laws did not apply to her because she is a Christian minister bound only by God, the Queen of England and the Constitution Act of 1982.
Her argument was rejected and her case was tossed.
In another case involving an Edmonton minister charged with assault for spanking his daughter with a belt, the man stood in court wrapped in a Canada flag and refused to give his name or accept the judge's jurisdiction. -The main thing here is to see that they are trying use what they would sway as 'kooky' cases to keep you from straying from their herd. The first gave a result, but, rather tellingly, the second, involving, a criminal charge, albeit within a family gave no result. Does this mean that the fellow is allowed to raise and discipline his own daughter and his refusal to enter into contract accepted? Certainly appears that way, doesn't it?
The bigger problem is that good Canadian people are now likely to be violently assaulted and tortured unlawfully for living a political belief. This is not just a breach of every just and reasonable law, but, is political persecution and oppression. 
WE STAND PROUDLY WITH OUR CANADIAN BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN THEIR TIME OF NEED, AS WE ALL STAND TOGETHER AGAINST THESE CORPORATE CRIMINALS WHO ARE RUNNING THE SAME SCAM ON A GLOBAL SCALE.
What happens to one of us happens to all of us, so we all need to warily watch how this matter will be replicated as this decision is consumed by the corporate judiciary all around the world.
AFTERWORD
I don't include polls as a rule, but this is important because it illustrates how we are being manipulated 24/7, 365 days a year. It tries to create an enjoinder between good, innocent, aware people, and those who abuse, which is insidious enough, but, does so after MANIPULATING THE READER with a piece  of propaganda that would make Geobbels himself proud.
Hypocrites.

Poll

Do you think judges should be harder on legal system abusers?

• Yes
• No

 PLEASE DO NOT COMPLETE THIS POLL, BUT DO CONSIDER FILLING THE ONE OUT ON ROOKE WHICH SHOULD BE TO YOUR RIGHT AND FURTHER UP THE SCREEN.

Cheers. 

Read More

CANADIAN ’MASK BAN’ BILL NEARS FINAL STAGE : DISGUISE YOURSELF, GET 10 YEARS PRISON

2012 09 19 By Laura Payton | CBCNews
A bill that would make it illegal to wear a mask during a violent demonstration is nearing its final hurdle in the House of Commons, with just two hours of debate left.
Bill C-309 would make it a crime for people rioting or at an unlawful protest to conceal their identities. It’s already illegal to wear a disguise when committing an indictable, or more serious, offence, which includes rioting. Unlawful protests, however, don’t fall under that law because they’re classified as a summary conviction, or less serious, offence.
An unlawful assembly is a gathering that causes fear. It’s up to city officials to decide what constitutes a riot.

Masked protesters take part in an anti-capitalist demonstration in Montreal, Tuesday, May 1, 2012.

Last May, MPs on the House justice committee increased the penalty in the bill to 10 years for rioters who conceal their faces and five years for those at an unlawful protest. The maximum sentence for rioting is two years.
The committee sent the bill back to the House last May. Debate will resume Tuesday evening for an hour. MPs must vote on the changed bill before it can go on to the Senate to be studied in the Upper Chamber.
The second hour of debate is likely to be sometime in the next week, with a final vote at third reading expected at the end of October.
Blake Richards, the MP behind the bill, says he wanted to give police another tool to prosecute rioters and he was told the existing law was difficult to apply.
Earlier this year, the City of Montreal passed a bylaw to ban masks during protests. The move came amid massive student protests in Quebec over the then government’s plan to allow universities to raise tuition fees.
Article from: cbc.ca
http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=21690

Read More

HOW AND WHY YOU SHOULD FIGHT ALL FINES – BY AN EX-POLICE SERGEANT

Posted by nesaraaustralia ⋅ September 22, 2012 

My name is Stan. I am a retired Sergeant of Police in Victoria for 14 years. I was also a police prosecutor at times, so I know what I am talking about. I spent half my life in Magistrates Court during my time in the Force. I was only ever a very fair copper, and I am proud of my time in the job, looking after the interests of Victorians, often to the detriment of my family and my health.
I never booked any driver for a trifling offence “ever”. People committing trifling offences commonly used to get a warning and a licence / vehicle check. It had to be serious before I booked anyone.
I am so annoyed at what is happening these days, in what I call “Indiscriminate revenue gathering” It is absolutely disgusting. The government and the Police Force need to hang their heads in shame. If you did a survey of current serving members of the police forces in this country, you would be hard pushed to find many who disagree with me.
I know how the legal system works, and I know how to beat the system. This is how to do it, and if about 10% of all drivers booked follow my specific instructions, then the entire system will crash and become unworkable to the extent, that the government will have no choice but to stop issuing fines for every type of traffic offence. The whole lot of them. Seriously.
I do not feel guilty about coming out with this information, as I think it’s about time someone stood up for hard working, civil minded, law abiding taxpayers in this country, who are being screwed.
This is very simple and very basic. The idea is to clog up the system in the traffic camera office and the courts by drivers exercising their rights to remain innocent until proven guilty.
SIMPLE BASIC LEGAL STEPS TO FOLLOW…………….
1. Do not accept the alleged offence. There are numerous valid reasons to dispute every single alleged offence. Often the charges are incorrect or the evidence is illegally or incorrectly gathered.
2. Challenge it, tell them that you are going to defend the matter. Make them earn their miserable $150 or $200 or whatever. They have to prepare evidence and witnesses. Just the wages for the camera operator or the Policeman on the day of the court, will be more than the actual fine. You are also taking a camera operator or a member of the Police Force off the street for the day. But it won’t get to that point…..read on….
3. If a court date is ever set, and it does not suit you, do not accept it, ask for a delay to a time and place that suits you.
4. When they re set the date, delay it as often as possible. keep pleading not guilty all through the process. You have every right to be sick, or go for an adjournment if the day does not suit for any legitimate reason. For example you may have pressing family or work commitments which prevent you from attending a particular court on a particular day.
5. If it ever actually gets to court, (which is unlikely if everyone does this) and if you are unwell that day, ring the court in the morning and tell them that you cannot make it as you are sick. The camera operator, and a police prosecutor will already be at court, and will be greatly inconvenienced, by having to come back another day. The whole time this is going on, the amount of paperwork involved at the traffic camera office is huge. Several staff are involved, and it rapidly becomes very costly, probably running into thousands. …..with me so far…..keep reading…….
6. The court system is then placed under such a massive load by people who wanted “their day in court” that it simply will not be able to cope unless they open up about another 50 magistrates courts, and this is obviously going to cost the government a lot more than any revenue raised. If all the above fails, which is highly unlikely….and you actually go to court and get convicted……you have a right of appeal. Make sure you appeal the conviction. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see what happens. They are not going to spend millions chasing hundreds.
7 Tell everyone you know to challenge their alleged offences, and the entire system will crash within a few weeks.
8. Please pass this on. AND ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT YOU ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY AND THAT THERE IS A VERY HIGH PROBABILITY THAT THE EVIDENCE USED AGAINST YOU IS WRONG. YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO CHALLENGE ANY ALLEGED OFFENCE. THIS IS WHY COURTS EXIST….SO USE THEM……A LOT.
Regards,
Stan
http://nesaraaustralia.com/2012/09/22/how-and-why-you-should-fight-all-fines-by-an-ex-police-sergeant/

Read More