A Look At Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments

This piece will be a bit different. A case from a decade ago has helped bring a particular type of vexatious litigant to the public’s consciousness: Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigants.

A bit of a disclaimer: this isn’t to suggest that everyone who employs such techniques does so for an underhanded purpose. There are true believers out there.

The case referenced is Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII). The facts themselves aren’t really as interesting as the background research that has been done in preparing this ruling. It contains a wealth of information from tactics and habits of such OPCA. litigants. While there is typically some truth in what they espouse, it’s rarely the full story.

[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.

While one can make valid arguments that Canadian laws are grossly insufficient or inadequate, that is not entirely the point with OPCA litigants. Instead, they allege that laws don’t apply. That can be very dangerous when it comes to institutions like the Canada Revenue Agency.

Unsurprisingly, there has been a surge of people who’ve lost faith in the judicial process in the last few years. There’s good reason for that, and it’s tempting to give these arguments another look.

[71] OPCA strategies as brought before this Court have proven disruptive, inflict unnecessary expenses on other parties, and are ultimately harmful to the persons who appear in court and attempt to invoke these vexatious strategies. Because of the nonsense they argue, OPCA litigants are invariably unsuccessful and their positions dismissed, typically without written reasons. Nevertheless, their litigation abuse continues. The growing volume of this kind of vexatious litigation is a reason why these Reasons suggest a strong response to curb this misconduct.

[72] Beyond that, these are little more than scams that abuse legal processes. As this Court now recognizes that these schemes are intended for that purpose, a strict approach is appropriate when the Court responds to persons who purposefully say they stand outside the rules and law, or who intend to abuse, disrupt, and ultimately break the legal processes that govern conduct in Canada. The persons who advance these schemes, and particularly those who market and sell these concepts as commercial products, are parasites that must be stopped.

By selling commercial products, this typically refers to seminars or guidebooks on how to assert certain rights and avoid consequences. The courts view this as exploiting vulnerable people.

Starting at paragraph 99, the ruling lists other Canadian “gurus”, including:

  • David Kevin Lindsay
  • John Ruiz Dempsey
  • Robert Arthur Menard
  • Eldon Gerald Warman
  • David J. Lavigne
  • Edward Jay Robin Belanger

Such OPCA litigants are often seen as busybodies in the Courts. Many have been declared “vexatious litigants” for repeatedly initiating (and often appealing) baseless proceedings. While the techniques employed are interesting — as an observer — it’s hard to argue against the allegation that they seem designed to frustrate the function of Courts.

There’s no question that the courts in Canada are lacking in many ways. However, the techniques employed by OPCA litigants have essentially a zero percent success rate. Certainly, don’t pay them for their “services”.

Would society be better off if we were sovereign citizens and exempt from taxes and licenses? Certainly there’s a case to be made for that. However, Courts have never upheld this.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.pdf
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2007/2007bcca165/2007bcca165.html

4 Years Later, No Constitution, Votes Or Governing Documents

On a more light hearted note today: it’s time to troll and trigger some people. The 4th anniversary since the PPC’s launch is fast approaching.

The “People’s Party” name and its communist implications are actually quite appropriate. There’s nothing about this organization that’s member controlled, or grassroots. There’s no democracy whatsoever, but then again, there’s really not a party.

One can speculate about Bernier’s motivations, but it’s been clear for a long time that this was never meant to be any sort of long lasting organization. It lacks even a basic structure.

This “party” was announced in the summer of 2018, and since then:
-No leadership race
-No votes on internal positions
-No policy votes
-No constitution
-No other governing documents

Just a bit of advice: you probably shouldn’t say that drafting a constitution isn’t as difficult as negotiating Brexit. Sharon will take that as grounds to block you.

While lack of time may have been quasi valid for the 2019 race, it isn’t anymore. There’s simply no reason no to have proper structure in place by now. It’s also worth noting that this “party” can simply be shut down at any time, for no reason, without notice of any kind of mandate. It’s not like there’s a constitution to protect members.

The closest thing to a leadership race was an online “review” in late 2021. However, that’s not the same as holding a real contest. Also, it’s interesting to note there were allegedly some 27,000 members at the some. In 2019, there were over 41,000. Guess the numbers plummeted after the 2018 free passes expired.

Of course, it doesn’t help when dozens of the EDAs get shut down for not filing mandatory financial disclosures. There’s only so much good that “spin” can do.

As for the rant in the video, this is some crackhead logic at its finest. The idea seems to be that this party shouldn’t bother with a constitution because some other party has corrupt processes. Even if it’s true Scheer rigged the 2017 race (who knows?) that’s not a reason not to implement better safeguards here.

It’s sad because a lot of good people do get caught up in this. However, a hard reality check is required at some point.

Cultists have yet to offer any reasonable explanation why there’s no governing documents. Detractors (often CPC supporters) can’t really back up the “vote split” argument. The differences between CPC and LPC are cosmetic, so it doesn’t really matter who wins.

Also, should the “freedom movement” be led by a man who openly says that he recommends vaxxing his own father? Perhaps this isn’t controlled, but it does show cluelessness.

It’s been said that Liberals and Conservatives are 2 wings of the same bird. While true, that misses the bigger picture. Birds have legs, a tail, and a head, correct?

Anyhow, get out and vote harder!

(1) https://twitter.com/TransSplendor/status/1406969212757753859
(2) https://twitter.com/TransSplendor/status/1407309499308908558
(3) https://twitter.com/Babylon_Beaver/status/1407240058621497345
(4) https://www.peoplespartyofcanada.ca/
(5) https://www.bcrise.com/news/peoples-party-of-canada-leadership-review-results-are-in/

Unpopular Opinion: If You “DO” Vote, You Don’t Have The Right To Complain

It’s a widely repeated mantra among many that “If you don’t vote, you don’t have the right to complain”. The logic seems to be that citizens aren’t allowed to criticize the state of affairs unless they cast a ballot for someone. Apparently, taking a principled stance in not supporting anyone is grounds to limit the ability to comment.

However, many of these same irate voters will express frustration and disillusionment with their choices within 6 months to 3 years. That said, it won’t stop people from endorsing the same people again and again. After all, the alternative is worse, right?

While this would certainly apply to Ontario — which has an election in June — the same principles are valid at all levels of Government.

This raises the interesting question: should people who voted for a dishonest and mediocre candidate have the right to complain afterwards?

Certainly, there will be claims that the voters had no idea that so-and-so would be so deceitful. Is that true though? Would a reasonable amount of due diligence have led to the conclusion that certain people can’t be trusted? Given that we are now in the internet era, it’s easier than ever to do background checks on the people running for office.

In fairness, the average person had no idea about this “pandemic” hoax that would be launched a few years ago. Still, this is a problem that goes much further back.

Take a look through any social media site. People will say they are voting for a person, not because they like or trust them, but because the alternative is worse. A great number also struggle to give any coherent reason as to why they are doing it. Using Ford as a specific example, Twitter is filled with people pledging to vote for the man who destroyed their Province — because Horwath and Del Duca would be much worse.

As lame a “journalist” as Brian Lilley is, he unfortunately sums up the right-wing quite well in Ontario, and Canada more broadly. Mindless sheep vote en masse for someone they KNOW will continue to wreck society. Ford brought in mask mandates, vaccine passports, issued stay-at-home orders, shut down entire sectors of business, ruined school for children, etc…. and he may very well get RE-ELECTED.

In the 2021 Federal election, millions voted for the Conservative Party of Canada. This came in spite of them being subsidized by Trudeau, and running on a PRO-vaccine passport agenda.

Support isn’t limited to real parties either. One would think that a “party” that doesn’t elect its leader, have a constitution, or vote on policies would be a cause for concern. After all, it’s been 4 years. Sadly, some simply cannot be reasoned with.

Take the U.K. as another example: Boris Johnson claimed (when running to replace Theresa May) that he would slash immigration to the “tens of thousands”. However, all it takes is a quick search to know that he supported amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegals, while acting as Mayor of London.

In reality, it’s quite easy to check out candidates who are running for office. This is especially true if they’ve had a career in politics. Very few actually do it though.

Back to the premise of the article: if someone has no interest in performing any due diligence on the people who want to run their municipalities, provinces, or country, do they have the right to complain? Moreover, when the politician they helped install breaks all promises, are the voters not complicit in helping them?

If you vote for someone — while ignoring all of the warning signs — you are an accomplice to whatever destructive policies they may enact. As such, you don’t have the right to complain.

Here’s another unpopular opinion: universal voting is a bad idea. If someone can’t be bothered to do their homework on what they’re voting for, it’s detrimental to allow them access.

Update: As mentioned below, some countries, like Australia, make voting mandatory. With that in mind, it wouldn’t be fair to treat that the same way, if force is applied. The article was designed with Canada in mind, which doesn’t have such requirements.

What Senator Denise Batters Will Never Address…..

Senator Denise Batters of Saskatchewan is calling for a leadership review of Erin O’Toole. While this may seem fine on the surface, the details are troubling. It’s not so much what’s in the proposal, but rather, what’s omitted from it.

Batters gives a great performance in this short video. And performance is what it comes across as. She gives some decent points of why O’Toole should go, but never completely throws him under the bus. It seems pretty strange, unless all of this was being done just for show.

The Conservative Inc. media swallowed it completely.

Conservative activists and members across Canada are supporting this petition because Erin O’Toole has reversed his own positions from his leadership campaign, betrayed Conservative principles, lost seats in the election, and cannot win the next election.
.
O’Toole Betrayed Conservative Principles
.
O’Toole won the leadership race claiming to be a “true blue” Conservative, but ran an election campaign nearly indistinguishable from Trudeau’s Liberals. Conservatives and Canadians can’t afford more of the same.
.
Before and after the election, O’Toole repeatedly told Conservatives that they needed to have “the courage to change.” What he expects us to change into, he has yet to say.
.
As Leader, O’Toole has watered down and even entirely reversed policy positions without the input of party or caucus members. On the carbon tax, on firearms, on conscience rights – he has contradicted positions within the same week, the same day, and even within the same sentence!
.
The Election Was Lost
.
Winning without principles is pointless. O’Toole’s strategy and approach failed. Conservatives lost seats and votes.
.
Erin O’Toole lost this election by every measure. Our party lost half a million votes, won fewer seats, and received a lower popular vote than in 2019. We lost ethnically diverse MPs, female MPs, and MPs in the GTA, Alberta, and in Vancouver’s suburbs. In the GTA alone, O’Toole lost 80,000 votes compared to 2019. O’Toole’s inability to communicate or connect with female voters created an even wider gender gap.
.
O’Toole Can’t Win the Next Election
.
Since the election, O’Toole has not learned any lessons from this devastating loss. It’s business as usual. His strategy failed and he refuses to change it. He is surrounded by the same old team with the same old ideas. His polling numbers keep dropping. His flip-flops and weakness mean that he can never regain the trust from the Canadian people that he lost in the election. Because he refuses to learn from his mistakes, he can’t win.
.
Because Erin O’Toole turned his back on conservative principles, lost the election, and cannot win the next one, Conservatives must take action now!

All of this speech sounds lovely, but stop and think about it for a moment. What specifics does Batters actually complain about? She lists 3: (a) Carbon tax; (b) firearms; and (c) conscience rights. But are those really the most pressing issues facing the country?

And seriously? We’re going with the gender gap?

Canada has imposed medical martial law for the better part of 2 years, and Batters is completely silent on that. Moreover, the useful idiots in the comments are whining about relatively minor things instead of the collapse of freedom in this country. Some address the bigger picture, but most don’t.

Keep in mind, O’Toole ran as an anti-freedom candidate to take over the CPC. He doesn’t oppose anything Trudeau does, although he whines about the details of implementation. Whether he’s been bought, threatened, or is just a pandering twit, O’Toole is an enemy of every Canadian who values basic rights in this country.

What’s even more sickening is the double standard and hypocrisy. Canadian “Conservatives” like to virtue signal about how righteous they are in condemning human rights abuses ABROAD. That being said, they are silent on human rights abuses DOMESTICALLY. If Batters wanted a good excuse to get rid of O’Toole, this seems perfect. However, not a peep from her on that subject.

Conservatives claim to support freedom. In realty, they impose mandates for vaccine passports, masks, order businesses closed, and strip away religious liberties. This happens Federally too, although the bulk of the orders are Provincial. O’Toole, as CPC leader, had no issue with any of this. Batters appears uninterested in the fact that her party and leader have no issue with any of this.

Her Twitter account is filled with content on hockey and football, but nothing about the fake pandemic being used to erase the rights we take for granted.

Batters cites the Carbon taxes, but never states that the entire green industry is a giant wealth transfer scheme. The Paris Agreement lays that out in detail, especially in Article 9. She also mentions guns (presumably the May 2020 Order In Council), but never says the obvious: that a disarmed population is much easier to control, or eliminate.

There’s also radio silence on the FIPA with China, which involved selling Canadian sovereignty to a foreign power. Then again, the CPC still seems to support this treason.

She also never points out the elephant in the room: O’Toole worked at Heenan Blaikie right before getting into politics. This was the same law firm Trudeau Sr. and Chretien were partners at. Birds of a feather….

While at Heenan Blaikie, O’Toole also lobbied on behalf of Facebook. His support of free speech has always comes across as forced and insincere. Again, nothing from Batters.

If the CPC was actually concerned about winning elections, then perhaps Batters might want to address O’Toole’s open borders policies. Incidently, Harper and Mulroney supported the same thing. By flooding the country with left-leaning voters, it ensures that “Conservatives” will never be able to win more and more ridings. In the West, Canadians routinely vote for cons (literally) who enact policies to dilute their voting power.

Batters ignores — and it seems intentional — the real reason O’Toole lost: it’s because he supports the same tyranny and creeping Communism that the Liberals and NDP do. He doesn’t offer any real opposition to the most pressing issues facing Canadians.

Additionally, Batters won’t discuss the obvious suspicion that O’Toole threw the race on purpose. There is no way someone could be that bad, unless it was deliberate.

What do we get here? More drama from actors playing a part. Batters’ job seems to be to pretend that there is a segment of her party that wants real change — all while avoiding more urgent topics. The role of this party is to gatekeep, and prevent real alternatives from gaining ground.

To all the people cheering about this petition, give your heads a shake. This is an act, and you’re buying it, hook, line and sinker.

(1) https://twitter.com/denisebatters
(2) https://twitter.com/denisebatters/status/1460292661387087876
(3) https://www.membersvote.ca/
(4) https://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/9/22/erin-otoole-1/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/canada-persecuting-religious-groups-locally-while-virtue-signaling-internationally/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/ccs-2-the-paris-accord-a-giant-wealth-transfer-scheme/
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?V_SEARCH.command=navigate&time=1638101106094

The Final Boss: Realizing That You Are The Best Source Of Information And Scrutiny

“We shouldn’t ask who are the people we should be listening to. Instead, we should be wondering how to verify or refute the things we see and hear.”

Anyone who has ever played video games knows that Bowser is the final boss in the world of Super Mario. This article will get into a more abstract type of boss.

A question that comes up surprisingly often on this site is who should readers be following. That’s understandable, given the vast amount and range of information that’s available. Most people don’t want to have to sift through mountains of rubbish to find gold.

That being said, the correct answer is this: people shouldn’t be relying on or following anyone. Those serious about seeing the world as it really is should be scrutinizing everything they encounter. Real truthers should be doing background checks on what information they come across.

Perhaps all of this is idealistic. However, the point of media shouldn’t be indoctrinating or telling people what to think. It should be empowering, and encourage readers, viewers and listeners to seek more. Does this involve work? Yes, but the alternative is never truly being awake.

Several pieces have been posted here to help the more curious types get started with their own research. They will be included at the bottom.

Additionally, there can be valid reasons someone may hold back on some details. It doesn’t have to be nefarious. They may not be sure of certain points. It may be a controversial topic, where doxing, harassment, and deplatforming are real concerns. Being right doesn’t matter much when livelihood is threatened. Yes, there are many gatekeepers, but that isn’t everyone.

This take may be controversial, but here it goes. Reputation and name recognition have little to no correlation to how accurate and in depth a piece may be. Simply knowing who authored it means nothing if the content is misleading. Moreover, reporting that is truthful (but intentionally superficial) is also unhelpful, since the full truth isn’t told.

The best sources of reporting will include all material used. Evidence that supports the publication will be either embedded into articles or video, or the resources will be instantly available. Anyone making serious claims should be eager to demonstrate their validity. Anyone can throw around allegations. It’s far, far more helpful to see what their basis is.

Things get a bit complicated when a piece of media makes important statements about a company, organization or person, but no source material is provided. The question becomes: do we accept this as a fact, or do a little digging to see how truthful and accurate the content is?

It also should be obvious that not all material is equal is value. While well cited articles, videos and podcasts are helpful, nothing beats primary sources. Are friends talking about an important Supreme Court ruling? Ask to see the text of the decision. Concerned about a new bill being introduced? Search the actual legislation, instead of relying on someone’s opinion. Heard horror stories concerning some new treaty? Go read it. Seeing rumours about what happened at a public event? See what footage is available from someone there.

We are in an age where almost anything can be accessed by an online search. Nonsense statements and assertions can be debunked in seconds. Too few take full advantage of this.

If the light goes on for even one person, then this is worth it.

For a wider perspective, here are a few videos that explain it well:

(1) Rocking Mr. E has a channel called Rocking Philosophy. He released a video in May 2018 on globalist approved opposition, and 3 rules to spot it. There are valid questions to ask when certain voices are promoted, even when they offer little in groundbreaking content. One doesn’t have to agree with his politics to see him poking holes in establishment narratives. It’s a video that’s well worth watching.

(2) Actual Justice Warrior has an interesting take from October 2019. He addressed claims that the mainstream media is dying. He further points out that it’s a bad business model to be celebrating their demise, even if it were true. Real journalism can be quite expensive to engage in. By contrast, commentary channels are a dime a dozen, but still are completely dependent on others doing the underlying work. Investigative journalism — which involves long hours digging through records — can be relatively cheap, but is extremely time consuming.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/c/RockingMrE-RockingPhilosophy
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q08p5kDVn98
(3) https://www.youtube.com/c/ActualJusticeWarrior/videos
(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6GQadCvo58
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/how-to-do-your-own-research-investigative-journalism/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/getting-started-with-your-own-freedom-of-information-access-to-information-requests/
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/getting-started-with-canlii-other-court-records-searches/
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/getting-started-with-searching-government-lobbying-registries/
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/getting-started-with-researching-registered-canadian-charities/

%d bloggers like this: