[MP-Ryan]

As many of you know by now, I have a fondness for reading about the bat**** insanity that passes for conspiracy theory.

Recently, one of the various species of "sovereign citizens" (Freemen-on-the-Land, Detaxer, Sovran, etc) landed himself in the news here in Alberta after he claimed a wpman's rental property was his embassy and therefore she didn't own it anymore.  He's subsequently been arrested and shipped back to Quebec to finish up an assault trial stemming from the last time he tried this.

Regardless, it got me thinking about how the Internet manages to give voice, audience, and capability for spread to a number of patently idiotic movements, and one of the most damading (next to anti-vaxxers) is in the legal community.  And without further ado or introduction, I present to you an extremely detailed review by the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench (one step down from the Supreme Court of Canada, for those not familiar with the Canadian legal system) of the sovereign citizen's movement and why it is legally stupid and vexatious.

http://canlii.ca/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html

Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke is a wonderful writer with a sharp wit, and the first 10 pages of this are required reading if ever you have the notion to seek legal advice from the Internet instead of a proper lawyer.

[MP-Ryan]

The first page, to whet your appetite:

I.         Introduction to Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [“OPCA”] Litigants

 

[1]               This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels - there is no closed list. In the absence of a better moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants [“OPCA litigants”], to functionally define them collectively for what they literally are. These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by ‘gurus’ (as hereafter defined) to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.

 

[2]               Over a decade of reported cases have proven that the individual concepts advanced by OPCA litigants are invalid. What remains is to categorize these schemes and concepts, identify global defects to simplify future response to variations of identified and invalid OPCA themes, and develop court procedures and sanctions for persons who adopt and advance these vexatious litigation strategies.

 

[3]               One participant in this matter, the Respondent Dennis Larry Meads, appears to be a sophisticated and educated person, but is also an OPCA litigant. One of the purposes of these Reasons is, through this litigant, to uncover, expose, collate, and publish the tactics employed by the OPCA community, as a part of a process to eradicate the growing abuse that these litigants direct towards the justice and legal system we otherwise enjoy in Alberta and across Canada. I will respond on a point-by-point basis to the broad spectrum of OPCA schemes, concepts, and arguments advanced in this action by Mr. Meads.

 

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

 

1.            a characteristic set of strategies (somewhat different by group) that they employ,

 

2.            specific but irrelevant formalities and language which they appear to believe are (or portray as) significant, and

 

3.            the commercial sources from which their ideas and materials originate.

 

This category of litigant shares one other critical characteristic: they will only honour state, regulatory, contract, family, fiduciary, equitable, and criminal obligations if they feel like it. And typically, they don’t.

 

[5]               The Meads case illustrates many characteristic features of OPCA materials, in court conduct, and litigation strategies. These Reasons will, therefore, explain my June 8, 2012 decision and provide analysis and reasoning that is available for reference and application to other similar proceedings.

 

[6]               Naturally, my conclusions are important for these parties. However, they also are intended to assist others, who have been taken in/duped by gurus, to realize that these practices are entirely ineffective; to empower opposing parties and their counsel to take action; and as a warning to gurus that the Court will not tolerate their misconduct.

 

[7]               As a preliminary note, I will throughout these Reasons refer to persons by their ‘normal’ names, except to illustrate various OPCA motifs and concepts. OPCA litigants frequently adopt unusual variations on personal names, for example adding irrelevant punctuation, or using unusual capital and lower case character combinations. While OPCA litigants and their gurus put special significance on these alternative nomenclature forms, these are ineffectual in law and are meaningless paper masks. Therefore, in these Reasons, I will omit spurious name forms, titles, punctuation and the like.

[Phantom Hoover]

Relevant schadenfreude:

[Klaustrophobia]

shouldn't he have just written "you're a ****ing idiot" ?

[redsniper]

Since you wrote my name in ALL CAPS on my birth certificate, it doesn't apply to me! My entire legal persona is a sham! I demand moneys from my secret federal reserve account! :V

[yuezhi]

Recently, one of the various species of "sovereign citizens" (Freemen-on-the-Land, Detaxer, Sovran, etc) landed himself in the news here in Alberta after he claimed a wpman's rental property was his embassy and therefore she didn't own it anymore.  He's subsequently been arrested and shipped back to Quebec to finish up an assault trial stemming from the last time he tried this.

Hey I saw that on CTV. I never thought it would be resolved like that.

[redsniper]

But I'm curious as to what the Canadian flavor of this nonsense entails. I know in the US it's something like, governments use their citizens as currency and set aside a bunch of money in some secret account when you're born, representing your worth or something. If you jump through the right hoops you can get access to the money and the law doesn't apply to you if you say the right magic legalese.

[Al-Rik]

We have in Germany some idiots that believe to live since 1990 in a born again "German Reich".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kommissarische_Reichsregierung

[The E]

An excellent, if rather long, analysis of one of the weirdest scams running around these days.

[Spoon]

Relevant schadenfreude:
*video*

This was hilarious as **** with an excellent ending.

[haloboy100]

Oh, look. More anarchists.

I guess some people are too hipster-y or too prideful to call themselves hippies anymore.

Relevant schadenfreude:

Thus what happens when you try to access the legal system with the comprehension level of a 12-year old.

Speaking of which, a question: why exactly aren't cameras allowed in legal proceedings? The danger isn't terribly obvious to me.

[Phantom Hoover]

Oh, look. More anarchists.

I guess some people are too hipster-y or too prideful to call themselves hippies anymore.

These guys aren't traditional 'anarchists', they're far more rooted in fringe right-wing notions of property and cults of the individual.

Speaking of which, a question: why exactly aren't cameras allowed in legal proceedings? The danger isn't terribly obvious to me.

AFAIK it's to keep the justice system away from the grubby hands of the populist media, something I fully support.

[haloboy100]

Oh, look. More anarchists.

I guess some people are too hipster-y or too prideful to call themselves hippies anymore.

These guys aren't traditional 'anarchists', they're far more rooted in fringe right-wing notions of property and cults of the individual.

I'm not sure. They still claim to be stateless, they still claim to have to have individual sovereignty with inaliable, universal human rights, and they still claim to be oppressed by the state they reside in.

Anarchism is a really vague and encompasses a huge spectrum of nuances and angles, so in retrospect this discussion isn't very credible...but IMO, they're just another flavour of anarchy. They don't seem to have any goals other than to be free of governmental systems.

Either that, or they just want an excuse to have things their way. Somehow that seems much more likely. I mean, the guy in the above video had that smug, hipstery and self-righteous attitude you usually find on spoiled teenagers.

[MP-Ryan]

But I'm curious as to what the Canadian flavor of this nonsense entails. I know in the US it's something like, governments use their citizens as currency and set aside a bunch of money in some secret account when you're born, representing your worth or something. If you jump through the right hoops you can get access to the money and the law doesn't apply to you if you say the right magic legalese.

Justice Rooke talks about it at some length several pages in.  Most of the Canadiansspvereign citizen idiots residing in Canada who are Canadian citizens despite their idiotic claims borrow the majority of their arguments from the American movements.

[Mongoose]

I'd never heard of this "movement" as such before, and now I'm sorry I did.