What Meads v Meads taught us - canadian government conspiracies

Go to content

What Meads v Meads taught us

Our Human Rights
What Meads v Meads taught us
Last revised on July 18, 2017

see "Important" in the Recent Revisions section above

In Meads vs Meads the Judge went to great lengths to make it clear what arguments could not be used to influence a statutory court hearing and was in line with the guide lines put forward In a unanimous high bench endorsed the Canadian Judicial Council’s 2006 statement of principles [https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/news_en.asp?selMenu=news_2006_1212_en.asp] on self-represented litigants that judges “should do whatever is possible to provide a fair and impartial process and prevent an unfair disadvantage to self-represented persons.”

That is exactly what Associate Chief Justice John D. Rooke’s decision in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII) did when he referred to a category of vexatious litigants that he called “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” (OPCA) litigants.

What Associate Chief Justice John D. Rooke’s decision told the (OPCA) litigants was the arguments being used were not being used in the proper courts. He did not say they are wrong!
Duality of legal traditions and application of provincial law - 8.1 Interpretation Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21)
8.1 Both the common law and the civil law are equally authoritative and recognized sources of the law of property and civil rights in Canada and, unless otherwise provided by law, if in interpreting an enactment it is necessary to refer to a province’s rules, principles or concepts forming part of the law of property and civil rights, reference must be made to the rules, principles and concepts in force in the province at the time the enactment is being applied.

R v Duncan was heard by Justice Fergus O’Donnell of the Ontario Court of Justice.

A minor alleged Highway Traffic Act offence — an unsignalled turn — led to an altercation with a police officer in the parking lot of Duncan’s apartment building. A request that Duncan produce his licence led to an alleged refusal to do so, an attempt to arrest him, a struggle, and the arrest of Duncan for allegedly assaulting a police officer. Justice O’Donnell acquitted Duncan of the charge because there was no lawful basis for the stop and thus no lawful basis for the demand for identification and thus no lawful basis for the arrest for failing to produce identification. As the arrest was unlawful, even if Duncan resisted, he was entitled to do so. The acquittal was entered as the result of something equivalent to a motion for non-suit that was made at the conclusion of the Crown’s case by the Court on Duncan’s behalf. It was a happy outcome for Duncan, but it came at a large cost to his dignity.

There is no doubt these Highway Traffic Act proceedings did include a number of the indicia of OPCA litigation that were listed by Justice Rooke in Meads. Duncan talked about being a split person, with both natural person and administrator aspects (footnote 1); he provided an “affidavit of truthobjecting to the court’s jurisdiction over him and denying he was a citizen of the country or province, a “person,” or someone with a contract with the court (at para 9); he produced a “fee schedule” just before his altercation with the police (at para 12); etc. In Meads Justice Rooke describes the uses of these concepts and tactics (and more) in other cases (at paras 199-253).

Mr. Duncan proclaimed that he had no obligation to produce identification to the police officers. In that moment Mr. Duncan momentarily hit upon the concept that would ultimately lead to his acquittal!
These are all part of the reason for the acquittal and judge didn't hide the reasons. It is us that need to understand our human rights and the conspiracy in play to see how they all fit together.

  • In parking lot – private property,
  • No lawful basis is not the same as no legal basis
  • arrest was unlawful
  • even if Duncan resisted, he was entitled to do so because he was lucky enough to hit on the "no obligation to produce identification to the police officers". The cop lacked jurisdiction going in and never received it from Duncan!
  • An unrebutted “affidavit of truth” is the law!
  • No consent to this statutory courts jurisdiction
  • He can admit to being a citizen but not a resident
  • No contract
  • no obligation to produce identification to the police officers - not an enumerated class of subject of the province
By Summary Agreement

Any government agent or representative who has any problems with any of the points listed, bring them forward under your full commercial liability and complete contact information and we can discuss the issue here and if needed in a common law court.

  1. Human rights must themselves be protected by the rule of law;  
Copyright 2015-2019 - all Human Rights Reserved
Site Map
Back to content