Adam Gauthier - His Strawman is NOT an OPCA litigant

Moderator: Burnaby49

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5637
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Adam Gauthier - His Strawman is NOT an OPCA litigant

Postby Burnaby49 » Tue Nov 10, 2015 6:38 am

The newest case for me to dissect is yet another Alberta Queens Bench case. Those guys do nothing but churn out more work for me. Anyhow on to;

Crossroads-DMD Mortgage Investment Corporation v Gauthier, 2015 ABQB 703
http://canlii.ca/t/glzx5

Adam is yet another individual trying OPCA bullshit to weasel out of paying his mortgage. He got a $15,950 second mortgage with Crossroads in August 2012 and defaulted. Crossroads responded with this;

[2] Crossroads-DMD claims that Gauthier is in default of the terms of the Mortgage, and, on June 4, 2015 sued for:

1. a declaration the Mortgage is in default, and for the debt owed as a consequence,
2. an order for possession of the Residence,
3. appointment of a receiver,
4. an order for sale of the Property to Crossroads-DMD,
5. costs on a solicitor and client full indemnity basis, and
6. a preservation order.


Gauthier chose to appear at several application hearings without bothering to file anything in his defense. Finally he was given until October 13, 2015 to provide to the Masters’ Office with any pleadings and arguments in response to the Crossroads-DMD lawsuit. So On that date he attempted to file:

1. a “Counterclaim of Adam Christian Gauthier, individual human being, man”;

2. an application to have the Statement of Claim amended:
... whereas they have my name written in all capital letters representing the artificial person, juristic personality, legal person, subject of Her Majesty the Queen which I am not. The name should be written as follows: Adam Christian Gauthier.

and

3. an Affidavit with six exhibits.


However a problem. Gauthier refused to pay the filing fees so the doocuments could not be filed. However Master in Chambers Sandra Schulz apparently took a "what the hell, just pass them over to me" attitude and told Gauthier to give them to her directly without filing them properly.

[7] These documents were not filed by the Clerk because Gauthier refused to pay filing fees, relying on an order issued in Calgary by Master Prowse to waive those fees. The Clerk takes the position that Master Prowse’s order is unauthorized as being outside his jurisdiction. I take no position on that, but did permit Gauthier to direct these documents to me, for the sole purpose of acting as a written brief for this reserve judgment.

[8] To be explicit, the October 13, 2015 Gauthier documents are not considered as filed with the Court. I have placed those documents on the Court file with an attached letter that indicates that the three October 13, 2015 documents are written argument by Gauthier in response to the Crossroads-DMD redemption order application. This means, for example, that Crossroads-DMD has no obligation to respond to the unfiled “Counterclaim”.

[9] Crossroads-DMD made no response.

[10] This decision is the reserve judgment in response to the October 1, 2015 oral argument and the written materials that were subsequently submitted to me.


So, on to arguments;

A. Crossroads-DMD

[19] Counsel for Crossroads-DMD summarized the matter to the date of the application. She noted the mortgage had matured, and Gauthier is expected to pay the outstanding debt. She stressed that a timely response would be beneficial since the Residence has little remaining equity, and therefore asked for a one day redemption period. She also identified Gauthier as an Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [“OPCA”] litigant, per Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII), 543 AR 215.


Gauthier, as you'd expect, argued pointless gibberish. BUT NOT OPCA POINTLESS GIBBERISH! He was very clear about that! His gibberish was the real stuff, not that secondhand OPCA crap.

[22] Gauthier explicitly rejected the Plaintiff’s characterization of himself as an OPCA litigant, and indicated that in any case, Meads v Meads is not a binding judgment, but instead is only obiter.

[28] Finally, at paras 22-23, Gauthier repeats his objection to being identified as an OPCA litigant; arguing the to do so is unfair and prejudicial:

22. ... while in court October 1, 2015 one of Hendrix’s Law’s agents attempted to prejudice my standing and thus my ability to defend myself by attempting to suggest/label me an OPCA litigant. Again this speaks to the malice and ill natured intent of these crooks. If they are lawyers then they should know what a “person” is in the eyes of the court as compared to a human being and that the Meads judgment is mostly obiter dicta and not a binding piece of case law.

23. I am not an OPCA litigant nor do I have any association with “freemen on the land”.


So let's look at his non-OPCA arguments.

B. Gauthier

[20] Gauthier aired a range of complaints at the October 1, 2015 hearing. While he admitted he had stopped paying the Mortgage, his position is that the Mortgage’s terms were unfair and predatory. There was a lack of disclosure. He was not aware of the terms of the contract when it was signed; this was fraud. The Mortgage was unsupported by valuable consideration. Gauthier did not realize the contract was a negotiable instrument: He argued that the Mortgage improperly lacks a label, “Consumer Purchase”, as required by Bills of Exchange Act, RSC 1985, c B-4, s 190, making the Mortgage void.

[21] Gauthier explained he would have filed a Notice of Counterclaim, were it not for the fact his computer had malfunctioned, but counsel for Crossroads-DMD had received a draft copy of his planned counterclaim. He questioned whether this hearing should be conducted in morning Chambers, but was unable to suggest an alternative venue. Gauthier also complained that his name had been printed in all capital letters on the Statement of Claim, preferring that it be written following the “Canadian Style”, and he wanted the Statement of Claim amended to correct that. A full audit should be conducted on the Mortgage account.

[24] He further argues that the Mortgage is “a consumer note without the words “consumer purchase” on the face of the instrument.” The absence of those words makes the mortgage void, per Bills of Exchange Act, s 190(2).

[25] Gauthier takes the position that he was unaware when he signed the Mortgage that it had no associated value because Crossroads-DMD:

... loaned book-entry credit created at no cost whatsoever ... and fraudulently passed that cost-free book-entry credit off to [Gauthier] as legal tender whereas in truth and in fact [Gauthier] himself provided his own legal tender by virtue of the 6,340.54 in cash monies taken from his account ...

The alleged debt was created by [Crossroads-DMD] as a book-entry credit at no cost to [Crossroads-DMD] and thus [Crossroads-DMD] has no right whatsoever to claim payments in Canadian cash currency in return for book-entry credit created out of thin air totally unbacked by either real wealth or security in the hands of [Crossroads-DMD].

[26] Gauthier’s October 13, 2015 Affidavit at paras 1-4 further explains the theoretical construct in which Gauthier places himself.

1. I am a man and an individual human being with standing within the territory commonly known as Canada. (See exhibit 1 “Statement of Live Birth”).

2. I am exercising my right NOT to take recognition as a person before the law. Article 16 ICCPR

3. I am not a person or any class of person.

4. I am the Beneficiary and Grantor of the account referred to as the juristic person ADAM CHRISTIAN GAUTHIER (Instrument #’ A 1629383 (birth certificate) and P2023004 (statement of live birth) held on file with the Office of the Registrar General).

22. ... while in court October 1, 2015 one of Hendrix’s Law’s agents attempted to prejudice my standing and thus my ability to defend myself by attempting to suggest/label me an OPCA litigant. Again this speaks to the malice and ill natured intent of these crooks. If they are lawyers then they should know what a “person” is in the eyes of the court as compared to a human being and that the Meads judgment is mostly obiter dicta and not a binding piece of case law.


The analysis is long and complex, far more than I would have expected from a fairly simple decision. So I'm not going into detail.

First the OPCA identification. The court went into an analysis of the entire issue of obiter and then related it to Meads v Meads;

A. The Legal Status of Meads v Meads and other Judgment Authorities

[32] As a preliminary point I will respond to Gauthier’s argument that I should not consider myself as bound by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Meads v Meads decision of Associate Chief Justice Rooke. Gauthier called it “obiter”. My suspicion is that Gauthier views a declaration of that kind to be a kind of simple invocation that will allow him to escape otherwise binding court authorities. It does not, but I think it would be helpful to offer him an explanation of “obiter” or “obiter dicta”, and what that term actually means.

[33] Obiter are statements of law, principle or conclusions, that do not directly relate to the outcome of a court decision. For example, a judge might write a decision that says because of facts A I conclude B, and therefore do C, but if I the facts had been X, I would have concluded Y, and then I would have done Z. The X, Y and Z analysis is obiter. The court did not use that part of the decision to reach its actual conclusion. An obiter component of a judgment is not binding on other courts. It is, however, potentially influential.

[35] The Meads v Meads decision was made by a justice (judge) of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta. I cannot ignore any non-obiter findings and principles of law in that decision. Those have binding authority on the Masters of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta

[36] Though this will come up again later, one point that Gauthier argued is that he is “an individual human being, or man with inherent jurisdiction on the land commonly known as Canada”, and “not a person as defined by Interpretations Act RSC 1985”. He is “... the Beneficiary and Grantor of the account referred to as the juristic person ADAM CHRISTIAN GAUTHIER ...”.

[37] This is obviously an attempt to invoke the OPCA double/split person or “Strawman” concept: individuals have two interlinked aspects, a physical “human” element and an attached or interlinked non-corporeal legal element, what Gauthier calls a “person” or “juristic person”.

[38] In Meads v Meads this concept is reviewed and rejected at paras 417-446. Rooke ACJ concludes that in Canadian law the double/split person concept is entirely unfounded in any sense, and has been systematically rejected every time anyone has ever raised it in a Canadian court. He then goes to evaluate the documents that the respondent, Dennis Larry Meads, had filed in the Meads v Meads action. Rooke ACJ explains at paras 432-439 that the Meads’ documents are meaningless because they attempt to invoke the double/split person concept, and concludes at paras 438-439:

[438] ... everything good and of value attaches to the physical person of Mr. Meads, while all obligation and debt is allocated to the unfortunate DENNIS LARRY MEADS, corporate entity.
[439] Of course, that does not work. Mr. Meads is Mr. Meads in all his physical or imaginary aspects. He would experience and obtain the same effect and success if he appeared in court and selectively donned and removed a rubber Halloween mask which portrays the appearance of another person, asserting at this or that point that the mask’s person is the one liable to Ms. Meads. Not that I am encouraging, or indeed would countenance, the wearing of a mask in my courtroom.

[39] This means that ACJ Rooke’s conclusion that the double/split person “Strawman” is a myth is not obiter. He used that conclusion of law to reach the result in Meads v Meads. As a consequence that conclusion is binding on me. To be explicit, even if that were not the law I would come to exactly the same conclusion. Gauthier’s claim that distinguishes an “individual human being” from the “person” is entirely meaningless. They are one and the same. Gauthier’s apparent belief as to the legal meaning of the word “person” is entirely false and incorrect.

[42] Another rule Gauthier should be aware of is that there are parts of Meads v Meads which are obiter, but which are nevertheless binding on me because those passages originate in other, non-obiter court decisions. For example, at para 216 Rooke ACJ indicates notaries do not have judge-like authority. Meads did not argue that in his materials or court appearance, so that statement is obiter. However, Meads v Meads then references an Alberta Court of Appeal decision: Papadopoulos v Borg, 2009 ABCA 201 (CanLII) at paras 3, 10. That decision includes the following explicit statement:

The appellant put great stock in the fact that his unconventional documents had been notarized by a Notary Public, but the involvement of the notary could not give these legally ineffective documents any force of law. ...

[43] The passage in Papadopoulos v Borg is not obiter and is binding on me. It is from the Alberta Court of Appeal.

[44] There is a third important point for Gauthier to understand concerning Meads v Meads. The weight and influence of a judgment increases when other judges and courts accept that a decision provides the correct approach to a legal issue. Judicial reasoning operates in that sense on a consensus basis, and if a judge’s obiter reasoning is generally accepted then that obiter becomes increasingly influential. Consensus results in a generally understood and agreed upon principal of law.

[46] If Gauthier thinks he can wave away Meads v Meads by a simple declaration that decision is just one judge’s opinion or because it is obiter, then he is wrong. What was one opinion is now a judicial chorus. Not one court has sung a dissenting note. Anyone who makes claims like the “Strawman” clause and then says Meads v Meads does not apply to them is going to face a very, very steep uphill battle in our Courts.


So there. Like it or not if you walk like a duck and quack like a duck . . . .

B. Gauthier is an OPCA Litigant

[47] Gauthier at his October 1, 2015 court appearance and in his affidavit complains counsel for Crossroads-DMD has incorrectly and maliciously labelled him as an OPCA litigant. After a review of Gauthier’s materials and arguments, I agree with the manner in which he was identified. Gauthier has advanced stereotypic and well known OPCA arguments and motifs, such as the double/split person “Strawman”. He also appears to place special significance on his birth documentation as creating an “account”. The Newfoundland Court of Appeal concluded in Fiander v Mills that a court should presume a litigant who argues these things does so for an improper and ulterior purpose. There are legal consequences to that presumption.

[48] Gauthier is clearly aware of the Meads v Meads decision, and I suspect some of its successors. He nevertheless chose to advance “Strawman” and unorthodox birth document concepts in court. If Gauthier wants to avoid the OPCA litigant classification in future court appearances, then he should take into account that Canadian courts have systematically rejected and denounced those concepts.


So after branding Gauthier for life with that abhorrant label the court moved on to the issues;

C. The Mortgage is a Void Consumer Note

[49] Gauthier argues that the Mortgage is a void consumer purchase bill of exchange or promissory note and, as a consequence, must be marked as a “Consumer Purchase”: Bills of Exchange Act, s 190(1). The Mortgage has no such notation. Gauthier therefore concludes that the Mortgage cannot be enforced against him and is void: Bills of Exchange Act, s 190(2).


This occupied a lot of the court's attention and is not really of interest to me so if you want the nitty gritty on this read it yourself from paragraphs 49 through 67.

Then on to the issue of whether Crossroads got paid off the moment it wrote up the mortgage because this created money for crossroads.

D. Crossroads-DMD Creates Money Out Of Thin Air

[68] Gauthier argues that the Mortgage should not be enforced because it is fraudulent or grossly unfair. He argues that Crossroads-DMD did not disclose to Gauthier that what it loaned was “book-entry credit created out of thin air”. The “book-entry credit” cost Crossroads-DMD nothing and this was concealed from Gauthier. Therefore it is unfair to Gauthier for him to repay in real money what is, in effect, something of no actual value.


Again I'm not going to analyze this. The Master went into an extensive review of Australian jurisprudence between 1992 and 1994 and some jurisprudence past those years. Just to much case-specific detail to summarize.

Somehow the Master managed to dig up the source document on the "book entry credit" scheme;

[74] It is obvious that the Australian courts have on many occasions considered and rejected “book-entry credit” arguments that are exactly the same as those advanced by Gauthier. There is another connection. I was able to locate a copy of the evocatively titled “manual” identified in the Australian judgments: Laurence F. Hoins, How To Screw ‘Your’ Bank: What Bank? Any Bank, 2nd ed (Nowra: self-published, 1992) [“How To Screw ‘Your’ Bank”].

[75] The author of How To Screw ‘Your’ Bank, Laurence Hoins, describes himself as a man of many careers and talents, and offers his services to assist those who seek to implement his concepts. He says a bank withdrew its debt collection action when confronted by his stratagem and documents. How To Screw ‘Your’ Bank is a guide to nullify debt collection:


Then chapter and verse how Gauthier blatantly stole from this book. Sorry, has "adapted his documents from this source".

[79] Further, comparison of Gauthier’s materials and the form documents in How To Screw ‘Your’ Bank make it is obvious that Gauthier has adapted his documents from this source.


So that argument got dumped too. As did all of the rest of them;

H. Redemption Order

[96] The Redemption Order sought by Crossroads-DMD is granted in the regular court template form. The redemption period is set for 30 days from the date of service of the Order flowing from this decision, following which the Plaintiff may list the property for sale for 60 days at $372,000.00 or such higher sum as the listing realtor may recommend. Costs are awarded on a solicitor-client indemnity basis. Counsel for Crossroads DMD may submit the order directly to me for signature without first obtaining the approval of the Defendant as to the form of Order.

V. Amendment of the Statement of Claim

[97] Gauthier’s October 13, 2015, application at paragraphs 1-4 seeks:

1. An amendment to the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim whereas they have my name written in all capital letters representing the artificial person, juristic personality, legal person, subject of Her Majesty the Queen which I am not. The name should be written as follows: Adam Christian Gauthier.

2. I do not wish to take recognization as a person before the law as per my article 16 right from the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights.

3. Any attempt to intimidate me or arbitrarily force me to do so would be in violation of Article 8 of the ICCPR which prohibits holding someone in servitude. Via being recognized as a subject of Her Majesty.

4. Any attempt to force me into recognition as a person before the law also violates Article 5 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. [Sic.]

[98] I will not respond to Gauthier’s application unless it is filed with the Court and then served on the Plaintiff. However, it is obvious from the documents provided that Gauthier subscribes to double/split person “Strawman” theories. He objects to being identified by a name in all capital letters because he believes that designates his “artificial person, juristic personal, legal person”: his “Strawman”. He need not worry on this point. As I have previously indicated the binding character of Meads v Meads, Gauthier is just one entity, human and legal person, all wrapped inextricably together in one neat package. That is a principal of law recognized universally by Canadian courts. It is not only binding on me, it is also legally correct.

[99] I have noted what the Newfoundland Court of Appeal has said in Fiander v Mills about “Strawman” theory. Gauthier advances these concepts at his own risk, including the risk of an award of costs against him personally.

[100] As for writing names one way or another, it does not matter. In R v Lindsay, 2002 BCCA 687 (CanLII), 180 BCAC 4, Detaxer David Kevin Lindsay argued this distinction was relevant on court documents, and demanded his name be formatted in the manner sought by Gauthier. Esson JA indicated the distinction between name formats was meaningless. See also R v Linehan, 2000 ABQB 815 (CanLII) at para 13, 276 AR 383; R v Kennay, [2001] BCJ No 2929 at paras 6, 8 (QL) (BC Prov Ct); R v Hyde, 2003 BCSC 368 (CanLII) at paras 7-8, 61 WCB (2d) 530; R v Lemieux, 2007 SKPC 135 (CanLII) at paras 45-46, [2008] 2 CTC 291; R v Loosdrecht, 2008 BCPC 400 (CanLII) at para 36, [2009] 4 CTC 49; City of Burnaby v Gildemeester, 2014 BCSC 2441 (CanLII) at paras 11-12, 22 MPLR (5th) 137.

VI. Costs

[101] Crossroads-DMD is successful in its application for a redemption order. The terms of the Mortgage are that Crossroad-DMD receives solicitor-client indemnity costs for any litigation steps required to enforce the Mortgage. I would have awarded those costs in any case to Crossroads-DMD for any steps required to respond to Gauthier’s “consumer note” and “book-entry credit arguments”. These two arguments are clearly frivolous and nothing more than OPCA ‘money for nothing’ scams that should be deterred.


I note my old friend Master Gee in paragraph 100. I attended that case and wrote it up here;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10342

No doubt he'd be proud to find that he is now part of Canadian judicial history.

Then the Master took a shot at men scribbling on whiteboards. Had she overdosed on Dean Clifford and Robert Menard? She even worked in the Hot-Off-The-Press Boisjoli decision.

VII. Conclusion

[102] In preparing this decision I have expanded my investigation and analysis perhaps further than the minimum required. My hope that a more complete dissection of Gauthier’s misconceptions will assist him and others to better understand the law. As I have observed in my response to his “consumer purchase” argument, some aspects of law and legislation are cryptic, and reported judgments such as this one will hopefully be a useful educational resource.

[103] Gauthier also indicated to me that he has other litigation either pending or underway, and it would be unfortunate if he pursued avenues that Canadian courts have identified as frivolous and vexatious. This Court takes a strict approach to attempts to misuse its processes, as is illustrated by the recent Re Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 629 (CanLII) decision. I recommend Gauthier review that judgment carefully.

[104] Beyond that, it would be a pity if Gauthier lost his home because he exercised poor discretion in his search for reliable sources of legal information. There are better alternatives than obsolete legal dictionaries, discounted texts like How to Screw ‘Your’ Bank, and Youtube videos of men scribbling on whiteboards. The decision is, of course, up to Gauthier, however, he should think carefully before he makes statements such as:

I can find no law that authorizes book-entry credit and thus must conclude it is fraudulent criminal activity which I cannot take part in. ...

He cannot expect the courts to view him as a ‘fair dealer’. When he makes such statements the Court may be inclined to accept the alternative that Gauthier’s appearance in court is for an improper and ulterior purpose. If so, Gauthier can expect negative consequences.

Heard on the 1th day of October, 2015.
Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 6th day of November, 2015.


Note that the Master awarded Soliciter and Client costs. This is unusual and is usually considered punitive,

Solicitor and client costs are set at a higher scale compared with party and party costs, and approach complete indemnity to the successful litigant.

They are exceptional and, to some, useful mostly to punish a litigant. For example, in Winnipeg Holdings, Justice Meredith granted solicitor and client costs, writing:

"The purpose of granting costs on the higher scale seems not to be that the successful party should emerge from the litigation unscathed by costs charged by his own solicitor, but that others should be deterred from similar conduct, and/or that a penalty should be inflicted....
"I based my award upon a principle of misconduct: that others should be deterred from like conduct, and that the petitioner should be penalized."


Also referred to as party and party costs on the solicitor and client scale or, in British Columbia, with some minor distinction, special costs. For example, note the following extract from Fullerton:

"Special costs, or solicitor-and-client costs are ... awarded when a court seeks to dissociate itself from some misconduct. Because the court is expressing its disapproval, the award must go beyond mere indemnity and enters the realm of punishment."


In McCarthy, Justice Sinclair of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench defined solicitor and client costs as follows:

"Solicitor and client - this basis is intended, so far as is consistent with fairness, to provide complete indemnity to the party to whom they are awarded as to costs essential to and arising within the four corners of the litigation."


http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/SolicitorandClientCosts.aspx
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2517
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:16 am

Re: Adam Gauthier - His Strawman is NOT an OPCA litigant

Postby Jeffrey » Tue Nov 10, 2015 7:57 am

Burnaby49 wrote:
C. The Mortgage is a Void Consumer Note

[49] Gauthier argues that the Mortgage is a void consumer purchase bill of exchange or promissory note and, as a consequence, must be marked as a “Consumer Purchase”: Bills of Exchange Act, s 190(1). The Mortgage has no such notation. Gauthier therefore concludes that the Mortgage cannot be enforced against him and is void: Bills of Exchange Act, s 190(2).


This occupied a lot of the court's attention and is not really of interest to me so if you want the nitty gritty on this read it yourself from paragraphs 49 through 67.


Woah woah woah, you're burying the lead there. The "consumer purchase" jibber jabber is Menard's baby.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5637
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Adam Gauthier - His Strawman is NOT an OPCA litigant

Postby Burnaby49 » Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:17 am

Jeffrey wrote:
Burnaby49 wrote:
C. The Mortgage is a Void Consumer Note

[49] Gauthier argues that the Mortgage is a void consumer purchase bill of exchange or promissory note and, as a consequence, must be marked as a “Consumer Purchase”: Bills of Exchange Act, s 190(1). The Mortgage has no such notation. Gauthier therefore concludes that the Mortgage cannot be enforced against him and is void: Bills of Exchange Act, s 190(2).


This occupied a lot of the court's attention and is not really of interest to me so if you want the nitty gritty on this read it yourself from paragraphs 49 through 67.


Woah woah woah, you're burying the lead there. The "consumer purchase" jibber jabber is Menard's baby.


Menard? Menard? Hold on. Some vestigial memory is trying to surface of a name, no doubt once of some slight interest, from long, long ago. . . . . .

It's coming! Nope, slipped away again. You must be referring to some long-forgotten person I vaguely heard of back in that fleeting period when the Freemen were actually an issue of some minor significance. Since this very comprehensive case made no reference to any "Menard" I must assume he is of absolutely no importance in the current sad remnants of the Freeman/OPCA world. Are you sure you got the name right?
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10632
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Adam Gauthier - His Strawman is NOT an OPCA litigant

Postby notorial dissent » Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:38 am

Burnaby49 wrote:Menard? Menard? Hold on. Some vestigial memory is trying to surface of a name, no doubt once of some slight interest, from long, long ago. . . . . .

It's coming! Nope, slipped away again. You must be referring to some long-forgotten person I vaguely heard of back in that fleeting period when the Freemen were actually an issue of some minor significance. Since this very comprehensive case made no reference to any "Menard" I must assume he is of absolutely no importance in the current sad remnants of the Freeman/OPCA world. Are you sure you got the name right?

Ouch!!!! :snicker:
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5637
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Adam Gauthier - His Strawman is NOT an OPCA litigant

Postby Burnaby49 » Tue Nov 10, 2015 9:26 am

Ouch!!!! :snicker:


You're mocking me for my faulty memory aren't you? I try, I really do, but I'm in my late 60's and I just can't remember the trivial issues from the past. I can still hang on to much of what is important but peripheral things elude me.

Take this "Menard" that Jeffery rambles on about. I get fleeting flashes of memory but just scraps, fragments, possibly false. An image of a stocky grizzled middle-aged man sitting at a kitchen table grasping a beer and fulminating in angry resentment at a whiteboard with the words "Police Constable Bailiff Constable or other persons" scrawled on it. Something about a shiny tin toy badge embossed with Beatus Est Pax Plasmator where "Tom Mix Texas Rangers" should be. Then the same man yet again, in a sunny backyard, giddily playing with a motorized child's toy. Look at it scoot around!! Then it's all gone. What could those things possibly mean?

How can I be expected to pull this random dross together into comprehensive picture?
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

Rakked
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 3:22 am
Contact:

Re: Adam Gauthier - His Strawman is NOT an OPCA litigant

Postby Rakked » Tue Nov 10, 2015 5:02 pm

I have been eagerly waiting for someone to attack Meads v. Meads as dicta and get smacked down, and Master Schulz did a great job on the numerous fronts on which that argument fails.

"First, the relevant part in this case isn't dicta. Second, even if it was it collects cases that are binding. And third, it's been broadly accepted by the consensus of the Canadian courts."

Which is to say, it's common law :snicker:
An evildoer gives heed to false lips;
A liar listens eagerly to a spiteful tongue.

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6586
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Adam Gauthier - His Strawman is NOT an OPCA litigant

Postby The Observer » Tue Nov 10, 2015 5:05 pm

What I find interesting (other than Burnaby's failing memory - I am sure he has forgotten all about the $10,000 dollars he borrowed from me and has so far failed to pay back as promised) is that the OPCA label has become to the sovrun/freeman movement the equivalent of showing a crucifix to a vampire. This is the second or third time I have seen our paper hangers feverishly denying that they are OPCA litigants and that what they are trying to shove down the court's throat is pure genuine and original common law that has never been argued elsewhere.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

User avatar
Bill Lumbergh
Pirate Captain
Pirate Captain
Posts: 224
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 6:06 pm
Location: Initech Head Office

Re: Adam Gauthier - His Strawman is NOT an OPCA litigant

Postby Bill Lumbergh » Tue Nov 10, 2015 5:31 pm

In one of his many YoutTube squabbles, Menard said this:

mrmitee 1 month ago
HAHAHA! Meads vs Meads is NOT case law. Prosecutors have tried to present it as such and got shut down. It is at best ORBITER DICTA and at worst an abuse of office.


This decision not only shows the above statement to be completely wrong, but also explains what "consumer purchase" markings were actually for. Spoiler for those who didn't read the details: it wasn't to get stuff for free by writing "consumer purchase" on bills or subscribing to get a MenardCard.

Excellent decision by the court.

Rakked
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 3:22 am
Contact:

Re: Adam Gauthier - His Strawman is NOT an OPCA litigant

Postby Rakked » Tue Nov 10, 2015 6:23 pm

In Menard's defense, one prosecutor did get shut down for (mis)using Meads. I won't quote it at length here, but in R. v. Martin at paragraph 9, the judge chastised the Crown for, essentially, trying to argue that because Martin was an OPCA adherent, the issue he was raising in the instant case was groundless. The judge correctly frowned on this kind of fallacious nonsense, which Rooke specifically warned against in Meads itself.

The shutdown wasn't because the OPCA stuff in Meads is dicta; however, there is a tiny thread of truth there that should be recognized.
An evildoer gives heed to false lips;
A liar listens eagerly to a spiteful tongue.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5637
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Adam Gauthier - His Strawman is NOT an OPCA litigant

Postby Burnaby49 » Tue Nov 10, 2015 6:27 pm

Rakked wrote:I have been eagerly waiting for someone to attack Meads v. Meads as dicta and get smacked down, and Master Schulz did a great job on the numerous fronts on which that argument fails.

"First, the relevant part in this case isn't dicta. Second, even if it was it collects cases that are binding. And third, it's been broadly accepted by the consensus of the Canadian courts."

Which is to say, it's common law :snicker:


It looks to me, from a non-lawyer standpoint, that the Master went into much, much greater detail and analysis on the issue of Meads v Meads being obiter than was required by the facts of the case. I'm guessing that this was a deliberate response to comprehensively address the whole issue of Meads' relevance as precedence. It better be valid precedence, it's sure cited a hell of a lot.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5637
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Adam Gauthier - His Strawman is NOT an OPCA litigant

Postby Burnaby49 » Tue Nov 10, 2015 6:30 pm

Rakked wrote:In Menard's defense, one prosecutor did get shut down for (mis)using Meads. I won't quote it at length here, but in R. v. Martin at paragraph 9, the judge chastised the Crown for, essentially, trying to argue that because Martin was an OPCA adherent, the issue he was raising in the instant case was groundless. The judge correctly frowned on this kind of fallacious nonsense, which Rooke specifically warned against in Meads itself.

The shutdown wasn't because the OPCA stuff in Meads is dicta; however, there is a tiny thread of truth there that should be recognized.


Darren Martin's saga is discussed here;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=8684
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

Rakked
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 3:22 am
Contact:

Re: Adam Gauthier - His Strawman is NOT an OPCA litigant

Postby Rakked » Tue Nov 10, 2015 6:34 pm

Burnaby49 wrote:It looks to me, from a non-lawyer standpoint, that the Master went into much, much greater detail and analysis on the issue of Meads v Meads being obiter than was required by the facts of the case. I'm guessing that this was a deliberate response to comprehensively address the whole issue of Meads' relevance as precedence. It better be valid precedence, it's sure cited a hell of a lot.


Agreed; she says as much in paragraph 102, and I hope it gets through to at least some Freemen/Sovereigns. I've been following Meads since before I started law school, and I am absolutely in love with the way (some) Canadian courts have been taking the time to clearly, respectfully, but absolutely mercilessly lay out why these pseudolegal arguments are wrong and doomed to failure. This case is an excellent example, and I take my hat off to Master Schulz.
An evildoer gives heed to false lips;
A liar listens eagerly to a spiteful tongue.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5637
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Adam Gauthier - His Strawman is NOT an OPCA litigant

Postby Burnaby49 » Tue Nov 10, 2015 7:18 pm

Rakked wrote:
Burnaby49 wrote:It looks to me, from a non-lawyer standpoint, that the Master went into much, much greater detail and analysis on the issue of Meads v Meads being obiter than was required by the facts of the case. I'm guessing that this was a deliberate response to comprehensively address the whole issue of Meads' relevance as precedence. It better be valid precedence, it's sure cited a hell of a lot.


Agreed; she says as much in paragraph 102, and I hope it gets through to at least some Freemen/Sovereigns. I've been following Meads since before I started law school, and I am absolutely in love with the way (some) Canadian courts have been taking the time to clearly, respectfully, but absolutely mercilessly lay out why these pseudolegal arguments are wrong and doomed to failure. This case is an excellent example, and I take my hat off to Master Schulz.


If you swoon over Canadian Courts putting the boots to Pseudolegal arguments you'll enjoy the new discussion I just posted on this decision;

Servus Credit Union Ltd v Parlee, 2015 ABQB 700
http://canlii.ca/t/glzx3

You can read the discussion here;

Alfred Parlee - Canadian OPCA litigant loses WeRe Bank case
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10878
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 3499
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:02 am
Contact:

Re: Adam Gauthier - His Strawman is NOT an OPCA litigant

Postby grixit » Tue Nov 10, 2015 10:54 pm

Burnaby49 wrote:
Rakked wrote:I have been eagerly waiting for someone to attack Meads v. Meads as dicta and get smacked down, and Master Schulz did a great job on the numerous fronts on which that argument fails.

"First, the relevant part in this case isn't dicta. Second, even if it was it collects cases that are binding. And third, it's been broadly accepted by the consensus of the Canadian courts."

Which is to say, it's common law :snicker:


It looks to me, from a non-lawyer standpoint, that the Master went into much, much greater detail and analysis on the issue of Meads v Meads being obiter than was required by the facts of the case. I'm guessing that this was a deliberate response to comprehensively address the whole issue of Meads' relevance as precedence. It better be valid precedence, it's sure cited a hell of a lot.


Indeed it should be titled as a commentary on Meads, or maybe even a concordance to it.
I voted for Hillary, and i didn't even get a stupid tshirt!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5637
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Adam Gauthier - His Strawman is NOT an OPCA litigant

Postby Burnaby49 » Tue Nov 17, 2015 3:56 am

We are not to call him Adam Gauthier any more. He's decided he doesn't like his old name. He now wants to be known as "Eiricki Ragnarok":

https://www.facebook.com/lou.manotti.7/posts/443862149138334?

Christian Gauthier Ya, alberta, strange place it is. Eiricki Ragnorok is the name I have taken. Facebook just doest want me to have it. Christian was the middle name my parents gave me. The person was ADAM CHRISTIAN GAUTHIER. He is deceased now though.the poor fella.
November 13 at 8:15am


Sad indeed to hear of Adam's death but inspiring to hear that he has emerged, Phoenix-like, from the ashes of his prior existence.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5637
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Adam Gauthier - His Strawman is NOT an OPCA litigant

Postby Burnaby49 » Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:00 am

The whole Gauthier repossession process temporarily lurched to a halt because of, and I can only put this in the bluntest possible terms, a total fuck-up by the plaintiff's lawyers. I might be being too kind with that statement. The court is considering the possibility of sanctioning the plaintiff's lawyers for what is described as possible "egregious" conduct. And it wasn't referring to the second part of this definition;

e·gre·gious
1 - outstandingly bad; shocking.
2 - remarkably good


All of you practicing lawyers reading this know that this isn't a good thing to have the court say about your work.

To recap. Adam Gauthier is in the process of having his home repossessed. The plaintiff, Crossroad-DMD Mortgage Investment Corporation, went to the court to get an order stating;

1. a declaration the Mortgage is in default, and for the debt owed as a consequence,
2. an order for possession of the Residence,
3. appointment of a receiver,
4. an order for sale of the Property to Crossroads-DMD,
5. costs on a solicitor and client full indemnity basis, and
6. a preservation order

On November 6, 2015 Master Schultz of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta issued a decision giving Crossroads all that it had asked for;

http://canlii.ca/t/glzx5

Along with extensively beating Gauthier over the head about all of his gibberish OPCA arguments. So, with such a total victory and permission for the court for full steam ahead, how could the lawyers screw it up? Read 'em and weep;

Crossroads-DMD Mortgage Investment Corporation v Gauthier, 2015 ABQB 809
http://canlii.ca/t/gmvkh

The decision is confusing and I had difficulty gleaning what transpired based on it so I'll give you the plain English version. The plaintiff's lawyers conducting the foreclosure applied twice for the same remedy. First they appeared in front of Justice Schultz and there was a full hearing. She reserved, but ultimately issued the decision given above. But while Schultz was preparing her judgment lawyers for Crossroads made exactly the same application AGAIN but to Master Smart without:

1) notifying Gauthier
2) telling Smart they had already made an application on exactly the same issue, a hearing had been held, and they were waiting for a judgment.

1] Counsel for the Plaintiff attended before me in relation to this matter on October 28, 2015. I was informed that an application for Redemption Order-Judicial Listing had been adjourned from October 1, 2015 but for some unexplained reason it had not been placed on the list. The Defendant Gauthier was not in attendance but based on Counsel’s advice, I allowed the application to proceed. The action had initially been brought in the Judicial District of Calgary but when the Plaintiff’s application was first made, Master Prowse directed that it be moved to the Judicial District of Edmonton and was scheduled for October 1, 2015.


Smart presumed everything was fair and square, Gauthier wasn't there, so he ordered foreclosure with a short last-chance period for Gauthier to pay up. This was issued on October 28th, 2015 while Schultz was still preparing her judgement.

Gauthier gets Smart's order - which someone misidentified on by using name of yet another Alberta Queen's Bench Master, Master Schlosser instead of Smart. He's upset because he thinks he's waiting for a judgment from Schutz (and he is - it was subsequently issued on Nov. 6, 2015), but instead he now has this court order from a different Master saying he hadn't shown up for the hearing and has already lost.

So I assume that the Masters all got together, compared notes, and figure out what happened - and were pissed off. Master Smart realized that the hearing he held and the subsequent court order should never have occurred, and cancelled that. Schulz carried the action forward, and that's what's now going on. In early February Gauthier's news one month period of grace to pay off the mortgage expires and the foreclosure action can finally proceed.

Resulting in an even more paranoid Gauthier. And this;

[8] On its face, conduct of Plaintiff’s Counsel is at best questionable and at its worst egregious. I direct that Ms. Blanchard, who appeared on the applications and Ms. Hendrix, who is the ostensible author of the November 20, 2015 correspondence, provide their written explanations of what has transpired. Thereafter, I will decide whether it is appropriate to impose a sanction under r 10.49.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6586
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Adam Gauthier - His Strawman is NOT an OPCA litigant

Postby The Observer » Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:03 am

Perhaps the sanctions could be to read several tomes of OPCA filings over the weekend.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 2656
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

Re: Adam Gauthier - His Strawman is NOT an OPCA litigant

Postby ArthurWankspittle » Sat Jan 30, 2016 1:37 pm

The Observer wrote:Perhaps the sanctions could be to read several tomes of OPCA filings over the weekend.
Copy it out by hand 100 times?
Going to Tibet now and deleting Facebook you have my email address

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6586
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Adam Gauthier - His Strawman is NOT an OPCA litigant

Postby The Observer » Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:58 pm

ArthurWankspittle wrote:
The Observer wrote:Perhaps the sanctions could be to read several tomes of OPCA filings over the weekend.
Copy it out by hand 100 times?


I see you are one of those people who believe in cruel and unusual punishment.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

User avatar
Hanslune
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2014 12:07 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Adam Gauthier - His Strawman is NOT an OPCA litigant

Postby Hanslune » Sun Jan 31, 2016 7:55 pm

The Observer wrote:
ArthurWankspittle wrote:
The Observer wrote:Perhaps the sanctions could be to read several tomes of OPCA filings over the weekend.
Copy it out by hand 100 times?


I see you are one of those people who believe in cruel and unusual punishment.


Well how about having him do it as rap song and dancing to the beat?


Return to “Canada”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Brandwatch [Bot] and 1 guest