Adam Gauthier - His Strawman is NOT an OPCA litigant

Moderator: Burnaby49

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 6053
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

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

Postby Burnaby49 » Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:18 am

Adam's back in court yet again, attempting to appeal Judge Rooke's order making him a vexatious litigant.

Re Gauthier
2018 ABCA 14
http://canlii.ca/t/hppxc

This is the vexatious litigant order that Gauthier was appealing. As comprehensive as I've seen;

[84] I therefore order:

1. Adam Christian Gauthier is prohibited, under the inherent jurisdiction of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, from commencing, or attempting to commence, or continuing any appeal, action, application, or proceeding in the Alberta Court of Appeal, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, or the Provincial Court of Alberta, on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person or estate, without an order of the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, of the Court in which the proceeding is conducted, or his or her designate.

2. The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate, may, at any time, direct that notice of an application to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding be given to any other person.

3. Adam Christian Gauthier must describe himself, in the application or document to which this Order applies as “Adam Christian Gauthier”, and not by using initials, an alternative name structure, or a pseudonym.

4. Any application for leave will only be accepted if Adam Christian Gauthier is represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta.

5. Any application to commence or continue any appeal, action, application, or proceeding must be accompanied by an affidavit:

(i) attaching a copy of the Order arising from this Decision, restricting Adam Christian Gauthier’s access to the Alberta Court of Appeal, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, and Provincial Court of Alberta;

(ii) attaching a copy of the appeal, pleading, application, or process that Adam Christian Gauthier proposes to issue or file or continue;

(iii) deposing fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding, so as to demonstrate that the proceeding is not an abuse of process, and that there are reasonable grounds for it;

(iv) indicating whether Adam Christian Gauthier has ever sued some or all of the defendants or respondents previously in any jurisdiction or Court, and if so providing full particulars;

(v) undertaking that, if leave is granted, the authorized appeal, pleading, application or process, the Order granting leave to proceed, and the affidavit in support of the Order will promptly be served on the defendants or respondents; and

(vi) undertaking to diligently prosecute the proceeding.

6. Any application referenced herein shall be made in writing.

7. The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate, may:

(i) give notice of the proposed claim or proceeding and the opportunity to make submissions on the proposed claim or proceeding, if they so choose, to:

a) the involved potential parties;
b) other relevant persons identified by the Court; and
c) the Attorney Generals of Alberta and Canada.

(ii) respond to the leave application in writing; and

(iii) hold the application in open Court where it shall be recorded.

8. Leave to commence or continue proceedings may be given on conditions, including the posting of security for costs.

9. An application that is dismissed may not be made again.

10. An application to vary or set aside this Order must be made on notice to any person as directed by the Court.

[85] This order takes effect immediately.


But Gauthier had one last crack at it. He could appeal Rooke's vexatious litigant order to the Alberta Court of Appeal but there was no automatic right to appeal. He had to convince a judge in the court to allow him a full appeal.

[1] Adam Christian Gauthier seeks permission to appeal a September 13, 2017 Queen’s Bench order and the “Gauthier vs. Starr vexatious litigant decision”.

[2] One aspect of the September 13, 2017 order dismissed Mr. Gauthier’s application for permission to file documents in the Court of Queen’s Bench. He wished to commence an action alleging that the police had no right to stop him from driving without insurance and while unauthorized. Mr. Gauthier claims that he is “immune from police action”. The clerks, as directed by a pre-existing order, refused to file his documents.

[3] Another aspect of the September 13, 2017 order declared the applicant a vexatious litigant. This feature restricted his ability to commence or continue any matter at any level of court in Alberta. He could only do this with permission of the court and if represented by a member in good standing of The Law Society of Alberta.

[4] Mr. Gauthier also seeks permission to appeal a 2016 Queen’s Bench order that designated him as a vexatious litigant. That decision required the applicant to identify himself by his legally correct name in any court documents and provided that he could represent only himself, and no other parties, when named as a party in any action. His access to the courts was not otherwise restricted at that time.


The issue about his right to drive and immunity from police action was included in a prior posting;

[20] The July 18, 2017 documents also disclose that Gauthier, on July 13, 2017, was driving a black 2001 Ford Focus owned by Justina Beth Smith of Edmonton. The vehicle had a fake licence plate attached which read “private non commercial use only”. This attracted the attention of the Edmonton Police Service. Gauthier was stopped, detained, and arrested after he refused to identify himself. Gauthier received three tickets under Traffic Safety Act, RSA 2000, c T-6 for:

• s 54(1)(a) - driving without insurance,
• s 94(2) - driving while unauthorized to do so, and
• a third charge which is not legible from the traffic ticket.
The vehicle was seized per Traffic Safety Act, s 173.

[21] Gauthier claimed his Charter rights have been breached in relation to the July 13, 2017 event. He claimed he is due damages and return of the Ford Focus because he is outside the law. This is, again, false.


Note the requirement that Gauthier correctly identify himself in court documents. While his legal name is Adam Gauthier he was filing under Eiricki Ragnarik, a name he made up.

Unfortunately the Court of Appeal set up an insurmountable barrier for Adam. He could only get approval to appeal if his proposed appeal made sense, had a basis in actual real law, and had at least a small chance of success. None of Adam's extensive roster of past cases have approached these minimum requirements and nor did his current appeal.

[7] There are several reasons why I must refuse Mr. Gauthier permission to appeal.

[8] First, he cannot appeal the portion of the September 13, 2017 order that denied him permission to file his documents in the Court of Queen’s Bench. Rule 14.5(4) forbids any appeal from an order denying a vexatious litigant permission to institute or continue proceedings.

[9] Second, in order to be granted permission to appeal the remainder of the 2017 order, the applicant must satisfy this Court that the proposed appeal incorporates an important question of law and has a reasonable chance of success and that any delay will not unduly hinder the progress of the underlying action or cause undue prejudice.[12]

[10] None of the grounds identified by the applicant has a reasonable chance of success on appeal.


Judge Rooke's order that Gauthier had to be represented in any court proceeding by a real lawyer didn't help either. Adam complained that no lawyer in Alberta would represent him because they were all terrified of antagonizing Judge Rooke. While the thought might please Judge Rooke I doubt that he would agree that he'd cowed all of Alberta's legal practitioners and nor did the appeals judge;

[12] The applicant says he is unable to find a lawyer to represent him. He claims that this is because lawyers are afraid to act for a person who wishes to appeal a decision of Associate Chief Justice Rooke. Mr. Gauthier asserts that lawyers believe that their careers will be hurt if they act for him.

[13] I reject this argument.

[14] No judge will hold it against a litigant who appeals a decision of the judge. Judges know that there are appeal courts for a reason.

[15] Nor do judges hold grudges against lawyers who act for such clients. They appreciate that lawyers play an important role in the administration of justice and provide invaluable assistance to both their clients and the courts before which they appear.

[16] The Alberta bar is independent of the courts and the government. Lawyers understand that they play a pivotal role in advancing their clients’ interests and implementing the rule of law. They advance their clients’ interests “resolutely”. They are not cowed by the high office a judge holds. Members of the bar regularly act for clients who wish to appeal decisions of Alberta judges who hold senior administrative positions.


I'm guessing that this is the end of Adam's legal career. If he can't argue alternate laws that he's made up himself he's got nothing. Judge Rooke is being totally unreasonable about refusing to accept, as real law, whatever incoherent gibberish Adam feels like spewing out and incoherent gibberish is the only law that Adam has been able to master.
"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

Siegfried Shrink
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 10:29 pm
Location: West Midlands, England

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

Postby Siegfried Shrink » Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:47 am

It seems a shame to curtail a promising legal pseudo legal career.
Adam should set up his own court and pursue the action there.
There are precedents for this, even if there are no successful ones.

SteveUK
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 8:30 pm
Location: Nottingham

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

Postby SteveUK » Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:13 pm

I notice the order refers to Alberta courts. Is there anything stopping him scuttling to the other end of town and resuming his career there?
Is it SteveUK or STEVE: of UK?????

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 6053
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

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

Postby Burnaby49 » Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:39 pm

SteveUK wrote:I notice the order refers to Alberta courts. Is there anything stopping him scuttling to the other end of town and resuming his career there?


No, except that Alberta is a province, not a town, so he'd have to move to a new province to restart his legal career. Which wouldn't help him at all since the problems he is trying to remedy through fake law are specifically Alberta problems. He was responsible for his girlfriend's car being impounded and he wants it back along with huge damages. Since that was done in Edmonton it would have to be addressed through an Albertan court. Same with his house being foreclosed. This is a provincial issue and would not be heard by a court in another province.
"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: 6053
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 Jan 23, 2018 9:00 am

Those Bastards!

I'm referring to the Alberta justice system and their inhumane treatment of Adam. It's right there on a Facebook posting he just made. They're forcing him to chose either yellow mustard or sweet relish for his jailhouse hot dog lunch. But not both, just a solitary condiment. At least that's how I interpret this recent Facebook posting;

Christian Gauthier
11 hrs ·

Amazing they can print a headline like this and not be charged for inciting "terrrorism", yet a guy like me makes a couple short videos discussing the charter and they lock me up in solitary condiment without charge. (On the pretence of being a domestic terrorist) I never made any comments that could be construed as calling people to action against the state. Yet here we have it as the headline from a major news corporation.

I don't think we need a revolt, we need a restructuring of the government, and in turn, the tax policies. I don't think I have ever met anyone who was happy about the tax they pay, so I'm sure the climate is ripe for something like this.


This is the headline Adam is going on about;

http://torontosun.com/2017/08/26/its-time-for-a-tax-revolt-in-canada/wcm/7fe33ef2-bdd5-4ba9-82e9-5a11b3175c66

And, frankly, as an ex-federal government employee I can't argue against it's main points. But I don't see that Adam has a beef about it since his taxes, if any, must be absolutely minimal. And I'm forced to agree with Adam on another point. I've never met anyone who's happy about the taxes they pay. That's why the government paid me to be an income tax auditor for 35 year.
"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: 6053
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

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

Postby Burnaby49 » Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:33 am

Things are becoming clearer. Clearer in respect to vague areas of my analysis of Adam's appeal that I reviewed in this posting;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10875&p=258859#p258686

This was Adam's appeal from his vexatious litigant designation by inflicted on him by the Dread Judge Rooke. However he didn't have an automatic right to appeal the designation, he had to convince a judge that he had at least some reasonable grounds for an appeal. He didn't have to show that he had a winning case, or even a good case, just that he had something to argue that was understandable in law. And he failed abysmally. But what did he argue to support his request to be given an appeal hearing? The only comment the judge made on the issue was this;

[9] Second, in order to be granted permission to appeal the remainder of the 2017 order, the applicant must satisfy this Court that the proposed appeal incorporates an important question of law and has a reasonable chance of success and that any delay will not unduly hinder the progress of the underlying action or cause undue prejudice.[12]

[10] None of the grounds identified by the applicant has a reasonable chance of success on appeal.


Which told us absolutely nothing. But now I know what "the grounds identified by the applicant" are because I managed to get copies of both his appeal notice;

http://www.mediafire.com/file/3zdeabkd3qb956m/Gauthier_-_ABCA_leave_appeal.pdf

And the arguments he'd planned to make at the appeal.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/of6m9ak621t2e16/Gauthier_-_ABCA_leave_argument.pdf

I'm not going to go into detail on his arguments. You can read them for yourselves. It goes on and on and, as the judge indicated in paragraph 10 above, it's all bullshit. Suffice to say that it's a rat's nest of classic OPCA beliefs. He's tossed in everything he can think of, the Strawman, quibbling about John Spirit's discredited crap, a "claim of right" is magic language, and traffic legislation is unconstitutional. In other words arguments that have already been thoroughly reviewed in Meads v Meads and other Alberta Queen's Bench decisions. Every argument was Dead on Arrival and Gauthier is screwed. He's thrown his best ideas into the hopper and can't even get a court hearing based on them.

And he's continuing to have a bad time at Queen's Bench. He's still trying to ger someone, anyone, to agree with him that he's been martyred by Rooke. This time it's the Honourable Chief Justice M.T. Moreau telling him to get lost.

Re Gauthier,
2018 ABQB 99
http://canlii.ca/t/hqbv2

I. Introduction

[1] On February 5, 2018 I received an email from Adam Christian Gauthier [Mr. Gauthier]. Mr. Gauthier is subject to strict court access restrictions as a consequence of an order issued by Rooke ACJ on September 13, 2017 in Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket #1703-13118, reported as: Re Gauthier, 2017 ABQB 555 (CanLII), leave denied 2018 ABCA 14 (CanLII). In brief, Mr. Gauthier is prohibited from commencing or continuing any appeal, action, application, or proceeding in an Alberta Court, except with leave of the Chief Justice, Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge of the relevant Court.

[2] Mr. Gauthier complains in his email that he should not be subject to court access restrictions and, in particular, that he is currently required to submit any future leave applications to this Court via a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta. He says that this Court had no right in law to take that step. He also alleges that:

... I have been the victim of what I would categorize as extreme bias by your associate Chief Justice, John D. Rooke. ...

[3] Mr. Gauthier indicated that his email was intended as an application to vary or set aside the Re Gauthier, 2017 ABQB 555 (CanLII) court access restriction order:

... The intent of this communication is to have you set aside or vary Johns Rooks order on the basis that he erred in law. Specifically when requiring the use of council. ...
I am sending you this letter requesting that you set aside the order as a whole, or, vary the order and remove the required use of a bar member to file documents. ...


You'd think that if Judge Rooke was Gauthier's nemesis, his bête noire, his malicious agent of destruction, that he'd learn to spell Rooke's name correctly. These things count in court filings. Nobody knows that better than OPCA types like Gauthier. I've had the misfortune to sit in court while they drone on for endless hours about the importance of capitalization.

Anyhow Moreau cuts to the chase with refreshing brevity;

[5] I have interpreted Mr. Gauthier’s correspondence as an application for leave to apply to vary or terminate his court access restrictions.


Then immediately craps on our hero;

[6] I reject Mr. Gauthier’s application on two separate bases.


Why?

A. Mr. Gauthier’s Email is Not a Proper Leave Application.

B. Stare Decisis


Quibble Quibble Quibble. Why isn't it a proper leave application? Just more judicial nitpicking;

[7] The September 13, 2017 court access restriction order for Mr. Gauthier sets out information and format criteria for a valid leave application. A leave application must be made in writing (para 7) and:

6. Any application to commence or continue any appeal, action, application, or proceeding must be accompanied by an affidavit:

(i) attaching a copy of this Order, restricting Adam Christian Gauthier's access to the Alberta Court of Appeal, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, and Provincial Court of Alberta;

(ii) attaching a copy of the appeal, pleading, application, or process that Adam Christian Gauthier proposes to issue or file or continue;

(iii) deposing fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding, so as to demonstrate that the proceeding is not an abuse of process, and that there are reasonable grounds for it;

(iv) indicating whether Adam Christian Gauthier has ever sued some or all of the defendants or respondents previously in any jurisdiction or Court, and if so providing full particulars;

(v) undertaking that, if leave is granted, the authorized appeal, pleading, application or process, the Order granting leave to proceed, and the affidavit in support of the Order will promptly be served on the defendants or respondents; and

(vi) undertaking to diligently prosecute the proceeding.

[8] Mr. Gauthier’s correspondence does not meet these requirements. As Nielsen J recently observed in Re Thompson, 2018 ABQB 87 (CanLII), once a person is subject to court access restrictions then that person is presumed to engage in illegitimate litigation, unless the court is satisfied otherwise: para 19. An abusive litigant subject to that presumption has the obligation to establish a foundation for their application, and put their “best foot forward” to displace that presumption: para 27.

[9] Second, Mr. Gauthier did not meet the prerequisites of paragraph 5 of the order, which states:

Any application to commence or continue any appeal, action, application, or proceeding will only be accepted if Adam Christian Gauthier is represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta.

[10] Mr. Gauthier instead sent the February 5, 2018 email himself.

[11] These are two separate reasons for my rejection of Mr. Gauthier’s application. He has not met the minimum criteria for a valid leave application


"Doesn't the judge understand that Gauthier is a Free Man? Why should he be required to servilely accept Rooke's totally unconstitutional rules? That's why Adam wants unlimited access to the courts! He wants to avoid being forced to cravenly crawl to Rooke to beg for permission every time he wants to initiate a totally meritless lawsuit.

And what's with this Stare Decisis bullshit. Basically the court is telling Adam that he's bound by precedence, that his issue has been heard by the court and an adverse ruling already made. So what? What's the point of "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again" if those bastards won't let him try, try again?

Sorry, getting a bit worked up. Something of an emotional moment for me. Gauthier's about all that I have left. All the OPCA greats have been defeated and disgraced. All that remain are the sad lingering remnants of a once vital movement. Dross like Adam and Dean Kory. Thin gruel but they're all I've got to work with. And even those, as pathetic as they may be, are being silenced by cruel courts that won't hear their arguments. So what if they're defeated, shop-worn arguments from a decade ago? A man has a right to a defense. But not, apparently, at Alberta Queen's Bench and particularly not in the courtroom of Grand Inquisitor Rooke.

And something weird. Every week CanLII posts a list of the three most accessed decisions in the previous week. Here is last week:

http://www.slaw.ca/2018/02/21/wednesday-whats-hot-on-canlii-255/

Number two on the list is the 2016 decision where ACJ Rooke whacked Gauthier for his totally meritless lawsuit against some government employees for doing their job to Adam's dissatisfaction. I'm at a complete loss why suddenly people would be reading that decision in substantial numbers. There isn't any recent mention of that decision that I detected with Google and other searches.

My hypothesis is that Eiricki has decided to complain about his vicious mistreatment on some top secret Freeman web forum and the locals are reading his decisions to see what happened. Maybe Eiricki has begged for assistance.

But who knows - that is, at best, a guess.
"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


Return to “Canada”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl [Bot] and 0 guests