Quatloos!

Happy Birthday to you,
Happy Birthday to you,
Happy Birthday dear 2012 ABQB 571,
Happy Birthday to you.

That's right, the judgment that's reviled and praised, hated,and loved, scorned and studied but, above all, cited incessantly as the essential primer on OPCA activities is a boisterously eventful five years old today!

At first there were concerns about it's fragile longevity. Was it mere obiter dicta or precedential? Would anyone even read it? What was its relevance in the vast world of jurisprudence? Well the one hundred and thirty one Canadian citations to date answer those questions. To some extent it's like War and Peace, everybody starts it but few finish. But that's not the point. It's more like a buffet. Everything is in there, you can't possibly consume it all, but judges can pick and chose those parts relevant to the case at hand. A little Strawman sir? Why thank you and just a smidgeon, no no, less than that, less than that, of claim of lawful excuse on the side. And a big slice of A4V please.

Let's be frank here. How many of you readers had even heard of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench before Meads was released? But now Meads, and a cavalcade of subsequent OPCA decisions, has put Queens' Bench in the forefront of this once-obscure but fascinating field of legal analysis. Take Peter of England and the WeRe Bank. Did any UK court deign to even discuss it while Peter was at his height as Britains's new financial savior? NO. But Queen's Bench walked up to the plate and knocked it out of the field for a homer with Alfred Parlee;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10878&p=215652

Some readers, you know who you are, may have no idea what Meads v Meads is about. I've provided the link below for you, totally anonymous, nobody but yourselves need ever know that you've checked it out, to get up to speed on the case. Because, without at least a superficial knowledge of Meads, you can't really consider yourselves Quatloosian.

http://canlii.ca/t/fsvjq

Meads v Meads has made its way to Slovakia. Last year a professor there named Martin Turcan;

https://translate.google.ca/translate?h ... rev=search

published a paper in Právny obzor ("Legal Horizons") reviewing the "Strawman" concept:

TURČAN, M.: Pseudoprávo.

Právny obzor, 99, 2016, č. 2, s. 138 – 144.

Pseudolaw. In this paper the author deals with issue of unusual approaches to law, mainly with theory of movement called „Freemen on the land“, which the author tries to describe thru prism of Canadian decision in divorce matter Meads vs. Meads. The author describes particular theses, which should according to „freemen’s“ concept release man from clasp of statutory law and he also deals with jurisprudential substantiations of those theses, which are usually offered to justify them. Author’s effort is to communicate this „pseudolegal argument“ in understandable form and to autonomously analyze it.

I'm sure they'll be able to find some kind of claim from the Pragmatic Sanction, the Diet of Worms, or Maria Theresa's Urbarium. No doubt, they'll be threatening to defenestrate bailiffs.

grixit wrote:I'm sure they'll be able to find some kind of claim from the Pragmatic Sanction, the Diet of Worms, or Maria Theresa's Urbarium. No doubt, they'll be threatening to defenestrate bailiffs.

But there might be a legal precedent for it based on royal prerogative; King John may have defenestrated his nephew, Arthur of Brittany. He probably based it on one of those secret, invisible articles in the Magna Carta.

The Observer wrote:King John may have defenestrated his nephew, Arthur of Brittany. He probably based it on one of those secret, invisible articles in the Magna Carta.

Doubtless the one prescribing approved window treatments.

Meads v Meads had it's day but WhiteWalkingFeather, AKA Rob inthe Page Family, has take its measure and deconstructed it;

https://steemkr.com/ungrip/@wwf/deconst ... 2-abqb-571

I think he made the effort because his feelings were hurt. Meads is an encyclopedia of Canadian Freemen and sovereigns, all the cool kids are in there, but Rob got left out and he resents it;

I would surmise that we do have a choice and we always had a choice. I will admit that this ruling tried to intimidate with fear and doubt in the hopes that people give up and comply with the jurisdiction of the courts. I was curious as to why my work was not mentioned in this case as I am also very visible and vocal in my teachings. I had to conclude that either I am on the right track or there was not enough case studies to make any conclusions in his ruling.

But it gives him a chance to plug for his book along with the solution to Meads, get a shack in the woods and live off the land;

Again, I encourage people to read my book 'Graduating Life with Honours' Chapter Four where I explain the feudal system in great detail. What he just said is that his court is a feudal court which started with William the Conqueror in 1066 and the creation of the Domesday book, upon which the courts are responsible for maintaining the records of the demesne. It is astounding to me that the constitution did not create these courts but rather granted them continued jurisdiction instead. This is further proof that the Constitution Act 1982 is not a real constitution and that we do indeed live in a feudal system and that there is but one way to get out of that system. Refuse to provide service and be independent. That means living off the grid ... ALL GRIDS! The system being the biggest, most complex and insidious grid ever devised.

Rob isn't a stranger to Quatloos and, if nothing else, he's been consistent. The very first posting about him in 2013 noted how he'd moved into the bush and was living off the land;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9407&p=158728

and he's still plugging away at it.

I realize I sound naive, but if he is living COMPLETELY off the grid, how does he post?

Burnaby, you're a violent man. I'm not making that accusation, but just passing along the conclusion that arises out of what Rob has defined as violent behavior:

(https://www.facebook.com/rob.pagefamily ... storyabout)

Rob inthe Pagefamily wrote:Mocking, making assumptions, using guilt, yelling, associating behaviours that are not true, assuming, telling people how to behave, act or believe, etc are all violent acts.

This pretty much condemns all of us here at Quatloos as being terrorists based on the amount of mocking that we have done of Rob and others. And I guess I can see his point; after all, he is only a prisoner of the feudal system imposed on him and his loved ones by William the Conqueror, doing the best he can to break out and be a free person. And us sitting around in our ignorance while making fun of his legal theories and telling him on these God-forsaken threads that he is just fooling himself is just another attempt to keep him chained.

And Rob wants us to know that he is not going to contribute to the violence inherent in our system:

That is why I was taught to use 'I' statements when ever I talk. When I use 'you' statements then I am attacking and putting the other individual into a defensive position. Walls go up and communication stops. However, when I use 'I' statements, then there is no attack, defenses are down and there is a much greater opportunity for communication to succeed.

That is why I share MY stories about what I have done in order to avoid being aggressive or violent. That is why I refuse to use 'you' statements against others and to the best of my ability.

And there you have it. Burnaby, me, and everyone else here are sadistic beasts because we have the word "you" in our vocabulary - and we use it too much. Especially when we make statements that point to someone else and tell them they are the ones to blame for their situation.

But Rob wants us to know that he is not going to tolerate this kind of behavior, even if it hurts him more than it hurts us = and he admits it hurts to shun us amid our violent mocking:

However, if you are so angry that you want to take it out on me, I will have something to say about it and I will say no more if you are unable or unwilling to put down the armor, weapons and violence in order to have a peaceful, rational conversation then I will say good bye. My heart weeps when ever this happens.

LaVidaRoja wrote:I realize I sound naive, but if he is living COMPLETELY off the grid, how does he post?

Pick, pick, pick. I assume that whenever he wants to post he has his wife run around in a huge hampster wheel for an hour or so to fire up the home generator.

notorial dissent wrote:Yeah but that still doesn't explain how he's connecting, being off the grid means NO telephone, cell phone, unless he has his own satellite.

FTFY