rumpelstilzchen wrote:These dickheads fail to realise that no matter how convincing an argument they present on youtube rebutting Meads it does not make any difference, Meads remains to be good law.
Actually it isn't good law, at least for you UK types, since it is Canadian jurisprudence. However it's been the most-cited case in Canada since it was released in 2012.For those of you who don't follow my Canadian forum posts I just wrote-up a very recent decision where the Plaintiff went to Queen's Bench in Alberta, the home of Meads v Meads
and told them it fraudulent and null and void. Not the most tactful thing to do at QB.
A. Preliminary Issue - Status of Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII)
 Mr. Pomerleau in his written filings at various points criticizes the Meads v Meads decision of Associate Chief Justice Rooke of this Court. For example, in his April 18, 2016 filings Mr. Pomerleau says this decision is irrelevant to his litigation. He “object and REBUT” the Meads v Meads judgment. Mr. Pomerleau’s arguments and evidence are valid. He states that relying on Meads v Meads is “frivolous, improper, irrelevant and would constitute an abuse of process”, and is “PRIMA FACIE evidence that there is NO MERIT” to the CRA’s defence.
 More drastically, Mr. Pomerleau’s March 23, 2016 Application in Pomerleau v CRA #1 states that the Meads v Meads judgment is invalid. It is a fraud designed to deceive and injure humanity:
The FACT that a court Judgment (i.e Meads v. Meads) and/or Court cases (i.e. Meads v. Meads) and/or any/every documents/CONTRACTS (i.e Meads v. Meads) which are/is/was/were INTENTIONALLY made with the INTENT to DECEIVE/ AID and ABET humanity into FRAUD via ignorance of these CONTRACT FACTS are NULL and VOID, ab initio, nunc pro tune, ad infinitum. Any/all FRAUDS by virtue of its INTENT and CREATION remain as such, any/all FRAUDS exposed, all CONTRACTS are NULL and VOID upon its discovery where a FRAUD revealed is, in FACT, NULL and VOID, ab initio, nunc pro tune, ad infinitum.
 As a decision of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, the Meads v Meads judgment is a binding authority for a Master of this Court. I inquired during the hearing on Mr. Pomerleau’s position concerning that decision. He confirmed he had read it. Mr. Pomerleau was at this point more circumspect. He restated his respect for the Court and its decisions, but nevertheless indicated he believed the Meads v Meads judgment was engineered with the intent of concealing from Canadians their true rights, particularly when they did not use the exact correct terminology and/or language.
 Meads v Meads is binding case law on a Master and relates to many elements of Mr. Pomerleau’s litigation. In Crossroads-DMD Mortgage Investment Corporation v Gauthier, 2015 ABQB 703 (CanLII) at paras 32-46 I reviewed how the Meads v Meads decision is not merely a binding authority in this Court, but has been broadly endorsed by courts in Canada and the Commonwealth. I therefore reject Mr. Pomerleau’s argument that I cannot rely on this decision, or that it is “in FACT, NULL and VOID, ab initio, nunc pro tunc, ad infinitum.” Meads v Meads is instead a correct statement of Canadian law on this subject.
Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency)
2017 ABQB 123http://canlii.ca/t/gxnsd