OPCA Legal Maxims - a Critical Evaluation

[wserra]

So I repeat my point is that the referenced maxim is applicable, but is not necessarily a true maxim per sa, it is more a rule until either the claim is denied or the fraud exposed.

I tend to have a pretty clear understanding of the law. I have no idea what you just wrote.

[rogfulton]

So I repeat my point is that the referenced maxim is applicable, but is not necessarily a true maxim per sa, it is more a rule until either the claim is denied or the fraud exposed.

I tend to have a pretty clear understanding of the law. I have no idea what you just wrote.

Sounds to me like he is saying it's true until someone says it isn't.

[Fussygus]

Yes, exactly. This maxims aren't end all issues .44 magnum type statements. They are just general guiding principals.

The fotl land belief is that they are somehow all powerful. This is definitely not the case. Anything written is subject to interpretation and application. Nothing is absolute including gravity. It is all relative.

Fuzzyp

[Fussygus]

I kind of think the term "maxim" has s tendency to mislead people about the significance of the quote is. It imparts and image of finality, "the buck stops here", when in fact it doesn't. All a maxim does is provide a short summary of a generally good legal principal, that is all.

A better term might be to call the quips "standards". This would better illustrate the inherent ambiguity that they have within them.

Fuzzy

[LordEd]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_maxim

A legal maxim is an established principle or proposition.
...
In Thomas Hobbes, Doctor and Student (p. 26), they are described as of the same strength and effect in the law as statutes.
...
In later times, less value has been attached to the maxims of the law, as the development of civilization and the increasing complexity of business relations have shown the necessity of qualifying the propositions which they enunciate.

Here's a source that might find some of Dean's maxims: https://archive.org/stream/elementsofco ... 5/mode/2up I'm sure 1636 London applies perfectly to 2014 Canada.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

So I thought I’d take another poke at Dean’s maxims. Incidentally, one reason I am looking at these in some depth is because I think it’s only logical that Dean would use his ‘biggest artillery’ in his court submissions that are intended to miracle him out of remand detention.

In other words this isn’t Dean performing for his clientele, but for his own benefit. Logically, this should represent what Dean believes will actually work.

So among all his court filings that we have to date there are 18 maxims, which I have grouped into three general categories of

Correct and valid:

• “Equality before the law is both mandatory and paramount.”
  “Fraud vitiates all.”
  “Notice to agent is notice to Principle and notice to Principle is notice to agent.”

Obsolete or thematically relevant:

• “Deceit and fraud should always be remedied.”
  “Equity favours substance over form.”
  “Fraud and justice never agree together.”
  “Justice is neither to be denied or delayed.”
  “Let justice be done though the heavens may fall.”
  “The express mention of one person or thing is the exclusion of another.”
  “What is expressed renders what is implied silent.”

Legally incorrect or indecipherable:

• “An act done against my will is an act not done by me.”
  “An action is not given to one who has not been injured.”
  “An unrebutted affidavit is acted upon as the judgment in commerce.”
  “An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce.”
  “Equity will not suffer a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud.”
  “Ignorance excuses no one.”
  “The law feigns where equity subsists.”
  “The Law of God and the law of the land are all one.”

I understand there has been some debate on to what degree Dean’s materials and ideas are derived from Robert-Arthur: Menard, so I thought I’d pull out my copy of Menard’s “Letters to Authorities”(http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/misc/lette ... rities.pdf), which also ‘Includes 600 Law Maxims”. Rob says:

Maxims are cool. They have a great deal of force in Law, and if you wish to understand some basic concepts in Law, read these. Plus they are handy when dealing with government agents.

Rob makes it appear that he has collected these from a number of legal texts, including the classics, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856), and Black’s Law Dictionary (a bunch of editions): see page 89. However, that's a lie - because as we go through the list of items common to Dean and Rob's material we will see several maxims that clearly have no legal source.

So how many of Clifford’s maxims are also found in this source?

Not in Letters to Authorities:

• Valid maxim: “Equality before the law is both mandatory and paramount.”
  Valid maxim: “Fraud vitiates all.”
  Valid maxim: “Notice to agent is notice to Principle and notice to Principle is notice to agent.”
  
  Iffy maxim: “Deceit and fraud should always be remedied.”
  Iffy maxim: “Equity favours substance over form.”
  Iffy maxim: “Fraud and justice never agree together.”
  
  Incorrect maxim: “An unrebutted affidavit is acted upon as the judgment in commerce.”
  Incorrect maxim: “An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce.”
  Incorrect maxim: “The law feigns where equity subsists.”

Found in Letters to Authorities:

• Iffy maxim: “Justice is neither to be denied or delayed.”
  Iffy maxim: “Let justice be done though the heavens may fall.”
  Iffy maxim: “The express mention of one person or thing is the exclusion of another.” - see p. 97, Rob uses the closely related “The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.”
  Iffy maxim: “The express mention of one person or thing is the exclusion of another.”
  
  Incorrect maxim: “An act done against my will is an act not done by me.” – see p. 114, Rob uses the closely related “An act done by me against my will is not my act.”
  Incorrect maxim: “An action is not given to one who has not been injured.”
  Incorrect maxim: “Equity will not suffer a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud.”
  Incorrect maxim: “Ignorance excuses no one.” – sort of, see p. 105, Rob actually cites the correct legal principles that ignorance of fact may be a legally excuse, but not ignorance of the law.
  Incorrect maxim: “The Law of God and the law of the land are all one.”

So it looks like there is broad overlap between what Rob and Dean identify as important legal principles. A couple items pop out at me. Both of these are entirely wrong in law, and have no sources other than Sovereign/Freeman documents that could be identified by myself and wserra:

• “An act done against my will is an act not done by me.” / “An act done by me against my will is not my act.”
  
  “An action is not given to one who has not been injured.”

Obviously it is possible that Rob and Dean are both taking this from another older source, or it may be that Rob is the person who invented these entirely incorrect maxims. From the pattern in which they turn up in ‘Google’ searches, I’d suggest the latter. If these are Rob’s own invention then Dean is clearly following Rob’s imaginary legal concepts. Also interesting is just how fundamental these two maxims are to the “I’m immune from state action” scheme advanced by Rob and Dean. (And which is working so very well for Dean of late!)

So the unique element for Dean again falls to these two maxims, concerning the effect of affidavits:

• “An unrebutted affidavit is acted upon as the judgment in commerce.”
  
  “An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce.”

I did a ‘Google’ search to see if I could find any text, anywhere, where Menard has used either of these. As far as I can tell, Menard has never cited or referenced these maxims. This surprised me.

Instead, I suspect these have a Sovereign Citizen source, as ‘Google’ searches turn up countless examples of a document entitled “Maxims of Law – There are ten essential maxims or precepts in commercial law.” (one example here: xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/24532214/.../Maxims+of+Commercial+Law.pdf‎) where instead the legal source for these principles is specifically identified as ... Bible passages!

5. AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT STANDS AS TRUTH IN COMMERCE.

• (1 Pet. 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you; Heb. 6:13-15 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And so after he had patiently endured he obtained the promise;)
  
  Claims made in your affidavit, if not rebutted, emerge as the truth of the matter. Legal Maxim: "He who does not deny, admits."

6. AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT BECOMES THE JUDGMENT IN COMMERCE.

• (Heb. 6:16- 17 For men verily swear by the greater; and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath).
  
  There is nothing left to resolve. Any proceeding in a court, tribunal, or arbitration forum consists of a contest, or duel, of commercial affidavits wherein the points remaining unrebutted in the end stand as truth and matters to which the judgment of the law is applied.

It seems this collection of 10 Biblical maxims of commerce (!?!?!) are integrated into the Redemption / A4V scheme, judging from 'Google' search hits. I see they appear in the third edition of “Cracking the Code”, and also seem to have been adopted by Eldon Warman, Detax guru (http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/re ... d=11768620) (http://freedom-school.com/law/corp-veil.htm), though I don’t see it on his current page (http://www.detaxcanada.org/).

The Warman connection in particular makes sense - Eldon marketed extensively in the white supremicist/skinhead community in Canada, Dean's old stomping ground.

What a weird odyssey. Incidentally, I’d be very interested if anyone can provide a pre-Menard example of these two made-up maxims:

• “An act done against my will is an act not done by me.” / “An act done by me against my will is not my act.”
  
  “An action is not given to one who has not been injured.”

After all, I find it a little hard to believe Menard actually is that creative…

SMS Möwe

[arayder]

I have a few comments regarding the maxims.

“Equality before the law is both mandatory and paramount.”

My observation is that freeman misapply the maxim to mean that they are "equal" to the judge and the court and thus can't be judged. In fact the maxim means that the law must treat everyone before the court equally.

“Fraud vitiates all.”

Again, misapplied by freemen who use the maxim in conjunction with the disproved freeman/sov premise that governments get their authority by tricking (defrauding) individuals into contractual relationships.

“Notice to agent is notice to Principle and notice to Principle is notice to agent.”

I am not familiar with this one but I am assuming freemen may use it to argue they are untouchable since they told the clerk (government agent) at the front desk at the court house they weren't under contract with the government.

And I believe it's "principal" not "principle".

Also found this: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_maxims_2

[grixit]

Hmm, Mowe seems to have embarked on a search for the Q Document.

[Dr. Caligari]

“Notice to agent is notice to Principle and notice to Principle is notice to agent.”

The first half of that is correct (albeit misspelled). I do not think that (at least under the law of any state where I am admitted to practice) notice to the principal is notice to the agent.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

I have a few comments regarding the maxims.

...

“Notice to agent is notice to Principle and notice to Principle is notice to agent.”

I am not familiar with this one but I am assuming freemen may use it to argue they are untouchable since they told the clerk (government agent) at the front desk at the court house they weren't under contract with the government.

And I believe it's "principal" not "principle". ...

Mea cupla - to the forum and Dean - I did not copy the maxim correctly. My apologies to all.

Never been very good with homonyms...

“Notice to agent is notice to Principle and notice to Principle is notice to agent.”

The first half of that is correct (albeit misspelled). I do not think that (at least under the law of any state where I am admitted to practice) notice to the principal is notice to the agent.

Hrmm. Thank you Dr. Caligari, I believe you are correct.

My initial instinct had been it would make sense if the relationships were symmetrical, but then went out to see if I could find an authority that says so in Canada. No luck, though I did find legislation in the North West Territories that makes notice to a principal notice to agents to abort a sale, provided there is a reasonable opportunity to communicate that intention: Sale of Goods Act, RSNWT (Nu) 1988, c S-2, s 51(3).

(Just to state the obvious, that's a very minor jurisdiction in Canada!)

Hmm, Mowe seems to have embarked on a search for the Q Document.

Yep, and with our luck if we ever find it it'll turn out to be some legal parody dreamed up by a very bored individual and that then was stashed in a now long forgotten substratum of the Internets.

(I have partially documented a mess of incomplete 15 year old Menard websites that are such a peculiar blast from the stylistic past. It's one thing to look at those old-school pages in the modern context, but it's even more surreal when the implementation is painfully bad - even for it's time.)

But in all fairness, I think it's one thing to point at case law and such which says "no such thing as A4V buddy" or "strawman? nope - just you, the guy in the mirror", but there's an advantage to pointing out to believers/suckers that their gurus are pulling so-called principles of law out of their butts, and not even citing ancient legal texts and dictionaries.

SMS Möwe

[Pottapaug1938]

I'll let the currently practicing lawyers here do the deeper research; but by making a quick Google search I found this entertaining example of a Briton who has drunk the sovrun kool-aid and/or needs tranquilizers right away:

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 0652574692

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

My suspicions were correct. Menard is not the author of these two maxims:

• “An act done against my will is an act not done by me.” / “An act done by me against my will is not my act.”
  
  “An action is not given to one who has not been injured.”

But it gets funnier than that. Not only is Menard not the source of these maxims, but instead the entire “Maxims of Law” section in his book “Letters to Authorities” is plagiarized – including the formatting. The titles, organization of the maxims, and even which maxims on the list are formatted in bold is copied exactly from another source.

Here again is a copy of Letters to Authorities: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/misc/lette ... rities.pdf

And here is the website that Menard copy-pasted: http://ecclesia.org/truth/maxims.html

If you look at the first section, “Accidents and Injury”, it is rather obvious that the document was first written for an American audience – “[If the IRS accuses you of owing them money…” – which Menard has copied in its entirety. But then go on a little further, we see the last maxim of law has been revised by Menard to remove its religious component:

Letters to Authorities: An injury is extinguished by the forgiveness or reconcilement of the party injured.

Ecclesia.org: An injury is extinguished by the forgiveness or reconcilement of the party injured. [Luke 17:3-4, 2 Corinthians 2:7-8]

Curiously, Menard then doesn’t bother to remove the biblical references in the remaining maxims with Bible cites, of which there are over a dozen. I guess he got bored...

Another interesting edit is that Menard has removed the entire “Marriage” category of maxims from the Eclessia.org list:

Marriage

The law favors dower; it is the reward of chastity; therefore let it be preserved. [Exodus 22:17]
Husband and wife are considered one person in law. [Genesis 2:24]
A wife is not her own mistress, but is under the power of her husband.
The union of a man and a woman is of the law of nature.
Marriages ought to be free.
All things which are of the wife, belong to the husband. [Genesis 3:16]
Although the property may be the wife's, the husband is the keeper of it, since he is the head of the wife.
Consent, and not cohabitation, makes the marriage.
Insanity prevents marriage from being contracted, because consent is needed.
A wife follows the domicile of her husband.
Husband and wife cannot be a witness for, or against, each other, because of the union of person that exists.
The right of blood and kindred cannot be destroyed by any civil law. [Acts 17:26-28]
Children are the blood of their parents, but the father and mother are not of the blood of the children.

Rob wasn't a bit believer in marriage back then anyway.

So I’ve tried to find other potential parent websites for the Ecclesia.org maxims list, and there are other instances where the same list re-appeared, but in those cases the authors point to Ecclesia.org as the source (for example (http://vannhamby.com/?cat=3) (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/l ... AtC5EVGb0J) or cite the name of the original author, Richard Anthony (http://landrightsnfarming-landrightnfar ... f-law.html).

I don’t see a definitive way to date the Ecclesia.org material but I believe it is old, mid-90's is my bet. In fact, it’s no longer even accessible via the root homepage URL (http://ecclesia.org/), which instead is a rather inactive Christian/Sovereign community message forum. The forum too is ancient, with posts such as this one on the evils of Lawyers and their BAR licences dating from as early as 2001 (http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=60).

Menard’s Letters to Authorities has a copyright dates of 2001 and 2003, and I have no reason to doubt that is accurate. The Ecclesia.org maxim compilation very likely predates that by a long shot. The material written by Richard Anthony, such as the maxims page, is accessed at this URL (http://ecclesia.org/truth/greetings.html). I wandered around here a bit looking for gems, but much of this material has a purely religious focus. And it’s rather conservative. Have a look at the online games in the "Rest Room Mini-Arcade" (http://ecclesia.org/truth/arcade.html) - these are ancient!

So, Menard is not only not being original when he's made up fake principles of law, but instead has not only borrowed, but outright plagiarized. I suppose I should not have been surprised after discovering most of “Your Child or Her Life” was also plagiarized (viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9364&p=165027#p165027). And I really should have been alerted when it appeared that Rob had actually gone to the effort of doing some legal research, found some old law dictionaries, and then put together his own maxim compilation, but no…

Huh. It raises the question of whether Rob even knows the maxim list he has cited includes clearly false legal principles? He's not exactly the kind of guru who engages in careful due diligence.

SMS Möwe

[notorial dissent]

It shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone that Bobby is a plagiarist, as well as being an outright fraud, it has long been obvious that originality is not one of his accomplishments, and besides, why work when you can wholesale steal someone elses already stolen work, and if there is one thing Bobby is guaranteed to be, it is lazy.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I'll let the currently practicing lawyers here do the deeper research; but by making a quick Google search I found this entertaining example of a Briton who has drunk the sovrun kool-aid and/or needs tranquilizers right away:

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 0652574692

A quick look says he has a debt of just under £100 which has been imposed or confirmed by a court but he has not paid it. Since then he has been writing crap to anyone and everyone while the bailiffs try to find him and get the money out of him. This is a poorly supervised area of the law, which doesn't help, but I would guess most of the rest of the bill is the bailiffs repeated visits (chargeable possibly) to get something out of him. There is a person of the same name who is a reggae musician, who has some online similarities, it might be him.

[arayder]

So, Menard is not only not being original when he's made up fake principles of law, but instead has not only borrowed, but outright plagiarized. I suppose I should not have been surprised after discovering most of “Your Child or Her Life” was also plagiarized (viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9364&p=165027#p165027). And I really should have been alerted when it appeared that Rob had actually gone to the effort of doing some legal research, found some old law dictionaries, and then put together his own maxim compilation, but no…

Huh. It raises the question of whether Rob even knows the maxim list he has cited includes clearly false legal principles? He's not exactly the kind of guru who engages in careful due diligence.

SMS Möwe

It shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone that Bobby is a plagiarist, as well as being an outright fraud, it has long been obvious that originality is not one of his accomplishments, and besides, why work when you can wholesale steal someone elses already stolen work, and if there is one thing Bobby is guaranteed to be, it is lazy.

Back in the day Bobby at least had the wherewithal to play the role of the knowing hipster. His YouTube lectures from the early 2000's show a trim, well groomed puesdo-expert telling gullible freemen exactly what they wanted to hear. . .that he was a victim, like them, who had risen above "the tyranny", bought a snappy fez. . . and they could too!

He was a freeman rock star. Then reality set in.

Not really knowing what he was talking about Menard wagged his tongue in court and got the boot from that forum by the B.C. Law Society.

Needing real world credibility he concocted a set of tall tales in which he claimed to have backed down and demoralized the sort of authority figures his duped followers had come to hate.

Needing cash flow he developed a series of doomed from the start projects, freeman valley, C3PO and the ACCP among them. None got any further than the planning stage and a pay pal account.

Bobby even forged a letter of support from an Irish law firm hoping it would give his phony scholarship a bit a credibility.

After a series of Youtubes in which a bloated and dishevelled Bobby appeared stoned or drunk it was pretty clear the wheels had come off Menard Inc.

Bobby did mange to rally during the Andreas Pirelli debacle, appearing sober and groomed, but the damage was done.

Now we know Menard was faking it from the start.

[rumpelstilzchen]

“An unrebutted affidavit is acted upon as the judgment in commerce.”

“An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce.”[/list]

I did a ‘Google’ search to see if I could find any text, anywhere, where Menard has used either of these. As far as I can tell, Menard has never cited or referenced these maxims. This surprised me.

He does kind of hint at it in this thread:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=132338

[arayder]

“An unrebutted affidavit is acted upon as the judgment in commerce.”

“An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce.”[/list]

I did a ‘Google’ search to see if I could find any text, anywhere, where Menard has used either of these. As far as I can tell, Menard has never cited or referenced these maxims. This surprised me.

He does kind of hint at it in this thread:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=132338

The exchanges in the thread show just how shallow Bobby's knowledge of the subject really is.

At more than one point posters tell Bobby what the law says about the subject and the poor boy avoids any substantive discussion in favor of repeating his misapplied maxims.

Möwe, have you considered the possibility that these misused maxims are obliquely referenced in the several cases in which the judges have said that the freeman woo pitched was totally dismissed?

That is to say freemen may have put the maxims before the court in their arguments, but the judge didn't expressly dismiss each maxim either verbally or written.

[Backo]

Some comments:


Iffy maxim: “The express mention of one person or thing is the exclusion of another.”

Extracting from the Wikipedia page on statutory interpretation (as the source which requires the least typing by me):

Ejusdem generis ("of the same kinds, class, or nature")
When a list of two or more specific descriptors is followed by more general descriptors, the otherwise wide meaning of the general descriptors must be restricted to the same class, if any, of the specific words that precede them. For example, where "cars, motor bikes, motor powered vehicles" are mentioned, the word "vehicles" would be interpreted in a limited sense (therefore vehicles cannot be interpreted as including airplanes).

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius ("the express mention of one thing excludes all others")
Items not on the list are impliedly assumed not to be covered by the statute or a contract term.[3] However, sometimes a list in a statute is illustrative, not exclusionary. This is usually indicated by a word such as "includes" or "such as."

Incorrect maxim: “An act done against my will is an act not done by me.”

I suspect this one may have its origins in equitable remedies relating to duress. From Evans, Equity and Trusts:

Where a party’s consent is obtained to some transaction or dealing by exercise of pressure which the law regards as illegitimate, the consent will be treated in law as revocable, unless approbated either expressly or by implication after the illegimate pressure has ceased to operate

Incorrect maxim: “An action is not given to one who has not been injured.”

I think this one has some basis, but as far as I am aware, only in the tort of negligence. Generally no action lies in negligence if there is no damage or injury.

[Pottapaug1938]

To show that even a stopped clock is right twice a day, here is a recent gem from your friend and mine, David Merrill:

I can see how a template of trust law might indicate this is true. However you indicate there might be some kind of monetary value or even any value whatsoever to this certificate?

I went through all this with a Canadian Freeman named Robert MANARD. There is a clause in the constitution there about "Security of the Person" he misconstrued miserably. You might be able to view this video by searching around for it - Security of the Person. The 5:00 Minute Mark had Rob telling the viewer (1:00 Hour Mark too) that the Canadian Birth Certificate was a stock certificate worth quite a bit of money - untrue.

He seems to have given up his quest to assert this myth.

Of course, he's right for the wrong reasons; but hey -- when you're DM, you take what you can get.

[Jeffrey]

Here's one that all of these guys appear to use:

Fraud has no statute of limitations

I wanna say mostly false since the few states I've Googled do in fact list a statute of limitations on fraud cases.