Meads v.

Meads an analysis by The Human Rights Defenders League February 3, 2013 This is a decision of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench and is cited as Meads v. Meads, 2012 !"! #$1. It also introduces us to a rather new term that does not even appear in my spell-check Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument. There can be no !uestion that this decision"opinion is an attempt by the BA# Association to vilify and demoni$e those human bein%s who simply claim to be human bein%s and do so maliciously. This is not so only in Canada because we have been told the decision is bein% !uoted by courts in other countries as well. That ou%ht to tell us somethin% ri%ht there since the decision was only made on &eptember '( )*'). The members of the +uman #i%hts ,efenders -ea%ue in Canada advance a human ri%hts ar%ument which is not mentioned in this decision but the case in nonetheless bein% used a%ainst human bein%s who use human ri%hts to defend themselves a%ainst attacks a%ainst them and their le%al person"Trusts".states. /e understand It is a very well known fact amon%st those who have followed the 0udicial system closely in Canada and even around the world that 0ud%es rarely ever write their own decisions particularly in what are considered important cases. This is very credible when one considers that this decision was released on &eptember '( )*') yet in 1ustice #ooke's very own words Mr. Meads and Ms. Reeves appeared before me on June 8, 2012. It is not clear from our readin% of the decision when ar%uments ceased but we can be certain it was no later than 1une ( )*') and for the 0ud%e to do the research necessary to create the kind of diatribe he did in this decision 2opinion3 re!uires massive research. +ow could this have been done and this '(* pa%e diatribe prepared and released by one man4 &ome may say it can be done and we admit that it could be but it certainly would mean massive amounts of research time and a divestin% of all other cases on this 0ud%e's docket in order to accomplish it. -et us e5plain. The 0ud%e himself says These Reasons will survey a number of known !"# $urus, and %heir a&%ivi%ies. The decision then %oes on to list and analy$e the activities of several so-called 6%urus7 such as Russell Porisky and the Paradigm Education Group. +e %oes on to say !orisky %au$h% %ha% %he "anada Revenue #$en&y had %ri&ked persons in%o believin$... /e have underlined the key word in this statement because it brin%s us to the very important fact that althou%h 0ud%es are attemptin% to use this case which is not even case law because the content of this decision is totally unrelated to human ri%hts and our position that once we

waive our human ri%ht to reco%nition everywhere as a person before the law then the laws that apply to persons 2which is all of them3 do not apply to us human bein%s. 8ur position is not covered in this decision and we must all understand that fact and if any 0ud%e brin%s it up then he or she must be reminded that e5ercisin% our human ri%hts is not Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [OPCA] and does not make us Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [OPCA] Litigants. The decision %oes on to say I will not review the basis on why Poriskys natural person scheme is incorrect, as this question is thoroughly dissected in reported cases including: R. v. 'lunder%, 2 ! "#$% &'& at para( )*, *+ "(,( -+d. !), leave denied /2 !0 1($($(%( #o( 2223 R. v. (indsay, 2 )) 4$$% ** at para( 2&, + 2 4($(%($( &', leave re5used /2 ))0 1($($(%( #o( 2'23 R. v. !inno, 2 2 16P$ ))! at paras( )27)+, )27)', /2 +0 + $(8($( + !3 'ennedy v. "anada )"us%oms and Revenue #$en&y*, /2 0 9 $(8($( )!', 2 :(8($( '229 -"nt( 1up( $t( ;(.3 and !orisky Trial +e&ision at paras( 2!7')( The point we would like to make here is that our human ri%hts ar%ument that we can waive a ri%ht and particularly the human ri%ht to reco%nition everywhere as a person before the law is not analy$ed in this case and was not therefore mentioned. 8ur position is that we are not to be reco%ni$ed as a person of any class whether natural or legal. &ince we are not to be reco%ni$ed as a person that means we are not to be reco%ni$ed as a 6natural person7 either. A%ain this separates us from the 9orisky ar%ument because he ar%ued that he was to be reco%ni$ed as a 6natural person7 and that this e5empted him from the Income Tax Act (ITA). +e is wron% in our opinion because a person of any description is still a person and will be captured by the ITA. Then the 0ud%e %oes on to dissect the activities of :avid 6evin <indsay, also classifyin% him as a 6:uru7 and his ar%uments as !"# ar%uments. "P$% concepts that <indsay has promoted include: )( various de5iciencies in =udicial oaths prohibit court action: R. v. (indsay, 2 4$1$ )!! at paras( + 7+!, '! >($(4( -2d. &)!, a55irmed 2 & 4$$% 2)93 '

2( that the relationship between the state and a person is a contract, and one can opt out o5 that contract: R. v. (indsay, 2 )) 4$$% ** at para( +2, + 2 4($(%($( &', leave re5used /2 ))0 1($($(%( #o( 2'23 +( that the obligation to pay income ta? is one such agreement: R. v. (indsay, 2 )) 4$$% ** at para( +), + 2 4($(%($( &', leave re5used /2 ))0 1($($(%( #o( 2'23 9( legislation, the common7law, and court principles and procedures are trumped by @ods <aw and other divinely ordained rules and principles: R. v. (indsay, 2 )) 4$$% ** at para( +), + 2 4($(%($( &', leave re5used /2 ))0 1($($(%( #o( 2'23

2( the same natural person argument advanced by Porisky: R. v. (indsay, 2 )) 4$$% ** at para( 2&, + 2 4($(%($( &', leave re5used /2 ))0 1($($(%( #o( 2'23 '( that an aspect o5 the )*+) 1tatute o5 >estminster meant all post7)*+) government legislation and action is unauthoriAed: R. v. (indsay, 2 9 B4$% )9& at para( +2, )!& Ban(,( -2d. 2+'3 and &( that the Bagna $arta has super7constitutional status and restricts state and court action: R. v. (indsay, 2 ! 4$$% + at paras( )*72), 22 4($(%($( 2& ( A%ain it should be noted that the 0ud%e did not mention our human ri%ht to reco%nition everywhere as a person before the law or even the fact that we are all :rantors and sole Beneficiaries of a Trust".state with the name that appears on our Birth Certificates. The reason is that our ar%uments are truth and cannot be rebutted and this decision does not make out 6case law7 to be used a%ainst our human ri%hts ar%uments in court but they are attemptin% to do so and it will be up to us to not allow that to happen. The decision then refers to another 6%uru7 by the name of ;ohn ,uiA :empsey and provides an analysis of his so-called activities OPCA, activities. The 0ud%e su%%ested that ,empsey held himself out to be a lawyer and advanced the followin% kinds of ar%uments before the courts; )( an C%9D Cmoney 5or nothing scheme, 2( immunity on the basis o5 religious authority, +( a peculiar concept that debts only relate to Chard money, which seems to mean physical cash, and 9( that ta? or liability only attaches to a corporate name and not a physical person( A%ain we wish to point out that this decision and the so-called OPCA ar%uments have nothin% to do with our position we have a ri%ht to waive our human ri%ht to reco%nition everywhere as a person before the law coupled with our ar%ument that we are the :rantor and sole Beneficiary of the Trust".state named on our Birth Certificate. The 0ud%e then %oes on to analy$e the activities of another so-called 6%uru7 by the name of ,obert %rthur Benard( +is activities were classified by the 0ud%e as follows; )( state actors require the consent o5 persons, any state activity without consent is oppressive3 2( a statute is not law and cannot be the basis 5or e?tradition3 unlaw5ul conduct is only something such as rape or murder3 and

+( $anada had abdicated its role in the e?tradition process and that Benard would represent the interests o5 $anadians( A%ain we point out < nothin% to do with our human ri%hts and Trust".state ar%uments. The ne5t human brin% selected by this 0ud%e as a tar%et for this scurrilous ve5atious and frivolous analysis was Eldon @erald >arman( The 0ud%e !uoted the followin% in describin% the activities of this man Eldon @erald >arman />arman0 is a :eta?er3 he operates the http:FFwww(deta?canada(orgF website( >arman typically styles himsel5 via the Cdash7colon moti5 as Eldon7@erald: >arman( Ge has a historic association with <indsay: R. v. ,arman, 2 ) 4$$% 2) 3 ,arman )Re*, 2 %4P$ )!), 9! >($(4( -2d. )*9( Gis stated belie5s combine the natural man scheme o5 Porisky and <indsay, with an emphasis on historical common law and the interrelationship between the king and society, such as the Bagna $arta( % help5ul survey o5 >armans concepts is 5ound in R. v. ,arman, 2 ) 4$$% 2) at paras( *7) ( Another human bein% selected by this 0ud%e is :avid ;( <avigne( The interestin% thin% about this is that we know this man personally althou%h we have not seen him for a number of years his name is =8T ,avid it is ,aniel. This man has not even been in the country for probably the better part of a decade and why his name came up is a bit of a mystery but discloses at least to us the e5tent to which the people behind this decision are willin% to %o to di% up ancient history to demoni$e and vilify those of us human bein%s who simply want to e5ercise our human ri%hts and be as the >niversal ,eclaration of +uman #i%hts declares at Article ' All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. This decision analy$es this man's activities as :avid ;( <avigne /<avigne0, operator o5 8he 8a? ,e5usal website -http:FFwww(ta?re5usal(comF. and 5ounder o5 the International Gumanity Gouse, promotes an argument that a person need not pay ta? on a moral or conscience basis( 8he one instance where <avigne has argued his approach in Hederal $ourt is unreported -see Ja&kson v. "anada )"us%oms and Revenue #$en&y*, 2 ) 16I4 +&& at para( 2), 2) 1ask(,( 2!2.( %5ter that <avigne attempted to represent several other litigants who adopted his concepts, but without success: Ja&kson v. "anada )"us%oms and Revenue #$en&y*, at para( 9 3 R. v. Reddi&k, 2 2 16$% !*, 29 >($(4( -2d. '9'( ?underline ours@ /e have underlined a key word in this !uotation and that is the word person. /e are loath to a%ree with anythin% that this 0ud%e has to say but we must a%ree that the ar%ument used in this case that a person does not have a duty to pay ta5es is flawed. /e have stated many times that all &tatutes and Acts includin% the ITA applies to persons. 8ur position is that since it does apply to persons and it clearly does it does not apply to human bein%s who have a memoriali$ed human ri%ht to be reco%ni$ed everywhere as a person before the law and have waived that ri%ht. By waivin% that human ri%ht is how we as human bein%s are e5empt from the provisions of all &tatutes and Acts includin% the ITA.

/hy does that make sense4 &imply because to pass laws"rules to %overn our lives as human bein%s would be to hold us in slavery"servitude particularly if that was done without our informed consent and it always is. Article ' of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states -#ll human bein$s are born free and e.ual in di$ni%y and ri$h%s. If that fact is to mean anythin% then no other human bein% or any entity such as %overnment created by other human bein%s can have authority over us as e!uals without our informed consent. It is accurate then to say no-one on this planet has authority or what the courts call 0urisdiction over us as human bein%s. The ne5t tar%et of the court is Edward ;ay ,obin 4elanger( 1ud%e #ooke said 6Belangers typical strategies are: 1. arguments based on alleged defects in judicial and go ernment oaths! ". that the #ing $ames Bible %or some specific ersion thereof& is the primary or o erriding la' of (anada! ). a *double+split person argument 'here the state has *attached a legal fiction to persons and only may assert its authority on that basis! ,. an argument that all interactions are contracts! and -. arious foisted unilateral agreements and demands.

+e %oes on to say 4elanger and his 5ollowers attempt to detach themselves 5rom state and court authority by Cpublishing 5oisted unilateral agreements, either on the $E,I website or via other means( In 2 )) 4elanger attempted to email a number o5 these documents to every person employed in the %lberta ;ustice department( ?underline ours@ A%ain we have underlined an important word in the above !uote the word 6person7. 8nce a%ain we draw attention to the fact that Article A of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 'A of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights articulate a reco%ni$ed human ri%ht to -re&o$ni%ion everywhere as a person before %he law. 8bviously if we have the ri%ht to be so reco%ni$ed not an obli%ation then we can waive that ri%ht if we so choose. By doin% so any law that applies e5clusively to persons no lon%er applies to we human be%ins who so choose to waive that particular ri%ht. Burther to say that we are all persons whether we want to be or not is a human ri%hts violation because the I!"# reco%ni$es our ri%ht to be reco%ni$ed as a person 9.#I8,C 9ut another way we are not persons unless we assert our human ri%ht to be reco%ni$ed as a person before the law.

This decision"opinion reflects the shallowness of the 0udiciary and how deceitful and duplicitous they really are. They allow the word person roll off their lips as if it is irrelevant and unimportant. Det it is the most important discovery we as human bein%s have ever uncovered in our humble opinion. There is no ar%ument that each and every one of us have inherited natural ri%hts at birth. Burther some of these natural ri%hts known as human ri%hts have been memoriali$ed in three documents that to%ether make up the International Bill of Human Rights (I!"#). The first of these three documents is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ($%"#) which came into effect in 'EF(. The other two which are based on the $%"# are the International Covenant on conomic! "ocial and Cultural Rights (IC&'C#) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCP#). The last two of those documents have not only been si%ned by Canada they have been ratified and are accordin% to law and the >= website le%ally bindin% upon Canada and by e5tension then all its or%ans and a%ents includin% the courts. And if beyond all ima%inable lo%ic and common sense the courts were to ar%ue that the I!"# is not law in their courts then our !uestion2s3 should be are you saying that I don(t ha)e those rights* Are you saying I +as not born free and equal in dignity and rights* Are you saying I do not ha)e the right to re,ognition e)ery+here as a person before the la+* Are you saying I do not ha)e the right to not be held in sla)ery or ser)itude* That should be enou%h !uestions and make sure they are answeredC &o let's continue with our analysis. Then the 0ud%e dealt with "ther @urus( .ouglas /artin 0agel .a id 1ynn /iller the *2,3 *money for nothing approach Br( Beads @uru 7 2t present! /r. /eads guru and source for his arguments is unidentified. The 0ud%e %oes on to say! 1imilarly, Br( Beads in his documents and arguments re5erences the Jni5orm $ommercial $ode /the J$$0, which is %merican legislation to harmoniAe commercial transactions within the Jnited 1tates( 8hat too is not relevant to this proceeding, and will not be applied by this court( 8hat said, as the caselaw survey that 5ollows illustrates, the J$$ is also a common moti5 in material 5rom $anadian "P$% gurus, and 5orms a signi5icant element in much "P$% mythology( Gowever, why anyone would believe that %merican commercial legislation would apply in $anada is ba55ling( 1till, "P$% litigants indicate that this legislation has a broad, even e?traordinary scope( By o55ice has recently received a document where an "P$% litigant

said the J$$ applies to governments, ((( whether interstellar, intergalactic, international, national, state, provincial, or local ((( ?underline ours@. The purpose of our underlinin% in the previous para%raph is to emphasis somethin% we have been sayin% for several years now the >CC does not apply in Canada and on this point we a%ree with the court. The 0ud%e then %oes on to describe in his limited knowled%e how 6:urus7 operate and saidG @urus may be distant parties in "P$% litigation( In Mer&edes/0en1 2inan&ial v. 'ova&evi&, /2 *0 "(;( #o( &!+ at paras( 2+729, 2 * $an<II *+'! -"nt( 1up( $t( ;(., the "P$% litigant appeared to have used materials and techniques 5rom an "P$% guru who promoted his techniques with radio broadcasts and hotel seminars( 8he "P$% litigant knew at least one person who helped promote those schemes in his geographic region( >hile not an e?plicit conclusion o5 that decision, the materials cited and described by ;ustice 4rown in Mer&edes/ 0en1 2inan&ial v. 'ova&evi& indicate the litigant had been introduced to his scheme by a nomadic %merican 1overeign Ban guru, 1am 6ennedy( 8he "P$% litigant in Mer&edes/ 0en1 2inan&ial v. 'ova&evi& then attempted to obtain a lu?ury car 5or 5ree via those techniques( 8ne !uote from this 0ud%e is very troublin%. +e saysG 8his $ourt has observed that some "P$% litigants appear to su55er 5rom cognitive or psychological disorders, however one should not presume those conditions 5rom the presence o5 "P$% arguments and concepts( 1imilarly, biAarre in7court conduct does not necessarily mean these persons su55er 5rom that kind o5 disorder( %nomalous behaviour may instead re5lect the Crules o5 an "P$% strategy and script( The audacity of this 0ud%e is astoundin%. +e appears to be holdin% himself out to be a psycholo%ist as well as a lawyer. -ook at what he said 8his $ourt has observed that some "P$% litigants appear to su55er 5rom cognitive or psychological disorders =ot bein% a psycholo%ist why would anyone %ive a rats ass what he has observed. +owever this more than any other !uote made in this diatribe reveals the concern that the 0udiciary possesses over what we are doin% out here < we are no lon%er willin% to be held in slavery and have our birthri%ht stolen from us by the bankers. I have said for some time now the %overnment is not the problem it is the bankers. +owever when the %overnment appoints and pays people like this 0ud%e then I am not certain the %overnment is not the problem. At least they must share in the problem. The followin% !uote summari$es the rationale for this entire diatribe related to a simple divorce caseG 8he :eta?er movement has employed a very wide assortment o5 "P$% strategies over the past decade, all without success( <indsay, in particular, appears to have been an innovator and the source o5 many $anadian "P$% strategies( <avigne and >armans litigation history illustrates how :eta?ers may have either Cle5t wing or Cright wing leanings( In recent years this court has observed 5ewer true :eta?ers, no doubt in part due to the 5ailure o5 <indsays many court actions and the ongoing prosecution o5 members in the Porisky ta? evasion ring(

In describin% the Breeman-on-the -and movement the 0ud%e saidG 1tated simply, Hreemen7on7the7<and believe they can Copt out o5 societal obligations and do as they like: 3arper v. #%&hison, 2 )) 16I4 +! at paras( ', )2, +'* 1ask(,( )+93 R. v. M&"ormi&k, 2 )2 #1$% 2! at paras( )*, 2)3 R. v. M&"ormi&k, 2 )2 #11$ 2!! at paras( 2!7 +2( % common theme in Hreeman arguments is that state and court action requires the targets consent, 5or e?ample: Jabe1 2inan&ial 4ervi&es 5n&. )Re&eiver of* v. 4pona$le, 2 ! #11$ ))2 at para( )9, 2'9 #(1(,( -2d. 229( The underlined portion of the fore%oin% !uote reveals somethin% that is rather troublin% for anyone who is or is supposed to be B#... The $%"# says we are all born free and conse!uently we should be able to rely on every member of the 0udiciary to respect that freedom. It appears we cannot. /e have the ri%ht to e5pect that everyone who creates rules 2laws3 for us to abide by would first obtain our informed consent to be bound by those rules. 8therwise the only two words to describe the alternative is sla)ery and ser)itude. Another tar%et that the 0ud%e identified is contained in this !uoteG 8he 1overeign Ban F 1overeign $itiAen movement is the chie5 J(1( "P$% community( 1everal reported "ntario decisions document court interactions with sel57identi5ied 1overeign Ben( 8his court has had a limited e?posure to 1overeign Ben, most notably being a lawsuit advanced by @lenn >inningham />inningham0 -usually sel57styled as @lenn >inningham: Gouse o5 Hearn.: ,innin$ham v. "anada -+ #ovember 2 ) . <ethbridge ) ' * & -%lta( I(4(., leave to appeal denied -%lta( $(%(.( Another !uote that is disturbin% is; 1inninghams perspecti e of state oppression and iolent focus seems representati e of the 4o ereign /an mo ement. 5n the 6nited 4tates! 4o ereign /en are notorious for their iolent conduct! intimidation of state and court personnel! and their misuse of legal processes to engage in 7paper terrorism8: Robert (hamberlain 9 .onald P. :aider;/arkel! 7<=ien on /e<: ," 4tate Policy 5nno ation in Response to Paper >errorism8 %"??-& -@ Political Research Auarterly! pp. ,,B;,C?D Erick $. :aynie! 7Populism! Eree 4peech! and the Rule of =a': >he <Eully 5nformed< $ury /o ement and 5ts 5mplications8 %1BBF& @@ >he $ournal of (riminal =a' and (riminology pp. ),);)FBD 4usan P. #oniak 71hen =a' Risks /adness8 %1BBC& @ (ardoGo 4tudies in =a' and =iterature! pp. C-;1)@. >he EB5 classifies 4o ereign /en as a domestic terrorist mo ement. H1@"I 2 court that encounters 'hat appears to be a genuine 4o ereign /an + 4o ereign (itiGen may 'ish to take additional security precautions. /hat is most disturbin% about this !uote is that we are truly left with the feelin% that these people in %overnment and the 0udiciary really believe they are ri%ht and they are indeed our authorities even without our approval or consent. This 0ud%e is actually su%%estin% to other 0ud%es that if they encounter someone who simply wants to be free and e!ual in di%nity and ri%hts a human ri%ht that they ou%ht to fear them to the e5tent that they may wish to take additional security precautions( It does not take a student of history to know that no one in this country has been killed by anyone who simply wanted to be free unless and we know of no such incident their freedom

was bein% interfered with or their wealth stolen under colour of law. +owever everyone knows but no one seems to know for certain the e5act number but innocent human bein%s in this country are bein% murdered or seriously harmed by the 9olice and others in law enforcement 2key word isn't it43 every day. /e decided to find out what the stats are and found the followin% at http;""www.abovetopsecret.com"forum"threadHE*H'*"p%' # li$e to thin$ %e live in the information age! %hen dail& or even second'(&'second statistics on such fare as stoc$ )rices and the annual num(er of homicides are at our fingerti)s* +or all the careful accounting! ho%ever! there are t%o figures Americans don,t have- the )recise num(er of )eo)le $illed (& the )olice! and the num(er of times )olice use excessive force* Des)ite %ides)read )u(lic interest and a )rovision in the .//0 Crime Control Act re1uiring the Attorne& 2eneral to collect the data and )u(lish an annual re)ort on them! statistics on )olice shootings and use of nondeadl& force continue to (e )iecemeal )roducts of s)ott& collection! and are de)endent on the coo)eration of local )olice de)artments* 3o com)rehensive accounting for all of the nation,s .4!555 )olice de)artment exists* +ere are some brief stories from http;""www.dailykos.com"story")*')"*I")F"'*HHF)I"&+88T-T+.-&>&9.CT-is-:rowin%-9olice-Trend-&ome-.5amples-&tatistics Police "hoot and 6ill unarmed lderl& 7eteran! 6enneth Cham(erlain! in his o%n home* In his slee)! the elderl& (lac$ veteran accidentl& set off his medical alert (utton* At 8 A9 the )olice $ic$ed in his door and shot him to death claiming the elderl& man :came at them %ith a $nife: "cottsdale Police +eels #rath of Citi;enr& After <nd +atal "hooting of Unarmed 7ictim* This Police =fficer had > fatal shootings on his record! as of this shooting* "+PD Ruthlessl& "hoots and 6ills Unarmed ./&r old 9an over ?< Bus +are* "ix shots@ #arning! this sho%s 6enneth Harding! Ar (leeding to death alone! on the side%al$! surrounded (& armed )olice! %hile the cro%d of (&standers are $e)t (ac$ from hel)ing 6enneth* ABBUCU RCU ! 3*9* DAPE F Albuquerque poli,e offi,ers in)ol)ed in a rash of fatal shootings o)er the past t+o years +ere paid up to -.// under a union )rogram that some have li$ened to a (ount& s&stem in a de)artment %ith a culture that critics have long contended )romotes (rutalit&* 9a&or Richard Berr& called +rida& for an immediate halt to the )ractice! %hich %as first re)orted in the Al(u1uer1ue Aournal during a %ee$ in %hich Al(u1uer1ue )olice shot and $illed t%o men* "ince <5.5! Al(u1uer1ue )olice have shot <G )eo)le! .H fatall&* Chicago )olice shoot a civilian on average once ever& .5 da&s* 9ore than .55 )eo)le have (een $illed in the last decadeI <85 others have (een inJured* But onl& a tin&

fraction of shootings are ruled unJustified '' less than . )ercent! )olice records and court testimon& indicate* This should %ive us some idea who is in dan%er in this country us human bein%s or those in the law enforcement business. .ven thou%h these statistics are from the >.&. a similar situation e5ists in Canada and I would venture to say that everyone knows of someone either personally or throu%h news reports who has been murdered by 9olice or suffered serious personal harm. And all of this violence is bein% perpetrated a%ainst innocent human bein%s who for the most part simply want to live free and have access to their birthri%ht - dominion over the earth and all the wealth thereof. In order to keep this article to a more readable len%th than that of the ramblin% diatribe of 1ustice #ooke of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench I will end it here and make a summary statement. This 0ud%e Dand %e continue to (elieve that the o)inion %as %ritten (& a research staff andKor certain other Judges em)lo&ed mainl& for that )articular )ur)oseE has made an e5tremely scurrilous attempt to create fear of the 6freedom7 movement and that fear may and probably will lead to some innocent human bein%s bein% seriously harmed or killed by over$ealous members of law enforcement who by the way are the only ones permitted by law to be armed with %uns. Therefore we will sum up our analysis. This '(* pa%e diatribe has absolutely nothin% to do with those who claim or waive certain of their human ri%hts such as waivin% our human ri%ht to reco%nition everywhere as a person before the law the result of which is that the &tatutes and Acts that apply e5clusively to persons do not apply to us human bein%s. Additionally this opinion of 1ustice #ooke in the Jeads v. Jeads case has nothin% to do with the fact that we are the :rantors and sole Beneficiaries of our -e%al person"Trust".state known by the name appearin% on our Birth Certificates. The case in this matter is a divorce case and the decision in the case makes out case law or 0urisprudence. +owever the 0ud%e's opinion of people who advance what he terms r$ani1ed !seudole$al "ommer&ial #r$umen% [OPCA], does not make out case law to be relied upon in any other case where such ar%uments are advanced. %ase La& is defined in the ,ictionary of Canadian -aw as -The de&isions ?not opinions concernin% what is %oin% on in the country in other matters@ of 6ud$es rela%in$ %o par%i&ular ma%%ers in &on%ras% %o s%a%u%e law7 &ase law is a sour&e of law and forms le$al pre&eden%s. This '(* pa%e diatribe indicates 0ust how worried these people are about us human bein%s who are wantin% to be free and en0oy our natural wealth and 0ust how far they will %o to han% onto their ill-%otten power"authority over us and their control and theft of our wealth.