The OPCA Phenomenon
 This part of the Reasons is a detailed review of the OPCA community, its membership,
organization, and known history. It sets out the Court’s understanding of persons who affiliate
with OPCA concepts, what traits they do and do not share, and how they organize themselves.
 This community has “guru” leader, and follower / customer, cohorts. Groups of persons
who have similar beliefs join together into “movements”. Known gurus and movements are
identified and described.
Indicia of OPCA Litigants, Litigation, and Strategies
 The documentary material and in-court conduct of OPCA litigants involves very unusual
and stereotypic motifs. The second part of these Reasons identifies these ‘fingerprints’ that
characterize OPCA activities. The problematic character of OPCA litigation and litigants may
warrant special court procedures; some possibilities are surveyed.
Judicial Response to OPCA Concepts and Arguments
 This part of the Reasons surveys existing caselaw that reports and rejects OPCA
strategies and concepts. Those strategies and concepts are grouped by their shared themes and
mechanisms. The theoretical basis and operation of certain more elaborate OPCA schemes are
examined in detail.
 No Canadian court has accepted an OPCA concept or approach as valid. This part of the
decision identifies a common basis to reject these ideas as a category: they directly attack the
inherent jurisdiction of Canadian courts. That fact is also a basis for why OPCA schemes are
inherently vexatious, and provide evidence that may potentially lead to orders for contempt of
court. Remedies for OPCA litigation and litigation strategies are reviewed.
Summary and Direction
 There is no place in Canadian courts for anyone who advances OPCA concepts. The last
part of these Reasons suggests how judges, lawyers, and litigants may respond to persons who
adopt and advance th ese concepts. I also comment directly to those in the OPCA community -
both gurus and their followers - with the hope that these Reasons will lead them to more
productive and successful interaction with the courts, government, and their fellow citizens.
IV. The OPCA Phenomenon
 I will first engage in an overview of the OPCA community, its composition, and their
concepts. Certain of these observations are generalizations that flow from the more specific
examples and materials that make up the bulk of these Reasons. In other instances, this
information reflects the experiences of justices of this Court that have come to my attention as
the supervising administrative Justice of this Court.
 Members in the OPCA community appear surprisingly unified by their methodology and
objectives. They are otherwise diverse. OPCA litigants appearing in our Court may be anything
from educated professionals to retired senior citizens. They may be wealthy or poor. The famous
are not immune; for example the American action movie actor Wesley Snipes adopted OPCA
techniques in an attempt to defeat his income tax obligations: United State v. Wesley Trent
Snipes et al., No. 5:06-cr-00022-WTH-GRJ-1 (U.S.D.C. M.D. Fl., February 1, 2008). Snipes
presently is serving a three year prison sentence for income tax evasion.
 In Canada, this category of litigation traces into the late 1990’s, representing the spread
of concepts that emerged much earlier in the United States. Our Court’s experience has been that
persons involved in the OPCA community often hold highly conspiratorial perspectives, but
there is no consistency in who is the alleged hidden hand. Another uniform OPCA characteristic
appears to be a belief that ordinary persons have been unfairly cheated, or deceived as to their
rights. This belief that the common man has been abused and cheated by a hidden hand seems to
form the basis for OPCA community members perceived right to break ‘the system’ and retaliate
against ‘their oppressors’.
 These Reasons in many instances identify reported caselaw that comments on OPCA
litigants, OPCA gurus, and their misconduct. It should be understood that the reported caselaw is
the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of encounters between this Court and OPCA
litigants are not reported. These litigants and their schemes have been encountered in almost all
areas of law. They appear in chambers, in criminal proceedings, initiate civil litigation based on
illusionary OPCA rights, attempt to evade court and state authority with procedural and defencebased
schemes, and interfere with unrelated matters.
 OPCA strategies as brought before this Court have proven disruptive, inflict unnecessary
expenses on other parties, and are ultimately harmful to the persons who appear in court and
attempt to invoke these vexatious strategies. Because of the nonsense they argue, OPCA litigants
are invariably unsuccessful and their positions dismissed, typically without written reasons.
Nevertheless, their litigation abuse continues. The growing volume of this kind of vexatious
litigation is a reason why these Reasons suggest a strong response to curb this misconduct.
 Beyond that, these are little more than scams that abuse legal processes. As this Court
now recognizes that these schemes are intended for that purpose, a strict approach is appropriate
when the Court responds to persons who purposefully say they stand outside the rules and law,
or who intend to abuse, disrupt, and ultimately break the legal processes that govern conduct in
Canada. The persons who advance these schemes, and particularly those who market and sell
these concepts as commercial products, are parasites that must be stopped.
 A critical first point is an appreciation that the concepts discussed in these Reasons are
frequently a commercial product, designed, promoted, and sold by a community of individuals,
whom I refer to as “gurus”. Gurus claim that their techniques provide easy rewards – one does
not have to pay tax, child and spousal support payments, or pay attention to traffic laws. There
are allegedly secret but accessible bank accounts that contain nearly unlimited funds, if you
know the trick to unlock their gates. You can transform a bill into a cheque with a stamp and
some coloured writing. You are only subject to criminal sanction if you agree to be subject to
criminal sanction. You can make yourself independent of any state obligation if you so desire,
and unilaterally force and enforce demands on other persons, institutions, and the state. All this
is a consequence of the fact gurus proclaim they know secret principles and law, hidden from the
public, but binding on the state, courts, and individuals.
 And all these “secrets” can be yours, for small payment to the guru.
 These claims are, of course, pseudolegal nonsense. A judge who encounters and reviews
OPCA concepts will find their errors are obvious and manifest, once one strips away the layers
of peculiar language, irrelevant references, and deciphers the often bizarre documentation which
accompanies an OPCA scheme. When reduced to their conceptual core, most OPCA concepts
are contemptibly stupid. Mr. Meads, for example, has presented the Court with documents that
appear to be a contract between himself, and himself. One Mr. Meads promises to pay for any
liability of the other Mr. Meads. One owns all property, the other all debts. What is the
difference between these entities? One spells his name with upper case letters. The other adds
spurious and meaningless punctuation to his name. Mr. Meads (with punctuation) is the Mr.
Meads who appeared in court. He says the Mr. Meads (all capitals) is the one who should pay
child and spousal support.
 So where is that Mr. Meads (all capitals)? At one point in the June 8 hearing Mr. Meads
said that Mr. Meads (all capitals) was a “corporate entity” attached to his birth certificate. Later,
he told me that the other Mr. Meads was a “person” - and that I had created him! Again, total
 The bluntly idiotic substance of Mr. Mead’s argument explains the unnecessarily
complicated manner in which it was presented. OPCA arguments are never sold to their
customers as simple ideas, but instead are byzantine schemes which more closely resemble the
plot of a dark fantasy novel than anything else. Latin maxims and powerful sounding language
are often used. Documents are often ornamented with many strange marking and seals. Litigants
engage in peculiar, ritual-like in court conduct. All these features appear necessary for gurus to
market OPCA schemes to their often desperate, ill-informed, mentally disturbed, or legally
abusive customers. This is crucial to understand the non-substance of any OPCA concept or
strategy. The story and process of a OPCA scheme is not intended to impress or convince the
Courts, but rather to impress the guru’s customer.
 Mediaeval alchemy is a helpful analogue. Alchemists sold their services based on the
theatre of their activities, rather than demonstrated results, or any analytical or systematic
methodology. OPCA gurus are modern legal alchemists. They promise gold, but their methods
are principally intended to impress the gullible, or those who wish to use this drivel to abuse the
court system. Any lack of legal success by the OPCA litigant is, of course, portrayed as a
consequence of the customer’s failure to properly understand and apply the guru’s special
 Caselaw that relates to Gurus, reviewed below, explains how gurus present these ideas in
seminars, books, websites, and instructional DVDs and other recordings. They provide
pre-prepared documents, which sometimes are government forms, and instruct how to fill in the
necessary information that then produces the desired effects. Gurus write scripts to follow in
court. Some will attempt to act as your representative, and argue your case.
 When gurus do appear in court their schemes uniformly fail, which is why most leave
court appearances to their customers. That explains why it is not unusual to find that an OPCA
litigant cannot even explain their own materials. They did not write them. They do not (fully)
understand them. OPCA litigants appear, engage in a court drama that is more akin to a magic
spell ritual than an actual legal proceeding, and wait to see if the court is entranced and
compliant. If not, the litigant returns home to scrutinize at what point the wrong incantation was
uttered, an incorrectly prepared artifact waved or submitted.
A. Characteristics of OPCA Group Members
 As is illustrated in the specific examples that follow, persons who adopt OPCA ideas
may come from practically any part of society. OPCA ideas appear to be developed in social
groups. For example, this Court has often observed ‘supporters’ attending OPCA litigation
hearings. OPCA litigants frequently say they work or study in groups. Mr. Meads mentioned he
studies the law with a number of other persons with similar interests. Internet forums are clearly
important mechanisms by which OPCA litigants and those interested in OPCA concepts discuss
and plan their activities. OPCA litigants and gurus often appear to prefer to communicate and
broadcast their ideas with video recordings made available on the “www.youtube.com” website.
 This Court and the reported caselaw indicates that OPCA litigants and gurus do not have
a particular political orientation. Intriguingly, the same concepts and mechanisms are advanced
by both persons who hold perspectives that are alternatively extremely right wing (for example:
R. v. Warman, 2001 BCCA 510; Warman v. Warman, 2005 CHRT 36; Warman v. Warman,
2005 CHRT 43) or extremely left wing (for example: Jackson v. Canada (Customs and
Revenue Agency), 2001 SKQB 377 at para. 21, 210 Sask.R. 285). They use the same
‘techniques’ but each has a different backstory or context for that methodology.
 Other OPCA litigants proclaim bizarre alternative histories which have no obvious or
explicit political affiliations, for example: Henry v. Starwood Hotels, 2010 ABCA 367, leave
refused  S.C.C.A. No. 475; Henry v. El, 2010 ABCA 312, leave refused  S.C.C.A.
No. 138. Some, like Mr. Meads, frame their beliefs in a religious context, for example: Bloom v.
Canada, 2011 ONSC 1308; Sandri v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 CanLII 44282, 179
A.C.W.S. (3d) 811 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); Pappas v. Canada, 2006 TCC 692,  G.S.T.C. 161;
R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused  S.C.C.A. No. 265.
 The alternative history and conspiracy stories that cloak various different groups of
OPCA litigants may be very different, but the caselaw and this Court’s experience increasingly
points to these apparently disparate groups making the exact same pseudolegal arguments. The
only ideology, such as it is, that unifies these litigants and their leaders is a belief that they
should be immune from obligations.
B. The OPCA Guru
 These Reasons will survey a number of known OPCA gurus, and their activities. In
summary, the guru class are nothing more than conmen. Gurus are the usual source of new
OPCA concepts, though more often their novel contribution is to simply create a variation on or
repackage a pre-existing strategy, perhaps changing language or putting in some particular twist
to a concept. Gurus seem to borrow extensively from one another. For example, its appears that
parts of a document filed in one OPCA matter may be reproduced in another proceeding. An
excellent example of that is the ‘fee schedule’ attached to these Reasons. Identical language is
reproduced in materials discussed in Szoo v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police), 2011
 The caselaw indicates that gurus adopt a number of strategies. One is that they provide
materials, such as seminars, books, and DVDs, that explain the theoretical context of their ideas,
and demonstrate the application of those ideas for the benefit of their customers. These
commercial products may include items such as form documents, scripts, and other materials
that can be used in court, sent to government actors, or used in litigation. Some OPCA gurus
hold seminars to promote the materials they sell. Many have Internet web pages that serve the
1. Russell Porisky and the Paradigm Education Group
 Typically, this Court has learned about gurus and their activities from the perspective of
an outside observer. For example, in court, justices see litigants identify certain persons who
provide assistance or guidance to an OPCA litigant. Some gurus have appeared before justices of
this Court and have directed (or appear to direct) the OPCA litigant’s conduct, or attempt to
represent the OPCA litigant.
 Recently, a more complete window into the operations of an OPCA guru and his
customer base has been provided by the trial and conviction (R. v. Porisky, 2012 BCSC 67, 2012
D.T.C. 5037 [“Porisky Trial Decision”]) and sentencing (R. v. Porisky, 2012 BCSC 771
[“Porisky Sentencing Decision”]) of Russell Porisky and Elaine Gould for tax evasion and
counseling others to commit fraud. R. v. Sydel, 2006 BCPC 346 also reports on the Porisky
operation but from the perspective of one customer, a dentist. These cases provide many details
on how an OPCA scheme operates.
 Porisky operated a business, named “The Paradigm Education Group”, that advanced a
concept that it was possible for a potential taxpayer to:
... structure their affairs so that they were a “natural person, working in his own
capacity, under a private contract, for his own benefit”. Paradigm taught that
money earned under this arrangement was exempt from income tax.
(Porisky Trial Decision, at para. 1)
 Porisky claimed this was in response to a banking conspiracy:
He founded what he eventually called The Paradigm Education Group to “create a
structure that everyone could work together in to save the country from a foreign
parasite”. The foreign parasites were the international bankers who were, directly
or indirectly, responsible for the income tax system.
(Porisky Trial Decision, at para. 38)
 Porisky taught that the Canada Revenue Agency had tricked persons into believing there
was an obligation to pay tax, and further that taxation is slavery, serfdom, and contrary to the
Canadian Bill of Rights: para. 111. Justice Myer helpfully isolates representative examples of the
alternative reality and rhetoric Porisky directed to his customers in the Appendix to the trial
decision. It is typical that a guru will frame his or her arguments in a conspiratorial context, and
claim that the potential customer has been cheated. The state is an enemy and oppressive. A few
sample passages illustrate Porisky’s perspective on the world:
... When I was a good slave I dismissed my thoughts because I was taught that I
was incapable of understanding the superior wisdom of my elected officials. The
more I studied though, the freer my mind grew and the clearer it became. They
never had some kind of superior wisdom as I had been taught, in fact it became
painfully clear that many of them could not or would not even think for
As far as propaganda goes, the “National Post” article was a great textbook
example of promoting a victim mentality. It seems to stimulate sympathy for our
poor federal government, while painting everyone who doesn’t submit to their
national plundering program as a criminal. Nevertheless, it was a great read, I
laughed, I cried and I’ll definitely want to read it again when I feel like being
shamed into feeling that I should waive my natural rights so our government can
keep its trough full enough to ensure their fiscal mismanagement can continue
This mental shift toward total government dependence is what will allow the
implementation of the banker’s ultimate agenda, a New World Order run by a
One World Government that they control.
... The choice is yours, but consider this, ignorance may be bliss, but it costs you
 I will not review the basis on why Porisky’s “natural person” scheme is incorrect, as this
question is thoroughly dissected in reported cases including: R. v. Klundert, 2008 ONCA 767 at
para. 19, 93 O.R. (3d) 81, leave denied  S.C.C.A. No. 522; R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99
at para. 27, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused  S.C.C.A. No. 265; R. v. Pinno, 2002 SKPC
118 at paras. 12-13, 15-16,  3 C.T.C. 308; Kennedy v. Canada (Customs and Revenue
Agency),  4 C.T.C. 186, 2000 D.T.C. 6524 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); and Porisky Trial Decision
at paras. 58-61.
 Porisky and Paradigm advanced this scheme on a commercial basis. Porisky operated a
website, and sold instructional materials such as books and DVDs: Porisky Trial Decision, at
para. 39. Porisky also conducted seminars where he changed a fee (at para. 39), and provided
levels of training and exams (at paras. 101-105). Paradigm operated as something of a pyramid
scheme; Porisky also qualified “educators” to further proselytize his approach: Porisky Trial
Decision, at paras. 39, 106. At least one of these educators is now also the subject of criminal
litigation: R. v. Lawson, 2012 BCSC 356, at para. 21, as are other participants in the Porisky tax
evasion ring: R. v. McCartie, 2012 BCSC 928. Many other persons who used Porisky’s
techniques have already been convicted of tax evasion: Porisky Trial Decision, at para. 63.
 Additionally, and in what can only be described as an exercise in pure arrogance, Porisky
demanded 7% of the next two years income from his subscribers in exchange for his or his
educator’s assistance: Porisky Trial Decision, at para. 40. The tax liberator had become a tax
 The pseudolegal basis for Porisky’s claims is very representative of how OPCA
arguments are rationalized and explained by their proponents. Statutes, caselaw (often foreign or
obsolete), legal platitudes and definitions (again often foreign or obsolete), political ideology,
and conspiracy, were strung together into a loose cloud that pointed to a desired result. Justice
Myers eloquently described this process at para. 67 of the trial decision:
Mr. Porisky’s analysis picks and chooses snippets from various statutes and cases,
and attempts to create logical links where none exist. It is, in effect, legal
 It is important at this point to again stress the audience for Porisky’s ideas. That was not
the courts, government actors, but his clientele. What mattered was that his customer base
believe and then pay for his services.
 Porisky was convicted and sentenced for having personally evaded taxes, and having
aided and abetted the evasion of income tax. Justice Myers rejected a disclaimer by Porisky that
his ideas, materials, and advice were for “educational purposes only”: Porisky Trial Decision, at
para. 98. Porisky had gone so far as to prepare (unsuccessful) legal arguments for one of his
clients who had been sued for tax evasion. Porisky then analyzed that result, and told his
subscribers why the client’s conviction was “ambiguous” and “... just another desperately needed
bowl of propaganda pabulum for public consumption, to keep the masses asleep and enslaved ...”
[sic]: paras. 118-121.
 In total, Porisky’s guru activities led to substantial tax evasion, which was difficult to
quantify with precision: Porisky Sentencing Decision, at paras. 38-40. He had approximately
800 “students” who applied his scheme: at para. 40. A 4.5 year prison sentence was ordered:
2. Other Canadian Gurus
 Porisky’s guru activities are far from unique in Canada. A number of other gurus have
been the subject of reported decisions, or have become directly known to this Court.
a. David Kevin Lindsay
 For over a decade David Kevin Lindsay [“Lindsay”] (usually styled David-Kevin:
Lindsay) has been involved in OPCA type activities as a guru and litigant. He has repeatedly
personally challenged various aspects of tax legislation and the authority of the Canadian state
and courts: R. v. Lindsay, 2004 MBCA 147, 187 Man.R. (2d) 236; R. v. Lindsay, 2006 BCSC
188, 68 W.C.B. (2d) 718, affirmed 2007 BCCA 214; R. v. Lindsay, 2006 BCCA 150, 265 D.L.R.
(4th) 193; R. v. Lindsay, 2008 BCCA 30, 250 B.C.A.C. 270; R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99, 302
B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused  S.C.C.A. No. 265. In 2008 he was sentenced to 150 days
imprisonment for failure to file income tax returns: R. v. Lindsay, 2008 BCPC 203,  1
C.T.C 86, affirmed 2010 BCSC 831,  5 C.T.C. 174, affirmed 2011 BCCA 99, 302
B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused  S.C.C.A. No. 265.
 OPCA concepts that Lindsay has promoted include:
1. various deficiencies in judicial oaths prohibit court action: R. v. Lindsay, 2006
BCSC 188 at paras. 30-38, 68 W.C.B. (2d) 718, affirmed 2007 BCCA 214;
2. that the relationship between the state and a person is a contract, and one can opt
out of that contract: R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 at para. 32, 302 B.C.A.C. 76,
leave refused  S.C.C.A. No. 265;
3. that the obligation to pay income tax is one such agreement: R. v. Lindsay, 2011
BCCA 99 at para. 31, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused  S.C.C.A. No. 265;
4. legislation, the common-law, and court principles and procedures are trumped by
“God’s Law” and other divinely ordained rules and principles: R. v. Lindsay,
2011 BCCA 99 at para. 31, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused  S.C.C.A. No.
5. the same natural person argument advanced by Porisky: R. v. Lindsay, 2011
BCCA 99 at para. 27, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused  S.C.C.A. No. 265;
6. that an aspect of the 1931 Statute of Westminster meant all post-1931 government
legislation and action is unauthorized: R. v. Lindsay, 2004 MBCA 147 at para.
32, 187 Man.R. (2d) 236; and
7. that the Magna Carta has super-constitutional status and restricts state and court
action: R. v. Lindsay, 2008 BCCA 30 at paras. 19-21, 250 B.C.A.C. 270.
 Lindsay holds seminars (for pay) to teach his beliefs. R. v. Dick, 2002 BCCA 27, 163
B.C.A.C. 62, leave refused  S.C.C.A. No. 128 provides a useful review of those activities
and the manner in which Lindsay promotes himself:
10 Further, there is evidence that Mr. Lindsay has, in this province, been
advertising himself as an expert on legal matters or permitting others to do so on
his behalf. In advance of a recent "seminar" that he instructed, he was described
in an Internet notice (essentially promotional material for the seminar) as
"Canada's foremost freedom expert on the secrets of laying criminal charges
against government officials." The notice continued:
Dave will examine some of the common law, principles and
obligations as well as some of the rights and freedoms we have
there under. Included will be answers to pertinent and repeatedly
asked questions involving our RIGHT to use the highways, how
this right has been denied to us, how the courts have
self-admittedly been a part of this fraud, what happens with
insurance, and how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not
You will learn how the criminal process works, Dave will be
explain [sic] how one can lay their own private criminal charges
against anyone in the country, including government ministers,
CCRA and other government officials, and even police officers ...
11 According to other material published on the Internet, Mr. Lindsay has
also negotiated an “exclusive agreement” with a publisher:
... to work with our subscribers as a court procedure assistant.
Whether it means getting help in drafting up court documents
correctly, how to lay charges against government agents or how to
deal with your own lawyer more effectively, Lindsay has the
Lindsay has been involved in court procedures literally hundreds
of times, for both defendant and plaintiff's challenges, or for filing
court documents on their behalf. Lindsay is not a "lawyer" but has
the ability to act as an "agent" for anyone who has to go to court
and wishes to do so without spending a fortune on lawyer fees.
We have arranged to make Lindsay available for one-on-one
telephone assistance to any Canadian who needs help with court
challenges or wishes to learn how to deal with court challenges for
their own benefit.
 As is typical of most recent gurus, Lindsay also advertises his services on an Internet
website: British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Lindsay, 2007 BCCA 165 at para. 15, 238
 Sadly, some persons have taken up that offer. Lindsay has a history of advising and
representing persons who advance his schemes (Superior Filter Recycling Inc. v. Canada, 2005
TCC 638, 2005 D.T.C. 1426; R. v. Meikle, 2008 BCPC 265 at para. 5,  1 C.T.C. 184,
affirmed 2009 BCSC 1540,  2 C.T.C. 76, affirmed on other grounds 2010 BCCA 337,
2010 D.T.C. 5140; Coulbeck v. University of Toronto,  O.J. No. 4003 (QL), 142
A.C.W.S. (3d) 889 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); Coulbeck v. University of Toronto,  O.J. No. 5688
(QL), 145 A.C.W.S. (3d) 393 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); R. v. Dick, 2000 BCPC 221,  1 C.T.C.
277 (and related proceedings); R. v. J.B.C. Securities Ltd., 2003 NBCA 53 at para. 9, 261
N.B.R. (2d) 199; Canadian Western Bank v. Ricci, 2003 CanLII 45381 (Ont. Sup. Ct.); R. v.
Gibbs, 2002 BCPC 703,  3 C.T.C. 307; Kennedy v. Canada (Customs and Revenue
Agency),  4 C.T.C. 186, 2000 D.T.C. 6524 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); Audcent v. Maleki, 2006
ONCJ 401,  1 C.T.C. 212 (and related proceedings); Canada v. Galbraith, 2001 BCSC
675, 54 W.C.B. (2d) 504; R. v. Warman, 2001 BCCA 510)), though he has been denied that role
in a number of jurisdictions, including the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (R. v. Main, 2000
ABQB 56, 259 A.R. 163; Hill v. Hill, 2008 SKQB 11 at paras. 29-30, 306 Sask.R. 259; Warman
v. Icke,  O.J. No. 3482 at para. 1 (QL), 2009 CanLII 43943; Ambrosi v. Duckworth, 2011
BCSC 1582; Superior Filter Recycling Inc. v. Canada, 2006 FCA 248,  5 C.T.C. 85; R.
v. Linehan, 2000 ABQB 815, 276 A.R. 383).
 He has been declared a vexatious litigant: British Columbia (Attorney General) v.
Lindsay, 2007 BCCA 165, 238 B.C.A.C. 254, leave refused  S.C.C.A. No. 359; Manitoba
(Attorney General) v. Lindsay, 2000 MBCA 11, 145 Man.R. (2d) 187. Lindsay frequently
initiates legal proceedings and files private informations to harass lawyers, Canada Revenue
Agency employees, and court sheriffs: British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Lindsay, 2007
BCCA 165 at paras. 11-14, 27, 238 B.C.A.C. 254.
 Lindsay’s misconduct goes further. Lindsay was, at a minimum, a “cheerleader” for an
attempt by OPCA litigants to ‘arrest’ an Alberta Provincial Court judge during a hearing: R. v.
Main, at para. 8. He persistently filed ungrounded complaints against judges: R. v. Main, at
paras. 18, 28-29. He alleged judicial and state corruption: R. v. Main, at paras. 25-26. His
activities are “... a wrongheaded, destructive, malicious use of the justice system by the
defendant to effect a purpose which is the very antithesis of that which the section intends ...”
[emphasis added]: Manitoba (Attorney-General) v. Lindsay (1997), 120 Man.R. (2d) 141, 13
C.P.C. (4th) 15 (Man. Q.B.), varied on other grounds 2000 MBCA 11, 145 Man.R. (2d) 187.
 Lindsay’s rhetoric is also documented. R. v. Lindsay, 2004 MBCA 147 at para. 35, 187
Man.R. (2d) 236 provides a review:
The appellant's court filings abound with unfounded and scurrilous accusations of
"corruption and criminal activity at all levels of the justice and political levels,"
"unlawful Gestapo [S]earches," "unlawful court fees for justice" and judges who
"wilfully violated a court order" and "participated in the cover up." Even on the
first page of his notice of appeal we find this gratuitous and insulting greeting:
And you thought I was gone! NOT! I still demand the rule of law be
If you know how.
The appellant takes issue with words such as "scandalous, vexatious, frivolous,
and irrelevant" that the motions judge used in describing portions of his affidavit
and brief. That description was clearly invited and justified by the tenor of his
 Those justices of the Alberta Queen’s Bench who have encountered OPCA litigants and
gurus can attest this conduct is unexceptional.
b. John Ruiz Dempsey
 Sometimes OPCA gurus claim to be lawyers. A particularly troubling set of reported
decisions from British Columbia relate to John Ruiz Dempsey [“Dempsey”], or as he styles
himself, “John-R: Dempsey”. Dempsey’s claims to be a lawyer were spurious, as is explained in
Law Society of British Columbia v. Dempsey, 2005 BCSC 1277 at para. 22, 142 A.C.W.S. (3d)
346, affirmed 2006 BCCA 161, 149 A.C.W.S. (3d) 735:
Mr. Dempsey is not, and never has been, a member of the Law Society. He states
that this is so as a matter of choice. Due to what he considers the Law Society’s
monopoly on the word “lawyer” and the negative regard with which lawyers are
held, Mr. Dempsey has taken instead to referring to himself as a “forensic
litigation specialist”. He advised the Court that he has a law degree and a degree
in criminology; he also uses the designations LL.B and BSCr. on his personal
website and in correspondence. There is, however, no evidence before the Court
that he has had any such education or training. Documents from the Supreme
Court of the Philippines and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines indicate that
Mr. Dempsey has never been qualified to practice law in that country.
 Dempsey advertised his ‘services’ with a webpage entitled “The People v. The Banks:
The Greatest Battle”. Law Society of British Columbia v. Dempsey recounts Dempsey’s
activities, and they make a sorry tale. He initiated lawsuits in his own name, which were
uniformly unsuccessful, except for waiver of court fees due to his indigent status: para. 25.
Dempsey filed a succession of improper and related lawsuits and judicial reviews that led to him
being declared a vexatious litigant: Dempsey v. Casey, 2004 BCCA 395 at paras. 36-38, 132
A.C.W.S. (3d) 833. Dempsey made numerous law society and police complaints (para. 44) and
alleged (para. 43) that the judge presiding over the Law Society of British Columbia v. Dempsey
... had conscientiously, arbitrarily, capriciously, deliberately, intentionally, and
knowingly engaged in conduct in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land, in
violation of her duty under the law, in ‘fraud upon the court’ and to aid and abet
others in criminal activity, thus making herself a principal in the criminal activity.
 Denied personal and direct access to the courts, Dempsey turned to the practice of law,
and acted as an “agent” in 10 civil actions that largely involved persons attempting to avoid
debts owed to financial institutions (para. 47) and a number of labour matters (para. 51). In
addition to what might be classified as ‘conventional’ claims, Dempsey advanced a collection of
1. an ‘A4V’ ‘money for nothing’ scheme,
2. immunity on the basis of religious authority,
3. a peculiar concept that debts only relate to ‘hard money’, which seems to mean
physical cash, and
4. that tax or liability only attaches to a “corporate name” and not a physical person.
(Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union, 2006 BCSC 750, 151 A.C.W.S. (3d) 204; Dempsey v.
Envision Credit Union, 2006 BCSC 1324, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309; Gravlin et al. v. Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce et al, 2005 BCSC 839, 140 A.C.W.S. (3d) 447; Ancheta v. Joe,
2003 BCSC 93, 11 B.C.L.R. (4th) 348; Ancheta v. Joe, 2003 BCSC 1597, 20 B.C.L.R. (4th)
382; Ancheta v. Joe, 2003 BCSC 529, 121 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1070; Ancheta v. Joe, 2005 BCCA
232, 213 B.C.A.C. 21; Ancheta v. Kropp, 2004 BCSC 60, 128 A.C.W.S. (3d) 175).
 The British Columbia Court of Appeal in Ancheta v. Joe, 2005 BCCA 232 at para. 7,
213 B.C.A.C. 21, noted the defiant and uncooperative attitude typically expressed during this
litigation, including the following:
The court can dismiss the Plaintiff's claims a thousand times, but unless the
defendants can prove that claims have no merits, the Plaintiff reserves the right to
keep re-filing his claims. This is trite law.
 Dempsey also initiated a total of six class actions (Law Society of British Columbia v.
Dempsey, at paras. 73-83), directed at a variety of targets, including a government operated
school for girls, a number of financial institutions, and the Government of Canada. The last
action is described in this way at para. 81:
This action challenges the validity of the federal Income Tax Act and alleges that
the defendants, in collecting taxes in reliance on this “non-existent and bogus
federal statute”, have engaged in illegal taxation, fraudulent misrepresentation,
extortion, breach of trust, treason, enterprise corruption, slavery, conversion,
misappropriation of funds and other crimes against the people of Canada. The
proposed class comprises “all persons within or without Canada who have been
the subject of a colossal national tax collection scheme wherewith the people of
Canada, inter-alia were systematically robbed, defrauded, enslaved, imprisoned,
arrested, fined, maliciously prosecuted, and tortured. The class is intended to
include all persons who are ‘tax payers’ within the meaning of the impugned
Income Tax Act.”
 Law Society of British Columbia v. Dempsey, at paras. 84-103, summarizes affidavit
evidence of those who entrusted their legal actions to Dempsey. The accounts make painful
reading, as it becomes apparent that certain litigants had been deceived as to Dempsey’s true
status, and that their potentially legitimate claims had been compromised by Dempsey’s
activities. It is telling that Dempsey sued in defamation when one of his former clients made her
experiences public: para. 90.
 Dempsey alleged the legal profession is an unjust monopoly, and in his submissions and
website engaged in the kind of rhetoric sadly typical of OPCA gurus, for example:
Due process as defined by most Judges: “First, decide how we want the case to
go. Second, formulate a legal logic to support our decision. Third, manipulate,
dissect or eliminate the facts and evidence to support our decision. Then the
rubber stamp doctrine of “judicial discretion” will prevent most decisions from
Just hang in there, truth and justice will prevail. I know this will be difficult for
as long as the legal industry is being run by monopolistic societies supported by
corrupt politicians and judges. These corrupt entities have no power over us until
we surrender it to them. They can all kiss my ass for all I’m concerned.
 Dempsey also orchestrated in-court misconduct. Justice Garson reports in Dempsey v.
Envision Credit Union, 2006 BCSC 1324 at paras. 16-24, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309 that persons in
the public gallery would engage in “... chanting, disrespectful comments ...” that she concluded
were “... tactics employed to frustrate the legitimate hearing of the applications and were
deliberate, planned in advance, and well rehearsed.”
 Dempsey then posted his account of that online:
16. ... The events of February 27, 2006, were recounted by Mr. Dempsey in an
internet blog attached as an exhibit to affidavits filed on this application
for special costs in following way:
The People shut the court down after about twenty minutes
into the hearing scheduled to be heard on February 27, 28
and March 1, 2006. After intensive questioning by the
People represented by John-Ruiz: Dempsey, Pavel-N:
Darmantchev, Pedro Liong and Otto Luinenburg, the
presiding judge, Nicole Garson got out of the courtroom
and left after she gave the Sheriff an order to clear the
courtroom. Game over, the banks' motion to dismiss the
People's claim will not be heard - at least for now.
17. The "intensive questioning" referred to in the internet blog was a question
as to whether I was a public civil servant chanted over and over again.
 Other times litigants did not attend (paras. 18-19) and “... the supporters in the gallery
rose in what was clearly an orchestrated response and began reciting the Lord's Prayer aloud.”
(para. 24). Dempsey also wrote the opposing parties that (para. 35):
... We the People are sick and tired of being pushed around by public servants
who have betrayed their oaths.
You people have to stop thinking that we the People are stupid that you can just
set us up and heard us into a judicial holocaust and gas us all in Garson's
And just because you have sold yourselves to devil doesn't mean that you now the
right to call our legitimate and righteous claim frivolous and vexatious. The
whole world is watching. All you have to do is type my name in a search engine
and you will see that no one but you have agreed to label our claims frivolous and
vexatious. Of course the love for money makes everything right. What is at stake
here is more than money.
I would advice you not to underestimate the People anymore. February 27, 2006
is nothing compared to what may happen if you invoke the People's wrath.
This matter can be resolved quickly out of court if you honestly concern
yourselves with the best interests of your clients. Again, I leave that up to you.
 Justice Garson ordered that Dempsey be personally liable for special costs along with the
plaintiffs, as he was a person who instigated and guided “money for nothing” litigation: paras.
46, 48, 60. Dempsey also has been denied permission to represent OPCA litigants on the basis of
his history of misconduct: Gravlin et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al, 2005
BCSC 839, 140 A.C.W.S. (3d) 447.
 Dempsey’s advice and representation had substantial costs for four of his clients and
himself. People of Canada v. Envision Credit Union; Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union, 2007
BCSC 1276, 160 A.C.W.S. (3d) 962 reports a cost award totalling $92,850.00. This seems to be
the last reported action that involves Dempsey, though his webpage remains.
c. Robert Arthur Menard
 Robert Arthur Menard [“Menard”] (typically styled “Robert-Arthur: Menard”) is the
subject of less case commentary. He is associated with the Freeman-on-the-Land OPCA
movement, and identifies himself as such: United States of America v. Emery, 2005 BCSC 1192
at para. 7, 70 W.C.B. (2d) 37. Menard has attempted to participate in legal actions as an
intervener, but was denied that status: United States of America v. Emery. That was an
extradition proceeding. Menard’s OPCA concepts outlined in that case include:
1. state actors require the consent of persons, any state activity without consent is
2. a statute is not law and cannot be the basis for extradition; unlawful conduct is
only something such as rape or murder; and
3. Canada had “abdicated” its role in the extradition process and that Menard would
represent the interests of Canadians.
 Menard’s submissions concerning the United States were dramatic:
The American Prison System and SLAVERY:
Robert-Arthur: Menard will argue that the American prison system has in fact
turned into a system amounting to slavery, where prisoners are economically
forced to provide labour for corporate entities. Stock in private prisons can even
be purchased on the open market and the Prison Industrial System now operating
is one very hungry Beast with a growing appetite. It a clear they will always need
MORE employees/prisoners/slaves. Furthermore, these corporate enterprises are
primarily concerned with profit and not-rehabilitation or re-integration and using
punishment as a means of corporate enrichment is cruel and unusual. Speaking of
societies, none of the accused are members of the society governed by and under
the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury which handed down the Indictment.
 In 2008 the British Columbia Supreme Court in The Law Society of British Columbia v.
Robert Arthur Menard (8 January 2008) Vancouver S073719 (B.C.S.C.) granted an order
prohibiting Menard from acting as a lawyer and providing legal advice, and receiving
compensation for the same.
 This Court’s review of the Freeman-on-the-Land phenomenon has observed that Menard
is associated with or operates a number of “Freeman” Internet websites that market OPCA
materials, including the “Canadian Common Corps Of Peace Officers” (“C3PO”) (website:
http://www.c3po.ca), a group of self-declared and appointed vigilante “peace officers” who:
... are the answer to avoiding a police state in Canada. All able bodied and
suitable candidates can if they wish be hired to preserve and maintain the public
peace under affirmation and contract. In this way the people of Canada can deal
with errant or rogue police from the position of a peace officer, and those who are
Freemen can exercise their rights without hindrance by existing policy
enforcement officers and with the full protection of true peace officers.
These websites also indicate Menard travels and gives seminars, for pay.
d. Eldon Gerald Warman
 Eldon Gerald Warman [“Warman”] is a “Detaxer”; he operates the
“http://www.detaxcanada.org/” website. Warman typically styles himself via the ‘dash-colon’
motif as “Eldon-Gerald: Warman”. He has a historic association with Lindsay: R. v. Warman,
2001 BCCA 510; Warman (Re), 2000 ABPC 181, 48 W.C.B. (2d) 194. His stated beliefs
combine the “natural man” scheme of Porisky and Lindsay, with an emphasis on historical
common law and the interrelationship between the king and society, such as the Magna Carta. A
helpful survey of Warman’s concepts is found in R. v. Warman, 2001 BCCA 510 at paras. 9-10.
 In 2000 Warman had a roadside encounter with a peace officer who attempted to
investigate the permit status for Warman’s vehicle. That led to an assault on the officer for which
Warman was subsequently convicted: R. v. Warman, 2000 BCPC 22, affirmed 2001 BCCA 510.
Warman had denied the officer’s authority because “... issuing tickets at the side of the road is to
conduct a roving court not permitted by Section 17 of Magna Carta.”: para. 36. These roadside
confrontations between peace officers and OPCA community members are a reported aspect of
OPCA litigation, for example in R. v. Kaasgaard, 2011 MBQB 256.
 Mr. Warman has been the subject of complaints of racist and anti-Semitic statements that
were considered by the Canadian Human Rights Commission: Warman v. Warman, 2005
CHRT 36; Warman v. Warman, 2005 CHRT 43. The other “Warman” here is not a relative but
instead is Richard Warman, a person who frequently advances human rights complainants. The
former decision at para. 12 reproduces certain relevant passages from the “detaxcanada.org”
YOU ARE BEING SUBJECTED TO HIGH TREASON
Judges are primary factor in this TREASON against the Canadian people
Canadian judges are using an American produced "Anti-Government Movement
Guidebook" to deprive sovereign Canadians of their God Given Rights within the
de facto corporate commercial Canadian court system - controlled by the Inner
Temple of the `City of London, a hostile foreign entity.
 The CHRC continues at para. 12:
The threat is palpable. A box states: "you have a right to use deadly force to stop
these unlawful acts against you". There are dark suggestions that the sovereignty
of the people should be restored.
 Warman’s current status is uncertain. The ‘detaxcanada.org’ website remains, however
there is no recent Alberta legal proceeding that involves this person.
e. David J. Lavigne
 David J. Lavigne [“Lavigne”], operator of “The Tax Refusal” website
(“http://www.taxrefusal.com/”) and founder of the “International Humanity House”, promotes an
argument that a person need not pay tax on a moral or conscience basis. The one instance where
Lavigne has argued his approach in Federal Court is unreported (see Jackson v. Canada
(Customs and Revenue Agency), 2001 SKQB 377 at para. 21, 210 Sask.R. 285). After that
Lavigne attempted to represent several other litigants who adopted his concepts, but without
success: Jackson v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), at para. 40; R. v. Reddick, 2002
SKCA 89, 54 W.C.B. (2d) 646.
 Lavigne provides an interesting contrast to Warman. Both adopt almost the exact same
pseudolegal arguments, but their ideologies could hardly be more opposite. Lavigne’s
perspective is explained in Jackson v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), at paras. 18-20:
18] The plaintiff's claim, as I understand it, is based on the decisions arising
out of Nuremberg. The plaintiff submits that as a member nation within
the United Nations, Canada is bound to abide by the principles espoused
at the trial and judgments of Nuremberg following the Second World War.
The plaintiff contends that by participating in the production of materials
including Tritium and enriched Uranium, Canada is assisting in the
production of thermonuclear weapons or the delivery systems thereof.
 Based upon the plaintiff's contention that Canada is participating in the
production of these kinds of weapons, the plaintiff submits he is bound by
an "unconditional duty" to refuse to support a society that "wilfully
participates in plans and preparations that are predicated on a sure and
certain will and capacity to commit mass murder". In furtherance of his
claim the plaintiff relies on specific provisions of the Criminal Code
which forbids anyone from conspiring with any other to do anything that
may lead to the murder of any person, or to do anything that involves the
will and capacity to commit murder.
 Based upon the plaintiff's contention that Canada is on a current agenda to
participate in the production of materials and therefore participate in the
will and capacity to commit mass murder, the plaintiff has attempted to
commence what he refers to as an "opting out" procedure. The procedure
involves a membership within an International Humanity House where
"Sovereign-Citizens/Natural-Persons" reject the "madness of greed" and
embrace "the tenets and credo" of that organization. As part of their
membership, the "Sovereign-Citizens/Natural-Persons" refuse to pay taxes
of any nature to any and all governments.
 The materials filed in R. v. Reddick, at para. 5, express that ideology as a:
... claim to having an imprescriptible right and a lawfully compellable duty to
forevermore refuse to aid and abet or otherwise assist, fund or support, a society
that participates in plans and preparations that are predicated on a sure and certain
will and capacity to commit Mass Murder.
 Lavigne’s webpage ‘/www.taxrefusal.com’ remains and is apparently being updated,
though he does not seem to have been involved in further reported litigation.
f. Edward Jay Robin Belanger
 Some gurus market themselves as religious authorities. An example is Edward Jay Robin
Belanger (typically self-styled as the “minister Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger”) [“Belanger”].
Belanger seems to be the leader or dominant personality in a local Edmonton-area OPCA
movement named the “Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International” [“CERI”]. Its
members usually give themselves the title “minister”. I have no explanation for why this title is
never capitalized, however that is their consistent practice. Belanger and CERI members are
frequent visitors to and litigants in the Edmonton-area courts.
 A brief excerpt from a very lengthy “Asseveration/Affidavit of Criminal Complaint” sent
to my office by Belanger provides the flavour of this guru’s rhetoric:
Even though I am not a Canadian citizen, I am a man born upon, standing on,
living and ministering on the geographical land mass known as Alberta, and
Neither the men or woman listed herein and acting as The private man Vaughn
Myers acting as the judge in Stony Plain Alberta on March 17th and 24th 2010
A.D. and the private man acting as the judge in Stony Plain on August 4th 2010
named Caffaro, The private man acting as the federal crown prosecutor for
CANADA named Adam Halliday on the 4th of August 2010 A.D. , the private
woman Malina Rawluk acting as the prosecutor for the PROVINCE OF
ALBERTA Stony Plain March 17th and 24ty 2010 A.D. nor any other government
entity, nor any BAR member, nor any “Person” anywhere is competent nor has
any consent to operate in any of My affairs, and further,
The witness affidavits confirm the aforementioned did criminally conspire
without authority of law and did intend to intimidate me to violate my
sincerely held faith and belief and thereby breached their trust as Allegiants fo the
Christian Defender of the faith to save my faith harmless from reproach, and
I asked the man named Caffaro on August 4th 2010 in Stony Plain Alberta at
10:00 AM if he was aware I could not violate my sincerely held faith of not
associating my name with a dead entity in law a legal fiction all capital letter
version of my name used as a pledge to trade as value on the stock exchange,
he did intimidate me that if I did not violate my faith and do a thing I had a
right not to do he would put out a warrant for my arrest, and further, he
without lawful excuse violated 423 of the criminal code by intimidating me to
do a thing I had a lawful right to not to do ,towhit [:submit to an altered
version of my name formed in fraud for a financial purpose. [sic, emphasis in
 Belanger’s typical strategies are:
1. arguments based on alleged defects in judicial and government oaths,
2. that the King James Bible (or some specific version thereof) is the primary or
overriding law of Canada,
3. a ‘double/split person’ argument where the state has ‘attached’ a legal fiction to
persons and only may assert its authority on that basis,
4. an argument that all interactions are contracts, and
5. various foisted unilateral agreements and demands.
 Belanger and his followers attempt to detach themselves from state and court authority
by ‘publishing’ foisted unilateral agreements, either on the CERI website or via other means. In
2011 Belanger attempted to email a number of these documents to every person employed in the
Alberta Justice department.
 Belanger appears to administer the CERI website and posts in various online forums. He
is one of the many gurus who use the Youtube service to host his videos. He has attempted to
represent persons in court.
 Belanger frequently files complaints and Criminal Code private informations directed to
the judiciary, court, government, and law enforcement employees. He apparently has also sought
military intervention against “traitors” in the state and court apparatus. Recently, Belanger and
other CERI members entered the Edmonton Courts during the annual “Law Day”, a public and
family oriented event intended to introduce lay people and particularly children to court and trial
operations. Belanger’s group intended to disrupt that event, but were ejected. Belanger
immediately attempted to press criminal charges against Court Sheriffs.
g. Other Gurus
 This list is not exhaustive; for example another candidate guru is reported in Dirks v.
Canada (Minister of National Revenue - M.N.R.); Dirks, Re, 2007 SKQB 124 at paras. 4-5, 31
C.B.R. (5th) 192 and R. v. Lemieux, 2007 SKPC 135 at paras. 34-35,  2 C.T.C. 291. This
may be the Douglas Martin Nagel whose conviction was confirmed in R. v. Nagel, 2010 SKCA
118. Similarly, the “Mr. Plotnikoff” mentioned in Canada (Minister of National Revenue -
M.N.R.) v. Stanchfield, 2009 FC 99 at para. 4, 340 F.T.R. 150 appears to be a guru given he
apparently provided workshops on how to evade income tax.
 This review of gurus is also undoubtedly incomplete since at least some OPCA schemes
encountered in Canadian courts clearly originate from the United States. Those U.S. schemes
made up much of the ‘first wave’ of OPCA litigants and still do appear.
 Unsurprisingly, American OPCA schemes simply make no reference to Canadian law,
principles, legislation, or institutions. They will only cite U.S. legislation, caselaw, history, and
constitutional materials. Objectively, it is difficult to understand how any Canadian might
imagine these techniques would prove successful.
 A helpful example is that of American guru David Wynn Miller [“Miller”] (usually
styled “PLENIPOTENTIARY JUDGE David-Wynn: Miller”), who advocates a bizarre form of
“legal grammar”, which is not merely incomprehensible in Canada, but equally so in any other
jurisdiction. National Leasing Group Inc. v. Top West Ventures Ltd., 2001 BCSC 111, 102
A.C.W.S. (3d) 303 provides examples of the resulting text. See also: Canadian Imperial Bank
of Commerce v. Chesney, 2001 BCSC 625, 104 A.C.W.S. (3d) 826; Borkovic v. Laurentian
Bank of Canada, 2001 BCSC 337, 103 A.C.W.S. (3d) 700. Succinctly, it appears that his law
grammar provides rules on how to structure ‘legally effective’ documents. The result is very
difficult to understand. Any defective document (ie. one not written in ‘Millerese’) is
“fictitious-language/scribble”: National Leasing Group Inc. v. Top West Ventures Ltd., at
 More recently ‘Canada-specific’ schemes have emerged from the Canadian OPCA gurus.
These often are crude adaptations of the American schemes, and simply replace American with
Canadian law and institutions, for example, the ‘A4V’ ‘money for nothing’ approach reported in
Underworld Services Ltd. v. Money Stop Ltd., 2012 ABQB 327, and the restricted scope of
income tax liability advanced in Turnnir v. The Queen, 2011 TCC 495 at para. 5.
 That said, certain Canadian OPCA gurus, particularly Lindsay, have produced true
“made in Canada” schemes which make little or no reference to American law and legislation,
see: R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 at paras. 31-32, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused 
S.C.C.A. No. 265; R. v. Lindsay, 2004 MBCA 147 at para. 32, 187 Man.R. (2d) 236.
Nevertheless, many “made in Canada” OPCA strategies will still retain some common
conceptual foundation with an American equivalent. For example, all ‘A4V’ schemes depend on
American commercial law principles. It may therefore be useful to refer to U.S. commentary on
OPCA strategies, if an equivalent concept can be identified.
h. Mr. Meads’ Guru
 At present, Mr. Mead’s guru and source for his arguments is unidentified.
 This court has encountered documents substantially identical to those in Mr. Meads’ June
19 and 21 packages (other than personal information). Interestingly, Szoo’ v. RCMP, 2011
BCSC 696 attaches documents that duplicate text in Mr. Meads’ materials.
 That suggests Mr. Mead is not the author of those documents, but rather that he has
purchased a kit with those materials and the instructions as to their use. Evidence of the ‘pre-fab’
nature of the documents can be found in their content and format. For example, Mr. Meads
forgot to fill in all the information for the “Notice to YOURFILINGCOUNTY County Register
Of Deeds Clerk” document, as is shown by the “YOURFILINGCOUNTY” placeholder that
remains in the title.
 It appears that Mr. Meads’ guru is American. Review of the materials filed by Mr. Meads
shows a strong American influence in his OPCA materials. For example, in one of his April 27,
2012 “Affidavit in Support of Order to Show Cause” documents he references “Title 18 United
States Code”, which is the criminal and penal code for the federal government of the United
States. Stating the obvious, this court will not be applying that legislation.
 Similarly, Mr. Meads in his documents and arguments references the Uniform
Commercial Code [the “UCC”], which is American legislation to harmonize commercial
transactions within the United States. That too is not relevant to this proceeding, and will not be
applied by this court. That said, as the caselaw survey that follows illustrates, the UCC is also a
common motif in material from Canadian OPCA gurus, and forms a significant element in much
OPCA mythology. However, why anyone would believe that American commercial legislation
would apply in Canada is baffling. Still, OPCA litigants indicate that this legislation has a broad,
even extraordinary scope. My office has recently received a document where an OPCA litigant
said the UCC applies to governments, “... whether interstellar, intergalactic, international,
national, state, provincial, or local ...” [emphasis added].
 The various agreements, appointments, and the ‘fee schedule’ in Mr. Meads’ materials
contain other language that suggests an American origin. For example, the property shuttled
between the Meads dualities include:
1. “All military (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, National Guard, etc.) discharge
papers and the like” (these are branches of the American military);
2. “... the right to petition any military force of the United States for physical
protection from threats to the safety and integrity of person or property by either
"public" or "private" sources ...”; and
3. “Individual Retirement Accounts”, (the American analogue to the Canadian
Registered Retirement Savings Plan accounts).
 Similarly, the ‘fee schedule’ references “Miranda” warnings, 4th Amendment rights, and
“Title 42 (Civil Rights), Title 18 U.S.C.A. (Criminal Codes), Title 28 U.S.C.A. (Civil Codes)”.
These are American legislation and constitutional documents.
 I would classify Mr. Meads’ OPCA materials as an ‘adapted American’ strategy. He (or
his guru) has customized aspects of his documentation and arguments for a Canadian setting, but
this does not appear to be a ‘home grown’ effort.
3. How Gurus Operate
 Gurus may be distant parties in OPCA litigation. In Mercedes-Benz Financial v.
Kovacevic,  O.J. No. 783 at paras. 53-54, 2009 CanLII 9368 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.), the OPCA
litigant appeared to have used materials and techniques from an OPCA guru who promoted his
techniques with radio broadcasts and hotel seminars. The OPCA litigant knew at least one
person who helped promote those schemes in his geographic region. While not an explicit
conclusion of that decision, the materials cited and described by Justice Brown in
Mercedes-Benz Financial v. Kovacevic indicate the litigant had been introduced to his scheme
by a nomadic American “Sovereign Man” guru, Sam Kennedy. The OPCA litigant in
Mercedes-Benz Financial v. Kovacevic then attempted to obtain a luxury car for free via those
 Sometimes gurus are indirectly involved in litigation, by providing advice and argument
(for a fee), as did Porisky in the Sydel trial: Porisky Trial Decision, at para. 18.
 In other instances the guru is present in the court, either representing the litigant, or
offering instruction and advice. That kind of activity has been reported or observed for Canadian
gurus Dempsey, Lavigne, Belanger, Menard, and Lindsay.
 OPCA gurus and community members sometimes are ‘legal busybodies’ who attempt to
introduce themselves into other proceedings. This Court’s experience has been that kind of
participation consistently leads to further issues. Worse, there may be a potential resolution
masked by that intervention. For example, a Moorish Law advocate, Sean Henry, has acted to
represent his mother in a credit card debt collection proceeding. Henry’s conduct, described in
more detail below, is exceptionally problematic.
 The initial hearings to address this matter were entirely unsuccessful. Henry was then
arrested. At the subsequent hearing before Belzil J. it was discovered that the mother was not
only entirely willing to pay her outstanding debt, but had an investment account which she
suggested could provide those funds. For whatever reason, the mother had not been willing to
communicate those facts while her son, an OPCA litigant, was present. One can only guess at
how many other conflicts might be resolved, were it not for interference of this kind.
C. OPCA Litigants
 In this Court’s experience, there are no stereotypic OPCA litigants. They may be of any
age or gender. Some are affluent, while others are not. Canadian caselaw reports OPCA concepts
advanced by professionals, ‘blue collar’ workers, business persons, and retired individuals. Some
travel in groups, while others appear to operate by themselves.
 This Court has observed that some OPCA litigants appear to suffer from cognitive or
psychological disorders, however one should not presume those conditions from the presence of
OPCA arguments and concepts. Similarly, bizarre in-court conduct does not necessarily mean
these persons suffer from that kind of disorder. Anomalous behaviour may instead reflect the
‘rules’ of an OPCA strategy and script.
 The motivation to adopt an OPCA approach varies. Certain OPCA litigants are clearly
undergoing some kind of stress, such as:
• foreclosure on a home (Borkovic v. Laurentian Bank of Canada, 2001 BCSC
337 at para. 15, 103 A.C.W.S. (3d) 700; Bank of Montreal v. McCance, 2012
• a bankruptcy (R. v. Sydel, 2006 BCPC 346);
• disputes over child and spousal support (Hajdu v. Ontario (Director, Family
Reponsibility Office), 2012 ONSC 1835; Callaghan v. McCaw; C.C. v. J.M.,
2010 SKQB 79, 351 Sask.R. 55);
• deportation (Shakes v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness),
2011 CanLII 60494 (I.R.B.)); or
• in response to large debts (Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union, 2006 BCSC 1324,
60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309; Gravlin et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
et al, 2005 BCSC 839, 140 A.C.W.S. (3d) 447).
 Other times, OPCA litigation may be linked to some distressing event, such as a parent’s
losing custody of a child. This may be the case for Mr. Meads, as he seems intensely dissatisfied
with the end of his marriage.
 Other OPCA litigants are simply scammers out for a quick buck: Mercedes-Benz
Financial v. Kovacevic,  O.J. No. 783, 2009 CanLII 9368 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); MBNA
Canada Bank v. Luciani, 2011 ONSC 6347. A substantial amount of OPCA litigation seems to
revolve on comparative trivialities, such as parking tickets: Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v.
Bydeley, 2010 ONCJ 740 at para. 46, affirmed 2011 ONCJ 842, affirmed  O.J. No. 6282
(QL) (Ont. C.A.); Sydorenko v. Manitoba, 2012 MBQB 42; R. v. Kaasgaard, 2011 MBQB 256.
 OPCA litigants sometimes call themselves students of the law. That is a sham; their
interest goes no further than finding the proverbial “Gotcha!” exception or loophole that they can
spring to defeat state and court authority, see for example the Porisky Trial Decision and R. v.
Sydel, 2006 BCPC 346.
 Courts have commonly rejected claims by OPCA litigants that their actions were in good
faith or innocent. R. v. Sydel, 2006 BCPC 346 provides a good example. The reason for that
result is illustrated in Judge Meyer’s review at para. 20 of evidence that led him to dismiss a
dentist’s claim she had a reasonable basis to believe the validity of OPCA Detaxer concepts:
At the tax seminars most of the lecturers used aliases, as opposed to their real
names. ... She did not regard this as suspicious or unusual, even though one of the
lecturers went by the alias, “Sir Larry Loophole”. How could an intelligent, well
educated, worldly, 39 year old professional, not be suspicious?
At the beginning of each of the five lectures presented by Mr. Porisky, the
following caution was given: “In no way should this be construed as either legal
or financial advice. You should consult a competent expert”. Mr. Porisky frankly
told the attendees at his lectures that “I am in the building trade. I am not a
lawyer. I can’t give legal advice. I am not an accountant. I can’t give accounting
or financial advice. I am just a guy banging nails”. He also said, ‘I strongly
recommend you consult a competent expert on this subject matter”.
Dr. Sydel knew that each and every lecturer was not a tax lawyer or tax
accountant. Every lecturer was “up front” about their lack of accreditation.
Nonetheless, they talked about the law, the statutes, the interpretation of the law
and the statues, they discussed court cases and reported court judgments. Dr.
Sydel accepted their views as “experts” who were imparting accurate information
and opinions as to what the Canadian law was. She said that she could not recall
if she questioned any of the lecturers during the seminars, she said that she did
not research any court cases they referred to, she did not go “on line” or to the law
library. She was told that there were decided and reported legal cases throughout
Canada relating to the issues under discussion. To not have read any of these
cases for herself, or even so much as to ask the lecturers for copies of the cases
they said were directly on point, is evidence of her wilful blindness.
Dr. Sydel asked her father to attend one of the tax lectures with her. He walked
out in the middle of the lecture. She testified that she didn’t ask him why. She
did say though, that her father and her sister became “estranged” as a result of
disagreements over her views regarding taxation. Dr. Elmajian testified that he
had told Dr. Sydel on one occasion that he thought that “she was being
brainwashed by a bunch of losers who don’t work”. These were two or three key
people in her life and yet, their contrary views still did not cause her to seek some
independent tax advice. ...
 It appears this is not atypical. The justices of this Court routinely encounter OPCA
litigants who seem quite willing to ‘pull the wool over their own eyes’.
 What is crucial is to understand that an OPCA litigant in court is likely operating under
instructions obtained from a commercial source, and has been told to conduct and frame his or
her court activities in an unnatural, incorrect, and distorted context. The litigant is instructed to
follow a script that is, in all probability illogical, and certainly contrary to law. The OPCA
litigant may not be able to explain his or her actions for the very same reason that a judge is
confused by the documents, submissions, and in-court conduct they provide. Neither really
understands what is going on, but for different reasons.
D. OPCA Movements
 The OPCA community includes a number of subsets that I will call ‘movements’. Each
movement includes persons who have adopted similar alternative histories, and hold generally
compatible beliefs. Different movements in many instances use exactly the same OPCA
strategies. Members of a movement will often attend one another’s court appearances. They
appear to engage in considerable ‘lateral’ discourse, and often seem to be, at a minimum, social
 The first OPCA movement to appear in Canada were the “Detaxers”. These OPCA
litigants focussed almost entirely on avoiding income tax obligations. Porisky, Lindsay, Lavigne,
and Warman are or were some of the gurus in this community.
 The Detaxer movement has employed a very wide assortment of OPCA strategies over
the past decade, all without success. Lindsay, in particular, appears to have been an innovator
and the source of many Canadian OPCA strategies. Lavigne and Warman’s litigation history
illustrates how Detaxers may have either ‘left wing’ or ‘right wing’ leanings. In recent years this
court has observed fewer true Detaxers, no doubt in part due to the failure of Lindsay’s many
court actions and the ongoing prosecution of members in the Porisky tax evasion ring.
 Many Detaxers were professionals or business persons with substantial incomes: R. v.
Klundert (2004), 242 D.L.R. (4th) 644, 190 O.A.C. 36 (Ont. C.A.), leave refused 
S.C.C.A. No. 463; R. v. Klundert, 2008 ONCA 767 at para. 19, 93 O.R. (3d) 81, leave denied
 S.C.C.A. No. 522; R. v. Amell, 2010 SKPC 107, 361 Sask.R. 61; R. v. Turnnir, 2006
BCPC 460; Turnnir v. The Queen, 2011 TCC 495; R. v. Sydel, 2006 BCPC 346. Meads appears
to share that characteristic from the data before the court. Other Canadian OPCA movements
seem to emerge from a lower income and/or occupational and employment context.
 The Freemen-on-the-Land are a comparatively newer movement. From reported caselaw,
individuals who self-identify with this movement appear active across Canada. The
membership’s focus is strongly anti-government, and has libertarian and right wing overtones.
Christian rhetoric is common. Menard is a guru in this movement.
 It appears the Freemen are a Canadian innovation, which I understand has spread to other
common-law jurisdictions, including the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, see for example:
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Rana,  FCA 374; Glew v. White,
 WASCA 138; Van den Hoorn v Ellis,  QDC 451. I am unclear whether Canada
has returned the favour and this group has established itself in south of the 49th parallel.
 Stated simply, Freemen-on-the-Land believe they can ‘opt out’ of societal obligations
and do as they like: Harper v. Atchison, 2011 SKQB 38 at paras. 6, 15, 369 Sask.R. 134; R. v.
McCormick, 2012 NSCA 58 at paras. 19, 21; R. v. McCormick, 2012 NSSC 288 at paras. 28-32.
A common theme in Freeman arguments is that state and court action requires the target’s
consent, for example: Jabez Financial Services Inc. (Receiver of) v. Sponagle, 2008 NSSC 112
at para. 14, 264 N.S.R. (2d) 224.
 Alarmingly, certain members of the Freeman-on-the-Land movement believe they have
an unrestricted right to possess and use firearms. That has led in at least once instance to a
Freeman-on-the-Land being found with a concealed unauthorized handgun; that Freeman-onthe-
Land threatened to use the weapon on law enforcement personnel: R. v. McCormick, 2012
NSCA 58 at paras. 19, 21; R. v. McCormick, 2012 NSSC 288. In that, and many other ways, the
Freemen-on-the-Land parallel the American Sovereign Man community. Both engage in a broad
range of OPCA activities directed towards almost any government or social obligation. Both
habitually use ‘fee schedules’, and advance claims and liens against state, police, and court
actors. Many apply the ‘everything is a contract’ approach and so are extremely uncooperative,
in and out of court.
3. Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens
 The Sovereign Man / Sovereign Citizen movement is the chief U.S. OPCA community.
Several reported Ontario decisions document court interactions with self-identified Sovereign
Men. This court has had a limited exposure to Sovereign Men, most notably being a lawsuit
advanced by Glenn Winningham [“Winningham”] (usually self-styled as “Glenn Winningham:
House of Fearn”): Winningham v. Canada (30 November 2010) Lethbridge 1006 00907 (Alta.
Q.B.), leave to appeal denied (Alta. C.A.).
 I was a defendant in this action, along with Canada, Alberta, many police officers, the
Prime Minister, government ministers, the Lieutenant and Governor Generals, and Alberta Court
of Queen’s Bench Chief Justice Wittmann. The action alleged broad conspiracy and misconduct
by Canadian state actors. A chief complaint by Winningham, who is a self-declared member of
the “Republic of Texas”, is that Canada Customs had refused to admit him into Canada with his
firearms. This was followed by a number of confrontations with Lethbridge area peace officers,
particularly at traffic stops.
 Winningham’s documents claim he is not subject to Canadian law on ‘everything is a
contract’ and ‘courts apply admiralty law’ bases. He also claimed ‘governments’ are only
corporations. The allegations and rhetoric in his court submissions express a perspective that is
1 have tried to use administrative procedure against these criminals, but they
don’t get the message, so this is the message. If they want to perjure their oaths of
office and engage in TREASON and SEDITION, and BREACH OF TRUST, and
other crimes to numerous to list, against Me, that they BETTER be prepared to go
ALL THE WAY, and MURDER Me as well, because by the time I am done
with them, (I will do it all within the law), they will wish they had MURDERED
Me. It is My patriotic duty to come after them to My last dying breath, and I will
file commercial liens against them, I will liquidate their bonds, I will file criminal
complaints against them and their bosses, I will seize their assets, and I will not
rest until I see them do that little dance they do at the end of a common law rope,
and even then, in the next life, I will be DEMANDING Justice before the
judgment BAR of God, to make sure they get to spend the rest of eternity
receiving their just reward. Also, after I am dead and gone on to the next life,
because this is on the record, these criminals will be hunted down, just like the
NAZI war criminals that are still hunted down this day.
Furthermore, these criminals are hereby put on NOTICE that with criminals like
them in this world, I have a DEATH wish, because this world is NOT big enough
for both of us, so go ahead and make MY day, the sooner I am out of here the
better, and I shall exercise My God given RIGHT to resist their unlawful arrest
with lethal fource, if necessary, and then they will have an excuse to MURDER
Me, so go ahead criminals, MAKE MY DAY!
 My part in the conspiracy was to “... shove ... foreign martial law jurisdiction down the
throats of all of the people ...” as an excuse to “... bring out [my] martial law shock troops and
really "kick some ass!"” This would alienate the populace from the Queen and trigger a coup
 Langston J. struck Winningham’s action on, among other things, that the defendants had
acted in various nefarious and treasonous ways, and refused Winningham’s demand for $1
billion in damages. American courts have similarly rejected Winningham’s claims. His action in
Winningham v. Schulman (30 December 2009) District of Columbia 09 2435 was dismissed as
A complaint that describes fantastic or delusional scenarios is subject to
immediate dismissal. ... Moreover, a complaint may be dismissed as frivolous
when it lacks "an arguable basis in law and fact." ... This complaint appears to
lack an arguable basis in either law or fact, and may reflect delusional thinking.
Accordingly, this complaint will dismissed.
 Winningham’s perspective of state oppression and violent focus seems representative of
the Sovereign Man movement. In the United States, Sovereign Men are notorious for their
violent conduct, intimidation of state and court personnel, and their misuse of legal processes to
engage in “paper terrorism”: Robert Chamberlain & Donald P. Haider-Markel, “"Lien on Me":
State Policy Innovation in Response to Paper Terrorism” (2005) 58 Political Research Quarterly,
pp. 449-460; Erick J. Haynie, “Populism, Free Speech, and the Rule of Law: The "Fully
Informed" Jury Movement and Its Implications” (1997) 88 The Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology pp. 343-379; Susan P. Koniak “When Law Risks Madness” (1996) 8 Cardozo
Studies in Law and Literature, pp. 65-138. The FBI classifies Sovereign Men as a domestic
 A court that encounters what appears to be a genuine Sovereign Man / Sovereign Citizen
may wish to take additional security precautions.
4. The Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International [“CERI”]
 The Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International [“CERI”] is an Edmonton area
OPCA group, apparently headed by Belanger. This Court has extensive exposure to CERI and its
 First and foremost, CERI is a ‘pot church’. Like the pot churches reported in R. v.
Baldasaro, 2009 ONCA 676, 265 O.A.C. 75, R. v. Baldasaro,  O.T.C. 134, 68 W.C.B.
(2d) 787 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.), affirmed 216 O.A.C. 68, 213 C.C.C. (3d) 89 (Ont. C.A.), leave
refused  S.C.C.A. No. 474, and Tucker v. Canada; Baldasaro v. Canada, 2003 FC 1008,
239 F.T.R. 81, Belanger and CERI claim that marijuana is a lynchpin element of the Christian
religion, and its use is mandated by the Bible, specifically the King James Bible. CERI’s
membership otherwise appear to hold “left wing” and anti-capitalist views. Most members seem
to belong to a low income demographic.
 Some CERI members were involved in an earlier (unsuccessful) attempt to claim a
religious right to use marijuana: R. v. Fehr, 2004 ABQB 859, 368 A.R. 122. At that point they
defined themselves as “Reformed Druids”. In the present CERI members could be classified as
King James Bible literalists. This Court therefore may have been witness to the cusp of the
transformation (or conversion) of CERI from faith to faith, as in R. v. Fehr the “reformed
druids” interpreted Exodus 30:23 as the basis for their claim: paras. 20-21.
 CERI’s members generally reject state and court authority. Many of CERI’s arguments
have religious trappings. CERI members have been encountered in all manner of proceedings.
CERI members have adopted the ‘everything is a contract’ concept, and frequently argue ‘magic
hat’ (discussed below) exceptions to the law. For example, a CERI member has recently in
Alberta Provincial Court argued that her car was not subject to motor vehicle legislation because
it is an “ecclesiastical pursuit chariot”. CERI members subscribe to the ‘double/split person’
concept, but attempt to detach themselves from their associated “corporate entity”.
 Documents filed by CERI-associated litigants are unusually haphazard, even by OPCA
documentary materials standards. In most instances they are clearly ‘cut and paste’ assemblies of
other parent documents.
 CERI’s membership is in frequent conflict with police, judges, and government officials.
They file private criminal offence informations for “obstructing or violence to or arrest of
officiating clergyman”, Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 176. CERI’s members had at
least some contact with Winningham; CERI members witnessed his court materials. I have
discussed how Belanger and several other CERI members recently attempted to disrupt a familyoriented
public education event held at the Edmonton Courts.
5. Moorish Law
 Edmonton is home to Sean Henry (typically styled “:Chief : Nanya-Shaabu: El: of the Atsik-
hata Nation of Yamassee Moors”, or less commonly, “Sean Henry Bey”), one of Canada’s
very few Moorish Law OPCA litigants. He has frequently appeared in this Court.
 The exotic nature of the Moorish Law movement and its claims warrant some comment,
as casual exposure to a Moorish Law litigant may lead an observer to suspect mental impairment
or disorder. The Moorish Law community is a predominately American offshoot of urban
American black muslim churches such as a Nation of Islam. They claim that black muslims who
self-identify as “Moors” are not subject to state or court authority because they are governed by
separate law, or are the original inhabitants of North and South America.
 In the case of Henry, he claims that the At-sik-hata Nation owns North America (now
renamed “Atlan, Amexem, Turtle Island, Land of Frogs”) as a result of his treaty with the Olmec
people, an early culture that existed in meso-America from 1500-400 B.C. and who are noted for
their large sculptures of human heads. Justice Sanderman of our court, who had reviewed the
documentary foundation of Henry’s many claims observed:
...it would be an affront to the dignity of this Court and an affront to the dignity of
any Court to allow a document such as this to stand and to force individuals to
come to court to have to answer this, as I say, just absolute gibberish.
[Henry Estate v. Alberta Health Services, 2011 ABQB 113, quoting a related
 Henry claims his ownership of Canada renders him immune to court and state action, but
also applies many other OPCA strategies such as ‘magic hats’, foisted unilateral agreements, and
a variant on the ‘A4V’ ‘money for nothing’ concept.
 Henry apparently spent some time in the United States and attempted to apply those
concepts. United States of America v. Nanya Shaabu El, a/k/a Sean Wesley Henry (25 April
2008), 06-5197 (U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals) confirmed conviction of Henry for false
claims of diplomat status, and rejected Henry’s argument that because he had claimed to be a
diplomat for a non-existent state, “Atlan”, he could not have committed that offence.
 Though it may seem unlikely to many readers, Henry is not alone in his peculiar beliefs.
Shakes v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 CanLII 60494 (I.R.B.)
reports on another Moorish Law OPCA litigant who claimed to be named “El Afif Hassan
Hetep-Bey”. In this action the litigant resisted a deportation order of the Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada, Immigration Appeal Division. Para. 10 describes the litigant’s
The attached seven pages consisted of a colour photocopy of was purports to be
“The Moorish American Nationality Card” of a certain El Afif Hassan Hetep-Bey
at page 1. Pages 2 through 7 purport to be a “Judicial Notice and Proclamation”
signed by El Afif Hassan Hetep-Bey on January 5, 2010, in which he makes
certain claims to title, rights and privileges, on the basis of his being a “Noble of
the Al Moroccan Empire.” Written in legalese and citing various statutes of the
United States, international treaties and covenants and extensive US case law, the
documents purports to deny the jurisdiction of the governments of the Americas
over the members of the Al Moroccan Empire, and in particular, El Afif Hassan
Hetep-Bey, and to establish him and other members as sovereign entities.
 The decision at paras. 14-18 reviews other documents received, including “a "Writ of
Right" constituting "Notice of Default Judgement"”, rejection of the Immigration Appeal
Division as not authorized by American law, and a “Claim of Right, Appellation/Name
Correction, Pursuant to Indigenous Nationality & Aboriginal Citizenship” whereby Kiba Kerry
Nicholas Shakes renounced his name, in favour of the name El Afif Hassan Hetep-Bey.
 The litigant was ordered deported, and a subsequent appeal, with counsel, was denied.
The Board concluded at para. 32:
Now, a reasonable person, viewing the various documents submitted by the
appellant, in the name of “El Afif Hassan Hetep-Bey” could reasonably be
expected to conclude that he was mad and delusional. However, from reading
these documents it is abundantly clear to the panel that the appellant is not mad
although he might be self-delusional. Rather, the appellant is apparently making
a political statement.
6. Conclusion - OPCA Movements
 There are likely additional OPCA movements in Canada other than those identified
above. Some may be local, such as CERI, and are therefore not known to Alberta courts. Others
may be ‘below the radar’. Members of this Court report to me that they have encountered a
significant number of OPCA litigants who do not self-identify with a known OPCA movement,
or who, like Mr. Meads, do not have a known guru. Other movements will most probably
emerge over time.
 It is useful for a judge to know an OPCA litigant is associated with an organization,
movement or guru. That, at a minimum, implies organized application and distribution of a set of
OPCA concepts and beliefs, probably on a commercial basis. Useful movement-specific data
includes the stereotypic strategies of that movement, any known movement gurus, and typical
responses to court and state action by persons affiliated with that movement. Moveover,
members of the OPCA community have proven violent; always an important fact.