COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF ALBERTA CITATION: MEADS V. MEADS, 2012 ABQB 571 PART 1

Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice.
Force, and fraud, are in war the two cardinal virtues.
...
The laws are of no power to protect them, without a sword in the hands of a man, or men, to
cause those laws to be put in execution.
...
And law was brought into the world for nothing else but to limit the natural liberty of particular
men in such manner as they might not hurt, but assist one another, and join together against a
common enemy.
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Forgotten Books, 2008), at pp. 87, 147, 184
I. Introduction to Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [“OPCA”] Litigants
[1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious
litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or
groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given
by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land;
Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International
(CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels - there is no closed list. In the absence of a better
moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument
litigants [“OPCA litigants”], to functionally define them collectively for what they literally are.
These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by ‘gurus’
(as hereafter defined) to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of
governments, corporations, and individuals.
[2] Over a decade of reported cases have proven that the individual concepts advanced by
OPCA litigants are invalid. What remains is to categorize these schemes and concepts, identify
global defects to simplify future response to variations of identified and invalid OPCA themes,
and develop court procedures and sanctions for persons who adopt and advance these vexatious
litigation strategies.
[3] One participant in this matter, the Respondent Dennis Larry Meads, appears to be a
sophisticated and educated person, but is also an OPCA litigant. One of the purposes of these
Reasons is, through this litigant, to uncover, expose, collate, and publish the tactics employed by
the OPCA community, as a part of a process to eradicate the growing abuse that these litigants
direct towards the justice and legal system we otherwise enjoy in Alberta and across Canada. I
will respond on a point-by-point basis to the broad spectrum of OPCA schemes, concepts, and
arguments advanced in this action by Mr. Meads.
2
[4] OPCA litigants do not express any stereotypic beliefs other than a general rejection of
court and state authority; nor do they fall into any common social or professional association.
Arguments and claims of this nature emerge in all kinds of legal proceedings and all levels of
Courts and tribunals. This group is unified by:
1. a characteristic set of strategies (somewhat different by group) that they employ,
2. specific but irrelevant formalities and language which they appear to believe are
(or portray as) significant, and
3. the commercial sources from which their ideas and materials originate.
This category of litigant shares one other critical characteristic: they will only honour state,
regulatory, contract, family, fiduciary, equitable, and criminal obligations if they feel like it. And
typically, they don’t.
[5] The Meads case illustrates many characteristic features of OPCA materials, in court
conduct, and litigation strategies. These Reasons will, therefore, explain my June 8, 2012
decision and provide analysis and reasoning that is available for reference and application to
other similar proceedings.
[6] Naturally, my conclusions are important for these parties. However, they also are
intended to assist others, who have been taken in/duped by gurus, to realize that these practices
are entirely ineffective; to empower opposing parties and their counsel to take action; and as a
warning to gurus that the Court will not tolerate their misconduct.
[7] As a preliminary note, I will throughout these Reasons refer to persons by their ‘normal’
names, except to illustrate various OPCA motifs and concepts. OPCA litigants frequently adopt
unusual variations on personal names, for example adding irrelevant punctuation, or using
unusual capital and lower case character combinations. While OPCA litigants and their gurus put
special significance on these alternative nomenclature forms, these are ineffectual in law and are
meaningless paper masks. Therefore, in these Reasons, I will omit spurious name forms, titles,
punctuation and the like.
II.The Present Litigation
[8] These Reasons relate to materials and arguments advanced by Dennis Larry Meads [“Mr.
Meads”] in and after a hearing on June 8, 2012 for appointment of a case management justice, as
authorized by Alberta Rules of Court, Alta. Reg. 124/2010, s. 4.11(c) [the “Rules”, or
individually a “Rule”]. The application was brought by Crystal Lynne Meads [“Ms. Meads”] in a
divorce and matrimonial property action against Mr. Meads initiated on January 11, 2011.
3
[9] I granted that application and appointed myself as the Case Management Justice. These
Reasons follow from that hearing and deal with materials that have been filed or submitted by
Mr. Meads.
[10] Mr. and Ms. Meads were married in 1980. They had six children. The Meads separated in
2010. At present two children are potential dependants. On March 18, 2011, Veit J. ordered
interim monthly child and spousal support payments from Mr. Meads. My understanding is that
to date Mr. Meads has generally honoured that obligation.
A. Prior Activity
[11] Review of the divorce file discloses a number of unusual documents filed by Mr. Meads:
February 15, 2011: Mr. Meads filed a one page notarized document, printed in black and
red ink, and marked with what may be a red thumb print. It also bears postage stamps in
three corners on front and back, and includes various declarations including that
“::dennis-larry:meads::” is a “living flesh and blood sentient-man”, a postmaster general,
and that Barb Petryk, a clerk of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, is appointed his
fiduciary and is liable for “all financial damages and bodily harm against myself ::dennislarry::
of the meads-family::”.
Mr. Meads then purports to “...do here and now Adjourn this instant matter until further
notice, from my office.”
March 3, 2011: Mr. Meads filed a second one page notarized document, in black, red,
orange, and blue ink. Again, it has unusual formalities such as a red thumb print. This
document is directed to “Audrey Hardwick/AUDREY HARDWICK BEING A
CORPORATE ENTITY”, and in part is a “Notice for a Cease and Desist” in “Enticement
in Slavery”, that threatens criminal charges, and “FULL COMMERCIAL LIABILITY
AND YOUR UNLIMITED CIVIL LIABILITY”. This one is signed “:::dennis-larry:: of
the meads-family:::”.
April 27, 2012: Ouellette J. authorized the simple filing of these materials by Mr. Meads
“... for the purposes of argument before the A.C.J. Rooke at the case conference” on June
8, 2012. This was a “Notice for an Order to Show Cause”, “Affidavit in Support of Order
to Show Cause”, “Order to Show Cause and Appear”, and “Affidavit in Support of Order
to Show Cause” filed by “::Dennis Larry:: on behalf of DENNIS LARRY MEADS
(juristic person)”.
The “Notice for an Order to Show Cause” states, “::Dennis Larry::” is “attorney in fact”
and seeks an order that Ms. Reeves (Ms. Meads counsel) be “... held in contempt for
violation of false claims made under penalty of perjury ...” and that Ms. Reeves has taken
on “... full responsibility/liability for CRYSTAL LYNNE MEADS the Debtor and
Grantor.”
4
The two “Affidavit in Support of Order to Show Cause” documents restate the claims
that Barb Petryk has a fiduciary obligation to Mr. Meads, quote part of the March 18,
2011 transcript before Justice Veit, and allege that Ms. Meads has not conformed to the
Veit order. Mr. Meads denies contact with Ms. Reeves and that he has been difficult. He
states Ms. Reeves has made “... an offer to Contract and/or Enticement of Slavery (Title
18 United States Code and/or Article 4 Universal Declaration of Human Rights) ...”, and
that Ms. Meads had “... voided/annulled the Marriage Contract by adulterous affair in
2011 ...” [sic]. Mr. Meads observes Ms. Meads has a share of “acuminated assets from
the Marriage Contract” [sic], a new home, training, and a job opportunity as a lab
technician. Mr. Meads says Ms. Meads has sent various messages that are “disturbing
communications” and quotes email messages that indicate conflict between the parties.
The February 15 document is attached to the April 27 materials.
B. The June 8, 2012 Hearing
[12] Mr. Meads and Ms. Reeves appeared before me on June 8, 2012. Ms. Reeves explained
that Mr. Meads had generally conformed to the terms of Justice Veit’s March 18, 2011 Order,
but that he had not disclosed financial records to calculate interim child and spousal support
amounts. She also indicated that she was experiencing problems in moving this litigation
forward as a consequence of unorthodox documentation from Mr. Meads. She had difficulty
communicating with Mr. Meads, and asked the Court to appoint a case management justice to
facilitate that process.
[13] Mr. Meads commenced his submissions by noting that he was not Dennis Meads, the
“corporate identity”, but was present as Dennis Larry Meads, “a flesh and blood man”. He said
this Court is “a house of law.”
[14] I explained the nature of case management and asked as to his position on that. He did
not object, but wanted to talk about his own Motion, the April 27 documents, rather than Ms.
Reeves’ point of interest.
[15] Mr. Meads launched into an explanation of a number of things. He said that when he was
born, he was given a register of birth, “a corporate identity”, bonded and registered in the Bank
of Canada and in the state stock exchange, and that registration had an imputed income.
[16] When Mr. Meads married Ms. Meads, he said he was told he required a marriage license
to avoid commission of incest, but he has subsequently learned, from Black’s Law Dictionary,
that a licence is an authorization to do something that is otherwise illegal. But, Mr. Meads said,
he is only subject to God’s Law, the “Maximus of Law”, and the Bible indicates that adultery is
the sole basis to dissolve a marriage. In this case, he alleged that Ms. Meads had committed
adultery with his brother-in-law, and that she had broken the contract of marriage by that
adultery - that is God’s law - the remainder is man’s law, statute law: which does not affect or
apply to Mr. Meads.
5
[17] Mr. Meads rejected the assertion that he had a legal obligation to pay spousal and child
support, though he did so on his own accord. Further, he had identified to Ms. Meads and her
lawyer (and myself) a method to access a huge amount of money that was attached to his
“corporate identity” via his birth certificate. That could pay his child and spousal support
obligations. Mr. Meads said he had provided the documentation to pursue that avenue, but Ms.
Meads and her lawyers had not done so.
[18] Mr. Meads asserted that he has done nothing wrong; he has committed no criminal
offence; nothing that Ms. Meads’ lawyers have sought is mandatory; Ms. Meads has her 50%
share of the marriage corporate entity; and his ongoing payments to Ms. Meads have purchased a
new home for her and her partner, an RCMP officer.
[19] Mr. Meads, at this point and later, provided his position concerning potential issues in
dispute. Ms. Meads was concerned that a part of his reported income were RRSP withdrawals.
Mr. Meads explained that amount was a living allowance he received for travelling to work away
from home, a legitimate expense that is not a part of personal income for support calculations.
Mr. Meads also alleged that his wife had received training as a laboratory technician, but had not
pursued that career as she did not like the work.
[20] Mr. Meads also explained why he discontinued child support payments after one of his
children had her 18th birthday. He explained that several of his older children have attended and
been successful in post-secondary education, but that he and his wife believed that a child should
pay for their own education. He saw no reason to treat this now adult child differently. That said,
the Meads had assisted their older children during their studies, when necessary, and Mr. Meads
reaffirmed he would do the same for the daughter who was now about to enter post-secondary
education.
[21] In his opinion, Ms. Meads had already received a fair share of the matrimonial property.
She had taken the bulk of his silver bullion, and $250,000.00 from a joint bank account.
[22] Mr. Meads then said:
I do not want to be enticed into slavery, sir. She contacts me, her other lawyer
contacted me, they are enticing me into contract. And I do not want to go there. I
just want to be left alone. Give me a divorce.
...
I speak passionately when I talk, but I am not angry. I want you to understand
that. My voice is raised. That is the emotional side of me that is coming out. I am
not mad or angry. I want to make that clear as well.
You sir, are the judge in this matter. And so I, Dennis Larry Meads, being a flesh
and blood man, and as the creditor and beneficiary for and the private record, do
here nominate and appoint you, Judge Rooke, fiduciary trustee liable under your
6
full commercial liability, and your unlimited civil liability capacities, for my full
protection and benefit as a de jure court.
For the record, I, Dennis Larry Meads, and for the record a child of the almighty
God Jehovah, and not a child of the state. For the lord and saviour Jesus the Christ
is my spiritual advocate and in this instant matter at hand, and that God’s laws
rule supreme in my life and this court, and I, Dennis Larry Meads, being a flesh
and blood man pray that the judge, you sir Mr. Rooke, Justice Rooke, and court
follows this claim in God’s law, and if they should they decide not to they should
make the claim right now that they are above God’s law and prove beyond the
breath they let out pray again that the almighty God, all of us and protect us all,
will abide with us in his laws.
[23] After hearing submissions from the parties I concluded that case management would be
appropriate in this instance, and appointed myself to that task. I noted that this Court will apply
the laws of Canada, and explained to Mr. Meads the basic aspects of child and spousal support,
matrimonial property division, and the mutual and reciprocal obligations for disclosure in family
law proceedings, including disclosure that he may seek from Ms. Meads.
[24] Mr. Meads then asked me “about the sign above my head”, which is the Royal Coat of
Arms of Canada, and declared:
This is an admiral court, your jurisdiction is on water, it’s not on land; I am a
freeman on the land, and for you to play down some of the statements I am
making is not acceptable unless you prove it to me in law, and just saying it to me
is nothing.
[25] He complained that he had asked Ms. Reeves to provide her bond and license to practice
law, but had not received that, and continued:
But I do sir want to work with law, and not statutes and rules that have come up
from man over time. I understand they work for the bulk of the people, but ... I’m
representing myself and what I speak about I believe in. There are rules above
man’s rules, and God’s laws is where your laws originated from, so let’s go back
to the Maximus, and deal with it as quickly as possible.
[26] Mr. Meads stated that his birth certificate has an associated bond with large amounts of
money that could easily discharge in full the claims advanced by Ms. Meads. He said this Court
could order that payment. He then attempted to provide me with an envelope, presumably
containing documents. Mr. Meads said the contents of the envelope had been “filed
internationally”: a UCC filing, a Canadian filing, a commercial security agreement, an identity
bond, “actual and constructive notices”, hold harmless and identity agreements, non-negotiable
security agreements, an affidavit of his status, a copyright and trade-mark of his name contract,
and definitions of the words used in those documents. “UCC” means the “Uniform Commercial
Code”, which is U.S. commercial legislation.
7
[27] I refused the envelope, and noted that if the envelope was abandoned then I would put
those materials in the garbage. I reassured Mr. Meads that I will apply the laws of Alberta and
Canada, and that while he is in Court, he will follow the Court’s rules. Mr. Meads’ reply was that
was “unacceptable”, and he claimed that the “UCC” is “universal law”.
[28] It appeared to me that it would be possible to sever the divorce and have that proceed, but
there remained issues to address, specifically spousal and child support, and division of
matrimonial property. It is generally my personal practice not to sever while such collateral, but
important, matters remain unresolved. I asked Ms. Reeves to explain what disclosure she
required, which amounted to 2010 and 2011 tax returns, certain employment pay and
compensation information, as well as information in relation to Mr. Meads’ investments,
including the precious metals he personally owns.
[29] Mr. Meads explained he has yet to file his 2010 and 2011 income tax returns, and he did
acknowledged that was a task he needed to address. He promised to provide that information by
September 1, 2012.
[30] After informing Mr. Meads about the Court’s contempt authority, I reassured him that I
want to assist him and Ms. Meads to move forward, separate their affairs, and allow each to live
on their own. There were still issues to explore, but that I would assist. Mr. Meads responded in
this manner:
Mr. Meads: A lot of things have happened today that I need to wrap my mind around.
The one thing that comes out to me loud and clear is you’re treating the
person Dennis Meads with all of these statements, and not the living soul.
You are enticing me into slavery ...
The Court: I am going to let someone else deal with your living soul. I’m just going to
deal with your person.
Mr. Meads: Alright, then that’s your responsibility, because you created it.
[31] He asserted he was willing to go to jail, but as he is “flesh and blood” he is free from the
“mumbo jumbo that is law”. Mr. Meads alleged that an emergency protection order to which he
is subject was the result of a trap, and his wife had been coached by the RCMP to spring that
trap. He rejected the system into which he is pushed, and indicated that my statements are
directed to a “corporate entity” created by the government.
[32] I reassured Mr. Meads that I did not want to put him into jail, but would do so if
necessary. His recourse to my decisions is an appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal. Conversely,
Mr. Meads could apply and the Court would order disclosure from Ms. Meads to learn the fate of
the $250,000.00 and silver bullion that he alleges Ms. Meads possesses.
8
[33] This led to a final statement by Mr. Meads. He asserted the Bible is the “Maximus of
Law” and is the binding basis of all law, and said:
You are enticing me again to ask her to disclose $250,000, you are trying to bring me
into this court proceeding that I have no desire to get into.
[34] Mr. Meads then left the courtroom before the completion of the hearing. He abandoned
the envelope he had attempted to provide to me. The envelope was put in the trash by the Clerk.
[35] My “Conditions and Guidelines of Case Management” [“Conditions and Guidelines”]
were sent to Mr. Meads on June 13, 2012. Part of those instructions was that in these
proceedings Mr. Meads was not to correspond with the Court, except to either:
1. propose an application, or
2. to request a case management conference.
[36] Though I will later return to this hearing at various points in these Reasons, I will now
briefly outline my understanding of the meaning of certain of Mr. Meads’ actions and
statements:
1. Mr. Meads clearly subscribes to the OPCA concept that he has two aspects, what
I later discuss as the ‘double/split person’ concept. The German folk term
“doppelganger”, a kind of paranormal double, is a useful concept to describe this
curious duality. Mr. Meads labels one aspect as a “person” or “corporate entity”
while the other is his “flesh and blood” form.
2. Mr. Meads also subscribes to the theory that almost any interaction with the court
or state can result in a binding contract. That is why he was so apprehensive about
accepting my proposal to order disclosure from Ms. Meads - that apparently
benign act would allegedly bind him in contract to this Court’s authority.
3. The reference to Admiralty Law relates to an OPCA concept that there are two
kinds of law, “common law” and “admiralty law”, and Mr. Meads rejected
application of the latter to himself.
4. The discussion of the alleged source of funds to discharge his child and spousal
support obligations, a bank account related to his birth certificate, indicates Mr.
Meads has advanced a ‘money for nothing’ scheme called “A4V”.
These are all, of course, nonsense.
C. Subsequent Developments
9
[37] On June 19 and 21, 2012 the Court received two effectively identical sets of documents
sent by Mr. Meads. One was addressed to me, the second to the Chief Court Clerk. These were
not filed with the Court.
[38] These documents generally match Mr. Meads’ verbal description of the abandoned
envelope’s contents. The June 19 and 21 materials were returned to Mr. Meads as they do not
represent an application for leave, supported by a draft application and supporting affidavit(s), as
required by my Conditions and Guidelines for Case Management. Further, they have no
application known to law. However, copies were retained.
[39] The first document is a letter with multicoloured text (that facet I do not reproduce). It is
addressed in this manner:
SECURED PARTY CREDITOR is ::Dennis-Larry:Meads::
FIDUCIARY-TRUSTEE-LIABLE is “Associate Chief Justice” J.D. Rooke
[40] Summarizing this document, it thanks me for accepting appointment as “FIDUCIARYTRUSTEE-
LIABLE” on June 8, 2012. It then appoints me:
... with the Fiduciary-Trustee-Liable Position with the highest and with the
greatest-level for the care in the equity and in the Law and is with the
expectation that-is that-you being the Fiduciary-Trustee-Liable are Duty-Bound
for the utmost-case and protection for the living flesh and blood sentient - man,
::Dennis-Larry:Meads:: who is the creation for the Lord God Almighty Jehovah
with whom you owe the duty (the “principal” qui facit per alium, facit per se):
you, “Associate Chief Justice” J.D. Rooke must not place your personal
interests before the duty, and must not profit in your position as the Fiduciary-
Trustee, unless the principal gives you consent in the written-format. [sic,
emphasis in original]
If I believed that Mr. Meads acted sincerely (which I do not), I would conclude Mr. Meads
misapprehended the scope of the responsibility and authority of a case management justice.
However, this, instead, seems to be a kind of OPCA document that purports to unilaterally foist a
particularly impressive sounding string of gibberish obligations upon me.
[41] The letter then instructs, “under the guidance and direction with the Almighty God
Jehovah watching over us through His Son and Reigning King Jesus Christ”, that I use the
attached documents to do the following:
• ... for the completion and carrying-out for the full protection and benefit
for the ::Dennis-Larry: Meads:: and for the children of the union with the
full-written-text/report for the “Instant-Matter-In-The-Hand” at the end
of the every-month till the end for the contract with the child of the union,.
10
• One time Lump Sum Payout (With-Out-Recourse) in the form of a bond
or other financial instrument from the Provincial-Registered-Estate for the
Persona DENNIS LARRY MEADS (juristic person) thru the Provincial-
Registered-Event in the PROVINCAIL BIRTH CERTIFICATE and/or
any other government(s) for the Canada Registered Event(s) - for the
make-whole for the Debtor CRYSTAL LYNNE MEADS and Michele J.
Reeves DRA MICHELE J. REEVES (PERSONA-AT-LAW-PERSONA)
• Debtor, being the CRYSTAL LYNNE MEADS and Michele J. Reeves
DBA contact via the any media with the living flesh and blood sentient -
man, ::Dennis-Larry:Meads:: and/or the DENNIS LARRY MEADS
(juristic person) and when-there is the claim for a breach face the
penalties as-is prescribed in the attached-documents.
• For the claim for the Divorce-Papers signed as the CRYSTAL LYNNE
MEADS, which does not abhor delay.
• For the claim for the Child-Support-Payments for the child in the Union,
[child #1] of $1000.00/ month. (When is for the claim for the habituation
with mother) till the full-age-eighteen years with the no-section-7-rules
application/begging, for the child being the [child #1] can/must dialogue
the her-needs as-is needed with the father with the new-arrangements
provision-in the written-format and fully-notarized and fullauthentication.
• Child-Support-Assistance for the child of the union being the [child #2]
as per the negotiation with her-earthly-father till the full-age being the
twenty-one (21) and being in the attendance in the post-education.
• And other useful-beneficial-information for the make and for the
keeping for the all parties-whole.
[sic, emphasis in original, some reformatting for clarity.]
[42] The remaining documents are:
1. a power of attorney where DENNIS LARRY MEADS grants general authority to
Dennis-Larry: Meads;
2. a UCC Financing Statement registered in Ohio for a Certificate of Birth;
3. a UCC search of “DENNIS LARRY MEADS, foreign situs cestui qui vie trust”;
4. a government of Alberta Personal Property Registry Verification Statement for
“DENNIS LARRY MEADS, foreign situs cestui qui vie trust” that lists as
11
collateral a birth certificate, social insurance number, UCC1 financing statement,
a certificate of marriage, an operator’s license, Canadian passport, and what I
believe are two court orders;
5. a commercial security agreement where DENNIS LARRY MEADS assumes all
debts and obligations of Dennis-Larry:Meads, while granting Dennis-
Larry:Meads all his property;
6. an “Actual and Constructive Notice” from Dennis-Larry: Meads to the Bank of
Canada that “accepts for value” enclosed documents in accordance with the
Uniform Commercial Code and the Bank of Canada Act to charge his “public
treasury”, which is identified by his social insurance number, for $100 billion
Canadian dollars or the equivalent in silver or gold;
7. a “Hold Harmless and Indemnify Agreement Non Negotiable Between the
Parties”, that DENNIS LARRY MEADS generally indemnifies Dennis-Larry:
Meads;
8. a ‘fee schedule’, which is a kind of document I will later discuss in more detail;
9. a document entitled “Notice to YOURFILINGCOUNTY County Register Of
Deeds Clerk”;
10. an “Affidavit of Political Status”, with “Grantor: DENNIS LARRY MEADS” and
“Grantee: Dennis-Larry: Meads”;
11. a “Copyright Trade-name/Trademark Contract” between DENNIS LARRY
MEADS and Dennis-Larry: Meads, the intellectual property subject being the
name Dennis Larry Meads, in various forms; and
12. a document that purports that anyone who uses “Dennis Larry Meads” (or
variations of that) owes Dennis-Larry: Meads $100 million per use of that.
[43] From a review of these documents, it appears that Mr. Meads is purporting to split
himself into two aspects. One gets his property and benefits, the other his debts and liabilities.
The ‘Mr. Meads with liabilities’ has entirely indemnified the ‘Mr. Meads with property’. He also
appears to instruct me and the Bank of Canada to use a secret bank account, with the same
number as his social insurance number or birth certificate, to pay all his child and spousal
support obligations, and provide him $100 billion in precious metals. Mr. Meads has also
purported to create various contractual obligations for those who might interact with him, or who
write or speak his name.
[44] This is, of course, nonsense. As I have noted to Mr. Meads, these materials have no force
or meaning in law, other than they indicate an intention on his part to evade his lawful
12
obligations and the authority of the Court and government. He is an OPCA litigant. That has
legal consequences for him, which these Reasons will explain.
D. The Purposes of These Reasons
[45] These Reasons have a number of purposes. The requests of both Mr. and Ms. Meads are
best met by a broad and comprehensive response. The scope and variety of Mr. Meads’ materials
and submissions touches on many related issues.
[46] Its context is also important. These Reasons sets the stage for an ongoing procedure -
case management of this file - and respond to a collection of issues that have emerged
immediately at the beginning that process. If not fully addressed, I believe the OPCA aspect of
this litigation will hamper successful resolution of Mr. and Ms. Meads’ divorce.
1. Ms. Meads
[47] Counsel for Ms. Meads, Ms. Reeves, sought case management because she cannot
meaningfully communicate with Mr. Meads. She explained she had attempted to engage in
mundane procedural steps, such as requests for disclosure, and instead received complex and
cryptic documents, demands, and threats. She turned to the Court for hands-on management
because she does not otherwise have an effective mechanism to deal with Mr. Meads, and his
OPCA strategies.
[48] These Reasons are intended to assist her, explain what she faces, and illustrate how this
and other Courts have responded to litigants who adopt and advance OPCA concepts and
strategies. I cast these Reasons broadly to help her both understand what she has already
encountered, but also to deal with developments in the ongoing litigation and case management
processes.
2. Mr. Meads
[49] These Reasons are also a response to Mr. Meads. He clearly plans to frame his entire
divorce action in an OPCA context. He arrived in court with that intention. That was the only
‘issue’ on which he wanted to respond. Since the June 8 hearing I have seen no evidence that Mr.
Meads intends to abandon his strategies to defeat Court authority and his child and spousal
support obligations.
[50] I was explicit on June 8 that I considered Mr. Meads’ OPCA submissions and claims
irrelevant, yet he has persisted. At that hearing he announced that my decision was
“unacceptable”, and has subsequently acted in defiance of my explicit instructions that he only
communicate with the Court to propose an application or to request a case management
conference. He said he would not voluntarily put himself under the Court’s authority, denied the
Court had any lawful hold over him, and left.
13
[51] Mr. Meads did not accept the result of the June 8 hearing, and proceeded to send
additional documentation to the Court and myself. His intention to employ OPCA concepts and
defy my instructions is very clear in his June 19 and 21 cover letters. He demands that I act on
his behalf, using highly unusual and mandatory language.
[52] These Reasons are not merely a response to Mr. Meads’ in-court misconduct but also a
global response to the entire litigation strategy he has underway. There are no signs he has
decided to back down and adopt a more reasonable approach. From the file record and his
documents, he has been on this path for over a year and a half. I intend these Reasons to clearly
identify for him why it is time to change his approach.
3. A Broad Set of OPCA Concepts and Materials
[53] There is a third reason for a broad-based decision and analysis. It so happens that Mr.
Meads has provided a remarkable and well developed assortment of OPCA documents, concepts,
materials, and strategies. These materials also illustrate particular idiosyncrasies that this and
other Courts have identified as associated with the OPCA community and OPCA litigation.
Phrased differently, Mr. Meads’ materials and approach provide an ideal type specimen for
examination and commentary, which should be instructive to other OPCA litigants who have
been taken in by these ideas, opposing parties and their counsel, as well as gurus.
[54] Mr. Meads’ submissions also make an excellent subject for a global review of the law
concerning OPCA, the OPCA community and its gurus, and how the court, lawyers, and litigants
should respond to these vexatious practices and the persons who advance and advocate these
techniques and ideas. In this sense, the present case management allows the litigation between
Mr. and Ms. Meads to explore the OPCA community and its concepts, for the benefit of this and
other Canadian Courts, and litigants appearing before the courts.
[55] I will use Mr. Meads’ materials and arguments to illustrate many points in this review.
Those materials will be supplemented from several sources. First, I review judgments from this
and other Courts that report on OPCA strategies and court responses to OPCA litigants.
[56] Second, this Court and its justices have been involved in a large number of court
proceedings that include OPCA elements, deployed by a spectrum of OPCA litigants. As the
senior administrative judicial official of the Court of Queen’s Bench in Edmonton, I am usually
made aware of this litigation. Our Court’s experience has been that OPCA-related litigation
involves particular security and court efficiency issues, which fall within my purview. Thus, I
will, in certain instances in my review and analysis, reference unreported litigation before
justices of this Court that has come to my attention.
[57] Last, I am frequently the direct recipient of documents sent by OPCA litigants. This may
be because I am the senior administrative justice of this Court in Edmonton. These documents
frequently purport to ‘bind’ or ‘notify’ me of various OPCA schemes and obligations. I review
this correspondence as a facet of my administrative judicial duties. Though no doubt
14
unintentional, these materials are a useful and direct way to investigate certain OPCA schemes
and strategies, and provide a plethora of characteristic OPCA litigation ‘fingerprints’.
4. Mr. Meads Faces No Unexpected Sanction
[58] Mr. Meads does not face any sanction or other negative consequence flowing from these
Reasons. To date, I have not accepted any of his materials or submissions and he is aware of
that. These Reasons do not put him at greater risk for his prior activities. However, to be clear,
my decision to direct disclosure does anticipate sanctions for non-compliance, that should be of
no surprise to Mr. Meads.
[59] In fact, Mr. Meads can only benefit from a comprehensive response by this Court.
Through these Reasons, Mr. Meads is now on notice of how Canadian courts have responded to
OPCA litigation and litigants. The more thorough my explanation of that, the better.
III. Overview of these Reasons
[60] The remainder of these Reasons address aspects of the OPCA phenomenon, and the
courts’ responses, closing with the application of these Reasons to the Meads litigation. There
are four main parts to these Reasons:The Present Litigation
[8] These Reasons relate to materials and arguments advanced by Dennis Larry Meads [“Mr.
Meads”] in and after a hearing on June 8, 2012 for appointment of a case management justice, as
authorized by Alberta Rules of Court, Alta. Reg. 124/2010, s. 4.11(c) [the “Rules”, or
individually a “Rule”]. The application was brought by Crystal Lynne Meads [“Ms. Meads”] in a
divorce and matrimonial property action against Mr. Meads initiated on January 11, 2011.
3
[9] I granted that application and appointed myself as the Case Management Justice. These
Reasons follow from that hearing and deal with materials that have been filed or submitted by
Mr. Meads.
[10] Mr. and Ms. Meads were married in 1980. They had six children. The Meads separated in
2010. At present two children are potential dependants. On March 18, 2011, Veit J. ordered
interim monthly child and spousal support payments from Mr. Meads. My understanding is that
to date Mr. Meads has generally honoured that obligation.
A. Prior Activity
[11] Review of the divorce file discloses a number of unusual documents filed by Mr. Meads:
February 15, 2011: Mr. Meads filed a one page notarized document, printed in black and
red ink, and marked with what may be a red thumb print. It also bears postage stamps in
three corners on front and back, and includes various declarations including that
“::dennis-larry:meads::” is a “living flesh and blood sentient-man”, a postmaster general,
and that Barb Petryk, a clerk of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, is appointed his
fiduciary and is liable for “all financial damages and bodily harm against myself ::dennislarry::
of the meads-family::”.
Mr. Meads then purports to “...do here and now Adjourn this instant matter until further
notice, from my office.”
March 3, 2011: Mr. Meads filed a second one page notarized document, in black, red,
orange, and blue ink. Again, it has unusual formalities such as a red thumb print. This
document is directed to “Audrey Hardwick/AUDREY HARDWICK BEING A
CORPORATE ENTITY”, and in part is a “Notice for a Cease and Desist” in “Enticement
in Slavery”, that threatens criminal charges, and “FULL COMMERCIAL LIABILITY
AND YOUR UNLIMITED CIVIL LIABILITY”. This one is signed “:::dennis-larry:: of
the meads-family:::”.
April 27, 2012: Ouellette J. authorized the simple filing of these materials by Mr. Meads
“... for the purposes of argument before the A.C.J. Rooke at the case conference” on June
8, 2012. This was a “Notice for an Order to Show Cause”, “Affidavit in Support of Order
to Show Cause”, “Order to Show Cause and Appear”, and “Affidavit in Support of Order
to Show Cause” filed by “::Dennis Larry:: on behalf of DENNIS LARRY MEADS
(juristic person)”.
The “Notice for an Order to Show Cause” states, “::Dennis Larry::” is “attorney in fact”
and seeks an order that Ms. Reeves (Ms. Meads counsel) be “... held in contempt for
violation of false claims made under penalty of perjury ...” and that Ms. Reeves has taken
on “... full responsibility/liability for CRYSTAL LYNNE MEADS the Debtor and
Grantor.”
4
The two “Affidavit in Support of Order to Show Cause” documents restate the claims
that Barb Petryk has a fiduciary obligation to Mr. Meads, quote part of the March 18,
2011 transcript before Justice Veit, and allege that Ms. Meads has not conformed to the
Veit order. Mr. Meads denies contact with Ms. Reeves and that he has been difficult. He
states Ms. Reeves has made “... an offer to Contract and/or Enticement of Slavery (Title
18 United States Code and/or Article 4 Universal Declaration of Human Rights) ...”, and
that Ms. Meads had “... voided/annulled the Marriage Contract by adulterous affair in
2011 ...” [sic]. Mr. Meads observes Ms. Meads has a share of “acuminated assets from
the Marriage Contract” [sic], a new home, training, and a job opportunity as a lab
technician. Mr. Meads says Ms. Meads has sent various messages that are “disturbing
communications” and quotes email messages that indicate conflict between the parties.
The February 15 document is attached to the April 27 materials.
B. The June 8, 2012 Hearing
[12] Mr. Meads and Ms. Reeves appeared before me on June 8, 2012. Ms. Reeves explained
that Mr. Meads had generally conformed to the terms of Justice Veit’s March 18, 2011 Order,
but that he had not disclosed financial records to calculate interim child and spousal support
amounts. She also indicated that she was experiencing problems in moving this litigation
forward as a consequence of unorthodox documentation from Mr. Meads. She had difficulty
communicating with Mr. Meads, and asked the Court to appoint a case management justice to
facilitate that process.
[13] Mr. Meads commenced his submissions by noting that he was not Dennis Meads, the
“corporate identity”, but was present as Dennis Larry Meads, “a flesh and blood man”. He said
this Court is “a house of law.”
[14] I explained the nature of case management and asked as to his position on that. He did
not object, but wanted to talk about his own Motion, the April 27 documents, rather than Ms.
Reeves’ point of interest.
[15] Mr. Meads launched into an explanation of a number of things. He said that when he was
born, he was given a register of birth, “a corporate identity”, bonded and registered in the Bank
of Canada and in the state stock exchange, and that registration had an imputed income.
[16] When Mr. Meads married Ms. Meads, he said he was told he required a marriage license
to avoid commission of incest, but he has subsequently learned, from Black’s Law Dictionary,
that a licence is an authorization to do something that is otherwise illegal. But, Mr. Meads said,
he is only subject to God’s Law, the “Maximus of Law”, and the Bible indicates that adultery is
the sole basis to dissolve a marriage. In this case, he alleged that Ms. Meads had committed
adultery with his brother-in-law, and that she had broken the contract of marriage by that
adultery - that is God’s law - the remainder is man’s law, statute law: which does not affect or
apply to Mr. Meads.
5
[17] Mr. Meads rejected the assertion that he had a legal obligation to pay spousal and child
support, though he did so on his own accord. Further, he had identified to Ms. Meads and her
lawyer (and myself) a method to access a huge amount of money that was attached to his
“corporate identity” via his birth certificate. That could pay his child and spousal support
obligations. Mr. Meads said he had provided the documentation to pursue that avenue, but Ms.
Meads and her lawyers had not done so.
[18] Mr. Meads asserted that he has done nothing wrong; he has committed no criminal
offence; nothing that Ms. Meads’ lawyers have sought is mandatory; Ms. Meads has her 50%
share of the marriage corporate entity; and his ongoing payments to Ms. Meads have purchased a
new home for her and her partner, an RCMP officer.
[19] Mr. Meads, at this point and later, provided his position concerning potential issues in
dispute. Ms. Meads was concerned that a part of his reported income were RRSP withdrawals.
Mr. Meads explained that amount was a living allowance he received for travelling to work away
from home, a legitimate expense that is not a part of personal income for support calculations.
Mr. Meads also alleged that his wife had received training as a laboratory technician, but had not
pursued that career as she did not like the work.
[20] Mr. Meads also explained why he discontinued child support payments after one of his
children had her 18th birthday. He explained that several of his older children have attended and
been successful in post-secondary education, but that he and his wife believed that a child should
pay for their own education. He saw no reason to treat this now adult child differently. That said,
the Meads had assisted their older children during their studies, when necessary, and Mr. Meads
reaffirmed he would do the same for the daughter who was now about to enter post-secondary
education.
[21] In his opinion, Ms. Meads had already received a fair share of the matrimonial property.
She had taken the bulk of his silver bullion, and $250,000.00 from a joint bank account.
[22] Mr. Meads then said:
I do not want to be enticed into slavery, sir. She contacts me, her other lawyer
contacted me, they are enticing me into contract. And I do not want to go there. I
just want to be left alone. Give me a divorce.
...
I speak passionately when I talk, but I am not angry. I want you to understand
that. My voice is raised. That is the emotional side of me that is coming out. I am
not mad or angry. I want to make that clear as well.
You sir, are the judge in this matter. And so I, Dennis Larry Meads, being a flesh
and blood man, and as the creditor and beneficiary for and the private record, do
here nominate and appoint you, Judge Rooke, fiduciary trustee liable under your
6
full commercial liability, and your unlimited civil liability capacities, for my full
protection and benefit as a de jure court.
For the record, I, Dennis Larry Meads, and for the record a child of the almighty
God Jehovah, and not a child of the state. For the lord and saviour Jesus the Christ
is my spiritual advocate and in this instant matter at hand, and that God’s laws
rule supreme in my life and this court, and I, Dennis Larry Meads, being a flesh
and blood man pray that the judge, you sir Mr. Rooke, Justice Rooke, and court
follows this claim in God’s law, and if they should they decide not to they should
make the claim right now that they are above God’s law and prove beyond the
breath they let out pray again that the almighty God, all of us and protect us all,
will abide with us in his laws.
[23] After hearing submissions from the parties I concluded that case management would be
appropriate in this instance, and appointed myself to that task. I noted that this Court will apply
the laws of Canada, and explained to Mr. Meads the basic aspects of child and spousal support,
matrimonial property division, and the mutual and reciprocal obligations for disclosure in family
law proceedings, including disclosure that he may seek from Ms. Meads.
[24] Mr. Meads then asked me “about the sign above my head”, which is the Royal Coat of
Arms of Canada, and declared:
This is an admiral court, your jurisdiction is on water, it’s not on land; I am a
freeman on the land, and for you to play down some of the statements I am
making is not acceptable unless you prove it to me in law, and just saying it to me
is nothing.
[25] He complained that he had asked Ms. Reeves to provide her bond and license to practice
law, but had not received that, and continued:
But I do sir want to work with law, and not statutes and rules that have come up
from man over time. I understand they work for the bulk of the people, but ... I’m
representing myself and what I speak about I believe in. There are rules above
man’s rules, and God’s laws is where your laws originated from, so let’s go back
to the Maximus, and deal with it as quickly as possible.
[26] Mr. Meads stated that his birth certificate has an associated bond with large amounts of
money that could easily discharge in full the claims advanced by Ms. Meads. He said this Court
could order that payment. He then attempted to provide me with an envelope, presumably
containing documents. Mr. Meads said the contents of the envelope had been “filed
internationally”: a UCC filing, a Canadian filing, a commercial security agreement, an identity
bond, “actual and constructive notices”, hold harmless and identity agreements, non-negotiable
security agreements, an affidavit of his status, a copyright and trade-mark of his name contract,
and definitions of the words used in those documents. “UCC” means the “Uniform Commercial
Code”, which is U.S. commercial legislation.
7
[27] I refused the envelope, and noted that if the envelope was abandoned then I would put
those materials in the garbage. I reassured Mr. Meads that I will apply the laws of Alberta and
Canada, and that while he is in Court, he will follow the Court’s rules. Mr. Meads’ reply was that
was “unacceptable”, and he claimed that the “UCC” is “universal law”.
[28] It appeared to me that it would be possible to sever the divorce and have that proceed, but
there remained issues to address, specifically spousal and child support, and division of
matrimonial property. It is generally my personal practice not to sever while such collateral, but
important, matters remain unresolved. I asked Ms. Reeves to explain what disclosure she
required, which amounted to 2010 and 2011 tax returns, certain employment pay and
compensation information, as well as information in relation to Mr. Meads’ investments,
including the precious metals he personally owns.
[29] Mr. Meads explained he has yet to file his 2010 and 2011 income tax returns, and he did
acknowledged that was a task he needed to address. He promised to provide that information by
September 1, 2012.
[30] After informing Mr. Meads about the Court’s contempt authority, I reassured him that I
want to assist him and Ms. Meads to move forward, separate their affairs, and allow each to live
on their own. There were still issues to explore, but that I would assist. Mr. Meads responded in
this manner:
Mr. Meads: A lot of things have happened today that I need to wrap my mind around.
The one thing that comes out to me loud and clear is you’re treating the
person Dennis Meads with all of these statements, and not the living soul.
You are enticing me into slavery ...
The Court: I am going to let someone else deal with your living soul. I’m just going to
deal with your person.
Mr. Meads: Alright, then that’s your responsibility, because you created it.
[31] He asserted he was willing to go to jail, but as he is “flesh and blood” he is free from the
“mumbo jumbo that is law”. Mr. Meads alleged that an emergency protection order to which he
is subject was the result of a trap, and his wife had been coached by the RCMP to spring that
trap. He rejected the system into which he is pushed, and indicated that my statements are
directed to a “corporate entity” created by the government.
[32] I reassured Mr. Meads that I did not want to put him into jail, but would do so if
necessary. His recourse to my decisions is an appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal. Conversely,
Mr. Meads could apply and the Court would order disclosure from Ms. Meads to learn the fate of
the $250,000.00 and silver bullion that he alleges Ms. Meads possesses.
8
[33] This led to a final statement by Mr. Meads. He asserted the Bible is the “Maximus of
Law” and is the binding basis of all law, and said:
You are enticing me again to ask her to disclose $250,000, you are trying to bring me
into this court proceeding that I have no desire to get into.
[34] Mr. Meads then left the courtroom before the completion of the hearing. He abandoned
the envelope he had attempted to provide to me. The envelope was put in the trash by the Clerk.
[35] My “Conditions and Guidelines of Case Management” [“Conditions and Guidelines”]
were sent to Mr. Meads on June 13, 2012. Part of those instructions was that in these
proceedings Mr. Meads was not to correspond with the Court, except to either:
1. propose an application, or
2. to request a case management conference.
[36] Though I will later return to this hearing at various points in these Reasons, I will now
briefly outline my understanding of the meaning of certain of Mr. Meads’ actions and
statements:
1. Mr. Meads clearly subscribes to the OPCA concept that he has two aspects, what
I later discuss as the ‘double/split person’ concept. The German folk term
“doppelganger”, a kind of paranormal double, is a useful concept to describe this
curious duality. Mr. Meads labels one aspect as a “person” or “corporate entity”
while the other is his “flesh and blood” form.
2. Mr. Meads also subscribes to the theory that almost any interaction with the court
or state can result in a binding contract. That is why he was so apprehensive about
accepting my proposal to order disclosure from Ms. Meads - that apparently
benign act would allegedly bind him in contract to this Court’s authority.
3. The reference to Admiralty Law relates to an OPCA concept that there are two
kinds of law, “common law” and “admiralty law”, and Mr. Meads rejected
application of the latter to himself.
4. The discussion of the alleged source of funds to discharge his child and spousal
support obligations, a bank account related to his birth certificate, indicates Mr.
Meads has advanced a ‘money for nothing’ scheme called “A4V”.
These are all, of course, nonsense.
C. Subsequent Developments
9
[37] On June 19 and 21, 2012 the Court received two effectively identical sets of documents
sent by Mr. Meads. One was addressed to me, the second to the Chief Court Clerk. These were
not filed with the Court.
[38] These documents generally match Mr. Meads’ verbal description of the abandoned
envelope’s contents. The June 19 and 21 materials were returned to Mr. Meads as they do not
represent an application for leave, supported by a draft application and supporting affidavit(s), as
required by my Conditions and Guidelines for Case Management. Further, they have no
application known to law. However, copies were retained.
[39] The first document is a letter with multicoloured text (that facet I do not reproduce). It is
addressed in this manner:
SECURED PARTY CREDITOR is ::Dennis-Larry:Meads::
FIDUCIARY-TRUSTEE-LIABLE is “Associate Chief Justice” J.D. Rooke
[40] Summarizing this document, it thanks me for accepting appointment as “FIDUCIARYTRUSTEE-
LIABLE” on June 8, 2012. It then appoints me:
... with the Fiduciary-Trustee-Liable Position with the highest and with the
greatest-level for the care in the equity and in the Law and is with the
expectation that-is that-you being the Fiduciary-Trustee-Liable are Duty-Bound
for the utmost-case and protection for the living flesh and blood sentient - man,
::Dennis-Larry:Meads:: who is the creation for the Lord God Almighty Jehovah
with whom you owe the duty (the “principal” qui facit per alium, facit per se):
you, “Associate Chief Justice” J.D. Rooke must not place your personal
interests before the duty, and must not profit in your position as the Fiduciary-
Trustee, unless the principal gives you consent in the written-format. [sic,
emphasis in original]
If I believed that Mr. Meads acted sincerely (which I do not), I would conclude Mr. Meads
misapprehended the scope of the responsibility and authority of a case management justice.
However, this, instead, seems to be a kind of OPCA document that purports to unilaterally foist a
particularly impressive sounding string of gibberish obligations upon me.
[41] The letter then instructs, “under the guidance and direction with the Almighty God
Jehovah watching over us through His Son and Reigning King Jesus Christ”, that I use the
attached documents to do the following:
• ... for the completion and carrying-out for the full protection and benefit
for the ::Dennis-Larry: Meads:: and for the children of the union with the
full-written-text/report for the “Instant-Matter-In-The-Hand” at the end
of the every-month till the end for the contract with the child of the union,.
10
• One time Lump Sum Payout (With-Out-Recourse) in the form of a bond
or other financial instrument from the Provincial-Registered-Estate for the
Persona DENNIS LARRY MEADS (juristic person) thru the Provincial-
Registered-Event in the PROVINCAIL BIRTH CERTIFICATE and/or
any other government(s) for the Canada Registered Event(s) - for the
make-whole for the Debtor CRYSTAL LYNNE MEADS and Michele J.
Reeves DRA MICHELE J. REEVES (PERSONA-AT-LAW-PERSONA)
• Debtor, being the CRYSTAL LYNNE MEADS and Michele J. Reeves
DBA contact via the any media with the living flesh and blood sentient -
man, ::Dennis-Larry:Meads:: and/or the DENNIS LARRY MEADS
(juristic person) and when-there is the claim for a breach face the
penalties as-is prescribed in the attached-documents.
• For the claim for the Divorce-Papers signed as the CRYSTAL LYNNE
MEADS, which does not abhor delay.
• For the claim for the Child-Support-Payments for the child in the Union,
[child #1] of $1000.00/ month. (When is for the claim for the habituation
with mother) till the full-age-eighteen years with the no-section-7-rules
application/begging, for the child being the [child #1] can/must dialogue
the her-needs as-is needed with the father with the new-arrangements
provision-in the written-format and fully-notarized and fullauthentication.
• Child-Support-Assistance for the child of the union being the [child #2]
as per the negotiation with her-earthly-father till the full-age being the
twenty-one (21) and being in the attendance in the post-education.
• And other useful-beneficial-information for the make and for the
keeping for the all parties-whole.
[sic, emphasis in original, some reformatting for clarity.]
[42] The remaining documents are:
1. a power of attorney where DENNIS LARRY MEADS grants general authority to
Dennis-Larry: Meads;
2. a UCC Financing Statement registered in Ohio for a Certificate of Birth;
3. a UCC search of “DENNIS LARRY MEADS, foreign situs cestui qui vie trust”;
4. a government of Alberta Personal Property Registry Verification Statement for
“DENNIS LARRY MEADS, foreign situs cestui qui vie trust” that lists as
11
collateral a birth certificate, social insurance number, UCC1 financing statement,
a certificate of marriage, an operator’s license, Canadian passport, and what I
believe are two court orders;
5. a commercial security agreement where DENNIS LARRY MEADS assumes all
debts and obligations of Dennis-Larry:Meads, while granting Dennis-
Larry:Meads all his property;
6. an “Actual and Constructive Notice” from Dennis-Larry: Meads to the Bank of
Canada that “accepts for value” enclosed documents in accordance with the
Uniform Commercial Code and the Bank of Canada Act to charge his “public
treasury”, which is identified by his social insurance number, for $100 billion
Canadian dollars or the equivalent in silver or gold;
7. a “Hold Harmless and Indemnify Agreement Non Negotiable Between the
Parties”, that DENNIS LARRY MEADS generally indemnifies Dennis-Larry:
Meads;
8. a ‘fee schedule’, which is a kind of document I will later discuss in more detail;
9. a document entitled “Notice to YOURFILINGCOUNTY County Register Of
Deeds Clerk”;
10. an “Affidavit of Political Status”, with “Grantor: DENNIS LARRY MEADS” and
“Grantee: Dennis-Larry: Meads”;
11. a “Copyright Trade-name/Trademark Contract” between DENNIS LARRY
MEADS and Dennis-Larry: Meads, the intellectual property subject being the
name Dennis Larry Meads, in various forms; and
12. a document that purports that anyone who uses “Dennis Larry Meads” (or
variations of that) owes Dennis-Larry: Meads $100 million per use of that.
[43] From a review of these documents, it appears that Mr. Meads is purporting to split
himself into two aspects. One gets his property and benefits, the other his debts and liabilities.
The ‘Mr. Meads with liabilities’ has entirely indemnified the ‘Mr. Meads with property’. He also
appears to instruct me and the Bank of Canada to use a secret bank account, with the same
number as his social insurance number or birth certificate, to pay all his child and spousal
support obligations, and provide him $100 billion in precious metals. Mr. Meads has also
purported to create various contractual obligations for those who might interact with him, or who
write or speak his name.
[44] This is, of course, nonsense. As I have noted to Mr. Meads, these materials have no force
or meaning in law, other than they indicate an intention on his part to evade his lawful
12
obligations and the authority of the Court and government. He is an OPCA litigant. That has
legal consequences for him, which these Reasons will explain.
D. The Purposes of These Reasons
[45] These Reasons have a number of purposes. The requests of both Mr. and Ms. Meads are
best met by a broad and comprehensive response. The scope and variety of Mr. Meads’ materials
and submissions touches on many related issues.
[46] Its context is also important. These Reasons sets the stage for an ongoing procedure -
case management of this file - and respond to a collection of issues that have emerged
immediately at the beginning that process. If not fully addressed, I believe the OPCA aspect of
this litigation will hamper successful resolution of Mr. and Ms. Meads’ divorce.
1. Ms. Meads
[47] Counsel for Ms. Meads, Ms. Reeves, sought case management because she cannot
meaningfully communicate with Mr. Meads. She explained she had attempted to engage in
mundane procedural steps, such as requests for disclosure, and instead received complex and
cryptic documents, demands, and threats. She turned to the Court for hands-on management
because she does not otherwise have an effective mechanism to deal with Mr. Meads, and his
OPCA strategies.
[48] These Reasons are intended to assist her, explain what she faces, and illustrate how this
and other Courts have responded to litigants who adopt and advance OPCA concepts and
strategies. I cast these Reasons broadly to help her both understand what she has already
encountered, but also to deal with developments in the ongoing litigation and case management
processes.
2. Mr. Meads
[49] These Reasons are also a response to Mr. Meads. He clearly plans to frame his entire
divorce action in an OPCA context. He arrived in court with that intention. That was the only
‘issue’ on which he wanted to respond. Since the June 8 hearing I have seen no evidence that Mr.
Meads intends to abandon his strategies to defeat Court authority and his child and spousal
support obligations.
[50] I was explicit on June 8 that I considered Mr. Meads’ OPCA submissions and claims
irrelevant, yet he has persisted. At that hearing he announced that my decision was
“unacceptable”, and has subsequently acted in defiance of my explicit instructions that he only
communicate with the Court to propose an application or to request a case management
conference. He said he would not voluntarily put himself under the Court’s authority, denied the
Court had any lawful hold over him, and left.
13
[51] Mr. Meads did not accept the result of the June 8 hearing, and proceeded to send
additional documentation to the Court and myself. His intention to employ OPCA concepts and
defy my instructions is very clear in his June 19 and 21 cover letters. He demands that I act on
his behalf, using highly unusual and mandatory language.
[52] These Reasons are not merely a response to Mr. Meads’ in-court misconduct but also a
global response to the entire litigation strategy he has underway. There are no signs he has
decided to back down and adopt a more reasonable approach. From the file record and his
documents, he has been on this path for over a year and a half. I intend these Reasons to clearly
identify for him why it is time to change his approach.
3. A Broad Set of OPCA Concepts and Materials
[53] There is a third reason for a broad-based decision and analysis. It so happens that Mr.
Meads has provided a remarkable and well developed assortment of OPCA documents, concepts,
materials, and strategies. These materials also illustrate particular idiosyncrasies that this and
other Courts have identified as associated with the OPCA community and OPCA litigation.
Phrased differently, Mr. Meads’ materials and approach provide an ideal type specimen for
examination and commentary, which should be instructive to other OPCA litigants who have
been taken in by these ideas, opposing parties and their counsel, as well as gurus.
[54] Mr. Meads’ submissions also make an excellent subject for a global review of the law
concerning OPCA, the OPCA community and its gurus, and how the court, lawyers, and litigants
should respond to these vexatious practices and the persons who advance and advocate these
techniques and ideas. In this sense, the present case management allows the litigation between
Mr. and Ms. Meads to explore the OPCA community and its concepts, for the benefit of this and
other Canadian Courts, and litigants appearing before the courts.
[55] I will use Mr. Meads’ materials and arguments to illustrate many points in this review.
Those materials will be supplemented from several sources. First, I review judgments from this
and other Courts that report on OPCA strategies and court responses to OPCA litigants.
[56] Second, this Court and its justices have been involved in a large number of court
proceedings that include OPCA elements, deployed by a spectrum of OPCA litigants. As the
senior administrative judicial official of the Court of Queen’s Bench in Edmonton, I am usually
made aware of this litigation. Our Court’s experience has been that OPCA-related litigation
involves particular security and court efficiency issues, which fall within my purview. Thus, I
will, in certain instances in my review and analysis, reference unreported litigation before
justices of this Court that has come to my attention.
[57] Last, I am frequently the direct recipient of documents sent by OPCA litigants. This may
be because I am the senior administrative justice of this Court in Edmonton. These documents
frequently purport to ‘bind’ or ‘notify’ me of various OPCA schemes and obligations. I review
this correspondence as a facet of my administrative judicial duties. Though no doubt
14
unintentional, these materials are a useful and direct way to investigate certain OPCA schemes
and strategies, and provide a plethora of characteristic OPCA litigation ‘fingerprints’.
4. Mr. Meads Faces No Unexpected Sanction
[58] Mr. Meads does not face any sanction or other negative consequence flowing from these
Reasons. To date, I have not accepted any of his materials or submissions and he is aware of
that. These Reasons do not put him at greater risk for his prior activities. However, to be clear,
my decision to direct disclosure does anticipate sanctions for non-compliance, that should be of
no surprise to Mr. Meads.
[59] In fact, Mr. Meads can only benefit from a comprehensive response by this Court.
Through these Reasons, Mr. Meads is now on notice of how Canadian courts have responded to
OPCA litigation and litigants. The more thorough my explanation of that, the better.
III. Overview of these Reasons
[60] The remainder of these Reasons address aspects of the OPCA phenomenon, and the
courts’ responses, closing with the application of these Reasons to the Meads litigation. There
are four main parts to these Reasons: