Freemen on the land are growing exponentially

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by cancer man

I think in the big picture we are getting feed up with all the laws put upon us and the Freeman has decided to buck the system.
Wait what happens if Alberta gets the 15% P.S.T.
(But then the old Nortel building now the new CPS station has bills to pay)

Yeah . . . and hows that worked out for the whole movement, I hear that back taxes are just nasty and prison isn't a place that anyone wants to go.

Your diplomatic immunity . .. has just been revoked.

[troutman]

What's New

OPCA Litigants – The Phenomenon of Freemen on the Land


http://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/publicat..._the_Land.aspx

In Advisory articles in 2003 and 2009, the Law Society of Alberta cautioned lawyers not to engage in notarizing documents that have no legal effect, or which are otherwise legal fictions. All lawyers are officers of the court and are obliged not to participate in the preparation of a document that resembles a court document or any other document intended to deceive the recipient.

In the 2012 Queen’s Bench decision of Meads v. Meads, Mr. Justice Rooke identified the individuals presenting such documents for notarization as “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” litigants (OPCA litigants). Other identifying names for them are “Freemen on the Land”, “Sovereign Citizens” or “de-taxers”. The decision provides an excellent summary of the characteristics of OPCA litigants and is worth reading to assist lawyers in identifying these individuals. A summarized version of the decision is also available here.

A more recent posting refers to a decision in ANB v Hancock, 2013 ABQB 97.

Lawyers should also be aware of potential threats to their personal safety. The ANB v. Hancock decision is an example of a matter in which lawyers were allowed to be identified by pseudonyms to protect their anonymity. The Law Society of British Columbia has posted a bulletin on its website recommending that lawyers have a workplace security plan in place to deal with external threats to their offices.

[onetwo_threefour]

If they weren't so insane and morally bankrupt, you would think that even FMOTL would have a problem with this. The guy isn't challenging traffic laws or income taxes, he's basically saying that under this philosophy even individual property rights are not worthy of protection and that it's okay to trick someone out of property. Why did he wait to sign a lease with her before declaring his 'embassy'? Why not just move into an empty house when no one was looking, then try to pull this stunt. While all of the FMOTL stuff is nonsense, this is a particularly bad example in my opinion as it has nothing to do with laws imposed on an individual society, but rather about honouring an agreement between individuals. This guy is obviously just a a bully with asinine ideas to justify himself.

It does derve to show that the FMOTL movement has no cohesion or ethical basis since there's been no public statement about this despite all the publicitiy it has received.

[CaptainCrunch]

Wow these wacko's are becoming a threat?

What is it about these movements like Freeman and Occupy and the Republican party that just attract fricken weirdos

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

If they weren't so insane and morally bankrupt, you would think that even FMOTL would have a problem with this. The guy isn't challenging traffic laws or income taxes, he's basically saying that under this philosophy even individual property rights are not worthy of protection and that it's okay to trick someone out of property. Why did he wait to sign a lease with her before declaring his 'embassy'? Why not just move into an empty house when no one was looking, then try to pull this stunt. While all of the FMOTL stuff is nonsense, this is a particularly bad example in my opinion as it has nothing to do with laws imposed on an individual society, but rather about honouring an agreement between individuals. This guy is obviously just a a bully with asinine ideas to justify himself.

It does derve to show that the FMOTL movement has no cohesion or ethical basis since there's been no public statement about this despite all the publicitiy it has received.

So I'm assuming he would be ok if I hopped in his truck, took a dump in the backseat and labeled his truck as a mobile embassy bathroom then.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

If they weren't so insane and morally bankrupt, you would think that even FMOTL would have a problem with this. The guy isn't challenging traffic laws or income taxes, he's basically saying that under this philosophy even individual property rights are not worthy of protection and that it's okay to trick someone out of property. Why did he wait to sign a lease with her before declaring his 'embassy'? Why not just move into an empty house when no one was looking, then try to pull this stunt. While all of the FMOTL stuff is nonsense, this is a particularly bad example in my opinion as it has nothing to do with laws imposed on an individual society, but rather about honouring an agreement between individuals. This guy is obviously just a a bully with asinine ideas to justify himself.

It does derve to show that the FMOTL movement has no cohesion or ethical basis since there's been no public statement about this despite all the publicitiy it has received.

But is there a central group association for the FMOTL? It appears that there approach is every man is a nation. FMOTL LEague of nations?

[troutman]

What has Meads v Meads wrought?

http://ablawg.ca/2013/04/08/what-has...meads-wrought/

Consequences of being an OPCA Litigant?

http://ablawg.ca/2013/05/10/conseque...pca-litigant/#

in Meads (at para 631) Justice Rooke had formulated the following general principle:

[I]nnocent parties [should] be indemnified for the legal costs associated with OPCA litigation. No, or little, cost should flow to a litigant who is abused by OPCA strategies.

In applying this principle in ANB, Justice Rooke awarded the defendants the costs that they asked for, costs that covered the expense of responding to A.N.B.’s Statement of Claim. In the case of the self-represented lawyer who had been appointed to represent A.N.B.’s children — the lawyer apparently named by mistake as no claim was made against her — the indemnity costs were what she calculated she would have earned had she not spent her time responding to A.N.B.’s lawsuit. Costs against A.N.B. totalled $20,000.

The indemnification nature of the cost award in ANB illustrates another point that Justice Rooke made in Meads (at para 638):

It has been this Court’s experience that OPCA gurus do not educate their customers on the purpose and operation of court cost awards. An OPCA litigant may perceive explanation of this mechanism as a threat, but this explanation is a crucial aspect in the “limited duty” a judge owes to these self?represented litigants. OPCA litigants seem to often believe there are no potential negative consequences to their adopting OPCA techniques and strategies. Evidence to the contrary is a challenge to that indoctrination.

Cost awards against OPCA litigants therefore appear to serve at least one purpose that is specific to the OPCA litigation context and that is that they are intended to shake litigants’ confidence in their gurus.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Wow these wacko's are becoming a threat?

What is it about these movements like Freeman and Occupy and the Republican party that just attract fricken weirdos

Extremists of the FMoTL have shot and killed 6 police officers in the States.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by cancer man

I think in the big picture we are getting feed up with all the laws put upon us and the Freeman has decided to buck the system.
Wait what happens if Alberta gets the 15% P.S.T.
(But then the old Nortel building now the new CPS station has bills to pay)

What?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Minnie

What?

Cancer is a helluva drug.

I love bizarre first posts.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

If they weren't so insane and morally bankrupt, you would think that even FMOTL would have a problem with this. The guy isn't challenging traffic laws or income taxes, he's basically saying that under this philosophy even individual property rights are not worthy of protection and that it's okay to trick someone out of property. Why did he wait to sign a lease with her before declaring his 'embassy'? Why not just move into an empty house when no one was looking, then try to pull this stunt. While all of the FMOTL stuff is nonsense, this is a particularly bad example in my opinion as it has nothing to do with laws imposed on an individual society, but rather about honouring an agreement between individuals. This guy is obviously just a a bully with asinine ideas to justify himself.

It does derve to show that the FMOTL movement has no cohesion or ethical basis since there's been no public statement about this despite all the publicitiy it has received.

I think I found a photo of him....

[PsYcNeT]

I miss Jim Varney...

[burn_this_city]

Hard to believe he died in 2000.

[Voodooman]

Originally Posted by cancer man

I think in the big picture we are getting feed up with all the laws put upon us and the Freeman has decided to buck the system.
Wait what happens if Alberta gets the 15% P.S.T.
(But then the old Nortel building now the new CPS station has bills to pay)

This post, like all FMOTL documents, reads like it was written by an illiterate rhesus monkey who's off his meds.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Hard to believe he died in 2000.

Hard to believe there were 9 Ernest movies.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

That makes no sense. By not paying the guy, the government still doesn't get their GST nor do they get their taxes. If that company was so caring about the government getting ripped off they should send the money owed to the freeman directly to the government.

It makes total sense. By paying the guy under the table and off the books, you are encouraging tax evasion, and an underground economy. The guy refusing to pay the freeman is doing 100% the right thing. There are laws in this country that need to be adhered to, and paying taxes is one of them. Roads, schools, health care etc..... doesn't magically pay for itself.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by pylon

It makes total sense. By paying the guy under the table and off the books, you are encouraging tax evasion, and an underground economy. The guy refusing to pay the freeman is doing 100% the right thing. There are laws in this country that need to be adhered to, and paying taxes is one of them. Roads, schools, health care etc..... doesn't magically pay for itself.

Logged in to thank your post.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

I'm disappointed that the closest we've gotten to a defense of this childish movement is 2 lines of generic gibberish. These "freemen" often patrol social media to defend their movement against us agents of orthodoxy.

[Plett25]

Originally Posted by pylon

It makes total sense. By paying the guy under the table and off the books, you are encouraging tax evasion, and an underground economy. The guy refusing to pay the freeman is doing 100% the right thing. There are laws in this country that need to be adhered to, and paying taxes is one of them. Roads, schools, health care etc..... doesn't magically pay for itself.

"I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Plett25

"I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

I was actually having a real quiet moment of thought last time I was sitting up in the mountains at Boulton Creek camping. And I was thinking how incredibly lucky we are to have the roads to access such a remote area, and the government funding to build such an amazing place.

Like anyone else, I wish I paid less tax, but the trade off of having incredible places to go, and to be able to live in an incredibly civilized and safe country is more than a fair trade off.

If the alternative to paying tax, is to live like a wild animal like one of these freemen, then I am glad to allow the government to take their cut.