As I’m sure most of you will know by now, an Alberta judge has caught the world’s eye with a hefty (176 page) decision that, among other things, produced a taxonomy of vexatious litigants who adhere to one cause or another or to a set of supposedly effective trial practices. (See, for example, the stories in the Globe and Mail or the Edmonton Journal.) Meads v. Meads 2012 ABQB 571 can be found on CanLII, of course; and the main object of this post is to point you to this location, so that you can read the judgment, or so much of it as you’d like, for yourself. (There is a detailed table of contents which unfortunately wasn’t hyperlinked to the parts of the judgment.)
The judgment is part of a matrimonial dispute, in which Mr. Meads attempted to use many of the various techniques and strategies adopted by what the judge called “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [“OPCA”] Litigants.” The court chose this case to attempt to deal not simply with the litigation at hand but also with the broader matter of what I might style wrong-headed law-deniers.
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.
Those of us who do not sit in court or otherwise have to deal with self-represented litigants might be surprised at the strangeness of some of the creatures the court’s taxonomy identifies: Detaxers, Freemen-on-the-Land, Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens, The Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International, Moorish Law, and others.
Although this is an entertaining judgment, it’s also a serious and well-researched one, adding an important facet to the already difficult matter of self-represented litigants.