The Canadian ‘natural person’

An exasperated Alberta judge has issued a call to arms… against legal “parasites” who hijack court proceedings with nonsensical motions  and bizarre spiritual and legal principles of their own making.” 

Associate Chief Justice John D. Rooke of Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench said these people, who are usually self-represented, assert aggressive claims to be above the law, create courtroom filibusters and present convoluted legal motions that waste valuable time and cause immense frustration to court officials.

Many of them undertake frequent court challenges. “The growing volume of this kind of vexatious litigation is a reason why these Reasons [for Judgment] suggest a strong response to curb this misconduct,” Judge Rooke said in a 155-page divorce judgment, that is hailed and regularly quoted for its savage deconstruction of the Freeman on the Land’s “contemptibly stupid” gobbledygook, setting out group characteristics, their arguments, gurus and failed court cases.

He dubbed them “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” (OPCA) litigants, and gave them further classifications such as De-Taxers, Freemen-on-the-Land, Sovereign Citizens, Strawmen and adherents of Moorish Law.


Judge Rooke said he is determined “to uncover, expose, collage and publish” their tactics to send an unmistakable message to the “gurus” who inspire them. Although some of these litigants are not affiliated with a group, Judge Rooke said, others have bought tracts or DVDs from other frequent users of the court system that explain their methods. The belief systems are typically based on a highly conspiratorial sense that they are being cheated or deceived by the “hidden hand” of the state

The case

The case in question Meads v Meads ABQB 571 (CanLII) involved Dennis Larry Meads, who Judge Rooke said is an intelligent, obstinate adherent to a set of wingy beliefs and legal precepts that have no place in the courtroom. At his initial court appearance, the judge said, Mr. Meads asserted that he was not a child of the state, but “a child of the almighty God Jehovah; a living, flesh and blood sentient-man.” 

Mr. Meads claimed a right to address custody and support issues with his wife based on his own reading of biblical imperatives, U.S. commercial regulatory codes, and principles of “universal law.” In documents featuring multi-coloured ink, ornate language and blue thumb-prints, he demanded that his wife cease and desist from “an Enticement in Slavery,” and warned that she risks being subject to “full commercial liability and your unlimited civil liability.” Far from being an isolated oddity, this sort of presentation is permeating courtrooms in almost all areas of the law across the country, Judge Rooke said. He suggested the courts take strong action to block such tactics.”

“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.

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.”

The legal commentary

Donald J. Netolitzky researched and published “The History of the Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Phenomena in Canada” and many other papers on OPCA litigation. Looking at the history of the movement, Netolitzky notes why it is important for Canadians to take notice of this movement due to potential security risks.

“Following the rise of the “Strawman,” a kind of new, international pseudolegal tradition has emerged with accepted elements from many different sources, entwined with a matrix of false or distorted history and conspiratorial belief. This might be called the “OPCAsphere.”

For a novice visitor, the OPCA sphere is a strange place. Its occupants see themselves surrounded by all manner of threats and conspiracies. They desperately search for uncontaminated sources of food and water. Aircraft contrails are scrutinized for evidence of government sponsored dissemination of chemicals. Spree shootings and terrorist incidents are “false flag” operations conducted by hidden hands to manipulate and control the public. The OPCA sphere is permeated with impending threats, be it financial enslavement at the hands of “the Banksters,” foreign or domestic military intervention, or ecological catastrophe. Police and government employees are nothing more than thugs.

These apprehensions are closely linked to a sense of superiority — those who live in the OPCA sphere see themselves as possessing powerful, secret, or unusual knowledge, and that makes them very much better and smarter than the average person. Claims of courtroom success are met with excitement, though failure is not so often disclosed. Occupants promote their preferred guru and reinforce each other’s conspiratorial beliefs by circulating and recirculating documents, videos, and “meme pictures.” Those outside the OPCA sphere are dismissed; they are either enemy clients, paid government shills, or “sheeple.”

The gulf between the OPCA sphere narrative and mainstream Canadian perspectives and legal jurisprudence has another troubling implication. Unsuccessful OPCA litigants sometimes view their in-court failure not as clarification of the law, but rather conclude that the judges who have rejected their arguments are corrupt and have failed to uphold the true but concealed common law or natural law. As previously noted, there is little way for court or government actors to rebut what is, effectively, a faith-based belief in the “Strawman” and its associated conspiratorial, ahistorical narrative.

Courts refuse attempts by OPCA litigants to enforce their beliefs via civil litigation against wrongdoers, including judges and lawyers. Will OPCA litigants then attempt to take “the law” into their own hands?”


The Law Society of British Columbia has advised members not to notarize documents that may be presented at their office by Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants. “We advise lawyers to recognize OPCA litigants and recommend that lawyers refuse to notarize their documents and not further their attack on legitimate court processes, authority and staff,” the LSBC advised in its spring 2017 Benchers’ Bulletin.

The impact of appeals to the federal tax court was seen in August 2013 when the National Post outlined how detaxers were clogging the federal tax court and identified 385 cases that used language and arguments similar to the Freeman on the Land ideology of natural citizens being exempt from paying taxes. Justice Diane Campbell, when dismissing an appeal in Cassa v. The Queen, 2013 TCC 43 (CanLII) wrote: 

“Because of the thread of similarities on wording in hundreds of these appeals, it is apparent that these appellants have received ‘counsel’ from a third party.”

In March 2016, Kazimierz Chester Crischuk litigant was the subject of a BC Supreme Court case where he was found to have been unlawfully dispensing legal advice and documents and charging for it. Supreme Court Justice Gary Weatherill in The Law Society of British Columbia v. Crischuk, 2017 BCSC 531 (CanLII) ordered Kazimierz Chester Crischuk, another Freeman on the Land, to cease practicing law and pay $2,600 to the LSBC. Crischuk maintained that he did not recognize the LSBC, or Canada’s constitutional history, but instead referred to the Bible in his affidavit. “Elizabeth Alexandra Mary of the family of House of Windsor swore an oath on the 1611 King James Version of the Holy Bible when she took the office of the Queen of England et al. Part of her investiture was the acceptance that ‘the whole world is subject to the power and empire of Christ’ and as a consequence, the Holy Bible is the Supreme Law,” he said. The justice termed  Crischuk’s submissions “incoherent, rambling and complete nonsense.” He also argued that the motto on Canada’s coat of arms – A Mari usque ad Mare, or “From Sea to Sea” – proved he was in an admiralty court.

In April 2016, a Nelson man, who used similar gibberish defending his unauthorized practice of traditional Chinese medicine and tax avoidance, was found guilty of contempt by Justice Peter Voith and jailed for 60 days. In September 2016, Edmonton police charged an alleged Freeman on the Land member with “paper terrorism” after he began a litigation campaign directed at a police officer who stopped him for speeding. The man attempted unsuccessfully to put a $225,000 lien on the officer’s home. Police charged the man with intimidation of a justice system participant.

Another Freemen-on-the-Land has bitten the dust as the provincial legal system continues its effort to exterminate the Organized Pseudolegal Commercial litigation by the ideology’s adherents. In Robert John: of the family macmillan v Johannson, 2017 BCSC 1069 (CanLII) B.C. Supreme Court Justice Murray Blok told “Robert John: of the family macmillan” that the esoteric and bizarre theories invoked for tax evasion and other mischief-making purposes were ridiculous claptrap. 

“It is hard to know whether to condemn the proponents of these preposterous arguments or whether to sympathize with them for having being duped by others into believing them, but the result is the same,” Blok stated. “These arguments have never been successful in any court, and they have never been successful because they are, as I have said, sheer and utter nonsense.”

Blok said MacMillan owes Canada Revenue Agency $220,000 for unpaid income taxes from 2012, 2013 and 2014 and about $43,000 for unpaid GST accrued between June 2012 and March 2017. The government has taken steps to collect — it executed a writ of seizure and sale of some share certificates in Toronto and registered a judgment against MacMillan’s home. These various efforts have garnered about $94,000 — so $263,000 remains owing. In response, MacMillan launched this litigation to stall the collection efforts. Blok said that MacMillan drew a distinction between liability incurred against his name as it appears in the provincial birth registry and any liability or debts which he “as a man” might properly owe.

“I have detached myself from my legal name,” MacMillan insisted. His name, he maintained, was a construct of the government’s fraudulent birth-certificate registration system.

He was seeking a return of all taxes and monies paid from age 19 onward, $1.2 million for the correspondence the CRA has sent him (he says they owe him $50,000 per letter), as well as $9.5 million for pain and suffering. Not surprisingly, the government said the suit should be dismissed. Citing Rooke, Blok emphasized MacMillan’s stance was:

“a subset of nonsense from the greater nonsense that typifies these sorts of cases. It is a concept unknown to the law, to logic and to common sense.”

Another “freeman” engaged in such gamesmanship during a foreclosure action against his mortgaged property, refusing to identify himself for the court and claiming the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because he is a “public entity” and was not properly served. After final judgment of foreclosure was entered, he filed fraudulent mechanic’s liens against his own property in an attempt to thwart the foreclosure sale. The freeman’s game ended, however, once he was pulled over for failure to wear a seatbelt and arrested because he refused to produce any identification or recognize the police officer’s authority for the stop. He then began to mail fraudulent formal demands and notices to the police officers and police department. Meanwhile, he sent similar documents to his foreclosing lender’s officers and executives, demanding large amounts of damages. He was indicted and ultimately convicted of five counts of bank fraud and four counts of mail fraud for his activities. He faces up to 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine. He then failed to appear for his sentencing hearing while out on bail, and faces an additional 10 years on his prison sentence.

The legal gibberish of Freeman on the Land 


Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency), 2017 ABQB 123 (CanLII):

“As a decision of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, the Meads v Meads judgment is a binding authority for a Master of this Court. Meads v Meads is instead a correct statement of Canadian law on this subject.”

Minister of National Revenue v Stanchfield [2009] FC 99 (CanLII) Justice Gauthier (at 17, 27, 340): 

“Mr. Camplin in the above mentioned case seems to have argued, in the same fashion as the respondent, that he had two capacities, one which he characterised as being his “private capacity as a “natural person” for my own benefit” and the other as his capacity as “legal representative of the taxpayer”. Here, the respondent characterises his purported capacities as being (1) as a natural person, and (2) as a taxpayer. The deletion of the words “legal representative” from the latter purported capacity does not render this case distinguishable from the one at bar.

The whole notion of their being a second capacity distinct from the one of a natural person or human being is a pure fiction, one which is not sanctioned by law. One can describe nothing in any terms one wishes; it still remains nothing.

Cory Stanchfield’s attempt to argue before this Court that his body comprises two persons which act in different capacities is of one of two things: (1) an inadmissible division of his indivisible entity, or (2) an attempted creation of a second entity in a fashion which is not recognized by law, the result of which amounts to nothing in the eyes of the law. It is an attempt at the impossible and the respondent cannot do the impossible. Therefore, “Cory Stanchfield (the Respondent)” and “Cory Stanchfield, in his capacity as a natural person (the Witness)” is but one person, with one single capacity.”

Crossroads-DMD Mortgage Investment Corporation v Gauthier, 2015 ABQB 703 (CanLII) (at 32-46):

Though this will come up again later, one point that Gauthier argued is that he is “an individual human being, or man with inherent jurisdiction on the land commonly known as Canada”, and “not a person as defined by Interpretations Act RSC 1985”. He is “… the Beneficiary and Grantor of the account referred to as the juristic person ADAM CHRISTIAN GAUTHIER …”. This is obviously an attempt to invoke the OPCA double/split person or “Strawman” concept: individuals have two interlinked aspects, a physical “human” element and an attached or interlinked non-corporeal legal element, what Gauthier calls a “person” or “juristic person”.

In Meads v Meads this concept is reviewed and rejected at paras 417-446. Rooke ACJ concludes that in Canadian law the double/split person concept is entirely unfounded in any sense, and has been systematically rejected every time anyone has ever raised it in a Canadian court. He then goes to evaluate the documents that the respondent, Dennis Larry Meads, had filed in the Meads v Meads action. Rooke ACJ explains at paras 432-439 that the Meads’ documents are meaningless because they attempt to invoke the double/split person concept, and concludes at paras 438-439: [438] … everything good and of value attaches to the physical person of Mr. Meads, while all obligation and debt is allocated to the unfortunate DENNIS LARRY MEADS, corporate entity. [439] Of course, that does not work. Mr. Meads is Mr. Meads in all his physical or imaginary aspects. He would experience and obtain the same effect and success if he appeared in court and selectively donned and removed a rubber Halloween mask which portrays the appearance of another person, asserting at this or that point that the mask’s person is the one liable to Ms. Meads. Not that I am encouraging, or indeed would countenance, the wearing of a mask in my courtroom.

This means that ACJ Rooke’s conclusion that the double/split person “Strawman” is a myth is not obiter. He used that conclusion of law to reach the result in Meads v Meads. As a consequence, that conclusion is binding on me. To be explicit, even if that were not the law I would come to exactly the same conclusion. Gauthier’s claim that distinguishes an “individual human being” from the “person” is entirely meaningless. They are one and the same. Gauthier’s apparent belief as to the legal meaning of the word “person” is entirely false and incorrect.

I note that the “Strawman” double/split person concept was also rejected by the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal in a recent judgment, Fiander v Mills, 2015 NLCA 31 (CanLII) at para 20: This notion of treating a named individual as an “estate” that is somehow separate from the person who is subject to the law and that is free from governmental regulation is also a concept unrecognized by the law of Canada. It is just nonsense. Chief Justice Green concludes the “Strawman” is so obviously and notoriously false that he directs that anytime a trial court encounters “… the fractionating of human personality to support claims of not being subject to law …” that the litigant who made that argument should be presumed to have sued in a vexatious and abusive manner and only is appearing in court for an improper and ulterior purpose: paras 39-40.

The “Strawman” is therefore not merely a myth. It is litigation poison.”

Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 288 (CanLII):

[1] ……. Reduced to its conceptual core, the ‘Strawman’ concept is one that alleges that the government exercises clandestine control over human beings via a non-corporeal legal entity, the ‘Strawman’. The ‘Strawman’ is purportedly attached to a human being when parents are tricked into signing birth documentation. That documentation is (supposedly) a concealed contract with the government.             

[2] Rothweiler called his ‘Strawman’ the “BRENDEN-RANDALL: ROTHWEILER ESTATE”, while he is a “living man” and “the Creditor of the estate”: Rothweiler #2, at paras 10-13. Rothweiler in his Statement of Claim complains he was injured when state actors engaged him, instead of his ‘Strawman’. He demands $22 million in damages: Rothweiler #2, at para 2.               

[3] In Fiander v Mills, 2015 NLCA 31 (CanLII) at paras 20-21, 40, 368 Nfld & PEIR 80, the Newfoundland Court of Appeal concluded that anyone who uses the ‘Strawman’ motif in court is presumed to act in bad faith, and for a vexatious and abusive ulterior purpose. This decision provides that a court that encounters the ‘Strawman’ may act pre-emptively to terminate or restrict litigation abuse based on this notoriously false idea.

This rule from Fiander v Mills has been subsequently adopted in many Alberta cases, including Re Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 629 (CanLII)29 Alta LR (6th) 334, Gauthier v Starr, 2016 ABQB 213 (CanLII)86 CPC (7th) 348; Alberta v Greter, 2016 ABQB 293 (CanLII); Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency), 2017 ABQB 123 (CanLII)98 CPC (7th) 249; and Re Gauthier, 2017 ABQB 555 (CanLII), aff’d 2018 ABCA 14 (CanLII).

Fiander v Mills, 2015 NLCA 31 (CanLII):

(at 20-21) “The appellant also asserted in his statement of claim that he is the “grantor and sole beneficiary” of  the “Estate” of the human being known as “Edward John Fiander” and that the government continues wrongfully to “administer” his estate in breach of trust by forcing him to pay licence fees and seizing his fish, amongst other things. This notion of treating a named individual as an “estate” that is somehow separate from the person who is subject to the law and that is free from governmental regulation is also a concept unrecognized by the law of Canada. It is just nonsense and has no basis for inclusion in a statement of claim. The appellant’s assertion in the statement of claim that the issuance of a birth certificate, which merely records an historical fact and does not create identity, somehow nevertheless results in “the process of the creation of an Estate with the parents or guardians granting to the government, as Trustee, their offspring’s (child) share of the earth over which it was given dominion by its creator, the earth and all things of it (Genesis 1:26-28)” is, quite apart from the incomprehensible nature of the assertion, unconnected to any basis for asserting a claim for damages against the respondents.”

(at 40) “In this case, this Court has now declared that arguments relating to opting out of legislation, the fractionating of human personality to support claims of not being subject to law and the fanciful use of arguments based on birth certificates to create notions of estates to advance submissions that would otherwise have no rational support in the jurisprudence, have no basis in the law in this jurisdiction. It would therefore be open to a trial court in the future, when made aware of such submissions in other proceedings, to treat those submissions as presumptively vexatious and abusive and to act preemptively to prevent such claims from improperly clogging up the legal system to the cost and prejudice of those who would otherwise have to face and deal with them.  The court would not have to wait for a formal application to strike from an affected party but could also act on its own motion to deal with the issue, applying such procedural safeguards (such as a show-cause hearing initiated by the senior court official in the relevant judicial centre) as may be appropriate in the circumstances. It must be remembered that even rule 14.24(1), by its language, does not require a formal application by a party to initiate a consideration as to whether a pleading is an abuse of the process of the Court.”

DKD (Re), 2019 ABQB 26 (CanLII):

II. BGD’s Written Submissions 

[9] BGD in his written submissions immediately and explicitly apologized for the “NOTICE”. He explained that he takes court processes seriously and that he meant no disrespect to the Court or to me by filing the “NOTICE”. BGD claimed he never intended to collect on the fee schedules he foisted on others; he recognized that this would create an unlawful hardship. 

[10] BGD then commented on my criticisms of the OPCA concepts and the guru I identified in relation to the “NOTICE”. It is clear to me that BGD investigated those criticisms, and he thanked me for pointing out that the people who teach OPCA concepts are grounded in falsehood. For example, in relation to Carl (Karl) Lentz, BGD wrote: 

As for Karl Lentz Yes He is a nut cake. I do realize that now. Thanks for pointing that out to me. A little late for me. But you know that. Just saying that. …

[11] BGD also identified the recently deceased self-proclaimed judge David Wynn Miller (see Knutson (Re) 2018 ABQB 858 (CanLII) at paras 18-26, 72-80) as another pseudolegal influence on him. BGD explained in his submissions that he now sees how the manner in which these gurus teach what they say is the law is misleading: “… With all these ideas one only gets half the story. …”.

III.      Court Access Restrictions

[13] In most instances a person will be made subject to court access restrictions where that individual adopts OPCA concepts and then engages in “offensive” litigation, since that is “… a basis for immediate court intervention to prevent that from recurring….”: 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee), 2017 ABQB 548 (CanLII) at paras 74, 13 CPC (8th) 92, see also Gauthier (Re), 2017 ABQB 555 (CanLII) at paras 77-78, 83, 87 CPC (7th) 555, aff’d 2018 ABCA 14 (CanLII); Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 288 (CanLII) at paras 39-41, 46, result confirmed 2018 ABQB 399 (CanLII); d’Abadie v Her Majesty the Queen, 2018 ABQB 438 (CanLII) at paras 5-7, 34; Alberta Treasury Branches v Hawrysh, 2018 ABQB 618 (CanLII) at para 29; Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 834 (CanLII) at para 14; Knutson (Re), 2018 ABQB 1050 (CanLII) at para 17.

1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee), 2017 ABQB 548 (CanLII):

[64] Another and very troubling class of abusive litigants are persons who are affected by querulous paranoia, a form of persecutory delusional disorder that leads to an ever-expanding cascade of litigation and dispute processes, which only ends after the affected person has been exhausted and alienated by this self-destructive process. Querulous paranoiacs attack everyone who becomes connected or involved with a dispute via a diverse range of processes including lawsuits, appeals, and professional complaints. Anyone who is not an ally is the enemy. This condition is reviewed in Gary M Caplan & Hy Bloom, “Litigants Behaving Badly: Querulousness in Law and Medicine” 2015 44:4 Advocates’ Quarterly 411 and Paul E Mullen & Grant Lester, “Vexatious Litigants and Unusually Persistent Complainants and Petitioners: From Querulous Paranoia to Querulous Behaviour” (2006) 24 Behav Sci Law 333.

[65] Persons afflicted by querulous paranoia exhibit a unique ‘fingerprint’ in the way they frame and conduct their litigation as a crusade for retribution against a perceived broad-based injustice, and via a highly unusual and distinctive document style. The vexatious litigants documented in McMeekin v Alberta (Attorney General), 2012 ABQB 456 (CanLII), 543 AR 132, McMeekin v Alberta (Attorney General), 2012 ABQB 625 (CanLII), 543 AR 11 Chutskoff v Bonora, 2014 ABQB 389 (CanLII), 590 AR 288, Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 335 (CanLII), and Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 651 (CanLII) all exhibit the characteristic querulous paranoiac litigation and document fingerprint criteria.

[66] Mullen and Grant observe these persons cannot be managed or treated: pp 347-48. Early intervention is the only possible way to interrupt the otherwise grimly predictable progression of this condition: Caplan & Bloom, pp 450-52; Mullen & Lester, pp 346-47. Disturbingly, these authors suggest that the formal and emotionally opaque character of litigation processes may, by its nature, transform generally normal people into this type of abusive litigant: Caplan & Bloom, pp 426-27, 438.

[67] A “persistent misconduct” requirement means persons afflicted by querulous paranoia cannot be managed. They will always outrun any court restriction, until it is too late and the worst outcome has occurred.

4. Litigation Abuse Motivated by Ideology

[68] Other abusive litigants are motivated by ideology. A particularly obnoxious example of this class are the Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [“OPCA”] litigants described in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII), 543 AR 215. Many OPCA litigants are hostile to and reject conventional state authority, including court authority. They engage in group and organized actions that have a variety of motives, including greed, and extremist political objectives: Meads v Meads, at paras 168-198. Justice Morissette (“Querulous or Vexatious Litigants, A Disorder of a Modern Legal System?” (Paper delivered at the Canadian Association of Counsel to Employers, Banff AB (26-28 September 2013)) at pp 11) has observed for this population that abuse of court processes is a political action, “… the vector of an ideology for a class of actors in the legal system.”

[69] Some OPCA litigants use pseudolegal concepts to launch baseless attacks on government actors, institutions, lawyers, and others. For example:

  • ANB v Alberta (Minister of Human Services), 2013 ABQB 97 (CanLII), 557 AR 364 – after his children were seized by child services the Freeman-on-the-Land father sued child services personnel, lawyers, RCMP officers, and provincial court judges, demanding return of his property (the children) and $20 million in gold and silver bullion, all on the basis of OPCA paperwork.
  • Ali v Ford, 2014 ONSC 6665 (CanLII) – the plaintiff sued Toronto mayor Rob Ford and the City of Toronto for $60 million in retaliation for a police attendance on his residence. The plaintiff claimed he was a member of the Moorish National Republic, and as a consequence immune from Canadian law.
  • Bursey v Canada, 2015 FC 1126 (CanLII), aff’d 2015 FC 1307 (CanLII), aff’d Dove v Canada, 2016 FCA 231 (CanLII), leave to the SCC refused, 37487 (1 June 2017) – the plaintiffs claimed international treaties and the Charter are a basis to demand access to a secret personal bank account worth around $1 billion that is associated with the plaintiffs’ birth certificates; this is allegedly a source for payments owed to the plaintiffs so they can adopt the lifestyle they choose and not have to work.
  • Claeys v Her Majesty, 2013 MBQB 313 (CanLII), 300 Man R (2d) 257 – the plaintiff sued for half a million dollars and refund of all taxes collected from her, arguing she had waived her rights to be a person before the law, pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Canada had no authority because Queen Elizabeth II was “… Crowned on a fraudulent Stone and … violated her Coronation Oath by giving Royal Assent to laws that violate God’s Law …”.
  • Doell v British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General), 2016 BCSC 1181 (CanLII) – an individual who received a traffic ticket for riding without a helmet sued British Columbia, demanding $150,000.00 in punitive damages, because he is a human being and not a person, and the RCMP had interfered with his right “to celebrate divine service”.
  • Fiander v Mills, 2015 NLCA 31 (CanLII), 368 Nfld & PEIR 80 – a person accused of fisheries offenses sued the Crown prosecutor, fisheries officer, and provincial court judge, arguing he was wrongfully prosecuted because he had opted out of “having” a “person” via the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  • Isis Nation Estates v Canada, 2013 FC 590 (CanLII), the plaintiff, “Maitreya Isis Maryjane Blackshear, the Divine Holy Mother of all/in/of creation”, sued Alberta and Canada for $108 quadrillion and that they “cease and desist all blasphemy” against the plaintiff. [70] There is little need to explore why these claims are anything other than ridiculous.

[71] OPCA litigants have been formally declared vexatious, for example: Boisjoli (Re),2015 ABQB 629 (CanLII), 29 Alta LR (6th) 334; Boisjoil (Re),2015 ABQB 690 (CanLII); Cormier v Nova Scotia, 2015 NSSC 352,2015 NSSC 352 (CanLII), 367 NSR (2d) 295; Curle v Curle, 2014 ONSC; Gauthier v Starr, 2016 ABQB 213 (CanLII)2016 ABQB 213 (CanLII), 86 CPC (7th) 348; Holmes v Canada, 2016 FC 918 (CanLII); R v Fearn, 2014 ABQB 233 (CanLII), 586 AR 182; Yankson v Canada (Attorney General), 2013 BCSC 2332 (CanLII).

[72] Judicial and legal academic authorities uniformly identify OPCA narratives and their associated pseudolegal concepts as resting on and building from a foundation of paranoid and conspiratorial anti-government and anti-institutional political and social belief. These individuals are sometimes called ‘litigation terrorists’ for this reason. They may act for personal benefit, but they also do so with the belief they are justified and act lawfully when they injure others and disrupt court processes. Persons who advance OPCA litigation to harm others have no place in Canada’s courts. The court’s inherent jurisdiction must be able to shield the innocent potential victims of these malcontents. Their next target can be anyone who crosses their path – government officials or organizations, peace officers, lawyers, judges, business employees – and who then offends the OPCA litigant’s skewed perspectives.

[73] These individuals believe they have a right to attack others via the courts, they like the idea of doing that, and they view their litigation targets as bad actors who deserve punishment. Waiting for these individuals to establish “persistent misconduct” simply means they just have more opportunities to cause harm. 

[74] The plaintiff in Henry v El was obviously an OPCA litigant engaged in a vendetta. Slatter JA in that matter did not wait for the plaintiff to establish a pattern of “persistently” misusing the courts to attack others. I agree that is the correct approach.

If a person uses pseudolaw to attack others as a ‘litigation terrorist’ then that should be a basis for immediate court intervention to prevent that from recurring. If the Judicature Act cannot provide an authority to do that, then this Court’s inherent jurisdiction should provide the basis for that step.”

Gauthier (Re), 2017 ABQB 555 (CanLII):

[77] First, Gauthier’s history establishes future abusive litigation is grimly predictable. He does not take “no” for an answer. His August 3/8/10, 2017 email is explicit: he intends to take procedurally abusive action against those he considers to be wrongdoers.

[78] His philosophy and animus to government means he plausibly will litigate against any government, law enforcement, or court actor who will or has crossed his path. In Crossroads-DMD Mortgage Investment Corporation v Gauthier he previously advanced OPCA concepts in an attempt to frustrate collection of mortgage debts due under contract. Given these facts I cannot identify a subset or category of potential litigation targets for Gauthier’s abusive court activities. He is a threat to every Canadian.

[79] Similarly, Gauthier’s misconduct spans everything from illegal defences to debt collection, to attempts to attack government workers engaged in their duties, to illegal claims on property, to springing a convicted drug trafficker from prison. I see no way to predict a focus or restriction on Gauthier’s misuse of courts. In fact, the opposite is likely, since he is so globally offended by what he (incorrectly) identifies as oppression and conspiracy.

[83] Given these facts, Gauthier’s history, and his clear animus to the persons he views as wrongdoers, I find that an additional and more unusual step is required to control his abuse of Alberta Courts. As in Re Boisjoli and Ewanchuk v Canada (Attorney General) I also order that Gauthier is prohibited from making any leave application to the Alberta Provincial Court, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, or Alberta Court of Appeal except where that filing is made by a member of the Law Society of Alberta. This will help screen Gauthier’s future court activities to minimize further abuse of the courts and other litigants.

[87] The Court will prepare, file, and serve (Gauthier at his email account) the appropriate order to reflect this decision. Gauthier’s approval is not required for the form of order.

Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson [2022] ABQB 354 Rooke ACJ (at 3-5):

“In her numerous appearances before the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Ms. Anderson calls herself many things, for example:

* Sandra-Ann: Anderson
* i: woman: Sandra of the Anderson family
* Sandra of the Anderson family,
* Sandra Ann Anderson, Executor of the SANDRA ANN ANDERSON ESTATE

These variations of Ms. Anderson’s name are meaningless in law, but, purportedly, serve to designate that, in this instance Ms. Anderson is self-identifying as a “flesh and blood” human being. Other times, Ms. Anderson refers to SANDRA ANN ANDERSON. This is the “Strawman”, an illusionary shadow-self of Ms. Anderson that is purportedly an immaterial legal thing, that was (allegedly) created by Ms. Anderson’s birth documentation, then chained to her as part of a nefarious government scheme. Persons who sell and teach pseudolaw claim that Strawman Theory allows one to operate in two aspects, and take all the benefits as Sandra-Ann: Anderson, while assigning any obligations and penalties to SANDRA ANN ANDERSON, which Ms. Anderson has called an “Estate”, a “Trust”, or a “Corporation”. Academic commentary has also characterized Strawman Theory as a legal possession and exorcism ritual, that pretends to be law: Donald J Netolitzky, “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments as Magic and Ceremony” (2018) 55:4 Alta L Rev 1045 at 1069-1078. Ms. Anderson uses her Strawwoman SANDRA ANN ANDERSON as a kind of sock puppet, when that is convenient for her. [5] Like many other pseudolaw concepts engaged by Ms. Anderson, Strawman Theory is nonsense, and rejected universally by courts, worldwide. In Canada, Strawman Theory has been rejected on so many occasions, and is so notoriously false, that simply employing Strawman Theory motifs creates a presumption that the pseudolaw litigant does so for abusive, ulterior motives: Fiander v Mills, 2015 NLCA 31 at paras 37-40; Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 288 at paras 6-21; Unrau #2 at para 180. Ms. Anderson is perfectly well aware of this, because she has been repeatedly instructed that Strawman Theory is false, and that her using Strawman Theory is an abuse of the Court and opposing parties. Ms. Anderson was ordered in Canada v Anderson #1 that she only communicate with the Court via her legal name, “Sandra Ann Anderson”, and not alternative name structures and/or pseudonyms. That was to stop her from using Strawman Theory, which promises her no benefits at all, and that just wastes court and litigant time. As will be very apparent, Ms. Anderson has paid no attention to that Order.”

Regarding the “Freedom of the City

free·man. n. In modern legal phraseology, it is the appellation of a member of a city or borough having the right of suffrage, or a member of any municipal corporation invested with full civic rights. A person in the possession and enjoyment of all the civil and political rights accorded to the people under a free government.

free·man (frē′mən) A person not in slavery or serfdom. One who possesses the rights or privileges of a citizen.

freeman [ free-muhn ] noun [plural free·men.] a person who is free; a person who enjoys personal, civil, or political liberty a person who enjoys or is entitled to citizenship, franchise, or other special privilege: a freeman of a city.

free·man Pronunciation: \ˈfrē-mən, -ˌman\ Function: noun Date: before 12th century : one enjoying civil or political liberty one having the full rights of a citizen

All persons seeking this “Freedom of the City” needed to take The Oath of a Freeman in which they vowed to defend the Commonwealth and not to conspire to overthrow the government. The first handwritten version of the “Freeman’s Oath” was made in 1634; it was printed by Stephen Daye in 1639 in the form of a broadside or single sheet of paper intended for posting in public places.

SO… A “FREEMAN” is no more than A “CITIZEN”, having certain freedoms granted by the state/society to which he is a member.

“Freeman on the land” or “Sovereign citizens” and other OPCA litigants reject any state allegiance or constitutionality, so they are definitely not a “freeman” by any reliable definition. Without this “person” created to define you as a “freeman” or “citizen” you have none of those rights or freedoms. The subscribed rights and duties afforded to citizens only apply to specific people, not unidentified humans. Then what is your standing…?

UK Human Rights Blog: Freeman on the Land: Canadian lawyer responds:


Money Monitor 20130404

Extract from The History of the Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Phenomena in Canada by Donald J. Netolitzky

The ‘Natural Person’ Tax Evasion Theory

“From the 1950s onward Winnipeg electronics shop owner, Gerrald Hart, engaged in a lengthy tax avoidance campaign. The Hart System of Effective Tax Avoidance proposed many methods to frustrate tax collection, two of which appear in subsequent OPCA litigation. 866 The first is documented in a reported judgment, The Queen v. Hart Electronics Limited (1959), 59 DTC 1192 (Man CA). Hart would fill out a tax return with entries such as “nil,” “no aspects or prospects,” “never computed,” “no reserves, all debt doubtful, liability unlimited,” and without supporting documentation. The majority of the Manitoba Court of Appeal concluded that Hart’s unsigned and unorthodox material was a tax return, acquitted Hart of his alleged failure to file, and refused to consider whether the return was defective or inadequate. Justice Tritschler dissented, and concluded this kind of non-response did not constitute a valid income tax return. 867 The second OPCA strategy invented by Hart alleges that the Supreme Court of Canada decision Nova Scotia (AG) v. Canada (AG) [1951] SCR 31, interprets the division of direct versus indirect taxation authority under sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 such that the federal government had no jurisdiction to pass the 1917 Income War Tax Act, and the successor Income Tax Acts. The same defect allegedly exists in modern tax legislation. This scheme is still (unsuccessfully) employed by OPCA litigants. 868

In the early 1990s, Alberta resident Murray Gauvreau collaborated with a Quebec Catholic Social Credit group, The Pilgrims of St. Michael, to mass market these early Canada-specific OPCA strategies to the Canadian public. 869 Gauvreau openly acknowledged the “Hart System of Effective Tax Avoidance” was the source of his concepts. 870 In an unreported decision the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench rejected Gauvreau’s use of both the spurious division of powers and gibberish income tax return strategies. 871

  • The History of the Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Phenomena in Canada
  • 866 Hart’s activities are documented in George H Armstrong & Bjarne N Aasland, Call it Extortion! (Winnipeg: AaA Publishing, 1990) vol 1 [Armstrong & Aasland, vol 1]; George H Armstrong & Bjarne N Aasland, Taxfighter’s Sourcebook (Winnipeg: AaA Publishing, 1990 vol 2 [Armstrong & Aasland, vol 2].
  • 867 This aspect of the Hart anti-tax scheme was subsequently rejected in R v Gauvreau (16 June 1995), Grande Prairie 9404-0009S20101 (Alta QB) [Gauvreau]; R v Strang (1997), 207 AR 72 (QB) [Strang]; R v Maleki, 2007 ONCJ 430, 2007 ONCJ 430 (CanLII) [Maleki]; R v Josey, [1999] NSJ No 81 (QL) (Prov Ct). A more mature but equally invalid variation on this scheme is to simply fill in a tax return with “n/a” entries: R v Jacques, 1999 BCPC 26, [1999] BCJ No 3190 (QL), aff’d 2000 BCSC 430, [2000] 3 CTC 42, aff’d 2001 BCCA 300, 2001 BCCA 300 (CanLII); R v Butterfield, 2001 BCPC 103, [2001] BCJ No 1182 (QL), retrial ordered 2001 BCSC 1420, [2001] BCJ No 2332 (QL) [Butterfield BCSC]; R v Dick, 2003 BCPC 13, [2003] BCJ No 187 (QL). Yet another variation on this scheme, an income tax return with only the taxpayer’s name and address, was not a valid income tax return but merely “a piece of paper which includes his address”: Aasland v Canada, 2004 TCC 95, [2004] 2 CTC 2761 at para 10. Aasland is a coauthor of the two “Hart System of Effective Tax Relief” texts: Armstrong & Aasland, vol 1, Armstrong & Aasland, vol 2, ibid.
  • 868 See e.g. R v Gerlitz, 2014 ABQB 247, 589 AR 43 at para 29 [Gerlitz].
  • 869 This essay was published in a 1994 issue of the Michael Journal, and the July 1992 issue of The Canadian Intelligence Service. The latter was a right-wing anti-Semitic broadsheet published by Ron Gostick: Janine Stingel, Social Discredit: AntiSemitism, Social Credit, and the Jewish Response (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2000) at 197–98.
  • 870 Little record remains of Gauvreau’s activities. His key document was an essay, Murray Gauvreau, “Canada’s Federal Income Tax is Unconstitutional,” (Paper delivered at the Canadian League of Rights Seminar, Calgary, Alberta, October 1991) Internet Archive
  • 871 Gauvreau’s ideas became the direct basis for at least two subsequent reported decisions: R v Strang (1997), 207 AR 72 (QB) [Strang]; StLaurent v Canada, [1995] TCJ No 809 (QL) [St-Laurent].

Gauvreau and the Pilgrims of St. Michael seem to be Canada’s first true OPCA gurus. Gauvreau’s writing appeared in the Michael Journal 872 which was periodically mass mailed to Canadian homes via Canada Post. This was accompanied by travelling speakers. Many key OPCA gurus identify these Michael Journal articles as the trigger for their interest in unorthodox anti-tax schemes. 873

Gauvreau and Hart’s constitutional division of powers argument was subsequently developed by Robert A. Marquis in an influential (in OPCA circles) self-published book: Fraud, Deception, Manipulation. 874 That text, however, neglected to report that the division of powers argument had already been dismissed by Canadian courts. 875  The last Pre-Detaxer influence is unusual: two pamphlets published a half century earlier that claimed fundamental flaws exist in the Canadian constitution. Both were motivated by the Social Credit movement.

The first, Alberta has the Sovereign Right to Issue and Use Its Own Credit by R. Rogers Smith, claims that British authorities distorted the effect of the British North America Act so that Canada remained a colony. The alleged result is that the 1931 Statute of Westminster created Canada as a nation, but the division of powers between the provinces and federal government remained undefined. 876

The second pamphlet, Canada a Country Without a Constitution, was published by Social Credit member of Parliament Walter F. Kuhl. 877 who represented the Jasper-Edson riding from 1935–1949. It reprints a 1945 speech Kuhl delivered to the House of Commons on Smith’s constitutional theories and calls for efforts “to [put] our constitutional house in order.” These two documents were subsequently reprinted in 1998 as The Missing Key to Canada’s Future, 878 an important document in the Detaxer movement period. Kuhl’s argument formed a basis to refuse to pay income tax. The federal government allegedly had no taxation authority as that and all other government jurisdictions remained with the provinces. 879 The Pre-Detaxers appear to have had only a marginal social presence, and exposure to OPCA ideas was at this point sequestered in small, politically right-wing communities. An OPCA industry had not yet developed. That would change in the late 1990s with the emergence of Canada’s first mass movement: the Detaxers.

  • 872 The Michael Journal is a bi-monthly newspaper published by The Pilgrims of St. Michael that promotes Social Credit concepts in a Catholic context: Michael Journal Gauvreau and the Michael Journal collaborated on what appears to be the earliest documented crossCanada OPCA promotion campaign: Troy Freeborn, “Pilgrims behind tax diatribe,” The Terrace Standard (19 January 1994) A8.
  • 873 See e.g. David Kevin Lindsay: “Freedom Free for All TV: David-Kevin: Lindsay Interview” (12 November 2013) QuhHU8 Russell Anthony Porisky, “Intro to your Human Rights 1/20” (1 July 2007) watch?v=oUs2MW6a9aQ
  • 874 Robert A Marquis, Fraud, Deception, Manipulation: The Parliament of Canada has Deceived the Canadian People Since 1917 by Imposing Direct Taxation on Incomes and Why This Tas is Illegal (1999) [self-published].
  • 875 R v Strang (1997), 207 AR 72 (QB) [Strang]; St-Laurent v Canada, [1995] TCJ No 809 (QL) [St-Laurent]. Gullison v Canada, [1993] 2 CTC 2108 (TCC), aff’d [1993] 2 CTC 33 (FCA); Hoffman v Canada (1996), 112 FTR 185 (TD); Kasvand v Canada (MNR) (1995), 189 NR 222 (FCA); Mueller v Canada, [1993] 1 CTC 143 (FC (TD)); Pilon v Canada, [1996] TCJ No 792 (QL); Rosen v Canada, [1994] TCJ No 810 (QL); Sarraf v Canada (MNR) (1994), 82 FTR 78 (TD).
  • 876 R Rogers Smith, Alberta Has the Sovereign Right to Issue and Use Its Own Credit (Ottawa: 1937) [selfpublished].
  • 877 Walter F Kuhl, Canada a Country Without a Constitution: A Factual Examination of the Constitutional Problem While undated, this pamphlet must be from at least the mid 1970s since it includes a 1976 letter from Kuhl to then Premier René Lévesque informing him that Quebec is already independent: Letter from Walter Kuhl to Premier René Lévesque (23 November 1976)
  • 878 Third Option for National Unity Committee, The Missing Key to Canada’s Future (Flesherton: Canadian Intelligence Publications, 1998). Canadian Intelligence Publications was a second anti-Semitic publisher operated by Ron Gostick: Stingel R v Strang (1997), 207 AR 72 (QB) [Strang]at 198.
  • 879 The Kuhl argument is explicitly rebutted in Butterfield v LeBlanc, 2007 BCSC 235, 2007 BCSC 235 (CanLII) at paras 21–25 [LeBlanc]. See also R v Dick, 2001 BCPC 245, [2001] BCJ No 2047 (QL) at para 72 [Dick 245]; R v Dick, 2001 BCPC 275, [2001] BCJ No 2272 (QL) at paras 29– 41 [Dick 275]; R v Lindsay, 2004 MBCA 147, 187 Man R (2d) 236 at para 32; R v JBC Securities Ltd, 2003 NBCA 53; NBR (2d) 199 at para 4.

The Pre-Detaxer’s emphasis on income tax avoidance was maintained in the Detaxer movement, but OPCA concepts penetrated a broader population base of customers less motivated by ideology than simple greed. Detax promoters toured Canada holding information seminars and selling their techniques and materials on a commercial basis. Important western Canadian gurus included Eldon Warman (Alberta), Ernst Friedrich Kyburz (Alberta), Sikander Abdulali Muljiani, David Butterfield, Gordon Watson, and Kenneth McMordie (British Columbia). Initially the Alberta and British Columbia gurus advanced very different strategies, derived from either US or domestic sources.

Eldon Warman ©DetaxCanada® A former airline pilot, 880 introduced a cluster of US-style OPCA concepts to Canada in the late 1990’s via guru seminar activities 881 and his website: ©DetaxCanada®. In court, 882 Warman explained that he instructed “common law” concepts that he had been taught by US guru Roger Elvic, of the Inns of Law of Wisconsin Elvick is the US guru who in the 1980’s initiated and promoted the “Redemption movement,” a Sovereign Citizen OPCA movement that claimed money could be obtained from a secret government bank account linked to a “Strawman.” This US OPCA influence is obvious in Warman’s unsuccessful tax avoidance litigation. Warman claimed he was only subject to common law, 883 and did not have to pay income tax because he was entirely outside government authority. Warman was a “sovereign natural citizen of the Anglo-Saxon common law.” 884 This parallels US Sovereign Citizen belief, 885 and language of this kind appears in other apparently related litigation. 886

  • 880 Warman is documented in Meads, at paras 125–29. Warman’s OPCA-related activities appear to have ceased, but his website remains: http://www.detax Much of Warman’s reported litigation relates to his anti-Semitic hate-speech activities: Warman v Warman, 2005 CHRT 36, 55 CHRR D/148; Warman v Warman, 2005 CHRT 43, 2005 CHRT 43 (CanLII). The former decision quotes passages from Warman’s website which show a strong link to US Sovereign Citizen concepts. Elvick, Warman’s mentor, is also a noted anti-Semite. Newspaper reports indicate Warman fled the US in the 1980s following a dispute with the IRS that Warman alleged led to the death of his wife: Glenn Brank, “Defiant Act Turns Into Nightmare Pilot Flees US, Wife Takes Own Life After Fight With IRS,” Sacramento Bee (19 February 1985)  B2; Clark Brooks, “IRS Takes Offensive on Threats,” Sacramento Bee (15 June 1986) B2.
  • 881 United States v Phillips (2 October 2014), ND Ill, Doc 1:12-CR-872 at 9–20; Angela P Harris, “Vultures in Eagles’ Clothing: Conspiracy and Racial Fantasy in Populist Legal Thought” (2005) 10:2 Mich J Race & L 269 at 292–97; Michelle Theret, “Sovereign Citizens: A Homegrown Terrorist Threat and its Negative Impact on South Carolina” (2012) at 862–68; Francis X Sullivan, “The ‘Usurping Octopus of Jurisdictional/Authority’: The Legal Theories of the Sovereign Citizen Movement” (1999) at 795–811. Susan P Koniak, “When Law Risks Madness” (1996)
  • 882 R v Warman, 2001 BCCA 510, [2001] BCJ No 1761 (QL) at para 10
  • 883 R v Warman, 2000 BCPC 22, 2000 CarswellBC 2825 at paras 4–5 [Warman 22]; R v Warman, 2001 BCCA 510, [2001] BCJ No 1761 (QL) at paras 9–10. By “common law” Warman means traditional and historic English common law, rather than its modern legal meaning. This ‘mutant’ variation of common law is discussed in Meads, ibid at paras 326–27, and more generally at Fearn v Canada Customs, 2014 ABQB 114, 586 AR 23 at paras 46–64 [Fearn]. See also James M Vaché & Mark Edward DeForrest, “Truth or Consequences: The Jurisprudential Errors of the Militant Far-Right” (1996-1997) 32:3 Gonz L Rev 593 at 600–607. Black stresses the romanticized character of this fantastic reimagining of the historic English common law: Robert C Black, “‘Constitutionalism’: The White Man’s Ghost Dance” (1998) 31:2 John Marshall L Rev 513; see also Koniak, supra note 44 at 71–73 for this subject in the American context.
  • 884 R v Warman, 2000 BCPC 22, 2000 CarswellBC 2825, ibid at para 4; R v Warman, 2001 BCCA 510, [2001] BCJ No 1761 (QL), ibid at para 9.
  • 885 United States v Phillips (2 October 2014), ND Ill, Doc 1:12-CR-872 at 9–17.
  • 886 Warman’s ‘students’ probably include the accused in R v Galbraith, 2001 BCSC 675, [2001] BCJ No 2900 (QL) [Galbraith]; R v Pinno, 2002 SKPC 118, [2003] 3 CTC 308 [Pinno]; R v Proteau, 2002 SKPC 119, [2003] 3 CTC 118 [Proteau]. Proteau is specifically mentioned on Kyburz’s website: Fred Kyburz, “Patriots on Guard” (24 September 2001)

Fred Kyburz published an anti-GST newsletter, Patriots On Guard though ultimately this publication and its website became better known for its anti-Semitic content. 887 Kyburz shared Warman’s Sovereign Citizen derived approach which they promoted at joint seminars. 888 Kyburz’s other main focus, ‘flyering’ campaigns, led to defamation proceedings. 889

Sikander Abdulali Muljiani, The Untaxman, 890 was another Warman collaborator. Muljiani was a guru for a relatively short period (1999-2002) during which he operated websites, held seminars, and offered a range of products, including a 500 page text: Becoming Free of the Canada Income Tax Act. 891 In contrast, most OPCA gurus in British Columbia used pseudolegal arguments with a Canadian origin that did not globally deny government authority, but instead looked for ‘loopholes’ in tax legislation.

In the late 1990s, David Edward Butterfield, “Educator and Defender of Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,” 892 operated the Shareholders of Canada Educational Initiative 893 Butterfield’s initial litigation challenged legislation that authorized the British Columbia Worker’s Compensation Board and its fees, 894 but subsequently expanded to attack income tax. 895 Butterfield taught the Hart tax return and division of powers schemes, 896 and Kuhl’s constitutional theories. 897 In 2002, Butterfield pled guilty to charges for failure to file tax returns. 898 Gordon Watson began as an anti-abortion activist 899 and refused to pay income tax because those taxes helped fund abortions. Watson used the Hart/Gauvreau division of powers concepts, 900 arguments on what constituted a tax return, and claimed that income tax and tax reporting procedures offend the Charter. 901

  • 887 The “Patriots On Guard” website was shut down as a consequence of Warman v Kyburz, 2003 CHRT 18 (CanLII). The website’s contents nevertheless remain available on the Internet Archive, ibid.
  • 888 Fred Kyburz, “Planned DetaxCanada/Patriots On Guard Seminars,” http://www.web.
  • 889 Hall v Kyburz, 2006 ABQB 294, 2006 ABQB 294 (CanLII) at para 8, aff’d 2007 ABCA 228, 2007 ABCA 228 (CanLII). The trial decision indicates that, when stopped by police, Kyburz produced a “Copyright Notice” for his name.
  • 890 Alex Muljiani, “The UnTaxman Advisory Service” (8 November 1999) Inform Canada,
  • 891 The majority of this document was written by Warman, though the title page identifies Muljiani (“Rev Alex Muljiani”) as the author: Eldon Warman & Alex Muljiani, “Becoming Free of the Canadian Income Tax Act,”
  • 892 Herbison v Canada (Attorney General), 2013 BCSC 2020, 2014 DTC 5005 at para 52.
  • 893 This group was alternatively identified at times as the “$hareholders of Canada.”
  • 894 DADS Transport Systems Inc v Macdonald, [1996] BCJ No 1922 (QL) (SC); DADS Transport Systems Inc v Macdonald, 1996 CarswellBC 1936 (SC).
  • 895 R v Butterfield, 2001 BCPC 103, [2001] BCJ No 1182 (QL), retrial ordered 2001 BCSC 1420, [2001] BCJ No 2332 (QL); Butterfield v LeBlanc, 2007 BCSC 235, 2007 BCSC 235 (CanLII) at paras 21–25 Butterfield said he assisted in R v Galbraith, 2001 BCSC 675, [2001] BCJ No 2900 (QL), although David Kevin Lindsay was the guru who argued Galbraith’s case in court. See Robert Koopmans, “Canadian tax laws don’t apply to him, evader says,” Kamloops Daily News (16 February 2000) A1; David Butterfield, “Purpose is to educate,” Kamloops Daily News (26 February 2000)
  • 896 Sue Potvin, “Canadian Challenges Illegal Tax System” (May/June 1997) Discourse and Disclosure!topic/flora.mai-not/lyvOZ9w7Vuk
  • 897 Butterfield v LeBlanc, 2007 BCSC 235, 2007 BCSC 235 (CanLII) at paras 21–25.
  • 898 Butterfield v LeBlanc, 2007 BCSC 235, 2007 BCSC 235 (CanLII) at paras 3–5.
  • 899 Watson v Cull, [1992] BCJ No 2339 (QL) (SC), dismissed as abandoned 1993 CarswellBC 2594 (CA); Everywoman’s Health Centre Society (1988) v Bridges (1993), 109 DLR (4th) 345 (BCSC). 
  • 900 R v Watson, 2005 BCPC 59, [2005] 2 CTC 121 at paras 10–14, aff’d 2005 BCSC 1225, 2006 DTC 6393 [Watson], leave to appeal to CA refused, 2006 BCCA 233, [2006] 4 CTC 61. 

Kenneth McMordie’s anti-tax strategies evolved over time. McMordie was convicted in 2000 for failure to file income tax returns and at that point he used techniques taught by US guru David Wynn Miller. 902 McMordie subsequently argued he could not defend himself because he could not obtain a current Income Tax Act due to its frequent amendment, 903 and because the Income Tax Act is protected by copyright. 904 He was also a very early Canadian proponent of A4V. 905 McMordie then became a leading figure in the Manna Trading Ponzi scheme and in 2009 was fined $6 million by the British Columbia Securities Commission. 906 Manna Trading targeted elderly British Columbia investors who contributed to “private common-law spiritual trusts” that were allegedly exempt from the usual tax and regulatory obligations. McMordie, 907 Filepe Marcel Naudi 908 and William Glen Kennay 909 a.k.a. “Sir Larry Leupol” formed the Canadian Detax Group, 910 which promised tax immunity by becoming a “corporation sole,” an incorporated office occupied by a single person.

David Kevin Lindsay – CLEAR Initiative (Common Law Education And Rights)

Though prominent Detaxer guru David Kevin Lindsay became a key figure in the British Columbia OPCA community, 911 he began his OPCA-related activities in the late 1990s in Manitoba. At that time, Lindsay was a founding member of Citizens Against Government Excess a Winnipeg-area OPCA group, and in 1995 argued Hart/Gauvreau division of powers arguments before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance. 912 Interestingly, the chair, MP Jim Peterson, seemed familiar with these concepts.

  • 901 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter]; R v Watson, 2004 BCPC 208, [2005] 2 CTC 128 at paras 12–13; Watson, ibid; R v Watson, 2007 BCSC 1707, [2008] 2 CTC 272.
  • 902 R v McMordie, 2001 BCCA 412, 155 BCAC 21. While this judgment does not describe McMordie’s strategy, it attaches a document as an appendix that is clearly written in “Millerese.”
  • 903 R v Gibbs, 2003 BCPC 527, [2004] 5 CTC 152 at paras 44–45 [Gibbs], aff’d 2006 BCSC 481, [2006] 3 CTC 223.
  • 904 Gibbs, ibid at para 45.
  • 905 Ontario, “Paul McKeever, ‘Michael Coren Live!’ The (Un)constitutionality of Canada’s Federal Income Tax” (26 September 2012) [“Michael Coren”]. McMordie claims to use A4V to defeat criminal litigation.
  • 906 Re Manna Trading Corp Ltd (4 August 2009), 2009 BCSECCOM 426.
  • 907 McMordie also self-identified as a leader of the Ontario De-Tax group, though his operations appear to have been mainly located in British Columbia.
  • 908 A.k.a. Bruce Stellar, Naudi also appears to have taught that there is no obligation to pay income tax because there is no official version of the Income Tax Act, R v Gerlitz, 2014 ABQB 247, 589 AR 43 at para 29: In 2003, Naudi was acquitted of failing to file an income tax return as the Crown had not adequately linked Naudi to his social insurance number: R v Naudi, 2003 BCPC 453, [2004] 2 CTC 248 [Naudi], though the reasoning for this result was subsequently rejected: R v Meikle, 2008 BCPC 265, [2009] 1 CTC 184 at para 25 [Meikle]; R v Maleki, 2007 ONCJ 186, [2007] 4 CTC 80 [Maleki 186].
  • 909 In 2001, Kennay was convicted of seven counts of failing to file income tax returns: R v Kennay, [2001] BCJ No 2929 (QL) (PC).
  • 910 The Canadian Detaxing Group website between 1999 and 2001 is preserved in the Internet Archive See also Andrew Nikiforuk, “Hell no we won’t pay!” (2000) 73:9 Canadian Business 36.
  • 911 Meads, at paras 100–107 provides only a partial review of Lindsay’s extensive OPCA litigation activities. Lindsay himself is the subject of an additional 14 reported cases not documented in Meads.
  • 912 House of Commons, Standing Committee on Finance, “Evidence” (28 November 1995) Parliament of Canada

Around 2000, Lindsay organized the Edmonton-based Individuals for Common Law which sold a “Common Law Affidavit of Identification Card.” 913 He currently operates The Common Law Education And Rights” (CLEAR) Initiative, which publishes books, DVDs, and holds seminars. Atypical of OPCA gurus, Lindsay conducted careful legal research and developed a sophisticated, albeit selftaught, understanding of legal theory and procedure. 914 He first focused on what are commonly known as the OPCA “travelling” arguments: claims that motor vehicle use does not require a license, insurance, or registration. 915 In his book Rights Denied! How Your government has stolen Your Right to use the Highways You pay for 916 Lindsay credits Kyburz for introducing him to these concepts. This book is influenced US “travelling” concepts and jurisprudence, but Lindsay explicitly observes that these are potentially influential but not binding authorities. He instead develops a unique Canadian common law argument for unlimited use of roads. Lindsay is ubiquitous in the Detaxer period. He represented many OPCA gurus and litigants, 917 and, along with Watson, led a Vancouver-area Detax research group. 918 This collaboration is part of a larger pattern, as Lindsay has worked closely with other OPCA promoters, including Albertan Verne Warwick, and later toured with an Ontario guru, Mozafar Maleki. 919 Warwick, a professional engineer, is not the subject of any reported judgments but was involved in an Edmonton proceeding where OPCA litigants attempted to arrest a Provincial Court Judge. 920 Warwick wrote an OPCA text, Clear Money, that attacks modern financial and currency practices, and charging interest.

In 2010, David Kevin Lindsay asked Mr Justice Frits Verhoeven of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, who was acting as a court of appeal 921 to quash a conviction resulting from Lindsay’s failure to file income tax returns for 1996 and thereafter. Lindsay, who presented himself as David-Kevin: Lindsay, again argued that he was not a “person” as defined by Canada’s Income Tax Act. He said he had ceased to be a person in 1996. The judge refused to let Lindsay opt out of personhood. The judge said the sentence of a $5000 fine would remain but jail time would be reduced to 30 days from the original 150. 922

  • 913 Common Law Affidavit of Indentification Card,” Dave Lindsay, “Who is Dave Lindsay?,”
  • 914 See e.g. Lindsay v Manitoba, [1999] MJ No 27 (QL) (CA), leave to appeal to SCC refused [1999] SCCA No 122 (QL) (where Lindsay’s argument used an in forma pauperis provision that had been overlooked during legislative reform).
  • 915 R v Lindsay (1999), 134 Man R (2d) 15 (CA); R v Lindsay, 2002 BCSC 248, [2002] BCTC 248, aff’d 2002 BCCA 687, 180 BCAC 4; R v Lindsay, 2004 BCSC 1181, 2004 CarswellBC 2081; R v Lindsay, BCPC 335, [2007] BCJ No 2255 (QL). In a sense, Lindsay’s litigation career has come full circle because his most recent criminal charges relate to using a bicycle without a helmet and driving
  • 916 David Kevin Lindsay, Rights Denied! How Your government has stolen Your Right to use the Highways You pay for! (Winnipeg: AaA Publishing, 1999) [Lindsay, Rights Denied!]. 91 I bid at 66, 110.
  • 917 Lindsay has represented gurus Kennedy (Kennedy v Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), [2000] 4 CTC 186 (Ont Sup Ct J) [Kennedy]; Warman: R v Warman, 2001 BCCA 510, [2001] BCJ No 1761 (QL); Maleki: R v Main, 2000 ABQB 56, 259 AR 163; R v Maleki, 2006 ONCJ 401, [2007] 1 CTC 212 as well as many OPCA litigants (incompletely reviewed in Meads, supra note 4 at para 104).
  • 918 A remarkable ‘behind the scenes’ window into the west coast Detaxer community is provided by an email list that discusses Detaxer concepts and  litigation, “Detaxarchive,” which was operated by Watson and June Yung between 2001 and 2003: Gordon Watson & June Yung, “Forensic Taxation AdvocacyCanada (Detaxarchive)” (11 November 2001) Topica Watson and Lindsay were the leading personalities in this community.
  • 919 In 2007, Malecki was fined $7,500 for failing to file tax returns: ; R v Maleki, 2006 ONCJ 401, [2007] 1 CTC 212. He earlier participated in Kennedy’s name copyright scheme. Little else is known about Maleki and his activities.
  • 920 R v Main, 2000 ABQB 56, 259 AR 163
  • 921 R. v. Lindsay 2010 BCSC 831
  • 922 Staff report (June 21, 2010). B.C. man claims he isn’t a person, so shouldn’t have to pay tax. Vancouver Sun

The dominant Ontario anti-tax activist in the mid 1990’s was a school teacher, Tom J. Kennedy (a.k.a Tommy UsuryFree Kennedy). 923 Kennedy operated the Cyberclass website 924 and organized annual “Usury Free Weeks” that were an influential forum for distribution of OPCA concepts. 925 Kennedy also advanced an unusual scheme to opt out of government authority by claiming copyright over one’s own name. 926 Daniel Lavigne, 927 founder of the International Humanity House was another prominent Ontario anti-tax personality of this period. Lavigne operated the The Tax Refusal website, marketed “Tax Exemption Status Cards,” 928 and claimed conscientious objection is a valid basis to reject tax obligation. 929 Lavigne was subsequently convicted of child sex offences in Cambodia and is presently facing sexual interference charges in Canada. 930

Saskatchewan resident Lawrence Agecoutay, a.k.a. Sovereign King KaneeKaneet, from 2002 onward promoted a unique Detaxer variation where non-aboriginal persons were adopted into the (fictitious) Anishinabe Nations of Turtle Island 931 and purportedly   immunity from income tax and firearms obligations, and special investment opportunities. 932 This program was expensive, requiring a $500 application fee, then two payments of $5,000 for ceremonies “to be given full Indian title.” In 2008 Agecoutay’s Indian-based OPCA concepts were rejected as a defence and he received a six-year prison sentence for operating a very large and sophisticated marijuana grow-op on the Pasqua First Nation. 933

Early Detaxer arguments often involved some kind of technical loophole to avoid sanction, such as a taxpayer could not obtain an up-to-date, or certified copy, of the Income Tax Act, 934 or that tax-related authority was improperly delegated. 935 This approach sometimes even met with success. 936 Other strategies attacked the taxation authority itself, for example: the Hart/Gauvreau constitutional division of power scheme, the Kuhl Statute of Westminster argument, or that involuntary taxation is contrary to the common law. 937 In contrast, the US influenced Sovereign Citizen style approach of Warman, Kyburz, and Muljiani was quite distinct with its focus on the double or split person “Strawman” concept. The Detaxers remained a marginal social presence.

The Detaxer movement collapsed after 2008 938 when critical in-court failures 939 made clear that Detaxer tax evasion strategies, particularly the “natural person” argument, were legally ineffective. Criminal prosecution of “students” and “educators” from the Paradigm Education Group period continues to the present day. 940 Though Kennedy continues his UsuryFree events, Lindsay is the only Detaxer guru who still actively teaches classic Detaxer motifs. 941 Lindsay’s years of documented in-court failure has eroded his standing in the OPCA community. This is, in a sense, ironic, as Lindsay’s knowledge of court procedure, legal theory and history, and research skills are far superior to his other guru peers. 942

  • 923 Kennedy, represented by Lindsay, unsuccessfully attempted to opt out of paying income tax as a natural person: R v Kennedy, 2003 BCSC 791, [2003] 4 CTC 157
  • 924 Cyberclass>. This rather chaotic website archives many early Detaxer activities and litigation that are otherwise poorly documented. Kennedy also posts extensively on his blog: Tom Kennedy, The UsuryFree Eye Opener (blog)
  • 925 Tom Kennedy, “The Tenth Annual UsuryFree Week (November 13–19, 2014)” (27 October 2014), The UsuryFree Eye Opener (blog), UsuryFree Week events typically include a number of OPCA and conspiratorial speakers. Lindsay is a frequent participant.
  • 926 This led to a “Good Faith Public Notice” published in the Financial Post on 23 May 2002: “Good Faith Public Notice,” Financial Post (23 May 2002)  The author is unaware of any judicial commentary on the Kennedy version of this scheme, but strategies based on a purported copyright in a personal name have been rejected in other reported cases: Meads, at paras 494–504; Gravlin v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2005 BCSC 839, 2005 BCSC 839 (CanLII) at para 9; Dempsey v Envision Credit Union, 2006 BCSC 1324, 60 BCLR (4th) 309 at paras 37–38; Hajdu v Ontario (Director, Family Responsibility Office), 2012 ONSC 1835, 2012 ONSC 1835 (CanLII) at paras 23–25; Squamish Indian Band v Capilano Mobile Park, 2011 BCSC 470, 2011 BCSC 470 (CanLII) at para 62, aff’d 2012 BCCA 126, 31 BCLR (5th) 48; Bank of Montreal v Rogozinsky, 2014 ABQB 771, 2014 ABQB 771 (CanLII) at paras 80–87 [Rogozinsky]. 
  • 927 Daniel J Lavigne is discussed in Meads, ibid at paras 130–33. That decision does not identify an additional instance where Lavigne unsuccessfully represented an OPCA litigant: R v Ricci (2002), 55 WCB (2d) 406 (ONCJ), aff’d [2003] OJ No 5134 (QL) (Sup Ct J), aff’d [2005] 1 CTC 40 (Ont CA), leave to appeal to SCC refused [2004] SCCA No 551 (QL). R v DiPalma, [2001] OJ No 3586 (QL) (Ont Sup Ct J); Zelinski v Canada (2001), 2002 DTC 1204 (TCC), aff’d 2002 FCA 330, [2003] 1 CTC 53 also appear to involve Lavigne’s concepts.
  • 928 Tom Kennedy, “The ‘Tax Exempt Status’ Card,” This scheme led to warnings from the CRA & RCMP: “Beware of phony ‘tax exemption’ cards” CBC News (31 May 2000)
  • 929 See Meads, at paras 130–33; R v Miedzwiedzki (2004), [2005] 1 CTC 103 (Ont Sup Ct J).
  • 930 “Daniel Lavigne–Detaxer, Humanitarian, Child Molester” (21 October 2014) Quatloos “Canadian arrested on sex charges in Cambodia,” National Post (14 January 2009), “Canadian jailed for indecency with Cambodian sisters: judge” Asiaone News (5 November 2009) News/ Crime/Story/A1Story20091105-178137.html Allison Loranger, “Sexual predator deported from Cambodia, arrested for child sex crimes in West Nipissing,” West Nipissing Tribune (31 October 2012),_arrested_for_child_sex_ crimes_in_West_Nipissing.html
  • 931 Agecoutay (“Inherent Head-Chief of the Anishinabe Nations of the Turtle Island Reserve”) also personally sued Canada demanding the Crown pay him and the Anishinabe Nations annuities, and threatened the Crown with high treason. This case was eventually dismissed for inactivity: Anishinabe Nations v Canada, 2004 FC 1467, 2004 FC 1467 (CanLII).
  • 932 See e.g.,
  • 933 R v Agecoutay, 2008 SKQB 171, 316 Sask R 281, aff’d 2009 SKCA 100, 337 Sask R 223; see also R v Agecoutay, 2008 SKCA 68, 310 Sask R 224.
  • 934 See e.g. R v Bruno, 2002 BCCA 348, 2002 BCCA 348 (CanLII) at para 7; R v Kennedy, 2003 BCSC 791, [2003] 4 CTC 157 at para 16; reviewed in R v Gibbs, 2001 BCPC 361, [2001] BCJ No 2636 (QL) at paras 37–49.
  • 935 See e.g. R v Fehr, 2002 SKPC 8, 224 Sask R 132 at para 5; R v Dove (2004), [2005] 1 CTC 43 at paras 6–7 (Ont Sup Ct J).
  • 936 At least one OPCA guru successfully avoided income tax-related charges by arguing that the Crown’s evidence had not linked him to a social insurance number (Naudi, R v Main, 2000 ABQB 56, 259 AR 163.) though the reasoning for this result was subsequently rejected: at para 25; R v Maleki, 2006 ONCJ 401, [2007] 1 CTC 212.
  • 937 See e.g R v Kennedy, 2003 BCSC 791, [2003] 4 CTC 157 at para 23; R v McGrath (2001), 204 Nfld & PEIR 334 at para 28 (Nfld SC (TD)
  • 938 Unlike most gurus, Porisky could point to an apparent success. In 2000, he was acquitted of four charges of failing to file a tax return: R v Porisky (2000), Chilliwack 40082-1 (BCPC). Porisky told his customers this hearing was anomalous, having been relocated at the last minute to a courtroom without normal furnishings and where the judge dismissed the Crown case on her own initiative. The actual decision of Judge Maltby simply concludes the Crown had not proved its records established Porisky had not filed income tax returns.
  • 939 R v Sydel, 2006 BCPC 346, [2006] 5 CTC 88 [Sydel 2006] was the key decision that compromised the dominant Paradigm Education Group Detaxer submovement, though Porisky argued to his followers that this decision did not have global application to his scheme: Russell Porisky, “Paradigm’s Analysis of the Honourable Judge Meyers’ Reasons for Judgment in the R. v. Sydel Case,” Paradigm Education Group (2006) Sydel_decision. pdf
  • 940 Reported cases include R v Porisky, 2012 BCSC 771, 2012 BCSC 771 (CanLII); R v Eddy, 2014 ABQB 164, 583 AR 217; R v Eddy, 2014 ABQB 234, 583 AR 254; R v Blerot, 2014 SKQB 2, 2014 DTC 5029; aff’d 2015 SKCA 69, 2015 DTC 5074; R v Siggelkow, 2014 ABQB 101, 2014 ABQB 101 (CanLII); R v Siggelkow, 2014 ABQB 368, 2014 ABQB 368 (CanLII); R v Siggelkow, 2014 ABCA 450, 588 AR 359; R v Baudais, 2014 BCSC 856, [2014] 5 CTC 183; R v Baudais, 2014 BCSC 2161, 2014 BCSC 2161 (CanLII); R v Fung, 2011 BCPC 326, [2011] BCJ No 2260 (QL). There are many other unreported decisions related to the Paradigm Education Group.
  • 941 Lindsay continues to teach classic Detaxer pseudolegal schemes: see for example a 8-9 November 2014 seminar concerning the implications of the Queen’s Coronation Oath, the definition of “Personhood,” and the constitutional protection of property rights http://www.webook/ This is despite Lindsay’s consistent and ongoing in-court failures and a recent 60-day sentence for failure to file income tax returns: R v Lindsay (29 November 2012), Kelowna 70947 (BCPC).
  • 942 A recent illustration is Lindsay’s 2011 Supreme Court of Canada leave application (Lindsay v Her Majesty the Queen (27 April 2011), Ottawa 34331 (SCC) view/dsc9l9r1cdqae0s/Lindsay%202011%20SCC%20Leave%20Application%20Docket%2034331.pdf [Lindsay, Leave Application]. Notably, Lindsay’s application was dismissed without costs.

Russell Porisky – Paradigm Education Group

Russell Porisky 943 advanced a “natural person” tax evasion scheme that was broadly disseminated via multilevel marketing strategies. The keystone of the “natural person” tax avoidance strategy is that, since the Income Tax Act, section 248(1) definition of “person” includes “any corporation” it must therefore exclude any natural and physical “flesh and blood” persons. The precise source of the “natural person” scheme is unclear.

This scheme is first reported in Kennedy v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency) so it may have been his invention. However, Kennedy was represented by Lindsay, and Lindsay was involved in two cases around this period that involved other “natural person” type arguments. 944 Warman directed two 2002 Saskatchewan OPCA lawsuits which used a similar, though Sovereign Citizen influenced, “natural person” scheme. 945 Around the same period, the Canadian Detaxer Group was promoting that a person could become a “corporate sole,” however that term first appeared in Detaxer litigation in 2005. 946

In any case, while Porisky was not the first OPCA guru to argue that the Income Tax Act only applies to artificial persons and not “natural persons,” 947 he certainly popularized this concept both in its basic and mature forms. The latter combined the erroneous Income Tax Act, section 248(1) argument and the Sovereign Citizen double or split person concept and its Strawman. 948 The Paradigm Education Group used extensive written and video recording education material s. These were unusually professional and sophisticated, at least when compared with those of other Detax promoters. 949 The Paradigm Education Group programs had broad appeal outside the usual OPCA host communities. For example, its “students” included professionals and business people.

B.C. has recently seen a string of convictions related to the Paradigm Education Group 950 The group counselled individuals on how to avoid paying income taxes as “natural persons.” Eight educators in the scheme and 26 students have been convicted in Canadian courts recently of offences such as not paying GST, counselling to commit fraud, evading income taxes and filing false income tax returns. The group’s founder, Russell Porisky, was sentenced in the summer of 2016 to five-and-a-half years in prison. Russell Porisky was, by far, the most successful OPCA guru of the Detaxer period. The tax evasion group used multilevel marketing to recruit about 800 “students” 951 Paradigm Education Group was a highly structured OPCA scheme. Students were required to pay Porisky and his fellow “educators” a percentage of their total income, typically 7 percent. 952

  • 943 Unlike most gurus, Porisky could point to an apparent success. In 2000, he was acquitted of four charges of failing to file a tax return: R v Porisky (2000), Chilliwack 40082-1 (BCPC). Porisky told his customers this hearing was anomalous, having been relocated at the last minute to a courtroom without normal furnishings and where the judge dismissed the Crown case on her own initiative. The actual decision of Judge Maltby simply concludes the Crown had not proved its records established Porisky had not filed income tax returns. 
  • 944 R v Kennedy, 2003 BCSC 791, [2003] 4 CTC 157; Lindsay argued a separate “natural person” scheme, that the capitalization of names distinguishes a natural person from a legal entity: see R v Linehan, 2000 ABQB 815, 276 AR 383, (an appeal of an unreported 5 July 2000 Alberta Provincial Court Decision); Dick 245, supra note 41 at paras 57–58. In the latter decision, Lindsay also argued that the right to tax was based on contract and the trial was a military proceeding.
  • 945 R v Pinno, 2002 SKPC 118, [2003] 3 CTC 308; R v Proteau, 2002 SKPC 119, [2003] 3 CTC 118
  • 946 R v Sydel, 2005 BCPC 413, [2005] 5 CTC 166 at para 19. This is a Porisky/Paradigm Education Group case. The “Mr. Persky” in the reported judgment is Russell Porisky. 
  • 947 This scheme is first reported in R v Kennedy, 2003 BCSC 791, [2003] 4 CTC 157; R v Dick, 2001 BCPC 245, [2001] BCJ No 2047 (QL). Dick and Kennedy were both represented by Lindsay.
  • 948 This variant is reviewed in detail in R v Porisky, 2012 BCSC 67, [2012] 4 CTC 160, retrial ordered 2014 BCCA 146, 310 CCC (3d) 42
  • 949 A complete set of Paradigm Education Group materials, including the ‘teaching’ texts provided to Porisky’s subordinate “educators,” has been made available for download at the Quatloos web forum 
  • 950 

Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI) and its guru “minister” Edward Jay Robin Belanger 953 CERI and its members have an extensive, though largely unreported, litigation history, much of which is documented on the “All Creator’s Gifts” website. 954 Belanger claimed the King James Bible trumps Canadian law because the Coronation Oath represents a contract between Queen Elizabeth and her subjects to uphold Biblical law. 955 Belanger also appears to be the original source for an OPCA argument that section 32 of the Charter means all Canadian legislation applies only to government actors and institutions. This argument has recently become popular in Freeman-on-the-Land circles. 956

Sovereign Squamish Government (SSG) headed by Irene Gravenhorst claimed not only to be an independent government outside of Canadian law, but also declared superior jurisdiction over legitimate Squamish Indian Bands. 957 The SSG appears to have become inactive after one member, Warren Fischer, attempted to use SSG techniques to evade his income tax obligations. He was convicted, sentenced to six months incarceration, 958 and prohibited from working as a Chinese medicine practitioner and acupuncturist. 959

Tacit Supreme In Law Court and the United Sovran Nations (TSILC/USN)headed by Mario Antonacci 960 The TSILC/USN first attracted significant attention in 2013 when its leader, “Senior Chief Justice Andreas Pirelli” became involved in a highly publicized confrontation with his Calgary landlord. Pirelli had declared his rental residence an embassy. 961 It subsequently emerged that Pirelli was actually Mario Antonacci, who in 2009 absconded from Quebec part way through his trial on assault charges. Antonacci was arrested, returned to Quebec, pled guilty, and was sentenced to two years and nine months in gaol. 962

David-Wynn: Miller appears to be the first US guru active in Canada, 963 coordinating his activities with an early Canadian OPCA guru, Filepe Marcel Naudi, a.k.a. “Bruce Stellar”. Winston Shrout is likely the most influential foreign guru. Shrout toured Canada in the early 2000s, but his schemes do not appear to include a variation localized for Canada. 964 This cross-border information flow process continues at present.

Glenn Winningham Fearn, 965 a dual US and Canadian citizen and brother of Pre-Detaxer Murray Gauvreau, has taught Sovereign Citizen concepts in Canada. 966 In 2014, Fearn was found guilty and sentenced to four months incarceration for smuggling weapons into Canada. 967 Upon release, he absconded into the US in breach of his probation conditions. Between arrest and trial, Fearn toured Western Canada promoting his ideas. 968 Fearn reviews 969 but understates Fearn’s history as an OPCA affiliate and guru, which extends back to at least 1999. 970

  • 951 R v Porisky, 2012 BCSC 771, 2012 BCSC 771 (CanLII) at para 40 [Porisky Sentencing]
  • 952 Porisky Sentencing, ibid at para 38.
  • 953 R v Baldasaro, 2009 ONCA 676, 265 OAC 75; R v Baldasaro, [2006] OTC 134 (Sup Ct J), aff’d (2006), 213 CCC (3d) 89 (Ont CA), leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2006] SCCA No 474; Tucker v Canada, FC 1008, 239 FTR 81. In 2001, Belanger self-identified as a druid and minister of the Church of the Universe: Reverend Damuzi, “Minister raises hell in court” Cannabis Culture (26 December 2001)
  • 954 See online: All Creator’s Gifts The notable exception are cases that involve Kazimierz Crischuk (a.k.a. “Mythlim-Axkw”), who advanced CERI arguments as well as claiming special status due to alleged aboriginal affiliation: R v Crischuk, 2007 BCPC 470, [2007] BCJ No 2969 (QL); R v Crischuk, 2010 BCSC 716, 2010 BCSC 716 (CanLII)
  • 955 This argument is rejected in R v Crischuk, 2007 BCPC 470, [2007] BCJ No 2969 (QL) at paras 11–12.
  • 956 R v Petrie, 2012 BCSC 2109, 2012 BCSC 2109 (CanLII) at paras 68–84; R v Gerlitz, 2014 ABQB 247, 589 AR 43 at paras 34–37; R v Zombori, 2013 BCSC 2461, 2013 BCSC 2461 (CanLII) at para 28.
  • 957 The SSG operates several websites: Sovereign Communications Network, online: <> and Sovereign ©Skwxwú7meshSquamish™ Government (©SSG™) The SSG has, on at least one occasion, unsuccessfully attempted to exert its authority over its subordinate bands: Zig Zag, “Crazy and Confused, Con Job, or Cult?” (1 May 2011);; educatedindian (23 November 2012 at 4:28 pm), Comment on NAFPS Forum
  • 958 R v Fischer, 2013 BCPC 154, 2013 DTC 5125.
  • 959 College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of British Columbia v Fischer, 2014 BCSC 985, 2014 BCSC 985 (CanLII) [Fischer].
  • 960 Little documentation remains from this period. A very incomplete copy of the Sovran Nations Embassies of Mother Earth website is archived A series of videos that feature Antonacci also remain available While in Montreal, Antonacci collaborated with Maryjane Blackshear, a prosperity program promoter (Blackshear v Canada, 2013 FC 590, 2013 FC 590 (CanLII);;; Re AS, 2014 ABPC 300, 2014 ABPC 300 (CanLII). A large series of websites, now offline, were put up in this period, including “The Tacit Supreme In Law Court,” “The United Sovran Nations,” http://www.united Antonacci also operated a business, the “CPC Universal Group,” that purported to be a building contractor but also offered banking and financial services This business is now the target of legal proceedings in Alberta for illegal renovation activities: Alberta Government, Announcement, “Alberta protects homeowners through sting operation” (2 December 2013) E87604D113
  • 961 This event was broadly reported, see for example Canadian Press stories on this subject archived by the Huffington Post
  • 962 Christiane Desjardins, “La prison pour le fugitif Antonacci” La Presse (28 June 2014) http://www.
  • 963 Reviewed in Meads, supra note 4 at para 143. Miller has also been active in Australia: Wollongong City Council v Falamaki, [2009] FMCA 1204; Wollongong City Council v Falamaki, [2010] NSWLEC 66. The latter decision contains excerpts from Miller’s in-court testimony.
  • 964 Shrout’s primary website is “Winston Shrout: Solutions in Commerce,” However, a large number of his videos are archived on Youtube, including his own Youtube channel: “Winston Shrout,” Shrout’s seminars in Calgary, Kelowna, Toronto, and Vancouver were recorded and are sold on Shrout’s website in $195 DVD packages: “International Seminars,” online: Winston Shrout: Solutions in Commerce
  • 965 Fearn, who usually self-identifies as “Glenn Winningham of the House of Fearn,” operates the Sovereignty International website, He is associated with the fictitious “republic of Texas” government, at one point acting as its Speaker of the House of Representatives, “Private Information Share,”
  • 966 See Meads, at paras 176–81; Fearn, R v Warman, 2000 BCPC 22, 2000 CarswellBC 2825 at paras 46–64.
  • 967 R v Fearn, 2014 ABPC 56, 586 AR 148; R v Fearn, 2014 ABPC 58, 586 AR 173.
  • 968 See e.g. Eventbrite, “Sovereignty International,” national\843585047?s=3096457 Videos of these seminars are available on Fearn’s Youtube channel: “Sovereignliving,”;.
  • 969 See R v Warman, 2000 BCPC 22, 2000 CarswellBC 2825 at paras 103–104.
  • 970 Fearn appears in newspaper reports about legal proceedings against early Detaxers Denise and Richard Rosenberg: Bud Robertson & Aldo Santin, “Taxman fights back at family,” Winnipeg Free Press (11 September 1999). Fearn also represented Denise Rosenberg in Federal Court: ITA v Rosenberg, Winnipeg ITA-8790-97 (FC).

Mary Elizabeth: Croft

In 2007 Canadian Mary Croft published How I Clobbered Every Bureaucratic Cash confiscatory Agency Known to Man – a Spiritual Economics Book on $$$ and Remembering Who You Are. 971 which is basically a Freeman Bible, since it applies most of the U.S. Sovereign Citizen theories, from a Canadian perspective. The following is entitled “Who’s who and what to say in court“.

Robert Menard and many other Canadians have been influenced by this book, Menard in particular, founded most of the Freeman on the Land principles of Mary Elizabeth: Croft’s work. Croft is an unusual figure in the OPCA community. In Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Wyly (3 May 2007), Edmonton 0603 01720 (ABQB) 972 Croft unsuccessfully attempted to avoid paying credit card debts by arguing she, “Mary Elizabeth: Croft”, is agent for her married name/“Strawman,” “MARY E WYLY©®™”.

While broadly recognized to the present day as an authority in OPCA circles, she does not seem to have taken the typical guruforpay career path. Instead, her role is something of a “Karl Marx” to Menard’s “Lenin.”

  • 971 Mary Elizabeth: Croft, How I Clobbered Every Bureaucratic Cash-confiscatory Agency Known to Man … a Spiritual Economics Book on $$$ and Remembering Who You Are (2007) [self-published] “Who’s who and what to say in court”
  • 972 Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Wyly (3 May 2007), Edmonton 0603 01720 (ABQB)

The Freeman on the Land Movement 

In 2012 and 2013 973 a series of events brought public attention to what was a hitherto unrecognized and unexpected phenomenon; 974 there was in Canada a collection of persons who believed they were exempt from or immune to government, law enforcement, and court authority. 975 Instead, these people, who the media generally identified as “Freemen-on-theLand,” claimed they were outside Canada’s laws. Freemen spokesmen appeared on television and radio, saying they and their peers were the vanguard of a new Canada where the “true” common law would be enforced, and state interference controlled. They would do what they want, and impose their so-called rights on their neighbours.

This was not a peaceful development. One Mario Antonacci in Calgary declared that his rental property was an embassy. The house was his alone. He billed his elderly landlady, and threatened that any interference would lead to action by “Territorial Marshals.”

Meanwhile, near Grande Prairie, Paul Fiola, Shaunda Petrova and a group of squatters claimed they owned Crown land and would expel intruders and trappers by force. 976 When RCMP officers attempted to search a rural property near Killam, Alberta for illegal firearms, they were forced to retreat after coming under fire from one occupant who wounded two officers, then killed himself. The other occupant, Sawyer Robison, fled the scene with a powerful sniper rifle and body armour. Robison, the target of the warrant, saw himself as outside government authority. 977

Robert Menard

It was around the year 2000, that this largely distinct OPCA movement, the Freeman of the Land Movement 978 emerged in the extremes of politically leftist, “green,” anti-globalization, marijuana advocacy, social activist, and anti-government communities. This movement was effectively the sole creation of guru Robert Arthur Menard 979  a British Columbia street comedian, who argued that all government obligations may be rejected by foisted unilateral agreements that withdraw consent. 980

Robert Menard claimed that contract is the only basis for legal authority. 981 Government authority flowed from the birth certificate: a document that formed a contractual relationship between a human being and the state. The birth certificate is also a kind of commercial security that creates a “person” or “Strawman” linked to the human being. Menard claimed that a “person’s” name is in all capital letters, while a human being is named using the dash colon name structure. 982 Government bodies are corporations, and that explains why legislation has no force if a person does not consent to its effect. 983

Many of Menard’s ideas are clearly taken or derived from other sources, particularly Mary Elizabeth Croft, a.k.a. Mary Elizabeth Wyly. Menard also appears to have borrowed extensively from Detaxer sources. For example, he adopted Lindsay’s “travelling” arguments as his own. 984 His Croft-derived scheme for opting out of government interaction and jurisdiction has strong and obvious parallels to Sovereign Citizen concepts. 985 Similarly, Menard’s 96 is your fix money-for-nothing scheme is little more than a redressed version of the Bill Consumer Purchase scam 986 originally promoted by Warman. 987

Menard’s one unique contribution to OPCA pseudolaw is his argument that the secret A4V “Strawman” “birth bond” bank account is reflected in the Charter, section 7 reference to the “security of the person” (that is, “birth bond” of the “Strawman”), despite that provision’s meaning having already been well defined in Canadian jurisprudence. Under Menard’s leadership, the Freeman movement initially experienced steady growth through astute use of Internet media, 988 particularly Youtube videos and online communities. 989

At present, the Freemen-on-the-Land remain the predominant Canadian OPCA movement, but one in distress and upheaval. Morale is poor; years of incourt failure have unsettled many Freemen, and post 2010, Menard’s status is much reduced, particularly after his persistent failure to produce results or follow through on his many schemes, including a vigilante police force — The Canadian Common Corps of Peace Officers 990 “Freeman Valley” — an alternative community and government structure, 991 a consumer note based money-for-nothing scheme, 992 and “The Cirque De Soul, Eh?” 993— a touring arts and crafts event. 994

  • 979 Robert Menard on Facebook
  • 980 Robert-Arthur: Menard, With Lawful Excuse (Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society and Freddie Freepickle Productions, 2011) at 37, 141–43, 167 [Menard, Lawful]. This concept and procedure parallels Sovereign Citizen techniques: see Wilson Huhn, “Political Alienation in America and The Legal Premises of the Patriot Movement” (1998-1999) at 431–33; Michelle Theret, “Sovereign Citizens: A Homegrown Terrorist Threat and its Negative Impact on South Carolina” (2012) at 864–66; Francis X Sullivan, “The ‘Usurping Octopus of Jurisdictional/Authority’: The Legal Theories of the Sovereign Citizen Movement” (1999) at 801–804, 809– 11; United States v Phillips (2 October 2014), ND Ill, Doc 1:12-CR-872 at 14–15. The document that removes government authority is titled “Notice of Understanding, Intent, and Claim of Right.” See e.g. R v Petrie, 2012 BCSC 2110, 2012 BCSC 2110 (CanLII) at paras 41–51; Szoo’ v Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 2011 BCSC 696, 2011 BCSC 696 (CanLII) at paras 17–21, 43–45 [Szoo’]; ANB v Alberta (Minister of Human Services), 2013 ABQB 97, 557 AR 364 at paras 80–88 [ANB]; R v ANB, 2012 ABQB 556, 570 AR 146 at paras 46–49; Jabez Financial Services Inc v Sponagle, 2008 NSSC, 264 NSR (2d) 224 at paras 14–15, 18.
  • 981 This concept is generally reviewed in Meads, at paras 379–416. This is the double/split person motif (ibid at paras 417–46) and a theme throughout Menard’s texts: Robert Arthur Menard, Your Child Or Her Life! Deception and Evil in the Ministry of Children, Family and Community Development (Vancouver, Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society) http://www. at 12–13, 40 [Menard, Children]; Robert Arthur Menard, Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception (Vancouver: Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society and Freddie Freepickle Productions, 2004) at 5–9 [Menard, Bursting Bubbles]; Robert Arthur Menard, 13 Things The GovernmentDoesn’t Want You To Know (Vancouver: Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society, 2003) at 13 [Menard, 13 Things]; Menard, Lawful, supra note 127 at 16–17, 167; Robert Arthur Menard, Parking Tickets: The Scam Revealed! (Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society, 2004) at 16 [Menard, Parking].
  • 982 Menard, Bursting Bubbles, ibid at 9–10. This Sovereign Citizen concept is also common in the Detaxer movement.
  • 983 Menard, 13 Things, Clifford v Manitoba, 2014 MBQB 192, 309 Man R (2d) 309 at 15–16, 19–20; Menard, Lawful, at 48.
  • 984 For example, compare Menard, Lawful, and Lindsay, Rights Denied!
  • 985 See United States v Phillips (2 October 2014), ND Ill, Doc 1:12-CR872 at 10–17; Harris, Cardozo Stud L & Lit 65 provides a useful review of US Sovereign Citizen pseudolegal concepts at 292–97; Michelle Theret, “Sovereign Citizens: A Homegrown Terrorist Threat and its Negative Impact on South Carolina” (2012) at 862–68; Francis X Sullivan, “The ‘Usurping Octopus of Jurisdictional/Authority’: The Legal Theories of the Sovereign Citizen Movement” (1999) at 791–811; Wilson Huhn, “Political Alienation in America and The Legal Premises of the Patriot Movement” (1998-1999) at 430–33.
  • 986 Meads, at paras 544–47.
  • 987 See the commentary on promissory notes on the DetaxCanada website and a file that expands on the methodology, http://www.
  • 988 See e.g. R v Klundert, 2008 ONCA 767, 93 OR (3d) 81 at para 19, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2008] SCCA No 522 (QL) (optometrist); R v Amell, 2010 SKPC 107, 361 Sask R 61, aff’d 2012 SKQB 87, 391 Sask R 196, affirmed for two offenders, retrial ordered for a third, 2013 SKCA 48, 414 Sask R 152 (naturopath); Andrew Seymour, “Ottawa dentist, wife face financial ruin for ‘preposterous’ income-tax dodge based on Hollywood’s ‘The Matrix,’” National Post (8 January 2013) Teresa Smith, “Anti-tax crusaders jailed after following B.C. man’s ‘preposterous’ evasion scheme,” National Post (23 November 2012) -b-c-mans-preposterous-evasion-scheme (dentists); Canada Revenue Agency, Press Release, “Professional Engineer Fined and Sentenced to House Arrest for Tax Evasion” (30 October 2013) (engineer).
  • 989 Menard was one of the first OPCA gurus to effectively use this form of social media as a recruitment tool. Many of his videos may be viewed on his “mrmitee” Youtube channel, though some have been deleted. The most prominent is the World Freeman Society website, formerly at http://www.worldfreeman now online: World Freeman Society < Menard identifies himself as the Director of this organization,“Interview with World Freeman Society Director Robert Menard,” Global News (11 September 2013)
  • 990 Canadian Common Corps of Peace Officers More commonly referred to as “C3POs” (website formerly hosted at
  • 991 Outlined in the booklet Robs [sic] Very Cunning Plan (Freeman Society – Canada, 2009),
  • 992 Association of Canadian Consumer Purchasers, 28032051/ See also mrmitee, “Canada Law Lesson: Consumer Purchases and You — Paying By Consumer Note” (13 March 2012), watch?v=TyQSEcdY6Mc Robert Menard, “Consumer purchase theory,” Global FACT Radio (25 March 2013) Association of Canadian Consumer Purchasers,
  • 993 The Cirque De Soul, eh?
  • 994 Menard is discussed in Meads, at paras 121–24. Menard has a minimal litigation footprint. He appears to largely avoid court proceedings, both personally and as an advisor, and has concealed his in-court failures, such as R v Christy, Robson Square AR82367, AN37165, AP95995, AR97565, & AT21325 (BCPC) where he unsuccessfully defended a collaborator. In R v Menard (20 September 2004), Surrey 135998-1 (BCPC) Menard was arrested and pled guilty to a charge under the Transit Conduct and Safety Regulation, BC Reg 377/85, s 4(2): failure to retain and produce proof of payment for transit services. Menard claimed immunity from this specific offence in his text, Robert Arthur Menard, Violation Tickets and Appearance Notices De-Constructed, vol 2 (Vancouver: Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society, 2003).

Dean Clifford

Menard’s successor, Dean Clifford 995 emerged as a popular alternative to Menard at least in part due to Clifford’s emphasis on action and confrontation with government and court authorities. 996 He founded the FreeManitoba group, and until late 2013 actively toured and promoted his concepts. Clifford’s status escalated dramatically following his claim to have successfully used Freeman techniques to obtain release after his arrest on 3 February 2013 for a variety of minor offences. Clifford spent close to a month in remand but his charges were then stayed. Clifford was largely discredited following his arrest on 24 November 2013, and his extended pretrial detention.

He was also arrested and convicted in 2015 on drug production and firearms charges, and was sentenced to three years on 12 January 2016. 997 While in detention, Clifford unsuccessfully sued judges and government actors in retaliation for that arrest and detention, which Clifford claims was unauthorized. 998 He has also filed numerous applications for release on a variety of pseudolegal bases. 999 Clifford’s post-detention activities have also led to additional Manitoba Provincial Court proceedings for threats to kill or cause bodily harm to law enforcement personnel.” 1000

  • 995 Dean Clifford on Facebook
  • 996 Clifford has a white supremacist, skinhead background, “Canadian Freeman Movement: Ties to Extremism” (4 January 2013), Anti-Racist Canada (blog) “Dean Clifford and Bill Noble: Emails” (24 November 2014), Anti-Racist Canada (blog), 2014/11/deanclifford-and-bill-noble-emails.html His early customers were largely drawn from that group. Clifford now presents himself as a “blue collar” anti-government resister.
  • 997 R v Clifford (12 January 2016), Winnipeg CR14-01-33786 (Man QB)
  • 998 Clifford v Manitoba, 2014 MBQB 192, 309 Man R (2d) 309; Clifford v The Queen (16 May 2014), Winnipeg T-869-14 (FC)
  • 999 R v Clifford, Winnipeg, CR13-01-32571 (Man QB): applications on 6 March 2014, 17 April 2014, 1 May 2014, 21 July 2014; Clifford Criminal Trial, applications on 30 September 2014, 9 October 2014, 12 June 2015; Clifford v The Queen (15 September 2014), CI14-02-03064 (Man QB) (application).
  • 1000 Ian Hitchen, “Freemen rep clashes with judge, tossed from court,” Brandon Sun (3 October 2014); Ian Hitchen, “Accused threatened police: Crown,” Brandon Sun (9 December 2014) 

Leave a Reply