There’s also a rather long list of failures in this thread in the JREF forums.
Does a judge being nailed in the face with a tampon the accused pulled out of herself? (An adjournment resulted so that the judge, who was mightily angry, could go scrub down.)
Wow!! I never thought this would create a long discussion. I’ve read too many horror stories about this and too much headache. Thanks for all the info 
Somewhere in one of the links mentioned in this thread, I think there was a further link to Quatloos, a message board devoted to discussing and debunking scams of all sorts. (They focus a lot on MLM’s.) One of their forums specifically focuses on Tax Fraud, Tax Protesters and Sovereign Citizens type of discussions. It was mentioned that there is some mighty entertaining stuff there.
In case you missed it (and even I can’t find where it was linked right now), here is a link for you:
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewforum.php?f=32
Fun stuff.
(If you go straight to their home page, http://www.quatloos.com/
and scroll down the page, look for the “Redeeming Lawful Money” article, dated October 13, 2012. It’s not exactly A4V material, but seems closely related stuff.)
might be interesting to read.
do you have a date, place, names?
It wasn’t an erect penis, a SCOTUS case, and it wasn’t a real court because it had a gold fringed flag. 
FAIL. I win because I’m a free man and you haven’t refuted my wild assertion.
jtgain, of the family of jtgain, all rights reserved WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and counter offers are refused for DISHONOR. UCC 1-308.
Not reported. Either 1999 or 2000, not going to give the place, court or judge name because it would be really embarrassing for the judge.
A number of prisoners were in the dock for the court to take pleas and schedule their next appearances. While the judge was speaking with one of the Crown prosecutors, one of the prisoners unzipped her prison jumpsuit, stuck her hand down her crotch, pulled out a bloody tampon, jumped up, grabbed one hand on the top of the dock’s protective glass and with the other beaned the poor judge in the forehead before the guard was able to impede the prisoner. The judge verbally flamed the prisoner and then adjourned to get cleaned up. A charge of assault was added to whatever it was the prisoner was there for in the first place. I don’t know what the outcome was, for she was not one of my clients.
I have 5 internets that say she’s not getting an OBE. Probably not even an MBE either.
I’m sure this is why most accuseds who are in custody appear via closed-circuit TV.
As regards A4V and other FOTL schemes, I found some time today to review recent decisions that cited the Meads decision. It is working its way through Canada, as evidenced by cases citing it from Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia, in addition to its native Alberta (list of cases citing Meads).
And outside of Canada, on Quatloos, I did find an American prosecutor who had passed it along to local judges, who found it “very interesting.” (Cite to the thread.) Wonder if we’ll see Meads cited in non-Canadian jurisprudence any time soon?
When I first became aware of Meads (via some SDMB post, of course), I thought I saw it mentioned somewhere that it is quickly gaining notoriety in jurisprudence circles throughout North America (that is, in the United States too). Judge Rooke’s detailed analysis goes much deeper than merely citations of Canadian law and prior cases: It also seriously attacks FoTL-type nonsense on the bare underlying logic (or lack thereof), and on the full range of all their weird arguments. In that sense, the whole decision is a valuable textbook for judges in America as well as Canada.
Also, although Rooke bases his decision on Canadian law, his extensive exposition includes some discussion of FoTL tendency to base their arguments on American law and constitution (or, silly interpretations thereof, like the dumb arguments about UCC or the fringe around the flag type of stuff). So those topics are going to be of interest for American judges to study as well.
I just read Meads.
In an addition to a stick-by-stick tearing apart of this nonsense (literal meaning), it is a call to arms - citing cases where increased court costs, penalties, civil and criminal contempt have been and/or could be used. He also suggest clerks be given stamps reading “Accepted” instead of “Filed” for OPCA documents. He toys with the idea of accepting the drivel, but not before telling the idiot that they will be accepted “for (Court) costs calculations only”.
Apparently, Canadian courts have the ability to slap a person as “vexatious litigant” and actions as “vexatious litigation” - he strongly suggests looking at their actions with a view of finding cause for so classifying.
He also suggests that, since these morons reject court authority, they be required to post bond for potential costs before being allowed to bring action.
As to the present case, he is practically begging the wife’s lawyer to apply for all costs - her time, her client’s time, all costs. And oh - please ask for additional sanctions - I can think of a couple more we can tack on.
Toward the end, he directly addresses the OPCA followers, suggesting some questions they might want to ask their gurus, including "If you know how to tap this hidden wealth, why aren’t you rich? and “Want to indemnify me when I lose my ass?”.
He does express some admiration for the one “expert” who actually tried his theories in a real Court. Lost every last one, of course, but he did put it on the line
He is one pissed-off Judge.
I suspect this arises from the contract law concept of ‘accord and satisfaction.’
edit: a misreading/perversion obviously
Yes. Canada does not allow criminal accuseds to use a bail bondsman, as is done in the US. But in civil actions, Canadian courts in the various provinces can ask for a bond to be deposited with the court, in order to pay costs, to pay a judgment, and so on. Often (though not always), this is done so that a party can prove that they can pay costs and/or a judgment. In many instances where a surety bond is required by the court, a “court bond,” purchased from a surety underwriter, is used.
Assuming a bond is posted (i.e. deposited with the court, or a recognized Canadian surety company assures the court that it will cover the tab), the matter can proceed.
They’re not wrong, just lacking the proper magic words, which I’ve Spoilered to reduce danger.
WARNING: Do not read this incantation aloud or you may also turn into a Fruit of the Loon.
First Witch:
Thrice the brinded cat hath mew’d.
Second Witch:
Thrice and once the hedge-pig whined.
Third Witch:
Harpier cries ‘Tis time, ‘tis time.
First Witch:
Round about the cauldron go;
In the poison’d entrails throw.
Toad, that under cold stone
Days and nights has thirty-one
Swelter’d venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i’ the charmed pot.
All:
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.
Second Witch:
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the cauldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder’s fork and blind-worm’s sting,
Lizard’s leg and owlet’s wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
All:
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
Third Witch:
Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf,
Witches’ mummy, maw and gulf
Of the ravin’d salt-sea shark,
Root of hemlock digg’d i’ the dark,
Liver of blaspheming Jew,
Gall of goat, and slips of yew
Silver’d in the moon’s eclipse,
Nose of Turk and Tartar’s lips,
Finger of birth-strangled babe
Ditch-deliver’d by a drab,
Make the gruel thick and slab:
Add thereto a tiger’s chaudron,
For the ingredients of our cauldron.
All:
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
Second Witch:
Cool it with a baboon’s blood,
Then the charm is firm and good.
…Tubal-Cain?
I refuse this thread for fraud without dishonor. Not corporate person indicated. I am a poster, sovereign, preamble, on the Straight Dope Forums (not Forums of the Straight Dope).
You mean “Straight-Dope of the Family: Forums.”
I think this requires a special ritual involving a Klingon d’k tahg (or Daqtagh)
And the resulting concoction is nothing more than . . .
Kickapoo Joy Juice. . . although, to be sure, that’s quite good enough.
[sigh]
I had to spend a half-hour ploughing through one of those turgid things the other day. Due diligence - even of it looks like nonsense I have to read the whole thing to make sure there’s nothing of substance buried in there that might affect my client.