The rule of law requires that citizens have a right of access to the courts, and the court - if it’s going to administer justice - has to hear what you have to say rather than prejudge it. Plus, there’s a fairly strong culture that if you are not legally represented - and for obvious reasons most freemen are not - the court needs to give you a fair degree of latitude to make out the best case you can - there might be a meritorious point in there, and if there is it’s the jduge’s job to spot it and take it into account in his judgment.
I was on a panel once with Justice Rooke and he mentioned that he has found the case useful in dealing with sovcit litigants, because he explains that many of the issues they want to raise have already been decided. He gives them a copy of the case, and directs them to the relevant paragraphs.
At the same time, he will say, “But, in your list of 73 points to be argued, the following points may have merit and I will hear you on those points.”
He said that does not always work, but in many cases that approach does help to clear away the nonsense and encourage the sovcit to focus on the issues which may have merit.
Of course judges have to tolerate this crap. It’s called innocence until proven guilty. A judge can’t just say “Oh, you’re one of those. Bailiff, take this man out of my court. I know his type. I’ve decided he’s guilty and there’s no point in giving him a chance to produce evidence.”
Or burden of proof/due process in general (since many cases will be in the civil sphere). After all like **UDS **wrote even a freak may have, somewhere amidst the large pile of Bull Sovereignty, unwittingly raised a real valid issue about the specific case in hand.
And as long as you don’t directly incite a crime it is not illegal per se to propagate completely insane crap about the legal and constitutional system.
Now, OTOH appeals courts can have a look at the writ of appeal, see that it’s based upon Foolman in the Land arguments, and say GTFO of here.
I don’t think that’s true. The court is under no obligation to listen to any random nonsense or allow a party to advance an argument that it knows will be a waste of time. I know of cases in which the court has categorically and pre-emptively forbidden the defendant from offering a defense it knows has no legal merit. I don’t see why they can’t do the same, and just categorically trashcan any OPCA defense.
And how is a judge going to know that a defense will be random nonsense before hearing what that defense is?
The principle that every litigant deserves his day in court has a corollary that every litigant – particularly the losing one – is entitled to a fully articulated explanation of just why his argument fails. If a judge responds to OPCA gobbledygook by simply saying “That’s gobbledygook! Now GTFO!” as Chihuahua suggests, then in some sense that litigant hasn’t really gotten his due process and day in court.
A difficulty that some judges apparently have (especially those who haven’t dealt with this before), is to compose a coherent and logical rebuttal to incoherent nonsense. It’s difficult to pinpoint just what is wrong with OPCA arguments that are so incoherent that they are not even wrong (as Wolfgang Pauli famously put it).
As UDS put it, Rooke has “done the heavy lifting” here. His decision covers far more ground than the actual case at hand, instead delving into the depths of OPCA, discussing and deconstructing all their arguments in detail. More than a single decision in a single case, it’s an encyclopedic textbook of analyses and rebuttals to OPCA nonsense. This is well illustrated in the Gauthier decision, among others, where the judge relies heavily on Meads for guidance.
Granted, the underlying law may be settled, but Meads relieves each individual judge from having to untangle and rebut the nonsense afresh. It gives other judges a toolkit of wheels that don’t need to be re-invented. Much of this is not specific to any particular national, state, or provincial law, thus the widely international utility of Meads. That was the sense of “widely influential” as I meant it in the OP.
There are some US cases that collect standard tax-protestor arguments for quick reference as well. In US v. Cheek, the Seventh Circuit stated that several arguments would never be considered objectively reasonable within its jurisdiction, which suggests that a litigant who raises them may be subject to sanctions for making frivolous arguments.