Both items just reinforce that I don’t have the patience to become a judge, in case I hadn’t sorted that out a long time ago…
To me, the strangest question about these Freemen is - do they actually believe the bullshit they’re spouting, or is it all a cynical attempt to slow down the pace of justice?
Because I like sharing strange stuff with you guys - The Mountie Lisa. 
As best I can tell, it’s some kind of cult of personality, where a few leaders convince gullible dupes that they’ve used magic to circumvent the law.
The one I have as an occasional client truly believes this twaddle. Some folks believe in God; some folks believe in Freemen on the Land.
And as I just saw on the evening news, Mountie Barbie! 
In other news, Rebekah Caverhill has won her eviction case against the idiot in her house - the eviction proceedings are due to go ahead quite quickly (I think this weekend).
I kind of got the sense that part of the problem was Ms. Caverhill herself, who seemingly did not understand how to evict someone. While it can be a bothersome process, the story sort of hinted that she didn’t quite get that there IS a process; she seemed to want the cops to throw the guy out without going through the civil process of eviction. The cops - quite correctly - refused to do so, because it IS a civil matter.
John Cleese on why he loves Canada.
Based on many of the Freemen court decisions I’ve read, and other research I’ve done, they really do believe it.
However, the gurus that Associate Chief Justice Rooke referred to in the Meads decision are another story. My own feeling (again, based on research) indicate that many of them know that they are the 21st-century version of snake-oil salesmen, peddling a bogus cure-all to desperate people. One in particular sells a “Become a Freeman” kit for $250 a pop; and yet, there is no evidence (that I’ve found anyway) that he himself follows the advice that he gives in the kit.
We’re “deliciously sane” until it comes to international hockey. That’s our only chance to suddenly start tootling our own flute.
And by God we better not lose to the USA! (Sochi 2014!)
“… I think that’s why you’re deliciously sane…” Thanks, John!
Nothing new there. In the 60s there was a Mountie GI Joe.
Anyone else, feeling a little nostalgic to see John Cleese looking so old?
I grew up in the 70’s watching Flying Circus episodes when they were rebroadcast on PBS. I remember driving our Scout Leaders bananas by reciting and recreating Pythonesque skits ad nauseum.
Quebec is offering free accomodation to that Alberta Freemen. Quebec landlady says she had run-in with 'sovereign' man at centre of rental dispute | CTV News
I’m half way through the Meads document and by about p.20 I came to the same conclusion; but my problem would be just wanting to shoot the guy and be done with it…“blah blah blah, the Maximus is the only law, BLAM!” All assets awarded to the spouse as the corporate identity is gone, case closed.
I am gaining a great appreciation for the humour and grace that Judges (and by extension, barristers and solicitors generally) must possess for the most part, having to listen and wade through twaddle like this.
Magical incantations that suddenly blow the legal system wide open - WIDE OPEN!!
::Grey:: living flesh and blood sentient-collection of electrons on your screen
Awww see, that’s just Quebec trying to get on the right side of public opinion for the first time this month 
Isn’t that what the second amendment is for?
There’s a lot of it going around apparently.
I’m sitting here just chortling away at the mind picture you’ve created. 
My most recent newsletter from the Law Society had another warning to the legal profession about dealing with Freemen. It was mostly standard stuff: do not notarize their Freeman documents, know their usual courtroom tactics, and so on. There are links to the Meads decision and the ANB v. Hancock decision, and to other Law Societies’ similar warnings.
But it did make me wonder–was this warning, coming as it did now, in response to the current news about the Calgary Freeman?
