‘Freemen on the Land’ and Alberta Family Law
A few weeks ago the Law Society of Alberta sent out a notice for lawyers and students to be cautious of notarizing and commissioning documents from “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” (OPCA) litigants (specifically ‘Freemen on the Land’), reminding us of our obligations when dealing with OPCA litigants. So who are these OPCA litigants, and why do we need to be cautious of them?
The ‘Freemen’ Ideology and Tactics
OPCA litigants are a class of individuals who put forward a specific ideology or use certain common tactics in litigation, whether in the areas of criminal, property or family law. They go by various names (in both Canada and the US): Sovereign Citizen; Posse Comitus; Redemption Movement; Montana Freemen; De-taxers; ‘Freemen on the Land’, etc. But their position is basically all the same: federal or provincial statutes do not apply to them (and they are therefore not bound by them) as they did not contract (ie. agree) with the government to have those laws apply to them. They maintain the Courts have no jurisdiction over them: the Courts’ motto “from sea to sea” shows they are an Admiralty Court; the Freemen are ‘of the land’. Their arguments are often based on a misguided (ie. incorrect) and out-dated (ie. the Magna Carta of 1215) understanding of the law and fictitious and deceptive notarized documents (hence the Law Society Notice!), and can often involve intimidation and threats of violence (even against Judges, lawyers and Court staff). Maybe this is why we need to be warned about them!
‘Freemen’ in Alberta Courts
So where did this all start? The Law Society Notice refers to the leading case regarding these individuals, being Meads v. Meads (2012 ABQB 571), where Associate Chief Justice Rooke, noting that these self-represented litigants use calculated and deliberate arguments, tactics and documents [often promoted and supplied by leaders (“gurus”) of these movements], classified and characterized OPCA litigants as follows (at para. 1 - 7):
“This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant... 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... OPCA litigants do not express any stereotypic beliefs other than a general rejection of court and state authority; nor do they fall into any common social or professional association... This category of litigant shares one other critical characteristic: they will only honour state, regulatory, contract, family, fiduciary, equitable, and criminal obligations if they feel like it. And typically, they don’t… Naturally, my conclusions are important for these parties. However, they also are intended to assist others, who have been taken in/duped by gurus, to realize that these practices are entirely ineffective; to empower opposing parties and their counsel to take action; and as a warning to gurus that the Court will not tolerate their misconduct (emphasis added).
More recently, Justice Graesser, in two (2) decisions where an OPCA litigant, acting as a “third-party ‘busybody’ interloper” in a high-conflict child custody dispute, took the opportunity to not only meticulously debunk the legal basis of the OPCA (“pseudolaw”) approach, but also to comment on the ‘gurus’ leading these movements, noting (in AVI v. MHVB, 2020 ABQB 489 at para.’s 1-2):
“Pseudolaw is a collection of spurious legally incorrect ideas that superficially sound like law, and purport to be real law. In layman’s terms, pseudolaw is pure nonsense.
Pseudolaw is typically employed by conspiratorial, fringe, criminal, and dissident minorities who claim pseudolaw replaces or displaces conventional law. These groups attempt to gain advantage, authority, and other benefits via this false law. In Meads v Meads…, Rooke ACJ concluded OPCA strategies are instead scams promoted to gullible, ill-informed, and often greedy individuals by unscrupulous “guru” personalities. Employing pseudolaw is always an abuse of court processes, and warrants immediate court response…”
And in AVI v. MHVB, 2020 ABQB 790 at para.’s 3-6:
Gurus are a particularly obnoxious component of the pseudolaw phenomenon. They operate as “Typhoid Marys” who spread the pseudolaw “disease of ideas” into new populations… Rooke ACJ characterized OPCA gurus as “evil counsellors”, “falsifiers”, and “hustlers” who “profit at the expense of naïve and vulnerable customers”, “selling lies or wildly dubious concepts.”…
There is a temptation to ignore OPCAs and treat them as irritants. That would perhaps be appropriate for one-off situations, but where many people are involved and there is some sort of organization, the public needs to be protected from them. Sadly, conspiracy theories appear to be gaining in recognition. Many people search for “truth” whether it be legal truths, medical truths, or news truths on the Internet. There is no doubt that the Internet is an amazing source of information, but there are no filters to distinguish between fact and fiction. The decriers of “fake news” are too frequently the creators of fake news.
‘Freemen’ Ideology in Family Law
But what does this ‘fake news” have to do with family law in Alberta? In turning his attention to the child custody issue in these proceedings, Justice Graesser warned the mother of the potential negative implications of continuing to rely on OPCA representation and Pseudolaw theories, including (AVI v. MHVB 2020 ABQB at para.’s 124 – 127) that:
► maintaining the Court has no authority over the child directly subverts the Court’s reliance the parent will fulfil their responsibilities and obligations as a parent, including following the Court’s instructions;
► classifying the child as property is disturbing and counter to the parent’s role as guardian and care-giver to the child, and;
► maintaining OPCA beliefs is a serious indication that a person is not a fit parent.
Fake News. Typhoid Mary’s. Unfit Parents. Perhaps it should come as no surprise that the recent increased presence of hate groups and extremist activity in the U.S. and Canada (ie. the recent tragic event in London, Ontario) has made its way into the Alberta Courts, even in family law matters.
But the Court has made it clear that it “will not be intimidated.” The Court has (and Justice Graesser was not shy to use) the Court’s power to control these groups and activities by (among other powers): prohibiting OPCAs from representing or communicating with parents re Court matters; recommending the laying of criminal charges, and; imposing findings of contempt of court.
But what about parents who use these ideologies and tactics in family law matters? Justice Graesser noted the use of these tactics (including intimidating Justices, Court staff, law enforcement and Counsel) creates a presumption of bad faith and intent, which could be punishable by (among other sanctions): striking pleadings; damages; court costs; court access restrictions (ie. vexatious litigant status under Civil PN7); contempt of Court proceedings, and; criminal proceedings.
However, the most obvious sanction for utilizing these disruptive ideologies and tactics in family law matters is clear (as was used by Justice Graesser in Avi and by other Alberta Justices where Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is present and unlikely to change: see “Managing Narcissists during Divorce and Separation”, https://macleanfamilylaw.ca/2021/04/02/managing-narcissists-during-divorce-and-separation ): vary parenting to severely limit or structure the role of the OPCA parent in the child’s life. Undeniably, this would be in the child’s best interests.
