What Adam Curry is reading

VIDEO- CNN: COLORADO SCHOOLS HAVE A POT PROBLEM! - YouTube
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 15:00
VIDEO- Bloomberg Signs Public Vaping Ban Night Before Millions Attempt To Give Up Cigarettes - YouTube
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 14:58
Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Third Rule Implementing Export Control Reform
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: Federal Register Latest Entries
  Wed, 01 Jan 2014 22:45
  2.Section 121.1 is amended by revising U.S. Munitions List Categories IV, V, IX, X, and XVI to read as follows:
  * * * * *
  Category IV'--Launch Vehicles, Guided Missiles, Ballistic Missiles, Rockets, Torpedoes, Bombs, and Mines Back to Top*(a) Rockets, space launch vehicles (SLVs), missiles, bombs, torpedoes, depth charges, mines, and grenades, as follows:
  (1) Rockets, SLVs, and missiles capable of delivering at least a 500-kg payload to a range of at least 300 km (MT);
  (2) Rockets, SLVs, and missiles capable of delivering less than a500-kg payload to a range of at least 300 km (MT);
  (3) Man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS);
  (4) Anti-tank missiles and rockets;
  (5) Rockets, SLVs, and missiles not meeting the criteria of paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this category;
  (6) Bombs;
  (7) Torpedoes;
  (8) Depth charges;
  (9) Anti-personnel, anti-vehicle, or anti-armor land mines (e.g., area denial devices);
  (10) Anti-helicopter mines;
  (11) Naval mines; or
  (12) Fragmentation and high explosive hand grenades.
  Note 1 to paragraph (a):''Range'' is the maximum distance that the specified rocket system is capable of traveling in the mode of stable flight as measured by the projection of its trajectory over the surface of the Earth. The maximum capability based on the design characteristics of the system, when fully loaded with fuel or propellant, will be taken into consideration in determining range. The range for rocket systems will be determined independently of any external factors such as operational restrictions, limitations imposed by telemetry, data links, or other external constraints. For rocket systems, the range will be determined using the trajectory that maximizes range, assuming International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standard atmosphere with zero wind.
  Note 2 to paragraph (a):''Payload'' is the total mass that can be carried or delivered by the specified rocket, SLV, or missile that is not used to maintain flight.
  Note 3 to paragraph (a):This paragraph does not control model and high power rockets (as defined in National Fire Protection Association Code 1122) and kits thereof made of paper, wood, fiberglass, or plastic containing no substantial metal parts and designed to be flown with hobby rocket motors that are certified for consumer use. Such rockets must not contain active controls (e.g., RF, GPS).
  Note 4 to paragraph (a):''Mine'' means a munition placed under, on, or near the ground or other surface area and designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity, or contact of a person or vehicle.
  *(b) Launchers for rockets, SLVs, and missiles, as follows:
  (1) Fixed launch sites and mobile launcher mechanisms for any system enumerated in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this category (e.g., launch tables, TOW missile, MANPADS) (MT); or
  (2) Fixed launch sites and mobile launcher mechanisms for any system enumerated in paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(5) of this category (e.g., launch tables, TOW missile, MANPADS).
  Note 1 to paragraph (b):For controls on non-SLV launcher mechanisms for use on aircraft, see USML Category VIII(h).
  Note 2 to paragraph (b):For controls on launcher mechanisms that are integrated onto a vessel or ground vehicle, see USML Categories VI and VII, respectively.
  Note 3 to paragraph (b):This paragraph does not control parts and accessories (e.g., igniters, launch stands) specially designed for consumer use with model and high power rockets (as defined in National Fire Protection Association Code 1122) and kits thereof made of paper, wood, fiberglass, or plastic containing no substantial metal parts and designed to be flown with hobby rocket motors that are certified for consumer use.
  (c) Apparatus and devices specially designed for the handling, control, activation, monitoring, detection, protection, discharge, or detonation of the articles enumerated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this category (MT for those systems enumerated in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)(1) of this category).
  Note 1 to paragraph (c):This paragraph includes specialized handling equipment (transporters, cranes, and lifts) specially designed to handle articles enumerated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this category for preparation and launch from fixed and mobile sites. The equipment in this paragraph also includes specially designed robots, robot controllers, and robot end-effectors, and liquid propellant tanks specially designed for the storage or handling of the propellants controlled in USML Category V, CCL ECCNs 1C011, 1C111, and 1C608, or other liquid propellants used in the systems enumerated in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(5) of this category.
  Note 2 to paragraph (c):Aircraft Missile Protection Systems (AMPS) are controlled in USML Category XI.
  *(d) Rocket, SLV, and missile power plants, as follows:
  (1) Except as enumerated in paragraph (d)(2) or (d)(3) of this category, individual rocket stages for the articles enumerated in paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(5) of this category (MT for those stages usable in systems enumerated in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this category);
  (2) Solid propellant rocket motors, hybrid or gel rocket motors, or liquid propellant rocket engines having a total impulse capacity equal to or greater than 1.1 x 10 [6] N·s (MT);
  (3) Solid propellant rocket motors, hybrid or gel rocket motors, or liquid propellant rocket engines having a total impulse capacity equal to or greater than 8.41 x 105N·s, but less than 1.1 x 10 [6] N·s (MT);
  (4) Combined cycle, pulsejet, ramjet, or scramjet engines (MT);
  (5) Air-breathing engines that operate above Mach 4 not enumerated in paragraph (d)(4) of this category;
  (6) Pressure gain combustion-based propulsion systems not enumerated in paragraphs (d)(4) and (d)(5) of this category; or
  (7) Rocket, SLV, and missile engines and motors, not otherwise enumerated in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(6) of this category or USML Category XIX.
  Note to paragraph (d):This paragraph does not control model and high power rocket motors, containing no more than 5 pounds of propellant, that are certified for U.S. consumer use as described in National Fire Protection Association Code 1125.
  (e) [Reserved]
  (f) [Reserved]
  *(g) Non-nuclear warheads for rockets, bombs, and missiles (e.g., explosive, kinetic, EMP, thermobaric, shape charge, and fuel air explosive (FAE)).
  (h) Systems, subsystems, parts, components, accessories, attachments, or associated equipment, as follows:
  (1) Flight control and guidance systems (including guidance sets) specially designed for articles enumerated in paragraph (a) of this category (MT for those articles enumerated in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this category);
  Note to paragraph (h)(1):A guidance set integrates the process of measuring and computing a vehicle's position and velocity (i.e., navigation) with that of computing and sending commands to the vehicle's flight control systems to correct the trajectory.
  (2) Seeker systems specially designed for articles enumerated in paragraph (a) of this category (e.g., radiofrequency, infrared) (MT for articles enumerated in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this category);
  (3) Kinetic kill vehicles and specially designed parts and components therefor;
  (4) Missile or rocket thrust vector control systems (MT for those thrust vector control systems usable in articles enumerated in paragraph (a)(1) of this category);
  (5) MANPADS grip stocks and specially designed parts and components therefor;
  (6) Rocket or missile nozzles and nozzle throats, and specially designed parts and components therefor (MT for those nozzles and nozzle throats usable in systems enumerated in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this category);
  (7) Rocket or missile nose tips, nose fairings, or aerospikes, and specially designed parts and components therefor (MT for those articles enumerated in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this category);
  (8) Re-entry vehicle or warhead heat shields (MT for those re-entry vehicles and heat shields usable in systems enumerated in paragraph (a)(1) of this category);
  (9) Missile and rocket safing, arming, fuzing, and firing (SAFF) components (to include target detection and proximity sensing devices), and specially designed parts therefor (MT for those SAFF components usable in systems enumerated in paragraph (a)(1) of this category);
  (10) Self-destruct systems specially designed for articles enumerated in paragraph (a) of this category (MT for those articles enumerated in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this category);
  (11) Separation mechanisms, staging mechanisms, and interstages useable for articles enumerated in paragraph (a) of this category, and specially designed parts and components therefor (MT for those separation mechanisms, staging mechanisms, and interstages usable in systems enumerated in paragraph (a)(1) of this category);
  (12) Post-boost vehicles (PBV) (MT);
  (13) Engine or motor mounts specially designed for articles enumerated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this category (MT for those articles enumerated in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)(1) of this category);
  (14) Combustion chambers specially designed for articles enumerated in paragraphs (a) and (d) of this category and specially designed parts and components therefor (MT for those articles enumerated in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(1), and (d)(1) through (d)(5) of this category);
  (15) Injectors specially designed for articles controlled in this category (MT for those injectors specially designed which are usable in systems enumerated in paragraph (a)(1) of this category);
  (16) Solid rocket motor or liquid engine igniters;
  (17) Re-entry vehicles and specially designed parts and components therefor not elsewhere specified in this category (MT);
  Note to paragraph (h)(17):This paragraph does not control spacecraft. For controls on spacecraft, see USML Category XV and, if not described therein, then CCL ECCN 9A515.
  (18) Specially designed parts and components for articles controlled in paragraph (g) not elsewhere specified in this category;
  (19) Penetration aids and specially designed parts and components therefor (e.g., physical or electronic countermeasure suites, re-entry vehicle replicas or decoys, or submunitions);
  (20) Rocket motor cases and specially designed parts and components therefor (e.g., flanges, flange seals, end domes) (MT for those rocket motor cases usable in systems enumerated in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this category and for specially designed parts and components for hybrid rocket motors enumerated in paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) of this category);
  (21) Solid rocket motor liners and rocket motor insulation (MT for those solid rocket motor liners usable in systems enumerated in paragraph (a)(1) of this category or specially designed for systems enumerated in paragraph (a)(2) of this category; and rocket motor insulation usable in systems enumerated in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this category);
  (22) Radomes, sensor windows, and antenna windows specially designed for articles enumerated in paragraph (a) of this category (MT for those radomes usable in systems enumerated in paragraph (a)(1) of this category and for any radomes, sensor windows, or antenna windows manufactured as composite structures or laminates specially designed for use in the systems and components enumerated in paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), (d)(1), (h)(8), (h)(9), (h)(17), or (h)(25) of this category);
  (23) Rocket or missile payload fairings;
  (24) Rocket or missile launch canisters (MT for those rocket or missile launch canisters designed or modified for systems enumerated in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this category);
  (25) Fuzes specially designed for articles enumerated in paragraph (a) of this category (e.g., proximity, contact, electronic, dispenser proximity, airburst, variable time delay, or multi-option) (MT for those fuzes usable in systems enumerated in paragraph (a)(1) of this category);
  (26) Rocket or missile liquid propellant tanks (MT for those rocket or missile liquid propellant tanks usable in systems enumerated in paragraph (a)(1) of this category);
  (27) Rocket or missile altimeters specially designed for use in articles enumerated in paragraph (a)(1) of this category (MT);
  (28) Pneumatic, hydraulic, mechanical, electro-optical, or electromechanical flight control systems (including fly-by-wire systems) and attitude control equipment specially designed for use in the rockets or missiles enumerated in paragraph (a)(1) of this category (MT for these systems which have been designed or modified for those enumerated in paragraph (a)(1) of this category);
  (29) Umbilical and interstage electrical connectors specially designed for use in the rockets or missiles enumerated in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this category (MT); or
  Note to paragraph (h)(29):This paragraph also includes electrical connectors installed between the systems specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this category and their payload.
  *(30) Any part, component, accessory, attachment, equipment, or system that (MT for those articles designated as such):
  (i) Is classified;
  (ii) Contains classified software directly related to defense articles in this subchapter or 600 series items subject to the EAR; or
  (iii) Is being developed using classified information.
  Note to paragraph (h)(30):''Classified'' means classified pursuant to Executive Order 13526, or predecessor order, and a security classification guide developed pursuant thereto or equivalent, or to the corresponding classification rules of another government or international organization.
  (i) Technical data (see§ 120.10 of this subchapter) and defense services (see§ 120.9 of this subchapter) directly related to the defense articles enumerated in paragraphs (a) through (h) of this category and classified technical data directly related to items controlled in ECCNs 0A604, 0B604, 0D604, 9A604, 9B604, or 9D604 and defense services using the classified technical data. (See§ 125.4 of this subchapter for exemptions.) (MT for technical data and defense services related to articles designated as such.)
  (j)-(w) [Reserved]
  (x) Commodities, software, and technical data subject to the EAR (see§ 120.42 of this subchapter) used in or with defense articles controlled in this category.
  Note to paragraph (x):Use of this paragraph is limited to license applications for defense articles controlled in this category where the purchase documentation includes commodities, software, or technical data subject to the EAR (see§ 123.1(b) of this subchapter).
  Note to Category IV:If a Missile Technology Control Regime Category I item is included in a system, that system will also be considered as a Category I item, except when the incorporated item cannot be separated, removed, or duplicated.
  Category V'--Explosives and Energetic Materials, Propellants, Incendiary Agents, and Their Constituents Back to Top*(a) Explosives, and mixtures thereof, as follows:
  (1) ADNBF (aminodinitrobenzofuroxan or 7-Amino 4,6-dinitrobenzofurazane-1-oxide) (CAS 97096-78-1);
  (2) BNCP (cis-bis(5-nitrotetrazolato) tetra amine-cobalt (III) perchlorate) (CAS 117412-28-9);
  (3) CL-14 (diaminodinitrobenzofuroxan or 5,7-diamino-4,6-dinitrobenzofurazane-1-oxide) (CAS 117907-74-1);
  (4) CL-20 (HNIW or Hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane) (CAS 135285-90-4); clathrates of CL-20 (MT for CL-20);
  (5) CP (2-(5-cyanotetrazolato) penta aminecobalt (III) perchlorate) (CAS 70247-32-4);
  (6) DADE (1,1-diamino-2,2-dinitroethylene, FOX-7);
  (7) DATB (Diaminotrinitrobenzene) (CAS 1630-08-6);
  (8) DDFP (1,4-dinitrodifurazanopiperazine);
  (9) DDPO (2,6-diamino-3,5-dinitropyrazine-1-oxide, PZO) (CAS 194486-77-6);
  (10) DIPAM (3,3'²-Diamino-2,2'²,4,4'²,6,6'²-hexanitrobiphenyl or dipicramide) (CAS 17215-44-0);
  (11) DNAN (2,4-Dinitroanisole) (CAS 119-27-7);
  (12) DNGU (DINGU or dinitroglycoluril) (CAS 55510-04-8);
  (13) Furazans, as follows:
  (i) DAAOF (DAAF, DAAFox, or diaminoazoxyfurazan);
  (ii) DAAzF (diaminoazofurazan) (CAS 78644-90-3);
  (iii) ANF (Furazanamine, 4-nitro- or 3-Amino-4-nitrofurazan; or 4-Nitro-1,2,5-oxadiazol-3-amine; or 4-Nitro-3-furazanamine; CAS 66328-69-6); or
  (iv) ANAzF (Aminonitroazofurazan or 1,2,5-Oxadiazol-3-amine, 4-[2-(4-nitro-1,2,5-oxadiazol-3-yl) diazenyl]; or 1,2,5-Oxadiazol-3-amine, 4-[(4-nitro-1,2,5-oxadiazol-3-yl)azo]- (9CI); or Furazanamine, 4-[(nitrofurananyl)azo]-; or 4-[(4-Nitro-1,2,5-oxadiazol-3-yl)azo]-1,2,5-oxadiazol-3-amine) (CAS 155438-11-2);
  (14) GUDN (Guanylurea dinitramide) FOX-12 (CAS 217464-38-5);
  (15) HMX and derivatives, as follows:
  (i) HMX (Cyclotetramethylenetetranitramine; octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazine; 1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetraza-cyclooctane; octogen, octogene) (CAS 2691-41-0) (MT);
  (ii) Difluoroaminated analogs of HMX; or
  (iii) K-55 (2,4,6,8-tetranitro-2,4,6,8-tetraazabicyclo [3,3,0]-octanone-3, tetranitrosemiglycouril, or keto-bicyclic HMX) (CAS 130256-72-3);
  (16) HNAD (hexanitroadamantane) (CAS 143850-71-9);
  (17) HNS (hexanitrostilbene) (CAS 20062-22-0);
  (18) Imidazoles, as follows:
  (i) BNNII (Octohydro-2,5-bis(nitroimino) imidazo [4,5-d]imidazole);
  (ii) DNI (2,4-dinitroimidazole) (CAS 5213-49-0);
  (iii) FDIA (1-fluoro-2,4-dinitroimidazole);
  (iv) NTDNIA (N-(2-nitrotriazolo)-2,4-dinitro-imidazole); or
  (v) PTIA (1-picryl-2,4,5-trinitroimidazole);
  (19) NTNMH (1-(2-nitrotriazolo)-2-dinitromethylene hydrazine);
  (20) NTO (ONTA or 3-nitro-1,2,4-triazol-5-one) (CAS 932-64-9);
  (21) Polynitrocubanes with more than four nitro groups;
  (22) PYX (2,6-Bis(picrylamino)-3,5-dinitropyridine) (CAS 38082-89-2);
  (23) RDX and derivatives, as follows:
  (i) RDX (cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine), cyclonite, T4, hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine, 1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triaza-cyclohexane, hexogen, or hexogene) (CAS 121-82-4) (MT);
  (ii) Keto-RDX (K-6 or 2,4,6-trinitro-2,4,6-triazacyclohexanone) (CAS 115029-35-1); or
  (iii) Difluoraminated derivative of RDX; 1,3-Dinitro-5,5-bis(difluoramino)1,3-diazahexane (CAS No. 193021-34-0);
  (24) TAGN (Triaminoguanidinenitrate) (CAS 4000-16-2);
  (25) TATB (Triaminotrinitrobenzene) (CAS 3058-38-6);
  (26) TEDDZ (3,3,7,7-tetrakis(difluoroamine) octahydro-1,5-dinitro-1,5-diazocine;
  (27) Tetrazines, as follows:
  (i) BTAT (Bis(2,2,2-trinitroethyl)-3,6-diaminotetrazine); or
  (ii) LAX-112 (3,6-diamino-1,2,4,5-tetrazine-1,4-dioxide);
  (28) Tetrazoles, as follows:
  (i) NTAT (nitrotriazolaminotetrazole); or
  (ii) NTNT (1-N-(2-nitrotriazolo)-4-nitrotetrazole);
  (29) Tetryl (trinitrophenylmethylnitramine) (CAS 479-45-8);
  (30) TEX (4,10-Dinitro-2,6,8,12-tetraoxa-4,10-diazaisowurtzitane);
  (31) TNAD (1,4,5,8-tetranitro-1,4,5,8-tetraazadecalin) (CAS 135877-16-6);
  (32) TNAZ (1,3,3-trinitroazetidine) (CAS 97645-24-4);
  (33) TNGU (SORGUYL or tetranitroglycoluril) (CAS 55510-03-7);
  (34) TNP (1,4,5,8-tetranitro-pyridazino [4,5-d] pyridazine) (CAS 229176-04-9);
  (35) Triazines, as follows:
  (i) DNAM (2-oxy-4,6-dinitroamino-s-triazine) (CAS 19899-80-0); or
  (ii) NNHT (2-nitroimino-5-nitro-hexahydro-1,3,5 triazine) (CAS 130400-13-4);
  (36) Triazoles, as follows:
  (i) 5-azido-2-nitrotriazole;
  (ii) ADHTDN (4-amino-3,5-dihydrazino-1,2,4-triazole dinitramide) (CAS 1614-08-0);
  (iii) ADNT (1-amino-3,5-dinitro-1,2,4-triazole);
  (iv) BDNTA (Bis(dinitrotriazole)amine);
  (v) DBT (3,3'²-dinitro-5,5-bi-1,2,4-triazole) (CAS 30003-46-4);
  (vi) DNBT (dinitrobistriazole) (CAS 70890-46-9);
  (vii) NTDNT (1-N-(2-nitrotriazolo) 3,5-dinitro-triazole);
  (viii) PDNT (1-picryl-3,5-dinitrotriazole); or
  (ix) TACOT (tetranitrobenzotriazolobenzotriazole) (CAS 25243-36-1);
  (37) Energetic ionic materials melting between 70 and °degrees C and with detonation velocity exceeding 6800 m/s or detonation pressure exceeding 18 GPa (180 kbar); or
  (38) Explosives, not otherwise enumerated in this paragraph or on the CCL in ECCN 1C608, with a detonation velocity exceeding 8700 m/s at maximum density or a detonation pressure exceeding 34 Gpa (340 kbar).
  *(b) Propellants, as follows (MT for composite and composite modified double-base propellants):
  (1) Any solid propellant with a theoretical specific impulse (see paragraph (k)(4) of this category) greater than:
  (i) 240 seconds for non-metallized, non-halogenated propellant;
  (ii) 250 seconds for non-metallized, halogenated propellant; or
  (iii) 260 seconds for metallized propellant;
  (2) Propellants having a force constant of more than 1,200 kJ/Kg;
  (3) Propellants that can sustain a steady-state burning rate more than 38 mm/s under standard conditions (as measured in the form of an inhibited single strand) of 6.89 Mpa (68.9 bar) pressure and 294K (21°C);
  (4) Elastomer-modified cast double-based propellants with extensibility at maximum stress greater than 5% at 233 K (''40°C); or
  (5) Other composite and composite modified double-base propellants.
  (c) Pyrotechnics, fuels and related substances, and mixtures thereof, as follows:
  (1) Alane (aluminum hydride) (CAS 7784-21-6);
  (2) Carboranes; decaborane (CAS 17702-41-9); pentaborane and derivatives thereof (MT);
  (3) Liquid high energy density fuels, as follows (MT):
  (i) Mixed fuels that incorporate both solid and liquid fuels, such as boron slurry, having a mass-based energy density of 40 MJ/kg or greater; or
  (ii) Other high energy density fuels and fuel additives (e.g., cubane, ionic solutions, JP-7, JP-10) having a volume-based energy density of 37.5 GJ per cubic meter or greater, measured at 20°C and one atmosphere (101.325 kPa) pressure;
  Note to paragraph (c)(3)(ii):JP-4, JP-8, fossil refined fuels or biofuels, or fuels for engines certified for use in civil aviation are not included.
  (4) Metal fuels, and fuel or pyrotechnic mixtures in particle form whether spherical, atomized, spheroidal, flaked, or ground, manufactured from material consisting of 99% or more of any of the following:
  (i) Metals, and mixtures thereof, as follows:
  (A) Beryllium (CAS 7440-41-7) in particle sizes of less than 60 micrometers (MT); or
  (B) Iron powder (CAS 7439-89-6) with particle size of 3 micrometers or less produced by reduction of iron oxide with hydrogen;
  (ii) Fuel mixtures or pyrotechnic mixtures, which contain any of the following:
  (A) Boron (CAS 7440-42-8) or boron carbide (CAS 12069-32-8) fuels of 85% purity or higher and particle sizes of less than 60 micrometers; or
  (B) Zirconium (CAS 7440-67-7), magnesium (CAS 7439-95-4), or alloys of these in particle sizes of less than 60 micrometers;
  (iii) Explosives and fuels containing the metals or alloys listed in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) and (c)(4)(ii) of this category whether or not the metals or alloys are encapsulated in aluminum, magnesium, zirconium, or beryllium;
  (5) Fuel, pyrotechnic, or energetic mixtures having any nanosized aluminum, beryllium, boron, zirconium, magnesium, or titanium, as follows:
  (i) Having particle size less than 200 nm in any direction; and
  (ii) Having 60% or higher purity;
  (6) Pyrotechnic and pyrophoric materials, as follows:
  (i) Pyrotechnic or pyrophoric materials specifically formulated to enhance or control the production of radiated energy in any part of the IR spectrum; or
  (ii) Mixtures of magnesium, polytetrafluoroethylene and the copolymer vinylidene difluoride and hexafluoropropylene (MT);
  (7) Titanium subhydride (TiHn) of stoichiometry equivalent to n = 0.65-1.68; or
  (8) Hydrocarbon fuels specially formulated for use in flame throwers or incendiary munitions containing metal stearates (e.g., octal) or palmitates, and M1, M2, and M3 thickeners.
  (d) Oxidizers, as follows:
  (1) ADN (ammonium dinitramide or SR-12) (CAS 140456-78-6) (MT);
  (2) AP (ammonium perchlorate) (CAS 7790-98-9) (MT);
  (3) BDNPN (bis(2,2-dinitropropyl)nitrate) (CAS 28464-24-6);
  (4) DNAD (1,3-dinitro-1,3-diazetidine) (CAS 78246-06-7);
  (5) HAN (Hydroxylammonium nitrate) (CAS 13465-08-2);
  (6) HAP (hydroxylammonium perchlorate) (CAS 15588-62-2);
  (7) HNF (Hydrazinium nitroformate) (CAS 20773-28-8) (MT);
  (8) Hydrazine nitrate (CAS 37836-27-4) (MT);
  (9) Hydrazine perchlorate (CAS 27978-54-7) (MT);
  (10) Inhibited red fuming nitric acid (IRFNA) (CAS 8007-58-7) and liquid oxidizers comprised of or containing IRFNA or oxygen difluoride (MT for liquid oxidizers comprised of IRFNA); or
  (11) Perchlorates, chlorates, and chromates composited with powdered metal or other high energy fuel components controlled under this category (MT).
  *(e) Binders, and mixtures thereof, as follows:
  (1) AMMO (azidomethylmethyloxetane and its polymers) (CAS 90683-29-7);
  (2) BAMO (bis(azidomethyl)oxetane and its polymers) (CAS 17607-20-4);
  (3) BTTN (butanetriol trinitrate) (CAS 6659-60-5) (MT);
  (4) FAMAO (3-difluoroaminomethyl-3-azidomethyloxetane) and its polymers;
  (5) FEFO (bis(2-fluoro-2,2-dinitroethyl)formal) (CAS 17003-79-1);
  (6) GAP (glycidyl azide polymer) (CAS 143178-24-9) and its derivatives (MT for GAP);
  (7) HTPB (hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene) with a hydroxyl functionality equal to or greater than 2.2 and less than or equal to 2.4, a hydroxyl value of less than 0.77 meq/g, and a viscosity at 30 °C of less than 47 poise (CAS 69102-90-5) (MT);
  (8) 4,5 diazidomethyl-2-methyl-1,2,3-triazole (iso-DAMTR) (MT);
  (9) NENAS (nitratoethylnitramine compounds), as follows:
  (i) N-Methyl 2-nitratoethylnitramine (Methyl-NENA) (CAS 17096-47-8) (MT);
  (ii) N-Ethyl 2-nitratoethylnitramine (Ethyl-NENA) (CAS 85068-73-1) (MT);
  (iii) N-Propyl 2-nitratoethylnitramine (CAS 82486-83-7);
  (iv) N-Butyl-2-nitratoethylnitramine (BuNENA) (CAS 82486-82-6); or
  (v) N-Pentyl 2-nitratoethylnitramine (CAS 85954-06-9);
  (10) Poly-NIMMO (poly nitratomethylmethyoxetane, poly-NMMO, (poly[3-nitratomethyl-3-methyl oxetane]) (CAS 84051-81-0);
  (11) PNO (Poly(3-nitratooxetane));
  (12) TVOPA 1,2,3-Tris [1,2-bis(difluoroamino)ethoxy]propane; tris vinoxy propane adduct (CAS 53159-39-0);
  (13) Polynitrorthocarbonates;
  (14) FPF-1 (poly-2,2,3,3,4,4-hexafluoro pentane-1,5-diolformal) (CAS 376-90-9);
  (15) FPF-3 (poly-2,4,4,5,5,6,6-heptafluoro-2-trifluoromethyl-3-oxaheptane-1,7-diolformal);
  (16) PGN (Polyglycidyl nitrate or poly(nitratomethyloxirane); poly-GLYN); (CAS 27814-48-8);
  (17) N-methyl-p-nitroaniline (MT);
  (18) Low (less than 10,000) molecular weight, alcohol-functionalized, poly(epichlorohydrin); poly(epichlorohydrindiol); and triol; or
  (19) Dinitropropyl based plasticizers, as follows (MT):
  (i) BDNPA (bis (2,2-dinitropropyl) acetal) (CAS 5108-69-0); or
  (ii) BDNPF (bis (2,2-dinitropropyl) formal) (CAS 5917-61-3).
  (f) Additives, as follows:
  (1) Basic copper salicylate (CAS 62320-94-9);
  (2) BHEGA (Bis-(2-hydroxyethyl)glycolamide) (CAS 17409-41-5);
  (3) BNO (Butadienenitrile oxide);
  (4) Ferrocene derivatives, as follows (MT):
  (i) Butacene (CAS 125856-62-4);
  (ii) Catocene (2,2-Bis-ethylferrocenylpropane) (CAS 37206-42-1);
  (iii) Ferrocene carboxylic acids and ferrocene carboxylic acid esters;
  (iv) n-butylferrocene (CAS 31904-29-7);
  (v) Ethylferrocene (CAS 1273-89-8);
  (vi) Propylferrocene;
  (vii) Pentylferrocene (CAS 1274-00-6);
  (viii) Dicyclopentylferrocene;
  (ix) Dicyclohexylferrocene;
  (x) Diethylferrocene (CAS 173-97-8);
  (xi) Dipropylferrocene;
  (xii) Dibutylferrocene (CAS 1274-08-4);
  (xiii) Dihexylferrocene (CAS 93894-59-8);
  (xiv) Acetylferrocene (CAS 1271-55-2)/1,1'²-diacetyl ferrocene (CAS 1273-94-5); or
  (xv) Other ferrocene derivatives that do not contain a six carbon aromatic functional group attached to the ferrocene molecule (MT if usable as rocket propellant burning rate modifier);
  (5) Lead beta-resorcylate (CAS 20936-32-7);
  (6) Lead citrate (CAS 14450-60-3);
  (7) Lead-copper chelates of beta-resorcylate or salicylates (CAS 68411-07-4);
  (8) Lead maleate (CAS 19136-34-6);
  (9) Lead salicylate (CAS 15748-73-9);
  (10) Lead stannate (CAS 12036-31-6);
  (11) MAPO (tris-1-(2-methyl) aziridinylphosphine oxide) (CAS 57-39-6); BOBBA-8 (bis(2-methyl aziridinyl)-2-(2-hydroxypropanoxy) propylamino phosphine oxide); and other MAPO derivatives (MT for MAPO);
  (12) Methyl BAPO (Bis(2-methyl aziridinyl)methylaminophosphine oxide) (CAS 85068-72-0);
  (13) 3-Nitraza-1,5-pentane diisocyanate (CAS 7406-61-9);
  (14) Organo-metallic coupling agents, as follows:
  (i) Neopentyl[diallyl]oxy, tri [dioctyl] phosphatotitanate (CAS 103850-22-2); also known as titanium IV, 2,2[bis 2-propenolato-methyl, butanolato, tris (dioctyl) phosphato] (CAS 110438-25-0), or LICA 12 (CAS 103850-22-2);
  (ii) Titanium IV, [(2-propenolato-1) methyl, n-propanolatomethyl] butanolato-1, tris(dioctyl)pyrophosphate, or KR3538; or
  (iii) Titanium IV, [(2-propenolato-1)methyl, propanolatomethyl] butanolato-1, tris(dioctyl) phosphate;
  (15) PCDE (Polycyanodifluoroaminoethylene oxide);
  (16) Certain bonding agents, as follows (MT):
  (i) 1,1R,1S-trimesoyl-tris(2-ethylaziridine) (HX-868, BITA) (CAS 7722-73-8); or
  (ii) Polyfunctional aziridine amides with isophthalic, trimesic, isocyanuric, or trimethyladipic backbone also having a 2-methyl or 2-ethyl aziridine group;
  Note to paragraph (f)(16)(ii):Included are (1) 1,1H-Isophthaloyl-bis(2-methylaziridine) (HX-752) (CAS 7652-64-4); (2) 2,4,6-tris(2-ethyl-1-aziridinyl)-1,3,5-triazine (HX-874) (CAS 18924-91-9); and (3) 1,1'²-trimethyladipoylbis(2-ethylaziridine) (HX-877) (CAS 71463-62-2).
  (17) Superfine iron oxide (Fe 2 O 3, hematite) with a specific surface area more than 250 m2/g and an average particle size of 0.003 micrometers or less (CAS 1309-37-1);
  (18) TEPAN (HX-879) (tetraethylenepentaamineacrylonitrile) (CAS 68412-45-3); cyanoethylated polyamines and their salts (MT for TEPAN (HX-879));
  (19) TEPANOL (HX-878) (tetraethy-lenepentaamineacrylonitrileglycidol) (CAS 110445-33-5); cyanoethylated polyamines adducted with glycidol and their salts (MT for TEPANOL (HX-878));
  (20) TPB (triphenyl bismuth) (CAS 603-33-8) (MT); or
  (21) Tris (ethoxyphenyl) bismuth (TEPB) (CAS 90591-48-3).
  (g) Precursors, as follows:
  (1) BCMO (bischloromethyloxetane) (CAS 142173-26-0);
  (2) DADN (1,5-diacetyl-3,7-dinitro-1, 3, 5, 7-tetraazacyclooctane);
  (3) Dinitroazetidine-t-butyl salt (CAS 125735-38-8);
  (4) CL-20 precursors (any molecule containing hexaazaisowurtzitane) (e.g., HBIW (hexabenzylhexaazaisowurtzitane), TAIW (tetraacetyldibenzylhexa-azaisowurtzitane));
  (5) TAT (1, 3, 5, 7-tetraacetyl-1, 3, 5, 7-tetraazacyclooctane) (CAS 41378-98-7);
  (6) Tetraazadecalin (CAS 5409-42-7);
  (7) 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene (CAS 108-70-3); or
  (8) 1,2,4-trihydroxybutane (1,2,4-butanetriol) (CAS 3068-00-6).
  *(h) Any explosive, propellant, pyrotechnic, fuel, oxidizer, binder, additive, or precursor that (MT for articles designated as such):
  (1) Is classified; or
  (2) Is being developed using classified information (see§ 120.10(a)(2) of this subchapter).
  Note to paragraph (h):''Classified'' means classified pursuant to Executive Order 13526, or predecessor order, and a security classification guide developed pursuant thereto or equivalent, or to the corresponding classification rules of another government or international organization.
  (i) Developmental explosives, propellants, pyrotechnics, fuels, oxidizers, binders, additives, or precursors therefor funded by the Department of Defense via contract or other funding authorization.
  Note 1 to paragraph (i):This paragraph does not control explosives, propellants, pyrotechnics, fuels, oxidizers, binders, additives, or precursors therefor (a) in production, (b) determined to be subject to the EAR via a commodity jurisdiction determination (see§ 120.4 of this subchapter), or (c) identified in the relevant Department of Defense contract or other funding authorization as being developed for both civil and military applications.
  Note 2 to paragraph (i):Note 1 does not apply to defense articles enumerated on the U.S. Munitions List, whether in production or development.
  Note 3 to paragraph (i):This paragraph is applicable only to those contracts and funding authorizations that are dated January 5, 2015, or later.
  (j) Technical data (as defined in § 120.10 of this subchapter) and defense services (as defined in § 120.9 of this subchapter) directly related to the defense articles numerated in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this category (see also § 123.20 of this subchapter) (MT for articles designated as such).
  (k) The following interpretations explain and amplify the terms used in this category and elsewhere in this subchapter:
  (1) USML Category V contains explosives, energetic materials, propellants, and pyrotechnics and specially formulated fuels for aircraft, missile, and naval applications. Explosives are solid, liquid, or gaseous substances or mixtures of substances, which, in their primary, booster, or main charges in warheads, demolition, or other military applications, are required to detonate.
  (2) The resulting product of the combination or conversion of any substance controlled by this category into an item not controlled will no longer be controlled by this category provided the controlled item cannot easily be recovered through dissolution, melting, sieving, etc. As an example, beryllium converted to a near net shape using hot isostatic processes will result in an uncontrolled part. A cured thermoset containing beryllium powder is not controlled unless meeting an explosive or propellant control. The mixture of beryllium powder in a cured thermoset shape is not controlled by this category. The mixture of controlled beryllium powder mixed with a typical propellant binder will remain controlled by this category. The addition of dry silica powder to dry beryllium powder will remain controlled.
  (3) Paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(A) of this category does not apply to boron and boron carbide enriched with boron-10 (20% or more of total boron-10 content).
  (4) Theoretical specific impulse (Isp) is calculated using standard conditions (1000 psi chamber pressure expanded to 14.7 psi) and measured in units of pound-force-seconds per pound-mass (lbf-s/lbm) or simplified to seconds (s). Calculations will be based on shifting equilibrium.
  (5) Particle size is the mean particle diameter on a weight basis. Best industrial practices will be used in determining particle size and the controls may not be undermined by addition of larger or smaller sized material to shift the mean diameter.
  (l)-(w) [Reserved]
  (x) Commodities, software, and technical data subject to the EAR (see§ 120.42 of this subchapter) used in or with defense articles controlled in this category.
  Note to paragraph (x):Use of this paragraph is limited to license applications for defense articles controlled in this category where the purchase documentation includes commodities, software, or technical data subject to the EAR (see§ 123.1(b) of this subchapter).
  Note 1 to USML Category V:To assist the exporter, an item has been categorized by the most common use. Also, where appropriate, references have been provided to the related controlled precursors.
  Note 2 to USML Category V:Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) registry numbers do not cover all the substances and mixtures controlled by this category. The numbers are provided as examples to assist government agencies in the license review process and exporters when completing their license application and export documentation.
  * * * * *
  Category IX'--Military Training Equipment Back to Top(a) Training equipment, as follows:
  (1) Ground, surface, submersible, space, or towed airborne targets that:
  (i) Have an infrared, radar, acoustic, magnetic, or thermal signature that mimic a specific defense article, specific other item, or specific person; or
  (ii) Are instrumented to provide hit/miss performance information for defense articles controlled in this subchapter;
  Note to paragraph (a)(1):Target drones are controlled in USML Category VIII(a).
  (2) Devices that are mockups of articles enumerated in this subchapter used for maintenance training or disposal training for ordnance enumerated in this subchapter;
  Note to paragraph (a)(2):This paragraph does not control mockups that do not reveal technical data (see ITAR § 120.10 of this subchapter) and do not contain parts, components, accessories, or attachments controlled in this subchapter.
  (3) Air combat maneuvering instrumentation and ground stations therefor;
  (4) Physiological flight trainers for fighter aircraft or attack helicopters;
  (5) Radar trainers specially designed for training on radar controlled by USML Category XI;
  (6) Training devices specially designed to be attached to a crew station, mission system, or weapon of an article controlled in this subchapter;
  Note to paragraph (a)(6):This paragraph includes stimulators that are built-in or add-on devices that cause the actual equipment to act as a trainer.
  (7) Anti-submarine warfare trainers;
  (8) Missile launch trainers;
  (9) Radar target generators;
  (10) Infrared scene generators; or
  *(11) Any training device that:
  (i) Is classified;
  (ii) Contains classified software directly related to defense articles in this subchapter or 600 series items subject to the EAR; or
  (iii) Is being developed using classified information. ''Classified'' means classified pursuant to Executive Order 13526, or predecessor order, and a security classification guide developed pursuant thereto or equivalent, or to the corresponding classification rules of another government or international organization.
  Note to paragraph (a):Training equipment does not include combat games without item signatures or tactics, techniques, and procedures covered by this subchapter.
  (b) Simulators, as follows:
  (1) System specific simulators that replicate the operation of an individual crew station, a mission system, or a weapon of an end-item that is controlled in this subchapter;
  (2) [Reserved]
  (3) [Reserved]
  (4) Software and associated databases not elsewhere enumerated in this subchapter that can be used to model or simulate the following:
  (i) Trainers enumerated in paragraph (a) of this category;
  (ii) Battle management;
  (iii) Military test scenarios/models; or
  (iv) Effects of weapons enumerated in this subchapter; or
  *(5) Simulators that:
  (i) Are classified;
  (ii) Contain classified software directly related to defense articles in this subchapter or 600 series items subject to the EAR; or
  (iii) Are being developed using classified information.
  Note to paragraph (b)(5):''Classified'' means classified pursuant to Executive Order 13526, or predecessor order, and a security classification guide developed pursuant thereto or equivalent, or to the corresponding classification rules of another government or international organization.
  (c) [Reserved]
  (d) [Reserved]
  (e) Technical data (see§ 120.10 of this subchapter) and defense services (see§ 120.9 of this subchapter) directly related to the defense articles enumerated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this category.
  Note to paragraph (e):This paragraph includes defense services (see§ 120.9 of this subchapter) directly related to the software and associated databases enumerated in paragraph (b)(4) of this category even if no defense articles are used or transferred.
  (f)-(w) [Reserved]
  (x) Commodities, software, and technical data subject to the EAR (see§ 120.42 of this subchapter) used in or with defense articles controlled in this category.
  Note to paragraph (x):Use of this paragraph is limited to license applications for defense articles controlled in this category where the purchase documentation includes commodities, software, or technical data subject to the EAR (see§ 123.1(b) of this subchapter).
  Note to USML Category IX:Parts, components, accessories, or attachments of a simulator in this category that are common to the simulated system or simulated end-item are controlled under the same USML category or CCL ECCN as the parts, components, accessories, and attachments of the simulated system or simulated end-item.
  Category X'--Personal Protective Equipment Back to Top(a) Personal protective equipment, as follows:
  (1) Body armor providing a protection level equal to or greater than NIJ Type IV;
  Note 1 to paragraph (a)(1):For body armor providing a level of protection of Type I, Type II, Type IIA, Type IIIA, or Type III, see ECCNs 1A005 and 1A613.
  Note 2 to paragraph (a)(1):See USML Category XIII(e) for controls on related materials.
  (2) Personal protective clothing, equipment, or face paints specially designed to protect against or reduce detection by radar, IR, or other sensors at wavelengths greater than 900 nanometers;
  Note to paragraph (a)(2):See USML Category XIII(j) for controls on related materials.
  (3) [Reserved]
  (4) [Reserved]
  (5) Integrated helmets, not specified in USML Category VIII(h)(15) or USML Category XII, incorporating optical sights or slewing devices, which include the ability to aim, launch, track, or manage munitions;
  (6) Helmets and helmet shells providing a protection level equal to or greater than NIJ Type IV;
  (7) Goggles, spectacles, visors, vision blocks, canopies, or filters for optical sights or viewers, employing other than common broadband absorptive dyes or UV inhibitors as a means of protection (e.g., narrow band filters/dyes or broadband limiters/coatings with high visible transparency), having an optical density greater than 3, and that protect against:
  (i) Multiple visible (in-band) laser wavelengths;
  (ii) Thermal flashes associated with nuclear detonations; or
  (iii) Near infrared or ultraviolet (out-of-band) laser wavelengths; or
  Note 1 to paragraph (a)(7):See paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this category for controls on related parts, components, and materials.
  Note 2 to paragraph (a)(7):See USML Category XII for sensor protection equipment.
  (8) Developmental personal protective equipment and specially designed parts, components, accessories, and attachments therefor, developed for the U.S. Department of Defense via contract or other funding authorization.
  Note 1 to paragraph (a)(8):This paragraph does not control personal protective equipment and specially designed parts, components, accessories, and attachments (a) in production, (b) determined to be subject to the EAR via a commodity jurisdiction determination (see§ 120.4 of this subchapter), or (c) identified in the relevant Department of Defense contract or other funding authorization as being developed for both civil and military applications.
  Note 2 to paragraph (a)(8):Note 1 does not apply to defense articles enumerated on the USML, whether in production or development.
  Note 3 to paragraph (a)(8):This paragraph is applicable only to those contracts and funding authorizations that are dated January 5, 2015, or later.
  (b) [Reserved]
  (c) [Reserved]
  (d) Parts, components, assemblies, accessories, attachments, and associated equipment for the personal protective equipment controlled in this category, as follows:
  (1) Ceramic or composite plates that provide protection equal to or greater than NIJ Type IV;
  (2) Lenses, substrates, or filters ''specially designed'' for the articles covered in paragraph (a)(7) of this category;
  (3) Materials and coatings specially designed for the articles covered in paragraph (a)(7) of this category with optical density greater than 3, as follows:
  (i) Narrowband absorbing dyes;
  (ii) Broadband optical switches or limiters (i.e., nonlinear material, tunable or switchable agile filters, optical power limiters, near infrared interference based filters); or
  (iii) Narrowband interference based notch filters (i.e., multi-layer dielectric coatings, rugate, holograms or hybrid (i.e., interference with dye)) protecting against multiple laser wavelength and having high visible band transparency; or
  *(4) Any component, part, accessory, attachment, equipment, or system that:
  (i) Is classified;
  (ii) Contains classified software directly related to defense articles in this subchapter or 600 series items subject to the EAR; or
  (iii) Is being developed using classified information.
  Note to paragraph (d)(4):''Classified'' means classified pursuant to Executive Order 13526, or predecessor order, and a security classification guide developed pursuant thereto or equivalent, or to the corresponding classification rules of another government or international government.
  Note to paragraphs (a) and (d):See National Institute of Justice Classification, NIJ Standard-0101.06, or national equivalents, for a description of level of protection for armor.
  (e) Technical data (see§ 120.10 of this subchapter) and defense services (see§ 120.9 of this subchapter) directly related to the defense articles enumerated in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this category.
  (f)-(w) [Reserved]
  (x) Commodities, software, and technical data subject to the EAR (see§ 120.42 of this subchapter) used in or with defense articles controlled in this category.
  Note to paragraph (x):Use of this paragraph is limited to license applications for defense articles controlled in this category where the purchase documentation includes commodities, software, or technical data subject to the EAR (see§ 123.1(b) of this subchapter).
  * * * * *
  Category XVI'--Nuclear Weapons Related Articles Back to Top(a) [Reserved]
  *(b) Modeling or simulation tools that model or simulate the environments generated by nuclear detonations or the effects of these environments on systems, subsystems, components, structures, or humans.
  (c) [Reserved]
  (d) Parts, components, accessories, attachments, associated equipment, and production, testing, and inspection equipment and tooling, specially designed for the articles in paragraph (b) of this category.
  (e) Technical data (see§ 120.10 of this subchapter) and defense services (see§ 120.9 of this subchapter) directly related to the defense articles enumerated in paragraph (b) of this category. (See§ 123.20 of this subchapter for nuclear related controls.)
  (f)-(w) [Reserved]
  (x) Commodities, software, and technical data subject to the EAR (see§ 120.42 of this subchapter) used in or with defense articles controlled in this category.
  Note to paragraph (x):Use of this paragraph is limited to license applications for defense articles controlled in this category where the purchase documentation includes commodities, software, or technical data subject to the EAR (see§ 123.1(b) of this subchapter).
  * * * * *
  7.Section 123.20 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and paragraph (c) introductory text, to read as follows:
  9.Section 124.2 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs (c)(5)(iii), (c)(5)(ix), and (c)(5)(xi), as follows:
Facebook Candidate Uses Awesome Power of Internet, Pulls 146 Donations
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: Valleywag
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 14:14
  The best laid schemes of Facebook cofounders often go awry. Chris Hughes had hoped a $2 million home in largely working class Ulster County'--not to mention his facility with those game-changing ways of social media'--would help his husband Sean Eldridge win a Congressional seat. But according to Eldridge's fundraising emails, the latest attempt to capitalize on his campaign's "incredible momentum" has garnered fewer than 150 online donations in three days.
  On December 28th, the Sean Eldridge for Congress email list sent out a message (reproduced in full below) saying that he needed 350 new online donations before the Federal Election Commission's reporting deadline, which ends at midnight tonight. That email featured a small graphic indicating that his campaign had already raised roughly 125 donations. The minimum donation that still counts towards the goal is a mere $5.
  This morning, Eldridge's camp sent out another email blast (also printed below) that said "we're only 79 donations away." That means in three days, the couple who had Nancy Pelosi, Arianna Huffington, and Chuck Schumer at their wedding, were only able to convince 146 people to donate at least $5. It's a slow week for everyone, but you'd figure the Disruptors-in-Chief of the political establishment would be able to scare up a few more donors, what with the revolutionary tide of social networking and all.
  This isn't the first time that the well-connected couple's political skills have underwhelmed. Before purchasing the modernist mansion that allowed Eldridge to run in Ulster County, Hughes bought a $5 million 80-acre estate in Garrison, just 50 miles north of New York City. Winning a Congressional seat there, the New York Times reported, "appeared unattainable, and soon the couple's gaze shifted north, to the neighboring district."
  We're reached out to the campaign for comment. But as for those 79 donations, has Eldridge considered buying some Facebook ads? Surely he knows a guy who knows a guy.
  S
  S
  S
  To contact the author of this post, please email nitasha@gawker.com.
Presidential Proclamation -- National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month, 2014
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: White House.gov Press Office Feed
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 14:11
  The White House
  Office of the Press Secretary
  For Immediate Release
  December 31, 2013
  NATIONAL SLAVERY AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING PREVENTION MONTH, 2014
  - - - - - - -
  BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
  A PROCLAMATION
  Over a century and a half after President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, millions remain in bondage -- children forced to take part in armed conflict or sold to brothels by their destitute families, men and women who toil for little or no pay, who are threatened and beaten if they try to escape. Slavery tears at our social fabric, fuels violence and organized crime, and debases our common humanity. During National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month, we renew our commitment to ending this scourge in all its forms.
  Because modern-day slavery is a global tragedy, combating it requires international action. The United States is shining a spotlight on the dark corners where it persists, placing sanctions on some of the worst abusers, giving countries incentives to meet their responsibilities, and partnering with groups that help trafficking victims escape from their abusers' grip. We are working with other nations as they step up their own efforts, and we are seeing more countries pass anti-human trafficking laws and improve enforcement.
  At home, we are leading by example. My Administration is cracking down on traffickers, charging a record number of perpetrators. We are deploying new technology in the fight against human trafficking, developing the Federal Government's first-ever strategic action plan to strengthen victim services, and strengthening protections against human trafficking in Federal contracts. During the past year, the White House has hosted events on combating human trafficking, bringing together leaders from every sector of society. Together, we came up with new ideas to fight trafficking at the national and grassroots levels.
  As we work to dismantle trafficking networks and help survivors rebuild their lives, we must also address the underlying forces that push so many into bondage. We must develop economies that create legitimate jobs, build a global sense of justice that says no child should ever be exploited, and empower our daughters and sons with the same chances to pursue their dreams. This month, I call on every nation, every community, and every individual to fight human trafficking wherever it exists. Let us declare as one that slavery has no place in our world, and let us finally restore to all people the most basic rights of freedom, dignity, and justice.
  NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 2014 as National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month, culminating in the annual celebration of National Freedom Day on February 1. I call upon businesses, national and community organizations, faith-based groups, families, and all Americans to recognize the vital role we can play in ending all forms of slavery and to observe this month with appropriate programs and activities.
  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand thisthirty-first day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand thirteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-eighth.
  BARACK OBAMA
Presidential Proclamation -- National Stalking Awareness Month, 2014
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: White House.gov Press Office Feed
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 14:11
  The White House
  Office of the Press Secretary
  For Immediate Release
  December 31, 2013
  NATIONAL STALKING AWARENESS MONTH, 2014
  - - - - - - -
  BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
  A PROCLAMATION
  Each January, we draw attention to a crime that will affect 1 in 6 American women at some point in their lives. Although young women are disproportionately at risk, anyone can be a victim of stalking -- regardless of age, sex, background, or gender identity. While many victims are stalked by ex-partners, sometimes the perpetrators are acquaintances or even strangers. During National Stalking Awareness Month, we extend our support to victims and renew our commitment to holding their stalkers accountable.
  Stalkers seek to intimidate their victims through repeated unwanted contact, including harassing phone calls, text messages, or emails. Cyberstalking is increasingly prevalent, with more than one quarter of stalking victims reporting being harassed through the Internet or electronically monitored. Many victims suffer from anxiety, depression, and insomnia, and some are forced to move or change jobs. Stalking all too often goes unreported, yet it also tends to escalate over time, putting victims at risk of sexual assault, physical abuse, or homicide.
  My Administration remains dedicated to pursuing justice for victims of stalking and ensuring survivors receive the support they need. Last March, I was proud to sign the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. Every time we renew this landmark legislation, we improve it, and this time was no exception. This renewal expanded protections for Native American and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender victims of stalking, domestic violence, and sexual assault. It amended the Clery Act to require colleges to report crime statistics on stalking, continued to allow relief for immigrant victims, and strengthened support and training programs that have proven effective in helping law enforcement bring offenders to justice.
  We also stand behind the tireless advocates who provide essential services to victims. Along with law enforcement, prosecutors, court personnel, and survivors, these devoted women and men are links in a chain that has made a difference -- one person, one family, one case at a time. This month, let us resolve to strengthen this chain, bring stalkers to justice, and give hope to everyone who has suffered from this crime.
  NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 2014 as National Stalking Awareness Month. I call upon all Americans to recognize the signs of stalking, acknowledge stalking as a serious crime, and urge those affected not to be afraid to speak out or ask for help. Let us also resolve to support victims and survivors, and to create communities that are secure and supportive for all Americans.
  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirty-first day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand thirteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-eighth.
  BARACK OBAMA
Presidential Proclamation -- National Mentoring Month, 2014
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: White House.gov Press Office Feed
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 14:10
  The White House
  Office of the Press Secretary
  For Immediate Release
  December 31, 2013
  NATIONAL MENTORING MONTH, 2014
  - - - - - - -
  BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
  A PROCLAMATION
  In every corner of our Nation, mentors push our next generation to shape their ambitions, set a positive course, and achieve their boundless potential. During National Mentoring Month, we celebrate everyone who teaches, inspires, and guides young Americans as they reach for their dreams.
  Mentors help children build confidence, gain knowledge, and develop the strength of character to succeed inside and outside of the classroom. They are relatives, teachers, coaches, ministers, and neighbors. Anyone can be a mentor, and every child should have the chance to be a mentee. Young people with mentors have better attendance in school, higher self-esteem, a greater chance of pursuing higher education, and a reduced risk of substance abuse. That is why my Administration is creating new opportunities to give back -- from expanding national service, promoting responsible fatherhood, and challenging businesses to grow their mentoring activities, to First Lady Michelle Obama's mentoring initiative, which pairs local high school girls with powerful role models. For more information on how to get involved in a mentoring program, visit www.Serve.gov/Mentor.
  America is at its best when we lift each other up, when we pursue our individual goals while never forgetting that we are bound as one Nation and as one people. If we carry this spirit forward, if we take responsibility for our future leaders and give them the tools to succeed, America's best days will always lie ahead.
  NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 2014 as National Mentoring Month. I call upon public officials, business and community leaders, educators, and Americans across the country to observe this month with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs.
  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand thisthirty-first day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand thirteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-eighth.
  BARACK OBAMA
David Byrne: ''Do you really think people are going to keep putting time and effort into this, if no one is making any money?''
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: LIVE@LEEDS
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 14:03
  The musical genius shares his songwriting secrets, opens up his finances and ponders the future of art and the WebDavid Daley Salon.com 12/21/13
  The first things you see when walking into David Byrne's lower Manhattan office are his bicycle '-- he really does ride to work '-- and the Howard Finster original painting, which is almost identical to the one used on the cover of the Talking Heads album ''Little Creatures.''
  Byrne, however, has had less use for nostalgia than perhaps any acclaimed musician of his generation this side of Elvis Costello. He's retained all the adjectives you'd hope for an artist '-- restless, curious, collaborative, inventive, entrepreneurial, future-minded '-- whether pushing his own music in ever-more-rhythmic directions, turning fans on to musicians from around the world with his Luaka Bop label, or writing a growing library of books about travel, urban design and the artist's life.
  His latest book, ''How Music Works'' (just reissued in paperback), is as fascinating and sprawling as one might expect, at once memoir, manifesto and music history. Byrne draws, but doesn't dwell, on his own experiences with Talking Heads to discuss how scenes come together, how his style developed and the very essence of songwriting and creativity. And he grounds the impressionistic stories with real numbers in another chapter, where he walks through every penny spent and then earned on his album ''Grown Backwards.''
  Byrne's goal throughout the book seems to be to demystify the thornier business sides of music, while doing his best to articulate how mysterious yet constricted the creative side can be. And as the paperback arrived, Byrne also reignited debates about how income inequality has squeezed the creative class, and over what he sees as the dangers of the Internet and the unfairness of the small payments made to artists '-- especially new bands '-- by streaming services like Spotify. He even wonders if the streaming services are ''evil.''advertisement
  Byrne's witty, deeply intelligent and engaging; even in the pauses when he doesn't want to answer a question, his eyes do a gleeful, mischeivious dance. We spoke last month; the transcript has been condensed and edited.
  Lots of us believe that musicians, along with other artists, are struck by inspiration and have this emotion which they must express and share. But you argue in your book that it is actually the opposite '-- that the idea of the songwriter pouring heart, soul and autobiography into his or her music is wrong-headed. ''The accepted narrative,'' you write, ''that the rock and roll singer is driven by desire and demons, and out bursts this amazing, perfectly shaped song that had to be three minutes and 12 seconds. This is the romantic notion of how creative work comes to be, but I think the path of creation is almost 180 degrees from this model.''
  Yes. I can elaborate on that. I'm not saying that the artist doesn't put their feelings into it, or any part of their biography, but that there's a lot of constraints and considerations and templates that they work with '' unconscious decisions or constraints put upon them that guide what they're going to do.
  Otherwise, why didn't people in the 14th century start writing full-blown operas with giant orchestras and whatever?'' These things just weren't available to them. Our imaginations are constrained by all these other things '-- which is a good thing. There's kind of a process of evolution that goes on where the creative part of you adapts to whatever circumstances are available to you. And if you decide you want to make pop songs, or whatever, there's a format. You can push the boundaries pretty far, but it's still a recognized thing. And if you're going to do something at Lincoln Center, there's a pretty prescribed set of things you are going to do. You can push that form, but kind of from inside the genre. So I guess I'm saying that a lot of creative decisions are kind of made for us, and the trick is then working creatively within those constraints.
  And that genius appears when it is perfectly suited to its context.
  To me, yeah '' that's where the skill lies. Making those adaptations and making that work, and not just standing up and saying, ''I must have 1,000 tubas!''
  You write about this as kind of a revelation '-- but you also talk about your own history as a performer throughout this book, and certainly a band like Talking Heads always seemed very conscious of genre, style, presentation and performance. Was there a eureka moment for you when you realized you were approaching the idea of creativity differently, or a time when your sense of the relationship between creativity and artistic expression changed?
  It didn't all happen at once. I remember many, many years ago, probably early '80s, I think, I was kind of coming out of the club scene here and the kind of assumption, it was a given, that any kind of overt performance on stage that revealed itself as being a performance was going to be inauthentic. And that within kind of the genre that I was working in, you know, bands and stuff, if you wore clothes and things that were not just your ordinary street clothes, that was going to be inauthentic too. After a tour I was in Japan '-- the tour might have ended there, so I stayed on, and went to a lot of Japanese theater. Some of it is very tedious, and some of it is really wonderful, but it's very obviously theatrical. It doesn't appear to be naturalistic in any way, shape or form. Then I went to Bali, and I haven't been there since then, but it was wonderful because the religious rituals were also very stagey and theatrical and there's a lot of music being played and dance. And I thought, ''Wow, this kind of theatricality is part of what it means to be a musician, be a human, be a performer.'' I thought, ''Now I have to think about how I can absorb, or not borrow from these cultures really. But how can I find my own way to do that in my own culture, in the genre that I work in and the world that I work in.''
  That didn't happen all at once, but little by little that kind of thing happened. I started to do shows and presentations where the visual element was more obvious.
  You just mentioned the idea of authenticity, which is certainly a concept which permeates the discussion of music '-- whether pop music is fake, whether roots music or non-electronic music is ''more real,'' whether musicians have a right to use the sounds of certain cultures, etc. Is authenticity a useful way of thinking about music?
  No, it's completely bogus because every kind of music, after you start digging, has its roots in a number of other strains from other places. It's a mixture of things; there's nothing pure out there. It was interesting to find these examples, some of them really well known, like Leadbelly being dressed up like a prisoner because that's what the New York audience '' that's what the audience wanted. That, to the audience, seemed authentic.
  He had been a prisoner and everything, but they also adjusted his music so that he used to play pop songs. And they said, ''Now you can't be doing those pop songs '-- that doesn't fit the narrative we want to hear from you.'' That happens all the time '-- and not just by some promoter or record company guy. Musicians and performers do it to themselves. They self-mythologize. They create a narrative that they think, ''This is the narrative that I want to put forward; this makes me an interesting person.'' And it's contrived and there's nothing authentic about it at all.
  And then as decades go by, those mythologies and narratives harden. Authenticity is always an argument about the past, so comparisons are made about how something modern does not hold up, but the very thing they're claiming as the definition of authentic is often completely specious. You write that, ''We don't make the music. It makes us.'' But there's a lot of different narratives. There is the narrative we bring to a song as a listener, as a fan, and how it hits us and where it affects us and how it gets us emotionally, but there's also that sort of top-down narrative of authenticity or hype, or what have you, that affects the way we respond to a song.
  I think I was also thinking of my experience as a performer, and also as someone who listens to music. That as a performer, it's not exactly like method acting. I don't have to, like, work myself up. If I'm going to sing a song that's, say, melancholy, I don't have to work myself up to that state like a method actor might before I begin singing the song. The song, if it is well done, and listeners have the exact experience, it kind of reaches into you and grabs that kind of experience that you've had, that part of you, those kinds of emotions and pulls you to the surface and kind of recreates that experience every time you sing the song, more or less. So I thought, ''Wow, yes '-- it's pulling the stuff out of us.'' The music is as opposed to us putting it into the music. We make the thing that does that. As composers and musicians '' we make the stuff, but then it acts back on us.
  So how does having that understanding, and coming to that understanding over time affect the way you sit down and work on a song now?
  Hmm. (long pause)
  Because in a way you're kind of de-mythologizing the entire idea of the ''great man'' theory or the ''great artist,'' lonely and finding inspiration.
  There's still plenty of mystery. I don't know how it affects my writing process. I'm sure in my writing process I've absorbed some kind of tricks of the trade, where I might go, ''Oh, if a song gets to this point, and now if I do this, I'll get this effect.'' But if I do that too many times it loses its effect.
  The chapters on lyric writing are especially interesting in that way. You'll sing gibberish over a melody until you strike on the right sounds for the music, because the way a word sounds and rings in a song carries its own emotional impact.
  I think so!
  The way the word sounds sometimes carries more feeling than what the word itself means.
  I'm working on a song now, a collaboration with a group, and I've been asked to write a melody and lyrics. I almost got it and I think it needs some refining. Again, I'm starting off with singing this gibberish and if I refine it a little more it's kind of like, ''Yes that's it.'' If you can listen to it without letting your rational faculties say, ''What is it about?'' And if you just listen to it as kind of an emotional, verbal utterance, then I think a lot of the emotion is already in there. You just have to kind of not ruin it with the lyrics.
  Technology is such a complicated topic, because in some ways the very technology that has brought the music business, as you write, to its knees also represents future models of distribution, and of reaching fans '-- and new ways of recording. It feels like on one hand, we have kind of techno-utopians who underestimate the damage technology has done, and then on the other side, romantics and nostalgics who pine for a past that wasn't quite as pure and good as they remember for artists. What do you see, first, as the positives of technology with regard to how artists do their work and make a living. In some ways, you can find your audience and self-distribute to them, and kind of take down those big barriers to entry.
  Technology has allowed people to make records really cheap. You can make a record on a laptop. It doesn't have to be an electronic record. It can be real instruments or not, and whether people will be aware of it is another thing, but you can make it available and get it out there. It used to be if you wanted to do it yourself you'd be pressing vinyl copies and selling it out of the back of your car, but yeah, you can get them out there. Whether people know it's there, that's another thing. If you're ever going to be able to get any money for your work is another thing. But that is a huge thing. Musicians now don't have to be beholden to a record company '' or they can still work with record companies, but they might have more creative control over what they want to do, if they want it. It is there if they want it.
  On the other hand, as you write in the book, the blockbuster artists of their day helped fund a lot of other bands. Every band Seymour Stein signed to Sire got to make their music and make a living off it, thanks to other things in the big Warner family. That noblesse oblige doesn't happen any longer.
  Labels would, by giving advances and providing promotion for a band like Talking Heads, they would kind of help get the name out there. Even though there was already some press, they would do that. And it kind of took the label to do that. Now in 90 percent of the cases it still takes the marketing and label to really get something happening. But there are exceptions. There's bands out there, Arcade Fire or whoever, that work with Merge. I can probably think of a few others.
  Maybe two or three labels like that '-- Merge is rare.
  It's a handful. It's not a lot. You can count them on one hand.
  It's like sometimes people use the rare success to argue that it's a rule. It's not quite a rule.
  There's a few other acts that slip my mind that didn't seem to have a lot of money and marketing behind them that have managed to reach a sizable audience.
  But you also wrote a piece in the Guardian recently that was very critical of Spotify and other streaming sites, in part because of their negative impact on young artists and new artists. ''What's at stake is not so much the survival of artists like me, but that of emerging artists and those who have only a few records under their belts (such as St Vincent, my current touring partner, who is not exactly an unknown). Many musicians like her, who seem to be well established, well known and very talented, will eventually have to find employment elsewhere or change what they do to make more money. Without new artists coming up, our future as a musical culture looks grim. A culture of blockbusters is sad, and ultimately it's bad for business.''
  I don't pretend that I'm 100% correct, but I thought, ''let's talk about this.'' Yeah, let's walk it through and I'm certainly willing to be corrected and proved wrong. I will very happily be proved wrong.
  I've heard there have been reactions. Some people are saying, ''The era of anyone making money off recorded music is just over. Get over it.''
  That's a problematic argument.
  It might be true, it might be true.
  People are still making money off of it; it's just always not the artists.
  Someone's still making money off of it.
  Whoever owns Spotify.
  Yes, if you don't value this '' then do you really think people are going to keep putting all the time and effort into doing this, if no one is making any money off it?
  There are those who would say: ''An artist will do his or her work, regardless of whether there's money to be made.''
  Yes, yes, and I do think there is more of an emphasis on shows, live concerts, performances now than there used to be. That a lot of artists ''
  But it used to be that record sales drove how an artist would be paid and now ''
  It's the other way around. Another reaction is that my criticism was and my figures were premature. That these services, they work when they reach a certain scale. If they're 20 times as big as they are now, or have 20 times more subscribers, then the numbers start to add up and the musician '' if the musicians can get paid in an equitable way, in a way that's fair and transparent, which is a whole other question '' if that could happen, people have argued to me, then this could actually work.
  That's a lot of ifs.
  It's a lot of ifs. Especially the getting paid and having a lot of transparency. That's that last thing they want. I've spent two years trying to figure out my income on some of these services already; I can't get the information.
  I have friends who have published books on big publishers, and the two things I hear the most are ''I've never gotten a royalty statement '' or ''I've never actually been able to understand what it says.''
  [Laughs]
  Or ''it always ends up that I owe them tens of thousands of dollars more for things that I never imagined'' '' the fancy dinners you mention in the book which you didn't realize you were paying for, the limo rides you thought were super-nice at the time '' are all being charged back. You also talk in this book about moving to New York in the '70s and being able to pay cheap room and board to live in New York, and to have the opportunity to make mistakes in your art. Your living expenses were reasonable enough that you could afford to learn and try and explore. That's harder and harder to do these days.
  I figure that people will start to value that again and they'll seek it out. Right now there's maybe an urge to, whatever you do, put it online, get it out there as quickly as possible. And I think there might be a feeling of maybe it's better to keep it quiet. Be sequestered and let it gestate for a while. Learn how to perform, or learn how to do things without.
  Is that why scenes sometimes emerge from unexpected places '-- Athens, Ga., Olympia, Wash.'...
  Yeah, everybody doesn't have their eyes on you or their ears on you. Not everybody is listening, so things can be muddled for a little while and take some dead ends.
  I think it might be harder these days. You never know. You never know. I just got an email either last night or this morning from guy in Des Moines who said he's opening an art center, or has opened an art center there that has a restaurant, and performance center and all kinds of this and that, and I thought who knows. I mean I didn't recognize any of the acts or stuff that was going on there, but I thought, ''Oh that kind of little bubble could happen, you know, things could happen there.''
  In the book you have one chapter dedicated to how you can create a scene, on the things you need for something like CBGB to happen. One is that clubs ought to let musicians and artists in free when they're not performing. Why is that important?
  Well, to be more specific, artists who have played there on other nights, not just anybody who shows up. I have a guitar, let me in! It makes a community. The musicians take advantage of that, they hang out, and the audience sees the other musicians that they might have seen the other night. And the musicians talk amongst one another, which they don't always do. They wouldn't just call one another up and say, ''Hey, what are you doing? Let's go out and have a drink.'' But if they both are at the same bar because they're welcome there, then they'll fall into conversation. Then a little kind of community starts to happen.
  Which plays into another rule at the end of the chapter, which is that you've got to be able to talk and not always have the music as the focal point.
  [Laughs] Yes!
  You have to be able to get away from the music and have that conversation amongst each other.
  Music has to be sort of ignorable sometimes.
  ''How Music Works'' is also a history of music. I wonder if as you went through the history of recorded music and technology, did you notice comparisons to things we're talking about now? Like some of the debates were similar in ways that kind of make you feel like people have been talking about these issues for a long time, and even what seems like a crisis now will get sorted out'...
  Or not!
  '...because of the way it happened in 1941?
  I was kind of shocked at how reoccurring the kind of format war, and the proprietary format thing, happens again and again. And let me see, Edison had a recording format and RCA had a recording format and they were completely incompatible. So if you bought an RCA disc you couldn't play it on your Edison player, which is '-- here comes beta and VHS, Zune or the iPod.
  Or even the proprietary stuff, you know. You buy an e-book on one format and you can't read it on the other thing. All this kind of stuff. That kind of instinct, the kind of business to do that, it seems never ending. It never ends well. It always ends with somebody completely in the dust where they might have survived before. It always ends up in this knockout fight, but where there might have been some kind of mutual thing worked out and sometimes the '' sadly '' best format doesn't work out.
  One of the stories I didn't know was the one of Jack Mullin and Bing Crosby. Would you tell that?
  It goes way back to World War II where this soldier, Jack Mullin, who was a bit of an engineer heard some broadcast from Germany in the wee hours of the morning. It was a full orchestra, and it sounded great. And at that time you couldn't record an orchestra and then play it back on the radio and have it sound great. Most radio broadcasts, whether it was Glenn Miller or orchestras or whatever, they were live in the studio, they were live in a ballroom, and the radio would then broadcast that.
  So he thought, ''Wait a minute '-- Hitler doesn't have orchestras playing at 2 o'clock in the morning to fill up this radio time. They've developed some sort of technology that allows their recordings to have a lot more fidelity'' than what we did. And so after the war they kind of raided the German radio stations. They discovered the technology '' they discovered how the tape recorders had been modified to allow this to happen. They took the gear apart and sent it back to Marin County to his mom's house. Put it back together again and tried to make their own version of it, which was AMPEG, or AMPEX, one of those companies. It was only a few guys and they were trying to sell these tape recorder devices to the big radio and record companies in Los Angeles.
  People came by their studios and it looked like a junk pile, apparently, but Bing Crosby took an interest. He had a radio show, and as I said, everything had to be done live. Evidently Bing thought to himself, ''I would love if there was some sort of technology where I could pre-record shows so I'd have more time to play golf.'' It was really about his golf game. And so he heard about this thing '' this tape recorder that these guys developed. He took an interest, although the record companies and radio stations weren't interested, he personally backed them and said, ''make some of these things for me and I'm going to record my show and I can time shift my show and have a full day of golf.'' He did it and it kickstarted the whole recording industry. And not only did it allow somebody like him to do their show and broadcast the next day or the day after, it allowed editing '' because you couldn't edit discs or cylinders or anything. So if he flubbed a line, he could do it over and then cut the tape and fix it, which you couldn't do with discs '-- you'd have to do the whole thing over again. It also allowed the advent of things like laugh tracks.
  So, a mixed bag!
  Yeah, if you didn't get a good reaction on a thing he could go, ''Queue it up! Put in the laugh from the other day.''
  It's interesting that you talk about how we've had these reocurring debates about proprietary format, but the other sort of reocurring debate is about sound quality. And kind of the constant balance of sound quality and convenience, like I want to listen to every song that I own on a device that can fit inside my pocket. I mean, it's kind of amazing that I can store everything that I own on my computer, but I play the music on the most terrible speakers ever. Here we are in 2013 with so many wonderful things and we're going backwards.
  My daughter, she'll play stuff on her phone and just put the phone on the table, and you think ''all the time and effort we put into recording and this is the way it ends up, on a phone speaker.'' And before I start grumbling about it, I realize that how I heard music, pop songs, in the beginning out of a little transistor ''
  How true: Casey Kasem under my covers so my parents wouldn't hear it.
  Under my pillow, close to my ear and it was the crappiest, crappiest sound, AM radio or whatever. But hearing those songs changed my world, so I thought, you know, it can have a huge personal, psychological, social impact even if the sound is really crappy, which doesn't mean that it should be crappy. But it means that it doesn't totally kill it.
  But you form a relationship with music in that way, you know. Have we just all sort of niche-ified ourselves too much? Because one of the things that I get from reading this and the way that you have pulled things together and written rules and re-written rules '-- is that it would be better as listeners, as fans, as the people in audiences if we opened ourselves up to other ways of sort of experiencing and thinking about music.
  I certainly agree that putting everything into little genres is counterproductive. You're not going to get too many surprises if you only focus on the stuff that fits inside the box that you know. That breaks down all by itself every once in a while. You were saying something else about the'...
  It was a big random wind-up of a question. But you write about how certain music lends itself to certain rooms and then as a result certain music gets made for those rooms. So are music fans too conservative in the way we think about music?
  Wow. I don't know. I don't know. I was at a film festival recently and I was one of the jurors. It was a small film festival in Spain and a lot of the jurors didn't want to know anything about any of the films they were about to see. They didn't want to know who directed it, who was in it, was it the director's first film. Which I thought, ''That's great. You can just take it as an experience, whatever it is.'' But I kept asking questions that maybe wouldn't affect our judgment of the film, but it might. I think it was a French film and the lead actor was a huge comedian in France, but unknown outside of France, so that would be a completely different thing for me versus a French juror. That would be like if Louis C.K. were the star of a movie. People would perceive that movie in a different way than if it was just a complete unknown. They have expectations of not only him but the characters he often plays and all this kind of stuff. Depending on where it is, people do bring a lot of expectations to what they're seeing and hearing. In some cases that history and that knowledge deepens the experience, but it can also really kill it.
  And you talk in the book about when to play new material and when to play old material. You've experienced it as a fan and watched bands walk that tightrope, but if it is a festival crowd, that crowd is there to hear something that they expect.
  You go to a festival, you know you're not going to play all new material at a festival. The audience is not there for that. I've made that mistake, but you find out pretty quickly. That's a balancing act.
  I was talking to Peter Buck for an interview recently and asked whether he missed playing those R.E.M. songs at all. And it surprised me how vehement he was about not missing them. He was like, I played that song 2,000 times. Totally fine if I never have to play those again.
  Some people will be very disappointed to hear that.
  Yes, but it was interesting to hear that relationship that people have with catalog or career and how it changes and how it evolves. It's this thing that you can reinvent but it's also sort of an expectation that you lug around with you sometimes.
  Oh yeah! [long pause]
  There's another line I wanted to ask about. You thought that the most subversive thing possible starting out with Talking Heads was to look totally normal. I would love to hear about the thought process behind that.
  Well, I thought that if you look like you could be anybody, like somebody that looks like they work in an office, it's totally disarming. I thought, at least in my mind, you're not threatening to them, so if you do something kind of unusual they've already accepted you a little bit, so you have a little bit of wiggle room, you have a little bit to play with. You can challenge those expectations, challenge and throw something new out and '-- by the fact that you appear so generic and normal '-- you already have your foot in the door. I think I might have used the example like a screaming punk rocker, challenging and threatening and angry '' nobody's going to let you get your foot in the door. You're only playing for people who are like-minded. You're never going to reach other people. So I took that to its logical extreme and bought a cheap suit down near Wall Street. Those places have like $50 suits or whatever, and realized really quickly this is really hot on stage. And I threw it in the washer and it shrunk and became un-wearable and I realized this requires money for upkeep, this kind of outfit. There's a reason this is not feasible!
  You lay out the numbers in a chapter and really crack open what it takes to put out a record. You share the budget, the advance, what you spent every step of the way. So if they give you $225,000 for ''Grown Backwards'' and you're paying musicians and engineers '-- how much is left for you, how many copies do you need to sell? A simple but important question: Why is important for people to understand the economics of art? Because it does seem incredibly important for people to realize that the people who do this have to get paid '-- and not just the people at the top, whose name is on the record, but all the people who are playing on it and working with it and publicizing it and producing it and engineering it. And if they're not getting paid for it these things don't get made. I think in some ways I've just answered the question that I've thrown out at you, but we live in sort of a time of free. Is that part of your thinking in laying out the economics of it? Showing people that free is dangerous?
  I think when I was laying it out I wasn't trying to make an argument against the ''free'' culture idea. I think I was really kind of doing it for myself and my fellow musicians. I was really just thinking: let me lay this out in a way '' let me see if I can understand it. And let me see if I can lay it out so that my peers or emerging musicians might have a clue as to how these things affect their decision making. There's implications if you do this; there's a consequence if you do this; this is going to bite you in the ass down the line. All that kind of stuff. And then I realized that even for people who are not musicians or in bands or whatever, who don't deal with those exact same things, the idea that these kinds of considerations '' the financial stuff '' has consequences. And it affects what we hear and how we hear it, or whether or not we hear it. Secondly, you can apply that to anything in the world. The idea that if you break things down like that, that might explain a lot of why you're getting what you're getting, or what you're hearing. All that sort of stuff. And so I thought if it's not too tedious '' some people might want to skip that stuff '' if it's not too tedious, even if people do not want to be musicians themselves, they might find something useful there.
  How concerned are you about a culture of ''free'' that makes it harder and harder for people to ''
  I'm kind of concerned.
  Or is the artistic impulse so strong that you think people will do it and it will be found? Or does a culture of ''free'' lead to less culture?
  I think people will perform and create music because it's fun. It's a social thing. It might be something they only do on weekends or something like that. That's certainly possible.
  I agree with a lot of those people that the copyright laws have extended way to far and they're crippling creativity. It's just too much and it's just too extensive. And it's too controlling.
  It's not always about the artists. The companies grab that copyright But on the other meaning of it, where there's a feeling that no one should pay for anything that creative people make, well, go down that road and it means that people aren't going to make things.
  It's happening in the media as well: If all news is free, there are fewer jobs, and sometimes the information you get is less valuable. You end up with city halls or town meetings without any reporters there to keep an eye on people.
  There's no money fo research into pieces. All those kinds of things. Those kinds of things have changed the course of history, and they keep the government in check, they make a democracy work. And if you take that away then the scales have kind of tipped in a really bizarre way.
  And that can happen in culture as well. It's easy to imagine. It all happened very fast in the news industry. You can imagine it happening just as fast in the culture side. Although one of the things you also say is that this is a great time for pop music.
  I think maybe it's easier for people to make stuff, and to control it and kind of experiment on their own. There's also things that seem to have some sort of popular success, or at least reach sizable numbers and I go, ''Wow, how did that happen?'' Years ago that would have been '' Bon Iver or something '' years ago this would have had like an audience of 5,000 people. The Decemberists. Yes, it would have been a totally fringe thing. Maybe they're not like huge pop records, but they have garnered a sizable audience. Bigger than a lot of conventional bands. Which, you go ''Wow!'' That there can be that variety and surprise in the pop music world, that's great. That's incredible.
  So does having written this and seeing that these arguments are kind of cyclical and reoccurring make you feel optimistic about the future of music and culture? Or do you think there's an economic reality that has been added in the last ten years that has shifted things in a way that it is kind of harder?
  I'm afraid I'm probably not the one to ask. Because I can go out and tour, even if I don't sell too many records. But yeah, I think there's quite a number of artists who just accept that that's the way things are and they're only going to make a little bit of money or that it's going to be tough for them and I thought, ''Wow, I was either very lucky, or maybe we could do a rethink and make it easier on these people coming up.''
  Like this:LikeLoading...
  Tags: David Byrne
  This entry was posted on December 31, 2013 at 2:07 pm and is filed under Financial, Musicians. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
UK towns blow millions on wind turbines | The Daily Caller
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 14:01
  Towns all over Britain are blowing millions of dollars on wind turbines that are generating almost no revenue and will take hundreds of years to pay for themselves, reports the UK Telegraph.
  The Telegraph reports that UK localities are spending hundreds of pounds installing wind turbines in an effort to boost renewable energy generation and fight global warming.
  ''Some turbines generate so little energy they would take hundreds of years to repay their original value,'' reports the Telegraph. ''Experts argue that the failure of some wind turbines to recoup their value shows how small wind turbines are a poor way to generate renewable energy.''
  In fact, only three out of a handful of localities that responded to the Telegraph's inquiries had wind turbines with payback periods of less than ten years.
  The locality of Eastleigh, Hampshire spent nearly $50,000 installing a wind turbine in 2005, but the inefficient turbine only generates about $21 worth of power every month '-- meaning the payback period on this turbine is 190 years.
  In Leeds, officials spent about $102,000 on a wind turbine in 2009 at an inner city sports facility, but the turbine did not generate any power last year. In Derbyshire, a $147,000 turbine was built in 2004 but has not produced power since September 2011.
  ''Wind energy is an experiment, and sometimes the lessons learnt are hard and dearly bought,'' Dr. John Constable, director at the Renewable Energy Foundation, told the Telegraph. ''The truth is that foolishly ambitious targets and silly levels of subsidy have overheated the wind industry, resulting in defective technologies and poor installations.''
  Constable added that smaller wind turbines were only expected to last up to 15 years, meaning that virtually none of the ones the Telegraph investigated would pay for themselves.
  However, this isn't even the longest payback period a UK town has ever had to face on a turbine. One Welsh turbine was sited in such a calm area that it only generates about $8 worth of electricity every month '-- a 452-year payback period.
  ''If this project had been started when Elizabeth I was on the throne, it would only be reaching break-even point now, sixty years into the reign of Elizabeth II,'' Jonathan Isaby, political director of the TaxPayers' Alliance, told the Daily Express. ''It would seem that the turbine's installation was nothing more than an obscenely expensive vanity project, with unwitting taxpayers footing the bill.''
  The Labour-controlled Welsh government contends that the turbine has mechanical problems, but the company that built the turbine said that the location the government decided to put the turbine in is too calm and has little wind.
  ''The problem is quite simple '-- it's been put in the wrong place,'' said Paul Burrell, a wind turbine expert. ''It's very important with any wind turbine to ensure it's in the most exposed location possible. They need unobstructed access to wind from all directions.''
  Follow Michael on Twitter and Facebook
  Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Father of slain Tsarnaev associate pens letter to Obama, alleges FBI deliberately killed son
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: RT - USA
  Tue, 31 Dec 2013 05:02
  Published time: December 31, 2013 00:05Abdulbaki Todashev, father of Ibragim Todashev (AFP Photo / Andrey Smirnov)
  '‹The father of Ibragim Todashev, former friend of alleged Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev, has released an open letter to President Barack Obama calling for justice after his son's murder. Todashev was killed by FBI agents in May.
  Abdulbaki Todashev's letter includes photos of his son's bullet-ridden body and his bloodstained Orlando, Florida apartment. Ibragim was shot to death by an FBI agent accompanied by two Massachusetts State Troopers, according to Boston magazine.
  Also included is a photo of Ibragim's knee following a surgery he had in March, which the senior Todashev says is proof that his son posed no harm to the FBI agent who killed him.
  In the letter, Abdulbaki Todashev says the FBI deliberately tortured and killed his son and proceeded to intimidate and deport his son's acquaintances in the ensuing months.
  Todashev calls on Obama to keep the FBI from interfering with the current independent investigation into his son's death.
  Todashev's letter states:
  ''Did my son know that he had the right to remain silent or did he have rights at all, including the right to live? Being a citizen of another country he might not be aware of the laws as he was only 27 years old and wanted to live so much. No, they left no chances for him inflicting 13 gunshot wounds and multiple hematomas on his body. After what FBI agents have done to him whatever excuses they come up with nobody would believe them because my son is dead and cannot talk for himself. They did it deliberately so that he can never speak and never take part in court hearings. They put pressure on my son's friends to prevent them from coming to the court and speaking the truth.''
  ''I rely on you, Mr. President, and hope that the prosecutor's office and the court do not let the agencies conducting internal investigation on this case prevent the truth from coming to light so that at least some part of our grief, caused by the murder of our son, is relieved, and that the murderers stand trial instead of sit in their desk chairs.''
  The investigation is being conducted by Florida state attorney Jeffrey Ashton. The lawyer released a statement earlier this month saying that he had received additional information on the killing from the US Department of Justice. He said he would unveil the report's findings early next year.
  Federal prosecutors have stated that Ibragim allegedly implicated Tamerlan Tsarnaev in a 2011 triple murder in Waltham, Massachusetts. Anonymous FBI sources told reporters that Todashev also implicated himself in those murders. Sources have provided conflicting reports on exactly how Todashev died.
  Friends of Ibragim Todashev, a Chechen national, told the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that FBI agents asked them to spy on Orlando-area mosques, threatening arrest if they failed to comply.
  One friend of Todashev, Ashurmamad Miraliev, was arrested by the FBI on September 18 on a warrant for supposedly threatening a witness in an Osceola County battery case 14 months ago.
  Yet following his arrest, he was interrogated for six hours only about associations with Todashev - despite repeatedly requesting his right to an attorney, CAIR-Florida said. The FBI agents allegedly responded, "That is not happening."
  We ''didn't ask him anything about the alleged charges. Just interviewed him for over six hours trying to get as much information on Ibragim Todashev as possible," Hassan Shibly, director of CAIR-Florida, said at a September press conference in Orlando.
  CAIR-Florida requested the US Department of Justice open an investigation into the allegations of civil rights violations and abuse by the FBI of Todashev's friends.
  Shortly after speaking to Boston magazine in September regarding her own dealings with law enforcement since the Orlando slaying, Tatiana Gruzdeva - girlfriend of Ibragim Todashev - was arrested in Florida by immigration officers and told she would be deported for talking to the press.
  Gruzdeva told the magazine that in May she was interrogated by agents about any connection she or Todashev had to Tsarnaev and the Boston Marathon bombing. Agents eventually sent her to immigration officials. She was detained until August, at times in solitary confinement, before being told she would be released and had another year to stay in the US legally. Regardless, Gruzdeva said she "had gone to sign work papers at the local immigrations office'' where she was then arrested and told she would be deported for allowing the magazine to interview her.
  Boston magazine reported that Gruzdeva was deported to Moscow.
  Tamerlan Tsarnaev died days after the Boston Marathon bombings, during a shootout with law enforcement in Watertown, Massachusetts.
  Tsarnaev's brother and alleged co-conspirator, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, was also shot during the encounter, but managed to escape in a stolen vehicle he later abandoned. A day later, Dzhokhar was found wounded in a Watertown backyard during a massive manhunt. He pled not guilty to 30 counts against him on July 10 in a Boston federal court.
  Dzhokhar is being tried for killing three people and wounding more than 260 others in a double blast at the Boston Marathon in April 2013. His lawyers have been given until February 28 to decide whether they will request that the case be moved outside of Boston. However, the attorneys have asked for that deadline to be extended because Attorney General Eric Holder is not expected to announce whether prosecutors will seek the death penalty until late January.
Learn Remote Viewing
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 13:54
  FINAL LIVE KILLSHOT EVENTMarch 22nd, 2014 in Reno, NV
  EVENT TOPICS
  Remote Viewing program secrets revealedNewly revealed near-term disasters and epidemicsKillshot map with detailed survival zones and "kill zones"How to prepare and find your personal sanctuaryLife on Earth after the killshot strikesFREE GIFTS
  Includes ACCESS to the evening chat with Ed Dames!Includes FREE copy of Viewing the Future predictions DVDRESERVE YOUR SEAT(S) NOW
  Commonly Asked event Questions and Information.
  What is a "live event"?
  "Live events" are new venues just launched by Major Ed Dames in response to thousands of people requesting additional information about current and near-future conditions (global and regional) that could impact your life. Although Major Dames has publically promulgated such information, periodically (on shows such as Coast to Coast AM), there exists so much more crucial information to share that he is either not at liberty to present, or proscribed from doing so. Live events will allow Major Dames the freedom to reveal urgent, 'behind closed doors' updates regarding Remote Viewing targeting results (economic outlook, near-future disasters and survival information, war, etc.) that would otherwise result in certain overwhelming alarm on the part of national radio or TV audiences.
  When and where is the live event held?
  Where do I book my hotel room to get a special rate?
  All live events with Major Ed Dames include exclsuive hotel discounts for attendees! This live event is being held at the Silver Legacy Resort & Casino in the heart of Reno Nevada. This is a beatiful Resort & Casino with world-class casinos, dining, bars, entertainment and shows! Located only minutes away from the Reno international airport, you can take a taxi or a shuttle to and from this resort so renting a car is not necessary.
  For attending the live event, you'll also get a SPECIAL ROOM RATE for Friday, Saturday and Sunday. In order to get your room(s) with the special rate, please call 800-687-8733 right away and tell the operator to use group code "ID0314". Block rooms expire when filled or 2/18/2014, whichever comes first.
  Why is there a non-disclosure agreement?
  Much of the information presented in the "live events" contains confidential information that may have implications on national security if revealed publically. As a result, each attendee will be required to sign a non-disclosure agreement agreeing that the information received during this event is confidential and cannot be repeated via the internet (social sites, blogs etc.), radio broadcasts, TV broadcasts, webcasts, email etc.
  What are my free gifts for attending?
  After the daytime live event is concluded, each attendee will have access the evening "private chat" with Major Ed Dames. This is a casual and private chat with Ed in which you can ask anything you have on your mind.
  Also, each attendee will receive a copy of the Viewing the Future DVD. Go beyond the Killshot with this longer, more in-depth documentary that showcases Remote Viewing predictions (past and future) like you've never seen before! This DVD contains additional information that you need to know about to prepare for the future.
  This documentary also showcases so much evidence regarding the effectiveness of Remote Viewing that it's a perfect video to share with friends and family to showcase the power behind this declassified skill.
Potassum Iodide - Federal Business Opportunities: Opportunities
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 13:33
  Opportunity HistorySolicitation Number:
  14-284-SOL-0015A
  Notice Type:
  Combined Synopsis/Solicitation
  Contracting Office Address:
  Building 14Perry Point, Maryland 21902
  Primary Point of Contact.:
  General InformationNotice Type:
  Combined Synopsis/Solicitation
  Posted Date:
  December 6, 2013
  Response Date:
  Dec 23, 2013 11:59 pm Eastern
  Archiving Policy:
  Automatic, 15 days after response date
  Archive Date:
  January 7, 2014
  Set Aside:
  Total Small Business
  Classification Code:
  65 -- Medical, dental & veterinary equipment & supplies
  NAICS Code:
  325 -- Chemical Manufacturing/325412 -- Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
Potassium iodide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 13:29
  Potassium iodide is an inorganic compound with the chemical formulaKI. This white salt is the most commercially significant iodide compound, with approximately 37,000 tons produced in 1985. It is less hygroscopic (absorbs water less readily) than sodium iodide, making it easier to work with. Potassium iodide occurs naturally in Kelp.[1] Kelp's iodide content can range from 89 µg/g to 8165 µg/g.[2]
  Aged and impure samples are yellow because of the slow oxidation of the salt to potassium carbonate and elemental iodine.[3]
  4 KI + 2 CO2 + O2 '†' 2 K2CO3 + 2 I2Potassium iodide is medicinally used for thyroid blockade, thyroid storm and also as an expectorant.
  Structure, production, properties[edit]Potassium iodide is ionic, K+I''. It crystallises in the sodium chloride structure. It is produced industrially by treating KOH with iodine.[3]
  Inorganic chemistry[edit]Since the iodide ion is a mild reducing agent, I '' is easily oxidised to I2 by powerful oxidising agents such as chlorine:
  2 KI(aq) + Cl2(aq) '†' 2 KCl + I2(aq)This reaction is employed in the isolation of iodine from natural sources. Air will oxidize iodide, as evidenced by the observation of a purple extract when aged samples of KI are rinsed with dichloromethane. As formed under acidic conditions, hydroiodic acid (HI) is a stronger reducing agent.[4][5][6]
  Like other iodide salts, KI forms I3'' when combined with elemental iodine.
  KI(aq) + I2(s) '†' KI3(aq)Unlike I2, I3'' salts can be highly water-soluble. Through this reaction, iodine is used in redoxtitrations. Aqueous KI3, "Lugol's solution," are used as disinfectants and as etchants for gold surfaces.
  Potassium iodide is the precursor to silver(I) iodide, which is used for high speed photographic film:
  KI(aq) + AgNO3(aq) '†' AgI(s) + KNO3(aq)Organic chemistry[edit]KI serves as a source of iodide in organic synthesis. A useful application is in the preparation of aryl iodides from arenediazonium salts.[7][8] For example:
  KI, acting as a source of iodide, may also act as a nucleophilic catalyst for the alkylation of alkyl chlorides, bromides, or mesylates.
  Applications[edit]Industry[edit]KI is a precursor to silver iodide (AgI) an important chemical in film photography. KI is a component in some disinfectants and hair treatment chemicals. KI is also used as a fluorescence quenching agent in biomedical research, an application that takes advantage of collisional quenching of fluorescent substances by the iodide ion. However, for several fluorophores addition of KI in µM-mM concentrations results in increase of fluorescence intensity, and iodide acts as fluorescence enhancer.[9]
  Potassium iodide is a component in the electrolyte of dye sensitized solar cells (DSSC) along with iodine.
  Potassium iodine finds its most important applications in organic synthesis mainly in the preparation of aryl iodides in the Sandmeyer reaction, starting from aryl amines. Aryl iodides are in turn used to attach aryl groups to other organics by nucleophilic substitution, with iodide ion as the leaving group.
  Nutrition[edit]The major uses of KI include use as a nutritional supplement in animal feeds and also the human diet. For the latter, it is the most common additive used to "iodize" table salt (a public health measure to prevent iodine deficiency in populations which get little seafood). The oxidation of iodide causes slow loss of iodine content from iodised salts that are exposed to excess air. The alkali metal iodide salt, over time and exposure to excess oxygen and carbon dioxide, slowly oxidizes to metal carbonate and elemental iodine, which then evaporates.[10]Potassium iodate is used to add iodine to some salts so that the iodine is not lost by oxidation. Dextrose or sodium thiosulfate are often added to iodized table salt to stabilize potassium iodide thus reducing loss of the volatile chemical.[11]
  For reasons noted above, therapeutic drops of SSKI, or 130 mg tablets of KI as used for nuclear fission accidents, are not used as nutritional supplements, since an SSKI drop or nuclear-emergency tablet provides 300 to 700 times more iodine than the daily adult nutritional requirement. Dedicated nutritional iodide tablets containing 0.15 mg (150 microgram or mcg) of iodide, from KI or from various other sources (such as kelp extract) are marketed as supplements, but they are not to be confused with the much higher pharmaceutical dose preparations.
  Pharmaceutical applications[edit]Tablet[edit]Potassium iodide is medicinally supplied in 130 mg tablets (each containing 100 mg iodine as iodide and 30 mg potassium) for emergency purposes related to blockade of radioiodine uptake, a common form of radiation poisoning due to environmental contamination by the short-lived fission product iodine-135.[12] Potassium iodide may also be administered pharmaceutically for thyroid storm.
  SSKI[edit]Potassium iodide can be conveniently prepared as a saturated solution, abbreviated SSKI. This method of delivering potassium iodide does not require a method to weigh out the potassium iodide so it can be used in an emergency situation. KI crystals are simply added to water until no more KI will dissolve and instead sits at the bottom of the container. With pure water, the concentration of KI in the solution depends only on the temperature. Potassium iodide is highly soluble in water so SSKI is a concentrated source of KI. At 20 degrees Celsius the solubility of KI is 140-148 grams per 100 grams of water.[13] Because the volumes of KI and water are approximately additive, the resulting SSKI solution will contain about 1.40 gram (1400 mg) KI per milliliter (mL) of solution. This is 100% weight/volume (note units of mass concentration) of KI (one gram KI per mL solution), which is possible because SSKI is significantly more dense than pure water'--about 1.72 g/mL.[14] Because KI is about 76.4% iodide by weight, SSKI contains about 764 mg iodide per mL. This concentration of iodide allows the calculation of the iodide dose per drop, if one knows the number of drops per milliliter. For SSKI, a solution more viscous than water, there are assumed to be 15 drops per mL; the iodide dose is therefore approximately 51 mg per drop, assuming 15 drops/mL. It is conventionally rounded to 50 mg per drop.
  The term SSKI is also used, especially by pharmacists, to refer to a U.S.P. pre-prepared solution formula, made by adding exactly KI to water to prepare a solution containing of 1000 mg KI per mL solution (100% wt/volume KI solution), to closely approximate the concentration of SSKI made by saturation. This is essentially interchangeable with SSKI made by saturation, and also contains about 50 mg iodide per drop.
  Saturated solutions of potassium iodide can be an emergency treatment for hyperthyroidism (so-called thyroid storm), as high amounts of iodide temporarily suppress secretion of thyroxine from the thyroid gland.[15] The dose typically begins with a loading dose, then 1/3 mL SSKI (5 drops or 250 mg iodine as iodide), three times per day.Iodide solutions made from a few drops of SSKI added to drinks have also been used as expectorants to increase the water content of respiratory secretions and encourage effective coughing.[citation needed]SSKI has been proposed as a topical treatment for sporotrichosis, but no trials have been conducted to determine the efficacy or side effects of such treatment.[16]Potassium iodide has been used for symptomatic treatment of erythema nodosum patients for persistent lesions whose cause remains unknown. It has been used in cases of erythema nodosum associated with Crohn's disease.[17]Due to its high potassium content, SSKI is extremely bitter, and if possible it is administered in a sugar cube or small ball of bread. It may also be mixed into much larger volumes of juices.Neither SSKI or KI tablets are used as nutritional supplements, since the nutritional requirement for iodine is only 150 micrograms or 0.15 mg of iodide per day. Thus, a drop of SSKI provides 50/0.15 = 333 times the daily iodine requirement, and a standard KI tablet provides twice this much.Thyroid protection during medical treatment[edit]Thyroid iodine uptake blockade with potassium iodide is used in nuclear medicinescintigraphy and therapy with some radioiodinated compounds that are not targeted to the thyroid, such as iobenguane (MIBG), which is used to image or treat neural tissue tumors, or iodinated fibrinogen, which is used in fibrinogen scans to investigate clotting. These compounds contain iodine, but not in the iodide form. However, since they may be ultimately metabolized or break down to radioactive iodide, it is common to administer non-radioactive potassium iodide to ensure that iodide from these radiopharmaceuticals is not sequestered by the normal affinity of the thryoid for iodide.
  U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved dosing of potassium iodide for this purpose with iobenguane, is as follows (per 24 hours): infants less than 1 month old, 16 mg; children 1 month to 3 years, 32 mg; children 3 years to 18 years, 65 mg; adults 130 mg.[18] However, some sources recommend alternative dosing regimens.[19]
  Not all sources are in agreement on the necessary duration of thyroid blockade, although agreement appears to have been reached about the necessity of blockade for both scintigraphic and therapeutic applications of iobenguane. Commercially available iobenguane is labeled with iodine-123, and product labeling recommends administration of potassium iodide 1 hour prior to administration of the radiopharmaceutical for all age groups,[20] while the European Associated of Nuclear Medicine recommends (for iobenguane labeled with either isotope,) that potassium iodide administration begin one day prior to radiopharmaceutical administration, and continue until the day following the injection, with the exception of new-borns, who do not require potassium iodide doses following radiopharmaceutical injection.[19][21]
  Product labeling for diagnostic iodine-131 iobenguane recommends potassium iodide administration one day before injection and continuing 5 to 7 days following administration, in keeping with the much longer half-life of this isotope and its greater danger to the thyroid.[22] Iodine-131 iobenguane used for therapeutic purposes requires a different pre-medication duration, beginning 24''48 hours prior to iobenguane injection and continuing 10''15 days following injection.[23]
  Thyroid protection due to nuclear accidents and emergencies[edit]In 1982, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved potassium iodide to protect thyroid glands from radioactive iodine involving accidents or fission emergencies.[citation needed] In an accidental event or attack on a nuclear power plant, or in nuclear bomb fallout, volatile fission product radionuclides may be released. Of these products, 131I is one of the most common and is particularly dangerous to the thyroid gland because it may lead to thyroid cancer[citation needed]. By saturating the body with a source of stable iodide prior to exposure, inhaled or ingested 131I tends to be excreted, which prevents radioiodine uptake by the thyroid. The protective effect of KI lasts approximately 24 hours.[citation needed] For optimal prophylaxis, KI must be dosed daily until a risk of significant exposure to radioiodine by either inhalation or ingestion no longer exists.
  Emergency 130 milligrams potassium iodide doses provide 100 mg iodide (the other 30 mg is the potassium in the compound), which is roughly 700 times larger than the normal nutritional need (see recommended dietary allowance) for iodine, which is 150 micrograms (0.15 mg) of iodine (as iodide) per day for an adult. The tablet is actually 160 mg. 130 mg of which is potassium iodide and 30 mg being excipients such as binding agents.
  Potassium iodide cannot protect against any other causes of radiation poisoning, nor can it provide any degree of protection against dirty bombs that produce radionuclides other than radionuclides of iodine.[citation needed] See fission products and the external links for more details concerning radionuclides.
  WHO Recommended Dosage for Radiological Emergencies involving radioactive iodine[24]AgeKI in mg per dayOver 12 years old1303 '' 12 years old651 '' 36 months old32< >16The potassium iodide in iodized salt is insufficient for this use.[25] A likely lethal dose of salt (more than a kilogram[26]) would be needed to equal the potassium iodide in one tablet.[27]
  The World Health Organization does not recommend KI prophylaxis for adults over 40 years, unless inhaled radiation dose levels are expected to threaten thyroid function, because the KI side effects increase with age and may exceed the KI protective effects; "...unless doses to the thyroid from inhalation rise to levels threatening thyroid function, that is of the order of about 5 Gy. Such radiation doses will not occur far away from an accident site."[24]
  The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services restated these two years later as "The downward KI (potassium iodide) dose adjustment by age group, based on body size considerations, adheres to the principle of minimum effective dose. The recommended standard (daily) dose of KI for all school-age children is the same (65 mg). However, adolescents approaching adult size (i.e., >70 kg [154 lbs]) should receive the full adult dose (130 mg) for maximal block of thyroid radioiodine uptake. Neonates ideally should receive the lowest dose (16 mg) of KI."[28]
  SSKI (i.e., the solution of KI rather than tablets) may be used in radioiodine-contamination emergencies (i.e., nuclear accidents) to "block" the thyroid's uptake of radioiodine, at a dose of two drops of SSKI per day for an adult. This is not the same as blocking the thyroid's release of thyroid hormone, for which the adult dose is different (and is actually higher by a factor of 7 or 8), and for which KI anti-radiation pills (not a common medical treatment form of KI) are not usually available in pharmacies, or normally used in hospitals, or by physicians. Although the two forms of potassium iodide are completely interchangeable, normally in practice the SSKI solution, which is the historical medical form of high dose iodine, is generally used for all medical purposes save for radioiodine prophylaxis. For protection of the thyroid against radioiodine (iodine-131) contamination, the convenient standard 130 mg KI pill is used if available. As noted, the equivalent two drops of SSKI may be used for this purpose, if the pills are not available.
  Historical use and analysis[edit]Following the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster in April, 1986, a saturated solution of potassium iodide (SSKI) was administered to 10.5 million children and 7 million adults in Poland[28] as a prophylactic measure against accumulation of radioactive iodine-131 in the thyroid gland. People in the areas immediately surrounding Chernobyl itself, however, were not given the supplement.[29]
  Potassium iodide's (KI) value as a radiation protective (thyroid blocking) agent was demonstrated at the time of the Chernobyl nuclear accident when Soviet authorities distributed it in a 30 km zone around the plant. The purpose was to protect residents from radioactive iodine, a highly carcinogenic material found in nuclear reactors which had been released by the damaged reactor. Only a limited amount of KI was available, but those who received it were protected. Later, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reported, ''thousands of measurements of I-131 (radioactive iodine) activity...suggest that the observed levels were lower than would have been expected had this prophylactic measure not been taken. The use of KI...was credited with permissible iodine content in 97% of the evacuees tested.''[21]
  Poland, 300 miles from Chernobyl, also distributed KI to protect its population. Approximately 18 million doses were distributed, with follow-up studies showing no known thyroid cancer among KI recipients.[30] With the passage of time, people living in irradiated areas where KI was not available have developed thyroid cancer at epidemic levels, which is why the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported ''The data clearly demonstrate the risks of thyroid radiation... KI can be used [to] provide safe and effective protection against thyroid cancer caused by irradiation.[31]
  Chernobyl also demonstrated that the need to protect the thyroid from radiation was greater than expected. Within ten years of the accident, it became clear that thyroid damage caused by released radioactive iodine was virtually the only adverse health effect that could be measured. As reported by the NRC, studies after the accident showed that ''As of 1996, except for thyroid cancer, there has been no confirmed increase in the rates of other cancers, including leukemia, among the... public, that have been attributed to releases from the accident.''[32]
  But equally important to the question of KI is the fact that radiation releases are not ''local'' events. Researchers at the World Health Organization accurately located and counted the cancer victims from Chernobyl and were startled to find that ''the increase in incidence [of thyroid cancer] has been documented up to 500 km from the accident site... significant doses from radioactive iodine can occur hundreds of kilometers from the site, beyond emergency planning zones."[24] Consequently, far more people than anticipated were affected by the radiation, which caused the United Nations to report in 2002 that ''The number of people with thyroid cancer... has exceeded expectations. Over 11,000 cases have already been reported.''[33]
  These findings were consistent with studies of the effects of previous radiation releases. In 1945, millions of Japanese were exposed to radiation from nuclear weapons, and the effects can still be measured. Today, nearly half (44.8%) the survivors of Nagasaki studied have identifiable thyroid disease, with the American Medical Association reporting ''it is remarkable that a biological effect from a single brief environmental exposure nearly 60 years in the past is still present and can be detected.''[34] This, as well as the development of thyroid cancer among residents in the North Pacific from radioactive fallout following the United States' nuclear weapons testing in the 1950s (on islands nearly 200 miles downwind of the tests) were instrumental in the decision by the FDA in 1978 to issue a request for the availability of KI for thyroid protection in the event of a release from a commercial nuclear power plant or weapons-related nuclear incident. Noting that KI's effectiveness was ''virtually complete'' and finding that iodine in the form of potassium iodide (KI) was substantially superior to other forms including iodate (KIO3) in terms of safety, effectiveness, lack of side effects, and speed of onset, the FDA invited manufacturers to submit applications to produce and market KI.[35]
  Today, three companies (Anbex, Inc., Fleming Co, and Recip of Sweden) have met the strict FDA requirements for manufacturing and testing of KI, and they offer products (IOSAT, ThyroShield, and Thyro-Safe,[36] respectively) which are available for purchase. In 2012, Fleming Co. sold all it's product rights and manufacturing facility to other companies and no longer exists. ThyroShield is currently not in production. The Swedish manufacturing facility for Thyrosafe, a half-strength potassium iodide tablet for thyroid protection from radiation manufactured by Recipharm AB, was mentioned on the secret US 2008 Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative leaked by Wikileaks in 2010.[37]
  It was reported on March 16, 2011, that potassium iodide tablets were given prophylactically to U.S. Naval air crew members flying within 70 nautical miles of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant damaged in the massive Japanese earthquake (8.9/9.0 magnitude) and ensuing tsunami on March 11, 2011. The measures were seen as precautions, and the Pentagon said no U.S. forces have shown signs of radiation poisoning. By March 20, the US Navy instructed personnel coming within 100 miles of the reactor to take the pills.[38]
  Adverse reactions and alternatives[edit]There is reason for caution with prescribing the ingestion of high doses of potassium iodide and iodate, as their unnecessary use can cause conditions such as the Jod-Basedow phenomena, and the Wolff-Chaikoff effect, trigger and/or worsen hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism, and then cause temporary or even permanent thyroid conditions. It can also cause sialadenitis (an inflammation of the salivary gland), gastrointestinal disturbances, allergic reactions and rashes. Potassium iodide is also not recommended for those who have had an allergic reaction to iodine, and people with dermatitis herpetiformis and hypocomplementemic vasculitis, conditions that are linked to a risk of iodine sensitivity.[39]
  There have been some reports of potassium iodide treatment causing swelling of the parotid gland (one of the three glands which secrete saliva), due to its stimulatory effects on saliva production.[40]
  A saturated solution of KI (SSKI) is typically given orally in adult doses of about 250 mg iodide several times a day (5 drops of SSKI assumed to be '…' ml) for thyroid blockade (to prevent the thyroid from excreting thyroid hormone) and occasionally this dose is also used, when iodide is used as an expectorant (the total dose is about one gram KI per day for an adult). The anti-radioiodine doses used for I-131 uptake blockade are lower, and range downward from 100 mg a day for an adult, to less than this for children (see table). All of these doses should be compared with the far lower dose of iodine needed in normal nutrition, which is only 150 Î¼g per day (150 micrograms, not milligrams).
  At maximal doses, and sometimes at much lower doses, side effects of iodide used for medical reasons, in doses of 1000 times the normal nutrional need, may include: acne, loss of appetite, or upset stomach (especially during the first several days, as the body adjusts to the medication). More severe side effects which require notification of a physician are: fever, weakness, unusual tiredness, swelling in the neck or throat, mouth sores, skin rash, nausea, vomiting, stomach pains, irregular heartbeat, numbness or tingling of the hands or feet, or a metallic taste in the mouth.[41]
  The use of a particular 'Iodine tablet' used in portable water purification has also been determined as somewhat effective at reducing radioiodine uptake. In a small study on human subjects, who for each of their 90 day trial, ingested four 20 milligram tetraglycine hydroperiodide(TGHP) water tablets, with each tablet releasing 8 milligrams (ppm) of free titratable iodine;[42] it was found that the biological uptake of radioactive iodine in these human subjects dropped to, and remained at, a value of less than 2% the radioiodine uptake rate of that observed in control subjects who went fully exposed to radioiodine without treatment.[43]
  The administration of known goitrogen substances can also be used as a prophylaxis in reducing the bio-uptake of iodine, (whether it be the nutritional non-radioactive iodine-127 or radioactive iodine, radioiodine - most commonly iodine-131, as the body cannot discern between different iodine isotopes). perchlorate ions, a common water contaminant in the USA due to the aerospace industry, has been shown to reduce iodine uptake and thus is classified as a goitrogen. Perchlorate ions are a competitive inhibitor of the process by which iodide, is actively deposited into thyroid follicular cells. Studies involving healthy adult volunteers determined that at levels above 0.007 milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/(kg·d)), perchlorate begins to temporarily inhibit the thyroid gland's ability to absorb iodine from the bloodstream ("iodide uptake inhibition", thus perchlorate is a known goitrogen).[44] The reduction of the iodide pool by perchlorate has dual effects '' reduction of excess hormone synthesis and hyperthyroidism, on the one hand, and reduction of thyroid inhibitor synthesis and hypothyroidism on the other. Perchlorate remains very useful as a single dose application in tests measuring the discharge of radioiodide accumulated in the thyroid as a result of many different disruptions in the further metabolism of iodide in the thyroid gland.[45]
  Treatment of thyrotoxicosis (including Graves' disease) with 600-2,000 mg potassium perchlorate (430-1,400 mg perchlorate) daily for periods of several months or longer was once common practice, particularly in Europe,[44][46] and perchlorate use at lower doses to treat thryoid problems continues to this day.[47] Although 400 mg of potassium perchlorate divided into four or five daily doses was used initially and found effective, higher doses were introduced when 400 mg/day was discovered not to control thyrotoxicosis in all subjects.[44][45]
  Current regimens for treatment of thyrotoxicosis (including Graves' disease), when a patient is exposed to additional sources of Iodine, commonly include 500 mg potassium perchlorate twice per day for 18''40 days.[44][48]
  Prophylaxis with perchlorate containing water at concentrations of 17 ppm, which corresponds to 0.5 mg/kg-day personal intake, if one is 70 kg and consumes 2 litres of water per day, was found to reduce baseline radioiodine uptake by 67%[44] This is equivalent to ingesting a total of just 35 mg of Perchlorate ions per day. In another related study were subjects drank just 1 litre of perchlorate containing water per day at a concentration of 10 ppm, i.e. daily 10 mg of Perchlorate ions were ingested, an average 38% reduction in the uptake of Iodine was observed.[49]
  However when the average perchlorate absorption in perchlorate plant workers subjected to the highest exposure has been estimated as approximately 0.5 mg/kg-day, as in the above paragraph, a 67% reduction of iodine uptake would be expected. Studies of chronically exposed workers though have thus far failed to detect any abnormalities of thyroid function, including the uptake of iodine.[50] this may well be attributable to sufficient daily exposure or intake of healthy Iodine-127 among the workers and the short 8 hr Biological half life of Perchlorate in the body.[44]
  To completely block the uptake of Iodine-131 by the purposeful addition of perchlorate ions to a populaces water supply, aiming at dosages of 0.5 mg/kg-day, or a water concentration of 17 ppm, would therefore be grossly inadequate at truly reducing radioiodine uptake. Perchlorate ion concentrations in a regions water supply, would need to be much higher, at least 7.15 mg/kg of body weight per day or a water concentration of 250 ppm,assuming people drink 2 liters of water per day, to be truly beneficial to the population at preventing bioaccumulation when exposed to a radioiodine environment,[44][48] independent of the availability of Iodate or Iodide drugs.
  The continual distribution of perchlorate tablets or the addition of perchlorate to the water supply would need to continue for no less than 80''90 days, beginning immediately after the initial release of radioiodine was detected, after 80''90 days had passed released radioactive iodine-131 would have decayed to less than 0.1% of its initial quantity at which time the danger from biouptake of iodine-131 is essentially over.[51]
  In the event of a radioiodine release the ingestion of prophylaxis potassium iodide, if available, or even iodate, would rightly take precedence over perchlorate administration, and would be the first line of defense in protecting the population from a radioiodine release. However in the event of a radioiodine release too massive and widespread to be controlled by the limited stock of iodide & iodate prophylaxis drugs, then the addition of perchlorate ions to the water supply, or distribution of perchlorate tablets would serve as a cheap, efficacious, second line of defense against carcinogenic radioiodine bioaccumulation.
  The ingestion of goitrogen drugs is, much like potassium iodide also not without its dangers, such as hypothyroidism. In all these cases however, despite the risks, the prophylaxis benefits of intervention with iodide, iodate or perchlorate outweigh the serious cancer risk from radioiodine bioaccumulation in regions were radioiodine has sufficiently contaminatated the environment.
  Precautions[edit]Potassium iodide in its raw form is a mild irritant and should be handled with gloves. Chronic overexposure can have adverse effects on the thyroid. Potassium iodide is a possible teratogen.[citation needed]
  See other[edit]References[edit]^"Kelp, Herb Monograph - Flora Health Herb Encyclopedia". Florahealth.com. Retrieved 2013-03-21. ^Teas, Jane; Pino, Sam; Critchley, Alan; Braverman, Lewis E. (2004). "Variability of Iodine Content in Common Commercially Available Edible Seaweeds". Thyroid14 (10): 836''41. doi:10.1089/thy.2004.14.836. PMID 15588380. ^ abPhyllis A. Lyday (2005), "Iodine and Iodine Compounds", Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, doi:10.1002/14356007.a14_381 ^N. N. Greenwood, A. Earnshaw, Chemistry of the Elements, Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, 1984[page needed]^Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 71st edition, CRC Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1990^The Merck Index, 7th edition, Merck & Co., Rahway, New Jersey, 1960[page needed]^L. G. Wade, Organic Chemistry, 5th ed., pp. 871-2, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RIver, New Jersey, 2003.^J. March, Advanced Organic Chemistry, 4th ed., pp. 670-1, Wiley, New York, 1992.^Chmyrov, Andriy; Sand(C)n, Tor; Widengren, Jerker (2010). "Iodide as a Fluorescence Quencher and Promoter'--Mechanisms and Possible Implications". The Journal of Physical Chemistry B114 (34): 11282''91. doi:10.1021/jp103837f. PMID 20695476. ^Waszkowiak, Katarzyna; Szymandera-Buszka, Krystyna (2008). "Effect of storage conditions on potassium iodide stability in iodised table salt and collagen preparations". International Journal of Food Science & Technology43 (5): 895''9. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2007.01538.x. ^"Iodizing salt". Salt Instititute. Retrieved June 13, 2013. ^"Potassium Iodide Dosage Guidelines & Frequently Asked Questions". Preparedness.com. 2001-12-10. Retrieved 2011-03-23. ^"Solubility of KI in water". Hazard.com. 1998-04-21. Retrieved 2013-01-21. ^Forster, Mark; Flenley, John R. (1993). "Pollen purification and fractionation by equilibrium density gradient centrifugation". Palynology17: 137''55. doi:10.1080/01916122.1993.9989424. JSTOR 3687792. ^"Iodine."MedlinePlus.^Xue, Siliang; Gu, Rui; Wu, Taixiang; Zhang, Mingming; Wang, Xiaoshan (2009). "Oral potassium iodide for the treatment of sporotrichosis". In Wu, Taixiang. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (4): CD006136. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006136.pub2. PMID 19821356. ^Marshall, JK; Irvine, EJ (1997). "Successful therapy of refractory erythema nodosum associated with Crohn's disease using potassium iodide". Canadian journal of gastroenterology11 (6): 501''2. PMID 9347164. ^Kowalsky RJ, Falen, SW. Radiopharmaceuticals in Nuclear Pharmacy and Nuclear Medicine. 2nd ed. Washington DC: American Pharmacists Association; 2004.[page needed]^ abhttp://web.archive.org/web/20111007201923/https://www.eanm.org/scientific_info/guidelines/gl_paed_mibg.pdf?PHPSESSID=46d05b62d235c36a12166bf939b656c7^"43-2035 AdreView Panel PI 091908:Layout 1" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-03-23. ^ abUS Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Report on the Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station, NUREG-1250. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1250/^Iobenguane Sulfate I 131 Injection Diagnostic package insert. Bedford, MA: CIS-US, Inc. July 1999.^http://web.archive.org/web/20111007202042/https://www.eanm.org/scientific_info/guidelines/gl_radio_ther_benzyl.pdf?PHPSESSID=46d05b62d235c36a12166bf939b656c7^ abc"Guidelines for Iodine Prophylaxis following Nuclear Accidents" (PDF). World Health Organization. 1999. ^"FAQs: Japan nuclear concerns". World Health Organization. Retrieved 1 April 2011. ^By 21 C.F.R.184.1634, the maximum allowable concentration of iodine in salt in the U.S. is .01%^"Safety (MSDS) data for sodium chloride". ^ ab"Potassium Iodide as a Thyroid Blocking Agent in Radiation Emergencies" (PDF). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). December, 2001. ^Frot, Jacques; Berol Robinson (translator) (doc). >>The Causes of the Chernobyl Event>> (Report). Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy. http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/Causes.ChernobyJF.doc.^Nauman, Janusz; Wolff, Jan (1993). "Iodide prophylaxis in Poland after the chernobyl reactor accident: Benefits and risks". The American Journal of Medicine94 (5): 524''32. doi:10.1016/0002-9343(93)90089-8. PMID 8498398. ^US Food and Drug Administration, FDA Talk Paper: Guidance on Protection Against Thyroid Cancer in Case of a Nuclear Accident^US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Assessment of the Use of Potassium Iodide (KI) As a Public Protective Action During Severe Reactor Accidents Quoting Thyroid Cancer in Children of Belarus Following the Chernobyl Accident, NUREG-1633 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/secys/2002/secy2002-0089/attachment1.pdf[page needed]^United Nations: Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Chernobyl, a Continuing Catastrophe, New York and Geneva, 2000[page needed]^Boice, J. D. (2006). "Thyroid Disease 60 Years After Hiroshima and 20 Years After Chernobyl". JAMA295 (9): 1060''2. doi:10.1001/jama.295.9.1060. PMID 16507808. ^US Federal Register (US Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration) 43 (242). December 15, 1978. ^B. McFee, Robin; Jerrold B. Leikin (2007). Toxico-terrorism: emergency response and clinical approach to chemical, biological, and radiological agents, Volume 755. McGraw-Hill Professional. p. 224. ISBN 978-0-07-147186-2. Retrieved December 18, 2010. ^"REQUEST FOR INFORMATION:CRITICAL FOREIGN DEPENDENCIES". Cryptome. February 2009. ^"Vegetables near stricken plant test high for radiation". CNN. 2011-03-22. ^"Information on Radiation, Health and the Thyroid, Including Iodine Testing, Potassium Iodide, and Thyroid Testing". Thyroid-info.com. Retrieved 2013-01-21. ^McCance; Huether. "Pathophysiology: The biological basis for disease in Adults and Children". 5th Edition. Elsievier Publishing[page needed]^March 23, 2011. "POTASSIUM IODIDE - ORAL (SSKI) side effects, medical uses, and drug interactions". Medicinenet.com. Retrieved 2011-03-23. ^http://www.pharmacalway.com/FAQ.html^LeMar et al, HJ. "Thyroid adaptation to chronic tetraglycine hydroperiodide water purification tablet use. Department of Medicine, Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington 98431.". Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Vol 80, 220-223, doi: 10.1210/jc.80.1.220 Copyright (C) 1995. Endocrine Society. Retrieved 20 Mar 2010. ^ abcdefgGreer, Monte A.; Goodman, Gay; Pleus, Richard C.; Greer, Susan E. (2002). "Health Effects Assessment for Environmental Perchlorate Contamination: The Dose Response for Inhibition of Thyroidal Radioiodine Uptake in Humans". Environmental Health Perspectives110 (9): 927''37. doi:10.1289/ehp.02110927. PMC 1240994. PMID 12204829. ^ abWolff, J (1998). "Perchlorate and the thyroid gland". Pharmacological reviews50 (1): 89''105. PMID 9549759. ^Barzilai, D; Sheinfeld, M (1966). "Fatal complications following use of potassium perchlorate in thyrotoxicosis. Report of two cases and a review of the literature". Israel journal of medical sciences2 (4): 453''6. PMID 4290684. ^Woenckhaus, U.; Girlich, C. (2005). "Therapie und Pr¤vention der Hyperthyreose" [Therapy and prevention of hyperthyroidism]. Der Internist (in German) 46 (12): 1318''23. doi:10.1007/s00108-005-1508-4. PMID 16231171. ^ abBartalena, L.; Brogioni, S; Grasso, L; Bogazzi, F; Burelli, A; Martino, E (1996). "Treatment of amiodarone-induced thyrotoxicosis, a difficult challenge: Results of a prospective study". Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism81 (8): 2930''3. doi:10.1210/jc.81.8.2930. PMID 8768854. ^Lawrence, J. E.; Lamm, S. H.; Pino, S.; Richman, K.; Braverman, L. E. (2000). "The Effect of Short-Term Low-Dose Perchlorate on Various Aspects of Thyroid Function". Thyroid10 (8): 659''63. doi:10.1089/10507250050137734. PMID 11014310. ^Lamm, Steven H.; Braverman, Lewis E.; Li, Feng Xiao; Richman, Kent; Pino, Sam; Howearth, Gregory (1999). "Thyroid Health Status of Ammonium Perchlorate Workers: A Cross-Sectional Occupational Health Study". Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine41 (4): 248''60. doi:10.1097/00043764-199904000-00006. PMID 10224590. ^"Nuclear Chemistry: Half-Lives and Radioactive Dating - For Dummies". Dummies.com. 2010-01-06. Retrieved 2013-01-21. External links[edit]
Prison Planet.com >> US Government Orders 14 Million Doses of Potassium Iodide
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 13:26
  Huge purchase linked to ongoing Fukushima crisis?
  Paul Joseph WatsonPrison Planet.comJanuary 1, 2014
  The Department of Health and Human Services has ordered 14 million doses of potassium iodide, the compound that protects the body from radioactive poisoning in the aftermath of severe nuclear accidents, to be delivered before the beginning of February.
  Image: Potassium Iodide (YouTube).
  According to a solicitation posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website, the DHHS asks contractors to supply, ''potassium iodide tablet, 65mg, unit dose package of 20s; 700,000 packages (of 20s),'' a total of 14 million tablets. The packages must be delivered on or before February 1, 2014.
  Potassium iodide helps block radioactive iodine from being absorbed by the thyroid gland and is used by victims of severe nuclear accidents or emergencies. Under current regulations, states with populations living within 10 miles of a nuclear plant are encouraged, but not required, to maintain a supply of potassium iodide.
  A search of the FedBizOpps website returns no other results regarding the purchase of potassium iodide from any government agency, suggesting that the DHHS bulk buy of the tablets is unprecedented in recent times.
  The ongoing crisis at the Fukushima nuclear power plant has prompted concerns that the purchase is connected to the threat posed by radioactive debris washing up on the shores of the west coast or the potential for another natural disaster occurring in Japan which could impact the U.S.
  ''Governments usually respond to disasters very similarly; first move is to avoid panic,'' writes The West Wire. ''The Japanese didn't want to panic the world, or tarnish their honor and now, as a consequence of their reluctance, Japanese citizens and international aid personal find themselves in a horrible state of being.''
  ''Panic is usually avoided by keeping their citizens as blind to the truth as possible, until confrontation with the truth becomes inevitable. The crucial question at this juncture; ''would our government be reluctant about warning us of potential disaster, in an attempt to avoid panic?'' 14 million doses of Potassium Iodide say that might just be the case.''
  Last month it was revealed that 71 U.S. sailors who helped during the initial Fukushima relief efforts are suing the Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) after they returned with thyroid cancer, Leukemia, and brain tumors as a result of being exposed to radiation at 300 times the safe level.
  TEPCO has repeatedly been caught lying in their efforts to downplay the scale of the disaster. In September it was confirmed that radiation readings around the power plant were 18 times higher than previously reported by TEPCO. After a tank leaked 300 tonnes of toxic water in August, groundwater radiation readings at the plant soared to 400,000 becquerels per litre, the highest reading since the nuclear accident occurred in March 2011.
  Top scientists have warned that if another major earthquake hits Fukushima, which is almost inevitable, it would mean ''bye bye Japan'' and the complete evacuation of the west coast of North America.
  Now that radioactive debris is hitting the West Coast of North America, numerous different animals and sea life are suffering from mysterious diseases, including 20 bald eagles that have died in Utah over the last few weeks alone.
  Watch the video below in which Alex Jones highlights how the Fukushima nuclear crisis will impact Americans.
  Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet
  *********************
  Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.
  This article was posted: Wednesday, January 1, 2014 at 10:33 am
Adam Parkhomenko - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 07:14
  Adam J. ParkhomenkoBornWashington, DCNationalityAmericanKnown forExecutive director of Ready for HillaryAdam Parkhomenko is the executive director of Ready for Hillary, a super PAC that aims to persuade Hillary Clinton to run for the presidency of the United States in 2016.[1][2][3]
  In 2003, while a 17 year old student at Northern Virginia Community College, Parkhomenko set up VoteHillary.org, an independent website that urged voters to vote for Hillary Clinton during the 2004 Democratic presidential primary.[4][5][6][7] He later ran Draft Hillary for President 2004, which was founded in 2003 and shut down in 2004.[8]
  HillPAC, Clinton's political action committee, hired Parkhomenko as a staffer while he was leading Draft Hillary for President 2004.[8][9][10][11] He worked in various capacities for Clinton, including a stint as assistant to Clinton's campaign manager during the 2008 Democratic primary.[12][13] He left the Clinton presidential campaign in March 2008.[10]
  Shortly after leaving the Clinton campaign, Parkhomenko launched Vote Both with Sam Arora.[12][14][15] Vote Both was an independent expenditure committee dedicated to persuading then-Senator Barack Obama'--at the time the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee'--to pick Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate.[12][14][15] Vote Both ceased operations in late July 2008, when it became clear to Parkhomenko and Arora that Obama would not select Clinton as his running mate.[15]
  At the age of 23, Parkhomenko ran for the Democratic nomination for the 47th district in the Virginia House of Delegates during the 2009 Virginia stateprimary elections.[16][17] His candidacy was endorsed by Bill Clinton, Wesley Clark and Patsy Ticer.[18][19][20] He came in third out of five candidates in the Democratic primary to replace.[21]
  In January 2013, Parkhomenko launched Ready for Hillary, a super PAC that aims to persuade Hillary Clinton to run for the presidency of the United States in 2016, with Allida Black, a George Washington University historian and professor.[1][22][23] Parkhomenko serves as executive director of the PAC.[1]
  Personal life[edit]Parkhomenko was born in Washington, DC and raised in Arlington, Virginia.[24] He is a graduate of Washington-Lee High School and Northern Virginia Community College.[24]
  See also[edit]References[edit]^ abc"Group is assembling building blocks of campaign". Buffalo News. 1 September 2013. ^Toby Harnden (4 August 2013). "Bid to get youth vote for Hillary". The Sunday Times. ^Philip Rucker Matea Gold (22 June 2013). "Early allies, and concerns, for Clinton". The Washington Post. ^Mark Leibovich (24 September 2003). "Run? Hillary? Run?; Clinton Is One of the Few Who Say She Won't". The Washington Post. ^Mark Leibovich (17 November 2003). "Iowa Ruckus; The Draft-Hillary Camps Push Their Buttons, and Each Other's". The Washington Post. ^Jill Lawrence (23 September 2003). "How firm is Hillary's no? ; She says she won't run in '04, but speculation persists". USA Today. ^Tony Allen-Mills (29 September 2003). "Grassroots geeks hanker for Hillary - US Elections 2004". The Australian. ^ abIAN BISHOP (15 August 2005). "RUN OF THE HILL HIRING - '08 PREZ BOOST". New York Post. ^"First U.S. Aid Arrives in Myanmar; West Virginia Voters Head to Polls; Deadly Tornadoes Hit Oklahoma the Hardest; Gas Prices Impacts RV Vacations; Earthquake in China Buries Students in Rubble". CNN: American Morning. 12 May 2008. ^ ab"Mayor Emerges From Parent's Basement To Endorse". The Hotline. 14 March 2008. ^"Democrats Have Reason to Celebrate: Hill PAC Is Back". The Washington Post. Retrieved 17 December 2013. ^ abcAmy Chozick (6 June 2008). "Campaign '08: Growing Number of Clinton Backers Push for 'Dream Ticket,' Despite Long Odds". The Wall Street Journal. ^"Killing The Dream". The Hotline. 12 May 2008. ^ abMICHAEL FALCONE. "THE VICE PRESIDENCY". National Desk; SECTA. ^ abc"Clinton for VP drive folds, as hopes for dream ticket fade". Agence France Presse. 31 July 2008. ^"Adam Parkhomenko running for office". Politico. Retrieved 17 December 2013. ^Sandhya Somashekhar (25 May 2009). "Former Campaign Staffers Launch Their Own Bids". The Washington Post. ^"Bill Clinton Steps Into Arlington Delegate Race". The Washington Post. Retrieved 17 December 2013. ^"Another Big Name in the 47th House District". The Washington Post. Retrieved 17 December 2013. ^SCOTT McCAFFREY. "Parkhomenko Picks Up Sen. Ticer's Endorsement". Sun Gazette. Retrieved 17 December 2013. ^Beth Fouhy (11 June 2009). "Still reeling from 2008 loss, Clinton legacy takes another beating with McAuliffe's defeat". ^Abby Livingston (18 March 2013). "Shop Talk: Who's Behind the Draft PAC for Hillary Rodham Clinton?". Roll Call. ^David Weigel (1 April 2013). "Are You Ready for Hillary?". Slate. Retrieved 17 December 2013. ^ abSCOTT McCAFFREY. "47th District Race Gets Another Contender". Sun Gazette. Retrieved 17 December 2013. External links[edit]PersondataNameParkhomenko, AdamAlternative namesShort descriptionDate of birthPlace of birthWashington, DCDate of deathPlace of death
Tor: Sponsors
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 06:57
  The Tor Project's diversity of users means we have a diversity of funding sources too '-- and we're eager to diversify even further!
  Thank you to all the people and groups who have made Tor possible so far, and thank you especially to the individual volunteers who have made non-financial contributions: coding, testing, documenting, educating, researching, and running the relays that make up the Tor network.
  Active Sponsors in 2013:Past sponsorsWe greatly appreciate the support provided by our past sponsors in keeping the Tor Project progressing through our ambitious goals:
  This sponsors page is based upon un-audited and un-reviewed financial and in-kind donations, contract, and other data. Further details about our audited and reviewed funding can be found on our Financial Reports page.
ON | Stephen King
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 06:54
  Photo: Eric Millette
  As a partner at Omidyar Network, Stephen brings exceptional experience in applying media and technology to create positive social impact. Stephen leads the global Government Transparency initiative and a portfolio that includes a broad range of national and global organizations. Many are innovators in the use of technology to help make governments more responsive and aid citizens in holding their governments to account. The portfolio includes: Sunlight Foundation, Global Voices, Fundaci"n Ciudadano Inteligente, mySociety, New Citizen, Janaagraha and Ushahidi, among others.
  Prior to Omidyar Network, Stephen served as the chief executive of BBC Media Action, where he led a period of sustained growth that included building programs in more than 40 countries in the developing world. Stephen helped establish the organization's international reputation as one of the largest and most successful organizations using media and communications to improve the lives of the world's poor and promote better governance and transparency worldwide. Prior to the BBC, Stephen held executive positions at several non-profit organizations based in the United Kingdom and the developing world.
  Stephen is based in London and is a board member of Ushahidi, Global Voices, and mySociety. He holds an MA in Oriental and African studies from the University of London.
About Global Voices
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 06:45
  Global Voices is a community of more than 800 bloggers and translators around the world who work together to bring you reports from blogs and citizen media everywhere, with emphasis on voices that are not ordinarily heard in international mainstream media.
  Global Voices seeks to aggregate, curate, and amplify the global conversation online '' shining light on places and people other media often ignore. We work to develop tools, institutions and relationships that will help all voices, everywhere, to be heard.
  Millions of people are blogging, podcasting, and uploading photos, videos, and information across the globe, but unless you know where to look, it can be difficult to find respected and credible voices. Our international team of volunteer authors and part-time editors are active participants in the blogospheres they write about on Global Voices.
  Global Voices is incorporated in the Netherlands as Stichting Global Voices, a nonprofit foundation. We do not have an office, but work as a virtual community across multiple time zones, meeting in person only when the opportunity arises (usually during our Summits). We rely on grants, sponsorships, editorial commissions, and donations to cover our costs.
  Our ProjectsGlobal Voices is translated into more than 30 languages by volunteer translators, who have formed the Lingua project. Additionally, Global Voices has an Advocacy website and network to help people speak out online in places where their voices are censored. We also have an outreach project called Rising Voices to help marginalized communities use citizen media to be heard, with an emphasis on the developing world.
  Read more about our projects.
  Our HistoryGlobal Voices was founded in 2005 by former CNN Beijing and Tokyo Bureau Chief, Rebecca MacKinnon and technologist and Africa expert, Ethan Zuckerman while they were both fellows at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University. The idea for the project grew out of an international bloggers' meeting held at Harvard in December 2004 and it began as a simple blog. (Here's a written report and podcast of that meeting).
  Global Voices quickly expanded thanks to patronage of the Berkman Center, support from Reuters, the MacArthur Foundation, and the energy and creativity of our contributors.
  Our Primary GoalsAt a time when international English-language media ignores many things that are important to large numbers of the world's citizens, Global Voices aims to redress some of the inequities in media attention by leveraging the power of citizens' media. We believe in free speech, and in bridging the gulfs that divide people.
  We wish to:
  Call attention to the most interesting conversations and perspectives emerging from citizens' media around the world by linking to text, photos, podcasts, video and other forms of grassroots citizens' media.Facilitate the emergence of new citizens' voices through training, online tutorials, and publicizing the ways in which open-source and free tools can be used safely by people around the world to express themselves.Advocate for freedom of expression around the world and protect the rights of citizen journalists to report on events and opinions without fear of censorship or persecution.Please see our Frequently Asked Questions to learn more.
Omidyar Network Commits $2.275M to Help Catalyze Government Transparency -- REDWOOD CITY, Calif. and LONDON, July 1 /PRNewswire/ --
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 06:42
  REDWOOD CITY, Calif. and LONDON, July 1 /PRNewswire/ -- Omidyar Network today announced $2.275M in grants to three non-profit organizations that strive to create more transparent and accountable governments. Global Voices, mySociety and The XYZ Show are the latest grantees to gain support from Omidyar Network for their use of technology in furthering government transparency.
  Global Voices, the online citizen-media platform, will receive $1.2M for strategic expansion, including a program to support citizen voices from underrepresented regions around the world. In the U.K., mySociety will receive $575,000 to help transparency-focused organizations in Africa develop digital tools and websites to help hold their governments to account. mySociety will also use the grant to build organizational capacity. The XYZ Show, a Kenyan political satire TV program, will receive $500,000. The grant will be used to expand reach and engagement via web and mobile channels, create strategies that increase and diversity funding, and support an upcoming season of the show.
  "Omidyar Network is proud to support the important work of these innovative organizations. Each in their own way utilizes technology to promote transparency, accountability and trust," said Stephen King, senior director, investments at Omidyar Network. "In addition to Global Voices' and mySociety's technology platforms, we are particularly supportive of all three grantees' focus and program applicability in sub-Saharan Africa, an Omidyar Network geographic focus area." King made the announcement and offered his remarks at the Guardian Activate Summit in London.
  In addition to funding, Omidyar Network will offer all three grantees its considerable human capital expertise, specifically in helping develop strategy, scale organizations and strengthen leadership teams. The philanthropic investment firm will also contribute its decades of collective for-profit technology experience and its understanding of the catalytic role that technology-driven companies can play in enabling government transparency. Omidyar Network funds more technology organizations than any other philanthropist.
  Global Voices serves as an online newsroom for citizen voices from the developing world. An international team of volunteer authors and editors reports on important local issues that are often under-reported by the mainstream international media. The online community translates citizen journalists' blogs into more than 20 languages, helps people speak out online in places where their voices may be censored, and helps marginalized communities use citizen media. For more information visit www.globalvoicesonline.org.
  mySociety runs many of the best-known democracy and transparency websites in the United Kingdom as part of its parent charity's mission to carry out and disseminate research in the edemocracy field. It builds websites that give people simple, tangible benefits in the civic and community aspects of their lives and promotes the learning gleaned from the process. For more information visit www.mysociety.org.
  The XYZ Show is a satirical television program that comments on current political and social affairs through the use of latex puppets resembling prominent figures in Kenya. These national leaders are lampooned with the purpose of using humor to address difficult and controversial national issues while promoting transparency in government. The XYZ Show is modeled after the U.K.'s "Spitting Image," and France's "Les Guignols de L'Info" television programs. For more information visit www.xyzshow.com.
  About Omidyar Network
  Omidyar Network is a philanthropic investment firm dedicated to harnessing the power of markets to create opportunity for people to improve their lives. Established in 2004 by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and his wife Pam, the organization invests in and helps scale innovative organizations to catalyze economic and social change. To date, Omidyar Network has committed more than $353 million to for-profit companies and nonprofit organizations that foster economic advancement and encourage individual participation across multiple investment areas, including microfinance, property rights, government transparency, and social media. To learn more about Omidyar Network, please visit www.omidyar.com.
  SOURCE Omidyar Network
Jacob Appelbaum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 05:21
  Jacob Appelbaum is an independent computer security researcher and hacker. He was employed by the University of Washington,[1] and is a core member of the Tor project. Appelbaum is known for representing Wikileaks at the 2010 HOPE conference.[5] He has subsequently been repeatedly targeted by US law enforcement agencies, who obtained a court order for his Twitter account data, detained him 12[6] times at the US border after trips abroad, and seized a laptop and several mobile phones.
  Appelbaum, under the handle "ioerror", has been an active member of the Cult of the Dead Cow hacker collective since 2008,[7] and is the co-founder of the San FranciscohackerspaceNoisebridge with Mitch Altman. He has worked for Kink.com,[8]Greenpeace[9] and has volunteered for the Ruckus Society and the Rainforest Action Network.[10] He is also an ambassador for the art group monochrom.[11]
  As a trusted confidant of the former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, Appelbaum was among several people who gained access to Snowden's top secret documents that were released during the 2013 global surveillance disclosure.[12]
  Research and activism[edit]In 2005, Appelbaum gave two talks at the 22nd Chaos Communication Congress,[13]Personal Experiences: Bringing Technology and New Media to Disaster Areas, and A Discussion About Modern Disk Encryption Systems. The former covered his travels to Iraq - crossing the border by foot, the installing of Internet satellites in Kurdistan, and his visit of New Orleans post-Hurricane Katrina. The latter talk discussed the legal and technical aspects of full disk encryption. At the 2006 23rd Chaos Communication Congress, he gave a talk with Ralf-Philipp Weinmann titled Unlocking FileVault: An Analysis of Apple's Encrypted Disk Storage System.[14][15] The duo subsequently released the VileFaultfree software program which broke Apple's FileVault security.
  Appelbaum has also collaborated on several other high-profile research projects, including the cold boot attack,[16][17]SSLcertificate authorities[18] and smart parking meters.[19]
  He appeared with Julian Assange on Episode 8 & 9 of The World Tomorrow, "Cypherpunks".[20][21]
  He is a contributor to Julian Assange's 2012 book Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet along with Andy M¼ller-Maguhn and J(C)r(C)mie Zimmermann.
  He regards Tor as a "part of an ecosystem of software that helps people regain and reclaim their autonomy. It helps to enable people to have agency of all kinds; it helps others to help each other and it helps you to help yourself. It runs, it is open and it is supported by a large community spread across all walks of life." [22]
  In December 2013, Appelbaum told Berliner Zeitung that he believes he was under surveillance and that somebody broke into his Berlin apartment and used his computer.[23]
  Detention and investigation[edit]Appelbaum has been detained at airports and had his electronic equipment seized several times.[24][25][26] In 2010, the US Department of Justice obtained a court order compelling Twitter to provide data associated with the user accounts of Appelbaum, as well as several other individuals associated with Wikileaks. While the order was originally sealed, Twitter successfully petitioned the court to unseal it, permitting the company to inform its users that their account information had been requested.[27]
  Personal life[edit]Appelbaum is an atheist[28] of Jewish background and identifies himself as bisexual.[10] He also is an anarchist[4] and enjoys photography[citation needed]. He has moved to Berlin, where he has applied for residence authorization, his stated reasons include that he doesn't want to go back to the USA because he doesn't feel safe [29] and that privacy protections are better in Germany than in the US.[30] In September 2013, he testified before the European Parliament, mentioning that his partner had been spied on by men in night-vision goggles as she slept.[31]
  See also[edit]References[edit]^ abShapiro, Nina (22 December 2010). "Jacob Appelbaum, WikiLeaks Enabler and New University of Washington Employee, Is Working on . . . Who Knows?". Seattle Weekly. Retrieved 12 January 2011. ^ ab"Tor Project: Core People". Tor. Retrieved 11 October 2011. ^"Noisebridge user page". Noisebridge. Retrieved 11 October 2011. ^ abRich, Nathaniel (1 December 2010). "Meet the Most Dangerous Man in Cyberspace: The American Face of Wikileaks". Rolling Stone magazine. Retrieved 11 October 2011. ^McCullagh, Declan (17 July 2010). "Wikileaks editor skips NYC hacker event". CNET News. Retrieved 3 August 2010. ' McCullagh, Declan (16 July 2010). "Feds look for Wikileaks founder at NYC hacker event". CNET News. Retrieved 3 August 2010. ' Singel, Ryan (19 July 2010). "Wikileaks Reopens for Leakers". Wired. Retrieved 3 August 2010. ^"monochrom". Jacob Appelbaum. Retrieved 28 October 2011. ^"Cult of the Dead Cow Membership List, retrieved November 10, 2011". W3.cultdeadcow.com. Retrieved 2013-12-05. ^Hartwell, Lane (10 June 2007). "'So Who Wants to F**k a Robot?'". Wired.com. Retrieved 9 August 2013. ^Appelbaum, Jacob (22 June 2004). "Geeks Love Trees, Too". Greenpeace '' Weblog. Retrieved 26 January 2011. ^ abRich, Nathaniel (1 December 2010). "The American Wikileaks Hacker". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 26 January 2011. ^"monochrom". monochrom. Retrieved 11 October 2011. ^"Snowden ally Appelbaum claims his Berlin apartment was invaded". Deutsche Welle. Retrieved 28 December 2013. ^"22nd Chaos Communication Congress: Jacob Appelbaum". Untrusted connection. ^"Unlocking FileVault: An analysis of Apple's encrypted disk storage system". Retrieved 11 October 2011. ^Jade, Charles (December 2006). "FileVault or VileFault?". Ars Technica. Retrieved 6 August 2010. ^Markoff, John (22 February 2008). "Researchers Find Way to Steal Encrypted Data". The New York Times. Retrieved 3 August 2010. ^J. Alex Halderman, Seth D. Schoen, Captain Sassypants, William Clarkson, William Paul, Joseph A. Calandrino, Ariel J. Feldman, Jacob Appelbaum, and Edward W. Felten (21 February 2008). Lest We Remember: Cold Boot Attacks on Encryption Keys. Princeton University. Retrieved 22 February 2008. ^Krebs, Brian (30 December 2008). "Researchers Hack Internet Security Infrastructure". The Washington Post. Retrieved 6 August 2010. ^McCullagh, Declan (30 July 2009). "Hackers: We can bypass San Francisco e-parking meters". CNET News. Retrieved 12 January 2011. ^"Assange 'The World Tomorrow' '-- Ep 8: Cypherpunks Part 1". Digitaljournal.com. 2012-06-05. Retrieved 2013-11-02. ^"Assange Episode 8: Cypherpunks, stumbling block in the way of total surveillance '-- RT News". Rt.com. 2012-06-05. Retrieved 2013-11-02. ^"Interview uncut: Jacob Appelbaum | The Verge Forums". Theverge.com. 2013-03-11. Retrieved 2013-11-02. ^http://www.dw.de/snowden-ally-appelbaum-claims-his-berlin-apartment-was-invaded/a-17315069^Mills, Elinor (31 July 2010). "Researcher detained at US border, questioned about Wikileaks". CNET News. Retrieved 3 August 2010. ^Jardin, Xeni (12 January 2011). "Wikileaks volunteer detained and searched (again) by US agents". Boing Boing. Retrieved 12 January 2011. ^Fontain, Paul (27 October 2011). "Jacob Appelbaum Detained At Keflav­k Airport". Grapevine. Retrieved 31 October 2011. ^McCullagh, Declan (7 January 2011). "DOJ sends order to Twitter for Wikileaks-related account info". CNET News. Retrieved 12 January 2011. ^"Jacob Appelbaum (Part 1/2) Digital Anti-Repression Workshop - April 26, 2012". Retrieved 28 June 2013. "Like, for me, as an atheist, bisexual, Jew, I'm gonna go on, uh - oh and Emma Goldman is one of my great heroes and I really think that anarchism is a fantastic principle by which to fashion a utopian society even if we can't get there." ^https://gnunet.org/tor2013tum-video video of a talk at the TU Munich from 24. Juli 2013 (statement at approx. 0:05:00)^https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu6accTBjfs&feature=youtu.be&t=2h23m1s NSA Hearings European Parliament^https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu6accTBjfs&feature=youtu.be&t=2h23m1s NSA Hearing European Parliament 5 Sept 2013Further reading[edit]External links[edit]PersondataNameAppelbaum, JacobAlternative namesAppelbaum, JakeShort descriptionIndependent security researcher, Wikileaks representativeDate of birth1983Place of birthUnited StatesDate of deathPlace of death
Edward Snowden's Story to Be Turned into a Movie
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 04:25
  Ever since the entire NSA scandal began and Edward Snowden revealed his identity as the man behind the leaks, everyone speculated about when a movie would be launched on this topic.So far, there's already been a very short film about the circumstances of his visit to Hong Kong.
  Well, now a new project is brewing. ''Classified: The Edward Snowden Story'' is meant to be a biopic telling the story of Snowden's life starting from when he enlisted in the US army.The filming is supposed to start early next year and it should be released in September 2014 if everything goes according to plan, via The Pirate Bay.
  In this endeavor, the film's producers are seeking to raise some $1.7 million ('‚¬1.25 million) to fund the project in an effort to work outside of Hollywood and thus maintain all creative control.
  They say they don't want to end up with a film such as ''The Fifth Estate,'' which treats the WikiLeaks scandal and Julian Assange, which was highly criticized by the organization that published Manning's documents.
  As mentioned, they say they've already raised half the sum via a selfstarter campaign and product placement, but still need some $866,000 ('‚¬640,200) for which they launched a KickStarter campaign.
  Asked how they wwould go about the story and if they'd base the script on media reports alone, Travis Doering, the film's producer, said they'd already contacted Snowden's lawyer and Lon Snowden, the whistleblower's father, although no response has been received so far.
  He also mentions that Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras will be contacted sometime later in development, but didn't give an exact timeline.
  They also have a cast lined up, although it's just a preliminary list, they said, and it could still change. Kevin Zegers, from the ''Mortal Instruments,'' is supposed to play Edward Snowden.
  Other names in the casting list are Michael Shanks, who is supposed to play Glenn Greenwald and Carmen Aguirre, who will play Laura Poitras.
Soldiers Allege Laura Poitras, Co-Author of NSA Scoop, Had Foreknowledge of 2004 Iraqi Attack on U.S. Troops | The Weekly Standard
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 03:57
  When Edward Snowden decided he wanted to release details about the NSA's intelligence operations to the public, he reached out to Laura Poitras, a 49-year-old film maker and political activist opposed to the war on terror. As the Washington Post noted on Monday, Poitras had "the odd distinction of sharing a byline in The Washington Post and in London's Guardian newspaper last week on two blockbuster stories."
  Poitras said in an interview on Monday with Salon that Snowden contacted her in particular because he had learned that she has been interrogated at the U.S. border dozens of times by the Department of Homeland Security. "[Snowden] told me he'd contacted me because my border harassment meant that I'd been a person who had been selected," Poitras told Salon. "To be selected '-- and he went through a whole litany of things '-- means that everything you do, every friend you have, every purchase you make, every street you cross means you're being watched. 'You probably don't like how this system works, I think you can tell the story.' '... Of course I was suspicious, I worried that it was entrapment, it's crazy, all the normal responses you have to someone reaching out making, claims."
  Glenn Greenwald, Poitras's co-author for the The Guardian's NSA story, wrote a story about Poitras's border interrogations in April 2012. "With no oversight or legal framework whatsoever, the Department of Homeland Security routinely singles out individuals who are suspected of no crimes, detains them and questions them at the airport, often for hours, when they return to the U.S. after an international trip," Greenwald wrote. Poitras was one of these individuals who was interrogatd by DHS officials "at length about where she went and with whom she met or spoke" more than 40 times since the 2006 release of her Iraq war documentary, My Country, My Country. In 2010, Poitras released another documentary about Osama bin Laden's former bodyguard and driver, "two Yemenis caught up in America's War on Terror," in the words of Glenn Greenwald.
  Greenwald declared that the U.S. government had created a "climate of fear" for an "incredibly accomplished journalist and filmmaker who has never been accused, let alone convicted, of any wrongdoing whatsoever."
  "It's hard to overstate how oppressive it is for the U.S. Government to be able to target journalists, film-makers and activists and, without a shred of suspicion of wrongdoing," Greenwald wrote. "The ongoing, and escalating, treatment of Laura Poitras is a testament to how severe that abuse is."
  But perhaps it isn't such a mystery why the U.S. government might want to question Poitras if you simply crack open John R. Bruning's 2006 book, The Devil's Sandbox: With the 2nd Battalion, 162nd Infantry at War in Iraq. Contary to Greenwald's claim that Poitras has never been accused of any wrongdoing, Devil's Sandbox details the explosive allegation that Poitras had foreknowledge of a November 20, 2004 ambush of U.S. troops but did nothing to warn them.
  Brandon Ditto led the platoon that came under fire that day. Speaking Tuesday evening by phone with THE WEEKLY STANDARD, Ditto said it seemed that Poitras "had pre-knowledge" of the ambush. He recalled the events he witnessed that day, confirming the details described in Devil's Sandbox.
  During a patrol of Adhamiya early in the morning of November 20, two soldiers in Ditto's platoon noticed a woman standing on a rooftop next to a man while holding a camera. They found that very odd. "Usually when you see someone planted on a rooftop with a camera, they're waiting for something, and right after that is when we got ambushed just down the road," Ditto told me Tuesday night. "So it seems that she had pre-knowledge that our convoy, or our patrol, was going to get hit."
  "We took multiple casualties," Ditto said. "Things kind of erupted."
March Mayoral Race-The Islamist Feud Behind Turkey's Turmoil :: Soner Cagaptay
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 03:45
  The news last week about a corruption scandal in Turkey seems on the surface a traditional case of prosecutors ferreting out wrongdoers in high places. But the turmoil that threatens Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's government has been a long time coming and is the most public manifestation of a struggle between Turkey's two main Islamic-conservative factions hitherto united under the governing party: the prime minister's Justice and Development Party, known as AKP, and the influential, popular Gulen movement.
  The past year has already been challenging for Mr. Erdogan. Demonstrations that began in May grew out of anger over plans to develop Istanbul's Gezi Park and were a liberal affair, challenging the prime minister's increasingly autocratic rule. The Gezi Park occupants would seem to have little in common with the Gulen movement, an opaque, Sufi-inspired group known for its Islamic piety and, until recently, its support for Mr. Erdogan. But the Gezi and Gulen movements are now de facto, if not actual, partners with similar aims: resisting Mr. Erdogan's near-total power.
  The country's longest-serving prime minister since it became a democracy in 1950, Mr. Erdogan runs Turkey almost single-handedly. He has built a broad political coalition to win three successive elections with ever-increasing majorities. His coalition has included Islamists, nationalists, center-right voters and pro-business liberals. Mr. Erdogan has sway over the executive and legislative branches of government, as well as much of the media and business community. His rule first worried secular liberal opponents but has now alarmed even the Gulenists.
  The Gulen movement traces its roots to the 1970s, when founder and Islamic scholar Fethullah Gulen, now 72, began attracting followers. The Gulen message promoting a conservative yet relatively modern form of Islam has made inroads in Turkey. Some estimates of the movement's size run as high as five million supporters, though others peg it considerably lower, as little as under a million people.
  The movement has its own media, universities, schools, think tanks and businesses; followers can also be found in the police and judiciary. With its widespread appeal and Islamic credentials, the movement appears to be the last remaining obstacle to Mr. Erdogan's consolidation of power.
  The Erdogan administration became alarmed by the movement's growing power last year when prosecutors connected to it attempted to subpoena the head of Turkey's intelligence agency'-- Hakan Fidan, a close confidant of Mr. Erdogan. The prime minister blocked this move by passing new legislation. But he saw it as a warning and responded by trying to close the Gulenists' powerful network of private prep schools.
  The Gulenist pushback came quickly, with the movement's newspapers beginning to editorialize against Mr. Erdogan, who then postponed the move against the schools. On Dec. 12, prosecutors known to be close to the Gulen movement pressed corruption charges against prominent members of Mr. Erdogan's cabinet. With this move, the Gulenists, who have several supporters in key judiciary positions, presented an even more direct challenge to Mr. Erdogan's 12-year rule than anyone has before.
  The corruption allegations have led so far to the resignation of three cabinet ministers, followed last week by the biggest cabinet reshuffle in the AKP since 2002. Mr. Erdogan has also fired hundreds of pro-Gulenist police chiefs, as well as, on Thursday, removing the key prosecutor, Muammer Akkas, from the graft case.
  All of this is merely a prelude to what promises to be an even more high-stakes battle: the Istanbul mayoral election in March. The Istanbul race has always been closely contested between the AKP and the secular, leftist opposition Republican Peoples Party, which has a viable, populist candidate in Mustafa Sarigul. The Gulenists are unlikely to vote en masse for a liberal candidate. But simply by not voting the movement could tilt the election to the Republican Peoples Party, and thus show definitively that it is a powerful check against Mr. Erdogan.
  If Mr. Erdogan's party wins in Istanbul, the prime minister would likely be emboldened to seek a popular referendum to blend the powers of the presidency and the prime minister's office ahead of elections in the summer. Mr. Erdogan would then run for the newly omnipotent executive presidency. If he won, he would become the most dominant political figure in modern Turkish history.
  What happens in March has the potential to determine Turkey's democratic trajectory. This poses a major challenge for the U.S., raising thorny questions about the future of America's alliance with Turkey.
  The threat to bilateral relations has been exacerbated by the remarkably explicit attacks on the U.S. by prominent AKP officials and pro-government media, which have accused America of being behind the corruption probes. Other allegations include an assertion that U.S. Embassy staffers have conspired with Turkish nongovernmental organizations to try to oust the AKP government. Last week, Mr. Erdogan publicly complained that the corruption investigation is a foreign plot. And he made matters even more precarious on Dec. 21 by suggesting that the American ambassador, Francis J. Ricciardone Jr. , a stellar diplomat, leave the country'--the first such incident in living memory.
  The stakes'--given Turkey's size, economy, military strength and strategic location'--are huge, and American influence is limited. The U.S. must play a careful game, avoiding the limelight, and focus on maintaining Turkey's basic Western, democratic, free-market orientation. This means not overreacting publicly to what are likely to be new provocations.
  But privately, the U.S. should make clear to audiences inside and outside Turkey that, while not taking sides in the country's current domestic disputes, America's ability to assist Turkey diplomatically, economically and within NATO hinges on Turks resolving these matters in a democratic fashion that preserves the rule of law.
  Mr. Cagaptay is a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and author of "The Rise of Turkey: The Twenty-First Century's First Muslim Power" (Potomac/University of Nebraska, 2014). Mr. Jeffrey, a visiting fellow at the institute, is a former ambassador to Turkey.
  receive the latest by email: subscribe to soner cagaptay's free mailing list
VIDEO- Official Video: About The Council on Foreign Relations - YouTube
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 03:35
CanLII - 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII)
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 02:51
  Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
  Citation: Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571
  Date: 20120918
  Docket: 4803 155609
  Registry: Edmonton
  Between:
  Crystal Lynne Meads
  Appellant
  - and -
  Dennis Larry Meads
  Respondent
  Editorial Notice: On behalf of the Government of Alberta personal data identifiers have been removed from this unofficial electronic version of the judgment.
  _______________________________________________________
  Reasons for Decision
  of the
  Associate Chief Justice
  J.D. Rooke
  _______________________________________________________
  Table of Contents
  I..........Introduction to Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [OPCA] Litigants.... 1
  II........The Present Litigation....................................................................................................... 2
  A. Prior Activity.......................................................................................................... 3
  B. The June 8, 2012 Hearing..................................................................................... 4
  C. Subsequent Developments.................................................................................... 8
  D. The Purposes of These Reasons......................................................................... 12
  1. Ms. Meads................................................................................................. 12
  2. Mr. Meads................................................................................................. 12
  3. A Broad Set of OPCA Concepts and Materials....................................... 13
  4. Mr. Meads Faces No Unexpected Sanction.............................................. 13
  III.......Overview of these Reasons.............................................................................................. 14
  IV.......The OPCA Phenomenon................................................................................................ 15
  A. Characteristics of OPCA Group Members....................................................... 17
  B. The OPCA Guru................................................................................................. 18
  1. Russell Porisky and the Paradigm Education Group................................ 18
  2. Other Canadian Gurus............................................................................... 21
  a. David Kevin Lindsay..................................................................... 21
  b. John Ruiz Dempsey....................................................................... 25
  c. Robert Arthur Menard................................................................... 28
  d. Eldon Gerald Warman.................................................................. 29
  e. David J. Lavigne............................................................................ 30
  f. Edward Jay Robin Belanger.......................................................... 32
  g. Other Gurus................................................................................... 33
  h. Mr. Meads Guru............................................................................ 34
  3. How Gurus Operate.................................................................................. 35
  C. OPCA Litigants................................................................................................... 36
  D. OPCA Movements............................................................................................... 38
  1. Detaxers..................................................................................................... 39
  2. Freemen-on-the-Land................................................................................ 39
  3. Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens....................................................... 40
  4. The Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International [CERI]........... 41
  5. Moorish Law............................................................................................. 42
  6. Conclusion - OPCA Movements............................................................... 44
  V........Indicia of OPCA Litigants, Litigation, and Strategies.................................................. 44
  A. Documentary Material........................................................................................ 45
  1. Name Motifs.............................................................................................. 45
  2. Document Formalities and Markings........................................................ 47
  3. Specific Phrases and Language................................................................. 48
  4. Legislation and Legal Documents............................................................. 50
  5. Atypical Mailing Addresses...................................................................... 51
  6. Conclusion and Summary of Documentary Indicia.................................. 52
  B. In Court Conduct................................................................................................ 53
  1. Demands.................................................................................................... 53
  2. Documentation.......................................................................................... 54
  3. Names and Identification.......................................................................... 54
  4. Court Authority or Jurisdiction................................................................. 55
  5. Other In-Court Motifs............................................................................... 56
  6. Summary of In-Court Indicia.................................................................... 57
  C. Conclusion - OPCA Indicia................................................................................ 58
  1. Procedural Responses to Suspected OPCA Documents........................... 58
  2. Courtroom Procedure Responses to Suspected OPCA Litigants............. 59
  VI.......OPCA Concepts and Arguments................................................................................... 60
  A. The Litigant is Not Subject to Court Authority................................................ 60
  1. Restricted Court Jurisdiction..................................................................... 61
  a. Admiralty or Military Courts......................................................... 61
  b. Notaries are the Real Judges......................................................... 62
  c. Religion or Religious Belief Trumps the Courts............................. 63
  2. Defective Court Authority........................................................................ 65
  a. Oaths............................................................................................. 65
  b. The Court Proves It Has Jurisdiction and Acts Fairly................... 66
  c. Court Formalities.......................................................................... 66
  d. The State is Defective..................................................................... 67
  e. Conclusion - Defective Court Authority......................................... 67
  3. Immune to Court Jurisdiction - Magic Hats.............................................. 68
  a. I Belong to an Exempt Group........................................................ 69
  b. I Declare Myself Immune............................................................... 71
  c. I Have Been Incorrectly Identified................................................. 72
  d. I Am Subject to a Different Law..................................................... 73
  e. Conscientious Objector.................................................................. 75
  f. Tax-Related Magic Hats................................................................ 76
  g. Miscellaneous................................................................................ 78
  4. The Inherent Authority of Provincial Superior Courts.............................. 79
  a. Superior Courts of Inherent Jurisdiction........................................ 79
  b. Procedural Jurisdiction................................................................. 80
  c. Subject Jurisdiction........................................................................ 82
  d. Inherent Jurisdiction vs. OPCA Strategies and Concepts.............. 84
  B. Obligation Requires Agreement......................................................................... 85
  1. Defeating Legislation................................................................................ 86
  2. Everything is a Contract............................................................................ 86
  3. Consent is Required.................................................................................. 89
  4. Conclusion - Obligation Requires Agreement........................................... 91
  5. Court Misconduct by Everything is a Contract and Consent is Required Litigants 91
  C. Double/Split Persons............................................................................................ 92
  1. Unshackling the Strawman........................................................................ 94
  2. Dividing Oneself........................................................................................ 94
  3. In-Court Behaviour of the Divided Person................................................ 96
  4. Conclusion - Double/Split Person Schemes............................................... 98
  D. Unilateral Agreements......................................................................................... 99
  1. The Legal Effect of a Foisted Agreement............................................... 101
  2. Common Uses of Unilateral Agreements................................................ 105
  a. To Create or Assert an Obligation............................................... 105
  b. To Discharge an Obligation or Dismiss a Lawsuit...................... 108
  c. Foisted Duties, Agency, or Fiduciary Status................................ 110
  d. Copyright and Trade-mark.......................................................... 110
  3. Fee Schedules.......................................................................................... 112
  a. Disproportionate and Unlawful Penalties................................... 114
  b. The Targets and Intended Effect of Fee Schedules...................... 115
  4. Effect of Unilateral Agreements............................................................. 116
  E. Money for Nothing Schemes............................................................................. 117
  1. Accept for Value / A4V.......................................................................... 117
  2. Bill Consumer Purchases......................................................................... 120
  3. Miscellaneous Money for Nothing Schemes........................................... 121
  F. Legal Effect and Character of OPCA Arguments......................................... 121
  1. OPCA Strategies that Deny Court Authority......................................... 121
  a. An OPCA Argument that Denies Court Authority Cannot Succeed Due to the Courts Inherent Authority........................................................................ 121
  b. An OPCA Argument that Denies Court Authority is Intrinsically Frivolous and Vexatious..................................................................................................... 122
  c. An OPCA Argument that Denies Court Authority May Be Contempt of Court Authority..................................................................................................... 123
  i. Denial of Tax Obligation Evades Tax............................. 123
  ii. Denial of Firearms Restrictions Proves Intent for Illegal Possession 124
  iii. Denial of Court Authority May Prove the Intent to Engage in Contempt of Court......................................................................................... 125
  iv. Other Government Authorities........................................ 127
  2. Other OPCA Strategies........................................................................... 127
  3. Responses to OPCA Strategies............................................................... 128
  a. Strike Actions, Motions, and Defences......................................... 128
  b. Punitive Damages........................................................................ 128
  c. Elevated Costs............................................................................. 129
  d. Order Security for Costs.............................................................. 131
  e. Fines............................................................................................ 132
  f. One Judge Remaining on a File.................................................. 132
  4. Responses to OPCA Litigants and Gurus............................................... 133
  a. Vexatious Litigant Status.............................................................. 133
  b. Deny Status as a Representative.................................................. 133
  5. Conclusion - Responses to OPCA Litigation and Litigants.................... 134
  VII.....Review............................................................................................................................ 135
  A. Judiciary............................................................................................................. 136
  B. Lawyers.............................................................................................................. 138
  1. A Lawyers Duties.................................................................................... 138
  a. Notarization of OPCA Materials................................................. 138
  b. Triage: Identification of Legal Issues........................................... 139
  2. Education................................................................................................ 139
  a. Judges and Courts....................................................................... 139
  b. The OPCA Litigant...................................................................... 140
  3. Conclusion - Lawyers and OPCA Litigation.......................................... 141
  C. Target Litigants................................................................................................. 141
  D. OPCA Litigants................................................................................................. 141
  E. OPCA Gurus..................................................................................................... 143
  VIII....Application of These Reasons to the Meads v. Meads Litigation............................... 144
  A. Ms. Meads.......................................................................................................... 144
  1. Case Management................................................................................... 144
  2. Disclosure by Mr. Meads......................................................................... 144
  B. Mr. Meads.......................................................................................................... 145
  1. Pre-Hearing Activities............................................................................. 145
  a. The February 15, 2011 Document.............................................. 146
  b. The March 3, 2011 Document..................................................... 147
  c. The April 27, 2012 Documents.................................................... 148
  2. The June 8, 2012 Hearing........................................................................ 151
  3. The June 19 and June 21, 2012 Documents............................................ 153
  4. Conclusion............................................................................................... 154
  Appendix A - Meads Fee Schedule.......................................................................................... 157
  Appendix B - Meads Copyright and Trademark Notice....................................................... 176
  Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice.
  Force, and fraud, are in war the two cardinal virtues.
  ...
  The laws are of no power to protect them, without a sword in the hands of a man, or men, to cause those laws to be put in execution.
  ...
  And law was brought into the world for nothing else but to limit the natural liberty of particular men in such manner as they might not hurt, but assist one another, and join together against a common enemy.
  Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Forgotten Books, 2008), at pp. 87, 147, 184
  I. Introduction to Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [''OPCA''] Litigants
  [1] 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.
  [2] 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.
  [3] One participant in this matter, the Respondent Dennis Larry Meads, appears to be a sophisticated and educated person, but is also an OPCA litigant. One of the purposes of these Reasons is, through this litigant, to uncover, expose, collate, and publish the tactics employed by the OPCA community, as a part of a process to eradicate the growing abuse that these litigants direct towards the justice and legal system we otherwise enjoy in Alberta and across Canada. I will respond on a point-by-point basis to the broad spectrum of OPCA schemes, concepts, and arguments advanced in this action by Mr. Meads.
  [4] 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. Arguments and claims of this nature emerge in all kinds of legal proceedings and all levels of Courts and tribunals. This group is unified by:
  1. a characteristic set of strategies (somewhat different by group) that they employ,
  2. specific but irrelevant formalities and language which they appear to believe are (or portray as) significant, and
  3. the commercial sources from which their ideas and materials originate.
  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.
  [5] The Meads case illustrates many characteristic features of OPCA materials, in court conduct, and litigation strategies. These Reasons will, therefore, explain my June 8, 2012 decision and provide analysis and reasoning that is available for reference and application to other similar proceedings.
  [6] 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.
  [7] As a preliminary note, I will throughout these Reasons refer to persons by their 'normal' names, except to illustrate various OPCA motifs and concepts. OPCA litigants frequently adopt unusual variations on personal names, for example adding irrelevant punctuation, or using unusual capital and lower case character combinations. While OPCA litigants and their gurus put special significance on these alternative nomenclature forms, these are ineffectual in law and are meaningless paper masks. Therefore, in these Reasons, I will omit spurious name forms, titles, punctuation and the like.
  II. The Present Litigation
  [8] These Reasons relate to materials and arguments advanced by Dennis Larry Meads [''Mr. Meads''] in and after a hearing on June 8, 2012 for appointment of a case management justice, as authorized byAlberta Rules of Court, Alta. Reg. 124/2010, s. 4.11(c) [the ''Rules'', or individually a ''Rule'']. The application was brought by Crystal Lynne Meads [''Ms. Meads''] in a divorce and matrimonial property action against Mr. Meads initiated on January 11, 2011.
  [9] I granted that application and appointed myself as the Case Management Justice. These Reasons follow from that hearing and deal with materials that have been filed or submitted by Mr. Meads.
  [10] Mr. and Ms. Meads were married in 1980. They had six children. The Meads separated in 2010. At present two children are potential dependants. On March 18, 2011, Veit J. ordered interim monthly child and spousal support payments from Mr. Meads. My understanding is that to date Mr. Meads has generally honoured that obligation.
  A. Prior Activity
  [11] Review of the divorce file discloses a number of unusual documents filed by Mr. Meads:
  February 15, 2011: Mr. Meads filed a one page notarized document, printed in black and red ink, and marked with what may be a red thumb print. It also bears postage stamps in three corners on front and back, and includes various declarations including that ''::dennis-larry:meads::'' is a ''living flesh and blood sentient-man'', a postmaster general, and that Barb Petryk, a clerk of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, is appointed his fiduciary and is liable for ''all financial damages and bodily harm against myself ::dennis-larry:: of the meads-family::''.
  Mr. Meads then purports to ''...do here and now Adjourn this instant matter until further notice, from my office.''
  March 3, 2011: Mr. Meads filed a second one page notarized document, in black, red, orange, and blue ink. Again, it has unusual formalities such as a red thumb print. This document is directed to ''Audrey Hardwick/AUDREY HARDWICK BEING A CORPORATE ENTITY'', and in part is a ''Notice for a Cease and Desist'' in ''Enticement in Slavery'', that threatens criminal charges, and ''FULL COMMERCIAL LIABILITY AND YOUR UNLIMITED CIVIL LIABILITY''. This one is signed '':::dennis-larry:: of the meads-family:::''.
  April 27, 2012: Ouellette J. authorized the simple filing of these materials by Mr. Meads ''... for the purposes of argument before the A.C.J. Rooke at the case conference'' on June 8, 2012. This was a ''Notice for an Order to Show Cause'', ''Affidavit in Support of Order to Show Cause'', ''Order to Show Cause and Appear'', and ''Affidavit in Support of Order to Show Cause'' filed by ''::Dennis Larry:: on behalf of DENNIS LARRY MEADS (juristic person)''.
  The ''Notice for an Order to Show Cause'' states, ''::Dennis Larry::'' is ''attorney in fact'' and seeks an order that Ms. Reeves (Ms. Meads counsel) be ''... held in contempt for violation of false claims made under penalty of perjury ...'' and that Ms. Reeves has taken on ''... full responsibility/liability for CRYSTAL LYNNE MEADS the Debtor and Grantor.''
  The two ''Affidavit in Support of Order to Show Cause'' documents restate the claims that Barb Petryk has a fiduciary obligation to Mr. Meads, quote part of the March 18, 2011 transcript before Justice Veit, and allege that Ms. Meads has not conformed to the Veit order. Mr. Meads denies contact with Ms. Reeves and that he has been difficult. He states Ms. Reeves has made ''... an offer to Contract and/or Enticement of Slavery (Title 18 United States Code and/or Article 4 Universal Declaration of Human Rights) ...'', and that Ms. Meads had ''... voided/annulled the Marriage Contract by adulterous affair in 2011 ...'' [sic]. Mr. Meads observes Ms. Meads has a share of ''acuminated assets from the Marriage Contract'' [sic], a new home, training, and a job opportunity as a lab technician. Mr. Meads says Ms. Meads has sent various messages that are ''disturbing communications'' and quotes email messages that indicate conflict between the parties. The February 15 document is attached to the April 27 materials.
  B. The June 8, 2012 Hearing
  [12] Mr. Meads and Ms. Reeves appeared before me on June 8, 2012. Ms. Reeves explained that Mr. Meads had generally conformed to the terms of Justice Veit's March 18, 2011 Order, but that he had not disclosed financial records to calculate interim child and spousal support amounts. She also indicated that she was experiencing problems in moving this litigation forward as a consequence of unorthodox documentation from Mr. Meads. She had difficulty communicating with Mr. Meads, and asked the Court to appoint a case management justice to facilitate that process.
  [13] Mr. Meads commenced his submissions by noting that he was not Dennis Meads, the ''corporate identity'', but was present as Dennis Larry Meads, ''a flesh and blood man''. He said this Court is ''a house of law.''
  [14] I explained the nature of case management and asked as to his position on that. He did not object, but wanted to talk about his own Motion, the April 27 documents, rather than Ms. Reeves' point of interest.
  [15] Mr. Meads launched into an explanation of a number of things. He said that when he was born, he was given a register of birth, ''a corporate identity'', bonded and registered in the Bank of Canada and in the state stock exchange, and that registration had an imputed income.
  [16] When Mr. Meads married Ms. Meads, he said he was told he required a marriage license to avoid commission of incest, but he has subsequently learned, from Black's Law Dictionary, that a licence is an authorization to do something that is otherwise illegal. But, Mr. Meads said, he is only subject to God's Law, the ''Maximus of Law'', and the Bible indicates that adultery is the sole basis to dissolve a marriage. In this case, he alleged that Ms. Meads had committed adultery with his brother-in-law, and that she had broken the contract of marriage by that adultery - that is God's law - the remainder is man's law, statute law: which does not affect or apply to Mr. Meads.
  [17] Mr. Meads rejected the assertion that he had a legal obligation to pay spousal and child support, though he did so on his own accord. Further, he had identified to Ms. Meads and her lawyer (and myself) a method to access a huge amount of money that was attached to his ''corporate identity'' via his birth certificate. That could pay his child and spousal support obligations. Mr. Meads said he had provided the documentation to pursue that avenue, but Ms. Meads and her lawyers had not done so.
  [18] Mr. Meads asserted that he has done nothing wrong; he has committed no criminal offence; nothing that Ms. Meads' lawyers have sought is mandatory; Ms. Meads has her 50% share of the marriage corporate entity; and his ongoing payments to Ms. Meads have purchased a new home for her and her partner, an RCMP officer.
  [19] Mr. Meads, at this point and later, provided his position concerning potential issues in dispute. Ms. Meads was concerned that a part of his reported income were RRSP withdrawals. Mr. Meads explained that amount was a living allowance he received for travelling to work away from home, a legitimate expense that is not a part of personal income for support calculations. Mr. Meads also alleged that his wife had received training as a laboratory technician, but had not pursued that career as she did not like the work.
  [20] Mr. Meads also explained why he discontinued child support payments after one of his children had her 18th birthday. He explained that several of his older children have attended and been successful in post-secondary education, but that he and his wife believed that a child should pay for their own education. He saw no reason to treat this now adult child differently. That said, the Meads had assisted their older children during their studies, when necessary, and Mr. Meads reaffirmed he would do the same for the daughter who was now about to enter post-secondary education.
  [21] In his opinion, Ms. Meads had already received a fair share of the matrimonial property. She had taken the bulk of his silver bullion, and $250,000.00 from a joint bank account.
  [22] Mr. Meads then said:
  I do not want to be enticed into slavery, sir. She contacts me, her other lawyer contacted me, they are enticing me into contract. And I do not want to go there. I just want to be left alone. Give me a divorce.
  ...
  I speak passionately when I talk, but I am not angry. I want you to understand that. My voice is raised. That is the emotional side of me that is coming out. I am not mad or angry. I want to make that clear as well.
  You sir, are the judge in this matter. And so I, Dennis Larry Meads, being a flesh and blood man, and as the creditor and beneficiary for and the private record, do here nominate and appoint you, Judge Rooke, fiduciary trustee liable under your full commercial liability, and your unlimited civil liability capacities, for my full protection and benefit as a de jure court.
  For the record, I, Dennis Larry Meads, and for the record a child of the almighty God Jehovah, and not a child of the state. For the lord and saviour Jesus the Christ is my spiritual advocate and in this instant matter at hand, and that God's laws rule supreme in my life and this court, and I, Dennis Larry Meads, being a flesh and blood man pray that the judge, you sir Mr. Rooke, Justice Rooke, and court follows this claim in God's law, and if they should they decide not to they should make the claim right now that they are above God's law and prove beyond the breath they let out pray again that the almighty God, all of us and protect us all, will abide with us in his laws.
  [23] After hearing submissions from the parties I concluded that case management would be appropriate in this instance, and appointed myself to that task. I noted that this Court will apply the laws of Canada, and explained to Mr. Meads the basic aspects of child and spousal support, matrimonial property division, and the mutual and reciprocal obligations for disclosure in family law proceedings, including disclosure that he may seek from Ms. Meads.
  [24] Mr. Meads then asked me ''about the sign above my head'', which is the Royal Coat of Arms of Canada, and declared:
  This is an admiral court, your jurisdiction is on water, it's not on land; I am a freeman on the land, and for you to play down some of the statements I am making is not acceptable unless you prove it to me in law, and just saying it to me is nothing.
  [25] He complained that he had asked Ms. Reeves to provide her bond and license to practice law, but had not received that, and continued:
  But I do sir want to work with law, and not statutes and rules that have come up from man over time. I understand they work for the bulk of the people, but ... I'm representing myself and what I speak about I believe in. There are rules above man's rules, and God's laws is where your laws originated from, so let's go back to the Maximus, and deal with it as quickly as possible.
  [26] Mr. Meads stated that his birth certificate has an associated bond with large amounts of money that could easily discharge in full the claims advanced by Ms. Meads. He said this Court could order that payment. He then attempted to provide me with an envelope, presumably containing documents. Mr. Meads said the contents of the envelope had been ''filed internationally'': a UCC filing, a Canadian filing, a commercial security agreement, an identity bond, ''actual and constructive notices'', hold harmless and identity agreements, non-negotiable security agreements, an affidavit of his status, a copyright and trade-mark of his name contract, and definitions of the words used in those documents. ''UCC'' means the ''Uniform Commercial Code'', which is U.S. commercial legislation.
  [27] I refused the envelope, and noted that if the envelope was abandoned then I would put those materials in the garbage. I reassured Mr. Meads that I will apply the laws of Alberta and Canada, and that while he is in Court, he will follow the Court's rules. Mr. Meads' reply was that was ''unacceptable'', and he claimed that the ''UCC'' is ''universal law''.
  [28] It appeared to me that it would be possible to sever the divorce and have that proceed, but there remained issues to address, specifically spousal and child support, and division of matrimonial property. It is generally my personal practice not to sever while such collateral, but important, matters remain unresolved. I asked Ms. Reeves to explain what disclosure she required, which amounted to 2010 and 2011 tax returns, certain employment pay and compensation information, as well as information in relation to Mr. Meads' investments, including the precious metals he personally owns.
  [29] Mr. Meads explained he has yet to file his 2010 and 2011 income tax returns, and he did acknowledged that was a task he needed to address. He promised to provide that information by September 1, 2012.
  [30] After informing Mr. Meads about the Court's contempt authority, I reassured him that I want to assist him and Ms. Meads to move forward, separate their affairs, and allow each to live on their own. There were still issues to explore, but that I would assist. Mr. Meads responded in this manner:
  Mr. Meads: A lot of things have happened today that I need to wrap my mind around. The one thing that comes out to me loud and clear is you're treating the person Dennis Meads with all of these statements, and not the living soul. You are enticing me into slavery ...
  The Court: I am going to let someone else deal with your living soul. I'm just going to deal with your person.
  Mr. Meads: Alright, then that's your responsibility, because you created it.
  [31] He asserted he was willing to go to jail, but as he is ''flesh and blood'' he is free from the ''mumbo jumbo that is law''. Mr. Meads alleged that an emergency protection order to which he is subject was the result of a trap, and his wife had been coached by the RCMP to spring that trap. He rejected the system into which he is pushed, and indicated that my statements are directed to a ''corporate entity'' created by the government.
  [32] I reassured Mr. Meads that I did not want to put him into jail, but would do so if necessary. His recourse to my decisions is an appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal. Conversely, Mr. Meads could apply and the Court would order disclosure from Ms. Meads to learn the fate of the $250,000.00 and silver bullion that he alleges Ms. Meads possesses.
  [33] This led to a final statement by Mr. Meads. He asserted the Bible is the ''Maximus of Law'' and is the binding basis of all law, and said:
  You are enticing me again to ask her to disclose $250,000, you are trying to bring me into this court proceeding that I have no desire to get into.
  [34] Mr. Meads then left the courtroom before the completion of the hearing. He abandoned the envelope he had attempted to provide to me. The envelope was put in the trash by the Clerk.
  [35] My ''Conditions and Guidelines of Case Management'' [''Conditions and Guidelines''] were sent to Mr. Meads on June 13, 2012. Part of those instructions was that in these proceedings Mr. Meads was not to correspond with the Court, except to either:
  1. propose an application, or
  2. to request a case management conference.
  [36] Though I will later return to this hearing at various points in these Reasons, I will now briefly outline my understanding of the meaning of certain of Mr. Meads' actions and statements:
  1. Mr. Meads clearly subscribes to the OPCA concept that he has two aspects, what I later discuss as the 'double/split person' concept. The German folk term ''doppelganger'', a kind of paranormal double, is a useful concept to describe this curious duality. Mr. Meads labels one aspect as a ''person'' or ''corporate entity'' while the other is his ''flesh and blood'' form.
  2. Mr. Meads also subscribes to the theory that almost any interaction with the court or state can result in a binding contract. That is why he was so apprehensive about accepting my proposal to order disclosure from Ms. Meads - that apparently benign act would allegedly bind him in contract to this Court's authority.
  3. The reference to Admiralty Law relates to an OPCA concept that there are two kinds of law, ''common law'' and ''admiralty law'', and Mr. Meads rejected application of the latter to himself.
  4. The discussion of the alleged source of funds to discharge his child and spousal support obligations, a bank account related to his birth certificate, indicates Mr. Meads has advanced a 'money for nothing' scheme called ''A4V''.
  These are all, of course, nonsense.
  C. Subsequent Developments
  [37] On June 19 and 21, 2012 the Court received two effectively identical sets of documents sent by Mr. Meads. One was addressed to me, the second to the Chief Court Clerk. These were not filed with the Court.
  [38] These documents generally match Mr. Meads' verbal description of the abandoned envelope's contents. The June 19 and 21 materials were returned to Mr. Meads as they do not represent an application for leave, supported by a draft application and supporting affidavit(s), as required by my Conditions and Guidelines for Case Management. Further, they have no application known to law. However, copies were retained.
  [39] The first document is a letter with multicoloured text (that facet I do not reproduce). It is addressed in this manner:
  SECURED PARTY CREDITOR is ::Dennis-Larry:Meads::
  FIDUCIARY-TRUSTEE-LIABLE is ''Associate Chief Justice'' J.D. Rooke
  [40] Summarizing this document, it thanks me for accepting appointment as ''FIDUCIARY-TRUSTEE-LIABLE'' on June 8, 2012. It then appoints me:
  ... with the Fiduciary-Trustee-Liable Position with the highest and with the greatest-level for the care in the equity and in the Law and is with the expectation that-is that-you being the Fiduciary-Trustee-Liable are Duty-Bound for the utmost-case and protection for the living flesh and blood sentient - man, ::Dennis-Larry:Meads:: who is the creation for the Lord God Almighty Jehovah with whom you owe the duty (the ''principal'' qui facit per alium, facit per se): you, ''Associate Chief Justice'' J.D. Rooke must not place your personal interests before the duty, and must not profit in your position as the Fiduciary-Trustee, unless the principal gives you consent in the written-format. [sic, emphasis in original]
  If I believed that Mr. Meads acted sincerely (which I do not), I would conclude Mr. Meads misapprehended the scope of the responsibility and authority of a case management justice. However, this, instead, seems to be a kind of OPCA document that purports to unilaterally foist a particularly impressive sounding string of gibberish obligations upon me.
  [41] The letter then instructs, ''under the guidance and direction with the Almighty God Jehovah watching over us through His Son and Reigning King Jesus Christ'', that I use the attached documents to do the following:
  ' ... for the completion and carrying-out for the full protection and benefit for the ::Dennis-Larry: Meads:: and for the children of the union with the full-written-text/report for the ''Instant-Matter-In-The-Hand'' at the end of the every-month till the end for the contract with the child of the union,.
  ' One time Lump Sum Payout (With-Out-Recourse) in the form of a bond or other financial instrument from the Provincial-Registered-Estate for the Persona DENNIS LARRY MEADS (juristic person) thru the Provincial-Registered-Event in the PROVINCAIL BIRTH CERTIFICATE and/or any other government(s) for the Canada Registered Event(s) - for the make-whole for the Debtor CRYSTAL LYNNE MEADS and Michele J. Reeves DRA MICHELE J. REEVES (PERSONA-AT-LAW-PERSONA)
  ' Debtor, being the CRYSTAL LYNNE MEADS and Michele J. Reeves DBA contact via the any media with the living flesh and blood sentient - man, ::Dennis-Larry:Meads:: and/or the DENNIS LARRY MEADS (juristic person) and when-there is the claim for a breach face the penalties as-is prescribed in the attached-documents.
  ' For the claim for the Divorce-Papers signed as the CRYSTAL LYNNE MEADS, which does not abhor delay.
  ' For the claim for the Child-Support-Payments for the child in the Union, [child #1] of $1000.00/ month. (When is for the claim for the habituation with mother) till the full-age-eighteen years with the no-section-7-rules application/begging, for the child being the [child #1] can/must dialogue the her-needs as-is needed with the father with the new-arrangements provision-in the written-format and fully-notarized and full-authentication.
  ' Child-Support-Assistance for the child of the union being the [child #2] as per the negotiation with her-earthly-father till the full-age being the twenty-one (21) and being in the attendance in the post-education.
  ' And other useful-beneficial-information for the make and for the keeping for the all parties-whole.
  [sic, emphasis in original, some reformatting for clarity.]
  [42] The remaining documents are:
  1. a power of attorney where DENNIS LARRY MEADS grants general authority to Dennis-Larry: Meads;
  2. a UCC Financing Statement registered in Ohio for a Certificate of Birth;
  3. a UCC search of ''DENNIS LARRY MEADS, foreign situs cestui qui vie trust'';
  4. a government of Alberta Personal Property Registry Verification Statement for ''DENNIS LARRY MEADS, foreign situs cestui qui vie trust'' that lists as collateral a birth certificate, social insurance number, UCC1 financing statement, a certificate of marriage, an operator's license, Canadian passport, and what I believe are two court orders;
  5. a commercial security agreement where DENNIS LARRY MEADS assumes all debts and obligations of Dennis-Larry:Meads, while granting Dennis-Larry:Meads all his property;
  6. an ''Actual and Constructive Notice'' from Dennis-Larry: Meads to the Bank of Canada that ''accepts for value'' enclosed documents in accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code and the Bank of Canada Act to charge his ''public treasury'', which is identified by his social insurance number, for $100 billion Canadian dollars or the equivalent in silver or gold;
  7. a ''Hold Harmless and Indemnify Agreement Non Negotiable Between the Parties'', that DENNIS LARRY MEADS generally indemnifies Dennis-Larry: Meads;
  8. a 'fee schedule', which is a kind of document I will later discuss in more detail;
  9. a document entitled ''Notice to YOURFILINGCOUNTY County Register Of Deeds Clerk'';
  10. an ''Affidavit of Political Status'', with ''Grantor: DENNIS LARRY MEADS'' and ''Grantee: Dennis-Larry: Meads'';
  11. a ''Copyright Trade-name/Trademark Contract'' between DENNIS LARRY MEADS and Dennis-Larry: Meads, the intellectual property subject being the name Dennis Larry Meads, in various forms; and
  12. a document that purports that anyone who uses ''Dennis Larry Meads'' (or variations of that) owes Dennis-Larry: Meads $100 million per use of that.
  [43] From a review of these documents, it appears that Mr. Meads is purporting to split himself into two aspects. One gets his property and benefits, the other his debts and liabilities. The 'Mr. Meads with liabilities' has entirely indemnified the 'Mr. Meads with property'. He also appears to instruct me and the Bank of Canada to use a secret bank account, with the same number as his social insurance number or birth certificate, to pay all his child and spousal support obligations, and provide him $100 billion in precious metals. Mr. Meads has also purported to create various contractual obligations for those who might interact with him, or who write or speak his name.
  [44] This is, of course, nonsense. As I have noted to Mr. Meads, these materials have no force or meaning in law, other than they indicate an intention on his part to evade his lawful obligations and the authority of the Court and government. He is an OPCA litigant. That has legal consequences for him, which these Reasons will explain.
  D. The Purposes of These Reasons
  [45] These Reasons have a number of purposes. The requests of both Mr. and Ms. Meads are best met by a broad and comprehensive response. The scope and variety of Mr. Meads' materials and submissions touches on many related issues.
  [46] Its context is also important. These Reasons sets the stage for an ongoing procedure - case management of this file - and respond to a collection of issues that have emerged immediately at the beginning that process. If not fully addressed, I believe the OPCA aspect of this litigation will hamper successful resolution of Mr. and Ms. Meads' divorce.
  1. Ms. Meads
  [47] Counsel for Ms. Meads, Ms. Reeves, sought case management because she cannot meaningfully communicate with Mr. Meads. She explained she had attempted to engage in mundane procedural steps, such as requests for disclosure, and instead received complex and cryptic documents, demands, and threats. She turned to the Court for hands-on management because she does not otherwise have an effective mechanism to deal with Mr. Meads, and his OPCA strategies.
  [48] These Reasons are intended to assist her, explain what she faces, and illustrate how this and other Courts have responded to litigants who adopt and advance OPCA concepts and strategies. I cast these Reasons broadly to help her both understand what she has already encountered, but also to deal with developments in the ongoing litigation and case management processes.
  2. Mr. Meads
  [49] These Reasons are also a response to Mr. Meads. He clearly plans to frame his entire divorce action in an OPCA context. He arrived in court with that intention. That was the only 'issue' on which he wanted to respond. Since the June 8 hearing I have seen no evidence that Mr. Meads intends to abandon his strategies to defeat Court authority and his child and spousal support obligations.
  [50] I was explicit on June 8 that I considered Mr. Meads' OPCA submissions and claims irrelevant, yet he has persisted. At that hearing he announced that my decision was ''unacceptable'', and has subsequently acted in defiance of my explicit instructions that he only communicate with the Court to propose an application or to request a case management conference. He said he would not voluntarily put himself under the Court's authority, denied the Court had any lawful hold over him, and left.
  [51] Mr. Meads did not accept the result of the June 8 hearing, and proceeded to send additional documentation to the Court and myself. His intention to employ OPCA concepts and defy my instructions is very clear in his June 19 and 21 cover letters. He demands that I act on his behalf, using highly unusual and mandatory language.
  [52] These Reasons are not merely a response to Mr. Meads' in-court misconduct but also a global response to the entire litigation strategy he has underway. There are no signs he has decided to back down and adopt a more reasonable approach. From the file record and his documents, he has been on this path for over a year and a half. I intend these Reasons to clearly identify for him why it is time to change his approach.
  3. A Broad Set of OPCA Concepts and Materials
  [53] There is a third reason for a broad-based decision and analysis. It so happens that Mr. Meads has provided a remarkable and well developed assortment of OPCA documents, concepts, materials, and strategies. These materials also illustrate particular idiosyncrasies that this and other Courts have identified as associated with the OPCA community and OPCA litigation. Phrased differently, Mr. Meads' materials and approach provide an ideal type specimen for examination and commentary, which should be instructive to other OPCA litigants who have been taken in by these ideas, opposing parties and their counsel, as well as gurus.
  [54] Mr. Meads' submissions also make an excellent subject for a global review of the law concerning OPCA, the OPCA community and its gurus, and how the court, lawyers, and litigants should respond to these vexatious practices and the persons who advance and advocate these techniques and ideas. In this sense, the present case management allows the litigation between Mr. and Ms. Meads to explore the OPCA community and its concepts, for the benefit of this and other Canadian Courts, and litigants appearing before the courts.
  [55] I will use Mr. Meads' materials and arguments to illustrate many points in this review. Those materials will be supplemented from several sources. First, I review judgments from this and other Courts that report on OPCA strategies and court responses to OPCA litigants.
  [56] Second, this Court and its justices have been involved in a large number of court proceedings that include OPCA elements, deployed by a spectrum of OPCA litigants. As the senior administrative judicial official of the Court of Queen's Bench in Edmonton, I am usually made aware of this litigation. Our Court's experience has been that OPCA-related litigation involves particular security and court efficiency issues, which fall within my purview. Thus, I will, in certain instances in my review and analysis, reference unreported litigation before justices of this Court that has come to my attention.
  [57] Last, I am frequently the direct recipient of documents sent by OPCA litigants. This may be because I am the senior administrative justice of this Court in Edmonton. These documents frequently purport to 'bind' or 'notify' me of various OPCA schemes and obligations. I review this correspondence as a facet of my administrative judicial duties. Though no doubt unintentional, these materials are a useful and direct way to investigate certain OPCA schemes and strategies, and provide a plethora of characteristic OPCA litigation 'fingerprints'.
  4. Mr. Meads Faces No Unexpected Sanction
  [58] Mr. Meads does not face any sanction or other negative consequence flowing from these Reasons. To date, I have not accepted any of his materials or submissions and he is aware of that. These Reasons do not put him at greater risk for his prior activities. However, to be clear, my decision to direct disclosure does anticipate sanctions for non-compliance, that should be of no surprise to Mr. Meads.
  [59] In fact, Mr. Meads can only benefit from a comprehensive response by this Court. Through these Reasons, Mr. Meads is now on notice of how Canadian courts have responded to OPCA litigation and litigants. The more thorough my explanation of that, the better.
  III. Overview of these Reasons
  [60] The remainder of these Reasons address aspects of the OPCA phenomenon, and the courts' responses, closing with the application of these Reasons to the Meads litigation. There are four main parts to these Reasons:
  The OPCA Phenomenon
  [61] This part of the Reasons is a detailed review of the OPCA community, its membership, organization, and known history. It sets out the Court's understanding of persons who affiliate with OPCA concepts, what traits they do and do not share, and how they organize themselves.
  [62] This community has ''guru'' leader, and follower / customer, cohorts. Groups of persons who have similar beliefs join together into ''movements''. Known gurus and movements are identified and described.
  Indicia of OPCA Litigants, Litigation, and Strategies
  [63] The documentary material and in-court conduct of OPCA litigants involves very unusual and stereotypic motifs. The second part of these Reasons identifies these 'fingerprints' that characterize OPCA activities. The problematic character of OPCA litigation and litigants may warrant special court procedures; some possibilities are surveyed.
  Judicial Response to OPCA Concepts and Arguments
  [64] This part of the Reasons surveys existing caselaw that reports and rejects OPCA strategies and concepts. Those strategies and concepts are grouped by their shared themes and mechanisms. The theoretical basis and operation of certain more elaborate OPCA schemes are examined in detail.
  [65] No Canadian court has accepted an OPCA concept or approach as valid. This part of the decision identifies a common basis to reject these ideas as a category: they directly attack the inherent jurisdiction of Canadian courts. That fact is also a basis for why OPCA schemes are inherently vexatious, and provide evidence that may potentially lead to orders for contempt of court. Remedies for OPCA litigation and litigation strategies are reviewed.
  Summary and Direction
  [66] There is no place in Canadian courts for anyone who advances OPCA concepts. The last part of these Reasons suggests how judges, lawyers, and litigants may respond to persons who adopt and advance th ese concepts. I also comment directly to those in the OPCA community - both gurus and their followers - with the hope that these Reasons will lead them to more productive and successful interaction with the courts, government, and their fellow citizens.
  IV. The OPCA Phenomenon
  [67] I will first engage in an overview of the OPCA community, its composition, and their concepts. Certain of these observations are generalizations that flow from the more specific examples and materials that make up the bulk of these Reasons. In other instances, this information reflects the experiences of justices of this Court that have come to my attention as the supervising administrative Justice of this Court.
  [68] Members in the OPCA community appear surprisingly unified by their methodology and objectives. They are otherwise diverse. OPCA litigants appearing in our Court may be anything from educated professionals to retired senior citizens. They may be wealthy or poor. The famous are not immune; for example the American action movie actor Wesley Snipes adopted OPCA techniques in an attempt to defeat his income tax obligations: United State v. Wesley Trent Snipes et al., No. 5:06'‘cr'‘00022'‘WTH'‘GRJ'‘1 (U.S.D.C. M.D. Fl., February 1, 2008). Snipes presently is serving a three year prison sentence for income tax evasion.
  [69] In Canada, this category of litigation traces into the late 1990's, representing the spread of concepts that emerged much earlier in the United States. Our Court's experience has been that persons involved in the OPCA community often hold highly conspiratorial perspectives, but there is no consistency in who is the alleged hidden hand. Another uniform OPCA characteristic appears to be a belief that ordinary persons have been unfairly cheated, or deceived as to their rights. This belief that the common man has been abused and cheated by a hidden hand seems to form the basis for OPCA community members perceived right to break 'the system' and retaliate against 'their oppressors'.
  [70] These Reasons in many instances identify reported caselaw that comments on OPCA litigants, OPCA gurus, and their misconduct. It should be understood that the reported caselaw is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of encounters between this Court and OPCA litigants are not reported. These litigants and their schemes have been encountered in almost all areas of law. They appear in chambers, in criminal proceedings, initiate civil litigation based on illusionary OPCA rights, attempt to evade court and state authority with procedural and defence-based schemes, and interfere with unrelated matters.
  [71] OPCA strategies as brought before this Court have proven disruptive, inflict unnecessary expenses on other parties, and are ultimately harmful to the persons who appear in court and attempt to invoke these vexatious strategies. Because of the nonsense they argue, OPCA litigants are invariably unsuccessful and their positions dismissed, typically without written reasons. Nevertheless, their litigation abuse continues. The growing volume of this kind of vexatious litigation is a reason why these Reasons suggest a strong response to curb this misconduct.
  [72] Beyond that, these are little more than scams that abuse legal processes. As this Court now recognizes that these schemes are intended for that purpose, a strict approach is appropriate when the Court responds to persons who purposefully say they stand outside the rules and law, or who intend to abuse, disrupt, and ultimately break the legal processes that govern conduct in Canada. The persons who advance these schemes, and particularly those who market and sell these concepts as commercial products, are parasites that must be stopped.
  [73] A critical first point is an appreciation that the concepts discussed in these Reasons are frequently a commercial product, designed, promoted, and sold by a community of individuals, whom I refer to as ''gurus''. Gurus claim that their techniques provide easy rewards '' one does not have to pay tax, child and spousal support payments, or pay attention to traffic laws. There are allegedly secret but accessible bank accounts that contain nearly unlimited funds, if you know the trick to unlock their gates. You can transform a bill into a cheque with a stamp and some coloured writing. You are only subject to criminal sanction if you agree to be subject to criminal sanction. You can make yourself independent of any state obligation if you so desire, and unilaterally force and enforce demands on other persons, institutions, and the state. All this is a consequence of the fact gurus proclaim they know secret principles and law, hidden from the public, but binding on the state, courts, and individuals.
  [74] And all these ''secrets'' can be yours, for small payment to the guru.
  [75] These claims are, of course, pseudolegal nonsense. A judge who encounters and reviews OPCA concepts will find their errors are obvious and manifest, once one strips away the layers of peculiar language, irrelevant references, and deciphers the often bizarre documentation which accompanies an OPCA scheme. When reduced to their conceptual core, most OPCA concepts are contemptibly stupid. Mr. Meads, for example, has presented the Court with documents that appear to be a contract between himself, and himself. One Mr. Meads promises to pay for any liability of the other Mr. Meads. One owns all property, the other all debts. What is the difference between these entities? One spells his name with upper case letters. The other adds spurious and meaningless punctuation to his name. Mr. Meads (with punctuation) is the Mr. Meads who appeared in court. He says the Mr. Meads (all capitals) is the one who should pay child and spousal support.
  [76] So where is that Mr. Meads (all capitals)? At one point in the June 8 hearing Mr. Meads said that Mr. Meads (all capitals) was a ''corporate entity'' attached to his birth certificate. Later, he told me that the other Mr. Meads was a ''person'' - and that I had created him! Again, total nonsense.
  [77] The bluntly idiotic substance of Mr. Mead's argument explains the unnecessarily complicated manner in which it was presented. OPCA arguments are never sold to their customers as simple ideas, but instead are byzantine schemes which more closely resemble the plot of a dark fantasy novel than anything else. Latin maxims and powerful sounding language are often used. Documents are often ornamented with many strange marking and seals. Litigants engage in peculiar, ritual'‘like in court conduct. All these features appear necessary for gurus to market OPCA schemes to their often desperate, ill'‘informed, mentally disturbed, or legally abusive customers. This is crucial to understand the non-substance of any OPCA concept or strategy. The story and process of a OPCA scheme is not intended to impress or convince the Courts, but rather to impress the guru's customer.
  [78] Mediaeval alchemy is a helpful analogue. Alchemists sold their services based on the theatre of their activities, rather than demonstrated results, or any analytical or systematic methodology. OPCA gurus are modern legal alchemists. They promise gold, but their methods are principally intended to impress the gullible, or those who wish to use this drivel to abuse the court system. Any lack of legal success by the OPCA litigant is, of course, portrayed as a consequence of the customer's failure to properly understand and apply the guru's special knowledge.
  [79] Caselaw that relates to Gurus, reviewed below, explains how gurus present these ideas in seminars, books, websites, and instructional DVDs and other recordings. They provide pre'‘prepared documents, which sometimes are government forms, and instruct how to fill in the necessary information that then produces the desired effects. Gurus write scripts to follow in court. Some will attempt to act as your representative, and argue your case.
  [80] When gurus do appear in court their schemes uniformly fail, which is why most leave court appearances to their customers. That explains why it is not unusual to find that an OPCA litigant cannot even explain their own materials. They did not write them. They do not (fully) understand them. OPCA litigants appear, engage in a court drama that is more akin to a magic spell ritual than an actual legal proceeding, and wait to see if the court is entranced and compliant. If not, the litigant returns home to scrutinize at what point the wrong incantation was uttered, an incorrectly prepared artifact waved or submitted.
  A. Characteristics of OPCA Group Members
  [81] As is illustrated in the specific examples that follow, persons who adopt OPCA ideas may come from practically any part of society. OPCA ideas appear to be developed in social groups. For example, this Court has often observed 'supporters' attending OPCA litigation hearings. OPCA litigants frequently say they work or study in groups. Mr. Meads mentioned he studies the law with a number of other persons with similar interests. Internet forums are clearly important mechanisms by which OPCA litigants and those interested in OPCA concepts discuss and plan their activities. OPCA litigants and gurus often appear to prefer to communicate and broadcast their ideas with video recordings made available on the ''www.youtube.com'' website.
  [82] This Court and the reported caselaw indicates that OPCA litigants and gurus do not have a particular political orientation. Intriguingly, the same concepts and mechanisms are advanced by both persons who hold perspectives that are alternatively extremely right wing (for example: R. v. Warman, 2001 BCCA 510 (CanLII), 2001 BCCA 510; Warman v. Warman, 2005 CHRT 36 (CanLII), 2005 CHRT 36; Warman v. Warman, 2005 CHRT 43 (CanLII), 2005 CHRT 43) or extremely left wing (for example: Jackson v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2001 SKQB 377 (CanLII), 2001 SKQB 377 at para. 21, 210 Sask.R. 285). They use the same 'techniques' but each has a different backstory or context for that methodology.
  [83] Other OPCA litigants proclaim bizarre alternative histories which have no obvious or explicit political affiliations, for example: Henry v. Starwood Hotels, 2010 ABCA 367 (CanLII), 2010 ABCA 367, leave refused [2010] S.C.C.A. No. 475; Henry v. El, 2010 ABCA 312 (CanLII), 2010 ABCA 312, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 138. Some, like Mr. Meads, frame their beliefs in a religious context, for example: Bloom v. Canada, 2011 ONSC 1308 (CanLII), 2011 ONSC 1308; Sandri v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 CanLII 44282 (ON SC), 2009 CanLII 44282, 179 A.C.W.S. (3d) 811 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); Pappas v. Canada, 2006 TCC 692 (CanLII), 2006 TCC 692, [2006] G.S.T.C. 161; R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 (CanLII), 2011 BCCA 99, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265.
  [84] The alternative history and conspiracy stories that cloak various different groups of OPCA litigants may be very different, but the caselaw and this Court's experience increasingly points to these apparently disparate groups making the exact same pseudolegal arguments. The only ideology, such as it is, that unifies these litigants and their leaders is a belief that they should be immune from obligations.
  B. The OPCA Guru
  [85] These Reasons will survey a number of known OPCA gurus, and their activities. In summary, the guru class are nothing more than conmen. Gurus are the usual source of new OPCA concepts, though more often their novel contribution is to simply create a variation on or repackage a pre-existing strategy, perhaps changing language or putting in some particular twist to a concept. Gurus seem to borrow extensively from one another. For example, its appears that parts of a document filed in one OPCA matter may be reproduced in another proceeding. An excellent example of that is the 'fee schedule' attached to these Reasons. Identical language is reproduced in materials discussed in Szoo v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police), 2011 BCSC 696 (CanLII), 2011 BCSC 696.
  [86] The caselaw indicates that gurus adopt a number of strategies. One is that they provide materials, such as seminars, books, and DVDs, that explain the theoretical context of their ideas, and demonstrate the application of those ideas for the benefit of their customers. These commercial products may include items such as form documents, scripts, and other materials that can be used in court, sent to government actors, or used in litigation. Some OPCA gurus hold seminars to promote the materials they sell. Many have Internet web pages that serve the same function.
  1. Russell Porisky and the Paradigm Education Group
  [87] Typically, this Court has learned about gurus and their activities from the perspective of an outside observer. For example, in court, justices see litigants identify certain persons who provide assistance or guidance to an OPCA litigant. Some gurus have appeared before justices of this Court and have directed (or appear to direct) the OPCA litigant's conduct, or attempt to represent the OPCA litigant.
  [88] Recently, a more complete window into the operations of an OPCA guru and his customer base has been provided by the trial and conviction (R. v. Porisky, 2012 BCSC 67 (CanLII), 2012 BCSC 67, 2012 D.T.C. 5037 [''Porisky Trial Decision'']) and sentencing (R. v. Porisky, 2012 BCSC 771 (CanLII), 2012 BCSC 771 [''Porisky Sentencing Decision'']) of Russell Porisky and Elaine Gould for tax evasion and counseling others to commit fraud. R. v. Sydel, 2006 BCPC 346 (CanLII), 2006 BCPC 346 also reports on the Porisky operation but from the perspective of one customer, a dentist. These cases provide many details on how an OPCA scheme operates.
  [89] Porisky operated a business, named ''The Paradigm Education Group'', that advanced a concept that it was possible for a potential taxpayer to:
  ... structure their affairs so that they were a ''natural person, working in his own capacity, under a private contract, for his own benefit''. Paradigm taught that money earned under this arrangement was exempt from income tax.
  (Porisky Trial Decision, at para. 1)
  [90] Porisky claimed this was in response to a banking conspiracy:
  He founded what he eventually called The Paradigm Education Group to ''create a structure that everyone could work together in to save the country from a foreign parasite''. The foreign parasites were the international bankers who were, directly or indirectly, responsible for the income tax system.
  (Porisky Trial Decision, at para. 38)
  [91] Porisky taught that the Canada Revenue Agency had tricked persons into believing there was an obligation to pay tax, and further that taxation is slavery, serfdom, and contrary to the Canadian Bill of Rights: para. 111. Justice Myer helpfully isolates representative examples of the alternative reality and rhetoric Porisky directed to his customers in the Appendix to the trial decision. It is typical that a guru will frame his or her arguments in a conspiratorial context, and claim that the potential customer has been cheated. The state is an enemy and oppressive. A few sample passages illustrate Porisky's perspective on the world:
  ... When I was a good slave I dismissed my thoughts because I was taught that I was incapable of understanding the superior wisdom of my elected officials. The more I studied though, the freer my mind grew and the clearer it became. They never had some kind of superior wisdom as I had been taught, in fact it became painfully clear that many of them could not or would not even think for themselves ...
  ...
  As far as propaganda goes, the ''National Post'' article was a great textbook example of promoting a victim mentality. It seems to stimulate sympathy for our poor federal government, while painting everyone who doesn't submit to their national plundering program as a criminal. Nevertheless, it was a great read, I laughed, I cried and I'll definitely want to read it again when I feel like being shamed into feeling that I should waive my natural rights so our government can keep its trough full enough to ensure their fiscal mismanagement can continue unabated.
  ...
  This mental shift toward total government dependence is what will allow the implementation of the banker's ultimate agenda, a New World Order run by a One World Government that they control.
  ...
  ... The choice is yours, but consider this, ignorance may be bliss, but it costs you plenty.
  [92] I will not review the basis on why Porisky's ''natural person'' scheme is incorrect, as this question is thoroughly dissected in reported cases including: R. v. Klundert, 2008 ONCA 767 (CanLII), 2008 ONCA 767 at para. 19, 93 O.R. (3d) 81, leave denied [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 522; R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 (CanLII), 2011 BCCA 99 at para. 27, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265; R. v. Pinno, 2002 SKPC 118 (CanLII), 2002 SKPC 118 at paras. 12-13, 15-16, 2002 SKPC 118 (CanLII), [2003] 3 C.T.C. 308; Kennedy v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2000 CanLII 22837 (ON SC), [2000] 4 C.T.C. 186, 2000 D.T.C. 6524 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); and Porisky Trial Decision at paras. 58-61.
  [93] Porisky and Paradigm advanced this scheme on a commercial basis. Porisky operated a website, and sold instructional materials such as books and DVDs: Porisky Trial Decision, at para. 39. Porisky also conducted seminars where he changed a fee (at para. 39), and provided levels of training and exams (at paras. 101'‘105). Paradigm operated as something of a pyramid scheme; Porisky also qualified ''educators'' to further proselytize his approach: Porisky Trial Decision, at paras. 39, 106. At least one of these educators is now also the subject of criminal litigation: R. v. Lawson, 2012 BCSC 356 (CanLII), 2012 BCSC 356, at para. 21, as are other participants in the Porisky tax evasion ring: R. v. McCartie, 2012 BCSC 928 (CanLII), 2012 BCSC 928. Many other persons who used Porisky's techniques have already been convicted of tax evasion: Porisky Trial Decision, at para. 63.
  [94] Additionally, and in what can only be described as an exercise in pure arrogance, Porisky demanded 7% of the next two years income from his subscribers in exchange for his or his educator's assistance: Porisky Trial Decision, at para. 40. The tax liberator had become a tax collector.
  [95] The pseudolegal basis for Porisky's claims is very representative of how OPCA arguments are rationalized and explained by their proponents. Statutes, caselaw (often foreign or obsolete), legal platitudes and definitions (again often foreign or obsolete), political ideology, and conspiracy, were strung together into a loose cloud that pointed to a desired result. Justice Myers eloquently described this process at para. 67 of the trial decision:
  Mr. Porisky's analysis picks and chooses snippets from various statutes and cases, and attempts to create logical links where none exist. It is, in effect, legal numerology.
  [96] It is important at this point to again stress the audience for Porisky's ideas. That was not the courts, government actors, but his clientele. What mattered was that his customer base believe and then pay for his services.
  [97] Porisky was convicted and sentenced for having personally evaded taxes, and having aided and abetted the evasion of income tax. Justice Myers rejected a disclaimer by Porisky that his ideas, materials, and advice were for ''educational purposes only'': Porisky Trial Decision, at para. 98. Porisky had gone so far as to prepare (unsuccessful) legal arguments for one of his clients who had been sued for tax evasion. Porisky then analyzed that result, and told his subscribers why the client's conviction was ''ambiguous'' and ''... just another desperately needed bowl of propaganda pabulum for public consumption, to keep the masses asleep and enslaved ...'' [sic]: paras. 118'‘121.
  [98] In total, Porisky's guru activities led to substantial tax evasion, which was difficult to quantify with precision: Porisky Sentencing Decision, at paras. 38'‘40. He had approximately 800 ''students'' who applied his scheme: at para. 40. A 4.5 year prison sentence was ordered: para. 57.
  2. Other Canadian Gurus
  [99] Porisky's guru activities are far from unique in Canada. A number of other gurus have been the subject of reported decisions, or have become directly known to this Court.
  a. David Kevin Lindsay
  [100] For over a decade David Kevin Lindsay [''Lindsay''] (usually styled David'‘Kevin: Lindsay) has been involved in OPCA type activities as a guru and litigant. He has repeatedly personally challenged various aspects of tax legislation and the authority of the Canadian state and courts: R. v. Lindsay, 2004 MBCA 147 (CanLII), 2004 MBCA 147, 187 Man.R. (2d) 236; R. v. Lindsay, 2006 BCSC 188 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 188, 68 W.C.B. (2d) 718, affirmed 2007 BCCA 214 (CanLII), 2007 BCCA 214; R. v. Lindsay, 2006 BCCA 150 (CanLII), 2006 BCCA 150, 265 D.L.R. (4th) 193; R. v. Lindsay, 2008 BCCA 30 (CanLII), 2008 BCCA 30, 250 B.C.A.C. 270; R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 (CanLII), 2011 BCCA 99, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265. In 2008 he was sentenced to 150 days imprisonment for failure to file income tax returns: R. v. Lindsay, 2008 BCPC 203 (CanLII), 2008 BCPC 203, [2009] 1 C.T.C 86, affirmed 2010 BCSC 831 (CanLII), 2010 BCSC 831, [2010] 5 C.T.C. 174, affirmed 2011 BCCA 99 (CanLII), 2011 BCCA 99, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265.
  [101] OPCA concepts that Lindsay has promoted include:
  1. various deficiencies in judicial oaths prohibit court action: R. v. Lindsay, 2006 BCSC 188 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 188 at paras. 30-38, 68 W.C.B. (2d) 718, affirmed 2007 BCCA 214 (CanLII), 2007 BCCA 214;
  2. that the relationship between the state and a person is a contract, and one can opt out of that contract: R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 (CanLII), 2011 BCCA 99 at para. 32, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265;
  3. that the obligation to pay income tax is one such agreement: R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 (CanLII), 2011 BCCA 99 at para. 31, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265;
  4. legislation, the common-law, and court principles and procedures are trumped by ''God's Law'' and other divinely ordained rules and principles: R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 (CanLII), 2011 BCCA 99 at para. 31, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265;
  5. the same natural person argument advanced by Porisky: R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 (CanLII), 2011 BCCA 99 at para. 27, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265;
  6. that an aspect of the 1931 Statute of Westminster meant all post-1931 government legislation and action is unauthorized: R. v. Lindsay, 2004 MBCA 147 (CanLII), 2004 MBCA 147 at para. 32, 187 Man.R. (2d) 236; and
  7. that the Magna Carta has super-constitutional status and restricts state and court action: R. v. Lindsay, 2008 BCCA 30 (CanLII), 2008 BCCA 30 at paras. 19-21, 250 B.C.A.C. 270.
  [102] Lindsay holds seminars (for pay) to teach his beliefs. R. v. Dick, 2002 BCCA 27 (CanLII), 2002 BCCA 27, 163 B.C.A.C. 62, leave refused [2002] S.C.C.A. No. 128 provides a useful review of those activities and the manner in which Lindsay promotes himself:
  10 Further, there is evidence that Mr. Lindsay has, in this province, been advertising himself as an expert on legal matters or permitting others to do so on his behalf. In advance of a recent "seminar" that he instructed, he was described in an Internet notice (essentially promotional material for the seminar) as "Canada's foremost freedom expert on the secrets of laying criminal charges against government officials." The notice continued:
  Dave will examine some of the common law, principles and obligations as well as some of the rights and freedoms we have there under. Included will be answers to pertinent and repeatedly asked questions involving our RIGHT to use the highways, how this right has been denied to us, how the courts have self'‘admittedly been a part of this fraud, what happens with insurance, and how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not protect you.
  You will learn how the criminal process works, Dave will be explain [sic] how one can lay their own private criminal charges against anyone in the country, including government ministers, CCRA and other government officials, and even police officers ...
  11 According to other material published on the Internet, Mr. Lindsay has also negotiated an ''exclusive agreement'' with a publisher:
  ... to work with our subscribers as a court procedure assistant. Whether it means getting help in drafting up court documents correctly, how to lay charges against government agents or how to deal with your own lawyer more effectively, Lindsay has the solution. ...
  Lindsay has been involved in court procedures literally hundreds of times, for both defendant and plaintiff's challenges, or for filing court documents on their behalf. Lindsay is not a "lawyer" but has the ability to act as an "agent" for anyone who has to go to court and wishes to do so without spending a fortune on lawyer fees.
  We have arranged to make Lindsay available for one'‘on'‘one telephone assistance to any Canadian who needs help with court challenges or wishes to learn how to deal with court challenges for their own benefit.
  [Emphasis added.]
  [103] As is typical of most recent gurus, Lindsay also advertises his services on an Internet website: British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Lindsay, 2007 BCCA 165 (CanLII), 2007 BCCA 165 at para. 15, 238 B.C.A.C. 254.
  [104] Sadly, some persons have taken up that offer. Lindsay has a history of advising and representing persons who advance his schemes (Superior Filter Recycling Inc. v. Canada, 2005 TCC 638 (CanLII), 2005 TCC 638, 2005 D.T.C. 1426; R. v. Meikle, 2008 BCPC 265 (CanLII), 2008 BCPC 265 at para. 5, 2008 BCPC 265 (CanLII), [2009] 1 C.T.C. 184, affirmed 2009 BCSC 1540 (CanLII), 2009 BCSC 1540, [2010] 2 C.T.C. 76, affirmed on other grounds 2010 BCCA 337 (CanLII), 2010 BCCA 337, 2010 D.T.C. 5140; Coulbeck v. University of Toronto, [2005] O.J. No. 4003 (QL), 142 A.C.W.S. (3d) 889 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); Coulbeck v. University of Toronto, [2005] O.J. No. 5688 (QL), 145 A.C.W.S. (3d) 393 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); R. v. Dick, 2000 BCPC 221 (CanLII), 2000 BCPC 221, [2003] 1 C.T.C. 277 (and related proceedings); R. v. J.B.C. Securities Ltd., 2003 NBCA 53 (CanLII), 2003 NBCA 53 at para. 9, 261 N.B.R. (2d) 199; Canadian Western Bank v. Ricci, 2003 CanLII 45381 (ON SC), 2003 CanLII 45381 (Ont. Sup. Ct.); R. v. Gibbs, 2002 BCPC 703 (CanLII), 2002 BCPC 703, [2006] 3 C.T.C. 307; Kennedy v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2000 CanLII 22837 (ON SC), [2000] 4 C.T.C. 186, 2000 D.T.C. 6524 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); Audcent v. Maleki, 2006 ONCJ 401 (CanLII), 2006 ONCJ 401, [2007] 1 C.T.C. 212 (and related proceedings); Canada v. Galbraith, 2001 BCSC 675 (CanLII), 2001 BCSC 675, 54 W.C.B. (2d) 504; R. v. Warman, 2001 BCCA 510 (CanLII), 2001 BCCA 510)), though he has been denied that role in a number of jurisdictions, including the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench (R. v. Main, 2000 ABQB 56 (CanLII), 2000 ABQB 56, 259 A.R. 163; Hill v. Hill, 2008 SKQB 11 (CanLII), 2008 SKQB 11 at paras. 29-30, 306 Sask.R. 259; Warman v. Icke, 2009 CanLII 43943 (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 3482 at para. 1 (QL), 2009 CanLII 43943; Ambrosi v. Duckworth, 2011 BCSC 1582 (CanLII), 2011 BCSC 1582; Superior Filter Recycling Inc. v. Canada, 2006 FCA 248 (CanLII), 2006 FCA 248, [2006] 5 C.T.C. 85; R. v. Linehan, 2000 ABQB 815 (CanLII), 2000 ABQB 815, 276 A.R. 383).
  [105] He has been declared a vexatious litigant: British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Lindsay, 2007 BCCA 165 (CanLII), 2007 BCCA 165, 238 B.C.A.C. 254, leave refused [2007] S.C.C.A. No. 359; Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Lindsay, 2000 MBCA 11 (CanLII), 2000 MBCA 11, 145 Man.R. (2d) 187. Lindsay frequently initiates legal proceedings and files private informations to harass lawyers, Canada Revenue Agency employees, and court sheriffs: British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Lindsay, 2007 BCCA 165 (CanLII), 2007 BCCA 165 at paras. 11-14, 27, 238 B.C.A.C. 254.
  [106] Lindsay's misconduct goes further. Lindsay was, at a minimum, a ''cheerleader'' for an attempt by OPCA litigants to 'arrest' an Alberta Provincial Court judge during a hearing: R. v. Main, at para. 8. He persistently filed ungrounded complaints against judges: R. v. Main, at paras. 18, 28-29. He alleged judicial and state corruption: R. v. Main, at paras. 25-26. His activities are ''... a wrongheaded, destructive, malicious use of the justice system by the defendant to effect a purpose which is the very antithesis of that which the section intends ...'' [emphasis added]: Manitoba (Attorney'‘General) v. Lindsayreflex, (1997), 120 Man.R. (2d) 141, 13 C.P.C. (4th) 15 (Man. Q.B.), varied on other grounds 2000 MBCA 11 (CanLII), 2000 MBCA 11, 145 Man.R. (2d) 187.
  [107] Lindsay's rhetoric is also documented. R. v. Lindsay, 2004 MBCA 147 (CanLII), 2004 MBCA 147 at para. 35, 187 Man.R. (2d) 236 provides a review:
  The appellant's court filings abound with unfounded and scurrilous accusations of "corruption and criminal activity at all levels of the justice and political levels," "unlawful Gestapo [S]earches," "unlawful court fees for justice" and judges who "wilfully violated a court order" and "participated in the cover up." Even on the first page of his notice of appeal we find this gratuitous and insulting greeting:
  I'm Baaaack!!
  And you thought I was gone! NOT! I still demand the rule of law be obeyed '‘
  If you know how.
  The appellant takes issue with words such as "scandalous, vexatious, frivolous, and irrelevant" that the motions judge used in describing portions of his affidavit and brief. That description was clearly invited and justified by the tenor of his material.
  [108] Those justices of the Alberta Queen's Bench who have encountered OPCA litigants and gurus can attest this conduct is unexceptional.
  b. John Ruiz Dempsey
  [109] Sometimes OPCA gurus claim to be lawyers. A particularly troubling set of reported decisions from British Columbia relate to John Ruiz Dempsey [''Dempsey''], or as he styles himself, ''John-R: Dempsey''. Dempsey's claims to be a lawyer were spurious, as is explained in Law Society of British Columbia v. Dempsey, 2005 BCSC 1277 (CanLII), 2005 BCSC 1277 at para. 22, 142 A.C.W.S. (3d) 346, affirmed 2006 BCCA 161 (CanLII), 2006 BCCA 161, 149 A.C.W.S. (3d) 735:
  Mr. Dempsey is not, and never has been, a member of the Law Society. He states that this is so as a matter of choice. Due to what he considers the Law Society's monopoly on the word ''lawyer'' and the negative regard with which lawyers are held, Mr. Dempsey has taken instead to referring to himself as a ''forensic litigation specialist''. He advised the Court that he has a law degree and a degree in criminology; he also uses the designations LL.B and BSCr. on his personal website and in correspondence. There is, however, no evidence before the Court that he has had any such education or training. Documents from the Supreme Court of the Philippines and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines indicate that Mr. Dempsey has never been qualified to practice law in that country.
  [110] Dempsey advertised his 'services' with a webpage entitled ''The People v. The Banks: The Greatest Battle''. Law Society of British Columbia v. Dempsey recounts Dempsey's activities, and they make a sorry tale. He initiated lawsuits in his own name, which were uniformly unsuccessful, except for waiver of court fees due to his indigent status: para. 25. Dempsey filed a succession of improper and related lawsuits and judicial reviews that led to him being declared a vexatious litigant: Dempsey v. Casey, 2004 BCCA 395 (CanLII), 2004 BCCA 395 at paras. 36-38, 132 A.C.W.S. (3d) 833. Dempsey made numerous law society and police complaints (para. 44) and alleged (para. 43) that the judge presiding over the Law Society of British Columbia v. Dempsey proceeding:
  ... had conscientiously, arbitrarily, capriciously, deliberately, intentionally, and knowingly engaged in conduct in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land, in violation of her duty under the law, in 'fraud upon the court' and to aid and abet others in criminal activity, thus making herself a principal in the criminal activity.
  [111] Denied personal and direct access to the courts, Dempsey turned to the practice of law, and acted as an ''agent'' in 10 civil actions that largely involved persons attempting to avoid debts owed to financial institutions (para. 47) and a number of labour matters (para. 51). In addition to what might be classified as 'conventional' claims, Dempsey advanced a collection of arguments, including:
  1. an 'A4V' 'money for nothing' scheme,
  2. immunity on the basis of religious authority,
  3. a peculiar concept that debts only relate to 'hard money', which seems to mean physical cash, and
  4. that tax or liability only attaches to a ''corporate name'' and not a physical person.
  (Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union, 2006 BCSC 750 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 750, 151 A.C.W.S. (3d) 204; Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union,2006 BCSC 1324 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1324, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309; Gravlin et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al,2005 BCSC 839 (CanLII), 2005 BCSC 839, 140 A.C.W.S. (3d) 447; Ancheta v. Joe, 2003 BCSC 93 (CanLII), 2003 BCSC 93, 11 B.C.L.R. (4th) 348; Ancheta v. Joe, 2003 BCSC 1597 (CanLII), 2003 BCSC 1597, 20 B.C.L.R. (4th) 382; Ancheta v. Joe, 2003 BCSC 529 (CanLII), 2003 BCSC 529, 121 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1070; Ancheta v. Joe, 2005 BCCA 232 (CanLII), 2005 BCCA 232, 213 B.C.A.C. 21; Ancheta v. Kropp, 2004 BCSC 60 (CanLII), 2004 BCSC 60, 128 A.C.W.S. (3d) 175).
  [112] The British Columbia Court of Appeal in Ancheta v. Joe, 2005 BCCA 232 (CanLII), 2005 BCCA 232 at para. 7, 213 B.C.A.C. 21, noted the defiant and uncooperative attitude typically expressed during this litigation, including the following:
  The court can dismiss the Plaintiff's claims a thousand times, but unless the defendants can prove that claims have no merits, the Plaintiff reserves the right to keep re'‘filing his claims. This is trite law.
  [113] Dempsey also initiated a total of six class actions (Law Society of British Columbia v. Dempsey, at paras. 73-83), directed at a variety of targets, including a government operated school for girls, a number of financial institutions, and the Government of Canada. The last action is described in this way at para. 81:
  This action challenges the validity of the federal Income Tax Act and alleges that the defendants, in collecting taxes in reliance on this ''non'‘existent and bogus federal statute'', have engaged in illegal taxation, fraudulent misrepresentation, extortion, breach of trust, treason, enterprise corruption, slavery, conversion, misappropriation of funds and other crimes against the people of Canada. The proposed class comprises ''all persons within or without Canada who have been the subject of a colossal national tax collection scheme wherewith the people of Canada, inter'‘alia were systematically robbed, defrauded, enslaved, imprisoned, arrested, fined, maliciously prosecuted, and tortured. The class is intended to include all persons who are 'tax payers' within the meaning of the impugned Income Tax Act.''
  [114] Law Society of British Columbia v. Dempsey, at paras. 84-103, summarizes affidavit evidence of those who entrusted their legal actions to Dempsey. The accounts make painful reading, as it becomes apparent that certain litigants had been deceived as to Dempsey's true status, and that their potentially legitimate claims had been compromised by Dempsey's activities. It is telling that Dempsey sued in defamation when one of his former clients made her experiences public: para. 90.
  [115] Dempsey alleged the legal profession is an unjust monopoly, and in his submissions and website engaged in the kind of rhetoric sadly typical of OPCA gurus, for example:
  Due process as defined by most Judges: ''First, decide how we want the case to go. Second, formulate a legal logic to support our decision. Third, manipulate, dissect or eliminate the facts and evidence to support our decision. Then the rubber stamp doctrine of ''judicial discretion'' will prevent most decisions from being overturned.''
  ...
  Just hang in there, truth and justice will prevail. I know this will be difficult for as long as the legal industry is being run by monopolistic societies supported by corrupt politicians and judges. These corrupt entities have no power over us until we surrender it to them. They can all kiss my ass for all I'm concerned.
  [116] Dempsey also orchestrated in-court misconduct. Justice Garson reports in Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union,2006 BCSC 1324 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1324 at paras. 16-24, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309 that persons in the public gallery would engage in ''... chanting, disrespectful comments ...'' that she concluded were ''... tactics employed to frustrate the legitimate hearing of the applications and were deliberate, planned in advance, and well rehearsed.''
  [117] Dempsey then posted his account of that online:
  16. ... The events of February 27, 2006, were recounted by Mr. Dempsey in an internet blog attached as an exhibit to affidavits filed on this application for special costs in following way:
  The People shut the court down after about twenty minutes into the hearing scheduled to be heard on February 27, 28 and March 1, 2006. After intensive questioning by the People represented by John'‘Ruiz: Dempsey, Pavel'‘N: Darmantchev, Pedro Liong and Otto Luinenburg, the presiding judge, Nicole Garson got out of the courtroom and left after she gave the Sheriff an order to clear the courtroom. Game over, the banks' motion to dismiss the People's claim will not be heard '‘ at least for now.
  17. The "intensive questioning" referred to in the internet blog was a question as to whether I was a public civil servant chanted over and over again.
  [118] Other times litigants did not attend (paras. 18-19) and ''... the supporters in the gallery rose in what was clearly an orchestrated response and began reciting the Lord's Prayer aloud.'' (para. 24). Dempsey also wrote the opposing parties that (para. 35):
  ... We the People are sick and tired of being pushed around by public servants who have betrayed their oaths.
  You people have to stop thinking that we the People are stupid that you can just set us up and heard us into a judicial holocaust and gas us all in Garson's chamber.
  And just because you have sold yourselves to devil doesn't mean that you now the right to call our legitimate and righteous claim frivolous and vexatious. The whole world is watching. All you have to do is type my name in a search engine and you will see that no one but you have agreed to label our claims frivolous and vexatious. Of course the love for money makes everything right. What is at stake here is more than money.
  ...
  I would advice you not to underestimate the People anymore. February 27, 2006 is nothing compared to what may happen if you invoke the People's wrath.
  This matter can be resolved quickly out of court if you honestly concern yourselves with the best interests of your clients. Again, I leave that up to you. [sic]
  [119] Justice Garson ordered that Dempsey be personally liable for special costs along with the plaintiffs, as he was a person who instigated and guided ''money for nothing'' litigation: paras. 46, 48, 60. Dempsey also has been denied permission to represent OPCA litigants on the basis of his history of misconduct: Gravlin et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al,2005 BCSC 839 (CanLII), 2005 BCSC 839, 140 A.C.W.S. (3d) 447.
  [120] Dempsey's advice and representation had substantial costs for four of his clients and himself. People of Canada v. Envision Credit Union; Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union, 2007 BCSC 1276 (CanLII), 2007 BCSC 1276, 160 A.C.W.S. (3d) 962 reports a cost award totalling $92,850.00. This seems to be the last reported action that involves Dempsey, though his webpage remains.
  c. Robert Arthur Menard
  [121] Robert Arthur Menard [''Menard''] (typically styled ''Robert-Arthur: Menard'') is the subject of less case commentary. He is associated with the Freeman-on-the-Land OPCA movement, and identifies himself as such: United States of America v. Emery, 2005 BCSC 1192 (CanLII), 2005 BCSC 1192 at para. 7, 70 W.C.B. (2d) 37. Menard has attempted to participate in legal actions as an intervener, but was denied that status:United States of America v. Emery. That was an extradition proceeding. Menard's OPCA concepts outlined in that case include:
  1. state actors require the consent of persons, any state activity without consent is oppressive;
  2. a statute is not law and cannot be the basis for extradition; unlawful conduct is only something such as rape or murder; and
  3. Canada had ''abdicated'' its role in the extradition process and that Menard would represent the interests of Canadians.
  [122] Menard's submissions concerning the United States were dramatic:
  The American Prison System and SLAVERY:
  Robert'‘Arthur: Menard will argue that the American prison system has in fact turned into a system amounting to slavery, where prisoners are economically forced to provide labour for corporate entities. Stock in private prisons can even be purchased on the open market and the Prison Industrial System now operating is one very hungry Beast with a growing appetite. It a clear they will always need MORE employees/prisoners/slaves. Furthermore, these corporate enterprises are primarily concerned with profit and not'‘rehabilitation or re'‘integration and using punishment as a means of corporate enrichment is cruel and unusual. Speaking of societies, none of the accused are members of the society governed by and under the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury which handed down the Indictment.
  [123] In 2008 the British Columbia Supreme Court in The Law Society of British Columbia v. Robert Arthur Menard (8 January 2008) Vancouver S073719 (B.C.S.C.) granted an order prohibiting Menard from acting as a lawyer and providing legal advice, and receiving compensation for the same.
  [124] This Court's review of the Freeman-on-the-Land phenomenon has observed that Menard is associated with or operates a number of ''Freeman'' Internet websites that market OPCA materials, including the ''Canadian Common Corps Of Peace Officers'' (''C3PO'') (website: http://www.c3po.ca), a group of self-declared and appointed vigilante ''peace officers'' who:
  ... are the answer to avoiding a police state in Canada. All able bodied and suitable candidates can if they wish be hired to preserve and maintain the public peace under affirmation and contract. In this way the people of Canada can deal with errant or rogue police from the position of a peace officer, and those who are Freemen can exercise their rights without hindrance by existing policy enforcement officers and with the full protection of true peace officers.
  These websites also indicate Menard travels and gives seminars, for pay.
  d. Eldon Gerald Warman
  [125] Eldon Gerald Warman [''Warman''] is a ''Detaxer''; he operates the ''http://www.detaxcanada.org/'' website. Warman typically styles himself via the 'dash-colon' motif as ''Eldon-Gerald: Warman''. He has a historic association with Lindsay: R. v. Warman, 2001 BCCA 510 (CanLII), 2001 BCCA 510; Warman (Re), 2000 ABPC 181 (CanLII), 2000 ABPC 181, 48 W.C.B. (2d) 194. His stated beliefs combine the ''natural man'' scheme of Porisky and Lindsay, with an emphasis on historical common law and the interrelationship between the king and society, such as the Magna Carta. A helpful survey of Warman's concepts is found in R. v. Warman, 2001 BCCA 510 (CanLII), 2001 BCCA 510 at paras. 9-10.
  [126] In 2000 Warman had a roadside encounter with a peace officer who attempted to investigate the permit status for Warman's vehicle. That led to an assault on the officer for which Warman was subsequently convicted: R. v. Warman, 2000 BCPC 22 (CanLII), 2000 BCPC 22, affirmed 2001 BCCA 510 (CanLII), 2001 BCCA 510. Warman had denied the officer's authority because ''... issuing tickets at the side of the road is to conduct a roving court not permitted by Section 17 of Magna Carta.'': para. 36. These roadside confrontations between peace officers and OPCA community members are a reported aspect of OPCA litigation, for example in R. v. Kaasgaard, 2011 MBQB 256 (CanLII), 2011 MBQB 256.
  [127] Mr. Warman has been the subject of complaints of racist and anti-Semitic statements that were considered by the Canadian Human Rights Commission: Warman v. Warman, 2005 CHRT 36 (CanLII), 2005 CHRT 36; Warman v. Warman, 2005 CHRT 43 (CanLII), 2005 CHRT 43. The other ''Warman'' here is not a relative but instead is Richard Warman, a person who frequently advances human rights complainants. The former decision at para. 12 reproduces certain relevant passages from the ''detaxcanada.org'' website:
  YOU ARE BEING SUBJECTED TO HIGH TREASON
  Judges are primary factor in this TREASON against the Canadian people
  Canadian judges are using an American produced "Anti'‘Government Movement Guidebook" to deprive sovereign Canadians of their God Given Rights within the de facto corporate commercial Canadian court system '‘ controlled by the Inner Temple of the `City of London, a hostile foreign entity.
  [128] The CHRC continues at para. 12:
  The threat is palpable. A box states: "you have a right to use deadly force to stop these unlawful acts against you". There are dark suggestions that the sovereignty of the people should be restored.
  [129] Warman's current status is uncertain. The 'detaxcanada.org' website remains, however there is no recent Alberta legal proceeding that involves this person.
  e. David J. Lavigne
  [130] David J. Lavigne [''Lavigne''], operator of ''The Tax Refusal'' website (''http://www.taxrefusal.com/'') and founder of the ''International Humanity House'', promotes an argument that a person need not pay tax on a moral or conscience basis. The one instance where Lavigne has argued his approach in Federal Court is unreported (see Jackson v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2001 SKQB 377 (CanLII), 2001 SKQB 377 at para. 21, 210 Sask.R. 285). After that Lavigne attempted to represent several other litigants who adopted his concepts, but without success: Jackson v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), at para. 40; R. v. Reddick, 2002 SKCA 89 (CanLII), 2002 SKCA 89, 54 W.C.B. (2d) 646.
  [131] Lavigne provides an interesting contrast to Warman. Both adopt almost the exact same pseudolegal arguments, but their ideologies could hardly be more opposite. Lavigne's perspective is explained in Jackson v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), at paras. 18-20:
  18] The plaintiff's claim, as I understand it, is based on the decisions arising out of Nuremberg. The plaintiff submits that as a member nation within the United Nations, Canada is bound to abide by the principles espoused at the trial and judgments of Nuremberg following the Second World War. The plaintiff contends that by participating in the production of materials including Tritium and enriched Uranium, Canada is assisting in the production of thermonuclear weapons or the delivery systems thereof.
  [19] Based upon the plaintiff's contention that Canada is participating in the production of these kinds of weapons, the plaintiff submits he is bound by an "unconditional duty" to refuse to support a society that "wilfully participates in plans and preparations that are predicated on a sure and certain will and capacity to commit mass murder". In furtherance of his claim the plaintiff relies on specific provisions of the Criminal Code which forbids anyone from conspiring with any other to do anything that may lead to the murder of any person, or to do anything that involves the will and capacity to commit murder.
  [20] Based upon the plaintiff's contention that Canada is on a current agenda to participate in the production of materials and therefore participate in the will and capacity to commit mass murder, the plaintiff has attempted to commence what he refers to as an "opting out" procedure. The procedure involves a membership within an International Humanity House where "Sovereign'‘Citizens/Natural'‘Persons" reject the "madness of greed" and embrace "the tenets and credo" of that organization. As part of their membership, the "Sovereign'‘Citizens/Natural'‘Persons" refuse to pay taxes of any nature to any and all governments.
  [132] The materials filed in R. v. Reddick, at para. 5, express that ideology as a:
  ... claim to having an imprescriptible right and a lawfully compellable duty to forevermore refuse to aid and abet or otherwise assist, fund or support, a society that participates in plans and preparations that are predicated on a sure and certain will and capacity to commit Mass Murder.
  [133] Lavigne's webpage '/www.taxrefusal.com' remains and is apparently being updated, though he does not seem to have been involved in further reported litigation.
  f. Edward Jay Robin Belanger
  [134] Some gurus market themselves as religious authorities. An example is Edward Jay Robin Belanger (typically self-styled as the ''minister Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger'') [''Belanger'']. Belanger seems to be the leader or dominant personality in a local Edmonton-area OPCA movement named the ''Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International'' [''CERI'']. Its members usually give themselves the title ''minister''. I have no explanation for why this title is never capitalized, however that is their consistent practice. Belanger and CERI members are frequent visitors to and litigants in the Edmonton-area courts.
  [135] A brief excerpt from a very lengthy ''Asseveration/Affidavit of Criminal Complaint'' sent to my office by Belanger provides the flavour of this guru's rhetoric:
  Even though I am not a Canadian citizen, I am a man born upon, standing on, living and ministering on the geographical land mass known as Alberta, and futher,
  Neither the men or woman listed herein and acting as The private man Vaughn Myers acting as the judge in Stony Plain Alberta on March 17th and 24th 2010 A.D. and the private man acting as the judge in Stony Plain on August 4th 2010 named Caffaro, The private man acting as the federal crown prosecutor for CANADA named Adam Halliday on the 4th of August 2010 A.D. , the private woman Malina Rawluk acting as the prosecutor for the PROVINCE OF ALBERTA Stony Plain March 17th and 24ty 2010 A.D. nor any other government entity, nor any BAR member, nor any ''Person'' anywhere is competent nor has any consent to operate in any of My affairs, and further,
  The witness affidavits confirm the aforementioned did criminally conspire without authority of law and did intend to intimidate me to violate my sincerely held faith and belief and thereby breached their trust as Allegiants fo the Christian Defender of the faith to save my faith harmless from reproach, and further,
  I asked the man named Caffaro on August 4th 2010 in Stony Plain Alberta at 10:00 AM if he was aware I could not violate my sincerely held faith of not associating my name with a dead entity in law a legal fiction all capital letter version of my name used as a pledge to trade as value on the stock exchange, he did intimidate me that if I did not violate my faith and do a thing I had a right not to do he would put out a warrant for my arrest,and further, he without lawful excuse violated 423 of the criminal code by intimidating me to do a thing I had a lawful right to not to do ,towhit [:submit to an altered version of my name formed in fraud for a financial purpose. [sic, emphasis in original.]
  [136] Belanger's typical strategies are:
  1. arguments based on alleged defects in judicial and government oaths,
  2. that the King James Bible (or some specific version thereof) is the primary or overriding law of Canada,
  3. a 'double/split person' argument where the state has 'attached' a legal fiction to persons and only may assert its authority on that basis,
  4. an argument that all interactions are contracts, and
  5. various foisted unilateral agreements and demands.
  [137] Belanger and his followers attempt to detach themselves from state and court authority by 'publishing' foisted unilateral agreements, either on the CERI website or via other means. In 2011 Belanger attempted to email a number of these documents to every person employed in the Alberta Justice department.
  [138] Belanger appears to administer the CERI website and posts in various online forums. He is one of the many gurus who use the Youtube service to host his videos. He has attempted to represent persons in court.
  [139] Belanger frequently files complaints and Criminal Code private informations directed to the judiciary, court, government, and law enforcement employees. He apparently has also sought military intervention against ''traitors'' in the state and court apparatus. Recently, Belanger and other CERI members entered the Edmonton Courts during the annual ''Law Day'', a public and family oriented event intended to introduce lay people and particularly children to court and trial operations. Belanger's group intended to disrupt that event, but were ejected. Belanger immediately attempted to press criminal charges against Court Sheriffs.
  g. Other Gurus
  [140] This list is not exhaustive; for example another candidate guru is reported in Dirks v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue '‘ M.N.R.); Dirks, Re, 2007 SKQB 124 (CanLII), 2007 SKQB 124 at paras. 4-5, 31 C.B.R. (5th) 192 and R. v. Lemieux, 2007 SKPC 135 (CanLII), 2007 SKPC 135 at paras. 34-35, 2007 SKPC 135 (CanLII), [2008] 2 C.T.C. 291. This may be the Douglas Martin Nagel whose conviction was confirmed in R. v. Nagel, 2010 SKCA 118 (CanLII), 2010 SKCA 118. Similarly, the ''Mr. Plotnikoff'' mentioned in Canada (Minister of National Revenue '‘ M.N.R.) v. Stanchfield, 2009 FC 99 (CanLII), 2009 FC 99 at para. 4, 340 F.T.R. 150 appears to be a guru given he apparently provided workshops on how to evade income tax.
  [141] This review of gurus is also undoubtedly incomplete since at least some OPCA schemes encountered in Canadian courts clearly originate from the United States. Those U.S. schemes made up much of the 'first wave' of OPCA litigants and still do appear.
  [142] Unsurprisingly, American OPCA schemes simply make no reference to Canadian law, principles, legislation, or institutions. They will only cite U.S. legislation, caselaw, history, and constitutional materials. Objectively, it is difficult to understand how any Canadian might imagine these techniques would prove successful.
  [143] A helpful example is that of American guru David Wynn Miller [''Miller''] (usually styled ''PLENIPOTENTIARY JUDGE David-Wynn: Miller''), who advocates a bizarre form of ''legal grammar'', which is not merely incomprehensible in Canada, but equally so in any other jurisdiction. National Leasing Group Inc. v. Top West Ventures Ltd., 2001 BCSC 111 (CanLII), 2001 BCSC 111, 102 A.C.W.S. (3d) 303 provides examples of the resulting text. See also: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Chesney, 2001 BCSC 625 (CanLII), 2001 BCSC 625, 104 A.C.W.S. (3d) 826; Borkovic v. Laurentian Bank of Canada, 2001 BCSC 337 (CanLII), 2001 BCSC 337, 103 A.C.W.S. (3d) 700. Succinctly, it appears that his law grammar provides rules on how to structure 'legally effective' documents. The result is very difficult to understand. Any defective document (ie. one not written in 'Millerese') is ''fictitious'‘language/scribble'': National Leasing Group Inc. v. Top West Ventures Ltd., at para. 6.
  [144] More recently 'Canada'‘specific' schemes have emerged from the Canadian OPCA gurus. These often are crude adaptations of the American schemes, and simply replace American with Canadian law and institutions, for example, the 'A4V' 'money for nothing' approach reported in Underworld Services Ltd. v. Money Stop Ltd., 2012 ABQB 327 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 327, and the restricted scope of income tax liability advanced in Turnnir v. The Queen, 2011 TCC 495 (CanLII), 2011 TCC 495 at para. 5.
  [145] That said, certain Canadian OPCA gurus, particularly Lindsay, have produced true ''made in Canada'' schemes which make little or no reference to American law and legislation, see: R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 (CanLII), 2011 BCCA 99 at paras. 31-32, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265; R. v. Lindsay, 2004 MBCA 147 (CanLII), 2004 MBCA 147 at para. 32, 187 Man.R. (2d) 236. Nevertheless, many ''made in Canada'' OPCA strategies will still retain some common conceptual foundation with an American equivalent. For example, all 'A4V' schemes depend on American commercial law principles. It may therefore be useful to refer to U.S. commentary on OPCA strategies, if an equivalent concept can be identified.
  h. Mr. Meads' Guru
  [146] At present, Mr. Mead's guru and source for his arguments is unidentified.
  [147] This court has encountered documents substantially identical to those in Mr. Meads' June 19 and 21 packages (other than personal information). Interestingly, Szoo' v. RCMP, 2011 BCSC 696 (CanLII), 2011 BCSC 696 attaches documents that duplicate text in Mr. Meads' materials.
  [148] That suggests Mr. Mead is not the author of those documents, but rather that he has purchased a kit with those materials and the instructions as to their use. Evidence of the 'pre-fab' nature of the documents can be found in their content and format. For example, Mr. Meads forgot to fill in all the information for the ''Notice to YOURFILINGCOUNTY County Register Of Deeds Clerk'' document, as is shown by the ''YOURFILINGCOUNTY'' placeholder that remains in the title.
  [149] It appears that Mr. Meads' guru is American. Review of the materials filed by Mr. Meads shows a strong American influence in his OPCA materials. For example, in one of his April 27, 2012 ''Affidavit in Support of Order to Show Cause'' documents he references ''Title 18 United States Code'', which is the criminal and penal code for the federal government of the United States. Stating the obvious, this court will not be applying that legislation.
  [150] Similarly, Mr. Meads in his documents and arguments references the Uniform Commercial Code [the ''UCC''], which is American legislation to harmonize commercial transactions within the United States. That too is not relevant to this proceeding, and will not be applied by this court. That said, as the caselaw survey that follows illustrates, the UCC is also a common motif in material from Canadian OPCA gurus, and forms a significant element in much OPCA mythology. However, why anyone would believe that American commercial legislation would apply in Canada is baffling. Still, OPCA litigants indicate that this legislation has a broad, even extraordinary scope. My office has recently received a document where an OPCA litigant said the UCC applies to governments, ''... whether interstellar, intergalactic, international, national, state, provincial, or local ...'' [emphasis added].
  [151] The various agreements, appointments, and the 'fee schedule' in Mr. Meads' materials contain other language that suggests an American origin. For example, the property shuttled between the Meads dualities include:
  1. ''All military (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, National Guard, etc.) discharge papers and the like'' (these are branches of the American military);
  2. ''... the right to petition any military force of the United States for physical protection from threats to the safety and integrity of person or property by either "public" or "private" sources ...''; and
  3. ''Individual Retirement Accounts'', (the American analogue to the Canadian Registered Retirement Savings Plan accounts).
  [152] Similarly, the 'fee schedule' references ''Miranda'' warnings, 4th Amendment rights, and ''Title 42 (Civil Rights), Title 18 U.S.C.A. (Criminal Codes), Title 28 U.S.C.A. (Civil Codes)''. These are American legislation and constitutional documents.
  [153] I would classify Mr. Meads' OPCA materials as an 'adapted American' strategy. He (or his guru) has customized aspects of his documentation and arguments for a Canadian setting, but this does not appear to be a 'home grown' effort.
  3. How Gurus Operate
  [154] Gurus may be distant parties in OPCA litigation. In Mercedes'‘Benz Financial v. Kovacevic, 2009 CanLII 9368 (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 783 at paras. 53-54, 2009 CanLII 9368 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.), the OPCA litigant appeared to have used materials and techniques from an OPCA guru who promoted his techniques with radio broadcasts and hotel seminars. The OPCA litigant knew at least one person who helped promote those schemes in his geographic region. While not an explicit conclusion of that decision, the materials cited and described by Justice Brown in Mercedes'‘Benz Financial v. Kovacevic indicate the litigant had been introduced to his scheme by a nomadic American ''Sovereign Man'' guru, Sam Kennedy. The OPCA litigant in Mercedes'‘Benz Financial v. Kovacevic then attempted to obtain a luxury car for free via those techniques.
  [155] Sometimes gurus are indirectly involved in litigation, by providing advice and argument (for a fee), as did Porisky in the Sydel trial: Porisky Trial Decision, at para. 18.
  [156] In other instances the guru is present in the court, either representing the litigant, or offering instruction and advice. That kind of activity has been reported or observed for Canadian gurus Dempsey, Lavigne, Belanger, Menard, and Lindsay.
  [157] OPCA gurus and community members sometimes are 'legal busybodies' who attempt to introduce themselves into other proceedings. This Court's experience has been that kind of participation consistently leads to further issues. Worse, there may be a potential resolution masked by that intervention. For example, a Moorish Law advocate, Sean Henry, has acted to represent his mother in a credit card debt collection proceeding. Henry's conduct, described in more detail below, is exceptionally problematic.
  [158] The initial hearings to address this matter were entirely unsuccessful. Henry was then arrested. At the subsequent hearing before Belzil J. it was discovered that the mother was not only entirely willing to pay her outstanding debt, but had an investment account which she suggested could provide those funds. For whatever reason, the mother had not been willing to communicate those facts while her son, an OPCA litigant, was present. One can only guess at how many other conflicts might be resolved, were it not for interference of this kind.
  C. OPCA Litigants
  [159] In this Court's experience, there are no stereotypic OPCA litigants. They may be of any age or gender. Some are affluent, while others are not. Canadian caselaw reports OPCA concepts advanced by professionals, 'blue collar' workers, business persons, and retired individuals. Some travel in groups, while others appear to operate by themselves.
  [160] This Court has observed that some OPCA litigants appear to suffer from cognitive or psychological disorders, however one should not presume those conditions from the presence of OPCA arguments and concepts. Similarly, bizarre in-court conduct does not necessarily mean these persons suffer from that kind of disorder. Anomalous behaviour may instead reflect the 'rules' of an OPCA strategy and script.
  [161] The motivation to adopt an OPCA approach varies. Certain OPCA litigants are clearly undergoing some kind of stress, such as:
  ' foreclosure on a home (Borkovic v. Laurentian Bank of Canada, 2001 BCSC 337 (CanLII), 2001 BCSC 337 at para. 15, 103 A.C.W.S. (3d) 700; Bank of Montreal v. McCance, 2012 ABQB 537 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 537);
  ' a bankruptcy (R. v. Sydel, 2006 BCPC 346 (CanLII), 2006 BCPC 346);
  ' disputes over child and spousal support (Hajdu v. Ontario (Director, Family Reponsibility Office), 2012 ONSC 1835 (CanLII), 2012 ONSC 1835; Callaghan v. McCaw; C.C. v. J.M., 2010 SKQB 79 (CanLII), 2010 SKQB 79, 351 Sask.R. 55);
  ' deportation (Shakes v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 CanLII 60494 (IRB), 2011 CanLII 60494 (I.R.B.)); or
  ' in response to large debts (Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union,2006 BCSC 1324 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1324, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309; Gravlin et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al,2005 BCSC 839 (CanLII), 2005 BCSC 839, 140 A.C.W.S. (3d) 447).
  [162] Other times, OPCA litigation may be linked to some distressing event, such as a parent's losing custody of a child. This may be the case for Mr. Meads, as he seems intensely dissatisfied with the end of his marriage.
  [163] Other OPCA litigants are simply scammers out for a quick buck: Mercedes'‘Benz Financial v. Kovacevic, 2009 CanLII 9368 (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 783, 2009 CanLII 9368 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); MBNA Canada Bank v. Luciani, 2011 ONSC 6347 (CanLII), 2011 ONSC 6347. A substantial amount of OPCA litigation seems to revolve on comparative trivialities, such as parking tickets: Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. Bydeley, 2010 ONCJ 740 (CanLII), 2010 ONCJ 740 at para. 46, affirmed 2011 ONCJ 842, affirmed [2011] O.J. No. 6282 (QL) (Ont. C.A.); Sydorenko v. Manitoba, 2012 MBQB 42 (CanLII), 2012 MBQB 42; R. v. Kaasgaard, 2011 MBQB 256 (CanLII), 2011 MBQB 256.
  [164] OPCA litigants sometimes call themselves students of the law. That is a sham; their interest goes no further than finding the proverbial ''Gotcha!'' exception or loophole that they can spring to defeat state and court authority, see for example the Porisky Trial Decision and R. v. Sydel, 2006 BCPC 346 (CanLII), 2006 BCPC 346.
  [165] Courts have commonly rejected claims by OPCA litigants that their actions were in good faith or innocent. R. v. Sydel, 2006 BCPC 346 (CanLII), 2006 BCPC 346 provides a good example. The reason for that result is illustrated in Judge Meyer's review at para. 20 of evidence that led him to dismiss a dentist's claim she had a reasonable basis to believe the validity of OPCA Detaxer concepts:
  At the tax seminars most of the lecturers used aliases, as opposed to their real names. ... She did not regard this as suspicious or unusual, even though one of the lecturers went by the alias, ''Sir Larry Loophole''. How could an intelligent, well educated, worldly, 39 year old professional, not be suspicious?
  At the beginning of each of the five lectures presented by Mr. Porisky, the following caution was given: ''In no way should this be construed as either legal or financial advice. You should consult a competent expert''. Mr. Porisky frankly told the attendees at his lectures that ''I am in the building trade. I am not a lawyer. I can't give legal advice. I am not an accountant. I can't give accounting or financial advice. I am just a guy banging nails''. He also said, 'I strongly recommend you consult a competent expert on this subject matter''.
  ...
  Dr. Sydel knew that each and every lecturer was not a tax lawyer or tax accountant. Every lecturer was ''up front'' about their lack of accreditation. Nonetheless, they talked about the law, the statutes, the interpretation of the law and the statues, they discussed court cases and reported court judgments. Dr. Sydel accepted their views as ''experts'' who were imparting accurate information and opinions as to what the Canadian law was. She said that she could not recall if she questioned any of the lecturers during the seminars, she said that she did not research any court cases they referred to, she did not go ''on line'' or to the law library. She was told that there were decided and reported legal cases throughout Canada relating to the issues under discussion. To not have read any of these cases for herself, or even so much as to ask the lecturers for copies of the cases they said were directly on point, is evidence of her wilful blindness.
  ...
  Dr. Sydel asked her father to attend one of the tax lectures with her. He walked out in the middle of the lecture. She testified that she didn't ask him why. She did say though, that her father and her sister became ''estranged'' as a result of disagreements over her views regarding taxation. Dr. Elmajian testified that he had told Dr. Sydel on one occasion that he thought that ''she was being brainwashed by a bunch of losers who don't work''. These were two or three key people in her life and yet, their contrary views still did not cause her to seek some independent tax advice. ...
  [166] It appears this is not atypical. The justices of this Court routinely encounter OPCA litigants who seem quite willing to 'pull the wool over their own eyes'.
  [167] What is crucial is to understand that an OPCA litigant in court is likely operating under instructions obtained from a commercial source, and has been told to conduct and frame his or her court activities in an unnatural, incorrect, and distorted context. The litigant is instructed to follow a script that is, in all probability illogical, and certainly contrary to law. The OPCA litigant may not be able to explain his or her actions for the very same reason that a judge is confused by the documents, submissions, and in'‘court conduct they provide. Neither really understands what is going on, but for different reasons.
  D. OPCA Movements
  [168] The OPCA community includes a number of subsets that I will call 'movements'. Each movement includes persons who have adopted similar alternative histories, and hold generally compatible beliefs. Different movements in many instances use exactly the same OPCA strategies. Members of a movement will often attend one another's court appearances. They appear to engage in considerable 'lateral' discourse, and often seem to be, at a minimum, social acquaintances.
  1. Detaxers
  [169] The first OPCA movement to appear in Canada were the ''Detaxers''. These OPCA litigants focussed almost entirely on avoiding income tax obligations. Porisky, Lindsay, Lavigne, and Warman are or were some of the gurus in this community.
  [170] The Detaxer movement has employed a very wide assortment of OPCA strategies over the past decade, all without success. Lindsay, in particular, appears to have been an innovator and the source of many Canadian OPCA strategies. Lavigne and Warman's litigation history illustrates how Detaxers may have either 'left wing' or 'right wing' leanings. In recent years this court has observed fewer true Detaxers, no doubt in part due to the failure of Lindsay's many court actions and the ongoing prosecution of members in the Porisky tax evasion ring.
  [171] Many Detaxers were professionals or business persons with substantial incomes: R. v. Klundert2004 CanLII 21268 (ON CA), (2004), 242 D.L.R. (4th) 644, 190 O.A.C. 36 (Ont. C.A.), leave refused [2004] S.C.C.A. No. 463; R. v. Klundert, 2008 ONCA 767 (CanLII), 2008 ONCA 767 at para. 19, 93 O.R. (3d) 81, leave denied [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 522; R. v. Amell, 2010 SKPC 107 (CanLII), 2010 SKPC 107, 361 Sask.R. 61; R. v. Turnnir, 2006 BCPC 460 (CanLII), 2006 BCPC 460; Turnnir v. The Queen, 2011 TCC 495 (CanLII), 2011 TCC 495; R. v. Sydel, 2006 BCPC 346 (CanLII), 2006 BCPC 346. Meads appears to share that characteristic from the data before the court. Other Canadian OPCA movements seem to emerge from a lower income and/or occupational and employment context.
  2. Freemen-on-the-Land
  [172] The Freemen-on-the-Land are a comparatively newer movement. From reported caselaw, individuals who self-identify with this movement appear active across Canada. The membership's focus is strongly anti-government, and has libertarian and right wing overtones. Christian rhetoric is common. Menard is a guru in this movement.
  [173] It appears the Freemen are a Canadian innovation, which I understand has spread to other common-law jurisdictions, including the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, see for example: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Rana, [2008] FCA 374; Glew v. White, [2012] WASCA 138; Van den Hoorn v Ellis, [2010] QDC 451. I am unclear whether Canada has returned the favour and this group has established itself in south of the 49th parallel.
  [174] Stated simply, Freemen-on-the-Land believe they can 'opt out' of societal obligations and do as they like: Harper v. Atchison, 2011 SKQB 38 (CanLII), 2011 SKQB 38 at paras. 6, 15, 369 Sask.R. 134; R. v. McCormick, 2012 NSCA 58 (CanLII), 2012 NSCA 58 at paras. 19, 21; R. v. McCormick, 2012 NSSC 288 (CanLII), 2012 NSSC 288 at paras. 28-32. A common theme in Freeman arguments is that state and court action requires the target's consent, for example: Jabez Financial Services Inc. (Receiver of) v. Sponagle, 2008 NSSC 112 (CanLII), 2008 NSSC 112 at para. 14, 264 N.S.R. (2d) 224.
  [175] Alarmingly, certain members of the Freeman-on-the-Land movement believe they have an unrestricted right to possess and use firearms. That has led in at least once instance to a Freeman-on-the-Land being found with a concealed unauthorized handgun; that Freeman-on-the-Land threatened to use the weapon on law enforcement personnel: R. v. McCormick, 2012 NSCA 58 (CanLII), 2012 NSCA 58 at paras. 19, 21; R. v. McCormick, 2012 NSSC 288 (CanLII), 2012 NSSC 288. In that, and many other ways, the Freemen-on-the-Land parallel the American Sovereign Man community. Both engage in a broad range of OPCA activities directed towards almost any government or social obligation. Both habitually use 'fee schedules', and advance claims and liens against state, police, and court actors. Many apply the 'everything is a contract' approach and so are extremely uncooperative, in and out of court.
  3. Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens
  [176] The Sovereign Man / Sovereign Citizen movement is the chief U.S. OPCA community. Several reported Ontario decisions document court interactions with self-identified Sovereign Men. This court has had a limited exposure to Sovereign Men, most notably being a lawsuit advanced by Glenn Winningham [''Winningham''] (usually self-styled as ''Glenn Winningham: House of Fearn''): Winningham v. Canada (30 November 2010) Lethbridge 1006 00907 (Alta. Q.B.), leave to appeal denied (Alta. C.A.).
  [177] I was a defendant in this action, along with Canada, Alberta, many police officers, the Prime Minister, government ministers, the Lieutenant and Governor Generals, and Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Chief Justice Wittmann. The action alleged broad conspiracy and misconduct by Canadian state actors. A chief complaint by Winningham, who is a self-declared member of the ''Republic of Texas'', is that Canada Customs had refused to admit him into Canada with his firearms. This was followed by a number of confrontations with Lethbridge area peace officers, particularly at traffic stops.
  [178] Winningham's documents claim he is not subject to Canadian law on 'everything is a contract' and 'courts apply admiralty law' bases. He also claimed 'governments' are only corporations. The allegations and rhetoric in his court submissions express a perspective that is alarming:
  1 have tried to use administrative procedure against these criminals, but they don't get the message, so this is the message. If they want to perjure their oaths of office and engage in TREASON and SEDITION, and BREACH OF TRUST, and other crimes to numerous to list, against Me, that they BETTER be prepared to go ALL THE WAY, and MURDER Me as well, because by the time I am done with them, (I will do it all within the law), they will wish they had MURDERED Me. It is My patriotic duty to come after them to My last dying breath, and I will file commercial liens against them, I will liquidate their bonds, I will file criminal complaints against them and their bosses, I will seize their assets, and I will not rest until I see them do that little dance they do at the end of a common law rope, and even then, in the next life, I will be DEMANDING Justice before the judgment BAR of God, to make sure they get to spend the rest of eternity receiving their just reward. Also, after I am dead and gone on to the next life, because this is on the record, these criminals will be hunted down, just like the NAZI war criminals that are still hunted down this day.
  Furthermore, these criminals are hereby put on NOTICE that with criminals like them in this world, I have a DEATH wish, because this world is NOT big enough for both of us, so go ahead and make MY day, the sooner I am out of here the better, and I shall exercise My God given RIGHT to resist their unlawful arrest with lethal fource, if necessary, and then they will have an excuse to MURDER Me, so go ahead criminals, MAKE MY DAY!
  [179] My part in the conspiracy was to ''... shove ... foreign martial law jurisdiction down the throats of all of the people ...'' as an excuse to ''... bring out [my] martial law shock troops and really "kick some ass!"'' This would alienate the populace from the Queen and trigger a coup d'etat.
  [180] Langston J. struck Winningham's action on, among other things, that the defendants had acted in various nefarious and treasonous ways, and refused Winningham's demand for $1 billion in damages. American courts have similarly rejected Winningham's claims. His action in Winningham v. Schulman (30 December 2009) District of Columbia 09 2435 was dismissed as being:
  A complaint that describes fantastic or delusional scenarios is subject to immediate dismissal. ... Moreover, a complaint may be dismissed as frivolous when it lacks "an arguable basis in law and fact." ... This complaint appears to lack an arguable basis in either law or fact, and may reflect delusional thinking. Accordingly, this complaint will dismissed.
  [181] Winningham's perspective of state oppression and violent focus seems representative of the Sovereign Man movement. In the United States, Sovereign Men are notorious for their violent conduct, intimidation of state and court personnel, and their misuse of legal processes to engage in ''paper terrorism'': Robert Chamberlain & Donald P. Haider'‘Markel, ''"Lien on Me": State Policy Innovation in Response to Paper Terrorism'' (2005) 58 Political Research Quarterly, pp. 449-460; Erick J. Haynie, ''Populism, Free Speech, and the Rule of Law: The "Fully Informed" Jury Movement and Its Implications'' (1997) 88 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology pp. 343-379; Susan P. Koniak ''When Law Risks Madness'' (1996) 8 Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature, pp. 65-138. The FBI classifies Sovereign Men as a domestic terrorist movement.
  [182] A court that encounters what appears to be a genuine Sovereign Man / Sovereign Citizen may wish to take additional security precautions.
  4. The Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International [''CERI'']
  [183] The Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International [''CERI''] is an Edmonton area OPCA group, apparently headed by Belanger. This Court has extensive exposure to CERI and its members.
  [184] First and foremost, CERI is a 'pot church'. Like the pot churches reported in R. v. Baldasaro, 2009 ONCA 676 (CanLII), 2009 ONCA 676, 265 O.A.C. 75, R. v. Baldasaro, [2006] O.T.C. 134, 68 W.C.B. (2d) 787 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.), affirmed 216 O.A.C. 68, 213 C.C.C. (3d) 89 (Ont. C.A.), leave refused [2006] S.C.C.A. No. 474, and Tucker v. Canada; Baldasaro v. Canada, 2003 FC 1008 (CanLII), 2003 FC 1008, 239 F.T.R. 81, Belanger and CERI claim that marijuana is a lynchpin element of the Christian religion, and its use is mandated by the Bible, specifically the King James Bible. CERI's membership otherwise appear to hold ''left wing'' and anti-capitalist views. Most members seem to belong to a low income demographic.
  [185] Some CERI members were involved in an earlier (unsuccessful) attempt to claim a religious right to use marijuana: R. v. Fehr, 2004 ABQB 859 (CanLII), 2004 ABQB 859, 368 A.R. 122. At that point they defined themselves as ''Reformed Druids''. In the present CERI members could be classified as King James Bible literalists. This Court therefore may have been witness to the cusp of the transformation (or conversion) of CERI from faith to faith, as in R. v. Fehr the ''reformed druids'' interpreted Exodus 30:23 as the basis for their claim: paras. 20-21.
  [186] CERI's members generally reject state and court authority. Many of CERI's arguments have religious trappings. CERI members have been encountered in all manner of proceedings. CERI members have adopted the 'everything is a contract' concept, and frequently argue 'magic hat' (discussed below) exceptions to the law. For example, a CERI member has recently in Alberta Provincial Court argued that her car was not subject to motor vehicle legislation because it is an ''ecclesiastical pursuit chariot''. CERI members subscribe to the 'double/split person' concept, but attempt to detach themselves from their associated ''corporate entity''.
  [187] Documents filed by CERI-associated litigants are unusually haphazard, even by OPCA documentary materials standards. In most instances they are clearly 'cut and paste' assemblies of other parent documents.
  [188] CERI's membership is in frequent conflict with police, judges, and government officials. They file private criminal offence informations for ''obstructing or violence to or arrest of officiating clergyman'', Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C'‘46, s. 176. CERI's members had at least some contact with Winningham; CERI members witnessed his court materials. I have discussed how Belanger and several other CERI members recently attempted to disrupt a family-oriented public education event held at the Edmonton Courts.
  5. Moorish Law
  [189] Edmonton is home to Sean Henry (typically styled '':Chief : Nanya-Shaabu: El: of the At-sik-hata Nation of Yamassee Moors'', or less commonly, ''Sean Henry Bey''), one of Canada's very few Moorish Law OPCA litigants. He has frequently appeared in this Court.
  [190] The exotic nature of the Moorish Law movement and its claims warrant some comment, as casual exposure to a Moorish Law litigant may lead an observer to suspect mental impairment or disorder. The Moorish Law community is a predominately American offshoot of urban American black muslim churches such as a Nation of Islam. They claim that black muslims who self-identify as ''Moors'' are not subject to state or court authority because they are governed by separate law, or are the original inhabitants of North and South America.
  [191] In the case of Henry, he claims that the At-sik-hata Nation owns North America (now renamed ''Atlan, Amexem, Turtle Island, Land of Frogs'') as a result of his treaty with the Olmec people, an early culture that existed in meso-America from 1500-400 B.C. and who are noted for their large sculptures of human heads. Justice Sanderman of our court, who had reviewed the documentary foundation of Henry's many claims observed:
  ...it would be an affront to the dignity of this Court and an affront to the dignity of any Court to allow a document such as this to stand and to force individuals to come to court to have to answer this, as I say, just absolute gibberish.
  [Henry Estate v. Alberta Health Services, 2011 ABQB 113 (CanLII), 2011 ABQB 113, quoting a related proceeding.]
  [192] Henry claims his ownership of Canada renders him immune to court and state action, but also applies many other OPCA strategies such as 'magic hats', foisted unilateral agreements, and a variant on the 'A4V' 'money for nothing' concept.
  [193] Henry apparently spent some time in the United States and attempted to apply those concepts. United States of America v. Nanya Shaabu El, a/k/a Sean Wesley Henry (25 April 2008), 06-5197 (U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals) confirmed conviction of Henry for false claims of diplomat status, and rejected Henry's argument that because he had claimed to be a diplomat for a non-existent state, ''Atlan'', he could not have committed that offence.
  [194] Though it may seem unlikely to many readers, Henry is not alone in his peculiar beliefs. Shakes v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 CanLII 60494 (IRB), 2011 CanLII 60494 (I.R.B.) reports on another Moorish Law OPCA litigant who claimed to be named ''El Afif Hassan Hetep'‘Bey''. In this action the litigant resisted a deportation order of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Immigration Appeal Division. Para. 10 describes the litigant's materials:
  The attached seven pages consisted of a colour photocopy of was purports to be ''The Moorish American Nationality Card'' of a certain El Afif Hassan Hetep'‘Bey at page 1. Pages 2 through 7 purport to be a ''Judicial Notice and Proclamation'' signed by El Afif Hassan Hetep'‘Bey on January 5, 2010, in which he makes certain claims to title, rights and privileges, on the basis of his being a ''Noble of the Al Moroccan Empire.'' Written in legalese and citing various statutes of the United States, international treaties and covenants and extensive US case law, the documents purports to deny the jurisdiction of the governments of the Americas over the members of the Al Moroccan Empire, and in particular, El Afif Hassan Hetep'‘Bey, and to establish him and other members as sovereign entities.
  [195] The decision at paras. 14-18 reviews other documents received, including ''a "Writ of Right" constituting "Notice of Default Judgement"'', rejection of the Immigration Appeal Division as not authorized by American law, and a ''Claim of Right, Appellation/Name Correction, Pursuant to Indigenous Nationality & Aboriginal Citizenship'' whereby Kiba Kerry Nicholas Shakes renounced his name, in favour of the name El Afif Hassan Hetep'‘Bey.
  [196] The litigant was ordered deported, and a subsequent appeal, with counsel, was denied. The Board concluded at para. 32:
  Now, a reasonable person, viewing the various documents submitted by the appellant, in the name of ''El Afif Hassan Hetep'‘Bey'' could reasonably be expected to conclude that he was mad and delusional. However, from reading these documents it is abundantly clear to the panel that the appellant is not mad although he might be self'‘delusional. Rather, the appellant is apparently making a political statement.
  6. Conclusion - OPCA Movements
  [197] There are likely additional OPCA movements in Canada other than those identified above. Some may be local, such as CERI, and are therefore not known to Alberta courts. Others may be 'below the radar'. Members of this Court report to me that they have encountered a significant number of OPCA litigants who do not self-identify with a known OPCA movement, or who, like Mr. Meads, do not have a known guru. Other movements will most probably emerge over time.
  [198] It is useful for a judge to know an OPCA litigant is associated with an organization, movement or guru. That, at a minimum, implies organized application and distribution of a set of OPCA concepts and beliefs, probably on a commercial basis. Useful movement-specific data includes the stereotypic strategies of that movement, any known movement gurus, and typical responses to court and state action by persons affiliated with that movement. Moveover, members of the OPCA community have proven violent; always an important fact.
  V. Indicia of OPCA Litigants, Litigation, and Strategies
  [199] This Court's experience (personal and by other members) and the relevant caselaw has indicated that persons who engage in OPCA litigation tend to adopt certain stereotypic motifs in their written materials and in'‘court conduct. The vast majority of these indicia are almost never shared by other self'‘represented litigants, including those who may have difficulty communicating their positions and arguments, and by litigants who are affected by cognitive and psychological dysfunction.
  [200] Language that has a biblical or religious aspect, though common, is not as definitive an indication of OPCA context. Much of that is also present in a broader self-represented litigant population.
  [201] What follows is an incomplete summary of elements that suggest when a person has been exposed to OPCA concepts, is a part of the OPCA community, or has adopted OPCA-based litigation strategies. These features were identified from reported caselaw, from the experiences of the justices of this Court, and documentation received by this Court and my office.
  [202] To be explicit, however, these indicia do not prove a claim or action is invalid, or that a litigant is vexatious. These are telltale fingerprints that are typically found in OPCA litigation, and that, if identified, may warrant closer review and specific court procedures.
  A. Documentary Material
  [203] The documentation filed by OPCA litigants often includes many unusual features. Their significance, if any, is often opaque. Courts, lawyers, and litigants may find it helpful to identify persons with expertise in the rationale for these motifs, so that future reviews of OPCA indicia approach the telltale fingerprints on a schematic rather than anecdotal basis.
  [204] Beyond that, OPCA documents are highly variable. They range from what appear to be professionally prepared, polished materials, to crude assemblages of photocopied pages with inconsistent fonts, formats, and paragraph and page numbers that imply a 'copy and paste' composition. OPCA documentation is sometimes 'flamboyant', with multicoloured text, bright water marks, graphics, and elaborate ornamentation on coloured paper: however, this is not necessarily that useful as a identifying motif.
  [205] Sometimes an OPCA document may be so disjointed that the OPCA fingerprint motifs are only evidence that the author is not suffering from mental or cognitive disturbance. This is particularly true for documents prepared according to the 'legal grammar' of Miller: National Leasing Group Inc. v. Top West Ventures Ltd., 2001 BCSC 111 (CanLII), 2001 BCSC 111, 102 A.C.W.S. (3d) 303; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Chesney, 2001 BCSC 625 (CanLII), 2001 BCSC 625, 104 A.C.W.S. (3d) 826; Borkovic v. Laurentian Bank of Canada, 2001 BCSC 337 (CanLII), 2001 BCSC 337, 103 A.C.W.S. (3d) 700.
  1. Name Motifs
  [206] The vast majority of OPCA litigants use highly stereotypic formats to name and identify themselves. The most common form adds atypical punctuation, usually colons and dashes, into a name. Any litigant who uses this 'dash colon' motif almost certainly has some kind of OPCA background or affiliation. The most common versions of this name format are:
  : [first name] '' [middle name] : [last name] :
  or
  [first name] '' [middle name] : [last name]
  The difference is the first alternative has an additional colon before and at the end of the name.
  [207] For example, OPCA guru David Kevin Lindsay styles his name as ''David'‘Kevin: Lindsay''. There are many variations on this basic form with various combinations of colons and dashes. Mr. Mead in his documents identifies himself as ''::Dennis-Larry: Meads::'', ''::dennis-larry: meads::'', or '':::dennis-larry:: of the meads-family:::''. The 'dash colon' motif has no legal significance or effect: R. v. Lindsay, 2006 BCCA 150 (CanLII), 2006 BCCA 150 at para. 3, 265 D.L.R. (4th) 193; R. v. Lindsay, 2008 BCPC 203 (CanLII), 2008 BCPC 203 at para. 7, 2008 BCPC 203 (CanLII), [2009] 1 C.T.C 86, affirmed 2010 BCSC 831 (CanLII), 2010 BCSC 831, [2010] 5 C.T.C. 174, affirmed 2011 BCCA 99 (CanLII), 2011 BCCA 99, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265.
  [208] The rationale for the 'dash colon' motif is unknown. However, it seems to be derived in some manner from the ''legal grammar'' of Miller.
  [209] A second common name motif is that a litigant identifies his or herself as being:
  [first name] [middle name] of the Family [last name]
  or
  [first name] [middle name] of the Clan [last name]
  or
  [firstname] [middle name] of the House of [lastname]
  [210] Mr. Meads also sometimes employs the clan/family/house name motif, but he combines it with the 'dash colon' motif to create a hybrid: ''::dennis-larry: of the meads-family::''. The family/clan/ house motif is also meaningless: R. v. Sargent, 2004 ONCJ 356 (CanLII), 2004 ONCJ 356 at para. 29, 2004 ONCJ 356 (CanLII), [2005] 1 C.T.C. 448.
  [211] A third name-related phenomenon is that the litigant states their name in duplicate forms, one with only upper case letters, the second with either upper and lower case letters or only lower case letters. Again, Mr. Meads' written materials shows this motif, for example, the 'signature' of the April 27, 2012 ''Notice for an Order to Show Cause'' has ''DENNIS LARRY MEADS by ::Dennis Larry::'' below a handwritten signature. This duplication extends to handwritten signatures. For example, most of Mr. Meads' documents are double signed, with one signature reading ''DENNIS LARRY MEADS Grantor'' and the other ''::Dennis-Larry: Meads:: Grantee''. The capital version of the signature is printed and in black ink, while the 'dash colon' version is in red ink and handwritten. Meads extends this 'double name' form to others, including his wife, lawyer, a lawyer's assistant, but strangely, not the Court.
  [212] It appears that duplicate names of this kind are usually an indication that the OPCA litigant has adopted a 'double/split person' strategy, which is later reviewed in detail. In brief, the capital letter version of the name is some kind of non-human thing, while the lower case name is the 'flesh and blood' aspect of the litigant. The red ink colour is presumably intended to represent blood. OPCA materials are rife with these kinds of arbitrary symbolism.
  [213] Another name'‘related indication of an OPCA litigant is that the litigant marks their name with a copyright and/or trade-mark indication, usually the (C), (T) and TM symbols. These markings likely indicate a foisted unilateral agreement strategy.
  2. Document Formalities and Markings
  [214] OPCA litigants frequently mark their documents in unconventional ways. The meanings of many of these marks is unclear, and these certainly have limited or no legal significance. It may be that these motifs simply are theatre used by gurus to impress their customers, and create what appear to be 'powerful' documents.
  [215] Indicia that appear restricted to OPCA documents include:
  1. a thumbprint, typically in red ink, though in certain instances our Court has encountered litigants who will injure themselves when presenting documents to the court clerks, so that they can make a thumb mark in blood (for example Mercedes'‘Benz Financial v. Kovacevic, 2009 CanLII 9368 (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 783 at para. 12, 2009 CanLII 9368 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); Callaghan v. McCaw;C.C. v. J.M., 2010 SKQB 79 (CanLII), 2010 SKQB 79 at para. 10, 351 Sask.R. 55; this proceeding;
  2. more than one signature, often in atypical colour ink such as red or green ink: this proceeding; and
  3. attaching one or more postage stamps, sometimes the stamps have text or a signature written across the stamp (for example Mercedes'‘Benz Financial v. Kovacevic, 2009 CanLII 9368 (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 783 at para. 12, 2009 CanLII 9368 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); this proceeding) and in certain instances these stamps are 'simulated' and simply printed on the document itself.
  Mr. Meads' February 15, 2011 and March 3, 2011 documents show many of these unusual features.
  [216] OPCA litigants sometimes appear to imbue notaries with extraordinary court-like authority. That may explain why so many OPCA documents, including those filed by Mr. Meads, are often notarized when that formality is neither legally necessary nor appropriate. I will later comment on the responsibilities of legally trained persons to not notarize documents in that manner. A notary cannot give special status to an OPCA document: Papadopoulos v. Borg, 2009 ABCA 201 (CanLII), 2009 ABCA 201 at paras. 3, 10.
  [217] One very peculiar form of notation is an indication of a specific OPCA 'money for nothing' scheme. This is a document that will have text written or stamped across it, typically at a 45 degree angle off vertical. The text will include the phrase ''accept for value'' or ''accepted for value''. Typical target documents marked in this way include a birth certificate, a bill to the litigant, a court order against the litigant, a demand letter, or court document filed by an opposing party, for example: Underworld Services Ltd. v. Money Stop Ltd., 2012 ABQB 327 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 327 at paras. 5, 13; Mercedes'‘Benz Financial v. Kovacevic, 2009 CanLII 9368 (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 783 at paras. 10-11, 2009 CanLII 9368 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.).
  [218] One example stamp, described in Mercedes'‘Benz Financial v. Kovacevic, 2009 CanLII 9368 (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 783, 2009 CanLII 9368 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.), read as follows:
  NON'‘NEGOTIABLE
  ACCEPTED FOR VALUE
  APPROVED FOR PAYMENT
  Accepts for value this presentment and ALL related endorsements front and back, in accordance with Uniform Commercial Code 3'‘419 and House Joint Resolution 192 of JUNE 5, 1933. Please release ALL proceeds, products, accounts and fixtures and the order of the court to me immediately.
  EXEMPT FROM LEVEY
  DEPOSIT TO UNITED STATES TREASURY AND CHARGE THE SAME TO [name] [number]
  Stamped versions of this motif will often have spaces for handwritten components.
  [219] This particular notation has many variations but all share the ''accept for value'' language, and usually mention the UCC. Notations of this kind are a clear indication that the litigant has adopted the 'A4V' 'money for nothing' scheme described below.
  3. Specific Phrases and Language
  [220] OPCA documents frequently include atypical language and terminology that can indicate OPCA affiliation. Presumably some of these terms have symbolic or scheme-related significance. These are helpful indicia to identify OPCA litigation and litigants.
  [221] Documents frequently refer to the litigant as having a particular status or characteristic:
  ' a ''flesh and blood man'' (this has many variations);
  ' a ''freeman-on-the-land'' or ''freeman'';
  ' a ''free will full liability person'';
  ' a ''sovereign man'', ''sovereign citizen'' or ''sovran'';
  ' that the litigant:
  ' is a person or a natural person, but not a corporation;
  ' is not a person;
  ' was created by God;
  ' is only subject to a category of law, typically ''natural law'', ''common law'' or ''God's Law'';
  ' is an ambassador;
  ' is the postmaster general;
  ' is a member of a fictitious nation-state or aboriginal group;
  ' represents or is ''an agent'' or ''secured party'' for a similarly named individual or thing; and
  ' is a ''private neutral non-belligerent''.
  Most of these items are strong indicia, with the exception of those that involve God or religion, which also stereotypically emerge in submissions of certain persons with mental impairment and disorder.
  [222] Identification that a municipality, province, or Canada is a corporation is a clear indication of OPCA affiliation: Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union,2006 BCSC 1324 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1324 at para. 37, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309. A litigant with documents of this kind will typically be using the 'everything is a contract' OPCA scheme, discussed below. Similarly, a statement that a court is an admiralty or military court suggests OPCA affiliation, particularly when in an inappropriate context, such as litigation that does not involve military personnel, ships, or maritime subjects.
  [223] Any use of phrases such as ''accept for value'', ''accept for value and return for value'', or ''accept for value and consideration and honour'' indicates OPCA affiliation but not necessarily use of the 'A4V' OPCA scheme; this language arises in multiple contexts when incorporated in a document.
  [224] A statement that a court, government, or official is ''de facto'' is very indicative of OPCA affiliation.
  [225] Many OPCA documents, including those of Mr. Meads, feature a declaration concerning service, such as ''service to agent is service to principal'' and ''service to principal is service to agent'', presumably an attempt to expand the 'notification' function of these materials.
  [226] The term ''strawman'' usually indicates an OPCA 'double/split person' strategy: Mercedes'‘Benz Financial v. Kovacevic, 2009 CanLII 9368 (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 783, 2009 CanLII 9368 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.). So does framing other persons or parties with duplicate names, one in upper case letters, the other lower case.
  [227] A demand that a remedy be paid only in precious metals, usually gold or silver, is typical in OPCA litigation. Many OPCA 'backstories' revolve on the idea that national currencies have no actual or little 'true' value, hence the emphasis on precious metals.
  4. Legislation and Legal Documents
  [228] Many OPCA documents mention certain obsolete, foreign, or typically otherwise irrelevant legislation, including:
  ' the Magna Carta: Harper v. Atchison, 2011 SKQB 38 (CanLII), 2011 SKQB 38 at paras. 9-15, 369 Sask.R. 134; R. v. Jebbett, 2003 BCCA 69 (CanLII), 2003 BCCA 69, 180 B.C.A.C. 21; R. v. Lindsay, 2008 BCCA 30 (CanLII), 2008 BCCA 30 at paras. 19-21, 250 B.C.A.C. 270; R. v. Warman, 2001 BCCA 510 (CanLII), 2001 BCCA 510 at paras. 9-10, 13-14; Winningham v. Canada:
  ' the Uniform Commercial Code of the United States of America, often simply identified as the ''UCC'', this is sometimes mistakenly named the ''Universal Commercial Code'';
  ' the Constitution of the United States;
  ' other American state and federal legislation: Winningham v. Canada;
  ' UNIDROIT and UN CITRAL contract interpretation and dispute guidelines;
  ' versions of the Income Tax Act other than the current legislation; the 1948 version of the legislation is a particular target; see R. v. Crischuk, 2010 BCCA 391 (CanLII), 2010 BCCA 391 at para. 3, 2010 D.T.C. 5141; R. v. Sydel, 2010 BCSC 1473 (CanLII), 2010 BCSC 1473 at paras. 24-25, 35, [2011] 1 C.T.C. 200, affirmed 2011 BCCA 103 (CanLII), 2011 BCCA 103, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 191;
  ' 'oaths' legislation, such as the Alberta Oaths of Office Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. O'‘1, and the federal Oaths of Allegiance Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. O'‘1 and Oaths of Office Regulations, C.R.C., c. 1242, or any version of the U.K. Coronation Oath Act; Bank of Montreal v. McCance, 2012 ABQB 537 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 537 at para. 9;
  ' the Canadian Bill of Rights, S.C. 1960, c. 44: Canada (Minister of National Revenue '‘ M.N.R.) v. Stanchfield, 2009 FC 99 (CanLII), 2009 FC 99 at para. 13, 340 F.T.R. 150; R. v. Amell, 2010 SKPC 107 (CanLII), 2010 SKPC 107 at paras. 156-157, 361 Sask.R. 61; this proceeding;
  ' the Statute of Frauds: Summerland (District) v. No Strings Enterprises Ltd., 2003 BCSC 990 (CanLII), 2003 BCSC 990 at para. 19, 124 A.C.W.S. (3d) 39, leave denied 2004 BCCA 360 (CanLII), 2004 BCCA 360, 131 A.C.W.S. (3d) 994;
  ' the 1931 Statute of Westminster: R. v. Dick, 2001 BCPC 275 (CanLII), 2001 BCPC 275; R. v. Lindsay, 2004 MBCA 147 (CanLII), 2004 MBCA 147 at para. 32, 187 Man.R. (2d) 236; and
  ' the April 10, 1933 Order-in-Counsel that abandoned the gold standard for Canadian currency.
  [229] Reliance on Black's Law Dictionary, particularly an obsolete version of Black's Law Dictionary, is suggestive of OPCA affiliation: Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. Bydeley, 2010 ONCJ 740 (CanLII), 2010 ONCJ 740 at para. 39, affirmed 2011 ONCJ 842, affirmed [2011] O.J. No. 6282 (QL) (Ont. C.A.). OPCA litigants also often stress the relevance of and quote from the Bible, usually the King James version: Callaghan v. McCaw; C.C. v. J.M., 2010 SKQB 79 (CanLII), 2010 SKQB 79 at para. 7, 351 Sask.R. 55.
  [230] A person's birth certificate is a focus of certain OPCA schemes. Any mention or reproduction of that certificate in atypical circumstances is a strong indication of an OPCA 'A4V' scheme: Underworld Services Ltd. v. Money Stop Ltd., 2012 ABQB 327 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 327 at paras. 5, 13.
  5. Atypical Mailing Addresses
  [231] OPCA litigants sometimes use abnormal formats and elements in their mailing addresses. A common feature is omission of the postal code, or some variation from the postal code's usual format. For example, Mr. Meads frequently encircles his postal code with square brackets: ''[T7Z 1L5]''. Other times he states the postal code as ''near [t7z 1l5]''. Other OPCA litigants replace postal codes with land registration information, such as the Torrens registration location for their mailing address. Yet another motif is that a return address includes ''C/O a Third Party Acceptor'', or ''No Code Noncommercial''.
  [232] Any avoidance or variation on postal code strongly suggests the OPCA litigant has adopted an 'everything is a contract' scheme. OPCA litigants in that category apparently believe that use of a postal code means accepting some kind of contract with the state.
  [233] Another variation is that an address is, in some manner, stated to qualify the manner of delivery. For example, Mr. Meads has filed several documents that include the phrase ''Non Domestic to CANADA'' after the postal code. That implies the litigant is not in Canada, and presumably therefore not subject to Canadian authority.
  [234] Sometimes an OPCA litigant will demand he or she only receive mail addressed in an unconventional manner. For example, Belanger in correspondence with my office has instructed that I only send him correspondence in this manner:
  Edward-Jay-Robin: house of Belanger
  Non-Domestic Mail,
  C/O The Chuch of the Ecumenical Redemption International
  [street address]
  Edmonton, Alberta
  POSTAL CODE EXEMPT No code non commercial [sic]
  Failure to comply will mean I am ''... guilty of fraud, conversion and coercion and further become consenting and contractually bound debtors to the Church''.
  [235] OPCA litigants sometimes include fictitious nation states in their addresses, or indicate that their mailing address is an embassy. These motifs indicate an 'immunity' OPCA strategy.
  [236] OPCA litigants also have a pattern of addressing government and court officials in a characteristic double-name format:
  [name in upper and lower case letters] ''doing business as'' [name in upper case letters only] [title of the official]
  For example, this Court has received correspondence addressed, in part, to ''Stephen Harper, doing business as STEPHEN HARPER, PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA, CEO CANADA, INC.''.
  [237] This motif usually indicates a litigant has adopted the 'everything is a contract' OPCA concept.
  6. Conclusion and Summary of Documentary Indicia
  [238] The examples identified above will very likely be encountered in related but variant forms. For example, Mr. Meads expresses the ''flesh and blood man'' declaration motif as ''the living flesh and blood sentient-man'' and that he is ''the creation for the Lord God Almighty Jehovah''. Similarly, Mr. Meads expresses copyright in his name in a different manner: ''DENNIS LARRY MEADS (Copyright for the Province-Alberta)''. I note, parenthetically, that this notation is nonsensical given that TheConstitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3, s. 91 explicitly assigns jurisdiction for copyright to Canada.
  [239] These stylistic variations do not necessarily imply that documentation is not of an OPCA origin. There is a certain crude level of creativity and adaptation practised by OPCA litigants and gurus that has led to many meaningless variations in their irrelevant motifs.
  [240] Another common phenomenon is that OPCA litigants combine these features, and other aspects of OPCA schemes, in a single document. An extreme example of this is found in the full style of cause of Bloom v. Canada, 2010 FC 621 (CanLII), 2010 FC 621, [2010] 5 C.T.C. 143:
  The Natural and Sovran'‘on'‘the'‘land Flesh, Blood and Bone, North America Signatory Aeriokwa Tence Kanienkehaika Indian Man: Gregory'‘John: Bloom (C), as created by the Creator (God), Plaintiff,
  and
  Her Majesty the Queen, Defendant
  [241] Similarly, most of Mr. Meads' documents exhibit multiple OPCA features.
  B. In Court Conduct
  [242] OPCA litigants often engage in unusual in-court conduct. That seems to be in part because many OPCA litigants are following a 'script' prepared by OPCA gurus. This was apparently true for Mr. Meads. For example, at certain points in the court hearing he appeared to read, word for word, from a prepared document. Other aspects of his speech seemed rehearsed.
  1. Demands
  [243] Common 'scripted' motifs include demands by the OPCA litigant:
  ' to see the oath of office of a judge, lawyer, or court official: R. v. Lindsay, 2006 BCSC 188 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 188, 68 W.C.B. (2d) 718, affirmed 2007 BCCA 214 (CanLII), 2007 BCCA 214; Law Society of British Columbia v. Dempsey, 2005 BCSC 1277 (CanLII), 2005 BCSC 1277 at para. 179, 142 A.C.W.S. (3d) 346, affirmed 2006 BCCA 161 (CanLII), 2006 BCCA 161, 149 A.C.W.S. (3d) 735; Ramjohn v. Rudd, 2007 ABQB 84 (CanLII), 2007 ABQB 84 at para. 9, 156 A.C.W.S. (3d) 38; Alberta Treasury Branches v. Klassen, 2004 ABQB 463 (CanLII), 2004 ABQB 463 at para. 25, 364 A.R. 230;
  ' that a judge prove his or her appointment: Ramjohn v. Rudd, 2007 ABQB 84 (CanLII), 2007 ABQB 84 at para. 9, 156 A.C.W.S. (3d) 38;
  ' the judge make certain oaths or statements, such as that the judge is a public servant: Kilini Creek/Patricia Hills Area Landowners v. Lac Ste. Anne (County) Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, 2001 ABCA 92 (CanLII), 2001 ABCA 92, 104 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1142; Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union,2006 BCSC 1324 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1324, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309;
  ' to see the 'bond information' of a litigant, judge, lawyer, or court official: Winningham v. Canada; this proceeding;
  ' that the court indicate the basis or scope of its authority: Canada v. Galbraith, 2001 BCSC 675 (CanLII), 2001 BCSC 675 at paras. 26-28, 54 W.C.B. (2d) 504; Law Society of British Columbia v. Dempsey, 2005 BCSC 1277 (CanLII), 2005 BCSC 1277 at paras. 10-11, 142 A.C.W.S. (3d) 346, affirmed 2006 BCCA 161 (CanLII), 2006 BCCA 161, 149 A.C.W.S. (3d) 735; R. v. Martin, 2012 NSPC 73 (CanLII), 2012 NSPC 73 at para. 4;
  ' that the Crown provide proof that it has authority to proceed against a litigant: R. v. Martin, 2012 NSPC 73 (CanLII), 2012 NSPC 73 at para. 4;
  ' that an opposing party provide proof it has authority to proceed against the OPCA litigant; Bank of Montreal v. McCance, 2012 ABQB 537 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 537 at para. 7;
  ' for a 'certified' copy of a document or legislation: R. v. Bruno, 2002 BCCA 348 (CanLII), 2002 BCCA 348; R. v. Gibbs, 2006 BCSC 481 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 481, [2006] 3 C.T.C. 223; Iwanow v. Canada, 2008 TCC 22 (CanLII), 2008 TCC 22, 2008 CCI 22 (CanLII), 2008 CCI 22; R. v. Fehr, 2002 SKPC 8 (CanLII), 2002 SKPC 8, 224 Sask.R. 132; Audcent v. Maleki, 2006 ONCJ 401 (CanLII), 2006 ONCJ 401, [2007] 1 C.T.C. 212; and
  ' that the court state whether it is addressing the litigant in one of two roles, such as whether this is to a ''legal person'' or a ''corporation'', vs. a ''flesh and blood person'', or a ''natural person'': Porisky Trial Decision at para. 60; R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 (CanLII), 2011 BCCA 99, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265; Mercedes'‘Benz Financial v. Kovacevic, 2009 CanLII 9368 (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 783, 2009 CanLII 9368 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); Mercedes'‘Benz Financial v. Kovacevic, 2009 CanLII 9368 (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 783 at para. 24, 2009 CanLII 9368 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); this proceeding.
  2. Documentation
  [244] OPCA litigants often present documentation to the court or another party at the hearing itself, without prior service or warning. Common examples include:
  ' an attempt to present the judge or a court official with documents that make the court a fiduciary, agent, or foist a contract on the judge or court official: this proceeding; and
  ' presenting the judge, the court clerk, or an opposing litigant with a 'fee schedule' or other foisted unilateral agreement (see below).
  3. Names and Identification
  [245] Another common motif is that an OPCA litigant will engage in various peculiar comments that relate to names and identification. For example, an OPCA litigant may refuse to identify themselves by name, instead stating they are an agent or representative of an entity identified by the litigant's name, typically these entities are described in a manner such as:
  ' a 'person' of the litigant's name,
  ' a corporation or a 'dead corporation' with the litigant's name,
  ' a 'legal fiction' or 'fictitious corporation' with the litigant's name,
  ' a trust, named after the litigant,
  ' an estate, named after the litigant;
  ' a deadman, or
  ' a 'strawman'.
  See: Hajdu v. Ontario (Director, Family Reponsibility Office), 2012 ONSC 1835 (CanLII), 2012 ONSC 1835; Canada v. Galbraith, 2001 BCSC 675 (CanLII), 2001 BCSC 675 at paras. 26-28, 54 W.C.B. (2d) 504; Turnnir v. The Queen, 2011 TCC 495 (CanLII), 2011 TCC 495 at paras. 5-6; Canada (Minister of National Revenue '‘ M.N.R.) v. Stanchfield, 2009 FC 99 (CanLII), 2009 FC 99 at paras. 2-4, 340 F.T.R. 150; Canada (Minister of National Revenue '‘ M.N.R.) v. Camplin; M.N.R. v. Camplin, 2007 FC 183 (CanLII), 2007 FC 183 at paras. 8-9, 28, 2007 FC 183 (CanLII), [2007] 2 C.T.C. 205; Bank of Montreal v. McCance, 2012 ABQB 537 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 537 at para. 9; this proceeding.
  [246] Additionally, the OPCA litigant may identify him or herself with an entirely fictitious name or via a OPCA alternative name format: Shakes v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 CanLII 60494 (IRB), 2011 CanLII 60494 at para. 11 (I.R.B.); R. v. Sargent, 2004 ONCJ 356 (CanLII), 2004 ONCJ 356, [2005] 1 C.T.C. 448; R. v. Crischuk, 2010 BCSC 716 (CanLII), 2010 BCSC 716 at paras. 31-32, affirmed 2010 BCCA 391 (CanLII), 2010 BCCA 391, 2010 D.T.C. 5141; Services de financement TD inc. c. Michaud, 2011 QCCQ 14868 (CanLII), 2011 QCCQ 14868 at para. 6; this proceeding.
  [247] Similarly, an OPCA litigant may make an unusual mention of copyright or trade-mark, typically because the OPCA litigant claims copyright or trade-mark in their own name: Hajdu v. Ontario (Director, Family Reponsibility Office), 2012 ONSC 1835 (CanLII), 2012 ONSC 1835 at para. 23; Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union,2006 BCSC 1324 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1324 at para. 37, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309.
  4. Court Authority or Jurisdiction
  [248] OPCA litigants frequently deny that a court has jurisdiction or authority over them. That emerges in a number of ways:
  ' a direct denial that the court has authority over the litigant: R. v. Jennings, 2007 ABCA 45 (CanLII), 2007 ABCA 45; Hajdu v. Ontario (Director, Family Reponsibility Office), 2012 ONSC 1835 (CanLII), 2012 ONSC 1835; R. v. Warman, 2001 BCCA 510 (CanLII), 2001 BCCA 510 at para. 18; R. v. Linehan, 2000 ABQB 815 (CanLII), 2000 ABQB 815, 276 A.R. 383; Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union,2006 BCSC 1324 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1324 at para. 9, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309; this proceeding;
  ' identification of some physical elements of the courtroom or court dress that indicates the court is a military or admiralty court: R. v. J.B.C. Securities Ltd., 2003 NBCA 53 (CanLII), 2003 NBCA 53, 261 N.B.R. (2d) 199; Winningham v. Canada; this proceeding;
  ' a statement or declaration that:
  ' the litigant is only subject to a specific category of law, most often expressed as ''natural law'' or ''the common law'': Canada v. Galbraith, 2001 BCSC 675 (CanLII), 2001 BCSC 675 at paras. 26-28, 54 W.C.B. (2d) 504; R. v. Warman, 2001 BCCA 510 (CanLII), 2001 BCCA 510 at paras. 9-10, 15;
  ' the court is restricted to certain domains of law, usually legislation, military law, and/or admiralty law: Canada v. Galbraith, 2001 BCSC 675 (CanLII), 2001 BCSC 675 at paras. 26-28, 54 W.C.B. (2d) 504; R. v. Warman, 2001 BCCA 510 (CanLII), 2001 BCCA 510 at paras. 9-10, 15;
  ' the court is only a ''de facto'' court or the judge is only a ''de facto'' judge;
  ' a declaration that the litigant only takes a certain step ''without prejudice'' or ''without consent to restriction'' to the litigant's rights: Mercedes'‘Benz Financial v. Kovacevic, 2009 CanLII 9368 (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 783 at para. 9, 2009 CanLII 9368 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); and
  ' a declaration that the litigant's presence or participation is ''under duress'': Canada v. Galbraith, 2001 BCSC 675 (CanLII), 2001 BCSC 675 at paras. 26-28, 54 W.C.B. (2d) 504.
  5. Other In-Court Motifs
  [249] Other stereotypic OPCA litigant conduct includes:
  ' a refusal to pass the bar: Canada v. Galbraith, 2001 BCSC 675 (CanLII), 2001 BCSC 675 at paras. 25-29, 54 W.C.B. (2d) 504; Mercedes'‘Benz Financial v. Kovacevic, 2009 CanLII 9368 (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 783 at para. 8, 2009 CanLII 9368 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); Callaghan v. McCaw; C.C. v. J.M., 2010 SKQB 79 (CanLII), 2010 SKQB 79 at para. 7, 351 Sask.R. 55;
  ' reliance on Black's Law Dictionary (and usually an out'‘of'‘date version) as an authoritative source of law; the litigant may demand the judge acknowledge the determinative and binding character of definitions from that text: Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. Bydeley, 2010 ONCJ 740 (CanLII), 2010 ONCJ 740 at paras. 39, affirmed 2011 ONCJ 842, affirmed [2011] O.J. No. 6282 (QL) (Ont. C.A.); this proceeding;
  ' inquiry whether the court is attempting to create a contract with the litigant;
  ' refusal to enter or a premature departure from a courtroom, this is often accompanied by a denial of court authority: Mercedes'‘Benz Financial v. Kovacevic, 2009 CanLII 9368 (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 783 at paras. 15-16, 2009 CanLII 9368 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); Sydorenko v. Manitoba, 2012 MBQB 42 (CanLII), 2012 MBQB 42 at para. 10; this proceeding; and
  ' 'ritualistic' responses to inquiries, such as repetition of what seem to be formal, automatic responses, for example:
  ' ''I accept that for value and honour'': Henry v. El, 2010 ABCA 312 (CanLII), 2010 ABCA 312, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 138,
  ' ''Your Honour, I accept it for value and return it for value for settlement closure in this matter.'': Mercedes'‘Benz Financial v. Kovacevic, 2009 CanLII 9368 (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 783 at para. 51, 2009 CanLII 9368 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.), and
  ' ''You are intimidating me.'' or ''Are you intimidating me?'': Belanger and other CERI members.
  6. Summary of In-Court Indicia
  [250] These various motifs are usually found in combination. A useful and representative sample transcript of OPCA litigant conduct is found in Canada v. Galbraith, 2001 BCSC 675 (CanLII), 2001 BCSC 675 at paras. 26-28, 54 W.C.B. (2d) 504.
  [251] A particularly difficult category of OPCA litigant are those who adhere to the OPCA concept that all interactions between the state, courts, and individuals are contracts. As is later explained in greater detail, persons who adopt this concept will interpret almost any invitation by the court or compliance with court procedure as the formation of a contract. For example, members of this Court have observed that litigants who apply the OPCA 'everything is a contract' strategy will refuse simple court directions and processes, such as to pass the bar, sit, stand, or acknowledge their identity.
  [252] Similarly, litigants who refused to identify themselves but claim to represent an entity related to the litigant will often maintain this role in the face of strong court warning. These OPCA litigants are often very argumentative.
  [253] The manner in which the refusal occurs is often highly formalistic. Mr. Meads, for example, made this bizarre response to my suggestion of cooperation on a point:
  ... you're treating the person Dennis Meads with all of these statements, and not the living soul. You are enticing me into slavery ... [Emphasis added.]
  The March 3, 2011 document uses the same language and indicates the same motif. These are a sign of the 'everything is a contract' OPCA concept.
  C. Conclusion - OPCA Indicia
  [254] OPCA litigants' materials and in court strategies usually exhibit many of these features. Thus, they provides a certain 'redundancy' that makes these markers a helpful indication that a particular litigant has purposefully adopted vexatious pseudolegal strategies intended to frustrate the operation of the court. As noted, these specific indicia are almost never encountered with non'‘OPCA litigants, including those with either cognitive or psychological dysfunction.
  [255] OPCA litigants prefer to make their submissions in a highly complex and indirect manner. As a consequence, this Court's experience has been that a typical OPCA submission will incorporate a great many of the indicia identified here. This too creates a high confidence that documents and litigants with these features have an OPCA affiliation.
  1. Procedural Responses to Suspected OPCA Documents
  [256] Given the intrinsically vexatious nature of OPCA methodologies, which I review in detail below, it is appropriate that a court adopt special procedures for documents that show OPCA indicia, which may include:
  1. that court clerks reject the materials that do not conform with required standards;
  2. that the court clerks accept and mark these materials as ''received'' rather than ''filed''; and
  3. that materials that disclose OPCA characteristics may be reviewed by a judge without further submission or representation by the litigants, and that the judge may:
  a) declare that the litigation, application, or defence is frivolous, irrelevant or improper (Rule 3.68(2)(c)), or an abuse of process (Rule 3.68(2)(d)), also Canam Enterprises Inc v. Coles, 2000 CanLII 8514 (ON CA), (2000), 51 O.R. (3d) 481 (Ont. C.A.) at paras 55'‘56, affirmed 2002 SCC 63 (CanLII), 2002 SCC 63, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 307;
  b) order that the documents are irrelevant to the substance of the litigation, but are only retained on file as evidence that is potentially relevant to costs against the OPCA litigant, vexatious status of the litigation and litigant, and/or whether the litigant has engaged in criminal or contemptuous misconduct.
  c) reject the documents and order that if the litigant wishes to continue its action, application, or defence, the litigant then file replacement documentation that conforms to court formalities and does not involve irrelevant OPCA arguments;
  d) order that the litigant appear a before the court in a ''show cause'' hearing to prove the litigant has an action or defence that is recognized in law; that hearing need not involve participation of the other party or parties; and
  e) assign fines, as authorized by Rule 10.49(1).
  2. Courtroom Procedure Responses to Suspected OPCA Litigants
  [257] OPCA litigants are known to engage in disruptive and inappropriate in'‘court conduct: for example, Callaghan v. McCaw; C.C. v. J.M., 2010 SKQB 79 (CanLII), 2010 SKQB 79 at para. 9, 351 Sask.R. 55, and sometimes appear with supporters who do the same: Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union,2006 BCSC 1324 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1324 at paras. 16-24, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309. This misconduct extends to disrespect, threats, and in some cases violence directed to court personnel, judges, and other parties. For example: Shakes v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 CanLII 60494 (IRB), 2011 CanLII 60494 (I.R.B.) and Hajdu v. Ontario (Director, Family Reponsibility Office), 2012 ONSC 1835 (CanLII), 2012 ONSC 1835 at paras. 10-14.
  [258] OPCA litigants have an alarming predisposition to a belief that they can 'take justice into their own hands' and act against the judiciary. The attempted arrest of a judge reported in R. v. Main, at para. 8 is a good example. More recently, during the trial of a Porisky associate (R. v. Lawson, 2012 BCSC 356 (CanLII), 2012 BCSC 356 at para. 26, 2012 D.T.C. 5069) the defendant referred to:
  ... "YouTube" videos showing people swarming the courts of England "to demand justice and chasing judges from the bench." There is a reference to the "public, who are paying close attention to this and related proceedings in growing numbers."
  [259] While Justice Myers chose to ''... give Mr. Lawson the benefit of the doubt and assume that this was not meant as a veiled threat ...'' (para. 27), I think this very effectively illustrates the potential activities that judges and court officials can expect when dealing with OPCA litigants. They have been incited by the misguided and dangerous rhetoric spewed by their gurus, and that raises the troubling possibility of in-court misconduct, if not physical risks.
  [260] OPCA litigants often attempt to 'rally the troops' so that groups of supporters appear at a hearing. That can lead to orchestrated disruptions (Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union,2006 BCSC 1324 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1324 at paras. 16-24, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309) including threats directed at judges (R. v. Main, at para. 8). Our Court has experienced high tension incidents, particularly with Freemen-on-the-Land and CERI members, where persons in the public gallery had to be expelled, sometimes by force.
  [261] It is therefore appropriate that a court may adopt specific in'‘court and security procedures in response to persons who are suspected OPCA litigants. Additional in-court security is generally warranted.
  [262] In particular, this Court has discovered that OPCA litigants will make clandestine audio and video recordings of Court proceedings, in violation of Court rules. These are then often posted on the Internet.
  [263] The fact that litigation involves OPCA motifs may also be a basis for a judge to order a courtroom closed to the public, particularly if persons in the public gallery disrupt proceedings, such as in Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union,2006 BCSC 1324 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1324 at paras. 16-24, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309, or pose a physical threat. I have made an order of this kind about allowing public entry, subject to a search and removal of prohibited electronic recording equipment prior to entry.
  VI. OPCA Concepts and Arguments
  [264] Though OPCA concepts initially appear to be very diverse, they may be grouped into a limited number of general categories. In this Court's experience, apparently novel OPCA concepts very often recycle old schemes, but use somewhat different terminology. These variants, once assigned to a general category, are obviously defective.
  [265] Different OPCA concepts and arguments are often interwoven. Concepts from different general categories often appear in the same document or argument, as OPCA litigants freely interchange and mix these ideas. As Mr. Meads' materials and arguments illustrate, even a single letter may apply numerous concepts from multiple general OPCA scheme and concept categories. This 'mixing' and 'layering' occurs even when the result is illogical. For example, Mr. Meads claims to only adhere and be subject to ''God's law'', yet emphasizes the alleged operation and binding ''universal'' character of the UCC.
  [266] As a preliminary note, review of the caselaw and this Court's experience indicates that OPCA concepts and argument do not generally rely on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1, Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 [the ''Charter'']. This may reflect the fact most OPCA concepts are adapted from American precursors, or that the typical OPCA litigant is unwilling to shield themselves under the authority of the Charter. They instead prefer to frame their arguments around the Canadian Bill of Rights (Canada (Minister of National Revenue '‘ M.N.R.) v. Stanchfield, 2009 FC 99 (CanLII), 2009 FC 99 at paras. 29-30, 340 F.T.R. 150; see also R. v. Amell, 2010 SKPC 107 (CanLII), 2010 SKPC 107 at paras. 156-157, 361 Sask.R. 61;Friesen v. Canada, 2007 TCC 287 (CanLII), 2007 TCC 287 at para. 3, 2007 TCC 287 (CanLII), [2007] 5 C.T.C. 2067), which has a well-established limited legal effect (Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell, 1973 CanLII 175 (SCC), [1974] S.C.R. 1349, 38 D.L.R. (3d) 481).
  A. The Litigant is Not Subject to Court Authority
  [267] A very common OPCA scheme category is that the OPCA litigant is in some manner outside the jurisdiction of the court or state, or is somehow rendered immune from legal obligations. This category has three general forms:
  1. the jurisdiction of the court is restricted to certain specific domains, and the OPCA litigant falls outside those categories;
  2. the jurisdiction of the court is eliminated due to some defect; and
  3. the OPCA litigant is in some manner immunized from the court's actions.
  1. Restricted Court Jurisdiction
  [268] A common and older OPCA concept is that a Canadian court has a restricted jurisdiction. The majority of these schemes appear to have an American origin.
  a. Admiralty or Military Courts
  [269] A typical situation is that an OPCA litigant may claim a court is a military or admiralty court, and therefore has no jurisdiction over the litigant: Hajdu v. Ontario (Director, Family Reponsibility Office), 2012 ONSC 1835 (CanLII), 2012 ONSC 1835; Ramjohn v. Rudd, 2007 ABQB 84 (CanLII), 2007 ABQB 84, 156 A.C.W.S. (3d) 38; R. v. J.B.C. Securities Ltd., 2003 NBCA 53 (CanLII), 2003 NBCA 53, 261 N.B.R. (2d) 199; this proceeding. Once the true restricted nature of the court is 'unmasked', the litigant will declare themselves immune to court action. That, of course, has been uniformly unsuccessful.
  [270] Mr. Meads at one point pursued this approach in his oral arguments. He demanded to know the meaning and significance of the Royal Coat of Arms of Canada attached to the back of the courtroom, behind the bench. Once I translated the Latin motto ''A Mari usque ad Mare'', ''from sea to sea'', Mr. Meads declared it meant the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench was an admiralty court which had no jurisdiction over himself. Mr. Meads was in one sense correct; this court can potentially address admiralty law matters, subject to legislation that assigns that jurisdiction to the Federal Court (Zavarovalna Skupnost, (Insurance Community Triglav Ltd.) v. Terrasses Jewellers Inc., 1983 CanLII 138 (SCC), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 283, 54 N.R. 321; Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c F'‘7, s. 22). Admittedly landlocked as Alberta is, litigation of that kind is not exactly a common occurrence. Mr. Meads is, however, manifestly mistaken if he thinks that is the sole jurisdiction of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.
  [271] Another Admiralty Law based argument illustrates how the word ''includes'' seems to baffle OPCA litigants. I have personally received a 'foisted unilateral agreement' (see below) that explains that ''Canada'' is restricted to the oceans that surround the landmass and its internal waters. The writer explains the basis of this argument is the Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I'‘21, s. 35(1), which reads in part:
  35. (1) In every enactment,
  ...
  ''Canada'', for greater certainty, includes the internal waters of Canada and the territorial sea of Canada ... [Emphasis added.]
  The author continued to declare that all Canadian courts:
  ... are nothing but pirates (criminals) operating on the high seas of commerce, looking for some prize, and as such, they are de facto courts ... [Emphasis in original.]
  This may have been the argument advanced in R. v. Martin, 2012 NSPC 73 (CanLII), 2012 NSPC 73 at para. 11.
  [272] OPCA litigants who advance these schemes will often focus on certain aspects of court formalities. Like Mr. Meads, they may scrutinize the court for some hidden indication of its true nature. A strange but common belief is that a flag with yellow or gold thread 'fringes' ''denotes a military jurisdiction, not common law''. In R. v. J.B.C. Securities Ltd., 2003 NBCA 53 (CanLII), 2003 NBCA 53 at para. 2, 261 N.B.R. (2d) 199, Chief Justice Drapeau of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal rejected a motion by Lindsay ''... removing the gold'‘fringed Canadian flag that has adorned the Court of Appeal's hearing room for years ...''. This motion, and the argument that ''[t]here is no lawful reason for a Canadian flag to be present other than the regular statutory authorized flag'' was frivolous and vexatious: para. 9.
  b. Notaries are the Real Judges
  [273] Another curious belief that purports to limit court jurisdiction is that notaries, as a kind of common law official, in some manner possess judicial or judge-like authority that displaces the authority of Canadian courts. In Jabez Financial Services Inc. (Receiver of) v. Sponagle, 2008 NSSC 112 (CanLII), 2008 NSSC 112 at paras. 14, 264 N.S.R. (2d) 224 the OPCA litigant made the following claim:
  Whereas it is my understanding that I can use a Notary Public to perform duties found under any Act including thus they have the power to hold court and hear evidence and issue binding lawful judgments, and,
  Whereas it is my understanding that a Notary Public can also be used to bring criminal charges to bear against traitors, even if they hold the highest office ...
  [274] Naturally, this claim is rubbish, and the litigants offered no foundation for this concept. The relevant legislation (Notaries Public Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. N'‘6; Notaries Public Regulation, Alta. Reg 68/2003) does not authorize notaries to function in that manner. While I am a notary as a consequence of my office as a Justice (Notaries Public Act, s. 4), that does not make all notaries judges. OPCA litigants often assign special and misplaced significance to notaries and their activities, see for example Papadopoulos v. Borg, 2009 ABCA 201 (CanLII), 2009 ABCA 201 at paras. 3, 10.
  [275] I will subsequently comment on the well established general authority of a superior court of inherent jurisdiction, and how that defeats this argument category.
  c. Religion or Religious Belief Trumps the Courts
  [276] Religion is a common basis for a claim that a court cannot act. While the precise manner in which religion or religious principles are invoked may vary, all these schemes appear to flow from a common rationale; there is some form of religious authority or law that trumps that of the court and Canada.
  [277] Some OPCA litigants claim immunity on the basis of religion, or like Mr. Meads, say they are only subject to something like ''God's Law'', or biblical principles. Often these religious beliefs conveniently excuse an OPCA litigant from some onerous obligation, such as paying taxes, or obtaining a driver's licence, motor vehicle registration, and automobile insurance. Members of the Edmonton area Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International, the group headed by ''minister'' Belanger, claim that their possession and use of marijuana is authorized by the King James Bible and therefore the state and courts have no authority to restrict those activities. Similarly, Mr. Meads, in his submissions, stated he does not recognize marriage outside a biblical context, and divorce can only flow from infidelity. He says a court'‘ordered divorce based on other criteria cannot bind him.
  [278] Belief, religious activity, and association is a protected right under Charter, s. 2(a). However, Canadian courts recognize that as a restricted right that is subordinate ''... to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.'': Charter, s. 1. The Supreme Court of Canada has been explicit that religious beliefs do not trump the right of government to organize and regulate Canadian society, as was recently reviewed in Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37 (CanLII), 2009 SCC 37, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567.
  [279] OPCA litigants do not usually frame their religious arguments in a Charter context, but that would be the appropriate approach for them to pursue the rights they say flow from their beliefs, rather than a bald declaration of religion'‘based immunity. That is not to suggest that such Charter-based arguments will succeed, but they will at least be appropriately framed.
  [280] OPCA litigants have also seized on the preamble to TheConstitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c .11, which reads:
  Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law ... [Emphasis added.]
  [281] This passage has been the subject of occasional judicial commentary, most simply because various litigants have argued that the preamble makes any of Canada's laws subject to the ''supremacy of God''. This proposition is expertly dismantled and dismissed by Justice Muldoon in O'Sullivan v. Canada (No. 2)reflex, (1991), 45 F.T.R. 284, 84 D.L.R. (4th) 124 (F.C.T.D.), where he concludes:
  The preamble to the Charter provides an important element in defining Canada, but recognition of the supremacy of God, emplaced in the supreme law of Canada, goes no further than this: it prevents the Canadian state from becoming officially atheistic. It does not make Canada a theocracy because of the enormous variety of beliefs of how God (apparently the very same deity for Jews, Christians and Muslims) wants people to behave generally and to worship in particular. The preamble's recognition of the supremacy of God, then, does not prevent Canada from being a secular state. [Emphasis added.]
  See also Mercedes'‘Benz Financial v. Kovacevic, 2009 CanLII 9368 (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 783 at para. 42, 2009 CanLII 9368 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); Pappas v. Canada, 2006 TCC 692 (CanLII), 2006 TCC 692 at paras. 1, 9-10, [2006] G.S.T.C. 161; R. v. Demers, 2003 BCCA 28 (CanLII), 2003 BCCA 28 at paras. 15-16, 177 B.C.A.C. 16, leave refused [2003] S.C.C.A. No. 103.
  [282] Other OPCA litigants claim that legislation, common law, and court principles and procedures are subject to ''God's Law'', or other divinely ordained rules or principles, have been uniformly rejected: Bloom v. Canada, 2011 ONSC 1308 (CanLII), 2011 ONSC 1308 at paras. 6-7; Sandri v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 CanLII 44282 (ON SC), 2009 CanLII 44282 at paras. 5, 13, 179 A.C.W.S. (3d) 811 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); Pappas v. Canada, 2006 TCC 692 (CanLII), 2006 TCC 692 at paras 1, 9-12, [2006] G.S.T.C. 161; R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 (CanLII), 2011 BCCA 99 at para. 31, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265; Gravlin et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al, 2005 BCSC 839 (CanLII), 2005 BCSC 839 at para. 50, 140 A.C.W.S. (3d) 447.
  [283] In Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union, 2005 BCSC 1730 (CanLII), 2005 BCSC 1730 at para. 6, 145 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1040, this declaration took the form of a colourfully named ''Constructive Notice of Child of God Status''. At para. 30 Justice Garson concluded that was not a basis to remove her from a trial, as the litigant ''... has not "accepted" my jurisdiction to hear this matter.'' The same approach was unsuccessful at defeating the Law Society of British Columbia's authority to regulate legal practice: Law Society of British Columbia v. Dempsey, 2005 BCSC 1277 (CanLII), 2005 BCSC 1277 at paras. 8, 16, 179, 194, 142 A.C.W.S. (3d) 346, affirmed 2006 BCCA 161 (CanLII), 2006 BCCA 161, 149 A.C.W.S. (3d) 735, see also Szoo v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police), 2011 BCSC 696 (CanLII), 2011 BCSC 696 at paras. 21, 45.
  [284] Similarly, there is there is no ''God given right'' to travel on public roads that trumps legislation: Sydorenko v. Manitoba, 2012 MBQB 42 (CanLII), 2012 MBQB 42, see also R. v. Kaasgaard, 2011 MBQB 256 (CanLII), 2011 MBQB 256, para. 7 and Winningham v. Canada. Justice Herauf concluded a debtors's claim to be ''washed of debt by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ who has redeemed us of all debt ... is pure unadulterated rubbish!'': Dirks v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue '‘ M.N.R.); Dirks, Re, 2007 SKQB 124 (CanLII), 2007 SKQB 124 at para. 7, 31 C.B.R. (5th) 192.
  [285] Mr. Meads advanced an ill-formed argument that ''God's law'' or the ''Maximus of Law'' is the law that he chooses to apply in this proceeding. There is, of course, no basis for that demand, and in any case that would not defeat or restrict the authority of this Court. The same would be true of any argument that this Court's authority is subject to any other religious perspective or prescription.
  2. Defective Court Authority
  [286] In some instances an OPCA litigant may argue that a defect of some kind renders a court or judge without authority. An OPCA litigant may attempt to identify that defect by demanding that the court prove its authority is valid and genuine.
  a. Oaths
  [287] A very common demand is that a judge provide some indication of valid authority. Commonly that demand is for documentation, such as a certificate of appointment, or a copy of an oath of office: R. v. Lindsay, 2006 BCSC 188 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 188, 68 W.C.B. (2d) 718, affirmed 2007 BCCA 214 (CanLII), 2007 BCCA 214; Ramjohn v. Rudd, 2007 ABQB 84 (CanLII), 2007 ABQB 84 at para. 9, 156 A.C.W.S. (3d) 38; Bank of Montreal v. McCance, 2012 ABQB 537 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 537 at para. 7. In Alberta Treasury Branches v. Klassen, 2004 ABQB 463 (CanLII), 2004 ABQB 463 at para. 25, 364 A.R. 230, an OPCA representative added the following post-script to his submissions:
  If you had jurisdiction on June 7th, even under an Admiralty Court, you must have taken an Oath. Can you provide me with a copy of your Oath, like other professions must provide to show copies posted) of their certification, they are legitimate and not imposters? It would be appreciated since it is demanded in Sec. 9.12,b of the Provincial Court Act. ("transmitted forthwith")
  [288] Curiously, these litigants do not appear aware that judicial appointments are published as an Order-in-Council.
  [289] It is well established that a judge or court officer is presumptively authorized to act as they do, and rather the OPCA litigant who claims some deficiency or bias must prove that deficiency. In R. v. Crischuk, 2010 BCSC 716 (CanLII), 2010 BCSC 716 at paras. 36-38, affirmed 2010 BCCA 391 (CanLII), 2010 BCCA 391, 2010 D.T.C. 5141, Justice Barrows explained that onus in this manner:
  37 ... His position appears to be that simply announcing a challenge to the authority of the judge or the Crown to occupy the positions they occupy is sufficient. It is not. There must be some evidence that casts into doubt that which otherwise appears regular on its face. There is no evidence to doubt Judge Hogan's status. Thus, this ground of the appeal, to the extent it relates to Judge Hogan's failure to produce a certified copy of his oath of office, has no merit. [Emphasis added.]
  See also: R. v. Lemieux, 2007 SKPC 135 (CanLII), 2007 SKPC 135 at para. 12.
  [290] An OPCA litigant sometimes demands that a judge swear various oaths and follows with an allegation that a failure to do so defeats the court's authority. That is what appeared to happen in Kilini Creek/Patricia Hills Area Landowners v. Lac Ste. Anne (County) Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, 2001 ABCA 92 (CanLII), 2001 ABCA 92 at para. 2, 104 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1142. Justice McClung's response was succinct:
  Reverend Belanger demands that I take an oath (for his use) that acknowledges the supremacy of God and the Charter of Rights. I have declined this opportunity.
  b. The Court Proves It Has Jurisdiction and Acts Fairly
  [291] Other reported demands to demonstrate judicial authority include:
  ' ''are you a public servant?'': Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union,2006 BCSC 1324 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1324 at paras. 31, 32, 33, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309;
  ' that the court ''state its jurisdiction'': Hajdu v. Ontario (Director, Family Reponsibility Office), 2012 ONSC 1835 (CanLII), 2012 ONSC 1835 at para. 20; and
  ' a court disprove it acts ''in colour of law'': Hajdu v. Ontario (Director, Family Reponsibility Office), 2012 ONSC 1835 (CanLII), 2012 ONSC 1835 at para. 22.
  [292] Other OPCA litigants claim judicial bias, influence, or conspiracy. However, a litigant who advances that kind of claim has an obligation to provide positive evidence to support the alleged conspiracy: R. v. Sydel, 2010 BCSC 1470 (CanLII), 2010 BCSC 1470 at paras. 27-29, see also R. v. Sydel, 2010 BCSC 1473 (CanLII), 2010 BCSC 1473 at paras. 18-23, 39, [2011] 1 C.T.C. 200, affirmed 2011 BCCA 103 (CanLII), 2011 BCCA 103, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 191.
  c. Court Formalities
  [293] A further alleged defect category involves some formal aspect of the court or its activities. For example, Henry has argued that whether a judge is or is not gowned affects the judge's jurisdiction: Henry v. Starwood Hotels, 2010 ABCA 367 (CanLII), 2010 ABCA 367, leave refused [2010] S.C.C.A. No. 475; Henry v. El, 2010 ABCA 312 (CanLII), 2010 ABCA 312 at para. 3, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 138.
  [294] A parallel concept is advanced by Edmonton area OPCA guru Belanger, who puts special significance on the edition of the Bible present in the courtroom and that a witness holds when swearing their evidence will be accurate and complete. Belanger claims that only a King James Bible (and perhaps a specific edition) can serve in that role. Of course, that is nonsense. There is neither legislation or common law that makes that requirement. The Alberta Evidence Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. A'‘18, s. 15(1) states the oath requires a person hold ''... the Bible or New Testament, or Old Testament in the case of an adherent of the Jewish religion ...'', while s. 15(2) also permits that ''... the oath may be taken or sworn on any one of the 4 Gospels.''
  [295] As for any common-law requirement, there is no question that the specific choice of Bible (or other sacred text) present in a courtroom falls within the jurisdiction of a court to manage its proceedings and procedures: I.H. Jacob, ''The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court'' (1970) 23 Current Legal Problems 23, cited in B.C.G.E.U. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 1988 CanLII 3 (SCC), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214, 53 D.L.R. (4th) 1; R. v. Morales, 1992 CanLII 53 (SCC), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711, 144 N.R. 176; R. v. Hinse, 1995 CanLII 54 (SCC), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 597, 130 D.L.R. (4th) 54; MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson, 1995 CanLII 57 (SCC), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 725, 130 D.L.R. (4th) 385, see also R. v. Gillespie, 2000 MBCA 1, 185 D.L.R. (4th) 214 and R. v. Levogiannis,1993 CanLII 47 (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 475 at paras. 27-28, 160 N.R. 371.
  [296] A recent Ontario case, Hajdu v. Ontario (Director, Family Reponsibility Office), 2012 ONSC 1835 (CanLII), 2012 ONSC 1835 at paras. 10-14, reports a bizarre defective court authority OPCA concept. The trial judge adjourned a hearing and exited the courtroom in response to disruptive conduct by the OPCA litigant. That litigant, a self-declared sovereign man, then said:
  The judge has left the court; has abandoned the court. I, as a sovereign, claim authority and dismiss the matter.
  [297] The transcript indicates the clerk then responded: ''No, you cannot.'' The OPCA litigant left the courtroom. The proceeding continued later after first the judge and then the OPCA litigant returned. On appeal, Justice Coats concluded that the adjournment did not end the matter in the OPCA litigant's favour, or permit the litigant to 'seize control' and end the proceeding.
  d. The State is Defective
  [298] A more global attack on the authority of the state has also been advanced as a defect that allegedly defeats court action. A good example of this variant is a peculiar argument that no post-1931 Governor General had a valid appointment because of a defect in the 1931 Statute of Westminster. That defect alleged cascaded to invalidate all post-1931 government legislation and action, including the operation of the courts and appointment of judges: R. v. Dick, 2001 BCPC 275 (CanLII), 2001 BCPC 275; R. v. Lindsay, 2004 MBCA 147 (CanLII), 2004 MBCA 147 at para. 32, 187 Man.R. (2d) 236.
  [299] Lindsay has also alleged that a defect in Queen Elizabeth II's coronation oath subverts all government and judicial authority, as the Queen is ''... constitutionally and contractually to uphold and enforce the laws of God as they are set out in the King James Version of the Holy Bible, which are the supreme source of law ...'': R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 (CanLII), 2011 BCCA 99 at paras. 31, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265. That allegedly collapses state and judicial authority. Unsurprisingly, the British Columbia Court of Appeal has concluded that argument has no basis: at para. 32.
  e. Conclusion - Defective Court Authority
  [300] All 'defective court authority' schemes face two issues:
  1. a rebuttable presumption that a court and judge are authorized; and
  2. the intrinsic authority of superior courts of inherent jurisdiction, a point I will further explore.
  [301] OPCA litigants do not address either point. 'Defective court' arguments are bald allegations that the litigant deploys and then demands the court rebut. These frivolous arguments have a strong parallel in certain American OPCA concepts. Perhaps the strangest is reported by Jol A. Silversmith in ''The "Missing Thirteenth Amendment": Constitutional Nonsense and Titles of Nobility'', 8 Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 577 (April 1999). That paper documents how certain U.S. OPCA litigants allege that a secret and lost U.S. Constitutional Amendment subverts the authority of judges and lawyers by stripping their status as American citizens because they are petty British nobility, ''esquires''.
  3. Immune to Court Jurisdiction -'Magic Hats'
  [302] Another branch of the immunity category flows from an argument that a person has some status or has undertaken certain steps that renders the OPCA litigant immune to court action. I have given this category the name 'magic hats' to capture the manner in which OPCA gurus and litigants approach these arguments. They freely wear, remove, and switch 'magic hats' as need be. Many OPCA schemes are a combination, or succession, of 'magic hats'.
  [303] The manner in which 'magic hat' schemes are presented is sometimes entirely arbitrary; a litigant only need say ''I am a sovereign man'', or ''I am a Freeman-on-the-Land'', and then are allegedly rendered immune to state and court action, all without any other further effort, explanation, or rationale. Some litigants go further: Gravlin et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al, 2005 BCSC 839 (CanLII), 2005 BCSC 839 at para. 24, 140 A.C.W.S. (3d) 447 reports a litigant who filed an ''Affidavit of Non-Participation in Commercial Activity'' that announced ''I am immune from the Jurisdiction of any Court in Canada.''
  [304] Sometimes a 'magic hat' is accompanied by a theoretical context to explain the operation of the 'magic hat'. Mr. Meads, for example, explained his immunity to state and court action via his choice to be subject to ''God's law'', the ''Maximus of Law'', which applies to him as he is a ''living flesh and blood sentient-man''.
  [305] In these Reasons I will survey and categorize the plethora of 'magic hats' that are reported in Canadian jurisprudence and that have also been identified by this Court. There are three special categories of 'magic hat' schemes that will be reviewed separately because of their complex nature and due to the variations in which they are often expressed, that:
  1. no legal obligation can be enforced on the OPCA litigant without his or her agreement,
  2. a single person has two legal aspects, or can be split into two legal entities, and
  3. an OPCA litigant can unilaterally bind the state, a state actor, a court, or other persons with a 'foisted' agreement.
  [306] I will first examine and catalogue the simpler 'magic hats'. These are not so much separate and distinct categories, but instead potentially useful groups for analysis and review. Sometime a particular 'magic hat' will fall into more than one group, depending on how it is expressed (or worn).
  a. I Belong to an Exempt Group
  [307] Many OPCA litigants argue that they cannot be the target of state sanction or legal obligation because they are not subject to that kind of obligation. These arguments are often bizarre. For example, Warman, then represented by Lindsay, (unsuccessfully) argued that the Criminal Code only applies to ''fictitious persons'', and not ''a sovereign, flesh and blood living man'': R. v. Warman, 2001 BCCA 510 (CanLII), 2001 BCCA 510 at paras. 9-10, 13-14. That was ''... rejected as being without any legal, historical or constitutional foundation whatsoever.'': para. 14. A similar argument that only corporations, and not human beings, are subject to Canadian law was addressed and rejected in Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. Bydeley, 2010 ONCJ 740 (CanLII), 2010 ONCJ 740 at para. 54, affirmed 2011 ONCJ 842, affirmed [2011] O.J. No. 6282 (QL) (Ont. C.A.), see also Winningham v. Canada where the litigant claimed the Criminal Code only applies to ''corporations and fictitious persons''.
  [308] In R. v. Martin, 2012 NSPC 73 (CanLII), 2012 NSPC 73 at para. 10 a Detaxer interpreted Charter, s. 32 to indicate that all Canadian law only applies to entities that advance government policy, programs, or functions. That proposition was rejected.
  [309] Another school of the 'exempt' category claims the OPCA litigant is immune because of an association with some foreign nation'‘state, or aboriginal affiliation. These jurisdictions are often imaginary. This concept is popular among American OPCA litigants. For example, my office occasionally receives complex documents from persons who claim to be citizens of Texas, an independent nation'‘state. On that basis, they claim immunity from traffic tickets issued in Alberta. Persons in this category will manufacture their own 'national' identification and license plates. Winningham attempted this approach, but also claimed to be an ambassador of the ''Nation of Texas'': Winningham v. Canada.
  [310] Aboriginal status (real or fictitious) is another basis that allegedly provides immunity to court action or income tax obligation: Bloom v. Canada, 2010 FC 621 (CanLII), 2010 FC 621 at paras. 3, 16, [2010] 5 C.T.C. 143; R. v. Crischuk, 2010 BCSC 716 (CanLII), 2010 BCSC 716 at paras. 26-29, affirmed 2010 BCCA 391 (CanLII), 2010 BCCA 391, 2010 D.T.C. 5141; see also Louison v. Ochapowace Indian Band #71, 2011 SKQB 87 (CanLII), 2011 SKQB 87, 369 Sask.R. 258, affirmed 2011 SKCA 119 (CanLII), 2011 SKCA 119 for a general commentary on the effect of pre-colonial occupation of lands. This court has received correspondence from ''The Tacit Supreme In Law Court'' of the ''Sovran Nations Embassies of Mother Earth'' which appears to combine aboriginal status and claimed nation status as a basis for immunity.
  [311] An interesting variation on the aboriginal immunity concept is advanced by Henry as '':Chief : Nanya-Shaabu: El: of the At-sik-hata Nation of Yamassee Moors.'' Henry not only claims to be the head of an independent nation'‘state and aboriginal community, but that his tribe owns Canada. He now demands rent. Henry has at times filed bizarre and elaborate documents with this Court that appear intended to assert and enforce that ownership. I agree with Justice Sanderman's succinct evaluation of Henry's claims as ''total gibberish'': Henry Estate v. Alberta Health Services, 2011 ABQB 113 (CanLII), 2011 ABQB 113. Similarly, ''Moorish'' affiliation, in this case membership in the ''Moorish Divine and National Movement of North America'', did not provide inherent jurisdiction or a capacity to trump Canadian legislation, administrative tribunals, or the courts: Shakes v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 CanLII 60494 (IRB), 2011 CanLII 60494 at para. 33 (I.R.B.).
  [312] Henry also has worn a literal 'magic hat'! In the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Henry v. Starwood Hotels (1 September 2010) Edmonton 1003'‘01152 (Alberta Q.B.) before Justice Shelley, Henry appeared wearing what is best described as ceremonial garb, with a robe and red fez, that he indicated had special significance. Subsequently, Henry has appeared in Chambers wearing what appeared to be a lawyer's robes. It seems that Moorish Law advocates place special weight on court dress, particularly since Henry appealed Justice Shelley's findings in part on the basis that he had garbed himself in a manner appropriate for the occasion, but she had not: Henry v. Starwood Hotels, 2010 ABCA 367 (CanLII), 2010 ABCA 367 at para. 4, leave refused [2010] S.C.C.A. No. 475.
  [313] Unsurprisingly, the Detaxers have developed their own ''exempt'' arguments as to why they should not have to pay income tax. I have previously commented on the thoroughly discredited argument that only corporations are taxpayers: R. v. Klundert, 2008 ONCA 767 (CanLII), 2008 ONCA 767 at para. 19, 93 O.R. (3d) 81, leave refused [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 522; R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 (CanLII), 2011 BCCA 99 at para. 27, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265; R. v. Pinno, 2002 SKPC 118 (CanLII), 2002 SKPC 118 at paras. 12-13, 15-16, 2002 SKPC 118 (CanLII), [2003] 3 C.T.C. 308; Kennedy v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2000 CanLII 22837 (ON SC), [2000] 4 C.T.C. 186, 2000 D.T.C. 6524 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.). Justice Myers put it as well as anyone in Porisky Trial Decision at para. 58:
  Mr. Porisky's theory not only does not bear any legal logic but it also fails to accord with common sense. It is a failed attempt at word magic and has no validity.
  [314] Similarly, a claim that the obligation to pay tax falls solely on government employees was rejected in Turnnir v. The Queen, 2011 TCC 495 (CanLII), 2011 TCC 495 at para. 5. I believe this is a literal application of what I understand to be a common American OPCA argument that the Internal Revenue Service classifies and penalizes as a ''frivolous tax argument'', for example: McAffee v. United States, 84 A.F.T.R. 2d 99 (N.D.Ga. 1999)
  [315] Obligation to adhere to motor vehicle licensing, registration, and insurance seems to have spawned considerable OPCA litigant activity. One apparently common argument is that the OPCA litigant is not subject to those requirements because that legislation only applies to either commercial vehicles (Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. Bydeley, 2010 ONCJ 740 (CanLII), 2010 ONCJ 740 at paras. 35-38, affirmed 2011 ONCJ 842, affirmed [2011] O.J. No. 6282 (QL) (Ont. C.A.)), or vehicles operated by corporations (R. v. Kaasgaard, 2011 MBQB 256 (CanLII), 2011 MBQB 256 at paras. 8-9).
  [316] Similarly, courts have rejected arguments that a ''driver'' in motor vehicle legislation is restricted to obsolete interpretations of that definition: persons who direct horse-drawn vehicles, or persons whose profession involves moving livestock (Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. Bydeley, 2010 ONCJ 740 (CanLII), 2010 ONCJ 740 at paras. 39-46, affirmed 2011 ONCJ 842, affirmed [2011] O.J. No. 6282 (QL) (Ont. C.A.)). This case reports the quite common OPCA litigant strategy of only citing historic rather than current references: para. 39. The failure of this and related arguments was summarized by Justice Stinson in this manner at para. 56:
  It may well be the defendant's wish not to be governed by the HTA, or any other statute, for that matter. It may offend her personal beliefs, which she is obviously entitled to have. But, if she does not wish to be subject to the HTA, the solution is quite clear. She simply need not drive. The HTA, whether the defendant likes it or not, governs her conduct when she is the driver of a vehicle on a highway in the Province of Ontario. [Emphasis added.]
  b. I Declare Myself Immune
  [317] Another common variation on the 'immunity' category is that a unilateral declaration of some form may defeat state and court authority. This concept is closely associated with the Sovereign Man and Freeman-on-the-Land movements, but also emerges in other contexts. The 'immune declaration' concept is interwoven into the general 'obligation requires agreement' OPCA strategy category, later reviewed in more detail.
  [318] Of course, it is indeed possible to cease to be governed by Canadian law. One only need leave Canada and break formal ties with this jurisdiction. However, the 'immune by declaration' school claims a person can live in Canada but without any obligation or responsibility as a consequence of some special status, which has various names such as a ''sovereign man'', a ''freeman'', or a ''Freeman'‘on'‘the'‘Land''. This ''immune by declaration'' group often draws an arbitrary line between ''statutes'' and ''common law'', and says they are subject to ''common law'', but not legislation. Mr. Meads appears to have adopted that kind of distinction.
  [319] Often immunity is based on nothing more than a bald allegation of some 'magic hat' status that flows from a name-based category. Examples include a claim to be:
  ' a ''Freeman-on-the-Land'': Harper v. Atchison, 2011 SKQB 38 (CanLII), 2011 SKQB 38 at paras. 6, 15, 369 Sask.R. 134, see also Szoo v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police), 2011 BCSC 696 (CanLII), 2011 BCSC 696; Jabez Financial Services Inc. (Receiver of) v. Sponagle, 2008 NSSC 112 (CanLII), 2008 NSSC 112 at paras. 14, 18, 264 N.S.R. (2d) 224; in relation to criminal prosecution: R. v. McCormick, 2012 NSSC 150 (CanLII), 2012 NSSC 150 at para. 9;
  ' a ''Freeman and a Natural Person'': Summerland (District) v. No Strings Enterprises Ltd., 2003 BCSC 990 (CanLII), 2003 BCSC 990 at para. 19, 124 A.C.W.S. (3d) 39, leave denied 2004 BCCA 360 (CanLII), 2004 BCCA 360, 131 A.C.W.S. (3d) 99;
  ' a ''Freeman-on-the-Land'' and unilaterally defining relationships and obligations with others by ''treaty'': Harper v. Atchison, 2011 SKQB 38 (CanLII), 2011 SKQB 38 at paras. 6, 15, 369 Sask.R. 134;
  ' a ''free will full liability person'' under ''Anglo-Saxon Common Law'': Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union,2006 BCSC 1324 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1324 at para. 39, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309; Alberta Treasury Branches v. Klassen, 2004 ABQB 463 (CanLII), 2004 ABQB 463 at para. 25, 364 A.R. 230;
  ' a ''sovereign man'' or ''sovereign citizen'': MBNA Canada Bank v. Luciani, 2011 ONSC 6347 (CanLII), 2011 ONSC 6347 at para. 14; R. v. Warman, 2001 BCCA 510 (CanLII), 2001 BCCA 510 at paras. 9-10, 15; and
  ' a nation-state: Williams v. Johnston, 2008 CanLII 63194 (ON SC), [2008] O.J. No. 4853 (QL) at para. 8, 2008 CanLII 63194 (Ont. S.C.), affirmed 2009 ONCA 335 (CanLII), 2009 ONCA 335, 176 A.C.W.S. (3d) 609, leave refused [2009] S.C.C.A. No. 266.
  [320] Attempts to unilaterally declare immunity to income tax obligations are not uncommon, see: R. v. Klundert, 2008 ONCA 767 (CanLII), 2008 ONCA 767 at para. 20, 93 O.R. (3d) 81, leave refused [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 522; R. v. Klundert2004 CanLII 21268 (ON CA), (2004), 242 D.L.R. (4th) 644, 190 O.A.C. 36 (Ont. C.A.), leave refused [2004] S.C.C.A. No. 463; R. v. Pinno, 2002 SKPC 118 (CanLII), 2002 SKPC 118 at paras. 22, 2002 SKPC 118 (CanLII), [2003] 3 C.T.C. 308; R. v. Sargent, 2004 ONCJ 356 (CanLII), 2004 ONCJ 356 at paras. 40-41, 2004 ONCJ 356 (CanLII), [2005] 1 C.T.C. 448.
  [321] Similarly, in Jabez Financial Services Inc. (Receiver of) v. Sponagle, 2008 NSSC 112 (CanLII), 2008 NSSC 112 at para. 14, 264 N.S.R. (2d) 224 and Szoo v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police), 2011 BCSC 696 (CanLII), 2011 BCSC 696 at paras. 17, 45 the OPCA litigants declared they had ''abandoned'' their social insurance number. In Gravlin et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al, 2005 BCSC 839 (CanLII), 2005 BCSC 839 at para. 24, 140 A.C.W.S. (3d) 447 the claim of immunity was a consequence of a declaration the OPCA litigant would not enter into ''commercial activities'', and therefore ''I am immune from the Jurisdiction of any Court in Canada.''
  c. I Have Been Incorrectly Identified
  [322] Another common claim is that the OPCA litigant is not the person identified in the litigation documents: R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 (CanLII), 2011 BCCA 99 at para. 31, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265. This concept is usually linked to the 'double/split person' OPCA strategy category, so the OPCA litigant will then explain they are some kind of representative, agent, trustee, or guardian for the litigation's actual target.
  [323] Given the obsessive focus of the OPCA movement for documentary and procedural formalities (real or imagined), it is unsurprising that they have developed a wealth of arbitrary name-related rules. For example, Canadian courts have evaluated and rejected the following nomenclature-related schemes:
  ' a person is not immune from court action if that person identifies himself by an entirely different name, for example, ''Mythlim'‘Axkw'' instead of ''Kazimierz Chester Crischuk'': R. v. Crischuk, 2010 BCSC 716 (CanLII), 2010 BCSC 716 at paras. 31-32, affirmed 2010 BCCA 391 (CanLII), 2010 BCCA 391, 2010 D.T.C. 5141; Shakes v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 CanLII 60494 (IRB), 2011 CanLII 60494 at para. 11 (I.R.B.); Services de financement TD inc. c. Michaud, 2011 QCCQ 14868 (CanLII), 2011 QCCQ 14868 at para. 6;
  ' structuring a name in the format of [Firstname]-[Middlename]: [Lastname], i.e. ''David-Kevin: Lindsay'', does not mean one is a separate person from ''David Kevin Lindsay'': R. v. Lindsay, 2006 BCCA 150 (CanLII), 2006 BCCA 150 at para. 3, 265 D.L.R. (4th) 193; R. v. Lindsay, 2008 BCPC 203 (CanLII), 2008 BCPC 203 at para. 7, 2008 BCPC 203 (CanLII), [2009] 1 C.T.C 86, affirmed 2010 BCSC 831 (CanLII), 2010 BCSC 831, [2010] 5 C.T.C. 174, affirmed 2011 BCCA 99 (CanLII), 2011 BCCA 99, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265;
  ' structuring a name in the format [Firstname] of the [family] of [Lastname], i.e. ''John Donald of the family Sargent'', does not mean one is a separate person from ''John Donald Sargent'': R. v. Sargent, 2004 ONCJ 356 (CanLII), 2004 ONCJ 356 at para. 29, 2004 ONCJ 356 (CanLII), [2005] 1 C.T.C. 448;
  ' there is no legal distinction between a name in upper case and lower case letters, and a name all in capital letters: R. v. Linehan, 2000 ABQB 815 (CanLII), 2000 ABQB 815 at para. 13, 276 A.R. 383; R. v. Loosdrecht, 2008 BCPC 400 (CanLII), 2008 BCPC 400 at para. 36, 2008 BCPC 400 (CanLII), [2009] 4 C.T.C. 49; R. v. Lemieux, 2007 SKPC 135 (CanLII), 2007 SKPC 135 at paras. 45-46, 2007 SKPC 135 (CanLII), [2008] 2 C.T.C. 291;
  ' a claim that the person named in litigation is incorrectly identified by a ''war name'' or ''nom de guerre'' is irrelevant: Canada v. Galbraith, 2001 BCSC 675 (CanLII), 2001 BCSC 675 at paras. 25-29, 54 W.C.B. (2d) 504; and
  ' a name all in capitals is not a ''legal fiction'' and not different from ''a flesh, blood and bone man'': Ontario (Director, Family Responsibility Office) v. Boyle, [2006] O.J. No. 2181 (QL) at paras. 3-5, 149 A.C.W.S. (3d) 127 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.).
  [324] Similarly, OPCA litigants have demanded that court documents, such as informations and summons, display their names in all capital letters: R. v. Lawson, 2012 BCSC 356 (CanLII), 2012 BCSC 356 at para. 9, 2012 D.T.C. 5069. That, presumably, would then allow the litigant to claim that the all-capitals name related to someone else, and thereby go free.
  d. I Am Subject to a Different Law
  [325] Another 'immunity' 'magic hat' is an argument that the litigant is only subject to a different form of law than that which would otherwise apply to the present action. This category is arguably a facet of the 'restricted court authority' immunity group.
  [326] It is helpful at this point to make a few comments on the manner in which OPCA litigants often use the term ''common law''. OPCA litigants often draw an arbitrary line between ''statutes'' and ''common law'', and say they are subject to ''common law'', but not legislation. Of course, the opposite is in fact true, the ''common law'' is law developed incrementally by courts, and which is subordinate to legislation: statutes and regulations passed by the national and provincial governments. The Constitution Act provides the rules and principles that restrict the scope and nature of legislation, both by jurisdiction and on the basis of rights (ie. the Charter).
  [327] Persons who claim to only be subject to the ''common law'' also do not appear to mean the current common law, but typically instead reference some historic, typically medieval, form of English law, quite often the Magna Carta, which, as I have previously observed, is generally irrelevant.
  [328] Alberta Treasury Branches v. Klassen, 2004 ABQB 463 (CanLII), 2004 ABQB 463 at para. 25, 364 A.R. 230 provides an example of how this 'mutant' common law may be expressed:
  The above pose the fundamental reasons why I asked for a Court where this case could be tried under Natural law, for the Natural human person, an Anglo'‘Saxon Common Law Court. A Court without pretension, on a level floor without tiers, where the Judge is not in an Administrative capacity, but that of a Minister '‘ not unlike the clergy. It's a court where jurisdiction is declared with a flying Canadian flag on the building or within the designated Courtroom.
  If Alberta does not have such a Court, it is incumbent to be provided. Otherwise it is contravening justice being served or seeming to be served, because the Court is operating under the colour of law.
  [329] Another example of the peculiar OPCA definition of common law is that certain litigants will claim to not require motor vehicle registrations, licenses, or license plates, because when they operate a motor vehicle they are exercising their common law ''right to travel'': R. v. Peddle, 1999 ABCA 284 (CanLII), 1999 ABCA 284 at para. 7, 244 A.R. 184.
  [330] The Courts have consistently rejected OPCA arguments that the common law trumps legislation: R. v. Sargent, 2004 ONCJ 356 (CanLII), 2004 ONCJ 356 at paras. 42-43, 2004 ONCJ 356 (CanLII), [2005] 1 C.T.C. 448. OPCA litigants also sometimes advance an ill-defined ''natural law'' which is the sole authority over ''flesh and blood'' or ''natural human persons'': Alberta Treasury Branches v. Klassen, 2004 ABQB 463 (CanLII), 2004 ABQB 463 at paras. 25, 32, 364 A.R. 230, see also R. v. Warman, 2001 BCCA 510 (CanLII), 2001 BCCA 510 at paras. 9-10, 15. This language also appears in Mr. Meads' 'fee schedule'.
  [331] Similarly, attempts to apply foreign law, very often the UCC, are without merit: Henry v. El, 2010 ABCA 312 (CanLII), 2010 ABCA 312 at para. 3, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 138; R. v. Pinno, 2002 SKPC 118 (CanLII), 2002 SKPC 118 at paras. 12-13, 17-18, 2002 SKPC 118 (CanLII), [2003] 3 C.T.C. 308. A combination of these features is evident in the documents reproduced in Papadopoulos v. Borg, 2009 ABCA 201 (CanLII), 2009 ABCA 201 at para. 3.
  [332] Reversing the more typical position that a court is restricted to an admiralty law jurisdiction, some OPCA litigants have instead claimed they are solely subject to that kind of authority: Ramjohn v. Rudd, 2007 ABQB 84 (CanLII), 2007 ABQB 84 at para. 9, 156 A.C.W.S. (3d) 38; Papadopoulos v. Borg, 2009 ABCA 201 (CanLII), 2009 ABCA 201 at para. 3.
  [333] Last, OPCA litigants and gurus tend to emphasize Black's Law Dictionary as an authoritative source for Canadian law. One could say that this is their (legal) bible. For example, Mr. Meads explained to me that as he learned about the law, he discovered the true meaning of the word ''license'', ''an authorization to do something otherwise illegal'', fromBlack's Law Dictionary.
  [334] This choice of 'bible' is peculiar, given that Black's Law Dictionary is an American, rather than Canadian text. Of course, Canadian courts do make reference to Black's Law Dictionary, but it has nowhere near the same relevance as, say, Justice C´t(C)'s recent text, Words That Bind: Words and Phrases Judicially Considered by the Supreme Court of Canada and by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to 1949 (Edmonton: Juriluber, 2011), or John B. Saunders, Words and Phrases Legally Defined (3rd ed.) (London: Butterworths, 1988-2007).
  [335] Further, it is not uncommon that OPCA litigants will cite obsolete, older versions of Black's Law Dictionary. The second edition appears particularly popular, perhaps because it is now in the public domain. In court, an OPCA litigant may recite a passage from Black's Law Dictionary and then demand to know how that is incorrect.
  [336] As discussed below in relation to the 'obligation requires agreement' OPCA scheme category, certain OPCA litigants attempt to frame interactions between individuals and states as purely a form of contract, thus allegedly negating the effect of legislation. This approach has been uniformly rejected (Sandri v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 CanLII 44282 (ON SC), 2009 CanLII 44282 at paras. 6, 13, 179 A.C.W.S. (3d) 811 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 (CanLII), 2011 BCCA 99 at para. 32, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265), as are claims that the state has no authority in matrimonial and family matters because that too is a contract between two private persons (Hajdu v. Ontario (Director, Family Reponsibility Office), 2012 ONSC 1835 (CanLII), 2012 ONSC 1835 at para. 25).
  [337] Mr. Meads has advanced that latter argument. He says his marriage with Ms. Meads was a contract governed by ''God's law'', rather than the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp), and Matrimonial Property Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M'‘8. Neither legislation provides for an alternative scheme of law, and so I reject Mr. Meads' claim.
  e. Conscientious Objector
  [338] Non-religious belief has been advanced and rejected as a basis for immunity to state and court action. This has typically emerged in an income tax context. This is the chief theme of OPCA guru Lavigne, his thesis being that he should not be obliged to pay tax or presumably engage in any other activity that may promote thermonuclear war or cause mass murder: Jackson v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2001 SKQB 377 (CanLII), 2001 SKQB 377 at para. 36, 210 Sask.R. 285; R. v. Reddick, 2002 SKCA 89 (CanLII), 2002 SKCA 89 at para. 8, 54 W.C.B. (2d) 646.
  [339] In R. v. McMordie, 2001 BCCA 412 (CanLII), 2001 BCCA 412, 155 B.C.A.C. 21, Justice Proudfoot, at para. 9, rejected a parallel argument:
  It appears that the appellant and his friends are under the impression that because he is contesting the payment of taxes based on his "political beliefs" rather than "self'‘interest" he is somehow or other entitled to immunity and cannot be prosecuted. This is a very interesting notion, but wholly devoid of merit.
  Similarly, a claim that a person is a ''tax protestor'' also does not eliminate the obligation to pay income tax: R. v. Klundert, 2008 ONCA 767 (CanLII), 2008 ONCA 767 at para. 24, 93 O.R. (3d) 81, leave refused [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 522.
  [340] Though perhaps disappointing to those who advance these theories, the fact remains that issues of policy are not ones that a court can review. As a consequence, the courts have no authority to evaluate the policy aspects that drive state processes such as taxation. This was clearly expressed in Giagnocavo v. Canada (1995), 95 D.T.C. 5650 at paras. 7-9, 58 A.C.W.S. (3d) 401:
  ... From a philosophical point of view, a case can no doubt be made that the impugned statute is cruel and inhuman, that it is a travesty of recognized moral values, that it constitutes an intrusion of the state not only in the bedrooms of the nation, as was said in another case, but in its piggy'‘banks as well. One could also say that a good number of citizens share the applicant's view in these matters, and would ring bells and dance in the streets if ever there were liberated from the unconscionable burden of taxation.
  The basic difficulty, however, is that the position taken by the applicant, although under the umbrella of judicial proceedings, is in fact a policy position over which courts and their judges have no jurisdiction. Policy issues are for legislators, and judicial issues only for judges. [Emphasis added.]
  f. Tax-Related'Magic Hats'
  [341] Detaxers and other OPCA litigants have advanced a wealth of 'magic hats' that allegedly negate an obligation to pay income tax. Some relate to the relationship between the state and an individual, that:
  ' a person is immune from tax obligation because they are ''a shareholder'' in a jurisdiction or municipality has been rejected: R. v. Lawson, 2012 BCSC 356 (CanLII), 2012 BCSC 356 at para. 10, 2012 D.T.C. 5069;
  ' a person can pay for their income tax via a pro-rated share of government property ''... is pure unadulterated rubbish!'': Dirks v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue '‘ M.N.R.); Dirks, Re, 2007 SKQB 124 (CanLII), 2007 SKQB 124 at para. 7, 31 C.B.R. (5th) 192;
  ' an obligation to pay income tax arises only as a bargain in exchange for government programs such as the Canada Pension Plan, so if a person waives a claim to government programs, they also waive their requirement to pay income tax, has been rejected: Porisky Trial Decision at para. 66; and
  ' the Canadian government has been financed by a secret arrangement that turns its citizens into corporations with ''military names'' has been rejected: R. v. Proteau, 2002 SKPC 119 (CanLII), 2002 SKPC 119 at paras. 6-7, 2002 SKPC 119 (CanLII), [2003] 3 C.T.C. 118.
  [342] Others allegedly relate to some kind of right:
  ' collecting income tax:
  ' is contrary to religious belief and thus offends Charter, s. 2(a): Pappas v. Canada, 2006 TCC 692 (CanLII), 2006 TCC 692 at paras. 1, 11-12, [2006] G.S.T.C. 161;
  ' breaches the taxpayer's Charter, ss. 7-8 rights: Coulbeck v. University of Toronto, [2005] O.J. No. 4003 (QL) 142 A.C.W.S. (3d) 889 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); and
  ' is a prohibited indirect tax under British North America Act (the Constitution Act), s. 91(3) as that authority is negated or displaced by the s. 92(2) provincial authority of direct taxation: Bruno v. Canada, 2000 BCSC 190 (CanLII), 2000 BCSC 190, [2000] 2 C.T.C. 16, affirmed 2002 BCCA 47 (CanLII), 2002 BCCA 47, 162 B.C.A.C. 293;
  ' the redistributive effect of the Income Tax Act is contrary to the Charter and causes involuntary servitude: Giagnocavo v. Canada (1995), 95 D.T.C. 5650 at paras. 7-9, 58 A.C.W.S. (3d) 401 (F.C.(T.D.));
  ' an unlimited right to demand information from the Canada Revenue Agency and its employees: R. v. Voth, 2001 SKQB 469 (CanLII), 2001 SKQB 469 at paras. 6-16, 211 Sask.R. 270, affirmed 2002 SKCA 47 (CanLII), 2002 SKCA 47, 223 Sask.R. 119;
  ' income tax violates ''human rights and fundamental freedoms'' derived from the Canadian Bill of Rights: Friesen v. Canada, 2007 TCC 287 (CanLII), 2007 TCC 287 at para. 3, 2007 TCC 287 (CanLII), [2007] 5 C.T.C. 2067; and
  ' the notwithstanding clause is required to allow the Income Tax Act to operate without breach of the Canadian Bill of Rights: Canada (Minister of National Revenue '‘ M.N.R.) v. Stanchfield, 2009 FC 99 (CanLII), 2009 FC 99 at paras. 29-30, 340 F.T.R. 150, see also R. v. Amell, 2010 SKPC 107 (CanLII), 2010 SKPC 107 at paras. 156-157, 361 Sask.R.61.
  [343] Some OPCA litigants allege that the income tax system is in some manner fraudulent. For example, the OPCA litigant in R. v. Callow, 2000 ABQB 335 (CanLII), 2000 ABQB 335 at para. 18, 2000 ABQB 335 (CanLII), [2000] 3 C.T.C. 427 argued that filing an income tax return is committing fraud. Alternatively, in Bruno v. Canada, 2000 BCSC 190 (CanLII), 2000 BCSC 190 at paras. 10, 34, 2000 BCSC 190 (CanLII), [2000] 2 C.T.C. 16, affirmed 2002 BCCA 47 (CanLII), 2002 BCCA 47, 162 B.C.A.C. 293, the litigant said the 'alleged' national debt is a fraudulent scheme to extract funds for the International Monetary Fund.
  [344] Unsurprisingly, there are a range of income tax related 'formalities' caselaw. For example, Detaxers have argued that the state must provide a fully amended and certified complete version of the Income Tax Act: R. v. Bruno, 2002 BCCA 348 (CanLII), 2002 BCCA 348 at para. 7; R. v. Gibbs, 2006 BCSC 481 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 481 at para. 54, 2006 BCSC 481 (CanLII), [2006] 3 C.T.C. 223; Iwanow v. Canada, 2008 TCC 22 (CanLII), 2008 TCC 22 at paras. 18-21, 2008 CCI 22 (CanLII), 2008 CCI 22; R. v. Fehr, 2002 SKPC 8 (CanLII), 2002 SKPC 8, 224 Sask.R. 132, see also Audcent v. Maleki, 2006 ONCJ 401 (CanLII), 2006 ONCJ 401, [2007] 1 C.T.C. 212. They also have attempted to use a ''certified copy'' of legislation, here the Excise Tax Act, to prove compliance, where that legislation was subsequently amended: R. v. Nagel, 2010 SKCA 118 (CanLII), 2010 SKCA 118 at paras. 13-14, 362 Sask.R. 145.
  [345] Some perceived defect in the 1948 version of the Income Tax Act has been rejected as a basis to invalidate the current income tax legislation scheme: R. v. Lemieux, 2007 SKPC 135 (CanLII), 2007 SKPC 135 at paras. 31-33, 2007 SKPC 135 (CanLII), [2008] 2 C.T.C. 291; R. v. Crischuk, 2010 BCSC 716 (CanLII), 2010 BCSC 716 at paras. 48-52, affirmed 2010 BCCA 391 (CanLII), 2010 BCCA 391, 2010 D.T.C. 5141; R. v. Crischuk, 2010 BCCA 391 (CanLII), 2010 BCCA 391 at para. 3, 2010 D.T.C. 5141; R. v. Sydel, 2010 BCSC 1473 (CanLII), 2010 BCSC 1473 at paras. 24-25, 35, [2011] 1 C.T.C. 200, affirmed 2011 BCCA 103 (CanLII), 2011 BCCA 103, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 191.
  [346] Other OPCA litigants claim that 'income' has a restricted meaning, and for example:
  ' does not include compensation for work: R. v. Amell, 2010 SKPC 107 (CanLII), 2010 SKPC 107 at para. 144, 361 Sask.R. 61; R. v. Turnnir, 2006 BCPC 460 (CanLII), 2006 BCPC 460; Porisky Trial Decision at para. 65; R. v. Smith, 2006 BCSC 1493 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1493 at para. 34, 2006 BCSC 1493 (CanLII), [2007] 1 C.T.C. 147, leave refused 2007 BCCA 499 (CanLII), 2007 BCCA 499, [2008] 1 C.T.C. 61,
  ' does not include payments made under a ''contract for hire'' to a ''natural person'': R. v. Amell, 2010 SKPC 107 (CanLII), 2010 SKPC 107 at paras. 137-138, 361 Sask.R. 61; R. v. Turnnir, 2006 BCPC 460 (CanLII), 2006 BCPC 460; R. v. Smith, 2006 BCSC 1493 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1493 at para. 34, 2006 BCSC 1493 (CanLII), [2007] 1 C.T.C. 147, leave refused 2007 BCCA 499 (CanLII), 2007 BCCA 499, [2008] 1 C.T.C. 61, and
  ' taxable income is only the value of a person's labour, as ''a man is worth his labour'': Porisky Trial Decision at para. 65.
  [347] There really is no question that the Canadian government is authorized to require individuals pay income tax or other forms of indirect tax. Further, the consequences to a taxpayer who simply refuses to pay income tax are clear. It does not matter on what basis that claim is made, that refusal proves the willful intention to evade payment of tax: R. v. Klundert2004 CanLII 21268 (ON CA), (2004), 242 D.L.R. (4th) 644 at paras. 58, 62-64, 190 O.A.C. 36 (Ont. C.A.), leave refused [2004] S.C.C.A. No. 463; R. v. Ricci2004 CanLII 33347 (ON CA), (2004), 190 O.A.C. 375 at para. 6, [2005] 1 C.T.C. 40 (Ont. C.A.), leave refused [2004] S.C.C.A. No. 551; R. v. Kennedy, 2004 BCCA 638 (CanLII), 2004 BCCA 638 at para. 14, 207 B.C.A.C. 102, leave refused [2006] S.C.C.A. No. 15.
  g. Miscellaneous
  [348] Last are several 'magic hats' that do not seem to fall into a convenient category.
  [349] There are several that relate to legislation. In R. v. Nagel, 2010 SKCA 118 (CanLII), 2010 SKCA 118 at paras. 15-16, 362 Sask.R. 145, an OPCA litigant argued that the presence or absence of formalities of how legislation was printed, such as a coat of arms and ''Queen's Printer'' notations, were significant. Another legislation-related argument is that a person cannot know the law unless legislation is ''fixed, certain and accessible'': Audcent v. Maleki, 2006 ONCJ 401 (CanLII), 2006 ONCJ 401, [2007] 1 C.T.C. 212 (Ont. Ct. J.). The 'magic hat' was that if law is amended, it is no longer knowable. Of course, that too was rejected.
  [350] Finally, Ellis v. Canada (Office of the Prime Minister), 2001 SKQB 378 (CanLII), 2001 SKQB 378 at paras. 23-27, 210 Sask.R. 138, affirmed 2002 SKCA 35 (CanLII), 2002 SKCA 35, 112 A.C.W.S. (3d) 849 comments on an OPCA litigant's attempt to use the common law ''Petition of Right'' cause of action, which has been abolished by legislation; see also Winningham v. Canada.
  4. The Inherent Authority of Provincial Superior Courts
  [351] OPCA litigants and gurus often claim that they are, somehow, not subject to Canadian law (common law and legislation) and the authority of the courts in this nation to enforce that law. They are, of course, wrong, but it is helpful to explain why.
  a. Superior Courts of Inherent Jurisdiction
  [352] The courts in Canada are a separate, distinct, and independent branch of government. In Ref re Remuneration of Judges of the Prov. Court of P.E.I.; Ref re Independence and Impartiality of Judges of the Prov. Court of P.E.I., 1997 CanLII 317 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3, 150 D.L.R. (4th) 577, Lamer C.J.C concluded that the independent character of this and other Canadian courts flows from unwritten constitutional principles that have been inherited from the U.K. (para. 83) and are a separate and essential constitutional aspect of government, ''definitional to the Canadian understanding of constitutionalism'' (para. 108).
  [353] The authority of this Court, like other superior courts of inherent jurisdiction, does not flow from legislation, as does, for example, the Provincial Court of Alberta. Rather, this Court has inherited that jurisdiction as a successor to the English Royal Courts. Canada (Attorney General) v. Law Society of British Columbia; Jabour v. Law Society of British Columbia, 1982 CanLII 29 (SCC), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 307, 137 D.L.R. (3d) 1 explains this Court's genealogy:
  ... The provincial superior courts have always occupied a position of prime importance in the constitutional pattern of this country. They are the descendants of the Royal Courts of Justice as courts of general jurisdiction. ...
  [354] That heritage reaches to the very foundation of an independent judiciary:
  ... ''Superior Court'' is to be construed historically, and that ... it connotes a court having an inherent jurisdiction, in England, to administer justice according to the law, as and being a part of, or descended from, and as exercising part of the power of, the Aula Regia, established by William the First, which had universal jurisdiction in all matters of right and wrong throughout the kingdom, and over which, in its early days, the King presided in person.
  (Daniel Greenberg, Stroud's Judicial Dictionary Words & Phrases, 7th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2006)).
  [355] That history and its associated authority is described in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canadian Liberty Net, 1998 CanLII 818 (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626 at para. 26, 137 D.L.R. (3d) 1 this manner:
  ... The notion of inherent jurisdiction has developed from the role of provincial superior courts in Canada's legal system. The unique historical feature of provincial superior courts, as opposed to the Federal Court, is that they have traditionally exercised general jurisdiction over all matters of a civil or criminal nature. This general jurisdictional function in the Canadian justice system precedes Confederation, and was expressly continued by s. 129 of the Constitution Act, 1867, "as if the Union had not been made". ... [Emphasis added.]
  [356] The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench and similar Courts are now Canadian courts, but these superior courts of inherent jurisdiction are the successors to earlier English colonial courts that predate Confederation: Valin v. Langlois (1879), 3 S.C.R. 1 at 19'‘20. In Alberta, that 'inheritance' was expressly indicated in the legislation that created this province: The Alberta Act, 1905, 4'‘5 Edw. VII, c. 3, s. 16(1). The general authority that this court inherited is restated in the Supreme Court Act of Alberta, S.A. 1907, c. 3, s. 9:
  ... the jurisdiction which on July 15, 1870, was vested in, or capable of being exercised in England by (1.) the High Court of Chancery, as a Common Law Court, as well as a Court of Equity, including the jurisdiction of the Master of the Rolls as a judge or Master of the Court of Chancery, and any jurisdiction exercised by him in relation to the Court of Chancery as a common law Court; (2.) The Court of Queen's Bench; (3.) The Court of Common Pleas at Westminster; (4.) The Court of Exchequer as a Court of Revenue as well as a Common Law Court; (5.) The Court of Probate; (6.) The Court created by Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer, and of Gaol Delivery, or of any of such Commissions.
  [357] Inherent jurisdiction has two relevant aspects: procedural and subject matter.
  b. Procedural Jurisdiction
  [358] A commonly cited description of that procedural authority is provided by I.H. Jacob, ''The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court'' (1970) 23 Current Legal Problems 23:
  ... the superior courts of common law have exercised the power which has come to be called "inherent jurisdiction" from the earliest times, and . . . the exercise of such power developed along two paths, namely, by way of punishment for contempt of court and of its process, and by way of regulating the practice of the court and preventing the abuse of its process.
  ...
  For the essential character of a superior court of law necessarily involves that it should be invested with a power to maintain its authority and to prevent its process being obstructed and abused. Such a power is intrinsic in a superior court; it is its very life'‘blood, its very essence, its immanent attribute. Without such a power, the court would have form but would lack substance. The jurisdiction which is inherent in a superior court of law is that which enables it to fulfil itself as a court of law. The juridical basis of this jurisdiction is therefore the authority of the judiciary to uphold, to protect and to fulfil the judicial function of administering justice according to law in a regular, orderly and effective manner. [Emphasis added.]
  [359] That passage has been quoted with approval by the Supreme Court of Canada on a number of occasions: B.C.G.E.U. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 1988 CanLII 3 (SCC), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214, 53 D.L.R. (4th) 1; R. v. Morales, 1992 CanLII 53 (SCC), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711, 144 N.R. 176; R. v. Hinse, 1995 CanLII 54 (SCC), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 597, 130 D.L.R. (4th) 54; MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson, 1995 CanLII 57 (SCC), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 725, 130 D.L.R. (4th) 385.
  [360] R. v. Gillespie, 2000 MBCA 1, 185 D.L.R. (4th) 214 includes some interesting comments on the scope of the general authority in a courtroom setting:
  21 To enable a judge to fulfil his or her adjudicative function, a judge has authority to maintain order and control process in the courtroom. A judge might order a witness yelling at him or her to desist. A judge might require counsel to disclose the general nature of the contents of a briefcase. Or a judge might order a person bringing a potential weapon into the courtroom to remove it. Each such order would be incidental to the exercise by the judge of primary jurisdiction and would be enforceable by the threat of punishment.
  22 A good example of a judge exercising such incidental or auxiliary jurisdiction is R. v. Hothi et al. reflex, (1985), 33 Man.R. (2d) 180 (Q.B.); aff'd reflex, (1985) 35 Man.R. (2d) 159 (C.A.). In that case, the jurisdiction of a judge trying a criminal case to require the removal of kirpans (ceremonial daggers with religious significance) from the courtroom was upheld on the ground that they were possible weapons. Dewar C.J.Q.B. said (at 33 Man.R. (2d), para. 7):
  The ruling serves a transcending public interest that justice be administered in an environment free from any influence which may tend to thwart the process. Possession in the courtroom of weapons, or articles capable of use as such, by parties or others is one such influence. [Emphasis added.]
  [361] A person who purports to dictate when and how a Canadian court shall operate that court's inherent procedural jurisdiction. In Canada, there is no right by a litigant or any other person to advance that claim or engage in that kind of conduct. The judge, and no one else, rules the court.
  c. Subject Jurisdiction
  [362] A superior court of inherent jurisdiction has a special general jurisdiction in substantive as well as procedural law. It is a clear and well'‘understood principle of Canadian law that where a person has a right in law, there must exist some tribunal where that right may be exercised and defended. If no other court has been assigned authority to address a particular kind of legal action or subject matter, then that authority falls to the superior courts of inherent jurisdiction.
  [363] The Supreme Court of Canada considered this inherent substantial jurisdiction of provincial superior courts in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canadian Liberty Net, 1998 CanLII 818 (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626 at para. 32:
  The notion of ''inherent jurisdiction'' arises from the presumption that if there is a justiciable right, then there must be a court competent to vindicate the right ... the doctrine of inherent jurisdiction requires that only an explicit ouster of jurisdiction should be allowed to deny jurisdiction to the superior court. [Emphasis added.]
  [364] The Privy Counsel, then the highest court of Canada, commented on the authority of the precursor to the present Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in Board v. Board, [1919] A.C. 956 (P.C.). At pp. 962-963 the Court concluded:
  ... a well'‘known rule makes it plain that the language there used ought to be interpreted as not excluding the jurisdiction. If the right exists, the presumption is that there is a Court which can enforce it, for if no other mode of enforcing it is prescribed, that alone is sufficient to give jurisdiction to the King's Courts of justice. In order to oust jurisdiction, it is necessary, in the absence of a special law excluding it altogether, to plead that jurisdiction exists in some other Court. This is the effect of authorities . . . [The Alberta] Act set up a Superior Court, and it is the rule as regards presumption of jurisdiction in such a Court that, as stated by Willes J. in London Corporation v. Cox ((1867) L.R., 2 H.L. 239, 259), nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a Superior Court, but that which specially appears to be so. [Emphasis added.]
  [365] Canada's constitution authorizes the Provincial and the Federal governments to create courts in addition to the superior courts 'inherited' from the period of direct British rule. The Tax Court of Canada, the various provincial courts, the military courts, and the federal courts are examples of these 'statutory' courts. In certain instances a statutory court has been granted sole jurisdiction for a particular subject or a part thereof, such as authority granted in the Tax Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T'‘2. The Tax Court of Canada:
  ... has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine references and appeals to the Court on matters arising under ... the Income Tax Act ... where references or appeals to the Court are provided for in those Acts. [Emphasis added.]
  That means the Tax Court of Canada is the Court that interprets the Income Tax Act, and determines the amount that a taxpayer owes. Other tax-related processes, such collection of outstanding tax and criminal prosecution for evasion of income, fall into the jurisdiction of the superior courts, see for example: Porisky Trial Decision.
  [366] Assigning jurisdiction to a statutory court has the effect of removing that aspect of this Court's general authority, see Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canadian Liberty Net for a more detailed review of this concept. Suffice to say that a person's right to approach a Canadian court for recourse is generally not a question of ''is there a court?'' but rather ''which court can hear this subject?''
  [367] There are, nevertheless, certain limits. Some subjects are simply not justiciable, for example government policy decisions: Operation Dismantle v. The Queen, 1985 CanLII 74 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441, 18 D.L.R. (4th) 481.
  [368] The inherent jurisdiction of Canadian courts cannot be defeated by Parliament and the provincial legislatures. Administrative tribunals are sometimes 'protected' by what are called ''privative clauses'', legislative provisions that say that all or part of a decision of that tribunal is final. For example, in Pasiechnyk v. Saskatchewan (Workers' Compensation Board), 1997 CanLII 316 (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 890, 149 D.L.R. (4th) 577 the Supreme Court of Canada evaluated the effect of a privative clause that read:
  The decision and finding of the board under this Act upon all questions of fact and law are final and conclusive and no proceedings by or before the board shall be restrained by injunction, prohibition or other proceeding or removable by certiorari or otherwise in any court.
  [369] That did not stop the courts. As Justice Sopinka observed at para. 16:
  A legislature cannot completely insulate a tribunal from the superintending and reforming power of the superior courts.
  See also Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 (CanLII), 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 at para. 31.
  [370] This fact is why the majority of OPCA arguments can never succeed. There is always a court, though perhaps not this one, that has jurisdiction over these litigants and their activities. They cannot opt out. All arguments that invoke 'immunity' and indeed any schemes that claim a person can possess or acquire a status that allows them to ignore court authority are incorrect in law. I note this authority is a phenomenon that flows from the historical development of constitutional government, and is therefore an aspect of the common law so often stressed by OPCA litigants and gurus.
  [371] As is made expressly clear in Board v. Board and Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canadian Liberty Net: for every injury there is a forum to grant the appropriate remedy. A superior court of inherent jurisdiction, such as the Court of Queen's Bench, has the jurisdiction to address any Alberta matter that has not been delegated to another statutory court. The inherent authority of a provincial Superior Court is therefore very broad indeed.
  [372] OPCA litigants also fail to appreciate that this inherent jurisdiction is adaptive, and 'expands' into any aspects of Canadian legal existence that are not explicitly allocated to another court. In Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., 1996 CanLII 215 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 495, 136 D.L.R. (4th) 289 McLachlin J. (as she then was) confirmed at para. 5 that provincial superior courts had authority to grant an interlocutory injunction in labour disputes, even though labour agreements are considered a complete code, and even where that injunction did not relate to a cause of action that would be heard in a provincial superior court (at para. 17). Justice McLachlin observed that this authority flows from that fact that the labour agreement provided ''no adequate alternative remedy'' (at para. 6), and it was this gap in an otherwise complete scheme that gave the court inherent jurisdiction.
  [373] This adaptive facet of inherent jurisdiction goes so far as to allow this Court to intrude, when necessary, into domains that would appear to have been allocated to a statutory court. The Alberta Court of Appeal in 783783 Alberta Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2010 ABCA 226 (CanLII), 2010 ABCA 226 at paras. 24-28, 322 D.L.R. (4th) 56 concluded this Court had jurisdiction to interpret and apply the Income Tax Act, if that was necessary for a given case. Similarly, Thomas J. concluded he may examine Indian band counsel activities, despite the jurisdiction assigned to the Federal Court by the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F'‘7, s. 18: 1985 Sawridge Trust v. Alberta (Public Trustee), 2012 ABQB 365 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 365 at paras. 50-54.
  d. Inherent Jurisdiction vs. OPCA Strategies and Concepts
  [374] The inherent jurisdiction of Canada's superior courts defeats almost all OPCA pseudolegal strategies. No person can claim to be outside court authority because they are subject to no court or law, or a restricted kind of law. No 'magic hat' can ever create an exemption from court supervision. All these arguments are defective and fail as a consequence.
  [375] For a moment, let us imagine that an OPCA guru were to discover some new realm or aspect of law. Novel developments are not unknown. For example the last quarter century has seen many innovations with potentially profound legal effects, including the advent of electronic communications and genetic material as form of property. What would be the effect? Once identified, that legal domain would necessarily become a part of the jurisdiction of some Canadian court, and typically that would mean that the jurisdiction of this court would necessarily expand to include this new facet or aspect of law, unless and until it was statutorily grants to another court.
  [376] I am aware of one attempt by an OPCA guru, Frank O'Collins, to 'invent' a new and total code of law. This person, whom I understand is an Australian, has published what he calls ''Divine Canon Law'', the law that governs persons in the ''One Heaven Society of United Free States of Spirits''. At least one Alberta OPCA litigant has claimed to be subject to only this ''Divine Canon Law''. Does this defeat the inherent jurisdiction of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench? Of course not. While I strongly question that a person could bind themselves and society to abide by some distinct legal scheme that trumps the common law and statute, success would still leave that person subject to the scrutiny and supervision of this court.
  [377] In summary, when a litigant claims he or she has found themselves in the wrong court, then that is a potentially valid question of jurisdiction. However, a litigant is wrong in law if they say that, at this time, they choose to not be subject to any Canadian court, unless they claim that the subject in dispute is the jurisdiction of another tribunal, such as an arbitrator, or the courts of a different national or provincial jurisdiction. A defence with that basis may be struck without further analysis. A denial of court authority on that basis should be ignored.
  [378] The nature and jurisdiction of Canadian courts, globally, defeats all the OPCA strategies and concepts identified and reviewed in these Reasons, including the 'obligation requires agreement', 'double/split person', and 'unilateral agreements' categories discussed below. The exceptions are the 'money for nothing' schemes that I will review at a later point. The superior court's inherent jurisdiction is a single basis that may be adopted and applied by any Justice who faces a novel OPCA strategy, if that argument, at its core, reduces, subverts, or denies court authority.
  B. Obligation Requires Agreement
  [379] A second common OPCA litigation category is grounded in a belief that all legally enforceable rights require that a person agree to be subject to those obligations. This strategy takes two closely related forms:
  1. every binding legal obligation emerges from a contract, and
  2. consent is required before an obligation can be enforced.
  [380] Persons who advance this concept extend it to interactions between state actors, including Canada and the provinces, and individual persons. This is a kind of 'magic hat'; the OPCA litigant says he or she has not agreed to be governed or subject to court authority, and the OPCA litigant is therefore allegedly immune.
  [381] Sometimes OPCA litigants and gurus express this global concept as that they only engage in commerce; this seems to be an attempt to declare that any interaction between persons and/or state actors is a contract. This may explain the curious but common manner in which I find myself addressed in OPCA correspondence, ''John Rooke, carrying out business as Associate Chief Justice John Rooke''.
  1. Defeating Legislation
  [382] A necessary first step in any 'everything is a contract' or 'consent is required' scheme is that the OPCA litigant develop a mechanism that denies a unilateral obligation can arise from legislation.
  [383] Some OPCA litigants argue they have opted out of legislated obligations: Sydorenko v. Manitoba, 2012 MBQB 42 (CanLII), 2012 MBQB 42 at paras. 17-18. Others simply claim consent is required, otherwise legislation is a set of optional guidelines: Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. Bydeley, 2010 ONCJ 740 (CanLII), 2010 ONCJ 740 at para. 56, affirmed 2011 ONCJ 842, affirmed [2011] O.J. No. 6282 (QL) (Ont. C.A.); Bank of Montreal v. McCance, 2012 ABQB 537 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 537 at para. 29.
  [384] Another OPCA approach is to argue that a court or government actor is a corporation and therefore only has the rights of a corporation: Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union,2006 BCSC 1324 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1324 at para. 37, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309. The result is a claim that legislation has no more special meaning than any unilateral declaration. A telltale indication of this scheme is that a litigant files corporate registry documents for Canada, a province, or a municipality. For some reason, many OPCA litigants claim Canada is a ''municipal corporation domiciled in the District of Columbia''.
  [385] Others wear a 'magic hat' that they say makes them immune from legislation, and only subject to the common law (which, as noted above, is often an aberrant definition of that category of law). In Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union,2006 BCSC 1324 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1324 at para. 39, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309 the 'magic hat' was being a ''free will full liability person'' under ''Anglo-Saxon Common Law''. Freemen-on-the-Land take a similar approach: Harper v. Atchison, 2011 SKQB 38 (CanLII), 2011 SKQB 38 at paras. 6, 15, 369 Sask.R. 134, see also Szoo v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police), 2011 BCSC 696 (CanLII), 2011 BCSC 696, and Jabez Financial Services Inc. (Receiver of) v. Sponagle, 2008 NSSC 112 (CanLII), 2008 NSSC 112 at paras. 14, 18, 264 N.S.R. (2d) 224; Summerland (District) v. No Strings Enterprises Ltd., 2003 BCSC 990 (CanLII), 2003 BCSC 990 at para. 19, 124 A.C.W.S. (3d) 39, leave denied 2004 BCCA 360 (CanLII), 2004 BCCA 360, 131 A.C.W.S. (3d) 994.
  [386] Similarly, Detaxer gurus such as Warman and Lindsay have argued the that Magna Carta operates in a constitutional manner and invalidates legislation: R. v. Lindsay, 2008 BCCA 30 (CanLII), 2008 BCCA 30 at paras. 19-21, 250 B.C.A.C. 270; see also R. v. Warman, 2001 BCCA 510 (CanLII), 2001 BCCA 510 at paras. 9-10, 13-14.
  [387] Of course, any other 'magic hat' or alleged defect that negates state authority would have the same effect. That is a reason why OPCA litigants have often focussed on some arcane flaw that collapses state authority, for example the alleged defect in Queen Elizabeth II's coronation oath (R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 (CanLII), 2011 BCCA 99 at paras. 31-32, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265), or a flaw in the appointment of Governor Generals after passage of the 1931 Statute of Westminster (R. v. Dick, 2001 BCPC 275 (CanLII), 2001 BCPC 275; R. v. Lindsay, 2004 MBCA 147 (CanLII), 2004 MBCA 147 at para. 32, 187 Man.R. (2d) 236).
  2. Everything is a Contract
  [388] An OPCA litigant may argue he or she has no obligation unless the litigant has explicitly formed a contract for that obligation. In Canada this argument has frequently been advanced in an income tax context: R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 (CanLII), 2011 BCCA 99 at para. 31, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265; R. v. Pinno, 2002 SKPC 118 (CanLII), 2002 SKPC 118 at paras. 12-13, 21, 2002 SKPC 118 (CanLII), [2003] 3 C.T.C. 308; Banilevic v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2002 SKQB 371 (CanLII), 2002 SKQB 371 at para. 10, 117 A.C.W.S. (3d) 549; Bruno v. Canada, 2000 BCSC 190 (CanLII), 2000 BCSC 190 at para. 34, 2000 BCSC 190 (CanLII), [2000] 2 C.T.C. 16, affirmed 2002 BCCA 47 (CanLII), 2002 BCCA 47, 162 B.C.A.C. 293; Turnnir v. The Queen, 2011 TCC 495 (CanLII), 2011 TCC 495 at paras. 5, 8; Sandri v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 CanLII 44282 (ON SC), 2009 CanLII 44282 at paras. 6,13, 179 A.C.W.S. (3d) 811 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union,2006 BCSC 1324 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1324 at para. 37, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309.
  [389] An interesting variation on this approach was made by Porisky, who at trial argued that if he did not want any government services, then he ought not be obliged to pay income tax: Porisky Trial Decision at para. 66. Though not expressed in quite that manner, Porisky seems to argue that he should not be bound in the 'income tax contract' as he has not received any consideration from the government.
  [390] In yet another variation of the 'everything is a contract' concept, a person attempt to sever all 'contractual relationships' with the state; success would presumably defeat all government authority. R. v. Pinno, 2002 SKPC 118 (CanLII), 2002 SKPC 118 at paras. 22, 2002 SKPC 118 (CanLII), [2003] 3 C.T.C. 308 provides an example where an OPCA litigant sent the Canada Revenue Agency a ''constructive notice'' that included this statement:
  ... I further learned that I have been deceptively induced by Revenue Canada's propaganda into making a supposed contract by filing an income tax return, thus changing my status to "taxpayer" which makes me subject to the income tax by that supposed contract. ...
  The litigant then 'revoked and voided' the income tax contract, and demanded a refund: para. 13.
  [391] R. v. Sargent, 2004 ONCJ 356 (CanLII), 2004 ONCJ 356 at paras. 40-41, 2004 ONCJ 356 (CanLII), [2005] 1 C.T.C. 448 and Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union,2006 BCSC 1324 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1324 at para. 37, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309 report a similar strategy. A similar scheme appears to have been advanced by a Freeman-on-the-Land in R. v. McCormick, 2012 NSSC 288 (CanLII), 2012 NSSC 288 to withdraw from a ''social contract'' with the state: paras. 28-32.
  [392] An OPCA litigant may also attempt to use the right of contract as a shield. For example, in Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union,2006 BCSC 1324 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1324 at para. 9, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309 an OPCA litigant challenged the court's authority to refuse representation by an OPCA guru because:
  The court has no jurisdiction to interfere or make void any private agreement I may have with other men for such is my inalienable right as a free man.
  [393] The OPCA litigant in Sandri v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 CanLII 44282 (ON SC), 2009 CanLII 44282 at para. 10, 179 A.C.W.S. (3d) 811 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.) took his defence one step further:
  I (the Plaintiff) state and the fact is that according to Contract Law there is no Queen who has any authority over me; however, I have complete authority over the aforesaid monarch by Contract Law. I am lord. The aforesaid monarch has authority only over those who give her authority and in turn, all those who have done so, by default give me authority. I am ONLY a beneficiary to the contracts that compose the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982. It is a TRUST and the ''queen'' therein stated is my lieutenant, or in other words, my helper. By law, she is compelled to obey me.
  [394] Sometimes OPCA litigants claim that their interaction with the court is a contract. For example, the OPCA litigant in Borkovic v. Laurentian Bank of Canada, 2001 BCSC 337 (CanLII), 2001 BCSC 337 at paras. 4-12, 103 A.C.W.S. (3d) 700 argued he had 'purchased' a trial date by paying a court filing fee. The litigant then purported to direct court procedure: paras. 13-16.
  [395] OPCA litigants who adopt this scheme tend to identify practically any state document, even a driver's license or a birth certificate, as a contract. CERI members explain that is the reason why they do not use driver's licenses or license plates. They argue, in effect, that they do not wish to be in a contract with the state, and should be able to engage in activities, for example operation of a motor vehicle, without being bound to the state in that manner.
  [396] These persons go to great lengths to scour away all 'contractual' links, expecting that at some point the state's authority will evaporate. The 'everything is a contract' concept may also emerge in a court context in another way. A OPCA litigant may, for example, demand to know whether the court is offering to enter into a contract with a litigant, or the terms of the contract between the court and the OPCA litigant.
  [397] Mr. Meads clearly adheres to the 'everything is a contract' concept. In his March 3, 2011 ''""Good Faith Notice"" in the Nature of an Affidavit'', Mr. Meads says that a telephone call and a follow-up email from an Audrey Hardwick, who seems to have been the assistant to Ms. Meads' then counsel, was an ''Enticement into Slavery''. I am presuming here that 'enticement into slavery' is simply a particularly dramatic expression for contract obligation. Notice how simple receipt of communications is interpreted as a potential contract.
  [398] Later in the same document Mr. Meads adds:
  Please take ''Notice'''' that should you Audrey Hardwick/AUDREY HARDWICK and or Audrey Hardwick/AUDREY HARDWICK make the any or the all attempt at a ''Novation'' of this ''Good Faith Notice'' will be accepted as an admission of your ''Attempt at Enticement into Slavery by you and yourselves and that of the LAW FIRM ''RESOLVE LAW'' [sic]
  Now Mr. Meads is attempting to diffuse the possibility that his reply letter could form a contract in some manner.
  [399] Still later on in this same document is the following:
  ''Using a Notary Public with this document does not create an adhesion contract with the any-state /province, nor does it alter my status in any manner for the claim is for the use only-for the verification of the identification-purposes, there-for this ''''Good Faith Notice'''' is the Nature of an Affidavit is with the lack of the claim of the foreign jurisdiction.'' [sic.]
  [400] Once again, Mr. Meads is attempting to pre-empt formation of a contract. An analogous disclaimer in materials my office has received from an OPCA litigant read:
  Attention: {The use of a Notary is for attestation and verification purposes only and does not constitute a change in status, entrance, or acceptance of foreign or domestic jurisdiction.} [Emphasis in original.]
  [401] Interestingly, this seems to be the only instance where Mr. Meads saw notarization in this potentially dangerous light. Many of Mr. Meads' June 19 and 21 documents also have been notarized, and some are directed to specific government officials, but Mr. Meads does not include the March 3, 2011 disclaimer. Consistency is not a strong point in OPCA litigant conduct.
  [402] The August 27, 2012 filings by Mr. Meads continue this theme. He states that Ms. Reeves has made ''... an offer to Contract and/or Enticement of Slavery (Title 18 United States Code and/or Article 4 Universal Declaration of Human Rights) ...''.
  [403] Similarly at the June 8 hearing, when I made proposals to address disclosure by Ms. Meads, Mr. Meads responded with alarm: ''You are enticing me into slavery.''
  [404] Earlier he alleged the same in response to activities by Ms. Reeves:
  I do not want to be enticed into slavery, sir. She contacts me, her other lawyer contacted me, they are enticing me into contract. And I do not want to go there. I just want to be left alone.
  3. Consent is Required
  [405] A second common variant of the 'obligation requires agreement' category is a belief that a person is immune if they simply say they have not consented to be subject to the law and the courts. Of course, this concept has not met with success: R. v. Jennings, 2007 ABCA 45 (CanLII), 2007 ABCA 45 at para. 6; Hajdu v. Ontario (Director, Family Reponsibility Office), 2012 ONSC 1835 (CanLII), 2012 ONSC 1835 at paras. 25, 29; see also Jabez Financial Services Inc. (Receiver of) v. Sponagle, 2008 NSSC 112 (CanLII), 2008 NSSC 112 at paras. 14, 18, 264 N.S.R. (2d) 224; Szoo v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police), 2011 BCSC 696 (CanLII), 2011 BCSC 696 at paras. 17, 45.
  [406] Sometimes this motif emerges in documentary form. For example, this Court has received issued court orders stamped and returned with various messages, such as:
  *** ALL CONSENT DENIED ***
  RETURNED FOR CAUSE
  OFFER REJECTED FOR
  1. THIRD PARTY INTERFERENCE
  2. BREACH OF CONTRACT
  3. BREACH OF TRUST
  4. BREACH OF CRIMINAL CODES OF CANADA
  5. COMMERCIAL IMPROPRIETY
  6. EXTRA JURISDICTIONAL
  7. DEEMED UNLAWFULLY VEXATIOUS
  8. DEEMED WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT
  Of course, that had no effect.
  [407] Various 'magic hats' may allegedly provide a basis for that declaration of immunity. Courts have encountered claims that Freeman-on-the-Land status (Harper v. Atchison, 2011 SKQB 38 (CanLII), 2011 SKQB 38 at paras. 6, 15, 369 Sask.R. 134; Szoo v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police), 2011 BCSC 696 (CanLII), 2011 BCSC 696), or the Magna Carta (Harper v. Atchison, 2011 SKQB 38 (CanLII), 2011 SKQB 38 at paras. 9-15, 369 Sask.R. 134; R. v. Jebbett, 2003 BCCA 69 (CanLII), 2003 BCCA 69, 180 B.C.A.C. 21; Winningham v. Canada) nullifies government or court authority.
  [408] In R. v. McCormick, 2012 NSSC 150 (CanLII), 2012 NSSC 150 at para. 9 an OPCA litigant argued the Freeman-on-the-Land 'magic hat' immunized against criminal sanction; see also R. v. McCormick, 2012 NSSC 288 (CanLII), 2012 NSSC 288 at paras. 28-32. Naturally, that did not work. As Justice Moir observed in R. v. McCormick, 2012 NSSC 288 (CanLII), 2012 NSSC 288 at para. 32: ''[t]his teaching is not only wrong in the sense that it is false. It is wrongful. That is, it is full of wrong.''
  [409] A foisted unilateral contract can be an alleged basis for non-consent. One this Court has received concluded:
  NULL APPEARANCE. As a private non-belligerent without the Canada or United States, I do not consent to a general appearance now and/or in perpetuity, and none can be assumed without a conversion of personal liability. No grant of in rem or in personam jurisdiction is expressed or implied. No chose in action is expressed or implied on behalf of the Defendant/Debtor or any legal fiction, juristic personality or ens legis artificial person. I do not intend, nor will I, argue the merits, facts or law, represent the Defendant/Debtor, request any action that would imply a cause is properly pending, or engage in any controversy. [Emphasis in original.]
  The cryptic ''without the Canada or United States'' language relates to an alleged earlier deeming provision that set the litigant outside those countries, even when he was physically inside those countries. See also R. v. Boisjoli, 2012 ABQB 556 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 556 at paras. 44-48.
  [410] As with the 'all relationships are contracts' variant, OPCA litigants seem to see 'consent' emerging from very mundane activities. They may, for example, refuse to advance past the bar in a courtroom because that would 'consent' to court authority: Canada v. Galbraith, 2001 BCSC 675 (CanLII), 2001 BCSC 675 at paras. 25-29, 54 W.C.B. (2d) 504; Mercedes'‘Benz Financial v. Kovacevic, 2009 CanLII 9368 (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 783 at para. 8, 2009 CanLII 9368 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.). The same reasoning leads this category of OPCA litigant to refuse to plead guilty or not-guilty, or to disobey an instruction to sit or stand.
  4. Conclusion - Obligation Requires Agreement
  [411] A claim that the relationship between an individual and the state is always one of contract is clearly incorrect. Aspects of that relationship may flow from mutual contract (for example a person or corporation may be hired by the government to perform a task such as road maintenance), but the state has the right to engage in unilateral action, subject to the Charter, and the allocation and delegation of government authority.
  [412] Similarly, my authority over this dispute is not subject to the agreement or consent of either party. It flows from the inherent authority of this court, as shaped by legislation.
  [413] Either branch of the 'obligation requires agreement' OPCA strategy category seeks unsuccessfully to deny court authority, and operationally is an attempt by an OPCA litigant to restrict the scope of state and court jurisdiction.
  5. Court Misconduct by'Everything is a Contract' and'Consent is Required' Litigants
  [414] OPCA litigants who use 'consent' and 'contract' approaches are often difficult courtroom participants. These persons may be highly disruptive as they attempt to avoid any step or action that they apparently fear might create a contract, or acknowledge consent. They may refuse to comply with practically any request by a judge or court official on that basis. That is a possible explanation for Mr. Meads' premature exit. If he had waited until I completed the hearing, he arguably would have 'consented' to my authority. This kind of belief is not atypical of the distorted perspective of 'obligation requires agreement' OPCA litigants.
  [415] 'Non-consent' may be indicated by a mantra-like non-reply to all court comments, for example the curious Moorish Law phrase ''I accept that for value and consideration and honour'' (see Henry v. El, 2010 ABCA 312 (CanLII), 2010 ABCA 312 at para. 3, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 138), see also: Mercedes'‘Benz Financial v. Kovacevic, 2009 CanLII 9368 (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 783 at para. 51, 2009 CanLII 9368 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.)). Mr. Meads' did not engage in a 'mantra response', but still showed a clear apprehension that our exchange in the June 8 hearing could result in what he appeared to believe would be a contract.
  [416] There is no obvious or simple way to address persons who believe obligation may emerge from the most trivial of conduct, other than to perhaps emphasize the inherent jurisdiction of the courts means that the OPCA litigant is subject to court authority, no matter what the litigant may think or say. Admittedly, that explanation will not likely be welcomed, and may well fall on deaf ears. However, the failure of an OPCA litigant to obey the Court's lawful orders cannot be a judicial excuse to not grant and enforce the law.
  C. Double/Split Persons
  [417] A strange but common OPCA concept is that an individual can somehow exist in two separate but related states. This confusing concept is expressed in many different ways. The 'physical person' is one aspect of the duality, the other is a non-corporeal aspect that has many names, such as a ''strawman'', a ''corporation'', a ''corporate entity'', a ''corporate fiction'', a ''dead corporation'', a ''dead person'', an ''estate'', a ''legal person'', a ''legal fiction'', an ''artificial entity'', a ''procedural phantom'', ''abandoned paper work'', a ''slave name'' or ''slave person'', or a ''juristic person''.
  [418] Many OPCA nomenclature schemes relate to this duality. For example, the 'lower case' vs. 'upper case' name pairs indicates the 'physical person' and 'non-corporeal aspect', respectively. When ''::Dennis-Larry: Meads::'' says he acts ''on behalf of DENNIS LARRY MEADS (juristic person)'', he appears to indicate he believes he has two separate aspects, and that the man in the courtroom (''::Dennis-Larry: Meads::'') is representing his other half (''DENNIS LARRY MEADS (juristic person)''). Other times OPCA litigants say they are ''agents'', ''trustees'', ''owners'', ''representatives'' or ''secured party'' for their other aspect: Hajdu v. Ontario (Director, Family Reponsibility Office), 2012 ONSC 1835 (CanLII), 2012 ONSC 1835; Canada v. Galbraith, 2001 BCSC 675 (CanLII), 2001 BCSC 675 at paras. 26-28, 54 W.C.B. (2d) 504; Turnnir v. The Queen, 2011 TCC 495 (CanLII), 2011 TCC 495 at paras. 5-6; Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union,2006 BCSC 1324 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1324 at para. 37, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309; Canada (Minister of National Revenue '‘ M.N.R.) v. Stanchfield, 2009 FC 99 (CanLII), 2009 FC 99 at para. 27, 340 F.T.R. 150; Bank of Montreal v. McCance, 2012 ABQB 537 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 537 at para. 9; Services de financement TD inc. c. Michaud, 2011 QCCQ 14868 (CanLII), 2011 QCCQ 14868 at para. 6; this proceeding.
  [419] A particularly surreal variation on this theme is reported in Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union, 2006 BCSC 750 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 750 at para. 92, 151 A.C.W.S. (3d) 204, where the 'physical litigants' purported to intervene in the action against their 'non-corporeal aspects'. Justice Garson classified that attempt as ''unintelligible'' and struck the associated counterclaim: para. 93.
  [420] The 'dash colon' and 'family/clan/house of' motifs uniformly indicate the 'physical person' half of these double/split individuals. Other times the 'physical person' is called a ''natural person'' or is described as being ''flesh and blood'': Porisky Trial Decision; R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 (CanLII), 2011 BCCA 99, 302 B.C.A.C. 76, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 265; Mercedes'‘Benz Financial v. Kovacevic, 2009 CanLII 9368 (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 783, 2009 CanLII 9368 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); Mercedes'‘Benz Financial v. Kovacevic, 2009 CanLII 9368 (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 783 at para. 24, 2009 CanLII 9368 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.)). Mr. Meads adopts the latter kind of language, he (the physical litigant) is ''the living flesh and blood sentient-man''.
  [421] There are different explanations for the non-corporeal similarity. Some OPCA gurus promote the idea that this aspect is created by the state, burdened with legal obligations, then 'shackled' to the physical person. Other OPCA gurus present the non-corporeal aspect as a part of a person that can be split away, and then burdened with obligations and debts.
  [422] Of course, either approach is legally ineffectual. Canadian law does not provide for a person to have two aspects - this entire concept is yet another 'magic hat'. This fundamental misapprehension was eloquently explained by Justice Gauthier in Canada (Minister of National Revenue '‘ M.N.R.) v. Stanchfield, 2009 FC 99 (CanLII), 2009 FC 99 at paras. 17, 27, 340 F.T.R. 150:
  ... 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 ...
  [Emphasis added.]
  See also Canada (Minister of National Revenue '‘ M.N.R.) v. Camplin; M.N.R. v. Camplin, 2007 FC 183 (CanLII), 2007 FC 183 at paras. 8-9, 2007 FC 183 (CanLII), [2007] 2 C.T.C. 205; R. v. Lindsay, 2006 BCCA 150 (CanLII), 2006 BCCA 150 at para. 3, 265 D.L.R. (4th) 193; Mercedes'‘Benz Financial v. Kovacevic, [2009] O.J. No. 783 at paras. 40, 44-45, 2009 CanLII 9368 (ON SC), 2009 CanLII 9368 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); Turnnir v. The Queen,2011 TCC 495 (CanLII), 2011 TCC 495 at paras. 6, 8; Hajdu v. Ontario (Director, Family Reponsibility Office), 2012 ONSC 1835 (CanLII), 2012 ONSC 1835 at paras. 24-29; Ontario (Director, Family Responsibility Office) v. Boyle, [2006] O.J. No. 2181 (QL) at paras. 3-5, 149 A.C.W.S. (3d) 127 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.).
  [423] The answer is that, as Justice Gauthier observed, no matter whatever nomenclature the OPCA litigant wants to adopt to describe his 'other self', it is the person before the Court who is subject to its order.
  1. Unshackling the Strawman
  [424] Certain gurus see the non-corporeal half of a person as detrimental, a kind of parasitic conjoined legal twin, and believe the state and court can only affect that aspect of a person. Lindsay is a major proponent of this theory; he invites his followers to 'kill their strawman' and thereafter be free of any income tax obligation. These OPCA litigants will therefore refuse to acknowledge their non-corporeal aspect and its obligations: R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 (CanLII), 2011 BCCA 99 at para. 27, 302 B.C.A.C. 76; Canada (Minister of National Revenue '‘ M.N.R.) v. Stanchfield, 2009 FC 99 (CanLII), 2009 FC 99, 340 F.T.R. 150; Turnnir v. The Queen,2011 TCC 495 (CanLII), 2011 TCC 495 at paras. 6, 8; Porisky Trial Decision.
  [425] This objective can lead to very unusual OPCA litigant responses. For example, in reply to an action against ''FRED L. JAJCZAY'', the defendant responded:
  It is agreed by you in your private capacity with no dispute coming from you that my name, Fred L. Jajczay, is my private property; that I have never given permission or authority to any person, men or women to associate my name with a dead corporate entity; that the alteration of my name in any manner is fraud.
  [Emphasis in original.]
  The intended effect is that Jajczay is trying to deny affiliation with his all capital letters 'strawman'.
  [426] OPCA gurus often seem drawn to the sea, so it is perhaps unsurprising that one variant on this theme is that a newborn is issued a ''Berth Certificate'' that makes a person a ''passenger'' on the ''ship of state''. Instead of killing their 'strawman', these litigants emphasize they are ''on dry land'', and not subject to Admiralty law. They may ceremonially destroy or denounce their ''berth certificate''.
  [427] Mr. Meads appears to subscribe to an aspect of this theory. In court he explained how he was two persons, a ''corporate identity'' that was created by the state (or alternatively, me), and was subject to legislation and this court. That ''person'' had been involuntarily attached to his other aspect, his ''living flesh and blood sentient-man'' or ''soul''. He now rejects that association and the obligations that follow.
  2. Dividing Oneself
  [428] Mr. Meads also applied the other form of the OPCA 'divided/split person' concept, that these two linked imaginary personalities can interact with one another, and thereby structure a kind of inter-relationship. In Mercedes'‘Benz Financial v. Kovacevic, 2009 CanLII 9368 (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 783 at para. 14, 2009 CanLII 9368 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.), Justice Brown reproduces a ''most unusual'' contract:
  ... signed twice by Mr. Kovacevic: once in his capacity as ''secured'‘party, first'‘party'', and then again as ''debtor, second'‘party''.
  [429] Brown J. then at para. 15 summarizes the document's intended effect:
  It appears that by this document Mr. Kovacevic has attempted to split himself into two separate persons '' a ''flesh and blood living man'', and a ''juristic person\strawman\legal entity'' created by the Province of Ontario. If one takes the document at face value, then Mr. Kovacevic impliedly acknowledges that up until December 11, 2007 '' i.e. three months after he had purchased the Mercedes'‘Benz '‘ he was a ''juristic person''. He then attempts to transfer to his newly created ''flesh and blood living man'' all his property then owned. The document notably is silent as to what happened to the debt held at that time by the ''juristic person''.
  [430] He then concludes at para. 45:
  Of course this document has no legal effect. In the eyes of the law it is rubbish. However, when read together with the other documents created by Mr. Kovacevic it forms part of what I conclude to be a deliberate effort on his part to avoid payment of his debt obligations.
  [431] A similar strategy is reported in R. v. Crischuk, 2010 BCSC 716 (CanLII), 2010 BCSC 716 at paras. 41-45, affirmed 2010 BCCA 391 (CanLII), 2010 BCCA 391, 2010 D.T.C. 5141, where the litigant attempted to create a lien between two aspects of himself; see also Turnnir v. The Queen, 2011 TCC 495 (CanLII), 2011 TCC 495 at para. 6.
  [432] With that, I turn to the documents delivered by Mr. Meads on June 19 and 21. These are, I believe, the most complex set of 'intra-personal' contractual and trust relationships reported in a Canadian court. These are carefully formatted, impressive looking documents, and are obviously by the same author who composed the 'fee schedule' attached as Appendix ''A'' to these Reasons. These documents share much parallel, if not identical, language and format. For example, the ''Property List'' in the 'fee schedule' is also an element of other items.
  [433] I will briefly explain my interpretation of the intended operation of these documents.
  [434] As previously explained, Mr. Meads subscribes to the idea that the non-corporeal aspect of himself was created by the state (or alternatively by me, on June 8, 2012). He must believe he nevertheless has 'signing authority' over that other personality because in his ''power of attorney'' he, as ''DENNIS LARRY MEADS, Debtor and Grantor'', authorizes his ''attorney-in-fact'', ''Dennis-Larry: Meads, Secured Party Creditor'' total control over his affairs. Presumably, the 'corporate entity' is now a puppet for the physical person.
  [435] The UCC Financing Statement registered in Ohio for a Certificate of Birth purports to create or reflect a trust of ''DENNIS LARRY MEADS, foreign situs cestui qui vie trust'' in favour of ''Dennis-Larry:Meads, as Beneficiary of the Revested Trust''. The document continues:
  This is actual and constructive notice that all of Debtors interests now owned or hereafter acquired is hereby accepted as collateral for securing contractual obligations in favour of the Secured party as detailed in a true, complete notarized security agreement in the possession of the Secured party. Notice in accordance with UCC-Property- this is the entry of the debtor in the Commercial Registry as a transmitting utility and the following property is hereby registered in the same as public notice of a commercial transaction: Certificate of Birth Document #[...] [sic.]
  Translated out of 'gibberese', Mr. Meads is purportedly assigning the value of his birth certificate, a ''commercial transaction'' presumably with Canada, to his ''flesh and blood'' self.
  [436] The Alberta Personal Property Registry Verification Statement for ''DENNIS LARRY MEADS, foreign situs cestui qui vie trust'' presumably does the same for his a birth certificate, social insurance number, UCC1 financing statement, a certificate of marriage, a motor vehicle operator's license, Canadian passport, and several court orders.
  [437] The ''Commercial Security Agreement'', which is identified by the cryptic notation ''DLM042011960 SA 01 Registration # 11120912227'' purportedly promises that ''DENNIS LARRY MEADS, A LEGAL ENTITY'' assumes all debts and obligations of ''Dennis-Larry:Meads, a "Personam Sojourn and People of Posterity"'', while granting Dennis-Larry:Meads all his property. Similarly, the ''Hold Harmless and Indemnity Agreement Non Negotiable Between the Parties'' causes ''DEBTOR: DENNIS LARRY MEADS'' to generally indemnify ''CREDITOR: Care of Dennis-Larry Meads''.
  [438] This duplicates in general effect the analogous material advanced in Mercedes'‘Benz Financial v. Kovacevic: 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.
  3. In-Court Behaviour of the Divided Person
  [440] The in-court conduct of OPCA litigants who advance a double/split person approach can be confusing. They may ask to whom the court is talking. Or, like Mr. Meads, they may conclude that the court is addressing the ''person'' rather than the ''soul''.
  [441] Detaxer cases provide some examples of this kind of conduct. R. v. Turnnir, 2006 BCPC 460 (CanLII), 2006 BCPC 460 at para. 65 reports how the defendant referred to himself both as ''the taxpayer'' and ''the legal representative of the taxpayer''. During cross-examination when he was asked who signed a document; Turnnir replied: ''Who are you talking to?''
  [442] In Porisky Trial Decision at paras. 60-61, Judge Myers related this kind of dialogue:
  [60] ... Mr. Porisky said he could not make that decision unless he understood whether he was to give evidence in his ''inherent personality as a natural person with no intent to profit''. He wanted to tell the truth in the stand but the capacity he was to testify in would make a difference to his evidence. A few minutes later in the dialogue he said:
  I need to know if I make the decision to get into the stand, from which perspective can I speak? Like therefore I need to know, in the eyes of the law, if one man is two persons, the natural or the legal, okay, which one can I speak as, or does it matter '‘'‘ am I have the liberty to speak the truth and qualify it so I can speak to everything? Because what it '‘'‘ they have commingled a lot of stuff, and for me to properly address it, I'm going to have to be able to speak to everything to properly address it.
  And later:
  Again, I feel like I'm being railroaded because I'm asking for clear answers. I came here with a full intention on defending my '‘'‘ my rights and '‘'‘ and not having things being converted into something they're not, and I don't know how to do that if nobody's going to give me a straight answer. I thought Crown had a duty '‘'‘ I read their web page and they talk about honour and integrity, and now I'm been led one thing '‘'‘ and for me to speak to everything, I'm going to need to be able to speak to it from my starting point of my existence.
  I didn't make it up. Sir John Salmond I think is a highly respected man. The Supreme Court relies on him. I didn't make it up that one man's two persons in the eyes of the law. And so from that perspective, I need '‘'‘ that's why I tried to be as honourable and as open in the development of this, so that I could speak the truth and the whole truth from the proper perspective, so it does not get misconstrued or mislabelled or presumed to be something it's not. And that's what I need to know. If I make the decision and I go in that box, which person, in the eyes of the law am I?
  THE COURT: You are Mr. Porisky.
  THE ACCUSED PORISKY: Am I Russell Anthony Porisky in my inherent personality as a natural person, or am I a sovereign'‘granted personality?
  THE COURT: You're Russell Porisky.
  THE ACCUSED PORISKY: That's fairly misleading because that's not clear enough for me, Your Honour.
  ...
  THE COURT: '... Let's assume you get into the stand'... and the Crown asks you, "What did you have for breakfast today?" Would it make a difference as to what capacity you were in?
  THE ACCUSED PORISKY: For me, it would, Your Honour, yes.
  [443] Justice Midwinter in R. v. Kaasgaard, 2011 MBQB 256 (CanLII), 2011 MBQB 256 at para. 10 characterized the result as a ''... "song and dance" routine of Mr. Kaasgaard being present but not wanting to be identified ...''.
  [444] In this Court's experience that is an accurate characterization of these antics. Alberta courts have observed OPCA litigants, particularly Freemen-on-the-Land, allege the correct target of civil and criminal litigation is a piece of paper such as a birth certificate, rather than the person holding that document. There is no adequate way to describe the absurdity of that display.
  4. Conclusion - Double/Split Person Schemes
  [445] 'Double/split person' schemes have no legal effect. These schemes have no basis in law. There is only one legal identity that attaches to a person. If a person wishes to add a legal 'layer' to themselves, then a corporation is the proper approach. The interrelationship between corporation and owner, and the legal effect of that 'layer' is clearly established in common law and statute.
  [446] The 'double/split' person' strategies all have a common underlying kernel; that the OPCA litigant is not the person before the court, or is not subject to the court's jurisdiction. That allegedly falls on the other, non-corporeal (but otherwise similar) person. In other words, a litigant who advances a variation of this scheme says to the court 'you have no jurisdiction over me - the person you want is someone else.' That allegedly denies this Court's authority, but of course fails in effect.
  D. Unilateral Agreements
  [447] OPCA litigants frequently attempt to unilaterally foist obligations on other litigants, peace officers, state actors, or the court and court personnel. These foisted obligations take many forms. None, of course, creates any binding legal obligation. In that sense, these are yet more 'magic hats'.
  [448] Mr. Meads' June 19 and 21 materials includes a number of these unilateral foisted agreements:
  1. the ''Actual and Constructive Notice'' filed to the Board of Governors of the Bank of Canada;
  2. his 'fee schedule', that is attached to these Reasons as Appendix ''A''; and
  3. the ''Notice By Declaration and Affidavit of Consequences for Infringement of Copyright Trade-Name/Trademark'', that is attached to these Reasons as Appendix ''B''.
  The February 15, 2011 letter to Court worker Barbara Petryk, Clerk of the Court, that appoints her a fiduciary of ''::dennis-larry:meads::'' as a ''living flesh and blood sentient-man'' is another example of this kind of foisted unilateral agreement. The same is arguably true of the cover letter for Mr. Meads' June 19 and 21 packages.
  [449] Common examples of these foisted agreements purport to appoint someone a fiduciary, establish a contractual relationship or declare an OPCA person no longer has an obligation, such as to pay income tax. Some purport to unilaterally settle lawsuits or legal claims, without court direction. Others provide a system of predetermined fines.
  [450] Sometimes the unilateral agreement says that the recipient has a certain window of time to respond and disagree, otherwise they are held to have agreed to the terms of the unilateral agreement. That may be framed as a requirement that the recipient must rebut or prove themselves exempt from the foisted obligation. However, some foisted unilateral agreements do not even provide that courtesy, and instead allegedly indicate the recipient is bound, whether they like it or not.
  [451] Foisted unilateral agreements are almost always expressed in a documentary form. Many foisted unilateral agreements include dramatic language and warnings. For example, the 'fee schedule' employed by Mr. Meads states in startling large print:
  ATTENTION AND WARNING!
  THIS IS A LEGAL NOTICE AND DEMAND
  FIAT JUSTITIA, RUAT COELUM
  (Let right be done, though the heavens should fall)
  To: All Provincial, State, Federal and International Public Officials, by and through
  Province of Alberta, Lieutenant Governor, Donald S. Ethell and/or Governor General, David Lloyd Johnston
  TAKE NOTICE IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE
  THIS IS A CONTRACT IN ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
  Take a moment to read this before you proceed any further.
  I do not wish to speak to you under any circumstances excluding federal judicial review
  THIS TITLE IS FOR YOUR PROTECTION!
  [Styling in original, see Appendix ''A'' for a more precise reproduction of this document.]
  Later the 'fee schedule' sternly warns: ''IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE!''
  [452] Some foisted unilateral agreements are amateurish amalgams of different documents, cobbled together, while others may appear professional and authoritative to the layperson. These documents often feature spurious formalities such as notarial marks, witnessing, stamps, and seals.
  [453] OPCA gurus appear to have a large role in creating these documents. For example, this Court has repeatedly received identical or very similar versions of a particular unilateral foisted agreement, that only differ in personal information. In certain instances partially completed forms still show tags that indicate the original document was obtained in an electronic format, and then (partially) filled by the litigant using an automated script. I have previously noted these features in Mr. Meads' materials.
  [454] Documents of this kind may emerge in number of ways. The foisted unilateral agreement may be delivered to a target (often a government or elected official), filed in court, presented in court, or 'published'. This last approach deserves some further comment. OPCA litigants sometimes appear to put special significance on 'giving notice' to others by making a document available to the public on the Internet, for example Bank of Montreal v. McCance, 2012 ABQB 537 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 537 at para. 22. This Court has frequently received OPCA documents that direct a recipient to an Internet website where that same document is 'published'.
  [455] Other mechanisms to provide notice border on harassment. In 2011 Belanger attempted to email each person employed in Alberta Justice a number of unilateral foisted agreements with titles such as ''Ecclesiastical Notice of lawful excuse for non appearance and determination of the account of minister :Edward Jay'‘Robin: of the Belanger family'' and ''Ecclesiastical Notarial Notice of Understanding and Intent styled after the notice to admit'', which, if not rebutted, allegedly discharged any criminal liability by Belanger for various illegal acts.
  [456] Most foisted unilateral agreements, including those of Mr. Meads, include language such as ''[notice or service] to the agent is [notice or service] to the principal, and [notice or service] to the principle is [notice or service] to the agent''. This instruction is presumably intended to create as broad an 'area of effect' for the foisted unilateral agreement as is possible. Mr. Meads 'fee schedule' is addressed to government officials such as the Lieutenant Governor and Governor General, whose acquiescence, as 'principals' would presumably trickle down to all those subordinate in their organizations.
  [457] Of course, documents of this kind that purportedly unilaterally impose an obligation on another have no legal effect: Papadopoulos v. Borg, 2009 ABCA 201 (CanLII), 2009 ABCA 201 at para. 4; Henry v. El, 2010 ABCA 312 (CanLII), 2010 ABCA 312 at para. 3, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 138.
  1. The Legal Effect of a Foisted Agreement
  [458] Though OPCA litigants claim these documents can impose obligations on other persons, there is no dispute that an individual person lacks that kind of authority. The best-case legal foundation for these documents is that they are a kind of contract. Indeed, that is usually how OPCA gurus and litigants characterize these materials.
  [459] There is no question that common law contract law, in Canada and elsewhere, prohibits enforcement of the kind of unilateral 'agreements' typically employed by OPCA litigants. It is useful to examine the basis for this conclusion, since foisted unilateral agreements are such a frequent motif in OPCA misconduct.
  [460] Both parties to a contract must agree to its terms and to be bound in legal relations. The corollary of that is that one person cannot unilaterally impose a contract on another. In Silver's Garage Ltd. v. Bridgewater (Town), 1970 CanLII 196 (SCC), [1971] S.C.R. 577 at 596, 17 D.L.R. (3d) 1, Laskin J. (as he then was) expressed the rule as ''... a person cannot foist a contract upon another without his consent ...''.
  [461] A contract requires a ''meeting of the minds'', or in Latin, ''consensus ad idem''. This is another way of saying that the parties to a contract must agree to the terms of that contract. In Ron Ghitter Property Consultants Ltd. v. Beaver Lumber Co., 2003 ABCA 221 (CanLII), 2003 ABCA 221 at para. 8, 330 A.R. 353, Fraser C.J.A. explained the concept this way:
  ... Regardless of the theories underlying the enforcement of contracts, mutuality of agreement lies at the root of any legally enforceable contract. The required degree of mutuality of agreement mandates that the parties reach a consensus ad idem on essential terms. ... [Emphasis added.]
  [462] She continues at paras. 8-9 to outline the well established common-law test:
  8. ... The accepted test is whether a reasonable observer would infer from the words or conduct of the parties that a contract had been concluded ... That is, on an objective basis, have the parties reached consensus ad idem?
  ...
  9. The common thread running through the cases is that the parties will be found to have reached a meeting of the minds, in other words be ad idem, where it is clear to the objective reasonable bystander, in light of all the material facts, that the parties intended to contract and the essential terms of that contract can be determined with a reasonable degree of certainty ... This requires the court to decide whether "a sensible third party would take the agreement to mean what A understood it to mean or what B understood it to mean, or whether indeed any meaning can be attributed to it at all" ... "the consensus ad idem would be a matter of mere conjecture." [Citations omitted, emphasis added.]
  [463] This alone provides a basis for why the stereotypical foisted unilateral agreement cannot bind its recipient. An objective person knows that he or she cannot usually be held bound in contract by simple receipt of an offer. Many OPCA foisted unilateral agreements feature language that demands its recipient respond or rebut an obligation by a certain deadline. If not, then the agreement proclaims the recipient is bound by its terms. A moment's consideration shows it is absurd that the law would respect that requirement. What if a document was received, but not read within the deadline? What if the document was received by an illiterate person, or one who did not understand the document's meaning? Could they have a 'meeting of the minds'? Of course not, no more than handing a document to a sheep and saying ''By not repudiating this agreement, I may eat you.'' establishes a mutual and common intent.
  [464] Instead, the common law in most cases requires that the recipient of an offer (if that's what these OPCA documents represent) must take a positive step to accept that offer, acknowledge its terms and benefits, and communicate that fact. Harris C.J.B.C. in Cypress Disposal Ltd. v. Inland Kenworth Sales (Nanaimo) Ltd.reflex, (1975), 54 D.L.R. (3d) 598, [1975] 3 W.W.R. 289 expressed the rule as :
  ... I do not think that to be an acceptance creating a contract. It is communication of the acceptance that creates the contract between the parties. One must distinguish between the act of deciding to accept or reject an offer and the act of communicating acceptance or rejection. [Emphasis added.]
  [465] This requirement is not some recent legal innovation, but relates to the U.K. case of Felthouse v. Bindley (1862), 11 C.B. (N.S.) 869, 142 E.R. 1037 (Ex. Ch.), part of the ''common law'' so dear to OCPA gurus and litigants. In that decision a man attempted to enforce a price for sale of a horse. He was in negotiation with his nephew over the purchase of a horse, and wrote: ''... you said the horse is mine ... If I hear no more about [the horse], I consider the horse mine at £30 and 15s.'' The horse was inadvertently sold by an auctioneer to a third party, and the uncle sued.
  [466] The nephew had, in fact, intended his uncle have the horse, but he had taken no steps to communicate that fact. Justice Willes concluded:
  ... It is clear, therefore, that the nephew in his own mind intended his uncle to have the horse at the price which he (the uncle) had named, £30 and 15s.: but he had not communicated such his intention to his uncle, or done anything to bind himself. Nothing, therefore, had been done to vest the property in the horse in the plaintiff down to the 25th of February, when the horse was sold by the defendant. It appears to me that, independently of the subsequent letters, there had been no bargain to pass the property in the horse to the plaintiff, and therefore that he had no right to complain of the sale. [Emphasis added.]
  [467] Felthouse v. Bindley is a universally accepted cornerstone of the common law of contract. Citing only a few of many possible similar authorities:
  ' An offeror may not arbitrarily impose contractual liability upon an offeree merely by proclaiming that silence shall be deemed consent.
  (M. P. Furmston, Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston's Law of Contract, 15th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) at p. 61)
  ' ... the silence of the offeree, his failure to reject an offer, cannot amount to acceptance without more. ... Although the offeror can dictate the time, place, and manner of acceptance ... it seems clear that this will not cover the situation where the offeror says that silence will be enough ... Indeed the Supreme Court of Canada has said that something more than a failure to reject an offer is required to constitute a binding contract.
  (G.H.L. Fridman, The Law of Contract in Canada, 5th ed. (Toronto: Thomson Carswell, 2006) at p. 54.)
  ' ... As a general rule, it is not enough for one to whom an offer is made to assent inwardly; the offeree must communicate acceptance to the offeror ...
  Ordinarily, therefore silence will not operate as an acceptance even though the offeree should prove an intention to accept. This is not a technicality but part of the requirement of a bargain. No reasonable person, on receiving a proposal that looks for a reply, considers the bargain concluded until the manifestation of assent. Nor will a reasonable offeror ordinarily consider that silence on the part of the offeree manifests the latter's acceptance. It would plainly be an imposition for an offeror to write to a stranger offering to sell an encyclopedia and adding that the latter's silence will be considered an acceptance. ...
  (S. M. Waddams, The Law of Contracts, 6th ed. (Toronto: Canada Law Book, 2010) at p. 67-68)
  ' The requirement that there has to be an acceptance cannot be avoided or waived by the offeror's saying that the offeree will be assumed to have accepted the offer if no rejection is received by the offeror. This rule is a reflection of the very general principal that people are not to have obligations thrust upon them without their consent and that, in general, people have to indicate their consent by some positive action. The principle is expressed in the statement that ''silence cannot be consent''.
  (Angela Swan, Canadian Contract Law, 2nd ed. (Markham: LexisNexis, 2009) at p. 234.)
  [468] This principle continues to be uniformly applied by Canadian courts. For example: Schiller v. Fisher; Nu Towne Dev. Inc. V. Kingsmont Properties Ltd., 1981 CanLII 49 (SCC), [1981] 1 S.C.R. 593 at 598-599, 124 D.L.R. (3d) 577; Pumphrey v. Carson, 2002 NSSC 170 (CanLII), 2002 NSSC 170 at paras. 19-20, 206 N.S.R. (2d) 338; Gellen v. Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia et al, 2005 BCSC 1615 (CanLII), 2005 BCSC 1615 at para. 17, 21 E.T.R. (3d) 146; Vollmer v. Jones2007 CanLII 7999 (ON SC), (2007), 36 R.F.L. (6th) 340 at para. 46, 155 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1079 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J. (Fam. Ct.)).
  [469] There are certain very limited instances where a court may infer acceptance of a contract, despite failure to explicitly communicate acceptance, for example where the offoree uses an offered service: St. John Tug Boat Co. v. Irving Refining Ltd., 1964 CanLII 88 (SCC), [1964] S.C.R. 614 at 623-624, 46 D.L.R. (2d) 1. In that case the Irving Oil Company received a contract offer that a tug company's ships would assist in docking oil tankers. Acceptance was not formally communicated, but the oil company nevertheless used the tugs, and that was basis to infer the offer and its terms had been accepted. Exceptions of this kind do not apply to the kinds of foisted agreements used in OPCA strategies.
  [470] So, even if the relationship between the state and an individual was one of contract (which it isn't), and the Governor General and/or Lieutenant-Governor General had the authority to declare a person no longer subject to the organizations which they administer on behalf of the Queen (which I seriously doubt), Mr. Meads' 'fee schedule' still founders on this key point. Neither he, nor anyone else, can impose a demand that a person deny or disprove a foisted agreement.
  [471] Some final context may be helpful, as the rule OPCA litigants find so attractive has a nightmarish effect. There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, that the press gangs of the English Royal Navy would trick civilian sailors to unwittingly accept a first military employment payment, the ''King's Shilling'', by concealing that coin at the bottom of a tankard of beer. If the civilian sailor accepted the apparently free beer, and the concealed payment within, then he was trapped and was deemed to have agreed to be a new recruit of the Royal Navy.
  [472] That is the kind of world that is the end-point of the reasoning advanced by this OPCA concept. If it were the law (which it is not), we all would watch, scrutinizing every document and act, for a hidden foisted agreement. Perhaps ironically, that neatly corresponds to the neurotic consent/contract-fearing perspective that flows from the OPCA 'obligation requires agreement' strategies.
  2. Common Uses of Unilateral Agreements
  [473] OPCA litigants appear very fond of the foisted unilateral agreement strategy, and employ it in a wide variety of ways.
  a. To Create or Assert an Obligation
  [474] A common strategy is to foist a unilateral agreement on a target, then claim the failure to refuse or refute the ''agreement'' creates an obligation. The most common form of this kind of foisted OPCA unilateral agreement is the 'fee schedule', which I address in more detail below.
  [475] In Gravlin et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al,2005 BCSC 839 (CanLII), 2005 BCSC 839 at para. 8, 140 A.C.W.S. (3d) 447, litigants who had hired Dempsey attempted to evade debts by foisting unilateral agreements on certain lawyers who were engaged in the debt collection process. These 'contracts' demanded $100,000.00 if the lawyers continued to ''... trespass on or interfere, in any manner whatsoever, with the private contract between CIBC and [Gravlin] ...'' or triple damages of $300,000.00 if the lawyers failed to promptly deliver the $100,000.00.
  [476] Similarly, in Bank of Montreal v. McCance, 2012 ABQB 537 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 537 at para. 15, Master Hanebury reports on a ''Notice Of No Trespassing'' intended to resist a foreclosure. One of its remedies is an unusual form of misconduct:
  That document advises that a penalty will be imposed of up to ten million dollars,
  the greatest amount being for anyone who violates any of God's Supreme Laws or causes the McCances to violate any of God's Supreme Laws.
  Several bills were issued on that basis: para. 17. Alarmingly, these tactics were at least in part effective, as attempts to sell the property were unsuccessful (para. 18) and an involved realtor found ''... that the notices and demands were extremely disturbing and made her fearful and she would not swear the draft affidavit prepared by the Bank.'' (para. 18).
  [477] Williams v. Johnston, 2008 CanLII 63194 (ON SC), [2008] O.J. No. 4853 (QL) at para. 3, 2008 CanLII 63194 (Ont. S.C.), affirmed 2009 ONCA 335 (CanLII), 2009 ONCA 335, 176 A.C.W.S. (3d) 609, leave refused [2009] S.C.C.A. No. 266 details a set of foisted obligations and claims:
  In the statement of claim the plaintiff asserts in paragraph 3 that he has ''issued three default judgments against the defendants by doctrine of tacit procuration'' and that ''all matters have been deemed stare decisis, res judicata and collateral estoppel''. In paragraph 4 he states he issued default judgment against them because they did not respond to his ''International Commercial Claim'' issued July 2, 2008 or his ''Affidavit of Obligation'' issued on July 18, 2008. In paragraph 5 he claims that the defendants have committed the crimes of ''misprision of felony, fraud, theft, embezzlement, conspiracy, sedition, enticement into slavery, and treason''. In paragraph 6 he refers to the Court of International Trade and penalties due to crimes against a sovereign.
  [478] These were rejected as a basis for a civil action: paras. 10-11. This OPCA litigant had claimed what is probably best described as nation-state authority, and had personally tried and convicted the defendants on that basis (para. 8):
  In his submissions, the plaintiff made representations to the court that he had declared himself a sovereign and as such he had established a trust account with the US Treasury, which had provided him with an unlimited amount of credit. Further, he advised the court he had instituted his own court proceedings as a sovereign and had issued default judgments against the defendants because they had not complied with his endorsement and direction. ...
  Mention of the U.S. Treasury 'trust account' suggests this litigant had also subscribed to the 'A4V' 'money for nothing' scheme discussed below.
  [479] MBNA Canada Bank v. Luciani, 2011 ONSC 6347 (CanLII), 2011 ONSC 6347 discusses a foisted unilateral agreement which was the basis for a $28,000,000.00 Personal Property Security Act registration against a bank. The OPCA litigant offered to remove the registration in exchange for the bank providing a $125,000.00 line of credit. Justice Brown called this ''[a] good old-fashioned shake-down!'' (para. 3), which is an apt way to describe all foisted unilateral agreements.
  [480] A similar strategy was advanced by two members of CERI, ''Carl-Wayne: Duchek'' and ''Judith-Patricia: Duchek'', who sent my office a unilateral foisted agreement that demanded I disprove the supremacy of the King James Bible:
  We wish to know if you have any law that can induce me or intimidate us to violate our faith in practising the laws of the King James Bible of which such faith is founded upon?
  [481] I had seven days to respond, and if not, I:
  ... consent to pay me 1 million Dollars $1,000,000.00 in Gold Maple Leaf coin for the damages to my ability to practice my faith unimpeded and that you will, once our agreement is witnessed and published, provide me the name and address of your liability insurance bond agent to pay me for damages due to your intimidation should you choose to break the laws and violate your oath.
  I did not respond, and to date have not faced a demand for payment, in gold. I presume from no demand that Mr. and Ms. Duchek have been able to practice their faith without impediment.
  [482] Once an obligation is allegedly 'created' by a unilateral foisted agreement, the OPCA litigant may attempt to enforce that obligation in court. Alternatively, an OPCA litigant may register a lien or interest against property held by the agreement's target, such as happened in MBNA Canada Bank v. Luciani, 2011 ONSC 6347 (CanLII), 2011 ONSC 6347 at para. 17. I understand that a number of justices in this Court have been the subject of this kind of spurious and unlawful security interest. My understanding is that this lien strategy is very popular among American OPCA litigants; this technique is sometimes referred to as ''paper terrorism'': Robert Chamberlain & Donald P. Haider'‘Markel; Erick J. Haynie; Susan P. Koniak. OPCA gurus commonly teach these approaches to their customers as a response to 'unjust' and 'illegal' state and court authority.
  [483] Another variant of this category is reported in Papadopoulos v. Borg, 2009 ABCA 201 (CanLII), 2009 ABCA 201. This decision is particularly helpful as it reproduces much of the foisted agreement (para. 3) and outlines the OPCA litigant's conduct (paras. 4-10). He had asserted a foisted unilateral agreement entitled ''Admission of Facts '‘ Non'‘negotiable'' that, if not refuted, would mean the defendants had admitted certain facts that would effectively decide a lawsuit:
  It is My intent with this Admission of Facts, to establish agreement with you administratively by the response or lack thereof to the questions provided. Please answer the following questions, if you fail to do so, you will be deemed to admit, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the truth of the facts and the authenticity of the documents set out herein below ...
  The net result was a claim for ''triple damages'', a total of $74,851,078.50.
  [484] The OPCA litigant explained how he had proven his case (para. 8):
  I have provided all of the evidence before you in fact in the form of an Affidavit of assessment, an Affidavit of judgment, an Affidavit of default, an Affidavit of mode of service, a judicial notice, and an Affidavit of search. All of these documents have been served upon the other side. They have been accepted. They have been provided to them, served to them by a notary under notary seal. They've accepted to all of the terms and conditions. And, therefore, they presently are in default. I note their dishonour and on and for the record. ...
  [485] The court continues at paras. 9-10 to describe the litigant's in-court activities:
  [9] The appellant was intransigent. Despite the best efforts of the trial judge to explain the rules of procedure and evidence, the appellant refused to testify or call any evidence. He insisted that the service of his unconventional documents on the defendants had somehow turned into an admission of liability by them. He insisted that the affidavits which he had tendered on the Court, and which attached copies of those documents were admissible evidence at the trial. He refused to be cross'‘examined, arguing that counsel for the defendants had ''no standing'', and were ''in dishonour''. (AR p. 76, l. 36'‘40)
  [10] The appellant took the position that the purpose of the trial was really to enforce or compromise the ''agreement'' he had tried to foist on the defendants:
  Now, I have no desire to liquidate them and enforce the entire default upon them. I want to settle. And I have a judgment against them in the order of $49.9 million. And I don't want to enforce that entire judgment against them. I want to settle with them.
  God requires of his mankind a tithe of 10 percent. I'm in a position where I'm willing to take the example that God has put forth and settle for 10 percent. Is that not fair? (AR p. 74, l. 21'‘9)
  [486] Perhaps unsurprisingly, the OPCA litigant's claims were dismissed at trial: para. 10. The Court of Appeal confirmed that result (at para. 4):
  The law does not recognize the ability of one person to foist liability on another if they do not reply to a unilateral communication within an arbitrarily set time limit.
  b. To Discharge an Obligation or Dismiss a Lawsuit
  [487] Similarly, OPCA litigants will often claim to use foisted unilateral agreements to discharge an obligation or end a lawsuit. Gravlin et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al,2005 BCSC 839 (CanLII), 2005 BCSC 839 at para. 23, 140 A.C.W.S. (3d) 447 provides an example of a foisted notice that purported to discharge a debt. The OPCA litigants sent a bank a ''Report and Notice to Solicitor/Counsel and Notice of Suspension of Account Pending Provision of Proof of Non'‘Criminality of Activity'' that said:
  Pending the provision of proof to the contrary, and subject to the attached/enclosed UNCONDITIONAL TENDER OF FULL PAYMENT ON DEMAND the aforementioned account is accordingly suspended. I will not knowingly be a party to moral turpitude or unlawful or illegal activity.
  [488] Another example is a document that my office received which, I believe, purports to defeat a foreclosure. The writer directed a foisted unilateral agreement to the bank. Ten days without a response led to a ''NOTICE OF NON RESPONSE'' which stated the bank:
  ... acquiesces and admits all terms by Tacit Procuration: and all issues are now deemed Stare Decisis and may not be argued, controverted or protested; and said acquiescence shall act as a witness and as DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN ESTOPPEL against [the court master].
  [489] Another variation on this form is that a state actor receives a demand to prove its authority. In Law Society of British Columbia v. Dempsey, 2005 BCSC 1277 (CanLII), 2005 BCSC 1277, 142 A.C.W.S. (3d) 346, affirmed 2006 BCCA 161 (CanLII), 2006 BCCA 161 at paras. 10-12, 149 A.C.W.S. (3d) 735, Dempsey demanded the Law Society of British Columbia prove, to his satisfaction, that it had the authority it had claimed. As usual, a stern warning explained the consequence of failure:
  Ten (10) days have been allowed for the Petitioner, the LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA to respond to this Jurisdictional Challenge. Failure to comply with the above shall be deemed that the Petitioner does not have the jurisdiction or legal standing to file this Petition.
  [490] That same action had Dempsey direct a foisted agreement at the judge hearing whether Dempsey had practiced law without a license:
  The Undersigned does hereby and herein accept the Oath of Office of James W. Williams d/b/a/ JUSTICE (JAMES W.) WILLIAMS / PUBLIC SERVANT and all heirs, assigns, and successors, as his open and binding offer of contract to form a firm and binding, private, bilateral contract between parties in which he agrees to perform all of his duties as a Public Servant and promises to uphold all of the Undersigned's rights.
  The foregoing ''Notice of Acceptance of Oath of Office'' is an instrument in commerce CUSIP No. 718895600, and is made explicitly under reserve and without recourse and the foregoing has established your promise to uphold all of the Undersigned's rights and not allow any third'‘party agents to interfere in your duties to the Undersigned Failure to respond to this offer of contract within three business days of receipt establishes your unconditional acceptance and will place you and your office in default, and the presumption will be taken upon the public record that you, and your office, fully agree to the points and authorities contained within this Notice of Acceptance of Oath of Office and that they are true, correct and certain. [Emphasis in original.]
  [491] Callaghan v. McCaw; C.C. v. J.M., 2010 SKQB 79 (CanLII), 2010 SKQB 79 at paras. 10-12, 351 Sask.R. 55 reports what appears to be a foisted unilateral contract scheme to deny child support. In this case the trigger was that if the support recipient cashed a cheque, that discharged any future child support obligation, because the cheque carried the following notation:
  By Accepting and/or Endorsing and/or Indorsing and/or Cashing and/or Negotiating and/or Selling and/or Purchasing and/or Holding this Instrument, Payee and any/all Endorsers (and any/all of their Agents and/or Principals), jointly and severally explicitly consent and agree to be irrevocably bound by Agreement RW 065 579 297 CA (and all terms and conditions contained therein). This instrument remains the property of the Drawer (C) common'‘law copy claim. All Rights Expressly Reserved.
  The OPCA indicia on this notation are obvious.
  c. Foisted Duties, Agency, or Fiduciary Status
  [492] Another application of a foisted unilateral agreement is to transfer or assign some kind of obligations to someone else. For example, in R. v. Leis,2008 SKQB 123 (CanLII), 2008 SKQB 123, 77 W.C.B. (2d) 323, affirmed 2008 SKCA 103 (CanLII), 2008 SKCA 103, 311 Sask.R. 310 the OPCA litigant had tried to unilaterally transfer his obligation to pay utility costs to a government actor as an agent. Bank of Montreal v. McCance, 2012 ABQB 537 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 537 at para. 6 reports an attempt to name this Court and opposing counsel as fiduciaries.
  [493] Mr. Meads' February 15, 2011 letter to Barbara Petryk (discussed above) falls into this category. Arguably Mr. Meads' declaration that I am his fiduciary represents another foisted duty.
  d. Copyright and Trade-mark
  [494] One of the strangest expressions of the foisted unilateral agreement concept relates to copyright and trade-mark. OPCA litigants very frequently claim copyright and/or trade-mark of their own names. That can combine with a 'double/split person' concept so that the physical person has an intellectual property interest in the 'name' of the non-corporeal aspect. That appears to be the function of Mr. Meads' ''Copyright Trade-name/Trademark Contract'' between DENNIS LARRY MEADS and Dennis-Larry: Meads.
  [495] The OPCA litigant then unilaterally foists on a target a document that purports to govern use of the copyright and/or trade-mark protected name. Invariably, the document warns that any unauthorized use of the protected intellectual property means the target has agreed to pay a certain sum, per use.
  [496] Mr. Meads' material includes one such document, entitled:
  NOTICE BY DECLARATION and AFFIDAVIT OF CONSEQUENCES FOR INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT TRADE-NAME/TRADEMARK.
  And same are accepted for value and exempt from levy.
  and is reproduced in whole as Appendix ''B''.
  [497] This cannot even be described as a 'unilaterally foisted contract', it is instead a unilateral notice foisting obligations on the world:
  With the intent of being contractually bound, any juristic person, as well as the agent thereof, consents and agrees by this Notice that neither said juristic person nor agent thereof shall display, nor otherwise use in any manner, the common'‘law trade'‘name/trademark DENNIS LARRY MEADS(C), nor the common'‘law copyright described herein, nor any derivative of, or any variation in the spelling thereof without the prior, express, written consent and acknowledgment of Secured Party, as signified by Secured Party's signature in red ink. Secured Party neither grants, nor implies, nor otherwise gives consent for any unauthorized use of DENNIS LARRY MEADS(C), and all such unauthorized use is strictly prohibited. [Emphasis in original.]
  [498] Any use of Mr. Meads' protected names:
  DENNIS LARRY MEADS(C) '-- including any and all derivatives and variations in the spelling, i.e. DENNIS LARRY MEADS, MEADS DENNIS LARRY, DENNIS L MEADS, MEADS D LARRY, D L MEADS
  means a person owes Mr. Meads $100,000,000.00:
  ... grants Secured Party a security interest in all of User's assets, land and personal property, and all of User's interest in assets, land and personal property, in the sum certain amount of $100,000,000.00 per each occurrence of use of the common'‘law copyrighted trade-name/trademark DENNIS LARRY MEADS(C), as well as for each and every occurrence of use of any and all derivatives of and variations in the spelling of DENNIS LARRY MEADS(C), plus costs, plus triple damages ...
  [499] This kind of document is far from unique, see for example: Gravlin et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al, 2005 BCSC 839 (CanLII), 2005 BCSC 839 at para. 9, 140 A.C.W.S. (3d) 447; Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union,2006 BCSC 1324 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1324 at para. 37, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309.
  [500] Sometimes an OPCA litigant claims that breach of a purported copyright interest does not merely cause a financial penalty, but can even disqualify a court or state actor's jurisdiction. For example, in Hajdu v. Ontario (Director, Family Reponsibility Office), 2012 ONSC 1835 (CanLII), 2012 ONSC 1835 at paras. 23-25, 31, an appeal was based, in part, because the trial court ''... was in violation of international copyright law''. Coats J. concluded this argument ''... that the Director or the court was in breach of copyright law throughout the default hearing is without merit.''
  [501] Mr. Meads' copyright and trade-mark claims are suspect in a number of ways. First, he claims ownership of his ''... common law right of, in and to my Copyright(s), Trademark(s) and Trade-Name(s) ...'' [emphasis added]. The special property interests provided by copyright and trade-mark flow from legislation (the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C'‘42, and the Trade'‘marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T'‘13). There has never been a common law right to either.
  [502] There is not authority present, nor, I believe, capable of establishing that a personal name can form a creative work that would be subject to copyright. In any case, even if that were so, then copyright in a name would presumably vest with its authors, Mr. Meads' parents. The Copyright Act also sets the consequence of infringement on copyright: ss. 34-41. Infringement can lead to damages and recovery of profit (s. 35) and where no damage is proven then statutory damages (s. 38.1) can be claimed. There is no provision for the kind of 'contract' or 'notice' claims found in OPCA foisted unilateral copyright agreements.
  [503] Similarly, the claim in relation to trade-mark or trade-name is nonsense. The process to obtain a trade-mark and the rights that flow from that are set by the Trade-marks Act, not some unilateral declaration. A trade-mark that has legal effect requires application to the Canadian Intellectual Property Agency [''CIPO''] for registration. Once a trade-mark is registered and published, then its owner has associated rights. No evidence has been provided from the CIPO trade-marks database to establish a registered trade-mark that includes the word ''Meads''.
  [504] The entire 'my name is copyright/trade-mark protected' scheme has an overwhelmingly juvenile character. People necessarily use names in everyday interaction, commerce, and most certainly in court. Does it make any sense that any person who were to correspond with Mr. Meads would be liable to him for $100 million dollars simply because they put his name in the address? Could people operate in this regime? Must we all address one another by arbitrary nicknames or some kind of functional description? The answer to these questions is an overwhelming ''no.''
  3. Fee Schedules
  [505] OPCA foisted unilateral agreements can target anyone, however, many focus on state, government, and court actors. These purport to be agreements that a state or court actor agrees to pay the OPCA litigant a particular amount if a certain legal procedure or result occurs, or law enforcement personnel engage in certain conduct. OPCA litigants often label the documents that target state actors with the title ''fee schedule'', though other language is also encountered.
  [506] Mr. Meads' June 19 and 21 documents included a fee schedule, cryptically entitled:
  Registered Private Tracking Number - LT 679 966 085 CA
  UCC-1 Files in ALBERTA - Secured Transaction Registry Number- 11120912227
  This is reproduced as Appendix ''A''.
  [507] Like the copyright and trade-mark notice, this is a formal appearing document, with impressive legal'‘sounding language. Once the reader gets past that, one reaches the meat of the subject. Those served with this document (directly or indirectly) have 30 days to reject it. Otherwise, the fee schedule, addressed to ''All Provincial, State, Federal and International Public Officials, by and through Province of Alberta, Lieutenant Governor, Donald S. Ethell and/or Governor General, David Lloyd Johnston'', states that the state, government actors, institutions, and employees are liable to pay certain amounts if Mr. Meads is subjected to certain conduct, for example:
  Unlawful Arrest, Illegal Arrest, or Restraint, or Distraint, Trespassing/Trespass, without a lawful, correct, and complete 4th amendment warrant: $2,000,000.00 (Two Million) CAD Dollars, per occurrence, per officer, or agent involved.
  ...
  Assault or Assault and Battery without Weapon: $2,000,000.00 (Two Million) CAD Dollars, per occurrence, per officer, or agent involved.
  ...
  Unfounded Accusations by Officers of the Court, or Unlawful Determination: $2,000,000.00 (Two Million) CAD Dollars, per occurrence, per officer, or agent involved.
  ...
  Incarceration for Civil or Criminal Contempt of Court without lawful, documented'‘in'‘law, and valid reason: $2,000,000.00 (Two Million) per day, per occurrence, per officer, or agent involved.
  Disrespect by a Judge or Officer of the Court: $2,000,000.00 (Two Million) CDA Dollars per occurrence, per officer, or agent involved.
  Threat, Coercion, Deception, or Attempted Deception by any Officer of the Court: $2,000,000.00 (Two Million) CAD Dollars per occurrence, per officer, or agent involved.
  ...
  Coercion or Attempted Coercion of the Natural Man or Woman to take responsibility for the Corporate Strawman against the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party's Will: $2,000,000.00 Two Million CAD Dollars, per occurrence, per officer or agent involved. ...
  [508] This document purports to defeat all statutory, common law, judicial, or prosecutorial discretions and immunities:
  ... Should you move against me in defiance of this presentment, there is no immunity from prosecution available to you or to any of your fellow public officers, officials of government, judges, magistrates, district attorneys, clerks, or any other persons who become involved in the instant actions, or any future actions, against me by way of aiding and abetting. Take due heed and govern yourself accordingly.
  [509] Further, the 'fee schedule' allegedly cannot be a basis for any legal obligation, sanction, or punishment, because it says so:
  This Statute Staple Securities Instrument is not set forth to threaten, delay, hinder, harass, or obstruct, but to protect guaranteed Rights and Protections assuring that at no time my Unalienable Rights are ever waived or taken from me against my will by threats, duress, coercion, fraud, or without my express written consent of waiver. None of the statements contained herein intend to threaten or cause any type of physical or other harm to anyone. ...
  [510] Not merely satisfied with state actors and the courts, the 'fee schedule' extends to apply to international entities (para. 21), businesses (para. 22), and financial institutions (para. 26). In case any bound person dared defy their obligation, the 'fee schedule' warns:
  All penalties contained herein will be subject to a penalty increase of one million dollars per day, plus interest, while there is any unpaid balance for the first thirty (30) days after default of payment. This penalty will increase by 10% per each day until balance is paid in full, plus 18% annual interest, beginning on the thirty'‘ first (31st) day after default of payment.
  ''Naturally'', all payments must be in gold or silver.
  [511] What is the value of this document? Nothing. It is just another foisted unilateral agreement. Courts have uniformly refused to enforce 'agreements' of this kind: Szoo v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police), 2011 BCSC 696 (CanLII), 2011 BCSC 696; Jabez Financial Services Inc. (Receiver of) v. Sponagle, 2008 NSSC 112 (CanLII), 2008 NSSC 112 at paras. 14, 18, 264 N.S.R. (2d) 224; Sydorenko v. Manitoba, 2012 MBQB 42 (CanLII), 2012 MBQB 42 at para. 5; Canada v. Rudolf, 2010 BCSC 565 (CanLII), 2010 BCSC 565.
  a. Disproportionate and Unlawful Penalties
  [512] The amounts claimed by fee schedules are clearly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. If a 'fee schedule' were an enforceable contract, then the damages it would authorize are limited to that which would restore the injured party to their state as if the contract had been performed. In Fidler v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 2006 SCC 30 (CanLII), 2006 SCC 30 at para. 27, 2006 SCC 30 (CanLII), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 3, McLachlin C.J.C. and Abella J. stated this principle as:
  Damages for breach of contract should, as far as money can do it, place the plaintiff in the same position as if the contract had been performed.
  [513] That does not preclude persons who contract setting damages in advance, what is sometimes called ''liquidated damages''. However, even liquidated damages must be reasonable, and not a threat held over one party, ''in terrorem'': Calgary (City) v. Janse Mitchell Const. Co.1919 CanLII 48 (SCC), (1919), 59 S.C.R. 101, 48 D.L.R. 328. Whether a predetermined damage amount is reasonable is always subject to court review; ''[i]t is always open to the parties to make the predetermination, but it must yield to judicial appraisal of its reasonableness in the circumstances.'' [emphasis added]: H.F. Clarke Ltd. v. Thermidaire Corp., 1974 CanLII 30 (SCC), [1976] 1 S.C.R. 319 at 331, 54 D.L.R. (3d) 385.
  [514] The test to evaluate the validity of a liquidated damages amount is found in the U.K. House of Lords case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tire Co. v. New Garage and Motor Co., [1915] A.C. 79 at 86 (H.L.). Two aspects of the test are particularly relevant, that reasonable liquidated damages are a prohibited penalty where the pre-set amount:
  ... is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could possibly follow from the breach [or]
  ... a single lump sum is made payable upon the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others only trifling damage, there is a presumption, but no more, that the sum is a penalty.
  This was, and remains, the law in Canada: H.F. Clarke Ltd. v. Thermidaire Corp., at 327.
  [515] Mr. Meads' 'fee schedule' liquidated damages amounts are an archetype for the first category of prohibited penalties. As an example, Mr. Meads is due $2,000,000.00 (in gold or silver) for each occasion I, as a Justice, am disrespectful of Mr. Meads, or if I engage in ''Coercion or Attempted Coercion of the Natural Man or Woman to take responsibility for the Corporate Strawman against the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party's Will''. I take that latter prohibition to mean any attempt on my part to reject a 'double/split person' or other related OPCA argument.
  [516] Beyond that, these amounts are so grossly disproportionate to awards made by Canadian courts for injuries outside a contractual context that I do not think it is necessary to survey Canadian caselaw on that point, beyond referencing a few potential comparators: Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., 1978 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229, 83 D.L.R. (3d) 452),
  [517] Offenses to personal dignity and liberty may also lead to awards under the Charter. Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada in Vancouver (City) v. Ward, 2010 SCC 27 (CanLII), 2010 SCC 27, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 28 ordered a $5,000.00 payment as a Charter (s. 24(1)) remedy for an unwarranted and unlawful strip search. That stands in stark contrast to the amounts in Mr. Meads' 'fee schedule'.
  [518] This Court has received many 'fee schedules' and not one has set damage claims in a reasonable manner. That does not exclude the possibility that such a 'fee schedule' may exist or could be advanced, but to date that possibility remains only a hypothesis. Nevertheless, even in that case that ''agreement'' would still be illegally imposed, and have no legal effect no matter what amount was claimed.
  b. The Targets and Intended Effect of'Fee Schedules'
  [519] What makes 'fee schedules' especially problematic is the manner in which these documents are used. 'Fee schedules' are commonly targeted to peace officers, government officials, and to court personnel such as law clerks, sheriffs, and legal assistants, or court administration personnel. Other 'fee schedules' purport to create an obligation for a judge or the state, for example: Canada v. Rudolf, 2010 BCSC 565 (CanLII), 2010 BCSC 565; Bank of Montreal v. McCance, 2012 ABQB 537 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 537 at para. 24; Services de financement TD inc. c. Michaud, 2011 QCCQ 14868 (CanLII), 2011 QCCQ 14868 at para. 9. A particularly bizarre 'fee schedule' demand that I have received notifies this court of a claim for: ''Ignorance of your Legal Maxims: $500,000.00 x 7 Counts''. Never has quizzing the court been so potentially, but unlawfully, profitable!
  [520] One use of 'fee schedules' that has become notorious is that OPCA litigants will present these documents to a peace officer engaged in their duties, and warn the officer that they are bound by these obligations, personally, to pay these amounts. This is a very common way that Freeman-on-the-Land and Sovereign Man litigants respond to being stopped while driving, see for example: Szoo v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police), 2011 BCSC 696 (CanLII), 2011 BCSC 696.
  [521] Obviously, a 'fee schedule' has no legal effect. A person cannot unilaterally foist obligations of this kind on another or on the state. That is particularly obnoxious when coupled with declarations that an OPCA litigant is outside state and court authority, which for example would allegedly make any detention illegal.
  [522] The amounts claimed in Mr. Meads' 'fee schedule' are not atypical. 'Fee schedules' uniformly include dramatic, threatening language and instruct the recipient they have been warned and are to watch their step.
  [523] Plain and simple, in these contexts 'fee schedules' are tools of intimidation. These documents are intended to deter state and court officials from the proper exercise of their obligations. They are often physically presented to persons who may have less understanding of their legal effect (ie. none). The language used in 'fee schedules' is intended to heighten those intimidation effects, as is the totally unwarranted 'damage' quantums demanded.
  4. Effect of Unilateral Agreements
  [524] In a civil context, advancing a foisted unilateral agreement is very strong evidence that a litigant has not bargained in good faith, discharged their Rule 1.2(3) obligations, and is engaged in vexatious litigation worthy of a declaration under Judicature Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. J-2, s. 23.1(1).
  [525] Punitive damages are warranted when a person bases a legal action or files a spurious lien or personal property claim on the basis of a foisted unilateral agreement. The courts have authority to indemnify the legal costs of a litigant who is forced to defend against a foisted unilateral agreement scheme: Williams v. Johnston, 2008 CanLII 63194 (ON SC), [2008] O.J. No. 4853 (QL) at para. 15, 2008 CanLII 63194 (Ont. S.C.), affirmed 2009 ONCA 335 (CanLII), 2009 ONCA 335, 176 A.C.W.S. (3d) 609, leave refused [2009] S.C.C.A. No. 266; MBNA Canada Bank v. Luciani, 2011 ONSC 6347 (CanLII), 2011 ONSC 6347 at para. 17.
  [526] It occurs to me that 'fee schedules' may also have a potential criminal effect. Documents of this kind are intended to impede the legitimate action of government, law enforcement, and court actors by purporting to assign very sizable penalties for actions that are not only a part of their jobs, but very often a duty. These penalties are a threat of ''damage to property''. Since 'fee schedules' have no legal force, the threats they contain are by definition unlawful.
  [527] If so, it seems that perhaps when a person advances a 'fee schedule', that may be prima facie evidence of the act and intention of the Criminal Code, ss. 423.1, intimidation of a justice system participant offence. Advancing a 'fee schedule' and claims based on the same, may perhaps also prove other criminal offences. Mr. Meads' 'fee schedule' claims damages that clearly escalate in a manner that offends the Criminal Code, s. 347 criminal interest rate prohibition. Documents of this kind may have relevance for whether bail should be granted or denied: R. v. Boisjoli, 2012 ABQB 556 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 556 at para. 51.
  [528] In summary, unilateral foisted agreements have no effect in law: Papadopoulos v. Borg, 2009 ABCA 201 (CanLII), 2009 ABCA 201 at para. 4; Henry v. El, 2010 ABCA 312 (CanLII), 2010 ABCA 312 at para. 3, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 138. Operationally, these alleged agreements would deny the authority of the court to determine the substance of a legally binding agreement and all parties intentions. Their effect is to say the court has no authority to implement legislative rules and prohibitions, and instead purport to allow a litigant to fine the court, judges, and peace officers for the proper exercise of their authority and duties. Foisted unilateral agreements are therefore a prohibited attempt to restrict the jurisdiction of the courts, and merit civil, and possibly criminal, sanction.
  E. Money for Nothing Schemes
  [529] To date, OPCA litigants have employed a limited number of what may be called 'money for nothing' schemes. These are different from the other OPCA strategies that I have previously reviewed, as they do not challenge or subvert the court's authority, but instead purport to provide a mechanism by which the OPCA litigant can obtain unconventional benefits.
  [530] These are the proverbial caves of hidden treasure. OPCA gurus who advance these concepts claim that, with the correct combination of documents, one can open a secret path to vast riches. One needs only know the spell!
  1. Accept for Value / A4V
  [531] The most common 'money for nothing' scheme has a number of names: ''Redemption'', ''Accept for Value'', and ''A4V''. The A4V concept originated in the United States, but a Canadian version has emerged, and Mr. Meads appears to subscribe to that.
  [532] The mythology behind the 'A4V' scheme is extremely peculiar, and requires travel into the conspiratorial and demon-haunted shadow world of the OPCA community. Aspects of this scheme are explained in reported U.S. cases, including: United States v. Heath, 525 F.3d 451 (6th Cir. 2008); United States v. Anderson, 353 F.3d 490, 500 (6th Cir. 2003), certiorari denied, 541 U.S. 1068 (2004); United States v. Oehler, 2003 WL 1824967 (D. Minn. Apr. 2, 2003), affirmed, 116 Fed. Appx. 43 (8th Cir. 2004); United State v. Eddie Ray Kahn et al., No. 1:08'‘cr'‘00271'‘RCL'‘1 (U.S.D.C. D.C. May 26, 2010). As I understand it, A4V's guru promoters claim that each person is associated with a secret government bank account which contains millions of dollars. The exact sum varies from guru to guru. The bank account's number is usually related to some identification number assigned to a person by the state, such as a Social Security Number, a Social Insurance Number, or a birth certificate number. The specific details of that relationship also seem to vary between A4V schemes.
  [533] Mr. Meads clearly has attempted to apply an A4V scheme. His in-court explanation of the ''corporate identity'' registered at birth and its associated funds and income are a reference to this concept. Similarly, a number of the documents Mr. Meads included in his June 19 and 21 materials indicate an A4V strategy, and his cover letter instructed that I order payment of his child support obligations:
  ... thru the Provincial-Registered-Event in the PROVINCAIL BIRTH CERTIFICATE and/or any other government(s) for the Canada Registered Event(s) ... [sic.]
  [534] In Underworld Services Ltd. v. Money Stop Ltd., 2012 ABQB 327 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 327 Justice Veit encountered an A4V variation that relied on a special property of a birth certificate. Mr. Meads' scheme involves both his Social Insurance Number and birth certificate as having special A4V properties.
  [535] A4V proponents claim that the government maintain these bank accounts to monetize the state after it abandoned the gold standard. Put another way, the theory, as I understand it, is that people are property of the state that it uses to secure its currency. This is often expressed as some form of 'slavery'.
  [536] OPCA gurus who sell the A4V scheme claim that, with a correct combination of government documents, a person can access their secret bank account and its funds. Mr. Meads' relies on the following documents to unlock this ''account'':
  1. the UCC Financing Statement registered in Ohio for a Certificate of Birth;
  2. the UCC search of ''DENNIS LARRY MEADS, foreign situs cestui qui vie trust'';
  3 the government of Alberta Personal Property Registry Verification Statement for ''DENNIS LARRY MEADS, foreign situs cestui qui vie trust'' that lists as collateral a birth certificate, social insurance number, UCC1 financing statement, a certificate of marriage, an operator's license, Canadian passport, and what I believe are two court orders; and
  4. the ''Actual and Constructive Notice'' from Dennis-Larry: Meads to the Bank of Canada that ''accepts for value'' enclosed documents in accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code and the Bank of Canada Act to charge his ''public treasury'', which is identified by his social insurance number, for $100 billion Canadian dollars or the equivalent in silver or gold.
  I would describe how these documents have the intended effect, except that the A4V documentary material I have reviewed has never made any sense, so I can only observe the 'ingredients' and describe the intended 'spell effect'.
  [537] The exact form of an A4V scheme and associated 'unlocking spell' varies from guru to guru, but there are common motifs that indicate an OPCA litigant is attempting to use these processes:
  1. any reference to the UCC, or any UCC filing documents;
  2. the language ''accept for value'' and ''return for value'';
  3. a claim that a government bank account exists that is linked to a personal identification number;
  4. mention of the gold or precious metal standards for money, and the dates those standards were abandoned;
  5. a claim by a litigant that they are not a slave; this relates to the idea that the state uses people as collateral;
  6. the U.S. ''Emancipation Proclamation'' of January 1, 1863, and/or the 13th Amendment to the U.S. constitution; and
  7. the characteristic ''accept for value'' stamp or statement written on a bill, court order, or other correspondence.
  [538] In Mr. Meads' case, he seems to claim that the Court should make an order to discharge his spousal and child support obligations by payment from the secret A4V government account. As I understood his statements in court, he had already told his wife's Counsel to access his secret bank account, and presumably she too has received many of the documents that Mr. Meads sent to this Court on June 19 and 21st. Mr Meads also asked for the modest award of $100 billion in gold or silver.
  [539] When an A4V litigant writes or stamps a notation such as that described above at paras. 213-215, that, according to A4V mythology, transforms a bill or court order into a cheque drawn from the secret account. The OPCA litigant's obligation is gone once the modified document is returned to its source.
  [540] This Court has also seen this concept expressed as a mechanism to negate criminal charges or an arrest warrant. For example, I have reviewed documents that say:
  That the commercial offer presented, (WARRANT FOR ARREST) has been accepted for value and endorsed by GORDON MICAHEL SCHILLER and returned to you for settlement and account closure. [sic.]
  The litigants then demanded a $1,000,000.00 payment, or that the court:
  ... perform the offset, adjust and close the account and provide the original blue ink WARRANT FOR ARREST to us ...
  [541] The entire A4V concept has been reviewed and rejected in Underworld Services Ltd. v. Money Stop Ltd., 2012 ABQB 327 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 327, and Mercedes'‘Benz Financial v. Kovacevic, 2009 CanLII 9368 (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 783 at para. 42, 2009 CanLII 9368 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.). I do the same.
  [542] Courts have awarded special damages against OPCA litigants who advance A4V schemes: CIBC v. Marples, 2008 BCSC 590 (CanLII), 2008 BCSC 590 at paras. 3, 4, 7.
  [543] It is very unfortunate that any person would be so gullible as to believe that free money can be obtained by these theatrics, but nevertheless some, like Mr. Meads, appear unable to resist the temptation of wealth without obligation. One can only hope that in the future OPCA gurus will find A4V less attractive, and their risk-loving customers instead invest in alternative forms of speculation, such as lottery tickets, which provide infinitely better prospects for return.
  2. Bill Consumer Purchases
  [544] Recently the Ontario Court of Appeal has, in Toronto'‘Dominion Bank v. Di Iorio, 2011 ONCA 792 (CanLII), 2011 ONCA 792 a paras. 2-3, rejected what seems to be a new 'money for nothing' scheme, where the applicants claimed that documents called ''Bill-Consumer Purchases'' would discharge a debt:
  2 The appellants contend that the motion judge erred by not accepting that the documents they submitted to the respondent, namely, so'‘called "Bill'‘Consumer Purchases" were legal tender for their debts.
  3 We disagree. The appellants' documents have no commercial value whatsoever. Accordingly, the appellants' debts to T'‘D Bank remain unpaid.
  [545] The trial judgment is not reported, and the Court of Appeal offers little detail on the theoretical basis of this scheme. My assumption is that this concept in some manner relates to the ''consumer bills and notes'' component of the Bills of Exchange Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B'‘4, ss. 188-192.
  [546] A similar scheme may have been in play in Papadopoulos v. Borg, 2009 ABCA 201 (CanLII), 2009 ABCA 201. There the court evaluated whether a claim had been proven, when not refuted by affidavit, and concluded that it:
  ... appears to be a distorted view of the Bills of Exchange Act. It is, however, apparent that the documents do not even slightly resemble genuine bills of exchange. Furthermore, signing for the registered mail that contained the documents does not amount to an ''acceptance'' of any legitimate bill of exchange that might be in the envelope. ''Acceptance'' in the Bills of Exchange Act is a technical term, and is not the same as acknowledging physical receipt of the envelope.
  [547] A scheme of this type warranted elevated costs against the OPCA litigant: Ramjohn v. Rudd, 2007 ABQB 84 (CanLII), 2007 ABQB 84 at paras. 9-10, 156 A.C.W.S. (3d) 38.
  3. Miscellaneous Money for Nothing Schemes
  [548] I will briefly review a particularly bizarre 'money for nothing' scheme advanced by Dempsey and described in Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union, 2006 BCSC 750 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 750 at paras. 27, 37, 39, 151 A.C.W.S. (3d) 204, Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union,2006 BCSC 1324 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1324 at para. 34, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309, and Gravlin et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al,2005 BCSC 839 (CanLII), 2005 BCSC 839, 140 A.C.W.S. (3d) 447. For lack of any better description, Dempsey appeared to claim that the only physical cash, or ''hard currency'' has value. Therefore, a loan or debt that was a result of a cheque or electronic transaction did not have to be repaid.
  [549] For example, in Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union, 2006 BCSC 750 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 750, 151 A.C.W.S. (3d) 204, Garson J. at para. 27 explained Dempsey's theory this way:
  In his submissions on the motions, in the actions concerning him, Mr. Dempsey described the "money for nothing" theory. He stated that the banks do not have money. Rather, they create money out of "thin air". He asks, "where did that money come from", he answers "it came from us". He says the plaintiffs create money by signing promissory notes, and as soon as the promissory note is signed the banks deposit money in their own statement of account. The banks do not place hard currency in the hands of the debtors. Mr. Dempsey complains that the banks then charge interest on nothing and that is a criminal rate of interest because interest is charged on nothing. Mr. Dempsey states, "it is not like the old days, when people used to go to the bank and, in the back room, count out dollars, there is no law that allows the banks to create dollars out of thin air."
  [550] Unsurprisingly, the British Columbia courts have rejected this ''fanciful theory'' as ''so completely devoid of merit'' that litigants should be penalized for launching such actions: Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union,2006 BCSC 1324 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1324 at paras. 34, 46, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309.
  F. Legal Effect and Character of OPCA Arguments
  1. OPCA Strategies that Deny Court Authority
  [551] The majority of OPCA concepts, those other than the 'money for nothing' category, in one sense or another seek to deny court authority.
  a. An OPCA Argument that Denies Court Authority Cannot Succeed Due to the Court's Inherent Authority
  [552] As I have previously explained, that crucial flaw in the OPCA concepts is a basis to categorically dismiss the majority of OPCA strategies and mechanisms. A court should do so at the first opportunity.
  [553] OPCA litigants cannot evade, deny, or re-frame the jurisdiction of the Canadian courts. The judicial system is an independent, free-standing apparatus that neither relies on the state or the individual. This authority serves everyone who has suffered an injury to their rights, including the very OPCA litigants who deny the court's role, when convenient, but who seem so eager to exploit its authority to meet their own ends.
  b. An OPCA Argument that Denies Court Authority is Intrinsically Frivolous and Vexatious
  [554] As discussed above, many individual OPCA concepts that attack court jurisdiction have been identified and rejected as frivolous and vexatious arguments. For example:
  1. litigation based on 'double/split' person schemes: Tuck v. Canada, 2007 TCC 418 (CanLII), 2007 TCC 418 at para. 18; Hovey Ventures Inc. v. Canada, 2007 TCC 139 (CanLII), 2007 TCC 139 at para. 12, 2007 CCI 139 (CanLII), 2007 CCI 139; Friesen v. Canada, 2007 TCC 287 (CanLII), 2007 TCC 287 at para. 6, 2007 TCC 287 (CanLII), [2007] 5 C.T.C. 2067;
  2. tax protest based immunity: Jackson v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2001 SKQB 377 (CanLII), 2001 SKQB 377 at paras. 18-19, 210 Sask.R. 285; Country Plaza Motors Ltd. v. Indian Head (Town), 2005 SKQB 442 (CanLII), 2005 SKQB 442 at paras. 21-22, 272 Sask.R. 198;
  3. a foisted unilateral agreement: Banilevic v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2002 SKQB 371 (CanLII), 2002 SKQB 371 at paras. 12-13, 117 A.C.W.S. (3d) 549;
  4. ''Moorish Law'' concepts: Henry v. El, 2010 ABCA 312 (CanLII), 2010 ABCA 312 at para. 3, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 138;
  5. a 'military flag' appeal: R. v. J.B.C. Securities Ltd., 2003 NBCA 53 (CanLII), 2003 NBCA 53 at para. 9, 261 N.B.R. (2d) 199; and
  6. an 'everything is a contract' argument: Sandri v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 CanLII 44282 (ON SC), 2009 CanLII 44282 at paras. 11-14, 179 A.C.W.S. (3d) 811 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.).
  [555] These are simply examples of a more general principle. A pleading is frivolous if its substance indicates bad faith or is factually hopeless: Donaldson v. Farrell, 2011 ABQB 11 (CanLII), 2011 ABQB 11 at para 20. A frivolous plea is one so palpably bad that the Court needs no real argument to be convinced of that fact: Haljan v. Serdahely Estate, 2008 ABQB 472 (CanLII), 2008 ABQB 472 at para 21.
  [556] My previous review indicates why, globally, any OPCA strategy that denies court authority is intrinsically frivolous and vexatious. These arguments cannot succeed in the face of the inherent jurisdiction of the superior courts of Canada. Any argument or scheme that possesses this characteristic is therefore clearly invalid and cannot be a basis for litigation. Further, the conduct of OPCA litigants and gurus, and their rhetoric, makes very plain that these schemes are advanced with the express purpose of abusing the court's processes.
  c. An OPCA Argument that Denies Court Authority May Be Contempt of Court Authority
  [557] There is a further implication to the fact that OPCA strategies generally attempt to defeat the intrinsic authority of Canadian superior courts. In my view, when a person advances an OPCA argument, other than a 'money for nothing' scheme, that litigant is potentially in contempt of court. Put another way, an OPCA technique of that kind may meet both the actus reus and mens rea of the contempt offence.
  [558] This conclusion draws from jurisprudence that evaluates the legal effect of a denial of state authority.
  i. Denial of Tax Obligation Evades Tax
  [559] Several provincial courts of appeal have accepted as a principle that the mens rea component for income tax evasion (Income Tax Act, s. 239(1)(d)), is proven where a person:
  1. denies income tax liability on the basis that the Crown has no jurisdiction to tax, or
  2. chooses not to pay income tax.
  [560] The income tax evasion sanctions provided by Income Tax Act, s. 239(1)(e-f), and potentially enhanced under Income Tax Act, s. 239(2), represent serious criminal consequences: a fine of up to 200% of the amounts evaded, and imprisonment of up to two years (s. 239(1)(e-f)) or five years (s. 239)(2)).
  [561] R. v. Klundert2004 CanLII 21268 (ON CA), (2004), 242 D.L.R. (4th) 644, 190 O.A.C. 36 (Ont. C.A.), leave refused [2004] S.C.C.A. No. 463 involved a taxpayer who claimed that income tax had no constitutional basis. The central issue on appeal was whether a defence of honest mistake was possible or instead the intentional refusal to pay tax proved an intent to evade paying tax (paras. 43-49). Doherty J.A. noted that intent and ignorance of the law is relevant in certain criminal contexts (para. 54), but that an asserted belief in the unconstitutional character of tax legislation does not indicate a misunderstanding. Rather, it indicates a conscious intention to disobey:
  58. ... Dr. Klundert knew full well that he owed tax imposed by the Act. His mistake did not go to knowledge of his obligation to pay taxes owing under the Act but rather to the government's right to impose that obligation on him. He did not assert that he was doing his best to comply with the law but, through ignorance or mistake, failed to do so. To the contrary, he acknowledged the obligation to pay under the Act and made a considered decision to refuse to pay because of a belief that the law requiring him to pay was invalid. [Emphasis added.]
  That refusal established the mens rea component of the tax evasion offence, that the taxpayer had willfully evaded paying income tax (paras. 62-64).
  [562] The Ontario Court of Appeal returned to this issue in R. v. Ricci2004 CanLII 33347 (ON CA), (2004), 190 O.A.C. 375, [2005] 1 C.T.C. 40 (Ont. C.A.), leave refused [2004] S.C.C.A. No. 551, and evaluated a taxpayer who advanced the relatively common OPCA argument that the taxpayer was not a person but ''... a "natural person of commoner status" and not subject to payment of income tax.'' (para. 4). The taxpayer argued he was not guilty of tax evasion, as that was his honest belief (para. 5). Following R. v. Klundert the court concluded the taxpayer was guilty of tax evasion:
  6 The trial judge concluded that the appellant intentionally disregarded his obligations under the Act thereby finding that the requisite mens rea for the offence had been made out. In our opinion it was open to him to do so. R. v. Klundert, [2004] O.J. No. 3515, made it clear that a person is not exempt from paying taxes based on his political, religious, philosophical or moral beliefs. ... [Emphasis added.]
  [563] In R. v. Kennedy, 2004 BCCA 638 (CanLII), 2004 BCCA 638 at para. 14, 207 B.C.A.C. 102, leave refused [2006] S.C.C.A. No. 15, Hall J.A. determined that the appellant's guilt was proven by his choice to file inaccurate income tax returns ''... because of his belief that the Income Tax Act was constitutionally invalid ...'' and concluded:
  ... In my opinion, Klinger P.C.J. correctly held that the appellant was required to disclose that income tax in his return regardless of any belief he may have had as to the constitutional right of the federal government to levy or collect income taxes. Having reached this conclusion about the appellant's duty to report income, it seems to me that the trial judge was bound to find the appellant guilty on count 3 in the Information. No additional mental element was required ... [Emphasis added.]
  While the R. v. Kennedy cases does not explain the rationale for the litigant's belief, the full style of cause of his Supreme Court of Canada leave for appeal application, ''Robert'‘Victor'‘MacPherson: Kennedy v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)'', is highly suggestive.
  [564] The Alberta Court of Appeal has cited R. v. Klundert in R. v. Breakell, 2009 ABCA 173 (CanLII), 2009 ABCA 173 at para. 17, 454 A.R. 205 though not specifically for the 'mens rea' rule.
  ii. Denial of Firearms Restrictions Proves Intent for Illegal Possession
  [565] Similarly, the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Montague, 2010 ONCA 141 (CanLII), 2010 ONCA 141 at paras. 39-41, 260 O.A.C. 12 applied the R. v. Klundert presumption in a separate criminal context, regulation of firearms. The appellant was a person who had been found with weapons and ammunition stored in a hidden room: ''It is fair to say that the quantity and nature of the seized arsenal of weapons and associated items may have been sufficient for a small'‘scale insurrection.'' (para. 3).
  [566] The court concluded it was unnecessary in this circumstance to have a jury consider whether the gun collector had intended his unlawful conduct:
  40 In this case, it is apparent from his own evidence that Mr. Montague was not trying to obey the law; instead, in protest against various firearms laws and regulations with which he disagreed, he was choosing which laws he thought should be obeyed. In sum, he knowingly disobeyed the current law. In these circumstances, the defences of honest but mistaken belief and colour of right have no application. [Emphasis added.]
  iii. Denial of Court Authority May Prove the Intent to Engage in Contempt of Court
  [567] A general principle emerges from these cases where a person denies application of law on the basis that it is contrary to the person's ''political, religious, philosophical or moral beliefs''. Denial that a law applies is proof that the person has intended to disobey the law. One such possible expression of ''political, religious, philosophical or moral beliefs'' is a statement that the state or the courts have no authority over a person.
  [568] I have reviewed, in my discussion of the inherent authority of superior courts, why everyone who is in Canada is subject to Canadian law and the Canadian courts. Further, this is a simple fact known by all, an element of the most basic levels of education, and a cornerstone of the operation of an ordered society. As Chief Justice Lamer indicated in Ref re Remuneration of Judges of the Prov. Court of P.E.I.; Ref re Independence and Impartiality of Judges of the Prov. Court of P.E.I., 1997 CanLII 317 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3 at para. 108, 150 D.L.R. (4th) 577, the independent but overarching operation of Canadian courts is ''definitional to the Canadian understanding of constitutionalism''.
  [569] If so, then it is possible that simply advancing many OPCA concepts arguments may prove an intention to disobey and ignore the courts and the law. Reduced to their simplest form, many, if not most, OPCA arguments and concepts resolve to a simple claim: ''I am not subject to control or sanction by any court or government.''
  [570] I have previously concluded that an OPCA concept that denies the jurisdiction of the court is vexatious in character and a basis to immediately strike out arguments, applications, and litigation. That also may be a basis to find a person in contempt of court.
  [571] The long-established contempt of court authority exists to ensure a court can uphold its dignity and process. Justice McLachlin (as she then was) in United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General), 1992 CanLII 99 (SCC), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 901 at 931-933, 89 D.L.R. (4th) 609 observed that ''[t]he rule of law is directly dependent on the ability of the courts to enforce their process and maintain their dignity and respect.''
  [572] She continued to identify the kinds of misconduct that constitute the more serious form of contempt, criminal contempt of court:
  ... A person who simply breaches a court order, for example by failing to abide by visiting hours stipulated in a child custody order, is viewed as having committed civil contempt. However, when the element of public defiance of the court's process in a way calculated to lessen societal respect for the courts is added to the breach, it becomes criminal. ...
  ... The gravamen of the offence is rather the open, continuous and flagrant violation of a court order without regard for the effect that may have on the respect accorded to edicts of the court.
  ... To establish criminal contempt the Crown must prove that the accused defied or disobeyed a court order in a public way (the actus reus), with intent, knowledge or recklessness as to the fact that the public disobedience will tend to depreciate the authority of the court (the mens rea). The Crown must prove these elements beyond a reasonable doubt. As in other criminal offences, however, the necessary mens rea may be inferred from the circumstances. An open and public defiance of a court order will tend to depreciate the authority of the court. Therefore when it is clear the accused must have known his or her act of defiance will be public, it may be inferred that he or she was at least reckless as to whether the authority of the court would be brought into contempt. [Emphasis added.]
  [573] Any hearing before a court, with some specific exceptions, is open and public. The intended purpose of OPCA strategies and the stereotypical forms of OPCA litigant in-court activity generally appear intended to both reduce public respect for and defeat court authority. Therefore, advancing an OPCA strategy, concept, or mechanism that denies court authority in Court may, by definition, meet the actus reus and mens rea elements of criminal contempt of court.
  [574] As noted above, Justice McLachlin at 931 emphasizes that defiance of court authority in a non-public context is a basis for a finding of civil contempt. She offers, as an example:
  A person who simply breaches a court order, for example by failing to abide by visiting hours stipulated in a child custody order, is viewed as having committed civil contempt.
  What is crucial is the intention that the defiant act be public, rather than that it happens for some reason to become the subject of public attention.
  [575] In my view, advancing OPCA strategies outside the courtroom may in certain instances qualify as civil contempt.
  [576] Mercedes'‘Benz Financial v. Kovacevic, 2009 CanLII 9368 (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 783, 2009 CanLII 9368 and Mercedes'‘Benz Financial v. Kovacevicreflex, (2009), 308 D.L.R. (4th) 562, 74 C.P.C. (6th) 326 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.) provide an example of an OPCA litigant being found guilty of contempt of court for ignoring a court order and advancing a range of 'immunity', 'double/split person' and A4V techniques.
  [577] As previously explored in relation to the intrinsic jurisdiction of the courts, when a person says they are in the wrong court then that could be a legitimate argument, however the argument that no court has jurisdiction over a person is vexatious and may be in contempt of (some) court.
  [578] However, in the final analysis, the limits of the application of the contempt of court principles are best explored in a proceeding where an OPCA litigant is alleged to engage in contempt of court by some form of OPCA conduct.
  iv. Other Government Authorities
  [579] It occurs to me that the approach to denial of state legislative authority taken in R. v. Klundert, R. v. Ricci, R. v. Kennedy, and R. v. Montague could potentially also apply to government authority outside the income tax and firearms contexts.
  [580] For example, a court may conclude an OPCA litigant who argues that no government has the authority to restrict or legislate use of automobiles advances a vexatious argument, unless the litigant frames that argument in a constitutional context. That denial of state authority would presumably prove the intent to engage in unlawful conduct.
  [581] As the facts of this case do not relate to that kind of situation, I will leave exploration of that possibility to another proceeding. Nevertheless, I think it is important that OPCA litigants, including Mr. Meads, be aware of this possible consequence to their common practice of denying state authority.
  2. Other OPCA Strategies
  [582] The 'money for nothing' category of OPCA litigation strategies is not inherently frivolous and vexatious. That said, Canadian courts have consistently rejected the validity of these schemes, and identified these concepts as an inappropriate basis for litigation. Litigants and involved gurus who advance 'money for nothing' schemes have attracted elevated and special costs awards: Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union,2006 BCSC 1324 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1324 at paras. 34, 46, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309; CIBC v. Marples, 2008 BCSC 590 (CanLII), 2008 BCSC 590 at paras. 3, 4, 7; Ramjohn v. Rudd, 2007 ABQB 84 (CanLII), 2007 ABQB 84 at paras. 9-10, 156 A.C.W.S. (3d) 38.
  [583] Mr. Meads has advanced a 'money for nothing' scheme, the A4V technique. I have previously concluded that it has no effect in law. A4V is a fiction that OPCA litigants use to defeat valid fiscal obligations.
  [584] Further, I conclude that any litigation or defence based on the pseudolegal A4V concept is inherently frivolous and vexatious. That favours full indemnification of a person who faces an A4V strategy, and punitive and aggravated damages where the A4V strategy is advanced outside a litigation context.
  [585] I see no reason why other OPCA 'money for nothing' schemes will not be evaluated in an analogous manner, but leave that issue to future proceedings.
  3. Responses to OPCA Strategies
  [586] Canadian courts have adopted a variety and range of responses to OPCA litigants and litigation. Any judge who faces OPCA litigation should consider deployment of all tools in this arsenal, and others that may be developed for this difficult litigant category.
  a. Strike Actions, Motions, and Defences
  [587] A court may strike claims or dismiss an action where the judge concludes that a commencement document or pleading is frivolous, irrelevant or improper (Rule 3.68(2)(c)), or an abuse of process (Rule 3.68(2)(d)).
  [588] There is also a well established common'‘law authority that a court's inherent jurisdiction may be applied to control its own process and prevent abuse: Canam Enterprises Inc v. Coles, 2000 CanLII 8514 (ON CA), (2000), 51 O.R. (3d) 481 (Ont. C.A.) at paras 55 56, affirmed, 2002 SCC 63 (CanLII), 2002 SCC 63, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 307; McMeekin v. Alberta (Attorney General), 2012 ABQB 144 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 144 at para. 14.
  [589] This is a common response by courts to OPCA litigation. Examples where an action or defence was struck on that basis include: Jabez Financial Services Inc. (Receiver of) v. Sponagle, 2008 NSSC 112 (CanLII), 2008 NSSC 112 at para. 19, 264 N.S.R. (2d) 224; Tuck v. Canada, 2007 TCC 418 (CanLII), 2007 TCC 418 at para. 18; Hovey Ventures Inc. v. Canada, 2007 TCC 139 (CanLII), 2007 TCC 139 at para. 12, 2007 CCI 139 (CanLII), 2007 CCI 139; Friesen v. Canada, 2007 TCC 287 (CanLII), 2007 TCC 287 at para. 6, 2007 TCC 287 (CanLII), [2007] 5 C.T.C. 2067; Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union,2006 BCSC 750 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 750, 151 A.C.W.S. (3d) 204; National Leasing Group Inc. v. Top West Ventures Ltd., 2001 BCSC 111 (CanLII), 2001 BCSC 111 at para. 9, 102 A.C.W.S. (3d) 303; Borkovic v. Laurentian Bank of Canada, 2001 BCSC 337 (CanLII), 2001 BCSC 337 at para. 23, 103 A.C.W.S. (3d) 700.
  [590] Alternatively, when faced with truly baffling OPCA materials, a court may take the approach applied in Kisikawpimootewin v. Canada, 2004 FC 1426 (CanLII), 2004 FC 1426 at para. 9, 134 A.C.W.S. (3d) 396 and strike a proceeding based on incomprehensible arguments and allegations, where the defendant is ''left both embarrassed and unable to defend itself'' and the court faces ''a proceeding so ill'‘defined that it is unable to discern an argument, or identify any specific material facts.''
  b. Punitive Damages
  [591] Where specifically sought by the party opposing an OPCA litigant, punitive damages may be appropriate where a litigant advances an OPCA scheme, concept, or strategy. An award of this kind would relate to pre-trial misconduct (Polar Ice Express Inc. v. Arctic Glacier Inc., 2009 ABCA 20 (CanLII), 2009 ABCA 20 at para. 21, 446 A.R. 295), such as a demand for payment or a lien filed on the basis of a foisted unilateral agreement.
  [592] The test for misconduct of this kind was recently restated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Richard v. Time Inc., 2012 SCC 8 (CanLII), 2012 SCC 8 at para. 149, 342 D.L.R. (4th) 1:
  At common law, punitive damages can be awarded in any civil suit in which the plaintiff proves that the defendant's conduct was ''malicious, oppressive and high handed [such] that it offends the court's sense of decency'' ... The requirement that the plaintiff demonstrate misconduct that represents a marked departure from ordinary standards of decency ensures that punitive damages will be awarded only in exceptional cases ... [Citations omitted.]
  See also Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, 1995 CanLII 59 (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130 at para. 196, 126 D.L.R. (4th) 129; Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18 (CanLII), 2002 SCC 18 at para. 136, 2002 SCC 18 (CanLII), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595.
  [593] It appears to me that asserting an OPCA scheme, particularly one that has been identified and dismissed as ineffective, can attract punitive damages, where specifically sought by the party opposing the OPCA litigant. The manner in which 'fee schedules' and other foisted unilateral agreements are used seem to make that strategy a particularly appropriate target. These documents have no basis in law, reverse the burden of evidence, and typically involve grotesque and unwarranted 'fines'. To quote Justice Brown, in MBNA Canada Bank v. Luciani, 2011 ONSC 6347 (CanLII), 2011 ONSC 6347 at para. 3, these are ''[a] good old'‘fashioned shake'‘down!'' Extortion deserves a punitive response.
  c. Elevated Costs
  [594] Presumptively, an unsuccessful litigant is expected to pay the opposing parties an amount to offset the legal cost of a proceeding, hearing, or application: Rule 10.29(1). One potential exception to that is where an issue is novel, and therefore the court should take the exceptional step of not ordering costs, see Grant v. Grant, 2010 ABQB 735 (CanLII), 2010 ABQB 735 at paras. 9-17, 1 R.F.L. (7th) 203 for a helpful review of the novelty criteria. Though many OPCA concepts and arguments certainly are unusual, I am not aware any case where costs obligations against an OPCA litigant were waived on the basis they are ''novel''. Instead, the opposite has occurred.
  [595] Perhaps unsurprisingly, OPCA litigation has historically led to elevated cost awards. Examples that are reported include:
  1. double costs: Banilevic v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2002 SKQB 371 (CanLII), 2002 SKQB 371 at paras. 12-13, 117 A.C.W.S. (3d) 549; Ellis v. Canada (Office of the Prime Minister), 2001 SKQB 378 (CanLII), 2001 SKQB 378 at para. 29, 210 Sask.R. 138;
  2. special costs: Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union,2006 BCSC 1324 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1324 at paras. 46, 48, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309; CIBC v. Marples, 2008 BCSC 590 (CanLII), 2008 BCSC 590 at paras. 3, 4, 7; and
  3. substantial or full indemnification: Williams v. Johnston, 2008 CanLII 63194 (ON SC), [2008] O.J. No. 4853 (QL) at para. 15, 2008 CanLII 63194 (Ont. S.C.), affirmed 2009 ONCA 335 (CanLII), 2009 ONCA 335, 176 A.C.W.S. (3d) 609, leave denied [2009] S.C.C.A. No. 266; MBNA Canada Bank v. Luciani, 2011 ONSC 6347 (CanLII), 2011 ONSC 6347 at paras. 3, 17.
  [596] A cost award that indemnifies an innocent party has merit where that person faces OPCA litigation, at least for the portions of an action that relates to an OPCA concept, argument, or strategy. Frequently that may be either on a full indemnity, solicitor and own client basis, or an elevated solicitor and client costs award. Moen J. has recently reviewed the criteria for elevated cost awards of this kind in Brown v. Silvera, 2010 ABQB 224 (CanLII), 2010 ABQB 224 at paras. 29-35, 488 A.R. 22.
  [597] Some of the identified criteria for an award of those kinds include:
  ' solicitor and client costs are awarded where the conduct of a party has been 'reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous': Walsh v. Mobil Oil Canada, 2008 ABCA 268 (CanLII), 2008 ABCA 268 at para. 112, 440 A.R. 199; Hamilton v. Open Window Bakery Ltd., 2004 SCC 9 (CanLII), 2004 SCC 9 at para. 26, 2004 SCC 9 (CanLII), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 303; Young v. Young, 1993 CanLII 34 (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3 at 134, 108 D.L.R. (4th) 193;
  ' solicitor and client costs might suffice to satisfy the objectives of deterrence and punishment that would otherwise be served by a punitive damage award: Colborne Capital Corp. v. 542775 Alberta Ltd., 1999 ABCA 14 (CanLII), 1999 ABCA 14 at para. 294, 228 A.R. 201; College of Physicians & Surgeons, 2009 ABQB 48 (CanLII), 2009 ABQB 48 at paras. 4'‘23, 468 A.R. 101;
  ' misconduct during the litigation can surely be found if there is no reasonable basis on which to commence, or continue, litigation: College of Physicians & Surgeons, at para. 33;
  ' a proceeding that was based on groundless allegations and was a type of conduct that should be discouraged: College of Physicians & Surgeons, at para. 33;
  ' justice can only be done by a complete indemnification for costs: Foulis v. Robinson1978 CanLII 1307 (ON CA), (1978), 21 O.R. (2d) 769, 92 D.L.R. (3d) 134 (Ont. C.A.);
  ' there is evidence that the plaintiff did something to hinder, delay or confuse the litigation, where there was no serious issue of fact or law which required these lengthy, expensive proceedings, where the positively misconducting party was ''contemptuous'' of the aggrieved party in forcing that aggrieved party to exhaust legal proceedings to obtain that which was obviously his: Max Sonnenberg Inc. v. Stewart, Smith (Canada) Ltd., 48 Alta. L.R. (2d) 367, [1987] 2 W.W.R. 75 (Alta. Q.B.);
  ' an attempt to deceive the court and defeat justice, an attempt to delay, deceive and defeat justice: Olson v. New Home Certification Program of Alberta1986 CanLII 1640 (AB QB), (1986), 69 A.R. 356, 44 Alta. L.R. (2d) 207 (Alta. Q.B.);
  ' where the defendants were guilty of positive misconduct, where others should be deterred from like conduct and the defendants should be penalized beyond the ordinary order of costs: Dusik v. Newton1984 CanLII 690 (BC SC), (1984), 51 B.C.L.R. 217, 24 A.C.W.S. (2d) 465 (B.C.S.C.), varied on other grounds 62 B.C.L.R. 1, 31 A.C.W.S. (2d) 199 (B.C.C.A.);
  ' an attempt to delay or hinder proceedings, an attempt to deceive or defeat justice, fraud or untrue or scandalous charges: Pharand Ski Corp. v. Alberta (1991), 122 A.R. 81, 122 A.R. 395 (Alta. Q.B.); and
  ' the positive misconduct of the party which gives rise to the action is so blatant and is calculated to deliberately harm the other party, then despite the technically proper conduct of the legal proceedings, the very fact that the action must be brought by the injured party to gain what was rightfully his in the face of an unreasonable denial: Jackson v. Trimac Industries Ltd. (1993), 138 A.R. 161 at para. 32, 8 Alta. L.R. (3d) 403 (Alta. Q.B.), affirmed on costs, 155 A.R. 42, 20 Alta. L.R. (3d) 117 (Alta. C.A.) (but see Polar Ice Express Inc. v. Arctic Glacier Inc., 2009 ABCA 20 (CanLII), 2009 ABCA 20 at para. 21, 446 A.R. 295).
  [598] Many, if not most, of these characteristics emerge in a typical proceeding that involves OPCA concepts and litigants. The character of that misconduct is further aggravated by the fact that OPCA litigants enter into the courts wielding tools that they anticipate will disrupt, if not break, the system, and thereby defeat genuine legal rights.
  [599] I note that increased costs, such as special costs or double costs, were awarded by courts which had a more limited appreciation of the OPCA movement, its members, and strategies. With our present understanding of this vexatious litigation phenomenon, a strong deterrent response is appropriate. Similarly, the courts have an obligation to help shield those who are targeted in this manner.
  [600] Courts have made gurus liable for costs where a guru participates and instigates litigation of this kind: Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union,2006 BCSC 1324 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1324 at paras. 46, 48, 60 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309, see also Jackson v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2001 SKQB 377 (CanLII), 2001 SKQB 377 at para. 40, 210 Sask.R. 285. I think that is a reasonable response to the participation of these highly disruptive and manipulative persons.
  d. Order Security for Costs
  [601] I am not aware of any OPCA litigation where the target of the OPCA strategy has applied for payment into court of security for costs (Rule 4.22). That said, it seems to me that litigation, a defence, or an application, that flows from a known OPCA strategy, might favour an order of that kind. OPCA strategies that are proven as invalid means the merits of an OPCA litigation are poor: Rule, 4.22(c). Second, OPCA litigants stereotypically deny any obligation to pay state and court obligations, which would make enforcement of a costs award difficult: Rule, 4.22(a).
  [602] Last, there is the fact these OPCA litigants usually say they stand outside the court's authority. That alone is a strong factor that may favour a security for costs order (Rule, 4.22(e)), as that certainly does not favour a reasonable confidence that in this instance the OPCA litigant will acknowledge and discharge his or her cost liability.
  e. Fines
  [603] Rule 10.49(1) authorizes a judge to order ''a party, lawyer or other person'' [emphasis added] pay the court clerk a penalty where a person:
  (a) fails to comply with these rules or a practice note or direction of the Court without adequate excuse, and
  (b) the contravention or failure to comply, in the Court's opinion, has interfered with or may interfere with the proper or efficient administration of justice.
  [604] At the present date there do not seem to be any reported judgments that apply Rule 10.49(1). A number of decisions report on application of its precursor, Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 390/1968, s. 599.1, for instances where misconduct had led to delay and unnecessary steps (Pollock v. Liberty Technical Services Ltd.1997 CanLII 14782 (AB QB), (1997), 50 Alta. L.R. (3d) 335, 71 A.C.W.S. (3d) 20 (Alta. Q.B.)) and as a mechanism to pay for expenditures that were otherwise beyond recovery (A.S. v. N.L.H., 2006 ABQB 708 (CanLII), 2006 ABQB 708, 405 A.R. 35).
  [605] This Rule provides a potentially very helpful mechanism to address OPCA litigant and guru misconduct. Further, any fine issued under this Rule does not affect the substance of a dispute, thus respecting any genuine legal rights and issues that an OPCA litigant may possess.
  [606] Practically any OPCA document fails to comply with the formal and content requirements of the Rules. Those criteria may be developed further by specific court procedures. Similarly, in-court OPCA litigant behaviour often ignores judicial direction. Most OPCA strategies are intentionally disruptive, or at least have that effect, meeting the second penalty criterion of Rule 10.49. OPCA arguments and concepts are generally frivolous, spurious, and vexatious, and therefore employment of these would ''interfere with ... the proper or efficient administration of justice.''
  [607] If so, this Court has a very flexible tool that may be applied to penalize persons who advance OPCA methods. Notably, this Rule allows a judge to target 'other persons', such as the third-parties who sometimes claim to 'represent' or act as an 'agent' for a OPCA litigant, or an OPCA litigant employing a 'double/split person' strategy who refuses to identify themself.
  f. One Judge Remaining on a File
  [608] OPCA litigation is often associated with complex and unorthodox court documentation, correspondence, irregular litigation procedures, and a difficult history, both inside and outside the courtroom. A lay person, lawyer, or judge who confronts one of these files for the first time will probably require significant time and effort to become familiar with the materials and events to date.
  [609] That fact is compounded by the potentially very uncooperative nature of OPCA litigants, particularly those who are attempting to apply 'everything is a contract' and 'dual/split person' schemes. In that sense, OPCA litigation has many of the characteristics of high conflict family disputes.
  [610] As a consequence, it makes sense that a single judge should usually supervise a court proceeding in which OPCA activities have emerged, and that action is an ongoing process. This may be achieved by having a judge seize themselves of the matter, or a more formal process such as assigning a case management judge - in our Court, the former converts into the latter.
  [611] This has a further advantage in that the judge then will have a direct opportunity to observe the activity and development of in-court OPCA litigant strategies and conduct. Whether an ongoing relationship with a supervising judge is a better way to establish a meaningful dialogue with these difficult litigants is not, at present, clear. Time will tell.
  4. Responses to OPCA Litigants and Gurus
  a. Vexatious Litigant Status
  [612] The vexatious character of OPCA litigation may be a basis for an application under Judicature Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. J-2, s. 23.1(1) that a litigant be restricted in their authority to initiate or continue an action.
  [613] Vexatious litigant declarations of this kind are reported for OPCA gurus Lindsay (British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Lindsay, 2007 BCCA 165 (CanLII), 2007 BCCA 165, 238 B.C.A.C. 254, leave refused [2007] S.C.C.A. No. 359; Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Lindsay, 2000 MBCA 11 (CanLII), 2000 MBCA 11, 145 Man.R. (2d) 187) and Dempsey (Dempsey v. Casey, 2004 BCCA 395 (CanLII), 2004 BCCA 395 at paras. 36-38, 132 A.C.W.S. (3d) 833), and Edmonton area Moorish Law OPCA litigant Henry (Henry v. El, 2010 ABCA 312 (CanLII), 2010 ABCA 312 at para. 3, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 138).
  b. Deny Status as a Representative
  [614] For reasons that I suspect are made obvious by these Reasons, there is good basis for a court to deny persons in the OPCA movement, particularly gurus, from acting as representatives or agents, in court. Moreover, such representation is contrary to the Legal Profession Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L'‘8, s. 106(1).
  [615] Even where otherwise not prohibited by law (as it is in Alberta), I have identified a number of decisions where agency has been denied, and those courts have offered very useful bases for their action. In Gravlin et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al, 2005 BCSC 839 (CanLII), 2005 BCSC 839 at para. 71, 140 A.C.W.S. (3d) 447, Justice Garson concluded that any agent who claims to not be subject to the rule of law is unfit to represent a client in court. The late Justice Nash in R. v. Main, 2000 ABQB 56 (CanLII), 2000 ABQB 56 at para. 36, 259 A.R. 163 observed that an advocate who ''... has demonstrated an intention not to be bound by rules and governing procedures in court ...'' should not be permitted to represent a litigant. I agree with both of these principles.
  [616] Similarly, the fact that a person is a known OPCA litigant was a basis to deny that litigant agent status: Hill v. Hill, 2008 SKQB 11 (CanLII), 2008 SKQB 11 at paras. 29-30, 306 Sask.R. 259, see also R. v. Romanowicz1999 CanLII 1315 (ON CA), (1999), 45 O.R. (3d) 506, 178 D.L.R. (4th) 466 for commentary on ''disreputable or incompetent'' representatives.
  [617] In R. v. Martin, 2012 NSPC 73 (CanLII), 2012 NSPC 73, Judge Atwood at para. 6 describes how an OPCA movement member was so ineffectual as a representative that he was denied agent status:
  ... This agent, who identified himself as ''Patrick'', known alternatively as ''Ellis'', stated clearly that he recognized the King James Bible as the only source of law, and embarked on a lengthy inquiry of the Court as to the source of its authority, raising the significance of portraiture of the Sovereign over the bench. As this agent kept getting bogged down in questions and issues that were not properly before the Court, I concluded and ordered that he not be permitted to act as agent.
  I agree that Judge Atwood acted properly to deny representation by this agent once his nature had become apparent. That said, I do not believe it is necessary to defer denial of status so as to test effectiveness where the proposed representative has a known or obvious OPCA affiliation.
  [618] I note that in R. v. L'Espinay, 2005 BCPC 662 (CanLII), 2005 BCPC 662 at paras. 45-53, affirmed 2008 BCCA 20 (CanLII), 2008 BCCA 20 at paras. 3-7, 228 C.C.C. (3d) 129, leave denied [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 494, the court did not limit itself to observed misconduct, but concluded that a person's out-of-court statements, such as a webpage, were a fair basis to evaluate whether that person was an appropriate agent for a party. I agree that kind of evidence is appropriate to test whether or not a person with OPCA affiliations is an appropriate in-court litigation representative, assuming legal prerequisites are otherwise met.
  5. Conclusion - Responses to OPCA Litigation and Litigants
  [619] The objectives and mindset of the typical OPCA litigant presents a challenge to the courts. One should never lose sight of the possibility that a genuine legal issue may lurk, somewhere, behind strange courtroom conduct, and peculiar documentation. However, that is no basis to allow a disruptive and malicious litigant to run rough-shod over innocent parties and proper judicial and court procedures.
  [620] With that in mind, perhaps the best perspective is that a judge carry both carrot and stick. It has been this Court's experience that a firm notice that certain kinds of conduct will not be tolerated sometimes produces the desired result. On other occasions, only active countermeasures and sanctions will bring this kind of litigation under control.
  [621] Existing court responses provide a range of response. How that will be tailored will, no doubt, be the subject of considerable future analysis and commentary.
  VII. Review
  [622] Mr. Meads has advanced a remarkable cross'‘section of the litigation strategies and arguments typical of the OPCA movement. All are invalid. I note with interest that Canadian courts have previously issued written decisions on every last approach Mr. Meads has employed, with perhaps one exception: I have not encountered a litigant or a reported case which involves the 'double outside colon' or 'triple outside colon / double inside colon' variations of the 'dash'‘colon' magical name format. To be explicit, adding one or two additional pair of colons outside or inside one's name has no legal effect. I do not find, but strongly suspect, that even more colons, within or without a name, will similarly be rejected by Canadian courts as an operational and effective 'magic hat'.
  [623] My observation that Mr. Meads has not brought any novel concepts to the court indicates the legal and intellectual bankruptcy of the OPCA movement. At this point they have exhausted their schemes and now simply employ variations on prior strategies that have been rejected following careful and exhaustive judicial review.
  [624] In that sense the debate on the validity of OPCA concepts, such as there ever was, is over. The provincial and federal courts of appeal have uniformly upheld trial decisions to reject OPCA concepts. By my count at least nine of these cases sought leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada. None were granted. Legally, there is no dispute or issue outstanding.
  [625] As such, these arguments and concepts should be disposed of in as direct a manner as possible that:
  1. protects the rights of those persons and entities who are the target of OPCA schemes and harassment by OPCA litigants;
  2. minimizes misuse and waste of court and state resources; and
  3. sends a clear message that these schemes do not work, and that the misuse of court procedures and processes in this manner will not be tolerated.
  [626] I have previously discussed the potentially appropriate civil responses to arguments of this kind. What remains is to determine suitable penalties for those persons who sell and promote OPCA schemes, and for their customers who, perhaps naively, employ those instructions, techniques, and materials. I believe that question is better fully explored in a relevant factual context.
  [627] Nevertheless, I have some general guidelines, suggestions, and comments.
  A. Judiciary
  [628] OPCA litigants are typically self'‘represented, and that means they are owed the R. v. Phillips, 2003 ABCA 4 (CanLII), 2003 ABCA 4, 320 A.R. 172, affirmed en toto, 2003 SCC 57 (CanLII), 2003 SCC 57, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 623, duty that a judge act to ensure the OPCA litigant's right to a fair proceeding is preserved by guiding the litigant through the trial process. The Alberta Court of Appeal in Cold Lake First Nations v. Alberta (Minister of Tourism, Parks and Recreation), 2012 ABCA 36 (CanLII), 2012 ABCA 36 at para. 24 described that obligation as a judge has ''... a special duty to provide limited assistance to unrepresented parties ...''. At para. 25 the scope of that obligation is reviewed:
  The extent of this duty depends on the totality of the circumstances, including the seriousness of the offence, the defences raised, and the sophistication of the unrepresented party ... The judge's advice must be interactive, appropriate to the unrepresented party and to the surrounding circumstances of the case ... Just how far a judge should go in guiding an unrepresented party is a matter of judicial discretion ... [Citations omitted.]
  [629] That is clearly a contextual response. In OPCA litigation, that duty occurs in the face of vexatious litigation and procedural strategies that are designed to disrupt court operation and impede the exercise of legal rights. OPCA litigants have chosen to implement strategies that they have been told will, at a minimum, paralyze court operation, if not break it. That means OPCA litigants have, first and foremost, decided to adopt vexatious litigation strategies. These OPCA litigants claim (wrongly) to be outside court jurisdiction - the rules do not apply to them.
  [630] In McMeekin v. Alberta (Attorney General), 2012 ABQB 456 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 456 at para. 201, Justice Shelley commented on the obligation of a court when faced by a litigant who purposefully ignored court procedure and rules, engaged in repeated, abusive, and vexatious litigation, and challenged court independence and authority:
  I do not pretend to fully understand why Mr. McMeekin persists in this manner, but I have no doubt that he knows very well that he is ignoring court procedure, court etiquette, and advancing spurious, exaggerated claims. That is not tolerable. Mr. McMeekin has no right to force on an ever expanding cast of Defendants in this matter the cost and time commitments necessary to respond to his allegations and abuse of court processes.
  [631] I believe that a key element of an appropriate and successful response to OPCA litigation is that these proceedings be segregated, where possible, to minimize their effect on the innocent other parties involved. The suggested novel and conventional OPCA-specific court procedures (judicial review of suspect documents, show cause hearings, court security procedures, contempt, security for costs, elevated costs and damages, declaration of vexatious litigant status) may be a starting point for that objective. A second aspect is that innocent parties be indemnified for the legal costs associated with OPCA litigation. No, or little, cost should flow to a litigant who is abused by OPCA strategies.
  [632] The countervailing factor is that the courts should watch carefully for genuine arguments masked inside OPCA litigation. However, since the purpose of pleadings is for a party to identify its case for the benefit of the court and the opposing parties (Waquan v. Canada, 2002 ABCA 110 (CanLII), 2002 ABCA 110 at para. 85, 303 A.R. 43; Madill v. Alexander Consulting Grp. (1999) 237 A.R. 307, 71 Alta. L.R. (3d) 50 (Alta. C.A.)), that means that it is not the court's job to engage in an archaeological survey, piecing together fragments of potential issues. A 'show cause' hearing is therefore a potentially appropriate tool for this objective, where the OPCA litigant is invited to demonstrate that he or she has a case.
  [633] Another alternative, albeit compounded by funding challenges, is to appoint an amicus curiae, as occurred in R. v. Martin, 2012 NSPC 73 (CanLII), 2012 NSPC 73 at para. 5. In that case the appointment was
  ... not to represent [the Detaxer], but to assist the Court in ensuring that evidentiary, admissibility, Charter, general and specific defence issues, as well as other arguments that would promote the fair trial of Mr. Martin's charges might be raised in Court at appropriate times. ...
  [634] OPCA litigants and litigation may involve significant frustration. OPCA litigants are often instructed to follow scripts that implement strategies such as the 'double/split person' or 'everything is a contract' concepts which require the OPCA litigant act in an inscrutable, if not defiant manner. There are no obvious solutions for that kind of conduct, other than a firm indication that these strategies have no legal meaning.
  [635] That challenge is not assisted by guru indoctrination that court and state actors are parts of an oppressive, malignant entity, or at a minimum willing supporting characters of a dark, concealed design. Given that, to say that the typical OPCA litigant appears to be 'tightly wound' is an understatement.
  [636] It is my hope that these Reasons will provide a foundation for court response, but also act to educate potential OPCA litigants. It may be helpful to refer persons who appear to have adopted OPCA concepts to these Reasons. If nothing else, the parade of failures will refute OPCA gurus' all too frequent claims that the techniques they sell are universally effective.
  [637] Other potentially useful steps include:
  1. an explanation of court costs, and the court's contempt authority,
  2 refusal to permit any non'‘lawyer representation (Legal Profession Act, s. 106(1)), and
  3. dismissing any application, action or defence where a litigant refuses to identify themselves, or identifies themselves via cryptic double/split person language, what Justice Midwinter called a ''song and dance routine''.
  [638] The first point deserves some elaboration. It has been this Court's experience that OPCA gurus do not educate their customers on the purpose and operation of court cost awards. An OPCA litigant may perceive explanation of this mechanism as a threat, but this explanation is a crucial aspect in the ''limited duty'' a judge owes to these self'‘represented litigants. OPCA litigants seem to often believe there are no potential negative consequences to their adopting OPCA techniques and strategies. Evidence to the contrary is a challenge to that indoctrination.
  [639] Another mechanism to curb OPCA litigant misconduct is Rule 10.49(1). That too provides a tangible measured response, but preserves potentially enforceable legal rights.
  [640] My previous practice has been to simply reject OPCA materials. With this Court's new approach to OPCA litigation those materials become a foundation for a variety of court responses (costs awards, vexatious litigation and litigant status, contempt, and criminal offences), and are generally only relevant for those purposes. Of course, it is necessary to make very clear to OPCA litigants that is the sole effect of these documents.
  [641] Any OPCA litigation will be a challenge. However, time and experience will allow the development of efficient court responses to these litigants. The first key is to know who they are, and why they act as they do. Canadian courts have now passed that hurdle. What remains is to manage these problematic self-represented and vexatious litigants in an effective manner.
  B. Lawyers
  1. A Lawyer's Duties
  [642] Like the judge, a lawyer who represents the target of an OPCA litigant faces a difficult task. However, as an officer of the court each lawyer has certain duties not only to the client, but also to the justice system as a whole.
  a. Notarization of OPCA Materials
  [643] One duty is to not participate in or facilitate OPCA schemes. During preparation of these Reasons, I reviewed a large number of OPCA litigation files in our Court. I was very disturbed and profoundly disappointed to see the number of occasions where an OPCA document was notarized by a practicing lawyer. Certain of Mr. Meads' materials were marked in that manner, by two different members of the Alberta Bar.
  [644] Alberta Justice has instructed lay notaries to not endorse documents of this kind: Papadopoulos v. Borg, 2009 ABCA 201 (CanLII), 2009 ABCA 201 at para. 3.
  [645] This Court has, on previous instances, drawn to the attention of the Law Society of Alberta that this kind of action is inappropriate for an officer of the court. It assists implementation of vexatious litigation strategies. In my view, a lawyer has a positive duty not to engage in a step that would 'formalize' (though typically in a legally irrelevant manner) an OPCA document. I have previously noted that certain OPCA gurus place a peculiar and mythical authority in a notary's hands. A lawyer should not, directly or indirectly, reenforce, or support that purpose.
  b. Triage: Identification of Legal Issues
  [646] A second duty of lawyers in OPCA litigation is that captured in Rule 1.2(3)(a), that a litigant has an obligation ''... to identify the real issues in dispute and facilitate the quickest means of resolving the claim at the least expense ...''. OPCA litigants mask their potential real disputes in a bog of cryptic documentation, spurious argument, irrelevant legal maxims, and stereotyped and caricatured court conduct. A judge can very much benefit from the opposing party's understanding of what tangible legal issues may lay buried in that morass. Indeed, once those spurious OPCA characteristics and components are stripped away, it is the duty of the Court to fairly adjudicate the legitimate issues that remain.
  [647] As a lawyer and his or her client will have likely had much more exposure to the OPCA litigant, those persons may be able to help identify any issues that led to the litigation now framed in an OPCA context. It is very important to identify and narrow a proceeding to remove illegitimate issues and procedures, so as to concentrate on any valid aspects that remain. That helps a judge identify, isolate, and preserve the OPCA litigant's potential valid (or arguable) legal claims. The end result is that a dispute will be more readily resolved in a timely and cost'‘effective manner.
  2. Education
  a. Judges and Courts
  [648] The Edmonton Court of Queen's Bench has had the dubious fortune to host not only a significant number, but also a variety, of OPCA litigants and OPCA movements. Other parts of Alberta and Canada may have had less exposure to OPCA litigants, their concepts, and in-court (mis)conduct.
  [649] As a consequence, a lawyer may find it useful to provide some background and evidence to a judge. My hope is that these Reasons will provide a useful point of departure. In many instances it should be possible to assign an OPCA strategy or concept to an identified category, followed by dismissal, or other appropriate sanction(s), on that basis. Review for relevant caselaw is helpful, particularly where a particular OPCA concept has been identified and rejected.
  [650] To this point lawyers in this jurisdiction have not submitted background evidence on OPCA litigation and concepts that explains the particular strategies advanced in a specific dispute. While this kind of evidence is not necessary to manage and resolve OPCA litigation, it can provide a very useful context to a judge, particularly one who is less familiar with OPCA concepts, language, and strategies. This information may include:
  1. OPCA fingerprint motifs, such as those identified in these Reasons,
  2. materials from the OPCA litigant that the court has not received,
  3. information about the OPCA litigant's guru or host movement,
  4. expert evidence of persons familiar with OPCA fingerprints, concepts, schemes, and gurus,
  5. communications by the litigant within the OPCA community, and
  6. known security risks of a relevant OPCA movement.
  [651] Several of these items deserve some elaboration. OPCA litigants often post in online forums run by OPCA movements and gurus. The communications or recorded videos may be helpful evidence of the litigant's plans and perspective.
  [652] There is no better way to illustrate the intention and basis for OPCA litigant misconduct than the materials provided by the litigant's guru. Not only do these place the litigant's frame of mind and attitude front and center, but they also illustrate how an OPCA scheme is intended to operate '' in a disruptive manner that subverts state and court authority. As these Reasons have attempted to show, the rhetoric employed by OPCA gurus is anything but subtle. Of course, these materials may not be easy to identify or obtain, but where available they are damning.
  [653] Curiously, to this point the OPCA community seems to have attracted very little academic and legal commentary. There is clearly an emerging law enforcement and security awareness of the potential threats posed by certain OPCA movements. Nevertheless, there are some useful starting points for a lawyer who seeks a better understanding of OPCA litigants and concepts.
  [654] Several American sources are helpful. The IRS maintains a detailed index of ''frivolous tax arguments'', which, when advanced, result in an automatic rejection and fine. Canadian variations have emerged in one form or another for almost all of these concepts. American lawyer Daniel B. Evans maintains ''The Tax Protestor FAQ'' (http://evans'‘legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html), which is a remarkably comprehensive index of American OPCA concepts and associated jurisprudence, as well as an index of certain known American OPCA gurus.
  [655] Perhaps unsurprising for what appears to often be an Internet driven phenomenon, the OPCA community has drawn the critical attention of others online. Anti'‘scam and skeptic web forums include persons interested in OPCA concepts and their proponents. The ''James Randi Educational Foundation'' (http://forums.randi.org/) and ''Quatloos! Cyber Museum of Scams & Frauds'' (http://quatloosia.blogspot.com/) have significant and ongoing discussion of OPCA concepts and movements, world'‘wide. Persons in these forums go so far as to actively challenge and debate OPCA gurus, including Canadian OPCA gurus.
  b. The OPCA Litigant
  [656] It may be difficult to engage in meaningful discussion with a typical OPCA litigant outside a court setting given their frequently confrontational character and distorted world perspectives. Some of the documents from Mr. Meads in the court file illustrate that point. Nevertheless, a lawyer may find it helpful to inform an opposing OPCA litigant of certain things.
  [657] As previously noted, OPCA gurus do not appear to educate their customers on the concept and implications of court costs awards. Similarly, cases that directly relate to arguments advanced by an OPCA litigant may be of assistance. These Reasons provides what I hope is a generally comprehensive review of those. In many instances OPCA gurus have appeared in court. They have been unsuccessful. That too may assist an OPCA litigant in adopting a more appropriate litigation approach.
  3. Conclusion - Lawyers and OPCA Litigation
  [658] Dealing with an OPCA litigant is difficult and frustrating. The fact that they are almost always self-represented adds to the challenge. What is worse is if a guru is directly involved. I anticipate most judges will not tolerate representation by these persons (Legal Profession Act, s. 106(1)), particularly if the judge understands the nature of the guru and his activities. The reported case-law in relation to Lindsay, Dempsey, Lavigne, and Menard confirms that.
  [659] Timely and cost-effective resolution of these disputes requires that an action be pared down to its legitimate substance. That can be achieved by applications to strike irrelevant submissions and pleadings, and to categorize materials as irrelevant except for the purpose of costs, vexatious litigation and litigant status, and contempt and criminal sanction.
  [660] I have previously commented on the vexatious and abusive character of OPCA concepts. Litigation of that kind meets both the criteria for punitive damages and elevated cost awards, including solicitor and own client costs. Lawyers should pursue those awards to minimize harm to their clients.
  [661] The courts are now live to these persons and their schemes. Lawyers should structure their pre-trial steps and arguments on that basis.
  C. 'Target' Litigants
  [662] The same considerations that apply to lawyers also are generally relevant to litigants who are the subject of OPCA schemes and approaches. The place where a litigant can provide further assistance is in identification and isolation of potential OPCA litigant legal issues. I anticipate this will prove particularly relevant where an OPCA litigant is involved in a family law context.
  D. OPCA Litigants
  [663] As I suspect these Reasons will come to the attention of present and potential OPCA litigants, and other members in the OPCA movements, I wish to make some comments directly to these readers that I hope will prove of some assistance.
  [664] I have attempted to review and explain every OPCA scheme of which this Court has become aware, and why those concepts are invalid. If you seek to apply an OPCA strategy described in these Reasons, then I hope you will carefully review the relevant caselaw.
  [665] I suggest you familiarize yourself with the concept of court cost awards. This Court has the authority to make these orders under Rules 10.28-10.33. These are amounts that a court may require an unsuccessful party pay the other litigants. Court costs have a variety of purposes, but generally are intended to offset the fiscal effect of a person being forced to appear in court without a valid legal reason. Rule 10.33 includes important factors that affect costs, as do the litigants' duties and responsibilities that are listed in Rule 1.2: Paniccia Estate v. Toal, 2012 ABQB 11 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 11, at para. 115; Paniccia Estate v. Toal, 2012 ABQB 367 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 367 at para. 38. The 'default' scale of court costs varies with the amount in dispute: Rules, Schedule C.
  [666] If you choose to assert a right based on an OPCA concept, strategy, or scheme, then you may wish to take steps to minimize the potential deleterious effect of failure. Mr. Meads provides a helpful example of how to avoid further liability in the event his approach is not successful. He has continued to (generally) follow this Court's instructions and pay child and spousal support. Compliance with existing court orders avoids a finding of contempt of court. That precaution also reduces the possibility and quantum of interest awards that a court will usually order where a past obligation has not been met, see the Judgment Interest Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. J.'‘1.
  [667] That is particularly important if you choose to challenge an income tax obligation. The Income Tax Act permits significant late payment penalties in addition to interest due for an outstanding income tax payment. You may avoid these penalties by paying assessed income tax amounts. If you are later successful in court in a dispute on the amount of income tax due, you will then be refunded the excess assessed. If not, you will at a minimum avoid penalty.
  [668] Last, I have some questions you may wish to direct to those gurus who provide you advice:
  1. Why do these gurus seem to have little, if any, wealth, when they say they hold the proverbial keys to untold riches?
  2. Why do those gurus not go to court themselves, if they are so certain of their knowledge? If they say they have been to court, ask them for the proceeding file number, and see if their account is accurate. Those are public records.
  3. Can that guru identify even one reported court decision where their techniques proved successful? If not, why then are all successes a tale of an unnamed person, who knew someone who saw that kind of event occur?
  4. How are their ideas different and distinct from those surveyed and rejected in these Reasons?
  5. How are these advisors different from the OPCA gurus who have been unsuccessful and found themselves in jail? What did Porisky, Warman, and Lindsay do wrong?
  6. Will your advisors promise to indemnify you, when you apply the techniques they claim are foolproof? If not, why?
  7. If they cannot explain these points, then why should you pay them for their legal nonsense?
  E. OPCA Gurus
  [669] In his poem Inferno at Cantos 26-30, Dante placed the ''evil counsellors'' '‘ those who used their position to advise others to engage in fraud, and ''the falsifiers'' '‘ alchemists, counterfeiters, perjurers, and imposters, into the inner canyons of the eighth circle of hell. As sinners, the evil counsellors and falisifiers were matched by those who induce religious schisms, and surpassed only in fault by oath'‘breakers.
  [670] Persons who purposefully promote and teach proven ineffective techniques that purport to defeat valid state and court authority, and circumvent social obligations, appear to fall into those two categories. That they do so, and for profit at the expense of naive and vulnerable customers, is worse.
  [671] William S. Burroughs in Naked Lunch (New York: Grove Press, 1962, p. 11) wrote: ''Hustlers of the world, there is one Mark you cannot beat: The Mark Inside.'' I believe that is true for you. At some basic level, you understand that you are selling lies, or at the very most generous, wildly dubious concepts.
  [672] It does not matter whether you frame your 'business' as a joke, religion, for educational purposes only, or as not being legal advice; your 'business' harms your naive or malicious customers, their families, and the innocent persons whom your customers abuse as they attempt to exercise what you have told them are their rights.
  [673] You cannot identify one instance where a court has rolled over and behaved as told. Not one. Your spells, when cast, fail.
  [674] If you believe what you teach is true, then do not encourage others to be the ones to execute those concepts in the courts. Present your ideas and concepts yourselves. You will get a fair hearing, and as detailed a response as your ideas warrant. The caselaw cited in these Reasons make that very clear. Canadian courts will hear you and will consider whether what you claim is or is not correct.
  [675] In that sense, I acknowledge a grudging respect for David Kevin Lindsay, in that he has personally tested many of his ideas in court. That does not excuse his inciting others to engage in vexatious, illegal conduct, or his profiting from the same. Nevertheless, he has ''walked the walk''. If you truly believe your ideas are valid, look at how Lindsay has been treated by Canadian courts and the careful analyses of his ideas. Yes, he has failed, but where he has approached Canada's legal system with clarity and respect, he has received the same.
  VIII. Application of These Reasons to the Meads v. Meads Litigation
  [676] I return to the parties to this litigation.
  A. Ms. Meads
  1. Case Management
  [677] Counsel for Ms. Meads applied to have a case management justice appointed in this case. That was granted, and I appointed myself in this role.
  [678] Case management is appropriate for several reasons. First, Mr. Meads' materials that Ms. Meads had attached to her application and which were already filed with the Court have obvious OPCA characteristics. The February 15 document attempts to foist a fiduciary relationship, and indicates Mr. Meads believes he has a unilateral authority to control litigation. These are evidence that he believes he is not subject to this Court's authority.
  [679] Counsel for Ms. Meads did not explain in detail the OPCA strategies she had encountered, however these were very obvious from Mr. Meads' submissions at the June 8, 2012 hearing. His conduct in court had problematic aspects.
  [680] OPCA litigation, in general, warrants close and direct judicial supervision to both control the scope of the action and ameliorate the consequences to the target of vexatious OPCA strategies. Here, the divorce and matrimonial property actions are in an early stage. There is much yet to be done, absent settlement. Ongoing supervision by a single justice is therefore appropriate.
  [681] The need for case management is confirmed by Mr. Meads' failure to adhere to my case management Conditions and Guidelines by his filing of the June 19 and 21 document sets contrary to the terms thereof. I will further comment on those documents below.
  2. Disclosure by Mr. Meads
  [682] On June 8, counsel for Ms. Meads sought disclosure of certain information from Mr. Meads. The information requested was routine for a divorce and matrimonial property division proceeding. On June 25, 2012 I granted an order that required Mr. Meads, by August 31, 2012, provide to Ms. Meads his:
  1. T1 General Income Tax Return, including all schedules and attachments, and Notices of Assessment for the 2010 and 2011 taxation years. (Since then, with the passage of time, the same would now follow for the 2012 taxation year, by Mr. Meads providing some voluntarily or further application by Ms. Meads and a further Court Order);
  2. three most recent statements of earnings indicating Mr. Meads' total earnings paid in the year to date, including overtime, or where such a statement is not provided by the Mr. Meads' employer, a letter from Mr. Meads' employer setting out that information, including Mr. Meads' rate of annual salary or remuneration;
  3. copies of the statements from 2008 to present for all RRSPs, pensions, term deposit certificates, guaranteed investment certificates, stock accounts and other investments in Mr. Meads' name or in which Mr. Meads has an interest; and
  4. a sworn statement of Mr. Meads' income, assets and liabilities, which would include a listing of the quantity and quality of his precious metals and stones
  failing which the powers granted to me by the Rules of Court (including contempt of court) may be exercised on application by Ms. Meads.
  [683] The OPCA character of this action is not the basis for this Order, which is a typic order in a family matter where disclosure has not occurred voluntarily by one or more parties.
  3. Ongoing Communication with Mr. Meads
  [684] Counsel for the Ms. Meads applied for case management as she could not find an effective way to deal with Mr. Meads in an efficient and timely manner. My intention is that these Reasons will directly address that issue. If not, I believe Ms. Mead's Counsel will now have a much better foundation to understand Mr. Meads' activities. Additionally, these Reasons will provide guidance on how this and other courts have responded to OPCA litigation. That, I believe, will assist her in taking steps and seeking remedies that may be necessary to lead to the early and efficient resolution of this litigation.
  B. Mr. Meads
  [685] I will now review the litigation steps by Mr. Meads, to this point, and this Court's responses. This process will apply my survey of the OPCA phenomenon to the specific events and materials in this action.
  1. Pre-Hearing Activities
  [686] A number of documents were filed in this action prior to the June 8 case management appointment hearing. My instructions in relation to these follow:
  a. The February 15, 2011 Document
  [687] A very irregular document was filed with the Court on February 15, 2011. It does not have the usual formalities associated with a proper court document, and instead most closely resembles a letter, addressed to the ''Chief Court Administrator/Clerk Queen's Bench of Alberta''.
  [688] This document displays an extremely wide range of OPCA indicia, including:
  1. OPCA naming motifs: 'dash colon' names, the 'family/clan/house' format, duplicate upper-case and lower case related names, copyright in name;
  2. irregular formalities: postage stamps without apparent function, a red thumbprint, an unnecessary notarization;
  3. an atypical postal code;
  4. the writer claiming to be of 'flesh and blood';
  5. the author is the Postmaster General''; and
  6. the phrases ''Notice with the Agent is notice with the Principal'' and ''Notice with the Principal is with the notice with Agent''.
  [689] Cursory review of this document would lead to the immediate conclusion that this appears to be OPCA material. In the future, Court procedures may be developed and/or applied which would immediately respond to such material. For example, I believe this is the kind of document that may be 'received' by a court clerk, but not formally filed, and then diverted for review by myself as case management justice, to determine its relevance and possible rejection.
  [690] Review of the February 15 document discloses a number of important facts. First, the document clearly shows that Mr. Meads subscribes to a 'double/split person' OPCA concept. He says that one aspect, the 'dash colon' and 'family' named entity is the 'owner/representative' of a ''legal estate'' named ''DENNIS LARRY MEADS''. The author adheres to the 'everything is a contract' concept, as is illustrated by a disclaimer that the use of a notary ''... does not create an adhesion contract with the any-state/province ...''. These observations suggest that communication with this litigant in court will be difficult.
  [691] Another interesting detail is that Mr. Meads describes his non-corporeal half as ''a Provincial Registered Event/ESTATE wholly owned by ''Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada''. That strongly suggests that Mr. Meads' view of his other half is a ''strawman'', something shackled to him by the government. He presumably will attempt then to deny responsibility for that aspect.
  [692] The intent of the document appears two fold:
  1. it appoints a court clerk ''Fiduciary Trustee Liable for the myself and one, ::dennis-larry:: of the meads family::''; and
  2. purports to unilaterally adjourn the proceeding:
  For, on and in the record, I, ::dennis-larry:: of the meads-family:: as the Administrator for the Office for the DENNIS LARRY MEADS'S the ESTATE-Creditor in the instant matter at hand, do here and now Adjourn this instant matter until further notice, from my office. May Almighty God Jehovah bless all of ewe through His Living Son and Reigning King, Jesus the Christ. Amen and Amen.
  [693] The attempt to appoint the court clerk is a foisted unilateral agreement, and as I have explained, has no effect. Similarly, Mr. Meads (flesh and blood) has no authority to unilaterally adjourn the divorce and matrimonial property division proceeding. Further, the intent of this document is vexatious. It denies court authority over its own processes, and, contrary to law, attempts to place an obligation on a court employee. I declare that this document has no legal meaning or effect.
  [694] I further declare that the February 15, 2011 document is of no relevance whatsoever. If I had received this document after issue of these Reasons I would have ordered that the document has no legal effect and was irrelevant for all purposes, except for calculation of costs against Mr. Meads, vexatious status of the litigation and litigant, and/or whether Mr. Meads has engaged in criminal or contemptuous misconduct.
  b. The March 3, 2011 Document
  [695] The next relevant document was filed with the Court on March 3, 2011, and is titled ''Good Faith Notice'' in the Nature of an Affidavit. For an ''affidavit'', it is highly irregular, and instead again more closely resembles a letter than anything else. It is addressed to ''Audrey Hardwick/AUDREY HARDWICK BEING A CORPORATE ENTITY''. That is apparently the assistant to Ms. Meads' former lawyer.
  [696] Again, the OPCA indicia in this document are obvious:
  1. OPCA naming motifs: 'dash colon' names, the 'family/clan/house' format, duplicate upper-case and lower case related names, copyright in name;
  2. irregular formalities: a red thumbprint, an unnecessary notarization;
  3. an atypical postal code;
  4. the writer claiming to be of 'flesh and blood';
  5. the phrases ''Notice with the Agent is notice with the Principal'' and ''Notice with the Principal is with the notice with Agent''.
  This is therefore another document that could be the target of specific court procedure as a result of its OPCA indicia.
  [697] The text of the document again indicates that Mr. Meads has adopted 'everything is a contract' and 'double/split person' OPCA concepts. Mr. Meads demands that the recipient stop attempting to enter into contract with him by correspondence. There is an aggressive tone to this demand, as Mr. Meads says he will ''make formal Criminal Charges'' and ''HOLD YOU AT YOUR FULL COMMERCIAL LAIBILITY AND YOUR UNLIMITED CIVIL CAPACITY.'' [sic.]. This document also makes reference to and demands the recipient and the law office's ''commercial bond number''. This language appears in other OPCA documents, but its origin and meaning is obscure.
  [698] This document has no legal meaning for either its recipient or the Court. A contract is not formed by simply mailing someone a letter or other correspondence, so in this sense Mr. Meads has nothing to complain about. Further, he has no legal right to use communication of that kind as a basis for either criminal or civil litigation. The context of this document is unclear. I do not know, for example, what communication from Ms. Meads' lawyer may have triggered this response. If that was a legitimate and typical litigation step, such as a request for disclosure, then Mr. Meads' response may be evidence of vexatious conduct.
  [699] The threats against Ms. Hardwick and her employer clearly have no basis, and I can infer from these materials a malicious intent to deter Ms. Meads' pursuit of this litigation.
  [700] As with the February 15 document, I declare the March 3 document is of no relevance whatsoever.
  c. The April 27, 2012 Documents
  [701] On March 29, 2012, Ms. Meads applied for appointment of a case management justice. Her letter states that Mr. Meads has failed to disclose financial information as required by a March 2, 2011 Order of Justice Ross. The February 15, 2011 and March 3, 2011 documents are attached, '' ... to give you an indication of the difficulty in dealing with this particular self-rep.''
  [702] A collection of documents filed by Mr. Meads on April 27, 2012 appear to be a response to that March 29 application. The April 27, 2012 documents are more conventional in appearance, and, for example, meet many formal requirements for documents filed in court. The April 27 documents initially related to a May 25, 2012 application, but were instead directed to the June 8, 2012 hearing. Justice Ouellette made handwritten notations to the cover page of these materials that state ''Fiat: Let the within documents be filed for the purposes of argument before the A.C.J. Rooke at the case conference.'' and that the date of that case conference has yet to be determined. The manner in which these materials came before Justice Ouellette is not obvious.
  [703] There are two affidavits attached, both titled ''Affidavit in Support of Order to Show Cause'', dated April 24, 2012.
  [704] In brief, the first states that Ms. Meads' Counsel, Ms. Reeves ''... has failed to make whole CRYSTAL LYNN MEADS ...'', court clerk Barb Petryk is a fiduciary of Mr. Meads, which relates to the February 15, 2011 document, and that Ms. Reeves ''... has not pursued this remedy provided in good faith ...''. The remainder of the first affidavit quotes the instructions of Justice Veit at a March 18 2011 hearing to determine interim support, and then requests a court order to compel Ms. Reeves' compliance with the March 18, 2011 instruction.
  [705] The second affidavit seems to be a direct response to the March 29 case management appointment application. Mr. Meads states:
  1. he has had no contact with Ms. Reeves, and will not interact with her ''... without the provision in writing of his/her Commercial Bond Number as well as the Insuring Company that covers that Bond.'';
  2. he has not been difficult to deal with;
  3. Ms. Reeves has a legal remedy for her client via court clerk Barb Petryk;
  4. a refusal to enter into contract:
  Michele J. Reeves appears to making an offer to Contract and/or Enticement of Slavery (Title 18 United States Code and/or Article 4 Universal Declaration of Human Rights) which I do not grant and give notice he/she will be held at full Commercial Liability and Unlimited Civil capacity for such actions.
  5. his marriage to Ms. Meads was annulled by her infidelities;
  6. various statements about matrimonial property and Ms. Meads' capacity to work;
  7. that Mr. Meads continues his spousal and child support obligations as ordered by Justice Veit on March 18, 2011; and
  8. quotes from email communications from Ms. Meads, that in general relate to the end of their marriage and difficult personal interactions; these are ''disturbing communications''.
  [706] Mr. Meads closes the affidavit with this summary:
  SUMMARY: ::Dennis Larry:: being a ''Injured-Third-Party-Intervenor'' Layman-Lawful, Power of Attorney, Secured Party Creditor for: DENNIS LARRY MEADS (ens legis) has provided remedy for Michele J. Reeves (alleged, PERSONA-AT-LAW PERSONA) and the Court a mean(s) to make whole CRYSTAL LYNN MEADS the Debtor and Grantor. These assaults appear to be in bad faith and the emotional abuse, mental cruelty will have to be addressed by Dennis-Larry: Meads the Secured Party Creditor if continued by Michele J. Reeves (alleged, PERSONA-AT-LAW PERSONA).
  [707] The specific relief sought by Mr. Meads is stated in a ''Motion For An Order To Show Cause'' that is directed at Ms. Reeves, personally, as respondent, by ''::Dennis Larry:: on behalf of DENNIS LARRY MEADS''. It names ''DENNIS LARRY MEADS (juristic person)'' as the ''Movant'', who is ''Represented by :: Dennis Larry:: attorney in fact''. Mr. Meads asks for an order that:
  1. Ms. Reeves appear and prove why she ''should not be held in contempt for violation of false claims made under penalty of perjury dated March 29, 2012''; and
  2. Ms. Reeves ''... has violated the sanctity of the court ...'' by taking ''... full responsibility/liability for CRYSTAL LYNN MEADS the Debtor and Granter'' and not applying the mechanism Mr. Meads has provided to discharge his obligations: the fiduciary status of court clerk Barb Petryk.
  [708] As noted, this document appears much more conventional on its face, but still exhibits characteristic OPCA features, including 'dash colon' names, duplicate names that appear to relate to a single person, and anomalous postal code formats. Again, these indicia could be a basis for specific procedural response.
  [709] As for the document contents, they continue to exhibit the clear 'double/split person' and 'everything is a contract' concepts that were previously observed in Mr. Meads' materials. I believe that what Mr. Meads is trying to convey is that he has told Ms. Reeves that she can pay for Ms. Meads' interim child and spousal support by billing court clerk Barb Petryk. That, in turn, depends on the February 15, 2011 document. Ms. Reeves has failed to do that, and so Mr. Meads now seeks a court order to enforce his instructions.
  [710] Naturally, I refuse to make that order. Ms. Petryk has no obligation that results from the foisted unilateral agreement of February 15, 2011. Ms. Reeves would be correct to not directly pursue Ms. Petryk on that basis.
  [711] I note that this correspondence illustrates how even a totally ineffective OPCA document may have downstream toxic effects. Even though the February 15 document had no meaning, until the issuance of these Reasons, it had not been rejected by the Court or challenged by Ms. Meads. That is not to say that either Ms. Meads, this Court, or the named clerk erred by ignoring a totally spurious document, or that they had any obligation to respond. Rather, my observation is that if Mr. Meads' February 15, 2011 document had been diverted into a process where it was evaluated and rejected as having no relevance then, perhaps, Mr. Meads would not have pursued this avenue. Of course, that is simply conjecture, and only experience will show whether these kinds of preemptive activities are, in fact, helpful in managing OPCA litigation.
  [712] Mr. Meads' other request, that Ms. Reeves be held in contempt for the March 29, 2012 correspondence, is also rejected. If the ''false claims'' of which Mr. Meads speaks are the allegation of breach of court order and that Mr. Meads was difficult to deal with, then the latter fact was established by Mr. Meads' conduct at the June 8, 2012 hearing. At that hearing he also acknowledged he had not previously made financial disclosure.
  [713] Mr. Meads' April 27, 2012 documents and the associated application have a vexatious aspect as they depend on a fictitious obligation from a foisted unilateral agreement. I could, in compliance with the general principle that Mr. Meads should not be permitted to advance spurious vexatious OPCA arguments and inflict unwarranted expense on his opposing litigant, now invite Ms. Reeves to indicate the solicitor and own client costs associated with her response to Mr. Meads' April 27, 2012 documents. I note, however, that aspects of these materials also reflect what I think are potentially valid aspects of matrimonial property division issues, and child and spousal support. Those topics also emerged at the June 8, 2012 hearing. I therefore leave the issue of costs open for future application.
  2. The June 8, 2012 Hearing
  [714] I have previously commented in some detail on what occurred at the June 8, 2012 case management application, and will therefore only make certain comments in summary. Mr. Meads' conduct included indica that are typical of an OPCA litigant. For example, he:
  1. denied court authority on several bases, including that it was an Admiralty law court;
  2. said legislation has no hold over or relevance to him;
  3. said he was subject to a different law, ''God's Law'', the ''Maximus of Law'';
  4. cited the UCC, Black's Law Dictionary and the Bible as overriding authorities;
  5. invoked 'double/split person' concepts: he as the ''flesh and blood man'' represented his ''corporate identity''; and
  6. exhibited an apprehension that his cooperation with myself and Ms. Reeves would lead to a contract (or ''slavery'').
  [715] Mr. Meads, in his submissions, applied a 'reverse onus'. This is typical for OPCA litigants. He demanded that I prove the relevance and application of law to him. If I did not do that, then he would not obey.
  [716] As for the substance of the hearing, certain topics emerged which appeared to be potentially relevant in the ongoing divorce and matrimonial property actions. Other arguments were simply OPCA irrelevancies. A new development was that Mr. Meads explained the theoretical basis for an A4V money for nothing mechanism to pay his obligations. Obviously, I had no reason to entertain that application or what were allegedly its supporting documents. I note that Mr. Meads directed these materials to me, personally.
  [717] The manner in which Mr. Meads introduced the A4V issue illustrates a problem with OPCA litigants. They have a tendency to 'ambush' the court and other litigants with documents in the middle of court proceedings. That, of course, interferes with the orderly progression and management of legal disputes. I do not suggest that there is a uniformly appropriate response to materials presented in this manner. I chose to refuse those materials, as was then my practice. A potentially valid alternative may be to provisionally accept those documents for review, then indicate to the OPCA litigant whether the documents are:
  1. accepted,
  2. rejected as irrelevant, or
  3. accepted but found to be irrelevant for all purposes, except for calculation of costs, the vexatious status of the litigation and litigant, and/or whether the OPCA litigant has engaged in criminal or contemptuous misconduct.
  [718] Another alternative would be to refuse to accept materials that are not formally filed with notice to the other litigants. This, certainly, is a safe response to material of uncertain character and significance. I believe standard practices for this kind of commonplace OPCA activity will evolve.
  [719] As these Reasons indicate, an A4V 'money for nothing' scheme is entirely and absurdly spurious. To attempt to discharge an obligation with those kinds of materials is a vexatious step. I did not accept what may have been A4V documents, nor were those filed. If there had been a formal application by Mr. Meads to discharge his obligation in that manner, and Ms. Meads was forced to respond to that, then a cost award would be warranted to indemnify Ms. Meads. I do not think Ms. Meads was injured, in this instance, by Mr. Meads raising the A4V concept at the case management appointment hearing.
  [720] As previously explained, I concluded this dispute was one that deserves case management, and that was ordered. Mr. Meads did not oppose that.
  3. The June 19 and June 21, 2012 Documents
  [721] I have already commented in some detail on the materials that I received by mail on June 19 and 21, 2012. These were personally directed to me, with copies to Court of Appeal Chief Justice Fraser, the Alberta Public Trustee Cindy Bentz, and Ms. Reeves. The OPCA character of these materials is immediately apparent. For example, the cover letter exhibits multiple OPCA name indicia, Mr. Meads names himself in two related ways, and the letter is signed twice in different colours and formats.
  [722] Mr. Meads names me his fiduciary and demands that I discharge my duties by implementing his A4V scheme, paying his child and spousal support obligations via that mechanism, and ''Divorce-Papers signed as the CRYSTAL LYNNE MEADS''.
  [723] He also requests:
  Debtor, being the CRYSTAL LYNNE MEADS and Michele J. Reeves DBA contact via the any media with the living flesh and blood sentient - man, ::Dennis-Larry:Meads:: and/or the DENNIS LARRY MEADS (juristic person) and when-there is the claim for a breach face the penalties as-is prescribed in the attached-documents.
  I believe this cryptic passage is probably a demand that I enforce his 'fee schedule' against his wife and her lawyer.
  [724] As a whole, the cover latter to the June 19 and 21 documents is a foisted unilateral agreement targeted against myself. It has no legal effect, but does further indicate that Mr. Meads has adopted an improper and vexatious litigation strategy. I rejected receipt of this letter and its associated materials. If I had accepted this document then it would be evidence of the improper character of Mr. Meads' litigation strategy.
  [725] The attached documents have four strategic purposes:
  1. to formalize the relationship between the two aspects of Mr. Meads, DENNIS LARRY MEADS and Dennis-Larry: Meads;
  2. implementation of an A4V scheme;
  3. a 'fee schedule';
  4. the copyright and trademark foisted unilateral declaration.
  [726] I have previously described these items in some detail, and others are reproduced along with the Reasons. The OPCA indicia in these items are plentiful, all contain the 'dash colon' name motifs, duplicate related names with stereotypic labels such as ''a legal entity'' vs. ''a personam sojourn and people of posterity'', and variant postal codes. Spurious application of the UCC and other foreign and irrelevant law is frequent. Most use the ''notice to the principal is notice to the agent'' and ''notice to the agent is notice to the principal'' phrases.
  [727] In brief, the agreements between Mr. Meads and Mr. Meads are a monologue without any legal relevance. The A4V scheme does not provide me with access to any funds that I could then distribute on Mr. Meads' behalf and for his benefit. The fee schedule cannot be legally enforced, and an attempt to enforce it would be an illegal and potentially criminal act. Similarly, Mr. Meads has no basis in law to demand $100 million per use of his name.
  [728] The attached documents have no legal effect and since they were rejected by myself, are irrelevant to the ongoing litigation. If these had instead been placed on the court file, then I believe it would be appropriate that either I order they are irrelevant to the litigation, or only relevant for calculation of costs, the vexatious status of the litigation and Mr. Meads, and/or whether Mr. Meads has engaged in criminal or contemptuous misconduct.
  [729] When I returned the June 19 and 21 materials, my letter informed Mr. Meads that the Conditions and Guidelines did not permit submission of materials of this kind. I instructed him that no further material of this kind should be submitted to the Court, noting that further actions of this kind would be met with a formal court order to desist, and failure to comply may be punished as contempt of court. Indeed further OPCA conduct has the potential of inviting a vexatious litigant application under the Judicature Act, by Ms. Meads, or by the Court on its own application.
  4. Conclusion
  [730] Shortly prior to his exit from the courtroom on June 8, 2012, Mr. Meads told me he had much to think about. He certainly does. While these Reasons cast a wide net, its mesh also falls squarely on him. I hope that he will carefully review its contents and consider his next step.
  [731] To repeat myself, the OPCA arguments he has advanced have no effect or meaning in Canadian law. They offer him no rights, no indemnities, and certainly not a pot of gold or silver to call his own.
  [732] I did not accept his envelope of documents on June 8, and the subsequent materials received on June 19 and 21. I hope he now recognizes the potential consequences that he risks if he repeats that kind of exercise, as next time I will accept those materials, but only as proof of his continued potentially vexatious litigation, contempt of court, and, potentially, criminal misconduct. I have made every effort in these Reasons to lay out the general categories of OPCA concepts that have been evaluated and rejected by Canadian courts. I hope that will help him to better understand Canadian law, and respond to the questions he says remain unanswered.
  [733] From the structure of the OPCA community and the nature of his materials, I believe one or more persons are advising Mr. Meads. I hope he will show them these Reasons, and scrutinize their response. I believe Mr. Meads has the ability to meaningfully evaluate their reply. Mr. Meads may also benefit from speaking to and indeed retaining legal counsel.
  [734] I would also suggest that Mr. Meads read Canadian caselaw. The majority of cases that are cited in these Reasons may be retrieved at no cost at the Canadian Legal Information Institute website: ''http://www.canlii.org''. Earlier jurisprudence and other legal texts are available at court law libraries that are open to the public.
  [735] Unlike many OPCA community members, in court Mr. Meads was generally polite to me and Ms. Meads' counsel. He usually respectfully waited to speak, and while his answers to me were not always satisfactory, he nevertheless conducted himself in a generally proper manner. I did not appreciate his demands, or his claims that my conduct was unsatisfactory, but I have an understanding of the context in which those statements occurred. I trust that will not recur. His premature exit from the proceedings was not appropriate, however I understand the misconceptions that may have led him to act in that manner. I suggest he remain throughout any future hearing, as his absence will not assist him.
  [736] In our discussions on June 8 he raised several issues in relation to matrimonial property division, spousal support, and child support that I believe are potentially valid. I look forward to assisting him and Ms. Meads to settle or, if necessary, take those issues to trial in a cost and time effective manner. While I am not his ''Fiduciary-Trustee-Liable Position with the highest and with the greatest-level for the care'', I am the Case Management Justice on this matter, and I intend to see that both his and Ms. Meads' legal rights are protected and explored in the resolution of this dispute.
  Heard on the 8th day of June, 2012.
  Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 18th day of September, 2012.
  J.D. Rooke
  A.C.J.C.Q.B.A.
  Appearances:
  Michele J. Reeves
  Attia Reeves Tensfeldt Snow
  for the Applicant
  Dennis Larry Meads
  self-represented
  Appendix''A'' - Meads' Fee Schedule
  [Note - the format and content of this document has been reproduced, as best possible, in an accurate manner. Certain personal information has been redacted for privacy reasons.]
  Registered Private Tracking Number '‘ LT 679 966 085 CA
  UCC'‘1 Filed in ALBERTA '‘ Secured Transaction Registry Number'‘ 11120912227
  ATTENTION AND WARNING!
  THIS IS A LEGAL NOTICE AND DEMAND
  FIAT JUSTITIA, RUAT COELUM
  (Let right be done, though the heavens should fall)
  To: All Provincial, State, Federal and International Public Officials, by and through
  Province of Alberta, Lieutenant Governor, Donald S. Ethell and/or
  Governor General, David Lloyd Johnston
  TAKE NOTICE IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE
  THIS IS A CONTRACT IN ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
  Take a moment to read this before you proceed any further.
  I do not wish to speak to you under any circumstances excluding federal judicial review
  THIS TITLE IS FOR YOUR PROTECTION!
  (1) I, one Dennis'‘Larry: Meads [free man], the undersigned, herein request that you present anything that you say to me in writing, signed under penalty of perjury as required by your law as shown in this instrument. Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal. Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent. Attachments are included and are part of this contract.
  (2) This Notice is in the nature of a Miranda Warning. Take due heed of its contents. If, for any reason, you do not understand any of these statements or warnings, it is incumbent upon you to summon a superior officer, special prosecutor, federal judge, or other competent legal counsel to immediately explain to you the significance of this presentment as per your duties and obligations in respect to this private, formal, notarized, registered Statute Staple Securities Instrument. As per provisions under, NAFTA, UNIDROIT, UNCITRAL Convention, Title 11 USC 501(a), 502(a), 11 USC 7001, 7013, and Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureSections 8'‘A, AND 13'‘A, the claim or presumption that I, Dennis-Larry: Meads, am a Debtor to Canada or any of its provinces, agencies or sub'‘corporations is forever rebutted by this contract. This rebuttal is a counterclaim in Admiralty.
  (3) Your Failure to timely do so leaves you in the position of accepting full responsibility for any and all liabilities for monetary damages, as indicated herein, that I incur by any adversely affecting injuries caused by your overt or covert actions, or the actions of any of your fellow public officers and agents in this or any other relevant matters as described herein. You have thirty (30) days, from the date that this document is received by the Clerk of the Public Record, to respond and rebut the presumptions of this contract by submitting to me signed, certified, authenticated documents of the laws that rebut these presumptions point by point. On and For the Record under penalties of the law including perjury. This document will be on file in the public record; and the clerk in charge of the public record is charged to distribute this to any and all responsible parties, i.e., officers of the court, and /or law enforcement officers including local, state, federal, international, multi- jurisdictional, or any and all officers, representatives, contractors, agencies, or any such entity or person that may bring any type of action, whether civil or criminal or other, against me, and whether in this county, state, region, area, country, corporation, federal zone, or in any venue and/or jurisdiction. Your failure to timely rebut the statements and warnings herein constitute your complete, tacit agreement with all statements and warnings contained herein. Your presumptions that I, the undersigned, am a "Corporate Fiction" or "Legal Entity" and under your corporate "CANADA" jurisdiction are now and forever rebutted.
  (4) I, the undersigned, tendering this document, am a Private People of Posterity; a Sovereign Personam Sojourn; by fact; a non-juristic entity, not as legal personality in fiction, or surety within; or subject for; or allegiance to; your corporate "CANADA"; or to any de facto, compact, corporate, commercial provinces, states, contracting therein; only to the "canada," nonetheless carrying with me exclusive, original, sovereign jurisdiction and venue having one supreme court and CANADA Court of International Trade. This is a matter of public record, tendered by way of registered mail to Governor General of Canada David Lloyd Johnston and/or Lieutenant Governor of Alberta Donald s. Ethell. These pages are recorded upon liber records and books in Register of Deeds Offices including but not limited to Provincial Court of Stony Plain and Queens Court of Alberta.
  (5) I, the undersigned, now tendering this legally binding Legal Notice and Demand in hand am not a surety under your jurisdiction nor a subject under your corporate veil "Color of Law Venue," being acknowledged by silence and acquiescence of, Governor General of Canada David Lloyd Johnston and/or Lieutenant Governor of Alberta Donald s. Ethell, also but not limited to any public officers, agents, contractors, assigns, employees, and subsidiaries of your office, regarding my Legal Notice and Demand tendered by registered mail with liber book number and page affixed.
  (6) Which silence of Corporate Office Governor General of Canada David Lloyd Johnston and/or Lieutenant Governor of Alberta Donald s. Ethell ratifies severances of any nexus or relationship to de facto, corporate, commercial state offices; being fraudulent conveyance by operating under " Color of Authority" upon affiant. Let this be known by the ''Good Faith (Oxford) Doctrine"to all men and women. I do not consent to any warrantless searches, or searches that are not compliant with the "Constitution of Canada" and /or all of the amendments of the Honorable "Canadian Bill of Rights," whether of my dwellings, cars, land craft, watercraft, aircraft, me, mine, current location, property, hotel rooms, apartments, business records, businesses, or my machinery, vehicles, equipment, supplies, buildings, grounds, land in my private possession or control, past, present, and future, now and forevermore, so help you God.
  (7) By this record let it be known that I do not at any time waive any rights or protections, as acknowledged by the aforementioned Constitution of Canada and/or Honorable "Canadian Bill of Rights," nonetheless, demanding that you protect these as you swore an oath to do so. I accept your lawfully required Oath of Office, bonds of any type, insurance policies, and property of any type for my protection and making whole. Furthermore, should you witness any public officers at this time, or any time past, present, or future violate any of my rights or protections, it is your sworn duty (of oath) to immediately arrest, or have them arrested. You are legally required to charge them as you should any law breaker, regardless of officer's title, rank, uniform, cloak, badge, position, stature, or office; or you shall henceforth be accountable for monetary damages from, but not limited to, your monetary liability, your corporate bond, compensatory costs, punitive procurements, and sanctioned by attorney attributions.
  (8) Note: A true and correct, notarized copy of this Statute Staple Securities Instrument is safely deposited in the Register of Deeds Office in Province of ALBERTA. This security instrument has also been delivered to several trusted friends and accompanied by sworn affidavits certifying my policy of presenting this security instrument to each and every public officer who approaches me violating my unalienable rights including, but not limited to, my right of liberty and free movement upon any common pathway of travel. I have a lawful right to travel, by whatever means, via land, sea, or air, without any officer, agent, employee, attorney, or judge willfully causing adverse affects or damages upon me by an arrest, detainment, restraint, or deprivation. I will be granted the status and treatment of a foreign Sovereign, a foreign diplomat, by all customs officials. This document or the deposited copy becomes an evidentiary document certified herein, as if now fully reproduced, should any court action be taken upon me as caused by your acts under color of law with you, your officers, and employees. Take note: You are now monetarily liable in your personal and corporate capacity. I, Dennis-Larry: Meads [Free man], the undersigned, a Sovereign under God, notwithstanding anything contrary, abide by all laws in accordance with the aforementioned Constitution of Canada and Honorable "Canadian Bill of Rights" which are applicable to Sovereigns. I, Dennis'‘Larry: Meads, wish no harm to any man. You agree by your non'‘response to uphold my "Right to Travel"; or you must rebut my presumption by lawfully documented evidence in law On and For the Record, Under Oath and penalty of perjury, within the thirty (30) days as aforementioned in this Admiralty Contract.
  (9) BE WARNED, NOTICED, AND ADVISED that I rely upon, in addition to constitutional limits of the "Constitution of Canada" and/or the Honorable "Canadian Bill of Rights," governmental authority, the rights and protections guaranteed under Uniform Commercial Codes, common equity law, laws of admiralty, and commercial liens and levies pursuant to but not limited, to Title 42 (Civil Rights), Title 18 U.S.C.A. (Criminal Codes), Title 28 U.S.C.A. (Civil Codes), and additional ALBERTA constitution penal codes, in as much as they are in compliance with the aforementioned Constitution of Canada and/or "Canadian Bill of Rights." There can be no violation of any of these laws unless there is a victim consisting of a natural, flesh and blood man or woman who has been damaged. When there is no victim, there is no crime or law broken. Unless this is rebutted within the time limit contained herein, and the conditions of the rebuttal are met, you, or any representative in any capacity of any agency, government, corporation, or the like, agree to abide by this contract anytime that you interact with me. I, Dennis'‘Larry: Meads [Free man], the undersigned, am of lawful majority
  age, clear head, and sound mind.
  (10) Remember, you took a solemn binding oath to protect and defend the Crown as public trustee, and violation of said oath is perjury, being a bad'‘faith doctrine by constructive treason and immoral dishonor, infra,¶13,¶14 &¶15. I accept said Oath of Office that you have sworn to uphold. I declare that any and all presumptions that I am citizen, subject, resident, participant, legal entity, strawman, fiction, or any such thing, of any and all jurisdictions of the CANADA OR ANY OF ITS PROVINCES, SUBDIVISIONS, AGENCIES, ENTITIES, DEPARTMENTS, SUBSIDIARIES are now and forever rebutted. You may rebut my presumptions by submitting certified copies of lawful documents that have been certified by ALBERTA's attorney while under oath and on the official record and under penalty of perjury and waiving all immunities from prosecution. You have thirty (30) days to rebut my statements as indicated herein; or my statements will stand as true, lawful, and legal in all of your courts and/or hearings.
  (11) This legal and timely notice, declaration, and demand is prima facie evidence of sufficient Notice of Grace. The terms and conditions of this presentment agreement are a quasi-contract under the Uniform Commercial Code and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. These terms and conditions are not subject to any or all immunities that you may claim, should you in any way violate my rights or allow violations by others. Your corporate commercial acts against me or mine and your failures to act on behalf of me or mine are ultra vires and injurious by willful and gross negligence.
  (12) The liability is upon you, and/or your respondeat superior, and upon others including any and all local, provincial, state, regional, federal, multijurisdictional, international, and/or corporate agencies, and/or persons of the foregoing, involved directly or indirectly with you via any nexus acting with you; and said liability shall be satisfied jointly and/or severally at my discretion. You are sworn to your Oath of Office, and I accept your Oath of Office and your responsibility to uphold the rights of me and mine at all times.
  BILLING COSTS ASSESSED WITH LEVIES AND LIENS UPON VIOLATIONS SHALL BE:
  (13) Unlawful Arrest, Illegal Arrest, or Restraint, or Distraint, Trespassing/Trespass, without a lawful, correct, and complete 4th amendment warrant: $2,000,000.00 (Two Million) CAD Dollars, per occurrence, per officer, or agent involved.
  Excessive Bail, Fraudulent Bond, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Violation of Right to Speedy Trial, Freedom of Speech, Conspiracy, Aiding and Abetting, Racketeering, or Abuse of Authorityas per Title 18 U.S.C.A., §241 and §242, or definitions contained herein: $2,000,000.00 (Two Million) CAD Dollars, per occurrence, per officer, or agent involved.
  Assault or Assault and Battery without Weapon: $2,000,000.00 (Two Million) CAD Dollars, per occurrence, per officer, or agent involved.
  Assault or Assault and Battery with Weapon: $3,000,000.00 (Three Million) CAD Dollars, per occurrence, per officer, or agent involved.
  Unfounded Accusations by Officers of the Court, or Unlawful Determination: $2,000,000.00 (Two Million) CAD Dollars, per occurrence, per officer, or agent involved.
  (14) Denial and/or Abuse of Due Process: $2,000,000.00 (Two Million) CAD Dollars, per occurrence, per officer, or agent involved.
  Obstruction of Justice: $2,000,000.00 (Two Million) CAD Dollars, per occurrence, per officer, or agent involved.
  Unlawful Distraint, Unlawful Detainer, or False Imprisonment: $5,000,000.00 (Five Million) CAD Dollars, per day, per occurrence, per officer, or agent involved, plus 18% annual interest.
  Reckless Endangerment, Failure to Identify and/or Present Credentials and/or Failure to Charge within 48 (Forty-Eight) Hours after being detained: $2,000,000.00 (Two Million) CAD Dollars, per occurrence, per officer, or agent involved.
  Counterfeiting Statute Staple Securities Instruments: $2,000,000.00 (Two Million) CAD Dollars, per occurrence, per officer, or agent involved.
  (15) Unlawful Detention or Incarceration: $2,000,000.00 (Two Million) CAD Dollars per day, per occurrence, per officer, or agent involved.
  Incarceration for Civil or Criminal Contempt of Court without lawful, documented'‘in'‘law, and valid reason: $2,000,000.00 (Two Million) per day, per occurrence, per officer, or agent involved.
  Disrespect by a Judge or Officer of the Court: $2,000,000.00 (Two Million) CDA Dollars per occurrence, per officer, or agent involved.
  Threat, Coercion, Deception, or Attempted Deception by any Officer of the Court: $2,000,000.00 (Two Million) CAD Dollars per occurrence, per officer, or agent involved.
  Unnecessary Restraint: $2,000,000.00 (Two Million) CAD Dollars, per occurrence, per officer, or agent involved.
  Refusal of Lawful Bailment as provided by the aforementioned Constitution of Canada and/or Honorable "Canadian Bill of Rights": $2,000,000.00 (Two Million) CAD Dollars, per day of confinement, to be prorated by the hour as per Traficant vs. Florida, per occurrence, per officer, per agent involved.
  Coercion or Attempted Coercion of the Natural Man or Woman to take responsibility for the Corporate Strawman against the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party's Will: $2,000,000.00 Two Million CAD Dollars, per occurrence, per officer or agent involved.
  The Placing of an Unlawful or Improper Lien, Levy, Impoundments, or Garnishment against any funds, bank accounts, savings accounts, retirement funds, investment funds, social security funds, intellectual property, or any other property belonging to the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party by any agency: $2,000,000.00 (Two Million) CAD Dollars, per occurrence, and $100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand) CAD Dollars, per day penalty until liens, levies, impoundments, and/or garnishments are ended and all funds reimbursed, and all property returned in the same condition as it was when taken, with 18 % annual interest upon the Secured Party's declared value of property.
  Destruction, Deprivation, Concealment, Defacing, Alteration, or Theft, of Property, including buildings, structures, equipment, furniture, fixtures, and supplies belonging to the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party will incur a penalty of total, new replacement costs of property as indicated by Owner and Secured Party, including but not limited to purchase price and labor costs for locating, purchasing, packaging, shipping, handling, transportation, delivery, set up, assembly, installation, tips and fees, permits, replacement of computer information and data, computer hardware and software, computer supplies, office equipment and supplies, or any other legitimate fees and costs associated with total replacement of new items of the same type, like, kind, and/or quality, and quantity as affected items. The list and description of affected property will be provided by the Owner and Secured Party and will be accepted as complete, accurate, and uncontestable by the agency or representative thereof that caused such action. In addition to the aforementioned cost, there will be a $200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand) CAD Dollars, per day penalty until property is restored in full, beginning on the first day after the incident, as provided by this contract.
  CAVEAT
  (16) The aforementioned charges are billing costs deriving from, but not limited to, Uniform Commercial Codes and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and this contract. These charges shall be assessed against persons, governmental bodies, and corporate entities supra, or any combination thereof when they individually and/or collectively violate my natural and/or civil rights as an American by declaration. The aforementioned Constitution of Canada and/or the Honorable "Canadian Bill of Rights" establishes jurisdiction for you in your normal course of business. All violations against me, the undersigned, will be assessed per occurrence, per officer, representative, or agent of any agency that is involved in any unlawful action against me.
  (17) By your actions, you shall lack recourse for all claims of immunity in any forum. Your officers' knowing consent and admission of perpetrating known acts by your continued enterprise is a violation of my rights. This Statute Staple Securities Instrument exhausts all state maritime article 1 administrative jurisdictions and protects my Article III court remedies including but not limited to Title 42 U.S.C.A, Title 18 U.S.C.A., Title 28 U.S.C.A., and Title 18 U.S.C.,§242, which are provided for by the North American Free Trade Agreement, UNIDROIT and the UNCITRAL Convention, of which CANADA is governed by.
  IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE!
  (18) I, one Dennis'‘Larry: Meads [Free man], the undersigned, am the principal; and you are the agent! Fail not to adhere to your oath, lest you be called to answer before one God and one Supreme Court Exclusive Original Jurisdiction, which is the court of first and last resort, not excluding my "Good Faith (Oxford) Doctrine" by my conclusive Honorable "Canadian Bill of Rights."
  (19) This Statute Staple Securities Instrument is not set forth to threaten, delay, hinder, harass, or obstruct, but to protect guaranteed Rights and Protections assuring that at no time my Unalienable Rights are ever waived or taken from me against my will by threats, duress, coercion, fraud, or without my express written consent of waiver. None of the statements contained herein intend to threaten or cause any type of physical or other harm to anyone. The statements contained herein are to notice any persons, whether real or corporate, of their potential, personal, civil, and criminal liability if and when they violate my unalienable rights. A bona fide duplicate of this paperwork is safely archived with those who testify under oath that it is my standard policy to ALWAYS present this notice to any public or private officer attempting to violate me and my rights. It is noted on the record that by implication of said presentment, this notice has been tendered by way of registered mail to Governor General of Canada David LIoyd Johnston and/or Lieutenant Governor of Alberta Donald s. Ethell. This is prima facie evidence of your receipt and acceptance of this presentment in both your corporate and individual capacity, jointly and severally for each and all governmental, political, and corporate bodies. Any other individuals who have been, are, or hereafter become involved in the instant actions or any future actions against me shall only correspond to me in writing while signing under penally of perjury. This document is now on record in the Register of Deeds Office in ALBERTA, supra.
  SUMMATION
  (20) Should you move against me in defiance of this presentment, there is no immunity. from prosecution available to you or to any of your fellow public officers, officials of government, judges, magistrates, district attorneys, clerks, or any other persons who become involved in the instant actions, or any future actions, against me by way of aiding and abetting. Take due heed and govern yourself accordingly. Any or all documents tendered to me, lacking bona fide ink signatures are counterfeit security instruments causing you to be liable in your corporate and individual capacity by fraudulent conveyance now and forevermore. If and when you cause any injury and/or damages to the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party by violating any of the rights, civil rights, privileges, or any terms herein, you agree to voluntarily, with no reservation of rights and defenses, at the written request of the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party, surrender, including but not limited to, any and all bonds, public and/or corporate insurance policies, and CAFR funds as needed to satisfy any and all claims as filed against you by the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party. This applies to any and all agents, or representatives, individually and severally, of the "CANADA" or any of the subdivisions thereof, as described herein.
  NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL AND
  NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT
  (21) This document cannot be retracted by any employee, agent, representative, or officer of the court, or any individuals, excluding the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party on this registered document, for one hundred years from date on this legally binding Statute Staple Securities Instrument.
  Attention: All Agents, Representatives, or Officers, or such as, of the "CANADA" or its subdivisions including local, state, federal, and/or international or multinational governments, corporations, agencies, and the like: You have thirty (30) days to rebut any portion of this document, or you stand in total agreement. Non response is agreement. Partial response is agreement. Rebuttal must be in written form with legal/lawful, verified, certified documentation in law, with copies of said law enclosed. This documentation must be provided under penalty of perjury. Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal.Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
  (22) All other corporations including but not limited to telephone companies, cable companies, utility companies, contractors, builders, maintenance personnel, investors, journeymen, inspectors, law enforcement officers, officers of the court, manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and all others, including all persons, are bound by all paragraphs, terms, and conditions herein regardless of nature of limited liability corporations or affiliations as "DBA's," "AKA's," incorporations, or any types of businesses in commerce as deeded by this securities agreement and decree.
  (23) YOU ARE NOTICED having been given knowledge of the law and your personal financial liability in event of any violations of my rights and/or being. This Statute Staple Securities Instrument now in your hand constitutes timely and sufficient warning by good faith, notice, and grace.
  (24) Dated this 22 day of December, in the year of our Lord, two thousand eleven. This contract being of honor is presented under the "Good Faith (Oxford) Doctrine." I accept the Oath of Office of all officers of the court, including but not limited to the clerk of the court; all judges and attorneys from all jurisdictions; all local, state, federal, international law enforcement officers, and all agents of the "CANADA" or any province or subdivisions thereof.
  (25) Any agent, law enforcement officer, employee, contractor, representative, or the like "CANADA" or any of its subsidiaries or sub'‘corporations, SHALL NOT ENTER, AT ANY TIME, FOR ANY REASON, ANY PROPERTY AT WHICH I AM LOCATED, or LEASE, OWN, or CONTROL, WITHOUT MY EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION. Violation of this notice will be considered criminal trespass and will be subject to a $2,000,000.00 (Two Million) lawful CAD dollar penalty plus damages, per violation, per violator.
  (26) Attention: Any and all lending institutions, brokerage firms, credit unions, depository institutions, insurance agencies, credit bureaus, and the officers, agents and employees therein: You have now been notified of the law as to your corporate and individual financial liability in the event of any violations upon the rights and/or being of Dennis'‘Larry: Meads. This Statute Staple Securities Instrument constitutes timely and sufficient warning by Good Faith Notice of your liability regardless of your political affirmations. All penalties contained herein will be subject to a penalty increase of one million dollars per day, plus interest, while there is any unpaid balance for the first thirty (30) days after default of payment. This penalty will increase by 10% per each day until balance is paid in full, plus 18% annual interest, beginning on the thirty'‘ first (31st ) day after default of payment. All penalties in this document are assessed in lawful money and are to be paid in one troy ounce CAD Dollars or equivalent in .999 fine silver or fine gold determined by the value established ROYAL CANADIAN MINT, or by law, whichever is higher value at the time of the incident. Any dispute over the par value will be decided by the Secured Party, or his designee. All definitions in Attachment "B" are included as a part of this contract and will be applied as written herein. Any dispute of any definition will be decided by the Secured Party. There is no contradiction of terms as written within the confines of this title pursuant to the
  "Constitution of Canada." If any contradiction is found, the meaning will be determined by the Secured Party. Definitions as they apply to this contract'‹…are enclosed in Attachment "B" and are included as a legal part of this contract.
  LS: ____''Dennis-Larry: Meads''___________
  _______________________________________
  Dennis-Larry: Meads, Secured Party Creditor
  Name: Dennis'‘Larry: Meads, Secured Party Creditor
  Country: "CANADA"
  Province: Alberta
  NOTICE TO YOURFILINGCOUNTY COUNTY REGISTER OF DEEDS CLERK
  (27) Pursuant to the harmonization of this private contract to uniform law, Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years; or both; and shall forfeit his office and shall be disqualified from holding any office under the CANADA, Canada, canada. After thirty (30) calendar days, you may not rebut this contract.
  (28) SUBSCRIBED AND AFFIRMED: On this 22 day of December, 2011 AD, before me appeared Dennis'‘Larry: Meads, known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the man whose name is subscribed on this Statute Staple Securities Instrument. Witnessed by my hand and official stamp, signed, sealed, and delivered by hand or by private, registered, or certified mail, drafted by the above Secured Party Creditor with attached property description.
  NS:____________________________
  Signature of Notary Public
  Theodore G. Kaklin
  Barrister & Solicitor
  We, the undersigned witnesses, do hereby swear or affirm that it is the policy of Dennis-Larry: Meads to present this''LEGAL
  NOTICE AND DEMAND" to all law enforcement officers, agents, or representatives of "CANADA" anytime that he has any interaction with them.
  LS: __N/A______________________
  First Witness
  LS:___N/A______________________
  Second Witness NOTARY SEAL
  LS:___N/A______________________
  Third Witness
  Attachments: Attachment "A" '‘ Property List
  Attachment "B" '‘ Definitions
  LEGAL NOTICE AND DEMAND '‘ ATTACHMENT "A" '‘ PROPERTY LIST
  ATTACHMENT "A" '‘ PROPERTY LIST
  ALL PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE DEBTOR BELONGS TO THE SECURED PARTY. DEBTOR IS A TRANSMITTING UTILITY. DEBTOR IS A
  TRUST. ALL OF THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY BELONGS TO THE NATURAL MAN SECURED PARTY AS INDICATED HEREIN. THIS INCLUDES
  BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:
  1. All proceeds from Secured Party's labor from every source; from products, accounts, fixtures, crops, mine head, wellhead, and transmitting utilities, etc.;
  2. All rents, wages, and income from every source;
  3. All land in which Debtor has an interest, including the soil itself; all minerals atop or beneath the soil surface; all air rights; all waters on or in the soil or land surface such as a lake or pond, within the land boundaries;
  4. All real property and all documents involving all real property in which Debtor has an interest, including all buildings, structures, fixtures, and appurtenances situated on or affixed thereto, as noted in #3 above;
  5. All cottages, cabins, houses, mansions, and buildings of whatever type and wherever located;
  6. All bank accounts foreign and domestic, bank "safety''deposit boxes and the contents therein; personal security codes, passwords, and the like associated therewith; credit card accounts, mutual fund accounts, certificates of deposit accounts, checking accounts, savings accounts, retirement plan accounts, stocks, bonds, securities, and benefits from trusts;
  7. All inventory from any source;
  8. All machinery, either farm or industrial; all mechanical tools, construction, tools, tools of trade;
  9. All boats, yachts, and watercraft; and all equipment, accoutrements, baggage, and cargo affixed or pertaining thereto or stowed therein, inter alia: all motors, engines, ancillary equipment, accessories, parts, tools, instruments, electronic equipment, navigation aids, service equipment, lubricants, fuels, and fuel additives;
  10. All aircraft, gliders, balloons, and all equipment, accoutrements, baggage, and cargo affixed or pertaining thereto or stowed therein, inter alia: all motors, engines, ancillary equipment, accessories, parts, tools, instruments, electronic equipment, navigation aids, service equipment, lubricants, fuels, and fuel additives;
  11. All motor homes, trailers, mobile homes, recreational vehicles, houses, cargo, and travel trailers; and all equipment, accoutrements, baggage, and cargo affixed or pertaining thereto or stowed therein, inter alia: all ancillary equipment, accessories, parts, service equipment, lubricants, fuels, and fuel additives;
  12. All animals and all farm livestock; and all things required for the care, feeding, use, transportation, and husbandry thereof;
  13. All pets, including cats, dogs, birds, fish, or whatever other of the animal kingdom has been gifted or otherwise acquired: whether kept indoors or outdoors; with all fixtures, vehicles, and housings required for their protection, feeding, care, transportation, shelter, and whatever other needs may arise;
  14. All vehicles, autos, trucks, four'‘wheel vehicles, trailers, wagons, motorcycles, bicycles, tricycles, wheeled conveyances of any kind, motorized or otherwise, in which Debtor has an interest;
  15. All computers, computer'‘related equipment and accessories, flash drives, electronically stored files or data, telephones, electronic equipment, office equipment and machines;
  16. All visual reproduction systems, aural reproduction systems, motion pictures, films, video tapes, audio tapes, sound tracks, compact discs, i-pods, phonograph records, film, video and aural production equipment, cameras, projectors, etc.;
  17. All manuscripts, books, booklets, pamphlets, treatises; treatments, monographs, stories, written material, libraries, plays, screenplays, lyrics, songs, music;
  18. All books and financial records of Debtor;
  19. All trademarks, registered marks, copyrights, patents, proprietary data and technology, inventions, intellectual property, royalties, good will;
  20. All public or private scholastic degrees, titles, credentials, medals, trophies, honors, awards, recognitions, meritorious citations, certificates from apprenticeship training and/or continuing education programs, etc., from whatever source, for whatever trade, occupation, work, or endeavor;
  21. All military (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, National Guard, etc.) discharge papers, and the like;
  22. All records, diaries, journals, photographs, negatives, transparencies, images, video footage, film footage, drawings, sound records, audio tapes, video tapes, computer production or storage of all kinds whatsoever;
  23. All fingerprints, footprints, palm prints, thumbprints, RNA materials, DNA materials, genes, blood fractions, biopsies, surgically removed tissue, bodily parts, organs, hair, teeth, nails, semen, urine, other bodily fluids or matter, voice'‘print, retinal images, and the descriptions thereof; and all other corporal identification factors, and said factors' physical counterparts in any form; and all records, record numbers, and information pertaining thereto;
  24. All biometric data, records, information, and processes not elsewhere described; the use thereof and the use of the information contained therein or pertaining thereto;
  25. All rights to obtain, use, request, refuse, or authorize the administration of any food, beverage, nourishment, or water, or any substance to be infused or injected into or affecting the body by any means whatsoever;
  26. All rights to obtain, use, request, refuse, or authorize the administration of any drug, manipulation, material, process, procedure, ray, or wave which alters or might alter the present or future state of the body, mind, spirit, free will, faculties, and self by any means, method, or process whatsoever;
  27. All keys, locks, lock combinations, encryption codes or keys, safes, secured places, and security devices, security programs, software, user names, passwords, machinery, or devices related thereto;
  28. All rights to access and use utilities upon payment of the same unit costs as the comparable units of usage offered to most- favored customers, inter alia: cable, electricity, garbage, gas, internet, satellite, sewage, telephone, water, and all other methods of communication, energy, transmission, and food or water distribution;
  29. All rights to barter, buy, contract, sell, or trade ideas, products, services, or work;
  30. All rights to create, invent, adopt, utilize, or promulgate any system or means of currency, private money, medium of exchange, coinage, barter, economic exchange, bookkeeping, record'‘keeping, and the like;
  31. All rights to use any free, rented, leased, fixed, or mobile domicile, as though same were a permanent domicile; and to be free from requirement to apply for or obtain any government license or permission, permit and otherwise; and to be free from entry, intrusion, or surveillance, by any means, regardless of duration of lease period;
  32. All rights to manage, maneuver, direct, guide, or travel in any form of automobile or motorized conveyance whatsoever without any requirement to apply for or obtain any government license, permit, certificate, or permission of any kind whatsoever;
  33. All rights to marry and procreate children, and to rear, educate, train, guide, and spiritually enlighten any such children, without any requirement to apply for or obtain any government license, permit, certificate, any vaccinations, or permission of any kind whatsoever;
  34. All rights to buy, sell, trade, grow, raise, gather, hunt, trap, angle, and store food, fiber, and raw materials for shelter, clothing, and survival;
  35. All rights as outlined in the "Constitution of Canada''and the Honorable''Canadian Bill of Rights";
  36. All rights to exercise freedom. of religion, worship, use of sacraments, spiritual practice, and expression without any abridgement of free speech, or the right to publish, or the right to peaceably assemble, or the right to petition government for redress of grievances, or the right to petition any military force of Canada for physical protection from threats to the safety and integrity of person or property by either "public" or "private" sources;
  37. All rights to keep and bear arms for defense of self, family, and parties entreating physical protection of person or property.
  38. All rights to create, preserve, and maintain inviolable, spiritual sanctuary and receive into same any and all parties requesting safety and shelter;
  39. All rights to create, carry, and use private documents of travel of any kind whatsoever, inter alia: those signifying diplomatic status and immunity as a free, independent Sovereign;
  40. All claims of ownership or certificates of title to the corporeal and incorporeal hereditaments, hereditary succession and all innate aspects of being, i.e., body, mind, spirit, free will, faculties, and self;
  41. All rights to privacy and security in person and property, inter alia: all rights to safety and security of all household or sanctuary dwellers or guests, and all papers and effects belonging to Debtor or any household or sanctuary dwellers or guests, from governmental, quasi'‘governmental, de facto governmental, or private intrusion, detainer, entry, seizure, search, surveillance, trespass, assault, summons, or warrant, except with proof of superior claim duly filed in the Commercial Registry by any such intruding party in the private capacity of such intruding party, notwithstanding whatever purported authority, warrant, order, law, or color of law maybe promulgated as the authority for any such intrusion, detainer, entry, seizure, search, surveillance, trespass, assault, summons, or warrant;
  42. All names used and all Corporations Sole executed and filed, or to be executed and filed, under said names;
  43. All intellectual property, inter alia: all speaking and writing; All thoughts, beliefs, world views, emotions, psychology, etc.;
  44. All signatures and seals;
  45. All signatures on all applications for and all value associated with all licenses foreign and domestic;
  46. All present and future retirement incomes and rights to such incomes issuing from all accounts;
  47. All present and future medical and healthcare rights; and rights owned through survivorship, from all accounts;
  48. All applications, filings, correspondence, information, images, identifying marks, image licenses, travel documents, materials, permits, registrations, and records and records numbers held by any entity, for any purpose. however acquired, as well as the analyses and uses thereof, and any use of any information and images contained therein, regardless of creator, method, location, process, or storage form, inter alia: all processed algorithms analyzing, classifying, comparing, compressing, displaying, identifying, processing, storing, or transmitting said applications, filings, correspondence, information, images, identifying marks, image licenses, travel documents, materials, permits, registrations, records and records numbers, and the like;
  49. All signatures on all applications for and all value associated with all library cards;
  50. All credit, charge, and debit cards, mortgages, notes, applications, card numbers, and associated records and information;
  51. All credit of Debtor;
  52. All signatures on and all value associated with all traffic citations/tickets;
  53. All signatures on and all value associated with all parking citations/tickets;
  54. All value from all court cases and all judgments, past, present, and future, in any court whatsoever; and all bonds, orders, warrants, and other matters attached thereto or derived therefrom;
  55. All precious metals, bullion, coins, jewelry, precious jewels, semi'‘precious stones, mounts; and any storage boxes, receptacles and depositories within which said items are stored;
  56. All tax correspondence, filings, notices, coding, record numbers, all benefit from social security account # [social insurance number]; and any information contained therein, wherever and however located, and no matter by whom said information was obtained, compiled, codified, recorded, stored, analyzed, processed, communicated, or utilized;
  57. All bank accounts, all brokerage accounts, stocks, bonds, certificates of deposit, drafts, futures, insurance policies, investment securities, all retirement plan accounts, Individual Retirement Accounts, money market accounts, mutual funds, notes, options, puts, calls, pension plans, savings accounts, stocks, warrants, securities, benefits from trusts, Employment Insurance (EI), Canada Pension Plan (CPP), Canada Income Tax (CIT);
  58. All accounts, deposits, escrow accounts, lotteries, overpayments, prepayments, prizes, rebates, refunds, returns, claimed and unclaimed funds; and all records and records numbers, correspondence, and information pertaining thereto or derived there from;
  59. All stockpiles, collections, buildups, amassment, and accumulations, however small, of Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs), gold certificates, silver certificates; and all other types and kinds of cash, coins, currency, and money delivered into possession of Secured Party;
  60. All drugs, herbs, medicine, medical supplies, cultivated plants, growing plants, inventory, ancillary equipment, supplies, propagating plants, and seeds; and all related storage facilities and supplies;
  61. All fitness and/or sports equipment intended to increase vitality, fitness, and health; and whole food complexes, vitamin, mineral, and other supplements to the diet for the same health and fitness purposes; and all juicers, grinders, dehydrators, and storage and delivery devices or equipment;
  62. All products of and for agriculture; and all equipment, inventories, supplies, contracts, and accoutrements involved in the planting, tilling, harvesting, processing, preservation, and storage of all products of agriculture;
  63. All plants and shrubs, trees, fruits, vegetables, farm and garden produce, indoors and out, watering devices, fertilizers and fertilizing equipment, pots, collections of plants, e.g., bonsai, dry or live assortments of flowers and plants, or anything botanical;
  64. All farm, lawn, and irrigation equipment, accessories, attachments, hand tools, implements, service equipment, parts, supplies, and storage sheds and contents;
  65. All fuel, fuel tanks, containers, and involved or related delivery systems;
  66. All metal-working, woodworking, and other such machinery; and all ancillary equipment, accessories, consumables, power tools, hand tools, inventories, storage cabinets, tool boxes, work benches, shops, and facilities;
  67. All camping, fishing, hunting, and sporting equipment; and all special clothing, materials, supplies, and baggage related thereto;
  68. All rifles, guns, bows, crossbows, other weapons, and related accessories; and the ammunition, reloading equipment and supplies, projectiles, and integral components thereof;
  69. All radios, televisions, communication equipment, receivers, transceivers, transmitters, antennas, towers, etc.; and all ancillary equipment, supplies, computers, software programs, wiring, and related accoutrements and devices;
  70. All power'‘generating machines or devices; and all storage, conditioning, control, distribution, wiring, and ancillary equipment pertaining to or attached thereto;
  71. All devices, engines, fixtures, fans, plans needed for the production or storage of electrical energy;
  72. All computers and computer systems and the information contained therein; as well as all ancillary equipment, printers, and data compression or encryption devices, processes, and processors;
  73. All office and engineering equipment, furniture, ancillary equipment, drawing tools, electronic and paper files, and items related thereto;
  74 All water wells and well-drilling equipment; and all ancillary equipment, chemicals, tools, and supplies;
  75. All shipping, storing, and cargo containers, and all chassis, truck trailers, vans, and the contents thereof; whether on'‘site, in transit, or in storage anywhere;
  76. All building materials and prefabricated buildings; and all components or materials pertaining thereto, before or during manufacture, transportation, storage, building, erection, or vacancy while awaiting occupancy thereof;
  77. All communications and data; and the methods, devices, and forms of information storage and retrieval, and the products of any such stored information;
  78. All artwork and supplies, paintings, etchings, photographic art, lithographs, and serigraphs, etc.; and all frames and mounts pertaining to or affixed thereto;
  79. All food; and all devices, tools, equipment, vehicles, machines, and related accoutrements involved in food preservation, preparation, growth, transport, and storage;
  80. All construction machinery; and all ancillary equipment, fuels, fuel additives, supplies, materials, and service equipment pertaining thereto;
  81. All medical, dental, optical, prescription, and insurance records, records numbers, and information contained in any such records or pertaining thereto;
  82. The Last Will and Testament from any source;
  83. All inheritances gotten or to be gotten;
  84. All wedding bands and rings, watches, and jewelry;
  85. All household goods and appliances, linen, wardrobe, toiletries, furniture, kitchen utensils, cutlery, tableware, cooking utensils, pottery, antiques; etc.;
  86. All musical instruments, whether new or old, including brass, woodwinds, percussion, strings, etc.;
  87. All children's toys, clothing, playthings, and possessions of any type or amount;
  88. All businesses, corporations, companies, trusts, partnerships, limited partnerships, organizations, proprietorships, and the like, now owned or hereafter acquired; and all books and records thereof and therefrom; all income therefrom; and all accessories, accounts, equipment, information, inventory, money, spare parts, and computer software pertaining thereto;
  89. All ownership, equity, property, and rights to property now owned or held or hereafter acquired in all businesses, corporations, companies, partnerships, limited partnerships, organizations, proprietorships, and the like; and all books and records pertaining thereto; all income therefrom; and all accessories, accounts, equipment, information, inventory, money, spare parts, and computer software pertaining thereto;
  90. All packages, parcels, envelopes, or labels of any kind whatsoever which are addressed to, or intended to be addressed to, Debtor or natural man Secured Party, whether received or not received;
  91. All telephone numbers;
  92. All signatures on all applications for and all value associated with all certificates of birth documents of the natural man Secured Party, and all said documents themselves; Registration Number [registration number]'‘ Alberta.
  93. All signatures on all applications for and all value associated with all certificates of birth documents of all children and grandchildren of the natural man Secured Party, and all said documents themselves; [child #1] born [birthdate], [child #2] born [birthdate]
  94. All signatures on all applications for social insurance numbers, and all value. associated with all accounts, [social insurance number];
  95. All signatures on all applications for social insurance numbers for all children and grandchildren of the natural man Secured Party, and all value associated with all accounts.
  96. All value associated with the private contract trust account number of the natural man Secured Party: [social insurance number without spaces];
  97. All value associated with the private contract trust account numbers of all his children under the age of twenty one; [child #1] born [birthdate] [child #2] born [birthdate] natural man Secured Party;
  98. All signatures on all applications for and all value associated with Driver License #: [driver's license number] - Alberta;
  99. All signatures on all applications for and all value associated with all passports for the natural man Secured Party - Passport Number [passport number] and his children under the age of twenty one; [child #1] born [birthdate] [child #2] born, [birthdate].
  100. All documents as recorded in the public record by and for the natural man Secured Party as indicated herein;
  101. All signatures on all applications for and all value associated with all marriage licenses; [marriage license number], Registration Number [registration number] Alberta
  102. All private and public marriage contracts; [marriage license number], Registration Number [registration number] Alberta
  103. All signatures on all applications for and all value associated with all professional licenses;
  104. All private addresses of the natural man Secured party as indicated herein;
  105. All signatures on all applications for and all value associated with all public addresses;
  106. All private, registered, bond/account numbers; and all bonds and notes tendered to any and all entities, including the Department/Treasury of Canada, banks, creditors, corporations, etc.;
  107. Any and all property not specifically listed, named, or specified by make, model, serial number, etc., is expressly herewith included as collateral of the natural man Secured Party.
  LEGAL NOTICE AND DEMAND '‘ ATTACHMENT "B" '‘ DEFINITIONS
  ATTACHMENT "B" '‘ DEFINITIONS
  1. Unlawful Arrest: Means restricting a man or woman's right to move about freely without the proper use of a lawful signed by a judge of competent jurisdiction while under oath. This includes unnecessary use of restraint devices, traffic stops, raids, or any other type of interaction, when an officer is presented with and ignores a "Notice and Demand," "Public Servants Questionnaire," "Right to Travel" Documents, or other documents notifying the officer of the sovereign, lawful rights of the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party, created by God, who is not to be confused with the Corporate Fiction ''Strawman" which was created by the state. This includes arrest when a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party is incarcerated for refusing to sign any citation; arrest due to contempt of court when he or she is not violent or a physical threat to the court; arrest by Internal Revenue Service for failure to produce books, records, or other documents; arrest and refusal of Habeas Corpus; arrest for conspiracy of any kind without lawfully documented lawfully documented affidavits from at least three (3) eye witnesses, signed under oath and penally of perjury.
  2. Illegal Arrest: Means same as above item # 1, "Unlawful Arrest."
  3. Unlawful Detention: Means restraining a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party's freedom of movement, and/or Right to Travel, against his will for more than sixty (60) seconds without a property authorized lawful warrant signed by a judge of competent jurisdiction while under oath. This includes routine traffic stops, raids, random identification checks, security checks, only after the officer, agent, or representative has been notified by the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party of his status and after the officer has been given documents to prove said status, along with up to ten (10) minutes for officer to examine said documents.
  4. Unlawful Distraint: Means seizure or taking of any property that is lawfully owned or in possession of the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party without proper probable cause, and/or due process, and lawful warrant. This includes any seizure by any officer, agent, representative, in any capacity, or relationship with "Canada" or any of its agencies, contractors, subdivisions, subsidiaries, or the like.
  5. Lawful Warrant: Means a warrant that follows the provisions of the uniform and common law of CANADA.
  6. Right to Speedy Trial: Means trial will commence within 90 days of the date of arrest.
  7. Interstate Detainer: Means the same as unlawful detainer as when involving a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party and involving more than one agency or state of the corporation, or any representative, agent, or officer who has any agreement with, contract with, or permission to act on behalf of any municipal corporation of "CANADA" or any subsidiary or sub'‘corporation thereof.
  8. Unlawful Restraint: Means any action by any officer, agent, representative, contractor, associate, officer of the court, or the like, to prevent, coerce, intimidate, hinder, or in any way limit the right of a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party from any type of freedom of legal/ lawful speech, travel, movement, action, gesture, writing, utterance, or enjoyment of any right or privilege that is commonly enjoyed by any member of the public, or any Sovereign.
  9. Freedom of Speech: Means the right to speak open and plainly without the fear of reprisal. This includes the right of a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party to speak at hearings and trials, before magistrates, judges, and officers of the court, agents, representatives, or the like, of "CANADA." It also means that no attempt to suppress this right will be made by any officer of the court or of "CANADA" corporation. No judge or officer of any court or tribunal will threaten contempt of court for free speech by any Natural Man or Woman Secured Party.
  10. Bank of Canada (CAD) Dollars: Means the currently recognized medium of exchange as used by the general public at the time of offense, at par value, equal to a one ounce silver dollar equivalent per each dollar unit, as represented in a claim. All claims and damages will be paid at par value as indicated. Par value will be established by written law or the value established by the ROYAL CANADIAN MINT, whichever is higher at the time of the offense, for the purchase of an official, one troy ounce, .999 fine silver or gold coin.
  11. Obstruction of Justice: Means any attempt by any officer of the court or representative of any agency that represents the "CANADA," or any of its subdivisions, agencies, contractors, etc., to deprive, hinder, conceal, coerce, or threaten a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party in an attempt to prevent any and every opportunity to legally/lawfully
  defend himself by attempting to produce and file lawful documents and or testimony to agents, officers, judges, magistrates, the court, clerk of the court, representatives, or investigators in order to settle any legal/lawful controversy. This also includes any attempt by a judge or officer of the court to hinder the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party from filing, recording, admitting, presenting, discussing, questioning, or using any evidence, document, paper, photographs, audio and/or video recordings, or any other type of evidence that he desires to submit as evidence in any type of court proceeding. The determination of what is evidence and what will be admitted is to be solely determined by the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party. Any evidence will be tried on merits of the lawful content and validity. Any judge or officer of the court who attempts to suppress or dismiss legal or lawful evidence will voluntarily surrender all bonds, insurance, property, corporate property, bank accounts, savings accounts, or any corporate property of value to the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party upon written demand and surrender all rights to and defenses against said property. This also includes evidence that is supported by case law. This includes attempts by any officer of the court to make motions, to issue orders such as gag orders, or to use any other means of keeping information suppressed from the public or the official record. The determination of whether the acts of the court are an attempt to suppress evidence will be solely determined by the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party. This also includes the provision as indicated in item # 18 "Racketeering and Canada, Sections 467.11 to 467.13"
  12. Excessive Bail: Means any amount of bail set at an unreasonable rate. This also means bail in excess of the amount of the fine, penalty, or penal sum that is associated with the alleged crime committed. This also means that if a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party has lived as an upstanding member in a community or area for more than one year, works a regular job, or is a member of or involved with a church group, civic group, community enterprise, or can produce at least two affidavits from members of his community or area stating that he is involved with his community, he cannot be held without bail as a flight risk or a threat to society. If the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party can produce at least four (4) affidavits stating that he lives, works, and is involved in his community, or the prior community in which he lived, he must be released on his own recognizance without any bail required. This provision does not apply to anyone charged with rape, murder, or violent crimes.
  13. Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Means physical violence of any type or form that is used against a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party and that causes invisible or undetectable or visible physical injury, e.g., marks, scrapes, scratches, bruises, abrasion, avulsions, fractures, sprains, restraint marks, dislocations, punctures, cuts, loss of blood, loss of body fluids, etc. This includes any other type of physical stress to the body or any chemically'‘ induced, altered mental state of the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party. This also includes any attempt to incarcerate; restrain; question; detain;
  withhold food when requested; withhold drink when requested; withhold medications as requested; withhold use of bathroom facilities and supplies when requested; withhold reading and writing materials; withhold communication with friends, family, legal counsel, and religious counsel; withhold proper clothing as needed for comfort; withhold blankets when requested; withhold hot and cold water for showers; withhold freedom when requested. This also includes ridicule, coercion, threats, verbal insults, rude and offensive language, veiled threats, or any other type of mental stress or anguish.
  14. Conspiracy: Means the cooperation of two or more persons working together to restrict, suppress, inhibit, or in any way deprive a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party of any right, benefit, or privilege that would ordinarily be offered by CANADA, Canada and canada.
  15. Victim: Means any Natural Man or Woman Secured Party who has received direct damages to himself or his property as the result of an unlawful or illegal act by another.
  16. Victimless Laws: Means any law that is passed or presumed to be passed that creates a violation of law in which no Natural Man or Woman Secured Party has been damaged. This includes any statute, ordinance, regulation, policy, or color of law provision. These types of laws will not be used in any action, of any kind, against any Natural Man or Woman Secured Party.
  17. Aiding and Abetting: Means the efforts of any officer, agent, or representative of CANADA or officer of the court to assist another of the same to hinder, coerce, restrict, resist, suppress, or deprive in any way, a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party from receiving any and all rights, benefits, or privileges, as provided by Canada that would normally be offered to the general Canadian public, or to a Sovereign. This also includes the provisions as provided in item # 18 "Racketeering" and suppression of evidence.
  18. Racketeering: Means any attempt by any two or more officers of the corporation to restrict, suppress, coerce,
  manipulate, inhibit, or in any way deprive a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party from receiving every right, benefit, or privilege that is outlined by Constitution of Canada and/or the Honorable "Canadian Bill of Rights." This also includes any effort by the officers of the court to hinder in any way the introduction of evidence, law, facts, affidavits, statements, witness testimony, or any information that is considered relevant by the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party, or any attempt to prevent a jury from hearing this evidence. This also includes any attempt to prevent this evidence from being heard in a public forum and before any and all members of the general public, as many as can be accommodated by the main courtroom. All hearings, tribunals, or trials will be held in a public place; and any and all members of the general public will be allowed to attend, without restriction. This also includes questioning and/or interrogation by police officers before, during, and after an arrest.
  19. Federal Zone: Means any land, property, building, area, zone, 911 zone, or postal zone that is presumed to be within the territorial jurisdiction of CANADA or any of its representatives as defined herein. This does not include any land, property, building, structure, dwelling, area, zone that is held by deed, title, warranty deed, contract, or any written or verbal agreement, or any such thing by a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party non domestic to CANADA. All privately held properties of any type that are being held by any Natural Man or Woman Secured Party are excluded from any federal zone or any jurisdiction of any representatives of CANADA or any of its territories. This is fact and may be presented in any court by affidavit of any Natural Man or Woman Secured Party of interest involved in any interaction with "CANADA" or any of its representatives, as outlined in this contract.
  20. Province and Territories: Means any of the ten provinces and three territories areas known as CANADA which is not the same as the "CANADA" corporation. The Natural Man or Woman Secured Party will also determine whether or not his land is a part of the jurisdiction of the "CANADA"; and his decision shall not be challenged by any representative of the "CANADA." The Natural Man or Woman Secured Party will determine if the alleged offense occurred within the limits of "CANADA." A violation of this provision will be Unlawful Determination and punishable as indicated by this contract agreement.
  21. Trespassing/Trespass: Means the entry into or onto the domain, property, residence, area, location, grounds, dwellings, buildings, barns, sheds, caves, structures, lands, storage areas, tunnels, automobiles, trucks, safe houses, underground shelters, automobiles, motor vehicles, recreational vehicles, boats, planes, trains, ships, containers, vans, heavy equipment, farm implements, culverts, driveways, trees, yards, real property, real estate, land, etc., of the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party without his express written permission, or without a lawfully executed warrant. Any and all agents or representatives of the corporation will fully and completely observe any and all protections as outlined in the laws and statutes of Canada. Any personal property that is damaged, lost, stolen, or misplaced, etc., will be recoverable as indicated in this Notice and Demand document. I solemnly swear and affirm that I do not have any illegal contraband on my property; I have never had any illegal contraband on or around my property and never will. Any contraband, if it is found on my property, would have been placed there by the officers or agents during the time of trespass. I simply do not allow it on my property. Contraband or illegal items if they are found in a search do not belong to me and may not be used in any attempt in any claim against me. Any and all officers, agents, and representatives of the corporation will be held individually liable for the full amount of damages as outlined in this Notice and Demand document for trespassing.
  22. Natural Man or Woman Secured Party: Means any flesh and blood, living, breathing Man or Woman, created by God, who notifies any representative of the corporation, verbally or in writing, that he is a Sovereign, Non "CANADA" corporate citizen, free man or free woman, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the corporation or any of its representatives. This is not to be confused with the Fictitious Legal Entity that was created by Canada and/or a province and is represented by an ALL CAPITAL LETTER NAME. Any attempt to notify any officer, agent, or representative of the status of the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party will be sufficient notice. Sufficient notice will be determined by oath, statement, or affidavit by the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party; and the validity of such will not be challenged by any officer of the court.
  23. County, Town or City: Means any subdivision of a province or territory of "Canada." This subdivision excludes any jurisdiction, zone, or territory of "CANADA" corporation that is described by the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Any dispute over any errors contained in spelling or grammar will be resolved at the discretion of the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party and will not be challenged by any representative of the corporation.
  24. Agency, Entity, Department, Subdivision, Subsidiary, Contractor, Employee, Inspector, Investigator, Organization, Officer, Agent, Authorized Representative, Policeman, Participant: Means any person, corporation, or entity of any kind which works for, is compensated all or in part by, receives funds from, collects funds for, contracts with, receives any benefit from, receives any privilege from, participates with, has allegiance to, or in any way has a relationship with the "CANADA or any of its subsidiaries, sub'‘corporations, departments, or agencies, etc.
  25. Contract: Means any agreement in writing that has been offered for review and acceptance by another party wherein the offering party has ten (10) days or more, or as stipulated in the contract, to review, respond, accept, or rebut any provisions of the contract as indicated in the contract. Non response on the part of the receiving party or agent of the receiving party will be a lawful offer and acceptance of all the terms and conditions contained in said contract. Rebuttal by the receiving party of any provision of the contract by any other means than is indicated in the contract will be non response. Return of the contract unopened and/or without review will be acceptance of all conditions of said contract. Recording the contract with the clerk of court or any public records officer will be a lawful offer and notification and will be presentment to all officers of the court in that state or county. Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal. Notice to Principal, is Notice to Agent.
  26. False Imprisonment: Means any attempt by any officer of the court or corporation to incarcerate any Natural Man or Woman Secured Party against his will and/or against any and all protections of the laws and provisions of the "Constitution of Canada" and/or the Honorable "Canadian Bill of Rights".
  27. Representative: Means any agent, agency, department, officer, investigator, entity, subsidiary, sub'‘corporation, contractor, employee, inspector, individual, or corporation that has any affiliation or association with, collects or distributes funds for, does any task for, receives any benefit or privilege from, of, or for the "CANADA." This includes anyone or anything that represents the interests of, or is being funded by, or receives funds from, or has any attachment to the "CANADA" or any of its subdivisions or sub'‘corporations.
  28. Corporation: Means any representative, agency, sub'‘corporation, contractor, or any person or entity that is employed by, receives or distributes funds for, receives any benefit or privilege from, or has any relationship of any kind with the "CANADA" corporation.
  29. Interpretation: Means if any conflict arises concerning the definition of any of the terms and/or conditions of this contract, the conflict concerning the meaning of the term or condition will be decided by the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party. His decision will be final and not subject to review or argument. No liability or penalty will be incurred by the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party due to his interpretation of such terms and or conditions.
  30. Corporate Capacity: Means acting for, or on behalf of, a corporation, or government entity, while under law or color of law.
  31. Legal counsel: Means anyone that a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party chooses to have as legal assistance of counsel, whether counsel is licensed or not, or a member of the Bar Association. Counsel may assist, represent, speak on behalf of, write cases for, or perform any act in or out of court for the Natural Man or Woman Secured party without any hindrance, threat, prosecution, charge, repercussion, etc., from any officer of the court, or representative of the "CANADA" corporation, or any representative, officer, or agent thereof.
  32. Abuse of Authority: Means anyone who denies, withholds, refuses, deprives, limits, inhibits, counteracts, conceals any right, benefit, protections, or privilege, as protected by the "Constitution of Canada" and/or the Honorable "Canadian Bill of Rights." This includes arrest or detainment without documented evidence that a lawful crime has been committed by the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party. This includes use of restraint devices on a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party and/or physical abuse that makes or does not make any marks, scars, cuts, abrasions, or the like. This also includes denial of lawful Due Process, Habeas Corpus, Excessive Bail, Unlawful Arrest, Unlawful Detention, or the like, as outlined in this contract.
  33. Verbal Abuse: Means the use of offensive and/or threatening, spoken words, body language, and non'‘verbal gestures or actions by any representative of the corporation as defined herein upon a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party. lf a controversy arises about an incident, the version told by the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party will be accepted as truth and will not be contested.
  34. Assault and Battery with Weapon: Means any actual, threatened, or perceived use of any weapons, by any representative of the "CANADA" corporation, against the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party or his, that creates an atmosphere of fear for the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party. This includes non lethal weapons such as tazers, stun guns, mace, pepper spray, any chemical used to incapacitate, rubber bullets, shock force weapons, electronic weapons, or any other type of weapon that may be used to control or to create fear. If a conflict arises about the events, the version told by the Naturel Man or Woman Secured Party will be accepted as truth and will not be contested.
  35. Unfounded Accusations: Means any accusation, charge, or claim, civil or criminal or in admiralty, that is alleged or made by any representative of the "CANADA" corporation as defined herein that is not proven by written, documented evidence presented under oath and penalty of perjury by an authorized agent or representative of the
  corporation. The accuser has eight (8) hours to provide said documents to be reviewed and to put them into the possession of the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party; and failure to do so will be Unfounded Accusations and subject to the penalties contained herein.
  36. Encroachment: Means to invade, intrude, or in any way prevent a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party the full and complete use of property, including trespass or impeding ingress or egress to the property of a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party; and to limit the ability of a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party to freely access, claim, hold, possess, use, convey, sell, rent, lease, barter, exchange, or in any way make full and unfettered use of his property. This includes the application of unlawful liens and encumbrances of any and all property including wages; salaries; stocks; bonds; bank accounts (foreign or domestic); savings accounts; contents of safety deposit boxes; gold; silver; notes; insurance funds; annuities; retirement accounts; social insurance benefits; motor vehicles; automobiles; recreational vehicles; land; real estate; homes; structures; roads; driveways; personal property of any kind that is held by title, deed, contract, agreement (written or verbal), or is in possession of a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party. This includes, but is not limited to, traffic stops; searches of vehicles; home invasion; confiscation of any lawful property owned by, in possession of, or under the control of the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party.
  37. Assault and Battery without a Weapon: Means the verbal abuse or physical contact, of any kind, upon a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party without his express voluntary written consent. If a conflict arises about the facts involving the incident, the version as told by the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party will be accepted as truth, without question, and will not be contested.
  38. Abuse of Due Process: Means any action against a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party, when said action does not abide by all the rights and defenses contained in or represented by the "Constitution of Canada and/or the Honorable "Canadian Bill of Rights." This includes any charge, or claim, civil or criminal, or in admiralty, that is alleged or made by any representative of the "CANADA" corporation.
  39. Denial of Due Process: Means any attempt by any officer of the court and or corporation to deny, deprive, restrict, prevent, or in any way inhibit the proper Due Process to any Natural Man or Woman Secured Party as outlined in the "Constitution of Canada" and/or the Honorable "Canadian Bill of Rights." Any public law, statute, regulation, ordinance, home rule, etc., that is incompatible with the aforementioned Constitution of Canada and/or Honorable "Canadian Bill of Rights" is null and void and will not be used in any action against any Natural Manor Woman Secured Party.
  40. Unlawful Detainer: Means any attempt by any officer of the court or representative of the corporation to arrest, check, hinder, delay, possess, hold, keep in custody, restrain, retard, stop, withhold a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party without affording him every protection as outlined by the''Constitution of Canada" and/or the Honorable Canadian Bill of Rights.'' Any public law, statute, regulation, ordinance or the like will be null and void and will not be used in any action in which a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party is involved.
  41. Reckless Endangerment: Means any attempt by any officer of the court or corporation as defined herein to endanger, attempt or threaten to attempt to endanger the life or property of any Natural Man or Woman Secured Party. This includes dangerous driving in a car, use or threatened use of lethal or non lethal weapons or chemicals, improper use of
  restraint devices, use of restraint devices on a non'‘combative Natural Man or Woman Secured Party. If a conflict arises as to whether or not reckless endangerment has occurred, the version of the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party will be considered as truth.
  42. Failure to Respond: Means any attempt by any officer or representative of the corporation to ignore, inhibit, withhold, delay, or deny a request for information from a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party.
  43. Failure to Charge within Forty Eight (48) Hours: Means any attempt by any officer or representative of a corporation to delay, inhibit, prevent, or in any way stop a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party from being lawfully charged by the court within forty eight (48) hours of arrest.
  44. Failure to Identify: Means any time a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party has interaction with any officer or representative of the court or corporation, the officer or representative, must, upon request of the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party, provide proper identification, written proof of authority, state what his business is with the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party, complete a "Public Servants Questionnaire" in advance of arrest or detention, provide documentation properly identifying the officer or respondeat superior's name and contact information, and any other relevant information as requested by the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party. The officer may not detain the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party for more than ten (10) minutes while he obtains and provides this information.
  45. Counterfeiting Statute Staple Securities Instruments: Means any attempt by any officer or representative of a corporation to copy, duplicate, replicate any document that has "Statute Staple Securities Agreement'' typed, printed, or hand written anywhere on the document, without the express, written, voluntary permission of the document's owner who is the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party who filed said document in the public record, or is in possession of said document, or who is the maker of said document. If a dispute about permission to duplicate arises, the statements of the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party will be accepted as fact without question and will not be contested.
  46. Coercion or Attempt to Coerce: Means any attempt by any officer or representative of a corporation to threaten, intimidate, deprive, conceal, or in anyway prevent a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party from receiving and/or enjoying any right or privilege that is granted, outlined, or secured by "Constitution of Canada" and/or the Honorable "Canadian Bill of Rights", or allow another to do so.
  47. Purchase Price: Means the new replacement costs of items of property at the time of replacement. This includes locating, packing, shipping, handling, delivery, set up, installation, and any other fee associated with total replacement of property.
  48. Destruction of Property: Means any alteration, damage, deprivation, defacing, removing, changing, breaking, separating, removing parts from, erasing of files from, throwing, shooting, kicking, stomping, smashing, crushing, or the like of any property belonging to or in possession of the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party.
  49. Deprivation of Rights or Property: Means the concealment of, keeping from, hiding of, obstructing of any rights, property, or privileges that are outlined or protected by the "Constitution of Canada" and/or the Honorable "Canadian Bill of Rights."
  50. Concealment: Means withholding or keeping information that should normally be revealed, about property and/or rights from a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party. This includes keeping evidence or law from a jury that could favorably alter the outcome of a case to the benefit of the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party. No officer of any court or representative of any corporation may conceal any law and/or any evidence of any kind that is considered relevant by the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party, and/or fail to disclose any law that benefits the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party.
  51. Defacing: Means the changing or altering the appearance of an item. This also includes changing or altering the meaning of laws, rights, property, documents, or any other thing that has value as determined by the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party.
  52. Constitution: Means, for the purpose of this contract, "The Constitution of Canada" circa earliest in history.
  53. Bill of Rights: Means, for the purposes of this contract, the original, Honorable "Canadian Bill of Rights" circa earliest in history.
  54. Rights and Defenses: Means one's legal and/or lawful right and/or ability to defend himself in any action. Upon agreement, the defendant in an action may give up his right to defend himself in a given action. This includes tacit agreement or agreement by default; and the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party is never the defendant.
  55. Willingly: Means that a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party is in full knowledge, understanding, agreement, and full consent, at all times, without fear of reprisal, threat, or coercion, during any interaction in which he is involved with any agent, officer, or representative of any court or corporation, including incorporated governments.
  56. Individual Capacity: Means acting on one's behalf to do a thing. The officer, representative, agent, or the like may be acting under law or color of law and go outside of the capacity of the law and take on a personal liability.
  57. Artificial Person: Means a fictitious entity that was created by the state for transacting commerce. This Artificial Man or Strawman is represented by the ALL CAPITAL LETTER NAME that appears to be spelled the same as the name of the Natural Man or Woman. When the Artificial Person is used in commerce by the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party, it is a transmitting utility.
  58. Agreement: Means any contract which is expressed in writing by letters or marks, or expressed orally in spoken words or utterances by a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party. Any question of any agreement or contract will be resolved by an affidavit from the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party. His affidavit will be considered fact in any action or dispute, without question by any officer, agent, or representative of any corporation including incorporated governments.
  59. Unlawful Determination: Means any statement, speech, gesture, writing, presentment, or the like that suggests an idea that negatively represents the character, actions, plans, procedures, customs, ways of a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party, or group of Natural Men or Women Secured Parties, that is not proven by documented, authorized, certified, evidence, on and for the record under penalty of perjury. This includes off color statements, accusations, or remarks by a judge or other officer of the court and any other representative of any corporation including incorporated governments.
  60. Statute Staple Securities Instrument: Means an edict or proclamation from a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party.
  61. Clerk of the Public Record: Means any clerk who records or files documents in the public record who is employed by a city, county, province, state, municipality, federal government, and/or international, multi'‘national, or multi'‘jurisdictional corporation, including incorporated governments.
  62. Public Record: Means any document or record that is filed or recorded into the public record by the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party. For example, when this document is recorded at a Register of Deeds Office, it becomes a public record.
  63. Presumption: Means legal assumption or inference that places the burden of proof or burden of production on the other party, but never on the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party. No presumption shall prevail against the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party without lawful, documented evidence that supports the presumption which is certified by the officers of the court, on and for the record under penalty of perjury.
  64. Unalienable Rights: Means Natural Rights given by God as acknowledged by the Law of Nations such as, but not limited to, Right to Bear Arms; Freedom of Speech; Right to Trial by a Jury of one's Peers; Right to Due Process; Right of Habeas Corpus; Right to be Exempt from Levy as a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party Creditor; Right to be Secure in One's Private Papers and Effects.
  65. Right to Travel: Means the right to freely move about and/or control any type of craft by whatever means, via land, sea, or air, without any interference by any officer, agent, employee, attorney, or judge that in any manner willfully causes adverse affects or damages upon the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party by an arrest, inhibition, detainment, restraint, deprivation, prevention, etc.
  66. Disrespect: Means anything said or written to any Natural Man or Woman Secured Party, about him or his, that he does not like, including body language, or anything that makes him or any reasonable man uncomfortable or fearful.
  67. The Placing or Filing of an Unlawful Lien, Levy, Garnishment, or Attachment: Means any attempt by any officer, agent, or representative of a corporation to place a lien, levy, garnishment, or attachment on the property or collateral of a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party, herein referred to as Secured Party. Any said officer, agent, or representative must first prove his authority to do so by lawfully documented evidence, furnishing all documents, forms, and papers as necessary to prove his authority to do so to a neutral, three (3) Notary Panel, hereinafter referred to as The Panel, selected by the Secured Party. Said officer, agent, or representative must guarantee in writing that the officer, agent, or representative signing said documents will be personally liable for any damages due to his unlawful and/or illegal actions.
  He must supply bonds or other lawful funds to be held in trust by The Panel until The Panel determines if any actions of the officer, agent, or representative have violated any laws or caused damage to the Secured Party. The Panel will have the sole power to determine if any damage has occurred and will release the funds according to The Panel's adjudication.
  The decision of The Panel will be final with no recourse. The surety bonds and/or funds held in escrow by The Panel must be at least four (4} times the estimated value of the property that is liened, levied, garnished, or attached. The assessment of value will be recorded via affidavit by the Secured Party and delivered to The Panel. The Panel's determination and the assessment thereof will be accepted as truth without question or recourse. Said officer, agent, or representative agrees to surrender, including but not limited to, any and all surety bonds, public and/or corporate insurance policies, CAFR funds, or corporate property as needed to satisfy any and all claims and/or assessments as filed against said officer, agent, or representative by the Secured Party. Said officer, agent, or representative agrees that any and all property or collateral with a current or existing lien will remain in the custody and control of the Secured Party until such time as a determination has been made by a jury of twelve of the Secured Party's Peers as defined herein. In the event that a jury of twelve of the Peers cannot be convened or has not been convened within sixty (60) days from the date of the order of the lien, levy, attachment, or garnishment, any action against the Secured Party shall be dismissed with prejudice; and every lien, levy, attachment, or garnishment shall be released within ten (10) days and all property rights restored, unencumbered. The officer, agent, or representative who has authorized said lien, levy, attachment, or garnishment agrees to surrender any and all surety bonds, public and/or corporate insurance policies, CAFR funds, or corporate property as needed to satisfy any and all claims and/or assessments as filed against said officer, agent, or representative by the Secured Party.
  68. Peer: Means a Natural Man or Woman Secured Party who has recorded into the public record documents to prove his sovereign status.
  69. Ignore: Means to refuse or in any way to deny a lawful request by the Natural Man or Woman Secured Party to have an officer, agent, or representative provide completed legal documents.
  70. Natural Man or Woman: Means a flesh and blood, living, breathing, biological man or woman created by God, as represented by the Upper and Lower Case Name, including "Natural Man or Woman," or "Real Man," or''Real Woman," or "Real Man/Woman." This is not to be confused with the Fictitious Legal Entity that was created by any''CANADIAN GOVERNMENT" and that is represented by the ALL CAPITAL LETTER NAME.
  71. Debtor: Means the Fictitious Legal Entity that was created by any''CANADIAN GOVERNMENT" and that is represented by the ALL CAPITAL LETTER NAME.
  Appendix''B''- Meads'Copyright and Trademark Notice
  [RECORDING REQUESTED BY
  AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL
  TO:
  Dennis Meads
  without prejudice
  c/o [...]-[...] Street
  Alberta, Canada [T7Z 1L5]
  NOTICE BY DECLARATION and AFFIDAVIT OF CONSEQUENCES FOR
  INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT TRADE'‘NAME/TRADEMARK
  And same are accepted for value and exempt from levy.
  PLAIN STATEMENT OF FACT
  I depose and say as follows:
  I, Dennis Larry Meads, a natural man and competent witness, do state with the first'‘hand knowledge the facts herein and in the nature of unalienable rights, claim, without prejudice, a commercial unlimited possessory security interest and common law right of, in and to my Copyright(s), Trademark(s) and Trade'‘Name(s) listed below.
  I am the Secured Party of the herein said Copyright(s), Trademark(s) or Trade'‘Name(s), as supported by a voluntary Copyright Notice in my possession, date December 22 , 2011.
  Copyright Notice: All rights reserved re common'‘law copyright of trade'‘name/trademark DENNIS LARRY MEADS(C) '-- including any and all derivatives and variations in the spelling, i.e. DENNIS LARRY MEADS, MEADS DENNIS LARRY, DENNIS L MEADS, MEADS D LARRY, D L MEADS, '-- Common Law Copyright (C) 2011 by Dennis Larry Meads. Said common'‘law trade'‘name/trademark, DENNIS LARRY MEADS(C), may neither be used nor reproduced, neither in whole nor in part, in any manner whatsoever, without the prior, express, written consent and acknowledgement of Dennis Larry Meads as signified by the red'‘ink signature of Dennis Larry Meads, hereinafter ''Secured Party''.
  With the intent of being contractually bound, any juristic person, as well as the agent thereof, consents and agrees by this Notice that neither said juristic person nor agent thereof shall display,
  nor otherwise use in any manner, the common'‘law trade'‘name/trademark DENNIS LARRY MEADS(C), nor the common'‘law copyright described herein, nor any derivative of, or any variation in the spelling thereof without the prior, express, written consent and acknowledgment of Secured Party, as signified by Secured Party's signature in red ink. Secured Party neither grants, nor implies, nor otherwise gives consent for any unauthorized use of DENNIS LARRY MEADS(C), and all such unauthorized use is strictly prohibited.
  Self'‘executing Contract/Security Agreement in Event of Unauthorized Use: By this Notice, both the juristic person and the agent thereof, hereinafter jointly and severally ''User'', consent and agree that any use of DENNIS LARRY MEADS(C), other than authorized use as set forth herein, constitutes unauthorized use and counterfeiting of Secured Party's common'‘law copyrighted property, contractually binds User and renders this Notice a Security Agreement wherein User is Debtor and Dennis Larry Meads is Secured Party, and signifies that User:
  (1) grants Secured Party a security interest in all of User's assets, land and personal property, and all of User's interest in assets, land and personal property, in the sum certain amount of $100,000,000.00 per each occurrence of use of the common'‘law copyrighted trade- name/trademark DENNIS LARRY MEADS(C), as well as for each and every occurrence of use of any and all derivatives of and variations in the spelling of DENNIS LARRY MEADS(C), plus costs, plus triple damages;
  (2) authenticates this Security Agreement wherein User is Debtor and Dennis Larry Meads is Secured Party, and wherein User pledges all of User's assets, land, consumer goods, farm products, inventory, equipment, money, investment property, commercial tort claims, letters of credit, letter'‘of'‘credit rights, chattel paper, instruments, deposit accounts, accounts, documents, general intangibles, and all User's interest in all such foregoing property, now owned and hereafter acquired, now existing and hereafter arising, wherever located, as collateral for securing User's contractual obligation in favor of Secured Party for User's unauthorized use of Secured Party's common'‘law copyrighted property;
  (3) consents and agrees with Secured Party's filing in any county recorder's office wherein User is a Debtor and Dennis Larry Meads is Secured Party;
  (4) consents and agrees that said filing described in paragraph ''(3)'' is a continuing financing statement, and further consents and agrees with Secured Party's filing of any continuation statement necessary for maintaining Secured Party's perfected security interest in all of User's property and interest in property pledged as collateral in this Security Agreement and described in paragraph ''(2)'' until User's contractual obligation theretofore incurred has been fully satisfied;
  (5) consents and agrees with Secured Party's filing, as described in paragraphs ''(3)'' and ''(4)'', as well as the filing of any Security Agreement, as described in paragraph ''(2)'', in any county recorder's office;
  (6) consents and agrees that any and all such filings described in paragraphs ''(4)'' and ''(5)'' are not, and may not be considered, bogus and that User will not claim that any such filing is bogus;
  (7) waives all defenses; and
  (8) appoints Secured Party as Authorized Representative for User, effective upon User's default re User's contractual obligations in favor of Secured Party as set forth in ''Payment Terms'' and ''Default Terms'', granting Secured Party full authorization and power for engaging in any and all actions on behalf of User including, but not limited to, authentication of a record on behalf of User as Secured Party, at Secured Party's sole discretion, and as Secured Party deems appropriate, and User further consents and agrees that this appointment of Secured Party as Authorized Representative for User, effective upon User's default, is irrevocable and coupled with a security interest.
  User further consents and agrees with all of the following additional terms of Self'‘executing Contract/Security Agreement in Event of Unauthorized Use:
  Payment Terms: In accordance with fees for unauthorized use of DENNIS LARRY MEADS(C) as set forth herein, User hereby consents and agrees that User shall pay Secured Party all unauthorized use fees in full within ten (10) days of the date User is sent Secured Party's invoice, hereinafter ''Invoice'', itemizing said fees.
  Default Terms: In event of non'‘payment in full of all unauthorized use fees by User within ten (10) days of date Invoice is sent, User shall be deemed in default and:
  (a) all of User's property and property pledged as collateral by User as set forth in paragraph ''(2)'' immediately becomes, i.e. is, property of Secured Party;
  (b) Secured Party is appointed User's Authorized Representative as set forth in paragraph ''(8)''; and
  (c) User consents and agrees that Secured Party may take possession of, as well as otherwise dispose of in any manner whatsoever at Secured Party's sole discretion including, but not limited to, sale at auction, at any time following User's default and without further notice any and all of User's property and interest, described in paragraph ''(2)'' formerly pledged as collateral by User, now property of Secured Party, in respect of this ''Self'‘executing Contract/Security Agreement in Event of Unauthorized Use'', that Secured Party, in Secured Party's sole discretion, deems appropriate.
  Terms for Curing Default: Upon event of default, irrespective of any and all of User's former property and interest in property, described in paragraph ''(2)'', in the possession of, as well as disposed of by, Secured Party, as authorized by ''Default Terms'', User may cure User's default only re the remainder of User's said former property and interest, formerly pledged as collateral that is neither in the possession of nor otherwise disposed of by Secured Party within twenty (20) days of date of User's default only by payment in full.
  Terms of Strict Foreclosure: User's non'‘payment in full of all unauthorized use fees itemized in Invoice within said twenty (20) day period for curing default as set forth in ''Terms for Curing Default'' authorizes Secured Party's immediate non-judicial strict foreclosure on any and all remaining former property and interest in property, formerly pledged as collateral by User, now property of Secured Party, which is not in the possession of, nor otherwise disposed of by, Secured Party upon expiration of said twenty'‘ (20) day default'‘curing period.
  Ownership subject to common'‘law copyright and Security Agreement filed in the office of any county recorder. Record Owner Dennis Larry Meads, Autograph Common Law Copyright (C) 2011. Unauthorized use of ''Dennis Larry Meads'' incurs same unauthorized- use fees as those associated with DENNIS LARRY MEADS(C), as set forth in paragraph ''(1)'' under ''Self'‘executing Contract/Security Agreement in Event of Unauthorized Use''.
  Notice for tbe clerk for any county, town, city in Alberta and record court for original jurisdiction, is notice
  for all.
  NOTICE: Using a notary on tbis document does not constitute any adhesion, nor does it alter My status in
  any manner. The purpose for notary is verification and identification only; not for entrance into any foreign
  jurisdiction.
  I certify and solemnly affirm on my own commercial liability, under penalties of perjury by the Laws of Alberta and Canada, that I have read the contents herein and to the best of my knowledge and belief state same are true, correct, complete and not misleading.
  ''Dennis Larry Meads''
  ___________________________________
  Dennis Larry Meads, Secured Party, All
  Rights Reserved
  Province of Alberta )
  ) ss. JURAT
  On the 22 day of December, 2011, Dennis Larry Meads personally appeared before me and proved to me
  on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed hereto and acknowledged to me
  that he executed the same under oath or asseveration, and accepts the facts thereof: Subscribed and affirmed
  before me this day. Witness my hand and seal this 22 day of December, 2011.
  Stamp
  ________________________________
  Notary Signature
  Theodore G. Kaklin
  Barrister & Solicitor
Land mobile radio system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 02:13
  Land mobile radio system (LMRS), also called public land mobile radio or private land mobile radio, is a term that denotes a wireless communications system intended for use by terrestrial users in vehicles (mobiles) or on foot (portables). Such systems are used by emergency first responder organizations, public works organizations, or companies with large vehicle fleets or numerous field staff. Such a system can be independent, but often can be connected to other fixed systems such as the public switched telephone network (PSTN) or cellular networks.
  Military use[edit]The land mobile radio system is also the United States Department of Defense's new state-of-the-art communication system. Government contractors, such as Cassidian Communications, Relm Wireless Corporation, Harris Corporation, Kenwood Communications, Motorola Solutions, Raytheon, Thales, and Tyco Electronics, provide the latest in LMRS technology to the government and military.
  Commercial use[edit]Many businesses and industries throughout the world use LMR as their primary means of communication, especially from a fixed location to mobile users (i.e. from a base site to a fleet of mobiles). Commercial LMR Radios are typically available in two VHF and the UHF frequency bands. 30''50 MHz (sometimes called "Low VHF Band" or "Low Band"), 150''172 MHz (sometimes called "High VHF Band" or "High Band"), 450''470 MHz (called, simply, "UHF" for "Ultra High Frequencies", a term created in the 1950s). Many larger populated areas have additional UHF frequencies from 470''490 MHz, and 490''512 MHz. Low band has longer range capability, but requires mobile antennas as long as nine feet (2.7 m) tall. VHF bands works well in outdoor environments, over bodies of water, and many other applications. UHF bands typically perform better in urban environments and with penetrating obstacles such as buildings. There are also frequencies in the 800 and 900 MHz range available. Commercial, public safety and government users are required to obtain FCC licensing in the United States and must follow Government law.
  Interference in the spectrum[edit]In November 2005, many automatic garage doors in Ottawa, Canada, had suddenly,[1] and strangely, stopped working, due to a powerful radio signal that appears to be interfering with the remote controls that open them.[2]
  In the summer of 2004, garage door operators noticed similar phenomena around U.S. military bases. The strong radio signals on the 390-megahertz band simply overpower the garage door openers. One technician likened it to a whisper competing with a yell.[3]
  ''To address homeland defense needs and comply with government direction that agencies use the electromagnetic spectrum more efficiently, the Department of Defense (DOD) is deploying new Land Mobile Radios to military installations across the country. The new Land Mobile Radios operate in the same frequency range--380 Megahertz (MHz) to 399.9 MHz'--as many unlicensed low-powered garage door openers, which have operated in this range for years. While DOD has been the authorized user of this spectrum range for several decades, their use of Land Mobile Radios between 380 MHz and 399.9 MHz is relatively new. With DOD's deployment of the new radios and increased use of the 380''399.9 MHz range of spectrum, some users of garage door openers have experienced varying levels of inoperability that has been attributed to interference caused by the new radios. Nevertheless, because garage door openers operate as unlicensed devices, they must accept any interference from authorized spectrum users. This requirement stems from Part 15 of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations. Garage door openers and other unlicensed devices are often referred to as "Part 15 devices." Congress requested that GAO review the potential spectrum interference caused by DOD's recent deployment of land mobile radios. Specifically, Congress asked us to (1) determine the extent of the problem of spectrum interference associated with the recent testing and use of mobile radios at military facilities in the United States, (2) review the efforts made by DOD during the development of its land mobile radio system to identify and avoid spectrum interference, and (3) identify efforts to address the problem.'' :::: -- Government Accountability Office report GAO-06-172R[4]
  See also[edit]References[edit]
Mysterious signals jamming garage door openers
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 02:12
  Hundreds of automatic garage doors in the Ottawa area have suddenly and strangely stopped working, due to a powerful radio signal that appears to be interfering with their remote controls.
  The phenomenon began suddenly last weekend, J.P. Cleroux of Ram Overhead Door Systems said, adding that a strong signal was blocking garage door openers.
  Angolan Ambassador Miguel Puna couldn't close the embassy's iron gates using his remote control Thursday.
  "It's affects a 25-mile radius. That's huge," said Cleroux.Angolan Ambassador Miguel Puna is one of those affected by the problem. He can no longer open his embassy's electronic gate.
  "Not only in this gate, but even other gates, we are having a lot of problems," said Puna. "This could cause security concerns."
  Cases have been reported from as far away as Casselman and Aylmer, but two companies that have plotted the reported problems on maps say they appear to cluster in the Byward Market area and a corridor leading south-east from there.
  The Door Doctor has received more than 100 calls from irate customers who can't operate their doors using the remote. It installs Liftmasters, one of the most popular door openers in North America, which operates by radio frequency.
  The signal is transmitted on the 390-megahertz band, which is used by virtually all garage door openers on the continent.
  It's the same frequency used by the U.S. military's new state-of-the-art Land Mobile Radio System.
  Cleroux says operators have already been warned of this phenomenon by service updates from U.S. manufacturers, who started seeing the same problem around military bases last summer. The strong radio signals on the 390-megahertz band simply overpower the garage door openers.
  One technician likened it to a whisper competing with a yell.
  "From what we hear, it is the American Embassy that's operating on 390, and they're the only ones who can block it, but I'm not 100 per cent sure, because we're all kind of up in the air until we know exactly what's going on," said Cleroux.
  The U.S. Embassy denies any transmissions on that frequency. So does the Canadian military.
Case of the US Garage Door Gremlins: San Antonio, Texas balky door openers tied to NSA -- High Strangeness -- Sott.net
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 02:06
  (C) NSA
  If the first complaints to City Councilman Ray Lopez's office had come anywhere close to the truth, they probably wouldn't have gotten much attention.I mean, "My garage door opener's not working and I think the government's involved"? That's tinfoil hat territory.
  But the calls kept coming, and soon Lopez and his District 6 staff confronted a mystery that led them to the doorstep of the National Security Agency, the nation's code-maker and code-breaker, which is putting a data center into the old Sony microchip plant near Loop 410 and Military Drive.
  Call it the Case of the Garage Door Gremlins.
  It started in January with a trickle of calls and e-mails, but the complaints were oddly similar. West Side residents around Loop 410 and Military Drive were having problems with their garage door openers. Some had talked to one another and suspected a widespread problem.
  Bobby Haguewood hadn't talked to his neighbors on Leander but knew something was wrong. His remote worked if he stood directly below the mechanism, but not when he drove up in his car.
  The 75-year-old Air Force veteran called a repairman and learned that he could replace the interior mechanism for $225 or buy a new unit for $450. So he went to Sears and bought a new one from a different manufacturer, but that didn't solve the problem.
  Lopez's office, meanwhile, was hearing various theories from residents. Some blamed CPS Energy, but CPS officials said they had nothing to do with it.
  Lopez and his staffers drove through neighborhoods and spoke to some of the people who had complained. When they saw residents watering their lawn or walking a dog, they heard the same story.
  "It took us a couple of days, and I don't know who suggested it might be NSA," Lopez said. "We called them, and they wouldn't talk but their response was peculiar in that they didn't deny or confirm."
  Thinking he might be closing in on an answer, Lopez called the office of Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, who was hearing complaints, too. Gonzalez called the NSA, which acknowledged that a Land Mobile Radio antenna used by construction and security personnel at the NSA site was operating on a radio frequency also used by many garage door manufacturers. It turned out the same problem had arisen near federal facilities elsewhere.
  The good news is that a fairly intensive frequency testing period has ended at NSA. The entire system was shut down from Jan. 29 to Feb. 28, but the calls have dropped off since it restarted early last week.
  The bad news is that the NSA is taking a "buyer beware" approach to the problem, advising residents to contact the manufacturer or installer "for information on available immediate solutions." No refunds from us, in other words.
  Although it cost him, Haguewood took the whole episode in stride. He wonders if problems will continue but says he has a solution in mind if they do.
  The government, he said, "is going to have to put a man down here on my house and open the door."
  Who says there's not a government solution to every problem?
  [email protected]
  Comment: For several years now, SOTT has been collecting 'garage jamming' stories from all over US and even Canada:Virginia, US: Marine Base radio signal knocks out garage door openersAirwave glitch hits Colorado Springs, US area: Garage-door openers jammed, hundreds sayFlorida, US: Air Force radios jamming garage-door openers in PanhandleOttawa, Canada: Garage doors work after mystery signal vanishesSan Antonio, Texas, US has a reccuring mysterious garage door dilemma
  Land Mobile Radio system - United States Department of Defense's new state-of-the-art communication system is being blamed in all of them. They even issued an uncooperative news release, urging unlucky owners of baby monitors, cordless telephones, computers, garage door opener remote controls, wireless mouses, etc. to purchase a retrofit for their remote control system to allow operation on a frequency that is not used by the LMR system.
  Although the explanation of Land Mobile Radio system being responsible for garage doors' jamming sounds plausible and fits military's 'we don't care' mentality, it still doesn't explain what exactly they are doing and why. Care to speculate?
NSA-Garages-2010-San Antonio Hams >> Blog Archive >> NSA Keeps Garage Door Opener From Opening?
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 02:03
  During tonight's Bexar County ARES Training Net, Lothar briefly mentioned the garage door problems those of us living near the intersection of 151 and Potranco Road (San Antonio, TX) are having. As Lothar correctly stated, the issue is a conflict between a new radio communications tower put up at the NSA facility being built on Military Drive and garage door openers in the vicinity.
  The NSA tower works on the LMR 390 Mhz frequency, which is shared with older garage door openers, including, as it turns out, my own. As NSA has stated in public, they believe they have the legal basis for operating on this frequency, and do not intend to stop operating on this frequency. So, for those of us with garage door openers operating at that frequency, it means that your remote may not open your garage door until you are very close to it. In my case, I actually had to park in my driveway, get out of my car, and activate the remote standing two feet from the garage door. A bit of an inconvenience.
  The Genie GIRUD-1T Universal Dual Frequency Conversion Kit alleviates frequency issues from the recently implemented Land Mobile Radio (LMR) communications system. The LMR system is used by military bases across the U.S. and was implemented as part of the nation's Homeland Security efforts.
  Most newer garage door openers operate on the 315 Mhz frequency to avoid this conflict. So if you are having these issues and would like some resolution, you can do one of two things: 1.) Purchase a new garage door opener that operates at that frequency, or 2.) Install a converter which will allow your existing garage door opener to operate on the new frequency.
  I installed a converter in my house, and it works great. Good as new. I can easily open my garage door from a block away, which is what I used to be able to do before the NSA tower went up.
  Installation took about 30 minutes, 20 minutes of which was spent just figuring out things in my head. Which is to say that it really is a simple fix. I ordered the conversion kit from Genie directly, though I did see some in the garage door section of the Lowes at Alamo Ranch out at 1604. I imagine other hardware stores might also have it in stock.
  Keep in mind that if you do buy the kit, it only comes with one new garage door opener. So unless you can reprogram one of your other ones to operate at 315 Mhz, then you'll have to buy a second (if you need two for two cars). I bought a second one for my car also at Lowes.
  Here's a link to the kit that I used: http://www.ezgaragedoor.com/ezgarage001sc/product_3580.html
  I paid about $50 myself ordering from Genie. Installation was quick and easy. If anyone needs to install this conversion kit and would like some assistance, please feel free to let me know. I am not very mechanically inclined, but I know I can install the conversion kit! Also be happy to show the install to anyone who might want to come by the house.
  Please feel free to shoot me an email if you have any questions at wmartyn@gmail.com.
  Wade Martyn, WB5C
VIDEO-Winnipeg posts second-coldest December since 1893 - Winnipeg | Globalnews.ca
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 01:49
  WINNIPEG '' It's not just seasonal amnesia '' it's been an unusually cold December.
  This month will go down as the second-coldest December in Winnipeg in more than a century.
  As all of Manitoba was placed under a wind chill warning on Monday morning, Environment Canada meteorologist Dale Marciski predicted Winnipeg's mean temperature for December 2013 would be around -21 C.
  The only colder December in the past century was in 2000, when the mean temperature was -22 C. The normal mean temperature in December is -13 C.
  ''That's quite significant,'' Marciski said Monday morning. ''Usually we're only a degree or two off the normal.
  ''It seems to go on and on, and when we get the warm, it's only for a day or two.''
  The only colder Decembers on record were in the 1800s. The coldest recorded December in Winnipeg was in 1879, when the mean temperature was -26 C. In 1872, the mean temperature was -22.6 C, in 1876, it was -21.8 C, and in 1893, it was -21.4.
  An Arctic air mass stationed over the Manitoba can be blamed for the extreme wind chills, an Environment Canada warning said.
  Most of Manitoba was warned to expect wind chills in the -40 to -45 range on Monday, with Churchill and York, Man., posting even colder wind chills of -45 to -50.
  And an Arctic ridge of high pressure from northwestern Alberta into southern Manitoba was expected to keep the province under the bitterly cold air mass for several days, Environment Canada said.
  Frostbite on exposed skin may occur in less than 10 minutes when the wind chill is -40 to -45, and less than five minutes when the wind chill is -45 to -50, Environment Canada said.
  At noon, the temperature at Winnipeg's Richardson International Airport was -31 C and the wind chill was -40. The wind chill was forecast to plummet to -50 overnight.
  RELATED: SkyTracker weather forecast
  The cold weather has kept CAA Manitoba busy.
  With two days left in December, the provincial branch of the Canadian Automobile Association had served more than 18,400 members, the busiest month since 2005, when the organization first started tracking monthly service numbers.
  ''When it comes to the winter months, December is usually a slower month,'' Liz Peters, CAA Manitoba's corporate communications manager, said in a news release. ''This year so far has been the exact opposite of that trend.''
  The previous busiest month recorded was January 2013, when 18,784 members were assisted.
  The organization also expects to break the record for the busiest three-month period since 2005, with more than 38,400 members helped in October, November and December. The current record for a three-month period is October, November and December 2008, when 38,420 people were assisted.
  For the latest weather conditions, download the SkyTracker weather app for iPhone, iPad or Android.
  Coldest Decembers recorded in Winnipeg (pre-2013)1879: -261872: -22.62000: -221876: -21.81893: -21.41933: -20.41983: -20.31886: -201917: -19.91989, 1884: -19.8
  (C) Shaw Media, 2013
  Lara Schroeder is a newspaper and online journalist who has been the web producer for Global Winnipeg since January 2013.
  This Carleton University graduate started as a journalist with Global Winnipeg in 2000. In 2003 she was promoted as Global National's Manitoba correspondent and later moved to the Toronto bureau in 2005.
EMP-Diehl Defence: Convoy Protection
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 01:42
  HPEM C-IED: Vehicle-mounted HPEM effector for military convoy protection against radio- and new types of timer- and sensor-based IEDs.
  HPEMcheckPoint: Mobile HPEM source to stop vehicles at checkpoints or at critical infrastructure.
  HPEMcase: Compact HPEM source, integrated in a case, allowing special forces to deactivate alarm systems, disrupt computers and to neutralize eavesdropping devices.
  HPEMcarStop: Offroad vehicle-integrated HPEM source allowing non-violent stopping of getaway vehicles in moving traffic. Vehicle electronics are not damaged and the target vehicle can be restarted after the incident.
Dell's Twitter Account Apologizes For The 'Inconvenience' Of Helping NSA Install Spyware | Techdirt
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 01:18
  There are times when big brands with "social media people" might want to teach those junior level employees to recognize that using one of the standard "scripted" answers might be inappropriate. Take, for example, if you're Dell and a new report has come out suggesting that the NSA has pretty much compromised your servers at the BIOS level with spy bugs, then, when someone -- especially a respected security guy like Martin Wismeijer -- tweets at you, you don't go with the standard scripted "sorry for the inconvenience" response. But, apparently, that's not how Dell handled things this time (thanks to Mike Mozart for the pointer):In case you can't read that, Wismeijer complained on Twitter about finding out that his Dell server is bugged by the NSA (which might be an exaggeration...) and included the @DellCares account in his tweet. That account wrote:Thank you for reaching out and regret the inconvenience. Our colleagues at @dellcarespro will be able to help you out.
  Wismeijer responded with an expected level of anger. Not only is "regret the inconvenience" probably the inappropriate response to a customer complaining about the NSA installing malware, but the idea that Dell support "will be able to help you out" is similarly questionable.
Shooter's doctor gave up license over sexual relationship with female client - NewsTimes
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 00:50
  The psychiatrist who had treated Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter Adam Lanza surrendered his license after being investigated for an inappropriate relationship with a female patient.
  According to documents from the state Department of Public Health obtained Monday, Dr. Paul Fox, who had a private practice in Brookfield, was questioned about his relationship with the woman in July 2012. Shortly after, he voluntarily surrendered his license and has since moved to New Zealand.
  A lengthy State Police report released on Friday showed Fox was Lanza's primary psychiatrist during his adolescence. Fox is quoted in the report as saying he hadn't seen Lanza since he was 15, about five years before Lanza killed his mother, then 20 first-graders and six adults at the Sandy Hook school in Newtown before taking his own life.
  Fox told investigators in the report he destroyed his records on Lanza, a move psychiatrists are permitted to do with files after five years.
  The Department of Public Health report states that Fox began treating the woman with whom he had a relationship in May 2010. The patient, who isn't a minor, claimed she and Fox had a "personal consensual sexual relationship for more than one year." The relationship came to light during a psychological assessment with the woman's primary doctor at Yale-New Haven Hospital.
  The patient said she and Fox had "sexual encounters" in his office, went out to eat together and spent time together on Fox's personal sailboat. She also claimed that, while hospitalized elsewhere, she met "another girl" who said she was having phone sex with Fox.
  The state Department of Public Health report included email messages from the patient to her mother in which the relationship with Fox was discussed. It also included billing information showing Fox sent the woman 212 text messages between April 26, 2011 and May 25, 2011. Between October 26 and 28, 2011, Fox sent another 36 text messages.
  There were also 42 phone calls between Fox and the patient during that time, the longest of which was 49 minutes. Other documents supporting the relationship included two letters reportedly from Fox to the patient, two Facebook dialogues sent by the patient, 29 emails from Fox to the patient, and two poems reportedly given to Fox by the patient.
  These documents were not released by the health department. Among the 19 supporting documents were medical records from Western Connecticut State University in Danbury and Danbury Hospital. Calls to the head of psychiatry at the hospital were not returned Monday.
  Records from state Superior Court in Danbury indicate that Judge Heidi Winslow granted Fox and his wife, Faline Schneiderman, of New Fairfield, were granted an uncontested divorce in June 2012.
  The couple, who were married in Sherman in April 1988, have two children, a daughter, 23, and a son, 20.
  Schneiderman brought the action six months earlier, citing "irretrievable breakdown," according to the court file.
  Fox's case did not come before the Connecticut Medical Examining Board for a public hearing. Instead, Fox and his attorney brokered a deal with the state Department of Public Health's Healthcare Quality and Safety branch and the psychiatrist surrendered his license in Connecticut and New York.
  Dr. Harold I. Schwartz, a member of the 16-member Sandy Hook Advisory Commission, a panel of experts appointed by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy to make recommendations regarding school safety, mental health and gun violence prevention in the wake of the Dec. 14, 2012 shootings, said it was impossible from the available information to say whether Lanza received proper mental health care from Fox.
  "There is nothing in the state police report that tells me anything of substance about the kind of care (he) was receiving," Schwartz said Monday.
  Schwartz is the psychiatrist-in-chief at Hartford Hospital's Institute of Living, vice president of Behavioral Health at Hartford Hospital and professor of psychiatry at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine.
  "There are no conclusions of any kind that I can draw," Schwartz said.
  Staff writer Ken Dixon contributed to this report.
US killer's psychiatrist living in NZ - National - NZ Herald News
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 00:49
  A psychiatrist who treated the gunman responsible for the Sandy Hook massacre - and who faced allegations of misconduct in the United States - is now living in New Zealand.
  Paul Fox was Adam Lanza's psychiatrist when the future killer was a teenager, and United States investigators interviewed him by telephone in the days after the murders of 20 children and six adults.
  The 20-year-old killed himself when police arrived at the elementary school on December 14, 2012. It was later discovered he killed his mother before driving to the school and embarking on the rampage.
  The shooting was the second-deadliest in US history and caused worldwide angst over gun control in the United States.
  From New Zealand, Dr Fox told the detectives he last saw Lanza about five years before the killings and remembered little about him.
  He had also destroyed Lanza's psychiatric records, which is allowed for under state regulations.
  The official report into the Sandy Hook shootings said Dr Fox could recall Lanza at about 15 years old and that he had aggression problems, and was possibly suffering from Aspergers syndrome.
  "He recalled Adam as very rigid and resistant to engagement," according to media coverage of the report.
  However, Dr Fox could remember few other details about him. He was not working as a psychiatrist at the time of the shooting because he surrendered his licence to practise amid allegations of negligence and "possible boundary violations".
  Those allegations related to a patient he treated in the years after Lanza, Newstimes.com reported. The website said Dr Fox gave up his licence before he could be interviewed by a state medical board.
  The Stamford Advocate said Dr Fox and his lawyers were able to "broker a deal" so he did not have to appear before the board and face a public hearing of the accusations.
  Shortly after, he moved to New Zealand, where international media reported he has been working in child social services.
  But a spokeswoman for Child, Youth and Family yesterday told the Herald an initial search did not show any record of Dr Fox working for the agency. She said there was a man by the same name who worked for CYF but he was not the same person.
  Sandy Hook massacre
  * The second-worst mass shooting in US history, the "Sandy Hook'' massacre occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School in the small town of Sandy Hook in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14, 2012.
  * Twenty children and six adults were killed during the rampage, which ended when gunman Adam Lanza shot himself.
  * Many students were saved by the bravery and quick-thinking of their teachers, who barricaded them into classrooms to stop Lanza getting in.
  * An investigation later revealed the shooting occurred within five minutes, and 156 bullets were fired.
Nazi-looted art found in German parliament: report - Yahoo News Canada
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 00:43
  Skip to search.New User? RegisterSign InHelpGet new Yahoo Mail apps NotificationsHelpMailMy YahooYahooSearchSearch Web
  HomePhotosYear In ReviewToronto ice stormRob FordLottery NumbersWeatherMost PopularWidescreenVideoCanadaWorldWorld HomeU.S.Middle EastEuropeLatin AmericaAfricaAsiaAustraliaPhotosBusinessBusiness HomeEconomyEarningsStock MarketsTaxesEntertainmentEntertainment HomeCelebrity on OMG!TVMusicMoviesSportsSports HomeHockeyBasketballFootballBaseballSoccerTennisGolfBoxing / MMAHealthHealth HomeWeight Loss>>>>Medications/DrugsSeniors/AgingDiseases/ConditionsTechTech HomeThe Right ClickVideo GamesGadgetsSocial MediaInternetScienceScience HomeGeekquinoxSpace/AstronomyDinosaurs/FossilsBiotechGreenBlogsBlogs HomeDaily BrewDaily BuzzPolitical PointsThe Lighter SideThe Right ClickDavid vs. DavidGeekquinoxGood NewsGood News HomeThe Lighter Side BlogOddOdd News HomeOdd News VideoWho Knew? VideoDaily BuzzCanada HomeB.C.PrairiesOntarioQuebecAtlanticTerritoriesPoliticsWeatherPhotos
VIDEO-Joe Biden Goes Off on 'Very, Very Intrusive' Domestic Spying'...in 2006 | Video | TheBlaze.com
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 00:36
  Vice President Joe Biden speaks at the closing of the National Conference on Mental Health in the South Court Auditorium in the White House complex in Washington, Monday, June 3, 2013. The conference is part of the Administration s effort to launch a national conversation to increase understanding and awareness of mental health. Credit: AP
  In 2006, then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) blasted the Bush administration's domestic spying and called for a congressional investigation into the warrantless collection of millions of Americans' phone records.
  ''I don't have to listen to your phone calls to know what you're doing. If I know every single phone call you made, I'm able to determine every single person you talked to. I can get a pattern about your life that is very, very intrusive,'' he told CBS News.
  Footage of the 2006 interview was also aired on network news Tuesday.
  Watch the clip via Center for Democracy & Technology:
  But that was then. Vice President Biden has yet to issue a similar critique of the National Security Agency's (NSA) gigantic surveillance efforts under the Obama administration. However, his comments from 2006 seem to apply perfectly to the predicament privacy advocates find themselves in today.
  In one of the NSA's spying programs revealed by whistelblower Edward Snowden, the government sweeps up the phone records of millions of Americans every day and stores them in a digital library. That program was authorized by the USA Patriot Act, passed shortly after 9/11.
  The second, called PRISM, taps into major U.S. technology companies and monitors emails in the search for foreign terrorists. That program was authorized by 2007 and 2008 laws that allow the government to monitor, without specific warrants, emails believed to belong to foreigners.
  Obama and other administration officials argue the programs do not allow officials to ''listen'' to Americans' phone calls.
  However, critics of the domestic surveillance programs have made the same argument Biden did in 2006: ''I don't have to listen to your phone calls to know what you're doing.''
  The Associated Press contributed to this report.
  ''
VIDEO-Student Film Festival | The White House
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 00:30
  DOWNLOAD ENTRY GUIDE
  OPEN ONLY TO K-12 STUDENTS AND PARENT OR GUARDIAN.
  By entering the ''White House Student Film Festival'' (''Competition''), entrants accept and agree to be bound by these Official Rules. Any violation of these rules may, at Sponsor's discretion, result in disqualification. All decisions of the judges regarding this Competition are final and binding in all respects. (The White House is referred to in these rules as the ''Sponsor'').
  1. COMPETITION PERIOD. Competition begins 1:00 AM EDT November 25, 2013 and ends 11:59 PM EDT January 29th, 2014 (''COMPETITION PERIOD''). Online entries must be received by the end of the Competition Period.
  2. ELIGIBILITY. The Competition is only open to students enrolled in grades K-12 in the United States and U.S. territories who are at least 18 years old as of the date of entry and the parent or legal guardian of a student below the age of majority in their jurisdiction of residence.
  3. HOW TO ENTER. In order to enter this Competition, entrants must upload their video onto YouTube or Vimeo. Entrants must read and agree to all rules and regulations, submit the online entry form online, and submit a link to their video on the White House website.
  Entries must address at least one of the following themes:(1.) How you currently use technology in your classroom or school OR(2.) The role technology will play in education in the future.
  The entry must:(a.) include the title of an original video,(b.) the filmmaker's name,(c.) have been created on or after November 25, 2013,(d.) be three (3) minutes or less in length, including opening and/or closing credits,(e.) only use authorized content, including, without limitation, music, images,film clips, and other intellectual property,(f.) only contain images or likenesses of any individuals who have provided their authorization or whose parents or guardians have provided authorization if such individuals are under the age of majority in their jurisdiction of residence,(g.) be appropriate for viewing by the general public (appropriateness will be determined by the White House in its sole discretion),(h.) be originally authored or the entrant must have written permission to use copyright protected material. All text, images, videos, and other content and materials submitted by entrants, including without limitation, the items described in subsections (a) '' (h) above, shall be referred to hereafter as the ''Submission.''
  Entrant represents and warrants that Submission is the original work of entrant, it has not been copied from others, and it does not violate the rights of any other person or entity. Entrant further represents and warrants that Submission adheres to the fundamental spirit of the Competition and does not contain any defamatory, obscene, or otherwise unlawful matter.
  If selected as potential finalists, entrants shall be required to complete a release confirming the consent, release and grant of rights set forth in Section 6 and provide such information as may be required for with The White House to conduct a background check (no personally identifiable information, including names or social security numbers of entrants, will be collected or maintained by the U.S. Department of Education). The Sponsor reserves the right to disqualify any entry at its sole discretion.
  4. FINALIST SELECTION AND NOTIFICATION. There will be two rounds of judging. A panel of judges consisting of White House staff will conduct the preliminary and final review and select films that will be presented at the Film Festival at the White House. In the preliminary and final rounds, judges will review and score the Submissions according to the following criteria:(1.) Creativity in expression of the theme,(2.) Originality of the Submission, and(3.) Technical Quality of the final video product.
  Second round contestants will be notified via email. If any such entrant: (i) cannot be contacted; (ii) does not respond within five (5) days from the date the Sponsor first tries to notify her/him; (iii) fails to return all releases and other requested documents; such entrant forfeits and an alternate will be selected. The White House in its sole discretion will select finalists for exhibition at the White House Film Festival.
  5. PRIZE DESCRIPTION. Finalists will have their short films shown at the White House. Finalists have an opportunity to be invited to attend the screening at the White House. Finalist videos may also be featured on the White House website, YouTube channel, Vimeo, and other social media pages. Finalists will be presented with a certificate celebrating their achievement.
  6. OWNERSHIP AND LICENSE. Ownership in any Submission shall remain the property of the entrant, but entry into this Competition constitutes entrant's irrevocable and perpetual permission and consent, without compensation, with or without attribution, that the Sponsor may use, reproduce, print, publish, transmit, distribute, sell, perform, adapt, enhance, or display such Submission, and the entrant's name and/or likeness, for any purpose, including any and all media now in existence or hereinafter created, throughout the world, for the duration or the copyright in the Submission. Sponsor and/or others authorized by the Sponsor shall have the right to edit, adapt, and modify the Submission.
  7. PARTICIPATING ENTITIES. This Competition is administered by The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20502.
Snowden Leak regarding post here: HP laptop leaks/transmits its built-in mic audio somewhere around 24Mhz : RTLSDR
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 00:19
  Original Story: http://www.reddit.com/r/RTLSDR/comments/1le3if/so_i_discovered_that_my_hp_laptop_leakstransmits
  I was reading through the last batch of documents released by Snowden/Der Speigel, and noticed LOADAUTO (see page 3 of http://cryptome.org/2013/12/nsa-ant-raumuber.pdf)
  LOUDAUTOs maximizes the gain of the microphone and then uses the digital signal to pulse-position-modulate (PPM) a square wave signal running at a pre-set frequency. This square wave is used to turn a FET (field effect transistor) on and off. When the unit is illuminated with a CW signal from a nearby radar unit, the illuminating signal is amplitude modulated with the PPM square wave. This signal is re-radiated, where it is picked up by the radar, then processed to recover the room audio. Processing is currently performed by COTS equipment with FM demodulation capability.
Cold facts: More record lows than highs in USA in 2013
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 02 Jan 2014 00:09
  South Boston residents take dogs for a walk in January 2013 when temperatures dipped into the teens.(Photo: AP/Michael Dwyer)
  Story HighlightsIt's the first time this has happened in 20 yearsA cool spring in 2013 helped turn the tide from record highs in 2012Overall, planet is still on track for fourth warmest year on recordSHARE1964CONNECTEMAILMOREMiley Cyrus was a baby and Bill Clinton had just been inaugurated the last time this happened: For the first time in 20 years, the USA saw more record cold temperatures than record hot temperatures in 2013, according to statistics from the National Climatic Data Center.
  "For the first year since 1993, there were more daily record lows than daily highs that were either tied or set in 2013," reported Weather Channel meteorologist Guy Walton, who keeps track of the data from the climate center.
  Through Dec. 28, there have been 11,852 daily record lows in 2013, compared with 10,073 daily record highs, according to Walton.
  A "daily" record occurs when a specific location sets a record high or low temperature for a particular day; other types of records include monthly and all-time.
  Walton said that an unusually cold spring was the main factor in the "cool" 2013.
  The year 2013 was a stunning turnaround from the USA's amazingly warm year of 2012, when more than 34,000 record highs were measured across the country, as compared with only about 6,600 record lows.
  Overall, the year was likely a blip in a long-term warming trend: "The ratio of daily highs to daily lows continues to be near 3 to 1 for this decade, so far," Walton said.
  Also for the decade so far, there have been 700 all-time record highs set, compared with only 74 all-time record lows.
  Worldwide, since the USA is only about 2% of the Earth's surface, what happens here is far from representative of the planet as a whole.
  Through November, the most recent month for which national and global climate statistics are available, the world was having its 4th-warmest year on record, while the USA was seeing its 35th-warmest on record, the NCDC reports.
  Climate records go back to the 1880s.
  SHARE1964CONNECTEMAILMORE
VIDEO-Flu expected soon in RI - News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 01 Jan 2014 23:58
  PROVIDENCE -Rhode Island health officials said Monday that a widespread flu outbreak is expected in the state.
  Federal health officials said flu is widespread in Massachusetts, New York and eight other states.
  Dr. Michael Fine, the Rhode Island's health director, said his flu cases and Massachusetts are now considered widespread and that physician visits for flulike symptoms are up.
  He said that means it's time to stop procrastinating and get a flu shot, especially if you're a young adult.
  "In a typical year (we) worry about the elderly and infants, this year around the country we're seeing hospitalizations and even deaths in young adults. So regardless of who you are, it's a good year to be immunized," Fine said.
  Fine said this year's vaccine is effective in preventing the H1N1, or swine flu, strain. It takes two weeks for the flu shot to kick in and effectively prevent the strains of flu it protects against.
  Fine said people need to get the shot in the next day or two because he expects a major outbreak of flu in two to three weeks.
Hedge fund titan, giant of philanthropy leaps to his death after stroke | New York Post
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 01 Jan 2014 23:50
  Multimillionaire philanthropist Robert W. Wilson, 86, took his own life Monday by throwing himself from his luxury Upper West Side high-rise apartment, just a few months after suffering a debilitating stroke, sources said.
  The former Wall Street hedge fund titan '-- who donated hundreds of millions to charity '-- left a note before leaping at about 11 a.m. from the 16th floor of the famed San Remo, which overlooks Central Park West, cops said.
  ''He was 86 and suffered a stroke a few months ago,'' said Wilson's friend, Stephen Viscusi.
  ''He always said he didn't want to suffer, and when the time came, he would be ready.''
  A Detroit native, Wilson rose from humble beginnings to becoming nearly a billionaire, after starting his firm, Wilson Associates, with just $15,000.
  He would eventually build a Wall Street fortune, which was estimated by Business Week in 2000 to be worth about $800 million.
  The San RemoPhoto: Christian Johnston
  His goal was to give away most of his wealth before he died. But with his finances spread around to different money managers, the bottom line seemed to keep growing.
  ''His plan was to give all his money away,'' Viscusi said. ''He told me recently, 'I only have about $100 million to go.' ''
  Wilson donated $100 million each to the World Monuments Fund, the Nature Conservancy, the Environmental Defense Fund and the Wildlife Conservation Society.
  ''He was the most committed person I have ever known,'' said Bonnie Burnham, president of World Monuments Fund.
  ''More than his financial contributions, he brought an astute mind and sharp wit to the organization. He will be missed greatly and long remembered as a visionary donor.''
  The World Monuments Fund works to preserve architectural and cultural heritage sites around the world.
  One of Wilson's favorite initiatives was ''saving'' Catholic private schools, although he was an atheist.
  ''I realized that Catholic schools were closing all over the country, and Bill Gates probably didn't have enough money to save them,'' he told Bloomberg News in 2010.
  Wilson believed that private schools offered a better educations than ''the union-controlled inner-city schools.''
  He gave millions to the Archdiocese of New York over the years and became a good friend of Edward Cardinal Egan.
  Police said the window to Wilson's apartment was open and the death was not deemed suspicious.
  Wilson was married to his only wife, Marilyn, for about 35 years before they divorced.
  He leaves behind an brother, William, 88, who lives in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. He has no children.
  Additional reporting by Joe Tacopino
Fluoride in Drinking Water | Austin Water Utility | AustinTexas.gov - The Official Website of the City of Austin
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 01 Jan 2014 23:41
  Fluoride and Infants
  Water fluoridated at a level optimal for oral health (as is used in Austin) poses no known health risks for infants. However, some children may develop enamel fluorosis, a cosmetic condition where faint white markings or streaks may appear on the teeth. Fluorosis can affect both baby teeth and permanent teeth while they're forming under the gums.
  If you're concerned about fluorosis, you can minimize your baby's exposure to fluoride in several ways. Breastfeeding is the best source of nutrition for infants. If breastfeeding is not possible, you can minimize exposure to fluoride by using ready-to-feed formula. You can also alternate using tap water and nonfluoridated water for formula preparation, or mix powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with low-fluoride water most or all of the time. However, if you use only nonfluoridated water '-- such as purified, demineralized, deionized or distilled bottled water '-- to prepare your baby's formula, your baby's doctor may recommend fluoride supplements beginning at age 6 months.
  History of Fluoride in Drinking Water
  Fluoride is a naturally occurring chemical compound found in many groundwaters. In the 1920s and 1930s a link was made between fluoride concentrations in drinking water and a reduction in tooth decay. In 1945 municipalities began adding fluoride to drinking water to fight tooth decay. Follow up studies in these communities over the following 13-15 years showed a 50-70% reduction in cavities.
  Because of the potential public health benefits to City residents, the City held a public referendum on fluoridation in the early 1970s. The referendum passed with the support of the community, and the Utility began adding fluoride to the water on February 2, 1973. As a result, the Utility has nearly thirty years of operational experience with fluoride.
  Furthermore, the beneficial aspects of fluoride are widely recognized. Impartial groups that have endorsed fluoridation include the American Dental Association, the Texas Dental Association, the American Medical Association, and the World Health Organization. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also supports the practice of fluoridation and has developed detailed engineering and administrative recommendations regarding it. In fact, the CDC has recognized water fluoridation as one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th Century.
  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develops standards for and regulates the concentration of fluoride in drinking water. The Utility constantly monitors the addition of fluoride at our water treatment plants and routinely measures the concentration of fluoride in the finished water to assure that it is well within the regulatory limits established by the EPA. Refer to the What's in the Water for the amount of fluoride in Austin's drinking water.
Exclusive: Emails Reveal Deceased Hedge Fund Manager Refused To Join Bill Gates' "Worthless" Giving Pledge
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 01 Jan 2014 22:53
  WASHINGTON '-- Robert W. Wilson, the hedge fund founder who committed suicide at age 87 over the weekend, was known as one of the most active philanthropists in the country. But his style of giving was radically opposed to that of Bill Gates, who asked Wilson to join his Giving Pledge for the ultra-rich '-- and was rebuffed in a series of caustic emails.
  In emails from 2010 provided to BuzzFeed by a source close to Wilson, the hedge fund manager tells Gates that the pledge is essentially ''worthless'' and that he wants to ''stay far away'' from his effort.
  '--'-- Original Message '--'---
  From: Bill Gates
  To: Robert W. Wilson
  Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 1:03 PM
  Subject: Giving Pledge discussion
  Robert,
  I'm writing to let you know about an idea we're calling the ''Giving Pledge'' that came out of a number of conversations that Melinda and Warren and I have had with a number of people over the past year.
  The idea is that when you take the Giving Pledge, you agree to give the majority of your wealth to charity during your lifetime or through your will. The Giving Pledge will be public, and pledges will be posted on a website (www.givingpledge.org). A pledge can consist of a single sentence or a longer explanation of your philosophy in respect to philanthropy.
  By bringing together the people who take the Giving Pledge in various ways, including at an annual event, we hope we can all learn from each other. The Giving Pledge is more of a moral commitment than anything else. It is not a legal contract, and it does not involve pooling money or supporting a particular set of causes.
  We will only invite people of substantial wealth to join this particular group but we will also cite efforts being made by others to draw everyone into philanthropy. At first we will focus on the United States, but we plan to extend it to other places if it goes well here.
  Since your generosity has inspired so many and you have clearly already lived this Pledge, I am writing to see if you would be willing to help lead this effort and join us in encouraging others.
  We are planning to proceed in three steps:
  Today an article about the Giving Pledge was posted online at www.fortune.com. Warren and Melinda and I will be on Charlie Rose's show tonight to further discuss the idea.
  Second is that in the next few days, we are asking some of the great philanthropists in the United States to join us in signing a letter to hundreds of wealthy people in the United States inviting them to pledge. We are working on an initial draft, which we will send you for your feedback if you choose to be involved. We hope to send the letter out in a few weeks.
  Third is that sometime in the fall '' perhaps October '' we will have an event for everyone who was invited and has agreed to sign up. This will be an annual event and we will discuss whether any other types of activities would be attractive to the group.
  Thanks for considering this. I look forward to discussing this with you soon and I've asked someone on my staff to set that up.
  Bill
  Wilson responds:
  From: Robert W. WilsonSent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 12:16 PMTo: Bill GatesSubject: Re: Giving Pledge discussion
  Mr. Gates, I decided more than ten years ago to try to give away 70% of my net worth and have already given away one-half billion dollars. (I've never been a Forbes 400) So I really don't have to take the pledge.
  Your ''Giving Pledge'' has a loophole that renders it practically worthless, namely permitting pledgees to simply name charities in their wills. I have found that most billionaires or near billionaires hate giving large sums of money away while alive and instead set up family-controlled foundations to do it for them after death. And these foundations become, more often than not, bureaucracy-ridden sluggards. These rich are delighted to toss off a few million a year in order to remain socially acceptable. But that's it.
  I'm going to stay far away from your effort. But thanks for thinking of me. Cordially
  Gates pushes back:
  '--'--- Original Message '--'---
  From: Bill Gates
  To: Robert W. Wilson
  Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 1:23 AM
  Subject: RE: Giving Pledge discussion
  What you are doing is fantastic. You are giving a high percentage and doing it in a very efficient way to causes you have thought deeply about.
  The key benefit of your getting involved in the pledge would be having people learn more from your example both in your pledge letter and your participation in the yearly events. We believe the more people we get involved the stronger the effort will be and the more people who will join.
  You are right that the Giving Pledge allows people to join in who don't give until their will comes into action. Since people don't know when they will die it is a bit difficult to make the timing of their giving super specific.
  You are also right that some people set up foundations without a strong focus or leadership and with high overhead.
  One of our goals with the Giving Pledge is to make it more common for people to consider their philanthropic plans at a much younger age. A number of people we have talked to about the pledge have said that they are thinking through their plans now instead of waiting because of the pledge. People often put off thinking about giving because it involves considering when they die and forces them to pick particular causes and decide how much to leave for each family member. The causes that are easy to pick are often not the ones that have the biggest impact on reducing inequity. We aren't trying to homogenize the giving but we do think people getting exposures to others who have thought a lot about the right causes will improve the overall quality of giving.
  So it is fine for you to stay out but I want you to know that we agree with your views on philanthropy and we would benefit from your joining in. If you are willing to talk further about this I would love to chat on the phone sometime.
  Wilson closes the discussion:
  '--'--- Original Message '--'---
  From: Robert W. Wilson
  To: Bill Gates
  Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:15 PM
  Subject: Re: Giving Pledge discussion
  Mr. Gates, thanks much for your email. But as my previous email indicated, I wouldn't have much fun or add much value to this group. You, being a liberal, think you can change people more than I think.
  But let me make one comment. When I talk to young people who seem destined for great success, I tell them to forget about charities and giving. Concentrate on your family and getting rich'--which I found very hard work. I personally and the world at large are very glad you were more interested in computer software than the underprivileged when you were young. And don't forget that those who don't make money never become philanthropists.
  When rich people reach 50 and are beginning to slow down is the time to begin engaging them in philanthropy.
  I'd greatly appreciate just leaving it at that. Cordially
  Wilson was the founder of hedge fund Wilson & Associates. Over the course of his career he donated an estimated $500 million to various causes, including a number of environmental groups and the Catholic Church, though he was an atheist. According to The New York Times, Wilson pioneered the matching-gifts trend in the philanthropy world, with his checks ''delivered only after the other donors had been lined up.''
  Wilson died after jumping out the window of his Central Park West apartment building. According to the New York Post, Wilson said he was only $100 million away from giving away his entire fortune before he died.
  Gates didn't return a request for comment about his effort to get Wilson to join the giving pledge.
How accepting a friend request could alter your credit score - The Next Web
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 01 Jan 2014 22:50
  Joe Polverari is the General Manager of Yodlee Interactive, a provider of financial applications that aims to make online banking more profitable.
  Are you only as good as the company you keep? Before you accept that next friend request, consider what that person says about you, what that association might eventually cost, or be worth '' even in the financial sense.
  Where you live, who you friend on Facebook, the frequency you shop at Trader Joe's, how much you spend '' all of this information will be picked up, shared, and analyzed amongst the various connected devices and services you use. We are rapidly reaching a point when technology services (a.k.a. machines and software), will have access to all of this data based on your everyday routine and will, among other things, act as your most trusted financial advisor.
  Intuitively, most of the above examples would seem completely unrelated to your finances '-- but what's a better indicator of your financial status: 1) paying 20 percent of your credit card off every month, 2) how much you spend on rent, 3) the financial status of your closest friends and family, or 4) the average cost of your meal out? All of these examples can signal the type of spending and financial patterns you are to likely follow.
  Here are a few emerging trends that will lead to very personalized, machine-based financial advice:
  1. Your devices know more about you than you thinkYou've probably heard about the Internet of Things, in which your everyday items like cars and light switches will be communicating with the web. Soon, your devices will also be communicating, device to device, using their own stores of data to work in concert and create better, more useful sets of data.
  Think of it like the Cloud of Things. Everything from phones, cars, thermostats, refrigerators and watches, will act like mini-servers communicating with each other about your behavior and usage patterns. Soon your car might notify your oven to start preheating because you're only twenty minutes from home and it knows based on your emails with your spouse that you're planning to cook lasagna that night.
  2. How the digital ''you'' is growingAs these devices interact, a pool of very useful, very personal data will accumulate, and can be used to help you make more informed, even very complex, decisions. This technological shift towards the Cloud of Things will see an exponential increase in amount of data produced and analyzed.
  This wealth of data will also be applicable to your financial decisions. ''Who you are'' as a consumer will no longer be based solely on your purchases, investments or credit file, but will also consider your daily routines, such as browsing the Internet, where you shop, and more.
  Consider Coin, which is a single, swipe-able card that holds all your credit, debit, and rewards cards, so that you can manage them all with one device. You can easily imagine that using something like Coin would quickly build up enough data intelligence to pick your cards for you, depending on the type of purchase, maximizing your rewards and minimizing your fees. Together, data and devices have the power to revolutionize the financial industry.
  Information around your broader social life and risk tolerance will also provide better insights for financial advisors to help with loans, savings and improving your credit. It will offer you greater financial security and value creation over the long term. It's happening already.
  Companies like FeeX use the power of crowd sourced information and trends, combined with vast amounts of relevant personal data to personalize and maximize your retirement investment decisions, potentially saving tens of thousands of dollars you would ordinarily pay in fees to banks and mutual fund providers.
  3. A Pandora for human financesInformation you can leverage won't just revolve around you, but also around those you associate with '-- even indirectly. The general lifestyle choices of people similar to you, driven by everyday information, like where you live, the restaurants you frequent, and the items you purchase, will also help derive more enlightened financial recommendations.
  Consider how Pandora mapped music: music was labeled, then connected, trends developed, improving the algorithm, and eventually defining ''if you like that, you'll probably like this.'' Soon something similar will happen for you with your finances: advisors will make better recommendations based upon other people who are similar to your digital self and based on how their financial decisions have panned out.
  Armed with a wealth of your own data, and aggregate data from other people like you, you will be able to better define and personalize things like the best health care option, savings or investment strategy, for you with an efficiency and effectiveness never before possible.
  Equally useful, but so far under discovered, silos of data about you are available to insurance companies, the government and credit bureaus and should be made more readily available to the most important person '-- you.
  Consider your credit score, in particular, which is calculated based on antiquated and often inaccurate information. Most consumers in fact know very little about their credit score, how it's aggregated and what it really says about them. Worse, consumers have little to no input in the actual data that fills out their credit profile; rather, that data is reported by other entities, often incorrectly.
  Technology and new services are now making it possible to incorporate entirely new, more relevant data into a credit profile '-- data that is mostly consumer controlled or contributed and generated by simply gathering and delivering your lifestyle data. Data that should provide better indicators of your financial success as a borrower.
  Over the long term, aggregating personal data is a macro-trend that will save people time, money and help them make smarter, more personalized decisions. Ultimately, it will make the markets for the products '' especially financial products and the way they are scored, priced and sold '' more efficient and responsive to your needs.
  The opportunity to access, incorporate, and innovate with data is exciting. Imagine being able to foresee the financial benefits of being an active participant on LinkedIn, or how purchasing groceries via delivery will decrease your likelihood for stress disorders. They say how you handle your money says a lot about you '-- soon you'll know what that really means.
  Image credit: wavebreakmedia/Shutterstock
Silence around Mr. Appelbaum *Update* | a.nolen
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:55
  At least he has a sense of humor.
  Everyone concerned with the PRISM revelations should now be contacting their representatives and encouraging their friends to do the same. That's what should be happening, and it seems to be happening en masse'' in Germany and the US at least.
  Supporters of the NSA's abusive programs are trying to distract from Snowden's important revelations by drawing attention to Wikileaks, which is an organization that is difficult to understand. I think that Lonnie Snowden said it best:
  ''I don't want to put him [Edward] in peril, but I am concerned about those who surround him,'' he says. ''I think WikiLeaks, if you've looked at past history, you know, their focus isn't necessarily the Constitution of the United States. It's simply to release as much information as possible.''
  Julian Assange is the weakest link for anybody defending Snowden's actions from NSA shills.
  I should say, Assange is the weakest link that American talking heads are willing to spout about. There's one more. His name is Jacob Appelbaum and you probably know him from his promotion of the Tor network.
  What is Tor? From their website:
  Tor was originally designed, implemented, and deployed as a third-generation onion routing project of the Naval Research Laboratory. It was originally developed with the U.S. Navy in mind, for the primary purpose of protecting government communications. Today, it is used every day for a wide variety of purposes by the military, journalists, law enforcement officers, activists, and many others.
  Jacob Appelbaum released an interview with Snowden to Der Spiegel about Tempora and German intelligence cooperation with the NSA's abusive programs. Read an English version here.
  Appelbaum explains how he was granted such an interview:
  ''In mid-May, documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras contacted me,'' Appelbaum said. ''She told me she was in contact with a possible anonymous National Security Agency (NSA) source who had agreed to be interviewed by her.''
  ''She was in the process of putting questions together and thought that asking some specific technical questions was an important part of the source verification process. One of the goals was to determine whether we were really dealing with an NSA whistleblower. I had deep concerns of COINTELPRO-style entrapment. We sent our securely encrypted questions to our source. I had no knowledge of Edward Snowden's identity before he was revealed to the world in Hong Kong. He also didn't know who I was. I expected that when the anonymity was removed, we would find a man in his sixties.''
  There are a few things different between Appelbaum's interview and the interviews that Greenwald and Poitras published. First, you'll notice Snowden's language is more crass. Second, there was no release of documents involved with Appelbaum. Appelbaum claims that Snowden was willing to have Appelbaum publish their conversation at Appelbaum's convenience.
  Now, at face value, Appelbaum's interest in Edward is very understandable. Appelbaum is famous for supporting internet freedom. Things get less comfortable when you dig deeper though: Appelbaum's Tor project is part of the US Naval Research Laboratory and is funded by outfits like the NRL, Google, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (that's a .gov link!), the (US) National Science Foundation, Human Rights Watch, Shinjiru International (Microsoft endorsed), The Knight Foundation, Radio Free Asia and the National Christian Foundation (!?). Read the full list of sponsors here.
  Appelbaum spends his time educating US law enforcement (like the FBI'' team sport!) on how to monitor websites without revealing that the government is watching, as well as helping dissidents'' particularly dissidents in countries hostile to the US'' send information securely.
  Why would Poitras go to a guy who is funded by the US military, the abuse-complicit company Google, US propaganda outfits, and a faith-based tax avoidance operation to vet Snowden? Oh yeah, and Appelbaum's famous for educating the FBI'' that organization from the Verizon tap order.
  Appelbaum stood in for Assange once when the Wikileaks head couldn't make it to a speech'' read Rolling Stone's saccharine piece on Appelbaum here. Yet, despite all the weirdness around Appelbaum, Beltliners keep pounding the Assange drum.
  Washington: Why not sling mud at Appelbaum? Or is he a little too close to home? Oh yeah, and now Human Rights Watch is 'handling' Snowden's case from the US of A'' sort of like how the FSB is 'handling' his case from Russia.
  Sadly, Edward Snowden has a lot of dangerous people around him. Some are playing damage control, others are trying to make hay. These games are impossible for Snowden to avoid, because what he did is so important.
  Eyes on the prize everyone: Snowden's revelations are about constitutional rights and reining in civil servants who have lost touch with reality. Call your senators, congressmen and push for the deepest intelligence funding cuts you can. Lobby like your life depends on it.
  '--'--'--'--'--'--
  I forgot to add that Poitras contacted Appelbaum in order to vet Snowden on the technical details of the whistleblower's NSA experience. Here's how Appelbaum describes it:
  ''She [Poitras] was in the process of putting questions together and thought that asking some specific technical questions was an important part of the source verification process. One of the goals was to determine whether we were really dealing with an NSA whistleblower. I had deep concerns of COINTELPRO-style entrapment. We sent our securely encrypted questions to our source.''
  And'...
  ''The following questions are excerpted from a larger interview that covered numerous topics, many of which are highly technical in nature. Some of the questions have been reordered to provide the required context. The questions focus almost entirely on the NSA's capabilities and activities. It is critical to understand that these questions were not asked in a context that is reactive to this week's or even this month's events. They were asked in a relatively quiet period, when Snowden was likely enjoying his last moments in a Hawaiian paradise '-- a paradise he abandoned so that every person on the planet might come to understand the current situation as he does.''
  So presumably, Poitras thought that Applebaum would know the 'right answer' to the technical questions he asked Snowden. (Or at least she believed that Appelbaum would know if an answer was within the NSA's technical capabilities.) We're only given some of the questions and answers. So which of these technical questions might Appelbaum know the 'right answer' to?
  1. Are German authorities or German politicians involved in the NSA surveillance system?
  2. But if details about this system are now exposed, who will be charged?
  3. Did the NSA help to create Stuxnet? (Stuxnet is the computer worm that was deployed against the Iranian nuclear program.)
  4. What are some of the big surveillance programs that are active today and how do international partners aid the NSA? Follow up: Is there a way of circumventing that? ['Cause we all know Tor is weak!- a.nolen]
  5. Do the NSA and its partners across the globe do full dragnet data collection for telephone calls, text and data?
  6. The NSA is building a massive new data center in Utah. What is its purpose?
  7. Do private companies help the NSA?
  8. Are there companies that refuse to cooperate with the NSA?
  9. What websites should a person avoid if they don't want to get targeted by the NSA?
  10. What happens after the NSA targets a user?
  If I was in in Appelbaum's position, I wouldn't want to admit knowing the right answer to ANY of these questions.
  Appelbaum doesn't differentiate between 1) questions that he used to decide if Snowden was a legit NSA employee (i.e. if Snowden could possibly know what he is talking about) and 2) questions that Appelbaum just wanted to get on record. (For his own sake or Snowden's, I wonder.) Appelbaum does admit to presenting the questions in Der Spiegel in a different order than which he asked them, though again, we're not told how the order was changed.
  Why not tell us which questions convinced you of Snowden's authenticity, Jacob? Are the rest of us just too stupid to understand the ''highly technical'' parts? When were you sure that Snowden wasn't a ''COINTELPRO-style'' trap? The public would love to know.
  Like this:LikeLoading...
Absolutions | a.nolen
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:25
  I found this pair hiding under my bed.
  If you read this blog regularly, you'll know I have an unorthodox take on the Snowden affair. In a nutshell, I believe the following:
  Snowden drew attention to himself from US intelligence during the month (at least) he tried to find a media outlet for the NSA documents he leaked. Laura Poitras is part of the response by US intelligence: Glenn Greenwald and Jacob Appelbaum are, essentially, her creatures. Greenwald is a misguided, narcissistic, idealist who is drunk on attention and is now making bad choices. Appelbaum is managed opposition, and is employed by US intelligence to promote its TOR network, which allows the Pentagon to spy on people who self-select to use TOR. (TOR may also allow US operatives to send information more securely in hostile countries, by hiding behind a bunch 'security-minded' neophytes to soft-power ops.)
  Appelbaum's involvement with the US Navy through TOR is well known; Poitras has tried to use Snowden to gain credibility for Appelbaum. The goal is to preserve TOR as a US intelligence asset; US relationships with Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Apple'... are all assets that have been fatally compromised.
  Or have they?
  Twitter provides some really interesting insights into this containment operation. Jacob Appelbaum Tweeted this yesterday:
  Which even his supporters found a little strange.
  I find Appelbaum's tweet strange too, strange enough to post about it. Has Appelbaum made the first step in an attempt to salvage credibility for these very valuable intelligence assets, starting with Google? I believe that the 'outing' of these assets is far more damaging to the Five Eyes cabal than anything to do with spying on other countries and I've believed that from the start, for reasons I've described here and here. I also believe that the brouhaha over spying in Germany, Brazil, etc. is designed to distract from the truly damaging information about these private companies'' especially when so many intelligence outfits were also benefiting from the NSA's private partnerships.
  Appelbaum is a copious tweeter, he must have a lot of free time. To paraphrase my mother-in-law: it's unhealthy for a young man not to work. But Appelbaum is not alone'' there are a shocking number of young men and women on both sides of the Snowden debate who appear to be paid to tweet.
  Which begs the question, who is this tweeting valuable to? That question can be answered by looking at the arguments given (and those not given) by both sides.
  Snowden's tweet-heavy detractors want to focus on the 'traitor' angle and that the NSAs abuses are just big 'misunderstandings'. Curiously, they do not call out Poitras on Appelbaum's Navy connections'' Appelbaum is famous because of the Navy's 'charitable' endeavor with the TOR network, and because Appelbaum helped the FBI become more tech-savvy (before that was uncool). These points ought to be low-hanging fruit for the NSA shills. But they don't wanna call attention to TOR, or Appelbaum's military/law-enforcement past.
  Neither do Snowden's detractors call Greenwald out on Omidyar's PAYPAL connection, and the ugly consequences that connection has for his media venture, given the star journalists' cooperation with Wikileaks. They don't wanna call attention to Omidyar's previous politics.
  Why don't the detractors make these connections? 'Cause that would be an own-goal.
  Snowden's tweet-heavy supporters have jumped on the ''outraged Merkel'' bandwagon as fiercely as his detractors, which only serves to distract from the important stuff. On top of that, supporters have a tendency to tie all sorts of other 'social justice' causes onto Snowden's revelations, which is an even bigger distraction. Whoever is running @EJosephSnowden, an unverified twitter account, is particularly guilty of this. (My guess is that the owner isn't a Snowden supporter at all.)
  The result of all this is a tsunami of Snowden-related tweets that have very little to do with what Snowden says he intended to do by releasing the NSA documents; he intended to 'out' governments spying on their own, innocent, citizens. White noise drowns meaningful information, just as Snowden cautioned Applebaum against doing prior to the IALANA conference in August.
  So, isn't it funny that everybody who's paid to tweet is pulling on the same rope? Now, who could possibly 1) have the money to pay a bunch of young people to do nothing AND 2) benefit from drawing attention away from the NSA's private-company intelligence assets? Those damn Russians again!
  Like this:LikeLoading...
Control, Baby!
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: a.nolen
  Wed, 01 Jan 2014 15:40
  Two parts to a killer post today: 1) Jacob Appelbaum fulfills his intelligence mission and 2) he is a harbinger of digital social disease (BadBIOS).
  On with the show!
  Jacob: ''Look at that! It's another American company that they [the NSA] are sabotaging.''Well, If you follow @ioerror on Twitter you knew that this post was coming. My favorite spook, Jacob Appelbaum, gave a talk to 30C3 (that's Chaos Computer Club) today called ''To Protect and Infect, Part II''. His talk is the stage show complimenting Der Spiegel's latest on the NSA and it's Tailored Access Operations unit (TAO).
  If you read my blog, you'll know that I predicted Jacob's next move would be to protect corporate intelligence assets at the expense of full-time NSA spooks. That's exactly what happened at 30C3, ad nauseam.
  Why does this matter? Because the really important part of Snowden's revelations was that private corporate entities are working with the NSA/GCHQ to spy on you. Appelbaum's strategy is to paint these mega-tech companies, the corporate sponsors who can afford tickets to his talks, as the victims of stupid/malicious government. Give 'em another chance, Joe Voter, so that we can salvage these invaluable, once-in-an-empire, intelligence assets. Watch the video. Appelbaum repeats the meme ''It's not the companies fault' at least five times. I'm going to let him talk with a few quotes:
  ''This is part of a constant theme of [NSA] sabotaging and undermining American companies and American ingenuity. As an American, though generally not a nationalist, I find this disgusting, especially as someone who writes free software and would like my tax dollars to be spent on improving these things and when they do know about them [the vulnerabilities in Windows] I don't want them to keep it a secret because all of us are vulnerable. It's a really scary thing.''
  And, in case you forgot who the bad guys are'...
  ''Emperor Alexander, the head of the NSA, has a lot of power. If they want to right now, they'll know that the IMEI of this phone [holds up his iPhone] is interesting, it's very warm, which is another, uh, funny thing, and they would be able to break into this phone almost certainly and then turn on the microphone. And all without the court. So that to me is really scary. And I especially dislike the fact that if you were to be building these types of things, they treat you as an opponent if you wish to be able to fulfill the promises that you make to your customers. And as someone who writes security software, I think that's bullshit.''
  And tough-love, Tor-style'...
  ''Now we're going to name a bunch of companies, because fuck those guys for collaborating when they do. And fuck them for leaving us vulnerable when they do. And I mean that in the most loving way, because some of them are victims, actually. It's important to note that we don't yet understand which is which. So it's important to name them so that they have to go on record, so that they can say where they are, and so that they can give us enough rope to hang themselves. I really want that to happen, because I think it's important to find out who collaborated and who didn't collaborate. In order to have truth and reconciliation, we need to have a little truth.''
  Jacob refuses to believe Apple is evil'...
  ''Do you think Apple helped them [the NSA] with that [iPhone targets]? I don't know'.... I don't really believe that Apple didn't help them with that.''
  ''Either they [the NSA] have a huge collection of exploits that work against Apple products, meaning that they are hoarding information about critical systems that American companies produce and sabotaging them, or Apple sabotaged it themselves. Not sure which one it is. I'd like to believe that since Apple didn't join the PRISM program until after Steve Jobs died, that maybe it's just that they write shitty software. We know that's true.''
  Stop attacking Microsoft, NSA!
  ''How many people from Al Qeada use Solaris, do you suppose? This tells you a really important point. They [the NSA] are interested in compromising the infrastructure of systems, not just individual people, they want to take control and literally colonize those systems with these implants. And that's not part of the discussion. People are not talking about that because they don't know about that yet, but they should, because, in addition to the fact that Sun is a US company, which they are building capabilities against, that to me, it really bothers me, I can't tell you how much that bothers me. We also see that they are attacking Microsoft and other US companies, and Linux and Free USB (?) where there are a lot of people from all over the world who are building it, so they're attacking not only collective efforts and corporate efforts, but basically every option you possibly can, from end-users down to telecom core things, um'...''
  Finally'...
  ''I want to really harp on this. Now it's not that I think European companies are worth less, I suspect especially after this talk that won't be true, in the literal stock sense, but I don't know. I think it's really important to understand that they are sabotaging American companies because of the the so called 'home field advantage'.
  The problem is that as an American who writes software, who wants to build hardware devices, this really chills my expression and it also gives me a problem which is that people say: 'Why would I use what you're doing? What about the NSA?' Man that really bothers me! I don't deserve the Huawei taint. And the NSA gives it.
  President Obama's own advisory board, that was convened to understand the scope of these things has even agreed with me about this point. That this should not be taking place. That hording of zero-day exploits cannot happen simply without thought processes that are reasonable and rational and that have an social and economic valuing where we really think about the broad scale impact.''
  So, yeah, Jacob's on a mission to save that special relationship between Silicon Valley and the US intelligence community.
  Appelbaum's 30C3 talk had all the other attributes I've come to expect: 1) a shout-out to Laura, ''My dear friend Laura Poitras who is totally fantastic, by the way''; 2) beating the 'they spied on Merkel!' drum and suggesting the NSA spied on another head of state, Hugo Chavez; 3) *not* outing Five-Eyes agents or targets, because some targets, Jacob feels, are ''legitimate'' (call off Louise Mensch!); 4) profiling hot-buttons like 'the NSA ''crusades'' against Muslims'; and 5) political misdirection, such as the following:
  ''You go to a URL, QUANTUMINSERT puts some code in your web-browser, which you then execute, which causes you to load resources, one of the resources that you'll load when you're loading CNN.com, for example, which is one of their examples. You like that by the way? That's an extremist site. So, you might have heard about that. A lot of Republicans in the United States read it, right before they wage illegal, imperialist wars.''
  Oh, ho ho. CNN, Republicans and the NSA. Like the Republican president, Jacob?
  I've marveled at Jacob's god-like knowledge of the NSA's operating capabilities and procedures for some time, but you knew that already. Thankfully, he puts it all in a nutshell for us:
  ''The NSA wants to be able to spy on you. If they have ten different options for spying on you that you know about, they have thirteen ways of doing it and they do all thirteen.''
  I wanna know how Jacob writes his FOIA requests! So, seriously Jacob, what's the NSA's master plan?
  ''So that's the goal: total surveillance and non-attribution. And they want to do it in the dark.''
  ''Dark'' like Tor? And there's the heart of the matter: Appelbaum is selling fear of the NSA. If I had a dollar for every time he used ''scary'' in this talk, I could buy a phone like his. He wants you to fear the NSA so that you'll use Tor with all those old Microsoft/Apple/Facebook products that you've come to know and love. Self-selecting with Tor is a cheap way for the GLOBAL intelligence community to sort out who to watch'' that's their big problem, sorting through everything they steal.
  It's also interesting to note which companies Appelbaum chooses to protect and which ones he chooses to shame. Victims: Microsoft, Apache, Apple, Linux, Solaris'... he even protects President Obama indirectly. Yahoo, however, must be behind on their payments:
  ''And boy oh boy do they [NSA-TAO] love Yahoo.''
  ''[35:40] You'll notice that right here they explain how QUANTUM works'... They do an injection and try to beat the Yahoo packet back. Another interesting point is that for the Yahoo packet to be beaten, the NSA must impersonate Yahoo. This is a really important detail because what it tells us is that they are essentially conscripting Yahoo and saying that they are Yahoo. So they are impersonating Yahoo. [That's why half the chat functions don't work?!] So they are impersonating a US company to a US company user and they are not actually supposed to be in this conversation at all. And when they do it, then they, of course, basically, if you're using Yahoo you're definitely going to get owned. And I don't just mean that Yahoo is vulnerable, they are. But, I mean people who use Yahoo, maybe it's a bad generalization, but you know, they're not the most security minded people on the planet. They don't keep their computers up to date, I'm guessing. And that's probably why they love Yahoo so much. They also love CNN.com'...''
  Cool kids don't use Yahoo.
  On the other side of the spectrum: Jacob really likes Cryptophone, Redphone and Moxie Marlinspike. You know what that means'' Moxie'll build the new spy-system to replace the old cell phone infrastructure which was outed for being a spy-system.
  So Jacob enlightens us with this message: who should we love, who should we hate, what should we fear'... and finally, how can we protect ourselves? Well, the Tor network and Tor's operating system Tails, naturally. On top of that, Appelbaum has told his followers that NSA-infection can be detected if your machine is emitting encrypted UDP traffic. Okay, that's what they want you to look for'' by all means do! But I'd bet my eye-teeth there's more interesting stuff going on elsewhere.
  Let me stop for breath'...
  Making that difficult phone callThe second intriguing thing about Appelbaum's 30C3 talk was how he tried to smooth over his quarrel with Dragos Ruiu, a brilliant computer security researcher who you can read about here. Dragos has been researching a fascinating computer virus(es) that appears to use speakers to bridge the air-gap; the virus is called ''BadBios''.
  Before Appelbaum talked, I had never heard of said quarrel. But, in Appelbaum's own words:
  ''STUCCOMONTANA is 'BadBios' if you've heard about that. I feel bad for Dragos. He doesn't talk to me right now. I think he might be mad. After I was detained by the US Army on US soil, I might add, um, they took a phone from me. Now, it shouldn't matter but they did, now, they also went after all my phone records so they didn't need to take the phone, but they just wanted to intimidate me which is exactly the wrong thing to do to me, um, but, as he [Dragos] told the story, after that all of his computers including his X-box were compromised. And he says that even to this day that some of those things persist. And he talks about the Bios. Here is a document that shows clearly that they re-flash the Bios and they also have other techniques, including system management mode related root kits, and they have persistence inside of the Bios.''
  ''This is evidence of the thing that Dragos talks about'' maybe he doesn't have it'' but it really does exist.''
  So, what you're saying Jacob, is that it wasn't you and it won't be you who does it again? Or are you giving the NSA credit for something that will scare the online community into a more perfect trap, a platinum age of computer surveillance? Totally heinous move, Jacob, but I'll admit, it's a clever tactic. How do I sign up for the Tor again? Does it support Yahoo?
  Like this:LikeLoading...
The Regulatory Crackdown on Airbnb and Uber Is Going Global
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: Valleywag
  Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:22
  S
  The kumbaya sound of the "sharing economy" hums right by the fact that the irresistible middlemen who make it easy to find a place to stay or a cab at your fingertips do so for a hefty profit. And when profit and public infrastructure like housing and transportation collide, regulators are bound to follow.
  Just yesterday, France passed a rule that drivers for Uber and other e-hailing services will have to wait to 15 minutes before picking up passengers because their "hurt traditional cab drivers," who have to pay exorbitant fees for their taxi license.
  But Airbnb may have it worse. Earlier this month, the Telegraph reported that France, Spain, and Germany are all considering housing legislation that could restrict holiday rentals.
  Germany has already gotten started. On January 1st, a new law will go into effect that makes it illegal for owners of Berlin's 12,000 to 15,000 "private holiday apartments to rent them to tourists for short breaks." The law was enacted as a response to the capital city's lack of affordable housing. Those who disobey risk being fined '‚¬50,000 ($68,940).
  Earlier coverage about the law described Airbnb as vehicle for landlords that want to kick out unwanted renters so that can make more money off of Berlin's thriving tourist sector. Last month, Spiegel Online reported:
  According to official estimates, 12,000 apartments have been taken off the long-term rental market for this more lucrative purpose '-- they are seen by landlords as a good way to get rid of unwanted tenants and increase the yield on their investments as increasing numbers of tourists flock to Berlin. Websites such as Airbnb make the process of renting out apartments for short stays easy and economical.
  There is a two-year transition period and a number of exemptions to the upcoming ban. But tourists do not appear to be given a free pass:
  The law provides for the possibility of restricting the ban to the worst-affected neighborhoods, and also allows for exceptions where the public interest is served, such as housing for asylum seekers, medical surgeries, nurseries or child-care providers. The ban does not apply to fixed-term leases for workers posted to the city, au pairs, interns or embassy staff, stressed Iris Spranger, a member of the center-left Social Democrats (SPD), the senior partner in State of Berlin's ruling coalition. It is unclear how the new rules would affect people who rent out their own apartments for short periods when, for example, they are out of town.
  "Sharing economy" enthusiast Matthias Brauner, a representative with Germany's Christian Democratic Union party, offered more clarity on renting out one's home for a short period of time:
  "The government coalition has made sure that aside of this very tough regulation of this bill, the Sharing Economy remains an important part of the housing market. Berlin as a metropolis and Startup City benefits greatly from the Sharing Economy and the Internet industry. This means that an occasional provision of housing space to third parties who use the premises mainly for residential purposes, but also in a commercial manner, is not seen as commercial rental and therefore not subject to the statutory prohibition of misuse."
  When the bill was still in proposal phase, Airbnb's head of global public policy David Hantman, who previously worked for Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer, said there may also be a licensing requirement for hosts:
  The proposed legislation appears to include confusing rules about home-sharing and it's unclear whether or how these rules would apply to Airbnb hosts. For example, the law might give current hosts two years to continue hosting, but only if they register with the government and obtain a license. And the proposal gives few details on how and when that license should be granted.
  Hantman also pointed out that there are 1.7 million apartments in Berlin, and only 7,000 listings on Airbnb, so "we know that Airbnb isn't having an effect on the number of homes available for rent." I've reached out to Airbnb about the licensing requirement and will update the post when I hear back.
  Ubertarians will chalk this up to stodgy authorities holding back innovation to favor incumbents like the hotel or taxi industry. But even outside regulatory chambers, economic tensions are running high on the streets of Berlin:
  Concerns among activists on Berlin's left-wing alternative scene that the city is being sold out to property speculators has fuelled opposition to holiday rents and led to a marked increase in hostility towards tourists. Ares Kalandides, a Greek-born city guide, recalled the shock he experienced while escorting Israeli journalists earlier this year.
  "Suddenly a group of drunken twentysomething men and women started screaming at us," Mr Kalandides said. "I was shocked, embarrassed and angry, but I'm afraid that's almost normal in Berlin these days."
  Airbnb and Uber are going to have to find a way to comply, unless they want investors to go cross-eyed reading the "Risk Factors" section of their S-1 filings.
  To contact the author of this post, please email nitasha@gawker.com.
  [Image via Airbnb]
ObamaCare - Making Insurance Affordable For Fitness Buffs
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: JustOneMinute
  Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:16
  The WaPo wants to highlight the good news about ObamaCare, so they lead with the touching story of an aging Young Invincible who gambled with his health insurance and lost:
  Beneath health law's botched rollout is basic benefit for millions of uninsured Americans
  Adam Peterson's life is about to change. For the first time in years, he is planning to do things he could not have imagined. He intends to have surgery to remove his gallbladder, an operation he needs to avoid another trip to the emergency room. And he's looking forward to running a marathon in mid-January along the California coast without constant anxiety about what might happen if he gets injured.
  These plans are possible, says Peterson, who turned 50 this year and co-manages a financial services firm in Champaign, Ill., because of a piece of plastic the size of a credit card that arrived in the mail the other day: a health insurance card.
  Peterson is among the millions of uninsured Americans who are benefiting from the Affordable Care Act, the 2010 law that launched far-reaching changes to the U.S. health-care system and is President Obama's premier domestic achievement.
  More on Mr. Peterson's new-found peace of mind:
  "I get these messages from acquaintances on Facebook saying, 'Let me keep my doctor,''Š'' Peterson said. ''Well, what about those of us who didn't have health insurance before? .'‰.'‰. I have been walking a tightrope and have had some twists and falls off of it. To not have to worry about this anymore is a tremendous relief.''
  And what are the circumstances that led to this? Staying with the WaPo to the end of the story:
  For Adam Peterson, awaiting gallbladder surgery in Illinois, the dark tunnel without insurance began about six years ago, when he decided to forgo health coverage because he needed the cash to set up his financial services business. The cost of that decision hit home in March, when the emergency surgery to remove a gallstone cost him $27,000.
  So he set up his own business. Per Manta (and you know I believe everything I read on the internet), his small firm is doing nicely now, although six years ago and through the crash, who can say?
  Camargo Investments
  A privately held company in Champaign, IL.
  Categorized under Financial Planning Consultants, our records show it was established in 2009 and incorporated in Illinois, current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of $1 to 2.5 million and employs a staff of approximately 1 to 4.
  Back to the WaPo:
  When he went to HealthCare.gov this fall, the online system at first balked at verifying his identity '-- an essential step. It took a few calls to a help line before anyone called back. But just before Thanksgiving, he managed to enroll in a top-tier plan with a monthly premium of $475.
  ''I do not feel that it gives me the freedom to do reckless things,'' Peterson said, contemplating his insurance coverage, which begins on New Year's Day. ''More, it just allows me to live a normal life with one less worry.''
  $475 per month is about $5,700 per year. Per the Kaiser health cost estimator, a silver plan (one notch down from "top-tier") would cost someone in Champaign, IL (ZIP 61820, one non-smoking 50 year old adult, no kids) would cost $4,592 per year without subsidies. Subsidies would kick in for income above $46,000 per year, and we hope this financial consultant is doing that well (although we have no idea what tax jiggling he might be doing; Mickey Kaus says "tax cheats", I say "income managers"; you say 'potato', I say 'Obama').
  So is our financial entrepeneur (U of Chicago MBA 1990, per his Facebook page) actually collecting a Federal subsidy? The WaPo is coy on this. However, Mr. Peterson has a blog devoted mainly to chronicling his marathon training and is active on Facebook. [And via Twitter, Mr. Peterson is kind enough to inform me that no, he is not collecting subsidies.]
  Per the blog we learn he has been training for marathons since at least 2009, which seems to predate his gall bladder situation. Per basic Googling, we also learn that his state of Illinois established ("IPXP", under another provision of ObamaCare) a high-risk pool for people with a pre-existing conditions problem back in 2010.
  Which leaves us scratching our heads at this rhetorical flourish we found at Mr. Peterson's Facebook site, posted last September:
  All this discussion about the government shut down around the Affordable Care Act has me thinking that I would like the conservatives to answer a few questions for me. I don't mean to be a downer, but I am 50 years old and do not have health insurance (I am an independent contractor). If I were to purchase insurance on the open market, I could not because I need to have my gall bladder removed (pre-existing condition). Even then, if it was not an issue, health insurance would cost me over $500 per month (unaffordable today, since I am not part of a larger purchasing group). So my dear de-funding friends, let me ask you why (1) you want to deny me affordable health insurance (the "Obamacare exchanges" in Illinois (without any subsidies) will bring my monthly premium in line to about $175 per month because I am finally going to be part of a large purchasing group), (2) you want to exclude me from the insurance market because I have a pre-existing condition that prevents me from buying insurance at all, let alone on an affordable basis, (3) you want me to go bankrupt by having all of my medical issues handled in the emergency room (the most expensive form of healthcare delivery) since I will not have access to preventive care without insurance and (4) you think that REGULATING THE INSURANCE COMPANIES IS ANYTHING CLOSE TO GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF HEALTHCARE.
  Dare I answer his questions with a few of my own? First, for six years he has "saved" roughly $5,000 per year by foregoing insurance - that is $30,000. Now his emergency procedure set him back $27,000. Over the six years, that is roughly breaking even (we lack information on deductibles, co-pays and other medical expenses, mercifully). He self insured at about break-even - this is a problem why? I am confident a Chi-town MBA can run those numbers, and probably has.
  As to his somewhat recent pre-existing condition, I would hope a financial consultant understands risk management and financial planning. Why should the rest of us pay for his health procedures while he re-invests in his seemingly successful company?
  And on that topic, are we in fact directly subsidizing his health insurance? [We are not, as noted above, but if I let new facts interfere with a rant what kind of blog would this be?] Per Facebook $500 a month was unaffordable; per the WaPo, Mr. Peterson went with a top shelf plan at $475 per month. Is he collecting subsidies, or did the $25 per month difference make it affordable? Of course, without info on deductibles and copays premium comparisons are meaningless. That said, the ChiTrib reported that sticker shock, with higher premiums and deductibles, is the Illinois experience under Obamacare.
  Well: let me extract his first question and express my bafflement:
  (1) you want to deny me affordable health insurance (the "Obamacare exchanges" in Illinois (without any subsidies) will bring my monthly premium in line to about $175 per month because I am finally going to be part of a large purchasing group).
  That was posted before the ObamaCare website debuted, so we may simply be observing the power of positive wishful thinking, but... does Mr. Peterson still think his premium will be knocked down to "$175 per month" because he will be "part of a large purchasing group"? Or would it be fair to say that he experienced a bit of sticker shock?
  My psychic guess - over the last few years Mr. Peterson was a fitness buff and aging "Young Invincible" who figured it would be cheaper to take his chances rather than buy insurance priced for the frail and sickly. He had his gall bladder problem in March 2013 which washed out his six years of insurance savings and left him with an impending medical bill for gall bladder surgery. He then decided to ride it out until ObamaCare kicked in in 2014 and he could avoid the (probably pricey) IPXP plan designed for those with a pre-existing problem.
  So he is happy and the WaPo is happy. But if he is collecting Federal subsidies, well, maybe I am not so happy.
  Pressing on with the questions:
  (2) you want to exclude me from the insurance market because I have a pre-existing condition that prevents me from buying insurance at all, let alone on an affordable basis...
  Well. Defunding the ObamaCare subsidies and altering the restrictions on pre-existing conditions are separate topics. As to what conservatives want, there are different 'repeal and replace' plans out there, and I daresay they all recognize that pre-existing conditions (and asymmetric information) is a conceptual problem for any market for insurance.
  However, even if he is not being subsidized by the Feds, Mr. Peterson now wants the insurance companies, and ultimately their customers, to subsidize his choices which worked out badly even though a few years back he was not interested in buying seemingly expensive insurance. If somewhere out there in 2014 is a young, fit man hoping to invest in his own business, why is Mr. Peterson intent on denying him the same choice he made for himself in 2007?
  (3) you want me to go bankrupt by having all of my medical issues handled in the emergency room (the most expensive form of healthcare delivery) since I will not have access to preventive care without insurance...
  No one wants to bankrupt anyone - this isn't personal, although it is about personal responsiblity. And don't think of this a bankrupting you - think of it as a chance to see the world! Medical tourists in India or Mexico can have a pesky gall bladder plucked for $4,500 to $6,000. Bankrupt a high roller like you? C'mon...
  I can quit anytime but will have to stop soon since this is the last question:
  (4) you think that REGULATING THE INSURANCE COMPANIES IS ANYTHING CLOSE TO GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF HEALTHCARE.
  That's what we think? ALL OF US? That said, once the government is deeply enmeshed in setting standards and reviewing the pricing and reimbursement rates for all the different procedures in the medical world, well, yes, THAT LOOKS A LOT LIKE CONTROL!!!
  I know the WaPo will be all over this. Let's close with a photo of our fretful patient; this is from Sept 8 and the caption is reproduced below:
  Well, it all started like fun and games morning until the gun went off. 3 hours and 27 minutes, 3,500 calories and 31 miles later, it felt exhausting but was a great accomplishment.
  A marathoner turned tri-athlete. Let's all praise ObamaCare for relieving his worries.
  OVERLOOKED BY THE WAPO: Don Surber passes along the story of Stephen Eimers, an independent contractor with seven kids. His old plan was disqualified by ObamaCare and despite more than 100 hours of effort Mr. Eimers can't weave through the new website all the way to an insurance card. A snippet:
  Since October 1 I have spent over 50 hours navigating that terrible website and over 40 hours on the phone. I was able to complete the application and it was trying to force my children onto Medicaid. I had to make a change in the application that required the Advanced Resolution Center's help. After my initial request I was promised a call back within "48 hours." I'm on day 44 and 6 escalations later!
  ...
  I finally got to the end of the application and noticed the website had changed my answer on filing a tax return from a joint return to not filing a return. I hit the edit button which deleted all my answers. The website then prompted me to answer questions about my dependents but a glitch would not let me do this so after another extended call to the 1-800# I was forced to delete my 2nd completed application. Stupid me decided to try again and I did the whole process and got to the end and the thing glitched again and said we were not filing a return AGAIN. An hour long call to the 1800# and guess what: completed application #3 was DELETED!
  I am a true sucker so I tried again this morning. I made it through the application in about 75 minutes and got my eligibility. My wife and I along with our 2 year old son could purchase a policy but our 8,9, 11, 12,14 and 14 year old children would not be able to purchase insurance. Application #4 got deleted. I am done trying!
  But we've made the country better for well-off triathletes who've been deferring their medical challenges. Win some, lose some.
  OTHER WINNERS!: In the comments AliceH summarizes the other ObamaCare winners storied by the WaPo:
  Dan Munstock: 62yo, he's fine. Just wants a checkup. Instead of, you know, going in for a checkup (Ranges $5-$200 depending on where he goes/what is included), he's happily paying $87.57 (after subsidies) for Health Insurance.
  Nancy Beigel: 55yo. Now on Medicaid
  Amy Torregrossa: 27yo. Used to be covered under her boyfriend's employer insurance (I didn't even know that was possible!), but he changed jobs in July. Neither seem to have attempted to go on COBRA or shop indiv. market. She has pre-existing condition, but apparently found it worth letting coverage slide until October. Now she's on a silver plan for $310/mo.
  Emily Wright 28yo. Student w/ parttime job. She has many worrisome symptoms plus a pre-existing/diagnosed condition needing surgery. She's getting subsidies on a "top tier" plan for $125/mo.
Barack Obama's Scandal Ridden Golf Buddy, Eric Whitaker
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: The Ulsterman Report
  Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:13
  A press release today indicated Barack Obama is playing his fifth round of golf in Hawaii since arriving there last week. Among the president's foursome is longtime friend/associate Eric Whitaker, who seems to coordinate his own vacations with those of the president. And like Obama, Mr. Whitaker too has quite an interesting history of Chicago-related shenanigans'...
  When it comes to the Chicago dirty laundry, Eric Whitaker has got Obama's back'...
  http://dwulsterman.com
  _____________________________________________
  (Via Carol Felsenthal)
  On September 19, 2011, Sun-Times columnist Mary Mitchell wrote about assorted scandals that, in effect, took funds and programs out of the hands of low-income people who desperately needed them. Crediting Sun-Times investigative reporters Chris Fusco and Dave McKinney, Mitchell described federal probes of ''a range of `faith-based initiatives' and health-outreach programs that were overseen by Dr. Eric Whitaker, President Barack Obama's vacation buddy.
  Included in that group was a former program director of the Chicago chapter of the National Black Nurses Association whose alleged crimes Mitchell described as ''diverting hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer funds '... Prosecutors allege that of the $1 million in grants [she] received under Whitaker and other state-agency directors, she siphoned off $500,000 for her personal use.''
  The next day, the Sun-Times' Fusco and McKinney wrote about an AIDS-awareness program, the nonprofit Working for Togetherness'--under the control of the Illinois Department of Public Health then headed by Whitaker'--aimed at reaching people in ''poor African-American neighborhoods.'' In 2004, Fusco and McKinney wrote, ''Whitaker's department and the Illinois Department of Human Services gave Working for Togetherness $150,000 to raise awareness about AIDS in African-American communities by driving around and providing HIV test kits and information.'' The attention-grabbing vehicle was a used $45,196 red, fully loaded, and ''blinged'' Hummer'--featuring ''game consoles, custom sound, television, DVD, public address, custom paints and tire rims'''--bought, at least partly, with state funds.
  If the name Quinshaunta Golden sounds familiar, it should. Golden was indicted earlier this month on seven federal counts including bribery, theft, witness tampering, mail fraud and obstruction of justice for allegedly ''conspiring with state grant recipients to divert federal money [as much as $433,000] into her own pockets and then trying to cover it up,'' according to Chicago Tribune reporters Ray Long and Hal Dardick.
  Eric Whitaker left the Illinois Department of Public Health in late 2007 to work with Michelle Obama at the University of Chicago Medical Center. (She was vice president of community and external relations
  '...as reported by the Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet, while a state senator in 2003, Obama did recommend to now incarcerated Gov. Blagojevich'--Obama's go-between was none other than the also incarcerated Tony Rezko'--that Blago appoint Whitaker to the job as director of the Illinois Department of Public Health.
  '...Finally, Ed Klein, magazine editor (Newsweek, New York Times Magazine) turned biographer, writes in The Amateur, his harshly negative book about President Obama published in the spring of 2012, that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, told Klein on tape that, during the 2008 campaign, a close friend of Obama's'--who Klein later identified him as Eric Whitaker'--offered him via email $150,000 if the controversial Obama family pastor would stop preaching and giving interviews about his relationship with candidate Obama. According to Klein, Wright refused the offer.
  LINK
  ______________________________________________
  The Obamas and those who surround and promote them, bilked Chicago and Illinois for millions of dollars via several dubious ''outreach'' and community organizing programs all paid for via taxpayer funds. This exact same model was quickly put in place after Barack Obama was elected President of the United States in 2008.
  Why would anyone change their stripes when those stripes have proven so profitable?
  The Obama way'... -UM
  ______________________________________________
  COMING SOON:
  BENNINGTON P.I. ''Bonita''
  Story to be available January of 2014!
  http://dwulsterman.com
  Mine was a strictly cash and carry operation. No business license from the District of Columbia regulation Nazis. No receipts. No paper trail. Thing is, I spent decades working for, and with, Democrats on the Hill. Now we Democrats, well, we're all for higher taxes, right? But man do we hate to pay those taxes, and most of the politicians I worked for took advantage of every tax loophole they could find, and if they couldn't find it, they'd just legislate one out of thin air. That's the D.C. way. Tax policy is a means to buy votes, but at the end of the day, we all share in a mutual disdain for government. It's a matter of degree I suppose, the real difference between Democrat or Republican. Two sides of the same coin, and neither one of them worth a damn.
  '...I'll say this too, if America knew just how corrupt, arrogant, and self serving these politicians up here really were, they'd run 'em all out on a rail. The fall of Rome has nothing onWashington D.C. These people are plain bad. So why not make a little money sharing all that corruption from one person to another? Sure as hell isn't any worse than what passes for legal business in this town.
  -FRANK BENNINGTON
  For all of D.W. Ulsterman's available novels, please go to his Amazon book page HERE
Statement by NSC Spokesperson Caitlin Hayden on Attacks in Russia
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: White House.gov Press Office Feed
  Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:09
  The White House
  Office of the Press Secretary
  For Immediate Release
  December 30, 2013
  The United States condemns the terrorist attacks that struck the Russian city of Volgograd and sends deepest condolences to the families of the victims with hopes for the rapid healing of those wounded.
  The United States stands in solidarity with the Russian people against terrorism. The U.S. government has offered our full support to the Russian government in security preparations for the Sochi Olympic Games, and we would welcome the opportunity for closer cooperation for the safety of the athletes, spectators, and other participants.
''Quantitative easing has really exacerbated income inequality.''
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: Dave says...
  Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:06
  Photographer: Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty ImagesClose
  OpenPhotographer: Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty Images
  RelatedRising income inequality is starting to hit home for many American households as they run short of places to reach for a few extra bucks.
  As the gap between the rich and poor widened over the last three decades, families at the bottom found ways to deal with the squeeze on earnings. Housewives joined the workforce. Husbands took second jobs and labored longer hours. Homeowners tapped into the rising value of their properties to borrow money to spend.
  Those strategies finally may have run their course as women's participation in the labor force has peaked and the bursting of the house-price bubble has left many Americans underwater on their mortgages.
  ''We've exhausted our coping mechanisms,'' said Alan Krueger, an economics professor at Princeton University in New Jersey and former chairman of President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. ''They weren't sustainable.''
  The result has been a downsizing of expectations. By almost two to one -- 64 percent to 33 percent -- Americans say the U.S. no longer offers everyone an equal chance to get ahead, according to the latest Bloomberg National Poll. The lack of faith is especially pronounced among those making less than $50,000 a year, with close to three-quarters in the Dec. 6-9 survey saying the economy is unfair.
  Photographer: David Paul Morris/BloombergJob seekers fill out applications while waiting in line for a hiring event in San Francisco, California.
  Job seekers fill out applications while waiting in line for a hiring event in San Francisco, California. Close
  Close
  OpenPhotographer: David Paul Morris/BloombergJob seekers fill out applications while waiting in line for a hiring event in San Francisco, California.
  ''I've had good jobs and bad jobs. But it always seemed like something would come along and keep me from getting ahead,'' said Diana Kraft, 54, a homemaker in Denton, Texas.
  Unemployment BenefitsAdding to challenges for lower-income individuals is the loss of unemployment benefits, which were supporting 1.3 million long-term jobless people in the U.S. before their expiration Dec. 28. While Congress failed to pass a renewal before adjourning earlier this month, Democratic lawmakers will press in early 2014 for an extension of the benefits.
  Rhode Island Democrat Jack Reed, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said today on MSNBC that the chamber will consider as early as Jan. 6 an extension of benefits he's drafted with Nevada Republican Dean Heller.
  Diminished ExpectationsThe diminished expectations have implications for the economy. Workers are clinging to their jobs as prospects fade for higher-paying employment. Households are socking away more money and charging less on credit cards. And young adults are living with their parents longer rather than venturing out on their own.
  In the meantime, record-high stock prices are enriching wealthier Americans, exacerbating polarization and bringing income inequality to the political forefront. Even independent government agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve have been dragged into the debate.
  ''The basic bargain at the heart of our economy has frayed,'' Obama said in a Dec. 4 speech in Washington. ''This is the defining challenge of our time: Making sure our economy works for every working American.''
  Democratic lawmakers also intend to press next year for a higher minimum wage to tackle the yawning gap between rich and poor, according to the Senate's second-ranking Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois.
  Republicans aren't ceding the issue.
  ''The American dream is certainly more in doubt than in decades,'' House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio said in response to Obama's speech. ''But after more than five years in office, the president has no one to blame but himself.''
  Income inequality has been rising more or less steadily since the mid-1970s. The Gini coefficient, a broad-based measure of inequality, stood at a record high last year, according to Census Bureau data dating back 46 years.
  Bear MarketThe recession actually interrupted the trend and temporarily narrowed the gap between rich and poor. Wealthy Americans were hurt by the bear market in stocks as the Standard & Poor's 500 Index fell more than 50 percent, while the poor benefited from increased payments from the Medicaid health program and other government programs.
  The disparity has widened since the recovery began in mid-2009. The richest 10 percent of Americans earned a larger share of income last year than at any time since 1917, according to Emmanuel Saez, an economist at the University of California at Berkeley. Those in the top one-tenth of income distribution made at least $146,000 in 2012, almost 12 times what those in the bottom tenth made, Census Bureau data show.
  Economists' ExplanationsEconomists have posited a variety of explanations for the growing differences in incomes. Manufacturing companies moved once high-paying jobs abroad, to China and elsewhere. Technological advances led to the loss of clerical and office work, especially relating to routine tasks. The decline of unions -- 11.3 percent of workers were represented in 2012 compared with 20.1 percent in 1983 -- has advantaged bosses at the expense of their employees.
  ''The middle has really collapsed,'' said Lawrence Katz, an economics professor at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a former chief economist at the Labor Department in Washington.
  Even those with college degrees are having trouble keeping up, he said. While they earn more than those with less schooling, they've seen no real wage growth in recent years. The median income of men 25 years of age and older with a bachelor's degree was $56,656 last year, 10 percent less than in 2007 after taking account of inflation, according to Census data.
  ''It's very difficult for anyone middle-income and lower,'' said Ryan Sekac, 26, a mechanical engineer in Westerly, Rhode Island. ''There was a time when it was easier.''
  Highest SkillsIt's the richest of the rich who are reaping the most benefit as an increasingly interconnected and technologically sophisticated world puts a premium on those perceived to have the highest skills -- a phenomenon dubbed ''winner take all'' by Cornell University Professor Robert Frank.
  Government policies also play a role. The Treasury Department, for instance, taxes capital gains racked up by the wealthy on the sale of shares, bonds and other assets at about half the rate of ordinary income. The top 1 percent captured 95 percent of the gains in incomes in the first three years of the recovery, based on analysis of tax returns by Saez.
  Jobless WomenThose less well-off, meanwhile, are running out of ways to cope. The percentage of working-age women who are in the labor force steadily climbed from a post-World War II low of 32 percent to a peak of 60.3 percent in April 2000, fueling a jump in dual-income households and helping Americans deal with slow wage growth for a while. Since the recession ended, the workforce participation rate for women has been in decline, echoing a longer-running trend among men. November data showed 57 percent of women in the labor force and 69.4 percent of men.
  Women who became unemployed during the recession and its aftermath have been slower to find new positions. Among women losing jobs they'd held for at least three years between January 2009 and the end of 2011, 50 percent were re-employed by the start of 2012, while the share for men was 61 percent, according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics report released in February.
  Households turned to stepped-up borrowing to help make ends meet, until that avenue was shut off by the collapse of house prices. About 10.8 million homeowners still owed more money on their mortgages than their properties were worth in the third quarter, according to Seattle-based Zillow Inc. (Z)
  The fallout has made many Americans less inclined to take risks. The quits rate -- the proportion of Americans in the workforce who voluntarily left their jobs -- stood at 1.7 percent in October. While that's up from 1.5 percent a year earlier, it's below the 2.2 percent average for 2006, the year house prices started falling, government data show.
  Household FormationMillennials -- adults aged 18 to 32 -- are still slow to set out on their own more than four years after the recession ended, according to an Oct. 18 report by the Pew Research Center in Washington. Just over one in three head their own households, close to a 38-year low set in 2010.
  Obama has proposed a raft of policies to attack the widening wage gap -- from simplifying the tax code and increasing exports to enhancing worker training and boosting pre-kindergarten education. Yet in a divided Washington he hasn't made much progress pushing them through.
  The president's renewed focus on income inequality has more to do with politics than policy, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, a self-described center-right institute in Washington.
  Demagoguing Inequality''It's great politics to demagogue income distribution and complain about the rich getting ahead and the poor falling behind,'' said Holtz-Eakin, a former Congressional Budget Office director. ''The substance of what he's actually done doesn't match the enormity of the problem as he's portrayed it.''
  The wage-gap debate has reverberated to other parts of Washington, as the SEC published a rule Sept. 18 that would compel public companies to reveal pay ratios between chief executives and their employees. While businesses have decried the requirement as overreach, some investors welcome the data as a way to help assess a company's health.
  ''Income inequality and a shrinking middle class are real and important issues that our country needs to address,'' Michael J. Sacks, chief executive officer of Chicago-based Grosvenor Capital Management, which oversees $23.8 billion in assets, said in a comment letter to the agency. The pay ratio data ''can be helpful in allowing investors to more accurately judge the effect of pay structure on company performance, inform investors' votes on executive pay and help regulators.''
  Bosses' CompensationAcross companies in the S&P 500, the average multiple of CEO compensation to that of rank-and-file workers is 204, up 20 percent since 2009, according to data compiled by Bloomberg in April.
  The Fed also has been caught up in the debate over growing income disparities. Lawmakers from both parties have questioned whether its bond-buying policy, called quantitative easing, has benefited the rich at the expense of those less well-off by boosting prices of stocks and other assets.
  ''Wall Street is roaring and Main Street is struggling,'' Representative Kevin Brady, a Texas Republican and chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, said in an interview. ''Quantitative easing has really exacerbated income inequality.''
  The S&P 500 stock index has risen 29 percent in 2013. The richest third of U.S. households account for 89 percent of all equities ownership, according to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.
  Defending FedJanet Yellen, nominated to take over as Fed chairman next year, defended the central bank's actions at a Senate Banking Committee hearing on Nov. 14.
  ''The policies we've undertaken have been meant to generate a robust recovery,'' Yellen told the committee.
  The growing calls for action to reduce income inequality have translated into a national push for a higher minimum wage. Fast-food workers in 100 cities took to the streets Dec. 5 to demand a $15 hourly salary.
  Latoya Caldwell, 30, of Kansas City, Missouri, is among those who took part. She's been employed at a Wendy's Co. restaurant for six years and earns the state's minimum wage of $7.35 an hour. Working 25 to 30 hours a week, she has asked for more shifts to help support her four children, with whom she lives in one bedroom of her aunt's house.
  More older workers -- including one over 65 years -- as well as college-educated are joining her team, showing that rough economic times have swelled the ranks beyond the typical teenager at the register, Caldwell said.
  ''We're making barely enough to even survive,'' Caldwell said. ''We're not even surviving -- we're dependent on state assistance while our CEO makes $5.8 million and he's sitting in an office.''
  To contact the reporters on this story: Rich Miller in Washington at rmiller28@bloomberg.net; Michelle Jamrisko in Washington at mjamrisko@bloomberg.net
  To contact the editor responsible for this story: Chris Wellisz at cwellisz@bloomberg.net
Blogging matters
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: Scripting News
  Wed, 01 Jan 2014 06:37
  I read a long post this morning about what it's like to be a nurse, and found it incredibly interesting. It filled in a perspective that I had not heard. And yet I spent lots of time talking with nurses during my father's long hospital stay in 2002, and my own -- the same year.
  Back then, I had an epiphany about people who work in hospitals, who work in conditions most of us find incomprehensible, helping people in unimaginable pain, unimaginable until it's time for you to deal with it. The epiphany is that it must be wonderful to see the good you do, so clearly. In my own field, software development, it can be hard to feel how you're helping. In fact you get a lot of people sharing pain with you they can't find other outlets for. I learned in reading the post that it's the same in nursing.
  While their work is gratifying and grounding, it's also grueling and abusive. She told the story so well, so personally. Yet in the comments people found many things to complain about. She just shared her point of view, wrote a blog post, and it was good, and of course the trolls gave her hell for it.
  It's important to feel free to tell your story even if it cues up other people's permission to be jerks. Oh this person is showing vulnerability. Let's make her pay! I get it all the time. I've been getting it since I started blogging in 1994. I still do it, because it's what I do. I couldn't stop, even though I've tried, any more than I could stop breathing.
  I don't have a solution, other than to say it helps to stand beside people who put themselves out there. The world is rough. That doesn't mean you can't share what you see. It just means it's important to feel the support. I want to provide what little of that I can, through this post.
  What bloggers are guilty of -- always -- is telling their story imperfectly. It's the imperfections that make it interesting, and human -- and worth it.
  Keep on truckin!
  It's not like anyone gets out of this alive.
To my dear readers'...
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: a.nolen
  Wed, 01 Jan 2014 06:35
  Greetings everyone!
  I've enjoyed an uptick in readers lately and I appreciate your support and attention. I love writing; I really love being read. Sometimes I write about some freaky stuff.
  So, out of respect for my legitimate readers, I feel it's my duty to inform you of the following:
  Somebody was trying to count how many of you there were today.
  I use the bog-standard WordPress platform. Sometimes I see that I have hits coming from websites offering services which can be used to watch how many people read my stuff. It's happened several times, but today it happened in a pretty egregious way. I got a hit from statcounter.com, read about what they do here. If you're short on time, here' s the pertinent quote:
  Sign up for the StatCounter service and we'll give you a tiny piece of HTML and Javascript code to insert into your webpage.
  When a visitor visits your webpage with the installed HTML and Javascript code, their anonymous details are sent to StatCounter to be recorded. Their details are gathered either from the counter the visitor loads from StatCounter, or an invisible image depending on your settings. This action takes place instantaneously and the user is completely oblivious and unaffected by it. StatCounter has invested a great deal of time and money to ensure that this load time is instant. The load time experienced by your visitor is monitored daily and we are continually adding more dedicated servers as we grow to ensure instantaneous responses.StatCounter.com respects your privacy, and the privacy of your visitors. View Privacy Policy
  The data we collect is then processed and analysed by us and stored in our database servers.
  This is the fun bit! You can then log into your account anytime night or day to monitor and view your visitors and stats in real-time!
  FUN! I did not sign up for statcounter.com; so it's probable that somebody did this for me and is counting you. (Or tried to.) This hit happened along side a freakishly large number of hits to my site from India; including more than a few hits from search terms like ''prakash narayan cia''. Statcounter.com itself seems to be Aussie (see ''our sponsors'').
  Now, I appreciate and respect my legitimate Indian readers. However, I don't have a lot of regular traffic from India and the country is known for outsourced tech work. I've drawn my own conclusions.
  These counting-folks probably aren't terribly sophisticated, because I'm sure sophisticated players have a working relationship with WordPress already, and would just tick a box on a GUI rather than make a phone call.
  I tell you this out of a feeling of responsibility; anolen.com has probably joined a very, very, very long list of teeny sites whose data is logged somewhere. Just so you know. Adds a certain spice, doesn't it? Happy reading!
  Like this:LikeLoading...
GE CTO describes his company's focus on oil and gas technology
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: Atomic Insights
  Wed, 01 Jan 2014 06:33
  Bill Loveless from Platts Energy Week recently interviewed Mark Little, GE's chief technology officer, about the company's interests in the oil and gas extraction sector. Loveless and Little discussed GE's planned investments into an Oklahoma-based research center that will be the first GE technology development laboratory that is focused on a single business sector.
  Mark Little: We're very excited about going to Oklahoma. We have a global network of research centers that support all of our businesses. The first one was in upstate New York. First industrial research lab ever in the United States. We built out from that to India, China, Germany, Brazil, other places in the US. We're going to Oklahoma for the first time with the intent of having a single business focused center. All these other centers support every business. This one will be focused solely on oil and gas.
  Why are we doing that? There's such a rich technology opportunity here to get technology into the oil and gas space. We wanted to really focus on that; make a showcase for our customers from around the world to come and see this and to help us develop technologies that they need to make their operations more efficient and more productive.
  After watching that interview, do you have any more doubt about why GE leaders spend little or no time marketing new nuclear power plants that would reduce the growing demand for natural gas in the lucrative US electrical power market?From a short term income point of view, GE has wisely chosen a high margin part of the oil and gas business that plays well with their exceptional skills in specialized materials and remote sensing. Not only does deep drilling require sophisticated materials, but it also requires mobile generators and an increasingly large array of treatment systems. Since hydraulically fractured wells exhibit depletion rates in the 5-10% per month range, maintaining a steady supply of gas from shale rock formations that require fracking means a continuing need to drill an ever larger number of wells.
  Building machinery and technology to support oil and gas extraction may be a great business for GE; but what does this business focus do for the rest of us over the longer term?
  If the profits from GE's growing wind, water, oil and gas businesses were being invested in refining, marketing and deploying technology like ABWRs and ESBWRs that would leave us in a stronger energy position in the future, perhaps I would not feel the same way. It seems to me that the oil and gas production boomlet in the US has discouraged companies like GE from investing time and money into producing more reliable, longer lasting, low-emission fission energy technology.
  Sure, unconventional oil and gas extraction seems to be the ''in thing'' these days in the energy market. I have often heard GE leaders say that they are simply meeting the needs that their customers have asked them to meet and that few customers are demanding new nuclear plants. However, bandwagon decision making can result in boom and bust cycles that generally do not end well for the masses. They are often quite beneficial for corporate leaders who bank their bonuses during the good times and depend on the rest of us to help them weather the bad times.
Yahoo News '-- Kim Jong Un's lonely ride to the top
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 01 Jan 2014 02:32
  North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un finally rode the lift at his dream ski resort, which only took one year to build from scratch. Kim touts the Masik Pass Ski Resort as ''for the people,'' but admission is $50 a person '-- while the average wage in the country is less than $100 a month.
ineluctable definition - Google Search
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 31 Dec 2013 16:40
  About 129,000 results
  Ineluctable - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster ...www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ineluctable- Cached - SimilarDefinition of ineluctable from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary with audiopronunciations, thesaurus, Word of the Day, and word games.ineluctable - definition of ineluctable by the Free Online Dictionary ...in·e·luc·ta·ble ( n -l k t -b l). adj. Not to be avoided or escaped; inevitable: "Thosewar plans rested on a belief in the ineluctable superiority of the offense over the ...ineluctable - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.comhttps://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/ineluctable- SimilarDefinition of ineluctable : Huh? Are you scratching your head at this word? Theineluctable conclusion is that you haven't the faintest idea what it means.ineluctable: definition of ineluctable in Oxford dictionary - American ...www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american.../ineluctable- CachedDefinition of ineluctable in American English in Oxford dictionary (US). Meaning,pronunciation and example sentences. English to English reference content.Ineluctable | Define Ineluctable at Dictionary.comIneluctable definition, incapable of being evaded; inescapable: an ineluctabledestiny. See more.Ineluctable Synonyms, Ineluctable Antonyms | Thesaurus.comSynonyms for ineluctable at Thesaurus.com with free online thesaurus, antonyms, and definitions. Dictionary and Word of the Day.ineluctable meaning - definition of ineluctable by Mnemonic Dictionarymnemonicdictionary.com/word/ineluctable- CachedMnemonicDictionary.com - Meaning of ineluctable and a ...ineluctable - Collins English Dictionary | Always Free Onlinewww.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/ineluctable- Cached - SimilarYou are here; > Home; > English Dictionary; > Definition of ''ineluctable''. EnglishDictionary ...ineluctable (ËŒÉªnÉªËlÊŒktÉbÉl Pronunciation for ineluctable ) ...ineluctable - definition. American English definition of ineluctable by ...www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/ineluctable- CachedDefine ineluctable in American English. What is ineluctable? ineluctablemeaning and more by Macmillan Dictionary.ineluctable definition | English dictionary for learners | Reversodictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/ineluctable- Cached - Similarineluctable meaning, definition, English dictionary, synonym, see also 'inequitable',inexplicable',inexcusable',inscrutable', Reverso dictionary, Englishsimple ...Searches related to ineluctable definition
It won't be long before the victims of climate change make the west pay | Chris Huhne | Comment is free | The Guardian
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 31 Dec 2013 16:38
  'Legal action is not a substitute for politics, but it could highlight the evidence in an uncomfortable way.' Illustration by Andrzej Krauze
  Would you enjoy the cosiness and warmth of Christmas with your children or grandchildren just that little bit less if you knew that other people's children were dying because of it? More than four million children under five years old are now at risk of acute malnutrition in the Sahel, an area of the world that is one of the clearest victims of the rich world's addiction to fossil fuels.
  About 18 million people in the Sahel '' the vulnerable pan-African strip of land that runs from Senegal to Sudan along the southern edge of the Sahara '' faced famine last year. Life has never been easy there. Its land is poor. Its people are often semi-nomadic, moving their animals between the grasslands. But science is increasingly pointing a hard finger at those to blame for the persistence of Sahelian drought '' and it is us.
  This is an ineluctable consequence of improving the computer models of climate change. Of course, there are still large uncertainties. But what has long persuaded me of the strength of the scientific case for human-induced climate change is that climate-sceptic scientists have not managed to build a model that explains global warming without human-induced effects. The human hand is indispensable in understanding what has happened.
  There are legitimate doubts about the scale of the impact, and about other offsetting factors that may reduce human-induced global warming. But what should be a wake-up call is science's growing ability to highlight the blame for particular extreme events, and not just in the Sahel.
  For instance, a recent paper by Fraser C Lott and colleagues examined the increased probability that the 2011 East African drought in Somalia and Kenya can be attributed to human-induced climate change. Pardeep Pal and others investigated the impact of climate change on the £1.3bn insured losses from the flooding in the UK in 2000. Peter A Stott and others looked at the hot European summer of 2003, and its heatwave-related deaths.
  Richard Washington, the professor of climate science at Oxford, rightly highlights the importance of this scientific work for its ability to change the global political and legal game. We saw how high feelings run with the walk-out by 132 developing countries at the Warsaw climate-change talks last month when the new Australian government tried to block all talk of loss and compensation until after 2015.
  The more certain is the attribution for blame, the more justified many developing countries will feel in protesting about the impact of rising sea levels on small island states such as the Maldives and Fiji or low-lying delta cultures such as Vietnam and Bangladesh. Moreover, fair-minded democracies will find the call for compensation hard to resist at home.
  The science also opens up the possibility that the victims of climate change could begin to take international legal action against the countries responsible, particularly the early industrialisers, such as Britain, Belgium and Germany, whose carbon continues to warm the planet a century after it was emitted. Legal action is not a substitute for politics, but it could highlight the evidence in an uncomfortable way.
  This year a group of small island states threatened by rising sea levels, led by Palau, came close to asking the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the responsibility of historic emitters for global warming. The main reason they did not press ahead then was that the scientific case is strengthening by the month. A later case will be even stronger.
  "There will definitely be a case in my lifetime and probably within five to 10 years," says Philippe Sands QC, the UCL professor of international law, who has advised many endangered nations, including Bangladesh. "It is going to happen. The only questions now are where, how and to what purpose."
  The UN framework may not be ideal, precisely because it is dominated by the historic five powers, all of whom have their own interests. But the Hamburg-based International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea may be a forum that would hear the matter.
  Sands points out that climate change is already entering indirectly into cases such as the dispute between India and Bangladesh over territorial waters: as land disappears, so the projection of the line into the sea, dividing territorial waters, will change.
  It is not a defence that we did not know what we were doing, nor does a case have to target everyone who might have historic responsibility: countries are jointly and severally liable, which may help to deal with the problem that the United States is often not a signatory and hence denies international jurisdiction.
  Paradoxically, one of the strongest cards that the historic emitters can play is to highlight the international effort to tackle climate change. Legally, they can argue that the global process under way since 1992 through the Kyoto Protocol and the countless meetings of the "convention of the parties", is itself a response to the need for action, and displaces the need for lawsuits.
  But that implies that the global political process must hold out '' as it can and should '' a real possibility of delivering change. If it fails, the historic emitters may want to consider some of the consequences, not least of which is the possibility that embarrassing legal cases will display the increasingly strong scientific evidence about who is to blame.
Cut your sugar intake by HALF: New health warning says limit should be cut to five teaspoons a day over fears it contributes to heart disease | Mail Online
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 31 Dec 2013 16:33
  World Health Organisation guidelines recommend halving the current limitThey could mean food companies have to change their productsA Mars bar contains five teaspoons of sugar, a can of cola ten, a bowl of Coco Pops four, and some ready meals have as many as eightBy Sophie Borland
  PUBLISHED: 18:02 EST, 29 December 2013 | UPDATED: 18:38 EST, 29 December 2013
  672shares
  157
  Viewcomments
  Adults could be advised to halve the amount of sugar in their diets under new guidelines from the World Health Organisation.
  Experts are considering lowering the recommended limit of ten teaspoons a day to just five over fears that it is contributing to heart disease, obesity and tooth decay.
  Food companies may have to change their products to lower the sugar content, which would be hugely expensive and could prove unpopular with some consumers.
  Touching the limit: A single Mars bar contains five teaspoons of sugar
  A single can of cola contains ten teaspoons of sugar, a Mars bar has five, a bowl of Coco Pops has about four and there are eight in some ready meals.
  The average Briton consumes 12 teaspoons a day, although research has found that some adults in industrialised countries are eating as many as 46 daily.
  Philip James, president of the International Association for the Study on Obesity, which works with the WHO, described the suggestion as 'political dynamite'.
  'The food industry will do everything in their power to undermine this,' he said.
  The guidance suggests lowering the amount of sugar added to food '' excluding that which occurs naturally in fruit or starch - from 10 per cent to five per cent of the daily allowance, which is equivalent to five teaspoons.
  High in sugar: A bowl of Coco Pops contains around four teaspoons of sugar
  The policy would almost certainly be adopted by the Department of Health.
  Professor Shrinath Reddy, a cardiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health and member of the WHO panel of experts, said: 'I would agree with the recommendation to reduce it to five per cent.
  'There is overwhelming evidence coming out about sugar-sweetened beverages and other sugar consumption links to obesity, diabetes and even cardiovascular disease.'
  The proposals were discussed at a meeting earlier this year after a study by Professor Paula Moynihan, an expert in nutrition and oral health at Newcastle University, highlighted the danger of sugar to dental health.
  'Part of the problem is that sugary foods and drinks are now staples in many people's diet in industrialised countries, whereas once they were an occasional treat,' he said.
  'We need to reverse this trend.'
  The WHO panel will consider the guidance over the coming months before making a final decision.Sugar Nutrition UK, an industry-funded research body, pointed out that UK manufacturers had been lowering the level of sugar in recent years to make products healthier.
  'There is no data to show that reducing intake below current levels is beneficial to health,' said a spokesman, who claimed that the guidance was based on studies 'of very low quality'.
  Research three years ago by the Emory School of Medicine in the US found that some adults were eating 46 teaspoons of sugar a day. This included six in a bowl of cereal, 14 for lunch including a slice of pizza and a fizzy drink, and 16 for a ready meal in the evening with another sugary beverage.
  Kellogg's was criticised last year by the Advertising Standards Agency for claiming that high sugar was not linked to obesity.
  Its Coco Pops website claimed: 'A panel of world health experts recently reviewed all the evidence and concluded that a high sugar intake is not related to obesity, or the development of diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure or cancer.
  'Nor was it connected to behavioural problems, such as hyperactivity, in children.'
  Share or comment on this article
Feds announce test sites for drone aircraft
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 31 Dec 2013 16:05
  LAS VEGAS (AP) '-- Six states were named Monday by federal officials to develop test sites for drones '-- a critical next step for the burgeoning industry that could one day produce thousands of unmanned aircraft for use by businesses, farmers and researchers.
  Alaska, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Texas and Virginia will host the research sites, providing diverse climates, geography and air traffic environments as the Federal Aviation Administration seeks to safely introduce commercial drones into U.S. airspace.
  Members of Congress and other politicians lobbied intensely to bring the work to their states. Representatives were jubilant about the likelihood that the testing will draw companies interested in cashing in on the fledgling industry.
  An industry-commissioned study has predicted more than 70,000 jobs would develop in the first three years after Congress loosens drone restrictions on U.S. skies. The same study projects an average salary range for a drone pilot between $85,000 and $115,000.
  "This is wonderful news for Nevada that creates a huge opportunity for our economy," said U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada. In New York, Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat, called the announcement a boon for his state.
  Drones have been mainly used by the military, but governments, businesses, farmers and others are making plans to join the market. Many universities are starting or expanding curriculum involving drones.
  The FAA does not currently allow commercial use of drones, but it is working to develop operational guidelines by the end of 2015, although officials concede the project may take longer than expected.
  The FAA projects some 7,500 commercial drones could be aloft within five years of getting widespread access to the skies above America.
  "Today was an important step," said attorney Ben Gielow of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, noting the announcement came after months of delays and data gathering. "I think we're all anxious to get this moving."
  The competition for a test site was robust, with 25 entities in 24 states submitting proposals, FAA Administrator Michael Huerta said during a conference call with reporters.
  At least one of the six sites chosen by the FAA will be up and running within 180 days, while the others are expected to come online in quick succession, he said. However, the designation as a test site doesn't come with a financial award from the government.
  In choosing Alaska, the FAA cited a diverse set of test site locations in seven climatic zones. New York's site at Griffiss International Airport will look into integrating drones into the congested northeast airspace. And Nevada offered proximity to military aircraft from several bases, Huerta said.
  The extent that lobbying influenced the selection of the sites was unclear.
  "Politics likely always plays a role in some level in this, but I couldn't tell you specifically what the politics were," said Brendan M. Schulman, part of a New York City-based law group focused on drone issues. "Part of the selection ... is an evaluation of the dedication and seriousness the sites were showing in pursuing this."
  The testing will determine whether drones can detect and avoid aircraft and other obstacles, and if they can operate safety when contact is lost with operators.
  The growing use of drones has sparked criticism among conservatives and liberals who fear the creation of a surveillance state in which authorities track and scrutinize every move of citizens.
  "I just don't like the concept of drones flying over barbecues in New York to see whether you have a Big Gulp in your backyard or whether you are separating out your recyclables according to the city mandates," said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., referring to a New York City ban on supersized soft drinks.
  Paul has introduced a bill that would prohibit drones from checking for criminal or regulatory violations without a warrant.
  Huerta said his agency is sensitive to privacy concerns involving drones. Test sites must have a written plan for data use and retention, and will be required to conduct an annual review of privacy practices that involves public comment.
  That policy provided little comfort for the American Civil Liberties Union.
  "Someday drones will be commonplace in U.S. skies and, before that happens, it's imperative that Congress enact strong, nationwide privacy rules," ACLU attorney Catherine Crump said in a statement.
  ___
  Associated Press writers Dave Kolpack in Fargo, N.D., and Chris Carola in Albany, N.Y., contributed to this report.
United States v. United States of America
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 31 Dec 2013 15:46
  Dear Friends,
  For an entity to become a corporation under federal law,
  theremust be an Act of Congress creating that corporation.
  There are no Acts of Congress expressly incorporating
  eitherthe "United States" or the "United States of America".
  In 1871 Congress did expressly incorporate the District
  ofColumbia, but D.C. and the "United States" are not
  oneand the same.½ In that Act of 1871, Congress also
  expresslyextended the U.S. Constitution into D.C.:
  http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/intentm3.filed.htm#1871
  In United States v. Cooper Corporation, 312 U.S. 600 (1941),
  theSupreme Court wrote:
  http://laws.findlaw.com/us/312/600.html
  "We may say in passing that the argument that the
  United States may be treated as a corporation
  organizedunder its own laws, that is, under the
  Constitution as the fundamental law, seems so strained
  asnot to merit serious consideration."
  Some of the confusion rampant on this subject may have
  originatedin the definition of "UNITED STATES OF
  AMERICA" in Bouvier's Law Dictionary here:
  http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/dict/bldu1.htm#union
  See Paragraph 5 quoted here:
  "5.½ The United States of America are a corporation
  endowedwith the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey
  andreceive property.½1 Marsh.Dec. 177, 181.
  But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought
  againstthe United States without authority of law."
  Note that the plural verb "are" was used, providing further
  evidencethat the "United States of America" are plural,
  asimplied by the plural term "States".½ Also, the author
  ofthat definition switches to "United States" in the second
  sentence.½ This only adds to the confusion, because the
  term"United States" has three (3) different legal meanings:
  http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/hooven/hooven.htm#united.states
  However, the decision cited above is Justice Marshall issuing dictum,
  andit is NOT an Act of Congress.½ Here, again,
  bevery waryof courts attempting to "legislate" in the absence
  ofa proper Act of Congress.½ See 1 U.S.C. 101 for the
  statutedefining the required enacting clause:
  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/101.html
  And, pay attention to what was said in that definition here:
  "nosuit can be broughtagainst the United States
  withoutauthority of law".½That statement is not only
  correct;½ it also provides another important clue:
  Congress has conferred legal standing on the "United States"
  tosue and be sued at 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1346, respectively:
  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1345.html
  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1346.html
  Congress has NOT conferred comparable legal standing
  uponthe "United States of America" to sue, or be sued,
  assuch.
  Furthermore, under the Articles of Confederation, the term
  "United States of America" is the "stile" or phrase that was used
  todescribe the Union formed legally by those Articles:
  Articles of Confederation and perpetualUnion between the States
  ofNew Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence
  Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
  Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and
  Georgia.
  Article I.½The Stile of this Confederacy shall be
  "The United States of America."
  Article II.½Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom,
  andindependence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right,
  whichis not by this Confederation expressly delegated
  totheUnited States, in Congress assembled.½
  [end excerpt]
  When they came together the first time to form
  aUnion of several (plural) States, they decided
  tocall themselves the "United States of America".
  Note also that those Articles clearly distinguished
  "United States of America" from "United States"
  inCongress assembled.½ The States formally
  delegatedcertain powers to the federal government,
  whichis clearly identified in those Articles as the
  "United States".
  Therefore, the "United States of America" now refer to
  the50 States of the Union, and the term "United States"
  refersto the federal government.
  The term "United States" is the term that is used consistently now
  throughoutTitle 28 to refer to the federal government domiciled
  inD.C.½ There is only ONE PLACE in all of Title 28 where the
  term"United States of America" is used, and there it is used
  incorrect contradistinction to "United States":
  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1746.html
  Because Title 28 contains statutes which govern all federal courts,
  theconsistent use of "United States" to refer to the federal
  governmentcarries enormous weight.½ Title 28 is the latest word
  onthis subject, as revised, codified and enacted into positive law
  onJune 25, 1948.½ Moreover, the Supremacy Clause elevates
  Title 28 to the status of supreme Law of the Land.
  To make matters worse and to propagate more confusion,
  theentity "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"
  incorporatedtwice in the State of Delaware:
  http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.inc
  http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.corp
  The main problem that arises from these questions is that
  United StatesAttorneys are now filing lawsuits and
  prosecutingcriminal INDICTMENTS in the name of the
  "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" [sic]
  butwithout any powers of attorney to do so.½ Compare
  28 U.S.C. 547 (which confers powers of attorney to represent
  the"United States" and its agencies in federal courts):
  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/547.html
  They are NOT "United States of America Attorneys", OK?
  First of all, they do NOT have any powers of attorney
  torepresent Delaware corporations in federal courts;
  Congress never appropriated funds for them to do so
  andCongress never conferred any powers of attorney
  onthem to do so either.
  Secondly, the 50 States are already adequately represented
  bytheir respective State Attorneys General;½ therefore,
  U.S. Attorneys have no powers of attorney to represent
  anyof the 50 States of the Union, or any of their agencies,
  either.
  They are "U.S. Attorneys" NOT "U.S.A. Attorneys", OK?
  Accordingly, it is willful misrepresentation for any U.S. Attorney
  toattempt to appear in any State or federal court on behalf
  ofthe "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" [sic].½ And,
  such misrepresentation is actionable under the McDade Act
  at28 U.S.C. 530B:
  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/530B.html
  There are quite a few "activists" running around the Internet
  claimingthat the "United States" and the "United States of
  America" are both corporations.½ These claims are not correct,
  forthe reasons already stated above.
  A similar error occurs when these so-called ½activists½ cite
  thefederal statute at 28 U.S.C. 3002 as their only ½proof½
  thatthe ½United States½ was incorporated by Congress.
  Here½s the pertinent text of that statute:
  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/3002.html
  As used in this chapter:
  ...
  (15)½ "United States" means --
  (A)½a Federal corporation;
  (B)½ an agency, department, commission, board, or
  otherentity of the United States; ½or
  (C)½an instrumentality of the United States.
  [end excerpt]
  First of all, note well that the stated scope of this definition
  islimited to ½this chapter½ i.e. CHAPTER 176 of Title 28 ½
  Federal Debt Collection Procedures.½ Overlooking the
  limitedscope of such definitions is a very common error
  amongmany, if not all self-styled experts.½ At best, this section
  cannotbe used as evidence that the federal government
  shouldbe treated as a valid corporation for all other intents
  andpurposes.½ It takes a LOT more text than this one limited
  definitionto create any federal corporation!½ Compare the
  originalStatutes at Large that created the Union Pacific
  Railroad Company, for example.
  Secondly, from the evidence above it should already
  beclear that the ½United States½ (federal government)
  isnot now, and never has been, a federal corporation.
  The statute at 28 U.S.C. 3002 merely defines the
  term½United States½ to embrace all existing federal
  corporations.½ Because the United States was not
  anexisting corporation when Congress enacted
  section 3002, that statute did not create and could
  nothave created the United States as a federal
  corporation in the first instance.
  Thirdly, in Eisner v. Macomber the U.S. Supreme Court
  toldCongress that it was barred from re-defining
  anyterms that are used in the federal Constitution.
  ½United States½ occurs in several places, because it is central
  tothe entire purpose of that Constitution.½ Therefore,
  thelegislative attempt to re-define ½United States½ at
  section 3002 is necessarily unconstitutional, because
  itviolates the Eisner Prohibition.
  Fourthly, section 3002 also exhibits 2 subtle tautologies,
  whichrender it null and void for vagueness.½ Here they are,
  incase you missed them:
  ½United States½ means ½an agency, department, commission,
  board, or other entity of the United States;
  or
  ½United States½ means ½ an instrumentality of the United States.
  It is a fundamental violation of proper English grammar to use
  theterm being defined in any definition of that term, and such a
  violationhas clearly happened here.½ If you don½t yet recognize
  thetautologies, then change one part of this definition to read:
  The term ½United States½ here also embraces any instrumentality
  ofthe federal government.
  At the very least, this minor change eliminates the tautology and
  removesthe vagueness.½ Nevertheless, such an attempt to re-define
  theterm ½United States½ still violates the Eisner Prohibition.
  For a newspaper-level Press Release which further explores some
  ofthe many legal ramifications of these widespread errors, please
  see this Internet URL:
  http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/cracking.title.28.htm
  Sincerely yours,
  /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
  Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
  Federal Witness:½ 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
  http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
  http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
  http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
  http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm
  All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Private Federal Corporation - SourceWatch
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 31 Dec 2013 15:44
  A Private Federal Corporation (PFC), also known as a Federal Government Corporation (FGC), is a corporation which has been established by the Federal Government. There are, of course, benefits to this, not the least of which would be the disbursement and management of funding by the corporation that would not be subject to Congressional oversight or monitoring. An additional benefit would be autonomy in operations.
  Examples of existing PFCs are:
  "In wholly owned federal corporations, such as the Commodity Credit Corporation, the federal government holds 100% of the equity and exercises 100% of the votes on the board of directors or other governing body ...
  "In mixed-ownership federal corporations, such as the RTC and the Resolution Funding Corporation (REFCORP), the United States may own some or none of the equity. A mixed-ownership FGC's charter often guarantees that the President will appoint at least a minority of the directors even if the federal government does not own shares ...
  "In private federal corporations, such as COMSAT, the federal government holds no stock but may have a statutory right to select members of the board of directors. A private federal corporation is, formally, little different from a corporation chartered by a state although it may have publicly appointed directors and tax advantages, and its debts may carry an implicit guarantee from the federal government."[1]
  "Since 1945 Congress has usually created FGCs for one of four reasons: efficiency, political insulation, subsidy, and subterfuge."
  Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC) could possibly be considered another category of PFCs. Totally funded by the U.S. Government, actual administration of the entities are by an outside/non-government contracted source. Some FFRDCs are administered by universities and colleges, others by non-profit institutions, and yet others by industrial firms. Many have existed in this form since the 1950s.
  The MITRE Corporation runs 3 FFRDCs for the DoD, FAA, and the IRS. MITRE itself is a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation. According to Mitretek Systems, the company links its origin to The MITRE Corporation. MITRE was itself spun off from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) MIT Lincoln Laboratory which began in the 1950s as the Lincoln Project at MIT. The Lincoln Laboratory was created to develop ground radar air defense systems for the United States. The MITRE Corporation was established as the "system engineer and overseer for the development of this highly complex system."
  SourceWatch ResourcesExternal linksMichael Hynes, Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Jennifer Sloan, A Casebook of Alternative Governance Structures and Organizational Forms. Chapter 5: Federal Government Corporation, RAND Corporation, 2000.A. Michael Froomkiin, Reinventing the Government Corporation, Originally published in the Illinois Law Review, 1995 U. Ill. L. Rev. 543.Jason Peckenpaugh, Coast Guard proposes government corporation to meet outsourcing goals, November 7, 2002.
NON Caps-28 USC § 3002 - Definitions | Title 28 - Judiciary and Judicial Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 31 Dec 2013 15:36
  The table below lists the classification updates, since Jan. 3, 2012, for this section. Updates to a broader range of sections may be found at the update page for containing chapter, title, etc.
  The most recent Classification Table update that we have noticed was Tuesday, August 13, 2013
  An empty table indicates that we see no relevant changes listed in the classification tables. If you suspect that our system may be missing something, please double-check with the Office of the Law Revision Counsel.
  How To UseMultiple entries for a section are listed most recent first, within the section.
  The Session Year indicates which session of Congress was responsible for the changes classified. The Congress number forms the first part of the Public Law number; each Congress has two sessions.
  Abbreviations used in the Description of Change column:
  An empty field implies a standard amendment."new" means a new section or new note, or all new text of an existing section or note."nt" means note."nt [tbl]" means note [table]."prec" means preceding."fr" means a transfer from another section."to" means a transfer to another section."omitted" means the section is omitted."repealed" means the section is repealed."nt ed change" and "ed change" - See the Editorial Classification Change Table [pdf].The Public Law field is linked to the development of the law in the Thomas system at the Library of Congress.
  The Statutes at Large field is linked to the text of the law, in the context of its volume of the Statutes at Large, at the Government Printing Office. Please note that it takes a while for these pages to get posted, so for very recent legislation, you need to look at the "enrolled" version at the Thomas site.
  The Statutes at Large references have been rendered in the format used as page numbers in the Public Law web pages to which we link, to facilitate copy-paste into browser "find on this (web) page" tools. We are still working on a more direct link facility.
  For serious comparison work, we suggest copying all or a portion of the Public Law text into your favorite text editor, for convenient content traversal and window control.
  Sections with change type "new" are a special case, still under development. All are now listed, at the title level only.
  You will find that occassionally a specific update you notice in a Public Law listed in a classification table will already have made it into the Code. We assume this is an artifact of the LRC edit process. The LII does not edit the LRC content.
  topGeneral ReferenceRefer to the LRC (Law Revision Council) for explanations about the US Code from the folks who put it all together.
  You can look for information about what it is and is not, which titles are positive law, the schedule of Supplements, etc. Under download you can find the source data we use here (GPO locator files), as well as, PDF files that look just like the paper books (these may be rather large).
  Refer to the Thomas site for changes that have not yet made it into the classification tables.
  28 USCDescription of ChangeSession YearPublic LawStatutes at Large
The United States Isn't a Country '-- It's a Corporation!
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 31 Dec 2013 15:34
  "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."'-- Preamble of the original "organic" Constitution
  "We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."'-- Excerpted from the Declaration of Independence of the original thirteen united states of America, July 4, 1776
  Fourth of July 2002 has come and gone, and Americans honored the holiday with a renewed patriotic fervor that reminded me of the Bicentennial celebrations of 1976. As is customary, traditional fireworks displays took center stage and scores of people turned out to witness the dazzling show in the summer sky. With mixed feelings, I sat with friends on a crowded Pennsylvania sidewalk beneath a glittering, mesmerizing explosion of color, pondering the keen sense of sadness and betrayal that overwhelmed my spirit. Looking around at the huge crowds gathered for the annual events, I thought silently, "We are not free." In truth, we have not been a free people for a very long time.
  We celebrate this day in honor of our "independence". We call ourselves a free people in a land of liberty. Our anthems proudly sing the praises of this nation, and we raise our voices, wave our flags and join in song '-- but how many Americans realize they are not free? This is a myth perpetuated by the powers-that-be in order to avoid any major civil unrest, and to keep us all living under the thumb of a militaristic corporate Big Brother within the illusions that have been created for us. The truth of the matter is this: what freedom has not been stolen from us, we have surrendered willingly through our silence and ignorance. As Americans, most of us have no idea how our freedoms are maintained '-- or lost. Apparently, our ancestors didn't have a good grasp of this either. It is sad, but it is also very true.
  Don't point to that beloved parchment, the Constitution, as a symbol of your enduring freedom. It is representative of a form of government which seemingly no longer exists in this country today. The Constitution has been thrown out the window, the Republic shoved aside and replaced with a democracy. The thing is; most people in this country remain unaware that this is so because they simply do not know the truth '-- what lies beyond the myths. Your so-called government is not going to tell you, either.
  To even begin to understand what has happened to the Republic, we must look backward in time to the period following the Civil War. We must go back to the year 1871, which was the beginning of the decline of the Republic. When we examine what happened during that time in our history, we begin to piece together this troubling, perplexing puzzle that is "America" '-- only then should we answer as to whether we are indeed a "free" people or not.
  So, let's roll backward into the past for a moment. It is time we learned what they didn't teach us in school. It is far more interesting than what they DID tell us. I think you'll stay awake for this lesson.
  The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia." This is also known as the "Act of 1871." What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land.
  What??? How could they do that? Moreover, WHY would they do that? To explain, let's look at the circumstances of those days. The Act of 1871 was passed at a vulnerable time in America. Our nation was essentially bankrupt '-- weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Civil War itself was nothing more than a calculated "front" for some pretty fancy footwork by corporate backroom players. It was a strategic maneuver by European interests (the international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the neck (and the coffers) of America.
  The Congress realized our country was in dire financial straits, so they cut a deal with the international bankers '-- (in those days, the Rothschilds of London were dipping their fingers into everyone's pie) thereby incurring a DEBT to said bankers. If we think about banks, we know they do not just lend us money out of the goodness of their hearts. A bank will not do anything for you unless it is entirely in their best interest to do so. There has to be some sort of collateral or some string attached which puts you and me (the borrower) into a subservient position. This was true back in 1871 as well. The conniving international bankers were not about to lend our floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a brilliant way of getting their foot in the door of the United States (a prize they had coveted for some time, but had been unable to grasp thanks to our Founding Fathers, who despised them and held them in check), and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed.
  In essence, this Act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Note the capitalization, because it is important. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, moved right in and shoved the original "organic" version of the Constitution into a dusty corner. With the "Act of 1871," our Constitution was defaced in the sense that the title was block-capitalized and the word "for" was changed to the word "of" in the title. The original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers, was written in this manner:
  "The Constitution for the united states of America".
  The altered version reads: "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA". It is the corporate constitution. It is NOT the same document you might think it is. The corporate constitution operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it is the same parchment that governs the Republic. It absolutely is not.
  Capitalization '-- an insignificant change? Not when one is referring to the context of a legal document, it isn't. Such minor alterations have had major impacts on each subsequent generation born in this country. What the Congress did with the passage of the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia. The kind of government THEY created was a corporation. The new, altered Constitution serves as the constitution of the corporation, and not that of America. Think about that for a moment.
  Incidentally, this corporate constitution does not benefit the Republic. It serves only to benefit the corporation. It does nothing good for you or me '-- and it operates outside of the original Constitution. Instead of absolute rights guaranteed under the "organic" Constitution, we now have "relative" rights or privileges. One example of this is the Sovereign's right to travel, which has been transformed under corporate government policy into a "privilege" which we must be licensed to engage in. This operates outside of the original Constitution.
  So, Congress committed TREASON against the People, who were considered Sovereign under the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution. When we consider the word "Sovereign," we must think about what the word means.
  According to Webster's Dictionary, "sovereign" is defined as: 1. chief or highest; supreme. 2. Supreme in power, superior in position to all others. 3. Independent of, and unlimited by, any other, possessing or entitled to, original and independent authority or jurisdiction.
  In other words, our government was created by and for "sovereigns" '-- the free citizens who were deemed the highest authority. Only the People can be sovereign '-- remember that. Government cannot be sovereign. We can also look to the Declaration of Independence, where we read: "government is subject to the consent of the governed" '-- that's supposed to be us, the sovereigns. Do you feel like a sovereign nowadays? I don't.
  It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a constitutional historian to figure out that this is not what is happening in our country today. Government in these times is NOT subject to the consent of the governed. Rather, the governed are subject to the whim and greed of the corporation, which has stretched its tentacles beyond the ten-mile-square parcel of land known as the District of Columbia '-- encroaching into every state of the Republic. Mind you, the corporation has NO jurisdiction outside of the District of Columbia. THEY just want you to think it does.
  You see, you are presumed to know the law. This is ironic because as a people, we are taught basically nothing about the law in school. We are made to memorize obscure factoids and paragraphs here and there, such as the Preamble, and they gloss over the Bill of Rights. But we are not told about the law. Nor do our corporate government schools delve into the Constitution in any great depth. After all, they were put into place to indoctrinate and dumb down the masses '-- not to teach us anything. We were not told that we were sold-out to foreign interests and made beneficiaries of the debt incurred by Congress to the international bankers. For generations, American citizens have had the bulk of their earnings confiscated to pay on a massive debt that they, as a People, did not incur. There are many, many things the People have not been told. How do you feel about being made a beneficiary of somebody else's massive debt without your knowledge or consent? Are we gonna keep going along with this??
  When you hear some individuals say that the Constitution is null and void, think about how our government has transformed over time from a municipal or service-oriented entity to a corporate or profit-oriented entity. We are living under the myth that this is lawful, but it is not. We are being ruled by a "de facto," or unlawful, form of government '-- the corporate body of the death-mongers '-- The Controllers.
  With the passage of the Act of 1871, a series of subtle and overt deceptions were set in motion '-- all in conjunction and collusion with the Congress, who knowingly and deliberately sold the People down the river. Did they tell you this in government school? I doubt it. They were too busy drumming the fictional version of history into your brain '-- and mine. By failing to disclose what THEY did to the American People, the people became ignorant of what was happening. Over time, the Republic took it on the chin to the point of a knockdown. With the surrender of their gold in 1933, the People essentially surrendered their law. I don't suppose you were taught THAT in school either. That's because our REAL history is hidden from us. This is the way Roman Civil Law works '-- and our form of governance today is based upon Roman Civil Law and Admiralty/Maritime Law '-- better known as the "Divine Right of Kings" and "Law of the Seas", respectively. This explains a lot. Roman Civil Law was fully established in the original colonies even before our nation began and is also known as private international law.
  The government which was created for the District of Columbia via the Act of 1871 operates under Private International Law, and not Common Law, which was the law of the Constitutional Republic. This is very important to note since it impacts all Americans in concrete ways. You must recognize that private international law is only applicable within the District of Columbia and NOT in the other states of the Union. The various arms of the corporation are known as "departments" such as the Judiciary, Justice and Treasury. You recognize those names? Yes, you do! But they are not what you assume them to be. These "departments" all belong to the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. They do NOT belong to you and me under the corporate constitution and its various amendments that operate outside of the Constitutional Republic.
  I refer you to the UNITED STATES CODE (note the capitalization, indicating the corporation, not the Republic) Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C). It is stated unequivocally that the UNITED STATES is a corporation [see note]. Realize, too, that the corporation is not a separate and distinct entity from the government. It IS the government. YOUR government. This is extremely important. I refer to this as the "corporate empire of the UNITED STATES," which operates under Roman Civil Law outside of the Constitution. How do you like being ruled by a cheesy, sleazy corporation? You'll ask your Congressperson about this, you say? HA!!
  Congress is fully aware of this deception. You must be made aware that the members of Congress do NOT work for you and me. Rather, they work for the Corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Is this really any surprise to you? This is why we can't get them to do anything on our behalf or to answer to us '-- as in the case with the illegal income tax '-- among many other things. Contrary to popular belief, they are NOT our civil servants. They do NOT work for us. They are the servants of the corporate government and carry out its bidding. Period.
  The great number of committees and sub-committees that the Congress has created all work together like a multi-headed monster to oversee the various corporate "departments." And, you should know that every single one of these that operates outside the District of Columbia is in violation of the law. The corporate government of the UNITED STATES has no jurisdiction or authority in ANY state of the Republic beyond the District of Columbia. Let this sink into your brain for a minute. Ask yourself, "Could this deception REALLY have occurred without the full knowledge and complicity of the Congress?" Do you think it happened by accident? You are deceiving yourself if you do. There are no accidents or coincidences. It is time to confront the truth and awaken from ignorance.
  Your legislators will not apprise you of this information. You are presumed to know the law. THEY know you don't know the law, or your history for that matter, because this information has not been taught to you. No concerted effort has been made to inform you. As a Sovereign, you are entitled to full disclosure of the facts. As a slave, you are entitled to nothing other than what the corporation decides to "give" you '-- at a price. Be wary of accepting so-called "benefits" of the corporation of the UNITED STATES. Aren't you enslaved enough already?
  I said (above) that you are presumed to know the law. Still, it matters not if you don't in the eyes of the corporation. Ignorance of the law is not considered an excuse. It is your responsibility and your obligation as an American to learn about the law and how it applies to you. THEY count on the fact that most people are too uninterested or distracted or lazy to do so. The People have been mentally conditioned to allow the alleged government to do their thinking for them. We need to turn that around if we are to save our Republic before it is too late.
  The UNITED STATES government is basically a corporate instrument of the international bankers. This means YOU are owned by the corporation from birth to death. The corporate UNITED STATES also holds ownership of all your assets, your property, and even your children. Does this sound untrue? Think long and hard about all those bills you pay, all those various taxes and fines and licenses you must pay for. Yes, they've got you by the pockets. Actually, they've had you by the ass for as long as you've been alive. In your heart, you know it's true. Don't believe any of this? Read up on the 14th Amendment. Check out how "free" you really are.
  With the Act of 1871 and subsequent legislation such as the purportedly ratified 14th Amendment, our once-great nation of Sovereigns has been subverted from a Republic to a democracy. As is the case under Roman Civil Law, our ignorance of the facts has led to our silence. Our silence has been construed as our consent to become beneficiaries of a debt we did not incur. The Sovereign People have been deceived for hundreds of years into thinking they remain free and independent, when in actuality we continue to be slaves and servants of the corporation.
  Treason was committed against the People in 1871 by the Congress. This could have been corrected through the decades by some honest men (assuming there were some), but it was not, mainly due to lust for money and power. Nothing new there. Are we to forgive and justify this crime against the People? You have lost more freedom than you may realize due to corporate infiltration of the so-called government. We will lose more unless we turn away from a democracy that is the direct road to disaster '-- and restore our Constitutional Republic.
  In an upcoming article, we'll take a closer look at the purportedly ratified 14th Amendment and how we became "property" of the corporation and enslaved by our silence.
  I am saddened to think about the brave men and women who were killed in all the wars and conflicts instigated by the Controllers. These courageous souls fought for the preservation of ideals they believed to be true '-- not for the likes of a corporation. Do you believe that any one of the individuals who have been killed as a result of war would have willingly fought if they knew the full truth? Do you think one person would have laid down his life for a corporation? I think not. If the People had known long ago to what extent their trust had been betrayed, I wonder how long it would have taken for another Revolution. What we need is a Revolution in THOUGHT. We change our thinking and we change our world.
  Will we ever restore the Republic? That is a question I cannot answer yet. I hope, and most of all '-- pray '-- that WE, the Sovereign People, will work together in a spirit of cooperation to make it happen in this lifetime. I know I will give it my best shot '-- come what may. Our children deserve their rightful legacy '-- the liberty our ancestors fought so hard to give to us. Will we remain silent telling ourselves we are free, and perpetuate the MYTH? Or, do we stand as One Sovereign People, and take back what has been stolen from the house of our Republic?Something to think about '-- it's called freedom.
  My heartfelt thanks goes out to the following people for their gracious and generous assistance in researching this subject: Ken S. of American Revolution II Online News, Paul Walker of RMN News, Bob Taft, Stanooch, and Willy Whitten '-- true Patriots, one and all.
  Editor's note: Actually in the U.S. Code the term "United States" is said to have any of three meanings:
  US CODE: Title 28,3002. Definitions (archived here)
  (15) "United States" means '-- (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States.
  Further reading:
  If we are stupid enough to surrender our freedom to a bunch of lousy international bankers, then we deserve to live in bondage. '-- Lisa Guliani
  A comparison of this article with the ripoff by "Reality Bytes":Lisa Guliani"Reality Bytes"We celebrate this day in honor of our "independence". We call ourselves a free people in a land of liberty. Our anthems proudly sing the praises of this nation, and we raise our voices, wave our flags and join in song '-- but how many Americans realize they are not free?The day is recognized as a day to celebrate our "Independence". A celebration of free people living in the land of Liberty. We sing songs of the greatness of our country, we wave our flags in joyous, patriotic, euphoria. In reality there are not many Americans that have the realization that they are not Free.This is a myth perpetuated by the powers-that-be in order to avoid any major civil unrest, and to keep us all living under the thumb of a militaristic corporate Big Brother within the illusions that have been created for us.This is an illusion that the countries controllers immortalize to avoid the People realizing the truth. It allows them to keep the population under the militaristic control of a Big Brother Conglomerate of corporate control.The truth of the matter is this: what freedom has not been stolen from us, we have surrendered willingly through our silence and ignorance. As Americans, most of us have no idea how our freedoms are maintained '-- or lost. Apparently, our ancestors didn't have a good grasp of this either.The Freedoms which have not been stolen from us, we have given up willingly through ignorance and apathy. Allowing ourselves to be distracted by baubles and shiny objects like children. We the people had no idea how to maintain our Freedoms or for that matter, how they could be taken from us.Don't point to that beloved parchment, the Constitution, as a symbol of your enduring freedom. It is representative of a form of government which seemingly no longer exists in this country today.Those in denial will immediately shout about the parchment known as the Constitution. That is the Symbol of Freedom for the people. It symbolizes the Representative form of government that no longer exists in the United States of America.The Constitution has been thrown out the window, the Republic shoved aside and replaced with a democracy. The thing is; most people in this country remain unaware that this is so because they simply do not know the truth '-- what lies beyond the myths.The Constitution is dead and the Republic has been replaced with a corrupt form of Democracy. The saddest part of this fiasco is that most Americans will never know or realize exactly what it was that they lost. They will never see the Truth behind the lies.To even begin to understand what has happened to the Republic, we must look backward in time to the period following the Civil War. We must go back to the year 1871, which was the beginning of the decline of the Republic.To start to see the Truth and to understand what happened to this great Republic, we need to start at the period after the Civil War. It was in the year 1871 that the decline and elimination of the Republic began.So, let's roll backward into the past for a moment. It is time we learned what they didn't teach us in school.Let us delve into the History of the country, the History that is not taught in school!The Congress realized our country was in dire financial straits, so they cut a deal with the international bankers '-- (in those days, the Rothschilds of London were dipping their fingers into everyone's pie) thereby incurring a DEBT to said bankers.The Congress knew that our country was bankrupt, so they made an arrangement with the International Bankers to run up a Debt to these Foreign Banks ( the Rothschilds of London were investing in many enterprises Globally).If we think about banks, we know they do not just lend us money out of the goodness of their hearts. A bank will not do anything for you unless it is entirely in their best interest to do so. There has to be some sort of collateral or some string attached which puts you and me (the borrower) into a subservient position.One thing that everyone knows about banks is that they do not lend money simply to be kind. The only way that a Bank would enter into a contract is if it would benefit the Bank. Some kind of Collateral, or some kind of scheme that would put the population into servitude to the Banks would be necessary.The conniving international bankers were not about to lend our floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a brilliant way of getting their foot in the door of the United States (a prize they had coveted for some time, but had been unable to grasp thanks to our Founding Fathers, who despised them and held them in check), and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed.The sneaky and manipulating International Bankers would not lend money to our financially troubled nation without some stipulations. They came up with a devious scheme to gain control over the country that they had desired for a long time. The Founding Fathers detested these Foreign Entities and kept them at bay until the Act of 1871 was passed.And so on. It is obvious that "Reality Bytes" has taken Lisa Guliani's article, reworded it, and published it on The Hub as his own work (and he then accused websites which had published her article of copyright violation '-- pretty stupid of him). "Reality Bytes" is clearly guilty of blatant plagiarism. The Hub should thus remove his article to protect their reputation. '-- But a year has gone by, and the article has not been removed, so we can conclude that The Hub is a site whose articles, if well-written, are likely to be ripoffs of articles from other sites (by people seeking to make money by exploiting the work of others, more talented than they are).
Inside TAO: Documents Reveal Top NSA Hacking Unit - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 31 Dec 2013 15:26
  In January 2010, numerous homeowners in San Antonio, Texas, stood baffled in front of their closed garage doors. They wanted to drive to work or head off to do their grocery shopping, but their garage door openers had gone dead, leaving them stranded. No matter how many times they pressed the buttons, the doors didn't budge. The problem primarily affected residents in the western part of the city, around Military Drive and the interstate highway known as Loop 410.
  In the United States, a country of cars and commuters, the mysterious garage door problem quickly became an issue for local politicians. Ultimately, the municipal government solved the riddle. Fault for the error lay with the United States' foreign intelligence service, the National Security Agency, which has offices in San Antonio. Officials at the agency were forced to admit that one of the NSA's radio antennas was broadcasting at the same frequency as the garage door openers. Embarrassed officials at the intelligence agency promised to resolve the issue as quickly as possible, and soon the doors began opening again.
  It was thanks to the garage door opener episode that Texans learned just how far the NSA's work had encroached upon their daily lives. For quite some time now, the intelligence agency has maintained a branch with around 2,000 employees at Lackland Air Force Base, also in San Antonio. In 2005, the agency took over a former Sony computer chip plant in the western part of the city. A brisk pace of construction commenced inside this enormous compound. The acquisition of the former chip factory at Sony Place was part of a massive expansion the agency began after the events of Sept. 11, 2001.
  On-Call Digital Plumbers
  One of the two main buildings at the former plant has since housed a sophisticated NSA unit, one that has benefited the most from this expansion and has grown the fastest in recent years -- the Office of Tailored Access Operations, or TAO. This is the NSA's top operative unit -- something like a squad of plumbers that can be called in when normal access to a target is blocked.
  According to internal NSA documents viewed by SPIEGEL, these on-call digital plumbers are involved in many sensitive operations conducted by American intelligence agencies. TAO's area of operations ranges from counterterrorism to cyber attacks to traditional espionage. The documents reveal just how diversified the tools at TAO's disposal have become -- and also how it exploits the technical weaknesses of the IT industry, from Microsoft to Cisco and Huawei, to carry out its discreet and efficient attacks.
  The unit is "akin to the wunderkind of the US intelligence community," says Matthew Aid, a historian who specializes in the history of the NSA. "Getting the ungettable" is the NSA's own description of its duties. "It is not about the quantity produced but the quality of intelligence that is important," one former TAO chief wrote, describing her work in a document. The paper seen by SPIEGEL quotes the former unit head stating that TAO has contributed "some of the most significant intelligence our country has ever seen." The unit, it goes on, has "access to our very hardest targets."
  A Unit Born of the Internet
  Defining the future of her unit at the time, she wrote that TAO "needs to continue to grow and must lay the foundation for integrated Computer Network Operations," and that it must "support Computer Network Attacks as an integrated part of military operations." To succeed in this, she wrote, TAO would have to acquire "pervasive, persistent access on the global network." An internal description of TAO's responsibilities makes clear that aggressive attacks are an explicit part of the unit's tasks. In other words, the NSA's hackers have been given a government mandate for their work. During the middle part of the last decade, the special unit succeeded in gaining access to 258 targets in 89 countries -- nearly everywhere in the world. In 2010, it conducted 279 operations worldwide.
  Indeed, TAO specialists have directly accessed the protected networks of democratically elected leaders of countries. They infiltrated networks of European telecommunications companies and gained access to and read mails sent over Blackberry's BES email servers, which until then were believed to be securely encrypted. Achieving this last goal required a "sustained TAO operation," one document states.
  This TAO unit is born of the Internet -- created in 1997, a time when not even 2 percent of the world's population had Internet access and no one had yet thought of Facebook, YouTube or Twitter. From the time the first TAO employees moved into offices at NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland, the unit was housed in a separate wing, set apart from the rest of the agency. Their task was clear from the beginning -- to work around the clock to find ways to hack into global communications traffic.
  Recruiting the Geeks
  To do this, the NSA needed a new kind of employee. The TAO workers authorized to access the special, secure floor on which the unit is located are for the most part considerably younger than the average NSA staff member. Their job is breaking into, manipulating and exploiting computer networks, making them hackers and civil servants in one. Many resemble geeks -- and act the part, too.
  Indeed, it is from these very circles that the NSA recruits new hires for its Tailored Access Operations unit. In recent years, NSA Director Keith Alexander has made several appearances at major hacker conferences in the United States. Sometimes, Alexander wears his military uniform, but at others, he even dons jeans and a t-shirt in his effort to court trust and a new generation of employees.
  The recruitment strategy seems to have borne fruit. Certainly, few if any other divisions within the agency are growing as quickly as TAO. There are now TAO units in Wahiawa, Hawaii; Fort Gordon, Georgia; at the NSA's outpost at Buckley Air Force Base, near Denver, Colorado; at its headquarters in Fort Meade; and, of course, in San Antonio.
  One trail also leads to Germany. According to a document dating from 2010 that lists the "Lead TAO Liaisons" domestically and abroad as well as names, email addresses and the number for their "Secure Phone," a liaison office is located near Frankfurt -- the European Security Operations Center (ESOC) at the so-called "Dagger Complex" at a US military compound in the Griesheim suburb of Darmstadt.
  But it is the growth of the unit's Texas branch that has been uniquely impressive, the top secret documents reviewed by SPIEGEL show. These documents reveal that in 2008, the Texas Cryptologic Center employed fewer than 60 TAO specialists. By 2015, the number is projected to grow to 270 employees. In addition, there are another 85 specialists in the "Requirements & Targeting" division (up from 13 specialists in 2008). The number of software developers is expected to increase from the 2008 level of three to 38 in 2015. The San Antonio office handles attacks against targets in the Middle East, Cuba, Venezuela and Colombia, not to mention Mexico, just 200 kilometers (124 miles) away, where the government has fallen into the NSA's crosshairs.
Americans are buying less electricity. That's a big problem for utilities. - The Washington Post
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 31 Dec 2013 15:19
  By Brad Plumer, Published: DECEMBER 23, 10:00 AM ET Aa Something very unusual has been happening to the U.S. electricity sector over the past three years.
  The U.S. economy keeps growing. People are buying bigger homes and plugging in ever more electronic gadgets. And yet power companies have been selling less and less electricity since 2011:
  That may not look like a particularly steep drop, but it's a massive break from the past. Ever since World War II, electricity sales in the United States have, for the most part, gone up and up and up. They've only ever declined in a handful of years associated with nasty recessions --1974, 1982, 2001, and then again in 2008 and 2009.
  But the last three years have been a striking exception: After a predictable bounce-back in 2010 -- something that usually happens after economic downturns -- electricity sales declined in 2011 and 2012. And they're expected to decline again in 2013, says the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). And next year. And the year after that.
  Perhaps this is just a random blip. Yet some analysts think we really could be entering a new era in which Americans buy less and less electricity -- either because they're becoming more efficient or they're finding ways to generate their own electricity, through solar panels and other means. And if that's true, it's a huge problem for many electric utilities.
  Why U.S. electricity sales are dropping
  In the past, electricity sales have risen and fallen in lockstep with economic growth. But that relationship has disintegrated since 2011. The EIA lists four reasons why:
  -- Homes have been using less electricity. In 2011 and 2012, residential electricity use declined by 5 percent, despite the fact that more houses were being built and homes were actually getting larger. The EIA chalks this drop up to the fact that household appliances are getting steadily more efficient and newer homes are often better insulated. Also, a spate of warmer winters has reduced demand for heating in some regions.-- Office buildings are getting more efficient. "[S]tandards to improve efficiency for lighting and space heating have helped keep commercial building energy demand flat in recent years," the EIA says. So have the weather patterns mentioned above.
  -- Industry has yet to rebound from the recession. The agency notes that electricity use in the industrial sector is still below 2007 levels. Part of that is due to the lingering effects of the recession and part due to "efficiency improvements in production processes."
  -- Solar power and distributed generation is starting to catch on. This is the most intriguing factor. If people (or companies) are putting up solar panels and generating their own electricity, then they don't need to buy as much from the local utility. The EIA isn't sure how big this effect is -- it's likely small right now -- but it's one to keep an eye on.
  For its part, the EIA is betting that this slowdown in electricity sales is just a blip. It expects sales to stagnate until 2015 and then start rising again at their usual 1 percent rate.
  Some analysts aren't so sure. In recent years, a number of reports have come out suggesting that we may be entering an era of stagnating electricity sales (see here and here). Which is something to worry about, if you're in the business of selling electricity.
  The threat to electric utilities
  Electric utilities make more money by selling more power. They don't usually benefit if people start buying more efficient washing machines or installing solar panels on their roofs. If these trends are accelerating, that's a real problem for power companies.
  Solar system installer Thomas Bywater adjusts new solar panels on the roof of a house in Sydney in 2009. (Tim Wimborne - Reuters)
  The doomsday scenario for utilities goes like this: Solar power keeps getting cheaper and more people start installing panels. In the meantime, overall electricity use grows slowly or stagnates. That means utilities are selling less and less electricity. In order to recoup their costs for things like maintaining the grid, they have to hike rates on their remaining customers. That pushes even more people to install solar panels, hurting sales further. Commence the death spiral.
  Sound far-fetched? This exact scenario was laid out by an industry trade group, the Edison Electric Institute, in a report back in January. Even though solar power currently provides just 0.2 percent of U.S. electricity, prices are dropping fast, and even a small amount of distributed solar generation could prove disruptive. David Crane, CEO of NRG Energy, has called these trends "a mortal threat to the existing utility system."
  Indeed, this scenario is already playing out in Germany, where rooftop solar panels have become increasingly common, and traditional utilities like E.ON and RWE have seen their market value plunge 56 percent over the last four years.
  Now, a utility "death spiral" is hardly inevitable. Perhaps plug-in electric vehicles will catch on in a big way, which would massively expand the market for electricity.
  Or: Perhaps utilities will manage to curtail the rapid growth in solar power. Earlier this year, Arizona Public Service tried to levy a $50 per month surcharge on rooftop solar owners, arguing that the panels were imposing high costs on grid operators (after all, solar-panel owners still use transmission lines for backup or to sell power back to the grid). Regulators knocked this fee down to $5 per month, but this won't be the last fight on this front.
  Industry observers are watching all of these trends closely. One article last year by Ahmad Faruqui and Eric Shultz, two consultants at the Brattle Group, argued that "the drop in electricity demand growth appears to be permanent, not transitory."
  They suggested that this shift will call for "new thinking, such as initiatives in many states to decouple a utility's earnings from its sales volumes." (That's already happening: Some 63 utilities in 25 states are now regulated under plans in which they're actually rewarded for promoting efficiency and selling less electricity -- an arrangement that's expanded rapidly in recent years.) And others think the growth in distributed generation could force even more radical changes in the years ahead.
  Further reading:
  --Earlier this year, David Roberts had an excellent series in Grist on electric utilities and the threat they're facing from distributed solar generation. There's much more detail there. (I also wrote about this issue back in 2009 for The New Republic.)
  -- Liam Dennings has a good piece in The Wall Street Journal on how these dynamics could weigh heavily on utility stocks, which were once considered some of the safest around.
  MORE
  Contact us
  Privacy policy
  My Account
  Sign InSubscribe(C) Copyright 1996-2013 The Washington Post
  View desktop site
BBC News - France's 75% tax rate gains approval by top court
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 31 Dec 2013 15:15
  29 December 2013Last updated at 07:34 ET France's highest court has approved a 75% tax on high earners that is one of President Francois Hollande's signature policies.
  The initial proposal to tax individual incomes was ruled unconstitutional by the Constitutional Council almost exactly one year ago.
  But the government modified it to make employers liable for the 75% tax on salaries exceeding 1m euros (£830,000).
  The levy will last two years, affecting income earned this year and in 2014.
  Football clubs in France threatened to go on strike earlier this year over the issue, saying many of France's clubs are financially fragile and say the plans could spark an exodus of top players who are paid huge salaries.
  The Qatari-owned Paris Saint-Germain has more than 10 players whose pay exceeds 1m euros, including the Swedish striker Zlatan Ibrahimovic.
  There has also been a chorus of protest from businesses and wealthy individuals who have condemned the tax - including film star Gerard Depardieu, who left the country in protest.
  Polls suggest a large majority in France back the temporary tax.
  Unlike many other countries in Europe, France aims to bring down its huge public deficit by raising taxes as well as some spending cuts.
  The highest tax rate in the UK is 45% and is applied to individuals.
"The Wolf of Wall Street" reviewed by bankers.
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 31 Dec 2013 15:12
  YouTube
  This post originally appeared in Business Insider.
  Tucked behind the Goldman Sachs building at 200 West Street, the Regal Battery Park theater was a fitting venue for last night's free advanced screening of "The Wolf of Wall Street," Martin Scorsese's highly-anticipated biopic about '90s-era pump-and-dump charlatan Jordan Belfort. Belfort's decadence was disturbing, but equally disturbing was the finance-heavy audience's gleeful reaction to his behavior and legal wrongdoings.
  Credit Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio, who played Belfort, for keeping the high-octane, drug-filled movie entertaining for three hours (the longest Scorsese film by about 60 seconds). But my one major gripe was pretty simple: Jordan Belfort defrauded a lot of people'--and by the nature of his penny stock transgressions, many low-income people'--out of a ton of money. He then used that money, as one does, on cocaine, hookers, cars, and yachts. It may be great cinema to document his exploits, but there's a fine line between satirizing Wall Street's excess and celebrating Belfort's lifestyle.
  Put simply, the film could have done a better job making Belfort look like a villain. Or maybe the film did do that, and we were just watching with the wrong crowd. There were a lot of finance pros there. The theater is in Manhattan's financial district and the movie has "Wall Street" in the name, after all. Plus you can actually see into Goldman's trading room floor from the escalator.
  There's a lot of talk about how Wall Street has "changed" since the financial crisis. Compliance is up, bonuses are down, the holiday parties aren't as extravagant as they used to be. But you wouldn't necessarily know that from what these guys were cheering at. When Belfort'--a drug addict who later attempts to sober up'--rips up a couch cushion to get to his secret coke stash, there were cheers.
  Then, intercut with Popeye eating spinach, the film shows Belfort irrevocably high on Quaaludes (or "ludes," a muscle relaxer) and dumps coke into his nose to remedy the situation'--more cheers. The worst, though... [mild spoiler alert] was that at one point later in the movie, the feds get Belfort to wear a wire to implicate others at his firm. Meeting with his No. 2, Belfort slides over a piece of paper: "Don't incriminate yourself. I am wearing a wire." And the crowd goes wild. Don't rat! Stand by your firm!
  Bankers: First of all, don't cheer in a movie. It's weird. You can laugh, but no cheering. Second, guffawing while Leo attempts to evade federal indictment doesn't exactly help America's perception of your societal value. Hopefully this kind of euphoria was confined to one boozy, Financial District pre-screening (Paramount gave us popcorn and martinis upon entrance), because it would be a real shame if Martin Scorsese just accidentally inspired the future Jordan Belforts of the world.
Clinton Foundation
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 31 Dec 2013 15:05
  Country:
The Daily Dot - The NSA has nearly complete backdoor access to Apple's iPhone
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 31 Dec 2013 07:00
  '; var _rdtb =''; var _lib1 = ''; var _lib2 = 'The U.S. National Security Agency has the ability to snoop on nearly every communication sent from an Apple iPhone, according to leaked documents shared by security researcher Jacob Appelbaum and German news magazine Der Spiegel.
  An NSA program called DROPOUTJEEP allows the agency to intercept SMS messages, access contact lists, locate a phone using cell tower data, and even activate the device's microphone and camera.
  According to leaked documents, the NSA claims a 100 percent success rate when it comes to implanting iOS devices with spyware. The documents suggest that the NSA needs physical access to a device to install the spyware'--something the agency has achieved by rerouting shipments of devices purchased online'--but a remote version of the exploit is also in the works.
  Appelbaum says that presents one of two possibilities:
  ''Either [the NSA] have a huge collection of exploits that work against Apple products, meaning they are hoarding information about critical systems that American companies produce, and sabotaging them, or Apple sabotaged it themselves,'' Appelbaum said at the Chaos Communication Conference in Hamburg, Germany.
  ''Do you think Apple helped them with that?'' Appelbaum asked. ''I hope Apple will clarify that.''
  Photo via Piro*/Flickr
Daniel Domscheit-Berg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 31 Dec 2013 06:45
  Daniel Domscheit-Berg (n(C) Berg; born 1978), previously known under the pseudonym Daniel Schmitt, is a German technology activist.[1] He is best known for his role until September 2010 as a spokesperson for whistleblower organization WikiLeaks in Germany, and his subsequent sabotage of the Wikileaks organisation. He is the author of Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange at the World's Most Dangerous Website (2011).[2]
  After leaving WikiLeaks, he announced plans in January 2011 to open a new website for anonymous online leaks called OpenLeaks. At a Chaos Computer Club (CCC) event in August 2011, he announced its preliminary launch and invited hackers to test the security of the OpenLeaks system, as a result of which the CCC criticized him for exploiting the good name of the club to promote his OpenLeaks project and expelled him from their club, despite his lack of membership.[3] This decision was revoked in February 2012.[4] In September 2011, several news organizations cited Domscheit-Berg's split from Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as one of a series of events and errors that led to the release that month of all 251,287 United States diplomatic cables in the Cablegate affair.[5]
  In 2011, he was named by Foreign Policy magazine in its FP Top 100 Global Thinkers, with Sami Ben Gharbia and Alexey Navalny. In his response to the Best Idea question for that article Domscheit-Berg stated Occupy Wall Street.[6]
  WikiLeaks[edit]Domscheit-Berg began working with WikiLeaks after meeting Assange at the Chaos Computer Club's annual conference (24C3) in 2007.[7] On 25 September 2010, after reportedly being suspended by Assange, Domscheit-Berg told Der Spiegel that he was resigning, saying "WikiLeaks has a structural problem. I no longer want to take responsibility for it, and that's why I am leaving the project."[8][9][10]
  Domscheit-Berg was highlighted in the Sveriges Television programme WikiRebels - The Documentary, released in the second week of December 2010.[11]
  A book about his experience with and separation[12] from WikiLeaks was released in Germany in February 2011, entitled Inside WikiLeaks: Meine Zeit bei der gef¤hrlichsten Website der Welt ("My Time at the World's Most Dangerous Website").[13] An English translation followed some days later by Australian publisher Scribe Publications.[14][15][16] In Domscheit-Berg's book he criticizes Julian Assange's leadership style and handling of the Afghan War Diaries.
  Domscheit-Berg stated he would destroy WikiLeaks data when leaving WikiLeaks.[17] He wanted to be sure that duplicates would be confirmed deleted by a notary with an affidavit.[18] In leaving, WikiLeaks state that Domscheit-Berg representing OpenLeaks, held the organisation to ransom over the unpublished documents and internal organisation communications[19] with mediations by a member of the hacker collective Chaos Computer Club between OpenLeaks and WikiLeaks. Domscheit-Berg apparently told weekly Der Freitag that "I took no documents from WikiLeaks with me", leading to suspension of mediations.[16] Domscheit-Berg was eventually kicked out of Chaos Computer Club due to his conduct during the mediation and for requesting the Chaos Computer Club to test OpenLeaks' security.[16] This decision was revoked in February 2012 by the general assembly of the Chaos Computer Club.
  WikiLeaks and other sources later confirmed the destruction of over 3500 unpublished whistleblower communications with some communications containing hundreds of documents,[16][18][20] including the US government's No Fly List,[22] 5 GB of Bank of America leaks, insider information from 20 right-wing organizations[22] and proof of torture and government abuse of a Latin American country.[25]
  OpenLeaks[edit]In September 2010, Domscheit-Berg announced the intention to start a site named "OpenLeaks"[26] with the intention of being more transparent than WikiLeaks. "In these last months, the WikiLeaks organization has not been open any more. It lost its open-source promise."[27]
  Instead of publishing the documents, Domscheit-Berg said that his proposed OpenLeaks process would send the leaked documents to various news entities or publishers.[28]
  OpenLeaks was supposed to start public operations in January 2011. However on 23 December 2012 Domscheit-Berg announced on the website that the organisation will not go ahead as previously intended, and would now only focus on spreading information and expertise regarding how to set up and run leak websites rather than directly facilitating leaks themselves.[29]
  OpenLeaks has two public contacts, Daniel Domscheit-Berg and Herbert Snorrason, both previously involved in WikiLeaks.[26]
  Book: Inside WikiLeaks[edit]Daniel Domscheit-Berg (2011) (in German), Inside WikiLeaks: Meine Zeit bei der gef¤hrlichsten Website der Welt (German), Berlin: Econ Verlag, ISBN 978-3-430-20121-6References[edit]^For his use of "Daniel Schmitt," see "'The Only Option Left for Me Is an Orderly Departure'", Der Spiegel, September 27, 2010.^Tweedie, Neil; Swaine, Jon (2010-12-11). "WikiLeaks Julian Assange: the most dangerous man in the world?". The Daily Telegraph. ^"Hacker distanzieren sich von OpenLeaks", Der Spiegel, August 13, 2011.^CCC revokes decision to expel Domscheit-Berg^St¶cker, Christian. "A Dispatch Disaster in Six Acts", Der Spiegel, September 1, 2011.^http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/11/28/the_fp_top_100_global_thinkers?page=0,23#thinker24^Hosenball, Mark (2010-12-15). "Julian Assange vs. the world". National Post. ^"WikiLeaks Spokesman Quits: 'The Only Option Left for Me Is an Orderly Departure'". Der Spiegel. 27 September 2010. ^Brown, Craig (12 February 2011). "War of the WikiFreaks: Inside WikiLeaks by Daniel Domscheit-Berg". Daily Mail (London). ^Unpublished Iraq War Logs Trigger Internal WikiLeaks Revolt|Threat Level. Wired.com. Retrieved on 2011-02-14.^WikiRebels - The Documentary. Sveriges Television. 2010-12-12. Retrieved 2010-12-13. ^"WikiLeaks said to be in disarray". United Press International. 2010-09-28. Retrieved 2010-12-13. ^Collins, Hugh (2010-12-10). "Former Wikileaks Employee Daniel Domscheit-Berg to Publish Tell-All Book". AOL News. Retrieved 2010-12-13. ^"Scribe News: Scribe acquires rights to Inside WikiLeaks: my time at the world's most dangerous website". Scribe Publications. 2010-12-10. Retrieved 2010-12-13. ^Boyes, Roger (2010-09-28). "WikiLeaks defector Daniel Domscheit-Berg reveals Julian Assange's siege mentality". The Australian. Retrieved 2010-12-13. ^ abcd"Dissatisfaction with Assange: Former WikiLeaks Activists to Launch New Whistleblowing Site". Der Spiegel. 2010-12-01. Retrieved 2010-12-13. ^"OpenLeaks-Founder wants to destroy WikiLeaks datas". Retrieved on 2011-02-14.^ abGosztola, Kevin (2011-08-21). "OpenLeaks Founder Destroys Cache of Unreleased WikiLeaks Documents". ^"WikiLeaks Statement on Daniel Domscheit-Berg and OpenLeaks". 2011-08-20. ^Moughty, Sarah (2011-08-22). "Ex-WikiLeaks Spokesman Destroyed Thousands of Unpublished Docs". ^ abMarsh, Heather (2011-08-21). "Former WikiLeaks spokesman destroyed unreleased files". ^Renata, Avila (2011-08-15). "Open Letter". ^ ab"About OpenLeaks". OpenLeaks. Retrieved 28 January 2011. ^Piven, Ben (17 December 2010). "Copycat WikiLeaks sites make waves". Al Jazeera English. Retrieved 19 December 2010. ^Greenberg, Andy, "WikiLeaks' Stepchildren", Forbes, 17 January 2011, p. 20.^http://blog.openleaks.org/2012/12/hello-world.html^"Scribe Publications online" (in German). Retrieved 2011-02-09. ^"Random House online" (in German). Retrieved 2011-02-10. Further reading[edit]McAllester, Matt. "Exit Interview." (of Domscheit-Berg) The New York Times. February 18, 2011.Zetter, Kim. "Former WikiLeaks Spokesman Disputes Claims About Destroyed Files." Wired. August 23, 2011."'I Doubt Domscheit-Berg's Integrity': Top German Hacker Slams OpenLeaks Founder." Der Spiegel. August 15, 2011.Last, Jonathan V. "When Daniel Met Julian." The Weekly Standard. April 15, 2011. Volume 16, No. 31.Taylor, Adam. "WikiLeaks' Bank Of America Bombshell May Have Been Destroyed." Business Insider. August 22, 2011.External links[edit]PersondataNameDomscheit-Berg, DanielAlternative namesShort descriptionDate of birth1978Place of birthDate of deathPlace of death
Antarctic crew build ice helipad to help rescuers | Mail Online
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 31 Dec 2013 00:01
  Chris Turney, a climate scientist and leader of the expedition, was going to document 'environmental changes' at the poleIn an interview he said he expected melting ice to play a part in expeditionMV Akademik Schokalskiy still stuck among thick ice sheet 1,500 nautical miles south of Hobart, the Tasmanian capitalCalled for help at 5am Christmas morning after becoming submerged in iceAustralia's back-up ship, Aurora Australis could not break throughBy Mia De Graaf and Hayley O'keeffe
  PUBLISHED: 08:19 EST, 30 December 2013 | UPDATED: 14:42 EST, 30 December 2013
  2,779shares
  12
  Viewcomments
  They went in search evidence of the world's melting ice caps, but instead a team of climate scientists have been forced to abandon their mission '... because the Antarctic ice is thicker than usual at this time of year.
  The scientists have been stuck aboard the stricken MV Akademik Schokalskiy since Christmas Day, with repeated sea rescue attempts being abandoned as icebreaking ships failed to reach them.
  Now that effort has been ditched, with experts admitting the ice is just too thick. Instead the crew have built an icy helipad, with plans afoot to rescue the 74-strong team by helicopter.
  SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO
  This image, taken by passenger Andrew Peacock, shows the ship MV Akademik Shokalskiy still stuck in the ice off East Antarctica, as it waits to be rescued
  A thin fresh coat of snow on the trapped ship
  Passengers receiving a briefing about the latest ice conditions report from expedition co-leader Greg Mortimer
  Professor Chris Turney, leader of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition, is pictured talking to international media from the top deck of the stranded ship
  Australian Green Party Senator-elect Janet Rice up early doing some stretching on the top deck of the MV Akademik Shokalskiy
  The expedition is being lead by Chris Turney, a climate scientist, who was hoping to reach the base camp of Douglas Mawson, one of the most famous Antarctic explorers, and repeat observations done by him in 1912 to see what impact climate change had made.
  It is thought that the group, which includes scientific researchers and a journalist, will now be able to escape by air after two sea rescues failed.
  Australian icebreaker Aurora Australis was unable to reach them because it was not strong enough to break through.
  A top-of-the-range Chinese icebreaker, the Snow Dragon ('Xue Long'), was deployed earlier in the week, and hoped to reach the ship by saturday.
  However just after midnight on Friday it too got stuck just six nautical miles from the ship.
  The Chinese icebreaker Xuelong - meaning Snow Dragon - was deployed to rescue the Russian science ship
  However just before midnight on Friday Captain Wang Jianzhong's ship (pictured) also became trapped
  Scientists on board the Xuelong, including Liu Shunlin (left), are now studying the condition of the Russian ship while they wait to be freed themselves
  A photograph sent in by the captain of the Russian ship suggests that the two vessels can actually see each other, albeit as a tiny speck on the horizon
  The Academic Shokalskiy set off from New Zealand on November 28 to recreate a 100-year-old Australasia expedition first sailed by Sir Douglas Mawson to see how the journey changes using new technology and equipment.
  But on Wednesday morning, the boat hit a mass of thick ice sheets and today remains at a stand still.
  Chris Turney, an Australian professor who helped organise the voyage on the Russian ship, yesterday posted a photograph on Twitter apparently showing the Chinese vessel, a speck on the horizon beyond an expanse of ice.
  Smile: The crew of 48 passengers and 26 researchers pose for a holiday photograph in the depths of Antarctica
  Barbara Tucker, a passenger on Russia's Academic Shokalskiy, is pictured watching an adelie penguin
  Australian Green Party Senator-select Janet Rice is on board. She is pictured stretching and playing on the deck
  Today, passengers waved as a helicopter sent from China's retreated Snow Dragon flew by to check the snow levels. Autralia's back-up vessel, the Aurora Australis, is expected to arrive tonight but if that fails, helicopters may be sent to the rescue
  The 26 researchers on board have managed to get messages out saying they are well-stocked and continuing their research despite being trapped in five metres of ice sheets 1,500 miles south of Tasmanian capital Hobart
  Chinese helicopter flies over stranded ship in Antarctica
  Failed: This picture, tweeted by passenger Chris Turney, shows the top-of-the-range icebreaker, China's 'Snow Dragon' which also got stuck and was forced to retreat on Friday
  Trapped: 74 people, including scientists, tourists and a Guardian reporter, are stuck in thick ice sheets
  Crew members routinely check the hull of the ship, which gathers fresh layers of snow every night
  'Everyone well,' Turney added.
  He said trying to break through ice that was too thick would be 'like driving your car into a brick wall'.
  Just before 5am on Wednesday, Australia deployed a The Snow Dragon to free the group into open water.
  French vessel L'Astrolabe was sent out for back up, alongside Australia's Aurora Australis, which is carrying food and first aid professionals.
  After two days being stranded, passengers hoped to be rescued by the Snow Dragon as it powered through horrific conditions.
  Unique view from deck of ship TRAPPED in Antarctic ice
  Russia's Academic Shokalskiy is recreating Mawson's 100-year-old Australasia expedition using new tools
  Blizzards could hamper the rescue mission, but the ship is well-stocked and the scientists are continuing their research on the snow around them
  But on Friday the heavy winds became too great, and built up an impenetrable pile of snow.
  Academic Shokalskiy, an ice-strengthened ship built in 1982, was originally used for oceanographic research before being refurbished to be used as a passenger vessel in the Arctic and Antarctica.
  Marooned 1,500 nautical miles south of Hobart - the capital of the Australian state of Tasmania - the thick ice sheets built up during a bout of severe wind.
  The Russian embassy in Australia has been in constant contact with the captain and said everyone on board was in good health and there was 'no threat to their lives or safety'.
  On board are scientists from the University of New South Wales, a journalist from The Guardian and dozens of tourists who have paid to be part of the recreation of Mawson's expedition.
  The research team has made contact with local stations from the Commonwealth Bay to say they are well-stocked with food.
  The ship had been on a multi-day tour from New Zealand to visit several sites along the edge of Antarctica before getting trapped in sea ice
  France's L'Astrobe, also been deployed to save the ship, has now turned back
  Bleak: The ship has been stranded in the barren, frozen landscape since Christmas
  'We all know that there's a possibility of this becoming quite a protracted sit and wait,' said Andrew Peacock, a passenger onboard the Akademik Shokalskiy, speaking via satellite phone.
  'I think people are just looking at that next step when that second icebreaker arrives.
  'We really are just hoping that the two powerful icebreaker ships will provide the breakage of ice that we need.'
  However, he said the ice floes appear to have built up dramatically overnight.
  They are also continuing their research while stranded by testing the temperature of the surrounding ice sheets.
  A spokesman for Australia's Maritime Safety Authority told Australia's Associated Press: 'It is quite a remote part of the world, but we have everyone safe. The vessel isn't in any immediate danger.'
  The spokesman said the ship was visiting a number of sites along the edge of Antarctica.
  One has managed to send a tweet.
  Chris Turney, of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition, wrote: 'Heavy ice. Beautiful; light wind. Only -1degC. All well. Merry Xmas everyone from AAE.'
  Share or comment on this article
Robots and the future of work | TheHill
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 30 Dec 2013 16:10
  The real structural problem of the American labour market can't be seen close up, so let's take a few steps back and look at the productivity trap the USA is currently in and the price that Americans are paying right now for technological progress.
  Moving the factories of the biggest international corporations to cheap labour China, and more recently increasingly to India or Indonesia, isn't a new phenomenon or one that can be solely observed in the American economy. In the XIX century David Ricardo described his theory of comparative advantage, which states that countries should specialise in the areas where they fare better than others. In the recent decade the United States has taken advantage of increasing globalisation and capital mobility and focused on building an economy based on knowledge, services and new technologies, while production was gradually shifted to countries which could more easily achieve economies of scale. The value added to the economy as a result of a month's work of a programmer or lawyer is usually higher than that of a car factory worker. In short we can say that the USA is betting on trading intellectual capital for goods produced abroad. As opposed to a factory, whose opening requires large outlays of capital and labour (building the factory, resources, etc.), creating a new job in Silicon Valley involves a minimum amount of labour in comparison to the financial benefits.
  ADVERTISEMENT
  Technological innovation has become in recent years both the main U.S. competitive advantage and the source of its structural labour market problems. Americans find it increasingly hard to find a job and competition on the labour market is causing ever slower wage growth, which obviously implies lower demand for many types of goods. Additionally, innovation has created an economy based on automation. Apps, software, robots, machines -- they are all effects of innovativeness. American producers of robots are already saying that investments in machines are more profitable than hiring people. Technology enables lower levels of human labour outlays, but the economy doesn't allow these people to survive.Work first fled to Asia. Currently it is being automated. Will it be gone soon? The global economy is created by machines, which generate and analyse huge quantities of data. Using smart phones or tablets people can work from anywhere on the globe, even on the go. Whole categories of jobs, such as travel agents, are starting to disappear. Ever since the 1980s the functions of stockbrokers are being taken over by intelligent algorithms, which are better than humans in capturing changes in stock prices and thus can earn money on those changes, by digitally buying and selling equity. Computer programs are also being employed to analyze large datasets (Big Data). Even a journalist's work can be done by an intelligent programme. There will also be reductions in office and administrative work. In this sector work is often repetitive. The digitisation of document flows and using the right programmes could greatly shorten and speed up this work, leading to job reductions of the suddenly not needed humans.
  Robotisation is the final frontier of the world of work. This is because if a machine can do something, it is only a matter of time before it does this in a cheaper way than a human would. Robots are becoming cheaper and quicker, more precise, which has drawn many economists and advanced technologies specialists to the debate about the disappearance of jobs and substitution of workers by machines. According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) economists Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, the authors of the book "Race Against the Machine" the coming of the era of cheap production automation is a prelude to dramatic changes on the labour market. Other studies confirm this. In a recently published paper titled: "The Future of Employment: How Susceptible are Jobs to Computerisation'' two researchers from Oxford University, C.B. Frey and M.A. Osborne, created a model which calculates the probability of substituting a worker in a given sector. The results of their study can be shocking for hundreds of thousands of people working in transport, production, sales and services. This is because Frey and Osborne have come to the conclusion that 47 percent of active workers may be replaced by machines in the future. Isn't Burgeon, a machine created by the company Momentum Machines, which is able to replace a kitchen worker and produce 360 hamburgers an hour -- that's basically one burger every 10 seconds -- the ideal example for this?
  Turns out it is not! An apocalypse on the labour market will not take place. Robots won't replace us because until the last human need will remain unsatisfied, there will always be incentives for work. It is work which has created contemporary humans, because due to work they had to climb down the trees and form groups of co-workers toiling, for example, in the construction of a defensive structure, which required learning how to communicate, work together, have empathy for others, to help, acquiring culture and social skills. If not for human needs, including relational needs based on joint work or commercial trade, humans might well still be sitting in trees. Needs generate inventions, but they also lead to idleness, according to philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. Likewise robots are the expression of innovativeness and human laziness. No robots work under this definition of the word -- robots only conduct tasks they were programmed to do by humans, who in this way pursue their goals and desires. Therefore the "work" of a robot only boils down to performing mechanical tasks. Real work is based on realising human needs.
  Work is always for someone or for yourself, in order to fulfil your needs or the needs of someone else. The optimal situation is self-fulfilment coupled with meeting these needs. But if this isn't the case then meeting someone's needs is remunerated, usually financially. Needs don't exhaust themselves. They may well change.
  The changes on the labour markets of developed countries have a very strong influence on social structures. The times when these processes could be stopped are firmly in the past. Now all you can do is adapt. Industry will use brains, not muscles. Technological progress will ensure that the biggest barrier to achieving goals will not be technical issues but will reside in human minds. Thus the role of various types of training, services and specialised skills will increase. We will start doing work 2.0 -- flexible, contract-based, hyperspecialised, mobile work demanding the ability to change your qualifications. This work will be based on creativity -- the skill of complex thinking. This is something machines don't have.
  In the long run even cheap labour in China won't be cheap enough to maintain human employment. An increasing number of robots will pervade our lives and work. Resistance to new technologies has always been present and this will remain so in the future. On the other hand history has proven that Victor Hugo was right to say that "nothing can stop an idea whose time has come.'' We are bound to progress, and it is up to us whether we win or lose.
  Prokurat is an economist and historian, and the author of "Work 2.0: Nowhere to hide'' (2013). He is currently a lecturer at University of Euroregional Economy and ISG Paris.
Global retirement crisis bears down on workers of all ages | Breaking News | providencejournal.com | The Providence Journal
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 30 Dec 2013 16:07
  A global retirement crisis is bearing down on workers of all ages.
  Spawned years before the Great Recession and the 2008 financial meltdown, the crisis was significantly worsened by those twin traumas. It will play out for decades, and its consequences will be far-reaching.
  Many people will be forced to work well past the traditional retirement age of 65. Living standards will fall and poverty rates will rise for the elderly in wealthy countries that built safety nets for seniors after World War II. In developing countries, people's rising expectations will be frustrated if governments can't afford retirement systems to replace the tradition of children caring for aging parents.
  The problems are emerging as the generation born after World War II moves into retirement.
  ''The first wave of under-prepared workers is going to try to go into retirement and will find they can't afford to do so,'' says Norman Dreger, a retirement specialist with the consulting firm Mercer in Frankfurt, Germany.
  The crisis is a convergence of three factors:
  Countries are slashing retirement benefits and raising the age to start collecting them. These countries are awash in debt since the recession hit. And they face a demographics disaster as retirees live longer and falling birth rates mean there will be fewer workers to support them.
  Companies have eliminated traditional pension plans that guaranteed employees a monthly check in retirement.
  Individuals spent freely and failed to save before the recession and saw much of their wealth disappear once it hit.
  Those factors have been documented individually. What is less appreciated is their combined ferocity and global scope.
  ''Most countries are not ready to meet what is sure to be one of the defining challenges of the 21st century,'' the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington concludes.
  Mikio Fukushima, who is 52 and lives in Tokyo, worries that he might need to move somewhere cheaper, maybe Malaysia, after age 70 to get by comfortably on income from his investments and a public pension of just $10,000 a year.
  People like Fukushima who are fretting over their retirement prospects stand in contrast to many who are already retired. Many workers were recipients of generous corporate pensions and government benefits that had yet to be cut.
  Jean-Pierre Bigand, 66, retired Sept. 1, in time to enjoy all the perks of a retirement system in France that's now in peril. Bigand lives in the countryside outside the city of Rouen in Normandy. He has a second home in Provence. He's just taken a vacation on Oleron Island off the Atlantic coast and is planning a five-week trip to Guadeloupe.
  ''Travel is our biggest expense,'' he says.
  Under siege
  The notion of extended, leisurely retirements is relatively new. Germany established the world's first widely available state pension system in 1889. The United States introduced Social Security in 1935. In the prosperous years after World War II, governments expanded pensions. In addition, companies began to offer pensions that paid employees a guaranteed amount each month in retirement '-- so-called defined-benefit pensions.
  The average age at which men could retire with full government pension benefits fell from 64.3 years in 1949 to 62.4 years in 1999 in the relatively wealthy countries that belong to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
  ''That was the Golden Age,'' Mercer consultant Dreger says.
  It would not last. As the 2000s dawned, governments '-- and companies '-- looked at actuarial tables and birth rates and realized they couldn't afford the pensions they'd promised.
  The average man in 30 countries the OECD surveyed will live 19 years after retirement. That's up from 13 years in 1958, when many countries were devising their generous pension plans.
  The OECD says the average retirement age would have to reach 66 or 67, from 63 now, to ''maintain control of the cost of pensions'' from longer lifespans.
  Compounding the problem is that birth rates are falling just as the bulge of people born in developed countries after World War II retires.
  Populations are aging rapidly as a result. The higher the percentage of older people, the harder it is for a country to finance its pension system because relatively fewer younger workers are paying taxes.
  In response, governments are raising retirement ages and slashing benefits. In 30 high- and middle-income OECD countries, the average age at which men can collect full retirement benefits will rise to 64.6 in 2050, from 62.9 in 2010; for women, it will rise from 61.8 to 64.4
  In the wealthy countries it studied, the OECD found that the pension reforms of the 2000s will cut retirement benefits by an average 20 percent.
  Even France, where government pensions have long been generous, has begun modest reforms to reduce costs.
  ''France is a retirees' paradise now,'' says Richard Jackson, senior fellow at the CSIS. ''You're not going to want to retire there in 20 to 25 years.''
  Great Recession
  The outlook worsened once the global banking system went into a panic in 2008 and tipped the world into the worst recession since the 1930s.
  Government budget deficits swelled in Europe and the United States. Tax revenue shrank, and governments pumped money into rescuing their banks and financing unemployment benefits. All that escalated pressure on governments to reduce spending on pensions.
  The Great Recession threw tens of millions out of work worldwide. For others, pay stagnated, making it harder to save. Because government retirement benefits are based on lifetime earnings, they'll now be lower. The Urban Institute, a Washington think tank, estimates that lost wages and pay raises will shrink the typical American worker's income at age 70 by 4 percent '-- an average of $2,300 a year.
  Leslie Lynch, 52, of Glastonbury, Conn., had $30,000 in her 401(k) retirement account when she lost her $65,000-a-year job last year at an insurance company. She'd worked there 28 years. She's depleted her retirement savings trying to stay afloat.
  ''I don't believe that I will ever retire now,'' she says.
  Asia challenge
  In Asia, workers are facing a different retirement worry, a byproduct of their astonishing economic growth.
  Traditionally, Chinese and Koreans could expect their grown children to care for them as they aged. But newly prosperous young people increasingly want to live on their own. They also are more likely to move to distant cities to take jobs, leaving parents behind. Countries like China and South Korea are at an ''awkward'' stage, Jackson says: the old ways are vanishing, but new systems of caring for the aged aren't yet in place.
  Yoo Tae-we, 47, a South Korean manager at a trading company that imports semiconductor components, doesn't expect his son to support him as he and his siblings did their parents.
  ''We have to prepare for our own futures rather than depending on our children,'' he says.
  Traditional pensions
  Corporations, too, are cutting pension costs by eliminating traditional defined-benefit plans. They don't want to bear the cost of guaranteeing employees' pensions. They've moved instead to so-called defined-contribution plans, such as 401(k)s, in the United States. These plans shift responsibility for saving to employees.
  But people have proved terrible at taking advantage of these plans. They don't always enroll. They don't contribute enough. They dip into the accounts when they need money.
  They also make bad investment choices '-- buying stocks when times are good and share prices are high and bailing when prices are low.
  Easing the pain
  Rebounding stock prices and a slow rise in housing prices are helping households recover their net worth. In the United States, retirement accounts hit a record $12.5 trillion the first three months of 2013.
  But Boston College's Center for Retirement Research says the recovery in housing and stock prices still leaves about 50 percent of American households at risk of being unable to maintain their standard of living in retirement.
  When they look into the future, retirement experts see more changes in government pensions and longer careers than many workers had expected:
  Cuts in government pension programs like Social Security will likely hit most retirees but will probably fall hardest on the wealthy.
  Those planning to work past 65 can take some comfort knowing they'll be healthier, overall, than older workers in years past. They'll also be doing jobs that aren't as physically demanding.
  In addition, life expectancy at 65 now stretches well into the 80s for people in the 34 OECD countries '-- an increase of about five years since the late 1950s.
72 Minutes With Mark Penn -- New York Magazine
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 30 Dec 2013 15:48
  (Photo: Brian Smale)
  I have five or six key lessons from politics,'' says Mark Penn, the veteran pollster and adviser to both Clintons, in his glass-lined capital office, ''and one of them is that you've got to be explaining who you are, what makes you unique, and what sets you apart.'' Penn, 59, is known for what insiders call ''contrast,'' the kind of slashing, negative advertisement that can dig a candidate out from a fifteen-point hole. As the chief strategist on Hillary Clinton's 2008 race, he was the man behind the ''3 a.m. phone call'' ad that helped tank Obama in the March primaries. He's also the guy who not so subtly brought up Obama's past cocaine use in a televised interview and whose sideline as a consultant for a foreign government got him dropped in the home stretch of Hillary's campaign. Not that Penn spends much time revisiting those memories. ''The only thing I would like to have changed was the outcome,'' he says.
  His Beltway profile suffered, but his reputation as a pugilist apparently did not. In July 2012, he signed on full-time as a strategist for the faltering Microsoft. The mission was to shake up the company's long-standing reluctance to push back publicly against its rivals, Apple and Google, who have been eating up market share. In July, a month before Microsoft announced that CEO Steve Ballmer was on the way out, the company reorganized, putting Penn in charge of advertising, in addition to his strategy portfolio, signaling that Microsoft intended to fight at last. ''Let's understand that competitive is in our bag now,'' he says as he reclines in his office chair. ''People like brands that stand up and say, 'Hey, no, no, no'--let me show you what we do here.''‰''
  Penn's thinning hair is mussed and his shirttail appears to be making an escape from the waistband of his suit pants. But his office is immaculate, one wall dominated by an enormous touchscreen, the others dotted with photos of him with Bill Clinton. It is also filled with metaphors of flight. ''That is the Saturn V,'' he says, gesturing to a large-scale model of the moon-shot rocket. His desk itself is a recycled airplane wing. ''The theme is that we're taking off,'' he says. The floor-to-ceiling windows behind him overlook Washington's K Street corridor. Microsoft's government-affairs team works in a space several stories above, but this half of the building's fifth floor is dedicated solely to Penn's handpicked staff'--a group known as ''the SWAT team.''
  That Microsoft should be in need of a heavily armed quick-reaction force, at least figuratively, says volumes about its change in tactics. Penn's first major ad campaign is called ''Scroogled,'' which warns web surfers about Google's data-tracking practices. Other ads go hard after Apple. In one TV spot, an iPad with a Siri-esque voice laments that in comparison to Surface, Microsoft's entry into the tablet market, she is both less functional'--''Oh, snap, you have a real keyboard, too?'''--and more expensive. ''Do you still think I'm pretty?'' she asks forlornly at the end. Penn isn't the first to bring contrast ads into the tech arena, of course. The Siri ads look like an updated version of Apple's own notorious ''I'm a Mac; I'm a PC'' ads. It's just new for Microsoft to do the fighting.
  ''I was going to show you 'Girlfriend,''‰'' Penn says as he roots around on the tablet in front of him, mumbling softly to himself. When he touches the play button, a winsome actress appears on the screen, standing in a bar. ''Honestly, I wanted a phone with a better camera,'' she says, before enumerating the megapixel-specific features of a phone made by Nokia, the handset-maker that Microsoft is in the process of acquiring. ''So I went with a Windows Phone,'' she says. ''Maybe I just see things other people don't.''
  ''You notice that it frames the choice that she's making,'' Penn tells me, still looking at the screen. ''She is, very politely, going through her decision and drawing a contrast. But she's also supplying the facts in considerable detail.'' It's not dissimilar'--pop soundtrack aside'--from the ads Penn created for Bill Clinton's reelection campaign in 1996, telling voters the story of the four years they'd just lived through. The height of the form was a one-minute beauty called ''America Back,'' which combined audio of the president speaking in maudlin terms about values while onscreen titles listed his achievements in an unending list of Pennian phrases: ''Welfare reform, work requirements '... death penalty for drug kingpins '... $1,500 tax credit '...''
  ''President Clinton really is the master of this'--he taught me that words matter,'' he says. ''And substance and detail matter.
  ''Politics and technology were the two things that I loved since I was a boy, pretty much,'' he says as we walk down a sunlit row of SWAT-team desks outside his office. ''I go back to when we had the first overnight polls with Ed Koch'' for his race in 1977. ''We did it on a microprocessor that I built from a kit.'' During the Clinton years, Penn used polling to identify little slices of the electorate that the campaign should target, famously unearthing ''soccer moms.'' At Microsoft, he bases his decision-making on ''really extensive, regular surveying'' of consumers overlaid with sales data. The picture, he says, is encouraging. ''You take this product,'' Penn says of Surface. When it was introduced last year, ''sales were not as strong. This year, we're sold out.''
  We've arrived at the heart of Penn's operation, a war room fitted with an arc-shaped desk and oversize touchscreens for videoconferencing. At the moment, though, the screens are showing Joe Biden, who is holding an online town hall on immigration reform, using video questions from viewers via Skype, which Microsoft owns, and hosted by Bing, its search engine. ''The vast majority of the American people support this!'' Biden is saying. Penn looks on with interest. He has been careful this afternoon not to make any reference to ideas of professional redemption, but it's clear that he's eager to win again. In the past, the White House has partnered with Twitter and Google-owned YouTube for live-streaming. Today Microsoft is getting a turn. Penn claims he did not ''personally'' make the ask. Unspoken is the fact that Joe Biden isn't his guy'--and that Penn will never be an inner member of the Obama world. But, he says, ''Let's just say, now they have a choice.''
Articles: Will 2014 See a Repeat of 1914?
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 30 Dec 2013 15:45
  Will 2014 see a repeat of 1914?
  That's the provocative question asked in a penetrating essay by Oxford don Margaret MacMillan that is causing quite a stir around the world since it first appeared on the Brookings Institution's website on December 14.
  Here's the question that Professor MacMillan addresses: does China's re-emergence as a dominant economy and world power for the first time since the 1400s threaten a new world war? MacMillan's conclusion?
  Quite possibly. Even more startling, the lead editorial in the year-end double issue of The Economist reaches the same conclusion.
  And foreign policy scholar Walter Russell Meade of Bard College addresses the same topic in his own online essay, entitled "The End of the End of History."
  All told, they constitute a year-end triptych of essential foreign policy reading. For, remarkably in the Age of Obama, all these liberal writers condemn the dangerous foreign policies of not only the current administration in Washington, but also the leaders of the Western alliance, including Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
  Cold War historian Anne Applebaum on Thursday added her own take in the Washington Post. Applebaum wrote that, while no renewal of the Cold War is in prospect, China and Russia are plainly probing U.S. alliances and defenses for weaknesses -- and exploiting those weaknesses when they find them.
  As 2013 ends, it turns out that much-reviled former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was right. Weakness is provocative. And, as Anne Applebaum wrote this week, the Obama administration's weakness abroad is showing.
  So, are China, Japan, and the United States inevitably headed for a world-ending collision like that among Great Britain, France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Germany in the First World War? There's probably no more important question in the world today. And, as our authors all note, that question is not receiving anywhere near the attention it deserves.
  Besides the current shoving match in East Asia, it's the 2014 centennial commemoration of the beginning of the Great War that is prompting this new scholarship. MacMillan's essay -- and her new book, from which it proceeds, The War That EndedPeace: the Road to 1914 (2013) -- are only part of it. Yet her personal and academic background give Margaret MacMillan's argument special force.
  A Canadian, MacMillan is the granddaughter of the late British Prime Minister Lloyd George. As a historian, she's the author of the best-selling -- and highly recommended -- Paris 1919 (2003) on the Versailles Peace Conference. After writing about the treaty that ended the First World War (and largely led to the second one), it was natural to turn to the causes of that war.
  The Guns of August, as Barbara Tuchman titled her 1962 study of WWI's outbreak, aborted the world's first economic globalization. Do developments in Asia and elsewhere threaten to do so again today?
  MacMillan's short answer is taken from Mark Twain. History doesn't repeat itself, Twain said. "But it does rhyme."
  Then she turns to the evidence. She notes, drawing on her new book, the disquieting parallels between 2014 and 1914. Here they are in brief, using the names of the players in 1914:
  * A globalized economy in which Germany and the United Kingdom were each other's largest trading partners. A smug belief, among the intelligentsia and national leaders of the day, that this fact made war impossible. Also a belief that existing international arrangements will be able to prevent an outbreak of mass warfare.
  * An arms race, especially at sea.
  * A revolution in communications, science, and technology, making possible a new paradigm for violence and ways of killing. A military not facing the consequences of the new technology of human killing for strategy, tactics, and casualty rates.
  * A rising Germany seeking an equal "place in the sun" with the British Empire, control of sea lanes to overseas colonies, and sources of raw materials and living space for its soaring population. A fading France, once already beaten by Germany, now outnumbered and outgunned by Germany and fearful of the future.
  * Not least, weak, indecisive, and inexperienced leadership on the British and French side (not to mention Imperial Russia) and a thrusting, hot-tempered, and dominating kaiser on the other.
  Then there occurred, as Bismarck predicted, "some damn thing in the Balkans." The Economist's leader identifies the modern counterparts to these players (and places) of 100 years ago. Regular readers of American Thinker won't need it.
  Thus, Professor Margaret MacMillan's take. Now, a little context.
  Unsurprisingly, it was former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who first noted the new American foreign policy challenge posed by the rise of China. It was, after all, President Richard Nixon and his then-national security advisor Kissinger who ended Red China's isolation from the Western nation-state system in 1972.
  In OnChina (2011), Kissinger wrote that the Chinese leadership itself has been keenly aware of whether China's rise in the 21st century will parallel that of Germany in the 20th. And they are also keenly anxious to refute that comparison. Kissinger devoted the last section of his book to the famous 1907 Crowe Memorandum.
  That key British Foreign Office document assured Great Britain's leaders that confrontation with Imperial Germany was inevitable and recommended a hard line by the British government against future German demands. The result, seven years later, was World War I.
  Kissinger's conclusion in 2011, however, was that a benign debut of China on the world stage is both desirable and possible -- but that the relationship needs constant managing. You might call Kissinger's prescription "the Gulliver Strategy." China, Kissinger argued, needs to be enmeshed, as a player but not a prisoner, within the existing structure of international agreements and organizations.
  It's far from clear, however, that that's what the new Chinese leadership wants.
  In particular, rather like the Imperial Chinese government's reaction to the first European ambassadors in the late 1700s, a Chinese leader in 2014 might well ask himself why his ancient nation should buy into a Westphalian world system that China did not help create. All the lines on the map were drawn by the European powers (and the U.S.) when China was on its knees! America's insistence that China stay within those lines -- not to mention the U.S. Navy's insistence on steaming 5,000 miles from their own home and only 100 miles off the Chinese coast -- looks remarkably like, in Chinese eyes, a re-run of "containment."
  That's especially the case given China's historical perception of itself as the center of the world and of its culture and nationality as superior to all others.
  There is simply no evidence that those fundamental Chinese attitudes -- noted as well by Teddy White in his memoir, In Search of History (1978) -- have changed since the coming of Mao and his Communists (whom White knew as a Chinese-speaking correspondent in China) to power in 1949. To the contrary, White (who traveled with Nixon back to China in 1973) found them still very much present. Nor has the current Chinese leadership's belief -- accurate, unfortunately -- that China was victimized, dismembered, exploited, and oppressed by the European powers in a series of wars and "unequal treaties" in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
  Japan's brutal occupation, war, and crimes against humanity in China during the Second World War has not been forgotten, either. Prime Minister Abe's visit this week to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo has only rubbed this wound raw again.
  Yet "peaceful rise" has been the by-word in Beijing's public statements for some years. The problem is that the Chinese leadership's actions -- at least in the eyes of China's neighbors -- do not match their words.
  Indeed, in the last month, we have seen a series of actions by the Chinese government in the East and South China Seas. First, on November 23, Beijing unilaterally proclaimed an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea overlapping islands claimed by both China and Japan. That's made Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and the Philippines distinctly more belligerent towards the Chinese.
  Second, three weeks ago, an American guided-missile frigate and the Chinese naval vessels escorting China's new aircraft carrier came within two hundred yards of a high seas collision. The U.S. says the confrontation occurred in international waters. China's account as to what transpired on December 5 differs radically from the U.S. Navy's account.
  Pretty clearly, the USS Cowpens was shadowing the new Chinese carrier. And, pretty clearly, the Chinese admiral didn't like it.
  Why should they? Once again, China has history -- and more than a little merit (in terms of foreign policy realism) -- on its side. Imperial China, centuries ago, controlled all these disputed areas. Ming China also ruled large parts of what is now Russian Asia.
  Thus, it can be argued that, from a great power perspective, all China is seeking in its nearby territorial space is what the United States has possessed in the Caribbean and the Western Hemisphere since its unilateral proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine in the 1820s and America's building of the Panama Canal in the early 1900s.
  So, what's the real game here, as what Walter Russell Meade has labeled "the Game of Thrones in Asia" continues to build? As Anne Applebaum writes, China surely doesn't want (another) war with the United States. What is Beijing after?
  One distinct possibility is that China's island disputes with Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam and its proclamation of an ADIZ in the East China Sea -- especially if that move is followed with the proclamation of an ADIZ in the South China Sea -- are all merely markers to be traded away by Beijing in a high-stakes game whose real objective (and ultimate prize for China) is the recovery of Taiwan. The loss of what General Douglas MacArthur called "an unsinkable aircraft carrier" off the Chinese coast would set the United States' presence in East Asia back significantly.
  Beijing may even be ultimately seeking something larger: a grand bargain with the United States to remake Asia. China and the United States, after all, fought a conventional war against each other in Korea from 1950 to 1953. At least 33,000 Americans died and at least 150,000 Chinese in a two-and-a-half-year war. Very few Americans remember this. Almost all Chinese do.
  China's insistence today on the so-called nine-dotted line, the first and second island chains, the string of pearls, and all the rest needs to be evaluated in the light of that history as well.
  If the negotiated restoration to Beijing of Taiwan (say, after a plebiscite) could be made part of a "Grand Bargain" between China and Washington that also addresses the presence of U.S. troops in South Korea in the context of solving the problem of a nuclear (and unstable, not to mention a humanitarian disaster) North Korea, the United States, in my judgment, might find the Chinese well-disposed to deal.
  But such a grand bargain would upend the existing post-WWII security arrangements in East Asia. It would also greatly discomfort America's allies in the region. It might destroy ASEAN and the American-Japanese mutual security treaty. A nuclear-armed Japan would be only one short-term result.
  And such discussions could certainly not be undertaken by the current administration. Yet, such a grand bargain with America -- which would restore China to its historical position in Asia -- may very well be what the new Chinese leadership wants.
  What must be faced, therefore -- Barack Obama's much-hyped "pivot" to Asia notwithstanding -- is that we are now in danger of a repeat of experiencing, with China, Bismarck's "some damned thing in the Balkans": an international incident triggering a shooting war. Such a causus belli is most likely to occur not between us and the Chinese, but between China and Japan or China and South Korea.
  As the Economist said this week, unless all the pushing and shoving is brought under control, the risk to peace in Asia is high. And, it should be noted, there is yet another potential major actor in this mix. India -- like China, a rising nation of over a billion people -- is also building a blue-water navy, including aircraft carriers. The Indian and Japanese navies held joint maneuvers last week.
  Barring a grand bargain between Washington and Beijing, the ultimate stakes, of course, are control of the Straits of Malacca (through which most of the world's oil passes) and the Indian Ocean -- including the entrance to the Persian Gulf. Existing international law and United States foreign policy, enforced by the U.S. Navy, are to regard these bodies as part of the "global commons."
  It is far from clear that China -- which is totally dependent, at the moment on Middle East oil (hence its covetousness of the undersea petroleum riches of the China Seas) -- agrees.
  As Stratfor's Robert D. Kaplan wrote three years ago in Monsoon: the Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power (2011), there is a major arms race underway -- and it is in Asia. Without a deal resulting in changes to the post-Korean, post-Vietnam status quo, the pressure cooker there of rising nationalism, historic enmities, economic need, and decreasing elbow room will only continue to build.
  What can be done in the interim -- at least until there can be a change in administrations in Washington -- is the subject of the lead editorial in this week's Economist. The piece is entitled "Look Back in Angst." Without mentioning Professor Margaret MacMillan by name, the Economist notes the same similarities (and differences) between 1914 and 2014 which her Brookings Institution essay notes.
  Their prescription for today, which assumes (contrary to Beijing's apparent intentions, it should be noted) a continuation of the current status quo, is twofold:
  - arrangements should be put in place between China and the United States on how to address a military outbreak or political implosion in nuclear-armed North Korea; and
  - the United States should get back in the game of being the essential global player.
  The Economist statement on the latter point is a remarkable condemnation of current American diplomacy. They write (emphasis in original):
  The second precaution that would make the world safer is a more active American foreign policy. Despite forging an interim nuclear agreement with Iran, Barack Obama has pulled back in the Middle East-witness his unwillingness to use force in Syria. He has also done little to bring the new emerging giants-India, Indonesia, Brazil and, above all, China-into the global system. This betrays both a lack of ambition and an ignorance of history. Thanks to its military, economic and soft power, America is still indispensable, particularly in dealing with threats like climate change and terror, which cross borders. But unless America behaves as a leader and the guarantor of the world order, it will be inviting regional powers to test their strength by bullying neighbouring countries.
  The Economist's views, thus, dovetail neatly with those expressed by Anne Applebaum.
  Finally, we have Walter Russell Meade. In a provocative essay of his own in the current issue of The American Interest entitled "The End of History Ends," Meade builds on many of the insights which Stratfor's Robert D. Kaplan offered on the impact of geography on world history and foreign and military policy in The Revenge of Geography: What the Map Tells Us About Coming Conflicts and the Battle Against Fate (2013).
  Kaplan's point, argued con brio, was that "geopolitics" and the need for geopolitical thinking have returned to American foreign and military policy with a vengeance. And the future cockpit of conflict for geopolitics, he says, is certain to be Eurasia ("the World Island" or "the Pivot," in the words of earlier thinks) and the Indian Ocean. The Indian Ocean littoral was the subject of Robert Kaplan's previous book, Monsoon.
  Meade has plainly read Kaplan (and, no doubt, the earlier thinkers on geopolitics whom Kaplan discusses). Meade's piece, like his online blog, calls for a new U.S. grand strategy -- particularly in Asia -- to replace the Euro-centric one put in place by the Truman administration after the end of the Second World War.
  In short, the challenge for the next American president may be to remake American foreign policy to reflect a new geopolitical reality. How this was done the last time was described by Truman's former secretary of state, Dean Acheson, in his aptly titled Present at the Creation (1970).
  All in all, it's been a rich harvest this year in writing about geopolitics and grand strategy. Hard questions are being asked. With the shoving match underway in, under, and above the East and South China Seas, the ferment among defense experts and geopolitical thinkers is sure to continue.
  Is anyone in the White House and at the top of the U.S. State Department listening?
  On the evidence, probably not.
China to evacuate South Sudan oil workers to capital
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 30 Dec 2013 15:33
  China to evacuate South Sudan oil workers to capitalTop News
  China to evacuate South Sudan oil workers to capital
  Fri, Dec 20 05:29 AM EST
  BEIJING (Reuters) - China National Petroleum Company, a main oil investor in South Sudan, is evacuating oil workers to the capital, Juba, amid continued fighting in the world's newest country, a company official and state media said on Friday.
  State news agency Xinhua said CNPC planned to fly out 32 workers.
  "We are arranging the orderly evacuation of our workers, but the affected oilfield was not operated by CNPC," said a CNPC media official, without commenting on whether the company's oil production was affected.
  Xinhua said an oilfield in the northern part of South Sudan, operated by a consortium of Indian, Malaysian and South Sudanese companies, was caught up in unrest on Thursday that killed 14 South Sudanese oil workers.
  China's Foreign Ministry said that the embassy there would help evacuate Chinese nationals.
  "The embassy will continue to urge the government of South Sudan to take measures to protect the safety of Chinese workers and organizations," ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told a daily news briefing.
  China has expressed concern about the unrest and urged a swift return to peace.
  CNPC is major shareholder in two oil consortia that operate in South Sudan - Petrodar, which also counts Malaysian state oil firm Petronas as a partner, and the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company (GNPOC). India's ONGC Videsh also operates oilfields, and France's Total has exploration acreage in country.
  South Sudan, a nation the size of France, has the third-largest reserves in Sub-Saharan Africa after Angola and Nigeria, according to BP.
  Oil production, which had been about 245,000 barrels per day, supplies the government with most of its revenues.
  The conflict in South Sudan has killed hundreds and deepened ethnic divisions in the two-year-old nation. South Sudanese government troops battled to regain control of a flashpoint town and sent forces to quell fighting in a vital oil producing area on Thursday, the fifth day of the conflict.
  A United Nations official reported on Thursday that about 200 oil workers who sought refuge at a U.N. base in Unity State, a South Sudanese oil-producing region bordering Sudan, were expected to be evacuated by their employers, without naming the companies involved.
  (Reporting by Adam Rose and Chen Aizhu; Editing by Nick Macfie)
  China to evacuate South Sudan oil workers to capitalTop News
  China to evacuate South Sudan oil workers to capital
  Fri, Dec 20 05:29 AM EST
  BEIJING (Reuters) - China National Petroleum Company, a main oil investor in South Sudan, is evacuating oil workers to the capital, Juba, amid continued fighting in the world's newest country, a company official and state media said on Friday.
  State news agency Xinhua said CNPC planned to fly out 32 workers.
  "We are arranging the orderly evacuation of our workers, but the affected oilfield was not operated by CNPC," said a CNPC media official, without commenting on whether the company's oil production was affected.
  Xinhua said an oilfield in the northern part of South Sudan, operated by a consortium of Indian, Malaysian and South Sudanese companies, was caught up in unrest on Thursday that killed 14 South Sudanese oil workers.
  China's Foreign Ministry said that the embassy there would help evacuate Chinese nationals.
  "The embassy will continue to urge the government of South Sudan to take measures to protect the safety of Chinese workers and organizations," ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told a daily news briefing.
  China has expressed concern about the unrest and urged a swift return to peace.
  CNPC is major shareholder in two oil consortia that operate in South Sudan - Petrodar, which also counts Malaysian state oil firm Petronas as a partner, and the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company (GNPOC). India's ONGC Videsh also operates oilfields, and France's Total has exploration acreage in country.
  South Sudan, a nation the size of France, has the third-largest reserves in Sub-Saharan Africa after Angola and Nigeria, according to BP.
  Oil production, which had been about 245,000 barrels per day, supplies the government with most of its revenues.
  The conflict in South Sudan has killed hundreds and deepened ethnic divisions in the two-year-old nation. South Sudanese government troops battled to regain control of a flashpoint town and sent forces to quell fighting in a vital oil producing area on Thursday, the fifth day of the conflict.
  A United Nations official reported on Thursday that about 200 oil workers who sought refuge at a U.N. base in Unity State, a South Sudanese oil-producing region bordering Sudan, were expected to be evacuated by their employers, without naming the companies involved.
  (Reporting by Adam Rose and Chen Aizhu; Editing by Nick Macfie)
China's uncomfortable diplomacy keeps South Sudan's oil flowing
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 30 Dec 2013 15:32
  As South Sudan's biggest oil customer, China has found itself at the centre of attempts to resolve disputes with northern neighbour Sudan.
  China has UN peacekeepers deployed in both Sudan and south Sudan (Image copyright: United Nations Photo)
  In January, South Sudan's government brought oil production to a dramatic standstill, accusing its neighbour, Sudan, of charging excessive export fees and seizing oil shipments. A few days later, the head of the major Chinese-led oil consortium was expelled from the country for ''non cooperation''. Oil companies, caught by surprise, were forced to close wells so quickly that congealing crude oil risked damaging the pipelines, a Chinese oil executive told Reuters.
  An agreement signed by Sudan and South Sudan at the end of September, backed by Beijing, was due to see production resume last week, pulling the two countries back from the brink of war.
  China's role in resolving the dispute has prompted speculation that it is ready to take a more active role in conflict resolution in the war-torn region. But is this really the case? China's authorities, in fact, appear reluctant, while larger territory disputes between Sudan and South Sudan, combined with internal ethnic conflict, still threaten to take the region beyond the help of intervention.
  Chinese diplomacy?
  South Sudan '' which depends on oil revenues for 98% of its annual budget '' broke away from Sudan after an independence vote last July, the culmination of a peace deal forged in 2005. It followed decades of war in which more than 2 million people died. Before the country divided in two, Sudan produced around 500,000 barrels of crude oil per day. The split left 75% of the oil fields in South Sudan and the north in control of a Chinese-built pipeline and port for export. Lack of agreement over how to divide the country's vast oil wealth has become an inevitable flashpoint.
  To keep the oil flowing, China, as South Sudan's biggest oil investor and consumer (accounting for 82% of its oil exports), has been drawn uncomfortably into the high-stakes conflict between north and south. China's envoy for African affairs, Liu Guijin, was dispatched to break this year's deadlock, warning that if the two sides fail to resolve the problem, the "whole region would be affected; the repercussions would be very serious".
  The state-owned China National Petroleum Company (CNPC) led the development of Sudan's oil industry during the 1990s in what was then China's first major overseas investment, when raging civil war in Darfur kept most western companies away.
  Chinese involvement in South Sudan is newer, but nonetheless crucial to the continuity of Beijing's oil investments, which are now situated primarily in the south. Other Chinese companies and private entrepreneurs have flocked to Juba, South Sudan's capital, looking for opportunities in infrastructure and new markets to push their products, along with Indian, Malaysian and other international counterparts.
  China also has political reasons for intervening, says Luke Patey, expert on oil investment in the Sudans at the Danish Institute of Development Studies. The government wants to be seen as a responsible player by the international community for ''doing their share to build peace alongside other international actors, particularly the US,'' he says.
  This appears to sit uncomfortably with the cornerstone of China's foreign policy '' non-interference in other countries' affairs. Deborah Brautigam, expert in China-Africa relations and author of The Dragon's Gift: The Real Story of China in Africa, said in a recent interview with Voice of America: ''Sudan is fascinating because it's a good example of how China is getting pushed out of its comfort zone in its non-interference policy. You can see that in trying to broker this recent agreement. They've had their first special envoy '' shuttle diplomacy. The Chinese never did that before.''
  Mounting risks, falling returns
  The recent oil deal may have soothed international concerns, but the real challenges facing China are framed outside the agreement. ''The elephant in the room,'' explains Daniel Large, a UK based scholar on China-Sudan relations, are the other conflicts in the border region. ''The international community have hoped that China could offer 'a quick fix' when really the conflict is down to the two parties involved.''
  Final status of the contested oil-rich Abyei state remains unresolved, while on the northern side of the border, rebellions in South Kordofan and Blue Nile states are worsening. In South Sudan, independence has inflamed internal conflicts, with militia contesting the legitimacy of central government, and between ethnic groups, fighting over scare resources and access to political power.
  Heightened conflict has affected oil production and put workers at huge risk. In January, 29 Chinese construction workers were kidnapped in South Kordofan. In an earlier incident in 2008, Chinese oil workers were kidnapped and killed in the same region, sending shock waves back home.
  At the same time, oil in South Sudan is no longer as important as it once was to China's global energy strategy; other regions, such as Iraq and Venezuela, now offer more lucrative opportunities for CNPC. ''Oil production in South Sudan was stagnating before the shutdown took place'', says Patey. ''What the industry needs now is new discoveries'...and also a lot of investment in advanced recovery techniques, water and gas pumping, and horizontal drilling.'' But savvy investors are unlikely to step forward in the current climate.
  Chinese diplomats also seem to be taking a wait and see approach. The new government in South Sudan, which desperately needs infrastructure, has recognised the necessity of Chinese investment. But an US$8 billion infrastructure package reportedly agreed during South Sudan president Salva Kirr's state visit to Beijing in April notably went unconfirmed by the Chinese government.
  Set against these concerns, however, is the symbolic importance China attaches to the region: Sudan is one of the Chinese Communist Party's longest standing allies in Africa and the first site of China's ''go out'' policy. Every Sudan-watcher chinadialogue spoke to stressed that this status is likely to ensure China takes a long-term perspective and holds out for more peaceful times.
  Environmental and human impacts of oil investment
  Even if China gets what it wants '' oil pouring out of the country '' the environmental and human impacts of oil activities in the region still raise huge concerns. The end of civil war may have stopped the most egregious human rights abuses, the massacres and displacements, associated with oil activities. But significant problems remain, according to Leben Nelson Moro, from the University of Juba. Continued property destruction, land expropriated without compensation and massive environmental damage is serving to fuel local resentment towards oil companies, also seen complicit in the abuses committed during the war.
  The extent to which companies act responsibly will, say observers, depend on the strength of local laws. The vast savannah ecosystems and swamplands of South Sudan '' home to elephants, giraffe, water buffalo and which hosts the migration of Kob antelopes '' are particularly vulnerable in the face of renewed oil activities. ''Chinese companies will follow suit on the government's lead,'' says Dana Wilkins, campaigner at Global Witness, which is preparing to release a report analysing South Sudan's oil laws.
  ''Just look at CNPC at home,'' says Patey. ''They've been involved in major environmental disasters in the past 10 years: oil spills into Bohai Bay, gas spills in rivers, a huge gas explosion that killed people in 2005. So how these companies operate at home does not bode well for how they will operate in Sudan and South Sudan if there is no strong regulation from the government there.''
  For more than a decade speculators have manipulated energy markets, forcing up the price of oil and the subsidies that go with it.
  Chinese investors have broken a boycott on investment in African dams '' and loosened the grip of the environment lobby. This is good news for the continent, water expert Mike Muller tells Olivia Boyd.
  Snapping up resources around the world, China's state-owned oil companies are feared as aggressive agents of government interest. But, increasingly, these players are led by market signals, not Beijing diktats.
  Sam Geall introduces a series of articles that seek to enhance our understanding of environment and development in Africa '' and China's increasingly controversial role on the continent.
  China's growing agribusinesses and demand for soybeans and meat is bringing intensive farming and the risk of further deforestation in Brazil and beyond.
  Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200
  China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) is on the brink of taking on oil and gas rights across more than 1 million hectares of Peru's Amazon '' including areas of serious environmental problems
  China continues to invest in energy, infrastructure and agricultural projects in the region, with the aim of building a trade corridor as an 'East-West' gateway
  We pick out the most popular and important stories published on chinadialogue from the past year, including the likelihood of nuclear disaster and life inside a mining company
  A year of continuing environmental degradation, together with a failure to hold derelict and neglectful officials to account has left chinadialogue's Beijing editor Liu Jianqiang disappointed
  Illicit recycling of lead batteries is blocking more environmentally-friendly methods of disposal
  The opposition to the Tiger Leaping Gorge dam was a seminal moment for China's environmental protection movement, says director of a documentary on the campaign
  The Fate of the Species by Fred Guterl is a bracing overview of the worst that can happen if humans do not overcome their ecological and Earth-systems illiteracy, writes Caspar Henderson.
  ç‰¹æ­¤ç--"æŽ¼šä¸­å¤–å¯¹è¯'ä¸å¯¹ä>>>>ä½•å¤–éƒ¨é'¾æŽ¥çšå†…å®¹æ‰æ‹…è´£ä>>>>ã‚chinadialogue is not responsible for the content of linked external sites
China's South Sudan Dilemma | The Diplomat
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 30 Dec 2013 15:27
  Violence in South Sudan may test China's absolute commitment to non-interference in other countries' domestic affairs
  New waves of violence in South Sudan have worried governments around the world, and Beijing is no exception. Clashes between rebel forces and the South Sudanese government jeopardize the lives of Chinese citizens in the country, as well as throwing into question the future of South Sudan's vast oil fields.
  Violence began in the South Sudan after President Salva Kiir announced that this his government has prevented a coup attempt by Vice President Riek Machar. Machar denied the accusation and accused Kirr of fabricating an excuse to crack down on opposition. Violence in the capital of Juba is believed to have killed hundreds of people, and the uprisings have spread. Unrest has continued along ethnic lines: Kirr is part of the majority Dinka ethnic group, while Machar is of the Nuer ethnic group.
  The unrest has already caused at least one international incident. On December 19, a group of armed Nuer youths opened fire on a United Nations base that was providing refuge for Dinka civilians. According to the UN News Center, two UN peacekeepers from India and 20 civilians were killed in the attack. In addition to UN peacekeepers, many foreign oil companies have staff stationed in South Sudan. These foreign civilians could now be caught in the cross-fire. Rebel forces, according to the New York Times, have taken over control of some of South Sudan's oil fields.
  In a press conference, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying said that ''China strongly condemns the violent action against the UN Mission in South Sudan'' although she noted that ''Chinese peacekeepers in South Sudan are safe.'' She confirmed that the staff members of some Chinese companies in the region are preparing to return to China. ''The Chinese Embassy in South Sudan will continue to provide necessary assistance for the Chinese citizens in their evacuation, and it calls on the government of South Sudan to ensure the safety of Chinese citizens and institutions,'' Hua said.
  The violence brings upheaval to a region that many hoped would settle down after years of the bloody civil war that preceded South Sudan's official split from Sudan. That conflict was a particular headache for China. Beijing had invested heavily in Sudan's oil industry before the violent civil war resulted in South Sudan's independence. The founding of South Sudan meant that much of the oil China sought was now located in a different country.
  China recognized South Sudan in July 2011, shortly after the new country's founding. Hu Jintao sent a congratulatory message to South Sudan's new president, saying that ''China respects the political system and development path the South Sudanese have chosen.'' Hu added, ''China also stands ready to establish and develop friendly and cooperative relations with the new nation based on the five principles of peaceful coexistence.'' One of the referenced five principles is non-interference in each other's internal affairs, a principle that will become increasing difficult for China to honor if foreign unrest affects Chinese citizens and business investments.
  Many are concerned that the violence will interrupt the country's oil production, which is a crucial part of South Sudan's economy. Global Witness estimates that oil revenue makes up 98 percent of South Sudan's annual budget, making oil production a logical target for rebels. China National Petroleum Company moved Friday to evacuate oil workers to South Sudan's capital, Juba. About 200 oil workers fled to a United Nations base in Unity State, seeking refuge from the violence. Xinhuanotes that South Sudan's government insists that ''oil is flowing normally from the production sites to Sudan's oil pipeline,'' but with rebel action targeting oil fields it's obvious that continued production is in question.
  Beijing already has a lot invested in South Sudan. Since the country's founding, China has offered the South Sudan government loans and assistance for various development projects, including a September 2013 deal to provide aid to South Sudan's mining industry. China's oil companies are also active in the oil-rich state. According to Reuters, CNPC is a major shareholder in two large oil groups operating in South Sudan, Petrodar and the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company. Chinadialogue reports that China consumes over 80 percent of South Sudan's oil exports. Now, once again, China finds its investments in jeopardy.
  On Monday, Hua noted that ''China is greatly concerned with the development of South Sudan's situation, and is promoting negotiation with its own way.'' ''We will work with all relevant parties to promote the conflicting sides in solving their disputes through dialogue and negotiation, and promote the situation of South Sudan to resume stability as soon as possible,'' Hua said. However, Beijing's options are limited by its long-standing insistence on non-interference in other countries' internal affairs.
  China has made non-interference a keystone of its foreign policy, in part because China would like other nations to accord Beijing the same courtesy. However, as Chinese companies are increasingly global players, China's non-interference policy may come to clash with other fundamental national interests. Beijing is greatly concerned with ensuring food and energy security '-- two needs that are tied to foreign supply chains. When the internal unrest of another country, such as the South Sudan, threatens one of these interests, Beijing has tough calculations to make. Does a strict adherence to non-interference outweigh the potential threat to oil supplies? And what about the lives of Chinese citizens in affected areas?
  Already, China has been pushed to mediate between South Sudan and Sudan to ensure oil production continues. When South Sudan shut down oil production, accusing Sudan of stealing oil, China was forced to help resolve the dispute. This time, the conflict is between internal factions within South Sudan. If China were to mediate, it would risk violating the sacrosanct principles of non-interference. This explains Hua's caveat that China ''is promoting negotiation with its own way.'' Beijing can't afford to do nothing, but its hands are tied by its foreign policy principles.
  As China becomes more globalized, Beijing may be forced to take a more active role to safeguard the lives of its citizens and Chinese business interests. In the coming years, Beijing might have to rethink its foreign policy calculus, especially how it interprets ''non-interference.''
China to send envoy to S Sudan to protect oil fields | News | Africa | Mail & Guardian
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 30 Dec 2013 15:26
  China will send its special envoy for Africa to South Sudan to help push talks and protect its oil interests.
  A South Sudanese woman with a child sits on December 25 2013 at the main hospital in Bor which troops loyal to President Salva Kiir re-captured from rebel forces. (AFP)
  China will send its special envoy for Africa to South Sudan to help push talks, China's foreign minister was quoted as saying on Thursday, as the world's newest country spirals into violence.
  The envoy will head to South Sudan "soon" to communicate with all parties, Foreign Minister Wang Yi said during a visit to Saudi Arabia on Wednesday, in comments carried on the Foreign Ministry's website.
  Wang did not name the envoy, but he was likely referring to Zhong Jianhua, an urbane veteran diplomat who has deep experience of the conflict in South Sudan.
  The announcement came a day after China called for all sides in the South Sudan conflict to stop fighting.
  Big investorThe conflict has killed hundreds and some 45 000 civilians are seeking protection at UN bases. Violence erupted in the capital, Juba, on December 15 and quickly spread, dividing the land-locked country of 10.8-million people along ethnic lines.
  "China is highly concerned about the evolving situation in South Sudan," Wang said.
  China has extensive energy interests in South Sudan.
  It is already the biggest investor in oilfields in South Sudan, through state-owned Chinese oil giants China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) and Sinopec. Beijing is also one of Sudane'a President Omar Hassan al-Bashir's major supporters.
  The fighting has also affected oil production, which accounts for 98% of government revenue in South Sudan. It has forced CNPC to evacuate some of its workers. '' Reuters
How Hollywood cloaked South Sudan in celebrity and fell for the 'big lie'
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 30 Dec 2013 15:22
  When violence erupted two weeks ago in the world's youngest country, one of the first voices to speak out, before the US president or the head of the United Nations, was that of the Hollywood actor George Clooney. There was nothing particularly objectionable about his counsel, which in any case was more likely authored by the American activist John Prendergast, with whom he shared a byline. It spoke of the need for a robust UN response and, even as tens of thousands of civilians fled ethnically motivated death squads, of the "opportunities" present in South Sudan.
  This is a country, not yet two and a half years old, whose birth has been soaked in celebrity like no other. As well as Clooney, Matt Dillon and Don Cheadle have been occasional visitors who have tried to use their star power to place the international public firmly in the corner of this plucky upstart nation.
  Unsurprisingly, the actors were highly effective at communicating a narrative about the new country that borrowed from a simple script. The south had fought a bloody two-decade battle for its independence against an Islamic and chauvinist north led by an indicted war criminal. The cost of that war, regularly touted as two million lives, meant that the south would need huge development support to lift it from the impoverished floor of every quality of life index published.
  The great threat in this narrative was the vile regime in Khartoum, the capital of rump Sudan, which would seek to undermine its southern breakaway, or march back to war to reclaim some of its lost oilfields.
  It was a seductive story that could be well told by handsome movie stars against the lavish backdrop supplied by South Sudan's superheated swamps and deserts and often beautiful people. But the narrative '' part truth, part wilful misunderstanding '' was deeply flawed. This would have mattered less if it had only informed public opinion, but instead it found its way into the building of a state.
  Sudan, the former British colony that became Africa's largest state, has been in a condition of slow-burning internal conflict almost since independence in the 1950s. The second instalment of civil war was ended by the comprehensive peace agreement signed in 2005. The deal provided for a cooling-off period of six years before a loosely geographically defined south would be given the chance to vote on secession from the north.
  The war had been brought to life in the US by broadcast evangelicals such as Billy Graham, who cast it as a heroic battle by Christian and African underdogs against a more powerful Muslim and Arab foe. The fact that religious and geographical lines were never remotely this clear and clean-cut was routinely ignored. The Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), under the leadership of the charismatic John Garang, was not fighting for an independent south but a democratic "new Sudan". Its forces were drawn from areas far beyond what are now the borders of South Sudan. And its battles were, for the most part, not against the national army, the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) but against rival militia groups, often drawn from the same great southern tribes, such as the Dinka and Nuer, that the SPLA leadership came from.
  Much of the fighting and dying took place in the south, often with funding and encouragement from the north. This meant that a new country would have to be built in what had been the main theatre of the war, with a nation drawn from opposing sides in much of that conflict. No serious effort was made by any side in the post-2005 cooling-off period to reconcile the north and south. The US, Europe, the UN and the south's near-neighbours, Ethiopia, Uganda and Kenya, all pushed for the country to be broken up. This effort was formalised in a referendum in 2011.
  The pursuit of separation at all costs made it harder to admit certain truths such as ethnic divisions and created the need for the "big lie", as one senior UN official calls it. "The big lie is that there was no ethnic problem in South Sudan. There is a political problem."
  The midwife to the state-building was the UN peacekeeping mission '' now known as Unmiss '' a sprawling operation costing roughly $1bn a year. A further $1bn in development aid was pumped in annually by donors such as the US and Britain. As it was believed that there were no entrenched ethnic issues to overcome, the mandate for Unmiss '' when it was drafted by the UN security council '' framed the challenges for the new country as purely developmental. The choice of Hilde Johnson, a former Norwegian minister of international development, to head the mission reflected this.
  While demobilisation and disarmament schemes were announced, for much of the time between 2005 and the referendum governing consisted of farming out oil and aid money to civil-war-era military commanders in order to keep the peace. Little was done to break up old units and forge a truly national army. The SPLA had become a big tent into which armed ethnic militias with no uniform, training or shared identity had wandered in order to get paid.
  The complete dysfunction of South Sudan's government since independence in 2011 was largely ignored. When the president, Salva Kiir, accused his own government of looting $4bn in state assets and foreign aid money, little was said. When Kiir, who is from the south's biggest ethnic group, the Dinka, began to entrench its power at the expense of other communities, creating what people called a Dinkocracy, the UN said nothing. In the meantime Johnson, who is criticised by her own staff in private for being too close to the president, trumpeted the need for "service delivery", even as a vicious power struggle raged in the ruling party.
  While critics argue that the prime focus should have been security instruments (the army) and executive instruments (the government), all the talk was of democracy, human rights and development '' even though this was rarely matched by any action.
  "You can't do that if the elites are arguing and trying not to kill each other," said the senior UN official, on condition of anonymity.
  "A lot of people who knew about state building in Africa were screaming bloody murder."
  When Kiir sacked his entire government to pre-empt a political power grab by his vice-president, Riek Machar, an ethnic Nuer, from South Sudan's second most populous group, the international community chided him half-heartedly. As both sides mobilised their supporters along ethnic lines and prepared for a renewed conflict, the UN and diplomats continued to refer to the increasingly autocratic president as "steadfast".
  When fighting finally broke out on 15 December and elements of the presidential guard went house to house in the fledgling capital, Juba, murdering Nuer civilians, the talk was still of a political not an ethnic conflict. When Nuer youths who mobilise under the banner of the civil-war-era White Army overran a UN outpost, killing two peacekeepers and murdering Dinka officials, it was blamed by some on media inciting tit-for-tat attacks.
  Jok Madut Jok, an academic and former culture minister, who had been one of the most passionate exponents of South Sudan, was among many intellectuals who railed against international reporting of the ethnic slaughter as irresponsible and lacking in context.
  After visiting Nuer colleagues among the 63,000 South Sudanese who had gone into hiding in UN bases around the country, he described in an open letter how he had wept by the roadside: "My Nuer friends are very scared and will not even fathom returning to their homes, given what they saw during the fighting in Juba. But their present circumstance is humiliating to them, big army officers, senior government officials and university students who feel they cannot be safe in their own capital city in which they have lived for many years."
  Much trumpeted peace efforts remain just "talks about talks", according to diplomats involved. Both sides are dusting off veterans from the 1990s '' the era of the most deadly fighting. A battle looms for the oilfields of the ironically named Unity State, currently held by rebels under the former vice-president.
  After years of denial from the international community, the only way out of a repeat of past wars will be another round of payoffs to military commanders and a reluctant return to square one on the state-building board, accompanied by an admission of past failures.
  July 2011 South Sudan gains independence.
  15 December 2013 Fighting erupts after gunmen fire at the presidential palace. President Salva Kiir blames his former deputy, Riek Machar, for attempting a coup.
  24 December The UN finds three mass graves in two regions of South Sudan. A senior official claims the death toll has run "into the thousands".
  27 December South Sudan commits to a ceasefire after two weeks of clashes that have caused more than 120,000 people to flee their homes.
Hilde Frafjord Johnson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 30 Dec 2013 15:22
  Hilde Frafjord Johnson (born 29 August 1963 in Arusha, Tanganyika) is a Norwegianpolitician from the Christian Democratic Party.[1] She is a former Minister of International Development of Norway, and member of the Norwegian Government. She currently serves as the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and Head of the United Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan.[2]
  Early life and education[edit]Born in Arusha, Tanzania to parents who worked for the Norwegian Missionary Society, she came to Norway at the age of 7.[3] She was awarded a Cand. polit. degree at the University of Oslo in 1991, specializing in development anthropology.
  Becoming a member of the Young Christian Democrats at age 16,[3] she was elected to the Parliament of Norway for the Christian Democratic Party from Rogaland in 1993 and re-elected in 1997. She served as a member of the Standing Committee on Energy and the Environment. She served as Minister of International Development in Bondevik's First Cabinet from October 1997 to March 2000 and held the same position in Bondevik's Second Cabinet from October 2001 to October 2005.[4]
  As minister, Hilde F. Johnson played a pivotal role in the peace process in Sudan, leading to the completion of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between government and the Sudan People's Liberation Army/Movement in 2005. She has engaged in peace building efforts and post crisis-transition processes in relation to a number of countries in Africa, Asia and Central America, notably the Horn of Africa, Sudan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Timor Leste, Guatemala and the Great Lakes-region.
  She has been involved in efforts to build coalitions for change, both of the UN, in the Bretton Woods Institutions (BWIs) and bilateral aid. In 1998, Johnson initiated the Utstein-group, a group of key likeminded development ministers from the UK, the Netherlands, Germany and Norway to spearhead this agenda. She worked closely with the senior leadership of the UN, the International Financial Institutions and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and leaders of developing countries, to bring about better pro-poor development policies. She has served as Governor and member of the Board of the World Bank for Norway and the Nordic/Baltic Constituency.
  Prior to joining UNICEF she served as Senior Advisor to the President of the African Development Bank in charge of Fragile States policies. Johnson was the co-chair of the Global Coalition for Africa for several years. She was selected a Global Leader of Tomorrow by the World Economic Forum in 2001 . She was member of the High Level Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor led by Madeleine Albright, and has served as a member of the Oxford University Taskforce on UK Energy, Development Assistance and Foreign Policy, led by Sir Chris Patten. Johnson was a member of the UNDP hosted Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor.
  Johnson served as Deputy Executive Director[5] of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)from 2007-2011.
  References[edit]External links[edit]PersondataNameJohnson, Hilde FrafjordAlternative namesShort descriptionNorwegian politicianDate of birth29 August 1963Place of birthDate of deathPlace of death
Cesium-137 Found in Strawberries, Mushrooms And More In Northern California''Including Baby Food! - Live Free, Live Natural
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 30 Dec 2013 15:14
  Wow'' take a look at what they found in the food in California. This is certainly not surprising but is still a real wake-up call. Even if you do not live in California, a good portion of your produce may come from there. These food items are shipped all over the US and probably exported, as well. They have already discovered that all the bluefin tuna caught in California is radioactive. There are a lot of foods that are not even being tested. We cannot depend on the government or any other organization to make our food choices. We have to take matters into our own hands. It seems, right now, that the only safe way to eat, if you choose to live in the US, and particularly the West Coast, is to grow your own with organic soil in a protected greenhouse or even underground (see here for instructions how to build one). This is very important information. Please pass this on.
  Here are the results of a small sample food testing done at the University of California Berkeley:
  UCB Food Chain Sampling Results, University of California, Berkeley Department of Nuclear Engineering:
  Six items were tested: spinach, strawberries, cilantro, topsoil, grass, and mushrooms. Measured in Becquerel per kilogram.
  Wild Mushrooms, Collected April 2 in Alameda, CA:
  I131 @ 8.4 Bq/kgCs134 @ .63 Bq/kgCs137 @ .47 Bq/kg
  Strawberries, ''Best By'' Date of April 1, Location Unknown :
  I131@ 2.5 Bq/kgCs134 @ .69 Bq/kgCs137 @ .67 Bq/kg
  Grass, Collected April 3 in Alameda, CA:
  I131 @ 9.8 Bq/kgCs134 @ 6.9 Bq/kgCs137 @ 6.9 Bq/kg
  Spinach, ''Best By'' Date of April 8, Location Unknown:
  I131 @ 2.8 Bq/kg
  Topsoil, Collected April 6 in Alameda, CA:
  I131 @ 12.5 Bq/kgCs134 @ .99 Bq/kgCs137 @ 1.5 Bq/kg
  No radionuclides were found in Cilantro from an unknown location
  Read the report here.
  For infants the FDA set the level of concern at 55 Bq/kg of Iodine-131.
  Guidance Levels for Radionuclides in Domestic and Imported Foods, Food and Drug Administration, July 2004:
  Infant Food: Iodine-131 @ 55 Bq/kg
  source
  http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/12/strawberries-mushrooms-with-cesium-137-found-in-northern-california-5-of-6-items-in-food-chain-sampling-test-have-radioactive-particles-2852952.html
Pregnant nurse: I was fired over flu vaccine
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 30 Dec 2013 15:11
  By Allie Malloy, CNN
  December 29, 2013 -- Updated 2340 GMT (0740 HKT)
  STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  Dreonna Breton is a pregnant nurse who was working in Lancaster, PennsylvaniaShe says she was fired from her job when she rejected taking a flu vaccineIt's unconscionable for a health care worker not to be immunized, employer saysBreton, who says she's had three miscarriages, fears vaccine could trigger another(CNN) -- A pregnant nurse tells CNN she was fired from her job after she refused to get a flu shot for fear of miscarrying.
  "I'm a healthy person. I take care of my body. For me, the potential risk was not worth it," Dreonna Breton told CNN Sunday. "I'm not gonna be the one percent of people that has a problem."
  Breton, 29, worked as a nurse at Horizons Healthcare Services in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, when she was told that all employees were required to get a flu shot. The Centers of Disease Control and Prevention advises that all health care professionals get vaccinated annually.
  She told her employers that she would not get the vaccine after she explained that there were very limited studies of the effects on pregnant women.
  Breton came to the decision with her family after three miscarriages.
  Flu under the microscope
  Flu under the microscope
  Flu under the microscope
  Flu under the microscope
  Flu under the microscope
  Flu under the microscope
  Flu under the microscope
  Flu under the microscope
  HIDE CAPTION
  CDC: More states reporting widespread flu
  The mother of one submitted letters from her obstetrician and primary care doctor supporting her decision, but she was told that she would be fired on December 17 if she did not receive the vaccine before then.
  Horizons Healthcare Services spokesman Alan Peterson told CNN affiliate WPVI that it's unconscionable for a health care worker not to be immunized and that pregnant women are more susceptible to the flu.
  The CDC website states that getting a flu shot while pregnant is the best protection for pregnant women and their babies.
  "I know that the CDC says to get it, and that's fine, but it was our choice to avoid the flu vaccine and the unknowns that come with that," Breton said.
  Breton offered to wear a face mask at work, a practice that is used if employees are exempted for religious reasons. The hospital did not approve, according to Breton.
  Breton has no interest in taking legal action, she said. She stated she only wants the company to reevaluate their policy on vaccines for pregnant employees and to continue working as a nurse.
  Flu vaccine may work better in women, study suggests
  New York City requires flu vaccine in city preschools and day cares
The Bankruptcy of The United States - Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303 - THIS IS IMPORTANT!! | Love for Life
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 30 Dec 2013 15:10
  We Stand For NO SYSTEMKindom (Do No Harm Communities) is the dream for freedom, but it is the dream for the freedom of those around us who also live the dream of freedom, because it is in living for the freedom of others that we get our freedom. When we live for the dreams of Kindom of those around us, we live life as a gift because we live for (dedicate our lives to) their dream of freedom, truth, peace, joy, abundance, etc, just as they live for our Kindom dreams too. This is true co-creation (cooperation) with no attack on the uniqueness of each of us. When we live this way, we have no need for any man-made system - everything/everyone has already been taken care of by our love for life.
  Just as we do not have to jump 10 feet across the room to grab our next breath, neither do we have to worry about food, water and shelter because it has all been taken care of as we each co-create Kindoms/Kin-Domains for everyone. Now everybody and everything of the dream of life that is Kindom/Paradise is free (has been set free once again). The issue is greed and selfishness, power and control trips, arrogance, ignorance, being fed many many lies and being traumatised. The issue is not overpopulation - there is more than enough land available for every family to have a hectare (2.5 acres Kin-Domain) to care for. The land of Australia can provide a Kin-Domain for every family across Earth, each with a food forest, clean fresh drinking water and plenty of space for building natural do no harm habitats and with plenty of land left over.
  Everyone must have the freedom to take full-responsibility for their lives, for the water they drink, the food they eat and for their shelter. Currently, "The System" forces everyone to give up taking full-responsibility so that we become grown up children accustomed to sucking on the nipples of "The System" corporations for everything, having to use money to get by and to follow the rules of money because we are not co-creating freedom, peace, truth, joy and abundance for each other. Money only leads to haves and have nots and all the abuse, manipulation and distractions that we are subjected to as slaves to money.
  When we give up living for other's Kindom dreams, we start creating hell ("The System") all around us because we become self-centred - now it's all about "my freedom","my money", "my land", "my belief", "my saviour", "mine", "mine","mine", "i","i", "i", "own", "own", "own", etc. To protect what we claim we own requires a man-made system with FORCE to protect those self-centred claims. This is ALL trauma based and all story-telling (brainwashing/braindirtying).
  Our true freedom comes when we set our thoughts of freedom into motion so that we live freedom rather than just talking and thinking about it while we still slave for "The System". Kindom will not happen while we meditate for hours in the bush or do yoga retreats or wait for Jesus or follow the processes of the OPPT (One People's Public Trust now called One People). This is not freedom because we are not living freedom because we are living the story-telling of Jesus or Zeitgeist or The Secret or Thrive or One Earth/Consciousness/People.
  Living Kindom is very, very hard work as we set about repairing the damage to MAN/Earth/Nature that we are ALL responsible for but the burden becomes lighter the more of us put our life-energy into the dream of returning Earth to Paradise. Day-after-day, we all have to work our arses off until Kindom is all around us (MAN) once again. This is the price we pay to set each other free on a piece of land (Kin-Domain), so that no one is under the image-power (education/brainwashing/story-telling) of another MAN anymore and so that everyone can have their space of love to create and live their unique, do no harm dreams. This only happens once we have the Kindoms set up so that everyone is provided for.
  Once we re-create the food forests, whether on land or in the suburbs, we can re-claim our freedom, breaking the strangle-hold of "The System" because we are no longer reliant on its services and benefits and no longer turning each other into slaves of "The System", cogs in the wheels of "The System" machine. If we don't put the effort in to set everyone and everything free all around us then we still live in HELL ("The System"). The key is to live for everyone else's freedom so that we can have it too.
  We live for NO SYSTEM. We do not lose anything by not having a man-made system and, in fact, we gain. We gain our freedom and we gain abundance. Let go of the fear.
  To explore these themes in greater detail go here where you can find many of our recent Love For Life comments, articles, debates, discussions, videos, podcasts, etc:
  So You Want The Good Bits Of "The System"But Not The Bad Bits?By Arthur & Fiona CristianLove For Life - 12th August 2013http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8468
  All the bestArthur & Fiona CristianLove For Life
  Peaceful Transition Through Sacrifice And ServiceWe feel there is an essential peaceful do no harm transition required to get all of MAN back to standing on MANS feet without reliance upon another MAN for water, food, shelter. As it stands everyone in "The System" are highly dependent and reliant on the "group mind-set" that forms "The System" of slaves providing services and benefits for the emotionally addicted slaves to "The System" (and you can put us in the same basket too). The transition is to get MAN back to relying ONLY on nature without 3rd party interlopers, intermeddlers, interceders getting in the way. The transition is a team effort with the foresight for setting all of MAN free down-the-line so that MAN is no longer dependent on slaves and masters providing services, benefits, privileges and exclusivity while being bound to contracts, rituals, procedures, conditions, rules & regulations which compromises MAN severely.
  This transition is all about shifting from limited liability/responsibility to full liability/responsibility. This full responsibility is all about caring for our health, nature all around us, clean uncorrupted (pure) water and food, partner/co-creator, children, shelter, animal-friends in partnership, etc. In "The System", we are already together destroying each other - we have to come together to create peace together so that we can all have peace. We cannot live peacefully when we are islands, not taking full responsibility for the lives of those around us until EVERYONE can take full responsibility for their life, which means that EVERYONE is healed of system trauma. In "The System", we all come together to make slaves of each other - now is the moment to come together to set each other free, to live for each other's freedom, peace, joy and abundance. Once we have set each other free, we are free.
  Control The LandAnd You Control MAN On The LandDisplace MAN From LandAnd You Turn MAN Into SlavesArthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For LifeApril 2011 (Updated 14th September 2011)http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8237
  The Spell Is BrokenTaking The Land To Create KindomArthur & Fiona CristianLove For Life3rd March 2013http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8365
  "The Steps Of Kindom"http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8304
  ---------
  Once we fix these issues, we or our children or our descendants to come, can start focusing on the even bigger picture of getting back to where our ancestors were, as breatharyan's, before they fell into non-sense images to be enslaved by them.
  All the best to you and your familyArthur & Fiona CristianLove For Life
  The Cristian Family DeclarationThe Cristian family and The Love for Life Campaign are apolitical, non-religious, non-violent, anti weapons, anti drugs (both pharmaceutical and recreational) and anti any ideology that denies the existence of Do No Harm Communities (Kindoms) and suppresses the uniqueness and freedom of all men, women and children.
  The Cristian family and our Love For Life work is unaligned to any big business corporation, intelligence agency, government body, "system" law, "system" think tanks, "system" green or environmental movements, religion, cult, sect, society (fraternity, brotherhood, sisterhood, order, club, etc,) secret or not, hidden agenda, law or sovereignty group, occult, esoteric, New Age or Old Age.
  The Cristian family supports and promotes the remedy that brings an everlasting peace, freedom, truth, joy, abundance and do no harm for all of life without causing loss of uniqueness or the need for having slaves and rulers. We are not into following the one in front or being sheeple. Most importantly, we take full-responsibility for everything we think, feel and do.
  The Cristian family are not Christians.
  Arthur & Fiona CristianLove For Life
  December 2006
  THE CRISTIAN FAMILY PLEDGEBeing of clear brain, heart and intention, we each declare the following to be true:
  ' We have no intention of ending our own lives.
  ' We will not tolerate suppression of truth, ideas, freedom, or our work. We stand for freedom of speech.
  ' We stand together to support others in the expression of truths and freedom to speak out no matter how radical those ideas may seem.
  ' Standing for freedom takes courage; together we shall be strong in the face of all odds.
  ' If it is ever claimed that we have committed suicide, encountered an unfortunate accident, died of sickness/disease, disappeared, been institutionalized, or sold out financially or in any other way to self-interested factions, we declare those claims false and fabricated.
  ' We testify, assert and affirm without reservation, on behalf of all those who have dedicated their lives to the ending of secrecy and the promotion of freedom of thought, ideas and expression that we shall prevail.
  ' We Do Not Have Multiple Personality Disorders
  Arthur CristianFiona CristianJasmin Lily CristianEmma Rose CristianFrances Hannah CristianXanthe Jane Cristian
  15th December 2006 (Edited/Updated 18th September 2011)
  Update Regarding The Love For LifeHome Page And Quick User GuideWe are turning the Love for Life Quick User Guide http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608 into a blog of all the main insights of our work since March 2005, whether through articles, videos, podcasts or discussions/debates.
  As we do not have the time to compile everything we have written into a book, as many have suggested we do, compiling all our most important work into one area of the website is a way of providing easy access to this work so those interested are able to fully comprehend the big picture.
  Instead of having to find our different articles, videos, etc, in various parts of the website, it will all be accessible here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608 and here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385.
  Love For Life VideosAs amateurs and posted in the Quick User Guide below the Facebook links, we're currently creating and posting a series of videos called "The Dream Of Life" which covers the ground of all the Love For Life insights. We plan to have the videos completed by December 31st 2012. Once this is behind us, our intention is to create a 2 hour or so video covering the body of this work. All videos are embedded in the quick user guide http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608 and uploaded in Arthur's YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/ArthurLoveForLife.
  Love For Life MusicWe have started recording songs, with others, that express the themes of Love For Life. They are now being posted on Arthur's YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/ArthurLoveForLife and are embedded in the quick user guide http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608. We have over 100 songs to record. A few rough demos have already been used as the soundtrack on the first "Dream of Life" video.
  About Us - Love For Life & The Cristian FamilyAlso, everything we, the Cristian family, have gone through, from bank fraud and the theft of the family home to death threats and attempts on Arthur's life, is documented in the Quick User Guide too. If you, the reader, are prepared to put the effort in, you will comprehend the extent to which we have all been tricked into becoming slaves, giving up our uniqueness and our full-responsibility for life and destroying everything of life to the point where life is in danger of dying out completely. You will also comprehend the remedy to all this chaos; a remedy that requires only love for life and the determination to do what needs to be done. Though our focus is very strongly on the remedy that creates a world of freedom, truth, peace, joy, abundance and Do No Harm for all of life without loss of uniqueness or the need for slaves and rulers, we realise that it is vital to comprehend how to get there and what stops us from getting there. This is why there is so much information on the hows and whys of everything going wrong in the world today. We are not into peddling conspiracy theories, we are into routing out all forms of organised crime.
  Saturday 26th November 2011
  Arthur and Fiona CristianLove For Life
  Website: http://loveforlife.com.auEmail: action@loveforlife.com.auMobile: 0011 61 418 203204 - (0418 203204)Facebook Arthur Cristian: http://www.facebook.com/arthurcristianYouTube Arthur Cristian: http://www.youtube.com/ArthurLoveForLifeSoundCloud: http://soundcloud.com/loveforlifeNimbit Music: http://www.nimbitmusic.com/loveforlifeTwitter: https://twitter.com/loveforlifemusiFacebook Music: http://www.facebook.com/loveforlifemusicFacebook Why Aren't We Free Discussion: http://www.facebook.com/164918753537287Facebook Do No Harm Community: http://www.facebook.com/151811728195925YouTube Love For Life Music: http://www.myspace.com/loveforlifemusicMySpace: http://www.myspace.com/loveforlifemusicGoogle + Fiona Cristian: https://plus.google.com/100490175160871610090Register To The Love For Life Mailing List: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/09/05/14/mailing-list
  1. For The Body Of The Love For Life Work by Arthur and Fiona CristianWhich Unravels The Reasons For The Chaos, Mayhem and Confusion Being Experienced In The World Today, Explains The Need For "Community Immunity" and Responsibility, and Focuses On The Creation Of Kindoms - Do No Harm, Life-Sustainable Communities (As The Remedy That Heals All Mans Woes) - And How We Can Co-Create Them. For Comments, Articles And Discussions, Go Here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385 - Also Go Here To See Podcasts And Videos Posted by Arthur & Fiona Cristian: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7309 - The Information Shared Comes From Inspiration, Intuition, Heartfelt-Logic And Information Gathered From Nature And Many Amazing Men And Women Along The Way. It Is Not Found In Any Books Or Channellings, Or Talked About By "Experts". Go Here To Read A Brief Synopsis Of Why We Started Love For Life: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8182
  2. For Information About The Ringing Cedars of Russia Seriesgo here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/1125 and for more on Eco Homes, Villages, Organic and Permaculture Gardening and Life-Sustainability, etc, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3641 and here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/1985 and Mikhail Petrovich Shchetinin - Kin's School - Lycee School at Tekos:http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5173
  3. For How To Eat A Raw, Living Food Diet,go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5068 - LIFE is information. When we distort LIFE and then eat, drink, absorb, think, feel, hear, see, touch, taste, smell and perform these distortions, the information of LIFE, your LIFE, our LIFE, our children's lives, everyone's LIFE, is distorted.
  4. To Find A Menu For The Extensive Research Library (over 8,000 items posted embodying over 11,000 documents, pdf's, videos, podcasts, etc)Which Covers Topics From Health to Chemtrails/Haarp to Brain Control to Archaeology to Astronomy Geocentricity Heliocentricity to Pandemics Bird Flu Swine Flu to Fluoride to Cancer to Free Energy to Global Warming, 9/11, Bali Bombings, Aspartame, MSG, Vaccinations, Aids/HIV, Mercury, New World Order, Satanism, Religions, Cults, Sects, Symbolism, etc, etc, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/82
  5. If You Would Like To Read About The Cristian Family NSW Supreme Court Case(Macquarie Bank/Perpetual Limited Bank Fraud Condoned By Judges, Registrars, Barristers, Lawyers, Politicians, Public Servants, Bureaucrats, Big Business and Media Representatives - A Crime Syndicate/Terrorist Organisation) Which Prompted The Creation Of This Love For Life Website December 2006, And The Shooting And Torture Of Supporters Who Assisted Us In Reclaiming The Family Home, Joe Bryant And His Wife, Both In Their Late 70's, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5 And Read Some Of Our Email Correspondence With Lawyer Paul Kean - Macedone Christie Willis Solari Partners - Miranda Sydney May 17th-June 27th 2006: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7300
  6. For The Stories Of Other Victims Of The System,go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/australian_stories (If you have a story you would like us to put up, we would love to here from you:action @ loveforlife.com.au)
  7. For Documentation Of Harm Done By The Powers-That-Be And Their Representatives,Evidence Revealing How Victims Did Not Break The Peace, Caused No Crime or Harm, There Were No Injured Parties. Documenting Incontrovertible Evidence Demonstrating How The Powers That Be (PTB) And Their Lackeys Will Break All The Laws They Are Supposed To Uphold. They Will Kidnap, Intimidate, Terrorise, Rape, Pillage, Plunder And Lie And Take Responsibility For None Of It. All Part Of Their Tactics Of Using Fear And Trauma To Keep Us In Our Place. Relatives Of Those Under Their Radar Are Also Not Safe From Attack And Intimidation. All Starting From A $25 Fine For Not Voting And A $65 Fine For Not Changing A Dog Registration. We Do Not Have Freedom And Can Only Appear To Have Freedom If We Comply. Regardless How Small The Matter The PTB Throw Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars Away To Enforce Their Will.... Go Here: Fiona Cristian Reply To State Debt Recovery Office - Part One to Part Ten - From 17th October 2008 And Still Continuing:http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6319 orFiona Cristian Reply To State Debt Recovery OfficePart One:http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5742 - From 17th October 2008Part Two:http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6135 - From 18th December 2008Part Three:http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6295 - From 9th January 2009Part Four:http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6296 - From 14th January 2009Part Five:http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6375 - The Sick Puppy - From 20th February 2009Part Six:http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6390 - Police Officers, Sheriff's Officers, Tow Truck Driver and State Debt Recovery Office Blatantly Ignore the Law To Rape, Pillage and Plunder The Private Property Of Fiona Cristian - From 11th March 2009Part Seven:http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6445 - Affidavit Of Truth - Letter To The Queen + Australia: Fascism is Corporatism - From 30th March 2009Part Eight:http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6652 - The Pirates Auction And The Ghost Of VSL386 - From 4th April 2009Part Nine:http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7073 - Arthur Cristian's Letter To Pru Goward MP - From 15th December 2009Part Ten:http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7500 - Should We Be In Fear Of Those Who Claim To Protect Us? "Roman Cult" Canon Law - Ecclesiastical Deed Poll - The Work Of Frank O'Collins - From 13th October 2010
  8. If You Are Interested In Information On Freedom From Statutes, Rule-Of-Law, Free Man/Free Woman, Strawman, "Person" and Admiralty Law (The Law Of Commerce),go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/895 - For Common Law, Democracy, Constitution, Trial By Jury, Fee Simple, etc, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/category/main/law-articles-documents
  9. If You Are Interested In Banking and Money Created (Fiat/Credit/Debt/Mortgage/Loan/Overdraft etc) Out-Of-Thin-Air, How Banks Counterfeit Money,go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/banks
  10. For A List Of All The Latest Posts In The Love For Life Website,go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/tracker
  11. For Links To Many Hundreds Of Videos, DVDs And Podcastsgo here: http://loveforlife.com.au/video_dvd
  12. To See The Cristian Family Pledge, Legal and other Disclaimersgo here: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/06/12/05/love-life-legal-disclaimer
  13. To Read About How A Representative Of The NSW Jewish Board Of Deputies Had Threatened To Shut Down The Love For Life Websitego here: Part One: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6616 Part Two: THE STEVE JOHNSON REPORT AND VIDEO: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6665 and Part Three: Latest Update On James Von Brunn: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6673
  Conscious Love AlwaysArthur & Fiona CristianLove For Lifeaction @ loveforlife.com.auwww.loveforlife.com.au0418 203204 (int: 0011 61 418 203204)PO Box 1320 Bowral 2576 NSW Australia
  Arthur CristianCreate Your Badge
  Love For Life Discussions - Why Aren't We Free? How Can We Be Free?Promote your Page too
  Love For Life Legal DisclaimerThe information contained on this world wide web site (the web site and all information herein shall be collectively referred to as "Web Site Information"), under the registered url name, loveforlife.com.au, resides on a host server environment in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15203, United States of America.
  The Web Site Information has been prepared to provide general information only and is not intended to constitute or be construed as providing substantive professional advice or opinion on any facts or circumstances. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, nor does its receipt give rise to, a professional-client relationship between 'Love for Life' and the receiver.
  While every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the information prepared and/or reported on this site, 'Love for Life' is not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the Web Site Information not being up to date. The Web Site Information may not reflect the most current developments.
  The impact of the law, policy and/or procedure for any particular situation depends on a variety of factors; therefore, readers should not act upon any Web Site Information without seeking professional advice. 'Love for Life' is not responsible for any action taken in reliance on any Web Site Information herein.
  'Love for Life' is not responsible for any action you or others take which relies on information in this website and/or responses thereto. 'Love for Life' disclaim all responsibility and liability for loss or damage suffered by any person relying, directly or indirectly, on the Web Site Information, including in relation to negligence or any other default.
  'Love for Life' does not warrant, represent or hold out that any Web Site Information will not cause damage, or is free from any computer virus, defect(s) or error(s). 'Love for Life' is not liable to users for any loss or damage however caused resulting from the use of material found on its web site.
  'Love for Life' does not necessarily endorse or approve of any Web Site Information linked to and contained on other web sites linked herein and makes no warranties or representations regarding the merchantability or fitness for purpose, accuracy and quality, of any such information.
  The sending of information by you, and the receipt of it by 'Love for Life', is not intended to, and does not, create a professional-client relationship.
  All Web Site Information is considered correct at the time of the web site's most recent revision.
  ADDITIONAL DISCLAIMERNote: Updated Wednesday 17th June 2009 8.00pm Sydney Time.
  Love For Life does not support harm doing in any shape or form. However, we are supporters of free speech and post articles, documentaries, etc, that represent a wide cross section of ideas. See the Love For Life extensive research library where over 11,000 individual documents, articles, videos, podcasts and debates/discussions are posted: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/82. We clearly see the evidence of the destruction to MAN and Earth that has been caused by ALL religions over the centuries and are therefore not supporters of religions, cults, sects or any group that demands conformity of thought, speech or action, or has rules, regulations or rituals that must be followed. Religions, nationalities and cultural "identities" are formed as a result of the brainwashing we receive from childhood. They are part of the tactics the Establishment uses to keep us all divided from one another and fighting one another.
  All religions promote discrimination and division, leading to hatred and even violence and murder. None of them have yet to produce a remedy to all the suffering, poverty, unhappiness and discrimination in the world. If any religion truly had the remedy to all the suffering on earth, there would no longer be any suffering. What have Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, atheism and the New Age done to end the suffering in the world?
  The Love For Life website has information from all sides on many subjects, whether about Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Law, health, psychology, mind control, vaccination, aspartame, MSG, Chemtrails etc. There are over 11,000 individual articles, documentaries, etc on the website and they are so diverse that we are sure that everyone would be able to find something they loved and something they hated, if they took the time to search. If we removed all the articles hated by everyone, there would probably be nothing left! We are not anti anyone but freedom of speech is freedom of speech and no one should condemn the work of another without taking the time to research the subject themselves. Yes, there are articles by those who have a less-than-rosy-viewpoint of Judaism, but there are also articles on the dark side of Tibetan Buddhism (and it is very dark) for those who are interested in the truth: Tibet - Buddhism - Dalai Lama: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6271 Should the authors of these articles be abused and imprisoned for daring to challenge the widely conceived reputation of Buddhism as being the religion of peace and love and that of the Dalai Lama as a saint, or should those interested be allowed to study the work and come to their own conclusions? The same applies to all the articles, documentaries, etc, about Christianity, Islam, Freemasonry, New World Order, etc.
  The Love for Life website also shows how the Rule of Law, the Bar, the Government, the Monarchy, the system of commerce, the local, national and multi/trans-national private corporations, all the courses and careers on offer from our universities, all the educators, scientists, academics and experts, the aristocrats and the Establishment bloodlines have also done NOTHING to end the suffering in the world. The website maps the insanity of a world where there is no help for those in need, just as there was no help available for us when we were victims of terrible bank fraud: http://loveforlife.com.au/court_case orchestrated, condoned and protected by an international crime syndicate/terrorist organisation of judges, barristers, registrars, lawyers, politicians, banksters, big business representatives, media moguls and other lackeys who, all together, put up a wall of silence despite our trying many, many avenues. After the family home was stolen and business destroyed we were left close to poverty and destitution caring for 4 young daughters. Three years later not much has changed regardless of all our efforts. Where were all the followers of all the religions to help us? Or do we have to be members of those religions to receive help from others involved in them?
  We have been accused of being anti - Jewish because we had posted an excerpt from James von Brun's book: Kill the Best Gentiles! http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6054 in which he blames Jews for the problems of the world. Obviously this is not our view because of what we have stated above. We do not hate anyone, whatever religion they follow. We are always open to talk to any religious leader or politician and meet with any judge, member of the Bar, experts, academics, educators etc to share the remedy we offer that heals all the divisions between MAN and MAN, and MAN and EARTH.
  Today, a representative of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies is threatening to close the website down, because they have decided it is anti - Jewish and that we promote racism. What has the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies done to end the suffering in the world? Can they show that they are concerned with the suffering of ALL men, women and children AND ARE SEEN TO BE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT or are they only concerned with Jewish affairs? If so, they, along with all the other religions that only care for their own, are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The man who rang Arthur today was only concerned with Jewish affairs; he was not interested in our intentions or in anybody else, just as most Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Catholics, etc, are only interested in their own. While we separate our lives into groups, dividing our lives from others with rules, regulations, rituals, procedures, conditions and contracts, we will never solve our problems.
  No matter what we in the Western World Civilisation of Commerce have been promised by our politicians, religious leaders, scientists, educators, philosophers, etc, for the past two hundred years, all we have seen is ever-increasing destruction of men, women and children and Earth. None of the so-called experts and leaders we have been taught to rely on are coming up with a solution and none of them are taking full-responsibility for the fact that they can't handle the problem. All religious books talk about end times full of destruction and suffering but why do we have to follow this program when there is an alternative to hatred, mayhem and death? Why are our leaders following the program of destruction and death rather than exploring the do no harm alternatives? It seems that any mainstream politician, priest or academic are only interested in supporting the RULES OF THE DIVIDE, that maintain the haves and the have nots. For 200+ years, 99% of the world population have been so trained to pass on their responsibility for their lives, others and Earth, that the 1% of the population that make up the leaders of the rest of us are making all the decisions leading to the destruction of all of us and Earth. Let's not forget the education system that brainwashes the 99% of the population that we are free and have equal rights while, in fact, we are feathering the nests of those at the top.
  At the root of all our problems is self-centredness, an unwillingness nurtured by the Establishment that keeps us concerned only with our own needs rather than the needs of others around us and Earth. Instead of creating and releasing acts of love for those around us as gifts to benefit them and Earth, we take, take and take, until there is nothing left. The whole point of the Love for Life website is to show people the root of all our problems and to share the remedy. The extensive research library is there to attract browsers and to provide access to information not available through mainstream channels. If the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies can, after careful examination of our work, prove that anything we are saying is wrong, we will be happy to accept their proof. If they cannot, and they are still insistent on closing the website down, they will be showing themselves to be traitors to MAN because they are not interested in pursuing any avenue that can end the suffering in the world.
  All religions, corporations and organisations that support and maintain the Western World Civilisation of Commerce are part of the problem because our civilisation is a world of haves and have nots, exclusivity, privilege, racism, violence, hatred, poverty, sickness, discrimination, abuse, starvation, homelessness, corruption, collusion, vindictiveness, social unrest, arrogance, ignorance, fear, war and chaos. While we support civilisation, we support death and destruction.
  If we truly want peace and freedom for all, we have to let go of all that which keeps us divided, and come together as MAN, conscious living co-creators of creation/life. The Love For Life website offers a remedy to the problems we all face in the form of DO NO HARM COMMUNITIES (KINDOMS): http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608 - http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3641 For more details see here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6511 and here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385 - We also highly recommend that everyone read the brilliant Russian books called The Ringing Cedars: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/1125 - The Love For Life homepage/front-page also provides lots of inspiring remedy based information: http://loveforlife.com.au - If you want to be kept up to date with our work please register to the Love For Life mailing list here: http://loveforlife.com.au/campaign_list We usually send two postings per month. Presently (September 2011) there are over 7000 registrations reaching over 500,000 readers across Earth. The website now (September 2011) receives up to 12 million hits per month. Since December 2006, over 100 million people have visited the Love For Life website.
  Conscious Love AlwaysArthur and Fiona CristianLove For Life17th June 2009
The End of Erdogan's Cave of Wonders: An I-Told-You-So :: Middle East Forum
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 30 Dec 2013 13:34
  by David P. GoldmanPJ MediaDecember 27, 2013
  http://www.meforum.org/3705/end-of-erdogan
  Turkey is coming apart. The Islamist coalition that crushed the secular military and political establishment'--between Tayip Erdogan's ruling AK Party and the Islamist movement around Fethullah Gulen'--has cracked. The Gulenists, who predominate in the security forces, have arrested the sons of top government ministers for helping Iran to launder money and circumvent sanctions, and ten members of Erdogan's cabinet have resigned. Turkey's currency is in free fall, and that's just the beginning of the country's troubles: about two-fifths of corporate debt is in foreign currencies, so the cost of servicing it jumps whenever the Turkish lira declines. Turkish stocks have crashed (and were down another 5% in dollar terms in early trading Friday). As the charts below illustrate, so much for Turkey's miracle economy.
  Two years ago I predicted a Turkish economic crash. Erdogan's much-vaunted economic miracle stemmed mainly from vast credit expansion to fuel an import boom, leaving the country with a current account deficit of 7 % of GDP (about the same as Greece before it went bankrupt) and a mushrooming pile of short-term foreign debt. The Gulf states kept financing Erdogan's import bill, evidently because they wanted to keep a Sunni power in business as a counterweight to Iran; perhaps they have tired of Turkey's double-dealing with the Persians. And credulous investors kept piling into Turkish stocks.
  I reiterated my warning that Turkey would unravel at regular intervals, for example here.
  No more. Turkey is a mediocre economy at best with a poorly educated workforce, no high-tech capacity, and shrinking markets in depressed Europe and the unstable Arab world. Its future might well be as an economic tributary of China, as the "New Silk Road" extends high-speed rail lines to the Bosporus.
  For the past ten years we have heard ad nauseum about the "Turkish model" of "Muslim democracy." The George W. Bush administration courted Erdogan even before he became prime minister, and Obama went out of his way to make Erdogan his principal pal in foreign policy. I have been ridiculing this notion for years, for example in this 2010 essay for Tablet.
  The whole notion was flawed from top to bottom. Turkey was not in line to become an economic power of any kind: it lacked the people and skills to do anything better than medium-tech manufacturing. Its Islamists never were democrats. Worst of all, its demographics are as bad as Europe's. Ethnic Turks have a fertility rate close to 1.5 children per family, while the Kurdish minority is having 4 children per family. Within a generation half of Turkey's young men will come from families where Kurdish is the first language.
  Our foreign policy establishment, Democratic and Republican, was so enamored of the notion of Muslim democracy that it mistook Erdogan's incipient dictatorship and bubble economy for the object of its desire. In June 2012, for example, David Ignatius of the Washington Post bragged that Obama's embrace of Erdogan had "paid big dividends." Said Ignatius:
  As President Barack Obama was feeling his way in foreign policy during his first months in office, he decided to cultivate a friendship with Turkey's headstrong prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Over the past year, this investment in Turkey has begun to pay some big dividends '-- anchoring the policy of the United States in a region that sometimes seems adrift.
  Erdogan's clout was on display this week as he hosted a meeting in Istanbul of the World Economic Forum that celebrated the stability of the "Turkish model" of Muslim democracy amid the turmoil of the Arab Spring. One panel had the enraptured title "Turkey as a Source of Inspiration."
  Now the hashish smoke has cleared, Erdogan's Cave of Wonders has turned back into a sandpit, and the foreign policy establishment has nothing to show for years of propitiation of this Anatolian wannabe except a headache.
  Now that Turkey is coming unstuck, along with Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, we should conclude that the entire project of bringing stability to the Muslim world was a hookah-dream to begin with. Except for the state of Israel and a couple of Sunni monarchies that survive by dint of their oil wealth, we are witnessing the unraveling of the Middle East. The best we can do is to insulate ourselves from the spillover effect.
  David P. Goldman is Senior Fellow at the London Center for Policy Research and Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
  Related Topics: Turkey and Turks | David P. Goldmanreceive the latest by email: subscribe to the free mef mailing listThis text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.
Scientists Finally Show How Your Thoughts Can Cause Specific Molecular Changes To Your GenesTunedBody
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 30 Dec 2013 13:16
  With evidence growing that training the mind or inducing certain modes of consciousness can have positive health effects, researchers have sought to understand how these practices physically affect the body. A new study by researchers in Wisconsin, Spain, and France reports the first evidence of specific molecular changes in the body following a period of intensive mindfulness practice.
  The study investigated the effects of a day of intensive mindfulness practice in a group of experienced meditators, compared to a group of untrained control subjects who engaged in quiet non-meditative activities. After eight hours of mindfulness practice, the meditators showed a range of genetic and molecular differences, including altered levels of gene-regulating machinery and reduced levels of pro-inflammatory genes, which in turn correlated with faster physical recovery from a stressful situation.
  ''To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice,'' says study author Richard J. Davidson, founder of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds and the William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.''Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs,'' says Perla Kaliman, first author of the article and a researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Research of Barcelona, Spain (IIBB-CSIC-IDIBAPS), where the molecular analyses were conducted.
  The study was published in the Journal Psychoneuroendocrinology.
  Mindfulness-based trainings have shown beneficial effects on inflammatory disorders in prior clinical studies and are endorsed by the American Heart Association as a preventative intervention. The new results provide a possible biological mechanism for therapeutic effects.
  Gene Activity Can Change According To Perception
  According to Dr. Bruce Lipton, gene activity can change on a daily basis. If the perception in your mind is reflected in the chemistry of your body, and if your nervous system reads and interprets the environment and then controls the blood's chemistry, then you can literally change the fate of your cells by altering your thoughts.
  In fact, Dr. Lipton's research illustrates that by changing your perception, your mind can alter the activity of your genes and create over thirty thousand variations of products from each gene. He gives more detail by saying that the gene programs are contained within the nucleus of the cell, and you can rewrite those genetic programs through changing your blood chemistry.
  In the simplest terms, this means that we need to change the way we think if we are to heal cancer. ''The function of the mind is to create coherence between our beliefs and the reality we experience,'' Dr. Lipton said. ''What that means is that your mind will adjust the body's biology and behavior to fit with your beliefs. If you've been told you'll die in six months and your mind believes it, you most likely will die in six months. That's called the nocebo effect, the result of a negative thought, which is the opposite of the placebo effect, where healing is mediated by a positive thought.''
  That dynamic points to a three-party system: there's the part of you that swears it doesn't want to die (the conscious mind), trumped by the part that believes you will (the doctor's prognosis mediated by the subconscious mind), which then throws into gear the chemical reaction (mediated by the brain's chemistry) to make sure the body conforms to the dominant belief. (Neuroscience has recognized that the subconscious controls 95 percent of our lives.)
  Now what about the part that doesn't want to die''the conscious mind? Isn't it impacting the body's chemistry as well? Dr. Lipton said that it comes down to how the subconscious mind, which contains our deepest beliefs, has been programmed. It is these beliefs that ultimately cast the deciding vote.
  ''It's a complex situation,'' said Dr. Lipton. People have been programmed to believe that they're victims and that they have no control. We're programmed from the start with our mother and father's beliefs. So, for instance, when we got sick, we were told by our parents that we had to go to the doctor because the doctor is the authority concerning our health. We all got the message throughout childhood that doctors were the authority on health and that we were victims of bodily forces beyond our ability to control. The joke, however, is that people often get better while on the way to the doctor. That's when the innate ability for self-healing kicks in, another example of the placebo effect.
  Mindfulness Practice Specifically Affects Regulatory Pathways
  The results of Davidson's study show a down-regulation of genes that have been implicated in inflammation. The affected genes include the pro-inflammatory genes RIPK2 and COX2 as well as several histone deacetylase (HDAC) genes, which regulate the activity of other genes epigenetically by removing a type of chemical tag. What's more, the extent to which some of those genes were downregulated was associated with faster cortisol recovery to a social stress test involving an impromptu speech and tasks requiring mental calculations performed in front of an audience and video camera.
  Biologists have suspected for years that some kind of epigenetic inheritance occurs at the cellular level. The different kinds of cells in our bodies provide an example. Skin cells and brain cells have different forms and functions, despite having exactly the same DNA. There must be mechanisms''other than DNA''that make sure skin cells stay skin cells when they divide.
  Perhaps surprisingly, the researchers say, there was no difference in the tested genes between the two groups of people at the start of the study. The observed effects were seen only in the meditators following mindfulness practice. In addition, several other DNA-modifying genes showed no differences between groups, suggesting that the mindfulness practice specifically affected certain regulatory pathways.
  The key result is that meditators experienced genetic changes following mindfulness practice that were not seen in the non-meditating group after other quiet activities '-- an outcome providing proof of principle that mindfulness practice can lead to epigenetic alterations of the genome.
  Previous studies in rodents and in people have shown dynamic epigenetic responses to physical stimuli such as stress, diet, or exercise within just a few hours.
  ''Our genes are quite dynamic in their expression and these results suggest that the calmness of our mind can actually have a potential influence on their expression,'' Davidson says.
  ''The regulation of HDACs and inflammatory pathways may represent some of the mechanisms underlying the therapeutic potential of mindfulness-based interventions,'' Kaliman says. ''Our findings set the foundation for future studies to further assess meditation strategies for the treatment of chronic inflammatory conditions.''
  Subconscious Beliefs Are Key
  Too many positive thinkers know that thinking good thoughts''and reciting affirmations for hours on end''doesn't always bring about the results that feel-good books promise.
  Dr. Lipton didn't argue this point, because positive thoughts come from the conscious mind, while contradictory negative thoughts are usually programmed in the more powerful subconscious mind.
  ''The major problem is that people are aware of their conscious beliefs and behaviors, but not of subconscious beliefs and behaviors. Most people don't even acknowledge that their subconscious mind is at play, when the fact is that the subconscious mind is a million times more powerful than the conscious mind and that we operate 95 to 99 percent of our lives from subconscious programs.
  ''Your subconscious beliefs are working either for you or against you, but the truth is that you are not controlling your life, because your subconscious mind supersedes all conscious control. So when you are trying to heal from a conscious level''citing affirmations and telling yourself you're healthy''there may be an invisible subconscious program that's sabotaging you.''
  The power of the subconscious mind is elegantly revealed in people expressing multiple personalities. While occupying the mind-set of one personality, the individual may be severely allergic to strawberries. Then, in experiencing the mind-set of another personality, he or she eats them without consequence.
  The new science of epigenetics promises that every person on the planet has the opportunity to become who they really are, complete with unimaginable power and the ability to operate from, and go for, the highest possibilities, including healing our bodies and our culture and living in peace.
  Article sources:wisc.edubrucelipton.comts-si.org
  Michael Forrester is a spiritual counselor and is a practicing motivational speaker for corporations in Japan, Canada and the United States.
  Source: preventdisease.com
DARPA: Meta-materials developed to bend sound waves, deflect tsunamis and create invisible armies
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: The Top Information Post
  Mon, 30 Dec 2013 01:48
  Singapore: A new way of assembling things, called metamaterials, may in the not too distant future help to protect a building from earthquakes by bending seismic waves around it. Similarly, tsunami waves could be bent around towns, and soundwaves bent around a room to make it soundproof.
  While the holy grail of metamaterials is still to make objects and people invisible to the eye, they are set to have a more tangible commercial impact playing more mundane roles '-- from satellite antennas to wirelessly charging cellphones.
  Metamaterials are simply materials that exhibit properties not found in nature, such as the way they absorb or reflect light. The key is in how they're made. By assembling the material '-- from photonic crystals to wire and foam '-- at a scale smaller than the length of the wave you're seeking to manipulate, the wave can, in theory, be bent to will.
  This makes metamaterials the tool of choice for scientists racing to build all sorts of wave-cloaking devices, including the so-called invisibility cloak '-- a cover to render whatever's inside effectively invisible by bending light waves around it.
  ''The invisibility cloak was just one more thing we were discovering '-- that we have all this flexibility in this material and here's another thing we can do,'' David Smith of Duke University, widely regarded as one of the founding fathers of metamaterials, said in a telephone interview.
  ''But we're equally interested in seeing this transition in making a difference in people's lives.'' Indeed, Smith's own journey from laboratory to factory illustrates that while metamaterials have for some become synonymous with ''Harry Potter'' cloaks, their promise is more likely to be felt in a range of industries and uses, from smaller communication devices to quake-proof buildings.
  At the heart of both metamaterials and invisibility are waves. If electromagnetic waves '-- whether visible light, microwave or infrared '-- can be bent around an object it would not be visible on those wavelengths. It was long thought you couldn't control light in this way with natural materials as their optical properties depended on the chemistry of the atoms from which they were made.
  It was only when Smith and his colleagues experimented with altering the geometry of material in the late 1990s that they found they could change the way it interacted with light, or other kinds of wave '-- creating metamaterials. With that, says Andrea Alu, an associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin, scientists found ''it may be possible to challenge rules and limitations that were for centuries considered written in stone.'' The past decade has seen an explosion in research that has built on Smith's findings to make objects invisible to at least some forms of light.
  ''There have now been several demonstrations of cloaking at visible wavelengths, so cloaking is truly possible and has been realised,'' says Jason Valentine of Vanderbilt University, who made one of the first such cloaks. These, however, have limitations '-- such as only working for certain wavelengths or from certain angles. But the barriers are falling fast, says Valentine.
  In the past year, for example, Duke University's Yaroslav Urzhumov has made a plastic cloak that deflects microwave beams using a normal 3D printer, while Alu has built an ultra-thin cloak powered by electric current.
  Funding much of this US research is the military. Urzhumov said in an email interview that the US Department of Defence is ''one of the major sponsors of metamaterials and invisibility research in the US.'' The Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, which commissions advanced research for the Department of Defence, has funded research into metamaterials since 2000, according to the department's website.
  Military interest in metamaterials was primarily in making a cloak, said Miguel Navarro-Cia of Imperial College London, who has researched the topic with funding from the European Defence Agency and US military.
  But an invisibility cloak needn't be a sinister tool of war.
  Vanderbilt's Valentine suggests architectural usage. ''You could use this technology to hide supporting columns from sight, making a space feel completely open,'' he said.
  Other potential uses include rendering parts of an aircraft invisible for pilots to see below the cockpit, or to rid drivers of the blind spot in a car.
  Military or not, this is all some way off.
  ''Most invisibility cloaks, essentially, are still in the research stage,'' says Ong Chong Kim, director at the National University of Singapore's Centre for Superconducting and Magnetic Materials.
  Ong and others say that while metamaterials may not yet be making objects invisible to the eye, they could be used to redirect other kinds of waves, including mechanical waves such as sound and ocean waves. French researchers earlier this year, for example, diverted seismic waves around specially placed holes in the ground, reflecting the waves backward.
  Ong points to the possibility of using what has been learnt in reconfiguring the geometry of materials to divert tsunamis from strategic buildings.
  Elena Semouchkina, a pioneer on cloaking devices at Michigan Technological University, points to screening antennas so they don't interfere with each other, protecting people from harmful radiation or acoustic pressure and even preventing buildings from destruction from seismic waves.
  Metamaterials could also absorb and emit light with extremely high efficiency '-- for example in a high-resolution ultrasound '-- or redirect light over a very small distance. This, says Anthony Vicari of Lux Research, ''could be used to improve fibre optical communications networks, or even for optical communications within microchips for faster computing.''
  Indeed, there's clearly a growing appetite for commercialising the unique properties of metamaterials.
  One of the first to do so was the new defunct Rayspan Corp, a California-based company whose antennas found their way into WiFi routers from networking manufacturer Netgear Inc/sand a superflat smartphone from LG Electronics Inc.
  The antennas were smaller, flatter and performed better than other options, but integrating them into the rest of the phone proved difficult, said former Rayspan executives. A spokesman for LG said the project was no longer active and LG had no plans to apply metamaterials in other products.
  ''One thing from my experience as an entrepreneur is that technology gets very excited about what it's doing in the lab,'' said Maha Achour, who cofounded Rayspan, ''but the reality when you commercialise things is completely different.''
  The company's patents have since been sold to an undisclosed buyer. The lessons have been learnt. Now, the focus has shifted to using metamaterials in products in markets where they can more easily gain a commercial foothold.
  Smith, who built the first metamaterials in 1999, has led the charge, teaming up with Intellectual Ventures, a patent portfolio firm, to spin off two companies: Kymeta Corp, making flat-panel antennas for satellite communications, and Evolv Technologies, which hopes to make a lighter, faster and portable airport scanner '-- with no moving parts. Kymeta, in partnership with satellite operators Inmarsat and O3b Networks, hopes to ship in early 2015.
  The two fields were chosen from a shortlist of 20 potential markets, Smith said. ''They're the same metamaterials behind the cloak, but we were looking for more near-term applications.''
  The next likely consumer use of metamaterials could be in the wireless charging of devices, an area attracting keen industry attention.
  Mark Gostock of ISIS Innovation Limited, an Oxford University research commercialisation firm, said he was in talks with several manufacturers to licence ISIS' technology. Samsung Electronics has filed several patents related to metamaterials and wireless charging, but declined to comment for this article.
  Other companies that cite metamaterials in their patent filings include Harris Corp, NEC Corp, Hewlett-Packard Co and Panasonic Corp.
  Eventually, says Wil McCarthy, chief technology officer of Denver-based smart window maker RavenBrick LLC and holder of a patent, they will bring metamaterials to polarising windows and will be incorporated without much fanfare.
  ''The people buying these products will have no idea how they work, and won't know or care that they're doing things that were previously considered impossible,'' he says.
  Source:
  http://gulfnews.com/
  Leave CommentsComments
Radiation in the ocean and Fukushima
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: The Top Information Post
  Mon, 30 Dec 2013 01:46
  Geiger counters in the hands of citizens found 150 CPM coming from the ocean.
  '–º Fukushima radiation hits San Francisco
  Let's start by doing the math on what 150 CPM (counts per minute) means. One Bq is 1 decay event per second. So divide CPM by 60, and you have Bq detected. This article detected 2.5 Bq. But in your body, on a normal day, you have 4,400 Bq. See: Wikipedia on Bequerel
  So why is there radiation found near the ocean, and 5 times what's on land? Most people have no idea that there are 3.2 tons of natural uranium in every cubic kilometer of ocean. (13.34 tons per cubic mile.) The ocean has a total of 4.2 billion tons of uranium in it. So, yeah. When you go near the ocean, you find radiation. But it's always been there. There's also potassium-40, radium, polonium-210. Like the spaghetti sauce, you name it, it's in there. And it's perfectly fine. It's in your sea-salt.
  But let's concentrate on uranium, so we can get a sense for natural radiation sources.
  San Franciso Bay is 400-1600 square miles depending on what part is used. For this calculation 1000 square miles will be used.
  Depth of San Francisco Bay varies, but its average is 15 feet deep.
  15 ft · 5280ft/mile = 0.00284 miles deep.
  0.00284 x 1000 square miles = 2.84 cubic miles of seawater.
  Seawater averages 13.34 tons of natural uranium per cubic mile.
  2.84 cubic miles x 13.34 metric tons uranium/cubic mile = 37.8977 metric tons of uranium
  Using 2204.622 lbs per metric ton, there are 83550.16 lbs of uranium in San Francisco Bay.
  0.72% of natural uranium is U-235, suitable for making bombs. (Ignoring U-234)
  0.0072 x 83550.16 lbs = 601.56 lbs of U-235 in San Francisco Bay.
  It took 140 lbs of 80% enriched uranium to make the Hiroshima atomic bomb.
  Since that U-235 wasn't pure, we need to calculate how much 601.56 lbs of pure U-235 would be at 80% enrichment.
  601.56 lb of U-235 · 0.80 = 751.95 lbs of 80% enriched uranium.
  751.95 lbs · 140 lbs per bomb = 5.371 bombs.
  On a normal day, San Francisco Bay has enough U-235 dissolved into it to build at least 5 Hiroshima sized bombs.
  And yet, because it is dissolved in the ocean, you can swim in it. It is safe. You can eat the fish.The ocean is big. Even a bay is huge.
  So what's coming from Fukushima?
  The average person hears Bq numbers, and doesn't have the background to translate them into meaning.There are also wild exaggerations out, mostly from RT and other Russian sources. And most of the public is totally unaware that Russia has reaped a huge (global warming producing) bonanza from Japan's shutdown of nuclear power plants.
  That's because Russia is selling oil and natural gas to Japan to replace Japan's nuclear power. Russia wants that to continue '' global warming be damned. I was in Russia talking about the factories in Siberia 10 years ago.
  Those factories that produce most of the world's (now mostly illegal) freon for refrigeration. Freon and other chlorinated fluorocarbons are a major global warming and ozone depletion gas that most of the world has decided is very bad for the environment. And I realized that for a guy in Siberia looking out the window at the snow and permafrost, the idea of warming things up sounds pretty good.
  So there's that Russian conflict of interest to think about, and there's a general interest in Russia in warming things up to open Siberia. Russian oil men are not much different from Texas oil men, or British Petroleum oil men, or Saudi princes. They want to pump oil and gas and sell it.Reported TEPCO figures are 20-40 trillion Bequerels. RT published 15 quadrillion Bq (15,000 billion) as escaping from Fukushima. It's a wild exaggeration, but, let's use it anyway, because it shows us the same thing.
  Measuring radiation in Bq is like measuring sugar in the kitchen by the molecule. So let's ask ourselves how much sugar would it be, if every Bq (or decay) per second was sugar. Sugar is 342 grams per molecular weight. A molecular weight has a fixed (and outrageously large) number of molecules in it. (Avogadro's number). Atomic weight is what is used to figure out molecular weights and count atoms.
  Avogadro's number is 602,214,130,000,000,000,000,000
  So now we will divide RT's 15 quadrillion sugar molecules by Avogadro's number.
  Multiply 25 billionths of a molecular weight by 342 grams to get the number of grams of sugar.
  0.000000025 x 342 grams = 0.0000085 grams
  1 grain of sugar is about 100 milligrams.
  You would have to break 1 grain of sugar into 11,000 pieces, and take one of them to put your finger on 15 quadrillion sugar molecules.
  In other words '' you couldn't find it on your kitchen counter without a magnifying glass.
  And that's the wild exaggeration version of what has gone into the ocean from Fukushima.
  Yes, we can detect atoms of Cs-137 in modern laboratories because we have phenomenally sensitive equipment that can notice single atoms. But atoms are extremely small.
  You cannot detect that radioactivity from Fukushima with your Geiger counter. If you think that you are detecting it, you are saying that you can detect the equivalent of 1 grain of sugar broken into 11,000 pieces, where just one of those pieces went into the Pacific ocean on the coast of Japan. You are saying that up against that tiny amount, you can find that in the ocean, when San Francisco Bay alone has enough U-235 in it to make 5 atomic bombs, and corresponding amounts of ocean just off the coast have the same.
  I think it's great that people have Geiger counters and get into it. But you have to learn more about what's really going on in order to make sense out of it.
  Radiation is everywhere, always. You can't get away from it. And that's just fine. Enjoy the ocean. It's always had tons of radioactive stuff in it. Always will.
  Leave CommentsComments
'Military-Style' Raid on California Power Station Spooks U.S.
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 30 Dec 2013 01:20
  When U.S. officials warn about "attacks" on electric power facilities these days, the first thing that comes to mind is probably a computer hacker trying to shut the lights off in a city with malware. But a more traditional attack on a power station in California has U.S. officials puzzled and worried about the physical security of the the electrical grid--from attackers who come in with guns blazing.
  Around 1:00 AM on April 16, at least one individual (possibly two) entered two different manholes at the PG&E Metcalf power substation, southeast of San Jose, and cut fiber cables in the area around the substation. That knocked out some local 911 services, landline service to the substation, and cell phone service in the area, a senior U.S. intelligence official told Foreign Policy. The intruder(s) then fired more than 100 rounds from what two officials described as a high-powered rifle at several transformers in the facility. Ten transformers were damaged in one area of the facility, and three transformer banks -- or groups of transformers -- were hit in another, according to a PG&E spokesman.
  Cooling oil then leaked from a transformer bank, causing the transformers to overheat and shut down. State regulators urged customers in the area to conserve energy over the following days, but there was no long-term damage reported at the facility and there were no major power outages. There were no injuries reported. That was the good news. The bad news is that officials don't know who the shooter(s) were, and most importantly, whether further attacks are planned.
  "Initially, the attack was being treated as vandalism and handled by local law enforcement," the senior intelligence official said. "However, investigators have been quoted in the press expressing opinions that there are indications that the timing of the attacks and target selection indicate a higher level of planning and sophistication."
  The FBI has taken over the case. There appears to have been some initial concern, or at least interest, in the fact that the shooting happened one day after the Boston Marathon bombing. But the FBI has no evidence that the attack is related to terrorism, and it appears to be an isolated incident, said Peter Lee, a spokesman for the FBI field office in San Francisco, which is leading the investigation. Lee said the FBI has "a couple of leads we're still following up on," which he wouldn't discuss in detail. There has not been any published motive or intent for the attack, the intelligence official said, and no one has claimed credit.
  Local investigators seemed to hit a dead end in June, so they released surveillance footage of the shooting. But that apparently produced no new information. The FBI says there have been no tips from the public about who the shooter might be and what he was doing there.
  The incident might have stayed a local news story, but this month, Rep. Henry Waxman, the California Democrat and ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, mentioned it at a hearing on regulatory issues. "It is clear that the electric grid is not adequately protected from physical or cyber attacks," Waxman said. He called the shooting at the the San Jose facility "an unprecedented and sophisticated attack on an electric grid substation with military-style weapons. Communications were disrupted. The attack inflicted substantial damage. It took weeks to replace the damaged parts. Under slightly different conditions, there could have been serious power outages or worse."
  The U.S. official said the incident "did not involve a cyber attack," but that's about all investigators seem to know right now. AT&T, which operates the phone network that was affected, has offered a $250,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the perpetrator or perpetrators.
  "These were not amateurs taking potshots," Mark Johnson, a former vice president for transmission operations at PG&E, said last month at a conference on grid security held in Philadelphia. "My personal view is that this was a dress rehearsal" for future attacks.
  At the very least, the attack points to an arguably overlooked physical threat to power facilities at a time when much of the U.S. intelligence community, Congress, and the electrical power industry is focused on the risk of cyber attacks. There has never been a confirmed power outage caused by a cyber attack in the United States. But the Obama administration has sought to promulgate cyber security standards that power facilities could use to minimize the risk of one.
  At least one senior official thinks the government is focusing too heavily on cyber attacks. Jon Wellinghoff, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said last month that an attack by intruders with guns and rifles could be just as devastating as a cyber attack.
  A shooter "could get 200 yards away with a .22 rifle and take the whole thing out," Wellinghoff said last month at a conference sponsored by Bloomberg. His proposed defense: A metal sheet that would block the transformer from view. "If you can't see through the fence, you can't figure out where to shoot anymore," Wellinghoff said. Price tag? A "couple hundred bucks." A lot cheaper than the billions the administration has spent in the past four years beefing up cyber security of critical infrastructure in the United States and on government computer networks.
  "There are ways that a very few number of actors with very rudimentary equipment could take down large portions of our grid," Wellinghoff said. "I don't think we have the level of physical security we need."