Tuesday, April 30, 2019
Another motion for interlocutory suspension from the Law Society of Ontario was granted by the Tribunal Hearing Division
The LSO submits that, in several litigation files, the Lawyer has repeatedly advanced far-reaching yet unsupported theories and arguments, many of them centring on elaborate conspiracies involving the Vatican. The Lawyer’s legal positions frequently misunderstand substantive law and the nature of the Canadian legal system. The Lawyer has sought to appeal a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to a fictional tribunal, he has argued that the United States Constitution applies to Canada, and he has claimed that the Canadian government has no jurisdiction because it is just a corporation traded on the New York Stock Exchange. The Federal Court found that his arguments fit the definition of an “Organized Pseudo-Legal Commercialist Argument” (OPCA) within the meaning of Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII). In reliance on these theories, the Lawyer has proceeded to sue several judges, opposing counsel and their firms, and numerous other parties.
In a custody dispute
In March 2016, the Lawyer commenced an action in Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice on behalf of the parents against the government and various people who had involvement in the CAS proceedings. The defendants included Shelston J., two other Ontario judges, an Alberta judge, staff at theCAS, several lawyers who represented opposing parties in the litigation (as well as their law firms), the Queen, and “Elizabeth Alexandra Mary” (another reference to the Queen). In the lawsuit, the Lawyer sought a declaration that in any legal proceeding, anyone may request a panel of Indigenous judges equal to the number of non-Indigenous judges to hear and decide the case. He claimed an injunction preventing all Children’s Aid Societies in Canada from apprehending any Indigenous children without the consent of “SOVEREIGN Clan Grandmothers.” He claimed $60 million in damages for crimes against humanity in kidnapping children of an Indigenous “Domestic Sovereign.” The Statement of Claim stated that the Queen “was convicted ... of the murder of thousands of Aboriginal children by the Common Law Court (ITCCS) sitting in Brussels ... and accordingly, any governmental authority in Canada is null and void.”
That suit was dismissed
In February 2016, the Lawyer commenced an action in Federal Court on behalf of Sir “andrew miracle” and others. The Lawyer amended the Statement of Claim in May 2016. The defendants included government figures like Justin Trudeau, David Johnston, “the Queen of England,” and “Elizabeth Mary Windsor,” as well as “THE CAS AND ITS EMPLOYEES (personally),” a prior opposing counsel’s firm, the Algonquins of Ontario,and several banks. The Amended Statement of Claim claimed $3 quadrillion in damages, orders overturning decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal, a declaration that the Constitution Acts of 1867 and 1982 are ultra vires, and a declaration that Sir andrew miracle is a “sentient, living being (as opposed to a corporate number) who is a Domestic Sovereign ... not within the jurisdiction of Canada ... and the decisions of Ontario courts are not binding without his consent,” and other relief.
The Lawyer e-mailed opposing counsel to summarise his theory. Among other comments, he stated that the United States’ Articles of Confederation of 1787 [sic] apply to Canada, and therefore Canada is part of the United States and is subject to U.S. constitutional amendments. He questioned the Queen’s authority due to the illegitimacy of Edward IV, her conviction for murder by “a Common Law Court,” and her oath to the Pope in order to obtain Vatican gold. He indicated that the Supreme Court in the Daniels v. Canada case recognised these plaintiffs “as both Treaty Status and Sovereign Metis.” After further elaboration, he concluded: “Govern yourselves accordingly. We are in historic times.”
The defendants brought a motion to strike the claim. The Lawyer’s 35-page reply factum expanded on the conspiracy theory. At para. 46, the Lawyer also referenced a Court of Appeal decision and stated that LaForme J.A. was “a biased judge (who was fired by Sir Andrew as an incompetent drunk)” (emphasis in original). In September 2016, the claim was struck by a Prothonotary as frivolous and vexatious. The Lawyer commenced an appeal or motion to review the Prothonotary’s decision. The Law Society is unaware of the result of this motion.
There are allegations involving several other matters.
The main issue in this motion is whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that there is a significant risk of harm to members of the public or to the public interest in the administration of justice and that making a suspension or restriction order is likely to reduce the risk...
The Lawyer’s theories and arguments, which underlie his approach to several litigation matters, are often factually incredible and are not supportedby the legal authorities on which he relies.The reasoning does not flow logically. There are serious flaws in his arguments that help place them outside the range of what is expected of a competent lawyer.
Consider the “Human Beings v. Corporations” section of the Lawyer’s plaintiffs’ reply factum to motion to strike in the Federal Court lawsuit against Justin Trudeau et al., dated July 7, 2016 (the plantiffs’ reply factum). The Lawyer repeatedly points out that his Métis clients are human beings. Incontrast, at para. 27, he asserts that Canada is “merely a Crown Corporation, registered in Washington D.C. and traded on the New York StockExchange, that provides governmental services to Ottawa.” At para. 28, he further asserts that “‘Canada’ in this sense is only an artificial structure designed to enforce the rules over a surrendered Band Corporation. It has no jurisdiction over Sovereign Metis.” It is unclear how the Lawyer has reached this far-reaching and illogical conclusion. The assertions that precede it do not constitute a coherent explanation. [emphasis in original]
...The Lawyer has repeatedly asserted that his clients are sovereign Aboriginals and therefore they are beyond Canada’s jurisdiction. This is not a valid argument. Lawyers must serve their clients within the boundaries and procedures of the Canadian legal system, instead of expecting to fundamentally reshape the courts and the state in the midst of the litigation. See R. v. David,  O.J. No. 561 at paras. 14 and 16. That is not to say there cannot be test cases that make novel or untested arguments that stretch existing authority. The Lawyer’s assertions are not novel arguments; they are unfounded and nonsensical ones.