WoW Dean. Epic. fWANK O'collins, comes frim a llooinngg line of jesuits throughout his family history. He's 1 himself FABIAN RAT !!

Meads v. Meads = fake-Judge who only cares about the legal rights of banks, governments and corporations

Ok, first, IT WAS A DIVORCE HEARING AND HE WAS LEAVING THE WIFE WITH A SHITLOAD OF DEBT! Second...he was cautioned before he signed the marriage license. The government has NO standing, until there is conflict. That's what you agreed to on the license. The "Justice" in that case could writ how much they thought the movie "Pearl Harbour" sucked, and it makes no difference. I could kill this the second it was introduced. This is a case I would go into court to argue. These are scare tactics designed to leverage your ignorance, and start searching for "snipes". http://youtu.be/2z3GJiZqDCI

opinion of the justice is not admissable evidence, it is an opinion.

.."snipes?" :/

Brenda Larson: I almost forgot to tell the most important parts, CPS lawyer stood up and stated that I was being vexatious, committing abuse of the process and he even brought case law Meads v. Meads into it.

Scott Duncan: Meads v. Meads is NOT CASE LAW, it's OPINION. the ISSUE TRIED was a DIVORCE, not any "Freeman" issue.

this is my favourite part of Meads v. Meads: "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." ..and if he had finished that sentence off it would've read- "...trying to VIOLATE the common law and/or natural law rights of men and/or women and/or people and/or peoples." :)

I do have to say it seams that people who want to end their relationships sure do make a mess sometimes. Probably much better off NOT allowing their administrative authority into a relationship EVER

THE ANSWER TO MEADS v. MEADS: RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery[1986] Supreme Court of Canada "The Charter applies to the COMMON LAW. The language of s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 clearly includes the common law and a construction of that section that would exclude the common law from the Charter's application would be wholly unrealistic..... Although government action is generally dependant on statutory authority, it may rely as well on the common law as in the case of the prerogative. The Charter will apply to the common law where the common law is the basis for some GOVERNMENTAL ACTION which is alleged to have INFRINGED a guaranteed RIGHT or FREEDOM." http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=common+law%2C+rule&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/ca/scc/doc/1986/1986canlii5/1986canlii5.html&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAQY29tbW9uIGxhdywgcnVsZQAAAAAAAAE

Just what I was thinking. -->> How dare you sir/madam? Interupt our normally expeditious process of molestation!

Dean Kory, magistrates are NOT COMPETENT here in aus. So a rapid decline in upholding fundamental princioals within the public law courts will keep on keeping on. ab continuum

164. Fair hearing (4) Without limiting the generality of subsection (3), that subsection does not preserve the validity of the proceeding if the failure to comply with the agreement results in PREJUDICE to the DEFENDANT'S RIGHT to a FAIR HEARING. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p33_e.htm#BK207