Meads vs Meads=orbiter dicta=non-binding opinion

Rule of Law-Judges AssociationMeads vs Meads decision Alberta Queens Bench is a controversial decision. NOT for the decision itself but for the inclusion of pages and pages of the judges opinion (orbiter dicta – (oh-bitter dick-tah) n. remarks of a judge which are not necessary to reaching a decision, but are made as comments, illustrations or thoughts.)

By definition then the “orbiter dicta” statements are NOT law, NOT binding and form no part of the actual decision – think of them as side notes, an “ohby the way this is what I think”.

Lawyers have been struck with fear of anyone labeled as ““Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” (OPCA) litigants” and prosecutors proudly (or with distain) pronounce the latest man or woman before the court is another one of “those” and should be dismissed with prejudice because they say so and Meads is law…uh no.

Meads is a propaganda pure and simple, of no force or affect and should be an embarrassment to any real honourable lawyer with an open mind and clear thinking.

Here is a law blog discussing the case and how it is being used (they previously discussed it upon it’s release). There is a semblance of balance in the views as they state up front “The post will touch on the ethical problems created when judges embrace “literary flourishes” and “dry wit” in their decisions” re ““Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” (OPCA) litigants” and the Post closes with “Daydreams about bluebells and rickety chairs may be evocative, but humility and wisdom are better aspirations for judges than drawing pictures in the sky.”

Meads is trash orbiter dicta meant to trash people who are attempting to stand up and question the fraud that passes for law in the vast majority of courts today. It was written as one-size-fits-all opinion piece to slander and shut down legitimate challenges to the court process, although legitimate commentary on a few tactics, it extends beyond those to be a blanket offering to hide the daily fraud in the courts who’s actions gave rise to people losing faith and beginning to see the fraud that exists in the courtrooms today.

Are the impugned litigants incorrect in some of their positions? Yes for sure. But the errors of SOME of their ways do not negate the legitimate attempt to comprehend the legal morass of a fraudulent court process and their basic claim of rights that the lawyers and judges should respect, in most cases, almost without question.

Here’s the link to the law blog.