SGU's own SkepticalEsquire comes on to talk about the freemen and sovereign citizen movements in Canada and the USA. Opened up a whole new field of pseudo law I didn't really realize existed.
On the podcast I referenced a great quote from the judge decision in Mclean v Arkansas "equal time" trial. Many creationists claim a conspiracy against them, to freeze them out of publishing in legit journals. You would think given their moment in the sun (here, at the supreme court trial that followed, or the Dover case) they would "bring it". The creationists have been represented by very capable legal teams who, if there was such a conspiracy, would be able to well document it. But they have never been able to establish this claim with a jot of evidence (to steal a phrase). If brilliant legal teams with highly vested interests in getting creationism into schools can't establish that claim, there's a very good chance it's pure crap. Anyway the judge's quote:
The scientific community consists of individuals and groups, nationally and internationally, who work independently in such varied fields as biology, paleontology, geology, and astronomy. Their work is published and subject to review and testing by their peers. The journals for publication are both numerous and varied. There is, however, not one recognized scientific journal which has published an article espousing the creation science theory described in Section 4(a). Some of the State's witnesses suggested that the scientific community was "close-minded" on the subject of creationism and that explained the lack of acceptance of the creation science arguments. Yet no witness produced a scientific article for which publication has been refused. Perhaps some members of the scientific community are resistant to new ideas. It is, however, inconceivable that such a loose knit group of independent thinkers in all the varied fields of science could, or would, so effectively censor new scientific thought.
Also, too, a must read is Judge Rooke's ruling against Dennis Larry Meads. This guy was, at a minimum, a D&D fan. There are so many hilarious quotes in his ruling. Just a sample:http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
 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”.
 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.