OPCA Explained – Why a most recent opinion by the Queen’s Bench in Canada exposes the Secret Bar Guilds as the most radical and dangerous anti-social and anti-law group in the world

A recent 185 page judicial decision from the 18th September 2012 (Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 download pdf here) concerning an acrimonious divorce in Edmonton, Canada has confirmed the inherent danger to the sustainable future of society of so calledOrganized Pseudo-Lawful Commercial Arguments” or “OPCA” proffered by acolytes and advocates of the more sophisticated and complex “Organized Pseudo-Lawful Commercial Architecture” to which such arguments by definition must belong.

While the formal 736 paragraph “Reasons for Decision” by Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke (“Justice Rooke”) is full of presumptions, suppositions, inaccuracies and gross fallacies, the document nonetheless may herald a milestone in identifying a new way in which debate and discussion concerning jurisdiction, law and procedure may unfold – specifically the admission that certain “OPCA” structures exist masquerading as legitimate argument and law, yet having no validity except by force, or as Justice Rooke states in a quote from Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan “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.”

Experience and expertise at researching OPCA

[1] For the past 26 years and increasingly full-time over the past fifteen years, it has been my passion and calling to research, discover and objectively reveal the full extent of the complex “Organized Pseudo-Lawful Commercial Architecture” established firstly by the Roman Cult, also known as the Vatican from the 11th Century in claiming the role of Vicar of Christ from the Frankish-Saxon Catholic Church and later fully developed under Henry VIII in the form of “Commonwealth law” through Westminster from the 16th Century; and

[2] Both forms of law still pervade the world today. Both forms of law through Papal Bulls and Acts or “Statutes” are based on obvious frauds and outrageously false presumptions such as the Bull Unum Sanctum (1302) which claims “all creatures are subject to the Pontiff” and the Statute of Westminster (1275) which incredibly refers to several 17th and 18th Century legal terms designed to abrogate the rights of people such as “waste”. Most importantly, both systems of pseudo-legal and pseudo-lawful argument are an anathema to the history of prior Western Law such as Carolingian (Anglo-Saxon) Law, Byzantine Law and even Roman Law which recognized the inherent and fundamental importance of consent; and

[3] As Justice Rooke mentions Frank O’Collins in paragraph (376) as an “OPCA Guru”, while conceding Ucadia and One-Heaven represents a “new and total code of law”, it is a matter of principle that a measured response is published, particularly in answer to a large number of gross errors and emotionally and intellectually unstable and unsupportable references throughout the judicial opinion; and

[4] The following prescription is provided to some of these fallacious and vexatious opinions by a wholly biased and unsuited justice in his treatment of a subject for which he appears overwhelmingly not to be an expert.

Vexatious Litigation and Mala Fide (Bad Faith)

[5] Justice, similar to commerce, depends upon two or more parties engaging with one another to resolve a matter with mutual understanding known in “good faith”. The opposite concept to “Good Faith” is bad faith or mala fide. Blacks 9th Edition (Pg 159) defines “Bad Faith” or mala fide as “dishonesty of belief or purpose”; and

[6] The history of legal maxims, statute and case law concerning mala fide is well defined and clear – that a party acting with dishonest intent, or misrepresenting the facts commits an injury against the law itself – hence the most ancient Roman maxim ex dolo malo non oritur actio meaning “an action does not arise from fraud”; and

[7] Similarly, “Vexatious Litigation”, also known as a “Vexatious Suit” is correctly seen as an injury against the law itself with Blacks 9th Edition (Pg 1701) defines a “Vexatious Suit” as “A lawsuit instituted frivolously, or maliciously and without good grounds, meant to create trouble and expense for the party being sued”; and

[8] However, unlike the identification of fraudulent and wrongful action male fide (bad faith), the question of what does or does not constitute “Vexatious Litigation” is so conditional upon each specific circumstance that (to date) attempts to enforce stricter rules, codes or restrictions against perceived “Vexatious Litigants” have inevitably failed under appeal. It would be an arrogant judge indeed to ignore the weight of history and presume that what he or she may present as “Vexatious Suit” in one circumstance renders any form of partial or similar behavior equally vexatious in the future; and

[9] As to the specific evidence presented in the rambling 736 paragraph reasoning or Treatise (“Treatise”) of Justice Rooke concerning the alleged “vexatious” behaviour of one party, including evidence of male fide: a competent forum of appeal or competent jurist upon review would have to reasonably conclude that whatever “Vexatious Suit” and bad faith was demonstrated by one party in the proceeding, the action of Justice Rooke in exceeding his authority, mandate and objectivity to scribe his document outweighs any wrong doing by either litigant and renders a far greater injury against the law; and

Spurious, Irrelevant or Invalid documents and formalities

[10] Suspending for the moment the underlying theme of unquestionable jurisdiction presumed by Justice Rooke to make the wide ranging array of presumptions, errors and simplistic logical fallacies littered throughout his Treatise, it is necessary to consider the merits of specific points raised concerning the use by parties of allegedly spurious, irrelevant or invalid documents and formalities; and

[11] Whereas in past generations, a party to a court matter may be forgiven for the mistake of using an incorrect form or procedure, the age of the Internet affords the vast majority of the populace with virtually instant access to most standard forms and their instructions for most types of courts, especially in Western countries. In many cases, even the same judicial procedures expected to be followed by court officials is also available for instant download and review; and

[12] Whether or not a court is properly constituted or merely a corporate franchise masquerading as a valid court is irrelevant to the fact at hand that a competent party choosing to proceed with a matter within a certain court operated by one of the network of secretive Temple and Bar Guilds is able to not only find the proper forms accepted by the court, but also the generally accepted guidelines of such a commercial pseudo-legal entity; and

[13] An employee of such a pseudo-legal entity, whether a properly invested justice, or merely a private contractor under a letter of marque, has every right to disqualify documents that do not comport the internal procedures of such an entity. Justice Rooke is correct that litigants that ignore this fact risk rendering any argument fatally flawed in the face of demonstrative incompetence in the manner of how they conduct themselves through their paperwork; and

[14] Justice Rooke is also correct in nominating a virtual cottage industry of people “selling” and promoting their own versions of “remedy” to sometimes desperate and gullible people, especially in being convinced that absurd and idiotic corruption of grammar and punctuation somehow renders a superior position as in the case of one highly discredited “remedy guru”. Similarly, there are many other people promoting their own versions of documents through seminars and web sites with the promise of instant success; and

[15] As to the validity of the content contained within such documents, Justice Rooke has gravely erred and is in gross error in seeking to comment and adjudicate the merits of the content. It should have been enough for any Justice to summarize that such documents tendered to the court as per the exhibits within the Treatise do not confirm to proper procedure, were spurious and irrelevant and therefore put to rest. For Justice Rooke then assumed the position of historian, theologian and philosopher and proceeded to adjudicate the validity of the content is quite extraordinary and now demands clear debate and honest answers to a number of the topics raised.

Cestui Que Vie Trusts and Annuities

[16] In several places within his Treatise, Justice Rooke seeks to ridicule those who may question the existence of a type of trust in their name called a “Cestui Que Vie” Trust and its intimate connection to the Birth Certificate; and

[17] While refusing to admit to the existence of such a trust in the name of the litigant in the case, a reasonable person could be led to conclude by the words of Justice Rooke that such claims of the existence of a Cestui Que Vie Trust in the name of each citizen of Canada as in other Commonwealth and western countries is mere mythology and evidence of mental illness; and

[18] In fact, the existence of Cestui Que Vie Trusts and their fundamental importance to the present global accounting system of Western-Roman States is without question. The Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666 and of 1707 remain largely in force even today. The reason for these acts? To create the legal fiction necessary that declares if a person is considered lost at sea, abandoned, dead, a lunatic, a minor or incompetent then not only may their property be held in guardianship, but that a contract may be established called an “annuity” whereby a value may be granted to the guardian or custodian by the purchaser of the contract in exchange for some form of ongoing income derived from maximising the value of the estate of the infant, lunatic, lost or “dead” person. The result is the birth of annuities through such acts of parliament as Life Annuities in 1703 which helped fund the ongoing wars of Great Britain and subsequent acts such as the 28 million pounds from annuities act of 1801 which created an even larger annuity system; and

[19] The existence of annuities created against the name of citizens of Western-Roman States, particularly former or present Commonwealth countries is unquestionable. One of the first key acts of US Congress was to establish a system for the repayment of public debt through the selling of shares and annuities through the 1790 Public Debt Act. Virtually every country has its own annuity public statutes, such as Canada and these can be found by searching the public databases. In each and every case, annuities depend upon the existence of Cestui Que Vie Trusts. So who is said to administer Cestui Que Vie Trusts in most Commonwealth countries? The Queen’s Bench of the High Court!; and

[20] Here we find that either Justice Rooke is attempting to pervert the course of justice in deliberately obfuscating the fact that he does possess a genuine fiduciary duty to administer the very trust to which the litigant refers, but for some unknown explanation is unwilling or unable to do so; or Justice Rooke and the entire Queen’s Bench is wholly incompetent and such fiduciary obligations are no longer being met. In either case, the Treatise of Justice Rooke has opened up more questions than it has answered; and

[21] Fiat justitia ruat caelum (let justice be done though the heavens fall) is not merely one of the oldest and most important maxims for all Judges and Magistrates, it is expected by the public that a judge render his or her verdict and reasoning impartially and without supposition as to whether an accused found guilty is a “good or evil man or woman” in the eyes of the Universe. Any judge that willingly and deliberately exceeds such maxim does so at peril to Justice in that realm and on the face of the Treatise of Justice Rooke, it appears strongly that fair justice is indeed under threat in Canada; and

The illegitimacy of using Fallacy to define argument

[22] The most forbidden act for a Judge or Magistrate to use when addressing the law, is the use of “fallacy”, sometimes also written as “logical fallacy”. This is because for more than two thousand three hundred years (since the time of Plato and Aristotle) it remains a steadfast truth of any competent forum that when one or more fallacies are found to exist in any legal argument, especially one associated with a verdict then logically the whole argument itself may be discredited, derogated or abrogated; and

[23] A classic example of how arguments based on fallacy are forbidden in legitimate and valid forums of justice (as opposed to pseudo-legal commercial places masquerading as courts) is a false argument such as a classic non-sequitur (a) “A red haired man killed a policeman” therefore (b) “All red haired men are killers” or (c ) “Red haired men only kill police”. To a man or woman of sound mind and reason, such an argument is obviously flawed and untrue and injurious to the law; and

[24] A separate example of logical fallacy is “argumentum ad hominem” whereby an argument is constructed upon false and untested presumptions of character in order to validate an argument. It is why competent judicial systems normally forbid their Judges and officials from making or writing argumentum ad hominem fallacies concerning the mind of an accused until such facts are properly tested and can be rightly deduced; and

[25] It is with great regret that the government and judiciary of Canada have permitted the release a document evidencing not one, or two specific paragraphs demonstrating non-sequiturs and ad hominems, but literally dozen upon dozen paragraphs filled with formal and logical fallacies of such number that it is impossible at this time to reference them all within the brief of this reply. This might be something a competent and reasonable reader of the Treatise of Justice Rooke may choose to do at their leisure; and

[26] On every possible grounds of judicial competence, the treatise of Justice Rooke should be immediately withdrawn. Certainly, if the Inner and Middle Temple themselves were disinclined to act against such an obvious injury to the credibility of any future judgments emanating from the Queens Bench in Canada, then one could reasonably conclude the rot within the legal profession is terminal.

The invalidity of circular arguments as logical proof

[27] A further example of fallacy (logical fallacy) littering the Treatise of Justice Rooke is the fallacy of circular thinking, also known as circular logic. Because of how prevalent this particular logical fallacy exists within the treatise of Justice Rooke, the demonstration of such incompetent reasoning requires particular mention; and

[28] A classic example of logical fallacy that all readers would be familiar is “because I said so”, as a time honored answer offered frequently by parents and teachers when cornered on a challenge of jurisdiction, order, instruction of explanation. Continuing the analogy, such a fallacy of circular thinking is usually backed up if challenged by some demonstration of enforcement of jurisdiction. As evidenced by the quote of Hobbes mentioned by Justice Rooke in the opening of his treatise, it appears a similar flawed thinking exists; and

[29] “Might is right” may have been argued by President Lincoln, but it is inarguable as Rule of Law. Before the study of Lord Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England was eventually abandoned to less rigorous education of young legal minds, most first year graduates of law school much less a senior Judge should know that authority of law is ultimately derived from consent of the people. Anything else is merely a decree without legitimacy; and

[30] In a just system, there exists no separate form of law for judges versus litigants. A man who is asked to give consent to testifying under oath in a presumed court of law has every right to ask as a matter of principle that all those who shall administer such an oath and speak for or against such testimony are equally enrolled and bound. The several circular fallacies referenced by Justice Rooke to this point are manifestly inadequate and an example of either extraordinary contempt for fundamental principles of law, or an attempt to obfuscate some other factors contributing to the result that in practice a judge does operate under separate form of law; and

[31] A similar array of flawed and inadequate circular fallacies were offered up by Justice Rooke as to the question of jurisdiction and authority of a court, especially by what form(s) of law it may or may not function. Such questions when done as a matter of respect are absolutely fundamental to the fairness of law. To dismiss such points through the use of circular arguments akin to “because I said so” is an open mockery to the rights of fair hearing, justice and to be heard for any litigant or party before any court in Canada, the United States, Australia and any other jurisdiction enjoyned to the Treatise of Justice Rooke.

The Danger of Organized Pseudo-Lawful Commercial Arguments

[32] Justice Rooke of Canada is indeed correct on one point: “Organized Pseudo-Lawful Commercial Arguments” and those that propagate them are a danger to Justice, the law and civilization in general. As we have just outlined clearly and methodically, we are indeed dealing with an extremely dangerous, spurious, illegitimate instrument in the matter of the Treatise of Justice Rooke himself that threatens the very Rule of Law and Justice in Canada and potentially wider if further propagated; and

[33] The Canons of Law also known as Astrum Iuris Divini Canonum defined through the Society of One Heaven as mentioned by Justice Rooke in paragraph (376) define Organized Pseudo-Lawful Commercial Architecture under Article 207 of Canons of Sovereign Law being:

Canon 6870

Organized Pseudo-Lawful Commercial Architecture (OPCA) is a universally recognized description and acronym to define a comprehensive commercial system of law, statutes, offices, administration, history, enforcement based on fraud, false presumptions and repudiation of time honored principles of Divine Law, Natural Law, Positive Law and Rule of Law. The first “OPCA” Architecture ever invented was the Commonwealth Law Form from the time of Henry VIII of England in the 16th Century CE.

Canon 6871

It is universally accepted by all competent jurists and philosophers that a system must contain the following elements to be validly defined as a Organized Pseudo-Lawful Commercial Architecture (OPCA) being an Area, Army, Assembly and Administration of one or more Agencies

(i) An Organized Pseudo-Lawful Commercial Area, also known as a “country” or “nation” is the appearance of a valid kingdom or constituted dominion under some instrument of constitution, when it is in fact merely a franchise of a larger pseudo-religious commercial network such as the Roman Cult having no legitimacy whatsoever; and

(ii) An Organized Pseudo-Lawful Commercial Army, also known as a “police force” or “sheriff force” is a body appearing to maintain law and order which is instead used to enforce the narrow policies of commercial self interest of a few controlling the OPCA architecture; and

(iii) An Organized Pseudo-Lawful Commercial Assembly, also known as a “parliament” is a body possessing the appearances of validity consent, in the issuing of acts, but which repudiates and rejects the need for consent of the people instead treating with contempt its own laws in order to maintain commercial advantage and power at any cost; and

(iv) An Organized Pseudo-Lawful Commercial Administration and Agencies such as the Private Bar Guilds pretending to be legitimate courts when such franchises are frequently mere registered corporations run by Organized Pseudo-Lawful Commercial Acolytes masquerading as justices and officials.

Canon 6872

The Traits of OPCA Architecture have been rooted in the indicium (signs) of legitimacy since the 16th Century, while promoting rituals and administrative procedures that have no basis in law or history other than to profor commercial advantage to the Organized Pseudo-Lawful Commercial Acolytes. These fraudulent signs are highest in use within the private courts operated for profit by the Private Bar Guilds mostly since the 19th Century falsely pretending to respect and protect the law and uphold the ancient maxims of law in accordance with these Canons, including but not limited to:

(i) The adoption of robes and dress that have more association with wizardry, occult worship of Ba’al as Galli attendants than any legitimate mandate of jurisprudence; and

(ii)The adoption of language, the use of upper and lower case to denote corporate fictions and estates from trusts and other associated elements; and

(iii) The use of terms stolen from sacred law such as “session”, “honorable” while judges in many jurisdictions no longer take proper oaths, nor feel compelled to do so, or justify such behaviour; and

(iv) The heavy use of nautical and maritime terms in association with admiralty law, yet with no interest in honoring the limited remedy made available through such corrupt law.

Canon 6873

An Organized Pseudo-Lawful Commercial Acolyte, also known is one thoroughly immersed and satisfied with the architecture of Pseudo-Lawful Commercial Architecture who displays the general characteristics of arrogance, contempt for history and rule of law, a blasphemous rejection of the significance of Divine Law and is willing to defend the system to the end, without any desire to comprehend its provenance or function. The strongest exemplars of such cultish and fanatical behaviour remains the deliberately corrupted academic system of Western nations from the 20th Century and the insular courts systems of Western nations operated by the Private Bar Guilds.

Canon 6874

The misrepresentation, misnaming or misconstruing of the term Organized Pseudo-Lawful Commercial Architecture (OPCA) is an indication of deliberate fraud, ignorance, incompetence or a combination of all these factors.

Canon 6875

Any argument claiming the present canons reflect in any way a Organized Pseudo-Lawful Commercial Architecture (OPCA) is hereby false, a repudiation of all form of logic and sense and therefore an open confession that the proponent of such a claim is suffering severe mental illness and unfit to hold any form of office.

Conclusion

Clearly, there exists an existential threat to Justice and the Rule of Law in Canada, the United States and Australia and it is from rogue Judges and Magistrates who now openly seek to declare war against sections of the population and to ignore basic principles of judicial competency.

The question is whether we will see a reprieve or a continuation of the rapid decline of basic competence in all fundamental branches of government? Time will tell.

None found.
This entry was posted in Common Law and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.