While the previous post (OPCA Explained…) addressed a number of disturbing features of a recent opinion and treatise of a senior Justice and member of the Secret Bar Guilds, a number of outstanding questions remain concerning such elemental subjects as “what is law?”, “what is common law?” and why there seems to be such an apparent disconnect between litigants claiming certain rights and privileges against judges and magistrates denying such claims as vexatious, mala fide (bad faith) and pseudo-legal.
Despite the temptation for litigants to presume that the actions of members of the Secret Bar Guilds are wholly corrupt, such presumptions themselves suffer the same fatal errors of hubris and logical fallacies as Justice J. D. Rooke discussed in the previous post. Generally speaking, those “elevated” to the bench are men and women who have demonstrated a high degree of intellect and ability. Furthermore, as evidenced by their greater contribution to society it can be safely said that the majority of these men and women are upstanding and conscientious members of society. So why then the disconnect between the claims of litigants to principles of law and the interpretation of such actions as a threat to society, or pseudo-lawful?
Similarly, the now openly affirmed prejudices of justices, magistrates and officers of the court that those who choose to by-pass legal representation towards “common law remedies” are deluded at best or incompetent at worst itself is founded on a kind of “disconnect” the source and history of law. The opening three paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America (1776) makes abundantly clear the foundation of what is called “democratic law” – so how have justices, magistrates and other members of the Secret Bar Guilds become so thoroughly treasonous in their attitude towards the people they are supposed to serve?
This is the purpose of this brief article in the hope that for all sides, some light may be shed on the “myths” of common law, the principle of law, legal realism and other “intellectual cults” that have contributed to this disconnect that currently affects the fair dispensing of justice.
The creation of the Common Law “Myth” and Codification of Law
 Before the birth in 1881 of the intellectually carcinogenic treatise of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr (b.1841-d.1935) perversely entitled The Common Law, which heralded the birth of a kind of madness or “legal mind virus” otherwise known as “legal realism”, the modern foundations of the Roman Western Law system were firmly established in the second half of the 18th Century through the creation of what may be described as the Common Law “Myth”; and
 The vast majority of what people perceive as both written and unwritten “Common Law Rights” are deliberate 18th Century distortions of completely written Anglo-Saxon Law first promulgated in the 8th Century by the Carolingian leaders beginning with Charles Martel of the Franks:
(i) It was Charles Martel and his sons that invented the very word “noble” from Latin gnoscere and Greek Knosis meaning “wisdom, worthy, enlightened” and the titles of Lord (from Latin laudis meaning ‘praiseworthy, worthy, meritous’) then Baron (ancient Gaelic bara/barra meaning ‘rod or measure of value’) and Earl (ancient Gaelic meaning ‘brave man, warrior, leader, chief’); and
(ii) It was the Carolingians that first invented the concept of “tenancy” and “tenancy agreements” (from Latin tenere meaning to ‘hold/keep’) which meant literally “one who holds land by tenure” – with tenure meaning “an agreement for holding immovable property (tenement), equivalent to lease.” The concept of “hold” was also significant to the Franks as the word itself denoted certain obligations namely “to keep, tend and watch over (the land)”; and
(iii) It was Anglo-Saxon Law under the Carolingians, not “Common Law” that first introduced the rights of tenancy being the right of equite (equite) – being fair use and the right of redemption – being the right to make good any wrong; and
(iv) It was Anglo-Saxon Law and not the myth of “Common Law” that enshrined the rights of the people or “folk” into sacred law or Sacré Loi (Sacred Law) and the Biblia Sacra (Sacred Bible) and later bastardized in the 18th Century to be merely “folklore”; and
(v) It was Charles Martel in 738 CE and not some Plantagenet pretender that on March 14th 738 CE convened the first “parliament” or Campus de Marches (House of Lords) from Latin meaning “theatre or meeting of March” or “meeting of boundaries” with campus meaning “place, arena, meeting” and mar/margo meaning “month of March; edge, border, boundary”; and
(vi) It was under Carolingian leader Charles the Younger (742-768) that the first bicameral “parliament” was first introduced with the formation of the assembly of barons or Parlomentum as “house of review” with the Campus de Marches as the “house of origination”. “Parlomentum” from the Latin words parla meaning “equal speech” and mentum “by like agreement, character, chin”. Hence the original literal meaning of “parliament” being “a meeting of equal speech and character by like agreement”; and
(vii) It was the Carolingians who invented the word Sovereign under Sacré Loi (“Sacred Law”) to describe one anointed by God as having supreme, independent authority to rule a political region known as a Realm. The word “sovereign” originates from the combination of two ancient Latin words sover meaning “savior” and regno meaning “to rule, reign; to be supreme lord”. Hence a Sovereign literally means by its original etymology “to rule and reign as a savior”; and
(viii) It was Anglo-Saxon Law that invented the language of Anglaise, (later corrupted to become English and a less corrupted version being French), the concept of a “style manual” or Scriptura Manualis (“Scripture Manual”) and bicameral writing in majuscule (upper case) and miniscule (lower case); and
(ix) It was Anglo-Saxon Law that demanded only law properly written and codified and passed by “parliament” was to be observed called Capitulum, or capitula or cap. for short. It was also the Carolingians that invented the concept of the Cancellocum or “Chancery” as the official keepsafe and store for all official documents and records; and
(x) It was Anglo-Saxon Law that first invented the form and structure of Covenants, Charters and Contracts that were later deliberately corrupted by the Roman Cult and English “Common Law”; and
(xi) It was the Carolingians that founded the Catholic Church in 741 CE in opposition to the Holly Roman Church from Antioch (original and true name of Constantinople from its founding), invaded and established the office of Vicar of Christ in Rome, created the title Rex Romanum (King of the Romans) and first defined Canon Law as Iuris Canonum of the Catholicus Ecclesia (Catholic Church); and
(xii) It was the Carolingians in their devotion to the true teachings of Nazarene leader Jesus Christ that first formed the concept of the seven sacred sacraments of Honestus (Honesty), Fidelis (Trustworthy), Virtus (Courage), Iustus (Justice), Penitus (Penance), Caritas (Charity) and Clementis (Forgiveness).
 Despite the overwhelming existing evidence that what the majority of people believe are “Common Law Rights” are the deliberate corruptions and reworking of ancient Anglo-Saxon Rights, the mythology has been stubbornly resistant. This appears partly due to the absence of clarity and substantial explanation and partly because the mythology remains fertile and profitable ground for many who sell “remedies”; and
 The word “common” comes from 15th Century Latin communis meaning “to entrust, commit to a burden, public duty, service or obligation”. The word was created from the combination of two (2) ancient pre-Vatican Latin words com / comitto = “to entrust, commit” and munis = “burden, public duty, service or obligation”. Hence Common Law literally means “voluntary enslavement” or simply “lawful slavery”; and
 A similar word “commonwealth” is an official 15th Century Roman Cult term created from three (3) Latin words: com / comitto – “to entrust, commit”, munis = “burden, public duty, service or obligation” and vele / vealis [which is a Latin word which was purposely removed from etymology] = “livestock or animals”. Hence the original meaning of the word Commonwealth is: “the voluntary burden, public duty, service or obligation of the people as livestock (animals)”; and
 Neither the word “common” nor “commonwealth” appear accidential. Until the “makeover” of Common Law in the second half of the 18th Century, the laws first promulgated by Henry VIII and his successors can be best summarized as essentially the gradual “enclosure and franchising of rights formerly possessed by the people”. This includes (but is not limited to) the claim of all land to the crown and then re-leased to the nobles; the creation of estates and cestui que vie trusts; the enclosure of traditional lands under continuous enclosure acts forcing peasants from their homes for thousands of years; the enclosure of traditional medicine, herbal medicine and health to the creation of doctors and privatized health in 16th Century London (later the world); the enclosure of all forms of commerce, trade and transport; the enclosure of the rights to travel by converting roads to “postal roads” by 17th Century; and of course the enclosure of justice by selling the court of Chancery to the Inns of Court by the start of the 17th Century and the court of Exchequer of England by the end of the 17th Century; and
 Again, despite the overwhelming body of evidence that the “reality of Common Law” is wholly contradictory to the “myth of Common Law”, the myth has continued and much of what has been stated, all supported by countless statutes, contemporary sources and credible historical reference is either excused, explained away or simply ignored; and
 What is clear is that the “Common Law Myth” was created at a precise time for a precise purpose being the Codification of Law that underpins the present day system of law, despite ignorance of many parties to it, beginning with the Treaty of Paris of 1763 between Great Britain, France and Spain with Portugal in agreement; and
 The Treaty of Paris (1763) is significant for a number of extraordinary factors, the first being the revival of a number of historic treaties that previous were annulled such as the treaties of Westphalia of 1648; those of Madrid between the Crowns of Great Britain and Spain of 1661, and 1670; the treaties of peace of Nimeguen of 1678, and 1679; of Ryswick of 1697; those of peace and of commerce of Utrecht of 1713; that of Baden of 1714; the treaty of the triple alliance of the Hague of 1717; that of the quadruple alliance of London of 1118; the treaty of peace of Vienna of 1738; the definitive treaty of Aix la Chapelle of 1748; and that of Madrid, between the Crowns of Great Britain and Spain of 1750: as well as the treaties between the Crowns of Spain and Portugal of the 13th of February, 1668; of the 6th of February, 1715; and of the 12th of February, 1761; and that of the 11th of April, 1713, between France and Portugal; and
 The Treaty of Paris (1763) is significant for a second extraordinary and historic fact in that it heralds the conveyance of the ancient rights, powers, privileges and means of both the Crowns of Portugal and the Crown of Spain as if the Crown of Aragon and Castile thereby making the Crown of Great Britain the sole Ius Patronatus of the Roman Cult, and the sole controller of the most valuable trade in the world at the time being the Vatican’s “global franchise” of slavery, drugs and ecclesiastically backed securities (indulgencies); and
 Immediately after the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1763, we see a flurry of merchant pirate activity concerning the global slave trade, particularly with the African Company and massively expanding export of slaves from Senegal to meet increased demand. The Bank of England also significantly overhauled its charter to accommodate new found powers in the trade of securities across Europe and the world with Vatican-backed indulgences (securities). In the philosophy of law, the events of 1763 are also seen in the emergence of the definitive legal treatise of Sir William Blackstone entitled Commentaries on the Laws of England (1st Edition 1765, Clarendon Press, Oxford); and
 It is Sir William Blackstone that deliberately created the myth of “Common Law” whilst establishing the notion at Roman Cult Canon Law or Ecclesiastical Law is the foundation of all law. In a famous quote (Pg 15) he states “Imperial law is much cultivated and it’s decisions pretty generally followed, we are informed by Van Leeuweni, that, “it receives “it’s force from custom and the consent of the people, either tacitly or expressly given: for otherwise, he adds, we should no “more be bound by this law, than by that of the Almains, the “Franks, the Saxons, the Goths, the Vandals, and other of the “ancient nations.” Wherefore, in all points in which the different systems depart from each other, the law of the land takes place of the law of Rome, whether ancient or modern, imperial or pontificial. And in those of our English courts wherein a reception has been allowed to the civil and canon laws, if either they exceed the bounds of that reception, by extending themselves to other matters, than are permitted to them; or if such courts proceed according to the decisions of those laws, in cases wherein it is controlled by the law of the land, the common law in either instance both may, and frequently does, prohibit and annul their proceedings”; and
 However, the secret conversion and union of Great Britain into the loyal and sole Ius Patronatus of the Roman Cult created a problem within the body of statute of England in that as has been stated in previous posts on this site, the concept of Usury, or “deriving use” from land was seen as intrinsic to the “protestant ethic”. This required an artful solution in how Great Britain could continue to prosper as a secret Catholic Empire, without contradicting canon law and papal bulls against Usury- hence the concept of perpetual war and Admiralty Law both on land and sea”; and
 Yet, far from being considered merely an opinion or commentary despite these fundamental changes in law, until the scourge of “legal realism” and “legal positivism”, the works of Sir William Blackstone were universally as definitive legal source no less valid than statute or case law. It is why original opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, the High Court of Canada and Great Britain as just a few examples, include source quotes from Blackstone as judgments that remain in force even today. In a clear and telling source quote of Blackstone concerning judges, on (Pg 12) he states “SHOULD a judge in the most subordinate jurisdiction be deficient in the knowledge of the law, it would reflect infinite contempt upon himself and disgrace upon those who employ him. And yet the consequence of his ignorance is comparatively very trifling and small: his judgment may be examined, and his errors rectified, by other courts. But how much more serious and affecting is the case of a superior judge, if without any skill in the laws he will boldly venture to decide a question, upon which the welfare and subsistence of whole families may depend ! where the chance of his judging right, or wrong, is barely equal; and where, if he chances to judge wrong, he does an injury of the most alarming nature, an injury without possibility of redress”; and
 As was outlined in the previous article, we are at a sad state of affairs concerning the law whereby not only do justices and officers of the court see no problem in the use of logical fallacies, but do not see any difficulty in open contempt for the law, for the source of their authority, for history and most of all for the people of the nation whom they are supposed to serve.
Legal Realism and the mind virus of the Secret Bar Guilds today
 Let us for a moment consider the definition of “law” considered by Sir William Blackstone in 1765 being pg (5) “law, considered (apart from any binding authority) as collection of written reason”. Let us now consider the comment of law proffered by legal realism founder and guru O.W. Holmes Jr. from his treatise being “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience”. Therein rests the chasm, the dichotomy and dissonance between litigants who believe in the law, in logic and reason and graduates of 20th Century law schools who do not; and
 Blacks 9th Edition (Pg 962) makes the motive for such a reversal in thinking clearer when it defines “law” as “1. The regime that orders human activities and relations through systematic application of the force of politically organized society or through social pressure, backed by force, in such a society; the legal system. 2. The aggregate of legislation, judicial precedents, and accepted legal principles; the body of authoritative grounds of judicial and administrative action”. (Pg 965) defines “lawful” as “Not contrary to law; permitted by law”; and
 Contrast this definition of law by Blacks with Roman Cult Canon Law (1983) Title II. Custom Canon 24 states “No custom which is contrary to divine law can obtain the force of law”. A fundamental custom being consent of the people; and
 What these definitions reveal in the light of the cancerous mind virus of legal realism is that in the absence of organized dissent, objection, opposition, those “classes” of professionals owing their position and livelihood to the state and the apparatus of state now see their positions and actions no longer as requiring the consent of the people, but merely the tools of enforcement- a polite way of saying guns, terror, threat and coercion; and
 This suspension of the Rule of Law replaced with “the law is whatever we say it is” is no conjecture. Justice Rooke made it plain that this mindset is the status quo of the courts and the Secret Bar Guilds who firmly believe they control the apparatus of power, enforcement and terror when he openly quoted Thomas Hobbes from 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.”:
 In the absence of an impartial and unbiased judiciary; in the absence of a judiciary that honors its own laws and the laws of the society it is supposed to serve; in the absence of a judiciary and court system that recognizes the fundamental principles of logic and reason above “style” and arbitrary “process”; and in the absence of a political and military class held account by the people to whom they are chosen then truly there can be no effectual “remedy” in any Roman Western Court at present.
What are the alternatives?
 In the first instance, despite the clear evidence presented in this article concerning the deliberate misnaming of Anglo-Saxon Law to falsely claiming it to be “Common Law”, there will remain a number who seek to dispute, trivialize or encourage the dismissal of this article for fear it may be properly read. The reason being, its threat to their livelihood in promoting inconsistent and often fatally flawed “remedies” that depend on the continued “myth” of Common Law; and
 In the second instance, there are alternatives beyond surrendering to the seeming insurmountable obstacles presented by the Roman-Western Legal system (a state of mind strongly promoted as a weapon in itself by the status quo). However, it requires a change in attitude aware from extremes of “truth vs lies” and “good vs evil” and “God vs Devil” to concepts of alternative models measuring their value on utility, consistency and accuracy, not dogmatic beliefs; and
 Justice Rooke in his treatise published as fact that the Ucadia and One-Heaven model is a “new and total code of law”. This in itself is an unprecedented historic admission, which was made presumably on the unavoidable nature of its existence:
(i) Ucadia is founded on twenty-two collections of sacred texts called the Maxima Textibus Sacris representing eleven (11) collections of historic sacred and legal texts and eleven (11) collections yet to be written by future generations; and
(ii) Ucadia is then structured on eleven (11) core covenants beginning with the most sacred covenant Pactum De Singularis Caelum, the covenant of One Heaven, followed by three covenants of different faiths and seven charters for unions of free societies and associations around the world; and
(iii) “Astrum Iuris Divini Canonum” means the Living Body of Divine Canon Law and the highest of all Original Law comprising twenty-two (22) books of Canons as defined by the Articles of Pactum De Singularis Caelum being Article 89 Canonum De Lex Divina (Divine Law), Article 90 Canonum De Lex Naturae (Natural Law), Article 91 Canonum De Ius Cogitatum (Cognitive Law), Article 92 Canonum De IusPositivum (Positive Law), Article 93 Canonum De Lex Ecclesium (Ecclesiastical Law), Article 94 Canonum De Ius Virtus Naturae (Bioethics Law), Article 95 Canonum De Ius Rex (Sovereign Law), Article 96 Canonum De Ius Fidei (FiduciaryLaw), Article 97 Canonum De Ius Administratum (Administrative Law), Article 98 Canonum De Lex Frugalitas (Economic Law), Article 99 Canonum De Ius Pecuniae (Monetary Law), Article 100 Canonum De Ius Civilis (Civil Law), Article 101 Canonum De Ius Informatum (Education Law), Article 102 Canonum De Ius Nutrimens Et Medicina (Food and Drugs Law), Article 103 Canonum De Ius Industriae (Industry Law), Article 104 Canonum De Ius Urbanus (Urban Law), Article 105 Canonum De Ius Companie (Company Law), Article 106 Canonum De Ius Machinatio (Technology Law), Article 107 Canonum De Ius Proventum (Trade Law), Article 108 Canonum De Ius Securitas (Security Law), Article 109 Canonum De Ius Militaris (Military Law) and Article 110 Canonum De Ius Gentium (International Law); and
(iv) “Codes of Law” also “Codes” means the policies and procedures of all valid Ucadian Society and Our Estate as defined in thirty-three (33) codes being: Agriculture, Banking, Budget & Finance, Building & Construction, Civil, Communications & Media, Company, Criminal, Culture & Entertainment, Education, Elections, Emergency, Employment, Energy, Environment, Executive, Fitness & Health, Food & Drugs, Industry, Infrastructure, Judicial, Knowledge Systems, Legislative, Military, Police, Disease Prevention & Sanitation, Prison, Revenue, Service, Technology, Temporary Assistance, Trade and Transport; and
(v) The Ucadia model of law has also identified a system known as the Universal Forms System and Ucadian Form System of over 6500 forms connected and defined by the Codes of law for the efficient and effectual operation of any sized government from a small country to a region to a nation; and
(vi) Ucadia has also founded a global financial model known as the Supreme Financial Model based on a sound architecture of finance based on the rules of nature whereby the immediate debt crisis and concerns of the world could be unwound at a global debt crisis converting debt for credit within forty days if the political classes and the people behind them possessed the will. In any event, the financial system is being rolled out in conjunction with the Ucadia societies.
 For all of this work over decades, despite the fact that in the history of civilization no model of such comprehensiveness, dimension or detail has ever been conceived in one generation, there will be many who discount it, ignore it or simply and arrogantly steal parts of it for their own ends; and
 Ucadia and One-Heaven are fully working models that do not require a suspension of belief. Nor are such models based on presumptions of anti-law or anti-government or revolution or threat. They were designed to be and remain wonderful gifts that anyone who choose to read, to connect and be part of a community seeking real alternative and change can join; and
 While the present Western-Roman Legal System appears hopelessly broken, it is hoped that those that read this post will read and review the Ucadia model and help contribute to its improvement as a tool for all humanity, not just a few.None found.