here lets start with this....rebuttal for the Meads vs. Meads decision...

which can now be put in its

place...the trash, where it belongs, right next to all the other FRAUD Crooke has spewed!

I will include the first few paragraphs of each article and leave a link for the full article to save space.

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

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 called “Organized 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…

Read the full article here: http://blog.ucadia.com/2012/10/opca-exp ... inion.html

Here is a follow-up article:

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

The organized psuedo-legal commercial admiralty (OPCA) system of the private legal pirates
exposed! - why almost all courts in Western-Roman systems controlled by the legal pirates are
admiralty

If something "looks like a duck", "walks like a duck", "quacks like a duck", is it a duck? This analogy
summarizes the enormous frustration associated with "Admiralty Law" for many over the years.

When one is accused and brought to court in many Western-Roman jurisdictions, the accused is
placed in a "dock" - a nautical term for a place for "holding a vessel". A listing on a court "docket"
then exists - again an admiralty term relating to the harbor masters control of proceedings in his
port. The case then has its own docket of evidence as a manifest, a nautical commercial concept
associated with the transport of goods. One may then be compelled to identify themselves with a
"birth certificate" - birth being a direct reference to the creation of a vessel with a specific
registration number. The concept of bail and security- are specific laws of admiralty, not common
law. The person presiding over the matter sits in front of a flag, denoting himself to be a "flag officer"
- a specific reference to a vice admiral under admiralty law.
All of these fundamental functions in modern court are directly nautical and associated with
admiralty law- having absolutely nothing to do with common law. So why do the courts refuse to
admit they are operating as admiralty and why has it taken so long to put these issues to rest?

Hiding Admiralty Jurisdiction "In Plain Sight"

Part of the answer as to why so many good and intelligent people have struggled to see that virtually
all courts in the United States, Canada, Australia New Zealand, United Kingdom and most other
Western-Roman places are operating in admiralty is the lack of full knowledge as to just how "large"
admiralty law truly is.

One of the deliberate disinformation arguments that is still purported by pirates and privateers of
the private bar guilds is that admiralty law is "narrow" in its breadth and application. Therefore, it
could not possibly be so openly applied across the board as there is no provision for it to be applied
for example in matters of securities, contracts, torts, administrative discipline, trusts, estates and
probate.

This excuse it turns out is utterly false. Since its formal creation in the mid-17th Century, there exists
numerous statutes that clearly show admiralty can be applied and appear to "mimic" every single
major area of "common law" - every, not just some.

Another argument thrown up as a deliberate distraction by paid disinfo agents and the pirates and
privateers of the private bar guilds is the claim that even if admiralty law has wide applications,
there is no logical proof provided by such claimants as to how the "law of the sea" can be properly
applied to courts on land.

This argument typically focuses on the more bizarre theories proposed on the land as well as the
stranger concepts such as water marks being set at the highest point in each state so we are all
"under water" to rebut such assertions as absurd and less than credible.

Again the pirates and privateers are openly and knowingly lying to the people they claim to uphold
as the proof and method of how admiralty law is applied to each and every one of us- is
breathtakingly simple and obvious- (1) we each require a birth certificate and registration and (2) we
are birthed in hospitals that literally means a military establishment and legally is treated itself as a
"vessel"- with hospitals both "commissioned" and "launched" and with people formally "admitted"
"onboard" and discharged.

This is not fanciful conspiracy, this is common sense, basic intelligence of what is shown to you "in
plain sight" every day. Birth, is a nautical term and related prior to the 19th Century solely to vessels.
What hospital births and birth certificate registrations demonstrate to anyone who cares to stop for
a moment and think about it- is that you are capable of being treated as either (a) a seaman or
officer (by virtue of hospital birth and registration) or (b) a registered vessel.

So the courts need not enter into any complex or convoluted arguments to apply admiralty law- it is
fully automated. Once they confirm your name, your residence and you "understand"- then they can
proceed. You have been under admiralty law- since "birth".

Admiralty as the ultimate "Organized Psuedo-Legal Commercial Argument" (OPCA)

Why then has it taken so long to fully discern and make the all pervading nature of admiralty law
clear? Why the arguments of administrative law? of different forms of law in operation such as trust
law and estate law?

In truth there are still multiple forms of law in operation and in parallel. For example estate law and
trust law are very real and the creation of Cestui Que Trusts and Estates for our benefit are very real.
It is just we are deprived from dealing directly with these forms of law in courts operating under the
psuedo-legal commercial form known as admiralty.

Admiralty needs real law such as common law to continue- why? so the pirates can rape and pillage
what should be yours, to steal from your estate. At the same time, admiralty is capable of mimicking
all these forms of law, so when bonds and trusts are formed as part of court cases, it appears the
judge or magistrate is switching law forms- which is not necessarily the case.