• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants

solzhenitsyn said:
As usual, the people most in need of reading and understanding this decision the most are the ones it will never reach. Sad.
Click to expand...



Of course the Menards of the world will never concede the reality of what this decision recites. Heck, there are still people out there running Ponzi schemes, and all other sorts of scams.

What it will do, is eliminate the amount of pandering the courts do to the gurus' useful idiots, when those idiots try to pull this stuff in court. They'll get shut down quite quickly, and be cited for contempt of court. They'll no longer be given the benefit of the doubt that the courts have traditionally given to pro se litigants, who often make errors even when honestly trying to advance a legitimate case.
 
commandlinegamer said:
Saw this today, and though it worth posting, a judge's thorough debunking of the FOTL and similar schemes. The thread title refers to the phrase he uses to describe the various individuals/groups involved.

There's a PDF on this site of the judgment, less than 200 pages, so a little night-reading.

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/0...udolegal-nonsense-canadian-judge-fights-back/
Click to expand...


Some of the comments on there are getting amusing. For example, the post that says both:
is he referring to the old laws (of the land, the common law, which overrides all statutes (yes it does))
Click to expand...

And:
The uninformed author of this postk, who is clearly biased, doesn’t understand that Magna Carta, is, in the UK at least and immovable object that the Judiciary cannot overcome.
Click to expand...


And someone has posted a link to a Northern Ireland case where the judge says:
They include the submission that the respondent, that is the bank, cannot execute a contract as it is not a living thing and of course that is complete, I think the appropriate word is, nonsense...
Click to expand...


I also like the appellant's attempt to declare victory even before the case started:
I already tried this case in my private foreign jurisdiction court, and find Santander in default judgment.
Click to expand...
 
Anyway, this was all decided ages ago. To quote Lugg J. in R v. Haddock (1927) Herbert's Misleading Cases in the Common Law 101, "I am compelled to declare with some reluctance that Magna Carta is no longer law."
 
Mojo said:
Some of the comments on there are getting amusing. For example, the post that says both:

And:


And someone has posted a link to a Northern Ireland case where the judge says:


I also like the appellant's attempt to declare victory even before the case started:
Click to expand...

This is great:

Note that Earl Russell stated that the Parliament treated the 1229 Charter as being an act of parliament – WHAT??? How could a parliament claim that they enacted something when there was no Parliament until some 400 years after the Magna Carta(s) were written. You see – this is the kind of “smoke and mirrors” that anyone – let alone Freemen on the land face when dealing with this corrupt and treasonous parliament.

See – its not difficult to rebut this “legalese” – which according to various versions of Blacks Law Dictionary that I posess appears to to be a language aimed at “confusing”, such as Latin did for the romans when it was first introduced to them. Which is exactluy why the legal industry has its own language – they dont want you to comprehend what it is they are doing. Therefore they wrap it all up in long words and protracted meanings to confuse you.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that Blacks' law Dictionary wasn't around at the time of the Magna Carta either.

Any one know who introduced Latin to the Romans?
 
Boot2TheHead said:
One-Heaven takes notice too. Bitter, much?
http://one-heaven.org/canons/positive_law/article/332.html

They do so try their darndest to mimic the adults to look all proper and formal, but then they get petty and childish. How adowable.
Click to expand...

I've noticed CTs are often capable of imitating people with logical arguments without actually understanding said arguments. It's "cargo cult debating", I've said. The mask often slips whenever they get the slightest bit upset.
 
Frank O,Collins (Ucadia inventor) seems to have responded to the ruling.
I wont post the full response (heres the link)
http://ucadia.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/opca-explained-why-most-recent-opinion.html

Heres the 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.
Click to expand...

:)
 
Which is exactluy why the legal industry has its own language – they dont want you to comprehend what it is they are doing. Therefore they wrap it all up in long words and protracted meanings to confuse you.
Click to expand...
Yes because complex legal situations should be able to be explained on a bumper sticker...
:boggled:
 
Which is exactluy why the legal industry has its own language – they dont want you to comprehend what it is they are doing. Therefore they wrap it all up in long words and protracted meanings to confuse you.
Click to expand...
Yes because complex legal situations should be able to be explained on a bumper sticker...
:boggled:
 
[193] Henry apparently spent some time in the United States and attempted to apply those
concepts. United States of America v. Nanya Shaabu El, a/k/a Sean Wesley Henry (25 April
2008), 06-5197 (U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals) confirmed conviction of Henry for false
claims of diplomat status, and rejected Henry’s argument that because he had claimed to be a
diplomat for a non-existent state, “Atlan”, he could not have committed that offence.
Click to expand...


Oh My FSM......
 
Bumpity bump.

On a slightly less epic scale, it looks like HMRC are also sufficiently tooled up to lay the smackdown on our OPCA amigos.

An increasing number of debtors aim to deliberately stall recovery of debts by referring to obscure legislation, payment methods etc. It is difficult to produce a comprehensive list, but you should look out for the following:

- verbose letters which are difficult to understand
- letters accompanied by Affidavits, Notices of Fault, Notices of Default and Opportunity to Cure
- where the debtor fails to make payment but does not explain clearly why they are not making payment
- if the debtor sends bank giro payslip without any form of payment, stating that the payslip itself is the payment
- debtor states they are paying by ‘negotiable instrument’ or ‘promissory note’, or there is reference to the Bills of Exchange Act 1882
- debtor states in the letter that failure by HMRC to respond by a particular date will result in an irrevocable agreement
- debtor states that they reject your offer of title, for example if the debtor is Mr John Smith, the debtor rejects the use of ‘Mr’ stating they should be addressed as ‘John: of the Smith family’
- debtor writes their address as being a ‘c/o’ address and qualifies the address as being ‘Non domestic without the United Kingdom’ with the postcode frequently written within square brackets, such as [BD98 8AA]
- debtor asks for confirmation that none of their previous payments have been spent in connection with the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq
- there is a strong similarity to specimen letters or wording taken from websites such as www.lawfulrebellion.org or www.tpuc.org.

Where the correspondence clearly meets the above criteria, you should immediately refer all the correspondence for advice to:

(This text has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000)

Where you are in any doubt if the correspondence meets the criteria, you should telephone the appropriate contact point for advice.

Experience has shown that it would be unusual for a debtor to raise obscure issues such as described above for the first time in a face to face situation; however Field Force and other DMB staff undertaking outdoor work should be alert to the potential situation.

(This text has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000)

On no account should debtors be given details of any of the internal contact points.
Click to expand...

Linky here.
 
JLord said:
The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench has just issued the most epic written decision of all time dealing with litigants who adopt freeman, sovereign, detaxer, etc., type schemes as their litigation strategy. I was very surprised by this decision as it is nearly 200 pages and goes into great detail about almost all the common freeman arguments.

The decision also coined a new term for these litigants and the arguments they employ. Organized pseudolegal commercial argument, or OPCA is the term that court will now use to describe these types of arguments and litigants. So because of the scope of this decision and the new vocabulary that has been introduced, I created a new thread to introduce this topic. So for those who are interested in a good read... Enjoy!

Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571
Click to expand...


Over in the other thread, there are links to Rob Menard's responses.
 
JLord said:
The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench has just issued the most epic written decision of all time dealing with litigants who adopt freeman, sovereign, detaxer, etc., type schemes as their litigation strategy. I was very surprised by this decision as it is nearly 200 pages and goes into great detail about almost all the common freeman arguments.

The decision also coined a new term for these litigants and the arguments they employ. Organized pseudolegal commercial argument, or OPCA is the term that court will now use to describe these types of arguments and litigants.
Click to expand...

Forgive my ignorance here, but why "commercial"?
 
patchbunny said:
Forgive my ignorance here, but why "commercial"?
Click to expand...

Because the judge's contention is that the "gurus" of the individual sovereignty movements invariably sell their services to the unsuspecting masses, hence it is a commercial endeavor and not the high-minded social reform it is styled as.
 
JayUtah said:
Because the judge's contention is that the "gurus" of the individual sovereignty movements invariably sell their services to the unsuspecting masses, hence it is a commercial endeavor and not the high-minded social reform it is styled as.
Click to expand...

An alternate explanation for the "Commercial" term is that many (most) OPCA theories are premised on the idea that all legal matters exist within the sphere of Commercial Law (vs. Admiralty Law, they say), where (they say, and might actually be right) everything is based on consent and contracts.

Thus the idea that the police cannot arrest you unless you form a contract with them to that effect, is a "commercial" idea.

Sigh. I can see why these guys "document" everything through Youtube monologues instead of trying to write it down - they're not very compatible with the written word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom