Early OPCA Influence in Australia

  • Upmart (Malcolm McClure) 
  • Ucadia  (Frank O’Collins)
  • Love For Life (Arthur & Fiona Cristian)
  • Peter Andrew Nolan

Throughout the 2000s, OPCA concepts became increasingly cross-contaminated. Foreign concepts and legislation, such as A4V and the Uniform Commercial Code became common features in OPCA legal proceedings in the Commonwealth, sometimes alone and sometimes in combination with domestic concepts. This borrowing is obvious in different movements, for example, the double or split person concept and its “Strawman” have no antecedent in Australian law and clearly represent motifs derived from the US Redemption movement and Canadian Freeman on the Land movement, imported and perpetuated domestically.

The result is something of a conceptual amalgam, with gurus and affiliates paying little attention to the legal environments that are the sources of their ideas. This influx of foreign OPCA concepts has also led to a fundamental shift in the OPCA community and its character, having broadly re-imagined certain critical historical events and their effect on their status and rights. A fascinating aspect of the merger of OPCA traditions is that it marks a sharp change in the character of the OPCA phenomenon. Previously, OPCA litigation focused on legal loopholes or attacks on specific government authorities.

The “Strawman” necessarily requires a dramatic and negative reframing of the interrelationship between the citizen (slave) and the state (tyrant trickster). This plausibly has also meant a change in the kind of persons influenced.

The early OPCA era was arguably motivated by greed: pulling a fast one on the Taxman. That has potential appeal to practically any person. On the other hand, the modern OPCA phenomenon is a more dramatic and global rejection of the state, legislature, courts, and other non-governmental institutions. This kind of belief has a more specialized social marketplace. It is not merely a succession of unsuccessful pseudolegal ideas, but rather a broader evolution to a belief set and associated social group that is increasingly separated, and arguably alienated, from the general population. Bridging this gap will no doubt be a challenge, particularly as the leading voice against these ideas, the Courts, are ill-suited to provide the kind of emotionally or perhaps philosophically based rebuttal that may be necessary.

gfdrrhbcxfui - Copy - Copy.jpg

An aussie legend – a hero among living men… 1 This joker was captured on an episode of Aussie Cops, extremely pissed and stuck on the gutter sideways with a flat tyre, sitting in the driver’s seat drinking rum. Not much in the way of constitutional arguments, but some damn good retorts anyway. Swears he wasn’t driving, he was very insistent: “No, I wasn’t driving, I’m just waiting for my mate…”


(Malcolm McClure) has a long history in Australia, UPMART 2 was probably the first to import the “common law” motif of the OPCA movements in the U.S. and Canada. Malcolm McClure first launched “Toll Exemption Legal Kits” nearly 20 years ago in 1998, in protest of road tolls. The website claims there was “over 1500 Toll Exemption Kits issued. This kit provided for electors to “legitimately stand their ground” and claim exemption to not pay road tolls.” The website goes on to claim: “The Tolls Legal Kit remains current in 2010 and continues to work in the State of Victoria, NSW and Queensland. For some people this kit has saved them literally tens of thousands of dollars.” There was a new pet hate in 2001, “GST Exempt Kits” were launched: “Malcolm developed and released the first ever GST Exemption Kit for individuals and another kit for businesses as a remedy to make a stand against the bad law of GST. As a side consequence of making a stand against the GST, individuals and business users of the kits have saved tens of thousands of dollars to literally millions of dollars. The saving of money was not the primary intent and purpose for these GST kits, though this side consequence is valued by users.”

“Common Law Vehicle Registration” was also launched in 2001. The website claims: “Malcolm McClure developed and released Australia’s first system for registration of vehicles at Common Law as a stand against the many problems of the current vehicle registration system.” The “Common Law Australian Driving Licence” was launched in 2002. The website claims: “Malcolm developed and released Australia’s first system for driving licensing at Common Law as a stand against the many problems of the current driver licensing system.” And the extraordinary claim: “The first of those to embrace and use this system have now been driving pursuant to their rights for about 9 years.”

“Common Law Marriage” certificates” were launched in 2003 The website claims: “In August of that year, Malcolm read a traditional marriage certificate under the Marriage Act 1961 that his friend was to shortly sign. He then investigated the Act and was shocked at the legal implications of this traditional marriage contract which would affect the rights of both bride and groom and their children. His friend, like so many wedded couples under “Statute Law”, had not read the legislation nor had any idea of its implications. Malcolm presented what he had discovered and asked his friend who likewise was shocked. He like many other couples simply trusted the government that it would be doing no harm to their and their children’s rights.” Even “Common Law Birth Certificates” were issued in 2007 to avoid the government “person” being forced upon their children: “Malcolm finished the development of his long awaited Common Law Birth Certificate and released it to needy patrons of UPMART, who diligently put it to good use.” There was an apparent “Promissory Note Victory” in 2007, when Malcolm researched and developed his own version. The website claims:

“During an auspicious court proceeding his promissory note was on trial following its previous presentment as payment for thousands of dollars worth of court costs. In the proceeding Malcolm was in the court where he put to the court some important verbal challenges which caused a victory for his note. Since that day he has used the note for several worthy members to set off varying ‘debts’ that range from tens of thousands of dollars in council rates to over $millions of mortgage debts on properties. Malcolm guards closely the secrets of his promissory note successes, since in his words, “Only those deserve freedom who are willing to defend it.”

In McClure v Australian Electoral Commission [1999] HCA 31 3 the petitioner filed an election petition which concerned an election of which he was a candidate but was not elected, complaining about the lack of media coverage of his candidacy in the election and of his platform of policies, and that he was disadvantaged by the application of those provisions of the Electoral Act that govern group and individual voting tickets, seeking declarations that the election was void and that none of the six candidates returned was duly elected. Further, the applicant alleged that Australia became a sovereign and independent nation at or after the time of its execution of the Treaty of Versailles, and accordingly the Assent to the legislation by, or on behalf of, a person who is the sovereign of the United Kingdom was of no effect. The application was dismissed and court responded:

“For the reasons I gave in Joosse v Australian Securities and Investment Commission, I consider the arguments that the proposed amendment seeks to found are arguments that must fail.  The immediate question presented by arguments of this kind is what law is to be applied by the courts.  That question is resolved by covering cl 5 of the Constitution: “This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State”. In so far as the petitioner relies on some alleged deficiency in the signification of Royal Assent, it is ss 58, 59 and 60 of the Constitution that deal with the ways in which the Royal Assent may be given to bills passed by the other elements of the Parliament. So far as now relevant, s 58 governs. It provides that the Governor‑General “shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen’s name”. There is nothing to suggest that this was not done in the case of the Acts that introduced s 211 and s 211A into the Act. The history of international dealings to which the petitioner referred is not to the point.”

Losalini Rainima was a “patron of UPMART” and bought the “Common Law Australian Drivers Licence and Vehicle Registration” package, presuming it would give her freedom. Unfortunately, neither the NSW Police, nor the Local Court agreed with her fake paperwork when she was arrested for disqualified driving on 15 December 2007. But luckily Malcolm was there to coach her through the process and appeal, insisting she make no “contracts” with the “corporate entity” preventing her lawful path. This did not go well for her at all. She was granted conditional bail at the station that day, but refused to enter it.

So after spending Christmas and New Year and two more months on remand in prison, on 3 March 2008 she was convicted of the offence, fined, disqualified from holding a license for a further period, and placed on a five year good behaviour bond. She refused to enter the bond. She told the court there was a constitutional argument and a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court, pursuant to s78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), involving  matters arising under the Commonwealth Constitution or its interpretation. Later that day, she was sentenced to imprisonment for nine months, with a non-parole period of three months, to date from 15 December 2007. When the non-parole period expired she could not be released because she refused to accept the conditions of parole. Accordingly, she could only be released only on the expiry of the nine-month sentence.

When she appealed in Rainima v Magistrate Freund [2008] NSWSC 944, Hidden J observed:

“As I understand it, a distinction is sought to be made between a challenge to the validity of the relevant legislation, on the one hand, and an assertion that the State does not have the power to deny an inalienable righ t, on the other. For the purpose of this case, however, the distinction is illusory. Either the driver licensing legislation is valid or it is not. If it is, all of us, including the plaintiff, are bound by it and no inalienable right resides within any of us to free us from the obligations which it imposes. Driver licensing is governed entirely by statute, and there is no such thing as a licence “pursuant to common law” No credible challenge has been mounted to the legislation and there the matter must end. The appeal against the conviction and sentence is dismissed. If necessary, I shall hear the parties on costs. I would remind the plaintiff that, notwithstanding the fact that she has served her prison term rather than entering into the good behaviour bond, she remains subject to the period of disqualification of her licence pronounced by her Honour. That period now extends to 19 May 2023. She must be in no doubt that, if she drives a motor vehicle during that period, she could face a further significant term of imprisonment.”

Click to access rainima-v-magistrate-freund-2008-nswsc-944.pdf

The UPMART website claims:

“In 2005, Malcolm launched “UPMART Members Against Bail Abuse” and protested the imprisonment of Losalini Rainima who was “…in jail, without even a trial and without any conviction for nearly 12 months…” [This apparently caused Malcolm to] “file an action in the High Court. Two days after filing in the High Court, Malcolm filed for Habeas Corpus for Losalini who appeared in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and her release was immediately ordered.”

Talk about steal someone’s thunder. Even Hidden J remarked: “The strength of her belief has cost her dearly, leading to her remaining in custody for the period from her arrest for disqualified driving on 15 December 2007 to 14 September 2008, just two days hence.” So she was due to be released two days after the Supreme Court appearance anyway.

The UPMART website states:

“s165.55 of the Goods and services tax act gives permission for the Commissioner of taxation to lie. I don’t consent to legislation that condones such iniquity, thus the GST exemption kit was created, and are being used effectively. Also GST: has caused many business to collapse; did not have the consent of the voters; was rejected by the voters and is unlawful pursuant to s55 of the Australian Federal Constitution.”


Robert Harding was another member of UPMART that bought a “GST Exemption Kit” from Malcolm McClure for $2000, only to find out it was a useless scam. He appealed the District Court decision on the basis he had received misleading advice from Malcolm McClure, but it was ruled as having no relevance to his case.

Extract from Harding v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) [2008] FCA 1985:

“The Applicant had become indebted to the present Respondent because he falsely believed that he had a GST exemption. His small business involving the sale of batteries involved the necessity to exact GST and to account for that tax. The belief that he had a GST exemption was engendered by false representations made to him by a Mr Malcolm McClure — namely, that Mr McClure was an agent of the Australian Taxation Office and had the authority to sell “GST exemption packages”. Mr Harding had come across Mr McClure when he attended a series of seminars conducted by Mr McClure in the Ryde-Eastwood Leagues Club. Mr Harding was “impressed by the professionalism of the seminars the location and the formality adopted”.

Needless to say, Mr McClure had no such authority. Searches undertaken within the Australian Taxation Office disclosed no one of that name ever having been employed by that Office. Other searches undertaken disclosed that Mr McClure had close associations with a body called “U.P.M.A.R.T.”, which described itself as “[a]n association for human rights and much, much more”. That was clearly a body having no connection with the Australian Taxation Office.

Notwithstanding the genuineness of his belief that he was exempt, Mr Harding nevertheless incurred the liability. It was not paid. An “administrative penalty” of $143,775 was also imposed. The proceedings in the District Court were commenced.”  Mr Harding maintained that he “tried to talk to the Government’s Solicitor prior to going into the room” to tell “her about the Malcolm McClure problem”. Whatever was told to the solicitor was not further expanded upon. The solicitor’s response was that “she basically said that it had no relevance.” On the basis of the statement of claim as filed in the District Court and upon the basis of the defence as filed, the conduct of Mr McClure was irrelevant to the issues then before that Court. Nor is it considered that Mr Harding was “misled”. It was no part of the duty of the solicitor then appearing for the Deputy Commissioner to give advice to the then defendant, Mr Harding, as to either the prospect of a claim being made against the Commonwealth or even advice confined to the prudence of Mr Harding getting independent legal advice.

Counsel for Mr Harding properly accepted that no case in misrepresentation which was actionable as against the Australian Taxation Officer, or the Deputy Commissioner, could be sustained if the evidence was confined to the statements apparently made by Mr McClure. Statements made by him as to the authority or the agency he was professing could not be attributed to the present Respondent merely by reason of those statements alone.”

This momentary lack of judgment caused Robert Harding to accrue a debt of close to half a million dollars, because of which, he lost his business and was forced to file for bankruptcy.

Click to access harding-v-deputy-commissioner-of-taxation-no-2-2008-fca-1985.pdf

Bob Jane Corporation Pty Ltd v Webtyre.net Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 168

This case involved a judgment against a company owned by Bob Jane. In 2006 he suffered a stroke and was debilitated. A judgment was given against his company in default of filing a defence. An application was brought to set aside that judgment and the company was represented at the first instance by Mr McClure:

“The application came on for hearing on 5 December 2011. Mr McClure sought leave to represent the respondents. He acknowledged he was not a lawyer but said he was a director of the corporate respondents. That leave was not opposed and was granted. It soon became obvious that Mr McClure was unable to represent the respondents competently. He was not aware of the matters necessary to be satisfied to have the judgment set aside or the procedures to be used to bring facts before the Court.

In the documents he has drawn, and his advocacy in the Court, Mr McClure has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding matched only by his self-confidence. By his incompetence, he has caused the respondents, as well as the applicants, to incur tens of thousands of dollars of unnecessary costs. His activities in representing the respondents, as well as other people in the courts, appear, on the face of it, to contravene the laws which prohibit unqualified legal practice. It is hoped that the relevant authorities will investigate these activities before further people are harmed by his conduct.

Mr Jane, who is the sole shareholder of the corporate respondents, is elderly and, by reason of his health, vulnerable to unscrupulous attention of charlatans such as Mr McClure. Mr McClure orchestrated the respondent’s action on 13 October 2011. He appeared to have chosen not to appear in the Court, essentially because he decreed for himself that the respondents should not conform to the requirements of the legal system. The respondents were under his spell, and went along with his bizarre approach.”

Click to access bob-jane-corporation-pty-ltd-v-webtyre.net-pty-ltd-2012-fca-168.pdf

In an earlier case Hubner v Erbacher [2004] QDC 345 Malcolm McClure attempted to represent Mr Erbacher at the hearing but leave was refused. White DCJ determined that the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, and Regulations made thereunder; was a valid enactment made pursuant to the legislative power of the Queensland Parliament and prevailed over all common law or other rights and freedoms to the extent that they were inconsistent therewith. (at 13) He expressed the conclusion as being subject to the Constitution, but concluded that there was no relevant inconsistency.

Click to access hubner-v-erbacher-2004-qdc-345.pdf

Extract from Kobylski v. Cole [2006] QDC 308

“The relevant facts in respect of each of the five sets of appeals are remarkably similar. The appellant, on each occasion, was intercepted by police while driving a motor vehicle.

On each occasion the appellant asserted that the motor vehicle he was driving was registered with an organisation known as UPMART Victoria and that the appellant had paid a single sum of $400 for lifelong registration for the vehicle. It appears that on each occasion what purported to be “number plates” had been provided by UPMART The driver’s licence which the appellant had with him was also (he asserted) purchased for $200 from UPMART Victoria and (the appellant asserts) was valid for life.

It is clear, Mr Kobylski, is a resident in Queensland, is subject to the laws of Queensland, and has, in law, no basis for the submission that he is not subject to the relevant laws of Queensland in respect of vehicle registration, compulsory third party insurance, driver licensing and the possession of false registration plates.”

Click to access kobylski-v.-cole-2006-qdc-308.pdf

In Spajic v Robertson and Ors [2007] NSWSC 553 the applicant contended that legislation which directs that vehicles be registered in a particular way is monopolistic, and an alternative registration process exists under common law with a union of people called UPMART. The Court held there is no basis upon which some group of people can establish an alternative regime.

Click to access spajic-v-robertson-amp-ors-2007-nswsc-553.pdf

Freilich v Lambert [2007] QDC 157 

“The appellant in this matter drives a vehicle in the State of Queensland, and has obtained the vehicle registration with an association of electors known as UPMART, which vehicle registration exists pursuant to common law, constitutional law, and any other holy and righteous grounds, and which registration satisfies the appellant’s duty of care to the community to register the appellant’s vehicle for various purposes.”

Click to access freilich-v-lambert-2007-qdc-157.pdf

You can read more early OPCA driving cases in the Case Law Archives chapter, such as Van den Hoorn v Ellis [2010] QDC 451 where the appellant contended he was the “owner of the created fictions known as JOHAN HENDRICK VAN DEN HOORN and JOHN HENRY VAN DEN HOORN, being created fictions fraudulently owned and controlled by legal fictions” which included “australia inc” and “queensland inc”, as well as “queensland transport inc” and “numerous other incorperations and deciets” (sic) and an “assumed” jurisdiction “over a free man” because the magistrate “lacked lawful standing to judge a free man” who was “in good standing”. The arguments included references to the Magna Carta, and centred on various flawed definitions.

Click to access van-den-hoorn-v-ellis-2010-qdc-451.pdf


UCADIA 1 is a website run by Frank O’Collins based in Sydney, and is also one of the first to import OPCA concepts to Australia, and develop them further. The main website includes a list of sister websites (referred to as “UCADIA Free Societies”) such as “one-heaven.org”, “one-evil.org”, “one-Islam.org”, “healthe-earth.org”, “euro-union.org”, “restorelaw.org” 2 and many others. He also has a Facebook page, 3 Frank O’Collins bio, 4 and the UCADIA blog. 5 . UCADIA’s mission statement: “UCADIA represents a spiritual and legal presence, a structure of knowledge and a language of pure meaning. UCADIA stands for Unique Collective Awareness of DIA”.

The UCADIA website promotes Frank O’Collins’ highly bizarre system of religious and economic beliefs. The various websites are mostly filled with New Age beliefs and conspiracy theories, making the usual references to the Illuminati and New World Order. The last of these websites “restorelaw.org” adopts many OPCA concepts created by O’Collins, and others shared by gurus like Jordan Maxwell. For example, Frank O’Collins shares Maxwell’s conspiratorial beliefs regarding a “Roman” hierarchy in control of the world, the Papacy, which he frequently refers to as “the Roman Cult” with its “legal and banking system”. But Frank O’Collins interpretations go way beyond the concepts discussed in  The Pope Owns your Soul! – Papal Bull Unam Sanctam and  Lost at Sea – The Cestui Que Vie Act 1666

O’Collins assertions include that all man-made laws are derived from black magic, and instructs followers on the “devious Roman Cult” and dissects the technicalities of this black magic with all its spells and rituals. He explains how Canon Law is derived from this wizardry, with all civilizations coming out of it, and it is just one of the many “crafts” (abominations) invented by the “Grand Architect” and “practiced by his descendants and devotees”.

In Frank O’Collins video: How To Make a Judge Run Out Of The Court Room, 6 he explains the process of changing jurisdictions from “Maritime Admiralty” into “Cannon Law”. You must first establish your standing in the court:

“Your Honor I am a Living Being. The Flesh lives and the blood flows. I ask humbly for Remedy.”

(Judge Leaves because he does not want to give remedy, but stay in honor. Judge comes back establishes the court again and goes on like nothing has happened.) The court transforms in to a maritime court, a higher court of jurisdiction. You must re-establish your standing once again:

“Your honor I am a living being. The flesh lives and the blood flows. Your honor I humbly ask for cure and maintenance.”

Because you are in an Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction court now you ask for cure and maintenance. The Judge may be totally freaked out at this point and leave again if you are in a Federal Court. If the judge comes back a third time, he is a priest under Cannon Law, and you are in a Temple now. Thus you say the following:

“Your honor I wish to establish that I am a living being. The Flesh lives and the blood flows and we are sovereign and nothing stands between myself and the divine.”

Apparently if you do not do this then you have no standing in court and are treated as cargo going to a warehouse, thus “Chattel Property with no rights”. This is the method allegedly used in courts, “the realm of LORD God aka Ba’al, Lucifer”, as all courts are obviously based on Ba’al worship and magic.

Frank O’Collins recommends the “Ecclesiastical Deed Poll” to put these demons in their place, and gives clear instructions on its use, including that the coloured paper must be Robin-Egg Blue, because this is the colour that the “Roman Cult” chose as their first colour for issuing notices. “In particular, all summonses since 1908 have been in either blue or yellow symbolizing the authority of the Sacred Rota, the supernatural court reconstituted by Pius X on which the 12 “Apostolic Prothonotaries” are in constant session in the spirit world. You should, under no circumstances, place any postal registration sticker or date, especially the word “date” of any kind on the Ecclesiastical Deed Poll, it is a document coming from the Divine where time is immaterial.”

“The Temples of Baal (Courts of Admiralty, Commerce and Piracy) Comprehending the beast with which you are dealing:

The Court is the synagogue. [the temple of Baal, enforcing Babylonian Talmudic Law] The gate (or bar) is the veil. The bench is the altar.

The Black Robed Devil (the judge, administrative magistrate/ Administrator) is the high priest. [vicarius dei] He is God [vicarius dei = substitute for deity]

The Defense Attorney is the vicarius filii dei = substitute for the son of deity. The Attorney [from attorn = to twist or turn] is the mediator. {The attorney’s job is to move one into Roman ‘Civil Law’ Jurisdiction and then into Code and Rule Pleadings; remember he is by definition, a devil, too.

The bailiffs, clerks, and stenographers are the high priest servants, and are lesser Deities.

If one enter the veil, one is there to give sacrifices. The fine is the wave (given to escape the threat of punishment) offering. The court cost is the heave (tribute or gift) offering.
Stop using the term God. PERIOD. God = Gaud (old English) = Gâd (Hebrew, SH #1408 and 1409) = the deity of good luck, good fortune, or troops; a deity of Babylon (The Luciferian Idol, which stand in New York Harbor). You ask this Black Robed Devil for your God-given rights and he will give them to you, maybe even 5 to 10 in one of their iron bar hotels. Get the point! One is hung by their own tongue. [All Officers of the Court are Agents or Representatives. Devil (SG #1228) = false accuser. GODS = idols = demons (SG #1140) =idols, false deities.

Welcome to Babylon!

I suppose you can just imagine just how spooked and paranoid someone convinced of these concepts would be in a courtroom. In a world of demons and curses, of silent unilateral agreements that sell your soul to the devil, the utmost care and discretion must obviously be taken, to avoid eternal damnation in hell. Oh, hang on, he’s here to put an end to that nonsense too.

According to Frank O’Collins, there was a long lasting war in Heaven between angels and demons (which was finally brought to an end by “United States of Spirits of One Heaven” – allegedly resulting in the destruction of Hell, thereby guaranteeing the salvation of all mankind…

“Despite our difference, most people share a common belief in some kind of afterlife. The usual term used to describe this afterlife is “Heaven”. Similarly, the majority of people alive today also believe in the existence of some kind of “hell” in the afterlife where people who have done evil in life are somehow punished. If you are someone who was brought up in one of the Abrahamic faiths (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) then your faith teaches you that Hell wasn’t always there- it began out of a war. We are told that at the beginning of time, before humans ever existed there was a war in heaven and it is because of this war that hell was created. Ever since, whether we realize it or not, we have been captive, we have been affected by this war. For if you believe that Hell exists, then you believe that war still rages in Heaven. So it is that even when peace has reigned briefly on Earth, if but for a day, there has never been peace in Heaven since the beginning of time. A war between angels and demons, a war between saints and sinners between cloaked devotees of darkness and genuine light bringers. Our world has suffered and souls have been cursed. And yet a promise has always been there, that one day the war would come to an end. This day has arrived. The United States of Spirits The Covenant of the United States of Spirits, of One Heaven is the fulfillment of that dream and promised- that one day humanity will be united, that the war between heaven and hell, between heaven and earth shall finally be over. It is the fulfillment of a journey that began with the earliest and greatest of human minds, the great ancient prophets and sages of ancient empires. The Greeks, the Romans, the Arabs, the Jews, the Buddhists, the Chinese, the Mayan, the Hopi, the Indus, the Hindu and the many more cultures that have existed and continue to exist. The dream is that one day, when we all die we might be in Heaven and that one day, we might witness the uniting of all human minds, the forgiving of our sins and the ending of the most ancient of curses. The dream is now fulfilled through the The official Covenant of One Heaven.”

But thankfully, Frank O’Collins insists that “Nothing about UCADIA can possibly be considered a cult whatsoever.”, which is a really good thing, I was just starting to assume otherwise. I better not offer my opinions, O’Collins generally refers to critics like me as “Skeptics, disinformation agents, mentally ill supporters of the parasitoids”.


Love For Life

Love For Life is a website based in Sydney, run by Arthur & Fiona Cristian. 2

“We are now going after Rob, Freeman Delusion…” It’s all explained here: Another Delusion 3 (Posted by Arthur Cristian – Love For Life – 11th June 2014) 4

“To us, Rob (Freeman Delusion) now re-presents an immense danger to a lot of innocent people and if he is not stopped, will cause phenomenal damage to many naive and gullible men and women who have been deceived/conned by this blatant liar. Many men and women not provided with full-disclosure as to Rob’s true ulterior motives, cul-de-sac intentions (massive red herring distractions) and who his real master is will be led down the yellow brick road and therefore remaining completely enslaved in “The System” with no way of ever getting out. The fact that Rob also came out of the exposure and routing out of OPPT (One Peoples Public Trust) makes it even more serious to stop his nefarious work dead in its tracks because he now has an excellent “looking good” fabricated front to deceive others. As we often say… the greatest lie and liar is the one closest to the truth – they cause the greatest damage of all.”

white - Copy (8) - Copy - Copy

In Bottrill v Cristian [2016] ACAT 7, 5 Mr Bottrill sued Arthur and Fiona Cristian for defamatory publications on their website, noting that Fiona Cristian was the owner of the website. The defamatory imputations referred to Mr Bottrill as a life member of an organisation known as the Ordo Templi Orientis, which was alleged to be a paedophile group which kills and tortures victims, and that he uses his employment to facilitate the entry into Australia of minors for paedophilia by Muslim men. (See Ordo Templi Orientis v Legg (Anti Discrimination) [2007] VCAT 1484, Bottrill v Van Lieshout and Ors (Civil Dispute) [2015] ACAT 26, Bottrill v Bailey (Civil Dispute) [2018] ACAT 45, Bailey v Bottrill [2018] ACAT 120Bailey v Bottrill (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 167; 14 ACTLR 108) The defamatory material was materially the same as that which had appeared on Mr Borusiewicz’s website and Facebook page “Luke’s Army”, but the Tribunal still awarded damages of $10,000. The Tribunal recognised that the applicant had obtained awards of damages in other proceedings for materially the same matter, and took that into account as follows: (See Bailey v Bottrill [2018] ACAT 120 at [101].) 6

146.  The respondent had ample opportunity, once she received the first concerns notice, to make an offer of amends to the applicant. She, as the owner of the website, was liable for what was published on her website. The respondent has not made any offer of amends to the applicant. Nor has she published a correction of the defamatory material. Instead, the respondent persisted in defending the publications and in defending the application.

147.  The applicant obtained a judgment against Michael Borusiewicz on 10 December 2014 (‘the Borusiewicz website decision’) for $10,000 and a judgment against Michael Borusiewicz on 31 March 2014 (‘the Borusiewicz Facebook decision’) for $10,000.  The damages were for defamation in relation to the publication of matter on his webpage and on the Facebook of which he was an administrator, some of it having the same meaning or effect as the matter which the Tribunal has found to be defamatory in this matter.

148.  However, while taking this into account in assessing damages in relation to the defamatory material published on 24 March 2014, the Tribunal cannot ignore the deliberate reposting and promoting of the defamatory material which the respondent allowed to be published on her website on 14 December 2014 and to remain on her website, on her evidence, until at least around May 2015.

Fiona Cristian unsuccessfully appealed this decision, and the $10,000 award for damages in Cristian v Bottrill [2016] ACTSC 315. 7

Click to access cristian-v-bottrill-2016-actsc-315.pdf

Peter Andrew Nolan

According to this media reports. 1 “Peter Andrew Nolan 2 is a mens rights activist who encourages men to fight rape charges with sovereign citizen tactics, and bans women from reproducing his name without written permission in red ink.” A brief overview of his websites reveals he is perpetuating the same, old, tired, routinely rejected arguments invented for profit by other conmen much like himself.  Peter Nolan informs us:

“Consent of the governed”. You have heard THAT many times! But do you know what it really means? You can rescind your consent to be governed! You can choose to NOT be subject to legislation! This CAN be done! I have been there done that!”

If you would like Peter Nolan to perform the Strawman Recapture process for you, the MBA Strawman Recapture Service price is only $700.00. What a bargain! 3 Here is a video presentation of the Strawman Recapture Service: 4 With the Strawman Recapture Service, Peter Nolan promises complete immunity to all legislation if you just hand over your hard-earned cash and blindly follow his strategies. If you are gullible enough to believe that, you may also be conned by: MBA Marriage Remedy Service – Australia – $1,400.00–$2,800.00 5 Unilateral Divorce – Australia – $1,000.00 6

Generally, OPCA websites promote ideas as necessary political changes, but not Nolan, he goes straight for the profit incentive, blatantly selling doomed-to-fail legal theories that have never worked, and can never work, to often desperate people with legitimate legal dilemmas, for outrageously inflated prices. Like Malcolm McClure and other Australian OPCA conmen, Nolan demonstrates a callous, sociopathic disregard for peoples lives, and the destructive consequences of following his unqualified legal advice. With such enormous costs, he must really get off on profiting from the misery and failure of weak-minded people that he can successfully con.

Peter Nolan left this post on the Australian Paralegal Foundation website:

“Hi Rob, I have run many successful cases based on the strawman recapture process that my colleagues and I helped pioneer back in 2009. The fact that you wrote your book without talking to me is very suspicious given that I am the highest profile case in the world of working on the issue of criminals in government, especially divorce courts.”

I replied:

“I have briefly mentioned you in my book, based on information from other sources, but I think you way overestimate your impact (if any) on OPCA theory with your “the highest profile case in the world” bullshit. I didn’t come down in yesterdays shower, and you are not talking to an amateur at pseudo legal theory, or the facts of law. You are, even in OPCA circles, a nobody. If you claim even one successful case of “strawman recapture process” then cite the case and I’ll let the final judgment speak for itself, anything other than that is the definition of confirmation bias. So post a link to one of the cases you mention when you’re ready to substantiate your wild claims with actual evidence. Until then, the final judgments of hundreds of other cases cited in my book have stare decisis authority over any shit you are talking here.”

Here is a video of Peter Nolan filming himself in court. (2011)