“The A4V notice and the “certified agreement” are unilateral “quasi-agreements” unsupported by valuable consideration. Neither is binding on the involuntary party. The documents do not create formal legal relations or contractual consequences with or for anyone. In fact despite its misuse of Latin maxims and bizarre make believe legal babble the A4V notice is not worth the paper it’s written. The plaintiff claims that Ms Wales is an emerging breed of vicarious vexatious litigants known in Canada as organised pseudo legal commercial argument litigants (OPCA Litigants) characterised and distinguished by the use of muddled legal concepts and terms calculated to frustrate the legitimate legal rights of others and disrupt court proceedings (See Meads v Meads  ABQB 571 per Rooke ACJ at ). OPCA litigants, according to Rooke ACJ, belongs to a group unified by specific but irrelevant formalities and language they appear to believe to be (or portray as) legally significant and “…will only honour (agreements and legal obligations) if they feel like it. And typically they don’t” (Meads at ). According to A4V mythology OPCA adherents are associated with the secret government bank account with millions of dollars in it which can be unlocked and accessed by special stamps and notations that convert the original document into a bill of exchange drawn on the secret government account in favour of a nominated payee. The A4V document here closely resembles those used by OPCA Litigants in Canada in “money for nothing schemes” discussed in Meads at  – .
As Counsel for the plaintiff points out the defence and counter claim here also bear a striking similarity to the OPCA modus operandi generally and, in particular, to the uses of unilateral agreements (eg A4V notice) and the fiction of quadruple counter claims (see Meads 473, 531, 483). A similar situation arose in Boughan v HSBC Bank Australia Ltd  FCA 1007 where a litigant asserted an implied agreement that the account was “settled and closed” [23-29] because a bank officer did not sign and return a document within a specified time. Graham J held: “It is apparent that the applicant’s case against the bank well and truly earns the description of being unmeritorious and unsustainable. The applicant has no recall or prospect of successfully prosecuting any part of his proceeding against the bank. In relation to his claim for summary judgment against the bank it is totally without foundation, it proceeds on the premise that, because the bank did not reply to his rather odd communication to it, by its silence the bank agreed to make a gift to the applicant of $666,000.” The A4V concept was also reviewed and rejected in Underworld Services Ltd v Money Inc  ABQC 327.”