“The average man is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty — and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies.” – HL Mencken
My own experience
This analysis is my own journey. I set out in 2011 to prove that pseudolaw concepts are not only valid, but completely justified, and hold great power in law. And if the courts didn’t agree, that would inevitably change as more people “wake up” and claim their “personal sovereignty” as demonstrated in the theory.
My background is very alternative, so I think my own life experience is well suited to contemplate the underlying conspiratorial beliefs held by those in the conservative online pseudolaw community. I had a very different childhood that not many get to experience, mainly due to the influence of my father, a very talented artist, philosopher, herbalist, and traveller. I grew up on the road a lot, touring by his side throughout Australia while he did his art exhibitions.
He studied the philosophies of most protestant Christian denominations through the 1970’s, in his search for the meaning of life. There was a lot of literature from the early American period, including the common conspiracy theories of the era. The 1970’s Bible Belt communities in the U.S. mid-west were circulating many such beliefs, some of which reached us in Australia. We joined the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1980, followed by a few off-shoot groups of similar faith in the following years.
I first home-schooled that year in primary, but I completely left the public education system halfway through grade 6, mainly teaching myself at home through the high school curriculum. Much was sanitised and censored to fundamentalist standards though. Similarly, I didn’t listen to rock and roll, (it was considered “devil’s music”) let alone watch movies about witchcraft like kids today watch Harry Potter.
I first learned the word “Illuminati” in 1980, when I was 8 years old. I was fascinated by the gory parts in the “Jesuit Oath” and could just about cite it verbatim the following year. I even carried a U.S.$1 bill around for a while, just so I could show people the pyramid and symbology. I learned about the millions of horrendous executions in the various Inquisitions, and the justified struggles of the Reformation. I could interpret and draw the prophetic timeline described in the books of Daniel and Revelation, from Ancient Babylon, Media, Persia, Greece and Rome, and could demonstrate from these abstracts, with historical references, that the Catholic Church was indeed the “Beast” warned about in Revelation.
These Biblical interpretations mutually supported all the U.S. conspiracy theories, from the JFK assassination to the creation of the U.S. Federal Reserve, regarding an “upper hand” secretly controlling the world behind the scenes. I had read about the Founding Fathers, and how they feared the nation could overturn to tyranny, trying desperately to limit any foreign power from influencing their government. Not two centuries earlier, England and its Church was experiencing the same fears, a conspiratorial warning about “certain popish persons” was actually published in the foreword to the Old King James Bible.
I was thoroughly convinced before I’d entered my teens, that the Papal tyranny of the Holy Roman Empire would one day soon be revisited in a New World Order. I believed a Sunday Law would be re-introduced in all western nations, with all the public floggings, executions and torture that once accompanied this provision in history. The “Mark of the Beast” would be implemented, controlling all transactions including food and basic necessities. I read about Holodomor and how the Bolsheviks had starved their own people, and saw history repeating itself on a global scale. In hindsight, I have probably been researching this stuff longer than people like Jordan Maxwell and David Icke.
By George Orwell’s much theorised year “1984” we were living self-sufficiently in the bush in a mud brick cabin we built with hand tools, without electricity or other utilities, a bit like Amish folk. We had an established vegie garden, chooks and milking goats, making our own produce from scratch, including butter, cheese and yogurt. Without refrigeration, we dried, pickled, candied and preserved. Everything we did buy was in bulk amounts, to last months. Grain, like wheat and corn came whole in 50kg bags, ground up in a hand-operated stone mill and sifted as we needed it for fresh bread, pastas, and cereals.
Now 30 years later again, “Prepping” might have become a popular fad among the hip alternative community, but was a way of life for us. We lived off-grid and as minimalist as possible, with a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet, practicing natural health and hygiene, decades before these concepts became mainstream through the introduction of the internet and social media.
I took on “wild food plants” as a subject in my schoolwork, spent several years learning the common edible varieties, and would collect bush tucker by season. I also practiced bushcraft, making stone tools and weapons, building complete thatch and wattle and daub shelters in the bush with nothing but a hunting knife, making fire without matches, and cooking without metal pots. I rode around everywhere on horseback, and lived quite comfortably in the bush.
My father and I rode thousands of kilometres together on horseback, months with nothing but our swags, oilskins, and tucker in our saddlebags. Not many fathers and sons get to experience that sort of privilege anymore, it is a very rare and precious thing that has vanished with the sands of time.
Another concept that has emerged in the pseudolaw community: There was also not much we needed from society or government in general, besides the peace of being left alone to live as we believed, an existence based on moral, conscientious and spiritual values, rather than societal popularity or national custom. The way I perceived it from an early age, we had our own system of “law”, and our own “constitution”, the Bible.
Their statutes were not REAL LAW; they were just the rules of a nation state. Real law was carved in stone by the finger of God himself, and therefore it takes precedence over any secular body of law. According to our “constitution” we must obey God rather than man. We must keep the faith, be prepared to be persecuted and even give our lives for it, like Daniel cast into the fiery furnace, and the lion’s den, whenever the secular law was inconsistent with the laws of God.
Observing the ten commandments, including the Saturday Sabbath, gave me a very legalistic, interpretive world view. The prophetic interpretation also perceived modern day government as having been corrupted with the whore of Babylon described in Revelation, so swearing state allegiance, or even having participation in the democratic system, was a questionable proposal. So we abstained from voting on religious grounds, and lived “In the world but not of the world, a peculiar people” as the New Testament clearly stipulates. The reasoning behind some pseudolaw concepts is based in a somewhat similar pseudo-religious framework. The theory traces all authority back to the Papacy, through the administration of the Crown Corporation of London. Beginning with the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam, and a theorised stranglehold over the protestant British Crown and its Defender of the Faith, resulting in the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666.
Many would view at least some of the religious concepts described as a type of extremism, and I would have to admit, looking back nostalgically at that time in my life without any predisposed obligation to any type of religious or political belief is a liberating feeling. We all grow and move forward, taking with us the wisdom of hindsight. After leaving home at 16 to start a trade, enjoying a good steak, discovering Midnight Oil and Metallica, getting pissed and stoned with mates, and first experiencing a woman, my understanding of life evolved without such confined and limiting restrictions on its scope.
As a tradesman signwriter I never had a shortage of work. But when people came to me for a quote, I’d have to first find out what sort of business they conducted, and if I didn’t agree with it in an ethical sense, I’d tell them to go elsewhere. I chose to only do work for certain businesses that didn’t exploit other humans or damage the environment. This led me to reject cash all together, and only work in barter. For a few years I refused to even touch money at all. The businesses I did work for loved that, it meant absolutely no burden on their cash flow. I wasn’t short of anything though, I had all I needed in barter. I would eat at different restaurants and cafes, drink at pubs, stay at motels and everything else, all without money.
I got sick of signwriting though, and the whole concept of sales and marketing, making people buy things they don’t need, with money they don’t have, to impress people who don’t give a shit. So I started painting pictures, following in my fathers footsteps as a speed painter. I decided to support worthwhile charities and community groups by fundraising around $1000 per gig once a week, painting live in front of a drunk heckling audience, while the group sold raffle tickets for what was usually an 8 foot x 4 foot mural of a local landscape, rainforest, waterfalls, reef scene, outback scene etc. I was in the papers constantly, usually barefoot with my trademark vest and shorts.
I usually didn’t pay rent either, preferring to sleep down the river under a tarp, or build a tipi in the bush way out of town. For years. I suppose you could say I was homeless, without money, dressed in rags with no shoes, while giving away a grand a week to the less fortunate. Quite a few people thought I was an eccentric millionaire, because I was never short of a drink, or a feed, and always in the public spotlight.
I have however, always felt a little alienated from the rest of society, probably due to my childhood. much preferring to live in the bush like a fringe-dweller, mostly with a simple, temporary, make-shift existence. I spent decades “living in the long grass” outside of town(s), and only going in to face the rat race when I really needed to.
As you can imagine, I became quite good at it, I’ve been doing this nearly my whole life. I’ve lived on horseback, canoed down rivers with all I own on board, and hiked in and out of the most gorgeous places for supplies. I’ve built camps out of the bush and lived for extended periods in the remotest corners of Australia, without thought of going “back home to go to work to pay the bills” or any other similar commitments that are the bane of most people’s existence. (so I hear)
I found an interest in off-grid tiny homes, so I first built a horse drawn gypsy wagon, complete with a potbelly wood stove, guttering and water tank, and toured around in that for a while. I then built a 30-foot Chinese junk and sailed around the reef and islands in north Queensland, living off seafood and tropical fish. After my kids were born, I fitted out a few caravans and camping vans, but the latest was turning a 45-foot bus into a self-contained motorhome, it even has a bath and wood stove, huge water storage and solar capacity so I never have to plug in to the grid. It had served well in finding a middle ground between having all the comforts of a house while still able to enjoy nature, parking beside a crystal-clear river in the middle of the wilderness and sitting beside a campfire with my homeschooled kids.
For the last few years, we have built an almost self-sufficient farm beside a beautiful clean river in a remote area in northern NSW with a huge flourishing garden, and a variety of livestock. To watch my kids every day, laughing without the artificial stimulation of phones and social media, having confidence in themselves without likes and filters, passionately reading books, playing with animals, gardening, swimming, playing in trees and otherwise being kids like it was back in my time really warms my heart. It tells me I’ve made some good decisions for them. This behavior is nearly extinct. Every time we go to town there’s people everywhere with their heads stuck in their phones, they don’t really interact anymore, even when sitting together they are preoccupied with this alternate reality.
Those that have followed me online for a few years are no doubt aware that my own philosophies are mainly anarchist in nature, and that my lifestyle has consistently for decades been one of living on the fringes of society out in the bush as self-sufficient as I can manage. I don’t vote or otherwise participate in matters relating to the establishment, and strongly dislike being considered a part of any group or otherwise sacrificing my individuality. I am known however, to have a firm understanding of constitutional law, and pseudo legal contentions, which gives some the false impression that the decisions I cite are somehow part of my own beliefs. It must be confusing for certain people to discover that there exists such a glaring inconsistency between that of the law, and that of my own worldview.
Traveling lawfully – My story
There’s a lot of YouTube videos of police interactions while OPCA adherents are “lawfully traveling” which usually do not end as the adherent hopes, yet provide a great source of entertainment for the rest of us. Most of them have their windows smashed in, and are dragged away in handcuffs for their belligerent obstinacy. But it doesn’t have to be that way at all, even when someone is unlicensed or unregistered, if you handle the situation more intelligently.
Before YouTube was even invented, I’d driven right around Australia six times unlicensed and usually unregistered, and about a dozen times up and down the east coast. I didn’t think it was some sort of “right” that existed though, I was just a typical young ratbag trying to get away with whatever I could. I kept doing it though, went without a licence for 22 years in total, I just never got around to applying for one. I found old plates on wrecks anywhere beside the road and drove long distances without a problem in the world. Then quite abruptly, technology came along, and plate recognition systems deprived me of the god-damn God-given common law right to be a completely irresponsible ratbag.
Amazingly though, in all that time, I never had an accident or injured myself or anyone, and although I had many frequent interactions with police in all states, I have never been arrested, or sentenced to jail for these offences. But I have had some adventures, I can tell you.
With this sort of background, when I first came across the OPCA concepts online, the attraction was immediate. After my “Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right” was successfully served on every level of government and authority, and they didn’t respond or even try to refute my “unrebuttable facts” by the due date, the notices inevitably went into “default agreement” activating the “fee schedules” as I clearly warned them. They now owed me millions of dollars in penalties if they even looked at me the wrong way.
It was emotionally overwhelming, I felt ten feet tall and invincible, the sole righteous ruler of my own existence. I seen myself as a spiritual revolutionary of sorts, with an almost sociopathic glee in being “untouchable” or immune to any sort of prosecution. It was like a new age had dawned, I talked about it constantly, and the ideas were reinforced by the online community, LIKE SYSTEMATISED PROGRAMMING available 24 hours a day.
I remember telling a friend, that if they ever got hassled again by the “policy enforcers” about their cannabis, just to tell them that it belongs to me, because I’ve successfully entrapped the whole government in a binding contract, so they can’t, by law, prosecute me for these sort of victimless rules. What a top bloke hey!
I bought an unregistered Landcruiser with the old plates still on it, and drove it around town everyday. I’d done that for years, but this was different. I was actually in the right this time, so my mind was abuzz on the prospect of enlightening any officers that I’d encounter of my status as a freeman. I even waved as I drove past them a few times, on my way home from the pub. I pitied them. I was invincible, in a whole upper echelon of persons, while they were mere public servants.
One afternoon I was driving down a main road and a patrol car drove towards me, his plate recognition system picking up my vehicles status. He turned around in pursuit, but by this time I was parked in a carpark, so Senior Constable Darren Bartrim of Coffs/Clarence LAC, alone on traffic duty, pulled in behind me to investigate.
I was just getting out with the kids, when I noticed him there. “G’day bloke.” I said, hitting video record on my phone, and raising it to capture his face. “Hi Sir, your plates are showing as unregistered and I…” he started.
“Yeah, I’ve been meaning to drop those back. You can take them now if you want…” I replied, cutting him off. “have a good day.” and we kept walking toward the shops.
“Hey, hey, stop there a second, I need to…” He protested. This is where the scripted OPCA mantra kicked in: “Am I under arrest or something?” I asked. “No, no…” He replied reassuringly, “You’re right, I just need to…” “Ok, great, catch ya later then, have a great day.” I interrupted, and we started off walking again.
“Hey stop, I need to get your licence details…” S/C Bartrim protested, but I again cut him off: “Are you willing to admit, under full commercial liability, that I am required to carry such a thing in order to exercise my common law right to travel?” He looked at me stunned, struggling for words to respond.
“It’s hot here in the sun” I complained, pointing to a shady tree nearby. “We’re going to sit over here in the shade if you want to continue this conversation.” I said, taking the kids by the hands and walking off.
As we walked, I said “I’ll only be chatting for a little while, because I have things to do, but I’m obliged to let you know, you are obstructing me in my lawful path, so I have to set a few things straight.” I then informed him, that “I have a valid binding contract with your superiors that traffic legislation doesn’t apply to me, so if you want to enforce anything on me without my consent, you are attempting a claim of ownership, and would therefore would be guilty of slavery.” I reminded him “I am only subject to the common law, and you are bound by your oath of office. Who’s the public servant here?”
“My Fee Schedule is active, and clearly states a penalty of $50,000 applies for breach of said contract relating to Sections 268-270 of the Criminal Code. You would be liable as an individual for placing said claim of ownership over me. I don’t work for free, so a commercial lien will be placed on your house for said amount, if you want me to perform any act or directive of government.” I warned him.
“Are you currently on any medication, and do you suffer from any mental health issues?” S/C Bartrim asked, blown away by what he just heard. “No, I study law actually, maritime admiralty law.” I replied, “and I am not your cargo, or chattel. This is about private contracts between private individuals. Do we have a contract? I haven’t signed anything. You have no jurisdiction.” He again requested identification, and warned me I could be arrested if he failed to establish my identity. “What is this, Nazi Germany or something.” I replied.
“You’re a person driving a vehicle on a public road in the State of New South Wales…” I cut him off again. “Those are all legal terms, and don’t apply to me.” I objected, “Do you know Blacks Law Dictionary? Have you read it? Do you even know what it is? It’s not a vehicle, it’s an automobile, I’m not driving, I’m traveling, and neither am I a person as defined by this Act. The RTA is a private corporation with an ABN, and I cannot be forced to contract with any corporation, it is contrary to the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights. Are you sure you want to accept full commercial liability for your actions?”
Knowing that this conversation was going nowhere, and would inevitably lead to arrest, and from there to resisting arrest, S/C Bartrim remained completely calm and called for backup. He looked concerned “Are you sure you want to do this in front of your children?” he asked. “I will be calling DoCS about this situation, and them witnessing this behavior.” I scoffed at him. “You can go right ahead; they have no jurisdiction either. Besides, this is a great education for them about unlawful state revenue collection.”
Three cars answered the call within a minute, and I was surrounded by 7 officers, most in plain clothes. As they were approaching I said “Look at this kids, he brought the Gestapo.” and we smirked at each other. “It’s not Gestapo,” the officer replied, “You were being uncooperative, and now look at all these people who have to come here just because you want to be unproductive.” I was still recording the entire interaction, so I raised the phone as they closed in around me, and said “I need to get all your names here too, and see your badges, just for identification purposes.”
One of the plain clothes officers, Senior Constable Zylstra, came closer and said “I’m informing you that I do not wish to be recorded, so you must switch off that device now.” he barked. “Why? This is a public place, and I am party to this conversation, so there is no statutory power for your demands. Do you intend to do something you don’t want recorded? Now… you are all public servants, and answerable to me…” I started. “No, you don’t run this show, we do.” S/C Zylstra replied. “You have been given a directive to cease recording, or you will be placed under arrest. Do you understand that directive?” I shook my head. “I heard what you said, but you do not have my consent. But I will comply, only under stated threat of physical harm, assault and unlawful kidnap.” I responded, putting the phone in my pocket. “But all criminal gangs use these intimidation tactics don’t they.”
S/C Bartrim had finished getting the old plates off my Landcruiser, and returned to resume his obligations, again requesting either my name and details or some sort of identification, repeating that failure to comply would mean arrest. “I demand to be heard by a jury of my peers!” I said. “This is contrary to the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights, you can’t do this before conviction. I’m a freeman, and I demand a fair hearing.” I insisted, handing him a bank keycard in my pocket, for him to write the notice to appear. This seemed to ease the tension building, and finalised their obligations. They all left, with me still complaining about the loss of rights experienced, yelling at them to expect their bills in the mail for $50,000 each. Pretty satisfied that I had just earned myself a cool $350,000, I jumped straight back in my now plateless “private automobile” and drove home to work on their invoices.
I spent the next few months tirelessly preparing my case, writing extensive affidavits confirming our contracts, and seeking the help of our Defender of the Faith Queen Elizabeth II.
At the mention, I stood in the gallery and said “I’m here on that matter, acting in a administrative capacity on behalf of the corporate fiction known as Robert Sudy. I am here on special appearance to seek clarification of contracts tendered.” I refused to pass the bar until I had verbal confirmation I would not be waiving any of my rights by doing so. Once there, I refused to enter a plea, insisting that the case be dismissed immediately for failure to show cause.
Magistrate David Heilpern then routinely entered a plea on my behalf, to which I erupted in a long rant about him “enabling private foreign mercenaries to occupy the nation of the sovereign Bundjalung people without their consent, and enforcing pretend laws for genocide and slavery.” which nearly received a standing ovation from the largely Aboriginal audience in the gallery. Just before being arrested, I stormed out and spent the rest of the day down the pub getting shouted beers from the mob who were at the courthouse, who were gobsmacked someone would actually have the cast iron balls to stand up against a magistrate like that, and in their honour too.
When I arrived at Grafton Local Court for the trial, it was a pleasant morning, the birds were singing, the courthouse had opened just for my matter that day, and was empty besides the clerk, magistrate, stenographer, prosecutor, a sheriff, a police officer, and me. I was very relaxed as I casually strolled in and greeted all with namaste’ and in lakech’. Again, but this time a lot more confidently, I refused to pass the bar until I had verbal confirmation of my rights, and again stated I was acting in a administrative capacity on behalf of the corporate fiction known as Robert Sudy.
The next three and a half hours were an enlightening experience, to say the least. I began my opening speech, turning my back to the magistrate a few times to address those in the gallery, and declared us all to be “equal men, administering to the law, and nobody here had any more authority before God, or was more sovereign than the other.” I couldn’t be sworn in, because I said, the Bible itself commands “not to swear on anything, but to only answer yes or no, anything other than that is evil” so they accepted my responses as affirmed regardless.
I continued interrupting with similar irrelevant side issues, entered my “Notice of Special Appearance”; which clarified I am not appearing as a person, and my “Notice of Religious Objection”; which due to my exemption from voting, meant I’ve never in my life granted any consent to be governed, and my “Default Notice and Fee Schedule” which had also been served on every level of government, and imposed penalties for breach of my Claim of Right.
The main arguments were covered in this affidavit “Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right”. I had about 60 points and entered each as evidence, and argued each point. Each of the avenues I chose went nowhere, it was held no contracts existed, nor any Defender of the faith, and, to cut a long story short, I was obliged to follow the law like everyone else in our democracy.
I received a $300 fine for all 4 offences, unlicenced, unregistered, uninsured, not pay road tax, which was actually the lowest I’ve ever received for this same offence. ($75 each) I have been fined $1250 for the same offences several times in the past.
But still, I downright refused to pay State Debt Recovery for my accumulated fines, totaling around $4000 by this stage. They sent many letters, attempting to open negotiation, but in my mind, still being influenced by the OPCA perception, they were trying to force joinder on me. So I either threw them all at the bin, or returned to sender unopened marked “no contract”.
The correspondence informed me of the consequences of non-payment, and options regarding contesting the fine, but since I didn’t recognise their authority to impose anything, the warnings were ignored. My refusal to pay the bill, or fine, created this initial conflict. Repeatedly, I was informed of the consequences and options, and choose to ignore it. This time, a fixed grace period was given, after which time legal proceedings would ensue. My refusal again, to respond by this due date, by either payment, or notice that I intend to contest the matter, obliged State Debt Recovery to lodge an application in small claims for summary judgment. They simply provided evidence of ongoing notices, and my failure to respond. By default, the judgment entitled them to pursue debt collection.
The Sheriff came to the given address to seize property, but I’d moved and they couldn’t find me. This meant another order, which was likewise approved by default. My bank account had $1500 in it so they emptied the account, seizing it as part payment. Next pay they took $500, and same the following fortnight, leaving me completely broke. That’s when I rang State Debt Recovery, and in about 20 minutes all seizures were halted, and I’d entered into a payment plan for only $30 by direct debit instead.
I am now licenced for the first time in over two decades, and enjoying the freedom that comes with being able to drive legally. Not that it really stopped me before, but my kids also enjoy a better quality of life by their parent having a licence. It is something many people take for granted, but after doing without for so many years, I have learned to appreciate and value this freedom, and now understand the importance of these regulations. Perhaps I’ve just grown up a little, and become more responsible.
All those countless hours on YouTube learning the secrets of unlocking my supralegal status, all the theories and processes I trained for, all the ideological reinforcement from the online community… In clarity of hindsight, I can see I was only training to become a vexatious litigant. And that raises the question… Who or what was I being “trained” by? Other vexatious litigants?
I considered myself a “prince of a dominion” at one stage, complete with diplomatic immunity to the laws of any other nation. I had all my scripted responses memorised in case I have to interact with a police officer: “I’m just traveling through here, and I come in peace. I think you should get a superior officer to call the embassy to check my credentials, before you turn this interaction into a seriously embarrassing diplomatic incident.”
I was yet to learn I was wrong, oh so terribly wrong. But it felt so good! The theory appeals to the narcissistic egomaniac in all of us, and desperately seeks to give it the wheel. But unlike the numerous vexatious keyboard warriors STILL perpetuating this nonsense nearly a decade later, I’m not ashamed of losing face or laughing at myself. I’d be much more ashamed of refusing to learn better, an infliction they obviously suffer from. Quite ironically in fact, I continue to prove myself wrong.
Welcome to the Freeman Delusion.
In this analysis, I hope to review the basic core principles of this movement, and establish their invalidity in law, and sometimes even historical fact. As you follow, all you find is massive errors in the theory, but so many people perpetuate these myths online regardless. Subsequently theorists label certain authorities as being “corrupt” because these so-called “actors” didn’t want to follow the flawed script the OPCA movement gave them.
The OPCA ideology has been carefully dissected through thousands of documented cases internationally, each of the core fundamentals have been refuted by law on their own merits separately, and a body of precedent has been built in each jurisdiction regarding each of these core principles. Each premise has individually been overruled in prior judgments the court is obliged to uphold. OPCA concepts like maritime admiralty law have even been traced back to their source, research shows they were created by the U.S. Posse Comitatus Movement in the 1970’s. The theories had never entered the courts anywhere prior to then.
It no longer matters to what group they are associated or what collective monika defendants identify themselves with, “Sovereign Citizens” are identified as such by these core principles, through the types of legal strategies used by litigants. In a growing number of cases they are described as a loosely organised group, known collectively as “OPCA litigants”, since the main strategy used by Sovereigns is known as the “Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument”.
If one is heavily influenced by these concepts, there is no way they can forward a defense that has any legal substance, and as such can only result in failure in the courts. Unless one can provide a defense that has provision within the law, it is like legal suicide. It is important that these people become familiar with the invalidity of each of the core principles from a judicial perspective, and consider a more viable and successful defence strategy than legal suicide.
I can cite many cases where the final judgments speak for themselves, and succinctly address the contentions. Of course, all the adherent concludes from this, is that the courts are wrong, and they are right. But quite ironically, by doing so, are already admitting that they follow their own personal system of law that doesn’t actually exist in the laws of this nation, and cannot be upheld by the courts, but they choose to believe in it anyway. In reality, they are throwing a childish tantrum because the Court didn’t breach every principle and precedent they are bound by law to apply.
A cornerstone of the rule of law, is the principle that we are all equal before the law. If any individual or group has a mistaken but firm belief that they hold special legal privileges that others don’t, and for these reasons think they are above the law, then obviously, their behavior would inevitably create a risk to others in the community.
While many OPCA enthusiasts are very peaceful people, unfortunately the theory includes a phobia of speaking to anyone in the legal profession, who could easily clear up these vast misconceptions in their school of thought. Hence all OPCA cases involve self-represented litigants. The saying “one that represents himself has a fool for a lawyer” rings somewhat true in this regard, as even the most competent lawyers do not represent themselves in their own cases.
There is currently a huge number of people on social media that hold such blind faith in these pseudo legal theories, and their unquestionable legal effect. Some are even aware these OPCA strategies are repetitively and routinely rejected by the courts and have been for decades. But regardless, they remain insistent on the validity of the core principles, inevitably concluding that the court is corrupt by its rejection. To do that obviously means they “disregarded the true common law” and fraudulently “joindered with their strawman”. Although it all seems so realistic to the adherent, the ideology could well be described as a firm and obstinate belief in the validity of something that does not even exist, a delusion.
A concerning consequence of people being convinced of these fallacies, is that they inevitably descend further and further into a depressive and pessimistic world view. The narcissistic tendencies encouraged by the sovereign mindset also emerge, a change often noticed by family and friends close to the adherent. I’m constantly reading comments online involving OPCA concepts, giving me reassurance of the reasons I wrote this E-book, and the general need for some clarity on these concepts. There is definitely a pressing social need for a “sovereign encyclopedia” that debunks all the theory and puts some realism into the equation.
People will believe what they want to believe anyway, but at least for those minds still capable of differentiating between fact and fiction, they now have a legal resource base that addresses each concept on its own merits.
The OPCA movement is no longer just a collection of unsuccessful legal ideas, but has morphed into a subculture of its own, an evolution into a belief set, and associated social group that is increasingly 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.