Comments

All of the various posts on this website are for reference purposes only and hence I have removed the comment sections. You can contact me via email on the contact page, however, if you would rather leave a comment on the website please feel free to use this page.

A problem I have noticed with social media in general, is firstly, that OPCA adherents invariably make comments with numerous unsubstantiated assertions, and secondly, that they tend to be uninterested in a referenced response. It almost seems as though they write these comments in the interests of having a public rant, as opposed to actually gaining the accurate perspective of the law in the area of contention.

From my experience in debates on social media over the years, the fact that the adherent ‘believes’ in a certain premise is unfortunately the only thing they can substantiate, and this is something that I cannot help them with, as it is ultimately irrelevant whether they ‘believe’ in the premise, but whether it has any application in law. This is a fundamental obstacle in reaching any sort of constructive result from interactions, and one of the main reasons why I have left social media.

However, I can empathize with their perspective, as my own philosophies on life are very much identical in that way, and definitely not something that can be substantiated in law. Coming from a background of anarchist and individualist thought, including self sufficiency, my own beliefs are very much polar opposite to anything to do with legal reality and the obligations of the courts. I strongly believe in natural law theory, while the courts only recognise positivism.

So please bear this in mind when making comments on this page, that I have no interest in debating your personal belief system, you are quite entitled to believe anything you like. The subject matter of this website is how the courts are bound by law to respond to those beliefs, not the validity of the beliefs themselves. Even judges themselves have their own beliefs which are often in conflict with the laws they uphold, but they are bound by their oaths to uphold the law without fear or favour as it is, not how they would personally prefer it to be.

To gain an accurate perspective on how the law treats a certain premise, one has to put their personal beliefs to one side and look at the premise from a place of complete neutrality, and this is a very difficult thing for the majority of people to do. Our own personal biases and cognitive dissonance often prevents us from exploring the contrary position.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is cover-1.jpg

So I’d like to express my sincerest gratitude to every OPCA adherent, constitutional theorist and vexatious litigant I’ve ever had the privilege of interacting with on social media, for assisting me to compile this encyclopedia. There is no way I could have ever undertaken this project without your help. You are the muse to my poetry, the Locke to my Hobbes, the object of my infatuation. Thank you so very much for being you.

If you are commenting here to abuse me, or to compliment me, to call me a government shill or call me a talented scholar, please be aware they are both the same to me, and I will simply mirror back to you the attitude you feel. Other than that, please feel free to leave any comments you like.

Best regards to you and yours.
Robert Sudy.

17 thoughts on “Comments

  1. In regards to The State Constitutions. I found Constitution Act Amendment Act 1934, Queensland.

    In it,

    3 Parliament not to be altered in the direction of
    re-establishing the Legislative Council or other body
    except in accordance with this section;

    (1) The Parliament of Queensland (or, as sometimes called, the
    Legislature of Queensland), constituted by His Majesty the
    King and the Legislative Assembly of Queensland in
    Parliament assembled shall not be altered in the direction of
    providing for the restoration and/or constitution and/or
    establishment of another legislative body (whether called the
    Legislative Council, or by any other name or designation, in
    addition to the Legislative Assembly) except in the manner
    provided in this section.

    (2) A Bill for any purpose within subsection one of this section
    shall not be presented to the Governor for the reservation
    thereof for the signification of His Majesty’s pleasure, or for
    the Governor’s Assent, or be in any other way assented to,
    until the Bill has been approved by the electors in accordance
    with this section.

    # Constitution of Queensland 2001 establishes a Legislative Council, but fails to seek approval of the electors. The 1934 Act has never been repealed.

    Be interested to hear your thoughts.

    1. A relatively simple misunderstanding. The “Legislative Council” referred to in the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1934 is not the Parliament of Queensland (or, as sometimes called, the Legislature of Queensland) it was the Upper House, which was abolished in 1922, and the State continues today without an Upper House or “Legislative Council”.

      Re-establishment remained a feature of the election platforms of the anti-Labor parties. In 1929, the Country Party prepared a draft Bill providing for the restoration of the Legislative Council without going to a referendum, but containing a provision preventing the Bill from being amended or repealed unless a referendum was held.

      In 1934, through the Constitution Act Amendment Bills, Premier Forgan Smith’s Labor Government removed any threat that the Legislative Council would for could be revived. The Opposition forces boycotted the Bill, sitting coldly and silently throughout the second-reading debate,

      In more recent times, consideration of the consolidation and review of the Queensland Constitution has been undertaken by:

      • the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission (1993),
      • the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review (1993-94),
      • the Parliamentary Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee (1998.2000), and
      • the Queensland Constitutional Review Commission (1999-2000).

      The Constitution of Queensland 2001 consolidated and modernised existing constitutional provisions. However, entrenched provisions, such as s 3 of the 1934 Constitution Act Amendment Act, which cannot be repealed or amended without the approval of the electors at a referendum remains.

      This document should clear things up for you. 🙂

      Click to access 5311T4517.pdf

  2. G’day Rob, I’m disappointed that you recently shut your fb page as it was an easy way to keep up with your goings on. Yes, the Trolls annoyed me too. No ,matter what evidence you presented, they just didn’t want to hear it. Thanks to responding to my questions with links/references etc and thank-you for your ebook… it is very much appreciated.
    I just wanted to let you know that I’ve been receiving your emails and to keep up the good work. I hope to meet you one day, shake your hand and thank you personally for your work.
    Keep it up mate.
    Cheers, Jason Smart

  3. Hello again Rob, love the updates and the content on your page is gold. Read your story about how you went through the whole OPCA mindset, full respect for sharing. You got out of that unscathed, its a pity so many don’t ie lost homes, careers etc, and still in denial. Your content fills in the blanks for all the bizarre rants I have seen, especially the court cases cited. Its so obvious cherry picking is a favourite sport of OPCA adherents. Keep up the good work and in regard to your trying to help some on social media, heres a thought. ‘Don’t bother trying to teach a pig to sing as it annoys the pig and it cannot carry a tune anyway.’ To clarify, pigs are those people, who, in the face of indisputable reason, choose to snort, grunt, argue and be belligerent. They do not want to listen, and they certainly do not want to buy.

  4. I work for a court and Freemen (and they always men strangely) on the Land are very challenging to deal with. Eventually we get so fed up with their behaviour and spurious arguments that we just end up ignoring them and continuing the case without their so-called input.
    When you were debating with the Freemen did the following question ever come up:
    Person A is a victim of a crime (assault say). Person B is accused of committing it. Both A and B are Freemen – what happens?
    It would interest me to know if it did! To me it seems one of biggest most obvious problems with the “system”.
    Also, another question I’ve just thought of: If you were really truly not bound by the laws of the land why not commit a really serious crime like a bank robbery? Surely the Freeman status would save them from the wrath of the law!

    1. The ideology varies between different groups, but generally they believe that there are only three ways to break the law, harm to another person, damage or theft of their property, and mischief in contracts. Everything else they see as contractual, those victimless offences such as speeding or seatbelt laws. Some have attempted private prosecution for things like assault, only to be told to talk to the police. I suppose they could commit a bank robbery though, considering that to them money is created by the bank as a book-entry credit ‘out of thin air’. They would probably feel compelled to leave them a promissory note though, to cover the cash they took, with a $1 postage stamp attached.

  5. I was unfortunately exposed to the arguments of these OPCA adherents early this year. And although it was easy to identify they were bogus and without any source, your work has been a great resource to learn from (although it shouldn’t even have to exist). The general resentment and discontent these groups have towards the Government and political bodies I can fully understand – it does feel like the world is slowly burning. But their speculations and theories are completely misdirected and make no sense. Anyway, your work is highly appreciated and reading about your upbringing was fascinating in itself.

    Cheers – Joel

    1. “although it shouldn’t even have to exist”
      I have had many conversations within the legal profession with people who do not demonstrate an understanding of the principals of law. I believe these questions are caused by people who do not understand the Rule of Law and can not be answered by people who do not understand the Rule of Law.
      Suggesting that a debate should not be required is counter productive and counter intuitive in my thinking. One of the quotes referenced by Robert is “A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” (Bruce Lee). I’d suggest such arguments are essential. I’d even go further to say our current “cancel culture” and aggressive censorship by social media and the mainstream media are counter-productive.
      I strongly recommend Tom Bingham’s work on the Rule of Law. I firmly believe many in the industry could learn from reading Tom’s book.

  6. If the people in this country believe they can read, AND comprehend what the wording of our ‘legislation’ actually says, we’re in for a whooping. Truly, I wonder what makes Aussies tick sometimes.

    One last chance for the Facts to fall on deaf ears, and blind eyes.

    In January of 2002, the ‘new’ Peter Beattie/Joh Bjelke Constitution of Queensland, including the Australian Constitution and ALL others in ‘Australia’, were found to be 100% Grammatical Fraud, by a group of ‘syntax clerks’ who were working for a ‘class action’ group of tribal elders and local academics, about to give the universities of QLD and the government’s education system the biggest headache and shakeup, any government could imagine possible.

    If the findings of these people be true, it means ALL documentation of government status, legal status, judicial status, and financial status, everywhere within ‘Australia’, since 1608, is merely WORD ART created by people with small minds, small ideas (if any), and possibly small penises, with nothing more than power and shekels on their tiny minds.

    Q: How come Mathematics travels in BOTH directions, yet languages do NOT?

    1. Syntax is not a credible argument, it has been disposed of by the courts everywhere it has ever been attempted. Most of it comes from a US guru by the name of David-Wynn: Miller, https://freemandelusion.wordpress.com/2018/07/21/david-wynn-miller/ who has also appeared in Australia in a few failed cases, like Wollongong City Council v Falamaki [2009] FMCA 1204 https://freemandelusion.wordpress.com/2019/07/11/wollongong-city-council-v-falamaki-2009-fmca-1204/ where it was noted: “The apparent fervour of the members of this linguistic cult led by Mr Miller has the distinct character of a crusade – searching for a public platform to ventilate their views. Fraud at common law or in equity concerns the use of false representations to gain an unjust advantage. Syntax is the grammatical arrangement of words showing their connection and relationship (a set of rules for analysis of this connection and relationship). The concept of fraud perpetrated by syntax is not a concept currently reflected in the Commonwealth or State statutes or at common law.” It was also raised in a number of other cases, such as The Trustee of the Property of Currey (A Bankrupt) v Currey [2017] FCCA 2692 https://freemandelusion.com/2020/10/23/the-trustee-of-the-property-of-currey-a-bankrupt-v-currey-2017-fcca-2692/ where it was noted: “I do not find the submissions made by Mr and Mrs Currey based upon what they described as “CORRECT-SENTENCE-STRUCTURE-COMMUNICATION-PARSE-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR” helpful. Indeed, I did not find them comprehensible.”

      Another variation of this premise was invented by Romley Stewart Stover https://freemandelusion.wordpress.com/2018/07/25/romley-stewart-stover/ and Rohan Lorian Hilder. https://freemandelusion.wordpress.com/2018/12/19/rohan-lorian-hilder/ This is covered in The Romley Stewart Deception, by Justinian. https://freemandelusion.wordpress.com/2018/06/29/the-romley-stewart-deception-by-justinian/ called DOG-LATIN-GLOSSA, which has likewise been heard and disposed of, in cases such as Maksacheff v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2017] NSWCA 126 https://freemandelusion.wordpress.com/2018/06/30/maksacheff-v-commonwealth-bank/ where it was said: “As will be manifest, these assertions are nonsensical. Neither appears to advance comprehensible claims. We reproduce them, not to imbue them with any substance, but, rather, to illustrate their nonsensical nature.” See also Rambaldi & anor v Rice Bar Restaurant & anor [2018] VSC 218 https://freemandelusion.com/2020/10/23/rambaldi-anor-v-rice-bar-restaurant-anor-2018-vsc-218/ and Commonwealth Bank Of Australia v Palermo [2019] WASC 28 https://freemandelusion.com/2020/07/30/commonwealth-bank-of-australia-v-palermo-2019-wasc-28/

      It is a myth, and presents no challenge to anything but ones sanity and gullibility. 🙂

  7. It seems your entire rant here is made up of your own opinions, misconceived conclusions, and other unsubstantiated assertions. Firstly, I do not “defend the system” nor is my work about my own opinions, or beliefs, or what I “put faith in” but the ratio decidendi upheld in case law. Whether you or I agree with a courts decision is irrelevant to the point that the authorities on the ratio is binding on their court. Judicial bias and other issues you raised are likewise dealt with in the Court of Appeals, and more often than not dismissed due to various authorities on those ratios being binding on their court.  It is all about the ratio decidendi, not your, my or a judges views on morality or fallibility.

    Romley Stover has not had any “victories in court” with his theories, nor can you establish this point with anything but his own confused opinions and perceptions. He pled guilty and he received the relevant penalties. The ratio on the “glossa” premise is succinct, and has been relied on in numerous cases to reject the premise. Again, it is not me calling it confused or nonsensical, but the courts themselves, consistently. The cases are all published on this website for the educational benefit of those considering these ideas, to learn how the courts will inevitably respond, because it is “aimed at educating or helping those uninformed legal amateurs or warning them of the risks they may face.” as you put it, seemingly ignorant of this self-evident fact. 

    This encyclopedia is regarding the subject matter of pseudo law, and deals specifically on this area of law as applicable to Australia, just as competently as Meads v Meads does in Canadian law, which was sadly missing in Australia up until the project was undertaken. It is now reached the level of being relied on as a legal resource on the subject matter by prosecutors and magistrates in every State, not just those in the general public considering these ideas.

    I could likewise ask you what are your motives and agendas for your comment, because I don’t think you’ve actually made a valid point in any of it. No my encyclopedia doesn’t cover every topic that interests you, and nor should it, but it does cover all aspects of its intended subject matter – pseudo legal premises in Australia. I’ll let you know when I publish a book on organic gardening and self sufficiency, so you can likewise complain it doesn’t mention political corruption, or riding bicycles in summer. 

  8. Thank you. Your web site is both excellent and confusing. I have a suggestion for the site based on my own experience which may help you help others.

    In short, please consider swapping the order of “What is an OPCA adherent?” and “A Systematised Delusion”

    More verbosely…
    I stumbled on your site by accident. I started by looking for a summary of what the site is actually about. Following the bouncing ball (as one does at 3 in the morning), I started with the first topic “A Systematised Delusion” and I was initially quite lost, despite my legal training.

    I am passionate about the Rule of Law (see Tom Bingham’s wonderful publication). Loosely, I see our legal system as a framework by which all people agree a set of rules that minimise conflict and maximise social cohesion that applies to all members without prejudice. Our legal system allows for change as the society changes to adapt or correct as required. By default, that probably puts me outside of your target audience at this point in time. I read through “A Systematised Delusion”. After seeing each strawman shrouded with some facts, I reverse engineered what you were raising concern about.
    In short: I suggest the order of those two topics is swapped to avoid the steep learning curve and to give a context for anyone who comes across your content by accident.

    On a less important note.
    I know you don’t give a fuck (as you stated), however, I am very sceptical of some entrenched (modern) attitudes of our legal system. Your works are neutrally presented, which I appreciate, as they allow anyone with an open mind to critique the legal system. Dismissing pseudo-legal arguments streamlines proper reform that use reasoned arguments.

    Whilst you’re critical of the “right” (I’m assuming that means pro-gun, anti-abortion, Christian), I’d suggest pseudo-legal arguments are equally applicable to all on the political spectrum. I’d even suggest that left leaning people (meaning “social justice”, “feelings before facts”) dominate pseudo-logic and pseudo-science and pseudo-law and have for the last decade. To illustrate something very topical, the George Floyd trial. A group called “The Lotus Eaters” have generated excellent commentary of reality v/s the media. I mention this as I would suggest your “right wing” comment stood out for its lack of neutrality. I am neither left nor right leaning. I mention this because I felt you constrained reasoning unnecessarily. At this point in time, the last thing the legal profession needs is more “feelings over facts”. The George Pell case was an example of what happens when the legal system is subverted for activism. My personal dislike for George Pell has nothing to do with the obvious verdict that should have been delivered by the Victorian courts based on the principals of law.

  9. Hello Robert
    Finding your site has been a breath of fresh air, I had just begun to research and search for resources and sources to “debunk” this whole “freeman/common law/ “delusion” and yours was the first site that popped up… a staggering amount of research, clearly and intelligently presented in such a readable way. Many thanks. From Ireland.

Leave a Reply to Jason Smart Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s