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.
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.