Finding Relief from the Legal Pirates – How and Why the once “almighty” Private Bar Guilds are losing their grip over the kidnapping of Justice

On any given “business” day, in any given “public” courts around the world, dozens of men and women face the kind of “summary justice” as first defined by 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42 (1848). This is not the kind of “justice” as displayed on TV soaps, which grants defendants the luxury of sometimes half an hour (excluding commercial breaks) in which to plead their case, but the reality of hearings and judgments sometimes lasting no more than three to five minutes.

The reasons for such people being in court are wide and varied such as unpaid fines or debts, drunk driving, drug offences and financial difficulties. However, the overwhelming numbers of defendants present are there for non violent and often “victimless” crimes. 

Yet is it justice that some courts are processing more than ninety cases in a day? Is it fair that men and women are being fleeced of huge sums of money by the courts without the apparent fair opportunity to be heard? Is there any real relief from such obvious acts of legal piracy? And if so, how does one go about it? and what are the risks?

At the same time, is it morally right that someone who was caught allegedly “drunk” behind the wheel of a car should have their case dismissed on some technical maneuvre?  Or worse still, some alleged child molester? Or alleged violent rapist? This is the other side to exposing the weakness of the “pirate band” known as the Private Bar Guilds. It is also one of the loudest cries the Private Bar Guilds use in attacking any exposure of procedural injustice – to claim that such actions threaten the safety of society and the Rule of Law itself.

There is yet another dilemma that has been presented against discussing potential genuine “relief” against alleged corruption and procedural injustice within the present court system –not from members of the Private Bar Guilds or the Banker-Merchant classes, but from some self proclaimed “gurus” of the “freeman” and “truth” movement. In an extraordinary admission, the present author has received several emails warning against “education” of people for fear it will harm what these self proclaimed “gurus” claim is “real remedy” – from which a few “gurus” earn a living by charging fees.

Putting to one side for the moment the dilemmas faced with any kind of exposure of potential relief against legal piracy, the truth is that many hundreds of thousands of men and women are being denied procedural justice in the hearing of their matters and in the due process afforded to them through a “high-speed semi-automated summary justice system” that now appears to be the modern “public” court system.

This is the purpose of this article – to provide some practical and real answers to what kind of potential relief exists against such justice – not simply hunches, or theories – but clear and foundational relief that distinguishes either a system still functioning on the thread of Rule of Law vs. a system openly, publicly declaring itself to be devoid of all law and justice.

Before we start

Before we start, there are several key points to outline and remind readers namely, assumed pre-reading, the uncertain nature of relief and the fundamental importance of competence:

Firstly, on the point of assumed pre-reading, it is presumed that you have at least read carefully the past two articles being “The Paradox of Person” (17-Oct-2012) and “The Myths of Common Law..” (10-Oct-2012) before reading this article.  If you have not done so, then you are urged to read these articles first.

If possible, it would also be good if you have had the opportunity to peruse and read some of the material located on the various Ucadia websites, especially One-Heaven.Org and the canons of law such as Divine Law, Natural Law, Cognitive Law, Ecclesiastical Law, Positive Law and Sovereign Law.  This will then give you a good grounding as to the context of the points to be raised in this article.

Secondly, on the point of potential relief and its uncertainty,  what is outlined in this article must be predicated on the fact that “one size does not fit all” and that when one faces openly corrupt and treasonous officials, just being legally and lawfully correct does not automatically mean success.

There is a partial truth in the words of those who warned against "educating" people of the truth in that there is always the risk of misuse and certainly of the establishment from becoming aware.  Then again, as in the famous quote attributed both to Edumund Burke and Sergei Bondarchuk “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”.

Thirdly, it must be stated categorically and unequivocally that there can be no remedy or relief in law, without competence.  While there has existed for centuries certain relief for one who is diagnosed as a lunatic and mentally insane through Furiosus nullum negotium contrabere potest meaning “A madman can contract nothing” ; and Furiosus solo furore puuitur meaning “A madman is punished by his madness alone”, there remains the maxim Furiosus absentia loco est meaning “a madman is the same with an absent person”.

In other words, one who demonstrates willful incompetence either condemns themselves or may be treated as wholly absent, which then suits perfectly the “high-speed semi-automated summary justice system” that now appears to be the modern “public” court system. Please consider carefully, everything that is written and read, study and ask questions. Above all, do not sacrifice competence for haste- particularly when your freedom, your financial future and the future and security of your family may also be at stake.

Let us begin then with what is meant by “pirate”, “privateer”, “private” and “public”?


Pirates, Privateers, Private and Public

[1] Not every lawyer, clerk, sheriff, bailiff, judge or magistrate is a pirate.  Similarly, not every banker or merchant is an energy parasite intent on sucking your life savings out of you. But the words “pirate”, “private”, “public” and “privateer” have specific meanings and a long history in statute.  So when such terms as “pirate” is applied to the Private Bar Guilds around the world, it is used not as an ad hominem (logical fallacy) but as a forensic taxonomy class of species of entity; and

[2] The words “private” and “public” is similar to “person” in that it is claimed to be much older (6th Century CE and older) yet its appearance is no earlier than the 16th Century – the first being the folio of Shakespearian Plays and secondly the production of a suspect work known as Corpus Iuris Civilis in 1583 by Jesuit trained and educated Denis Godefroy; and

[3] Contrary to a swathe of sometime absurd and contradictory works, the pagan Roman jurists did not use the words “private” or “public”, nor promulgate laws according to such a duality.  Instead, prior to rise of the Holly Roman Empire under Constantine in the 4th Century CE and the complete destruction of Rome in the 5th Century CE (410 CE and 455 CE) the Romans divided their law into three (3) forms being Rex (Sacred and Patrician), Lex (Administrative and Plebian) and Lor/Lore (Foreign, Customary); and

[4] Rex, also known as “Rex Sacrorum” also known as “Sacred Rites”, also known as “Sacred Law” was a form of law developed by the Yahudi founders of Rome from the 6th Century BCE onwards exclusively for the benefit and protection of the most elite families of all known as Patricians; and

[5] Lex, also known as “Legis” was a form of law developed over centuries exclusively for the benefit and protection of the highest classes of citizens in Roman society known as “civilis” incorporating Patricians and Plebians. In turn, Lex was divided into four main bodies being (1) Ius Civile being the Rights of Civilis (Roman word for Citizens) being Patricians and Plebians; and (2) Ius Gentium being the Rights of the “Peoples” incorporating the lowest form of “citizens” being Municeps; and (3) Ius Forum being the laws of public places and administration and (4) Ius Domus being the laws of the household; and

[6] Lor, (pronounced “law”), also known as “Lore” was the customary or equivalent to unwritten “common folklore” of the Roman system in favor of “citizens” against various conquered people, such as usufruct (first fruits) and many other rights asserted in favor of Rome; and

[7] Blacks 2nd Edition (1910) (pg 964) defines “public” to mean “pertaining to a state, nation or whole community; proceeding from, relating to, or affecting the whole body of people or an entire community. Open to all; notorious. Common to all or many; general; open to common use”; and

[8] The word “public” is supposed to be derived from the Latin word publicus, which is both circular in meaning “publicus means public” and self serving “of or belonging to the people, state or community”.  However, the Latin roots of pube(s) (age of majority, young adult) and liceo (to be for sale, to have a price/value) indicate the 16th Century CE word public to have an original etymology more akin to “community commerce”; and

[9] Dictionarium Britannicum (1736) defines “private” to mean “retired, concealed (secret)” from the Latin privatus which (unsurprisingly) also possesses a circular definition meaning “privatus means private”. However, the true etymology of this 16th Century word is a little easier to decipher with privo meaning “to deprive, rob, steal, take away” and –atus being a Latin suffix equivalent to –ed in English meaning privatus properly means literally “deprivation, robbing, stealing, seizure”; and

[10] Blacks 2nd Edition (1910) pg 941 defines a Privateer then as “a vessel owned, equipped, and armed by one or more private individuals, and duly commissioned by a belligerent power to go on cruises and make war upon the enemy, usually by preying on his commerce”; and

[11] The earliest reference to Privateer in Western-Roman Law “public statute” is in 1704 through 3 & 4 Ann. c.13 regarding “fraudulent captures” by privateers in the commercial war against France. It is then greatly expanded upon in 1707 with 6 Ann. c. 37 and the “encouragement of trade to America” which effectively opened all the colonies up to the business of “privateers” against enemies of Great Britain; and

[12] Blacks 2nd Edition (1910) pg 900 defines a Pirate then as “A pirate is one who acts solely on his own authority, without any commission or authority from a sovereign state, seizing by force and appropriating for himself without discrimination, every vessel he meets with”. Oddly, the earliest references to “public statues” against piracy are claimed to be much older than its associated concept of “privateers”, with the earliest claimed statutes being in 1536 and 27 Hen. 8. c.4. and then in 1537 with 28 Hen. 8. c.15; and

[13] From these definitions, we can clearly see that the words “public” and “private” have a vastly different meaning to their common use and essentially mean “general rules of commerce” being public, while “special secret permission to break the rules of commerce” is the essential meaning of “private”; and

[14] The primary difference therefore between a Privateer and a Pirate is possession of a valid commission.  The Privateer claims to have one – the Pirate does not.  The traditional name for that commission of the Privateer is the infamous “Letter of Marque”. Strangely yet again, we see a glaring inconsistency with the statute record whereby the first claimed statute referencing “Letter of Marque” is 4 Hen. 6. c.7 in 1416, yet never mentioned as the means of validating privateers in the most important act concerning such roles under 6 Ann. c. 37; and

[15] What is more likely is the first real statute on Letters of Marque was 24 G. 3. c.47 in 1784 having been copied from the successful system of the American Colonies during the wars and then later expanded more fully into a system applying to a whole range of “Privateers on land” under the 1801 act 41 G. 3. c.76 and then further in 1805 with 45 G.3. c.72. The right to act as “legal pirates” through the issue of Letters of Marque and “Reprisal” of course being famously enshrined in Article One, Section 8 of the United States Constitution; and

[16] As to legislative remedy against Piracy, many of the laws of England and Great Britain against piracy remain in force and are unequivocal – the penalty for piracy is death.  Certainly, a man or woman found to be masquerading as a public official (de son tort) without a valid letter of marque would be open for potentially unlimited damages and the end of their career – even if the execution of the sentence against piracy is no longer fully enforced; and

[17] As to legislative remedy against Privateers, there exists a substantial body of law concerning the original concept of “truce” and “safe conduct” (also sometimes known as safe harbor) such as 29 H.6. c.2 and 14 E.4. c.4 stating that the breaking of a truce by an officer of the realm is an act of treason; and 18 H.6. c.8 granting ships even of enemies safe passage under letters of “safe conduct” enrolled in chancery; and

[18] Returning to the original premise of this article concerning “finding relief from legal Pirates” the questions then are: Are the courts operating in public or private? Are judges and magistrates properly invested public officials or merely privateers? If judges and magistrates do not possess proper letters of marque are they simply operating as independent contractors and effectively as pirates?  Finally, how may this help in terms of relief? Before we answer these questions, lets review some key insights from the previous article concerning the "Paradox of Person".


The absolute need for Legal Person for Jurisdiction 

[19] As stated clearly in the previous article “The Paradox of Person” all administrative law, all public statute law and all court rules and procedures depend and rest upon the presence of a legal person (also known as a statutory person or surrogate person) or the effect “control of the person. If the Person present for the matter of controversy is not a legal person, but a “superior form” of person that does not agree to surrender its authority to the court, then the court has a problem – as it has to serve the best interests of resolving the controversy concerning the person associated with the matter; and

[20] Names such as employee, citizen, taxpayer, driver, employer, recipient are some of the many hundreds of terms used within public statutes to describe “legal persons”. As modern Western-Roman courts operate within the first form of law (without recess or deliberate change of form) as administrative law courts, the application of personal jurisdiction of the court pertains to an alleged controversy associated with a public statute concerning a type of legal person and the presence of the legal person in question; and

[21] If however, the person who is present is not a legal person, but a Level 6 Higher Order Life form who has chosen to represent themselves in propria persona as a Natural Person then the court must effectively convince the natural person to surrender their position to the absolute authority of the court. This is most frequently done by a combination of force, trickery and intimidation through such corruptions as:

(i) forcing the Natural Person to stand “pro se” and therefore automatically agree to the personal jurisdiction; or

(ii) asking if the Natural Person is willing to “understand the charges against (the person)” therefore stand under the absolute authority of the court; or

(iii) demand the Natural Person take an oath “under the court” thereby creating a legal person and automatically surrendering their Natural Person; or

(iv) if all else fails, simply intimidate, trick, falsify and unsettle the Natural Person by ignoring due process until through inaction by the Natural Person against breach of due process they “surrender” to the power of the judge or magistrate; and

[22] If the person is a 2nd person, also known as an “artificial person” as in a classic agent-principal relation, then courts frequently obtain personal jurisdiction by:

(i) Demanding only members of the Private Bar Guild may be agents or attorneys and therefore by their oaths, automatically submitted to the absolute authority of the court; or

(ii) Demanding the agents have suitable insurance (bond) and swear an oath to “uphold due process” and by default to stand under the absolute authority of the court; or

(iii) Demanding the paperwork of agents are originals with wet ink signatures when submitted to the court clerk, therefore transferring original “title” of the agent-principal relation to the control of court; or

(iv) Removing the right, or mention or forms available for proper recording of an agent or power of attorney to represent the principal in court.

[23] In contrast to these tricks, Blacks 9th Edition Pg 72 defines an “agent” as “one who is authorized to act for or in place of another; a representative”.  Blacks goes onto say “generally speaking, anyone can be an agent who is in fact capable of performing the functions involved.  The agent normally binds not himself but his principal by the contract he makes”. Blacks even defines the etymology of “agent” as “from the Latin verb, ago, agere; the noun agens, agentis. The word agent denotes one who acts, a doer, force or power that accomplishes things.”; and

[24] Blacks 9th Pg 147 defines an attorney firstly as “one who is designated to transact business for another; a legal agent. – Also termed attorney-in-fact; private attorney”.  The definition of an attorney being “a person who practices law; lawyer” is a distinct and secondary definition to attorney; and

[25] Similarly, Blacks 9th Edition Pg 401 defines a “counsel” firstly as “advice or assistance” without any reference to a Counsel in the first definition having to be a Lawyer or member of the Bar, which is listed as the second and third separate definitions respectively; and

[26] The right to appoint an attorney is well established in English and Western-Roman Law with the Statute of Merton (1235), considered to be the first English statute, stating “Every freeman that oweth suit to the county, tithing, hundred, or wapentake, or to a court baron, may make an attorney to do those suits for him, 20 H.3. Stat. Merton c.10.  It was not until the reign of George II and 2 Geo.2. c.23 in 1729 that the role of Attorney and Solicitor was enclosed across the realm to a system of indenture with existing members of the Inns Court, also known as “The Temple” and “Temple Bar”; and

[27] The right to counsel of your own choosing is less well established than the ancient right of attorney which remains in force in all former British colonies. However, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution also expressly provides the right for all accused to have assistance of counsel, thus permanently enshrining it as a public right; and

[28] Yet these rights pale into relative insignificance when you consider the most powerful enshrined rights of all- international law that every one of the one hundred and ninety three nations on planet Earth who are full members of the United Nations are bound to follow by law being the Universal Declaration of Human (Person) Rights (UDHR) adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948; and

[29] The adoption of Administrative Law and functions across many western countries from 1948 is in fact in deliberate response to this core treaty and universal body of law. In 1948, a historic meeting of justices and leading lawyers in the United States were essentially briefed on this fact – that the law from that point onwards would be dictated by such core treaties as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What then makes this document so important in light of person? It is because of several key articles and their implication; and

[30] Article 3 of the UDHR states categorically and unequivocally that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person”. In other words, once you have established your first person, or second person to the court, the court is legally obligated to follow UN Convention and ensure the proper security of your person, instead of its injury or attempted replacement with a surrogate; and

[31] Article 6 of the UDHR states clearly that “everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law”. In other words, if you have established a proper first person or second person then the law is obliged to recognize you – instead of refusing recognition, pretending they cannot hear or denying you access, by claiming the courts to be a “closed shop” or “private enterprise” for “members only” and

[32] Article 10 states clearly that “everyone is entitled to full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him”.  Therefore, enshrined in the laws of one hundred and ninety three countries is your fundamental right to have your matter heard in a “public forum” not in a “private court”; and

[33] Article 8 of the UDHR states clearly that “everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law”. Therefore the country you live in, that is recognized as a member of the United Nations is obliged to investigate and remedy acts of injustice, obstruction and judicial corruption; and

[34] Article 30 of the UDHR states that “nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein”. Therefore, the Private Bar Guilds and those members actively undermining the laws of the United Nations which their predecessors helped draft as well as committing countless acts of treason against their own country of birth should be regarded effectively as “international terrorists” or at the very least candidates for cases of “crimes against humanity”; and 

[35] The fact is that when you competently assert your first person or second person position honorably, peacefully in seeking to resolve a matter in respect of the law, you or your agent is the proper judge or magistrate – not the de son tort “surrogate” sitting on the bench threatening to put you in prison, or demanding you be quiet. The time, therefore has come to restore the law and recognize how best to conduct ourselves in respect of the law and our community in resolving matters before the courts.  But first, let us look at another key point being the “Game of Chess” and how legal procedure is supposed to be conducted.


The Game of Chess, Due Process and Cheating by the Private Bar Guild

[36] The processes of court originate from the Game of Chess whereby as a principle rule, each side takes a turn to make a move until one side concedes, or there is a tie. Like the Game of Chess, the powers of different pieces or “officers of the court” determines what kinds of moves can be made, in what direction and how strong.  The strongest piece is not the king (principal), but the agent to the king being the queen; and

[37] Keeping in mind the over simplification and gross generalization of comparing the huge variety of courts and administrative tribunals to the Game of Chess, there are two basic types of administrative procedural moves - being a motion and an order – reflecting who possesses the power and who are there as lesser “pieces”; and

[38] When a court believes it has constructed a legal person, the independent contractor acting as a judge or magistrate will issue orders as the surrogate principal (de son tort) while all other parties as defacto agents of the court are bound to follow such orders.  In turn these agents submit their case as motions to the surrogate principal who then rules on their admission or rejection; and

[39] The problem when one has demonstrated their competent first person or second person is shifting their mind set to the need to issue directions or orders, while all the other pieces in the court are effectively agents to the superior person.  When many have attempted this, they have been met with a wide range of outright hostility, threat, intimidation and belligerence all in direct defiance of the law that should be honored by these members of the private Bar Guild; and

[40] For some, an alternate approach may be to enable the court to clarify its position before the need or risk of such a confrontation whereby an interrogatories is properly formed and annexed in response to any summons whereby the status of the person is established, and key questions are rightfully asked of the court to be duly established first, such as:

(i) Is the court acting as a public forum or a private meeting of a private business or association? If the court is private, who is responsible and under what authority did this responsible person nominate a matter of public interest relating to a public statute to be heard in a private court? And

(ii) Is the judge or magistrate to hear the matter a duly sworn public official or a privateer? If they are a duly sworn official, can a record of the lodgment of their oath be produced prior to proceeding. If they are a privateer, can a record of their warrant or letter of marque be produced and under what authority such letter was granted for this matter?

(iii) If the court is private and the court officers are privateers, what is the insurance, underwriting, bonds or guarantees to ensure that the court and its officials uphold the public law, any fiduciary obligations, act in good faith and swear to speak the whole truth?

(iv) Is there, or is there planned to be one or more bonds issued for this matter? By whom? Under what authority? For what amount? For whose benefit? And Why?

(v) As the matter is in relation to one or more specific statutes relating to one or more legal persons, please provide a summary of the evidence and brief as to what is considered proof and the courts claim of jurisdiction?

(vi) What is the exact form of law and procedure by which the court will conduct any and all hearings and resolution of the matter? Is this public procedure and practice or private? Where is a copy of these procedures listed? If private, by what authority is private procedure used to resolve a public matter?

[41] In no way are these questions listed in bad faith, nor may any competent or reasoned person argue that such questions imply vexatious behaviour.  On the contrary, a competent, honorable, peaceful litigant has every right to ask such questions before they enter a court room and indeed are obligated if they truly are a competent person to ask such questions; and

[42] Will members of the Private Bar Guilds answer such questions?  It is hard to tell, but based on the track record to date, it is highly unlikely. Which brings us to the next point- what to do when judges, magistrates, court officials and attorneys cheat and lie; and

[43] Unfortunately, when faced with competence- rather than seek to have matters resolved properly, many judges and magistrates as well as their court staff have chosen to demonstrate what can only be described as diabolical incompetence and perfidy to the law of their own country and to the United Nations; and

[44] In recent weeks, the author has witnessed first hand senior judges around the world engaging in extraordinary acts of fraud, criminality and open corruption with their staff complicit in such actions- fictitious documents and orders, falsifying the docket, stealing bonds, altering evidence, changing the record, hiding evidence and obstructing justice as a few examples; and

[45] The problem for many people when they come to court, say after lodging their principal- agent relation, lodging their interrogatories and asking for answers before a court is that once they arrive, the questions are ignored and the magistrate or judge immediately begins demanding compliance, or issuing threats.  In most cases, the response has been to cave in to such threat, torture and intimidation which is fundamentally in breach of Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human (Person) Rights. The only way to respond to such open corruption and incompetence is to have the courage to stand, declare the matter is halted pending an order to have the matter heard by a competent tribunal in a public forum which is the right of all persons of one hundred and ninety three members of the United Nations; and

[46] Unfortunately, when facing such open corruption this is unlikely to stop such incompetent and severely mentally ill people from creating more damage by falsifying the record, false orders, or even arbitrary arrest which is in direct violation to Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human (Person) Rights.  But if you do nothing. If you sit down and accept it- then the corrupt judge or magistrate has won.  Because the Private Bar Guild has convinced their most ardent tyrants that if the litigant accepts the cheat- then the cheat is permitted.  That is why so many openly corrupt judges and officials continue to be destroying the lives of people – because no one has been willing to step away and stop bearing witness to such evil and injury against the law.

Accountability for one’s own actions

[47] Not every judge or magistrate is corrupt. Not every lawyer is there to destroy lives.  In fact the first people to whom the Private Bar Guilds lie are their own members. They deliberately recruit the best and the brightest, the idealists who want to make the world a better place and then destroy their hope, their lives- condemning them to a mind set where they believe there is no redemption; and

[48] If most judges, lawyers, magistrates, sheriffs and court officials were to step aside for a moment and realize that they are not condemned, that they have not lost their souls- that redemption exists in merely helping restore the law and ensuring justice prevails, then even some of the most apparent examples of corruption might be addressed and there be a final end to the madness; and

[49] Similarly, those who read these articles and consider their own positions need to think long and hard about the morality and accountability of their actions.  Within Ucadia, all Ucadia members are held to account for all controversies- that none may be simply dismissed out of technicality and all must be resolved.  For some, this requirement to be accountable for one’s own actions is too harsh and why they do not wish to be associated with Ucadia.  For others, especially judges, magistrates and existing lawyers – it is the offer of a fresh start and the end of the curses that membership to the Private Bar Guilds tricked most into believing; and

[50] Restoring the law, healing the law is about respect of the law – not injuring it.  So when some master propagandists, haters and agents of the status quo publish claims that Ucadia and the actions of many good people in the truth movement is somehow anti-law and anti-social, it the worst kind of moral treachery and vomit; and

[51] Therefore, to all who find themselves in court or interaction with the law, by choice or circumstance- be careful, think long and hard and please join a growing body of people who are supporting the desire to restore the law and end the madness of “justice for sale” and self destruction of our own world. Thank you.

The Paradox of Person – Why “person” is both the central problem and last remnant of remedy for justice in the Western-Legal System

No other concept in Western-Roman Law is arguably more important than “person”– as all statutes, ordinances, case citations, writs, summons, benefits and punishments are founded on the presumed existence of “persons”. 

No other concept in Western-Roman Law is more hated and despised than “person” by those who sympathize with the views of people variously described as the “freedom movement” or the “truth movement” or the “patriot movement”. The catch cry for many groups throughout the world in repudiation of the central tenet of “person” is to proclaim “I am not the person” also known as the “strawman argument”.

Despite the protests of countless defendants who continue to be brought into the courts of various nations and provinces around the world that say “I am not the person”, the members of the Private Bar Guilds that now control most courts as private “for profit” businesses seem to have no problem defeating the “strawman argument” by responding with absolute confidence that “you are the person”.

In many respects it may be because the concept of “person” is so fundamental, so ubiquitous throughout the system of Western-Roman Law that those who seek legitimate remedy regard the notion of “person” as abhorant. Some simply dismiss it as a fictional abomination. Other commentators within the freedom movement have successfully erected the mental equivalent to giant “beware of the dog” signs around it.

Yet what is person? What does it actually mean? How is it constructed? Where did it come from? And why?

This is the purpose of this brief article- to attempt to explain by answering the brief questions listed above why the paradox of “person” is both the central problem and last remnant of remedy for justice in the Western-Legal System. We begin with the historic context of the origin of the concept, where it came from and why.

All the world is a stage – the “mask” and the actor

[1]The word “person” comes from the ancient pagan Latin word persona meaning “part or character (of play), appearance or countenance, theatrical mask or death mask”. The Latin word persona in turn is derived from the Ancient Greek term prosopon (πρόσωπον) possessing exactly the same meaning as persona; and

[2] It was the Ancient Greeks, not Shakespeare that struck upon the notion “all the world is a stage” in the perfection of drama (δρᾶμα) meaning “to act, to take action or to achieve” and nomos (νόμος) meaning “customary law, statutory law, oration of law, or song”. Before television, the radio or the internet, the Ancient Greek philosophers considered the idea of “recreating the events” of an alleged controversy as a means of witnessing the arguments and identifying flaws between the various parties. Thus, the actions of theatre and the dispensation of the law were seen as being intimately linked; and

[3] The earliest Greek philosophers considered there to be primarily two (2) prosopon (πρόσωπον) being the mask of life, or comedy and the mask of death, or tragedy. Similar to the popularity of television crime and court shows today, the attendance to watch a trial performed by actors at the local amphiteatron (ἀμφιθέατρον) was popular entertainment for the people. Unfortunately, even in ancient Greece the “entertainment value” of witnessing actors play out the parts of a trial to determine the fate of an accused often overshadowed the substance of the case; and

[4] It was Aristotle in the 4th Century BCE that instituted major reforms within the practice of nomos (νόμος) with a professional class of judges known as ephetai that formed a new professional class of judges to replace the arkhons (or arkhai as singular) of the “the Eleven” and the dikastea being a semi-permanent body of part-time jurors to replace to popular “hordes” that previously would vote on whether someone was to be executed or live if they liked the drama; and

[5]The Pagan Roman Empire continued the same notion as Ancient Greece of theatre and law sharing a natural symbiosis and form. Under the ancient Pagan Roman Empire, the Chief civil and military magistrates invested with imperium were called Consuls and periodically held called ‘consulatio’ – hence where we get the modern English words and concepts of consult and consultation; and

[6] Below the Consuls were the Praetors and the Tribunes. However, when the Tribunes met in number of three or greater, they had the power to veto laws, decrees and acts of all other magistrates except dictators (consuls granted extraordinary powers under emergency); and

[7] Similar to other ancient law, Roman law considered oral testimony as primary evidence. Contrary to deliberate manipulation and corruption of history, there was no “professional class” of jurists within Rome. Instead, a citizen would on occasion, if unable to speak clearly, hire an actor to speak in their place as a “persona”. In such circumstances, the actor was sworn to recite the truth as told to them by the accuser or defendant on their testicles (being removed if they lied) – hence the origin of testimony; and

[8] By the 8th Century CE and the emergence of the Sacre Loi (Sacred Law) of the Carolingian Empire and the first formation of the Catholic Church and Canon Law (in direct opposition to the Holly Roman Empire of Antioch, also known as the Byzantine Empire), the concept of actors or “persona” performing in place of the actual accused or accuser was abolished and considered an abomination against Anglo-Saxon Law; and

[9] Under the Instatutum, (“Institutions”) of Sacré Loi (Sacred Law) first introduced by Charles Martel in 738 CE, all disputes between smaller estates known under Carolingian law as “peto sessionis” (petty sessions) were to be heard in “Placitum”, while all serious property disputes and crimes carrying the death penalty called “quatio sessionis” were to be heard in “Manorum” being at the Manor Hall of the Baron to whom the accused served.; and

[10] In accordance with the Sacré Loi (Sacred Law) defined by the Carolingians in the 8th Century, a Placitum was presided over by one (1) to three (3) justices of the peto (petit sessionis) known as Iustitia Petit sworn under solemn oath to uphold and protect the law. The most senior of the Iustitia Peto (Petit) was known as a Praesideo, or if only one Iustitia Peto (Petit) was hearing the matter, he was known as the Praesideo. The term “praesideo” comes from Latin meaning “a guardian, defender, director or ruler of (sacred) law” and is the origin of the word “president”; and

[11] Significantly, in opposition to the original concept of “persona” by the Romans and prosopon (πρόσωπον) by the Ancient Greeks, the Ango-Saxons considered the oath or vow of a living flesh man or woman as of paramount importance being their “bond” – bringing a return to a principle that was fundamental to Celtic Law including the fact that a man could not be convicted on testimony gained through torture – in other words, our word must be given freely and without duress if it is to be regarded as true and reliable; and

[12] Contrary to deliberate corruption, the word “person” first appeared in Western-Roman Law as late as the 16th Century through two bodies of work with mysterious origin – the first being the folio of Shakespearian Plays and secondly the production of a suspect work known as Corpus Iuris Civilis in 1583 by Jesuit trained and educated Denis Godefroy.  However, unlike its limited use in the times of Ancient Greece and Rome, the creation of “person” was now based on the premise that “all the world is a stage” and that “everyone possesses a person”.  Most notably, the treatise of Godefroy attempted to claim these concepts existing as far back as the 6th Century CE by Emperor Justinian of the Holly Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire); and 

[13] One of the most notable philosophers contributing to the spread of “person” was Thomas Hobbes (b. 1588 – d.1679), also beneficiary of Jesuit education and assistance in Paris, who in 1651 published his famous work Leviathan. Hobbes states numerous key arguments concerning the nature and function of person, the most notable for the purpose of this article being: "A person, is he, whose words or actions are considered, either as his own, or as representing the words or actions of another man, or of any other thing to whom they are attributed, whether Truly or by Fiction."; and "[...] a Person, is the same that an Actor is, both on the Stage and in common Conversation; and to Personate, is to Act, or Represent himself, or another; and he that acteth another, is said to bear his Person, or act in his name; "; and " Of Persons Artificial, some have their words and actions Owned by those whom they represent. And then the Person is the Actor ;  and he that owneth his words and actions is the Author: In which case the Actor acteth by Authority. "; and

[14] The full emergence of “person” in the modern sense did not take full hold in English Law until the Bill of Rights of the openly treasonous Parliament and Judiciary of 1689. Again, to hide its provenance, numerous former statutes were altered or simply re-written to claim the provenance of “person” a from as early as the 13th Century under Edward Ist.  The fraud is easily exposed when one compares verified original writings of the 13th Century, 14th Century and even 16th Century; and

[15] A notable English philosopher of the 17th Century that immensely aided in the synthesis of the fraudulent “canon law” of the Roman Cult, also known as the Vatican to English Law was Sir William Blackstone (b.1723 – d. 1780) who in 1765/1766 published the first volume of his Commentaries on the Laws of England, stating: "Rights are however liable to another subdivision, being either, first, those which concern and are annexed to the persons of men, and are then called jura personarum or the rights of persons; or they are, secondly, such as a man may acquire over external objects, or things unconnected with his person, which are styled jura rerum or the rights of things."; and " Persons are also divided by the law into either natural persons, or artificial. Natural persons are such as God of nature formed us: artificial are such as created and devised by human laws for the purpose of society and government. "; and

[16] The emergence of “person” in Europe beyond England was in the late 18th Century and the start of the 19th Century with the Civil Code of Napoleon being a central statute heralding the emergence of legal persons and statutory persons underpinning future laws; and

[17] Today, the concept of person is fully integrated into every statute, every ordinance, every instrument and every right of society.  The definition of person has also devolved according to Blacks 9th Edition (pg 1257) as “1. A human being – also termed natural person. 2. The living body of a human being. 3. An entity”. Is this an accurate definition based on the foundation of law that is supposed to underpin Western-Roman Law, or is this definition of “person” a deliberate corruption?

The purpose and function of “person”

[18] So far in this article we have defined the origin of “person” and its historic and intimate connection to viewing the world as a stage or a film or some kind of holographic “Matrix”. However, to best define what is “person”? let us refer to Article 17 – Person of Canonum De Ius Positivum (Canons of Positive Law) one of the twenty-two (22) books of Canon Law known Astrum Iuris Divini Canonum:

Canon 1498 

A Person is a 16th Century CE created word (but falsely claimed from the 6th Century CE) defining a fictional Form of Property enclosing certain characteristics and appearances as the Identity of one or more Level 6 Higher Order Life Forms to which further Rights of Use are then annexed.

Canon 1499 

The word Person comes from the Latin word persona in Latin meaning “mask, character or part of a play” and originates as a key element of the fraudulent treatise known as Corpus Iuris Civilis at the end of the 16th Century whereby all “persons” by their nature were falsely claimed to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman Cult, also known as the Vatican. The invention of Person from the 16th Century enabled the "enclosure" of the bodies of living flesh beings and the “alienation” of traditional and natural rights associated to them with “person” being viewed as a type of “property” which could be purchased, sold, seized or surrendered.

Canon 1500 

The existence of a valid and proper Person requires the following minimum nine (9) elements to be present being Author, Script, Actor, Relation, Binding, Part, Actions, Record and Title:

(i) Author, also known as the Principal (including but not limited to the Creator, Trustor, or General Executor) and the holder of original Authority  is the term used to define the One empowered to direct the actions of the Actor (Agent or Trustee) in accord with the expressed Script; and

(ii) Script, also known as the Deed, or Covenant or Statute is the term used to define the instrument of empowerment by which the Author (Principal) directs the actions of the Actor (Agent) for the benefit of the Part (Identity and Beneficiary); and

(iii) Actor, also known as the Persona, or Interpreter, or Agent or Trustee is the term used to define the one who consents to perform the Part (Identity) in accord with the Script (Deed, Statute or Law); and

(iv) Relation, also being the Trust between the Author (Principal) to Actor (Agent) relation expressed as being either a General (Public) or Special (Private) appointment and where only three (3) types of Relation are possible being “self” or “another” or “not known”; and

(v) Binding, also known as the Agreement is the term used to define the formal binding of the Actor (Agent) to the performance of the Part (Identity) and consents as to the direction of the Author (Principal) in accord with the Script (Deed) such as a Vow, Oath, Acknowledgment, or Seal or Signature on paper; and

(vi) Part, also known as the Identity and the Beneficiary is the term used to define the fictional mask, or character to be supported by the Actor (Agent) at the direction of the Author (Principal); and

(vii) Actions, also known as Personation, is the actions of the Actor (Agent) performing and supporting the Part (Identity) as stated by the Script (Deed, Covenant or Statute); and

(viii) Record of Event, also known as Personification being the formal written memorial of the event of the Creation (Birth) of the Person through the previous elements of  Author, Script, Actor, Relation, Binding, Part, and Actions; and

(ix) Title to Beneficial Interest being the Property of the Person created by the Extract and Acknowledgment of the Record of Event.

Canon 1501 

A Level 6 Higher Order Life Form may be associated to more than one Person associated with more than one Trust. However, a Level 6 Higher Order Life Form may not logically, legally or lawfully be:

(i) the holder of title for Beneficial Interest (Beneficiary) at the same time as acting in the capacity of Trustee (Actor); or

(ii) the holder of title for Beneficial Interest (Beneficiary) at the same time as acting in the capacity of Executor (Author or Principal).

Canon 1502 

All Persons may be categorized according to the three (3) possible types of Relation being the Author (Principal) to Actor (Agent) being: 1st Person (Self), 2nd Person (Another) and 3rd Person (Not Known):

(i) 1st Person, also known as a Natural Person and in propria persona is when the competent mind of a carnate Level 6 Higher Order Life Form as Author (Principal) appoints, records and publishes themselves by Special (Private) appointment as Actor (Agent) by some solemn binding agreement. Therefore, a 1st Person or Natural Person possesses “natural title” to right of beneficial use associated with the 1st Person synonymous with such pronouns as “I, thou, me, my, mine, myself, we, us, our, ours and ourselves”; and

(ii) 2nd Person, also known as an Artificial Person is when a carnate Level 6 Higher Order Life Form as Author (Principal) appoints another carnate Level 6 Higher Order Life Form by Special (Private) appointment as Actor (Agent) by some solemn binding agreement. Thus, a 2nd Person or Artificial Person is synonymous with such pronouns as “you, yours, yourself and yourselves”; and

(iii) 3rd Person, also known as a Legal Person, or Statutory Person or Surrogate Person is when the Author (Principal) is hidden or not known and the Level 6 Higher Order Life Form fails to properly express any competent in propria persona (1st Person) or 2nd Person Author (Principal) to Actor(Agent) Relation prior to the commencement of any interpersonal intercourse. In the 3rd Person, the flesh and body of a Living Level 6 Higher Order Life Form is mis-taken, and presumed to be, by default, the "person" and the Statutes of Law, or Rules of the Court as Script (Deed) and the Judge or Magistrate as the Author (Principal). Thus, a 3rd Person or Legal Person is synonymous with such pronouns as “he, she, it, they, them, their, theirs and themselves”.

Canon 1503 

A Person may possess greater or lesser authority, powers and rights than another. All authority and power of a Person is inherited from the limits of powers and authority of the Author (Principal):

An Author (Principal) is said to inherit the rights, authority and powers of the father and mother, unless specifically deprived by will; or

An Author (Principal) may be granted certain rights, authority and powers by the laws of a higher estate or trust to which they belong or rightfully possess a beneficial interest.

Canon 1504 

All Persons may be categorized and ranked according to four (4) possible levels of authority, powers and rights from the greatest and highest powers and authority to the lowest and least powers and authority being (in order of rank): Divine, True, Superior and Inferior:

(i) A Divine Person is the purely Divine Spirit Person associated with a Divine Trust formed in accord with the sacred Covenant Pactum de Singularis Caelum by the Divine Creator into which the form of Divine Spirit, Energy and Rights are conveyed; and

(ii) A True Person is the Form attributed to a True Trust formed when an associated Divine Trust already exists and there is a lawful conveyance of Divine Rights of Use and Purpose, known as “Divinity” to a True Trust associated with then the birth and existence of a living Level 6 Higher Order Life Form. A True Person can never be claimed or argued as higher than the Divine Person from which it derives its authority; and

(iii) A Superior Person is the Form attributed to a Superior Trust when an associated True Trust already exists and there is a lawful conveyance of First Right of Use and Purpose, known as “Realty” to a Superior Trust associated with the birth of a service or agreement associated with the Membership of a living Level 6 Higher Order Life Form to a valid Ucadia society. A Superior Person can never be claimed or argued as higher than the True Person from which it derives its authority; and

(iv) an Inferior Person or "Roman Person" is the Form attributed to any Western-Roman Trust and is the lowest standing and weakest of all valid forms of Persons. An Inferior Person can never be validly, legitimately, logically, legally, lawfully or morally claimed or argued as superior to a Superior Person.

Canon 1505 

A Juridic Person is a type of Artificial Person created by a lawful act and association of two or more Level 6 Higher Order Life Form in accord with these canons:

(i) Only seven (7) Forms of Juridic Person are valid: Supreme, Universal, Global, Civil, Mercantile, Union and Inferior (Roman); and

(ii) An aggregate of Persons as a Juridic Person without at least two (2) active members of the Homo Sapien species ceases to have Form; and

(iii) No aggregate of persons intending to obtain Juridic personality, is able to acquire it unless competent authority has approved its statutes; and

(iii) Representing a juridic person and acting in its name are those whose competence is acknowledged by these Canons or by its own statutes; and

(iv) Upon the extinction of a Juridic Person, the allocation of its goods, rights and obligations is governed by law and its statutes. If these give no indication, they go to the Juridic Person immediately superior, always without prejudice to the intention of the founders and donors and acquired rights.

Canon 1506 

Excluding Divine Personality, all Persons are temporary and based on temporary trusts:

(i) True Persons are extinguished upon the physical death of the flesh form associated with the True Trust, with Divine Right of Use returned to the associated Divine Trust; and

(ii) Superior Persons are extinguished upon the extinction of the associated True Trust or the abjuration of membership to the associated Ucadia Society, or the suspension or revocation of a particular membership or service, or a fundamental change to the deed or agreement of formation of the person; and

(iii) Juridic Persons are extinguished in accordance with their own statutes and superior competent authority. No Juridic Person, excluding Society Juridic Persons formed and named in accordance with Pactum De Singularis Caelum and associated covenants and charters, may exist for more than one hundred (100) years; and

(iv) Inferior Persons such as Legal Persons, also known as Statutory Persons and Surrogate Persons are extinguished upon the fulfilment of their purpose and intention, or upon exposure of fraud, or material breach of agreement, or presentment of a person of higher standing and authority.

Canon 1507 

A failure to recognize a valid and properly constituted and formed Person or the claim of superior jurisdiction of an Inferior Person over a Superior Person or True Person cannot ecclesiastically, logically, legally, lawfully or sensibly be sustained and is therefore without force and effect with any subsequent judgment null and void ab initio (from the beginning).

Consistency of Canons to Western-Roman Law Knowledge of Person

[19] Far from contradicting the historic definitions, meanings and applications of the use of Person, the Canons of Positive Law as listed above are perfectly consistent with both the contemporary definition of person and its definition as first introduced in the 16th Century; and

[20] If we take the most recent updated version of the meaning of “person” from Blacks 9th Edition (pg 1257) , then we can see from Canon 1502 of Positive Law of Astrum Iuris Divini Canonum that definition 1. is equivalent to the 1st person also known as “natural person”, while definition 2. is entirely consistent with the 2nd person, also known as an “artificial person” and definition 3. is the 3rd person or “legal person”; and

[21] Therefore, no reasonable person (no pun intended) demonstrating sound mind and competence could argue that the Canons as expressed within this article derived from Astrum Iuris Divini Canonum (Canons of Divine Law) are contradictory, or inconsistent with the foundations of Western-Roman Law.  Rather, the canons “illuminate” and expose the inner workings of person for all to see such form and function; and

[22] As a result, it is hoped that those who take the time to carefully read and review with article, especially the total code of law of Ucadia and the Society of One Heaven will come to better appreciate not only the form, function and nature of law, but the form, function and nature of modern court procedure and where its deliberate corruption, obstruction and misuse may be revealed.

Personal Jurisdiction and the need for the Legal Person

[23] All administrative law, all public statute law and all court rules and procedures depend and rest upon the presence of a legal person (also known as a statutory person or surrogate person) or the effect “control of the person. If the Person present for the matter of controversy is not a legal person, but a “superior form” of person that does not agree to surrender its authority to the court, then the court has a problem – as it has to serve the best interests of resolving the controversy concerning the person associated with the matter; and

[24] Names such as employee, citizen, taxpayer, driver, employer, recipient are some of the many hundreds of terms used within public statutes to describe “legal persons”. As modern Western-Roman courts operate within the first form of law (without recess or deliberate change of form) as administrative law courts, the application of personal jurisdiction of the court pertains to an alleged controversy associated with a public statute concerning a type of legal person and the presence of the legal person in question; and

[25] If however, the person who is present is not a legal person, but a Level 6 Higher Order Life form who has chosen to represent themselves in propria persona as a Natural Person then the court must effectively convince the natural person to surrender their position to the absolute authority of the court. This is most frequently done by a combination of force, trickery and intimidation through such corruptions as:

(i) forcing the Natural Person to stand “pro se” and therefore automatically agree to the personal jurisdiction; or

(ii) asking if the Natural Person is willing to “understand the charges against (the person)” therefore stand under the absolute authority of the court; or

(iii) demand the Natural Person take an oath “under the court” thereby creating a legal person and automatically surrendering their Natural Person; or

(iv) if all else fails, simply intimidate, trick, falsify and unsettle the Natural Person by ignoring due process until through inaction by the Natural Person against breach of due process they “surrender” to the power of the judge or magistrate; and

[26] If the person is a 2^nd person, also known as an “artificial person” as in a classic agent-principal relation, then courts frequently obtain personal jurisdiction by:

(i) Demanding only members of the Private Bar Guild may be agents or attorneys and therefore by their oaths, automatically submitted to the absolute authority of the court; or

(ii) Demanding the agents have suitable insurance (bond) and swear an oath to “uphold due process” and by default to stand under the absolute authority of the court; or

(iii) Demanding the paperwork of agents are originals with wet ink signatures when submitted to the court clerk, therefore transferring original “title” of the agent-principal relation to the control of court; or

(iv) Removing the right, or mention or forms available for proper recording of an agent or power of attorney to represent the principal in court; or

[27] The questions on how to address such obvious perversions and obstructions of justice when they occur within the modern courts deserves a separate article in itself.  However, for the moment, the illumination and proper interpretation of the form, function and nature of Person that the Canons of Divine Law of Astrum Iuris Divini Canonum at least afford some remedy through knowledge as to what constitutes a proper person and a person of higher standing and authority than merely a “legal person”.

Logical fallacies and absurdities used by Private Bar Guild Members concerning Person and the Law

[28] Plato stated: “the world is divided into two realms, the visible (which we grasp with our senses) and the intelligible (which we only grasp with our mind). The visible world is the universe we see around us. The intelligible world is comprised of the Forms—abstract, changeless absolutes”.  Thus, the Ucadia Model as well as the complete and total law of the Society of One Heaven is consistent with the foundations of Western thought; and

[29] This being said, the mental illness of “legal realism” has infected the minds of many of the best and brightest members of the Private Bar Guilds that they demonstrate neither logic nor reason within their arguments – often with fatal consequences to the validity, legitimacy and efficacy of such presumptions; and

[30] For example, a cornerstone of all authority throughout the world is the logical and absolute immutable arguments that (a) all lesser offices obtain their authority from higher offices possessing greater authority and (b) a lesser office therefore cannot have greater authority than the one that created it; and

[31] In practical and as simple terms as possible, it means a “legal person” cannot have more authority than an “artificial person” of the same name and that neither a “legal person” or “artificial person” can have more authority than a “natural person” of the same name; and

[32] As is repeatedly recognized by the Roman Cult, upon which all Western and English Law is now based and aligned, this concept of “succession of authority” is absolutely recognized and considered fundamental to asserting the authority claimed by the Vatican – that is any ordinary who were to contradict such a fundamental point of logic and reason by way of direct contradiction would automatically render themselves excommunicated from any rightful judicial office and unfit to interpret any verdict; and

[33] Consider then the recent commentary by Associate Chief Justice J. D. Rooke of the Corporation of Canada (CIK: 0000230098), registered as a business with the US SEC into the District of Columbia and operating from 1746 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington DC 20036.  Here, this independent contractor and employee of the corporation known as Canada states: “This person (Frank O’Collins), whom I understand is an Australian, has published what he calls “Divine Canon Law”, the law that governs persons in the “One Heaven Society of United Free States of Spirits”. At least one Alberta OPCA litigant has claimed to be subject to only this “Divine Canon Law”. Does this defeat the inherent jurisdiction of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench? Of course not. While I strongly question that a person could bind themselves and society to abide by some distinct legal scheme that trumps the common law and statute, success would still leave that person subject to the scrutiny and supervision of this court”; and

[34] Ignoring for the moment the absence of logical argument, reason and the complete contradiction of the most basic tenets of what is generally known as “human rights” and “democratic freedoms”, what the reference by Justice Rooke demonstrates is a complete lack of logic and reason to the very meaning and function of person.  Instead, there is almost a “parrot like” reversion to the almighty authority of a legal person over all other persons – even from the perspective of being a private contractor employed by a corporation masquerading as a legitimate justice of a true and proper sovereign country; and

[35] Clearly, as Plato intimates, the divine form trumps any temporal form and the whole history of Western Logic and Reason agrees, excluding those crippled by the mental illness of “legal realism” as demonstrated above.  Thus, the True Person as demonstrated by your Live Borne Record from membership of the Society of One Heaven trumps any and all legal persons and other inferior persons.  Yet, as we have shown, this will not stop the deliberate corruptions, obfuscations and lunacy of a legal system on the verge of complete and total collapse.

Genuine knowledge of Person as remedy

[36] As has been stated repeatedly on discussions and previous postings, the only genuine remedy rests with knowledge and its competent use.  As you hopefully have seen through this article, there is significant potential remedy in finally recognizing the form, function and nature of person; and

[37] Statute is supposed to be public law, adjudicated in public courts. If the last stand and defense of the out of control Private Bar Guilds is to deny access to these facilities, then you have the absolute right to demand a hearing in a public venue.  If none are found in a timely manner, you have the right to ensure a public hearing is convened by fellow members of the society; and

[38] To deny public access to the law is proclaim the law private and therefore not applicable to you. You can have a matter decided in private- but that is a choice and an agreement. You cannot be forced; and

[39] It is therefore a genuine hope that from this article those that are seeking the honoring of the written law, the defense and application of justice and the end to rampant judicial and legal corruption find solid footing on their continuing endeavours; and

[40] As for the vast majority of honest lawyers, judges, magistrates and court officials who have suffered as a the silent majority while the corrupt minority destroy the law, it is hoped that you also find hope and possibly the strength to hold these colleagues to account for their actions.

The “Myths” of Common Law – and why members of the Secret Bar Guilds see no problem in treason and no longer following the law of their country

While the previous post (OPCA Explained…Oct 2, 2012) addressed a number of disturbing features of a recent opinion and treatise of a senior Justice and member of the Secret Bar Guilds, a number of outstanding questions remain concerning such elemental subjects as “what is law?”, “what is common law?” and why there seems to be such an apparent disconnect between litigants claiming certain rights and privileges against judges and magistrates denying such claims as vexatious, mala fide (bad faith) and pseudo-legal.

Despite the temptation for litigants to presume that the actions of members of the Secret Bar Guilds are wholly corrupt, such presumptions themselves suffer the same fatal errors of hubris and logical fallacies as Justice J. D. Rooke discussed in the previous post. Generally speaking, those “elevated” to the bench are men and women who have demonstrated a high degree of intellect and ability. Furthermore, as evidenced by their greater contribution to society it can be safely said that the majority of these men and women are upstanding and conscientious members of society. So why then the disconnect between the claims of litigants to principles of law and the interpretation of such actions as a threat to society, or pseudo-lawful?

Similarly, the now openly affirmed prejudices of justices, magistrates and officers of the court that those who choose to by-pass legal representation towards “common law remedies” are deluded at best or incompetent at worst itself is founded on a kind of “disconnect” the source and history of law.  The opening three paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America (1776) makes abundantly clear the foundation of what is called “democratic law” – so how have justices, magistrates and other members of the Secret Bar Guilds become so thoroughly treasonous in their attitude towards the people they are supposed to serve?

This is the purpose of this brief article in the hope that for all sides, some light may be shed on the “myths” of common law, the principle of law, legal realism and other “intellectual cults” that have contributed to this disconnect that currently affects the fair dispensing of justice.

The creation of the Common Law “Myth” and Codification of Law

[1] Before the birth in 1881 of the intellectually carcinogenic treatise of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr (b.1841-d.1935) perversely entitled The Common Law, which heralded the birth of a kind of madness or “legal mind virus” otherwise known as “legal realism”, the modern foundations of the Roman Western Law system were firmly established in the second half of the 18^th Century through the creation of what may be described as the Common Law “Myth”; and

[2] The vast majority of what people perceive as both written and unwritten “Common Law Rights” are deliberate 18^th Century distortions of completely written Anglo-Saxon Law first promulgated in the 8^th Century by the Carolingian leaders beginning with Charles Martel of the Franks:

(i) It was Charles Martel and his sons that invented the very word “noble” from Latin gnoscere and Greek Knosis meaning “wisdom, worthy, enlightened” and the titles of Lord (from Latin laudis meaning ‘praiseworthy, worthy, meritous’) then Baron (ancient Gaelic bara/barra meaning ‘rod or measure of value’) and Earl (ancient Gaelic meaning ‘brave man, warrior, leader, chief’); and

(ii) It was the Carolingians that first invented the concept of “tenancy” and “tenancy agreements” (from Latin tenere meaning to ‘hold/keep’) which meant literally “one who holds land by tenure” – with tenure meaning “an agreement for holding immovable property (tenement), equivalent to lease.” The concept of “hold” was also significant to the Franks as the word itself denoted certain obligations namely “to keep, tend and watch over (the land)”; and

(iii) It was Anglo-Saxon Law under the Carolingians, not “Common Law” that first introduced the rights of tenancy being the right of equite (equite) – being fair use and the right of redemption – being the right to make good any wrong; and

(iv) It was Anglo-Saxon Law and not the myth of “Common Law” that enshrined the rights of the people or “folk” into sacred law or Sacré Loi (Sacred Law) and the Biblia Sacra (Sacred Bible) and later bastardized in the 18^th Century to be merely “folklore”; and

(v) It was Charles Martel in 738 CE and not some Plantagenet pretender that on March 14^th 738 CE convened the first “parliament” or Campus de Marches (House of Lords) from Latin meaning “theatre or meeting of March” or “meeting of boundaries” with campus meaning “place, arena, meeting” and mar/margo meaning “month of March; edge, border, boundary”; and

(vi) It was under Carolingian leader Charles the Younger (742-768) that the first bicameral “parliament” was first introduced with the formation of the assembly of barons or Parlomentum as “house of review” with the Campus de Marches as the “house of origination”. “Parlomentum” from the Latin words parla meaning “equal speech” and mentum “by like agreement, character, chin”. Hence the original literal meaning of “parliament” being “a meeting of equal speech and character by like agreement”; and

(vii) It was the Carolingians who invented the word Sovereign under Sacré Loi (“Sacred Law”) to describe one anointed by God as having supreme, independent authority to rule a political region known as a Realm. The word “sovereign” originates from the combination of two ancient Latin words sover meaning “savior” and regno meaning “to rule, reign; to be supreme lord”. Hence a Sovereign literally means by its original etymology “to rule and reign as a savior”; and

(viii) It was Anglo-Saxon Law that invented the language of Anglaise, (later corrupted to become English and a less corrupted version being French), the concept of a “style manual” or Scriptura Manualis (“Scripture Manual”) and bicameral writing in majuscule (upper case) and miniscule (lower case); and

(ix) It was Anglo-Saxon Law that demanded only law properly written and codified and passed by “parliament” was to be observed called Capitulum, or capitula or cap. for short. It was also the Carolingians that invented the concept of the Cancellocum or “Chancery” as the official keepsafe and store for all official documents and records; and

(x) It was Anglo-Saxon Law that first invented the form and structure of Covenants, Charters and Contracts that were later deliberately corrupted by the Roman Cult and English “Common Law”; and

(xi) It was the Carolingians that founded the Catholic Church in 741 CE in opposition to the Holly Roman Church from Antioch (original and true name of Constantinople from its founding), invaded and established the office of Vicar of Christ in Rome, created the title Rex Romanum (King of the Romans) and first defined Canon Law as Iuris Canonum of the Catholicus Ecclesia (Catholic Church); and

(xii) It was the Carolingians in their devotion to the true teachings of Nazarene leader Jesus Christ that first formed the concept of the seven sacred sacraments of Honestus (Honesty), Fidelis (Trustworthy), Virtus (Courage), Iustus (Justice), Penitus (Penance), Caritas (Charity) and Clementis (Forgiveness).

[3] Despite the overwhelming existing evidence that what the majority of people believe are “Common Law Rights” are the deliberate corruptions and reworking of ancient Anglo-Saxon Rights, the mythology has been stubbornly resistant.  This appears partly due to the absence of clarity and substantial explanation and partly because the mythology remains fertile and profitable ground for many who sell “remedies”; and

[4] The word “common” comes from 15th Century Latin communis meaning “to entrust, commit to a burden, public duty, service or obligation”. The word was created from the combination of two (2) ancient pre-Vatican Latin words com / comitto = "to entrust, commit" and munis = "burden, public duty, service or obligation". Hence Common Law literally means “voluntary enslavement” or simply “lawful slavery”; and

[5] A similar word “commonwealth” is an official 15th Century Roman Cult term created from three (3) Latin words: com / comitto - "to entrust, commit", munis = "burden, public duty, service or obligation" and vele / vealis [which is a Latin word which was purposely removed from etymology] = "livestock or animals". Hence the original meaning of the word Commonwealth is: "the voluntary burden, public duty, service or obligation of the people as livestock (animals)"; and

[6] Neither the word “common” nor “commonwealth” appear accidential.  Until the “makeover” of Common Law in the second half of the 18^th Century, the laws first promulgated by Henry VIII and his successors can be best summarized as essentially the gradual “enclosure and franchising of rights formerly possessed by the people”. This includes (but is not limited to) the claim of all land to the crown and then re-leased to the nobles; the creation of estates and cestui que vie trusts; the enclosure of traditional lands under continuous enclosure acts forcing peasants from their homes for thousands of years; the enclosure of traditional medicine, herbal medicine and health to the creation of doctors and privatized health in 16^th Century London (later the world); the enclosure of all forms of commerce, trade and transport; the enclosure of the rights to travel by converting roads to “postal roads” by 17^th Century; and of course the enclosure of justice by selling the court of Chancery to the Inns of Court by the start of the 17^th Century and the court of Exchequer of England by the end of the 17^th Century; and

[7] Again, despite the overwhelming body of evidence that the “reality of Common Law” is wholly contradictory to the “myth of Common Law”, the myth has continued and much of what has been stated, all supported by countless statutes, contemporary sources and credible historical reference is either excused, explained away or simply ignored; and

[8] What is clear is that the “Common Law Myth” was created at a precise time for a precise purpose being the Codification of Law that underpins the present day system of law, despite ignorance of many parties to it, beginning with the Treaty of Paris of 1763 between Great Britain, France and Spain with Portugal in agreement; and

[9] The Treaty of Paris (1763) is significant for a number of extraordinary factors, the first being the revival of a number of historic treaties that previous were annulled such as the treaties of Westphalia of 1648; those of Madrid between the Crowns of Great Britain and Spain of 1661, and 1670; the treaties of peace of Nimeguen of 1678, and 1679; of Ryswick of 1697; those of peace and of commerce of Utrecht of 1713; that of Baden of 1714; the treaty of the triple alliance of the Hague of 1717; that of the quadruple alliance of London of 1118; the treaty of peace of Vienna of 1738; the definitive treaty of Aix la Chapelle of 1748; and that of Madrid, between the Crowns of Great Britain and Spain of 1750: as well as the treaties between the Crowns of Spain and Portugal of the 13th of February, 1668; of the 6th of February, 1715; and of the 12th of February, 1761; and that of the 11th of April, 1713, between France and Portugal; and

[10] The Treaty of Paris (1763) is significant for a second extraordinary and historic fact in that it heralds the conveyance of the ancient rights, powers, privileges and means of both the Crowns of Portugal and the Crown of Spain as if the Crown of Aragon and Castile thereby making the Crown of Great Britain the sole Ius Patronatus of the Roman Cult, and the sole controller of the most valuable trade in the world at the time being the Vatican’s “global franchise” of slavery, drugs and ecclesiastically backed securities (indulgencies); and

[11] Immediately after the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1763, we see a flurry of merchant pirate activity concerning the global slave trade, particularly with the African Company and massively expanding export of slaves from Senegal to meet increased demand. The Bank of England also significantly overhauled its charter to accommodate new found powers in the trade of securities across Europe and the world with Vatican-backed indulgences (securities). In the philosophy of law, the events of 1763 are also seen in the emergence of the definitive legal treatise of Sir William Blackstone entitled Commentaries on the Laws of England (1^st Edition 1765, Clarendon Press, Oxford); and

[12] It is Sir William Blackstone that deliberately created the myth of “Common Law” whilst establishing the notion at Roman Cult Canon Law or Ecclesiastical Law is the foundation of all law. In a famous quote (Pg 15) he states “Imperial law is much cultivated and it's decisions pretty generally followed, we are informed by Van Leeuweni, that, “it receives “it's force from custom and the consent of the people, either tacitly or expressly given: for otherwise, he adds, we should no “more be bound by this law, than by that of the Almains, the “Franks, the Saxons, the Goths, the Vandals, and other of the “ancient nations.” Wherefore, in all points in which the different systems depart from each other, the law of the land takes place of the law of Rome, whether ancient or modern, imperial or pontificial. And in those of our English courts wherein a reception has been allowed to the civil and canon laws, if either they exceed the bounds of that reception, by extending themselves to other matters, than are permitted to them; or if such courts proceed according to the decisions of those laws, in cases wherein it is controlled by the law of the land, the common law in either instance both may, and frequently does, prohibit and annul their proceedings”; and

[14] However, the secret conversion and union of Great Britain into the loyal and sole Ius Patronatus of the Roman Cult created a problem within the body of statute of England in that as has been stated in previous posts on this site, the concept of Usury, or “deriving use” from land was seen as intrinsic to the “protestant ethic”.  This required an artful solution in how Great Britain could continue to prosper as a secret Catholic Empire, without contradicting canon law and papal bulls against Usury- hence the concept of perpetual war and Admiralty Law both on land and sea”; and

[15] Yet, far from being considered merely an opinion or commentary despite these fundamental changes in law, until the scourge of “legal realism” and “legal positivism”, the works of Sir William Blackstone were universally as definitive legal source no less valid than statute or case law. It is why original opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, the High Court of Canada and Great Britain as just a few examples, include source quotes from Blackstone as judgments that remain in force even today. In a clear and telling source quote of Blackstone concerning judges, on (Pg 12) he states “SHOULD a judge in the most subordinate jurisdiction be deficient in the knowledge of the law, it would reflect infinite contempt upon himself and disgrace upon those who employ him. And yet the consequence of his ignorance is comparatively very trifling and small: his judgment may be examined, and his errors rectified, by other courts. But how much more serious and affecting is the case of a superior judge, if without any skill in the laws he will boldly venture to decide a question, upon which the welfare and subsistence of whole families may depend ! where the chance of his judging right, or wrong, is barely equal; and where, if he chances to judge wrong, he does an injury of the most alarming nature, an injury without possibility of redress”; and

[16] As was outlined in the previous article, we are at a sad state of affairs concerning the law whereby not only do justices and officers of the court see no problem in the use of logical fallacies, but do not see any difficulty in open contempt for the law, for the source of their authority, for history and most of all for the people of the nation whom they are supposed to serve.

Legal Realism and the mind virus of the Secret Bar Guilds today

[17] Let us for a moment consider the definition of “law” considered by Sir William Blackstone in 1765 being pg (5) “law, considered (apart from any binding authority) as collection of written reason”.  Let us now consider the comment of law proffered by legal realism founder and guru O.W. Holmes Jr. from his treatise being “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience”.  Therein rests the chasm, the dichotomy and dissonance between litigants who believe in the law, in logic and reason and graduates of 20^th Century law schools who do not; and

[18] Blacks 9th Edition (Pg 962) makes the motive for such a reversal in thinking clearer when it defines “law” as “1. The regime that orders human activities and relations through systematic application of the force of politically organized society or through social pressure, backed by force, in such a society; the legal system. 2. The aggregate of legislation, judicial precedents, and accepted legal principles; the body of authoritative grounds of judicial and administrative action”. (Pg 965) defines “lawful” as “Not contrary to law; permitted by law”; and

[19] Contrast this definition of law by Blacks with Roman Cult Canon Law (1983) Title II. Custom Canon 24 states “No custom which is contrary to divine law can obtain the force of law”. A fundamental custom being consent of the people; and

[20] What these definitions reveal in the light of the cancerous mind virus of legal realism is that in the absence of organized dissent, objection, opposition, those “classes” of professionals owing their position and livelihood to the state and the apparatus of state now see their positions and actions no longer as requiring the consent of the people, but merely the tools of enforcement- a polite way of saying guns, terror, threat and coercion; and

[21] This suspension of the Rule of Law replaced with “the law is whatever we say it is” is no conjecture. Justice Rooke made it plain that this mindset is the status quo of the courts and the Secret Bar Guilds who firmly believe they control the apparatus of power, enforcement and terror when he openly quoted Thomas Hobbes from Leviathan “The laws are of no power to protect them, without a sword in the hands of a man, or men, to cause those laws to be put in execution.”:

[22] In the absence of an impartial and unbiased judiciary; in the absence of a judiciary that honors its own laws and the laws of the society it is supposed to serve; in the absence of a judiciary and court system that recognizes the fundamental principles of logic and reason above “style” and arbitrary “process”; and in the absence of a political and military class held account by the people to whom they are chosen then truly there can be no effectual “remedy” in any Roman Western Court at present.

What are the alternatives?

[23] In the first instance, despite the clear evidence presented in this article concerning the deliberate misnaming of Anglo-Saxon Law to falsely claiming it to be “Common Law”, there will remain a number who seek to dispute, trivialize or encourage the dismissal of this article for fear it may be properly read.  The reason being, its threat to their livelihood in promoting inconsistent and often fatally flawed “remedies” that depend on the continued “myth” of Common Law; and

[24] In the second instance, there are alternatives beyond surrendering to the seeming insurmountable obstacles presented by the Roman-Western Legal system (a state of mind strongly promoted as a weapon in itself by the status quo).  However, it requires a change in attitude aware from extremes of “truth vs lies” and “good vs evil” and “God vs Devil” to concepts of alternative models measuring their value on utility, consistency and accuracy, not dogmatic beliefs; and

[25] Justice Rooke in his treatise published as fact that the Ucadia and One-Heaven model is a “new and total code of law”.  This in itself is an unprecedented historic admission, which was made presumably on the unavoidable nature of its existence:

(i) Ucadia is founded on twenty-two collections of sacred texts called the Maxima Textibus Sacris representing eleven (11) collections of historic sacred and legal texts and eleven (11) collections yet to be written by future generations; and

(ii) Ucadia is then structured on eleven (11) core covenants beginning with the most sacred covenant Pactum De Singularis Caelum, the covenant of One Heaven, followed by three covenants of different faiths and seven charters for unions of free societies and associations around the world; and

(iii) “Astrum Iuris Divini Canonum” means the Living Body of Divine Canon Law and the highest of all Original Law comprising twenty-two (22) books of Canons as defined by the Articles of Pactum De Singularis Caelum being Article 89 Canonum De Lex Divina (Divine Law), Article 90 Canonum De Lex Naturae (Natural Law), Article 91 Canonum De Ius Cogitatum (Cognitive Law), Article 92 Canonum De IusPositivum (Positive Law), Article 93 Canonum De Lex Ecclesium (Ecclesiastical Law), Article 94 Canonum De Ius Virtus Naturae (Bioethics Law), Article 95 Canonum De Ius Rex (Sovereign Law), Article 96 Canonum De Ius Fidei (FiduciaryLaw), Article 97 Canonum De Ius Administratum (Administrative Law), Article 98 Canonum De Lex Frugalitas (Economic Law), Article 99 Canonum De Ius Pecuniae (Monetary Law), Article 100 Canonum De Ius Civilis (Civil Law), Article 101 Canonum De Ius Informatum (Education Law), Article 102 Canonum De Ius Nutrimens Et Medicina (Food and Drugs Law), Article 103 Canonum De Ius Industriae (Industry Law), Article 104 Canonum De Ius Urbanus (Urban Law), Article 105 Canonum De Ius Companie (Company Law), Article 106 Canonum De Ius Machinatio (Technology Law), Article 107 Canonum De Ius Proventum (Trade Law), Article 108 Canonum De Ius Securitas (Security Law), Article 109 Canonum De Ius Militaris (Military Law) and Article 110 Canonum De Ius Gentium (International Law); and

(iv) “Codes of Law” also “Codes” means the policies and procedures of all valid Ucadian Society and Our Estate as defined in thirty-three (33) codes being: Agriculture, Banking, Budget & Finance, Building & Construction, Civil, Communications & Media, Company, Criminal, Culture & Entertainment, Education, Elections, Emergency, Employment, Energy, Environment, Executive, Fitness & Health, Food & Drugs, Industry, Infrastructure, Judicial, Knowledge Systems, Legislative, Military, Police, Disease Prevention & Sanitation, Prison, Revenue, Service, Technology, Temporary Assistance, Trade and Transport; and

(v) The Ucadia model of law has also identified a system known as the Universal Forms System and Ucadian Form System of over 6500 forms connected and defined by the Codes of law for the efficient and effectual operation of any sized government from a small country to a region to a nation; and

(vi) Ucadia has also founded a global financial model known as the Supreme Financial Model based on a sound architecture of finance based on the rules of nature whereby the immediate debt crisis and concerns of the world could be unwound at a global debt crisis converting debt for credit within forty days if the political classes and the people behind them possessed the will. In any event, the financial system is being rolled out in conjunction with the Ucadia societies.

[26] For all of this work over decades, despite the fact that in the history of civilization no model of such comprehensiveness, dimension or detail has ever been conceived in one generation, there will be many who discount it, ignore it or simply and arrogantly steal parts of it for their own ends; and

[27] Ucadia and One-Heaven are fully working models that do not require a suspension of belief. Nor are such models based on presumptions of anti-law or anti-government or revolution or threat.  They were designed to be and remain wonderful gifts that anyone who choose to read, to connect and be part of a community seeking real alternative and change can join; and

[28] While the present Western-Roman Legal System appears hopelessly broken, it is hoped that those that read this post will read and review the Ucadia model and help contribute to its improvement as a tool for all humanity, not just a few.