The organized psuedo-legal commercial admiralty (OPCA) system of the private legal pirates exposed! - why almost all courts in Western-Roman systems controlled by the legal pirates are admiralty

If something "looks like a duck", "walks like a duck", "quacks like a duck", is it a duck?  This analogy summarizes the enormous frustration associated with "Admiralty Law" for many over the years.

When one is accused and brought to court in many Western-Roman jurisdictions, the accused is placed in a "dock" - a nautical term for a place for "holding a vessel".  A listing on a court "docket" then exists - again an admiralty term relating to the harbor masters control of proceedings in his port.  The case then has its own docket of evidence as a manifest, a nautical commercial concept associated with the transport of goods. One may then be compelled to identify themselves with a "birth certificate" - birth being a direct reference to the creation of a vessel with a specific registration number. The concept of bail and security- are specific laws of admiralty, not common law. The person presiding over the matter sits in front of a flag, denoting himself to be a "flag officer" - a specific reference to a vice admiral under admiralty law.

All of these fundamental functions in modern court are directly nautical and associated with admiralty law- having absolutely nothing to do with common law. So why do the courts refuse to admit they are operating as admiralty and why has it taken so long to put these issues to rest?

Hiding Admiralty Jurisdiction "In Plain Sight"

Part of the answer as to why so many good and intelligent people have struggled to see that virtually all courts in the United States, Canada, Australia New Zealand, United Kingdom and most other Western-Roman places are operating in admiralty is the lack of full knowledge as to just how "large" admiralty law truly is.

One of the deliberate disinformation arguments that is still purported by pirates and privateers of the private bar guilds is that admiralty law is "narrow" in its breadth and application.  Therefore, it could not possibly be so openly applied across the board as there is no provision for it to be applied for example in matters of securities, contracts, torts, administrative discipline, trusts, estates and probate.

This excuse it turns out is utterly false.  Since its formal creation in the mid-17th Century, there exists numerous statutes that clearly show admiralty can be applied and appear to "mimic" every single major area of "common law" - every, not just some.

Another argument thrown up as a deliberate distraction by paid disinfo agents and the pirates and privateers of the private bar guilds is the claim that even if admiralty law has wide applications, there is no logical proof provided by such claimants as to how the "law of the sea" can be properly applied to courts on land.

This argument typically focuses on the more bizarre theories proposed on the land as well as the stranger concepts such as water marks being set at the highest point in each state so we are all "under water" to rebut such assertions as absurd and less than credible.

Again the pirates and privateers are openly and knowingly lying to the people they claim to uphold as the proof and method of how admiralty law is applied to each and every one of us- is breathtakingly simple and obvious- (1) we each require a birth certificate and registration and (2) we are birthed in hospitals that literally means a military establishment and legally is treated itself as a "vessel"- with hospitals both "commissioned" and "launched" and with people formally "admitted" "onboard" and discharged.

This is not fanciful conspiracy- this is common sense,  basic intelligence of what is shown to you "in plain sight" every day.  Birth, is a nautical term and related prior to the 19th Century solely to vessels. What hospital births and birth certificate registrations demonstrate to anyone who cares to stop for a moment and think about it- is that you are capable of being treated as either (a) a seaman or officer (by virtue of hospital birth and registration) or (b) a registered vessel.

So the courts need not enter into any complex or convoluted arguments to apply admiralty law- it is fully automated.  Once they confirm your name, your residence and you "understand"- then they can proceed.  You have been under admiralty law- since "birth".


Admiralty as the ultimate "Organized Psuedo-Legal Commercial Argument" (OPCA)

Why then has it taken so long to fully discern and make the all pervading nature of admiralty law clear?  Why the arguments of administrative law? of different forms of law in operation such as trust law and estate law?

In truth there are still multiple forms of law in operation and in parallel.  For example estate law and trust law are very real and the creation of Cestui Que Trusts and Estates for our benefit are very real. It is just we are deprived from dealing directly with these forms of law in courts operating under the psuedo-legal commercial form known as admiralty.

Admiralty needs real law such as common law to continue- why?  so the pirates can rape and pillage what should be yours, to steal from your estate.  At the same time, admiralty is capable of mimicking all these forms of law, so when bonds and trusts are formed as part of court cases, it appears the judge or magistrate is switching law forms- which is not necessarily the case.

So how might we better comprehend Admiralty law?  Here then is a summary of canons from the book of canons of sovereign law from the site One-Heaven.Org, article 190:


Canon 6803
Admiralty (Admiralty Law) refers to a organized pseudo-legal commercial (OPCA) form of law first formed in the early 18th Century, but falsely claimed of much older provenance, whereby the operation of the “law of the land” and “laws of nations” is suspended during times of controversy and belligerence in favour of a legal system based loosely around maritime themes and mimicking all other forms of law “on the land” for the exercising of jurisdiction over causes, both civil and criminal, commerce, navigation, capture and transfer of property and the conduct and behavior of public servants as if military personnel.

Canon 6804
The word Admiral is an English military title first formed in the 16th Century from three common Latin terms ad meaning “to”, mira meaning “wonderful, marvelous  amazing, surprising, awesome” and alis meaning “a wing of the military”. Hence, the original and literal meaning of the title Admiral was “to command a wonderful, marvelous  amazing, surprising, awesome wing of the military”. The claim that the title is a borrowed Arabic title amir-ar-rahl meaning “chief of the transport” is an absolute absurdity and clumsy insult to intelligence as for England under Henry VIII and his Venetian advisors to honor the Ottomans at the time by using an alleged title would have been an unthinkable and mortal insult against both nations.

Canon 6805
The title “Vice Admiral” is a formal term defining a senior naval flag officer rank. The word “vice” is a Latin word equivalent to “agent” and means “on account of; like”. Therefore a “Vice Admiral” is a senior flag officer acting as agent for an Admiral or Lord Admiral. The term flag officer refers to one who acts in such a capacity as an “agent for an admiral” as being a duly commissioned officer, senior enough to be entitled to fly the flag to mark where the office exercises command. Thus the presence of an admiralty flag within a court room or place near or immediately behind the location of an official is demonstration of an Admiralty claim of possession of such authority and jurisdiction for the office and one occupying such office.

Canon 6806
While the codes, laws and practices decorating the interior of court rooms may vary in different jurisdictions, the presence of a specific flag and ensign of admiralty authority within a court room has always denoted specific power and authority since the 18th Century and if argued as purely ceremonial is an admission of fraud and treason by both the court and officials making such claims:

(i) In the United States, the presence of a gold fringed flag in a court room is a formal claim of the court being Admiralty. Any contrary claim is an admission of abuse of official seals and signs and subject to serious criminal penalties; and

(ii) In British plantations, the presence of the State flag, whether or not it is gold trimmed is also recognized as an admiralty flag.

Canon 6807
The first Lord Admiral appointed in Western-Roman history was Tommaso Morosini (b.1485 - d.1540) also known as “Thomas the Moor”, “Thomas the sorcerer”, the son of Nicolò Morosini granted the royal title by King Henry VIII (1509 - 1547) upon the formation of the first naval dockyards in English history in 1512/13 at Woolwich on the south bank of the River Thames near the palace of King Henry VIII at Greenwich:

(i) In 1512 the Pisans and Venetians brought with them master ship makers and the skills to build carracks superior to the Genoese and Portuguese . By 1514 completed the first great carrack known as Henri Grâce à Dieu “Henry by Grace of God” (Great Harry) being 165 ft (50m), 1,500 ton, 43 heavy gun, 141 light gun, 1,000 crew. Several great carracks followed from the Woolwich dockyards including the Saint Peter, Saint Michael and the famous Saint Mary (Mary Rose); and

(ii) By 1517, a merchant stores and dock at Deptford was converted and expanded into the second fully fledged ship building and dockyards for the Navy. In 1527, upon the completion of a set of defensive stone forts at Portsmouth, King Henry VIII commissioned the third dockyards of his Navy and its new official home at Portsmouth; and

(iii) In 1540, upon the execution of Lord Admiral and Baron Cromwell Thomas Morosini by Henry VIII, Venetian noble Giovanni (John) Orsini the “Russo” meaning “Red God” or “the Red One” was appointed Lord Admiral and 1st Earl of Bedford. Contrary to deliberately false history, Lord Admiral Giovanni (John) Orsini the “Russo” remained Lord Admiral until the death of Henry VIII in 1547; and

(iv) Assisted by Venetian intelligence and strategy, in 1545 England under Lord Admiral Giovanni (John) Orsini the “Russo” successfully defeated a massive French invasion fleet of over 30,000 soldiers and 200 ships. The French suffered heavy losses against the English Navy carracks and retreated. However, the English lost the Saint Mary (Mary Rose). The claim that John Dudley a militia land general was both Lord Admiral at the time and fully knowledgeable in Venetian maritime strategy is an absurd untruth; and

(v) Contrary to deliberate false history, upon the death of King Henry in 1547, John Dudley, Earl of Northumberland did not become Lord Admiral until the death of Henry VIII and the reign of young King Edward (1547-1553). In protest, the Venetians withdrew support and master craftsman and the dockyards fell into disrepair. Upon the death of young King Edward in 1553, John Dudley himself was captured and executed as a traitor. However, on Mary (1553-1558) succeeding to the throne, her husband Philip II of Spain was instrumental in ensuring that the Queen disbanded the English Navy, closed the dockyards and ordered the remaining ships of the fleet to be burnt at their moorings. By 1554, England was without a single ship of war, or Admiral, or Navy; and

(vi) Again contrary to deliberate false history, the next Lord Admiral of England was Francesco Orsini (Russo or Russell), 2nd Earl of Bedford, also famously known as Francis “the Draupon” (Drake) who was appointed in 1559 following Queen Elizabeth I (1558-1603) assuming the throne with the commission to re-establish the Navy. Lord Admiral Francesco “the Draupon” (Drake) first reopened Deptford Dockyards. New “strategic” dockyards and ship building was commissioned at Chatham on the River Medway in Kent and at Plymouth on the River Plym in Devon by 1560, followed by the reopening of Woolwich and Portsmouth Dockyards.

(vii) Lord Admiral Francesco Russo “the Draupon” (Drake) was responsible from 1558 for commissioning of the historic mass production of a new type of ship called an English Galleon being a small (100 ft), lightweight (around 300 ton), well armed (20 to 24 guns), relatively fast (10 knots) and highly maneuverable vessel. The new flag ship of the new English Navy was the first privateer vessel in Western Roman history known as the Pelican or also known as the Gild en Hindre meaning “to seize and plunder (hinder)”; and

(viii) In 1562 Giovanni Farnese “the Falconieri” (Hawkins) was awarded the first form of “Letters of Marque” by Queen Elizabeth I as the first Vice-Admiral and privateer. By 1563, Vice-Admiral Hawkins succeeded in capturing Spanish slave ships in the Caribbean and trading the proceeds. In 1564, Queen Elizabeth I personally funded a second “pirate” expedition, with huge profits. Lord Admiral Francesco Russo “the Draupon” (Drake) accompanied Giovanni “the Falconieri” (Hawkins) on his third pirate voyage as the English navy and narrowly escaped capture; and

(ix) By 1572, Admiral Francesco Russo “the Draupon” (Drake) with the new English Galleons of the Pelican and Swan successfully captured and plundered as “legal pirates” (privateers) a number of Spanish and French slave and treasure ships to become the most successful “legal pirate of the era, resulting in phenomenal wealth returning to England; and

(x) Both Admiral Francesco Russo “the Draupon” (Drake) and Giovanni Ghisleri “the Falconieri” (Hawkins) were instrumental in firstly the delay of the Spanish invasion of England in 1587 and then its destruction in 1588 by deliberately using booby trapping the old captured Spanish, Portuguese and French galleons as if Spanish ships and then setting them on fire, causing them to explode within close proximity of the main Spanish ships moored at Calais in France against a major storm. The remaining Spanish ships escaped into the open sea and were then blown off course, with some survivors landing in Ireland; and

(xi) The primary use of the English Navy as a pirate force was dramatically reduced upon James I of England (1603-1625) becoming King. The end to the Anglo-Spanish War by Peace Treaty in 1604 effectively ended the “legal piracy” of the English Navy and saw its gradual decline until the official and effective revival of the English “pirate” Navy from 1660 under Charles II; and

(xii) In 1706, the Act of Union by Queen Anne (1702- 1714) between England and Scotland saw the formal creation of one Royal Navy combining Scottish and English ships under the first laws of Admiralty and the first Lord High Admiral being Queen Anne herself; and

(xiii) In 1710, the office of Lord High Admiral was transferred to a Board of Privy Counselors known collectively as the Lords of the Admiralty comprising of five political Lords of Admiralty rated in status from the “first” Lord to the “fifth” Lord then supported by secretaries and assistants mirrored by five military lords of Admiralty known as “Sea Lords”; and

(xiv) After 1801, the position of Lords of Admiralty were depreciated against the control of the Bank of England to being Lord Commissioners of the Admiralty and agents of the Bank, rather than de jure positions.

Canon 6808 (link)
The first laws of Admiralty were not properly codified until the middle of the 17th Century, focusing equally on the discipline and maintenance of duty of Navy officers and Navy personnel as well as the operation of courts of admiralty and capture and management of property:

(i) The first laws of Admiralty were introduced under Charles II through 13 Car c.9 (1661) which for the first time in history expressed clearly the through thirty six articles the rules and conduct of Navy personnel, the operation of courts of admiralty and capture and management of property; and

(ii) In 1706, the Act of Union by Queen Anne (1702- 1714) between England and Scotland saw the formal creation of one Royal Navy combining Scottish and English ships under the first laws of Admiralty and the first Lord High Admiral being Queen Anne herself. In 1707, through 6 Anne c 37, the concept of admiralty law operating at time of war, the commissioning of privateers and the sharing of captured prizes were formalized with the conversion of the plantations of America as centers of pirate and privateer activity; and

(iii) In 1719, King George I introduced a new concept within Admiralty Law through 6 Geo. I. c.19 whereby those persons in “sea service” who committed crimes mentioned under 13 Car c.9 (1661) upon the shore in foreign parts were to be tried and punished as if they had been committed on the “main sea”. This was the first application of Admiralty Law on the land, in defiance of its alleged original purpose; and

(iv) In 1740, King George II introduced through 13 Geo. II. c. 4 in Article II the concept of three commissioners being required to administer a properly constituted Admiralty court. The Act also introduced for the first time in legal history the concept that owners of ships taking commissions of letters of marque were to provide bail and security. Furthermore, in Article III, the requirement for security to prosecute a case in Admiralty was introduced making the entire administration of admiralty courts commercial; and

(v) In 1749, George II through 22 Geo. II c.33 introduced a modified Admiralty Law and modified thirty six articles of the Code of Admiralty , repealing the 1661 act of Charles II as well as 1919 Act. Most importantly, the revisions to Admiralty Law made clear that those administering it were to be officers under fiduciary obligations through formal oath and that no agent or privateer was to hold any position of authority or conduct proceedings within an admiralty court. Furthermore, the act made clear that a valid court of Admiralty for court-martial only existed when three commissioners were duly sworn and present; and

(vi) In 1793, King George III through 33 Geo.III. c.66. significantly altered and refined Admiralty Law to make clear the taking of prizes by the admiralty courts and officers of the Crown during war as well as the procedural details of the issuing and administration of Letters of Marque. The act also reinforced the principles of those accused or “captured” requiring to provide security or “bail” in order to retrieve use of any goods seized as a prize. Under Article XIV it made clear the need to make surety under oath to obtain a valid Letter of Marque. Article XXXIV made clear the absolute forbiddance of officers of the court of Admiralty acting as an agent, or advocate or proctor in the same matter before the court. Article LXX reiterated the requirement of three or more Commissioners to present to hear and adjudicate a valid case in Admiralty, while Article LXXI permitted individual commissioner or justice of the peace to gather and hear evidence, but not to rule. Article XXXIII made clear the independence of the officers and judiciary of Admiralty from having any interest whatsoever in prizes or acting as privateers or possess letters of marquee namely “ That no Judge, Register, or Deputy Register, Marshall, or Deputy Marshall, or any other Officer whomsoever, of or belonging to any Court of Admiralty or Vice Admiralty in Great Britain, or in any of his Majesty’s Colonies and Plantations in America, or in any other of his Majesty’s Dominions, nor any Person or Persons practicing either as Advocate, Proctor or otherwise, in any such Court or Courts, shall be concerned or interested, directly or indirectly, as Owner, Part Owner, Sharer, Adventurer, in any private Ship or Ships, or Vessel or Vessels of War whatsoever, having any Commission or Commissions, or Letter of Marque as aforesaid; and in any case such Judge, Register, Deputy Register, Marshal, Deputy Marshal, or other Office, Advocate, or Proctor whatsoever, shall, notwithstanding this Act, be directly or indirectly concerned or interested as aforesaid, such Judge, register, Deputy Register, Marshal, Deputy Marshal, or other Officer respectively, shall for every such Offence (being thereof lawfully convicted in any of his Majesty’s Courts of Record in Great Britain or at any General Session of the Peace in any of his Majesty’s Colonies in America) absolutely forfeit his Office and Employment in and belonging to any such Court of Admiralty or Vice Admiralty, of what Kind or Nature so ever such Office and Employment may be”; and

(vii) In 1797, King George III through 38 Geo. III. c.38 confirmed that subjects of the United States were permitted to appeal in chancery from sentences of vice-admiralty courts confirming not only the continuing function of the estates of the United States as the plantations and property of Great Britain, but the course of potential remedy against adverse action of the vice-admiralty courts; and

(viii) In 1801, whilst hostilities with France continued, the prize (Admiralty) courts of the West Indies and America were reorganized through 41. Geo. III. c. 96 so that Admiralty Law would continue in light of possible further conflicts, independent of the hostilities at the time. Most significantly, the act reinforced the absolute division between officers of the courts and agents under letters of marque whereby one could not hold a position in such a manner. Furthermore, that judges of Admiralty were absolutely forbidden to be concerned with the care of any property of estates, namely in clause XVII “ And it be further enacted, That no person during the time he shall hold the office of judge of any of he said courts, shall, either by himself or by any person on his behalf, or for his benefit, act as agent for any prizes that may be captured from the enemy, or shall have any share or interest directly or indirectly in any privateer or letter of marquee, or shall be anywise concerned in the care, management, or superintendence of any estates in any island in the West Indies or on the continent of America”; and

(ix) In 1801, through 41. Geo. III. c. 76 King George III approved the extension of the system of Letters of Marque to permit the rules of their issue and application of their issue to be widened and applied as commissioners saw fit, providing within the general bounds of the act. This coincided with the dramatic extension of the use of Letters of Marque in the American plantations under the government of the United States corporation to all branches of its government as approved by Congress; and

(x) In 1806, through 46. Geo. III. c. 54 King George III reinforced clear the requirement of three or more duly appointed commissioners in order to constitute a valid Admiralty Court throughout all dominions whether it be a court-martial or determination of prize; and

(xi) In 1810, an Act was passed being 50 Geo. III. c. 118 regulating the office of registrars of Admiralty Prize Courts whereby the deduction of expenses from any “fees, dues, perquisites, emoluments or profits” and incident to the duties of offices was confirmed as lawful providing the remainder was carried to an account of the Consolidated Fund controlled by the Bank of England. This confirmed the admiralty courts as now purely organized “pseudo-legal” commercial agencies and not under any pretence of justice; and

(xii) In 1813, an Act was passed being 53 Geo. III. c. 151 regulating the financial handling of monies, bills of exchange and various government securities associated with Admiralty Courts including procedures and the obligation to deposit and report funds to the Bank of England and for the Admiralty Courts to effectively act as an agency and branch of the Bank in the management of all associated securities; and

(xiii) In 1816, through an extraordinary act 56 Geo.III. c.82 the judicial acts of surrogates of vice-admiralty courts appointed to act as judges of such courts during vacancies in those offices by the said judges or by the governors of the plantations and colonies in which such courts are were rendered valid, thus permitting for the first time agents to act in such capacity through Admiralty (in direct defiance of previous Admiralty law) providing such judicial offices were considered vacant; and

(xiv) In 1822, through 3 Geo. IV c.19, the minimum number of commissioners needed to convene a proper Admiralty Court and execute valid judicial acts was reduced from three to two where the number of commissioners in a particular court jurisdiction was less than six. The most noticeable effect of this act is the present day magistrates courts in Admiralty, compared to the District and Supreme Courts where the existence of six or more justices require a quorum of three or more for a valid Admiralty Court to be convened; and

(xv) In 1823, through 4 Geo. IV. c. 41 all “vessels” were required to be registered under admiralty to encourage “shipping” and “navigation” as euphemisms for trade. The act made clear that no “vessel” may enjoy privileges unless registered.

(xvi) In 1827 through 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c.65 reinforced the powers of two commissioners in signing and official act under admiralty law, changing also the structure of the board of Lord High Admiral to a council; and

(xvii) In 1832 through 2 Will. IV c.40 Admiralty Law was further refined with the commercial administration of the Navy and the extension of Admiralty Courts over the full range of fiduciary duties of affairs of officers, marines and seaman, in particular the determination of probate and will and testaments and the adjudication of estate matters of as if land courts- a significant historic event; and

(xviii) The creation of people into “vessels” by statute was created with Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act of 1836 (c. 86) whereby all births were to be registered and sent to a General Registry Office. The key word “Birth” directly implies a vessel. To ensure admiralty was connected to the procedures of “births, deaths and marriages”, several clauses made clear the connection such as XXI. Being Registry of children born at sea. In later decades, the introduction of “health acts” that required “births in hospitals” meant that by the beginning of the 20th century almost 99% of infants were born at sea by virtue of being born on board a british vessel being a hospital; and

(xix) In 1837, through the Transfer to Admiralty of Postal Contracts Act (1837), Admiralty Courts were granted all the previous powers of the Postmaster General in respect to all Contracts, Bonds and other Securities delivered by packet service, thus dramatically weakening the power and authority of the Postmaster General in preference of the Vice-Admiralty; and

(xx) The Admiralty Offences Act 1844 c. 2 made clear the extraordinary power and transition of admiralty to the land by permitting a claimed crime on the “high seas” to then be transferred to a specific location on land and to be treated in law as if it had occurred on the land. Thus, providing the legal argument that the original crime occurred “on the high seas”, the matter could be heard by an admiralty court as if a matter of common law on the land. This act help precipitate the creation of the absurdity of placing the “high water marks” of various states and counties on the highest peaks so that “all alleged crimes” were committed on the “high seas” and thus subject to admiralty. The accompany rules of “summary justice” were introduced later under Act 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42 (1848); and

(xxi) In 1845, by 8 & 9 Vict. c. 89 the registration of “vessels” was further refined to identify them as British vessels. The act reinforced in Article II that no “ship” or “vessel” as euphemisms for companies and bodies may be entitled to any privileges of a “british-registered ship” unless registered; and

(xxii) The application of admiralty law more widely to criminal matters greatly expanded with the Act 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42 (1848) whereby the traditional rules of common law such as original writs and right of reply and right to jury appeared to be “suspended” in preference to a faster, less rigorous form of justice or “summary justice” (itself an oxymoron). This act followed the act of Admiralty Offences Act 1844 c. 2 (1844) that placed common law and all previous statute law in the administration of justice in the lowers courts with the operation of admiralty law; and

(xxiii) In 1854, the act 17 & 18 Vict. c. 78 was significant in introducing for the first time the use of stamps on legal documents in admiralty – the first time stamps were required on legal documents – in lieu of small fees for lodgment. This act is the origin of the use of stamps on such documents and enabled judges, clerks and courts of admiralty to then recoup such fees from the Consolidated Fund, also rendering it no longer necessary to publish such legal notices in the London Gazette as the cancelled stamp denoted the proper “delivery” as well as “publication” and “public notice” of the legal instrument. This  act complimented one of the most important acts of admiralty and commerce in Western-Roman law being 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104 Merchant Shipping Act (1854) arguably one of the largest statutes ever created in English history prior to the 20th Century; and

(xxiv) In 1859, through the 22 & 23 Vict. c. 6 Act, for the first time in history, Serjeants, Barristers-At-Law, Attorneys and Solictors were granted permission to practice in Admiralty Courts, thus moving closer to admiralty courts being full mirrors of land courts; and

(xxv) In 1863, first through 26 & 27 Vict. c.24, the former “back door” through 56 Geo.III. c.82 whereby surrogates as agents could also act in the vacant roles of offices was clarified. For example, under article 4, where the office of a judge of admiralty court is vacant, the Chief Justice or Principal Judicial Officer becomes the ex officio Judge of the Vice Admiralty Court until notification is received and one is appointed to that vacant office. This act further reinforced the technique and explanation for why some jurisdictions from 1863 failed to duly appointed officers in the manner prescribed. Through 26 & 27 Vict. c.116 the concept of agents for prizes was reinforced with clear identification in clause 10 that no person holding officer under the crown may act as an agent; and

(xxvi) In 1864 and then in 1865, further major changes to Admiralty law were instituted, whereby the new Naval Prize Act 1864 was instituted and previous prize acts were appeared to be repealed, but only if their effects were no longer in operation. Thus, for the first time, a major historic section of Admiralty law was removed from the public record and made secret via repeal, such as acts pertaining to America and the United States, which remained technically still in operation because of ongoing declarations of war; and

(xxvii) The Court of Admiralty (Ireland) Act 1867 c. 114 while exclusively for the jurisdiction of Ireland is nonetheless instructive as broader knowledge of admiralty in demonstrating the limited rights of admiralty to those accused and its summary form and function in one act; and

(xxviii) The completion of admiralty law replacing common law within the courts to “mimick” as pseudo law that believed as common law was largely completed with the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1868 c. 71 which was followed up by Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879 c. 49 that established the framework of the modern admiralty courts in operation throughout the Western-Roman law operating pseudo-legal form of admiralty, masquerading as common law; and

(xxix) Further acts of Admiralty beyond 1867 include, Admiralty Suits Act 1868 c. 78, , Court of Admiralty (Ireland) Amendment Act 1876 c. 28, Admiralty and War Office Regulation Act 1878 c. 53 and Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890 c. 27

Conclusion

As you can see by these canons, the size and breath of admiralty is extraordinary.  It is hoped this information will assist those facing the pirates and privateers of the private bar guilds who persistently refuse to follow their own rules, their own laws and remain obsessed in destroying any last vestige of rule of law.

The 10 Biggest Errors most people make when facing the Pirates and Privateers of the Private Bar Guilds

There is no question the subject of law is complex and difficult to comprehend. It is why in many countries, only the “best and brightest” qualify for places in law schools and then spend years completing their degrees.  For the rest of us, one can spend literally years plowing through hundreds of thousands of pages of public statutes, case citations as well as codes and procedures and still not find clear answers.

The reasons that bring you to read this blog might also be wide and varied. You might be someone facing some kind of “legal matter” looking for answers yourself. Or you might be someone who has read the previous postings on this blog and are interested by the topic for this blog (“The 10 Biggest Errors…”).  Or maybe you are already a professional member of one of the secret societies that control law in most countries and are interested in this topic as a curiosity or possibly for potential evidence of any logical fallacies, bad faith or vexatious behaviour.

Whatever your reasons for reading, whoever you are, when it comes to the law, “everyone has an opinion” and often one or more “helpful suggestions”… Yet, when it comes down to it, how many people without sufficient financial resources do you hear reply concerning a legal matter “oh, that matter was conclusively resolved in our favour”? There seems plenty of “claimed remedies” but precious little evidence of them.

In recent months, a substantial body of research and knowledge has been posted on this blogspot in the hope of provoking a more considered and competent approach when facing the pirates and privateers.  The sheer amount of information in the most recent post Finding relief from the Legal Pirates… (Oct 24, 2012) is why there has been a deferral on making any further posts until now.

However, since posting detailed information concerning the source of Western-Roman Law, the Paradox of Person and most recently the question of “finding relief” from the legal pirates, it has become clear that even with this information, many people are still making serious and grave errors of judgment when facing the private courts masquerading as public courts.

To be blunt – many people continue to make fundamental and silly errors when facing the pirates and privateers of the Private Bar Guilds – often with dire consequences.  Some of these errors continue to be of such a basic level of competence, that it is surprising so many fail to consider common sense and avoid sabotaging the slimmest of margins in resolving matters with a kleptocratic guild that demands absolute loyalty by forcing its members to perpetually demonstrate perfidy, treachery and malfeasance.

So what are the ten (10) biggest errors when facing the pirates and privateers of the Private Bar Guilds that still hold the law hostage? How then might we avoid these most common errors and could this improve our changes at obtaining relief?

Before we commence, there are two important subjects to initially cover- the question of the forensic and accurate meaning of “pirate”, “privateer”, “private” and “public” so there is no confusion as to the subject and secondly the question of motive and objectivity of the author given the subject matter.

A Quick “recap” on Pirates, Privateers, Private and Public

[1] As stated in the previous blog (Oct 24, 2012), 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

[2] 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

[3] 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

[4] 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

[5] 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

[6] 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

[7] 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

[8] 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

[9] 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

[10] 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

[11] 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

[12] 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

[13] 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

[14] 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

Motive and good faith towards all who are engaged in the legal profession

[15] As demonstrated by the definitions reiterated concerning “private”, “public”, “pirate”, “privateer” and even “letter of marquee”, these terms have been used in their proper context to define the precise status of certain people within the present legal system, not as any form of derogation of character; and

[16] In contrast to any allegation of deliberate bias, ad-hominem, bad faith, vexation, mental illness or some other motive that one or more people may attempt to claim when reading these blogs, the author has the highest regard to individual members of the legal profession and the extraordinary stresses such a craft puts them under; and

[17] My great grandfather was one of the “founding fathers” of Australian Federation and the original Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. His name was Patrick McMahon Glynn and as an original elected member of the House of Representatives from 1901 served with distinction in a number of ministries including Attorney General of Australia. My grandfather Patrick Francis O’Collins was a famous Australian barrister and solicitor who served the Bar with distinction, having successfully defended and prosecuted a number of high profile commercial cases. Several uncles (living and deceased) have been distinguished judges, barristers, lawyers, canon lawyers and internationally recognized theologians. So in no way are these articles meant to denigrate their memory, their achievements or their fine upstanding character; and

[18] As has been stated repeatedly throughout these blogs, the average member of the legal profession is someone with high intellect, a social conscience and a fine member of society.  This however, does not diminish the accuracy in defining the roles that they are forced to play as privateers or pirates.  Nor does it diminish the accurate and objective portrayal of the secret legal societies as Private Bar Guilds; and

[19] The enormous and deliberate moral stress that the present legal framework puts upon judges and magistrates is amply demonstrated by the tragic fact that judges have the highest suicide rate of any professional as a proportion to their members than any other high stress profession such as military personnel, dentists, psychologists or prison guards; and

[20] One of the strongest reasons for writing these blogs is in the hope that a few of these people, trapped within the hell of knowing the law and being forced to torture and injure people “in the name of the law” can finally see that it is the system at fault- not the people.  That it is the idea of mental illness, not the members themselves that are at fault; and 

[21] Therefore, should anyone falsely claim this blog or any other blog of Ucadia is “anti-law”, or “anti-establishment” or wrongly and maliciously claim it to be based on bad faith, vexation or mental illness, I hope the reader will remind such critics of what has been clearly and objectively stated here- that it is to restore the law, the truth is being revealed.  It is to help free the “best and brightest” minds trapped in knowing right from wrong but being forced to “do evil” that these blogs exist. Finally, it is in the hope that people will learn from the most common errors that this blog has been written.


Error #1 – Not believing/realizing you are dealing with Pirates and Privateers 

[22] The first, most frequent and arguably most frustrating error committed by those facing the Private Bar Guilds and their private commercial Courts is when people do not believe or realize they are dealing literally with Pirates and Privateers operating an organized crime syndicate “for-profit” private business masquerading as public courts; and

[23] Despite that in most Western countries, a quick search via the internet can reveal the supposed public courts can be found to be registered and listed as “private companies” and “operating for profit” as franchises of private companies masquerading as proper governments in direct violation and treason of the constitutions for such countries, many people do not know or even care to know these indisputable facts; and

[24] If we take Australia as an example in this case, my great grandfather Patrick McMahon Glynn and the other founders of the original Australian Constitution made it clear that the oath and allegiance of parliamentarians and the legal profession was to the sovereignty of Australia first, not to some foreign power.  However, since the 1930’s Australia like many countries has been “replaced” by a foreign power being a corporate structure registered into Washington DC and with the US SEC such as the Commonwealth of Australia (CIK: 0000805157), or the State of New South Wales (CIK: 0000071545) or the State of Victoria (CIK: 0000898608); and

[25] It seems few people know (or even care) that the recent Australian Census is listed with a foreign agency as a prospectus and that the highest elected officials of Australia are in open and direct violation with Article 6 and Article 9 (Chapter I, Part IV Section 42 and Section 44) of the Constitution by selling the people of Australia without their consent as “debt slaves” to foreign powers; and

[26] It seems few people know (or even care) that in complete contradiction to Common Law Statutes and the laws of Great Britain and fundamental maxims of Western-Roman law, the Justice System of Australia has been privatized into a “for profit” business, with states such as Victoria even having their courts issue “invoices” for commercial trading associated with the dispensation of law; and

[27] When people refuse to see what is plain sight- not as conspiracy but fact;  When people refuse to hold their elected officials to account, or demand an end to the unworkable corruption of the law, then they only have themselves to blame when such legal matters fail to proceed as they expected.

Error #2 – Hiring a Pirate believing they will serve your best interests against fellow Pirates and Privateers

[28] The second, most frequent and naive error committed by those facing the Private Bar Guilds and their private commercial courts is the belief that hiring a Pirate, also known as “appointing a Lawyer or Attorney” they will serve your interests ahead of the interest of the private commercial court and their own guild fraternity; and

[29] In most western countries, to be recognized as an attorney is to be a registered member of a particular Private Bar Guild and possess a “license” to “practice” law.  This means all registered attorneys, lawyers, solicitors and barristers owe their business and livelihood first to their membership and oath on becoming an accepted member and agent of a secret society, a private society, a foreign society and a foreign body and government. It does not matter that many western nations still have laws against foreign agents holding positions of authority – such laws are openly ignored; and

[30] The point of this error being that for a lawyer, or attorney, or solicitor or barrister to act truly in your best interests, as they claim they are obligated to do, means such a brave soul must – if they are competent in law – repudiate their oath of membership to their secret society and the operations of the private courts; and

[31] Clearly, the majority of lawyers, attorneys, solicitors and barristers do not go down this path, yet maintain with absolute conviction the belief that they serve the best interests of their clients.  How then does this function? Because sadly, many attorneys, lawyers, solicitors and barristers are not competent in law, only a level of procedure and pseudo-law that has replaced much of present day law conducted in the private courts. Therefore, an incompetent solicitor, attorney, lawyer or barrister is far from ideal if one is facing a serious legal matter.

Error #3 – Believing that “Magic Bullets” can defeat Pirates and Privateers

[32] The third, most frequent error committed by those facing the Private Bar Guilds and their private commercial courts is the belief that “magic bullets” and dubious legal “remedies” somehow will not only halt a matter, but render some remarkable turnaround and possibly even financial windfall – hence the claimed “citizens for profit” movement in many countries whereby litigants still use a range of foreign and unrecognized documents within the private commercial courts in an attempt to halt, disrupt, divert and “win”; and

[33] The indisputable fact concerning paperwork with the Private Bar Guilds is that they don’t even recognize the paperwork and forms of their own fellow secret societies, even from adjacent states and counties, let alone from overseas countries.  So why on earth would anyone believe in their wildest imagination that the Private Bar Guild would recognize a non-standard form from a non-society or some other unrecognized body?  It defies common sense and any form of logic- yet people mindlessly ignore both every day in submitting absurd, ill conceived and unrecognized formats every day to courts; and

[34] It cannot be clearer that any form of document presented to a court or particular jurisdiction under the control of a Private Bar Guild must conform to the standards defined and recognized form at the very least or immediately be considered frivolous and without standing, placing a litigant in a substantially weaker position if never having submitted such documents.

Error #4 – Believing that Pirates and Privateers will follow their own “rules”

[35] The fourth, most frequent error committed by those facing the Private Bar Guilds and their private commercial courts is that the Pirates and Privateers will follow their own rules.  This error may also be called the lack of preparation error. It occurs when people have reached a level of competence in which to submit timely and relevant documents as demanded by the Private Bar Guild only to find such documents are ignored and due process is ignored; and

[36] Unfortunately, the lawless and parlous state of affairs in most jurisdictions and with most courts means a competent litigant must now expect the private courts and Pirates and Privateers not to follow their own laws, rather than honor their own procedures.  This is especially the case with foreclosures, bankruptcies and other commercial matters carrying profitable bonds as “booty” and “prizes”; and

[37] In recent months, there appears the smallest glimmer of hope via the High Court of the United Kingdom connected to the Inner and Middle Temple reaffirming the existence of the principle of equity in Chancery.  However, such relief remains narrow, available to only a few and fails to address the wholesale mutiny of justices and magistrates across the world in openly defying their own procedures; and

[38] Instead, the competent litigant must anticipate that justices and magistrates will openly break their own rules and have prepared the necessary paperwork to follow up such open corruption.  This may include orders to recuse a judge, orders to have a matter reheard in a public forum, formal complaints to the United Nations and the International Court of Justice, motions to High Court Chancery Division, formal complaints and charges of mail fraud by justices or magistrates, formal complaints and lodgments of securities fraud (on account of false bonds) by justices and magistrates as examples.

Error #5 – Believing the Pirates and Privateers know the law

[39] The fifth, most frequent error committed by those facing the Private Bar Guilds and their private commercial courts is that the Pirates and Privateers truly are competent in the law and “know” their own rules; and

[40] As discussed earlier, it is clear that a great success for the Private Bar Guilds for at least the past ninety years has been “plausible deniability” whereby the general ignorance of members of the secret societies has assisted in the perpetuation of injustice and the private commercial court system; and

[41] It is why so often you will see that lawyers and solicitors that frequent and post on forums are so aghast and dismissive of historical facts of law, of statutes, why they are so dismissive of the very foundations of law – because they were never taught them, they don’t know even the simplest of basics of Blackstone, or Coke, or any of the founders of Western Law.

Error #6 – Fighting (creating conflict with) Pirates

[42] The sixth, most frequent error committed by those facing the Private Bar Guilds and their private commercial courts is when litigants confident in their own skills at oratory or documentation choose to fight and create conflict with the Pirates and Privateers; and

[43] This is a tragic cost- as many a brave soul have risen through experience to believe they can match in assertiveness and skill those registered members of the secret societies that practice pseudo-law, only to find the sharp fangs of procedural injustice at its worst; and

[44] The truth is that the system needs conflict, it demands controversy- it relishes and celebrates the belligerent litigant – as the poster character for supporting propaganda aligned at warning others, that such “anti-law”, “anti-establishment” and “anti-government” behavior will not be tolerated. Those that actively pursue the courts, sometimes with personal vendettas unfortunately created terrible injury against the law and the rest of society by enabling the system to re-set itself and parody genuine concerns as “extremists” and more recently as “paper terrorists”.

Error #7 – Running away from facing the Pirates and Privateers 

[45] The seventh, most frequent error committed by those facing the Private Bar Guilds and their private commercial courts is when people adher to the calls by some “gurus” to ignore the courts and their enforcement, to not respond and to effectively run away; and

[46] Again this error of judgment is one that is relished by the system as those who refuse to engage are presumed to confess and the system has streamlined itself to pursue those who do not engage with arrest warrants, fines and other penalties; and

[47] Sometimes the argument presented as to not attending court is because the court is so corrupt and because the courts are run by Pirates and Privateers.  This however is no excuse; and

[48] It does not mean one must come to a private court, ill prepared.  In fact, all people have the absolute right to respond with formal interrogatories (questions) to be answered before coming to court and having those questions formally lodged as part of the official record (see the previous blog concerning examples of specific questions (Oct 24th, 2012).  Even to anticipate the questions will not be answered and to have the documents prepared to proceed with formal complaints and orders is in order; and

[49] But to do nothing, to ignore, to hide, to pretend it does not exist does not mean the legal matter will go away.  Every controversy and challenge must be addressed. This is a maxim of law fundamental to the Ucadian model and to life.

Error #8 – Sending/registering original documents with Pirates and Privateers

[50] The eighth, most frequent error committed by those facing the Private Bar Guilds and their private commercial courts is the sending and registering of original documents with the private commercial courts of the Privateers and Pirates; and

[51] When wet ink signed documents are submitted as originals to the courts- such documents can be seen as a conveyance of rights, an enclosure of rights, and an admission of ceding and surrendering of rights; and

[52] Recognizing your first person or second person means that when you attend court, you are the principal or the only authorized and duly appointed agent for the principal- therefore it is you who is giving instruction – no other- concerning the intentions and wishes of the principal.  Do not then hand over original wet ink documents, but extracts from the estate of the principal.  It is also where the months of discussions concerning the role of the General Executor and the estate come into play; and

[53] If one wants to be even clearer, only hand the court pink copies of extracted documents as the respondent- or if one is directing another as a duly appointed agent, then only issue blue copies of orders and instructions. The colors are a historic feature of their system in identifying clearly the holder of original title and the order of status of agents and principal.

Error #9 – Surrendering (your person) to Pirates and Privateers 

[54] The ninth, most frequent error committed by those facing the Private Bar Guilds and their private commercial courts is the surrendering of person, for acceptance of legal person in the face of continued harassment, threat, coercion, violence and every other form of terror; and

[55] The fact is that the highest person in propria persona can be re-established at any point, or the second highest person (principal to agent) can be secured at any point. Legal person, or third person is the weakest of all forms of person and just because it may be accepted in light of intimidation does not mean the matter is final.

[56] People are tricked into believing because they made one mistake at the time of arrest, or one mistake at the first hearing, or one mistake at the indictment hearing, or several mistakes during the trial that it is over. Never, ever surrender your right at any moment, at any point to reassert your first person, or second person (agent to principal) relation and to reject legal person.

Error #10 – Forgetting to demonstrate who and what we truly are 

[57] The tenth, most frequent error committed by those facing the Private Bar Guilds and their private commercial courts is forgetting to demonstrate who and what we truly are as Homo sapiens, as Divine Immortal Spirits associated with flesh vessels.

[58] To stand as witnesses to the living law, the canons of law of Ucadia, the restoration of the law.  To remain in honor in the face of judicial corruption. To remove any claim of possible vexation or bad faith. To constantly repeat we come in good faith, in honor, in respect, amicability and peace.  To remove all possible argument of controversy and belligerence; and

[59] It is how we behave, above all, that determines the success or failure to represent the law.  The arrogant, the aggressive the vengeful litigant injures the law as much as the corrupt official.  The weak, the frightened, the ignorant litigant injures the law and their own character by doubting themselves and failing to work on their competence and knowledge.

[60] Despite the labels of pirates and privateers- forgive those who act in such a manner. Rise above the hatred, the cruelty. Be a beacon of honesty, respect and honor so that such character shines like a blinding light against judicial corruption.  Never forget that your are immortal and how we live (and die) in one life can affect many lifetimes of lessons.

Above all, be gentle with yourself and with others.  Thank you.