Why I’m not an OPCA Litigant & The Dangers of Uninformed Dissent (PT1)

“I’m not an Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) Litigant and here’s why.”

This is potentially one of the most important statements you will learn to make during the current covert war against humanity, and the planet as a whole, especially if you are an activist or someone who is using common law arguments as your defence against allegations by corporations you have rejected contracts from.

Here’s the reason I’m going to share this with you today and why this message is so important to me.

Towards the end of 2020 my friend Chantal told me about this group that claimed Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta is the way we bring an end to the treason currently at play, so I contacted the apparent leader of the Practical Lawful Dissent International group who goes by the name Jacquie Pheonix.

We completed an interview that presented many rational arguments from Jacquie about why and how Article 61 is the solution and Redress is the cure, but the specifics couldn’t be talked about due to the sensitive nature of the details. I could respect that, and Jacquie for her efforts to bring an end to the treason currently being committed against the people, but the more I learned the more gaps I discovered and the less I wanted to do with the movement.

After the interview that made our acquaintance and helped me understand Jacquie’s proposed method for achieving redress, using a system laid out by David Robinson known as the 5 notice process to the 3 C’s (Cops, Courts, Councils) which he assembled before his death in November 2020 in advance of “Redress Day” when loyal followers overtake governmental buildings and risk getting locked away under the Mental Health Act as unsuspecting terrorists. The more I’ve learned the more dangerous I feel this activity could be for those who don’t know their rights or how to advocate for them.

“Redress Day” will be arranged by Jacquie and I believe it could result in countless arrests of good people looking to do the right thing which is the reason for my warning.

It is unclear whether Jacquie Phoenix, born Jacqueline Robinson, is a direct relative to David Robinson or not; we never discussed this as I only discovered the legal matter governed by Associate Chief Justice Rooke after I’d hosted 12 weekly Lawfully Organized Summits focused on Article 61 as the solution, except my conviction it is the only solution faded as I started to see why Lawful Assent was a necessary component to this and my best contribute was to create a safe space for information to be shared and organic growth to occur naturally.

Having connected with Jacquie in December 2020 and signed my Oath of Allegiance to the Barons who evoked Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta on March 23, 2001 shortly thereafter, I hosted weekly meetings to help people understand this apparent solution and touch base with Jacquie, and others, who were further down the road than someone just learning about it. I followed the steps and then mailed the police a notice that treason is being committed and we need them to do their job and investigate it. I even called the station to find out the Sargent’s name and discovered that the police only adhere to three articles of the 1297 Magna Carta and pay no heed to the 1215 version. So it was a deep dive in prep for the summons I would receive in April 2021.

Others have ventured down the path much further and so have more to lose if this is not the promised solution it has been sold as. With all mail to be tracked by registered post, you can imagine how costly 15+ notices to the cops, courts and council would be for anyone following the Practical Lawful Dissent group’s recommended path but drama intervened and we stopped shy of mailing out our notice to the courts.

The background story I’ve never talked about publicly is the drama that finalized our departure from the movement, which occurred when Stacey Wilkinson and Jacquie’s 5 week Redress tour together ended in a dramatic way and I got roped into the drama. Due to the meetings I was hosting, Stacey reached out to me to explain her side of the story given she’d been removed from the Practical Lawful Dissent International Facebook group and no longer had a way to warn people of what she’d witnessed.

What I think it’s important to make clear is that as an independent agent with a desire to cure the corruption regardless of who gets the accolades for doing so, when Stacey reached out I arranged for her, Chantal and myself to get together and hear her out, neutrally. Because all I really wanted to know was whether Article 61 truly is the only solution, the way those involved with the Practical Lawfull Dissent group have been told.

I was reminded of the wise words one of my Uncles shared in a funny story they told around the kitchen table one time: “where there’s only one way in and out, it’s generally a trap.” And that’s what I believe so many are in store for who have invested so much Time, Energy, Effort, Attention, Money and Identity into being a lawful dissenter with a group that seems to care, until they don’t.

Or at least that was what I experienced.

After the first Summit where dozens of people attended to hear Jacquie Phoenix share wisdom and insights from the system available as units on the Practical Lawful Dissent Facebook page, other leaders naturally emerged and showed up each week regardless of whether Jacquie could attend or not, but what I found fascinating was how quickly the tribe turned on those who question the leader, even if they are self-appointed.

In giving a banished one the time of day we became banished ones too, which I’ve learned is actually a really good thing as I’ve learned more about my rights, the process of putting people on notice, what to include in those notices, and what not to include. And therein lies my concern about what Justice Robert Graesser calls the “Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion” and why I believe it could become the way many activists could get locked away if they aren’t aware of what they’ve actually aligned themselves with.

In April 2021 when I spoke at a rally and was delivered a summons to appear in a zoom court room (no consent) two weeks later by an officer of the LAW, I was fortunate to get connected with a man who has studied common law for 20 years and he has helped me better understand the rights we have, without swearing allegiance to anyone.

He has also pointed out some details about the notices I showed him from the A61 group that I hadn’t known to notice before.

We have approached my summons using lawful notices that have yet to be responded to (hearing adjourned until August 11, 2021 now) but what is interesting to me is how my involvement with Jacquie’s group and David’s Notices set me up to better understand the process I’ve now been getting independently guided through; I cannot express my gratitude to the Uni-verse for sending me the man who has been helping me understand the LAW and what is being asked of me and I do not have to consent to.

With my own legal matter underway, and all that is required to navigate those waters without letting them consume me, I’ve had a lot of opinions shared with me as to how I should deal with the situation and in one particularly interesting conversation, Doug Force introduced me to the Meads vs Meads case that has notoriously been used against anyone using a common law defence.

What came into my awareness in this process, that I believe is especially relevant to the Practical Lawful Dissent group, is the potential for allegations of “Paper Terror-ism” and the Mental Health Act to be used against those who fall under the category of  uncontested OPCA Litigants.

What I learned first hand in 2019 when I got locked up under the Mental Health Act for two and a half weeks against my will or consent is that if you don’t know your rights you don’t really have any.

And so what the man helping me and I will be doing is putting together a presentation about the Meads vs Meads case so that people will know what to expect if this label is ascribed to you and how to respond from an empowered position.

Our experiences truly do guide us to have eyes to see the truth for what it is once the blinders have been pulled off and we have a chance to look around.

Some of the ones in the Practical Lawful Dissent International group who were originally helpful have got really prickly toward me for even daring to mention these potentialities, with comments about my own mental health made. It’s too bad people feel the need to attack the messenger instead of the message but such is the way it goes.

I will continue to stand for truth and will have more to share tomorrow.

For now, I hope you will at least consider how you are showing up in this world and how your actions or inaction could be used against you should you blindly trust someone who says they have the only key to a kingdom with thousands of rooms.

There’s a master key to all of this and that is our own self-mastery through intentional action.

With love,

Laura JeH – Namaste

PS. The man helping me is currently dissecting Meads vs Meads so I’ll be glad to share that soon! In the mean time, check out the case made against Jacquie Phoenix because all of these can be used against us if we’re not aware:

Pseudolaw is typically employed by conspiratorial, fringe, criminal, and dissident minorities who claim pseudolaw replaces or displaces conventional law. These groups attempt to gain advantage, authority, and other benefits via this false law. In Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 [Meads], Associate Chief Justice Rooke reviewed many forms of and variations on pseudolaw that have been deployed in Canada. In his decision, he described populations and personalities that use these ideas, and explained how these “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” [“OPCA”] concepts are legally false and universally rejected by Canadian courts. Rooke ACJ concluded OPCA strategies are instead scams promoted to gullible, ill-informed, and often greedy individuals by unscrupulous “guru” personalities. Employing pseudolaw is always an abuse of court processes, and warrants immediate court response. [AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 489]

Leave a comment