Pytellek's OPCA*

* Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument
images/pytellek-affidavit-dec-2018-0.jpg

"The Guru class are nothing more than Conmen"

In Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke coined the term "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument" litigants, to functionally define them collectively for what they literally are.

People like Australian conman Mark Andrew Borleis/Pytellek, that promote, sell, and use a collection of techniques and arguments to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.


(Pseudolegal= not actually legal, which is the Courts' polite way of saying that it is completely baseless.
In plain English, it's nonsense/bunk/garbage.)


Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke stated:

    [Pytellek and other] "[73]...Gurus claim that their techniques provide easy rewards – one does not have to pay tax, child and spousal support payments, or pay attention to traffic laws. There are allegedly secret but accessible bank accounts that contain nearly unlimited funds, if you know the trick to unlock their gates. You can transform a bill into a cheque with a stamp and some coloured writing. [See Pytellek's A4V Process] You are only subject to criminal sanction if you agree to be subject to criminal sanction. You can make yourself independent of any state obligation if you so desire, and unilaterally force and enforce demands on other persons, institutions, and the state. All this is a consequence of the fact gurus proclaim they know secret principles and law, hidden from the public, but binding on the state, courts, and individuals.

   "[74] And all these “secrets” can be yours, for small payment to the guru.

[75] These claims are, of course, pseudolegal nonsense. A judge who encounters and reviews OPCA concepts will find their errors are obvious and manifest, once one strips away the layers of peculiar language, irrelevant references, and deciphers the often bizarre documentation which accompanies an OPCA scheme. When reduced to their conceptual core, most OPCA concepts are contemptibly stupid.

Conman Mark Pytellek is well rehearsed in coming up with plausible stories and excuses
... particularly his favourite:


"There's always people that are going to bad-mouth me. They come to me for a quick-fix, I show them my Workshop Manual, and tell them to go away and study it. It's all in there, all the information you need. And then they come back to me expecting me to get them out of their mess... I just don't have time... and I can't be held responsible if they don't follow the process correctly..."

In Meads v. Meads, Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke continued:

    [77] The bluntly idiotic substance of Mr. Meads' argument explains the unnecessarily complicated manner in which it was presented. OPCA arguments are never sold to their customers as simple ideas, but instead are byzantine schemes which more closely resemble the plot of a dark fantasy novel than anything else. Latin maxims and powerful sounding language are often used. Documents are often ornamented with many strange marking and seals. Litigants engage in peculiar, ritual-like in court conduct. All these features appear necessary for gurus to market OPCA schemes to their often desperate, ill-informed, mentally disturbed, or legally abusive customers. This is crucial to understand the non-substance of any OPCA concept or strategy. The story and process of a OPCA scheme is not intended to impress or convince the Courts, but rather to impress the guru's customer.

[78] Mediaeval alchemy is a helpful analogue. Alchemists sold their services based on the theatre of their activities, rather than demonstrated results, or any analytical or systematic methodology. OPCA gurus are modern legal alchemists. They promise gold, but their methods are principally intended to impress the gullible, or those who wish to use this drivel to abuse the court system. Any lack of legal success by the OPCA litigant is, of course, portrayed as a consequence of the customer's failure to properly understand and apply the guru's special knowledge.

    [79] Caselaw that relates to Gurus, reviewed below, explains how gurus present these ideas in seminars, books, websites, and instructional DVDs and other recordings. They provide pre-prepared documents, which sometimes are government forms, and instruct how to fill in the necessary information that then produces the desired effects. Gurus write scripts to follow in court. Some will attempt to act as your representative, and argue your case.

"It is not unusual to find that an OPCA litigant [like Pytellek]
cannot even explain their own materials.
They did not write them.
They do not (fully) understand them

    [80] When gurus do appear in court their schemes uniformly fail, which is why most leaveimages/pseudolegal-conman-mark-pytellek.jpg court appearances to their customers. That explains why it is not unusual to find that an OPCA litigant cannot even explain their own materials. They did not write them. They do not (fully) understand them. OPCA litigants appear, engage in a court drama that is more akin to a magic spell ritual than an actual legal proceeding, and wait to see if the court is entranced and compliant. If not, the litigant returns home to scrutinize at what point the wrong incantation was uttered, an incorrectly prepared artifact waved or submitted.

"... Nothing more than conmen"

      [85] ... In summary, the guru class are nothing more than conmen. Gurus are the usual source of new OPCA concepts, though more often their novel contribution is to simply create a variation on or repackage a pre-existing strategy, perhaps changing language or putting in some particular twist to a concept. Gurus seem to borrow extensively from one another. For example, its appears that parts of a document filed in one OPCA matter may be reproduced in another proceeding.
= = = = = = == = = =
Mark Pytellek: Scammer or the Real Deal?


Do your own research...
= = = = = = == = = =

For more insight into con artists and scammers like Borleis/Pytellek,
read the "Reasons for Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke"
Meads v. Meads 2012 ABQB 571

And also what others have said about Mark Pytellek

Good Luck
Site built with Simple Responsive Template by Prowebdesign.ro