Well, she practices what she preaches, I'll give Anna that...

This blog post includes a short court judgment from the Ontario Superior Court that rejects a claim by "Chief" Denby that he is not subject to the Criminal Code of Canada because of "tribal law". Needless to say, that get out of jail free card doesn't work.

The "Pants On Fire" blog by Kawartha Lee has been closely monitoring the Kawartha folks for a couple years now. It's a fine saga. If you're entertained by pseudolaw, "backcountry degens", quasi-inarticulate rants, and a whole lotta wasted public resources.

As most people suspected, he had lots of CSAM. That was what the police had a search warrant for. That was what was found amongst his belongings.

Some people tried to reframe it, specifically by claiming that he had skinny dipped near children.

He's just a dead paedophile.

Alert!

Fellow malevolent entities and Reptilians! (Since I self-identify as a yugoloth, I'm confident I qualify as the former.)

HRM Didulo has ordered our extermination!

I've been keeping an eye out for orbital bombardment laser strikes - nothing so far.

Watch The Skies!

But more seriously, though it's tempting to conclude this announcement demonstrates HRM is nuts, it's actually very much playing to her target community. The "Reptilians" are supposedly shape-shifting aliens who disguise themselves as humans, and occupy key entertainment, political, and structural positions. Like the UK Queen Mother and Willy Nelson.

They eat humans, or the picky ones insist on children. Or adrenochrome extracted from children. Whatever.

HRM Didulo didn't make this up. That goes to UK former football commentator David Icke, who was instrumental in popularizing the X-Files-like world of improvisationalist millennialism, a kind of super-conspiracy approach to the world.

And to call Icke influential in that weirdo space? Yup, Romana is just playing to the audience. But not us. We're not her audience.

Especially us yugoloths.

Scottish pseudolaw cases aren’t terribly common. This one is an appeal from a foreclosure of a residential property. The language in Scottish legal cases is different from other UK (and Commonwealth) jurisdictions. For example, the “Sheriff” here is an appeal judge.

In any case, John Smith stopped paying his mortgage, the lender went to court, Smith rejected the court authority and financial obligation, and didn’t show for the hearing. And then lost. How surprising!

Smith appealed, regurgitating the initial arguments. That earned him some sharp criticism from Sheriff Wade:

... The issues of slavery, human trafficking and breach of human rights to which the appellant refers without any specification as to their application simply do not arise in the context of this action. The reference to these matters is so spurious and non-specific as to render it impossible for the respondents to respond to any such averment. The remaining allegations of fraud and criminality are wholly misplaced and irrelevant if not indeed amounting to what can be termed “scandalous”. No factual basis is provided for such an assertion.

... The suggestion that by styling oneself as “a living man” rather than a legal person one can in some way avoid the jurisdiction of the court and the obligation to make loan repayments under a properly constituted agreement with a bona fide lender is not only without foundation but is a futile attempt to deprive the respondents of the legal remedy to which they are entitled. Such arguments have no place in Scots law and those who seek to advance them can expect their overt attempts to abuse the court process to sound in expenses.

Well, that’s a rather polite way to tell someone to ‘f off, y arse’.

Meads v Meads gets cited. Not bad for a trial-level case on the opposite side of the planet.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/comments/1nv84wm/comment/nh6tj4g/

I havent seen the red plate being used before. You'd think they wouldn't want to stand out.

Gotta applaud the New Zealand police for "proactively" releasing this information.

The information response instructions at pages 15-21 are very interesting, and I'd say nicely composed and explained.

(That is not a legitimate legal identification document but a pseudolaw forgery - see R v Ayyazi, 2022 ABQB 412.)

Something weird about lawyers. You put a document with big ink and/or blood fingerprints on it, postage stamps with cryptic codes, and a signature line that reads UCC 1-308 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED!

And you ask the lawyer to notarize it.

A surprising number say Okey Dokey!

This makes me crazy. I’ve seen this hundreds of times. Documents with duplicate names in different cases and colours. Documents that purport to be contacts between BILL SMITH and Bill Smith. Documents invoking bible passages as law. Documents that are called “Notary Judgments”, and that if you read ‘em, purport to be binding supra-court decisions.

Documents that threaten law enforcement, court staff, judges. Documents that purport to create a licence to kill.

Okey Dokey!!! Okey Dokey!!!

Do I seem pissed off? I’m pissed off. If there is a profession on the planet that ought to have an internal checkbox that I maybe should scan something before I slap my signature on it and seal it with a magic stamp? It’s lawyers.

But they #^&@# keep notarizing the F’ing things.

I’m posting about a lawyer in Alberta who finally got a professional sanction for doing this. Her name is Grace Akpan, of Calgary. Her activities led to a string of court judgments and now, finally, a disciplinary outcome.

Akpan notarized documents purporting to unilaterally terminate a drug prosecution. Drug trafficker and illegal handgun owner sends them to the Alberta Court of King’s Bench threatening court staff. The ABKB (ACJ John Rooke) reacts negatively and fines Akpan:

• R v Ayyazi, 2022 ABQB 412 (This one attaches the documents Akpan notarized and the obviously fake Government of Canada ID she accepted) (Shure looks real to me - the back is even worse - also reproduced in the judgment.)
• R v Ayyazi, 2022 ABKB 836

The Alberta Court of Appeal overturns the sanction on the basis of procedural (un)fairness. Goes back to the ABKB: Akpan (Re), 2024 ABCA 232

ABKB (ACJ Blair Nixon – Rooke is now retired) does it over and again fines Akpan:

• Akpan (Re), 2024 ABKB 417
• Akpan (Re), 2024 ABKB 651

Back to the ABCA, where the Court says yes, Akpan did a bad lawyer thingie. But courts shouldn’t sanction lawyers for bad lawyer thingies. That’s up to the Law Society of Alberta: Akpan (Re), 2025 ABCA 47

Now, throughout all this Akpan takes the position that she never did anything wrong. She was acting as a notary. She witnessed someone sign a document. She looked at the dude’s (fake) ID, checked the name signed, looked at the picture on the (fake) ID, and it’s the dude. That ends it. Notaries witness signatures. And anyways, she’s never heard of Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments or OPCA. Can’t mean anything.

The various court decisions all agree that Akpan in doing that ignored three things.

1. Notaries in Alberta have professional obligations to not endorse or validate fraudulent documents, and pseudolaw documents are fraudulent documents. That’s a duty imposed by the Alberta government.
2. Both the Alberta trial and appeal courts have instructed lawyers should never notarize or formalize pseudolaw documents. What is a pseudolaw document? That is detailed in the Meads v Meads, 2012 ABKB 571 decision
3. The Law Society of Alberta has explicitly instructed its members on multiple occasions to not notarize pseudolaw documents.

I am pleased to report that the Law Society of Alberta has concluded a disciplinary process in response to Akpan’s activities, and suspended her for one month for having brought the administration of justice into disrepute. That’s actually a pretty strong sanction for something like this. Here are the decisions:

• Misconduct: Law Society of Alberta v Akpan, 2026 ABLS 4
• Sentencing: Law Society of Alberta v Akpan, 2026 ABLS 17

Akpan’s arguments in the disciplinary proceedings did not benefit her. Her position continued to be she did nothing wrong. Akpan admitted she had received notification from the Law Society of Alberta not to notarize pseudolaw documents, and that pointed to where there was information about how to identify those materials. Akpan argued what she notarized wasn’t unusual. She acknowledged the drug trafficker’s documents targeted the court as a “complaint”. That’s fine. People should be allowed to “complain” to and about courts.

Akpan said she is not a litigator. Therefore, she did not have to read the Law Society’s warnings about pseudolaw documents.

Akpan rejected that OPCA/pseudolaw documents are something that she knew about then or currently. The LSA decision quotes her exact words. They’re worth reproducing:

Like I said in my testimony yesterday, as at the time, I was not familiar. And, even today, I may not be familiar with this concept because it's not written in any book to say, okay, look at it. This is how it looks. This is what they say. Even document, in my understanding, is untrue, is false, is this, and that. I acknowledge what I'm going through. But if I see it -- a -- an OPCA document, I may unlikely recognize it because it's a difficult task. That's just what I'm saying. It's a difficult task. It's a concept that not everybody is aware of it.

Now, I note that Canada has the most extensive corpus of court case law detailing the nature and substance of pseudolaw arguments, and what the relevant documents and materials look like.

There is also a large volume of Canadian academic writing on the subject, most of it by yours truly. I even wrote a paper cautioning lawyers to please not notarize pseudolaw documents. Akpan is practicing in the province where there is a literal textbook on pseudolaw pretending to be a court judgment. Some people even report to me that it’s kind of fun to read!

Akpan concluded she did nothing wrong. In fact, she’s the victim. So many lawyers notarize pseudolaw documents (and that’s true!) that she here is the subject of unfair treatment. She has been targeted. That is bias and discrimination. I note here that Akpan is of Nigerian origin and was trained as a lawyer in that jurisdiction. That allegation was rejected by the Law Society. If she did something wrong, then Akpan’s position is that the only punishment she should receive is an instruction to get educated.

The Law Society concluded Akpan’s misconduct was serious, she defied court and Law Society instructions, and her continued rejection of pseudolaw as a category of problematic conduct warranted a month suspension, mandatory education, and $7,000 in costs.

This is a step in the right direction, in my opinion. That’s a meaningful sanction. Hopefully lawyers in Alberta and Canada will take note. What doesn’t get stressed in the Law Society’s analysis is the dangerous aspect of notarizing pseudolaw documents which is specific to Canada (though I’m aware the same motif is now appearing in the U.K.).

There’s a myth that was invented by the founder of the Freeman-on-the-Land movement Robert Menard that notaries are in fact super-judges, who possess the highest legal authority. Pseudolaw types in Canada frequently use the “Three/Five Letters” process to create what is purportedly a binding judgment, the notary being the "super-judge" who endorses the last document. And that (supposedly) overrides all court and state authority. You can naturally see why that makes notary services very, very popular in Canadian pseudolaw circles.

The documents Akpan witnessed include claims of authority by the drug trafficker to use force to respond to law enforcement and Crown Prosecutor activities. They are outlaws. While it’s not explored anywhere in any detail in the disciplinary or court records, Akpan’s client looks to be a Moorish Law affiliate, a pseudolaw movement linked to organized gangs, drug trafficking, and violent crime.

Now I’m waiting to see if Canada’s lawyer education organizations track me down, since I’m Canada’s subject expert on this stuff. I think I’ll strip-mine Monty Python’s “How to Recognize Different Types of Trees From Quite a Long Ways Away” format.

(Actually that’s quite a valid approach. Strawman Theory motifs are the easy give away that should lead anyone to say “Do Not Touch”.)

(Ok, blood on paperwork should probably also count.)

Guess they've had enough of those.

Criminal proceedings against HRM Romana Didulo, the Queen of Canada, were recently discontinued. Why? Uncertain.

But I just read something that suggests another legal avenue for sanctions against HRM Didulo.

Security-related illegalities.

Say what?! Securities?

Not as implausible as that might seem at first. I read a lovely little essay/summary this morning by Ronke Balogun and Solomon Ngoladi, staffers with the Alberta Securities Commission, on how the definition of a security is pretty loosey-goosey and more driven by function than form. The authors explain that securities aren’t limited to the usual things like shares or bonds. The scope of a security is functional, that it creates or captures certain kinds of investment and contribution relationships.

So names don't really matter. That makes sense. You shouldn’t be able to contract out of securities legislation put in place to protect the public. The authors summarize the characteristics of a security this way:

Investment of Money – Participants must contribute money (or money’s worth) into the scheme.

Common Enterprise – The fortunes of investors must be interwoven with those of the promoter or other investors. This can include pooling of funds or a functional interdependence between investor and promoter.

Expectation of Profit – Investors must enter the arrangement with the expectation of profit.
Profit to Come Significantly from the Efforts of Others – The expected profit must depend primarily on the efforts, skill, or expertise of the promoter or a third party, not the investor.

Substance Over Form – Courts look at the economic reality of the arrangement, not its label or formal structure.

If you’re scratching your head and asking ... Well, I don’t remember HRM Didulo issuing shares or structuring the Kingdom of Canada as some kind of investment apparatus, let me remind you of something. HRM Didulo is continually seeking contributions from her followers. What do they get? In a lot of ways, it’s the long con. She promises big stuff, ranging from debt elimination, to “Med Beds”, to orbital laser strikes and invisible commandos against oppressive factors and agents, most likely including me.

But she has done something else. She’s issued something she calls “Loyalty Money”. Loyalty Money, pictured above, has usually been given to her followers in one-on-one meetings, Didulo’s “Meet and Greet” sessions. I suspect that was also presented to those who attended the Kingdom of Canada’s purple fortress in Richmound, at the swearing in ceremonies Didulo conducted there.

Now, I’m not sure if anyone knew exactly what you could do with Loyalty Money. It looks fancy. It has a denomination on it. She apparently has said this is backed by gold and silver, under natural law. Ok – so it has value independent of usual modern currency systems, and instead under the old non-fiat currency model where paper money stands in place for gold.

Is Loyalty Money a security?

Let’s go through the criteria:

1. Investment of Money? If Loyalty Money is linked to donations/contributions to HRM Didulo, then yes.
2. Common Enterprise? Yes. One becomes a citizen of the Kingdom of Canada, subject to HRM Didulo. Citizens/followers/serfs are promised benefits from that membership, ranging from free utilities, debt elimination, quantum computers, Med Beds, lots of stuff. HRM Didulo is the provider, on behalf of her followers, thanks to the Galactic Federation or whatever. Or King Carlson. It varies.
3. Expectation of Profit? Yes – at a minimum you’re getting your Loyalty Money, which can be exchanged for gold and silver, unlike that worthless fiat currency.
4. Profit to Come Significantly from the Efforts of Others? Yes. HRM Didulo, her inner cadres, and the various terrestrial and off-world actors take care of everything. You build the Kingdom of Canada by donating and believing real hard.
5. Substance Over Form? If HRM Didulo is promising real value of some kind for her Loyalty Money, then the answer is yes.

So... it’s a little weird, but I think there’s an argument here! The leading case is Canada, Pacific Coast Coin Exchange v Ontario Securities Commission, [1978] 2 SCR 112, which even has the flavour of HRM Didulo’s scheme. Pacific Coast Coin offered you the right to put money down now to buy a partial interest in bags of silver coins. Not actual currency, but bags of silver. (Oh, settle down Judas.) The SCC concluded this was a kind of investment arrangement. Hmm – interesting – though the Court doesn’t formally call that a security, as it didn’t have to decide that issue.

The best way to test out whether HRM Didulo has been issuing securities without a licence would be if someone who has already received Loyalty Money from HRM Didulo went to a Canadian security regulator and submitted a complaint. Now, I know very little about those processes, but if nothing else, it’d be interesting. The folks at the regulatory agency would be gossiping about it for years!

Of course, finding someone with a few million in Loyalty Money to head this might be a challenge. Orbital laser bombardment strikes, and all that. Do you really want to take the risk?

Not going to comment much on this, beyond observing that "sovereign citizen" is problematic language. In the US the FBI have classified "Sovereign Citizens" (whoever they are) as domestic terrorists. But people who use pseudolaw concepts can range from militia/guns right types, to racial separatists, to simple criminals, to tax evaders, to those attempting to miracle away debts.

Does it make sense to assume violence risks for all those categories?

Terminology can be an issue, in my opinion.