I meant to say Send lawyers (with some degree of competence), guns (stolen handguns, threatening, and that old standby, coke), and money (weird OPCA versions of equity law and trusts).
Anyways, this recent, and local to me, court case caught my attention. I normally do a weekly search on Canlii using “Cpn7” as a search term but since this was a criminal, rather than a civil matter, I missed it. Here is a rather poorly written news article that has caused a bit of a stir in the legal profession. Poorly written because it never linked to the case and the stir because:
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ju ... traffickerJudge threatens to fine lawyer who approved 'pseudo-law' documents filed by accused cocaine trafficker
'If a lawyer facilitates this kind of illegal and sometimes criminal conduct, then the message needs to be sent that that’s not acceptable'
The Alberta Law Society took enough notice that it re-issued this warning to its members the next day:
https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/resource-c ... -the-land/
So let's take a look at the defendant in question, a certain Ali Mohamed Ayyazi. He has a bit of a long history in the local guns and drugs scene as you can see by this article from 2007:
https://totalrecoil.wordpress.com/2007/ ... us-travel/
No comment is necessary about the legal argument that he used then:
In his latest brush with the law, something about the sale of illicit recreational pharmaceuticals (cocaine), Ayyazi dismissed his lawyer and stopped making court appearances and went full on OPCA and filed some interesting documents with the court that had actually been notarized by a lawyer.In an ironic twist, a city man may find himself barred from travelling to the U.S. for driving around Calgary with a loaded handgun, his lawyer said yesterday.
Defence counsel Andre Ouellette said Ali Mohamed Ayyazi’s conviction on two firearms offences could prevent him visiting his parents, who now reside in Texas, which has more liberal gun laws than Canada.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2 ... ultIndex=1
There were a couple of documents in the filing that raised the interest of the court. First of all was Ayyazi's identification. Here you go:
Sorry folks, but this is patently bogus. Ignoring the fact that a Calgary address is not part of the County of Rockyview, it appears that Ayyazi has gone to the trouble of registering a trust in the name of his deceased self with the CRA. I recently used that “Represent a Client” process myself as an estate administrator for a deceased relative who was intestate. Death Certificate – check, letter explaining that under Alberta provincial law what I was doing was legal – check, authorization form signed by myself giving myself the authority to represent the deceased person – Oh well, the tax gods work in wondrous ways. In any case, there is no such thing as a “Canada Revenue Agency Register Client Common Law ID”. Ayyazi has just picked up cool phrases from the CRA site – you register yourself as a representative for tax matters of an estate or estate trust.Appendix “B” - “Canada Revenue Agency Registrar Client - Details” “Common Law ID”
Photographs of the identification documents. The driver’s licence appears to be a legitimate government issued document, however the “Government of Canada” “Canada Revenue Agency Registry Client - Details” card (see Appendix “B”) is obviously a fraudulent false document. On its front it lists both an all upper-case “Strawman” name, “Legal Name: ALI MOHAMED AYYAZI”, and then “Operating Name: Ali Mohamed Ayyazi, Association”. If that was not enough of a give-away that this was an improper document, its back references the “Ayyazi© Estate Trust”, whose purported “Beneficial Owner” is “Ali Ayyazi”. Succinctly, Mr. Ayyazi is claiming to be the beneficial owner of himself, which is an “Estate Trust”. If that were not enough to make obvious this is not a legitimate Canadian government-issued ID, the bottom back reads: “This Common Law ID is property of the Trust and Beneficial Owner”. Not only is “Common Law ID” nonsense, but a trained lawyer would be expected to question that a government-issued ID is “owned” by the person it is issued to. I also note that if Ms. Akpan had conducted a “Google” search with the phrases “Canada Revenue Agency” and “Registry Client” - that is printed on the Appendix “B” card as its title - she would have found no Government of Canada website or reference to that language.
The other significant item in the document package was the following set of notarized documents:
Sort of a get out of jail free document is the best description of the above. I am not sure of whatever happened to Ayyazi. He hasn't shown up for any court appearances for a year so I suspect he is still on the lam. In a twist ACJ Rooke had some words for the lawyer who notarized the document package:Notice of Interest, in-trust.
Generally, in all matters not particularly mentioned in this Notice in which there is any conflict or variance between the rules of equity and the rules of the common law with reference to the same matter, the rules of equity prevail.
Appointment of Fiduciary and Trustee: Christina Magee (Deputy Clerk of the Court)
Assignment: Settlement in Equity.
RE: Warrant
ARTICLE I:
NOTICE TO VACATE ANY AND ALL WARRANTS
I have reserved all of my rights on order of release form and placed a (financing statement) lien on Docket No. 200085314Ql and all matters pertaining to docket No. 200085314Q have been vacated, which brings into question the Double Jeopardy rules. The Crown prosecutor(s) seems to be taking these matters personally and have crossed over to harassment and causing harm and injury to private third parties. The Warrant in question is herein attached. We believe the warrant is a question of fraud and wish for its immediate dismissal or removal from the public records.
I have accepted the offer and returned it for consideration for the charges to be extinguished, set-off or dismissed, this is made clear in my Affidavit For Ali Mohamed Ayyazi, that was filled into court in relation to my Criminal matters via the Civil Forfeiture court Dates filed Jul, 8, 2020.
ARTICLE II:
NOTICE OF DEMAND
I require the release of Warrant for Arrest (Form 7), for this Warrant for Arrest. The requirement is now placed as a demand on the trustee. The cause of action (demand) is due to the Warrant violating the Constitutionally protected rights of the estate and heir. I come as the heir. Where the trustee and the Court believes otherwise and that I am not being harmed and damaged, I require for my accounting in-trust.
a. The proof of verification of Warrant is required and,
b. An attachment of an Affidavit for the Warrant and,
c. Oath of seizure and Certificate of the Bond that created the Warrant is required and,
d. The full name of Judge or Justice of the Peace or the Deputy Clerk of the Court or the Chief Judge endorsed the warrant and I ask as duty to the Stinchcombe Disclosure.
ARTICLE lll:
NOTICE OF ESTOPPEL
Where none of these requirements are met, The Trustee shall be held liable for Securities Fraud by creating a Bond by Usury of a Trademark Name which is property of a Trust. Trustees' good faith compliance and responsible is required within 7 business days.
ARTICLE VII:
NOTICE TO SETTLE PRIVATELY
We wish for peace and goodwill and ask for removal of the death issued warrant as it is harmful to our estate and livelihood and in good faith present notice to trustees' to steer the estate and heirs out of the line harm and danger.
[35] I find, on a balance of probabilities, that Ms. Akpan has participated in OPCA schemes to foist illegal obligations on Court personnel, to unilaterally usurp Court authority and attempt to negate a binding Court Order, and to obtain a “get out of jail free” card so her client can (allegedly) ignore Canadian law, and not be subject to criminal prosecution, which denies the Crown’s unique authority to initiate and pursue criminal legal sanctions. I also find, on a balance of probabilities, that Ms. Akpan did so knowingly, or was willfully blind to the illegality that she participated in.
[36] Ms. Akpan has 14 days from the date of this Decision to provide the Court with written submissions on why she should not be liable for a monetary penalty paid to the Court under Rule 10.49, or under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, for her breach of her duties as an Officer of this Court, by her participation in Mr. Ayyazi’s pseudolaw “get out of jail free” scheme. The Crown may also make submissions on this point, due on the same date. I stress that Ms. Akpan should also address the reverse onus against her that results from her participation in a Strawman Theory-based pseudolaw scheme.