naomi arbabi, a Canadian lentzian Lawyer

[Burnaby49]

naomi arbabi (she follows Karl Lentz’s idiotic ritual of using all lower case for names) has decided to go all in on Lentz’s sovereign nonsense in a lawsuit against one of her strata building neighbours whom she's suing for $30,000 plus $1,000 per day from October 8th to whenever the naomi arbabi court (we’ll get to that) resolves the issue in Naomi’s favour (I’m using correct capitalization from here on). She also wants administrative costs of $4,200 plus court fees and other expenses;

Keep in mind while reading this thread that Arbabi is a lawyer practicing in Vancouver who assures us, on her firm’s website, that she is in good standing with the Law Society of British Columbia.

https://envisionlawcorp.com/team/naomi-arbabi/

Her two-lawyer firm calls itself “a boutique law firm specializing in real estate, business and estate law”. Basically they seem to be involved in bread and butter legal work regarding real estate transfers, writing wills, powers of attorney, stuff that I’ve usually used a Notary to handle.

We’ve had a long-standing thread on Karl Lentz here;

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=10467

The thread was started in early 2015. The last postings, made just a few months ago, related that Lentz is currently in jail for torturing animals. As Wes wrote;

Actually, many, many animals. Lentz been charged with what the VA calls "tortures, willfully inflicts inhumane injury or pain not connected with bona fide scientific or medical experimentation, or cruelly and unnecessarily beats, maims, mutilates or kills any animal whether belonging to himself or another". VA Code Art. 9, § 3.2-6570. It's a felony. Following a civil hearing about a month after his arrest, a court upheld the seizure of the live (but very sick) animals and prohibited Lentz from owning any more. Moreover, from VA court records it appears that Lentz is still in jail after three months. His next court date is Monday.

Earlier in that thread it was reported that Karl had argued that it was entirely legal for his own father to sexually molest his (Karl’s) 13 year old daughter as long as he did it at home rather than in public. Now, personally, an animal torturer who’s also an advocate for sexually molesting children isn’t exactly the guru I’d choose to follow regardless of their legal track record. You'd think that this background is of particular relevance to Arbabi who claims to be "a long-time advocate for the environment including animals". But maybe I’m just being overly judgmental. Of possibly more relevance to Arbabi is that there has never been a reported instance of a single victory by Lentz or by anyone using Lentz’s ‘legal’ advice. You’d think this might carry some weight with a practicing lawyer but Naomi has chosen to abandon all of her legal training and has gone full-frontal Karl.

It all started with a minor incident, a privacy divider put up between two balconies in a condominium building located at 1082 West 8th Avenue, Vancouver. A very good location and a nice looking building, you can look it up on Street View. This is the building where Colleen McLelland, the defendant, resides. Unfortunately for her it’s also the building where Arbabi resides. The facts, as simple as they are, are in dispute with significant discrepancies between McLelland’s document-supported version of events and Arbabi’s totally unsupported bald statements. The basic facts, as claimed by the parties, are given in a couple of news reports on the lawsuit;

Vancouverites are known to cherish their magnificent views of the city and nature. A lawsuit filed this month in BC Supreme Court aims to pin a value on exactly how much a “beautiful” view of the ocean, mountains and Stanley Park is worth.

Naomi Arbabi is suing Colleen McLelland for “trespass,” for allegedly installing a nearly 1.7-metre-tall privacy wall at the border of McLelland’s part of a rooftop deck that she shares with Arbabi and two other neighbours.

Arbabi said in her Oct. 5 notice of civil claim that she bought her home in a strata complex at 1082 West 8th Avenue in June 2021.

“I did rely on views in making the decision to purchase the property,” she said, adding that the view also factored into how much she was willing to pay to buy her strata unit.

Arbabi said in her lawsuit that when she bought her home, McLelland had a “much lower, clear glass divider.”

She alleges that McLelland installed the taller privacy wall on Sept. 5, and that she did not remove it when Arbabi asked her to take it down. Arbabi said she made "many attempts" to keep the matter private and to resolve it peacefully but McLelland did not provide a remedy to the situation.

https://www.newwestrecord.ca/economy-la ... ew-7670900

and this similar one I won’t quote;

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/econ ... th-7758695

However I don’t consider the above news reports entirely reliable. The one I quoted gives what is claimed to be a quote from the October 5th Notice of Civil Claim;

"I did rely on views in making the decision to purchase the property,” she said, adding that the view also factored into how much she was willing to pay to buy her strata unit.

Obviously that’s incorrect for two reasons;

1 – I have the Notice of Civil Claim in front of me and that statement isn’t in it.
2 – The quote is in coherent English.

The closest comment to that quote in the Notice is this;

Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. i: a woman, claim:

CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF(S)

i, believe the property of i, is what is proper to i, exclusive of all others within the society and i, claim the apartment located at unit 304, 1092 west 8th avenue, vancouver, british columbia including but not limited to all its aesthetic appeals in form of its breathtaking views of the ocean, the mountains, the bridges, stanley
park and more as the property of i;

2, i, claim that a woman, colleen mclelland, after being noticed does knowingly trespass on i; 3. i, claim the trespass comes by way of loss of enjoyment and loss of value of the said property of i, and administrating the property of i, without right or consent, and these trespasses do and does cost financial loss, loss of property, enjoyment and stress;

We’ll get back to the details of Arbabi’s Notice of Claim later. Note that neither news article delved into the Lentzian cesspool of sovereign madness but instead treat this as largely a normal property dispute.

The more or less agreed facts are that both parties live at 1082 West 8th Avenue in Vancouver, Arbabi owns unit 304 and McLelland owns unit 302 with unit 303 between them. The resident of 303 is not a party to the litigation. All three units share a rooftop deck with privacy dividers between their units. However the owner in 303, without permission or authorization, tore down an existing divider between his unit and McLelland's unit but apparently did not remove the divider between himself and Arbadi. The missing divider was replaced and this replacement is the sole basis for Arbabi’s lawsuit. She claims that McLelland personally replaced an almost invisible clear divider with a section of the Berlin Wall thereby destroying her spectacular view of Vancouver’s magnificent mountain scenery and, as a result, inflicting emotional and financial distress on her.

I’m going to reverse the usual order that I write up my court reviews and give my analysis of the legal merits of both side's arguments first based on real, non-Lentzian, law then consider Arbabi’s Karl Lentz based court filings and arguments in more detail.

This is the core of Arbabi’s lawsuit as set out in her Notice of Claim;

CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF(S)

2. i, claim that a woman, colleen mclelland, after being noticed does knowingly trespass on i;

3. i claim the trespass comes by way of loss of enjoyment and loss of value of the said property of i, and administrating the property of i, without right or consent, and these trespasses do and does cost financial loss, loss of property, enjoyment and stress;

4. i, claim to have full vested interest.in said property since July of the year 2021;

5. i, claim that commencement of the trespass began on September 5, 2023 at approximately 10 am when the woman, colleen mclelland caused to be installed a 66 1/2 inch tall privacy wall at the border of her part of the rooftop deck which is shared with i, and two other neighbours, thereby blocking the view of the ocean, mountains, stanley park, bridges and more from the property of i;

6. i, claim the trespass continues to this day, October 5, 2023;

7. i, claim after being noticed and requested by i, to-have a discussion to find a solution whereby both our concerns with regards to our properties can be resolved, the woman, colleen mclelland did not provide remedy and instead demonstrated her intention to resort to threats, extortion and barratry against i;

Readers should note that the current meaning of barratry is;

"vexatious litigation or incitement to it."

Given how this case is going to be decided, a very ironic claim on Arbabi's part.

This is her ‘legal basis’ for the claim

Part 3: LEGAL BASIS

1. This is a claim of trespass by way of loss as pressed by a woman: naomi arbabi, against a woman: colleen mclelland;

2. this is a claim based on law of the land, and not a complaint based on legal codes acts or statutes;

3. a claim of trespass by way of loss did arise when after many attempts to keep this matte'r private and resolve the dispute peacefully in a manner that preserves the rights of both sides to the use and enjoyment and administration of their own property, the woman: colleen mclelland did not provide remedy or a lawful excuse;

4. i, state i , did acquire my property at a time when a much lower, clear glass divider that was installed previous to this 66 1/2 inch wall allowed the addition of the aesthetic appeals of the said views to the property of i, and i, did rely on views in making the decision to purchase the property of i, and in negotiating a purchase price for the property of i;

5. i, state i, did conduct due diligence searches to inquire about the conditions of the property of i, and the neighbouring properties and did not find any evidence of the woman: colleen mclelland having the right to block the view of other properties behind her property

6. therefore, the woman: colleen mclelland, is estopped from asserting a right to install such a wall on her property that will block the view from the property of i;

7. i, say herein and verify in open court all be true;

Essentially Arbabi is claiming that McLelland personally had the divider installed. She alone is responsible for it and the consequential suffering, both emotional and financial, that Arbabi is experiencing as a result of that action. Arbabi’s documents do not mention any other parties having any responsibility in this issue, McLelland is solely liable.

However Arbabi, notwithstanding her purported expertise in property law, has blatantly ignored the elephant in the room. She’s made no mention whatever in her documentation of the most critical party, by far, involved in the series of transactions, the strata council. All Vancouver strata zoned condominium buildings have very strict and restrictive rules in respect to what changes owners can make to their own units and the strata councils are responsible for enforcing these rules. Strata units are a huge investment and owners want to maintain that value by keeping the building up to the standards outlined in the rules. I once owned a strata apartment and I wasn’t allowed to make any external modifications of any kind without specific council approval nor could I make plumbing or electrical changes, remove walls or make modifications like changing windows or hallway doors without approval. Anyone purchasing a strata unit must agree to abide by the strata rules as a condition of purchase. This would have applied to McLelland and Arbabi.

So, if McLelland, as Arbabi has claimed, had put up an unauthorized, non-standard divider why didn’t Arbabi make a complaint to the party with the legal power to resolve it, the strata council? Why has she sued Mclelland directly without working through the council? The answers to these questions constitute the heart of McLelland’s defense.

These statements are in McLelland’s Notice of Application;

NOTICE OF APPLICATION

PART 2: FACTUAL BASIS

1. This motion to strike application concerns a privacy divider that was re-installed by Strata Corporation Strata Plan VR 1542, represented by strata council "Strata", on September 5, 2023.

2. The privacy divider was re-installed by Strata on the Limited Common property, "LCP" of the Applicant "Colleen Mclelland"', owner of Strata Lot 26 unit #302.

3. The original divider was removed and disposed of by the owner of strata lot 27, unit #303, without Strata approval. This owner's strata lot borders the LCP of Colleen Mclelland's, but he is not a party to this litigation.

4. By removing the divider, the owner of unit #303, made signiflcant changes to the LCP of both strata lots 26 and 27, that were not authorized by Strata. Accordingly, the changes were not taken to a vote by the other owners or registered with the Land Titles Office.

5. The Respondent,"Naomi Arbabi "Is the owner of •strata lot 28, unit #304, whose LPC borders the owner of strata lot 27, unit #303. Naomi Arbabl's LCP does not border Colleen McLelland's LCP.

6. Strata wrote to Naomi Arbabi on September 5, 2023 (the document was incorrectly dated February 5, 2023), and stated that it was "abiding by the letter of the Strata Act as advised by counsel in first replacing the divider and then ensuring that the owners of 303/304/305 understood there was a Strata Act procedure to replace the original with an alternative."

7. Colleen Mclelland is not a member of the Strata council.

So McClelland’s story is that she had nothing to do with the erection of the new divider. It was authorized by order of the strata council and Arbabi had been informed of this before she started the lawsuit. Even if McLelland had requested that the divider be put up (and there is no mention of this in the documentation) its construction was still solely the responsibility of the council. So the council was, legally, the only possible party Arbabi could sue in this lawsuit.

If the statements in the Notice of Application can be confirmed through documentation (and I assume they can) this is a complete defence and as far as I can see Arbabi has no chance of prevailing. So how does one fight a lawsuit in such a hostile legal reality? By entirely ignoring legal reality as we know it and arguing your case in the alternate world of Lentzian fantasy law!

So Arbabi, in a remarkable document she calls a Notice of Requirement of Court, ordered the Supreme Court of British Columbia to transform itself into the “naomi arbabi court” and follow the made-up court rules and procedures that Karl Lentz pulled out of his ass years ago. The critical ones are;

1 – The Supreme Court will not be the court hearing the lawsuit (that’s now the responsibility of the naomi arbabi court) but the Supreme Court must provide her with a courtroom in which the naoni arbabi court can hold its hearing.

2 – However “in order to move this claim through the naomi arbabi court in a timely manner” Arbabi is willing to use standard Supreme Court forms but with the stipulation that she is free to modify them as she chooses to meet the unstated requirements of the naomi arbabi court. The Supreme Court is also put on notice that Arbabi is not personally subject to “any legal titles, legal codes, acts or statutes”. This claim, that the laws Arbabi argues on behalf of her clients don’t apply to her personally, is pretty hardcore sovereign stuff coming from a practicing lawyer.

She’s also helpfully provided a set of naomi arbabi court rules the court is required to follow.

1 – The trial will be held by a Supreme Court of British Columbia judge but he’ll be required to swear this oath before trial;

i, [state your name] give oath that i, will be true to serve those of mankind in the
office of judge or magistrate and will do right by all manner of mankind, and
uphold the law, there to witness a claim with facts to support said claim and to
render a verdict without fear, favour, affection or ill will so help i, god;

2 – She’s found a way around the problems I previously noted regarding the fact that, legally, McLelland has nothing to do with this issue and the strata council is the correct defendant. Laws, as the Supreme Court of British Columbia understands and applies them, will not be valid in the naomi arbabi court!

this court will not accept any legal arguments, codes, acts and or statutes as this is a court in law based on the law of the land and therefore a presumption of contract does not apply to i

3 - Given the marked deck Arbabi has set up she’s guaranteed herself a win but this presents her with a problem. She still has to somehow be able to legally enforce the damages awarded to her by the naomi arbabi court. This was always a critical weakness with the British Common Law Courts. They merrily pumped out reams of court orders but everyone just ignored them and they had no way of enforcing them. However Lentz, with his legal genius, figured out a solution. Once the naomi arbari court has issued its order Naomi will graciously allow the Supreme Court of British Columbia to take over the case and reissue the naomi arbari court order as a Supreme Court of British Columbia court order backed by the full enforcing powers of that court.

But don’t rely on my probably bias interpretation, read the documents yourself. These are the transcripts of The Notice of Requirement of Court and the Rules of Court that Arbari filed with the Supreme Court of British Columbia;

Notice
of requirement of court

October 5, 2023

Greetings to the man or the woman, who at times acts as the clerk of the court; i, am
grateful for your time, your attention and your services;

i: a woman; naomi arbabi; say at a time when those of mankind trespass on the rights of i, and in doing so instead of providing remedy they knowingly hide behind the complexities of the legal system, it is time for i, to come forward as a woman present in honour to seek remedy by opening a case to press this claim of trespass against those of mankind i, believe have done trespass to i;

i, say after many attempts to keep this private and to operate as a woman with rights, no remedy has been given and instead only more wrongs have been committed by way of threats, extortion and barratry which if carried out i, say amount to abuse of the legal system;

this has led i, to now require a court of record to press a claim of trespass and to present i, before a man or woman who is competent of property and trespass law, there to keep the peace and put forward the orders of naomi arbabi court;

i, wish to press this claim on a woman i, believe knowingly continues to trespass on the rights of i, and whom i, have noticed of this trespass;

for the sake of clarity, i, will not be appearing or representing as a member of the bar association or under any surname or as a civilian, and i, will not diminish the status of i, to any legal titles such as but not limited to lawyer, pro se, complainant, plaintiff or claimant;

i, will be present simply as a woman to press a claim of trespass;

i, simply require a room to move this case through the court and i, choose to be present before a court of record under oath, there to testify with facts to support claim of trespass;

i, require no legal advice and no legal forms as i, am not present as a member of the
bar association and this is a claim, not a complaint;

that said, in order to move this claim through the naomi arbabi court in a timely manner, i, may agree in good faith to use your forms with variations noted within the forms or as described in a notice such as this or other attachments to fit the circumstances of this claim, but this should not be construed by any man or woman as the submission of i, to any legal titles, legal codes, acts or statutes;

for any requests or concerns please call 778-251-9877 or email
naomiarbabi@gmail.com;
i, say herein and verify in open court all be true;

Rules of Court

1. i: a woman; naomi arbabi; will be present to press a claim of trespass under oath at the naomi arbabi court on the date scheduled by the clerk of the court at the court of british columbia supreme court;

2. i, require the man who at times acts as judge or magistrate to give his oath to the
following at the naomi arbabi court:
i, [state your name] give oath that i, will be true to serve those of mankind in the
office of judge or magistrate and will do right by all manner of mankind, and
uphold the law, there to witness a claim with facts to support said claim and to
render a verdict without fear, favour, affection or ill will so help i, god;

3. i, require a court of record for the naomi arbabi court at the court of british
columbia supreme court;

4. i, require every man and woman summoned to give oath to testify to what is true
under penalty of perjury;

5. this court will not accept any legal arguments, codes, acts and or statutes as this
is a court in law based on the law of the land and therefore a presumption of
contract does not apply to i;

6. this court will only accept claims with facts and evidence to support any and all
claims;

7. this court is to be private;

8. i, say if the woman summoned for trespass does not have a lawful excuse for the
trespass or claims to the contrary, and the man or woman acting as magistrate or
the jury has the findings of facts and conclusions of law on the record to make a
verdict in favour of i, the woman whom now presses this claim, then the orders of
the naomi arbabi court are to be enforced and orders presented before said court
to be tendered to the clerk of the court with the final verdict, the orders binding
bear the court seal of the court of british columbia supreme court upon it and is to
be carried out in 21 days of the verdict; i, say if the men or women or clerk of the
court believes it is not possible to proceed in this lawful manner, then the naomi
arbabi court requires their findings of facts and conclusions of law on the record
to prevent trespass on a case;

i, say all herein be true and will verify at open court;

Unfortunately for Arbabi this isn’t new territory, many Canadian litigants have already tried Lentz’s bullshit and all have failed, leaving behind a copious trail of adverse decisions. A key case is a decision by Justice Rooke of Alberta’s court of Queen’s Bench (as it was then) who called Lentz inspired personal courts “do-it-yourself vigilante courts” and quoted from a prior decision;

“This type of gibberish is abusive on its face. Its purpose is to clog the courts and make people waste time responding rather than helping people with actual cases.”

Anderson v Ossowski
2021 ABQB 382
https://canlii.ca/t/jfw2p

This is the same Sandra Anderson already discussed on Quatloos. She doesn’t have her own discussion because I actually found her massive number of lawsuits so complicated I quit trying to write it up.

Anderson v Ossowski is an application to have Anderson declared a vexatious litigant based on her past history of abusive OPCA litigation including the forming of her own “Anderson Court”. She was eventually declared a vexatious litigant.

The court made the following comments in the decision.

[19] While Ms. Anderson’s materials replicated in Appendices “A-C” may appear cryptic, this Court is very well aware of what these items entail and their source. These documents are attempts to employ pseudolaw concepts taught by US Sovereign Citizen Carl Rudolph Lentz, who usually self-identifies as “i a Man, Karl Lentz”. Lentz is an OPCA guru (Meads at paras 85-158), a person who teaches ineffective pseudolaw techniques for profit.

[20] Lentzian materials are easily identified because Lentz and his customers consistently refer to themselves as “i, a man” or “i, a woman”, usually with a lower case “i”. Why they do so is not obvious. Lentz is the inventor of the do-it-yourself vigilante court scheme. In brief, Lentz says anyone can go to a government operated courthouse, and then, with the correct documents such as those in Appendix “A-C”, can requisition court facilities and conduct your own trial, as “prosecutor”, against “wrongdoers” who have “trespassed” on imaginary pseudolaw rights. These are purportedly “common law” proceedings, as that term is misused in OPCA circles (Meads at paras 326-330), rather than the “commercial” or “admiralty law” proceedings that are (falsely) claimed to be what real courts actually conduct.

[21] I would comment on how proceedings in the “Anderson Court” or the “Parhar Court” would operate, except, unsurprisingly, that there are no instances I am aware of where any Canadian court has permitted Lentzian do-it-yourself courts to set up shop in their premises.

[24] Canadian courts have repeatedly rejected Lentzian pseudolaw concepts, for example:

• R v d’Abadie, 2016 SKQB 101, aff’d 2016 SKCA 72 leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37507 (28 September 2017)
• SS (Re), 2016 ABPC 170
• Taraba v Erwin, 2017 ONSC 5788
• DKD (Re) (Dependent Adult), 2018 ABQB 1021
• Lemay v Steele, 2019 ABQB 202, actions struck out 2019 ABQB 304, court access restrictions imposed 2019 ABQB 429
• Alberta Treasury Branches v Hawrysh, 2019 ABQB 566
• Yaremkevich v Jacula, 2019 ABQB 620, action struck out 2020 ABQB 175
• Babb v Parrish & Heimbecker Limited, 2019 ABQB 687, court access restrictions imposed 2019 ABQB 831
• Watchel v British Columbia, 2019 BCSC 1087, aff’d 2020 BCCA 100, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 39310 (17 December 2020)
• Dennett v Gilbert, 2020 ONSC 6865, action struck out 2020 ONSC 7455
• Parhar

[25] Some of these cases reproduce and reject Lentzian demands for do-it-yourself vigilante courts: e.g. Lemay v Steele, 2019 ABQB 202 at para 12; Lemay v Steele, 2019 ABQB 429 at para 12; Yaremkevich v Jacula, 2019 ABQB 620 at para 15; Babb v Parrish & Heimbecker Limited, 2019 ABQB 687 at paras 6-12; Babb v Parrish & Heimbecker Limited, 2019 ABQB 831 at para 6.

[26] More recently an apostle of Lentz has emerged in Canada: Christopher James Pritchard. Pritchard advertises his OPCA services on a website titled “A Warrior Calls” (https://awarriorcalls.com). Pritchard has had no more success than Lentz with setting up his own vigilante courts. Attempts by “i Michael [of Sekulovski family]” and “iChristopher [of Pritchard family]” to act as “prosecutors” in “Sekulovski Court” were struck out as “... frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court...”, and the “prosecutors” were ordered to pay $9,282.07 in costs:

I’m going to make a legal prediction even though, unlike the plaintiff, I’m not a lawyer. This is what McLelland has requested from the court;

PART 1: ORDER(S)SOUGHT
1. An order striking all of the Plaintiffs claim.
2. Such further or other relief that this Honourable Court may deem appropriate.
3. full indemnity costs on this application payable forthwith.
4. A court referral of complaint to the Law Society of BC

Apart from, possibly, item 4 I can pretty much guarantee that’s she’s going to get what she's asked for and even item 4 is entirely possible. Canadian courts have had enough of this type of crap. A hearing is scheduled for November 29th and I plan to attend unless Arbabi comes to her senses and drops the lawsuit as part of a very belated attempt at damage control. However I think that unlikely because she seems to have gone completely hardcore. The Canadian Broadcast Corporation plans to do a news story about her epic struggle and they’ve already interviewed her. In response she’s served them with a foisted unilateral agreement demanding $500,000 if they publish anything.

This could start getting extremely serious for Arbari, financially and professionally. Financially she’s probably going to get significant costs awarded against her, that’s what happened in Sekulovski, a very similar facts case

Sekulovski v. Arkin
2021 ONSC 1401
https://canlii.ca/t/jdgdh

As far as professional damage is concerned she claims to be in good standing with the Law Society of British Columbia. How long is that going to last if she gets hit with a vexatious litigant designation or the society gets letters of complaint about her from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the highest level court in the province? That’s entirely possible if she keeps pursuing litigation like this claiming that she has a magic exemption from the laws of Canada or if she starts serving people with foisted unilateral contracts.

As Justice Rooke wrote in Anderson;

[30] This Court has condemned attempts to conduct and/or enforce pseudolaw vigilante courts as an extremely serious form of litigation misconduct, reviewed in Knutson (Re), 2018 ABQB 858 at paras 72-80. Legal and social sciences research identifies vigilante court proceedings, like the “Anderson Court”, as a dangerous precursor of elevated illegal activity by persons who have adopted pseudolaw: e.g. Donald J Netolitzky, “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments [OPCA] in Canada, an Attack on the Legal System” (2016) 10 JPPL 137; Barbara Perry, David Hofmann & Ryan Scrivens, “Anti-Authority and Militia Movements in Canada” (2019) 1:3 J Intelligence, Conflict, and Warfare 1; Stephen A Kent & Robin D Willey, “Sects, Cults, and the Attack on Jurisprudence” (2013) 14 Rutgers’ JL & Religion 306.

I doubt that the Law Society of British Columbia is onboard with its members being personally engaged in activities that the courts call “an extremely serious form of litigation misconduct”.

[eric]

Excellent writeup. The only thing I might add is with respect to awarding of costs. In both Anderson and Sekulovski the plaintiffs had substantial funds that were being held in trust by a third party. Makes it a lot easier to ask for costs when you know the money is there.....

[wserra]

That's quite a story. Were Arbabi here, there is no question that she would be looking at some sort of professional discipline. It might not be disbarment, but it would be something serious - say a suspension of a year or so.

[Burnaby49]

I can't find any indication of any prior similar activities by Arbabi. I find it astonishing that, right out of the gate, she went on this self-destructive Lentzian warpath. As a relatively experienced lawyer she must realize, on some level, that her case is doomed and if she continues it's going to cost her big-time, professionally and financially. She has so much to lose and absolutely nothing to gain but she still continues. Totally beyond my understanding.

That's why I did such an extensive write-up over a trivial dispute (except to the defendant). The issue itself is of no interest to me but Arbabi's crazed sovereign suicide-run is fascinating. It's like a traffic accident, you can't look away.

[JamesVincent]

That's quite a story. Were Arbabi here, there is no question that she would be looking at some sort of professional discipline. It might not be disbarment, but it would be something serious - say a suspension of a year or so.

I would have thought being labeled a vexatious litigate would have been an automatic at least suspension pending further acts.

[Burnaby49]

I don't want to discuss any potential specific disciplinary action when the hearing hasn't yet been held. Time for that after the Supreme Court of British Columbia decision. However, that said, a lawyer pursuing legal strategies identical to those that other Canadian courts have previously described as;

This type of gibberish is abusive on its face. Its purpose is to clog the courts and make people waste time responding rather than helping people with actual cases.

This Court has condemned attempts to conduct and/or enforce pseudolaw vigilante courts as an extremely serious form of litigation misconduct

is setting herself up for a possible review by the Law Society. If the Supreme Court of British Columbia also criticizes her conduct directly to the Law Society, as requested by the defendant, I think a Law Society review of some kind would be inevitable.

Arbabi seems to be attempting to avoid this potential problem by disclaiming that her actions in this lawsuit have any linkage to her professional responsibilities.

for the sake of clarity, i, will not be appearing or representing as a member of the bar association or under any surname or as a civilian, and i, will not diminish the status of i, to any legal titles such as but not limited to lawyer, pro se, complainant, plaintiff or claimant;

i, will be present simply as a woman to press a claim of trespass;

I doubt this disclaimer will carry any weight with the Law Society.

[Arthur Rubin]

Did Lentz (attempt to) explain the significance of the lower case "i"?

[Burnaby49]

Did Lentz (attempt to) explain the significance of the lower case "i"?

I believe Judge Rooke mentioned it in Anderson but said the court didn't know.

Just part of the magic ritual.

[wserra]

Attempting to explain anything that Lentz writes is like attempting to divide by zero - the result won't mean anything. Here, try this, an "i, a man" complaint - er, "claim" - to which I linked in the first post of the Lentz thread.

Eight pages of authentic frontier gibberish.

[Burnaby49]

Just an update on Naomi which is, in fact, no update at all. I've been googling her every few days and there's been no change since my November 12th posting. No new news reports, nothing to indicate she's dropped her doomed lawsuit. As far as I'm aware her hearing is still scheduled for Wednesday morning so I'll be up bright and early to check the court calendar. If it's still a go I'll be there to record and report on the fiasco.

[Burnaby49]

I just spent six dollars of my pathetic pension to get online access to Naomi's filing records. It's still a go with the hearing scheduled for 9:45 tomorrow morning at the downtown courthouse. She's down on the Chambers list for a Chambers Application. I've written about a prior Chambers hearing I attended here;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9377&start=220#p163974

[wserra]

I'm not familiar with that phrase. Is a "Chambers Application" heard in open court?

[DNetolitzky]

Yes. I'm not sure what the term is for the US equivalent.

A "regular" chambers appearance is one of fixed and short duration, typically where each party had 5-15 minutes to advance their argument before either a regular court judge, or a procedure-only decision maker with titles like a Master, Prothonotary, or in my jurisdiction, "Applications Judges". Commonplace chambers applications are for orders such as substitutional service, decisions relating to civil procedure, interim family dispute orders, and so on.

Here, the chambers application is to strike out an obviously hopeless pseudolaw action.

If the decision-maker cannot reach a decision with the data available, then a "special" chambers hearing is scheduled for anything ranging from a couple hours to a day.

"Regular" chambers appearances are usually available in the short term, days to a couple weeks. Depending on how badly a Canadian court is backlogged, "special" chambers may be many, many months away.

Hope that helps!

Donald Netolitzky

[wserra]

It does indeed. Thank you, Donald.

[Burnaby49]

Chambers Sessions are really housekeeping, clearing out a lot of small stuff in one marathon hearing. The parties must estimate the expected duration of the hearing and they can't exceed 2 hours. So a single session can have a dozen individual hearings and they're heard from shortest to the longest estimated required time. In one I was at the first issue heard took 37 seconds (I timed it), just an uncontested court order. Ours was relatively long so even though the session stated at 9:45 it took until past noon to be heard. Below is is the list for today's session, Naomi is scheduled for 20 minutes. I'm not going to bother trying to format it, you can see the actual document here.

https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/courtList ... azS0:cso-1

Select "Supreme Chamber List" "Vancouver Law Courts"

On the 29th day of November, 2023 AT Vancouver Law Courts IN ALL Rooms
Report Id: Printed: 29-NOV-2023 05:55 AMCSOR002
SUPREME COURT CHAMBERS LIST
Page 2 of 2
9:45 AM SESSION 033Room: Chambers Application Reason:

VLC-S-S-236788
File #
B., A. / HENRY, IVAN
GUO, HONG / LI, ZIXIN
CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA / BORDEN, DAVID
BANK OF MONTREAL / SHORT, JEFFREY
SCHEDEWITZ, RICHARD / MANULIFE ASSURANCE
COMPANY OF CANADA / COMPAGNIE D'ASSURANCE
MANUVIE DU CANADA
BENNETT, TRINA / LAWRENCE, FU
DIRECTOR OF CIVIL FORFEITURE / 1135429 BC LTD.
LEADON (VANCOUVER) OPERATIONS LP BY ITS
GENERAL PARTNER LEADON (VANCOUVER)
OPERATIONS GP INC. / PAPAS, GEORGE
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA / BOSIR, MOHAMED
JPD STAFFING INC. / 151 CONSTRUCTION LTD.
FORTEC CONSULTING LTD. / BRITISH COLUMBIA
(WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL)
GUDGEON, SHELLIE / LUND, ANDREW
WONG, CHI / WOO, ALLAN
TYCO INTEGRATED FIRE & SECURITY CANADA INC. /
TYCO FEU ET SECURITE INTEGRES CANADA, INC. /
TWIN MAPLE CONSTRUCTION LTD.
VANCOUVER CITY SAVINGS CREDIT UNION / KAINTH,
INDERPAUL
BANK OF MONTREAL / MANN, INDERPAL
ARBABI, NAOMI / MCLELLAND, COLLEEN
Style
STANLEY, J.
ELLIS, R.
MCDOUGALL, C.
MAGARIL, M.
YANG, L.
MCWHINNIE, D. D.
CLOUGH, E.L.
NUGENT, D. D.
NUGENT, D.D.
Counsel
**

20

[Burnaby49]

Just a quick update. I got home at 5:30 from a very long day in court, possibly the longest I've ever had. There were just under thirty matters slated to be heard this session with one Master slogging her way through all them all. None but Arbabi were of any interest to me. Naomi got her hearing (probably thanks to me, I'll explain why in the write-up but, given her performance, she has nothing to thank me for). We were the very last matter heard and the Court ran into overtime so the Master had to defer her decision.

The defendant showed up and self-represented. As a seasoned court reporter I can attest that she did a very good job. Stuck to the two points I'd mentioned in my original write-up;

1 - Arbabi has sued the wrong party, she should have sued strata council

2 - Her court filings are nothing but vexatious OPCA pseudo-law

Naomi did not disappoint. When it was her turn she exploded in a fire hose blast of pure Lentzian gibberish. If there was any real law in her tirade I missed it. She said that "in my forty years on earth" she hadn't been in a courtroom. It showed.

Anyhow as soon as I got home I popped open a beer, I needed it. When it's done I'm having a second. It might take me a while to write this up, I have pages of notes, much almost illegible even to me, and I need a break.

[Burnaby49]

Started my posting, maybe get it done tonight. I have a favour to ask of Colleen, the defendant. I introduced myself after the hearing and we chatted about the case. She's been reading the Quatloos thread so she already knew who I was.

The decision was deferred but I'm not certain I'll find out when the judge will release it. When you are notified can you let me know? I want to be there to record events.

[eric]

Burnaby49, I imagine you're quivering in your boots in fear of the prospect of receiving one of these notices:

Last month, Arbabi agreed to meet with a CBC reporter to discuss her lawsuit, but upon arrival, declined to answer any questions. Instead, she read out a notice warning of consequences if a story is published without her consent.
"as such harm is a very grievous trespass, i, shall claim remedy in the amount of $500,000 for such trespass plus $5,000 a day for as long as the trespass continues," it reads.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british- ... -1.7025394

[Burnaby49]

Well she seemed to be giving me the evil eye on Wednesday. We were sitting quite close to each other in court but we didn't speak and she didn't hit me with any notices.

I did have a chat with the defendant after the hearing and she cleared up some issues that confused me at the time. It will be in my posting, hopefully today.

[Burnaby49]

Now that she's made the CBC news and the Law Society is aware of her I think she has more pressing problems than my Quatloos postings.

I tried to warn her in my postings that she was on a doomed suicide run but she seems to have turned into a Lentzian true believer.