naomi arbabi, a Canadian lentzian Lawyer

[Burnaby49]

I noticed that when I checked her place out on Street View and saw the the address number on the front of the building but I thought the building might, for some reason, have two addresses.

[dbilinsky]

Further to Donald Netolitzky's post, there is a a great article in the Dalhousie Law Journal: Amy Salyzyn, "The Judicial Regulation of Lawyers in Canada" (2014) 37:2 Dal LJ 481. https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal. ... ontext=dlj

See page 491: III. Regulation of the practice of law: a new era of negligence
This Part examines developments in the courts' regulation of the practice
of law and, in particular, looks at reforms to the civil liability of lawyers
in negligence. As a result of the courts' rejection of exceptional treatment
for lawyers in this area and their creation of new sources of liability for
lawyers rooted in negligence, the competence of lawyers is now subject to
more rigourous scrutiny and examined across a greater number of contexts
than in the pre-1970s era. In undertaking these measures, the courts have,
therefore, both asserted themselves in a key regulatory area (post-entry
competence) and, in doing so, have mitigated a key risk associated with
profession self-regulation (insufficiently zealous monitoring of post-entry
competence). The result has been a regulatory regime more attentive to the
public interest in this area of regulatory concern.

Perhaps we may see further developments in this area...

[JamesVincent]

So, Burnaby, you feel better that you had a full report to put out this time instead of just little updates? Know you were getting bored there for awhile.

[Burnaby49]

Well as tedious as my day was it was good to get out in the field again rather than just reviewing decisions and articles. Naomi was the real deal for sovereign lunacy, far more interesting than that gang of pathetic Paradigm idiots that I had to endure for years.

And yes, even though I was rushed by a self-inflicted deadline I enjoyed the opportunity to write a couple of real postings, one an analysis of a doomed lawsuit and the other based on my own observations.

However one disappointment. I was hoping that she'd serve me with one of her half-million dollar notices but she let me down badly on that. I suppose she was preoccupied. Maybe when the decision is released.

[wserra]

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

My favorite part of that very good article: the Arbabi quote "Natural law — or as i call it, just law — is that which is so obvious that it is not required to be written down into an act or statute". In other words, "natural law" is what she says it is, and courts must accept that. Nice work if you can get it.

[Burnaby49]

It was also the last thing she said at the hearing before the Master stopped her. Or at least the last thing I recorded before my notes got as incoherent as her arguments.

As you note getting the court to accept that the law is whatever you say it is gives your arguments a lot more credibility. Except, of course, that your opponent will demand the same privilege.

[Burnaby49]

Naomi has apparently moved past being "i, a woman" to becoming "Just all sort of fluid moving through it as infinite consciousness."

The 'sort of fluid' has given an interview on a Spotify podcast, the source of her quote on her new identity;

https://twitter.com/DNetolitzky/status/ ... 948463217

As one of my favorite TV detectives frequently said; Wowsers! I knew she'd gone way down the rabbit hole when I watched her in court but it turns out that just scratched the surface.

She's at least aware enough to realize her precarious position with the Law Society;

Speaker2: [00:01:44] Naomi Arbabi. What background is that? Iranian. Iranian. Okay.
What really got me was that you mentioned. Hey, I'm a former lawyer. Who? A lawyer,
still a lawyer.

Speaker1: [00:01:54] Perhaps very soon will be former.

We can thank our poster Donald Netolitzky for this glimpse into Naomi's journey of self-awareness. She's going to have lots of time for the trip. About the only thing I agree with her in all of this bizarre rambling is that her legal career is probably finished.

[Burnaby49]

I have a transcript of Naomi's babbling and reading it is far, far, more tolerable than listening to her for over an hour. I'm totally useless at linking to documents I have personally rather than on the internet so I'm going to cut and paste the whole damn thing in a number of posts. Enjoy the lunacy!

Law for Mankind - Naomi Arbabi

Transcript of a Pod Cast – Dec. 18, 2023

Host is Kit Carson, other speaker is Naomi Arbabi

https://www.ivoox.com/113-law-for-manki ... 734_1.html

Speaker1: [00:00:00] For me, it's kind of like listening to a good techno tune. It starts off
rough and confusing and you're like, what the hell is going on? Where is this taking me?
And then all the sudden, boom! It's like, wow, that was such a surprise. This is how it is,
how it's been for me.

Speaker2: [00:00:14] I love that you compared everything we just talked about to a
good techno tune.

Speaker3: [00:00:24] I flick on the kid pod. The kid Carson show. Without his
conversation, you can always know the intention is to grow. You can feel the soul
attitude of gratitude. The guest, the dope. Who's next? The show at the paradox.
Apparently a pair of top guns in a field talking Triceratops. Can't stop, won't stop.
Honest conversation. Big kid on his own. It's the new station.
[00:00:46] It's the hip pod. You're with the hip pod. We in the hip hop. Yeah, yeah yeah,
yeah.

Speaker3: [00:00:55] Now give it up for your host. The realest man in broadcasting
history. Kit. Kit. Kit.

[00:01:02] Kit Carson. 11. Get it.

Speaker2: [00:01:12] Okay. This episode is brought to you by Kit Carson and Friends
happening downtown Vancouver on March 2nd. Go to Kit carson.com for tickets. Goingto be an amazing show. Mark Groves, Deidre Sirianni, Doctor Suki and of course, the
one and only Danielle Laporte. These guys are the real deal, so join us. Can be very
special day again kit carson.com. All right so listen sometimes someone connects with
you in the DMs and they say interview me today. I was like, okay, so she's here. Naomi
how do you say your last name?

Speaker1: [00:01:43] Arbabi.

Speaker2: [00:01:44] Naomi Arbabi. What background is that? Iranian. Iranian. Okay.
What really got me was that you mentioned. Hey, I'm a former lawyer. Who? A lawyer,
still a lawyer.

Speaker1: [00:01:54] Perhaps very soon will be former.

Speaker2: [00:01:56] Okay, I think law is very interesting. You know, enough about this
sort of secret language, then you can get further ahead. In fact, that's the thing. We got
to pay someone thousands of dollars to interpret, decipher, decipher this kind of secret
language. It's very difficult. And you mention that you've had an experience that did get
a lot of public attention in the mainstream media about a legal case. And you said you
were kind of inspired by one of the interviews on the podcast with Peter Stone, who
talks about natural law. Maybe you can start with, I know you even have a disclaimer
you want to read because you are a lawyer. Um, do you want to start with a disclaimer?
Yes. And then we can jump into like why you're here and what your story is and what
you've learned.

Speaker1: [00:02:36] I'm a woman, and I at times I act as a lawyer. We can get to that
later. You're a woman, so.

Speaker2: [00:02:41] But sometimes you act as a lawyer, a lawyer, right?

Speaker1: [00:02:43] So I give notice. Uh, I a woman, Naomi Arbabi. Now notice you as
mankind that I only wish to speak to you as a man or a woman. I take no titles here, and
I give no advice of any kind, including legal advice, any knowledge. I do share with you
here today. You take full responsibility for how you use it. The knowledge. You also take
responsibility to listen to this interview in full and not take any words or phrases out of
context.

Speaker2: [00:03:11] So when you say that and you say, I am a woman who
sometimes acts as a lawyer, I find that very fascinating because we do sort of take on
these titles in life. Whether it's just some simple thing like mother or father, uh, you
know, radio host, whatever it is. And we sort of put that on us like we are that thing like
that is us, but it's just it's a character we play in a moment. Exactly.

Speaker1: [00:03:36] It's a it's an identity, right? Uh, it's not the real you. Living,
breathing man or woman. Um, we we we forget about that, and we just sort of take on
those identities and we make it synonymous to what we are. So when I say I am a
woman, I a woman, and I represent that I with or present that I with a lower case, um, I,
that I to me represents or is stands for. It doesn't represent. It's it is the infinite
consciousness that I a woman um, tapped into and we are all tapped into that
consciousness and we're all moving around through that consciousness, um, sharing
that sort of consciousness and as, as mankind in the fluid way. And we have
experience. We experience that consciousness, um, that infinite consciousness in, in
our existence.

Speaker2: [00:04:34] I'm all about that. So we are basically one consciousness. But you
and I are different tentacles of it. So we are.

Speaker1: [00:04:41] Just all sort of fluid moving through it as infinite consciousness.
Speaker2: [00:04:45] And they say we are one.

Speaker1: [00:04:46] Yes, we are one experiencing.

Speaker2: [00:04:48] So we're we are like the same thing, you and I, but we are
experiencing different viewpoints of our oneness.

Speaker1: [00:04:55] We just have a journey within that consciousness and go through
that journey. Sometimes we meet, sometimes we go away from each other, but we're all
exploring that consciousness as mankind, and then we take on those identities and we
make it synonymous to that. And it's not us. Those are just perspectives of what you are
as a man or a woman.

Speaker2: [00:05:20] If I met you at like a holiday party somewhere. I'd probably corner
you and talk your ear off all night. Or listen. Listen to you all night. This is the kind of
stuff that I love to talk about. It's just an esoteric and magical. And, like, we live in a
magical realm, right?

Speaker1: [00:05:35] We do? Yeah, it is magical. But we're sort of getting caught up
with tricks, be getting caught up with little tricks that are sort of taking our attention away
from that magic, the real magic that is our existence. And it's just, it's it's everywhere.
But we just we just limiting ourselves to those defined identities rather than just
exploring our infinite being as that infinite consciousness. And we get caught up with
that and we just look down, don't look around us, and we miss all of that. Yes, it's how
how it is so.

Speaker2: [00:06:12] Were you okay? I want to talk about why you're here. Like what
experience you've recently had that is brought to you, you to me, and to want to tell your
story. I know that I googled your name and there was, like, some. You know, stuff in the
CBC and a couple other mainstream, I think, in the LA times. Did a story on you over a
legal dispute you had. I we haven't really had a chance to talk before this interview. I
just wanted to even.

Speaker1: [00:06:36] Seen that article.

Speaker2: [00:06:37] Oh, really?

Speaker1: [00:06:37] L.a. times.

Speaker2: [00:06:38] Honestly, I went from our DMs to just getting a gut feeling that I
think this woman's going to be interesting to meeting you here. We haven't had a pre
meeting. You just walked in and hit record and we just are chatting. So I really don't
know where this conversation is going to go. I already dig it. Can you, can you tell me is
are you here to talk about the legal case you went through, or are you here to talk more
like a 50,000 foot view of the legal system and something you call wasn't natural law?
You call it. You call it something else. Mankind. Law of mankind. Which is. Is that what
we're talking about? The law of mankind.

Speaker1: [00:07:12] Law of. Of mankind? Yes. Okay. That's that's what I have
explored and what I, what has become knowledge for either woman. Yeah. And yeah, I
would love to. I mean, um, the legal case is there. I mean, it's a very simple claim that I
made, um, as a woman, I it's something that could have, I could have done without, um,
and sort of the legal way, um, the, the usual route that normal people would take. But I
decided at that time, because I had been, um, this knowledge had been, um, I've been
building that knowledge at that time. So I decided that it's time for me to implement this
knowledge. And when I'm I came across a situation where I needed to make a claim. So
I decided to make the claim as a woman rather than as an identity.

Speaker2: [00:08:07] Oh, this is juicy. I love this because when I, when I, I guess a
couple of years ago when I interviewed, um, Peter Stone and he talked about natural
law, it was almost like hypothetical scenario when he said, you know, you are you are a.
A natural human being and but under the you're.

Speaker1: [00:08:25] Not a human being. Human being is also it's a human is a color of
a man. It's a shadow of a man. Human is that identity? You're a man and a woman.
That's mankind. Womankind. It's.

Speaker2: [00:08:39] Yeah, but under the legal system, we're actually treated like, uh.

Speaker1: [00:08:42] Legal system deals with human.

Speaker2: [00:08:45] Right. So then there's a difference. They put a label on you so
they can treat you like something else. Almost like they call the United States a country.
But really, it's a corporation. You know, it's basically the president is literally the
president of a company. And it's, you know, once you go down that rabbit hole, that's a
different rabbit hole than today's rabbit hole.

Speaker1: [00:09:00] Rabbit hole.

Speaker2: [00:09:01] It is. Right. But that's kind of the gist of it, is that how we see the
world and how we imagine what countries are and borders and how companies run, and
whether you're a man or a or a human, like just or a woman. So you learnt this thing
called. Sorry. What's it called again?

Speaker1: [00:09:20] Lafoe mankind.

Speaker2: [00:09:21] I'm gonna write it down. Law of mankind for mankind. O law for
mankind.

Speaker1: [00:09:25] Yeah.

Speaker2: [00:09:25] So because someone's going to want to research this for
themselves afterwards. Because this is so interesting. Law for mankind. So you
discovered law for mankind. You go to start going down the rabbit hole, you're digging it,
you're vibing with it, and then you have an actual legal case come up and you decide to
use law for mankind. Instead of the the the usual route.

Speaker1: [00:09:49] The legal.

Speaker2: [00:09:50] Route, the legal route. And that's when all hell breaks loose.
Because, you know, the legal system, the.

Speaker1: [00:09:55] Matrix, do something.

Speaker2: [00:09:56] Different, right? The matrix doesn't want you to know, you know,
doesn't want you to skirt around, uh, the sort of the the maze that's been set before us.
Okay, so just to set the stage for what happened, um, do you want to talk about that
case or.

Speaker1: [00:10:09] I mean, I don't want to really talk about the details of the case. It
was a very simple claim that I made. And I think if you go look it online, there are some,
um, outlets that that actually publish the actual claim and didn't go into sort of trying to,
um, create this fictitious, vicious character out of me for doing this.

Speaker2: [00:10:31] Can I give a ten second recap with no details, just so people sort
of understand how simple the claim was? Yeah.

Speaker1: [00:10:38] So a woman that owns a property in the same building, um, that I
live in, um, she just one day decided to put up a divider that blocks my view, pretty
much. And I have a beautiful view of the ocean, mountains, Stanley Park and and all
that. And I purchased that property because of that view. Uh, I had spent a lot of money,
um, just renovating my deck, and, um, she just decides to put up a big wall and block
my view, and she doesn't. I mean, um, some. It sounds pretty.

Speaker2: [00:11:09] Annoying.

Speaker1: [00:11:10] It's very. It was very annoying. And I really tried to, uh. I tried
really hard to talk to her. Um, she wouldn't talk to me. I, um, so, um, I tried talking to the
strata, you know, uh, people on the strata board, and they were very dismissive. They
they kind of.

Speaker2: [00:11:29] I always found strata company or strata councils or they're they're
they're so wonderful and easy to get along with.

Speaker1: [00:11:35] I don't know about your experiences, but, uh.

Speaker2: [00:11:37] Please sense the.

Speaker1: [00:11:38] Sarcasm. Uh, yeah, I know, I just I was bullied basically, pretty
much because I just purchased the property a couple years ago, and they all lived there
for 30 some years. And, you know, I, um, it's just became it's it's a it's an annoying
situation. And it was such a simple thing I didn't want, you know, I just wanted to. Okay.
You want to build a bigger divider? Fine. We will. Um, let's talk about it. Let's just see
what works for all of us. But I was dismissed. I sent a notice to the woman and letting
her know that this view is worth the value. I value this view as $1,000 a day. I. This is
just, you know.

Speaker2: [00:12:19] Nothing more important than a view. I've spent way too much
money on renting apartments just because they got a view. So I feel what you're saying.
Speaker1: [00:12:25] It's it's what's valued to me. And, uh. Um, I gave her 21 days.
Let's talk about it. And, uh, otherwise, I'm. You know, I have no choice but to make a
claim. And I received threats instead of a conversation, and things got really, um, sort
of. I got threats about things that had nothing to do with this issue, and, uh, I just filed a
claim, so.

Speaker2: [00:12:55] So when you go to, I like to go a little bit into the story, because
this is a practical situation where you're using a different kind of law in our legal system.
We can do that now or after. I mean, do we want to talk about, you know, law for
mankind first so we understand even what it is or what do you think? Like you go into
the you file a claim.

Speaker1: [00:13:18] I think we can we can talk about the situation a bit later. Yeah.
Okay.

Speaker2: [00:13:22] Um, let's set the stage for what law for mankind is. But this is sort
of interesting because you're doing something that probably no one has done, hence
the CBC reporting on it. And even like, uh, you know, LA times talking about it. Um,
okay, where do we begin?

Speaker1: [00:13:40] Yeah, I mean, there are a lot of people that have done this. I don't
know how much success they achieved with it. There are a lot of court cases. When I
went through this claim, a lot of court cases of people who have, um, attempted it and
they were just, uh, right away, they were, uh, their claims were struck, they were shut
down. It's labeled pseudo legal and vexatious. Um, but I read all of those cases that
were sent to me by the other side. And, um, it's those claims they didn't come from a
man or a woman. Those claims, because a man or a woman stands in honor, a man or
a woman is not there, um, to sort of get out of a responsibility or obligation they've
created for themselves. Um, so the reason they were labeled vexatious, because it was
pretty obvious that they were just claiming, coming forward as a man or a woman, not
understanding what it actually means to be a man or a woman trying to get away from
some obligation or some responsibility. And, um, they were shut down. Those claims
did not go through. I don't know what happened with them. Um, if, you know, they
attempted it any other ways. I don't know the cases that may have been successful.
Speaker2: [00:14:54] Um, what is like if you have to get a give it a definition. What is
law for mankind?

Speaker1: [00:15:01] Um, it's basically an understanding or a knowledge. Um. About
what we actually are so I, I a woman, it's not an identity for me. Um, a woman is it's not
about gender or sexuality. It's not an expression of any of those. It's what I am. It's not
who I am. It's not those identities. It's like a bear is a bear. A woman is a woman, and a
man is a man. It's a, uh, um, it's what is true to I, so I. Being the woman, I'm at the
center, and all those identities are around me. I remember seeing something on your
Instagram, actually. You posted something about what is true and sort of perspectives.
Um, um, and it's exactly.

Speaker2: [00:15:52] I post a lot of crazy stuff on my. Yeah, yeah, I'm trying to.

Speaker1: [00:15:54] It's exactly calm down.

Speaker2: [00:15:55] Thing, but it's so hard to not want to post these things. Yeah,
there's perspective and then there's truth.

Speaker1: [00:16:02] Well, the woman is in the center is true. I'm always a woman is
true. The perspectives those identities are those identities are around as perspectives of
of that woman.

Speaker2: [00:16:13] So you're saying as a woman, the current system or matrix of
laws that have been created don't apply to you? Is that sort of closer? Am I getting
warmer? I mean.

Speaker1: [00:16:23] It's a very, uh, simple way of putting it, but, you know, you have to
know what it is to be a woman. Um, before you can just sort of walk that path and say,
um, these don't apply to me. Um, just to sort of give an understanding, a basic
understanding. Um, so an identity that we take on, it's a mask, it's a persona, it's an act
we put up. It's not the real, the true I woman. It's something acquired. Most people have
the hardest, um, it's the hardest for them to come in terms with what it, uh, their names
being an identity. We're so attached to our names. It's so it's synonymous with what we
are. It's our name. So when I. Um, when I say I'm a woman and I'm called Naomi or
Bobby, I'm a woman. My name is Naomi or Bobby. Rather than saying. You know I am
Naomi Arbabi. It's there's a there's a huge difference because when I say I am Naomi
Arbabi, I am identifying as that name. And that name might as well be a series of
numbers, you know, like a serial number from some dystopian world. It's just a bunch of
letters and acronyms put together on a document, and the first document that is ever
issued to you after you're born is your birth certificate. So that birth certificate, you use
it, you go around and you use it as identity. You go and get, you know, you get a driver's
license with it and you use your driver's license as your identity. Say, you know,
somebody says, identify yourself and you say here and it's your name, so you might as
well, you know, somebody be asking you, are you 4 or 5, eight, five, six? And you say,
yes, I am four, five, eight, five, six. There's no difference. It's an identifier, right? It's not
you, the living, breathing man or woman in flesh, the soul inside that body, the infinite
consciousness within.

[Burnaby49]

The saga continues!

Speaker2: [00:19:27] Because if you zoom out one layer up, we are the piece. The
world is a game. I always say the world is a stage. Yeah. Um, with a bunch of different
characters who are, you know, politicians and this and that. And so we are we are
actual pawns. And then there's like our real spiritual self that we're sort of tethered to in
my.

Speaker1: [00:19:48] Mind about that.

Speaker2: [00:19:49] Right? We're sort of tethered to this, the higher power of ourself,
which is really connected to the entire collective consciousness, which is so we really
are all disconnected as one. Um, see, I love where this conversation I love I love this
kind of stuff. Um, but I think we all I think for a lot of us who believe we are spiritual
beings, having a human experience can grasp that pretty easy. We're in our meat suits.
This is like the game piece that we're living in every day.

Speaker1: [00:20:14] When we identify as those characters. When you.

Speaker2: [00:20:17] Identify as the pond.

Speaker1: [00:20:19] As the game piece.

Speaker2: [00:20:20] Let's call it the game.

Speaker1: [00:20:20] Piece. Yeah, okay. Identify as that. If I identify as my name, then
the rules, then I've identified myself as a piece of that board game. And the rules of the
board game apply to me automatically. Right.

Speaker2: [00:20:34] You're agreeing to.

Speaker1: [00:20:34] It? I'm agreeing to it. If you're playing the game, you adhere by
the rules. So we've kind of forgotten that we are actually playing this game. We think we
are the game, but we are just playing the game. Yes, it's very different.

Speaker2: [00:20:50] And it's very it's very intimidating. Most of us, I mean, most of us
go through life and our biggest brush with the law maybe, is that we feel like, you know,
we get a ticket for speeding or some kind of fine for something that maybe one out of
every ten fines we actually feel is unjust. Or actually, I don't deserve this. Fine. There's
been a misunderstanding and then some. You might. It might be an argument with a
strata council or something. You've got to go now and you've got to play this game, and
you can be wrongfully accused or treated in a certain way. I actually recently was in a
small claims court situation, and I had to stand in front of the judge with this other
person, and, um, it was very intimidating. I'd never done that before. And, uh, you know,
just small claims. I can imagine what a real serious representing. Yeah, in small claims
court, you just sort of go and by yourself. Um, but just the feeling of like, there's this, uh,
this woman, this well, her label, I guess, her character be the judge. And she's sitting up
at her high desk looking down at us, and you just feel so helpless and intimidated that,
like, I just knew that if I blinked the wrong way at one point, I forgot to stand up when
she said something, or I spoke to her and I was like, oh my God, I'm done. I didn't I
didn't follow the, you know, protocol, but but my point is, it's very intimidating. Yes. And
until you're in that situation, you forget how how powerless you you can really be so
well.

Speaker1: [00:22:11] You're powerless because you're self-representing. And what
does representation mean when you're representing? You're acting on behalf of
something. You know, you are in place for something. So that is the whole sort of legal
system is based on representation. But you are there, the man, you are present, not
represented when you're represented because you're representing that piece, that piece
of the the monopoly piece on the board, the identity. So you're representing an identity
in court. You're not, you know, present because you don't know that you can actually be
present, which is what I did, because I, um, sort of gone through the knowledge share. I
was, um, at the point when I started this, um, sort of the this issue started for me. I
would say I was at 75% of knowledge of, you know, of.

Speaker2: [00:23:10] Of law, for.

Speaker1: [00:23:11] Mankind, for mankind being, you know, what it is to be a woman. I
was at 75%. I hadn't yet implemented it into my, um, day to day life. And this sort of
claim came up, and I was at a point where I had no choice but to file a claim, and I
decided to go this way. So the process of going through this claim took me from 75% to
97%, and it just integrated the whole knowledge within me very deeply. It's kind of an
animalistic feeling that, you know, it's. Yeah. And it's just it's a it's a very simple
knowledge. You know, when you when the penny drops, it's all very simple. It's not very
easy, but it's very simple and it just. It. It just sort of opened up a lot of, uh, ways for me
to look at this. It really helped me through. And no matter what comes out of the result
of this case, I've, I've won because I it just it really got me through this knowledge. And
to be able to sort of implement it and not just understand it anymore, but the knowledge
be integrated completely within me.

Speaker2: [00:24:29] So this case is still.

Speaker1: [00:24:30] Is still going, still.

Speaker2: [00:24:31] Going. I'm curious to hear what happens because, um. You know,
it's one thing to know about this stuff, but if it can actually be implemented, you know,
and without knowing a whole lot about the whole case, I kind of feel like they wouldn't
want you to. When, because other people will then suddenly be like, wait a second, this
whole law for mankind thing, it might start something, you know, it might be another
example of, you know, little, little cases like this start a snowball effect where people can
just walk in and go, hey. I am woman, I am not Naomi.

Speaker1: [00:25:03] There is a lot of resistance out there, but it's and it's not, you
know, 99.99% of us probably don't even realize about any of this. We don't realize that
we are playing characters on a board game. And, you know, it's it's it's just how it is. It's
it doesn't come from a malicious place. It just comes from a place of not knowing
everyone, you know, people that are in. Within the legal system, having roles within the
legal system. Policeman, the judge. Um, most lawyers, the court clerk. They've gone
through the same programming as you and I. It's we're all kind of been on autopilot for a
very long time, expected to keep our head down and just follow the footsteps before us
and not look up. That's that's how the system, we're born into it. I mean, we've really the
system has been born into. But, uh, I had a very interesting experience when I wanted
to, uh. Filed my claim in court because I decided, like I said, I didn't have to do any of
this. I had a very clear case. Um, but I wanted to do it this way because.

Speaker2: [00:26:13] You could have gone the traditional route.

Speaker1: [00:26:15] I could have gone the traditional route, and I probably would have
gotten a result much sooner. But your inner.

Speaker2: [00:26:19] Badass.

Speaker1: [00:26:20] Was like.

Speaker2: [00:26:21] Yeah, you know what? I'm gonna try this out.

Speaker1: [00:26:23] You know, my my soul called for it. My soul was like, yes, you're
ready. I was seeing all the signs and, you know, it was just like, yes, this is this is what
I'm supposed to do when I have this knowledge, when I have understand where it's
coming from. I didn't do this to bypass any legal system, because when I went to court a
few weeks ago. I showed them parallels of, you know, this is the claim that I'm making
as a woman based on the law that applies to a woman, and the same claim could have
been under the same claim, actually exists within the legal system as well. It's not that.
Um. It's, um. It's not that I'm trying to bypass any of it. It's not that the. You know, the
strata corporation had some kind of power over me that I'm trying to bypass it and being
vexatious and going after this woman and claiming a lot of money. And I claim $1,000 a
day, because that's what valued to me. And the article makes it sound like I'm such a
greedy person and I'm going after this, but they don't tell you that. I actually put in my
claim as a $1,000 a day, which is what its value of the loss to me, or anything of equal
value, the offer for which I may accept as my own discretion. So I put that there,
because if you think you know a view is worth $1,000 a day for me. And it is such a
small thing, but it's worth so much to me. There are other small things that are worth so
much to me as well. So I'm not trying to bankrupt you here. I'm not being okay. I got an
opportunity and I learned about this law, and I'm going to use it to get your money.
That's not about it. But as the article makes it sound that way, the article makes me
sound like this blabbering idiot. And it's just. It's so confused.

Speaker2: [00:28:19] How do you pick a thousand?

Speaker1: [00:28:21] It's just what is. Just pick the number.

Speaker2: [00:28:23] It's kind of intimidating enough. Or it's like, hey, do you really want
to dance with me? You really want to dance with me, neighbor? What's $1,000 a day?
Is that kind of like the not to be malicious, but it's got to be a number that where it's like,
okay, she's got to look at it and go, it's a.

Speaker1: [00:28:37] Serious thing for me, all right.

Speaker2: [00:28:39] Thousand bucks a day. If you're if you're the neighbor, you're
going, okay, do I really want to, like, mess with this woman or do I just want to take this
stupid divider down and, like, move on with my life?

Speaker1: [00:28:48] It could be seen as that, and that's fine. Um, but, uh, so for me,
imagine me. I've worked so hard for the past ten years of my life and and this market in
Vancouver, prices are just running way faster than you could ever make money. And I
finally have enough money, and I take on this big mortgage, and I buy this house. Yeah,
a.

Speaker2: [00:29:10] Neighbor puts up a freaking wall outside your window. Like I get.

Speaker1: [00:29:12] That. Totally. I spent so much money just on, you know, on
renovating the deck, and I'm just finally I've got my sanctuary. This is my.

Speaker2: [00:29:21] Power washing for days.

Speaker1: [00:29:22] Yeah, I've been there. I've, you know, I just I made it my my
sanctuary. Like, it's just this is my place and it's just it's really my energy. And then
somebody just just. Yep. Put up a wall in front and they won't even talk. They don't want
even talk to you. I'd be pissed. Don't even want to. They. They threaten you that if you
actually pursue them. You know, I'm going to go to the city of Vancouver and I'm going
to report you for this thing that was built inside your house 30 years ago. It's those kind
of things. Yeah. That's petty. Yeah. It gets it. Got to that point rather than just having a
conversation, I just, you know, cut it down 15in and I are like.

Speaker2: [00:29:58] Hey, you know what? Thousand bucks a day, biatch.

Speaker1: [00:30:01] It's it is what it is.

Speaker2: [00:30:02] What you want to do.

Speaker1: [00:30:03] Yeah, it is what it's worth to me. But like I said, you know, I, I
made it very clear in my claim that I was anything of equal value. Yeah. I want to work
with you. I'm not doing this. This is what it's valued to me. But I want to work with you.
Yeah. Um, and.

Speaker2: [00:30:19] At one point, maybe you say, you know what? A heartfelt
apology, a heartfelt apology, and. Yeah. And a and a and a plate of baked goods might
be worth $10,000.

Speaker1: [00:30:27] You know, for this to be over at this point, I've actually it's I at this
point, I've, I've, I've got the value out of it already in in some ways. Yeah. It's I've, you
know, it's like I said, it's, it took me from 75% to 97%.

Speaker2: [00:30:41] So you you are a lawyer.

Speaker1: [00:30:44] I act as a lawyer. So.

Speaker2: [00:30:45] Yes. Of course. Yeah. I gotta watch how I word it. Right. You act
as a lawyer. It's one of your characters in life.

Speaker1: [00:30:50] Yeah.

Speaker2: [00:30:51] Um, how did you first. Get like law of mankind. Come onto your
radar. When that first, like you said, you were sort of 75% before this whole situation
came up with your neighbor.

Speaker1: [00:31:04] It was true that my love, love of mankind, the knowledge shares
that it's, um, like you.

Speaker2: [00:31:10] You you're on some crazy person at the bus stop brings it up, or
you're on a website, or how did you even hear about it on a podcast? Or it. Was it like
you heard about you heard Peter Stone on this podcast talking about natural law? Was
that one of the things that sort of sent you searching? Oh, wow. There's a different type
of as a lawyer, it got.

Speaker1: [00:31:28] Me interested.

Speaker2: [00:31:29] Geeking out a little.

Speaker1: [00:31:29] Bit as, as a, as a woman, I was interested. It has nothing to do
with, um, I practice a very sort of, um, limited. Area of of the legal system, which is just
real estate. So it's not like it's a it was anything to do with, uh, my profession. It's um. It
was the time that we were all going through a lot of governmental overreach. Um, it
was, uh, it was a bit of a tough time for a lot of people, which pushed a lot of people to
towards awakening. And it did me as well. So I just sort of came across, um, uh, a, uh, a
talk, uh, a Q and A, and I listened to it and I just like I'm very intrigued and I want to
learn more. So I signed up and I just listened to more. It really um, it came it just a
knowledge comes from a place of, um, a place of love. And that means just sort of
acceptance of what it is rather than just trying to fight the system. It doesn't come from
that. It just comes from you learning your place in this world. It's a spiritual awakening
and it is what it is. It's exactly just a it helps you towards spiritual awakening. It's not
about fighting the system, and it's just just about understanding the difference between
law and legal. And lobbying that which applies to a man or a woman and legal being the
system, the jurisdictions we have been created. It's kind of like a you can think of it like
this life size. Board game that is created like a superimposed matrix over all the land.
So the law, which in my claim I refer to as the the law of the land. Um, I said this claim is
based on the law of the land and not legal acts, codes and statutes. And that's that
became sort of a problematic thing. Um, not of course.

Speaker2: [00:33:42] You're pulling back the curtain.

Speaker1: [00:33:43] Not for me, but for, uh, for the legal society system. Yeah. Uh, so
I'm a woman, and I live on land. I'm not a sea creature. I don't have wings. Right. We
can all agree on that.

Speaker2: [00:33:58] Because there's maritime law. There's different types of.

Speaker1: [00:34:00] Yeah, you can you can think of it that way. But I don't even think
of it as maritime law versus this and that. So I'm on on land itself, the legal system
creates jurisdictions. And those jurisdictions like that sort of life size, uh, board game, is
where those characters walk around those identities, they walk around in that
jurisdiction. That's why when you go to court or, you know, you're sort of pulled over by
a cop, it's about self-representation. You know, what you represent. It's about they want
to identity from you. Um, they want you to identify as your name. You go to court and
you self represent, but you're present there. So you're representing that identity, not the
man or woman behind that identity. So the legal system creates those jurisdictions,
which is kind of like superimposed over the actual real land. It's like a matrix over the
land. The man or woman is on the real land. It's the characters that are on the
jurisdictions that, you know, we call those jurisdictions jurisdictions like Vancouver. But
Vancouver is a jurisdiction. It's a legal jurisdiction. The land called Vancouver is where
the woman, the man, the woman of mankind is. So. The laws of the board game apply
when you enter that jurisdiction and you represent as your identity. So you say, I'm
playing the game, now let's move my piece around. But the woman, the man, the living
breathing. Flesh, the soul inside that body, the infinite consciousness within is always
on the real land that is called Vancouver, British Columbia or Canada. So the difference
is it.

Speaker2: [00:36:04] Yeah. And there are people of I mean these this rabbit hole goes
so deep. There are people in communities who've, uh, started compounds and they're
like, hey, we're going to set up our own. You know, through. You know, whether it's
where they want to exit the board game. So they get like 100 people together and they
get a plot of land and they sort of live. Outside of this matrix. You've heard stories of
people doing this.

Speaker1: [00:36:28] Yeah. So it's kind of thing. Yeah. It's your land, it's your property.
It's what's proper to you or I to the exclusion of others in the society. And that's that's
your property. That's what's on the the real land. So for me, in my claim, I'm my claim is
for my property. The property of I, the woman on the real land, not the, uh, um, the
strata lot. So. And so that shows up on the title because it's not the same. The title is
just that. It's just a piece of record and it has, you know, my name on it as the registered
owner. So it's giving me another identity. Registered owner Naomi Arbabi, you know,
um, it's another character just. Yeah, it's like your, you know, your name could be just a
serial number. Might as well be a serial number. It's the same thing. It's just the the title
of the property is just some coordinates of of, you know, where the property lies within
the jurisdiction. The legal jurisdiction. Yeah.

Speaker2: [00:37:36] It's interesting that when we're born into this matrix, we sort of we
confuse the law with like some sort of moral compass. Like if you break the law, it's like
you're a good or bad person or. But then the law is changed from jurisdiction to, you
know, different countries. Everyone's got different laws. When you get a little bit older,
you go, wait a second. Law and morality has no connection.

Speaker1: [00:37:58] Law is law. Um, there is law. That law applies to a man or
woman. You know, it's man or woman is born with free will. But to the extent that they
do not cause harm to other men and women out there, it's, um, we were, you know, uh,
mankind is a social animal. We've always known that, you know, we want to live nearby.
We want to be. We don't want to be isolated. It's, uh, we want to trade. We want to have
the benefit and sort of, um. Socialize with one another. So we want it to be close to
each other. And so it's very it's natural for, for for those laws, you know, you have free
will but do not cause harm to other people unless they consent, which could be through
an express contract. So it doesn't mean that a man or woman is free to do whatever
they want. A man or a woman stands in honor of their obligations. If you enter into a
contract, even if it was a contract that you signed as your representation, as your
identity, and then you became aware of it, you still sign it. It's your obligations. You need
to fulfill it. Mhm. So I'm not saying that, you know, you just go out there and just
abandon everything and just everybody come out and claim a man or a woman, a man
or a woman stands in honor and they.

Speaker2: [00:39:25] Maybe originally the the new sort of the legal system, one could
argue, I guess was set up because there were people who weren't, um, being
honorable. With proper law. So there had to be like.

Speaker1: [00:39:37] Yeah, so another.

Speaker2: [00:39:38] System is sort of okay, well, hey, well, there's a group of people
that aren't following like the.

Speaker1: [00:39:42] You never know with history. It's just you never know what
happened, what happened when it happened. It history is just, you know, somebody's
story and we don't know what it is, but it's just we know what it is now, what the situation
is. And we know if you know, if if you understand all of this, the law of of mankind, if you
understand what it means to be a man or a woman, you can choose to play that game
or choose not to. But it doesn't mean that if you're not playing the game, that you're out
there making trouble because the man or woman doesn't do that, children do that. And
unfortunately, a lot of us out there right now are have this maturity of a child as well.
Um, the, the emotional or spiritual maturity of a child as well. So we do need some
rules. And you can imagine if there were no rules, there would be a pile of metal in our
roads if there were no traffic rules. It's we do need some rules, but we need to have that
understanding that if you're mature enough and if you're, you know, honorable enough,
that those we all know that those things are wrong. We know what is wrong, what is
right. We know that because we are social animals and we have that innate
understanding of right or wrong. You don't want to be destructive if you want to be
social.

Speaker2: [00:41:05] Well, it's interesting to explore ways to sort of step out of the
board game because we've seen that, you know, certain powers that be are taking
advantage of setting up certain systems that are forcing us to do things. And or we're
like a lot of us are like, well, wait a second.

Speaker1: [00:41:18] But that's also that's also becoming the tipping point. So there are
every everything in this creation has a purpose. The dark or the light. Everything has a
purpose. And, you know, maybe that overreaching just to push on more rules and more
authoritarian regimes, that has been the tipping point for a lot of people to awaken and
realize it for a lot of this information, maybe if, uh, you know, somebody was talking
about this ten years ago kind of sound a bit more crazy, like, okay, you know, just let me
live my life. But a lot of us went through a lot of hardship through the past few years,
and it's sort of become the push that we need it to awaken, to wake up and make that
change. So I don't judge any of that. I don't even judge, um, the woman I made claim
against. I don't judge the reporter who wrote that biased and, um, malicious vexatious
report about me. They all. That what they did? Perhaps not knowingly, not consciously,
but they put me in the place that I wanted to be. That put me on the right path. That
pushed me to be here. Sitting across from you talking about these things to push me, to
have to go and search so deep within myself to find that woman. And now that I've
found her, I'm never going to let her go. Yeah, yeah. She's here to stay. Yeah, for as
long as I live. Yeah, yeah.

Speaker2: [00:42:50] It's one of the silver linings of. Of everything being so outrageous
the last few years. Yeah. If it was a little more gentle, then people wouldn't have woken
up. But because it was so insane, even people that went along with it now looking back
are like, yeah, that was crazy. We really lost our minds, like what was going on, you
know, two years ago. Um, so it's a silver lining is that it got so crazy that like, people
now are sort of like, like you said, uh, being pushed to wake up a little bit. Yeah. And
reevaluate.

Speaker1: [00:43:17] That's how they.

Speaker2: [00:43:18] Responded and like how they might respond to the next time
things get crazy. Yeah.

Speaker1: [00:43:22] Okay. So that's what you needed. That's what we needed to wake
up. And, you know, there's no judgment of any of this. There's no judgment of the legal
system. We need a legal system there's no judgment of. All the sort of dark things that
happen, um, around us. It all helped us to to awaken.

Speaker2: [00:43:42] So. Now what? Now you are. You've studied law for mankind.
You're waiting to see how this case goes. I guess this must change how you live your
day to day life, I mean. Your whole. Perception of yourself or I don't know this,
obviously, this sounds very spiritual. You know, suddenly you're I mean, I sort of for the
last, I don't know, 10 or 15 years. I sort of treat myself like I'm a character in a video
game, you know, had a couple psychedelic experiences, you know, became very
spiritual, understand the whole higher power thing. I am sort of living in this meat suit,
um, playing the video game, living in whatever this matrix is, it does change how you
live your life. Um, so for this, I'm assuming you've had the same experience where you
now are not you are not your label. You are a woman playing different roles and
characters. Um, I guess I'm trying to get at is what is the takeaway for for all of this, this
experience you've gone through?

Speaker1: [00:44:40] Well, for myself, I, I, like I said, going through this experience with
this claim, I was just it was a very awakening, uh, moment for me. Um, it just sort of
blasted off my frequency in a way that I hadn't experienced before. And it was a very
humbling experience at the same time. Um, it just sort of made it so clear for me that
this was always supposed to happen this way, and this was always just a lesson that I
was, uh, supposed to to get. And funny enough, is that before I started this claim. I had
a dream one night and I dream. I'm telling someone. I'm looking her in the face. And I'm
saying, can you believe that? I was a lawyer for ten years and I hadn't even graduated
from law yet. And she was just looking at me because I. Yeah, I practiced law, but I just
practicing it, going through this claim, I mastered it because now I get exactly where
things stand. I get exactly what I am. I'm a woman and that is a board game. A
jurisdiction. A legal system that I can be a part of if I want to represent my identity. But
I'm always present as a woman. So it really got me through, and I remember. Reaching
that moment of just absolute gratitude. For all the wickedness that had happened
pursuant to this claim and all the. People that had that did me wrong to get there. And I
had absolute gratitude for every single one of them because it was just it. It was how I
was supposed to to learn all of this, and it was how I was supposed to have the
knowledge integrated. And they may have lived their lives the way they do in darkness,
just so I can learn this.

Speaker1: [00:46:47] And I'm so grateful to them for for all of this, I'm no matter what
happens, what comes out of this case, I've, I feel like I won because it was just there
was no other way that I could have gained this place of, uh, this very humble but
powerful high frequency place that I that it got me to. It doesn't matter if you know the.
The woman who acted as a judge comes out and dismisses my claim, and that would
that would be completely wrong because, uh, the claim was very clear and there's no
reason for dismissing it has to go to trial. But if if even if they if she comes out and
dismisses the claim, even if that's a trespass on my claim, I've I still won no matter. You
know what happened to me with that article. Um, Bethany Lindsay, the woman who
wrote that article, even though I had given her a notice that it will cause a harm and it
did cause me a lot of harm, I was faced with a lot of, um, really, really mentally ill people
who have nothing better to do than to go Google somebody and write them nasty
things. Uh, just it it was just so I mean, I didn't take any of those personally because I
knew where they were coming from. I knew that, you know, whether or not that's
actually a real person who really felt so. Offended, but what the article had said that she
really he or she had to really go Google me, find my email address and write a nasty
letter.

Speaker2: [00:48:31] A piece of their mind.

[Burnaby49]

The Last Entry!

Speaker1: [00:48:32] I mean, even if that is a real person out there who's this mentally
deranged? Yeah. Uh, you know, all of that, I, I still, I still am grateful for what happened.

Speaker2: [00:48:46] So stupid question. So if this gets dismissed, this whole case.
Um. Obviously you consider it a win because it sort of put you in a elevated you
spiritually.

Speaker1: [00:48:59] Mhm.

Speaker2: [00:48:59] Do you feel like though then it's a waste of time though in some
way to, to learn this stuff about. You know, law for mankind if it can't be exercised or
imposed, or if it's just going to be dismissed by like, what's the point of other than it
elevating you spiritually? Or is that the whole point?

Speaker1: [00:49:19] I mean, it's the, the.

Speaker2: [00:49:21] Like having this knowledge and thinking, but then you go to use it
doesn't do anything. It's like I see.

Speaker1: [00:49:24] What you're saying. Yeah. Um, I mean, how I. Pursued this claim.
I didn't have to pursue it this way. Um, through. You know what I had heard, uh,
listening to people sharing their knowledge about, uh, lawful mankind. This type of claim
is really used in very sort of sensitive, um, places like sensitive issues. It's like really
somebody's child is being a son or daughter is being taken away and, uh, by the system
and they want to get their son or daughter back. So they sort of pursue this kind of
claim. Uh, it's for very serious things. But I wanted to do it this way because I wanted to
implement it. And I just knew that I have, you know, I have the I have to make a claim.
In order to sort of restore my property and in order to, um, restore my, the enjoyment of
my property. So I have to make a claim. And now I have this knowledge and let's see
what happens. Let's see where it takes me. So I did it, um, in, in sort of, you know, just
let's see how how it plays out. Yeah. I had. Envision, like the Law Society not being
happy about this. Um, but it was it was fine with me. I just I needed to I needed to do it
this way. I did, uh, I did not envision, you know, the CBC thing, the the drama that that
that will spin and, um, you know, the harm that it will cause, um, to, um, the business
that I had worked so hard to, to create, I had not envisioned any of that. Uh, but I did
know that it can actually sort of create some clash, uh, with the legal system. And I
wanted to do it. I was determined that I, I have to understand it.

Speaker2: [00:51:22] Is there an opportunity to go after CBC?

Speaker1: [00:51:24] I mean, again, um, I or is that too big of a if I, I wouldn't go after
CBC. If I was to make a claim, I would make a claim against a woman. Lynn Bethany
Lindsay, who acts as a reporter of CBC who did cause a harm after being noticed of of
this.

Speaker2: [00:51:46] She interviewed you and you said, don't publish this.

Speaker1: [00:51:49] I didn't know she didn't interview I we didn't do an interview. I, I
knew that she's gone around and, uh, she'd contacted one of the associates at my firm,
uh, on whom I rely on very heavily. And, um, she sent him an email saying, uh, sort of
insinuating that there's a relationship between me and some. I mean, that some guru,
um, student relationship between me and some guy called, uh, Carl Lance, of whom I'd
never heard before. And just saying. Asking him. Oh, do you know about this claim that
Naomi filed? Do you know, you know, if there's a that that, um, she may like I don't
remember, remember, but she was causing trouble, made that connection. And this
guy, Carl Lance, I did not know of. And I learned later that he's some kind of, uh, felon
and perhaps in prison or was in prison or will be going to prison for some crime. So it
was I knew where this woman is coming from and what she's trying to do. So when she
reached out to me for for an interview, I, um, I said, okay, let's let's meet. And we met. I
gave her a notice that, uh, publishing this story will cause, uh, because I knew exactly
where it was, where she was going with it. Yeah, it was a. Yeah, it was a career
assassination, as, you know, as what they were after which which is. Okay. Uh, I mean,
it all worked out. So, like I say, I'm, I'm, I'm I'm even grateful to, um, Bethany, the, the
reporter because she put me here in front of you. Yeah. I mean, It's sort of.

Speaker2: [00:53:35] Thank you. Bethany. I'm also grateful.

Speaker1: [00:53:37] Yeah, well, you know, this.

Speaker2: [00:53:38] Is an interesting.

Speaker1: [00:53:39] Conversation. Bethany. What? What Bethany intended as evil.
God had planned for good. Yeah. And that's how things have worked out. So I. You
know, while I may be making a claim against her for, um, all the things that she did, the
defamation, the biased article, the destruction of my practice. Um, I don't know, but. But
I'm still grateful to her. Yeah.

Speaker2: [00:54:04] Interesting. Is there anything else that you want to talk about or
cover with this whole experience of of learning about law for mankind?

Speaker1: [00:54:12] And, you know, you're such a great host that you really hit all my,
uh, important points. Good. I want to.

Speaker2: [00:54:18] Make. Yeah, exactly. I mean, when you came in here, you said,
hey, I haven't really talked about this yet with anyone, which I always find. I'm always
very honored that I get to help.

Speaker1: [00:54:25] There was one thing that I. That I wanted to, uh, talk about. And
then we got sort of, uh, sidetracked. It's sort of about how, you know, how we were all
on autopilot and how we just sort of go through. Um, just putting our head down and
following the footpaths of everybody else before us. So when I went to make this claim
in court, I prepared all my own documents. I didn't use any documents, um, that are
provided any forms from from the Supreme Court made your own forms. I made my
own forms. I made my own claim form and everything. He's a chat, gpt, GPT. No. I
wrote it everything myself, but I just. But that's amazing.

Speaker2: [00:55:08] Wow. That's amazing.

Speaker1: [00:55:09] But I, I wanted to know. I just wanted to know. Okay. What
happens when I go to make this claim? I was expecting, um, sort of to, to be, um.
Rejected, but I just wanted to know. So I wrote everything, uh, my own forms. And I
went to the court and to to file it, um, as a woman. So when I'm going to court as a
woman, I'm going to. I'm not going to the legal court. I'm going to as a man or a woman.
I'm entitled to a court, but I'm not playing the little piece. So I'm not going to the legal
court. So I'm just going to the court of Naomi inside that, uh, building, because I'm I'm
not using any legal acts, codes or statutes.

Speaker2: [00:55:55] So what does the clerk say you're handing?

Speaker1: [00:55:57] So I went, I went, and I handed her my, um, uh, my documents,
and she looked at it and she's like, well, you can't do that. It's, you know, you can't you
have to use our own forms. And I tried to talk to her and sort of, um, explain to her that,
you know, I'm filing this claim as a woman. I'm not I'm not coming here as part of the
legal society. And, uh, I have a right to filing my claim. And she's like, well, no. And she
went and called a senior clerk. And the senior, we got a nutjob.

Speaker2: [00:56:26] We got a nutjob out front.

Speaker1: [00:56:28] Well, lovely lady, I won't judge. Oh, um, she came and, uh, she
was quite like, just like, okay, you idiot, get out of here. We don't want to talk to you as
our forms or nothing. And I'm like, okay, well, you know, I, I, I will take a look at your
forms. Uh, but I might change it, uh, and incorporate my forms to it. She's like our forms
exactly how they are or nothing. Get out. And she was quite flustered, she I think I don't
know how it happened, but at some point, I, uh, just lifted my head up, and I saw there's
a sheriff just standing there staring at me and kind of trying to intimidate me. And I look
at her, I'm like, okay, I'm not seeing the uniform of the sheriff. I'm seeing a woman that
is wearing a uniform as a sheriff, and she's just looking at me. So I'm like, can I help
you? And she was just like, oh no, no, no, I'm just standing here like, okay, well, I took
the forms and um, the clerk, the senior clerk, she was telling me that, you know, you
have to follow the rules of, um, Supreme Court and all of that.

Speaker1: [00:57:33] So I said, okay, I took the forms, and, uh, I went home and I just
decided I looked at the forms, and I decided I'm going to read the rules of the Supreme
Court and see what they say and the rule set. I just hundreds of rules. It took me about
4 or 5 hours to go through all of them. So I noticed two things. First of all, there's a
definition section in every sort of act or legislation, and the definition section says. Are.
All definitions can be varied to fit the circumstances of a claim. So it's basically you can
change all, all of it. You can change it. It doesn't say it can only be changed to this part
much. That much I can change the definitions of of. All those words within that rule,
within, um, the Supreme Court rules. And I read and read and read and read. And
towards the end of it, I get to another section about the forms and write on it. It says all
the forms can be varied to fit the circumstances of the court.

Speaker2: [00:58:41] Boom!

Speaker1: [00:58:43] So I'm like, that's wild. Yeah.

Speaker2: [00:58:45] That's wild.

Speaker1: [00:58:46] It's so I'm like, I definitely can change it. I mean, even within your
legal rules, I can change it. But she didn't know. She nobody knew. The senior clerk of
the court did not know this. And that's not even it. I go take the form that she gave me
the, the the sort of notice of civil claim that she gave me. And I look at it and right on top
of that form, it says, this form is subject to the rule that I just said, that says I can vary it
right on it. It says that's the only rule that is cited on the form. And they're telling me, no,
you can't. You cannot change anything. We will not take it. Don't waste my time. Don't
waste your time. Just our. Our forms are nothing. They don't even.

Speaker2: [00:59:33] Know the rules of their.

Speaker1: [00:59:34] Own game. Don't even know. So this is how much we're on
autopilot. And she wasn't being.

Speaker2: [00:59:39] We weren't even read fine print on our credit cards or. Yeah, we
won't even read the fine print if you buy a game of Uno from toys R us.

Speaker1: [00:59:46] Know, like exactly. We don't. It's too.

Speaker2: [00:59:49] Much for our brains.

Speaker1: [00:59:50] Right? It's and it's it's it says it like it's the only rule pretty much
that is cited on that form that says I can vary it. And she was telling me that I cannot
vary it. So the next day. So I just incorporated the claim into the form. I attached some
of my own documents to it, and the next day I go to, uh, back to the registry, and I put
the forms right there, and she looks at it. It was the first not the senior clerk, but the first
girl, uh, the clerk that was, uh, that took my documents first that the day before. And she
looks at it, she's like, well, what are these attachments? And I said, well, those are
variations to the forms. You can vary the forms. And I said, yes, I can put my finger on
the rooms like this rule right here on your form says I can. And she's like, oh. And she
goes online and she just, uh, looks up the rule and she reads it. She's like, okay, but
you can't have any attachments. And I say, I read all the rules yesterday, and there was
nothing that says I cannot have any attachments. And she's like, oh, okay. I guess, uh,
as long as they're not, her brain.

Speaker2: [01:00:56] Is just like.

Speaker1: [01:00:57] Yeah.

Speaker2: [01:00:58] Melting in front of you. And so your ego must have been.

Speaker1: [01:01:01] So this is the thing a lot of people may have. It was that point at
that point, it was it was just for me. It was like, okay, here I can.

Speaker2: [01:01:12] See why you pursued this, pursued this route.

Speaker1: [01:01:15] I wanted to, even.

Speaker2: [01:01:16] Though you didn't have.

Speaker1: [01:01:17] Experience.

Speaker2: [01:01:17] Because, yeah, it's like you're you're you're getting a peek behind
the curtain. I mean, this is like a it's like a, it's like a basis for a movie, you know, it's it's
unbelievable that you would have this experience. I could see why you just got hooked
on. Okay, I got to do this. I got to do this. They don't even know the rules of their own
game.

Speaker1: [01:01:35] Soul level. I need I have to do this at a soul level. It was calling
out to me. You have to do this. There's something in it that you have to do this. And I
know exactly why I had to do this. I mean, doesn't matter what happens with this claim
anymore, because I really, I, I got what at soul level was calling me out. The intuition
that was telling me that, you know, forget about the easy way. Let's go and do it the
hardest way you can do it. And just. Stand there and, and, uh, you know, as a woman,
see what, what it actually means. And, uh, for me having to go through preparing for for
the hearing that I had. Uh, and the hearing was to strike the claim, and there hasn't
been any decision on it yet. Uh, it just really cleared things up because I really had to go
deep within that knowledge. And it just like I said, like I say, I was at 75% understanding
to 97% knowledge. So, uh, yeah, it all it I mean, a lot of other things became very clear
to me. It's. The nature. I mean, one reason why my soul was calling out to do it this way.
Because I had to understand what a woman's court versus a legal court means as I was
going through preparing. I'm realizing how the legal court is so adversarial, and I had
heard it from other people sharing their knowledge before, but it hadn't really hit me in
the way in in a soul level of what it means, the legal courts, we're going into legal court
representing a persona, representing, acting on behalf of something else, something
that is. Not real.

Speaker1: [01:03:28] We're not going there. As on behalf, you know, as present as the
woman or the man, we're going representing a dead entity, which is your name as your,
you know, on your ID, it is the titles, the roles, whatever you've taken on. Mhm. And
that's, that's only if your self representing. So you're one level removed from yourself
when you're going, um, when you hire a lawyer you're two levels because now you're
representation. Your identity is the client of that lawyer. So there's two degrees removed
from what is true, which is you or I as a man or woman. Mankind. Right. Uh. It's that sort
of, uh, the courts have become. An exclusive playground for lawyers because who's
going to you know, they've gone through years, decades of learning these laws, these
regulations, all these cases. Who can compete with that? They're they're pros. They're
it's it's sort of become the court system. The legal court system has become this
wrestling show. And there are these like heavy hitters, um, lawyers that go in and they
fight each other, and the role of the judge is reduced to a referee because the judge is
sitting there just as a referee. And you know, when the judge is not looking, they throw
some dirty punches at each other to it. Just every it's just it's very evident. It's they're
playing a lot of tricks and you just sort of try to. You know, get one over your opponent
as much as possible. It's the fact that we call the other one the defendant or the
opponent. It's sort of dehumanizing or or not even dehumanizing. It just sort of I'm
saying human dehumanizing in the colloquial sense of the word, not actual.

Speaker2: [01:05:30] Well, even just to back up what you just said, there are whole TV
like I used to watch the show suits back in the day, and there's whole movies and
Matlock and all these famous lawyer shows because they are that, yeah, they are like
entertainment where it's like two wrestlers going at it to see who can find the technicality
that like, you know, gives them the edge to win. It's exactly what it is. It's it is almost like,
yeah, a wrestling ring. Yeah. It's a wrestling.

Speaker1: [01:05:55] Show. Yeah, it is a wrestling show, but a woman's court. So for
me, it was like I came to this deep understanding of what? What is a woman's court, a
woman. When a woman goes to court and I file this claim, as, you know, trespass by
way of loss, what is a trespass? Trespass is just a wrong. So, you know, you wronged
with intention. You wronged me with intention, you did not provide remedy and you did
not have a lawful excuse. And as a result, I've I've have some losses that the court
needs to decide. If you're not providing the remedy yourself, the court has to decide. It
has to go through the court and make my claim that way. So. A woman's court when a
woman takes someone else to court. It's not in an adversarial way. You take someone
to court when they trespass on you. Trespass has some kind of, uh, um, biblical, um,
connotation to it as well. But it basically it is just a wrong. You go to court with the
intention to restore honor between you and the other person, the other man or woman.
You go to court with the intention to forgive the other person, to do whatever you can to
restore the honor.

Speaker1: [01:07:18] And the judge's role is not a referee. The judge or the magistrate
is is the embodiment of honor. That's why we call judges, your Honor. It's not to boost
their ego, but it is because they're supposed to be the embodiment of honor and restore
honor between the parties. And both parties are. You know, it's it's not me trying to get
one on the other one or throw punches and dirty tricks. It's for me. For me. What is the
best you can do to the other party to remedy this? Trespass? The best you can do and I
would. It's my becomes my responsibility as a woman to forgive as much as I can
forgive. So I had to go through this claim to gain this understanding of what it is and
what is it my soul is calling out to, to do it this way, because I have to gain this
knowledge of what is a woman's court. It's a place of forgiveness and compassion, not a
place of adversarial reactions. And. A sort of a wrestling, a fight. It's not a place to fight.

Speaker2: [01:08:36] It's a place to restore honor.

Speaker1: [01:08:38] Restore honor. And that's interesting. The the job of the judge or
the magistrate. Yeah.

Speaker2: [01:08:43] Wow. Well, I'm glad you went through all of that and then came to
share that with us. Yeah. If someone wants to learn more about the law of mankind, can
you point people in the right direction? Is there a group or a website or something?
Because I think there are going to be people here who are like, you know, I'm I'm
curious about learning more.

Speaker1: [01:09:06] Yes. Well, love of mankind is the. It's a sort of a course, uh, a
knowledge share, um, by the sovereign's way, as I think I don't remember the website,
but anyone can look up the sovereign's way.

Speaker2: [01:09:21] And is that associated with Peter Stone? No, no. Okay, a different
group.

Speaker1: [01:09:25] I have listened to, uh, Peter as well, and he has a lot of
knowledge. He's a good guy. He's a great guy. And, um, but he's not exactly love of
mankind. He has a little bit more of a sort of, um, let's break down the system and, um,
sort of.

Speaker2: [01:09:44] Fight how to drive your car without having a driver's license.
Yeah.

Speaker1: [01:09:46] Let's fight the system. I don't want to fight the system. I have no
animosity towards the system. We do need some system, I just have. I've come to this
knowledge, and I. My soul is calling out to share it at this point with everyone else and
hopefully be, um, in a place where I can. Um.

Speaker2: [01:10:08] So hopefully at some point you will be the person that has some
kind of a school or a course or something.

Speaker1: [01:10:14] Yeah, I don't, I don't, I don't have um, um, I don't I'm not a really
good teacher. I don't have that kind of, uh, um, patience with people, but but I've, um,
I'm writing a book, and it's, uh, it's fiction, actually. It's, uh, I'm writing. It's for men, for
children. It's, uh, I would call it a dystopian middle grade sci fi. Wow. And, um, I've, I've,
I've, I was writing this, you know, started writing it, I mean, um, about 4 or 5, four years
ago, and, uh, I just, I first I had the idea and then I had the story put together, but I just
didn't have a message. The the book didn't have a message. The message that I
wanted, that I knew I have to get across until I came to this knowledge and, um, I
actually, I, I finished the first draft and right now it's being edited by an editor. And now
that I have gone through since the time I sent it to the editor until now, I've gone through
this process. When I get it back and I have to do my revisions, a lot of things are going
to be added, added and polished.

Speaker2: [01:11:32] Because of.

Speaker1: [01:11:32] Uh, quite a bit.

Speaker2: [01:11:33] Yeah, because of this whole legal experience. Yeah. Wow. Crazy.
Mhm. Well Naomi, this has been very interesting. I did not know what to expect when,
when I read your. I'm glad you.

Speaker1: [01:11:43] Took, took a chance on.

Speaker2: [01:11:44] Me. Awesome. Just. Yeah. Just felt felt good. Um. And I think like
like you like you mentioned, this is the time where we've all sort of been pushed to sort
of, uh, wake up a little bit to the whole matrix, whatever that definition definition is for
you. So I think this will be something people are curious about. Hi. Five. It's thank.
Speaker1: [01:12:05] You. Very simple. But it's not easy. You have to do the work and
you can listen to me for a long time. You can listen to me for or anybody else. You can
go to Sullivan's way and you can, um, go through the knowledge. Share. But it. It's. The
penny has to drop for you. It's for me. It's kind of like listening to a good techno tune. It
starts off rough and confusing and you're like, what the hell is going on? Where is this
taking me? And then all of a sudden, boom! It's like, wow, that was such a surprise. This
is how it is, how it's been for me.

Speaker2: [01:12:41] I love that you compared everything we just talked about to a
good techno tune. That's the best. So true. It is. And the hook comes in with the melody.
You're like, okay, I get this is the part where you throw your hands up, I get it. Yeah. It's
like it feels good.

Speaker1: [01:12:55] Because it's just the what is true comes out of a lot of confusion.
Yes. And that's the nature of it. You come out of a lot of confusion. You've gone through
all this programming and you're all confused and you're like, oh, what woman? I'm, I'm
not my name. Like, what the hell is this? And then you kind of, you know, if if it's meant
for you, then you get into it and you listen to it and you're like, oh, okay, okay, okay.
Whoa, whoa.

Speaker2: [01:13:21] Yes, that's the name.

Speaker1: [01:13:23] Why was I thinking anything else?

Speaker2: [01:13:25] That's the name of your children's book, The Little Raver.

Speaker4: [01:13:29] Right? Yeah, yeah. You're welcome.

Speaker2: [01:13:33] Thank you so much. This has been a delight. Awesome. Thanks
for listening, guys. And share this episode with someone who maybe your favorite, uh,
legal nerd or someone who just, uh, wants to learn more about being sovereign or the
board game or The matrix. All the above share.

Speaker1: [01:13:50] A good person.

Speaker2: [01:13:50] That's right. Share it. Support it. Thanks so much for listening,
guys.

[Burnaby49]

I went back a bit through through Kid Carson's list of podcasts to see if he has any theme. Instead I found an eclectic mix of guests and topics. Podcast 100 is How To Find Love in Vancouver. Since my 46th anniversary is coming up in a few weeks that one's a touch late for me. 99 is Your Biggest Parenting Mistake, again way too late for me to benefit from. No. 87 is a bit more practical, How to Pick Your Bubbly for New Years but, unfortunately, I've already got a bottle of Henkell's in the fridge. Some other topics are What's Happening in Iran, UFO's and the Bible and one on alien abductions from some guy who claim this is a commonplace everyday event for him. I suppose he settles down after supper, turns on the TV, and suddenly it's the anal probes again. My favorite, but yet again too late for me, is 104 - Penis Enlargement (and more!) w/ Dr. Neil Pollock.

In other words a podcaster who takes what he can get and what he got was Naomi.

[JamesVincent]

Those claims, because a man or a woman stands in honor, a man or
a woman is not there, um, to sort of get out of a responsibility or obligation they've
created for themselves. Um, so the reason they were labeled vexatious, because it was
pretty obvious that they were just claiming, coming forward as a man or a woman, not
understanding what it actually means to be a man or a woman trying to get away from
some obligation or some responsibility.

Umm, what dafuq is actually being said here?

[Dr. Caligari]

Umm, what dafuq is actually being said here?

"Everybody else used the magic words wrong. Only I use them right."

[Burnaby49]

As good an interpretation as I could make.

[JamesVincent]

I noticed that we had several first time posters in this thread. Welcome to Quatloos and feel free to post whatever comes to mind regarding aforementioned nutjob.

[Burnaby49]

Arbabi has been suspended from practicing law by the Law Society of British Columbia.

https://twitter.com/DNetolitzky/status/ ... 1697245308

This is an interim measure prohibiting her from practicing law but she hasn't (as yet) lost her license. That may still follow after the LSBC gives her a formal hearing. However it does mean that Envision Law Group, her small law practice is now shut down, at least a far as her participation is concerned. I'd guess that this means the end of Envision even if the suspension is rescinded. There's no shortage of law firms handling her firm's main practice, basic real estate work. This doesn't stop her from representing herself, she just can't claim to be a practicing lawyer while doing it.

As Donald notes she'd better be very careful going forward if she wishes to keep her license. However, given the commitment she showed to sovereign craziness in her recent radio interview, this seems unlikely so I'd guess she's probably finished as a lawyer.

[JamesVincent]

So was she was the sole attorney for the firm? And I guess Donald would keep us updated with any further hearings.

[Burnaby49]

The firm has (almost certainly now 'had') two other people. One was an associate lawyer, a young guy maybe just out of law school. The second was a legal secretary/clerk. As I've noted a very small firm, basically Naomi.

The associate could continue in Naomi's absence but I doubt there's a business left to salvage. As far as I could tell from their website they did very basic standard legal work, real estate transfers, wills, things that a thousand other Vancouver lawyers can do. Any potential or current clients can replace them with a phone call so why get involved with a firm where the principal lawyer is ranting idiotic sovereign nonsense and renouncing real law?

[DNetolitzky]

On the British Columbia Supreme Court proceeding, I expect there won't be any more hearings. Just a decision will issue. The general result is pretty predictable, it's just "the juicy bits" that might differ.

And then the appeals will follow. Perhaps.

As for Arbabi and the Law Society of British Columbia, I don't believe there are any formal disciplinary proceedings underway yet. When those occur information will be posted on the LSBC Tribunal website (https://www.lsbctribunal.ca/). Since those are public proceedings, there should be a record as to what happens and on outcomes.

Otherwise, it's a wait and see situation!

[Burnaby49]

I've been checking the B.C. Supreme Court website in case a decision was released without a hearing however I didn't expect one because the court pretty much shuts down over the Christmas period. Now that we should be back to a normal court schedule it could be any time.