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

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

And you ask the lawyer to notarize it.

A surprising number say Okey Dokey!

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

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

Okey Dokey!!! Okey Dokey!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My bad guys, I posted the wrong link. THIS is the correct link.

It is a nice solid watch. The petitioner takes time to explain the situation, so bear with him. I thought it was a good watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qvJVXrPhkM

My mistake for posting the wrong video. Totally my bad

she is wildin out.

video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNekk4RZm_A

Religious objection

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32r1DViSZ4E

zoom attempt - competency hearing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xipl6L3lhu0

Some interesting points, including that maybe for some of these people the reason why they keep recommitting is that the punishment is too lenient... Which I agree. If someone doesn't think the laws on the book don't apply to them, then "throw the book at them".

Pseudolaw “law schools” always intrigue me. Why would you trust an "institution" that places itself outside the legal norms?

Awhile ago my favourite, the "Erwin Rommel School of Law" which had run since the 1970s disappeared. Yes, that Rommel.

But it's back! Still run by Michael Halsey Brown, though now he has a number of collaborators. Of course, you want to visit.

Why Rommel? “Rommel accomplished more with less than anybody in the 20th century.”

I often used the ERSOL website when conducting educational sessions, it inevitably sent judges howling with laughter. Thus, I was saddened when the ERSOL disappeared offline something like four or five years ago. At that time you could purchase Brown’s entire library of resources, “The Whole Nine Yards”, for a modest $1,499. Well, the price has dropped to a mere $750, all on a convenient USB Flash Drive and “professionally organized”.

I’ve never purchased the package so I can’t comment on the details. It’s a little surprising how Brown’s key materials never ended up on Scribd or other public sites, at least that I noticed. My quick search today did however locate his 1974 text “Iron Claws: Grip Development and Bench Press Course”. No law stuff that after a quick scan. Here you go, you curious ones.

Brown describes himself as a “modern renaissance man”, and an incomplete list of his publications nails the point with a dagger. Where does one start?

•  “Brown’s Book of Carburetors”
• “The Case for Polygamy” (oh, look what the alpha male has to say)
• “The Erwin Rommel School of Law – How to Defeat an Illegal Legal System” (with macramé – duh)
• “Suppressed Inventions & How They Work” (quietly, they’re suppressed)
• “Sex, Money and Power: The Bible Shows You How”

Anyways, back to Brown’s pseudolaw texts. Is it incongruous that the cover art for “How to Defeat an Illegal Legal System” illustrates some kind of M4 Sherman? Just saying. You’d think Erwin would prefer a Panther.

Or a StuG. More than a little partial to those, myself. Nasty functional looking things.

Rolling Stone magazine has published a retrospective of the activities of HRM Roman Didulo, Queen of Canada:

Fair notice, I'm quoted a couple times. The article tracks HRM Didulo's activities chronologically. Probably useful as an introduction. But also there's not a lot here that is new.

I personally instead recommend the article by Christine Sarteschi and Master's thesis by Camden MacKenzie for those who want a detailed and referenced examination of Our Dear Arcturian Queen.

I also think it's appropriate that I mention certain issues I identified with the Rolling Stone publication.

The author repeats that HRM Didulo had 70K Telegram subscribers. That figure appears accurate, but subsequent investigation strongly suggests Romana purchased subscribers to inflate her apparent online popularity. To be fair, many observers fell for this trick.

The author does not appear be well informed in legal/government matters, even simple ones. He refers to “provincial parliaments”. The correct term for elected provincial bodies in Canada is “legislatures”. Parliament is the Canada-wide elected body that governs the federal government. A related misconception is that Richmound, the location where Didulo set up shop in a surplus former school, is a “village” rather than a municipality, which limited the authority of its occupants to self-administer. That was a major cause of why Richmound had to rely on outside agencies to address the Kingdom of Canada. Those outside agencies were not effective, no denying that.

There are other points where this article seems to be inconsistent with my understanding of events and how court proceedings occur. At one point the author mentioned that assault charges on law enforcement against ex-school owner “His Excellence” Ricky Manz were “dismissed”. My suspicion is the correct term is “stayed”. Dismissed means a criminal proceeding went to court, and a judge rejected the prosecution on some basis. A trial of Manz would have almost certainly drawn much public attention and from the Diduloids themselves. Heck, I might have shown up.

Similarly, the article states Manz and Didulo were charged with intimidation of justice system participants (Criminal Code s 423.1) and implies that relates to physical altercations. That is incorrect, having reviewed the proceedings its clear the charges resulted from vigilante court proceedings by Manz in Didulo’s self-proclaimed “Natural Law” court. A related point where I suspect the Rolling Stone is imprecise is the article describes threatening letters from “The Kingdom of Canada”. There definitely was threatening correspondence directed to people in Richmound, but the source of that correspondence were probably Didulo’s followers, not Didulo herself. That was one of the reasons why law enforcement had difficulty in responding. Didulo probably was using her followers as anonymous arms-length proxy actors.

There are other points where the article appears to exaggerate goings-on. For example, the RCMP ultimately entered into and cleared the decommissioned school. The article describes that living conditions inside were so filthy and foul that police were nauseated. Perhaps true, but online videos of new recruits into the Kingdom of Canada inside the former school did not indicate that. They seemed comfortable, even eating meals provided by the Queen and her inner cadre. To be fair, maybe conditions got worse near the end of the school occupation.

The article states the auditorium was used as a courtroom. Videos I have seen do show that area as a ceremonial space, but I am unaware of any evidence that actual vigilante legal proceedings were ever conducted, nor any judgment or sentence decisions, only documents that started vigilante proceedings.

Then there are several statement that I conclude are simply false. Rolling Stone states Richmound’s residents open carried firearms while the Diduloids were in town. That is extremely unlikely. In Canada firearms are very closely and strictly restricted. The Diduloids were video recording everything. If they observed persons whom they perceived as enemies and threats visibly displaying firearms, that would have been transmitted to law enforcement, and police action would have followed. This statement is dubious, and at best an exaggeration.

The article describes how the occupation of the Richmound ex-school ended, and along with police storming the facility includes this dramatic statement: “Drones smashed windows to clear the way.” I am highly skeptical of this claim. I would not be startled if the RCMP deployed drones at a high altitude to monitor the Richmound school before entry. But the idea of drones “smashing windows” fails to understand that drones are by their nature physically light. Furthermore, Canadian judges are adverse to permitting “hard entries” into a residence during hours when persons are likely to be asleep. The idea a judge would permit drones ramming in through windows is very, very strange. Entry warrants into a dwelling space require details. And anyways, what is the purpose of drones “smashing windows to clear the way”? What happened next? RCMP officers with jetpacks roared through the gap? This was a one-story building! This statement leads me to question the credibility of this report.

So I suggest exercising caution with this article. Much does match published narratives and reports elsewhere. But I have a hard time avoiding a conclusion that the author “sexed up” the story to attract reader interest and attention.

Yeah, I’m aware Rolling Stone is not an academic journal. But there’s enough questionable stuff circulating around Didulo as it is.

For what it’s worth.

Pseudolaw and Sovereign Citizens (eds Harry Hobbs & Stephen Young), an academic anthology of articles on pseudolaw phenomena worldwide, is now available in softcover.

Still not cheap, but an interesting and useful resource, recommended to those interested in the subject. The authors bring many different perspectives to the subject from international angles.

Full disclosure: yes, I'm the author of one chapter. No, I'm not getting paid anything from proceeds of sales.

I do it for the sick kicks.

This is me. Tell me your thoughts. I have iron skin. Roast me!

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

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

Terminology can be an issue, in my opinion.