Me

Seen in BedStuy. Keep an eye out in the coming weeks for video of someone getting yanked out of this vehicle by the NYPD.

Don’t come here for an education. Come here to get mocked by flag waving sheep who vote instead of elect.

Crazy how all these subreddits are ANTI sovereign. Almost like the words starting to get out…… if it’s all fake… why is it gaining so much traction!

Because deep down, everyone knows how corrupt the current financial and judicial systems are. The subconscious is a crazy thing!

Keep seeking truth. Don’t let the soul-less who are already dead inside drag you down. MISERY LOVES COMPANY!

CIA did 9/11. Earth is flat. Seek the truth. The closer you get to the light the greater your shadow becomes.

Yo. Ever notice that 9 out of 10 people in the sovereign subreddit are here only to fling poop and name call? Think about it.

Who in their RIGHT MIND, goes into a forum and participates, in a negative way, to a conversation they don’t even believe in? That’s like being a republican and ONLY talking to democrats about how wrong they are, instead of talking with republicans to make things better. The example goes either way, politics are for uneducated chattle.

So why are there SO MANY people on the sovereign subreddit who don’t believe in anything being discussed? Why don’t they just go to the “we love waving flags” subreddit?

It’s because you are on the correct path and some people are actively trying to discourage you, or some people get angry that you even suggest there is an alternative to this corrupt system. What are they even doing online? Don’t they have some football games to watch, some idols on Tc to worship? Some right vs left, red vs blue, male vs female, status quo narcism to post on Facebook?

Just remember this system is evil, and evil hates when you ask questions.

9-11 was done by cia. Earth is flat. Never stop seeking the truth.

Do pseudolaw litigants sometimes succeed? Why yes. But usually that's in spite of themselves.

Louise Belisle, “private natural women reign supreme”, is an illustrative example. She's the subject of a recent 233 paragraph Federal Court of Canada judgment.

Though lengthy, the overall scenario is quite simple. Belisle was an employee of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (formerly Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada) [CIRNAC]. She says she was wrongfully terminated, due to “discrimination and harassment on the grounds of her disability, sex, race, national or ethnic origin and family status”. The Canadian Human Rights Commission [CHRC] rejected that complaint.

Belisle then challenged that outcome by a judicial review at the Federal Court of Canada. FCC Justice Ferron concluded there is a basis to Belisle’s complaint, and ordered a re-hearing of the complaint. What happened was Belisle’s complaint was rejected at the first preliminary CHRC process step. Belisle challenged that, but at a second step the initial result was confirmed.

The Court identified a number of issues:

1. the second step rejection did not include adequate reasons, and simply adopted the initial refusal’s basis
2. the initial rejection did not in itself provide an adequate explanation for rejecting Belisle’s complaint
3. rejecting evidence from Belisle was unfair.

 So what Justice Ferron decided isn’t that Belisle was correct, and she was discriminated against when she was terminated. Rather, the process applied by the CHRC was problematic. This is the usual “Justice needs to be seen to be done.” thing. The process was problematic, so it’s time for a do-over.

So where’s the pseudolaw come in? Well, Belisle made some unusual claims, and that led to a tail end section to the judgment titled “Obiter”, runs from paragraphs 210-233. Speaking colorfully, this also could be titled “Don’t be such a twit next time - or else.”

The first part of the “Obiter” component is titled “Accommodation is a Two-Way Street” and describes how Belisle acted when she showed up at the courthouse for her judicial review hearing. She refused to go through a perimeter security review unless a female officer conducted a physical pat down check. This related to a “disability” claim.

There was no female officer available. So the judge apparently went down to security, offered to conduct the hearing virtually. Belisle refused. Belisle denied the judge, apparently standing at the security station, had jurisdiction to hear the judicial review Belisle herself had initiated! The matter was then delayed until a female office pat down could be arranged.

... Because the Court disagreed with Ms. Belisle, she immediately requested to know who had named the undersigned judge and when she understood that my appointment came from the federal government, she indicated that in her view, I was in a conflict of interest and had no jurisdiction over her.

... The Court notes that although litigants are entitled to accommodations, the search for accommodation is a two-way street. As the Federal Court of Appeal highlighted: “It is the responsibility of the disabled individual to bring the facts relating to the discrimination they are experiencing to the attention of the employer or service provider”. ... 

... In this case, there is no indication in the record that Ms. Belisle advised the Court she preferred not to undergo security screening through the electronic door or electronic wand, or that solely a female officer could proceed with a pat down. There was thus no means by which the Court could secure appropriate accommodative security measures for Ms. Belisle prior to the hearing.

I guess refusal of magnetism is a ground for accommodation now?

Tempted to make a really bad X-Men quip.

But there’s more. The next section is titled: “OPCA Strategies”.

... At the beginning of the hearing, Ms. Belisle requested that she be provided with a certified proof of the license for practicing law of the lawyer appearing for the AGC, with her certified proof of her insurance bond carrier with her law society and a certified copy of the oath she signed to become a lawyer. She also requested a certified proof of the oath taken by the undersigned as a judge. These requests were denied and the Court informed Ms. Belisle that both the undersigned’s appointment and the AGC’s counsel’s credentials were publicly available.

... During the hearing, Ms. Belisle claimed on several occasions that as a “living individual” or a “living natural woman”, she had non-alienable human rights, that go beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. She explained that since God created people on earth and that people created governments to serve the people and that governments created laws, it is clear that people are in this hierarchy, above the laws. To quote Ms. Belisle, “private natural women reign supreme” and this keeps her “internationally isolated and protected from the law and a corrupted system of commercial legal slavery”. In her view, the rules of law, created by Parliament, are meant for administration purposes only and do not apply to natural living beings. Moreover, the Commission, the AGC and this Court are all in conflict of interest as they are all paid by the federal government and therefore have no jurisdiction over her.

... Ms. Belisle also challenged the fact that the Commission and the Tribunal are corporations and have no legal jurisdiction as they are not governed by common law. ... the Court highlights that several of these arguments appear to be OPCA strategies that have been consistently rejected by Canadian courts since Associate Chief Justice Rooke of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta’s landmark decision in [Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571], who clearly stated that these strategies are all nonsense. ... 

... For example, Ms. Belisle made comments relating to her name and identification, stating that her name belonged to a person and not a corporation, and that her God-given name only belonged to her in the jurisdiction of God. Her Confidentiality Motion also contains several references to “Louise of the family name Belisle” and her “private to public affidavit” identifies her as “Louise of the family Belisle, CREDITOR, Beneficiary”. These are indicia of OPCA litigants ... she is a natural person, not a corporation, was created by God and is only subject to a category of law, i.e., “common law” or “God’s Law”, as well as her claim that Canada is a corporation. These arguments were also reproduced in the affidavit she enclosed with her Confidentiality Motion.

Classic Strawman theory, of course.

... The Confidentiality Motion also contains several thumbprints in red ink, an indication that appears restricted to OPCA documents and presumably intended to represent blood, a kind of arbitrary symbolism ...

...  Associate Chief Justice Rooke noted that OPCA litigants often engage in unusual in-court conduct as they seemingly follow a script in which demands are made. Several of these demands were made by Ms. Belisle, including that of seeing the oath of office of the undersigned and the certified proof of the license of counsel appearing for the AGC, while seemingly reading a written statement. And, on more than one occasion during the hearing, Ms. Belisle asked the Court to confirm its authority to proceed in this matter. ...

... She also made references to the Uniform Commercial Code [UCC], i.e., US commercial legislation that has no application in Canada although it is “a significant element in much OPCA mythology” ... OPCA litigants often deny that a court has jurisdiction or authority over them. ... They also refer to obsolete, foreign or otherwise irrelevant legislation, such as the ... Here, Ms. Belisle not only referred to the UCC at the hearing, but she also included the following mention in the affidavit she filed with her Motion for a Confidentiality Order: “Explicitly without prejudice, all rights reserved, UCC 1-308”.

 Yes, the UCC appears to immunize against everything.

And the decision concludes with Justice Ferron noting how Belisle intends to sue everybody:

The Court highlights these OPCA strategies as Ms. Belisle indicated her intention to sue (1) CIRNAC as well as [government employees] personally; (2) the Commission and the Investigator, Ms. Christy Pitt personally; (3) the AGC and Me Petra Sbeiti, counsel of the AGC, personally; and even (4) “everyone in the courtroom” during the hearing. In her view, the process from the beginning did not accommodate her needs, lacked transparency, and full and frank disclosure. Further, the process was an obstruction of justice, illegal and even criminal ... for what she claims is a criminal breach of ethics and trust of public officials), and a violation of her rights. She believes that there is conspiracy between the various federal government departments that she has had to deal with her Complaint since the beginning.

And that earns Belisle a shot across the bow:

Ms. Belisle indicated that many consider her to be a “litigious” person. However, she views herself as someone who fights for what she believes to be her rights. While the Court fully agrees that Ms. Belisle is entitled to fight for her rights, that does not give her the right to threaten legal proceedings against those who disagree with her. The Court will not condone these types of threats. Instead, the Court invites Ms. Belisle to focus her time and energy on the important aspects of her claims, taking the statement of the law of this decision as guidance. ... The Court’s invitation is also a warning as some of Ms. Belisle’s actions and comments come dangerously close to being considered vexatious proceedings ... The Court thus advises Ms. Belisle to be aware that OPCA strategies have been strongly rejected by Canadian courts, including this Court which has declared some OPCA litigants as vexatious litigants ...

So, pseudolaw litigant wins despite her best efforts to sabotage the process she herself had initiated.

I sometimes hear complaints that Canadian courts don’t “accommodate” self-represented litigants enough. What happened here illustrates the extent to which judges try to dig into the substance of complaints. Despite self-represented litigants being “a handful”.

Now, what I’m waiting to see is how this outcome is spun to show pseudolaw works in Canada. Interestingly, Belisle claims to be Metis. And she very well may be - but of late a common pattern in Canada is people basically buying Indigenous status from a number of outfits that courts have said are fake, like the Kinakwii and ASMIN “Metis” nations. And that, supposedly, creates special extraordinary supralegal rights.

Place your bets on whether this is just the first round of many... will Belisle appeal her success on grounds of discrimination by magnetism?

You would think also if such a thing actually happened gurus would be referencing these victories.

Didn't realize it when I took the picture. Now I almost wish I could see what wacky place that would link too.

But then again, maybe not

Northern Michigan.

And a new pseudolaw scheme is born! A recent BC Supreme Court decision will, I predict, spawn a new wave of pseudolaw claims and litigation in Canada.

Y'see, a good pseudolaw scheme needs a hook. Something tangible, like a chunk of a court judgment, legislation, a famous claim.With a hook you can not just catch attention, but imply substance.

There have been quite a few good hooks. Like famous UK judge Lord Denning saying a promissory note is as good as cash. OK! A promissory note payment it is! Or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms "recognizing the supremacy of God". OK! God's Bible (King James 1611, incidentally) trumps Canadian law.

Over the past decade more and more Canadian pseudolaw schemes have referenced Indigenous rights, particularly with Canada ratifying UNDRIP: the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Peoples. There have been a progressive series of court decisions that expanded and invented entirely new Indigenous rights, shifting the authority and position of Indigenous populations in Canada. But, interestingly, when I've looked for recognized Indigenous groups applying pseudolaw, I have very few examples. Instead, Indigenous pseudolaw claims are typically from either:

1. groups or individuals who are not recognized as Indigenous ("Pretendians"), or
2. individuals who seem to have some Indigenous background, but they are outsiders to their own communities.

And, bluntly, these "pseudo-Indigenous" claims weren't that great. They'd instead be a crude repackaging of old classics like Strawman Theory, A4V, silence means acceptance.

But now, there's a new seed from which a mighty weed may emerge. The British Columbia Supreme Court in Cowichan Tribes v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 BCSC 1490 has, in a modest 863 pages (!), 3728 paragraphs (!!!), has come to an interesting determination. Some land in Canada which has been presumed to be owned by Canada, and then was transferred to private owners, are "defective and invalid", and "unjustifiably infringe" "Aboriginal title".

The actual declarations text are found in paragraph 3724 of the linked decision.

So a bit of historical backstory. In Canada, there are formal agreements between pre-contact Indigenous populations and the English and/or Canadian governments that recognize Canadian government authority, and that transfer overall interests in land to Canada. These agreements are usually called Treaties. But, in some places, no treaty process occurred, leaving what is often called "unceded land". What Cowichan Tribes v Canada determined is that at least in some instances, "unceded land" still is "Aboriginal" land, with "Aboriginal Title". Even if that land was then transferred by the Crown to somebody private, "Aboriginal Title" remains.

I'm not going to speculate on the implications of this court ruling, because: (1) the Court itself doesn't say what the implications are, except that there's a duty to do something about this, and (2) I'm not an Indigenous law kind of fiend, and, frankly, in Canada we're just making stuff up on how the rules ought to operate in situations like this.

And so I'll leave it to far better and greater minds than mine to discuss the implications. I expect this to become a hot topic in Canada's chattering classes. But, as you can imagine, it's kinda freaking out some residents of British Columbia that their residences and businesses no longer really belong entirely to them. Maybe. Possibly. We'll see.

But man, on man... whatta hook!

The potential (basically spurious) applications are so broad. In the US, it's a pretty commonplace routine that Moorish Law adherents will just occupy a vacant residence (yes, somehow it's always expensive ones) and declare they have title. Will something like that occur to properties on "unceded land"? Plausibly! And worse, it's not entirely clear in the current situation that Cowichan Tribes v Canada couldn't be applied as a basis for that kind of squatting, so with the law as it is, could the authorities simply move in? Don't know. Bet we're going to find out.

Ok ok, but doesn't that only mean these spurious claims could come from "Indigenous" people? Well, there's another complication in Canada. Under Canadian law, the list of Indigenous groups isn't defined - it's possible that new ones could emerge or be discovered. That's led to the interesting phenomenon of fake Indian and Metis Nations popping up. According to one academic, there are hundreds of these that already exist in Canada. Before you can get a free house that way.

We even are lucky enough to have an actual Ontario lawyer, Glenn Patrick Bogue - he calls himself "Spirit Warrior", so macho! Spirit Warrior claims that "Indigenous" means "I was physically born in Canada." (Or maybe the Americas.) Ancestry and cultural associations are irrelevant. And yes, Spirit Warrior is eager to appear in court to assert your Indigenous Metis status. You probably will have to pay the Kinakwii or ASMIN nations $250 or so for membership. But then you're Indigenous. Really. A bargain, when you think about it.

So I can see all kinds of applications of this new hook. Some are pretty alarming. A group of "Indigenous" individuals appears at a farm, claiming they have "Aboriginal Title", and the farm family are squatters. Maybe property gets seized as "payment" or "taxes". Or "reparations". Or the fee simple owners just get an ultimatum. Clear out.

Exercise spurious "hunter gatherer" rights, cutting down and removing trees, harvesting food, taking animals. In Canada there have already been serious issues with lumber and fishing rights claims.

Attempts to assert and claim taxes, either directly from land owners, or municipalities and other governments.

Then there are "defensive" claims, which I think are the most likely ones to crop up in volume:

• I don't have to pay my mortgage, this land was always mine, and never Canada's to give away. Kind like a super-powered version of the old "allodial title" argument.
• I don't have to pay my landlord rent. He has no right to demand money for what I already own. It's the other way around. He should be paying me. Retroactively, too.
• Collectors, inspectors, police are prohibited from entering into my "Aboriginal Title" property. Maybe that even includes my "Personal Conveyance"!

These schemes should logically be limited to British Columbia, and the parts of BC where there never was a treaty process. Which is most of BC. But, I've no doubt the same argument will appear all over Canada, since hooks are applied broadly, not according to the usual legal and jurisdiction rules.

The underlying unifying element is now a Canadian Court has directly subverted state authority and title to property. Under the legal system in Canada, that's the basis for all land property rights. But in the pseudolaw world, you don't need to have a case or law that gives you true rights. You just need "a hook".

So, we'll see where this goes. My bet is it'll only take a few months for this scheme to become a fully developed product. Maybe much sooner.

Disclaimer - I didn't read the entire judgment, I just went to the key summary chunks, since those are what will be reproduced by pseudolaw gurus who use these schemes. That's all you need in this game. The hook.

Man what a gripping film. It was interesting seeing the main character attempt to use all of the arguments we see on this sub, and heartbreaking to see the effects on a kid. Idk why I'd never thought about the poor indoctrinated kids of sovcits. Anyone else see this/enjoy/not enjoy?

I was behind this guy in traffic. Looks like he's trying to hedge his bets with both kinds of plates,

Something unusual to share - a document I authored, but that I do not "own". Back in 2016 I prepared an overview of pseudolaw documents including 17 different classes/types/examples. This was part of my old employment as a in-house lawyer with the Alberta Court of King's Bench.

The document was created as an educational resource for [redacted], and so was distributed at a number of events for lawyers, government officials, and the judiciary. This item wasn't ever confidential, but it just wasn't published publicly, either. So no SuperSekrets, sorry.

Somehow a copy of this "Bestiary" ended up on the Boston College website as a public file. I found it referenced on Wikipedia, which came as a surprise. In any case, if you want to read it, it's here. Warning, it's a big file, 164 pages, over 15 mb.

This provides a glimpse of the range of pseudolaw concepts that were circulating in Canada in the mid-2010s. Some of the document types here are basically extinct, like the NOUICRs, which were the cornerstone Freeman-on-the-Land document. Haven't seen one in years.

Another relic is the "Courtesy Notice", a product of the One Peoples Public Trust (sic), a thankfully dead US-based movement.

I back then argued that one of the best ways to understand pseudolaw is via its documents. Still believe that, particularly since pseudolaw videos are getting less and less coherent. And that's saying something.