Naomi Arbabi’s suspension ‘necessary to protect the public,’ Law Society of B.C. says.
Arbabi identified herself in the claim as “i, a woman” and said the case would be tried in the “naomi arbabi court.”
As part of her lawsuit, Arbabi said her claim was “based on law of the land, and not a complaint based on legal codes acts or statutes” and asked for compensation equal to $1,000 a day for every day the glass divider has been in place.
Good. Fuck those sovereign citizens idiots
I have an uncle like that, he’s batshit crazy! Didn’t know you guys had them in Canada too!
A few too many sadly, the people following the self proclaimed queen of canada and her followers are a crazy bunch. Although they may be a bit closer to Q cultists with a sprinkle of sovereign craziness
As Canadian television is largely American channels, and thus content, our population who watch more than they read will tend to know and believe what they see there … and very little else.
They’ll argue decreasingly coherently about fantasies like Amendments in a Canadian Constitution (yeah, not a thing; especially the 1st, 5th and 2nd), sovereign citizens, vaccine fallacies and some xenophobic shit from Edmonton (think: Canadian Houston).
In November, Arbabi agreed to meet with a CBC reporter to discuss her lawsuit, but upon arrival, declined to answer any questions. Instead, she read out a notice warning of consequences if a story were to be published without her consent.
“As such harm is a very grievous trespass, i, shall claim remedy in the amount of $500,000 for such trespass plus $5,000 a day for as long as the trespass continues,” the notice read.
Her attitude annoys the fuck out of me, and I claim remedy in the amount of however much money she has, plus the value of her condo, and demand that she never speaks another word ever so as to avoid a repeat of this grievous annoyance, to myself or anyone else.
Problem solved…
Can someone explain to me the significance of her usage of the lower case “i”? She’s clearly make a point of some sort but I don’t understand it.
This site has a good explanation of sovereign citizenship. Specifically:
In the 18th-century colonies, nouns were usually capitalized, although the practice was going out of style by the time of the Revolution. Based on that, sovereigns see secret meaning in the use or non-use of capitalized letters. For example, a “citizen” is a sovereign citizen imbued with all natural rights, whereas a “Citizen” is a 14th Amendment citizen subject to the rules and regulations of government.
While that is specifically American in context, I think the principle is the same. It’s basically a kind of numerology but with the conventions of written language.
Speaking of numerology, I can’t wait for them to discover that, in ASCII, adding or subtracting the value of a [space] (decimal 32) converts between upper- and lowercase. (A=65, a=97; B=66, b=98…). Surely that gives the [space] a special magic, but is it good magic or bad magic or can anyone use it? And the fact that lowercase uses bigger numbers than uppercase must also carry some significance, right?
For a fun time, use the phrase “sovereign citizen capital letters” in a web search.
I have no idea how a functioning lawyer is falling for this craziness, if she were representing me or my interests, I’d be terrified. No one wants to ask their lawyer “so, uhhh, are you going to be basing my defence on actual law or your made up laws?”
High stress, a lack of sleep, and limited/no social interactions can break people.
Also, if you look at her firm’s site using the wayback machine you can see that it was just 2 full lawyers; one of them was her, and the other started working on his own at some point.
The associate lawyer appears to be mostly doing politics.
https://web.archive.org/web/20221129002551/https://envisionlawcorp.com/team/The weirdest thing to me is that she did Solicitor work related to this scenario.
“Envision Law Group is a boutique law firm specializing in real estate, business and estate law.”
Oh my God the best part was how the article ended…
In November, Arbabi agreed to meet with a CBC reporter to discuss her lawsuit, but upon arrival, declined to answer any questions. Instead, she read out a notice warning of consequences if a story were to be published without her consent.
“As such harm is a very grievous trespass, i, shall claim remedy in the amount of $500,000 for such trespass plus $5,000 a day for as long as the trespass continues,” the notice read.
That’s a baller move by the reporter.
