You know a case is going to be good when this kinda shit happens
She argued that she was appearing in court as "a living, breathing, alive woman," not a lawyer, and said she would refer to herself using a lowercase "i".

Hey, you, who's reading this in the future: you can find out who I am today at https://rarf.zone/about/. π
You know a case is going to be good when this kinda shit happens
She argued that she was appearing in court as "a living, breathing, alive woman," not a lawyer, and said she would refer to herself using a lowercase "i".
i... feel like a licensed practitioner of law should at least understand that "i have my own definition of law, which is so obvious that it need not be written down but which the court does not understand" is not a particularly strong case to make
I should have made popcorn before starting this article.
"did you watch the new bachelor last night?"
"nah, something else was on."
I love the confidence to go βI could sue a news outlet for half a million a day using my made up terminology tooβ
said outlet capping off their article with a photocopy of her letter threatening to sue if they publish an article about her
10/10, no notes, outstanding journalism
Refusing to capitalize or inflect pronouns due to sovereign citizen theory is certainly a new one on me. Gives it a slight Rastafarian vibe tbh lmao
This reads like a stoner telling a joke that goes for so long you are not sure it's made up or not anymore
You know, it's not every day that sovcit and nimby ideologies merge together like this...normally the sovcits want to be so far off-grid that there's just "yard", and while they tend to be more in favor of central authority figures than they claim, almost no group of people seeks to rely on them for leverage the way the nimbys do
Yeah, definitely. Sovcit legal argumentation totally has onramps other than the usual ones (tax evasion, dodging child/spousal support obligations, and militant white supremacism), mostly for opportunistic reasons, butβ¦ β¦getting too deep into that ecosystem makes it a lot harder to stay on the opportunist side of things.
But average sovcits and NIMBYs share one thing: a view of their own property rights that's so expansive that it tramples over even others' property rights. Most NIMBYism can use standard legal arguments and typical channels, but sometimes, protecting one's "backyard" is impossible through means that won't get the Law Society cracking down on you, I guess. π€·
I'm still in awe that someone could make it through a JD program and PLTC and still end up falling for OPCA stuff. Over a decade after Meads, even.
Like, to be fair, it looks like she's basically exclusively a solicitor and thus doesn't end up in court much (I'm pretty sure both BC results on CanLII mentioning anyone named "N. Arbabi" involve a different lawyer who was called a few years later), but, like, c'mon. If you're working in an entirely unfamiliar area of law, start with the relevant textbooks or CED or whatever.
But yeah. I'm curious to see what the outcome of this is, because practicing as a solicitor with no discipline history for nine years and then doing this isβ¦ β¦hm.
I dunno what I just read but I was not prepared for it
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20508187-parhar-civil-claim are you telling me that this doesn't hold up in a court of law
i:man:mak is one of those things I'd believe is some obscure risc chip's assembly code if you told me it was
Clover.
I know one of your things is devastating precision strikes (affectionate) on your friends, but Iβ
β¦ β¦you just nerdsniped me into writing a longpost tearing this apart. There is so much wrong here that I think it'd be a good intro to BC's Supreme Court Civil Rules and the specifics of why, legally speaking, sovcit stuff is so laughable.
Update: the BCSC beat me to it (unsurprisingly).
But I'm absolutely blown away by even just the procedural fuckery here (you don't just ???replace words in the Notice of Civil Claim form???) (and you??? can't??? just declare??? that you're running your own court???), let alone the absolute misunderstanding of substantive law.
Honestly, I suspect this won't end in disbarment, even if it will end with some fairly onerous practice restrictions and remedial measures for a while. She just stepped entirely out of her wheelhouse in probably the most laughable but least tragic fashion possible.
I think more likely that very few firms will take her on as staff after this lapse in sanity.
Ah. I must have missed that. Welp. Maybe she can help all the other sovcit idiots we have in the interior with their inevitable legal troubles with the cops.
I get the feeling she isn't going to be allowed to do that for a long time. :x
But condolences on your sovcit problem!!
canadian opca dudes are like the funniest fucking thing imaginable. rip to this lady
And even sub-OPCA levels of naΓ―ve legal argumentation, like "FIRST AMENDMENT" "SECOND AMENDMENT" "THAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL".
ss 1 and 33 of the Charter are so, so, so explicit about the fact that Charter rights are constrained (and in many cases, liable to be suspended by Parliament or provincial legislatures whenever).
We did it, millennials have gentrified the sovereign citizens movement