Hey, you, who's reading this in the future: you can find out who I am today at https://rarf.zone/about/. πŸ’™


E-mail me at:
info@rarf.zone
Mastodon/Fediverse
yiff.life/@katja

dog
@dog

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".



You must log in to comment.

in reply to @dog's post:

in reply to @kda's post:

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, but… …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. 🀷

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 is… …hm.

Clover.

I know one of your things is devastating precision strikes (affectionate) on your friends, but Iβ€”

… …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.

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).