I swear I see a lot of broken car windows and they have those SovCit "plates" on their cars

Yeah, my relative died, and I inherited that mansion. Me, and my wife, Morgan Fairchild. Yeah, that's the ticket!

The CBC's 5th Estate news program has released a video on pseudolaw "Sovereign Citizens" who have defrauded the Canadian government using Strawman Theory related techniques, possibly up to $300 million.

I was contacted by the CBC for this program. I do not appear because I refuse to participate in any video or permit photographs of myself.

I'm kinda weird that way.

Rookie Sovereign Citizen Demands 20 Ounces of Gold, Meets The Ground Instead - YouTube

How much power does a judge have? Can a judge intervene in a case and issue an allegedly false or procedurally invalid endorsement based on fraud, false statements, or other misconduct for his or her own interest?

Attached is the cover (first) page of an endorsement issued by Justice Akazaki, which I contend was issued illegally and is procedurally invalid. I contend that it was issued without jurisdiction, without a scheduled motion, without notice, without a hearing, without the participation of the alleged participants, and without proper access to the court file and/or despite the contents of the file.

Contrary to what Justice Akazaki wrote, I, Behrouz Salehi, never appeared or participated in the court proceeding referred to in the endorsement. I have never seen Justice Akazaki. I am also certain that the other persons identified as participants did not appear or participate in the proceeding.

The role of the alleged participants identified by Justice Akazaki in the endorsement is not consistent with the court file.

Justice Akazaki stated that Daniel J. Abrahams represented Professional Engineers Ontario, whereas Mr. Abrahams was self-represented. This raises an important question: Can a self-represented person represent an entity?

Moreover, Daniel J. Abrahams had no role in this proceeding, as far as the court record shows. The fact that he was identified as representing Professional Engineers Ontario raises serious concerns about the accuracy of the endorsement and about Justice Akazaki's understanding of the procedural circumstances of the case.

Justice Akazaki also stated that “the entity incorporated in 1922 by patent under Professional Engineers Act, R.S.O. 1990.” I contend that this is factually incorrect and raises serious concerns about the accuracy of the endorsement and the judge's understanding of the underlying facts.

The issuance of an endorsement based on an event that did not occur is not merely a disagreement with judicial reasoning. It raises serious concerns regarding judicial integrity, impartiality, accountability, and the accuracy of the judicial record.

These circumstances raise the question of why Justice Akazaki became involved in this matter and issued two endorsements containing what I consider numerous factual errors, incorrect assumptions, and false statements.

Justice Akazaki's statement that there were five participants is, in my view, inconsistent with the court record and the events that actually occurred. I contend that this statement raises serious concerns under sections 380 and 131 of the Criminal Code, although I recognize that the application of those provisions is ultimately a matter for the appropriate legal authority or court to determine.

I also contend that Justice Akazaki's initiation of the proceeding without a motion from any defendant raises serious concerns regarding obstruction of justice under section 139 of the Criminal Code and breach of trust by a public officer under section 122. These are serious allegations that require proper investigation and legal determination.

Justice Akazaki also appears to have incorrectly stated that Bernard Charles LeBlanc and Anastasia-Maria Hountalas represented Natasha S. Danson. I contend that this statement is inconsistent with the court record.

Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) has incurred or paid confidential legal expenses that I understand to total $12,856,881.00. I contend that these expenditures and the circumstances surrounding this litigation require transparency and investigation, particularly in light of my allegation that efforts were made to prevent the matter from proceeding to a trial and to avoid liability. I believe that this information may be relevant to understanding the actions of Justice Akazaki and others.

What document, information, or communication did Justice Akazaki rely upon when identifying the persons who allegedly appeared and identifying their respective legal representation?

Found this one in college town while driving Lyft in Tallahassee, made sure to let a TPD officer know so the could get this boat captain off the road

Where I live a lawyer or ex-lawyer is prohibited from serving in juries. I kinda regret that.

But in Australia you just show up! Cool!

Yes, this is a pseudolaw thing.

I'll say this: the Common Law Court of the Sovereign Peoples Assembly of Western Australia has beaten out any Canadian court I've attended on one key point: they supply branded water bottles!

Pretty aggressive sentences, too. This judgment imposed 150 year, and $300 million (gold bullion) penalties on a bunch of psychiatrists.

I also like how the judgment clarifies the exchange rates for gold and worthless fiat currency at the judgment date. It's these little details that encourage institutional trust.

Too bad this isn't a Canadian outfit. It'd give me an excuse to write about the CLC SPAWA and in a legal constitutional sense evaluate what would be the consequences of such a judgment. Yes, it's probably not enforceable. There would likely not be any criminal prohibition breached in Canada by the Court, though its Sheriffs could be in trouble.

But what I find intriguing in a goofy law formalities/procedure sense is what about the "No Appeal" clause. At least in Canada that would not work. But explaining why would be fun.

Oh well.

Nicola & David Suppa reversed the taxation process. They took ordinary Canada Revenue Agency money deposit forms, scribbled on them, declared those were a “Coupon of Money” & demanded the CRA pay them $4,494.530.03.

The CRA didn’t pay. The Suppas sued.

And it didn't work. Shocking!

 A recent decision of Justice Duchesne of the Federal Court of Canada tells and illustrates the tale! He calls what the Suppas did "defacing" CRA documents:

 in order to create fictitious “negotiable instruments” to make millions of dollars payable to them by the CRA based on a tortuous reading of legislation supplemented by dictionary definitions of various terms. The statement of claim falls within the ambit of OPCA litigation, fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and is plainly and obviously doomed to fail.

The pseudolegal theory behind the Suppas’ claim is a bastardized interpretation of the Bills of Exchange Act and Financial Administration Act purportedly transforms an IOU into a final payment. That is a pretty common Canadian “money for nothing” pseudolaw gambit. The Suppas version is what I would politely call “unsophisticated”.

The Suppas then used a series of notices, including a “Notice of Dishonour of Non-Acceptance” and “Notice of Dishonour” that purport to create a binding outcome against the CRA by non-response and non-acceptance. This is commonly referred to as a “Three/Five Letters” strategy.

The judgment attaches some of these documents, both the “defaced” receipts and the Three/Five Letters. They’re kind of small and fuzzy the resolution isn’t the greatest, but if you want to review them and have a good giggle, there you are! See the “Schedule” at the end of the judgment.

One such document is simply a payment receipt re-labelled as “Money order”, with:

 PAY TO THE ORDER OF 
NICK SUPPA 
WITHOUT RECOURSE
By: [signature Nick Suppa]
NICK SUPPA, VICE PRESIDENT

What’s kind of fun is the exact language and “defacing” changes evolve document to document, which shows the Suppas were experimenting and feeling around looking for that magic language that would get them tasty tasty free money.

Justice Duchesne described the process this way:

The thread running through the alleged “registered negotiable instruments” is that the Plaintiffs have taken a GST/HST tax owing remittance voucher or a similar form of document, written in manuscript on the face of the voucher that the document is a money order or other type of document payable to the either of the Plaintiffs, signed the document “without recourse” and then endorsed the remittance slip with the words “accepted for payment” or “accepted for deposit”, or “for value”, again, “without recourse”. The stamped signatures on the documents are signed by the either of the Plaintiffs as Agents for themselves as a “Principal”. A demand letter replete with OPCA language and demands that the CRA pay them the amount they inscribed on the voucher by defacing it based on their own unsound interpretation of BEA and the FAA, along with various dictionary definitions, then follow. ...

 A very accurate summary. Though he’s polite when it comes to calling this scheme garbage:

The documents relied upon by the Plaintiffs to substantiate their claims in this proceeding purport to unilaterally impose a payment obligation on the CRA when the underlying documents said to substantiate the alleged debts, or payments by the Plaintiffs or either of them to CRA, have no basis in law and are plainly fictions.

 Or in other words, garbage.

Naturally the Suppas’ lawsuit to enforce their magic documents was identified immediately, challenged, and tossed. The Suppas were ordered to pay $2,000 for wasting everyone’s time.

 It must be getting a little discouraging for pseudolaw types to have their arguments slapped down like this. The Federal Court of Canada is a very businesslike and efficient place. Abusive litigation is targeted aggressively. As this decision illustrates, both the government lawyers and the court know their stuff.

Full decision and silly pictures are here: Suppa v Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FC 1191

I made a short effort to learn more about the Suppas. Didn’t find anything interesting.

New Zealand has its first broad survey of pseudolaw caselaw in MA thesis by William Biss.

Biss identifies & surveys 267 NZ court judgments that involve pseudolaw, plotting a progressive increase over the past decade. Notably, half involve a NZ Maori-specific/linked conceptual base that Biss describes as a novel local adaptation of pseudolaws' more common general structure.

Biss also uses interviews and law enforcement reports to evaluate the NZ pseudolaw ecosystem, including:

• the role of the COVID-19 pandemic in the propagation of these ideas
• the source populations for these claims (lower income/economic status)
• the absence of leading guru figures, or rather the proliferation of numerous micro-gurus with small to negligible follower bases
• employment of Indigenous arguments that are incoherent to the developed law in NZ
• the limited record of violence from pseudolaw adherent populations, but deep personal disassociation from state and social norms
• that Australian and NZ pseudolaw are following different patterns, at least partially attributable to the different (not)-legal reasoning in the two jurisdictions

There's good stuff here written by an investigator who has been musing about both what is going on nationally, and in other jurisdictions.

Looking forward to more digging by the author and other NZ investigators.

Looking at the CanLII website and my notes, it appears the Meads v Meads decision has been cited in 536 court cases in 11 jurisdictions worldwide.

That's almost certainly a substantial underestimate.

Not bad for a trial-level decision that, purportedly, is nothing but obiter.

If you haven't read it, here's a link.

(It's long.)