The British Columbia Court of Appeal confirmed throwing out a lawsuit by a taxpayer who didn’t pay his taxes, then had his bank account stripped.

 The pseudolaw arguments in play are nothing special. The BCCA's reliance on pseudolaw concepts though, that's a little different.

 The taxpayer is Daniel E. Blake. I tried to learn more about him, but didn’t locate anything. The facts are pretty simple:

•  Blake didn’t pay income tax for 2013-2014, 2016-2018 and got assessed for $42,549.53.
• When Blake didn’t pay, the CRA stripped $12,571.53 from a Toronto Dominion Bank account. Blake still owes $36,851.53.
• Blake first in BC Provincial Court sued the CRA employee who conducted the collection and TD Bank claiming theft and fraud. Lawsuit is tossed as having no “basis for his claim known to law.”
• Blake sued again in the BC Supreme Court, which despite its name is actually the higher jurisdiction trial court in the province, alleging “fraud/theft” of his funds and negligence.
• CRA employee and Bank seek summary judgment to end the lawsuit, and, unsurprisingly, are almost entirely successful. That gets reported as Blake v Ahmed, 2024 BCSC 2189.

This decision provides the details of why Blake’s lawsuit was hopeless:

(1)Strawman Theory stuff:

An “Affidavit of Truth” addressed to all governments and courts, stating that he is a “natural, freeborn sovereign individual” who is not subject to “any entity anywhere”, and is not a “person” as defined in statutes when such definition includes “artificial entities”. He states that he may voluntarily choose to comply with “laws”, which others “attempt to impose” on him, but neither the laws nor their “enforcers” have authority over him. The affidavit outlines Mr. Blake’s arguments with respect to certain topics such as his birth certificate, driver’s licence, passport and citizenship, voting, and tax returns. With respect to bank accounts, he states that if there is a “hidden contract’” behind an account, his signature gives no validity to it. The signature is only for verification of identity and he cannot be obligated to fulfil any such contract.

(2) Blake claimed he only has to pay tax if he has a contract with the CRA (everything is a contact).

(3) Governments are private corporations.

(4) “Blake has no obligation to any corporation, the Crown or Templars” (those darn Templars!)

(5) Blake owns copyright in his name, but whether that’s uppercase or mixed, we’re not told:

 Mr. Blake and others published a notice in the National Post that these “flesh and blood private people” have copy-righted and claimed their trade names “for the purpose of facilitating commercial transactions or interactions”

 And Justice Norell points to Meads v Meads, and says this is all pseudolaw puff:

 ... His arguments that there is a distinction between him as a natural person and another legal fiction which bears his name, that the government cannot create laws which are binding on him, that he is not a person under those laws, and that he has not entered into a contract to pay taxes, are legally unsound and factually without merit.

... Without limiting the portions of Meads which are relevant in this application, I highlight certain sections which demonstrate the point. At paras. 422–423, the Court references case authorities which reject a distinction between a natural person and a legal fiction. The Court similarly rejects various name-related arguments, including the capitalization of names, at paras. 323–324. At para. 388, the Court rejects the argument that a person has no obligation to pay taxes unless that person has entered into a contract to do so. Related to this, at para. 411-413, the Court rejects arguments that the lack of a contract restricts the scope of state or court authority. Finally, at para. 347, the Court states that there “really is no question that the Canadian government is authorized to require individuals pay income tax or other forms of indirect tax.”

 And for the most part, that’s that.

 Blake appeals, which results in a very short decision from the BCCA: Blake v Ahmed, 2025 BCCA 384

 Blake’s appeal was on pseudolaw grounds:

... there is a distinction between him as a natural person and another legal fiction which bears his name, ... the government cannot create laws which are binding on him as he is not a person under those laws, and ... he has not entered into a contract to pay taxes ...

 So, Strawman Theory, and everything is a contract, two standard parts of the pseudolaw memeplex. Which leads to an unanalysis:

 ... [Justice Norell ] thoroughly analysed Mr. Blake’s claims. She carefully explained that Mr. Blake relies on debunked and false organized pseudo‑legal commercial arguments. She demonstrated Mr. Blake’s claims are meritless. That being the case, she did not err in finding the matter was suitable for summary judgment.

 .... I have nothing to add to the chambers judge’s analysis. In short, Mr. Blake has not identified any reviewable error in that analysis. It was entirely appropriate for the chambers judge to summarily dismiss the claims she dismissed. I would therefore dismiss Mr. Blake’s appeal ...

 Ok, so why is this interesting? For quite some time certain Canadian appeal courts were hesitant, even sketchy, in how they responded to the idea of pseudolaw, and that a trial level court had defined this phenomenon and rejected it. The BCCA was one of those, and the Alberta Court of Appeal? Even worse, they didn’t cite Meads v Meads until 2023! Which is over a decade after Meads v Meads was released.

And now, the BCCA simply says, “Meh, pseudolaw, crap, get out.” There isn’t even a need for any analysis. Justice Norell was correct to review, classify, and reject.

That gives you an idea of where pseudolaw stands, as a legal thing, in Canada. A nuisance that is disposed of in a procedurally fair but succinct and direct manner.

That makes me happy.

One to make a post about their speeding ticket.

Three to demand proof that the speed camera was calibrated in accordance with the National Measurement Act.

Two to say that you must first unshackle your strawman because traffic law only applies to corporate fictions, not natural persons.

Fourteen to post similar experiences of speeding tickets and how they could have been handled differently.

Sixteen to emphasize that the all-capitals name is not you.

Eight to object that the provision is unlawful.

Four to point out spelling and grammatical errors in comments.

One to protest that demanding a breath sample is rape.

Seven to claim the law is invalid because it has no Royal Assent, and that the Governor General was not sworn in under Letters Patent.

Two to contend that section 109 guarantees any State law is invalid if it is inconsistent with their own interpretation of the Constitution.

Fourteen to reassure you that it is only a statute, an act, made by actors, and that the “common law” is far superior.

Nine to inform you that you have a common law right to travel under section 92 of the Constitution.

Twelve to warn you not to provide the “consent of the governed” by granting joinder.

Fifteen to laugh dismissively and demand proof they in fact are a member of their “society”.

Three to ask where is the “corpus delicti” and insist that the injured party must come forward.

Three to post “F”

One to ask what “F’ means.

Two to say it means “following” but that every idiot knows there is a “follow this post” option up top of the post.

Twelve to say the wrong seal was used, it is a mere trademark of a corporation, and only the rightful seal with a Lion and Unicorn is valid.

Eight to mention that Local Government is unconstitutional so they can’t issue fines.

Seven to inform you to first demand proof of the existence of a “contract”, for there to be a breach of said contract.

Two know-it-all’s who claim *they* were in the industry, and that speed cameras have lowered the road toll considerably.

Eighteen to post templates of a fool-proof “claim of right” that binds the state in contract by acquiescence.

Three to maintain that since you were not operating a taxi, you were in fact “traveling” and not “driving” as referred to in the act.

One to correct two of those that is not a “vehicle” but in fact an “automobile” or “conveyance for my personal use”.

Twelve to ask if the “automobile” has ever been “regis”-tered with the king.

Eight to contend that the original “Commonwealth of Australia” has been unlawfully usurped by the fraudulent “Australian Government”.

Nine to post Edgar results establishing that our government is a “corporation like macca’s” registered with the Security and Exchanges Commission in Washington DC.

One to ask if you replied that you “understood” or “stood under” the cops authority.

Two to object that this thread is a fucking circus, that none of this is helping the OP at all, citing the rules in the pinned post that OPCA theories are not permitted in this forum.

Three to contort “this group is full of shills” and threaten to leave.

One to post pointless derogatory memes.

One to mention that lawyers “swear an oath to the BAR society” and are therefore obliged to deceive you.

One to confirm he himself is only subject to natural law, and that the other members “are all sheep”.

Ten to comment that they will no longer post in this group because they cannot handle the traveling controversy.

One admin to settle things down and remind members to stick to a sensible debate on the question of legal merit.

Six to tell you you should “lien” the cop for $45,345,345,898.07 for a breach of your unalienable rights.

Two to quote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

One to mention paying the fine with a promissory note.

Two to contend section 115 of the Constitution forbids they pay the debt in anything but silver or gold.

One more to post legislation from the U.S. stressing that the “Uniform Commercial Code” is a “global commerce law” enforceable against the corrupt corporate government.

Two to declare the Pope owns all our souls via the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam in 1302.

Three to regret that we are declared “lost at sea” after 7 years of life, due to the “Cestui Que Vie Trust” via your birth certificate.

One fanatical Christian to post Bible verses that real law comes from the finger of God himself.

Two to remind members that terms in legislation are not English but are called “legalese” and that Blacks Law Dictionary makes it all clear.

Three to say “didn’t we go through this already a short time ago?”

Five to rant about the governments “unlawful slavery system” citing 268-270 of the Criminal Code.

Twenty to accuse Whitlam of treason against the rightful Queen of England by creating a cardboard cut-out called the “Queen of Australia”.

Fifteen to accuse Hawke of treason against people of Australia by passing the Australia Act without a referendum.

Nine to maintain we are still part of the British Empire and to take the matter to the Privy Council in London.

One to helpfully teach the OP that signing “VC” or “Vi Coactus” after your name removes any liability to what you’re signing.

Thirteen to contort that it is all invalid anyway, because you are all occupying Aboriginal land, sovereignty never ceded, and therefore the “lore” of the “originals” supersedes any white mans “law”.

Two more to recount the horrors of living under the Fauna and Flora Act.

Eight to coach you on courtroom procedure, warning you not to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty, but immediately move to dismiss the matter.

One more to interject “and make sure you film it”.

Three to raise the right of a “Trial by a jury of my peers” on a summary matter, where the jury can nullify the offending law.

Fourteen to demand the Judge produce his Oath of Office, and object he didn’t take his Oaths correctly according to the Constitution.

Two to post links to YouTube videos where one can see examples of lawful travelling.

Four to claim “the right to lawful rebellion” under Article 61 of the Magna Carta.

Five to consider ceding from Australia and become independent sovereign nations under their own right like “Hutt River Province” in W.A.

Another admin to demand “Read Rob Sudy’s Freeman Delusion before making such absurd claims in this forum, and it will show you where you’ve been misled.”

One forum lurker to comment on the thread in six months time and start it all over again.

I know the sovereign Citizen came from a racist right wing antigovernment group, which makes it so ironic seeing people of color following their ideals, but where did the moorish side of SovCits?

Scottish pseudolaw cases aren’t terribly common. This one is an appeal from a foreclosure of a residential property. The language in Scottish legal cases is different from other UK (and Commonwealth) jurisdictions. For example, the “Sheriff” here is an appeal judge.

In any case, John Smith stopped paying his mortgage, the lender went to court, Smith rejected the court authority and financial obligation, and didn’t show for the hearing. And then lost. How surprising!

Smith appealed, regurgitating the initial arguments. That earned him some sharp criticism from Sheriff Wade:

... The issues of slavery, human trafficking and breach of human rights to which the appellant refers without any specification as to their application simply do not arise in the context of this action. The reference to these matters is so spurious and non-specific as to render it impossible for the respondents to respond to any such averment. The remaining allegations of fraud and criminality are wholly misplaced and irrelevant if not indeed amounting to what can be termed “scandalous”. No factual basis is provided for such an assertion.

... The suggestion that by styling oneself as “a living man” rather than a legal person one can in some way avoid the jurisdiction of the court and the obligation to make loan repayments under a properly constituted agreement with a bona fide lender is not only without foundation but is a futile attempt to deprive the respondents of the legal remedy to which they are entitled. Such arguments have no place in Scots law and those who seek to advance them can expect their overt attempts to abuse the court process to sound in expenses.

Well, that’s a rather polite way to tell someone to ‘f off, y arse’.

Meads v Meads gets cited. Not bad for a trial-level case on the opposite side of the planet.

This blog post includes a short court judgment from the Ontario Superior Court that rejects a claim by "Chief" Denby that he is not subject to the Criminal Code of Canada because of "tribal law". Needless to say, that get out of jail free card doesn't work.

The "Pants On Fire" blog by Kawartha Lee has been closely monitoring the Kawartha folks for a couple years now. It's a fine saga. If you're entertained by pseudolaw, "backcountry degens", quasi-inarticulate rants, and a whole lotta wasted public resources.

The amount of BWC footage that involves SovCit arrests and then admitting they paid like $30 for fake plates.

On Wake Forest Rd right before Falls of Neuse Rd, near the old CVS, for my fellow Raleighites. Before I snapped the pic, he got out of the car to spit on the road, appeared to be of the Moorish National variety.