A useful discussion in Behr v Behr, 2024 ABKB 288 of some pseudolaw mechanisms
[8] Mr. Behr is employing two notorious pseudolaw strategies: “Strawman Theory”, and a “Three/Five Letters” process. In Mr. Behr’s case, the strange “i: man: Jason” language indicates he is using pseudolaw concepts taught by a US Sovereign Citizen promoter/guru Carl (Karl) Lentz. That predicts that Mr. Behr plans to initiate proceedings as a “Prosecutor”, against Justice Akgungor, the “Wrongdoer” in a fictitious “the Behr Court”.
[9] Communicating directly with a Justice of this Court outside litigation processes is inappropriate. Mr. Behr has gone further, and is threatening and intimidating a Justice without legal authority. In fact, the OPCA techniques Mr. Behr is using create a presumption his pseudolaw materials have an abusive ulterior intention and a bad faith purpose.
[10] This Memorandum of Decision has two purposes. First, this Memorandum of Decision makes it absolutely clear to Mr. Behr that his Notices and other documents have no basis in law. Second, Mr. Behr is required to explain why he should not be subject to a court-administered penalty because of his threatening and intimidating misconduct.
II. Mr. Behr’s Pseudolaw Materials
[11] As previously noted, Mr. Behr’s materials implicate a number of pseudolaw concepts.
A. Strawman Theory
[12] Strawman Theory (reviewed in Meads at paras 417-446; Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency), 2017 ABQB 123 at paras 67-88; Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652 at paras 83-92; Donald J Netolitzky, “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments and Magic and Ceremony” (2018) 55:4 Alta L Rev 1045 at 1068-1078 (Netolitzky, “Magic”)) is based on the false concept that individuals have two parts:
1) A “flesh and blood” physical human component that is identified by mixed case letter names and/or unorthodox naming structures, for example here via “i: man: Jason Dennis of the Behr Family”. Mr. Behr says he is “... a man. (Name in upper and lowercase letters)”. This physical human being aspect of the Strawman duality is purportedly not inherently subject to government or Court authority, but only some other kind of reduced law.
2) A non-corporeal legal doppelganger component that is identified by all capital letters names, such as “JASON BEHR”. This component of the duality has many names, for example: the Strawman, a “person”, or an “estate”. In this case, it appears Mr. Behr says his Strawman is “a corporation with a ‘cusip’ number”, which is distinct and different from “i: man: Jason”, since he is not “A LEGAL PERSON (NAME IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS)”. The non-corporeal Strawman half is created by birth documentation - here the birth certificate that created a “LEGAL PERSONA (Corporation)” - which is a concealed contract. Then the Strawman is bound to the physical person by that contract. According to Strawman Theory, legislation, government authority, police authority, and (sometimes) Court jurisdiction only exist because these entities chain their authority to the Strawman, and then onward through to the flesh and blood physical human.
[13] In short, Strawman Theory promises that eliminating the Strawman, claiming authority over the Strawman, or breaking the Strawman to human “contact” creates extraordinary immunities and authority. Strawman Theory describes the birth contract scheme as a kind of dirty trick, where unwitting parents enslave their newborns by completing apparently innocent birth documentation.
[14] Obviously, none of that is true. However, that has not discouraged OPCA litigants and gurus from creating many variations on Strawman Theory. Sometimes these versions of Strawman Theory use terminology derived from actual Court and legal processes, but some Strawman Theory variations are framed in a very unorthodox, even ceremonial manner: Docken v Anderson, 2023 ABKB 313 at para 6; Netolitzky, “Magic” at 1070-1075.
[15] In Mr. Behr’s case he demands proof that he, personally, is bound by a “wet signature” contract that he has entered into with the “... crown service corporation[s] such as ALBERTA, CANADA or EDMONTON ...”, or with Justice Akgungor personally: i require the obligation (contract[s]) with my wet signature on it proving i gave you permission to move my property, given you jurisdiction over i a man, and to use my property (my name my parents gifted to me when i was born not birthed) in a totally different capacity of that of a LEGAL PERSON? ... You claim to have a contract on the private side that i Jason Dennis of the Behr family to be your property? (sic)
[16] Similarly, in the Notices, Mr. Behr rejected judicial and government authority: ... As a Man i have rights and those rights are far superior to your inferior duties & Obligations and not to mention a Man and a Woman’s rights are unalienable. (sic)
[17] Thus, there is no question that Mr. Behr is employing Strawman Theory concepts. Mr. Behr deploying Strawman Theory concepts in relation to him (purported) escaping conventional legal authorities and somehow retaining possession of the lands now set for sale has serious negative implications for Mr. Behr. Strawman Theory is so notoriously false that anyone who employs Strawman Theory is presumed in law to do so in bad faith, and for abusive, ulterior purposes: Fiander v Mills, 2015 NLCA 31 at paras 37-40; Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 288 at paras 6-21; Unrau #2 at para 180. That presumption applies to Mr. Behr’s irregular and threatening correspondence to Justice Akgungor, which prima facie establishes bad and illegitimate intention by Mr. Behr.
B. Three/Five Letters
[18] The sequence of Notices sent by Mr. Behr are clearly a “Three/Five Letters” scheme. Each document in a Three/Five Letters process is a foisted unilateral agreement, a document which purports to unilaterally place obligations on the recipient: Meads at paras 447-528. Silence or a failure to meet the criteria set in a foisted unilateral agreement is said to be “tacit acquiescence”, “tacit admission”, “tacit agreement”, “tacit assent”, “tacit consent”, or “tacit procuration”.
[19] Most documents in a Three/Five Letters process set a deadline for a response. In the case of Mr. Behr, he claims that if he says something in a document, and Justice Akgungor does not refute that within 36 hours, then “he wins”. Thus, documents in a Three/Five Letters process reverse the onus of proof used in common law jurisdictions. Mr. Behr alleges, and unless his allegation is disproven, “he wins”. For example, his Notices include these passages that “foists” numerous allegations on Justice Akgungor: Who gave you jurisdiction over i a man? Who was moving this court against i a man? Who gave you the right to move my property? Who gave you the right to steal my identity? ... You claim i Jason Dennis of the Behr family to be your property? You claim to have a contract on the private side that i Jason Dennis of the Behr family to be your property? You claim that the service corporation you work for has a contract that i Jason Dennis of the Behr family to be their property? (sic)
[20] Mr. Behr then demands “... the obligation (constract[s]) with my wet signature ...”, the person injured by Mr. Behr with a “... verifiable claim against i a man ...”, and “... the document that states LEGAL applies to any man or woman as well as the document that states CIVIL PROCEDURE applies to any man or woman ...”. Silence then means agreement, and “i: man: Jason” wins: If you fail to respond [acquiesce] with the required evidence, it is on public record a contract was not produced. A tacit agreement will be established... and no jurisdiction or court exists ... (sic)
[21] As was comprehensively reviewed in Meads at paras 447-528, silence does not mean agreement in Canadian law. Thus Mr. Behr’s Notices have no legal effect, they are “... an irrelevant monologue shouted at a brick wall.”: Re Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 629 at para 49.
[22] The Three/Five Letters process includes a succession of these foisted unilateral agreements. The first makes the alleged claim, and then a number of documents follow that provide additional opportunities for the target to make a response, allege acquiescence, tacit agreement, “default” which proves guilt and/or liability, and usually a fictitious judgment of some kind, sometimes where a notary is a (purported) super-judge: reviewed in Bank of Montreal v Rogozinsky, 2014 ABQB 771 at paras 55-73; Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 288 at paras 6-21 (Rothweiler); Donald J Netolitzky, “Humdrum Becomes a Headache: Lawyers Notarizing Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Documents” (2019) 49:3 Advocates’ Quarterly 279 (Netolitzky, “Humdrum”).
[23] In Rothweiler, Associate Chief Justice Rooke identified numerous Canadian judgments that investigated, and consistently rejected and denounced the Three/Five Letters scheme, and concluded the appearance of a Three/Five Letters strategy creates a negative presumption: ... may presume that deployment of the Three/Five Letters argument is proof that the person using these concepts is engaged in a vexatious, abusive argument, and does so for an improper and ulterior purpose. That reverses the onus of proof, so that it is up to the OPCA litigant who has advanced the Three/Five Letters to prove their action, complaint, or defence is not vexatious and an abuse of court processes.
[24] That presumption clearly applies to Mr. Behr’s Notices and other documents sent to Justice Ackgungor.
C. Lentzian Litigation
[25] As previously noted, Mr. Behr appears to be using pseudolaw concepts advanced by US Sovereign Citizen guru Carl Lentz. Rooke ACJ in Anderson v Ossowski, 2021 ABQB 382 at paras 18-30 reviewed the stereotypic motifs and processes applied by Lentz and his customers, including the unique fingerprint naming structure used to designate the “flesh and blood” half the the Lentzian Strawman Theory duality, the “i: man: Jason” motif where “i” is always lower case. At the moment Mr. Behr is relatively early on in his Lentzian (pseudo)litigation. He is still completing his Three/Five Letters claim to establish Justice Akgungor is a “wrongdoer” who then can be sued “in private” by Mr. Behr, the “Prosecutor”, in “the Behr Court”, where Justice Akgungor presumptively is guilty/liable.
[26] Lentz’s theories do not work for himself (Anderson v Ossowsky at para 22), leading to Lentz’s litigation being thrown out, including a lawsuit in which Lentz sued for $440 million when he stole “brown liquid, also known as coffee”. Lentz’s followers in Canada also have been uniformly unsuccessful, including when Lentz himself personally appeared as representative and expert: Anderson v Ossowsky at para 24/
[27] Recently, a British Columbia lawyer, Naomi Arbabi (Ms. Arbabi), attempted to employ Lentz’s concepts while suing a neighbor for $1,000 a day, because Ms. Arbabi’s view from her condominium was partially obstructed by an opaque barrier. That was a “trespass” of her “property”. Like Mr. Behr, Ms. Arbabi used a Three/Five Letters scheme in “the private” to establish the injury to sue under her own personal Court Rules. The result was the Arbabi lawsuit was struck out and special costs were awarded: Arbabi v McLelland, 2024 BCSC 91. Ms. Arbabi was suspended on an interim basis as a lawyer certified to practice law in British Columbia (Arbabi (Re), 2024 LSBC 13), after which Ms. Arbabi resigned from the Law Society of British Columbia.
[28] Thus, not only is Mr. Behr’s pseudolaw documentation generally rejected as false and abusive by Canadian courts, so is the specific scheme he is currently attempting to impose which targets Justice Akgungor.
