And who says banks don't care? Or exhibit the Christmas Spirit, even when faced by pseudolaw goofiness?
Tennyson Park purchased a Toronto house, Manulife Bank provided the mortgage. Park stopped paying in 2023. Manulife sued, sought and obtained default judgment. Park was ordered to vacate and was evicted. She broke into the property and changed the locks. Park counter-sued the bank and others, claiming a free house on pseudolaw bases.
Unsurprisingly, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice orders Park re-evicted, and tosses her lawsuit. She never provided any information to challenge the loan, debt, default, and eviction. Park gets dinged $14,000 in litigation costs.
The pseudolaw element of Park’s lawsuit isn’t reported in much detail:
... Ms. Park pleads that she is a “living Lady claiming i Property”. She pleads that property was taken by force without legal right and that she paid the mortgage by Promissory Note and “no lawful protest for non-payment” was made to her. She pleads that she was not properly served, and requests production of the originals of various documents including the promissory note, and the whole court file.
... In her affidavit, in addition to the admissions listed above, Ms. Park raises legal argument including Charter arguments, case summaries, treaty recitations, policy propositions and Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (“OPCA”) style declarations which are not evidence. Ms. Park says she is not an OPCA litigant but the submissions she makes in her written materials and oral submissions suggest otherwise. In any event, I do not need to find that Ms. Park is an OPCA litigant to decide the issues here.
... Ms. Park’s oral submissions included, inter alia, statements that she is a natural person invoking natural law invoking the rule of law and principals of natural justice. On several occasions she referred to her peremptory rights being violated. Ms. Park submits that she will respect the law so long as the court and the judiciary are not violating her peremptory rights.
... OPCA style debt-nullification theories are not law and do not constitute a substantive defence to repayment or possession: Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571.
In Ontario the Court of Appeal has said some pretty ill-considered things about the label “OPCA litigant”, so sensibly Justice Merritt bypasses that issue.
Park’s arguments suggest a couple scheme/affiliations. The “living Lady claiming i Property” (lower case ‘i’) indicates she’s using noted walrus imitator and pet abuser (gawd I wish I was making this up) Carl “Karl” Lentz’s Sovereign Citizen theories. There’s a number of Canadian promoters who have flogged these concepts as well, particularly Christopher James Pritchard of the A Warrior Calls website. Ex-lawyer Naomi Arbabi also employed Lentzian stuff.
The promissory note and “lawful protest for non-payment” is an old pseudolaw scheme which claims debts are paid in full by an IOU (“promissory note” is the fancy legal name). That ridiculous claim was denounced by retired Associate Chief Justice Rooke in Boisjoli (Re), 2015 ABQB 629 this way:
Much like other OPCA schemes, this ‘promissory note is cash’ concept is a scam that dissolves when scrutinized. A promissory note is a promise to pay. Does it make any sense that a person can eliminate a debt with another IOU for (effectively) the same debt? Wouldn’t this then inevitably lead to a conga line of promissory notes, each purporting to satisfy the debt of the note one step up the queue?
Hard to challenge that conclusion.
The “lawful protest” is the Three/Five Letters mechanism, where you send a target a series of unilateral demands that supposedly create a binding judgment. At least in Alberta even advancing this scheme is bad enough to create a reverse onus, requiring the Letterer disprove they are abusing court processes. Losing by default, you could say.
I'm not sure what “peremptory rights” are. The term almost never shows up in Canadian jurisprudence, and when it does, it usually relates to jury selection.
“Natural law” is another term rarely used in Canadian legitimate and pseudolaw litigation, with the exception that Her Royal Majesty Queen Romana the First frames her authority that way.
So rather than self-evicting, Park then appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, seeking a stay against being evicted prior to her appeal. Park advances the same kinds of arguments as a trial, “peremptory rights”, “natural person”. Her appeal is hopeless: “the grounds of appeal are frivolous”. Justice Paciocco observes that the outstanding debt went from a little under $500K to almost $600K while this litigation was underway, and that there are outstanding taxes and utilities of $60K(!).
The appeal hearing was on November 25, 2025. The judgment issued the next day. Manufile Bank promised to defer removing Park (with police) until January, 2026 - and the Court held them to that.
Merry Christmas, Ms. Park!
Court judgments are here:
TBH I was not expecting to read 'noted walrus imitator' in this. Or anywhere else. Ever.
I expect the games and shenanigans to continue well into the next year. this sort is nothing if not persistent.
Great write up BTW. You might even consider cross posting it to r/Sovereigncitizen as it is right up their alley.
Thank you - glad you enjoyed that! Feel free to cross-post anything I put up.
For kind of obscure and finicky reasons I avoid posting/doing anything that would link my analyses to the Sovereign Citizen label, except in the very rare cases a Canadian with that affiliation appears.
Succinctly, I'm trying to avoid a line of questioning if I'm ever retained as an expert witness in Canadian pseudolaw litigation.
I had to look up how they use the natural law argument.
And what it actually means.
Oh boy. It's not even remotely close. Like way way off. Usually they at least got something in thr ballpark. But natural law is just in league of its own off.
Pseudolaw theory requires a "counter law". You have the public law, which is secretly imposed by a conspiracy of hidden hands, and the true but concealed superior law. I call this the "duel of laws" narrative.
But the hidden powerful law has to have a name, versus regular law. One very commonly used example is common law versus contract. Maritime/admiralty law vs law of the land. Another title sometimes used for the hidden true law is "natural law".
Conceptually, it kind of isn't a bad choice. Except that natural law - as you observed - is just a philosophical construct, at most.
Yeah I figured that's what sovcits mean when they try to repeat that the constitution only grants courts two jurisdictions.
How do these windowlickers imagine this works?
Your honor. According to the statutes of wink wink. Nudge nudge the defendant is clearly guilty of cough cough
Oh, it's goofy. They start with announcing they are in court to make a "special appearance." In the US that language means they're showing up in court to only tell the court to screw off, it can't do anything. Wrong law, wrong jurisdiction.
In Canada (where I operate) the judges have never heard the "special appearance" language and so just give them funny looks.
Yep. You're special. Your appearing. Good fer you.
Haha I saw a video with some American on the Canadian side of the border who invoked an amendment that in Canada is about recognizing the natives of Manitoba but the idiot thought his Murcia amendments apply elsewhere as well. I can't remmeber if it's the first amendment in Canada or something.
I see and understand.
any thoughts on the man in Welland? It seems right up this alley.
Sadly I couldn't find any footage online.
Or it's a yo momma style burn.
And he knows how to treat a female impersonator.
Dinsdale?
Gosh, did Ms. Park ever refer to her (US) constitutional right to free speech or travel? ;-)
No, but there are some mentions to international treaties and the like.
I've a bit of sympathy for the misconception that international treaties are binding authorities inside nation-states. I would have guessed that before I dropped into the world of law.
Breaking News!!!
I turns out Ms. Park was indeed a follower of HRM Romana Didulo, and is nothing less than the (former) Minister of Fisheries for the Kingdom of Canada!
So now it's obvious why the foreclosure proceeded. HRM wasn't brought in to pay off the debts with her Interstellar Currency, and superior Natural Law.
Delicious.
To be honest, a "conga line" of promissory notes sounds like a pretty decent sovcit strategy. Just keep sending them, each purporting to discharge the debt from the last. Rinse and repeat until the creditor finally throws up their hands and just gives you the house or whatever, so then maybe you'll stop. Checkmate, lenders!
I think this is a misspelling (intentional or otherwise, hard to tell with pseudolaw users) of "preemptory". In essence they're doing the usual claiming of extraordinary rights that somehow take precedence over anything and everything they want them to.
That was my thought too, until I saw that both the trial and appeal courts reported separately that was her argument - same spelling.
But I 100% agree that it's an indication of magic and special.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peremptory
I was not disputing that "peremptory" is a word in its own right with its own legal meaning, merely saying that I don't think it's the word they meant to use.