Idris v Mohamed, 2021 ABQB 686

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Idris v Mohamed, 2021 ABQB 686 Date: 20210827 Docket: 4801 172079 Registry: Calgary Between: Mohamed Ismail Idris Applicant - and - Muhibo Abdi Mohamed Respondent _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On July 8, 2021, I issued a decision reported as Idris v Mohamed , 2021 ABQB 529 [ Idris #1 ], that responded to a package of materials that was received by the Court on July 2, 2021 from Mohamed Ismail Idris [Mr. Idris].

These materials were referred to me for review as a candidate Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding [AVAP], pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7] paragraph 5. I am designated to receive and review potential CPN7 processes in Southern Alberta. [ 2 ] As I noted in Idris #1 , Mr. Idris’ documents cannot be readily summarized. I attached one of his documents to Idris #1 as an

example to illustrate the documents’ content. However, the overall intent of these materials was easily identified: Mr. Idris claimed that five children, what Mr. Idris calls his “Bloodline”, are Mr. Idris’ personal “chattel property”, because he owns their names, which he purchased with an ounce of silver, apiece. [ 3 ] Mr. Idris also makes claims there are two of him, one named “ Living Man Mohamed-Ismail: Idris”, the other “DEBTOR MOHAMED ISMAIL IDRIS, Estate ®©™ [AN ARTIFICIAL CORPORATE ENTITY/PERSON/VESSEL]”. Mr.

Idris demanded return of his “Bloodline”, and that the Court assist him in locating these children so Mr. Idris could seize them from their mother. [ 4 ] The Court is very familiar with the basis for these strange claims. Mr. Idris is an Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [OPCA] litigant ( Meads v Meads , 2012 ABQB 571 ), a person who advances highly stereotypic, legally incorrect, and abusive strategies marketed to gullible, ill-informed, and often criminal anti-government activists.

OPCA schemes are universally denounced by courts worldwide as false, illegal, and an abuse of court. [ 5 ] I concluded in Idris #1 that Mr. Idris’ July 2, 2021 materials were an attempt at OPCA-based abusive litigation, and prima facie an abuse of the Court. Some of the ideas Mr. Idris used, like “Strawman Theory”, created a presumption that Mr. Idris engaged the Court for ulterior, bad-faith purposes: Idris #1 at paras 12-16 . [ 6 ] Mr. Idris was asked to provide an up to ten-page Written Submission to answer why his documents are not abusive OPCA litigation, and, more specifically: 1. How is the fact that Mr.

Idris is employing Strawman Theory not a reason to conclude that his documents are an abuse of the Court, and a strategy adopted in bad faith? 2. How are US court cases, laws, and the UCC binding or relevant authorities in Canada? 3. Why are the Canadian court decisions that reject Ucadia “Canons of Law” and “Maxims of Law” as binding or relevant authorities incorrect? 4. Why are the Canadian court decisions that reject that children are chattel property incorrect? 5.

Why are the Canadian court decisions that conclude a parent who employs or espouses OPCA concepts and strategies should be excluded from contact and custody of a child incorrect? [ Idris #1 at para 28 .] [ 7 ] After Idris #1 issued, Mr. Idris wrote the Court on July 21, 2021 and requested an extension of time to make his Written Submission. Mr. Idris said his mother was sick. The deadline for Mr. Idris’ Written Submission was, on that basis, extended to August 25, 2021. [ 8 ] The extended deadline has passed without a response from Mr. Idris. I, therefore, conclude that Mr.

Idris has not rebutted the Idris #1 prima facie conclusion that Mr. Idris is engaged in hopeless and abusive OPCA proceedings. I, therefore, order the Docket 4801 172079 July 2, 2021 filings are struck out pursuant to CPN7 para 3(

c) and Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 Rule 3.68. [ 9 ] I cautioned in Idris #1 , at paras 22-27 , that, in Canada, the law is well-established that OPCA-based claims to own children as chattel property, and that reject Court authority to address welfare of children, and custody of children, are a basis to conclude that an individual is unfit as a guardian and parent. Mr. Idris did not respond to refute that principle applies to him. I, therefore, extend on an indefinite basis the restrictions imposed in Idris #1 on Mr.

Idris’ activity in Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket No. 4801 172079 with a Grepe v Loam Order ( Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at paras 344-352 ) that Mr. Idris may not file or submit any documents that relate to Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket No. 4801 172079, except with leave of the Court. [ 10 ] Since this process was initiated by a court referral, no costs will follow: Peets v Alberta (Justice and Solicitor General) , 2019 ABQB 565 at para 6 . The Court will prepare and serve the Order resulting from this Decision. Mr.

Idris’ approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Mr. Idris may be served this Decision and the corresponding Order by email to the address: xaxia19@x-milecarriers.com. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 27 th day of August, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Mohamed Ismail Idris

Self-represented Litigant