R v Ayyazi, 2022 ABQB 412

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: R v Ayyazi, 2022 ABQB 412 Date: 20220613 Docket: 200085314Q1 Registry: Calgary Between: Her Majesty the Queen Crown - and - Ali Mohamed Ayyazi Accused _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On May 31, 2022, the Calgary Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Criminal Clerks of the Court received a package of materials that had been notarized by Alberta lawyer Grace George Akpan [Ms. Akpan], and where Ms.

Akpan’s signature and seal was validated with an apostille from the Deputy Provincial Secretary’s office [Notarized Package]. I then was referred these materials in my

supervisory capacity as the administrative justice for Southern Alberta, which includes addressing problematic litigation and litigants, and abuse of the Court. [ 2 ] The Notarized Package documents relate to and/or were signed by Ali Mohamed Ayyazi [Mr. Ayyazi], a person who is currently facing criminal trial and is accused of cocaine trafficking. The Crown has elected to proceed by indictment against Mr. Ayyazi, in a matter assigned Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 200085314Q1. Mr.

Ayyazi’s trial was set for a jury trial on the last week of February, 2022, however those dates were vacated on November 12, 2021, because Mr. Ayyazi had repeatedly not appeared for his court hearings. [ 3 ] The keystone document in this package is titled “Notice of Interest, in trust”, dated May 17, 2022 [Notice], and that is reproduced below in Appendix “A”. I will examine in detail that document, which makes absurd and illegal claims that are Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [OPCA] concepts: Meads v Meads , 2012 ABQB 571 .

OPCA schemes are pseudolaw, rules that sound like law, and use legal language, but are false, “not-law”. Pseudolaw is typically applied to evade income tax, as a “get out of jail free card”, to attack government and institutional actors, or as a way to purportedly nullify debts and get “money for nothing”: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at para 178 [ Unrau #2 ]. No court in any jurisdiction has accepted the stereotypic conspiratorial not-law concepts that make up pseudolaw.

Instead, the voluminous jurisprudence in common law and civil law jurisdictions which has responded to pseudolaw universally condemns these ideas as false and having illegal, wrongful purposes. Employing pseudolaw is always an abuse of court processes, and warrants immediate court response: Unrau #2 at paras 180, 670-671 . [ 4 ] Reduced to its core, the “Notice” purports to be a “get out of jail free” card that defeats an arrest warrant issued by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, and, additionally, unilaterally terminates criminal proceedings against Mr. Ayyazi. And Ms.

Akpan would have been perfectly aware that her client - because that is what Mr. Ayyazi was, Ms. Akpan’s client who had hired Ms. Akpan to provide legal assistance by witnessing and notarizing documents - was facing criminal proceedings, because, among other things, Ms.

Akpan stamped and signed criminal proceeding documents of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench that state exactly that, including a document signed on August 20, 2021 by Justice Neufeld of this Court, that, at its top centre, reads in capital letters: W A R R A N T F O R A R R E S T [ 5 ] Normally, this Court would simply reject for filing a package of pseudolaw materials under the “Revised Master Order For Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (“OPCA”) Documents” of Moreau CJ, January 21, 2019, see Babb v Parrish & Heimbecker Limited , 2019 ABQB 687 .

However, in this instance, I have concluded that the Notarized Package should be placed on file - but not filed - as a document in support of this Decision. I have prepared this Decision for three reasons: 1. to document and reject Mr. Ayyazi’s OPCA scheme; 2. to identify the negative legal implications that result from Mr. Ayyazi’s illegal pseudolaw strategies, because those have potential implications for Mr. Ayyazi’s pre-trial recognizance and bail, and his sentencing; and 3. because Ms.

Akpan has fundamentally breached her obligations to the Court as an officer of the Court, engaged in an illegal strategy to collaterally attack and defeat criminal proceedings before this Court, and appears to have breached her professional obligations as a lawyer and to her client. II. The Notarized Package [ 6 ] The Notarized Package is composed of: 1. An apostille from the Government of Alberta that verifies Ms. Akpan’s signature and notary’s seal. 2. A “Notary Public Affidavit of Identity Certificate” that states that Ms. Akpan met with Mr.

Ayyazi on May 17, 2022, and he proved his identity with an Alberta government driver’s licence, and a “CRAR Client” card, purportedly issued by the Government of Canada. 3. Photographs of the identification documents. The driver’s licence appears to be a legitimate government issued document, however the “Government of Canada” “Canada Revenue Agency Registry Client - Details” card (see Appendix “B”) is obviously a fraudulent false document. On its front it lists both an all upper-case “Strawman” name, “Legal Name: ALI MOHAMED AYYAZI”, and then “Operating Name: Ali Mohamed Ayyazi, Association”.

If that was not enough of a give-away that this was an improper document, its back references the “Ayyazi© Estate Trust”, whose purported “Beneficial Owner” is “Ali Ayyazi”. Succinctly, Mr. Ayyazi is claiming to be the beneficial owner of himself, which is an “Estate Trust”. If that were not enough to make obvious this is not a legitimate Canadian government-issued ID, the bottom back reads: “This Common Law ID is property of the Trust and Beneficial Owner”.

Not only is “Common Law ID” nonsense, but a trained lawyer would be expected to question that a government-issued ID is “owned” by the person it is issued to. I also note that if Ms. Akpan had conducted a “Google” search with the phrases “Canada Revenue Agency” and “Registry Client” - that is printed on the Appendix “B” card as its title - she would have found no Government of Canada website or reference to that language. 4. The “Notice” (see Appendix “A”). 5. The August 20, 2021 Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Warrant for Arrest of Mr. Ayyazi by Neufeld J. 6.

Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 200085314Q1 Criminal Endorsements for Court appearances on June 11, 2021, June 18, 2021, August 6, 2021, August 20, 2021, September 2, 2021, September 3, 2021, and November 12, 2021. Even casual review of these items shows that Mr. Ayyazi is facing criminal proceedings in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, that Mr. Ayyazi is subject to an arrest warrant, and Mr. Ayyazi has not been attending court, and ceased being represented by counsel in August, 2021.

[ 7 ] Ms. Akpan, as notary, identified the ID copies as certified true copies. She also authenticated Mr. Ayyazi’s signature to the “Notice”, and on each of the item 5-6 Court documents, made this unorthodox marking: This is Exhibit “[x]” referred to in the Affidavit of Notice of Interest, in trust of Ali Mohamed Ayyazi Sworn before me this 17 Day of May, A.D. 2022 [Signature of Ms.

Akpan] A Notary Public Commissioner for Oaths Grace G Akpan Barrister & Solicitor of Grace George Law 316 Evansborough Way NW Calgary AB T3P0R1 Canada +1 (587) 969 1626 I have no idea how an “Exhibit” could be linked “in trust of” an individual. [ 8 ] As previously indicated, the key document in the Notarized Package is the “Notice”. reproduced in Appendix “A”, below. The “Notice” clearly invokes “Strawman Theory”, which is the strange belief that individuals have two aspects, a physical “flesh and blood” component, and an immaterial “Strawman” legal entity. In Mr.

Ayyazi’s case, he appears to call his Strawman the “Ayyazi Estate Trust”, while he is “Ali Mohamed Ayyazi”, or “Ali Mohamed, Ayyazi Association”, or “the heir”.

Under Strawman Theory, government authority, courts, and legislation only apply to the Strawman, and not the flesh and blood human: Meads v 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. [ 9 ] The “Notice” purports to conclude that the subject pseudolaw documents have ended the litigation against Mr. Ayyazi, a “ NOTICE TO SETTLE PRIVATELY ” [emphasis in original]. Mr.

Ayyazi is “... [reserving] all of my rights ...” and, by some form of contractual discharge and payment: ... all matters pertaining to docket No. 200085314Q have been vacated ... I have accepted the offer and returned it for consideration for the charges to be extinguished, set-off or dismissed ... This, purportedly, is a “Settlement in Equity”. [ 10 ] This aspect of the “Notice” is, of course, nonsense. Mr. Ayyazi is calling his criminal charges an “offer”. That is absurd: criminal proceedings are a demand by the state to enforce compliance with legal obligations. Mr.

Ayyazi cannot unilaterally vacate a criminal process. A criminal prosecution is a public exercise of collective state authority, conducted by the Crown and Crown Prosecutors. It cannot be “settled privately”. Criminal proceedings are not contracts subject to offer and acceptance. One cannot “set-off” a criminal charge. A criminal proceeding cannot be “settled” in “equity”. This document purports to mix and/or combine criminal sanctions for illegal conduct with civil litigation and principles of contract.

The former is the unique domain of the Crown, acting on behalf of Canada, to control illegal activity. “Equity” is a civil concept that applies between individual litigants. [ 11 ] Then there is the claim by Mr. Ayyazi that he “... placed a (financing statement) lien on Docket No. 20000 85314Q1 ...”. A lien is claimed interest on property to document and secure a debt. So, Mr. Ayyazi is purporting that the criminal prosecution against him for drug trafficking is some kind of property with a monetary value, and that Mr. Ayyazi is owed a debt, perhaps by the Crown? Or by the Court? And Mr.

Ayyazi has, somehow, registered that debt interest. This claim is also total nonsense, and that would be obvious to any legally trained person, particularly one who deals with actual liens that are usually secured against publicly registered land and other real property. [ 12 ] Furthermore, the Strawman duality applied in Mr.

Ayyazi’s materials is so thoroughly rejected, and is so notoriously false, that, in law, anyone who employs Strawman Theory is presumed 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 .

I note the absurdity that someone claims to be “the heir” of himself, though it is not unique for an OPCA litigant to claim to “have killed off” his Strawman, and, on that basis, obtained extraordinary authority: Meads v Meads at paras 424-425 . [ 13 ] The “Notice” also targets the Court and its actors. The “Notice” purports to unilaterally appoint the Deputy Clerk of the Court as a “Fiduciary and Trustee”.

That is both illegal and impossible: Meads v Meads at paras 492-493 , Papadopoulos v Borg , 2009 ABCA 201 at para 4 ; Henry v El , 2010 ABCA 312 at para 3 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 34172 (14 July 2011). “Article II” of the Notice then imposes the “demand” on the Deputy Clerk to “release” the arrest warrant, otherwise the Deputy Clerk “... shall be held liable for Securities Fraud be creating a Bond by Usury of a Trademark Name which is the property of a Trust. ...”. Translated, that threat is that the Deputy Clerk is considered to be engaged in fraud when using the Strawman. and/or Mr. Ayyazi’s name.

As I observed in Meads v Meads at paras 500-504 , this popular OPCA scheme that one can claim intellectual property in your own name “... has an overwhelmingly juvenile character. ...”, and is unenforceable in law. [ 14 ] The “Notice” also places a deadline on the Deputy Clerk to discharge her “good faith compliance and responsible” [sic], “within 7 business days.” While the “Notice” does not specify consequences to the Deputy Clerk for failing that obligation, this clause makes the “Notice” a foisted unilateral agreement ( Meads v Meads , 2012 ABQB 571 at paras 447-527 ), a class of illegal pseudolaw documents that are typically used to impose liability and duties without legal basis; “[f]oisted unilateral agreements are therefore a prohibited attempt to restrict the jurisdiction of the courts, and merit civil, and possibly criminal, sanction.”

[ 15 ] In short, Mr. Ayyazi’s “Notice” is a hodgepodge of false non-law concepts, framed in legal-sounding jargon, but that fundamentally purports to overturn the state and Court’s authority to impose criminal sanctions for illegal conduct. The “Notice” foists duties upon and threatens an employee and official of the Court. The “Notice” purports to unilaterally override an Order of the Court, “privately”. While this is all nonsense, and the “Notice” provides no positive benefit for Mr.

Ayyazi, this document has significant negative legal implications. [ 16 ] I order that the Clerks of the Court place the Notarized Package in the R v Ayyazi , Docket No 299975314Q file, but not as a filed document. Instead, the Notarized Package is only relevant to document the basis for this decision, and as evidence of bad faith illegal litigation conduct by Mr. Ayyazi. III.

Legal Implications of the Notarized Package [ 17 ] In the previously part of his Decision, I noted the well-established law that in Alberta, employing Strawman Theory immediately creates a presumption against the OPCA litigant that this act was done for illegal, bad faith, and ulterior purposes to defeat legal authority. That resulting reverse onus also applies in the criminal litigation context: R v Berg , 2019 ABQB 541 at para 56 . [ 18 ] Beyond that, the Notarized Package makes clear that Mr.

Ayyazi is taking unilateral steps, that he (falsely) believes will place him outside Canadian criminal law, and that allegedly override and supersede Orders of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. He is engaged in procedures to purportedly terminate the criminal proceeding against him, unilaterally, and “privately”. [ 19 ] It appears to me that Mr. Ayyazi’s materials have a number of potential legal implications. First, Mr. Ayyazi’s pseudolaw strategies are potentially relevant to whether Mr. Ayyazi should be detained or released on judicial interim release. I find as fact and law that Mr.

Ayyazi demonstrated, via the Notarized Package, that he does not believe he is subject to Canadian law, except as Mr. Ayyazi unilaterally defines it. That has implications for all three Criminal Code s 515(10) reasons for detention. That is particularly true for the first ground, “where the detention is necessary to ensure his or her attendance in court in order to be dealt with according to law”, because Mr. Ayyazi already has a pattern of not attending court. He clearly is aware there are criminal proceedings against him, and he is the subject of an arrest warrant. Mr.

Ayyazi included the Arrest Warrant of Justice Neufeld as part of the Notarized Package, and Mr. Ayyazi has not been attending his Court appearances. [ 20 ] Second, Mr. Ayyazi’s adopting pseudolaw tactics to attempt to deny his criminal liability, and to “get out of jail free”, is potentially an aggravating factor on sentencing, e.g. R v Porisky , 2016 BCSC 1757 ; R v Anderson , 2018 BCSC 651 ; R v Bekkerus , 2018 ABPC 201 ; R v Lawson , 2016 BCSC 2446 ; R v Seagull , 2013 BCSC 1811 ; R v TLP , 2015 BCSC 618 ; R v Thompson , 2013 ONSC 3180 . [ 21 ] Further, I caution Mr.

Ayyazi that attempting to use and propagate pseudolaw concepts is a basis for both civil and criminal contempt of court proceedings: reviewed in Fearn v Canada Customs , 2014 ABQB 114 at paras 140-256 . [ 22 ] I very strongly recommend Mr. Ayyazi retain certified and qualified defence counsel immediately. His current approach to his criminal proceedings promises a very negative outcome. If Mr. Ayyazi persists with OPCA strategies, he will obtain no benefits from that, and, instead, only harm himself. IV.

Lawyer Grace Akpan [ 23 ] This Court ( Meads v Meads at paras 643-645 ) and the Alberta Court of Appeal ( Papadopoulos v Borg , 2009 ABCA 201 at para 3 ) have instructed that it improper for a notary - lawyer or layperson - to take any steps that formalize OPCA materials and/or facilitate pseudolaw strategies. The Law Society of Alberta has also repeatedly cautioned lawyers to not engage in this activity: e.g., “Obligations of Notaries and Commissioners” (October 8, 2018), online: <www.lawsociety.ab.ca/obligations-of-notaries-and- commissioners>.

Myself and other justices of this Court have on numerous occasions denounced activities of this type as a breach of a lawyer’s obligations as an Officer of the Court. Yet, time and again, this Court receives what are obvious abusive OPCA documents, that have been formalized, witnessed, and notarized by lawyers.

Time and again, those lawyers have been condemned by this Court, and the lawyers’ misconduct referred to the Law Society of Alberta, without any notice of Law Society action in response. [ 24 ] Notarizing OPCA documents is a particularly serious problem because of the false meaning that OPCA litigants impute on notaries and their functions.

Commonplace OPCA schemes misclassify notaries as judges, or as superior to judges: Meads v Meads at paras 216, 273-274, 645 ; Donald J Netolitzky, “Humdrum Becomes a Headache: Lawyers Notarizing Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Documents” (2019) 49:3 Advocates’ Quarterly 279. Notarizing documents in a pseudolaw context purportedly creates extraordinary rights, which is deeply problematic, given how pseudolaw affiliation is often linked with illegal, violent, and criminal conduct: Unrau #2 at paras 194-199 .

People who adopt pseudolaw become an increased risk to others – and to themselves. [ 25 ] And yet the issue continues. With the Notarized Package, Ms. Akpan has participated in a scheme to harm the Court, threaten its staff, unilaterally terminate criminal litigation, collaterally attack and attempt to negate an unappealed Order of this Court, and, more generally, she has facilitated an illegal scheme by a criminal accused - Ms.

Akpan’s client - to claim he is outside the jurisdiction of Canadian criminal processes and sanctions via a “get out of jail free” card. [ 26 ] Everyone is presumed to know the law, but lawyers are trained and certified to be knowledgeable and competent in legal subjects. I conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that Ms. Akpan has no excuse for her actions. I have previously commented on the absurd claims in the “Notice”. Ms. Akpan could not possibly be unaware that her client, Mr. Ayyazi, is the subject of an arrest warrant issued by a justice of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench.

If she has even briefly reviewed the “Notice”, it would be obvious what she was endorsing purported to terminate and/or negate that Court arrest warrant. That is Ms. Akpan participating in a scheme that illegally attempts to usurp the authority of Canadian courts to review an Order of the Court.

[ 27 ] I have previously commented on how the “Notice” contains multiple, absurd claims, that are obviously contrary to Canadian law. I would, for example, expect that a first-year law student would not conflate “equity” and criminal proceedings. No lawyer should believe anyone can unilaterally imposed fiduciary status on a judge or employee of an adjudicative body. Yet, it seems, Ms. Akpan saw nothing unusual about that. I have previously explained how Strawman Theory is so notoriously false that anyone who employs Strawman Theory motifs is presumed to do so for abusive, improper, bad-faith, ulterior reasons.

If Canadian Courts apply that standard to laypersons, then any properly educated, certified, and accredited lawyer should immediately recognize there is something wrong and illegal when an individual attempts to subdivide themself into multiple, illusionary roles, let alone claim to be an heir to themselves. [ 28 ] People should read documents before signing them. Excusing lawyers from that principle is absurd. As Netolitzky observes at 305: A third precaution is quite obvious, or should be quite obvious, especially to lawyers. If you have any concerns, read a document before you sign it.

A lawyer who formalizes paperwork that purports to unilaterally exhaust or extinguish a legal right, to nullify the effect of Canadian law, or that states it is a default judgment had better expect that a judge will take a very dim view of that item if it is filed or otherwise comes before the Court. [ 29 ] Beyond the pseudolaw issues involved in the Notarized Package, Ms. Akpan failed in her primary duty as a notary: to ensure that the person signing the document is the individual who is named in that document. Did “Ali Mohamed Ayyazi”, the person whose driver’s licence Ms.

Akpan used as photo ID to confirm whom she was dealing with, sign the “Notice”. No, the handwritten signature on that “Notice” reads: Per: Ayyazi-Estate Trust - grantee [illegible signature] ARR “ARR” in this context means “All Rights Reserved”. Mr. Ayyazi, to the degree he endorsed the “Notice”, also denied he is subject to any implications of that step. [ 30 ] I find, factually and legally, that Ms. Akpan did not properly discharge her primary duty as a notary: to authenticate and witness a personal signature.

Instead, I have no idea who, purportedly, she witnessed, but it certainly was not “Ali Mohamed Ayyazi”, despite what is reported in Ms. Akpan’s “Notary Public. Affidavit of Identity Certificate” document. [ 31 ] Ms. Akpan’s actions also implicate her professional duties. The Law Society of Alberta Code of Conduct [ Code ] at paragraph 3.2-13 states: A lawyer must never: (

a) assist in or encourage any fraud, crime, or illegal conduct, (

b) do or omit to do anything that assists in or encourages any fraud, crime, or illegal conduct by a client or others ... The Code places a positive obligation on lawyers to make “reasonable inquiries” about suspicious activities. [ 32 ] Code paragraph 5.1-2 prohibits lawyers from taking steps that are “clearly without merit”, which is exactly what the “Notice” is, or advancing claims that “cannot reasonably” be true. Once again, that is exactly what Mr. Ayyazi has done, and Ms.

Akpan assisted with that. [ 33 ] In examining the implications and duties of lawyer notarizing OPCA documents, Netolitzky at 305 stresses: ... a Freeman, Sovereign Citizen, Detaxer, or Moor who seeks to have you notarize an irregular, fraudulent, or illegal OPCA document is still your client . You have a professional duty to that client, and as an officer of the court, to refuse to take any step that has no legal merit . [Emphasis added.] [ 34 ] It is not for this Court to determine whether Ms. Akpan is in breach of her professional duties.

That disciplinary process falls within the jurisdiction of the Law Society of Alberta. I will forward a copy of this Decision and the Notarized Package to the Law Society of Alberta for its review. However, Canadian Courts possess a separate, parallel authority to supervise lawyer conduct, as that conduct relates to the Courts and their functions: Canadian National Railway Co v McKercher LLP , 2013 SCC 39 at paras 13-16 ; Quebec (Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions) v Jodoin , 2017 SCC 26 at paras 16-24 .

That includes financial consequences to lawyers, personally: Quebec (Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions) v Jodoin at para 23 . [ 35 ] I find, on a balance of probabilities, that Ms. Akpan has participated in OPCA schemes to foist illegal obligations on Court personnel, to unilaterally usurp Court authority and attempt to negate a binding Court Order, and to obtain a “get out of jail free” card so her client can (allegedly) ignore Canadian law, and not be subject to criminal prosecution, which denies the Crown’s unique authority to initiate and pursue criminal legal sanctions.

I also find, on a balance of probabilities, that Ms. Akpan did so knowingly, or was willfully blind to the illegality that she participated in. [ 36 ] Ms. Akpan has 14 days from the date of this Decision to provide the Court with written submissions on why she should not be liable for a monetary penalty paid to the Court under Rule 10.49, or under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, for her breach of her duties as an Officer of this Court, by her participation in Mr. Ayyazi’s pseudolaw “get out of jail free” scheme. The Crown may also make submissions on this point, due on the same date. I stress that Ms.

Akpan should also address the reverse onus against her that results from her participation in a Strawman Theory-based pseudolaw scheme.

Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 13 th day of June, 2022. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: None Appendix “A” - “Notice of Interest, in-trust” Ayyazi, Estate Trust c/o Ali Mohamed, Ayyazi Association 351 Panton Ave County of Rocky View, Non-Domestic CLERK OF THE COURT (of Provincial Court) PROVINCIAL COURT OF ALBERTA Registry: Calgary 601 5 Street SW Calgary, Alberta. T2P 5P7 CC: Office of the Chief Justice The Honourable Chief Justice Bee: The Honourable Mary T. Moreau Tuesday, May 17 th , 2022 Notice of Interest, in-trust.

Generally, in all matters not particularly mentioned in this Notice in which there is any conflict or variance between the rules of equity and the rules of the common law with reference to the same matter, the rules of equity prevail. Appointment of Fiduciary and Trustee : Christina Magee (Deputy Clerk of the Court)

Assignment: Settlement in Equity . RE: Warrant

ARTICLE I: NOTICE TO VACATE ANY AND ALL WARRANTS I have reserved all of my rights on order of release form and placed a (financing statement) lien on Docket No. 200085314Ql and all matters pertaining to docket No. 200085314Q have been vacated, which brings into question the Double Jeopardy rules. The Crown prosecutor(

s) seems to be taking these matters personally and have crossed over to harassment and causing harm and injury to private third parties. The Warrant in question is herein attached. We believe the warrant is a question of fraud and wish for its immediate dismissal or removal from the public records. I have accepted the offer and returned it for consideration for the charges to be extinguished, set-off or dismissed, this is made clear in my Affidavit For Ali Mohamed Ayyazi, that was filled into court in relation to my Criminal matters via the Civil Forfeiture court Dates filed Jul, 8, 2020.

ARTICLE II: NOTICE OF DEMAND I require the release of Warrant for Arrest (Form 7), for this Warrant for Arrest. The requirement is now placed as a demand on the trustee. The cause of action (demand) is due to the Warrant violating the Constitutionally protected rights of the estate and heir. I come as the heir. Where the trustee and the Court believes otherwise and that I am not being harmed and damaged, I require for my accounting in-trust. a. The proof of verification of Warrant is required and, b. An attachment of an Affidavit for the Warrant and, c.

Oath of seizure and Certificate of the Bond that created the Warrant is required and, d. The full name of Judge or Justice of the Peace or the Deputy Clerk of the Court or the Chief Judge endorsed the warrant and I ask as duty to the Stinchcombe Disclosure.

ARTICLE lll: NOTICE OF ESTOPPEL Where none of these requirements are met, The Trustee shall be held liable for Securities Fraud by creating a Bond by Usury of a Trademark Name which is property of a Trust. Trustees' good faith compliance and responsible is required within 7 business days.

ARTICLE VII: NOTICE TO SETTLE PRIVATELY We wish for peace and goodwill and ask for removal of the death issued warrant as it is harmful to our estate and livelihood and in good faith present notice to trustees' to steer the estate and heirs out of the line harm and danger. Attachments: 1. Warrant(

s) cc: Office of the Chief Justice

The Honourable Chief Justice Address: I A Sir Winston Churchill Square, Edmonton, AB T5J 0R2 bee: The Honourable Mary T. Moreau Per: Ayyazi-Estate Trust -grantee [Akpan Notary Seal] [Illegible handwritten signature] ARR [Akpan handwritten signature] May 17, 2022 Grace G. Akpan Barrister & Solicitor at Grace George Law 315 Evansborough Way NW Calgary AB T3P0R1 Canada +1 (587) 965-1625 Where there is conflict between the common law and equity, the rules of equity shall prevail. Appendix “B” - “Canada Revenue Agency Registrar Client - Details” “Common Law ID”