[fredr123]

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc...09abca201.html

At the risk of resurrecting the previous off-topic discussion about notaries, the above decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal was recently released and showed up in my feed reader this afternoon. A few interesting passages are reproduced below:

[3] Commencing in August of 2006 the appellant composed a series of documents which he proceeded to serve on the defendants. These documents are not recognizable as any legitimate or conventional commercial or legal document. The following extracts from an eight page document described as an “Admission of Facts - Non-negotiable” are representative of them (AR pp. E57-64):

Admission of Facts

Non-negotiable

Comes now I, who am called: Leon-Steve: Papadopoulos, a freeholder and sovereign natural man with standing in the common law and all other jurisdictions by special visitation, an unincorporated bank, a non-lawyer, a non-attorney and a non-member of the BAR, over the age of twenty one years, a Real Party in Interest who is NOT acting in persona and who expressly reserves all rights and defenses, thereby prohibiting statutory jurisdiction. I am unschooled in law making a special visitation under the supplemental rules of Admiralty, Rule E(8), a restricted appearance, without granting jurisdiction, and provide notice of the enunciation of principles as stated in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, wherein the court has directed that for those who are unschooled in law, you shall look to the substance of these presents rather than in the form. I am the Power of Attorney in fact and the only authorized representative for LEON PAPADOPOULOS. I do declare that the preceding and following statements are true, correct, complete and certain under penalty of perjury.
...
The appellant persuaded a Notary Public to notarize this and others of the documents, thereby lending them an aura of legitimacy that they do not deserve. Alberta Justice eventually advised the lay notaries not to continue to notarize these obviously irregular documents.

[4] The documents were sent by registered mail to the defendants, and duly signed for by the addressees. The appellant’s approach appears to have been that if the defendants did not reply by affidavit to the documents served on them, they would be deemed at law to admit not only the total amount of his legitimate claim, but the extravagant sum of $49 million mentioned in the documents. The root of this approach appears to be a distorted view of the Bills of Exchange Act. It is, however, apparent that the documents do not even slightly resemble genuine bills of exchange. Furthermore, signing for the registered mail that contained the documents does not amount to an “acceptance” of any legitimate bill of exchange that might be in the envelope. “Acceptance” in the Bills of Exchange Act is a technical term, and is not the same as acknowledging physical receipt of the envelope. The law does not recognize the ability of one person to foist liability on another if they do not reply to a unilateral communication within an arbitrarily set time limit.


[10] The appellant took the position that the purpose of the trial was really to enforce or compromise the “agreement” he had tried to foist on the defendants:

Now, I have no desire to liquidate them and enforce the entire default upon them. I want to settle. And I have a judgment against them in the order of $49.9 million. And I don't want to enforce that entire judgment against them. I want to settle with them.

God requires of his mankind a tithe of 10 percent. I'm in a position where I'm willing to take the example that God has put forth and settle for 10 percent. Is that not fair? (AR p. 74, l. 21-9)

The appellant put great stock in the fact that his unconventional documents had been notarized by a Notary Public, but the involvement of the notary could not give these legally ineffective documents any force of law. The trial judge bluntly warned the appellant that he would lose if he called no evidence. (AR p. 86, l. 35-6) The trial judge adjourned the trial overnight to allow the appellant to reflect on his position and to take advice. In the morning, the appellant’s position was unchanged, and the trial judge granted the defendants’ applications for non-suit, and dismissed both claims.

Emphasis mine. Point being, I suppose, that at least Alberta Justice takes the position that notarizing a document gives it an air of apparent legitimacy and not any and every document ought to be notarized.