Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke provides an excellent summary of Lentzian litigation history in Anderson v Ossowski, 2021 ABQB 382 (CanLII):
 While Ms. Anderson’s materials replicated in Appendices “A-C” may appear cryptic, this Court is very well aware of what these items entail and their source. These documents are attempts to employ pseudolaw concepts taught by US Sovereign Citizen Carl Rudolph Lentz, who usually self-identifies as “i a Man, Karl Lentz”. Lentz is an OPCA guru (Meads at paras 85-158), a person who teaches ineffective pseudolaw techniques for profit.
 Lentzian materials are easily identified because Lentz and his customers consistently refer to themselves as “i, a man” or “i, a woman”, usually with a lower case “i”. Why they do so is not obvious. Lentz is the inventor of the do-it-yourself vigilante court scheme. In brief, Lentz says anyone can go to a government operated courthouse, and then, with the correct documents such as those in Appendix “A-C”, can requisition court facilities and conduct your own trial, as “prosecutor”, against “wrongdoers” who have “trespassed” on imaginary pseudolaw rights. These are purportedly “common law” proceedings, as that term is misused in OPCA circles (Meads at paras 326-330), rather than the “commercial” or “admiralty law” proceedings that are (falsely) claimed to be what real courts actually conduct.
 I would comment on how proceedings in the “Anderson Court” or the “Parhar Court” would operate, except, unsurprisingly, that there are no instances I am aware of where any Canadian court has permitted Lentzian do-it-yourself courts to set up shop in their premises.
 Lentz himself has a long and dubious litigation history. Documented court proceedings show he has failed repeatedly in court, for example:
KPL v Alabama State Board of Human Resources (2006), 2:06-cv-00942-MEF (US District Court, M.D. Alabama) – Lentz, on behalf of his son, sued numerous Alabama state agencies, the Alabama Supreme Court, the Alabama Tenth Circuit Court, 11 judges, legal aid societies, and the child’s grandmother for “Kidnaping and Failure to Train”. Among other things, Lentz sought $1 billion in damages.
Lentz v Alabama (2007), 2:07-cv-641-WHA (US District Court, M.D. Alabama) – Lentz initiated what purportedly was a class action against Alabama on behalf of all US parents who do not have custody over their children, alleging a conspiracy that breached US constitutional rights. This action was struck out on the basis of State immunity: Lentz v Alabama (29 August 2007), 2:07-cv-641-WHA (US District Court, M.D. Alabama).
Lentz v Bentley (2012), 2:21-cv-1014-MHT (US District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division) – Lentz sued alleging “kidnaping” based on a “forged” instrument, and demanded $346,665,560. Magistrate Judge Capel Jr. ruled this was a collateral attack on existing proceedings, and should be struck out: Lentz v Bentley (20 December 2012), 2:21-cv-1014-MHT (US District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division). That was then confirmed by District Judge Thompson: Lentz v Bentley (14 January 2013), 2:21-cv-1014-MHT (US District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division).
Lentz v Department of Human Resources (2013), 2:13-cv-387-MEF (US District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division) – I will reproduce the initiating document in this proceeding since it exhibits features that obviously parallel those of Ms. Anderson’s filings:
Subsequent documents filed by Lentz purport to occur in the “Lentz Court”. Lentz’s lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice, and costs were ordered against Lentz: Lentz v Department of Human Resources (1 July 2013), 2:13-cv-387-MEF (US District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division).
Lentz v Sheetz (2020), 5:20-cv-00005-MFU (US District Court, W.D. Virginia, Harrisonburg Division) – Lentz stole coffee from a coffee shop. Lentz was then arrested, convicted, and incarcerated. Lentz appears to have argued he did not have to pay for coffee since it was his birthday. Lentz subsequently sued the owner of the coffee shop and claimed: “$440,000,000.00 , four hundred and forty million Dollars, one-million dollars per day for everyday i have been falsely accused of stealing brown liquid, also known as coffee, from a SHEETZ BROS COFFEE gas station, in Stuarts Draft VA.” (sic).
 Lentz has also been active in other countries. While residing in the UK, Lentz claimed to have discovered a secret, long-believed abolished common law court where Freeman-on-the-Land remedies could be obtained: Donald J Netolitzky, “The History of the Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Phenomenon in Canada” (2016) 53:3 Alta L Rev 609 at 631. Lentz personally appeared in R v zombori, (Williams Lake) 20130927 (BCSC), the trial of two Freeman-on-the-Land marijuana grow-op offenders. The Court explicitly rejected Lentz as a litigation representative. The Zomboris’ continued to use pseudolegal concepts, were convicted, and one received an 18-month sentence: R v zombori, 2016 BCCA 9, see also R v Zombori, 2013 BCSC 2461.
 Canadian courts have repeatedly rejected Lentzian pseudolaw concepts, for example:
• SS (Re), 2016 ABPC 170
• Taraba v Erwin, 2017 ONSC 5788
• DKD (Re) (Dependent Adult), 2018 ABQB 1021
• Alberta Treasury Branches v Hawrysh, 2019 ABQB 566
 Some of these cases reproduce and reject Lentzian demands for do-it-yourself vigilante courts: e.g. Lemay v Steele, 2019 ABQB 202 at para 12; Lemay v Steele, 2019 ABQB 429 at para 12; Yaremkevich v Jacula, 2019 ABQB 620 at para 15; Babb v Parrish & Heimbecker Limited, 2019 ABQB 687 at paras 6-12; Babb v Parrish & Heimbecker Limited, 2019 ABQB 831 at para 6.
 More recently an apostle of Lentz has emerged in Canada: Christopher James Pritchard. Pritchard advertises his OPCA services on a website titled “A Warrior Calls” (https://awarriorcalls.com). Pritchard has had no more success than Lentz with setting up his own vigilante courts. Attempts by “i:man: Michael [of Sekulovski family]” and “i:man:Christopher [of Pritchard family]” to act as “prosecutors” in “Sekulovski Court” were struck out as “… frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court…”, and the “prosecutors” were ordered to pay $9,282.07 in costs: Sekulovski v Arkin, 2021 ONSC 1401.
 Subsequently, Myers J in a separate proceeding struck out a second attempt by Sekulovski and Pritchard to set up a do-it-yourself Lentzian court, concluding:
This type of gibberish is abusive on its face. Its purpose is to clog the courts and make people waste time responding rather than helping people with actual cases.
[Sekulovsky v Maisonneuve, 2021 ONSC 1418 at para 4.]
The Sekulovsky v Maisonneuve decision at para 3 reproduces a “High Priority Communication” that Sekulovsky and Pritchard had sent to Justice Myers. That document uses language that duplicates the content of Ms. Anderson’s materials, and sports the same red ink fingerprints motif.
 I conclude:
1. that Ms. Anderson is attempting to conduct a do-it-yourself Lentzian court proceeding, and
2. that Canadian courts have consistently rejected those processes as fictional, ineffective, and an abuse of the court and the targeted “people”.
 Besides simply duplicating well-known and frequently rejected Lentzian OPCA concepts, Ms. Anderson’s litigation has a second, and even more serious potential issue. It appears Ms. Anderson seeks to set up her own Court, that she controls, outside the Canadian legal system. She intends to “prosecute” government officials. I have called this a vigilante court.
 This Court has condemned attempts to conduct and/or enforce pseudolaw vigilante courts as an extremely serious form of litigation misconduct, reviewed in Knutson (Re), 2018 ABQB 858 at paras 72-80. Legal and social sciences research identifies vigilante court proceedings, like the “Anderson Court”, as a dangerous precursor of elevated illegal activity by persons who have adopted pseudolaw: e.g. Donald J Netolitzky, “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments [OPCA] in Canada, an Attack on the Legal System” (2016) 10 JPPL 137; Barbara Perry, David Hofmann & Ryan Scrivens, “Anti-Authority and Militia Movements in Canada” (2019) 1:3 J Intelligence, Conflict, and Warfare 1; Stephen A Kent & Robin D Willey, “Sects, Cults, and the Attack on Jurisprudence” (2013) 14 Rutgers’ JL & Religion 306.
 Furthermore, Tilleman J, in Fearn v Canada Customs, 2014 ABQB 114 at paras 201-210, concluded that threats of, and attempts to conduct, extra-jurisdictional vigilante litigation are contempt of court.
 I therefore request Ms. Anderson explain why her March 23, 2021 filings are not attempted abusive and illegal OPCA litigation activities since:
1. her materials use Lentzian “do-it-yourself” court procedures that have been repeatedly rejected in Canadian and US courts,
2. the “Anderson Court” appears to be an unauthorized vigilante process purporting to have legal effect, and
3. this Court has ruled that OPCA vigilante court processes are contempt of court.