_______________________________________________________

Reasons for Decision

of the

Associate Chief Justice

J.D. Rooke

_______________________________________________________

I. Introduction

[1] This decision deals with two separate processes. The first is a challenge by Adam Christian Gauthier [“Gauthier”] to the operation of an order of this Court which prohibits the Court Clerks from filing documents which include certain motifs that are legally meaningless, but are also both highly stereotypic and characteristic of Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments [“OPCA”], as defined in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, 543 AR 215. Litigation based on OPCA concepts is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of court processes: Meads v Meads at paras 554-56, 585-85, 606. Many key OPCA concepts are so notoriously false that simply employing these concepts creates a presumption that a person is in court for abusive, improper, and ulterior purposes: Fiander v Mills, 2015 NLCA 31, 40, 368 Nfld & PEIR 80.

[2] The second part of this decision has this Court, on its own motion and authority, evaluate Gauthier’s history of litigation misconduct, and then place court access restrictions on him. While Gauthier was previously declared a vexatious litigant (Gauthier v Starr, 2016 ABQB 213, 86 CPC (7th) 348) he had not, until the present, been the subject of broad-based controls on his access to Alberta Courts. Gauthier’s continued attempts to misuse this Court’s processes warrants that additional step.

II. Attempts to File OPCA Documents

A. The OPCA Document Master Order

[3] On June 18, 2013, I issued a “Master Order for Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [“OPCA”] Documents” [the “Master Order”] that instructed Clerks of the Edmonton Court of Queen’s Bench to refuse to file documents which exhibit one or more motifs that are both legally meaningless and also characteristic of OPCA litigation. For example, the Master Order prohibits filing of documents:

1. where a name is expressed in a “dash-colon” format,

2. where an individual marks a personal name with a copyright “©” or trademark “™” symbol,

3. that are marked by one or more ink fingerprints, or blood, or

4. which have postage stamps attached.

[4] The Master Order instructed that when the Clerks identify documents which exhibit any of the listed defects then the Clerk shall:

1. return the refused documents to the person who has attempted to file those materials, and

2. provide a copy of the Master Order and indicate the identified defects.

[5] The Master Order instructed that a person whose document are refused for filing may either remove the OPCA defects and then re-file their documents, or challenge the document refusal in writing to myself or my designate.

[6] The purpose of the Master Order is straight-forward. The Master Order is designed to intercept OPCA litigation at the earliest possible point so that persons attempting to file such are directed to Meads v Meads, given notice of the irregular and legally incorrect nature of OPCA schemes, and then have the opportunity to abandon pseudolegal concepts before those misconceptions lead to unnecessary, abusive, and futile litigation, and the expenditure of litigant and court resources. Much OPCA litigation causes self-injury, for example: Servus Credit Union Ltd v Parlee, 2015 ABQB 700, 7 Admin LR (6th) 321. The Master Order is intended to minimize that, too.

[7] While the June 18, 2013 Master Order only relates to the Judicial Centre of Edmonton, a corresponding substantially identical Master Order for all other Alberta judicial districts was subsequently issued in 2014.

[8] Since the Master Order process was put in place there have been some challenges to the Clerks applications of its procedure. To date I have rejected all such challenges.

B. Gauthier’s Attempts to File

[9] On July 18, 2017, Gauthier appeared, without notice, in Chambers before Ross J seeking a fiat to file certain documents. Gauthier explained what had led to that:

I had a little discussion with the ladies downstairs and they took a little exception because on a section of the paperwork which is a document from a previously filed, previous filing from 2014, the word independent sovereign individual is there, and they’re trying to suggest that that may make this paperwork fall into OPCA litigation.

[10] He further elaborated on why a fiat should be issued:

I don’t even believe they had legitimate grounds to block me, right. ... They pulled out the regulation that is by the policy, that’s been permitting, they actually also pulled out also the order where I was declared vexatious by Rooke. In that order it stops me from filing anything in respect of those three defendants from a previous case that has nothing to do with this whatsoever.

[11] After a preliminary review of Gauthier’s documents and their subject matter, Ross J declined to immediately issue a fiat, but stated she would engage in a closer review of these items, along with any court orders that related to Gauthier. Gauthier then continued to further explain his perspective:

Maybe I’ll just clarify so that you’re clear, you don’t think that I believe because I am a human being that is the reason that I am afforded the right to the enjoyment of property. That’s a common law right that existed long before the state. You guys are operating on the assumption that the statute is always in line with the Charter. I’d happily like to rebut that in this case ...

[12] Ross J confirmed she would review Gauthier’s materials and someone would contact Gauthier concerning her conclusions in the next couple days.

[13] Justice Ross wrote to Gauthier the following day:, July 19, 2017

I have reviewed the documents you presented to me in Chambers on July 18, 2017, which you indicated the Court Clerks had refused to file. That refusal was made pursuant to the [Master Order]. A completed copy of the Master Order is attached.

The correct method to challenge filing that is refused by the Clerks per the Master Order is to send the rejected materials to Associate Chief Justice Rooke, per paragraph 3 of the Master Order.

I therefore refuse to grant the fiat you requested. I have forwarded the documents I have received from you and the completed Master Order to the Associate Chief Justice for his review.

[14] The Master Order attached to her letter identifies at least two defects: Gauthier refers to himself as a “sovereign man”, and Gauthier uses duplicate names, with one name in all upper-case letters, the other in lower-case or mixed-case text.

[15] Gauthier, on July 19, 2017, responded by email with submissions concerning the July 18, 2017 documents, and asked that Ross J forward that email to me, which she did. Gauthier subsequently emailed me three additional identical emails on August 3, 8 and 10, 2017. Additional emails requesting a response were received from Gauthier on August 17 and September 11, 2017.

C. Review of the July 18, 2017 documents

[16] My review of Gauthier’s July 18, 2017 documents confirmed the Clerks were correct to reject these materials for filing per the Master Order. They had correctly identified OPCA-specific defects in those documents.

[17] That review also indicated the July 18, 2017 documents advance a further OPCA scheme where Gauthier claims to be outside state authority because he has ‘opted out’ of government and court control. He is “a man of the common law ... with full legal capacity at all times”, and an “Independent Sovereign Individual”. He has “rescinded” “the legal person GAUTHIER, ADAM CHRISTIAN, the Canadian citizen, the member of society” via a document titled a “Claim of Right”.

[18] That document purports to bar “... the bringing of charges under any statute or Act against Adam C. Gauthier, Independent Sovereign Individual.” [emphasis in original]. Any government, law enforcement, or court actor who interferes with Gauthier must pay “FIFTY ounces of Silver PER MINUTE” [emphasis in original]. Gauthier will enforce these fines via a Notary Public, who will:

... secure payment of the aforementioned FEE SCHEDULE against any transgressors who by their actions or omissions harm my interests or me directly or by proxy in any way.

[19] Stating the obvious, these claims are nonsense.

[20] The July 18, 2017 documents also disclose that Gauthier, on July 13, 2017, was driving a black 2001 Ford Focus owned by Justina Beth Smith of Edmonton. The vehicle had a fake licence plate attached which read “private non commercial use only”. This attracted the attention of the Edmonton Police Service. Gauthier was stopped, detained, and arrested after he refused to identify himself. Gauthier received three tickets under Traffic Safety Act, RSA 2000, c T-6 for:

• s 54(1)(a) - driving without insurance,

• s 94(2) - driving while unauthorized to do so, and

• a third charge which is not legible from the traffic ticket.

The vehicle was seized per Traffic Safety Act, s 173.

[21] Gauthier claimed his Charter rights have been breached in relation to the July 13, 2017 event. He claimed he is due damages and return of the Ford Focus because he is outside the law. This is, again, false.

[22] These are reasons enough to refuse to file Gauthier’s July 18, 2017 OPCA materials, or to strike them out if they were filed. In light of Gauthier’s litigation history and the July 18, 2017 documents, on July 21, 2017, I issued an interim order in this proceeding which prohibited Gauthier from initiating or continuing any action in the Alberta Courts without leave of the relevant Chief Justice, Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, per Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 335 at para 105.

III. Prospective Control of Gauthier’s Abuse of Alberta Courts

[23] As stated in the introduction to this decision, the purpose of this decision is not simply to document why Gauthier’s OPCA documents were rejected, but to provide reasons for why this Court, on its own motion and under its inherent jurisdiction, is restricting Gauthier’s access to the Alberta courts. This is not, in fact, the first time Gauthier has engaged in litigation activities that abuse the Court’s processes. He has been repeatedly warned that his attempts to litigate on the basis of certain pseudolegal concepts will be unsuccessful and then result in negative consequences.

[24] In the face of this continuing abuse of process, it is now time to take steps to restrict Gauthier’s access to Alberta courts via what is commonly called a vexatious litigant order, so as to minimize his abuse of those institutions, and the persons he targets without a lawful basis.

A. Details of the July 18, 2017 Documents Sought to be Filed

[25] Gauthier (“Adam Christian Gauthier - Human Being”) on July 18, 2017 attempted to file an application in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench that seeks a Charter, s 24 remedy for:

1. return of property (presumably the motor vehicle) purportedly under Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 490(7);

2. damages “for loss of enjoyment of the unlawfully seized property”; and

3. damages “as a result of the unlawful arrest and detention”.

[26] Gauthier alleged:

1. his Charter, ss 7-9 rights were breached during the stop, arrest, and seizure;

2. the Traffic Safety Act “infringes upon the enjoyment of property as protected by the bill of Rights section 1(a) and section 1(b)”; and

3. the Traffic Safety Act is inconsistent with Charter, s 32, and is inoperative per Charter, s 52.

[27] The substance of Gauthier’s argument is found in the “Affirmation” document which is reproduced in Schedule A of this decision. He claimed to be “a man of the common law and I stand in my inherent jurisdiction as a man with full legal capacity at all times.” (para 3). He stated, in 2014, he “rescinded” the “legal person GAUTHIER, ADAM CHRISTIAN, the Canadian citizen, the member of society”. He pointed to a “Claim of Right” document (reproduced in Schedule B) in the package which purported to unilaterally declare him “an Independent Sovereign Individual”, who has revoked his consent to be governed by state actors. He submitted that he is therefore immune from police action, such as the traffic stop and arrest. This is allegedly to have arisen because Gauthier did not receive any response to the “Claim of Right” within 30 days, which purports to create:

... automatic, permanent and irrevocable “estoppel in pais” barring the bringing of charges under any estate or Act against Adam C. Gauthier, Independent Sovereign Individual.

See “Affirmation” at paras 21-22.

[28] Gauthier argued the “Claim of Right” makes him immune to government action, which is why the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench should order the return of the motor vehicle and order damages.

[29] The document package also included a document titled “List of Authorities”. Some of this document appears to be quoted passages from actual Canadian court cases, though in certain instances a particular item is unidentified. The first page, for example, reproduces without attribution a speech by Chief Justice McLachlin, that was quoted in the R v Wagner, 2015 ONCJ 66 decision. Next, the “List of Authorities” quotes from Dedman v The Queen, 1985 CanLII 41 (SCC), [1985] 2 SCR 2, 20 DLR (4th) 321, but only selects passages from either the headnotes or body of the dissenting decision by Dickson CJC, which, of course, has no legal weight. Other items appear to quote from legislation and websites.

[30] Some items in the “List of Authorities” are entirely cryptic, such as “the lost ways. Survival book.” As best I can determine, this is a text written by a Claude Davis that, among other things, teaches how to manufacture pemmican, a traditional aboriginal preserved food made from meat, fat, and berries.

[31] The relevance of these materials is not obvious. None are referenced in Gauthier’s “Affirmation”.

[32] The document package also included what appears to be a photocopy of Gauthier’s Ontario Statement of Live Birth. This document is referenced at para 3 of the “Affirmation” but the reason why is unclear. Last, the July 18, 2017 documents include a number of documents apparently prepared by the Edmonton Police Service:

1. copies of three Violation Tickets, all of which appear to have been issued on July 13, 2017, and direct Gauthier to appear in the Edmonton Provincial Court Traffic Courtroom on September 29, 2017;

2. a Notice of Intention to Seek Greater Punishment, where the “Accused (Signature)” box is marked “Refused”; and

3. two pages that document the seizure of the 2001 Ford Focus, per Traffic Safety Act, s 173.

B. Gauthier’s Explanation for the July 18, 2017 Documents

[33] Gauthier’s July 19, 2017 email provided some argument concerning his documents. The email starts:

I am not "Mr. Gauthier". While I understand most often this method of addressing someone is used out of curtesy, it is inappropriate as I do not use any title, nor do I act in the capacity of any type of class of person. I am a human being with full legal capacity and I believe when you are addressing me as "Mr" you are speaking to the statutory creature, the citizen. ...

[34] He continued to indicate that the “Claim of Right” document does include several false statements, but nevertheless binds the Crown and prohibits the operation of Canadian legislation:

... that document is only there to show that I acted in good faith and stated to the crown my intentions, and gave them a fair chance to let me know if any of the actions listed would be an issue. They made no response and a positive step was taken by the court when the charges were dismissed. Since that time I have been acting on the basis that I am entitled to take the actions listed in that claim of right.

[35] His said his rights are “rooted in the natural law”.

[36] Gauthier indicated his being identified as an OPCA litigant or declared a vexatious litigant “... is a violation of the fundamental principles of justice.” He has suffered “great hardship” during his interactions with state authorities and law enforcement. He explained his complaint is with the state, rather than the Court itself. He stated he acted to defend his freedoms against government oppression:

I have made a point of not publicizing my interactions with the court, or my contempt for the actions and policies of the government. I'm not someone who is organizing groups to over throw or to dismantle the current regime. I'm simply an individual who cares deeply about freedom and privacy. Something which I see slowly being chipped away at by the legislature.

[37] Gauthier concluded:

I sincerely hope that the courts in this country are here to protect the rule of law and the fundamental principles of justice. I hope there are judges with the courage to stand against the winds and the rain in the face of socially difficult cases, and to do right by the victims of arbitrary and aggressive state actions.

The Court is prepared to stand against abuse of process that threatens the rule of law.

[38] The August 3/8/10, 2017 email elaborated further on Gauthier’s beliefs and intentions. He disagreed that his access to Alberta Courts should be restricted. Judges have a “duty of care to unrepresented litigants”, and any defect in his materials relates to form or is a procedural error. I respond: not to vexatious litigants whose actions are an intentional malicious process.

[39] Gauthier claimed the Attorney General is estopped by:

... a properly filed charter challenge from March 18, 2014 which was heard on May 23, 2014 by the Provincial Superior Court of Alberta where a positive step was taken when the court dismissed the charges. ...

I note Gauthier does not provide any documentation in relation to this purported litigation. The court or matter in question is not clear.

[40] Gauthier stated that he has been the subject of state abuse, and he intends to take steps in response:

I believe that in my case, the damages I have incurred as a result of unconstitutional government actions going back to 2015 which includes; 45 days in the remand centre for Form 21 warrants from traffic tickets run ex-party which they also took money for, 3.5 days of solitary confinement, exposure to violent criminals, the multiple pieces of property that have been stolen, my patio door which was smashed through by the RCMP without first showing me the alleged warrant they had, the deformation of my character by labeling me vexatious and having news articles written about me, the psycological distress myself and my family have been placed under while being investigated and discriminated against by the courts and agents of the government, entitles me to compensation. I also believe that it’s possible this could be settled out of court through a claim for settlement via section 35 of the financial administrations act, if the government would simply due their duty under the law. ...

I respond that such claims, based on non-OPCA or other non-abuse of processes, could be the subject of leave, but not this application for leave.

[41] Gauthier stated he is no longer a person in Canada:

If this most recent order is meant only to restrict me from being able to file things in statutorily driven courts, that is ok. I am never attempting to exercising civil rights. I have rescinded the citizenship which was apply for by my parents. I do not wish to have any political affiliation or to act as a class of person. Just as Justice Rooke wrote in para. 318 of Meads, I have left “Canada” and broken my formal ties with the federal juristic unit. Although it appears the Registrar has not adjusted things accordingly. Hopefully through this review all these matters can be addressed.

[42] He argued that state control of his criminal activities is improper, since he has acted in “private” and not the “public domain”:

... I have been forced to act as a class of person and been stigmatized with a criminal record that spawned as a result of not wanting to partake in an administrative non criminal proceeding which had nothing to do with me. All my actions are those of a private nature and it has been inappropriate to have dragged me into the public domain and slandered my good name. The system has made a criminal out of me even though no crime has ever been committed.

[43] Gauthier concluded his email by a request to identify what elements of his July 18, 2017 filings are “inconsistent with the law” and why those documents were refused. If nothing else I hope these reasons will satisfy that request.

C. Legal Effect of the July 18, 2017 Documents

[44] I will only briefly comment on the many obvious defects in Gauthier’s July 18, 2017 documents.

1. Court Jurisdiction

[45] First, there is the issue of jurisdiction. Gauthier is apparently attempting to challenge trial processes that are underway in the Provincial Court of Alberta. Our Court has no jurisdiction to hear a Charter complaint about that litigation until after the Provincial Court issues a final judgment on that matter or matters.

2. Criminal Code, s 490

[46] Second, Gauthier is apparently attempting to obtain return of property under Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 490(7), but that provision only relates to property seized under the Criminal Code, or another Act of Parliament: Criminal Code, s 490(1). The Ford Focus was seized per provincial legislation, the Alberta Traffic Safety Act, so Criminal Code, s 490 has no application.

3. The Canadian Bill of Rights

[47] Third, Gauthier invoked the “Canadian Bill of Rights section 1(a)(b) as a third defence to the violation tickets”. These provisions read:

1 It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law; ...

Gauthier is presumably citing these items for the proposition that there is a supra-constitutional right to property.

[48] This claim has two fatal flaws. First, the Canadian Bill of Rights, SC 1960, c 44 has a well-established limited legal effect: Attorney General of Canada v Lavell, 1973 CanLII 175 (SCC), [1974] SCR 1349, 38 DLR (3d) 481. Second, Gauthier’s charges and the Ford Focus seizure were conducted under Alberta law. Canadian federal legislation cannot override intra vires provincial legislation.

4. De Facto Authority

[49] Gauthier also pointed to Criminal Code, s 15, which reads:

No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission in obedience to the laws for the time being made and enforced by persons in de facto possession of the sovereign power in and over the place where the act or omission occurs.

[50] He also cited various websites where the Governor General of Canada is described as “Canada’s de facto head of state”. It seems that Gauthier believes that, since the Governor General is “de facto”, then Gauthier is not subject to any potential criminal offence, per Criminal Code, s 15. The problem is Criminal Code, s 15 does not relate to a layperson, but instead applies to government authorities. Gauthier has got the operation of section 15 backwards. Its function is to immunize government actors from criminal charges where the government actor takes steps under what appeared at the time to be a valid government direction.

[51] Martin’s Annual Criminal Code 2017 (Toronto: Thomson Reuters, 2016) at 56 explains the function and history of this rather esoteric legislation:

... This provision is of quite limited application and provisions similar to it were originally enacted in England to protect persons serving the King de facto who might turn out to be on the wrong side of a civil war, and to make it clear that it was not treason to the successful claimant to the throne to have faithfully served the then reigning monarch.

[52] In short, Criminal Code, s 15 could potentially protect the Edmonton Police Service officers who interacted with Gauthier, but it has no application to Gauthier himself. He has been extremely clear in his materials that he does not purport to operate under government authority. In fact, he says he is not a Canadian, or in Canada.

5. Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments

[53] Then there are the wealth of long rejected Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments Gauthier has advanced in his materials. First, he argued that he has two separate parts or aspects, one of which he calls “Adam Christian Gauthier ... a man of the common law ... in my inherent jurisdiction as a man with full legal capacity ...”. The other part is “The legal person GAUTHIER, ADAM CHRISTIAN, the Canadian citizen, the member of society.” He says he got rid of the second part, so he is now outside the jurisdiction of Canadian governments and courts.

[54] His July 19, 2017 email reaffirmed Gauthier continues to assert this duality. He is not a “Mr.” That is a “class of person”, “the statutory creature, the citizen”. His second email includes a similar complaint: Gauthier has “... been forced to act as a class of person ...”.

[55] This is just another variation on the double/split person “Strawman” scheme. It is nonsense and a myth: Meads v Meads, at paras 417-46. There is only one Gauthier, who is both a human being and a legal person. He cannot split off an aspect of himself and obtain some benefit as a result. In fact, if he could get rid of “[t]he legal person GAUTHIER, ADAM CHRISTIAN”, he would, under the common law, instead probably become chattel property - a slave - a human being without rights: Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency), 2017 ABQB 123 at paras 89-95, 2017 DTC 5024. Gauthier is therefore lucky that he cannot succeed at what he claims to have done.

[56] Some of the language Gauthier has used parallels that in a newer “Strawman” variation evaluated and rejected by Master Schulz in Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency), at paras 75-88. I adopt her analysis and conclusion. In Fiander v Mills, at paras 20-21, 40, Green CJNL characterized the universally rejected “Strawman” concept as being so notoriously bad that any person who advances that concept can be presumed to litigate with an ulterior and abusive intent. It does not matter if the “Strawman” is “tarted up in a new dress” (Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency) at para 83), it is still the same invalid concept.

[57] Some OPCA litigants can appear in court and make an argument that they, perhaps, have been misled, or they are unclear on complex concepts. Gauthier cannot claim to be one of those. He has been told by this Court that the “Strawman” concept is invalid: Crossroads-DMD Mortgage Investment Corporation v Gauthier, 2015 ABQB 703 at para 39, 41, 99, 28 Alta LR (6th) 104:

... Gauthier’s claim that distinguishes an “individual human being” from the “person” is entirely meaningless. They are one and the same. Gauthier’s apparent belief as to the legal meaning of the word “person” is entirely false and incorrect. ...

... The “Strawman” is therefore not merely a myth. It is litigation poison. ...

I have noted what the Newfoundland Court of Appeal has said in Fiander v Mills about “Strawman” theory. Gauthier advances these concepts at his own risk, including the risk of an award of costs against him personally.

[58] Gauthier claimed that his “Claim of Right” document immunizes him from state action. I will not go through this document in detail, but it is a stereotypic OPCA document that purports to establish that an individual can ‘opt out’ of being subject to Canadian law.

[59] Gauthier stated “I ... revoke my consent to be governed by the Crown, legal system participants, agents or any other individual or corporation.”, and “estoppel in pais” bars “bringing of charges under any statute or Act against Adam C. Gauthier, Independent Sovereign Individual.” [emphasis in original]. He confirms in his July 19, 2017 email that, as far as he is concerned, the government has no rights over him on the basis of the “Claim of Right”.

[60] Documents like this, foisted unilateral agreements, have no legal effect: Meads v Meads, at paras 405-10, 458-72. Silence from government actors does not create agreement per “estoppel in pais”. You cannot ‘opt out’ of the operation of legislation: R v Gerlitz, 2014 ABQB 247, 589 AR 43; R v Petrie, 2012 BCSC 2110 at paras 51, 55, 107 WCB (2d) 29; Szoo’ v RCMP, 2011 BCSC 696 at paras 17-21, 43-45; ANB v Hancock, 2013 ABQB 97 at paras 74-78, 557 AR 364; R v ANB, 2012 ABQB 556 at para 49, 570 AR 146; Jabez Financial Services Inc. v Sponagle, 2008 NSSC 112 at paras 14-15, 18, 264 NSR (2d) 224; R v Sands, 2013 SKQB 115 at para 18, 416 Sask R 279; Bursey v Canada, 2015 FC 1126 at paras 2, 4-5, 7-8, aff’d 2015 FC 1307, aff’d 2016 FCA 231, leave to the SCC refused, 37487 (1 June 2017).

[61] Instead, this idea is again one which is so notoriously false that the Newfoundland Court of Appeal in Fiander v Mills at paras 37-40 concluded that anyone who claims to be able to ‘opt out’ of legislation is presumptively acting for an improper and ulterior purpose.

[62] Gauthier knows this, as I have already told him so myself in Gauthier v Starr, at para 38, that he cannot and should not rely on this concept:

... This indicates that Gauthier subscribes to the Freeman-on-the-Land concept that a foisted unilateral agreement document called a “Claim of Right”, or sometimes more formally a “Notice of Understanding Intent and Claim of Right”, can be sent to governments and/or the courts. This concept, unknown to real law, is that if the “Claim of Right” is not explicitly rebutted and rejected that, supposedly, means the Freeman-on-the-Land has ‘opted out’ of the law. This concept has been rejected innumerable times by Canadian Courts. ... Recently, the Newfoundland Court of Appeal in Fiander v Mills at para 40 concluded that a court that encounters a litigant who uses ‘opt out of legislation’ arguments can presume that litigant is engaged in vexatious litigation for an improper and abusive purpose. [Citations omitted.]

[63] One also cannot ‘opt out’ of or “rescind” Canadian citizenship: R v Gerlitz, at paras 35, 41, 2014 ABQB 247 (CanLII), 589 AR 43; Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency), at para 149. As for Gauthier’s claims that he has “left Canada” and “broken [his] formal ties with the federal juristic unit”, that is ridiculous. As long as he is physically within Canada, he is subject to its laws. He admits he was driving a car in Edmonton when he was stopped and arrested. The documents he attempted to file give his Alberta address. As he is in Canada, to say anything else is absurd, and reflects negatively on his claims that he is acting in good faith.

[64] Gauthier’s “Claim of Right” also included a threat, that any government, law enforcement, or court actor who dares to interfere with Gauthier will be fined “FIFTY ounces of Silver PER MINUTE” [emphasis in original], and:

... This is in accordance with the court ruling in the matter of James C. TREZEVANT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF TAMPA, a municipal corporation, Hillsborough County Board of Criminal Justice, et al., Defendants-Appellants Nos. 83-3370, 83-3038, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 741F.2d336; 1984 U.S.App. LEXIS 18863.

Gauthier declared that he will enforce his “FEE SCHEDULE” with a “Notary Public” to “... secure payment ... against any transgressors ...”. Stating the obvious, US case law is not a binding authority in Canada, and rarely relevant, particularly in relation to the quantum of damages.

[65] The Fee Schedule concept is another long debunked OPCA scheme; one cannot unilaterally impose a system of fines and sanctions on others: Meads v Meads, at paras 505-28. Attempting to do so is intimidation: Meads v Meads, at para 527; Fearn v Canada Customs, 2014 ABQB 114 at para 199, 94 Alta LR (5th) 318; Bank of Montreal v Rogozinsky, 2014 ABQB 771 at para 78, 603 AR 261; Gidda v Hirsch, 2014 BCSC 1286 at para 84; R v Sands, at para 18; R v Boxrud, 2014 SKQB 221 at para 46, 450 Sask R 147; Re Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 629 at paras 58-69, 29 Alta LR (6th) 334; Allen Boisjoli Holdings v Papadoptu, 2016 FC 1260; Pomerleau v Canada Revenue Agency, at para 135; and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v McDougald, 2017 ABQB 124 at para 28, 276 ACWS (3d) 847.

[66] This fact, too, is known to Gauthier, as I stated in Gauthier v Starr at para 39::

The more damning component of Gauthier’s stated basis for damages is it flows from a “fee schedule”. Fee schedules are foisted unilateral agreements that define certain penalties for government, institutional, and court actors engaged in their legal duties ... OPCA fee schedules have one purpose: intimidation. These documents are intended to deter state and court actors from the proper exercise of their obligations ... Asserting a foisted unilateral agreement against a public official is harassment ... I recently concluded in Re Boisjoli at paras 58-69 that an attempt to enforce a spurious OPCA-based debt on a peace officer was prima facie intimidation of a justice system participant: Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 423.1. [Citations omitted.]

[67] It is sufficient at this point to simply conclude that Gauthier has advanced knowledge of this Court’s rejection of notorious, and thoroughly discounted OPCA concepts. He has been warned that any attempts to argue or implement several of these concepts creates the presumption that he is in court for abusive, ulterior purposes. These facts were indicated to him in court decisions that he chose not to appeal.

[68] It is a principle of law, and simply common sense, that a person is presumed to intend the natural consequences of their acts: Starr v Houlden, 1990 CanLII 112 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 1366, 68 DLR (4th) 641. Gauthier has been told he has advanced pseudolegal concepts that do not work, and will never work. He has been cautioned that continuing to use these spurious concepts may lead to negative consequences. He has, nonetheless, persisted. Since Gauthier will not listen to the Court’s warnings, it is time to control his litigation activities.

V. Vexatious Litigant Status

[69] The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench has the inherent jurisdiction to restrict access to its processes where there is a basis to conclude that a person will engage in abusive litigation in the future: Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 651 at paras 14-25, 273 ACWS (3d) 533, leave denied 2017 ABCA 63, leave to the SCC sought, 37624 (12 April 2017) [“Hok #2”]; Thompson v International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 955, 2017 ABQB 210 at para 56, affirmed 2017 ABCA 193; Ewanchuk v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 ABQB 237 at paras 92-96; McCargar v Canada, 2017 ABQB 416 at para 110; 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee), 2017 ABQB 436 at para 58; 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee), 2017 ABQB 548 at paras 42-79. Chutskoff v Bonora, 2014 ABQB 389, 590 AR 288, affirmed 2014 ABCA 444 reviews the characteristics that identify abusive litigation that are a basis to restrict court access.

A. Gauthier’s Litigation Misconduct

[70] In 2016 I declared that Gauthier was a vexatious litigant in Gauthier v Starr. That decision reviews Gauthier’s litigation misconduct to that point:

1. Crossroads-DMD Mortgage Investment Corporation v Gauthier - Gauthier attempted to frustrate the foreclosure of his residence using a variety of OPCA ‘money for nothing’ schemes and on the basis of international treaties. He claimed that Meads v Meads is not a valid legal authority since it is just obiter.

2. R v d’Abadie - Gauthier claimed to represent convicted Freeman-on-the-Land drug trafficker and manufacturer Luc d’Abadie, arguing that d’Abadie should be released from prison via habeas corpus. Gauthier used arguments taught by US Sovereign Citizen guru Carl (Karl) Lentz. Subsequent to Gauthier v Starr a further appeal was made to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, which was dismissed.

3. Gauthier v Starr - Gauthier, claiming the title “Prosecutor”, sued an RCMP officer and two prosecutors, “Wrongdoers”, alleging they had acted unlawfully and trespassed on Gauthier’s property. This action was in retaliation to prosecutions that had been conducted against Gauthier.

[71] I previously (Gauthier v Starr, at paras 43-49) identified seven independent bases on which Gauthier had engaged in vexatious litigation, that were each a basis to restrict his access to Alberta courts. Briefly, he has:

1. conducted a collateral attack on a court order,

2. engaged in hopeless proceedings that have no reasonable expectation to provide relief,

3. engaged in escalating proceedings,

4. engaged in litigation for ulterior purposes,

5. conducted “busybody” litigation as an “officious buttinsky”,

6. engaged in inappropriate in-court behaviour, and

7. advanced and argued OPCA concepts.

[72] The July 18, 2017 documents share several of these issues. I have described some of the OPCA characteristics of these materials, their pseudolegal concepts, and the intended results. These are also hopeless proceedings since the July 18, 2017 documents attempt to file an application in the wrong jurisdiction. Even if the July 18, 2017 documents were in the correct jurisdiction, the legal arguments for the return of the Ford Focus are obviously futile.

[73] At the conclusion of Gauthier v Starr, I invited the Attorney Generals to apply to have Gauthier declared a vexatious litigant and have his court access restricted, but “[i]f the Attorneys General do not choose to take that step then the Court may do so on its own motion.”: para 53. The Attorneys General of Alberta and Canada did not take that step. So, in light of Gauthier’s continued litigation misconduct, it is time for this Court to act on its own motion.

B. No Surprise

[74] Lymer v Jonsson, 2016 ABCA 32, 612 AR 122, indicates procedural justice requires that a person against whom court access restriction is being considered have the opportunity to make submissions as to whether any restriction is appropriate, or, if so, what the scope of that restriction should be. However, a court may proceed directly if the abusive litigant is not “surprised”. Here, Gauthier would not be “surprised” by the fact this Court is taking steps to rein in his courtroom activities. He has been warned of this exact potential outcome if he continues to abuse court processes.

[75] In additional, a fair reading of Gauthier’s July 19, 2017 and August 3/8/10, 2017 emails indicates Gauthier knows very well that his documents may trigger court access restrictions beyond those already ordered. He nevertheless chose to proceed. He rejected the Court’s authority to limit his litigation activities.

C. Appropriate Litigation Restrictions

[76] Foreseeable litigation misconduct is the critical factor that determines the scope of a vexatious litigant order which restricts an individual’s access to Alberta Courts. In Hok #2 at paras 36-37, Verville J explained that principle in this manner:

I conclude that when a court considers limits to future court access by a person with a history of litigation misconduct the key questions for a court are:

1. Can the court determine the identity or type of persons who are likely to be the target of future abusive litigation?

2. What litigation subject or subjects are likely involved in that abuse of court processes?

3. In what forums will that abuse occur?

Hryniak instructs that modern case management balances litigant rights against net benefits and expenditure of court resources. The tangible impediment caused by a requirement that a person seek leave to initiate or continue litigation is low. Control of frivolous, vexatious, and abusive litigation is a valid exercise of legislative and court authority ... I conclude that when a court makes a vexatious litigant order it should do so to respond to anticipated abuse of court processes. This is prospective case management step, rather than punitive. [Citation omitted.]

See also 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee), 2017 ABQB 548 at paras 42-79.

[77] First, Gauthier’s history establishes future abusive litigation is grimly predictable. He does not take “no” for an answer. His August 3/8/10, 2017 email is explicit: he intends to take procedurally abusive action against those he considers to be wrongdoers.

[78] His philosophy and animus to government means he plausibly will litigate against any government, law enforcement, or court actor who will or has crossed his path. In Crossroads-DMD Mortgage Investment Corporation v Gauthier he previously advanced OPCA concepts in an attempt to frustrate collection of mortgage debts due under contract. Given these facts I cannot identify a subset or category of potential litigation targets for Gauthier’s abusive court activities. He is a threat to every Canadian.

[79] Similarly, Gauthier’s misconduct spans everything from illegal defences to debt collection, to attempts to attack government workers engaged in their duties, to illegal claims on property, to springing a convicted drug trafficker from prison. I see no way to predict a focus or restriction on Gauthier’s misuse of courts. In fact, the opposite is likely, since he is so globally offended by what he (incorrectly) identifies as oppression and conspiracy.

[80] These two conclusions also favour broad court access restriction.

[81] Last, Gauthier’s misconduct has occurred at all levels of court. He has made spurious appeals, such as occurred in the Crossroads-DMD Mortgage Investment Corporation v Gauthier, and as reported in R v d’Abadie, 2016 SKCA 72. I therefore restrict Gauthier’s access to all three levels of Alberta Courts, though in taking that step I am mindful of jurisprudence from the Alberta Court of Appeal in relation to the preconditions for court access restriction in that Court which is difficult to reconcile: Hok #2; Ewanchuk v Canada (Attorney General); 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee), 2017 ABQB 548.

[82] Gauthier’s conduct in Court has been problematic. He is not forthright with judges, and has been uncooperative with the Court Clerks. He is argumentative and disruptive. He clandestinely attempted to record court proceedings, which he says is his right. In his Claim of Right he has said that he has the right to set up his own vigilante “de jure” court, and, like Allen Nelson Boisjoli in Re Boisjoli, Gauthier claimed he can use Notaries Public to enforce property claims on those he has ‘judged’. He has misused the habeas corpus procedure (R v Abadie, 2016 SKQB 101, aff’d 2016 SKCA 72), and as a busybody interfering third party, no less. I adopt Justice Thomas’ conclusion in Ewanchuk v Canada (Attorney General), at paras 170-87, that abuse of habeas corpus is a special aggravating factor. If that appears in a history of vexatious litigation then stricter court access control is warranted.

[83] Given these facts, Gauthier’s history, and his clear animus to the persons he views as wrongdoers, I find that an additional and more unusual step is required to control his abuse of Alberta Courts. As in Re Boisjoli and Ewanchuk v Canada (Attorney General), I also order that Gauthier is prohibited from making any leave application to the Alberta Provincial Court, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, or Alberta Court of Appeal except where that filing is made by a member of the Law Society of Alberta. This will help screen Gauthier’s future court activities to minimize further abuse of the courts and other litigants.

[84] I therefore order:

1. Adam Christian Gauthier is prohibited, under the inherent jurisdiction of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, from commencing, or attempting to commence, or continuing any appeal, action, application, or proceeding in the Alberta Court of Appeal, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, or the Provincial Court of Alberta, on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person or estate, without an order of the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, of the Court in which the proceeding is conducted, or his or her designate.

2. The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate, may, at any time, direct that notice of an application to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding be given to any other person.

3. Adam Christian Gauthier must describe himself, in the application or document to which this Order applies as “Adam Christian Gauthier”, and not by using initials, an alternative name structure, or a pseudonym.

4. Any application for leave will only be accepted if Adam Christian Gauthier is represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta.

5. Any application to commence or continue any appeal, action, application, or proceeding must be accompanied by an affidavit:

(i) attaching a copy of the Order arising from this Decision, restricting Adam Christian Gauthier’s access to the Alberta Court of Appeal, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, and Provincial Court of Alberta;

(ii) attaching a copy of the appeal, pleading, application, or process that Adam Christian Gauthier proposes to issue or file or continue;

(iii) deposing fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding, so as to demonstrate that the proceeding is not an abuse of process, and that there are reasonable grounds for it;

(iv) indicating whether Adam Christian Gauthier has ever sued some or all of the defendants or respondents previously in any jurisdiction or Court, and if so providing full particulars;

(v) undertaking that, if leave is granted, the authorized appeal, pleading, application or process, the Order granting leave to proceed, and the affidavit in support of the Order will promptly be served on the defendants or respondents; and

(vi) undertaking to diligently prosecute the proceeding.

6. Any application referenced herein shall be made in writing.

7. The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate, may:

(i) give notice of the proposed claim or proceeding and the opportunity to make submissions on the proposed claim or proceeding, if they so choose, to:

a) the involved potential parties;

b) other relevant persons identified by the Court; and

c) the Attorney Generals of Alberta and Canada.

(ii) respond to the leave application in writing; and

(iii) hold the application in open Court where it shall be recorded.

8. Leave to commence or continue proceedings may be given on conditions, including the posting of security for costs.

9. An application that is dismissed may not be made again.

10. An application to vary or set aside this Order must be made on notice to any person as directed by the Court.

[85] This order takes effect immediately.

[86] This order does not affect the order made in Gauthier v Starr at paras 54-56 that prohibits Gauthier from representing any person in the Alberta Provincial Court, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, and Alberta Court of Appeal. That order continues to operate.

[87] The Court will prepare, file, and serve (Gauthier at his email account) the appropriate order to reflect this decision. Gauthier’s approval is not required for the form of order.

VI. Conclusion

[88] The last time I dealt with Adam Christian Gauthier I made certain observations. I said he had “been warned and warned and warned again.” I observed Gauthier had been “pointed to the correct law”, but he preferred other dubious sources. As this decision indicates, that much has not changed.

[89] I then concluded in Gauthier v Starr, at paras 58-59:

Gauthier does not get to make up what the law is. He can learn about it, if he chooses. Law is not secret, though it is, at times, complex. ...

He prefers his own special, magic law, which apparently he gets to make up and define all by himself. Unfortunately for him, if he persists on that path that will bring him no benefit, but only further hardship. ... OPCA litigants can straighten up. One example was Dennis Larry Meads, the OPCA litigant in Meads v Meads. After he received a detailed explanation of why his arguments were false he abandoned those, and moved to resolve his litigation with the assistance of the Court. He chose to be a ‘fair dealer’ in his litigation, and was treated as such. Other former OPCA litigants have followed the same path. That option is open to Gauthier, though I have to admit that he appears to be less promising candidate for “waking up”, given his conduct to this date. However, one can hope for that, for his own benefit, if nothing else. At a minimum, one can only hope that with his accumulating history of in-court fiascos, no one with any sense would listen to Gauthier as a source for legal advice or information.

[90] Unfortunately, Gauthier has continued to proceed along the same, unchanged path. His choice to drive a motor vehicle with a licence plate that is guaranteed to attract police attention and conflict does not bode well for the future. It seems he wants a fight.

[91] As Blok J recently observed in Robert John: of the familymacmillan v Johannson, 2017 BCSC 1069 at para 10, this blind, fanatical adherence to concepts that have been confirmed false time and again and which have never provided any benefit is baffling:

... Simply put, these sorts of arguments are sheer and utter nonsense. It is hard to know whether to condemn the proponents of these preposterous arguments or whether to sympathize with them for having been duped by others into believing them, but the result is the same. These arguments have never been successful in any court, and they have never been successful because they are, as I have said, sheer and utter nonsense.

[92] Psychiatrists report that persons who adopt and use these concepts belong to highly introspective, introverted communities where these ideas are reinforced by other likeminded persons in a kind of ‘echo chamber’: Jennifer Pytyck & Gary A Chaimowitz, “The Sovereign Citizen Movement and Fitness to Stand Trial” (2013) 12:2 International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 149; George F Parker, “Competence to Stand Trial Evaluations of Sovereign Citizens: A Case Series and Primer of Odd Political and Legal Beliefs” (2014) 42:3 J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 338. While the result looks like mental illness to mental health professionals, this appears to be, instead, a kind of extreme political belief. That, naturally, is troubling, as are the self-destructive results that follow.

[93] All the Court can do is attempt to minimize the waste and expense Gauthier seems determined to cause. That has resulted in this decision. My hope is still that Gauthier “wakes up”, because if he continues on his current trajectory, he will only encounter more difficulties. But if that happens, that will be a consequence of his choices. He knows the rules. It is up to him to decide whether or not he will follow them.

Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 13th day of September, 2017.

J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A.

Appearances:

None





Schedule A: “Affirmation” in the “Provincial Superior Court of Alberta(trial division)”, Three Pages

Provincial Superior Court of Alberta(trial division)

Docket #: A53226832R

A53226854R

A53226843R

Between

[Regina vs.]

And

[Adam Gauthier]

Affirmation

I, Adam Christian Gauthier, man and carpenter of [address redacted], Alberta

AFFIRM AND SAY THAT:

1. I am here to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of the court to access the administration of justice concerning the protection of my fundamental human rights.

2. I am seeking an order for the return of unlawfully seized property, an order to safeguard my rights from future trespasses by agents of the state, and an order for damages as a result of the violation of my liberty and the loss of the enjoyment of my property.

3. I am a man of the common law and I stand in my inherent jurisdiction as a man with full legal capacity at all times. I am peaceful and have been peaceful even in the face of the aggressions that have been exercised against me. See exhibit l(statement of live birth)

4. The legal person GAUTHIER, ADAM CHRISTIAN, the Canadian citizen, the member of society, was rescinded in 2014 in a previous filing which was heard by this court on May 23, 2014. See exhibit 2 (previous filing)

5. At the time of the alleged complaint I was enjoying the use of my property which is not owned in association with others, nor is in used in any type of commercial activity. I was acting as a private person, not an officer with an office within the federal juristic unit. Exhibit 3(dash cam footage)

6. On July 13th 2017 while I was going to visit a friend on the west end of Edmonton an unmarked Edmonton police vehicle came behind me and turned on his emergency lights. I pulled over at the safest and most convenient place.

7. As the officer approached me he stated: "you don't have a plate on your car." I responded saying I did so. He proceeded to try and ask me questions which I told him I respectfully couldn't answer. He then told me I was under arrest. I asked for what and he said for failing to identify myself. I told him he hadn't even asked me to do so at that point. He then asked me for license and registration which I asked him if I was obligated to have such things to enjoy the use of my property. He then continued with his arrest ordering me out of the car.

8. As I could see the officer was nervous I told him I was going to pull my phone out to record, and I asked him to identify himself to me. He refused to do so. I then asked him what he was arresting me for and he said something about the traffic act. It was not clear.

9. Seeing his uneasy manner I asked him to be calm and told him I would comply with his orders. I got out of the car and he placed me in handcuffs. He then moved me to the back of his suv while he went and preformed a search of my property.

10. During this time other officers arrived and tried talking to me. They asked my name and I explained I had not done anything criminal and had no obligation to speak with them or to tell them my name. I explained why my plate says "private non commercial use only", and that what they were doing was a violation of the charter.

11. Then I was moved from the back of the suv into the very small, extremely hot, back of a black police van. It was around 30 degrees outside air temperature at this time and the back of the van felt like at least 45. l was left in there for at least 35 mins. While in the van they further searched the car and found a bill of sale and used the name on it to write the tickets mentioned above.

12. After being release from van I was ridiculed for what they called my "philosophy about the law" and treated as if I was a criminal. I was told to get on the ground so the cuffs could be removed. I was told, "your under arrest, you don't have any rights".

13. At no time during the arrest and detention was I ever read my rights or told clearly what I was arrested for, even though I had asked.

14. The officers offered me a ride if I need to go somewhere and I told them to take me to the detachment they work from so I could speak to the sergeant on duty at the time. They refused to take me, or even tell me which detachment they worked from.

15. I went to the police station on stony plain road seeking to speak to someone about the incident after they had towed my car, and left me on the side of the road. I was greated by a lady and she took my phone number telling me someone would call me. No one called so I tried to reach someone from that detachment but to no avail.

Questions/requests for the Crown Prosecutor

16. Please provide all unredacted particulars including, dash cam, notes, police report, photos/video taken by officers and any other materials which will be relied upon. Please send any evidence and answers to the following questions to 8 Abel Place, St. Albert, AB.

17. Is the crown claiming I am bound by the traffic and safety act?

18. Is the crown claiming I must get a license and registration to enjoy the use of my property in a private manner?

19. What evidence is the crown relying on that I am the one named on the bill of sale, and subsequently the tickets?

20. What evidence will the crown bring forward to suggest that at the time of the offence I was engaged in the act of driving?

21. I have never been presented with any facts or seen any evidence that I am required to perform a function of government of any kind, at any time. This means, if I'm not engaged in the exercise of civil rights, then the charter, nor any of the laws it governs, have any force or effect.

22. An "estoppel in pais" was created back in 2014 when the crown made no response to the claim of right which I filed with this court on March 18, 2014. Since that time there has been a number of serious infringements of my fundamental human rights all originating from offenses to the traffic and safety act. I ask for the courts aid and direction on what procedure is required in order to properly safe guard my rights from future trespass, as well as the procedure necessary to have the record expunged accordingly going back to when the "estopple in pais" was enforce.

Section 15 of the criminal code states:

Obedience to de facto law

15 No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission In obedience to

the laws for the time being made and enforced by persons in de facto possession of the sovereign

power In and over the place where the act or omission occurs.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 15.

On the Govern generals website, It states:

https://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?ld-13886

"Representing Canada on a number of occasions on the International scene, and leading several missions-as de facto head of State-from one continent to the next, has allowed me to see the world, both larger and smaller than ever before."

http://archive.gg.ca/osgg-bsgg/parl/ osgg-bsgg-0 l _e.asp

"As representative of the crown in Canada, the Governor General has a constitutional role as defacto head of state that Is central to the responslbilltles of the office."

http://archive.gg.ca/media/doc.asp?lang=e&DocID-4986

"I have been on a similar path since we arrived in Ottawa In September 2005. We have tried to create new forums for reflection and dialogue within the Institutional framework, the nonpartisan office of the de facto Head of State of Canada."





Schedule B: “Claim of Right”

Claim of Right

Be it now known to any and all concerned and affected parties, that I, [Adam C Gauthier] an Independent Sovereign Individual, do hereby state clearly, specifically and unequivocally my intent to peacefully and lawfully;

• Establish and exercise my faith in anyway that I choose.

• Freely exercise and enjoy my right to life, liberty and property as granted to me by God .

• Govern myself.

• Enjoy Personal Safety and Freedom unmolested by the Crown, corporations, persons or other individuals.

• Enjoy and protect my good name.

• Enjoy an unmolested pursuit of a trade or occupation.

• Freely trade, grow, gather, store and I or hunt for food and water for my family.

• Freely enter into agreements with other individuals for the bartering or trade of goods and services without the interference of other individuals or the Crown or legal system participants.

• Require and insist that all contracts between the Crown, legal system participants and I must meet the requirements for "Informed Consent" and be in writing and contain the three phases of contract negation (offer, consideration and acceptance).

• Enjoy unmolested travel by any means at my disposal.

• Freely use, enter or enjoy any and all public property and not have to submit myself to search, scan or any other form of surveillance when entering or using public property.

• Freely teach and raise my children as I deem.

• Protect my family, my children, my property and myself from harm or undue influence from the crown or any other person or individual.

Furthermore, I claim that I am capable and willing to govern myself and therefore revoke my consent to be governed by the Crown, legal system participants, agents or any other individual or corporation.

Furthermore, I claim that these actions are not outside my communities' standards and will in fact support said community in our desire for truth and maximum liberty.

Furthermore, I claim the right to engage in these actions and further claim that all property held by [Adam C Gauthier], including any alphabetical or numerical derivations thereof, or property held by me is under a claim of right by me.

Furthermore, I claim that anyone who interferes with my lawful activities after been served notice of this claim and who fails to properly dispute or make lawful counterclaim is breaking the law, cannot claim good faith or color of right and that such transgressions will be dealt with in a properly convened court.de jure.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that justice system participants have a duty to distinguish between statutes and law and those who attempt to enforce statutes against me are in fact breaking the law.

Furthermore, I claim that the courts in Alberta are de-facto and are in fact in the profitable business of conducting. witnessing and facilitating the transactions of security interests and I further claim they require the consent of both parties prior to providing any such services.

Claim of Right

All Rights Reserved Page 1 of 2





Furthermore, I claim all transactions of security interests require the consent of both parties and I do hereby deny consent to any transaction of a security interest issuing under any Act for as herein stated as a Independent Sovereign Individual I am not subject to any Act.

Furthermore, I claim my FEE SCHEDULE for any unlawful transgressions by any peace officers, government principals, agents or justice system participants is FIFTY ounces of Silver PER MINUTE based upon the established precedent of $25,000.00 per 23 minutes of detention. This is in accordance with the court ruling in the matter of James C. TREZEVANT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF TAMPA, a municipal corporation, Hillsborough County Board of Criminal Justice, et al., Defendants-Appellants Nos. 83-3370, 83-3038, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 741 F.2d 336; 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 18863.

Furthermore, I claim the right to use a Notary Public to secure payment of the aforementioned FEE SCHEDULE against any transgressors who by their actions or omissions harm my interests or me directly or by proxy in any way.

Furthermore, I claim the right to convene a proper court de jure in order to address any potentially criminal actions of any peace officers, government principals, agents or justice system participants who having been served notice of this claim fail to dispute or discuss or make lawful counterclaim and then interfere by act or omission with the lawful exercise of properly claimed and established rights and freedoms.

Furthermore, I claim the law of agent and principal applies and that service upon one is service upon both.

Furthermore, I claim the right to deal with any counterclaims or disputes publicly and in an open forum using discussion and negotiation and to capture on video tape said discussion and negotiation for whatever lawful purpose as I see fit.

Furthermore, I claim the right to claim or reserve further rights in the future as I may deem necessary.

Affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein or make their own counterclaims must respond appropriately within [one month] (30) days of service of notice of this action. Reponses must be under Oath or attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury. Failure to submit a dispute against the claims made herein will result in an automatic, pennanent and irrevocable "estoppel in pais" barring the bringing of charges under any statute or Act against [Adam C. Gauthier] Independent Sovereign Individual.

All claims are to be sent to:

[address redacted], Alberta

Place of claim of right: [address redacted]

Dated: March 5, 2014

[signature]

Independent Sovereign Individual

Child of God

Claim of Right

All Rights Reserved Page 2 of 2