_______________________________________________________

Memorandum of Decision

of

W.S. Schlosser, Master in Chambers

_______________________________________________________

Table of Contents

I. Introduction. 2

II. The October 1, 2015 Hearing. 3

III. Background and Timeline. 4

IV. Analysis. 8

A. Quo Warranto Application. 9

B. The Parlees Have Paid the Outstanding Debt 10

1. The “Freeman Legal Services” “A4V” Scam.. 11

2. The WeRe Bank. 12

3. The Private Indemnity Bond. 17

4. Conclusion - Pseudolegal Payment Schemes Have No Effect 19

V. Conclusion and Costs. 19

VI. Disposition. 19

Appendix A. Writ of Quo Warranto Documents. 21

1. Foisted Quo Warranto Challenge. 21

2. Writ of Quo Warranto. 24

Appendix B. Private Indemnity Bond - Non-Negotiable. 25

Appendix C. Correspondence from Freeman Legal Services. 26

Appendix D. WeRe Cheque and Allonges. 29

1. WeRe Cheque (front) 29

2. Allonge. 30

Appendix E. May 19, 2015 “Notice of Protest...”. 32

Appendix F. June 10, 2015 “Notices of Protest Sent’ 33

I. Introduction

[1] This is a case where all of the participants have become victims of a pseudo legal scam. This judgment explains my refusal to interfere with a court-ordered foreclosure of property formerly owned by Alfred and Clara Parlee. As a direct result of the scam the foreclosure process was unnecessarily long, complicated, and costly. The Parlees attempted to implement futile, pseudo-legal schemes to save their home. Instead it cost them not only their home but also whatever equity they had.

[2] There are some apparent winners. These are the scam artists who preyed on the Parlees and exploited their desperate situation. One is known: a UK resident named Peter Smith, or, as he prefers to call himself, “Peter of England”. The other con-person cannot be identified from the materials received by the Court. There is an accompanying cast of lesser characters, including an Alberta lawyer who may have breached his professional duties by endorsing legally ineffective and fraudulent documents as a notary, thereby adding an air of legitimacy to documents that are profoundly at odds with any accepted legal ideas: see Re Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 629 at paras 121-24.

[3] And then there is the Court, where this drama played out. This written decision is the last Scene in what I expect might be the first Act of this drama; appeals being Act II.

[4] This foreclosure appears to be the first occasion a Commonwealth court has commented on (and denounced) this specific Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [“OPCA”] ‘money for nothing’ scheme: the WeRe Bank.

[5] The OPCA term was coined by Rooke ACJ in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, 543 AR 215 to describe a collection of pseudolegal concepts advanced on a commercial basis by scammers and conmen, “OPCA gurus”, who promote allegedly legal procedures that supposedly:

i) bend courts into submission,

ii) nullify state authority, or

iii) as is the case here, provide free money.

[6] All are false. Many are contempt of court: Fearn v Canada Customs, 2014 ABQB 114, 586 AR 23, per Tilleman J, (though in a criminal context). None provide any benefit, except to those who sell these concepts for profit.

II. The October 1, 2015 Hearing

[7] On October 1, 2015 I heard an ill-defined application by Mr. Alfred Parlee in relation to an August 13, 2015 order of Master Smart that foreclosed the Parlees from their rural property near Sexsmith, Alberta. The Parlees had been given 30 days to exit the property. They did not do so, and, so on September 29, 2015, the Parlees were removed from it with the assistance of the RCMP.

[8] This seems to have been an unexpected outcome for the Parlees. As at the date of the hearing, their personal property and vehicles remained on the land that now belonged to the lender. Rules 9.27 and 9.28 deal with removal, storage and sale of personal property and abandoned goods. I encouraged the Parlees to come to an agreement about the orderly removal of those personal goods

[9] Mr. Parlee had filed documents after August 13, 2015. These formed the foundation, such as it was, for the October 1, 2015 hearing. When the hearing commenced Mr. Parlee expressed surprise and concern that this was a public hearing. He was “a private man” and said this hearing should have been “a private session”. Court hearings are open to the public and recorded, except in well-defined exceptional circumstances. Mr. Parlee objected to any participation of counsel for Servus, saying: “You are not supposed to be speaking on my behalf”, which they were not.

[10] Having reviewed Mr. Parlee’s materials I asked if his objective was to nullify Master Smart’s foreclosure order. Mr. Parlee confirmed that was a part of his intention, but he also wanted the Court:

... to identify the trust, and to discuss other relevant trusts relating to the subject matter. I have an interest in the case, the trusts are the judge, the court clerk, the court, the indemnity bond, the mortgage, the payment office PGT, the treasury board, the bank, the Servus Credit Union Ltd., the taxation officer, and the prosecutor. Some of these trusts have been breached. I have vested interests and properties to these different entities that show I have an adverse claim on these subject matters.

Therefore I require return on my interest. I order return on my interest from CRA, and I order clear title to the property with no labelling encumberances. I also order the return of the interests and principle to be paid immediately to my business name. ... I order the clear title to the property. ...

As a private man I make these orders in full due respect. The indemnity bond that was accepted by the court was for one million dollars.

[11] The Canada Revenue Agency was not a participant in this action, but would have received notice of the steps. As counsel for Servus explained, Mr. Parlee appeared to be referring to two Canada Revenue Agency writs, both in the amount of $212,507 and costs: one filed in 2013 and the second, which appears to be a duplicate, in 2015: ITA v Parlee, Ottawa ITA-6247-13 (Federal Court). Since those writs had a lower priority than the Servus interest on the Parlee Lands, they were foreclosed off title.

[12] Mr. Parlee said he has “100% legal title to the estate”, and relied on documents in an Affidavit he had filed on July 20, 2015. He claimed his signature “... creates the currency.” His authority to sign comes from his certificate of live birth. His documents were no different from others used in international commerce. They had been filed to the treasury board who “would look after everything.” He argued that “UCC 3603” and its Bills of Exchange Act equivalent meant the Parlees’ debt was discharged. He concluded:

I made order as a private person. ... Sir, I order this case closed, and all settlements looked after. I’m asking for an order to have this case sealed, and my files returned to me. I order this.

[13] I responded that the Court would not acceed to Mr. Parlee’s orders. I dismissed Mr. Parlee’s application, with written reasons to follow.

III. Background and Timeline

[14] As noted, the Parlee Lands are located outside of Sexsmith, Alberta and include the Parlees’ residence. The debt was $331,807.26.

[15] The Parlees entered into a Line of Credit agreement with Servus which permitted the Parlees to overdraw their chequing account by up to $320,000, with 1% interest per annum. The Line of Credit was secured by a mortgage.

[16] One term of the agreements with Servus was that the Parlees would pay the County property taxes for the Parlee Lands. Failure to do was a default on the Mortgage. The Parlees did not pay their property taxes for several years and the County registered a tax notification against title. Servus then paid the overdue property taxes and issued a demand. When the demand was not met, Servus commenced foreclosure proceedings.

[17] On May 5, 2015 the Parlees sent Servus what purported to be a cheque drawn on an institution named the “WeRe Bank”.

[18] The Parlees filed a Statement of Defence on May 7, 2015. It claims that County taxes for the Parlee lands had been paid on December 19, 2014:

... in good faith by a signed acceptance Tender Instrument as per Canada Bills of Exchange Act, RSC 1985 c-B-4 current to April 22, 2015 Section 57, 80, 81, 82, 84, 95. and UN Convention on Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes 1988 Article 41, 43 and 71..es) ...

A non valid response from the County of Grande Prairie # 1 sent December 29, 2015 was received by defendant so an Affidavit of non-response was sent January 17, 2015.

Servus Credit Union initiated foreclosure action against defendants with Minos Stewart Masson (solicitors) based on presumption that taxes of $11,782.31 were still outstanding .

My Line of Credit was in good standing and payments were made faithfully for many years then account was frozen and I could not make my truck payment. These procedures caused me great stress, harm and anxiety of which I will seek compensation from all parties jointly and severally. I believe these actions against me the defendant were not lawful and had principles of Fraud and Extortion as my presentment for Tender Payment was within the guidelines of the bills of Exchange Act and the UN Convention for Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.

A cheque from WeRe Bank for $319,149.69 was sent by me to Dan Heinman Senior Manager corp. Services (ServusCredit Union) May 05, 2015 for the original Line of Credit Amount. ...

[Sic.]

[19] The Parlees sought $30,000.00 in damages, re-instatement of the Line of Credit and nullification of any associated charges.

[20] The “WeRe Cheque” was rejected by Servus on May 11, 2015. Servus insisted on payment by certified cheque or bank draft; Servus had “... no intention of engaging in discussion with [Mr. Parlee] regarding [his] ‘freeman theories of money and banking’.”

[21] Mr. Parlee responded on May 19, 2015 with a document titled:

Notice of Protest and included Info from Canadian Bills of Exchange Act R.S.C., 1985, c. B-4, UN Convention on International Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes (1988), Financial Administration Act R.S.C., 1985, F-11 (Interpretation of Money), Black's Law 9th Edition (payment (14c)(Acceptance) in Regard to Correspondence received May 15, 2015 and sent May 11, 2015, Non Acceptance of Cheque to Servus Credit Union for $ 319, 149.69

[22] This document is reproduced in Appendix E, but also features a postage stamp in the lower right corner, which Mr. Parlee has signed across. As with other documents reproduced in the appendices, the content is, in some cases, redacted to remove sensitive or redundant information. The appendix documents generally reproduce the formatting of the original items.

[23] On June 3, 2015 Servus applied for summary judgment, a 30 day redemption period, with two affidavits in support:

• Greg Schindel’s Affidavit of Value consisting of a May 25, 2015 exterior appraisal of the Parlee Lands and concluding that the fair market value was $350,000.00. The property includes one two-story residence, and minor outbuildings and utility improvements.

• Sharon Boser’s Affidavit of Default documenting the history and state of the Overdraft Agreement and related Mortgage. The Parlees’ last payment was in March, 2015. A demand letter was issued on March 30, 2015. The Mortgage includes as terms that the Parlees agree:

1. to pay any outstanding liens, taxes, or other encumbrances on the Parlee Lands; and

2. if the Parlees allow the Mortgage to go into default then will pay all legal costs associated with enforcing the Mortgage on a solicitor and own client indemnity basis.

As noted Servus paid outstanding property taxes ($11,782.31) on the Parlee Lands on March 27, 2015 to avoid sale of the Parlee Lands due to tax arrears.

The Boser affidavit includes unorthodox documents received from the Parlees and copies of related communications. These are discussed in more detail below in Part IVB2 of this judgment: “The WeRe Bank”.

[24] On June 10, 2015, Mr. Parlee wrote to Servus requesting information on what steps Servus had taken to contact and obtain funds from the WeRe Bank in relation to the WeRe Cheque. Also attached was a document titled “NOTICES of PROTEST SENT” (Appendix F) that indicated Mr. Parlee had taken steps within a timeline set by the UK Bills of Exchange Act 1888 and the “UN Convention 1988 on International Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.”

[25] On June 25, 2015 Mr. Parlee and counsel for Servus appeared before Master Breitkreuz. The learned Master:

1. concluded Mr. Parlee’s explanation of the WeRe Bank and WeRe Cheque was “gobbledygook”;

2. found Mr. Parlee had not proven he had provided any payment to Servus;

3. determined the debt then to be $334,837.01; and

4. ordered summary judgment;

5. provided a 30 day redemption period, failing which the land would be offered for sale by tender.

The next hearing was scheduled for August 13, 2015. Mr. Parlee’s response was “I do not consent.”

[26] Mr. Parlee, on July 3, 2015, wrote to counsel for Servus and complained that WeRe Bank had the necessary funds ready to be transferred, demanded evidence of why Servus considered WeRe Bank to be a fraud, and asked why Servus has not attempted to clear the WeRe Cheque. He then warned that failure to provide a satisfactory response in five days will result in “lasting tacit agreement through acquiescence” settling the dispute with Servus over the WeRe Cheque in the Parlees’ favour, cancelling the August 13, 2015 hearing, and resulting in a damages award.

[27] Mr. Parlee also filed a number of documents prior to the August 13, 2015 hearing, including:

• A July 20, 2015 Affidavit by Mr. Parlee with many attachments that relate to two general subjects:

1) the WeRe Bank and WeRe Cheque, and

2) a trust and ownership structure between ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE and Alfred P. Parlee; and

• A July 22, 2015 Affidavit by Mr. Parlee attaching a “NOTICE OF TRESPASS ON MY PRIVATE PROPERTY” alleging misconduct by counsel for Servus, demanding that he be disbarred for intimidation and unethical practice, $15 million in damages, and “I order this case dismissed.” The trespass is:

... No one can use MY NAME or g mail without my consent. I am OWNER and no one can tell me different. All affidavits of ownership of Name and Birth Certificate are filed with the Court and are notarized and authenticated ...

This issue of trespassing and unethical behaviour has caused damage to the owner of my Estate and created damage on my PRIVATE PROPERTY . This is unacceptable and requires compensation. No-body or no-one has authority over THIS BODY. I am owner of Estate as per filed notarized and authenticated documents.

[Emphasis in original.]

• An Affidavit filed July 25, 2015 which attaches a “SECOND NOTICE OF TRESPASS ON MY PRIVATE PROPERTY” that repeats the content of the July 22 “Notice”.

[28] After hearing the somewhat cryptic submissions from Mr. Parlee concerning ownership issues, foreclosure was ordered by Master Smart on August 13, 2015. Master Smart rejected Mr. Parlee’s submission that his title to the Parlee Lands could not be challenged. The Parlees had 30 days to vacate the property.

[29] Mr. Parlee followed this with two apparently separate processes which led to the October 1, 2015 hearing before me:

• A “Quo Warranto” declaration to nullify the August 13, 2015 foreclosure order of Master Smart (Appendix A1). The materials associated the Quo Warranto process were in two Affidavits of Mr. Parlee, filed August 26 and September 8, 2015. The August 26, 2015 document is a “Writ of QUO WARRANTO TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION OF” that places a seven day deadline on Master Smart to take certain steps.

The September 8, 2015 Affidavit attaches a “WRIT of QUO WARRANTO CHALLENGE OF JURISDICTION” (Appendix A2) that declares since Master Smart did not respond to the Aug. 26 document that the August 13, 2015 foreclosure order is “NULL AND VOID”. This Affidavit also attaches Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 337 and a letter from Servus’ counsel that attaches the August 13, 2015 order. The letter is marked in diagonally marked in red marker: “NULL and VOID”.

• Documents attached to two September 10, 2015 Affidavits:

o A “PRIVATE INDEMNITY BOND - NON-NEGOTIABLE” (see Appendix B) for $1 million that promised payment by “DEBTOR” “ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE”, “Indemnitee” to the “Indemnifier”, the Court Clerk or agents. This is a “SPECIAL DEPOSIT” to “ZERO, SETTLE, and CLOSE ... COURT ORDER File # 1504 00261”. The Bond instructs it “shall be Ledgered as an ASSET for the needs of the Court of Queen’s Bench ... “ and that the Bond “... expires the moment the man, alfred philip parlee, dies.”

o An “Indemnity Agreement” dated September 10, 2015 that the Clerk of the Court Grande Prairie will hold harmless and indemnify “ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE” for any legal action, including criminal proceedings, for up to $10 million per legal action. The “Indemnity Agreement” has one signature, that of Mr. Parlee.

[30] This was followed on September 18, 2015 by an Application from Mr. Parlee that states:

Note INDEMNITY AGREEMENT

Remedy claimed or sought: LEDGER INDEMNITY bond filed September 10/15 with Court of Queen’s Bench GRANDE PRAIRIE. Exhibit “A”

Grounds for making this application: The Indemnity bond # APP 100915 Can. Is to pay Court FILE #1504 00261. As title holder of Birth Certificate I am authorized to sign INDEMNITY BOND.

Material or evidence relied on: Authenticated Birth records and BIN numbers filed with Court of Queen’s Bench July 20/15

Applicable rules: As owner + title holder of BIRTH CERTIFICATE my signature creates value. I am surety and Birth certificate is the security.

Applicable Acts and regulations: UCC-3603 3-603 Bills of Exchange 80, 81 (Canadian) #337 Criminal Code of Canada.

[31] What followed was the October 1, 2015 hearing.

IV. Analysis

[32] The fairest way to provide the written judgment that I promised Mr. Parlee is to treat the documents he filed after the August 13, 2015 foreclosure order as two separate applications:

1. a Quo Warranto application to declare the August 13, 2015 foreclosure as null and void because it was made without jurisdiction, as supported by Mr. Parlee’s July 20 Affidavit documents; and

2. an application to reverse the foreclosure and return possession of the Parlee Lands to the Parlees because they had (over)satisfied the outstanding mortgage debt with a $1 million “PRIVATE INDEMNITY BOND - NON-NEGOTIABLE”, or via other means in the July 20, 2015 Affidavit documents.

[33] These two issues are to some degree intertwined as Mr. Parlee responded to the foreclosure with a cascading series of applications, and by the manner in which Mr. Parlee advanced his application on October 1, 2015.

A. Quo Warranto Application

[34] I reject Mr. Parlee’s Quo Warranto application. The application makes two demands:

l. That you, MASTER L.A. Smart, shall produce unto this living man, within the period of 7 days from the date hereof, a sworn affidavit, sworn under your own hand with full, unlimited personal liability, under penalty of perjury, to the effect that you did, articulate, sign and swear an Oath of Office of Judge , to act under the authority of the ENTITY, and that you do, at all times, operate in strict compliance with that oath of office in the ordinary course of your duties , without fear, favour or exception, under Rule of Law.

2. That you shall present and deliver by certified mail, to this living man, within the same 7 days, true and certified documentary evidence and proofs (i.e. statement, acceptance or declaration) signed under my hand and seal, that I did grant you unto YOU , and or unto the ENTITY, or unto any other person, permission, authority or consent ; including but not limited to, YOU, the ENTITY, the principal of the ENTITY, or the founding principal of the ENTITY, to honour any judgment, order, decision or verdict of the said parties, in any cause or matter in which I may have been involved . [Emphasis added.]

The “ENTITY” is defined elsewhere as the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench.

[35] First, the Quo Warranto application was not filed in a manner that meets the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, s 3.15(1)(a) which, if it had any application to this situation, would require an application for judicial review. If there were to be a challenge of Master Smart’s Order, it would be required to take the form of an appeal under Rule 6.14.

[36] I will also say at this stage that the prerogative writ of Quo Warranto has become almost entirely vestigal, having been taken over by modern procedure. It was popular in the 13th century, being extensively used by Edward I, but the sun has set on it: Principles of Administrative Law, Jones and deVillars, 6th ed, p.676 and Holdsworth, A History of English Law, l 229.

[37] Second, Mr. Parlee’s August 25, 2015 document reproduced in Appendix A(1) is a ‘foisted unilateral agreement’, or, more correctly in this instance, a ‘foisted unilateral judicial review’, where the failure to respond purports to crystalize a result in Mr. Parlee’s favour.

[38] The “foisted unilateral” language comes from Meads v Meads, where Rooke ACJ debunked the common OPCA concept that in contract silence means agreement. This is one of the first things taught in law school; even the greenest law student will have learned it in her salad days (“an offeror may not arbitrarily impose contractual liabilities upon an offeree merely by proclaiming that silence shall be deemed consent”); Felthouse v Bindley, (1862) 11 CBNS 869 Miller 35 MLR 489, Cheshire, Fifoot & Furmstons Law of Contract 15th ed., p.61.

[39] The same is true for judicial proceedings. “Silence means victory” only where that result is provided by the Rules, other legislation, or the common law. The procedure for judicial review in Alberta is governed by the Rules. Mr. Parlee’s Quo Warranto “judgment” (Appendix A (2)) has no legal force because his Quo Warranto application (even if it had been filed correctly) has not been adjudicated by the appropriate body.

[40] A third basis on which Mr. Parlee’s Quo Warranto application fails is that it is presumes that a judicial officer has an obligation, on demand, to provide evidence of their Oath of Office. In fact the opposite is true. No litigant has a right to question a judge or master on their oath of office. Instead, it is up to a litigant to provide positive evidence to challenge the jurisdiction of these presumptively authorized parties: Fearn v Canada Customs, 2014 ABQB 114 at paras 83-87, 586 AR 23.

[41] A fourth defect in Mr. Parlee’s Quo Warranto application is that he demands proof that he had agreed or consented to Master Smart’s having jurisdiction over the foreclosure matter. It seems Mr. Parlee concluded he is outside court authority because of his inherent “sui iuris” [sic] authority that flows from “Divine Cannon Law” and his being a “living human being”. Religious belief and religious law does not trump Canadian law: Meads v Meads, at paras 276-285; R v Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 at paras 31 and 32 (failure to file tax returns), 302 BCAC 76, leave refused [2011] SCCA No 265. Individual consent is not required for the operation of Canadian law or, for that matter taxation: Meads v Meads, at paras 405-410; R v Jennings, 2007 ABCA 45 at para 6, 72 WCB (2d) 360, Lynch v Canada North-West Land Co. (1891) 1891 CanLII 60 (SCC), 19 SCR 204 at 208-10.

[42] Last, I note that the August 25, 2015 document includes an Internet address link to a July 11, 2013 “Apostolic Letter” by Pope Francis. This specific document has been previously rejected as having no legal effect in Canada: Alberta Treasury Branches v Nielson, 2014 ABQB 383 at paras 27-29, 14 CBR (6th) 177, per Smart, M. citing; Claeys v Her Majesty et al, 2013 MBQB 313 at para 18, 300 Man R (2d) 257.

[43] Mr. Parlee’s Quo Warranto materials also attach the text of Criminal Code, s 337:

337. Every one who, being or having been employed in the service of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province, or in the service of a municipality, and entrusted by virtue of that employment with the receipt, custody, management or control of anything, refuses or fails to deliver it to a person who is authorized to demand it and does demand it is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

[44] Section 337’s relevance is not obvious from Mr. Parlee’s materials or his submissions. It has no application to Mr. Parlee’s Quo Warranto application. This provision was recently interpreted in Ambrosi v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2014 BCCA 123 at para 53, 353 BCAC 244, leave denied [2014] SCCA No 320. Bennett JA concluded s 337 “...was enacted to prevent theft by public employees of the monies, documents, or other chattel they possessed by virtue of their employment.” No prosecution has ever been conducted on the basis of s 337: Ambrosi, at para 45.

[45] Mr. Parlee’s Quo Warranto materials have no legal relevance, or effect.

B. The Parlees Have Paid the Outstanding Debt

[46] I cannot, and, in any case, would not challenge the conclusion of Master Breitkreuz that Mr. Parlee’s explanation of the WeRe Bank is gobbledygook, and Master Smart’s finding that the Parlees do not have some form of absolute, invulnerable title on the Parlee Lands.

[47] Mr. Parlee’s claims that he has, one way or another, already paid Servus everything required by law. There are three separate payment scams: One is historic; the other two are relevant to the October 1, 2015 proceeding.

1. The “Freeman Legal Services” “A4V” Scam

[48] The first point at which the Parlees were victimized actually precedes the foreclosure, but it is involved in that scenario. The event that precipitated the foreclosure was Servus’s response to the Parlees’ failure to pay their Grande Prairie No 1 County property taxes. The Servus payment occurred on March 27, 2015. That same day counsel for Servus telephoned the Parlees to inquire if those taxes had been paid. A fax from “Alfred Philip Parlee Living Soul” was received by counsel on the same day, and ultimately attached as Exhibit E of the Boser June 3, 2015 affidavit. In the fax cover sheet Alfred Parlee explains that the property taxes had been paid on December 19, 2014 with “an A4V or bill of exchange” for $11,782.31 Since that document was not rejected by the County it was accepted “per Bills of Exchange ... and amount owing is now zero.”

[49] Mr. Parlee continues:

I have all receipts and paper work on file and am confident that the Bill of' Exchange Act is still in effect and what I have done as far as set off and settlement as a remedy is perfectly legitimate and lawful. I have included 3 pages of legal info from F.L.S. on International Bills of Exchange and International Promissory Notes which explains payment, acceptance, protest etc. Please read carefully as there is liability for violation of International Law and UN Conventions . The County of Grande Prairie has violated principles of the Bills of Exchange Act and is also liable. I have given my Power of Attorney for debt assumption and set off to Freeman Legal Services and WeRe Bank and they will be in touch as I will forward this fax to Peter of England. Thank-you and God Bless. [Emphasis in original.]

The three page document from “Freeman Legal Services” is reproduced in Appendix A.

[50] I do not believe there is much need to elaborate on the “A4V” ‘money for nothing’ scam as it has been described in detail in Meads v Meads, at paras 531-543, and more recently in Re Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 629 at paras 38-42. In brief, “A4V” is a fraud where the conman claims that bills and other financial obligations may be paid by drawing funds from a fictitious government-operated bank account. The form promoted by Freeman Legal Services is different from previously documented variants because its secret source of funds is a trust fund set up in World War II by the western allies to finance European post-war reconstruction and re-integration.

[51] This is at least as imaginary a source for free money as the Sovereign Citizen variation where citizens serve as human collateral for bank-to-government loans indexed by birth certificate numbers. The Freeman Legal Services letter also include other commonplace false OPCA motifs such as the supremacy of commercial law and that the US Uniform Commercial Code has universal, transnational application: Meads v Meads, at para 150.

[52] The Parlee’s “A4V” payment to the County was worthless. As Richard JA observed in Bossé v Farm Credit Canada, 2014 NBCA 34 at para 42, 419 NBR (2d) 1, leave denied [2014] SCCA 354:

In my view, this is a case where [Farm Credit Canada] has been subjected to wrongdoing that is reprehensible, scandalous and outrageous. Whittled down to its core, this was a simple claim on a debt that should have been decided on summary judgment with perhaps a simple trial on the quantum. Instead, it turned into a litigation nightmare for FCC, requiring it to repeatedly respond to motions, applications and allegations that were each ultimately found to be frivolous or without any merit. Moreover, the Bosses made claims and advanced defences that any reasonable person would know were devoid of merit. It defies logic that one could print out bonds for any sum of money, let alone significant amounts, and simply say to one’s creditors “here, go away, you have been paid.” I am convinced the Bosses knew this. Their persistence and the vigour with which they challenged or sought to challenge virtually every ruling made against them convinces me they engaged in litigation warfare against FCC as an obstructionist tactic in the hope they would deplete not necessarily FCC’s resources but rather its resolve to obtain judgment for the balance of the debt owed.

(emphasis added)

[53] But the Parlees fell for it. This is the first way the Parlees were victimized by “Peter of England”.

2. The WeRe Bank

[54] After Servus commenced its foreclosure on the Parlee Lands, the Parlees attempted to pay off the outstanding Mortgage/Line of Credit debt with a “WeRe Cheque” (July 20, 2015 Affidavit, Exhibit “E”). This document and an accompanying item, a two-sided “allonge”, were received by Servus on May 5, 2015, and are reproduced in Appendix D.

[55] The June 3 Boser, June 23 Kendrick, and July 20 Parlee affidavits provide more information about the WeRe Bank, WeRe Cheques, and their associated scheme. At first glance the WeRe Cheque appears to be a conventional cheque drawn from a bank for a customer, in this case Alfred Parlee. However, there are irregularities. WeRe Bank subtitles itself as “Universal Energy Transfer”. Comparison of the Parlees’ WeRe Cheque with other WeRe Cheques discloses they all have an identical “Branch Sort Code” and “Account Number”: “75-0181: 88888888”. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a list of UK banks compiled by the Bank of England (Kendrick Affidavit, Exhibit “F”) does not include “WeRe Bank” or any financial institution with a similar name.

[56] Another irregularity documented in the June 23 Kendrick Affidavit is that the WeRe Bank does not participate in the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication [“SWIFT”] system for inter-bank transfer of electronic funds. Instead, WeRe Bank has its own “highly secure format” protocols: “SWALLOW [Secure Waygate - Allow]” and “SPIT: [Secure Protocol Information Transaction]”. “Peter of England” instructs that banks are to send a scanned copy of the WeRe Cheque to his email account and then “Funds can be sent electronically Via “SWALLOW”. The WeRe Bank warns:

The Bank MUST present the cheque for clearing - no question, no debate, no wiggle room! It’s the LAW .

[57] A printout of WeRe Bank website (June 23 Kendrick Affidavit, Exhibit “E”) could be a satire of modern conspiratorial motifs, but it instead seems to be marketed as the truth. The WeRe Bank introduces itself in this manner:

WeRe Bank

The Free Fair and Final Public Bank System

Created under Common Law and Regulated Under Common Law Court of Record 750181

Providing "Legal Money with Finality of Settlement"

DIRECTIVE

"To Free Mankind From The Paralyzing, Restricting, Fear-based Monopoly and Control Agenda of “money scarcity” Which The Global Ruling Elite Have Imposed With “ruthless and vicious” Determination Upon All Peoples Of Earth"

WeRe Public Banking System

is based locally and delivers Free, Fair and Final (3Fs) payment for TIME ACTIVITY with LEGAL MONEY.

LEGAL MONEY IS FINALITY OF SETTLEMENT ON THE SPOT OF TIME

FINALITY OF SETTLEMENT IS ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL FREEDOM

“Aren’t you fed up with the constant hassle of never having enough of anything left at the end of every month?”

“Aren’t you “tired of being tired” due to too much work, not enough time, constant threats, coercion, duress, bullying, intimidation and the use of force to extract money from you by the greedy corporations, police authorities, speed camera agencies, taxation authorities, local councils, bailiffs, debt collection agencies and Court Enforcement Officers and HMRC or the IRS?”

“Are you not “fed up to the back-teeth” with the constant lies of politicians and government assuring you that there “just isn’t any more money for the public services, the NHS, the roads, schools, students, or you and your family when there sure as hell seems to be no shortage for them and theirs and the HS2 vanity projects?”

Well, if you've had enough of all of this – we have some very good news for you!

If you are exhausted with fighting then:

STOP!

STOP RIGHT NOW!

STOP IT THIS VERY MOMENT!

“Don’t Fight it! Just Pay it!”

The WeRe Bank chequeing account from ReMovement provides you with ASSURED DEBT ERADICATION ON ALL “PUBLIC SIDE OF THE LEDGER LIABILITIES” ...

[58] In this context, ‘conventional money’ is worthless:

You were convinced to accept worthless money, the PROMISSORY NOTE/SCAM, for the promise/lie of further wealth somewhere and at some time in the future in return for going without in the moment of now.

[59] Presumably, that is why WeRe Bank does not even deal in money, but instead trades in “Re”, “units of time and space”:

WeRe Bank’s principal trading asset is called the Re. It is a unit of space and time and has Value as it is “exchangeable” or trade-able.” Units are created through expenditure of effort over time and we hold these units “on account” and pay them out to our customers. The units are (energy × expended time = REWARD) based upon exceptionally sound principles of Albert Einstein’s (e = mc²), where m = mass, c = speed/time, e=energy (General Theory of Relativity). This equation, upon reflection is the only SOUND premise for a unit of exchange/currency in this world. Units are denominated in 2 skill/time classes: [Emphasis in original.]

[60] Still, if money is worthless, it seems strange that “Peter of England” requires that his customers first pay £35 up front as a “Joining Fee”, and then a £10 monthly subscription fee. You also need to complete and submit a £150,000.00 promissory note to WeReBank. Conveniently, the template can be downloaded from its website.

a. WeRe Bank is a Fraud

[61] The first basic reason why the WeRe Cheque was not a payment is simply because WeRe Bank is a fraud. It is not a regulated UK bank. The WeRe Bank never promises to make payments to recipients of WeRe Cheques. It only transfers “Re” energy units. It might as well promise to transfer magic beans. Imaginary energy units are not a form of currency and they do not pay debts.

[62] Our Court is not the first entity to reach that conclusion. On September 17, 2015 the UK Financial Conduct Authority issued a consumer notice that WeRe Bank’s payment scheme was false and that its users could face legal consequences. The Central Bank of Ireland on October 19, 2015 issued a press release that the WeRe Bank is not authorized to carry out banking or other financial services, and activities of that kind are a criminal offence.

b. Non-Canadian Authorities are not Binding

[63] There are legal defects as well. Reviewing the “allonge” and “Peter of England’s” communication indicates that the recipient of a WeRe Cheque is supposedly bound by the procedures in the UK Bills of Exchange Act and the UN Convention on Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes. UK law no longer applies in Canada. International treaties only have any force and effect inside this country if the treaty’s provision are enacted as Canadian legislation or put in effect by government order: Capital Cities Communications Inc. v Canadian Radio-Television Commission, 1977 CanLII 12 (SCC), [1978] 2 SCR 141 at 188, 81 DLR (3d) 609. Canadian governments are free to ignore and act in conflict with its international treaty agreements: R v Hape, 2007 SCC 26 at paras 53-54, [2007] 2 SCR 292.

[64] There is another reason why the treaty identified by “Peter of England” is irrelevant (at least if he is attempting to identify The United Nations Convention on International Bills of Exchange and International Promissory Notes (New York, 1988)) - Canada has not ratified that treaty. As for its precursor, The Convention for the Settlement of Certain Conflicts of Laws in connection with Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes (Geneva, 7 June 1930), Canada never signed it. What is perhaps even more ironic is that the home jurisdiction of “Peter of England”, the United Kingdom, which is not a participant in either treaty.

c. No Obligation to Accept Non-Cash Payments

[65] Beyond that, Servus’s refusal to accept a particular form of payment is entirely legal. The WeRe Bank materials (see Appendix D(2)) rely on an obiter statement of Lord Denning in Fielding & Platt Ltd v Najjar, [1969] 2 All ER 150 at 152 (UK CA):

We have repeatedly said in this court that a Bill of Exchange or a Promissory Note is to be treated as cash. It is to be honored unless there is some good reason to the contrary.

[66] This exact quote and its potential relevance in Canada was recently considered by Rooke ACJ in Re Boisjoli at paras 30-36, where an analogous argument was made by a vexatious OPCA litigant who claimed to have forced payment of a debt with a promissory note and the Bills of Exchange Act. Rooke ACJ adopted the Scottish Court of Sessions (Scotland’s highest civil court) reasoning and conclusion in Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission v Wilson, 2014 SLR 46 at paras 10-11, [2013] CSIH 95, where that Court came to a number of conclusions, including that a bill of exchange, such as a cheque, may only extinguish an existing debt if the creditor agrees with that mechanism of payment. The ‘near cash’ theory has no application to these facts. A creditor may always insist on payment in legal tender.

[67] WeRe Bank documents proclaim that any alleged dispute over the WeRe Cheque would not be addressed in a Canadian court, but instead “ultimately arbitrated” via trial by jury before the “International Common Law Court of Record 750181”. This institution is purportedly the high court of the jurisdiction: “There is NO COURT WITHIN ENGLAND SUPERIOR TO A COMMON LAW COURT DULY CONVENED”. I will simply observe the International Common Law Court is unknown to either myself or, apparently, the UK courts. It is never mentioned even once in any of the jurisprudence archived on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BaiLII) website.

[68] Even if Lord Denning’s dicta were binding on me, these facts are all “good reasons” to refuse Mr. Parlee and “Peter of England’s” so-called bill of exchange.

d. WeRe Bank Three/Five Letters Scheme

[69] It appears the WeRe Bank scheme may also incorporate a variation on the Three/Five Letters foisted unilateral agreement scheme that I reviewed in Bank of Montreal v Rogozinsky, 2014 ABQB 771 at paras 55-73, (and see also Re Boisjoli at paras 49-57). This is a set of documents that purportedly crystalize a result if the recipient does not respond.

[70] The May 19, 2015 “Notice of Protest...” and June 10, 2015 “Notices of Protest Sent” (see Appendices E, F) have parallels to documents used in the Three/Five Letters process.

[71] An interesting aspect of these two documents is that one of the witnesses is a “Tel Sutherland” of Grande Prairie. A person of that same name and location unsuccessfully attempted to pay a court judgment by writing “Accepted for Value” on the judgment and by attaching his birth certificate,, which was annotated with the instruction to “Deposit to court file”: Underworld Services Ltd. v Money Stop Ltd., 2012 ABQB 327, 545 AR 102 (or contempt hearing before Veit, J.) This is another obvious attempt to use the “A4V” ‘money for nothing’ scam. Sutherland in 2013 was found guilty of contempt of court for failing to provide documents to the Canada Revenue Agency and is now in jail: Canada (National Revenue) v Money Stop Ltd., 2013 FC 133 427 FTR 107; Canada (National Revenue) v Money Stop Ltd., 2013 FC 684, 2013 DTC 5121.

e. “Peter of England”

[72] A disturbing window into the OPCA world and the WeRe Bank fraud is provided by email correspondence between Alfred Parlee and “Peter of England” found in the Affidavits. On May 20, 2015 Mr. Parlee writes “Peter of England” requesting advise, he needs support “... because these lawyers can rattle my chain.” “Peter of England” replies:

Tell them that you want a firm statement on why they are "perverting the course of justice" and ask them why a cheque drawn on a bank does NOT equate to "money"?

Send this to him again and ask him to affirm that he can rebut this Allonge in a court of law and if he cannot he should IMMEDIATELY take legal advice from the City of London.

...

Stand firm with him - tell him you'll see him in court and you will personally be be looking at liens being placed upon him and his business - ask him "under full commercial liability and penalty of perjury" why he claims the cheque is not good?

These cheques are clearing in the UK- we have had Chyrsler and ClBC on the phone to us.

We have become the Bankers Prayer - we are their life-line, without us their is no more liquidity in the market

This is NOT freeman mumbo jumbo but international banking practice - tell peter@werebank.com then we'll assure his sorry ass that if he goes to court he's going to get hammered!

...

He/they has/have to realize, eventually, these arrogant hyenas, that their are bigger creatures in the jungle than they!

He should step very carefully this one!

Peter

[73] Mr. Parlee writes “Peter of England” once more on June 17, 2015 asking for advice “... as the hearing is next week. I am worried.” Peter responds with:

Please send him this and tell him the days of ReTribution are upon him. His time is passed his number has been called.

More than this Alf I cannot do

[74] These communications are a discomforting glimpse into how OPCA gurus work: making false promises and callously goading their customers into ill-advised action. The evidence I received makes it obvious that “Peter of England” is entirely willing to ruin the finances of his customers, and even put them at risk of criminal prosecution for passing bad cheques. His reward is a paltry £35.00.

3. The Private Indemnity Bond

[75] Mr. Parlee’s July 20, 2015 Affidavit discloses a third OPCA scheme. It has a number of ‘ingredients’:

1. a copy of Mr. Parlee’s Alberta birth certificate,

2. a copy of Mr. Parlee’s Alberta Registration of Live Birth,

3. a printout of the “Cestui Que Vie Act 1666”

4. a July 9, 2015 “Affidavit for the Ownership” document where:

I, Alfred P. Parlee, grantor, am the absolute and legal owner for the ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE, (date for Registration June 7, 1949), Registration Number 1949-08-010689, a corporate entity with Record number 010689 (and under the constructive trust(s); there being with the ministry, crown corporation, government agency or SUCH (Schools, Universities, Colleges, Hospitals))) custody, with and all interest therein, bearing the seal of the ONTARIO MINISTRY of GOVERNMENT SERVICES for good faith and credit;

I, Alfred Philip Parlee accept these Titles under the legal Office for ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE and under the will [of] grantor for claim for property and here state that all credit vested in this Title am sponsored by the grantor for the Title in question.

5. a July 9, 2015 “Affidavit of Ownership” document where:

I, Alfred Philip Parlee, grantor, am the absolute and legal owner for the Master Business Licence, entity BIN 250660305 dba ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE (Registration date June 30, 2015), and under the constructive trust(s); there being with the ministry, crown corporation, government agency or SUCH (Schools, Universities, Colleges, Hospitals) custody, with and all interest therein, bearing the seal for the ONTARIO MINISTRY [of] GOVERNMENT SERVICES for good faith and credit;

I, Alfred P. Parlee claim this Title under the legal Office for ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE and under the will for grantor's claim for property, do here state that all credit vested in this Title is sponsored by the grantor for the Title in question.

6. a July 9, 2015 “DECLARATION for the LEGAL OFFICE of ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE, dba 250660305” which states:

I, Alfred Philip Parlee, being admitted to the profession of owner and operator of the Office of ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE bearing the Master Business License Number 250660305, business address for reports at 2204 Walkley Road, Ottawa, ON CANADA, KlG 3Y4 and the mailing address c/o P.O. Box 16, Site 16, RR2, Sexsmith AB Canada TOH 3CO, listed under Investment and/ or Private Estate Administrative), do swear that I will diligently, faithfully and to the best of my ability execute according to law the office of ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE.

7. Two Ontario business licenses, both for sole proprietorships named “ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE”. One lists the business activity as “Diplomat”. The other is an “Underwriter”.

[76] Mr. Parlee is obviously attempting to create some kind of relationship between two ‘aspects’ of himself, his physical ‘flesh and blood’ half, and his “Strawman”, “ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE.” This purported duality has been investigated and rejected in Canadian courts on numerous occasions, including Meads v Meads, at paras 417-446, Fiander v Mills, 2015 NLCA 31 at paras 20, 39-40. These documents are meaningless. Talking to yourself binds no-one. There is only one Alfred Philip Parlee.

[77] Last, there is the Sept. 10, 2015 “Private Indemnity Bond - Non-Negotiable”. It is issued by “ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE, dba 250660305”. This is the entity invoked in the July 9 “Affidavit of Ownership” and “Declaration for the Legal Office” documents, and which is (allegedly) owned and operated by “Alfred Philip Parlee”. It appears Mr. Parlee is instructing his “Strawman” “ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE” to pay the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Clerk $1 million to “zero, settle, and close” the foreclosure legal action, “Court case file # 1504 00261”.

[78] There are many reasons why this document is worthless. First, the “Strawman” is a myth. Mr. Parlee is ordering a payment by a figment of his imagination. Second, the “Private Indemnity Bond - Non-Negotiable” is likely supposed to be paid out of a secret bank account or other analogous resource operated by a government entity. This is probably why Mr. Parlee mentioned the “treasury board” in his Oct. 1, 2015 submissions. He believes that with the correct combination of documents he can unlock an “A4V” account that will then pay the court and make the foreclosure go away. As I have previously explained, this too is an exercise in make-believe.

[79] Even if one could settle a lawsuit with a promissory note of some kind to the court, there is another issue. The “Indemnity Agreement” cannot bind the Court Clerks because it is no agreement. It is a declaration of a relationship signed by only one party - Mr. Parlee. A contract requires “a meeting of minds.” Here that is obviously absent: All of which takes us back to the central premise of most of these schemes, that silence is acceptance of something the perpetrator is attempting to foist on the recipient.

[80] This scheme was probably sold to Mr. Parlee from a Canadian or US source, and not from “Peter of England”. That suggests Mr. Parlee has switched gurus in his attempts to avoid foreclosure. This is yet another way he has been victimized by his OPCA beliefs.

[81] A number of the July 20, 2015 affidavit documents were notarized by lawyer Denis J.N. Sawyer of SGB Law LLP. In certain cases that is innocuous, such as the Birth Certificate and Registration of Live Birth. However, other items, including “Affidavit for the Ownership”, “Affidavit of Ownership”, and “DECLARATION for the LEGAL OFFICE of ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE, dba 250660305”, are questionable. For example, the “Affidavit for the Ownership” states:

I, Alfred P. Parlee, grantor, am the absolute and legal owner for the ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE, (date for Registration June 7, 1949), Registration Number 1949-08-010689, a corporate entity with Record number 010689 ...

Looking at this statement in a most generous light, one could arguably conclude that there was a corporation named “ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE” and that Mr. Parlee owned it. The problem is, however, that this hypothetical corporation was apparently registered on the same day that Mr. Parlee was born. Instead, this is quite clearly a double/split person “Strawman” document. Alberta courts have instructed that notaries not endorse documents of this kind that are not legitimate or conventional legal or commercial documents: Meads v Meads, at paras 643-645; Papadopoulos v Borg, 2009 ABCA 201 at para 3.

4. Conclusion - Pseudolegal Payment Schemes Have No Effect

[82] The documents referenced by Mr. Parlee at the October 1, 2015 hearing have no legal effect. They do not establish that he has paid the pre-foreclosure debt secured by the Parlee Lands. The WeRe Bank and Private Indemnity Bond documents have no value, except to the conmen who sold them. This is the second reason why I dismissed Mr. Parlee’s October 1, 2015 application. He cannot represent his wife.

V. Conclusion and Costs

[83] I have provided a detailed review of Mr. Parlee’s litigation activities, arguments, and why they are false. He and his wife have paid a high price for adopting OPCA concepts.

[84] I might end these reasons with a caution. Some cases hold that arguments such as the ones invented by Peter of England and sold to victims like the Parlees are so profoundly at variance with any accepted legal principles that the Court might infer that they are advanced for ulterior purposes. (e.g. Fiander v Mills, 2015 NLCA 31). This could result in enhanced costs, a finding of contempt, or a declaration of vexatious litigant status; limiting access to the courts. (e.g. Re Boisjoli, Meads, above). The Parlees have lost enough already.

VI. Disposition

[85] Mr. Parlee’s application is dismissed.

Heard on the 1st day of October, 2015.

Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 5th day of November, 2015.

W.S. Schlosser M.C.C.Q.B.A.

Appearances:

Dusten E. Stewart

Minsos Stewart Masson

for the Plaintiff

Alfred Philip Parlee

for the Defendants





Appendix A. Writ of Quo Warranto Documents

1. Foisted Quo Warranto Challenge

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

COURT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA AUGUST 25, 2015

JUDICIAL CENTER

GRANDE PRAIRIE, ALBERTA

MASTER L.A. SMART; Q.C. ORDER FOR FORECLOSURE

Court File# 1504 00261

WRIT of QUO WARRANTO

TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION OF;

MASTER: L.A. Smart; Dusten E. Stewart Solicitor; Sharon Bosser; SERVUS CREDIT UNION: Dan Reinmann; SENIOR MANAGER - SERVUS CREDIT UNION.

MASTER: L.A. Smart;

Let it be known, that to your alleged DECISION as filed under Court File # 1504 00261 which was issued on August 13, 2015, and received from Solicitor on August 21, 2015, by mail, that this matter concerns me and my property. That you issued the above decision, knowingly, willingly, intentionally and without my consent. The consent of my being a living man, sui iuris. I hereby challenge any lawful jurisdiction which you claim to have, or any such jurisdiction of the COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA (hereinafter 'ENTITY') under whose

mandate you perform your duties, and also in relation to the making any and all judgments, decisions, verdicts or any such orders against me and my property.

Preamble:

I, Am the living human being and man, sui iuris, and under such authority any jurisdiction which you claim to have over me, or the making of the above alleged DECISION, is void. You obtained no permission, authority nor consent, in any claimed dispute, in which I may have been involved. The said order is void ab initio.

However, I might accept your temporary jurisdiction under the mandate of ENTITY in this matter and grant such described jurisdiction to you and ENTITY, if you perform and fulfill the following specific conditions as described:

l. That you, MASTER L.A. Smart, shall produce unto this living man, within the period of 7 days from the date hereof, a sworn affidavit, sworn under your own hand with full, unlimited personal liability, under penalty of perjury, to the effect that you did, articulate, sign and swear an Oath of Office of Judge, to act under the authority of the ENTITY, and that you do, at all times, operate in strict compliance with that oath of office in the ordinary course of your duties, without fear, favour or exception, under Rule of Law.

2. That you shall present and deliver by certified mail, to this living man, within the same 7 days, true and certified documentary evidence and proofs (i.e. statement, acceptance or declaration) signed under my hand and seal, that I did grant you unto YOU, and or unto the ENTITY, or unto any other person, permission, authority or consent; including but not limited to, YOU, the ENTITY, the principal of the ENTITY, or the founding principal of the ENTITY, to honour any judgment, order, decision or verdict of the said parties, in any cause or matter in which I may have been involved.

3. That you shall present and deliver by certified mail, to this living man within the same 7 days, all the files in your possession about this matter, since I do have reasonable doubt that your laws are broken and therefore crimes committed, including but not limited to articles 279, and 281 of US Criminal law and Administrative Procedures and Jurisdiction Act(Alberta 2000 Chapter A-3, May 27, 2013). And I shall demand remedy.

Without prejudice, and all rights reserved.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

From those who committed these crimes if my doubts will be proven to exist after I study complete files you shall present and deliver to this living man as described. In the event of default of such valid proofs as described at paragraph numbers 1,2, & 3, herein you shall be deemed to have accepted and confirmed and the same is NOT true and accurate and that these documents and actions performed by you do not exist and they never have existed. That; you possess NO LAWFUL JURISDICTION to make any such order against me or my property, nor any jurisdiction and that crimes have been committed, crimes in your Criminal law, including but not limited to crimes described in articles 279, and 281 of US Criminal Law and Administrative Procedures and Jurisdiction Act (Alberta 2000 Chapter A-3, May 17, 2013 ).

Since I Am the living human being and man - a fact which cannot be denied and is un-rebuttable - I Am the one who creates All. You, as a PUBLIC SERVANT, no any other ENTITY, can ever claim nor maintain any jurisdiction over me, this, or any living human being. You accepted and consented to service and indenture to the above named ENTITY, whose authority is always inferior to that of the living human being, sui iuris, therefore you serve only under the law that serves living human beings in the hierarchy of Divine Cannon Law.

Any attempt to enforce your alleged and purported jurisdiction in any way, in default of producing the above valid proofs as described, confirming lawful jurisdiction, such attempts shall be considered to be enforced slavery of this living human being and man.

Therefore, hereby TAKE NOTICE that; should you persist with any enforcement action in respect of this matter, I shall act accordingly, under Rule of Law, and that you shall be held personally accountable, with full unlimited personal liability. Remedy shall be obtained by way of private lawsuit, for the cause, on grounds of injury, loss and or damage caused to my estate, to include remedy of imprisonment.

The montu propio of Pope Francis, effective the 1" day of September, 2013, (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/motu_proprio/documents/papa-francesco-motu-proprio_20130711_organi-giudiziari_en.html) confirms, the removal of any perceived immunity for criminal offences from members of the Roman Curia and you are hereby Notified that you shall be held personally accountable for any and all the decisions which you make hereafter.

The said order and judgment described above as montu propio, confirms; that the Golden Rule of Law is now operational and in full force; the Golden Rule of Law and that nobody is above the Law and All are equal before the Law. And so it is Done, Issued and Ordered; sui iuris.

Made under my duly authorized seal with full original jurisdiction and I am competent to say so.

Per: [signature]

Alfred Philip Parlee sui iuris





2. Writ of Quo Warranto

WRIT of QUO WARRANTO

CHALLENGE OF JURISDICTION: September 8, 2015

FILED IN GOOD FAITH:

With: COURT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA, JUDICIAL CENTER

GRANDE PRAIRIE, ALBERTA, on August 26, 2015.

FILE # 1504 00261

MASTER L.A. Smart:

Thank you very much for agreeing to the Terms and Conditions specified in the Writ of

Quo Warranto.

No Response was ever received by this party, in the specific, explicit, and prescribed

allotted time frame, therefore evident and makes legal,

NO JUSTIFICATION - NO JURISDICTION.

JUDGEMENT of COURT ORDER is expunged.

Therefore the Court Order is now DEEMED: "NULL AND VOID."

WARNING:

NO TRESPASSING Signs have been placed around my PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Any trespassers caught upon my PRIVATE PROPERTY will be prosecuted to the

fullest extent of the LAW.

per: [signature]

Alfred Philip Parlee: Private administrator

Dba: 250660305

c/o Box 16, Site 16, RR2

Sexsmith, Alberta T0H 3C0





Appendix B. Private Indemnity Bond - Non-Negotiable

ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE Issue date: September 10, 2015

2015

dba:250660305 BOND number: APP 100915 Can.

Clerk of the Court of the Queen's Bench

10260-99 Street

Grande Prairie, Alberta T8V 2H4

PRIVATE INDEMNITY BOND - NON-NEGOTIABLE

Value of BOND: $1,000,000.00

One Million Canadian Dollars

Re; AUTHENTICATION. In the law of evidence. The act or mode of giving authority or legal authenticity to a statute, record, or other written instrument, or a certified copy thereof, so as to render it legally admissible in evidence.

Authenticated Documents: Evidence of Ownership of Estate, Trust, Birth Certificate and Title, filed on July 20, 2015 -Court of Queen's Bench, Grande Prairie, Alberta: case file# 1504 00261.

ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE known as the "Indemnitee." And

The COURT CLERK and/or its AGENTS known as "Indemnifier."

ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE, dba 250660305, and having obtained Power of Attorney over the DEBTOR, the NAME, ALFRED PHILIPP ARLEE, hereby present this INDEMNITY BOND in Good Faith and Credit.

Activity;

Attention Clerk of the Court of the Queen's Bench (Indemnifier) :

This INDEMNITY BOND is issued as/for payment of COURT ORDER File# 1504 00261.

BOND ORDER UCC Commercial Code (Application and use of Commercial Law Part 3)

SPECIAL DEPOSIT of this BOND against the DEBTOR, NAME, ALFRED PillLIP PARLEE will ZERO, SETTLE, and CLOSE this account. Court case file # 1504 00261.

This BOND shall be Ledgered as an ASSET for the needs of the Court of Queen's Bench in Grande Prairie, Alberta.

This BOND expires the moment the man, Alfred philip parlee dies.

Per: [signature] ...



Appendix C. Correspondence from Freeman Legal Services

Freeman Legal Services

Freeman Legal Services Simone Hamm

83 Ducie Street

Manchester lngolstadt

M12JQ 10th February 2015

Public Debt & Uniform Commercial Code [UCC]

International Promissory Notes

The United Nations Convention on

“INTERNATIONAL BII.LS OF EXCHANGE AND lNTERNATIONAL PROMISSORY NOTES”

Dear Simone,

This is to inform you and confirm to you that "all debts in the PUBLIC sector'' such as utility bills, court fines, personal taxes, speeding tickets, property taxes and commercial debt(s) which it is claimed that you have, can be satisfactorily cleared and the accounts zeroed via an "Acceptance for Value" under the United Nations Convention on International Bills of Exchange 1988 and the Uniform Commercial Code [UCC].

See Chapter 2, Section I, Article 4 of The Convention as well as under International Private Law and Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code administered by UNIDROIT, Via Panisperna 2&, 00184 Rome-Italy.

UNIDROIT = http://www.unidroit.org/about-unidroit/overview

UCC = http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3

UN CONVENTON = http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/English/texts/payments/billsnotes/X_12_e.pdf

Freeman Legal Service's role

As you are aware from our press statements Freeman Legal Services has been tasked to help those suffering at the hands of "over- zealous" government agents, bailiffs, criminal credit agencies, Gerichtsvollzieherin and court officials pursuing fines and issuing "Orders to Pay" that are against the Rule of Law.

Many banks, Public Authorities and collection agencies have singularly failed to adhere to the Human Rights principles encoded ln the UN Conventions and have failed under the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944 to provide "The People" with the Internationally Agreed and ratified remedy, following this agreement, "to allow for payments of debt of the PUBLIC side" to be made from the Global Collateral Accounts" if the need ever arose. The need has arisen!

As stated on the telephone, FLS has agreed to Assume the Debt shown on your Order/Bill of

Exchange as shown on the letter dated 03/02/15 by Frau ANKE WEBER:

“Sie können diese Maßnahmen abwenden, indem Sie sofort die Forderung von € 868,89 bei mir bezahlen.

ALL 3rd PARTIES TAKE NOTE UNDER THE BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT

Payment for honour supra protest.

(1) Where a bill has been protested for non-payment, any person may intervene and pay it supra

protest for the honour of any party liable thereon, or for the honour of the person for whose account the bill is drawn.

ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY YOU

We advise you now to make an "Acceptance for Value" on the Bill/Order presented to you via the office of ANKE WEBER. This regulated and assured action on your behalf will ensure that the DEBT/ACCOUNT (so called) will be paid by the “Bundesministerium der Finanzen” under the Trust Fund created by the Allied Powers to finance German rebuilding in 1944 via the Bretton Woods Agreement.

Frau Weber should be copied in on this letter as should the local police station, court and any collection or Enforcement Agencies which may have “contacted or threatened you" with such statements as “if you do not pay or comply then certain actions will be taken against you”. These are infringements under Article 9 of the UCC - Transaction off a Securitized Interest, whereby any person asking you to ''perform" IN ANY MANNER whatsoever AND NOT BEING IN POSSESSION OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT - SIGNED BY YOU CONTAINlNG WET SIGNATURE is in violation of international law and UN Conventions.

HOLDER IN DUE COURSE

Please note that the moment that you A4V (accept for value) the Bill/Order/Note then [under Article 3 - Paragraph 302 UCC] YOU become the "Holder in Due Course" on this Negotiable Financial Instrument and you are the ONLY party who can sue upon it.

See http;//www.law.cornell.edu/uccl3/3-302

It should be noted by ALL parties that the Uniform Commercial Code is an INTERNATIONAL CODEX of law merchant and is applicable upon the sea and land and there is NO country which is exempt from the trading principles it seeks to protect.

Any person refusing to accept this payment now made, should state in writing within 30 days why they are dishonouring the bill/order/note. Commercial remedies are quite strict against those "refusing payments" on Valid Commercial Negotiable Instruments

Yours sincerely,

Peter Smith LL.B, FRC.

Freeman Legal Services - International





Appendix D. WeRe Cheque and Allonges

1. WeRe Cheque (front)





2. Allonge

SIDE 1 NOTICE TO PAYEE- LEGAL DEPARTMENTS AND ACCOUNTING/BOOK-KEEPING SIDE 1

DEPARTMENTS

Allonge - RECEIPT OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT - Allonge

A negotiable instrument is a check, promissory note, bill of exchange, security or any document representing money payable which can be transferred to another by handing it over (delivery) and/or endorsing it (signing one's name on the back either with no instructions or directing it to another). A negotiable instrument is a contract and subject to the rules governing contract law. However, a negotiable instrument may be distinguished from an ordinary contract by the fact that a negotiable instrument may be written in a way that makes it transferable. This quality of negotiation generally allows the instrument to be used as a substitute for money by holders in due course, despite the defensive claims between the original parties who drafted the negotiable instrument. In order to be negotiable, the bill or note must be payable to order, or to bearer. Some promissory notes contain a clause making them non-negotiable

The Presentment of this cheque is to be treated as cash on your accounting ledger: See:-

Lord Denning M.R. in Fielding & Platt Ltd v Selim Najjar [l969] l W.L.R. 357 at 361; [1969] 2 All E.R. 150 at 152, CA):

“We have repeatedly said in this court that a bill of exchange or a promissory note is to be treated as cash. It is to be honoured unless there is “some good reason to the contrary.”

Therefore, it is reasonable to deduce that, notwithstanding the confusing and convoluted terms of the 1882 Act and the corruption of the courts, “all fully negotiable instruments in the form of bills of exchange and promissory notes are to be treated as if they are cash, unless that is contrary “to the terms of an enforceable contract between the parties. Since the rules of equity dictate that no party can lawfully prevent another from “using any remedy that it utilises for its own benefit under such terms [otherwise known as placing a Clog on the Equity], there is no recourse for the payee to refuse lawful payment made in good faith”.

THIS CHEQUE IS TENDERED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT 1882 & UN Convention on Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes 1988

AS SUCH THE DRAWER OF THE CHEQUE HAS CERTAIN PROTECTIONS AND YOU AS PAYEE HAVE CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS THE MOST IMPORTANT OF WHICH IS TO ACCEPT THIS NOTE AND PRESENT IT FOR CLEARING.

SIDE 2 NOTICE OF DISHONOUR IF YOU REFUSE THIS NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT SIDE 2

Section 42 Violation of The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 – Dishonour of a bill or note through Non acceptance

Should you fail to accept it or refuse to honour it you will be in breach Sections 42 & 43 for Non Acceptance and Dishonour and the DRAWER walks free and clear

Section 42 Non-acceptance.

When a bill [note] is duly presented for acceptance and is not accepted within the customary time, the person presenting it must treat it as dishonoured by non-acceptance. If he does not, the holder shall lose his right of recourse against the drawer and endorsers.

Section 43 Dishonour by Non-acceptance and its consequences.

(1)A bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance—

(a)when it is duly presented for acceptance, and such an acceptance as is prescribed by this Act is refused or cannot be obtained; or

(b)when presentment for acceptance is excused and the bill is not accepted.

(2)Subject to the provisions of this Act when a bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance, an immediate right of recourse against the drawer and endorsers accrues to the holder, and no presentment for payment is necessary.

AS ACCOUNT PAYEE - HOLDER

Article 15 of The Convention states:

1. A person is a holder if he is: The payee in possession of the instrument and

3. A person is not prevented from being a holder by the fact that the instrument was obtained by him or any previous holder under circumstances, including incapacity or fraud, duress or mistake of any kind that would give rise to a claim to, or a defence against liability on, the instrument.

WeRe Bank confirms that this cheque IS DRAWN UPON A BANK ACCOUNT –THE BANK HAS FUNDS ON DEPOSIT in the name of the DRAWER TO CLEAR THE ISSUED NOTE, TO YOU, THE PAYEE – THE “MONEY” IS “BANK LEDGER MONEY”, “CHEQUE BOOK MONEY” OR “MONETARY UNIT OF ACCOUNT” and can be transferred to you, the PAYEE, either electronically or via physical means within the PRESCRIBED CLEARING PERIOD. This is why you must act now or fail.

WeRe Bank 83 Ducie Street, Manchester M1 2JQ Clearing Hotline: 0044 7455 372365

01144 - Canada





Appendix E. May 19, 2015 “Notice of Protest...”

Master Alf P. Parlee

Box 16, Site 16, RR2 May 19, 2015

Sexsmith, Alberta Canada

Non-Domestic Mail

{TOH 3CO}

Dusten E. Stewart ..Minos Stewart Masson (email notice)(mailed letter to follow)

Solicitors for Servus Credit Union (Sharon Boser)(Account # 3717089-014)

Suite 220, 8723-82 Avenue Edmonton, Alberta

16C OY9 dstewart@minsolawyers.com

Also emailed to Witnesses; WeRe Bank Peter or England, Friend Tel Sutherland, Son Ron

Parlee.

Notice of Protest and included Info from Canadian Bills of Exchange Act R.S.C., 1985, c. B-4, UN Convention on International Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes (1988), Financial Administration Act R.S.C., 1985, F-11 (Interpretation of Money), Black's Law 9th Edition (payment (14c)(Acceptance) in Regard to Correspondence received May 15, 2015 and sent May 11, 2015, Non Acceptance of Cheque to Servus Credit Union for $ 319, 149.69

Dusten E Stewart;

In regard to non-acceptance of cheque (which is defined as Dishonour) that was written to Servus Credit Union c/w Allonge; I have consulted with VIP from WeRe Bank and the Reply was; "They" Servus Credit Union cannot refuse it (cheque)-read the Allonge and show them what it means. If they refuse it (cheque) they have no rights to pursue you . The "Allonge" is very clear in respect to: Processing cheque through Clearing Hotline 0044 7455 372365 or physical address WeRe Bank 83 Ducie Street, Manchester M1 2JQ and requirements to be honoured as per Bills of Exchange acts.

The cheque to Servus Credit Union has been dishonoured by non-acceptance. This action of non-acceptance is addressed very clearly in the Bills of Exchange Act on "Allonge" Please read side 2 Section 42 Violation of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882-Dishonour of bill through Non acceptance and Section 43 Non Acceptance and its consequences!! No further presentment is necessary.

I have followed the guidelines and principals of these Bills of Exchange Acts mentioned above and in Good faith issued a cheque through WeRe Bank that confirms "Funds on Deposit" on Allonge. As per the authority of the Bills of Exchange Acts listed above the alleged liability for the amount written on cheque are now settled and no further communication on this topic can be entered into as it will be considered harassment and harm to me. A signed copy of this letter will also be sent by mail to your address with two witnesses. Best Wishes

[signature]

Master Alf. P Parlee. May 19, 2015

Witness Tel Sutherland Grande Prairie, Alta May 19, 2015 [signature]

Witness Ron Parlee Grande Prairie, Alta May 19, 2015 [signature]

[63 cent Canadian Postage

Stamp and signature]

May 19, 2015





Appendix F. June 10, 2015 “Notices of Protest Sent’

NOTICES of PROTEST SENT

Know all men that I, Alfred Philip Parlee [private person], c/o: P.O. Box 16, Site 16 RR2 near the town of Sexsmith, Alberta Canada {TOH 3CO}, at the request of WeRe Bank and Self, there being no notary public available, did on the 10th day of June 2015, prepare this document of Notice of Protest to Dan Heinman: Senior Manager of Corp. Services Servus Credit Union. Other sundry documents are included and labelled with Xpresspost PG 307 816 009CA.

Wherefore I, Alfred Philip Parlee, now, in the presence of

Witness 1 Tel Sutherland

Witness 1 by: [signature] Signature Date: June 10, 2015

Witness 2 Ronald Parlee

Witness 2 by: [signature] Signature Date: June 10, 2015

do within the proscribed period, being within 3 days of being informed by PAYEE, did protest the said bill of exchange as per PART V SUPPLEMENTARY Sections 90 - 94 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 as well as the UN Convention 1988 on International Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.

Your Printed Name Alfred Philip Parlee

Box 16, Site 16, RR2 Sexsmith, Alberta

{T0H 3C0}

.(Autograph) by: [signature] Date: June 10, 2015

N.B. The bill itself should be annexed, or a copy of the bill and all that is written thereon

should be underwritten.