_______________________________________________________

Memorandum of Decision

of the

Honourable Mr. Justice D.R.G. Thomas

_______________________________________________________

I. Introduction

[1] On October 1, 2018 the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench received an annotated copy of a Order granted by Master Smart on June 7, 2018 in Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Landry, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket #1803 04569. That Order is for the foreclosure of a residential property formerly owned by Vanessa Landry [Ms. Landry], declared that Scotia Mortgage Corporation [Scotia] takes immediate title to the property, and that the occupants of the foreclosed property had 30 days from service of the Order to vacate the residence.

[2] The annotated version of the June 7, 2018 court Order received by the Court has the following text added to its front page:

1. the upper left corner has a handwritten blue ink title: “special Deposit”;

2. the center of the front page of the Order is marked in large handwritten letters in blue felt marker, angled so the text reads up and to the right: “Accepted In Exchange for settlement and closure of the Accounting.”;

3. in smaller handwritten blue ink, horizontally: “By: [illegible] - sole Beneficiary Deposit to Private Estate RN 233 361 577 CA”; and

4. a handwritten number that may be an Alberta area telephone number.

[3] In a decision reported as Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Landry, 2018 ABQB 856 [Landry #1], I concluded that the annotated Order was an attempt by Ms. Landry to execute an “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” [OPCA] (Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, 543 AR 215) scheme that would “... make Ms. Landry’s debt disappear as if by magic.”: Landry #1, at paras 4, 11-14.

[4] OPCA are a class of spurious “pseudolaw” concepts which are sold to litigants by conman “gurus” who promise extraordinary but false benefits. Gurus’ illusory promises include free money, debt elimination, “get out of jail free cards”, immunity from income tax, and “travelling” - unlimited motor vehicle use. OPCA ideas sound like law and use legal terminology and references, but are universally rejected by Canadian courts.

[5] All OPCA are an abuse of court processes. The employing of OPCA strategies is a basis on which a court may impose court access restrictions through what is sometimes called a “vexatious litigant order”: Meads v Meads; R v Fearn, 2014 ABQB 233 at para 49, 586 AR 182; Chutskoff v Bonora, 2014 ABQB 389 at para 92, 590 AR 288, aff’d 2014 ABCA 444, 588 AR 303. Some OPCA ideas are so notoriously false that simply employing these concepts creates a presumption that a litigant appears in court for an abusive, ulterior motive: Fiander v Mills, 2015 NLCA 31, 368 Nfld & PEIR 80; Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 288.

[6] I concluded that Ms. Landry’s submission of the annotated Order was a basis on which to investigate whether the Court should impose access restrictions under its inherent jurisdiction and on its own motion: Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 651 at paras 14-25, 273 ACWS (3d) 533, leave denied 2017 ABCA 63, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37624 (2 November 2017). Paragraphs 15-26 of Landry #1 review the relevant law in relation to court access restrictions.

[7] I ordered that the Court would conduct a review of whether Ms. Landry should be subject to court access restrictions on a document only basis, which is this Court’s standard practice: Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 335 at para 105; Stoney v 1985 Sawridge Trust, 2017 ABQB 436 at paras 60-62, appeal deemed abandoned (3 March 2018), Edmonton 1703-0195AC (Alta CA). Ms. Landry had until November 1, 2018 to make a written response: Landry #1, at para 27. Ms. Landry’s creditors were also given an opportunity to provide evidence and submissions on this issue, with the same due date: Landry #1, at para 29.

[8] That deadline is now past, and no materials have been received from Ms. Landry. However, counsel for Scotia did respond, and provided additional information which further explains Ms. Landry’s OPCA activities, and disclosed the identity of her partner and likely mentor in this affair: notorious OPCA guru Dean Christopher Clifford.

II. Further OPCA-Related Evidence

[9] Counsel for Scotia has provided several pieces of information relevant to my response to Ms. Landry’s litigation activities.

[10] First, in Landry #1, I concluded that Ms. Landry had not appeared to contest the foreclosure and transfer of title hearing. I came to that conclusion based on a court order granted by Master Smart on June 5, 2018 in the Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Landry action which indicated no one appeared for the respondent.

[11] It turns out that was not quite correct. Counsel for Scotia has clarified that Ms. Landry did appear in Court on June 5, 2018, and after the order was signed, presented herself (in a manner), as well as documentation that attached an ounce of silver. That resulted in this exchange:

Landry: Do I get to say anything?

Master Smart: Oh, who are you?

Landry: I’m Vanessa Landry.

Master Smart: Well I guess you should have come up, I don’t know who you are. What would you like to say?

Landry: I have a security agreement and an abatement. I have an abatement.

Master Smart: You have ... a declaration of a security agreement. Oh. Uh huh. So this is something that you found on the web?

Landry: Ah, no.

Master Smart: No? Re an abatement to the process generally considered. So what is this supposed to do? Oh, there’s money. This is consideration for you to not to have to pay, is that what that is? You don’t know. Somebody helped you prepare this?

Landry: Yes.

Master Smart: Yes.

Landry: Did you read the security agreement?

Master Smart: Sure, so what you want to do is say well take this security agreement in lieu of my actually paying on the mortgage ... I think that is what you’re asking for today, aren’t you?

Landry: I’m here for the remedy sought.

Master Smart: And what remedy sought is that?

Landry: I don’t know.

Master Smart: You don’t know?

Landry: Do you know?

Master Smart: Well, I can’t tell from what you’ve got here. It seems to me what I suspect is ... I see, oh yes, ok.

Landry: I am the beneficiary for that legal title. Legal estate.

Master Smart: Legal estate of what?

Landry: Of the ...

Master Smart: Of you.

Landry: Do you see the ...

Master Smart: Ok. Wow. An ounce of silver. Oh, ok. Alright. So what do you hope the outcome might be today in light of your ...

Landry: The remedy.

Master Smart: The remedy that you seek. Do you know what ...

Landry: I am the beneficiary of the ...

Master Smart: Uh huh. So how does that help make the payments to the bank?

Landry: It’s already been paid, isn’t it?

Master Smart: Well, it’s in arrears, that’s what they just said.

Landry: Well, did you read my ...

Master Smart: Well, this purports to pay it, but it doesn’t really, does it? Where’s the money. We have legal tender in Canada.

Landry: That’s the legal tender.

Master Smart: Yeah, ok, well, it’s not, so what were you hoping to have happen today? Let me tell you what’s being asked for today, so you understand. This is something called a high-ratio mortgage, which means that ... if the bank puts this up for sale, and so on, you have potential personal liability.

Landry: Not me. I’m the beneficiary.

Master Smart: Well, you’re Vanessa Landry?

Landry: I am the beneficiary of the estate.

Master Smart: ... so you’re not Vanessa Landry, then?

Landry: I’m the beneficiary of the estate.

Master Smart: Ok. Well, if you’re not Vanessa Landry then you can sit down, because you have no standing here.

Landry: Ok. Ok.

Master Smart: Since you’re there, though, let me tell you the effect of the order of today. The effect of the order today is to put title into the name of Scotia Mortgage Corporation. Your tenant will be served and will have 30 days from service to vacate the property. You will owe no other money under this mortgage, or whoever Vanessa Landry is, under this mortgage to the Scotia Mortgage Corporation. The debt is extinguished by operation of this order. So that’s the effect of the order which I just signed.

We can return this actually to Ms. Landry, or, sorry, the beneficiary of Ms. Landry’s estate. You can take your paperwork back. Use that silver for something more useful. Thank you.

[12] Although the document(s) and ounce of silver Ms. Landry presented to the Court are not before me, it is clear from this discussion that Ms. Landry had attempted to use OPCA documents as an alleged basis to discharge her mortgage debt. The language that Ms. Landry is “the beneficiary of the estate” is consistent with the abusive “A4V” ‘money for nothing’ mechanism I identified in Landry #1, at paras 11-14.

[13] Counsel for Scotia also indicated that Ms. Landry had not complied with the Order to vacate her former property, and required police assistance to effect that removal. Ms. Landry then re-entered the property, and police were needed a second time to evict her.

[14] Finally, the bank has provided the Court with a document it received on August 30, 2018, titled: “SPECIAL PRIVATE NOTICE CEASE TRESPASS ORDER BREACH OF TRUST”. This document is reproduced as Appendix “A”, though Ms. Landry’s birth certificate number has been redacted. This unusual document confirms several points.

[15] At the June 5, 2018 hearing, Ms. Landry acknowledged someone helped her with her OPCA materials. The SPECIAL PRIVATE NOTICE document identifies the individual who was assisting Ms. Landry in her pseudolegal attempts to evade her debt obligations: Dean Clifford, president of 4240944 Manitoba Limited. Mr. Clifford is a notorious Freeman-on-the-Land guru, a person who promotes OPCA concepts for profit. I will later discuss Mr. Clifford in more detail.

[16] Second, the SPECIAL PRIVATE NOTICE is clearly linked to the annotated court order since both reference the same item: “Private Estate RN 233 361 577 CA”. These are components of a larger scheme.

[17] Third, the SPECIAL PRIVATE NOTICE explains the underlying theory behind Ms. Landry’s ‘money for nothing’ scheme. It is anchored on the idea that there are two of her: Vanessa Amy Landry, the human being and beneficiary, vs VANESSA AMY LANDRY, an estate created by and associated with her birth certificate.

[18] This dubious concept is often referred to as “Strawman Theory”, that individuals have two aspects, a physical flesh and blood body, and an associated immaterial legal doppelganger. Ms. Landry and Mr. Clifford call the shadow LANDRY an “estate”, but OPCA litigants use many fanciful names for this half of the duality. I am going to refer to it as the “Strawman”. You can distinguish Ms. Landry from her Strawman (or Strawwoman) by the upper and lower case of her name: Vanessa Amy Landry, human and “beneficiary”, vs. VANESSA AMY LANDRY, Strawwoman.

[19] Strawman Theory is universally rejected by Canadian courts: Meads v Meads, at paras 417-446; Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency), 2017 ABQB 123 at paras 67-88, [2017] DTC 5024; d’Abadie v Her Majesty the Queen, 2018 ABQB 298 at paras 57-70; Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 134 at paras 10-17, confirmed 2018 ABQB 399 at paras 25-33; Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652 at paras 110-120.

[20] In fact, Strawman Theory is so notoriously wrong (“fanciful”, “no rational support”, and “no basis in the law”) that, in Fiander v Mills, at paras 20-21, 40, the Newfoundland Court of Appeal concluded that anyone who even uses the Strawman in court is presumed to act in bad faith, and for a “vexatious and abusive” ulterior purpose. A court that encounters the Strawman may act pre-emptively to terminate or restrict litigation abuse based on this notoriously false idea. This rule from Fiander v Mills has been subsequently adopted in many Alberta cases, including Re Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 629, 29 Alta LR (6th) 334; Gauthier v Starr, 2016 ABQB 213, 86 CPC (7th) 348, aff’d 2018 ABCA 14; Alberta v Greter, 2016 ABQB 293; Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency); Re Gauthier, 2015 ABQB 555, aff’d 2018 ABCA 14; Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 134, litigant declared vexatious 2018 ABQB 288, decision confirmed 2018 ABQB 399; d’Abadie v Her Majesty the Queen, 2018 ABQB 298, litigant declared vexatious 2018 ABQB 438; Toronto-Dominion Bank v Leadbetter, 2018 ABQB 472, litigant declared vexatious 2018 ABQB 611; Alberta Treasury Branches v Hawrysh, 2018 ABQB 475, litigant declared vexatious 2018 ABQB 618; Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652, litigant declared vexatious 2018 ABQB 834; McKechnie (Re), 2018 ABQB 493, litigant declared vexatious McKechnie (Re), 2018 ABQB 677.

[21] Ms. Landry’s use of Strawman Theory concepts creates the presumption that she litigates in bad faith and for ulterior purposes. Her failure to respond to Landry #1 confirms that conclusion.

[22] The SPECIAL PRIVATE NOTICE also explains the source for the funds Ms. Landry claims provided “the remedy”, a free house. She and Mr. Clifford are accessing a secret bank account, the “Birth Certificate Trust Security”, which purportedly is associated with her birth certificate number. As was explained in Meads v Meads, at para 532-534, there is a commonplace but false OPCA idea that the Strawman and its birth certificate are linked to a “birth bond” bank account. Purportedly, these secret accounts are used to monetize the state after it abandoned the gold standard. In effect, citizens are enslaved as security for currency. Mr. Meads claimed his “birth bond” bank account contained $100 billion in gold and silver: para 538.

[23] What Ms. Landry and Mr. Clifford are doing is using their magic paperwork to (purportedly) seize control of the “VANESSA LANDRY LIFE ESTATE” created by the “VANESSA ANY LANDRY Birth Certificate Trust Registered Security”. Mr. Clifford says he and his company have been “assigned” this “Birth Certificate Cestui Que Trust” by “a Notarized Private Security Agreement”. Now, Mr. Clifford says his company is ordering payment of the outstanding mortgage from Ms. Landry’s secret trust fund.

[24] This strategy of making payments from a secret government-operated birth certificate account has a number of common names: “Redemption”, “Accept for Value”, or “A4V”. Canadian courts have considered and consistently rejected A4V claims, including: Re Boisjoli; Servus Credit Union Ltd v Parlee, 2015 ABQB 700, 7 Admin LR (6th) 321; Bossé v Farm Credit Canada, 2014 NBCA 34, 419 NBR (2d) 1, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 36026 (11 December 2014); Royer c Québec (Procureure générale), 2016 QCCS 2500, aff’d 2016 QCCA 1612, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37408 (27 April 2017).

[25] Employing A4V schemes warrants a strict court response. In Meads v Meads, at para 584, Rooke ACJ stated:

... I conclude that any litigation or defence based on the pseudolegal A4V concept is inherently frivolous and vexatious. That favours full indemnification of a person who faces an A4V strategy, and punitive and aggravated damages where the A4V strategy is advanced outside a litigation context.

See also CIBC v Marples, 2008 BCSC 590, 166 ACWS (3d) 637.

[26] But that is not all. Mr. Clifford also claims that he and his company are going to force police officers who “... violently and physically attacked the True Beneficiary while in the lawful Enjoyment and Use of Private Trust Property, and placed her in custody ...” to cough up funds from their secret birth bond accounts in response to “... the harm caused to the True Beneficiary” ...”. Similarly, the bank is notified “... all the Bank’s assets past, present and future are hereby Attached Liened as Surety ...”, and, like the police officers, “... the Birth Certificate Trust of President, Brian Porter, under Directors Liability ... are Liened for four times the sum certain value of ALL SECURITIES generated as a result of this matter ...”.

[27] This document thus does not simply claim to discharge Ms. Landry’s debts. It also contains a counter-attack.

[28] OPCA litigants are known for making false property claims on bases like this, for example: Myers v Blackman, 2014 ONSC 5226, 2 PPSAC (4th) 318.

[29] Needless to say, there is no such secret account, estate, or trust, brimming with cash, ready for the plucking. The entire “birth bond” concept is false. As Rooke ACJ observed in Meads v Meads, at para 543:

It is very unfortunate that any person would be so gullible as to believe that free money can be obtained by these theatrics, but nevertheless some, like Mr. Meads, appear unable to resist the temptation of wealth without obligation. One can only hope that in the future OPCA gurus will find A4V less attractive, and their risk-loving customers instead invest in alternative forms of speculation, such as lottery tickets, which provide infinitely better prospects for return.

[30] Like the Strawman, the idea that a birth certificate has special properties beyond documenting a birth is an idea which is so bad that simply raising this concept creates a presumption of bad faith, abusive litigation: Fiander v Mills, at paras 21, 37-40; Crossroads-DMD Mortgage Investment Corporation v Gauthier, 2015 ABQB 703 at para 47, 28 Alta LR (6th) 104; Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency), at para 73; Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 399 at para 27; d’Abadie v Her Majesty the Queen, 2018 ABQB 298 at paras 68-70; Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652 at paras 91-92. Ms. Landry has not rebutted that conclusion. This is a further strong indication that Ms. Landry’s litigation activity is abusive.

III. Appropriate Court Access Restrictions for Ms. Landry

[31] Landry #1, at paras 15-26 reviews the authority, relevant evidence, and factors that are applied by this Court when it considers whether to impose court access restrictions. In brief, the Court reviews litigation misconduct and other evidence to consider whether or not court access restrictions should be imposed to manage plausible future litigation misconduct with creative but proportionate steps: Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 651 at para 36, Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 288 at para 45.

[32] Ms. Landry’s employing of OPCA strategies is a well-established basis for this Court to intervene and impose court access restrictions. I have already determined that the OPCA scheme Ms. Landry sought to apply was based on Strawman Theory, birth bond birth certificates, and A4V. That conclusion established that Ms. Landry’s attempts to eliminate her debts at the June 5, 2018 hearing and via the annotated court order were made in bad faith, and for an ulterior motive.

[33] In Bossé v Farm Credit Canada, Richard J of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal denounced A4V schemes as being so absurd that that they are automatically suspect. In that case a couple claimed their “Private Registered Setoff Bonds” made the US government pay off over a million dollars of the Bossés’ debts from secret US Treasury accounts. Justice Richard wrote that just makes no sense:

... 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 Bossés knew this. ...

I conclude the same is true for Ms. Landry, her magic paperwork and the attached ounce of silver. Similarly, a few scribbles on a court order do not transform that document into a “special Deposit” that earns a free house.

[34] I conclude that Ms. Landry employing ‘money for nothing’ techniques which she knew or ought to have known had no basis in law is a strong basis for imposing court access restrictions.

[35] A second important point is that OPCA litigation has a political aspect. OPCA litigants are motivated by a kind of self-destructive extremist political ideology that is reinforced in highly introspective, introverted community ‘echo chambers’: Re Gauthier, at para 92. As I observed in 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee), 2017 ABQB 548 at paras 72-73, 283 ACWS (3d) 55:

Judicial and legal academic authorities uniformly identify OPCA narratives and their associated pseudolegal concepts as resting on and building from a foundation of paranoid and conspiratorial anti-government and anti-institutional political and social belief. These individuals are sometimes called ‘litigation terrorists’ for this reason. They may act for personal benefit, but they also do so with the belief they are justified and act lawfully when they injure others and disrupt court processes. Persons who advance OPCA litigation to harm others have no place in Canada’s courts. ... Their next target can be anyone who crosses their path - government officials or organizations, peace officers, lawyers, judges, business employees - and who then offends the OPCA litigant’s skewed perspectives.

These individuals believe they have a right to attack others via the courts, they like the idea of doing that, and they view their litigation targets as bad actors who deserve punishment. ...

[36] The SPECIAL PRIVATE NOTICE indicates that Ms. Landry, through her proxy Mr. Clifford, intends to use OPCA strategies to conduct pseudolegal attacks on others: police officers, Scotia, and its president.

[37] This combination of factors predicts Ms. Landry will plausibly engage in OPCA litigation, potentially against anyone who offends her beliefs in what are supposedly are her rights, and under an imaginary law. On that basis I conclude that broad court access restrictions are warranted, particularly since a requirement to obtain leave is a minor and proportionate imposition on Ms. Landry’s access to the court: Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 651 at paras 32-33; Wong v Giannacopoulos, 2011 ABCA 277 at para 8, 515 AR 58; Canada v Olumide, 2017 FCA 42 at paras 26-29, [2017] GSTC 17; Bossé v Immeubles Robo Ltée, 2018 CanLII 71340 at para 38 (NBCA).

[38] I therefore on my own motion and under this Court’s inherent jurisdiction order:

1. Vanessa Amy Landry is a vexatious litigant and is prohibited from commencing, or attempting to commence, or continuing, any appeal, action, application, or proceeding:

(i) in the Alberta Court of Appeal, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, or the Provincial Court of Alberta, and

(ii) on her own behalf or on behalf of any other person or estate,

without an order of the Court in which the proceeding is conducted.

2. Vanessa Amy Landry must describe herself in any application for leave or document to which this Order applies as “Vanessa Amy Landry”, and not by using initials, an alternative name structure, or a pseudonym.

3. To commence or continue an appeal, application, or other proceeding in the Alberta Court of Appeal, Vanessa Amy Landry must apply to a single appeal judge for leave to commence or continue the proceeding, and

(i) The application for leave must be made in writing by sending a Letter addressed to the Case Management Officer explaining why the new proceedings or the continuance of an existing proceedings is justified.

(ii) The Letter shall not exceed five double-spaced pages.

(iii) The Letter is to contain no attachments other than, for a new proceeding, the proposed notice of appeal, application or other proceeding.

(iv) If the single appeal judge requires further information, he or she can request it.

(v) The single appeal judge can respond to and dispose of the leave application in writing, or hold the application in open Court where it shall be recorded.

(vi) If the single appeal judge grants Vanessa Amy Landry leave to commence an appeal, Vanessa Amy Landry may be required to apply for permission to appeal under Rule 14.5(1)(j). An application for permission to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Alberta Rules of Court and must be accompanied by an affidavit:

a) attaching a copy of the Order restricting Vanessa Amy Landry’s access to the Alberta Court of Appeal;

b) attaching a copy of the appeal, application, or proceeding that Vanessa Amy Landry proposes to file;

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

d) indicating whether Vanessa Amy Landry has ever sued some or all of the respondents previously in any jurisdiction or Court, and if so providing full particulars.

4. To commence or continue an appeal, application, or other proceeding in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench or the Provincial Court of Alberta, Vanessa Amy Landry shall submit an application to the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate:

(i) 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.

(ii) Any application shall be made in writing.

(iii) Any application to commence or continue any appeal, action, application, or proceeding must be accompanied by an affidavit:

a) attaching a copy of the Order restricting Vanessa Amy Landry’s access to the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Provincial Court of Alberta;

b) attaching a copy of the appeal, pleading, application, or process that Vanessa Amy Landry proposes to issue or file or continue;

c) 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;

d) indicating whether Vanessa Amy Landry has ever sued some or all of the defendants or respondents previously in any jurisdiction or Court, and if so providing full particulars;

e) 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

f) undertaking to diligently prosecute the proceeding.

(iv) The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate, may:

a) 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:

(1) the involved potential parties;

(2) other relevant persons identified by the Court; and

(3) the Attorney Generals of Alberta and Canada;

b) respond to and dispose of the leave application in writing; and

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

5. Leave to commence or continue proceedings may be given on conditions, including the posting of security for costs, and proof of payment of all prior cost awards.

6. An application that is dismissed may not be made again, directly or indirectly.

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

8. Vanessa Amy Landry is prohibited from:

(i) providing legal advice, preparing documents intended to be filed in court for any person other than herself, and filing or otherwise communicating with any court, except on her own behalf; and

(ii) acting as an agent, next friend, McKenzie Friend (from McKenzie v McKenzie, [1970] 3 All ER 1034 (UK CA) and Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, s 2.22-2.23), or any other form of representative in court proceedings before the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal.

9. The Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal shall refuse to accept or file any documents or other materials from Vanessa Amy Landry, unless:

(i) Vanessa Amy Landry is a named party in the action in question, and

(ii) if the documents and other materials are intended to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding, Vanessa Amy Landry has been granted leave to take that step by the Court.

10. All fee waivers granted to Vanessa Amy Landry by the Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal are revoked.

11. The Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal shall refuse any fee waiver application by Vanessa Amy Landry unless Vanessa Amy Landry has a court order which authorizes that step.

12. The Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Appeal and the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of Alberta, or his or her designate, may, on his or her own authority, vary the terms of this Order in relation to the requirement, procedure or any preconditions to obtain leave to initiate or continue litigation in their respective Courts.

13. The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket #1803 04569 Order titled “Interim Court Filing Restrictions For Vanessa Landry”, dated October 16, 2018, is vacated immediately.

[39] The Court will prepare and file the appropriate order to reflect this decision. Ms. Landry’s approval of this order is dispensed with per Rule 9.4(2)(c).

IV. Dean Christopher Clifford, OPCA Guru

[40] The SPECIAL PRIVATE NOTICE identifies the person supplying the materials for Ms. Landry’s litigation, Dean Christopher Clifford. While Mr. Clifford is not mentioned in Meads v Meads, he is (or was) one of the leading personalities and promoters in the Freeman-on-the-Land movement circa 2012-2013: Donald J Netolitzky, “The History of the Organized Pseudolegal Argument Phenomenon in Canada” (2016) 53(3) Alta L Rev 609 at 626-627; Barbara Perry, David C Hofmann & Ryan Scrivens, “Broadening our Understanding of Anti-Authority Movements in Canada” (2017) University of Waterloo TSAS Working Paper No 17-02 at 16-18, 46-48.

[41] Mr. Clifford’s ideas work no better for him than anyone else. In November 2013 he was arrested at the end of one of his seminars and spent over a year in remand prior to him being convicted of firearms and drug offenses: R v Clifford (12 January 2016), Winnipeg CR14-01-33786 (Man QB). Clifford received a three year sentence.

[42] Mr. Clifford tried to make OPCA-based counterattacks during this period. In addition to a number of unsuccessful habeas corpus and stay applications, Mr. Clifford said he is exempt from and immune from Canadian law (Clifford v Her Majesty the Queen, 2014 MBQB 192 at para 7), and sued the Crown Prosecutor, police officers, and several judges, claiming (para 7):

... the individual defendants all intentionally and deliberately misrepresented his identity in order to defraud him and violate his common law and natural rights, and that they participated in and perpetrated the fraud of misrepresenting his identity for their own unjust enrichment, personal gain and political motives.

[43] In an Affidavit from that proceeding dated July 18, 2014, Mr. Clifford said he, “a non-resident” “sovereign man on the land”, was not “subject to the de facto and foreign democratic society and terrorist regime of CANADA, an organization of the Defendant, Her Majesty the Queen.” Mr. Clifford had opted out of Canadian law and government jurisdiction via the (purportedly) binding authority of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and was owed, as of May 31, 2015, a total of $225.6 million in pre-agreed billings, at “the agreed upon rate of $50,000.00 per hour, being non-negotiable.”

[44] Not surprisingly, the Court rejected Mr. Clifford’s legal claims, and his lawsuit was struck out as being devoid of any merit. Instead of receiving his $225.6 million, Mr. Clifford was ordered to pay $9,048.25 in costs to those he had sued.

[45] Around the same time Mr. Clifford filed a Statement of Claim in Federal Court: Clifford v Her Majesty the Queen (8 April 2014), Winnipeg T-869-14 (FC). This action claimed Mr. Clifford is immune from any action of the Canadian government, and he, “a man acting in no legal capacity”, has been incarcerated and kidnapped on no legal basis, and “... the private business and reputation of the private-man, Dean C. Clifford, has been completely destroyed ...” by this “blatant fraud”. On this basis Mr. Clifford sought to have his Manitoba criminal litigation quashed, his immediate release, and that Mr. Clifford be paid $50,000.00 per hour as invoiced “... in accordance with [Mr. Clifford’s] terms and conditions of association with [Canada].”

[46] Canada moved to strike out this Statement of Claim on the basis the Statement of Claim asserted no cause of action, and was in the wrong forum. Prothonotary Lafrenière, as he then was, granted that application and concluded Mr. Clifford’s litigation “breaches the rules of pleadings in every respect”, made allegations that were “... so bereft of any details that they are impossible to respond to in any meaningful way”, and were an abuse of process: Clifford v Her Majesty the Queen (16 May 2014), Winnipeg T869-14 (FC). Costs were again awarded against Mr. Clifford.

[47] These failures and incarceration apparently had a negative effect on Mr. Clifford’s credibility as a legal authority. That said, it now appears Mr. Clifford has resurfaced, and resumed his promotion of pseudolegal schemes.

[48] In Meads v Meads, Rooke ACJ concluded that “gurus” like Mr. Clifford “... are nothing more than conmen.”: para 85. Some, like Mr. Clifford in this action, “... are ‘legal busybodies’ who attempt to introduce themselves into other proceedings.”: para 157.

[49] He observed at paras 669-670 that gurus “... who purposefully promote and teach proven ineffective techniques that purport to defeat valid state and court authorities, and circumvent social obligations” are Dante’s “evil counsellors” and “the falsifiers”, who profit at the expense of others.

[50] That is what Mr. Clifford has done to Ms. Landry. He has used her, and, presumably, insisted on the services of himself and his corporation be paid, perhaps also in pieces of silver. Ms. Landry got no benefit from Mr. Clifford’s participation in her foreclosure. Instead, Mr. Clifford’s participation could only have made things worse.

[51] Mr. Clifford is, at a minimum, a participant in Ms. Landry’s scheme. However, I conclude his role is that he was the directing mind behind the A4V debt elimination scam. Ms. Landry in Court could not explain what “the remedy” was, and mouthed non-responsive replies when asked to explain her objectives and documents.

[52] This is not unusual. As Associate Chief Justice Rooke in Meads v Meads, at para 167 observed:

What is crucial is to understand that an OPCA litigant in court is likely operating under instructions obtained from a commercial source, and has been told to conduct and frame his or her court activities in an unnatural, incorrect, and distorted context. The litigant is instructed to follow a script that is, in all probability illogical, and certainly contrary to law. The OPCA litigant may not be able to explain his or her actions for the very same reason that a judge is confused by the documents, submissions, and in-court conduct they provide. Neither really understands what is going on, but for different reasons.

[53] Now that it is apparent that Mr. Clifford is marketing OPCA ‘money for nothing’ “remedies” in Alberta, I conclude that it is foreseeable that Mr. Clifford and his corporation will engage in future litigation misconduct in Alberta courts, either directly, as some form of agent, or as a purported holder of a “100% Priority Lien Interest”. He might involve himself with any like-minded person and their disputes with state and institutional actors. Mr. Clifford is obviously ideologically aligned with the usual Freeman-on-the-Land anti-state and anti-institutional conspiratorial beliefs. He even makes money off that.

[54] I therefore conclude that Mr. Clifford and his corporation should be made subject to strict court access restrictions in all Alberta courts. No notice is required in these circumstances: Re Boisjoli; Re Gauthier. Mr. Clifford cannot be surprised that he is being made subject to court access restrictions for what he knows is unlawful conduct. His litigation history establishes that.

[55] Instead of a simple leave application, I conclude that for persons like Mr. Clifford, who engage in the trade of pseudolaw, that a simple leave application requirement is not an adequate response. Instead, Mr. Clifford and his corporation may only apply for leave where that application is submitted by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta, or another person authorized to represent Mr. Clifford or his corporation in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench pursuant to the Legal Profession Act, RSA 2000, c L-8. This is an analogous basis to the Court’s established practice of taking this additional but proportionate court access restriction step when persons attempt to enforce fictional OPCA claims on a target: Re Boisjoli; Re Gauthier; Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 834.

[56] I conclude this restriction should also apply to the Criminal Code, ss 504, 507.1 private information process: Lee v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ABQB 464 at paras 160-164; Hill v Bundon, 2018 ABQB 506 at para 125, Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association v Bourque, 2018 ABQB 821 at para 204; and McKechnie (Re), 2018 ABQB 677 at para 37; Lymer (Re), at para 135.

[57] I therefore on my own motion and under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction order:

1. Dean Christopher Clifford and 4240944 Manitoba Limited are vexatious litigants, and are prohibited, under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, from commencing, or attempting to commence, or continuing any appeal, action, application, or proceeding:

(i) in the Alberta Court of Appeal, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, or the Provincial Court of Alberta, and

(ii) on their own behalf or on behalf of any other person or estate,

without an order of the Court in which the proceeding is conducted.

2. Dean Christopher Clifford must describe himself, in the application for leave or document to which this Order applies, as “Dean Christopher Clifford”, and not by using initials, an alternative name structure, or a pseudonym.

3. 4240944 Manitoba Limited must describe itself, in the application for leave or document to which this Order applies, as “4240944 Manitoba Limited”, and not by using an alternative name structure or tradename.

4. Any application for leave by Dean Christopher Clifford or 4240944 Manitoba Limited will only be accepted if Dean Christopher Clifford or 4240944 Manitoba Limited are represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta, or another person authorized to represent Dean Christopher Clifford or 4240944 Manitoba Limited in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench pursuant to the Legal Profession Act, RSA 2000, c L-8.

5. To commence or continue an appeal, application, or other proceeding in the Alberta Court of Appeal Dean Christopher Clifford or 4240944 Manitoba Limited must apply to a single appeal judge for leave to commence or continue the proceeding, and

(i) The application for leave must be made in writing by sending a Letter addressed to the Case Management Officer explaining why the new proceedings or the continuance of an existing proceeding is justified.

(ii) The Letter shall not exceed five double-spaced pages.

(iii) The Letter is to contain no attachments other than, for a new proceeding, the proposed notice of appeal, application or other proceeding.

(iv) If the single appeal judge requires further information, he or she can request it.

(v) The single appeal judge can respond to and dispose of the leave application in writing, or hold the application in open Court where it shall be recorded.

(vi) If the single appeal judge grants Dean Christopher Clifford or 4240944 Manitoba Limited leave to commence an appeal, Dean Christopher Clifford or 4240944 Manitoba Limited may be required to apply for permission to appeal under Rule 14.5(1)(j). An application for permission to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Alberta Rules of Court and must be accompanied by an affidavit:

a) attaching a copy of the Order restricting Dean Christopher Clifford’s and 4240944 Manitoba Limited’s access to the Alberta Court of Appeal;

b) attaching a copy of the appeal, application, or proceeding that Dean Christopher Clifford or 4240944 Manitoba Limited proposes to file;

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

d) indicating whether Dean Christopher Clifford or 4240944 Manitoba Limited has ever sued some or all of the respondents previously in any jurisdiction or Court, and if so providing full particulars.

5. To commence or continue an appeal, application, or other proceeding in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench or the Provincial Court of Alberta, Dean Christopher Clifford or 4240944 Manitoba Limited shall submit an application to the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate:

(i) 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.

(ii) Any application shall be made in writing.

(iii) Any application to commence or continue any appeal, action, application, or proceeding must be accompanied by an affidavit:

a) attaching a copy of the Order arising from this Decision, restricting Dean Christopher Clifford’s and 4240944 Manitoba Limited’s access to the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Provincial Court of Alberta;

b) attaching a copy of the appeal, pleading, application, or process that Dean Christopher Clifford or 4240944 Manitoba Limited proposes to issue or file or continue;

c) 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;

d) indicating whether Dean Christopher Clifford or 4240944 Manitoba Limited has ever sued some or all of the defendants or respondents previously in any jurisdiction or Court, and if so providing full particulars;

e) 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

f) undertaking to diligently prosecute the proceeding.

(iv) The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate, may:

a) 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:

(1) the involved potential parties;

(2) other relevant persons identified by the Court; and

(3) the Attorney Generals of Alberta and Canada;

b) respond to and dispose of the leave application in writing; and

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

6. Leave to commence or continue proceedings may be given on conditions, including the posting of security for costs, and proof of payment of all prior cost awards.

7. An application that is dismissed may not be made again, directly or indirectly.

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

9. Dean Christopher Clifford is prohibited from:

(i) providing legal advice, preparing documents intended to be filed in court for any person other than himself, and filing or otherwise communicating with any court, except on his own behalf; and

(ii) acting as an agent, next friend, McKenzie Friend (from McKenzie v McKenzie, [1970] 3 All ER 1034 (UK CA) and Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, ss 2.22-2.23), or any other form of representative in court proceedings before the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal.

10. No information shall be received by a justice from Dean Christopher Clifford per Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 504 unless Dean Christopher Clifford is represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta, or another person authorized to represent Dean Christopher Clifford in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench pursuant to the Legal Profession Act, RSA 2000, c L-8.

11. The Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal shall refuse to accept or file any documents or other materials from Dean Christopher Clifford, unless:

(i) Dean Christopher Clifford is a named party in the action in question, and

(ii) if the documents and other materials are intended to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding, Dean Christopher Clifford has been granted leave to take that step by the Court.

12. The Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal shall refuse to accept or file any documents or other materials from 4240944 Manitoba Limited, unless:

(i) 4240944 Manitoba Limited is a named party in the action in question, and

(ii) if the documents and other materials are intended to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding, 4240944 Manitoba Limited has been granted leave to take that step by the Court.

13. All fee waivers granted to Dean Christopher Clifford and 4240944 Manitoba Limited by the Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal are revoked.

14. The Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal shall refuse any fee waiver application by Dean Christopher Clifford or 4240944 Manitoba Limited unless Dean Christopher Clifford or 4240944 Manitoba Limited has a court order which authorizes that step.

15. The Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Appeal and the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of Alberta, or his or her designate, may, on his or her own authority, vary the terms of this Order in relation to the requirement, procedure or any preconditions to obtain leave to initiate or continue litigation in their respective Courts.

[58] The Court will prepare and file the appropriate Order to reflect this decision. Mr. Clifford and 4240944 Manitoba Limit’s approval of this order is dispensed with per Rule 9.4(2)(c). Service of this order may be made by regular mail to Mr. Clifford and 4240944 Manitoba Limited or via email to 4240944manitobalimited@gmail.com.

[59] Though it does not arise on the facts of this court access restriction review, it occurs to me that when someone participates in an OPCA scheme, to argue a matter, or as Mr. Clifford has done, to insert himself or herself into the litigation to further a pseudolegal scheme, then a court which awards costs against the OPCA litigant can and should make both the OPCA litigant and OPCA facilitator/representative jointly and severally responsible for those amounts. That step is an appropriate one, given the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and duty to scrutinize non-litigants who intrude into actions as abusive representatives, and third party “busybodies”: R v Dick, 2002 BCCA 27, 163 BCAC 62; Peddle v Alberta Treasury Branches, 2004 ABQB 608, 133 ACWS (3d) 25; Hill v Hill, 2008 SKQB 11, 306 Sask R 259; Perreal v Knibb, 2014 ABQB 15, 8 Alta LR (6th) 55; Law Society of British Columbia v Boyer, 2016 BCSC 342; Gauthier v Starr.

[60] Naturally, in a situation such as this, Mr. Clifford would not be able to shelter his liability behind 4240944 Manitoba Limited: Myers v Blackman, at paras 39-41. A corporation may not be used as a shield for fraudulent or improper conduct. A4V OPCA litigation qualifies as both.

V. Conclusion

[61] Ms. Landry, Mr. Clifford, and 4240944 Manitoba Limited are declared to be vexatious litigants and are subject to court access restrictions.

[62] I direct that the annotated June 5, 2018 Order in Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Landry is to be placed in the Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Landry file, but only for the purposes of providing evidence of Ms. Landry and Mr. Clifford’s OPCA activities. This document has no effect on the litigation beyond the negative implications that flow from that attempt to abuse the Court’s processes.

[63] In Landry #1, at paras 9-10, I noted that Ms. Landry is currently involved in two other debt collection actions in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. I hope when she receives this decision she will carefully consider the law I have explained, read Meads v Meads and other jurisprudence I have cited, and investigate for herself whether Mr. Clifford’s history indicates he is a legal expert, or a pseudolegal charlatan. I believe no one would dispute that it would be unfortunate if Ms. Landry were to incur further unnecessary court costs, interest charges, penalties, and other expenses due to her employing worthless pseudolegal garbage. But that choice is hers, alone.

Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 21th day of November, 2018.

D.R.G. Thomas J.C.Q.B.A.

Appearances:

Zachary Soprovich

Duncan Craig LLP

for the Plaintiff





Appendix “A”: “SPECIAL PRIVATE NOTICE CEASE TRESPASS ORDER BREACH OF TRUST”

4240944 Manitoba Limited

Office of the President

Private Box 123, Matlock, Manitoba

[ROC2BO]

August 30, 2018

SPECIAL PRIVATE NOTICE

CEASE TRESPASS ORDER

BREACH OF TRUST

To: Her Majesty The Queen in right of Alberta c/o Solicitor General/Trustee

Fax: 780.422.6621 Email: ministryofjustice@gov.ab.ca

424 Legistature Building, 10800 97th Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T5K 286

Zachary Soprovich/Duncan Craig/Trustee

Fax: 780.969.6370 Email: zsoprovich@dcllp.com

Brian Porter/President/Bank of Nova Scotia/ Trustee

Fax: 416.866.5090 Email: unknown

From: Dean Clifford/President/4240944 Manitoba Limited/Executor/Secured Party Lienor

Private Phone: 294.951.5069 Email: 4240944manitobalimited@gmail.com

Vanessa Landry/VANESSA LANDRY LIFE ESTATE/True Beneficiary

Phone: Private Email: Private

Re: VANESSA AMY LANDRY Birth Certificate Trust Registered Security No. [redacted]

VANESSA LANDRY LIFE ESTATE Registration Number RN 233 361 577 CA

Scotiabank Mortgage Corporation - Mortgage Loan # 263004-1

Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta - File Number 1803 04569

"Equity regards the beneficiary as the true owner"

"Equity will not allow a trust to fail for want of a trustee"

"Equity will not aid a Volunteer"

This Organization is the Secured Party Lienor with 100% Priority Lien Interest under Private Security Agreement in all Trust Property in Birth Certificate Trust VANESSA AMY LANDRY Registration No. [redacted] Declared by the Grantor for the exclusive Private Use and Private Benefit of the True Beneficiary (see above), without impeachment for waste, which this Organization Acts for and on behalf of as Executor of the Expressed Wishes of the True Beneficiary.

This Organization confirms it is in possession of a Notarized Private Security Agreement and that all Private Property Rights in the above named Birth Certificate Cestui Que Trust has been Assigned to a Private and Sole Beneficiary, the True Beneficiary, and has been deposited into the Trust Res of Private Estate RN 233 361 577 CA.

You are on Special Notice THAT:

1. Scotiabank Mortgage Corporation Mortgage Loan #263004-1 (the Mortgage) was a Special [additional text is apparently cut off the document].

ii. The Bank is in Possession of the Original Security Instrument and is identified as Trustee in this matter (Incident Number RN-233-361-577-CA-002). The Bank has now forcibly taken Possession of the Property (#2 16004 - 54 Street NW) contrary to the Expressed Wishes of the True Beneficiary, which we believe constitutes a breach of trust; and

iii. The Mortgage and all Rights, Rents, Interest and Accruals is hereby deposited into VANESSA LANDRY LIFE ESTATE - RN 233 361 577 CA as Trust Res; and

iv. This Incident and the Harm caused is declared to be an equitable Mortgage (Mortgage No. RN-233-361-577-CA-002) and it has been deposited as Trust Res into VANESSA LANDRY LIFE ESTATE - RN 233 361 577 CA; and

v. We claim the equitable right to redemption and require that the Bank either return possession of the Property (#2 16004 54 Street, Edmonton, Alberta) to the True Beneficiary immediately and without delay and set off the alleged debt with the Security Instrument which was intended to be deposited in favour of the True Beneficiary, which it apparently was not, reimburse the True Beneficiary for all payments made on the debt resulting from the Bank not crediting the account with the security deposit, and tum over the Interest, Rents and Accruals from the securities generated from the Property of the True Beneficiary; or the Bank is required to immediately provide a full accounting of the value of all securities, which also includes the Principal Deposit and all Rent, Interest and Accruals, close the account and send payment to this Office without delay. Failure to do one or the other, immediately, constitutes another breach of trust; and

2. And THAT the Office of Solicitor General for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta (Solicitor General) is hereby Assigned as Secured Holder of the Original and Accepted Birth Certificate Registration No. [redacted], sent by Secured and Registered Mail# RN 233 361 577 CA to the above listed Office Address of 424 Legislature Building, 10800 97th Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T5K 286, with a silver dollar for Consideration, as well as a copy of the Private Security Agreement, to Act for the True Beneficiary in this and all other matters, and the Solicitor General is on Special Notice THAT:

i. The resulting Trust is identified as VANESSA LANDRY LIFE ESTATE RN 233 361 577 CA and any party who wishes to disclaim the Trust has 30 days to do so; and

ii. All Property, being a right of any kind and description whether corporeal or incorporeal, held in Birth Certificate Trust Registration Number 1985-02-003595 is hereby deposited into VANESSA LANDRY LIFE ESTATE - RN 233 361 577 CA (Life Estate) as Trust Res upon consideration of one silver dollar, attached to Birth Certificate and reposited by Registered Mail No. RN 233 361 577 CA, to convert the temporary Cestui Que Trust for permanent use, and is now indefeasible equitable title to Private Property, for Private Use and Private Benefit for the True Beneficiary of the Life Estate, good against all the world, whom this Organization Acts for; and

iii. The Solicitor General is hereby granted full power of attorney to Act for the True Beneficiary as Solicitor and Trustee for the purpose of settling all past, present and future debts in good faith and in keeping with the doctrines of equity, winding up the legal estate for reposit into the Life Estate, and is entrusted and Mandated with the Duty and Obligation of protecting and enforcing all Lien Interests and Private Property Rights of the True Beneficiary of the Life Trust whether provincially, federally or internationally; and

iv. The Solicitor General is hereby given Mandate to maintain possession of the Original Security Instrument (collateral) Birth Certificate Registration [redacted] and [additional text apparently cut off this document] obligations transfer to; and

THAT all Parties are on Private Special Notice that the Trust has been Declared and Expressed, and this is your Notice to Act accordingly; and

THAT all correspondence regarding all Trust Matters for this Life Estate are to be sent to this Office Privately and at all times the True Beneficiary is to be protected and kept confidential; and

THAT affidavits are currently being prepared regarding the treatment of the True Beneficiary during Incident Number RN-233-361-577-CA-002 on August 30th, 2018, by the Edmonton Police Service/Trustees (police incident number 186-249-84) and Officer C. Luimes, whos Birth Certificate Trust is hereby Attached and Liened as collateral and surety for the harm to the True Beneficiary and the yet unnamed Officer who violently and physically attacked the True Beneficiary while in the lawful Enjoyment and Use of Private Trust Property, and placed her into custody, for which that Officers Birth Certificate Trust is also hereby Attached and Liened as collateral and surety for the harm caused to the True Beneficiary; and

THAT the True Beneficiary contiunues to be harmed and is without anywhere to live while the Bank absconds with her securities and the Property (#2 16004 54 Street, Edmonton, Alberta). All audio and video of Incident Number RN-233-361-577-CA-002, for which the Bank is being held absolutely liable, has been forwarded to this Office. This is also Notice that all the Banks assets past, present and furture are hereby Attached Liened as Surety in this matter as well as the Birth Certificate Trust of the President, Brian Porter, under Directors Liability, and all liened Parties are Liened for four times the sum certain value of ALL SECURITIES generated as a result of this matter; and

THAT this Agreement is Declared to be an Equitable Mortgage ( Mortgage No. RN-233-361-577-CA-003 ) and it is hereby deposited as Trust Res of the Life Estate; and

THAT the legal title is vested in personal representatives who hold it in trust as fee simple owners; and

THAT in consideration of the denial of civilian due process rights and protections all Parties named are subject to unlimited attachment to Liens, Bonds and Charters.

Govern yourself accordingly,

“He who seeks equity must bring equity”

[signature]

Dean Clifford/President

4240944 Manitoba Ltd

Secured Party Lienor

Party Undertaking Promise

Solicitor General

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Alberta