Servus Credit Union Ltd v Parlee, 2015

7/25/2019 Servus Credit Union Ltd v Parlee, 2015

1/33

Court of Queen

s Bench of Alberta

Citation: Servus Credit Union Ltd v Parlee, 2015 ABQB 700

Date:20151105Docket:1504 00261

Registry:Grande Prairie

Between:

Servus Credit Union Ltd.

Plaintif- and -

Alfred Philip Parlee and Clara Vivian Parlee

Defendants

_______________________________________________________

Memorandum of Decisionof

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


2/33

Page: 2

A. Quo WarrantoApplication ................................................................................................. 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 WarrantoDocuments ................................................................... 21

1. Foisted Quo WarrantoChallenge ..................................................................................... 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 propertyformerly 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 implementfutile, pseudo-legal schemes to save their home. Instead it cost them not only their home but alsowhatever equity they had.

[2] There are some apparent winners. These are the scam artists who preyed on the Parleesand 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 thematerials received by the Court. There is an accompanying cast of lesser characters, including anAlberta lawyer who may have breached his professional duties by endorsing legally ineffect ive


3/33

Page: 3

and fraudulent documents as a notary, thereby adding an air of legitimacy to documents that areprofoundly at odds with any accepted legal ideas: see Re Boisjol i, 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 commentedon (and denounced) this specific Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [OPCA]

money for nothing scheme: the WeReBank.

[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 byscammers 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 tothose 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 propertynear Sexsmith, Alberta. The Parlees had been given 30 days to exit the property. They did not doso, 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 thelender. Rules 9.27 and 9.28 deal with removal, storage and sale of personal property andabandoned 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 expressedsurprise and concern that this was a public hearing. He was a private man and said this hearingshould 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. Parlees materials I asked if his objective was to nullify MasterSmarts foreclosure order. Mr. Parlee confirmed that was a part of his intention, but he alsowanted the Court:

... to identify the trust, and to discuss other relevant trusts relating to the subjectmatter. 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


4/33

Page: 4

board, the bank, the Servus Credit Union Ltd., the taxation officer, and theprosecutor. 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 thesesubject 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 alsoorder 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 havereceived 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 in2013 and the second, which appears to be a duplicate, in 2015: I TA v Parl ee, 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. Hisauthority 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 wouldlook after everything. He argued that UCC 3603 and its Bills of Exchange Actequivalentmeant the Parlees debt was discharged. He concluded:

I made order as a private person. ... Sir, I order this case closed, and allsettlements looked after. Im 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. Parlees orders. I dismissed Mr.Parlees 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 theParlees 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 Countyproperty taxes for the Parlee Lands. Failure to do was a default on the Mortgage. The Parlees didnot pay their property taxes for several years and the County registered a tax notification againsttitle. 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.


5/33

Page: 5

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

... in good faith by a signed acceptance Tender Instrument as per Canada Bills ofExchange 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 January17, 2015.

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

My Line of Credit was in good standing and payments were made faithful ly formany 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 seekcompensation from all parties jointly and severally. I believe these actions againstme 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 ofExchange 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 HeinmanSenior 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 andnullificat ion 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 discussionwith [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 ofMoney), Black's Law 9th Edition (payment (14c)(Acceptance) in Regard to

Correspondence received May 15, 2015 and sent May 11, 2015, Non Acceptanceof 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 inthe 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.


6/33

Page: 6

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

Greg Schindels Affidavit of Value consisting of a May 25, 2015 exterior appraisal of theParlee 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 Bosers Affidavit of Default documenting the history and state of the Overdraft

Agreement and related Mortgage. The Parlees last payment was in March, 2015. Ademand letter was issued on March 30, 2015. The Mortgage includes as terms that theParlees 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 costsassociated with enforcing the Mortgage on a solicitor and own client indemnitybasis.

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

The Boser affidavit includes unorthodox documents received from the Parlees and copiesof related communications. These are discussed in more detail below in Part IVB2 of thisjudgment: The WeReBank.

[24] On June 10, 2015, Mr. Parlee wrote to Servus requesting information on what stepsServus 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 Act1888 and the UN Convention 1988 onInternational 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. Parlees explanation of the WeRe Bank and WeRe Cheque wasgobbledygook;

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 forsale by tender.

The next hearing was scheduled for August 13, 2015. Mr. Parlees 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 consideredWeRe 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


7/33

Page: 7

tacit agreement through acquiescence settling the dispute with Servus over the WeRe Cheque inthe 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 generalsubjects:

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 MYPRIVATE PROPERTY alleging misconduct by counsel for Servus, demanding that he

be disbarred for intimidation and unethical practice, $15 million in damages, and I orderthis 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 ofName and Birth Certificate are filed with the Court and are notarized

and authenticated ...

This issue of trespassing and unethical behaviour has caused damage tothe owner of my Estate and created damage on my PRIVATE

PROPERTY. This is unacceptable and requires compensation. No-body orno-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 OFTRESPASS ON MY PRIVATE PROPERTY that repeats the content of the July22 Notice.

[28] After hearing the somewhat cryptic submissions from Mr. Parlee concerning ownershipissues, foreclosure was ordered by Master Smart on August 13, 2015. Master Smart rejected Mr.

Parlees submission that his title to the Parlee Lands could not be challenged. The Parlees had 30days 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 Warrantoprocess were in twoAffidavits 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 thatplaces 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 Smartdid 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


8/33

Page: 8

337 and a letter from Servus counsel that attaches the August 13, 2015 order. The letteris 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 PHILIPPARLEE, Indemnitee to the Indemnifier, the Court Clerk or agents. This is a

SPECIAL DEPOSIT to ZERO, SETTLE, and CLOSE ... COURT ORDERFile # 1504 00261. The Bond instructs it shall be Ledgered as an ASSET for theneeds of the Court of Queens 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 PARLEEfor any legal action, including criminal proceedings, for up to $10 million perlegal 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 10/15with Court of Queens 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 amauthorized to sign INDEMNITY BOND.

Material or evidence relied on: Authenticated Birth records and BIN numbersfiled with Court of Queens 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 thedocuments he filed after the August 13, 2015 foreclosure order as two separate applications:

1. a Quo Warrantoapplication to declare the August 13, 2015 foreclosure as nulland void because it was made without jurisdiction, as supported by Mr. ParleesJuly 20 Affidavit documents; and

2. an application to reverse the foreclosure and return possession of the Parlee Landsto the Parlees because they had (over)satisfied the outstanding mortgage debt witha $1 million PRIVATE INDEMNITY BOND - NON-NEGOTIABLE, or via

other means in the July 20, 2015 Affidavit documents.


9/33

Page: 9

[33] These two issues are to some degree intertwined as Mr. Parlee responded to theforeclosure with a cascading series of applicat ions, and by the manner in which Mr. Parlee

advanced his application on October 1, 2015.

A. Quo WarrantoApplication

[34] I reject Mr. Parlees Quo Warrantoapplication. The application makes two demands:

l. That you, MASTER L.A. Smart, shall produce unto this living man, within theperiod 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 effectthat 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 strictcompliance with that oath of office in the ordinary course of your duties, withoutfear, favour or exception, under Rule of Law.

2. That you shall present and deliver by certified mail, to this living man, withinthe same 7 days, true and certified documentary evidence and proofs (i.e.

statement, acceptance or declaration) signed under my hand and seal, that I didgrant 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 honourany 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 Queens Bench.

[35] First, the Quo Warrantoapplication 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

Smarts 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 almostentirely vestigal, having been taken over by modern procedure. It was popular in the 13 th

century, being extensively used by Edward I, but the sun has set on it: Principles ofAdministrative Law, Jones and deVillars, 6th ed, p.676 and Holdsworth, A History of English

Law, l 229.

[37] Second, Mr. Parlees August 25, 2015 document reproduced in Appendix A(1) is afoisted 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. Parlees 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 ofthe first things taught in law school; even the greenest law student will have learned it in hersalad days (an offeror may not arbitrarily impose contractual liabilities upon an offeree merely

by proclaiming that silence shall be deemed consent); Fel thouse v Bi ndley, (1862) 11 CBNS869 Miller 35 MLR 489, Cheshi re, F i foot & Furmstons Law of Cont ract 15th ed., p.61.

[39] The same is true for judicial proceedings. Silence means victory only where that resultis provided by theRules, other legislation, or the common law. The procedure for judicial reviewin Alberta is governed by theRules. Mr. Parlees Quo Warrantojudgment (Appendix A(2))


10/33

Page: 10

has no legal force because his Quo Warrantoapplication (even if it had been filed correctly) hasnot been adjudicated by the appropriate body.

[40] A third basis on which Mr. Parlees Quo Warrantoapplication fails is that it is presumesthat 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 ofthese presumptively authorized parties: Fearn v Canada Customs, 2014 ABQB 114 at paras 83-

87, 586 AR 23.

[41] A fourth defect in Mr. Parlees Quo Warrantoapplication is that he demands proof that

he had agreed or consented to Master Smarts having jurisdiction over the foreclosure matter. Itseems 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 vLindsay, 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 Canadianlaw or, for that matter taxation: Meads v Meads, at paras 405-410; R v Jennings, 2007 ABCA 45at para 6, 72 WCB (2d) 360, Lynch v Canada North -West Land Co. (1891) 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 previouslyrejected as having no legal effect in Canada: Albert a Treasury Branches v Niel son, 2014 ABQB383 at paras 27-29, 14 CBR (6th) 177, per Smart, M. citing; Cl aeys v Her Majesty et al, 2013

MBQB 313 at para 18, 300 Man R (2d) 257.

[43] Mr. Parlees Quo Warrantomaterials 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, andentrusted 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 todemand it and does demand it is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to

imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

[44] Section 337s relevance is not obvious from Mr. Parlees materials or his submissions. Ithas no application to Mr. Parlees Quo Warrantoapplication. This provision was recently

interpreted in Ambrosi v Br i ti sh Columbia (At torney General ), 2014 BCCA 123 at para 53, 353BCAC 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 byvirtue of their employment. No prosecution has ever been conducted on the basis of s 337:

Ambrosi, at para 45.

[45] Mr. Parlees Quo Warrantomaterials 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 thatMr. Parlees explanation of the WeRe Bank is gobbledygook, and Master Smarts finding thatthe Parlees do not have some form of absolute, invulnerable title on the Parlee Lands.


11/33

Page: 11

[47] Mr. Parlees claims that he has, one way or another, already paid Servus everythingrequired 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, butit is involved in that scenario. The event that precipitated the foreclosure was Servuss responseto 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 Parleesto 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 paidon 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 isnow 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 pagesof legal info from F.L.S. on International Bills of Exchange and International

Promissory Notes which explains payment, acceptance, protest etc. Please readcarefully as there is liability for violation of International Law and UNConventions. 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 debtassumption 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 GodBless. [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 scamas 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 claimsthat bills and other financial obligations may be paid by drawing funds from a fictitiousgovernment-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 inWorld 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 variationwhere citizens serve as human collateral for bank-to-government loans indexed by birth

certificate numbers. The Freeman Legal Services letter also include other commonplace falseOPCA motifs such as the supremacy of commercial law and that the US Uniform Commercial

Codehas universal, transnational application: Meads v Meads, at para 150.

[52] The Parlees A4V payment to the County was worthless. As Richard JA observed inBossv Farm Credi t Canada, 2014 NBCA 34 at para 42, 419 NBR (2d) 1, leave denied [2014]

SCCA 354:


12/33

Page: 12

In my view, this is a case where [Farm Credit Canada] has been subjectedto 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 onsummary 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 orwithout any merit. Moreover, the Bosses made claims and advanced defences that

any reasonable person would know were devoid of merit. It defies logic that onecould print out bonds for any sum of money, let alone significant amounts, and

simply say to ones creditors here, go away, you have been paid.I amconvinced the Bosses knew this. Their persistence and the vigour with which theychallenged or sought to challenge virtually every ruling made against them

convinces me they engaged in litigation warfare against FCC as an obstructionisttactic in the hope they would deplete not necessarily FCCs 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 topay off the outstanding Mortgage/Line of Credit debt with a WeRe Cheque (July 20, 2015Affidavit, 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 thiscase Alfred Parlee. However, there are irregularities. WeRe Bank subtitles itself as Universal

Energy Transfer. Comparison of the Parlees WeRe Cheque with other WeRe Chequesdiscloses 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 institutionwith a similar name.

[56] Another irregularity documented in the June 23 Kendrick Affidavit is that the WeReBank 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 ownhighly secure format protocols: SWALLOW [Secure Waygate - Allow] and SPIT: [Secure

Protocol Information Transaction]. Peter of England instructs that banks are to send a scannedcopy of the WeRe Cheque to his email account and then Funds can be sent electronically ViaSWALLOW. The WeRe Bank warns:

The Bank MUSTpresent the cheque for clearing - no question, no debate, nowiggle room! Its the LAW.


13/33

Page: 13

[57] A printout of WeRe Bank website (June 23 Kendrick Affidavit, Exhibit E) could be asatire 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 SystemCreated 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 viciousDetermination 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

Arent you fed up with the constant hassle of never having enough of anything left at the end of

every month?

Arent 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 thegreedy 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 isnt 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!

Dont Fight it! Just Pay it!

The WeRe Bankchequeing account from ReMovement provides you with ASSURED DEBT

ERADICATION ON ALL PUBLIC SIDE OF THE LEDGER LIABILITIES ...


14/33

Page: 14

[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 timein 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 inRe, units of time and space:

WeRe Banksprincipal 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 createdthrough 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 Einsteins (e =mc), where m = mass, c = speed/time, e=energy (General Theory of Relativity).

This equation, upon reflection is the only SOUND premise for a unit ofexchange/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 hiscustomers 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 WeReBank 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 wellpromise 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 UKFinancial Conduct Authority issued a consumer notice that WeRe Banks payment scheme was

false and that its users could face legal consequences. The Central Bank of Ireland on October19, 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 Englands

communication indicates that the recipient of a WeRe Cheque is supposedly bound by theprocedures 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 anyforce and effect inside this country if the treatys provision are enacted as Canadian legislation orput in effect by government order: Capital Ci ti es Communi cati ons Inc. v Canadian Radio-

Television Commission, [1978] 2 SCR 141 at 188, 81 DLR (3d) 609. Canadian governments arefree 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 leastif he is attempting to identify The United Nations Convention on International Bills of Exchange


15/33

Page: 15

and International Promissory Notes(New York, 1988)) - Canada has not ratified that treaty. As forits 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 isperhaps even more ironic is that the home jurisdiction of Peter of England, the United Kingdom,

whichis not a participant in either treaty.

c. No Obligation to Accept Non-Cash Payments

[65] Beyond that, Servuss refusal to accept a particular form of payment is entirely legal. The

WeRe Bank materials (see Appendix D(2)) rely on an obiterstatement 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 PromissoryNote is to be treated as cash. It is to be honored unless there is some good reasonto the contrary.

[66] This exact quote and its potential relevance in Canada was recently considered by RookeACJ in Re Boisjol iat 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 theBills of Exchange Act. Rooke ACJ adopted the Scottish Court of Sessions (Scotlands highestcivil court) reasoning and conclusion in Chi ld Mai ntenance and Enforcement Commission v

Wilson, 2014 SLR 46 at paras 10-11, [2013] CSIH 95, where that Court came to a number ofconclusions, 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 noapplication 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 beforethe 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 InternationalCommon 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 LegalInformation Institute (BaiLII) website.

[68] Even if Lord Dennings dicta were binding on me, these facts are all good reasons torefuse Mr. Parlee and Peter of Englands 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/FiveLetters foisted unilateral agreement scheme that I reviewed in Bank of Montr eal v Rogozinsky,

2014 ABQB 771 at paras 55-73, (and see also Re Boisjol iat 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 unsuccessfullyattempted to pay a court judgment by writing Accepted for Value on the judgment and byattaching his birth certificate,, which was annotated with the instruction to Deposit to court


16/33

Page: 16

file: Underworl d Servi ces L td. v Money Stop L td., 2012 ABQB 327, 545 AR 102 (or contempthearing 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 documentsto the Canada Revenue Agency and is now in jail: Canada (Nati onal Revenue) v Money Stop

Ltd., 2013 FC 133 427 FTR 107; Canada (Nati onal Revenue) v Money Stop L td., 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 byemail 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 acourt of law and if he cannot he should IMMEDIATELY take legal advice fromthe 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 fullcommercial liability and penalty of perjury" why he claims the cheque is notgood?

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

We have become the Bankers Prayer - we are their life-line, without us their is nomore liquidity in the market

This is NOT freeman mumbo jumbo but international banking practice - tell

[email protected] then we'll assure his sorry ass that if he goes to court he'sgoing to get hammered!

...

He/they has/have to realize, eventually, these arrogant hyenas, that their arebigger 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 ... asthe 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


17/33

Page: 17

[74] These communications are a discomforting glimpse into how OPCA gurus work: makingfalse 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 hiscustomers, 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. Parlees July 20, 2015 Affidavit discloses a third OPCA scheme. It has a number of

ingredients:

1. a copy of Mr. Parlees Alberta birth certificate,

2. a copy of Mr. Parlees Alberta Registrat ion 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 withRecord number 010689 (and under the constructive trust(s); therebeing with the ministry, crown corporation, government agency or

SUCH (Schools, Universities, Colleges, Hospitals))) custody, withand all interest therein, bearing the seal of the ONTARIO

MINISTRY of GOVERNMENT SERVICES for good faith andcredit;

I, Alfred Philip Parlee accept these Titles under the legal Office for

ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE and under the will [of] grantor forclaim 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 dbaALFRED 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 forALFRED PHILIP PARLEE and under the will for grantor's claimfor 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 250660305which states:


18/33

Page: 18

I, Alfred Philip Parlee, being admitted to the profession of ownerand operator of the Office of ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE bearing

the Master Business License Number 250660305, business addressfor 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/ orPrivate Estate Administrative), do swear that I will diligently,

faithfully and to the best of my ability execute according to law theoffice of ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE.

7. Two Ontario business licenses, both for sole proprietorships named ALFREDPHILIP PARLEE. One lists the business activity as Diplomat. The other is anUnderwriter.

[76] Mr. Parlee is obviously attempting to create some kind of relationship between twoaspects 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 onnumerous occasions, including Meads v Meads, at paras 417-446, F iander v Mi ll s, 2015 NLCA31 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 9Affidavit 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 Queens Bench Clerk $1million 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 orother analogous resource operated by a government entity. This is probably why Mr. Parleementioned the treasury board in his Oct. 1, 2015 submiss ions. He believes that with the correct

combination of documents he can unlock an A4V account that will then pay the court andmake 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, thereis 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 contractrequires 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 perpetratoris 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 avoidforeclosure. 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


19/33

Page: 19

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 Ownershipstates:

I, Alfred P. Parlee, grantor, am the absolute and legal owner for the ALFRED

PHILIP PARLEE, (date for Registration June 7, 1949), Registration Number1949-08-010689, a corporate entity with Record number 010689 ...

Looking at this statement in a most generous light, one could arguably conclude that there was acorporation 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 legaleffect. 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 theconmen who sold them. This is the second reason why I dismissed Mr. Parlees October 1, 2015

application. He cannot represent his wife.

V. Conclusion and Costs

[83] I have provided a detailed review of Mr. Parlees 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 atvariance with any accepted legal principles that the Court might infer that they are advanced forulterior purposes. (e.g. F iander v Mil l s, 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 Boisjol i , Meads, above). The Parlees have lost enough already.

VI. Disposition

[85] Mr. Parlees application is dismissed.

Heard on the 1stday of October, 2015.Datedat the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 5th day of November, 2015.

W.S. SchlosserM.C.C.Q.B.A.


20/33

Page: 20

Appearances:

Dusten E. Stewart

Minsos Stewart Masson

for the Plaintiff

Alfred Philip Parleefor the Defendants


21/33

Page: 21

Appendix A. Writ of Quo WarrantoDocuments

1. Foisted Quo WarrantoChallenge

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

COURT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA AUGUST 25, 2015JUDICIAL 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 whichwas 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 ofthe 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 whichyou 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 beeninvolved. The said order is void ab ini tio.

However, I might accept your temporary jurisdiction under the mandate of ENTITY in thismatter 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 7days from the date hereof, a sworn affidavit, sworn under your own hand with full, unlimitedpersonal 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 alltimes, 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.


22/33

Page: 22

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 anyjudgment, 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 lawsare 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 studycomplete files you shall present and deliver to this living man as described. In the event ofdefault 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 thesedocuments 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, norany jurisdiction and that crimes have been committed, crimes in your Criminal law, including butnot 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 everclaim 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 alwaysinferior 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 jurisdict ion, such attemptsshall 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 inrespect 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 wayof private lawsuit, for the cause, on grounds of injury, loss and or damage caused to my estate, to

include remedy of imprisonment.


23/33

Page: 23

The montu propioof 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 immunityfor 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 theLaw 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


24/33

Page: 24

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 CENTERGRANDE 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 ofQuo Warranto.

No Response was ever received by this party, in the specific, explicit, and prescribedallotted time frame, therefore evident and makes legal,

NO JUSTIFICATION - NOJURISDICTION.

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 thefullest extent of the LAW.

per: [signature]Alfred Philip Parlee: Private administrator

Dba: 250660305c/o Box 16, Site 16, RR2

Sexsmith, Alberta T0H 3C0


25/33

Page: 25

Appendix B. Private Indemnity Bond - Non-Negotiable

ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE Issue date: September 10, 20152015

dba:250660305 BOND number: APP 100915 Can.

Clerk of the Court of the Queen's Bench

10260-99 StreetGrande 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 torender 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 theDEBTOR, 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 BONDis issued as/for payment of COURT ORDER File# 1504 00261.

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

SPECIAL DEPOSITof this BONDagainst the DEBTOR, NAME, ALFRED PillLIP PARLEEwill ZERO, SETTLE, and CLOSE this account. Court case file # 1504 00261.

This BONDshall be Ledgered as an ASSET for the needs of the Court of Queen's Bench inGrande Prairie, Alberta.

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

Per: [signature] ...


26/33

Page: 26

Appendix C. Correspondence from Freeman Legal Services

Freeman Legal Services

Freeman Legal Services Simone Hamm83 Ducie StreetManchester 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 utilitybills, court fines, personal taxes, speeding tickets, property taxes and commercial debt(s) which itis 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 Exchange1988 and the Uniform Commercial Code [UCC].

See Chapter 2, Section I, Article 4 of The Convention as well as under International Private Lawand Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code administered by UNIDROIT, Via Panisperna

2&, 00184 Rome-Italy.

UNIDROIT = http://www.unidroit.org/about-unidroit/overviewUCC = http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3UN 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 helpthose suffering at the hands of "over- zealous" government agents, bailiffs, criminal credit

agencies, Gerichtsvollzieherin and court officials pursuing fines and issuing "Orders to Pay" thatare against the Rule of Law.

Many banks, Public Authorities and collection agencies have singularly failed to adhere to theHuman 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 ratifiedremedy, 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!


27/33

Page: 27

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 knnen diese Manahmen abwenden, indem Sie sofort die Forderung von 868,89 bei mir

bezahlen.

ALL 3rdPARTIES 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 supraprotest 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 viathe office of ANKE WEBER. This regulated and assured action on your behalf will ensure thatthe 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 theBretton Woods Agreement.

Frau Weber should be copied in on this letter as should the local police station, court and anycollection or Enforcement Agencies which may have contacted or threatened you" with such

statements as if you do notpay or comply then certain actions will be taken against you. Theseare infringements under Article 9 of the UCC - Transaction off a Securitized Interest, wherebyany person asking you to ''perform" IN ANY MANNER whatsoever AND NOT BEING IN

POSSESSION OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT - SIGNED BY YOU CONTAINlNG WETSIGNATURE 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 [underArticle 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 Codeis an

INTERNATIONAL CODEX of law merchant and is applicable upon the sea and land and thereis 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 dayswhy they are dishonouring the bill/order/note. Commercial remedies are quite strict against those

"refusing payments" on Valid Commercial Negotiable Instruments


28/33

Page: 28

Yours sincerely,

Peter Smith LL.B, FRC.

Freeman Legal Services - International


29/33

Page: 29

Appendix D. WeRe Cheque and Allonges

1. WeRe Cheque (front)


30/33

Page: 30

2. Allonge

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

Allonge - RECEIPT OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUM ENT - Allonge

A negotiable instrument is a check, promissory note, bill of exchange, security or any document represent ing money payablewhich can be transferred to another by handing it over (delivery) and/or endorsing it (signing one's name on the back either withno 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 dist inguished from an ordinary contract by the fact that a negotiable instrument may bewritt en in a way that makes it t ransferable. This quality of negotiation generally allows the instrument to be used as a subst itute

for money by holders in due course, despite the defensive claims between the original parties who drafted the negotiableinstrument. In order to be negotiable, the bill or not e must be payable to order, or to bearer. Some p romissory notes contain aclause making them non-negotiable

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

Lord Denning M.R. in Fie lding & Platt Ltd v Sel im 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 honouredunless 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 corrup tion

of the courts , all fully negotiable inst ruments in the form of bills of exchange and promissory notes are to be treated as if theyare cash, unless that is contrary to the terms of an enforceable contract between the part ies. 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 t erms [otherwiseknown 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 CERTAINOBLIGATIONS 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 Bill s of Exchange Act 1882Dishonour 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 Accept ance 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 andendorsers.

Section 43 Dishonour by Non-acceptance and i ts 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 thedrawer and endorsers accrues to the holder, and no presentment for payment is necessary.

AS ACCOUNT PAYEE - HOLDER

Article 15 of The Convention states:


31/33

Page: 31

1. A person is a holder if he is: The payee in p ossession 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 holderunder circumstances, including incapacity or fraud, duress or mistake of any k ind thatwould give rise to a claim to, or a defenceagainst liability on, the instrument.

WeRe Bankconfirms that this cheque IS DRAWN UPON A BANK ACCOUNTTHE BANK HAS FUNDS ON DEPOSIT inthe name of the DRAWER TO CLEAR THE ISSUED NOTE, TO YOU, THE PAYEETHE M ONEY IS BANK LEDGER

MONEY, CHEQUE BOOK M ONEY OR MONETARY UNIT OF ACCOUNT and can be t ransferred to you, the PAYEE,either electronically or via physical means within the PRESCRIBED CLEARING PERIOD. This is why you must act now orfail.

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

01144 - Canada


32/33

Page: 32

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

Master Alf P. ParleeBox 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, Alberta16C OY9 [email protected]

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

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/wAllonge; I have consulted with VIP from WeRe Bank and the Reply was; "They" Servus Credit Union cannot refuseit (cheque)-read the Allongeand 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 orphysical addres s WeRe Bank 83 Ducie Street, Manches ter 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 isaddress ed very clearly in the Bills of Exchange Act on "Allonge" Please read side 2 Section 42 Violation of the Billsof Exchange Act 1882-Dishonour of bill through Non acceptance and Section 43 Non Acceptance and its

consequences!! No further presentment is neces sary.I have followed the guidelines and principals of these Bills of Exchange Acts mentioned above and in Good faithissued 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 sett led and no furthercommunication on this topic can be entered into as it will be considered harassment and harm to me. A s igned copyof 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 PostageStamp and signature]

May 19, 2015


33/33

Page: 33

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

do within the proscribed period, being within 3 days of being informed by PAYEE, did protestthe 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 andPromissory Notes.

Your Printed Name Alfred Philip ParleeBox 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 thereonshould be underwritten.