OPCA notarisation and magic beans

In Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson, 2022 ABQB 354 Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke considers sovereign citizen (OPCA) claims and the responsibility of legal practitioners.

The judgment states

[1] On April 26, 2022, Sandra Ann Anderson [Ms. Anderson] was declared a vexatious litigant and made subject to court access gatekeeping pursuant to Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2 ss 23-23.1 in a decision reported as Canada (Attorney General) v Anderson, 2022 ABQB 310 [Canada v Anderson #1]. Ms. Anderson has a dismal litigation record of repeatedly employing Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [OPCA] concepts: Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571. OPCA schemes are pseudolaw, rules that sound like law, and use legal language, but are false, “not-law”. Pseudolaw is typically applied to evade income tax, as a “get out of jail free card”, to attack government and institutional actors, or as a way to purportedly nullify debts and get “money for nothing”: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 at para 178 [Unrau #2]. No court in any jurisdiction has accepted the stereotypic conspiratorial not-law concepts that make up pseudolaw. Employing pseudolaw is always an abuse of court processes, and warrants immediate court response: Unrau #2 at paras 180, 670-671. 

[2] On May 10, 2022, my office received by email three documents that seek that the Court grant Ms. Anderson permission – “leave” – to file a document titled: “COUNTER CLAIM FOR EQUITABLE DUE PROCESS AND ORDER FOR INJUCTION” [sic] [Counterclaim]. In these materials, Ms. Anderson self-identifies as “Sandra-Ann: Anderson”, which is in breach of the Court’s Canada v Anderson #1 Order. As will become apparent, this is only one example of Ms. Anderson’s repeated refusal to follow court directions and the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010. 

[3] In her numerous appearances before the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Ms. Anderson calls herself many things, for example:

• Sandra-Ann: Anderson 

• i: woman: Sandra of the Anderson family 

• Sandra of the Anderson family, 

• Sandra Ann Anderson, Executor of the SANDRA ANN ANDERSON ESTATE 

• SANDRA ANDERSON, WOMAN SANDRA OF THE ANDERSON FAMILY 

[4] These variations of Ms. Anderson’s name are meaningless in law, but, purportedly, serve to designate that, in this instance Ms. Anderson is self-identifying as a “flesh and blood” human being. Other times, Ms. Anderson refers to SANDRA ANN ANDERSON. This is the “Strawman”, an illusionary shadow-self of Ms. Anderson that is purportedly an immaterial legal thing, that was (allegedly) created by Ms. Anderson’s birth documentation, then chained to her as part of a nefarious government scheme. Persons who sell and teach pseudolaw claim that Strawman Theory allows one to operate in two aspects, and take all the benefits as Sandra-Ann: Anderson, while assigning any obligations and penalties to SANDRA ANN ANDERSON, which Ms. Anderson has called an “Estate”, a “Trust”, or a “Corporation”. Academic commentary has also characterized Strawman Theory as a legal possession and exorcism ritual, that pretends to be law: Donald J Netolitzky, “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments as Magic and Ceremony” (2018) 55:4 Alta L Rev 1045 at 1069-1078. Ms. Anderson uses her Strawwoman SANDRA ANN ANDERSON as a kind of sock puppet, when that is convenient for her. 

[5] Like many other pseudolaw concepts engaged by Ms. Anderson, Strawman Theory is nonsense, and rejected universally by courts, worldwide. In Canada, Strawman Theory has been rejected on so many occasions, and is so notoriously false, that simply employing Strawman Theory motifs creates a presumption that the pseudolaw litigant does so for abusive, ulterior motives: Fiander v Mills, 2015 NLCA 31 at paras 37-40; Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 288 at paras 6-21; Unrau #2 at para 180. Ms. Anderson is perfectly well aware of this, because she has been repeatedly instructed that Strawman Theory is false, and that her using Strawman Theory is an abuse of the Court and opposing parties. Ms. Anderson was ordered in Canada v Anderson #1 that she only communicate with the Court via her legal name, “Sandra Ann Anderson”, and not alternative name structures and/or pseudonyms. That was to stop her from using Strawman Theory, which promises her no benefits at all, and that just wastes court and litigant time. As will be very apparent, Ms. Anderson has paid no attention to that Order. 

[6] Ms. Anderson has previously employed pseudolaw in a wide variety of contexts, that are reviewed in Anderson (Re), 2022 ABQB 35. These include Ms. Anderson:

1. employing a false named and illusory actor used for deception – a “sock puppet” - SANDRA ANDERSON TRUST” to frustrate resolution of the estate of her deceased father; 

2. retaliating for her being fined and criminal prosecuted for repeatedly engaging in international horse smuggling, where Ms. Anderson purported to commandeer the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench to conduct vigilante proceedings in the make-believe do-it-yourself “Anderson Court”, with Ms. Anderson as the (purported) prosecutor and judge; 

3. purporting to “get out of jail free” and terminate criminal proceedings in the Provincial Court of Alberta, that include charges for operating a motor vehicle while impaired and having a prohibited blood alcohol concentration, forging documents, the horse smuggling activities, and transporting fireworks on a passenger aircraft; 

4. forging court subpoenas for government and Crown officials to appear at her criminal proceedings, purportedly to expose secret government pseudolaw conspiracies; and 

5. employing a fake, “private sovran attorney general”, Daniel Terry Lozinik [Mr. Lozinik], to interfere with her criminal prosecutions.

[7] Ms. Anderson is now also actively teaching pseudolaw concepts as a “guru”, in collaboration with Mr. Lozinik: Canada v Anderson #1 at para 18. She and Mr. Lozinik have been expelled, on an OPCA basis, from Ms. Anderson’s Provincial Court of Alberta proceedings for disrupting those hearings. 

[8] Ms. Anderson is now seeking to launch a counterclaim in a foreclosure matter. Briefly, on June 16, 2021, Royal Bank of Canada [RBC] commenced a foreclosure proceeding in relation to a Calgary condominium owned by Ms. Anderson. Ms. Anderson owes $162,206.06 as of November 9, 2021. Default judgment in that amount was ordered in favour of RBC on November 10, 2021 by Master Farrington. The condominium has been listed for judicial sale. As will subsequently become apparent, Ms. Anderson has adopted a number of legally false and abusive pseudolaw strategies to (purportedly) defeat the foreclosure and “get a condo for free”. 

[9] Ms. Anderson’s proposed Counterclaim is reproduced below as Appendix “A”. In brief, as I understand this document, Ms. Anderson says:

1. sale of the condominium should be blocked; 

2. any obligations alleged to be on Ms. Anderson, instead belong to the SANDRA ANN ANDERSON ESTATE Strawwoman, and Ms. Anderson’s Strawwoman was never factually served with the foreclosure documents; 

3. Ms. Anderson owes nothing, because there never was any loan to her, and, if there was any debt, that has been paid by a Security and Exchange Commission “filing prospectus”; 

4. anyone who interferes with Ms. Anderson’s claimed rights is, instead responsible for her Strawwoman and its debts; 

5. I am falsely claimed to be a fiduciary to Ms. Anderson, and her “administrative trustee” and “trustee and settlement officer”; 

6. myself and Alberta Minister of Justice and Solicitor General Tyler Shandro are allegedly personally responsible for Ms. Anderson’s debts and operation of Ms. Anderson’s imaginary Strawwoman “birth bond” bank account, which is, allegedly, held by the US Securities Exchange Commission; and 

7. everything in Ms. Anderson’s affidavit is automatically true, unless disproved.

[10] Ms. Anderson also supplied a May 10, 2022 “Affidavit in Support of Counter Claim and Order for Injunction”, affirmed by “Sandra-Ann: Anderson”. This document concludes that “An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in commerce” and “An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in Commerce”. I will subsequently discuss in more detail the content of this 90-page document. ...       

Analysis 

[18] While Ms. Anderson has completed the formal requirements for a leave to file application, her proposed Counterclaim is obviously not a valid filing. Ms. Anderson has not established reasonable grounds for her proposed litigation. I reject that candidate filing on multiple bases. 

A. Abusive OPCA Litigation 

[19] First, the proposed Counterclaim is an obvious abusive OPCA filing, based on thoroughly and repeatedly discounted and rejected pseudolaw concepts. I conclude, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Ms. Anderson is perfectly well aware this Court, and all other Canadian courts, do not accept OPCA concepts as valid. Ms. Anderson has been repeatedly informed, for example, that not only does Strawman Theory have no legal validity, but that if Ms. Anderson based her claims on Strawman Theory, that the Court would conclude that Ms. Anderson had done so for illegal abusive purposes. And Ms. Anderson ignores that, over and over, in her civil and criminal proceedings, and interactions with private and state actors. 

[20] Ms. Anderson has been repeatedly directed to actual legal resources and case law, so that she may understand and appreciate the true scope of her legal rights. Ms. Anderson has, in the past, retained actual accredited lawyers, so she has had full access to legal advice and information from sources within a privileged context. That, too, has made no difference to Ms. Anderson’s escalating litigation misconduct. 

[21] In the interest of judicial economy, I will not document and rebut every legal error and instance of pseudolegal abuse of the Court and RBC in Ms. Anderson’s materials, but I will highlight a number of claims because these are either: 1) novel and/or undocumented Canadian OPCA schemes, or 2) are relevant in a broader sense to Ms. Anderson’s foreclosure process, and, therefore, may be considered in awarding costs, or imposing penalties, on Ms. Anderson. Furthermore, at least some of what Ms. Anderson has supplied the Court has apparently criminal aspects. 

1. Strawman Theory 

[22] The fact that Ms. Anderson has framed her proposed litigation via Strawman Theory is, in itself, sufficient basis to reject the proposed Counterclaim as an abuse of the Court. As will become obvious as I review Ms. Anderson’s materials, both the proposed Counterclaim and Ms. Anderson’s Affidavit are rife with Strawman Theory concepts and strategies. Each is a basis to reject her proposed filing. 

2. Defective Contract Formalities 

[23] Ms. Anderson’s Affidavit provides a roughly chronological review of OPCA strategies she has employed in her attempts to get a free condo. It appears her first strategy was to demand mortgage documentation, in particular with “wet ink signatures”. The idea that a debt may only be established by an original “wet ink signature” physical contract is a common OPCA motif deployed as a basis alleged to invalidate debt contracts, .... If this rule were, in fact, true, then no contract formed via electronic means would ever be enforceable. 

[24] The irony is that, in making “wet ink signature” arguments and Ms. Anderson’s Counterclaim being purportedly “... FOR EQUITABLE DUE PROCESS ...”, Ms. Anderson gets equity backwards. If, in fact, her “wet ink signature” argument was effective, then, equitably, it would be RBC who has been scammed and Ms. Anderson who received an enrichment without a juristic reason: Garland v Consumers’ Gas Co, 2004 SCC 25. Equity, in this context, would act on behalf of RBC, not Ms. Anderson. 

3. WeRe Bank Economic Impact Payment Voucher 

[25] Next, Ms. Anderson purports to have paid off her debt with a bizarre “ECONOMIC IMPACT PAYMENT VOUCHER”, purportedly issued by the “WeRe Bank of England”. This document bears what are identified as the signatures of: • Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, • the current federal Minister of Health, Jean-Yves Duclos, who at that time was the President of the Treasury Board of Canada, and • Sandra Anderson, “Beneficiary”. The “Voucher” is reproduced in Appendix “B”, below. This outlandish document purports that a $158,574.39 payment is made on the basis of the US Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020. 

[26] This Court is familiar with the WeRe Bank. This purported financial institution is based in the UK, and operated by a person who self-identifies as “Peter of England”. In 2015 the WeRe Bank and Peter of England sold gullible and greedy persons packets of “WeRe Cheques”, documents that at a first glance appear to be bank cheques drawn from an institution called the WeRe Bank. However, WeRe Cheques were useless, since Peter of England only promised to pay cheque holders in a fictitious currency, “Re”, “units of space and time”. The WeRe Bank scheme is reviewed in detail in Servus Credit Union Ltd v Parlee, 2015 ABQB 700, where Master Schlosser concluded the WeRe Bank and WeRe Cheques were worthless and fraud: The first basic reason why the WeRe Cheque was not a payment is simply because WeRe Bank is a fraud. It is not a regulated UK bank. The WeRe Bank never promises to make payments to recipients of WeRe Cheques. It only transfers “Re” energy units. It might as well promise to transfer magic beans. Imaginary energy units are not a form of currency and they do not pay debts. The WeRe Bank’s customers in Servus Credit Union Ltd v Parlee were farmers who lost their property as a consequence of this “money for nothing” pseudolaw scam. 

[27] It appears, in a sense, that Peter of England’s schemes have matured somewhat. He at least now claims to be transferring actual money. As for how a fictitious bank in the UK would transfer money from US COVID-relief programs, via Prime Minister Trudeau, Ms. Anderson’s WeRe Bank “Voucher” is accompanied by another WeRe Bank document that appears to be instructions from Peter of England on the operation of this scheme. That is reproduced below in Appendix “C”. I will not attempt to summarize this “money for nothing” scheme, because, as Peter of England himself explains, its operation is beyond the comprehension of legally trained persons: Your legal departments are totally unprepared and unsuited to understand the Vouchers intricacy or provide advice upon handling it: they are poorly educated and absolutely unconscious of the methods of PUBLIC versus private side money generation/creation systems, and in the main ignorantly stupid. 

[28] I conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that Ms. Anderson was perfectly well aware that the WeRe Bank documents had no legal value, and that she had not paid her mortgage via the “Voucher”. I also find in fact and law that the WeRe Bank “Voucher” was a fraudulent document, falsely purporting to be affiliated with the Canadian government, and that the signatures of Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Duclos on the “Voucher” are forgeries. I, again, find on a balance of probabilities that Ms. Anderson knew that, and so her advancing the “Voucher” as an authentic document, and claiming that document had almost $160 thousand dollars in value, was a criminal act. 

4. Three/Five Letters 

[29] After the WeRe Bank scheme, Ms. Anderson next attempted to eliminate her debts by a series of documents to the RBC collections department. The first, dated June 18, 2021, is titled “VALIDATION OF CLAIM”, and demands various proofs of the debt, citing the UK Law of Property Act, 1925 c 20, 15 & 16 Geo 5, which, obviously, has nothing to do with Canada or Alberta. This document states that if “Sandra-ann, Authorized representative’s” demands are not met in seven days, that proves there never was a debt or that any debt that had existed has be paid in full. This document also says any telephone call to Ms. Anderson is a criminal offense and extortion. 

[30] Next, on July 9, 2021, Ms. Anderson sent a “CONDITIONAL NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE UPON VALIDATION OF CLAIM OPPORTUNITY TO CURE”, that, succinctly, says that the “VALIDATION” was not answered adequately. If RBC does not provide what Ms. Anderson demands in seven days, then that means that Ms. Anderson owes nothing. 

[31] The “CONDITIONAL NOTICE” was then on July 16, 2021 followed by a “NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF CLAIM”, that states “... i am perplexed at your disregard for the law and expect the correct pre-action protocols and would urge you to consider seriously my lawful requests ...”. Ms. Anderson then grants another ten-day extension for RBC to reply. 

[32] The June 18-July 16, 2021 documents are a “Three/Five Letters” scheme, which is a notorious pseudolaw strategy that involves sending a target a series of documents that make demands, and falsely and illegally purport, when there is no reply, or no adequate reply, that creates a legally binding outcome. Here, Ms. Anderson’s Three/Five Letters were a debt elimination strategy. The Three/Five Letters are a variation on the broader foisted unilateral agreement OPCA strategy: Meads v Meads at paras 447-528. The Three/Five Letters are so notoriously false that advancing a Three/Five Letters scheme: ... is proof that the person using these concepts is engaged in a vexatious, abusive argument, and does so for an improper and ulterior purpose. That reverses the onus of proof, so that it is up to the OPCA litigant who has advanced the Three/Five Letters to prove their action, complaint, or defence is not vexatious and an abuse of court processes. [Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 288 at para 21.] 

[33] That rule applies here. Ms. Anderson, having deployed a Three/Five Letters debt elimination scheme, establishes that she was and is attempting to evade her mortgage debt for a false, improper, and abusive ulterior purpose. I find that Ms. Anderson’s Three/Five Letters strategy is another bad-faith and illegal attempt to evade her debts, and that Ms. Anderson knew that. 

5. Responses to RBC Litigation 

[34] Ms. Anderson then received the Statement of Claim for RBC’s foreclosure. Ms. Anderson’s Affidavit attaches correspondence with RBC’s law firm where Ms. Anderson attempts to advance Strawman Theory to dispute whether she or the “Sandra ANN ANDERSON ... fictitious corporation ...” sock puppet Strawwoman is being sued. Again, “sandra-ann” claims that if she does not get the answer she demands in five days, then that “... shall constitute legal accord and satisfaction of all claims ...”, and Ms. Anderson gets a free condominium. Again, this is an illegal spurious foisted unilateral agreement. 

[35] Ms. Anderson then follows with a new set of OPCA documents. The first, titled “AFFIDAVIT OF FACT”, is dated September 8, 2021, and had its signature “sandra-ann”, witnessed and notarized by Alberta lawyer Terrance N. Taylor on September 8, 2021. This document is another foisted unilateral agreement, and, in summary, advances Strawman Theory motifs, saying “i, a woman, Sandra Anderson” had no contract with RBC, rejects Canadian “law, statutes, ordinances, codes”, and demands answers to a series of questions, concluding that failure to answer the questions posed in the “AFFIDAVIT” means Ms. Anderson owes RBC nothing. 

[36] Next are two documents, a “Statement of Defence in the form of an Affidavit”, and an “Affidavit of Status and Fact” that are stamped as being “Received” by the Okotoks Provincial Court of Alberta on October 4, 2021. Both these documents are, however, identified as being part of the Docket 2101 07846 Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench foreclosure proceeding. It appears these documents did end up on the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench file, but how that occurred is unclear. 

[37] Both October 4, 2021 documents are yet further foisted unilateral agreements that make Strawman Theory claims, and demand documents and answers. “sandra-ann:woman” also makes a new counterattack against RBC. She now demands refunds from a VISA account of “the Estate of SANDRA ANN ANDERSON”, of payments already made that date back to December 23, 2019, and that total $67,427.35. Both October 4, 2021 documents were notarized by Alberta lawyer Cody A. Melnyk. 

[38] Next, Ms. Anderson on October 6, 2021, sent opposing counsel correspondence that “Sandra Anderson”, is “Executrix” via a “Power of Attorney over the SANDRA ANN ANDERSON ESTATE, trust by the beneficiary/settlor, Sandra Anderson.” I am unclear on whether Ms. Anderson is now saying her Strawwoman has died, or that Sandra Anderson is the trustee for Sandra Anderson. In any case, this declaration is meaningless; Ms. Anderson is just talking to herself, and that binds no one: Servus Credit Union Ltd v Parlee, 2015 ABQB 700 at para 76 6. 1099-OID 

[39] The final materials in Ms. Anderson’s parade of pseudolaw “get out of debt free” and “money for nothing” schemes are several US Internal Revenue Service “1099-OID” documents, and a May 6, 2022 letter from “Sandra-Ann, Executor” to the Honourable Tyler Shandro, “Private Capacity”, “Acting as Minister of Justice and Solicitor General Office”. Briefly, Ms. Anderson says the attached 1099-OID documents nullify any outstanding debts on Ms. Anderson’s condominium: ... and valid debt obligation that my strawman/legal fiction may owe. You are receiving this notice as a formal record that any and all debt discharge has occurred by way of my submission to you. ... 

[40] The result (purportedly) terminates the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2101 07946 action, which “... has been discharged and this matter closed/settled ...” and “... foreclosure proceedings have ceased and any credit extended to the bank for the property cited here is promptly returned to my estate. ...”. This, obviously, is yet another Strawman Theory “condo for free” stratagem. 

[41] Ms. Anderson’s “1099-OID” documents are a legitimate US tax filing form, that, when properly completed, is used to inform the IRS when bonds, notes, or certificates of deposit are sold at a discount from their maturity value. In the US, 1099-OID forms have frequently been abused as an element of the “Accept for Value” “A4V” Strawman Theory scam (see Meads v Meads at paras 531-543), but, for obvious reasons, Canadian courts do not usually encounter this particular pseudolaw motif. 

[42] In Ms. Anderson’s case, she is purporting to eliminate debts and legal obligations via 1099-OID “Cancellation of Debt” declarations. She has not filled these forms with legally correct information, but instead attempted to “hotwire” these items for spurious purposes. For example, one of Ms. Anderson’s 1099-OIDs says the Creditor is “SANDRA ANN ANDERSON ESTATE”, Ms. Anderson’s imaginary Strawwoman doppelganger, and states that $1 million has been paid to discharge a debt held by RBC. That debt is described as “Court#210107946fees, costs, totdebtunknow”. Since that matches this matter’s Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench docket number, I conclude Ms. Anderson is claiming the 1099-OID in question terminates the current lawsuit with a $1 million payment from a secret bank account held owned by the imaginary SANDRA ANN ANDERSON ESTATE. 

[43] I have no explanation for why the US government would have a secret bank account associated with a Canadian. Instead, it seems Ms. Anderson is simply adapting whatever pseudolaw schemes she finds to her current situation. 

7. Conclusion 

[44] Needless to say, Ms. Anderson’s materials clearly establish that her proposed Counterclaim is based on pseudolaw schemes, has no potential legal merit, and leave should be denied on that basis. ... 

. IV. Breach of Professional Conduct and Officer of the Court Obligations by Terrance N. Taylor and Cody A. Melnyk 

[54] Ms. Anderson’s Affidavit attaches a number of documents that were notarized by Alberta lawyers. The notarized documents were obviously OPCA in character. By notarizing Ms. Anderson’s OPCA documents, these lawyers, Terrance N. Taylor, and Cody A. Melnyk, are in breach of both their professional responsibilities and obligations, as lawyers, and as officers of this Court. 

[55] In 2012, in the Meads v Meads decision at paras 643-645, I wrote this about lawyers who notarize pseudolaw documents: One duty [of lawyers] is to not participate in or facilitate OPCA schemes. During preparation of these Reasons, I reviewed a large number of OPCA litigation files in our Court. I was very disturbed and profoundly disappointed to see the number of occasions where an OPCA document was notarized by a practicing lawyer. Certain of Mr. Meads’ materials were marked in that manner, by two different members of the Alberta Bar. ... Alberta Justice has instructed lay notaries to not endorse documents of this kind: Papadopoulos v. Borg, 2009 ABCA 201 at para. 3. ... This Court has, on previous instances, drawn to the attention of the Law Society of Alberta that this kind of action is inappropriate for an officer of the court. It assists implementation of vexatious litigation strategies. In my view, a lawyer has a positive duty not to engage in a step that would ‘formalize’ (though typically in a legally irrelevant manner) an OPCA document. I have previously noted that certain OPCA gurus place a peculiar and mythical authority in a notary’s hands. A lawyer should not, directly or indirectly, reenforce, or support that purpose. 

[56] A particularly dangerous and erroneous belief pseudolaw litigants have about notaries is that notaries have greater authority than judges: reviewed in Donald J Netolitzky, "Humdrum Becomes a Headache: Lawyers Notarizing Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Documents" (2019) 49:3 Advocates’ Quarterly 279. 

[57] The Law Society of Alberta has, on multiple occasions, cautioned its members that they should not notarize or otherwise authentic pseudolaw materials. Myself, and other members of this Court, have also previously identified and publicly criticized lawyers who breach their duties in this manner, e.g. Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652 at para 25. 

[58] And yet this pattern continues. Here, two Alberta lawyers have notarized Ms. Anderson’s materials that she then deployed against RBC and its lawyers. The document, “AFFIDAVIT OF FACT”, notarized by Terrance Taylor is an obvious foisted unilateral agreement that purported to dictate a six-day deadline, or else Ms. Anderson wins and gets her “condo for free”. This document is filled with absurd and inappropriate language. Its initial paragraph claims “God’s laws” are “first and foremost”. Ms. Anderson at paragraph 2 invokes Strawman Theory and claims Canadian law does not apply to her: i, a woman, Sandra Anderson am a living breathing sentient being on the land, a Natural creation of GOD, and therefor am not and cannot be any ARTIFICIAL PERSON and, therefore, am exempt fro any and all identifications, treatments and requirements, as such pursuant to any process, law code or state or any colour thereof. [Sic.] 

[59] Ms. Anderson says the loan is backwards: she was not loaned money by RBC, but instead she had her money taken by RBC: i, woman Sandra Anderson, upon discovering the loan from Royal Bank of Canada is not in fact a loan but a loan to deprive myself of money, discontinued paying the so called loan from Royal Bank of Canada. 

[60] But aside form the content of the document, one would at least hope that Mr. Taylor had completed his obligation, as a notary, of witnessing Ms. Anderson’s actual signature. But no, instead, what Ms. Anderson signed was “sandra-ann”, not her full name on that document, “Sandra Anderson:woman”. 

[61] The documents notarized by lawyer Cody Melnyk are no better. The first paragraph of the “Statement of Defence in the form of an Affidavit” [“Statement”] immediately demonstrates Ms. Anderson is engaged in Strawman Theory: i woman sandra-ann, acting as agent for and on behalf of SANDRA ANDERSON, am responding to the statement of claim filed by Denise A. Whiteley, a woman who sometimes acts as an unregistered foreign agent on sovereign lands and on behalf of Warren Benson Amantea LLP and on behalf of ROYAL BANK OF CANADA ... 

[62] If that were not a clear enough indication that Ms. Anderson is engaged in Strawman Theory, next we have this demand: ... Can Denise please clarify if the Defendant in the Statement of Claim is a fictitious corporation, SANDRA ANDERSON or a woman, sandra-ann. 

[63] Again, this document is a foisted unilateral agreement, making demands for items like wet ink signatures. The “Statement” cites imaginary Biblical law: NOTE: MAXIM - A line of claim can be satisfied only through rebuttal by Counter-Affidavit point-for-point, resolution by jury, or payment (Gen. 2-3; Matt. 4; Revelation. Legal maxim: “If the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is absolved.”). [Emphasis in original.] Next, in the “Statement”, Ms. Anderson makes the demand for a refund of $67,427.35 in VISA payments, purportedly because no credit card contract with wet ink signatures has been provided. 

[64] The “Affidavit of Status and Fact” witnessed and notarized by Mr. Melnyk, is another abusive foisted unilateral agreement, and also rife with obvious pseudolaw misstatements. For example, the first two paragraphs read: i, sandra-ann via a will codicil from Barbara-Jean Goulette my mother gave me control of the living estate known as ANDERSON SANDRA ANN, Number 010206, registration date April 20th, 1970 and revoked any implied use, control, Power of Attorney or grants she may have made to the Government, any states, Crown/State or banking agents, heirs or their assigns with respect to the use of my name. ... i, a woman, sandra-ann am a living breathing sentient being on the land, a Natural creation of GOD and therefore am not and cannot be any ARTIFICIAL PERSON and, therefore, am exempt from any and all identifications, treatments and requirements, as such pursuant to any process, law code or statute or any colour thereof. I am not the PERSON or fictious name SANDRA ANDERSON created by the Birth Certificate Registration [redacted] registered on April 24th, 1970, the Birth Certificate being a registered security. One can hardly imagine a more blatant and explicit adoption of Strawman Theory concepts. 

[65] Again, Ms. Anderson claims that the loan she received was fake: i, woman Sandra-ann, upon discovering the apparent loan from the corporate fiction named RBC to SANDRA ANDERSON is not in fact a loan but simply a book keeping entry on computer screen to make it look like SANDRA ANDERSON received a loan to deprive myself of monies (principle and interest), discontinued paying the so called loan from RBC. 

[66] Ms. Anderson’s “Affidavit” also relies on nonsense Biblical “Maxims” of law that any legitimate lawyer should realize are obviously false and incorrect: Maxims - Rule of law An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in commerce: Peter 1:25 - But the word of the lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. An unrebutted affidavit becomes judgement in commerce: Hebrews 6:16-17 - for men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them and end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to she unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath [67] At least in these instances, Mr. Melnyk’s witnessed the same name and signature: “sandra-ann:woman [signed sandra-ann]”. Of course, that is not actually Ms. Anderson’s name. 

[68] A copy of this judgment will be delivered to the Law Society of Alberta, along with a copy of Ms. Anderson’s May 10, 2022 “Affidavit”. As an officer of the Court, I am very troubled by the continuing issue that Alberta lawyers notarize and authenticate obvious pseudolaw documents. A lawyer who acts as a notary is still a lawyer interacting with their client, with the associated professional responsibilities. It is not for me to determine completely - the Law Society has the primary role to enforce sanctions against illegal or improper conduct by lawyers - but it appears that Mr. Taylor and Mr. Melnyk breached their responsibilities to Ms. Anderson, too, when they did not identify the obvious false pseudolaw in Ms. Anderson’s materials, and refused to engage further with her abusive court activities.

NWO

In Bank of Montreal v. Lew, 2022 BCSC 1320 the Supreme Court of British Columbia deals with 'New World Order' claim. 

The judgment states 

 [1] Karen Wai King Lew appeals the order of Master Robertson made April 28, 2022, granting conduct of sale on Ms. Lew's residential property to the Bank of Montreal. The Bank of Montreal is the first mortgagee on the residential property. An order nisi of foreclosure was made September 21, 2021, and the redemption period expired in March 2022. Ms. Lew asserts that Master Robertson made the order in error because the mortgage had been forgiven on February 8, 2022, pursuant to the doctrine of NESARA/GESARA, acronyms that stand for National Economic Security and Reformation Act and Global Economic Security and Reformation Act. She also asserts that Master Robertson was biased and ought to have recused herself. 

[2] The Bank of Montreal and the second mortgagee, Ming Shek Liu, assert that no error was made because NESARA/GESARA do not form part of Canadian or British Columbian foreclosure law, there was no evidence the mortgage was forgiven, there was no bias on the part of Master Robertson, and the appeal was commenced more than 14 days after the order was made, and so the appeal is out of time. ...  

[5] The order under appeal is an order that the Bank of Montreal have conduct of sale of Ms. Lew's foreclosed property. An order granting a conduct of sale in a foreclosure proceeding is interlocutory: Canadian Western Bank at paras. 11 and 15; and Urban Land Holdings Ltd. v. Babich, 2019 BCSC 1318 at para. 24.  ... 

Whether the Mortgage was Forgiven 

[8] At the appeal before Master Robertson, Ms. Lew did not lead any evidence that her mortgage was forgiven. The transcript of the proceedings before Master Robertson demonstrates that Ms. Lew came to court to ask for more time because she did not want to lose her home. She explained that she had unsuccessfully attempted to obtain a reverse mortgage and a loan from a private lender. She also explained that her sister was arriving in Vancouver the next day and would lend her the money to redeem the mortgage. She did not assert that the mortgage had been forgiven, lead any evidence of mortgage forgiveness, or make any reference to NESARA/GESARA. 

[9] By the time the Bank of Montreal's application for conduct of sale came on before Master Robertson, it had already been adjourned once because Ms. Lew's lawyer had withdrawn, and Ms. Lew asked for more time. The hearing before Master Robertson was peremptory on Ms. Lew. Master Robertson declined to adjourn it again to give Ms. Lew more time, but she made her order effective May 26, 2022, approximately four weeks after the hearing, so that if Ms. Lew arranged financing in the four weeks between the hearing and the effective date of the order, she could still redeem the mortgage, and the conduct‑of‑sale order would not take effect. 

[10] In this court, Ms. Lew made submissions on the NESARA/GESARA. She described it as a pending new world order that has its roots in the United States (NESARA), but has evolved to a global movement (GESARA), to which many countries are signatories, including Canada. She asserted that it involves resignation of world leaders, new currencies that will be backed by gold, and a more harmonious and peaceful world where the enslavement qualities of debt will be abolished. 

[11] Ms. Lew made submissions on the intent of NESARA/GESARA law by reference to a document entitled "GESARA.news" with a website address using the same words. 

[12] This document set out 20 points pertaining to GESARA that include that all credit card, mortgage, and other bank debt due to illegal banking and government activities will be cancelled. This is referred to as a "jubilee" or complete forgiveness of debt. NESARA/GESARA principles establish new presidential and congressional elections within 120 days of GESARA's announcement (presumably this is a reference to United States elections). There will be an interim government that will cancel all national emergencies and return some unspecified political entity back to constitutional law. I assume that the unspecified political entity is the United States but perhaps the intention is a global constitutional regime. GESARA creates a new U.S. treasury rainbow currency backed by gold, silver, and platinum precious metals, ending the bankruptcy the U.S. initiated by Franklin Roosevelt in 1933. GESARA establishes peace throughout the world. GESARA releases unprecedented prosperity with enormous sums of money for humanitarian purposes. GESARA will establish the quantum financial system called QFS, and the quantum voting system called QVS, as well as a global currency reset and a revaluation of currencies. 

[13] Ms. Lew did not provide the Court with any Canadian or British Columbian legislation implementing NESARA or GESARA. Nor did she provide any legal authority incorporating the principles of NESARA and GESARA into creditor/debtor law or the law of foreclosure in British Columbia. With regard to evidence that her mortgage was cancelled pursuant to NESARA/GESARA, Ms. Lew explained that for the hearing before Master Robertson, she had tried to upload her bank statements, which she asserts shows that the mortgage balance was zero at one point in time and that a legal fee that the bank charged her had been reversed on February 8, 2022. 

[14] She explained that she was unable to upload the bank statements, and she did not know that she should have an application binder into which she inserted her evidence. She advised that she first learned that when she saw, over Microsoft Teams, Master Robertson being provided with binders on the matters as they were called. She realized she did not have a binder that she was required to have. She advised this Court that at that time before Master Robertson, she froze and did not know what to say. 

[15] The transcript of the proceedings shows that Ms. Lew made submissions as I have described. She did not tell Master Robertson that she had evidence showing that her mortgage had been forgiven that she was unable to get before the court. Ms. Lew described this evidence to me but did not seek to have fresh evidence introduced on the appeal. Accordingly, there was no evidence before Master Robertson, and there is no evidence on this appeal, that the mortgage was forgiven. 

[16] It is also difficult to understand how that evidence could displace the order nisi requiring Ms. Lew to pay the Bank of Montreal $209,721.51 to redeem the mortgage and the evidence before Master Robertson that the Bank of Montreal had not received any payments towards the mortgage between the date of the order nisi and the appearance before Master Robertson. ... 

[18] There is no basis on which to conclude that Master Robertson was clearly wrong in the order she made. Ms. Lew did not lead before Master Robertson and has not led before me evidence that the mortgage had been forgiven. She did not attempt to persuade Master Robertson, and she has not persuaded me, that NESARA/GESARA principles are part of the law governing creditor, debtor or foreclosure proceedings in British Columbia. 

Bias 

[19] Ms. Lew also asserts that Master Robertson was biased and ought to have recused herself. She asserts two reasons for the bias. First, she asserts that the NESARA/GESARA pending world order is well known to the banks and would have been well known to Master Robertson before she became a master. She submitted that Master Robertson became a master because she knew that her law firm's foreclosure practice would be ending when all mortgages and other debts were forgiven. 

[20] I have not accepted that NESARA/GESARA is part of the Canadian legal landscape. I do not accept that Ms. Lew has proven there is a new world order pending that will end foreclosure proceedings, let alone that Master Robertson knew of this and made a career change to avoid its consequences on her law practice.

As with sovereign citizenship, the NESARA ideology is incoherent. One exponent explains

Above us, in the skies, cloaked from our view and sometimes existing in higher dimensions, is a fleet of extraterrestrials of human origin, from places like the Pleiades, Sirius, Lyra, Vega, Arcturus, Andromeda and many other regions of space. They are our family – our ancestors and, in some cases, our future. These extraterrestrial but human visitors have come to assist us with the 2012 Ascension ….. Some space brethren have taken birth among us as starseeds. Some have walked-in to bodies after birth. Some are able to change shape and walk among us unnoticed. 

While there exist ETs who are unfriendly, they are no longer allowed to approach the Earth. The ones approaching Earth to assist us with our planetary transformation come as our friends. They follow the commands of the same Heaven and the same God as we do. They are forces of love and light. We have nothing to fear from them and everything to gain from their willing assistance. 

We couldn’t have come as far as we have without their help. The people who defeated the NWO are these galactic-human friends along with a large number of terrestrials who are variously known as their “Earth Allies” or “White Knights.” It is they who will bring in NESARA when the time is right. And it is they who will reveal themselves to us when the time for “First Contact” arrives. 

We’ve actually had many contacts with them in the past; in fact they are responsible for seeding this planet with the human species in the first place – their own species. We are their progeny. We did not evolve from apes. What we call “First Contact” is the first time the whole planet will be aware of their presence. Even before that time but after NESARA is announced, they will begin giving us technologies that will allow us to end our dependence on oil, travel far, communicate quickly, and cure most diseases among us. 

They will give us devices that will allow us to see to all our food, clothing and other needs without having to produce them in factories. Eventually, there will be no such thing as poverty or disease on Planet Earth. There will be no such thing as religions that fight with one another. There will be no such thing as wars. 

Our space brothers and sisters will prepare us for our Ascension in 2012. Apparently, what we’ll see when they arrive defies imagination. Their simple presence in the sky will have such an uplifting effect on us that we won’t be the same from that moment on. 

The shadow government has ridiculed the idea that there are extraterrestrial craft in our skies in order to maintain their control of this planet. 

In truth, the U.S. military has benefited for years from technology transfers (anti-gravity technology, the computer chip, fiber optics, Teflon, Kevlar, the “Looking Glass” [google], stealth technology). 

The U.S. government has itself perfected spacecraft run by a secret space agency called Solar Warden that regularly travel between Earth and the Moon or Mars. They perfected teleportation back in the late 1960s and early 70s.

Crime Data

‘The Early Criminal Record on the Boundary of Entertainment: Thomas F. Byrnes’ Professional Criminals of America and the Spectacle of Criminal Identification’ by Charles F Brackett in (2022) 20(2) Surveillance & Society 157-171 comments

While the proliferation of criminal records has received much recent attention, the origin of the criminal record in the United States itself is relatively obscure. This article examines an episode in the development of criminal record keeping and lateral surveillance in the United States, the publication and reception of Thomas F .Byrnes’ Professional Criminals of America ([1886] 1969). I argue that Professional Criminals of America developed a cultural purchase well beyond its relatively modest circulation. By exploiting anxieties about mobility, anonymity, and the decline of class distinction, Byrnes’ book sold itself as a tool to develop regimes of lateral surveillance, enlisting regular citizens to support the police by spying on one another. 

 Brackett argues 

 The proliferation of criminal records in the US and the resulting handicaps for people who have them are topics of increasing concern for scholars and policymakers (e.g., Lageson 2020; Jacobs 2015). While the stigma of a criminal record has been the subject of extensive study, scholars are only beginning to study the extensive use of records (e.g., Jacobs 2015; Lageson 2020; Thacher 2008). Meanwhile, the emergence of the criminal record in the United States has received almost no sustained study. Drawing on theories of surveillance technology as both practical and imaginary (Cole 2001; Bunn 2012), and testing theories of the emergence of “risk society” and lateral surveillance (e.g., Beck 1992; Andrejevic 2002), I examine Detective Thomas F. Byrnes’ 1886 book Professional Criminals of America ([1886] 1969). Specifically, Byrnes’ entertaining volume, which sold more than ten thousand copies in its first printing (Brooklyn Daily Eagle 1886), merged entertainment with new technologies of crime control and sought to produce a type of lateral surveillance. Byrnes used his own charisma and public fascination with criminality to turn Professional Criminals into a significant cultural object in the turn-of-the-century United States. In doing so, Byrnes ([1886] 1969) sought to introduce a tool that would provide any citizen the information they needed to be their own detective. … 

Late-twentieth and twenty-first century scholarship on security and surveillance has emphasized the supposed emergence of “risk”as a dispositif for the management of diverse populations of people, events, or probabilities (e.g., Foucault 2008b; Bigo 2012). Since the 1980s, a growing body of surveillance and security literature has come to emphasize the role of disembodied data (e.g., Gandy 1983; Lyon, ed. 2003; Haggerty 2001; van Dijck 2014), algorithmic and predictive practices (Aradau and Blanke 2017, 2018), and the technologies of data-driven risk management in both security practices and governance more broadly (e.g., Lageson 2020; Eubanks 2018; Noble 2018). 

Studies of risk often position the rise of risk as a de facto rupture in the social order (e.g., Beck 1992 and Giddens 1990). Briefly stated, risk society theories posit the emergence of a new social form governed less by traditional class conflict and competitive governance than by the technocratic assessment and management of various social risks (Giddens 1998). Or, as Beck(1992: 223) argues, “[p]olitics is no longer the only or even the central place where decisions are made on the management of the political future.” Perhaps the best example of this shift for criminal punishment can be found in Ericson and Haggerty’s (1997) argument that law enforcement’s main function today is the production of data. 

A central aspect of this conceptualization of risk and risk management is the role of state institutions in the production of supposedly objective knowledge. In his study of criminal justice statistics, for example, Haggerty (2001: 191–192) argues that one of the main functions of statistical institutions is their claim to represent “objective rationality.” This formulation is substantively reproduced in multiple examinations of the risk society and the proliferation of risk management practices (e.g., Aradau and Blanke 2017). Challenges to the risk society formulation have tended to critique the claim of newness, both implicitly and explicitly (e.g., Rigakos and Hadden 2001). Others implicitly challenge Beck’s (1992) and Giddens’ (1998) claim to the declining salience and value of contentious politics, for example with a call reexamine the importance of “agonism” in democratic politics (e.g., Mouffe 2005; Wenman 2013). 

Even critical scholars tend to take for granted that risk-based surveillance technologies are founded upon a logic of science and gain legitimacy from their patina of objectivity or rationality. This comes despite a rich trove of research that highlights the important role of spectacle in the growth and legitimization of surveillance. Several scholars have examined the interpenetration of spectacle with surveillance, either in legitimizing surveillance society (Gold and Revill 2003) or spectacular uses of surveillance itself (Kammerer 2012). Scholars including Loic Wacquant (2012), Barry Glassner (2000), and Jonathan Simon (2007) have examined the role of spectacular media coverage of crime and terrorism in legitimizing and expanding surveillance practices. Brucato (2015) has problematized the ideology of “objectivity”in police use of bodycams, while a long social-scientific tradition has focused on the role of charismatic authority (Weber [1919] 1947,[1922] 1946) in legitimacy, as well as problematizing objectivity as a social reality (e.g., Foucault 2013; Galison 2000). 

How we understand the social management of risk and the resultant surveillant practices, then, has much to do with how we analyze the interaction of scientism and spectacle in the framing of both risk and its management. As much as a large insurance company may appreciate the multiplicity of statistics available to manage suspect populations and “dangerous” areas through Big Data, everyday citizens are more likely to frame their relationship to risk through lurid news coverage or the television show 24. 

Further, while the risk society is consistently positioned as a development of Late Capitalism or Neo-Liberalism (e.g., Beck 1992), such a framing threatens to disappear the long history of risk. Scholars from across the political spectrum have pointed to risk’s role in creating capitalism itself, either celebrating (Bernstein 1998), analyzing (Foucault 2008a, or critiquing (Rigakos and Neocleous, eds. 2011) this relationship. 

In examining Thomas Byrnes’ Professional Criminals of America ([1886] 1969), as well as its public reception, then, I seek to frame two basic questions at a micro-level. First, how did Byrnes’ work function as a melding of charisma and scientific authority, and what was its contribution to public acceptance of large-scale data collection?

Riverine Rights?

'Where ordinary laws fall short: ‘riverine rights’ and constitutionalism' by Elizabeth Macpherson, Axel Borchgrevink, Rahul Ranjan and Catalina Vallejo Piedrahíta in (2021) Griffith Law Review comments 

Laws that recognise rivers and their ecosystems as legal persons or subjects with their own rights, duties and obligations have been associated with theories of environmental constitutionalism. However, the extent to, and manner in which, constitutional law (with its elevated status) has been instrumental in the conferral of these ‘riverine rights’ is still not well-understood. In this article, we consider the constitutional relevance of the recognition of rivers as legal persons or subjects in Aotearoa New Zealand, Colombia and India. We argue that in these three countries riverine rights are constitutional experiments: as small-scale, ad hoc and ultimately incomplete attempts to transcend seemingly ineffective regulatory frameworks for rivers. However, they are also incremental, and influential, steps in a broader project of more fundamental social and environmental reform. 

The authors argue

 The recognition or bestowal of legal rights on the Atrato, Ganges and Yamuna, and Whanganui rivers ... has attracted intense interest in transnational scholarship. Like other novel, yet incipient, legal developments, much of this attention focuses on the ‘transformative’ potential of the legal person model – to rebalance the power dynamics between humans and nature and enable real social and ecological change. Laws that recognise rivers and their ecosystems as legal persons or subjects with their own rights, duties and obligations, have been associated with theories of ‘environmental constitutionalism’; the constitutional incorporation of substantive and procedural environmental rights, responsibilities, and remedies to protect the natural environment. These are attempts to ‘transcend “normal” politics and law, reaching deep into the moral fabric of a society that seeks to be good, as expressed through its constitutionalised political and legal order’. 

There is a broad range of existing and prospective models that position rivers as having some form of rights or personality around the world. These include a mixture of judicial, administrative and legislative examples; made at various levels of government from local to international; concerning various types of ecosystems from specific rivers to broader manifestations of ‘nature’; and involving a range of legal mechanisms such as rights of nature, legal or juristic persons or subjects, or models that recognise rivers or ecosystems as living entities. For convenience, we use the term ‘riverine rights’ to very loosely group the ‘cases’ from Colombia, India and Aotearoa New Zealand discussed in this article, although we acknowledge and accept the conceptual and practical differences between places, peoples and contexts, and undertake a contextualised and nuanced analysis of each case. 

Despite their different circumstances, those driving riverine rights in these seemingly disparate cases have sought to elevate certain fundamental and inviolable interests (both of the river and sometimes of themselves), above the everyday business of river management. Put practically, certain interest groups (e.g. local communities, Indigenous peoples, NGOs, and even judges and politicians) have attempted to leverage riverine rights to ‘win their battles’ (including but not limited to claims for control and access) with respect to rivers; appealing to higher-level norms which have the potential to transcend dominant regulatory approaches and distributions. These claims appeal to constitutional law’s elevated status – with its hierarchy of ‘special powers’, which take priority over ‘ordinary’ laws. Yet, there is often said to be an ‘implementation gap’ in environmental constitutionalism; i.e. constitutions and their enforcers may well produce ambitious normative agendas about transformative environmental change, but these ambitions lead to little impact on the ground. 

It is with this potential and ambivalence in mind that we ask in this article: To what extent, and in what ways, has constitutional law (with its elevated status) been instrumental in the conferral of riverine rights? We choose to investigate this question through an exploratory comparative study of the three jurisdictions that are typically used as exemplars in contemporary literature and commentary for applying rights-based approaches to rivers: Colombia, India and Aotearoa New Zealand. All three countries have recognised rivers as legal persons/subjects in varying ways and to varying degrees since 2016. In doing so we consider whether the three riverine rights cases reflect the pragmatism of rights-based claims and strategic socio-ecological litigation and reform. We also consider whether the three riverine rights cases might be the result of activists ‘learning to play the legal game better’ or of judges, lawyers and politicians seeking to ‘make their mark’ through novel legal mechanisms inspired by alternative value-systems. 

In our enquiry, we seek to make some broader observations relevant to the project of ‘transnational comparative environmental constitutionalism’. By taking an interdisciplinary approach drawing on law and political and anthropological theory, we consider whether constitutions (broadly framed) are in fact the enablers of change they are often described to be, against the background of the complex political power dynamics of the specific cases. We take a broad approach to assessing ‘change’, ‘adaptation’ and ‘reform’, as socio-ecological phenomena. For example, we cannot measure improvements to the health of the river within the period, but we can make observations about the broader health of riverine communities as socio-ecological networks. We do not therefore seek to ascertain the extent to which riverine rights are practically or effectively implemented in each of the country studies (other than as reported in the academic literature), instead focusing on the design and content of legal and policy frameworks in their specific context. 

We explore the constitutional significance of the three riverine rights cases via a detailed interdisciplinary study of the law, policy and scholarship relating to each case in its historical, political and cultural context. Our transdisciplinary and transnational research team includes researchers from all three countries, fluent in the language and ‘legal language’ of each country. We do not presume, however, to speak for Indigenous, Afro descendent or local peoples. 

We find that each of the three riverine rights cases, although quite different in its workings and context, has constitutional significance. Each case is an attempt to reset the political power dynamics between governments and communities/interest groups. Each case uses the language of ‘rights’ to secure environmental and social objectives, and attempts to elevate those rights above ordinary regulation, appealing to constitutional norms. This may be done for a range of reasons, including (but not limited to) the furtherance of Indigenous political claims for self-determination over river governance and use; the influence of transnational environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the global rights of nature project; and the personal ambitions of creative lawyers, politicians and judges who wish to ‘make their mark’. 

We find that the riverine rights cases do not completely succeed in their transformative endeavour, and each case has significant shortcomings in terms of the ability to transcend dominant regulatory regimes, and thereby they may have limited potential to enable real legal and practical change. Despite this, we argue, the riverine rights cases from Colombia, India and New Zealand can be characterised as tentative early steps towards more transformative change, and their broader influence throughout the legal and institutional culture of each country, can already be seen.

Pseudolegal, with a dash of 'Misprision of Treason'

In Victorian Legal Services Board v Jensen [2022] VSC 430 the Court states 

[4] When the trial commenced, I explained to Mr Jensen that when he appeared before Garde J [see below], his Honour told him that he needed advice from a legal practitioner as to the effect of the order and what he could and could not do. Garde J explained to him that the court’s order was a restraining order, breach of which would constitute contempt of court that would have serious consequences, including imprisonment. I asked Mr Jensen whether he knew of and understood the content of the injunction. He confirmed he had people explain it to him and that he believed he understood it, and that he was content to proceed with this hearing without the assistance of a legal practitioner. 

Relevant facts 

[5] It is common ground that Mr Jensen has never been admitted to legal practice in Victoria and does not hold, and never held, a practising certificate. His two companies, the second and third defendants, have never been registered as law practices in Victoria. Despite this, Mr Jensen and his companies were found to have engaged in legal practice and to have represented that they were entitled to engage in legal practice. Consequently, on 2 August 2018, the court restrained the defendants in the terms set out above. 

[6] On 14 August 2018, the injunction orders were served on the defendants. 

[7] On 18 February 2021, the VLSB received a complaint from a firm of solicitors that its client and his parents, had received incorrect legal advice from Mr Jensen in around mid-2020 and that this advice resulted in its client being charged with contravening a personal safety intervention order (‘PSI order’ or ‘IVO’). The client was facing a rape charge and the complainant was the beneficiary of the PSI order. 

[8] The VLSB re-opened its investigation into Mr Jensen ’s conduct. It obtained a series of email communications, between 7 August 2020 and 29 October 2020, apparently between Mr Jensen and the parents of the accused. ...

[10] The emails set out the relevant conduct. ... 

[12] On 7 August 2020 at 5:24pm, Mr Jensen sent an email to the parents. The email said:

 It was lovely to connect with you today. 

The attached is a heavy duty spiritual initiation to an affidavit. 

It sounds like you may not have a lot of forensic evidence, so I am using Common Law (Gods Law). 

To rebut the Holy scriptures is impossible in a court, and by anyone else, You need to Just fill out the story you want to get across. 

You are welcome to delete or change what I have done. I just wrote it as if my son had been accused of something that he didn’t do. 

I am open for you to give it your own creative structure. 

Love and Blessings Den 

Denn Jensen Managing Director The JTA Corporation P/L

[13] Attached to the email was:

(a) A template affidavit entitled ‘Template Certificate Identifying Exhibit to Affidavit’; 

(b) A series of photographs of a volume apparently from the Supreme Court Library, entitled ‘Statutes at Large, from the Fifth Year of K. William and Q. Mary, to the Eighth Year of K. William III’ and an extract thereof; 

(c) A draft affidavit, headed ‘Affidavit’ and ‘The law is spiritual’. It contained a mixture of references to scripture, archaic legal texts, current statutes and statements pertaining to legal and religious matters. The statements included, ‘The contents of this affidavit are based on FACT AND LAW and CANNOT BE STRUCK OUT in a Court of law unless the FACTS AND LAW are forensically rebutted.’ It left blank a space for the relevant facts to be inserted. ...

[15]  On 11 August 2020 at 12:08pm, Mr Jensen replied and said:

I will be able to call later today or early evening. 

An affidavit would be the choice over a statement. 

I don’t do statements because they do not hold any authority in the law. An affidavit trumps an affidavit and will short circuit the whole process. 

If either side does not have any forensic proof. The first at law stands at law. And to get an affidavit in first they have to rebut it with forensic proof. 

As you see in the affidavit template I sent you I am setting a scene for an unrebuttably affidavit with Common Law which is Almighty Gods Law. 

This cannot be unrebutted. I will chat later on today. 

I recommend that you don’t send a statement!!!!

In Victorian Legal Services Board v Jensen [2018] VSC 740 the Court states:

[1] The Victorian Legal Services Board (‘the Board’) applies for an injunction under s 447 of the Legal Professional Uniform Law (Vic) (‘Uniform Law’) to restrain the defendants from engaging in unqualified legal practice, and from advertising or representing, or doing anything that states or implies that they are entitled to engage in legal practice. 

[2] It also seeks to restrain Mr Dennis Jensen, the first defendant from: (a) providing legal advice in relation to disputes, proceedings or potential proceedings; (b) corresponding or communicating on behalf of litigants or potential litigants; (c) drawing documents on behalf of or as agents for litigants, including pleadings, affidavits and submissions; (d) appearing in court on behalf of litigants to proceedings; and (e) drawing documents of a legal character. 

[3] Mr Jensen opposes the application. The second and third defendants are companies under the control of Mr Jensen. 

The Board’s case 

[4] The Board alleges that the defendants have engaged in unqualified legal practice, and advertised or represented that they are entitled to do so. It principally points to the facts and circumstances relating to four disputes. ... 

The second dispute 

[15] In 2017, the defendants purported to act for WW, the defendant in a dispute with a Council over unpaid rates. 

[16] On 10 January 2017, Mr Jensen wrote to the Council and asserted that Common Law Resolutions acted on behalf of WW. It asked the Council to reply to it. 

[17] On 31 January 2017, the Council received a letter from Mr Jensen enclosing a document signed by WW and entitled ‘notice of authority.’ WW purported to give Common Law Resolutions his full authority to act on his behalf in the matter between the parties, and in all other matters as his advocate and representative. 

18 On 23 February 2017, Common Law Resolutions purported to render a ‘true bill of accounts’ upon the Council. The ‘tax invoice’ stated that: (a) failure to pay would ‘automatically set legal action in process’; and (b) as soon as ‘we have settled we will remove the Goods and Services PPSR on the [Council]’. 

[19] In March 2017, Common Law Resolutions sent the Council a document titled ‘Common Law Default Notice’, and enclosed a PPSR search certificate. The certificate showed that Common Law Resolutions had registered a security interest over the Council in respect of ‘Debtor Accounts accumulated during the course of Business for invoices issued from time to time.’ The Council had granted no such security interest. 

[20] On 23 May 2017, the Council obtained a default judgment in a proceeding commenced against WW in respect of the unpaid rates. 

[21] On 2 June 2017, Common Law Resolutions provided the Council with a document titled ‘Notice of Objection to a hearing [sic] proceeding in the absence of the parties,’ which imitated a Magistrates’ Court form. 

The third dispute 

[22] In 2017, the defendants purported to act for JB in a building enforcement matter commenced by a different Council. 

[23] On 21 April 2017, Mr Jensen as managing director of Common Law Resolutions, provided the following documents to the Council: (a) an authority for Common Law Resolutions to act as an advocate or mediator; (b) a letter from Common Law Resolutions; and (c) a document titled ‘Criminal Charge Sheet for Common Law Grand Jury’ (the purported charge sheet). 

[24] The letter both asserted that Common Law Resolutions represented JB and sought the Council’s response to it. The purported authority stated: I, [JB] of [address] give authority to Common Law Resolutions Pty Ltd to advocate for me in matters relating to the proceedings brought against me and my property at the address listed above by [the Council]. 

[25] The purported charge sheet charged various council staff with ‘common law criminal charges’ including ‘Misprision of Treason’. ... 

Defendant’s case 

[31] In response to the Board’s case, Mr Jensen handed up a purported charge sheet for grand treason concerning the Court, to be issued by Mr Jensen in the Magistrates’ Court. He stated that the charges were being laid, and that the defendants had no business in the Court. 

[32] The defendants made no submissions of substance to the Court. The Court was not assisted by the defendant’s submissions.

OPCA

In Evangeline Liakos v Regain Occupational Therapy Pty Ltd T/A Cloud Nine Paediatric Therapy Services [2022] FWC 1463 the Commission states 

[23] On 29 October 2021, the Respondent received an email from the Applicant attaching a letter, and further five-page attachment, and a document titled “Notice of Demand for Further and Better Particulars” that was in the following terms:

“Date. 29 October 2021 

The rule of law is fundamental in maintaining a free and fair society that supports the provision for men and women, should they incur harm. loss. or injury from another, to access restorative processes pursuant to the United Nations Charter. 

I, Evangaline of the House Liakos, am deeply concerned about the employer-mandated COVID-19 injection procedure insisted upon myself by Amisha Gandhi (hereinafter referred to as “Amisha”), Director of Regain Occupational Therapy Pty Ltd trading as Cloud Nine Paediatric Therapy Services (hereinafter referred to as “Cloud Nine”). 

In order for me to be fully informed to empower me to give informed consent it is my will that I be provided with all of the following information, and documentary evidence: 

The lawful basis upon which you rely requiring me to be vaccinated against COVID-·19 in order to work; Documentary evidence of the relevant Instrument of Delegation held by Amisha, as required under the Federal Crimes Act 1914 3ZZIA; 

Documentary evidence held by Amisha, or by Cloud Nine, of any and all health and safety advice received as well as medical and scientific data held by Amisha or Cloud Nine, evidencing that the COVID-19 injections are safe, and that no men or women have lost their lives nor suffered from any adverse reactions as a result; 

The risk assessments (a minimum of four) performed by Amisha, including documentary evidence of material risks of COVID-19 transmissions ,by any, “vaccinated” or by any unvaccinated man or woman presenting at work; 

The legal status of the trial/experimental COVID-19 injections which have been approved for mandating by Cloud Nine; 

Documentary evidence that the experimental COVID-19 injection have been fully independently, and rigorously tested against control groups, and the subsequent outcomes of those tests; 

The entire list and toxicity of the ingredients that are contained in the COVID-19 injection, including proprietary components. and confirmation that the COVID-19 injection is not a trial/experimental mRNA gene-altering therapy: 

A certified true copy of the proclamation certificate with the appropriate assent in respect of your mandate; 

Written confirmation that Amisha Gandhi, as Director of Cloud Nine. in her personal and unlimited capacity, is and will be taking full responsibility and liability for any and all adverse events resulting from the COVID-19 injections including any harm. loss, or injury immediately or in the future, as a consequence being mandated to take me COVID-19 injection as per Amisha and Cloud Nine’s directions; 

The confirmation that, I will not be under duress from yourself and/or Cloud Nine in compliance with the Nuremberg Code 1947; 

Evidence of an official statement from the Australian Government confirming that the announcement by Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison MP, on the 6''' of August 2021 that “informed consent is needed” before the COVID-19 injection is administered upon an individual, has been rescinded by the Australian Government; 

Evidence that alternative work arrangements, or controls that are available to employers and employees to maintain Occupational Health & Safety, as well as Public Safety, as directed by the Fair Work Ombudsman, has been duly considered by Amisha and/or Cloud Nine; 

Documentary evidence proving that all relevant treatments for COVID-19 and alternative methods for its remedy were thoroughly investigated and reported by independent research conducted by Amisha or by Cloud Nine; 

The evidence of accuracy and reliability of the Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) testing of the Rapid Antigent Testing and any evidence that such tests cause no harm, damage or irreversible short-term of long-term side-effects; 

For acceptance of the itemised evidence requests listed in this notice, such evidence must also be signed by a qualified physician or qualified health practitioner who will also take full legal and financial responsibility for any injury occurring to myself, from any interaction by authorised persons in relation to the experimental procedure, vaccination schedule, or immunisation programs based around the COVID-19 injections. 

This notice and seal are written in accordance with the Partnership Act 1890. 

All above documentary requirements are to be supplied to me in written format within 72 hours upon receiving this notice. Furthermore, your agreement that I will not incur prejudice or discrimination. nor will my employment be compromised is required in written format within 72 hours upon receiving this notice. 

Your silence is your Consent 

By Evangaline of the House Liakos 

Principal, Executive Beneficiary and 

Authorised Representative 

for and of the Crown 

copyright name and estate: :EVANGALINE LIAKOS 

ens legis and all derivatives thereof the legal name 

No assured value; No liability all Errors and Omissions Excepted for value, and 

All Rights Reserved 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE - WITHOUT RECOURSE - 

NON-ASSUMPSIT - WITHOUT VEXATION 

Calls may be recorded 

End of notification”

That was unpersuasive and the Commission held that dismissal of Liakos was not unfair.

In Cromie v Health Secretary in respect of the Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District [2022] NSWIRComm 1064 the Commission states 

 Katherine Cromie was employed as an Enrolled Nurse at the Shoalhaven District Memorial Hospital (“Hospital”), which falls under the auspices of the Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District (“ISLHD”). On 7 December 2021 Ms Cromie’s employment was terminated on the basis that she had not demonstrated that she had been vaccinated against COVID-19 or had an exemption due to a medical contraindication. She commenced proceedings pursuant to s 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996, alleging that her dismissal was harsh, unreasonable or unjust. She seeks reinstatement to her position. 

She was represented by Stephen Lymbery, who in one of the Falamaki judgments was characterised as 

the person present in Court who identified himself as Stephen-Mark: Lymbery stating that he was also Judge, Postmaster and Banker

alongside OPCA exponent 'Judge: David-Wynn: Miller'. 

In considering the grounds on which Ms Cromie relies the Commission states

 [16] In very large part, the evidence and submissions on which Ms Cromie relies are directed towards challenging the legality, validity or enforceability of PHO 1 and PHO 2, and by extension the Determination which flowed from them. Indeed, Ms Cromie sought to challenge the validity of the legislation pursuant to which the public health orders and the Determination were made. The information contained in Ms Cromie’s “Notice and Knowledge” bundle of documents was said by Mr Lymbery to demonstrate that “all legislation in this country is unconstitutional”. 

All, apparently, rather than merely that dealing with public health orders 

[17] It is apparent from the material prepared by Mr Lymbery on Ms Cromie’s behalf that he has devoted a significant amount of time in the presentation of her case. I acknowledge the care which he has taken to do so. However, as Mr Lymbery himself acknowledged at several times during the hearing, the Commission is not the place in which these matters can be determined. As Commissioner Murphy observed in Griffin and others v Health Secretary; Thorncraft and others v Secretary of the Department of Education [2022] NSWIRComm 1027 (“Griffin”): “37. I note that, whilst a considerable bulk of the submissions by some parties went to the validity and/or legality and/or enforceability of the Public Health Orders and Determinations set out at [10]-[21] above, this Commission is not the forum in which to agitate such matters. These instruments will be accepted in this jurisdiction as valid and enforceable pieces of delegated legislation unless and until found to be otherwise in another place.” 

[18] I observe in any event that the arguments on which Ms Cromie relies to challenge the validity or enforceability of the public health orders have been disposed of by the Supreme Court: Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320, upheld in Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWCA 299.

Cromie lost.