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.
