Peter of England & WeRe Bank get Canadian Court Ass-Kicking

[getoutofdebtfools]

Great post Burnaby49.

[Pox]

Well the first reactions are in and.. it's what you would expect.

So the corrupt judge on orders from the kabal has ruled poe bank a fraud, no demand for arrest, closure, ignoring any common law , upholding the corrupt banking system that pays his fat salary , or maybe they have quite a lever over that judge. not convinced .

Let me get this straight!

A chap, that works as a 'judge', has said that they think that their judgment outstrips the facts.

Its a strange thing that that same man, that says he is a judge has simply ignored the rules that they are supposed to go by.

Tsk, Tsk, Tsk! This deserves a whole ton of exposure me thinks. That will win it for them.

I don't even know where to begin

Edited to add link:http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... kJZO_kcPHA

Thanks Bill.

The reaction on GOOFY is pure comedy value.

[Jeffrey]

I love that pretty much every point in the decision regarding WeRe bank had already been articulated on Quatloos.

[longdog]

Edited to add link:http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... kJZO_kcPHA

The words "How f**king predictable can you get" don't even come close

[Bones]

It is also nice that the judge also deals with Peter's other scam Freeman Legal Services

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

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

[49] Mr. Parlee continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

i like this bit too

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

4. Conclusion - Pseudolegal Payment Schemes Have No Effect

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

[SteveUK]

"..but the whole case by the home owner looked solid .."

And that, ladies and gents , is all you need to know about 'get into more debt free (well, £35 I suppose )mentality.

[Bones]

V. Conclusion and Costs

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

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

[PeanutGallery]

Yay! Finally after following Peter for well over a year, he's starting to come unstuck and undone. Well done Canada and thanks for posting that up Burnaby. Hopefully this decision will be noticed by UK law enforcement who might be prompted into taking action, now that Peter is proving himself to be an embarrassment to the nation.

I am however loving the morons on GOODF trying to reinforce their beliefs by disputing that the Judge was actually a Judge and suggesting that the law has been broken.

Let me get this straight!

A chap, that works as a 'judge', has said that they think that their judgment outstrips the facts.

Its a strange thing that that same man, that says he is a judge has simply ignored the rules that they are supposed to go by.

Couple of things wrong their. The chap works as a Judge, not a 'judge', he doesn't need air quotes because his job title is pretty clear, it's Judge. Secondly said Judge didn't get his Judicial power because he said he was a Judge, he got it because Canada being a proper nation and all with the ability to decide for itself and run it's own Canadian laws is allowed to appoint people to be Judges. This Judge was appointed by Canada to rule on laws in Canada.

Nobody gets to be a Judge just because they say they can. They get to be a Judge because someone else says they can.

Finally the Judgement is the facts. It's the judicial decision and unless it is overturned on an appeal (which is about as likely as a drunkensober Burnaby doing the onesie dance for the forums delight horror). It will remain the facts. That is how a common law system works. WeRe checks, under common law are unlawful.

[IDIOT]

Best bit.

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

[JonnyL]

Would love to see POE arrested here and shoved on a plane to face trial abroad. Please say it's possible.

[IDIOT]

My favourite part.

The evidence I received makes it obvious that “Peter of England” is entirely willing to ruin the finances of his customers, and even put them at risk of criminal prosecution for passing bad cheques. His reward is a paltry £35.00.

[Burnaby49]

I should clarify the position of the court official giving the decision. Technically the GOODF idiots are correct, the decision was not made by a judge it was made by a "Master in Chambers". A Master is a court employee empowered by the court to make legally binding decision as a result of hearings in what are called Chambers Sessions. The legal impact and weight of the decision is the same as a trial by judge. I've reported on many chambers sessions such as this one;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10279

And this one;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9377&start=220#p163974

The reason for Chambers Sessions is obvious. The courts are swamped with crap and full trial sessions are expensive and the lineup for hearing dates for trials extends forever. So Masters in Chambers are essentially gatekeepers who render much faster decisions on issues that don't require a full court hearing. Foreclosures, for one, are issues that require quick resolutions. The Federal Court of Canada uses Masters to decide on the great majority of the freeman/OPCA issues filed in that court.

This is a description of the function of a Master at the Alberta Queen's Bench;

Judges are appointed to the Provincial Court, while Masters and Justices are appointed to the Court of Queen’s Bench. Judges have a wide jurisdiction to hear matters in the Provincial Court, but there are many issues that must go to the Court of Queen’s Bench to be decided. In the Court of Queen’s Bench, Masters have very limited power to hear matters, while Justices have very wide authority to make decisions. Many lawyers will use the word “jurisdiction” to describe what kind of powers each of these positions has. For example, a Master has the jurisdiction (the power) to hear many procedural matters.

This is the area that applied to the Parlees;

A Justice, or a “Master” sitting in Chambers will hear what are called “preliminary matters” and “procedural matters”. This means that he or she will consider applications that have to do with an on-going civil law case, but that usually are not going to be the final decision in the case. Sometimes, the application will move a case forward in some way (for example, a Plaintiff may need a court order to serve documents on someone). Sometimes, the application will be for an interim order, which means that the order will only be in effect for a limited period of time or until the case goes to a full trial. There are, however, some exceptions to this general statement. Justices and Masters can make final decisions in foreclosure cases, and can hear applications for summary judgment. Summary judgment is an application that can be made to dismiss the entire case. For example, sometimes summary judgment will be applied for when there is no reasonable defence, and therefore no reason why a full trial should go forward.

http://www.law-faqs.org/alberta-faqs/co ... lications/

As the above quote shows it makes no difference to the Parlees if the decision was given by a Master or a Judge. They lost and a decision at either level is equally legally binding. The Parlees can appeal this to trial level at the Court of Queen's Bench but it will be an appeal of the Master's decision rather than a new trial. Masters decisions, particularly ones as well researched and explained as this, are rarely overturned on appeal.

Edit Note - Notice the portion of my original post struck out above? That's because Burnaby49 decided, after writing the above, to ask a real lawyer who knows what he's talking about regarding Masters decisions. Burnaby49 knows a lot of lawyers. An occupational hazard of being an ex income tax auditor.

Anyhow this is what he told me. Officially, it's an appeal 'de novo', so if Parlee were to appeal the Master's analysis would have no weight associated with it or deference. However in the Parlees case there really isn't much doubt as to the probable outcome of an appeal.

Here's the relevant case: Bahcheli v. Yorkton Securities Inc., 2012 ABCA 166
http://canlii.ca/t/frj54

I (Burnaby49) would assume that the Court of Queen's Bench, the first level of appeal from the master's decision, would give strong consideration to the legal analysis in that decision. Since it is definitive of the issue the Parlees would lose again but this time with a Queen's Bench judge's name on it.

I wouldn't fret about whether or not they will appeal. There is nothing in the case to date that doesn't indicate they have ever had any plan except full steam ahead and, like Tom Crawford, what do they have to lose? The similarities are telling. Lost homes, broke, desperate, convinced that they are correct. I predict that we'll be seeing this at Queen's Bench in due course.

[Burnaby49]

Finally the Judgement is the facts. It's the judicial decision and unless it is overturned on an appeal (which is about as likely as a drunkensober Burnaby doing the onesie dance for the forums delight horror). It will remain the facts. That is how a common law system works. WeRe checks, under common law are unlawful.

I'm planning to put out a general invitation to see who wants a pint with Burnaby49 during my five-week boozerama to the UK next year (no need to rush to reject me yet, the posting is coming). You were of course to be included in the general callout; even Bones was included although he has been proven, over and over, to be of absolutely no consequence whatever to Freemen worldwide. However after the revolting image that your last posting has burned into my brain I'm forced to reconsider your participation. You've spoiled my day's drinking.

[grixit]

Peanut misspoke in that post. He actually meant to reference you doing the Lambada with the Serpent King, while both of you were in safety orange thongs.

[PeanutGallery]

Peanut misspoke in that post. He actually meant to reference you doing the Lambada with the Serpent King, while both of you were in safety orange thongs.

No I didn't. In fact the reason I used strike on the word "drunken" was because their is every chance that after having a few, or somewhat more than a few, Burnaby could be persuaded to try shaking it like our 'manda.

[Burnaby49]

We Canadians can screw ourselves by getting even deeper into debt than you

Never mentioned it before.... I'm in Edmonton myself

Edmonton? You're in the perfect location to be a Quatloos court reporter. Most of the decisions I report seem to come out of Edmonton. Vancouver has pretty much dried up of freeman cases but Edmonton has the hard-core. I'd love to attend and report on Denise Eddie's ongoing saga as a Poriskyite follower. Just craziness.

[notorial dissent]

I thought I knew where the Lord Denning quote was that PoE has been relying on, but now can't find it and would like to look at it again in light of current developments.

[littleFred]

http://swarb.co.uk/fielding-platt-ltd-v ... -jan-1969/

[Wake Up! Productions]

So... they signed the promissory note to PoE in the amount of $150,000 which (unless the WeRe Bank has changed it's policies) is the max that could be provided - a total of $300,000 for both. According to the WeRe Banks terms, one can only draw up to the max amount - and yet they wrote out a cheque for $319k when the max possible was $300k?

Naughty Naughty Parlees breaking the terms of WeRe Bank like that.

Although, I am rather curious if PoE "cleared" the amount

They signed the Prom Note for £150,000 each, so £300,000, which is $600,000-odd Canadian dollars.

REPOSTED FROM THE CANADIAN TOPIC:
You guys missed the most obvious of all points, Mr. Parlee exceeded the £150,000 WeRe limit !!!



At today's exchange rate, $319,149.69 CD equals £159,149.34. Had this cheque been accepted, Mr. Parlee would be £9,149.34 in overdraft to PoE !!!

[Jeffrey]

Hush down, you're doing Peter's dirty work for him. Now all he has to do is make a video saying he didn't clear the check because it was more than £150,000 and he's off the hook.