Rob is a new user at the World Freeman Society posting under the name “motorheadv10”. He recently started a message thread titled “I paid my mortgage with a promissory note”
http://worldfreemansociety.ca/forum/49- ... ssory-note
In February 2014, after research of the uncitral, Bills of Exchange act, Bank of Canada Act, Bank Act, and various other gov't acts and laws. I learned about the bank lending us our own money we created with our signature, and I learned about Birth Certificates, persons, and the debt slave system., I asked for a meeting at the bank and asked to see my mortgage documents. They didn't have them in house and said they could fax them from Montreal. I asked to have the originals brought in with my signature, so he said it would take 5-7 days and I said that's fine. After waiting for them to call, I called them on the 8th day. The same representative said, Oh they just came in yesterday. I went in to the bank the next day to find fax copies of a mortgage agreement and mortgage approval with no signatures that had arrived the day after my first meeting. I set up an appointment with the manager and when I went to see her a brought with me a notarized promissory note to pay for the mortgage and a conditional acceptance letter. The bank manager said, "I can't honor that, it's made out to you." I said, "Yes it is, according to the bills of exchange act." Since she would not accept my payment, I gave her a conditional acceptance letter. The series of notices continued unanswered and I have gone into arrears from nonpayment since April 2014. During this process I have since become a secured party creditor by placing a lien on my person and have also copyrighted my name if that has any effect, I'm not sure. On Aug 1 I received a Demand Letter from the banks' solicitors and will go ahead with power of sale if the arrears are not received by Aug 8. I sent the solicitors a notice to provide evidence of the signed mortgage note, and that I had complete title of the property and they would need my permission to go ahead with a power of sale.
I spoke to Micheal Tellinger after his stop in Canada in May 2014. I asked him about the secret to having the bank accept a promissory note. He said to go to the bank headquarters and deliver it through the mail room to the chief financial officer. As the bank is going to do a power of sale of my property, I sent the lawyers my note to see if they would accept it and they would not. They say it is not lawful money of Canada. I hopped on a plane and flew to Toronto the next day after receiving their letter denying my payment. I delivered a joint and several note (promissory note) to settle the full amount of the mortgage to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. As the note and cover letter were not in an envelope they called up to the CFO and read off the note. The CFO's office said they would accept it. I tried to get a delivery stamp but they don't have a stamp. I received a manifest for the package I delivered. I put the papers in an envelope and they received it. This happened on September 10, 2014 and I received a letter on October 2, 2014 from the bank's lawyer stating again that this is not lawful money of Canada. I'm getting frustrated with this whole issue and not sure what to do next. I have paid my mortgage with money in the form of a financial instrument. Do I have to sue the bank now? Any help would be greatly appreciated as this situation is very stressful to get them to acknowledge the law. According to the bills of exchange act this debt can be set-off with a note. What is your opinion on this matter and what would you do? This morning I was informed that my property has been listed in the newspaper for mortgage sale. The auction is in 1 month
That was on Oct. 15. Rob now has a little over a week left before his house is sold out from under him.
It looks like he is using the same promissory note/Bills of Exchange Act scam described in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 at paras 524-528. It doesn’t work. Rob probably got this scheme (directly or indirectly) from Eldon Warman’s Detax Canada website. The site is a mess, but search for this text: “VERRRY INTERESTING BIT OF KNOWLEDGE” (http://www.detaxcanada.org) which lays out Eldon’s idea of how you can add value to a promissory note with your signature alone.
Rob followed up his first salvo at the bank with a foisted unilateral agreement set of letters. We all know how well that works.
Now the luminaries of the WFS offer their wisdom:
Launch a bunch of frivolous lawsuits. Great idea!Meta says:
Address suits to each person who has, or will cause you damage and/or loss in the past or future.....be sure to include the specific words when you bring your lawsuits against each one, "in your private capacity", which means that each one is now being sued for stepping outside of the Law and has acted without Law. List how each one you met, has acted lawlessly and deliver it registered to a Magistrate of a Court and if that is rejected, sue that Magistrate also, in a higher Appeals Court. Keep adding damage upon damage....
WaveWalker suggests Rob demand original documents and accounting:
Unfortunately for Rob this argument has already been rejected repeatedly by Canadian courts. Such as this case from the very court where Rob is going to have to fight, the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Piedrahita, 2012 NBQB 101A personal one for me is Ask the bank to produce the original wet signature Banking Resolution contract for your personal bank account, it is my suspicion that you bank account has also been securitized, monetized or in some other way your signature has also been used to profit the bank without your consent; this is FRAUD (Please get back to me on the results; it is very important)
Also has the bank followed GAAP - Generally Approved Accounting Principals .... probably not
http://canlii.ca/t/fqrbm
Piedrahita had tried to challenge a credit card debt.
And he lost:[5] He is concerned that the documentation, especially with regard to the credit card account, includes bank documentations which were issued on the assumption that the main customer would first activate the card and would thereupon be, by doing so, agreeing to be bound by the terms of the documentation enclosed with the card.
[6] He is also concerned about the ledger balances and the proof of them. The bank manager explained that the ledger balances were written off at the branch level at the time that they were transferred to the collections people or collections branch or administration of the bank.
[7] The bank manager who testified was authorized and directed to testify. She knows nothing about any arrangements that might ever have been made with a collection agency if there were any. All she knows is that according to the bank records and the banking documentation that she has received, Mr. Piedrahita still owns both accounts.
[8] Mr. Piedrahita would have preferred to have received what he calls “wet ink” signatures by himself for the business credit before he got them today. The bank manager made it clear in her evidence that it would be unthinkable for them to just send the originals of those documents to him because they would need them for their other purposes as they were used today.
[9] With regard to the credit card accounts, as I understand the authorization process, it does not sound as if there is in fact a wet ink contract but rather a contract that was accepted by activation of the card and the documentation that went with that.
[10] As I see it, the bank documentation and proof is consistent with the modern age of multi-branch banking and businessmen moving from, for example, Barrie to Saint John and being able to use a very portable device of a credit card or overdraft protection wherever they might be.
[11] In proof of banking accounts, the Court does not need proof beyond a reasonable doubt in this civil claim. It needs proof only on a balance of probabilities.
[
16] For these reasons, I am satisfied that the bank has proven its accounts and that they have proven them to be debts incurred by the defendant, Alexander Hamilton Piedrahita.
Here’s another one, this time from Alberta: Royal Bank of Canada v Place, 2010 ABQB 733:
http://canlii.ca/t/2dkq
Place tried to nullify his mortgage using these items:
These documents were irrelevant and the foreclosure was confirmed. Place was ordered to pay solicitor-client costs. This is a rate much higher than the standard costs and serves as a punishment for engaging in a meritless lawsuit.4. An “Affidavit of Truth and Fact,” filed by Mr. Place, discussed above. Some of the other portions of the “Demand for Disclosure” included the following requests:
(i) “31. Provide evidence that the sum of $350,000.00 was actually advanced by the Plaintiff to the mortgagor in full as per Affidavit of Default prepared by D’Arcy Moral of the City of New Westminster, by evidence of bank ledger.”
(ii) “32. Provide wet ink signature contract that the Defendant covenanted to pay the Plaintiff monthly instalments of $348.55 commencing June 5, 2006 and continuing thereafter to and including May 18, 2011 when full outstanding balance becomes due, as per the Affidavit of Default as prepared by D’Arcy Moran of the City of New Westminster.”
(iii) “34. Provide wet ink signature contract that the original Mortgage amount was $160,200.00, as per sworn “Affidavit in Support of Reduced Fees” by Loti Bartash of First Canadian Title Company dated July 12, 2007.”
(iv) “35. Provide a ledger showing all payments made by the defendant to the Plaintiff for the alleged Mortgage and RBC Homeline Plan Agreement, including all payments made directly to the Plaintiff and also to Witten LLP in trust.”
(b) A copy of an “Affidavit of Walker F. Todd, Expert Witness for Defendants,” which appears to have been used in the Circuit Court for the County of Oakland in 2003,
(c) A “Fee Schedule,” and
(d) A copy of the Notice of Motion and associated Affidavits for this motion, filed by Witten LLP.
Rob is still undeterred, but at least he’s smart enough to avoid WaveWalker’s suggestion he call Winston Shrout’s emergency telephone service:
I have read all the info in the financial administration and the bills of exchange act. I have sent letters requesting the original documents and letters of dishonor to follow all the unanswered correspondence. I decided to not pay anymore which may have been a mistake but I won't stop fighting these bastards. The problem is to get the lawyers or bank to acknowledge the acts.
I have delivery and acceptance which would finalize the transaction. In Canada there are foreclosures and power of sale. Foreclosure is when they kick out the tenants and sell the property. Power of sale is when they will sell your home at auction then kick out the tenants as in my case it's a power of sale.
I sent a letter to the banks' lawyer stating I was a MAN and it was my BELIEF that the debt has been paid. I required them to postpone the sale indefinitely as they were mine truly. Sometimes the simple stuff works better. They can't act on a man, only the person, and a man's belief's cannot be challenged.
verynewtothis I have watched all your vids and your info is great stuff. Do you also live in New Brunswick? I attempted to send you the bank manager meeting a few months back but couldn't get it to upload and I never got around to transcribing it. The best part was when I asked where the money comes from and she said the bank lends out it's deposits. And then she says the bank has coffers of money for loans. I don't remember getting a coffer full of cash to buy my home. ha ha. :S
Then two days ago motorheadv10 described an exchange of correspondence:
And yesterday:I received a letter back from the banks' lawyers:
"Regarding your reference to the Bills of Exchange Act, I can advise that this particular federal statute has no relevance to your mortgage with CIBC and your obligation to repay your mortgage debt. To reiterate, the "promissory note" that you previously forwarded to our office is not lawful money of Canada and cannot be accepted as payment in full of your mortgage."
"Regarding your reference to the Financial Administration Act, I am unaware of any particular provision that would be applicable to the current situation involving our power of sale proceedings under the Property Act."
So i sent a return letter hand written in blue ink that goes like this:
Dear Terry, Greetings,
i have received your letter dated October 28, 2014. At this time i, a man Rob Nevers do not have access to more than $30 Thirty Dollars per month; is there any thing else of value in which you will accept as payment to a debt in which: You claim is true,and;
You believe i owe to you,and;
You declare is now post due?
i require a prompt answer, as i believe you wish to move my property from my land.
i, as a man verify all here and will as verify all be true in open court.
Signed and thumb printed.
Let's see how he likes that one.
Yep. Trying to enforce foisted unilateral agreements works really well, as we see in Royal Bank of Canada v. Skrapec, 2011 BCSC 1827Those are great questions but i'm down to the wire here and i don't think the mail system is that fast, plus the bank never answered any of the 10 or more letters i sent them already. I've already had 2 registered letters sent regular mail because the clerk put the whole sticker on the back of the envelope. Canada Post sucks!!
They keep talking about the note i sent to their office! After they wouldn't accept my note, I flew to Toronto and hand delivered a promissory note to CIBC head office and that is where the delivery and acceptance took place. This is the same note that was confirmed and a confirmation receipt sent to my person by the lawyers with a photo copy of the note. If they didn't want it, send it back to me!!!If it goes to auction i plan on taking it to court. Then all those questions will come in handy.
By making them an offer, they can't refuse it or the debt would be discharged. Plus if i take them to court it would be in queen's bench. Corporations can't follow a man into an open court.
Until my next update, thanks for all the help.
http://canlii.ca/t/fq9sc
This is going to end up predictably with Rob out on the street. The clock's ticking.[51] The fact that a letter is sent to the bank, registered or otherwise, demanding that the bank prove its claim in a specific way, does not oblige them to do that. He might just as well have asked the bank officers to dress in some specific costume and march down the street, if in fact the debts were owed. It does not mean they are required to do it.
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!
