http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/
It was all good times until the cheques started bouncing. Panic, denial and anger ensued. However, during the initial happy days when the cheques were still working through the system the WeRe virus spread to the United States and Canada with creditors in both countries finding themselves dealing with phony cheques from a fake bank in England located at a mail-drop at 83 Dulcie Street in Manchester. Check it out on Google Street View to see their impressive headquarters.
For any of you not familiar with Peter of England and the WeRe bank scam there are discussions on them here;
viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10846
and here;
viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10712
For whatever reason the British authorities seem very hesitant to go after Peter and there have been no reported court decisions in which the validity of the WeRe cheques has been an issue until today when this Canadian case was released.
Servus Credit Union Ltd v Parlee, 2015 ABQB 700
http://canlii.ca/t/glzx3
A decision of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta. The WeRe payment, while a significant issue, was only one of a number of OPCA stunts Mr. Parlee, the plaintiff, pulled in a desperate but failed attempt to stop foreclosure on the family home. So I'll discuss all aspects of the case with particular focus on the WeRe issue.
The actual story is, in a way, an unfortunate one. A married Alberta couple who went to court with every OPCA argument they could think of and ended up losing everything. The Parlees are in their 60's, broke and without any significant assets. This seems largely the result of their making a cascading series of very bad decisions then relentlessly litigating their mistakes to the bitter end.
The Boisjoli decision is discussed here;[1] This is a case where all of the participants have become victims of a pseudo legal scam. This judgment explains my refusal to interfere with a court-ordered foreclosure of property formerly owned by Alfred and Clara Parlee. As a direct result of the scam the foreclosure process was unnecessarily long, complicated, and costly. The Parlees attempted to implement futile, pseudo-legal schemes to save their home. Instead it cost them not only their home but also whatever equity they had.
[2] There are some apparent winners. These are the scam artists who preyed on the Parlees and exploited their desperate situation. One is known: a UK resident named Peter Smith, or, as he prefers to call himself, “Peter of England”. The other con-person cannot be identified from the materials received by the Court. There is an accompanying cast of lesser characters, including an Alberta lawyer who may have breached his professional duties by endorsing legally ineffective and fraudulent documents as a notary, thereby adding an air of legitimacy to documents that are profoundly at odds with any accepted legal ideas: see Re Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 629 at paras 121-24.
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10814
The story seems to have started out with a very large income tax bill which the Canada Revenue Agency started trying to collect in 2013.
No details were given regarding the source of this debt but whatever generated it doesn't seems to have left them with any money in their pockets. I'll hazard a wild guess. There have been a number of schemes, either tax evasion or very close, promoted in Canada in the early 2000s up to the present which cost participants dearly. The Russell Porisky Paradigm tax evasion scheme and Fiscal Arbitrators come to mind. The CRA has been very aggressive against taxpayers using them. There have been criminal tax evasion convictions, jail time, and massive fines. The Parlees may have fallen victim to one of these. If so the CRA would not hesitated to inflict the maximum penalties they could.[11] The Canada Revenue Agency was not a participant in this action, but would have received notice of the steps. As counsel for Servus explained, Mr. Parlee appeared to be referring to two Canada Revenue Agency writs, both in the amount of $212,507 and costs: one filed in 2013 and the second, which appears to be a duplicate, in 2015.
The apparent result of the financial stress was the Parlees defaulting on their mortgage.
Perhaps a significant reason for the mortgagor going right to foreclosure so quickly was the Parlees very bad decision on how they would pay their property tax. They used the three/five letter scheme to submit a fake financial instrument in payment rather than trying to work out an arrangement with the municipality and their mortgagor.III. Background and Timeline
[14] As noted, the Parlee Lands are located outside of Sexsmith, Alberta and include the Parlees’ residence. The debt was $331,807.26.
[15] The Parlees entered into a Line of Credit agreement with Servus which permitted the Parlees to overdraw their chequing account by up to $320,000, with 1% interest per annum. The Line of Credit was secured by a mortgage.
[16] One term of the agreements with Servus was that the Parlees would pay the County property taxes for the Parlee Lands. Failure to do was a default on the Mortgage. The Parlees did not pay their property taxes for several years and the County registered a tax notification against title. Servus then paid the overdue property taxes and issued a demand. When the demand was not met, Servus commenced foreclosure proceedings.
When that didn't work they doubled up their bet and got the WeRe Bank involved;[18] The Parlees filed a Statement of Defence on May 7, 2015. It claims that County taxes for the Parlee lands had been paid on December 19, 2014:
... in good faith by a signed acceptance Tender Instrument as per Canada Bills of Exchange Act, RSC 1985 c-B-4 current to April 22, 2015 Section 57, 80, 81, 82, 84, 95. and UN Convention on Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes 1988 Article 41, 43 and 71..es) ...
A non valid response from the County of Grande Prairie # 1 sent December 29, 2015 was received by defendant so an Affidavit of non-response was sent January 17, 2015.
Servus Credit Union initiated foreclosure action against defendants with Minos Stewart Masson (solicitors) based on presumption that taxes of $11,782.31 WeRe still outstanding .
My Line of Credit was in good standing and payments WeRe made faithfully for many years then account was frozen and I could not make my truck payment. These procedures caused me great stress, harm and anxiety of which I will seek compensation from all parties jointly and severally. I believe these actions against me the defendant WeRe not lawful and had principles of Fraud and Extortion as my presentment for Tender Payment was within the guidelines of the bills of Exchange Act and the UN Convention for Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.
And tried to pay off their mortgage and line of credit the same way;[17] On May 5, 2015 the Parlees sent Servus what purported to be a cheque drawn on an institution named the “WeRe Bank”.
When the WeRe Bank cheques didn't work the Parlees tried to sue for damages;A cheque from WeRe Bank for $319,149.69 was sent by me to Dan Heinman Senior Manager corp. Services (ServusCredit Union) May 05, 2015 for the original Line of Credit Amount. ...
Parlee persisted and persisted;[19] The Parlees sought $30,000.00 in damages, re-instatement of the Line of Credit and nullification of any associated charges.
[20] The “WeRe Cheque” was rejected by Servus on May 11, 2015. Servus insisted on payment by certified cheque or bank draft; Servus had “... no intention of engaging in discussion with [Mr. Parlee] regarding [his] ‘freeman theories of money and banking’.”
[21] Mr. Parlee responded on May 19, 2015 with a document titled:
Notice of Protest and included Info from Canadian Bills of Exchange Act R.S.C., 1985, c. B-4, UN Convention on International Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes (1988), Financial Administration Act R.S.C., 1985, F-11 (Interpretation of Money), Black's Law 9th Edition (payment (14c)(Acceptance) in Regard to Correspondence received May 15, 2015 and sent May 11, 2015, Non Acceptance of Cheque to Servus Credit Union for $ 319, 149.69
[22] This document is reproduced in Appendix E, but also features a postage stamp in the lower right corner, which Mr. Parlee has signed across. As with other documents reproduced in the appendices, the content is, in some cases, redacted to remove sensitive or redundant information. The appendix documents generally reproduce the formatting of the original items.
Gobbledygook isn't the kind of legal terminology that I'd expect from a Learned Master but I guess it is all in the context. Anyhow this led to another disaster for the Parlees;[24] On June 10, 2015, Mr. Parlee wrote to Servus requesting information on what steps Servus had taken to contact and obtain funds from the WeRe Bank in relation to the WeRe Cheque. Also attached was a document titled “NOTICES of PROTEST SENT” (Appendix F) that indicated Mr. Parlee had taken steps within a timeline set by the UK Bills of Exchange Act 1888 and the “UN Convention 1988 on International Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.”
[25] On June 25, 2015 Mr. Parlee and counsel for Servus appeared before Master Breitkreuz. The learned Master:
1. concluded Mr. Parlee’s explanation of the WeRe Bank and WeRe Cheque was “gobbledygook”;
2. found Mr. Parlee had not proven he had provided any payment to Servus;
3. determined the debt then to be $334,837.01; and
4. ordered summary judgment;
5. provided a 30 day redemption period, failing which the land would be offered for sale by tender.
The next hearing was scheduled for August 13, 2015. Mr. Parlee’s response was “I do not consent.”
[26] Mr. Parlee, on July 3, 2015, wrote to counsel for Servus and complained that WeRe Bank had the necessary funds ready to be transferred, demanded evidence of why Servus considered WeRe Bank to be a fraud, and asked why Servus has not attempted to clear the WeRe Cheque. He then warned that failure to provide a satisfactory response in five days will result in “lasting tacit agreement through acquiescence” settling the dispute with Servus over the WeRe Cheque in the Parlees’ favour, canceling the August 13, 2015 hearing, and resulting in a damages award.
[27] Mr. Parlee also filed a number of documents prior to the August 13, 2015 hearing, including:
• A July 20, 2015 Affidavit by Mr. Parlee with many attachments that relate to two general subjects:
1) the WeRe Bank and WeRe Cheque, and
2) a trust and ownership structure between ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE and Alfred P. Parlee; and
• A July 22, 2015 Affidavit by Mr. Parlee attaching a “NOTICE OF TRESPASS ON MY PRIVATE PROPERTY” alleging misconduct by counsel for Servus, demanding that he be disbarred for intimidation and unethical practice, $15 million in damages, and “I order this case dismissed.” The trespass is:
... No one can use MY NAME or g mail without my consent. I am OWNER and no one can tell me different. All affidavits of ownership of Name and Birth Certificate are filed with the Court and are notarized and authenticated ...
This issue of trespassing and unethical behaviour has caused damage to the owner of my Estate and created damage on my PRIVATE PROPERTY. This is unacceptable and requires compensation. No-body or no-one has authority over THIS BODY. I am owner of Estate as per filed notarized and authenticated documents.
[Emphasis in original.]
• An Affidavit filed July 25, 2015 which attaches a “SECOND NOTICE OF TRESPASS ON MY PRIVATE PROPERTY” that repeats the content of the July 22 “Notice”.
They did not vacate, apparently certain in their own minds that they could not be evicted. This resulted in their physical removal from their own home;[28] After hearing the somewhat cryptic submissions from Mr. Parlee concerning ownership issues, foreclosure was ordered by Master Smart on August 13, 2015. Master Smart rejected Mr. Parlee’s submission that his title to the Parlee Lands could not be challenged. The Parlees had 30 days to vacate the property.
This resulted in another blizzard of Freeman gibberish which you can read in paragraphs 29 and 30 which led to the case we are now discussing. You will note that there is no place in this entire narrative where there is any indication that the Parlees backed off, even for a moment, and questioned themselves about the wisdom of what they were doing. They madly scrabbled from one guru to another and doubled down with every failure. Events seemed to have taken a momentum of their own with no way of stopping them except a head-on crash into the wall. That was provided by Servus Credit Union Ltd v Parlee, 2015 ABQB 700.[7] On October 1, 2015 I heard an ill-defined application by Mr. Alfred Parlee in relation to an August 13, 2015 order of Master Smart that foreclosed the Parlees from their rural property near Sexsmith, Alberta. The Parlees had been given 30 days to exit the property. They did not do so, and, so on September 29, 2015, the Parlees WeRe removed from it with the assistance of the RCMP.
[8] This seems to have been an unexpected outcome for the Parlees. As at the date of the hearing, their personal property and vehicles remained on the land that now belonged to the lender. Rules 9.27 and 9.28 deal with removal, storage and sale of personal property and abandoned goods. I encouraged the Parlees to come to an agreement about the orderly removal of those personal goods
This is what the Parlees demanded from the court;
The court's analysis starts in paragraph 32 and is a cornucopia of OPCA gibberish. It is essentially a review of documents;[10] Having reviewed Mr. Parlee’s materials I asked if his objective was to nullify Master Smart’s foreclosure order. Mr. Parlee confirmed that was a part of his intention, but he also wanted the Court:
... to identify the trust, and to discuss other relevant trusts relating to the subject matter. I have an interest in the case, the trusts are the judge, the court clerk, the court, the indemnity bond, the mortgage, the payment office PGT, the treasury board, the bank, the Servus Credit Union Ltd., the taxation officer, and the prosecutor. Some of these trusts have been breached. I have vested interests and properties to these different entities that show I have an adverse claim on these subject matters.
Therefore I require return on my interest. I order return on my interest from CRA, and I order clear title to the property with no labelling encumberances. I also order the return of the interests and principle to be paid immediately to my business name. ... I order the clear title to the property. ...
As a private man I make these orders in full due respect. The indemnity bond that was accepted by the court was for one million dollars.
[12] Mr. Parlee said he has “100% legal title to the estate”, and relied on documents in an Affidavit he had filed on July 20, 2015. He claimed his signature “... creates the currency.” His authority to sign comes from his certificate of live birth. His documents were no different from others used in international commerce. They had been filed to the treasury board who “would look after everything.” He argued that “UCC 3603” and its Bills of Exchange Act equivalent meant the Parlees’ debt was discharged. He concluded:
I made order as a private person. ... Sir, I order this case closed, and all settlements looked after. I’m asking for an order to have this case sealed, and my files returned to me. I order this.
[13] I responded that the Court would not acceed to Mr. Parlee’s orders. I dismissed Mr. Parlee’s application, with written reasons to follow.
The Quo Warranto application was some archaic nonsense demanding that the judge in the prior hearing either jump through a bunch of combusting hoops while twirling flaming batons or the Parlees got whatever they wanted as an implied court judgment. Specifically;[32] The fairest way to provide the written judgment that I promised Mr. Parlee is to treat the documents he filed after the August 13, 2015 foreclosure order as two separate applications:
1. a Quo Warranto application to declare the August 13, 2015 foreclosure as null and void because it was made without jurisdiction, as supported by Mr. Parlee’s July 20 Affidavit documents; and
2. an application to reverse the foreclosure and return possession of the Parlee Lands to the Parlees because they had (over)satisfied the outstanding mortgage debt with a $1 million “PRIVATE INDEMNITY BOND - NON-NEGOTIABLE”, or via other means in the July 20, 2015 Affidavit documents.
The court answered this with;l. That you, MASTER L.A. Smart, shall produce unto this living man, within the period of 7 days from the date hereof, a sworn affidavit, sworn under your own hand with full, unlimited personal liability, under penalty of perjury, to the effect that you did, articulate, sign and swear an Oath of Office of Judge, to act under the authority of the ENTITY, and that you do, at all times, operate in strict compliance with that oath of office in the ordinary course of your duties, without fear, favour or exception, under Rule of Law.
2. That you shall present and deliver by certified mail, to this living man, within the same 7 days, true and certified documentary evidence and proofs (i.e. statement, acceptance or declaration) signed under my hand and seal, that I did grant you unto YOU, and or unto the ENTITY, or unto any other person, permission, authority or consent; including but not limited to, YOU, the ENTITY, the principal of the ENTITY, or the founding principal of the ENTITY, to honour any judgment, order, decision or verdict of the said parties, in any cause or matter in which I may have been involved.
And that ended the Quo Warranto application.[37] Second, Mr. Parlee’s August 25, 2015 document reproduced in Appendix A(1) is a ‘foisted unilateral agreement’, or, more correctly in this instance, a ‘foisted unilateral judicial review’, where the failure to respond purports to crystalize a result in Mr. Parlee’s favour.
[39] The same is true for judicial proceedings. “Silence means victory” only where that result is provided by the Rules, other legislation, or the common law. The procedure for judicial review in Alberta is governed by the Rules. Mr. Parlee’s Quo Warranto “judgment” (Appendix A (2)) has no legal force because his Quo Warranto application (even if it had been filed correctly) has not been adjudicated by the appropriate body.
[40] A third basis on which Mr. Parlee’s Quo Warranto application fails is that it is presumes that a judicial officer has an obligation, on demand, to provide evidence of their Oath of Office. In fact the opposite is true. No litigant has a right to question a judge or master on their oath of office. Instead, it is up to a litigant to provide positive evidence to challenge the jurisdiction of these presumptively authorized parties: Fearn v Canada Customs, 2014 ABQB 114 at paras 83-87, 586 AR 23.
[41] A fourth defect in Mr. Parlee’s Quo Warranto application is that he demands proof that he had agreed or consented to Master Smart’s having jurisdiction over the foreclosure matter. It seems Mr. Parlee concluded he is outside court authority because of his inherent “sui iuris” [sic] authority that flows from “Divine Cannon Law” and his being a “living human being”. Religious belief and religious law does not trump Canadian law: Meads v Meads, at paras 276-285; R v Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 at paras 31 and 32 (failure to file tax returns), 302 BCAC 76, leave refused [2011] SCCA No 265. Individual consent is not required for the operation of Canadian law or, for that matter taxation: Meads v Meads, at paras 405-410; R v Jennings, 2007 ABCA 45 at para 6, 72 WCB (2d) 360, Lynch v Canada North-West Land Co. (1891) 19 SCR 204 at 208-10.
So on to the step-by-step analysis of the documents. First up, the old Freeman standby the A4V.
This is what the cited paragraphs of Meads v Meads had to say about the A4V scheme.[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 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.
Back in the Parlee's fantasy-land the AQB hit them with a dose of reality on the A4V;1. Accept for Value / A4V
[531] The most common >money for nothing= scheme has a number of names: ARedemption@, AAccept for Value@, and AA4V@. The A4V concept originated in the United States, but a Canadian version has emerged, and Mr. Meads appears to subscribe to that.
[532] The mythology behind the A4V scheme is extremely peculiar, and requires travel into the conspiratorial and demon-haunted shadow world of the OPCA community. Aspects of this scheme are explained in reported U.S. cases, including: United States v. Heath, 525 F.3d 451 (6th Cir. 2008); United States v. Anderson, 353 F.3d 490, 500 (6th Cir. 2003), certiorari denied, 541 U.S. 1068 (2004); United States v. Oehler, 2003 WL 1824967 (D. Minn. Apr. 2, 2003), affirmed, 116 Fed. Appx. 43 (8th Cir. 2004); United State v. Eddie Ray Kahn et al., No. 1:08-cr-00271-RCL-1 (U.S.D.C. D.C. May 26, 2010). As I understand it, A4V's guru promoters claim that each person is associated with a secret government bank account which contains millions of dollars. The exact sum varies from guru to guru. The bank account's number is usually related to some identification number assigned to a person by the state, such as a Social Security Number, a Social Insurance Number, or a birth certificate number. The specific details of that relationship also seem to vary between A4V schemes.
[533] Mr. Meads clearly has attempted to apply an A4V scheme. His in-court explanation of the Acorporate identity@ registered at birth and its associated funds and income are a reference to this concept. . . . .
[537] The exact form of an A4V scheme and associated "unlocking spell' varies from guru to guru, but there are common motifs that indicate an OPCA litigant is attempting to use these processes:
1. any reference to the UCC, or any UCC filing documents;
2. the language "accept for value" and "return for value";
3. a claim that a government bank account exists that is linked to a personal identification number;
4. mention of the gold or precious metal standards for money, and the dates those standards were abandoned;
5. a claim by a litigant that they are not a slave; this relates to the idea that the state uses people as collateral;
6. the U.S. AEmancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, and/or the 13th Amendment to the U.S. constitution; and
7. the characteristic Aaccept for value stamp or statement written on a bill, court order, or other correspondence.
[538] In Mr. Meads' case, he seems to claim that the Court should make an order to discharge his spousal and child support obligations by payment from the secret A4V government account. As I understood his statements in court, he had already told his wife's Counsel to access his secret bank account, and presumably she too has received many of the documents that Mr. Meads sent to this Court on June 19 and 21st. Mr Meads also asked for the modest award of $100 billion in gold or silver.
[543] It is very unfortunate that any person would be so gullible as to believe that free money can be obtained by these theatrics, but nevertheless some, like Mr. Meads, appear unable to resist the temptation of wealth without obligation. One can only hope that in the future OPCA gurus will find A4V less attractive, and their risk-loving customers instead invest in alternative forms of speculation, such as lottery tickets, which provide infinitely better prospects for return.
Next up, the WeRe Bank.[52] The Parlee’s “A4V” payment to the County was worthless.
You can see this printout on page 13. Usual WeRe Bullshit.2. The WeRe Bank
[54] After Servus commenced its foreclosure on the Parlee Lands, the Parlees attempted to pay off the outstanding Mortgage/Line of Credit debt with a “WeRe Cheque” (July 20, 2015 Affidavit, Exhibit “E”). This document and an accompanying item, a two-sided “allonge”, WeRe received by Servus on May 5, 2015, and are reproduced in Appendix D.
[55] The June 3 Boser, June 23 Kendrick, and July 20 Parlee affidavits provide more information about the WeRe Bank, WeRe Cheques, and their associated scheme. At first glance the WeRe Cheque appears to be a conventional cheque drawn from a bank for a customer, in this case Alfred Parlee. However, there are irregularities. WeRe Bank subtitles itself as “Universal Energy Transfer”. Comparison of the Parlees’ WeRe Cheque with other WeRe Cheques discloses they all have an identical “Branch Sort Code” and “Account Number”: “75-0181: 88888888”. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a list of UK banks compiled by the Bank of England (Kendrick Affidavit, Exhibit “F”) does not include “WeRe Bank” or any financial institution with a similar name.
[56] Another irregularity documented in the June 23 Kendrick Affidavit is that the WeRe Bank does not participate in the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication [“SWIFT”] system for inter-bank transfer of electronic funds. Instead, WeRe Bank has its own “highly secure format” protocols: “SWALLOW [Secure Waygate - Allow]” and “SPIT: [Secure Protocol Information Transaction]”. “Peter of England” instructs that banks are to send a scanned copy of the WeRe Cheque to his email account and then “Funds can be sent electronically Via “SWALLOW”. The WeRe Bank warns:
The Bank MUST present the cheque for clearing - no question, no debate, no wiggle room! It’s the LAW.
[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.
Then some blunt adult conversation;[58] In this context, ‘conventional money’ is worthless:
You were convinced to accept worthless money, the PROMISSORY NOTE/SCAM, for the promise/lie of
further wealth somewhere and at some time in the future in return for going without in the moment of now.
[59] Presumably, that is why WeRe Bank does not even deal in money, but instead trades in “Re”, “units of time and space”:
WeRe Bank’s principal trading asset is called the Re. It is a unit of space and time and has Value as it is “exchangeable” or trade-able.” Units are created through expenditure of effort over time and we hold these units “on account” and pay them out to our customers. The units are (energy × expended time = REWARD) based upon exceptionally sound principles of Albert Einstein’s (e = mc²), where m = mass, c = speed/time, e=energy (General Theory of Relativity). This equation, upon reflection is the only SOUND premise for a unit of exchange/currency in this world. Units are denominated in 2 skill/time classes: [Emphasis in original.]
[60] Still, if money is worthless, it seems strange that “Peter of England” requires that his customers first pay £35 up front as a “Joining Fee”, and then a £10 monthly subscription fee. You also need to complete and submit a £150,000.00 promissory note to WeRe Bank. Conveniently, the template can be downloaded from its website.
a. WeRe Bank is a Fraud
[61] The first basic reason why the WeRe Cheque was not a payment is simply because 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.
[62] Our Court is not the first entity to reach that conclusion. On September 17, 2015 the UK Financial Conduct Authority issued a consumer notice that WeRe Bank’s payment scheme was false and that its users could face legal consequences. The Central Bank of Ireland on October 19, 2015 issued a press release that the WeRe Bank is not authorized to carry out banking or other financial services, and activities of that kind are a criminal offence.
Even if it worked in Britain it couldn't work here;
b. Non-Canadian Authorities are not Binding
[63] There are legal defects as well. Reviewing the “allonge” and “Peter of England’s” communication indicates that the recipient of a WeRe Cheque is supposedly bound by the procedures in the UK Bills of Exchange Act and the UN Convention on Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes. UK law no longer applies in Canada. International treaties only have any force and effect inside this country if the treaty’s provision are enacted as Canadian legislation or put in effect by government order: Capital Cities Communications Inc. v Canadian Radio-Television Commission, [1978] 2 SCR 141 at 188, 81 DLR (3d) 609. Canadian governments are free to ignore and act in conflict with its international treaty agreements: R v Hape, 2007 SCC 26 at paras 53-54, [2007] 2 SCR 292.
Or Britain for that matter;
[64] There is another reason why the treaty identified by “Peter of England” is irrelevant (at least if he is attempting to identify The United Nations Convention on International Bills of Exchange
and International Promissory Notes (New York, 1988)) - Canada has not ratified that treaty. As for its precursor, The Convention for the Settlement of Certain Conflicts of Laws in connection with Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes (Geneva, 7 June 1930), Canada never signed it. What is perhaps even more ironic is that the home jurisdiction of “Peter of England”, the United Kingdom, which is not a participant in either treaty.
Then time to stomp on one of Peter's big selling points. The notorious Lord Denning quote about how creditors have to accept promissory notes tendered for debt;
c. No Obligation to Accept Non-Cash Payments
[65] Beyond that, Servus’s refusal to accept a particular form of payment is entirely legal. The WeRe Bank materials (see Appendix D(2)) rely on an obiter statement of Lord Denning in Fielding & Platt Ltd v Najjar, [1969] 2 All ER 150 at 152 (UK CA):
We have repeatedly said in this court that a Bill of Exchange or a Promissory Note is to be treated as cash. It is to be honored unless there is some good reason to the contrary.
[66] This exact quote and its potential relevance in Canada was recently considered by Rooke ACJ in Re Boisjoli at paras 30-36, where an analogous argument was made by a vexatious OPCA litigant who claimed to have forced payment of a debt with a promissory note and the Bills of Exchange Act. Rooke ACJ adopted the Scottish Court of Sessions (Scotland’s highest civil court) reasoning and conclusion in Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission v Wilson, 2014 SLR 46 at paras 10-11, [2013] CSIH 95, where that Court came to a number of conclusions, including that a bill of exchange, such as a cheque, may only extinguish an existing debt if the creditor agrees with that mechanism of payment. The ‘near cash’ theory has no application to these facts. A creditor may always insist on payment in legal tender.
[67] WeRe Bank documents proclaim that any alleged dispute over the WeRe Cheque would not be addressed in a Canadian court, but instead “ultimately arbitrated” via trial by jury before the “International Common Law Court of Record 750181”. This institution is purportedly the high court of the jurisdiction: “There is NO COURT WITHIN ENGLAND SUPERIOR TO A COMMON LAW COURT DULY CONVENED”. I will simply observe the International Common Law Court is unknown to either myself or, apparently, the UK courts. It is never mentioned even once in any of the jurisprudence archived on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BaiLII) website.
[68] Even if Lord Denning’s dicta WeRe binding on me, these facts are all “good reasons” to refuse Mr. Parlee and “Peter of England’s” so-called bill of exchange.
Paragraphs 69 to 72 tell how the WeRe Three/Five letter scheme is an abject failure too.
This case has one unique feature I've not seen before. As I understand it Peter of England has had a pretty firm policy of quickly abandoning his followers when they run into trouble. They go crying to Peter for help when their cheques bounce but all they get is silence. However he actually made the (admittedly minimal) effort to help the Parlees by giving them totally worthless advice on how to beat the bank through the use of his scam. So Alberta Queen's Bench decided to thrash Peter personally!
e. “Peter of England”
[72] A disturbing window into the OPCA world and the WeRe Bank fraud is provided by email correspondence between Alfred Parlee and “Peter of England” found in the Affidavits. On May 20, 2015 Mr. Parlee writes “Peter of England” requesting advise, he needs support “... because these lawyers can rattle my chain.” “Peter of England” replies:
Tell them that you want a firm statement on why they are "perverting the course of justice" and ask them why a cheque drawn on a bank does NOT equate to "money"?
Send this to him again and ask him to affirm that he can rebut this Allonge in a court of law and if he cannot he should IMMEDIATELY take legal advice from the City of London.
...
Stand firm with him - tell him you'll see him in court and you will personally be looking at liens being placed upon him and his business - ask him "under full commercial liability and penalty of perjury" why he claims the cheque is not good?
These cheques are clearing in the UK- we have had Chyrsler and ClBC on the phone to us.
We have become the Bankers Prayer - we are their life-line, without us their is no more liquidity in the market
This is NOT freeman mumbo jumbo but international banking practice - tell peter@werebank.com then we'll assure his sorry ass that if he goes to court he's going to get hammered!
...
He/they has/have to realize, eventually, these arrogant hyenas, that their are bigger creatures in the jungle than they!
He should step very carefully this one!
Peter
[73] Mr. Parlee writes “Peter of England” once more on June 17, 2015 asking for advice “... as the hearing is next week. I am worried.” Peter responds with:
Please send him this and tell him the days of ReTribution are upon him. His time is passed his number has been called.
More than this Alf I cannot do
[74] These communications are a discomforting glimpse into how OPCA gurus work: making false promises and callously goading their customers into ill-advised action. The evidence I received makes it obvious that “Peter of England” is entirely willing to ruin the finances of his customers, and even put them at risk of criminal prosecution for passing bad cheques. His reward is a paltry £35.00.
My favorite line in the entire decision is this one;
The third OPCA argument the Parlees tried was the Private Indemnity Bond, a minor variation on the old American Strawman argument.We have become the Bankers Prayer - we are their life-line, without us their is no more liquidity in the market
The court didn't buy it;3. The Private Indemnity Bond
[75] Mr. Parlee’s July 20, 2015 Affidavit discloses a third OPCA scheme. It has a number of ‘ingredients’:
1. a copy of Mr. Parlee’s Alberta birth certificate,
2. a copy of Mr. Parlee’s Alberta Registration of Live Birth,
3. a printout of the “Cestui Que Vie Act 1666”
4. a July 9, 2015 “Affidavit for the Ownership” document where:
I, Alfred P. Parlee, grantor, am the absolute and legal owner for the ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE, (date for Registration June 7, 1949), Registration Number 1949-08-010689, a corporate entity with Record number 010689 (and under the constructive trust(s); there being with the ministry, crown corporation, government agency or SUCH (Schools, Universities, Colleges, Hospitals))) custody, with and all interest therein, bearing the seal of the ONTARIO MINISTRY of GOVERNMENT SERVICES for good faith and credit;
I, Alfred Philip Parlee accept these Titles under the legal Office for ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE and under the will [of] grantor for claim for property and here state that all credit vested in this Title am sponsored by the grantor for the Title in question.
Then to the obvious conclusion;[76] Mr. Parlee is obviously attempting to create some kind of relationship between two ‘aspects’ of himself, his physical ‘flesh and blood’ half, and his “Strawman”, “ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE.” This purported duality has been investigated and rejected in Canadian courts on numerous occasions, including Meads v Meads, at paras 417-446, Fiander v Mills, 2015 NLCA 31 at paras 20, 39-40. These documents are meaningless. Talking to yourself binds no-one. There is only one Alfred Philip Parlee.
[77] Last, there is the Sept. 10, 2015 “Private Indemnity Bond - Non-Negotiable”. It is issued by “ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE, dba 250660305”. This is the entity invoked in the July 9 “Affidavit of Ownership” and “Declaration for the Legal Office” documents, and which is (allegedly) owned and operated by “Alfred Philip Parlee”. It appears Mr. Parlee is instructing his “Strawman” “ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE” to pay the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Clerk $1 million to “zero, settle, and close” the foreclosure legal action, “Court case file # 1504 00261”.
[78] There are many reasons why this document is worthless. First, the “Strawman” is a myth. Mr. Parlee is ordering a payment by a figment of his imagination. Second, the “Private Indemnity Bond - Non-Negotiable” is likely supposed to be paid out of a secret bank account or other analogous resource operated by a government entity. This is probably why Mr. Parlee mentioned the “treasury board” in his Oct. 1, 2015 submissions. He believes that with the correct combination of documents he can unlock an “A4V” account that will then pay the court and make the foreclosure go away. As I have previously explained, this too is an exercise in make-believe.
[79] Even if one could settle a lawsuit with a promissory note of some kind to the court, there is another issue. The “Indemnity Agreement” cannot bind the Court Clerks because it is no agreement. It is a declaration of a relationship signed by only one party - Mr. Parlee. A contract requires “a meeting of minds.” Here that is obviously absent: All of which takes us back to the central premise of most of these schemes, that silence is acceptance of something the perpetrator is attempting to foist on the recipient.
[80] This scheme was probably sold to Mr. Parlee from a Canadian or US source, and not from “Peter of England”. That suggests Mr. Parlee has switched gurus in his attempts to avoid foreclosure. This is yet another way he has been victimized by his OPCA beliefs.
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). 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.
VI. Disposition
[85] Mr. Parlee’s application is dismissed.
