So I'll stick with Jolene. This is the PDF of the entire court file including envelopes and a hand-written note from Jolene;JOLENE TRUDEAU, also known as JOLENE D. TRUDEAU, also known as JOLENE DAWN TRUDEAU, also known as JOLENE BURNETT, also known as JOLENE D. BURNETT, also known as JOLENE DAWN BURNETT
http://www.mediafire.com/view/2td55r4n1 ... ection.pdf
The first document is an affidavit from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce giving the story from their side.
Then the bank gratuitiously dumped on our defendant;18. As of April, 2015, all three accounts were in good standing, with the following particulars:
Account Statement Date Total Balance Next Minimum Payment Due Date
Classic Visa April 3, 2015 (pp.55-57) $10,489.24 April 29, 2015
Dividend Visa April 6, 2015 (pp.113-115) $10,175.02 May 4, 2015
Line of Credit April 23, 2015 (p.190) $25,959.56 May 15, 2015
19. On May 4, 2015, the Defendant provided to CIBC purportedly as payment in full three "cheques" drawn on an entity in the United Kingdom ("UK") calling itself "WeRe Bank", copies of which are collectively attached hereto as Exhibit "J" , and having the following particulars:
Title
Date
Payor/Drawer
Drawee
Account
Payee (respectively)
Amount (respectively)
WeRe Bank UNIVERSAL ENERGY TRANSFER
May 4, 2015
Jolene Trudeau
WeRe Bank, 83 Ducie Street, Manchester M1 2JQ
Branch Sort Code 75-0181 Account No. 88888888
CIBC Classic Visa Card
CIBC Dividend Card
CIBC Personal line of Credit
Total Balance as set out in paragraph 18, above
20. However, the "cheques" could not be cleared because (as it later turned out) "WeRe Bank" was not a regulated bank. The purported payments in full that had been credited on May
4, 2015 were debited on May 7, 2015 (Line of Credit, p.191) and May 11 , 2015 (both Visas, pp.61-63 and pp.119-121 , respectively).
21. On September 17, 2015, the Financial Conduct Authority of the UK ("FCA") issued a Consumer Notice about WeRe Bank, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "K". The FCA indicated that WeRe Bank purports to be a bank and appears to have created its own currency. It described how it works: members issue WeRe Bank a Promissory Note payable 10 years in the future, and then they are able to buy cheque books. WeRe Bank states that its cheques can be used to pay liabilities, and if the payment is refused, then the Payee is acting in dishonor under the UK Bills of Exchange Act 1882, and the member's liability ceases. The FCA stated concerns because although WeRe Bank refers to itself as a bank, it does not appear to be carrying on regulated bank activities. Vulnerable consumers may be attracted to the claim that they will be able to pay off their debts "for free" using the cheques, even though they have not had to pay any money into an account. None of the institutions who have reported to the FCA that they were presented with WeRe Bank cheques have accepted them as legitimate payment. Consumers are unlikely to be able to pay debts using a WeRe Bank cheque and additional creditor charges, or judgments or repossession proceedings, may result.
The bank passed the file on to their lawyers and on July 16, 2015, They sent her a letter saying that WeRe didn't cut it.ORGANIZED PSEUDOLEGAL COMMERCIAL ARGUMENT
24. The following unusual communications were then received from the Defendant or on her behalf, copies of which are attached hereto as follows:
a. Exhibit "M", received July 21 , 2015, email to CIBC's Ontario solicitors;
b. Exhibit "N", dated July 23, 2015, letter to CIBC;
c. Exhibit "O'', dated September 17, 2015, letter to CIBC's Ontario solicitors;
e. Exhibit "P", dated October 19, 2015, letter to CIBC's lawyers of record herein.
25. CIBC is often exposed to consumer debtors who are following an Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument ("OPCA") as described in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (Canlll) to try to eliminate their debts without paying them. In my position with CIBC, I am very familiar with such schemes. The above-mentioned communications bear numerous hallmarks of an OPCA sham debt elimination scheme. The "Strawman" concept of dividing oneself into two is indicated on Exhibit "N", above, which was signed by the Defendant as "PER: Jolene Trudeau, :jolene dawn trudeau private person". A foisted unilateral agreement, trying to impose liability on the lawyers for CIBC for $12 million and $5 million, respectively, is demonstrated in Exhibits "O" and "P". The communications refer to inapplicable foreign legislation and case law of the UK and the United States. They make the same argument described by the FCA: that as the payment was refused, CIBC is acting in dishonor under the UK Bills of Exchange Act 1882, and the Defendant's liability has ceased.
So she wrote back that the bank had better get with the program because other financial institutions were accepting WeRe cheques;We are the solicitors for CIBC with respect to the above-noted matter. We are advised the amounts owing on the above-noted accounts are as set out above. Please be advised if we have not received payment in the above-noted amounts by way of certified cheque or bank dran payable to C!BC and delivered to this office within ten (10) days from the date of this Jetter, then our client will take such steps as it considers necessary or advisable and as are available to it under the Jaw. This may include, but may not be limited to, commencing legal action for judgment against you for the principal, accmed interest and all costs recoverable by law. We will not feel obliged to give you any further notice of any steps our client may decide to take, except as required by law. Please contact us at this time to discuss payment arrangements.
Not her problem, It was the bank's own fault for losing the money;For your information: there are courts in other commonwealth countries that are ordering the banks to accept the WeRe Bank cheques. Please find exert below.
a lady in Australia who has been fighting repossession for 3 years and the cheques from WeRe Bank was accepted to allow the Court Order to be lifted.
She has also paid off utilities as well as car taxes. The council told her that:
1. Only cheques drawn on a Ozzie bank and in $were valid - she proved otherwise.
2. They said Bills of Exchange Act was UK Legislation so NOT applicable in Australia - LIE - she phoned the Professor of the University Law department and he said "UK BOE Act was the parent legislation for ALL commonwealth countries
RESULT - they had to back down.
There are also other financial institutions accepting the WeRe Bank cheques in Canada as well. Check it out.
And then a threat if the bank took any further action;So, the WeRe bank does exist, and the funds are in cyberspace somewhere and they have been somewhere in space for some time now. My bank has cleared the funds and approved the funds for transfer via email for your client, and the funds are still not in my account! Where ARE THEY? All you have to do is inform your client that if they want the funds to just Go and get them! Quit harassing me.
So as the DRAWER, I now walk free and clear of these debts as per sections 42 & 43 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. I require you to now credit my account for the full amount including any penalties or interest added to it.
Why aren't the courts allowed to hear her case? Because the International Common Law Court of Record has jurisdiction.THIS MATTER IS SETTLED!
Just be aware! I am now sure, and have always known the WeRe bank does exist, so I will require an appearance fee of twenty thousand dollars ($ 20,000.00) if you entertain the notion to take me to court.
Quit harassing me and quit sending those letters, because you have no proof or evidence of your claim that the WeRE bank does not exist.
You NOW know that your client has accepted one payment/cheque. and they have the proof of email
EFT in their hands of all cheques. Your client still possess the 3 cheques and those are my private property and I require them returned to me immediately. The courts are not in a position to hear anything about the Bill of Exchange Act, or monetary issues, so if your client requires you to push this matter further, I will have to commence filing and charging you for damages. Fraudulent Conveyance has a five million dollar($ 5,000,000.00) charge per offence.
Unfortunately there is no International Common Law Court of Record. It doesn't exist. I think she meant the International Common Law Court of Justice which also doesn't exist but is still invoked by crazies like Peter of England;ICLCOR - INTERNATIONAL COMMON LAW COURT OF RECORD 750181
Please be informed that all disputes concerning re-payments by Re-Members of their DEBTS (so called) via WeRe Bank [SORT CODE 75-01-81] are ultimately arbitrated by the International Common Law Court of Record 750181.
Any party found, by this court, of Interfering with Due Process, hindering said members, ignoring relevant statutes enacted by the VERY SAME HAND to which mitigation is now delivered, will be called before the People's Common Law Court and tried before a JURY of their peers. There is NO COURT WITHIN ENGLAND SUPERIOR TO A COMMON LAW COURT DULY CONVENED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHkpzky0JlQ
And Kevin Annett who established the court (i.e., pulled it out of his ass).
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Internatio ... _and_State
http://itccs.org/category/the-internati ... f-justice/
When that didn't stop matters she passed the responsibility of fighting the bank over to her husband Donald.
Barbara Damm was the bank's lawyer and this is what The Donald invoiced her for as a result of inconveniencing his wife;I, DONALD JOSEPH LOUIS TRUDEAU, dba 240779025, having Power of Attorney for the DEBTOR, JOLENE DAWN TRUDEAU, is hereby directed and authorized to invoice you for Unauthorized TRESPASS of PRIVATE PROPERTY and FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE causing EXTORTION.
BARBARA K.H. DAMM has been warned as to the implications of unlawful actions, and damages have been sustained as a result.
BARBARA K.H. DAMM has ignored the correspondence sent on August 5th, 2015, via email, and has continued to pursue this matter unlawfully. Proof of this ignorance is the correspondence sent to the debtor on September 1st, 2015, and received by the debtor on or about September 10, 2015.
You can read about James C. Trezevant here;CHARGES:
1. LETTER TO DEBTOR(S) - dated September 1, 2015 = $ 5,000,000.00
2. TOTAL DOLLAR VALUE of 3 INSTRUMENTS = $ 59,936.11
Total costs incurred = $ 5,059,936.11
Total damages (3 x amount of the security conveyance) = $ 15,000,000.00
Less total payments received on account within 21 days = s -3,000,000.00
Total amount due within 21 days: $ 12,059,936.11
Payment in full is release from criminal charges and further costs and actions.
Make payments to the beneficiary: (9204555 CANADA CO RPO RATION)
Fee Schedule:
• $25,000 per 23 minutes; precedence set by James C. Trezevant v. City of Tampa Fl,
• plus receipts for costs incurred,
• plus damages in the amount of 3x all fraudulent conveyances
Failure to complete payment within the allotted time shall commence a common law court of record proceeding 30 days posthaste from this Invoice date. I, DONALD JOSEPH LOUIS TRUDEAU, dba 240779025 reserve all my rights and as
such: record all conversations and dismiss third party hearsay legaL representation. All claims on the court record are NON-NEGOTIABLE.
http://openjurist.org/741/f2d/336/treze ... -trezevant
If it has any relevance to Jolene's problems I've missed it. In that case Trezevant got a jury to award $25,000 in damages for being illegally incarcerated by the Tampa police for 23 minutes. Somewhat off-topic for a fee schedule.
Donald's threats didn't deter the bank so he had to post a statement of defense for Jolene. This starts on page 28 of the PDF. About as batshit crazy as you'd expect;
Who has them indeed!19. This Constructive Trust created by VANCE SIA.KALUK, acting as LAWYER and 4th Party litigant on behalf of OSHRY & COMP ANY Law Firm, which a 3rd Party litigant, KR.MC: KRONlS, ROTSZLAIN, MARGLES, CAPPEL LLP BARR1S1'ERS and SOLICITORS'; lawyer BARBARA DAMM passed on the liability ns acting as legal council for the Plaintiff ClBC, is FRAUDULANT in NATURE.
25. The DEBTOR"S Bank transfers money to the PAYEE'S bank branch/CIBC, via EFT. In this case case, "informing CIBC that the ledger on the DEBTOR's bank's side has been debited, negative ( ~ve), then a corresponding positive (+ve) charge accrues to the CIBC's side of the ledger".
26. Because of the non-entry of said CERTIFIED funds, this is considered THEFT, refer to No 21.
27. Your client, CIBC, has committed a crime and has been reluctant to disclose this Information to their legal department.
28. Debtor's LOC account is now NOT AVAILABLE, and the other 2 accounts both show last payment received, of appropriate funds May 4th, 2015, now have been CLOSED.
29. the funds are debited from the debtor's account, WHERE ARE THEY? WHO has them?
A valiant try but, on November 18th, 2015, Court Master J.L. Mason dropped the hammer on Jolene. The decision was insultingly brief without any consideration whatever being given to the merits of Donald's arguments.
This is the second Alberta Queen's Bench decision on WeRe notes. At least for the first, the Parlees, the court took the trouble to explain why they lost.IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Plaintiff is hereby granted Judgment against the Defendant as follows:
a) Classic Visa In the amount of $12,704.68
Balance claimed as of August 4, 2015 = $12,001.69
Inclusive of Interest to November 18111, 2015, as follows:
19.99%/yr. -107 days $702.99 = $12,704.68 (Per diem: $6.57)
b) Dividend Visa In the amount of $21,588.35
Balance claimed as of August 6, 2015 = $20,414.45
Inclusive of interest to November 18111 2015, as follows:
19.99%/yr. -105 days $1,173.90 = $21,588.35 (Per diem: $11.18)
c) Line of Credit In the amount of $28,547.09
Balance claimed as of July 7, 2015 = $27,816.74
Inclusive of Interest to November 18111, 2018, as follows:
7 .10%/yr. - 135 days $730.35 = $28,547.09 (Per diem: $5.41)
The Plaintiff Is granted post judgment interest In accordance with the Judgment Interest Act (Alberta);
The Plaintiff Is granted costs of this action and application, all inclusive.
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10878
But Master Mason couldn't even be bothered to toss in a few lines to give some scrap of dignity to Jolene's arguments.
It's obvious that the Canadian courts are in bed with the banks to destroy Peter of England because he represents a severe threat to their cosy little little banking monopoly. If the courts did their duty rathe than the bank's bidding we could all be rich through WeRe checks. Sadly the powers-that-be are crushing the hopes and dreams of people who want something for nothing.
