Brenden Rothweiler demands $22 Million - Gets Rooked instead

[Burnaby49]

Brenden Rothweiler, who just wants the very reasonable amount of $22,000,000 from various defendants, is the latest victim to face the scourge of the dreaded judge Rooke of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta. But you can't just waltz into Queen's Bench, home of Meads v Meads and demand that you get your ass kicked, you have to earn it. So Queen's Bench toyed with Brenden a bit before unleasing Judge Rooke on him. The story starts here where a Master, rather than a judge, twice bounced his initial claim for the $22,000,000.

Rothweiler v Payette
2018 ABQB 108
http://canlii.ca/t/hqf48

[2] On January 30, 2018 I considered a desk application submitted by the plaintiff requesting a large judgment against the defendants. Among other things, it provided for terms of payment by way of methods that are not normally included in judgments granted by this Court.

[3] Desk applications are only appropriate for applications that can be made without notice, or “ex parte”. The desk application submitted to me on January 30, 2018 contained no proof of effective service of the Statement of Claim upon any of the defendants. The defendants had not been noted in default. There was nothing in the application that made it appropriate to be heard as a without notice or ex parte application.

[4] I rejected that desk application in the same way that rejected desk applications are typically dealt with by Masters, that is by writing comments on the submission cover sheet. In this case, I wrote:

“Cannot be sought as a default judgment- no affidavit of service proving service on all defendants/expiry of relevant time after service and noting in default (Rule 3.36 among others). If the application is sought it cannot be made ex parte. It would need to be made on notice in open chambers.”

[5] Accordingly, directions were provided to the plaintiff as to what he needed to do to have his application heard on its merits if he intended to seek his order.

[6] On February 9, 2018, the plaintiff submitted what appears to be a virtually identical application and it is again being considered by me as one of many desk applications that the Court receives for consideration. The only differences in this application appear to be modest changes in the supporting affidavits.

What this is telling us is that Brenden tried to do an end-run around the defendants by getting the court to find against them without them being told there was even a lawsuit. And what's the payment "by way of methods that are not normally included in judgments granted by this Court"?

Pay me, the living man, whom I am creditor beneficiary and granter of the estate BRENDEN-RANDALL: ROTHWEILER ESTATE all monies cited along with the abolishment of all void jurisdiction tribunal attachments to the estate as follows:

10 million in $1 million postal orders, and

5 million in $100,000 postal orders, and

5 million in $50,000 postal orders, and

2 million in $10,000 postal orders CAD.

Written verification of the abolishment of all void jurisdiction tribunal created attachments/records that may inhibit my right to travel freely uninhibited by public servants ignorant of my rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter and attached conveyances. A clean and clear record with 'Do Not Detain' attached to the estate name period.

I have to agree that a payment of damages through 335 separate postal orders is somewhat unusual.

So who are the defendants that Brenden doesn't want told they are being sued? They are;

Julie Payette, governor general of Canada
Jody Wilson-Raybould, minister of justice, attorney general of Canada
Kathleen Ganley, minister of justice solicitor general, Province of Alberta
Naheed Nenshi, mayor of Calgary

Brenden had even considerately provided the court with the necessary court order to sign;



Sadly all to no avail. Master Farrington, a real nit-picker if I ever saw one, told Brenden that if he wanted to sue anybody he had to tell them he was doing it.

[8] In reviewing the application, there still does not appear to be personal service of the Statement of Claim upon the named defendants, and consequently the time for a defence has not expired. In fact, it appears that time may not have even begun to run against the named defendants. There has been no noting in default. The conditions required for an application for judgment without notice simply do not exist in this action.

[9] The application is once again rejected for the same reasons that the first application was rejected, although I reject it more formally this time.

Then another problem;

[10] I reluctantly grant the plaintiff leave to reapply upon notice to the defendants. The arguments raised in his submitted materials are “OPCA” arguments in the manner described in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII) and other cases, and I normally would not have granted such leave. If the Plaintiff has not read Meads, he should do so. While the Statement of Claim itself is generally silent on OPCA arguments, and that is likely why it was accepted for filing, the materials submitted on this application develop the concepts in much more detail.

[11] The facts in the Statement of Claim, if proven, seem to allege a possible tort issue. The types of arguments generally raised by the plaintiff on this application, however, have no basis in law. The reason that I have granted leave to reapply is that the Statement of Claim alleges some facts which, if proven under the right circumstances, might amount to a cause of action. I make no findings in that regard as minimal details are pleaded and this is a without notice setting. The plaintiff may choose to frame his arguments differently as the matter progresses. It is up to the parties to debate the merits of the action upon proper notice, and in accordance with the Rules of Court, so I make no further comments on the merits.

[12] It is expected that the Rules of Court will be followed with respect to any steps which the plaintiff takes in this matter as relief is sought from this Court, and I would remind that cases before this Court are decided pursuant to the laws of Alberta and Canada, not pursuant to OPCA theories and arguments, the latter being fully dealt with in Meads. Further, all materials submitted for filing in any action in this Court, including this one, are subject to the Master Order for Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Documents granted by former Chief Justice Wittmann on January 2, 2015.

What this is hinting at is that Queen's Bench has established rules prohibiting OPCA/Sovereign/Freeman type documents being files with the court registry. So if you are basing your lawsuit on OPCA beliefs you won't get your day in court because you'll have to present your case under real law, an insurmountable barrier. Clearly Master Farrington knew exactly what was going on and was just toying with Brendon. So he gave him another chance;

[13] I formally Order as follows:

1. The without notice application for payment and other relief contained in the plaintiff’s draft order submitted February 9, 2018 as attached as Schedule A to these reasons is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff has leave to reapply, but only upon proper notice to all named defendants, and subject to the Master Order for Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Documents granted by former Chief Justice Wittmann on January 2, 2015.

3. A copy of the motion materials submitted shall be retained on the Court file.

4. The plaintiff shall serve a copy of these reasons and the accompanying order upon the defendants.

Then Brenden's case was accepted by Queen's Bench without him having to bother serving notice on the defendants! Talk about favoritism! As I've noted the court could have rejected Brenden's statement of claim without giving him a hearing because his entire case was based on OPCA bullshit. But where's the fun in that? Here's how the court got around that pesky requirement that if you're being sued you have to be told about it;

[2] The body of the Statement of Claim reads, cryptically:

1. All defendants are in tacit agreement to the following, where I a man require immediate restoration of my property and just and fair compensation in the amount of 22 million dollars ($22,000,000.00 CAD) for harm loss and trespass to it by all government agents involved in void jurisdiction tribunals cited that harmed me to this day, as at the age of 15 I was arrested, imprisoned and tortured in a private tribunal for a victimless crime under a statutory rule of contract in a jurisdiction that didn't apply to me having all my rights an dignities violated and trespassed on.

2. I have evidence to the facts and I am witness to the events.

3. Each respondent in their personal and private capacities have waived all opportunities [sic] to discuss this matter further.

4. I require the immediate payment of 22 million dollars CAD for damages, trespass and harm as per notice.

5. I require written certification of subrogation of the cited estate as per my notices.

6. I require a clean and clear record with written acknowledgement that you have clear all void jurisdiction created attachments to the legal estate name BRENDEN-RANDALL: ROTHWEILER ESTATE that could violate my ability to travel freely and servants ignorant to my rights as per my notices.

7. An affidavit and evidence to the facts are attached.

8. I have performed due diligence in this matter.

[3] The Statement of Claim concludes with a demand for $22 million, “Written certification of subrogation of the estate.”, and “DO NOT DETAIN attached to the legal estate name of BRENDEN-RANDALL: ROTHWEILER ESTATE.”

[4] To date there is no indication on the file of the within Action that the Statement of Claim, as filed, was served on all of the four Defendants. Nor have the four defendants been found in default. Nevertheless, on January 30, 2018, Rothweiler made an ex parte desk application for a judgment. That was rejected by Master Farrington. Rothweiler then again on February 9, 2018 filed a second nearly identical “Default Judgment as per tacit agreement”. The attached draft order states:

Pay me, the living man, whom I am creditor beneficiary and granter of the estate BRENDEN-RANDALL: ROTHWEILER ESTATE all monies cited along with the abolishment of all void jurisdiction tribunal attachments to the estate as follows:

10 million in $1 million postal orders, and
5 million in $100,000 postal orders, and
5 million in $50,000 postal orders, and
2 million in $10,000 postal orders CAD.

Written verification of the abolishment of all void jurisdiction tribunal created attachments/records that may inhibit my right to travel freely uninhibited by public servants ignorant of my rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter and attached conveyances. A clean and clear record with 'Do Not Detain' attached to the estate name period.

[5] Rothweiler’s ex parte application was rejected by Master Farrington in an Endorsement reported as Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 108 (CanLII) [Rothweiler #1].

[6] In Rothweiler #1 Master Farrington concluded that this action involved a set of abusive and legally incorrect ideas which I labelled “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments”, or “OPCA”, in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII), 543 AR 215.

[7] The Court, now on its own motion and under its inherent jurisdiction takes steps, to minimize abuse of its processes via this lawsuit and, more generally, from Rothweiler himself.

That's right, they pulled the inherent jurisdiction card out of the pack. Not only did Queen's Bench accept his case but did so with an alacrity generally unknown within the fossilized Canadian court system. Brenden's application was bounced by Master Farrington on February 14, 2018 and the hearing was concluded and judgment delivered on February 26th! I'm assuming that it wasn't just a matter of efficient allocation of judicial resources that led to ACJ Rooke, of Meads v Meads infamy, being the judge assigned to the case.

The ensuing massacre is related here;

Rothweiler v Payette, 2018
ABQB 134
http://canlii.ca/t/hqm2t

It turned out that Brenden relied on two arguments which are no better than suicide in Rooke's court. First the Strawman;

[9] The “Affidavit of Service” attaches other documents which finally bring to light exactly what this entire matter is (purportedly) about. There are two processes underway.

A. The ‘Strawman’ Myth

[10] First, Rothweiler subscribes to a remarkably persistent and pernicious OPCA misconception that there are two of him. One is an “estate”, and it is identified by all upper-case letters: “BRENDEN-RANDALL: ROTHWEILER ESTATE”. The other part of him is “the Creditor of the estate”. The “Creditor” is “... a man, a living man and not a dead corporate entity and a debtor to a trust that I am in fact sole beneficiary, creditor, grantor and administrator of.”

[11] Rothweiler postulates these two entities are linked by a contract, and that government authority and actions that affected him were only made possible via this contract. He alleges that the government acted against Rothweiler via this contract and his “estate”, but that was a fraud. As a “sovereign” he claims he was never subject to “the private crown corporation of Canada” and so he demands compensation for alleged harm he claims to have experienced and that he be made immune from government action by “... a clean and clear record with written acknowledgement that you have cleared all void jurisdiction ...”.

[12] This is how Rothweiler expresses his complaint about the “estate” in his own words in an undated document “ATTN: Jody Wilson-Raybould”:

The private crown corporation of Canada of which you hold office for is accountable for all the harm caused to this day. Failure to act makes all parties in breach of trust of their oaths of office and puts them in malfeasance.

I require, through administration of justice and administration of common law, that I, a man, Brenden Rothweiler and my property and my human rights be protected and upheld and restored in common law jurisdiction, while processing my papal property in the form of a desk order to all my orders as follows to be created and carried and upheld.

... I am standing in truth and you are standing in dishonor by non-rebuttal

An undisputed/ refuted notice stands as truth in a court of law, through the notarial process all parties including yourself are already in tacit agreement by non-rebuttal to my previous notices and you have waived All rights and opportunities to discuss this matter further.
...
I ask, where is the foundation contract and where is my certification of subrogation through all my trials and tribulations? I've revealed the fraud in this and no defendant has disagreed. You have an oath to uphold the common law and you are a public servant under oath to uphold the administration of justice and common law and uphold my common law rights. When I speak as a man of the land I speak for the people in a singular and plural capacity.

I am standing in truth and all defendants are standing in dishonor as all parties are in tacit agreement to wipe out and expunge the record as per my notices. As I have given more than the lawful amount of time to rebut these matters, I require payment within 5 days as opposed to the 20-day time period, as we both know there have been verified delivered notices that have not received a response and I have waited long enough for resolution on this matter I also require written certification of subrogation of the legal estate named BRENDEN-RANDALL:ROTHWEILER ESTATE

I am the Creditor of the estate. I am not the estate. I am a man, a living man and not a dead corporate entity and debtor to a trust that I am in fact sole beneficiary, creditor, grantor and administrator of.

[13] The problem for Rothweiler is that this duality where he, the “living man”, has distinguished himself from the “BRENDEN-RANDALL:ROTHWEILER ESTATE” is the notorious “double/split person” or ‘Strawman’ concept, which has no basis in law. It’s a myth. He is just one individual. There is no separate “estate” linked to him. It does not matter what letter case one uses for his name or whether he adds strange punctuation inside the name. There is just one Brenden Randall Rothweiler.

[14] The ‘Strawman’ concept has been rejected in innumerable court decisions in Canada and every other country where it has appeared: Meads v Meads, at paras 417-446. Nevertheless, it seems to hold a strange fascination for OPCA litigants. If one could really split apart a physical and ‘legal’ aspects of an individual the results under the English tradition common law would probably be a slave, a human without legal status: Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency), 2017 ABQB 123 (CanLII) at paras 89-95, [2017] DTC 5024. Fortunately, that drastic outcome is nothing but a thought experiment, since it is impossible to achieve that ‘split’ under Canadian law.

[17] The fact that Rothweiler has deployed the ‘Strawman’ concept in his materials is a basis that I can and do conclude that he presumptively has sued the Defendants in bad faith and for an abusive process. I therefore stay his action against the Defendants and will order that Rothweiler provide submissions to rebut the presumption that he is engaged in vexatious, abusive litigation. If he fails to rebut that presumption then I will strike out his lawsuit, per Rule 3.68.

Then unilateral contracts;

B. Three/Five Letters

[18] That is not the only problematic aspect of Rothweiler’s litigation. The second major component of his scheme provides the alleged basis for Rothweiler’s claim that he is owed $22 million, and why he has a “Default Judgment as per tacit agreement”.

[19] Each of the four Defendants apparently received a set of demand letters, one set of which (addressed with Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould) is reproduced as Appendices A to D. These make up what is commonly called a Three/Five Letters process: Bank of Montreal v Rogozinsky, 2014 ABQB 771 (CanLII) at paras 55-73, 603 AR 261, see also Re Boisjoli, at paras 49-57; Alberta v Greter, at paras 11-22; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v McDougald, 2017 ABQB 124 (CanLII) at paras 24-26. The Three/Five Letters scheme is also known by other names: an “administrative process”, “notary judgment”, or, the term that Rothweiler has used, a “notarial process”.

[20] In brief, the Three/Five Letters is a series of demanding documents that are sent by the OPCA litigant to a target. Each is a foisted unilateral agreement, a document which purports to unilaterally place obligations on the recipient: Meads v Meads, at paras 447-528. Failure to meet criteria set in the foisted unilateral agreement or silence is claimed to be “tacit assent”, “tacit agreement”, or “tacit procuration”.

. . . . . . . . . . . .

[25] Unsurprisingly, apparently Rothweiler’s targets did not respond to his satisfaction, and so he sent the second undated letter, reproduced in Appendix B. This essentially restates the claim in the first letter and offers a seven-day extension to the deadline set in the first letter. A third letter followed (Appendix C), which offers another seven day extension but warns that silence “... will enact a binding contract ...” and failure to refute Rothweiler’s allegations “... will be in acceptance of a default judgment against you ...”.[

26] The next letter (Appendix D) allegedly seals the deal, declaring that Rothweiler has now won, and as a result has obtained a binding agreement for the claims he seeks.... you are now in default and in agreement to all the areas outlined in those notices.

This notice of demand is for the monetary settlement and of all negative attachments to the legal estate name BRENDEN-RANDALL:ROTHWEILER ESTATE. As per the previous notices your oath of office has been accepted and you are in a malfeasance of office along with full liability in your private /official capacity.... you are now required by the Charter and attached conveyances, to restore my property as compensation for the harm done to me.
...
The compensation amount tacitly agreed to of twenty two million dollars made payable to me ... a man demand immediate restoration of my property and just and fair compensation in the above cited amount as per the rule of law and administration of justice which I will seek through the court should you fail to resolve this notice of demand.

[27] Rothweiler claims that the four letters he has sent are evidence and proof, and that the Defendants “... will be liable for any and all costs incurred during the court process including punitive damages.”

[28] The basic and critical flaw with the Three/Five Letters scheme is the same defect which invalidates all foisted unilateral agreements. The law in Canada is clear: silence does not mean agreement and cannot create a binding authority except where authorized by legislation: reviewed in Meads v Meads, at paras 458-472. A document that purports to unilaterally impose an obligation on another has no legal effect: Papadopoulos v Borg, 2009 ABCA 201 (CanLII) at para. 4; Henry v El, 2010 ABCA 312 (CanLII) at para 3, 193 ACWS (3d) 1099, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 34172 (14 July 2011).
[29] This would appear to mean that Rothweiler’s litigation is based on an imaginary “Default Judgment based on tacit agreement” that has no merit in law, and that is a basis on which I may strike out this action.

Not only did Rooke say that he "may strike out this action"(spoiler, he didn't) he threatened criminal charges against Brendon just for filing the lawsuit!

[30] I also note another complication. In Re Boisjoli, an OPCA litigant did much the same thing as Rothweiler, and claimed that him receiving a traffic ticket was a basis for a $225,000.00 “default judgment” purportedly obtained by a Three/Five Letters process. Boisjoli then tried to file that “default judgment” in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. I concluded in Re Boisjoli, at paras 58-69 that Boisjoli’s attempts to file that default judgment established on a balance of probabilities that he had committed the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 423.1 offense of intimidation of a justice system participant:

423.1(1) No person shall, without lawful authority, engage in any conduct with the intent to provoke a state of fear in
...
(b) a justice system participant in order to impede him or her in the performance of his or her duties ...

[31] Boisjoli was subsequently committed to be tried on such charge, in this Court, in April 2018 (R v Boisjoli, Edmonton 10850061Q1 (Alta QB)).

[32] Rothweiler’s action appears to also offend Criminal Code, s 423.1. The Criminal Code, s 2 definition of “justice system participant” includes “a member of the Senate, of the House of Commons, of a legislative assembly or of a municipal council”, which captures at least three of the four Defendants.

But no need for all this doom and gloom and sad faces! Judge Rooke didn't dismiss Brenden's lawsuit but just stayed it. Unfortunately, as noted in paragraph 17, he stayed it to allow the defendants the chance to put the boots to Brenden and for the court to consider a vexatious litigant declaration against him. It looks like Brenden's about to lose his 335 postal orders.

III. Conclusion

[33] In light of Rothweiler’s employing the OPCA ‘Strawman’ scheme where he claims to be divided into two separate entities, I conclude, per Fiander v Mills, that Rothweiler’s lawsuit is presumptively vexatious, an abuse of the court, and that he has conducted this litigation for a ulterior, improper purpose. I therefore stay his lawsuit against the Defendants.

[34] Rothweiler has until 30 days from the filing of this Memorandum in the Court’s registry to provide an application for leave to the Court (and served to the Defendants) to establish why his action has a lawful basis and is not an abuse of court processes. The Defendants may also make submissions on this point, which I request should be received (if at all) by the Court by 30 days after service on them of any leave application.

[35] Second, Rothweiler’s litigation activities include what appear to be indicia of litigation misconduct that potentially warrants court access restrictions, including OPCA arguments and using court processes to further illegal activities: Chutskoff v Bonora, 2014 ABQB 389 (CanLII) at para 92, 590 AR 288, aff’d 2014 ABCA 444 (CanLII); Re Boisjoli, at paras 98-103.

[36] This Court has, as part of its inherent jurisdiction, the authority, on its own motion, to evaluate whether “indicia” of litigation misconduct merits the Court placing restrictions on whether an individual may initiate or continue litigation in Alberta Courts: Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 651 (CanLII) at paras 14-25, 273 ACWS (3d) 533, leave denied 2017 ABCA 63 (CanLII), leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37624 (12 November 2017). I note that in 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee), 2017 ABQB 548 (CanLII) at paras 68-74, Thomas J commented on the special character of OPCA litigation when it comes to setting appropriate court access restrictions on an abusive litigant.

[37] I therefore give Rothweiler leave to provide to the Court (and serve on the Defendants) within 30 days of filing this Memorandum in the Court’s registry submissions:

1. as to whether he should be subject to court access restrictions, and

2. if so, what form those court access restrictions should take.

[38] This process will be conducted in writing only: Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 335 (CanLII) at para 105; Stoney v 1985 Sawridge Trust, 2017 ABQB 436 at paras 60-62. The Court invites the Defendants to make submissions within 30 days after service on them of any such submissions by Rothweiler on the appropriate court access restrictions for Rothweiler, if any, and to file materials relating to Rothweiler’s dispute-related activities.

[39] In the interim, I order that Rothweiler is prohibited from filing any material on any Court file except for the submissions identified above, and that Rothweiler may not continue or institute further court proceedings without the leave of the Chief Justice, Associate Chief Justice, Chief Judge, or his or her designate, of the Alberta Court in question, per R v Hok, 2016 ABQB 335 (CanLII) at para 105, enforced in Hok v Alberta (Justice & Solicitor General), 2016 ABCA 356 (CanLII) at para 7. The Court will, contemporaneous with this Memorandum, prepare and file, and provide to Rothweiler, the resulting Interim Court Access Restriction Order. Rothweiler’s approval of that Order is not required.

[KickahaOta]

There appears to be a link typo in this otherwise-excellent smackdown report; the CanLII link should be http://canlii.ca/t/hqm2t.

[Burnaby49]

Thanks, I've changed it. I cut off the t at the end.

[Pottapaug1938]

So, what's next? Will Rothweiler begin the three/five letter process with the court, and then submit some sort of self-prepared default order, by which the Queen's Bench is compelled to do as he directs?

[grixit]

Barks like a Rothweiler, bites like a purse puppy.

[jmowreader]

So, what's next? Will Rothweiler begin the three/five letter process with the court, and then submit some sort of self-prepared default order, by which the Queen's Bench is compelled to do as he directs?

According to ACJ Rooke's ruling, Rothweiler already did the whole three/five letter thing (but in four letters), and was being censured for this very thing.

[notorial dissent]

Can't follow directions or procedure or just totally clueless?

[Pottapaug1938]

So, what's next? Will Rothweiler begin the three/five letter process with the court, and then submit some sort of self-prepared default order, by which the Queen's Bench is compelled to do as he directs?

According to ACJ Rooke's ruling, Rothweiler already did the whole three/five letter thing (but in four letters), and was being censured for this very thing.

He did that regarding the four defendants in the case. I now wonder whether he will try to pull the same thing regarding the Queen's Bench court. He is so convinced of the rectitude of his (ahahaha) legal analyses that he is probably convinced that he can pull the same three/five letter scheme with the QB, and win on appeal.

[Burnaby49]

One problem with that analysis. As I discussed in a prior posting somewhere (not going to look it up) and in this discussion, Queen's Bench has a rule that it will not accept OPCA documents for filing at the court registry or allow them as evidence at trial. Rooke's idea of course. It's obvious that the only reason Rothweiler's documents were allowed an exemption from the rule was so that the court could beat him over the head with them. So he can send all the letters he wants to Queen's Bench officials but how does he enforce them without a court order he can't get because he can't enter the letters into evidence at a court hearing? All academic in any case. It sounds like he'll soon be the lucky recipient of the Freeman Oscar, a vexatious litigant designation. Could be worse, as Judge Rooke said Adam Boisjoli is currently up on criminal charges for paper terrorism for filing similar documents.

[KickahaOta]

"Dear Associate Chief Justice Rooke:

"I am considering a career change, and the field of professional nitwitry looks like one that could use some new blood. It appears that a vexatious litigant order would considerably aid my credibility among my new peer group of nitwits. However, actually conducting vexatious litigation would impose a needless burden on your court as well as on me. Would you please sign and the attached order sanctioning me? I would be most appreciative. A self-addressed stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience.

"Very truly yours,
"Kickaha of the Ota family, a nut"

[Pottapaug1938]

When idiots like Rothweiler demand $22 million, $10 billion, $169 trillion dollars or whatever, I'd like to know 1) if they are sitting inside their leaking double-wide or on their friend's couch, making up lists of things to buy when they finally get their money, or 2) know that there is as much chance of their getting the money as I have of being the next winner of the Boston Marathon, but throw out a bulldada monetary amount as one of their attempts to repel the minions of the ebil gummint.

[grixit]

Of course his next step is to go on a quest to find the almighty King's Bench.

[Wordforthewicked]

Is anyone familiar with the case Regina vs JAH? And subsequent case precedence established because of it?

Justice Rooke is known for hasty desicions and his theatrics, but at the end of the day this video should shed some light on his conduct. https://youtu.be/nqG_cVfY9i8

Regina vs JAH is irrefutable evidence of what this guy is trying to accomplish, the best of luck to him. There seems to be gaps in how the OP has portrayed the storyline though. Doesn't quite make sense that it made it to the level of Justice Rooke without being proper procedure. More notably, why did Justice Rooke get involved with the case if it was in someone else's hands already? Sounds like he might have some validity if a big shot like that got involved.

I believe in the true case, it's not that Mr. R didn't want those being sued to know they were being sued, it's as law of agency states Notice to agent is notice to principal and one of them would most likely be acting for all of them, so one was meant to serve all parties. I don't have all of the details, but something smells fishy with how this is portrayed

[Burnaby49]

Hi Brenden, welcome to Quatloos!

No doubt you'll deny that you're Brenden, you're just some guy who sees the brilliance of Brenden's arguments and wants to get the record straight. Very civic-minded of you except for one thing. Who else but Brenden you gives a crap about this case and the gibberish you tried to get Queen's Bench to choke down? I played it for laughs in my write-up because that's all it deserves. All you had were shopworn arguments discredited in court years ago.

More notably, why did Justice Rooke get involved with the case if it was in someone else's hands already? Sounds like he might have some validity if a big shot like that got involved.

Exactly the opposite. As far as I can tell Rooke took on your case because it was so totally absolutely hopeless that he could take a break from real casework and go shooting fish in barrels. He didn't need to take it over to kill it, it was already dead at the master stage.

I reviewed Regina v JAH years ago in Quatloos, so far back I have no memory of the details but I recall that JAH lost. If it's so "irrefutable" why haven't I seen it cited in years? I can't easily dredge it up from the Quatloos database because the case name is too short for the search function and I'm not going to bother researching it but, if you think you have a winning argument with it, feel free to give Queen' Bench another shot.

A hint. If you're attempting to refute Meads v Meads try to find something with a little more zip to it than a twenty plus minute Youtube drone session by Ceylon, a British hack desperately trying, and failing, to be relevant after his moment of glory screwing Tom Crawford.

And I'm calling you out on one piece of pure bullshit. This;

I believe in the true case, it's not that Mr. R didn't want those being sued to know they were being sued, it's as law of agency states Notice to agent is notice to principal and one of them would most likely be acting for all of them, so one was meant to serve all parties.

Where to start, where to start? First off you say that one of the defendants would "most likely be acting for all of them". That makes no sense whatever. There was absolutely no reason to think they would be acting in concert with one designated to act as the agent for them all. How could they when you were desperately attempting to keep them all ignorant of the fact that you were suing them? Your game plan was to try and sail this through the court without notifying any of the defendants about the lawsuit because you knew if they found out they'd stomp you flat. So how could they act as a group, or even separately, if they had no individual knowledge they were being sued or that there were other individuals being sued in the same court proceeding? In any case the law of agency doesn't apply in respect to notifying defendants of a lawsuit. Each and every named defendant has to be served notification under court rules. Agency is irrelevant.

But, let's be generous and accept that you believed this nonsense. Still one glaring problem. Your theory, as I understand it, is that if you simply assume that the purported defendants are somehow a group subject to the law of agency then you don't have to serve notice on every defendant, just on one defendant. As you say "Notice to agent is notice to principal and one of them would most likely be acting for all of them". Grand, but even if you believe this argument your 'theory' required you to serve notice on at least one of them. But you didn't serve any of them with notice. You tried to force the case through without any of them even finding out that they were being sued. So if you really believe your own theory why didn't you meet your own requirement of serving notice on at least one of the defendants?

[notorial dissent]

Burnaby you are too kind, your recollection is pretty much spot on from what I remember of it. It was all pretty much poorly constructed pseudo legal "gibberish and entirely a waste of paper. The lawsuit was effectively the lawsuit version of the good old tried and true fail of a unilateral contract. Rooke sliced and diced it quite effectively and deservedly. It was also equally tedious reading.

[SteveUK]

The whole Regina v Jah debacle can be found here for anyone remotely interested. Some loon arguing the queen isn't the queen because some ceremonial stone is missing. Or some shit. It naturally follows that she can't sign off on those laws requiring you to pay tax, although suspiciously the ones relating to benefits are all good, and as for the legitimacy of the commonwealth, forget it.

Http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=9476


Christ, how can anyone listen to a word that spunk bag Ceylon says, hes Britain's most discresiged ex guru. Sang like a canary in court, quickly abandoning his own "remedies".

[Burnaby49]

You reminded me. David Lindsey was also a big fan of JAH and took it to court as precedence in his lawsuit at the Supreme Court of British Columbia trying to get all laws, including income tax, revoked on the basis that the Queen had violated her coronation oath. Supposedly that meant that the necessary royal assent was invalid and no laws assented to by Elizabeth were binding. I believe Lindsay was surviving on welfare at the time so I suppose that one was still good. In any case he lost so I don't see that Rothweiler has much of an argument based on JAH. For years Belanger was also a big fan of the coronation oath argument (yet another welfare recipient) but he got nowhere with it either. So if Rothweiler is badgering Queen's Bench with JAH we might just see another vexatious litigant at the end of this.

[SteveUK]

I suspect its an inevitability. Rook probably just wants 30 days to sharpen his favourite fmotl carving knife....

[Burnaby49]

It's the same as always when I profess to know anything, I'm taken to task about my ineptitude. I've been advised that JAH actually won his case at court but it was meaningless. Whoops! Back to court for your win Brenden!

In other news the video Brenden posted by Ceylon that denounced Meads is from a text created by UCADIA guru Frank O'Collins;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... ia#p243282

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... a#p161656

[Burnaby49]

Rothweiler #4 is finally available and it's grim reading for poor Brenden. Grim indeed.

In my previous posting I related how Brenden did his best to sue four government actors for $22,000,000 without their being notified of the lawsuit. I'm guessing that he tried this because of the certainty that if they were told they were being sued the defendants would, well, defend themselves against Brenden's idiotic bullshit. Since his entire lawsuit was based on totally moronic long-demolished freeman arguments this would have put Brenden in a very awkward position. Unfortunately for Brenden it looked, for a while, like Queen's Bench was going to force him to reveal his game plan by requiring him to actually inform the defendants that they were being sued. But that old softie Judge Rooke unexpectedly stepped in and acceded to Brenden's demand that the court give judgment on the lawsuit without the other parties being notified. Sweet sweet victory! And then Queen's Bench kicked the shit out of Brenden. However the judgment wasn't final. The lawsuit was stayed rather than dismissed and Brenden was given the opportunity to respond.

Frankly ACJ Rooke was being a real pain in the ass as far as Brenden's $22,000,000 was concerned. Brenden had tried, and failed, to tell the court he was suing the defendants while avoiding the awkwardnes of telling the defendants about it. So Brenden came up with a brilliant new idea on how to win his case. This time around he told the defendants he was suing them but not the court. He cut obstructionist Rooke right out of the loop, absolute genius! It's all here in Rothweiler #4!

Rothweiler v Payette,
2018 ABQB 399
http://canlii.ca/t/hsp31

[3] The 30 days ended on or about March 28, 2018. I received no notice of any response by Rothweiler as of April 13, 2018, and thus, on that date, I issued a decision reported as Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 288 (CanLII) [Rothweiler #3] which struck out Rothweiler’s lawsuit, and declared that he was a vexatious litigant and subject to broad court access restrictions.

[4] Subsequently Counsel for the Defendant, Minister Ganley, wrote to the Court on April 18, 2018 to indicate that, although the Defendants had not received an application from Rothweiler, they had received an “Affidavit in Repsonse to Memorandum” [sic] from him. That “Affidavit” was attached to the April 18, 2018 correspondence.

[5] A review of this Rothweiler “Affidavit” indicated it is dated March 29, 2018, and stamped as having been filed on that date by the Clerk of the Court. The text of that Affidavit is attached as Appendix “A”, with redactions to respect Rothweiler’s privacy. Review of this document suggests it was intended to be Rothweiler’s written response to Rothweiler #2. The “Affidavit” was stamped as filed at or near to the 30 day deadline, but Rothweiler did not identify this document as an argument, nor does it appear he instructed Court staff that this document should be directed to myself (and it was neither so directed or otherwise served on me).

Unfortunately, as brilliant as Brenden's plan was, it didn't work quite as well as he had probably hoped and things were soon back on their inexorable track;

[8] I have elected to make a full response to Rothweiler’s “Affidavit”, despite its irregular title, and the fact Rothweiler did not address and direct his “Affidavit” to my attention. My choice to make a full response is appropriate in the interests of justice and in light of this Court’s duties to self-represented persons: Pintea v Johns, 2017 SCC 23 (CanLII), [2017] 1 SCR 470. In short, Rothweiler’s intention is clear. Since he attempted to make a reply in response to Rothweiler #2 in a timely manner, he deserves to have his submissions considered, as well to receive my explanation on whether the content of his March 29, 2018 “Affidavit” alters my conclusions documented in Rothweiler #3.

[9] The analysis that follows has three general parts:

1. Did Rothweiler rebut the presumption that his use of “Strawman” concepts indicates his litigation is abusive and conducted for an ulterior motive?

2. Is his “Three/Five Letters” scheme a valid mechanism to create a binding obligation that the Defendants must pay him $22 million?

3. Should Rothweiler be subject to court access restrictions?

Do any readers believe that Rooke really chose to respond "in light of this Court’s duties to self-represented persons" or because he wanted to beat whack Brenden over the head with his gavel to beat some sense into him? Just asking. On to the analysis. First question 1;

1. Did Rothweiler rebut the presumption that his use of “Strawman” concepts indicates his litigation is abusive and conducted for an ulterior motive?

Rooke didn't waste any time on this one and just pumped out his rote beatdown;

B. “Strawman” Concepts

[25] In Rothweiler #2, at paras 10-17, I reviewed how Rothweiler’s litigation and documents invoke the OPCA “Strawman” concept. This is a remarkably popular pseudolegal misconception that individuals have two aspects: a physical component and linked non-corporeal legal “person”. The non-physical half of this duality is often called the “Strawman”.

[26] The “Strawman” is universally rejected by all courts which have been asked to consider the validity of this concept. The “Strawman” is so notoriously false that the Newfoundland Court of Appeal in Fiander v Mills, at paras 20-21, 37-40, concluded that the fact a litigant deploys the “Strawman” means that litigant presumptively acts on a vexatious and abusive basis, and for an ulterior motive. That is a basis to demand that the apparently problematic litigant establish a valid basis for his or her litigation.

[27] In Fiander v Mills, at paras 21, 37-40, the Court also concluded that claims that birth certificates have any additional legal function beyond documenting a birth also is a basis to presume a litigant acts with a bad and abusive intent. This, too, is a pseudolegal concept that is universally denounced by Canadian courts.

[28] What I requested from Rothweiler was that he explain his apparent use of these problematic concepts. In the documents submitted to the Court he distinguished himself, “Brenden Randall Rothweiler” - “a man”, from the “BRENDEN-RANDALL ROTHWEILER ESTATE” (a.k.a. his “Strawman”). Rothweiler declared he is the “sole beneficiary, creditor, grantor, and administrator of” the “BRENDEN-RANDALL ROTHWEILER ESTATE”.

[29] In his March 29, 2018 “Affidavit” Rothweiler does not acknowledge that the “Strawman” is a myth, or suggest that I have misapprehended the substance of his litigation. Instead, he reaffirms the “Strawman” concept and the special (alleged) significance of birth documents:

The deemed "Strawman Myth" sounds like an opinion of a Judge who does not want truth to be heard. Our birth certificate is a clear representation of an account number similar to a bond, a registration number included on the birth certificate further shows evidence of an account.

[30] Rothweiler’s arguments shows he has a limited and distorted understanding of trust law, for example he says in his “Affidavit” at para 18:

Again it is illogical to think that there are no accounts that are used and referred to for Canadians as per needs of health care, pension accounts, tax accounts, institutional expenses and more lists of connected Canadian’s estate entries. The whole of these accounts have to exist under a legal entity, hence the estate held in trust. They cannot be open ended and not have a parent account. Furthermore, in commercial law, the owner of a corporation can achieve this split and exist as a legal entity as well as the living breathing person, as well as enjoy the benefits of limited liability.

[31] As for his claim a parallel exists between the “Strawman” and corporations, the fact that a person (human or corporation) may create and control a separate entity recognized in law provides no proof that a birth certificate somehow creates a trust or estate. These are two separate things, or, more accurately, a real legal concept, versus a pseudolegal phantasm.

[32] Rothweiler did not identify any jurisprudence, legal authority, or, frankly, anything, to substantiate his claims he owns the “BRENDEN-RANDALL ROTHWEILER ESTATE”, and that his birth certificate has some special legal significance. I therefore conclude his March 29, 2018 “Affidavit” did not rebut the presumption that Rothweiler making “Strawman” arguments indicates a bad litigation intent.

[33] The “Strawman” misconception is a foundational element of Rothweiler’s lawsuit. I therefore conclude I was correct in Rothweiler #3 when I found that Rothweiler’s Statement of Claim is an abuse of the Court’s processes, and properly struck it out on that basis.

Brenden fared no better in his arguments about how all of the defendents owed him millions because they had failed to rebut his foisted unilateral agreements and therefore had a tacit agreement with him to cough up the dough;

C. The “Three/Five Letters” Scheme

[34] Rothweiler also specifically responds to my rejection in Rothweiler #2, at paras 18-29, of his use of a “Three/Five Letters” scheme which allegedly created a “Default Judgment as per tacit agreement” against the Defendants. That, then, allegedly established his $22 million damages claim.

[35] The “Three/Five Letters” are a set of foisted unilateral agreements which purportedly create a binding authority when the recipient of those documents does not respond as demanded: reviewed in Rothweiler #3 at paras 6-21. If one were to describe a foundation to this concept it would be a (purported) rule in law that silence creates a legally binding agreement.

[36] As I understand it, Rothweiler’s argument in favour of his Three/Five Letters document process has three parts.

[37] First, Rothweiler shifts the blame to the Defendants. He says that if a Three/Five Letters process is so obviously false in law, then the Defendants should have responded and told him that:

If said notices were so irrelevant and were so easily discarded, the simplest choice would have been to rebut and tell me that my argument was ridiculous, or at least ask me some questions about my claim when given ample opportunity to do so, especially knowing that I stated that I would pursue this in a court of law and that my unrefuted notices stand as truth in a court of law. One would think being in that position, the said defendants would want to save the court time, money and resources knowing this information. ...

If my verified delivered notices were so ridiculous, all the defendants had to do were respond and provide a rebut of said notices, instead of letting it go to court and taking up resources. It clearly stated in my notices the method of which they were to reply, pursuant to Canadian Contract Law.

[38] Rothweiler does not identify any basis in law why the recipient of a legally ineffective document would have any obligation to respond to that document and reject it. As a general policy, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench does, in fact, respond to foisted unilateral agreements received as irregular correspondence to the Court. It rejects these items, indicates that documents of this kind have no legal effect, and returns them to the sender as worthless. However, that is a Court-specific policy choice, and there is certainly no obligation on other government and private actors to adopt the same approach.

[39] Second, Rothweiler draws a parallel to the procedures by which utilities terminate services with a series of notices:

I gave all the defendants generous amounts of time to respond, clarify, rebut or otherwise with no returned correspondence. These were not demands, these were notices, similar to that a utility company sending notice you are to be cut off your services. The same series of letters are used. So this does not seem so ridiculous after all. It would have been very simple to rebut my notices and I would not have taken it into the courts, As stated, by non-response they were in agreement.

[40] This analogy is flawed on a fundamental level. A utility company and its customer are in an existing contractual relationship. The terms of that agreement may permit unilateral action on the basis of warning for breach of contract. Similarly, banks usually have clauses in the credit card contracts that permit the bank to unilaterally change interest rates. These arrangements are legally binding because they were agreed upon by both parties to the contract.

[41] Rothweiler had no private contract with any of the Defendants. They are government actors. He is a private citizen.

[42] Last, Rothweiler claims there is a “Maxim of Law” that non-response means agreement:

... Not to mention the Maxim of Law which states an un-refuted notice stands as truth in a court of law. It appears Justice Rooke thinks his opinion is above this Maxim of Law. It is a very high regard for oneself and makes me question his competence to proceed in these matters. Apparently that Maxim doesn’t apply to his court. ...

[44] The problem is that legal maxims, short pithy, and often Latin phrases which purport to restate legal principles, have no legal weight on their own. All binding rules of law in Canada flow from one of two sources: 1) legislation, or 2) common law rules established by court judgments.

. . . . . . . .

[49] In short, even according to Black’s Law Dictionary, “Maxims of Law” have as much binding authority and intellectual merit as fortune cookies.

. . . . . . . .

[50] However, that does not end the issue with Rothweiler’s “Maxim of Law” defence. He says “an un-refuted notice stands as truth”. Not only is this maxim one that has never been applied in Canadian courts, it is not even a “Maxim of Law” at all! Not only does this “Maxim of Law” not appear in any Canadian or UK court cases, or Black’s Law Dictionary, but, when “Google” searched, that phrase had no matches at all. The only conclusion I can reach is that Rothweiler just made up this allegedly immutable principle himself.

. . . . . . . .

[52] However, the truly decisive factor on which I conclude I was correct to reject Rothweiler’s Three/Five Letters scheme is that in Papadopoulos v Borg, 2009 ABCA 201 (CanLII) at para 4, the Alberta Court of Appeal concluded:

The documents were sent by registered mail to the defendants, and duly signed for by the addressees. The appellant’s approach appears to have been that if the defendants did not reply by affidavit to the documents served on them, they would be deemed at law to admit not only the total amount of his legitimate claim, but the extravagant sum of $49 million mentioned in the documents. ... The law does not recognize the ability of one person to foist liability on another if they do not reply to a unilateral communication within an arbitrarily set time limit. [Emphasis added.]

[53] This is a binding authority, so I do not even have any discretion to agree that Rothweiler created a binding “Default Judgment as per tacit agreement” by him sending various correspondence to the Defendants.

[54] I therefore conclude that I was correct in Rothweiler #3 to find that Rothweiler’s Three/Five Letter scheme had no merit, and instead was an abuse of the court’s processes conducted for a bad litigation purpose.

So fine, now that Brenden's hopes and dreams have been shattered by Rooke is that enough? Can he be left to slink out with some shreds of dignity? Not at the the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta! Time for Question 3!

3. Should Rothweiler be subject to court access restrictions?

And the answer is an enthusiastic YES!! The points listed in paragraph 55 were, in themselves sufficient for Brenden to be thrown out of Queen's Bench like an unruly drunk in a Vancouver Granville Street nightclub on Saturday night;

D. Court Access Restrictions

[55] In Rothweiler #3, at paras 25-48, I concluded that Rothweiler should be subject to court access restrictions because he is a vexatious litigant, and may only initiate or continue litigation in any Alberta Court with leave of a Court’s Chief Justice, Associate Chief Justice, Chief Judge, or his or her designate. I took this step because I concluded that:

1. Rothweiler was engaged in OPCA litigation (para 37);
2. his action had no prospects of success (para 33);
3. Rothweiler sought disproportionate and excessive remedies (para 33);
4. his litigation was a collateral attack on historic decisions (para 34);
5. his lawsuit was an attempt to use the courts to further a criminal activity (para 35);
6. Rothweiler’s lawsuit had a political rather than legal purpose (para 36);
7. Rothweiler had indicated his intent to conduct future abusive litigation (paras 42-44); and
8. his litigation was ‘offensive’, in the sense he was attempting to use OPCA concepts to inflict harm or place obligations on target government actors without any legal authority to do so (paras 39-41).

[56] Together, this predicted that Rothweiler would plausibly engage in future litigation misconduct. That was a reason to impose broad court access restrictions.

But Brenden decided to ice the cake by swamping the court with a mass of batshit crazy documents covering the Stone of Scone to his view that Canada should execute homosexuals and, since we don't, all Canadian laws are invalid! He's very upset that we don't burn witches anymore! He even sent Rooke an arrest warrant to arrest Queen Elizabeth and ordered Rooke to enforce it! Brenden is clearly not to be trifled with!

[59] In addition, I have subsequently received several more communications from Rothweiler concerning his litigation activities. They say much about Rothweiler’s intentions and perspective on law and court functions.

[60] On April 23, 2018 my office received a “NOTICE OF CHALLLENGE OF JURISDICTION”, which is reproduces as Appendix “C”.

[61] Attached to this “Notice” is a ten page “LAWFUL ARGUMENT AGAINST JURISDICTION & SOVEIGNTY”, which I think may be fairly summarized as being a claim that no government in the Commonwealth is legally valid. The explanation for that startling development is that the Coronation Stone (the “Stone of Scone”) was never actually recovered after it was stolen by Scottish Nationalists in 1950. Instead, a fake replacement stone was fabricated, and that was what was used during Queen Elizabeth II’s Coronation ceremony. Queen Elizabeth II was (allegedly) aware of this substitution with the phony stone, and the fact a counterfeit Coronation Stone was used in the ceremony undoes the Coronation Oath as a fraud. That, allegedly, makes all ‘downstream’ oaths to the Crown equally invalid, and so Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth dissolves into a post-Elizabethan chaos. None of its officials, judges, police, politicians, and so on has a valid oath of office.

[62] The “LAWFUL ARGUMENT” also claims that the purported Monarch lost her authority because of her failure to enforce the King James Bible, which she swore upon, for example:

• “Allowing the forming of political parties and demon-crazy (democracy) to divide, weaken, conquer and ruin the people (Deuteronomy 5:32, 17:20; Matthew 12:25).”;

• her “... encouraging and promoting sodomy ...”, and knighting “high-profile sodomites” including Elton John, Ian McKellen and John Gielgud, “... instead of having them Lawfully executed as a deterrent to others.”;

• “... collecting of graven-images and expensive jewellery (her famous art and Faberge collections, etc.)”;

• failing to cancel or forgive all debts every seven years; and

• allowing and condoning Witchcraft, which includes according a title to author J. K. Rowling “who promotes witches”, and also the development and employment of vaccines and other pharmaceuticals: “witches’ brews/potions”.

[63] Queen Elizabeth II:

... is therefore not only massively in breach of contract, but also massively in breach of The Law, and thus is not only NOT the Lawful Sovereign, never has been, and thus has NO jurisdiction to prosecute me, but is also a criminal, guilty of capital crimes, that carry the death-penalty, according to The Law she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power. ...

[64] While Rothweiler’s resorting to this phony Scone Stone argument may seem fanciful, even absurd, this concept has been encountered repeatedly in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, particularly from persons detained in Alberta Remand Centres, for example R v Biever, 2015 ABQB 301 (CanLII) (in that case the detainee reviewed Meads v Meads and promptly dropped the Coronation Stone/Oath argument). This scheme has appeared in other provinces, too: for example: Claeys v Her Majesty, 2013 MBQB 313 (CanLII), 300 Man R (2d) 257.

[65] Needless to say, I reject that Canada has dissolved into an ungoverned state because Queen Elizabeth II has not directed the execution of same-sex orientation persons. As for the idea of the Coronation Oath being some kind of contract, I adopt the reasoning in R v Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 (CanLII) at paras 28-32, 302 BCAC 76, that no legal rights result from that oath, the King James Bible has no supraconstitutional status, and that any purported issues or defects with the Coronation Oath are non-justiciable.

[66] This, however, did not bring to a close Rothweiler’s sending further unusual and irregular correspondence to the Court. The following day I received via email an “International Citizens Arrest Warrant In the Matter of Genocide in Canada: Case Docket no. 22513-001” ‘issued’ on March 5, 2013 by “The International Common Law Court of Justice: A Lawful Judicial Body constituted under Common Law and The Law of Nations”, which names numerous political and religious authorities, including Queen Elizabeth II, Pope Benedict XVI, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, former RCMP Superintendent Robert Paulson, and several Aboriginal leaders. (I am not named.) Apparently, these unfortunates “... are guilty of Crimes against Humanity ...”, and as a result “... are subject to immediate arrest under the power of this Warrant”.

[67] This purported “Warrant” was accompanied by what appears to be a November 22, 2011 decision of the “Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunals” against former US President George W. Bush, and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. They were, apparently, convicted of war crimes.

[68] I put no weight on these documents, except that to the degree they illustrate Rothweiler does not intend to be subject to the law of Canada and the authority of its courts.

[69] I therefore conclude that my decision in Rothweiler #3 to impose court access restrictions was correct. Subsequent events have only confirmed Rothweiler is not interested or willing to cooperate with court instructions, and is instead determined to continue his pattern of abusive and vexatious litigation, driven by worthless paperwork.

Leading to;

III. Conclusion

[70] I confirm the results ordered in Rothweiler #3:

1. Rothweiler’s January 23, 2018 Statement of Claim is struck out entirely.
2 This Court under its inherent jurisdiction and on its own motion declares Rothweiler is a vexatious litigant. Rothweiler is prohibited from initiating or continuing any action in an Alberta court, except with permission of that Court’s Chief Justice, Associate Chief Justice, Chief Judge, or his or her designate.

[71] I have taken the additional time and written this decision to fully respond to Rothweiler’s reply to Rothweiler #2. If Rothweiler now persists in inappropriate and abusive OPCA litigation, then the Court will respond accordingly.

I therefore caution Rothweiler that further irregular communications directed to the Court, or other inappropriate litigation activities, may result in further steps, such as additional court access restrictions, unfavourable cost awards, penalties, contempt of court, and criminal sanction.

But not all venues are closed to you Brenden. Quatloos isn't Queen's Bench and you're not shut out of access here! So feel free to tell us chapter and verse how that idiot Rooke doesn't know a damn thing about law. He treated your maxims as if they were just cute bumper sticker slogans and he's obviously never heard of The International Common Law Court of Justice. How can he pretend to have the right to sit as even a traffic court judge in Moose Jaw if he's never heard of that great jurist Kevin Annett? My sympathies on having your $22,000,000 stolen from you by a corrupt ignorant court.