Stephanie-Lynn Leadbetter Orders Queen's Bench to Let her Children go!

[Burnaby49]

Spoiler - The court told her to get lost and restricted her access to court.

[40] In the interim, I order that Ms. Leadbetter is immediately prohibited from continuing or instituting further court proceedings without the permission 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.

Toronto-Dominion Bank v Leadbetter
2018 ABQB 472
http://canlii.ca/t/hslfl

Stephanie is yet another of the recent plague of sovereigns infesting the Court of Queen's Bench like hair lice. Her demand that she be given her children back because they are her property wasn't a heart-rending child custody story. Her children are two adult sons facing criminal charges and she figured that she could demand all charges be dropped against them by asserting her ownership of them as the person who produced them. Apart her kids she wanted her mortgage forgiven by the Toronto-Dominion Bank. An ambitious goal she attempted to achieve by spewing out Freeman rubbish.

This is what started the ball rolling;

[1] Stephanie-Lynn Leadbetter [Ms. Leadbetter] is the owner of a residential property located in Bonnyville, Alberta. Ms. Leadbetter’s Bonnyville residence was in part financed by a mortgage from the Toronto-Dominion Bank [TD]. The outstanding mortgage debt is presently somewhat over $150,000.00.

[2] Ms. Leadbetter ceased making payments on the mortgage, and on March 5, 2018 TD sued for foreclosure. On April 16, 2018 Master Schlosser granted an order for court-ordered sale and a six month redemption period.

[3] Ms. Leadbetter responded by attempting to file several unorthodox documents on May 3, 2018. One, a “NOTICE OF ADDRESS CHANGE” (reproduced in Appendix A), purports to unilaterally and permanently revise Ms. Leadbetter’s address from:

“4009-43 Ave, BONNYVILLE, AB T9N 1T2”

to

“Stephanie-Lynn: Leadbetter, care of temporary-post-location, 4009-43 Avenue, Bonnyville, Alberta, Non-Domestic, Postal-Code-Exempt”.

[4] The second irregular document is titled “Writ of Mandamus”, and attaches a “Motion to Quash”. The “Writ” complains that the Court Clerks have not accepted for filing Ms. Leadbetter’s documents, which is “prejudicial and breach of duty of care”.

It should be noted that a Writ of Mandamus can only be ordered by a court a point mentioned by Queen's Bench;

[8] I note that the “Writ of Mandamus” is not actually a document issued by the Court or a judge, or under a recognized legal authority. Instead, it appears to have (purportedly) been pronounced under the authority of:

Stephanie-Lynn: House of Leadbetter (sui juris)

Estate dignitary

And what does this writ claim? It has a Motion to Quash stating the following;

1. the “COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF ALBERTA” is an “unknown court”, “not a court of record” or a “nisi prius court”; the apparently correct name is “Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta”;

2. “ST. PAUL - unknown jurisdiction”;

3. TD is “unknown to the party served”, and originates from a “foreign jurisdiction”, “Edmonton, Alberta T5J 1V3”;

4. the Statement of Claim “should have come” from the Minister of Foreign Affairs;

5. TD has not met its “burden” of proving:

a) “admiralty jurisdiction” and that the Town of Bonnyville and the Province of Alberta are “real locations”;

b) “... the lawful definition of cash and ownership of the cash alleged to have been lent; and that it has value ...”; and

c) TD is authorized to operate as a bank in Alberta.

6. the Interpretations Act (whether Ms. Leadbetter is referring to the federal or Alberta legislation is unclear) did not receive royal assent and therefore is not law; and

7. Ms. Leadbetter, as a “real human”, is not the real Defendant.

She's trying exactly the same crap as my Poriskyite tax evader Michael Millar unsuccessfully tried at his criminal trial. He was obsessed to the point of madness by capitalization and jurisdiction;

1. the “COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF ALBERTA” is an “unknown court”, “not a court of record” or a “nisi prius court”; the apparently correct name is “Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta”;

That was Michael's absolute favorite, he could, and did, rant on for days about it. Since the name of the court was capitalized in some documents but not others that meant that there were numerous Supreme Courts of British Columbia and the one he was being tried in, the one with capital letters, was an unknown court with no jurisdiction over him. It went about as well for him as it did for Stephanie. The Supreme Court of British Columbia, notwithstanding being educated on the issue by Michael, persisted in acting as if it had jurisdiction over him and convicted him.

But don't make hasty judgements and think that this exhausts her whole bag of tricks. Not a bit of it! What about the postage stamps and fingerprints?

[11] Ms. Leadbetter’s documents also exhibit other unusual features, such as one cent Canada Post postage stamps with text printed across them (“Stephanie-Lynn: Leadbetter”) affixed to the upper right corner of front pages, and an ink fingerprint placed over her signature.

But, notwithstanding this legal Queen's Bench did what Queen's Bench does;

[13] OPCA litigation is an unusual category of court misconduct. Many of the people who use OPCA concepts are members of anti-social communities, including the Freemen-on-the-Land, Sovereign Citizens, and Detaxers: Meads v Meads, at paras 168-198. These ideas are a kind of self-destructive extremist political ideology that is reinforced in highly introspective, introverted community ‘echo chambers’: Re Gauthier, at para 92. OPCA schemes are “Commercial” in the sense that they are taught for pay by “gurus”, persons who claim to have special, secret knowledge about the true but concealed law: Meads v Meads, at paras 85-158. It appears Ms. Leadbetter is a customer of one or more of these “gurus”.

Jesus. Queen's Bench, change the record. Meads this, Meads that. You'd think that Meads is the Court of Queen's Bench's sovereign killing neutron bomb . . . . . . .

Let's go for a little walk
Under the moon of love
Let's sit down and talk
Under the moon of love

I want to tell ya
That I love ya
And I want you to be my girl
Little darling let's walk
let's talk
Under the moon of love

Sorry. Every time a litigant tries innovative arguments at Queen's Bench we get the inevitable generic rote OPCA shitkicking. It's like they have a template. Things get so routine that my mind tends to wander. In this case it wandered to what's on my headset, Curtis Lee and his 1961 semi-hit "Under the Moon of Love". An unforgivable dereliction of duty to Stephanie on my part. She's hurting. She only wants a free house and her sons back and I can't even focus enough to pay attention to her pain. So back to her gibberish.

Puddin' n' tain, puddin' n' tain
Ask me again I'll tell you the same
Puddin' n' tain, puddin' n' tain
Ask me again I'll tell you the same
Puddin' n' tain, puddin' n' tain
Ask me again I'll tell you the same

Sorry again, that's my gibberish, or more correctly, the Alley Cats' gibberish. Damn my senile geriatric lack of focus. But can you blame me? In my defense we all know where this is going.

[34] Ms. Leadbetter’s materials exhibit many indicia of litigation misconduct. She uses OPCA concepts in an attempt to prevent foreclosure of her home, and interfere with the criminal litigation against her sons. She employs the “Strawman” OPCA concept, which creates the presumption she is in court in bad faith. Her litigation is hopeless, seeking impossible remedies based on absurd claims, such as that she owns her sons as property since she ‘produced’ them.

[35] Her Provincial Court criminal activities appear to be “busybody” litigation, where she attempts to intrude into other proceedings as a third party. Ms. Leadbetter’s “Writ of Mandamus” is an unusually obnoxious document since it purports to determine the legal obligations of the Clerks of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, and to decide an action in that Court. In doing so, Ms. Leadbetter attempts to usurp the role of the Court in structuring and directing its own activities.

[36] Together, this is a clear basis for this Court to investigate whether Ms. Leadbetter should be subject to court access restrictions. This is usually a two-step process to ensure adequate procedural fairness to the potential target of court access restrictions: Lymer v Jonsson, 2016 ABCA 32 (CanLII), 612 AR 122; Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 335 (CanLII) at paras 10-11.

[37] I therefore under this Court’s inherent jurisdiction, and on my own motion, direct that Ms. Leadbetter provide submissions:

1. as to whether she 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. Ms. Leadbetter has until July 23, 2018 to make written submissions in relation to her being potentially subject to court access restrictions.

[39] The Court invites TD and Attorney General of Alberta to make submissions on the appropriate court access restrictions for Ms. Leadbetter, if any, and to file materials relating to Ms. Leadbetter’s dispute-related activities (see Chutskoff v Bonora, at paras 87-90 and Ewanchuk v Canada (Attorney General), at paras 100-102) by July 9, 2018.

[40] In the interim, I order that Ms. Leadbetter is immediately prohibited from continuing or instituting further court proceedings without the permission 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.

So if Stephanie used OPCA concepts "in an attempt to prevent foreclosure on her home" what other concepts did I miss? Well there's this;

[24] Ms. Leadbetter’s action in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench is not the only forum in which she has introduced OPCA concepts. She has also filed OPCA documents on January 30, 2018 and February 13, 2018 in a number of Provincial Court of Alberta criminal actions where the accused are her sons, “Ryan-Joseph: Lees”, and “Tyler-John: Lees”.

[25] Appendix C reproduces one example document from the Provincial Court actions, where Ms. Leadbetter claims ownership of her sons “... as her property at common law ...” since they are “... the products of her body ...”. As I understand this document, it purports to terminate the criminal litigation against her son Ryan Joseph Lees on the basis Ms. Leadbetter is “... the rightful owner to all four corners ...” of Ryan Lees.

And this;

[16] Ms. Leadbetter subscribes to the idea that she is composed of two (and possibly more) entities, which are distinguished by the use of punctuation and capitalization. She, the “real human on the land”, who occupies “the realm of reality”, is identified by a mixed case name with aberrant punctuation: “Stephanie-Lynn: Leadbetter”. Her belief is that she is linked to a separate entity, “STEPHANIE LEADBETTER”, who is an immaterial legal entity which Ms. Leadbetter calls an “Estate”, “a persona”, and “a franchisee”. The non-corporeal aspect of this duality is often referred to as the “Strawman”, though OPCA litigants like Ms. Leadbetter use many different names for this non-physical doppelganger.

[17] In brief, the “Strawman” scheme is that Ms. Leadbetter says TD cannot sue her, it is her “Strawman” “STEPHANIE LEADBETTER”, who is involved in the TD mortgage.

In fact the court didn't even bother to do a full analysis of her arguments before dumping on her;

[15] Ms. Leadbetter’s documents reproduced in Appendix A and B are rife with OPCA concepts and motifs. I will highlight only several examples.

Well if Queen's Bench can't be bothered I'll delve into Appendix A and B!

O brothers, let's go down
Let's go down, come on down
Come on, brothers, let's go down
Down in the river to pray

As I went down in the river to pray
Studying about that good old way
And who shall wear the starry crown
Good Lord, show me the way!

Shit, sorry, headset again. Soundtrack to O' Brother, Where Art Thou? I seem to lose focus every time I consider Stephanie's problems. On to Appendix A;

For all courts: Please update your permanent records; and for the above action; to reflect the change of address as herein stated and as of the date indicated on attached; and as per notice to the Governor General of Canada about April 2017; Canada Post also notified about or before April 2017; that of: Care of temporary postal location: 4009-43rd Avenue, Bonnyville, Alberta, Non-Domestic; Postal-Code-Exempt;

Please note; this woman does not accept unlawful mailings; therefore; if there is a Canada Post Corporation postal·code; or if there is a corporation name instead of a proper noun location name; the communication is returned; as per claim; for full discharge;

Should you have information that there exists a lawful obligation upon this woman; or agent for this woman; estate; or trust; to accept and answer mailings that on their face appear fraudulent due to the use of corporate name as location; and postal code jurisdictions; please forward the law; if any as I am unaware of any such law.

Sheer genius! She required that the court, in communicating with her, use her alternate method of styling her postal address and if they screw up by a comma or use a postal code she wins her case by default because it becomes an "unlawful mailing"! Clarence Darrow could learn at her feet. And the Court better not trey and weasel out it's legal errors by blaming it on another government agency. She's covered all bases;

PSS Please note: no responsibility or liability lies with this sender for lack of communication between departments or agents of the state party for the change of address;

PSSS; I, nor any form or agent of me; is of the postal-code jurisdiction as all of us have been delivered prior to this alleged action.

And it's all rock-solid legal and binding. She used a fingerprint!

Notice of Address Change Regarding: Postal location for the "STEPHANIE LYNN LEADBITTER" Estate from: House of Leadbetter - STEPHANIE LYNN LEADBETTER, ESTATE, Stephanie Lynn Leadbetter, Stephanie Leadbetter, Stephanie Lynn LEADBETTER, and all manner of style and abbreviation and variations thereof; as occupant to the Executor Office to STEPHANIE LYNN LEADBETTER, Estate you are herein and hereby warranted, to change the postal location for the above party from all similar forms and abbreviation of: 4009-43 Ave., BONNYVILLE, AB, T9N 1T2 to exclusively: Stephanie-Lynn: Leadbetter, Care of temporary-post-location, 4009 43 Avenue, Bonnyville, Alberta, Non-Domestic, Postal-Code-Exempt. This change is permanent or until further notice. I declare by my hand and seal that the forgoing is true and correct. ·

Signed and sealed this [18th] day of [September] 2017; [hand printed name Stephanie-Lynn: Leadbetter

Superimposed with an ink fingerprint] (sui juris)

Stephanie-Lynn
House of Leadbetter
Estate Dignitary

So, after that legal masterpiece, on to Appendix B. This is too extensive to analyze in detail but one part stands out for me. The stunning revelation that the Toronto Dominion Bank, MY BANK, is a pirate!!

12. The plaintiff makes complaint by persona; against franchisee; which on its face appears to be privateering:

PRIVATEER. A vessel owned. equipped, and armed by one or more private individuals, and duly commissioned by a belligerent power to go on cruises and make war upon the enemy, usually by preying on his commerce. A private vessel commissioned by the state by the issue of a letter of marque to its owner to carry on all hostilities by sea, presumably according to the laws of war. Formerly a 'state issued letters of marque to its own subjects, and to those of neutral states as well, but a privateersman who accepted letters of marque from both belligerents was regarded as a pirate. By the Declaration of Paris (April, 1856}, privateering was abolished.
CITATION: Black's Law Dictionary 4th Ed.1891 Pg.1359;

13. the Irregularities on the face of the statement of claim unlawfulness nature of this alleged statement of claim which is not sworn to; nor does it possess an endorsement by the plaintiff’s agent; nor a clerk of the alleged court and the unlawfulness is completed by the completely enclosed, and therefore removal from the statement; the NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT(S).

14. This statement of claim on its face appears invalid under colour-of-law and exceeding jurisdiction; an act of privateering and therefore vexatious and frivolous in nature; and

15. Due to prejudice; irregularities; impossibility of lawful service; exceeding of jurisdiction under colour-of-law; appearance of privateering; and that this undisclosed; living; breathing; principle has revealed herself to this alleged court of lesser dignity:

Motion to quash with costs awarded to sui juris respondent

And, since the TD Bank had the effrontery to bring this action against Stephanie they'd better prove a few of their allegations rather than just making wild accusations,

2. if the server claims service at the alleged locations of either; or both; Town of Bonnyville and Province of Alberta; than the claim is invalidated as these alleged locations are not what appears on the real property report of the alleged service; and renders article 16 claim of a real and substantial connection to Alberta; a real land mass known as Alberta; misleading;

3. Further; for the alleged plaintiff will have the burden of proving: Town of Bonnyvllle; and Province of Alberta; are real locations;

4. In any event the conflict between article 1 and 2: of carrying on business; and residing within the fictional locations conflicts with the claim of a: real and substantial connection to Alberta; the real land mass known as Alberta;

5. Further still; the alleged statement of claim violates Rule 13.13 (2) (a), (f), and 13.16(b)

6. Presumption of Service rules which cite the Interpretations Act which lacks Royal Assent and therefore is not law in Canada or Alberta; for service on an: individual; is service on a corporation not a human; the real land being falsely identifies and the real human being falsely identified as the alleged defendant; both cause prejudice;

7. Where the proper title for the Queen's Bench as stated in Article 1.1(1) (a) of the Alberta Rules of Court is properly written as: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta; not as cited on the alleged statement of claim of COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA; and

8. For the ALBERTA REGULATION 117/2010; Court of Queen's Bench Act; JUDICIAL DISTRICTS REGULATION; cites in article 1(1) (j) Judicial District of St. Paul; not JUDICIAL DISTRICT of ST. PAUL and further states: The boundary of the Judicial District of St. Paul ... that the jurisdiction is of the Province; not the province; by this use of capitalization; the regulation expresses it has jurisdiction in the Province of Alberta; and no jurisdiction in Alberta; to which the plaintiff would be required to submit evidence that Province of Alberta ls a real location; and where this is an admiralty jurisdiction the plaintiff bears the burden of entering into evidence the jurisdiction of the court;

9. And, as the plaintiff is citing a contractual infringement upon some right of covenant; the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the contract was lawful and for a lawful purpose in the land of signing; therefore the plaintiff will either have to admit to Alberta being the location of signing; at which point the court loses jurisdiction; and the statement of claim becomes fraudulent as it makes no reference to carrying on business in Alberta; and enter evidence that the alleged contract was lawful and for a lawful purpose according to the laws of the land, Alberta; or provide evidence that Province of Alberta and Town of Bonnyvllle are the real land locations of the contract signing to which the motion to show cause to enter the real property report of the location of the charter bank at which signing occurred;

10. The Plaintiff will also bear the burden of proving a lawful definition of cash and ownership of the cash alleged to have been lent; prior to the alleged loaning; and that it has value; and is a note of cretis;

11. The plaintiff will also need to prove the bank charter pursuant to the Bank Act S.C. 1991 allows for the carrying on of business in the Province of Alberta as stated In the claim; and if it does; then the statement of claim Is accurate though the bank has violated its charter by carrying on business in Alberta as the real location as proven with the real property report of the location of the bank will attest; if it is only permitted to carry on business in Alberta; the claim labelled 1. in the statement of claim is evidence of exceeding the jurisdiction under colour-of-law; only if the Bank Act includes carrying on business in both the Province of Alberta and Alberta do the actions of the plaintiff have any grounding that does not make the claim invalid on its face;

In order to foreclose the bank had to prove that cash is cash, that Alberta is Alberta, that Bonnyville where her house is located is actually Bonnyville, that QUEEN'S BENCH is Queen's Bench. And did they do that? No! The barriers to the bank winning this case seemed insurmountable until the court went into its default OPCA spiel. Well all isn't lost. She can still go to the Supreme Court of Canada and demand that they prove that CANADA is actually in Canada or she wins by default.

Her sons? Right. I'd forgotten about them. This was her argument requiring that Queen's Bench force the Provincial Court of Alberta to drop the charges against them;

Whereas it appears there has occurred errors on the part of Vic Findlater of Findlater Law of Bonnyville; the Chief Crown Prosecutor of Saint Paul: Jeffery Rudiak; among many others: through assumed jurisdiction under colour-of- law have: mistaken identity and mistaken locations and that all alleged contracts related to the above docket numbers are declared null and void due to coercion; stress; duress; threats; trick and infancy at common law; further: Stephanie-Lynn has claimed the human beings; the products of her body as her property at common law; as such she is the rightful owner to all four corners; and as such claims states immunity; we extend this offer to correct the situation by the withdraw of all submissions related to the docket numbers listed above; Notice: Ryan Lees© is a common law copyrighted trade name for which no permission or authorization has been granted by the holder of the copyright to any agent of or for the state party; Notice: The property of Ryan-Joseph: Lees; Ryan Lees© has been both delivered and claimed; to and by; and is under the protection of Stephanie-Lynn: Leadbetter and any and all attempts to contract with Ryan Lees© are to be forwarded to the address above through Stephanie-Lynn: Leadbetter; Notice: With the above; none of the participants have; or can claim to have a legal; or lawful; enforceable contract; Notice: Both Stephanie-Lynn and Ryan-Joseph deny the existence of a lawful contract; Notice: Both Stephanie-Lynn and Ryan-Joseph deny having authorized or conveyed any lawful authority to any agent of the state party or a minister to act as proctor; minister; banker; trustee; or executor; or that any lawful contract exist between Ryan-Joseph and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; the Provincial Court of the Province of Alberta; or that Ryan-Joseph has been in-scripted into an army without his knowledge or consent; and denies a contract with the LAW SOCIETY of ALBERTA; Notice: Lawful service will only be accepted via registered mail to the exact address provided above; Notice: Both Stephanie-Lynn and Ryan-Jospeh; do not consent to a joint prosecuted with a co-accused; Notice: Any and all actors; agents of and for the state party; involved in any way with the submission of documents related to; or participants in the events related to the docket numbers listed above; all actors expose themselves to charges of copy right infringement; defamation of character; and trespass; and also charges of failure of duty of care; violation of oath of office; conduct unbecoming an officer; perjury; and criminal charges of trafficking in person contrary to 279.01 of the Criminal Code they have taken an oath to uphold. Should Vic Findlater and Jeffery Rudiak desire to continue with the above actions; new submission without a co-accused are to be filed and lawfully served;

Notice: To date; no statement of claim has been made and lawfully serviced.

Govern Yourselves Accordingly,

Warning noted. The courts had better govern themselves accordingly.

[wserra]

Damn, Burnaby. Your transformation into Möwe appears complete.

In fact, has anyone ever seen Burnaby and Möwe at the same time?

[notorial dissent]

MS Leadbetter is a real font of unoriginality. Prolific, but unoriginal. I just can't get over the Court of Queen's Bench having the effrontery to Call her a vexatious litigant, why the very idea. :sarcasm:

I will give her points though for calling her "children", and grown "children" at that, her "property", that is different. It is all too common in sovcit child custody cases, but I've never seen or heard of it being used in an adult criminal case. She definitely gets points for that, the rest, not so much.

[Burnaby49]

I don't recall Mowe going off message because he got distracted by Phil Spector or dust bowl classics. The man had focus. Next time I write up a Queen's Bench stompin' I'd better stick to Mozart piano sonatas and leave Da Doo Ron Ron alone.

Quite right ND. It's not uncommon for sovereigns to claim ownership of their infant children in custody cases but this is the first time I've seen it tried in respect to adult children.

[notorial dissent]

I don't recall Mowe going off message because he got distracted by Phil Spector or dust bowl classics. The man had focus. Next time I write up a Queen's Bench stompin' I'd better stick to Mozart piano sonatas and leave Da Doo Ron Ron alone.

Quite right ND. It's not uncommon for sovereigns to claim ownership of their infant children in custody cases but this is the first time I've seen it tried in respect to adult children.

And yet strangely enough it doesn't seem to have worked any better in. this case than it has in any of the others. Imagine that???

[morrand]

She, the “real human on the land”, who occupies “the realm of reality”... .

[notorial dissent]

She, the “real human on the land”, who occupies “the realm of reality”... .

Unh, not based on any evidence I've seen.

[LordEd]

She can still go to the Supreme Court of Canada and demand that they prove that CANADA is actually in Canada or she wins by default.

Except she would have to prove that she sent her claim to the Supreme court of Canada and didn't accidentally send it to the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA.