Well, after a two year interregnum, Ms. Landry is back on my radar. The preceding postings related to her attempts, with Dean Clifford’s background coaching, to stiff her mortgage lender through a barrage of sovereign gibberish. Not only didn’t it work, it resulted in Ms. Landry having bestowed on her that ultimate sovereign accolade, a vexatious litigant designation from Alberta’s court of Queen’s Bench. A notable achievement indeed from a first time litigant!
But times move on and she’s back at Queen’s Bench and facing Judge Rooke on an entirely different issue, a request for access to her four children;
Landry (Re)
2021 ABQB 390
https://canlii.ca/t/jfz8t
[4] As I understand Ms. Landry, her proposed litigation activities involve two separate family dispute scenarios:
1. Ms. Landry has four children with two fathers. The fathers currently have custody of the four children. Ms. Landry seeks access to those children, and that the children reside with her, at least in part. Ms. Landry makes many allegations of misconduct by one of the two fathers, GJ, who is the father of three children with Ms. Landry. The relationship Ms. Landry has described between herself and GJ is high conflict.
2. Ms. Landry is currently living with, and in a relationship with, BS. BS has two children from a former relationship with CH. Ms. Landry indicates there are currently legal proceedings ongoing between BS and CH, and “[m]y name has been brought into” that proceeding: Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket FL10 08018.
She seems to lead a very complicated, stressful life.
Normally a family matter such as this has an automatic right of filing. However, given Ms. Landry’s court access restrictions, she must persuade Queen’s Bench to lift the restrictions before she can initiate this litigation. She can only proceed after the court has reviewed the basis of her proposed court action and the law she’s relying on to confirm that it isn’t a frivolous lawsuit or based on sovereign legal bullshit rather than real law. If it’s a valid complaint based on valid law the court will allow her to file the same as any other litigant. As we’ll see that’s way too high a hurdle for her to overcome, at least with the filing under review in this decision.
Given the above requirements she must meet she didn’t start well;
On April 30, 2021, my office received a package of materials from Vanessa Amy Landry [Ms. Landry], including:
1. a cover page reading “PRIVATE TRUST DEPOSIT”,
2. a handwritten note that this is an urgent matter,
3. a one-page handwritten letter that reads:
Dear Associate Chief Justice John D. Rooke.
I accept the constitution Acts 1867-1982.
I accept your Oath of Office therefore I am with the understanding that you will protect my rights as you have sworn to do, so help me God. I attach your Bond to all liabilities, debts, harm, or damage that may be caused to my person. I waive sections 1 and 3 and invoke sections 7 and 15 of the constitution Act of Canada 1982. I look forward to the proper administration of Justice in accordance with the Constitution Acts. I hereby convene a constitutional court of Queen Elizabeth II for the security of my person.
Yours Truly
Vanessa
by: [signature] - personal representative
This document also has a Canada Post registered mail sticker attached, and has been cancelled with a Canada Post stamp.
4. A six-page typed letter that is witnessed by a notary public.
5. An unfiled Application [Application #1] and April 28, 2021 Affidavit of Ms. Landry.
6. A second unfiled Application [Application #2] that does not name any parties but seeks access to certain children, accompanied by a second Affidavit of Ms. Landry, affirmed on April 13, 2021.
7. A notarized Alberta Government Personal Property Registry Verification Statement.
8. A handwritten list of contact information for five persons, including Ms. Landry.
She claimed she’d seen the light and had rejected all of her past false beliefs and was now relying on only law acceptable to Queen’s Bench;
[6] Ms. Landry in her materials states that she has been educating herself about OPCA misconceptions, and recognizes these ideas abuse and misuse court processes. She agrees that steps such as court access restrictions “... are necessary in some cases ... for the greater good and I see that. ...”. Ms. Landry indicates she has reviewed Meads and academic literature written about pseudolaw. She says in 2018 she did not understand the implications of her actions, and:
... It was not until recently that I had the realization of the importance of the Court system clamping down on people who employ abusive Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments.
She states she has “... developed respect and knowledge of the Court system ...” as a result of her being subject to the Landry #2 court access restrictions, and her educating herself about pseudolaw.
But as the infamous Judge Rooke himself noted in the decision while she talked the talk she didn’t walk the walk;
[5] What complicates this matter is that the package received from Ms. Landry includes statements, concepts, and documents that are clearly OPCA in character. OPCA strategies and ideas are legally incorrect and abusive strategies marketed to gullible, ill-informed, and often criminal anti-government activists: Meads. OPCA schemes are typically applied to evade income tax, as a “get out of jail free card”, to attack government and institutional actors, or as a way to purportedly nullify debts and get free money: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 at para 178 [Unrau #2]. Employing pseudolaw is always an abuse of court processes, and warrants immediate court response: Unrau #2 at paras 180, 670-671.
However Rooke did give her some credit for at least managing to have some of her material based on real law;
[7] A person who is subject to court access restrictions is presumed to engage in illegitimate litigation, unless the Court is satisfied otherwise: Re Thompson, 2018 ABQB 87 at para 19, leave to appeal denied 2018 ABCA 111, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38204 (14 February 2019) [Re Thompson]. However, the threshold for a valid leave to file application is low. As Nielsen ACJ stated in Re Thompson at paras 25-26:
... to initiate a court proceeding in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench [the applicant] is required to “demonstrate” that the proceeding is “not an abuse of process” and “there are reasonable grounds” for his proposed litigation.
... The applicant must establish “reasonable grounds” for its litigation, and “[depose] fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding”. This standard is not onerous, since it is no more than mustering the evidence that a litigant would, in any case, require for their intended litigation. ... That information is critical to a reviewing judge being able to say whether or not a proposed action or application is an abuse of process. Provision of that evidentiary foundation falls to the person who applies for leave. ...
[8] From my review of Ms. Landry’s materials, I believe she is attempting to satisfy that standard. She has, for example, in her Affidavits indicated specific alleged facts, and provides an explanation of why certain outcomes should occur. She has provided documents and recordings that she says validates her claims.
She’s indicated specific alleged facts and given explanations! Maybe she’ll sprinkle in some real law next! Unfortunately, not;
[9] The problem, as I have observed above, is that Ms. Landry’s applications and materials still include OPCA strategies. An application for leave to file may be rejected where the submissions exhibit indicia of abusive litigation: . . .(bunch of citations) . . . . . . The OPCA component of Ms. Landry’s materials is a clear basis to reject Ms. Landry’s filings
But, being a big-hearted guy, Rooke decided to give her another chance to squander;
[10] I am mindful of my obligations, pursuant to Pintea v Johns, 2017 SCC 23, to self-represented litigants, such as Ms. Landry. I therefore will take several steps:
1. Ms. Landry’s leave to file application is rejected as an attempt to abuse the Court’s processes via OPCA concepts.
2. Paragraph 38, subparagraph 6 of Landry #2, states: “An application that is dismissed may not be made again, directly or indirectly.” That provision does not apply to Ms. Landry’s April 30, 2021 leave to file application. She is permitted to make a further leave to file application, if she chooses, subject to the guidelines detailed below.
3. The remainder of this decision will review Ms. Landry’s April 30, 2021 materials and provide information as to a number of issues, so that, if Ms. Landry wishes to make a valid, non-OPCA, leave to file application, she will be better positioned to do so.
[11] In short, Ms. Landry says she wants to participate in Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench proceedings in relation to certain family disputes, and to do so in a valid, lawful manner. This decision is intended to assist her in doing that.
That part of the decision covered Family Dispute #1. This was just an attempt to see her children, with some abuse allegations against her ex-husband tossed in. She has no standing in Family Dispute #2 since it is between BS,the guy she’s currently living with and CH, his ex-whatever.
[12] The facts, as I understand them, are that BS and CH are separated parents of two children. There are presently family proceedings initiated by CH before the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Docket No. FL10 08018. Ms. Landry lives with BS. Ms. Landry does not indicate that she has any legal rights in relation to the children of BS and CH. For example, she is not a guardian of the children.
[13] If that is correct, then Ms. Landry has no standing to initiate litigation involving the children. She is a third-party to that dispute. Her Application #2 at paras 5-8, 18-19, 21-22 purports to involve or relate to CH and the children of BS and CH. It appears Application #2 is a “parenting order”, as defined in the Family Law Act, SA 2003, c F-4.5, ss 32-34. Applications for parenting orders may be made by one or more guardians: Family Law Act, s 32(1). Ms. Landry, therefore, appears to have no status to make an application of this kind.
And Quatloos contributor Donald Netolitzky gets a citation from the court;
[21] While I commend Ms. Landry for her educating herself concerning the differences between law and pseudolaw, she and BS need to understand that references to or attempts to implement Strawman Theory have serious consequences. She should read Meads at paras 417-466, Pomerleau at paras 67-88, Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652 at paras 83-92, and Donald J Netolitzky, “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments and Magic and Ceremony” (2018) 55:4 Alta L Rev 1045 to better understand why Strawman Theory is nothing but a myth. Further, Ms. Landry and BS should know that simply attempting to use Strawman Theory creates the presumption that the person who advances these ideas does so in bad faith, and for an abusive and ulterior purpose: Fiander v Mills, 2015 NLCA 31 at paras 37-40.
[22] I stress this point because the Personal Property Registry Verification Statement appears to be an attempt to access fictional secret Strawman “birth bond” bank accounts, and obtain special extralegal status. While BS and Ms. Landry name themselves as “debtors”, and apparently are behind this document, BS and Ms. Landry have also included their children in this pseudolegal scheme.
Then a couple of paragraphs giving the path Landry must follow if she is to get her case accepted by the court. It’s in paragraphs 26 to 32. I doubt judge Rooke has the slightest expectation she’ll follow his advice but he’s done what he can. He ended with;
IV. Conclusion
[33] Ms. Landry’s April 30, 2021 leave to file application is dismissed. Ms. Landry has permission to submit a further leave to file application to me that relates to her status with her four children, following legal, not illegal procedures, as identified above.
[34] I have gone into some detail in my response to Ms. Landry’s April 30, 2021 materials. I did so for two central reasons. First, the law in Canada recognizes the key role parents play in their children’s lives, and the benefits that result from that. Ms. Landry seeks more contact with her children. That should be facilitated, if a Court find that parenting time is appropriate.
[35] Second, Ms. Landry says she is taking steps to extricate herself from her earlier pattern of resorting to false, illegal pseudolaw strategies, and, instead, now will advance her rights under Canadian law and in Canadian courts. That should be encouraged. She is part-way there. I hope that my identifying her OPCA misconceptions, and directing her to actual legal resources, will help. The Canadian case law and legal authorities identified in this Decision may be viewed at no expense at the CanLII website (
https://www.canlii.org). Ms. Landry and BS may both benefit from accessing that resource. Recently, the Canadian Judicial Council has published handbooks for SRLs. The family law handbook may be downloaded here (
https://cjc-ccm.ca/sites/default/files/ ... -03-30.pdf).
[36] Finally, I very strongly recommend that Ms. Landry and BS consult with a lawyer. Their misunderstandings of Canadian law put their relationships with their children at risk. If Ms. Landry and BS are unable to afford a lawyer, I recommend Ms. Landry and BS contact a public legal assistance resource such as Legal Aid Alberta, Calgary Legal Guidance, the University of Calgary Student Legal Assistance, or Student Legal Services of Edmonton.
[37] What happens next is largely in their hands, but the path forward is safer if Ms. Landry and BS receive valid and accurate legal information and advice. I encourage them to do so.
I await her next, and final, doomed attempt to thread the needle by filing OPCA litigation while earnestly trying to convince Judge Rooke that she’s advancing nothing but legitimate law.
