Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

[letissier14]

Attention UK Residents. Boris Johnson's Agenda Fully Revealed - Welcome to ET Animal Farm



His channel

https://www.youtube.com/c/PeterOfEngland

[Albert Haddock]

A WeRe Bank “Economic Impact Payment Voucher” has made an appearance in a Canadian court:

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2 ... qb354.html

The judgment is by Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke.

[hucknallred]

A WeRe Bank “Economic Impact Payment Voucher” has made an appearance in a Canadian court:

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2 ... qb354.html

The judgment is by Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke.

This was that particular grift. Just read the comments.
Gullible idiots.

[mufc1959]

How has he not had his collar felt yet? This Economic Impact Payment Voucher is a clear attempt to commit fraud.

[longdog]

John Wescott

Will you accept a WeRe Bank cheque as payment?

Peter OfEngland

Of course

John Wescott

@Peter OfEngland Great. What's the postal address to send it to, is it still above the "massage parlour"?

[eric]

Ms. Anderson, the OPCA litigant mentioned in the above named court case, has been discussed previously on Quatloos
viewtopic.php?p=290710#p290710
Anyways she is quite the character and I have to get some updates out on her latest antics as she handles: (excuse me if I have missed any) horse smuggling, impaired driving, home foreclosure, default on a vehicle loan, and finally, smuggling an explosive device onto an airplane. Along with all of the above, running in the background is a long running estate matter. Ms. Anderson has the good luck to be a beneficiary of a (deceased) rancher turned rich from land development. There are major roads in Calgary named after the family. To be honest, I fail to understand why she couldn't just pay her debts though since her father's girlfriend got the property in the US and the Bentley Sandra might have to sell a horse or something.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2 ... qb354.html

Sometimes persons engage OPCA strategies because they perceive they have no choice, and adopt these futile concepts out of desperation. Ms. Anderson is not one such individual. I was the Case Management Justice for an estate matter where Ms. Anderson was a (disruptive) party. Ms. Anderson received a very large inheritance from her father. That is not to say that $160,000 is “chump change” for Ms. Anderson, but Ms. Anderson is very able to pay her obligations to RBC. But she doesn’t want to do so.

[rosy]

I wish British judges would shut down OPCA litigants with equal effectiveness.

[eric]

I wish British judges would shut down OPCA litigants with equal effectiveness.

I understand where you are coming from, but the ability to shut down OPCA litigants using the CPN7 process only applies to civil matters. Ms. Anderson, as mentioned above, has the amazing ability to juggle multiple civil and criminal matters with the deftness of a bull elephant on illicit recreational pharmaceuticals. As an example here's a vid of Sandra and her crack legal advisor Dan Lozinik discussing legal strategy before their next day in court..... take it how you wish

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I wish British judges would shut down OPCA litigants with equal effectiveness.

We don't actually have many that rise above county court debt hearings, and I'm not aware of many that have risen above that with appeals (although others may have examples).

The "I'm only travelling" no tax or licence cases don't make it past the magistrates court and even if they weren't using FotLer tactics, they'd still have been allowed their day in court anyway. I do think that when it does rise to the higher levels it is shut down fairly quickly. what we don't have is the legal shorthand of of being able to quoting Meads v Meads and chuck it out immediately, but it's been references in a few cases, so the higher level judges are aware of it.

Whilst Crabby's gave the impression he was going to do the "You have no jurisdiction over me" plea to his fellow "Council Tax is Unlawful" numbskulls, in the end he did it with a good old fashioned "The police were acting above their powers" argument which always deserves to be heard.

The problem is that (without getting political) cases take up to 5 years to even get to the being heard by a judge at a Crown Court. A simple assault case from April 2021 involving Mr Nkrumah isn't going to be heard until June this year.

And then there are things like this:

5 year delay. Yesterday, D (good character) arrested in 2018 for possession with intent cocaine and money laundering. Trial couldn’t go ahead due to ‘no returns’. New trial date May 2023.

Meanwhile in Lincoln, 2-day trial involving child complainant - 1st available date 3/23.

Maidstone Crown Court enters its fifth day without security staff because of a problem with the panic alarms. Many cases have been adjourned as judges are unable to jail offenders and no-one in jail can be brought to court. No one knows what's caused the problem...

There are probably other things that need fixing first.

[aesmith]

We don't actually have many that rise above county court debt hearings, and I'm not aware of many that have risen above that with appeals (although others may have examples).

Just by chance I saw this one from Scotland, with a Were cheque playing a supporting role ..

On 19 May 2015, Mr McLeod sent Prestige what bore to be a cheque for £75,501.66 drawn on the “WeRe Bank” with an address in Manchester. This entity has attracted expressions of concern by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Financial Ombudsman Service. It is not a regulated bank or a participant in the interbank clearing system. It has been described by a Canadian court as a fraud (Servus Credit Union Ltd v Parlee 2015 ABQB 700 (Can LII), para 61). Prestige declined to accept payment in the form of a WeRe cheque.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-ju ... 0000d74aa7

[TheRambler]

Just by chance I saw this one from Scotland, with a Were cheque playing a supporting role ..

On 19 May 2015, Mr McLeod sent Prestige what bore to be a cheque for £75,501.66 drawn on the “WeRe Bank” with an address in Manchester. This entity has attracted expressions of concern by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Financial Ombudsman Service. It is not a regulated bank or a participant in the interbank clearing system. It has been described by a Canadian court as a fraud (Servus Credit Union Ltd v Parlee 2015 ABQB 700 (Can LII), para 61). Prestige declined to accept payment in the form of a WeRe cheque.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-ju ... 0000d74aa7

That was interesting but quite hard going. Whilst I acknowledge the difference between Scottish and English law I would question the need for the archaic and specialised language used north of the border. English law reports are a model of transparency by comparison! If there are any Scottish lawyers present I should be interested in their views.

TheRambler

[John Uskglass]

Just by chance I saw this one from Scotland, with a Were cheque playing a supporting role ..

As I read that, the hapless Mr Macleod would have had legitimate grounds to challenge the case against him in the first instance, as the lender did not present 'a principal or certified copy of the document founded upon, namely the calling-up notice, and without a witness to speak to any of her averments' as he had demanded.

However, he flounced out of court in classic FMOTL style:

He advised the sheriff that he did not intend to take any further part in the proceedings as he did not recognise the jurisdiction of the sheriff or the court. He was warned that if he left decree was likely to be granted against him, but he nevertheless proceeded to depart with his supporter and another friend.

This allowed the Sherriff to issue the order as requested, and Macleod then missed the deadline for appeal, if I have interpreted correctly.

The judge at this hearing is quite scathing about the Sherriff:

That leaves the matter of Prestige’s failure to present evidence of the requisite quality at the evidential hearing before the sheriff. I regard this as an issue of substance and by no means a technicality. Whatever right Prestige may have had to refuse to provide Mr MacLeod with the original or “verified” documents or affidavits that he demanded from them for his own use, neither they nor the sheriff were entitled to disregard the law of evidence when decree in terms of the summary application was sought and granted.

Not that it would, again as I read it, have got him a free house in the end, but somewhat ironic nonetheless that Macleod could at least have thrown a spanner in the works had he taken a more conventional approach!

[aesmith]

That's how I read it. If he'd defended carefully the original case should have been dismissed, with probably expenses awarded to Mr M. Note in Scotland a decree of Dismissal doesn't prevent the pursuer raising a new claim for the same matter.

[longdog]

It takes a very special type of stupid to claim the courts don't have jurisdiction and then appeal the decision to the same court system.

[JohnPCapitalist]

Ms. Anderson, the OPCA litigant mentioned in the above named court case, has been discussed previously on Quatloos
viewtopic.php?p=290710#p290710
Anyways she is quite the character and I have to get some updates out on her latest antics as she handles: (excuse me if I have missed any) horse smuggling, impaired driving, home foreclosure, default on a vehicle loan, and finally, smuggling an explosive device onto an airplane. Along with all of the above, running in the background is a long running estate matter. Ms. Anderson has the good luck to be a beneficiary of a (deceased) rancher turned rich from land development. There are major roads in Calgary named after the family. To be honest, I fail to understand why she couldn't just pay her debts though since her father's girlfriend got the property in the US and the Bentley Sandra might have to sell a horse or something.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2 ... qb354.html

Sometimes persons engage OPCA strategies because they perceive they have no choice, and adopt these futile concepts out of desperation. Ms. Anderson is not one such individual. I was the Case Management Justice for an estate matter where Ms. Anderson was a (disruptive) party. Ms. Anderson received a very large inheritance from her father. That is not to say that $160,000 is “chump change” for Ms. Anderson, but Ms. Anderson is very able to pay her obligations to RBC. But she doesn’t want to do so.

Sandra Anderson just got crushed by the legendary Associate Chief Justice Rook at a whole new level. She was fined $40,000 for her courtroom antics, which were documented in this thread and others, and in this article from the Calgary Herald: https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-ne ... -shell-pay

I don't recall ACJ Rooke handing out fines before. Perhaps his patience has worn thin as he heads for a well-earned retirement?

[eric]

First of all, apologies are in order, I haven't been updating quatloos with the antics of Ms. Anderson, the multi-guru, and guru herself of OPCA woo. Here's a short summary of her many court actions she is involved in:

II. Ms. Anderson’s Abusive Litigation
[5] What follows is a very probably incomplete record of Ms. Anderson’s abusive pseudolaw activities. In the interest of judicial economy, I have only briefly reviewed this litigation.

• Anderson Estate (Re) and related disputes, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Dockets ES01 119128, 1501 10370, 1601 02364 - Ms. Anderson is a beneficiary of the estate of her deceased father. That estate has been the subject of considerable trial and appellate litigation. On October 22, 2021, I replaced Justice Jones as the Case Management Justice for these proceedings. Since 2020, Ms. Anderson has engaged in pseudolaw arguments taught by US guru Carl (Karl) Lentz, and then has claimed to be the trustee for a non-existent trust with her name in all capital letters. Ms. Anderson then roleplays both herself and her sock puppet “SANDRA ANDERSON TRUST” as two allegedly separate entities. Ms. Anderson has attempted to frustrate resolution of this dispute by her refusal to participate and with OPCA-based claims.

• Anderson v Ossowski, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2101 03903 - Ms. Anderson on several occasions in 2019 attempted to smuggle horses into Canada, but she was caught by the Canadian Border Services Agency [CBSA]. That resulted in seizure of the horses and fines. As discussed below, criminal proceedings then followed. On March 23, 2021, Ms. Anderson (“Sandra of the Anderson Family”) sent this Court OPCA documents that employ pseudolegal theories of Lentz, probably with the assistance of Canadian pseudolaw guru Christopher James Pritchard of Burlington Ontario. Ms. Anderson’s documents purported that Ms. Anderson had established a vigilante “Common Law” court - “The Anderson Court” - that used Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench facilities. Ms. Anderson’s documents state she is the “Prosecutor” in this matter, and named federal government officials, CBSA staff, and a Public Prosecution Service of Canada Crown Prosecutor as “Trespassers” on her “Common Law” rights.

The “Anderson Court” prosecution documents were referred for Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7] review, and then subsequently struck out as an abuse of the court and the purported “Trespassers”: Anderson v Ossowski, 2021 ABQB 382, action struck out 2021 ABQB 428, costs awarded 2021 ABQB 456. Ms. Anderson responded to the CPN7 process with various pseudolaw materials, including a document titled “NOTICE: Trespass, Liability and Fee Schedule”, that threatened myself, Chief Justice Fraser of the Alberta Court of Appeal, the Alberta Minister of Justice and Solicitor General, the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta, Chief Justice Wagner of the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Deputy Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada with $250,000 “Trespass Fines” for inference with “The Anderson Court”, as well as $1 in gold per second for “Any Judgement/Orders given against me, the wo/man, a living soul.”

[6] Ms. Anderson is currently facing multiple criminal proceedings in the Provincial Court of Alberta, including:

• Docket 190768739P1 - charges include driving while impaired, failure to produce a driver’s licence, and operating a motor vehicle while having a prohibited blood alcohol concentration.

• Docket 2107766471 - uttering a forged document (forged COVID-19 test results), and transporting fireworks on an aircraft.

• Dockets 210335584P1, 201295763P1, 210335584P1 - customs and fraud offenses resulting from Ms. Anderson’s international horse smuggling.

• Docket 211079462P101 - failure to attend court.

This does not include the estate manner and the foreclosure matter. You can read all about them here:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2 ... qb354.html
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2 ... ultIndex=1
https://www.albertacourts.ca/docs/defau ... 2aecac83_5

Oh and her guru status, let me introduce you to Daniel Lozinink. Here is his web site:
https://www.angeliclaw.com/index.html
an example of his court input regarding Ms. Anderson:
https://www.angeliclaw.com/content/PUBL ... derson.pdf
His youtube channel, the woman speaking and pushing her own guru status in the first two vids is Ms. Anderson:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUC35g ... 8Po2NM2M8w

Although fines for Ms. Anderson are a new thing, ACJ Rooke has sanctioned lawyers before who notarize obviously PCA matters. From ABQB 354 mentioned above:

[68] A copy of this judgment will be delivered to the Law Society of Alberta, along with a copy of Ms. Anderson’s May 10, 2022 “Affidavit”. As an officer of the Court, I am very troubled by the continuing issue that Alberta lawyers notarize and authenticate obvious pseudolaw documents. A lawyer who acts as a notary is still a lawyer interacting with their client, with the associated professional responsibilities. It is not for me to determine completely - the Law Society has the primary role to enforce sanctions against illegal or improper conduct by lawyers - but it appears that Mr. Taylor and Mr. Melnyk breached their responsibilities to Ms. Anderson, too, when they did not identify the obvious false pseudolaw in Ms. Anderson’s materials, and refused to engage further with her abusive court activities.

And here is a teaser regarding this guy that I still have to finish writing up:

[34] It is not for this Court to determine whether Ms. Akpan is in breach of her professional duties. That disciplinary process falls within the jurisdiction of the Law Society of Alberta. I will forward a copy of this Decision and the Notarized Package to the Law Society of Alberta for its review. However, Canadian Courts possess a separate, parallel authority to supervise lawyer conduct, as that conduct relates to the Courts and their functions: Canadian National Railway Co v McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39 at paras 13-16; Quebec (Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions) v Jodoin, 2017 SCC 26 at paras 16-24. That includes financial consequences to lawyers, personally: Quebec (Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions) v Jodoin at para 23.

[35] I find, on a balance of probabilities, that Ms. Akpan has participated in OPCA schemes to foist illegal obligations on Court personnel, to unilaterally usurp Court authority and attempt to negate a binding Court Order, and to obtain a “get out of jail free” card so her client can (allegedly) ignore Canadian law, and not be subject to criminal prosecution, which denies the Crown’s unique authority to initiate and pursue criminal legal sanctions. I also find, on a balance of probabilities, that Ms. Akpan did so knowingly, or was willfully blind to the illegality that she participated in.

[36] Ms. Akpan has 14 days from the date of this Decision to provide the Court with written submissions on why she should not be liable for a monetary penalty paid to the Court under Rule 10.49, or under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, for her breach of her duties as an Officer of this Court, by her participation in Mr. Ayyazi’s pseudolaw “get out of jail free” scheme. The Crown may also make submissions on this point, due on the same date. I stress that Ms. Akpan should also address the reverse onus against her that results from her participation in a Strawman Theory-based pseudolaw scheme.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2 ... ultIndex=1
And this warning on the Alberta law society web site:
https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/resource-c ... -the-land/

Alberta courts are dealing with OPCA litigants under Civil Practice Note No. 7 and they are often declared to be vexatious litigants. If approached to act for an OPCA litigant, lawyers should keep in mind that they may not ethically take steps in the representation of a client which are without merit. Some of these individuals, however, may have meritorious cases and representation should not be denied simply because a person or their cause is notorious or unpopular.

Ok, way too much topic drift, I will write up Ayyazi as new topic later.

[Burnaby49]

And I am, in my leisurely way, working on a comprehensive posting of her entire, extensive, history of litigation apart from the horse smuggling decisions already covered by eric. I thought she was entitled to her own discussion.

[eric]

You're welcome to her. She has appeared in multiple different threads, mostly because she has hopped from guru to guru. Just an FYI here is a bunch of links regarding Dan Lozinik, her last guru.
His personal youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKDITY ... PnE-trHgIQ
His website: https://www.angeliclaw.com
The site's youtube (Anderson appears in two vids): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUC35g ... 8Po2NM2M8w
Unauthorized practice of law: https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/Website/me ... nction.pdf
His patent for "an improved backscrubbing device": https://patents.google.com/patent/CA2628692C/en
which led to this: https://jssbarristers.ca/rules/lozinik-v-sutherland-2/
and this: https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2 ... qb440.html
All yours, got some more updates to do on Sue Holland and those strange UCC notices that were posted in community newspapers awhile back.

[Burnaby49]

Thanks but I'll pass on Lozinik and just focus on Anderson's squabbles with Queen's Bench.

I watched a very small part of the first video on your linked website Angelic Law. The website title about sizes it up, he kept ranting away about god and Genesis. Anderson's opening salvo was a five minute video within the video proving that there is no law that requires individuals to pay tax. Her proof? Various people, some identified as ex-IRS agents, repeating over and over the mantra "There is no law". Somewhat less than compelling. One was Sherry Jackson, mentioned in Quatloos way, way back. Her discussion started almost twenty years ago;

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=696

Totally discredited as you'd expect.

The little that I gleaned from Anderson before I bailed seemed to indicate that she follows the belief that we aren't obliged to pay tax because the Income Tax Act requires only 'persons' to pay tax and we human beings aren't persons.

[longdog]

The little that I gleaned from Anderson before I bailed seemed to indicate that she follows the belief that we aren't obliged to pay tax because the Income Tax Act requires only 'persons' to pay tax and we human beings aren't persons.

Always one of my favourites.

I've long since lost count of the number of internet 'debates' that have gone something along the lines of...

Delusional Nutcase: "Human beings are not persons"

Me: "Apart from the fact that literally every English dictionary gives "A human being" as literally the first definition"

DN: "U pathtick shepple. U need too use Black's"

Me: <screenshot of Black's giving "A human being" as the first definition>

DN: <block>