Charles Wells - The Remedy (TM)

[eric]

I recently was led to this character. He is Alberta based, from his facebook page it indicates he lives in Edson, but it seems that most of his followers are in Southern Alberta, particularly Lethbridge. I did a search on Canlii but didn't get any hits. Before I did a full writeup on him I was wondering if anyone else had heard of him. He peddles something known as "The Remedy", something about an unusual interpretation of the difference between assent and enact. Typical standard scripts to follow, some youtube vids of his followers using them, here's an example:

Do NOT PLEAD Guilty. You appear to have been given bad advice. Learn The Remedy to end the unlawful actions of tyrants. PM me if you are interested.
When called to appear before a Justice, The Crown has to read out the charges.
Then the justice will ask you, "Do you understand the charges as read", or something to that effect.
You MUST answer properly
If you say, "Yes, I understand the charges as read", you are DONE AT THAT POINT.
Everything that happens after that is just bad dinner theater without the dinner.
You MUST say the following.
"I do not understand the presumed jurisdiction of The Crown in this Matter, Your Honor".
Then you need to use The Remedy to support your "lack of understanding". The Crown then has to withdraw as they cannot establish jurisdiction. There can be no trial without first establishing jurisdiction.
If you say that you "understand the charges as read" you are inadvertently agreeing that the legislation that the Order derives from was lawfully enacted, when in fact, it was not. And thus, you will be convicted simply because your are not aware of this truth.

I'll give it awhile to see if anyone has input, and if not I will do the writeup. What I find interesting is that I may get to watch a local business owner go down in flames if she follows this path. You can't say I didn't allready warn her.

[noblepa]

I can't add anything to your description of him, but this sounds like the usual "if you say you understand, that means you 'stand under' their laws". And that a court must prove, to the defendant's satisfaction, that the court has jurisdiction and that the statutes the defendant is accused of violating are valid laws.

Of course, we know that neither of those is true, and the defendant, like others before him, is going to crash and burn.

[eric]

It appears that I will have to get something together in the next little while then. Although the "understand" = "stand under" theme is not unusual, Charles is interesting because it's the first time I've seen this particular mix of twenty year old Quebec style freemanism out here in Alberta. Besides, it's all happening local to me, even after I warned people about it. I'll get something together next AM.

[notorial dissent]

I would say dinner theater is a good description, fantasy dinner theater. I love how cute they are thinking their magic wurdz are going to stop the world rolling on its orbit. It's like the sovcits thinking that challenging jurisdiction will stop a trial/action in its tracks, which it will, right up to the point where the judge says, "nuh uh, we have jurisdiction because....." and on we go. Doesn't work any better for the sovcits than this "remedy" will.

[eric]

Time to dive into the absolute old-school FMOTL theories of Charles Wells. We have a guru? - check. We have scripts to follow? - check. We're using discredited theories from prior to 2010? - check.

I first discovered Charles only a few days ago. The background is as follows..... One of the myths that Alberta Covid deniers believe is that there are hoards of money to pay fines you may get and pay legions of lawyers to defend your rights. Included in these lawyers are such people mentioned allready on Quatloos as Rocco Galati. All you have to do is contact the appropriate right wing news source and you're good to go. A small business local to me decided to test out this hypothesis, ended up being visited twice by members of unifythepeople, and much hilarity ensued. Plenty of fines to the appropriate people and the business owner soon discovered there was no money and no free lawyers. Side note, yours truly got booted from our local village facebook group for having the temerity to suggest that it wasn't a good idea to hang with these particular covid deniers and that there was no legal free lunch.
So this happened, and I decided to do some research

Teresa Szpendyk
I mention Charles Wellsbecause using our constitution he has a remedy in the courts. He is damn smart and you might like to hear his remedy. It has already been used in the court of queens with excellent results.

Time for a blast from the past with Quebec style FMOTL tactics ca. 2010. Here's Charles' facebook page, nothing much exciting, he lives in Edson, and is originally from Raymond.
https://www.facebook.com/charles.wells.129
And he is channeling Jacques-Antoine Normandin also mentioned here on Quatloos:

Michael Buchmann You have fallen for a very simple deception. Somehow, you have been convinced that Assent and Enactment mean the same thing; however, I can assure you that they do not.
While it is true that the law is of no force or effect if the Queen does not Assent to a piece of legislation, the obverse is not true. A law does not become valid until it is lawfully enacted.
Assent just means that the Queen has agreed to enforce a piece of legislation. Executive Power is vested in the Crown. The Crown enforces law. The Crown does not enact it, nor interpret it.
Enact means, "To make into law by authoritative act". Blacks Law Dictionary 8th Ed.
So of course the Queen is supposed to Assent to laws She is going to enforce. It would be pointless to have a piece of legislation that won't be enforced.
What is supposed to happen ( but doesn't) after Royal Assent, is that Parliament, in the case of Federal law, or the Legislatures, in the case of Provincial law, are required under the Constitution, to enact the legislation, NOT the Crown.

I have/had a huge number of links to Normandin and his efforts that I have still not got around to collating into some sort of meaningful digest. The basis of Normandin's strategy was that unless Liz, riding side-saddle on her charger, thought up the law and personally signed it herself, and was prepared to enforce it, no Canadian law was valid.
Normandin never got very far with this argument, the comment from one Quebec judge after viewing a literal wheel barrow load of documents from a Normandin follower was to indicate that it belonged in the wheel barrow.

You may have missed where I mentioned that Charles is from Raymond. I suspect he learned at the feet of our old friend Glenn Winningham of the House of Fearn also from the big city of Raymond, population 3500 or so. In fact Charles is quite the FMOTL guru in that part of the province. Here he is defending anti-maskers using classic Normandin logic on the facebook page of a reputable media outlet in Lethbridge:

Charles Wells
Dana Pepin Roche
 A bylaw is unlawful as
1. Municipalities are not recognized as lawful Orders of Government under the Constitution.
2. The Legislature has no lawful authority to create government. Only the Constitution can do this.
3. The MGA unlawfully creates a level of government (Municipal) as the MGA was unlawfully enacted by HRH QE2 in contravention of the limitations placed upon Her in the Preamble of S91 of the Constitution Act of 1867.Therefore, in accordance with Part VII General S52 of the Constitution Act of 1982, the MGA is rendered to be of no force or effect in its entirety.

Of course, since he is such an expert in Canadian constitutional law, he felt it necessary to come to the aid of the leader of the Lethbridge branch of unifythepeople, a certain Mike Hoffman.

https://www.facebook.com/mike.hoffman.9 ... MzU3ODg%3D
https://www.facebook.com/groups/149254620067682/

Charles peddles something called “The Remedy”. Back again to Quebec, this time with Scott Duncan and the Tenderizers. The Remedy is just Scott Duncan's Notice of Mistake. Here's the script to follow when you first are arrested/appear in court and then follow it up with the full blown Notice of Mistake:

When called to appear before a Justice, The Crown has to read out the charges.
Then the justice will ask you, "Do you understand the charges as read", or something to that effect.
You MUST answer properly
If you say, "Yes, I understand the charges as read", you are DONE AT THAT POINT.
Everything that happens after that is just bad dinner theater without the dinner.
You MUST say the following.
"I do not understand the presumed jurisdiction of The Crown in this Matter, Your Honor".
Then you need to use The Remedy to support your "lack of understanding". The Crown then has to withdraw as they cannot establish jurisdiction. There can be no trial without first establishing jurisdiction.
If you say that you "understand the charges as read" you are inadvertently agreeing that the legislation that the Order derives from was lawfully enacted, when in fact, it was not. And thus, you will be convicted simply because your are not aware of this truth.

and here is a video of Mike Hoffman using The Remedy when the police come to his door to give him his tickets. Please note how frightened they were when he read from the script and how they turned tail and left the field in defeat:

Since all the courts in Alberta dealing with ticket matters have been closed since mid-December and not scheduled to re-open until next month, if the closures are not extended again I suspect that my list of a half dozen or so miscreants in this province who are using unusual tactics to avoid being found guilty will have their court dates delayed again which they will claim as vindication of their methods.

[eric]

And as expected the last remnants of the Tenderizers are upset with Charles:

Gilberto de Piento
Are you the fraud who charges money for a bastardized fraudulent version Scott Duncan's Notice of Mistake?
If you are, you belong in jail.
· Reply · 17h
Charles Wells
No and No. Read what is actually written before you offer your illinformed opinions.

I haven't dropped in on them for quite awhile. It's kind of hard to keep a movement going when your guru (Scott Duncan) is banned from most forms of social media. Similarly, his apostle Pierre Daoust got rather upset when he discovered that nothing Scott had taught him actually worked in real life and he had to pay his taxes to the CRA plus whatever was going on with various municipal infractions and traffic convictions in Terrebonne. In fact various words and insults were exchanged and Pierre is now referred to as a fat Spyder-Pig, an insult previously reserved by the Tenderizers for Dean Clifford. I can't say I'm upset.....

[The Observer]

Well, its nice to see that at least some of the marks do realize at some point that they have been swindled, that the malarkey they bought failed, and confront the scammer over his/her claims. Of course, it would be nicer if they grabbed the scammer, cover him in molasses and feathers, and ran him out of town on a rail.

[eric]

Scooter has turned into a failed guru and isn't even part of what's left of the group - about six active members including Gilberto de Piento mentioned above. They just sit there and rant about digital currencies, make racist remarks, and exclaim "Scott is always right" whenever they find something they can agree on.

[notorial dissent]

Scooter has turned into a failed guru and isn't even part of what's left of the group - about six active members including Gilberto de Piento mentioned above. They just sit there and rant about digital currencies, make racist remarks, and exclaim "Scott is always right" whenever they find something they can agree on.

Am I not remembering correctly that Daoust has a real potty mouth. I 'm sure "fat Spyder-Pig" must sound sexier in French since it doesn't do anything for me in English. Sounds like they have their own little senile senior citizens social club since no one else wants anything to do with them.

[Arthur Rubin]

Well, its nice to see that at least some of the marks do realize at some point that they have been swindled, that the malarkey they bought failed, and confront the scammer over his/her claims. Of course, it would be nicer if they grabbed the scammer, cover him in molasses and feathers, and ran him out of town on a rail.

For those near the US, I recently saw the Liberty Mutual commercial with seagulls. Perhaps, if you are near a lake or ocean, something like that could be staged for the scammers.

[eric]

Am I not remembering correctly that Daoust has a real potty mouth. I 'm sure "fat Spyder-Pig" must sound sexier in French since it doesn't do anything for me in English. Sounds like they have their own little senile senior citizens social club since no one else wants anything to do with them.

The spyder pig reference was to some RPG game that they were big on, not the Simpsons character. It was Scooter who had the potty mouth. He thought it showed his superiority over mere mortals who followed normal society's inhibitions. Personally I thought it was more like a small child going off into meaningless rants yelling "cooties", or "poopy face".

[eric]

Well, its nice to see that at least some of the marks do realize at some point that they have been swindled, that the malarkey they bought failed, and confront the scammer over his/her claims. Of course, it would be nicer if they grabbed the scammer, cover him in molasses and feathers, and ran him out of town on a rail.

For those near the US, I recently saw the Liberty Mutual commercial with seagulls. Perhaps, if you are near a lake or ocean, something like that could be staged for the scammers.

Something equally disastrous may yet happen to Scooter. I watched a youtube video of him and his buddy Derek Moran manufacturing shatter on an apartment balcony while Scooter was smoking a cigarette.

[JamesVincent]

I still prefer this Remedy over theirs. And it makes much more sense.

[The Remedy (TM)]

It look as though pretty much every poster on this subject has it wrong.
1. The Remedy tm has nothing to do with the Free Man On The Land movement or anyone who is associated with it.
2. The Remedy tm uses primarily the Constitution of Canada, specifically the preamble of Part VI Distribution of Legislative Powers s. 91 and Part VII General s. 52
3. It is a relatively straight forward idea which is grounded upon existing legislation.
4. If you would like to know more, or have any real rebuttal evidence then I would love to hear from you.

[Pottapaug1938]

It look as though pretty much every poster on this subject has it wrong.
1. The Remedy tm has nothing to do with the Free Man On The Land movement or anyone who is associated with it.
2. The Remedy tm uses primarily the Constitution of Canada, specifically the preamble of Part VI Distribution of Legislative Powers s. 91 and Part VII General s. 52
3. It is a relatively straight forward idea which is grounded upon existing legislation.
4. If you would like to know more, or have any real rebuttal evidence then I would love to hear from you.

We have better things to do. You can see what we have to say in the previous posts within this thread. The burden of proof rests upon you to show that your "Remedy" is legally sound and has withstood review in an actual court (and, by the way, you do not have to "consent to" or "understand" the jurisdiction of a court. If the offense of which you have been charged occurred within a place subject to the legally mandated jurisdiction of a court, you have consented to that jurisdiction over you by your physical presence in, or your actions in, that jurisdiction). If you still don't understand, GET YOURSELF A LAWYER WHO IS LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW. As we lawyers say, "if you represent yourself in court, you have a fool for a client and a scoundrel for a lawyer." Even the greatest lawyers in the US have retained attorneys to represent them in court.

[eric]

Actually I do have one burning question... is "The Remedy (TM)" really trademarked? I couldn't find it on the government Canadian Trademarks Database:
https://ised-isde.canada.ca/cipo/trademark-search/srch
Using the search term "The Remedy" one of my returns was

Trademark description
DR. WILLIAMS' PINK PILLS FOR PALE PEOPLE, in the form of a large capital P, doing duty for each of the four words beginning with the letter.

Fascinating stuff, trademark first registered 1886, the owner actually renewed the registration ninety years later in 1976.
https://ised-isde.canada.ca/cipo/tradem ... pageLen=50

[NYGman]

Could you really Trademark "The Remedy". I am not an expert on Canadian Intellectual property laws, but I would think "The Remedy" used to describe a Remedy is not something you can Trademark as is a common term.

[eric]

IANAL and my memory of training as an engineer for patents (hardware) and copyright law (software) is woefully hampered by the mists of time but "The Remedy" could be trademarked as wholly or part of a company name, design, product, or service. In other words it is not just a phrase but represents something. In any case, I did not find any registered or pending registration of Mister Wells' service. I suspect that Elizabeth II or Charles were/are just too busy to get to it. For an example of a trademark for "The Remedy" see here:
https://ised-isde.canada.ca/cipo/tradem ... pageLen=50

[The Observer]

...If you would like to know more, or have any real rebuttal evidence then I would love to hear from you.

What I would like to see is some evidence that The Remedy actually worked in Canadian courts. Apparently one of the disciples of this method claims it worked in a court case:

Teresa Szpendyk
I mention Charles Wells because using our constitution he has a remedy in the courts. He is damn smart and you might like to hear his remedy. It has already been used in the court of queens with excellent results.

This should be easy enough to reference and cite to us here. Otherwise all of your claims about it working are just that - unbacked and unproven claims. And at that point, regardless of your dispute about The Remedy not being linked to freemanism, it seems pretty freemanish to me.

[eric]

I mention Charles Wells because using our constitution he has a remedy in the courts. He is damn smart and you might like to hear his remedy. It has already been used in the court of queens with excellent results.

This should be easy enough to reference and cite to us here. Otherwise all of your claims about it working are just that - unbacked and unproven claims. And at that point, regardless of your dispute about The Remedy not being linked to freemanism, it seems pretty freemanish to me.

Perhaps a better idea would be to find an instance where Scott Duncan's methods have ever worked in court. "The Remedy" seems to be nothing more than a word for word copy of Scooter's "Notice of Mistake". Also interesting was Scooter's claim that the Tender for Law had nothing to do with freemanism, the same as Wells is claiming.
... edited to fix quote formatting