Moderator: ArthurWankspittle
He hasn't just won one! All of these, for a start: https://www.commonlawcourt.com/court-no-1SteveUK wrote:He’s someone who had a case heard by them, and won !!!!1!!!
http://jsmith3165.wixsite.com/richardklemmer
If he were also one of the ‘courts ‘ ‘judge & jury’ then my irony detector would be going into overtime.
Without knowing all the details of the contract, it is impossible to say who is right and who is wrong in this situation.The Seventh String wrote:As has been said you might be able to sue. The catch is that if you go down the breach of contract route the employer might be able to counter-sue arguing you are in breach of contract in some way and therefore owe the employer money.JimUk1 wrote: Hmmm can’t say I’ve ever heard of anyone doing that, personally this sounds like a simple case of the employer reviewing thier overtime rates for bank holidays, if your not in a union you can usually negotiate or just accept it...you can’t just walk out of company though Tiggy! Or you might just get sued yourself!
An often better course of action if an employer reduces your pay outside the contracted terms is to make a claim for unauthorised deductions from wages. But in either case getting good quality employment law advice is essential and FMOTL woo and guesswork does not count as good quality advice. Trades unions or CABx being two places to go for good quality free advice.
How long you’ll be working for an employer once you’ve done this depends very much on the employer and their attitude towards doing the right thing by their employees.....
It would be interesting if any of the FMOTLers decided to set themselves up as an advice agency. There’s long-standing case law that says if you call yourself an advice agency your competency will be tested in court against the standards expected of a good advice agency. Claiming you’re incompetent but doing your best or that you really believe in the nonsense you spout will not save you from a disgruntled client who has lost money as a consequence of following that advice sueing you.
A combination of the right injured party and lawyer might well be able to take the FMOTLers to the cleaners.
And FMOTLers don't believe in limited liability corporations or professional (or it seems any other) insurance.
Amazing - what a total winner !!1!!Wakeman52 wrote:He hasn't just won one! All of these, for a start: https://www.commonlawcourt.com/court-no-1SteveUK wrote:He’s someone who had a case heard by them, and won !!!!1!!!
http://jsmith3165.wixsite.com/richardklemmer
If he were also one of the ‘courts ‘ ‘judge & jury’ then my irony detector would be going into overtime.
It looks like he has an issue with paying council tax from other bits of the site & FOI requests, including this one: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... _reduced_c
The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench has just released a decision which. amongst other things, discusses unilateral contracts such as the ones employed by John Smith;Wakeman52 wrote:He hasn't just won one! All of these, for a start: https://www.commonlawcourt.com/court-no-1SteveUK wrote:He’s someone who had a case heard by them, and won !!!!1!!!
http://jsmith3165.wixsite.com/richardklemmer
If he were also one of the ‘courts ‘ ‘judge & jury’ then my irony detector would be going into overtime.
It looks like he has an issue with paying council tax from other bits of the site & FOI requests, including this one: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... _reduced_c
Rothweiler v Payette, 2018B. 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”.
[21] Rothweiler’s Three/Five Letters scheme resembles the one used in Re Boisjoli, where, at the end of the process, the result is allegedly a binding legal decision that can then be enforced in court or by other means.
[22] The first documents, dated December 2, 2017, are identified in Rothweiler’s materials as the “first notice”, accepts the recipients “oath of office” and attempts to invoke:
... full liability on you in your office and private capacity ... to correct the wrongdoings and harm cause to I, a man with all his rights and dignities violated and trespassed on, causing me harm ...
[23] Rothweiler continues to say he has been subject to state actions which caused him harm “... under a statutory rule of contract in a jurisdiction that didn’t apply to me ...”. This was “... designed to create revenues for an estate that the clerk, acting as a judge fraudulently administered without written delegated authority ...”. The contract in question was he, “the living man”, was “attached as surety to the legal name of BRENDEN-RANDALL: ROTHWEILER ESTATE”.
[24] Rothweiler, states that, per his “sovereign immunity”, he demands the recipients of his letters “... facilitate and process a settlement ...” and “... clear all void jurisdiction-created attachments to the legal name ...”. They had 20 days to reply.
[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 ...
I 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.
[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.
Be fair, I at least learned something new from the video.Siegfried Shrink wrote: What it amounts to is re-inventing the tinfoil hat.
And now my head hurts.The Seventh String wrote:Be fair, I at least learned something new from the video.Siegfried Shrink wrote: What it amounts to is re-inventing the tinfoil hat.
I never knew Bill Clinton involved the US in the conflict in what was Yugoslavia in the 1990s to make it easier for Hitler to attack the Soviet Union in 1941.
But now I do.
Sounds like one of those alternative history tales. Only a little less plausible than some I've come across.The Seventh String wrote:I never knew Bill Clinton involved the US in the conflict in what was Yugoslavia in the 1990s to make it easier for Hitler to attack the Soviet Union in 1941.
[Pedantry ON]Siegfried Shrink wrote:To be fair, the interviewer was equally confused about this, and it was clarified a bit. I think the chap meant to say that like Hitler, Clinton saw the Balkans as the underbelly of the USSR. Not that Clinton did, of course.
This is a response to a comment on a You Tube video.Crime reference number: 15/1245316 When did the incident happen?: 10/02/2018 What is your involvement in this case?: Victim of Assault, Burglary, Hate Crime, Illegal Eviction, and Human Rights Violations What is it that you would like us to update you on?: Thanks for your kind response of today on Crime Investigation No.15/1245316 - Theft of Goods Plus. There was an officer investigating, and he promised to get me the Inventory for the taking of our goods, as per the Tort (Interference With Goods) Act 1977. Or in the alternative, confirm, that the intruders who took our belongings, committed a crime. I phoned yesterday for an update, but was told there is no information on the system, so filer a request for an update, and supplied new information, regarding further harassment and theft, based on bogus court proceedings, as the evidence proves You stated and I quote:- "If you believe that the warrant/court order is false then why did you write them a cheque for the amount given". Reply:- Due to the fact, that since receiving a forged document from Collectica dated 06.11.2017, which states and I quote "A warrant of control has been issued by Her Majesty's Courts & Tribunal Service Distress Warrant". no one has been willing or able, to stop the barrage of other "Court Instruments" which have been used to hold us hostage, to extortion, hence the inclusion in the crime report. I sent the cheque, on the strict condition, that there is a a valid lawful arrest, and a lawful Order which he refers to in his unsigned threat. These "Warrants", have been allegedly obtained, based on a "COURT ORDER" , from the harrow Crown Court, which is itself based on another "COURT ORDER" from the County Court at Barnet. On 19.01.2018, following a Secretary of State for Justice Inquiry, the County Court at Barnet, affirmed, that there was never any judgement against me, making all the other alleged proceedings and alleged warrants criminal allegations. The Willesden Magistrates Court, has confirmed in writing, that they are not in possession of any order, from the Harrow Court, which could have been used to file for these "WARRANTS". Furthermore, the Registry Trust report, shows that I am clear of any allegations of CCJs, Evictions, and Warrants, and the victim of a Court Order Scam. To date, the police investigation, which is ongoing, has not yielded a single authentic court instrument, nor any evidence that I have been a party to any proceedings, duly ISSUED BY THE COURT. Furthermore, I attach a video link http://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=10916& ... %2fciiSCAM , where the CII, is holding me accountable, to an Order of Conviction, Sealed by the Court, and signed by Andrew Bates. Only to state at the end of the video where I quote:- "I do not have the Order". I hereby report this as as a crime of lying on a court instrument, with the intent of hate crime, based on perjury. I contacted the Willesden Magistrates Court, and the London Collection and Compliance Centre yesterday, and provided them with a Statutory Declaration, and is awaiting their response. ----------- I did receive a letter from Willesden Magistrates Court dated 02.01.2018, which states and I quote:- "We do not hold the Sealed Order Issued By the Crown Court". Therefore, any proceeding based on the above order, or it's terms, in the Willesden Magistrates Court, have been an abuse of process, or a fundamental error, which affects my liberty, and I require the matter to be investigated, as I sufferred harm and loss. They have been unable to provide me a copy of the alleged authentic "ARREST WARRANT", to enable me to seek a lawful injunction, based on Inaccurate Record Keeping, and other "warrant Errors", as per the law gazette https://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=10916 ... %2earticle . As it stands, my family and I are being held hostage, to three years of falsified court proceedings, which the court itself has admitted, and I require the police to make an earnest investigation, to:---- 1) Stop the abuse and 2) Restore our position
Simon Dawson I have just had the man in my house for 4hrs from expert in all legal matters explaining to my parents the ramification of legal and lawful on trust law, now we start the ball rolling for the coat of arms, letting the Vatican & queen & councils & cooperation’s & governments & police etc, know we are going live, we are not delinquents lost and dead at sea
Roping his family in eh? Should be fun next Christmas when the family are all gathered together -camped out in the park.aesmith wrote:Hidden among all the Common Law vs Council Tax stuff, it looks like the InExpert has snagged another victim/customer. I wonder if he's gone for the full £5K package or the cheapskate-diy version ..Simon Dawson I have just had the man in my house for 4hrs from expert in all legal matters explaining to my parents the ramification of legal and lawful on trust law, now we start the ball rolling for the coat of arms, letting the Vatican & queen & councils & cooperation’s & governments & police etc, know we are going live, we are not delinquents lost and dead at sea
What? Is Expert in FA now going canvassing door-to-door?aesmith wrote:Hidden among all the Common Law vs Council Tax stuff, it looks like the InExpert has snagged another victim/customer. I wonder if he's gone for the full £5K package or the cheapskate-diy version ..Simon Dawson I have just had the man in my house for 4hrs from expert in all legal matters explaining to my parents the ramification of legal and lawful on trust law, now we start the ball rolling for the coat of arms, letting the Vatican & queen & councils & cooperation’s & governments & police etc, know we are going live, we are not delinquents lost and dead at sea
Mom, Dad - this is my friend from the internet, he's going to solve all your problems.Simon Dawson I have just had the man in my house for 4hrs from expert in all legal matters explaining to my parents the ramification of legal and lawful on trust law, now we start the ball rolling for the coat of arms, letting the Vatican & queen & councils & cooperation’s & governments & police etc, know we are going live, we are not delinquents lost and dead at sea
Would share your hilarity, except that I suspect that when this freeloader says "...in my house for 4hrs..." what he actually means is "...in my parents house, which they worked hard for, where they allow me to live ..." I fear he's so determined to play the sovcit woo game that he's pressuring his parents to risk their home.notorial dissent wrote:Likely??? Likely??? And ultimate homelessness.
