WeRe followers say that they are by some kind of magic;
I SAID THE CHEQUE CLEARED!
But some are having their doubts;
220146ME wrote:Sorry for your predicament MH. You are right WeRe Bank is a good concept but Peter's implimentation is flawed. Unless it is brought to head with a court case between a WeRe Bank cheque drawer and a payee or bank then it's just an academic exercise going nowhere. I can forsee WeRe Bank members leaving in droves if there is no change
Lynda of Salop is right. The only way to conclusively prove whether the WeRE bank is legitimate and Peter's magic cheque books are a valid method of payment is an authoritative court decision considering the issue and giving a full explanation of the basis of the decision. Unfortunately the British courts just don't seem up to the task so it has been left to Canada to do your job for you.130653LN (Lynda of Salop) wrote:This needs a court case in England, America, Canada etc.....
whether that court case proves honourable will be the next Stage in this rocket...
But I know one thing, 'we' must never give up. 'We' must continue to play this game until we become pragmatic about it, and 'they' who are corrupt, have no where to go but to CLEAR.
I pledge £100 towards court costs for whomever can stand up and take that 'punt' on behalf of us all here in England. Further I will travel to lend bodily support on the day. I suggest it should ideally be a clear case of a cheque to a Company, not one of living expenses to a landlord...rent etc. But the money will be available as soon as the case is confirmed.
Anyone else pledge a chip in
So, ladies and gentlemen, it is my great pleasure to introduce the first published WeRe Bank court decision anywhere in the world. Direct from a command performance at the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, let's have a big round of applause for Alfred and Clara Parlee and their lovely assistant Peter of England!
Servus Credit Union Ltd v Parlee, 2015 ABQB 700
http://canlii.ca/t/glzx3
Since this is a Canadian decision and covers a whole range of Freeman/OPCA issues apart from the WeRe Bank arguments I have posted an analysis of the entire decision in the Canadian forum under the title;
Alfred Parlee - Canadian OPCA litigant loses WeRe Bank case
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10878
so I'll limit my analysis in this posting to the WeRe Bank/Peter of England issues. This includes events preceding the hearing under review that show how we arrived at the point where an Alberta court had to review Peter of England's scam. For those of you on the edge of your chairs fretting how it all worked out here is a quick spoiler;
The court noted the lack of any previous POE jurisprudence.a. WeRe Bank is a Fraud
[61] The first basic reason why the WeRe Cheque was not a payment is simply because WeRe Bank is a fraud. It is not a regulated UK bank. The WeRe Bank never promises to make payments to recipients of WeRe Cheques. It only transfers “Re” energy units. It might as well promise to transfer magic beans. Imaginary energy units are not a form of currency and they do not pay debts.
I assume Queen's Bench used the word "Commonwealth" because of that nitwit in the US who went to court on WeRe and lost. However there is no published decision on her case and she gave no details so there is nothing to indicate the reasons she lost.[4] This foreclosure appears to be the first occasion a Commonwealth court has commented on (and denounced) this specific Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [“OPCA”] ‘money for nothing’ scheme: the WeRe Bank.
The overall story is unfortunate. The Parlees, the married couple involved, are in their 60's, broke and without any significant assets. This seems largely the result of their making a cascading series of very bad decisions.
The Boisjoli decision is discussed here;[1] This is a case where all of the participants have become victims of a pseudo legal scam. This judgment explains my refusal to interfere with a court-ordered foreclosure of property formerly owned by Alfred and Clara Parlee. As a direct result of the scam the foreclosure process was unnecessarily long, complicated, and costly. The Parlees attempted to implement futile, pseudo-legal schemes to save their home. Instead it cost them not only their home but also whatever equity they had.
[2] There are some apparent winners. These are the scam artists who preyed on the Parlees and exploited their desperate situation. One is known: a UK resident named Peter Smith, or, as he prefers to call himself, “Peter of England”. The other con-person cannot be identified from the materials received by the Court. There is an accompanying cast of lesser characters, including an Alberta lawyer who may have breached his professional duties by endorsing legally ineffective and fraudulent documents as a notary, thereby adding an air of legitimacy to documents that are profoundly at odds with any accepted legal ideas: see Re Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 629 at paras 121-24.
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10814
The story seems to have started out with a very large income tax bill which the Canada Revenue Agency started trying to collect in 2013.
No details were given regarding the source of this debt but whatever generated it doesn't seems to have left them with any money in their pockets. I'll hazard a wild guess. There have been a number of schemes, either tax evasion or very close, promoted in Canada in the early 2000s up to the present which cost participants dearly. The Russell Porisky Paradigm tax evasion scheme and Fiscal Arbitrators come to mind. The CRA has been very aggressive against taxpayers using them. There have been criminal tax evasion convictions, jail time, and massive fines. The Parlees may have fallen victim to one of these. If so the CRA would not hesitated to inflict the maximum penalties they could.[11] The Canada Revenue Agency was not a participant in this action, but would have received notice of the steps. As counsel for Servus explained, Mr. Parlee appeared to be referring to two Canada Revenue Agency writs, both in the amount of $212,507 and costs: one filed in 2013 and the second, which appears to be a duplicate, in 2015.
The apparent result of the financial stress was the Parlees defaulting on their mortgage.
Perhaps a significant reason for the credit union going right to foreclosure so quickly was the Parlees very unfortunate decision on how they would pay their property tax. They used the three/five letter scheme to submit a fake financial instrument in payment rather than trying to work out an arrangement with the municipality and their creditor.III. Background and Timeline
[14] As noted, the Parlee Lands are located outside of Sexsmith, Alberta and include the Parlees’ residence. The debt was $331,807.26.
[15] The Parlees entered into a Line of Credit agreement with Servus which permitted the Parlees to overdraw their chequing account by up to $320,000, with 1% interest per annum. The Line of Credit was secured by a mortgage.
[16] One term of the agreements with Servus was that the Parlees would pay the County property taxes for the Parlee Lands. Failure to do was a default on the Mortgage. The Parlees did not pay their property taxes for several years and the County registered a tax notification against title. Servus then paid the overdue property taxes and issued a demand. When the demand was not met, Servus commenced foreclosure proceedings.
When that didn't work they doubled up their bet and got the WeRe Bank involved;[18] The Parlees filed a Statement of Defence on May 7, 2015. It claims that County taxes for the Parlee lands had been paid on December 19, 2014:
... in good faith by a signed acceptance Tender Instrument as per Canada Bills of Exchange Act, RSC 1985 c-B-4 current to April 22, 2015 Section 57, 80, 81, 82, 84, 95. and UN Convention on Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes 1988 Article 41, 43 and 71..es) ...
A non valid response from the County of Grande Prairie # 1 sent December 29, 2015 was received by defendant so an Affidavit of non-response was sent January 17, 2015.
Servus Credit Union initiated foreclosure action against defendants with Minos Stewart Masson (solicitors) based on presumption that taxes of $11,782.31 WeRe still outstanding .
My Line of Credit was in good standing and payments WeRe made faithfully for many years then account was frozen and I could not make my truck payment. These procedures caused me great stress, harm and anxiety of which I will seek compensation from all parties jointly and severally. I believe these actions against me the defendant WeRe not lawful and had principles of Fraud and Extortion as my presentment for Tender Payment was within the guidelines of the bills of Exchange Act and the UN Convention for Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.
And tried to pay off their mortgage and line of credit the same way;[17] On May 5, 2015 the Parlees sent Servus what purported to be a cheque drawn on an institution named the “WeRe Bank”.
Then, when that didn't work they tried to sue for damages;A cheque from WeRe Bank for $319,149.69 was sent by me to Dan Heinman Senior Manager corp. Services (ServusCredit Union) May 05, 2015 for the original Line of Credit Amount. ...
Parlee persisted and persisted;[19] The Parlees sought $30,000.00 in damages, re-instatement of the Line of Credit and nullification of any associated charges.
[20] The “WeRe Cheque” was rejected by Servus on May 11, 2015. Servus insisted on payment by certified cheque or bank draft; Servus had “... no intention of engaging in discussion with [Mr. Parlee] regarding [his] ‘freeman theories of money and banking’.”
[21] Mr. Parlee responded on May 19, 2015 with a document titled:
Notice of Protest and included Info from Canadian Bills of Exchange Act R.S.C., 1985, c. B-4, UN Convention on International Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes (1988), Financial Administration Act R.S.C., 1985, F-11 (Interpretation of Money), Black's Law 9th Edition (payment (14c)(Acceptance) in Regard to Correspondence received May 15, 2015 and sent May 11, 2015, Non Acceptance of Cheque to Servus Credit Union for $ 319, 149.69
[22] This document is reproduced in Appendix E, but also features a postage stamp in the lower right corner, which Mr. Parlee has signed across. As with other documents reproduced in the appendices, the content is, in some cases, redacted to remove sensitive or redundant information. The appendix documents generally reproduce the formatting of the original items.
Gobbledygook isn't the kind of legal terminology that I'd expect from a Learned Master but I guess it is all in the context. Anyhow this led to another disaster for the Parlees;[24] On June 10, 2015, Mr. Parlee wrote to Servus requesting information on what steps Servus had taken to contact and obtain funds from the WeRe Bank in relation to the WeRe Cheque. Also attached was a document titled “NOTICES of PROTEST SENT” (Appendix F) that indicated Mr. Parlee had taken steps within a timeline set by the UK Bills of Exchange Act 1888 and the “UN Convention 1988 on International Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.”
[25] On June 25, 2015 Mr. Parlee and counsel for Servus appeared before Master Breitkreuz. The learned Master:
1. concluded Mr. Parlee’s explanation of the WeRe Bank and WeRe Cheque was “gobbledygook”;
2. found Mr. Parlee had not proven he had provided any payment to Servus;
3. determined the debt then to be $334,837.01; and
4. ordered summary judgment;
5. provided a 30 day redemption period, failing which the land would be offered for sale by tender.
The next hearing was scheduled for August 13, 2015. Mr. Parlee’s response was “I do not consent.”
[26] Mr. Parlee, on July 3, 2015, wrote to counsel for Servus and complained that WeRe Bank had the necessary funds ready to be transferred, demanded evidence of why Servus considered WeRe Bank to be a fraud, and asked why Servus has not attempted to clear the WeRe Cheque. He then warned that failure to provide a satisfactory response in five days will result in “lasting tacit agreement through acquiescence” settling the dispute with Servus over the WeRe Cheque in the Parlees’ favour, cancelling the August 13, 2015 hearing, and resulting in a damages award.
[27] Mr. Parlee also filed a number of documents prior to the August 13, 2015 hearing, including:
• A July 20, 2015 Affidavit by Mr. Parlee with many attachments that relate to two general subjects:
1) the WeRe Bank and WeRe Cheque, and
2) a trust and ownership structure between ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE and Alfred P. Parlee; and
• A July 22, 2015 Affidavit by Mr. Parlee attaching a “NOTICE OF TRESPASS ON MY PRIVATE PROPERTY” alleging misconduct by counsel for Servus, demanding that he be disbarred for intimidation and unethical practice, $15 million in damages, and “I order this case dismissed.” The trespass is:
... No one can use MY NAME or g mail without my consent. I am OWNER and no one can tell me different. All affidavits of ownership of Name and Birth Certificate are filed with the Court and are notarized and authenticated ...
This issue of trespassing and unethical behaviour has caused damage to the owner of my Estate and created damage on my PRIVATE PROPERTY. This is unacceptable and requires compensation. No-body or no-one has authority over THIS BODY. I am owner of Estate as per filed notarized and authenticated documents.
[Emphasis in original.]
• An Affidavit filed July 25, 2015 which attaches a “SECOND NOTICE OF TRESPASS ON MY PRIVATE PROPERTY” that repeats the content of the July 22 “Notice”.
Like Tom Crawford they did not vacate, apparently certain in their own minds that they could not be evicted. This resulted in a Tom Crawford scenario but without the massive demonstration of idiots;[28] After hearing the somewhat cryptic submissions from Mr. Parlee concerning ownership issues, foreclosure was ordered by Master Smart on August 13, 2015. Master Smart rejected Mr. Parlee’s submission that his title to the Parlee Lands could not be challenged. The Parlees had 30 days to vacate the property.
At least Tom's bank had the civility to provide a moving truck.[7] On October 1, 2015 I heard an ill-defined application by Mr. Alfred Parlee in relation to an August 13, 2015 order of Master Smart that foreclosed the Parlees from their rural property near Sexsmith, Alberta. The Parlees had been given 30 days to exit the property. They did not do so, and, so on September 29, 2015, the Parlees WeRe removed from it with the assistance of the RCMP.
[8] This seems to have been an unexpected outcome for the Parlees. As at the date of the hearing, their personal property and vehicles remained on the land that now belonged to the lender. Rules 9.27 and 9.28 deal with removal, storage and sale of personal property and abandoned goods. I encouraged the Parlees to come to an agreement about the orderly removal of those personal goods
This resulted in another blizzard of Freeman gibberish which you can read in paragraphs 29 and 30 which led to the case we are now discussing. You will note that there is no place in this entire narrative where there is any indication that the Parlees backed off, even for a moment, and questioned themselves about the wisdom of what they were doing. They madly scrabbled from one guru to another and doubled down with every failure. Events seemed to have taken a momentum of their own with no way of stopping them except a head-on crash into the wall. That was provided by Queen's Bench in the decision under review.
I may have missed a few points in the sequence but none of any relevance to POE. So on to the court's analysis of Peter and WeRe. This is covered in paragraphs 54 to 74. First the court explained what the WeRe Bank was, a vehicle for a scam rather than a bank;
You can see this printout on page 13. Usual WeRe Bullshit.2. The WeRe Bank
[54] After Servus commenced its foreclosure on the Parlee Lands, the Parlees attempted to pay off the outstanding Mortgage/Line of Credit debt with a “WeRe Cheque” (July 20, 2015 Affidavit, Exhibit “E”). This document and an accompanying item, a two-sided “allonge”, WeRe received by Servus on May 5, 2015, and are reproduced in Appendix D.
[55] The June 3 Boser, June 23 Kendrick, and July 20 Parlee affidavits provide more information about the WeRe Bank, WeRe Cheques, and their associated scheme. At first glance the WeRe Cheque appears to be a conventional cheque drawn from a bank for a customer, in this case Alfred Parlee. However, there are irregularities. WeRe Bank subtitles itself as “Universal Energy Transfer”. Comparison of the Parlees’ WeRe Cheque with other WeRe Cheques discloses they all have an identical “Branch Sort Code” and “Account Number”: “75-0181: 88888888”. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a list of UK banks compiled by the Bank of England (Kendrick Affidavit, Exhibit “F”) does not include “WeRe Bank” or any financial institution with a similar name.
[56] Another irregularity documented in the June 23 Kendrick Affidavit is that the WeRe Bank does not participate in the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication [“SWIFT”] system for inter-bank transfer of electronic funds. Instead, WeRe Bank has its own “highly secure format” protocols: “SWALLOW [Secure Waygate - Allow]” and “SPIT: [Secure Protocol Information Transaction]”. “Peter of England” instructs that banks are to send a scanned copy of the WeRe Cheque to his email account and then “Funds can be sent electronically Via “SWALLOW”. The WeRe Bank warns:
The Bank MUST present the cheque for clearing - no question, no debate, no wiggle room! It’s the LAW.
[57] A printout of WeRe Bank website (June 23 Kendrick Affidavit, Exhibit “E”) could be a satire of modern conspiratorial motifs, but it instead seems to be marketed as the truth.
Then some blunt adult conversation;[58] In this context, ‘conventional money’ is worthless:
You were convinced to accept worthless money, the PROMISSORY NOTE/SCAM, for the promise/lie of
further wealth somewhere and at some time in the future in return for going without in the moment of now.
[59] Presumably, that is why WeRe Bank does not even deal in money, but instead trades in “Re”, “units of time and space”:
WeRe Bank’s principal trading asset is called the Re. It is a unit of space and time and has Value as it is “exchangeable” or trade-able.” Units are created through expenditure of effort over time and we hold these units “on account” and pay them out to our customers. The units are (energy × expended time = REWARD) based upon exceptionally sound principles of Albert Einstein’s (e = mc²), where m = mass, c = speed/time, e=energy (General Theory of Relativity). This equation, upon reflection is the only SOUND premise for a unit of exchange/currency in this world. Units are denominated in 2 skill/time classes: [Emphasis in original.]
[60] Still, if money is worthless, it seems strange that “Peter of England” requires that his customers first pay £35 up front as a “Joining Fee”, and then a £10 monthly subscription fee. You also need to complete and submit a £150,000.00 promissory note to WeReBank. Conveniently, the template can be downloaded from its website.
a. WeRe Bank is a Fraud
[61] The first basic reason why the WeRe Cheque was not a payment is simply because WeRe Bank is a fraud. It is not a regulated UK bank. The WeRe Bank never promises to make payments to recipients of WeRe Cheques. It only transfers “Re” energy units. It might as well promise to transfer magic beans. Imaginary energy units are not a form of currency and they do not pay debts.
[62] Our Court is not the first entity to reach that conclusion. On September 17, 2015 the UK Financial Conduct Authority issued a consumer notice that WeRe Bank’s payment scheme was false and that its users could face legal consequences. The Central Bank of Ireland on October 19, 2015 issued a press release that the WeRe Bank is not authorized to carry out banking or other financial services, and activities of that kind are a criminal offence.
Even if it worked in Britain it couldn't work here;
b. Non-Canadian Authorities are not Binding
[63] There are legal defects as well. Reviewing the “allonge” and “Peter of England’s” communication indicates that the recipient of a WeRe Cheque is supposedly bound by the procedures in the UK Bills of Exchange Act and the UN Convention on Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes. UK law no longer applies in Canada. International treaties only have any force and effect inside this country if the treaty’s provision are enacted as Canadian legislation or put in effect by government order: Capital Cities Communications Inc. v Canadian Radio-Television Commission, [1978] 2 SCR 141 at 188, 81 DLR (3d) 609. Canadian governments are free to ignore and act in conflict with its international treaty agreements: R v Hape, 2007 SCC 26 at paras 53-54, [2007] 2 SCR 292.
Or Britain for that matter;
[64] There is another reason why the treaty identified by “Peter of England” is irrelevant (at least if he is attempting to identify The United Nations Convention on International Bills of Exchange and International Promissory Notes (New York, 1988)) - Canada has not ratified that treaty. As for its precursor, The Convention for the Settlement of Certain Conflicts of Laws in connection with Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes (Geneva, 7 June 1930), Canada never signed it. What is perhaps even more ironic is that the home jurisdiction of “Peter of England”, the United Kingdom, which is not a participant in either treaty.
Then time to stomp on one of Peter's big selling points. The nortorious Lord Denning quote about how creditors have to accept promissory notes tendered for debt;
c. No Obligation to Accept Non-Cash Payments
[65] Beyond that, Servus’s refusal to accept a particular form of payment is entirely legal. The WeRe Bank materials (see Appendix D(2)) rely on an obiter statement of Lord Denning in Fielding & Platt Ltd v Najjar, [1969] 2 All ER 150 at 152 (UK CA):
We have repeatedly said in this court that a Bill of Exchange or a Promissory Note is to be treated as cash. It is to be honored unless there is some good reason to the contrary.
[66] This exact quote and its potential relevance in Canada was recently considered by Rooke ACJ in Re Boisjoli at paras 30-36, where an analogous argument was made by a vexatious OPCA litigant who claimed to have forced payment of a debt with a promissory note and the Bills of Exchange Act. Rooke ACJ adopted the Scottish Court of Sessions (Scotland’s highest civil court) reasoning and conclusion in Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission v Wilson, 2014 SLR 46 at paras 10-11, [2013] CSIH 95, where that Court came to a number of conclusions, including that a bill of exchange, such as a cheque, may only extinguish an existing debt if the creditor agrees with that mechanism of payment. The ‘near cash’ theory has no application to these facts. A creditor may always insist on payment in legal tender.
[67] WeRe Bank documents proclaim that any alleged dispute over the WeRe Cheque would not be addressed in a Canadian court, but instead “ultimately arbitrated” via trial by jury before the “International Common Law Court of Record 750181”. This institution is purportedly the high court of the jurisdiction: “There is NO COURT WITHIN ENGLAND SUPERIOR TO A COMMON LAW COURT DULY CONVENED”. I will simply observe the International Common Law Court is unknown to either myself or, apparently, the UK courts. It is never mentioned even once in any of the jurisprudence archived on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BaiLII) website.
[68] Even if Lord Denning’s dicta WeRe binding on me, these facts are all “good reasons” to refuse Mr. Parlee and “Peter of England’s” so-called bill of exchange.
Paragraphs 69 to 72 tell how the WeRe Three/Five letter scheme is an abject failure too.
Recall how I mentioned Peter as being the Parlees' "lovely assistant"? That's because Peter, deviating from his usual policy of quickly abandoning his followers when they ran into trouble, actually gave the Parlees advice on how to fight the bank through the use of his scam. So the court decided to thrash Peter personally!
e. “Peter of England”
[72] A disturbing window into the OPCA world and the WeRe Bank fraud is provided by email correspondence between Alfred Parlee and “Peter of England” found in the Affidavits. On May 20, 2015 Mr. Parlee writes “Peter of England” requesting advise, he needs support “... because these lawyers can rattle my chain.” “Peter of England” replies:
Tell them that you want a firm statement on why they are "perverting the course of justice" and ask them why a cheque drawn on a bank does NOT equate to "money"?
Send this to him again and ask him to affirm that he can rebut this Allonge in a court of law and if he cannot he should IMMEDIATELY take legal advice from the City of London.
...
Stand firm with him - tell him you'll see him in court and you will personally be be looking at liens being placed upon him and his business - ask him "under full commercial liability and penalty of perjury" why he claims the cheque is not good?
These cheques are clearing in the UK- we have had Chyrsler and ClBC on the phone to us.
We have become the Bankers Prayer - we are their life-line, without us their is no more liquidity in the market
This is NOT freeman mumbo jumbo but international banking practice - tell peter@werebank.com then we'll assure his sorry ass that if he goes to court he's going to get hammered!
...
He/they has/have to realize, eventually, these arrogant hyenas, that their are bigger creatures in the jungle than they!
He should step very carefully this one!
Peter
[73] Mr. Parlee writes “Peter of England” once more on June 17, 2015 asking for advice “... as the hearing is next week. I am worried.” Peter responds with:
Please send him this and tell him the days of ReTribution are upon him. His time is passed his number has been called.
More than this Alf I cannot do
[74] These communications are a discomforting glimpse into how OPCA gurus work: making false promises and callously goading their customers into ill-advised action. The evidence I received makes it obvious that “Peter of England” is entirely willing to ruin the finances of his customers, and even put them at risk of criminal prosecution for passing bad cheques. His reward is a paltry £35.00.
My favorite line in the entire decision is this one;
The on to the inevitable ending;We have become the Bankers Prayer - we are their life-line, without us their is no more liquidity in the market
There are really only two centres of Freeman/sovereign/OPCA activities in Canada, Edmonton and Vancouver. Both cities have seen a significant amount of jurisprudence on various Freeman issues but Edmonton stands way above Vancouver in the quality and importance of the decision that have been released. The key decision, one cited a vast number of times by other courts around the world, is Meads v Meads;4. Conclusion - Pseudolegal Payment Schemes Have No Effect
[82] The documents referenced by Mr. Parlee at the October 1, 2015 hearing have no legal effect. They do not establish that he has paid the pre-foreclosure debt secured by the Parlee Lands. The WeRe Bank and Private Indemnity Bond documents have no value, except to the conmen who sold them. This is the second reason why I dismissed Mr. Parlee’s October 1, 2015 application. He cannot represent his wife.
V. Conclusion and Costs
[83] I have provided a detailed review of Mr. Parlee’s litigation activities, arguments, and why they are false. He and his wife have paid a high price for adopting OPCA concepts.
[84] I might end these reasons with a caution. Some cases hold that arguments such as the ones invented by Peter of England and sold to victims like the Parlees are so profoundly at variance with any accepted legal principles that the Court might infer that they are advanced for ulterior purposes. (e.g. Fiander v Mills, 2015 NLCA 31). This could result in enhanced costs, a finding of contempt, or a declaration of vexatious litigant status; limiting access to the courts. (e.g. Re Boisjoli, Meads, above). The Parlees have lost enough already.
VI. Disposition
[85] Mr. Parlee’s application is dismissed.
Heard on the 1st day of October, 2015.
Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 5th day of November, 2015.
Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571
http://canlii.ca/t/fsvjq
A massive work, essentially an encyclopedia debunking Freeman bullshit and now a standard reference in Canada and elsewhere
A while ago Peter posted this;
Well the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta has made the first major pre-Christmas announcement. So let's see announcement number two Peter. That Polarity Principle better be damn good!ANDREW TAKE HEART MY DEAR! Salvation is just here and now. The road to Damascus is paved with thorns but we have a way through. There is going to be 2 major announcements before Christmas. There will be a Webinar before Christmas - all being well! so book your seat - it will be a Biggy! YOU MUST NOT THINK FOR ONE SECOND THAT JUST BECAUSE THE MAFIA SAY YOU HAVE NOT PAID THAT YOU HAVE IN FACT FAILED TO PAY!! It's time to call their bluff. REMEMBER - The Polarity Principle has been invoked - NO one escapes it's lazer like gaze now
Pigpot said;
Here's your case Piggy.pigpot wrote:Fair enough if you say so. Can you point me to any "Court" case that backs up your assertion please.PeanutGallery wrote:Whether he knows what he's doing or not, Peter is a dangerous scammer admittedly to a limited group of those already vulnerable and facing destitution.
TTFN.
Note - Below added November 18th.
For you document freaks a pile of pdf's of many of the documents that Parlee used in his attempt to beat the mortgage foreclosure.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/0blyczdya ... 3_2015.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/view/9wobbe5yx ... 7_2015.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/view/gtb5c3o6p ... 3_2015.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/view/xns2p8ntm ... 3_2015.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/view/1vto5vcpi ... 0_2015.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/view/nnu6j29jz ... 2_2015.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/view/ot499dr8e ... 9_2015.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/view/4duargna4 ... rranto.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/view/kmsjb839j ... rranto.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/view/9ypq505w3 ... y_%231.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/view/sbh61h9tr ... y_%232.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/view/q6j0awhkh ... cation.pdf
