Servus Credit Union LTD V Parlee, 2015

Court of Queen=s Bench of Alberta
Date: 20151105
Docket: 1504 00261
Registry: Grande Prairie
Between:
Servus Credit Union Ltd.
Plaintiff
- and -
Alfred Philip Parlee and Clara Vivian Parlee

Defendants
_______________________________________________________
Memorandum of Decision
of
W.S. Schlosser, Master in Chambers
_______________________________________________________
Table of Contents
I.
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2
II.
The October 1, 2015 Hearing.............................................................................................. 3
III.
Background and Timeline ................................................................................................... 4
IV.
Analysis............................................................................................................................... 8
2015 ABQB 700 (CanLII)
Citation: Servus Credit Union Ltd v Parlee, 2015 ABQB 700
A.
Quo Warranto Application ................................................................................................. 9
B.
The Parlees Have Paid the Outstanding Debt ................................................................... 10

1.
The Freeman Legal Services A4V Scam ............................................................... 11
2.
The WeRe Bank ............................................................................................................ 12
3.
The Private Indemnity Bond ......................................................................................... 17
4.
Conclusion - Pseudolegal Payment Schemes Have No Effect ..................................... 19
V.
Conclusion and Costs........................................................................................................ 19
VI.
Disposition ........................................................................................................................ 19
Appendix A.
Writ of Quo Warranto Documents ................................................................... 21
1.
Foisted Quo Warranto Challenge ..................................................................................... 21
2.
Writ of Quo Warranto ...................................................................................................... 24
Appendix B.
Private Indemnity Bond - Non-Negotiable ....................................................... 25
Appendix C.
Correspondence from Freeman Legal Services ................................................ 26
Appendix D.
WeRe Cheque and Allonges ............................................................................. 29
1.
WeRe Cheque (front) ........................................................................................................ 29
2.
Allonge.............................................................................................................................. 30
Appendix E.
May 19, 2015 Notice of Protest......................................................................... 32
Appendix F.
June 10, 2015 Notices of Protest Sent ............................................................... 33
I.
Introduction
[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
Page: 2
Page: 3
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 12124.
[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.
[5]
The OPCA term was coined by Rooke ACJ in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, 543 AR
215 to describe a collection of pseudolegal concepts advanced on a commercial basis by
scammers and conmen, OPCA gurus, who promote allegedly legal procedures that supposedly:
i)
bend courts into submission,
ii)
nullify state authority, or
iii)
as is the case here, provide free money.
[6]
All are false. Many are contempt of court: Fearn v Canada Customs, 2014 ABQB 114,
586 AR 23, per Tilleman J, (though in a criminal context). None provide any benefit, except to
those who sell these concepts for profit.
II.
The October 1, 2015 Hearing
[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
[9]
Mr. Parlee had filed documents after August 13, 2015. These formed the foundation, such
as it was, for the October 1, 2015 hearing. When the hearing commenced Mr. Parlee expressed
surprise and concern that this was a public hearing. He was a private man and said this hearing
should have been a private session. Court hearings are open to the public and recorded, except
in well-defined exceptional circumstances. Mr. Parlee objected to any participation of counsel
for Servus, saying: You are not supposed to be speaking on my behalf, which they were not.
[10] Having reviewed Mr. Parlees materials I asked if his objective was to nullify Master
Smarts foreclosure order. Mr. Parlee confirmed that was a part of his intention, but he also
wanted the Court:
... to identify the trust, and to discuss other relevant trusts relating to the subject
matter. I have an interest in the case, the trusts are the judge, the court clerk, the
court, the indemnity bond, the mortgage, the payment office PGT, the treasury
[3]
And then there is the Court, where this drama played out. This written decision is the last
Scene in what I expect might be the first Act of this drama; appeals being Act II.
Page: 4
Therefore I require return on my interest. I order return on my interest from CRA,

and I order clear title to the property with no labelling encumberances. I also
order the return of the interests and principle to be paid immediately to my
business name. ... I order the clear title to the property. ...
As a private man I make these orders in full due respect. The indemnity bond that
was accepted by the court was for one million dollars.
[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: ITA v Parlee, Ottawa ITA-624713 (Federal Court). Since those writs had a lower priority than the Servus interest on the Parlee
Lands, they were foreclosed off title.
[12] Mr. Parlee said he has 100% legal title to the estate, and relied on documents in an
Affidavit he had filed on July 20, 2015. He claimed his signature ... creates the currency. His
authority to sign comes from his certificate of live birth. His documents were no different from
others used in international commerce. They had been filed to the treasury board who would
look after everything. He argued that UCC 3603 and its Bills of Exchange Act equivalent
meant the Parlees debt was discharged. He concluded:
I made order as a private person. ... Sir, I order this case closed, and all
settlements looked after. Im asking for an order to have this case sealed, and my
files returned to me. I order this.
[13] I responded that the Court would not acceed to Mr. Parlees orders. I dismissed Mr.
Parlees application, with written reasons to follow.
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.
[17] On May 5, 2015 the Parlees sent Servus what purported to be a cheque drawn on an
institution named the WeRe Bank.
board, the bank, the Servus Credit Union Ltd., the taxation officer, and the
prosecutor. Some of these trusts have been breached. I have vested interests and
properties to these different entities that show I have an adverse claim on these
subject matters.
Page: 5
... 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.
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. ...
[Sic.]
[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.
[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:
Page: 6
Greg Schindels Affidavit of Value consisting of a May 25, 2015 exterior appraisal of the
Parlee Lands and concluding that the fair market value was $350,000.00. The property
includes one two-story residence, and minor outbuildings and utility improvements.
Sharon Bosers Affidavit of Default documenting the history and state of the Overdraft
Agreement and related Mortgage. The Parlees last payment was in March, 2015. A
demand letter was issued on March 30, 2015. The Mortgage includes as terms that the
Parlees agree:
1.
to pay any outstanding liens, taxes, or other encumbrances on the Parlee Lands;
and
2.
if the Parlees allow the Mortgage to go into default then will pay all legal costs
associated with enforcing the Mortgage on a solicitor and own client indemnity
basis.
As noted Servus paid outstanding property taxes ($11,782.31) on the Parlee Lands on
March 27, 2015 to avoid sale of the Parlee Lands due to tax arrears.
The Boser affidavit includes unorthodox documents received from the Parlees and copies
of related communications. These are discussed in more detail below in Part IVB2 of this
judgment: The WeRe Bank.
[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. Parlees 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. Parlees 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
[23] On June 3, 2015 Servus applied for summary judgment, a 30 day redemption period, with
two affidavits in support:
Page: 7
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.
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.
[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.
Parlees submission that his title to the Parlee Lands could not be challenged. The Parlees had 30
days to vacate the property.
[29] Mr. Parlee followed this with two apparently separate processes which led to the October
1, 2015 hearing before me:
A Quo Warranto declaration to nullify the August 13, 2015 foreclosure order of Master
Smart (Appendix A1). The materials associated the Quo Warranto process were in two
Affidavits of Mr. Parlee, filed August 26 and September 8, 2015. The August 26, 2015
document is a Writ of QUO WARRANTO TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION OF that
places a seven day deadline on Master Smart to take certain steps.
The September 8, 2015 Affidavit attaches a WRIT of QUO WARRANTO
CHALLENGE OF JURISDICTION (Appendix A2) that declares since Master Smart
did not respond to the Aug. 26 document that the August 13, 2015 foreclosure order is
NULL AND VOID. This Affidavit also attaches Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s
[27] Mr. Parlee also filed a number of documents prior to the August 13, 2015 hearing,
including:
Page: 8
337 and a letter from Servus counsel that attaches the August 13, 2015 order. The letter
is marked in diagonally marked in red marker: NULL and VOID.
Documents attached to two September 10, 2015 Affidavits:
o A PRIVATE INDEMNITY BOND - NON-NEGOTIABLE (see Appendix B)
for $1 million that promised payment by DEBTOR ALFRED PHILIP
PARLEE, Indemnitee to the Indemnifier, the Court Clerk or agents. This is a
SPECIAL DEPOSIT to ZERO, SETTLE, and CLOSE ... COURT ORDER
File # 1504 00261. The Bond instructs it shall be Ledgered as an ASSET for the
needs of the Court of Queens Bench ... and that the Bond ... expires the
moment the man, alfred philip parlee, dies.
o An Indemnity Agreement dated September 10, 2015 that the Clerk of the Court
Grande Prairie will hold harmless and indemnify ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE
for any legal action, including criminal proceedings, for up to $10 million per
legal action. The Indemnity Agreement has one signature, that of Mr. Parlee.
[30]
This was followed on September 18, 2015 by an Application from Mr. Parlee that states:
Note INDEMNITY AGREEMENT
Remedy claimed or sought: LEDGER INDEMNITY bond filed September 10/15
with Court of Queens Bench GRANDE PRAIRIE. Exhibit A
Grounds for making this application: The Indemnity bond # APP 100915 Can. Is
to pay Court FILE #1504 00261. As title holder of Birth Certificate I am
authorized to sign INDEMNITY BOND.
Material or evidence relied on: Authenticated Birth records and BIN numbers
filed with Court of Queens Bench July 20/15
Applicable rules: As owner + title holder of BIRTH CERTIFICATE my signature
creates value. I am surety and Birth certificate is the security.
Applicable Acts and regulations: UCC-3603 3-603 Bills of Exchange 80, 81
(Canadian) #337 Criminal Code of Canada.
[31]
What followed was the October 1, 2015 hearing.
IV.
Analysis
[32] The fairest way to provide the written judgment that I promised Mr. Parlee is to treat the
documents he filed after the August 13, 2015 foreclosure order as two separate applications:
1.
a Quo Warranto application to declare the August 13, 2015 foreclosure as null
and void because it was made without jurisdiction, as supported by Mr. Parlees
July 20 Affidavit documents; and
2.
an application to reverse the foreclosure and return possession of the Parlee Lands
to the Parlees because they had (over)satisfied the outstanding mortgage debt with
a $1 million PRIVATE INDEMNITY BOND - NON-NEGOTIABLE, or via
other means in the July 20, 2015 Affidavit documents.
Page: 9
[33] These two issues are to some degree intertwined as Mr. Parlee responded to the
foreclosure with a cascading series of applications, and by the manner in which Mr. Parlee
advanced his application on October 1, 2015.
[34]
Quo Warranto Application
I reject Mr. Parlees Quo Warranto application. The application makes two demands:
l. That you, MASTER L.A. Smart, shall produce unto this living man, within the
period of 7 days from the date hereof, a sworn affidavit, sworn under your own
hand with full, unlimited personal liability, under penalty of perjury, to the effect
that you did, articulate, sign and swear an Oath of Office of Judge, to act under
the authority of the ENTITY, and that you do, at all times, operate in strict
compliance with that oath of office in the ordinary course of your duties, without
fear, favour or exception, under Rule of Law.
2. That you shall present and deliver by certified mail, to this living man, within
the same 7 days, true and certified documentary evidence and proofs (i.e.
statement, acceptance or declaration) signed under my hand and seal, that I did
grant you unto YOU, and or unto the ENTITY, or unto any other person,
permission, authority or consent; including but not limited to, YOU, the ENTITY,
the principal of the ENTITY, or the founding principal of the ENTITY, to honour
any judgment, order, decision or verdict of the said parties, in any cause or matter
in which I may have been involved. [Emphasis added.]
The ENTITY is defined elsewhere as the Alberta Court of Queens Bench.

[35] First, the Quo Warranto application was not filed in a manner that meets the Alberta
Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, s 3.15(1)(a) which, if it had any application to this situation,
would require an application for judicial review. If there were to be a challenge of Master
Smarts Order, it would be required to take the form of an appeal under Rule 6.14.
[36] I will also say at this stage that the prerogative writ of Quo Warranto has become almost
entirely vestigal, having been taken over by modern procedure. It was popular in the 13 th
century, being extensively used by Edward I, but the sun has set on it: Principles of
Administrative Law, Jones and deVillars, 6th ed, p.676 and Holdsworth, A History of English
Law, l 229.
[37] Second, Mr. Parlees August 25, 2015 document reproduced in Appendix A(1) is a
foisted unilateral agreement, or, more correctly in this instance, a foisted unilateral judicial
review, where the failure to respond purports to crystalize a result in Mr. Parlees favour.
[38] The foisted unilateral language comes from Meads v Meads, where Rooke ACJ
debunked the common OPCA concept that in contract silence means agreement. This is one of
the first things taught in law school; even the greenest law student will have learned it in her
salad days (an offeror may not arbitrarily impose contractual liabilities upon an offeree merely
by proclaiming that silence shall be deemed consent); Felthouse v Bindley, (1862) 11 CBNS
869 Miller 35 MLR 489, Cheshire, Fifoot & Furmstons Law of Contract 15th ed., p.61.
[39] The same is true for judicial proceedings. Silence means victory only where that result
is provided by the Rules, other legislation, or the common law. The procedure for judicial review
in Alberta is governed by the Rules. Mr. Parlees Quo Warranto judgment (Appendix A (2))
A.
Page: 10
[40] A third basis on which Mr. Parlees Quo Warranto application fails is that it is presumes
that a judicial officer has an obligation, on demand, to provide evidence of their Oath of Office.
In fact the opposite is true. No litigant has a right to question a judge or master on their oath of
office. Instead, it is up to a litigant to provide positive evidence to challenge the jurisdiction of
these presumptively authorized parties: Fearn v Canada Customs, 2014 ABQB 114 at paras 8387, 586 AR 23.
[41] A fourth defect in Mr. Parlees Quo Warranto application is that he demands proof that
he had agreed or consented to Master Smarts having jurisdiction over the foreclosure matter. It
seems Mr. Parlee concluded he is outside court authority because of his inherent sui iuris [sic]
authority that flows from Divine Cannon Law and his being a living human being. Religious
belief and religious law does not trump Canadian law: Meads v Meads, at paras 276-285; R v
Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 at paras 31 and 32 (failure to file tax returns), 302 BCAC 76, leave
refused [2011] SCCA No 265. Individual consent is not required for the operation of Canadian
law or, for that matter taxation: Meads v Meads, at paras 405-410; R v Jennings, 2007 ABCA 45
at para 6, 72 WCB (2d) 360, Lynch v Canada North-West Land Co. (1891) 19 SCR 204 at 20810.
[42] Last, I note that the August 25, 2015 document includes an Internet address link to a July
11, 2013 Apostolic Letter by Pope Francis. This specific document has been previously
rejected as having no legal effect in Canada: Alberta Treasury Branches v Nielson, 2014 ABQB
383 at paras 27-29, 14 CBR (6th) 177, per Smart, M. citing; Claeys v Her Majesty et al, 2013
MBQB 313 at para 18, 300 Man R (2d) 257.
[43]
Mr. Parlees Quo Warranto materials also attach the text of Criminal Code, s 337:
337. Every one who, being or having been employed in the service of Her
Majesty in right of Canada or a province, or in the service of a municipality, and
entrusted by virtue of that employment with the receipt, custody, management or
control of anything, refuses or fails to deliver it to a person who is authorized to
demand it and does demand it is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
[44] Section 337s relevance is not obvious from Mr. Parlees materials or his submissions. It
has no application to Mr. Parlees Quo Warranto application. This provision was recently
interpreted in Ambrosi v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2014 BCCA 123 at para 53, 353
BCAC 244, leave denied [2014] SCCA No 320. Bennett JA concluded s 337 ...was enacted to
prevent theft by public employees of the monies, documents, or other chattel they possessed by
virtue of their employment. No prosecution has ever been conducted on the basis of s 337:
Ambrosi, at para 45.
[45]
Mr. Parlees Quo Warranto materials have no legal relevance, or effect.

B.
The Parlees Have Paid the Outstanding Debt
[46] I cannot, and, in any case, would not challenge the conclusion of Master Breitkreuz that
Mr. Parlees explanation of the WeRe Bank is gobbledygook, and Master Smarts finding that
the Parlees do not have some form of absolute, invulnerable title on the Parlee Lands.
has no legal force because his Quo Warranto application (even if it had been filed correctly) has
not been adjudicated by the appropriate body.
Page: 11
[47] Mr. Parlees claims that he has, one way or another, already paid Servus everything
required by law. There are three separate payment scams: One is historic; the other two are
relevant to the October 1, 2015 proceeding.
The Freeman Legal Services A4V Scam
[48] The first point at which the Parlees were victimized actually precedes the foreclosure, but
it is involved in that scenario. The event that precipitated the foreclosure was Servuss response
to the Parlees failure to pay their Grande Prairie No 1 County property taxes. The Servus
payment occurred on March 27, 2015. That same day counsel for Servus telephoned the Parlees
to inquire if those taxes had been paid. A fax from Alfred Philip Parlee Living Soul was
received by counsel on the same day, and ultimately attached as Exhibit E of the Boser June 3,
2015 affidavit. In the fax cover sheet Alfred Parlee explains that the property taxes had been paid
on December 19, 2014 with an A4V or bill of exchange for $11,782.31 Since that document
was not rejected by the County it was accepted per Bills of Exchange ... and amount owing is
now zero.
[49]
Mr. Parlee continues:

I have all receipts and paper work on file and am confident that the Bill of'
Exchange Act is still in effect and what I have done as far as set off and
settlement as a remedy is perfectly legitimate and lawful. I have included 3 pages
of legal info from F.L.S. on International Bills of Exchange and International
Promissory Notes which explains payment, acceptance, protest etc. Please read
carefully as there is liability for violation of International Law and UN
Conventions. The County of Grande Prairie has violated principles of the Bills of
Exchange Act and is also liable. I have given my Power of Attorney for debt
assumption and set off to Freeman Legal Services and WeRe Bank and they will
be in touch as I will forward this fax to Peter of England. Thank-you and God
Bless. [Emphasis in original.]
The three page document from Freeman Legal Services is reproduced in Appendix A.
[50] I do not believe there is much need to elaborate on the A4V money for nothing scam
as it has been described in detail in Meads v Meads, at paras 531-543, and more recently in Re
Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 629 at paras 38-42. In brief, A4V is a fraud where the conman claims
that bills and other financial obligations may be paid by drawing funds from a fictitious
government-operated bank account. The form promoted by Freeman Legal Services is different
from previously documented variants because its secret source of funds is a trust fund set up in
World War II by the western allies to finance European post-war reconstruction and reintegration.
[51] This is at least as imaginary a source for free money as the Sovereign Citizen variation
where citizens serve as human collateral for bank-to-government loans indexed by birth
certificate numbers. The Freeman Legal Services letter also include other commonplace false
OPCA motifs such as the supremacy of commercial law and that the US Uniform Commercial
Code has universal, transnational application: Meads v Meads, at para 150.
[52] The Parlees A4V payment to the County was worthless. As Richard JA observed in
Boss v Farm Credit Canada, 2014 NBCA 34 at para 42, 419 NBR (2d) 1, leave denied [2014]
SCCA 354:
1.
In my view, this is a case where [Farm Credit Canada] has been subjected
to wrongdoing that is reprehensible, scandalous and outrageous. Whittled down to
its core, this was a simple claim on a debt that should have been decided on
summary judgment with perhaps a simple trial on the quantum. Instead, it turned
into a litigation nightmare for FCC, requiring it to repeatedly respond to motions,
applications and allegations that were each ultimately found to be frivolous or
without any merit. Moreover, the Bosses made claims and advanced defences that
any reasonable person would know were devoid of merit. It defies logic that one
could print out bonds for any sum of money, let alone significant amounts, and
simply say to ones creditors here, go away, you have been paid. I am
convinced the Bosses knew this. Their persistence and the vigour with which they
challenged or sought to challenge virtually every ruling made against them
convinces me they engaged in litigation warfare against FCC as an obstructionist
tactic in the hope they would deplete not necessarily FCCs resources but rather
its resolve to obtain judgment for the balance of the debt owed.
(emphasis added)
[53] But the Parlees fell for it. This is the first way the Parlees were victimized by Peter of
England.
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! Its the LAW.
Page: 12
Page: 13
[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. The
WeRe Bank introduces itself in this manner:
The Free Fair and Final Public Bank System

Created under Common Law and Regulated Under Common Law Court of Record 750181
Providing "Legal Money with Finality of Settlement"
DIRECTIVE
"To Free Mankind From The Paralyzing, Restricting, Fear-based Monopoly and Control Agenda
of money scarcity Which The Global Ruling Elite Have Imposed With ruthless and vicious
Determination Upon All Peoples Of Earth"
WeRe Public Banking System
is based locally and delivers Free, Fair and Final (3Fs) payment for TIME ACTIVITY with
LEGAL MONEY.
LEGAL MONEY IS FINALITY OF SETTLEMENT ON THE SPOT OF TIME
FINALITY OF SETTLEMENT IS ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL FREEDOM
Arent you fed up with the constant hassle of never having enough of anything left at the end of
every month?
Arent you tired of being tired due to too much work, not enough time, constant threats,
coercion, duress, bullying, intimidation and the use of force to extract money from you by the
greedy corporations, police authorities, speed camera agencies, taxation authorities, local
councils, bailiffs, debt collection agencies and Court Enforcement Officers and HMRC or the
IRS?
Are you not fed up to the back-teeth with the constant lies of politicians and government
assuring you that there just isnt any more money for the public services, the NHS, the roads,
schools, students, or you and your family when there sure as hell seems to be no shortage for
them and theirs and the HS2 vanity projects?
Well, if you've had enough of all of this we have some very good news for you!
If you are exhausted with fighting then:
STOP!
STOP RIGHT NOW!
STOP IT THIS VERY MOMENT!
Dont Fight it! Just Pay it!
The WeRe Bank chequeing account from ReMovement provides you with ASSURED DEBT
ERADICATION ON ALL PUBLIC SIDE OF THE LEDGER LIABILITIES ...
WeRe Bank
Page: 14
[58]
In this context, conventional money is worthless:
[59] Presumably, that is why WeRe Bank does not even deal in money, but instead trades in
Re, units of time and space:
WeRe Banks 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 Einsteins (e =
mc), 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 Banks 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.
b.
Non-Canadian Authorities are not Binding
[63] There are legal defects as well. Reviewing the allonge and Peter of Englands
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 treatys provision are enacted as Canadian legislation or
put in effect by government order: Capital Cities Communications Inc. v Canadian RadioTelevision 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.
[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
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.
Page: 15
c.
No Obligation to Accept Non-Cash Payments
[65] Beyond that, Servuss 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 (Scotlands 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 Dennings dicta were binding on me, these facts are all good reasons to
refuse Mr. Parlee and Peter of Englands so-called bill of exchange.
d.
WeRe Bank Three/Five Letters Scheme
[69] It appears the WeRe Bank scheme may also incorporate a variation on the Three/Five
Letters foisted unilateral agreement scheme that I reviewed in Bank of Montreal v Rogozinsky,
2014 ABQB 771 at paras 55-73, (and see also Re Boisjoli at paras 49-57). This is a set of
documents that purportedly crystalize a result if the recipient does not respond.
[70] The May 19, 2015 Notice of Protest... and June 10, 2015 Notices of Protest Sent (see
Appendices E, F) have parallels to documents used in the Three/Five Letters process.
[71] An interesting aspect of these two documents is that one of the witnesses is a Tel
Sutherland of Grande Prairie. A person of that same name and location unsuccessfully
attempted to pay a court judgment by writing Accepted for Value on the judgment and by
attaching his birth certificate,, which was annotated with the instruction to Deposit to court
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.
file: Underworld Services Ltd. v Money Stop Ltd., 2012 ABQB 327, 545 AR 102 (or contempt
hearing before Veit, J.) This is another obvious attempt to use the A4V money for nothing
scam. Sutherland in 2013 was found guilty of contempt of court for failing to provide documents
to the Canada Revenue Agency and is now in jail: Canada (National Revenue) v Money Stop
Ltd., 2013 FC 133 427 FTR 107; Canada (National Revenue) v Money Stop Ltd., 2013 FC 684,
2013 DTC 5121.
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
Page: 16
Page: 17
3.
The Private Indemnity Bond
[75] Mr. Parlees July 20, 2015 Affidavit discloses a third OPCA scheme. It has a number of
ingredients:
1.
a copy of Mr. Parlees Alberta birth certificate,
2.
a copy of Mr. Parlees Alberta Registration of Live Birth,
3.
a printout of the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666
4.
a July 9, 2015 Affidavit for the Ownership document where:

I, Alfred P. Parlee, grantor, am the absolute and legal owner for the
ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE, (date for Registration June 7, 1949),
Registration Number 1949-08-010689, a corporate entity with
Record number 010689 (and under the constructive trust(s); there
being with the ministry, crown corporation, government agency or
SUCH (Schools, Universities, Colleges, Hospitals))) custody, with
and all interest therein, bearing the seal of the ONTARIO
MINISTRY of GOVERNMENT SERVICES for good faith and
credit;
I, Alfred Philip Parlee accept these Titles under the legal Office for
ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE and under the will [of] grantor for
claim for property and here state that all credit vested in this Title
am sponsored by the grantor for the Title in question.
5.
a July 9, 2015 Affidavit of Ownership document where:

I, Alfred Philip Parlee, grantor, am the absolute and legal owner
for the Master Business Licence, entity BIN 250660305 dba
ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE (Registration date June 30, 2015), and
under the constructive trust(s); there being with the ministry,
crown corporation, government agency or SUCH (Schools,
Universities, Colleges, Hospitals) custody, with and all interest
therein, bearing the seal for the ONTARIO MINISTRY [of]
GOVERNMENT SERVICES for good faith and credit;
I, Alfred P. Parlee claim this Title under the legal Office for
ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE and under the will for grantor's claim
for property, do here state that all credit vested in this Title is
sponsored by the grantor for the Title in question.
6.
a July 9, 2015 DECLARATION for the LEGAL OFFICE of ALFRED PHILIP

PARLEE, dba 250660305 which states:
[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.
I, Alfred Philip Parlee, being admitted to the profession of owner

and operator of the Office of ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE bearing
the Master Business License Number 250660305, business address
for reports at 2204 Walkley Road, Ottawa, ON CANADA, KlG
3Y4 and the mailing address c/o P.O. Box 16, Site 16, RR2,
Sexsmith AB Canada TOH 3CO, listed under Investment and/ or
Private Estate Administrative), do swear that I will diligently,
faithfully and to the best of my ability execute according to law the
office of ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE.
7.
Two Ontario business licenses, both for sole proprietorships named ALFRED
PHILIP PARLEE. One lists the business activity as Diplomat. The other is an
Underwriter.
[76] Mr. Parlee is obviously attempting to create some kind of relationship between two
aspects of himself, his physical flesh and blood half, and his Strawman, ALFRED PHILIP
PARLEE. This purported duality has been investigated and rejected in Canadian courts on
numerous occasions, including Meads v Meads, at paras 417-446, Fiander v Mills, 2015 NLCA
31 at paras 20, 39-40. These documents are meaningless. Talking to yourself binds no-one. There
is only one Alfred Philip Parlee.
[77] Last, there is the Sept. 10, 2015 Private Indemnity Bond - Non-Negotiable. It is issued
by ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE, dba 250660305. This is the entity invoked in the July 9
Affidavit of Ownership and Declaration for the Legal Office documents, and which is
(allegedly) owned and operated by Alfred Philip Parlee. It appears Mr. Parlee is instructing his
Strawman ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE to pay the Alberta Court of Queens Bench Clerk $1
million to zero, settle, and close the foreclosure legal action, Court case file # 1504 00261.
[78] There are many reasons why this document is worthless. First, the Strawman is a myth.
Mr. Parlee is ordering a payment by a figment of his imagination. Second, the Private
Indemnity Bond - Non-Negotiable is likely supposed to be paid out of a secret bank account or
other analogous resource operated by a government entity. This is probably why Mr. Parlee
mentioned the treasury board in his Oct. 1, 2015 submissions. He believes that with the correct
combination of documents he can unlock an A4V account that will then pay the court and
make the foreclosure go away. As I have previously explained, this too is an exercise in makebelieve.
[79] Even if one could settle a lawsuit with a promissory note of some kind to the court, there
is another issue. The Indemnity Agreement cannot bind the Court Clerks because it is no
agreement. It is a declaration of a relationship signed by only one party - Mr. Parlee. A contract
requires a meeting of minds. Here that is obviously absent: All of which takes us back to the
central premise of most of these schemes, that silence is acceptance of something the perpetrator
is attempting to foist on the recipient.
[80] This scheme was probably sold to Mr. Parlee from a Canadian or US source, and not
from Peter of England. That suggests Mr. Parlee has switched gurus in his attempts to avoid
foreclosure. This is yet another way he has been victimized by his OPCA beliefs.
[81] A number of the July 20, 2015 affidavit documents were notarized by lawyer Denis J.N.
Sawyer of SGB Law LLP. In certain cases that is innocuous, such as the Birth Certificate and
Page: 18
Page: 19
I, Alfred P. Parlee, grantor, am the absolute and legal owner for the ALFRED
PHILIP PARLEE, (date for Registration June 7, 1949), Registration Number
1949-08-010689, a corporate entity with Record number 010689 ...
Looking at this statement in a most generous light, one could arguably conclude that there was a
corporation named ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE and that Mr. Parlee owned it. The problem is,
however, that this hypothetical corporation was apparently registered on the same day that Mr.
Parlee was born. Instead, this is quite clearly a double/split person Strawman document.
Alberta courts have instructed that notaries not endorse documents of this kind that are not
legitimate or conventional legal or commercial documents: Meads v Meads, at paras 643-645;
Papadopoulos v Borg, 2009 ABCA 201 at para 3.
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. Parlees October 1, 2015
application. He cannot represent his wife.
V.
Conclusion and Costs
[83] I have provided a detailed review of Mr. Parlees 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. Parlees application is dismissed.
Heard on the 1st day of October, 2015.

Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 5th day of November, 2015.
W.S. Schlosser
M.C.C.Q.B.A.
Registration of Live Birth. However, other items, including Affidavit for the Ownership,
Affidavit of Ownership, and DECLARATION for the LEGAL OFFICE of ALFRED PHILIP
PARLEE, dba 250660305, are questionable. For example, the Affidavit for the Ownership
states:
Page: 20
Dusten E. Stewart
Minsos Stewart Masson
for the Plaintiff
Alfred Philip Parlee
for the Defendants
Appearances:
Page: 21
Appendix A. Writ of Quo Warranto Documents
1.
Foisted Quo Warranto Challenge
COURT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA

JUDICIAL CENTER
GRANDE PRAIRIE, ALBERTA
MASTER L.A. SMART; Q.C.
AUGUST 25, 2015
ORDER FOR FORECLOSURE
Court File# 1504 00261

WRIT of QUO WARRANTO
TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION OF;
MASTER: L.A. Smart; Dusten E. Stewart Solicitor; Sharon Bosser; SERVUS CREDIT UNION:
Dan Reinmann; SENIOR MANAGER - SERVUS CREDIT UNION.
MASTER: L.A. Smart;
Let it be known, that to your alleged DECISION as filed under Court File # 1504 00261 which
was issued on August 13, 2015, and received from Solicitor on August 21, 2015, by mail, that
this matter concerns me and my property. That you issued the above decision, knowingly,
willingly, intentionally and without my consent. The consent of my being a living man, sui iuris.
I hereby challenge any lawful jurisdiction which you claim to have, or any such jurisdiction of
the COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA (hereinafter 'ENTITY') under whose
mandate you perform your duties, and also in relation to the making any and all judgments,
decisions, verdicts or any such orders against me and my property.
Preamble:
I, Am the living human being and man, sui iuris, and under such authority any jurisdiction which
you claim to have over me, or the making of the above alleged DECISION, is void. You
obtained no permission, authority nor consent, in any claimed dispute, in which I may have been
involved. The said order is void ab initio.
However, I might accept your temporary jurisdiction under the mandate of ENTITY in this
matter and grant such described jurisdiction to you and ENTITY, if you perform and fulfill the
following specific conditions as described:
l. That you, MASTER L.A. Smart, shall produce unto this living man, within the period of 7
days from the date hereof, a sworn affidavit, sworn under your own hand with full, unlimited
personal liability, under penalty of perjury, to the effect that you did, articulate, sign and swear
an Oath of Office of Judge, to act under the authority of the ENTITY, and that you do, at all
times, operate in strict compliance with that oath of office in the ordinary course of your duties,
without fear, favour or exception, under Rule of Law.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
2. That you shall present and deliver by certified mail, to this living man, within the same 7 days,
true and certified documentary evidence and proofs (i.e. statement, acceptance or declaration)
signed under my hand and seal, that I did grant you unto YOU, and or unto the ENTITY, or unto
any other person, permission, authority or consent; including but not limited to, YOU, the
ENTITY, the principal of the ENTITY, or the founding principal of the ENTITY, to honour any
judgment, order, decision or verdict of the said parties, in any cause or matter in which I may
have been involved.
3. That you shall present and deliver by certified mail, to this living man within the same 7 days,
all the files in your possession about this matter, since I do have reasonable doubt that your laws
are broken and therefore crimes committed, including but not limited to articles 279, and 281 of
US Criminal law and Administrative Procedures and Jurisdiction Act(Alberta 2000 Chapter A-3,
May 27, 2013). And I shall demand remedy.
Without prejudice, and all rights reserved.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
From those who committed these crimes if my doubts will be proven to exist after I study
complete files you shall present and deliver to this living man as described. In the event of
default of such valid proofs as described at paragraph numbers 1,2, & 3, herein you shall be
deemed to have accepted and confirmed and the same is NOT true and accurate and that these
documents and actions performed by you do not exist and they never have existed. That; you
possess NO LAWFUL JURISDICTION to make any such order against me or my property, nor
any jurisdiction and that crimes have been committed, crimes in your Criminal law, including but
not limited to crimes described in articles 279, and 281 of US Criminal Law and Administrative
Procedures and Jurisdiction Act (Alberta 2000 Chapter A-3, May 17, 2013 ).
Since I Am the living human being and man - a fact which cannot be denied and is un-rebuttable
- I Am the one who creates All. You, as a PUBLIC SERVANT, no any other ENTITY, can ever
claim nor maintain any jurisdiction over me, this, or any living human being. You accepted and
consented to service and indenture to the above named ENTITY, whose authority is always
inferior to that of the living human being, sui iuris, therefore you serve only under the law that
serves living human beings in the hierarchy of Divine Cannon Law.
Any attempt to enforce your alleged and purported jurisdiction in any way, in default of
producing the above valid proofs as described, confirming lawful jurisdiction, such attempts
shall be considered to be enforced slavery of this living human being and man.
Therefore, hereby TAKE NOTICE that; should you persist with any enforcement action in
respect of this matter, I shall act accordingly, under Rule of Law, and that you shall be held
personally accountable, with full unlimited personal liability. Remedy shall be obtained by way
of private lawsuit, for the cause, on grounds of injury, loss and or damage caused to my estate, to
include remedy of imprisonment.
Page: 22
Page: 23
The said order and judgment described above as montu propio, confirms; that the Golden Rule of
Law is now operational and in full force; the Golden Rule of Law and that nobody is above the
Law and All are equal before the Law. And so it is Done, Issued and Ordered; sui iuris.
Made under my duly authorized seal with full original jurisdiction and I am competent to say so.
Per: [signature]
sui iuris
The montu propio of Pope Francis, effective the 1" day of September, 2013,
(http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/motu_proprio/documents/papa-francesco- motuproprio_20130711_organi-giudiziari_en.html) confirms, the removal of any perceived immunity
for criminal offences from members of the Roman Curia and you are hereby Notified that you
shall be held personally accountable for any and all the decisions which you make hereafter.
Page: 24
2.
Writ of Quo Warranto
CHALLENGE OF JURISDICTION:
September 8, 2015
FILED IN GOOD FAITH:

With: COURT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA, JUDICIAL CENTER
GRANDE PRAIRIE, ALBERTA, on August 26, 2015.
FILE # 1504 00261
MASTER L.A. Smart:
Thank you very much for agreeing to the Terms and Conditions specified in the Writ of
Quo Warranto.
No Response was ever received by this party, in the specific, explicit, and prescribed
allotted time frame, therefore evident and makes legal,
NO JUSTIFICATION - NO JURISDICTION.
JUDGEMENT of COURT ORDER is expunged.
Therefore the Court Order is now DEEMED: "NULL AND VOID."
WARNING:
NO TRESPASSING Signs have been placed around my PRIVATE PROPERTY.
Any trespassers caught upon my PRIVATE PROPERTY will be prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the LAW.
per: [signature]
Alfred Philip Parlee: Private administrator
Dba: 250660305
c/o Box 16, Site 16, RR2
Sexsmith, Alberta T0H 3C0
WRIT of QUO WARRANTO
Page: 25
Appendix B. Private Indemnity Bond - Non-Negotiable
Issue date: September 10, 2015
BOND number: APP 100915 Can.
Clerk of the Court of the Queen's Bench

10260-99 Street
Grande Prairie, Alberta T8V 2H4
PRIVATE INDEMNITY BOND - NON-NEGOTIABLE
Value of BOND: $1,000,000.00
One Million Canadian Dollars
Re; AUTHENTICATION. In the law of evidence. The act or mode of giving authority or legal
authenticity to a statute, record, or other written instrument, or a certified copy thereof, so as to
render it legally admissible in evidence.
Authenticated Documents: Evidence of Ownership of Estate, Trust, Birth Certificate and Title,
filed on July 20, 2015 -Court of Queen's Bench, Grande Prairie, Alberta: case file# 1504 00261.
ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE known as the "Indemnitee." And
The COURT CLERK and/or its AGENTS known as "Indemnifier."
ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE, dba 250660305, and having obtained Power of Attorney over the
DEBTOR, the NAME, ALFRED PHILIPP ARLEE, hereby present this INDEMNITY BOND
in Good Faith and Credit.
Activity;
Attention Clerk of the Court of the Queen's Bench (Indemnifier):
This INDEMNITY BOND is issued as/for payment of COURT ORDER File# 1504 00261.
BOND ORDER UCC Commercial Code (Application and use of Commercial Law Part 3)
SPECIAL DEPOSIT of this BOND against the DEBTOR, NAME, ALFRED PillLIP PARLEE
will ZERO, SETTLE, and CLOSE this account. Court case file # 1504 00261.
This BOND shall be Ledgered as an ASSET for the needs of the Court of Queen's Bench in
Grande Prairie, Alberta.
This BOND expires the moment the man, Alfred philip parlee dies.
Per: [signature] ...
ALFRED PHILIP PARLEE

2015
dba:250660305
Page: 26
Appendix C. Correspondence from Freeman Legal Services
Freeman Legal Services

83 Ducie Street
Manchester
M12JQ
Simone Hamm
lngolstadt
10th February 2015
Public Debt & Uniform Commercial Code [UCC]

International Promissory Notes
The United Nations Convention on
INTERNATIONAL BII.LS OF EXCHANGE AND lNTERNATIONAL PROMISSORY
NOTES
Dear Simone,
This is to inform you and confirm to you that "all debts in the PUBLIC sector'' such as utility
bills, court fines, personal taxes, speeding tickets, property taxes and commercial debt(s) which it
is claimed that you have, can be satisfactorily cleared and the accounts zeroed via an
"Acceptance for Value" under the United Nations Convention on International Bills of Exchange
1988 and the Uniform Commercial Code [UCC].
See Chapter 2, Section I, Article 4 of The Convention as well as under International Private Law
and Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code administered by UNIDROIT, Via Panisperna
2&, 00184 Rome-Italy.
UNIDROIT
=
http://www.unidroit.org/about-unidroit/overview
UCC
=
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3
UN CONVENTON = http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/English/texts/payments/billsnotes/X_12_e.pdf
Freeman Legal Service's role

As you are aware from our press statements Freeman Legal Services has been tasked to help
those suffering at the hands of "over- zealous" government agents, bailiffs, criminal credit
agencies, Gerichtsvollzieherin and court officials pursuing fines and issuing "Orders to Pay" that
are against the Rule of Law.
Many banks, Public Authorities and collection agencies have singularly failed to adhere to the
Human Rights principles encoded ln the UN Conventions and have failed under the Bretton
Woods Agreement of 1944 to provide "The People" with the Internationally Agreed and ratified
remedy, following this agreement, "to allow for payments of debt of the PUBLIC side" to be
made from the Global Collateral Accounts" if the need ever arose. The need has arisen!
Freeman Legal Services
Page: 27
Sie knnen diese Manahmen abwenden, indem Sie sofort die Forderung von 868,89 bei mir
bezahlen.
ALL 3rd PARTIES TAKE NOTE UNDER THE BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT
Payment for honour supra protest.
(1) Where a bill has been protested for non-payment, any person may intervene and pay it supra
protest for the honour of any party liable thereon, or for the honour of the person for whose
account the bill is drawn.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY YOU
We advise you now to make an "Acceptance for Value" on the Bill/Order presented to you via
the office of ANKE WEBER. This regulated and assured action on your behalf will ensure that
the DEBT/ACCOUNT (so called) will be paid by the Bundesministerium der Finanzen under
the Trust Fund created by the Allied Powers to finance German rebuilding in 1944 via the
Bretton Woods Agreement.
Frau Weber should be copied in on this letter as should the local police station, court and any
collection or Enforcement Agencies which may have contacted or threatened you" with such
statements as if you do not pay or comply then certain actions will be taken against you. These
are infringements under Article 9 of the UCC - Transaction off a Securitized Interest, whereby
any person asking you to ''perform" IN ANY MANNER whatsoever AND NOT BEING IN
POSSESSION OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT - SIGNED BY YOU CONTAINlNG WET
SIGNATURE is in violation of international law and UN Conventions.
HOLDER IN DUE COURSE
Please note that the moment that you A4V (accept for value) the Bill/Order/Note then [under
Article 3 - Paragraph 302 UCC] YOU become the "Holder in Due Course" on this Negotiable
Financial Instrument and you are the ONLY party who can sue upon it.
See http;//www.law.cornell.edu/uccl3/3-302
It should be noted by ALL parties that the Uniform Commercial Code is an
INTERNATIONAL CODEX of law merchant and is applicable upon the sea and land and there
is NO country which is exempt from the trading principles it seeks to protect.
Any person refusing to accept this payment now made, should state in writing within 30 days
why they are dishonouring the bill/order/note. Commercial remedies are quite strict against those
"refusing payments" on Valid Commercial Negotiable Instruments
As stated on the telephone, FLS has agreed to Assume the Debt shown on your Order/Bill of
Exchange as shown on the letter dated 03/02/15 by Frau ANKE WEBER:
Page: 28
Yours sincerely,
Peter Smith LL.B, FRC.
Freeman Legal Services - International
Page: 29
Appendix D. WeRe Cheque and Allonges
WeRe Cheque (front)
1.
Page: 30
SIDE 1
Allonge
NOTICE TO PAYEE- LEGAL DEPARTMENTS AND ACCOUNTING/BOOK-KEEPING SIDE 1

DEPARTMENTS
Allonge - RECEIPT OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUM ENT - Allonge
A negotiable instrument is a check, promissory note, bill of exchange, security or any document representing money payable
which can be transferred to another by handing it over (delivery) and/or endorsing it (signing one's name on the back either with
no instructions or directing it to another). A negotiable instrument is a contract and subject to the rules governing contract law.
However, a negotiable instrument may be distinguished from an ordinary contract by the fact that a negotiable instrument may be
written in a way that makes it transferable. This quality of negotiation generally allows the instrument to be used as a substit ute
for money by holders in due course, despite the defensive claims between the original parties who drafted the negotiable
instrument. In order to be negotiable, the bill or note must be payable to order, or to bearer. Some promissory notes contain a
clause making them non-negotiable
The Presentment of this cheque is to be treated as cash on your accounting ledger: See:Lord Denning M.R. in Fielding & Platt Ltd v S elim Najjar [l969] l W.L.R. 357 at 361; [1969] 2 All E.R. 150 at 152, 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 honoured
unless there is some good reason to the contrary.
Therefore, it is reasonable to deduce that, notwithstanding the confusing and convoluted terms of the 1882 Act and the corrup tion
of the courts, all fully negotiable instruments in the form of bills of exchange and promissory notes are to be treated as if they
are cash, unless that is contrary to the terms of an enforceable contract between the parties. Since the rules of equity dictate that
no party can lawfully prevent another from using any remedy that it utilises for its own benefit under such terms [otherwise
known as placing a Clog on the Equity], there is no recourse for the payee to refuse lawful payment made in good faith.
THIS CHEQUE IS TENDERED UNDER THE TERM S OF THE BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT 1882 & UN Convention on
Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes 1988
AS SUCH THE DRAWER OF THE CHEQUE HAS CERTAIN PROTECTIONS AND YOU AS PAYEE HAVE CERTAIN
OBLIGATIONS THE M OST IM PORTANT OF WHICH IS TO ACCEPT THIS NOTE AND PRESENT IT FOR CLEARING.
SIDE 2
NOTICE OF DIS HONOUR IF YOU REFUS E THIS NEGOTIABLE INS TRUMENT
SIDE 2
S ection 42 Violation of The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 Dishonour of a bill or note through Non acceptance
Should you fail to accept it or refuse to honour it you will be in breach Sections 42 & 43 for Non Acceptance and Dishonour and
the DRAWER walks free and clear
S ection 42 Non-acceptance.
When a bill [note] is duly presented for acceptance and is not accepted within the customary time, the person presenting it must
treat it as dishonoured by non-acceptance. If he does not, the holder shall lose his right of recourse against the drawer and
endorsers.
S ection 43 Dishonour by Non-acceptance and its consequences.
(1)A bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance
(a)when it is duly presented for acceptance, and such an acceptance as is prescribed by this Act is refused or cannot be obtained;
or
(b)when presentment for acceptance is excused and the bill is not accepted.
(2)Subject to the provisions of this Act when a bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance, an immediate right of recourse against the
drawer and endorsers accrues to the holder, and no presentment for payment is necessary.
AS ACCOUNT PAYEE - HOLDER
Article 15 of The Convention states:
2.
Page: 31
WeRe Bank confirms that this cheque IS DRAWN UPON A BANK ACCOUNT THE BANK HAS FUNDS ON DEPOSIT in
the name of the DRAWER TO CLEAR THE ISSUED NOTE, TO YOU, THE PAYEE THE M ONEY IS BANK LEDGER
M ONEY, CHEQUE BOOK M ONEY OR M ONETARY UNIT OF ACCOUNT and can be transferred to you, the PAYEE,
either electronically or via physical means within the PRESCRIBED CLEARING PERIOD. This is why you must act now or
fail.
WeRe Bank
83 Ducie Street, M anchester M 1 2JQ
Clearing Hotline: 0044 7455 372365

01144 - Canada
1. A person is a holder if he is: The payee in p ossession of the instrument and

3. A person is not prevented from being a holder by the fact that the instrument was obtained by him or any previous holder
under circumstances, including incapacity or fraud, duress or mistake of any kind that would give rise to a claim to, or a defence
against liability on, the instrument.
Page: 32
Appendix E. May 19, 2015 Notice of Protest...
Master Alf P. Parlee
Box 16, Site 16, RR2
Sexsmith, Alberta Canada
Non-Domestic Mail
{TOH 3CO}
Dusten E. Stewart ..Minos Stewart Masson (email notice)(mailed letter to follow)

Solicitors for Servus Credit Union (Sharon Boser)(Account # 3717089-014)
Suite 220, 8723-82 Avenue Edmonton, Alberta
16C OY9 dstewart@minsolawyers.com
Also emailed to Witnesses; WeRe Bank Peter or England, Friend Tel Sutherland, Son Ron
Parlee.
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
Dusten E Stewart;
In regard to non-acceptance of cheque (which is defined as Dishonour) that was written to Servus Credit Union c/w
Allonge; I have consulted with VIP from WeRe Bank and the Reply was; "They" Servus Credit Union cannot refuse
it (cheque)-read the Allonge and show them what it means. If they refuse it (cheque) they have no rights to pursue
you. The "Allonge" is very clear in respect to: Processing cheque through Clearing Hotline 0044 7455 372365 or
physical address WeRe Bank 83 Ducie Street, Manchester M1 2JQ and requirements to be honoured as per Bills of
Exchange acts.
The cheque to Servus Credit Union has been dishonoured by non-acceptance. This action of non-acceptance is
addressed very clearly in the Bills of Exchange Act on "Allonge" Please read side 2 Section 42 Violation of the Bills
of Exchange Act 1882-Dishonour of bill through Non acceptance and Section 43 Non Acceptance and its
consequences!! No further presentment is neces sary.
I have followed the guidelines and principals of these Bills of Exchange Acts mentioned above and in Good faith
issued a cheque through WeRe Bank that confirms "Funds on Deposit" on Allonge. As per the authority of the Bills
of Exchange Acts listed above the alleged liability for the amount written on cheque are now settled and no further
communication on this topic can be entered into as it will be considered harassment and harm to me. A signed copy
of this letter will also be sent by mail to your address with two witnesses.
Best Wishes
[signature]
Master Alf. P Parlee. May 19, 2015
Witness Tel Sutherland Grande Prairie, Alta May 19, 2015 [signature]
Witness Ron Parlee Grande Prairie, Alta May 19, 2015 [signature]
[63 cent Canadian Postage
Stamp and signature]
May 19, 2015
May 19, 2015
Page: 33
Appendix F. June 10, 2015 Notices of Protest Sent
Know all men that I, Alfred Philip Parlee [private person], c/o: P.O. Box 16, Site 16 RR2 near
the town of Sexsmith, Alberta Canada {TOH 3CO}, at the request of WeRe Bank and Self, there
being no notary public available, did on the 10th day of June 2015, prepare this document of
Notice of Protest to Dan Heinman: Senior Manager of Corp. Services Servus Credit Union.
Other sundry documents are included and labelled with Xpresspost PG 307 816 009CA.
Wherefore I, Alfred Philip Parlee, now, in the presence of
Witness 1
Witness 1 by:
Tel Sutherland
[signature]
Signature Date: June 10, 2015
Witness 2
Witness 2 by:
Ronald Parlee
[signature]
Signature Date: June 10, 2015
do within the proscribed period, being within 3 days of being informed by PAYEE, did protest
the said bill of exchange as per PART V SUPPLEMENTARY Sections 90 - 94 of the Bills of
Exchange Act 1882 as well as the UN Convention 1988 on International Bills of Exchange and
Promissory Notes.
Your Printed Name

Box 16, Site 16, RR2 Sexsmith, Alberta
{T0H 3C0}
.(Autograph) by:
[signature]
Date: June 10, 2015
N.B. The bill itself should be annexed, or a copy of the bill and all that is written thereon
should be underwritten.
NOTICES of PROTEST SENT

Servus Credit Union LTD V Parlee, 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Servus Credit Union LTD V Parlee, 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Court of Queen=s Bench of Alberta

Alfred Philip Parlee and Clara Vivian Parlee

The October 1, 2015 Hearing.............................................................................................. 3

Background and Timeline ................................................................................................... 4

2015 ABQB 700 (CanLII)

Citation: Servus Credit Union Ltd v Parlee, 2015 ABQB 700

Quo Warranto Application ................................................................................................. 9

The Parlees Have Paid the Outstanding Debt ................................................................... 10

The Freeman Legal Services A4V Scam ............................................................... 11

The WeRe Bank ............................................................................................................ 12

The Private Indemnity Bond ......................................................................................... 17

Conclusion - Pseudolegal Payment Schemes Have No Effect ..................................... 19

Conclusion and Costs........................................................................................................ 19

Writ of Quo Warranto Documents ................................................................... 21

Foisted Quo Warranto Challenge ..................................................................................... 21

Writ of Quo Warranto ...................................................................................................... 24

Private Indemnity Bond - Non-Negotiable ....................................................... 25

Correspondence from Freeman Legal Services ................................................ 26

WeRe Cheque and Allonges ............................................................................. 29

WeRe Cheque (front) ........................................................................................................ 29

May 19, 2015 Notice of Protest......................................................................... 32

June 10, 2015 Notices of Protest Sent ............................................................... 33

2015 ABQB 700 (CanLII)

bend courts into submission,

nullify state authority, or

as is the case here, provide free money.

The October 1, 2015 Hearing

2015 ABQB 700 (CanLII)

Therefore I require return on my interest. I order return on my interest from CRA,

Background and Timeline

2015 ABQB 700 (CanLII)

Mr. Parlee responded on May 19, 2015 with a document titled:

2015 ABQB 700 (CanLII)

determined the debt then to be $334,837.01; and

ordered summary judgment;

2015 ABQB 700 (CanLII)

A July 22, 2015 Affidavit by Mr. Parlee attaching a NOTICE OF TRESPASS ON MY

An Affidavit filed July 25, 2015 which attaches a SECOND NOTICE OF

2015 ABQB 700 (CanLII)

What followed was the October 1, 2015 hearing.

2015 ABQB 700 (CanLII)

Quo Warranto Application

The ENTITY is defined elsewhere as the Alberta Court of Queens Bench.

2015 ABQB 700 (CanLII)

Mr. Parlees Quo Warranto materials have no legal relevance, or effect.

The Parlees Have Paid the Outstanding Debt

2015 ABQB 700 (CanLII)

Mr. Parlee continues:

2015 ABQB 700 (CanLII)

The WeRe Bank

2015 ABQB 700 (CanLII)

The Free Fair and Final Public Bank System

2015 ABQB 700 (CanLII)

In this context, conventional money is worthless:

WeRe Bank is a Fraud

Non-Canadian Authorities are not Binding

2015 ABQB 700 (CanLII)

You were convinced to accept worthless money, the PROMISSORY

No Obligation to Accept Non-Cash Payments

WeRe Bank Three/Five Letters Scheme

2015 ABQB 700 (CanLII)

2015 ABQB 700 (CanLII)

The Private Indemnity Bond