Alberta v Greter, 2016 ABQB 293

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Alberta v Greter, 2016 ABQB 293 Date: 20160524 Docket: 1503 09101 Registry: Edmonton Between: Her Majesty the Queen In Right of Alberta Applicant / Plaintiff - and - Angela Marissa Greter Respondent / Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of S.L. Schulz , Master in Chambers _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] Between 2004 and 2012 Angela Greter received student loans from the government of Alberta (“Alberta”) totalling $64,360.00. Ms.

Greter completed her PhD in agriculture from the University of Guelph on December 13, 2012. She has made no payments to date. Alberta now sues to collect that debt. II. The Proceeding to Date

[ 2 ] On June 19, 2015 Alberta sued Ms. Greter for the outstanding student loan and interest, a total of $68,445.65. On August 4, 2015, Ms. Greter filed a Statement of Defence that denied any debt liability to Alberta. The key passages of the Statement of Defence are: Statement of facts relied on: ... 2. Full disclosure of the alleged debt was not and has never been provided under contract law. ... Any matters that defeat the claim of the plaintiff(s): ... 5.

As requested by the Defendant since July 2013, the Plaintiff has been unable and/or unwilling to produce the original debt instrument and a true certified copy of the actual accounting whereby the Government of Alberta has incurred a loss. 6. The Defendant has made numerous attempts to settle this matter and has never refused or neglected to make payment. That assertion is considered dishonourable defamation of character. Remedy sought: 7.

Upon inability to produce the original debt instrument and proven loss, the alleged debt will be discharged, all correspondence will cease and the matter will be considered resolved. 8. The Plaintiff will correct the Defendant’s credit record. ... [ 3 ] On March 30, 2016 Alberta applied for

summary judgment under Rule 7.3 of the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010, [the “ Rules ” or individually a “ Rule ”], arguing that the Defendant had breached the loan contract, now owed $69,937.67, and had no defence for that claim. Ms. Greter in her correspondence with Alberta government personnel acknowledged she had received the student loans in question. Alberta noted that Ms. Greter had also used “freeman on the land” tactics before and during the collection litigation. The

summary judgment application was supported by an Affidavit of Carla Dec, dated March 30, 2016. [ 4 ] Ms. Greter was not present at the first scheduled hearing of this matter on May 2, 2016, but her husband appeared and sought an adjournment, which was granted. Ms. Greter did not attend the May 16, 2016, hearing before myself, and has made no other representations. I was informed by counsel for Alberta that Ms. Greter had indicated she would not attend. [ 5 ] In its

summary judgment application, Alberta had originally sought double costs, but at the May 16 hearing instead requested a cost award of $3,000.00 for the litigation activities to date: the Statement of Claim, Affidavit of Records, and the

summary judgment application. III. The Law -

Summary Judgment [ 6 ] The law and principles that guide a

summary judgment application are not in dispute, but have undergone significant evolution in the past several years. Rule 7.3 authorizes a party to apply to have an action or a part of an action ended where there is “no merit” or “no defence” to a claim: 7.3(1) A party may apply to the Court for

summary judgment in respect of all or part of a claim on one or more of the following grounds: (

a) there is no defence to a claim or part of it; (

b) there is no merit to a claim or part of it; ... [ 7 ] A

summary judgment application may be supported by affidavit evidence: Rule 7.3(2). The Court may dismiss a claim or give judgment in whole or in part: Rule 7.3(3). [ 8 ] In Alberta a claim has “no merit” or there is “no defence” where the opposing party’s position “is so compelling that the likelihood of success is very high.”: Access Mortgage Corporation

(2004) Limited v Arres Capital Inc. , 2014 ABCA 280 at para 45 , 584 AR 68. It is not enough that a party’s evidence discloses a triable issue, this is instead a “merit”-based analysis: WP v Alberta , 2014 ABCA 404 at paras 25-26 , 588 AR 110, leave denied [2015] SCCA No 41. A bald denial of a claim is not sufficient to resist a

summary judgment application: Access Mortgage Corporation

(2004) Limited v Arres Capital Inc at para 59. IV. Analysis [ 9 ] Ms. Dec’s affidavit establishes the nature and basis of Ms. Greter’s defence, and the history of this dispute. In 2013, after Ms.

Greter graduated from her PhD program, she complained that a change in student loan relief programming meant that she was forgiven$6,000.00 in her loans. She had believed she would instead receive $20,000.00 in loan relief. She complained to Student Aid Alberta, butadditional debt relief was refused. This is detailed in an exchange of emails and correspondence between Ms. Greter and officials in theAlberta government. [10] Ms. Dec’s Affidavit also includes a number of documents that were then sent by Ms. Greter to Student Aid Alberta andService Alberta.

These disclose strategies that Associate Chief Justice Rooke in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, 543 AR 215categorized as “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments” [“OPCA”], and which appear with troubling frequency in Canadiancourts. OPCA concepts are sold on a commercial basis by conmen, “OPCA gurus”, to lay persons with the promise that these legal-sounding schemes and their associated magical documents will provide extraordinary rights and remedies. They are instead a simplyworthless scam that only causes harm and waste to all involved. A. Three/Five Letters Scheme [11] Ms.

Greter’s correspondence attempts to implement a variation of the Three/Five Letters foisted unilateral agreement debtelimination scheme, which is detailed in Bank of Montreal v Rogozinsky, 2014 ABQB 771, 18 Alta LR (6th) 1. The first OPCAdocument included in Ms. Dec’s Affidavit is a “Notice of Default” dated Dec. 8, 2013, (see Appendix “A”) that indicates Ms. Greter isdissatisfied with and does not accept Student Aid Alberta’s response to three previous documents, and then announces Student AidAlberta: ... is now in default of the obligation for full disclosure and lawful consideration under contract law.

The following requirements wereignored or answered insufficiently: 1. Proof of the existence of an alleged account or contract in the flesh and blood name of Angela Marissa Greter duly signed andwitnessed by both parties, not a unilateral agreement and upon which signed page there is reference to the entire agreement. 2. Proof of claim that the Student Aid Alberta Service Centre is the current holder of the above mentioned original debt instrument andthat it has not been on-sold to another party. 3.

A true certified copy of the actual accounting whereby the Student Aid Alberta Service Centre has incurred a loss of the alleged debt(proven loss). This may be provided via accounting through the bank proving that a true loss occurred. 4. A True Bill inked in blue with “Bill” and “Value” marked upon the face and not a statement of account for any amount of moneyallegedly owing or owed to the Student Aid Alberta Service Centre by Angela Marissa of the Greter family. 5. Please properly identify under full commercial liability and penalty of perjury who is the fiduciary creditor and who is the fiduciarydebtor. 6.

Please produce the original promissory note and contact me for inspection by my hand and not a copy and/or affidavit/certificate oflost note. [Emphasis in original.] [12] The “Notice of Default” then concludes: The Student Aid Alberta Service Centre has until December 31, 2013 to cure this default. If the Student Aid Alberta Service Centre doesnot remedy the default within the allotted time, I will consider its silence to be assent and agreement that no debt exists. As such, I willconsider the matter between us to have been legally and financially settled. [13] Ms.

Greter then signed the “Notice of Default” with a signature across an ink fingerprint. [14] There are many legal errors in this document. [15] Ms. Greter’s “Notice of Default” is clearly one of a series of foisted unilateral agreements (Meads v Meads, at paras 447-528),a common pseudolegal strategy where a document claims to create and impose unilateral obligations on its recipient. First, contract lawdoes not permit a person to ‘foist’ an obligation on another party: Silver’s Garage Ltd v Bridgewater (Town), (SCC),[1971] SCR 577 at 596, 17 DLR (3d) 1.

In contract silence does not mean consent or agreement: Felthouse v Bindley (1862), 11 CB(NS) 869, 142 ER 1037 (Ex Ch). [16] Second, Canadian courts have concluded the information demanded by Ms. Greter is not necessary or relevant to prove theexistence of a debt.

A binding contract does not require an original document, ‘wet ink’ signature, and witnesses: Bank of Nova Scotia vLee, 2013 ONSC 6698 at paras 10, 12; First National Financial GP Corporation v Maritime Residential Housing Development Ltd,2013 NSSC 219, 332 NSR (2d) 170; Toronto-Dominion Bank v Devries, [2013] OJ No 2976 (QL), (Ont Sup Ct J(SCC)); Toronto-Dominion Bank v Thompson, [2015] OJ No 5141 (QL) at paras 7, 16 (Ont Sup Ct J); Canadian Imperial Bank ofCommerce v Piedrahita, 2012 NBQB 101 at para 9, 386 NBR (2d) 177, leave to appeal dismissed [2012] NBJ No 110 (QL), 387 NBR(2d) 399 (NBCA); Royal Bank of Canada v Skrapec, 2011 BCSC 1827 at para 52, leave denied 2012 BCCA 10; Banque Royale duCanada c Tremblay, 2013 QCCQ 12827 at para 14, affirmed 2013 QCCA 2035 at para 7. [17] Formal ledgers and other accounting documents are not required to prove a debt.

Modern financial practices and theirelectronic equivalents are adequate: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Piedrahita, at paras 10-11; Whitfield v Chrysler CreditCanada Ltd, 2001 ABQB 5 at para 18; Banque Royale du Canada c Minicozzi, 2013 QCCQ 6566 at para 11, affirmed 2013 QCCA1722.

[ 18 ] Sale of a debt, or “securitization” is irrelevant to whether the original creditor may enforce that debt: Banque Royale du Canada c Tremblay , 2013 QCCQ 12827 at para 15 , affirmed 2013 QCCA 2035 at para 7 ; Bank of Nova Scotia v Lee at paras 9, 12 ; Banque de Nouvelle-Écosse c Paquin , 2014 QCCQ 10119 ; Bank of Montreal v Rogozinsky at paras 44-46 ; Xceed Mortgage Corporation/Corporation hypothécaire Xceed c Pépin-Bourgouin , 2011 QCCS 2116 at paras 15-25 . [ 19 ] There is no obligation for a creditor to produce a “True Bill inked in blue”: Royal Bank of Canada v Skrapec at para 63.

I note that Justice Powers in Royal Bank of Canada v Skrapec concluded the “True Bill inked in blue” concept (whatever it may be) had no apparent connection to Canadian law, and instead probably was something of American origin. My attempts to find any Canadian meaning or function for a “True Bill inked in blue” was equally unsuccessful. Perhaps this is yet another OPCA flight of fantasy. [ 20 ] A lending contract is not a consumer note or bill of exchange: Banque Royale du Canada c Tremblay , 2013 QCCQ 12827 at paras 16-17 , affirmed 3024 QCCA 2035 at para 7. [ 21 ] Ms.

Greter’s demand for the identity of the “fiduciary creditor” and “fiduciary debtor” is cryptic. What I can say with confidence is that the phrase “full commercial liability”, whatever its intent, is OPCA nonsense.

The only times that language has appeared in any reported Canadian judgment is in an OPCA litigant’s arguments and documents: Dempsey et al v Envision Credit Union et al , 2006 BCSC 750 at paras 83 , 92; Jabez Financial Services Inc v Sponagle , 2008 NSSC 112 at para 14 , 264 NSR (2d) 224; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Marples , 2008 BCSC 590 at para 3 , 166 ACWS (3d) 637; Drosdovech v Ashfield , 2010 FC 858 at para 4 , [2011] 1 CTC 12; Meads v Meads at paras 11, 22, 697, 705 ; Rive v The Queen , 2013 TCC 243 at para 2 , 2013 DTC 1194; Myers v Blackman , 2014 ONSC 5226 at para 6 , 2 PPSAC (4th) 318; Bank of Montreal v Rogozinsky ; Servus Credit Union Ltd v Parlee , 2015 ABQB 700 at para 72 ; Bossé v Farm Credit Canada , 2014 NBCA 34 , 419 NBR (2d) 1. “Full commercial liability” means nothing in Canadian law. [ 22 ] Suffice to say that Ms.

Greter had no basis in law to make the demands identified in the “Notice of Default”, and that the mode by which she attempted to foist and then enforce those demands has no legal effect. B. Fee

Schedule [ 23 ] Next Ms. Greter sent a “Non-Negotiable” “User Agreement Fee

Schedule Notice” (Appendix “B”), dated Feb. 22, 2014. This is another foisted unilateral agreement that sets penalties and costs for various potential interactions between government actors and Ms.

Greter, including penalties for filing court documents ($300.00 per document), “Educational Services” ($650.00 per session), receipt of telephone calls ($250.00 per call), and various graduated and escalating penalties, in silver coin, directed to government actors and police, which climax with: ONE BILLION ($1 000 000 000.00) .999% PURE COMMERCIAL GRADE SILVER DOLLARS PER INCIDENT if injected or any private organic matter such as blood/tissue or DNA samples are forcibly removed from me under duress. [ 24 ] Like other foisted unilateral agreements, fee schedules impose no obligations on their recipients: Papadopoulos v Borg , 2009 ABCA 201 at para 4 ; Henry v El , 2010 ABCA 312 at para 3 , 193 ACWS (3d) 1099, leave refused [2011] SCCA No 138.

Rooke ACJ recently in Gauthier v Starr , 2016 ABQB 213 at para 39 summarized the illegitimate and illegal function of these documents: ... Fee schedules are foisted unilateral agreements that define certain penalties for government, institutional, and court actors engaged in their legal duties ... OPCA fee schedules have one purpose: intimidation. These documents are intended to deter state and court actors from the proper exercise of their obligations ... Asserting a foisted unilateral agreement against a public official is harassment ...

I recently concluded ... that an attempt to enforce a spurious OPCA-based debt on a peace officer was prima facie intimidation of a justice system participant: Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 , s 423.1. [Citations omitted.] [ 25 ] Other correspondence indicates that Ms. Greter also published her fee

schedule on a website: http://publicnoticeangela.blogspot.ca/. Fortunately for her, Ms. Greter does not appear to have attempted to collect any penalties under her “User Agreement Fee

Schedule Notice”. If she had, that would have been a basis for punitive steps in this lawsuit, such as elevated costs, and potentially other sanctions, such as being declared a vexatious litigant: Re Boisjoli , 2015 ABQB 629 , 29 Alta LR (6th) 334. C. Subsequent Correspondence [ 26 ] The Affidavit of Ms. Dec also includes a Feb. 28, 2014 letter from “Commonly called Angela Marissa of the Greter Family, Principal Creditor” to a collection agency denying a contract with the collection agency, and threatening to bill for “damages”. This correspondence indicates Ms.

Greter has also adopted the OPCA double/split person “Strawman” motif: Meads v Meads , at paras 417- 446 . This is a bizarre pseudolegal misconception that individuals have two components: a physical ‘flesh and blood’ half (Angela Marissa of the Greter family), and a non-corporeal ‘legal’ half or “Strawman” (ANGELA GRETER): You are a third party interloper with no lawful signed contract between the ANGELA GRETER or the living woman commonly known as Angela Marissa of the Greter family.

I am the living woman commonly known as Angela Marissa of the Greter family that supplies the sweat equity and labor as agent for the ens legis person ANGELA GRETER.

Since certain truths, transparencies, and maxims in commerce are now coming to the forefront of the awareness in the collective human consciousness, moralities of higher spirit compel me to seek full transparency and full disclosure on the types of commercial contracts offered by governments and corporate institutions, which brings me today to ask a few questions so that I remain in honour of the involuntary bankruptcy of the nation and settle all alleged debts for the ANGELA GRETER. [ 27 ] This is, of course, wrong. The “Strawman” is a myth. The legal and physical aspects of an individual are one and the same.

Canadian law does not recognize anything called an “ens legis” person, and that term has never appeared in any reported Canadian judgment, unless it was said or written by an OPCA litigant: Meads v Meads at para 409 ; MBNA Canada Bank v Luciani , 2011 ONSC 6347 at para 6 ; Hajdu v FRO , 2012 ONSC 1835 at para 6 ; Torres v The Queen , 2013 TCC 380 at para 13 , [2014] DTC 1028, affirmed 2015 FCA 60 , 2015 DTC 5044. The idea of an interrelationship between two aspects of oneself is equally absurd.

As my colleague Master Schlosser observed in Servus Credit Union Ltd v Parlee at para 76 , “[t]alking to yourself binds no-one.” [ 28 ] The “Strawman” concept is so notoriously false that simply advancing the “Strawman” double/split person is a basis to presume a court participant litigates in bad faith and for abusive, ulterior purposes: Fiander v Mills , 2015 NLCA 31 at paras 20 , 39-40. I conclude that applies to Ms. Greter’s defence against collection of her student loans. [ 29 ] The last OPCA document from Ms.

Greter is an April 2, 2015, “Rebuttal to Service Alberta, Crown Debt Collections”, addressed to Carla Dec (Appendix “C”). It repeats the demands in the “Notice of Default”, and states there is no outstanding loan because the Government of Alberta is not “in honour”. Since Student Aid Alberta has not responded to the Three/Five Letters documents “... I must conclude the true evidence of this loan does not exist ...” and unless the Government of Alberta responds to Ms. Greter’s satisfaction by April 21, 2015 “... I will consider the matter between us to have been legally and financially settled.” D. Ms.

Greter’s OPCA Scheme is Legally Incorrect [ 30 ] Ms. Greter’s Three/Five Letters debt elimination scheme cannot impose an obligation on Alberta to fulfill Ms. Greter’s demands on how it proves her debt. Further, the information she sought by those means is unnecessary, irrelevant, or imaginary. I therefore conclude that Ms. Greter has no viable defence to Alberta’s action to enforce her outstanding student debts. She has simply attempted to deny and evade her obligations to repay the government loans that financed her education and present career. Her Statement of Defence is struck out and I award

summary judgment in favour of the Plaintiff. E. The Outstanding Debt and Interest [ 31 ] Ms. Dec’s Affidavit includes unchallenged information that documents Ms. Greter’s student loans, their amounts, and how her outstanding interest was calculated. I have previously rejected Ms. Greter’s concepts on how outstanding debts must be documented, and therefore accept the Plaintiff has adequately proven the quantum of outstanding debt owed by Ms. Greter. [ 32 ] I therefore order

summary judgment in favour of the Plaintiff, and that Ms. Greter shall pay the Plaintiff: 1. the total amount of principal and interest owed on March 1, 2016: $69,937.67; 2. 3.05% per annum interest for the period between March 1, 2016 and May 16, 2016; 3. post-judgment interest pursuant to the Judgment Interest Act , RSA 2000, c J-1; and 4. $3,000.00 in costs. [ 33 ] As a final note to Ms. Greter, I caution her against further attempts to use OPCA concepts. Alberta originally sought double costs in its Statement of Claim, but did not pursue elevated and punitive court costs in its oral submissions at the

summary judgment application. If Alberta had maintained that claim I would have granted the double costs award sought, or ordered solicitor and own client indemnity costs against Ms. Greter. This reflects this Court’s categorical rejection of pseudolaw as a means to advance false claims or to frustrate the administration of justice, the operation of the courts, and the enforcement of legal obligations. Heard on the 16 th day of May, 2016. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 24 th day of May, 2016. S.L. Schulz M.C.C.Q.B.A. Appearances:

Andrew Pearcey for the Plaintiff Angela Marissa Greter no one appearing for the Defendant Appendix “A” - Notice of Default THIS IS A PRIVATE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES NOTICE OF DEFAULT Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent Angela Merissa Greter [address] December 8, 2013 Student Aid Alberta Service Centre 2 Robert Speck Parkway, 14th Floor Mississauga, ON L4Z 1H8 Re: Alberta Student Loan # 7-288291 To whom it may concern: This letter is to notify the Student Aid Alberta Service Centre that it is now in default of the obligation for full disclosure and lawful consideration under contract law.

The following requirements were ignored or answered insufficiently: 1. Proof of the existence of an alleged account or contract in the flesh and blood name of Angela Marissa Greter duly signed and witnessed by both parties, not a unilateral agreement and upon which signed page there is reference to the entire agreement. 2. Proof of claim that the Student Aid Alberta Service Centre is the current holder of the above mentioned original debt instrument and that it has not been on-sold to another party. 3.

A true certified copy of the actual accounting whereby the Student Aid Alberta Service Centre has incurred a loss of the alleged debt (proven loss). This may be provided via accounting through the bank proving that a true loss occurred. 4. A True Bill inked in blue with “Bill” and "Value" marked upon the face and not a statement of account for any amount of money allegedly owing or owed to the Student Aid Alberta Service Centre by Angela Marissa of the Greter family.

5. Please properly identify under full commercial liability and penalty of perjury who is the fiduciary creditor and who is the fiduciary debtor. 6. Please produce the original promissory note and contact me for inspection by my hand and not a copy and/or affidavit/certificate of lost note. I have made numerous attempts to settle this matter with the Student Aid Alberta Service Centre through written correspondence dated July 28, September 2, and September 22. These attempts have been met with either non-response or insufficient response due to inadequate information provided.

The Student Aid Alberta Service Centre has until December 31, 2013 to cure this default. If the Student Aid Alberta Service Centre does not remedy the default within the allotted time, I will consider its silence to be assent and agreement that no debt exists. As such, I will consider the matter between us to have been legally and financially settled. All response will be through written correspondence only. Any attempt to contact me via telephone will not be met with a response.

Without prejudice, ill will, afterthought, malicious intent or frivolous vexation, [signature across an inked fingerprint] Angela of the Greter family ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Appendix “B” - User Agreement Fee

Schedule Notice USER AGREEMENT FEE

SCHEDULE NOTICE Effective February 22, 2014 Non-Negotiable Fee

Schedule No. AMG-11081985-FS This User Agreement Fee

Schedule is your NOTICE of the applicable FEES and COSTS: Angela Marissa of the Greter family, the living soul, charges for her time for the protection or defending of her lawful property or rights and interests therein, all lawful freedoms and rights in general when she is engaged in any type of interaction or security or otherwise regarding any matter. You the living individuals(s), CORPORATION, employee(s), and/or representative(

s) of Law Firm, person, natural person, Agent, or other entities agree(

s) to the terms and conditions of this User Agreement Fee Schedule, and each of you jointly and/or severally accept(

s) the full responsibility and liability for the charges/fees described herein. In the event you choose to involve yourself with and/or engage the private party of: Angela Marissa of the Greter family, claimant/secured party principal creditor in any manner by default, mistake or otherwise. Nothing in this Notice or any other agreement/contract, Notice or User Agreement Fee

Schedule confers or purports to confer on any non-Principal or Third party, any benefit or any right to enforce any term(

s) of this or any agreement/contract.

Fees/currencies/charges for service/costs incurred Hourly rate for time, labour, effort(s) $300.00 per hour (Pricing in CDN Dollars) Filing of court claims, defenses or other documents $300.00 per filing Time in court of any kind or jurisdiction $1,500.00 per day Educational Services $650.00 per session Travel and mileage in any matter $300.00 per hour/$1.00 per kilometer Receiving any junk or unsolicited mail $100.00 per item Receiving unsolicited/unwanted phone calls $250.00 per call Erroneous reports with any Credit Bureau causing restraint/restriction $600.00 per dollar demanded by Debtor, of Trade damages subject to triple Damages, equal to the amount of indebtedness, mistakenly reported with any and all Credit Reporting Bureau Any transgressions against me, my family, or anyone under my care or my interests that is or are perpetrated by peace/police officers, armed/security forces, government principal, agents or justice system participants are Bound by Lawful intrinsic Currency Fees of THREE HUNDRED ($300.00) .999% PURE COMMERCIAL GRADE SILVER DOLLARS PER HOUR or portion thereof if being ordered, questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed or otherwise regulated, ONE THOUSAND ($1000.00) .999% PURE COMMERCIAL GRADE SILVER DOLLARS PER ITEM of any personal or intellectual property registered under duress, THREE THOUSAND ($3000.00) .999% PURE COMMERCIAL GRADE SILVER DOLLARS PER HOUR if handcuffed, transported, incarcerated, or subjected to any frivolous adjudication process without my express written and verified consent, TEN THOUSAND ($10 000.00) .999% PURE COMMERCIAL GRADE SILVER DOLLARS PER DAY PER ITEM if any personal property held by me is taken away from me without my express written and verified consent, a minimum of ONE MILLION ($1 000 000.00) .999% PURE COMMERCIAL GRADE SILVER DOLLARS PER INCIDENT if forced in duress to submit fingerprints or biometric data to any agency, ONE HUNDRED MILLION ($100 000 000.00) .999% PURE COMMERCIAL GRADE SILVER DOLLARS PER INCIDENT for any torture, injury or violence brought against me, my family or anyone under my care, and ONE BILLION ($1 000 000 000.00) .999% PURE COMMERCIAL GRADE SILVER DOLLARS PER INCIDENT if injected or any private organic matter such as blood/tissue or DNA samples are forcibly removed from me under duress.

I Claim and Reserve the·Right choose a Lawful method of payment upon demand. I Claim and Reserve the Right to Triple My Fees in any attempt(

s) to commit fraud against me or if Silver Dollar Lawful Tender is tampered with or counterfeited in any manner. I Claim and Reserve the Right to register a UCC/PPSA Commercial Lien on All transgressor(

s) properties and assets in order to obtain and secure payment of this User Agreement Fee Schedule. I Claim and Reserve the Right to use a Notary Public, Commissioner, or any two (2) people to secure payment of this User Agreement Fee

Schedule against any transgressors who, by their actions or omissions, harm me or anyone under my care or my interests, directly or by proxy in any way. Payment in full is due not later than TEN (10) days after receipt or invoice. Payment must be made payable to ANGELA MARISSA GRETER. Interest is calculated at 3 percent per month, compounded on all overdue accounts.

Other miscellaneous charges may apply, postage, obtaining Dishonour, Non-Acceptance Notary Protests and Certificates, injunctions, judgements, Certified/Registered Mail, air travel, meals, insurance, vehicle rentals, accommodations, collection fees, Bailiff charges, Lien/Security Interest, Registration Fees, Legal Fees, and other costs incurred will be billed at cost plus fifty (50) percent. Prices, currencies, terms and conditions subject to change without Notice. Non-commercial Autograph By: [signature]

The Living Woman, Secured party Principal creditor, Agent, Angela Marissa Greter Fee

Schedule No. AMG-02222014-FS Common-Law Claim by: Angela Marissa Greter (c) 2014 I, Angela Marissa Greter, Reserve all my Rights. This document may not be reproduced by any medium for any purpose whatsoever by anyone without written permission. Appendix “C” - Rebuttal to Service Alberta, Crown Debt Collections THIS IS A PRIVATE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES Rebuttal to Service Alberta, Crown Debt Collections Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent Angela Marissa Greter [address] April 2, 2015 Attn: Carla Dec Service Alberta, Crown Debt Collections P.O.

Box 11416 Edmonton, Alberta TSJ 3K6 Dear Carla Dec: I am in receipt of your letter dated March 16, 2015 and will provide my rebuttal at this time: 1. You indicated that you have contacted me previously to obtain my cooperation. This is interesting to me as I have also contacted your office (agents or third party interlopers) on numerous occasions and offered to settle this matter. I was told that my requests were "irrelevant and unnecessary" and that your office would not respond to these questions/concerns that I had expressed.

Despite the opinion expressed by your department on this matter, the questions/concerns that I voiced are actually deeply relevant and necessary. It is not for your office to decide whether these will be addressed or not. The onus of full disclosure to the contract, under common law, lies with Service Alberta, Crown Debt Collections and/or Student Aid Alberta Service Centre.

Upon review of all previous correspondence (which should have been forwarded to you in full, as there are receipts showing that all correspondence has been received by the various departments that have dealt with this matter) there is no record of a refusal to pay, default, or other dishonourable acts. Instead, there have been numerous opportunities provided for the Government of Alberta, through its contracted provider, Student Aid Alberta Service Centre, to stay in honour. These have been met with non-response.

The alleged loan should not be considered to be in arrears as this matter has been in dispute since July 2013. 2. "Copies" of any loan documents that were sent to me are insufficient evidence and do not meet the requirements of full disclosure. In addition, the "copies" of the loan document do not show a counter-signatory. I have the right to the information that I requested in regard to this matter.

3. It is with great offence and disappointment that I would receive such a shameful response from the Government of Alberta to my previous letter. These are not, in any way, "irrelevant" or "unnecessary" requirements. These requirements are repeated below and simplified as much as possible: a. Proof of the existence of an alleged account or contract in the flesh and blood name of Angela Marissa Greter ( NOT the legal name) duly signed and witnessed by both parties, not a unilateral agreement and upon which signed page there is reference to the entire agreement. b.

Please produce the original promissory note and contact me for inspection by my hand and not a copy and/or affidavit/certificate of the note. c. Proof of claim that the Government of Alberta and/or Student Aid Alberta Service Centre is the current holder of the above mentioned original debt instrument and that it has not been on-sold to another party. d. A true certified copy of the actual accounting whereby the Government of Alberta or Student Aid Alberta Service Centre has incurred a loss of the alleged debt ( proven loss ).

This may be provided via accounting through the bank proving that a true loss occurred. 4. The Government of Alberta is accountable to the people. It is expected that correspondence between any Government of Alberta office and myself will be signed by an individual that may be held liable for their actions and words. It is unacceptable to merely provide a statement of account for any amount of money allegedly owing or owed to the Government of Alberta or Student Aid Alberta Service Centre by ANGELA MARISSA GRETER.

I have made numerous attempts to settle this matter with the Student Aid Alberta Service Centre through written correspondence dated July 28, September 2, September 22, and December 8 of 2013. These attempts have been met with either non-response or insufficient response due to inadequate information provided. I must conclude that the true evidence of this loan does not exist and that full disclosure was not and cannot be provided. The Government of Alberta and/or Student Aid Alberta Service Centre has until April 21, 2015 to respond in full to this letter.

If the Government of Alberta and/or Student Aid Alberta Service Centre does not respond within the allotted time, I will consider its silence to be assent and agreement that no debt exists. As such, I will consider the matter between us to have been legally and financially settled. All response will be through written correspondence only, clearly indicating the name of the government agent whom is responding. Any attempt to contact me via telephone will not be met with a response. Without prejudice, ill will, afterthought, malicious intent or frivolous vexation, [signature] Angela Marissa Greter