Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 134

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 134 Date: Docket: 1801 01164 Registry: Calgary Between: Brenden Randall Rothweiler Plaintiff - and - Julie Payette, governor general, Jody Wilson-Raybould, minister of justice, attorney general of canada, Kathleen Ganley, minister of justice solicitor general, and Naheed Nenshi, mayor of Calgary Defendants _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I.

Introduction [ 1 ] On January 23, 2018 Brenden Randall Rothweiler [Rothweiler] filed a Statement of Claim in this action in Calgary against:

• “Julie Payette, governor general”, • “Jody Wilson-Raybould, minister of justice, attorney general of Canada”, • “Kathleen Ganley, minister of justice solicitor general”, and • “Naheed Nenshi, mayor of Calgary”. [ 2 ] The body of the Statement of Claim reads, cryptically: 1.

All defendants are in tacit agreement to the following, where I a man require immediate restoration of my property and just and fair compensation in the amount of 22 million dollars ($22,000,000.00 CAD) for harm loss and trespass to it by all government agents involved in void jurisdiction tribunals cited that harmed me to this day, as at the age of 15 I was arrested, imprisoned and tortured in a private tribunal for a victimless crime under a statutory rule of contract in a jurisdiction that didn't apply to me having all my rights an dignities violated and trespassed on. 2.

I have evidence to the facts and I am witness to the events. 3. Each respondent in their personal and private capacities have waived all opportunities [sic] to discuss this matter further. 4. I require the immediate payment of 22 million dollars CAD for damages, trespass and harm as per notice. 5. I require written certification of subrogation of the cited estate as per my notices. 6.

I require a clean and clear record with written acknowledgement that you have clear all void jurisdiction created attachments to the legal estate name BRENDEN-RANDALL: ROTHWEILER ESTATE that could violate my ability to travel freely and servants ignorant to my rights as per my notices. 7. An affidavit and evidence to the facts are attached. 8.

I have performed due diligence in this matter. [ 3 ] The Statement of Claim concludes with a demand for $22 million, “Written certification of subrogation of the estate.”, and “DO NOT DETAIN attached to the legal estate name of BRENDEN-RANDALL: ROTHWEILER ESTATE.” [ 4 ] To date there is no indication on the file of the within Action that the Statement of Claim, as filed, was served on all of the four Defendants. Nor have the four defendants been found in default. Nevertheless, on January 30, 2018, Rothweiler made an ex parte desk application for a judgment. That was rejected by Master Farrington.

Rothweiler then again on February 9, 2018 filed a second nearly identical “Default Judgment as per tacit agreement”. The attached draft order states: Pay me, the living man, whom I am creditor beneficiary and granter of the estate BRENDEN-RANDALL: ROTHWEILER ESTATE all monies cited along with the abolishment of all void jurisdiction tribunal attachments to the estate as follows: 10 million in $1 million postal orders, and 5 million in $100,000 postal orders, and 5 million in $50,000 postal orders, and 2 million in $10,000 postal orders CAD.

Written verification of the abolishment of all void jurisdiction tribunal created attachments/records that may inhibit my right to travel freely uninhibited by public servants ignorant of my rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter and attached conveyances.

A clean and clear record with 'Do Not Detain' attached to the estate name period. [ 5 ] Rothweiler’s ex parte application was rejected by Master Farrington in an Endorsement reported as Rothweiler v Payette , 2018 ABQB 108 [ Rothweiler #1 ]. [ 6 ] In Rothweiler #1 Master Farrington concluded that this action involved a set of abusive and legally incorrect ideas which I labelled “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments”, or “OPCA”, in Meads v Meads , 2012 ABQB 571 , 543 AR 215. [ 7 ] The Court, now on its own motion and under its inherent jurisdiction takes steps, to minimize abuse of its processes via this lawsuit and, more generally, from Rothweiler himself.

II. Analysis [ 8 ] I have reviewed Rothweiler’s Statement of Claim and other materials which Rothweiler has filed. One item is an “Affidavit of Service” which indicates Rothweiler has sent certain documents including the Statement of Claim to the Defendant Wilson-Raybould “... as Agent to Principal under Law of Agency, to serve all other defendant(s) ...”. Needless to say, this does not comply with the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 [the Rules , or, individually, a Rule ]

Part 11 procedures for service of a statement of claim, and, beyond that, it is difficult to see how the Federal Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada would be an agent of the other Defendants, particularly since two belong to entirely different government structures. [ 9 ] The “Affidavit of Service” attaches other documents which finally bring to light exactly what this entire matter is

(purportedly) about. There are two processes underway. A. The ‘Strawman’ Myth [ 10 ] First, Rothweiler subscribes to a remarkably persistent and pernicious OPCA misconception that there are two of him. One is an “estate”, and it is identified by all upper-case letters: “BRENDEN-RANDALL: ROTHWEILER ESTATE”. The other part of him is “the Creditor of the estate”.

The “Creditor” is “... a man, a living man and not a dead corporate entity and a debtor to a trust that I am in fact sole beneficiary, creditor, grantor and administrator of.” [ 11 ] Rothweiler postulates these two entities are linked by a contract, and that government authority and actions that affected him were only made possible via this contract. He alleges that the government acted against Rothweiler via this contract and his “estate”, but that was a fraud.

As a “sovereign” he claims he was never subject to “the private crown corporation of Canada” and so he demands compensation for alleged harm he claims to have experienced and that he be made immune from government action by “... a clean and clear record with written acknowledgement that you have cleared all void jurisdiction ...”. [ 12 ] This is how Rothweiler expresses his complaint about the “estate” in his own words in an undated document “ATTN: Jody Wilson-Raybould”: The private crown corporation of Canada of which you hold office for is accountable for all the harm caused to this day.

Failure to act makes all parties in breach of trust of their oaths of office and puts them in malfeasance. I require, through administration of justice and administration of common law, that I, a man, Brenden Rothweiler and my property and my human rights be protected and upheld and restored in common law jurisdiction, while processing my papal property in the form of a desk order to all my orders as follows to be created and carried and upheld. ...

I am standing in truth and you are standing in dishonor by non-rebuttal An undisputed/ refuted notice stands as truth in a court of law, through the notarial process all parties including yourself are already in tacit agreement by non-rebuttal to my previous notices and you have waived All rights and opportunities to discuss this matter further. ... I ask, where is the foundation contract and where is my certification of subrogation through all my trials and tribulations? I've revealed the fraud in this and no defendant has disagreed.

You have an oath to uphold the common law and you are a public servant under oath to uphold the administration of justice and common law and uphold my common law rights. When I speak as a man of the land I speak for the people in a singular and plural capacity. I am standing in truth and all defendants are standing in dishonor as all parties are in tacit agreement to wipe out and expunge the record as per my notices.

As I have given more than the lawful amount of time to rebut these matters, I require payment within 5 days as opposed to the 20-day time period, as we both know there have been verified delivered notices that have not received a response and I have waited long enough for resolution on this matter I also require written certification of subrogation of the legal estate named BRENDEN-RANDALL:ROTHWEILER ESTATE I am the Creditor of the estate. I am not the estate.

I am a man, a living man and not a dead corporate entity and debtor to a trust that I am in fact sole beneficiary, creditor, grantor and administrator of. [ 13 ] The problem for Rothweiler is that this duality where he, the “living man”, has distinguished himself from the “BRENDEN- RANDALL:ROTHWEILER ESTATE” is the notorious “double/split person” or ‘Strawman’ concept, which has no basis in law. It’s a myth. He is just one individual. There is no separate “estate” linked to him. It does not matter what letter case one uses for his name or whether he adds strange punctuation inside the name.

There is just one Brenden Randall Rothweiler. [ 14 ] The ‘Strawman’ concept has been rejected in innumerable court decisions in Canada and every other country where it has appeared: Meads v Meads , at paras 417-446 . Nevertheless, it seems to hold a strange fascination for OPCA litigants. If one could really split apart a physical and ‘legal’ aspects of an individual the results under the English tradition common law would probably be a slave, a human without legal status: Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency) , 2017 ABQB 123 at paras 89-95 , [2017] DTC 5024.

Fortunately, that drastic outcome is nothing but a thought experiment, since it is impossible to achieve that ‘split’ under Canadian law. [ 15 ] The ‘Strawman’ scheme is so notoriously bad (“fanciful”, “no rational support”, and “no basis in the law”) that, in Fiander v Mills , 2015 NLCA 31 at paras 20-21 , 40, 368 Nfld & PEIR 80, the Newfoundland Court of Appeal concluded that anyone who even uses this motif in court is presumed to act in bad faith, and for a “vexatious and abusive” ulterior purpose.

A court that encounters the ‘Strawman’ may act pre-emptively to terminate or restrict litigation abuse based on this notoriously false idea. This rule from Fiander v Mills has been subsequently adopted in many Alberta cases, including Re Boisjoli , 2015 ABQB 629 , 29 Alta LR (6th) 334, Gauthier v Starr , 2016 ABQB 213 , 86 CPC (7th) 348; Alberta v Greter , 2016 ABQB 293 ; Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency) ; and Re Gauthier , 2017 ABQB 555 , aff’d 2018 ABCA 14 . [ 16 ] In Crossroads-DMD Mortgage Investment Corporation v Gauthier , 2015 ABQB 703 at para 41 , 60 RPR (5th) 28, Master Schulz observed: ...

The “Strawman” is therefore not merely a myth. It is litigation poison. ... That is an apt characterization of this ridiculous, but to OPCA litigants, apparently hypnotic piece of pseudolaw.

[ 17 ] The fact that Rothweiler has deployed the ‘Strawman’ concept in his materials is a basis that I can and do conclude that he presumptively has sued the Defendants in bad faith and for an abusive process. I therefore stay his action against the Defendants and will order that Rothweiler provide submissions to rebut the presumption that he is engaged in vexatious, abusive litigation. If he fails to rebut that presumption then I will strike out his lawsuit, per Rule 3.68. B. Three/Five Letters [ 18 ] That is not the only problematic aspect of Rothweiler’s litigation.

The second major component of his scheme provides the alleged basis for Rothweiler’s claim that he is owed $22 million, and why he has a “Default Judgment as per tacit agreement”. [ 19 ] Each of the four Defendants apparently received a set of demand letters, one set of which (addressed with Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould) is reproduced as Appendices A to D.

These make up what is commonly called a Three/Five Letters process: Bank of Montreal v Rogozinsky , 2014 ABQB 771 at paras 55-73 , 603 AR 261, see also Re Boisjoli , at paras 49-57 ; Alberta v Greter , at paras 11-22 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v McDougald , 2017 ABQB 124 at paras 24-26 . The Three/Five Letters scheme is also known by other names: an “administrative process”, “notary judgment”, or, the term that Rothweiler has used, a “notarial process”. [ 20 ] In brief, the Three/Five Letters is a series of demanding documents that are sent by the OPCA litigant to a target.

Each is a foisted unilateral agreement, a document which purports to unilaterally place obligations on the recipient: Meads v Meads , at paras 447- 528 .

Failure to meet criteria set in the foisted unilateral agreement or silence is claimed to be “tacit assent”, “tacit agreement”, or “tacit procuration”. [ 21 ] Rothweiler’s Three/Five Letters scheme resembles the one used in Re Boisjoli , where, at the end of the process, the result is allegedly a binding legal decision that can then be enforced in court or by other means. [ 22 ] The first documents, dated December 2, 2017, are identified in Rothweiler’s materials as the “first notice”, accepts the recipients “oath of office” and attempts to invoke: ... full liability on you in your office and private capacity ... to correct the wrongdoings and harm cause to I, a man with all his rights and dignities violated and trespassed on, causing me harm ... [ 23 ] Rothweiler continues to say he has been subject to state actions which caused him harm “... under a statutory rule of contract in a jurisdiction that didn’t apply to me ...”.

This was “... designed to create revenues for an estate that the clerk, acting as a judge fraudulently administered without written delegated authority ...”. The contract in question was he, “the living man”, was “attached as surety to the legal name of BRENDEN-RANDALL: ROTHWEILER ESTATE”. [ 24 ] Rothweiler, states that, per his “sovereign immunity”, he demands the recipients of his letters “... facilitate and process a settlement ...” and “... clear all void jurisdiction-created attachments to the legal name ...”.

They had 20 days to reply. [ 25 ] Unsurprisingly, apparently Rothweiler’s targets did not respond to his satisfaction, and so he sent the second undated letter, reproduced in Appendix B. This essentially restates the claim in the first letter and offers a seven-day extension to the deadline set in the first letter. A third letter followed (Appendix C), which offers another seven day extension but warns that silence “... will enact a binding contract ...” and failure to refute Rothweiler’s allegations “... will be in acceptance of a default judgment against you ...”. [ 26 ] The next letter (Appendix

D) allegedly seals the deal, declaring that Rothweiler has now won, and as a result has obtained a binding agreement for the claims he seeks. ... you are now in default and in agreement to all the areas outlined in those notices. This notice of demand is for the monetary settlement and of all negative attachments to the legal estate name BRENDEN- RANDALL:ROTHWEILER ESTATE.

As per the previous notices your oath of office has been accepted and you are in a malfeasance of office along with full liability in your private /official capacity. ... you are now required by the Charter and attached conveyances, to restore my property as compensation for the harm done to me. ... The compensation amount tacitly agreed to of twenty two million dollars made payable to me ...

I a man demand immediate restoration of my property and just and fair compensation in the above cited amount as per the rule of law and administration of justice which I will seek through the court should you fail to resolve this notice of demand. [ 27 ] Rothweiler claims that the four letters he has sent are evidence and proof, and that the Defendants “... will be liable for any and all costs incurred during the court process including punitive damages.” [ 28 ] The basic and critical flaw with the Three/Five Letters scheme is the same defect which invalidates all foisted unilateral agreements.

The law in Canada is clear: silence does not mean agreement and cannot create a binding authority except where authorized by legislation: reviewed in Meads v Meads , at paras 458-472 .

A document that purports to unilaterally impose an obligation on another has no legal effect: Papadopoulos v Borg , 2009 ABCA 201 at para. 4 ; Henry v El , 2010 ABCA 312 at para 3 , 193 ACWS (3d) 1099, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 34172 (14 July 2011). [ 29 ] This would appear to mean that Rothweiler’s litigation is based on an imaginary “Default Judgment based on tacit agreement” that has no merit in law, and that is a basis on which I may strike out this action. [ 30 ] I also note another complication. In Re Boisjoli , an OPCA litigant did much the same thing as Rothweiler, and claimed that

him receiving a traffic ticket was a basis for a $225,000.00 “default judgment” purportedly obtained by a Three/Five Letters process. Boisjoli then tried to file that “default judgment” in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. I concluded in Re Boisjoli , at paras 58-69 that Boisjoli’s attempts to file that default judgment established on a balance of probabilities that he had committed the Criminal Code , RSC 1985, c C-46, s 423.1 offense of intimidation of a justice system participant: 423.1(1) No person shall, without lawful authority, engage in any conduct with the intent to provoke a state of fear in ... (

b) a justice system participant in order to impede him or her in the performance of his or her duties ... [ 31 ] Boisjoli was subsequently committed to be tried on such charge, in this Court, in April 2018 ( R v Boisjoli , Edmonton 10850061Q1 (Alta QB)). [ 32 ] Rothweiler’s action appears to also offend Criminal Code , s 423.1. The Criminal Code , s 2 definition of “justice system participant” includes “a member of the Senate, of the House of Commons, of a legislative assembly or of a municipal council”, which captures at least three of the four Defendants. III.

Conclusion [ 33 ] In light of Rothweiler’s employing the OPCA ‘Strawman’ scheme where he claims to be divided into two separate entities, I conclude, per Fiander v Mills , that Rothweiler’s lawsuit is presumptively vexatious, an abuse of the court, and that he has conducted this litigation for a ulterior, improper purpose.

I therefore stay his lawsuit against the Defendants. [ 34 ] Rothweiler has until 30 days from the filing of this Memorandum in the Court’s registry to provide an application for leave to the Court (and served to the Defendants) to establish why his action has a lawful basis and is not an abuse of court processes.

The Defendants may also make submissions on this point, which I request should be received (if at all) by the Court by 30 days after service on them of any leave application. [ 35 ] Second, Rothweiler’s litigation activities include what appear to be indicia of litigation misconduct that potentially warrants court access restrictions, including OPCA arguments and using court processes to further illegal activities: Chutskoff v Bonora , 2014 ABQB 389 at para 92 , 590 AR 288, aff’d 2014 ABCA 444 ; Re Boisjoli , at paras 98-103 . [ 36 ] This Court has, as part of its inherent jurisdiction, the authority, on its own motion, to evaluate whether “indicia” of litigation misconduct merits the Court placing restrictions on whether an individual may initiate or continue litigation in Alberta Courts: Hok v Alberta , 2016 ABQB 651 at paras 14-25 , 273 ACWS (3d) 533, leave denied 2017 ABCA 63 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37624 (12 November 2017).

I note that in 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee) , 2017 ABQB 548 at paras 68-74 , Thomas J commented on the special character of OPCA litigation when it comes to setting appropriate court access restrictions on an abusive litigant. [ 37 ] I therefore give Rothweiler leave to provide to the Court (and serve on the Defendants) within 30 days of filing this Memorandum in the Court’s registry submissions: 1. as to whether he should be subject to court access restrictions, and 2. if so, what form those court access restrictions should take. [ 38 ] This process will be conducted in writing only: Hok v Alberta , 2016 ABQB 335 at para 105 ; Stoney v 1985 Sawridge Trust , 2017 ABQB 436 at paras 60-62 .

The Court invites the Defendants to make submissions within 30 days after service on them of any such submissions by Rothweiler on the appropriate court access restrictions for Rothweiler, if any, and to file materials relating to Rothweiler’s dispute-related activities. [ 39 ] In the interim, I order that Rothweiler is prohibited from filing any material on any Court file except for the submissions identified above, and that Rothweiler may not continue or institute further court proceedings without the leave of the Chief Justice, Associate Chief Justice, Chief Judge, or his or her designate, of the Alberta Court in question, per R v Hok , 2016 ABQB 335 at para 105 , enforced in Hok v Alberta (Justice & Solicitor General) , 2016 ABCA 356 at para 7 .

The Court will, contemporaneous with this Memorandum, prepare and file, and provide to Rothweiler, the resulting Interim Court Access Restriction Order. Rothweiler’s approval of that Order is not required. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 26 th day of February, 2018. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A.

Appearances: Brenden Randall Rothweiler for the Self-Represented Litigant None for the Defendants [ 40 ] Appendix A - First “Notarial Agreement” Letter DATE: December 02, 2017 Attn: Federal Minister of Justice & Attorney General Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada I, BRENDEN-RANDALL: ROTHWEILER ESTATE, am accepting your oath of office and invoking full liability on you in your office and private capacity, to carry out the following tasks as follows: to correct the wrongdoings and harm caused to I, a man with all his rights and dignities violated and trespassed on, causing me harm say as follows: From the time I was first imprisoned and tortured at 15 years of age in a private tribunal for a victimless crime, under a statutory rule of contract in a jurisdiction that didn't apply to me, harm and damages to my property by government have accumulated since then.

As per the Charter and attached conveyances of which I have studied with due diligence, I have come to the conclusion that I have a right to remedy in the amount of 22 million dollars, as all proceedings attached to the legal name and or estate stemming from that fraudulent hearing, when I was innocent and the victim of a void jurisdiction/judgment bank tribunal designed to create revenues for an estate that the clerk, acting as a judge fraudulently administrated without written delegated authority at the time over.

All your records you can access for the legal crown copyright name of BRENDEN-RANDALL:ROTHWEILER ESTATE, are evidence of all the harm that has resulted from that initial trespass at my young age to this point in time, where I a man require the immediate restoration of my property and just and fair compensation for the harm, loss and trespass caused to it in all the records attached to the name, and my verified accounts as the witness with first hand knowledge of the facts of which I will swear on the record in a court of common law and attest to in this notice.

I am expanding your mandate and extending to you my sovereign immunity to facilitate and process a settlement as per the above areas and contact all parties within your office to assemble all records to the facts and parties involved in all actions against I, the living man BRENDEN-RANDALL: ROTHWEILER ESTATE that was attached as surely to the legal name of BRENDEN-RANDALL: ROTHWEILER ESTATE that I require the damages paid to me for.

I also require you to clear all void jurisdiction-created attachments to the legal name, in the form of records that could violate my ability to travel freely, unharmed by public servants ignorant to the/my rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter and attached conveyances. A clean and clear record with 'Do Not Detain' attached to the legal estate name period. From this day forward, I will sign with all rights reserved by my signings for any contracts I enter into for clarity or just use my Christian and family name.

You have 20 days from verified delivery of this notice to respond and I direct you to the criminal code section(s): (15), (122), (127), (794) and the following maxims of law: Fraud revealed null and voids all contracts from the time they were created to now, and there is no statute of limitations on fraud, and an undisputed/refuted notice stands as truth in a court of law. I trust you will conduct yourself with truth and honor in this matter as I have empowered you to do so. Regards, [signature] per BRENDEN-RANDALL: ROTHWEILER ESTATE all rights reserved [redacted] Calgary, Alberta, Canada

[redacted] Appendix B - Second “Notarial Agreement” Letter Jody Wilson-Raybould Attorney General and minister of Justice 1245 West Broadway Suite 104 Vancouver BC V6H1G7 As per my previous notice sent and verified delivered, I am sending this notice to inform you that the previous areas and lawful requirements covered in the first notice have not been responded to in the time allotted indicated in that document.

Also take notice that in this document, you are in the process of agreement by no response, should I not be informed or replied to after 7 days upon verified delivery of this second notice, after which the third notice included with this notice will be enacted. If there are any questions I will extend you the courtesy to clarify them In the next seven day period after verified delivery of this notice.

Also in addition to the areas covered in the first letter to you, I will require written certification from you, of my right to subrogation as creditor and beneficiary of the ESTATE BRENDEN-RANDALL: ROTHWEILER and I appoint you trustee and expand your mandate and accept your oath of office and full commercial liability to aid you in proper conduct in this matter.

Regards: [signature] Brenden Randall Rothweiler [redacted] Calgary AB [redacted] Appendix C: Third “Notarial Agreement” Letter Jody Wilson-Raybould Attorney General and minister of Justice 1245 West Broadway Suite 104 Vancouver BC V6H1G7 As per the second notice this third attached notice will enact a binding contract and agreement to all the areas covered in the first verified delivered notice dated 2017 12 05, should you have failed to respond in the time frame allotted in the second notice, attached to this third notice.

However I will extend another seven days from the end of the response time in the second notice attached, for you to respond verify or refute or question, after which time you will waive any opportunity to discuss this matter further and will be in acceptance of a

default judgment against you, for all the areas I required to be fulfilled in my verified delivered notices. Regards: [signature] Brenden Randall Rothweiler ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [redacted] Calgary AB [redacted] Appendix D: Final “Notarial Agreement” Letter federal minister of justice and attorney general 1245 West Broadway, Suite 104 Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6H 1G7 ATTN: Jody Wilson-Raybould, federal minister of justice and attorney general You were to have replied to my previous second and third notices.

As per my previous notices verified sent and given the lawful terms to respond you are now in default and in agreement to all the areas outlined in those notices. This notice of demand is for the monetary settlement and of all negative attachments to the legal estate name BRENDEN- RANDALL:ROTHWEILER ESTATE. As per the previous notices your oath of office has been accepted and you are in a malfeasance of office along with full liability in your private /official capacity. I have enclosed copies of these verified delivered documents for your convenience and reference.

I am the sole witness to the circumstances referred to in the first notice of claim that you received by verified mail December 5, 2017 and as such, I swear the circumstances to be true and the damage to my property since the first initial trespass at the age of 15, in a private tribunal, under a statutory rule of contract, in a jurisdiction that didn't apply to me, has accumulated since then and you are now required by the Charter and attached conveyances, to restore my property as compensation for the harm done to me.

Without prejudice to my rights for full restoration of my property, I am prepared to accept payment in the form of postal money order in the previously stated amount of 22 million dollars as a final settlement on this matter. However I will extend to you an additional five days to complete all the tasks outlined in the previous notices.

The compensation amount tacitly agreed to of twenty two million dollars made payable to me along with verification of said estate having no negative record/criminal attachments to it, as all was created through void jurisdiction/judgment tribunals in the past without a subrogation or lawful remedy to settle those matters given to me at the time. I a man demand immediate restoration of my property and just and fair compensation in the above cited amount as per the rule of law and administration of justice which I will seek through the court should you fail to resolve this notice of demand.

Take note, that if I have to commence legal proceedings in order to secure payment, this letter will be tendered as evidence of your failure to uphold your oath of office in an attempt to resolve this matter. Furthermore, you will be liable for any and all costs incurred during the court process including punitive damages. (End of paragraphs) Regards [signature] Brenden Rothweiler ALL RIGHTS RESERVED