Anderson v Ossowski, 2021 ABQB 382

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Anderson v Ossowski, 2021 ABQB 382 Date: 20210513 Docket: 2101 03903 Registry: Calgary Between: Sandra Anderson Plaintiff - and - John Ossowski, Paul MacKinnon, Joseph Lammerhirt, Lyle O’Bertos, Tyler Lord, Matthew Cobham, Laura De Kok, Randall Brittner, Melanie Brunet, Barb Zeisel, and Krissy Plume Defendants _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I.

Introduction [ 1 ] On May 3, 2021, Counsel for the Attorney General of Canada, by letter, referred to the Court a Statement of Claim filed by Sandra Anderson [Ms. Anderson] on March 23, 2021 as a candidate Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding [AVAP], pursuant

to Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7] paragraph 6. I am designated to receive and review potential CPN7 processes in Southern Alberta. [ 2 ] Ms. Anderson’s filings are unconventional. They name eleven Defendants. The first two pages of the filing are an Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench template Statement of Claim form filled in with handwriting. This is the entire content of that document: Statement of facts relied on: 1. Please see statement of Claim/Notice liability 2. Please see Document Remedy sought: 3.

Please see claim trespass Both pages have the same handwritten annotation: “I use this form, its words and formatting only for lease of court filing purposes”. [ 3 ] What follows purports to be a second “Statement of Claim”; however this proceeding is in the “Anderson Court at Court of Queens Bench” (sic). This document is replicated below in Appendix “A”. Succinctly, the “Anderson Court Statement of Claim” says a “common law” proceeding will be conducted in “the Anderson Court”. Ms. Anderson, “Sandra of the Anderson family” will be the “prosecutor” of the eleven Defendants, who are categorized as “people”.

This proceeding, that apparently will be conducted using the “leased” facilities of the Calgary Court Centre, will be a “... court of record moving under common law [not a legal proceeding] trial by jury of my peers ...” and is “... not a legal [jurisdiction] court filing or proceeding under admiralty/maritime law ...”. [ 4 ] Next is a “Claim:Trespass” reproduced as Appendix “B” where “i.woman.Sandra of the Anderson family ...” alleges “... [t]he people named in this claim did and do trespass without right ...”. The “Claim:Trespass”, among other things, says Ms.

Anderson is not subject to legislation, as those are contracts. Instead, Ms. Anderson is only subject to “common law”. The “Claim:Trespass” makes various declarations, and demands $500,000 in “fair and just compensation [punitive]”. The document is not signed, but instead bears a red ink fingerprint at the signature line, and is dated March 22, 2021. [ 5 ] After that is a document titled “Notice: Liability”, reproduced as Appendix “C”. This document appears to claim that Ms.

Anderson has the right to conduct her own do-in-yourself trial proceedings in Alberta courthouses, because these are “public courthouses”, where Ms. Anderson can, purportedly, conduct her own “Anderson Court” “common law” proceedings. Court staff are prohibited from interfering with that process: “... the [wo]man acting as registrar, Justice or Judge do not trespass on the case ... Liability [Trespass on the case] occurs if ‘ Notice: Liability ’ ignored ...” [emphasis in original]. The “Notice: Liability” is also signed with a red ink fingerprint and dated March 22, 2021. [ 6 ] What follows are five “Exhibits”.

These are a number of government and court documents (as in from actual courts, rather than “the Anderson Court”), and photos of two horses. [ 7 ] Counsel for the Defendants identifies Ms. Anderson’s filing as engaging Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments, or “OPCA”, a category of legally incorrect and abusive strategies marketed to gullible, ill-informed, and often criminal anti-government activists: Meads v Meads , 2012 ABQB 571 [ Meads ].

OPCA schemes are typically applied to evade income tax, as a “get out of jail free card”, to attack government and institutional actors, or as a way to purportedly nullify debts and get free money: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at para 178 [ Unrau #2 ]. Employing pseudolaw is always an abuse of court processes, and warrants immediate court response: Unrau #2 at paras 180, 670-671 . [ 8 ] The Defendants note that this particular do-it-yourself court OPCA strategy was recently considered and rejected in Parhar v British Columbia (Attorney General) , 2021 BCSC 700 [ Parhar ].

Blok J concluded this litigation was frivolous, vexatious, and disclosed no reasonable claim. In Parhar , an individual named Makhan Singh Parhar, who self-identified as “i:man:Mak of the Parhar family”, claimed to be advancing litigation in the “Parhar Court”. [ 9 ] After review of Ms. Anderson’s materials, I conclude that these items attempt to set up an unauthorized vigilante court proceeding based on will-known pseudolaw concepts, and, therefore, this AVAP should be subject to a CPN7 “show cause” document- based review. II.

CPN7 [ 10 ] CPN7 is a practice implemented by the Court to better manage litigation that, on its face, appears to be unmeritorious, has no prospect of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious. This practice is intended to provide a timely, proportionate, and cost-effective response to the litigants: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2018 ABQB 874 [ Unrau #1 ]. [ 11 ] If, on initial review by the Court, the pleading appears to be unmeritorious, has no prospect of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious, then the Court issues a first written decision that identifies the apparent issue(

s) which may be a basis to apply Rule 3.68 and strikeout the pleading. The party who filed the pleading is then given an opportunity, within 14 days, to provide the Court with a Written Submission of up to a total of ten pages in length that responds to, and demonstrates why, the pleading is a legitimate action and should be permitted to continue. The Written Submission must be served on the other parties to the litigation. [ 12 ] CPN7 is not for “close calls”, but instead the Court intervenes by this mechanism when the defect(

s) in question are “apparent on the face of the pleading”, and the suspect pleadings are “clearer cases of abuse”: Unrau #1 , at paras 22, 24 . Only restricted forms of evidence are considered by the Court when it conducts a CPN7 review, since this process has a very narrow focus, and operates to examine a single document and its content: Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2019 ABQB 347 at paras 24-48 [ Ubah #2 ]. There are exceptions to that rule. For example, the Court may examine other documents in the same proceeding that are related to the

suspect filing ( Ubah #2 at para 35 ), or documents and records that are evidence that the AVAP is an attempt to litigate an issue that has already been decided or closed ( Ubah #2 at para 45 ). III CPN7 Analysis [ 13 ] As a preliminary step, I will describe my understanding of what Ms. Anderson’s litigation is all about. It turns out she is a horse smuggler. Pages 9-28 of the Anderson filing include a number of Canada Border Service Agency [CBSA] Seizure Receipts, accounting documents, and the CBSA’s response to an appeal of seizure of a horse.

A Ministerial Decision by the CBSA Recourse Directorate, dated December 4, 2020 (“Exhibit D”), provides the details on Ms. Anderson’s smuggling activities. [ 14 ] On September 25, 2019, Ms. Anderson entered into Canada through the Coutts port of entry in southern Alberta. Ms. Anderson said she had been out of Canada for two weeks. When asked if she purchased anything in the period, she said she had “just 6 beers”. The CBSA officer asked what was in the trailer behind Ms. Anderson’s vehicle. Ms. Anderson then reported three horses, two of which were Canadian, while one was from the US.

When asked about the price of the US horse, Ms. Anderson said $5,000 Canadian. That horse’s name is Gaesbekers Gabbertje. When questioning about the purchase of Gaesbekers Gabbertje, the CBSA officer noticed irregularities in the documents Ms. Anderson proffered. A search of Ms. Anderson’s truck found a purchase cheque for $45,000 from a horse merchant to Ms. Anderson, and then electronic records that showed Ms. Anderson bought Gaesbekers Gabbertje for $90,000 US, not $5,000 Canadian. [ 15 ] Gaesbekers Gabbertje was seized. Ms.

Anderson was required to pay $46,056.40 (Canadian dollars) for release of the smuggled animal. Ms. Anderson paid that amount, but subsequently appealed. That appeal was rejected by the Ministerial Decision of December 4, 2020 that Ms. Anderson included in her bundle of materials. The author of that Decision, Melanie Brunet, is one of the Defendants, and is named as one of the “people” targeted in “The Anderson Court” action: “a woman: Melanie Brunet”. [ 16 ] A second horse smuggling attempt appears to have occurred earlier, on June 1, 2019. That also led to a seizure and penalty of $10,145.20.

The name of this other horse is not apparent from the “Exhibit” documents attached to Ms. Anderson’s filings. It appears Ms. Anderson paid that horse smuggling penalty as well. [ 17 ] Ms. Anderson’s horse smuggling operation had additional consequences. “Exhibit E” includes an Information by Joseph Ekkehaad Lammerhirt (another of the “people” named in the “Anderson Court” litigation: “a man: Joseph Lammerhirt”) charging Ms.

Anderson with making false statements and evading payment of duties, in breach of Customs Act , RSC 1985, c 1 (2nd Supp ), ss 153(a), 153(c), and 160, and committing fraud over $5,000, contrary to Criminal Code , RSC 1985, c C-46 , s 380(1)(a). The Information has led to criminal proceedings before the Provincial Court of Alberta. [ 18 ] The letter from Counsel for the Defendants indicates that Ms. Anderson is suing federal government officials, including the President and Executive Vice President of the CBSA, other CBSA officials, and a Public Prosecution Service of Canada Crown Prosecutor. [ 19 ] While Ms.

Anderson’s materials replicated in Appendices “A-C” may appear cryptic, this Court is very well aware of what these items entail and their source. These documents are attempts to employ pseudolaw concepts taught by US Sovereign Citizen Carl Rudolph Lentz, who usually self-identifies as “i a Man, Karl Lentz”. Lentz is an OPCA guru ( Meads at paras 85-158 ), a person who teaches ineffective pseudolaw techniques for profit. [ 20 ] Lentzian materials are easily identified because Lentz and his customers consistently refer to themselves as “i, a man” or “i, a woman”, usually with a lower case “i”.

Why they do so is not obvious. Lentz is the inventor of the do-it-yourself vigilante court scheme. In brief, Lentz says anyone can go to a government operated courthouse, and then, with the correct documents such as those in Appendix “A-C”, can requisition court facilities and conduct your own trial, as “prosecutor”, against “wrongdoers” who have “trespassed” on imaginary pseudolaw rights.

These are purportedly “common law” proceedings, as that term is misused in OPCA circles ( Meads at paras 326-330 ), rather than the “commercial” or “admiralty law” proceedings that are (falsely) claimed to be what real courts actually conduct. [ 21 ] I would comment on how proceedings in the “Anderson Court” or the “Parhar Court” would operate, except, unsurprisingly, that there are no instances I am aware of where any Canadian court has permitted Lentzian do-it-yourself courts to set up shop in their premises. [ 22 ] Lentz himself has a long and dubious litigation history.

Documented court proceedings show he has failed repeatedly in court, for example: KPL v Alabama State Board of Human Resources (2006), 2:06-cv-00942-MEF (US District Court, M.D. Alabama) – Lentz, on behalf of his son, sued numerous Alabama state agencies, the Alabama Supreme Court, the Alabama Tenth Circuit Court, 11 judges, legal aid societies, and the child’s grandmother for “Kidnaping and Failure to Train”. Among other things, Lentz sought $1 billion in damages. Lentz v Alabama (2007), 2:07-cv-641-WHA (US District Court, M.D.

Alabama) - Lentz initiated what purportedly was a class action against Alabama on behalf of all US parents who do not have custody over their children, alleging a conspiracy that breached US constitutional rights. This action was struck out on the basis of State immunity: Lentz v Alabama (29 August 2007), 2:07-cv-641-WHA (US District Court, M.D. Alabama). Lentz v Bentley (2012), 2:21-cv-1014-MHT (US District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division) - Lentz sued alleging “kidnaping” based on a “forged” instrument, and demanded $346,665,560.

Magistrate Judge Capel Jr. ruled this was a collateral attack on existing proceedings, and should be struck out: Lentz v Bentley (20 December 2012), 2:21-cv-1014-MHT (US District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division). That was then confirmed by District Judge Thompson: Lentz v Bentley (14 January 2013), 2:21-cv-1014-MHT (US District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division).

Lentz v Department of Human Resources (2013), 2:13-cv-387-MEF (US District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division) - I will reproduce the initiating document in this proceeding since it exhibits features that obviously parallel those of Ms. Anderson’s filings: ‘Federal Court’ at ‘District Court of the united States for middle Alabama’ i, a man; prosecutor Nature of case: claim claim: trespass [forgery]; DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES (verified) Wrongdoers i, require: a ‘court of record’ ; ‘trial by jury’; claim: trespass [forgery] i, a man claim: • the said wrongdoer(

s) trespass upon my property; • the causal agent of the trespass, comes by way of its use of a forged instrument; • the commencement of the wrong and harm began on August 14, 2001; • the wrong and harm continues to this day, May 25, 2013; • i, require compensation for the initial and continual trespass upon my property; • compensation due: Three-hundred and seventy-one million, Five-hundred and Twenty thousand dollars; i, say here, and will verify in open court, that all herein be true [Karl Lentz signature] May 25, 2013 [ink fingerprint] Subsequent documents filed by Lentz purport to occur in the “Lentz Court”.

Lentz’s lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice, and costs were ordered against Lentz: Lentz v Department of Human Resources (1 July 2013), 2:13-cv-387-MEF (US District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division). Lentz v Sheetz (2020), 5:20-cv-00005-MFU (US District Court, W.D. Virginia, Harrisonburg Division) - Lentz stole coffee from a coffee shop. Lentz was then arrested, convicted, and incarcerated. Lentz appears to have argued he did not have to pay for coffee since it was his birthday.

Lentz subsequently sued the owner of the coffee shop and claimed: “$440,000,000.00 , four hundred and forty million Dollars, one-million dollars per day for everyday i have been falsely accused of stealing brown liquid, also known as coffee, from a SHEETZ BROS COFFEE gas station, in Stuarts Draft VA.” (sic). [ 23 ] Lentz has also been active in other countries.

While residing in the UK, Lentz claimed to have discovered a secret, long- believed abolished common law court where Freeman-on-the-Land remedies could be obtained: Donald J Netolitzky, “The History of the Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Phenomenon in Canada” (2016) 53:3 Alta L Rev 609 at 631. Lentz personally appeared in R v zombori , (Williams Lake) 20130927 (BCSC), the trial of two Freeman-on-the-Land marijuana grow-op offenders. The Court explicitly rejected Lentz as a litigation representative.

The Zomboris’ continued to use pseudolegal concepts, were convicted, and one received an 18-month sentence: R v zombori , 2016 BCCA 9 , see also R v Zombori , 2013 BCSC 2461 . [ 24 ] Canadian courts have repeatedly rejected Lentzian pseudolaw concepts, for example: • R v d’Abadie , 2016 SKQB 101 , aff’d 2016 SKCA 72 leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37507 (28 September 2017) • SS (Re) , 2016 ABPC 170 • Taraba v Erwin , 2017 ONSC 5788 • DKD (Re) (Dependent Adult) , 2018 ABQB 1021 • Lemay v Steele , 2019 ABQB 202 , actions struck out 2019 ABQB 304 , court access restrictions imposed 2019 ABQB 429 • Alberta Treasury Branches v Hawrysh , 2019 ABQB 566

• Yaremkevich v Jacula , 2019 ABQB 620 , action struck out 2020 ABQB 175 • Babb v Parrish & Heimbecker Limited , 2019 ABQB 687 , court access restrictions imposed 2019 ABQB 831 • Watchel v British Columbia , 2019 BCSC 1087 , aff’d 2020 BCCA 100 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 39310 (17 December 2020) • Dennett v Gilbert , 2020 ONSC 6865 , action struck out 2020 ONSC 7455 • Parhar [ 25 ] Some of these cases reproduce and reject Lentzian demands for do-it-yourself vigilante courts: e.g.

Lemay v Steele , 2019 ABQB 202 at para 12 ; Lemay v Steele , 2019 ABQB 429 at para 12 ; Yaremkevich v Jacula , 2019 ABQB 620 at para 15 ; Babb v Parrish & Heimbecker Limited , 2019 ABQB 687 at paras 6-12 ; Babb v Parrish & Heimbecker Limited , 2019 ABQB 831 at para 6 . [ 26 ] More recently an apostle of Lentz has emerged in Canada: Christopher James Pritchard. Pritchard advertises his OPCA services on a website titled “A Warrior Calls” (https://awarriorcalls.com). Pritchard has had no more success than Lentz with setting up his own vigilante courts.

Attempts by “i:man: Michael [of Sekulovski family]” and “i:man:Christopher [of Pritchard family]” to act as “prosecutors” in “Sekulovski Court” were struck out as “... frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court...”, and the “prosecutors” were ordered to pay $9,282.07 in costs: Sekulovski v Arkin , 2021 ONSC 1401 . [ 27 ] Subsequently, Myers J in a separate proceeding struck out a second attempt by Sekulovski and Pritchard to set up a do-it- yourself Lentzian court, concluding: This type of gibberish is abusive on its face.

Its purpose is to clog the courts and make people waste time responding rather than helping people with actual cases. [ Sekulovsky v Maisonneuve , 2021 ONSC 1418 at para 4 .] The Sekulovsky v Maisonneuve decision at para 3 reproduces a “High Priority Communication” that Sekulovsky and Pritchard had sent to Justice Myers. That document uses language that duplicates the content of Ms. Anderson’s materials, and sports the same red ink fingerprints motif. [ 28 ] I conclude: 1. that Ms.

Anderson is attempting to conduct a do-it-yourself Lentzian court proceeding, and 2. that Canadian courts have consistently rejected those processes as fictional, ineffective, and an abuse of the court and the targeted “people”. [ 29 ] Besides simply duplicating well-known and frequently rejected Lentzian OPCA concepts, Ms. Anderson’s litigation has a second, and even more serious potential issue. It appears Ms. Anderson seeks to set up her own Court, that she controls, outside the Canadian legal system. She intends to “prosecute” government officials.

I have called this a vigilante court. [ 30 ] This Court has condemned attempts to conduct and/or enforce pseudolaw vigilante courts as an extremely serious form of litigation misconduct, reviewed in Knutson (Re) , 2018 ABQB 858 at paras 72-80 . Legal and social sciences research identifies vigilante court proceedings, like the “Anderson Court”, as a dangerous precursor of elevated illegal activity by persons who have adopted pseudolaw: e.g.

Donald J Netolitzky, “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments [OPCA] in Canada, an Attack on the Legal System” (2016) 10 JPPL 137; Barbara Perry, David Hofmann & Ryan Scrivens, “Anti-Authority and Militia Movements in Canada” (2019) 1:3 J Intelligence, Conflict, and Warfare 1; Stephen A Kent & Robin D Willey, “Sects, Cults, and the Attack on Jurisprudence” (2013) 14 Rutgers’ JL & Religion 306. [ 31 ] Furthermore, Tilleman J, in Fearn v Canada Customs , 2014 ABQB 114 at paras 201-210 , concluded that threats of, and attempts to conduct, extra-jurisdictional vigilante litigation are contempt of court. [ 32 ] I therefore request Ms.

Anderson explain why her March 23, 2021 filings are not attempted abusive and illegal OPCA litigation activities since: 1. her materials use Lentzian “do-it-yourself” court procedures that have been repeatedly rejected in Canadian and US courts, 2. the “Anderson Court” appears to be an unauthorized vigilante process purporting to have legal effect, and 3. this Court has ruled that OPCA vigilante court processes are contempt of court. IV. CPN7 Analysis [ 33 ] Ms. Anderson’s filings appear to be a suitable candidate for review per CPN7. The Court therefore seeks a response from Ms.

Anderson as to why her filings are not abusive OPCA litigation, and, more specifically: 1. How are Canadian and US court decisions that have rejected Lentzian “do-it-yourself” court procedures wrong? 2. How is the “Anderson Court” not an unauthorized vigilante process purporting to have legal effect?

3. How is the “Anderson Court” not a OPCA vigilante court process, and, therefore, why is Ms. Anderson not in prima faciecontempt of court? [34] As a result of this analysis, I order that the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2101 03903 Action is stayed. CPN7 nowadvances to its second step. 1. Ms. Anderson has until 14 days after this decision is filed to file and serve a Written Submission of no more than a total of 10pages, pursuant to CPN7, para 3(b). The Written Submission should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of Associate Chief JusticeRooke”. 2.

If no Written Submission is received by the Court by that deadline, the Court will proceed to render its final decision on whetherthe Statement of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(c)). 3. If Ms. Anderson provides and serves a Written Submission, then the Defendants have seven days to make a Written Reply of upto a total of 10 pages in length (CPN7, para 3(d)). The Written Reply should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of Associate ChiefJustice Rooke”. 4. After receipt of Ms.

Anderson’s Written Submission, and the Defendants’ Written Reply, if any, the Court will render its finaldecision on whether the Docket 2101 03903 Action should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(e)). [35] The Court will prepare and serve the Order staying the Docket 2101 03903 Action. Ms. Anderson’s approval of that Order isdispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Ms. Anderson may be served this Decision and the interim stay Order by email to the addresslisted on her filings: andersonasandra@gmail.com [36] Finally, I note to Ms.

Anderson that the Canadian case law identified in this Decision may be viewed at no expense at thewebsite She may benefit from accessing that resource. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 13th day of May, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Cameron G. Regehr Department of Justice Prairie Region for the Defendants Appendix “A” - Statement of Claim Court File No _____________ in Anderson Court at Calgary Court of Queens Bench 601 5th Street SW Calgary AB T2P 5P7

Ph: 403-297-3122 i:woman:Sandra of Anderson family prosecutor[s] a man: John Ossowski; a man: Paul MacKinnon; a man: Joesph Larnmerhirt; a man: Lyle O’Bertos; a man:Tyler Lord; a man: Matthew Cobham; a woman: Laura De Kok; a man: Randall Brittner a woman: Melanie Brunet; a woman: Barb Zeisel; a woman: Krissy Plume people Statement of Claim To the ‘people’: A CLAIM OF TRESPASS and common law court has been filed against the ‘people’ by i: woman: Sandra of the Anderson family as prosecutor.

The ‘Anderson Court’ is a court of record moving under common law and is set out in the following pages filed at a public courthouse ‘Calgary Court of Queens Bench, 601 5th Street SW Calgary’ AB T2P 5P7. i, invoke court of record moving under common law [not a legal proceeding] trial by jury of my peers; IF THE ‘people’ DO WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST SAID CLAIM, the ‘people’ must file a common law claim to defend, serve it on the prosecutors, and file it, with proof of service into the ‘Anderson Court’ Court File No. above at the ‘Calgary Court Centre -Court of Queens Bench 601 5th Street SW Calgary AB T2P 5V7, WITHIN TWENTY ONE [21] DAYS after served on the ‘people’, if served on the land known as Alberta.

IF THE ‘people’ FAIL TO DEFEND THIS CLAIM, JUDGEMENT WILL BE ORDERED AGAINST THE ‘people’ IN THEIR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE; Jurisdiction of the ‘Anderson Court’: land [common law of the people]; This is not a legal [jurisdiction] court filing or proceeding under admiralty/maritime law; The ‘Rules of civil procedure’ DO NOT APPLY to ‘Anderson Court’ moving under common law; Any/all legal documents placed into ‘Anderson Court’ are removed immediately as contempt of court; Date:______________________ Issued by: ___________________________ Local Registrar ... Appendix “B” - Claim:Trespass Claim:Trespass

I, woman,Sandra of the Anderson family now lay claim at a public courthouse to seek administration of justice under common law...trial by jury. The people named in this claim did and do trespass without right: I claim: 1. Trespass and extortion Crown File #4050045 (Police file #7010-2019-C0034, Canadian Boarder Service Agency Seizure #7050- 19-0250 / #7050-19-0462); 2. People trespassed administrating property [i:woman:Sandra of the Anderson family] without right; 3. No obligation [contract] exists with ‘people’ or agents under their control; 4.

No obligation [contract] exists ‘ Customs Act ’. ‘Excise Tax Act’, ‘ Criminal Code ’ or any codes, statutes, bylaws apply to i; 5. There is no verified claim filed i, trespass cause wrong or harm to another man or woman; 6. Require all costs associated with this, $46,266.04 for one seized horse, $10,145.25 for another seized horse and other legal filings to be returned post haste; 7. Fair and just compensation [punitive] of $500,000 agreed to by a jury of my peers if claim(

s) be true; i:woman:Sandra of Anderson family rely upon truth which makes law without required evidence produced;

a) No man or woman is property of another man or woman [people]

b) no man or woman is property of fictions [corporations] or public servants;

c) no man or woman acting in any capacity can administer property without right;

d) Contract [obligation] makes the law between people:

e) legal jurisdiction does not apply to a man or woman [people] only lawful [common law];

f) Exhibit A, B, C, D & E [see attached]: i, will swear under oath or affirmation all here in said be true; Under full liability and penalty of perjury ‘i:woman:Sandra of the Anderson family’ place my seal [thumb print] on this common law filing [public record] on this day to seek justice of said trespass as claimed; [red ink fingerprint] i:woman:Sandra of the Anderson family Dated: March 22nd, 2021 Appendix “C” - Notice: Liability i: woman: Sandra of the Anderson family Box 17 Site 5 RR2 Okotoks, AB T1S1A2 P: 949-332-9666 E: andersonasandrea@gmail.com Notice: Liability i: woman:Sandra of the Anderson family give·‘ Notice: Liability ’: 1.

All Provincial Courthouses or ‘Supreme Court’ buildings are PUBLIC; 2. We the people hold the RIGHT to access said public courthouses to seek justice; 3. We the people hold the RIGHT to lay claim and move court without trespass; 4. We the people hold the RIGHT to invoke ‘common law’ move claim and court; 5. The ‘Rules of civil procedure’ do NOT apply to man or woman or we the people; 6. The ‘Rules of civil procedure’ do NOT apply to ‘Anderson Court’;

7. The ‘Rules of civil procedure’ created by and for a private society [BAR members]; 8. All honourable people working at courthouse have duties and obligations to serve; 9. Duties & obligations DO NOT trump RIGHTS of people to access justice move court; 10. No [wo]man at said courthouse can administrate my property [filing] without right; 11. i, require the [wo]man acting as registrar, Justice or Judge do not trespass on the case; Liability [Trespass on the case] occurs if ‘ Notice: Liability ’ ignored; i, will swear under oath or affirmation that all here in said be true. [red ink fingerprint] i:woman:Sandra of the Anderson family Dated: March 22nd, 2021