Anderson v Ossowski, 2021 ABQB 456

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Anderson v Ossowski, 2021 ABQB 456 Date: 20210611 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 _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Pseudolaw, or Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments [OPCA], are a collection of legally incorrect and abusive strategies marketed by conmen, “OPCA gurus”, to gullible, ill-informed, and often criminal anti-government activists: Meads v Meads , 2012 ABQB 571 [ Meads ]. Pseudolaw is marketed as the allegedly true superior law that has been concealed from the public.

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 . [ 2 ] Sandra Anderson [Ms. Anderson] is an OPCA litigant, a person who attempts to use pseudolaw to advance illegal and illegitimate claims. Ms. Anderson is also a horse smuggler. In 2019, on two separate occasions, the Canada Border Service Agency [CBSA] seized horses that Ms. Anderson attempted to smuggle into Canada. When the horse smuggling was detected, Ms. Anderson had to pay $56,201.60 in fines for the release of the two horses. Ms.

Anderson is also currently facing Customs Act , RSC 1985, c 1 (2nd Supp ) and Criminal Code , RSC 1985, c C-46 charges in relation to her horse smuggling. [ 3 ] Ms. Anderson has apparently concluded that the horse seizures, fines, and court charges are illegal - a “Trespass” upon her “common law” rights and her “property”. [ 4 ] The Court’s current involvement with Ms. Anderson began, on March 23, 2021, when Ms. Anderson filed an unconventional bundle of documents with the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench that named eleven Defendants.

The Anderson March 23, 2021 filings purport to set up the “Anderson Court”, a “common law court”. Ms. Anderson, “prosecutor”, would then purport to conduct an “Anderson Court” jury trial of the eleven Defendants, who are CBSA staff and employees and a Public Prosecution Service of Canada Crown Prosecutor, demanding refund of her horse smuggling fines, $500,000 in punitive damages, and recognition that Ms. Anderson is not subject to Canadian statute law. Ms.

Anderson’s March 23, 2021 filings demand that she will be able to commandeer the facilities of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench to conduct the “Anderson Court” proceedings. Ms. Anderson threatened court staff and judges who might interfere with that, a further “Trespass”. [ 5 ] On May 3, 2021, Counsel for the Attorney General of Canada, by letter, referred to the Court the March 23, 2021 materials 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. [ 6 ] In a decision reported as Anderson v Ossowski , 2021 ABQB 382 [ Anderson #1 ] , I concluded that Ms. Anderson’s March 23, 2021 filings, that purported to create the “Anderson Court”, were an AVAP that ought to be subject to a document-based show-cause procedure. Anderson #1 at paras 2-6 reviews Ms. Anderson’s March 23, 2021 filings. Three of those documents are reproduced in Anderson #1 as Appendices “A-C”. I also observed in Anderson #1 at paras 19-28 that Ms.

Anderson is employing well-known OPCA theories taught by US Sovereign Citizen OPCA guru Carl (Karl) Rudolph Lentz, and his Canadian acolyte, Christopher James Pritchard, a.k.a. “Christopher James”. I directed Ms. Anderson to many court judgments from the US and Canada that have rejected Lentzian concepts, including Lentz’s bizarre “do-it-yourself” courts scheme. Ms. Anderson was asked to respond with an up to ten-page Written Submission that answered why her filings are not abusive OPCA litigation. [ 7 ] Ms. Anderson did not respond with a Written Submission.

I concluded, in a decision reported as Anderson v Ossowski , 2021 ABQB 428 [ Anderson #2 ], that Ms. Anderson therefore had not rebutted the prima facie OPCA character of her March 23, 2021 filings. That was a first basis to strike out Ms. Anderson’s Docket 2101 03903 Action: Anderson #2 at paras 11-12 . [ 8 ] However, that was not all that Ms. Anderson did. On May 27, 2021 Ms. Anderson emailed the Court a document titled “NOTICE: Trespass, Liability and Fee Schedule” along with several “Exhibits”.

Among other things, myself and Counsel for the Defendants were purportedly fined 25 ounces of gold for “Trespass” on Ms. Anderson’s personal do-it-yourself vigilante court. I concluded, in Anderson #2 , the “NOTICE” demands were: 1. a legally ineffective attempt to unilaterally impose demands and penalties on the Court and others ( Anderson #2 at para 17 ); 2. an attempt to intimidate justice system participants ( Anderson #2 at paras 18-19, 33 ); and 3. otherwise, meaningless ( Anderson #2 at paras 20-23 ). [ 9 ] That was a second, independent basis on which to strike out Ms.

Anderson’s Docket 2101 03903 Action: Anderson #2 at paras 24-25 . Her May 27, 2021 document was a further abuse of the Court. Although Ms. Anderson had the correct law pointed out to her in Anderson #1 , Ms. Anderson instead “doubled down”, and continued and escalated her pursuit of impossible, abusive, and imaginary “Anderson Court” proceedings, where she would purportedly illegally exercise do-it-yourself vigilante “justice”. [ 10 ] When an action is terminated via the CPN7 process, the usual practice of this Court is to award costs in favour of the litigant who referred the matter to the Court: e.g.

Ahad v Calgary Housing Company , 2020 ABQB 450 at para 9 ; Phillips v Kenney , 2020 ABQB 452 at para 9 ; Skrypichayko v Law Society of Alberta , 2020 ABQB 604 at para 43 ; Feeney v Alberta , 2020 ABQB 633 at para 6 . Successful litigants are presumptively due “Schedule C” costs, unless the Court orders otherwise: Rule 10.29(1). [ 11 ] I observed in Anderson #2 at paras 35-36 that the Court has a broad authority to vary costs awards, including as a response to bad litigant conduct. Specifically, I concluded Ms.

Anderson had engaged in the following court and litigation misconduct that requires elevated costs: 1. unnecessarily lengthened a proceeding ( Rule 10.33(2)(a)), 2. denied or refused to make admissions ( Rule 10.33(2)(b)), 3. engaged in unnecessary and/or improper litigation ( Rule 10.33(2)(d)), 4. filed irregular documents ( Rule 10.33(2)(e)), and 5. “engaged in misconduct” ( Rule 10.33(2)(g)). [ 12 ] I requested Ms. Anderson provide an up to five-page written submission on why she should not be subject to an elevated costs

award: Anderson #2 at para 37 . As before, Ms. Anderson did not take the opportunity to make submissions to the Court. Instead, Ms. Anderson, on June 8, 2021, sent my office an email that read: Please see attached. Notice to agent is notice to principal Notice to principal is notice to agent Thanks Sandra [ 13 ] What was attached were copies of the Anderson #1 and Anderson #2 decisions. Both decisions were annotated with a Sharpie, in an identical way, on every page: this seventh day of June two thousand and twenty one.

No Trespass Contract declined All rights reserved Sandra-ann [ink fingerprint] _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sandra-ann This text was written diagonally over each page, running from the top left to the bottom right corners, at a 45 degree angle. Ms. Anderson titled these two documents “Contract Rooke May 13th declined.pdf” and “Contract Rooke June 1st 2021-Declined.pdf”. Appendix “A” is the first page of the “Contract Rooke May 13th declined.pdf” document. [ 14 ] I conclude that Ms.

Anderson’s annotated Anderson #1 and Anderson #2 decisions are intended to first nullify and evade the effect of those judgments, and, second, that Ms. Anderson now seeks to avoid facing court costs. That is not how things work. The Sharpie “Contract declined” motif is one that this Court has seen for over a decade. It is meaningless. A court decision is not a contract or contract offer. A court decision is a legally binding expression of the Court’s reasoning and authority over those who are subject to Canadian law. That includes Ms. Anderson. [ 15 ] Ms.

Anderson cannot “opt out” of the Court proceedings she initiated. There is no lawsuit contract: Meads at para 394 ; Banville c Agence du Revenu du Québec , 2017 QCCQ 16190 at paras 31-32 , 40-43, aff’d 2018 QCCA 386 ; Hewitt v Corbett , [2016] FCCA 776 at para 78. Claiming “All rights reserved” is meaningless in this context: Medicard Finance Inc v Szalontai , 2001 BCPC 86 at para 5 . [ 16 ] In short, Ms. Anderson is still attempting to apply pseudolaw, now to evade the consequences of her abusive and illegal activities.

That is a further aggravating factor when evaluating what costs award should be imposed on Ms. Anderson. [ 17 ] OPCA litigation demands elevated costs consequences: Meads at paras 594-600 . Costs awards have a “carrot vs stick” function of encouraging good court practices and discouraging abusive, excessive, and unnecessary litigation: British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v Okanagan Indian Band , 2003 SCC 71 at paras 22-26 . In the case of Ms. Anderson, the “stick” half of that function is in play. Following on my conclusions in Anderson #1 , Anderson #2 , and this decision, I find as fact and law that: 1. Ms.

Anderson has persistently engaged in inherently abusive OPCA litigation, including after Ms. Anderson was informed and cautioned as to the illegal and abusive character of those activities; 2. Ms. Anderson’s OPCA activity continues to the present, unabated; 3. Ms. Anderson seeks to both illegally and unlawfully:

a) target and intimidate judges, and government, Crown, and court actors, and

b) purports to shield herself from the legal consequences of that; 4. Ms. Anderson has had two separate opportunities to participate in actual Canadian court proceedings in response to Decisions of this Court, but, in each case, Ms. Anderson has instead chosen to pursue pseudolaw schemes, even when Ms. Anderson was provided with authorities that demonstrated those OPCA strategies were hopeless, abusive, and wasted court and litigant resources; 5. Ms. Anderson has pursued, and continued to pursue, hopeless, improper, unnecessary, and abusive proceedings;

6. Ms. Anderson’s litigation misconduct is seriously aggravated by her employing vigilante OPCA “do-it-yourself” court proceedings, and purporting to have the authority to prosecute government and Crown personnel, when they exercise of their duties; and 7. Ms. Anderson’s irregular documents that purport to establish a vigilante do-it-yourself court by commandeering the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench and its facilities are prima facie contempt of the Court. All these conclusions call for an elevated costs “stick”. [ 18 ] Ms. Anderson has sued eleven Defendants, who are each presumptively due their

Schedule “C” court costs: Rule 10.29(1). Ms. Anderson’s original filings sought $500,000 in “fair and just compensation punitive”. The

Schedule C, category 7(1), “Applications: contested” amount for Column 3 is $1,350. I conclude that Ms. Anderson’s litigation misconduct warrants a higher elevated amount of $2,500, per Defendant. [ 19 ] I therefore order that Ms. Anderson pay $2,500 in costs to each Defendant, forthwith. Counsel for the Defendants shall prepare and serve the court Order giving effect to this Decision. Ms. Anderson’s approval of that Order is not required, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Ms.

Anderson may be served this Decision and that Order by email to the address listed on her filings: andersonasandra@gmail.com. [ 20 ] As I did in Anderson #1 at para 36 , I again caution Ms. Anderson that pursuing OPCA strategies will bring her no benefit, and, instead, will very likely have the opposite effect. Her path forward is up to her, but, again, I urge her to read and give credence to the many cases I have cited in response to her litigation. Ms. Anderson would also likely benefit from consulting with a lawyer, rather than the “counselor at law” she mentioned in her May 27, 2021 “NOTICE”. Ms.

Anderson might also consider asking her “counselor at law” to provide a refund, given the consequences of his or her advice. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 11 th day of June, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Sandra Anderson Self-represented Litigant Cameron G. Regehr Department of Justice Prairie Region for the Defendants Appendix “A” - Page One of “Contract Rooke May 13th declined.pdf”