Idris v Mohamed, 2021 ABQB 529

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Idris v Mohamed, 2021 ABQB 529 Date: 20210708 Docket: 4801 172079 Registry: Calgary Between: Mohamed Ismail Idris Applicant - and - Muhibo Abdi Mohamed Respondent _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On July 2, 2021, the Court received a document package from Mohamed Ismail Idris [Mr. Idris], with the cover document titled “Urgent Request / Bypass Family Docket Court”. In this document Mr. Idris has crossed out “Applicant”, and written by hand: Listed as Applicant in Error

MOHAMED ISMAIL IDRIS, Estate-Trust, Vessel Berthed 05/15/84 CQV in Trust By: Executor Mohamed-ismail: Idris. Date of Live Birth May 15, 1984 unincorporated entity All Rights Reserved. [ 2 ] The “Urgent Request” names Muhibo Abdi Mohamed [Ms. Mohamed] as the Respondent, and seeks a Chambers or Emergency Duty Justice appearance on the basis of: Demanding Restoration of my property. Return my Bloodline to me asap immediately without delay. ... I am calling for Emergency hearing, it's a matter of Life and Death and Fraud.

Court of Queen Bench Foreign actors and the informant mother of my Bloodline have conspired, manipulated, extorted, separated, deterred, severed, interfered, scapegoated, lied, character assassinated, destructive, tom apart, eliminated, coerced, displaced, ruined, distanced, stopped, created barrier, hate, removed, deprived, deceived, defrauded and trespassed, the relationship between me and my Bloodline, that's plain fraud, what the foreign actors of court of Queen Bench and the informant mother of my Bloodline are practicing or undertaking against me and my Bloodline is completely unlawful and trespass, this needs to come to a full stop, enough is enough.

This game the foreign actors of Court of Queen Bench and the informant mother of my Bloodline are playing needs to stop for now and forever, I was at the edge of losing my life for being deprived from my Bloodline for the last 4 years and 6 months, my Bloodline's brain cells growth is psychologically in critical condition because of deprivation of fatherhood in their lives. Govern yourselves accordingly. [ 3 ] Also received was an undated “Affidavit of Special Announcement or Extraordinary Announcement of Emergency Hearing” that is largely reproduced in Appendix “A”.

Many documents are attached to the “Affidavit”, including: 1. An “Affidavit for Claiming My Living Lawful Bloodline Property as Private Natural Biological Father.” 2. An “Affidavit of Truth for Immutable Rights from Divine Creator.” 3. Packets that include birth certificates for five children of Mr. Idris and Ms.

Mohamed, each of which are stamped in red ink with this: Pay to the holder without recourse for all debts, duties, fines and legacies concerning account BIRTH CERTIFICATE [social insurance number redacted] CERTIFICAT DE NAISSANCE A K A By: Mohamed-ismail: Idris Signature and Endorsement June 1, 2021 These packets also contain a document that appears to claim “Common Law Copyright and Trademark for Tradename” of the child or the child’s name, and one troy ounce of silver. 4. A “Notice to Clerk~” that threatens that failure to “record My Private Instrument” is a crime under Title 18 USC

Section 2071 and is punishable by fines and imprisonment. 5. A “Rebuttal Presumption of Death by Affidavit” that appears to seize control of “... the corpus and legal estate of MOHAMED ISMAIL IDRI” by “Mohamed-ismail: Idris ... By the Grace for “The All-Mighty””. 6. An “Affidavit for Denial of Corporate Existence and Unincorporated Status for Mohamed-ismail: Idris” that states “I Deny That I am a Corporation”. 7.

An “Affidavit of Fact - Revocation of Marriage License & Signature Revoking Any And All Adhesion / Unilateral / Ultra Vires / Inducement Contracts - Null and Void”, addressed to the Alberta Vital Statistics Office that states children are the product of “... a for- profit business venture ...”, and that irregularities in his marriage to Ms. Mohamed make that marriage “Null and Void”. This “Affidavit” attaches copies of the “Certificate of Marriage” and “Registration of Marriage” between Mr. Idris and Ms. Mohamed, and these are stamped “Null and Void” in red ink on both sides. 8.

A “Private Security Agreement” between: • the “DEBTOR MOHAMED ISMAIL IDRIS, Estate ®©™ [AN ARTIFICIAL CORPORATE ENTITY/PERSON/VESSEL]”, and • “Secured Party/Creditor: :Mohamed-Ismail: Idris Non-Resident Alien [a “Personam Sojourn and one of the people of the “Posterity”]” that creates a $100 million US dollar Fidelity Bond for the benefit of “Living Man Mohamed-Ismail: Idris”, and covers many forms of property, interests, and rights. “Mohamed-ismail: Idris” also claims a $100 million lien against MOHAMED ISMAIL IDRIS, Estate ®©™. 9.

A “Fee Schedule” that includes the item “Withholding Bloodline - Property”, “$ 5,000,000 per Bloodline - Property”, and then names the five children of Mr. Idris and Ms. Mohamed. 10. US UCC Financing Statements where “Mohamed-Ismail: Idris” registers claimed debts against variations on Mr. Idris’ name in all capital letters. [ 4 ] Most of the attached documents have postage stamps attached, and then signed across in yellow ink. Some documents are also have a red ink stamp that “Mohamed-ismail: Idris” is “Executor/Beneficiary”, “Attorney In Fact Public vs Private”, “On behalf for

MOHAMMED ISMAIL IDRIS ESTATE/TRUST”. Some attachments are signed with a red ink fingerprint. Many references are made in these documents to US jurisprudence and legislation, the US Uniform Commercial Code [UCC], as well as numbered “Canons” of “Canon Sovereign Law”. [ 5 ] Mr. Idris’ request to bypass Family Chambers was denied by de Wit J. I was also referred Mr. Idris’ materials as a candidate Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding [AVAP], pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7] paragraph 5. I am designated to receive and review potential CPN7 processes in Southern Alberta. [ 6 ] After review of Mr.

Idris’ materials I conclude these appear to apply 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 . [ 7 ] On that basis I conclude Mr. Idris materials are an AVAP that should be subject to a CPN7 “show cause” document-based review. II. CPN7 [ 8 ] 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 ]. [ 9 ] 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. [ 10 ] 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 [ 11 ] I conclude Mr. Idris’ materials appear to be abusive OPCA litigation on multiple bases. A. Strawman Theory [ 12 ] Strawman Theory is detailed in Meads v Meads at paras 417-446 , Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency) , 2017 ABQB 123 at paras 67-88 , and Potvin (Re) , 2018 ABQB 652 at paras 83-92 .

Strawman Theory centers on the claim individuals have two aspects, a “flesh and blood” component, and an immaterial legal doppelganger often called the “Strawman”. These two parts are distinguished by whether a name is in all upper case, or mixed upper- and lower-case letters. Mr.

Idris’ materials exhibit Strawman Theory motifs, such as the way he names his two “halves”: • Flesh and blood human - “Secured Party/Creditor: :Mohamed-Ismail: Idris Non-Resident Alien [a “Personam Sojourn and one of the people of the “Posterity”]” • Strawman - “DEBTOR MOHAMED ISMAIL IDRIS, Estate ®©™ [AN ARTIFICIAL CORPORATE ENTITY/PERSON/VESSEL]” [ 13 ] Strawman Theory purports that the Strawman is the result of birth documentation, a “birth bond”, which is a concealed contract, and that the Strawman is associated with a secret bank account that contains very large sums of money.

The “flesh and blood” part of the duality may access those funds with paperwork via a process that is often called “Accept For Value”, or “A4V”: Meads v Meads at paras 531-543 . Mr. Idris appears to be advancing a Sovereign Citizen variation on this theme, claiming to have seized control of his Strawman and the Strawman’s wealth via UCC filings. [ 14 ] Furthermore, Mr. Idris extends his Strawman Theory mechanisms to his children, as illustrated in his lengthy explanation in his Affidavit of the difference between a “baby” and an “INFANT”.

The packets that include his children’s birth certificates also appear to apply Strawman Theory in that context. [ 15 ] Mr. Idris appears to be advancing Strawman and A4V concepts. Canadian Courts have consistently rejected Strawman Theory litigation for over twenty years. Relying on Strawman Theory has led to many families losing their homes: e.g. Potvin (Re) ; Knutson (Re) , 2018 ABQB 858 ; Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Landry , 2018 ABQB 951 .

The Strawman duality is so notoriously false that simply asserting Strawman Theory creates a presumption that the person who advances this concept does so in bad faith, and for an

abusive and ulterior purpose: Fiander v Mills, 2015 NLCA 31 at paras 37-40. The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly rejectedleave applications based on Strawman Theory concepts: Donald J Netolitzky & Richard Warman, “Enjoy the Silence: Pseudolaw at theSupreme Court of Canada” (2020) 57:3 Alta L Rev 715 at 739-742. [16] I therefore request Mr. Idris rebut the presumption that his documents are an abuse of the Court, and a strategy adopted in badfaith. B. Legal Authorities [17] Mr. Idris’ materials identifies a number of purported legal authorities.

These appear to be problematic. [18] First, his documents rely on US legislation and court cases, and in particular, the US Uniform Commercial Code [UCC], e.g.“UCC s 3-202”. The UCC is model US commercial legislation, and has no application in Canada: Meads v Meads at para 331. In fact,the UCC has no binding legal application in the US, either, since the UCC is a suggested template legislation example that individualstates may (or may not) adopt, in whole or in part. I, therefore, request that Mr.

Idris explain how the US authorities and UCC provisionshe has identified are relevant and/or binding in Canada, and are a basis on which to advance his litigation. [19] Second, Mr. Idris refers to “Canons” of law. The Court is familiar with these “Canons”. They are a made-up legal systemcreated by Australian OPCA guru Frank O’Collins as part of his “Ucadia” project to overturn the real law, which O’Collins says wasdeveloped by “the Roman Cult”: These “Canons” are an entirely unique, invented system of law, and a part of O’Collins’ Ucadia project.

Ucadia is amongst the mostunusual and certainly most expansive expressions of pseudolegal culture, worldwide. ... the original UCADIA website attempted tocreate a complete system of knowledge, social organization, government, finance, and law. As one observer explained, this massive andunique project is a “complete infrastructure of a world which doesn’t exist, written largely by one man, with seemingly no one listening.” [Donald J Netolitzky, “After the Hammer: Six Years of Meads v Meads” (2019) 56:4 Alta L Rev 1167 at 1192-1193.] [20] This Court has long rejected the validity of this made-up legal system: e.g.

Meads v Meads at para 376; ANB v Hancock,2013 ABQB 97 at paras 87-88. I therefore request Mr. Idris explain why Canadian courts are incorrect when they reject Ucadia“Canons” as made-up fiction. [21] Third, Mr. Idris relies on “Maxim’s of Law for father’s rights”. I have previously observed that legal maxims, short pithyrestatements of what are purportedly legal principles, have no weight in law. A legal maxim becomes relevant in Canada when aCanadian court identifies that as a genuine legal principle: Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 399 at para 46.

In that case I observed thatthe usual source cited for legal maxims, Black’s Law Dictionary, itself recognizes ““Maxims of Law” have as much binding authorityand intellectual merit as fortune cookies.”: Rothweiler v Payette at para 49. I therefore request Mr. Idris explain why I was incorrect, and“Maxims of Law” are binding legal authorities. C. Children as Property [22] While the full intent of Mr. Idris’s materials is difficult to evaluate, since it involves multiple jurisdictions, elaborate claims oftrusts and other relationships, one point is very clear. Mr.

Idris seeks to take custody and/or authority over five children. He expressesthat this way in his Affidavit: ... Immediately demanding restoration of property of my 5 Bloodline to me without delay and compensate me for the damages occurredto me and my 5 Bloodline, see Notice of Intent Fee

Schedule it will cost you $5,000,000 per bloodline if you continue to withhold themfrom me through your court orders. ... ... I demand the Restoration of my property which is my Bloodline, I have claimed them please see Affidavit of Claiming my LawfulLiving Bloodline Property as a Private Natural Biological Father and claimed them through UCC-3 [23] It is historically correct that the historical English common law did at one time consider minor children to be property of theirfather, e.g.

William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, in Four Books, 12th ed (London: A Strahan and W Woodfall,1793) vol 1 at 452-53. However, the Supreme Court of Canada has categorically and emphatically rejected this approach to the status ofchildren: B (

R) v Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, (SCC), [1995] 1 SCR 315 at 372, 122 DLR (4th) 1;Chamberlain v Surrey School District No 36, 2002 SCC 86 at para 106, [2002] 4 SCR 710; Canadian Foundation for Children, Youthand the Law v Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 4 at para 225, [2004] 1 SCR 76. [24] Nevertheless, OPCA litigants frequently claim that they own their children as chattel property: SS (Re), 2016 ABPC 170;Toronto-Dominion Bank v Leadbetter, 2018 ABQB 472 at para 25, court access restricted 2017 ABQB 611; DKD (Re) (DependentAdult), 2018 ABQB 1021 at paras 6-11; CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 388 at paras 30-31, court access restricted 2019 ABQB 388; AVI vMHVB, 2020 ABQB 489.

Mandziuk J in DKD (Re) (Dependent Adult) at para 11 concluded “... characterizing human beings asproperty is repugnant to modern Canadian society, values and law.” [25] Further, Mr. Idris appears to assert this authority on the basis of his pseudolaw documents, the children’s birth certificates, andan ounce of silver apiece. I therefore request Mr. Idris indicate how these court authorities are incorrect, and, instead, he owns hischildren because he paid for them with an ounce of silver. [26] Mr. Idris also at one point says he wants “Return of Children”, which I interpret to mean custody of his and Ms.

Mohamed’sfive children. In Landry (Re), 2021 ABQB 39 at paras 22-24 I recently observed that attempts to implicate children in OPCA schemesare a very serious reason to conclude a person is not a fit parent:

... Espousing OPCA beliefs means that a person is not a suitable to be a child’s guardian or have custody of and access to the child: H v GJ , 2013 BCPC 242 at paras 136-166 ; MDC v TC , 2012 NBQB 376 at paras 19-20; Droit de la famille - 123381 , 2012 QCCS 6120 at paras 6-8 , 12, 111, 227, aff’d 2013 QCCA 725 ; CP (Re) , 2019 ABQB 310 at para 35 ; CP (Re) , 2019 ABQB 388 at para 34-43 ; and AVI v MHVB , 2020 ABQB 489 at paras 124-128 . ... In CP (Re) , 2019 ABQB 388 , Thomas J concluded, at para 43, that: “...

The false, paranoid, and anti-social beliefs that [the OPCA father] now espouses, and his illegal and abusive pseudolegal attempts to defeat Court and legal authority, means he is not a suitable guardian or parent. ...”. That is the potential consequence that faces BS and Ms. Landry if they continue to pursue OPCA concepts in relation to their children. [ 27 ] I therefore further request how Mr. Idris is a suitable to be a guardian or have access to his children so long as he continues to advance OPCA strategies, and particularly those based on Strawman Theory and the idea he owns his children as property. IV.

CPN7 Analysis [ 28 ] Mr. Idris’ documents appear to be a suitable candidate for review per CPN7. The Court therefore seeks a response from Mr. Idris as to why his documents is not abusive OPCA litigation, and, more specifically: 1. How is the fact that Mr. Idris is employing Strawman Theory not a reason to conclude that his documents are an abuse of the Court, and a strategy adopted in bad faith? 2. How are US court cases, laws, and the UCC binding or relevant authorities in Canada? 3.

Why are the Canadian court decisions that reject Ucadia “Canons of Law” and “Maxims of Law” as binding or relevant authorities incorrect? 4. Why are the Canadian court decisions that reject that children are chattel property incorrect? 5. Why are the Canadian court decisions that conclude a parent who employs or espouses OPCA concepts and strategies should be excluded from contact and custody of a child incorrect? [ 29 ] As a result of this analysis, I order that Mr. Idris’ 4801 172079 Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket activities are stayed. CPN7 now advances to its second step. 1. Mr.

Idris has until 14 days after this decision is filed to file and serve a Written Submission of no more than a total of 10 pages, pursuant to CPN7, para 3(b). The Written Submission should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice Rooke”. 2. If no Written Submission is received by the Court by that deadline, the Court will proceed to render its final decision on whether Mr. Idris’ documents should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(c)). 3. If Mr.

Idris provides and serves a Written Submission, then the Respondent mother has seven days to make a Written Reply of up to a total of 10 pages in length (CPN7, para 3(d)). The Written Reply should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice Rooke”. 4. After receipt of Mr. Idris’ Written Submission, and the mother’s Written Reply, if any, the Court will render its final decision on whether Mr. Idris’ Docket 4801 172079 documents should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(e)). [ 30 ] The Court will prepare and serve the Order staying the Counterclaim. Mr.

Idris’ approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Mr. Idris may be served this Decision and the Interim Stay Order by email to the address: xaxia19@x- milecarriers.com. [ 31 ] Finally, I note to Mr. Idris that the case law identified in this Decision may be viewed at no expense at the CanLII website (https://www.canlii.org). Mr. Idris may benefit from accessing that resource. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 8 th day of July, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances:

None Appendix “A” - “Affidavit of Special Announcement or Extraordinary Announcement of Emergency Hearing” Court File Number 4801-172079 Judicial Centre Calgary Listed as Applicant in Error MOHAMED ISMAIL IDRIS, Estate - Trust, Vessel Berthed 05/15/1984 CQV in Trust, A Nom de Guerre now at peace By: Executor :Mohamed-ismail: Idris Date of Live Birth May 15, 1984.

Fiduciary and the only Signatory officer (Unincorporated entity) All Rights Reserved Respondent MUHIBO ABDI MOHAMED Contact Information: :Mohamed-ismail: Idris Non-Resident Alien c/o Post Office Box 2096 General Delivery Northwest Territory 1846 [Renton, Washington]. Corpus delicti 18 U.S.C. 3771. Non-Commercial Use. DMM 602@1.3(e)2 (Zip Code) Exempt [98056 w/o D.C.] Non-Domestic without United States Corporation. Non-Combatant, Civilian, Non-Belligerent. xaxial9@x-milecarriers.com 403-800-8415 [Document] Affidavit By: Executor :Mohamed-ismail: Idris ...

Affidavit of Special Announcement or Extraordinary Announcement of Emergency Hearing Remedy Sought of Claimed: 1. Are we on the record? If not, I am insisting upon it! Is this proceeding being recorded? I am before this Court by Special

Announcement or Extraordinary Announcement and not attending in the normal course of events, without Waiving any Rights, Remedies or Defenses, Statutory or Procedural.

I the Living Man, Living Soul, Flesh and Blood, not Dead nor Lost at Sea, Born Alive on Land and Soil, Sui Juris, Age of Majority, Competent, being first duly affirm, depose say, declare and firsthand knowledge set forth herein as duly noted below are facts to be true correct, complete and presented in good faith and to the best of my knowledge and not meant to mislead or otherwise, calling for Constitutional Law that all my Private Instruments to be Court of Record Your Honor, are you honoring your oath today?

I am Accepting your Constitutional Oath of the superior Oath, and not accepting the inferior and odious oath to the Bar Guild which I hereby voice my rebuttal. (Foreign, per 1947 BAR Treaty) Where is your power of attorney to hear this matter? and I Rebutted, Rebuked and Rejected All Twelve

(12) Presumptions of Court, and I rebut your implied trust, as I have a living trust, no one is allowed to see it, it's private. I am also a beneficiary of the Trust, here is the form 56 Notice Concerning Fiduciary Relationship and I am appointing you as my Trustee under Power of Appointment Act 1951 codified in title 26 USC sections 2038 and 2514 or Sections 57 (1) of the Alberta Administration of Estates Act (RSA 2000

Chapter A- 2 ) and

Section 30 of the Trustee Act (RSA 2000

Chapter T-8 ) of Alberta Corporation! I demand for the disclosure of all the Bonds that is put up against this case? I am asking only for the Truth, Facts, Honor and Fair Justice. 2.

I am surrendering my 5 Bloodline birth certificates and a copy of the permanent resident card to the court of the defendant or dead entities, I do not have birth certificate, now since I surrendered the defendant to the court you are now dealing with Flesh and Blood Man and the Executor of the Trust Account, that I am demanding the restoration of the Minor Estate and my 5 Bloodlines Minor Estate, Cusip and Autotris Numbers and all of the Vessels As my Trustee, I need you to discharge All matters Adjustment, Settlement and Closure of all the Accounts and eliminate the record immediately without delay on behalf of the [Applicant], Defendant or the debtor, that's not me!

And Immediately demanding restoration of property of my 5 Bloodline to me without delay and compensate me for the damages occurred to me and my 5 Bloodline, see Notice of Intent Fee

Schedule it will cost you $5,000,000 per bloodline if you continue to withhold them from me through your court orders. Furthermore Release to me the orders of the court, the GSA bonds, Bid bond, performance bond and payment bond that was filled out on my behalf, and all the tax form from Canada revenue agency. 3. Judges or Justices under the Provincial Court and Court of Queen Bench specially J. R. Shaw and Earl C.

Wilson trespassed against my privacy, family, my 5 Bloodline are my family, home, correspondence, honor, dignity, reputation, and completely assassinated my character as a living man living soul :Mohamed-ismail: Idris and my 5 Bloodline [childrens’ names redacted]. Earl C. Wilson ordered me contempt of court on November 29, 2017 for what reason did he do it!? The facts are clear, courts deals with "persons" a vessel, dead entity, a foundling! Court summons! A seance, courts are summoning the dead, a warrant! A War Rant. A declaration of war.

He arrested a freeman going about his private business affairs how dare he? Against a peaceful innocent Man that I am, for profit or gain. Is that honorable or just shameful what he did to me? He attempted through his policy agents and Actor Nkiru Emodi, she lied in open court that I will run to the States in the US, to use Presumption, Assumption, Tacit Agreement and Hearsay under false and fraudulent doctrines of Parens Patriae and In Loco Parentis.

A fraudulent and Dis-honorable practice at best, in fact its criminal capital treason against me the living Man, an odious violation and deprivation of rights under color of law to bring mis-demeanor charges upon my vessel, under a banking system in commerce in order to scheme, profit and tax, again acting under color of law, which is fallacy and colorable which isn't real, because there is no gold and silver in other words no money, Canada Corporation is Bankrupt, so why is he coming after me as a debtor or coming after me for taxes and embezzlement of the estate, for doing all of these nasty acts he took my estate took my gift took my signature and took my security notes and didn't pay the taxes on the year.

Earl C. Wilson needs to be held accountable of his actions he is not immune and J.R. Shaw, please see Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio of the Supreme Pontiff Francis on the Jurisdiction of Judicial Authorities of Vatican City State in Criminal Matter. I need both of their Indemnification so I can file against their bonds with the Premier of Alberta office, since April 2016 the order that was issued from Provincial Court of Alberta by J. R.

Shaw, he ordered final parenting order than transferred to Court of Queen Bench on January 2017 when the Informant mother of my Bloodline filed divorce, Everything the Informant and all orders that was issued from Provincial Court and Queen Bench was based upon Rail roading me through a Path called Presumption, Assumption, Tacit Agreement and Hearsay, that has nothing to do with the Law, Facts, nor Justice, No proper investigation was done, it's all fallacy, fiction and it does not exist except in one's mind, not in my mind. All of this was done to me by the foreign actors J.R. Shaw and Earl C.

Wilson in Court of Queen Bench I need to settle this matter immediately. 4.

I have suffered damages as a result of my arrest on November 29, 2017 for 90 days, I have lost everything my business, my shelter, Truck, automobile etc. and my 5 bloodline were held from me since 2017, 4 straight years I was separated from them because of court order that was against the Law, the informant mother of my Bloodline was in denial for me as a father to visit my 5 Bloodline for some personal desire reasons, I have been severely damaged and my 5 Bloodline physically, psychologically, spiritually, emotionally, financially, myself and my bloodline have been tom apart, for that reason I need to be compensate from the trust, I wish to be compensated the loss of provision $60,000 the 3 months incarcerated, lost my truck $167,000 and automobile $55,000, Oil pump and Air blower a total of $37,000 = $319,00 plus the medical treatment to come.

I have not been in the lives of my Bloodline since January 2017, 4 years and 6 months of trauma and depression that we went through day and night. I have to undertake myself and my 5 Bloodline to a Physician specialist and find out what damages have occurred while we were separated, psychologically, emotionally and the medical treatment we have to go through, it might take years of treatment maybe life time. 5. According to the experience I want thorough with Court of Queen Bench, I ask you! What is the law? Where did its origins come from?

How did we arrive at this thing called law where a small group of man could write something down on a piece of paper and hold me the living man accountable? What is it!!!??? Grounds for making this Affidavit: Listed as an application in error. How it all started, the registration of birth is [NOT] about the "baby", it is about the "INFANT". 1.

The "INFANT" is not the "living man" ....the mom took the "baby" home from the "hospital" but "abandoned" the "INF ANT" ... look at the hospital birth record ... the record does not say "baby's footprints" it states "INFANT FOOTPRJNTS" ... the registration of birth never registers a "baby" it registers a "vessel" (INFANT) to receive the "spirit of life" much like a Man or Woman is nothing without "the spirit of life" or "The Most High" ... the living man "animates" the "vessel" or "infant" while in that world without becoming part of that world.

2. When someone comes to one with a "claim", they are actually looking for the INFANT in the last known location which is One because One is using the "property" of the "INFANT" so One must know where the INFANT is which is just a "footprint symbol" denoting its existence, which is found in the hospital records or provided as infant is now age of majority. 3.

But if One "withholds" that information, under International Maritime Law, that "INFANT" will be "presumed dead" (inactive) and One now becomes "executor de son tort" over the "decedent infant estate" for the concealment which is a "fraud" and since one cannot profit from one's own fraud, One no longer has access to the "infant decedent's estate" and One is liable for the tax on the valuation of the transfer for "decedent infant" is going to be considered "owner" of the trust where the "contractual considerations are exchanged" in the form of interests and the tax is on the "valuation of the exchange" or "transfer of taxable estate" from one "decedent" to another. 4.

And as "owner" of the trust, the trust becomes "property" of the "decedent's estate" and the "executor" (One) is going to be held liable under 26 USC 2002 for the tax imposed under 26 USC 200l(a). And Tax liability 26 2032A (e)l 1 on alternate evaluation on carry over bases. 5.

Now, if One provided the location of the INFANT, then the "decedent without the SSN - SIN" or "corporation" would then be "owner" of the trust and CEO would then be liable under 26 USC 2002 for the tax which is "paid" out of the "decedent's estate" or "corporate treasury" in service of the usufruct under Law of Nations, International Law, and Treaty. 6.

And this presumption of death of the infant can be easily rebutted by pointing the one bringing the claim to the State - Province File Number containing the original certificate of live birth or registration of birth, or to the Hospital Record, or provide a "footprint" which is "symbolic" of the infant's "existence" as "the spirit" must enter the "infant" to "animate" it in the "paper world" or "give it life" and the footprint is the evidence of the "infant's existence" but no one can ever see the "infant" for it is only a "spirit"; the footprint is a "symbol" the "infant" exists. 7.

And once "INFANT" presence is known, INFANT automatically becomes "securities entitlement holder" as "appropriate person" and can now issue orders and commands to the "securities intermediary" for service of the "securities account" or SSN - SIN. 8. The "INFANT" or NAME exists to allow Man to exercise his dominion while all fruits flow to the society he helps build, only up until now, this was "reserved" for "those in the know". 9. This information was not disclosed to me in the hospital when my first bloodline was born! 10. Canon Positive Law -

Article 100 - Cestui Que Vie Trust Canon 2047 - Since 1933, When a child is borne, the Executors or Administrators of the higher Estate knowingly and willingly claim the baby as chattel to the Estate. The Slave baby contact is then created by honoring the ancient tradition of either having the ink impression of the feet of the baby onto the live birth record, or a drop of its blood as well as tricking the parents to signing the baby away through the deceitful legal meanings on the live birth record.

This live birth record as a promissory note is converted into a slave bond sold to the private reserve bank of the estate and then conveyed into a 2nd and separate Cestui Que (Vie) Trust per child owned by the bank. Upon the promissory note reaching maturity and the bank being unable to "seize" the slave child, a maritime lien is lawfully issued to "salvage" the lost property and itself monetized as currency issued in series against the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust Material or Evidence to be relied on: 1. All of my private instrument affidavit's and notices. 2. The Birth Certificate 7.14 Corruption of Law.

Article 325 - Settlement (Birth) Certificate. Canon 3348 - 3363 3. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 12 4. Canon Positive Law -

Article 315 Visitation - Canon 3300 - 3305 5. Canon Sovereign Law-Article 24 Canon 5540 - Canon 5546 - Canon 5547 - Canon 5548 6. UCC s 3-202. Negotiation Subject to Rescission. Primary tabs (a) (i), (ii), (iii). (b). 7. 18 U.S.C. § 153, Estate Embezzlement. 8. Canon of Sovereign Law 2.10 Anglo - Saxon Law Form

Article 115 - Placitum (Court) Canon 6338 - Canon 6339 9. Canon Positive Law -

Article 117-Surety Canon 2201 10. The word "Canada in s.91 (1) does not refer to Canada as a geographical unit but refers to the juristic federal unit. Juristic federal unit brings forth or indicates that Canada is an artificial entity the corporate body. 11. Title 28 USC 3002

Section 15A 12. Canon Positive Law-Article 331 Canon 3419 13. Canon Positive Law.

Article 317-Remedy Canon 3312 14. Selected Maxim's of Law for father's rights 15. Title 18 U.S.C

section 5033

Applicable Rules See Material or Evidence relied on. Applicable Acts and Regulations : All of the Codes, Statutes and Regulations throughout Canada are Wills from the master's to their Slaves is it not? Any irregularity complained of or objection relied on: I am not sure yet. ...

In Conclusion I demand the Restoration of my property which is my Bloodline, I have claimed them please see Affidavit of Claiming my Lawful Living Bloodline Property as a Private Natural Biological Father and claimed them through UCC-3 please see copies on the exhibit page, and Affidavit of Truth for Immutable Rights From Divine Creator, Furthermore, I need to be compensated from the Trust for the loss and damages done to me immediately without delay and I cannot be ignored.

Warning If you do not come to Court on the date and at the time shown above either in person or by your lawyer, the Court may give the [Applicants] what they want in your absence. You will be bound by any order that Court makes. If you intend to give evidence in response to the [application], you must reply by filing an affidavit or other evidence with Court and serving a copy of that affidavit or other evidence on the applicants a reasonable time before the [application] is to be heard or considered.

I have asked the clerk to serve the [documents] listed above on my behalf by email or fax to the respondent, because I cannot locate the respondent. Once the respondent location is located I will personally serve the respondent and notify the court. All Rights Retained w/o Prejudice - Recourse UCC 1-103.6, UU 1-207, UCC 1-308 [signature of Mohamed-ismail: Idris] By: Executor :Mohamed-ismail: Idris Executor Subscribed or Affirmed before me On June 30, 2021 at Calgary, Alberta [signature of Gurinder Singh Chahal] Commissioner for Oaths in and for the Alberta Province Notary Public [notary stamp]