Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson, 2022 ABKB 733

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson, 2022 ABKB 733 Date: 20221104 Docket: 2101 07946, ES01 119128 Registry: Calgary Between: Royal Bank of Canada Plaintiff - and - Sandra Ann Anderson A.K.A. Sandra-ann, Authorized representative A.K.A. Sandra-Ann: Anderson, A.K.A. SANDRA ANDERSON, WOMAN SANDRA OF THE ANDERSON FAMILY, A.K.A. i woman sandra-ann, acting as agent for and on behalf of SANDRA ANDERSON, A.K.A. sandra-ann:woman, A.K.A. Sandra-Ann, Executor, A.K.A. sandra-ann, A.K.A. Sandra-Ann: Anderson All Rights Reserve Cestui Que Use, Principal Beneficial Owner, A.K.A.

Sandra-Ann Ambassador, A.K.A. I: Sandra-Ann: Anderson, child of god, A.K.A. :Sandra-Ann: from the house of Anderson Defendant and Estate of James Carl Anderson also known as Anderson J.C. and Anderson, James C. _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke

_______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] Sandra Ann Anderson [Ms.

Anderson] is a highly active Organized Pseudolaw Commercial Argument [OPCA] ( Meads v Meads , 2012 ABQB 571 ) litigant, whose illegal pseudolaw activities are documented in a number of Court Decisions, including: Anderson v Ossowski , 2021 ABQB 382 , action struck out 2021 ABQB 428 , costs ordered 2021 ABQB 456 ; Anderson (Re) , 2022 ABQB 35 ; Canada (Attorney General) v Anderson , 2022 ABQB 310 ; Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson , 2022 ABQB 354 [ RBC v Anderson #1 ]; Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson , 2022 ABQB 525 [ RBC v Anderson #2 ]; Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson , 2022 ABQB 577 [ RBC v Anderson #4 ].

Most recently, Ms. Anderson has been involved in a foreclosure action [ RBC v Anderson ] initiated by the Royal Bank of Canada [RBC]. [ 2 ] Ms. Anderson’s illegal and abusive court conduct has led to her being subject to court access restrictions, and her being designated as a vexatious litigant: Canada (Attorney General) v Anderson . [ 3 ] Ms. Anderson’s abusive litigant conduct has continually escalated over the past several years. Ms.

Anderson’s activities include: 1. multiple criminal proceedings for offenses that range from international horse smuggling, illegally transporting fireworks on a passenger aircraft, to driving a motor vehicle while impaired; 2. attempts to seize Alberta Court of King’s Bench facilities to conduct vigilante proceedings against government actors, with herself as both prosecutor and judge; 3. forged court summons; 4. demands for a condo for free, and refunds from RBC of over $67 thousand in credit card payments; 5. threats of astronomical and baseless fines imposed on court staff, decision makers, and government officials; and 6. attempts to circumvent court litigation management steps, where Ms.

Anderson deployed a proxy agent, and that agent, fortunately, refused to participate in Ms. Anderson’s intimidation tactics. [ 4 ] In response to Ms. Anderson’s uncontrolled, abusive rejection of court procedure and Canadian law, in RBC v Anderson #2 at para 62 I imposed intrusive steps to manage Ms. Anderson’s court activities. Ms. Anderson was entirely prohibited from any communication with the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, including emails, telephone calls, and steps to file court documents, except where Ms. Anderson either communicated:

a) in documentary form and by registered mail to my office, or the office of my designate, or

b) by filing or submitting documents via a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta, or another person authorized to represent Ms. Anderson in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, pursuant to the Legal Professions Act , RSA 2000, c L-8 . [ 5 ] The RBC v Anderson #2 document screening process also includes a potential penalty aspect: “ When a document submitted by Ms. Anderson is rejected pursuant to this Decision, Ms. Anderson may be required to pay a penalty amount.” RBC v Anderson #2 issued on August 3, 2022. Two days later Ms.

Anderson breached the terms of that Decision, then more breaches followed: RBC v Anderson #4 at paras 7-18 . Ms. Anderson was fined $40,000 pursuant to Rule 10.49(1) for her multiple breaches of the Court’s communications, litigation, and litigant management steps: RBC v Anderson #4 at para 22 . Those funds were paid from a multimillion- dollar inheritance to Ms. Anderson from the estate of Ms. Anderson’s father ( Estate of James Carl Anderson Action). Ms.

Anderson’s inheritance from her father’s estate is currently held in trust by Royal Trust, pending court-mediated steps to conduct that distribution: RBC v Anderson #4 at para 25 . [ 6 ] Ms. Anderson has now resumed her pattern of illegal activity that breaches the Court-imposed steps set in RBC v Anderson #2 . This latest wave of activity is largely directed to interfere with the RBC v Anderson foreclosure proceeding, and a hearing in that matter on October 13, 2022. II. Incident #1 - Illegal Telephone Communications to the Court, October 11, 2022 [ 7 ] On October 11, 2022, Ms.

Anderson telephoned my Office, in breach of RBC v Anderson #2 , para 62 . Ms. Anderson identified herself, and demanded information to participate in the scheduled October 13, 2022 appearance by Webex. Ms. Anderson was informed that Applications Judge Chambers proceedings are now conducted in person. Ms. Anderson hung up. III. Incident #2 - Illegal Submission of OPCA Documents, October 12, 2022

[ 8 ] The following day Ms. Anderson attended the Calgary Court Centre 24th floor reception desk, where she presented a sealed envelope. Ms. Anderson self-identified when her identity was questioned. Ms. Anderson immediately left the courthouse when the envelope was opened at the reception desk. In doing this Ms. Anderson breached the RBC v Anderson #2 , para 62 process for Ms. Anderson to submit documents to the Court for pre-filing review and screening. I conclude that Ms.

Anderson’s personal appearance was an intentional attempt to bypass the litigation screening steps imposed in RBC v Anderson #2 , particularly since Ms. Anderson had previously followed that procedure: RBC v Anderson #4 , para 17 . [ 9 ] The envelope contained a 94-page packet that included a number of documents. All of the October 12, 2022 documents are obviously abusive and legally meaningless Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [OPCA] materials: Meads v Meads , 2012 ABQB 571 . As is typical of OPCA documents received from Ms.

Anderson, these are studded with postage stamps, red ink fingerprints, and other hallmarks of pseudolaw materials. Briefly, the package includes: 1. A seven-page “NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR THE EXECUTION OF TRUST DIRECTIVES NADETD101022SAA” from “Sandra-Ann Ambassador, Attorney-In-Fact, Agent of Record, Sole Beneficiary for the ANDERSON, SANDRA ANN”, addressed to “John D. Rooke, private man acting as JOHN D. ROOKE ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE, COURT OF KING’S BENCH ALBERTA”. As I understand it, in the “NOTICE AND DEMAND”, Ms.

Anderson reverses who owes who in the RBC v Anderson action, and declares the bank should be paying Ms. Anderson for her mortgage and credit card non-debts. That is a frequently encountered pseudolaw “money for nothing” motif, that Ms. Anderson knows is legally false: RBC v Anderson # 1. The document also threatens that I am liable to “SANDRA ANN ANDERSON”, and “Sandra-Ann: Anderson, Private” as a racketeer, unless I take steps that involve an imaginary Trust associated with the SANDRA ANN ANDERSON Strawwoman, and order that ANDERSON and/or Anderson get a condo for free.

This document claims to be authorized by the “ Canonum De /us Positium ”, a fictitious system of law invented by Australian Frank O’Collins: Donald J Netolitzky, “After the Hammer: Six Years of Meads v Meads ” (2019) 56:4 Alta L Rev 1167 at 1192-1193; Idris v Mohamed , 2021 ABQB 529 at paras 19-20 . 2.

An eight-page document titled: Notice of Claims, Conveyance and Private Trust Arrangement RN652649296CA-54-Trust, A Private Business Trust [formally known as COURT KING’s BENCH ALBERTA Court File Number 2101-07946 and Mortgage#5582752 (also referred to in court documents as #151053434 where “I: Sandra-Ann: Anderson, child of god” declares she has created an imaginary “Private Business Trust” over the RBC v Anderson litigation. This fictitious trust on behalf of “SANDRA ANN ANDERSON”, “Artificial Person” has a value of at least $40 million.

Myself, and various other Court decision makers and staff, lawyers, and bank officials are the Co-Trustees. Succinctly, this item appears intended to miracle away Ms. Anderson’s debts and grant her a condo for free. 3. An undated one-page “Ecclesiastic Deed Poll”. 4. A copy of Ms. Anderson’s Alberta “Registration of a Live Birth” document. 5.

An eight-page “Notice of [De]Fault in Dishonor and Consent to Judgment NODCJ090122SAA” document, addressed to persons affiliated with RBC, the Honourable Nate Glubish, Minister of Service Alberta, and the Governor for the Bank of Canada, that purports to be a kind of default judgment, so the named parties owe Anderson and ANDERSON $26.295 million in “Fee Schedule” fines, and Anderson and ANDERSON get a condo for free. The fee

schedule in question appears to be the document reproduced in RBC v Anderson #4 as Appendix “B”. 5. A “Special Deposit, Priority, Private” that instructs the US Department of Treasury Office of Inspector General to unilaterally “ Revoke, Rescind, nullify and cancel” [emphasis in original] a number of Alberta Court of King’s Bench and Provincial Court of Alberta proceedings. The document cautions: “Any delay or interference with such delivery, will be deemed an overt act of conspiracy”. I believe the jurisdictional defect in this item is self-evident. 6.

A collection of documents that purport to transform the birth certificate (included) of “SANDRA ANN ANDERSON” into a kind of bank account or trust that is controlled by “Sandra Ann Anderson, Private, Non-Statutory Living Woman, Beneficiary of the Original Jurisdiction”. These are obviously yet another example of Ms. Anderson attempting to employ Strawman Theory, and an example of nonsensical “A4V” pseudolaw “money for nothing” theory: Meads v Meads , paras 531-543 . 7. A copy of the “Fee and Fine Schedule” reproduced in RBC v Anderson #4 as Appendix “B”. 8.

Various “Canons” from Frank O’Collin’s imaginary legal system. 9. An “APPOINTMENT OF DURABLE AND GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY” where “SANDRA ANN ANDERSON, ENS LEGIS ” grants “:Sandra-Ann: from the house of Anderson” the right to engage in identified steps on ANDERSON’s behalf. This document is meaningless since, as Applications Judge Schlosser observed in Servus Credit Union Ltd v Parlee , 2015 ABQB 700 at para 76 , “Talking to yourself binds no-one.” [ 10 ] In the interests of judicial economy, I will not parse through these materials, but simply make the following observations: 1.

The October 12, 2022 documents are obviously hopeless and illegal pseudolaw documents that have no legal effect. Ms. Anderson knows that, since she repeatedly has had Canadian law explained to her. Nevertheless, Ms. Anderson continues to attempt to employ the same or related useless and hopeless pseudolegal strategies. She keeps jamming the same misshaped keys into non-existent keyholes. 2. The October 12, 2022 documents are intended to illegally threaten court actors, lawyers, and bank and government officials with unenforceable foisted obligations that are contrary to Canadian law.

3. Ms. Anderson with these materials:

a) rejects and attacks the already concluded steps in the RBC v Anderson foreclosure proceeding, a prohibited and abusive collateral attack, and

b) claims to subvert and terminate criminal proceedings against her. 4. Ms. Anderson employs Strawman Theory strategies that she has been warned, over and over ( RBC v Anderson #2 at paras 24- 25 ), have no legal merit, and that, instead, create a presumption that Ms.

Anderson uses these materials for ulterior purposes, and with the objective to gain unwarranted, illegal benefits. [ 11 ] Since the October 12, 2022 documents were not properly submitted to the Court, and never filed, this package of materials shall be placed in the RBC v Anderson litigation file only for the purposes of explaining and illustrating the basis for this Decision. The October 12, 2022 documents are otherwise worthless and of no effect. IV.

Incident #3 - October 13-14, 2022 Applications Judge Chambers Appearances [ 12 ] The RBC v Anderson lawsuit was scheduled for an appearance on October 13, 2022 before Applications Judge Mattis to confirm that RBC acquired legal title over the condo under foreclosure. On the morning of October 13, 2022, Ms. Anderson’s sister, Susan Anderson, telephoned Counsel for RBC to advise that Ms. Anderson had been in a car accident. Ms. Anderson would not be attending Court, but wanted to appear by Webex. Counsel asked for proof of that accident.

None was provided. [ 13 ] In light of this claim, Applications Judge Mattis adjourned the matter to October 14, 2022, and permitted Ms. Anderson to appear by Webex teleconference. On that date no one appeared on behalf of Ms. Anderson, either in person, or via Webex. Applications Judge Mattis granted RBC’s Application for title over the condo. [ 14 ] Ms. Anderson has a dismal record of making false statements and claims. I conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that the purported car accident was a fabrication intended to drag out and frustrate the RBC v Anderson proceedings further. Ms.

Anderson here caused Counsel for RBC to make an unnecessary court appearance, as well as wasting the Court’s resources. V. Responding to Ms. Anderson’s Still Continuing Litigation Misconduct [ 15 ] Once again, Ms. Anderson continues to thumb her nose at the Court and its attempts to both respect and protect her legal rights, but also control her persistent, repeated, abusive and illegal conduct. I cautioned Ms. Anderson in RBC v Anderson #4 at para 25 , “... that if she continues her inappropriate conduct that additional Rule 10.49(1) penalties will be imposed, and paid from her inheritance. ...”.

Royal Trust continues to hold millions of dollars in trust for Ms. Anderson as part of her deceased father’s estate. The Estate of James Carl Anderson Docket Action No. ES01 119128 litigation is still ongoing before this Court. [ 16 ] Following on the approach in RBC v Anderson #4 that the Court will respond to Ms. Anderson’s bad litigation conduct with Rule 10.49(1) fines, I now impose further Rule 10.49(1) penalties for Ms. Anderson’s misconduct, and as a penalty for the rejected filing attempts: • Incident #1 - $12,000 • Incident #2 - $25,000 • Incident #3 - $15,000 [ 17 ] I told Ms.

Anderson that: “She should also anticipate that additional penalties will increase, stepwise, until Ms. Anderson discontinues her misconduct.”: RBC v Anderson #4 at para 25 . In addition, the elevated penalty for Incident #2 reflects that Ms. Anderson here engaged in two separate forms of litigation misconduct, 1) not following document submission and gatekeeping protocols, and 2) employing pseudolaw documents that are not only simply illegal and ineffective, but also intended to threaten and intimidate court decision makers, staff, and opposing parties. The Incident #3 fine takes into account that Ms.

Anderson caused additional and unnecessary court processes, manipulated the Court, and exploited the Court’s attempt to treat her as a fair dealing, good-faith self- represented litigant - which Ms. Anderson most certainly is not. [ 18 ] As I observed in RBC v Anderson #4 at para 23 , Ms. Anderson has made it very clear she will never voluntarily pay any penalty amount. I, therefore, repeat the step I took in RBC v Anderson #4 . I Order that: 1. Royal Trust shall within 30 days transfer to the Clerk of the Court $52,000 as payment for Ms. Anderson’s latest Rule 10.49(1) penalties, 2. Ms.

Anderson’s inheritance is reduced $52,000, and 3. Royal Trust shall also reduce Ms. Anderson’s inheritance by the expenses incurred by Royal Trust to conduct the Rule 10.49(1) payment, in an amount as approved by the Court on subsequent application on notice to Ms. Anderson.

[ 19 ] In RBC v Anderson #4 at para 25 , I informed Ms. Anderson that: If Ms. Anderson’s conduct does not change, I may also direct Royal Trust pay part of her inheritance into Court as security for costs against Ms. Anderson’s future court costs and Rule 10.49(1) penalties. [ 20 ] I conclude that step is now appropriate. I, therefore, also Order, in addition to the Rule 10.49(1) penalties, that: 1. Royal Trust shall within 30 days pay to the Clerk of the Court $250,000 as security for costs, and 2. Ms. Anderson’s inheritance is reduced by $250,000, and 3. Royal Trust shall also reduce Ms.

Anderson’s inheritance by the expenses incurred by Royal Trust to conduct the security for costs payment, in an amount as approved by the Court on subsequent application on notice to Ms. Anderson. [ 21 ] This security for costs payment will be used as the source for additional unsatisfied fines, costs, and other expenses that result from Ms. Anderson’s future abusive conduct before the Alberta Court of King’s Bench. Ms. Anderson may apply to this Court for release of those security for costs funds, or what remains of them, by establishing that Ms.

Anderson has discontinued her pattern of abuse of the Court, the Court’s decision makers and staff, and opposing litigants. [ 22 ] Mindful of my Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 obligations to provide information to self-represented litigants, such as Ms. Anderson, concerning their litigation options, if Ms. Anderson disagrees with this outcome, her remedy is an appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal. Once more ( RBC v Anderson #1 at para 75 ; RBC v Anderson #2 at para 64 ; RBC v Anderson #4 at para 26 ), I recommend Ms.

Anderson immediately retain a lawyer, because she very badly needs professional advice and assistance. Ms. Anderson’s continued use of OPCA strategies is only making things worse for herself. [ 23 ] Ms. Anderson’s sister, Susan Anderson, now appears to be assisting Ms. Anderson’s abuse of the Court. I caution Susan Anderson that negative consequences may follow if she continues those activities.

Susan Anderson, too, should immediately retain counsel to obtain accurate legal advice in relation to her sister’s abusive illegal conduct, lest those consequences extend to Susan Anderson, as well. [ 24 ] Counsel for Royal Trust will prepare the Order giving effect to this Decision. Ms. Anderson’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Ms. Anderson shall be served this Decision and the corresponding Order to the email address used by Ms. Anderson: AndersonAsandra@gmail.com. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 4 th day of November, 2022. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.K.B.A.

Appearances: Sandra Ann Anderson Self-represented Litigant