Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson, 2022 ABKB 838

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson, 2022 ABKB 838 Date: 20221216 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. Sandra Ann Anderson [ 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 ]; and Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson , 2022 ABKB 733 [ RBC v Anderson #5 ].

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 pursuant to Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 ss 23-23.1, 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; 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; and 7. Ms. Anderson attempting to frustrate Chambers proceedings with illegitimate documentary and courtroom 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 King’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 King’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 was held in trust by Royal Trust, pending court-mediated steps to conduct that distribution: RBC v Anderson #4 at para 25 . [ 6 ] The $40,000 Rule 10.49 penalty did not affect Ms. Anderson’s improper and/or illegal conduct. Ms. Anderson, subsequently, on October 11-14, 2022 engaged in further breaches of the Court’s communications, and document submission process, submitted to the Court additional OPCA materials, and attempted to disrupt the RBC v Anderson foreclosure: RBC v Anderson #5 at paras 7-11 .

The Court imposed a total of $52,000 in Rule 10.49(1) penalties in response: RBC v Anderson #5 at para 16 . [ 7 ] That, too, has not stopped Ms. Anderson. On November 2, 2022, my office received several more documents from Ms. Anderson, that are obviously pseudolaw in character. 1. A “Notice of Demand for the Execution of Trust Directives NADETD101022SAA”, dated October 27, 2022, addressed to me. This document demands that I “execute” “trust directives”, that I believe are the package of pseudolaw materials described in RBC v Anderson #5 at paras 9-10 . I was given five days to respond.

The October 27, 2022 item is clearly a step in a “Three/Five Letters” scheme, a sequence of foisted unilateral agreements that purport to create a binding legal effect. Ms. Anderson is perfectly aware these documents have no legal effect and are, instead, nonsensical pseudolaw, since she was informed of that exact fact in RBC v Anderson #1 at paras 29-33 . Using Three/Five Letters schemes creates a presumption that the OPCA litigant employs this strategy for an improper and ulterior purpose: Rothweiler v Payette , 2018 ABQB 288 at para 21 . That presumption applies here. 2.

A document is titled “CERTIFICATE [AFFIDAVIT] OF SERVICE”, that is reproduced in full in Appendix “A”. I have

reproduced this item in full graphic form to better permit a complete appreciation of the item. A picture is worth a thousand words. That is especially relevant because this item was notarized by an Alberta lawyer: Kenneth W. Kotyk. 3. Ms. Anderson attached 86 pages of pseudolaw materials that appear to largely duplicate items received by the Court on October 12, 2022, and that are described in RBC v Anderson at paras 9-10. [ 8 ] Ms.

Anderson is very well aware of what would happen if she sent the Alberta Court of King’s Bench legally worthless and harassing pseudolaw documents that purport to impose obligations and penalties. I have cautioned Ms. Anderson that if she continues to defy the Court’s instructions and Canadian law, the penalties she received would increase, stepwise, until she discontinues her misconduct: RBC v Anderson #4 at para 25 ; RBC v Anderson #5 at para 17 . [ 9 ] In response to Ms. Anderson’s continuing illegal pseudolaw misconduct, I order that Ms.

Anderson pay the Clerk of the Court $20,000, forthwith, as a Rule 10.49 penalty. Since I know that Ms. Anderson will never voluntarily pay any penalty amount ( RBC v Anderson #4 at para 23 ; RBC v Anderson #5 at para 18 ), that payment will be implemented by paying the $20,000 from funds that were paid into Court by Royal Trust as security for costs, RBC v Anderson #5 at paras 20-21 . II. Kenneth W. Kotyk [ 10 ] I have, on many occasions, in my Decisions that respond to Ms. Anderson, stressed that Ms.

Anderson should retain a lawyer, because she very badly needs professional advice and assistance: e.g., RBC v Anderson #5 at para 22 . I also in RBC v Anderson #4 at 27 made this statement: ... I warn Alberta lawyers and legal services to exercise caution with Ms. Anderson. Ms. Anderson has already demonstrated she will exploit their relationship with the Court for bad purposes. [ 11 ] That cautionary note was in part because, in RBC v Anderson #1 at paras 54-68 , I had sharply criticized two Alberta lawyers who had notarized Ms. Anderson’s pseudolaw documents.

That was in breach of their professional responsibilities and obligations, both as lawyers and as officers of this Court. A copy of RBC v Anderson #1 and the lawyer notarized OPCA documents was delivered to the Law Society of Alberta [LSA]. [ 12 ] This Court has repeatedly and explicitly informed lawyers not to take steps that formalize or to notarize OPCA documents. The LSA has also given very clear instructions to its members that these instructions should be followed. [ 13 ] But here, again, an Alberta lawyer has notarized a pseudolaw document. According to the LSA lawyer directory, Kenneth W. Kotyk [Mr.

Kotyk] is an active member of the Law Society of Alberta. I have reproduced the document Mr. Kotyk notarized. At some point there becomes little purpose in belabouring the pseudolaw aspects and defects of a document such as this. I would hope - and perhaps I am fatally an optimist on this point - that a lawyer in Alberta would have one look at this item, and immediately say “I want nothing to do with this.” The signature block, for example, should raise suspicion. A lawyer might ask “Why are you, Ms.

Anderson, signing your name (which does not match the signature block name) overtop of a US $1 Statue of Freedom postage stamp?” [ 14 ] Suffice to say there is no legal and legitimate basis for that, that I can imagine. So, here again I am at once both baffled and disappointed by a lawyer’s failure to observe the obvious, and exercise a minimum of common sense - let alone follow the law. [ 15 ] Recently, in R v Ayyazi , 2022 ABKB 836 , I examined in detail the reasons why: • a lawyer - as a notary, and • a lawyer - as a lawyer, should never take steps that formalize an OPCA document.

I concluded, in that Decision, that lawyer Grace Akpan should be subject to a $10,000 Rule 10.49 penalty for notarizing a pseudolaw document that purported to eliminate an arrest warrant issued by the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, and unilaterally terminated cocaine trafficking charges against the lawyer’s client. [ 16 ] I cautioned in R v Ayyazi , that lawyers who notarize OPCA documents that end up before this Court can anticipate this Court will take similar steps in response. It seems nothing else will communicate the direction that the Court first gave in Meads v Meads , 2012 ABQB 571 .

I believe I may take judicial notice Meads v Meads is not exactly an obscure Decision of this Court. But ten years later, Alberta lawyers continue to ignore the instruction in that Decision, and actively breach their duties and obligations as lawyers and officers of this Court. [ 17 ] Mr. Kotyk is ordered to pay the Clerk of the Court of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench a Rule 10.49 penalty of $5,000, forthwith. If Mr.

Kotyk continues to notarize OPCA documents that are submitted to this Court, he can anticipate additional penalties of this type, and that their quantum will increase. [ 18 ] The Court 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. A copy of this Decision will be delivered to the LSA. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 16 th day of December, 2022.

J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Sandra Ann Anderson Self-represented Litigant Appendix “A”: “CERTIFICATE [AFFIDAVIT] OF SERVICE”, dated October 26, 2022