THE QUEEN'S BENCH WINNIPEG CENTRE BETWEEN: Martin James Olsen plaintiff, - and STARBUCK CREDIT UNION LIMITED

- and CITY COLLECTIONS & BAILIFF SERVICE INC. defendants AFFIDAVIT OF Martin James Olsen I, Martin James Olsen, of the City of Winnipeg, in the Province of Manitoba, MAKE OATH AND SAY THAT: MAXIMS IN LAW & COMMERCE 1. Truth as a valid statement of reality is sovereign in commerce. (Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour; Ps. 117:2 For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the Lord endureth for ever. Praise ye the Lord.; John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free; II Cor. 13:8 For we can do nothing against the truth, bur for the truth). 2. Truth is expressed in the form of an Affidavit. (Lev. 5:4-5 Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these. And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing; Lev. 6:3-5 Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: Then it shall be, because he hath
Affidavit of Martin James Olsen page 1 of 12

sinned, and is guilty that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found. Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering; Lev. 19:11-13 Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another. And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord. Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him; the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning: Num. 30:2 If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth; Mat. 5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:; James 5: 12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation). 3. An unrebutted Affidavit stands as sovereign truth in commerce. (1 Pet. 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you; Heb. 6:13-15 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And so after he had patiently endured he obtained the promise;). He who does not deny, admits. 4. An unrebutted Affidavit is acted upon as the judgement in commerce. (Heb. 6:16- 17 For men verily swear by the greater; and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath).
Affidavit of Martin James Olsen page 2 of 12

5. No one is to be believed, but upon his oath (no Affidavit means no standing). Sacrifice is the measure of credibility. No willingness to sacrifice (swear an Affidavit) means no liability, responsibility, authority, or measure of conviction. (Acts 7, life/death of Stephen). He who bears the burden ought also to derive the benefit. 6. A judge cannot ignore, overturn, abrogate or dismiss an Affidavit. The rule of law is based upon the telling of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and the only party that can challenge an Affidavit is the party adversely affected by it. Rebuttals must be point by point, and any point in an Affidavit left unchallenged stands as agreement of the parties. CANADA IS INSOLVENT 7. At beginning of World War One, the ability to redeem Canada's domestic bank notes (banks could issue their own promissory notes at this time) for gold was temporarily suspended, and an Order in Council allowed for banks to create notes to be issued as legal tender, to prevent the insolvency of the banks (banks were required to close if they could not meet depositor demands for gold or Dominion Notes, which were still redeemable for gold at the time.) (Reference A History of the Canadian Dollar, p. 37, by James Powell, Bank of Canada ISBN 0-660-19571-2) (Exhibit A) 8. On August 10, 1914 an Order in Council suspended the redemption of Dominion Notes for gold, which was also intended to be a temporary measure. (Reference A History of the Canadian Dollar, p. 38, by James Powell, Bank of Canada ISBN 0-660-19571-2)(Exhibit A) 9. These two Orders in Council were combined into legislation in the form of The Finance Act and received royal assent on August 22, 1914. In other words, the inability to redeem these notes for gold became statutory law. (Reference A History of the Canadian Dollar, p. 38, by James Powell, Bank of Canada ISBN 0-660-19571-2)(Exhibit A) 10. Canada briefly returned to a gold based currency standard in 1926, but that ended permanently
Affidavit of Martin James Olsen page 3 of 12

in 1933 with Order in Council 16 of April 10, 1933. (Reference A History of the Canadian Dollar, p. 43, by James Powell, Bank of Canada ISBN 0-660-19571-2)(Exhibit A) 11. On March 11, 1935 the Bank of Canada began operations, and the Dominion Notes Act and the Finance Act were both repealed, to be replaced by the Bank of Canada Act, which received royal assent on July 3, 1934. The Bank of Canada Act now had sole note issuing authority. (Reference A History of the Canadian Dollar, p. 49, by James Powell, Bank of Canada ISBN 0660-19571-2)(Exhibit A) 12. Redemption of Bank of Canada notes for gold was still possible, despite the fact that the currency was no longer backed by gold, until approximately 1966 or 1967, when Bank of Canada notes no longer contained the phrase WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND. It was at this point that all Bank of Canada notes were nothing more than expressions of debt. (Supreme Court Ruling in Bank of Canada v. Bank of Montreal (S.C.R. 1148), page 1149) (Exhibit B) 13. Since the last note inscribed with the words WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND found its way out of circulation, all notes issued by the Bank of Canada are strictly fiat (product of statutory decree), borrowed into circulation at interest, and are backed by absolutely nothing, and redeemable for absolutely nothing. 14. The use of Bank of Canada Notes, and all associated forms of currency including but not limited to checks, drafts, letters of credit, and electronic funds in common circulation in Canada is a confidence game. Since each person who tenders or accepts legal tender (Bank of Canada Notes and other associated monetary units, debit transactions, ect.) does so with the confidence that others will also accept his tender, each transaction invokes the law of offer and acceptance, and is not supported by anything other than legal tender stipulations. 15. The existence of legal tender laws is itself evidence that Bank of Canada notes are intrinsically
Affidavit of Martin James Olsen page 4 of 12

deficient in such a way that would cause their rejection as payment for debts. 16. There is no longer money of substance in Canada, and all forms of money are promises to pay, or different expressions of debt, otherwise known as negotiable instruments. THE LAW OF MERCHANTS 17. The use of negotiable instruments to conduct transactions evolved as a custom among international merchants, where the instruments themselves were an expression of a commodity of substance that the merchants for expedient reasons did not wish to carry as they travelled. This custom became so widespread and prevalent that it evolved alongside the Common Law and was gradually incorporated into the Common Law, finally to be declared a branch of the Common Law called the Law Merchant by Lord William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield during the time he was Chief Justice of the King's Bench (1756 - 1788). 18. As Canada abandoned the gold standard, the only law form remaining to govern transactions was the Law Merchant, which in Canada recently evolved into the Bills of Exchange Act, the Personal Property Security Act, the Consumer Protection Act, and other acts dealing with commercial transactions. In the United States, commercial transactions are governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). (Reference Bills of Exchange Act, section 9)(Exhibit C) 19. Without a substance to back currency, all negotiable instruments now express only debt, and thus, all forms of currency in Canada are merely different expressions of debt. 20. All agreements or contracts in which fiat currency is passed are only colourable, since no lawful consideration was, or even could be, passed between the parties. 21. Since promises to pay are an expression of debt, and all forms of currency are also expressions of debt, then promises to pay are in reality a form of currency. 22. When an application to borrow is signed by the applicant, the applicant is essentially the Maker of a negotiable instrument, being the author of a promise to pay. It is unlikely that
Affidavit of Martin James Olsen page 5 of 12

financial institutions have failed to notice or realize that an applicant has just provided them with a specie of money the moment he signs the instrument, and in all likelihood treat the instrument as an asset on their ledgering or bookkeeping. 23. No debt can ever be extinguished because the only means to do so are themselves different expressions of debt. 24. No one demanding payment, in a society where no substance based currency exists, can compel payment to be tendered in a certain or specific form, since all standard forms of currency are different expressions of debt. Therefore, it is unlikely (and unlawful) for the original agreement between defendant, STARBUCK CREDIT UNION LIMITED, and myself to have stipulated that the form of payment STARBUCK CREDIT UNION LIMITED could demand was limited to electronic currency, check, or Bank of Canada notes. Since the form of payment was not (and given that all forms are debt, could not be) stipulated, I believe I am within my rights to tender a negotiable debt instrument, of which I am the maker, as opposed to a negotiable debt instrument of which Bank of Canada is the maker. 25. No debt is actually created with an application for credit, because the instrument supplied to the bank by the applicant actually creates the money issued as credit. 26. The fact that banks demand collateral of substance to secure loans that technically do not exist is, in my opinion, consistent with fraud. 27. Since no lawful consideration was ever issued by a bank in any loan agreement, and since the fact that it is the borrower's own promise to pay that actually created the credits used in the loan is never disclosed to the borrower, the agreement or contract is fatally flawed in that the consideration and disclosure requirements for a binding contract are not met by the bank. 28. The parties in a credit loan agreement do nothing more than swap commercial paper of the same value. The bank risks none of its reserves, they remain unchanged, but the bank demands
Affidavit of Martin James Olsen page 6 of 12

periodic payments to be made against collateral of substance, having invested nothing. 29. Any interest rate, no matter how small, where nothing was actually loaned, is technically infinite, and I believe constitutes violations of the Criminal Code of Canada section dealing with criminal interest rates. (Criminal Code of Canada section 347(1))(Exhibit J) 30. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that what is said to be an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain in money is itself money. (Supreme Court Ruling in Bank of Canada v. Bank of Montreal (S.C.R. 1148), page 1154)(Exhibit B) 31. Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition defines negotiable instrument as follows : A written instrument that (1) is signed by the maker or drawer, (2) includes an unconditional promise or order to pay a specified sum of money, (3) is payable on demand or at a definite time, and (4) is payable to order or to bearer. (Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition)(Exhibit E) 32. Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition defines tender as follows: A valid and sufficient offer of performance; specif., an unconditional offer of money or performance to satisfy a debt or obligation < a tender of delivery>. The tender may save the tendering party from a penalty for nonpayment or nonperformance or may, if the other party unjustifiably refuses the tender, place the other party in default. (Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition)(Exhibit E) 33. Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition defines bank note as follows: A promissory note issued by a bank or banker authorized to do so, payable to bearer on demand, and intended to circulate as money. See Federal reserve notes. (Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition)(Exhibit F) 34. Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition defines note as follows: An instrument containing an express and absolute promise of signer (i.e. maker) to pay to a specified person or order, or bearer, a definite sum of money at a specified time. Two party instrument made by the maker and payable to payee which is negotiable if signed by the maker and contains an unconditional promise to pay sum certain in money, on demand or at a definite time, to order or
Affidavit of Martin James Olsen page 7 of 12

bearer. (Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition)(Exhibit F) 35. Section 57(1) of the Bills of Exchange Act suggests that it is the signature itself that creates the value in any bill of exchange. (Reference Bills of Exchange Act)(Exhibit C) STARBUCK CREDIT UNION LIMITED 36. I believe that the Consumer Protection Act of Manitoba guarantees me the right to a full statement of accounting in association with any alleged debt, and that the full statement of accounting should include disclosure of the source of credits issued in the loan. If it was my own promissory note that created the credits in any way, I believe that fact should be disclosed. I have never received a full statement of indebtedness, despite having requested it, and I believe that my Consumer Protection Act of Manitoba guarantees have not been met by STARBUCK CREDIT UNION LIMITED. (see Consumer Protection Act of Manitoba, section 16)(Exhibit D) 37. On May 2, 2011, STARBUCK CREDIT UNION LIMITED received a tender issued by me, as payment in full for STARBUCK CREDIT UNION LIMITED Loan Number L06-01 in the amount of $8147.45 CDN. (see attached, Registered Mail # RW 526 682 279 CA)(Exhibit G) 38. On or about May 3, 2011 I received a correspondence from STARBUCK CREDIT UNION LIMITED, in which they acknowledged receipt of the instrument tendered by me, but which also indicated that STARBUCK CREDIT UNION LIMITED still believes a debt obligation exists. The instrument tendered by me as payment in full of the debt was not returned to me. (see attached correspondence of May 3, 2011)(Exhibit H) 39. I, in good faith, and with consideration to the possibility that the tender of May 2, 2011 contains deficiencies that prevented STARBUCK CREDIT UNION LIMITED from utilizing it for its intended purpose, tendered a second offer for full payment of the debt on May 31, 2011 (see attached, Registered Mail # RW 535 922 848 CA)(Exhibit I)
Affidavit of Martin James Olsen page 8 of 12

40. I received no dispute of the May 31, 2011 tender for payment, and received no further correspondences from defendant, STARBUCK CREDIT UNION LIMITED, leading me to believe that defendant, STARBUCK CREDIT UNION LIMITED had accepted the May 31, 2011 offer / tender. 41. Neither the May 2, 2011 instrument nor the May 31, 2011 instrument has ever been returned to me. I believe the law of offer and acceptance stipulates that since STARBUCK CREDIT UNION LIMITED exercised property rights over the instruments tendered explicitly and expressly for payment and settlement of the account, that my offer has been accepted and that my business with STARBUCK CREDIT UNION LIMITED has concluded with the discharge of the alleged debt obligation in full. CITY COLLECTIONS & BAILIFF SERVICES INC. 42. On July 5, 2011 agents for CITY COLLECTIONS & BAILIFF SERVICE INC attended my place of business, and seized the property (2001 JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE, LIMITED EDITION), despite protests by me. 43. I asked the two females to identify themselves, and was given a business card bearing the name CHANDRALYN (CANDY) KULLMAN. 44. The second female refused to identify herself in any way. 45. No photo identification was provided by either female, despite having been requested by me. 46. I requested a business card from the unidentified female, who refused to comply. 47. I asked if either female had evidence of an order in the form of a warrant that authorized them to seize my property. 48. The unidentified female waved a bundle of paper in the air and informed me that I could see it but not touch it. 49. I was unable to determine anything from the paperwork that the unidentified female waved, and
Affidavit of Martin James Olsen page 9 of 12

since I was unable to view it closely or make any type of copies, I am uncertain as to exactly what it was that the unidentified female was even carrying, and am still in doubt as to whether she had anything of substance at all. 50. I was presented with no evidence that the two females had lawful authority to seize my property, since every request to demonstrate said authority was refused by the two females. 51. The unidentified female became physically aggressive when I requested further clarification as to exactly what was the source of their authority to seize property from me, while I was in peaceable possession of said property at the time. I believe that the unidentified female's behaviour was consistent with assault (see section 265(1)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada, with attention drawn to the wording by act or gesture), and I demand that defendant CITY COLLECTIONS AND BAILIFF SERVICES INC show cause as to why they should not be compelled to disclose her name and why she should not be arrested to face criminal charges of assault. 52. I requested from the two females full and complete bonding information, and this request was refused by the two females. I believe that failure to disclose bonding information is a form of fraudulent concealment and possibly insurance fraud and demand that CITY COLLECTIONS AND BAILIFF SERVICES INC demonstrate that this is not the case. 53. The two agents for the defendant then seized the property and arranged for it to be towed by a third party, though I believe that the two female agents for the defendant failed to establish colour of right by refusing to allow me to examine the paperwork they claimed gave them authority to seize the property. I believe this is a denial of due process, and consistent with theft, and I challenge CITY COLLECTIONS & BAILIFF SERVICES to demonstrate that this is not the case. 54. I believe that the actions of CHANDRALYN (CANDY) KULLMAN and the second
Affidavit of Martin James Olsen page 10 of 12

unidentified female are consistent with theft, assault (see sections 322(1) and 265(1)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada), and denial of due process of law (refusal to let me examine paperwork). SUMMARY 55. I believe that just cause exists to compel both females to surrender their bonding and / or face criminal prosecution to satisfy plaintiff's claim to damages caused by the conduct of the two female agents for CITY COLLECTIONS & BAILIFF SERVICE INC on July 5, 2011. 56. I believe that negotiable instruments are a specie of money and have never seen any evidence that this is not the case. 57. I believe that all notes, promissory notes, bonds, bills of exchange, bank notes, electronic funds (debit and credit) and the like are equivalent in nature and value and have never seen any evidence that this is not the case. 58. I believe that all forms of currency in Canada qualify as, or exist in association with, negotiable instruments and have never seen any evidence that this is not the case. 59. I believe that a promissory note is a negotiable instrument, and as such, is a specie of money, and I have never seen any evidence that this is not the case. 60. I believe that the promissory notes I tendered to STARBUCK CREDIT UNION LIMITED, which explicitly declare themselves as tender for settlement of the alleged debt are a specie of money and I have never seen any evidence that this is not the case. 61. I believe that since STARBUCK CREDIT UNION LIMITED kept the instruments I tendered as payment for the alleged debt that those instruments have been accepted and I see no reason to believe STARBUCK CREDIT UNION LIMITED would keep them for any other purpose. 62. I believe that by keeping the instruments I tendered as payment, and continuing to make payment demands, STARBUCK CREDIT UNION LIMITED may be committing fraud.
Affidavit of Martin James Olsen page 11 of 12

63. I believe that by keeping the instruments I tendered as payment, and counselling CITY COLLECTIONS & BAILIFF SERVICES INC to seize my property, STARBUCK CREDIT UNION LIMITED may have counselled another party to commit a criminal act. 64. I believe that just cause exists to compel the return of my property, the 2001 JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE LIMITED EDITION and to award monetary damages in the amount I claim, having established the debt as satisfied, and having provided STARBUCK CREDIT UNION LIMITED notice of my intent to seek monetary damages, and hereby challenge STARBUCK CREDIT UNION LIMITED to demonstrate all the ways in which my tenders for settlement are defective, and for both defendants to challenge the points in this Affidavit.

SWORN before me in the City of Winnipeg, in the Province of Manitoba on

Commissioner of Oaths

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

------------------------------------------Martin James Olsen

Affidavit of Martin James Olsen page 12 of 12