For the public record.

MISPRISION. (1) Misprision of felony: “Every one who knows that any other person has committed felony and conceals or procures the concealment thereof, is guilty of misprision of felony” (Steph. Cr. (9th ed.) 158. See also Sykes v. Director of public prosecutions [1962] A.C. 528. [Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases, Fourth Edition, 1973]

08 February 2021

To: Ms. Sherrin Pryce, constructive and / or actual trustee[1] of SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE

608 Trutch Street

Victoria, B.C.

V8V 4C5

cc: RCMP Commercial Crime Division, Victoria / Vancouver

Vancouver Stock Exchange (VSE) / (TSX-V post-1999),

Toronto Stock Exchange (TSE), and the parties named below.

And to whom it may concern.

Re: Your nominal financial relationship with:

VERSATILE MORTGAGE CORP. (LANGLEY BC), and the directors and officers thereof,

UPTON CAPITAL CORP. (LANGLEY BC), and the directors and officers thereof,


C. Robert Pearson,


Allan MacCallum,

BAYFIELD MORTGAGE PROFESSIONALS LTD., and the directors and officers thereof,

YARDALE MORTGAGE, and the directors and officers thereof,

STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, and the directors and officers thereof,


Trevor S. Fowler,

Entity d.b.a. The Crown in right (and / or Right) of Canada,

Entity d.b.a. Law Society of British Columbia,

Entity d.b.a. The Crown in right (and / or Right) of British Columbia,

Entity d.b.a. The BC Financial Services Authority (BCFSA),

Entity d.b.a. Registrar and / or Office of the Registrar, Victoria, and

Certain associated beings of conscience / equity in their nominal personal capacity, and / or any other constructive or actual ex temporal absconding debtor(s) involved in the subject enterprise.

Dear Ms. Pryce, and to whom it may concern;

The analysis and report which follows is in respect of your request for same in reference to the nominal foreclosure Petition (dated January 24, 2020) made by the Petitioner, VERSATILE / UPTON, and supported by the sworn Affidavit of TERESA DOERKSEN (also January 24, 2020).

First, under the ordinary rules, the Court was and is required to recognise the writing as a false-document and legal-nullity, which automatically revives equity, which triggers an equity-audit of the whole transaction, which reveals the Petitioner as a debtor-in-fact / equity, and as an instrument of organised crime by its principals and officers.

Both VERSATILE and UPTON are corporate entities that have the legal status of a non compos mentis (not mentally competent) natural-person.[2] That is why their affairs have to be managed by directors and officers acting as actual or constructive trustees. Nothing in this or any of my previous writings and reports is intended or should be taken as a libel of these corporate entities, per se, as the liability for any otherwise unlawful or illegal action of the corporation lies with the directors, officers and other controlling minds of the corporation in their personal capacity.

And although the myriad criminal law violations on the face of the writing technically dominate an actual or constructive civil plea of non est factum, the result is the same regarding its unenforceability and / or legal-non-existence.

Next, beginning with the forensic evidence, the whole purported agreement is void on its face even just by the ridiculous Interpretation section that purports to materially and maliciously redefine most material financial terms – but the attempt is so embarrassingly incompetent as to make the intent of the parties regardless impossible to determine, even ignoring all other factors and allegations and evidence-in-fact.

What has been pointed out to multiple officers of the Court and others, is that, on the facts, VERSATILE / UPTON are the lead-debtor under the arrangement, and recipient / beneficiary of, among other things, the $800,000 of real-estate-secured-credit that they obtained from the trust SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE by and under the writing.

Yet the said Interpretation section provides direct contra-labelling such that the ordinary English word “lender” is used to indicate the debtor-in-fact, VERSATILE / UPTON.

For example, according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, the ordinary English term “lender” means:

  1. someone or something that lends money;

But according to the Prescribed Standard Mortgage Terms:

“lender” means the person or persons named in the mortgage form as a lender and includes any person to whom the lender transfers this mortgage.

First, here, anyone with at least a junior-high-school education knows that one cannot place material reliance on the term purportedly being defined as part of the purported definition of that term. The larger logical flaw and fatal defect is called begging the question.

And how would the “lender” as so defined receive “this mortgage” as a transfer from the “lender” (i.e., from itself). The whole thing is a study in non sequitur.

Then compound the manifest deceit and bad faith by doing the same with the words “borrower”, “court”, “interest”, “interest calculation period”, “interest rate”, “loan payment”, etc.

Likewise the term “principal amount” is defined in virtually any ordinary English, accounting, financial and / or law dictionary to the effect or as a composite:

“principal amount” means the actual or net amount loaned by a lender to a borrower, net of any interest, premium, discount, fees, or any other rebates or kick-backs (by unregistered side-agreements).

I have been unable to locate a single dictionary in any discipline that states anything like:

principal amount” means the amount of money shown as the principal amount on the mortgage form…and includes all money that is later added to the principal amount under these mortgage terms.

And, again, over and above the naked deceit, it is all compounded and confounded by not using capitalized otherwise English terms, but rather directly purporting to redefine or overwrite and exclude the ordinary English definitions and meanings of these critical financial terms. The result is gibberish. Just substitute the long-form definition given in the Interpretation section for the same word or term as it appears in the rest of the writing, and the result is incomprehensible. Not just a little awkward as might be expected if the nominal definitions were genuine refinements or clarifications of the true meanings – but objectively incomprehensible.

Credit instrument and not a debt instrument

Outside of, or notwithstanding, the said defects in the Interpretation section, the writing at issue and relied upon by the Petitioner is, on its face, and as ratified by what happened in fact afterwards, an otherwise gratuitous underwriting and advance of $800,000 of credit by the trust SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE to the Petitioner, plus an undertaking and assumption of a liability to pay the Petitioner another $800,000 on a stipulated (nominal maturity) date, plus additional payments of $5,235 per month in the meantime, plus $100 to $400 in penalties for each such late monthly payment, plus transfer and conveyance of the legal title to the property as security therefore, plus an Assignment of Rents over the gross business income of the business, again as security therefore (i.e., for all of the foregoing).

At this point the Petitioner had obtained some $3 million of value from the trust SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE. Such is also what makes the larger managed-mental-illness easy to appreciate.

Given that Party A has transferred and conveyed some $3 million of valuable assets to Party B and expressly in exchange for nothing, no sane man or woman can conclude that Party A is the debtor to Party B. On the bare facts, Party B (VERSATILE / UPTON) is prima facie the debtor-in-fact / equity to Party A as creditor (the trust of SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE), and is prima facie unjustly enriched thereby.

Further collateral and conclusive evidence in the standard Title Insurance Terms demonstrates that (1) all material parties (other than Sherrin June Pryce at the time) were and remain aware that the unconditional underwriting by the trust SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE of $800,000 of credit in favour of VERSATILE / UPTON is credit obtained by VERSATILE / UPTON for no value, and (2) that such underwriting is trafficked-in-fact to and by subsequent owners of the indebtedness [gratuitous underwriting] per se:


The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company [Stewart Title] will not pay loss or damage, costs, legal fees or expenses which arise by reason of:

3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters:

  1. created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the Insured Claimant [bank / pretended-lender];…

(c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant;…

(e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage.

4. Unenforceability of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of the Insured at Date of Policy or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with applicable doing business laws of the jurisdiction in which the Land is situated.

So there is no question that the prequalified underwriting and assumption of the $800,000 liability by the trust SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE was and remains a real commercial asset in and of itself and with a then minimum net present value of $800,000 as and when underwritten.

VERSATILE / UPTON obtained that real financial underwriting and assumption of liability with itself as the named beneficiary of the $800,000 gain or benefit, as follows (in addition to the fraud and false pretence in the BAYFIELD Offer Letter (used to obtain credit from the trust SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE by fraud or false pretence, (and as particeps criminis with VERSATILE / UPTON)):

2 (1) In return for the lender agreeing to lend the principal amount to the borrower, …

At this point (under the aggregate inputs required of the trust SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE (before determination of the chance event)), VERSATILE / UPTON are up some $3 million in the game of harvesting the equity in the property and business. It costs at least $800,000 to loan $800,000. It does not cost anything to agree to loan $800,000, and everyone in the nominal finance business knows it, and profits from the fact of it.

And this is also the point of the fatal error in fact (i.e., in terms of it being an escalation even from the already deceitful pretended norm). By concurrently and simultaneously negating even its bare agreement to loan:

6 (13) The lender does not have to advance… the principal amount …to the borrower unless the lender wants to.[3]

VERSATILE / UPTON gain a real and substantial financial advantage in their subsequent trafficking or conversion of the writing / nominal security by avoiding having to declare any outstanding liability necessary to perfect their title. Most briefly, they cannot sell a security to a third party without disclosing any outstanding liability that they have incurred to obtain it.

That is also likely why they have failed to disclose the identity of the third nominal or pretended “lender”. Again according to the Interpretation section 1 (1) of the writing (emphasis added):

“lender” means the person or persons named in the mortgage form as a lender [VERSATILE / UPTON] and includes any person to whom the lender transfers this mortgage.

The definition requires a minimum of three parties, being VERSATILE / UPTON as the first two, “and includes any person to whom the lender transfers this mortgage” as the third.

As such the identity of the “lender” is indeterminate. They (at least one of them) are not named nor disclosed in the writing, and they are not named by the Petitioner. It is possible that that “person to whom the lender transfers this mortgage” is a full-member of Payments Canada, and has placed material reliance on paragraph 6 (13) (to deny or ignore VERSATILE / UPTON’s liability-in-fact as and when the writing was sworn, signed, and delivered).

Far more likely, however, is that VERSATILE / UPTON are acting as a de facto collector for a larger institution with the capacity to convert the gratuitous underwritings of the creditor-in-fact (the trust of SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE) directly, and where management of which is the real controlling mind behind VERSATILE / UPTON (i.e., giving management of VERSATILE / UPTON instruction on how to prepare and falsify the securities in accordance with the needs of the larger institution). Either way, the writing is no more than forensic evidence of multiple criminal law violations by the owners / principals, officers, and directors of these nominal businesses.

Lack of consideration voids nominal contract ab initio

But they also simultaneously, and regardless, lost all claim or pretence to being a creditor to the trust SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE as debtor. The larger scheme requires that pretended chicken-or-the-egg question to remain unanswered, so as to then proceed by (false) presumption.

But by spelling it out on the face of the writing that VERSATILE / UPTON incur no liability at all in return, the substance of the writing flips to clearly and unambiguously define the underwriting and assumption of the liability as otherwise gratuitous, and therefore an advance of credit to VERSATILE / UPTON as beneficiary and debtor to the equitable investment by the trust SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE as lead underwriter.

By direct analogy, a promissory note is normally constructed so as to beg the question by commencing with “For value received…” without the equity-target / victim (issuer / creditor-in-fact) realizing their own instant loss from the fact that no value has in fact been received by them.

But here VERSATILE / UPTON and their solicitors have in effect drafted the promissory note to expressly state: “For no value received or to be received…” which automatically makes it a nullity, which establishes a constructive trust in favour of the trust SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE from the outset. It is not an unintended defect in the writing – the party who prepared it and chose the words (or form or template or whatever) really did intend to obtain about $3 million of the assets of the trust SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE for no value in return.

Even more generally, without an inquiry into the immediate-prior-relationship of the parties (i.e., the facts), it cannot be determined whether a given undertaking of liability is evidence of debt, versus an equity investment the other way.

That is why, I believe, it used to be (and may still be) that any conveyance of real estate for no consideration had to be done under seal and / or by deed. There were and remain valid reasons for such transfers, but the conveyance had to be under seal or by deed to give immutable equitable notice of it to any future holder, and to prevent its use as an instrument of fraud against a court of fact / equity.[4]

It may be important here, because, among other things, the Interest Act Statement (and claim of compliance) on the face of the writing is a de facto (and scandalous) negative-seal or contra-seal. It effectively and / or expressly denies that the conveyance is for no consideration, contrary to the fact of it, and notwithstanding the multiple direct contradictions to it also on the face of the writing.

Regardless, the express provision that VERSATILE / UPTON incur no liability in return, defeats any presumption that they are a creditor, and establishes that the writing is an equity investment in VERSATILE / UPTON by the trust SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE.

If, by procedure-in-fact (and as it was and clearly appears to be), the underwriting and assumption of indebtedness by the trust SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE preceded any past or concurrent consideration, or binding obligation for some future performance of the Petitioner, then the underwriting was necessarily an advance of credit by the trust SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE to the Petitioner.

VERSATILE / UPTON have the constructive status of an ex temporal absconding debtor – a planned-debtor who takes steps before the fact to evade or avoid having to account to their creditor-in-fact for their legal and / or equitable debts once incurred.

They first obtained $800,000 of real-estate-secured-credit from you, but under a writing that had been falsified (by the Interest Act Statement, among other means) to evidence an equitable investment of $800,000 already made by VERSATILE / UPTON to you the other way – the difference is an instant gain of $1.6 million in favour of VERSATILE / UPTON.

Then to convert, leverage and / or re-capitalize that gain, they added or relied upon the no obligation to advance clause under 6 (13). In effect, and in addition to the above-described false-denial of liability to any transferee, this allows them to charge-off their $800,000 equity-debt to you as a 100%-plus entry-fee for a chance to obtain their agreement to loan it back to you at interest.

They arrive at the transaction with nothing, then obtain $800,000 of credit from you, plus legal title to the house, plus your obligation to pay them another $800,000 on the pretended maturity date in one year, plus $62,800 as payments in advance from the proceeds, and another $20,000 or so of more fees, also from the proceeds (from the liquidation of your (former) assets).

As such the proceedings are not a foreclosure action at all, but rather an attempted illegal and unlawful conversion and / or theft of trust assets by the Petitioner. There is no forensic evidence by which to believe that the subject writing is a contract at all, and conclusive evidence to positively establish that it is not a contract at all.

Management at VERSATILE / UPTON took egregious advantage of the woman Sherrin June Pryce to fraudulently induce her to fraudulently and unconditionally convey valuable assets of her trust, SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE, to VERSATILE / UPTON in exchange for the bare chance of that trust, SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE, receiving anything at all in return.

That is also exactly what the writing provides for, sometimes called hiding in plain sight.

Including the nominal Assignment of Rents,[5] it is a legal conveyance or transfer of $3 million of assets belonging to the trust SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE,[6] as authorized and approved (sworn and signed / (and notarised)) by its trustee, Sherrin June Pryce, in favour of and to VERSATILE / UPTON as beneficiary and new owner of those assets, expressly in exchange for nothing at all.

But everyone involved in the legal system can only see the word or label Mortgage, which triggers a material diminished capacity and failure to determine whether the thing so labelled possesses even the barest elements of the thing it purports itself to be. It cannot be a contract secured by mortgage of real estate, because it is first and foremost and on its face not a contract.

A trustee cannot give away the assets or other objects of their trust, expressly in exchange for nothing, with or without the bare chance or suggestion that their trust might obtain something in return. Just as even the 100% owner / shareholder and director of a corporation cannot gratuitously alienate or give away assets of the corporate entity:

There is no merit in the argument that a principal shareholder of a corporation, as its “alter ego”, cannot be guilty of defrauding the company. Even a one-man company can be defrauded by its principal, since he has no right to deplete its assets and thus prejudice the rights of creditors, and this is true even where the creditors are ultimately paid off (R. v. Marquardt, [1972] 6 C.C.C. (2d) 372).

Likewise, neither the trust SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE, nor its trustee / administrator, Sherrin June Pryce, had any legal or equitable authority to transfer the assets of her trust to the Petitioner for the bare chance of receiving anything at all in return.

The facts here are 100% consistent with those in what is still the leading decision on fraud in Canada – R. v. Olan, et al. [1978] S.C.C. In that case the directors of a corporation were convicted of fraud against the corporation for having exchanged what the Courts described as “blue chip securities” belonging to the company, for an unsecured promissory note from a third party. The S.C.C. held that the fraud was complete as and when the exchange took place, and did not depend in any way on whether the third party subsequently did or did not default on their note.

Likewise here, the natural-woman Sherrin June Pryce was induced by the officers and employees and solicitors for the Petitioner to transfer and convey valuable assets (e.g., legal title to the property) not merely in exchange for what is in substance an unsecured promissory note (unsecured deposit credit at some institution favoured by VERSATILE / UPTON), but for the bare chance of obtaining an unsecured promissory note.

It is just a sophisticated predator inducing a relatively unsophisticated trustee of assets, to unconditionally convey and transfer the assets of her trust to the predator, for no consideration. It would be difficult to find a way to more clearly spell out that the Petitioner obtains the assets for nothing, and to its own unearned and unjust enrichment.

Essentially you are being treated as an imbecile or piece of property (i.e., like livestock where you have some minimal rights related to anti-cruelty-to-animals principles, but are not recognised as a being of conscience). Under the managed-mental-illness meme employed by these people, the instant they induce you, by fraud or false pretence, to put a mark on a piece of paper, in their minds you agree to assume the role or legal status of debtor, and after that it really does not matter how they lie, deceive, and systematically abuse and rob you of your assets, or what used to be termed theft by a trick.

Both the people who own and run the Petitioner, and the people who own and run the Courts, really do believe that if you were stupid enough to believe them and make a mark on the piece of paper, then you deserve to be robbed of your equity.

It remains in fact written evidence of a gratuitous underwriting of liability, and a conveyance of underwritings, undertakings, titles, and other assets, from the trust SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE to the Petitioner, for expressly no consideration.

And even if it were fully-informed, because of (at a minimum) the equity investments of her (your) family members, at no time were Sherrin June Pryce and / or the trust SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE in a position to lawfully underwrite that liability, nor alienate those assets, for no consideration in return.

Response to initial Analysis and Report

According to the woman who called me claiming to represent the RCMP Commercial Crime Division, she had read my initial report (dated December 27, 2020):

as soon as it had arrived, and that the RCMP was closing their file on it, by reason of it being a civil matter.

All of the evidence presented in the report is prima facie, easily / readily verifiable, and which includes multiple constructive or actual of what are called strict-liability offences. It follows (it cannot reasonably be otherwise), that she was communicating a lack of jurisdiction by the RCMP over violations of the criminal law by financial corporations, and / or in such nominal transactions as processed by members of the Law Society or BAR or Bar Association.

Of the up to three-dozen prima facie criminal and racketeering offences on the face of the aggregate documentation and procedures as occurred in fact, the majority of the offences, including and especially the money-laundering (laundering of proceeds of crime) offences, were committed by the legal professionals in their official capacity.

In every case where the trustees / administrators of a corporate body are advised and assisted to commit an enterprise-crime / organised-crime / designated offence by a member of the Law Society or Bar Association, the lawyer(s) simultaneously commit three offences. The lawyers are (1) joint parties to the bank’s offence, (2) they are guilty themselves of counselling their client to commit an enterprise / organised-crime offence (which is itself an enterprise-crime / organised-crime / designated offence), and (3) laundering of proceeds of crime when they (the lawyers / solicitors) are paid by the bank from the resulting proceeds of crime.

It may be that people working for one arm of the Crown (RCMP) cannot arrest or prosecute those working for another arm of the Crown (Law Society or Bar Association / BAR).

And the judges of yet another arm of the Crown (Crown Courts) may not have any normal authority to do so either.

In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada ratified (denied leave to appeal) the unanimous Ontario Court of Appeal decision in William E. Thomson v. Carpenter that the Courts have jurisdiction to grant standing to criminal and racketeering law offenders, and to enforce their contract contrary to the criminal law based on the judge’(s) personal opinion of:

[T]he serious consequences of invalidating the [criminal] contract, the social utility of those consequences, and a determination of the class of persons for whom the [criminal] prohibition was enacted…[7]

Also, the Courts / judges all took judicial notice of the fact that the offending parties had been aided and abetted by “two leading Toronto law firms” (members of the BAR or Bar Association).

Such a limitation may also be the reason behind the U.S. Constitutional Amendment in 1920, to impose Prohibition on alcohol. It may be that government never has had the legal capacity to interfere with an (alleged)[8] established business custom (except by constitutional amendment).

If that were true, then virtually all other resources would be directed toward keeping the masses ignorant to the fact of it.

You may ultimately lose this round as there has been at-least a fraud-upon-a-power under Thompson, under which the judges of the Courts prima facie unlawfully subordinated the Parliament and the Crown.

You will likely have to rely on what I describe as the Banana Republic Doctrine. Most briefly, Thomson and its doctrine of “not fundamentally illegal” is conclusive proof of material diminished capacity among the judges – a kind of cogno-linguistically-induced mass-psychosis.

Regardless, the thing (the Courts’ alleged reasoning) speaks for itself, and if you have no reasonable grounds to believe that the alleged Court will adjudicate the matter on either the facts or the law, then as a trustee you would be negligent in having anything to do with the nominal proceedings – other then the bare minimum necessary to avoid the ever-present threat of state-violence levelled against you.

Under the Banana Republic Doctrine, you will have to hold your equitable claim in quasi-abeyance pending restitution of a competent justice system.

I believe something similar may have been done in the case of U.S. corporations whose property was confiscated by Castro / Cuba in the early 1960’s.

Likewise, you can rely on the international treaty-law violations by the Petitioner to capitalize and syndicate your claims worldwide with final distribution and settlement pending a restoration of a competent system in Canada – or at least something less than the naked theft of assets that is occurring here now.

Also libel

The writing is also a libel of and against the trust SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE denouncing (via the false Interest Act Statement) the trust SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE as a debtor of VERSATILE / UPTON in a transaction under which the trust SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE was and remains the creditor-in-fact to VERSATILE / UPTON, and VERSATILE / UPTON was and remains a debtor-if-fact to the trust SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE.

The writing has been (in parts carefully, and in parts carelessly) designed and crafted to provide for the perpetrator to concurrently obtain real-estate-secured-credit from the target, while making it a condition of the possibility of receiving anything in return, that the target agree to assume the legal status of debtor notwithstanding that they are the lead-underwriter and source-in-fact of all net equity and credit brought to the transaction.

Accordingly, and once again, VERSATILE / UPTON – and anyone who aids and abets them – have the constructive status of an ex temporal absconding debtor – a planned-debtor who takes steps before the fact to evade or avoid having to account for their debts once incurred.

They first obtained $800,000 of real-estate-secured-credit from you, but under a writing that had been falsified (by the Interest Act Statement, among other means) to evidence an equitable investment of $800,000 already made by VERSATILE / UPTON to you the other way – the difference is a gain of $1.6 million in favour of VERSATILE / UPTON.

Then to leverage and capitalize that gain or those gains, they added or relied upon the no obligation to advance clause under 6 (13). In effect this allows them to charge-off their $800,000 debt to you in exchange as a 100%-plus entry-fee for a chance to obtain their agreement to loan it back to you at interest.

They arrive at the transaction with nothing, then obtain $800,000 of credit from you, plus legal title to the house, plus your obligation to pay them another $800,000 on the nominal / pretended maturity date in one year, plus $62,800 as payments in advance from the proceeds, and another $20,000 or so of more fees, also from the proceeds.

And all in exchange for:

6 (13) The lender does not have to advance or readvance the principal amount or the rest or any further part of the principal amount to the borrower unless the lender wants to even though

(a) the borrower has signed this mortgage,
(b) this mortgage is registered in the land title office, or
(c) the lender has advanced to the borrower part of the principal money.

And with everyone salivating over their $3 million score, they simultaneously conclude from their looting of your assets that that makes them your creditor or superior legal entity.

Affidavit of Teresa Doerksen

The AFFIDAVIT OF TERESA DOERKSEN appears to have been drafted by a lawyer following and employing the apparently standard technique (among the legal profession) of deceiving humans by stringing together statements that are not categorically false.

I, TERESA DOERKSEN, Account Manager, of #10l -19909 – 64th Avenue, in the Township of Langley, in the Province of British Columbia, MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:

I. I am the Account Manager for the petitioners VERSATILE MORTGAGE CORP. and UPTON CAPITAL CORP., located at #101 -19909 -64th Avenue, in the Township of Langley, in the Province of British Columbia, and as such have personal knowledge of the facts hereinafter deposed to save and except where stated to be on information and belief and where so stated I verily believe them to be true.

Paragraph 1 is non sequitur in the extreme. The affiant’s status or not as an account manager does not establish, nor provide any reasonable grounds to believe, that the affiant has any knowledge whatever about anything. Paragraph 1 is a meaningless and vacuous statement.

2. I am authorized by the petitioners to swear this Affidavit.

Paragraph 2 is a meaningless and vacuous statement, except to the extent that it is also a potentially exceptionally deceitful statement by omission (failure to state that the affiant is in fact taking instruction from the Petitioner or its solicitors / lawyers).

3. I have read the Petition to the Court in these proceedings and the facts set forth therein are true.

Again, vacuous and irrelevant. There is no basis in any of the alleged process documents by which to conclude that the affiant has any means at all by which to determine whether the facts contained in the Petition to the Court as set forth therein are true or false – except for prima facie illegality.

4. I know of no fact that would constitute a defence to the claim or part of the claim of the Petitioners against the Respondents in these proceedings.

The nominal or pretended Mortgage, which is not a mortgage at all but a writing which prima facie evidences an advance of real-estate-secured credit to VERSATILE / UPTON expressly contains, for example, a provision for illegal late-payment penalties. How can the affiant, as an alleged real-estate-financial-professional, not know that even stipulating for late payment penalties on mortgage secured interest or principal is an offence against federal securities law? How can the fact of a prima facie illegal stipulation not be a fact that would constitute a defence to the claim?

And the $62,820 of illegal payments in advance? Or the naked false denial of it on the face of the writing / pretended-mortgage?

Note also the moral cowardice inherent to the principals of VERSATILE / UPTON using their ordinary employees to absorb the liability for these scandalously unlawful and illegal proceedings.

5. Attached and marked as Exhibit “A” to this my Affidavit is a true copy of the Mortgage and Assignment of Rents dated July 25, 2017, and registered in the Victoria Land Title Office on August 9, 2017, under number CA6209889 (the “Mortgage”) and CA6209890 (the “Assignment of Rents”), between the Respondent SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE as Mortgagor, and the Petitioners VERSATILE MORTGAGE CORP. and UPTON CAPITAL CORP. as Mortgagees.

Again, there are insufficient facts to establish that the subject writing is a mortgage at all, and overwhelming facts and evidence to establish that it is positively not a mortgage (and the AFFIDAVIT OF TERESA DOERKSEN does not define the capitalized term “Mortgage” regardless).

6. Attached and marked as Exhibit “B” to this my Affidavit is a copy of the Prescribed Standard Mortgage Terms for the Mortgage.

The statement here is incomplete and needs to finish with “the terms of which prima facie establish multiple offences against the criminal law and against the equity of the trust SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE.” Should also mention whether she used the ordinary English meanings of the words or the gibberish and contra-labelling provided under and through the Interpretation section.

7. Attached and marked as Exhibit “C” to this my Affidavit is a true copy of the demand letter dated December 10, 2019, issued by the Petitioners through its solicitors to the Respondent SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE demanding payment of the amount due and owing pursuant to the terms of the Mortgage.

There is no evidence or reason to believe anywhere in the nominal Affidavit that the affiant has any knowledge of anything sent out or not sent out by an unnamed law firm that in addition may well be a material party to the multiple criminal offences.

8. As of the date of the swearing of this Affidavit the amount due and owing under the Mortgage remains unpaid.

Here again, the affiant is prima facie not competent to make that determination – along with anyone else not acting in good faith. Every directly or indirectly related asset in the custodial possession of the Petitioner is held by the Petitioner as a constructive trustee in favour of the trust SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE. Paragraph 8 is accordingly incurably defective by unfounded presumption that is also contrary to the facts.

SWORN BEFORE ME at the Township of Langley, in the Province of British Columbia, this 22nd day of January of 2020.

Affidavits in British Columbia

Amanda L. Nassachuk

A Commissioner for Taking Affidavits For British Columbia

400, 8621 – 201 St., Langley, B.C. V2Y 0G9 Expiry Date: August 31, 2020

No obligation to respond to nominal Petition

Ms. Pryce not only had no obligation to respond to the nominal foreclosure process initiated by VERSATILE / UPTON, she had a positive obligation not to. The facts clearly establish that she is dealing with perpetrators of a large number of at-least-constructive strict-liability enterprise-crime / organised-crime / designated offences.

There are a minimum of fourteen (14) criminal law violations on the face of the nominal / pretended mortgage, and the Court was and remains required under the Canada Evidence Act (s. 18) to take judicial notice of them of its own volition and regardless of whether such is expressly pleaded by any of the parties. Ms. Pryce was entitled to the protection of same at the fact-finding level.

Ms. Pryce is reasonably permitted to rely on the Court to do its job instead of compelling her to directly take on the same at-least technically-organized-crime offenders who robbed her in the first place.

The essence of the Petitioner’s claim is: “The Petitioner holds this piece of paper that is signed by the Defendant. The piece of paper states that the parties agree that the Petitioner owns the property, subject to a repurchase-option allowing the Defendant to buy it back from the Petitioner. The Defendant has defaulted on the conditions of the repurchase option. The Petitioner demands possession of the property.”

But the piece of paper also contains multiple material contradictions, objective-false-statements, and prima facie illegal and unlawful provisions and false presentations, and counsel for the Petitioner is required, as an officer of the Court, to bring those defects to the attention of the Court – and not to merely parrot to the judge: “Nothing to see here judge – just a routine foreclosure against a sub-human defaulting debtor (snicker) who, to paraphrase Blackstone, “ought to be content with anything we allow her short of hanging.” We robbed her fair and square and now she is just trying to get out of it by pointing out all the frauds we employed to steal her equity in the first place.”

Nominal Administrative Remedy

While I have almost no specific research experience in the area, I have consulted with a colleague who has done extensive research in what they refer to as an administrative remedy.

Most briefly, the basic business-model of the system seems to be that of financial-apartheid, where the masses are kept poor and politically-powerless as a matter of policy. In order to avoid the supreme equity remedy, as occurred at Nuremberg following WW II, for example, the administrative superstructure takes account of the wealth so stolen as a matter of policy.

Which, in turn, provides the ultimate escape-hatch of: “All these relatively poor people (those not in the entrenched-money-power club) were never robbed at all – they just failed to educate themselves as to where we were transferring their wealth and how to get it back.”

Or something like that.

According to my colleague, you have the following documents and account references which they believe are necessary to have the system discharge the pretended mortgage so that none of the parasites have to go hungry. There may be other documents required.

Power of Attorney Form

Power of Attorney – to recover unclaimed dividends Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy Canada Unclaimed Dividends Search

I believe that another consequence of the conveyance or transfer of all of your assets for no consideration was that the instant you did so, you became, or rather falsely appeared to become, insolvent under the Bankruptcy Act. That may be what they are using as a conduit and / or nominal justification for the assets or mirror-assets.

Again, this is not my area of expertise, but it is at least consistent with the underlying managed-mental-illness that is becoming ever more endemic to the system.

At this point, however, you will almost certainly require their assistance in the administration and execution of it, either voluntarily or under an order from the Court.

In the final analysis, all you have done is to point out dozens of fatal flaws and defects in the nominal writings while offering to do equity if VERSATILE / UPTON can demonstrate that they did not directly or indirectly obtain the alleged loan funds from you and / or a conversion of your assets that they first obtained expressly for no consideration (or at least a fictitious and / or illusory consideration that was simultaneously yanked-back under the bait-and-switch device).

Perhaps it is as easy as amending the writing to reflect the real intent of the parties and to remedy the error in the stated consideration to read:

2 (1) In return for the lender agreeing to accept $ 3 million of assets belonging to the borrower as a gift to the lender…

Yet they continue to near-hysterically insist that everything is routine, and that a comprehensive audit of the equities would constitute the end of the world for reasons that cannot be divulged.

Summary and conclusion

In a sense, the evidence under the nominal Title Insurance Terms is a metaphoric smoking gun – or rather one among several dozen.

The character Captain Willard as narrator to the film Apocalypse Now said – “Charging a man with murder in Vietnam is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500.”

Likewise, charging an established institution on Planet Earth with fraud and racketeering is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500.

Which, for example, is the greater amount – the daily average 3% rake-off illegally obtained by the owners of the private financial system, from skimming the sales-tax revenue that is run through credit / charge-card accounts in Canada, to take advantage of the card-issuers and their purported free-loan system?

Or the kick-backs from it that are paid directly to judges in Canada, and the rest of the broadly-defined legal profession, as part of their aggregate and broadly-defined nominal Air Miles and Membership Rewards programs? After all – Membership has its privileges.

Apparently it has never occurred to anyone in the Canadian justice system that it is a little difficult for a judge to recognise violations of literally dozens of domestic criminal law and international anti-racketeering treaties, while simultaneously receiving a personal kick-back from the clearly defined proceeds of crime.

Hints for doing the math: The global private rake-off from just the VAT and other broadly-defined sales-taxes is about the US-equivalent of $200 million a day – or about 10% of the gross daily rake-off of concealed interest / credit-charges of about $2 billion per day. But they also kick-back a reported average of 18% or close to $400 million a day in such broadly-defined rewards programs, with the lion’s share going to the 50% of all card-users (including most judges and lawyers) who account for 98% of all nominal spending and throughput.

When confronted with it in early 1991, very shortly after the introduction of the federal GST, the near-inconceivably fraudulent practice of the private banks skimming a self-imposed and demanded handling-fee (currently about $5 million per day) off the federal sales tax revenue, the fearless spokesperson for what was then Revenue Canada courageously replied: “We can’t tell anyone how to bill their customers.” [More details at]:

Thirty-one years ago in 1990 a constructively unanimous Supreme Court of Canada ratified the unanimous panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Thomson, that criminal / racketeering acts by the owners, management and solicitors of a financial corporation are not illegal because the criminal law only states that offenders will be severely punished, but does not otherwise expressly state: Don’t do it.

Thirty-one years later, it is vastly easier to count the few remaining institutional practices that are not criminal than the ones that are.

All that any of us can hope for is that the human administrators of this system experience what is called a lucid-interval, or otherwise intellectually sober-up.

A species too stupid to survive – won’t.


Timothy Paul Madden, forensic financial economist, and historian of equity, law, and policy.

  1. And / or whatever nominal device employed by nominal authorities to differentiate between the legal entity SHERRIN JUNE PRYCE, and the natural-woman Sherrin June Pryce.

  2. “Natural-person”, however, is a contradiction-in-terms. All persons are created by law and not otherwise, but I will ignore that aspect here and go along with the word-game and pretence of a natural-person.

  3. Here again, even in this very short portion of the main body of the writing, if you substitute the definitions of the terms “lender”, “borrower”, and “principal amount” the result is gibberish.

  4. I have only recently encountered this under seal and by deed aspect and will have to do more research.

  5. The precise disgorgement-value of which is still subject to discovery and tracing / following. Reasonable estimates are made herein based on the relative cash-flows covered by the pretended mortgage and the pretended assignment of rents.

  6. Here again, as ratified by what occurred in fact after Ms. Pryce executed the writing, and notwithstanding that the writing and collateral nominal documentation is saturated with fatal defects, non sequiturs, and direct contradictions.

  7. Thomson, (William E.) Associates Inc. v. Carpenter [1989] 34 O.A.C. 365.

  8. Here again, none of these practices in fact even come close to satisfying the definition or concept of a legitimate business custom.