RE: File No: S- 15107 83

Vancouver Registry

Jan 25, 2016

In the Supreme Court of British Columbia

Between:

THE LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Petitioner

And:

Marc Pierre Boyer

Respondent

SUPPLEMENT TO OUR RESPONSE TO PETITION

Filed by :

Marc Pierre Boyer

acting under our districts' fiduciary trust
as CFA for several Marijuana Party Electoral District Associations [EDA]
4-858 East 6th Ave. Vancouver BC, V5T 1M1 [EDA headquarters]

THIS IS A RESPONSE TO the petition filed

BY:
The Law Society of British Columbia
845 Cambie Street, Vancouver, BC, V6B 4Z9
Petitioner's Lawyer

Micheal Kleisinger
The Law Society of British Columbia
845 Cambie Street, Vancouver BC, V6B 4Z9

Part 1: ORDERS CONSENTED TO: As expressed in my PROTEST of January 15, 2016

Marc Boyer asked for a point of law ruling and with this filing is now proceeding with
responding to points 1 thru 4 of this Petition, in accordance to prescribed form.
Part 2: ORDERS OPPOSED: We oppose the granting of any order that the BAR desires to
implement in points 1 thru 4 of this Petition. As we see it, we have been extended 21 work
days, from the date served to submit a detailed defence to points 1 thru 4. We're now filing
this detailed response Petition, within this time-frame, in order to expand on these points
contained in our November 27, 2015 Motion that was entered before these 4-points in this
Petition, as if they were a short introduction written after these 4-points were drafted.
Part 3: ORDERS ON WHICH NO POSITION IS TAKEN:
1. AS we see it: we are not contesting our estimated 2-hour timeline [set on January
18th, to settle this 132-page Petition, on the understanding that this supplement is just
offering more depth to the factual basis, legal basis, and material to be relied on, at this
first appearance; and in this way, [as prescribed by law] proceed without any delays,.
FACTUAL BASIS:

ON CONTESTING POINTS that apply to criminal Applications

1. Our first response is that the Legal Professions Act simply has no authority to dictate
that it can omit that under the Canada Elections Act, Marc Boyer is in 'deed' [by virtue
of this appointed title of CFA of a Federal District Association of concerned voters]
makes me [1] the holder of a public purse, [2] the registrar of agents /members, [3] the
writer of our Freedom to Contract, with our officers and agents, [4] therefore, i'm duty
bound to protect our common law rights and privileges, in order to prosper /carry on.

2. [as to point 1-a] The Law Societies Act cannot actually directly prohibit Marc Boyer
from acting as a barrister under the Canada Elections Act, in order to defend the
common law rights of our EDA members. In fact, your Act cannot trample on our
EDA's interests, because we hold a Sec 1 Charter common law defence, with a basic
Sec 8 CC necessity defence of: if i don't take this stand, then who will?
1. BC is actually the only 100% common law jurisdiction province under the Elections
Act, [as in] we voted out being wards, so the CDSA cannot strip us of our territorial
rights, like they can assume to oppress in other provinces, and we voted out HST,
so the CDSA cannot assume exclusivity over commerce, as done across Canada.
2. Yet, we cannot find a lawyer or barrister to defend our common law territorial rights,
or our Sec 1 Charter guarantees to protect our Free and democratic society, from
the power grab that this S-55 of the CDSA took [because cops obey any Federal
prosecutors, when they issue a warrant to enforce S-55 of the CDSA as if enacted
AND at face value the Law Society of BC must now submit to this Federal sedition
of the SCC's authority to be Supreme, because NATO demands that under the
international obligations they must trample on our common law Sovereignty for
anything NATO defines as being under their Public Safety authority to enforce.
3. As we see it, the CDSA is a corporation owned by harmaceutical monsters that
writes our NATO Public Safety laws just like the FDA, when in Canada the Minister
responsible for the CDSA has no such right to trample on anyone's rights, to cure
their cancer or benefit from any herbal remedy that competes against their chemo
therapy /radiation treatment cash cow that is proven to not work 90% of the time.
3. [as to point 1-b] By definition, this Legal Professions Act cannot be used to seek an
order to prohibit me [aka: bar me] from drawing revising, and settling EDA contracts:
At face value, with our dealings with Elections Act officials, some Minister for Public
Safety wants it to be a crime to write a common law contract, when as CFA i must
defend our members under a trust agreement when /or if charged. In Mr. Fortt's case,
as CFA, i cannot defend our contract to lawfully operate under common law for any
individual member, who is charged, and i must do this when no lawyer can understand
/stand-under our common law contracts, in any judicial or extrajudicial proceeding.
1. The Law Society cannot ignore the fact that Mr. Fortt's charges are just a criminal
issue until after the Arraignment. The issue is: 'no jurisdiction' to send Mr Fortt to
a Federal Court on these charges, is not negotiable [where they then become a
criminal matter]. We actually cannot object to having charges heard in BCSC.
2. Arguably contracted residents [like] a dispensary that signed wavers with the City
can be summoned to a Federal Court on any Federal or CDSA charge, whereas
our membership under common law contract cannot be summoned to appear in a
Federal Court, on the clear understanding of holding no jurisdiction to do so, other
then entrapment, which is the #1 tool for implementing measures by the Admiralty.
3. Frankly, the primary purpose of Provincial Courts is to protect its residents from
Federal Authority encroaching on any common law rights [especially of our Party
members]. Historically the Admiralty has never stopped trying to trample every

God given right known to mankind. Simultaneously, our Provincial Courts are
historically and duty bound to protect its [non-contracted to the CDSA residents]
from being 'ordinary residents' under S-55 of the CDSA [in this case].
4. At face value, acting like this new marginal provisions of the S-55 of the CDSA [of
appearing in Federal Court] is only possible if Mr Fortt did not know better, and had
he got a lawyer would have resulted where there would be no objection to appear
in Federal Court. [after-all he does not meet the CDSA definition of holding a valid
medical excuse that NATO recognizes] ON THIS: Mr Fortt actually still does not
visualize how this 'no jurisdiction' defence can work in practice, because all he and
i see [since returning to Canada] is police abusing all common law rights under
Civilian Oversight of the 1998 Police Act, where police are constantly permitted to
trample by enforcing Maritime rule to violate Native territorial treaties [for example].
1. As we see it: the function of Civilian Oversight is to destroy common law, and
Hitler would be proud of how obedient you are to just blindly following orders.
4. [as to point 1-c] There is no negotiating [in Joe Fortt's case], because the Crown holds
no jurisdiction to proceed with enforcing any S-55 provision of the CDSA [as if law].
The chances of having individuals, with medical excuses, who are not under contract
be subject to CDSA rules and have to appear in Federal Court are slim to none, and
frankly would never survive a court challenge, but then that never stopped Harper.
5. We must object to have our membership appear in Federal Admiralty Court on CDSA
charges, because they hold no jurisdiction over our Federal common law status.
1. We actually do not and can not object to Mr Fortt appearing in BC Supreme Court
on these charge, it's just highly unlikely that a Provincial court will be harsh on Mr.
Fortt, if found guilty, and frankly the charges could be dropped in BCSC.
2. Marc Boyer has never had an intention to represent Mr. Fortt in a criminal matter,
at a trial. BUT we simply cannot sit back and do nothing about being issued to
appear on charges in a Federal Court, when there is no legislation to support this,
because line-1 of our Constitutional rule of law states that only properly legislated
laws are Supreme therefore the majority in power must treat our Party members as
equals in this club called Parliament, therefore cannot be subjected to be ruled
under any S-55 of the CDSA marginal measures, because you are all directly
prohibited from using this arbitrary use of power on especially the Marijuana Party
because it actually has the intent to destroy democracy by subverting our RUBRIC
1. This rogue encroachment of this S-55 provision [of now going to Federal Court]
might pass a court challenge of permitting [for example] the City to tell a
dispensary [who signed a contract] that they did not meet the requirements to
continue to operate, therefore voluntarily shut-down to avoid charges in Federal
Court, when they knew from the onset that they might not be successful at
being on a short list of successful applications to be approved.
2. BUT this signed offer /program by the City was not in place at the time of Joe's
arrest, therefore there is not even an implied consent to take Joe Fortt to

Federal Court for prosecution, other than an occupation license with the City,
which at face value is not sufficient cause to claim a right to be one of the 1 st
victims of a jurisdictional power grab that S-55 of the CDSA is implementing.
3. ON THIS: Frankly, I'm duty bound to express and protect our RUBRIC thru any
lawful means. With the SCC Smith ruling, and our EDA's common law defence
of 'no jurisdiction' under Sec 1 results is where the Act and the Law Societies
Act directly prohibits anyone from trespassing our right to achieve our RUBRIC.
6. [as to point 1-d,e,f] Again, to put it in another light: the independence of the Judiciary
is constantly being eroded by the Law Society insisting that only lawyers [who agree to
never use this common law defence in a criminal case] can defend Mr. Fortt, when no
lawyer can press our 'no jurisdiction defence', without violating their 1993 oath.
1. In our case [with our Sec 1 defence], results where, until a Provincial Court says
otherwise; it's actually called sedition for anyone with an oath to act against our
guaranteed rights to protect our RUBRIC and prosper under the Act.
2. Our no jurisdiction defence cannot continue to be abused by Maritime Authority.
When ignoring our rights fails their objective, they perceive this GAG ORDER as
necessary in spite of the fact that it is trespassing on our commercial premises.
To bar me from defending any member is beyond any reasonable limit prescribed
by law as being demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society [Sec 1].
7. As we see it, with this permanent and expanded GAG ORDER, The Law Society at
its roots is Hell-bent on destroying the last real human being in the Commonwealth,
when as prescribed by law [with my abnormal birth] i should be treated like a King .
1. If this Gag order on me becomes permanent, then any CFA can be barred from
filing or defending any of our common law rights of any Party members, which in
effect will bar any EDA from seeking a Civil Claim in any Provincial Supreme Court.
ORDERS SOUGHT: ON POINTS that apply to Civil Applications [as with] Larry Skopnik.
8. [as to point 2 of the orders sought] - Under the Act [as to form] the CEO of an EDA
[like Larry Skopnik] is responsible for filing any Petition or Civil Claim, and [as in this
case] the CFA writes this document, and we both appear in court to defend this Civilly,
and in this case, the only real solution prescribed by law as a remedy is to seize a
performance bond to compensate the EDA for not fielding a candidate. ON THIS:
Not one dime of this damage award goes to Marc Boyer or Larry Skopnik; we get to
dispose of it by investing in advertising, staging events to attract social and political
participation, and hopefully this seed funding will actually grow. This brings up the
absurdity of me not being entitled to any financial benefit from this income to the EDA.
1. Again, we cannot find a lawyer to defend this case, because no submissive lawyer
will /could ever go after Ives Cote's bond; as we see it, the Law Society wants a
level playing field, where they get to bar anyone from going after a bond, because
somehow that's not how they handle this kind of problem. As we see it, seizing a
trust bond is the only condign measure, when faced with a Sec 1 trust violation.

9. Basically, Elections Canada has been subverted by Harper having a State Department
for Democratic Reform hold a cabinet position, and thus be empowered to write new
marginal measures just like S-55 of the CDSA expresses, except on the Elections Act.
1. This creation of a rule of permitting themselves to be third party arbitrators to over
ride a ruling in the field [like they did in this Larry Skopnik v Peter Walton] is par for
the course, and necessary in getting such a rule added to the next Elections Act.
1. It's our correct impression that every time we complain about being denied a
common law right to be recognized, actually permits the Minister of State to
create the Maritime rule or regulation to do just that. As we see it, none of them
perceive any wrong, when violating anyone's freedom to contract because it's
done routinely all the time, because they created a contract by making a ruling.
2. Frankly [at face value] it's now up to the officers of the Minister of State to
address any complaints made by electors, and create a Maritime regulation
because somehow they asked for it. [ = trap] These fixes become Maritime
marginal regulations, and are ignored or passed off as law, in the next Act, in
order to enforce all those bad decisions as being laws that are not yet passed.
3. In our case, they see no difference between how they deal with electors, and
how they should treat our Marijuana Party guarantees to be protected by the
Supremacy of the SCC, after this R v Smith ruling [under common law]
10. The Minister for Public Safety officers are constantly trampling on Marc Boyer's basic
common law right to freedom of contract, and they are actually now digressing by
refusing to pay out on contract obligations, because this check comes attached to a
trap /agreement to recognizing our common law rights, by delivering this payment.
1. ON THIS: We are here to grant Marc Boyer the right to file Civilly on behalf of an
EDA for its membership, [like - in this case] in order to defend that Mr. Cote's office
is where the buck stops, and ultimately responsible for depriving us of a candidate
by acting as a third party intervener, in an 'in the field' right to freedom to contract.
2. In our case: someone in Ottawa created a new Maritime rule from what occurred
in this election, when they actually have no such right to be our Superiors.
11. Larry Skopnik and Peter Walton had every right to benefit from Freedom to contract in
order to fix this screwed up filing for his candidacy with this 48 hour extension.
1. AGAIN, no lawyer would take on the case; we were warned by lawyers that going
after any bond was just this side of sacrilegious, which brings up this GAG ORDER

LEGAL BASIS
1. It is impossible to refute that our EDA agents and officers are by definition 'prescribed
by law' to protect our beliefs, from the arbitrary abuse of power that the majority in
Parliament is pressing on the governed, which means we hold a guarantee, where this
Supreme Court must protect our RUBRIC from trespass under our fiduciary trust.
1. TO CLARIFY: An EDA is a 'we'; a common law entity [natural person] that is
comprised of all the registered members of that electoral district and all of these
individuals are exempt from any CDSA regulation, as long as they follow what is
prescribe by law, by standing under BCSC rulings in order to protect our common
law rights. This means this legal entity called EDA has far greater legal standing
than Owen Smith's case, or any other dispensaries or growers, because under
Canada Elections, we must be treated as Superior, over ADMIRALTY LAW.
2. In the DCL: A 'prescriber' is defined as an authorized person
who is to give a prescription within the scope of 'any' profession.
A 'professional' prescribes to practice any services that their
Association upholds, and in medical guilds that symbology is expressed on any
prescription pad with this bold RX or DX in the top left corner of the prescriber's form.
3. This X can be found in that same top left corner of all Elections Canada documents,
because 'politics' is a profession, where EDA agents are duly authorized to protect our
beliefs as defined in our common law Heritage in 'a real Free and Democratic society'.
4. After 40 years of depriving us of a working solution, since R v Oakes, there actually still
is not even 1-definition that specifies what the CDSA calls a 'prescription';
FURTHERMORE not even 1 definition for 'prescription' applies to cannabis, and they
still insist that people need one, because they say we are 'prescribed by law' to get it,
because what they define as 'marihuana' is a very dangerous narcotic. [word-craft]
5. The lies and deceitful practices of the CDSA will simply never stop, because the
Federal Courts still insist that cannabis has no proven 'accredited' medical merits.
1. The entire performance of the CDSA must be placed in question, when burdened
under this need to redress past abuse, because, the BCSC in good conscience
must redress the fact THAT: the MMAR has never acted in good faith to provide
any remedy, because the CDSA is actually an international corporation owned by
harmaceutical giants that rights most if not all Public Safety regulations. It actually
holds [in practice] a bogus mandate to obstruct any positive law case ruling, in
order to enforce UCC /NAFTA /UN obligations to never stop drug prohibition.
6. Frankly, since tabling s-55 of the CDSA, they appear to be imposing HST and BAR
codes and regulate every aspect of those who contract with the CDSA. The BCSC
must undertake these issues raised in these marginal measures, of any resident being
summoned to appear in Federal Court, because in so doing, those NATO /Federal
Courts are inviting themselves in, by taking away from the Provincial Supreme Courts'
fiduciary trust to provide reasonable common law protection to the victims of this
ongoing contempt for the Supremacy of all Canadian common law case law rulings.

FOR THE RECORD: On pressing our Sec 1 Charter Defence

1. Sec 1 of the Charter states: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits
prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
1. At face value these values are honourable, and it's considered so important in
Canadian Law that every body and everyone who holds an oath must understand
and stand under Sec 1. NAMELY: The 2 key phrases to limit all our fundamental
freedoms are listed in Sec 2 of the Charter. First all our fundamental Freedoms can
be encroached on with these 2 reasonable limitations. The 1st is: 'prescribed by
law' and the 2nd is: 'free and democratic society'. So, when anyone reads this
founding principle of this new Charter, they would feel secure. Especially when you
look at the case law precedent definitions used to back this Sec 1 guarantee.
2. The Dictionary of Canadian Law [DCL] is the first reference for legal definitions for the
Charter, and the definition for PRESCRIBED BY LAW is:
1. The limitations will be prescribed by law within the meaning of Sec 1 of the Charter,
if it is expressly provided by statute or regulations, or results by necessary
implication of a statute or from the operating requirements. The limitation may also
result from the application of common law. [important] R v Therens -1985
a. Sounds like a lot of double talking legalese because that its intent [to deceive]
2. The founding case law precedent for this phrase in the DCL - is Mr. Therens, who
drove home at about 2AM and fell asleep behind the wheel about 1/2 block away
from his house and crashed into his neighbours tree in their yard. No one woke up,
so he walked home, poured himself a stiff drink and went to bed. He was woken up
by police banging on his door, they made him take a Breathalyzer, he failed so they
charged him. AND he won in the SCC, with a common law defence of them having
no proof that his story was not true, so he could not be assumed guilty when he had
a plausible excuse AND under common law, the offence /charge was excessive
because this neighbour held no hard feelings, therefore no harm was done.
3. I was in my early 20's when this so called 'landmark decision' came down and they
made a big deal or pointing to this myth of: Rejoice, Look how great this Charter is.
At the time everyone hated this new gadget called breathalyzer. AND then the vail
of illusion moved in, under Public Safety concerns swayed by public opinion poles.
4. NOW on the definition of FREE AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY. It's the most
beautiful and inspiring description of a common law Utopian society that you could
possibly imagine, claiming that this phrase is the cornerstone of all our common
law freedoms, AND THEN the SCC gave this honourable definition under this SCC
case law precedent called; R v Oakes.-1985, and it says there that this definition
can be used in a common law defence, and frankly, it's impossible for R v Oakes to
not apply to our Free and Democratic Society called the Marijuana Party.
5. CAVEAT ON THIS: Frankly, they could have picked any case law file they wanted
to be the case law precedent BUT they screwed us over with lexicography, by
having statutory law over-ride every common law right 'as prescribed by law'

6. CASE IN POINT: The Oakes case was all about being [quote] caught with 8 vials of
hashish oil outside of a tavern in London, Ontario. He claimed he had purchased
10 vials of hashish oil for $150 for his own use. He was also in possession of
$619.45 which he claimed to have received from a government program. Despite
Oakes' protests that the vials were meant for pain relief and that the money he had
was from a workers' compensation cheque, Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act
(NCA) established a 'rebuttable presumption" that possession of a narcotic inferred
an intention to traffic unless the accused established the absence of such an
intention. Oakes made a charter challenge, claiming that the reverse onus created
by the presumption of possession for purposes of trafficking violated the
presumption of innocence guarantee under section 11(d) of the Charter. The issue
before the Court was whether s. 8 of the NCA violated s. 11(d) of the Charter,
and whether any violation of s. 11(d) could be upheld applied under s. 1.
1. David Oakes had a Workman's Comp check stud. He's the original medical
marijuana defendant in Canada. IN FACT it's this case law that created the
MMAR that Hitzig and Parker challenged and won on this lawful common law
definition used by the Charter. So again, any common person [at the time of the
decision] would see this case law precedent as a really good sign of the Charter
working, and frankly except for a few, no one had any idea that this was the
case law used to protect all common law rights, until they published the 1991
version of the DCL [6-years later ] and you have to look at the fact that this is
systemic FRAUD by the SCC, [or, i prefer to see it as] it was intended in a hope
of complying with Sumerian trust lore, by it being applied in a case like ours.
7. AT FACE VALUE: The entire Charter hinges on Sec 1, and [at face value] it really
is a conspiracy to defraud by everyone in authority, because of this 'if' added to this
'prescribed by law' definition NAMELY: all our freedoms can be taken away if it is
expressly provided by statute or regulations, or results by necessary implication of
a statute or from the operating requirements.
8. You ask: How does this legalese [lexicography] effect society at large
Because of statutes and regulations, and extremely well funded legal teams like
MADD [Mothers Against Drunk Drivers] and Police /AG challenges resulted where
any assumption of common law Freedom that Mr. Therens held were trashed by
these statutes and regulations, in order to uphold Public Safety under Maritime law.
9. Here's a bad example of how much things have changed under statute and
regulations PART 9 of the 1998 BC Police Act, white [wash] paper. Page -3:
The Founding Principles HTTP://www.cacole.ca/resources/publications/WhitePaper05-eng.pdf
Civilian Oversight. The first is that there is an inextricable link between democracy,
the rule of law and police accountability. Police serve a function that is vital to the
proper operation of a free and democratic society. Police are rightly and necessarily
given extensive powers. Police power is necessary to ensure that free people are
protected and that their duly enacted laws are enforced. Police must be authorized
to do things that would be illegal for ordinary citizens, and police must not be
unduly fettered in the exercise of those powers.

10. In other words: Since 1998 it's prescribed by law under the Police Act, where
police are actually authorized to be criminals [like medieval times] and that's in
order to protect their free and democratic society.
11. In Mr. Oakes case, [at face value] every bullshit statute and regulation that was
successfully challenged under common law under the MMAR program, was by
design implemented to erode the real meaning of a 'Free and Democratic society,'
on a deep constitutional level, because the phrase itself is used to guarantee our all
our common law Freedoms, and frankly it's the art of hiding the reality in plain sight
[as in] we really are in a police state, and frankly the Admiralty is ramming the
same free and democracy society in Afghanistan and Iraq, so why should we
Canadians complain about being in the New World Order.
12. BOTTOM LINE: How do you fix this? Most would say: forget it, it can't be done.
[and] IN LAW, we can't bitch, if we cannot come up with some solutions.
13. Frankly the law itself can be easily fixed, by changing the case law precedent for
the term: 'free and democratic society' from being defined under R v Oakes, and
use a valid case law SCC precedent like Rocarelli v Duplessis [for example] and
every police thug, every crocked politician would be thrown in jail, if they did not
change their ways because they are behaving like the thug that Duplessis was.
1. We are pressing that changing this case law precedent is in order;
We are also pressing that the RCMP be removed from the security council, as
this would automatically rescind the powers of this police state; and we are also
pressing that having any Minister of State be in this security council must be
withdrawn, in order to close this open backdoor to NATO Supremacy, as
recommendation to undertake, to fix this mess with a legislated solution.
14. BUT, one immediate solution to stop this S-55 of the CDSA constitutional powergrab of making our membership appear in Federal Court, or from police raiding our
Offices that operate a dispensary or grow-op [for example], is by seizing the bonds
of Officers who obediently trespass constitution powers for the Admiralty.
15. The other really basic and effective measure that Provincial Supreme Courts can
do to actually halt this Federal Court power-grab is more easily expressed with this
example: When the Provincial courts ruled that the City bylaw for prohibiting a
medical means sufferer was unconstitutional; and this was reversed in a Federal
Court, by using the same old excuse of this lower court not being able to interfere
with their new S-55 of the CDSA program that is being imposed. In Ontario's case
the politicians and press made a big deal that this case did not apply to everyone.
NOW, had this Provincial Court added a phrase like: In respect and as one voice,
with the SCC ruling of R v Smith, we strike this bylaw would result where this two
against one decision would return our Canadian Sovereignty that Harper took away.
1. ON THIS: In one voice, the Courts can redress the abuse of power exercised
by Harper, where about 41 out of 43 properly past legislations were struck by a
court challenge, where they agree to stop using thru these provisions, but it did
not stop the same abuse from being applied in other provisions of the same Act.

16. WITH THIS CIVIL CLAIM: we're taking a step forward, by seeking a court order
/injunction [with this fair warning] THAT [from now on] the courts may entertain
/allow any victim of arbitrary use of power to seize the performance bond of anyone
in authority, who imposes force or the threat of force, because it's a condign
punishment for the obstruction of our activities that we require to protect our
RUBRIC, because it's actually prescribed by law, as a valid civil way to deter
officials from acting on a trust violation of our rights, with 'a YES' or 'NO' ruling.
3. As we are proposing: When filing a Civil Claim to protect an EDA Office that is
protecting our articles of belief, by operating a dispensary or grower in these EDA
commercial premises, results where, we are in fact, inviting to settle any complaints by
anyone, like a City or anyone, by filing a Civil Motion on this file #, in order to settle this
dispute civilly. Our basic position will be that we can accommodate, when doing so
does not adversely effect our ability to protect our RUBRIC. In the event that we lose
a case, we will cease this activity, and this is certainly is far better than getting raided
by Police, especial when we eventually win. The seizing of a bond really is an
absolute liability situation of being held to a yes or no decision, [like] Did they know this
place was a Marijuana Office, and if they did, means this leaves no option but to seize
the performance bond of any Officer who rejected that a civil solution was in place.
1. IN LAW: what we are doing is actually defined as CIVILIZATION: which is taking
what would be a criminal matter thru civil process; in order to give Peace a chance.
2. Under our Sec 1 Charter democratic common law defence, we seek to respect the
fact that: In order to respect our common law rights, these Provincial Court
proceeding will stand-under the Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould:
in order to re-establish the fact that 'no jurisdiction' means 'no jurisdiction'.
1. On the understanding THAT: The Admiralty took what no body doth have a
right to take, BECAUSE, Sec 1 of the Charter clearly states THAT:
2. [R v Oakes] The underlying values and principles of a free and democratic
society are the genesis of the rights and freedom guaranteed by the Charter
and the ultimate standard against which a limit on the rights and freedoms must
be shown, despite its affect to be reasonable or justified.
3. ON THIS: it's actually a Sec 336 CC violation of these benchers of the SCC
/BCSC to not reign in the abuse of power that the 1998 Police Act /Civilian
Oversight has implemented. Frankly, to not fix this conflict in law of Police blindly
obeying Federal intervention, by seizing performance bonds to protect our free and
democratic rights, can only result in a green light that will only perpetuate this
twisted NATO Civilian Oversight police state mindset. Ignoring this civil solution
/remedy can only accelerate the total collapse of our Canadian Heritage and
Sovereignty, which is exactly what the Admiralty is perpetually trying to implement.
4. With just Peaceful democratic means: As true Patriots, we stand on guard for thee,
by upholding our common law Freedoms, as an Essential Elements of civilized life.