You people realize you are all liable for every use of my copyrighted trade-marked/trade name right? Thats $100,000.00 per instance right? If you didn't know...you are now noticed and I WILL bill you for every instance.
My rebuttal to rook. Sent yesterday by fax, e-mail and registered mail to Rooke and the Minister of Justice, whom i have been in e-mail contact with over the last week or two...
ALLEN BOISJOLI HOLDINGS
Commercial Accounts
November 5, 2015
Affidavit of Truth and Reply/Rebuttal to “Justice” Rooke’s “Order & Decision” Dated October 8th, 2015
To: J.D. Rooke, acting as; HONOURABLE ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE
“Associate Chief Justice of the Queen’s Bench of Alberta”
PERSONAL INFORMATION DELETED BY BURNABY49. SEE END OF POST
Re: Alleged Order and Decision; Court File Number: 1503-15487, Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 629,
i.e.: VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER FOR ALLEN NELSON BOISJOLI
Judicial Center: Edmonton
Court: Queens Bench
Syntax and Grammar
† Commentary by Allen-Nelson of the Boisjoli family, the real living flesh and blood man and eternal spirit created by the Divine, with two hands and two feet will be in GREEN.
† References to points of law, legal maxims and other legal Babel will usually, but not always, be in RED Italics and may be within “Quotes”.
† Internet links will be underlined and in BLUE.
† All other general informational content will be in regular dark print utilizing common grammar rules and principals.
† When in doubt and/or upon any discrepancy, ALL correspondences, unless otherwise noted within the said presentment will follow the stipulations outlined in Commercial Security Agreement ANB-09041971-SA, (hereinafter “CSA”), i.e.: Law, Jurisdiction and Linguistics Section 5, page 6; and, Section 24, Page 16, Schedule B: Glossary and Definition of Terms. Which can be referenced through the following internet links:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/89513341/ANB ... A-Official https://www.dropbox.com/s/r90oa6uwqvpct ... l.pdf?dl=0
(Commercial Security Agreement ANB-09041971-SA, can be also be viewed by accessing the submissions on pretty much every case filed in any Alberta Court proceeding with MY trade-marked/trade-name in the style of cause, or I can supply a digital or paper copy upon request.)
For everyone’s convenience I will try to keep a logical flow, ease of understanding and the utilization of expeditious language to keep the length of the Affidavit to a minimum for ease of readership. If further clarification is needed I offer further explanation through e-mail:
aboisjoli@hotmail.com.
The first points I would like to go over and put forth will hopefully help “YOU” understand my standing, status and perspective and point out some inescapable truths that I hope we are intelligent enough to agree are self-evident, valid, and logical. Then I will proceed to list points to rebut “YOUR”, Justice Rooke’s latest “Decision” and“Order”
1. I am the source of the name. I have the highest claim. If I were not borne on this earth there would be no basis for my mother and father to choose a name and register the event. Therefore I am the source of the “name” and as such the source of all value and/or credit derived from any utilization of MY given and/or “LEGAL” name(s), and this is expressed within, and is pretty much the whole intention, of the Commercial Security Agreement ANB-09041971-SA (hereinafter “CSA”). This CSA has been up for rebuttal for some time now and I have yet to have a qualified response. To be clear I made this CSA using reference to many laws including your copyrighted private law so that everyone could understand using language and concepts that you all may be familiar with…it is for your benefit. I think the intention is clear. It is meant to be international rules to govern commerce and interaction, an interface with the political fiction. Everyone that I have sent it to understands and agrees, except for “YOU” it seems, and “YOU” believe you can brush it off, essentially stating that an affidavit is somehow nonsense and part of some pseudo-logical scheme…with, I might add, no qualified reply showing me where I may have erred, with a chance to rebut or correct the error.
2. In any society that claims to be a “Free and Democratic” and/or Republican, (i.e. a civilized form of society), there must be MUTUAL CONSENT, with FULL DISCLOSURE of all terms; as per logic and reason, the doctrine and Divine plan of autonomous free-will, international laws of commerce and basic contractual interaction. It is self-evident that a people cannot hope to have a fair order of societal governance and moral obligation if terms are not clearly defined and adhered to by the members of said society and all such interaction is by MUTUAL CONSENT. Hence the phrase “All men are created equal” within various Declarations, Bills/Charters of Rights, Constitutions, legal maxims, etc.
3. There is a hierarchy of law and no organization, institution and/or man can change that, save the Divine Creator Himself. Divine Creator of all/Supreme Being > Nature > Man > abstract concepts and institutions i.e. Governments, Constitutions, Charters, Corporations, Statute codes, Public Servants, persons. The imagination of men created YOUR position as a PUBLIC SERVANT. So to make it clear that we have our roles correct. “YOU” are the “DEBTOR”, I/us/we/ourselves am the “Creditor, as governments are instituted by the will and imagination of men.
4. When I quote and use your copyrighted private laws it is for reference to point out the rules “YOU” have supposedly sworn to uphold it does not mean I consent to be bound by the same beliefs and constraints that “YOU” or others have. If you believe different then rebut my CSA and show me the facts and evidence you rely on, without “circular reasoning”. (i.e. the code applies because the code says it applies) that gives you authority over me or my life or any property associated with me, without my express consent, without deception, fraud, coercion or force. Bring forth the contract, show me that I agreed to be part of your imaginary idea from the point I figured out it was all “FICTION OF LAW”, back in 2009 when I created the CSA, and when people purporting to be part of a government institution abducted my children, with no right and no cause! If it is such a great achievement that why do you have to deceive and force people to participate?
(See page 3 of the FACTUM under “FICTION OF LAW” which was included with the evidence in the Default Judgement)
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion. Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing. ~ Wikipedia
5. LAW 101
Our Founding Fathers believed that it was self-evident that the God of Nature is the sovereign of the universe and everything in it (as well as mankind) and that He had endowed all mankind with "certain unalienable rights" making them self-directing sovereigns, which means that any governments instituted among men derive their just powers (only) from the consent of the governed, who are the source of earthly power and authority. Hence any attempt to exercise any powers NOT conveyed by the People is unjust and unauthorized, and any act done pursuant to such usurpation of power is void.
1. All are equal under the law.
2. Truth is sovereign.
3. Truth is expressed in the form of Affidavit.
4. An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth.
5. An unrebutted affidavit becomes a judgment
6. He who leaves the field of battle first (does not respond to Affidavit) loses by default.
7. Sacrifice is the measure of credibility.
8. A lien or claim can only be satisfied by one of the following actions.
a. A rebuttal Affidavit of Truth, supported by evidence, point-by-point.
b. Payment.
c. Agreement.
d. Resolution by a jury according to the rules of common law.
6. I am not a “person” created by operation of law, (i.e. ens legis, stramineus homo), I am a living man created by the Divine, and have the ability and the right to self-determination, my own beliefs, associations, contracts, and ideas, as evidenced in section 2 of your charter you are supposed to be upholding and my CSA.
Re: Decision of “Justice” Rooke ~ Docket: 1503-15487
I did not read totally through this lengthy tomb as I have seen this sort of reasoning before, and I am a very busy man and only have one day off of work to go over all this and formulate an adequate response. I am confident with a few paragraphs I can show that this “Decision” is nothing more than incorrect assumptions and presumptions made in an attempt to restrict due process, monopolize access to justice, force internal statutory policy on ones who do not consent or are unaware, and intimidate others from applying the law. Essentially IMHO it’s a confession to deception & fraud, incompetence, tyranny and oppression. Tyranny of the Majority and attempted Extortion under Color of Official Right…for those that may be more learned.
1. I notice in this “Decision” several of the presentments are missing such as the FACTUM and the intent and validity of the presentments are in question by you. I can assure you they are in line with Law as far as my knowledge and understanding. I used many references and resources to quintuple check, ranging from some Legal-Ease Kits available at any Alberta Registries office, your Rules of Court, international mercantile law, heck I used Bill Clinton’s copyright claim as a starting draft for the one in the CSA, my bills are modeled off the parliamentary process and I used various examples from elite billionaires to model my contracts from! I have studied the UCC and the BoE act, various other “Acts” and statute policies and several other law references such as the Bible, the Vatican Canons, the Ucadian Canons, ancient Babylonian law, ancient Egyptian law, and a plethora more, too many to name. I can assure you what I am doing is in correct an honorable form as far as my knowledge and understanding, if we can have a civilized discussion, man to man, on points you think I may have erred on please lets discuss it. My question to you is: “why are you not addressing the perjury by a supposed officer of the court and instead seemingly trying to cover it up, by essentially restricting access to justice and stating that affidavits signed under oath are somehow invalid…essentially undermining the whole system of justice as it is perceived…by once again attempting to create policy regarding my Trust assignment and Estate? Where do you presume authority to make policy about foreign trusts while not being able to prove subject matter jurisdiction and living men with legal fiction, without their consent?
2. I notice through the whole of the “Decision” you do not mention the obvious crime of perjury of the judge in the audio and my attempts at lawful redress which is allowed for under your own BoE Act section 9-10, commercial negotiation under Law Merchant and Notarial Protest process, and other attempts through the Minister of Transport and The Office of the Chief Judge…once again nobody wants to take responsibility yet are quick to point fingers that I am doing something wrong, when I have every right to unlimited contract and redress of grievances if anyone was following any rules of any kind!
3. I notice that you are trying to publically paint my discrete attempts at lawful redress as some sort of attack, vexatious nature. I can assure you that is just not so, my intentions are honorable and I have always included in every affidavit a salutation of: “without prejudice, ill-will, vexation, or frivolity”. In common words; “if I am writing to you there is something definitely wrong and I would like to converse and negotiate like men, to see if we might identify the problem together and find a resolution.”, and most of the rest goes something like this: “Here is what I think is the problem and here is my bill or my restitution offer in an attempt to find an equal and equitable resolution to the matter.” So, I am not sure how that is somehow spurious or vexatious, please explain??
4. I have also noticed, either you are completely incompetent and believe that an imaginary abstract idea, like Alberta, really exists and are living “in” that legal fiction, (see FACTUM page 3, 4,5), or are willingly trying to deceive the general public/civilian population…either way, to me, your “OPNIONS AND DECISIONS” are questionable. When you are faced with questions that should be easy to answer the whole thing seems to become a huge drama production resulting in me getting assaulted, tortured, caged, violated, threatened, and humiliated…does that seem like civilized lawful society? The kind of society people would want to be associated with? If it’s so great then why must you abduct my children and use coercion, extortion, intimidation and deception for me and others to be members of this oh so great utopian society of yours?
5. I have also noticed that you are attempting to slander and defame my “name”, breach my privacy, breach US national Security and commit corporate espionage by revealing my private Federal Reserve account numbers provided as a means for transfer of funds, on a public media forum, with your baseless rhetoric, accusations, uninformed or deceitful suppositions, assumptions and basic abuse of vested authority.
6. I have also noticed your attempt to slander and defame Edward Powell a fine and decent man simply doing his Notarial duties witnessing my oath and attestation to truth in an affidavit!? Have you gone senile Justice Rooke? Since when is witnessing oath or affirmation in affidavit style some sort of pseudo-logical scheme? You are making no sense sir and I wonder if you are competent and able to be wielding authority at all?
7. I have also noticed and it seems you want to accuse and deflect any responsibility and liability from you and your brother judges at any cost, including diregaurding your oath of office and duty to the public and make sure there is no cracks in the code silence of brother judges who seem to do no wrong on your watch…even when they continue to be caught “red-handed” continuously, or so it seems…
8. I notice the knee-jerk reaction. Interesting…if my filing was so incorrect and had no effect, then why the huge “Decision and Order” and slander in the media? If it was incorrect why wouldn’t you write back and say something like: “It’s incorrect because of this, this, this, and this. Please research more of this and be familiar with this before filing again and here is my mailing address if you think I am incorrect in my opinion please provide facts and evidence to back your claims”. This is what a sane, civilized man would do…not have an obvious psychological mental breakdown and attempt to undermine a private individual’s access to justice! Have you gone mad sir?!
9. One of the most important things I have noticed is that you seem to want to attach yourself to all my claims for redress, prejudice and dismiss them out of hand, as some sort of pseudo-logical nonsense, when I have yet to see your credentials, oath of office or insurance/public hazard bond and you have yet to rebut any of the CSA and the following articles which I will reference as rebuttal for your “Meads vs. Meads Decision”.
So those are some of the things that I have noticed within your “Decision”, that I confess I only had time to skim through. Justice Rooke you will have to rebut the following articles and my CSA before you have any standing at all whatsoever to even think about making a claim against me, the Trust or Estate…and you will also have to come up with credentials and liability insurance papers, as well as some other answers to some deeper questions, before I even consider you have any credibility, let alone follow any “Orders” of yours.
The following articles, in my opinion, have rebutted Meads vs. Meads Decision, years ago, yet you choose to ignore them and keep using your Meads vs. Meads false presumptions for the basis of your arguments. Just so you know, I read it all when it first came out and read many of the cases you cited. I found that most of the cases, if not all were opinions, not really based on law or any real foundational principals of law but many fallacies, presumptions and assumptions. How can referring back to another judge’s opinion be a foundational basis for law? Again it’s sounding a lot like tyranny of the majority. The biggest fallacy I found being that: in a free society one can be forced to believe and participate in a system of society or perceived governance without willful consent, being coerced through fear tactics, deception, extortion by physical harm, violence and/or incarceration! That is not a viable basis for a lawful, civil society sir.
I will include the first few paragraphs of each article and leave a link for the full article to save space.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
OPCA Explained – Why a most recent opinion by the Queen’s Bench in Canada exposes the Secret Bar Guilds as the most radical and dangerous anti-social and anti-law group in the world
A recent 185 page judicial decision from the 18th September 2012 (Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 download pdf here) concerning an acrimonious divorce in Edmonton, Canada has confirmed the inherent danger to the sustainable future of society of so called “Organized Pseudo-Lawful Commercial Arguments” or “OPCA” proffered by acolytes and advocates of the more sophisticated and complex “Organized Pseudo-Lawful Commercial Architecture” to which such arguments by definition must belong.
While the formal 736 paragraph “Reasons for Decision” by Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke ("Justice Rooke") is full of presumptions, suppositions, inaccuracies and gross fallacies, the document nonetheless may herald a milestone in identifying a new way in which debate and discussion concerning jurisdiction, law and procedure may unfold – specifically the admission that certain “OPCA” structures exist masquerading as legitimate argument and law, yet having no validity except by force, or as Justice Rooke states in a quote from Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan “The laws are of no power to protect them, without a sword in the hands of a man, or men, to cause those laws to be put in execution.”
Experience and expertise at researching OPCA
[1] For the past 26 years and increasingly full-time over the past fifteen years, it has been my passion and calling to research, discover and objectively reveal the full extent of the complex “Organized Pseudo-Lawful Commercial Architecture” established firstly by the Roman Cult, also known as the Vatican from the 11th Century in claiming the role of Vicar of Christ from the Frankish-Saxon Catholic Church and later fully developed under Henry VIII in the form of “Commonwealth law” through Westminster from the 16th Century; and
[2] Both forms of law still pervade the world today. Both forms of law through Papal Bulls and Acts or "Statutes" are based on obvious frauds and outrageously false presumptions such as the Bull Unum Sanctum (1302) which claims “all creatures are subject to the Pontiff” and the Statute of Westminster (1275) which incredibly refers to several 17th and 18th Century legal terms designed to abrogate the rights of people such as “waste”. Most importantly, both systems of pseudo-legal and pseudo-lawful argument are an anathema to the history of prior Western Law such as Carolingian (Anglo-Saxon) Law, Byzantine Law and even Roman Law which recognized the inherent and fundamental importance of consent; and
[3] As Justice Rooke mentions Frank O’Collins in paragraph (376) as an “OPCA Guru”, while conceding Ucadia and One-Heaven represents a “new and total code of law”, it is a matter of principle that a measured response is published, particularly in answer to a large number of gross errors and emotionally and intellectually unstable and unsupportable references throughout the judicial opinion; and
[4] The following prescription is provided to some of these fallacious and vexatious opinions by a wholly biased and unsuited justice in his treatment of a subject for which he appears overwhelmingly not to be an expert.
Vexatious Litigation and Mala Fide (Bad Faith)
[5] Justice, similar to commerce, depends upon two or more parties engaging with one another to resolve a matter with mutual understanding known in “good faith”. The opposite concept to “Good Faith” is bad faith or mala fide. Blacks 9th Edition (Pg 159) defines “Bad Faith” or mala fide as “dishonesty of belief or purpose”; and
[6] The history of legal maxims, statute and case law concerning mala fide is well defined and clear – that a party acting with dishonest intent, or misrepresenting the facts commits an injury against the law itself – hence the most ancient Roman maxim ex dolo malo non oritur actio meaning “an action does not arise from fraud”; and
[7] Similarly, “Vexatious Litigation”, also known as a “Vexatious Suit” is correctly seen as an injury against the law itself with Blacks 9th Edition (Pg 1701) defines a “Vexatious Suit” as “A lawsuit instituted frivolously, or maliciously and without good grounds, meant to create trouble and expense for the party being sued”; and
[8] However, unlike the identification of fraudulent and wrongful action male fide (bad faith), the question of what does or does not constitute “Vexatious Litigation” is so conditional upon each specific circumstance that (to date) attempts to enforce stricter rules, codes or restrictions against perceived “Vexatious Litigants” have inevitably failed under appeal. It would be an arrogant judge indeed to ignore the weight of history and presume that what he or she may present as “Vexatious Suit” in one circumstance renders any form of partial or similar behavior equally vexatious in the future; and
[9] As to the specific evidence presented in the rambling 736 paragraph reasoning or Treatise ("Treatise") of Justice Rooke concerning the alleged “vexatious” behaviour of one party, including evidence of male fide: a competent forum of appeal or competent jurist upon review would have to reasonably conclude that whatever “Vexatious Suit” and bad faith was demonstrated by one party in the proceeding, the action of Justice Rooke in exceeding his authority, mandate and objectivity to scribe his document outweighs any wrong doing by either litigant and renders a far greater injury against the law; and
Spurious, Irrelevant or Invalid documents and formalities
[10] Suspending for the moment the underlying theme of unquestionable jurisdiction presumed by Justice Rooke to make the wide ranging array of presumptions, errors and simplistic logical fallacies littered throughout his Treatise, it is necessary to consider the merits of specific points raised concerning the use by parties of allegedly spurious, irrelevant or invalid documents and formalities; and
[11] Whereas in past generations, a party to a court matter may be forgiven for the mistake of using an incorrect form or procedure, the age of the Internet affords the vast majority of the populace with virtually instant access to most standard forms and their instructions for most types of courts, especially in Western countries. In many cases, even the same judicial procedures expected to be followed by court officials is also available for instant download and review; and
[12] Whether or not a court is properly constituted or merely a corporate franchise masquerading as a valid court is irrelevant to the fact at hand that a competent party choosing to proceed with a matter within a certain court operated by one of the network of secretive Temple and Bar Guilds is able to not only find the proper forms accepted by the court, but also the generally accepted guidelines of such a commercial pseudo-legal entity; and
[13] An employee of such a pseudo-legal entity, whether a properly invested justice, or merely a private contractor under a letter of marque, has every right to disqualify documents that do not comport the internal procedures of such an entity. Justice Rooke is correct that litigants that ignore this fact risk rendering any argument fatally flawed in the face of demonstrative incompetence in the manner of how they conduct themselves through their paperwork; and
[14] Justice Rooke is also correct in nominating a virtual cottage industry of people “selling” and promoting their own versions of “remedy” to sometimes desperate and gullible people, especially in being convinced that absurd and idiotic corruption of grammar and punctuation somehow renders a superior position as in the case of one highly discredited “remedy guru”. Similarly, there are many other people promoting their own versions of documents through seminars and web sites with the promise of instant success; and
[15] As to the validity of the content contained within such documents, Justice Rooke has gravely erred and is in gross error in seeking to comment and adjudicate the merits of the content. It should have been enough for any Justice to summarize that such documents tendered to the court as per the exhibits within the Treatise do not confirm to proper procedure, were spurious and irrelevant and therefore put to rest. For Justice Rooke then assumed the position of historian, theologian and philosopher and proceeded to adjudicate the validity of the content is quite extraordinary and now demands clear debate and honest answers to a number of the topics raised.
Cestui Que Vie Trusts and Annuities
[16] In several places within his Treatise, Justice Rooke seeks to ridicule those who may question the existence of a type of trust in their name called a "Cestui Que Vie" Trust and its intimate connection to the Birth Certificate; and
[17] While refusing to admit to the existence of such a trust in the name of the litigant in the case, a reasonable person could be led to conclude by the words of Justice Rooke that such claims of the existence of a Cestui Que Vie Trust in the name of each citizen of Canada as in other Commonwealth and western countries is mere mythology and evidence of mental illness; and
[18] In fact, the existence of Cestui Que Vie Trusts and their fundamental importance to the present global accounting system of Western-Roman States is without question. The Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666 and of 1707 remain largely in force even today. The reason for these acts? To create the legal fiction necessary that declares if a person is considered lost at sea, abandoned, dead, a lunatic, a minor or incompetent then not only may their property be held in guardianship, but that a contract may be established called an "annuity" whereby a value may be granted to the guardian or custodian by the purchaser of the contract in exchange for some form of ongoing income derived from maximising the value of the estate of the infant, lunatic, lost or "dead" person. The result is the birth of annuities through such acts of parliament as Life Annuities in 1703 which helped fund the ongoing wars of Great Britain and subsequent acts such as the 28 million pounds from annuities act of 1801 which created an even larger annuity system; and
[19] The existence of annuities created against the name of citizens of Western-Roman States, particularly former or present Commonwealth countries is unquestionable. One of the first key acts of US Congress was to establish a system for the repayment of public debt through the selling of shares and annuities through the 1790 Public Debt Act. Virtually every country has its own annuity public statutes, such as Canada and these can be found by searching the public databases. In each and every case, annuities depend upon the existence of Cestui Que Vie Trusts. So who is said to administer Cestui Que Vie Trusts in most Commonwealth countries? The Queen's Bench of the High Court!; and
[20] Here we find that either Justice Rooke is attempting to pervert the course of justice in deliberately obfuscating the fact that he does possess a genuine fiduciary duty to administer the very trust to which the litigant refers, but for some unknown explanation is unwilling or unable to do so; or Justice Rooke and the entire Queen's Bench is wholly incompetent and such fiduciary obligations are no longer being met. In either case, the Treatise of Justice Rooke has opened up more questions than it has answered; and
[21] Fiat justitia ruat caelum (let justice be done though the heavens fall) is not merely one of the oldest and most important maxims for all Judges and Magistrates, it is expected by the public that a judge render his or her verdict and reasoning impartially and without supposition as to whether an accused found guilty is a “good or evil man or woman” in the eyes of the Universe. Any judge that willingly and deliberately exceeds such maxim does so at peril to Justice in that realm and on the face of the Treatise of Justice Rooke, it appears strongly that fair justice is indeed under threat in Canada; and…
Read the full article here:
http://blog.ucadia.com/2012/10/opca-exp ... inion.html
Here is a follow-up article and as you can see others have noticed the same sorts of things I am noticing….
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
The organized psuedo-legal commercial admiralty (OPCA) system of the private legal pirates exposed! - why almost all courts in Western-Roman systems controlled by the legal pirates are admiralty
If something "looks like a duck", "walks like a duck", "quacks like a duck", is it a duck? This analogy summarizes the enormous frustration associated with "Admiralty Law" for many over the years.
When one is accused and brought to court in many Western-Roman jurisdictions, the accused is placed in a "dock" - a nautical term for a place for "holding a vessel". A listing on a court "docket" then exists - again an admiralty term relating to the harbor masters control of proceedings in his port. The case then has its own docket of evidence as a manifest, a nautical commercial concept associated with the transport of goods. One may then be compelled to identify themselves with a "birth certificate" - birth being a direct reference to the creation of a vessel with a specific registration number. The concept of bail and security- are specific laws of admiralty, not common law. The person presiding over the matter sits in front of a flag, denoting himself to be a "flag officer" - a specific reference to a vice admiral under admiralty law.
All of these fundamental functions in modern court are directly nautical and associated with admiralty law- having absolutely nothing to do with common law. So why do the courts refuse to admit they are operating as admiralty and why has it taken so long to put these issues to rest?
Hiding Admiralty Jurisdiction "In Plain Sight"
Part of the answer as to why so many good and intelligent people have struggled to see that virtually all courts in the United States, Canada, Australia New Zealand, United Kingdom and most other Western-Roman places are operating in admiralty is the lack of full knowledge as to just how "large" admiralty law truly is.
One of the deliberate disinformation arguments that is still purported by pirates and privateers of the private bar guilds is that admiralty law is "narrow" in its breadth and application. Therefore, it could not possibly be so openly applied across the board as there is no provision for it to be applied for example in matters of securities, contracts, torts, administrative discipline, trusts, estates and probate.
This excuse it turns out is utterly false. Since its formal creation in the mid-17th Century, there exists numerous statutes that clearly show admiralty can be applied and appear to "mimic" every single major area of "common law" - every, not just some.
Another argument thrown up as a deliberate distraction by paid disinfo agents and the pirates and privateers of the private bar guilds is the claim that even if admiralty law has wide applications, there is no logical proof provided by such claimants as to how the "law of the sea" can be properly applied to courts on land.
This argument typically focuses on the more bizarre theories proposed on the land as well as the stranger concepts such as water marks being set at the highest point in each state so we are all "under water" to rebut such assertions as absurd and less than credible.
Again the pirates and privateers are openly and knowingly lying to the people they claim to uphold as the proof and method of how admiralty law is applied to each and every one of us- is breathtakingly simple and obvious- (1) we each require a birth certificate and registration and (2) we are birthed in hospitals that literally means a military establishment and legally is treated itself as a "vessel"- with hospitals both "commissioned" and "launched" and with people formally "admitted" "onboard" and discharged.
This is not fanciful conspiracy, this is common sense, basic intelligence of what is shown to you "in plain sight" every day. Birth, is a nautical term and related prior to the 19th Century solely to vessels. What hospital births and birth certificate registrations demonstrate to anyone who cares to stop for a moment and think about it- is that you are capable of being treated as either (a) a seaman or officer (by virtue of hospital birth and registration) or (b) a registered vessel.
So the courts need not enter into any complex or convoluted arguments to apply admiralty law- it is fully automated. Once they confirm your name, your residence and you "understand"- then they can proceed. You have been under admiralty law- since "birth".
Admiralty as the ultimate "Organized Psuedo-Legal Commercial Argument" (OPCA)
Why then has it taken so long to fully discern and make the all pervading nature of admiralty law clear? Why the arguments of administrative law? of different forms of law in operation such as trust law and estate law?
In truth there are still multiple forms of law in operation and in parallel. For example estate law and trust law are very real and the creation of Cestui Que Trusts and Estates for our benefit are very real. It is just we are deprived from dealing directly with these forms of law in courts operating under the psuedo-legal commercial form known as admiralty.
Admiralty needs real law such as common law to continue- why? so the pirates can rape and pillage what should be yours, to steal from your estate. At the same time, admiralty is capable of mimicking all these forms of law, so when bonds and trusts are formed as part of court cases, it appears the judge or magistrate is switching law forms- which is not necessarily the case.
So how might we better comprehend Admiralty law? Here then is a summary of canons from the book of canons of sovereign law from the site One-Heaven.Org, article 190:…
The Full article can be found here:
http://blog.ucadia.com/2012/11/the-orga ... rcial.html
Note: “Canadian courts have consistently held that the ranking of lien holders in respect of vessels is a matter of Canadian maritime law, and that Canadian maritime law is a body of federal law that trumps provincial law that contradicts it.” ~
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/M ... rimer.aspx
So you see “Justice” Rooke, your reliance on the principals and concepts of the Meads vs. Meads decision does not earn you any points and I have pointed out the current “Decision” of yours follows the same nonsensical reliance on imaginary, abstract ideas, fictions of law and circular reasoning as the Meads vs. Meads Decision.
Again, in your current “Decision” you go on profoundly citing statute code and various acts that seem to me apply to fictional persons/juridical conjurations created by operation of law, FICTION OF LAW. And clearly are created under the current Canadian charter, which are inferior or invalid (see DVD video evidence included in the default judgement Video Evidence titled “Illegal Search and Arbitrary Detainment at the Courthouse”), or only apply to government employees and institutions, as per page 5 of the FACTUM referenced under Section 32 “This charter applies” where the commentary from the Canadian Heritage website makes it clear that the Charter and Constitution only apply to Government not Private Individuals!
An interesting point to note that in your referencing to the Judicature Act you do not note section 15 where it states: “EQUITY PREVAILS ~ In all matters where there is any conflict or variance between the rules of equity and common-law, the rules of equity prevail.” or… Equitable relief - §16(1) If a plaintiff claims to be entitled (a) to an equitable estate or right, (b) to relief on an equitable ground (i) against a deed, instrument or contract, or (ii) against a right, title or claim whatsoever asserted by a defendant or respondent in the proceeding, or (c) to any relief founded on a legal right, the Court shall give to the plaintiff the same relief that would be given by the High Court of Justice in England in a proceeding for the same or a like purpose. (2) If a defendant claims to be entitled (a) to an equitable estate or right, or (b) to relief on an equitable ground (i) against a deed, instrument or contract, or (ii) against a right, title or claim asserted by a plaintiff in the proceeding, the Court shall give to each equitable defence so alleged the same effect by way of defence against the claim of the plaintiff that the High Court of Justice in England would give if the same or like matters had been relied on by way of defence in a proceeding for the same or like purpose. (3) The Court may grant to a defendant respecting an equitable estate or right or other matter of equity and also respecting a legal estate, right or title claimed or asserted by the defendant, all such relief against a plaintiff that the defendant has properly claimed by the defendant’s pleading. (4) The Court shall recognize and take notice (a) of all equitable estates, titles and rights, and (b) of equitable duties and liabilities, appearing incidentally in the course of a proceeding, in the same manner in which the High Court of Justice in England would recognize and take notice of them in a proceeding instituted in that Court. ~RSA 1980 cJ 1 s17;1991 c21 s15
I would also like to touch on the point of my common-law copyrighted trade-marked/trade-name. See point 1 under general points on page 2, and once again the CSA is an unrebutted affidavit which had time to perfect and cure, it was sent to many various claimed authorities including the Queen, the Governor General, The Lt. Governor of Alberta, The Secretary of the US Treasury the CFO of the IRS my current employer Acer Japan and a few others and none has objected or rebutted or even expressed disapproval…but I will give you a shot to rebut it anyway…go to it if you think you can rebut truth with your fictional imaginary abstract ideas…your fiction of law! Good luck with that…Lol!
I would also like to touch on the Certified Promissory Note as you gave it some attention in the “Decision”
The Certified Promissory Note is so called; because it has to be agreed on and certified by both parties under oath witnessed by a notary witness. It is a bit unorthodox and a tiny bit outside the definition of the traditional Promissory Note, that is why I titled it a "Certified Promissory Note". Bottom line: it is a payment instrument, which has to be accepted as value by both parties, under oath, giving law to the contract. Yes it’s technically just a promise to pay unless both parties agree and then it becomes a type of negotiable instrument. As per the legal maxims, which are actually printed on the note for authority and clarification which overcomes and becomes the law. i.e.:
“He who does not deny, admits.” ~ Qui non negat fatetur. – Blacks Lay Dictionary Revised 4th Edition Pg. 1414
“Consent makes the law.”(A contract is a law between parties, which can acquire force only by consent.) ~ Consensus facit legem. - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856
“The stipulations of parties constitute the law of the contract. Agreements give the law to the contract” ~ Pacto aliquid licitum est quod sine pacto non admittitu.r – Blacks Law Dictionary Revised 4th Edition Pg. 1263
“The express agreement of the parties overcomes (prevails against) the law” ~ Conventio vincit legem – Black’s Law Dictionary Revised 4th Edition
“That which is ours cannot be transferred to another without our act (consent)” ~ Id quod nostrum est sine facto nostro ad alium transferri non protest. – Black’s Law Dictionary Revised 4th Edition Pg. 879
Financial Administration Act
"money" includes negotiable instruments;
"negotiable instrument" includes any cheque, draft, travellers cheque, bill of exchange, postal note, money order, postal remittance and any other similar instrument;
The promissory note was an offer, a promise to pay if anyone could validate the debt...and yes a violation ticket IS a debt instrument any fool knows this! I am fairly confident that no-one can verify or validate this debt instrument as it is made up fiat, fictional, nonsense, with no corpus delecti and; how could anyone even possibly "pay" the thing with "legal tender" when what the common man considers “cash” are actually DEBT instruments?!? A promise of value with interest attached?! How the hell does one pay a debt with more DEBT??!
See CSA Section 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.4 and see also Section 24 Schedule B: Definitions and also Enclosure Section 35, 36, 37 Claimed Rights number 23, 24, 25, 29, and 30.
I think I have provided sufficient rebuttal to show the “Decision” is complete and utter nonsense and your “Order” is hereby accepted on proof of claim, proof of credentials, and proof of subject matter jurisdiction, and acceptance of my fees and bill of lading for: invasion of privacy, copyright infringement, slander, uttering false news, false statement of fact, restricting due process, deception, fraud, intimidation, extortion under color of official right, perversion of the course of justice, bringing the administration of justice into disrepute, obstructing justice, breach of trust, breach of ethics, aiding and abetting the abduction of minors, kidnapping, extortion and false imprisonment.
Officer and Offices
§712(2) Notwithstanding subrule (1) the clerk of the court may issue summonses, statements of claim, file defenses or any documents, make all necessary searches, note defendants in default, enter default judgments, tax costs in default judgments, issue executions and perform other ex parte transactions of a like nature in all cases in which the necessary documents are forwarded with necessary and specific instructions to the clerk of the court, fully completed and without blanks except dates, and accompanied by fully prepaid and addressed envelopes for the return of documents when return by mail is requested.
Duties of clerk of court
§719 Every clerk and deputy clerk in addition to any other duties which he may be required by law to perform, shall:
(a) receive, file and have the custody of all pleadings, petitions, reports, depositions, affidavits, bonds and other papers in every action, suit, matter and proceeding in the court of which he/she is clerk or deputy clerk, and make or cause to be made entries thereof in the proper books;
Breach of trust by public officer
122. Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person. ~ R.S., c. C-34, s. 111.
Performance or Acceptance under Reservation of Rights.
(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest," or the like are sufficient. ~ UCC § 1-308
Presumption of assent
(2) When the drawer or endorser of a bill receives notice of a qualified acceptance and does not within a reasonable time express his dissent to the holder, he shall be deemed to have assented thereto. ~ R.S., c. B-5, s. 83.
It’s getting late and I have to work early in the morning, forgive me for the last minute reply and the hastily written response but I have been working long hours trying to fulfill a deadline and I cannot afford to take any time off to write letters to people who believe they have the right and authority to force their will upon me and mine without my consent and agreement, who are paid by a political fiction to sit around all day and scheme about how they are going to tax defraud the people.
My conclusion is: if your court does not want to accept plain straight forward affidavits and legal notices then your court is pretty much fraudulent with no true concept or real law or the rule of law. I will just have to go elsewhere for justice or start my own lawful court for alternative resolutions. Good Luck and God Bless. I will await in earnest for any reply or rebuttal of the CSA and the University of Ucadia articles.
I, the living flesh and blood sentient man and eternal spirit created by the Divine, commonly known as Allen-Nelson of the Boisjoli family, do verily believe that conscience and notification of legal responsibility are the first essentials of administrative due process and Rule of Law, and in accordance with these fundamental Universal Principles, my word is my bond. As such, I do hereby certify, and solemnly swear oath, attest and affirm, with my autograph and seal that the above information is true, correct, complete, and not misleading to the best of my knowledge and belief, with full commercial liability, before the Creator, any man, lawful court and jury.
Affiant:
Without prejudice, ill-will, vexation, or frivolity,
Sacred Trustee for: TRUST# 983170-321522-193058 (EIN# 98-0692059) A.K.A. ALLEN NELSON BOISJOLI FAMILY TRUST AND ESTATE OF ALLEN BOISJOLI™ DBA ALLEN BOISJOLI HOLDINGS™
By:
Allen-Nelson of the Boisjoli family
Divinus Partum, Deus Genus, Autonomous Free-will Man, Creditor, Sacred Trustee of the Divine Trust & Estate
Not in any legal fiction, federal zone, state, province, corporate municipality, or any other territory, abode, enclave, domicile, dwelling, residence, et al., implied or expressed.
Not subject to, or in accordance with, the jurisdiction of Canada, Crown, Queen, Her Majesty, Commonwealth, United States, District of Columbia, City of London, Vatican
Pope, Rome, nor any derivatives, attachments, agents/agencies, possessions or subsidiaries thereof; disclosed or undisclosed, released or unreleased, attached or unattached.
ALL RIGHTS PRESERVED & RESERVED
The mind is competent, the blood flows, the flesh lives and the spirit is redeemed.
Return Correspondence to: c/o Allen Boisjoli Holdings™, #1-12959-97 St., Edmonton, Alberta, T5E 4C2,
aboisjoli@hotmail.com
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dztvoekzeuw9f ... e.pdf?dl=0
Burnaby49 note - I just noticed that Boisjoli (oops, there's another $100,000 down the toilet, just add it to my bill) had posted the names and contact information of staff at the Albert Court of Queen's Bench. I didn't notice before because, frankly, I hadn't bothered to read all of his irrelevent droning gibberish. So, a warning to A@&%$ B*&#$%&@,
YOU MAY NOT POST NAMES AND PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT PEOPLE YOU ARE SQUABBLING WITH HERE. Do so again and it will be deleted. Keep it up and your entire posts will be deleted. Feel free to post OPCA garbage, rebut Rooke all you want, but names, phone numbers, fax numbers, and addresses are not allowed.
You are now noticed.
