Allen Boisjoli - Alberta stomps on vexatious OPCA lititgant

[JamesVincent]

Still the ultimate Freeman:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0

[theSovereign1]

u sure i'm the one thats crazy? I bet you all believe you live in "Canada" i bet?? and I'm the one thats crazy? U believe you live in an imaginary abstract idea...where Rooke's fraudulent orders attempting to obstruct justice is fiction of law...and i'm the crazy one hey?? LMAO!

[Burnaby49]

u sure i'm the one thats crazy? I bet you all believe you live in "Canada" i bet?? and I'm the one thats crazy? U believe you live in an imaginary abstract idea...where Rooke's fraudulent orders attempting to obstruct justice is fiction of law...and i'm the crazy one hey?? LMAO!

Actually you've nailed it. I do think you are crazy and I do believe I live in Canada. And I'll continue to believe that as long as the Canadian government keeps paying me my pensions.

[theSovereign1]

I regard all of these posts as akin to sitting in an old-folks home listening to old ladies rant...lmao
I could't be bothered collecting my fees for your copy infringement...you people have enough problems as it is...trying to justify your pathetic lives. Plus most of you are afraid to identify yourselves anyway...cuz you don't want to be accountable for your big mouths. sad and pathetic is all i see.

[JamesVincent]

I regard all of these posts as akin to sitting in an old-folks home listening to old ladies rant...lmao
I could't be bothered collecting my fees for your copy infringement...you people have enough problems as it is...trying to justify your pathetic lives. Plus most of you are afraid to identify yourselves anyway...cuz you don't want to be accountable for your big mouths. sad and pathetic is all i see.

Anytime bigboy, you want my address since you already have my name? Only one trying to justify anything here is you, and you're doing a piss poor job of it.

edit: Just a little warning though, folk in these parts don't deal with dumfuckery very well.

[NYGman]

I regard all of these posts as akin to sitting in an old-folks home listening to old ladies rant...lmao
I could't be bothered collecting my fees for your copy infringement...you people have enough problems as it is...trying to justify your pathetic lives. Plus most of you are afraid to identify yourselves anyway...cuz you don't want to be accountable for your big mouths. sad and pathetic is all i see.

Welcome Allen, I Really do mean that. I have really enjoyed your court correspondence and cases as summarized in this thread. Unfortunately, my entertainment is not without your inconvenience. I do not know you, nor do I wish to, if you digged deep you could find me as I do not hide. However, I really wish you would stop this foolishness, and cease entertaining me,for it isn't worth the giggles of a few legal folk at your expense.

Obviously you have been wronged by the legal system, the law, the man, and you have had enough. However, egging them on, responding in the way that you do will not have any good outcome. You really need to understand that your current course of action only has one reliable outcome, Jail. THere is no need to test your beliefs, they have been tested to hell and back. No one has won, and if you truly believe the courts are corrupt anyway, why play in to their hands.

What do you expect to happen with respect to your response? The Judge to Bow to your superior knowledge, and agree with you. When was the last time that ever happened. Face it, you lost, accept it, grieve in what ever way you have to, but stop these rants to the court, it just wont end well. REtract them, and try to move on from this.

Do not continue to dig yourself in to a hole. I just hope you realize this before it is to late. Talk to our friends, reach out man, you are not alone, but keep this up, you may be, alone, in a cell, for long parts of the day. I hope they do not view you as an imminent threat to a public official.

[Philistine]

I regard all of these posts as akin to sitting in an old-folks home listening to old ladies rant...lmao
I could't be bothered collecting my fees for your copy infringement...you people have enough problems as it is...trying to justify your pathetic lives. Plus most of you are afraid to identify yourselves anyway...cuz you don't want to be accountable for your big mouths. sad and pathetic is all i see.

No, there's a reason for that. We can imagine the 17th century, and marvel in that. We can imagine the 2nd century BCE and wish upon wish that we existed there, but we don't. We live in the here and now. Our masters, the ones we work for, who have accumulated more money than ourselves, have more say, but they don't hold us in servitude. You may not have the fanciest things unless you play the game. There's always a game. Pick your century. Past, present, or future.

Having been reincarnated several times, I can tell you that out of the current systems, the one in Canada is one of the best out there. Don't get me started about the interest rates in Ptolemaic Egypt.
I'm not sure Vlad Putin would take you. They wouldn't take the Jim Jones assembly, but who knows.

If your movement is popular, why don't you muster the troops and become a candidate for government. Change has to come from within. If that's failing, you might have to do a little navel gazing and decide why that is a fact.

[LordEd]

7. Sacrifice is the measure of credibility

Yes. Based on your credibility I suspect you've sacrificed a broken paperclip to the cause.

[Wake Up! Productions]

I regard all of these posts as akin to sitting in an old-folks home listening to old ladies rant...lmao

Yet you are still posting here, which makes you one of us "old ladies" I guess.

I could't be bothered collecting my fees for your copy infringement.

Awe come on Allen, there is a big difference between "I couldn't be bothered", and "the court won't give me PERMISSION".

you people have enough problems as it is...trying to justify your pathetic lives.

This is a basic Youtube style quality insult, we here at Q strive for a more witty approach like:

[Pottapaug1938]

I could't be bothered collecting my fees for your copy infringement....

That's like saying that I couldn't be bothered walking up to the gates of Fort Knox and showing them a piece of paper giving me ownership rights in all of the gold therein.

[Burnaby49]

Readers of this posting should keep in mind that Burnaby49 has only a rudimentary legal background and the following was largely the work of others who know what the hell they are talking about.

Essentially I'm just a conduit with a Quatloos account who is posting this as I swill a Blackburn Best Bitter cask ale brewed by Adam Chatburn of Real Cask Brewing in Vancouver. Adam actually comes from Blackburn Lancashire, in the heart of Pendle Hill country, my family background. Every time I go to England I stay at a B&B in Barrowford and hike Pendle Hill. Adam brews authentic cask ales as good as the ones I'm going to spend five weeks in Britain next summer sampling. At present the only place you can get his beer is at a tiny micro-brewery called Callisters in the old grungy industrial part of Vancouver. A pilgrimage I make often. Now, after that shameless plug, back on topic;

So Allen, here are some questions which I hope you would not mind answering.

1 - Your "Factum" says as part of "Law 101" that "An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth." and "An unrebutted affidavit becomes a judgment." Can you please show us a Canadian court judgment that says that? Or a court judgment from any country in the world that says that?

If you are not sure where to go to find that kind of information, why don't you start here?

http://www.canlii.org

That website is entirely free and includes every Supreme Court of Canada judgment ever written. If that's "Law 101", then surely these important rules will be found in a Canadian Supreme Court judgment, right?

If you want even more free cases you can search, try this website too;

http://www.bailii.org

This one has cases from the UK House of Lords all the way back to 1709 - but it isn't complete. Still, if this is "Law 101", and you believe in the "common law", surely it's in there, isn't it?

2 - In point 6 of your letter you say: "I think we need a judicial review of every one of your “Decisions” J.D. Rooke." In point 8 you say: "Do you actually believe you have the power and authority to block a man from accessing Queens Bench court J. D. Rooke? J. D. Rooke you do not own QB, or have the authority to create policies concerning its use."

So Allan, if you are right, why don't you appeal the two Alberta Court of Queen's Bench judgments that restrict your accessing Alberta courts to the Alberta Court of Appeal? If you are correct, then those worthless Rooke decisions will be overruled. Why are you writing to the Minister of Justice when there is a court that exists to deal with your exact complaint? Wouldn't that work better?

3 - In point 9 of your letter you say "I have acknowledgement, acceptance from the Queen of my CSA..." - how did that happen? Did the Queen send you a letter? Why do you think it matters that the Queen of England received your "CSA"?

4 - You complain that you are subject to "Tyranny of the Majority" in point 1. Does that mean you agree that your beliefs about your rights are rejected by the majority of Canadians? And Canadians choose their elected institutions. Does that mean the elected majority can never select a government and pass a law that you don't like, and have that affect you?

5 - In your "Factum" you quote Uniform Commercial Code section 3-505. You do realize that you are in Canada? Why do you think this US legislation has any relevance in Canada? If this is important, can you find a Canadian case that quotes UCC section 3-505?

6 - Your "Factum" talks about "estoppel by acquiescence", which actually is a legal concept used in Canada - so that's a good first step. These days Canadian judgments don't use that term but instead that is called "promissory estoppel". But what does that mean? Well, there's a nice summary courtesy of the British Columbia Supreme Court in Kahle v Ritter, 2002 BCSC 199 (http://canlii.ca/t/4w8p). I'll quote it for you.

[37] A promissory estoppel involves one party in a legal relationship making a representation to another party in that relationship which leads the other party to believe that the first party will not insist on his strict legal rights. The second party’s reliance on that representation results in the second party altering his legal position on the strength of that promise. The party who made the representation is then barred from going back on the promise so long as it is inequitable to do so: Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd., [1947] K.B. 130. The promise must be a clear and unambiguous intention to affect the legal relationship between the parties and thus binding on the promissor: John Burrows Ltd. v. Subsurface Surveys Ltd., 1968 CanLII 81 (SCC), [1968] S.C.R. 607; Conwest Exploration Co. v. Letain, 1963 CanLII 35 (SCC), [1964] S.C.R. 20. Should the promise be broken, the reliance must be detrimental to the person relying upon it: Pentagon Construction (1969) Co. Ltd. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Company, [1977] 4 W.W.R. 351 (B.C.C.A.); John Burrows Ltd., supra.

[38] Estoppel is only a defence and cannot form a cause of action: Central London Property Trust, supra; Combe v. Combe, [1951] 1 All E.R. 767; Canadian Superior Oil Ltd. v. Paddon-Hughes Development Co. Ltd., 1970 CanLII 3 (SCC), [1970] S.C.R. 932. See also McLuskie, supra. Only “proprietary estoppel”, a modern term for the equitable rule as to acquiescence or estoppel by acquiescence, which involves an interest in land, can form the basis of a cause of action: Canadian Superior Oil, supra; Zelmer v. Victor Projects Ltd. (1997), 1997 CanLII 4068 (BC CA), 34 B.C.L.R. (3d) 125 (C.A.). ...

[39] Fundamentally, promissory estoppel is a matter of contract law. As stated by G.H.L. Fridman in The Law of Contract in Canada, 4th ed. (Scarborough: Carswell, 1999) at p. 134:

[T]he only true function of this doctrine is to affect existing contractual rights, not to manufacture contracts out of such ‘promises’ or ‘representations’ … this use of estoppel can be made only to affect accrued or inchoate rights, not to produce contractual relations where the essential ingredients of a contract, such as consideration or a clear and ascertained agreement as to terms, are lacking.

Now that we know what "promissory estoppel" / "estoppel of acquiescence" is, I have some questions for you:

Where or what is the contract between you and the Canadian government? Is your "Commercial Security Agreement" / "CSA" supposed to be a contract?

Do you have a contact with Associate Chief Justice Rooke? If so what is it? What consideration came from you to the government / Associate Chief Justice Rooke to support that contract?

"The promise must be a clear and unambiguous intention to affect the legal relationship between the parties"

what did the Canadian government or Associate Chief Justice Rooke clearly and unambiguously promise you? Is silence 'clear and unambigious'? If you ask a sleeping person to enter into a contract to sell you their home for $1, and the homeowner just snores at you, is that "a clear and unambiguous intention to affect the legal relationship between the parties"?

Promissory estoppel can only defend promises made under a contract. I think you believe that by sending someone a document you think they have to reply or else they agree. But that's not a contract. Sending someone an offer does does "not produce contractual relations". You cannot use promissory estoppel to make a contract:

[T]he only true function of this doctrine is to affect existing contractual rights, not to manufacture contracts out of such ‘promises’ or ‘representations’

How am I wrong about that?

Here's another older case you might want to read: Canadian Superior Oil v. Hambly, [1970] SCR 932;

http://canlii.ca/t/1nl8v

It's from the Supreme Court of Canada. If you are right about "Law 101" then you can appeal any decision from Associate Chief Justice Rooke and be sure to win by quoting this case - if you're right about estoppel. Here's the passage I'd like you to read:

It has been said that the acquiescence which will deprive a man of his legal rights must amount to fraud, and in my view that is an abbreviated statement of a very true proposition. A man is not to be deprived of his legal rights unless he has acted in such a way as would make it fraudulent for him to set up those rights. What, then, are the elements or requisites necessary to constitute fraud of that description? In the first place the plaintiff must have made a mistake as to his legal rights. Secondly, the plaintiff must have expended some money or must have done some act (not necessarily upon the defendant's land) on the faith of his mistaken belief. Thirdly, the defendant, the possessor of the legal right, must know of the existence of his own right which is inconsistent with the right claimed by the plaintiff. If he does not know of it he is in the same position as the plaintiff, and the doctrine of acquiescence is founded upon conduct with a knowledge of your legal rights. Fourthly, the defendant, the possessor of the legal right, must know of the plaintiff's mistaken belief of his rights. If he does not, there is nothing which calls upon him to assert his own rights. Lastly, the defendant, the possessor of the legal right, must have encouraged the plaintiff in his expenditure of money or in the other acts which he has done, either directly or by abstaining from asserting his legal right. Where all these elements exist, there is fraud of such a nature as will entitle the Court to restrain the possessor of the legal right from exercising it, but, in my judgment, nothing short of this will do.

If you are right about "estoppel by acquiescence" then if you prove those five parts then you can stop someone from asserting legal rights against you. Here's my question - presuming everything else is proven - how have you been encouraged by the government or courts in Canada to think you can opt out of the law and do whatever you want? There are multiple court judgments that say you can't. You have been repeatedly put in jail for claiming you can do whatever you want and exercising rights you claim under that Commercial Security Agreement. Here are a few examples of what judges have said about that document:

The Commercial Security Agreement document purports to be a contract or agreement between [your] two aspects. It is “… a monologue without any legal relevance.”

Contrary to [your] assertion that ‘nobody seems to want to address his security agreement’, in fact courts have readily concluded such agreements are meaningless ... The problem is not that 'nobody wants to address the security agreement'. The problem is that [you do] not accept that his security agreement, and others like it, and the arguments which flow from it, are nonsense � as is [your] belief that by reason of "the doctrine of acquiescence" various authorities' failure to give what he calls "qualified rebuttals" of the security agreement justifies [your] reliance on it.

As noted above, [you] based [your] position on his “commercial security agreement”. I have reviewed this document. The commercial security agreement was marked as an exhibit at the ... hearings. It is just plain gibberish. ... I agree that [your] commercial security agreement is entirely meaningless and ineffective ...

So, it looks like rather than encouraging you to spend your life organized around that document, Canadian law enforcement, the courts, and government are all trying to convey one message to you - DON'T DO IT!

There is no "acquiescence which will deprive a man of his legal rights must amount to fraud" - because Canada is telling you you're wrong - over and over and over again. And you're ignoring it. They didn't acquiesce. They haven't been silent. We're all telling you - Allen - stop doing this - for your own sake!

So I guess we can add Quatloos to the list - Allen - we're not acquiescing to your claims of authority over us to bill us for lots of money for using your name and whatever else. Stop doing stupid things Allen - for your own sake! We can't of course make you stop, but we certainly can be content we did not encourage you.

I hope that was helpful.

[schismatrix]

OMG do you believe you are above the laws which you have agreed to accept and are sworn to uphold?!

This reading the posts and responding appropriately and/or sensibly to them is all well and good, but I think our lazy, lazy vexatious fool has just invented a new rule to lose by; anyone who uses OMG in a supposed legal argument has automatically Boisjolied themselves.

[SteveUK]

Hats off to Allen, I've never seen anyone manage to pack so much utter garbage into a single post.

[theSovereign1]

yup as I figured psycopaths...how can you live in an imaginary abstract idea? lmao. U are quite insane and very incompetent. They have to prove their legal fiction exists in order to claim their defacto authority...which will be pretty hard since its FICTION OF LAW...and they have no corpus delecti! They are so insane that they believe words on paper can harm them in some way...these people are total psychopaths and you guys coddling to their imaginary insanity is par for the course. PSYCHOPATHS all of ya. What does it feel like to know your whole cosmology is a lie and you live in a an imaginary made up fictional realm designed to keep you subservient?

FICTION OF LAW

The assumption that a certain thing is true, and which gives to a person or thing a quality which is not natural to it, and consequently establishes, a certain disposition, which, without the fiction, would be repugnant to reason and to truth. It is an order of things which does not exist, but which the law prescribes or authorizes. It differs from presumption because it establishes as true, something which is false; whereas presumption supplies the proof of something true.

The law never feigns what is impossible. Fiction is like art; it imitates nature, but never disfigures it. It aids truth, but it ought never to destroy it. It may well suppose that what was possible, but which does not exist; but it will never feign that what was impossible actually is.

Fictions were invented by the Roman praetors who, not possessing the power to abrogate the law, were nevertheless willing to derogate from it under the pretence of doing equity. Fiction is the resource of weakness which, in order to obtain its object, assumes as a fact what is known to be contrary to truth: when the legislator desires to accomplish his object, he need not feign, he commands. Fictions of law owe their origin to the legislative usurpations of the bench.

It is said that every fiction must be framed according to the rules of law, and that every legal fiction must have equity for its object. To prevent their evil effects, they are not allowed to be carried further than the reasons which introduced them necessarily require.

as to selecting a court case to show you...there are plenty. Their whole system works off it....eg. with Civil or criminal (which are actually civil) claims in order to start an action one has to submit an affidavit to them...like hello. are ya dumb or just stupid?

and then there is this:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=3NdCAA ... nt&f=false

[Chaos]

I regard all of these posts as akin to sitting in an old-folks home listening to old ladies rant

so why do you keep making them? and do you want our real names so you can pay us? outstanding!

[theSovereign1]

these people used their fictional bullshit and word magic to abduct my children...they are lucky i am civilized and despise violence and seek justice through the law. If I was a physical danger to them or their FICTIONAL made-up bullshit society they would all have been dead or missing a long time ago... the fact is they are all complacent in fraud, and I am showing this to the world. They have no rule of law, as they abducted my childen on false allegations of my ex. who agreed that she is not a competent parent and is a known drug addict and then they breached my court authorized custody order and then ignored the family law act and then ignored their own mandate under the child and family services act by not placing them with family first. Then they accused me of doing something wrong by filing $20 mil suit in QB against the perpetrators. (which Rooke dismissed because he didn't like the way i presented the parties on the style of cause).These people can't even follow their own rules and you all think they actually are moral people! If they want to keep up with their charade I will expose them every chance I get...and hope someone who is sane will hold them accountable and bring my children home. I will be using their non-sense to establish my claim through a higher court...i just had to show that I cannot get redress within their bullshit court in order to have a good reason to move to a higher venue. The Federal court is next, then supreme and then world court or the International Criminal Court as they are committing high crimes and breaching fundamental human rights that have been established for decades if not hundreds of years! Can you say Nuremberg? I notice that none of have anything to say about the judge that I caught "red-handed" on video committing perjury to make a measly $200 off a fraudulent speeding ticket...when speeding is not a crime in the first place! (no injured party!). So now if you all had any brains in your heads you would realize you have been duped, and are living in a fantasy world made up by psychopaths who are willing to trade their soul for fiat money that has no value backing! Sad, pathetic and true.

[theSovereign1]

My children - (Note - link deleted by Burnaby49)

yup real names and addresses please...if you are so confident then let me serve you your bill and lets see if you have not committed trespass through the Federal Court copyright tribunal shall we? I could use some extra fiat cash to pay for my legal expenses, as the crimianl kabal of public servants won't uphold even the basic laws of commerce and accept bills of exchange/promisorry notes (when I have used them for many other debts including the filing of my $20 mil lawsuit)...which under the laws of commerce are valid payment instruments.

[The Observer]

They are so insane that they believe words on paper can harm them in some way...

What is so strange about that? You believe that you can put words on paper that are going to defeat their words on paper. Heck, you believe you can put words on paper that will cause people to owe you money.

Wait a minute, I get it. You are just saying that you are as insane as them.

[LordEd]

I'd prefer not to have some psychopath driving 100km/h in a school zone thinking its OK because there's no victim and haven't killed anyone yet.

Driving recklessly and smoking pot. That's all freemanism is about.

Want me to caption your photo for you? "Speed past me. It's the 'law' until you kill me.

[theSovereign1]

like it or not LordED its not a crime until someone gets hurt or property is damaged...so what you are supporting is the office of pre-crime from the Tom Cruise movie Minority Report. Its not "law" its internal corporate statute policy. Just like WallMart has...lmao