Marie-Josee Bolduc's Freemen arguments get costly rebuke

[Burnaby49]

The title of this discussion is ripped right out of the headlines of one of our major newspapers.

http://montrealgazette.com/business/fre ... =7073-51fa

This led me to three Quebec cases summarized below:

Banque de Montréal c Bolduc, 2014 QCCQ 13984 (Dec. 10, 2014)
http://canlii.ca/t/ggkd6

Banque de Montréal c Bolduc, 2015 QCCQ 2529 (April 2, 2015)
http://canlii.ca/t/gh9hf

Banque de Montréal c Bolduc, 2015 QCCQ 2530 (March 31, 2015)
http://canlii.ca/t/gh89w

In brief;

Marie-Josee Bolduc purchased an Ultra Buick Lacrosse for $61,469.60, but quit making payments after three months: 2015 QCCQ 2529 at paras 2-3.

She then tried to pay the outstanding debt of almost $60,000.00 with a cheque drawn from an account with $361.26: 2015 QCCQ 2529. The bank sued for the outstanding debt, but Bolduc countersued for $40,000 and a declaration that the bank was an abusive litigant. 2015 QCCQ 2529 at paras 6-7.

Bolduc said she had renounced her “legal personality” and the Quebec courts had no jurisdiction over her (2015 QCCQ 2529 at para 7) and filed “a conditional notice and special appearance” with various judges and politicans that requested case be heard in an ordinary court, waived constructive Cestui Que Vie trust benefits, and stated that Bolduc was “a living woman of flesh, blood ... who does not consent to proceedings against it.” (2015 QCCQ 2592 at pars 9-10).

Bolduc did not appear in court. These were “Freeman-on-the-Land/Sovereign Citizen” concepts, and “pure esotericism and pseudo-legal nonsense”: 2014 QCCQ 13984 at para 2; 2015 QCCQ 2529 at paras 11-12. Judgment for over $61,000 was therefore ordered: 2014 QCCQ 13984 at para 5.

Bolduc’s application to revoke the judgment was denied when she did not show up (2015 QCCQ 2530 at paras 2-3), however the bank’s application to have Bolduc declared an abusive litigant was granted, along with an order to pay $18,405.87 in court costs and punitive damages of $10,000.00 (2015 QCCQ 2529 at paras 14, 28, 34). Bolduc had engaged in abuse of rights and procedures by advancing manifestly ill-founded, frivolous and vexatious arguments that were intended to injure the plaintiff: 2015 QCCQ 2529 at paras 22-23, 25. Bolduc litigated in bad faith: 2015 QCCQ 2529 at para 25.

Note that above is not up to my usual literary standards. I have two excuses;

1 - I relied on Google Translate to get the cases into English. Good job but not great.
2 - I have a huge backlog of unposted stuff I'm trying to get through. I'm just knocking this one off before bed.

I'm impressed with how the Quebec courts have been 'getting all medieval' on their OPCA litigants. Times are changing for Freemen, and not for the better. I briefly peeked around to see if I could identify her, found there are lots of women with that name, and everything was in French. So I quit. Want to call me lazy? Go for it!

[Hyrion]

Another fine example that - in my humble opinion - the core concept to being freeman is to get something free while others pay for it. Free coffee rather than Free choice.

It doesn't really matter if either:

• A: She bought the vehicle then had buyers remorse because she realized later she really couldn't afford it after all so was trying to get the debt cleared while keeping the vehicle - found freeman arguments at that point

or

• B: She was already freeman and entered the agreement knowing upfront she'd never honor it

Either way: her behavior speaks quite loudly of her dishonor.

[Hanslune]

I'm impressed with how the Quebec courts have been 'getting all medieval' on their OPCA litigants.

This is what happens when a movement gets large enough - or causes enough irritation that the government/public takes note. Had the FOLT remained small and obscure they would have remained a minor problem and might have had some minor wins from people not wanting to waste their time on them.

NOW however they are on the radar and its isn't going to be good for them.

The case above is just a plain attempt at thievery.

[Jeffrey]

Did she get charged with something over the bad check?

This is a carbon copy of a case Bill Thornton was involved with down in California:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c33myCDqFg8

[Burnaby49]

Did she get charged with something over the bad check?

This is a carbon copy of a case Bill Thornton was involved with down in California:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c33myCDqFg8

No idea, you've got what I've got. I'm not going to wade through all that French again. I'm hopeless at it.

[notorial dissent]

Hyperion, I would bet on (b) being the answer, sounds much more likely in keeping with her current FOTL babblings.

Hanslune, I think the operative phrase(s) here is big enough and stupid enough, and I think the movement is quickly reaching the critical mass threshold of stupid at this point which will irrevocably bring them to very unwanted public notice.

The thing that has saved them thus far has been their relative to well really total obscurity except to the few connoisseurs of weird that is Quatloos and the like. So now rather than being random blips on the local courts when they inevitably showed up, are now fully exposed in all their ignorant and pathetic glory and are being treated as they so justly deserve.

[grixit]

That $60,000 car has now cost her $90,000 and her creditworthiness.

[The Observer]

That $60,000 car has now cost her $90,000 and her creditworthiness.

But now she has immense street cred with her fellow sovruns.

[grixit]

That, and a couple of loonies will get her a cup of coffee-- which Menard will grab.