Allen has been mentioned once in passing on Quatloos but has not, until now, warranted a discussion of his own. However with a brand-new court decision with his name on it he has earned the right to his own discussion! First though, a warning. Check out paragraphs 17-18 of the decision;
Which means it is a criminal offense in Canada to link our Allen-Nelson Boisjoli's name to prior published cases involving him but not identified under his name. Although these cases are not published under his real name I know the cases and, let's put it this way, they don't make him look good. Anyone familiar with Canadian OPCA caselaw probably knows the other cases and how they relate to our Allen-Nelson Boisjoli but identifying Boisjoli as the individual in these cases breaches a publication ban. So don't do it. I'll stick to reviewing this case alone however, just to give you an idea, here is a prior court hearing that is under his name so it can be published. It gives you a good idea of what an idiot he is;[17] Allen Nelson Boisjoli is not a stranger to the Alberta courts. His previous litigation history is highly relevant to whether this Court should take steps to restrict his access to court processes, and, if so, what those steps would be. There is, however, a complication. Boisjoli’s prior relevant litigation falls into a statutory publication ban regime.
[18] Appendix A lists Boisjoli's earlier court proceedings that are relevant to the current vexatious litigant analysis. The contents of this appendix will not be included in the published version of this judgment so as to ensure confidential information is not disclosed.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/101468841/HER ... 1#download
And there is this;
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... -1.1227511
Of course he was a hero to the World Freeman Society;
http://worldfreemansociety.ca/forum/sea ... ldforums=1
Although that discussion ended very abruptly just as our own Ninja was about to sit in on the trial. Just type Boisjoli's name in Google and you'll get an overwhelming barrage of information about him.
Well on to our newly released decision;
Re Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 629
http://canlii.ca/t/gljkn
The decision was rendered by none other than the bête noire of the Canadian Freeman movement, the dread Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke himself! The man who inflicted Meads v Meads on our valiant Canadian fighters for Freedom.
Now there are complaints, often justified, about how slowly the wheels of justice turn in Canada. Not in this case! The documents at issue in the decision were submitted to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench on September 25th and this decision came out October 8th. Less than three weeks to have a hearing, come to a conclusion, and write it up in a 48 page decision. Allen-Nelson should be proud of his importance in the Alberta justice system. When he wants something done the court hops right to it!
So let's take a look at the what the September 25th documents are about;
But I'm getting ahead of myself, here is the starting gun;[20] The documents received by the Court on September 25, 2015 attempt to implement a number of pseudolegal schemes. The trigger was a traffic ticket for speeding (Traffic Safety Act, RSA 2000, c T-6, s 115(2)(p)) issued to Boisjoli on May 14, 2015 by a Peace Officer ["the Officer"]. The materials submitted by Boisjoli then purported to pay for this traffic ticket via a "Certified Promissory Note" drawn from a US Treasury Department account. When this document did not pay Boisjoli's speeding ticket, Boisjoli engaged in a variation of the Three/Five Letters foisted unilateral agreement scheme (Bank of Montreal v Rogozinsky, 2014 ABQB 771, 18 Alta LR (6th) 1 (Master Schlosser)) to assert a debt against the Officer and the province of Alberta. This is the "default judgment" that Boisjoli attempted to file under Rule 3.36.
[21] The September 25, 2015 documents are very unusual in a number of ways. While they obviously attempt to implement OPCA schemes, these documents are carefully prepared and formatted, extensively cross-referenced, identify service, and form a clear (albeit unorthodox) documentary record. Boisjoli has clearly put much effort into these items. They combine a number of different pseudolegal influences from Canada, the US, and Australia. In brief, these appear to be an original product by Boisjoli, which is one reason why I will detail their content and scheme, and reproduce in part the text of certain items as appendices to this decision.
[22] Those reproduced documents in some cases have been redacted to remove sensitive information or only reproduced in part to eliminate less relevant elements. Their formatting generally matches that of the originals.
Before we go further my interpretation of what happened is this. Boisjoli gets a speeding ticket and attempts to pay it off with OPCA crap. Doesn't work. So he got a notary, a real notary (more on him later, a LOT more), to notarize a bunch of documents which Boisjoli considered constitute a default judgment against the police officer. Problem is that he needed a court to issue the judgment. Obviously the Alberta court isn't going to do it and, even though Boisjoli claims the notary has the power to issue the default judgement, he knows that nobody is going to enforce it on his behalf without the involvement of a real court. So he sent a blizzard of documents to the Court Clerk to prove that he'd won the case because the Court Clerk is empowered, in some cases, to file a default judgment instead of a judge. So Boisjoli acts like it is just an everyday routine administrative move, issue a case number to him in respect to his default judgment so that he can file a writ of enforcement and seizure at the court and get a sheriff to enforce it. What's more reasonable than that? Instead the Clerk scurries up to Rooke with the documents and unintended consequences result.[1] In September, 2015 Allen Nelson Boisjoli ["Boisjoli"] emailed an Edmonton Court of Queen's Bench Clerk/Manager inquiring as to the Court Clerk's authority and procedure to file default judgments. The Clerk/Manager confirmed that the Clerks can enter default judgments for debt or liquidated demands per Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, Rules 3.36 and 3.39 [the "Rules", or individually a "Rule"] and indicated the appropriate court form for that procedure.
[2] Boisjoli replied:
... as you know I create my own documents. and there IS a reason for that. I believe if i use your forms I am subrogated. I use the outlines that are provided in the rules of court. I have the same elements but I use my own documents as it is a commercial negotiation between parties. Under the Bills of exchange act there is provisions for this in article 9. Under the law merchant. ... The reason I use a notary is because it is public record. It is now public policy, i should be able to have judgement just by the notary holding the negotiation docs as public record and witnessing the certificate of non-response. But alas because you all have labeled me a freeman or sovereign citizen. Because of this the sheriffs I am sure will refuse to accept my public judgements without the blessing of the court.
so what i am sending you has already been settled on the public record. I would just like, require you to enter it and provide me with a case/action number, so I may file a writ of enforcement and seizure.
i actually have several of these to do. I am trying to find a way we can co-exist peacefully here. There is no reason that people who study and learn the law should be treated like outcasts and second class citizens just because we have a bit different political beliefs .
... my children deserve to live in a world free of government corruption. I am not against government. . .i am actually pro GOOD GOVERNMENT. The problem is: I have experienced first hand the corruption and abuse of VESTED authority by PUBLIC SERVANTS who seem to believe that because they have a position of authority they are the master, when we all know they are SERVANTS, and its time it stopped and there is accountability. I seem to be the only one who knows how to take these people to task and expose their abuses of the system. So please find it in your heart to help me out here and lets get these corrupt individuals out of a position where they can do more harm.
The September 25th documents are detailed in paragraphs 23 and 24. You can read them for yourselves. However I enjoyed reading about this.
I've always complained that Canadian Freemen demand chump-change compared to your American sovereigns but Allen has done us proud with this demand. He probably didn't file it against the Canadian government because he knew there was no way we could cough up that kind of cash. But if your congress ever stops wrangling they can increase your debt limit and send Allen a cheque. The actual documents he sent the treasury, along with others, are reproduced in the appendix.Two documents addressed to the now former US Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy F. Geithner. One, addressed to the "Secretary and Trustee of the US Bankruptcy", is a "Chargeback Order" (reproduced at Appendix F) dated December 14, 2009 for one hundred billion US dollars. It states:
Please chargeback the undersigned's account number, 115742126, for the same value including interest, penalties, and fees necessary for securing, registration, and discharge of the public liability. As you know, this is a public debt obligation of the United States. This is an order to adjust the account, discharge the debt, and zero the account for all presentments that have been Accepted for Value and endorsed with a valid signature ....
The second, a "Pre-Offset Notice for Balanced Book Adjustment" (reproduced at Appendix G), with Geithner now titled "Secretary of the US Treasury", instructs Geithner to use attached documents:
... for the purpose of balanced book adjustment as legal tender to lower and reduce the UNITED STATES national debt. ... This procedure to allow offset of debt is the proper legal remedy that has been provided for Americans to discharge debt, since the money was removed by the U. S. Corporate Govermnent ...
• A VISA credit card form for "ALLEN BOISJOLI".
• A US Internal Revenue Service form assigning ALLEN BOISJOLI HOLDINGS an Employer Identification Number.
Anyhow Rooke analyzed the documents used as the basis for the default judgment and found them all to be OPCA crap. You can see the progression in the table of contents for the case.
He was particularly annoyed with the three/five letter Notary Judgment because this was issued by a real notary.D. Analysis of the September 25, 2015 Documents
1. The “A4V” Promissory Note Scheme
2. “Common-Law Copyright” Claim
3. Three/Five Letters Notary Judgment
4. The Criminal Character of Boisjoli’s Actions
5. Other Observations
E. The September 25, 2105 Documents are not a Statement of Claim, per Rule 3.36
However an objective observer (not me!) might conclude that Rooke might be enjoying himself a tad too much in putting the boot to Allen and his arguments. Allen is just trying to make some sense out of this crazy world. This is what the Court said about the three/five letter scheme;3. Three/Five Letters Notary Judgment
[ 49] Boisjoli's third pseudolegal scheme is a variation on a commonly encountered foisted unilateral agreement strategy, the "Three/Five Letters" procedure. This is a pseudolegal procedure where a succession of letters, typically three to five in number, allegedly lock their recipient into a legally binding, unappealable result. Boisjoli refers to this as a "commercial negotiation" in the "public record" that results in a "public judgement" witnessed by a notary. In truth, it is nothing more than an irrelevant monologue shouted at a brick wall.
[50] The Three/Five Letters are a series of documents sent to a target. Each is a foisted unilateral agreement (Meads v Meads, at paras 447-528) in the sense that these documents set a deadline, and if no response occurs within a certain period of time then a result is (purportedly) deemed to occur. This is, of course, legally incorrect: Felthouse v Bindley; Meads v Meads, at paras 458-472. In law, silence does not accept an offer.
[51] The typical five steps or "letters" of the Three/Five Letters procedure are reviewed in Bank of Montreal v Rogozinsky, at paras 55-73. Master Schlosser explains:
... the correspondence used in the Three/Five Letters process follows a stereotypic pattern:
The Conditional Acceptance: the target receives a document that says the OPCA litigant conditionally admits something, but the target has to jump through some hoops to prove the admission. (It is not unusual that these hoops are onerous or impossible.) There is a deadline to do so and if that deadline is not met then the target is deemed to have accepted something, usually that there never was a debt.
The Dishonour Notice: once the deadline for the Conditional Acceptance is past the target is sent a notice warning that since the target did not respond to the Conditional Acceptance that means the target has accepted the intended result of the first document, such as the target has admitted there is no debt. This too is a foisted unilateral agreement because it also offers the target a chance to respond to this and the Conditional Acceptance within a deadline. Failure to respond, of course, allegedly means the target has admitted the intended result.
The Second Dishonour Notice: this is basically a repeat of the first, again providing a new window for response.
The Estoppel Notice: the Estoppel Notice document alleges that the since the target has not responded (or responded inadequately) to the prior three documents that means the target is now legally estopped from pursuing something, such as collection of a debt.
The Judgment: the final document in the scheme is a 'judgment' which allegedly concludes the dispute. This document may take several forms. A common variant is an "affidavit" which allegedly provides conclusive proof of something. Another common kind of 'judgment' is a notarized
[52] This pattern is obvious in Boisjoli's September 25, 2015 documents, though, as often is the case (Bank of Montreal v Rogozinsky, at para 70), the exact names of each document is different from the pattern listed above. Boisjoli has also skipped the "Second Dishonour Notice" step.
May 19. 2015: "Conditional Acceptance" is performed by two May 19, 2015 documents. The "Offer of Performance" gives the target 30 days to accept Boisjoli's "Certified Promissory Note" as payment and complete the "Verification of Debt Disclosure Statement" form. The purported effect of silence is an admission that the traffic ticket had no legal effect. This is the 'defensive' half of Boisjoli's Three/Five Letters process. The "Offer of Performance" indicates failure to reply also means the targets have accepted the May 19, 2015 "Bill of Lading", which foists a claim against the Officer. It says that failure to pay:
... shall cause the Bill and obligation to be perfected by & through a subsequent "Draft Bill" and notice of fraud, and a final "Accepted Bill" and issued "Certificate of Non-Response" for judgement in default ... The "Bill of Lading is therefore the 'offensive' half of the protocol.
June 25, 2015: the "Notice of Fault" is Boisjoli's "Dishonour Notice". It gives three days to respond or pay, and, if not, then the debt indicated in the "Bill" to the Officer is agreed to and accepted.
July 3, 2015: the "Notice of Acceptance and Judgement by Default" states the Officer and Alberta have by their silence accepted the Bill and admitted their misconduct. This is the "Estoppel Notice", but provides 15 days to respond before the final step: an unfavourable judgment.
July 27, 2015: the "Affidavit of Non-Response" is the "Judgment", and purports that the preceding Three/Five Letter steps have resulted in an enforceable judgment that may be registered in a 'conventional' court.
So Rooke dismissed Allen's so-called default judgment then got on to the real intent of the decision, beating the crap out of Allen-Nelson![53] With the Three/Five Letters process complete, Boisjoli then contacted the Court Clerks claiming he had a default judgment that could be filed per Rule 3.36.
[54] This is, of course, rubbish. Boisjoli's Three/Five Letters monologue has no legal effect whatsoever on either Alberta or the Officer. If there had been some form of actual agreement between Boisjoli and his targets then that could, possibly, be a basis for a summary judgment. However, the "Affidavit of Non-Response" is not a default judgment, nor does it create any legal obligation to pay or respond. It is all hot air. As Master Schlosser noted in Bank of Montreal v Rogozinsky, Three/Five Letters documents are replete with spurious language, such as "tacit procuration": an imaginary, made up term that does not exist in Canadian law. The Notice of Fault claims silence" ... shall be deemed STARE DECISIS ... ":all allegations are proven and the debts are due. This is foolishness. No unilateral declaration of this, or any, kind can displace the Canadian superior courts' inherent jurisdiction. The courts make binding findings of fact and law as to actual agreements, not unilateral paper airplanes lobbed at a target.
The next section of the decision is titled;[57] There is no default judgment for Boisjoli to file. He has not proven any claim over the Officer or Alberta. Instead, he has foisted a demand via an OPCA scheme. But, while Boisjoli obtains no advantage from this paper exercise, his misconduct does have other legal implications.
4. The Criminal Character of Boisjoli's Actions
That doesn't sound promising for our hero!
Vexatious litigation decision? Dark clouds are gathering! Rooke proceeded to nail Allen as a vexatious litigant for eight different reasons, each, on its own, sufficient to get the job done. I've severely edited these for brevity. The uncut original text is well worth the read;[58] Boisjoli's plan is obvious, and he has stated it. He wants the Clerks of the Court of Queen's Bench to enter his paperwork as a default judgment under Rule 3 .36 so that he can then enforce his spurious claims:
[59] In fact, Boisjoli does not know how to take court officials to task and his erroneous attempts here to do so will not be countenanced. His documents indicate that he will file liens against Alberta and the Officer, personally. His July 3, 2015 documents include draft versions of liens against the Provincial Court Building in Vermillion and the Officer.
[63] I conclude that, on a balance of probabilities, Boisjoli has attempted to intimidate and intended to intimidate a justice system participant, the Officer, contrary to Criminal Code, s 423.1. I make this finding as a basis for possible prosecution under the Criminal Code and, more explicitly herein, for the purposes of evaluating whether Boisjoli is currently engaged in vexatious litigation, and as a consequence should be the subject of a vexatious litigation order under the Judicature Act.
[64] This finding of criminal intimidation is restricted to Boisjoli's September 25, 2015 attempt to register a default judgment per Rule 3.36, with the goal of then enforcing that default judgment against the Officer. This is not to say that I conclude that Boisjoli' s earlier steps in his Three/Five Letters process do not constitute the basis for a Criminal Code, s 423.1 intimidation charge, but rather that it is unnecessary for me to investigate or decide that. For the purposes of this vexatious litigation decision what is important is whether or not delivering the September 25, 2015 documents to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench satisfies the actus reus and mens rea requirements of Criminal Code, s 423.1. On a balance of probabilities, I conclude that it does.
Then Allen does Alberta Freemen proud by setting legal precedence. An entirely new classification of vexatious litigant behaviour established just for him!V. Vexatious Litigant Analysis
[78] In Chutskoffv Bonora, Michalyshyn J identified 11 kinds of litigation misconduct that are indicia of vexatious litigation. Any is a basis for Boisjoli to be declared a vexatious litigant.
[79] Boisjoli has obviously engaged in OPCA litigation and his attempt to file his so-called "default judgment" is an attempt to illegally and improperly enforce OPCA schemes on others. This alone is a basis to restrict Boisjoli's access to Alberta Courts: Meads v Meads; R v Fearn,
2014 ABQB 233 at para 49, 586 AR 182 (Tilleman J).
[80] Boisjoli is a vexatious litigant in many other senses as well.
A. Collateral Attack
[81] A collateral attack is:
1. bringing proceedings to determine an issue that has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction (Judicature Act, s 23(2)(a); Dykun v Odinshaw, 2000 ABQB 548 at para 42, 267 AR 318 (Lee J), affirmed 2001ABCA204, 286 AR 392, leave denied [2001] SCCA No 442);
[82] Boisjoli litigation history includes proceedings he started to circumvent other litigation and court orders. He has repeatedly re-argued his OPCA schemes despite their being rejected by Alberta judges. This is an independent basis to order Boisjoli is a vexatious litigant.
B. Hopeless Proceedings
[83] Hopeless proceedings are those that offer no possibility of success:
5. advancing incomprehensible arguments and allegations: R v Fearn, at paras 22-23.
[84] Boisjoli’s current and historic litigation provides many examples of hopeless proceedings. All his OPCA-based litigation had no possibility of success. Alberta judges have repeatedly found that OPCA documents that Boisjoli advanced were meaningless and have no legal effect. Boisjoli ignored those court findings, and continued to claim his OPCA materials granted him special powers and immunities. His prior civil litigation sought relief that was grossly disproportionate.
[85] I think I need do no more than observe it is preposterous that anyone could expect to charge $100,000 every time another individual uses their name. This is a third independent basis to conclude Boisjoli is a vexatious litigant.
C. Bringing Proceedings for Improper Purposes
[86] Bringing an improper proceeding is a basis to identify vexatious litigation:
[87] I conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that Boisjoli’s attempt to “bill” the Officer and file his “Final Judgement” in this Court is either 1) an attempt to extort a benefit, 2) intended as revenge, harassment, to oppress, or inflict harm, or 3) both. The exact alternative does not matter. This is a fourth independent basis to conclude Boisjoli is a vexatious litigant.
D. Persistently Taking Unsuccessful Appeals
[88] Persistent and unsuccessful appeals are an indicium of vexatious litigation:
[89] Boisjoli’s previous litigation includes erratic appeal activities. I do not consider this an independent basis to find Boisjoli is a vexatious litigant, but do see this as a minor ‘aggravating’ factor in assessing Boisjoli’s overall litigation misconduct.
E. Inappropriate Courtroom Behaviour
[90] Inappropriate courtroom behaviour is another basis to conclude a litigant is engaged in vexatious litigation: Boisjoli’s historic litigation history is replete with examples of inappropriate courtroom behaviour.
[91] This apparently has not changed. In the Youtube video linked in para 8 of the Affidavit of Non-Response, Boisjoli responds in this manner to the hearing judge’s request for a plea of guilty or not guilty:
Sir, this is a fraud. You’re a fraud. You’re failing to identify. You’re a public servant under public oath, and you’re failing to identify - that’s a crime. Please arrest this man, sir, he’s impersonating a judge.
[92] I also note that making an audio recording of a Provincial Court proceeding is a breach of the Provincial Court of Alberta’s Electronic and Wireless Devices Policy (January 2012), and a potential basis for a contempt of court proceeding. Obviously, the clandestine recording is just another example of inappropriate courtroom behaviour.
[93] Boisjoli’s historic courtroom actions are inappropriate, and this is a further, fifth independent basis on which I conclude he is a vexatious litigant.
F. Unsubstantiated Allegations of Conspiracy, Fraud, and Misconduct
[94] Another facet of Boisjoli’s litigation is his persistent allegations that government, law enforcement, lawyers, and court actors conspire to advance fraudulent and illegal schemes for nefarious purposes:
3. pleadings that are “replete with extreme and unsubstantiated allegations, and often refer to far-flung conspiracies involving large numbers of individuals and institutions”, “where the allegations may be unfounded in fact or merely speculative, but the language is vitriolic, offensive and defamatory
[95] These kinds of unsubstantiated allegations are present in Boisjoli’s historic civil litigation. His claims of this kind were categorically rejected by the court. Spurious claims of this type were also the underlying basis for why Boisjoli insisted he had a legal right to engage in criminal intimidation of government actors.
[96] Clearly, this has not changed. This is a further and sixth independent basis by which I conclude Boisjoli is a vexatious litigant.
G. Scandalous or Inflammatory Language
[97] Scandalous or inflammatory language, in court or in documents, is a basis to conclude that a person is engaged in vexatious litigation: This criterion is obviously met and here is a seventh independent basis to find Boisjoli is a vexatious litigant.
But then ACJ Rooke has to go overboard and get a touch sarcastic;H. Using Court Processes to Further Criminal Activity
[98] I would add a new category of activity that is a basis to conclude that a court participant is engaged in vexatious litigation: a person is using or attempting to use the Court to further criminal activity.
[99] Canadian courts’ social function is to enforce and protect the rights of persons in this country. Permitting use of the court and its processes to further identified criminal activity strikes to the very core of the Court’s role as a separate branch of government. That is the antithesis of this Court’s function, and to permit such brings the administration of justice into disrepute.
[102] An attempt to abuse the courts in this manner is without question a basis for a court to take steps to terminate an action with an illegal or criminal purpose. I conclude this is also a powerful reason for the Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction and restrict a persons’ future access to the Alberta Courts by declaring that person a vexatious litigant.
And then the hammer;[103] I observe that Boisjoli should have no complaint on this Court refusing to assist his criminal scheme, and the Court taking steps to restrict future, additional misconduct of this kind. After all, his preferred legal reference, the 1856 edition of Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, includes these in its list of Maxims of law:
Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. Out of fraud no action arises. Cowper, 343; Broom's Max. 349.
Ex turpi contractu non oritur actio. No action arises on an immoral contract.
To be explicit, this is not to say that this Court views Bouvier’s Law Dictionary as an valid legal resource or authority. In Canada, law comes from legislation passed by Parliament and the provincial legislatures, and the courts and its judgments, not archaic and foreign historical curiosities.
Wow! Boisjoli certainly got the court's attention! And, after beating up on Allen, Rooke went after the notary who notarized all of his documents.I. Vexatious Litigant Order
[104] I have identified eight independent bases on which I have declared or found that Boisjoli is a vexatious litigant. He has also exhibited additional aggravating litigation conduct. To some degree these do overlap, but the net result is obvious. This is an individual who is a clear target for a court order that restricts his future activities.
[105] This order should be strict and broad. Boisjoli’s litigation misconduct is not restricted to a single matter or court. I therefore conclude he should be limited in his access to all three Alberta Courts. I previously observed that Boisjoli’s documents appear to be adapted from a template, and that his failures to replace target names suggests he has at least two more parallel Three/Five Letters actions in the works. Boisjoli admits as much in his email communications to the Clerk/Manager - this is the first of a number of illegal projects Boisjoli has underway.
[106] Another reason for very strict controls on Boisjoli’s court activities is that he does not merely create and transmit spurious and ineffective documents. He acts on them. Boisjoli’s criminal misconduct is far from trivial. It exhibits many aggravating factors, including the targets, and the means and forms of intimidation. I conclude the fact that Boisjoli claims that his OPCA materials and strategies made his criminal conduct legal it is highly relevant and aggravating. He claimed he was not subject to Canadian law and repeatedly acted on that basis. Worse, he was undeterred by incarceration.
[107] Boisjoli lies when he says he will mend his ways. On his first sentencing for criminal intimidation Boisjoli said this:
I -- I do, Your Honour. And if I may just say a word. It’s been a very humbling experience, Sir. The time that I spent in gaol has not been wasted. And I agree that, you know, I’ve -- my emotions took -- took -- got the better of me, and you know, I’ve -- I’ve broken my own cardinal rule to treat everybody with respect, and I realize that. And, you know, the -- this time I spent in gaol, I spent a lot of time reading my Bible, and Jesus taught us to forgive, and that’s what I’m asking for is to be forgiven.
Boisjoli then promptly resumed his criminal activities.
[108] This is a reason why I conclude Boisjoli should have no right to file material in any Alberta court. He may only interact with the courts via a lawyer. While unusual, this restriction is not unprecedented. In Boe v Boe, 2014 BCCA 208 (CanLII) at para 36, 356 BCAC 217, the Court took this step in response to a vexatious litigant who engaged in persistent, meritless filings:
[109] I think here there is an even stronger basis than in Boe v Boe to restrict Boisjoli’s future correspondence and filings with Alberta courts in an analogous manner. His September 25, 2015 materials are not merely a waste of court resources; they are a key and integral step in his criminal scheme. A requirement that Boisjoli use a lawyer to communicate with the court is not an absolute obstruction to Boisjoli accessing Alberta courts. Boisjoli’s litigation history shows he is willing to retain legal counsel to meet his objectives.
[110] I therefore order:
1. Allen Nelson Boisjoli is prohibited from commencing, or attempting to commence, or continuing any appeal, action, application, or proceeding in the Court of Appeal, the Court of Queen’s Bench, or the Provincial Court of Alberta, on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person or estate without an order of the Chief Justice or Judge of the court in which the proceeding is conducted, or his or her designate.
2. The Chief Justice or Judge, or his or her designate, may at any time direct that notice of an application to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding be given to any other person.
3. Allen Nelson Boisjoli must describe himself, in the application or document to which this Order applies, by his exact full name (“Allen Nelson Boisjoli”), and not by using initials, an alternative name structure, or a pseudonym.
4. Any application to commence or continue any appeal, action, application, or proceeding will only be accepted if Allen Nelson Boisjoli is represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta.
5. Any application to commence or continue any appeal, action, application, or proceeding must be accompanied by an affidavit:
(i) attaching a copy of the order issued herein declaring Allen Nelson Boisjoli to be a vexatious litigant,
(ii) attaching a copy of the appeal, pleading, application, or process that Allen Nelson Boisjoli proposes to issue or file or continue,
(iii) deposing fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding, so as to demonstrate that the proceeding is not an abuse of process, and that there are reasonable grounds for it,
(iv) indicating whether Allen Nelson Boisjoli has ever sued some or all of the defendants or respondents previously in any jurisdiction or court, and if so providing full particulars,
(v) undertaking that, if leave is granted, the authorized appeal, pleading, application or process, the order granting leave to proceed, and the affidavit in support of the order will promptly be served on the defendants or respondents, and
(vi) undertaking to diligently prosecute the proceeding.
6. Any application referenced herein shall be made in open court and shall be recorded. Leave to commence or continue proceedings may be given on conditions, including the posting of security for costs. An application that is dismissed may not be made again.
7. An application to vary or set aside this vexatious litigant Order must be made on notice to the Attorney General, and any other person as directed by the Court.
8. This Order, except for paragraph 5, does apply to an appeal of this judgment to the Alberta Court of Appeal.
Now I'm not an expert in the weight given to an Alberta judge's recommendations to the Minister of Justice but If I was Powell and saw this;VI. Powell’s Misconduct
[113] It would appear from Boisjoli’s September 25, 2015 materials that he was assisted by an Edmonton notary, Edward J. Powell. There is no lawyer in Alberta with that name, so presumably Powell is a notary public appointed per the Notaries Public Act, RSA 2000, c N-6, s 2(1).
[114] Notaries Public in Alberta are governed by Alberta Justice and Solicitor General, which has issued a Code of Conduct for that profession. Section 2 of that Code reads:
2 A notary public must not:
a. mislead or attempt to mislead anyone in the discharge of the notary public’s responsibilities;
b. notarize or participate in the preparation or delivery of any document that is false, incomplete, misleading, deceptive or fraudulent;
c. notarize or participate in the preparation or delivery of any document that
...
ii. is intended to or has the effect of deceiving any person, or is otherwise lacking valid legal effect.
[115] A number of documents in Boisjoli’s materials are marked as notarized by “Edward J. Powell, Notary Public in and for the province of Alberta.”:
May 19, 2015: Offer of Performance
Certified Promissory Note
Verification of Tender of Payment & Notice of Reservation of Right Initiating Tort Claim
June 25, 2015: Notice of Fault
July 3, 2015: Notice of Acceptance and Judgement by Default
July 27, 2015: Affidavit of Non-Response
Any review of these documents would detect their unusual and obnoxious character.
[116] I have previously concluded, on a balance of probabilities, that these documents were intended to illegally assert a debt against the Officer and Alberta, and that the attempt to file the documents Powell notarized is an indictable criminal offense. Powell is obviously in breach of the Code of Conduct.
[117] This, however, is only a part of Powell’s apparent role in Boisjoli’s criminal activities. The May 19, 2015 “Affidavit of Service and Contents” indicates:
Note: Duplicates of the originals are on file and held as Public Record with an Alberta Notary Public appointed as custodian of records and certified copies are available upon request and payment of applicable fees for administration and materials as determined by the notary.
[118] Boisjoli’s purported default judgment, the “Affidavit of Non-Response”, indicates Powell operates as an agent for Boisjoli in his dealings with the targets of his illegal and vexatious scheme, and provided the “public record” for Boisjoli’s “commercial negotiation”:
11. That no qualified response, nor any reply at all, to any of the aforementioned presentments was received by me via Canada Post, the Notary, or any other mail carrier, and;
12. That copies of all documents referenced herein are in my possession and on file with Ed Powell, Alberta Notary Public @ 18035a-107 Ave., Edmonton, Alberta, constituting the public record for this matter, and;
[119] Boisjoli in one of his emails to the Clerk/Manager elaborates on the role of this notary in his pseudolegal scheme:
... I will try and explain this for you and you can pass it around so your colleges know the reasoning behind why I, and others that study law are seeking legal remedy notarize everything.
... by creating a public record with a notary witness the notice signed under oath is creation of public policy, on file for public record and consumption with a public witness. I have my notary act as custodian of public records. Anyone can call him and request a copy of the public record...for a fee of course.
so technically if everyone was observing the law properly the notary can issue judgement, as witness to process ...
so my negotiations are filled with unrebutted affidavits. This is why I use a notary for everything. Because its legal notice and it is affidavit form, sworn under oath and stands as truth in the PUBLIC DOMAIN if unrebutted.
[120] In brief, Boisjoli claims that notaries are judges who can issue binding decisions. Powell assisted Boisjoli to implement Boisjoli’s pseudolegal scheme, which is intended to assert a false debt. Powell notarized the Affidavit of Non-Response, which concludes at para 13:
... this “Affidavit of Non-Response” constitutes Final Judgement for this matter, and signifies that the Libellee is responsible for all statements, claims, terms, and amounts as presented and recorded for the Public Record.
[121] Powell, in validating this item, is potentially in contempt of court. He has no authority to issue any binding document such as this “Final Judgement”, or to give any document a special legal effect: Papadopoulos v Borg, 2009 ABCA 201 (CanLII) at paras 3, 10.
[122] In Meads v Meads, I observed at paras 643-645 that it is a lawyer’s duty to not participate in or facilitate OPCA schemes. Given the false significance that OPCA litigants such as Boisjoli put on notaries and their activities, that creates “... a positive duty not to engage in a step that would ‘formalize’ an OPCA document.”
[123] I am deeply disturbed to see that an Alberta Notary Public has not merely formalized OPCA documents, but apparently is (perceived as) a critical participant in an OPCA criminal enterprise that targets the Alberta government and a Peace Officer engaged in his public duties. And this is only one of, who knows how many other, “commercial negotiations” Boisjoli has underway, with Powell’s assistance.
[124] I therefore direct that these reasons and Boisjoli’s September 25, 2015 materials will be delivered to the Alberta Minister of Justice and Attorney General for review, to determine whether Powell’s appointment as a Notary Public should be revoked.
VII. Conclusion
[125] In conclusion, I order that Allen Nelson Boisjoli is a vexatious litigant and is immediately, on an interim basis restricted from filing or continuing actions in all Alberta Courts. A final vexatious litigant declaration is subject to any submissions of the Attorney Generals.
[126] I direct that a copy of the September 25, 2015 materials and an unredacted copy of this judgment be provided to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for review, and possible response to the activities of Boisjoli and Powell.
[127] The Clerk shall return the original September 25, 2015 materials and an unredacted copy of this judgment to Allen Nelson Boisjoli by ordinary mail. Service on him will be deemed to be effected five business days after mailing. His application to enter a default judgment under Rule 3.36 is denied; the September 25, 2015 materials are not a default judgment per the Alberta Rules of Court.
[128] The Clerk shall lodge a copy of the September 25, 2015 materials in this vexatious litigation declaration Court file.
I might start thinking about brushing up my resume to prepare for a possible search for alternate employment.[123] I am deeply disturbed to see that an Alberta Notary Public has not merely formalized OPCA documents, but apparently is (perceived as) a critical participant in an OPCA criminal enterprise that targets the Alberta government and a Peace Officer engaged in his public duties. And this is only one of, who knows how many other, “commercial negotiations” Boisjoli has underway, with Powell’s assistance.
[124] I therefore direct that these reasons and Boisjoli’s September 25, 2015 materials will be delivered to the Alberta Minister of Justice and Attorney General for review, to determine whether Powell’s appointment as a Notary Public should be revoked.
I get the feeling that Rooke's preferred judgment, the one he didn't render, would be to hunt Boisjoli down like a mad dog and publicly horse whip him in front of the courthouse.
A word of advice for readers who've made it to this point. Don't get a speeding ticket in Alberta.
