Mark-Randolph put that in an affidavit under oath so it must be true. So, since Mark-Randolph had a valid enforceable debt that was being ignored by his debtor he went to the Provincial Court of Alberta to get a court order against the deadbeat. And I ended up with all the relevant court documents that tell the tale.6. This was a "personal" matter between the Agent for the Creditor, Mark-Randolph: Simser , and Bradley MURK. And Bradley MURK was asked if he had "understood" that he "personally" owed the creditor Mark-Randolph: Simser 5000,00 Canadian Dollars? And, he, Bradley MURK had said, "yes."
7. So I had said to Bradley MURK, "You do "understand" that you owe the "creditor" Mark-Randolph: Simser 5000.00 Canadian dollars? Is this correct?" And he had said, "yes," and had confirmed this with a "contractual handshake." And do note that this was (on the security video surveillance camera) that was "above" our heads in the hallway by the West Exit to the Police Station, I believe.
So let's start at the beginning of the document trail. This, on February 25, 2010 was the shot heard round the world;
http://www.mediafire.com/view/y8t9n9mzm ... 0claim.pdf
Simser files a $5000 claim in Alberta Provincial Court. Note he is both "Plaintiff" and "Agent". In other words - STRAWMAN! As Simser tells it in this document the debt is the result of a "Contractual Agreement" for the service of three court orders. No further details what this involves. It wasn't between Mark-Randolph: and Murk but between Mark-Randolph:'s agent and Murk. Happily coordination between Mark-Randolph and his agent was much simplifed by them both sharing the same physical body. No doubt they discussed their court strategy in the bathroom mirror every morning.
Murk responded by serving an order to have this action struck out - it should be in Alberta Queen's Bench.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/d0o60jmqb ... cation.pdf
And tells his side of the story;
So an OPCA plaintiff is suing a police officer over an alledged contract that occured while the police officer was doing his duty.AFFIDAVIT
I, Bradley Murk, Peace Officer, of Edmonton, Alberta, MAKE OATH AND SAY
THAT:
1. I am currently employed as a Peace Officer by the Edmonton Police Service, and was
employed in that capacity on January 25, 2010.
2. Any and all interactions I have had with the Plaintiff, Mark-Randolph:Simser, arose
while I was executing my duties as a Peace Officer employed by the Edmonton Police Service.
3. I am advised by my counsel and do verily believe that the Provincial Court of Alberta
does not have jurisdiction to hear or adjudicate on matters involving Peace Officers executing
their duties.
4. I swear this Affidavit in support of an application to strike the Plaintiff's Civil Claim.
Next document;
http://www.mediafire.com/view/vuh34104d ... 0reply.pdf
Simser's first reply package, filed in Provincial Court. Murk "understood" (stood under Simser's authority) and agreed to pay $5000. And did not pay. Apart from that a lot of legal jibber-jabber of no relevance to the issue. So we're no further ahead regarding what is going on.
So on to this;
http://www.mediafire.com/view/y1cb78lqx ... 0order.pdf
Just an administrative housekeeping matter. The Provincial Court agrees with Murk that it does not have the jurisdiction to hear the case and transfers everything over the court of Queen's Bench. This is not good news for Simser since Queen's Bench is the lair of the dreaded ACJ Rooke.
The next document, on May 19, 2011, brings the story into focus. I can't cut and paste from this one so I'll tell the short version. Turns out this is all about a traffic stop. Simser was Travelling and Murk, an Edmonton police officer, nailed him. To put it in Murk's words he pulled over a 1996 Dodge Neon because information gathered from the plate indicated that the registered owner of the car did not have a valid driver's license. Sound familiar? Simser was driving and refused to provide his license or registration and got belligerent. Additional police units showed up and Simser was arrested for obstruction.
He was charged with operating a motor vehicle without insurance, failing to provide registration on request, and operating a motor vehicle without a license. He was convicted on all three charges.
Murk ended with;
http://www.mediafire.com/view/hx27e4ya2 ... efence.pdf10. In specific response to the Civil Claim, at no time did Cst. Murk enter into a contractual agreement with Mr. Simser, nor any agent acting for Mr. Simser.
Then Murk plays dirty. Instead of having the court hear Simser's claims on their merits he does a Hail Mary and asks the court to strike the whole thing. On pure procedural issues to do with some no-doubt trivial filing that Simser has missed;
http://www.mediafire.com/view/b4fe3jq9p ... strike.pdf
A Master in Chambers? Simser isn't even getting a judge. This doesn't look good. Masters are the gatekeepers of the court who block the obvious crap from clogging up the system. Well he's at least dodged the Rooke bullet.NOTICE TO RESPONDENT
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT - MARK-RANDOLPH: SIMSER
This application is made against you. You are a Respondent.
You have the right to state your side of this matter before the Master.
To do so, you must be in Court when the application is heard as shown below:
Date December 15, 2011
Where Masters Chambers, Law Courts Building, lA Sir Winston Churchill Square,
Edmonton, Alberta
Before Whom Master in Chambers
Remedy claimed or sought:
1. An Order:
(a) striking the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim pursuant to Rule 3.68(4)(b) for failure
to serve an Affidavit of Records in accordance with Rule 5.5;
(b) in the alternative, compelling the Plaintiff, Mark-Randolph: Simser (the
"Plaintiff"), to serve an Affidavit of Records in this action;
(c) compelling the Plaintiff to pay penalty costs of $1,000 for failing to serve an
Affidavit of Records in accordance with Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Court;
(d) directing the Plaintiff to pay the costs of this application to the Defendant; and
(e) directing such further and other orders as this Honourable Court deems
appropriate.
Grounds for making this application:
2. The Statement of Defence was served on the Plaintiff by registered mail on May 20,
2011.
3. The Affidavit of Records of the Defendant was served on the Plaintiff by registered mail
on May 20, 2011.
4. An Affidavit of Records has been requested from the Plaintiff.
5. The Plaintiff has, without sufficient cause, failed to serve an Affidavit of Records within
the time limits prescribed by the Rules of Court.
So Simser finally ups his game and calls in the BIG GUN, the Notorious Notary Edward J. Powell himself! I've already discussed Powell here;
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10814
and commiserated with his current problems with the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench;
That was written by Rooke so we can easily guess how he'd have responded to this case.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
Anyhow here is Powell's contribution to Simser's search for justice;
http://www.mediafire.com/view/jjr0y7lgw ... 0reply.pdf
Simser has finally gone crazy-time! Powell makes his appearance, notarizing every page - twice! Postage stamps everywhere! Simser revoked his contract with Canada - so no one can touch him. He is now a "Private Post Master", "Private Banker" and "Common Law".
I suppose it serves us right for pissing him off by not giving him a judge. And, on December 16th, 2011, seventy years and nine days after that other Day of Infamy, Master Schlosser stomps on Simser. Based on the technicality that Murk had requested be applied against Simser.Note
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL and NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT. Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal and Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent.
The Plaintiff {SIMSER, MARK) FEBRUARY 17, 1971 CORNWALL CERTIFICATE NUMBER 87-014167-0 M REGISTRATION NUMBER 71-05-01615 CUSIP NUMBER A1648384 CANADA ONTARIO and Employment and Immigration Canada SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBER 493 069 876 EMP 2683 (10-81)-(08-85-2} Alberta Personal Health Card Personal Health Number 88925-1121 Mark Randolph Simser 1971/02/17 Alberta HEALTH AND WELLNESS is/are hereby being revoked back to the Government of Canada GOVERNMENT OF CANADA The United Kingdom THE UNITED KINGDOM and any and all contracts are hereby to be dissolved/resolved here and forever more. All contracts are now null and void nunc pro tune. This is not an offer. All Rights and Powers Reserved Now and in the Future. Any and all contracts are now done with the UNITED KINDGDOM the United Kingdom THE GOVERNMEMENT OF CANADA the Government of Canada and this not an offer. I am not an EMPLOYEE Employee of CANADA Canada UNITED KINGDOM United Kingdom. Not/non transferrable.
A sad shabby ending to one man's battle for what's right and due to him. And we never learned what those three court orders were or what they had to do with Murk owing Simser $5,000.UPON the application of the Defendant; AND UPON reading the Affidavit of Bradley Murk, filed; AND UPON hearing the submissions of counsel for the Defendant; AND UPON hearing the submissions of the Plaintiff, Mark-Randolph: Simser (the " Plaintiff" );
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Plaintiff has, without sufficient cause, failed to serve an Affidavit of Records in accordance with the Rules of Court.
2. The Plaintiff's claim is hereby struck pursuant to Rule 3.68(4)(b) of the Rules of Court.
3. The Defendant shall receive costs of this action from the Plaintiff in the amount of $1,000.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/i411hwawf ... action.pdf
