Allen Boisjoli - Alberta stomps on vexatious OPCA lititgant

[Wake Up! Productions]

Also, I don't think - although I have not researched this - there is an obligation on burnaby49 to enforce the law as a moderator on an internet forum.

Agreed. However I chose "as a moderator on an internet forum" to try and adhere to the intent of the court order regardless of whether or not I have a legal obligation to do so or whether or not the order is easily circumvented. I know Boisjoli's background and I don't consider it of direct relevance to his current antics. There may be some causality but not enough that I see a need to consider his past here. His present is quite sufficient.

Was it the intent of Rooke to frustrate discussion, though? Especially when he could have so clearly protected against such an event. Is this something that you've alerted the court to? (I think they should know in any event; it could potentially be an oversight).

I too have had a small run-in with Burnaby over this thread, and I too think that he can be a tad heavy handed at times. You bring up some very good points, none of which are going to magically bring your original post back to life. The point is ... state you grievances in a single post and then move on.

[NYGman]

I have a grievance, Allen Boisnoli has stopped posting here, and has not served any of us, or responded to some of the serious rebuttals in this thread. I thought we were all being sued for using his name without consent. Or is it just me who has yet to be served??

[Wake Up! Productions]

I have a grievance, Allen Boisnoli has stopped posting here, and has not served any of us, or responded to some of the serious rebuttals in this thread. I thought we were all being sued for using his name without consent. Or is it just me who has yet to be served??

Nope, I haven't been served yet. But given that Allen has restricted use of the Alberta court system, and that I am in Ontario, I suppose he would have to serve me here, using the Ontario civil court system. That may take longer than 5 days.

This leads me to a question that has been on my mind since Rooke restricted his access to the Alberta courts. Should Allen pursue legal action in another Province, can his "vexatious litigant" status in Alberta be used to quash any proceeding in another Province?

[Burnaby49]

I have a grievance, Allen Boisnoli has stopped posting here, and has not served any of us, or responded to some of the serious rebuttals in this thread. I thought we were all being sued for using his name without consent. Or is it just me who has yet to be served??

Nope, I haven't been served yet. But given that Allen has restricted use of the Alberta court system, and that I am in Ontario, I suppose he would have to serve me here, using the Ontario civil court system. That may take longer than 5 days.

This leads me to a question that has been on my mind since Rooke restricted his access to the Alberta courts. Should Allen pursue legal action in another Province, can his "vexatious litigant" status in Alberta be used to quash any proceeding in another Province?

The vexatious litigant order is limited to the Alberta courts. He can sue you in Ontario all he wants. Me in Vancouver too for that matter.

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.

[Wake Up! Productions]

The vexatious litigant order is limited to the Alberta courts. He can sue you in Ontario all he wants. Me in Vancouver too for that matter.

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.

I understand that the ORDER only applies to Alberta court, but what I was asking is more along the lines of ... hypothetically, could I use the Alberta Vexatious Litigant status in an Ontario court in order to quash a lawsuit in its tracks? Is it admissible?

[Burnaby49]

I doubt it. He would still have the right to present his case.

[Wake Up! Productions]

I doubt it. He would still have the right to present his case.

Getting to the heart of my question, granted, yes he "would still have the right to present his case". But, can an Ontario Judge even consider the Alberta Vexatious Litigant status in his decision, or is it off limits?

Not that I am afraid that this will ever happen, but just in case Allen is not full of hot air, and is crazy enough to actually attempt it, I am seeking the best course of action.

[Burnaby49]

I doubt it. He would still have the right to present his case.

Getting to the heart of my question, granted, yes he "would still have the right to present his case". But, can the Judge even consider the Alberta Vexatious Litigant status in his decision, or is it off limits?

Not that I am afraid that this will ever happen, but just in case Allen is not full of hot air, and is crazy enough to actually attempt it, I am seeking the best course of action.

I'm not a lawyer so this is just my opinion based on what knowledge of legal procedure I have. I'd say the judge would not consider it directly. Boisjoli was cut off for filing gibberish and trying to get the court to issue an order based on it. In your case I believe you think he could try and sue you for libel. An entirely different issue and one that would be reviewed by the court on it's merits (none, just a pain in the ass to defend against it). Where the decision could very well come in into a decision in a libel case is the effect of the libelious comments, if any, on his reputation. The vexatious litigant decision, and the reasoning behind it, including discussion of his criminal behaviour, would certainly lead the judge to conclude Boisjoli has no good name to smear and your comments, whatever they are, did not harm him.

[Wake Up! Productions]

I'm not a lawyer so this is just my opinion based on what knowledge of legal procedure I have. I'd say the judge would not consider it directly. Boisjoli was cut off for filing gibberish and trying to get the court to issue an order based on it. In your case I believe you think he could try and sue you for libel. An entirely different issue and one that would be reviewed by the court on it's merits (none, just a pain in the ass to defend against it). Where the decision could very well come in into a decision in a libel case is the effect of the libelious comments, if any, on his reputation. The vexatious litigant decision, and the reasoning behind it, including discussion of his criminal behaviour, would certainly lead the judge to conclude Boisjoli has no good name to smear and your comments, whatever they are, did not harm him.

Thank you, that was all I wanted to know.

I hadn't even considered "libel", merely for the reason that he has no case. I was previously charged with "Defamatory Libel" with regards to my ex-wife (if you want the details, PM me). It resulted in a one year "Peace Bond". But in my research, I discovered that libel requires evidence of at least one MENS REA ("guilty mind"). So long as I am speaking the TRUTH about Allen, there can be no such "guilty mind" !!!

[Burnaby49]

As I said, he wouldn't win a libel action but he could pursue one.

[bmxninja357]

The question is did the offending libel happen in Alberta where AL is, or in Ontario where wup is or did it happen in the u.s.a. where the host is?

Internet. It's everywhere. ....

Peace
Ninj

[Burnaby49]

Time for the post I said I was going to make about Boisjoli copyrighting his name and other issues he thinks are actually law. To start with he wants a rebuttal of his (pseudo)legal theories. One of his huge obsessions is this so-called legal maxim:

"An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce."

In his "rebuttal" that he thoughtfully provided us he put this in four points:

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.

This was the basis of all of those envelopes in the video. Affidavits that Allen had, or was going to send off. None that he'd sent got the required response so they stood as unrebutted affidavits and the recipients lost by default. This is what those in the legal world call "bullshit". But don't take my word for it. Let's see what the court's have to say.

Searching the entire CanLII database - which includes every Supreme Court of Canada judgment, let see how often certain phrases appear:

"affidavit stands as truth" - appears once, in Perreal v Knibb, 2014 ABQB 15 as part of this statement: "Maxim of Law – An unrebutted Affidavit stands as truth in Commerce", which is part of a "Statement of Claim with Notice and Demand" from a Montana Freeman that the court rejects as "these documents has no legal effect." They are bullshit. "An unrebutted affidavit" proves nothing.

Ok, how about any sentence which includes "affidavit", "stands" and "truth". Thirteen hits, one is Perreal v Knibb, another is Re Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 629 where Allen was declared a vexatious litigant for filing bullshit documents, and the remaining 11 hits are not related to his alleged statement of law.

How about "affidavit is truth"? None. "Truth in commerce"? Two hits - Perreal v Knibb (again) and Dempsey v Envision Credit Union, 2006 BCSC 1324 where OPCA guru, vexatious litigant, and fake Filipino lawyer John Ruis Dempsey claimed he "on behalf of the People of Canada", could sue a bunch of banks. It was all garbage, and Dempsey was ordered to pay court costs along with his clients.

How about the BaiLII database of UK law?

"affidavit stands as truth" - appears once, in Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd. v Peacock, [2015] IEHC 86, where the court rejects attempts to unilaterally foist terms on a bank.

Ok, well then is it found in the AustLII database of Australian and New Zealand judgments? Once - in Szita v Capital Finance Australia Limited [2004] FCA 477, where a guy bought a porsche and decided he shouldn't have to pay for it because "an un-rebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce; an un-rebutted affidavit becomes a judgement in commerce". He still had to pay for his porsche.

So what IS an unrebutted affidavit good for? It's uncontested evidence. It's not TRUTH - it's uncontested. What does that mean? It means the opposite side hasn't rejected the affidavit claim, but it isn't proven, either.

I'll give you an example. I complete an affidavit which says "Allen Nelson Boisjoli owes me $10 because I dreamt it." I may have dreamt that you owe me $10. I send you that affidavit. You ignore me - which you should. It's stupid. I file a statement of claim in court that says you owe me $10 because I dreamt it. You ignore that. I go to a judge and ask for a default judgment for $10 from Allen Nelson Boisjoli and point at my affidavit. "Hey judge, it's an unrebutted affidavit! It must be true! Gimme my money!" The judge is free to accept the unrebutted affidavit evidence and order judgment against you - or he or she can reject that evidence. And in Canada because Dreamland is not legally binding the judge should say - Ok Burnaby49, you may have dreamt it, but that isn't a binding legal agreement, your lawsuit is bullshit - go away. I will NOT grant you default judgment. I - the court, always gets to make the findings of fact, you cannot take that authority away from the court. That's the court's inherent jurisdiction.

Courts make "findings of fact" by accepting or rejecting evidence in an affidavit. The court can always say no to affidavit evidence.

So here's your problem with your copyright notice claims. You go to court trying to enforce a claim that you think we owe you $100,000 when we say your name. You say that in your affidavit - you believe it to be true - but that doesn't make it true. A judge who hears your claim can say "nope, I don't accept that your magic document does that", or "nope, there's no such thing as common law copyright" - and then it's all over.

That's why if a bank tried to foreclose on your home or take your vehicle for a debt it won't get a court order by showing up in court and saying "Allen Nelson Boisjoli owes us money - trust us - it's true." Put that in an affidavit and the court will respond with "Ok, maybe he owes you money, but you have to give me documents, evidence, information to prove on a 50%+ confidence level that I accept that." The bank can't say "trust us - it's in our affidavit so it's true."

Ok? See? The rule you're arguing doesn't even make sense. It's all made up. This so-called maxim doesn't even appear in Bouvier's Law Dictionary - that supposed source of all truth. Look at the list of maxims. It's not there. Instead this is the Bouvier's definition of an affidavit:

AFFIDAVIT, practice. An oath or affirmation reduced to writing, sworn or affirmed to before some officer who has authority to administer it. It differs from a deposition in this, that in the latter the opposite party has had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness, whereas an affidavit is always taken ex parte. Gresl. Eq. Ev. 413. Vide Harr. Dig. h.t.

It's a statement of what someone believes is true. Nowhere does this say that an affidavit makes anything true. It's an opinion of whoever made the affidavit.

So where did this bullshit come from? It didn't take too much Google searching to find this;

http://www.freedom-school.com/getting-t ... he-ucc.pdf

2. All are equal under the law (God’s Law-Moral and Natural Law). Authorities: Exodus 21:23-25; Lev. 24:17-21; Deut. 1:17, 19:21; Matt. 22:36-40; Luke 10:17; Col. 3:25. Legal maxims: “No one is above the law.”; “Commerce, by the law of nations, ought to be common, and not to be converted into a monopoly and the private gain of a few.”

3. In commerce, truth is sovereign. See Exodus 20:16; Psalms 117:2; John 8:32; II Cor. 13:8. Legal maxim: “To lie is to go against the mind.” Oriental proverb: “Of all that is good, sublimity is supreme.”

4. Truth is expressed in the form of an Affidavit. See Lev. 5:4-5; Lev. 6:3-5; Lev. 19:11-13; Num. 30:2; Matt. 5:33; James 5:12.

...

6. An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce. See 1 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15. Legal maxim: “He who does not deny, admits.”

7. An unrebutted affidavit becomes a judgment in commerce. See Heb. 6:16-17. Any proceeding in court, tribunal, or arbitration forum consists of a contest, or “duel,” of commercial affidavits wherein the points remaining unrebutted in the end stand as the truth and the matters to which the judgment of the law is applied.

8. He who leaves the field of battle first (does not respond to Affidavit) loses by default. See Book of Job; Matt 10:22. Legal maxim: “He who does not repel a wrong when he can occasions it.”

9. Sacrifice is the measure of credibility. One who is not damaged, put at risk, or willing to swear an oath on his commercial liability for the truth of his statements and legitimacy of his actions has no basis to assert claims or charges and forfeits all credibility and right to claim authority. See Acts 7, life/death of Stephen. Legal maxim: “He who bears the burden ought also to derive the benefit.”

10. A lien or claim, under commercial law, can only be satisfied by one of the following actions. See Gen. 2-3; Matt 4; Revelation. Legal maxim: “If the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is absolved.”

10.1. A rebuttal Affidavit of Truth, supported by evidence, point-by-point.
10.2. Payment.
10.3. Agreement.
10.4. Resolution by a jury according to the rules of common law.

This so-called law is supposedly coming from the Bible. Not common law. Not case law. Not legal dictionaries. Hey Allen - you must know that extraordinarily successful Edmonton "minister" Edward-Robin-Jay :Belanger, the guy who claims the Bible can miracle him out of all sorts of stuff, but instead ends up being jailed for marijuana possession, loses his house to foreclosure because his magic documents don't work, gets his AISH cut off because - again - his magic documents don't work? Why? Because the Canadian courts do not accept the Bible is the source of all law - and what you are arguing is the law is, supposedly, coming from the Bible.

Which is why no one will have to pay your so-called notary default judgments for breaching your non-existent common law copyright in your name. And why the courts ignore you. And everybody else, too.

You're welcome.

[Chaos]

I doubt it. He would still have the right to present his case.

Getting to the heart of my question, granted, yes he "would still have the right to present his case". But, can an Ontario Judge even consider the Alberta Vexatious Litigant status in his decision, or is it off limits?

Not that I am afraid that this will ever happen, but just in case Allen is not full of hot air, and is crazy enough to actually attempt it, I am seeking the best course of action.

you mean like a 'prior bad acts' angle

[Rakked]

Magnificent post on foisted agreements, Burnaby. That is a masterpiece.

If Boisjoli is still reading the thread, I hope he deigns to respond.

This so-called law is supposedly coming from the Bible.

These folks are worse theologians than they are lawyers, and that is saying something.

[The Observer]

These folks are worse theologians than they are lawyers, and that is saying something.

Correct. If they really understood what they were arguing, they would know they should be filing their garbage with an ecclesiastical court. It's a shame that such courts ruling in their favor still would not have any impact on the secular court systems of the world.

[Hyrion]

Also, there's an interesting question underneath this.

Philosophical discussion tends to be frowned upon with a preference to stick to the facts and law.

So I'll just say: the site is the "home of the moderators/administrators". As long as the rules do not infringe Law - such as having a rule that every 33rd person must be killed - then the "home owners" rules are to be followed.

This is no different then in your own home. Of course, you could ask the moderator/administrator to reconsider - but if they choose not to, then you get to live with that decision. Just as you can decide to no longer welcome a particular individual to your home when they insist on discussing something you do not wish to discuss even if that's a discussion around pink marshmallows. They are - of course - free to take their discussion elsewhere.

What if the website said: "well Burnaby49, you moderate this subforum, but don't delete this content". He does so anyway

Then that would be a discussion between the moderators/administrators. Any decision accordingly - as long as it's lawful and removing Burnaby49 as a moderator seems lawful to me - would be up to that group of which I am not a member. While said group may listen and consider any points I make on the subject - they are not required to do so as this is not my home - it's theirs.

In my humble opinion: no matter how interesting that "underlying question" might be - it's moot to the overall functioning of the website.

[Burnaby49]

Just call me the Saddam Hussein of the Canadian forums. I've had a PM chat with nebeur where told him that Quatloos is not a representative democracy where the moderators have to give weight to the demands/requests/opinions of the posters. We try to be fair and reasonable but we're certainly open to being arbitrary. And, as you say, any differences between the moderators are discussed privately so we can present a united front to the mob.

Any decision accordingly - as long as it's lawful and removing Burnaby49 as a moderator seems lawful to me - would be up to that group of which I am not a member.

Quite true! I can be thrown out of the club on a whim. If webhick or wserra decide they've had enough of my rogue moderator ways you won't have Burnaby49 to kick around anymore, because, gentlemen, I'd be gone.

[bmxninja357]

Quite true! I can be thrown out of the club on a whim. If webhick or wserra decide they've had enough of my rogue moderator ways you won't have Burnaby49 to kick around anymore, because, gentlemen, I'd be gone.

Would you file frivolous emails and become a freemod-on-the-net?

And does being a vexatious litigant make one "legally grounded"?


Peace
Ninj

[wserra]

Sorry, but I find it ironic when people complain about the moderating here. Once you accept that Q is not Facebook - and most accept that from the beginning - then it's hard to reach any conclusion other than moderation here is performed with a very light hand. No one is censored for ideas short of things like racism or pedophilia (see "Lawyerdud" on both accounts). There is no flood limit. Profanity is tolerated so long as it is not gratuitous. Certain subjects are not permitted - particularly politics and religion - for good historical reasons, but the Net is filled with sites that discuss those things at great repetitive length. The only other bounds are those of good (or at least non-offensive) taste.

Some people are just hard to please.

[Wake Up! Productions]

No one is censored for ideas short of things like racism or pedophilia. The only other bounds are those of good (or at least non-offensive) taste.

I suppose this is why you "Boisjolied" my avatar? Because (in YOUR opinion ALONE) it was in bad taste?