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.