Hercule Parrot wrote:Burnaby49 wrote:Sentient Man
they have already accepted one here at Queens Bench so you are good to go...sent you 10 mil
I wouldn't get too excited about Peter's rescue. Sentient Man is Allen Boisjoli. This guy;
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10814
Ah, so what he means by
"accepted one here at Queens Bench" is only that he has delivered a magic pixie dust financial instrument to the fines office at the Court. Not that it has been officially processed and acknowledged as a legitimate payment. That's very much in PoE's style, I wonder if they have a bright future together?
Not at all. It had nothing to do with court fines. Boisjoli had a scheme that he pulled out of his ass that if he filed documents at Queen's Bench registry in Alberta he could enforce his own default judgement from his pretend court on a police officer. I said;
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.
Rooke is the notorious Judge Rooke, scourge of Alberta Freemen, the infamous author of
Meads v Meads;
http://canlii.ca/t/fsvjq
Not a man you want to have eyeing you with his steely gaze. And that is exactly what Rooke did with Boisjoli. It ended very badly for Allen with this court decision;
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.
You will note that both of the cases that I posted where a Canadian court stomped on a Peter of England and WeRe follower the court was Alberta Queen's Bench. Don't mess with them.
However, in happier days, Boisjoli was issuing three-five letter unilateral contracts out willy-nilly and one was a note to the benefit of WeRE bank for millions. Apparently, for some reason, Peter is ignoring it.
