Marc Boyer - Pothead and Prophet of the End Times

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

I think I’m just scraping the surface on my next subject, because not only has this chap been active for probably at least a decade, but he is also wildly prolific. The man in question is Marc Pierre Joseph Boyer, also known as Marc Pierre Boyer. Boyer is a self-identified Freeman-on-the-Land, and the subject of three reported Canadian decisions. Once more, this is another set of cases that was not identified in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, which illustrates how difficult it can be to isolate and identify these litigants unless they have a recognized label.

Boyer is a pothead politician / promoter, has campaigned (unsuccessfully) as a candidate for the Marijuana Party of Canada (http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/), and is affiliated with the pot church CERI (viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9261), which is unsurprising given their common ‘interests’.

Beyond that, Boyer is one hell of a weirdo, even by Freeman standards.

First to the reported cases. Two report convictions for marijuana trafficking:

• R. v. Boyer, 2009 BCPC 278: http://canlii.ca/t/264b5
  
  R. v. Boyer, 2007 BCPC 313: http://canlii.ca/t/1t69j

The third is that an appeal that ran out of time and was struck, so not really all that interesting for our purposes: R. v. Boyer, 2007 BCCA 180: http://canlii.ca/t/1r48c

The 2007 decision is a sentencing decision by Judge Bagnall. It reveals that Boyer is a life-long criminal, with narcotics convictions ranging back to 1980 (para. 4). He is almost continually before the courts in the period running up to this case (para. 4). In this instance Boyer pled guilty, but before he did that he advanced a mixture of spurious arguments, some with an OPCA character (para. 13):

Mr. Boyer asserts that he does not “hold a person” under the Criminal Code (nor, presumably, under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act) because his birth was never registered in the usual fashion and he does not have a birth certificate. He says that this means that he holds a “void contract with society itself.” He says that he instead “holds a person” under the Elections Act. He argues that this means that, although Canadian laws apply to him, he can seek protection from prosecution for his beliefs in the fact of his membership in the Marihuana Party.

Like CERI, Boyer argues marijuana is sacred (para. 15):

Mr. Boyer’s beliefs were the subject of many of his comments. He believes that according to the Bible, God gave all “wind-pollinated herbs” as a gift to mankind. This category includes marihuana.

Interestingly, Boyer managed to convince the judge he is terminally ill (para. 18), which she considered was mitigating factor. Considering Boyer is still kicking six years later that terminal illness sure is a slow one… A four month custodial sentence was ordered (para. 23).

In 2009 it’s Judge Giardini’s kick at the can. Once more Boyer is found dealing drugs, but he does not plead guilty. He is, as we see, still alive, but has lymphoma which is “really bad”. Boyer advanced a number of constitutional arguments that simply rehash previous approaches that were summarily rejected (equality rights: paras. 32-35, 45-48; fair trial: paras. 36-39, 49-53), and then the novel argument that officers of the Marijuana Party of Canada were somehow exempted from the criminal prohibitions against marijuana related offences. That didn’t work either: paras. 40-43, 54.

The weird defence Boyer made was that he had Freeman-on-the-Land status as a consequence of his birth documentation, which is worth quoting in full (para. 23):

Mr. Boyer testified that he was born in 1951 and his birth was registered in King George’s Registry. According to Mr. Boyer his birth was never “transferred”. He said his father told him the Queen was not a true sovereign and therefore he ought not to apply for a birth certificate. As a result of a series of events (which I will not set out in this judgment), Mr. Boyer eventually obtained a copy of a Statement of Birth. However, he said this Statement of Birth is not a valid birth certificate. Mr. Boyer asserted that the Crown has no jurisdiction over him until he has a birth certificate. He also maintained that by inserting numbers on the Statement of Birth, (37300), the Queen “defaced” his birth certificate. Mr. Boyer testified he is “a free man on the land”. Mr. Boyer also testified that he does not have what is defined as a “person” in the Criminal Code or the Interpretation Act

Boyer was convicted, and received a six-month prison sentence: http://forums.cannabisculture.com/forum ... er=1571085

These judgments did not prepare me for the raw weirdness of Boyer’s actual materials. His Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/remarcablefoods) has the strong marijuana rights focus I anticipated but also indicated Boyer is very excited about the One People’s Public Trust ["OPPT"]. Then I started reading linked documents uploaded to his Scribd account (http://www.scribd.com/marc_boyer_2/documents).

Oh lordie, I was not ready for this. First, Boyer has this unique style in which many of his materials are illustrated with each paragraph accompanied by what I suspect was scrounged clip art. The first one I read was “My Freeman Declaration 1”, dated April 16, 2013 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/136311042/My- ... laration-1). He had indicated on his Facebook page he was very proud of this document.

The first couple pages of this document explains what Boyer meant when he told the provincial court judges that he did not have a regular birth certificate. His father, an accountant and military officer, had realized the “dark implications of getting a Birth Certificate.” and told his son to never do so, so that he would not be “a subject of a paper queen” and “a million dollar baby”. Boyer left Canada for 16 years when he discovered Social Insurance Numbers would be created, which made him a person who had not “SINned”. This leads Boyer to conclude, among other things, that he is “a major prophet of our end times”. His arrests are timed with volcanic eruptions. After failures of the courts to accord him the appropriate status, he went to ground.

But the end times are coming, via astronomical disaster, which is linked to the OPPT!

AND what impresses me is that it got a very big sign from the Heavens that it's a goodthing NAMELY: [Heather Tucci] filed on Christmas Day 2012, and 3 days later the Southern Cross had two massive gama busts; [to give some background] This is by far the closest galaxy to earth. It's a binary galaxy; it had 2 dancing black holes at it's centre. They collided, and the Centauri galaxy is toast, which means 2 big things. FIRST: Every dark force that has been interfering with humanity for the past thousands of years like the Archon, the reptilians, etc, say they come from that constellation, and that means they have been destroyed. That's good news. SECOND there is a series of massive shock waves heading this way at far faster than the speed of light. This has all the markings of a shaking like this world has ever seen and will never see again; this shock wave could be the fulfilment of Mat 24 and/or Luke 21and/or Isaiah 59 prophecy. This event looks like what's been called IN THAT DAY. Exactly as to prophecy, it's coming our way, and no one knows when it will hit, or what force it holds.

Ha ha! The SerpentKings are gonna be fried, gamma-ray style!

The document then devolves into various ramblings of Biblical and apocalyptic flavour, and reveals how what will decide the fate of all is whether the BAR admits it must serve the OPPT, or the forces of darkenss. Boyer’s role?

The fact is that the odds that i'm a major prophet of our end times is impossible to deny; I am NOT Jesus Christ. He comes shortly after me and frankly i can't see how this canhappen without it being over my dead body, and i simply don't have a problem with dying, and frankly no one should because we all become Spiritual flesh Ask yourself, [in hindsight] what are the odds, of me being the abnormal birth of 1Cor15? I says there that upon my death, I deliver 'the other everything' [the Creation] to God and Jesus descends on the world in a light [solar flare] and brings life to the dead once and for all, and it says there: don't worry about the one with the abnormal birth he becomes a Life Giving Spirit. I ask - If you knew you were this guy, would you be worried about being killed?

A theme in the “My Freeman Declaration” document is that Boyer had somehow thought the Scottish courts could save him from the despotism of Canada. And lo, here in his Scribd account are a series of documents that appear to be what Boyer had earlier in 2013 sent to the Lord Advocate in Scotland:

• NOTICE OF LIABILITY BY FILING THIS MANDAMUS, date March 20, 2013: http://www.scribd.com/doc/131479488/Fil ... d-Advocate
  
  March 22, 2013 return email: http://www.scribd.com/doc/131860241/My- ... d-Advocate
  
  Combination March 24, 2013 memo, March 25 email response from the Scottish officials, and Boyer’s March 25 answer: http://www.scribd.com/doc/132277265/Fin ... d-Advocate

It’s not easy to capture the flavour of this stuff, and I don’t claim to have any idea of the logic. Neither did the Scottish officials, because on March 25 they emailed Boyer this:

Dear Mr Boyer,

Thank you for this additional information.

Unfortunately, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Office is responsible for the prosecution of crime in Scotland and we only investigate crimes that have been reported to us from specialist reporting agencies such as the police. Form your e-mails it looks as if you are referring to an incident in Canada? If so you will need to take this up with them.

I am sorry I cannot be of further assistance.

Kind Regards

Boyer’s reply, “IN RESPONSE TO YOUR MALFEASANCE”, is … err … forceful?

it's just what i thought - no one will uphold the Supremacy of God and rule of law because it's not their job, but then i'm with the god of Canada and you're with the god of Scotland [not the same thing] BUT THEN EVERYTHING HITLER DID WAS PERFECTLY LEGAL TOO,

With all due, sincerely GO F*** YOURSELF - you failed a big test so go to hell - REPENT or PERISH is a choice BUT upholding your oath is not. As i said GO F*** YOURSELF because you just f***ed the last freeman in the Commonwealth [F*** as defined as making A FREEMAN A SLAVE THRU FRAUD] You're the perverts who insisted the word itself must be banned that way it could never return As i keep repeating GO F*** YOURSELF you're going to hell because you simply refuse the offer to lift a finger to be with God. Albert Pike called himself the Order of the Scottish Right and you're from Scotland, I honestly have never met a Scot who is not a m***** f***ing Mason. I assume one exists, i just can't find one [as in any Scottish oath holder, because i have Scottish friends]

United we stand divided we fall is absolutely correct, but then that's the answer to Luke 11 where it asks 'how can you destroy the house that Albert Pike built without dividing it?' What impresses me is you refuse to refer me or forward to anyone who can help... Oh you can't think of one. Humm. GO F*** YOURSELF - In regard to the Order of the Garter = i don't think its evil i know it is and if that makes me your antichrist then that's just the way it is. I'm here to liberate mankind from yourself BUT you choose to uphold your demonic creed. GO F*** YOURSELF.

Sincerely without frivolity BUT with true vexatious intent

[Edited for profanities.]

Ouch.

There’s lots more documentation here. It’s often damned weird. I can only review a bit at a time before my eyes bleed.

Of course Boyer has also recorded videos of himself (http://www.youtube.com/user/increationwetrust/videos), many of which are staged with him wearing a maple leaf sweater and in front a marijuana-themed blanket.

There’s a ton of them. They too will induce eye-bleeding.

But Boyer at least looks the prophet part, I’ll give him that.

As a final note, Boyer makes reference to Longley's Loophole in some of his materials, but I don't think he actually is making that reference in an appropriate or accurate manner. I am presuming the "Longley" in question is Blair Longley, leader of the Marijuana Party of Canada. Longley and his Loophole are actually a pretty fascinating example of a taxpayer successfully identifying a genuine mechanism to reduce tax - would you care to discuss that for the forum, Burnaby49? I think they would be interested in the tale.

I think I need a drink.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

Mowe is referring to Blair Longley, member of the Rhinoceros Party, an old-school hippy type marijuana advocate, and a local hero amongst the druggie protester set. In the 1980s he thought up a scheme (the "Longley loophole") whereby the federal government of Canada might be forced to finance his "legalize marijuana" campaign through tax credits to his political party. Without getting into the nitpicking details the federal government thought up the misguided idea to allow taxpayers a generous tax credit for donations to political parties. The credit has been repealed but, while it was valid legislation, Longley saw it as a way to get free money from the feds. Problem was that the legislation only allowed the credit to parties having a significant percentage of the votes in a federal election. Longley thought that unconstitutional and went after the government. He did well at first, to quote from a 1999 legal publication

(citation http://www.beg-law.com/pdf/Vol12_Issue2_1999.pdf):

In or about 1984, Blair Longley conceived of a plan whereby taxpayers could receive federal political contribution tax credits for contributions made to a political party which the taxpayer could direct to be paid so as to benefit either the taxpayer or some other individual whom the taxpayer designated. This plan became known as the “Contributor’s Choice Concept” or “Longley’s Loophole”. Not surprisingly the scheme was met with some skepticism by potential contributors. As a result, Mr. Longley sought to obtain written confirmation from Revenue Canada that the scheme was legal. He pursued Revenue Canada for five years seeking this confirmation.

The whole campaign was dragged through the courts over a very extended period. The marijuana advocated were in ecstasy when the Supreme Court of British Columbia severely chastised my old employer, Revenue Canada, and awarded punitive damage against it:

“Such unlawful action may arise either when a statutory actor purposefully exercises a power which they do not possess with the foreseeable result of injury to the plaintiff, or when a statutory actor exercises a discretion or power under a statute with malice, thereby rendering the action unlawful.”

Madam Justice Quijano, having reviewed the arguments of lawyers for Revenue Canada and Mr. Longley’s argument advanced on his own behalf, pronounced that:

[139] While it may be that theoretically the government could have benefited in the many, many millions of dollars from discouraging taxpayers from taking advantage of the federal political tax credits through the use of the CCC, there is no evidence before me from which I can conclude that there would have been much general interest amongst taxpayers in making contributions through Mr. Longley's CCC in order to obtain the tax advantage resulting from the scheme. Accordingly, in my view, if I were to calculate or estimate the financial benefit to Revenue Canada of obstructing the implementation of the scheme, the award would almost certainly be very low.

[140] I am of the view that the award in this case ought to be one which reflects the Court's displeasure with the abuse by Revenue Canada of its position.

[141] In the circumstances of this case I have concluded that the appropriate award of punitive damages, intended to dissuade Revenue Canada from acting again in such a high handed, arrogant and dishonest way, is $50,000.

Citation:

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/ ... 9-1135.txt

However it was a short-lived victory. Mr. Longley, although he had won, appealed the decision because he felt he was actually owed $99,000,000,000! The British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed the whole thing in short order. I like the opening statement from the court;

"[1] By order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia dated June 30, 1999, Mr. Longley was awarded damages of $55,000 against Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of National Revenue, for misfeasance in public office on the part of officers of Revenue Canada over a period of about three years ending in 1988. Inexplicably, the Minister abandoned its appeal of the judgment; however, Mr. Longley cross-appeals on the basis that his damages should be as much as $99 billion, subject to adjustment. His argument is long on abstract legal theory and short on practicality. His factum cites literally dozens of cases, weaving together fragments of unrelated principles to justify the proposition that he and his associates have a Charter-protected right to tax credits for amounts spent for their personal benefit."

Citation is here if you want to plow through it:

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/ ... 0-0241.htm

To get to the point the court decided that:

[24] On the issue of damages, Mr. Longley argues strongly that Revenue Canada's attempt to "kill the legal truth" about s. 127 is something from which it should not be permitted to benefit. He says that if Revenue Canada had been honest, many, many more taxpayers would have contributed to his scheme and claimed the tax credit, with the result that tax revenues would have been much less than they were, both before and after 1988. He submits that the theory of punitive damages demands that Revenue Canada not be permitted to retain the "benefit" obtained as a result of its wrong. Mr. Longley calculates the maximum potential benefit retained by Revenue Canada as some $99 billion, a figure reached by calculating the average number of taxpayers between 1985 and 1998, multiplying that by $500 (the maximum tax credit claimable by a taxpayer under s. 127); and adding to that the actual amount of tax credits claimed by all taxpayers in each such year. He readily acknowledged that one would have to factor in the "probability of abolishment" by legislation of the "opportunity" for the credit under s. 127, and the "probability of participation" - i.e., the likelihood that not every taxpayer would participate in the scheme. He urged this court to be "creative" in coming up with an amount that would properly punish Revenue Canada for its wrongdoing.

[25] Mr. Longley's argument is without merit. Assuming (as we must for purposes of this cross-appeal) that the interpretation put forward by Mr. Longley on s. 127 is correct, any award of the kind he seeks would bring about a windfall to him when it was not he who "lost" the damages he claims. His proposed quantification of punitive damages is fanciful in the extreme. The award of punitive damages of $50,000 was generous to Mr. Longley and sufficient to mark the Court's disapproval of Revenue Canada's conduct, and indeed exceeds punitive damage awards made in recent cases against Revenue Canada for high-handed conduct of taxpayers' claims: see, e.g., Chhabra v. Minister of National Revenue (1989) 26 F.T.R. 288 (F.C.T.D.), at paras. 56-64.

[26] I would dismiss Mr. Longley's cross-appeal.

Longley wasn't a quitter and pursued his vendetta against the federal government for years. He actually won a case where an applications judge declared that the provisions in federal law that stopped the "Longley Loophole" were unconstitutional:

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/20 ... 36358.html

However the courts had had enough of these argument and when the government appealed this decision the Court of Appeal of Ontario stomped on it.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/20 ... ca852.html

Give the man points for trying however. The whole saga spanned 20 years and, to Longley's credit, the principle involved was not trivial and he did win a number of significant victories (albeit all overtuned on appeal) and ended up with an uncontested punitive damage award against the crown.

I have a personal comment to make in respect to mowe's posting. Boyer stated, in response to the Scottish authority's entirely reasonable and polite response about his request for Scottish jurisdiction for his whining:

"I honestly have never met a Scot who is not a m***** f***ing Mason."

Say what you want about my Scottish grandfather but I can assure you he was never a Mason! In response to Boyer's calumnies about my grandfather's sexual proclivities, while he had nine children, I can assure you none were issue of his mother.

[Number Six]

"Mr. Boyer’s beliefs were the subject of many of his comments. He believes that according to the Bible, God gave all “wind-pollinated herbs” as a gift to mankind. This category includes marihuana."(sic)

And presumably He also gave man the capability of making wise judgments as to the use of most all plants as well. I can see some medicinal uses of many plants prepared in various forms for real needs, not so much for "recreational purposes"; though if I were spending much time around a social menace like this joker, I would probably be driven to drink. The good book also says that the heart of man is desperately wicked, depraved, afflicted by the seven deadly sins, etc., which the early European settlers of North America also believed. How do you get from that philosophical position to the view that freedom must be promoted at all costs and that government is evil? Sounds like another solipsistic pipe dream to me.

[Burnaby49]

As I've related here;

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9388&start=260#p165879

I met Marc Boyer today at the Nanaimo 3 trial assignment hearing. Marc is a member of the Marijuana Party of Canada and the subject of this discussion thread regarding his Freeman proclivities and his somewhat biased views on my Scots ancestors.

I was going to start a new discussion on Marc called "Marc Boyer - A Man Without a SIN" because I'd forgotten all about this discussion thread even though I had posted on it extensively regarding the "Longley Loophole". I shouldn't be let out without a minder, good thing I remembered the way home. Anyhow since that killjoy Mowe reminded me that he had beaten me to the punch again I'll just piggyback on his efforts and post here.

While Marc wanted to proselytize his marijuana beliefs on Quatloos I found his comments on his lack of official documentation of greater interest. He says he does not have a Social Insurance Number (SIN) or a Canadian birth certificate although he was born here and has a passport. The topic of no SIN has recently cropped up on this board, and at JREF in respect to Robert Menard and there was some skepticism that this was possible. Marc has at least a plausible explanation on his status so I'll give the story as he told me although Mowe has already included some of it in his prior post. Marc seems somewhat obsessive about it, I didn't ask; he insisted on telling me.

Marc said he was born in 1951 and his father refused to get him a birth certificate. Dead set against it. Marc said dad could do this because of some rule that Canadian Armed Service personnel who participate in WWII could refuse birth certificates for their children. Seems strange and I don't see the logic I'm not checking it out because it is just a side issue. His explanation regarding not having a SIN number makes more sense. He said he was assigned a SIN number (I know that the N in SIN stands for number so it is meaningless repetition but that is how we do things up here) when the system was started in 1964 but he was a minor so he did not see his acceptance as contractually or legally binding. At that time the number had a different name and purpose and the government said it would not be used in a wider context of all government functions but its use expanded anyhow. This is quite true; as Wikipedia says;

A social insurance number (SIN) is a number issued in Canada to administer various government programs. The SIN was created in 1964 to serve as a client account number in the administration of the Canada Pension Plan and Canada's varied employment insurance programs.

Through functionality creep, the SIN has become a national identification number, in much the same way that the Social Security Number has in the United States. However, unlike in the US, in Canada there are specific legislated purposes for which a SIN can be requested. Unless an organization can demonstrate that the reason they are requesting a person's SIN is specifically permitted by law, or that no alternative identifiers would suffice to complete the transaction, they cannot deny or refuse a product or service on the grounds of a refusal to provide a SIN. Examples of organizations that legitimately require a SIN include employers, banks and investment companies, and federal government agencies. Giving a SIN when applying for consumer credit, such as buying a car or electronics, or allowing it to be used as a general purpose identification number, such as by a cable company, is strongly discouraged.[2]

Marc told me that in 1985 the federal government revised all the old numbers to the new all encompassing system and said that anyone resident in Canada at that time would be issued a new number. I was of course around then but I didn't pay attention to stuff like this. Being a wily fellow Marc dodged the bullet by moving to Florida for 15 years. Mowe's post indicates that this was a deliberate ploy to evade getting a SIN number but comments Marc made to me indicate that this was just coincidental and the bigger issue was a romance with a lady down there. When he came back he never applied for the new number. You need it to work but that may not have been a problem for him (see below). His story may be plausible and, while there is no advantage (at least to a somewhat normal person like myself) to not having a SIN he may actually not have one.

Mowe notes in his post that Marc claims to have a Certificate of Live Birth rather than a Birth Certificate. Similar sounding but different documents. Marc pulled a worn dog-eared photostat of his Certificate of Live Birth out of his wallet to show me and, while I'm not an expert, it did look different from the standard birth certificate. He said that this was sufficient identification to get him a passport.

Marc also said he has never paid income tax in Canada. I'm guessing that it's not because of any successful tax protester tactics but because of a lack of taxable income. While that may sound harsh Marc himself gave me one clue pointing me to this conclusion. He and I walked to the transit station from the courthouse and caught the same Skytrain. I paid with a single-use ticket, he said he didn't need to pay because he had an annual seniors pass that cost him only $45 per year and I should get one too. So I checked into it. the pass does exist but it is only applicable to very low income individuals. The BC Transit website says;

To be eligible for the BC Bus Pass Program, the applicant must be living in a transit service area where the annual pass is available and meet one of the following criteria:

· Receiving Federal Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), or the Federal Allowance, or the Allowance for the Survivor;
·
· 18 – 64 years of age and receiving Persons with Disability (PWD) assistance from the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation;
·
· 60 – 64 years of age and receiving Income Assistance from the Province of British Columbia;
·
· Over 65 years of age and would qualify for GIS but does not meet the Canadian 10 year residency requirement;
·
· 18-64 years of age, living on a First Nations reserve and receiving disability assistance from the band office; or
·
· 60 – 64 years of age, living on a First Nations reserve and receiving assistance from the band office.

The bus pass is provided for an administrative fee of $45 per year and is valid for one calendar year, expiring on December 31. The fee is not prorated for applicants applying part way through the year.

A further comment about Marc. Some of the quotes in Mowe's posting point to a somewhat nasty side to Marc's personality but I didn't get any of that in our conversation. A pleasant friendly guy. We even talked about local Burnaby municipal politics, the garbage collection, clean streets kind of discussion, nothing marijuana or Freeman related.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Well, I hope Marc pops by and introduces himself - I'd be very curious to hear his perspective on the west coast Freeman community and its dominant personas. It sounds that while he is involved (and has been for quite awhile) he nevertheless remains something of an outlier to that group.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

Well, I hope Marc pops by and introduces himself - I'd be very curious to hear his perspective on the west coast Freeman community and its dominant personas. It sounds that while he is involved (and has been for quite awhile) he nevertheless remains something of an outlier to that group.

SMS Möwe

I told him that I was going to post his little saga and if I'd misunderstood or misstated anything he should feel free to participate in this board and correct me.

I've not seem him, or noticed references to him, in any of my personal dealings with Vancouver Freemen until today. Although I'm clearly so unobservant that he could have been at Bernard Yankson's hearing and I didn't notice. He wasn't at the Charles Holmes hearing. No spectators to hide amongst there.

[notorial dissent]

Burnaby, sounds like a pretty good summation on all the players/comedians. If I were a nicer person, I might at least pretend to some sympathy for them, but since they have unilaterally foisted this all off on themselves, all by, well relatively speaking, themselves, I really don't see the point, and the impending gnarly wave they are about to catch, is all their own.

Burnaby, a point, some people will insist on telling you their entire life histories, in every groaning, boring, tedious, vacuous detail, when all you did was make the mistake of asking for the correct time, and even that is pretty well irrelevant by that point.

[Burnaby49]

Well, I hope Marc pops by and introduces himself - I'd be very curious to hear his perspective on the west coast Freeman community and its dominant personas. It sounds that while he is involved (and has been for quite awhile) he nevertheless remains something of an outlier to that group.

SMS Möwe

I may have found a link for Mowe to show how deep the roots go between these guys. Clovenhoof mentioned on the Nanaimo Three thread that:

I'm pretty sure David Lange has been around quite a while... I might be confusing him with someone else, but I think I remember him giving some "legal" advice to some members of a group called Fathers 4 Justice that seemed very similar to the whole Magna Cartians of the Freeland thing. (The grateful recipient of his wisdom spent 60 days in jail waiting for his trial on a minor assault charge, where the Crown was agreeing to his release on bail, was seeking only probation upon conviction, and where he was, indeed, convicted and received said probation.) Before that, I remember him having a beef in the Burnaby courts (back when they were still operating) about pesticide spraying, with similar kinds of arguments being made.

That got me thinking so I did a BC Provincial Court search using "Lange". Didn't find anything about pesticides but I did find this;

http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgme ... n/bc/bcpc/

A 2002 case where a David Lange was charged with producing marijuana in Delta, a Vancouver bedroom community. May not be the same David Lange but I think it is because of this;

[9] Mr. Harris asks the court to order a conditional discharge. He submits the main purpose of the grow was motivated by compassion, that Mr. Lange was growing marijuana in order to ensure that those properly authorized had a source of medicinal marijuana. In support of his submission the following documents were filed verifying:

•That Mr. Dave Lange has been a supplier of medicinal cannabis to the Vancouver Compassion Club. A letter signed by Hillary Black, Founder and Co-Director of B.C. Compassion Club Society has been filed as an exhibit in these proceedings:

"The Compassion Club is a registered non-profit organization which provides a variety of services to its approximate 700 registered members, including the sale of marihuana for medicinal purposes to those who qualify. Of these, 80 percent have a letter from their doctor recommending its use and the balance must meet certain criteria established by the Club. The majority of members to whom marihuana is sold suffer from AIDS, cancer or multiple sclerosis."

Further

"....The strains of Marijuana are suited to medical use. It is perhaps noting that there is a provision under section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to legally possess marijuana under certain conditions if it is necessary for medical purposes and exemption from the Minister of Health is first obtained."

In the Nanaimo Three thread I said, in respect to my talk with Marc Boyer;

Lange had told him I wrote for Quatloos so I assuming Boyer wanted to see if there was a publicity opportunity for the marijuana party. While he self-identified as a Freeman he was much friendlier and laid back than the crowd I've met to date. Marc was interested in telling me about 25 legal marijuana dispensaries in the greater Vancouver area and their legal framework. Apparently both the dispensaries and the city want them to pay sales tax on the marijuana sales. The dispensaries wanted to pay tax because it was one more step on the way to legalization. What I was interested in (apart from next paragraph) was some BC Supreme Court injunction the party was trying to get to stop the federal government from shutting down their proposed party headquarters. I told Marc if the issue actually made it to a court hearing to let me know.

Well those "25 legal marijuana dispensaries in the greater Vancouver area" that Boyer talked about were, he told me, called Compassion Clubs. The same ones that David Lange, in the above case 11 years ago, was supplying with high-grade marijuana. I'd said in that post that there were few Lange supporters at the trial scheduling hearing but Boyer was one. I'm guessing that Boyer and Lange have that connection between them, the Freemen and the marijuana community meeting in common interest, so Boyer was at the hearing to show support for an old friend and fellow traveller.

Being British Columbia and a marijuana charge the court decision was;

[28] I am satisfied that Mr. Lange is a man of good character, who acted out of principle. He is skilful in the production of medicinal marijuana. The public interest that encompasses the due administration of criminal justice would not be held in disrepute if a discharge was ordered. Mr. Lange, as well as others who use Marijuana for therapeutic purposes would benefit if no record was registered against him, for this offence. The submissions made in support of Mr. Lange's application for a discharge outweigh the aggravating factors.

[29] The Court orders a conditional discharge. A probation order to follow for 1 year. The fundamental principles of sentencing can be accommodated having Mr. Lange bound by the mandatory, statutory conditions in Sec. 732.1(2). There is no necessity to order any further restrictions.

[30] The Court orders Mr. Lange to keep the peace and be of good behaviour , to appear before the court when required, notify the court or his probation officer in advance of any change of name or address, and of any change of occupation or employment.

[Jeffrey]

Mr. Boyer just posted this:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/250517782/Tax-Loophole101

p.s. Whatever happened to Mowe.

[Burnaby49]

That question, posed by Jeffery over a year ago, still remains unanswered. However I do have an update on Boyer. He's found an actual paying job! Almost. Well, not quite yet. But he would be gainfully employed if the court would only cooperate and ignore a few awkward technicalities. Such as him not being an actual lawyer. He wants to be a lawyer and he, or at least his client, wants the court to pay for his legal services but the Law Society of British Columbia, trying to hang on to their monopoly, have stopped his promising career as an advocate.

The Law Society of British Columbia v. Boyer, 2016 BCSC 342
http://canlii.ca/t/gnh4v

[2] The petitioner, the Law Society of British Columbia, applies for orders against the respondent, Marc Pierre Boyer, under s. 15(1), (4), and (5) of the Legal Profession Act, S.B.C. 1998, c. 9, relying on s. 85(5) and (6) of the Legal Profession Act. The details of the orders sought are set out in Part 1, paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the petition:

1. Marc Pierre Boyer, until such time as he becomes a member in good standing of the Law Society, be permanently prohibited and enjoined from engaging in the practice of law as defined in section 1 of the Legal Profession Act, including:

(a) appearing as counsel or advocate;
(b) drawing, revising or settling

(i) a document for use in a proceeding, judicial or extrajudicial,
(ii) a document relating in any way to a proceeding under a statute of Canada or British Columbia;

(c) doing an act or negotiating in any way for the settlement of, or settling, a claim or demand for damages;

(d) giving legal advice;

(e) making an offer to do anything referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d);

(f) making a representation that he is qualified or entitled to do anything referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d); and

for or in the expectation of a fee, gain or reward, direct or indirect from the person for whom the act is performed.

2. Mr. Boyer, until such time as he becomes a member in good standing of the Law Society, be permanently prohibited and enjoined from commencing, prosecuting or defending a proceeding in any court, regardless of whether he charges a fee, except when representing himself as an individual party to a proceeding brought against him acting without counsel solely on his own behalf; and

3. Mr. Boyer, until such time as he becomes a member in good standing of the Law Society, be permanently prohibited and enjoined from representing himself as being a lawyer, barrister and any other title that connotes he is entitled or qualified to engage in the practice of law.

And the judge, rather than take an expansive view of the spirit of the law, instead focused on the mundane facts;

[7] Mr. Boyer resides in Vancouver. He is not and never has been a member of the Law Society of British Columbia. In May of 2005, Former Chief Justice Brenner ordered that Mr. Boyer be prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings in the Supreme Court, except if he was represented by a solicitor.

[8] Mr. Boyer has been convicted of possession of marihuana for the purposes of trafficking on a number of occasions and has been sentenced to incarceration in respect of those offences. He is referenced in a judgment from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Fearn v. Canada Customs, 2014 ABQB 114 (CanLII), at paragraphs 128, 129, and 137, as a person who engages in what the judge in that case called “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments” that were wasteful of court and Crown resources. Again, I must say that that has been my experience in dealing with the matters before me today.

[9] Mr. Boyer’s conduct in relation to two matters in particular is the subject of the Law Society’s application.

[10] The first matter I will refer to as the Fortt matter, and the details concerning Mr. Boyer’s conduct are found in the affidavit of Rosellina Dattilio. I will outline the facts briefly.

[11] In April 2015, the Crown charged Joseph William Fortt with a four-count Information alleging offences contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The evidence discloses that, since June of 2015, Mr. Boyer has attempted to represent Mr. Fortt in the criminal proceedings before the B.C. Provincial Court, despite the fact that Mr. Fortt, at least for some period of time, had a Legal Aid lawyer appointed to represent him. Mr. Boyer has attempted to argue that the Crown lacks jurisdiction to prosecute Mr. Fortt due to Mr. Fortt’s involvement with the Marijuana Party and that the court also lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter.

[12] The evidence discloses that, since June of 2014, Mr. Boyer has engaged in the following acts on Mr. Fortt’s behalf: he has drafted court documents and application materials to be filed with the court; he has attended the office of the Crown prosecutor to serve documents and correspondence and to discuss matters with Crown counsel; he has attended at various preliminary hearings with and on Mr. Fortt’s behalf; and he has attempted to present arguments to the court on Mr. Fortt’s behalf.

[13] To date, the court has not allowed Mr. Boyer to speak on Mr. Fortt’s behalf and has had him removed from the courtroom on at least one occasion. Prior to Mr. Fortt’s trial, the Provincial Court has set aside three days in April 2016 to hear the so-called jurisdictional arguments, and the court is prepared to devote the first day to addressing Mr. Boyer’s ability to represent Mr. Fortt at the trial.

As for Marc being paid;

[15] On August 20, 2015, Mr. Fortt informed the Provincial Court that Mr. Boyer was a “professional witness” and that, as such, Mr. Boyer should be paid.

His second client was involved in an issue of intense importance to Marc, legalized marijuana;

[17] Around October 2015, Mr. Boyer prepared and filed a notice of civil claim, in which Mr. Skopnik was named as the plaintiff, in Vancouver Supreme Court Action No. 158600. The notice of civil claim is attached as Exhibit “A” to Mr. Buhler’s affidavit. I will say that, in my opinion, it is unrecognizable as a pleading that would be in compliance or acceptable under the Supreme Court Civil Rules. The action appears to be brought in Mr. Skopnik’s name and also on behalf of the Vancouver East Marijuana Party. Attached to the notice of civil claim were two other documents that Mr. Boyer prepared titled, “Under Protest: Writ of Mandamus under common law,” and “Application to appear before a Judge on short leave in order to civilly seek an amicable resolution.” How exactly those documents might comply with any provision in the Supreme Court Civil Rules is a mystery.

[18] Mr. Boyer has corresponded with defence counsel on Mr. Skopnik’s behalf, and the evidence discloses that in conversations with counsel, Mr. Boyer has referred to himself as “barrister.” Mr. Boyer informed defence counsel that he intended to represent Mr. Skopnik in the matter and that he had drafted all the documents. After hearing of the vexatious litigant order against Mr. Boyer, and after Mr. Boyer’s threatening comments, defence counsel refused to discuss the case with Mr. Boyer.

As far as the judge was concerned Skopnik was just a strawman, a name to attach a legal proceeding to that Marc couldn't do under his own name because of the vexatious litigant order against him;

[29] Section 15(5) of the Legal Profession Act prohibits a person from commencing, prosecuting, or defending a proceeding in any court, except as permitted in s. 15(1). Unlike s. 15(1) breaches, evidence of a fee is not required to establish that a person has breached s. 15(5), and I refer in that regard to Mr. Justice Grauer’s decision in Law Society of British Columbia v. Robbins, 2011 BCSC 1310 (CanLII). Subsequent to the decision in Robbins, the Supreme Court has found that a person will breach s. 15(5) if he or she is the “driving force of the litigation, has conduct, carriage, or the overall direction of litigation, or is acting like a lawyer.”

[30] The Law Society submits, and I agree, that Mr. Boyer’s involvement in the legal matters of Mr. Fortt and Mr. Skopnik has gone beyond – I would say far beyond – isolated assistance on a single occasion. To the contrary, his involvement is comprehensive. The evidence clearly supports that conclusion. Mr. Boyer has prepared and filed documents for the defence of Mr. Fortt’s criminal charges and for the commencement of Mr. Skopnik’s civil action. The positions taken and the arguments advanced in both these proceedings are similar in character to the “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments” that Mr. Boyer unsuccessfully raised in his earlier criminal trials. Mr. Boyer has appeared in court and corresponded with counsel on behalf of both Mr. Fortt and Mr. Skopnik.

[31] The Law Society submits, and I agree, that Mr. Boyer has attempted to take in hand the overall prosecution and defence of these matters, contrary to s. 15(5) of the Legal Profession Act. The evidence discloses that Mr. Boyer has suggested that he has and intends to do so for others.

[32] While the vexatious litigant order made by Chief Justice Brenner prevents Mr. Boyer from bringing litigation in his own name without the assistance of a lawyer, the Law Society submits, and I agree, that Mr. Boyer is attempting to forward his agenda through the litigation of others and by using others. In doing so, he shields himself from the consequences that typically result from such vexatious behaviour.

[33] Unlike Mr. Boyer, those that Mr. Boyer purports to assist, however, face serious consequences. Mr. Fortt, for example, faces incarceration if he is not successful in defending the charges that are brought against him. Mr. Skopnik is exposed to adverse costs consequences if he is unsuccessful in his civil action. In addition, opposing parties and the court are required to spend considerable time, effort, and money to respond to Mr. Boyer’s arguments. The Law Society submits, and I agree, that an injunction is required to protect the public, the courts, and the administration of justice generally from Mr. Boyer’s particular brand of advocacy.

So the judge ruled in favour of the entrenched monopoly;

[37] The Law Society submits that, in light of the other breaches of the Legal Profession Act, a broad order prohibiting Mr. Boyer from engaging in the practice of law as defined in s. 1 is required. I agree and, in my opinion, there is evidence before me, uncontradicted evidence, to support the conclusion that Mr. Boyer, in his actions, is acting in the expectation of a reward, either direct or indirect. I am satisfied that it is in the public interest to prevent Mr. Boyer from breaching the Legal Profession Act in the future. Many of the arguments that he has raised and is raising on behalf of Mr. Fortt and Mr. Skopnik are the same unsuccessful jurisdictional arguments that he has raised previously in his personal criminal proceedings.

[38] In my opinion, given his lack of credentials, his history with the criminal justice system, the vexatious litigant order pronounced by Chief Justice Brenner, and the Alberta court’s conclusion that Mr. Boyer’s arguments are “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments,” Mr. Boyer is, in my opinion, an inappropriate advocate for Mr. Fortt, Mr. Skopnik, or anyone else.

[39] Accordingly, the orders sought in the petition under Part 1, paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 are granted.

Marc took his loss with grace and forebearance;

[40] MARC BOYER: I pity your immortal soul.

[52] MARC BOYER: You’re an insult to god all mighty. Thank you very much. Mon dieu et mon droit.

The Law Society got costs but Marc has already ruled on that issue himself;

[48] MARC BOYER: Great, whatever you do, incur whatever costs you want. I will not pay it. Thank you.

[Burnaby49]

An article in today's Sun;

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news ... aries-open

But why is it of interest? Because our subject Marc Boyer is involved in it or one very similar;

https://www.facebook.com/remarcablefood ... nref=story

Although I'm not sure that a lawsuit against the city of Vancouver should really start out by stating that the basis of their action is that Vancouver is operating under maritime law jurisdiction.

https://www.scribd.com/document/3157625 ... e-S-165441

Nor do I think the argument that an illegal pot shop is actually a federal agency or church is going to be a winner in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The basis of thdeir claim is that no maritime authority has the jurisdiction to regulate a federal agency.

Marc probably doesn't have a direct hand in this becuase he has his own legal problems. He's currently fighting an order to stop playing lawyer.

https://www.scribd.com/document/3043761 ... -Affidavit


Although I think he's going a bit over the top;

4 - [at face value] lN THIS CASE, of relying on the mountain of statutory limitation placed on ourFree and Democratic society [under R v Oakes] means the fact remains that when no one can defend common law, results where the BAR is entrenched on destroying democratic freedom by insisting that their Act supersedes the Act, which plays hand in hand with NATO passing/implementing this sedition Act called S-55 of the CDSA, which by virtue of the fact that it came from Royal ascent, results where all BAR member can actually engage in vanquishing all its disadvantaged Canadians by causing the total decimation of all human rights known to man, because a faceless paper queen called governor in council said so. But then Pierre Trudeaucalled our present culmination of this grand plan: "short term pain for a long term gain"

Whew, "the total decimation of all human rights known to man" is pretty strong stuff. All because Marc can't argue freeman gibberish in court on behalf of clients?

In my writeups of Keith Lawson and Michael Millar I have to keep repeating Crown's stale, tired old argument that the defendant's argument is not known in law. They'd have a field day with this one;

8 - At that time, i made myself a royal pain at City Hall, in order to have my landed on land in Canada status be established, and to pursue a common law defence, under the Marijuana Party. I was eventually charged for protestlng too aggressively at City Hall in Jan 5th, 2004, and then in Sept 28th,2004, for operating a commercial premise known as the Vancouver East Marijuana PartyHeadquarters, where at the Arraignment in November 2004, i got the charges dropped, and i was to appear in a week to file for damages, because i flled this 17-page article entitled NOTICEOF DENIAL OF CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED, and that evening my chest plate was snapped in 2, by two VPD duty Sargents, and that morning i died, and had a face to face contact with this angel [as if in a white cloud] that i met when i was 13 [on this] my father was 54, and i was now 54, and this angel Iooked just like me; At the end of this meeting, i was swallowed by the heart of the earth, [for lack of any other term to explain it] and returned with this partial mended broken chest plate. A few days later, I went to VGH, where i got X-rays that showed the fracture was real.

SIDE BAR ln hindsight] this event signalled Daniel 8:14, because 2300 mornings later, the tidal wave that struck Fukushima hit, where [for at least a week before] i clearly warned authority with a Get Well Soon card that something big was about to happen on that day.

1. I reported this broken chest incident at my next court appearance, and as to instructions given at this 1st arraignment, i boldly filed this priceless gift from God /damage award that
is actuallystill a default judgment, yet swept away and destroyed by Wally Oppal.

So he's a little unfocused at the moment fighting to be recognized as a dead man brought back to life to warn us of Fukshima. At least that's how I read it.

[Burnaby49]

Here's a copy of Marc's babbling about dying and meeting an angel;

http://www.mediafire.com/download/bzwta ... 5441.pdf#!

[Burnaby49]

And Marc is off and running on the topic that gave him his discussion heading. A harbinger of doom and end times.

Marc Boyer
July 29 at 9:16am ·

HUGE BIBLICAL DATE IS UPON US - Daniels 12:11 -the end times- from the time that, , the OBAMAnation [abomination] that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1290 days. Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1335 days, and then the son of man will receive his alloted inheritance - EXPLANATION - From the time Obama was inaugurated [for his second term] the 1290th day lands on Tuesday August 2nd, and 45 days later is September 17th. [or] it could be March 1, 2020 if it's 1335 days after Aug 2nd

I like how he leaves himself a little wiggle room. The world ends August 2nd, two days from now! But, then again, it could be three and a half years from now.

[Burnaby49]

A voice for justice has been brutally supressed! Marc is doing his best to help unfortunate individuals being ground under the wheels of justice in British Columbia by acting as their lawyer. However he isn't actually a lawyer and the real lawyers just won't let him pretend to be one. Those bastards! He started out by being his own lawyer in cases he'd either initiated or where he was defending himself against charges he faced because of his marijuana consumption and trafficking. They are mostly unreported, I could only find a couple. First, chronologically, was this one;

R. v. Boyer, 2007 BCCA 180
http://canlii.ca/t/1r48c

It involved an appeal he filed about a conviction in 2005 or early 2006. When it sat for a year without him doing anything to forward the appeal the court dismissed it. It read, in its entirety;

[1] FINCH, C.J.B.C.: This is a reference by the Registrar under Rule 13(3) for the appellant's failure to prosecute this appeal in a timely way. Counsel for the Crown has outlined the history of the matter since the Notice of Appeal was filed over a year ago. Nothing we have heard this morning suggests that there is any intent to pursue the appeal against either conviction or sentence.

[2] I would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

The comment on conviction or sentence indicated a drug charge. B.C. Courts Online shows him charged posession for the purpose of trafficking with this in September 2004 and convicted in December 2005 so I assume that that is it. In October 2007 he was convicted yet again on the same charge.

In 2008 he was convicted of causing a disturbance, probably in court, and in 2011 convicted of a breach of probation order.

This is his sentencing hearing in 2007;

R. v. Boyer, 2007 BCPC 313
http://canlii.ca/t/1t69j

Which included this startling piece of news;

[18] There were two aspects of Mr. Boyer’s submissions that are relevant to the determination of the appropriate sentence. The first is that Mr. Boyer is terminally ill and uses marihuana to ease the symptoms of his disease.

Since, nine years down the road, he is still alive and causing a fuss I assume that he either conned the court on that "terminally ill" plea or he's made a remarkable recovery. Of course he may be terminally ill in the same way we all are although the court doesn't take that to be a mitigating circumstance. The decision gave a bit of his criminal background.

[3] The circumstances which gave rise to the charge before the court may be stated briefly. On July 13, 2007, at approximately 4:30 PM, police officers were attending to an unrelated event in Grandview Park, which is adjacent to Commercial Drive in Vancouver. The officers could smell marihuana and went towards the source of the smell, which was a small group of people sitting on the grass near the playground area of the park. The accused was one of those people, and he appeared to be trying to conceal something under his leg. The police located 16 maihuana cigarettes (with a total weight of 8.79 grams) under Mr. Boyer’s leg. He was arrested and searched. In his possession was a total of 462.78 grams of marihuana, packaged as if for sale, one more marihuana cigarette, and $965.00 in cash. Nearby were the remains of two consumed marihuana cigarettes. Also in Mr. Boyer’s possession was a cell phone. When it rang, the police answered it and were asked by persons on the line to provide drugs to them. Also in Mr. Boyer’s possession were pamphlets advertising home delivery of marihuana and providing the number of the cell phone seized by the police as a means of contact.

[4] Mr. Boyer has a criminal record which dates back to 1968. The earliest related conviction was recorded in 1980, when he was convicted of possession of a narcotic. In 1984 he was convicted of possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking and was fined $3000.00 and placed on probation for two years. On December 5, 2005, he was convicted of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking. Under the impression that he had no criminal record, the presiding judge suspended the passing of sentence and placed him on probation for one year. On May 25, 2006, Mr. Boyer was convicted of causing a disturbance. Sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for one year. On January 11, 2007, Mr. Boyer was convicted of assault and was sentenced to serve one day taking into account 28 days of pre-sentence custody. He was placed on probation for three years.

A long history of a marijuana obsession. He would have been only 17 in 1968 when his criminal record started.

Apart from these cases he was apparently an obsessive litigant bringing his own cases to court so in 2005 the British Columbia Supreme Court issued an order that he not appear in that court unless represented by an actual lawyer.

With that brief background we come to current events. Since he's been blocked from being his own lawyer he's been acting as a lawyer for others and the Law Society of British Columbia wants him to stop. So they took him to court with this objective;

[2] This appeal concerns a permanent injunction issued against Mr. Boyer prohibiting him from (1) engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, (2) representing himself as a lawyer or similar title, and (3) prosecuting, commencing or defending proceedings in any court.

[3] The Law Society received complaints in 2015 that Mr. Boyer was attempting to represent an accused in criminal proceedings and had commenced civil proceedings on behalf of another party. The Law Society petitioned on December 30, 2015 for an injunction.

Not surprisingly the law society got their injunction;

The Law Society of British Columbia v. Boyer, 2016 BCSC 342
http://canlii.ca/t/gnh4v

This decision is from a Chambers judge. This is a short informal hearing where simple issues are addressed if they are expected to take less than two hours of court time. Essentially a way to expedite minor matters without the necessity of arranging a trial hearing. I attended one similar to Marc's where Chief Rock Sino General was banned from pretending to be a notary and I wrote up the hearing;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9377&start=220#p163974

This is the specific court order the law society wanted the judge to approve;

1. Marc Pierre Boyer, until such time as he becomes a member in good standing of the Law Society, be permanently prohibited and enjoined from engaging in the practice of law as defined in section 1 of the Legal Profession Act, including:

(a) appearing as counsel or advocate;

(b) drawing, revising or settling

(i) a document for use in a proceeding, judicial or extrajudicial,
(ii) a document relating in any way to a proceeding under a statute of Canada or British Columbia;

(c) doing an act or negotiating in any way for the settlement of, or settling, a claim or demand for damages;

(d) giving legal advice;

(e) making an offer to do anything referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d);

(f) making a representation that he is qualified or entitled to do anything referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d); and

for or in the expectation of a fee, gain or reward, direct or indirect from the person for whom the act is performed.

2. Mr. Boyer, until such time as he becomes a member in good standing of the Law Society, be permanently prohibited and enjoined from commencing, prosecuting or defending a proceeding in any court, regardless of whether he charges a fee, except when representing himself as an individual party to a proceeding brought against him acting without counsel solely on his own behalf; and

3. Mr. Boyer, until such time as he becomes a member in good standing of the Law Society, be permanently prohibited and enjoined from representing himself as being a lawyer, barrister and any other title that connotes he is entitled or qualified to engage in the practice of law[.]

The judge was not impressed by Marc's skills as a fake lawyer while attempting to defend himself;

[3] Mr. Boyer filed material in response to the petition (including a supplementary response) which is part of the application record before me. I must say, however, that much of what Mr. Boyer filed is incomprehensible and irrelevant to the issues that are raised by the petition. In Mr. Boyer’s oral submissions today, very little time was spent addressing the substance of the issues raised in the petition. Rather, Mr. Boyer’s submissions appeared to me, to the extent I understood them, to be primarily focussed on the jurisdictional arguments that he has advanced in the past and wishes to advance in the future concerning matters under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

[4] In those circumstances, the Law Society’s evidence on this petition is, for all intents and purposes, uncontradicted.

[5] I am going to say, Mr. Boyer, that filing material with the court that is irrelevant and inadmissible is a complete waste of your time, the opponent’s time, and the judge’s time. Engaging in that kind of conduct is antithetical to justice and creates anarchy, which is incompatible with the rule of law.

What concerned the judge was that Marc was representing a criminal defendant facing jail time and essentially basing his defense on gibberish. The judge cited one criminal and one civil case of concern. Fortt, the criminal case, was the first. Note that it includes the demand, from the defendant, that the Court pay Marc a fee for screwing up his defense;

[11] In April 2015, the Crown charged Joseph William Fortt with a four-count Information alleging offences contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The evidence discloses that, since June of 2015, Mr. Boyer has attempted to represent Mr. Fortt in the criminal proceedings before the B.C. Provincial Court, despite the fact that Mr. Fortt, at least for some period of time, had a Legal Aid lawyer appointed to represent him. Mr. Boyer has attempted to argue that the Crown lacks jurisdiction to prosecute Mr. Fortt due to Mr. Fortt’s involvement with the Marijuana Party and that the court also lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter.

[12] The evidence discloses that, since June of 2014, Mr. Boyer has engaged in the following acts on Mr. Fortt’s behalf: he has drafted court documents and application materials to be filed with the court; he has attended the office of the Crown prosecutor to serve documents and correspondence and to discuss matters with Crown counsel; he has attended at various preliminary hearings with and on Mr. Fortt’s behalf; and he has attempted to present arguments to the court on Mr. Fortt’s behalf.

[13] To date, the court has not allowed Mr. Boyer to speak on Mr. Fortt’s behalf and has had him removed from the courtroom on at least one occasion. Prior to Mr. Fortt’s trial, the Provincial Court has set aside three days in April 2016 to hear the so-called jurisdictional arguments, and the court is prepared to devote the first day to addressing Mr. Boyer’s ability to represent Mr. Fortt at the trial.

[14] In addition, Mr. Boyer has represented himself as a “barrister” to the court, to counsel, and in various documents that he has prepared. Mr. Boyer has suggested that as a “barrister,” he is entitled to act on Mr. Fortt’s behalf.

[15] On August 20, 2015, Mr. Fortt informed the Provincial Court that Mr. Boyer was a “professional witness” and that, as such, Mr. Boyer should be paid.

The second case is civil but I can't figure out, from what is given in the decision, what it is exactly about apart from Marc's true love, The Vancouver East Marijuana Party, being involved;

[16] I turn, then, to the second matter, which is the Skopnik matter. The details of this matter are set out primarily in the affidavit of Martin Buhler.

[17] Around October 2015, Mr. Boyer prepared and filed a notice of civil claim, in which Mr. Skopnik was named as the plaintiff, in Vancouver Supreme Court Action No. 158600. The notice of civil claim is attached as Exhibit “A” to Mr. Buhler’s affidavit. I will say that, in my opinion, it is unrecognizable as a pleading that would be in compliance or acceptable under the Supreme Court Civil Rules. The action appears to be brought in Mr. Skopnik’s name and also on behalf of the Vancouver East Marijuana Party. Attached to the notice of civil claim were two other documents that Mr. Boyer prepared titled, “Under Protest: Writ of Mandamus under common law,” and “Application to appear before a Judge on short leave in order to civilly seek an amicable resolution.” How exactly those documents might comply with any provision in the Supreme Court Civil Rules is a mystery.

[18] Mr. Boyer has corresponded with defence counsel on Mr. Skopnik’s behalf, and the evidence discloses that in conversations with counsel, Mr. Boyer has referred to himself as “barrister.” Mr. Boyer informed defence counsel that he intended to represent Mr. Skopnik in the matter and that he had drafted all the documents. After hearing of the vexatious litigant order against Mr. Boyer, and after Mr. Boyer’s threatening comments, defence counsel refused to discuss the case with Mr. Boyer.

[19] Despite this, the evidence discloses that Mr. Boyer continued to correspond with counsel.

The judge wasn't happy about this and considered Marc's actions to be essentially his attempt to do an end-run around his vexatious litigant designation;

[30] The Law Society submits, and I agree, that Mr. Boyer’s involvement in the legal matters of Mr. Fortt and Mr. Skopnik has gone beyond – I would say far beyond – isolated assistance on a single occasion. To the contrary, his involvement is comprehensive. The evidence clearly supports that conclusion. Mr. Boyer has prepared and filed documents for the defence of Mr. Fortt’s criminal charges and for the commencement of Mr. Skopnik’s civil action. The positions taken and the arguments advanced in both these proceedings are similar in character to the “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments” that Mr. Boyer unsuccessfully raised in his earlier criminal trials. Mr. Boyer has appeared in court and corresponded with counsel on behalf of both Mr. Fortt and Mr. Skopnik.

[31] The Law Society submits, and I agree, that Mr. Boyer has attempted to take in hand the overall prosecution and defence of these matters, contrary to s. 15(5) of the Legal Profession Act. The evidence discloses that Mr. Boyer has suggested that he has and intends to do so for others.

[32] While the vexatious litigant order made by Chief Justice Brenner prevents Mr. Boyer from bringing litigation in his own name without the assistance of a lawyer, the Law Society submits, and I agree, that Mr. Boyer is attempting to forward his agenda through the litigation of others and by using others. In doing so, he shields himself from the consequences that typically result from such vexatious behaviour.

[33] Unlike Mr. Boyer, those that Mr. Boyer purports to assist, however, face serious consequences. Mr. Fortt, for example, faces incarceration if he is not successful in defending the charges that are brought against him. Mr. Skopnik is exposed to adverse costs consequences if he is unsuccessful in his civil action. In addition, opposing parties and the court are required to spend considerable time, effort, and money to respond to Mr. Boyer’s arguments. The Law Society submits, and I agree, that an injunction is required to protect the public, the courts, and the administration of justice generally from Mr. Boyer’s particular brand of advocacy.

So the judge nailed him;

[38] In my opinion, given his lack of credentials, his history with the criminal justice system, the vexatious litigant order pronounced by Chief Justice Brenner, and the Alberta court’s conclusion that Mr. Boyer’s arguments are “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments,” Mr. Boyer is, in my opinion, an inappropriate advocate for Mr. Fortt, Mr. Skopnik, or anyone else.

Marc had a few words to say to the judge about this gross injustice;

[39] Accordingly, the orders sought in the petition under Part 1, paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 are granted.

[40] MARC BOYER: I pity your immortal soul.

[41] THE COURT: That concludes my ruling.

[42] MARC BOYER: Great, thank you.

[43] THE COURT: Mr. Kleisinger, do you have submissions to make on --

[44] MARC BOYER: That concludes the matter is what you said. Thank you.

[45] THE COURT: That concludes my ruling, sir.

[46] MARC BOYER: Oh.

[47] THE COURT: If you walk out, I am going to hear Mr. Kleisinger on costs, so –

[48] MARC BOYER: Great, whatever you do, incur whatever costs you want. I will not pay it. Thank you.

[49] THE COURT: You are leaving on your own volition, I take it?

[50] MARC BOYER: That is right.

[51] THE COURT: All right, thank you
.
[52] MARC BOYER: You’re an insult to god all mighty. Thank you very much. Mon dieu et mon droit.

And Marc won't pay it! It's a matter of principle but also, as I understand it he lives off welfare and is always broke. A fact recognized by the law society;

[55] MR. KLEISINGER: Thank you, My Lady. Secondly is the issue of costs. The law cites, at Tab 9 – oh, I’m sorry. Yes, Tab 9, I have prepared a draft bill of costs. This was provided to Mr. Boyer at that time. It is likely the Law Society’s perceived – or, incurred more costs than were claimed, however, we merely wish to recover our disbursements plus a small amount of costs. Although the total cost of disbursements that we’re claiming is $3,108.38, I understand Mr. Boyer doesn’t have the funds to pay these amounts in any event. So that amount, to settle this before having to go before the Registrar at around $1,500 would be agreeable to the Law Society.

Marc has appealed this decision but, in addition, he applied to the British Columbia Court of Appeal to have the injunction barring him from pretending to be a lawyer stayed while his appeal worked its way through the system. In other words, let him harass the courts with his worthless gibberish until such time as his appeal was decided. That didn't work out well;

Application to stay lower court injunction pending appeal. Held: Application denied. The injunction enjoins a vexatious litigant from further breaches of the Legal Profession Act. Appellant purported to act as if he was authorized to practice law and advocated for both a criminal accused and civil plaintiff. Appellant’s desire to practice law does not trump the respondent Law Society’s duty to protect the administration of justice and the public from the unregulated practice of law.

The Law Society of British Columbia v. Boyer, 2016 BCCA
http://canlii.ca/t/gpl4f

As with the prior decision the judge wasn't impressed by Marc's legal acumen in defending his own case;

[13] Mr. Boyer’s materials do not address the relevant legal tests. They rest largely on pseudo-legal jurisdictional arguments and cite a “demonic” worldwide conspiracy. My best grasp of it is that Mr. Boyer claims the court enslaved him and lacks jurisdiction to make the injunction. His submissions in court were incoherent. The Law Society relied on my decision of Continental Steel v. CTL Steel Ltd., 2015 BCCA 501 (CanLII) for the applicable legal test. Mr. Boyer took great umbrage with reliance on this case, stating it had no application, which further demonstrated Mr. Boyer’s lack of legal knowledge. Continental Steel was cited solely for the legal test, not for any factual application. I have cited British Columbia (Milk Marketing Board) v. Grisnich, above, for the same proposition of law.

[14] The Law Society opposes the application to stay of the injunction. It submits the appeal has no chance of success and the Law Society’s duty to protect society from the unauthorized practice of law trumps Mr. Boyer’s desire to engage in the practice of law.

The judge first made a forecast of his chances on the eventual appeal;

[15] After reading Mr. Boyer’s materials and hearing his arguments, I conclude that Mr. Boyer raises no appealable issue. He fails to point to any error of fact, law, or mixed fact and law made by the chambers judge. Nor can I discern any error in the chambers judge’s reasons, after a preliminary view. His appeal is almost certain to fail.

Then the judge denied the application to stay the injunction.

[The Observer]

[5] I am going to say, Mr. Boyer, that filing material with the court that is irrelevant and inadmissible is a complete waste of your time, the opponent’s time, and the judge’s time. Engaging in that kind of conduct is antithetical to justice and creates anarchy, which is incompatible with the rule of law.

Burnaby, I think you have exposed a potential issue that we Quatloosians have ignored or overlooked before. This is pretty shocking, so you may want to sit down before you read the next few sentences and secure your beer. I believe that the judge has touched upon a critical part of physics regarding sovruns/FOTLs/TPs: THEY HAVE ACCESS TO UNLIMITED TIME. Just stop and think about the implications about this - take a sip of beer if you must - but think about it. The evidence for this is overwhelming. They always seem to have time to file lawsuits and claims before many courts, the paperwork they prepare for those actions and everything else seems to take inordinate amount of time, and yet they seem to be not fazed one little bit in their use of time. They seem to be able to do the necessary things in life that you and I spend considerable time purusing: food, clothing, housing (well to be honest, that last one seems to be a challenge for the seedier sovruns). And they seem to think that wasting everyone else's time is not an issue as though they take it for granted that we also have access to unlimited amounts of time - at least in terms of their expectation that we have to deal with their priority issues.

If this theory is true, we have an immense untapped source that could be used to mankind's benefit. Think of the uses it could be put to! Like being able to spend all of that quality time with your wife and still being able to go have a beer afterwards without any guilt! Unfortunately this resources seems to be monopolized by the very people who least deserve control of it. The only good thing I see is that they have not been able to do anything more important or threatening with it other than to clog up the courts; I could only imagine the terror they could impose if they were actually wise and smart enough to manipulate time. I am forced to conclude that they can be compared to being on the level of idiot-savants in the regard of wasting time.

[Burnaby49]

I realized years ago that the critical issue for all of my nutcases was of available time. It's no coincidence that very few of the targets I report on are employed. Most have been unemployed for years, if not decades. The few that have been employed, at least in the sense of making money from some form of personal endeavor requiring effort and a personal expenditure of time, were the Poriskyite income tax evaders. Menard, Belanger, Porisky, Lawson, Millar, Boyer, all share a few critical traits, huge amounts of time not wasted on gainful employment, a narcissistic obsession with their own overwhelming importance, and some bizarre belief system they want to force governments to accept. Add those up and the courts are just their personal playthings, a stage to strut their genius. Until, like Menard and the Poriskyites, it bites them in the ass.

Charles Norman Holmes was quite literally obsessive in his endless court filings. I used "was" because he is now, like Boyer, a vexatious litigant. Holmes had two traits he shared with Boyer, relentless relitigation of issues they'd lost multiple times, and a total disregard of court orders, procedures and rules. I've gone through Holmes' files at the Federal court of Canada and have hundreds of pages of his lunacy copied that I might put into a posting one day. Most were actually prepared by him rather than just bulk internet downloads. He couldn't have done it without time and obsession.

Boyer's obsession, at least one of them, is the legalization of marijuana. He's been focused on that for decades and his first convictions in the 1960's relate to it. But without the time allowed him by being unemployed (probably unemployable) and at least a modest welfare stipend from the government, he would not have had the ability to pursue it with such focus.

Menard is something of an outlier in this. He is saner than most, he has consistently tried to monetize his moronic fantasies by selling his schemes to idiots, and he avoids court. As we've seen he can actually focus on trying to promote his schemes for money so, at least in that respect, he can be at times considered self-employed. I think he avoids court because he is intelligent enough to realize that losing at court kills whatever chance he has of selling whatever he is flogging at the moment. This is irrelevant to Boyer because he pursues a lone obsession so losses have no consequences.

The same time issue applies to me. I've done a massive amount of court reporting on Quatloos that has been the result of weeks sitting in court day after day watching and recording. That is only possible because I am retired and on a pension, in my own way at least somewhat equivalent to Boyer and his welfare. But I at least have other interests that divert me enough to avoid having to admit being obsessive. And I don't waste any court time doing it.

[arayder]

[5] I am going to say, Mr. Boyer, that filing material with the court that is irrelevant and inadmissible is a complete waste of your time, the opponent’s time, and the judge’s time. Engaging in that kind of conduct is antithetical to justice and creates anarchy, which is incompatible with the rule of law.

My understanding is that much of the paperwork filed by freemen is cut and pasted from templates and it is the originator of the template who wasted hours and hours on the woo. Often the material filed is not examined or reviewed by the filing practitioner. Consequently, the filings often contain inapplicable material including freeman maxims, old dead case law and law from other counties.

It seems like Boyer may be an exception the rule and is one of freemen types who tries to insert his own touches to the filings, thus making him special.

My guess is that most practitioners filing these mounds of copy pasta waste their time talking and musing about their cases. It has been a frequent observation here that all this wasted time could be spent more productively. But it seems to me that the real purpose of the filing is to allow the filer to maintain his status in the freeman subculture.

The good thing is that the courts are dispatching freeman/sovcit woo more quiclky and more woo pitchers are being labeled vexatious litigant.

[Burnaby49]

Being old and half-senile (no comments necessary) I'd forgotten that I'd already posted on Marc's tragic loss to the law society;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9423#p223577

However the previous posting did not cover Marc's attempts to redress this wrong by having the injunction against him stayed so I'm leaving the post as is.

I have another posting about Marc in relation to his battles against the Canada Revenue Agency I'll try to get done.

[arayder]

If these wannabe gurus had a lick of sense they’d stay out of the man’s way, talk big and try to parley the big talk into a permanent money making, ego salving guru gig.

When the need arises the guru can pull out his driver’s license, use his SIN, or pay his taxes as long as he makes sure there’s nobody around to see his hypocrisy. In the meantime he can talk big about “traveling”, working a man’s job without a government number and stiffing the tax man.

It is a real mistake to go on the web and pretend you didn’t really use your SIN to get a benefit when anyone can see you did exactly that!

The guru can set up a sort of institute in order to seem important. . .publish enough stuff on the web to seem academic. . .make the rounds of the web radio shows. . .and most all wait for the suckers to pass by with donations and fees.

It’s also a mistake for the guru to blame the follower when the method fails, since he’s the goose that lays the donation egg. Blame the courts. Blame the cops. But don’t blame the mark.

[notorial dissent]

What's really entertaining is when they don't change the names or case numbers in the interior of the filings from when they were originally for something else entirely unrelated, and even more entertaining when the cites are to civil law and procedure as opposed to criminal when the case at hand is a criminal matter. That is always a perennial favorite