Allen Boisjoli has been kidnapped!

[Burnaby49]

Not incarcerated yet. He's on bail until his trial.

[notorial dissent]

ooh, what a nice signature he has on his bonkers letter. Not too sure about the last sentence though.......

By:Allen-Nelson of the Boisjoli family Divinus Partum, Deus Genus, Autonomous Free-will Man, Creditor, Sacred Trustee Not “in” any federal zone, state, province, corporate municipality, or any other territory, abode, enclave, domicile, dwelling, residence, et al., implied or expressed. Not subject to, or in accordance with, the jurisdiction of Canada, Crown, Queen, Commonwealth, United States Inc., District of Columbia, City of London, Vatican, or any derivatives, agents/agencies, possessions or subsidiaries thereof; disclosed or undisclosed, released or unreleased, attached or unattached.ALL RIGHTS PRESERVED AND RESERVED

The mind is competent, the blood flows, the flesh lives and the spirit is redeemed

And the body is incarcerated.

The comments above the final sentence would tend to deny the final comment.

[eric]

Breaking news - Boisjoli got off:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... -1.4611650
You can read the article for yourself but Boisjoli didn't have to do a single thing.

In October 2015, associate chief Justice John Rooke declared Boisjoli a vexatious litigant and banned him from making any future court filings without a lawyer.

On Monday, Sanderman referred to Rooke's decision and asked the prosecutor to explain the evidence that led to the charges.

Prosecutor Photini Papadatou began to outline her case. But the judge soon stopped her.

"It seems like you're going after a mosquito with a bazooka," Sanderman said. "But it's your call."

I suspect that the judge was following a logical train:
1. Boisjoli has allready been declared a vexatious litigant;
2. Anything he attempts to file with the court as in false liens is therefore essentially worthless and can be safely ignored;
3. Because the threat is not credible how can the justice system participant feel intimidated?
It's the same as Derek Johnson's attempt to intimidate myself and others through his made up Alberta Court of King's Bench. My honest opinion is that the Crown should have gone for criminal harassment complaint. It's the subject of a future post but that approach worked with Darryl: McDowell who managed to pick up an 18 month sentence, along with multiple 10 day contempt convictions for his courtroom antics.

[Resume]

It is difficult for me to imagine him becoming more insufferable . . .

[Siegfried Shrink]

Coarse fishermen throw the catch back for future fishing pleasure.

[Chaos]

hmmmmm. Burnaby announces he'll be gone for a month and miraculously this happens to give him a new drinking buddy? quite the coincidence.

[wserra]

Coarse fishermen throw the catch back for future fishing pleasure.

OK, I give up.

[Hyrion]

"It seems like you're going after a mosquito with a bazooka," Sanderman said. "But it's your call."

Now I'm really curious. From Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 134

• https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2 ... ultIndex=2

Judge Rook had this to say:

[30] I also note another complication. In Re Boisjoli, an OPCA litigant did much the same thing as Rothweiler, and claimed that him receiving a traffic ticket was a basis for a $225,000.00 “default judgment” purportedly obtained by a Three/Five Letters process. Boisjoli then tried to file that “default judgment” in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. I concluded in Re Boisjoli, at paras 58-69 that Boisjoli’s attempts to file that default judgment established on a balance of probabilities that he had committed the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 423.1 offense of intimidation of a justice system participant:

423.1(1) No person shall, without lawful authority, engage in any conduct with the intent to provoke a state of fear in

...

(b) a justice system participant in order to impede him or her in the performance of his or her duties ...

[31] Boisjoli was subsequently committed to be tried on such charge, in this Court, in April 2018 (R v Boisjoli, Edmonton 10850061Q1 (Alta QB)).

So I can understand why the prosecution went with the charge of "intimidation of a justice system participant".

At the same time, I'm curious how Rook will view Sandermans comment.

[eric]

I really can't understand myself why the charges were stayed given that, as per Re Boisjoli, it seems like a perfect example of intimidation of a justice system participant. Whether or not the intimidated person honestly felt provoked into a state of fear shouldn't matter if the court wants to follow Re Boisjoli as a precedent. All I have to go on however is news reports...

[Jeffrey]

in order to impede him or her in the performance of his or her duties

According to a commenter, the reasoning is that the cop had already written the ticket against Boisjoli. There were no further duties for the cop to perform so the lien couldn't possibly impede duties that had already been performed. Seems like Canada will need to specifically write a new statute for retaliatory liens.

[Hanslune]

Would it be cruel if we got together and sent him a 'congrats on the new house' card to his jail cell?

[BoomerSooner17]

in order to impede him or her in the performance of his or her duties

According to a commenter, the reasoning is that the cop had already written the ticket against Boisjoli. There were no further duties for the cop to perform so the lien couldn't possibly impede duties that had already been performed. Seems like Canada will need to specifically write a new statute for retaliatory liens.

In this context, is "duties" restricted to those duties performed by the official regarding the person in question, or just the official's duties to the general public and /or the government? In other words, if Boisjoli's harassment of the officer impeded or was an attempt to impede him from doing his job (after the ticket incident), would that have counted for the "intimidation of a justice system participant" charge?

[Hyrion]

Boisjoli might want to be careful how much of a victory he views this at this time. From the news article that was posted:

"Having taken your comments to heart, we have concluded we will be staying the charges against Mr. Boisjoli," she said.

So... what does staying charges actually mean?

Source: http://lawfacts.ca/node/195

However, there is one important difference. Stayed charges can be “brought back to life” within one year of the day they are stayed.

He might want to behave himself for the next year... although I doubt he will. From another article, https://globalnews.ca/news/4133900/char ... -boisjoli/:

This day, the Canadian justice system actually worked, which I find pretty surprising.

[Jeffrey]

In this context, is "duties" restricted to those duties performed by the official regarding the person in question, or just the official's duties to the general public and /or the government? In other words, if Boisjoli's harassment of the officer impeded or was an attempt to impede him from doing his job (after the ticket incident), would that have counted for the "intimidation of a justice system participant" charge?

The Crown could have countered with that argument but they chose not to. So the Judge's reading of the statute is the official one for now.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

However, there is one important difference. Stayed charges can be “brought back to life” within one year of the day they are stayed.

Thanks for that. I had my flabber completely ghasted by the ruling, but it actually now makes sense. It's a: "You are a pain in the arse, no actual harm done this time so we're not going to waste any more valuable court time on it, but if you try it again you'll be toast."

[Burnaby49]

hmmmmm. Burnaby announces he'll be gone for a month and miraculously this happens to give him a new drinking buddy? quite the coincidence.

I'm back from Palm Springs to find this offensive comment waiting for me. A beer with Boisjoli? I only drink with people able and willing to pay for their round. Allen's idea of money is unilateral contracts which I'm pretty sure aren't accepted at any pub I'd frequent.

The paper terrorism charge was always a reach but I thought it would get past first base. Allen might have a new source of income, seminars in party rooms of low rate hotels. His brilliant freeman gibberish got him off without even having a trial.

[bmxninja357]

One could say the judge wasnt whom the crown thought it would Be, so they stayed the charges once the judge realized they were using a "bazooka to kill a mosquito." a furtherance of the trial and a judge not immediately sympathetic to the crown may have got to the bottom of al's problem. And that is the fact the gov, or shall i say a vendictive social worker stole his kids and they have been trying to cover that up ever since.

Im not going to say much more on this. But i was actually there in court when they did that. And that was what drove al off the legal rails.

And al will generally buy the beer if working. He is a hard worker with a strong work ethic. Its quite unfair to say he is not.

Peace
Ninj

[Resume]

Yeah, judging from his comments on Van Balion's YouTube channel, Ole Al is a real charmer.

[Burnaby49]

I noted in a previous posting in this discussion that, as a result of his court victory;

Allen might have a new source of income, seminars in party rooms of low rate hotels. His brilliant freeman gibberish got him off without even having a trial.

Well Allen hasn't exactly taken that route but he is trying to take advantage of his big win by going on the offensive. Investigating judge Rooke, complaints to the Law Society, billing the lead investigator of his case, and he's got real lawyers with a "pretty unique perspective" on his side The cherry on top is his plan to set up a for-pay guru website where he will expound his sovereign wisdom to anyone willing to shell out for "discussion and educational purposes only" advice. Better get in there before he's overwhelmed by the stampede!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXyG2r9WmV0

He's going to start a "field group" to go and watch random court cases. He plans to do ratings, "an independent analysis of their performance in court" on a scale of zero to five of everyone involved in the trials right down to the clerks. An ambitious plan! He compares the results to being a restaurant critic and he plans to sell the reports. Apprehensive judges will be clamoring to buy his reports to find out how many of the coveted Boisjolis© or the dreaded Rooke Reprimand© a given performance awards them. Oscar night at Queen's Bench! Or, this being Canada, Juno night. He plans to use the massive wealth that will pour in from this venture to fund an alternate dispute resolution court. He generously offered to use it to take some of the workload off of the regular courts but common law only. None of this illegitimate statutory law in his courtroom! He has high hopes that his rating system will become an industry standard and everyone will use it to prep for their own day in court. Apparently if the judges know that they are being rated by Allen's expert crew they will finally shape up and do their jobs right.

What was that? A gunshot in Chambers?!! Yet another judge unable to live with a five Rooke Reprimand© review by the Boisjoli Benchers? It's going to be carnage when the courts are exposed to a totally unbiased and independent rating system. Paraclete Belanger has repeatedly bragged how seven (sometimes eleven) judges were forced to resign because of his actions but at least they got out alive!

On the upside Allen said that lawyers will be able to juice up their fees based on positive reports from the Boisjoli gang. "Of course when you have a lawyer who's rated five stars he's going to be able to charge more than a lawyer who's rated one star". Talk about market power! His goal is no less than to bring back the rule of law and bring up the standard of professionalism in the courts. He said that hopefully this will stop the courts from making up the law as they go along. Was there a touch of bitterness in that comment? At about 10:30 he put the courts on notice that they are public servants and they'd better start remembering that.

Allen scared the hell out of me in this part of the video and not from what he said but what he was doing. Specifically what he was not doing, paying any attention to his driving as he rocketed down the highway. Watch from about 11:00 to 11:40 when his awareness of the fact he's in control of a large speeding vehicle is desultory at best. He got a wake-up call when a car passed close by him and he'd been ranting too much to notice it until it startled him and broke his train of thought. That train was clearly derailed and he went in a new direction.

He said he's tired of being broke all the time. He's put up his information for free for ten years asking for nothing but donations that he didn't get. It's time he got something for his efforts. He can't keep starving himself for nothing. A comment for ninja who admonished me that Allen is a very hard worker. He certainly seems to be trying. He's bidding on contracts and trying to get work but it's dog eat dog in Alberta at the moment.

He said that he was going to start with a review of his own court case. An actual product rather than just a request for donations. At 15:30 he started on about the detective who handled his case. Apparently he went on national media and slandered and defamed Allen so he's getting a bill (amount not disclosed, bet it's a whopper). He'd have to pay because he didn't have lawful authority to libel, slander and defame Allen. Then a bit of a contradiction from Allen's previous statement about how the job situation is so bad he can't get work because of hundreds of competing contractors. The detective apparently cost him income because he was in demand but then nobody would hire him once he was branded a criminal. It must be a self-driving truck because he's certainly not paying much attention to running it. He hit a bumpy stretch that seemed to bother me a lot more than him. JD Rooke is feeling the heat! Trying to impose law on a private individual! Allen let slip, just to let everybody know that "there's a big investigation on all his stuff"! Unfortunately Allen's not at liberty to talk about it in detail. So long Meads v Meads!

Turns out that they stayed Allen's charges rather than dismissing them because they were desperate not to be sued for charging him. And finding him innocent would be admitting that they didn't have jurisdiction over him. However the way he talked about Justice Sanderman, the guy that stayed charges, tells me that he's a lock for a five Boisjoli© rating when Allen's system goes live. Sounds more than fair to me.

Then accolades for us!!!! At 20:20 he waved his ciggie (not yet lit) at the camera and said "This is for you idiots at the Quantaloos (sic) there, those Quantaloos (sic) idiots that keep saying you probably thought you won, it's just a stay they can come back on you any time. Well you know what? They're not going to come back." Well Allen, let Burnaby49 be the first of the Quantaloos idiots to concede that you're probably right. I doubt that charges will be revived. That's his selling point for the website. "For you Doubting Debbies, there's the facts". They came at him hard with their best people, pulled out all the stops, and he had it wrapped up by noon on the first day. All true! Even Burnaby49, already through the best part of a bottle of wine on a Friday night, can't argue against the facts. Credit's due where its due and, be it just a stay or charges quashed, Allen won a resounding victory.

Things got a bit distracted at this point (24:00) because he started getting into heavy traffic and had to actually pay some slight attention to the road. He started talking about his investigation which he couldn't actually talk about because of a non-disclosure. No details as to with whom he agreed to non-disclose. "But know this. We know how to beat them now."

He's talked to a representative of the Law Society and nobody said his assessment system was a bad idea. So it's a go but (his words) he's not casting pearls before swine (or sombrero wearing lamas). You wanna play you gotta pay. Then he told me I put my pants on one leg at a time and I'm nothing special. Hurtful. Very, very hurtful. Accusing me of wearing pants when, as long-time followers of Burnaby49 know I don't wear that article of apparel apart from funerals, weddings, and when my wife nags me into it. I was denied entry to a courtroom once because I was pantless. I reported that encounter here;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 60#p160267

At this point he'd exited the highway and was in town so he had to start paying some attention to the road. So he signed off by promising to put out a follow-up video with more detail.

I'd suggest that he'd best not get his hopes for website revenue up too much. I was viewer 37 more than a week after he posted the video and no comments. I'd bet most of the remaining 37 were court and police personnel.

[notorial dissent]

Sounds more to me like he's finally slipped totally into his world of delusion. At least if he sticks to that he won't be making a pest of himself in the courts and otherwise harassing people. I also expect him to starve at it, between it all being total twaddle and his oh so endearing personality.