Allen Boisjoli - Alberta stomps on vexatious OPCA lititgant

[KickahaOta]

[SteveUK]

I do not consent to Canadian copyright laws.

[Burnaby49]

I'll be putting up my comments on Allen's claimed right to copyright his name tomorrow. Or today actually. Let's say my analysis has a touch more actual real law in it than his does.

[notorial dissent]

I do not consent to Canadian copyright laws.

That's alright, I don't consent to common law copyright laws.....

[LordEd]

By the act of non-consent, you have performed a listed-item on my fee schedule.

Let's see... Non-consent of common law copyright is billable by a pack of Tim bits (no powdered ones).

Non-consent of normal copyright law requires you to go to Newfoundland and be screeched in.

And Allen, nonsensical use of copyright law is payable by a pie in the face. Please post a video to YouTube as payment.

[The Observer]

I think we have flustered poor old Allen Boisjoli, he hasn't come back.

Which is a shame. I was hoping he would stick around and get a few hundred posts in. Then he would be elgible for the title "Sovrun-Who-Must-Be-Named."

[NYGman]

I think we have flustered poor old Allen Boisjoli, he hasn't come back.

Which is a shame. I was hoping he would stick around and get a few hundred posts in. Then he would be elgible for the title "Sovrun-Who-Must-Be-Named."

I guess we will all have to wait to be served. Maybe Ninja can check in with him, and see why he has vanished. Is he now afraid that his freeman Woo will not work on us? I would like him to come back and engage in a proper debate, but we will not stop using his name, and will not be paying him for the honor to do so...

Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli

[Hanslune]

I think we have flustered poor old Allen Boisjoli, he hasn't come back.

Which is a shame. I was hoping he would stick around and get a few hundred posts in. Then he would be elgible for the title "Sovrun-Who-Must-Be-Named."

I guess we will all have to wait to be served. Maybe Ninja can check in with him, and see why he has vanished. Is he now afraid that his freeman Woo will not work on us? I would like him to come back and engage in a proper debate, but we will not stop using his name, and will not be paying him for the honor to do so...

Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli, Allen Boisjoli

I remember a sov cit from the 90's who wanted to copyright the word "the" as his name - his idea being to shut down the "communist mainstream media" by taking away the ten most common words which he was going to incorporate into his new moniker.....his effort failed as far as I can tell....

[Wake Up! Productions]

I sure know Steve Bates has no frikkin clue whatsoever, and he will be the first to receive a bill as I doubt he can even comprehend my CSA let alone rebut it! Wake Up! Productions....LMAO what an imbecilic moron you are Steve and very brave to infringe my copyright and trade-mark and slander and defame me...U really are a moron aren't you?

Servus Credit Union Ltd v Parlee, 2015 ABQB 700

[79] Even if one could settle a lawsuit with a promissory note of some kind to the court, there is another issue. The “Indemnity Agreement” cannot bind the Court Clerks because it is no agreement. It is a declaration of a relationship signed by only one party - Mr. Parlee. A contract requires “a meeting of minds.” Here that is obviously absent: All of which takes us back to the central premise of most of these schemes, that silence is acceptance of something the perpetrator is attempting to foist on the recipient.

In other words Allen, on and for the record, I don't CONSENT to your phoney "contract", as it is not actually a contract at all !!! Do send me your "bill" anyway, I'll use it as a pee pad for training my puppy !!!

[ArthurWankspittle]

A contract requires “a meeting of minds.” Here that is obviously absent

Hmm, some truth in an out of context quote extract.

[Arthur Rubin]

A contract requires “a meeting of minds.” Here that is obviously absent

Hmm, some truth in an out of context quote extract.

Actually, as I recall from my first week at law school, a contract doesn't, exactly, require a "meeting of minds". It requires agreement to terms, even if one party believes it to be a joke....

[LordEd]

The key is 'or parent or guardian', so I don't think your post is permissible.

[Burnaby49]

The key is 'or parent or guardian', so I don't think your post is permissible.

Agreed so I've deleted the post. It doesn't matter how ineffectual the ban is or how easy it is to find the relevant cases, I don't want the information published here.

[Wake Up! Productions]

The key is 'or parent or guardian', so I don't think your post is permissible.

Agreed so I've deleted the post. It doesn't matter how ineffectual the ban is or how easy it is to find the relevant cases, I don't want the information published here.

Criminal Code of Canada:

486.6 (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The maximum penalty for a summary conviction offence is a sentence of 6 months of imprisonment, a fine of $5000 or both.

Awe come on Burnaby, you are not willing to do 6 months for the benefit of the rest of us "Quatloosians"?

[nebuer]

The key is 'or parent or guardian', so I don't think your post is permissible.

Agreed so I've deleted the post. It doesn't matter how ineffectual the ban is or how easy it is to find the relevant cases, I don't want the information published here.

To reply to both of these, first what I did was not unlawful, under Canadian legislation. The ruling was:

"No one may publish the name or photograph of a child, or of the child’s parent or guardian, in a manner that reveals that the child is receiving, or has received, intervention services."

Whilst it mentions publication of information with respect to the parent, the locus is upon the child. My post didn't identify, nor could it (as far as I could reasonably know), the child involved. More to the point, in the UK (where I am based), such a publication would not be unlawful. There was a similar case that addressed essentially the same issue. Here is the case: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2015/2630.html Article 10 (freedom of expression), held the day.

What burnaby49 says is a different matter. He as a moderator, for whatever reason, would rather that the information I published not appear here. That's a matter for him. However, I would observe that (i) Rooke himself uses these forums and could comment if he wished to do so, (ii) there is nothing to stop anyone applying to Rooke (or another judge of his court) asking for him to clarify or modify his order, and (iii) there is an overwhelming public interest in discussing Mr Boisjois' activities.

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

[Hyrion]

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

Some of us do what we believe to be the right thing whether or not there is an explicit obligation on us to do so.

Sometimes, the only obligation required is our own sense of ethical/moral Societal obligation.

A second point is to flip your context around: I don't think there's any Law preventing someone from enforcing the law as a moderator on an internet forum.

[Burnaby49]

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

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

[nebuer]

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

A second point is to flip your context around: I don't think there's any Law preventing someone from enforcing the law as a moderator on an internet forum.

Not normally, but that can depend on circumstance. My concern was more that Burnaby49 may have done so on the basis that he felt he had a legal obligation to take the steps that he has, or alternatively, he has a moral obligation to follow what he believes to the law.

Also, there's an interesting question underneath this. Suppose I posted what I wrote on another subforum (where, for arguments sake, Burnaby49 was NOT a moderator). Would it be deleted then? Maybe something like this should not be on the caprice of an individual moderator (although I would stress Burnaby49 may have had very good reasons), but something that is a matter of uniform policy on this website. What if the website said: "well Burnaby49, you moderate this subforum, but don't delete this content". He does so anyway, because he believes he has an obligation to do so (whether legally or ethically). Is he obligated to take such steps, and if he does, can the administration remove him anyway? I haven't followed through on this point, but neverthless, there is an interesting (and unclear) question underneath this.

[nebuer]

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

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

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

[Burnaby49]

Also, there's an interesting question underneath this. Suppose I posted what I wrote on another subforum (where, for arguments sake, Burnaby49 was NOT a moderator). Would it be deleted then? Maybe something like this should not be on the caprice of an individual moderator (although I would stress Burnaby49 may have had very good reasons), but something that is a matter of uniform policy on this website. What if the website said: "well Burnaby49, you moderate this subforum, but don't delete this content". He does so anyway, because he believes he has an obligation to do so (whether legally or ethically). Is he obligated to take such steps, and if he does, can the administration remove him anyway? I haven't followed through on this point, but neverthless, there is an interesting (and unclear) question underneath this.

This is getting way too convoluted for me. However the basic answer is that I blocked the content because I chose to even though there is probably no legal requirement to do so since Quatloos is an American website. We have had the same issue in the UK forums where Arthur, the UK moderator, is busy deleting posts that may violate some UK rule about prejudicing ongoing court hearings. Wserra, viewing the rule from an American position, thinks the rule is just stupid, I don't see the sense in it myself. However we've agreed to let Arthur delete any postings he thinks violate it. Just being good internet citizens. As for your hypothetical; if somebody started posting information on Boisjoli on an American or UK Quatloos forum that I don't generally moderate I would inform the moderator but probably not intervene directly. But then again I might depending how I felt if it turned into an actual event. Since the posting would clearly have been done to circumvent my actions in the Canadian forums I doubt the other moderators would mind.

If you think that you are being unfairly treated by the caprice of an individual moderator well, that's life.