Allen Boisjoli - Alberta stomps on vexatious OPCA lititgant

[notorial dissent]

Allen is a prime example of analcranalinversion, as well as being just plain self destructive. I can't speak to his earlier legal troubles, but he has brought his current life on all by hims widdle self, and until he grows up and quits acting like a petulant two year old, he is going to get spanked regularly. He needs to grow up, get rid of his OPCA fantasies and do some real research and get some real professional help, both mental and legal. At this point, and again from lack of actual knowledge, I don't know if he even has any REAL legal issues that need dealing with, other than his previous bad behavior. If he is like a lot of, well most, if not all, sovrunidjits, he is trying to re-litigate an issue that is already long over and done with and that cannot be changed now.

[Fussygus]

Obviously whatever happened to him to push him down this road was not good, and clearly it had something to do with people in authority.

Not necessarily.

Per your point Hyrion, to clarify I should have written "...it had something to do with his perception with people in authority." Not to imply that there was any failure, just that there was a perceived failure likely in his mind.

Much can be said about the frustration and anger someone can develop when they don't understand. When they are trapped in their own ignorance and find the fact too painful to face.

We all want to know the Answer, but maybe we need to stop and consider the question we are asking instead. In our society now there is a tendency to be lazy and want to know the answer, quick and simple (google it). We don't give enough value to the Why, we simply want to know What.

The freeman type subculture wants the answer without understanding the question. They need to think of Why things are the way they are, and then they might just see the necessity of it all....the purpose, and how they might actually agree that much of it is in fact no different than how they would set it up given time and experience.

Fuzzy

[NYGman]

So much for coming in all Guns Blazing, with big statements and empty threats. That worked really well, got his name mentioned a ton more times, and really did nothing but jump start this threat and keep it in view. Nothing like the Streisand effect.

[Hyrion]

The freeman type subculture wants the answer without understanding the question.

From memory, and it has been a long time since I read it....

Oh Great Deep Thought... what is the answer to the ultimate question

You want the answer to the ultimate question?

Yes oh Great One.... the answer to life, happiness the Universe and everything

The answer is...

Yes oh Great One?

42

42? That's the answer? 42?

Well... yes.... for it to make sense, you must know what the question is!

What is the question?

I don't know... for that I'll need to build you a much more powerful computer, one that far surpasses myself.

Very roughly paraphrased from old memory

[Burnaby49]

Allen's little rant finally got the donors off their hands and contributing towards his new court system. Actually, make that a single donor who gave $10. However he has two big strikes against him. The first is that he's increased the goal from $250,000 to $500,000. Apparently he's upped his real estate requirements. The second is that he doesn't want any individual to donate more than $20. So if every donor, apart from that $10 cheapskate, gives the maximum allowed he's going to need 25,000 people to cough up. Doesn't seem likely given that the GoFundMe has been open almost a week with only one nibble. Allen has 181 people on his friends list. If each of those gave $20 he might get some momentum going.

Just a false dawn. It's a month down the road from that $10 donation to kickstart his GoFundMe dream that's all he's received. So $499,990 to go.

[Hanslune]

Allen's little rant finally got the donors off their hands and contributing towards his new court system. Actually, make that a single donor who gave $10. However he has two big strikes against him. The first is that he's increased the goal from $250,000 to $500,000. Apparently he's upped his real estate requirements. The second is that he doesn't want any individual to donate more than $20. So if every donor, apart from that $10 cheapskate, gives the maximum allowed he's going to need 25,000 people to cough up. Doesn't seem likely given that the GoFundMe has been open almost a week with only one nibble. Allen has 181 people on his friends list. If each of those gave $20 he might get some momentum going.

Just a false dawn. It's a month down the road from that $10 donation to kickstart his GoFundMe dream that's all he's received. So $499,990 to go.

Would it be deemed unseemly to send a WeRe cheque?

[JamesVincent]

Would it be deemed unseemly to send a WeRe cheque?

Not sure they have the wit to catch the irony in that

[Hercule Parrot]

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..

Nothing in H v A could be taken as proving a general rule that "in the UK... publication would not be unlawful". I think that judgement shows very clearly that the legal position around identifying children or families is far from clear or settled.

[nebuer]

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..

Nothing in H v A could be taken as proving a general rule that "in the UK... publication would not be unlawful". I think that judgement shows very clearly that the legal position around identifying children or families is far from clear or settled.

The key point is the locus of the order. Linking AB to the other cases does not identify the children, especially given it appears that they don't even have the same last names. The risk in this case is minimal, compared to that one from the UK. I wouldn't endorse doing anything that identified the children involved in this case, nor do I believe - in so far as I have seen the deleted posts - anyone has come close to doing so. The UK case is an edge case, this one clearly is not.

[wserra]

I will give you 14 days to come up with a rebuttal or show me where i have erred. If none has arrived in my e-mail, or postal outlet by Nov. 21,2015. Then you better think about removing my trade-marked trade-name from your posts, as you will become the "user" in my copyright notice. section 4 of the CSA. I hope that teaches you to STFU about stuff you obviously have no clue about! I am even doubtful any of you even have any capacity to even comprehend it!

Well, Allen Nelson Boisjoli (Allen Nelson Boisjoli! Allen Nelson Boisjoli! Allen Nelson Boisjoli!), that was yesterday. Cue the crickets.

[notorial dissent]

Numbnutz dwarflaurel doesn't even seem to know the differences, and there really are, between, trademark, tradename, and copyright, and more importantly how they are used in commerce, or reality for that matter. Quelle surprise!!!. Nice to verify that his legal knowledge is universal.

[Chaos]

Allen Ballsofagerbil indeed.

[NYGman]

Please all, stop posting the name of Allen Boisjoli. The last thing we want is to make Allen Boisjoli mad. So whatever you do, do not say the name of Allen Boisjoli or you may end up summoning Allen Boisjoli to this Allen Boisjoli thread, where Allen Boisjoli has posted. We know Allen Boisjoli reads this thread, and that we should all take him seriously, because Allen Boisjoli looks to be a man of his word. SO again, let's not post Allen Boisjoli's name without his permission, as we would not want to interfere with Allen Boisjoli's copyright claim, even if Allen Boisjoli's claim is invalid.

[Chaos]

Boisjoli
Boisjoli
Boisjoli

[theSovereign1]

November 22, 2015

Affidavit of Truth and Reply/Rebuttal to “Justice” J. D. Rooke’s “Order” Dated November 3rd, 2015


To: J.D. Rooke, acting as; HONOURABLE ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE
“Associate Chief Justice of the Queen’s Bench of Alberta”
c/o: Susan Logan, acting as; Manager/Clerk of the Court
COURT QUEEN’S BENCH OF ALBERTA
Edmonton Law Courts Building,
1A Sir Winston Churchill Square
Edmonton, Alberta, T5J 0R2
susan.logan@just.gov.ab.ca
Phone: 780-422-9475
Fax: 780-422-9742

CC: Kathleen Ganley, acting as; MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY/SOLICITOR GENERAL
Alberta Justice and Solicitor General
9th floor, John E. Brownlee Building
10365 - 97 St., Edmonton, AB T5J 3W7
ministryofjustice@gov.ab.ca
Phone: 780-427-2339
Fax: 780-422-6621

Re: Alleged Order; Court File Number: 1503-15487, Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 629, i.e.: COMMUNICATION RESTRICTION ORDER FOR VEXATIOUS LIDIGENT ALLEN NELSON BOISJOLI.

Judicial Center: Edmonton

Court: Queens Bench


Syntax and Grammar

† Commentary by Allen-Nelson of the Boisjoli family, the real living flesh and blood man and eternal, autonomous, spirit created by the Divine, with two hands and two feet, will be will be in regular dark print utilizing common grammar rules and principals.

† References to points of law, legal maxims and other legal Babel will be in RED, and usually, but not always be Italicized and may or may not be within “Quotes”.

† Internet links will be underlined and in BLUE.

† When in doubt and/or upon any discrepancy, ALL correspondences, unless otherwise noted within the said presentment will follow the stipulations outlined in Commercial Security Agreement ANB-09041971-SA, (hereinafter “CSA”), i.e.: Law, Jurisdiction and Linguistics Section 5, page 6; and, Section 24, Page 16, Schedule B: Glossary and Definition of Terms. Which can be referenced through the following internet links: https://www.scribd.com/doc/89513341/ANB ... A-Official https://www.dropbox.com/s/r90oa6uwqvpct ... l.pdf?dl=0


1. The first and most obvious point to bring up is that you have failed to give a qualified response, rebutting the points in my last presentment dated November 5th, 2015, in response to your last “alleged order”! You seem to be unable to follow a logical flow of basic rules of communication, (i.e. Notice & reply, presentment & response, See attached “FACTUM” pg. 1 “LAW 101”), at this point I am wondering if you even have the faculty or basic qualifications to even communicate, let alone fulfill any position in public office! It seems quite obvious to me, or probably anyone observing these interactions that you are openly, willfully, flauntingly and blatantly abusing vested judicial authority, breaching public trust, attempting to impede due process and obstruct justice…J. D. Rooke! Or maybe it’s just me and I am misinterpreting your inability to respond to basic questions and statements with anything but a tyrannical, oppressive… control freak, psychopathic attempt at convincing someone to use force because you cannot seem to face the truth of the matter that you really have no authority over any real men unless they consent to, believe and partake in your FICTION OF LAW? (see attached FACTUM under “FICTION OF LAW” pg. 1) I am really starting to think you actually believe that you have some right to force your will upon another at your whim J. D. Rooke…Is this the case? Why do you believe this…because you have been vested with some IMAGINARY authority to direct unwitting “police” men/unquestioning policy-enforcers to do your bidding? You do realize this is called tyranny right J.D. Rook? (See attached “FACTM” pg. 2 “Tyranny of the Majority” and “Ochlocracy”)

2. Maybe I am missing something but can you explain the part in your “alleged order” where it states “UPON THE COURT’S OWN MOTION”? How does a fictional abstract idea motion anything, let alone itself? Pretty sure it takes a couple of men to believe and agree in the court first, and a real man of flesh and blood, with two arms and two feet, has to make motion. Is this some sort of slickity-slickster way of you try avoiding liability or accountability J. D. Rooke?

3. You seem to believe that you have some authority to dictate how I must identify myself! I assure you J. D. Rooke; you do not. As I explained in the last presentment, I am the source of anything associated with MY given and or “legal” name, and I have claimed it as my copyrighted property in a public affidavit, giving due notice to EVERYONE…which is still, as of present, unrebutted. I have yet to receive a qualified, actual rebuttal/response to it…so far it’s just you who believes you can ignore it and pretend it does not exist! You seem to believe that ignoring it somehow rebuts the evidence presented! I claim that it stands as accepted, perfected, and cured, can you rebut? (see whole of the CSA and especially “Enclosure” sections 35, 36, 37, Claimed Rights 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15)

4. I am sorry J.D. Rooke but trying to force me to have to be represented by a member the Law Society of Alberta or any “Law Society”, (hello…I am not a member of the “law society”. Can you explain how their copyrighted private law applies or pertains to me or MY Foreign Trust and Estate?), is a blatant attempt at EXTORTION UNDER COLOR OF OFFICIAL RIGHT, (see FACTUM pg. 2 “EXTORTION UNDER COLOR OF OFICIAL RIGHT”), impeding due process and obstruction of justice! OMG do you believe you are above the laws which you have agreed to accept and are sworn to uphold?! A lawyer or member of the “Law Society” cannot offer me proper remedy as per Corpus Jurus Sercendum (see “FACTUM” pg. 4, Definition of Client, Attorney/Client Relationship, Definition of a Ward, Definition of Propria Persona”)

5. Once again J.D. Rooke I do not recognize your authority as you have obviously gone way off the deep end and way beyond your mandate and vested authority, willingly and purposefully, or are suffering from senility! Either way, IMHO you are breaching your oath of office and committing high crimes. I have classified you as a rogue psychopath with overbearing, control issues. I will accept your “alleged Order” upon proof of claim, proof of authority, proof of credentials with proof of public hazard insurance, proof of subject matter jurisdiction, and acceptance of my fees for your trespasses for invasion of privacy, copyright infringement, breach of trust, counseling an offence not committed, false pretense, liable slander, defamation, negligence, obstruction of justice, violation of due process, aiding and abetting abduction of minors, aiding and abetting kidnapping and extortion and violation of your oath of office!

6. I think we need a judicial review of every one of your “Decisions” J.D. Rooke. As I can testify that your dismissal of my lawsuit vs. Alberta Child and Family Services et. al. in QB Civil was undeniable Obstruction of Justice as blatant as your current attempt to cover up Peter’s perjury…same MO: Discredit the plaintiff as having pseudo-logical legal arguments to cover up the crimes of fellow tyrannical oppressors/court officers/co-conspirators/trespassers/pedophilic child abducting psychopathic control freaks!

7. You do not have the right nor the authorization to make policies about me, my Foreign Trust or Estate; and, your continued use is ‘in fact’ prima fascia evidence of unauthorized use of my copyrighted trade-marked trade-name which by deed makes you the “User” defined in my copyright claim, (see Section 4, “COPYRIGHT CLAIM” of the CSA). You sir have obviously consented to, and are subject to, the usage fees documented therein and liable for a Tort claim and Bill for such unauthorized usage.

8. Do you actually believe you have the power and authority to block a man from accessing Queens Bench court J. D. Rooke? J. D. Rooke you do not own QB, or have the authority to create policies concerning its use. Your fiction of law called Canada is a common-law jurisdiction sir. Do you actually believe and contend that you have the right to restrict fundamental human rights and redress of the common man?

9. I have acknowledgement, acceptance from the Queen of my CSA, so attempting to create policy to the contrary is probably not a good career move for you. I do verily believe as a Creditor and an acknowledged living man, not a “person” created by operation of law, I have much higher claim and authority than a lowly PUBLIC SERVANT such as yourself. As it stands your orders have no lawful authority or effect unless you can rebut my points of fact and prove subject matter jurisdiction…and we both know you cannot as you only have authority over fictions created by operation of law, or men that consent and agree to be bound by those fictions…I certainly do believe I have demonstrated that I do not consent to your fraudulent fictional corporate statute policies by action and deed. So what you are doing IMHO is unlawful and illegal sir, and is an obvious attempt at EXTORTION UNDER COLOR OF OFFICIAL RIGHT! (see “FACTUM” pg. 2)

In closing J.D. Rooke, I think it’s obvious to anyone that you are willfully abusing the office and vested authority you have been assigned, (you sir are a PUBLIC SERVANT), as a platform to cover up high crimes by fellow court officers, and to legitimize your blatant disregard for the rule of law and to pervert the course and obstruct the administration of justice.


Authorization

I, the living flesh and blood sentient man and eternal, autonomous, spirit created by the Divine, commonly known as Allen-Nelson of the Boisjoli family, do verily believe that conscience and notification of legal responsibility are the first essentials of administrative due process and Rule of Law, and in accordance with these fundamental Universal Principles, my word is my bond. As such, I do hereby certify, and solemnly swear oath, attest and affirm, with my autograph and seal that the above information is true, correct, complete, and not misleading to the best of my knowledge and belief, with full commercial liability, before the Creator, and would swear the same before any man or lawful court and jury of peers.


Affiant:
Without prejudice, ill-will, vexation, or frivolity,
Sacred Trustee for: TRUST# 983170-321522-193058 (EIN# 98-0692059) A.K.A. ALLEN NELSON BOISJOLI FAMILY TRUST AND ESTATE OF ALLEN BOISJOLI™ DBA ALLEN BOISJOLI HOLDINGS™





By: I AM A LIVING BREATHING MAN, IN-FACT, NOT A LEGAL FICTION, CORPORATE FICTION, OR FICTION OF LAW, THIS MAN IS THE VALUE AND THE CREDIT FOR THE TRUST AND HE SIGNS IN CAPACITY TO ADMINISTER THE TRUST AND IS TO BE HELD HARMLESS AND FREE FROM LIEN AND LEAVY, AND DOES NOT WAIVE ANY RIGHTS REMEDIES OR CURES..
Allen-Nelson of the Boisjoli family
Divinus Partum, Deus Genus, Autonomous Free-will Man, Creditor, Sacred Trustee of the Divine Trust & Estate
Not in any legal fiction, 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, Her Majesty, Commonwealth, United States, District of Columbia, City of London, Vatican
Pope, Rome, nor any derivatives, attachments, agents/agencies, possessions or subsidiaries thereof; disclosed or undisclosed, released or unreleased, attached or unattached.
ALL RIGHTS PRESERVED & RESERVED
The mind is competent, the blood flows, the flesh lives and the spirit is redeemed.

Return Correspondence to:
c/o: Allen Boisjoli Holdings™
#1-12959-97 St., Edmonton
Alberta, T5E 4C2
E-mail: aboisjoli@hotmail.com

[theSovereign1]

ALLEN BOISJOLI HOLDINGS
Commercial Accounts

November 22, 2015

FACTUM

1. LAW 101
Our Founding Fathers believed that it was self-evident that the God of Nature is the sovereign of the universe and everything in it (as well as mankind) and that He had endowed all mankind with "certain unalienable rights" making them self-directing sovereigns, which means that any governments instituted among men derive their just powers (only) from the consent of the governed, who are the source of earthly power and authority. Hence any attempt to exercise any powers NOT conveyed by the People is unjust and unauthorized, and any act done pursuant to such usurpation of power is void.

1. All are equal under the law.
2. Truth is sovereign.
3. Truth is expressed in the form of Affidavit.
4. An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth.
5. An unrebutted affidavit becomes a judgment
6. He who leaves the field of battle first (does not respond to Affidavit) loses by default.
7. Sacrifice is the measure of credibility.
8. A lien or claim can only be satisfied by one of the following actions.
a. A rebuttal Affidavit of Truth, supported by evidence, point-by-point.
b. Payment.
c. Agreement.
d. Resolution by a jury according to the rules of common law.


FICTION OF LAW

The assumption that a certain thing is true, and which gives to a person or thing a quality which is not natural to it, and consequently establishes, a certain disposition, which, without the fiction, would be repugnant to reason and to truth. It is an order of things which does not exist, but which the law prescribes or authorizes. It differs from presumption because it establishes as true, something which is false; whereas presumption supplies the proof of something true.

The law never feigns what is impossible. Fiction is like art; it imitates nature, but never disfigures it. It aids truth, but it ought never to destroy it. It may well suppose that what was possible, but which does not exist; but it will never feign that what was impossible actually is.

Fictions were invented by the Roman praetors who, not possessing the power to abrogate the law, were nevertheless willing to derogate from it under the pretence of doing equity. Fiction is the resource of weakness which, in order to obtain its object, assumes as a fact what is known to be contrary to truth: when the legislator desires to accomplish his object, he need not feign, he commands. Fictions of law owe their origin to the legislative usurpations of the bench.

It is said that every fiction must be framed according to the rules of law, and that every legal fiction must have equity for its object. To prevent their evil effects, they are not allowed to be carried further than the reasons which introduced them necessarily require.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f111.htm
 
EXTORTION UNDER COLOR OF OFFICIAL RIGHT

The wrongful taking by a public officer of money or property not due to him or his office, whether or not the taking was accomplished by force, threats, or use of fear. In other words, the wrongful use of otherwise valid official power may convert lawful action into unlawful extortion. So, if a public official misuses his office by threatening to take or withhold official action for the wrongful purpose of inducing a victim to part with property, such a threat would constitute extortion even though the official was already duty bound to take or withhold the action in question.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e072.htm


TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY

The phrase "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses") is used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule. It involves a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests above those of an individual or minority group, constituting active oppression comparable to that of a tyrant or despot. In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious or racial group is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the democratic process.

Supermajority rules, constitutional limits on the powers of a legislative body, and the introduction of a Bill of Rights have been used to counter the problem. A separation of powers may also be implemented to prevent the problem from happening internally in a government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority


OCHLOCRACY

Ochlocracy (Greek: ὀχλοκρατία, okhlokratía; Latin: ochlocratia) or mob rule is the rule of government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of legitimate authorities. As a pejorative for majoritarianism, it is akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus meaning "the fickle crowd", from which the English term "mob" was originally derived in the 1680s.

Ochlocracy ("rule of the general populace") is democracy ("rule of the people") spoiled by demagoguery, "tyranny of the majority", and the rule of passion over reason, just as oligarchy ("rule of a few") is aristocracy ("rule of the best") spoiled by corruption, and tyranny is monarchy spoiled by lack of virtue. Ochlocracy is synonymous in meaning and usage to the modern, informal term "mobocracy", which emerged from a much more recent colloquial etymology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy


ESTOPPEL

Estoppel in pais (literally “by act of notoriety", or "solemn formal act”) is the historical root of common law estoppel by representation and equitable estoppel. The terms Estoppel in pais and equitable estoppel are used interchangeably in American law.
Convention

Estoppel by convention in English law (also known as estoppel by agreement) occurs where two parties negotiate or operate a contract but make a mistake. If they share an assumption, belief, or understanding of the contract's interpretation or legal effect, then they are bound by it, if: They both knew the other had the same belief, and They both based their subsequent dealings on those beliefs.

Estoppel by convention is most commonly invoked if one party wishes to rely on pre-contract negotiation as an aid to construction of the contract.[27]

It is debatable whether estoppel by convention is a separate estoppel doctrine, or merely a case of reliance-based estoppel (estoppel by representation would be its most frequent form), or of the rule of interpretation that, where words in a contract are ambiguous, one always interprets those words so as to give effect to the actual intentions of the parties even if that would not be the usual legal outcome (see Amalgamated Investment and Property Co. Ltd. v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd [1982] QB 84).

Estoppel by acquiescence may arise when one person gives a legal warning to another based on some clearly asserted facts or legal principle, and the other does not respond within "a reasonable period of time". By acquiescing, the other person is generally considered to have lost the legal right to assert the contrary.

As an example, suppose that Jill has been storing her car on Jack's land with no contract between them. Jack sends a registered letter to Jill's legal address, stating: "I am no longer willing to allow your car to stay here for free. Please come get your car, or make arrangements to pay me rent for storing it. If you do not do so, within 30 days, I will consider the car abandoned and will claim ownership of it. If you need more time to make arrangements, please contact me within 30 days, and we can work something out." If Jill does not respond, she may be said to have relinquished her ownership of the car, and estoppel by acquiescence may prevent any court from invalidating Jack's actions of registering the car in his name and using it as his own.

Estoppel by deed is a rule of evidence arising from the status of a contract signed under seal—such agreements, called deeds, are more strictly enforced than ordinary contracts and the parties are expected to take greater care to verify the contents before signing them. Hence, once signed, all statements of fact (usually found in the opening recital which sets out the reason(s) for making the deed) are conclusive evidence against the parties who are estopped from asserting otherwise.

Conflict estoppel ~ "[O]ne who by his speech or conduct has induced another to act in a particular manner ought not be permitted to adopt an inconsistent position, attitude or course of conduct may not be adopted to loss or injury of another".[28] For example, as between two or more claimants, a party that takes multiple and inconsistent legal positions is estopped to assert its positions against another consistent and certain claim, i.e. preferential treatment for certain over uncertain claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estopple


ACQUIESCENCE

In law, acquiescence occurs when a person knowingly stands by without raising any objection to the infringement of their rights, while someone else unknowingly and without malice aforethought makes a claim on their rights. Consequently, the person whose rights are infringed loses the ability to make a claim against the infringer, or succeed in an injunction suit due to the infringer's conduct. The term is most generally a kind of "permission" given by silence or passiveness

The common law doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence is applied when one party gives legal notice to a second party of a fact or claim, and the second party fails to challenge or refute that claim within a reasonable time. The second party is said to have acquiesced to the claim, and is estopped from later challenging it, or making a counterclaim. The doctrine is different from, estoppel by laches to the extent that a lache may be involuntary but acquiescence involves an intentional act of the party who is accused of acquiescence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquiescence


UCC §3-505. EVIDENCE OF DISHONOR.

(a) The following are admissible as evidence and create a presumption of dishonor and of any notice of dishonor stated:
(1) a document regular in form as provided in subsection (b) which purports to be a protest;
(2) a purported stamp or writing of the drawee, payor bank, or presenting bank on or accompanying the instrument stating that acceptance or payment has been refused unless reasons for the refusal are stated and the reasons are not consistent with dishonor;
(3) a book or record of the drawee, payor bank, or collecting bank, kept in the usual course of business which shows dishonor, even if there is no evidence of who made the entry.
(b) A protest is a certificate of dishonor made by a United States consul or vice consul, or a notary public or other person authorized to administer oaths by the law of the place where dishonor occurs. It may be made upon information satisfactory to that person. The protest must identify the instrument and certify either that presentment has been made or, if not made, the reason why it was not made, and that the instrument has been dishonored by nonacceptance or nonpayment. The protest may also certify that notice of dishonor has been given to some or all parties.

[Burnaby49]

Well, that was a dumpster load of crazy. If Allen is right about name copyrighting then he owes J. D. Rooke a king's ransom. He seems obsessed, past any vestige of reason, with Rooke's name.

He still can't stop playing his losing hand that his unrebutted assertions work even though they have never worked with anyone he's sent them to. Since Rooke won't answer a pile of questions on demand Boisjoli wins. Out here in the real world this is turning from farce into tragedy as Boisjoli digs a hole he's not going to be climbing out of.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Well, that was a dumpster load of crazy. If Allen is right about name copyrighting then he owes J. D. Rooke a king's ransom. He seems obsessed, past any vestige of reason, with Rooke's name.

He still can't stop playing his losing hand that his unrebutted assertions work even though they have never worked with anyone he's sent them to. Since Rooke won't answer a pile of questions on demand Boisjoli wins. Out here in the real world this is turning from farce into tragedy as Boisjoli digs a hole he's not going to be climbing out of.

He seems to be using Q as a spring board to post his rantings ad nauseam. That might be fine if he actively responded to comments about his rantings, but Allen seems to be more of a 'hit and run" poster.

[Dr. Caligari]

8. Do you actually believe you have the power and authority to block a man from accessing Queens Bench court J. D. Rooke?

Well, let's find out. Why don't you, Allen Nelson Boisjoli, try to access the Court of Queen's Bench in violation of Justice Rooke's order, and we'll see if he had the power to enter his order.

I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said, and I'm paraphrasing slightly, that experience is a harsh teacher but some men will learn from no other.

9. I have acknowledgement, acceptance from the Queen of my CSA, so attempting to create policy to the contrary is probably not a good career move for you.

You know, Allen Nelson Boisjoli, you and I have a difference of opinion here. I believe that violating Justice Rooke's order will not be a good career move for you.

[notorial dissent]

What a buttload of crunchy cray cray goodness all in two tidy little piles.

You know, Allen Nelson Boisjoli, you and I have a difference of opinion here. I believe that violating Justice Rooke's order will not be a good career move for you.

Perhaps not, but it will certainly be entertaining for those of us sitting back and watching.