Docket: 16-T-34
Citation:
2016 FC 1260
Vancouver, British Columbia, November 15, 2016
PRESENT: Prothonotary Roger R. Lafrenière
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
ALLEN BOISJOLI
HOLDINGS
|
|
Plaintiff
|
|
and
|
|
PHOTINI
PAPADOPTU ACTING
AS CROWN
COUNCIL,
RAY GERRARD
ACTING AS DETECTIVE- EDMONTON POLICE SERVICES,
EDMONTON
POLICE SERVICES,
ALBERTA
SPECIALIZED PROSECUTIONS UNIT, ALBERTA JUSTICE SERVICES,
GOVERNMENT OF
ALBERTA,
JANE DOE,
JOHN DOE, ET. AL.
|
|
Defendants
|
ORDER AND REASONS
[1]
On November 7, 2016, Mr. Allen Boisjoli tendered
three documents for filing at the Registry’s Edmonton Local Office on behalf of
Allen Boisjoli Holdings. The documents are entitled: “Statement of Claim”,
“Bill of Lading” and “Certified Promissory Payment Instrument”. Mr. Boisjoli
subsequently submitted a letter on November 8, 2016 to address a concern raised
by the Registry regarding his choice of venue.
[2]
The documents were referred to the Court for
directions pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Courts Rules. This Rule
requires the Administrator to refer any document to a judge or prothonotary
which, in the opinion of the Administrator, is not in the form required by the Rules
or when other conditions precedent to its filing have not been fulfilled.
[3]
For the reasons that follow, I conclude that the
three documents should be rejected for filing.
I.
Background
[4]
To place the Registry’s request for directions
in proper context, the entire body of the statement of claim is reproduced
below.
Statement
of Claim
ON AND FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD:
Comes now, a man
commonly known as Allen-Nelson of the Boisjoli family, I come as Trustee for
foreign Trust #983170-321522-193058 a.k.a. ALLEN BOISJOLI dba ALLEN BOISJOLI
HOLDINGS.
1.) We claim that
between April 22, 2016 and the present certain individuals namely Photini Papadoptu,
and/or Ray Gerrard, and/or other unknown individuals acting as public servants
who are, or were, employed by Edmonton Police Services, and/or Alberta
Specialized Prosecutions Unit, and/or Alberta Justice Services, and/or
Government of Alberta, and/or unknown Crown Corporations, did unlawfully commit
theft of trust property, corporate espionage; did use trust property without
authorization; did falsely arrest; did kidnap and unlawfully
detain/confine/incarcerate; did slander & libel on national news media, the
Trustee Allen Nelson of the Boisjoli family; and, did intimidate & extort
said Trustee under color of law in order to obstruct justice and unlawfully
discharge liability for a debt owed by a Peace Officer employed at the time,
directly or indirectly by the Government of Alberta for prior unauthorized use
of trust property, false statements of fact, creation of a colorable persona
under color of authority, unlawful detainment and coercion of the Trustee.
Public servant
refusing to deliver property §337: Every one who, being or having been employed in the service of
Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province, or in the service of a
municipality, and entrusted by virtue of that employment with the receipt,
custody, management or control of anything, refuses or fails to deliver it to a
person who is authorized to demand it and does demand it is guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen
years. - R.S., c. C-34, s. 297.
Deprivation of
rights under color of law: Whoever, under color
of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any
person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to
the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected
by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments,
pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of
his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if
bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or
if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous
weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in
violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to
kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual
abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned
for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. -
18 U.S. Code §242
"Consent
makes the law."(A contract is a law between
parties, which can acquire force only by consent.) – Consensus facit legem.
- Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856
"A
benefit is not conferred on one who is unwilling to receive it. That is to say,
no one can be compelled to accept a benefit” - Invito
beneficium non datur. - Blacks Law Dictionary Revised 4th
Edition Pg.961
"That
which is ours cannot be transferred to another without our act (consent)" - Id quod nostrum est sine facto nostro ad alium transferri non
protest. -Blacks Law Dictionary Revised 4th Edition Pg. 879
"The
power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is
derived" - Derativa potestas non potest
esse major primitiva. - Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856
"An equal has no dominion over an equal" - Par inparem imperium non habet. - Blacks Law Dictionary 7th
Edition Pg. 1673
Cure and
Maintenance/Relief Sought:
We require
compensation for trespass and damages in the form of an order of the Federal
Court for monetary compensation in the amount indicated in the
attached/enclosed Bill of Lading within a reasonable amount of time, set as
thirty (30) days, or as ordered by the Justice presiding.
Definitions:
Color: An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, as distinguished from
that which Is real. A prima facie or apparent right. Hence, a deceptive
appearance; a plausible, assumed exterior, concealing a lack of reality; a
disguise or pretext. - Blacks Law online dictionary
Under color of
law: This phrase means with the apparent
authority of the law but it actually conflicts with the law. - Blacks Law
online dictionary
Color of
Authority: That semblance or presumption of
authority sustaining the acts of a public officer which is derived from his
apparent title to the office or from a writ or other process in his hands
apparently valid and regular. - Blacks Law online dictionary
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.- www.lectlaw.com/def/e072.htm
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.
-http://www.lectlaw.com/def/fl 11.htm
Foreign-situs
trust: a trust created under foreign law. Such
trusts are treated as a non-resident individual ...Foreign-situs trusts are
also called foreign trusts or offshore trusts. - USLegal.com
Commonwealth: The modern Commonwealth is an association of 52 countries, most
with historic links to the United Kingdom, and home to two billion citizens,
almost 30 per cent of the world's population. It is the world's oldest
political association of sovereign states. - Global Affairs Canada
Legal Maxim - "An established principle or proposition. A principle of
law universally admitted as being just and consonant with reason. Maxims in Jaw
are somewhat like axioms in geometry. They are principles and authorities, and
part of the general customs or common law of the land; and are of the same
strength as acts of parliament ..." http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m096.htm
Claimant:
Without
prejudice, ill-will, vexation, or frivolity,
For: TRUST#
983170-321522-193058 (EIN# 98-0692059) A.K.A. ALLEN BOISJOLI™ DBA ALLEN
BOISJOLI HOLDINGS™
By:
Allen-Nelson of
the Boisjoli family
Divinus Partum, Deus Genus, Autonomous Free-will Man,
Creditor, Trustee
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
Colombia, 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.
[5]
In an undated letter received by the Registry on
November 8, 2016, Mr. Boisjoli explains why the trust, Allen Boisjoli Holdings,
selected the Federal Court as the proper venue for pursuing its claim against
various public servants of Alberta.
The clerk of the court here in Edmonton
[here] has expressed
some concern that I may be filing
in the wrong venue
and asked me to write a brief explanation.
I
have 3 points to express
on this matter.
1. I am foreign, my trust is foreign. This is essentially an international contract
dispute. When one researches a foreign sites trust you will find that the laws where the trust was
formed is what shall govern it.
2. The respondents are all employed by or a
part of the Government of Alberta. This is a tort vs. Crown Corporations and
employees.
3. I am unable to file in Queens Bench as
there are members of that judiciary that are involved, which will be revealed
through this claim. It would be silly of me to file a claim against these
public servants in their own court.
Therefore I [beelieve] the Federal Court would not only be the proper venue for this claim,
but essentially the only venue that would be [aable] to settle this in my humble opinion.
[6]
The simple issue before me is whether the
documents tendered by Mr. Boisjoli should be accepted for filing.
II.
Analysis
[7]
This is the fourth time I have had to deal with
documents tendered by Mr. Boisjoli on behalf of an entity identified as a
trust.
[8]
On May 2, 2014, Mr. Boisjoli tendered a
statement of claim, a surety bond and an affidavit with attachment, signed by
“Allen-Nelson of the Boisjoli family”, at the Edmonton Registry. Directions
were issued to the Registry the same day directing that the documents be
rejected on the grounds that:
“…the named plaintiff (a trust) cannot be represented by an
individual. Although a proceeding may be brought by a trustee as representing
the trust and its beneficiaries, a party who acts or seeks to act in a
representative capacity must be represented by a solicitor: Rule 121.”
[9]
On May 12, 2014, Mr. Boisjoli attempted a second
time to file substantially similar documents which were previously rejected, as
well as a document entitled “Commercial Security Agreement”. Once again,
Directions were issued to the Registry to reject the documents as follows:
For essentially
the same reasons as set out in the Court’s Directions issued on May 2, 2014
pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Courts Rules, the statement of claim,
surety bond, affidavit and other documents tendered via e-filing by
“Allen-Nelson of the Boisjoli family” shall be rejected for filing. It is not
open to a party to waive any court rules or procedures as such function can only
be performed by the Court.
[10]
On June 2, 2014, Mr. Boisjoli persisted in his
attempt to file the same documents with the Registry, this time accompanied by
new documents entitled “Counter Offer”, “Notice of Copyright/International
Service/Security Agreement” and “Bill of Lading”. The following Directions were
issued on June 6, 2014:
For essentially the same reasons as set out in the Court’s
Directions issued on May 5 and 12, 2014 pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal
Courts Rules, the documents tendered by “Allen-Nelson of the Boisjoli
family” on June 2, 2014 shall be rejected for filing. The Registry is
authorized to reject any similar documents tendered by Mr. Boisjoli without
seeking further directions of the Court.
[11]
What followed was a lengthy period of silence
from Mr. Boisjoli, at least in the
Federal Court. I have taken judicial notice, however, of the Judgment of
Associate Chief
Justice J.D. Rooke of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (ACQB) in Re
Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 629 (CanLII), which was the consequence of Mr.
Boisjoli’s attempts to enter what he purported was a default judgment that he
delivered to the ACQB on September 25, 2015.
[12]
At paragraph 19 of his decision, ACJ Rooke noted
that Mr. Boisjoli had been previously tried and convicted of criminal
intimidation and harassment and had targeted government workers. He further
observed at paragraph 105, that Mr. Boisjoli’s documents “appear to be adapted from a template, and that his failures
to replace target names suggests he has at least two more parallel Three/Five
Letters actions in the works”. ACJ Rooke concluded that Mr. Boisjoli
should have no right to file material in any Alberta court. Mr. Boisjoli was
declared a vexatious litigant and restricted from accessing Alberta courts
based on his history of attempts to misuse court procedure in Alberta “to further a criminal enterprise.”
[13]
On October 30, 2015, ACJ Rooke issued
Supplementary Reasons for Decision further restricting Mr. Boisjoli’s ability
to communicate with the ACQB: Re Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 690 (CanLII)
[14]
Having been rebuffed by the Alberta courts, Mr.
Boisjoli now returns to this Court for a fourth time to attempt to file what
can best be described as spurious and ineffective documents. This is clearly a continuation
of a pattern of criminal intimidation and harassment by
Mr. Boisjoli of government employees. It is also somewhat reminiscent of the
history of vexatious litigation instigated by another self-represented
litigant, Mr. Roger Callow, who turned to the Federal Court (Court File Nos.
T-1386-11 and T-2360-14) after the British Columbia courts repeatedly closed
the door on him.
[15]
In West Vancouver School District No 45 v
Callow, 2014 ONSC 2547 (CanLII),
Mr. Justice McKinnon made the following comments, which are completely apt to
this present case:
Roger Callow is a
litigant possessed of seemingly inexhaustible stamina. His behaviour
suggests that he views the Canadian court system as something akin to a
perpetual, all-day, all you can eat buffet. Having been rebuked by the
courts and tribunals of British Columbia, the Federal Court of Canada and the
Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Callow has now taken aim at Ontario. Ontario
lacks the jurisdiction to deal with his case. As a result, Mr. Callow’s
litigation must be stopped. Now.
[16]
The Court must be vigilant when exercising its gatekeeping
role under Rule 72. The Court should not tolerate any abuse of its process or
lend any assistance to a party intent on bringing a frivolous, malicious and
vexatious proceeding.
[17]
The statement of claim tendered by Mr. Boisjoli
shall accordingly be rejected for filing on the grounds that it is not in the
form prescribed by the Rules; it does not comply with Rules 173,
174, 181(1) and 182; and it is brought in a representative capacity by a
non-lawyer, contrary to Rule 119. The statement of claim would have been
rejected, in any event, as to allow it to be filed would assist Mr. Boisjoli in
furthering his criminal enterprise.
[18]
I further direct that the documents entitled
“Bill of Lading” and “Certified Promissory Payment Instrument” be rejected as
there is no provision in the Rules for filing such documents.
[19]
The Registry is instructed to forward a copy of
this Order, along with copies of
all retained materials that were tendered by Mr. Boisjoli on May 2, 2014, May
12, 2014,
June 2, 2014 and November 7, 2016, to the local office of the federal
Department of Justice and the Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General of
Alberta to determine whether an application should be made pursuant to Section
40 of the Federal Courts Act to declare Mr. Boisjoli a vexatious
litigant. In the interim, I consider it just and appropriate to place certain
limits on
Mr. Boisjoli, consistent with those put in place by ACJ Rooke.
[20]
Mr. Boisjoli will be restricted from filing or
continuing any proceedings in the Federal Court, other than an appeal of this
Order. Mr. Boisjoli will also be prohibited from attending at any Registry
office of the Federal Court and from any communication, direct or indirect, by
any means, with a judge, prothonotary, registry officer, clerk, or any other
employee of the
Courts Administration Service, except, for proper purpose, by email to the
address
EDM-CORRESPOND@cas-satj.gc.ca.
Email this Content