Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2





( RULES 12-s (1s) AND



22-4 (4) AND (s) )





Risk Management


Vancouver Registry


ln the Supreme Court of British Columbia

Darcy Delainey as CFA and Wonser De-Gbon as CEO of VGMP

Bill Blair, as Parliamentary Assistant to the AG


,r,AU&,l 2







Worship Gregor Robertson, Mayor of Vancouver BC

Bill Blair, as Parliamentary Assistant to the AG
,lody Wilson-Raybould, as our elected Member of Parliament for Vancouver Granville

Darcy Delainey


fAKE NOTICE that We seek a ruling to have Bill Blair and Jody Wilson-Raybould, as our MP explain themselves'
ln a July 27, Notice, Mr. Khan insists that Bill Blair cannot appear, and .Jody Wilson-Raybould
cannot participate, by creating a fictitious straw man called DELAYNEY, Darcy et al, which is a
violation of Sec 15 of the Charter of being treated as equal before and under the law. As we
see it, we will be deprived of a right to a fair civil proceeding without striking this obstruction
We were delayed from filing on or before the 35-day window [in this case file] because we
were waiting for a letter from our MP, which we received a few days later [as to the point
abovel and then a new case file was served, by a lawyer for the City called Mr. Dixon, who
started a separate Petition [case file no. S - 166352]. As we see it, this tactic of totally
ignoring this Civil Claim, results where ultimately Gregor Robertson is actually condoning
therefore violating Sec279 CC by insisting that we are an ALL CAPITAL ENTITY;
ln other words, the City is insisting that it holds jurisdiction over our Electoral District Offices.
FURTHERMORE the timing of these actions implies a seditious conspiracy by Jody Wilson
Raybould [the AGI Gregor Robertson and Bill BIair to advocate the abuse of power without
the authority of law [Sec 59 CC - Seditious conspiracyl and in so doing are insisting on
accomplishing fundamental governmental change in Canada.
ON THIS: We are standing under the law being Supreme. As officers of a recognized Loyal
Opposition Party, under the Elections Act, has always meant that we hold fundamental rights
to protect our beliefs from any City intrusion. We seek protection under positive law to
uphold our RUBRIC under R v Smith /SCC. The time honored way to accomplish this is by-




Solicitor for

His Worship Gregor Robertson, Mayor of


Page 1 of2

insisting that this BC Supreme Court respect our 'no jurisdiction defense' as fundamental.
lN CONCLUSION: We seekto proceed as equals, in private chambers, if you desire.
We are asking this court to strike this pending case file no. S - 166352, as being frivolous and
or vexatious, and proceed to set a court date, at the earliest opportunity.

intend(s) to proceed with this proceeding.


lawyer for filing party(ies)

Darcy Delainey

August 23'.d,2016 ATTACHMENT [add-on] to this filing

- we are not posting the affidavit is 3 pages that refer to an

- this notice below was emailed this morning
appendix of documentation of 30
- a formal court date should be coming up by the weekend

- we filed this form 44 filing yesterday





Courtesy Notice to lain Dixon,

RE - Case file # S-'1 65441 and case file # S- '166352

Respond by accepting our call later today and follow thru with a response in writing,
- the main purpose of this call is to set a court date that works with you.
We would like to know your response as to the City of Vancouver position with our filing S-1 65441.
As you are now aware by our delivery of the NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PROCEED to your office on
August 22,2016 that we are alarmed by your office receptionist refusing to stamp proof of service.
We left a copy of this filing as a courtesy and please note of the date-stamp from the City of Vancouver
Risk Management registers this filing as served. We see no value in filing with the registrar when this city
has not had one in over a year. As we see it, this city cannot find a registrar, or this second filing would
never had been permitted. This lack of a city clerk certification means you are taking on personal liability,
so bring our check book with you, when we appear in the next court appearances.
Our filing of Civil case # ( S-165441) precedes your [filing and] delayed serving of this filing S-166352.
As we see it, proceeding with S-166352 constitutes a clear violation of Sec 59 CC - seditious conspiracy,
and Sec 279 CC - trafficking in our person, and frankly under Sec16 - you are legally insane forfailing to
see the obvious harm created by omitting the obvious that <<no City can do what you are trying to impose
on our EDA>> b y implementing a criminal policy when 'no City holds jurisdiction to arbitrarily preclude us
from protecting our RUBRIC' - and in so doing you actually are committing crimes [as prescribed by law]
because [after this R v Smith SCC ruling] no city has jurisdiction to obstruct our political activity because
we are a Federally recognized Party. Therefore, we recommend that your S-166352 be dropped as it is
trampling on our Electoral District Association rights.

As prescribed by law, in our Party's official policy - every EDA is autonomous, and we stand under our
political guarantees to protect this EDA's multicultural beliefs. Our EDA does not promote any OPCA
positions , because apparently they don't work.
Yours Sincerely.