Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

A,LIO?9 ?ili6 s


(RULE B-1 (4))

ln the Supreme Court of British Columbia


Darcy Delainey, Wonser De-Gbon


His Worship the Mayor Gregor Robertson


Name(s) of applicant{s):


His Worship the Mayor Gregor Robertson

^ uuohECElVEL)




IJa. t:.

'N-6.' i

f t 'I'rt











. ::r;',. i i. " tn*;A-


.i,,, j

;l",t:: ;{i

s-165441j"' :lltf

Vancouver Registry










Risk Management

AUG 21 20t6


TAKE NOTICE that an application will be made by the applicant(s) to the presiding judge or master at the

courthouse at 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, British Columbia


forthe order(s) set out in Part I below.


fiJsing numbered parographs, set out the order(s) that will be sought at the application and indicate agoinst which party(ies) the order(s) is(are) sought.l

I We seek to proceed civilly with our complaint that as Electoral District Officers of the Marijuana Party [of

Canadal that we are all protected as being private individuals, who should be respected as equals in order to get a fair treatment in this civil proceeding, as being equals before and under the law [Sec 15 - Charter of

Rights and Freedoms. FURTHERMORE: Our Sec I Charter rights are being trampled because we are being denied common law rights as prescribed by law -[R v Therens], in a free and democratic society -[R v Oakes].

It's self evident that the legal department for the Mayor would like to ignore these facts, as somehow no



to ignore this R v Smith /SCC ruling, where under positive law, we are obligated to protect our RUBRIC.

Somehow, the City and the CDSA have given themselves the right to hold the authority to obstruct our

26August201 1

Page 1 of4

guarantee to stand under the fact that with this R v Smith ruling we can fulfill our RUBRIC, in order to protect the public trust, which is being subverted by this opposite and arbitrary Maritime definition of protecting Public Safety [under NATO treaty obligations like TPP, NAFTA etc


/ This right to equality is being subverted by acting under an erroneous colour of right [under Sec 59 CC SEDITIONI to conspire by advocating the use, without the authority of law, of force, as a means of

accomplishing a governmentalchange

(1) TRAFFICKING lN PERSONSI They hold no authority to control our common law movements.

by insisting on challenging a given in Law NAMELY: [under Sec279

2 This court ruling needs to address the fact that the lawyer for Jody Wilson Raybould is introducing a civil petition ruling against Marc Boyer, by the BC Law Society. The City keeps calling trying to construe an argument that Marc Boyer is being paid, or is acting like a lawyer. We keep insisting that he is not our

lawyer, and we have never paid him any remuneration of any sort. He is a rron-signing officer in our Electoral District [EDA], and his position is as an electoral campaign agent. His activities in this case fall

withinthisentitlement. lnthiscaseheisactingasafriendofthecourt,andwewill

Green [who is CFA for VKMP] as a friend of the coutt.


It should be noted that Marc Boyer's political defenses have caused 2 CEOs of Election Canada to resign over his political issues, and frankly this Justice Bennette case that Mr Khan calls relevant actually caused Marc Mayrand to resign. Apparently the Crown and the City are relying on belng classified as an OPCA for

his faith /religious beliefs, as being the reason for punishing /convicting him lwhich actually caused these

CEOs to resign, because these Provincial Court rulings are challenging the very integrity of His Office.

Our EDA is totally autonomous from Marc Boyer personal positions [and to show this, our dispensary has never bought any cookies from his remarcablefoods bakery, because we have an EDA /dispensary policy of no cookies since openingl Marc Boyer, has been important in writing these articles, but he is pressing our

EDA's position, by deliberately not making any OPCA /religious claims in our court filings, because the

courts at face value hold prejudice toward any OPCA victim of Justice.

ln the regard to suing a representative, we identify Mr lain Dixon, as being liable for pressing this second case file 5-166352 as being applicable, except for the faqt that under the Elections Act, an EDA cannot sue,

or be sued [monetarilyl; so we are not insisting on a payment for filing this case, as long as it's dismissed.


lUsing numbered paragraphs, set out a brief summary of the facts supporting the altplicotion.)

I ln regard to our Sec 1 Charter of Rights defense: We will adhere to our position held in our original notice of civil claim, filed on May 27th,2016.

ln regard to our claim of being victimized by what these courts call frivolous and vexatious litigants, who are apparently motivated by fear of losing Federal funding for anything that occurs when they don't

support this conspiracy to destroy the Elections Act itself. lt's actually called Treason to succeed, but in the

meantime Sedition is sufficient a cause to have this file S-166352 be struck down,

|f any party sues or is sued in a representative capacity, identify the party and describe the representative capacity.)


[Using numbered paragraphs, specify any rule or other enactment relied on and provide s brief summary of any other legal arguments on which the applicant(s) intend(s) to rely in support of the orders sought.l

1 THE Clry OF VANCOUVER has had no Registrar since last year. No respectful Registrar would have

permitted Mr. Dixon to proceed with this second claim. The issue is basic, we seek to be treated as equals, under Sec 15 of the Charter, and that means the City cannot trash our right to protect our political beliefs, when the motive behind this is that they consider these beliefs wrong or false.

26August201 1

Page 2 of4

ON THIS: Our political positions are fully supported under our positive law interpretation of R v Smith /SCC ruling of 2015-06-11. It's self evident that no one in Maritime Authority respects this decision and frankly this general policy is actually called a seditious conspiracy to undermine and accomplish a governmental

change within Canada.


llJsing numbered paragrophs, list the affidavits served with the notice of application and any other affidavits and other documents already in the court file on which the applicant(s) will rely. Each affidavit included on the list must

be identified as follows:

'Affidavit #

[n a m e)



m ad e

number,if ony,recordedinthetoprighthandcornerof theaffidavit]


d/ m m m/yyyy]




- of t2,- ,-" i,

The applicanttsl estimate(r rn

Do: /u-,:, -,ug,



August 22,20106


[Check the correct box.]

f] This matter is within the jurisdiction of the master.


This matter is not within the jurisdiction of a master.

TO THE PERSONS RECEIVING THIS NOTICE OF APPLICATION: lf you wish to respond to this notice of application, you must, within 5 business days after service of this notice of application or, if this application is brought under

Rule 9-7, within 8 business days after service of this notice of application,

(a) file an application response in Form 33,

(b) file the original of every affidavit, and of every other document, that

(i) you intend to refer to at the hearing of this application, and

(ii) has not already been filed in the proceeding, and

(c) serve on the applicant 2 copies of the following, and on every other party of record one copy of the


(i) a copy of the filed application response;

(ii) a copy of each of the filed affidavits and other documents that you intend to refer to at the hearing of

this application and that has not already been served on that person;

(iii) if this application is brought under Rule 9-7, any notice that you are required to give under

Rule 9-7 (9).

- "''"^-

" ''



ffi Applicant

Darcy Delainey

I Lawyer for applicant(s)

26August201 1

Page 3 of4


case file no: S-1 65441

TAKE NOTE - We filed this Civil Claim on June 14,2016 - We are establishing new case precedent to legalize the common law activity of selling marijuana under Sec 1 of the Charter

and this new law Sec 279(1) CC - Please discern this court filing carefully. lt's a very detailed

1O-page Civil Claim that is actually the precedent setting case, where

EDA can be repeat this anywhere in Canada, in order to legalize medical marijuana NOW.


this victory] any

https ://www. scri bd. com/d ocu m e nU3 1 5762 5 34A/G M P-B C-C ivi l-C la im -fi le-S- 1 6 544 1

We finally can post on our


sales and cultivation [under common law jurisdiction] under our R v Smith /SCC ruling .

VGMP civil case, [it's not in private chambers]




is where we're setting precedent to legalize cannabis

https //www. scri bd. com/d ocu ment/32 1 98987 1 A/G M P-Posti n g-AU G22 -

[it's only 2-pages] Be inspired and register a local EDA Office [Electoral DistrictAssociation].

This Facebook /posted video is a very good explanation on our EDA


legal position in

layman's terms - https://www.facebook.com/remarcablefoods/videos/10153734086452596/

This Facebook /posted video was done before we filed this civil claim

https : //www. faceboo k. com/rem a rca b lefood s/vid eos/1 0 1 5 3667342 797596/

it explains Sec 279 (1) CC Trafficking in Persons in practice.

Go to Facebook on the following pages to see what Marc Boyer's other interests are.

MAIN PAGE: https://www.facebook.com/remarcablefoods

Marijuana Party https.//www.facebook.comA/OTE-MarUuana-Par1y-in-Canada-1483299i


Occ u py Wo rl d https ://www. facebook. com/occu py. wo rld. va n/

Magna Carta https://www facebook.com/Magna-Carta-Rallies-Festivals-10380778228768S5/

Peace on Earth https://www.facebook.com/Peace-on-Earth-289513931424763/?fref=ts

rem a rca b lefoods https : //www. facebook. com/Rem a rca b lefood s 1 /?f ref=ts

Our Living Water Co-op https://www.facebook.com/OurlivingWater/

CONTACT INFO: Marc Boyer as GFA for the following EDAs - Vancouver Quadra, Vancouver East - Vancouver South - West Vancouver, Sunshine Coast, Sea to Sky Country

PHONE: 778-707-7461 EMAIL: increationwetrust@qmail.com

Marijuana Party [of Canada] -


website http.//www.marUuanaparty.calindex.en.php3

Leader: Blair Longley

contact 514-725-8103 info@marijuanapartv.ca