July 6th, 2015

UNDER PROTEST

CASE FILE

2040:233368-1

Personally hand delivered to the Crown and the Courts at 222 Main St. [before appearing in court]

Summation: Providing a backgrounder for no jurisdiction on the Joe Fortt /Weeds Glass and Gifts
1. The Crown erred in law by pressing a Federal warrant and charges onto Joe Fortt, because
they failed /omitted to respect [before and after the fact] that VSMP had taken Weeds Glass
and Gifts [line-2 of the warrant and the charges] @ 2580 Kingsway out of the BC registry, and
VSMP filed it as a blue zone commercial premise under Elections Canada. In so doing, the
raids were totally unconstitutional, and frankly by the Crown dodging these charges is actually
proof that those who raided our EDA agency and everyone who fails to fix this mess are
making themselves liable to face serious charges under the Criminal Code [not the Police Act
or any others society rules] because it's a crime of Criminal Breach of Fiduciary Trust to refuse
to recognize the Elections Act as Supreme, and frankly this trust mandates any entity to uphold
our common law application of 'what is prescribed by law' [R v Therens] in order to protect our
common law application of 'Free and Democratic Society' [R v Oakes], under our common law
application of Sec 1 of our Charter of Rights guarantees.
1. Item 2 on the list of evidence confiscated are EDA and Marijuana Party membership forms,
so [other than incompetence] there is no way the Crown or the arresting officers should not
have known this EDA status BUT frankly, the foot soldiers /arresting police can trespass
any jurisdiction line they want with impunity, under Civilian Oversight, so no personal
liability that any officer undertook can be only handled under their internal affairs unit.
BUT this shameless practice does not release the Crown /AG /BAR from liability tho.
2. The Crown is caught in a trap [in law, a lawyer can't entrap the Crown but we're not lawyers]
It simply cannot be ruled vexatious, when we're insisting that standing case law is Supreme.
1. Again, this trap was sealed by the Crown, because she waited till the end to file charges.
2. ON THIS: The Crown can legally create a trap, where they invite 'ordinary residents' to
enter into a conflict, by giving this resident no choice but to appear before a Federal Court
[Maritime jurisdiction], on Federal charges, BUT then this has not been overturned yet.
3. We also accept that [in law] had Joe Fortt [as an EDA Officer] accepted to enter this trap,
that he would be inadvertently waving his rights to be governed under common law.
4. ALSO - Had the Crown pressed the charges earlier, or offered Joe Fortt a choice to go to
BCSC would have resulted where the Crown could have proceeded with the charges,
1. BUT this liability was created by the Crown squandering this option to got BCSC.
3.

GET OVER IT, THE TRAP BACKFIRED: We're not challenging any law; we're insisting that
the law is very clear on the Court's duty to recognize our jurisdiction issues before proceeding
1. The underlying problem is this: when the Crown takes a big gamble, means
when /if it is challenged, then there's a big price to pay, especially in this case.
2. There is no way around it: Joe Fortt [who clearly is standing under common law jurisdiction
as an Officer of our recognized Federal Party] cannot be forced by any Authority to appear
on any charges that drag us before this Federal [Maritime jurisdiction] Court.
3. The Federal Courts are directly forbidden to accept any case when this jurisdictional issue
is pressed AND frankly the Crown and Duty Council need to be charged for their corrupt
practices played out in Room 307 and Room 102 on June 29, 2015 at 222 Main Street.

4. Frankly the only solution to this mess, created by this entrapment backfiring, is by standing
under 'what is prescribed by law' and accept a plea of 'no contest' at the arraignment,
1. THEN, this Court must drop the charges because there is no jurisdiction to proceed,
2. AND address the substantive damage claims created by several unlawful seizures.
3. There's no way around it: It's this payment that the Crown will do anything to avoid paying

1. In law, they must pay it, and this payment totally legalizes our Marijuana Party's
guarantee to protect our RUBRIC [as we said] there's big consequences to this backfire
5. Failure of any entity to comply with the Elections Act being Supreme is a crime, by
itself.
1. In law, no body in Maritime jurisdiction can force any individual of the Marijuana Party to be
charged [when operating under common law jurisdiction under our Freedom of Contract],
and then force them to only appear in Federal Court under Maritime Law, when doing so
would deprive this individual of benefiting from any BCSC case law precedents.
2. The entire notion of forcing our officers /agents to appear in Maritime Court is legal insanity
1. [Sec 15 CC] NAMELY: Failing to see the obvious harm created by omitting the obvious.
2. Think about it. The consequences of not recognizing our jurisdictional claim here holds
irrevocable consequences that would destroy Canada as we know it [but then, that's
exactly what Harper promised to do, just after vesting his fraudulent majority to power]
3. It's a total loss of Sovereignty, because for all intents and purposes every favourable BCSC
medical cannabis ruling has already been unilaterally over-tuned by these Federal Courts
[because they are called: violating our international obligations to NATO /TPPT treaties]
6. The case of dragging any new group of ordinary resident to be governed in Federal Court has
been done many times, and it is now being toted that the Crown holds case law precedent to
take drug traffickers to Federal Court, in order to not violate our foreign contractual obligations.
1. BUT THE MARIJUANA PARTY IS NOT JUST A GROUP. Private individuals [like Joe Fortt
and Neil Magnuson] hold a Constitutional guarantee to protect our common law rights, in
both Federal Court, and in BCSC, and no one in the Marijuana Party can be deprived of the
right to defend their case in BCSC, under Freedom of Contract under common law rules
and regulations, where BCSC is duty bound to protect us, under Freedom of Expression.
2. ON THIS: We are the ones who are legal, by simply respecting existing BCSC case law,
1. Our EDA agents and their network of agencies presently have all the case law in place
2. We have successfully challenged Elections Canada to recognize our authority to
transfer persons in order for them to benefit from being in common law jurisdiction.
3. We're providing a legal 'ways and means' to grow, process, sell any medical grade
cannabis product by/to any properly registered EDA agent of the Marijuana Party.
1. All we're doing here is giving our membership the choice to not be forced to go to
Federal Court for any marijuana related activity. - ON THIS All the case law to
protect fiduciary rights for BC growers are already won, all rights for supplying
medical BC dispensaries are won, and the right to sell this medicine to BC residents
who have non-life threatening conditions are established. = Federal Court is a trap
2. No one will give you those rights in Federal Court [in the present situation] because
the only ones obligated to take you to Federal Court are lawyers, and police.
1. Hopefully, the Courts will fix these wrongdoings with our case law precedents.
3. The Crown is banking on the accused accepting that they have no right to go to BSCS to
hear their charges, but this trap is back-firing, and that opens the door to establish real
positive case law initiatives that just might raise the bar, without the use of arbitrary force.
1. The Crown must back down from sending any individual under our common law
jurisdiction to a Federal /Maritime Court, because it's the perfect example of:
taking what no body doth have the right to take. [John Locke on tyranny]
Act accordingly and with good conscience
Marc Boyer CFA and common law barrister of VSMP
acting on behalf of Joe Fortt,

who was raided, then charges while holding our Freedom to Contract