September 16th, 2015

NOTICE of PROTEST

Case File

Personally hand delivered to the Crown and the Courts at 860

William Street, Cobourg, Ontario
Summation: Providing a backrounder for no jurisdiction on the Talis
Brauns/ Neal Hanniman case
1. The Crown erred in law by pressing a Federal charge onto me [i. Talis
Brauns, Mediation Officer, Marijuana Party of Canada operating under
common law] because they failed/omitted to respect [before and after the
fact] it is directly prohibited by law as a common law officer of the Marijuana
Party of Canada to be dragged into a Federal Court. Drop the charges. The
CDSA [Controlled Drugd and Substances Act] is of no force and effect. it is
this institution that regulates everything. When the Supreme Court of Canada
{SCC ruling in R v. SMITH} rules that marihuana is legal in all its forms, you
cannot charge me nor Neal Hanniman, if I cannot be dragged into Federal
Court, Neal Hanniman deserves the same consideration. If I am co-joined to
this case then you have to send us to Ontario Superior Court of Justice, where
they will throw these charges out as they are in no force and effect. The
Crown cannot proceed with me nor with Neal Hanniman because we are cojoined. The Federal Health Minister Rona Ambrose, saying that the SCC is
wrong and somehow can continue to impose these new CDSA rules, is by
definition sedition. No one who is an elected body can say and act like the
Supreme Court of Canada is a meaningless institution compared to their
CDSA.
2. The CDSA is repeating this very same tyranical practice that the Admiralty
did in 1712 or so when slavery was abandoned, when John Locke on tyranny
declared that: they are taking what no 'body' doth have the right to take. [on
this] the CDSA is a corporate institution that is responsible for testing and
regulating everything that is imported or manufactured that consequently is
sold in stores and or consumed by the public in the interest of public safety.
[point] This common law authority called the SCC [in the recent R v Smith
unanimous decision] did rule that the CDSA is of no force and effect to
regulate or control a fungible called cannabis. Iit has no DIN #, it's not in their
control [period] Cannabis is now again just a plant under common law and it's
directly prohibited for this plant /fungible to be under the control of the CDSA.
3.The Marijuana Party [its associations and its agents/members] holds a
rubric to legalize cannabis thru any lawful means and under our commercial
premise in our commercial premises under Freedom of Contract in what we
call an EDA agency under common law jurisdiction means we are lawfully

fulfilling this rubric.

THIS MEANS THAT: all these new rules and regulations that the CDSA are
enforcing under the Federal Court as being in their jurisdiction to control is
called sedition [defined as] acting like they can omit [Sec 16 CC] that they
hold no such right [other then to get us to sign into their trap, and traps are
legal]
Consequently as to our protest filed Sept 8th, 2015, with the Commissioners
Prosecutors in Vancouver we're seeking to get this resolved while the writ is
dropped and before the nominations close.
4. We are 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.
4.1. 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.
There is no way around it: Talis Brauns [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.
4.2. The Federal Courts are directly forbidden to accept any case when this
jurisdictional issue is pressed.
5. Since the writ of Election was dropped on August 3rd, 2015, the courts are
under the Commissioner of Elections Canada's watch and the Elections Act is
Supreme. All Attorney General {AG} prosecutors are now the Commissioner's
prosecutors. At this time under the Commissioner's watch the CDSA is of no
force and effect. How can we be charged with a crime under the CDSA?
Failure of an entity to comply with the Elections Act being Supreme is a crime,
by itself.
5.1. 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 case law precedents.
5.2. The entire notion of forcing our officers /agents to appear in Maritime
Court is legal insanity. [Sec 15 CC] NAMELY: Failing to see the obvious harm
created by omitting the obvious.
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]
5.3. It's a total loss of Sovereignty, because for all intents and purposes every
favourable BCSC medical cannabis ruling has already been unilaterally overturned by these Federal Courts [because they are called: violating our
international obligations to NATO /TPPT treaties]

6. At the 1st appearance where the issue of NO JURISDICTION in Neil

Magsnuson's [CFA for BSMP} case - [in July 2015] - the charge was
converted to a judge and jury trial in Provincial Supreme Court - the coaccused who was also attached to this ruling in spite of not being a party
agent was also graced with this benefit of directly being prohibited to
proceed.
Neil Magnuson did get this common law right recognized at his arraignment,
where he was originally chattel-ed to appear in Federal Court on a charge of
possession with intent to traffic with one joint of marijuana in order establish
new case law under S-55 of the CDSA that would have permitted being
charged with hear-say evidence that directly deprives us of benefiting from
BCSC case law precedents where this charge must be thrown out of BCSC.
When the Crown was advised of this status, at the 1st appearance, the Crown
came back at the next 1st appearance and gave him a choice of appearing in
a BCSC court with a judge or a judge and jury of his peers.
IN OTHERWORDS he regained his full private individual rights under the
Magna Carta, because the CDSA is directly prohibited from summoning this
individual to a Federal Maritime Court. This case law application applies to
everyone in our Party, and therefor we are pressing the envelop because we
must in order to protect our rubric from the Admiralty's abusive practices,
under a Sec 8(3) CC necessity defence [aka] where all common law rights
known to man reside.
7. We are totally legalizing our cannabis dispensaries, all its growers & all our
members with our 'no jurisdiction defence' WITH THIS MEMBERSHIP, WE ARE
NOW ENTITLED TO BEING 100% UNDER COMMON LAW JURISDICTION. This
involves a lot more than just legalizing cannabis as medicine - MEMBERSHIP
DEFINATELY COMES WITH CERTAIN PRIVILEGES.
8. The Crown is banking on the accused accepting that they have no right to
go to Ontario Superior Court of Justice 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.
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

by: Talis Brauns Mediation officer of the Marijuana Party of Canada
errors & omissions excepted