APPENDIX 1 - RE: THE FELGER DECISIONS and their impact on closing dispensaries

1. Tim Felger went to BCSC [sentenced on Sept 1st] and was found guilty for the 2nd set of charges that
were dropped on him back in 2009. [backgrounder] He went all the way to the SCC after having the 1st
set of charges thrown out, [he won in SCC with no contest] - In the oral comments, these SCC judges
made it clear that the Crown would be pressing the 2nd set of charges to clear the case file.
1. On the first SCC win - the defence was that a 'land owner' holds the right to have 'no trespassing'
signs respected by cops, and he won; [as a land owner] his Charter rights had been violated
because the cops had no authority to trespass his common law landlord rights, so all the evidence
was dismissed as inadmissible. This ruling is a really significant common law victory.
2. This past week, he appeared on the 2nd set of charges for operating the same marijuana store [DaKine]
and this time, he was found guilty [and given time-served], so he did not go to jail. Again, in spite of the
fact that he was the CEO for AMP [Abbotsford Marijuana Party], they again omitted to recognize that
he held a right to be protected as being in an EDA, because he refused to act like he was an EDA.
1. In other words, the piece of paper [giving him real political party protection] was meaningless,
because, he did nothing to act like or look like he was operating as an EDA agency; therefore he
was denied the right to be protected by what Marc Boyer has always been promoting NAMELY:
act like an EDA and they cannot bust you [period] because authorities [like] cops and judges and
even Attorney Generals must recognize us as deserving the common law rights of an EDA.
2. His biggest transgression, under the Elections Act, was not running a candidate NOTE: he was
busted the day after the nomination closed for that election, because he did not even try to get
elected, and another big problem was - he did not do good books or inventory control FURTHERMORE, he did not have signs saying he was a Party Headquarters, he did not attempt to
sign members, therefore directly acted contrary to what a Marijuana Party EDA store should do to
protect themselves. So, he was not treated to common law; he was handled as being a poorly run
ordinary dispensary, and under this BCSC ruling, he got a lenient sentence of time-served.
3. THIS RULING IMPACTS OUR MARIJUANA PARTY INITIATIVE: [what we can do is now defined]
At face value: If an EDA dispensary does not look like and act like our EDA prescribes our agencies
to do, then these EDA agencies can be shut down under this case law, by appearing on charges in
BCSC. Regardless, our no jurisdiction defence still means exactly that: NAMELY, even a disobedient
Party member cannot be taken to a Federal Court room on CDSA charges, and no agent /officer can be
charged with trafficking or cultivation in a Federal Court, because no jurisdiction means no jurisdiction.
1. BUT we can be summoned for breaking a BCSC case law [like] delivering pounds to the USA,
selling to minors etc... AND without this membership, you have no such right, to any quasi-legally
jurisdiction defence to not take you to Federal Court, because Harper changed what's called 'order'
about 6 month ago, when overt provisions of S-55 of the CDSA started to be implemented.
2. POSITIVE LAW ON THIS RULING: If an EDA agency acts like a proper agency should, it's literally
impossible to be shut down, and if you don't, then you can be summoned to appear in BCSC.
1. The only way our no jurisdiction defence can work fully is if you act like an EDA agency should,
2. Frankly [in 'fine' common law tradition] all the dispensaries that have signed over to our plan, are
still skirting some essential part of the plan to not get charged under this ruling, so all of them
are not yet 100% compliant. Until they comply fully, means they give the Crown an argument to
object to our 'no jurisdiction defence'. BECAUSE of this Felger ruling, The BCSC is being duly
engaged to protect the trust of enforcing laws that are still a crime [or not] under BC case law.
3. What should be noted is THAT: not one of our dispensaries that we registered as EDA Offices
[with a dispensary inside it] were given any notice of any kind by this RCMP task force, last month.
1. Most of our dispensaries would never had qualified to remain open had they not been covered
by our paperwork with the City [like] being too close to a school, or holding a criminal record...

2. These regulations simply cannot be enforced against any EDA agency, even when, one of our
agencies is on the same block as a school, they did not get any notices, and that's because the
City VPD or RCMP actually hold 'no territorial jurisdiction' to tell us where are Federal offices can
be or what goes on inside our Federal common law territory. In fact [out of our 20 dispensaries]
only 3 hold any chance of being on a short list of potentially selected /approved dispensaries.
3. Because of this Felger ruling. This means our EDA agencies now just need to prominently
display a sign saying they're an EDA HEADquarters, operate like a private club that signs
members to our Party and Club, and [most important] do good books, and they simply cannot be
busted in the first place. [period] because this makes our Territories Act defence bulletproof.
4. NOW the stakes just got higher; Since 6 months ago, [or so] the Crown started taking dispensaries
to Federal Court. This created a situation where, we're in the first BC special arraignment court case of
its kind in Canada [quite common in the USA]. We need to appear for 1-day in early December, then in
January, for a 1-week pretrial to determine whether Joe Fortt has his CDSA charges heard in Federal
Court, or they are dropped, because of our no jurisdiction defence, in this case. [to expand on this]
1. In most new cases, [with these new pretrial case proceedings] the Federal charges will either be
forwarded to a Federal Court room, or go to BCSC. But in Joe Fortt's case, because it took too long
between the bust to have these charged transferred to the BCSC, means the charges are dropped.
2. The Crown is pressing a very weak case that commoners must obey all Maritime Law implemented
on us, in order to not be subject to appearing in their Federal Courts. It's a circle argument at best,
and it is always dismissed in a Sec 8 CC Territories Act court challenge. Please note: we're setting
old/new case law precedent here, under old common law, because this kind of case [involving order
issues] are a new application in Canadian Law, therefore old Commonwealth case laws apply.
3. ON THIS: no ordinary resident can use our no jurisdiction defence; because by not being a
member or an EDA agent [before you're busted] means you really are not en'titled' to this defence.
Joe Fortt is entitled to this defence & frankly there's no way around it, the charges must be dropped
4. THE BIG ISSUE HERE IS: Will the Crown actually pay $40k+ in damages for theft of his fungibles?
1. ON THIS: under the R v Smith unanimous decision, the Courts will decide on whether our Sec 1
Charter defence can be entertained at the arraignment; and again we are seeking an old/new
case law precedent. As Judge Meyers said when giving these court dates: You're setting
serious case precedent here. Our defence is bulletproof, because [under Bhasin v Hrynew] our
common law right to Freedom of Contract can no longer be trespassed by the abusive practices
that Maritime Law administers. https://www.scribd.com/doc/254049278/7-On-Bhasin-v-Hrynew
5. TO EXPAND ON THIS: In May, The SCC Owen Smith decision came back as a unanimous decision
for legalizing a supplier of a properly run society [run by Ted Smith] in Victoria, who was never charged,
all be it, he funded the case [that cost over $100K]. This acquittal in the SCC means, any Canadian
who is not under MMAR contract, can in Canadian case law, supply a not-for-profit Society as a medical
dispensary that does good books, in order to use the proceeds of these cannabis sales to fund /provide
services that help to fulfil its mission statement - can do so legally, because the SCC says so.
1. Under this narrow interpretation of the Smith decision, the City is correct in saying there will be no
more than a handful of dispensaries open, AND then there will be these new LP dispensaries that
sell recreational marihuana for at least twice the price, because of the high SIN taxes for this license
2. ON THIS: any ordinary resident who operates a dispensary can either chose to operate as a real
not for profit society OR they can comply with all these S-55 of the CDSA rules and regulations that
can be changed at any time without Parliamentary approval [Harper gave these powers away]
3. When those S-55 of the CDSA started implementing democratic reforms without Parliamentary

approval, resulted in the Crown pressing CDSA charges on Joe Fortt, where he had no choice BUT
to appear in Federal Court, which occurred a few days after becoming an agent /EDA agency.
4. Our defence is sound NAMELY: we gained our constitutional right to protect our RUBRIC under
'no jurisdiction', the moment the Crown pressed what no ordinary resident can use as a defence.
BECAUSE the Crown simply is directly forbidden to implement these new CDSA rules /regulations
on our members. In law, the moment they pressed those new CDSA powers to appear on these
matters, onto a Federal common law agent, was when we were empowered to uphold our RUBRIC
6. In Vancouver [last month] new RCMP rules caused some of the first round of dispensaries to shut down
upon getting cease and desist orders, and it's apparent that most dispensaries will fight these orders,
because of this new case law precedent [SCC/Smith decision] - and frankly i wish them best of luck;
1. Because eventually someone will be forced to press this Charter Challenge, because they were
unaware or did not trust /believe our no jurisdiction defence. The critical question here will be
Do they get injunctions to remain open until this case is ruled on? [as we see it] without any 'no
jurisdiction defence' means the City /courts can impose jurisdictional controls [like], the closer the
dispensary is to a school, then the less likely this 'ordinary' dispensary will get to remain open, and
frankly doing good book keeping practices with inventory control in place is critical in remaining
open, [because after all] it's the only way to prove you operate a disciplined well-run dispensary.
2. I N THE END: if an ordinary resident fail to prove to have a medical excuse [as to how the City or
the CDSA defines it] at this pretrial , then it's too late, these owners and employees will go to jail.
7. Marc Boyer warned that this was coming, so it's no surprise to hear that this case law now applies.
It's now case law that upholds the fact that; the Crown cannot have CDSA charges heard in a Federal
Court room, because even as a delinquent or uneducated member /agent, who breaks our rules [of not
breaking a BCSC rulings] will still result where any member can never be summoned to Federal Court
<< no jurisdiction really does means no jurisdictions >> especially when we can expect to be
governed under our common law heritage in BC [with this new Bhasin v Hrynew SCC ruling]
1. Membership to our common law association comes with all kinds of privileges. IN LAW:
a member in good standing simply cannot be charged at all, even in BCSC, [because 'in good
standing' means] if this member is doing anything that the EDA voted on, [like] providing a fungible
called mushrooms cannot be called a crime, because it was democratically voted on by members.
2. WAKE UP: [as far as authority is concerned] Vancouver's social experiment created a problem,
where their monetizing solution is infinitely worse, because it attacks our Sovereignty as citizens.
3. Even with this seditious activity being successfully challenged, all ordinary dispensaries can still
expect a 2nd, 3rd and 4th round of foreclosures, because [under S-55 of the CDSA] Maritime Authority
will act after every court ruling [like] the Allard /Coalition decision that's coming up after the elections
are over that will make it almost impossible to have their quasi-legal supplies sold in any dispensary.
8. The City's bottom line is THAT: they only wants 20 clubs open a year from now, and all of these new
CDSA clubs will be forced to sell $500. ounces to recreational users, because Maritime authorities
cannot tax any medical application of SCC case law, [or] trespass on our Sec 8 CCC Territorial rights,
1. These Maritime Officials get around this, by forcing [what Harper calls] ordinary residents to comply
with any Maritime regulation or any City by-law they dream up, because [as just ordinary residents]
you hold no jurisdiction to stop them from sending you to a Federal Court, AND frankly, unless you
register [as a member or agent] before they bust you, then you cannot help yourself to be treated
with our no jurisdiction defence, BECAUSE without our 'no jurisdiction defence' all their Maritime
regulations are robbing all you ordinary residents of all your landed Canadian Sovereign rights.

2. ON THIS: robbery is legal term for taking issues [as in] you 'rob' a bank no one 'steals' a bank.
What part of: they are robbing you blind don't you get? Our human rights are issues that hold no
matter therefore of no value, [in fact counterproductive] to their issue, which is make more money
Federal Court is an NATO racket, and their mission is to implement their NEW WORLD ORDER.
9. IN OUR CASE: Because this is all a Federal application of common law, means our no jurisdiction
defence simply cannot fail in any common law province, because no body can take away this right from
any member of a Federal political Party called the Marijuana Party, because it's our duty to protect our
RUBRIC, in order to provide a fungible called cannabis from being under the control of the CDSA [itself]
1. THEREFOR this common law defence will work anywhere in Canada; yet in practice, we're having
a really hard time convincing anyone to think outside their box, by our peers in our own community.
We ask: When do we just admit that authority and the people have become automatons of misery
[like Jefferson warned]. I simply refuse to live in their society WHERE if you can't get a permit, then
you can't do it, if there is no law that directly tells you, you can, then don't ever assume you can.
10. We cannot force anyone to help themselves to the best defence known to mankind [Sec 8(3) CC
1. [all common law excuses and defences] You can definitely blame Harper for this, but as his
'undesirables' you cannot stop being a victim of a crime of state, without our 'no jurisdiction defence'
2. In order to press the case of being a class of persons that Harper calls 'undesirables', read this
[Feb 2014] [ https://www.scribd.com/doc/206723278/2a-s-55-of-the-CDSA-report ] Gazette post
where they 'in deed' outline the plan to gradually and incrementally implement S-55 of the CDSA
into being. Please look at the end [Sec 2] where they are now starting to create the rules without
Parliamentary approval. They eventually can order Parliament to obey what they call Public Safety
3. EXCEPT then, this spring the SCC came in with a landmark unanimous decision that directly
enabled our Marijuana Party to stand-under our RUBRIC, under our 'no jurisdiction defence'
CHECK MATE: no body can obstruct a recognized political party the right to protect its RUBRIC.
11. BOTTOM LINE: It really defies logic to stubbornly refuse to become a Marijuana Party member.
WHEN THIS MEMBERSHIP IS FREE. [a yearly pittance of $5 is required to validate our offer]
To become an EDA agent requires a $20. registration, in order to abandon their new world order
classification; this pittance binds our membership and EDA agents under our Freedom to Contract
offer, by being registered therefor recognized as a private individual under common law jurisdiction.
1. The price our society will pay for not shedding this ordinary resident status are staggering.
We can only bring the camel to the water, we cannot force the camel to drink the water
2. The rewards we offer are far greater than just legalizing our commercial cannabis activities.
Why should you not take this Peaceful way to shed this bogus status that Harper imposed?
Where, [by just being a member] you simply cannot lose any rights under Canadian case law,.
1. What we're undertaking is defined in law as a trust challenge, and we're taking the only solution
that we can do, which is by filing Court motions, where the courts will do what they see fit.
Frankly, all we can do is NAMELY: try to engage the Courts to uphold our rule of law guarantee
[as a recognized Loyal Opposition] after our rights are violated. BECAUSE law and order are
essential elements of civilized life, and our territorial rights to Canada's common law heritage
hinges on this maxim being voluntarily enforced, AND frankly the fix can only be redressed after
a violation of this trust [that did occur] by Harper imposing their new world order onto citizens.
2. I often ask: If we don't do this, then who will? We're seeking Constitutional remedies like this in
order to Peaceful defend the Public Trust. We either win or lose; trust rulings like this are final
CALL: 778-707-7461 [or] 778-714-3689 [or] go to: facebook.com/VOTE Marijuana Party in Canada