January 24th, 2015

FILE # 36059

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

(ON APPEAL FROM THE APPEALS COURTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA)
BETWEEN:

RE:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

and
OWEN SMITH

(APPEALANT)
(RESPONDENT)

APPLICATION TO FILE FOR INTERVENER STATUS

BY:

Marc Boyer, CFA of Vancouver Quadra Electoral District. [VQMP]

STATEMENT OF MITIGATING FACTS

1. In order to preserve basic common law values contained in the principles of Justice, it needs to
be noted and recognized in the SCC that the similarities [at face value] between, what Mr
Owen Smith was charged and acquitted for in Victoria, and Marc Boyer's activities of baking
cannabis edible and manufacturing creams and salves in Vancouver are similar enough to
each other that [in the event that Mr. Owen Smith does get found guilty of a charge in the SCC]
could result in a regrettable situation where Marc Boyer may be forced to wrongfully suffer by
facing charges, when our EDA defence on such charges can be ruled on with this intervention
1. ON EXPANDING ON THIS: Simply put, the Crown has a duty to not charge anyone with
an offence, when the accused could most likely beat the charges. It was obviously the
Crown's position that Mr. Owen Smith had a weak enough case to bring to court, and
2. In Marc Boyer's case, there are all kinds of good reasons why [due to passed liability] that
we earned the right to be what VPD lists as: on a no stop, no detain, no arrest status.
3. In this opening article, we will list the differences between why we have a far better legal
ground to stand on than Mr. Owen Smith, therefore it should be recognized in the SCC.
4. But in all fairness, we agree that even with this weaker defence; the Appeals Court of BC
did not err in upholding their duty to protect our common law rights to provide medicine to
victims with genuine Sec 7 Charter rights, because the MMAR never offered a real solution
to this lack of an alternative to cookies and creams, and frankly, the new MMPR is simply
not providing any realistic alternative to products like we deliver to victims of poor health.
2. We make the claim that a huge burden to fix past trespasses was undertaken by the Bhasin v
Hrynew * SCC ruling that need to be addressed in our case under the common law definition of
a 'Free and Democratic Society' [R v Oakes], and in order to be protected by the common law
definition of 'prescribed by law' [R v Therens], as used in Sec 1 of the Charter. This means, we
[any properly managed EDA agent or agency under our Marijuana Party] cannot be deprived of
our rights to be governed under common law jurisdiction. [this reasoning is expanded in App-2]
1. This is especially valid since the SCC Nov. 13th, 2014 ruling on Bhasin v. Hrynew. * [B-v-H]
2. In this ruling, it's safe to assume that when it's the first time the courts recognize that lying
and deceiving [under Freedom of Contract] is no longer tolerated in common law provinces,
means it's still a tolerated practice under Federal statute jurisdiction to deal in bad faith.
3. It implies that 'in good faith' the SCC, and any Provincial common law Supreme Court must
fix any wrongdoing created by perverting the law with word-craft [as expanded in App-2]
4. This Owen Smith SCC ruling should throw out all the attached files in the Crown's factum
because they are proof of this MMAR contract being vexatiously administered, when
reviewed under this new B-v-H ruling, because their deceitful practices are taking away
everything R v Oakes was mandated to deliver, NAMELY: a Free and Democratic society
*

www.takebackyourpower.net/news/2014/12/20/supreme-court-canada-recognizes-good-faith-honestyrequirement-common-law-contracts/

3. It is impossible to refute that our EDA is by definition 'prescribed by law' to protect our beliefs,
from the arbitrary abuse of power that the majority in Parliament is pressing on the governed,
this mean we hold a guarantee to protect our RUBRIC from trespass under our fiduciary trust.
TO CLARIFY: An EDA is a 'we'; a common law entity [natural person] that is comprised of all
the registered members of that electoral district - [it's not just representing these members]
and all of these individuals are exempt from any CDSA regulation, as long as they follow what
is prescribe by law, by standing under BCSC rulings in order to protect our common law rights.
This means this legal entity called EDA has far greater legal standing than Owen Smith's case.
Under Canada Elections Trust, our good will must be treated as Superior, under common law.
1. We bring this issue up because the Crown claims that Leon [Ted] Smith [the prescriber of
the medicine] and Owen Smith hold no professional standing or accreditation to deliver this
manufactured product to market, therefore cannot be permitted by the CDSA to do so, if
they cannot meet the pharmaceutical standards placed by the CDSA for such a product.
2. In the DCL: A 'prescriber' is defined as a person who is authorized to give a prescription
within the scope of 'any' profession. A 'professional' prescribes to practice any services
that their Association upholds, and in medical guilds that symbology is expressed on any
prescription pad with this big bold RX or DX in the top left corner of the prescriber's form.
3.
This X can be found in that same top left corner of all Elections
Canada documents, because 'politics' is a profession, where EDA
agents are duly authorized to protect our beliefs as defined in our
common law Heritage in 'a real Free and Democratic society'.
4. After 20 years of depriving us of a working solution, since R v Oakes, there actually still is
not even 1-definition that specifies what the Crown calls a 'prescription' under the CDSA.
1. FURTHERMORE not even 1 definition for 'prescription' applies to cannabis, and they
still insist that people need one, because they say we are 'prescribed by law' to get it,
because what they define as 'marihuana' is a very dangerous narcotic. [word-craft]
2. [as to this factum] The lies and deceitful practices of the CDSA will simply never stop
because the Crown still insists that cannabis has no proven 'accredited' medical merits.
3. We ask: what part of B-v-H does not apply, in order to fix the real harm created by this?
5. AGAIN Under this B-v-H * SCC ruling, the entire performance of the CDSA must be
placed in question, when burdened under this need to redress past abuse, because, the
SCC in good conscience must redress the fact THAT: the MMAR simply has never acted in
good faith to provide any remedy, because the CDSA is an international corporation owned
by harmaceutical giants that actually holds a bogus mandate to obstruct any positive law
case ruling, in order to enforce UCC /NAFTA /UN obligations to never stop drug prohibition.
1. Frankly, with the tabling of s-55 of the CDSA, and the imposing of GST means the SCC
must undertake these issues raised in this Intervention, because those NATO /Federal
Courts are inviting themselves in, by taking away from the Provincial Supreme Courts
the right to intervene with providing reasonable common law protection to the victims of
this ongoing contempt for the Supremacy of Canadian common law case law rulings
2. The administration of health issues has always been a common law Provincial issue,
because common law serves the best interest of the people, not the corporations, and
1. this social experiment created by the CDSA called MMAR has failed miserably,
because this mingling of Maritime and common law jurisdictions has never worked,
other than it historically always creates conflict thru [what the Art of War called] the
application of economic regulations that control /rob another country's real wealth.
2. The certification of drug and food safety standards is served by statutory regulations
like the CDSA tests for, and is necessary in order to protect public health in general.
3. BUT, when dealing with people issues [like the MMAR] has resulted where people
are poorly served by the prescriber's statutory regulations, because they protect the
prescribers' best interests [like] from being sued, or for profit motives [for example] .
4. The humane and workable solution is to put the MMAR contract under Provincial
Health Acts, in this way City Health Services can deliver good community support.

4. ON THE NOTION OF IMPLIED v EXPRESS COLOUR, AS IT AFFECTS THE CHARTER.

CAVEAT: With the creation of the Charter, Stroud's Judicial Dictionary [1985] states that
implied colour defences were no longer as valid as they once were, because the Charter
upheld a new express 'colour of Office' that's now defined in the DCL as: By the people for the
economy under duress of a bad contract. [again: B-v-H is mandated to fix any bad contract]
5. Some might ask: What does this obscure issue have to do with this intervention? [answer]
1. In the MMAR's case, it's lead the Crown to this mercantile notion that without taxation
[in phase 1 of their larger program] that all those who signed into their 1st phase had lost
the right to defend an implied colour of right to hold any kind of fiduciary trust to protect any
un-accredited common belief as 'professional' - which was brought up in the Felger v R
SCC application that was called up, by the SCC, at the same time as this Owen Smith file.
1. This is relevant because Marc Boyer is also CFA for Tim Felger in our AMP district.
2. [in this SCC factum] The Crown is now pressing that things are in place for the SCC to
recognize that the CDSA is acting on phase-2 of this larger program, which includes these
new arbitrary controls to retro-actively regulate the manufacturing of marihuana to conform
to UCC international case law standards. [case in point]: in the Alliard class action suite:
The defence is being called to prepare arguments that include an accommodation for [or
challenge to] recent case law standards set in the USA, Israel, and Holland [for example]
1. With this Federal Court ruling declaring that GST must now be paid retro-actively on
manufacturing of marihuana, signals the tone they are setting in implementing phase 2
2. This imposing of a sales tax, means they are now claiming to hold an express colour to
force its new s-55 of the CDSA regulations onto any Canadian based manufacturer of
marihuana, in order to conform to all those NATO /UN - international treaty obligations
3. BUT, frankly the core foundation of this CDSA policy is now repugnant under B-v-H, and in
good conscience, the SCC must act in order to reclaim governance over 'the Act' itself.
1. This attached e-mail /file [App-1] that our EDA got from this State Department states:
please note that the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, the Honourable Pierre
Poilievre, has been given responsibility for amendments to the Canada Elections Act.
2. Ignorance is no excuse [s-19 CC] It's simply unconscionable for the SCC to permit a
paper Queen to commit TREASON. This B-v-H ruling must redress The Trespass Act,
because it's prescribed by law, for the SCC to act on this Martial Law imposition [quote]
The SCC ruled that parties must not lie or mislead each other concerning matters
linked to the performance of a contract in Canadian common law provinces.
6. In Marc Boyer's case of acting under our EDA defence, and Owen Smith's rulings has resulted
in no 'body' charging us, in spite of actually holding a history of being denied court challenges.
1. Where are we going with this? In Ted Smith's case, his belief is similar to our belief that:
we were better protected by not registering under especially the MMAR program, because
their quasi-illegal Maritime regulatory process creates traps, within a trap, within a trap.
2. It should be noted that Ted Smith was not charged in this case, and frankly, he is such an
honourable activist, he deserves to also be on a 'no stop no detain no arrest list', as well.
3. THAT SAID: We know all kinds of activists with a really good defence that can never get in
a common law court because they should win, and this means real common law Justice
cannot be served, because we're defrauded from holding even an implied colour of right.
7. Now when it comes to this 2nd phase, where the Feds 'expressly' demand us to pay sales tax,
only gives the payer /remitter of this GST the license to operate within s-55 of the CDSA.
1. BUT the Feds can only declare that 'a' sales tax can be paid to protect their beliefs,
2. But now under Canada Revenue [CR], because any EDA agent is also a CRA [tax agent]
means any of our EDA agencies can charge /remit PST to protect our beliefs that the
majority in Parliament think are wrong or false, AND because of this remitting of PST, the
EDA members hold an express colour of right, and the EDA itself holds a claim of right.
BUT, Pierre Poilievre holds the authority to fix that, by editing the Canada Elections Act

IN CONCLUSION: On pressing the larger scope to things in our Millennium Trust Challenge
It should be noted that this B-v-H ruling holds this caveat; NAMELY: The SCCs alteration or
what they called an incremental step to the law of contracts was to acknowledge good faith
contractual performance as a general organizing principle of the common law of contract.
1. ON THIS: The implementation of this tyrannical state could only succeed by implementing
this change in incremental steps BUT fundamental Trust Law conversions [like: B-v-H]
historically creates a life of its own, where a no man knows the future, and frankly nobody
can contain the powers in these winds of change that have ruled the world since Nineveh.
2. Trying to keep a lid on slowly systematically or incrementally returning to our common law
principles of fairness in contract is at best a futile act, and contrary to the intent of the Trust
3. Because [like in John Locke's case] we're seeking to emancipate about 30% of Canadians
from being re-classified as 'those classes of persons' who are cast off as undesirables.
4. What part of 'Lest we Forget' do you not get? This Hitler move by the Admiralty must stop.
Frankly we'ed like to project nice honourable notions, when pressing our legitimate concerns:
5. In this reasoning; we accept that those High Court Justices do not live in a glass bubble.
6. Just maybe the SCC took this B-v-H undertaking to heart, because there really is nothing
new under the son. [Eccl 8:6] - AND, in so doing, those benchers, who gave clear warning
in 1993 [when 'the Act' was converted and confirmed] are acting in the proper time, with the
proper procedure to take down the tyranny that this 'Harper /Cabal Regime' is orchestrating
7. ON THIS: no man knows the future, or the powers of the wind to contain it, BUT as sure as
God made little green apples, the law itself is a living 'everything' [for lack of a better word]
because words simply cannot describe the power contained in returning to normative order.
8. This mystery is all about when all past suffering seems insignificant, compared to the glory.
8. TO EXPAND ON THIS: Upon breaking the code of the Sumer Tablets [after the fall] that were
revealed in the archives of Nineveh, Canada adopted its rule of law, and we'll paraphrase it:
1. First, common law is Supreme [because it is a force /voice that comes from the wilderness]
over governors and private individuals in order to preclude [BAR] the use of arbitrary power
1. In Gen 4, when Cain killed Able, men began to call on [swear to] the name of their Lord
2. Second sentence [on earth] the rule of law requires the Creation [itself] and maintenance
of actual sets of positive law, in order to return to the mindset of being in normative order.
3. [Rom 8;18 on] the Creation itself groans in anticipation of being liberated from its bondage
to decay, in order to Free those who love, from those who do not respect the basic Truth
that 'no body is above the law' fixes all kinds of wrongs created by 'the one' in authority.
4. This Truth created a dynamic in the ether for a metanoia called: the Age of Enlightenment
[for example] the ability to draw in 3-D was revealed in the twinkle of an eye, worldwide.
5. Jefferson called the trampling of the honourable intent of the Act of Supremacy of 1559
[by Admiralty Courts] the perversion of this founding principle of no one is above the law.
1. This occurred with the Act of Parliament of 1563, where it declared that [for example]
those banking cartels were more than just one, therefore can license activities to do
things that are otherwise crimes, and frankly this perversion of the law is the Achilles
heal to every bad ruling since, which resulted where we're now governed by the most
criminally organized society, since Nineveh, thru the same deceitful occultism of Sumer
2. What should be noted is that [as to ancient lore, under Trust] 430 years later, [in 1989]
the Berlin wall came down, and in 1993 NAFTA was created, and if those who hold the
Trust call this Old World Order, the fulfilment of God's law, then that's just the way it is.
3. What part of being called the men of the Nineveh who rise in indignation don't you get?
IN FACT: The augmentation of the Trust contains the power to shake the ether itself,
into Kingdom come, and it all comes down the Faith of a few witnesses or lack there-of.
9. BOTTOM LINE: There's lots of truths, but there's supposed to be a really easy to understand
Truth that sets us free, yet somehow illusive but once revealed fixes everything as we know it.
1. We are convinced that in that day, everything will be beautiful, or we'ed not be so bold.