ADDENDUM #1

Response to a point of law on: General Procedure: Rule 18 Application for leave to intervene.

[ON A regulation] The general rules for interventions in the Supreme Court of Canada are found in
Rule 18. This rule provides that a person interested in an appeal or reference can intervene by leave
of a judge. As noted above, there is no longer an automatic right to intervene for those parties who
had intervener status at the lower level court.

1. In response to this rule, neither Marc Boyer or the EDA itself are actually a person, as
defined in the Act, and the Trespass Act, therefore the form cannot be altered from denying we
as an entity the notion that we can assume the territorial right to protect and defend our
convictions, regardless of any limitation placed on our guarantees to be heard in the SCC.
1. In our case, it should become relevant that, we had a SCC court Motion to Appeal a BC
Appeals court case, and the registrar summarily rejected it; then after this case was
rejected, we found irrefutable proof of criminal wrongdoing in the BC Appeals case and the
lower court decision. This case of malfeasance was one of the root causes to our attached
Canada Elections protest that's addressed in Appendix-1, therefor this State Department
breach of Trust is a very important issue that needs to be redressed by the SCC

1. ON DEFINING CONVICTIONS: By the basic fact that we hold no person hood means
[first] That means, every conviction served onto Marc Boyer by a lower courts needs to
be fixed, under the principle of Fairness set by Bhasin v Hrynew
[second] We hold convictions [as in] to hold morally sound beliefs, especially where
they are based on protecting our commercial premise from trespass, and not even the
Supreme Court of Canada holds the power to trample on this fundamental Freedom.
2. Furthermore, simply on the fact of not holding person hood, we must be recognized in this
Owen Smith case, because that's what we prescribe under a necessity defence, under S-8
CC, in order to uphold our Free and Democratic society from trespass by any Admiralty.
[ON B regulation] In order to willingly comply with: Procedures for filing an application for
leave to intervene - Pursuant to Rule 18(2): an application for leave to intervene must be made
within 60 days after the filing of a notice of appeal or reference. This is done by filing and serving a
notice of motion in Form B.2 together with a supporting affidavit.

1. In response to this rule, we agree to file this intervener, by this file's cut off date of January
29, 2015 and we attach an Affidavit in order to respect the proper form to proceed with this
motion to Intervene in this Owen Smith Case file.
2. In the event that this court finds that the larger scope to things pressed in our Owen Smith
Intervention needs to get its own case file, then from this ruling, we should be able to use this
decision to file a large motion, within this 60-day window, in order to find remedy to what
appears to be [at face value] a Canada Elections Trust malfeasance, contained in Appendix 1.
3. Regardless, as we see it, as to Rule 18(4) our page-1, 2, and 3 part of this motion to Intervene
directly pertains to this Owen Smith file; therefore these directly relevant facts pressed need to
be directly addressed in and attachment or caveat to this Owen Smith ruling.

4. We accept that this SCC ruling may have difficulty to address the larger scope to things
pressed in our Trust articles because this issue is not where we should be introducing facts
that are not remotely relevant to this Owen Smith file.
5. As we see it, in regard to the Canada Elections Trust protest contained in page 4, we have no
objection to having this liability being set aside, as long as, this creates an opportunity to file a
large comprehensive motion to intervene, within the 60-day window to file on this protest.
[ON C and D regulation] Because of our position in 'A regulation' means: no body can deny or
ignore our EDA the right to be served with a fair remedy to our legitimate concerns, in a written ruling,
and we will respectfully comply with whatever the SCC may require, in order to proceed.
[ON E regulation] Rights and privileges of an intervener - Pursuant to Rule 18(1), the judge
has the discretion to determine the terms and conditions on which an application for leave to intervene
will be granted as well as the rights and privileges of an intervener. - [Under Rule 18(4)] an intervener
has the right to file a factum and Rule 18(5) provides that: 18(5) Unless otherwise ordered by a judge,
an intervener; shall not file a factum that exceeds 20 pages; shall be bound by the case on appeal
and may nor add to it; and shall not present an oral argument. - In other words, if one wishes to file a
factum in excess of 20 pages, not be bound by the case of appeal, or present an oral argument, one
has to specifically apply for same.

1. ON THIS: We can be satisfied with getting a clear written ruling from this written motion to
intervene. In the event that we are asked to appear at an oral hearing we will gladly comply.
1. Frankly, our motion to intervene is under 20-pages; we are not disputing anything that
occurred in the Owen Smith file; we agree to be bound to the principle of Fairness that was first
recognized in Sec 39 of the Magna Carta, by respectful private individuals, onto the King.
2. In this way we seek confirmation of an Essential Element of a Free and Democratic society,
under the Act, with this new SCC mandate /burden created with this Bhasin v Hrynew decision
to effect a genuine unfettered conversion to do good, so that good can result. [Romans 13]
3. BOTTOM LINE: We ask: If not now, then when? We can only press this motion once,
and frankly failure of any entity to comply holds consequences that may be irrevocable.
IN CONCLUSION:
Under our fiduciary trust, we are respectfully pressing the SCC to deliver a written ruling.
By taking our filing fee, we are respectfully offering the SCC to empower itself, in order to affirm
the re-establishment of our common law rights as Supreme, under Freedom of Contract, where
[in our case] our BC rule of law [case law precedents that the CDSA somehow suppressed] are
no longer under the control of the Admiralty to be nullified in Federal Court, under their pack of
lies that fraudulently enforce erroneous and totally unfair international obligations.
We do so, in order to protect our EDA common law guarantees from the real harm created by
the fraudulent practices of the CDSA and now the MMPR that are constantly being imposed, and
augmented by the Admiralty, with the end goal of purposely destroying our Sovereignty.