Click here to get to the original 6-page PDF file
Dec , 2010 - OUTLINE For my SCC Mandamus
Outlining some relevant cases in chronological order that affect each case file
All Documents are attached in APPENDIX 1 in the order that they are outlined

CAVEAT: In no way does this Mandamus address all the liability. I am itemizing some key cases that directly affect case file # 157479 in order to accommodate the need to address 1 matter and 1 issue.

[ 1 ] My Denial of Consent to be Governed of Nov 4, 2004 was filed at my Arraignment in case file # 157479-1, where the Judge said “file for damages”,
because I was erroneously charged with having a commercial premise
[aka: a coherent political thought] and at the next hearing,

- I filed this perfectly legal hyper-inflation indexed damage award that redeems all debt in the world, and is now attached to my Act of Supremacy Challenge that fulfills Isaiah 40’s promise of being the one who brings the good news of Zion.

[ 2 ] My Supreme Court of April 20, 2005 is where I filed for civilization of file # 157479-1.
The charge was RAPE [Sec 8(2) CCC] by the Chief of Police of Vancouver [as defined when slavery was legal in English case law], where at a pre-trial hearing

Chief Judge Brenner sent my case to Appeals for charging him with violating his oath to his Office in order to uphold his oath to the BAR, which resulted in being slapped with a ban from filing any papers with the Vancouver SC, and this ban was augmented by the AG and SG, who have fraudulently upheld to ban me from filing anything in BC, since Sept 19, 2007

[-i-] This resulted in creating a new case file # 157479-2,
which is an obvious case of double jeopardy, and then on top of that:
add insult [as to point 3] the AG had to rig my trial to get a conviction.
This creates a case where the 1st case was dropped therefore it contained a default damage award.
- Because my 2nd case was rigged means everything that happened after this is somewhat irrelevant, until the SCC rules on whether this damage award is substantive, which comes down to ‘a yes or no answer.

- If it is ruled substantive then the case is over because the accused simply cannot pay the damages. - If the damage award is ruled not substantive then the case is over, because the SCC is perverted too.
- The only thing left is to fix my ID issue and to clear travel documents in order to leave this country.

[-ii-] This matter of holding this damage award is inextricably linked to my abnormal birth issue.
In Law, the value of my black ink bond # 000 665 is insignificant compared to my damage award that the Queen owes, which actually belongs in King George VI’s Commonwealth registry.

- The Queen’s court cannot seize my bond # because she has defaced the King’s Statement. BUT I can seize Her trust and frankly that trust has been totally trashed,
it’s in ‘deed’ just a pool of nothing but all the debt in the world,

[-iii-] Now because of the default nature of this case and the damage award, the SCC must seize whatever is in Her trust and delivers all this debt into this last true Commonwealth Registry, [fall back a form] and this Treasury will redeem all debt in the world because this damage award gets converted into Treasury bonds and
the treasury must pay all debt in the world to validate this transfer,

[-iv-] As to Isaiah 3-4 the Treasury keeps the change, and in so doing,
we enter our Golden Age and the new Covenant unleashes a power contained in the word of God that creates a grand awakening [metanoia – total about face in how we think]. OR the SCC declares this motion to create everything from nothing
[creatio ex nihilo] as being frivolous because the damage award is not substantive.

BOTTOM LINE: The SCC must choose which path it elects to follow at the next court date.

[ 3 ] REASONS FOR JUDGMENT on case file # 157479-2,
entered into court record on Nov 19, 2005
[-i-] Point #1: The judge gives nothing but a glowing compliment to my ideals and philosophy.
[-ii-] Point #2: She says that: the law, in my case was ‘decided by the majority in power’ and the CDSA is saying the rule of law applies to me.
[which brings up the issue of define the rule of law]
[-iii-] Point #3 openly admits that I have a good Constitutional argument and an obligation to our members, BUT the majority in power could not do it.
[So they rigged my trial 2 weeks before going to trial.]

[ A ] IT MUST BE NOTED THAT I did not know this document existed until March 14, 2007,
where in Vancouver Court of Appeals Panel case file # CA 033602, I was handed this document and this panel agreed to give me a verbal ruling that stated:
my case was so plainly obvious that it did not need a written ruling:
they all agreed that this case was not an appeal,
and then ran out of the court room

[-i-] As my charge reads on file # 191280: From May 2007 on, I was creating many disturbances at the AG’s Office because they were ignoring every form of communication with me, and this resulted in me being prohibited from having any direct or indirect contact with the AG and his Deputy, which extended into being banned from being in any BC government building where there might be an employee of the AG

[-ii-] At the Confirmation Hearing on March 28, 2007 [on the same file # 191280]
The [then] Solicitor General [SG] John Les [who was personally in attendance at this proceeding] resigned on March 29th 2008, due to events that occurred over just my ID issue at this Confirmation Hearing. In spite of this I was found guilty and sentenced to a 2-year unconstitutional ban at my trial on April 23rd 2008.

Since then it’s a crime for me to complain about my AGs’ or my SGs’ crimes of state, because I was rude to public servants who obstruct Justice, by complaining about their TREASONOUS abuse of Office, which has been going on now for over 3.1/2-years and they just declared to continue the same perverted abuse for another 1.1/2 years

[-iii-] On case file # 191280-5: I deliberately violated my order to not file anything indirectly with the AG, by peacefully filing documents on April 22, 2010 as a form of civil disobedience to the fact that the SCC must address my 2 news issues, BECAUSE everyone had obstructed every lawful means to address it.

[-iv-] There’s a plethora of charges against the AG: and the way to fix this is by creating court dates
With this last abusive ruling, I can file for a mandamus on the ENTITY called BC for failure to uphold the law rule of law of Canada as Supreme, NAMELY: Since this last push to file in 2007, I can prove that the AG has colluded with the Lieutenant Governor [LG] to destroy a loyal subject of Parliament by fraudulently entering me into the LG’s registry, and in so doing violated their oath to Office as Supreme AND that
the AG of BC must address the Sec 11 D violation of having rigged my trial on Nov 15, 2005

[ B ] Sec 11 guarantees THAT:
“Any person charged with an offence has the right ...
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;”
AND it’s irrefutable that this SC of BC panel [file # CA033602] called this rigging of my trial: a plainly obvious case of having the majority in power find me guilty, 2 weeks before going to trial and these judges refused to uphold their oath to Office as Supreme, through nonfeasance

[-i-] By refusing to act on my rigged trial these judges agree with the AG that
it’s OK to rig trials
AND IN SO DOING: The BC Supreme Court proves that the oath to the Office was second fiddle to their oath to the BAR in my case. AND the BC courts agree that somehow it OK to violate the only thing that is directly prohibited under this uncodified form of government called: “the Supremacy of Parliament”

NAMELY: The use of arbitrary power cannot be used by especially the AG of BC against any Officer of the Marijuana Party of Canada, who is upholding his party RUBRIC, and there is nothing more abusive and repugnant in law than the majority in power getting away with telling a judge to call me guilty
before my trial.

[-ii-] The matter that makes it so repugnant is THAT:
At the Confirmation hearing on file # 157479 Judge Bruce asked why I insisted on having no lawyer. I told her that I considered lawyers be a liability because I wanted the evidence heard at a fair trial and the only way I could prevent a plea bargain before a trial was to refuse to have a lawyer. Her response was “I’m sorry you feel that way.
AND then the AG insisted that he can order a judge to find me guilty before a trial, when I don’t have a lawyer to plea bargain for me. I agree that had I had a lawyer this rigging would be called negotiation,

BUT it apparently doesn’t matter. This is a crime that only has one solution that’s clearly expressed in Sec 11 D, which is a new trial.

[ C ] What must be noted is THAT: Had I not had such a great defense at my trial that I never would have had my BC Supreme Court of Appeals case heard or seen my Reasons for Judgment in the 1st place.

- Back in 2007 the highest court in BC, in a verbal ruling indirectly upheld that they were not the highest authority to deal with this case # 157479-?, and this SCC mandamus really is the last way to get a new trial

The matter before a preliminary hearing is that the SCC gets to choose whether I file a criminal case file against file CA 033602 or I file a Civil Action against SC BC file # S 115218 [as bought up in point 4] because we cannot do both, and frankly the SCC can use this Hearing to dismiss the whole matter.

[ D ] The matter before this SCC mandamus was created by me Peacefully refreshing this file in order to be handed a brand new unconstitutional ruling my on file # 191280-5-C and in this way I keep this liability created in file # 157479 alive. This liability was inherited by the new SG Rich Coleman, who since his appointment, refuses to uphold his oath by obstructing Justice, by fraudulently enforcing the AG’s unconstitutional orders of Nov 12th 2010, by refusing to recognize that he must uphold my right to a fair trial.

[ E ] By definition this is a FAILURE OF AN ENTITY TO COMPLY
with the law by the Province of BC
AND this SCC mandamus is the last means to get the bare minimum of a new trial at the SCC to deal with this mess, and by rejecting to act on this mandamus, you create the last day that I seek.

[ 4 ] REASONS FOR SENTENCING on case file # 157479 – handed to me on Dec 5, 2005

[ A ] Point #2 says I’m guilty of possession of marijuana for trafficking and in her verbal ruling added that I also was guilty of operating a hydroponics store that bought inventoried and sold growing equipment
[-i-] Point #6 says I was protecting the Marijuana Party’s RUBRIC and then outlines what this court ruling recognizes our RUBRIC as an implied colour, in points # 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15
[-ii-] Point # 17 says I cannot get an absolute discharge because I was not submissive to this lower BC court, and recognizes that I promised to continue to sell marijuana despite these charges,
[-iii-] Point # 22 says she hands me a suspended sentence and a 12 month probation is appropriate.
[-iv-] Point # 23 says I am prohibited from possessing using or being around hydroponic equipment and fertilizer, and that I will not sell such equipment.– She makes no mention of restricting me from buying and selling cannabis;
therefore, under 'what's not directly prohibited cannot be implied'

[-v-] I can commit breaking a statute under Sec 126 CCC with a lawful excuse for buying possessing inventory and selling marijuana to Marijuana Party members BUT apparently I have no such protection because the AG rigged my next court case in
file # 182787-D on Oct 7, 2007 and
then obstructed Justice by blocking the proper filing of documents,
which were attached to my case file S 115218 on Sept 19, 2007

The reality is that all the AG had to do was quietly respect this Sec 126 CCC quasi legal status and we would not be in this mess today, INSTEAD they chose to attack me and destroy Democracy.

[ B ] At face value this ruling makes no sense, and the Appeal of this sentence was recognized at a preliminary Hearing while the writ was dropped, where a judge ruled that the documents that were being pressed were sufficient to open this case file # CA 033603 as a criminal Appeals case.

[-i-] And as to the Reasons for Judgment, [brought up in point 1] it really was not the judge who violated her oath, as I was contending; BUT the AG of BC who was guilty of rigging my trial shortly after my Confirmation Hearing. She did the bare minimum of entering it into a record that could not go see [due to FRAUD by the AG of BC, and this mess uncannily dragged in the CEO of Elections Canada, as if by design

[ C ] This liability was created by line #7 of my Reasons for Sentencing where it says that: I was mistaken to believe that the Elections Act would offer me immunity for selling marijuana as a political objective of a registered party - when I clearly was seeking the Election Act’s protection .

[-i-] AND a serious legal quirk occurred in my case by the fact THAT
this sentence was tabled a few days after the federal Election writ was dropped, which means the abuse of the arbitrary powers of the Supremacy of Parliament cannot be enforced, because Parliament has been suspended.

[-ii-] In law, while the writ is dropped, we are all governed under
“the law of the land” that is actually administered by the CEO who is apparently the only natural person in Canada, who under the Elections Act, is our de-facto king while Parliament is dissolved
therefore this line #7 makes no sense at all

[-iii-] NOW, I’m also a natural person who only holds a person under the Elections Act and apparently this CEO is also the natural person who governs [as king] and he holds the liability of paying me, and since he cannot means [under old English law]
I can demand to ascend to his post and my damage award instantly converts into Treasury Bonds in King George VI’s registry.
As to Isaiah 3: ‘the nobody’ will rise and say to one of his brothers in his father’s house: “take this cloak and never make me leader of people’.

[ D ] As to this AFFIDAVIT filed with this CEO on Dec 31st 2005, I addressed the liability of a Sec 336 CCC violation happening on his watch and it was a direct attack of the Elections Act. This notice was attached as a caveat to my candidacy to force the CEO of Elections Canada to answer this question in writing:
“What rule of law is Supreme in your jurisdiction” because I needed this letter to support my claims in file CA 033602 He simple couldn’t even lie about what rule of law he upheld, without creating a liability and the real core issue here is created by addressing which oath is Supreme when you hold more than one

[-i-] As to a series of Documents filed between with Elections Canada across 2006 resulted in the CEO of Elections Canada resigning on Dec 21st 2006 because he refused to deliver this answer in writing.

[-ii-] Since I could not file any papers in BC; this liability created a situation where in order to fit in Election Canada’s stone-walling,
I had to wait until the writ dropped in the next federal Election to file against this liability of rigging my trial, and into answering the question. I got paperwork after they rejected my person from running in the Election,
AND it’s at this time I figured out what their crimes of state were.

NAMELY: They destroyed me just like BC did, but they did it by saying I can never run for Parliament and to do this they had to rape me of the only person I hold in law through FRAUD.

[-iii-] This time, I chose to file a Petition on the new CEO of Elections Canada to resolve my ID issue and rigged trial through civil action, while the writ was dropped, in my Supreme Court file # S 115218, on Sept 19, 2008, where the AG and SG committed another crime of FRAUD by obstructing my right to file any motions in any BC court room, with a totally fraudulent filed in a SC of BC file and this time this crime was done to protect the CEO of Election Canada from liability originally created by the AG and SG of BC.

[ E ] In order to conclude this outline, let it be understood that there are many other case files that show this total disrespect for the rule of law that I could drag in but they are not directly connected to the damage award. In fact the abuse seems to never stop.
Clearly, this SCC case may be over in 1-day, BUT that’s not my choice.