November 27, 2015

MOTION ON REPEALING MARC BOYER'S GAG ORDER.

1. Back in 2004, Marc Boyer was served a gag order by the head registrar of the Civil Registry
called Mr. Messenger. This gag order came from filing one document that he called vexatious,
and originally his gag order only applied to the civil registry, and it now applies to the criminal
registry as well, because i keep bringing up the thorny issue that this court now faces again.
Except now it's far worse than when i started, and it can never get better without someone like
me going the distance in spite of the huge obstacles, because if i don't, then who will?
2. In this new case, the BAR now wants to stop me from acting like a lawyer in a criminal matter,
when I'm acting like a barrister, who is defending the issue of no jurisdiction at the arraignment.
[ON THIS]: Criminal charges are not a criminal matter until after the arraignment.
1. At face value: With this common law motion filed by the BAR, we have done a full circle;
by this i mean, we're back to the original reason for this decade old gag order, except
worse; where the BAR wants exclusivity to represent anyone in any phase of a court
proceeding, in order to bar anyone like me from making a common law defence because i
know and act on benefiting from the Achilles heal that the minutes of this vote exposed.
3. The larger issue at stake in this case is that after 22 years of every one associated with the
BAR [like] law enforcement officers are prohibited from being a common law Peace Officer and
every lawyer has been prohibited from defending any common law application in a criminal
matter, which has resulted where all Canadian common law rights and Freedoms have been
systematically gutted by lawyers [in 1993] and enforced under under Civilian Oversight [1998]
4. [at face value] IN THIS CASE, of relying on the mountain of statutory limitation placed on our
Free and Democratic society [under R v Oakes] means the fact remains that when no one can
defend common law, results where the BAR is entrenched on destroying democratic freedom
by insisting that their Act supersedes the Act, which plays hand in hand with NATO passing /
implementing this sedition Act called S-55 of the CDSA, which [by virtue of the fact that it came
from Royal ascent], results where all BAR member can actually engage in vanquishing all its
disadvantaged Canadians by causing the total decimation of all human rights known to man,
because a faceless paper queen called governor in council said so. But then Pierre Trudeau
called our present culmination of this grand plan: A short term pain for a long term gain
5. If anyone cares to take note: Under s-2 of S 55 of the CDSA all Public Safety will be handed
over to NATO under another Act tabled this time by Justin Trudeau, with his majority will pass
the full implementation of this seditious act of omission in the next Throne Speach, [note: s-2,1]
without restricting the generality of the foregoing After this, NATO Federal Courts can now
tell Parliament that it holds sole 'across the board' jurisdiction over Public Safety in Canada.
1. So the cast is set, so this new Zionist loving Prime Minister [at face value] can take that
giant step of totally abandoning our Sovereignty over to NATO is almost a fait accomplie;
2. EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT: Constitutional law under the SCC is still Supreme in
Canada, and a bencher [like i'm facing in this BAR charge] is caught in a trap of serving
two masters, and must make a choice. NAMELY: Will this judge rebel by submitting to this
sedition [OR] will the BCSC benchers rebel and side with the SCC as being Supreme?
6. Frankly, all we can do is place our faith in God, because the fate of men in Canada becoming a
banana republic in their demonic New World Order is held by two or three witnesses, in an
insignificant side ruling in a case where the messenger will either be denied the right to uphold
the law as Supreme in order to protect the fiduciary trust to Canadian Sovereignty as Supreme.
1. SO MAKE A CHOICE: As we understand it, this bencher will either obey a Sec 126(2) CC
interference by the new Attorney General or the conscience of the Minister of Justice, and
this choice is held by this new player on the scene, NAMELY: Jody Wilson Rayborn

BACK TO THE IMPORTANCE OF LIFTING THIS DECADE OLD GAG ORDER

7. This gag order came from me filing a motion in response to getting the minutes of the meeting
where the BC BAR converted their oath of allegiance to this new Barristers and Solicitors oath
of 1993. This gag order enforces that Marc Boyer cannot use this secret in order to submit any
court document without a lawyer filing this motion, in order words the BAR is compelled to bar
anyone who will make a common law defence using especially a 'Free and democratic society'
[R v Oakes] in any proceeding, because at face value, lawyers are directly prohibited to do so,
therefore no one else can defend common law in any proceeding, under Sec 126(2) CC
8. As we understand this conflict in law, the Federal Courts thru the BAR are pressing that:
in order to comply with an implied necessary requirement of having NAFTA passed, means we
Canadians have been governed under the North American Free Trade Agreement Agreement,
[NAFTA agreement] where lawyers are agreeing to serve the Federal Courts as Supreme
9. In the minutes of this meeting it stated that with just a show of hands, the vote passed.
BUT, it was duly noted in the minutes by some benchers that this new oath would inevitably
lead to a serious conflict between this new oath of the Bar and the oath of the Office [of these
benchers], because of the inevitable conflicts that could occur from serving two masters.

10. This conflict between the oath to the BAR and the oath of Office of the benchers has come to
full festering fruition, under this SCC unanimous Smith ruling, because this conflict in
law has created this elephant to enter the room and nobody in authority wants to
address this conflict in law - NAMELY: According to the SCC - it's actually legal to grow
cannabis for dispensaries that service the needs of the vulnerable in society,

11. Frankly until this conflict in law is settled civilly can only lead to this fact that when /if
a unanimous decision like this SCC ruling can be ignored by everyone in Maritime
Authority, means all Canadians right to Sovereignty have been trashed by lawyers and
police and uncivil servants by this oath to obey the Federal Court as Supreme - except
these BAR members called benchers, who are bound to obey the SCC as Supreme.

12. In our case, the independence of these benchers is being hollowed out by having the
Crown be able to block any of our common law application of law from being filed,
because of this gag order, which is now being compounded with this Court Motion.

13. BOTTOM LINE: There is one big difference between when this systematic plan
to gradually become part of their New World Order was set, and today
NAMELY: Those who govern are now held to having to explain why they're doing this.

14. In true Biblical proportions: as to the 2nd Commandment - The sins of the father are

being held by the son, and this court ruling is literally deciding whether the BAR and
those who govern want to go to a Wedding by recognizing that: the Supremacy of
common law is in fact the founding principles of God's law being Supreme, and a
Banquet was offered to everyone else and frankly i take comfort in observing that the
Bible did not lie, because exactly as to prophecy no one is lifting finger to help.

15. EITHER WAY: Exactly as to R v Oakes This decision is the culmination of a truly

demonic sinister plan despite its effect to be reasonable and demonstrably justified
[or] the Genesis for returning the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Charter,
1. THEREFORE: we wait in patient anticipation for the inevitable and irrevocable
consequences that will arise from 'a yes' or no decision on this charge by the BAR.