A short rant on city politics in Vancouver and why senior servants need to be culled and replaced by trustees, because government workers are lazy by design. Tee timing golf hoofers by leisure, on the dwindling workers' dime. http://www.scribd.com/doc/236847786/New-City-Election-Leaflet

The federal marijuana can accept anonymous 20$ or equivalent political assigned donations. The donater can direct that donation towards political activity or redeem their ticket for food grade cannabis products (produced by and for the party). When the Writ of Election is dropped, all cannabis products are available as assigned political donations, under the Tax Act, the ElectionsAct and the Constitution of Canada. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/medical-pot-cookie-prohibition-ruled-unconstitutional-1.2736526

Comments from the defences legal represntative: Kirk Tousaw Here's my early summary of the decision in R v Owen Smith. The BCCA found that section 7 protected the rights of patients to make the reasonable choice to use medical marijuana in forms other then dried marijuana. The court determined that these types of medical decisions go to the core of what it means to be an autonomous person living with dignity in our society. The court disagreed with the remedy imposed by the trial judge and modify that remedy to simply strike the dried marijuana restriction in the regulatory scheme and gave Parliament a one year to respond. It is unclear what impact that one-year suspension is going to have because obviously the MMAR no longer exist. It is similarly unclear what impact this will have on the MMPR though I would suggest that patients have the right to render dried cannabis into the forms and modes of ingestion they find most suitable for their particular symptoms or conditions. Because there was a dissent and this is a criminal case, I believe that there is an automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. I thought the court majority used very good language in describing the parameters of the rights protected by section 7 as they apply to the use of medical cannabis. In particular I was impressed with the strong language used in paragraph 96. It's been an absolute honor and privilege to work on this case with Ted Smith and Owen Smith and of course with the incredible and brave members of the VCBC that testified in the proceedings. Onward. A few questions keep arising: 1. The decision is binding on trial level courts across Canada, persuasive on provincial appellate courts. 2. The impact of the statement above is unclear because (a) the MMAR are no more; (b) the remedy imposed by the BCCA was suspended for a year to let the government react. 3. What the government is required to do by this decision is not immediately clear to me. What they should do is immediately amend the MMPR and/or CDSA to (1) make clear that patients can produce and possess cannabis derivative medicines, and (2) allow LPs to produce and sell those medicines. [Obviously what they really should do is legalize cannabis generally and stop trying to take away patient's production rights but my comments are meant to be a reaction to the Court's ruling in our current framework.] 4. The government and Owen Smith are both entitled to appeal. I'm not sure, but believe, that because it was not unanimous the SCC would have to take the case. No decisions have been made by either side at this point. 5. This decision does not allow LPs to make/sell derivatives right now (or possibly ever). Fundamentally, as the decision was written, it is about patient rights, patient autonomy, patient dignity. I need to also commend the very brave patient witnesses that shared their stories with the Court in this case. Thank you.

The Supreme Court of Canada hasn't heard a medical cannabis case since 1989. http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Supreme+Court+Canada+grants+oral+hearings+bong+shop+owner/10117855/story.html

http://www.abbotsfordtoday.ca/why-tim-felgers-supreme-court-date-matters/

GOOD NEWS /INFO on how to protect any dispensary from police raids - http://www.scribd.com/doc/236980970/On-Tim-Felger-s-STAY-AWAY-NOTICE - this is a short 1-page explanation of what we are doing with this SCC ruling http://www.scribd.com/doc/228291707/ticket-A-to-totally-legalize-cannabis

Turmel wins! Felger and Boyer for the federal MJParty in the SCC September 4th http://www.gazettevaudreuilsoulanges.com/2014/08/20/crown-acquits-medical-marijuana-grower/

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX - This article explains in detail how to legalize the whole cannabis industry by making it fully compliant to common law jurisdiction. http://www.scribd.com/doc/237454074/A-Detailed-article-these-new-SCC-rulings

Notice from Marc Boyer I must be doing something effective because YouTube has blocked me from uploading my last video and now scribd(.com) just blocked me from uploading my last legal notice. So i'll try posting this 2-page NOTICE on my wall WHAT DOES COMMON LAW PROTECTION MEAN? IN OUR CASE IT MEANS THIS. 1. Under the Elections Act, we can hold any authority [Police or Justice] to protect our marijuana beliefs, During an election campaign, all authorities are actually duty bound to protect our right to do things and promote things that the majority in power don't want to happen. In fact, they are directly prohibited from obstructing our campaign. No one with a badge can say that: Since they really don't want these reforms to happen, means they can obstruct our positive law initiative from attracting voters. 2. Under Sec 1 of the Charter, it's reasonable to expect that the Marijuana Party can insist that the BCSC(British Columbia Supreme Court) and or the SCC(Supreme Court of Canada) must protect our right to legalize marijuana thru any means that we can conjure up. 3. Our strategy has been transparent, and it appears to be working: We just act like we have the right to be Free [which we do] until Police obstruct us from expressing our ways and means to attract voters. 1. Strategically, [due to the fact that we expected and got a negative police response] means we acted when it was the best time [if not the only time] to press /implement our program of legalizing cannabis by restoring our common law rights, which is during this Election Season, 2. AND on August 22nd, our strategy of Peacefully pushing the limits of police intolerance, worked 3. IN SO DOING, we just won a huge little mini victory for our cause, by campaigning at the PNE(Pacific National Exhibition) 2. Here's what went down: On Friday evening, we are set up at the entrance to the PNE with our campaign cart full of cookies and smoothies AND we started handing out 'Vote for Marc Boyer' pamphlets, and attracting people to contribute to our campaign by using IC75-2R8/10(Canadian Revenue Agency form for political fundraising) protocol to attract voters 1. We immediately were confronted by a PNE attendant, who brought his boss over within the first 15 minutes of being there. He stated that he was responding to a complaint that we were selling pot cookies and smoothies. He actually liked our explanation that what we were doing actually looked like we were selling, but we were just collecting contributions under a clever Elections Act loophole. 1. After a 5 minute conversation, he admitted that he had no authority to stop us and said good luck 2. About an hour later, one Duty Sergeant and 3 VPD(Vancouver Police Department, British Columbia) Officers show up and tell us to leave, because we were trafficking in marijuana. From the get-go this Sergeant was not going to accept a 'no' from us, but we were able to convince him that the IC75-2R8 protocol could protect our right to sell cookies, 3. BUT they insisted that it was a criminal act of trafficking to give smoothie samples away, and because Marc Boyer was doing this, meant i would be charged with trafficking and my goods confiscated 1. [this is important] They told the 3 agents that came with me that they would not be charged because they never gave any samples away, and they would be free to go, if i was arrested. 1. In law [if it wasn't Election Season] this Sergeant can only make an offer to go away, and he knew i wasn't intimidated by his, when i said: 'I just might have to take you up on that offer' 2. I then made this counter offer: I'll leave Peacefully when you give me an 'incident report file # ' 3. In law, he had no choice but comply, so i was handed a file # 14-149711 and i said: �thank you, we know how important this # was� and that we would start filing against it the next day'. 4. The next day � i called VPD and i was told that this file # gave me the right to have The Police Professional Standards investigate my claims, and if they don't act to our satisfaction this morning that we'd be seeking remedy in BCSC criminal court for resolution in the afternoon, 1. in law, we can get a ruling on really short leave [as in the next morning] because the standard of a week later can't apply BECAUSE the PNE is over by the time we get a ruling. 2. In law, short leave means 'right now' because later [in our case] is obstruction of Justice. 2. In law, no Justice in the BCSC or the SCC can deny our EDA the right to use IC75-2R8 protocol to attract political participation AND they must rule on a huge 'mistake' this VPD Duty Sergeant did when he used the excuse of �I had it was trafficking to give 3/4-oz smoothie samples away'' 1. BUT the last time [on June 15th] at the Car Free Days event, the reason stated for confiscating and robbing us of $3000 of goods was the exact opposite. NAMELY: 1. it was OK to give the smoothies and cookies away, BUT it was trafficking to sell the cookies 2. This PNE event excuse is the exact opposite excuse used at Car free Days and that means a Justice must address that they can't dream up excuses, in order to obstruct us, when it's actually every Police officer's duty to protect our rights while electioneering on any issue that they don't approve of. In this case � No Justice can ignore this situation where the Police are literally saying 'i don't care if he has rights; It's a crime for Police to censor our right to Campaign against Harper's plans to trash our Constitution, during an Election. 1. Constitutionally our defence is bulletproof, regrettably we are not.

Aug 24th, 2014 NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING � NOTICE OF INTENT � NOTICE OF LIABILITY RE: Events that occurred by creating File # 14-149711 OPENING PREMISE: [on Police unaccountability] This raising of Tim Felger case by the SCC [at face value] seems to be offering us a ways and means to get to the SCC on Short Leave. AND at face value, VPD are probably relying on Tim Felger's case law, as the reason why they can abuse our rights. 4. The big difference in our EDA case is that: Our Party is running lots of candidates for City office this fall and we are definitely fielding candidates in lots of ridings in the next General Federal Election. 1. Our contention is that if they get away with criminalizing our IC75-2R8 /10 protocol, then they will definitely drive the final spike in destroying Democracy itself, and our marketing plans for opening lots of cannabis coffee shops in Vancouver, as one of our other campaign strategies to get elected. 2. AT FACE VALUE: The fastest way to achieve our need to basically get a Tax ruling is by 1st filing a Motion with the BCSC on this new file #, and seek an injunction to carry-on until we file as '3rd party interveners in the Tim Felger Hearing, because Tim actually wants us to intervene in this case. 5. ON THIS: We are actually not surprised at the total refusal from anyone in City Hall and VPD to communicate because [at face value] they are somehow forbidden [under the founding principles of Sec 9 of the BC Police Act - for example] to recognize [let alone � respect or honour or stand-under] our declaration to hold a genuine right to form Private Clubs' that operate under our claim of right to hold real common law protection, because that means they can't tell us what to do, under common law 1. Enabling the return of common law rights to any landed Canadian is the exactly what Harper is trying to destroy, and somehow we become a prey for defending that enough is enough 6. There's no way around it: we can and are in this club that's called: �the Supremacy of Parliament' 1. The VPD can whine all they want BUT they must respect and protect our right to gain all kinds of voter participation with our IC75-2R8 loophole - especially during any City Election Campaign. 2. Police simply are in direct violation of their fiduciary trust by obstructing us from getting our right to access the voters at any public event in any park [period]. This duty Sergeant knows that it's a criminal act to extort us into doing anything and frankly deserves to be criminally charged for extortion for threatening to confiscate our goods, when he is directly prohibited from doing that. 3. NAMELY: Just like in Tim Felger's case, no Police Officer has a right to take anything from us because they are directly prohibited from robbing us of our guaranteed rights to express freely that we don't like what this City's uncivil servants are getting away with, especially when the reason behind what he's doing is basically, he doesn�t care what our rights are, [under Part 9 of the BC Election Act], all police MUST be empowered to do things that ordinary citizens cannot do. 4. As we see it: this corrupt Sergeant is inviting himself to be the case law standard on how to deal with the extortioners that run the VDP goon squads that want Harper's perverted martial law society 7. As we see it; Under the circumstances we really cannot expect our campaign to swing into full gear, until a BCSC or a SCC Justice recognizes our Constitutional guarantee to achieve thru lawful means, a ways and means to fulfil the only reason our Party exists NAMELY: to legalize marijuana thru Peaceful political means, and let's face it - in politics - timing is very important. 1. [in our case] our political guarantee of our Freedom of Expression during an election season is clearly being violated by lots of City Officials, who are shocked by our campaign plans 2. [in our case] the thin blue-line that they insist on crossing is inexcusable because their oath demands that they must protect our right to shake things up at City Hall, which includes all kinds of changes at VPD, because the principles of a Free and Democratic society are Sacred. ON CONCLUDING THIS NOTICE: 3. This Notice is being filed with Vancouver Elections and a plethora of high ranking Officials 1. We are seeking a face to face meeting with Officers with Police Professional Standards 2. In the event that we cannot get satisfaction by noon on going back to the PNE that evening, will result where we are filing in the afternoon for a ruling and injunctions on this open file. 4. We accept that VPD just might have unwittingly have set us up AND they just might also want an injunction in order to know what they can or cannot do, because at face value they need to address the fact that whenever they obstruct what we are doing, simply makes things worse. 1. If not now � then when? If not here � then where? We're not shrinking from their evil intent.

This article is 4-pages long but well worth the read http://www.scribd.com/doc/239135531/On-Political-Descent-Final common law rights are where real human rights reside

October 17th - Supreme Court of Canada Timothy Lee Felger v. Her Majesty the Queen http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/info/sum-som-eng.aspx?cas=35795