OUTLINING THE BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS IN VARIOUS SOCIETY ACT VENTURES

In our Parti Marijuana Party Co-op leaflet we gloss over a lot of details because frankly it would be

relevant to only those who are interested in being in the activity of operating a marijuana dispensary, [as opposed to the occupation of operating under a corporation]. As you will see we have several ways to work under the Societies Act in order to shake up the system. BOX #1____________________________________________________________________________ The traditional avenue for operating a dispensary is to incorporate as a non-profit society. The leaflet says the party or EDA cannot protect the Society because 1 of those reasons is 'it's legally handled as a corporation by the provincial courts' and [2] it must operate as a not-for-profit platform [we can't] - BUT we can protect the employees who work for this society with our RUBRIC and the members of the dispensary who are Party members, and even more so if they were officers and or agents of an EDA because we can protect real human beings who stand-under our RUBRIC, even though they work outside our box. All not-for-profit societies operate under the rules and regulations of the Societies Act in their province and have the rights of a corporation. The Elections Act is where real human beings can seek benefit because we actually hold entitlement to being a private individual [rule of law] As I see it, in this provincial box, dispensaries don't use the Co-op route because there is less if no protection for the staff from being charged for trafficking [for example] - BUT if a Co-op dispensary staff were on an EDA then that Co-op [its staff, and members] would be entitled to due process by the provincial courts [for example] and the staff would be best protected by being officers and agents of an EDA A Co-op can be political, a non profit society cannot be political NOW WRAP YOU HEAD AROUND THIS: [under what's not directly prohibited and yet again implied] - By incorporating as a Co-op with the province means an EDA can be the CFO [Chief Financial Officer] of the Co-op [for example]. In this way the Co-op is directly under the EDA's umbrella, and everyone in the Co-op can be protected by the party RUBRIC [they might object to this full loop set up tho] AND - For this avenue to be bulletproof the EDA can [at the same time] appoint the Co-op to be the CFA [Chief Financial Agent] of the EDA. The only thing the province or Elections Canada can do is de'certify' both entities and they cannot do that if non of these BODIES don't cook the books. - This Co-op and EDA can really benefit by being under the Longley Loophole, yet it's still accountable to the provincial jurisdiction and its due process. As i see it BOX#2 is my playpen It's my contention that by registering the Co-op name with the BC Societies Act [$50] means that you can call yourself a Co-op and traditionally the Co-op enters into a contract with the province as a corporation in order to be protected by the province's and Canada's laws and regulations Under what's not directly forbidden, and the fact that The Elections Act does imply that a co-op can be registered as an agent /officer with the EDA, and be protected by the Elections Act. AND this is iron clad by deliberately not enter into contract with the province. There is nothing that can stop that Co-op from operating under the Elections Act Under this structure, this Co-op is not a corporation it's comprised as being a BODY of human beings, with genuine Sec 15 Charter rights as a natural person

By not being in a contract with the province means the entire provincial court process cannot be applied to anyone in this Co-op or EDA. That does not mean they cannot charge us, BUT it does mean that your case goes directly to the Supreme Court of Canada immediately after the arraignment, after a short session with the BC Supreme Court, BECAUSE The Crown must appoint a real human being to press the charge, and that means this human being cannot hide under this pervert protection of Sec 126[2] CCC, [for example] because no BODY is above the law, especially when we are in a BODY called The Parliament of Canada, in a BC court. That court could say no you can't, So we start a 3-5 year court process and the EDA stays open. In my case, if i get busted, since i'm already indefinitely parked at The SCC and The FCA and The Ontario SC; will result in me filing in the Scottish High Courts shortly after i appear for a brief session in BC Supreme Court, or will it be the Mayor who goes there. Time will tell. FRANKLY the Crown cannot take on a case that it cannot realistically think it can win and just maybe no BODY will charge anyone in the 1st place, and we win the next election, on the understanding that no Party has ever had billions of dollars that we can collect per year. Frankly, take all the political parties total funds spent in every election in Canada, in the history of Canada and it would not total what we can legitimately raise per year. It is an IRON CLAD DEFENSE to stand-under the fact that when we are in the BODY called The Parliament of Canada. In law and in fact, when it comes down to protecting our RUBRIC, we must be governed under no BODY is above the law. [Sec 1 Charter right for a Loyal opposition]

Under this new Longley SCC ruling the BODY called the Marijuana Party cannot generate more than $10billion of total PST revenue, and frankly way before we reach that total, we will reach our political objective of returning to a Free and Democratic Society where no BODY is above the law. The original Longley SCC decision declared that a party can make a profit by protecting its beliefs no matter how ridiculous that looks at face value. An EDA can charge PST in order to protect our beliefs. This ruling exposed and subsequently stopped the biggest cash-cow the federal Elections Act had . Assigned donations were never legal under The BC Elections Act and they still are legal in Quebec. Because of the original Longley SCC ruling, the new rules for tax credit donations are now ridiculous AND If it wasn't for computers, it really would be a bureaucratic nightmare for the EDA or Co-op to operate under them. BUT frankly, the CPA that Elections Canada sponsors is responsible for setting up the Elections Act software that we account under. AND, once in place, all the EDA or Co-op needs to do is enter a pin number for that member and the rest is just basic book keeping entries - Under our EDA rules, If anyone wants to get a tax deductible donation can, by being an agent for the EDA . This means at the end of the year we hit a button and this agent gets in the mail a fully itemized receipt that has at the bottom a tax credit that can be deduct off his taxes. Frankly, in reality few if anyone will ever be get a credit of over $1200. [or $12,000 in cannabis sales per year] so 99% of all those bureaucratic accounting pits will not apply. Frankly this CPA will love our EDA's rule that if the member does not want a tax credit means he signs this paper saying so by promising to not spend over $2000 on our co-op activity /services per day; this means the total donations per day were under $20 and that can be done without a formal receipt from the EDA, In law, Revenue Canada cannot force you to take a tax credit and Elections Canada cannot force anyone to even give his name if the donation is under $20. on any day [by definition it's an anonymous donation in the EDA's books]

It's irrelevant to the Elections Act CPA that the Co-op must enter all these sales in the Co-op book keeping system, because under the Co-op Act it must maintain good books in order to redeem a 1or2 % credit on all his purchases at the end of the year, just like any retail schedule 2 Co-op does.

Our EDA can and will operate under the platform of offering a better MMAR program.

No EDA has to do what another EDA does, It's my call in my EDA to say - it's just so easy to set up a comprehensive platform by borrowing one that is already there [i chin called it lending a creative application by borrowing from an existing archetypal form] if anyone wants to reinvent the wheel can, BUT remember that without a comprehensive platform to regulate your EDA's activity means Elections Canada can de'certify' that EDA for not having a working structure to account for activities and money raised from these activities. [BUT not the Party itself or any EDA that is compliant] The books for operating a not for profit society are very similar to those of a co-op; the transition is painless The Society vacates the not for profit corporation, it lawfully disperses any existing funds and opens a new set of books the next day, under a Co-op structure that we borrowed from BC [in our case] and operate this Co-op under full protection of the Canada Elections Act, as private individual. We want to preserve our network of growers that exist because of the MMAR program and everyone of these MMAR members /growers /designated growers have rights that are all constitutionally upheld by court decisions, like Parker Hitzig etc... So why would anyone want to try their own creation when it could be challenged as being unworkable? Just our Vancouver area dispensary growers could create an EDA in every district to supply them and there are lots of growers in every district in BC who would love more protection AND there's nothing that can stop a grow-op co-op from operating under an EDA, as a separate BODY from the dispensary co-op or as a BODY under any Co-op for that matter. No BODY in authority can challenge our RUBRIC, and if they need a court ruling to tell them so, then so be it. AND frankly the only way they can de'certify' an EDA is if it cooks its books, or is operating in an poorly structured accounting system. The charges for cooking books under the Elections Act are severe and some rulings can be irrevocable and final. Frankly trafficking charges are insignificant compared to Election Act fraud charges. Frankly the only way we can be stopped from doing what we are doing is to totally legalize marijuana [period] or we will be the majority in power in 2 to 3 years. My EDA simply will never comply with consent to be governed under anything less than 'no BODY is above the law. AND until this is the law of the land, means we are not returning to your sinking ship Consent of the governed really is the most powerful force devised by man to effect a makeover without the use of military might and or economic force. Short of the millennium sharp changes in the law rely partially on the stimulus of protest. [Archibald Cox Black's Law 7 th edition] As Cox said: One can only hope that the ideals of Peaceful protest will be enough to press what appears at face value to be only achievable thru only Peaceful means. He knew of no challenge where the goals were so plainly obvious at to justify the turmoils that a trust challenge would bring. His advice was: Past generations made a mess of things, ours no less so than our fathers; when one is inevitably pressed with this challenge, he said: take be best and discard the rest, when pressed with a genuine chance to do a makeover. What i'm pressing fulfils the hopes and dreams of entering into our Golden Age without a fight. It's authorities call to pick up the torch of Freedom or despotism, Our governors simply cannot sit on the fence on this one. [it's a Humpty Dumpty thing]