OUTLINING THE BASIC FACTS THAT CREATED THIS FILING: 1- This case arises from having a total weight

parcel of about 5 lbs that held about $700 worth of shake [low-grade cannabis leaf]. It was mailed to Marc Boyer thru Canada Post, from Nelson BC, and this address happens to be an EDA headquarters for the Marijuana Party of Canada. 2- [As to appendix #1] i presented proof of this status at the Vancouver Post Office and post employees gave me a tracking report on the parcel. I made it clear that under Sec 337 CCC, i was demanding that the parcel be delivered and several oath holding Post Office officials refused. 3- They sighted that they were under orders of the Attorney General of Canada, and invited me to file in BC Supreme Court to resolve my complaint that i have a legitimate right to demand it 4- VPD refuse to assist in retreaving my property, and that's obstruction to enforce Sec 337 CCC, 5- By the fact that the VPD refused to even open a file means I must file this obstruction, against the Mayor Gregor Robertson and in fairness, file this attached NOTICE, so that no BODY can say they didn't see it coming and panics. I could have just filed a MOTION in BC Supreme Court BUT they have a history of malfeasance when dealing with me, so filing this NOTICE was a good idea and necessary in my case. I served it on my usual list of religious leaders and political oath holders, in Municipal, provincial and federal jurisdictions on Feb 15th along with a backgrounder that i'll attach with my formal filing which should happen next week. From filing this notice i'll check back on tuesday to see if anyone will intervene without having to formally file and if no one acts then i'll start due process.

February 15th 2013

NOTICE OF LIABILITY NOTICE OF INTENT

By marc boyer, In The Supreme Court of British Columbia In the jurisdiction of the Municipality of the City of Vancouver

To file under loi du jour

1. This MOTION is being sought in order to seek a simple civil remedy to what appears to be legal called automatonism under Sec 16 CCC. I really have been holding back from proceeding thru the courts; i would rather solve this matter through negotiation but all participants refuse to co-operate and enforce what's discounted as 'white color wrongdoings by public officials.' 2. With a civil Motion, I'm seeking remedy from the Supreme Court Judge who seizes this file, to rule on behalf of the AG of BC, in order to avoid any further liability, on what at face value is a simple matter of being able to get equal protection, under the law, through civil means. 3. With this filing, I'm asking a Judge to intervene by assigning a Sheriff to make sure that the Vancouver Branch of the Post Office understands that it errored in refusing to deliver my mail. 1. AND by fixing this error, all these liabilities that created this filing will simply go away. 2. As expressed [in point #10 on] if the police will not arrest me for possession of contraband when the parcel is delivered means my complaint of FAILURE OF AN ENTITY TO COMPLY [1998 Police Act] is unwarranted, because i actually could find remedy through civil means 3. It's a very simple matter to accept that under case law precedent that the VPD will refuse to charge me with possession of contraband [as opposed to a controlled substance] AND it's not a crime for me [in my particular situation] to possess baking grade cannabis leaf 4. Therefore the trust of: 'the mail must be delivered' is violated and that's a serious crime. 4. Without being offered a civil way to address my particular situation means i must file criminal charges and this is problematic because Sec 126[2] says i normally would need written permission from the AG of Canada before i can charge any of the Public Official involved in this mess, and that creates a big conflict of interests NAMELY: i must charge the AG of Canada. 5. As to Sec 126[1] i have more than a lawful excuse, under the rule of law, because the first sentence directly prohibits the majority in power to apply arbitrary use of power by blindly obeying the rules and regulations on a loyal opposition who is upholding their party RUBRIC 1. Under the oath held by a private individual the Minister in Charge of the Post Office a Mr Chuck Stahl and since many day to day responsibilities are delegated to the Minister of State, means i must drag in Rob Merrifield, because both of these Minister share in the burden of upholding the Post Office's trust to deliver the mail when ordered to by a private individual under Sec 337 CCC. I have the authority to demand this delivery because their arbitrary rules don't fit the circumstances and frankly these rules don't apply to my confiscated property, especially when i'm a free man and a private individual in Parliament. 2. As an Officer of the Marijuan Party, means i'm in the same society as everyone being charged therefore there is no erroneous protection from being exempt from Sec 15 of the Charter NAMELY: we are just human beings who are all equal before and under the law 3. Under Sec 39 CCC i hold a genuine Claim of Right to possess the articles of our beliefs, when these articles in the parcel provide a legal ways and means of raising funds for my EDA's guarantee to Freedom of Expression, which extends to protecting our RUBRIC. 4. Furthermore under a failure to comply with a Sec 337 CCC DEMAND means failure by any Minister to comply with this demand automatically implies that they all face an addition count of violating Sec 336 CCC NAMELY: Criminal Breach of Fiduciary Trust, for violating the trust to never trample on the rights of a genuine free man and /or another private individual in Parliament, who is seeking protecting from tyranny, which John Locke defined as taking what no BODY doth have a right to take [as opposed to no one]

6. I'm standing under the Marijuana Party RUBRIC, and The Elections Act says that if this Act is in conflict with any other Act, statute or regulation that the rules and regulations of the Elections Act override any other Act and under the original 1998 Longley Loophole decision and under subsequent rulings I am doing nothing illegal because it's directly implied, as obvious that a political party can make a profit by protecting our beliefs, no matter how ridiculous that may appear to be at face value [So says Allen McKechan in this Longley Loophole decision] 1. APPENDIX 1 is an article that i use as Party Whip of the Marijuana Party to attract people to form EDAs in order to protect the erosion of rights of over 30,000 victims of insane and arbitrary rules of a Corporation i call Death Canada, 2. As to APPENDIX 2, DEFENSE UNDER SEC 126 CCC - I outline my past sufferings from the total abuse of Sec 126 CCC by the Office of the AG of Canada and BC especially. 7. Furthermore, in my situation even without my political Party status, i hold a perfectly lawful excuse under Sec 126[1] CCC because it's not illegal for any professional cannabis baker to possess baking grade cannabis, because of a recent dropping of the charges on a Smith v Regina case, of Victoria, because Judge Johnson ruled that it's not a crime to supply cookies and ointments to quasi-legal medical dispensaries and he stood under the original Judge Wally Oppal decision that growing and transporting cannabis bud is not a crime when it's being delivered to a quasi-legal cannabis dispensary; these case law precedents clearly apply to me. 1. It must be noted THAT: An easy remedy was offered and refused by everyone and refused NAMELY: The dispute is over whether the parcel contained contraband, and the Supervisor for Customer Relations assured me that his decision was final. He clearly stated that he is operating under the rules and regulations set out by the Attorney General of Canada AND 2. Furthermore he agrees that the only place i will find remedy is by filing some kind of motion with the Supreme Court of BC, which i'm trying to do civilly. 8. This means THAT: unless i can find remedy civilly through this Judge means 3 Federal Cabinet Ministers must be charged in order to explain why they refuse to deliver a parcel to Marc Boyer 9. AND frankly this Judge is violating Sec 337 CCC and Sec 336 CCC if he does nothing about fixing the issue of my mail being stolen by the Post Office, and that means FAILURE OF AN ENTITY TO COMPLY is now complete because VPD inspectors have already refused to open a file because they claim to not have permission to charge or investigate a Federal Minister. 1. Under the rule of law NAMELY: The private individual Mr. Laurence Cannon, who holds the Office of the Attorney General of Canada, the private individual Mr. Rob Merrifield , who holds the Office of the Minister of State [of where?] and the private individual Mr Chuck Stahl, who holds the Office of Minister in Charge of the Post Office, must be dragged into a court of competent jurisdiction [which this court session can determine] in order to explain why they refuse to deliver the mail, when i can demand it to be delivered because it's not their job to determine if the parcel contains contraband, that's up to the VPD. 10. BUT THEN, the Judge, who hears this matter, can choose to intervene [as to point 2] by having a Sherriff negotiate the delivery of my parcel in order to stop any further liability 11. BOTTOM LINE: The solution is easily solved by delivering this parcel with a VPD Police Officer present, to witness the transaction. VPD inspectors have reassured me that they would never arrest me for being in possession of a prohibited substance AND this is because the Mayor's mandate /code of activity was 'precribed as law' under the SCC Pitfield case law precedent. 12. IN THE EVENT THAT: Justice cannot be found civilly will result in me going across the hall and file a Mandamus in the Supreme Court of BC - Criminal Branch and failure to comply with the law will result in me taking flight to Scotland to file against the Stone of Destiny. 13. BY DEFINITION: It's pure automotonism [Sec 16 CCC] to not deliver my mail. You're not supposed to enter into conflict unless you're willing to take on the liability created by resisting