ON EXPLAINING THESE ABSTRACT LEGAL TAX MANEOUVERS TO THE AVERAGE CITIZEN:

This letter to the Commissioner is in law ordering him to do his duty, without taking him to court [unless
he does not comply] We're demanding that he gives us an Official letter that we can use to get
[1] an accountant /auditor to do our book keeping [2] a letter to take to a bank and open an account.
In this case, it's actually Ives Cote's commission to make sure an EDA [like in our case] is not
screwed over, when these rule-changes create inter-departmental conflicts in bureaucracy.
The Elections Act has a catch-all for when such a conflict occurs that says: if any other Act or
Statute conflicts with the Elections Acts rules then the Elections Act over-rides the new rules.
This is exactly what we are referring too in this demand to fix this new conflict
ON THIS: this situation of not being able to get a bank account or an auditor never was a problem
before BUT Harper has brought in all these new Federal Court rules on banking and accounting firms
[and bingo - these new rules create the precedent law application that we can use to stop him
because our party would be irrevocably harmed by having to comply with these new rules]
Because of these recent changes created by the Felger case, it took us 2 months to get our party
auditor for 20-years to start signing more EDAs for us, because under these rule changes, he could
lose his license by doing our books. This was resolved by the commissioner's office pressing a letter
saying that he had this special dispensation, and in law it's because we're doing political activity.
Now, with our foot in the door, we're seeking to get a letter so that an accounting firm can do
the books for an EDA and our EDA agencies, because they are also doing political activity.
ON THIS ask any dispensary and they will tell you they cannot get any accounting firm to do their
books, because they are involved in marijuana and that's a crime under Federal Court. Furthermore,
all marijuana related accounts at Van City just lost their right to have bank accounts under exactly the
same new Federal Court rule changes AND it really is impossible for our EDAs to get a bank account
without a letter of dispensation stating that we can get a strictly common law bank account, again.
ON THIS had Harper not changed the rules, would have resulted where we would never be able to get
such a letter to fix the problem, BUT because he did means we can get to file this mandamus, in order
to get this Official letter from the Commissioners of Elections Canada that states that Federal Court
rules simply cannot be enforced on any EDA, because of common law jurisdiction concerns. In law,
these rules can apply on ordinary citizens but they cannot be applied on our EDA agencies /members
The Commissioner is placed in an awkward position where, by authorizing us to be an EDA
means he must make sure we can open a proper bank account for the EDA, because his rules
insists that we must have one, especially with our tax loophole THEREFOR it's under his
fiduciary trust, to make sure that we cannot have the ability to get a bank account taken away
from us BECAUSE his mandate demands that he preserves a 'Free and Democratic Society'
CATCH 22: Ask any lawyer: Does this letter go a long way in legalizing our common law cannabis
industry? And the answer will be a reserved 'yes'; BECAUSE it's only legal to do what we do if we
follow the rules that any other co-op needs to do to be legal. IN OTHER WORDS, we have to do good
books, in order to properly collect and remit PST, we can only buy marijuana from EDA agencies, we
can only sell to members that qualify under the Federal Elections Act, and as long as we do all of this
means all the CDSA rules and regulations simply don't apply to our activities because they are
statutory laws and they cannot be enforced on any common law EDA agency like ours [period]
ON THIS this paper dragon is actually really easy to comply with because of computers,
IN FACT: without Canada Revenue EFR/EDA computer programing, an EDA could never
prove to be fully compliant with being a 100% complaint common law enterprise
We are forcing the Commissioner of Elections Canada to tell Harper no you can't do that.
The ripple effect of this letter should get Harper impeached for TREACHERY in those Federal Courts
for subverting our Constitution thru collusion with the treasury [case law precedent - Napoleon]

Dec 15, 2014

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

FILED ONTO:

Yves Ct, QC - Commissioner of Canada Elections

PRESSED BY:

Marc Boyer, an actual recognized and unfettered living human being

acting under the authority of CFO of VQMP. VSMP, AMP

RE:
Respond immediately to and fix the perversion of law set forth in this article, by
mandating that: Any employee of any AG [at face value] cannot enforce any provision of any other
Act that encroaches on or interferes with our God-given right to enjoy genuine Freedom that is created
by properly administrating our common law activities under the [EC] Elections Act jurisdiction,
BECAUSE the founding principals of the Act itself is to protect the inalienable rights of our members,
THEREFOR: the Freedoms graced under the Act must supersede those Maritime /Admiralty rules
and /or obligations that all kinds of regulators are attempting to subjugate our members to submit to, in
order to achieve the end result of fraudulently controlling our members, under their foreign jurisdiction.
CAVEAT: Our mandamus is not frivolous or vexatious BECAUSE we are pressing a remedy that fixes
the fundamental flaw in the form that was created by the BAR converting their Oath of Allegiance in
1993, in order to now be governed under their obligations set forth under this 1993 NAFTA agreement.
Constitutionally, Yves Ct must address the fundamental flaw in law that was pressed in the
minutes recorded, when this oath was converted, where it was duly noted that some benchers
pressed the fact that this new oath to BAR could conflict with the oath to the Office.
- 20-years later, we're pressing to be victims of exactly this fundamental flaw in law, because
those who governed us under FEDERAL COURT rules and regulations, actually are directly
prohibited to force us to conform to their NATO regulations onto our EDA activities, yet appear
to be empowered to do so, under treasonous powers contained in Harper's S-55 of the CDSA
This first article will limit itself to pressing 2 examples of this abuse of authority and we are relying on
the following 2-page outine https://www.scribd.com/doc/249206269/OUTLINE-Dec-4 in order to press
the fact that under common law, and especially the rule of law upheld by BC Supreme Courts [BCSC]
THAT: we can and are demanding to be governed under our Constitutional rule of law, in order to
BAR the Federal Courts from trespassing on our inalienable common law rights,
As this outline presses, we are waiting for the Federal Court's next move, where we will
address a much larger scope to these same really basic jurisdictional issues
1. BECAUSE an election is in the wind means: Yves Ct must address immediately this basic
trust issue in order to preclude the irrevocable harm that will encure by over-looking this issue
1. We need a letter stating to the effect that the general rule of any accounting discipline [like CA/CPA] are not wrong in enforcing that they cannot be involved in doing the books
for any criminal activities. BUT under the fiduciary trust of the Elections Act, an exception
must be made to this rule, in order preserve a Free and Democratic Society
2. THEREFOR in the case of any Marijuana Party EDA and its EDA agencies, the Act can
protect those accountants who do the administration of basic practices like auditing, and
accounting on our marijuana activities, because these services are a necessary element in
showing that the EDA itself is accountable to be properly operating under common law.
2. When it comes to banking concerns, Yves Ct must address the fact with a letter stating that
our EDAs [at face value] cannot be denied the right to establish a common law bank account
without being fully compliant with every Maritime /Admiralty rule on the books, in order to fix
the fact that: because of all these new rules [like- FICA] means no bank, not even credit-unions
can issue our EDA a strictly common law bank account.
BOTTOM LINE: Rule on the issue of the Supremacy of common law over Maritime /Admiralty law