No. ...............................

.................................. Registry

In the Supreme Court of British Columbia

Between

Robin Kehler CEO of West Vancouver Sunshine Coast

Sea to Sky Country Marijuana Party [WVSSMP]
on behalf of the 10,000+ members of DBA Weeds Glass and Gifts
Plaintiff(s)

and

Mayor Bruce Milne of the Sechelt District

Duty Sergeant of Sechelt District Vishal Mathura
Defendant(s)

NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM

Claim of the Plaintiff(s)

Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. This motion is being pressed in order to redress a seditious wrongdoing enacted by Prime
Minister Harper in a Throne Speech in September 2012, where She tabled the systematic
implementation of S-55 of the CDSA, which in effect erroneously creates a new sub-class
of Canadians called 'ordinary residents' that must now appear in Federal Court, where all
sub-classes will be handled under international case law, which enforce NATO rules and
regulations, which in effect deprives commoners in Canada from being respected to
holding their right to be protected by Canadian case law, when those who govern hold no
such right to what is in effect vanquishes the Sovereignty of disadvantaged Canadians.

2. At face value, this seditious activity was seriously curtailed with a recent SCC unanimous

decision in March of 2015, in the Owen Smith case, where the SCC took away the right to
unilaterally control and regulate a plant called cannabis, because the CDSA itself [under
bogus authority to protect NATO Public Safety] consistently refuses to respect that our
common law medical rights are established, in SCC and BCSC case precedents, therefore
this court is duty bound to protect the public trust from being shocked.

3. Since this SCC decision, Prime Minister Steven Harper, Health Canada Minister Rona
Ambrose and [the now debunked] State Department for Democratic Reform Minister
Pierre Poilievre have repeatedly and openly denounced this SCC ruling as being of no
force and effect, because what NATO defines as Public Safety must over ride the SCC's
duty to protect the public trust as Supreme, in order to justify the unimpeded role out
/implementation of S-55 of the CDSA to continue, by passing more Sec 33, of the Charter
orders in council, by abusing the not withstanding clause to subvert BC's rule of law.

4. UNDER PROTEST: at face value, this S-55 of the CDSA program is being implemented in
Vancouver, and in many communities in BC, as being enforceable when it arbitrarily and
negatively impacts our rights that we gained under the SCC Insight rulings, under this
seditious claim that their NATO Public Safety interests over ride a SCC unanimous ruling.

5. As we read Constitutional law: This S-55 of the CDSA is by design: vesting Federal

authority to subvert the Act, thru Sec 1 of the Charter, with an intent to actually destroy
our free and Democracy society, AND as a Loyal opposition, we are vesting our Sec 1
defence in order to establish THAT: Our common law heritage to be governed under the
rule of law in BC is Supreme over those overt power grabs to destroy every last vestige
of common law in Canada, as an implication of enforcing S-55 of the CDSA = SEDITION

6. We are upholding our authority under the Elections Act, because we perceive it to be key
to offering a ways and means to Peacefully direct an action that can fix a seditious act of
omission Harper created in the Elections Act. As we understand it, our application under
the Elections Act, creates case law to fixing a gross wrongdoing [under Sec 16 CC] by
Harper omitting the obvious harm created by removing the cornerstone and founding
principle that protects the rule of law and democracy in the Act - NAMELY: if there is a
conflict between this Act and any other Act, then the Canada Elections Act prevails.

7. Under what is not directly prohibited results where NATO

[North American Treaty Organization]

and all it's Corporations are implementing secret treaties to subvert Canada because it's
not directly prohibited anymore - https://www.scribd.com/doc/206723278/2a-s-55-of-the-CDSA-report

8. Please read S-55 of the CDSA, and consider that this was tabled in a Throne Speech in
2012, therefore as powerful if not more power than an international treaty, and as to
their own agenda it has been gradually implemented one Federal ruling at a time AND
[just read it] the CDSA is about to tell Parliament to vote on fully implementing S-55 of
the CDSA, which at face value lets NATO regulate marijuana in Canada; BUT in essence is
creating a new sub-class of Canadians from being protected by BC case law as Supreme,
by necessary implications of statutes and regulation of being above the Act = SEDITION

9. Since 'it cannot be directly prohibited', no one and no body can tell us that we cannot be
respected to hold common law rights, when it's the only way to protect our 'free and
democratic society' [Sec 1- R v Oakes]. Therefore, this BCSC ruling must recognize our Sec 1
defence of 'no jurisdiction' because we're enshrining democratic rights, from trespass by
Admiralty rule, in order to preclude Maritime regulators to even indirectly prohibit our
Marijuana Party [a Loyal opposition] from protecting our rights to be under common law
jurisdiction, because of a seditious act struck by Royal ascent, when this paper Queen is
directly prohibited from vanquishing especially Her vulnerable and disadvantaged Loyal
subjects, by casting them off to be governed under S-55 of the CDSA /NATO /NWO rule

10. With this unanimous decision in the SCC /Smith decision, this S-55 of the CDSA program

[at face value] is limited to governing and regulating international trade standards for the
growers and distributors for this new NATO regulated cannabis industry in order to set
standards onto those so called manufacturers of cannabis who want to enter into contract
in order to prosper by now being able to do commerce in any NATO regulated Territory.
a. At face value, the CDSA is acting on an implication of NATO unilaterally declaring itself
to be above the Act by implementing rules and regulations on their customers /members
b. IN FACT: the SCC cannot stop Canadian customers who want to abide by their Public
Safety Codes as a necessary implication of subscribing to be governed under their rules
c. BUT to summon this customer to a Federal Court for violating any of their rules must
be stopped because it inadvertently creates this new sub class of persons called 'ordinary
residents' [to spite BCSC/SCC] who are deprived from being under BC's rule of law

11. Our 'no jurisdiction defence' under our Sec 1 Civil Claim defence requires that the BCSC
to now place limitations on our common law activity in order to protect the public trust of
those who do not want to be their licensed customers, and for the growers who simply
refuse to become a CDSA Licensed Producer, who technically operates outside Canada,
who now export their crop to Canadians, in order to still be a criminal in Federal Court.
Everyone in Maritime Authority is Acting like the Federal Court is now Supreme.

12. Under this SCC unanimous Smith ruling, this elephant has entered the room and

nobody wants to look at it. NAMELY: it's actually legal to grow cannabis for dispensaries
that service the needs of the vulnerable in society, and frankly our no jurisdiction defence
thru this Civil Claim is pressing a civil ways and means to create as set of common laws
that are applicable in order to comply with one voice to support this SCC Smith ruling

13. In spite of the basic nature to attract people to our party, in order to protect their BCSC
and SCC marijuana rights, we respect that the BCSC cannot tell Canadians to subscribe
to our party, as the solution to this Constitutional mess, and frankly we offer an amicable
solution, by simply pointing out the fact that as it stands, there is no published or private
list that set or define common law limitations for anyone that protect those who want to
be protected by BC case law since this Smith decision; so create one and publish it.

14. Frankly, Constitutionally, when S-55 of the CDSA started insisting that Canadians must

appear in Federal Court on CDSA charges, results where the veil of having all kinds of
Marijuana case laws that were suppressed by Federal Court injunctions have been lifted.

15. Contrary to S-55 of the CDSA, who had to create Federal case rulings to act on, we in

BC and Canada have ample case law precedents to establish what is prescribed by law.
As we understand it: Frankly a necessary implication of this SCC Smith ruling requires
this province to establish [by public announcing] that the estoppel nature of the following
list of cases has been redressed, therefore the precedents set in this list are now being
recognized as being applicable in defending our common law medical rights to grow,
dispense cannabis under common law, therefor not subject Maritime /CDSA controls.

16. OTHERWISE the abuse of Canadians under S-55 of the CDSA will never stop,

because until they are NOT directly prohibited by such a list being established, would
result where thru omission by the BCSC, She can and will destroy all common law rights.
a. As we understand the nature of Smith's unanimous decision, the BCSC is duty bound
to respect recognize and act on protecting our Sec 1 defence, otherwise the BCSC is also
committing an offence under Sec 16 CC NAMELY: omitting the obvious harm created by
abandoning its duty to protect this new sub-class of Canadians is actually unconscionable

17. In the case of our Sec 1 Civil Claim, we are in effect, starting a process of getting a

35 day opportunity for any vested Authority to file a counter claim, and proceed as to this
form that is prescribed by law, which means all Marijuana Party EDAs that subscribe to
this Civil Claim are prescribing to follow our comprehensive well-structured program,
under Freedom of Contract in order to protect our RUBRIC from Maritime Authority.

18. IN THIS CASE: We seek a Civil solution to fix a mess [for example] if anyone thinks we

cannot protect our RUBRIC with our no jurisdiction defence can file an objection thru a
civil motion on this case file, and a Justice will rule on it. In this way, our EDA offices are
not criminally charged, we just have to appear in court as respondent superior to defend
why we offer safe haven in our HEADquarters for services [like] having a vapour lounge,
[like] operating a dispensary, [like] calling a grow-op for dispensaries an EDA office.

19. TO EXPAND ON THIS WVSSMP APPLICATION IN THIS EDA DISTRICT COURT

In our case, in WVSSMP, our HEADoffice are in on Sechelt First Nation Territory, and we
have 2 other EDA Offices that are in this District, and 9 Offices in Vancouver across 5
Districts, 2 in Abbotsford, 1 Office in Kelowna, and a series of new Offices in Toronto,
which are covered by our EDA in West Vancouver Sunshine Coast - Sea to Sky Country
[WVSSMP] because its Officers are registered with this District Registry, therefor, until
Sec 1 Charter limitations are being pressed, we seek remedy in this District Provincial
Court in order to establish and settle these landmark common law precedents.

20. The 1st point to this application is that: we agree with our Party Leader Blair Longley's

policy of each EDA being autonomous from each other; ALSO as a BC Society or a BC
limited incorporation [like] a Weeds Glass and Gifts can operate Offices anywhere in BC
- In this case of a Weeds Glass and Gifts, these Officers need a uniform set of operating
requirements for all locations in order to have the same rules apply in each location.
- and frankly, since the same laws apply across the Province should result in a reasonable
assumption that a universal set of reasonable limitations for BC can be found.

1. BUT frankly a limitation to this portability across BC should be clarified because as we

understand the present application: under common law, each individual community
has a right to place reasonable limitations on our activity, and in this case BC court
can respect all parties by defining 'community' as being anywhere in BC, because City
bylaws and District ordinances still have no authority to regulate our EDA activities.

2. BUT the Election Act places no restrictions on having an EDA District Office anywhere
in Canada, and under the Canada Corporation Act, like Weeds Glass and Gifts holds,
results in being able to open Offices anywhere, under our no jurisdiction defence.
So, in this case, where this [DBA] Weeds Glass and Gifts is expanding into Ontario
/other provinces requires this court to make a choice NAMELY: are our Sec 1 Charter
limitations set in BC as portable to another province [or] are these out of our province
Offices held to limitations set under that province, therefore restricting this portability.

3. To be fair: each province will have to address whether BC's case law precedents sets
the precedent to prohibit the CDSA from limiting an Elector District to be just a place.

4. In our application [of holding portability] we are pressing that it's a choice between

protecting positive law [or] eroding those residents' Sovereignty in Canada to NATO.

Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT

1. We seek confirmation from the BCSC that under the Canada Elections Act we actually
hold real common law rights in British Columbia that at face value make us distinct from
other provinces, therefore we seek a clear ruling to uphold the fact that our EDA offices
in BC still hold common law blue zone rights to our 'no jurisdiction defence' that at face
value are ignored by the CDSA, and the Commissioner's Office as omitted in Canada.
2. We seek confirmation of the basic fact that: Because of the seditious nature of those
S-55 of the CDSA provisions that we hold a genuine Sec 1 of the Charter defence, in
order to protect our common law rights in our Free and Democratic Society from this
total abuse of power that all kinds of Federal authorities are arbitrarily implementing.
3. We seek injunctions to protect our respective Officer's EDA offices from trespass, with a
clear unambiguous ruling on the Marijuana Party holding a guarantee to carry-on
attracting social and political participation to protect our beliefs under Freedom of
Expression, Freedom of Association, in our Free and Democratic Society under a common
law application of R v Oakes, in order to uphold what is prescribed by law [R v Therens]

3: LEGAL BASIS
ON RELIEF SOUGHT IN OUR FIRST POINT
1. The DCL defines an Electoral District as a place [or] a territorial area [not both]
2. Virtually all Maritime Authorities [in our case] The CDSA, the Commissioner's Office and the
City Act like: since UN bodies have taken over virtually all the administration of what they
define with terms and territory such as Regional Districts that the Electoral District itself is now
somehow under Maritime /UN jurisdiction to control regulate and enforce their Authority.
3. This definition starts by stating that an Electoral District can be a territory under Sec 8 CC,
where all common law rights and excuses known to man reside. Furthermore somehow in
later rulings they [at face value] assume a municipality and wards are the same thing /issue.
1. ON THIS: This might apply in some places in Canada, but in BC [under the Elections Act]
we the people soundly voted out to become Maritime wards; therefore BC resides on
'land' under common law, therefore any obedience to not recognize our blue zone rights
in BC are of no force and must be protected by being re-established in BC as precedent.

2. Furthermore, we in BC soundly voted out HST [again under the Elections Act], therefore
the CDSA has no right to unilaterally enforce their Federal occupation practices, as our
only choice, when in BC's case they hold no such exclusive right to regulate commerce,
especially when we can and are denying this right to implement their arbitrary rule on us.
3. So, especially in BC's case, all Federal Officials must respect that our no jurisdiction
defence to be under common law is Supreme; and to act contrary is defined as sedition.
4. As we understand this mess: without the BCSC upholding its fiduciary trust when called
to do so, means these Federal authorities will continue to destroy our Sovereignty rights.
ON RELIEF SOUGHT IN OUR SECOND POINT
SUMMATION OF THIS LEGAL DEFENCE:
1. Our Marijuana Party EDAs are definitely holding an unfettered common law defence in BC
2. Both these Sec 1 of the Charter case laws state that an application must uphold that our
common law defence, and this requires limitations to establish our application of common law,
because the BCSC cannot ignore their fiduciary trust to protect its residents' Sovereignty rights.
3. There is no way to get around it: R v Oakes is the backbone of all our democratic common law
Freedoms known to man, which means we cannot be denied our Sec 1 defence to no jurisdiction,
because the day Harper and the Federal Courts took away our right to be governed under
the Supremacy of BC precedents is the day we were entitled to our Sec 1 Charter defence.

4. FOR THE RECORD Sec 1 states: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits
prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
1. First all our fundamental Freedoms can be encroached on with these 2 reasonable limitations
1. The 1st phrase is: 'prescribed by law' and the second is: 'free and democratic society'
2. So, when anyone reads this founding principle of this new Charter, they would feel secure
3. Especially when you look at the case law precedent definitions used to back this phrase.
4. The DCL is our common ground and the first reference for legal definitions for the Charter,

2. The definition for PRESCRIBED BY LAW is: The limitations will be prescribed by law within
the meaning of Sec 1 of the Charter, if it is expressly provided by statute or regulations, or
results by necessary implication of a statute or from the operating requirements. The
limitation may also result from the application of common law. [important] R v Therens -1985
1. Sounds like a lot of double talking legalese because that its intent [to deceive]
2. The case law precedent for this phrase is Mr. Therens, who drove home at about 2AM and
fell asleep behind the wheel about 1/2 block away from his house and crashed into his
neighbours tree in their yard. No one woke up, so he walked home, poured himself a stiff
drink and went to bed. He was woken up by police banging on his door, they made him
take a Breathalyzer, he failed so they charged him. AND he won in the SCC, with a
common law defence of them having no proof that his story was not true, so he could not
be assumed guilty when he had a plausible excuse AND the offence /charge was
excessive because this neighbour held no hard feelings therefore no harm was done.
3. I was in my mid 20's when this 'landmark decision' came down, and they made a big deal
or pointing to this myth of: Rejoice, Look how great this Charter is. At the time everyone
hated this new gadget called breathalyzer. AND then the veil of illusion moved in

3. NOW on the definition of FREE AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY it's the cornerstone and a very
inspiring description of a common law Utopian society that you could possibly imagine, AND
THEN the SCC gave this SCC case law application as the reason to subvert every common
law right known to mankind, under a SCC s.1 case law precedent called; R v Oakes.-1985
CAVEAT: Frankly how any sane legal system could use this case law for the precedent to
uphold Democratic rights is absurd. They could have picked any case law file they wanted to

be the case law precedent BUT they chose to systematically swindle us with lexicography
[or] the form was rigged so that real reform to occur from a common law application like this.

4. CASE IN POINT: The Oakes case was all about being [quote] caught with 8 vials of hashish
oil outside of a tavern in London, Ontario. He claimed he had purchased 10 vials of hashish oil for
$150 for his own use. He was also in possession of $619.45 which he claimed to have received
from a government program. Despite Oakes' protests that the vials were meant for pain relief and
that the money he had was from a workers' compensation cheque, Section 8 of the Narcotic
Control Act (NCA) established a 'rebuttable presumption" that possession of a narcotic inferred an
intention to traffic unless the accused established the absence of such an intention. Oakes made
a charter challenge, claiming that the reverse onus created by the presumption of possession
for purposes of trafficking violated the presumption of innocence guarantee under section
11(d) of the Charter. The issue before the Court was whether s. 8 of the NCA violated s. 11(d)
of the Charter, and whether any violation of s. 11(d) could be upheld under s. 1.
1. David Oakes had a Workman's Comp check stub. He's the original medical marijuana
defendant in Canada. IN FACT it's this case law that created the MMAR that Hitzig and
Parker challenged and won on this legal common law application [Sec 1 of the Charter].

5. So again, any common person [at that time] would see this case law precedent as a really
good sign of the Charter working, and frankly except for a few, no one had any idea that this
was the case law used to define what a Free and Democratic society is based on, until they
published the 1991 version of the DCL [6-years later ] and you have to look at the fact that
they list almost every common law freedom known to man on this R v Oakes case = FRAUD
[or] this fundamental wrongdoing was by design there, to enact what we are undertaking.

6. AT FACE VALUE: The entire Charter hinges on Sec 1, and it really is a conspiracy to defraud
our Freedom by everyone in authority due to this 'if' added to 'prescribed by law' NAMELY:
all our freedoms can be taken away; if it is expressly provided by statute or regulations, or
results by necessary implication of a statute or from the operating requirements.
7. You ask: How does this legalese [lexicography] effect Canadian society at large?
1. Because of extremely well funded legal teams like MADD [Mothers Against Drunk Drivers]
and Police /AG challenges resulted where any assumption of common law Freedom that
Mr. Therens held were subverted by a mountain of arbitrary statutes and regulations
2. Here's a bad example of how much things have changed under statute and regulations
3. PART 9 of the 1998 BC Police Act, white [wash] paper. Page -3: The Founding Principles
http://www.cacole.ca/resources/publications/WhitePaper05-eng.pdf 1 Civilian Oversight
The first is that there is an inextricable link between democracy, the rule of law and police
accountability. Police serve a function that is vital to the proper operation of a free and
democratic society. Police are rightly and necessarily given extensive powers. Police
power is necessary to ensure that free people are protected and that their duly enacted
laws are enforced. Police must be authorized to do things that would be illegal for ordinary
citizens, and police must not be unduly fettered in the exercise of those powers.
4. In other words: Since 1998 it's 'prescribed by law' under the Police Act that police are
actually authorized to be criminals, in order to enforce Maritime /NATO obligations to
dictate what they define as 'their free people' under 'their free and democratic society'..
5. In Oakes case, every arbitrary statute and regulation under the MMAR program was by
design implemented to erode the real meaning of our 'Free and Democratic society,' on a
deep constitutional level, because the phrase itself is used to guarantee Freedom and
frankly it's the art of hiding the truth in plain sight [as in] we really are in a police state,
6. AND frankly the Admiralty is ramming the same free and democracy society on Iraq and
Haiti, etc, so why should we Canadians complain about being in their New World Order.

ON RELIEF SOUGHT IN OUR THIRD POINT

1. We are not seeking a general injunction that applies to every dispensary and grower in
Vancouver or BC or in Canada, because as prescribed by law, Sec 39 (2) CC says so.
2. As we see it, the basic list of applicable case laws that we are seeking will result within
this 35-day time-frame, in order to address all interested parties, or after this date.
3. We are pressing what we consider one of the better case scenarios for pressing a
National solution of what we desire our EDA offices should be, on the understanding that
our Party actually desires to deliver our fiduciary services in an orderly manner,
[AS IN] not as if helter skelter common law cowboys, who hold erroneous colours of right
to violate laws that are really harmful to society at large.
4. As to our Sec 1 defence the limitations of our Sec 39 CC claim of right requires the BCSC
to prescribe limits that exist in the Elections Act for us to understand and prosper under.
5. As we interpret these limitation we must operate with good book keeping practices,
have an individual record to account for transaction of each member, and follow case law
precedents that the BCSC needs to respect as binding on our activities, in order to carryon with an established a set of published rules that protect society and our Freedoms.
6. We [the membership] are comfortable with having our Freedom to Contract protect
our operating practices as a guideline of how we should structure these EDA offices.
7. ON THIS: Our dispensaries have good POS computer system that delivers everything
required to operate good books, with excellent inventory control that can register all
transactions and properly address all transactions of members and suppliers, therefore
Elections Canada auditors can easily verify that we are providing the data to comply with
passing any audit, in order to preserve law and order in our free and democratic society.
8. AND THRU CIVIL PROCESS: we should be able to proceed and prosper in a civil society
Because there's no way around it: law and order as Essential to Elements of civilized life
9. We are offering this solution in order to restore the public trust in the Supremacy of
common law over Maritime law that has decimated our Freedoms thru deceitful practices
= SEDITION

E-mail address for service (if any): increationwetrust@gmail.com / robinonthecoast@gmail.com

Place of trial:
The address of the registry is:

Date: ................

.................................................................................

[dd/mmm/yyyy].................
Signature of
[ x ] plaintiff [ ] lawyer for plaintiff(s)
..............Robin Kehler....................................

Appendix
[Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case.]
A personal injury arising out of:
[ ] a motor vehicle accident
[ x ] medical malpractice
[ ] another cause
A dispute concerning:
[ ] contaminated sites
[ ] construction defects
[ x ] real property (real estate)
[ x ] personal property
[ x ] the provision of goods or services or other general commercial matters
[ ] investment losses
[ ] the lending of money
[ ] an employment relationship
[ x ] a will or other issues concerning the probate of an estate
[ x ] a matter not listed here
Part 3: THIS CLAIM INVOLVES:
[Check all boxes below that apply to this case]
[ ] a class action
[ ] maritime law
[ ] aboriginal law
[ x ] constitutional law
[ x ] conflict of laws
[ ] none of the above
[ ] do not know

Part 4:
These enactments are being relied on. The Act being Supreme over Maritime Law,
Sec 1 of the Charter defence [not excuse] The Trespass Act
ALSO, as a 2nd appendix, we offer pamphlets and literature to attract social and political
participation that explain what we're establishing in terms that a commoner can understand