Jules & Anne Bossé - Lumber tycoons gone bust

Hilfskreuzer Möwe · Post by **Hilfskreuzer Möwe** » Sun Jun 08, 2014 4:40 am

Our latest Canadian judgment to evaluate and reject an OPCA scenario is Bossé v. Farm Credit Canada, 2014 NBCA 34 (http://canlii.ca/t/g71g0), and this is a very interesting decision on a number of bases. First, it’s an appellate judgment, this time from the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, so it is binding on lower courts in that province. Not that they would likely reach a different result …

Second - we've got documents! Tasty tasty documents!!!

Jules and Anne Doiron Bossé operated a company called Les Entreprises Envirotek Ltée (Envirotek Enterprises Limited). They borrowed a large amount sum from a government agency, Farm Credit Canada, to finance the purchase of a number of what are described as “wood lots”, parcels of land suitable for logging purposes. They defaulted on their loans, and the wood lots were sold at auction.

The Bossés then sued, arguing they had already paid their outstanding debts via documents called “Private Registered Setoff Bonds” that the Bossés say provide for payment from the US Treasury Department. Yes, this is an A4V case where the plaintiffs have sued and appealed claiming their fictitious payment is real.

Unsurprisingly, the Court of Appeal is utterly unimpressed, concludes the Bossés’ lawsuit is frivolous, and worse, just plain stupid (para. 33):

I attach as “Appendix B” some of the documents that were forwarded to FCC in purported satisfaction of the obligations of the Bossés and Envirotek. By themselves, and without the need for any analysis, they illustrate the absurdity of the defence to FCC’s claim. In short, one cannot go to the Internet and produce documents that purport to create obligations upon the United States Treasury and then present these to a creditor and say “here, go try to collect from the US Treasury before you can collect from me that which I owe you.” It would be ludicrous if it were that easy to satisfy a debt.

Oh, did I mention we get document? We get documents! The Court of Appeal attached no less than 26 pages of scanned documents used by the Bossés in their scheme. It’s hard for me to pick a favorite because these are among the most complex OPCA documents disclosed in a reported judgment, outside of Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571. Though I guess if I had to choose it would be a toss-up between the Private Registered Setoff Bonds (with ink thumbprint!) and newspaper clipping with the auction sales notice with an A4V stamp slammed on it.

You can just see the judges at the New Brunswick Court of Appeal sitting around a table, looking at these and wondering … did someone slip a hallucinogen into our coffee this morning?

The other fascinating thing about these attached documents is the court seems to indicate that this is the exact scheme that has emerged in Quebec and is reported in 10 cases listed at para 34, and which may have an even broader use since one of those cases has the judge note this is the 29th time someone has argued in that jurisdiction that a “Private Registered Setoff Bond” paid off a debt.

The court decision reproduces the grounds for appeal, with this warning preamble (para 26):

For the sake of fullness, and in order to enable the reader to understand the scope of these appeals, I will set out verbatim the numerous grounds. This said, I see no reasons to canvas each ground independently. They are prolix, often duplicitous and, on application of the proper standards of review, are all devoid of any merit. As a result, I find myself able to dispose of this appeal in a very summary manner, which is how one would expect frivolous claims or defences to generally be resolved.

[Emphasis in original.]

Most of the grounds of appeal relate to the Bills of Exchange Act – and frankly I’m not exactly sure in certain instances what they are complaining about :

d) As the transcript will disclose, Justice Lavigne committed an error of law by giving a decision avoiding the application of the law as prescribe the two Supreme Court decisions, REFERENCE AS TO VALIDITY OF THE DEBT ADJUSTMENT ACT and the Alberta (Attorney-General) v. Atlas Lumber Co., 1940 CanLII 33 (SCC), 1940 CanLII 33 (SCC) – 1940-12-20 about the legal value of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes prior any application of provincial law.

e) As the transcript will disclose, Justice Lavigne committed an error of law avoiding the necessity for presentment of the Bills prior her decision, ignoring Bills of Exchange Act R.S.C., 1985, c. B-4 as prescribe the law as follows:

«84. (1) Subject to this Act, a bill must be duly presented for payment.
If not presented
(2) If a bill is not duly presented for payment, the drawer and endorsers are discharged. »

f) As the transcript will disclose, Justice Lavigne committed an error of law, when the Plaintiff party, still being in possession and control of two Bills of Exchange never shown evidence that the two Bills of Exchange were presented for payment prior any action on the matter as the law prescribed.

As the transcript will disclose, Justice Lavigne committed an error of law in her decision, when the Bills of Exchange Act R.S.C., 1985, c. B-4, clearly states that the Plaintiff is:

«91. Not dispensed with (2) The fact that the holder has reason to believe that the bill will, on presentment, be dishonored does not dispense with the necessity for presentment.»

g) As the transcript will disclose, Justice Lavigne committed an error of law in her decision, when the Bills of Exchange Act R.S.C., 1985, c. B-4, clearly states that the Plaintiff is:

95. (1) Subject to this Act, when a bill has been dishonored by non-acceptance or by non-payment, notice of dishonor must be given to the drawer and each endorser, and any drawer or endorser to whom the notice is not given is discharged.”

h) As the transcript will disclose, Justice Lavigne committed an error of law by avoiding the application of the Bills of Exchange Act. in her decision, when the Bills of Exchange Act R.S.C., 1985, c. B-4, clearly states that the Respondent (Plaintiff), having accepted and being the Holder in due Course of the Bills since February 24, 2011, is engaged by Estopel as follows:

«128. The acceptor of a bill by accepting it is precluded from denying to a holder in due course
(a) the existence of the drawer, the genuineness of his signature and his capacity and authority to draw the bill;
(b) in the case of a bill payable to drawer’s order, the then capacity of the drawer to endorse, but not the genuineness or validity of his endorsement; or
(c) in the case of a bill payable to the order of a third person, the existence of the payee and his then capacity to endorse, but not the genuineness or validity of his endorsement.»

i) As the transcript will disclose, Justice Lavigne committed an error of law, when the Respondent (Plaintiff) party having never shown evidence of presentment at the designated Clearing House that the two Bills of Exchange ever been of no value to compensate the debts.

j) As the transcript will disclose and evidence in support, Justice Lavigne committed an error of law, the Plaintiff party having never shown evidence that the two Bills of Exchange have been dishonored by the designated Clearing House, being the only evidence that would have justified her decision.

k) As the transcript will disclose, Justice Lavigne committed an error of law by avoiding the application of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes according to the Constitutional Act of Canada, section 91(18) as should apply prior any provincial law, notwithstanding the decision of two Case laws of the Supreme Court of Canada and a decision of the Court of Québec in respect of the application of the Constitutional law, as read by the Appellant (Defendant) at the hearing.

l) As the transcript will disclose, Justice Lavigne committed an error of law hearing, where the Plaintiff didn’t’ send a Notice to the Attorney generals of New Brunswick and Canada as section 22(3)(b) of the JUDICATURE ACT prescribed, regarding the application of Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes under the law of New Brunswick prior the application of sections 138 and 95(1) of the Bills of Exchange Act R.S.C., 1985, c. B-4 as prescribed section 91(18) of the Constitutional Act.

m) As the transcript will disclose, Justice Lavigne committed an error of law by admitting the application of the Bill of Exchange and Promissory Notes in Tehrani c. Comodini, 2009 QCCQ 11107 (CanLII), 2009 QCCQ 11107 was only applicable because the note was a cheque, but would not be applicable to «Bill of Exchange» and «Promissory Notes» in her decision, when the Act. say in its heading «An Act relating to bills of exchange, cheques and promissory notes».

n) Justice Lavigne committed an error of law giving a decision on the ground, where no special provision is contained in the law of New Brunswick, neither in the law of Canada to avoid the application of a Federal law, in regards of the application of the Bills of Exchange Act R.S.C., 1985, c. B-4, section 138 subject to sections 84(1)(2)(3) and 95(1), notwithstanding of section 192(1), that should be apply prior the application of any other law in New Brunswick.

I do like the reasoning of the trial judge on why it wasn’t really necessary to get into the Bills of Exchange Act argument at all – since the Bossés A4V documents were worthless, there was no reason examine that legislation (para 31):

… She reasoned, as had the motion judge who had earlier dismissed the Bossés’ and Envirotek’s motion seeking the return of the properties sold at auction, that the documents created by Mr. Bossé were of no legal value. Since they had no legal value, the Bills of Exchange Act did not apply and there was no need for a trial on the question of whether these had been properly presented to FCC in payment of the debt. The judge characterized the defence as “frivolous”, and concluded there was no reason to doubt the outcome of trial.

The Court of Appeal agreed (para 32):

For the most part, the grounds of appeal against this decision are as frivolous as the defence to the action. These can be summarily dismissed on the basis that, in making discretionary rulings, the judge acted judicially and, in determining the motion for summary judgment, the judge reviewed the relevant evidence and applied the correct legal test. There remains only the question whether the judge erred in law in determining that the documents the Bossés and Envirotek forwarded to FCC in purported payment of their debts had no legal value. In that respect, I am of the view she clearly did not.

And that was that.

Another aspect of this litigation was an actual potential argument; that the forced sale price of the woodlots was unfairly low: Farm Credit Canada v Bossé, 2013 NBQB 131 (http://canlii.ca/t/g2hzg). This was decided against the Bossés on the basis of expert evidence. In brief, they had poor luck. They had purchased these properties at a time just before when lumber prices collapsed in the U.S., and the value of the woodlots was much less than it had been before, due to a combination of depressed product prices and because the lots were now logged. The Court of Appeal confirmed that result: paras 36-38.

Farm Credit Canada asked for solicitor and client indemnity costs, and got it. This is the point where the Court of Appeal directly links the Bossés strategy to the usual OPCA categories, noting that this is a classic “money for nothing” scheme similar to others reported in earlier case law (para 46). The Bossés’ documents show typical OPCA indicia such as double/split person naming motifs: para 47. While there was no evidence this scheme had been marketed on a commercial basis, it was an obvious inference given the large number of parallel Quebec cases: paras 43, 48:

The numerous cases emanating from Quebec where such schemes have been denounced illustrate a stream of vexations litigants intent on abusing the court process in an effort to escape from their legitimate obligations. There is no evidence that the pointless defence advanced in this case was inspired by some guru of the type identified and denounced in a comprehensive decision Rooke A.C.J. authored in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, [2012] A.J. No. 980 (QL). But one thing is certain: the Bossés did not invent the defence out of thin air. One can only conclude they were at least inspired by some of the techniques employed by a category of vexatious litigants Rooke A.C.J. called Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants (“OPCA litigants”).

The Court calls out the Bossés for having engaged in unfair litigation, and on that basis deserve to pay for the other side’s legal costs:

[42] In my view, this is a case where FCC has been subjected to wrongdoing that is reprehensible, scandalous and outrageous. Whittled down to its core, this was a simple claim on a debt that should have been decided on summary judgment with perhaps a simple trial on the quantum. Instead, it turned into a litigation nightmare for FCC, requiring it to repeatedly respond to motions, applications and allegations that were each ultimately found to be frivolous or without any merit. Moreover, the Bossés made claims and advanced defences that any reasonable person would know were devoid of merit. It defies logic that one could print out bonds for any sum of money, let alone significant amounts, and simply say to one’s creditors “here, go away, you have been paid.” I am convinced the Bossés knew this. Their persistence and the vigour with which they challenged or sought to challenge virtually every ruling made against them convinces me they engaged in litigation warfare against FCC as an obstructionist tactic in the hope they would deplete not necessarily FCC’s resources but rather its resolve to obtain a judgment for the balance of the debt owed.

…

[50] … Bossés’ and Envirotek’s defence and their tactics meet the criteria of being “reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous”. There was no reasonable basis for the defence advanced in this case, and groundless allegations such as those the Bossés made must be discouraged. What should have been a simple action to recover a debt was hindered and confused by their attempt to defeat justice by the production and subsequent reliance on bogus documents. Positive misconduct of this type must be loudly and strictly denounced so the Bossés themselves, and others who might be inclined to behave in a like manner, are discouraged from this type of conduct. In my view, a court has a duty to denounce this type of preposterous conduct, and the most obvious means by which this can be done is by ordering offending parties to pay solicitor and client costs.

[51] In my view, justice to FCC in this appeal can only be achieved by granting its request for costs on a solicitor and client basis. For clarity, this decision is reached regardless of whether or not the Bossés would fall into the category of OPCA litigants. While I note some similarities, I make no conclusive finding in that regard. The appellants’ outrageous conduct, by itself, justifies this award of costs.

Ok – enough of the Court’s decision – let’s look at those juicy documents!!!

The first is a seven page “NOTICE OF DEMAND TO THE GENERAL ATTORNEY OF NEW BRUNSWICK AND THE GENERAL ATTORNEY OF CANADA”. I can’t call it foisted unilateral agreement because it doesn’t seem to have the usual “and if you don’t answer, we WIN!” clause. Instead, it’s a ton of “demands” for legal and factual questions. My favorite could have been drafted by “minister” Belanger:

20. Please provide a copy of Act, that establish by legal and authoritative act; specifically that made that bill into law, as by who, where and when it was presented, when the bill went through the reading processes, to be accepted, published and received its Royal Assent; enacting you to waive my fundamental rights and have jurisdiction over natural justice and over me, prior to your obligation of duties of office including your oath to Elizabeth Windsor (aka “the Queen”). In subscribing to an oath to Elizabeth Windsor, you because a subject of hers and by extension my servant; Therefore, you knew, know or ought to have known, in subscribing to an oath to Elizabeth Windsor, you are bound to the Law attached to Elizabeth Windsor and you also knew, know or ought to have known, those Laws are reliant and granted by the Bible scriptures as some of those laws binding upon you over any and all procedures under governmental and local laws as the following PRIOR AUTHORITIES (not limited to):

1. Deuteronomy 7:6-12 – You are to keep His commands;
2. Deuteronomy 11:1- Keep His statutes;
3. Deuteronomy 17:18-20 Exodus 23:3,6 – Equality ;
4. Deuteronomy 4:2 – Keep the Law;
5. Deuteronomy 17:15 – Strangers not to rule over us;
6. Deuteronomy 15:4 – Leviticus 25 – No poor among us;
7. Deuteronomy 17:17 – No hoarding ;
8. Leviticus 19: 11-12 – Not swear falsely;
9. Mathew 23:23 – 28 – Matters of law application

There’s a couple that demand proof Canada and New Brunswick aren’t corporations, fictitious entities and do “… not operate exclusively under color of law”, which leads to para. 22, which is also fun:

22. Please provide a Sworn affidavit, under full commercial liability of the Attorney General, by the person representing the Constitutional Unit of the Attorney General, signing under penalty of perjury that the facts contained in his answer are true, correct, complete and not misleading, including an affirmation, stating that you are not simply an agency controlled by the Central banks and involved in government’s devious misuse and/or deprivation of my Fundamental Rights and my right to natural justice.

Then there’s Appendix B, which has the Bossés’ A4V documents. They aren’t in chronological order so I’m going to re-assort them to that.

First is a February 11, 2011 “NOTICE IN THE NATURE AND DEMAND FOR SET-OFF, SETTLEMENT AND CLOSURE”. It demands the Bossés’ debt be “adjusted to Zero dollars” in exchange for the A4V “TENDER”. Yes, the U.C.C. gets invoked at length, along with a bunch of what I think are U.S. cases. It concludes:

THEREFORE, in light of the above, under necessity, having no other means to pay debts at law, and in respect to any supposed ‘debt/liability’ being accepted for value, but being estopped and denied access to lawful constitutional money of exchange, the undersigned can only exercise the remedy under necessity to set off/discharge the ‘debt/liability’ in behalf of JULES BOSSE/ANNE DOIRON BOSSE, via your DULY SIGNED PRESENTMENT Accepted for Value and Returned for Dicharge bearing my exemption; further, as my signature “created” the asset of these funds which you then monetized to your gain ten times, then my signature does certainly “Pay” this supposed liability;

THEREIN, you are required to accept this negotiable instrument and credit the above account in honor, within ten (10) days upon acceptance.

Any dishonor will be construed as a commercial injury, violation of agreement, fraud, fraud by scienter, violation of commercial law and otherwise.

We consider that you will do the honorable thing in this matter and set off/discharge, close and settle the above referenced account to show the account paid in full.

We thank you for your time in this matter.

There are two “PRIVATE REGISTERED SETOFF BONDS”, both dated Feb. 19, 2011, that instruct the United States Treasury pay Farm Credit Canada: one for $420,000, the second for $640,000. Jules stuck his fingerprint on these beside his signature.

Next there is a “CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE AND REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT OF SALE”, dated Feb. 23, 1011, that treats the Bossés as acting for a “private trust known as JULES BOSSE”. It requests the Bossés’ accounts be “adjusted to Zero dollars” on the basis of the A4V documents within 14 days. The usual “point-by-point” demand for rebuttal is included. This document concludes in a curious way:

Please direct responses to third party witness;
[handwritten signature]
Ghyslaine Pigeon, Commissioner of Oaths
358 Rosemere
Rosemere, Quebec, Canada J7A 2T5

Is this the guru? Someone who is also a Commissioner of Oaths? Perhaps, because ‘googling’ that name turned up a July 28, 2011 news release (http://www.lautorite.qc.ca/en/press-rel ... -10-4.html) from Autorité des Marchés Financiers, Quebec’s financial market regulator, that claims over half a million in fines for “illegal distributions”. Pigeon’s name comes up in this context:

The AMF is also seeking a fine of $10,000 against Ghyslaine Pigeon, who is accused of aiding Groupe Beaudoin Fournier et Roy inc. with acting illegally as a securities adviser (one count).

However, CanLII has nothing associated with that name.

The CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE AND REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT OF SALE attaches two documents:

1) an “AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF COMMERCIAL DISCHANGE” which says the Bossés are preferred stock shareholders corporations of their own names, the usual A4V type stuff. Pigeon stamped this one too.

2) an “AFFIDAVIT OF SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT”, which states Jules Joseph Jeanot Bossé owns JULES BOSSE. Also sealed by Pigeon.

This was followed on April 29, 2011 with a “NOTICE OF FAULT IN DISHONOR (Oppurtunity to Cure)” (that’s how it’s spelled, too). It’s another foisted unilateral agreement giving Farm Credit Canada a chance to respond to the Feb. 11 document with a “point-by-point” response in 10 days, and if not:

4. Your silence is acquiescence, agreement, and dishonor. This is a self-executing contract.

Scary! Particularly since if Farm Credit Canada doesn’t respond it agrees to these damages:

1. Damages of Ten thousands ($10,000.00) per day, with no maximum amount.
2. Loss of security interest in Les Enterprises Envirotek Ltee. And/or PROPERTIES for the amount of Five hundred thousands dollars ($ 500 000.00)
3. Additional damages of court costs, notary costs and any other clerical and legal costs will be added to the Damages.
4. The sum certain in Canadian Dollars is in numerical parity with the Euro Dollar and any other superior currency backed by gold.

The Euro is backed by gold?!? Who knew?!

And a Quebec commissioner of oaths gave it the ol’ stamperoo.

Next we have a June 7, 2011 one page “NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENT”, which essentially says since Farm Credit Canada didn’t pay attention to the NOTICE IN THE NATURE AND DEMAND FOR SET-OFF, SETTLEMENT AND CLOSURE that the Bossés win! And I see a Quebec commissioner of oaths has again sealed this document, but it’s a different commissioner – not Pigeon.

Last is the A4V’ed copy of the Bossés’ wood lot sale advertisement.

I’d love if some of our U.S. Quatloosians have a look at these documents. They are clearly derived from a U.S. source, but I’d be very interested to know which one. I’ve done a little ‘Googling’ to see what I could turn up, but nothing definitive emerged.

The Bossés are an example of another increasingly common trend in OPCA litigation – parallel provincial and Federal Court actions. The New Brunswick Court of Appeal at para 13 notes that once the Bossés failed at the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench they then launched a Federal Court lawsuit. However, when I went to the Federal Court’s files I found not one but three lawsuits:

T-2043-11 – Jules Bosse, Anne Doiron Bosse et al v. Farm Credit Canada et al - this one appears to be the lawsuit mentioned by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.

The other two are cryptic:

T-1242-12 – Jules Bossé v. Her Majesty the Queen and Her Servants – struck out on July 16, 2012 without oral argument. This one does not include Anne Doiron Bossé or Envirotek as parties.

T-898-12 – Jules Bossé et al v. Her Majesty the Queen et al – I’m not sure why the defendants have an ‘et al’, because the file details to not indicate any other party on that side. This one has Anne and Envirotek as plaintiffs. I think the action was struck out July 3, 2012 without an oral argument but there are a bunch of documents after that on the record – not sure what was going on.

The Federal Court database provides no hint as to what the Bossés' lawsuits against the Crown were about.

As usual I looked to see what else I could turn up about the Bossés’. They live in a very small community in the far north west of New Brunswick. That’s an area right beside Quebec, and much of the population there is francophone. They don’t seem to have been involved in any litigation beside this one. There’s a bunch of other interlocutory judgments in this matter, but none is interesting – all procedural stuff, except for what seem to be premature leave to appeal applications:

Bossé v Farm Credit Canada, 2012 CanLII 17403 (NB CA) (http://canlii.ca/t/fqvqm) - $750 cost award against the Bossés

Bossé v Financement agricole Canada, 2013 CanLII 3572 (NB CA) (http://canlii.ca/t/fvxlg) - $1000 cost award against the Bossés

Bossé v Farm Credit Canada, 2013 CanLII 13974 (NB CA) (http://canlii.ca/t/fwm7f) - $2000 cost award against the Bossés

and a failed stay application:

Bosse v Farm Credit Canada, 2012 CanLII 50094 (NB CA) (http://canlii.ca/t/fsl1k) - $2000 cost award against the Bossés

The name “Envirotek” leads some interesting places. A business called “Options Envirotec” (http://www.b-harmony.com/weberbio-franc ... uteurs.htm) is listed as a distributor of Weber Bio (http://www.b-harmony.com/weberbio-france/index.htm) products. The address is that of the Bossés. Weber Bio is a French flakey new-age crap distributor, with various “Harmoniseur Chakras” and “L’Emetteur d’Orgone”.

“Options Envirotek” has a website (http://www.options-envirotek.ws/) flogging these things. It’s pretty sad.

So – place your bets on whether the Bossés try to go to the Supreme Court of Canada? I bet $100 Quatloos they make the application – they’re persistent! If they do, I bet a million, billion Quatloos that the Supreme Court of Canada will refuse that application!

If I lose, please collect those Quatloos from my U.S. Treasury Department account: SMS MOWE.

SMS Möwe

David Raymond Amos Round 3

Wednesday 22 September 2021

Dan Murphy, said the cost of policing has been among the top issues for municipalities after the province's planned reforms to local governance.

Municipalities eye impact of RCMP union contract with 23 per cent raise over six years

First collective agreement between federal government, National Police Federation signed this month

How to participate

On this page:

World Café Community Roundtables

What we heard

'Little consensus' on how to reform local governance, report says

Province issues report summarizing input from more than 1,100 people on proposed changes

'Little consensus on the right approach'

Kim Reeder Community Advocate for St. Croix riding

Jules & Anne Bossé - Lumber tycoons gone bust

Jules & Anne Bossé - Lumber tycoons gone bust

Re: Jules & Anne Bossé - Lumber tycoons gone bust

Re: Jules & Anne Bossé - Lumber tycoons gone bust

Re: Jules & Anne Bossé - Lumber tycoons gone bust

Re: Jules & Anne Bossé - Lumber tycoons gone bust

Re: Jules & Anne Bossé - Lumber tycoons gone bust

Re: Jules & Anne Bossé - Lumber tycoons gone bust

No comments:

Post a Comment