|March 30th, 2008||#1|
White - European - Aryan
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Regina v David Kevin Lindsay - Unlawful mandatory personhood and income tax trial.
And so it was...... The beginning of the end to compulsory income tax. The power of positive thinking. That is the secret!!!!!!
March 27 and 28, Kelowna British Columbia
R v David Kevin Lindsay
Judge Sinclair was, admittedly, thoroughly attentive and I believe, genuinely interested in my position before him, though I have seen this repetitively where the judiciary permits everything to go on the record and then sticks the knife in at the end. I am unclear however how this can happen here.
Judge Sinclair appropriately said in court that this is a precedent setting case in Canadian law and has never been put to the court before. As others have attempted to argue this and/or similar points, I can only surmise his position being that no one has ever put this issue properly before the court before if I may infer his meaning, in the midst of a penal prosecution.
The amount of time that has gone into this effort is staggering. I can only begin with a debt of gratitude to those whose shoulders I stand upon and have laid the foundation that I was able to build upon. I really don't like mentioning names expressly as then those whose names do not appear tend to feel slighted and without fail, the assistance and efforts of everyone in the past was required to get to this point, and everyone's help has made a difference.
The below notes as to events of the past 2 days are somewhat lengthy for which I apologize - I know how frustrating it is to read long emails. However my presentation took 2 extended days to present 250 pages of law to the judge. It is difficult to condense all that in a paragraph or two!
I would like to thank everyone who appeared to lend their wonderful support - the courtroom was packed and the highlight surely was when everyone bood and hissed the Crown after his 10 minute presentation where he claimed that he didn't have to prove "anything", especially that I was a person.
His position that everyone is a person and the court should just assume it.
I began by pointing out that there should not be a plea on the record. The Criminal Code only permits a "defendant" (in summary conviction cases) to enter a plea. To find I am the defendant is to find I am a 'person' and thus guilty on this essential element of the offence, which the Crown is obligated to prove. The Code only allows guilty or not guilty but as I have not yet been found to be a 'person' the Code does not yet apply and the judge should cross out the not guilty plea and enter the abatement. (challenge to jurisdiction on issues not upon the merits of the case)
I then continued by pointing out that the Crown is estopped from even pursuing this matter as a result of its failure to reply to me on point when I put HMTQ on Actual Notice that I am not a person, I am a man created by GOD and refuse to accept the status of being a person. Also, because of HMTQ's Coronation Oath and the principles and obligations that flow from it, she cannot charge me after her breach of contract nor as a result of legislation which is contrary to the rule of law as given to us by GOD in the Bible.
Then I examined the evidence. CRA Informant TODD has admitted that she has no idea what a person is at law and that all CRA officials simply "assumed" (and I quote!) that I was a person. She further admits under a direct question, that she put no evidence on the record that I was a person at any time. She at no time verified any information that CRA had about me. Her only belief rested upon the oral representations made to her at court by Crown agent Roy Sommerey, when he pointed me out to her and said "That's Dave Lindsay". TODD admittely took no steps to even verify that I was this Dave Lindsay. (there are several David Lindsay's just in the Okanagan District of BC that I know of for fact) That should end the matter!
I then went into great detail on the hierarchy of law, establishing our hierarchy beginning with GOD, man, constitution, kings and queens, Parliament, judiciary, police, and finally with corporations. In so doing, I pointed out the limits of power upon HMTQ with respect to her power to give Royal Assent to legislation and how by so doing, she can only give Royal Assent to laws which conform to a higher law she has sworn to uphold - GOD's laws. It was proven that there were also previous laws in existence ("laws and customs of the realm") which make the Queen and limit her powers independent of the Coronation Oath (such as property rights) and are set out in the Bible she must uphold (thou shalt not steal, bear false witness, commit fraud etc). Her Coronation Oath expressly provides that she must protect and maintain the principles of the Christian religion. Our entire society if based upon the Christian religion. Clearly the Income Tax Act, insofar as it purports to take my property without my consent, is theft. More on this below.
I continued to describe then how man was created and his duties and powers. Although GOD said man had power over all the birds of the air, and everything else on the planet, he at no time said that man had dominion or power over any other man!!!!
A discussion ensued on the Constitution, where I demonstrated what this was and how this sets out and limits the powers of the Queen and Parliament. I noticed that every constitutional document in our history going back to Magna Charta recognizes the supremacy of GOD. I further pointed out the effect at law of the preamble to the Constitution Act of 1982 which also sets forth that our society is predicated upon the supremacy of GOD and that this GOD by law (the Coronation Oath and common law) can only be the GOD of the Christian Bible.
Then I began a long analysis of the Myth of Parliamentary supremacy and thoroughly destroyed any argument that Parliament can pass any law it wishes. I followed this with a detailed presentation on the fundamental rights of our property and what property actually is; that, as Bastiat said in The Law, we have property as a gift from GOD, not as a result of some MP in Ottawa telling me I can or cannot possess this right. (Notwithstanding this, the SCC has confirmed that we do have a fundamental and constitutional right to the ownership and enjoyment of property as well!)
I then began to enlighten Judge Sinclair as to his duties at law pursuant to his Oath of Allegiance. This was always an interest of his since I first began to demand proof that he has taken this said Oath and he has never produced. I presented the document of former Chief Justice McEachern of the B.C. Supreme Court, admittedly and expressly speaking for all judges in this province, informing HMTQ upon her visit in 1987, that, pursuant to the judicial Oath of Allegiance, that the judges of this province were bound at law to uphold the principles of the Coronation Oath of HMTQ! This Coronation Oath includes preservation of the "laws and customs of the realm" (including property rights, freedom to contract) and the maintenance and preservation of the principles of the Christian religion. The judge now had before him a superior court justice laying out exactly what their Oath of Allegiance compels them to do and any violation of this Oath could amount to perjury, fraud, or other offence for which the judge could and would be held liable as he would no longer be acting in the execution of his duty. He can no longer claim ignorance of this as grounds to ignore his duties and obligations of a judge.
I noticed Judge Sinclair that I was holding him to his Oath.
All of the above set out foundation for my position that, as my 5 unrebutted affidavits upon the court file evidence, I have cancelled any status of personhood. Most importantly, there is no law that prohibits me from so doing and there is no law which says, that anyone refusing to be a person as defined in s. 248 of the ITA is guilty of an offence.
I provided the law on what exactly a person is - that being a status or capacity for rights and duties. However I believe it goes further than that - I have for example the capacity to be married yet I am not married and therefore am not such person as a 'husband'. I have the capacity to be a driver yet I am not such a driver as I have no licence. Being a person therefore is a recognition of a legal relationship you are in - some relationships such as tax have a name for this, called a taxpayer, others do not.
Parliament has passed the ITA saying every person must file etc. However there is no law which says I must be a person and enter into this legal relationship thereafter for then it becomes a denial of free will, ie: slavery and/or involuntary servitude - it can only be done knowingly and voluntarily. Nor can HMTQ force me to be a person ex post facto (after the fact) because then it becomes theft, fraud, and with the state gendarmes against me, robbery. To so do is also contrary to the Coronation Oath of HMTQ in this case as a result of the breach of contract and criminal activities involved, ie: theft etc.
As I pointed out to the judge, no one forced him to accept the capacity or status of judge (ie: person). The law, as it was in Roman times, is in relation to a 'division of law', not to men. There are only 2 ways to enter into legal relations and be a person - lawfully via an informed, knowledgeable and voluntary agreement - or unlawfully via force, fraud, etc.
I further pointed out that if a person is as a result of being attributed rights and duties, than the first and primary assignor would be GOD himself, who created me and assigned, what I appropriately termed to the judge, my "manality". This is surely much higher than any "personality" created by legal fiction Parliaments or corporation sole queens.
I presented for the first time in Canada, documentation by the English judiciary admitting that the font used (ie: DAVID KEVIN LINDSAY, David Kevin Lindsay, etc) has a definitive purpose and was done by the legal system to differentiate between the man (me) and the legal fiction person (status/capacity)! It can no longer be said that the font used is irrelevant or just a computer program - a computer runs on numbers to represent things. Someone had to intentionally program the computer to list last names first in all caps etc. and the programmer would not have so done without express contractual instructions from the gov't to so do. Why??? We now know for sure.
I finally spent a small amount of time reviewing the law of stare decisis (case law precedent) and legal fictions and the laws which prohibits using them in this prosecution.
It will take about 2-3 months for judgment I was told by Judge Sinclair, even though I demanded to have the charges quashed and to be released from any obligation to appear as of right now. He refused until he gives a judgment.
The Crown's reply to all of this???
Mr. Clarke Burnett of the law firm in Kelowna of Pushor Mitchell, who spent a day and half doodling on paper and using his Blackberry in court while I was presenting my position, argued that I could not "opt out" of being a person (no laws, principles, cases, authorities or anything to support him was provided) and that the Crown does not have to prove that I am a person, I have to prove that I am not a person.
However, I caught him on this because previously in submissions before the judge, Burnett admitted that I could insist as of right that the Crown must prove I was a person!!!!
The Crown had only 2 other arguments - that the B.C. Court of Appeal in a previous appeal in this case had a justice say that "I would have thought a person included a man", as conclusive proof Burnett says that I am wrong. However this was only an appeal from when I was first kidnapped and brought into court by force - I wasn't required to be in court that day. The superior courts held that I was correct and wasn't required to be there but it didn't matter, once there even by kidnapping, the Court had jurisdiction over me. I appealed that and the issue of whether I was a person or not was not even before the C.A., and I provided Judge Sinclair with my Notice of Appeal and Factum (written argument) to prove it.
Most importantly, these comments are only reflective of Justice Newbury's thoughts and opinions, not a ruling on a legal issue before her.
Because the issue of whether or not I was a person was not before the C.A. her comments are not binding. Justice Newbury simply should have kept her opinions to herself on issues not before her. The important thing however, is that I have (in theory) a right to a fair and impartial hearing. How can these comments (it was admittedly not a 'ruling') decide an issue now at this trial? It is not possible to obtain a fair and impartial hearing if the very issue before the trial judge is alleged to be decided by a higher court in this case without ever even being presented to that court.
Burnett also relied upon the Klundert case in Ontario that a mistaken belief in the law is no defence. This is putting the cart before the horse because it hasn't even been proven that I am mistaken in law yet - or fact.
That was the Crown's 10 minute submission to my 250 pages of detailed law, authorities, oaths and almost 2 extended days of oral presentations.
In conclusion, I walked away exhausted but pleased. My presentation was good and I feel confident that Judge Sinclair will keep his Oath alive and well. I do not forget however, the nature of the beast we are up against.
Sinclair did mention at the beginning of the hearings that he had been given orders from "higher ups" in the food chain, that this case had to be completed on Friday. My concern is that there are administrative judges now sticking their nose in to Judge Sinclair's supposed independence. I am concerned that Chief Judge Stansfield or someone else is telling Sinclair how to run this case - this is no different than every other gov't official who just follows orders. Sinclair should and is required by law to make his own decisions up on how long the case will take based on facts and submissions before him that of course, only he will know about. No other judge has the power to make any decisions in this case (Sinclair is seized of it now for 4 years) and having some judge (or someone else - maybe the A.G.???) tell him how to run his case has left me somewhat worried - what other orders has he been given??
I should point out that Clarke Burnett, agent for HMTQ as prosecutor, admitted in court that he has not taken any Oath of Allegiance to HMTQ. I'm not sure if he should have even been in the courtroom under those circumstances.
Once again, thank you so much to everyone who attended - and for those whose shoulders I still stand upon. You know who you are!!!!
in freedom I remain,
the non-licenced man