I have been asked by some of you to keep you updated on David: Lindsay's fight against the Canada Revenue Agency (most information is also pertinent in the jurisdictions of USA, UK,
Australia, and New Zealand as well as other countries that have their
legal roots in English Common Law).
Dave and many others both here in North America and in other countries are currently challenging or have challenged the "lawfulness"
of direct tax (income tax) as well as the capacity of the legal fiction
known as a Person and it's relationship to a man or a woman. There have
been many losses in these challenges and some very brave individuals
have paid the price. What is interesting though, is that many of them
have continued their fight when most of us would have given up and have
won! Example ex I.R.S. agent Joe
Bannister ex I.R.S. agent Sherry Jackson in the US. John:
Harris, in the UK. and David; Lindsay, Robert: Menard, Vic: Beck
here in Canada to name but a few. Their work and efforts help all of us.
Some of you reading this will be be skeptical of the information contained in them, that is good! As I have said on many
occasions you must never believe anything you see or hear on the
internet WITHOUT having first researched the topic to your satisfaction.
Heed the words of Albert Einstein "Condemnation without
Investigation...is the height of ignorance" and remember "Ignorance is
NO EXCUSE in the eyes of the law".
Connect some dots: The same people that stole the authority
to create the countries money supply in 1913 are the same people that created the I.R.S. in
the same year, and assisted in the creation of the Income tax in Canada
in 1917. Nothing is more costly for a nation than WAR. Nothing is more
profitable for the Federal Reserve and the large multi-corporations than
WAR seeing any logic in this???????????
And now Davids Update:
Dave: Lindsay Trial Update 26 Fed 2010
Hello everyone. A most recent update on the appeal on this income tax matter
another adjournment date. But at least the appeal process began and will end soon.
Thanks again to everyone who took time from their day to attend, including those from out of town and out of province!
On Wed I appeared before Judge Verhoeven from New Westminster. An extremely punctual judge. Good.
After the usual preliminaries, and my stating on the record that I am not the "person" charged and not a party to the action, I began to go through the
evidence that was on the record. This took the longest time due to the
extremely limited study time of only 1 day thanks to the obstructionist
tactics of Crown Prosecutor Clarke Burnett earlier in the week.
After this was over, things began to move along well as we entered in my presentation of the law.
My primary focus was as follows, in order:
1. Judge Sinclair failed to produce his Oath of Office and Oath of Allegiance, upon which his entire jurisdiction depends upon having taken and having understood. Jurisdiction is not assumed, it must be
proven upon being challenged by the person claiming it. Sinclair's
verbal quotes of what the oaths said fails to meet the test. Previous
cases upheld the law that judges can be fined for failure to take these
oaths prior to adjudicating. Judges are required by law to provide
their oaths on demand and failing to do so was an error of law.
i. Sinclair also erred in failing to issue a subpoena against himself in his private position prior to taking the oaths for
me to examine him on whether he understood the nature and duties of these oaths, to permit him to comply with them.
In the absence of these oaths, Sinclair had no jurisdiction to make any findings, even if I am or am not a "person" - he had
no right to sit there in the first place.
2. I entered an abatement or challenge to jurisdiction. Judge Stansfield (who I first appeared before Sinclair took over), ignored this and entered a not guilty plea. This can only be entered by an "accused"
or "defendant" under the Criminal Code, which is a
finding that I am the "person"
charged. Put another way, it is a finding that of guilt on an
essential element of the Crown's case without evidence and prior to
trial and prior to any hearing of evidence on the matter. Denial of
full answer and defence.
3. I then entered into a discussion on the issue of the meaning at law of a "person", how one becomes a "person" and how and why this is voluntary to so do. This was followed by an
examination of how and why Sinclair erred in his definition of a "person"
simply being every man, woman, boy and girl, how he erred in finding
that I had to be a "person" contrary to my free will to
not be such, and the fact that there was no evidence on the record that I was a "person" because CRA witness TRACY ELLEN TODD admitted she didn't know what it was and she (and everyone at CRA she
said) "assumed" I was a "person".
4. Because TODD did not know what a "person" was, and admitted she did not know what the word "reside" meant either, she had no reasonable and probable grounds to lay the
charge and lied on her Information by stating so, after she evidenced
that she just laid the charge and would then "let the courts decide".
you imagine me or you charging anyone in this manner and what would
happen to us if it went to trial against someone else and we just said,
'I don't know, I just laid the charge because someone told me to and I
don't know what the words mean???)
5. I also dealt with Sinclair's own admissions (yes it is in the transcripts) that at least 2 other unknown people interfered with the independence of the judiciary by ordering him to terminate the case on
the final days of the "person" issue - even though Sinclair knew
that in the alternative, I had 7 Constitutional issues in relation to
the BNA Act
to be heard and he had, in the previous hearing, gave me his word that
these would be heard. This really drew the Verhoeven's attention out.
On the 2nd day, Clarke Burnett double booked himself and asked for a hour recess from 10:30 - 11:30 whilst he dealt with another matter in criminal court. (Yes, he was going to
obviously get paid twice for the same time period). As a result, we
started at 9 a.m. on Thursday.
However, at 9:45 a call came in and Burnett had a family emergency to attend to and did not return. We sat around doing nothing until 2 pm when a substitute appeared just to take notes and I continued in my
presentation. Of course we did not get fully heard as a result.
The last date has been set for TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2010, at the Kelowna Courthouse at 10:00 a.m.
At this time, I will complete my presentation on the following issues:
1. The Coronation Oath promises of the Queen to protect my property and maintain the laws of God and the Christian religion have been held by the Ontario Court of Appeal to be part of our
Constitution. The ITA is clearly and fundamentally contrary to
this. Also, the word "person" must be construed as being
voluntary in order to ensure that the ITA complies with these
promises, which Blackstone and others admitted is a contract.
i. that this Oath taken by King George VI in 1937 and Lizzy the Lizard in 1953, was "illegal" as the wording was changed contrary to constitutional requirements.
ii. judges are admittedly agents of the Queen with no more powers than she has (same with Parliament).
iii. Defining property, establishging that it is a constitutional right in Canada (which even the SCC has conceded) and the Queen's obligation to protect our property, not take it away.
2. Estoppel - because the Queen made these promises, she cannot now violate them and then try to prosecute - estoppel by conduct. Being a contract, and with her breach of contract in the ITA,
I have the right to cancel this contract in whole or part and I have so
done. The Queen cannot make promises and then break them and hope to
benefit from so doing. She fails to have clean hands (equitable
3. If there is time, an analysis of Sinclair's errors in applying the Modern Principle of statutory interpretation, which only was recognized by the SCC circa 1984 and does not apply
retroactively. In any event, applying this principle still works in
our favour. If insufficient time, then I'll just have to ask the judge
to read this section.
It will likely be late May or June now before a judgment comes down. Or maybe later, as there is a significant amount of law to sift through. To date, there has been no law presented contrary to mine,
even in the Crown's Factum.
Clarke Burnett has 1 hour for his presentation on March 30 as well.
I will send out another reminder about a week or so prior to March 30 for the final day of hearings in this matter.
I have already told Justice Verhoeven that I will never file another tax return ever again.
He knows my position clearly already. I will remind in in another month!!!!!
As our friend in freedom Gord Watson has so correctly opined:
Resistance is not futile!!!
Indeed, it is the only solution.
Don't support the people who use your money to enslave you. Refuse to file and pay their usury taxes. This is the true substance of Part 2 of our Person Solution Tour, which will start later this
spring, after this case is over.
In freedom I remain
Support US, not THEM!
As with all endeavours of this magnitude, we gratefully rely upon donations to cover our costs. Legal costs even on your own are extremely expensive. All assistance would be very much appreciated and
can be sent to either:
2929 Coleman St., Penticton, B.C., V2N 7C9, or
Suite 432 113-437 Martin St. Penticton, B.C. V2A 5L1
None of the information in this email should be construed to be legal advice, nor is it intended to be. You should do your own research, form your own
opinions and act according to your own situation.