Forward By Dallas

As requested here is the latest from David: Lindsay in his fight against Canada Revenue Agency.

Any positive outcome will be beneficial to us all. Including those of you in US, UK and other common law jurisdictions.

Income tax is unlawfully applied and exists only as a result of our consent.

Dave: Lindsay

Hi everyone. I would like to thank everyone who came out yesterday and witnessed my presentation to the judge - and to the Crown in action, or lack thereof to be more precise!

An interesting day for sure.

I began by providing some new material to the judge that I had discovered on the "person" issue from the U of T. This was an article where a superior court judge in England
admitted that this word had at least 4 different uses - theology, psychology,
general use and LAW! Each was different from the other and he described their
unique history and meanings for each use.

I then proceeded into completing my position to Judge Verhoeven.

This began with proving that we have a constitutional right to own, possess, use and dispose of our property.

Then defining exactly what property is - it is a claim to something and you can have a claim to tangibles such

as a car, chattels, land etc., or you can have a claim to an obligation, such as in a contract. Here, the claim

is also against the Queen in her Coronation Oath promises to me to protect our property and uphold the laws

of God.

Then I proceeded into describing this Coronation Oath, the procedures involved, the wording used, and how the Courts in Canada
have agreed that this Oath forms part of our Constitution and is
"non-justiciable" meaning that the Courts must apply it. One
constitutional provision cannot override another so that the

Charter for example cannot be used to defeat this Oath. The Income Tax Act, being a mere statute, must be declared of no force and effect, at least insofar as it is claimed to
be mandatory, as being contrary to this Coronation Oath. Which is another
reason why the word "person" must be interpreted as being voluntary.

I proceeded to further show how the Coronation Oath wording was changed "illegally" according to D.A. Scales and others in 1937 and 1953. The words added, to
govern according to the laws of Canada,
were not in the original oath.

To change the wording of the oath, requires consent from all provinces, Canada, all members of the Commonwealth, and must be passed through Parliament in England. It was rushed through only
by cabinet, such that even the London Times had to recognize that the
Archbishop was breaking the law at the very time he was swearing in the Queen
to promise to uphold the law.

In any event, written constitutions are a mere reflection of what the existing constitution already is (Dicey). The fact that this illegal oath was taken does not take
away the existence of the true oath which is still binding.

Moreover, the Queen still swore to maintain and protect the laws of God and protect our property.

Then the Crown spoke for 45 minutes or so. His argument simply was stating his support for the trial judge. He claimed that a "person" must be taken for its general
meaning not its legal meaning, with no authorities or law to support him.

He claimed that the 'new words' in the Coronation Oath compelled the Queen to govern according to the laws of Canada including the ITA, as Judge Sinclair had ruled, and then
argued the merits of the case that I had not filed as required.

That was it. Clarke Burnett had absolutely no law to support his position. None. I told the judge I was somewhat insulted that the Crown would have nothing to back him up.

Everyone at court witnessed the puny little written argument filed by the Crown, to my 250 pages of law and 5 huge Books of Authorities to back me up on every point I have made
in this case.

No one could believe the Crown could respond with, well basically nothing!

My position - either the Crown really has nothing and doesn't know the issues - or he has been told not to bother putting any effort into the case because the judiciary is already
compromised and has been told to screw us anyway. Or both.

This is certainly realistic in the context of Judge Hogan admitted to Nelson here last year that no judge is going to rule that the ITA is invalid! And Judge Sinclair's
decision in my case where he stated that at least 2 other people interfered
with the independence of the judiciary by ordering him to terminate this case.

Speaking of this - interesting how the Crown did not even address this issue. It is an admitted constitutional violation stated on the record and in the transcripts by the
trial judge. Yet the Crown did not even mention it.

I pointed this out to the judge in final submissions and that this constituted the Crown's admission that I was right on this point and the charges should be quashed for
want of jurisdiction, on all grounds I have put forth.

Time was a premium and my presentation was rushed again - much of the authorities I wanted to show the judge never got on the record as a result and I told him this. He tried to
put the blame on me claiming I estimated 2 days for the hearing - as if no
lawyer has ever erred on such a question. I'm not good at estimating time and
it simply required that a full day should have been set aside to hear me.
However, the judge should not have rushed this case, which I told him would be
the most important case he ever rules upon.

So now we wait. A date was set for Monday April 26. There is no guarantee that the judgment will be out this day, only that I have to appear and if there is no judgment yet,
than bail will be continued. Yup, I have to continue, as I have for most of my
life, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

Interesting I raised this issue at the last hearing when the Crown, Clarke Burnett had to leave for a family emergency and a substitute lawyer took his place, and Judge Verhoeven
told me he couldn't do anything about this bail issue.

Now the Crown raises it yesterday, and suddenly Verhoeven is only too glad to assist him.

Anyway, more interesting times are a' comin'. It is my belief that the judge will rule on all the issues. Whether he upholds the law and my Constitutional Challenge I
filed this time around, is speculative of course.

We all know the corrupt nature of the judiciary. BTW, I noticed a distinct look of disapproval when I mentioned to the judge that I knew he was formerly a QC, or Queen's
Counsel, meaning he was 'learned in the law'.

This means he knows the Coronation Oath principles and must uphold them. He obviously wondered not only how I learned this, but realized that I had done some homework on this guy
prior to court. He was likely wondering what else I know about him too.

Success in this case on any grounds, means the charges are to be quashed and the failing to appear appeal will be successful.

If on the issue of the definition of "person" - then the Crown's case fails as there is no evidence on this essential element of the offence.

This also requires that being a "person" is voluntary - meaning true voluntary taxation as our law has always so been.

As with every statute except the Criminal Code.

If on the issue of the Coronation Oath - it means that all statutes cannot contradict God's laws. Any statute that does, as was admitted as being a principle of our law by
Blackstone, Broom, Coke and others, is of no force and effect.

The appeal judge must also decide on Judge Sinclair's refusal to provide his oaths as I demanded. Success means we will all, at least once, be able to exercise our
rights to demand production of these oaths. Once they have been provided on the
record,

I'm not sure it is necessary to permit it to be produced every court appearance. But other issues may remain if the judge's understanding of the nature and operation of these
oaths is put into question.

Again, thanks to everyone who came out.

in freedom I remain,

David-Kevin: Lindsay

PS

The costs for this case have been, as can be expected, quite substantial.

Donations at this time to help with these costs for this case would be greatly appreciated! Thank you.

Suite 432 113-437 Martin St. Penticon, B.C. V2A 5L1. (cash is best as I don't have a bank account!)

Addendum:

I forgot to mention my appreciation to all those who called and emailed me with their support. The wonderful comments and support has been incredibly inspirational. I was unable
this time to respond to every email because of the volume and time preparing
for court, so I would really like to take this opportunity to say how much I
really appreciated the support from everyone around the country.

And a special thanks to all those who have assisted me to prepare for court - locally and around the country. The transportation friends have provided the assistance before, during
and after court, research and other areas without which I could not be doing my
successful efforts.

Thanks.